US ILC Detector R&D

1. US ILC Detector R&D • Community of US physicists planning for ILC experiments for several years • Detector development in US limited by weak funding – difficult requirements need R&D • Falling further behind partners in Europe • US focus on accelerator effort for many years • Must now strengthen the US detector effort with increased support – must be ready with machine J. Brau US ILC Detector R&D P5, April 20, 2006

2. Global Organization • World wide Study (of the Phy. & Det. for Future Lin. e+e- Colliders) http://physics.uoregon.edu/~lc/wwstudy/ • Co-chairs: H.Yamamoto, F. Richard, J. Brau • Workshops 2004 Paris 2005 Stanford 397 participants 2006 Bangalore 326 participants • ALCPG (American Linear Collider Physics Group) http://physics.uoregon.edu/~lc/alcpg/ • Regional workshops (2005 Snowmass (650), 2006 Vancouver) • Co-chairs: M. Oreglia, J. Brau • GDE • WWS co-chairs are members • R&D Board – C. Damerell member J. Brau US ILC Detector R&D P5, April 20, 2006

3. ILC Plan for Two Detectors • ILCSC Scope Document • GDE IR Design • WWS Favorable Arguments • Snowmass Proceedings http://www.fnal.gov/directorate/icfa/LC_parameters.pdf Active full detectors being developed: GLD LDC SiD 4th Referred to as “concepts” J. Brau US ILC Detector R&D P5, April 20, 2006

4. Detector R&D Required • Performance requirements for ILC Detector exceed state-of-the-art • Calorimeters with ~100 million cells • Jet resolution goal ~ 30%/ E • Pixel Vertex Detector with ~109 20 mm pixels • Impact parameter resolution 5µm  10µm/(p sin3/2) • Tracking resolution • High Field Solenoid ~ 5 Tesla • High quality forward tracking systems • R&D Essential J. Brau US ILC Detector R&D P5, April 20, 2006

5. ILC Experimental Advantages Elementary interactions at known Ecm* eg. e+e- Z H * beamstrahlung manageable Democratic Cross sections eg.  (e+e -ZH) ~ 1/2 (e+e -d d) Inclusive Trigger total cross-section Highly Polarized Electron Beam ~ 80% (+ positron polarization – R&D) Exquisite vertex detection eg. Rbeampipe ~ 1 cm and hit ~ 3 mm Calorimetry with Particle Flow Precision E/E ~ 30-40%/E Advantage over hadron collider on precision meas. eg. H  c c Detector performance translates directly into effective luminosity J. Brau US ILC Detector R&D P5, April 20, 2006

6. Mj3-j4 vs. Mj1-j2 Calorimeter R&D • Jet energy resolution goal ~ 30% / E • Difference between 30% and 60% nearly equivalent to 2  L • Particle Flow Calorimeter • Requires high granularity calorimeter • 90 million, 12 mm2 cells in EM • 40 million, 1 cm2 cells in Hadron • Prototype must be tested in beam • including test PF concept Physics studies and detector concept groups are working on simulations to demonstrate what resolution is adequate r-> p+po J. Brau US ILC Detector R&D P5, April 20, 2006

7. Vertex Detector R&D • Sensor matched to ILC does not exist ILC Detector Requirements • Superb flavor tagging  impact parameter resolution ( 5µm  10µm/(p sin3/2) ) • Excellent spacepoint precision ( < 4 microns ) • Transparency ( ~0.1% X0 per layer ) • Track reconstruction ( find tracks in VXD alone ) Sensor Requirements •  20 micron pixel •  1 billion pixels • <0.2% X0 ladder • Readout time constraints J. Brau US ILC Detector R&D P5, April 20, 2006

8. Tracker R&D 0.5% J. Brau US ILC Detector R&D P5, April 20, 2006

9. WWS R&D Panel • Created by WWS, Spring 2005 • J-C.Brient C.Damerell (chair) R. Frey H.J.Kim W. Lohmann D.Peterson Y. Sugimoto T.Takeshita H.Weerts • Input from all R&D groups and “Concepts” • Compiled global data, analyzed for gaps • ILC Detector Research and Development Status Report and Urgent Requirements for Funding http://physics.uoregon.edu/~lc/wwstudy/R&D%20Report-draft6.pdf J. Brau US ILC Detector R&D P5, April 20, 2006

