Cosmic Frontier DOE/HEP PI Meeting 25 August 2020 - Drew Baden, Karen Byrum, Eric Linder, Kathy Turner
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Cosmic Frontier
DOE/HEP PI Meeting
25 August 2020
Drew Baden, Karen Byrum, Eric Linder, Kathy Turner
Experimental Research at the Cosmic Frontier
Office of High Energy Physics
Cosmic Fron+er Experimental Research Program
} What is the Cosmic Frontier?
} HEP Program Planning and Budgets
} Cosmic Frontier Program Overview
} DOE/HEP Comparative Reviews
} DOE Early Career and Other Funding Programs
This talk will:
(1) emphasize the Cosmic Frontier program within the
broader context of the overall HEP program;
(2) provide an overview of the upcoming FY 2021
comparative review funding opportunity announcement.
[please refer to the final announcement once issued and prior to any
submission of an application]
DOE/HEP PI Meeting 2020 2
2
What is the Cosmic Fron+er?
“Experimental Research at the Cosmic Fron0er”
Not everything cosmic is in the Cosmic Fron+er!
Not everything “dark sector” is in the Cosmic Fron+er.
Research within a Cosmic Fron+er experimental collabora+on, with
a cri+cal role for the key science drivers of the experiment, is
Cosmic Fron+er.
General “cosmic” or “dark sector” research outside of a Cosmic
Fron+er experiment is not – it may s+ll be within HEP under the
Detector R&D or Theory subprograms.
DOE/HEP PI Meeting 2020 4
2
Cosmic Fron+er Experimental Research Program
à Cosmic Fron+er Experimental researchers use naturally occurring cosmic par+cles and
phenomena to reveal the nature of dark energy and dark ma8er, comprising ~95% of the
universe, understand the cosmic accelera+on caused by dark energy and infla+on, infer
neutrino proper+es, and explore the unknown.
Research Fron,ers
Par,cle Physics Science Drivers
Program Areas:
• Study the nature of Dark Energy
• Direct Detec+on searches for
Dark Ma8er par+cles
• CMB – Infla+onary Epoch,
Dark Energy, Neutrino Proper+es
à Strong interac0on with Theory, Detector R&D, Computa0onal HEP, QIS
DOE/HEP PI Meeting 2020 5
2
What is the DOE HEP Program
Program Model
• Science Mission-driven: DOE develops and supports a specific portfolio of projects ⇒
emphasis placed on planning, building experiments, operating, and publishing results
DOE HEP Mission – to understand how the universe works at its most fundamental level:
• Discover the most elementary constituents of matter and energy
• Probe the interactions between them
• Explore the basic nature of space and time
How do we do this?
• Make significant, coherent contributions to facilities/experiments, including project
management under DOE project system
• Support science collaborations in all stages, leading to the best possible science results
• Support technology R&D to advance state-of-the-art particle accelerators and detectors
that will lead to new and more capable facilities
• Form partnerships with other agencies (e.g., NASA, NSF) to help deliver our mission
DOE supports about 85% of the U.S. HEP effort (in $), including U.S. national laboratories
HEP Program Guidance
• FACA panels – official advisory bodies to the U.S. government
• e.g., High Energy Physics Advisory Panel (HEPAP) provides the primary advice on the HEP
program to DOE and NSF and includes subpanels for detailed studies (e.g., P5)
DOE/HEP PI Mee+ng 2020 6
U.S. Congress Supports P5 Strategy
U.S. Congress continues to show strong support for executing the P5 strategy
HEP BUDGET
(IN THEN-YEAR DOLLARS)
1.10
$1.050
1.05 HEP
HEP FUNDING ($ IN B)
~$280 million post-P5 Appropria0on
1.00
(+36% in 5 years)
0.95
HEP Budget
0.90 Request
0.85
House FY21
0.80
Mark
0.75 $0.766
(suppressed zero)
0.70
FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
DOE/HEP PI Mee+ng 2020 7
Some Challenges
} Most of the recent HEP budget growth has been in Projects, without similar increases in
Operations and Research.
} Congress often gives line items for Projects (~construction), and Research/Ops is whatever is
left.
} HEP-style Projects depend heavily on Research and Ops support for R&D, QA/QC,
integration, installation and commissioning.
} Cost of doing business has increased significantly, year-by-year, reducing the buying
power of research dollars.
} Community has grown, which adds more competitors to the pool for comparative review.
} Research efforts necessary to support large projects are increasing as projects ramp up
} Operations costs necessary for experiments are increasing as P5 projects are successfully
completed and begin to take data.
} Balancing Research and Ops with the needs of current and future projects requires careful
prioritization. This is a complex interlocking problem with many contributing factors. HEP
Program Managers continue to address this ~every day
} On the plus side:
} It’s better than no budget growth!
} Efforts by various community-led forums to communicate the message that healthy growth
of the program requires Research and Operations growth in addition to Project support.
