ILC をめぐる国際情勢

1. ILCをめぐる国際情勢 高エネルギー加速器研究機構 黒川　眞一 学術創成ILC研究会 KEK 2006年12月20日

2. ILC Organization Chart ACFA ICFA ALCSC ILCSC FALC GDE Asia Regional Team European Regional Team American Regional Team

3. ICFA and the Linear Collider ICFA has been helping to guide international cooperation on and try to realize the Linear Collider more than 10 years . Major steps: 1995: First LC TRC Report, under Greg Loew as Chair 1999: ICFA Statement on Linear Collider 2002: ICFA commissioned the second LC TRC Report, under Greg Loew as Chair 2002: ICFA has established the ILC Steering Committee (ILCSC) with Maury Tigner as the 1st Chair2004 ILCSC set up ITRP and ICFA/ILCSC have approve ITRP recommendation 2005 ICFA/ILCSC has established GDE

4. Membership of the ILCSC(Present) Directors CERN Robert Aymar DESY Albrecht Wagner Fermilab Pier Oddone KEK Atsuto Suzuki SLAC Jonathan Dorfan LC Steering Group Chairs Asian Won Namkung European Torsten Akesson American Satoshi Ozaki Other Chair(2nd ) Shin-ichi Kurokawa China (IHEP Director) Hesheng Chen Russia (BINP Director) Alexander Skrinsky ICFA outside LC regions Vinod Sahni Asia Rep. Sachio Komamiya Europe Rep. Francois Richard American Rep. Jim Brau Secretary Roy Rubinstein

5. ILCSC Charter(2002) • Engage in outreach, explaining the intrinsic scientific and technological importance of the project to the scientific community at large, to industry, to government officials and politicians and to the general public • Based upon the extensive work already done in the three regions, engage in defining the scientific roadmap, the scope and primary parameters for machine and detector. It is particularly important that the initial energy, the initial operations scenario and the goals for upgradeability be properly assessed.->Parameter Committee(Chaired by Rolf Heuer)

6. Parameters for the ILC (2003) • Ecm adjustable from 200 – 500 GeV • Luminosity Ldt = 500 fb-1 in 4 years • Ability to scan between 200 and 500 GeV • Energy stability and precision below 0.1% • Electron polarization of at least 80% • The machine must be upgradeable to 1 TeV

7. ILCSC Charter (cont) • Monitor the machine R&D activities and make recommendations on the coordination and sharing of R&D tasks as appropriate. Although the accelerator technology choice may well be determined by the host country, the ILCSC should help facilitate this choice to the largest degree possible. > ITRP (International Technology Recommendation Panel) • Identify models of the organizational structure, based on international partnerships, adequate for constructing the LC facility. In addition, the ILCSC should make recommendations regarding the role of the host country in the construction and operation of the facility.

8. ITRP Recommendationendorsed by ICFA in August 2004 ICFA has decided on superconducting technology for the future linear collider (LC), by endorsing the resolution of the ITRP. The ITRP report emphasizes the importance of world-wide unified approach as a single team to design the international linear collider (ILC).-> ILCSC has established GDE

9. Global project named International Linear Collider (ILC)

10. Global Design Effort (GDE) • ILCSC set up a committee with Paul Grannis as Chair to select a Director for the GDE. • February 2005, at TRIUMF, ILCSC and ICFA unanimously endorsed the Committee’s choice. • On March 18, 2005 Barry Barish officially accepted the position at the opening of LCWS 05 meeting at Stanford.

11. Global Design Effort The Mission of the GDE • Produce a design for the ILC that includes a detailed design concept, performance assessments, reliable international costing, an industrialization plan , siting analysis, as well as detector concepts and scope. • Coordinate worldwide prioritized proposal driven R & D efforts (to demonstrate and improve the performance, reduce the costs, attain the required reliability, etc.)

