Next steps
of ILC Detector/Physics Studies
Sakue Yamada
SiDWS@Eugege
Nov15, 2010
2010/11/15
S.Yamada
SiD WS@Eugene
1
Where we are
• Fall 2007: Call for LOIs was made by ILCSC
• Mar.2008: IDAG formed & 3 LOI groups known
2007
RDR
2008
•
•
•
•
•
Mar.2009: 3 LOIs submitted
Summer 2009: IDAG recommendation
Oct 2009: Work plan of the validated groups
Mar:2009: IDAG began monitoring the groups
End 2010: Interim report to be produced
2009
2010
Now
2011
2012
• End 2012: DetailedS.Yamada
Baseline
Design Report
SiD WS@Eugene
2010/11/15
2
Where we are (cont’ed)
• SiD and ILD groups are in the middle of
detector R&D, integration studies, and
physics simulation,
to complete Detailed Baseline Design of their concepts.
You collaborate
with ILD （through 5 common task groups）,
and with R&D collaborations and CLIC detector group.
IDAG monitors the progress of SiD and ILD
and the activity of the CTGs.
2010/11/15
S.Yamada
SiD WS@Eugene
3
Purpose of the Detailed Baseline Designs
In 2012, when GDE will complete the ILC design to
propose the project, we need to present
that detectors can be built
and desired physics can be pursued at ILC.
The detectors must have unprecedentedly high precision,
e.g. for recoil mass or jet-jet mass measurement.
High resolution and Fine granularity
> advanced Component R&D
Hermeticity, dead material (area) reduction
> Integration studies
• Realistic physics simulation to confirm performance
2010/11/15
S.Yamada
SiD WS@Eugene
4
Work plan
• 9 items to be fulfilled in preparing DBD: e.g.
to finish R&D of critical components for feasibility
proof, to define baseline design, to complete push-pull
studies, etc.
• The resource situation is hard and getting worse.
This is happening in all regions.
• During the LCWS09 last March, we decided to relax the
level of accomplishment of each item seeing the available
resources.
e.g. Reduction of benchmark reactions
• IDAG agreed with the measure.
However, we have to keep the minimum line.
2010/11/15
S.Yamada
SiD WS@Eugene
5
Component R&D
• So far good progress has been made.
Resource condition of each region
Europe: the new budget (AIDA) was approved
but reduced relative to the present EUDET (till end 2010).
Asia: e.g. JSPS grant renewal is approaching (tough competition).
US: university budget will end FY2012.
The funding scheme is changing and may become harder.
IDAG noted this problem through the interview of the
detector R&D CTG during the last IDAG meeting.
Both ILCSC and PAC are informed of the situation.
2010/11/15
S.Yamada
SiD WS@Eugene
6
Integration
Many items of integration are crucial
• Detector components into a system
Dead material/area deteriorates the performance and they
tend to increase as study goes on.
simulation with realistic configuration needed
• Integration with the accelerator
Here push-pull is a critical item to be studied.
Vibration, relocation of the components (acc. & det.),
switching period, etc.
Through integration studies are required to be sure
that the designed performance is realized.
2010/11/15
S.Yamada
SiD WS@Eugene
7
Integration (continued)
Issue:
Engineering support is lacking or missing.
This is common for the two detector groups.
The reason is likely:
•
The importance of engineering in the R&D phase is not
understood well.
• ILC project has no “host” laboratory yet.
Each supporting lab has its own urgent project.
The request, which was made through ILCSC before the
last PAC, is waiting for a response yet.
Our lesson: We had to be quick to react to the offer for help
in making a concrete request. The urgency was not shown.
2010/11/15
S.Yamada
SiD WS@Eugene
8
Physics Simulation
• New benchmarks were proposed by Physics CTG.
• Being considered by the joint working group of ILD, SiD,
Software and physics representatives based on the
proposed list and the suggestion of IDAG.
It will be finished soon.
• Various software tools are being prepared by the
software CTG.
• A new working groups for event generation was set up.
• Hope: when the detector baselines are made,
simulation can be started with these tools.
• There can be new contribution from the CLIC.
2010/11/15
S.Yamada
SiD WS@Eugene
9
IDAG monitoring
• IDAG meets twice a year now.
• IDAG met during IWLC2010 in Geneva last October.
1. IDAG discussed with the management, and
interviewed the detector groups, SiD and ILD, two
CTGs, detector R&D CTG and Software CTG.
2. IDAG observed the status and issues of detector R&D
made by the various R&D collaborations.
3. IDAG recognizes the importance of R&D beyond the
TDR phase and expresses its concern about funding.
4. Report was made during the ECFA plenary (in Geneva)
and to PAC (last week) by Michel.
2010/11/15
S.Yamada
SiD WS@Eugene
10
Cooperation with CLIC and Mu-col
• In Europe combined study for ILC+CLIC R&D is the recent
way to obtain resources.
• ILD and SiD were adapted also for CLIC detectors. And
intensive cooperation with CLIC detector has been
developed.
• It mitigates some of the resource problem.
• Besides joint funding, exchange of knowledge/info,
and participation to CLIC-CDR preparation are going.
The cooperation leads to a better understanding
of the ILC detectors, too.