DOE/HEP PI Mee+ng 2020 8
HEP Project Status - Line Item Construction &
Major Item of Equipment (MIE)
CD
Subprogram TPC ($M) CD Date
Status
INTENSITY FRONTIER
Long Baseline Neutrino Facility / Deep Underground Neutrino
Community-Wide 2020-2021 U.S. “Snowmass” Process
• HEP community-wide “Snowmass” study process organized by the Division of Particles
and Fields (DPF, with DAP+) of the American Physical Society (APS) has begun
• Status [Snowmass page: https://snowmass21.org/start]
– Snowmass subgroup meetings nearly weekly
– Snowmass Planning Meeting, October 5-8 online
– Final “large” Snowmass Meeting scheduled for July 11-20, 2021 at University of Washington
– Broad community participation in the HEP strategic planning process is essential
– PIs and Laboratory Staff are encouraged to be active in all phases of the process
• Next P5 strategy/prioritization process to begin after Snowmass and NAS Decadal Survey,
circa end of CY 2021: P5 report by Nov-Dec 2022 to inform FY 2024 & 2025 U.S. budgets
DOE/HEP PI Mee+ng 2020 10
HEP Program Guidance
FACA panels & subpanels provide official advice:
} High Energy Physics Advisory Panel (HEPAP)
} Jointly chartered by DOE and NSF to advise both agencies
} Provides the primary advice for the program
} Subpanels for detailed studies (e.g. Particle Physics Project Prioritization
Panel (“P5”) in 2008, 2014, 2021
} Astronomy and Astrophysics Advisory Committee (AAAC)
} Advises DOE, NASA, and NSF on selected issues in astronomy & astrophysics of overlap,
mutual interest and concern
Formal Advice Also Provided by:
} National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
} Decadal Surveys in Astronomy & Astrophysics, in Elementary Particle Physics
} Board on Physics & Astronomy (BPA), Committee on Astronomy & Astrophysics (CAA)
Other:
} Community science studies and input; Cosmic Visions groups; Basic Research Needs groups
} AAAC subpanels, e.g. CMB-S4 Concept Definition Taskforce (CDT), Gemini-Blanco-SOAR Telescopes roles
} Astro-Particle International Forum (APIF) – Agency-level international group
} Tri-Agency Group (TAG) – DOE, NASA, NSF-AST meetings on Rubin (LSST), Roman (WFIRST), Euclid
coordination
DOE/HEP PI Meeting 2020 11Cosmic Frontier
Program
DOE/HEP PI Meeting 2020 12Cosmic Frontier Program
Study dark energy through staged program of complementary
surveys
} Imaging surveys map cosmic structure over vast volumes of space: Dark
Energy Survey (DES) analysis, Rubin Observatory Legacy Survey of Space
and Time (LSST) nearly ready for commissioning
} Spectroscopic surveys build deep, 3D maps of cosmic structure and
growth: Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI) ready for
observa+ons
Study cosmic accelera+on (infla+on) at energies near the Planck
scale and neutrino proper+es through the cosmic microwave
background (CMB) (in partnership with NSF)
} New genera+on South Pole experiment: SPT-3G in opera+on
} Next genera+on array 10x more sensi+ve: CMB-S4 in planning
Search for dark ma8er through direct detec+on experiments over
a wide mass range
} High- and low-mass WIMP sensi+vity: LZ and SuperCDMS-SNOLAB, in fab
} Axion (ultralow mass) experiment: ADMX-G2 in opera+on
} Small scale future R&D
Explore the unknown – search for New Physics, e.g. relic par+cles
DOE/HEP PI Meeting 2020 13Dark Energy
Red dots: eBOSS quasars
Precision measurements to differen0ate between: cosmological Yellow dots: BOSS galaxies
constant and/or new fields; or modifica0on to General Rela0vity
Staged, complementary suite of imaging and spectroscopic surveys to determine its
nature
Final Analysis: DES/DECam
– eBOSS (spectroscopic) final analysis complete July 2020
– DES (imaging) final analysis completes 2021
In Fabrica0on phase:
– Vera C. Rubin Observatory (Rubin LSST, Stage 4 imaging)
• HEP and NSF-AST (lead agency) partnership; HEP responsible for LSST camera
• LSST Camera 97% complete; science opera+ons start FY23
• Planning started for LSST Facility Opera+ons phase and Dark Energy Science
Collabora+on (DESC) Opera+ons
Survey ready: LSSTcam focal plane
– Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI, Stage 4 spectroscopic)
• DESI commissioning complete March 2020
• CD-4 May 2020, fabrica+on complete, ready to operate
• HEP coordina+ng w/NSF-AST to “lease” the Mayall telescope; full support for
dark energy opera+ons started FY19
DESI 5000 fibers
DOE/HEP PI Meeting 2020 14Cosmic Frontier Highlight: Extended Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey (eBOSS) } Stage 3 Spectroscopic Survey for Dark Energy } Surveyran 2014-19, precursor to DESI } Component of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS-IV) at Apache Point Obs., NM } DOE-HEP partnership with Sloan Foundation, US universities and international institutions } Major Milestone: Final results and papers released July 2020 } BAO/RSD from objects over 0
Dark Energy – Next Generation
Power of a cosmic survey for precision measurements of cosmological
parameters is limited by Redshift accuracy, Redshift range, Statistics
èTo fully exploit current program of ground- and space-based experiment will
require advances in theory, simulations, joint data analysis and computing
• Cross-cutting theory and simulations efforts
• Joint modeling and analysis of imaging, spectroscopic, CMB and other data
• Exascale Cosmological Simulations - Expanding the nonlinear structure frontier, pushing to
smaller scales
• Need advances in technologies for Stage 5, methods to increase redshift range, accuracy and
statistics.
