Horyzontalny Punkt
Kontaktowy
Polska Południowo-Wschodnia

Dorota Markiewicz-Roszak: What is STAPLE trying to achieve?

René Poncelet: We want to make our theoretical simulations of particle collisions at the Large Hadron Collider more precise and more realistic. In these experiments, scientists collide particles at very high energies, measure what comes out and compare those measurements with predictions based on fundamental physical theories. The better the predictions, the more we can learn from the data.

Think of it as a map. At first, you can see only the continents. With more detail, you can distinguish countries, coastlines and mountain ranges. The more work you put into it, the better its resolution becomes.

That is essentially what we are trying to do with STAPLE: improve the resolution of our theoretical picture of particle collisions. We are combining techniques that have usually been developed separately. If this works as we hope, it will allow us to describe those processes more accurately and make better comparisons with experiment.

DMR: Why should this kind of fundamental research matter to people outside particle physics?

RP: We study physics because we want to understand how the universe works. This understanding can eventually lead to technology, but the applications are often impossible to foresee. Understanding electromagnetism, for example, eventually made computers possible. Maxwell, when he developed his equations, would not have had the concept of a modern computer.

Particle physics is part of that same search for understanding. Think of a microscope: to see smaller structures, you need better resolution. With particle collisions, higher energies allow us to probe smaller scales. Detectors record what happens, and theory helps us interpret what they measure.

We have a very successful description of many of these processes in the Standard Model, but there are still things we do not understand. Dark matter and dark energy, for example, are not explained by it. That is why we keep looking for new particles and interactions. To do that as well as possible, we need very precise theoretical predictions. This is where STAPLE comes in.

DMR: How did you come up with the idea for STAPLE?

RP: It grew out of the kind of calculations I had been doing for years. They can be extremely precise, because they start directly from the fundamental theory, but turning them into predictions that can be compared realistically with experimental measurements is difficult.

It is a little like repeatedly hitting exactly the same spot on a target — except that the spot is ten metres away from where you actually need to hit. The precision is there, but you still need to make the result useful.

I was asked the same question again and again at conferences: how could we make these very precise calculations more realistic, so that they could be compared with experimental data? Eventually, I got rather fed up with having to answer it. Then, at workshops in 2023 and 2024, I came across ideas from other approaches that seemed to fit very well with ours. I discussed them with experts in those techniques, and they encouraged me. That is how the proposal developed.

DMR: How do you plan to communicate the project to people outside your field?

RP: At the institute, we have open days, and I plan to present the project there, perhaps through talks or poster presentations. I am also working on popular-science articles. I have started a project blog, where I share news about papers, conferences and talks.

When I find the time, I try to write explanations of scientific papers for a more general audience. Sometimes I manage to do that, and sometimes there is only the scientific abstract. It takes quite a lot of work, so the blog is updated rather irregularly. But it is also an interesting exercise: you have to think about your research in a different way.

DMR: What was it like getting the ERC project started?

RP: Much smoother than I expected, actually. The project officer was very helpful, and I received a lot of support at the institute. There were some administrative matters to sort out — agreements, documents and the usual organisational details — but they were resolved.

STAPLE started in February. The project team is planned to include two postdoctoral researchers and two PhD students. I began recruiting the postdocs before the project officially started, and that recruitment was already well advanced. They bring expertise in resummation, a set of techniques that I want to combine with my approach. The doctoral positions were to be advertised later, with an October start planned.

We do not need an experimental laboratory, but we do need substantial computing power. The project includes setting up high-performance computing resources at the institute so that we can develop and run the simulations.

DMR: What opportunities does an ERC grant create for you and your team?

RP: The grant made a difference even before the project started. More people became interested in my research, and I was asked to take part in international scientific activities, including some scientific management work.

But scientifically, what I hope is that the project will lay the foundation for a new line of research. If we manage to develop the simulation as planned, that could be something people work on for many years, perhaps even decades. For members of the team, it could become a career-defining result. That is the hope, at least.

