9 January 2006RDB Meeting – Chris Damerell 1 ILC Detector R&D Chris Damerell Rutherford Appleton Lab  ILC Detector R&D Panel and charge  Addendum to charge, and action plan from Panel  Input from detector R&D groups  Preliminary Panel Report – 6 th January 2006  Missing Topics  Conclusions

9 January 2006RDB Meeting – Chris Damerell 2 ILC Detector R&D Panel and charge  9 members appointed shortly before LCWS 2005 by WWS-OC, 3 from each region: Jean-Claude Brient (Ecole Polytechnique, France) Chris Damerell (RAL, UK) chair Ray Frey (U Oregon, USA) HongJoo Kim (Kyungpook National U, Korea) Wolfgang Lohmann (DESY-Zeuthen, Germany) Dan Peterson (Cornell U, USA) Yasuhiro Sugimoto (KEK, Japan) Tohru Takeshita (Shinsu U, Japan) Harry Weerts (Argonne National Lab, USA)  Our Panel website:

9 January 2006RDB Meeting – Chris Damerell 3 Charge from WWS-OC to ILC Detector R&D Panel 13 th Jan Create and maintain a register of ongoing R&D programs relevant for LC experiments, which should include R&D goals and schedules, names of participating institutions and their responsibilities, relevant publications, level of support, and web-links to current work. The R&D programs should include not only those required for the proposed detector concepts, but also those needed for measurements of luminosity, energy, and polarization (LEP) and those associated with the masking system, possible beam EMI, and other areas which may a overlap with MDI. The registration of such MDI projects should be performed jointly with the MDI panel. Maintain a central web repository for this information, and update it regularly.. 5. Continue these activities, and whatever further activities are judged important to prepare needed R&D for LC detectors, until a global lab assumes these responsibilities

9 January 2006RDB Meeting – Chris Damerell 4  Addendum to our charge, given to us by ILCSC on 27 th September 2005:  ‘At the request of the chair of the ILCSC, Produce a written report by the end of 2005 which identifies and prioritises the topics and areas of detector R&D which need immediate support. Inputs to this should be collected both from the detector concept teams and from all the detector R&D collaborations and groups interested, via their contact persons with the Detector R&D Panel. Individual proposals should not be identified. This report will initially be submitted to the WWS-OC, and then passed to the ILCSC.’  Could lead to increased support for detector R&D, if shown to be justified  Given this timescale, we needed to move fast … Addendum to charge, and action plan from Panel

9 January 2006RDB Meeting – Chris Damerell 5  Action plan developed by our Panel on 11 th October 2005:  A topic is typically a body of work within a subdetector, eg the minimisation of endplate thickness within the TPC subdetector  Priority 1: Results needed urgently for proof of principle, to significantly enhance physics capability and/or reduce costs. Results needed in order to prepare LOI at end of 2008 (or as late as 2010 for lower-cost detector systems, such as BEAMCAL, LUMICAL, vertex detector) (similar to Rank 1 R&D for the machine)  Priority 2: Essential R&D, but not a potential showstopper, so results post- LOI will be OK. Or, R&D with goals on a longer timescale than ILC startup, eg for upgrade to 1 TeV  Some Priority 2 items will eventually evaporate, for subdetector options which aren’t incorporated in an approved overall detector  In first approximation, our Panel simply collected assessments from our wise contact people. If we had doubts about priorities suggested or sums estimated, we resolved our differences in discussion with them

9 January 2006RDB Meeting – Chris Damerell 6 Input from detector R&D groups  Dan Peterson and colleagues at Cornell U have set up, maintained and continue developing an excellent website for the R&D reports  Since LCWS2005, our Panel has worked via , phone calls and personal contacts, to establish one contact person per detector collaboration (or per group, if preferred by the groups), and to help that person complete the register for their project  Initial response was slow, but this improved dramatically with the addendum to our charge, when groups at last realised the possible advantages for their projects …  2 nd Nov 2005, 7 projects added from Fermilab 4 th Nov 2005, 6 projects added from SLAC

9 January 2006RDB Meeting – Chris Damerell 7 A Funding Inquiry Form was sent to each of our 66 contact persons  Asked them to define topics as: Priority 1 Priority 2  For their Priority 1 work only, asked about level of ‘established’ support for next 3 years (alternatively, to assume constant support as in 2005) broken down as: ‘Equipment’ (meaning all non-staff costs) in US $ Academics Students in FTEs, year by year Support staff  Asked about additional support needed ( or ) to achieve their Priority 1 goals  Requested a separate form for each funding country – NOT funding agency  We obtained ~100% response. These returns form the basis of our report

9 January 2006RDB Meeting – Chris Damerell 8  Layout of preliminary report, sent to WWS-OC chairs on 6 th January 2006  Executive Summary  Detector Systems LEP Vertexing Tracking - gaseous Tracking - silicon plus 1 page per project: Calorimetry ‘Research Statement’ contributed by Muon tracking each contact person to Panel website PID DAQ Electromagnetic Interference Solenoid  Current funding levels and urgent needs for expansion Presented by subdetector and by country, not by project.  I am authorised by WWS-OC chairs to show these findings to the RDB as preliminary results not to be circulated Preliminary Panel Report

