ilc detectors - concepts and r&d status/plans - 清華大学、北京、 jan 12, 2009 hitoshi...

ILC Detectors - concepts and R&D status/plans -

清華大学、北京、 Jan 12, 2009

Hitoshi Yamamoto

東北大学

H. Yamamoto, Beijing, Jan, 2009

ILC running scenario

■ 1st stageEnergy 200-500 GeV, scannableepolarization > 80%500 fb-1in first 4 years

■ 2nd stageEnergy upgrade to ~1TeV1000 fb-1in 3-4 years

(http://www.fnal.gov/directorate/icfa/para-Nov20-final.pdf)


ILC options

■ Additional 500 fb-1 at 500 GeV CM in 2~3 years Depends on results from LHC, ILC phase I.

■ e+ polarization of 50% or more ~30% polarization is in the baseline

■ , e, ee colliders Photons generated by inverse Compton scattering of las

er

■ Giga-Z (running on Z-pole) 109 Z’s in a few months (esp. b-tagging & beam polariz

ation)


ILC Physics

Phase I Phase II Time


ILC features

■ Well-defined initial state Known initial e+e- 4-momentum Known e- spin (e+ spin optional)

■ Clean environment Exploited to achieve good detector performance

sMomentum, vertexingJet reconstruction

■ → Pair creation of SUSY particles and Higgs-strahlung as just a few examples :


Smuon detection- use of polarization (bkg rejection) -

■ Signal : + and nothing. Plot acoplanarity of e+e +.

■ Polarized e (R) can reduce W+ W background.

€

e+e− → ˜ μ R+ ˜ μ R

− , ˜ μ R → μ ˜ χ 10


Masses of smuon and LSP- well-defined initial state -

■ Energy of smuon is known (= beam energy)

■ Use the endpoints of for simultaneous determination of and

■ Can also determine the spin by ang. dis. of ’s

€

e+e− → ˜ μ R+ ˜ μ R

− , ˜ μ R → μ ˜ χ 10

€

m( ˜ μ R )

€

m( ˜ χ 10)


SUSY Lagrangian Reconstruction- use of polarization (interaction picker) -

■ Ecm = 500 GeV, 50 fb-1

■ Serves as a test of GUT relation (or other mechanism)

€

σ(e+eR− → ˜ e R

+ ˜ e R− )

€

σ(e+eR− → ˜ χ 1

+ ˜ χ 1−)

€

m( ˜ χ 1+)

€

m( ˜ χ 10)

€

(M1,tanβ,M2,μ)Fit to €

( ˜ W + , ˜ H u+ )

M 2 2mW cosβ

2mW sinβ μ

⎛

⎝ ⎜

⎞

⎠ ⎟

˜ W −

˜ H d−

⎛

⎝ ⎜

⎞

⎠ ⎟Wino-Higgsino mass term

With polarized e- beam


Higgs-strahlung- well-defined initial state -

■ Tagged Higgs Factory 5σ detection : ~ 1yr at LHC, ~ 1 day at ILC Br(H→invisible) can also be measured

■ Momentum resolution ~ x10 better than LHC required

€

e+e− → Zh, Z → μμ ,ee


Higgs Couplings- distinguish

models -

(By S. Yamashita)

SUSY (2 Higgs Doublet Model)

Extra dimension(Higgs-radion mixing)

■ Good b,c tagging by vertexing required


Jet(quark) reconstruction

■ With , Z/Wjj can be reconstructed and separated

€

σE / E = 0.6 / E(GeV)

€

σE / E = 0.3/ E(GeV)

€

σE / E = 0.3/ E

Many important modes are multi-jet.

WW/ZZ separation


ILC Detector Performances■ Vertexing: ~1/5 rbeampipe, <1/30 pixel size (wrt LHC)

■ Tracking: ~1/6 material, ~1/10 resolution (wrt LHC)

■ Jet reconstruction: ~1/2 resolution (wrt LHC)

€

σ ip = 5μm ⊕10μm / psin3 / 2 θ

€

σ(1/ p) = 5 ×10−5 /GeV

€

σE / E = 0.3/ E(GeV)

Required to realize the ILC’s physics potential (not a luxuary)


ILC Detector R&Ds

■ Challenging performances realized by Low-mass detectors Fine granularities Small beam size (vertexing closer to IP) Development of new detector elements

Pixel sensors, SiPM/MPPC, GEM/Micromegas, etc.