Community efforts:
§ Cosmic Visions Dark Energy group investigating
ways to optimize science in DESI/LSST era
§ White paper on small “enhance” efforts in Jan 2018
arXiv:1802.07216
§ Technology development for Stage 5 surveys, e.g.
Germanium CCD R&D
§
“Skipper” CCDs ultra-low readout noise; precision
§
counting of single photons in the optical & NIR
§ Fiber positioner designs to increase density
§ HEP community is leading or participating in some concepts
– White Papers submitted to Astro2020, Snowmass 2021
DOE/HEP PI Meeting 2020 16Direct Detection of Dark Matter
Staged suite of complementary direct detection experiments
with multiple technologies to search for dark matter particles ADMX
} High- and low-mass WIMPs; Axion (µeV-meV mass) search
Operating: ADMX-G2 axion search at UWash (HEP)
Projects in Fab/Commissioning: Dark Matter Generation 2
LZ
LZ at Homestake Mine in South Dakota (HEP)
• WIMP search through dual phase liquid Xe; ~10-1000 GeV mass range
• Deliverables complete; CD-4 review Aug 2020
SuperCDMS-SNOLab in Canada (HEP+NSF-PHY partnership)
• WIMP search using cryogenic solid-state crystals; ~1-10 GeV mass
• Project in fabrication (76% complete); Delays due to cryostat
procurement, 6-12 mos from Covid-19; CD-4 FY22
Future Planning: Dark Matter New Initiatives – small projects
• 6 technology R&D projects funded
CDMS
DOE/HEP PI Meeting 2020 17New Initiatives in Dark Matter
} P5 recommended the search for dark matter particles as a high priority & also that
the program should include small projects
} March 2017: Community-led workshop collected new ideas https://arxiv.org/abs/1707.04591
} 2018-19: Basic Research Needs study (workshop Oct 2018)
} 6 small R&D projects to develop experimental designs funded
Cosmic Frontier:
ADMX Extended – axions, using strong B field, resonant cavities – 9-17 µeV
OSCURA – low noise (Skipper) CCD detector – 1 MeV-1 GeV
DM-Radio – axions, superconducting lumped element tunable resonator – 10 MeV
Intensity Frontier (accelerator based)
Beam Dump experiment – ~1-40 MeV
Light Dark Matter Experiment (LDMX) – beam dump – ~10-300 MeV
PRD 1
Create and Detect https://science.osti.gov/hep/
DM at community-resources/
reports/
Accelerators.
PRD 2
Detect Galactic DM
Underground.
PRD 3
Detect Wave DM
in the
Laboratory DOE/HEP PI Meeting 2020 18Cosmic Microwave Background
Gain insight into infla0onary epoch at the beginning of the universe, In Atacama: Simons Array
dark energy & neutrino proper0es by studying oldest visible light.
Current Experiments:
• SPT-3G – HEP provided support for major upgrade of the camera to
greatly increase sensi+vity; opera+ons started Feb 2017 (NSF-led)
South Pole Telescope (SPT) and
BICEP/Keck Array
èCMB-S4 Community-based Collabora0on brought together ground based community to plan future
- No+onal array of several telescopes in Chile & South Pole with on the order of 0.5 M detectors
- Needs scale-up of detector fabrica+on, tes+ng, and readout
CMB-S4 Collabora-on Science, Technology Books:
hfps://arxiv.org/abs/1610.02743 ; hfps://arxiv.org/abs/1706.02464 ;
Decadal Survey Reference: hfps://arxiv.org/abs/1907.04473
P5 Plan:
• DOE should support CMB experiments as a core par0cle
physics program
• CMB-S4 intended to be flagship DOE project for Cosmic
Fron0er last half 2020s
DOE/HEP PI Meeting 2020 19Cosmic Microwave Background Stage 4
CMB-S4
CMB-S4 Goal: cross critical science thresholds
Science Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4
Inflation “r” ≤0.1 ≤0.01 ≤0.001 Detect/rule out classes of inflationary models
σ(Neff) 0.14 0.06 0.03 Detect/rule out light relic particles w/ spin
σ(Mν) 0.15eV 0.06eV 0.02eV 3σ detection
Highlights: Ultra-precision measurement of
2 sites: Chile, South Pole CMB power spectrum
§ Ultra-deep “r” survey ≥ 3% of sky +
delensing
§ Deep & wide Neff & Legacy Survey ~60% of
sky
§ Large & small telescopes;
§ 500,000 cryogenic sensors,
superconducting readout
$600M TPC multiagency project
§ Plan HEP (lead) and 3 NSF divisions
§ DOE approved CD-0 in July 2019
§ DOE review Aug 2020
§ Working to support the IPO timeline of FY2021
CD-1/3a
§ NSF MSRI-R1 Sep 2019
DOE/HEP PI Meeting 2020 20HEP Efforts related to the Cosmic Frontier
Theory program
• Vibrant Theory Program supporting all areas including Cosmic Frontier
Advanced Detector Development & Accelerator R&D programs:
} Active R&D developing next generation detectors, including CCDs, TES superconducting bolometers, MKIDs,
readout electronics, optics, fiber positioners.