Of course, it is difficult to predict. This is a very active field, and other groups are pursuing related ideas. The outcome depends not only on what we achieve but also on how the community develops. There are already many conferences and workshops on these topics, though, which should give team members opportunities to present their work and become more visible.

DMR: What was the hardest part of writing the ERC proposal?

RP: Finding the right level of technical detail. My topic is specialised, and the proposal has to make sense to reviewers with different backgrounds. You need to explain the idea clearly enough for someone who is not an expert in the exact subject, without making it sound trivial to someone who is.

ERC projects can be very ambitious, but ambition is not enough: you also have to show that the idea is feasible. I found that balance quite difficult. To be honest, I still think I could have done it better.

DMR: In your experience, what matters more in an ERC application: the idea or the researcher’s track record?

RP: I do not think you can separate the two. If you have a brilliant idea but nothing in your previous work suggests you can carry it out, reviewers may be sceptical. On the other hand, an excellent CV will not make an uninteresting project compelling.

The proposal should show how your expertise puts you in a position to take a real step forward — something that goes beyond simply continuing what you have already been doing. The fit between the person and the project is crucial.

In my case, I had a strong track record in these calculations and had worked in Aachen and Cambridge before coming to Poland. I think international experience is very important. My advice to researchers in Poland is to spend time working abroad. Staying in one environment, even with strong scientific results, makes it harder to become visible internationally, and I think that matters to the people evaluating these proposals.

DMR: How did you prepare for the ERC interview? Was the panel what you expected?

RP: I was very nervous. I prepared the presentation intensively, showed it to colleagues at the institute and to international collaborators, and practised it perhaps forty times. I knew it almost by heart. And yet, during the actual interview, I spoke so quickly that I finished about a minute early.

My presentation was ten minutes long, followed by about twenty-five minutes of questions. We organised a mock panel at the institute, and I had collected something like a hundred possible questions. Many of the practice questions were quite general — about leading a team, for example, or managing the project. The actual panel asked many more technical questions about the physics, which surprised me. Of course, my colleagues on the mock panel had not read the full proposal, so they could not ask the same kind of detailed technical questions.

One question did come up both in the mock panel and in the real interview: why I believed I could succeed in a research direction that was somewhat new to me. This was really about the connection between my previous work and the project I wanted to do. Preparing for that question was very helpful. Most of the others I had to answer spontaneously.

DMR: What advice would you give to researchers thinking about applying for an ERC grant?

RP: Start early — much earlier than I did. The idea had been developing in my mind for years, but I wrote the proposal itself in about two weeks. I would not recommend that approach.

Even if your idea is still rough, try writing a complete first version. There are practical elements, such as the budget, that take longer than you expect. Once you have a draft, it is much easier to improve it than to start again each time.

And talk to people who have actually prepared ERC proposals. General information sessions can help, but detailed feedback on your specific project is more valuable. Do not be too afraid to discuss your ideas with colleagues. An ERC proposal is closely connected to the person who wants to pursue it — it is not something somebody else can simply copy.

If you are considering an international research career, think about that early as well. Experience abroad can be valuable, but it takes time to build. You cannot decide to develop an international profile only after an application is rejected and expect it to happen immediately.

DMR: Why did you choose to conduct the project at the Institute of Nuclear Physics in Poland?

RP: I already had a permanent position here, so it was the natural place to host the project. The institute has strong expertise in theoretical physics, including areas closely connected to what I want to do.

I particularly appreciate the freedom to follow my own research ideas. At a research institute, there are fewer teaching duties than at many universities, which is an advantage for a project like this. I have also had a great deal of support for my plans. That combination makes it a very good environment for the work.

DMR: What are your plans after completing the project?

RP: Apply for the next one, I guess. Perhaps a Consolidator Grant, although I would probably have to apply while STAPLE is still running. That is the plan, but it is difficult to say at this stage.

If STAPLE is successful, there should still be plenty of work to do, and it could provide the foundation for further projects. A follow-up grant would make sense in that case. But first, let us see how this one goes. Who knows what might happen?

Dorota Markiewicz-Roszak: Thank you for the interview, and best of luck with STAPLE and your future research.
To learn more about the STAPLE project, please visit the project website.