12. ILC DGE ILC-MOU : Signed on May 10, 2005

13. Comment on ILC MoU • GDE activities are done on the basis of this ILC MoU • Center for High Energy Physics (CHEP), Kyungpook University of Korea and IN2P3 of France have signed the ILC MoU • This ILC MoU is valid until May 2008 and it shall be reviewed at the time of transition from RDR to TDR

14. 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 CLIC Global Design Effort Project LHC Physics Baseline configuration Reference Design The GDE Plan and Schedule Technical Design ILC R&D Program Expression of Interest to Host International Mgmt From Barry

15. ILC-Asia MOU CAT CHEP IHEP KEK PAL TIFR ATF MOU SLAC, FNAL, LBNL, Cornell CERN, DESY, Q.M.U.L., R.H.U.L, Oxford, U.C.L. IHEP, PAL, Tokyo, Kyoto, Nagoya, Waseda, KEK

16. ILCSC has setup MAC as its sub-panelMarch 2006 1. As one of the ILCSC oversight activities of GDE, MAC (MachineAdvisory Committee) has been formed in March 2006. 2. MAC reviews the GDE activities with respect to accelerators andreport to ILCSC, and, at the same time, give advice to GDE director. 3. MAC reviews BCD as soon as the document is released, and then、review the activities of GDE at appropriate time until RDR is finalized. 4. MAC meets a few times a year during this period. 5. Number of MAC members is 10-12, and members shall be selected mostly on the basis of their expertise and not on the basis of regional balance.

17. ILC MAC members

18. MAC meetings • 1st : April 6-7, 2006, at FNAL • 2nd : September 20-22, 2006, at KEK • 3rd : January10-12, 2007, at Daresbury, • 4th : Spring, 2007, in BNL

20. Sponsors • America: • Total US$70k: DOE $50k, Fermilab $10k, SLAC $10k • Supported 19 students, 7 lecturers • Asia: • KEK supported 36 students, 7 lecturers, US $ 90K • KEK also covered all local expenses (meeting rooms, A/V, school supplies, computers, local transportation, field trip, banquet, video taping, etc.) • Europe: • CERN: 5 students (one from Poland), 2 lecturers • DESY: 4 students, 2 lecturers • INFN: 2 students, 2 lecturers • IN2P3: 5 students (one from Russia) • U.K.: Oxford - 1 student, CCLRC - 1 student, EuroTeV - 1 student

21. Program

22. Program (cont…)

23. Students • In six weeks (Jan 5 – Feb 15) we received 535 applications from 44 countries • 74 students attended the school

24. Student Survey (cont…) • Will you recommend this school to your fellow students or colleagues? • If opportunity available, do you plan to work on the ILC or linear colliders in the future?

25. Next ILC School • The GDE Executive Committee has decided to propose to sponsor and organize a second school • The proposal will be presented to the ILCSC and ICFA meeting on July 30th also in Moscow. • ICFA approval is essential in order to get world-wide support for funding. • Possible place and time: Fall of 2007 in Erice

26. Asian ILC Schools • In addition to this initiatives, to hold Asian schools on ILC in China, India, Korea, etc., is highly recommendable and valuable. • ACFA has endorsed this initiative in September ACFA meeting. • Asian ILC School in India in 2007 is being planned.

27. Recent and Future ILCSC meetings • July 30, 2006, in Moscow • November 11, 20006, in Valencia • January 12, 2007 (afternoon), in Daresbury (after MAC on January 10-12). First RDR cost disclosure to ILCSC. • February 8, 2007, in Beijing • April MAC in BNL • May or June 2007, in DESY (has yet to be fixed)

28. ILCSC in Moscow • Revision of ILCSC MandateRevision of ILCSC Mandate was discussed and a draft was proposed to ICFA (without any major changes). ICFA has approved.

29. Revised Mandate of ILCSC (August 2006) • The ILCSC, as a Sub-panel of ICFA, is established in order to facilitate a global support towards the realization of the International Linear Collider as a global collaborative effort, drawing on input from regional steering committees. • The ILCSC has established the Global Design Effort (GDE) Central Team to coordinate and direct the effort of the teams in Asia, Europe and the Americas that comprise the GDE. The ILCSC, representing ICFA, will provide oversight to the GDE. • The ILCSC will monitor the progress of the GDE activities, including through reports by the GDE Director and the assessment of technical progress through reports by the MAC Chairperson.

30. Revised Mandate of ILCSC (wrt FALC) • The ILCSC will work closely with the Funding Agencies for the Linear Collider (FALC) and/or other national or international agencies to facilitate the evolution of GDE to an institution under international governance aimed at the construction of the ILC. • The ILCSC will assess and endorse budget requests for the common operations fund of the Central Team that the GDE Director will put forward to Funding Agencies for the Linear Collider (FALC) for approval. • Comment: FALC has changed its name from Funding Agencies for Linear Colliders to Funding Agencies for Large Colliders in May 2006 • FALC is now trying to write Terms of Reference

31. ILC Organization Chart ACFA ICFA ALCSC ILCSC FALC GDE Asia Regional Team European Regional Team American Regional Team

32. 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 CLIC Global Design Effort Project LHC Physics Baseline configuration Reference Design The GDE Plan and Schedule Technical Design ILC R&D Program Expression of Interest to Host International Mgmt From Barry

33. Modified Mandate of ILCSC (wrt WWS) • The Worldwide Study (WWS) will report regularly to the ILCSC and advise it on ILC physics and detector issues, while maintaining close contact with the GDE on the development of detector concepts and detector R&D • The ILCSC will monitor the progress of the detector and machine detector interface development, including through reports by the co-chairpersons of the WWS and the Machine Detector Interface Committee (MDI).

