1 / 42

JOSÉ REPOND

JOSÉ REPOND. Argonne National Laboratory. May 22 – 24, 2019 Streaming Readout IV Camogli , Italy. TOPSiDE. Deep-Inelastic Scattering. Electron-Ion Collider EIC. Planned ep, eA collider = 35 – 134 GeV Luminosity = 10 34 cm -2 s -1 Two possible sites Brookhaven → eRHIC

kalyca
Download Presentation

JOSÉ REPOND

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. JOSÉ REPOND Argonne National Laboratory May 22 – 24, 2019 Streaming Readout IV Camogli, Italy TOPSiDE Deep-Inelastic Scattering

  2. Electron-Ion Collider EIC Planned ep, eA collider = 35 – 134 GeV Luminosity = 1034 cm-2s-1 Two possible sites Brookhaven →eRHIC Jefferson lab → JLEIC Scientific goals Study of perturbative & non-perturbative QCD Tomography (including transverse dimension) of the nucleon, nuclei Understanding the nucleon spin Discovery of gluon saturation… Construction to start in 2025 Glowing endorsement from Review of National Academy of Sciences CD0 (mission need) imminent First data in 2030?

  3. EIC not the 1st ep collider: HERA @ DESY, Hamburg (Germany)

  4. 4 Detector Concepts for the EIC Brookhaven concept: BEAST Jefferson lab concept: JLEIC sPhenix→ePhenix Argonne concept: TOPSiDE

  5. 21st Century Colliding Beam Detector MC Hadron level DIS event Detector output Goal of TOPSiDE: provide same type of information (not just the usual tracker hits and calorimeter clusters)

  6. TOPSiDE: The 5D Concept Measure (E,x,y,z,t) for (every) hit in tracker + calorimeter Silicon pixel vertex + strip tracker Imaging em calorimeter Imaging hadron calorimeter Superconducting solenoid (3T) Forward gaseous RICH Forward dipole + cloak or toroid w/out cloak Forward silicon disks Forward calorimetry Backward silicon disks Backward crystal calorimeter Particle identification ( pion – kaon– proton separation) Particle momenta < 7GeV/c for most of the solid angle from tracker + calorimeter Requires silicon sensors with time resolution of about 10 ps Eliminates The need for preshower counters, TRDs, TOF or Čerenkov (in front of the calorimeter), muon chambers (in back of calorimeter) Particle identifying imaging calorimeter

  7. Imaging Calorimetry The idea Replace the traditional tower structure with very fine granularity (lateral and longitudinally) Few 1,000 channels → few 10,000,000 channels Option to reduce resolution on single channels to 1 – 2 bits (digital readout) Technologies developed in past decades Silicon sensors with 1 x 1 cm2, 0.25 x 0.25 cm2 and 0.16 cm2 pixels Scintillator strips (4.5 x 0.5 cm2) or scintillator pads (3 x 3 cm2) Resistive Plate chambers with 1 x 1 cm2 pads Micromegas and GEMs with 1 x 1 cm2 pads Review article Experimental Tests of Particle Flow Calorimetry F. Sefkow et al. arXiv:1507.05893 [physics.ins-det] Review of Modern Physics 88, 15003 (2016)

  8. Advantages of Imaging Calorimetry Particle Identification almost trivial Electron, muon, charged hadron separation Software compensation possible Improvement of energy resolution for single particles Leakage corrections possible Use of information from last layers Gain monitoring Utilize track segments within hadronic showers to monitor gain Utilize MIP signal to monitor gain Application of Particle Flow Algorithms (PFAs) Significant improvement in jet energy resolution Measure each particle individually J. Repond: TOPSiDE

  9. Ultra-fast Silicon Sensors I Needed in the EM calorimeter and tracker for Particle ID (π– K – p separation) Full detector simulation Single particles in barrel region GEANT4, digitization, reconstruction Gaussian smearing of timing resolution Resolution of 10 ps → separation up to ~ 7 GeV/c Development of Low Gain Avalanche Diodes (LGADs) Additional p-layer close to anode Modest multiplication by factor of 10 – 50 → Amplification of electrons close to pixel (minimal drift) →Improvement in time resolution σt = 10 ps

