ILC Detector R

1
ILC Detector RD

• Chris Damerell
• Rutherford Appleton Lab
• ILC Detector RD Panel and charge
• Addendum to charge, and action plan from Panel
• Input from detector RD groups
• Missing Topics
• Longer term plans Preliminary discussion with
  GDE
• Conclusions

2
ILC Detector RD Panel and charge

• 9 members appointed shortly before LCWS 2005
  by WWS-OC, 3 from each
  region
• Jean-Claude Brient (Ecole Polytechnique, France)
• Chris Damerell (RAL, UK) chair
• Ray Frey (U Oregon, USA)
• HongJoo Kim (Kyonpook National U, Korea)
• Wolfgang Lohmann (DESY-Zeuthen, Germany)
• Dan Peterson (Cornell U, USA)
• Yasuhiro Sugimoto (KEK, Japan)
• Tohru Takeshita (Shinsu U, Japan)
• Harry Weerts (Michigan State U, USA)
• Our website
• https//wiki.lepp.cornell.edu/wws/bin/view/Pro
  jects/WebHome

3

• Charge for WWS LC Detector RD Panel 13th Jan
  2005
• Create and maintain a register of ongoing RD
  programs relevant for LC experiments, which
  should include RD goals and schedules, names of
  participating institutions and their
  responsibilities, relevant publications, level of
  support, and web-links to current work. The RD
  programs should include not only those required
  for the proposed detector concepts, but also
  those needed for measurements of luminosity,
  energy, and polarization (LEP) and those
  associated with the masking system, possible beam
  EMI, and other areas which may a overlap with
  MDI. The registration of such MDI projects should
  be performed jointly with the MDI panel. Maintain
  a central web repository for this information,
  and update it regularly.
• .
• .
• .
• .
• 5. Continue these activities, and whatever
  further activities are judged important to
  prepare needed RD for LC detectors, until a
  global lab assumes these responsibilities

4
Addendum to charge, and action plan from Panel

• Addendum to our charge, given to us by ILCSC
  on 27th September (following meeting with Barry
  Barish et al on 18th August in Snowmass)
• At the request of the chair of the ILCSC,
• Produce a written report by the end of 2005
  which identifies and prioritises the topics and
  areas of detector RD which need immediate
  support. Inputs to this should be collected both
  from the detector concept teams and from all the
  detector RD collaborations and groups
  interested, via their contact persons with the
  Detector RD Panel. Individual proposals should
  not be identified. This report will initially be
  submitted to the WWS-OC, and then passed to the
  ILCSC.
• Could lead to expanded funds for detector RD in
  USA (and possibly elsewhere) as early as FY2006
• Given this timescale, we needed to move fast

5

• Action plan, unanimously agreed by our Panel on
  11th October
• A topic is typically a body of work within a
  subdetector,
• eg the minimisation of endplate thickness
  within the TPC subdetector
• Priority 1 Results needed urgently for proof of
  principle, to significantly enhance physics
  capability and/or reduce costs. Results needed
  in order to prepare LOI at end of 2008 (or as
  late as 2010 for lower-cost detector systems,
  such as BEAMCAL, LUMICAL, vertex detector)
• Priority 2 Essential RD, but not a potential
  showstopper, so results post-LOI will be OK. Or,
  RD with goals on a longer timescale than ILC
  startup, eg for upgrade to 1 TeV
• Some Priority 2 items will eventually evaporate,
  for subdetector options which arent incorporated
  in an approved overall detector (e.g. at least
  8/10 of vertex detector technology options)
• To first order, our Panel is simply collecting
  assessments from our wise contact people. If we
  have doubts about priorities suggested or sums
  estimated , we will resolve our differences in
  discussion with them.

6
Subdetector
eg TPC, Si tracker, ECAL
Contact people
Project N1
Project N
See Panel web page for guidelines as to meaning
of a project
Min endplate thickness
TOPICS
Optimise gas mix
Priorities
1
2
No question of fiddling around with secure funding
New money
Secure funding
1
2
2
1
Tbd, 1 or 2
Our job Publish needs for each Priority 1 topic
7
CERN Courier November 2005
formerly Bids to host site selection
8
Window for Detector RD
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
GDE (Design)
(Construction)
Technology Choice
Acc.
CDR
TDR
Start Global Lab.
Detector Outline Documents
CDRs
LOIs
Det.
Done!
Detector RD Panel

Collaboration Forming
RD Phase
Detector
Construction
Andy White, SiD RD plans, Snowmass, 20 Aug
2005 Currently (?) Accelerator BCD end 2005
Detector RD Panel
Report end 2005
3 (or 4?) DODs March 2006
Detector CDR end 2006 In
practice, detector RD will extend much later,
being continued within the approved
collaboration(s)
Tevatron
SLAC B
HERA
LHC
T2K

