1 / 38

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

ILC Detectors - concepts and R&D status/plans -. Hitoshi Yamamoto 東北大学. 清華大学、北京、 Jan 12, 2009. ILC running scenario. (http://www.fnal.gov/directorate/icfa/para-Nov20-final.pdf). 1st stage Energy 200-500 GeV, scannable e   polarization > 80% 500 fb -1 in first 4 years 2nd stage

bart
Download Presentation

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

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 Detectors - concepts and R&D status/plans - Hitoshi Yamamoto 東北大学 清華大学、北京、Jan 12, 2009

  2. ILC running scenario (http://www.fnal.gov/directorate/icfa/para-Nov20-final.pdf) • 1st stage • Energy 200-500 GeV, scannable • epolarization > 80% • 500 fb-1in first 4 years • 2nd stage • Energy upgrade to ~1TeV • 1000 fb-1in 3-4 years H. Yamamoto, Beijing, Jan, 2009

  3. 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, ee colliders • Photons generated by inverse Compton scattering of laser • Giga-Z (running on Z-pole) • 109 Z’s in a few months (esp. b-tagging & beam polarization) H. Yamamoto, Beijing, Jan, 2009

  4. ILC Physics Phase I Phase II Time H. Yamamoto, Beijing, Jan, 2009

  5. 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 performances • Momentum, vertexing • Jet reconstruction • → Pair creation of SUSY particles and Higgs-strahlung as just a few examples : H. Yamamoto, Beijing, Jan, 2009

  6. Smuon detection- use of polarization (bkg rejection) - • Signal : + and nothing. Plot acoplanarity of e+e +. • Polarized e (R) can reduce W+ W background. H. Yamamoto, Beijing, Jan, 2009

  7. 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 H. Yamamoto, Beijing, Jan, 2009

  8. SUSY Lagrangian Reconstruction- use of polarization (interaction picker) - Wino-Higgsino mass term • Ecm = 500 GeV, 50 fb-1 • Serves as a test of GUT relation (or other mechanism) to Fit With polarized e- beam H. Yamamoto, Beijing, Jan, 2009

  9. Higgs-strahlung- well-defined initial state - • Tagged Higgs Factory • 5 detection : ~ 1yr at LHC, ~ 1 day at ILC • Br(H→invisible) can also be measured • Momentum resolution ~ x10 better than LHC required H. Yamamoto, Beijing, Jan, 2009

  10. Higgs Couplings- distinguish models - • Good b,c tagging by vertexing required (By S. Yamashita) SUSY (2 Higgs Doublet Model) Extra dimension (Higgs-radion mixing) H. Yamamoto, Beijing, Jan, 2009

  11. Jet(quark) reconstruction Many important modes are multi-jet. WW/ZZ separation • With , Z/Wjj can be reconstructed and separated H. Yamamoto, Beijing, Jan, 2009

  12. 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) Required to realize the ILC’s physics potential (not a luxuary) H. Yamamoto, Beijing, Jan, 2009

  13. 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 H. Yamamoto, Beijing, Jan, 2009

  14. ILC Management Structure Funding Agencies for Large Colliders FALC ILCSC PAC WWS GDE Research Directorate Barry Barish Sakue Yamada AAP IDAG GDE Director Research Director International Detector Advisory Group Accelerator Advisory Panel Experimental program Accelerator H. Yamamoto, Beijing, Jan, 2009

  15. 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 H. Yamamoto, Beijing, Jan, 2009

  16. 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 results • Confirm physics performance • Complete necessary R&Ds • Complete technical designs with costing H. Yamamoto, Beijing, Jan, 2009

  17. Why LOI Now? • Detector design effort should be in phase with that of machine. • From the past experience, detectors take about the same time for construction and assembly as the machine. • In order to proceed, machine needs detector design (exp. 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’). H. Yamamoto, Beijing, Jan, 2009

  18. 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 time. (ILC will have two detectors in push-pull) H. Yamamoto, Beijing, Jan, 2009

  19. 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. H. Yamamoto, Beijing, Jan, 2009

  20. LOI Groups GLD • So far, 3 groups submitted EOIs to ILCSC + (2007 summer) LDC 4th SiD ILD H. Yamamoto, Beijing, Jan, 2009

  21. Jet Reconstruction Methods Two approaches • 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 H. Yamamoto, Beijing, Jan, 2009

  22. Detector Concepts ECAL/HCAL inside solenoid All uses some pixel vertexing H. Yamamoto, Beijing, Jan, 2009

  23. 4th • Dual-readout calorimeters (compensation, 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 H. Yamamoto, Beijing, Jan, 2009

  24. 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 will 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/Satellite • Seoul ILD meeting (Feb16-18/09) • Last workshop before LOI submission H. Yamamoto, Beijing, Jan, 2009

  25. 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-pixel) • ECAL • Si-W or Scint-strip • HCAL • Scint-tile (or digital HCAL) H. Yamamoto, Beijing, Jan, 2009

  26. SiD • Vertex • 5 barrel lyrs, 4 disks • Technology - open • Si-strip tracker • 5 lyrs barrel, 5 lyrs forward • EMCAL • Si-W, 30 lyrs, pixel (4mm)2 • HCAL • Scint-tile or digital HCAL, 38 lyrs H. Yamamoto, Beijing, Jan, 2009

  27. 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 H. Yamamoto, Beijing, Jan, 2009

  28. LOI groups and R&D groups by Yasuhiro Sugimoto H. Yamamoto, Beijing, Jan, 2009

  29. WWS R&D Panel Reviews • Goal • Improved communications → enhanced R&Ds • Reviewers • R&D panel members, external experts, funding agency 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.html H. Yamamoto, Beijing, Jan, 2009

  30. Vertexing Review • Challenge: • (20m)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, ISIS • 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’ H. Yamamoto, Beijing, Jan, 2009

  31. 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) H. Yamamoto, Beijing, Jan, 2009

  32. TPC Large Prototype • Large prototype collaboration • 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 uniformity • GEM, MicroMEGAS • Si pixel readout • Beam test Feb. 2009 H. Yamamoto, Beijing, Jan, 2009

  33. IP Calorimetry Review Forward calorimetry • Luminosity measurement, hermeticity, beam diagnostics • FCAL collaboration (15 groups) • Review: • ‘BEAMCAL can benefit from hadron machines (LHC)’ • ‘Needs funding for the US part (even before FY07 disaster)’ LumiCal ~150mrad BeamCal ~40mrad GamCal 5mrad Beamstrahlung H. Yamamoto, Beijing, Jan, 2009

  34. Calorimetry Review ILD General Calorimetry • 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 particularly in the … forward region’ 26%E-1/2 achieved on Z pole Full simulation No cheating H. Yamamoto, Beijing, Jan, 2009

  35. Muon trigger CALICE Beam Test ECAL/HCAL/TCMT 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. H. Yamamoto, Beijing, Jan, 2009

  36. 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 H. Yamamoto, Beijing, Jan, 2009

  37. 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 software (e.g. jet reconstruction - done) • Common subdetector R&Ds H. Yamamoto, Beijing, Jan, 2009

  38. 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) H. Yamamoto, Beijing, Jan, 2009

More Related