Optimized detector integration e.g. Jet reconstruction Assembly and installation, MDI issues

■ Intensive R&D efforts are on-going on all the above


ILC Management Structure

ILCSC

GDEGDE Director

Research DirectorateResearch Director

PAC

AAP IDAG

FALC

WWS

Accelerator Experimental program

AcceleratorAdvisoryPanel

InternationalDetectorAdvisoryGroup

FundingAgencies forLargeColliders

Sakue YamadaBarry Barish


WWS World-wide study of the physics and detectors for

future linear colliders ■ Established in 1998

■ Coordinated experimental efforts of LC/ILC Organized International LC workshops (LCWS) Management though Panels

MDI, R&D, physics benchmark, cost, …

■ WWS panels are superceded by those under the research directorate

■ WWS continues to represent wider community interested in ILC e.g. continues to organize LCWS


Detector Timelinesynchronized with

machine■ Detector Design Phase I : ends 2010

Focus on critical R&Ds

Detector LOI validation by IDAG Update physics performance Prepare for LHC physics

■ Detector Design Phase II : ends 2012 Re-formulate physics program based on LHC re

sults Confirm physics performance Complete necessary R&Ds Complete technical designs with costing


Why LOI Now?

■ Detector design effort should be in phase with that of machine. From the past experience, detectors take about the sam

e time for construction and assembly as the machine. In order to proceed, machine needs detector design (ex

p. MDI/IR region design).

■ The process of ILC detector group formation should be open to all. Give chance to all interested parties

■ Signing LOI does not indicate a formal commitment to the detector concept (This not a ‘collaboration’).


Detector LOI Validation by IDAG

■ Call for LOI was made Oct, 2007

■ LOI submission deadline March 31, 2009

■ Time scale of validation ~ 1/2 year (fall 2009)

■ Validation NOT a down-selection to two detectors at this tim

e.

(ILC will have two detectors in push-pull)


Validation means:■ Are the physics goals convincing ?

■ Is the detector concept suited and powerful enough for them?

■ Does push-pull work OK ?

■ Is the detector feasible ? Are the necessary R&Ds progressing fast enough ? Is the cost estimation reasonable ?

■ Is the group powerful enough for the design phase ?

If the answers are all ‘yes’, then the LOI is ‘validated.’’

LOI process helps to identify and organize critical R&Ds.


LOI Groups

■ So far, 3 groups submitted EOIs to ILCSC

4th

SiD

GLD

LDC

ILD

+ (2007

summer)


Jet Reconstruction Methods

■ PFA (particle flow algorithm) Measure charged particles with trackers Measure neutrals with calorimeters Remove over-counting (e.g. charged hadron showers) Requires fine granularity and sophisticated logic

■ Compensating calorimetry Measure EM and hadronic shower components separately Re-weight them to obtain jet energy

Two approaches


Detector Concepts

ILD SiD 4th

TrackerTPC + Si-stri

p Si-strip TPC or Si-strip or DC

Calorimetry PFA PFA compensating

B 3.5 T 5 T 3.5 T

ECAL Rin 1.84 m 1.27 m 1.5 m

Rout 6.6 m 6.45 m 5.5 m

Zout 6.7 m 6.45 m 6.4 m

• ECAL/HCAL inside solenoid• All uses some pixel vertexing


4th■ Dual-readout calorimeters (comp

ensation, not PFA) Scint+Cerenkov

■ Iron-less double solenoid (no return yoke) Light Good muon tracking

■ Subdetector choices Pixel vertexing Tracking

Clucou (cluster-counting): DC

And/or Si-strip Or TPC

Dream cal test

solenoid


ILD■ Cambridge ILD meeting (Sep11-13/08)

ILD reference parameters defined B = 3.5 T ECAL Rin = 185 cm etc.

GLD and LDC are truly unified! Some options are clearly open and w

ill be in LOI ECAL technologies (schint. Si) VTX configurations etc.

Agreed to use a single software framework managed jointly.

Mostly based on MOKKA/Marlin With good parts of Jupiter/Satellit

e

■ Seoul ILD meeting (Feb16-18/09) Last workshop before LOI submission


ILD■ Vertex

5-6 layers Technology - open

■ Si-strip tracker 2 barrel + 7 forward disks outer TPC, end TPC

■ TPC GEM or MicroMEGAS (or Si-pix

el)

■ ECAL Si-W or Scint-strip

■ HCAL Scint-tile (or digital HCAL)


SiD

■ Vertex 5 barrel lyrs, 4 disks Technology - open

■ Si-strip tracker 5 lyrs barrel, 5 lyrs f

orward

■ EMCAL Si-W, 30 lyrs, pixel (4

mm)2

■ HCAL Scint-tile or digital H

CAL, 38 lyrs


SiD

■ Boulder SiD meeting (Sep16-19/08) Engineering workshop

By the SiD engineering group Beam tube, ECAL, HCAL designs etc.

