1

Linear Collider Project and

Detector Concept Study

Akiya MiyamotoKEK

September, 2004

2A.Miyamoto@JINR

Contents

International Linear Collider Physics Goals International activity: GDI A plan of the global experimantal program

Detector concept study Detector requirements “Huge” detector

3A.Miyamoto@JINR

Role of e+e- Colliders

Historically, both pp and e+e- collider were crucial for the development of High Energy Physics

e+e- collision is an elementary process. Less background un-ambiguous measurements well defined initial state ( energy and polarization )

e+e- coliders have been and will be crucial to establish a new principle ( Lagrangian for elementary particles )

e euu d

uu d

4A.Miyamoto@JINR

The Linear Collider

LEP is the last circular e+e- collider

Future e+e- are linear collider. Basic parameters of the next e+e- linear collider

Center of Mass Energy 250~1000GeV Instantaneous Luminosity 2~3x1034/cm2/s

~ 500/fb in several years 50~100k Light Higgs boson production

Total accelerator length ~30km

4~ /E E R

5A.Miyamoto@JINR

Physics Goals of the Future LC

Search/Study Higgs boson(s) Spin, Mass, Branching ratios Search/study model independently

Resolve the hierarchy problem SUSY: Searches for sparticles, determine mass, spin, couplings.

Neutralino is a good candidate of the dark matter Extra-Dimensions: ee 　 　 X and search virtual effects in SM processes. Other possibilities: Little Higgs Model,

Precise determination of Top quark mass and couplings TGV and Quadric gauge boson couplings key if Higgs is heavy S

Options Giga-Z collider

6A.Miyamoto@JINR

A History

In Japan, LC R&D was initiated in late 1980’s. “JLC-I” report was published in 1992. It described phys

ics, detector, and accelerator of JLC. Accelerator R&D has been carried out based on warm

cavity (X/C-band) technology. In late 1990’s, ACFA Physics and detector working group

was formed. “ACFA Report” for physics and detector was published i

n 2002. “GLC project report” was published in 2003.

Reformation of Linear Collider Project under internation framework has proceed under ILCSC

7A.Miyamoto@JINR

Organization chart

IUPAP

ICFA(J.Dorfan)

ITRP(2004)

(B.Barish)

GDO Taskforace(2003/2004)

(S.Ozaki)

Acc. Sub-com(G.Glow)

Parm.. Sub-com(R.Heuer)

Phys.&Det. Sub-Com(J.Brau, H.Yamamoto,

D.Miller)

ILCSC(M.Tigner)

3 regional steering com.

( Asia, N.A., Europe)

Wold Wide Study

ALCSC

ACFAPhys.&Det. WG

8A.Miyamoto@JINR

International Technology Recommendation Panel (ITRP)

Warm technology (High gradiant 11GHz acc. ) has been studied by KEK/SLAC and their colleagues

Cold technology (Super Conducting Cavity ) has been studied by Tesla collab.

To realize the LC, international community should unit on a single technology for efficient use of resouces (Budget, man power, time )

Thus ILCSC organized ITRP in late 2003. ITRP met 6 times since Jan. 2004, visited 3 labs., and released recommendation in Aug. 2004.

ITRP recommends the cold technology The project is now called ILC

9A.Miyamoto@JINR

GDI (Global Design Initiative)

GDI : An international rganization to develop the design of ILC. To be formed by 2005 basedon multi-lab MOU’s.

GDI schedule 2005 : Complete accelerator CDR 2006 : Initiate detailed engineering design 2007 : Complete accelerator TDR 2008 : Site selection and approval of international role a

nd responsibilities by governments. To proceed, three regional center(Asia, Europe, N.A) and the host of the central team will be setup.

10A.Miyamoto@JINR

KEK’s plan Reorganization of LC accelerator R&D is under way

No decision yet Has to be defined in GDI framework

Possible contribution of KEK ( will subject ot change ) Development of Super RF cavity

Super RF cavity had been used at TRISTAN in early 90’s KEK has been provided Super RF cavity for Tesla

Injector Technologies developed at ATF will be applicable for the ILC injector

There would be more ….. ILC is the very important future project of HEP. KEK would like to keep c

ontributing the accelerator R&D. It will be the Asian regional center and may be the host of the central team.

The first ILC workshop will be held at KEK from Nov. 13 to 15.

(Personal View)

11A.Miyamoto@JINR

Organizing the Global Experimental Program

GDI does not include detector studies.

Feb. 2004, the ILCSC has asked the Worldwide Study to develop a plan for organizing the experimental program in parallel with the GDI for the machine.

The WWS organizing committee and the community discussed at LCWS2004, Victoria workshop, etc anddeveloped the proposal, which was presented to the ILCSC in Aug. 2004.

12A.Miyamoto@JINR

ILCSC request to WWS

This plan should include the following: 1. Ensure that at least two different detector concepts are developed;

by worldwide teams which will: - prepare CDR(s) on concepts, by ~2006; - be ready to form the cores of the collaborations when funding

is in place and bids are called for.