9
Input from detector RD groups

• Dan Peterson and colleagues at Cornell U have
  set up, maintained and continue developing an
  excellent website for the RD reports
• Since LCWS2005, our Panel has worked via
  e-mail, phone calls and personal contacts, to
  establish one contact person per detector
  collaboration (or per group, if preferred by the
  groups), and to help that person complete the
  register for their project
• Response rate was slow till end of Snowmass,
  because we had no carrots and no sticks
• This has changed with the Addendum to our charge.
  Groups have at last recognised the disadvantages
  of being left out
• 2nd Nov, 7 projects added from Fermilab
  
  4th Nov, 6 projects added from from
  SLAC
• More to come, eg from DESY? Karsten Buesser et
  al, Ralf Gerhards et al,
• One extremely laid-back contact person eventually
  thanked me for my persistence

10

• Funding Inquiry Form has been sent to all our
  contact people (40 at Snowmass, now 70)
• Asked them to define topics as
• Priority 1
• Priority 2
• For their Priority 1 work only, asked about
  level of established support for next 3 years
  (alternatively, support in 2005) broken down as
• Equipment (meaning all non-staff costs) in or
  
• Academics
• Students in FTEs
• Support staff
• Asked about additional support needed (2006-2008
  or 2006-2010) to achieve their Priority 1 goals
• Requested a separate form for each funding
  country NOT funding agency! (with
  EU considered to be a separate country)
• Panel members then spoke to (almost) all our
  contact people by phone
• We introduced escape clauses for
  multinationals, those unable to guess their
  budget for next year, those with problems
  separating academics and support staff, people
  with rivals on our Panel, etc. All our contact
  people are now satisfied, we hope

11

• Layout of the ILC Detector RD Panel Report, to
  be completed by 31st December
• Executive Summary
• Detector Systems
• LEP (Ray Frey, )
• Vertexing (Chris D, )
• Tracking gaseous (Dan Peterson, )
• Tracking - silicon (Harry Weerts, )
  plus 1 page per project
  information
• Calorimetry (Wolfgang Lohmann, )
  including Research Statement
• Muon tracking (Harry Weerts, )
  contributed by each contact person
• PID (Chris D, )
  to the Panel website
• DAQ OMIT?
• Electromagnetic Interference (Chris D, )
• Solenoid (Harry Weerts, )
• Current funding levels and urgent needs for
  expansion
• To be presented by topic and by country, not by
  project. But we will list the projects that have
  identified their needs, and those that have not,
  the latter under the heading
• No information provided assumed to have
  no requirements for future support

12
Missing Topics

• Example PID based on advanced DIRC could be
  important, given the possible use for heavy quark
  sign-selection, and excellent recent progress on
  focusing DIRC (Jerry VaVra et al) and on MPPCs
  (multi-pixel photon counters) by Hamamatsu
  photonics in collaboration with Shinsu U and
  Kyoto U
• Are there others who have been discouraged by
  lack of support, from pursuing potentially
  important RD studies for ILC?
• System integration inner electronics, cables,
  connectors, cooling, etc is unfashionable but
  could be decisive between subdetector options.
  This was left far too late in case of LHC
  experiments. Claimed by some in ILC to be
  covered by detector concepts, but each subsystem
  should work through this in order to be
  considered for an LOI.

13

• Most seriously, could these issues threaten the
  PFA concept?
• To satisfy the needs of ILC physics (where many
  important event types will appear as multi-jet
  topologies) PFA must continue to perform
  extremely well in the forward region

Dave Burke LCWS 1991 Saariselka Idealised PFA
over 4 pi sr
14

• Given the mediocre record of LEP detectors and
  SLD for forward tracking, excellent performance
  in this region should not be taken for granted
• PFA has been advertised for ILC since LCWS 1991,
  and jet energy resolution of 30/sqrt(Ejet ) has
  been suggested since Snowmass 1996
• Isnt it about time it was demonstrated? Note
  comment from one great expert on jet energy
  measurement a few years ago that these people
  are completely crazy
• First problem requires full simulation and
  reconstruction software. We have three of these
  monsters, but after 15 years, are any of them yet
  up to the job? Is this a case of divide and be
  conquered?
• Note that reconstruction should include effects
  of secondary interactions of tracks in jets, and
  missing neutrinos in heavy-quark jets (possible
  VXD-related patchup) as well as photon
  conversions (which is the easiest of the 3 to
  deal with)

15
Admittedly, pbar-p annihilation in the endplate
of the vertex detector or TPC, to 8 pions, is an
extreme example But secondary interactions of
pions will be common pi-N elastic scattering
pi-N charge exchange
scattering pi-N inelastic scattering
will all need to be handled differently ..
16

• Minimising the thickness of TPC
  endplate/electronics/cooling (and corresponding
  RD for silicon tracker) is surely a Priority 1
  topic
• But what are the requirements (in interaction
  lengths, presumably) in order to reach the
  necessary precision in measurement of Ejet?
• At Snowmass, Sonja Hillert introduced the concept
  of the luminosity factor, the factor by which
  the integrated luminosity would need to be
  increased, to compensate for a less performant
  detector
• For the vertex detector, she showed that
  L-factors of about 2 could result from an
  increase in Rbp from 12-15 to 25 mm. Given the
  cost of running ILC (circa 120 M p.a.?) one can
  justify a very extensive RD effort by the MDI
  people in order to guarantee the small radius
  beampipe
• What is the corresponding luminosity factor if
  one would accept an endplate system for barrel
  tracking which is easy to build, compared with
  one that needs substantial RD?
• Is it unfair to describe these RD activities as
  missing topics?