  10. Ultra-fast Silicon Sensors II H Sadrozinski at the Pico-second Timing Workshop, Torino, Italy, 2018 https://agenda.infn.it/conferenceTimeTable.py?confId=15031 Current status Effort started ~ 2014 Best timing resolution to date about 18 ps with 35 μm thick sensors 20 μm thick sensors being tested Worldwide effort UC Santa Cruz, Kansas, Torino, Geneva, CERN, Bologna, and now Argonne…

  11. Simulating Sensors at Argonne Simulation/design Using Silvaco Sensor design Nominal 50 μm thickness 5 Guard rings 1 × 1 mm2 pixels Operating voltage around 200 V Detailed simulation of fields, T dependence, timing, doping concentration, breakdown voltage… → Simulation/design of sensor complete Implementation of front-end electronics Onto each pixel Components: Shaper, amplifiers, discriminators, digitizers (TDCs) → Expected to further improve the timing performance → Schematic of front-end (without TDCs) complete → Currently being prototyped on PCB board (without TDCs) J. Repond: TOPSiDE

  12. Testing Sensors at ‘Argonne’ Measurements of several sensors obtained from Torino, SantaCruz, Brookhaven (done at Fermilab) Time [ps] Measurement with 90Sr source done at UC Santa Cruz Use 1 sensor with 16.5 ps time resolution as trigger Time [ps] Currently testing of various sensors in Fermilab test beam

  13. Technical validation: PENTACAL Prototype 5D electromagnetic calorimeter Structure 20 active layers Interleaved with Tungsten plates (smallest Molière Radius) Data: position (x,y,z), energy, precision time (← 5 dimensions) Assumptions 8” wafers → Area ~324 cm2 1 x 1 mm2 pixels → Number of pixels/wafer = 32,400 Total number of readout channels = 650,000 Cooling Assuming 50 mW/cm2→ 9 W/layer → 180 W/calorimeter Interest EIC TOPSiDE CERN AMBER (or also named COMPASS++) JLAB …

  14. Simulating the TOPSiDE Assembly of a simulation toolkit • All tools assembled • Most scavenged from ILC, CLIC… • Unified approach to geometry: DD4Hep • Some tools are not maintainable and are beingreplaced • Unified approach to tracking/particle reconstruction: machine learning - Eventually should provide superior performance to algorithms - Can optimize detector performance in a controllable way

  15. Data Model →ProIO Preprint published in Computer Physics Communications (ANL-HEP-148927) Developed at Argonne Event-oriented streaming data format Uses Google’s Prototcol Buffers (protobuf) Highly language neutral Performs well in comparison with ROOT/IO Now adopted by the EIC community Re-encode event rate

  16. Study of exclusive Upsilon production at the EIC Events Cross section = 16.3 pb for 10 × 100 GeV2 Decay into both electrons and muons studied TOPSiDE Simulated with GEANT4 No optimization yet of geometry/tracking/calorimetry Track Finding with ‘cheater’, will be replaced shortly Track fitting based on Kalman filter Analysis At low Q2 < 0.2 GeV2 reconstruct –t = pT2 (Υ) Input slope b = - 4.5

  17. Tracking efficiency with Muons Forward tracking Extended to η~ 4 Needs tuning (we can to better) Overall Efficiency close to 100% Tracking efficiency with Electrons Overall Efficiency slightly reduced compared to muons Can be improved by using calorimeter information Forward (hadron) direction needs to be improved

  18. Streaming Readout Goal of streaming readout Event selections based on access to all the information from all detectors →Without relying on hardware triggers (no parallel path) → Selection controlled by adaptable software algorithms Possibly perform online calibration, alignment, data monitoring Already being implemented LHCb: 0.7 GB/s to disk EIC activities Define implications for detector subsystems Workshops, monthly meetings

