# Scientific Review Panel

| Proposal | Champion |
| -------- | -------- |
| Menten | Nychka |
| Kantorovich | Gangbo |
| L-functions | Conrey |
| Asymptotic Geometric Analysis| Kontorovich|

## Full CRG proposals

### Asymptotic Geometric Analysis

#### Champion: Kontorovich

Kontorovich: very interesting research topic, with lots of recent activity across multiple venues, important and famous names working in this.

Kra: what is connection of these names to the proposal? is the scope of the proposal feasible? many problems have been open since the 1950s. Significantly weaker than other CRG proposal, lot of name-dropping.

Nychka: bold claims on becoming a leading research center in a difficult topic.

Quas: list of organizers is dominated by UA, one person at UC, others are further away, lack of coherence in the problem choice, and not fulfilling the CRG mission of building collaborations across the network.

Consensus: not recommended for funding

### L-functions and Analytic Number Theory

#### Champion: Conrey

Conrey: interesting connections between distribution (pair correlation, etc.) of zeros of L-functions and random matrix theory, going back to Dyson-Montgomery, Keating et. al., strong scientific merit.

Billey: EDI impact?

Kontorovich: 40% of proposed participants are women

Kra: concrete plans for organizing EDI activities?

Conrey: timely and feasible, very strong researchers

Quas: small weakness that these folks are already connected. But a big strength is that this will expand network, and community building.

Billey: concerns?

Nychka: what are prospects for students after this training? what is PI track record of student placement?

Billey: important for PIMS to support pure math research

Kra: this area of pure math helps people get placed quite well.

Nychka: 1.5, well-written proposal, lots of connections, made clear the importance of the subject

Conrey: 2

Strong consensus of 2's, two 1.5's, Gangbo and Nychka

SRP consensus: strong recommendation for funding, excellent events planning, for funding at the level they request.

## PRN Letters of Intent

### Maud Menten Institute

#### Champion: Nychka

Nychka: strong LoI, 36 researchers at 6 universities, well-connected, well-written, lot of potential for impact beyond academia, unusual. Many strong researchers (eg Mark Lewis) as part of potential leadership team. Good idea to invite a full proposal, with more clarification on the mathematical sciences component, involving diverse groups, and how research will be transferred to stakeholders.

Quas: PIMS has a long history of supporting Math Bio, for example, IGTC 2008-13 (Mark Lewis). Proposed links with government agencies feel a little like namedropping, would be great to see more concrete plans for seeking other funding.

Billey: what are the concrete mathematical sciences problems to be addressed? What are the plans for seminars/events? What are the concrete plans for recruiting and ensuring EDI. Are they overpromising.

Kra: Want to train strong students for careers outside of academia, but no explanation/mechanics of how to train people. In general, proposal tends to be pro-forma, needs much more detail about actual activities.

do we want to allow PRNs to submit proposals again without going through LoI process again?

Consensus: A potential proposal would need to really expand on the LoI to provide significantly more detail. Mixed reviews from SRP, ranging from 0.5 to 2 (modulo SRP concerns addressed).

### Kantorovich Initiative

#### Champion: Gangbo

Gangbo: proposal on Optimal Transport, strong researchers with prior PIMS CRG funding (PIHOT), significant NSF funding. Strong research, EDI is concrete. Proposal is in an important field and should be encouraged, and has already generated a lot of high-level activity.

Kra: EDI should not simply be women organizing activities for women, this needs to be fleshed out. The whole leadership team needs to be invested in EDI.

Gangbo: EDI extends beyond gender.

Nychka: need to explain further what Optimal Transport is for a general audience. Applications do seem very broad. Is it really feasible that this one concept runs through all these applications. Full proposal needs to connect the dots.

Billey: everyone at PIMS needs to know what Optimal Transport is by the end of this funding cycle.

Quas: are we piling support on top of existing PIMS support? If so, why?

Kra/Conrey: we should ask for details on what CRG has accomplished in full proposal.

Lipshitz: what's the mathematical content? Explain that further.

Gangbo: optimal transport has grown out of work from Cafarelli et al, and has really grown in a surprising and broad number of directions.

recommendation to solicit full proposal, but once again, very mixed feedback.

## CRG Letters of Intent

| Proposal | Champion |
| -------- | -------- |
| Geometry and Rep Theory of QFT | Lipshitz |
| Wind and Solary Energy | Nychka |
| Computational Complexity | Ward |
| Asymptotic Geometric Analysis| Kontorovich|

### Geometry and Representation Theory of Quantum Field Theory

#### Champion: Lipshitz

Lipshitz: Geometric Langlands, etc. Events include BIRS and Perimeter Institute programs. Not much detail on what they want. References are mostly in the physics literature.

Kra: Costello is a mathematician, and even if they are publishing in physics literature, this is a mathematical sciences proposal.

Billey: strong external funding, how does PIMS funding fit in? EDI was not emphasized.

Quas: *individuals* have strong funding, but not directed toward the proposal. Creutzig and Paquette are connected, Bryan is further away.

Denise: cannot pay for postdocs at UW or Perimeter.

Quas: would be good to see this as a joint proposal coming with funding from Perimeter.

Consensus: wide range of scores, not full encouragement.

### Wind and Solar Energy

#### Champion: Nychka

Nychka: microscale modeling of windfarms has really interesting fluid dynamics, could be very interesting computational math. Solar energy is a statistics problem. Highly qualified team. Nice proposal in the larger envelope of mathematical sciences, lots of room to flesh out what the itneresting problems are.

Quas: really liked interdisciplinary aspect, starting with a real world problem, and the choice of researchers and topics are guided by the problem, and an excellent potential to connect lots of people. They are trying to build a team.

