Jefferson Lab > Physics > Program Advisory Committee
Privacy and Security Notice

Program Advisory Committee (PAC)


September 26, 2002

Dear Jefferson Lab User,

The Jefferson Laboratory Program Advisory Committee (PAC 23) will consider new proposals, updates, and letters-of-intent during the week that begins January 13, 2003. Proposals for PAC 23 are due at Jefferson Lab by the close of business on Monday, December 2, 2002. PAC 23 will also review the schedule for experiments in the three halls. As is the established tradition, the JLab Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) will make comments on the technical viability of the proposals and provide these comments to the spokespersons and the PAC prior to the meeting. As always, proposals will be judged on the quality of the physics, technical feasibility, and the ability of the group to carry out the proposed measurements.

In addition to the "standard" PAC meeting (on the dates above and with details as outlined below), there will be a second PAC meeting on January 19-23, 2003 to review the pre-conceptual design report under preparation for the 12 GeV upgrade. For this PAC the membership will be augmented by a number of scientists with particular expertise for the higher energy program. The details of that meeting will be sent to you separately, within the next few weeks. It will review the individual hall pCDR documents just being completed, review the degree to which we have successfully "orthogonalized" the hall equipment planned and matched it to the science proposed, and make recommendations (in a manner similar to the PAC18 review of the White Paper) on the importance and balance among the many research thrusts proposed for the upgrade.

In considering beamtime allocations for PAC23, we note that the backlog of approved experiments at Jefferson Lab remains large (over 4 years in Halls A and C, and somewhat under 3 years in Hall B) for our present schedule and operating efficiency, although it has been reduced significantly by the completion of the first round of the jeopardy process in all three halls. In Halls A and C, where the backlog is above the targeted value of ~3 years, the PAC will continue to receive guidance that the basic beam time allocation (exclusive of proposals up for jeopardy review) will be that no more than 2/3 of the equilibrium level of beam time be recommended for approval). This will keep the backlog in these halls from increasing due to new proposals. In Hall B the backlog has reached the equilibrium goal, so the beam time allocation given the PAC will be the equilibrium level of beam time and, in addition, if warranted by scientific merit, up to the amount of beam time that would bring the backlog to no more than 3½ years. (The ideal backlog would "ramp" between 3½ years just after a PAC meeting down to 3 years just before the following PAC meeting [6 months later], as the program progresses).

In Halls A and B our current level of operations corresponds to about three months of running per hall in each six month period, or 1½ months of 100% efficient operation; therefore the nominal PAC allocation will be 30 days in Hall A (2/3 of the equilibrium level) and 45 days (the nominal equilibrium level) in Hall B. The range of possible, scientifically-justified additions to the Hall B allocation will be determined by evaluation of the program as executed just prior to the PAC meeting. In Hall C we typically run less (~35 PAC days during each six month period) due to the setup times associated with major installation experiments; there the PAC allocation will be 25 days (2/3 of the equilibrium allocation of 35 days).

In all cases, this guidance will not be so rigid as to preclude PAC consideration and recommendation of important new experiments and/or programs that cannot be accommodated within the nominal beam time limits, but any such exceptions will have to present a compelling scientific case.


The laboratory has a three-year Jeopardy Rule that was devised both to reduce the beamtime backlog and to ensure that the ratings of all approved experiments continue to accurately reflect their scientific priority. Jeopardy begins three years after a proposal is approved. Previously approved experiments that have not yet been run or scheduled must return to the PAC for a review of their status. The jeopardy review recognizes the fact that the scientific world doesn't stand still: theoretical developments and experiments elsewhere can affect the scientific interest in experiments here, and therefore their priority. It reinforces our goal of always identifying and running the best possible science program. Jeopardy also provides a fair and equitable mechanism to reduce the backlog of approved experiments to about three years, as recommended by the Users Group Board of Directors, the PAC, and the laboratory's Science and Technology Review Committee. All PACs consider both new proposals and resubmitted "jeopardy" proposals on an equal footing.

