Hi - thanks.

The spreadsheet is now updated with 256 unique talks.

Questions / tasks for all:
- Some tracks (DE, nus, ML) don't have multiple of 5 speakers. We can
remove some / add some / ignore and have a non-full block. Any preference?

Ignore, it is too early, the final numbers may be different.

- Please cross-check that we have not missed anyone crucial. Or a good
talk. ,

My requests: :

7 (Cielo) -- add to EU (accepted, 4 by JvdV)

26 (Tolley) -- add to Inflation (it was in their reserve list because of topic, it ranked 4 and 4) or EU, if it is in their reserve list. Excellent speaker.

94 (Soda) add to GW (accepted 4, 4)

106 (Gong) add to GW (accepted 3, 3). Bad abstract, good scientist

and a tricky (diversity) case, if you agree:

293 (Afshar, talk) and 267 (Afshar, poster), related but different

I would suggest to accept 267 in GW (ranked 4 and 3) and also accept 293 (a poster). This is a woman from Azerbajian who could probably really use the opportunity.

- What would we want to do for posters? Do we want to offer posters to
all the abstracts not accepted as talks? (~120 slots - seems too much to me)

There are O(25) abstracts that should be rejected, see below. No poster.

With O(260) talks that leaves O(85) posters, which is a lot but at least it is doable (we have 100 poster boards available).

REJECTIONS

I found O(25) rejections identified by the convenors, these should not get a poster.

1, 8, 43, 49, 50, 57, 59, 84, 108, 114, 123, 168, 205, 207, 208, 244, 277, 315, 347, 360, 361,

[@Matthieu: 369 looks like a test but I am not sure. ]

TWO MORE REJECTIONS THAT ARE REALLY DUPLICATES

(45 or 46) , (174 or 175) same abstract, talk or poster. I would

accept 45 in Neutrinos and reject 46

reject 174 (talk) and accept 175 (poster)

I would like to send in acceptance/rejections on Monday at the latest
given that we had announced it would be ~today.

Yes, please. But there is a small group of talks which are still not clear, these don't have to go today.

A couple were not seen (they chose the "Others" track only), for others it is not clear (to me) how they were ranked

More on this in a separate email.

Thanks,

Ana

Cheers,
Matthieu

On 14/05/2026 15:54, Matthieu Schaller wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> Thanks to all the convenors' timely and thorough work we have a full
> list of ranked abstracts.
>
> Taking the lists at face values, we have 202 uniquely accepted talks.
> Overall, 276 talks have been selected which tells you that about 70 talks
> have been selected for multiple tracks. We thus have a bit of work on
> our hands to curate all this, select the most appropriate track for the
> duplicated ones, and finish the lists.
>
> All the abstracts, including the convenors' comments, are attached
> (620 pages!)
>
> The working spreadsheet is here:
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1_wNrwbMAmElj7J_DKWgw8p_5K6Ihr6ISF5zgNkPgYKo/edit?usp=sharing
>
> The main sheets are:
> - 'Full List' ---> Raw dump from Indico with full info on each talk
> (minus abstract).
> - 'Ranked per track' ---> The somewhat homogenized ranking we got
> from the convenors
> - 'All tracks' ---> Working sheet where we need to sort out the
> duplications.
> - 'All tracks with duplicates' ---> Frozen version of the current
> state so we have a record.
>
> The other sheets give the per-track list which we can in the future
> use to sort out a program.
>
> On the 'All tracks' sheet, you should be able to edit only the yellow
> cells. The numbers correspond to the talk ID in the main sheet (or
> Indico).
> Red crosses indicate duplicates.
>
> The "game" now is to eliminate red crosses and moving entries up by
> choosing the most appropriate track of a given "red cross".
> Additional talk IDs can be copied from the 'Ranked per track' sheet to
> keep populating the bottom of a given track.
>
> Finally, on the 'Full List', all the selected talks are indicated.
> This should let us see that we don't have someone who fell through the
> cracks.
>
> I will not be able to do much more on this until Friday afternoon.
>
> Recall that we have a somewhat strong deadline to complete the
> selection by Monday.
>
> If you have time to help curate the list, the help will be greatly
> appreciated.
>
> Cheers,
> Matthieu
>
--
————————————————————————————————————
Dr Matthieu Schaller (University lecturer)
Lorentz Institute & Leiden Observatory Office: BW 2.47
The Netherlands Phone: +31 (0)71-527-5522
————————————————————————————————————

_______________________________________________
Cosmo-26-soc mailing list -- cosmo-26-soc@mailman.lorentz.leidenuniv.nl
To unsubscribe send an email to cosmo-26-soc-leave@mailman.lorentz.leidenuniv.nl