  19. Estimation of the event size and data rate Strategy 0) Generate DIS MC events for 18 GeV on 275 GeV →for the moment use 5 x 60 GeV2samples → simulate the full detector based on GEANT4 implementation 1) Use MC to determine range of energies for hits in silicon tracker, ECAL, (not the HCAL! = digital readout of RPCs) 2) Determine number of bits/hit needed for best energy, time resolution silicon tracker, ECAL, HCAL 4)Determine number of hits in tracker, ECAL, HCAL per event 5) Calculate bit flow per event 6) Calculate bit flow per second assuming nominal luminosity 7) Backgrounds: cosmic, beam-gas? 8) Noise? Done To be done

  20. Number of hits Tracker 180.4 hits/event ECAL 425.8 hits/event Total 606.2 hits/event ~ 600 hits/event Number of bits/hit Address (50 million ECAL channels) -> 226 = 67,108,864 Energy (14 bits) -> 214 = 16,384 Time (10 ps bins in 100 ns) -> 104 = 210 Total 26 + 14 + 10 = 50 bits/hit or 7 Bytes/hit Number of events/second Cross section x Luminosity/second = 130 kHz (obtained from total cross section) Bit rate 130 kHz x 600 x 50 bits/second = 3.90 x 109 bits/second 130 kHz x 600 x 8 B/s= 624MB/s + other detectors (HCAL, Cerenkov, forward pots…) Compare to LHCb: 0.7 (currently) –> 5.0 TB/s (LHC Run 3) Event size and rate Assuming timing information for all hits, probably not practical

  21. Caveats to event size and rate Assumption Timing measured for all tracker and ECAL channels (probably not necessary/feasible) Collision energy Study done with 5 x 60 GeV2 Need to repeat with 18 x 275 GeV2 (maximum beam energies of eRHIC) Backgrounds ignored Detector noise Cosmic Beam-gas Total cross section Other estimates x3 larger -> to be sorted out TOPSiDE Not yet optimized for the EIC -> will change significantly

  22. Conclusions The EIC will happen! EIC environment/physics poses specific challenges to the detector design Detection of forward proton/neutron/ions Measurement of scattered electron at low angles Measurement of hadronic final state Particle identification (pion – kaon – proton) over large solid angle Kinematic reconstruction of charged current events (no scattered electron)… Challenges being addressed by various concepts being developed BEAST, sPHENIX, JLEIC, TOPSiDE Novel Ideas for colliding beam detectors Forward magnetic fields (dipole) → Cloaking of magnetic field Forward RICH detector 5D concept → Imaging calorimetry → Ultra-fast silicon Streaming readout

  23. Backup Slides

  24. Time resolution of silicon sensors Taken from Hartmut F-W Sadrozinski et al 2018 Rep. Prog. Phys. 81 026101 Contribution from RO electronics →Minimized with careful design Dependence on signal noise: →Minimized with fast signals and large S/N Dependence on drift velocity → Minimize with uniform electric fields Dependence on uniformity of electron/hole pair production →Minimized by decreasing sensor thickness Dependence on signal size → Minimize using e.g. constant fraction discriminators

  25. Simulating Sensors at Argonne III Implementation of front-end circuit First step only Preamp & CFD CFD Preamp & Shaping J. Repond: TOPSiDE

  26. Ultra-fast SiliconDetectors at Argonne Overall plan - Study sensor design (guard ring, break down, amplification, cooling, doping concentration) - Test LGAD sensors from BNL, Torino, Santa Cruz - Implement first stages of front-end readout (preamplifier, Constant Fraction Discriminator) on the pixel - Prototype readout with PCB board →test - Implement first stages onto the sensor (HVCMOS) - Prototype sensor with first stage of front-end readout →test - Implement remainder of front-end electronics (TDCs for TOA and TOT, etc.) - Prototype sensor with complete front-end readout →test - Finalize simulation/design - Produce 25 sensors →tests on bench - Assemble small scale 5D electromagnetic calorimeter →PentaCal -TestPentaCal in Fermilab test beam Facilities at Argonne - Argonne Micro Assembly Facility - Ready this month! - Equipment being acquired over next 2 – 3 years J. Repond: TOPSiDE