Billey: fascinating, nice applied math, connects to important societal issues, excellent training opportunity, could be an excellent vehicle for public-facing work.

Nychka: could be a great collaborative proposal with CANSSI.

Billey: concrete problems listed, should build further on that in the proposal. EDI needs to be fleshed out.

Nychka: need to explain very carefully what data they are going to use, for example, collecting suitable wind data is difficult, specificy on sources of data.

Strong consensus on encouragement, with a few concerns.

### Computational Complexity of Data Representation

#### Champion: Ward

Ward: Very specifically in computer science, all leaders are in CS, topics are very specific, connection to data is not strong, no EDI discussion.

Nychka: topics are interesting, but not a feasible or strong proposal.

Kra: not feasible scientifically or logistically.

Billey: weekend retreat for possible online retreat @ $10,000 is a little ridiculous.

Nychka: group is somewhat "inbred", with most PhDs at UT, postdocs at SFU. From outside, it is a tight group.

Consensus: not soliciting full proposal

## Summer Schools

### Second Year Research Experiences

#### Champion: Quas

Quas: analogous to NSF REU program. Duplicating USRA program to some extent. Needs to have more integration with graduate education and across the PIMS network.

Lipshtiz: liked it, dealing with interesting mathematics, track record of working with students. Good EDI discussion, important to be able to support students.

Billey: could connect the PI to other undergraduate research iniatitives across PIMS network, needs more detail on EDI.

Kontorovich: research project is very ambitious, autmorphic forms on GL(5) are really difficult.

Conrey: is the level of the problems appropriate? Students may not have an idea of what they've done.

Nychka: selection procedure was concerning.

Consensus: mixed reviews, mostly not encouraging for submission.

## Conferences and Workshops

| Proposal | Champion |
| -------- | -------- |
|Tensor Algebras| Ward|
| Asymptotic Geometric Analysis| Kontorovich|
| Microlocal Analysis| Quas|
| Math Biology| Quas|
|Foundational Methods in CS| Quas|
|Information Theory|Billey|
|Statistic and Genomics|Nychka|
|UBC Colloquium|Billey|
|Mathematics of Ethical Decision Making| Nychka|

### Tensor Algebras, Computation, and Applications

#### Champion: Ward

Ward: conference in Pengelley Park, nice interdisciplinary program, combination of pure and applied math. Organizer is a rising star, great track record. Strong record for all organizers.

Kra: how many PIMS people are going to be funded for PIMS?

Billey: what is the funding for, how does it connect to PIMS?

Kontorovich: they have NSF and NSA funding

Quas: how is the PIMS Network going to benefit from it?

Lipshitz: no budget

Quas: should use individual funds from discovery grant

Kra: how does this support the network

consensus: no funding, unless there can be more concrete benefit to the network.

### ICM Satellite Asymptotic Geometric Analysis

#### Champion: Kontorovich

Kontorovich: similar to CRG proposal

Kra: no benefit to the PIMS network

consensus: not fund

### Microlocal Analysis

#### Champion: Quas

Quas: looks like an interesting conference, but what is benefit to PIMS network.

Ward: very specific topic.

Kra: what is benefit to network? Only seeking funding for Pramanik, postdocs, and students.

consensus: not fund, but very good meeting, so Kontorovich gives a 2.

### Western Canada Mathematical Biology

#### Champion: Quas

Quas: strong proposal, strong benefit to PIMS network, connected to Maud Menten PRN

Lipshitz: EDI concerns

consensus: fund 2

### Foundational Methods in Computer Science

#### Champion: Quas

Quas: proposal in Category Theory/Alg Top/CS, high quality proposal.

Kra: small group of 30 people, how will they choose.

Lipshitz: EDI considerations in selection.

Consensus: mostly recommend for funding

Feedback: need to more about selection and registration criteria. Open up online component.

### Canadian Workshop on Information Theory

#### Champion: Billey

Billey: are they double dipping? are they applying to PIMS and Fields for the same funding.

Quas: what is benefit to PIMS network?

Lipshitz: what is benefit to mathematical sciences? what are EDI plans?

consensus: all 0 votes

### Statistics and Genomics

#### Champion: Nychka

Nychka: conference at UVic, mostly stats speakers, pushing the envelope of PIMS mandate. Asking for both PIMS+CANSSI funding, good way to partner with CANSSI. Mathematical sciences component is applied data science.

Quas: satellite meeting for the Canadian Statistical Society meeting.

Billey: concerns over organizer and speaker overlap. Is pharma funding question reasonable?

Kra: no mention of mathematics at all in the proposal

Billey: organizers are in joint departments

Nychka: should we try and collaborate with CANSSI on this proposal

Consensus: mostly 1s.

### UBC Distinguished Colloquium

#### Champion: Billey

Denise: asked for 22K last year, got 12K

Kra: concerns about recruitment of speakers, designation of "rising star"- you're either a colloquium speaker or you're not.

Feedback: labels are problematic, funding level requested is very high

Yilmaz: will address this with UBC Math and EDI.

Kra: why not stream lectures across PIMS network, if you are recording?

Quas: PIMS has an online Network-Wide Colloquium, six/year.

Consensus: fund, but with feedback.

### Mathematics of Ethical Decision Making Systems

#### Champion: Nychka

Nychka: very fresh and interesting topic, one department (UVic CS)

Quas: interesting and exciting, people in law excited, for example, theoretical CS folks.

Kra: is there any math involved?

Feedback: try and get more PIMS folks involved, publicize/stream?

Lipshitz: what is the math content?

Conensus: some 1s, 1.5s, some 0s.