In preparing for a jeopardy review, approved proposals for single experiments can submit either a revised, complete proposal, or a brief update to the approved proposal. If you are submitting a revised, complete proposal, it must conform to the standard requirements for new proposals to the PAC (see below). An update must:

If you are submitting an update and want the User/International Liaison Office to attach a copy of the original proposal to the material that is submitted to the PAC for review, please indicate so clearly in your submission.

For run groups in Hall B involving many experiments, the jeopardy update and review may (at the discretion of the spokespersons) be simplified to include only three main items:

During the jeopardy review, the run groups can request:

Since Hall B is at or below the "equilibrium" backlog, in that hall the total beamtime allocation given to PAC 23 will be equal to the basic allocation identified above plus all of the sum of the previously approved time for experiments undergoing jeopardy review. Halls A and C remain too far from equilibrium, so for them we will retain the current rule that the total beamtime allocation that will be given to PAC 23 will correspond to the basic allocation mentioned above plus 1/2 of the sum of the previously-approved time for all of the experiments undergoing jeopardy review at that PAC. Conditionally approved experiments will be included in the sum. For purposes of assigning the PAC beamtime allocation we consider two cases for conditionally approved experiments: if the PAC assigned beamtime to a conditionally approved experiment, that allocation will be used; if the PAC has not yet allocated beamtime, a conditionally approved experiment will be assigned a beamtime of 22 days for purposes of this calculation (the average for all approved experiments).

We continue to work hard to improve the accelerator and hall operating availabilities in order to provide more useful beam time each year. This is one of the primary goals of both the Accelerator Operations group and the hall groups. We have requested incremental funding from DOE in support of this effort, and we have also asked DOE for the additional funding necessary to increase accelerator operations so that we can deliver more physics each year. Discussions on these issues are ongoing.


New Proposals

New proposals requiring beam energies up to 6 GeV will be reviewed by PAC 23. It is highly recommended that you consider the following when preparing your proposal:

  1. Be careful to submit a complete package that can stand alone. Do not assume that the PAC is aware of information contained in previous proposals, technical notes, and letters of intent. If this information is important background for your proposal, be sure that you include it in the proposal, for example as an appendix.
  2. Give justification for the uncertainty of the final results. Give realistic estimates of uncertainties in resolution, absolute momentum and angle calibrations, random coincidences rates, etc. and indicate how these impact the final results.
  3. Be sure to include a detailed table showing how you calculated the number of days requested. Since run time is a very scarce resource, the PAC reviews very carefully the details of the request, makes its own calculation, and allocates the time accordingly. Therefore it is essential to give a full and detailed justification of your request.
  4. Include experimental details and simulations. Complex and challenging experiments often require extensive justification and simulation calculations. Requests for large commitments of Laboratory resources require a more detailed justification than more straightforward projects. Discussions of yield, backgrounds, and projected statistical and systematic errors, are essential elements in the justification. To support these, it is important to give the results of simulation calculations that should be the basis of the experimental design. This is an essential component of the package required in order to get such proposals approved.
  5. Indicate how the project relates to other approved proposals. The PAC and the Laboratory have specifically asked proponents of new proposals to clearly state how their experimental goals are addressed by other approved experiments at the Laboratory. As stated in earlier PAC reports, failure to pay sufficient attention to this charge can result in the PAC not considering the new proposal until the information is provided.

Experiments with Similar Physics Goals

On your proposal cover sheet indicate any existing approved, conditionally approved, or deferred experiments that have physics goals similar to those in your proposal. In the text of your proposal, compare and contrast your proposal with respect to these proposals and experiments already considered or under consideration by previous PACs. Note that both one-page summaries and the full text for most proposals are available on-line at You may also contact User/International Liaison (see below) for copies of proposals.

The spokespersons for the experiments and proposals you have listed on your proposal cover sheet will receive copies of your proposal prior to the PAC meeting. They will be allowed to submit written comments that will then be passed on to the PAC with a copy provided to you. If you fail to identify a previously approved proposal with similar physics goals, the spokesperson for the previously approved proposal may request that final approval of your proposal be contingent on review by a subsequent PAC of the issues they want raised. If laboratory management agrees that the request has merit, the final approval of your proposal will be deferred until the following PAC has reviewed the situation.

