PID cross cutting WG workshop agenda during January 2026 ePIC collaboration meeting
Our proposal is to have the following talks:
FCFDv1 requirement for TOF (15 minutes) : Almost same structure as
above.
(Artur?) Not confirmed yet, but cc in this email. Zhenyu had been on
Close contract with Artur on setting up the requirements. Also cc in this email.
Test article status (TOF) (Satoshi Yano)
Status of component QA (~60 minutes) : We have 5 subsystems and probably each
subsystem can give a brief 10 minutes presentation about which components they need
QA during production stage and available facility. It will become clear from our session
before coffee break about using same facility to perform QA on components which are
common to multiple subsystems.
(Simone Mazza)
From: Derek Anderson dereka@jlab.org
Subject: EXT: Request for Speaker at Joint Reco WG-PID CCWG Workfest
Date: January 14, 2026 at 12:54:35 PM EST
To: "zxu22@kent.edu" zxu22@kent.edu, "syano@hiroshima-u.ac.jp" syano@hiroshima-u.ac.jp
Cc: "bpage@bnl.gov" bpage@bnl.gov, "chandradoy.chatterjee@ts.infn.it" chandradoy.chatterjee@ts.infn.it, Shujie Li shujieli@lbl.gov, "Surabhi Tarafdar" stara@jlab.org
Dear Zhangbu and Satoshi,
The Reconstruction Working Group and the PID Cross-Cutting Working Group are organizing a joint workfest at the upcoming ePIC Collaboration Meeting. It will be focused on the status of PID software and its integration into the ePIC software stack, and will be held on January 23rd, 2026 at 1:00 PM ET. You can find a draft agenda in the link below.
https://indico.bnl.gov/event/30532/sessions/8779/#20260123
To obtain an accurate assessment of where we currently stand, we would like to include a talk from each of the major PID subsystems — the RICH detectors, the hpDIRC, and the BTOF — that summarizes the current status of their software. We plan that each subsystem will have a 20 minute slot with up to 10 minutes for slides and the remaining time for discussion. These three talks will then be followed by an open discussion to assess what is still needed for TDR performance studies.
Thus, we were wondering if you would be able to nominate a speaker to deliver the talk on the BTOF? We kindly request that the speaker address these specific points in their talk:
What are your near-term software goals?
What performance studies are in progress or planned to be done for the TDR? Is there anything blocking these studies?
What are ongoing software tasks and their priority level?
Is there anything blocking these tasks?
Please let us know, and we look forward to hearing from you!
Sincerely,
Brian, Chandra, Derek, Shujie, Surabhi
Invitation: Mechanics and Integration Session Contribution (B-ToF)
Dear Zhangbu and Satoshi,
We would like to invite you or your colleagues to contribute to the Mechanics and Integration Session during the upcoming ePIC Collaboration Meeting at BNL.
A suggested title for the contribution is “B-ToF: Power Budget Estimation and Cooling Design Strategy.”
It would be helpful for the discussion to include the following points in particular:
What power budget is expected geographically in your detector, including the nearby electronics,
What temperature is assumed, what's the cooling strategy, etc.
Maybe even use a slide where one can show a visual with power budget in geographic locations, temperature, pressure drops, ANSYS calculations if existing, etc.
Please let us know whether you would be able to put together this information and identify a speaker for this contribution at the collaboration meeting.
My apologies for the short notice, but we hope that you may already have relevant material available on these topics.
Thanks,
Prakhar
(For TC Office)
From Taku:
I would like to ask for your advice and possible support regarding the agenda of the upcoming January ePIC Collaboration Meeting.
In order to move the project forward in a coherent and fundable way, I believe it is essential that we establish, during this meeting, a clear set of milestones and targets, in particular:
Definition of milestones for the first and second half of next year, as well as for the following year, with explicit targets toward CD-2 and CD-3;
Development of a detailed workplan, including timelines, roles of each institution, and workflows that connect component-level developments at individual institutes to system-level integration.
In addition, I believe we need a focused discussion on the remaining development items—in particular sensors, ASICs, PCBs, FPC buses, and service hybrids—as well as the associated test-beam and system test plans.
It is important to clarify how we transition from these individual development elements to integrated module development, how this integration will be demonstrated experimentally, and how these activities are mapped onto a realistic and coherent plan toward CD-2.
If possible, I would therefore like to propose having a focused discussion on these topics, for example in parallel with or adjacent to the Workfest sessions during the January collaboration meeting. The goal would be to reach a shared understanding and a reasonable level of consensus among the core project members.
I would very much appreciate your thoughts on whether this approach would be feasible and useful, and how best to organize such a discussion.
Thank you very much for your time and consideration.
Cheers, Taku