  27. Colliders & Detectors ■ First particle collider: AdA in Frascati (Italy) in 1961 ■First 4πdetector: Mark I at Spear in 1973 ■Latest colliding beam detector: Belle II at SuperKEKB 60 years of experience with colliding beams and with more and more sophisticated detectors 1961 AdA, Frascati 1964 VEPP 2, Novosibirsk, URSS 1965 ACO, Orsay, France 1969 ADONE, Frascati, Italy 1971 CEA, Cambridge, USA 1971 Intersecting Storage Rings, CERN, Switzerland 1972 SPEAR, Stanford, USA 1974 DORIS, Hamburg, Germany 1975 VEPP-2M, Novosibirsk, URSS 1977 VEPP-3, Novosibirsk, URSS 1978 VEPP-4, Novosibirsk, URSS 1978 PETRA, Hamburg, Germany 1979 CESR, Cornell, USA 1980 PEP, Stanford, USA 1981 Sp-pbarS, CERN, Switzerland 1982 Fermilab p-pbar, USA 1987 TEVATRON, Fermilab, USA 1989 SLC, Stanford, USA 1989 BEPC, Peking, China 1989 LEP, CERN, Switzerland 1992 HERA, Hamburg, Germany 1994 VEPP-4M, Novosibirsk, Russia 1999 DAΦNE, Frascati, Italy 1999 KEKB, Tsukuba, Japan 1999 PEP-II, Stanford, USA 2000 RHIC, BNL, USA 2003 VEPP-2000, Novosibirsk, Russia 2005 BEPCII, Beijing, China 2008 Large Hadron Collider, CERN, Switzerland 2018 SUPERKEKB, Tsukuba, Japan

  28. Photosensors for the forward RICH detector MCP-PMTs/Large Area Picosecond Photo Detectors (LAPPDTM) Based on Microchannel Plates Developed by Chicago/Argonne/etc. Now being commercially produced by INCOM, Inc. Requirements for use in RICH Pixelated readout Magnetic field tolerance

  29. Argonne 6 cm × 6 cm MCP-PMTFlexible sensor design A very flexible platform for R&D efforts! • A glass bottom plate with stripline anode readout • A glass side wall that is glass-frit bonded to the bottom plate • A pair of MCPs (20µm pore) separated by a grid spacer. • Three glass grid spacers. • A glass top window with a bialkali (K, Cs) photocathode. • An indium seal between the top window and the sidewall. Slide from JunqiXie

  30. Argonne 6 cm MCP-PMT in magnetic field ANL version 3 IBD design 10 μm MCP ANL version 1 Internal resistor chain ANL version 2 IBD design 20 μm MCP 20 μm MCP 2017 2018 Individual biased design External HV divider B field tolerance 0 < B < 0.7 T Internal resistor chain design Gain drops quickly 0 < B < 0.15 T IBD design with 10 μm MCPs B field tolerance 0 < B < 1.3 T • Optimization of biased voltages for both MCPs: version 1 -> 2 • Smaller pore size MCPs: version 2 -> 3 • Furtherimprovement: Reduced spacing (currently under fabrication) • Even smaller pore size (6 μm) Slide from JunqiXie

  31. Pixelated Readout Residual of pad center and MWPC projection • Preliminary results show experimental position resolution close to the expectation • Further R&D with capacitive coupled tile base to demonstrate signal pick up Slide from JunqiXie