2. Encourage and coordinate inter-regional R&D on essential detector technologies, and give peer-reviewed recognition to nationally funded

R&D programmes as part of the worldwide project.

3. Make sure that vital questions of machine-detector interface and beamline instrumentation are as fully supported as accelerator

and detector R&D. This will involve close links with the GDI

13A.Miyamoto@JINR

WWS Proposed timelineGDI Timeline

2004 – ITRP Technology Recommendation

2005 – Accelerator CDR

2007 – Accelerator TDR

2008 – LC Site Selection

Site selection + 1 year

Experimental Program

Single preliminary costing document for at least one whole-detector produced by WWS Costing Panel

CDR’s from each detector concept team (expect some individuals to sign multiple) received by the WWS OC

Collaborations form and submit LOIs for proposal to the Global Lab (or GDO?)

Global lab selects experiments and asks for TDRs (2)

14A.Miyamoto@JINR

Proposed Panels Costing panel:

Request inputs from the teams studying each detector concept, ensure the same costing basis, and edit into a single document to be included with the accelerator CDR. Then the panel will stand down.

Detector R&D review panel: Maintain a register of relevant R&D, identify vital or missing

activities, arrange for peer review of proposals, and endorse approved programs to funding agencies when requested. This panel will stand down when the detector proposals are finalized.

MDI panel: Liaise with GDI to coordinate MDI issues between accelerator and

experimental teams, and ensure that essential MDI R&D is done. The panel will stand down when the global lab takes over this role.

More panels to be appointed as needed.

15A.Miyamoto@JINR

WWS Proposal

WWS Organizing Committee proposes to: Recognize and coordinate studies on whole detector concepts, an

d work toward interregional detector TDRs, including a cost document available at the time of the Accelerator CDR.

Interface with GDI, especially on MDI issues. Keep a register of R&D relevant to LC experimental programs, ide

ntify those that are vital or missing, and ensure peer review of R&D proposals.

Organize interregional meetings and workshops. Report to ILCSC and ICFA on the matters above.

16

Detector Concept Study

17A.Miyamoto@JINR

Detector Concept Study

We started to discuss a new studies on LC detector concepts in Spring 2004 to follow the WWS proposal.

Breif presentations of the plan were presented In July at Victoria (North American LC Workshop) In September at Durham ( Europe LC Workshop )

Kick-Off meeting is scheduled at 7th ACFA workshop in Nov. 9-12 at Taipei, Taiwan. See http://hep1.phys.ntu.edu.tw/ACFA7/

A sereise of TV meetings have just started. Please join.

18A.Miyamoto@JINR

Detector Requirements

Detector requirements Efficient & High purity

b/c tagging Good momentum resolution:

For Higgs detection regardless of its decay mode.

Calorimeter:For W and Z separation in hadronic decay mode.

Hermeticity:For indirect measurements of invisible particles

Good background masking and time stamping capability

GLC 3T model

19A.Miyamoto@JINR

GLC 3T Model configuration

Detector parameters

Size: 8x8x6(Z) m3

Solenoid: 3TCalorimeter:

Lead./Scint. (Compensated)EM(27X0):Had(6.5l):

TrackerMain:

Small cell jet chamber(CDC)Inter Mediate Tracker

5 layers of Si.Vertex Detector

4 layers of CCD

/ ~ 15% / 1%E E E / ~ 40% / 2%E E E

4 3/ ~ 1 10 1 10 (w.VTX)Tp T Tp p

3/ 2( ) ~ 10 / sin 5IP m p

20A.Miyamoto@JINR

Impact of ITRP recommendation

ITRP recommended “Cold Machine” Major Differences

Warm Machine : 150Hz pulse, each ~200 bunches with ~1.4nsec separation Event bunch ID is challenging. Enough time to read out between pulse

Cold Machine: 5Hz pulse, each ~3000 bunches with ~300nsec separation Needs to readout during the pulse

(There are many other issues such as Energy spread, crossing angle, etc. )

Implication to detector technology choice Vertex Detector : Usual CCD is too slow to readout Jet Chamber : Field distortion is not negligible Calorimeter : Will have enough time for signal integration

There are some room to improve detector design to best fit the Cold Machine

21A.Miyamoto@JINR

Figure of merit : Main Tracker

samplings ofNumber :

length Tracking :

field Magnetic :

resolution Spatial : 4

7203.3/ )( 2

2

n

L

B

nBLtp

tp

The momentum resolution at lower energies is determined by multiple scattering

22A.Miyamoto@JINR

Figure of merit : Calorimeter

jet2 = ch

2 + 2 + nh

2 + confusion2 + threashold

2

Separation of charged particle and /neutral hadron is important

Separation : BL2/Rm ( if consider curvature by B) L=Rin(Barrel) or Zin(End Cap), Rm=Effective Moliere length

B=0

23A.Miyamoto@JINR

Merit of Huge Detector

Good Jet Energy (Particle) Flow Measurement Good charged track separation in a jet at the inner surface of the calorimeter

large BR2

Pattern recognition is easier 　 large n with thin material,

small number of low momentum curling tracks Good momentum resolution for charged particles large BR2 √n

