rd’s report sakue yamada aug. 24, 2011 ilcsc@tata institute mumbai 2011/8/241sakue yamada @ ilcsc,...

RD’s Report

Sakue YamadaAug. 24, 2011

ILCSC@Tata Institute Mumbai

2011/8/24 1Sakue Yamada @ ILCSC, Mumbai

Topics

• Interim Report• The detector groups• IDAG• Common Task groups• SB2009WG• Cooperation with CLIC detector• Future Plan


• Oct. 2007: Call for LOIs was made by ILCSC appointment of RD to conduct the process• Jan. 2008: Detector management was formed • Mar.2008: IDAG formed, 3 LOI groups known • Mar.2009: 3 LOIs submitted• Summer 09: IDAG recommendation for validation and ILCSC’s approval • Oct 2009: Work plan of the validated groups• Mar:2009: IDAG began monitoring the progress

• End 2010: Interim report to be produced• It is under the final checking.• End 2012: Detailed Baseline Design Report including physics case for ILC

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

Now

RDR


The time line of the LOI process

Interim Reportstatus

• The drafts were read by the communicators, improved for easy reading.

• The edits are being checked by the contributors.• They are now almost ready for layout design.

• It took more time than we expected but made a good exercise for DBD preparation.


Contents of IR

• Physics prospect as seen at present• General introduction including chronological

development of the LOI process since 2007 and on organization of the activity

• Activity of the validated groups on R&D and the status of preparation towards DBD

• Update of physics simulation since RDR (Substantial simulations were made for LOIs.) • Activity of each common task groups• Activity of SB2009 working group• CLIC-ILC cooperation


Status of the activities of the detector groups

2011/8/24 Sakue Yamada @ ILCSC, Mumbai 66

Their detailed plans for DBDs were presented to IDAG in Eugene, Oregon, last March.


Finalizing Component R&D necessary, Integration study, Baseline-detector definition and preparing for Physics simulation of new benchmarksfor the DBD report.

The groups are now

Detector groups (continued)

• The groups saw difficulty regarding resources in March 2010.

• Nevertheless, each group agreed to consider the 9 items and adjusts flexibly how much can be done for each item in view of the available resources.

E.g.• R&D for critical components to demonstrate

feasibility,• Define baseline design, • Settle Push-Pull scheme • Study new benchmarks• Improved cost estimation2011/8/24 8Sakue Yamada @ ILCSC, Mumbai

Resources• In Europe new budget, AIDA, started for LHC-upgr,

CLIC&ILC. (reported in February) Additional contributions are made by the countries

under their research programs, too.• In US, the final year (FY2011) of University R&D

funding has been awarded. A new proposal for joint Lepton Collider Detector R&D has been

made: DOE has delayed a decision until early in FY2012.

• In Japan, the major budget (grant) for universities was renewed successfully for 5 years from FY2011.


Notes on resources

• The environment is becoming more difficult and obtained resources are reducing. • There are competitions with other programs in

particle physics and even in wider physics field. Clear physics output is required, often within the program period.

• ILC detector activity is yet basically for R&D and is a long-term program, much longer than the duration of the most funding programs.


Resources (continued)

ILC physics need to be promising, convincing and realistic in order to win in such competitions.

Under such, it is extremely meaningful that many of the ILC originated detector R&D are applied in other experiments.

This point was noticed and a detailed report was encouraged by IDAG/PAC/ILCSC,

and Det. R&D CTG has made a systematic survey.

Its report document is nearly finished. 2011/8/24 11Sakue Yamada @ ILCSC, Mumbai

Engineering support

• For the integration study engineering support was short.

• We made a request for increased help last year in ILCSC at BNL and received a positive reaction.

• We prepared detailed request together with GDE. • We repeated the same plea in Beijing. • New supports were offered from CERN, BNL, KEK

and LAPP, mainly for push-pull study. • We wish to thank these support and would appreciate

additional help of any kind. This can be part time and temporary.


IDAG monitoring

• IDAG met during ALCPG11 in Eugene last March.

1. discussed with the management on current status of the detector activity, 2. made interviews with the detector groups and Engineering tool CTG,3. examined the planning of the detector groups

towards DBD. (This was the major aim.)


IDAG Monitoring(continued)

• ILD and SiD presented detailed plans for BDB.• ILD described its plan and policy not to exclude

possible options while they will fix the baseline detector design for physics simulation by Summer 2011.

• SiD described planned contents of the DBD in details. They reported which items have resource shortage. (The consequence of that was evaluated later more in concrete. )


Difficulty about resources reported again

• Both groups stated that human resources are limited, in particular for integration and simulation study.

(Apparently the total FTE of physicists for ILC detector/physics is reduced for various reasons. )

• The unknown resource situation makes precise planning difficult at the time of interview.

• Under such environment, the groups made their best effort for planning.

• This situation remains the same on average while there is difference among the regions. 2011/8/24 Sakue Yamada @ ILCSC, Mumbai 15

IDAG’s comment on detector costing

• Last year, IDAG discussed the difference of M&S costs listed in the LOIs

• and recommended to watch updated cost estimates in the early stage.

• IDAG recommended also that the two groups use a common costing method.


Follow up of IDAG recommendation • The LOI costs were premature and were not fully

coordinated between the groups.• A working group on costing was formed, members from ILD, SiD, management,+ advisor. The group is working.• CLIC detectors impose similar but another boundary

condition for the costing of the two detectors.• GDE is much advanced about how to coordinate different

costing methods in different regions. We can copy some of the ideas.


Agreements about costing made so far:

1. what to include in the detector cost,2. to list material cost and man-power separately

(like the accelerator cost),3. to use FY2012 ILCU (like the accelerator cost),4. to use the same unit costs for several materials.

