CLIC-ILC collaborations on detectors

1. CLIC-ILC collaborations on detectors F. Richard LAL/Orsay PAC Eugene October 2010

2. Introduction • The Joint working group on CLIC/ILC general detector issues, up to now mostly informative since collaborations takes place in a spontaneous fashion, has identified areas which need improvements • Since last PAC, the CLIC-ILC panel has had 2 phone meetings where large areas of ongoing collaborations were identified and I will review them • The IWLC2010 workshop organized at CERN under ECFA in October has given the opportunity to have a global view of the two efforts illustrating intense collaborations • Politically, CERN management is encouraging the creation of a common project CLIC-ILC to facilitate the overall strategy driven by LHC/TeVatron results PAC Eugene October 2010

3. A major event: the ECFA study meeting at CERN in October • The ECFA study meeting had ~500 registered from 25 countries at CERN with ILC+CLIC participation for physics, detectors and machine (up to 16 // sessions !) • Was jointly organized by CLIC & ILC representatives from physics and detectors + two non EU co-chairs of the WWC-OC • Large attendance for a regional meeting, ~25% of non-Europeans • The LC community is asked to provide a global scenario to respond to LHC/Tevatron (cf. the CPDG initiative) • Physics and technology (not politics) should drive the ultimate choice with early discoveries favoring ILC • This waslargelyadvocated by all parties (in particular CERN management) PAC Eugene October 2010

4. Joint working group on CLIC/ILC general detector issues • S. Yamada (RD, chair), L. Linssen (CLIC/CERN co-chair), M. Demarteau (R&D panel, SiD), F. Richard (RD EC & ILD), F. Sefkow (CALICE/ILD nominated by CLIC), M. Stanitzki (SiD), M. Thomson (ILD) • Bimonthly phone meetings : 30/3/2010, 14/6/2010, 13/8/2010 • Excel file worked out by Lucie Linssen (Appendix) and agreed upon by ILC representatives • Some examples are given below PAC Eugene October 2010

5. Ongoing collaborations • Core software development: Frameworks, geometry description, tracking, PFA, event overlays, GRID tools • Beam-induced background studies • Detector performance studies and detector optimisation for high energies (3 TeV, 1 TeV) e.g. for PFLOW and tracking • Event generation and physics benchmarking • Engineering studies and cost assessment • Solenoid studies and conductor R&D (CMS expertise) • Electronics developments (CERN expertise) • HCAL beam tests (W absorbers) PAC Eugene October 2010

6. In detail • Software workshops: Following the May 2009 workshop, a follow-up workshop is planned for July 5th 2010 at DESY. Contacts: F. Gaede, N. Graf, D. Schlatter, A. Miyamoto. • Monte Carlo generators: Two members of the CLIC study have recently joined the ILC common data sample subgroup. Ongoing cooperation, no new initiative from this WG is required. Contacts: Barklow, M. Berggren, A. Miyamoto, B. Battaglia, S. Poss • Power delivery (power pulsing, and also DC-DC and/or serial powering) with some level of synergy with sLHC and other projects: Representatives from ILD, SiD and CLIC in this working group are requested to submit suggestions for contact persons related to a new initiative on power delivery • Extended ILC-CLIC collaboration on push-pull and experimental hall: In this area many informal contacts exist already • Cost-effective ECAL sensors: In this area the influence of CERN to discuss with possible vendors could be helpful PAC Eugene October 2010

7. Large participation of ILC experts to the CLIC CDR • The ILC participation comes from the 2 concepts and from the R&D collaborations • Three out of the four main editors come from ILC • More than 50% of the chapter editors (~30) come from ILC • This means that a large fraction of the ILC detector strength is going into the CDR which is good but requires a ‘juste retour’ mechanism when the CDR is completed PAC Eugene October 2010

8. Costing issues • Should we build from the start detectors CLIC compatible ? • Note that SiD’ & ILD’ are more costly (larger sizes, use of W for the HCAL absorber) • Cost containment could be an issue recalling that ILD reaches ~400 MILCU + manpower and that ILD’ will be more costly (SiD ?)   • Discussions for the CLIC CDR costing are currently taking place with experts from machine and detector as well as representatives from ILD and SiD • CDR cost could be a minimal scaling from the ILD/SiDLoI’s taking into account the CLIC-specific detector modifications • One should try to have the same rules for CLIC & ILC costing group • SID and ILD to agree on common methods then CLIC to be invited then experts invited (started by RD) PAC Eugene October 2010

9. Issue of a well balanced collaboration • So far CLIC is benefitting from ILC part for the preparation of its CDR which is welcomed by both parties but it weakens our effort towards the DBD • IDAG has identified the problem: ‘ some shift of resources into CLIC detector design: expectation thathelp in the other direction will occur after CLIC CDR for DBD work’ • Both SiD and ILD (where students and postdocs migrate to LHC and CLIC) are suffering from reduction of manpower • It is understood that after completing the CDR in August 2011, CLIC could provide specific help for the DBD e.g. by providing inputs for a realistic study of the high energy response of our detectors (this is already happening) and by studying in common well chosen reference reactions • For this to happen, it is essential that the software compatibility be maintained • This issue has to be discussed directly between the relevant partners and our panel hopes to hear from this soon PAC Eugene October 2010

10. European Strategy update in 2012 • Quoting Rolf at IWLC10 : 2012 could be a decisive year for LC • Priorities defined in 2006 will be re-discussed: • Full exploitation of LHC • R&D for the energy & luminosity frontier, in particular CLIC • well-coordinated European activity, including CERN, through the Global Design Effort, for its design and technical preparation towards the construction decision, to be ready for a new assessment by Council around 2010 • What happens in case of LHC discovery ? • Which inputs to European Strategy from ILC Detectors & Physics ? • We should be able to eventually exploit a ‘magic moment of discovery’ (M. Peskin) • Will there be coordination of the two projects for these discussions ? PAC Eugene October 2010

11. Conclusions • Many areas of fruitful collaborations for mutual benefits • This is happening so far in a spontaneous manner and does not seem to need managerial monitoring • It will however be necessary to insure for the ILC side (which suffers from insufficient resources ) a ‘juste retour’ • This should happen when the CLIC CDR is completed, hopefully no later than August 2011 • At a later stage, an agreement for a specific participation of CLIC to the DBD of ILD and SiD should be discussed • IWLC2010 has further boosted ILC-CLIC cooperation • From now on, the LCWS workshops (once per year, next one in Granada September 2011) will be organized with the participation of CLIC representatives but we also hope for CLIC participation in regional meetings (ALCPG11 in Eugene) PAC Eugene October 2010

12. BACK UP SLIDES PAC Eugene October 2010

13. Improvement of PFLOW • At IWLC2010 M. Thomson PAC Eugene October 2010

14. PAC Eugene October 2010

15. SiD’ & ILD’ PAC Eugene October 2010

16. 6200 7755 6620 5500 ILD SiD F. Richard 11/27/09

17. Common CLIC/ILC challenges and synergies • Driving costs are EM calorimetry(mostly ECAL) and the coil • R&D on coil (meetings Oct 2009 year, next on 18 May) is being discussed at CERN • Help is asked from CERN on negotiations with industry for Si sensors for the ECAL PAC Eugene October 2010

18. PAC Eugene October 2010

19. ILD LoI Cost PAC Eugene October 2010

20. SiDLoI cost PAC Eugene October 2010

21. PAC Eugene October 2010