Hi Matthieu: just a few things:

for LSS: 180 is much better in methods (emulator for Nbody) 219 should be in PMF (Viel) 227 much better in DE/MG (DESI dark energy analyses)

229 better in LSS (DES Y6 reanalysis talk), now in meth who only wanted it as a poster anyway

I'd like to promote these two for talks (currently not selected anywhere), which got relatively low rankings because of grades from other tracks 131 222

52 was shifted to methods but much better as LSS talk I think (QSO Ly-alpha absorption; methods also liked it so ok to leave if you want)

164 (DE) should be a poster since already has a talk in methods

maybe see you this evening? Otherwise tomorrow morning. Koen

On 16 May 2026, at 17:18, Matthieu Schaller mschaller@lorentz.leidenuniv.nl wrote:

Hi Koen,

That sounds sensible. Indeed, we should not offer two talks to the same person if we still have good entries on the waiting list.

We can try to fuse our lists tomorrow in Santander?

Cheers, Matthieu

On 15/05/2026 21:32, Koen Kuijken wrote:

...

Hi Matthieu,

Looks very good, but there are still a couple of things I'd like to chage I think. A few LSS talks ended up with low rank because of 'pollution' of grades from other tracks who did not want them. For erample we really wanted to have Meiksin's talk, but right now he has not bubbled up to the top. Also I see that Yunhao has two talks, which is great fro him but I'd rather have Casper also get a slot - he was also further down the LSS rankings in grey-zone territory. So a little fine tuning is still needed probably.

I need to do a more detailed comparison but we're really done for the day...

Thanks again for your amazing effort in this!

Koen

...

On 15 May 2026, at 21:08, Koen Kuijken kuijken@strw.leidenuniv.nl wrote:

Hi Matthieu,

Ana and I have been working on a copy of the spreadsheet (for some reason my permissions were not working properly and I couldn't edit it). We have gone through many conflicts in LSS, DE, methods and EU in particular.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1oBtvucLUCDtzH2iEHQPIqAySEnfCeaNK45qL...

I need to stop now, hope there is not much discrepancy... will have a look tomorrow.

Koen

...

On 15 May 2026, at 19:23, Matthieu Schaller mschaller@lorentz.leidenuniv.nl wrote:

Dear all,

Thanks to everyone who made changes and proposed suggestions.

Daan: Special thanks for sending in your full conflict resolution list. It looked very similar to mine so I have adopted it almost everywhere.

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

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

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_5K6Ihr6ISF5zg...

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

-- ———————————————————————————————————— Dr Matthieu Schaller (University lecturer) Lorentz Institute & Leiden Observatory Office: BW 2.47 The Netherlands Phone: +31 (0)71-527-5522 ————————————————————————————————————