34. ILCSC in Moscow (cont) • RDR Cost ReviewILCSC felt that it should become involved in an international cost validation process, not to evaluate costs, but to study the methodology by which they are derived. • WWSHow will the selection of experiments be done, and with what criteria? The discussion has just started. Should there be an ITRP-like committee? A more permanent body? • Additional MOU SignatoriesCenter for High Energy Physics (CHEP), Kyungpook University and IN2P3 has officially showed their interest. Following the procedure outlined in the MOU, the requests will be forwarded to the existing MOU signers for approval. (these proposal have been approved)

35. ILCSC in Moscow (cont) • ILC SchoolMay 06 SOKENDAI ILC School was a great success. SK requests ILCSC’s input on the possibility of holding a second such school. It was agreed that the school was valuable in attracting interest in the ILC and in accelerator physics in general. SK will contact GDE and existing schools to see if a second ILC school can be incorporated into one of the existing series. • ILC ParametersIn order to obtain a better understanding of the relation between cost and performance, it was felt useful to ask the Parameters Subcommittee (chaired by Rolf Heuer) to re-examine its 2003 report. ILCSC decided to reactivate the Parameters Subcommittee.

36. ILCSC in Moscow (cont) • From RDR to TDRKurokawa questioned whether ILCSC should start considering actions for the transition from RDR to TDR. It was agreed that SK should make some proposals on this subject for future ILCSC consideration.

37. ILCSC in Valencia • MAC report 2nd MAC was held on September 20-22 at KEK. Ferdi Willeke (MAC Chair) reported its report to ILCSC. Nick Walker of GDE showed GDE’s response to ILCSC.It was also agreed that to have replacement of one member (Mike Harrison-> Don Hartill) and to add one more cost expert to the MAC (ILCSC has selected Masakazu Yoshioka of KEK). • Parameters Committee ReportRolf Heuer reported semi-final version of the report to ILCSC. The final version will come out soon.

38. Preliminary Conclusions (1) • Luminosity • what‘s behind the statement in the 2003 document • “app. 500 fb-1in the first four years of running, not counting year zero” • - Assuming design luminosity of 3x1034 /cm2/s running for a snowmass year of 107 s • yields 300 fb-1 of integrated luminosity. • Note: 107 s correspond to 120 (240) days running with 100% (50%) efficiency • In 2003 we assumed design luminosity only in year 4 and took 250 fb-1 for that year. • We assumed a steady increase in instantaneous luminosity from • year 0 (0% of design lumi) to year 1 (10%), year 2 (30%) and year 3 (60%) to year 4. • Result: 500 fb-1 in the first four years of running, not counting year zero • The statement • “Doubling the integrated luminosity to a total of 1 ab-1 within two additional • Years” • is a natural consequence of having achieved design luminosity in year 4

39. Preliminary Conclusions (2) Luminosity All measurements are statistically limited, lowering luminosity by a factor 2 results in doubling the running time. Since we are interested in integrated luminosity: Q1: Can we assume a longer running time per year? Q2: Is cost saving possible by running with lower current but w/o reducing the number of bunches? Reduces luminosity and beamstrahlung so that some effects cancel: The assumptions in 2003 were (reasonable?) estimates. However, these assumptions indicate that the loss in integrated luminosity is not dramatic if one starts with lower design luminosity and/or reduced number of bunches in the first few (0 to 2 ?) years provided the design luminosity is (successively) re-established in the following years. A steeper increase in luminosity performance than anticipated in the 2003 document through successive installation of the remaining parts could then still deliver the desired integrated luminosity within the anticipated time frame. Nonetheless: Reducing luminosity should be the very last option. Staging in the first few years to be discussed. No permanent de-scoping.