10. EUDET • 4 year program 1/1/06 – 12/31/09 • Builds on many years of well funded R&D NOTE – this is infrastructure THERE IS MORE J. Brau US ILC Detector R&D P5, April 20, 2006

11. LCDRD Organization • 3 year program funded by UO umbrella grant • FY05 – 34 proposals ($2.2M) reviewed by USLCSG panel – followed by internal DOE/NSF review • 25 projects funded  3 year grant (26 institutions) • $700k from DOE, $117k from NSF • FY06 – 36 status reports and proposals ($2.8M) reviewed by LCSGA process  plan sent to agencies • Anticipate $1.0M - $1.5M for yr 2 (waiting for agency decision) • Labs have different organization – there is coordination and collaboration with LCDRD J. Brau US ILC Detector R&D P5, April 20, 2006

12. LCDRD Program LCSGA PLAN FY05 Topic Projects FY05 FY06-high FY06-low $0.82M $1.44M $1.14M LEP 5 15.7% 12.7% 14.8% VXD 1 9.0% 13.8% 13.7% TRK 8 32.6% 24.7% 21.7% CAL 9 39.0% 42.3% 41.7% PID(mu) 2 3.8% 7.3% 8.1% no. of projects 25 34 29 WWS R&D Panel reviewed the scope of the global program, and noted there was effort on most topics, particle ID other than muon, and forward tracking being noteable weaknesses (we are planning to support some particle ID, and forward tracking) In general, all areas active. J. Brau US ILC Detector R&D P5, April 20, 2006

13. LAB Detector R&D (FY06) Estimates of funding prepared at DOE, but not official J. Brau US ILC Detector R&D P5, April 20, 2006

14. Global Perspective(WWS R&D Panel) US Detector R&D effort lags behind Europe Fig 1. Urgent R&D support levels over the next 3-5 years, by funding country or region. 'Established' levels are what people think they will be able to get under current conditions, and 'total required' are what they would need to establish proof-of-principle for their project. J. Brau US ILC Detector R&D P5, April 20, 2006

15. Subdetector Distribution (WWS R&D Panel) Note Calorimetry and Vertexing Fig 2. Urgent R&D support levels over the next 3-5 years, by subdetector type. 'Established' levels are what people think they will be able to get under current conditions, and 'total required' are what they would need to establish proof-of-principle for their project. J. Brau US ILC Detector R&D P5, April 20, 2006

16. US Funding Profile POSSIBLE SCENARIO FY06: $7M = $5.5M (labs) + $1.5M (high LCDRD) FY07: $10M FY08: $12M FY09: $14M TOTAL FY06-FY09 ~ $43M Highest priorities: FY07 - calorimeter prototypes FY08 - calorimeter prototype beam tests solenoid tracker prototypes FY09 - intensify vertex detector effort advance established R&D program THIS PROFILE WOULD REDUCE THE FUNDING GAP WITH THE EUROPEANS OVER A FEW YEARS – BUT NOT ELIMINATE IT! J. Brau US ILC Detector R&D P5, April 20, 2006

17. Urgency of US ILC Detector Funding • ILC Detector R&D is moving ahead, particularly in Europe • For US physicists to play credible role, increased support is needed now • must be ready with machine • DOE plans to include ILC-specific R&D in ILC budget line • How will accelerator/detector split be decided? • Situation is in contrast to preparedness of community for the LHC, built on good detector R&D support for the SSC • Several examples of impact of US weakness on relative advances (eg. calorimetry and vxd sensor) J. Brau US ILC Detector R&D P5, April 20, 2006

18. backup J. Brau US ILC Detector R&D P5, April 20, 2006

19. ILC Detector Funding J. Brau US ILC Detector R&D P5, April 20, 2006