1 / 26

ILC Detector R&D

ILC Detector R&D. Chris Damerell Rutherford 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.

naomi
Télécharger la présentation

ILC Detector R&D

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. ILC Detector R&D Chris Damerell Rutherford 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 DESY PRC – Chris Damerell

  2. 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 DESY PRC – Chris Damerell

  3. Charge for WWS LC Detector R&D Panel 13th Jan 2005 • Create and maintain a register of ongoing R&D programsrelevant for LC experiments, whichshould 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 DESY PRC – Chris Damerell

  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 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 … DESY PRC – Chris Damerell

  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 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. DESY PRC – Chris Damerell

  6. eg TPC, Si tracker, ECAL Subdetector Contact people Project N+1 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 DESY PRC – Chris Damerell

  7. CERN Courier November 2005 formerly: ‘Bids to host; site selection’ DESY PRC – Chris Damerell

  8. “Window for Detector R&D 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 R&D Panel * Collaboration Forming R&D Phase Detector 　Construction 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 approvedcollaboration(s) Tevatron SLAC B HERA LHC T2K * DESY PRC – Chris Damerell

  9. 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’ DESY PRC – Chris Damerell

  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 • 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. DESY PRC – Chris Damerell

  11. 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 DESY PRC – Chris Damerell

  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 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. DESY PRC – Chris Damerell

  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 DESY PRC – Chris Damerell

  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 • 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) DESY PRC – Chris Damerell

  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 .. DESY PRC – Chris Damerell

  16. 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’? DESY PRC – Chris Damerell

  17. 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 DESY PRC – Chris Damerell

  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 R&D in the critical period before the formation of the LHCC, and of the detector collaborations DESY PRC – Chris Damerell

  19. 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 DESY PRC – Chris Damerell

  20. Additional Material DESY PRC – Chris Damerell

  21. 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Global Design Effort Project LHC Physics Baseline configuration Reference Design The GDE Plan and Schedule Technical Design ILC R&D Program Bids to Host; Site Selection; International Mgmt DESY PRC – Chris Damerell

  22. Henri Videau Pb-Si sandwich Moliere radius 2.1 cm DESY PRC – Chris Damerell

  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 DESY PRC – Chris Damerell

  24. 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 DESY PRC – Chris Damerell

  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 Beampipe design  Bill Cooper Fermilab DESY PRC – Chris Damerell

  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?  DESY PRC – Chris Damerell

More Related