2010/11/15
S.Yamada
SiD WS@Eugene
11
We need to note…
• Under the present human resources, we still wish that
necessary works be completed in time to prepare for DBD.
• The cooperation may give effects on our plan (both +/-).
• We hope good balance is reached in total, if not on
everyday base, and the cooperation build a win-win
relation.
• In US, a similar move for cooperation or joint request
for funding between ILC & Mu-C is under discussion.
Effort for ILC may be defocused in such an environment.
But we wish you do keep eyes on DBD (and the interim
report, as well) and to accomplish desired milestones.
(This SiD Work Shop IS very important.)
2010/11/15
S.Yamada
SiD WS@Eugene
12
Upcoming works/programs
• Interim report
• Update of planning taking realistic resources into
account
(This will be asked by IDAG at the coming meeting in
Eugene.)
• Participation to BAW2 at SLAC in January
and preparation for it.
• a common costing method for DBD (IDAG’s suggestion) (a
joint WG is being formed.)
• Participation in the CPDG discussions for after 2012
2010/11/15
S.Yamada
SiD WS@Eugene
13
Interim Report
• We plan to make an interim report by spring next year.
• It will be a report to ILCSC, but will be circulated to the
community and beyond, too.
• It describes physics overview, overview of the LOI
process, activities of R&D and integration, simulation
and the activity of the common task groups and the
working groups.
• In a sense it makes an update of the RDR and will be
useful for us, too.
• It will be rather short and easy to read with a help of the
communicators. The style will be similar with the interim
report of GDE.
2010/11/15
S.Yamada
SiD WS@Eugene
14
What will happen to DBDs ?
• The question = ‘ How ILC will be pushed forward after the
TDR phase ?’
• We need a clear view about how the ILC project will be
brought forward toward realization.
• We are all waiting good news from LHC.
• But cannot simply wait putting the completed DBD on a
bookshelf. Together with GDE’s TDR, our DBD must be
fully effective in the project implementation effort.
There should be a mechanism for this.
• There are more R&D to continue, remaining physics
studies to be refined. There should be also a mechanism
to strengthen these efforts.
2010/11/15
S.Yamada
SiD WS@Eugene
15
What comes next (cont’ed)
• GDE studies the governance and project
implementation issues and we participate.
It is a role of ILCSC and/or ICFA to lay down a
program after the TDR phase, regarding
to propose the project to the governments
and to seek ways for discussions.
2010/11/15
S.Yamada
SiD WS@Eugene
16
ILCSC took a new move
• In the last ILCSC meeting, siting sub-group of
ILCSC (J. Mnich, P. Oddone, A. Suzuki) proposed
a possible scheme for the next steps.
• The idea is outlined in a white paper on
Comprehensive Project Design Guideline, in
which there are propositions on the site selection
method, governance cases and an intermediate
step to take.
• The document is open for comments now.
• This is indeed a guideline and details are left open.
It makes a starting point for discussions in the
community.
2010/11/15
S.Yamada
SiD WS@Eugene
17
We welcome this proposition
• Details are for everybody to read the paper and
comment.
• CPDG proposes a transient scheme which conducts the
project after the TDR phase to prepare the final form.
• The transient scheme can be regarded as similar to the
present GDE & Detector Management scheme, but can
be made more solid or strengthened in order to work
both for continuation of R&D and for realization of the
project.
• To realize the new system and to make it effective,
we have to bring our inputs for the discussion.
We have experiences and know difficulties to be improved.
2010/11/15
S.Yamada
SiD WS@Eugene
18
The White Paper is open for comments
• The LC community should join this initiative of
ILCSC.
• We wish to participate in the discussions to design
the details of the coming scheme.
• I believe the voice of the community is the
strongest force to move it.
• During this WS, you can discuss what features are
needed for the new scheme.
2010/11/15
S.Yamada
SiD WS@Eugene
19
Summary
• We are in the middle of the way to complete detailed
baseline design.
• We understand resources are limited and getting less for
R&D works, integration works and simulation studies.
• Cooperation with CLIC detector is going widely. We hope
this ends up with win-win relation. And similar one with
Mu-col may start in the US.
• Under this circumstance we have to complete DBD as
intended. Update of planning is needed seeing resources.
• For the next step after 2012, ILCSC published CPDG. We
wish to study it and comment to create a desirable
scheme to come to project realization.
2010/11/15
S.Yamada
SiD WS@Eugene
20
Back up
2010/11/15
S.Yamada
SiD WS@Eugene
21
Items for the planning of the detector groups
1. Continue R&D on critical components to
demonstrate proof of principle
2. Define a feasible baseline design
(Options may also be considered.)
3. Complete basic mechanical integration of the
baseline design accounting for insensitive zones
4. Develop a realistic simulation model of the
baseline design, including faults and limitations
5. Develop a push-pull mechanism working with
relevant groups
6. Develop a realistic concept of integration with the
accelerator including the IR design
2010/11/15
S.Yamada
SiD WS@Eugene
22
Plan of the detector groups (cont’ed)
7. Simulate and analyze benchmark reactions, which
can be updated
8. Simulate and analyze some reactions at 1 TeV,
including realistic higher energy backgrounds
demonstrating the detector performance.
9. Develop an improved cost estimate.
2010/11/15
S.Yamada
SiD WS@Eugene
23