LCC Physics and Detector Overview Hitoshi Yamamoto PAC Meeting, LAL Orsay April 14, 2015

Plan Organization Making physics case for the ILC ILC running scenario Change Management Other WGs Concept groups

Organization

LCC PD Structure PD Executive Board http://www.linearcollider.org/P-D PD Advisory Panel Regional Contacts SiD ILD PD Associate Director CLICdp Detector R&D Liaison Physics WG MDI WG Conference talks group Software&computing WG ILC Infrastructure and Planning WG PD Executive Board ILC parameter joint WG 4

PDAP (Physics and Detector Advisory Panel) Chair: Paul Grannis Possible issues to review: Technical readiness of the detector designs Physics case for LC Synergy with CLICdp Discussions on-going at LCC Physics and Detector EB Concerns: No clear benchmarks such as DVD or LoI Depending on the charge, it may require too much time and effort for PDAP members Clear charges needed Paul and HY are currently working on detailed charges Focus on well-defined issues

Making Physics Case for the ILC

Physics WG Members: For the MEXT particle&nuclear physics WG (Talk by Christophe Grojean) Members: 16 total: strong members in theory and experiment 3 co-convenres: Keisuke Fujii, Christophe Grojean. Michael Peskin + 1 observer: Hitoshi Murayama (LCC deputy director) For the MEXT particle&nuclear physics WG Prepared material Through Sachio Komamiya (a member of the MEXT WG) Produced documents on the ILC physics case ‘Precis of the Physics Case for the ILC’ ‘Scientific motivations for the ILC’

Physics Document 1 ‘Precis of the Physics Case for the ILC’ (~27 pages) Maybe a bit too technical to be submitted directly to the MEXT committee members → utilized through Sachio Excellent introductory document for HEP physicists

Physics Document 2 LCC physics WG produced a document for ‘more’ general audiences ’Physics Motivation of the ILC’ (~15 pages) Given to Sachio Planning to turn it into a nice-looking brochure Working with the communicators

Higgs Couplings Model-independent Higgs-self coupling No assumptions on universality, no BSM, or unitarity Apart from top and gamma, ILC can reach 1% level in ~15 yrs (up to 500 GeV) (required level to be meaningful in distinguishing models) ILC500-up 15 yrs When combined with Br(ZZ)/Br(gg) by LHC Higgs-self coupling 500 GeV : ~30% (20 yrs) 1 TeV : ~10% (HL-LHC : ~50%)

Higgs Couplings Model-dependent: → fit Assume, ku=kc=kt kd=ks=kb ke=km=kt No BSM final states Unitarity → fit Comparing HL-LHC with 500 GeV ILC (lum up) Typically 3~10 times better errors for ILC (apart from g) Naively, ILC ~ 10 to 100 HL-LHCs More favorable for the ILC if include effect of systematic errors

Top Physics top-Z coupling Right-handed e- does not couple to B0 Use polarization to separate Z and g in S-channel e+e- → t tbar (@500 GeV) Top quark mass (msbar) (@350 GeV) HL-LHC 3000 fb-1 √s=14 TeV ILC 100 fb-1 √s=350 GeV Stat+Sys top-Z coupling Stat+Sys Stat Stat Different models of composite Higgs Indicated by tL and tR

New Particle Search ILC is good at unexpected phenomena ILC: LHC: Good sensitivity up to kinematic limit for (essentially) any mass difference LHC: Difficulty when mass difference is small In general (even when no near degenercy), LHC can reach higher energy but could miss important phenomena: NB: At Tevatron, ~20000 Higgs were produced, but no clear signal was seen Once found, ILC can measure its properties ~completely ILC is good at unexpected phenomena

CEPC-SppC Accumulate human resources and know-hows by CEPC CEPC (Circular Electron Positron Collider) 50 km circ. baseline (80-100 km?) Ecm = 240 GeV : Higgs factory SppC (Super proton-proton Collider) Ecm = 50~100 TeV Accumulate human resources and know-hows by CEPC Connect to SppC which requires higher expertise Secuire ~70% of construction fund from Chinese government ~30% from outside China No need to have the guarantees to get the 70% (track record of the Daya Bay) International agreement not needed for the project start Vis a vis the ILC: ’CEPC and ILC can co-exist’ ’China would contribute ~5% of the ILC’ ‘Top (350 GeV) and above are for the ILC’ (However, hoping to go to 80 km which allows tt physics)

ILC & CEPC Timing Ecm Luminosity@250 GeV Wall plug power ILC and CEPC are to run roughly at the same time Ecm CEPC: 250 GeV and below ILC: 250 and above Luminosity@250 GeV CEPC: 2x1034 /cm2s /IP　（x２IPs） ILC: 3x1034 /cm2s /IP (upgrade) （Baseline 0.75x1034 /cm2s) Wall plug power CEPC: ‘500MW’ ILC: 200 MW @250 GeV (upgrade) (Baseline : 129 MW)

ILC Running Scenario (Talk by Jim Brau)

ILC parameter joint WG Need for a single ‘official’ running scenario Consistency among presentations Snowmass vs MEXT presentation etc. Realistic ramp up profiles and down times for upgrades Proof that stated luminosities can be taken in stated time Actual running scenario will depend on physics outcomes from LHC and ILC ILC parameter joint WG Physics/Detector: Tim Barklow, Jim Brau (co-convener), Jenny List, Keisuke Fujii Accelerator: Gao Jie, Nick Walker (co-convener), Kaoru Yokoya