17
Longer term plans preliminary discussion with
GDE

• An initial discussion between a few RD Panel
  members, all WWS-OC chairmen, and Barry Barish
  for GDE took place on Aug 18th at Snowmass
• Suggestion is being considered of evolving to a
  second phase, where our panel would be replaced
  by a committee under the GDE
• This committee would review individual proposals,
  hold open session presentations, appoint
  referees, set milestones, require progress
  reports, etc.
• Current composition of Detector RD Panel would
  not be appropriate we are all ILC insiders
  with potential conflicts of interest

18

• Wise advice from Enzo Iarocci, who chaired the
  DRDC for 3 years, starting 1990, in the phase
  that led to the formation of the LHC detector
  collaborations (4 proposals that condensed into
  ATLAS and CMS)
• Panel should have a modest budget (DRDC had
  approx 6M euros p.a.) in order to provide initial
  backing for approved projects. Could FALC help
  with such a central pool of funding?
• Endorsement by this Panel would be a powerful
  stimulus for support from national funding
  agencies
• Panel should organise Open Sessions, for
  presentation of proposals and status reports.
  For 3 years, the Open DRDC meetings at CERN were
  the main public platform for many LHC-related
  matters
• To minimise costs and guarantee large audiences,
  it may be good to schedule these meetings as part
  of regional and international ILC gatherings
  (such as the ECFA/DESY workshop in Vienna next
  week, LCWS2006 in Bangalore)
• DRDC was effective in rejecting a number of
  proposals, and in helping to focus RD in the
  critical period before the formation of the LHCC,
  and of the detector collaborations

19
Conclusions

• The urgent task of the Detector RD Panel is to
  establish the current levels of support in
  different countries, and quantify the needed
  expansion, in order for the urgent Priority 1
  goals to be realised in time
• It hasnt been easy, but we are now on track to
  achieve this by the end of the year
• There are dangers, the most extreme expressed to
  our Panel being that the haves could be reduced
  to the level of the have-nots, but one has to
  be somewhat optimistic, or one would not work in
  our field
• Creation of a global peer review panel with a
  modest budget to support projects could help to
  stimulate the expanded programme that everyone in
  the ILC detector community knows to be urgently
  needed
• gt90 of support will continue to be supplied by
  national funding sources, in any circumstances

20
Additional Material
21

• The GDE Plan and Schedule

2005 2006 2007 2008
2009 2010
Global Design Effort
Project
LHC Physics
Baseline configuration
Reference Design
Technical Design
ILC RD Program
Bids to Host Site Selection
International Mgmt
22
Henri Videau Pb-Si sandwich Moliere radius 2.1 cm
23


Jet charge Vertex charge (S Hillert) Charge
dipole SV/TV lepton SV/TV kaon Charge of
tertiary D
S Riemann LC-Th-2001-007
Places highest performance requirements on vertex
detector, and need R_bp 12-15 mm. Such
measurements of differential cross-sections and
angular correlations in multi-jet processes are
entirely inaccessible at LHC
24
Input from Concept Groups

• Groups were requested by Snowmass to deliver
  reports describing their current RD activities
  and future needs, in order to turn their studies
  into proposals based on established detector
  technologies
• The SiD group provided a detailed document
  including a spreadsheet covering all their
  detector subsystems. Thanks to Andy White for
  this
• We received outlines from the other concept
  groups. Thanks to Ties Behnke and Yasuhiro
  Sugimoto
• These (possibly updated) will be published as
  part of the overall RD Panel Report, at end of
  this year

25
Received 2nd November via Marcel
Demarteau active pixels Ray Yarema
Fermilab   active pixels based on SOI
technology  Ron Lipton Fermilab    hybrid
pixels  Dave Christian Fermilab   vertex
detector mechanical studies  Bill Cooper
Fermilab   5 T Solenoid studies  Rich Smith
Fermilab   Particle-flow algorithms and related
simulation software  Adam Para Ferimilab   Beampip
e design  Bill Cooper Fermilab
26
Received 4th November 2005 via John Jaros and
Mike Woods Si/W ECAL conceptual design    Yannis
Karyotakis SLAC/Annecy Microstrip sensor,
mounting, cabling    Tim Nelson SLAC VXD
expected performance, technology selection, EMI
issues    Su Dong SLAC Background calculations
Takashi Maruyama SLAC IR design   Tom
Markiewicz  SLAC Polarimetry   Ken Moffeit 
SLAC Any more to come, from DESY, CERN, etc?