ILC Detector R&D

10 November 2005 DESY PRC – Chris Damerell 1

ILC Detector R&D

Chris DamerellRutherford Appleton Lab

ILC Detector R&D Panel and charge

Addendum to charge, and action plan from Panel

Input from detector R&D groups

Missing Topics

Longer term plans – Preliminary discussion with GDE

Conclusions


ILC Detector R&D 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/Projects/WebHome


Charge for WWS LC Detector R&D Panel 13th Jan 2005

1. Create and maintain a register of ongoing R&D programs relevant for LC experiments, which should include R&D goals and schedules, names of participating institutions and their responsibilities, relevant publications, level of support, and web-links to current work. The R&D 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 R&D for LC detectors, until a global lab assumes these responsibilities


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 R&D which need immediate support. Inputs to this should be collected both from the detector concept teams and from all the detector R&D collaborations and groups interested, via their contact persons with the Detector R&D 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 R&D in USA (and possibly elsewhere) as early as FY2006

Given this timescale, we needed to move fast …

Addendum to charge, and action plan from Panel


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 R&D, but not a potential showstopper, so results post-LOI will be OK. Or, R&D 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 aren’t 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.


Subdetector

Project N Project N+1

Min endplate thickness

Optimise gas mix

New moneySecure funding

2

2 211

1

Tbd, 1 or 2

TOPICS

Our job: Publish needs for each Priority 1 topic

eg TPC, Si tracker, ECAL

No question of fiddling around with secure

funding

Priorities

Contact people [See Panel web page for guidelines as to meaning of a ‘project’]


CERN Courier November 2005 formerly: ‘Bids to host; site selection’


GDE (Design) 　 (Construction)

TechnologyChoice

Acc.

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

CDR TDR Start Global Lab.

Det. Detector Outline Documents

CDRs LOIs

R&D PhaseCollaboration Forming 　 Construction

Detector R&D Panel

TevatronSLAC B

LHCHERA

T2K

Done!

Detector

“Window　for　Detector　R&D

Andy White, SiD R&D plans, Snowmass, 20 Aug 2005

Currently (?) Accelerator BCD end 2005 Detector R&D Panel Report end 2005 3 (or 4?) DODs March 2006 Detector CDR end 2006 In practice, detector R&D will extend much later, being continued within the approved collaboration(s)*

*


Input from detector R&D groups

Dan Peterson and colleagues at Cornell U have set up, maintained and continue developing an excellent website for the R&D 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’


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

Deadline for return of completed forms, and for input of Research Statements to our web page, is set for 25th November, 1 week after end of ECFA workshop in Vienna.


Layout of the ILC Detector R&D 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]

Reports from Concept Groups as submitted to Snowmass, or updated if they like ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Contact people will be sent the draft report after 25th November. Those who have

provided nothing will be given a couple of days to provide input, if they wish to

By this means, we are hoping for a full response from the community


‘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 Va’Vra 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 R&D 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.


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


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

Isn’t 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)


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 ..


Minimising the thickness of TPC endplate/electronics/cooling (and corresponding R&D 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 R&D 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 R&D?

Is it unfair to describe these R&D activities as ‘missing topics’?


Longer term plans – preliminary discussion with GDE

An initial discussion between a few R&D 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 R&D Panel would not be appropriate – we are all ILC ‘insiders’ with potential conflicts of interest


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 R&D in the critical period before the formation of the LHCC, and of the detector collaborations


Conclusions

The urgent task of the Detector R&D 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 hasn’t 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

>90% of support will continue to be supplied by national funding sources, in any circumstances


Additional Material


The　GDE　Plan　and　Schedule　

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Global　Design　Effort Project

Baseline configuration

Reference Design

ILC R&D Program

Technical Design

Bids to Host; Site Selection;

International Mgmt

LHCPhysics


Henri Videau

Pb-Si sandwich

Moliere radius 2.1 cm


*

*[Jet charge]

Vertex charge (S Hillert)

Charge dipole

SV/TV + lepton

SV/TV + kaon

Charge of tertiary DPlaces 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

S Riemann

LC-Th-2001-007


Input from Concept Groups

Groups were requested by Snowmass to deliver reports describing their current R&D 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 R&D Panel Report, at end of this year


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 Beampipe design Bill Cooper Fermilab


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?

ILC Detector R&D

Documents

Transcript of ILC Detector R&D