Experiment Summaries

A summary of all approved and conditionally approved experiments can be found on line at: PAC reports can be found on line at:

Beam Time

The beam time request should be provided in some detail using the standard forms identified below. Do not request any contingency time as the scheduling process includes this time. The beam requirements and time request should include all of the time for the following activities: setup & installation; alignment; calibration; check out and testing without beam; commissioning with beam; physics measurements (list all currents, energies, targets target and experimental apparatus configuration changes, and [for Halls A and C] spectrometer angle changes); and decommissioning.


If your collaboration has an approved experiment, a conditionally approved experiment, or a deferred proposal and you would like to modify the physics goals, significantly change your running conditions, receive reconsideration of your scientific rating, or achieve full approval for a conditionally approved or deferred experiment, please submit an update. When an update is submitted, the PAC allocation for the relevant hall will be increased by either the full previously-approved beam time for the experiment requesting the change (in Hall B) or by two-thirds (2/3) of the previously-approved beam time for the experiment requesting the change (in Halls A and C), and then the update request will be considered on an equal footing with all new proposals and all jeopardy proposals submitted to that PAC. That is to say, in submitting an update requesting a change in a previously approved experiment, all of the previously approved beam time will be at risk. Note that this risk may be avoided by submitting a new proposal requesting time for additional physics measurements beyond those in the previously approved experiment, but the PAC review of the new proposal will have no effect on the PAC rating of the previously approved experiment. Note also that the PAC may or may not choose to hear an oral presentation for updates depending on the scope of the proposed changes. The PAC beamtime allocation for cases involving update proposals will be treated in the same manner as is the case for jeopardy proposals.

Deferred Experiments

Deferred experiments must be updated within one year or they will be removed from future consideration.

Withdrawn Proposals

A category of "withdrawn" has been established for proposals that were approved by a previous PAC but haven't been run within three years of approval and whose authors chose to withdraw the proposal rather than defend it at a jeopardy review. Withdrawn proposals shall be considered part of the public domain, and by withdrawing the proposal the authors have given up any "intellectual property rights" they have to the physics it covers. Any interested party, including the original authors may submit a new proposal covering the same physics to a future PAC.

Rejected Proposals

A proposal based on a previously rejected proposal is considered a 'new' proposal. Further, this 'new' proposal must include substantive changes that fully address the issues raised by the PAC that rejected it for it to be considered by the new PAC.


Letters-of-intent may be submitted to solicit the evaluation by the PAC of a new line of research before investing the large effort required to prepare a full proposal. In general, the letters-of-intent will involve either a major new experimental apparatus or extension of present beam properties. Letters-of-intent will be made public after receiving PAC appraisal in the same manner as full proposals. This means that the research program contained in them would enter the public domain; therefore, the letters-of-intent mechanism cannot be viewed as a means of "staking out territory." Rather, it provides experimenters with feedback at an early stage on the PAC's views on the scientific and technical merit of an idea that the experimenters intend to develop into a full proposal.

Due Date: New Proposals, Updates, and Letters-of-Intent

Proposals, Updates, and Letters-of-Intent for PAC 23 are due at the JLab User/International Liaison office by close of business Monday, December, 2.

Jefferson Lab
User Liaison Office, MS 12B
12000 Jefferson Avenue
Newport News, Virginia


All submissions can be mailed or submitted electronically, electronic submissions are preferred. An electronic version must accompany all hard copies. Fax submissions are not acceptable.

All proposals and updates to be considered by PAC23 must also include a completed:

These forms are available at the url:

Procedures for Experiments

Procedures for experiments are provided at The procedures include the submission and re-submission of proposals, the PAC's scientific ratings and recommendations of Approval, Conditional Approval, Deferral or rejection, the Directors award of beam-time, the experiment preparation and scheduling processes, the associated Environment, Health and Safety reviews, the running of the experiments, the allocation of computational resources, and the publication of results including presentations at conferences.

Reference Material Hard Copies

If you would like any of the materials on the Web sent to you, please contact User/International Liaison via phone (757-269-7687), fax (757-269-7003) or e-mail (