40. Preliminary Conclusions (3) Beamstrahlung Most measurements suffer from increased beamstrahlung thus requring more luminosity for achieving same accuracy On the other hand reduced beamstrahlung results in luminosity gain Reduced beamstrahlung equivalent to some luminosity gain dependend on physics channel (e.g. MH at E=350 GeV) Consequence:  with reduced beamstrahlung slightly lower current acceptable Higher beamstrahlung undesirable (to be quantified)

41. Preliminary Conclusions (4) Energy Highest possible energy is called for but at present there is no known measurement which could not be done at slightly reduced energy. Removing safety margins in energy reach is acceptable. Max. lumi not needed at the top energy (500 GeV), however, 500 GeV should be reachable assuming nominal gradient before knowing more about physics scenarion realised Positron Polarisation Many measurements gain from positron polarisation, thus also requiring less luminosity for same accuracy. Positron Polarisation is very beneficial in many scenarios, including SM scenarios  this option mandatory to be kept open Note: Recently the possibility of initial positron polarisation as high as 30% was mentioned for the ILC baseline configuration (eq. to 10% lumi gain?) Assuming this, a slight reduction in luminosity seems acceptable  to be verified and quantified by the physics groups

42. Preliminary Conclusions (5) • Number of IRs • Two experiments are required. • If large cost saving with one IR: Push-Pull could be an option. • However: • reasonably short switch over times (1week or so?) in order not to loose much lumi • frequent moves desired (every 2-3 months?) in order to treat both exp‘ts equally • Two detectors highly desired, one IR feasible •  See report by the push-pull task force • Energy upgrade to approx. 1TeV • An option mandatory to be kept open

43. Preliminary Conclusions (6) Gamma-Gamma Should be kept as an option for the reasons given in the 2003 document. However: more realistic studies plus possibly investments are required. Giga-Z to be kept as an option for the reasons given in the 2003 document Outlook Parameter group meeting here in Valencia to produce a preliminary written version of conclusions taking into account YOUR comments and discussions with GDE

44. ILCSC in Valencia(cont)From RDR to TDR From the Minutes of ILCSC Moscow • Kurokawa questioned whether ILCSC should start considering actions for the transition from RDR to TDR. The GDE MOU does not cover the TDR phase, and it is unlikely that FALC will take over the oversight of GDE at least in the early stages of TDR. How do we define TDR? What should be ILCSC’s role in this transition? What kind of discussion and preparation are necessary? • It was agreed that Kurokawa should make some proposals on this subject for future ILCSC consideration.

45. RDR prepare 1st drafts RDR final editing Plans until Beijing (Feb. '07) November December January February 2006 2007 Valencia Further cost consolidation CCR preparation & submission Cost & Design Freeze 30/11 Prepare for Full Cost Review SLAC Cost Review 14-16/12 Final cost corrections and documentation MAC 10-12/01/07 Agency cost briefings Beijing: RDR draft published

46. What Happens after Beijing? • Public Release of Draft RDR and Preliminary Costing at Beijing • Cost Reviews, etc • Finalize RDR by Summer 2007? • Enter into Engineering Design Phase • Planning underway internally • Design will evolve through value engineering and R&D program, • Some potential changes will effect MDI and we will need to continue close collaboration • General Goal is to have Construction Proposal ready by 2010

47. Discussion on RDR to TDR A first discussion concerning the next steps took place at Valencia and ILCSC and ILCSC has decided its action. It was agreed that ILCSC would ask GDE to give its input to ILCSC at the occasion of ILCSC meeting in Beijing in February 2007. Discussion will be continued further after Beijing meeting.

48. Action by ILCSC agreed upon • As an oversight body of GDE, ILCSC should evaluate the RDR(on the basis of report given by GDE, the MAC report, and information given by WWS). This evaluation process will need a few months after the RDR report is issued. • The Machine Advisory Committee (MAC) should evaluate the RDR from technical view point and report to ILCSC.

49. Action by ILCSC(cont) • ILCSC will ask the GDE to provide a proposal and schedule how to move forward from the RDR to the TDR, including the design of accelerators, cost estimate, organizational structure, world-wide cooperation, coordination of world-wide R&D activities, and relation with the physics community. • ILCSC will then evaluate the proposal given by the GDE.

50. Action by ILCSC(cont) • Based on this evaluation, ILCSC will recommend to ICFA on how to move from RDR to TDR phase and report to FALC. The proposal should include:a) Definition of the scope of the TDR and the action necessary to reach this scope b) Organizational structure c) Legal framework (e.g. MoU) for the RDR to TDR phase • Two important issues: 1) how to establish scheme for global-coordinated R&D for ILC (real work); 2) how to make GDE on much solid footing.