Title: ILC Detector R
1ILC 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
2ILC 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
4Addendum 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.
6Subdetector
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
7CERN Courier November 2005
formerly Bids to host site selection
8Window 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
9Input 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
12Missing 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)
15Admittedly, 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?
17Longer 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
19Conclusions
- 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
20Additional 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
22Henri Videau Pb-Si sandwich Moliere radius 2.1 cm
23Jet 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
24Input 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
25Received 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
26Received 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?