Good dE/dx measurement for charged particles large n

Smaller relative volume of the dead space small ΔV/V 　　　 for constant ΔV

Good two track separation, Larger efficiency for Ks and Λ (any long lived) large BR2 , larger R

24A.Miyamoto@JINR

“Huge Detector” model

Philosophy : Optimize for jet measurements Energy : Particle Flow Analysis – Calorimeter + Tracker

Particles should be widely separated at the Cal. Surface.Hermetic detector: Relative fraction of dead space can be made smaller

ID : Good vertex detector

Basic Design Large inner radius of ECAL (R~2m)

Large lever arm for tracker Good separation of particles at Cal. Surface

Moderate strength of magnet field: 2.5~3TCoil design : Radius is same as the GLC-3T model, but longer in Z.

To put long main tracker for good cos coverage To have enough distance from IP to the Cal. Suface.

We call “Huge” but it is still smaller than CMS at LHC

25A.Miyamoto@JINR

4.85ｍ

4.25ｍ

5.3ｍ

8.3ｍ

R4m

R0.6m

4.5m

3.55m

2.35ｍ

2.05m

0.4m

7mIron

Preliminary Mag. Field Calculation

max

02

Zmmdz

Bz

BrGoal of magnetic fielduniformity

26A.Miyamoto@JINR

Detector configuration under consideration

SiVTX pixel(cold version)

HCAL(Pb(Fe)/scinti or digital)

W/Scinti ECAL

TPC(Jet chamber as option)

Si intermedi.-Trk

SC-coil

SiVTX pixel

Pb/scinti HCAL

Pb/Scinti ECAL

Jet chamber

Si intermedi.-Trk

SC-coil

“GLC” design “Huge”

27A.Miyamoto@JINR

Huge

General view of “Huge”

28A.Miyamoto@JINR

Area of EM CAL (Barrel + Endcap) SD: ~40 m2 / layer TESLA: ~80 m2 / layer Huge: ~100 m2 / layer (JLC-I: ~130 m2 /layer)

Huge~2.1m

Comparison of size of EM CAL surface

29A.Miyamoto@JINR

SD TESLA Huge

Solenoid B(T) 5 4 3

Rin(m) 2.48 3.0 3.75

L(m) 5.8 9.2 8.4

Est(GJ) 1.4 2.3 1.2

Tracker Rmin (m) 0.2 0.36 0.40

Rmax(m) 1.25 1.62 2.05

s(mm) 7 150 150

Nsample 5 200 220

dpt/pt2 3.9e-5 1.5e-4 1.1e-4

(numbers for `Huge’ are all tentative)

A quick comparison : Tracker

30A.Miyamoto@JINR

SD TESLA 　 Huge

ECAL Rin(m) 1.27 1.68 2.1

ptmin (GeV/c) 1.9 2.0 1.9

BRin2 8.1 11.3 13.2

Type W/Si W/Si W/Scinti

RM(mm) 18 24.4 16.2

BRin2/RM 448 462 817

Z 1.72 2.83 2.8

BZ2/Rm 822 1311 1452

X0 21 24 27

Total 5.5 5.2 6.0

t (m) 1.18 1.3 1.4

A quick comparison - ECAL

31A.Miyamoto@JINR

Vertex detector issues

Compared to 4T case, pair background hit at R= 15mm becomes x1.7 larger in 3T

At larger R, the background hit would decrease significantly

The configuration of R=20 mm with Si thickness < 70 m and 500 m thick beam pipe at R=12 mm still satisfies the requirement of

　 　 　 　 　 　 　 　 b=5 10/(psin3/2) m

R (mm)

B (T) Pair Background (hit/mm2/train)

15 4 1.0

15 3 1.7

24 3 0.4

TRC500 beam parameters

# of fired pixels ~ 5.0 pixels/hit

Inner radius should be optimized based on physics performance using ILC parameter

32A.Miyamoto@JINR

How to reduce the ECAL cost? Which type of ECAL photo-sensor to chose? (Number of channels would be similar to other detector designs, though)

HCAL should be inside Magnet? Or can be put outside? How to support the heavy structure?

Silicon Vertex Inner radius : Background vs IP resolution need ILC parameters. Any essential impact on physics ?

Uniformity of the magnet is fine? Is structure strong enough ? Crossing-angle? Which forward detector? --> need ILC parameters

How to mechanically support central tracking system including Final-Q ?

…. …. ….

⇒Many challenges and open questions: Need detailed studies. New Participation are highly welcomed !

Questions and challenges

33A.Miyamoto@JINR

Summary

We will accelerate efforts towards the ILC and experiment there. We are aiming to design a LC detector best optimized for “Particle Flo

w Algorithm”. We are now thinking to develop the “Huge” detector design.

Detailed studies have just started. There are a lot of open questions and challenges.

It will be a global efforts are we are looking for many partners in the world. Mailing list will be open soon. Please watch

http://ilcphys.kek.jp/ A kick-off meeting will be held in Taipei in Nov. 2004.