9 January 2006RDB Meeting – Chris Damerell 9  Main areas of tracking, calorimetry and vertex detectors are supported by similar manpower levels, as expected  Resultant equipment levels are higher for vertex detectors, due to the greater cost of developing prototype sensors in the form of ICs which require dedicated processing  There is a ‘grey area’ in LEP (measurement of luminosity, beam energy and polarisation) between detector and accelerator R&D. Some groups eventually decided to be classified as accelerator-related  Simplifying all timescales as 4 years and all manpower as $50k p.a. postdcs, one arrives at total support levels approximately as follows: Established: $18M p.a. Increase required: $13M p.a. Total required: $31M p.a. (75% being manpower) PRELIMINARY – DO NOT CIRCULATE

9 January 2006RDB Meeting – Chris Damerell 10  Regional/national breakdown shows considerable variations:  On same simplified assumptions for timescales, and for amalgamation of equipment and manpower, overall support levels are: Established Total required Factor increase needed Europe $12.93M p.a.$16.28M p.a.1.26 USA$2.88M p.a.$9.63M p.a.3.34 Japan$0.80M p.a.$2.04M p.a.2.55 Korea$1.46M p.a.$1.89M p.a.1.29 Canada0.07M p.a.$0.72M p.a.(10.3) Other 0.12M p.a.$0.86M p.a.(7.2) PRELIMINARY – DO NOT CIRCULATE

9 January 2006RDB Meeting – Chris Damerell 11  We started in Snowmass 2005 to evaluate compromised detector performance in terms of luminosity factors*, which help to bridge the gap in terminology between accelerator and detector communities  First on the list was R bp at the IP, where increasing from mm (challenging) to 25 mm (straightforward?) would impose a loss in effective luminosity by factor ~2 for a broad range of physics  We identified a couple of ‘missing topics’, in sense of being so poorly supported as to be on verge of extinction  PFA** depends on achieving very high efficiency for track reconstruction in core of jets. This has never been achieved in the important forward/backward region, and there has been very little progress in simulated reconstruction or detector design for this region since LCWS This is our most important ‘missing topic’ * Factor by which integrated luminosity would need to be increased to compensate for lower performance detector ** Optimised jet energy measurement by Particle Flow Algorithm, AKA Energy Flow Algorithm Luminosity factors and missing topics

9 January 2006RDB Meeting – Chris Damerell 12 Dave Burke LCWS 1991 Saariselka Ideal PFA over 4 pi sr

9 January 2006RDB Meeting – Chris Damerell 13 Conclusions  The task of the Detector R&D Panel to establish the current levels of support world-wide, and to quantify the expansion needed in order for the urgent Priority 1 goals to be realised in time, has now been completed  Our preliminary report was sent to the WWS-OC chairs on 6th January 2006  Our main conclusion is that an overall increase by a factor of ~1.7 is needed, and that there are considerable regional variations  There are dangers in publishing such information, the most extreme concern expressed to our Panel being that the ‘haves’ could be reduced to the level of the ‘have-nots’, but we are confident that our report, if used carefully, could be helpful in all regions  There is a great deal at stake: as happened at LEP and SLC, compromised performance of the ILC detectors could waste a lot of the hard-won luminosity, and hence lose new physics discoveries. Time is running out for the detector R&D programme  Do these recommendations need to be discussed in terms of accelerator/detector ‘balance’? Would it not be better to try to establish a general uplift in support for R&D, as the ILC evolves towards becoming a full construction project?  Creation of a world-wide peer review panel for ILC detector R&D, having a modest budget to support projects, could help to stimulate and coordinate the expanded programme that everyone in the ILC community knows to be urgently needed. (However, this suggestion is not universally supported – there could be disadvantages. Current peer-review systems are working well, and could certainly handle the requested budget increases)

9 January 2006RDB Meeting – Chris Damerell 14 Longer term plans – preliminary discussion with GDE  An initial discussion between a few R&D Panel members, all WWS-OC chairmen, and Barry Barish for GDE took place on Aug 18 th at Snowmass  Suggestion is being considered of evolving to a second phase, where our panel would be replaced by a committee under the GDE [Is the RDB intended to do this job?]  This committee would review individual proposals, hold open session presentations, appoint referees, set milestones, review progress reports, etc.  Current composition of Detector R&D Panel would not be appropriate – we are all ILC ‘insiders’ with potential conflicts of interest

9 January 2006RDB Meeting – Chris Damerell 15  Subsequently, wise advice from Enzo Iarocci, who chaired the DRDC for 3 years, starting in 1990, in the phase that led to the formation of the LHC detector collaborations (4 proposals that condensed into ATLAS and CMS) Panel should have a modest budget (DRDC awarded approximately 6M euros p.a.) in order to provide initial backing for approved projects. Could FALC help with such a central pool of funding? Endorsement by this Panel would be a powerful stimulus for support from national funding agencies Panel should organise Open Sessions, for presentation of proposals and status reports. For 3 years, the Open DRDC meetings at CERN were the main public platform for many LHC-related matters To minimise costs and guarantee large audiences, it would be advisable to schedule these meetings as part of regional and international ILC gatherings (such as LCWS conferences and the ECFA, ACFA, and ALCSG workshops) The DRDC was effective in rejecting a number of weak proposals, and in helping to focus R&D in the critical period before the formation of the LHCC, and of the detector collaborations