  32. The DHCAL Digital Hadron Calorimeter Description 54 active layers (a prototype for the ILC) Resistive Plate Chambers with 1 x 1 cm2 pads →~500,000 readout channels Main stack and tail catcher (TCMT) Electronic readout 1 – bit (digital) Digitization embedded into calorimeter Tests at FNAL with Iron absorber in 2010 - 2011 Tests at CERN with Tungsten absorber 2012 1st time in calorimetry J. Repond: TOPSiDE

  33. Digital pictures of particles in the DHCAL μ 120 GeV p μ Note: absence of isolated noise hits Configuration with minimal absorber 8 GeV e+ 16 GeV π+ J. Repond: TOPSiDE

  34. DHCAL – Response to Pions Energy reconstruction To first order E proportional Nhit Response saturates (due to finite pad size) Response fitted to a power law Nhit = aEb+c Energy reconstructed as -> Linear response within ±2% Energy resolution Not as good as with scintillator pads Levels out at high energies (not a concern!) Can be improved with software compensation techniques Offers an order of magnitude more granularity than scintillator pads M. Chefdeville et al., arXiv: 1901.08818 Both concept and technical implementation validated J. Repond: TOPSiDE

  35. DHCAL – Pion shower shapes Longitudinal shower shape Measured from identified interaction point M. Chefdeville et al., arXiv: 1901.08818 Transverse shower shape Some deviation from GEANT4 Hit density In 3 dimensions Impressive agreement With GEANT4 predictions J. Repond: TOPSiDE

  36. DHCAL – e/π ratio Compensating calorimeters e/π = 1 e.g. ZEUS for E > 5 GeV Typical calorimeter • e/π > 1 • e.g. CDF e/π = 1.6 DHCAL • Varying e/π • e/π close to 1 for E = 8 GeV Software compensation Possible due to fine granularity of DHCAL Weighting of electromagnetic subshowers Greatly improves hadronic energy resolution Analysis still to be done M. Chefdeville et al., arXiv: 1901.08818 J. Repond: TOPSiDE

  37. 1 or 2 detectors? An analogy Say you want to know the exact time → DOE gives you some funds to do so You have (at least) two options Option A: Spend all your money on the best clock you can afford Advantage high precision time information you always know the time Disadvantage no systematic checks from elsewhere FOCS1: uncertainty 1:1015 Option B: Buy 2 clocks Advantage systematic cross check possible Disadvantage only half the money/effort available per clock → low precision timing you can only look at one clock at a given time (2 interaction regions only get ½ the luminosity each) The choice (for me) is clear!

  38. Choices III Cost Some detectors are cheap (e.g. RPCs) Some are more expensive (e.g. Silicon) However, the cost is not constant with time In the early stages, cost should not be overemphasized From H. Sadrozinski (2001) An optimal detector means maximum use of luminosity Full acceptance Best possible resolution (energy, momentum, angle)

  39. How to optimize a detector concept Choose an important physics process Generate e.g. semi-inclusive DIS or DVCS events Propagate particles through detector, digitize response, analyze events Extract physics → not happy not happy happier Change geometry One source only! (DD4hep) Parametrized dimensions Track finding/fitting and particle flow Optimized with machine learning (no coding required!)

  40. Comparison of Tracking Technologies

  41. Photo-sensors for RICH Based on Argonne’s LAPPDs: Large Area Picosecond Photo Detectors 6 x 6 cm2 or 20 x 20 cm2 (INCOM) microchannel plate photosensors ■ Pixelated readout (LDRD funded) Implemented readout via capacitive coupling: 2 x 2, 3 x 3, 4 x 4, 5 x 5 mm2 First tests in Fermilab test beam successful ■ Operability in magnetic fields (SBIR funded) First tests: operability limited to ~0.7 Tesla Reduced MCP pore sizes (10 μm): extended to ~1.3 Tesla ■ Prototype Cherenkov Plans to assemble small scale prototype Ring Imaging Cherenkov counter

  42. Pion contamination Probability that at least one pion in event identified as kaon

More Related