High Performance Computing, Computational HEP program
§ DOE Supercomputer allocation coordination via various ASCR and DOE Competitions
} Computational HEP, SCIDAC – focused computational challenges
} NERSC facility allocations for Cosmic Frontier Simulations, Data Processing, Analysis
§ High Performance Computing à Exascale; Comp HEP & ASCR coordination & partnerships on some efforts,
including Cosmic Simulation and Data analytics
§ Artificial Intelligence/Machine-learning becoming an agency area of particular interest
§ HEP Center for Computational Excellence (CCE) investigates ways to optimize code
§ HEP Computing Infrastructure Working Group formed in 2017 to develop a strategy for meeting the
computing needs, since projected needs are larger than availability HEP ($K) - Research
Ini0a0ves FY19 FY20 FY21 PRB
AI/ML 3,750 15,000 34,500
New Initiatives – quickly growing areas QIS 27,500 28,500 43,809
• Quantum Information Science (QIS) Microelectronics 5,000
} Powerful new windows to accomplish HEP mission & advance QIS Foundational theory, computing, sensors
(enable dark matter searches, CMB), technology, experiments; DOD, NIST
• Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning – rapidly growing area
} Key element of experiment design, operation, and analysis
} FY 2020 appropriations provided dedicated funds in the DOE/HEP Research program to advance AI/ML initiatives
• Microelectronics Initiative (in FY2021 request)
} SC offices (ASCR, BES, FES, HEP) partnering to support multi-disciplinary microelectronics research
DOE/HEP PI Meeting 2020 21HEP Funding
Opportunities
DOE/HEP PI Meeting 2020 22Research Support - Priorities
Research budgets: Support scien+sts on all phases of an experiment
Priority – to support effort to plan and carry out priority science topics on our experiments,
i.e. need to make sure the science it was designed for is carried out!
• Support research efforts directly in line with program & project priori+es, responsibili+es &
science goals
• Distribu+on of efforts across areas will necessarily change to support changing priori+es
• Sufficiently support the Science Collabora+ons (HEP model) to carry out experiment in all
phases - project’s design, fabrica+on and opera+ons & to plan and carry out data analyses to
deliver the best science
Priority Areas:
Dark Ma8er :
Construct and operate G2 experiments; modest future R&D
Dark Energy :
Construct, plan, operate LSST and DESI; DES analysis
CMB: Design CMB-S4
Not funded in our program: gravita+onal waves, dark ma8er maps, astronomy, planet searches, etc.
DOE/HEP PI Meeting 2020 23Research Support – Focus & Method
DOE is a science -mission- oriented agency. The projects are selected
for the (P5) strategic plan that will provide significant leaps in science. Then we
support the community to carry out these projects/experiments.
• Priority is to support experiments in our program, where we have
responsibilities
• Therefore, not all Cosmic Frontier-related research will be supported.
“Cosmic Frontier” is Experimental Research at the Cosmic Frontier.
Review panels look to see close engagement within the experimental
collaborations, with significant roles. General cosmic research can be proposed
to the HEP Theory program.
Research Priorities for funding, aligned with P5
à Keep efforts continuing at about current level for operating experiments;
Ramp-down research for ones completing; Ramp-up for the projects in
fabrication or planning phase, depending on needs
à Prepare for the future but need to complete currently operating projects
successfully
DOE/HEP PI Meeting 2020 24Research Support – Activities
§ What DOE supports
} Research efforts (mainly scien0sts) on R&D, experiment design, fabrica0on,
data-taking, analysis-related ac0vi0es
} Theory, simula0ons, phenomenology, computa0onal studies
} Some engineering support may be provided in the Detector R&D subprogram
} Support depends on merit review process and programma0c factors
} Funding efforts that are in direct support of our programs
§ Faculty support
} Typically, the full research 0me of the faculty member throughout the whole year is supported
by providing 2 months summer salary and support for the group.
} Summer support should be adjusted according to % 0me the faculty is on research effort
§ Research Scien0sts
} Efforts are related towards research; not long-term opera0ons and/or project ac0vi0es
} Consider case-by-case on merits: could the research be fulfilled by a postdoc?
× What’s not supported by research grants
} Any significant opera0ons and/or project-related ac0vi0es:
} Engineering, major items of equipment, consumables for prototyping or produc0on
} Non-HEP related efforts
} Gravita0onal waves (LIGO), Astronomy, Heavy Ion (RHIC), AMO Science, etc…
} Funding for theory/simula0ons/phenomenology/computa0onal efforts in direct support of our
experiments is in Cosmic Fron0er – otherwise should be proposed to the Theory program.
DOE/HEP PI Meeting 2020 25University Grants – Working in the Program
Typical HEP researcher:
• Has an experimental program that may involve analysis on one experiment while
construc+ng the next experiment.
• Makes long term commitments to our experiment/project/science as a closely integrated
member of the collabora+on.