(CLIC-detectors do the same.)

(At present, they are Si-det, W, Iron, Stainless steel. They make a large fraction of the cost.)Now the WG is working on how to coordinate the magnet

costing. 2011/8/24 Sakue Yamada @ ILCSC, Mumbai 18

Costing WG is continuing

Under the presently agreed method, there will be better numbers to be compared.

Some difference can be caused by the difference of the size. (ILD has a TPC for the main tracker.)

Interesting to see if this affects performanceparticularly for 1 TeV. (We have to wait for detailed simulation.)


IDAG continued• The monitoring by IDAG is very helpful.• They meet regularly (twice a year) and watch the

progress with fresh eyes but with knowledge on the progress from the very beginning.

• The coming IDAG meeting is being arranged so that the updated status and planning of the concept groups will be monitored further.

• The IDAG has questioned their terms of membership. • Our wish is that the present IDAG members continue

until the LOI process is completed with DBDs.


Common Task GroupsRemarks on new accomplishments and plans

• MDI group: The group worked successfully on possible common solution

for the push-pull scheme of ILD and SiD, i.e. the platform solution. The ALCPG11-WS gave a good chance for discussions between the two group and GDE’s CFS group. Now further investigation is in progress. • Engineering Tool: An agreement is reached to use EDMS, which is common

with the accelerator people. Now the group works to make people familiar with the

system. A tutorial session is planned in Granada. 2011/8/24 21Sakue Yamada @ ILCSC, Mumbai

Common Task Group (continued)

• Det. R&D CTG:• IDAG suggested to make a complete list of

spin-off cases last Autumn. The group made systematic survey. Its report is to be published very soon.



Marcel Demarteau introduced some cases in ILC Newlines last week, Aug.18.

Detector R&D CTG (continued)

• The group observes that funding for R&D is decreasing not only for ILC detectors but more widely for HEP experiments in general.

• And it wishes a higher level organization, such as ICFA, looks into this issue.


Common Task Groups (continued)

• Software Group:The group has been preparing various tools for new

benchmark simulations, regarding event generation and simulation.

It also communicates closely with the CLIC simulation team.

Now the group is about ready for 1 TeV simulation. They can start mass production once the 1 TeV beam

parameters are given by GDE, which we hope to happen by/in Granada.


Common Task Groups (continued)

Physics Group (continued)The group made a significant contribution for the

Interim report.The group will further carry a role to make a physics

volume of the DBD by sharing efforts with the detector groups and inviting people from the wider community. They will meet in Granada.

In preparation, the group studies regularly the consequence of new LHC results on the ILC physics program. They may affect the weight of the benchmarks.


SB2009 WG

• The group was created after the ALCPG workshop in Albuquerque, 2009, convened by Jim Brau, to study the consequence of SB2009 case.

• It communicated with GDE on machine parameters, which worked well, and organized studies possible consequences of SB2009 performance on physics.

Results were reported by Jim Brau at ILCSC at BNL last year, and at the two PAC meetings (Valencia and Eugene) in 2010.


SB2009WG (continued)

• The group participated in the preparation of GDE’S BA workshops, and most members of the SB2009WG participated in the two BAWs, particularly BAW-2, where both members and others interested were actively engaged.

• The group presented the final results of the studies of physics implication in a series of talks at BAW-2 and submitted a written summary to GDE’s PM.

• While its original role is finished, the group continues to communicate with GDE for the 1 TeV parameters to be used in the simulation fro DBD.

• The group’s link with the accelerator people is kept for good communication. A plenary session is being planned at the Granada LCWS to discuss the 1 TeV parameters. 2011/8/24 28Sakue Yamada @ ILCSC, Mumbai

Cooperation with CLIC• Cooperation with CLIC detector is ongoing. Several members participate in the CDR preparation. There are many common efforts. These are essentially

grass-root cooperation based on detector groups. Through the joint WG, we surveyed them and identified

further possibilities. A new workshop was organized on pulse-powering, last

Spring, which was useful for good communication. Cooperation in push-pull study was effective and

appreciated. It is hoped strongly that once CLIC-CDR is completed,

there will be more participation from the CLIC side for ILC DBDs.


Future plan after 2012

• The detector community appreciates deeply the step of ILCSC planning the post 2012 phase

since we have more studies to continue after 2012.• Some R&D works will be left unfinished after DBD.• There is always possibility for improvement.• Physics consideration to set the energy of

ILC will become more important seeing LHC/Tevatron results. This may last after 2012.


Future plan after 2012 (continued)

• Where to put weight depends on the outcome from LHC/Tevatron and the prospect for ILC realization.

• We like to consider different possibilities. - Quick completion R&D of delayed (or postponed)

components, and going ahead for more concrete detector designs

- Pursuing more advanced detector technology - Detailed study of physics cases at different energies• The consideration may include how to cooperate

with other LC projects.2011/8/24 Sakue Yamada @ ILCSC, Mumbai 31

Post 2012 program (continued)

The new ILC promoting scheme after 2012 will push the project forward for realization.

It will hopefully foster these detector/physics activities. We also wish the new scheme mitigates the difficulties we see now.

• The detector community strongly wishes to participate in the discussions to organize the new scheme.

• It is crucial that the user community of ILC remain active in the discussions to prepare for the project realization so that the it shares the wish and hope.


rd’s report sakue yamada aug. 24, 2011 ilcsc@tata institute mumbai 2011/8/241sakue yamada @ ilcsc,...

Documents

ilcsc appointment of

loi groups

physics case

particle physics

detector management

baselinedetector definition

ilc detector activity

dbd report