ILC Running Scenarios ILC parameter WG produced two documents 250 GeV start up ‘ILC staging and running scenarios’ 500 GeV start up ‘500 GeV ILC operating scenarios’ Merits for 500 GeV startup It is the TDR baseline TDR costing and construction schedule assume starting with 500 GeV (construction takes 1.5 yr longer than 200 GeV starup) Competitiveness vis a vis circular machine Higgs-top, Higgs-Higgs coupling Top physics (top mass, top width, Z-topLR for new physics) Absolute Higgs couplings (by W-fusion Higgs production) New particle searches

Recommended ILC Running Scenario After examining various channels, H20 (500 GeV startup, 20 yr) is recommended Endorsement by PAC is requested

Change Management

ILC Change Management Scheme A set of well-defined rules for updating the baseline design established Change Management Board Members: The ILC accelerator technical board members Two from the physics and detector community Jenny List (ILD, Physics) Tom Markiewicz (SiD, MDI) The physics and detector AD can escalate change requests to LCC Change requests relevant to Phys&Det, so far Vertical shaft to detector hall (CR3) Common L* (CR2) Linac extension (new) (CR4)

Vertical Access (CR3) Merits Allows CMS style detector assembly Assembled mostly on surface Shorten the overall schedule by ~1 year Cost is also reduced (probably) Safety (ease of escape) Now it is part of the baseline

Common L* (CR2) ILD Accelerator people want a common L* at around 4 m SiD can accommodate a L* between 2.6-4.5m Minimum L* probably dictated by QD0 technology, not SiD ILD needs some work Vacuum pump in front of QD0 can be removed? Studies (incl. beam backgrounds) are under way

MDI Working Group Charge Coordinates the activities related to the machine-detector interface Design of the detector hall, integration of detectors, Alignment of detectors and beamlines near the interaction point. It liaise with related groups of accelerator activities Ativities Change management studies CFS designs (in particular, site-specific ones) Members Karsten Buesser (convener), Phil Burrrows, Tom Markiewicz, Marco Oriunno, Tomoyuki Sanuki, Toshiaki Tauchi

Other WGs

ILC Infrastructure&Planning WG (Talk by Karsten) Members: 7 total Sakue Yamada (chair) Deals with the cost, required manpower, and schedules of ILC detector construction/operation Inputting to the LCB subcommittee on governance and management as well as the MEXT TDR validation subcommittee through Akira Closely working with ILD and SiD Manpower/Space requirements (example for SiD):

Detector R&D Liaison Liaison: Maksym Titov, Jan Strube (deputy) Produced a document describing current detector R&Ds relevant to LC Presented in a few times at LC workshops Asked for comments from community Software efforts to be included To be dynamically updated

Conference talks group Charge Encourages linear-collider-related talks at conferences and workshops. Coordinates abstract submissions and communicate with conference organizers or parallel session conveners. Does not force linear-collider-related talks to be handled through this group. Tries to keep track of talks related to LC. Now the charge is being extended to include publications Members: 8 total Frank Simon(convener), Akiya Miyamoto, Andy White, Ivanka Bosovic-Jeliasavcic (Physics WG) Michael Peskin, Christophe Grojean (Detector R&D) Maksym titov, Jan Strube

Software&Computation WG Members Norm Graf (convenor), Frank Gaede (deputy), Akiya Miyamoto, Andre Sailer Charge Estimate computing and network needs International Band width for BELLE2 @ 2022 would be 19Gbps (Japan~US), 2.4 Gbps(Japan/PNNL-Germany) Need to enlarge band width for raw data transfer

ILC Computing Needs By Software&Computing WG Raw data rate of ILC experiment is ~ 10Gbps Computing resources necessary for ILD and SiD experiments are Tape storage for raw data tape: ILC site (100PB), USA(50PB), EU(50PB) by year 20. ( 3xATLAS(2013), BELLE2(2022), 12xKEKCC(2013) ) Disk storage for MC and analysis: 89PB world wide by Y20 ILC site(35PB), USA(27PB), EU(27PB) by year 20. ( ~ATLAS(2013) ) In Year 0 to Year 9, About 1/10 to these resources are required. CPU resources: Requires 220k HepSpec world wide. ( ~ ¼ of ATLAS(2013) )

Detector Concepts

ILC Detectors SID ILD High B field (5 Tesla) Small ECAL ID Small calorimeter volume Finer ECAL granularity Silicon main tracker ILD Medium B field (3.5 Tesla) Large ECAL ID Particle separation for PFA TPC for main tracker

Possible Timeline of ILC Detectors Deliberation by the Expert Committee International Talks ＩＬＣ lab extablished Detector Proposals: Open call, Submission, and Review TDR completion Construction Detector groups are preparing for this period by Re-optimizing and re-organizing their detectors. (→　talks by Marcel Stanitzki and Henri Videau)

CLIC CDR detector concepts are based on ILC concepts, adapted for CLIC CLICdp: Synergy with ILC ILC/CLIC synergies in many areas CLIC CDR detector concepts are based on ILC concepts, adapted for CLIC Common software tools Major upgrade of tools ongoing through a common ILC/CLIC effort Overlapping physics case below 1 TeV Sharing methods; making cross-checks Large overlap in detector technologies Strong synergies within CALICE and FCAL Synergies in engineering and magnet design Ongoing detector optimisation for ILC and CLIC Overlapping activities; cross-checks Flows are both ways e.g. 350 GeV study of CLIC → ILC http://clicdp.web.cern.ch/ currently 25 institutes

Summary We are working intensively to update the physics case of the ILC LCB/PAC guidance needed on the ILC running scenario Overall, LCC PD working groups are very active ILD and SiD are progressing ‘reasonably’ well Both groups are moving toward more well-defined organizations Overall detector designs are being re-optimized Lack of funding is particularly serious for SiD Synergy of ILC detector efforts and CLICdp efforts are working out productively and efficiently