• He/she has specific commitments (service work) & responsibili0es for our projects/
experiments that may include analyzing data with one experiment while construc+ng or
planning the next one – in addi+on to the science analysis. These responsibili+es may
evolve over +me as the experiment progresses through phases.
-- Not funded for one par+cular study or effort here and there
In your proposal:
• Explain your long term program (past 3 years), how it progresses over +me & how pieces fit
together.
• Details on what you’re doing the next 3 years, your responsibili+es and efforts, why they’re
important to the project/experiment and why they’re important and a priority NOW.
• Explain what frac+on of +me you’re working on each effort (whether or not HEP funded)
• DOE regards 2 months summer salary as 100% of research +me throughout the year.
DOE/HEP PI Meeting 2020 26University Grants – New Efforts
Universi0es: Model for star0ng to work in the field & get a grant:
• Get involved in experiment/science and take on responsibili+es for the collabora+on and then
submit proposal.
• Have involvement in the community so that you are part of the HEP community! (e.g. DPF
mee+ngs)
• Lot of science topics may be in, e.g., dark energy plan or related to dark energy but need to
think of what is the priority & main efforts needed and which are needed now!
• Have responsibili+es for the experiment – not just your own science simula+ons & analysis.
• Many people have program working on a series of experiments (e.g.) DES opera+ons/analysis
while par+cipa+ng in LSST planning and construc+on. Not all has to be funded by HEP!
• Show track record and have responsibili+es before funding starts.
• Transi+oning to a new project/field requires a lot of work to get up to speed.
- best for faculty member to take the +me to really learn the field and take on responsibility first
DOE/HEP PI Meeting 2020 27Comparative Review
§ Compara0ve Review: head-to-head reviews of PIs working in similar areas
§ Panels discuss rela0ve strengths and weaknesses of individual proposals and PIs
§ Many factors weigh into final funding decisions
} Compelling research proposal for next ~3 years
þ Interes+ng? Cri+cal responsibility? Significant? Plausibly achievable?
x Incremental? Implausibly ambi+ous? Poorly presented?
} Significant recent contribu0ons in last ~3 years
} Synergy and collabora+on within group (as appropriate)
} Contribu+ons to the research infrastructure of experiments
} Alignment with programma0c priori0es
} Implicit Bias awareness
§ Suppor0ve of excellent research, including excellent research by new people, even
when 0mes are tough!
§ Corollary: Some proposals, including some from senior personnel, ranked below
average may not be funded. No old history/en0tlement.
DOE/HEP PI Meeting 2020 28FY21 HEP Comparative Review FOA & FAQ
} DE-FOA-000xxxx issued TBD
} Letter of Intent (strongly encouraged) due: TBD
} Final Proposal deadline: TBD
Please read the FOA carefully to comply with all requirements prior to
submitting a proposal.
} In addition to the FOA, a FAQ is available
} Contact your program manager if your question is unanswered
Non-compliant proposals submitted to the FOA will not
be reviewed!
In recent years, ~5-10% of incoming proposals are declined
without review.
Requirements most often missed or overlooked include:
Data management plans, page limits, separate budget sheets (if
needed) for each research subprogram or thrust, and inclusion of
Personally Identifiable Information (PII)
Both the FOA and FAQ are planned to be available at:
https://science.osti.gov/hep/Funding-Opportunities
DOE/HEP PI Meeting 2020 29
26Some ‘Quasi-Recent’ Updates in the FOA
§ All Research proposals submitted to DOE Office of Science (SC) must have a Data
Management Plan (DMP)
– Includes HEP comparative review and Early Career, but not proposals for conferences,
workshops, operations, or projects
– Any thrust in a proposal without a DMP will be declined without review
– A DMP that is blank or states “not applicable” will not be accepted
§ All Renewal proposals must submit “proposal products” (publications, etc.) after
the application is submitted
– PIs are notified by PAMS and have 5-7 days to respond
– We cannot review incoming renewal proposals until this step is completed
– These ‘products’ are captured with your annual Progress Report but during this review process,
applicants are able to update their entries prior to merit review process
§ Recurring submissions of Research applications (initiated in FY 2018)
– Resubmissions allowed only after it has undergone substantial revision and clearly taken into
account the major concerns from prior DOE reviews. Else it may be declined without review.
§ All FOAs have different eligibility, technical requirement, page limits, etc.
– Prior to any submission, read that particular FOA carefully!
• Research Consor+a are possible, either subcontracts from a primary ins+tu+on or
coordinated proposals. Big picture vs pieces of the puzzle.
DOE/HEP PI Mee+ng 2020 30Proposal: Project Narrative
§ Project Narra0ve comprises the research plan for the project
• Should contain enough background material in the introduc+on to demonstrate sufficient
knowledge of the research
• Devote main por+on to a descrip+on and jus+fica+on of the proposed project, include details of
the methods to be used and any relevant results
• Indicate which project personnel will be responsible for which ac+vi+es
• Include +meline for the major ac+vi+es of the proposed project
§ Must not exceed 9 pages per senior inves0gator when printed on standard 8 ½” x 11” paper
with 1-inch margins (top, bofom, les, and right). Font must not be smaller than 11 point.
