clic-ilc collaborations on detectors

PAC Eugene October 2010 1

CLIC-ILC collaborations on detectors

F. Richard LAL/Orsay


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


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 was largely advocated by all parties (in particular CERN management)


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


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)


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


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

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/SiD LoI’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


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 that help 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


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 ?


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)


BACK UP SLIDES


Improvement of PFLOW

• At IWLC2010 M. Thomson


SiD’ & ILD’

6620 5500

ILD SiD

7755

6200

16F. Richard 11/27/09


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

23

29.2

25.24

7.177.81 % SiD

MagnetYokeECALHCAL

14.4

16.8

27.5

11.9

14.4

% ILD


CERN 125

USA 68

GE 64FR 53

JAP 39

UK 35

SP 17RUS 12

SW 11

others 55


ILD LoI Cost


SiD LoI cost

clic-ilc collaborations on detectors

Documents

clicilc panel

clic ilc representatives

ilc clic participation

clic study

common project clicilc

richard lalorsay pac

lhctevatron results

intense collaborations