SiD workshop Geared toward LOI planning Benchmarking, PFA, optimization Subdetector groups charged to answer IDAG questions

Detailed schedule made for LOI


LOI groups and R&D groups

by Yasuhiro Sugimoto


WWS R&D Panel Reviews■ Goal

Improved communications → enhanced R&Ds

■ Reviewers R&D panel members, external experts, funding a

gency reps. Chair: C. Damerell

■ Had 3 reviews: Feb 07, Beijing : Tracking Jun 07 DESY : Calorimetry Oct 07 Fermilab : Vertexing

■ Reports http://physics.uoregon.edu/~lc/wwstudy/detrdrev.ht

ml


Vertexing Review

■ Challenge: (20m)2 pixel over 1 ms bunch train→occupancy too high Solutions:

Bunch id (ideal), time-slice a train (~20), small pixel

■ ~10 technologies reviewed Bunch id: Chronopixels, SOI/3D Time-slice: CPCCD, MAPS, deep N-well, CAP, DEPFET, ISI

S Small pixel: FPCCD

■ Review: ‘All options hold promise, unable to eliminate any of

them.’ ‘2~4 technologies at start-up, others for upgrades’ ‘Some have applications in other fields’


Tracking Review

■ 3 basic technologies reviewed Silicon strip (SiLC, SiD tracking) TPC (LC-TPC) Drift chamber (CLUCOU)

■ Review: ‘Extremely impressed’ ‘Currently far from goals for all options’ ‘Forward tracking’ : ‘achieved in practice?’ A large prototype (R=1m) in B=3~5 T recommended

Expensive! (not part of review)


TPC Large Prototype■ Large prototype collaboratio

n Close connections to

LCTPC collaboration Field cage + read out

EUDET End plate from Cornell

■ Parameters R ~ 38 cm B ~ 1 T (PCMAG from KEK) Test :

Field uniformityGEM, MicroMEGASSi pixel readout

■ Beam test Feb. 2009


Calorimetry Review

■ Luminosity measurement, hermeticity, beam diagnostics

FCAL collaboration (15 groups)

■ Review: ‘BEAMCAL can benefit from hadro

n machines (LHC)’ ‘Needs funding for the US part

(even before FY07 disaster)’

IP

5mrad

~40mrad

~150mr

ad

Forward calorimetry


Calorimetry Review

■ PFA-based CALICE collaboration (41 groups) SiD-CAL (17 groups, some in CALICE)

■ Compensating DREAM collaboration (8 groups) Fermilab group

■ Review: ‘PFA and compensation may both be needed’

‘Esp. Forward region’

PFA : ‘Extremely promising, but simulation alone cannot be trusted.’ ‘Use a large-scale physics prototypes’ Expensive ! (not part of review)

Compensating ‘Needs more people’ ‘The approach could be the outright winner par

ticularly in the … forward region’

General Calorimetry

26%E-1/2 achieved on Z poleFull simulationNo cheating

ILD


CALICE Beam Test

Muon trigger

Data recorded:

• 2006 – DESY/CERN• 2007 - CERN• 2008 – Fermilab MTBF

• e 1-50 GeV• (mainly for calibration)

• 2-180 GeV• Large amount of data accumulated and being analysed.

ECAL/HCAL/TCMT


Is Push-pull Possible?

■ Switching scheme Every ~ 1 month

Not enough for significant data

Switching time Short enough to minimize deadtime Needs to include alignment/calib.

■ Easier if detectors are self shielding

■ With or W/O platform? Both schemes are under study Structural estimations on-going

■ Question is still open


CLIC-ILC Collaboration

■ CLIC-ILC working groups established. CFS, BDS, Cost&schedule, Beam dynamics Detectors

Conveners: L. Linssen, D. Schlatter (CERN)F. Richard, S. Yamada (ILC research directorate)

Frequent contacts after Feb. 2008. CLIC can use the large accumulation of ILC s

oftware (e.g. jet reconstruction - done) Common subdetector R&Ds


Summary

■ The physics case for ILC remains strong as ever.

■ Unprecedented detector performances are needed to realize the physics potential of ILC.

■ 3 LOI groups (detector concept groups) are now working to submit LOI by March 31 ‘09 to be reviewed by IDAG.

■ Detector R&D groups and LOI groups are moving forward together to achieve the extremely-challenging detector performance goals. (Matrix reloaded and will be re-loaded again and again - fluid and lots of chances to join)

ilc detectors - concepts and r&d status/plans - 清華大学、北京、 jan 12, 2009 hitoshi...

Documents