• Senior inves+gator = ac+ve tenured or tenure-track faculty member at the sponsoring ins+tu+on
• Non-tenure track faculty (e.g., research scien+sts) or senior research staff with term appointments
are not included in the 9-page limit per senior inves+gator unless they are the sole senior
inves+gator on the applica+on
• Faculty members at collabora+ng ins+tu+ons listed on the proposal (if any) are not included
§ PIs encouraged to refer to Sec0on IV of the planned FOA
• Includes useful informa+on to help PIs in preparing be8er narra+ves — for e.g.:
̶ What to address for the Background/Introduc+on
̶ Mul+ple Inves+gators and/or Mul+ple Research Subprograms or Thrusts
̶ Common narra+ve with overview of each group’s ac+vi+es in different research areas
o Discussion of any synergies and connec+ons between areas
̶ Proposed Project Objec+ves, Research Methods, Resources
̶ Timetable and Level of Effort of different ac+vi+es, …
DOE/HEP PI Mee+ng 2020 31Comparative Merit Review Criteria
[Criteria Ques-ons are provided in Sec-on V of FOA and to merit reviewers/panel to evaluate Proposal and PI(s)]
1) Scientific and/or Technical Merit of the Proposed Research
e.g., What is the scientific scope and impact of the proposed effort? What is the likelihood of achieving valuable results? How might the
results of the proposed work impact the direction, progress, and thinking in relevant scientific fields of research? How does the proposed
work compare with other efforts in the field, both in terms of scientific and/or technical merit and originality? Is the Data Management
Plan suitable for the proposed research and to what extent does it support the validation of research results? Please comment on each
investigator.
2) Appropriateness of the Proposed Method or Approach
e.g., How logical and feasible are the research approaches? Does the proposed research employ innovative concepts or methods? Are
the conceptual framework, methods, and analyses well justified, adequately developed, and likely to lead to scientifically valid
conclusions? Does the applicant recognize significant potential problems and consider alternative strategies?
3) Competency of Research Team and Adequacy of Available Resources
e.g., What is the past performance and potential of the team, including the dissemination of results? How well qualified is each senior
investigator and the team, and what is the likelihood of success in carrying out the proposed work? Are the research environment and
facilities adequate for performing the research, including any synergistic opportunities, institutional support, and/or infrastructure? Does
the proposed work take advantage of unique facilities and capabilities? Are any plans proposed for recruiting additional scientific and/or
technical personnel including new senior staff, students and postdocs reasonable, justified, and appropriate? Are the senior
investigator(s) or any members of the research group that are being reviewed leaders within the proposed effort(s) and/or potential future
leaders in the field? For senior investigator(s) proposing to work across multiple research thrusts, are the plans for such cross-cutting
efforts reasonably developed and will the proposed activities have impact?
4) Reasonableness and Appropriateness of the Proposed Budget
e.g., Are the proposed budget and staffing levels adequate to carry out the proposed work? If multiple research thrusts are proposed, is
the balance of proposed efforts reasonable and well-matched to the proposed research goals? Is the budget reasonable, appropriate for
the scope?
5) Alignment of Proposed Research to the Priorities Established in the P5 Strategic plan
e.g., How does the proposed research of each senior investigator specifically contribute to the mission, science goals, and programmatic
priorities of the subprogram in which the application is being evaluated? Is the proposed research consistent with priorities and strategic
plan described in the P5 report? For multi-thrust proposals, does the scope of the full proposed program provide synergy or additional
benefits within HEP’s Congressionally-authorized mission-space beyond the individual thrusts? How likely is the research to impact the
direction of the overall HEP program? For applications proposing work and/or a transition across multiple research thrusts during the
project period, will the overall efforts add value in the broader context of the program goals described in the P5 strategic plan?
DOE/HEP PI Mee+ng 2020 32Guidance Checklist for FY 2021 Comp Rev
§ Non-compliant applications will not be reviewed, and therefore, will not be considered for funding.
As a convenience and courtesy, DOE/HEP plans to provide a checklist in the FY 2020 FOA.
– The list, found on the opening pages of the FOA, is not intended to be complete ⟹ applicants should
review the FOA in-detail and follow all instructions.
HEP Compara0ve Review FOA – GUIDELINE FOR APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS COMPLETED
Is the proposed research scope aligned with programma+c priori+es of DOE/HEP? R
Personally Iden+fiable Informa+on (PII): Do not supply any informa+on, such as birth date or place, ci+zenship,
home address, personal phone nos., etc., that should not enter into the merit review.
R
A Data Management Plan is required for each research thrust (e.g., CMS, DUNE, AdS/CFT, etc.). It must appear
in its own Appendix of the applica+on and comply with page-limit requirements specified in the FOA.
R
Project Summary/Abstract Page: contains the name(s) of the applicant, the project director/principal
inves+gator(s) and the PD/PI’s ins+tu+onal affilia+on, and any Co-Inves+gators and their affilia+ons.
R
DOE Cover Page: list each HEP research subprogram (e.g., Energy Fron+er, HEP Theory, etc.) for which funding is
requested. If there is more than one, be sure to a8ach the Cover Page Supplement, as specified in the FOA.
