The Detector Chapter of T he Detector Concept Report

27 September, 2006 Gakujyutsu Sousei Monthly Meeting 1

The Detector Chapter of The Detector Concept Report

学術創成定例月会議９月２７日　宮本彰也

8月 7日の報告も見てくださいhttp://agenda.kek.jp/fullAgenda.php?ida=a06157

Very primitive & selected summary of on-going preparationYour comments/inputs are highly welcomed

http://agenda.kek.jp/fullAgenda.php?ida=a06157


The RDR and DCR

DCR is associated with the RDR: Due end of 2006 Detector Concept Report consists of

Physics section : ~50 Pages– Editors: Klaus Moening, Yasuhiro Okada, Joe Lykken, Mark O

reglia, Satoru Yamashita, Adbelhak Djouadi– Wiki page: http://www.linearcollider.org/wiki/

Detector section: ~150 pages– Editors: Ties Behnke, C.J.S.Damerell, John Jaros, A.M.– Based on detector DOD's and input from experts

DCR is for Non-ILC HEP researchers/beginners

Executive summary Executive summaries of RDR+DCR physics + DCR detector

Executive Summary with a help of communication experts

http://www.linearcollider.org/wiki/


The Outline of the Detector Chapter

1. General Introduction

2. Challenges for Detector Design and Technology

3. Introduction to the Detector Concepts

4. MDI Issues

5. Subsystem Designs and Technologies

6. Sub-Detector Performance

7. Integrated Physics Performance

8. Why We need 2IRs and 2 Detectors

9. Detector Costs

10. Future Options

11. Next Step

12. Conclusion

Experts : T.Takahashi + ?? + ??

John Jaros + Experts

Concept teams

Ties Behnke + MDI experts

C.Damerell + R&D panels

A.Miyamoto + Concept Rep.

open

2IR panels

Costing panels

WWS OC


Challenge for Detector Design and Technology

Editors (John Jaros) + Tim Barklow + Henri Videau + Keisuke Fujii Outlines

Jet energy resolution: Required lum. vs resolution.– (WW/ZZ), Br(HWW*), (HHZ), SUSY(WW/ZZ)

Momentum resolution:– Recoil mass of ZH llX , Slepton Mass,

Lum weighted ECM det. from pair and Vertexing at ILC

– Br(Hbb), Br(Hcc,gg), AFB(bb) with vertex charge– Challenges imposed by the ILC beam structure

Beamcal – High rad. Env., reacdout each bunch, need to veto H.E. e

at the smallest possible angle – S(SUSY) vs veto efficiency, electron angle, ..

Others– Ebeam, Pol., High B Solenoid., Muons, required R&D

30%~

( )

E

E E GeV

5/ 10 ( / )t t tp p p GeV c

, 3 / 2

10 /( ) 5

sinr Z

m GeV cIP m

p


Subsystem designs and technologies

Prepared by R&D panel members and experts Authors assigned

Beam CAL : Ray Frey Vertex detector : C. Damerell Tracker – TPC : Dean Carlen

- Silicon: Calorimeter: Wolfgang Solenoid : Akira Yamamoto DAQ: Ecklund

Correcting outlines on each topics


Sub-Detector Performance

Philosophy Pickup typical results from concept studies in order to show that

detector performance used in the physics chapter is confirmed with some extent by full simulations.

Basics Material budget of detectors

Tracker performacne Momentum resolution:

TPC (GLD, LDC, 4th), SiD Track reconstruction

– TPC: Old Tesla TDR result – SiD: VTX based, ECAL Based + SiD standalone


Comparison of Momentum Resolution

LDC

GLD

GLD vs LDC• Difference in Low Pt region ? Is it by IT matterial ?•High Pt: TPC only resol. Different. Spatial resolution difference ? With VTX/IT Constraint, similar performance.No CosTheta dep. From GLD.

SiD


Track Reconstruction

LDC ( Tesla TDR )

SiD

SiD promissed better picturesBy the end of Oct.


Calorimeter and PFA Performance

Calorimeter performance for single particle /electron energy resolution & angular resolution Pi+/Kaon_L energy resolution & angular resolution

PFA issues Describe what is PFA Typical PFA algorithm(s) Typical PFA performance at Z pole and higher energy

– Resolution : 90% RMS– SiD result ?– LDC – 30%/sqrt(E) at Z pole, but not good for ttbar, 500GeV– GLD – 30%/sqrt(E) at Z pole, barrel region

+ Not good in endcap region Hope to improve soon+ Still tile geometry. Strip geometry ? + High Energy performance not good.

Hope : good for baseline physics


Typical PFA result

GLD PFA


PFA – cont.

Particle ID's in jets (PFA) Good PFA includes efficient and pure ID of, e, Typical particle ID efficiency/purity shall (should ) be

described. What studies should be described and How ?


Vertexing Performance

Impact parameter resolution: 2D or 3D SiD, GLD, LDC (wil) have simular performance

Efficiency and purity of b/c tagging and vertex charge ID. Mostly based on fast simulation. How to describe ?


Impact Parameter resolution

+

LDC

~1.5 m at 100 GeV~13 m at 1 GeV

I

SiD promissed similar plot by the end of Oct.

Need a plot of cos dependance.


Muon ID

Pt threshould to be identified by muon detector How highly-segmented calorimeter is effective to identify l

ow momentum muon particles ?

GLD case

Calorimeter based muon ID will be useful


Beam Calorimeter

Describe typical electron tagging efficiency Dependance on

Beam parameters Crossing anlge


Time line to prepare the detector chapter

Time line: At Vancouver:

– Propose the outline– Authors are nominated/selected

By End of September– First draft including major part of figures collected.– Some figures will be preliminary

By End of October=ECFA meeting at Valencia– Combine drafts, make a balance, editing, draft open

to society By End of November

– Get feedback from community By end of 2006:

– Shape up and complete DCR

Slower than the initial plan

The Detector Chapter of T he Detector Concept Report

Documents

Transcript of The Detector Chapter of T he Detector Concept Report