R
Page limits for each sec+on comply with the FOA requirements (as defined in Sec+on IV of the FOA). R
Biographical sketches carefully follow the FOA instruc+ons, including page limits, and avoid PII. R
Current and Pending Support informa+on completed, including period and an abstract of the scope of work. R
In addi+on to the budget informa+on for the full proposal: separate budget and budget jus+fica+on narra+ves
for each HEP research subprogram in the proposal for each year in which funding is being requested and for the R
cumula+ve funding period has been provided in Appendix 7.
Level of Effort Tables completed in Budget Jus+fica+ons in Appendix 7: for each person for whom funding is
requested in a research thrust, on the scope of ac+vi+es during proposed project period.
R
DOE
Post-submission of a ‘renewal’ applica+on, +mely submi8ed the Renewal Proposal HEP Status
Products andinFOAs
(RPP) -- August 4, 2015
PAMS. R 33How to Review Well
§ Write an excellent proposal!
• Clarity – a confused review panel is a nega+ve review panel
• Organiza+on – say who will do what and when
• Future looking – less than 1/3 on the past, use 2/3 for what you will do
• Landscape – how does your proposed work fit a cri+cal need of the collabora+on, and compare
with other projects?
• Realism – be candid on the risks, challenges, and how you will overcome them
• Deliverables – quan+fy the impact of your proposed effort, not just what you will do
• Contenzul – don’t add something because it’s the buzzword of the day but not actually an
essen+al part of your work. E.g. randomly men+oning AI/ML induces a certain cynicism
• Respect the review panel (your peers) -– don’t try to hide flaws, uncertain+es, or that there are
other experiments trying to measure the same science. Meet them face on and say how your work
will address problems or compe++on. Address previous review comments.
• Do it right!
• Follow the FOA! – have someone else (SRO+colleagues) check your proposal
• Data Management Plan – essen+al. Most collabora+ons have a DOE accepted DMP. If you plan to
follow this, your proposal DMP must 1) describe how the proposed work relates to that
experiment, 2) give a valid public link to the experiment’s plan.
• Be on a review panel!
• The best way to learn how to write a highly compe++ve proposal is exposure to lots of proposals
and cri+ques of them. Volunteer!
DOE/HEP PI Mee+ng 2020 34Other DOE Funding Opportunities
} Workforce Development (WDTS) programs: https://science.osti.gov/wdts
} Office of Science Graduate Student Research fellowships (SCSGR)
} Supports grad student research at a DOE lab, 3 to 12 months
} Two calls per year, usually Feb/Aug – open now, due Nov 12
} Applications typically due May/Nov for following Fall or Summer start
} Science Undergraduate Laboratory Internships (SULI)
} Supports undergraduate research at a DOE lab, 10 to 16 weeks
} Three calls per year, for following Spring/Summer/Fall terms
} Now accepting applications for Spring 2021, due Oct 7
} Visiting Faculty Program
} Summer research support for faculty/students from historically underrepresented institutions
} One call per year, usually in Oct. Applications due in Jan.
} Office of Science programs:
} Early Career Research: https://science.osti.gov/early-career
} FY 2021 FOA anticipated to be issued this fall 2020
} SC “Open Call” [DE-FOA-0002181]
} HEP uses this primarily for conferences and emergencies (e.g. equipment failure)
DOE/HEP PI Meeting 2020 35Early Career
Research Program
DOE/HEP PI Meeting 2020 36Early Career Awards – Cosmic Frontier
FY20:
Hugh Lippincott Lado Samushia Michael Troxel
Dark Matter Dark Energy Dark Energy
FY19: FY18:
Tim Eifler Scott Hertel Elisabeth Krause Alexie Leauthaud Hee-Jong Seo
Dark Energy Dark Matter Dark Energy Dark Energy Dark Energy
DOE/HEP PI Meeting 2020 37Preparing an Early Career Proposal
} Plan to issue a FY 2021 funding opportunity announcement for the next round of
Early Career applicants
} Stay tuned to https://science.osti.gov/early-career/ for further updates…
} Eligibility: tenure track, within ~10 years of PhD
} Maximum 3 tries, so choose wisely and heed feedback
} Very different than Comparative Review, so don’t submit the same one to both!
} In addition to the merit review criteria found in the FOA, review panels
look for:
} Clear goal: what is the grand challenge and why are you “the one”?
} Innovation (while advancing HEP program)
} Leadership demonstration/potential
} Does your proposal outline a 5-year timeline, with key
deliverables and personnel profiled during this project period?
} What will be the self-contained outcome after 5 years?
} Prior to submission, applicants may want to seek guidance from appropriate
senior faculty/staff while preparing proposals (including narrative and budget)
DOE/HEP PI Meeting 2020 38
40Proposals: What To Do
Do seek out Do learn the
Do follow Do be clear
Do Follow advice & rules, Do ask for
through on and follow
Instruc0ons support from regula0ons, what you
any past proper English
and trusted and costs of reasonably
colleagues & reviewer grammar and
Guidelines your need
mentors feedback composi0on
ins0tu0on
Be clear: avoid Standard research
Your ins+tu+on Give weight to the reviewers requests
Read the current
has invested a lot Funds are awarded cri+cal reviews guessing about • Salary (PI and co-PIs)
FOA thoroughly,
of +me and to the ins+tu+on. your research • Other Personnel
as well as any
money hiring Understand direct plan; including post-docs,
suppor+ng
you. They want and indirect rates, Arguing with HEP students, etc.
materials, e.g. Careless edi+ng
you to succeed. benefits, and that 3 out of 5 •Travel (domes+c and
FAQ, PI mee+ng will annoy or
Let them help restric+ons reviewers thought foreign)
slides confuse
you your proposal was • M&S, Tui+on
excellent does not reviewers remission
address the 2
reviewers who had
a different opinion Realis+c funding
Request a pre- Establish a
review of the rela+onship with expecta+ons
SC rules & proposal. your budget Read the panel • Early Career
procedures and >$150k Univ &
There are office or summaries from Have someone
>$500k Lab
HEP program resources at sponsored past reviews. proof-read your
• 50% FTE to
requirements are most ins+tu+ons; research office. Those contain the proposal proposal
regularly updated and/or seek Remember they panel discussions • Stagger personnel
guidance from submit the of your proposal
collaborators proposal for you!
DOE/HEP PI Mee+ng 2020
39Proposals: What Not To Do
Do Not
Do Not Do Not overly submit a
Do Not brag Do Not bury Do Not be
submit a dwell on the sloppy budget
or exaggerate the message discouraged
proposal late past or budget
jus0fica0on
You should General rule
assume that of thumb The budget
applica+ons The narra+ve (1/3:2/3). sheets and
received aer Be professional should be
No more than jus+fica+on
the deadline and objec+ve. accessible to a
should be Compe++on is
will not be review panel with one-third of
prepared with strong.
reviewed or a wide range of proposal the same care
considered for exper+se devoted to as the narra+ve
award past efforts; Some very good
Fully list your Future since proposals are
accomplishments DOE funds are declined due to
in the bio-sketch; Avoid jargon Reviewers will
when possible.
meant for call out any: limited resources.
Include your next period
mentoring. Same with • Excessive or
Use the weeks or acronyms. inappropriate That first
months aer the requests feedback is so
FOA is made Majority of • Arithme+c errors valuable.
public to prepare Accurately and proposal • Poorly jus+fied
Describe in clear narra+ve expenses
and then submit reasonably and concise
your proposal describe language. should be •Start guessing if
early research plan forward not adequately
Tell a story... looking explained
DOE/HEP PI Mee+ng 2020
40Closing Remarks
§ HEP is maintaining the core of the DOE science mission
– We continue to deliver exciting discoveries, important scientific knowledge,
and technological advances
– We must stay focused and continue to deliver results
– Congress is supportive of the P5 plan and its success has impact
§ HEP funding opportunities
– FY 2021 funding opportunities are anticipated to progress similar to those in FY 2020
§ FY 2021 House [and eventually Senate] Marks are ‘budget indicators’
– Fiscal budget is only known when Congress passes an appropriation and the
President signs the bill
– As P5-recommended projects continue and ramp up, DOE is working within the
budget process to stress importance of research and operations
DOE/HEP PI Mee+ng 2020
41Summary
} Excellent science results continue to be
produced from our operating experiments!
} P5 strategic plan is supported by Community
and broad support is enabling it to be fully
implemented.
Cosmic Frontier News:
• DESI and LZ start operating in 2020.
• CMB-S4 planning for CD-1.
• Rubin LSSTcam nearly complete;
LSST/DESC Operations details in
planning.
• Dark Matter small project R&D
underway.
Significant planning for the future – looking forward to
Astro2020 and Snowmass for exciting opportunities &
directions!
DOE/HEP PI Meeting 2020 42Ques+ons
QUESTIONS?
DOE/HEP PI Meeting 2020 45
2DOE Project Management Process
} Construction projects and fabrication of large pieces of experimental equipment costing over $10M are
managed through a series of “Critical Decision (CD)” milestones
} The CD process ensures successful project execution and scientific return on agency investments
} Successful delivery of construction projects and facilities is a central part of the DOE science mission
• In particular, Office of Science practice (CD process & independent, external reviews) is considered
gold-standard with an excellent record in DOE à “Failure is not an option”
è DOE is committed to the successful execution of projects that have reached CD-2 (establish performance
baseline of technical scope, cost & schedule) and to provide the funding profile needed to carry it out.
Operating Operating
Funds Total Project Cost (TPC) Funds
Initiation Project
Project
Definition Project Execution
(pre-project R&D) (R&D continues…) Closeout
CD-0 CD-1 CD-2 CD-3 CD-4
DOE 413.3B:
Approve Approve Approve Approve Approve
Critical
Mission Alternative Performance Start of Start of
Decisions
Need Selection Baseline Construction Operations
and Cost Range (or Project Completion)
Definitive Project has
Identifies there Ensures the cost, scope, and demonstrated Project is completed
is a need that can selected alternative schedule technical and ready for
only be met thru and approach is the baselines have readiness for turnover to
material needs optimum solution been developed implementation program operations
DOE/HEP PI Meeting 2020 46You can also read
