1 The ILD LoI IDAG Referees for ILD Benchmarking – J.A. Hewett, W.G. Li Tracking – R. Nickerson Calorimetry – D. Green MDI – T. Himmel.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Proposal for a new design of LumiCal R. Ingbir, P. Ruzicka, V. Vrba October 07 Malá Skála.
Advertisements

Background effect to Vertex Detector and Impact parameter resolution T. Fujikawa(Tohoku Univ.) Feb LC Detector Meeting.
1 AHCAL answers IDAG Erika Garutti On behalf of AHCAL analysis team.
Simulation Studies of a (DEPFET) Vertex Detector for SuperBelle Ariane Frey, Max-Planck-Institut für Physik München Contents: Software framework Simulation.
1 Study of the Tail Catcher Muon Tracker (TCMT) Scintillator Strips and Leakage with Simulated Coil Rick Salcido Northern Illinois University For CALICE.
Testbeam Requirements for LC Calorimetry S. R. Magill for the Calorimetry Working Group Physics/Detector Goals for LC Calorimetry E-flow implications for.
Fiberless Coupled Tiles for a High Granularity Scintillator-SiPM Calorimeter Rick Salcido Northern Illinois University November 14, 2009 Prairie Section.
1 Benchmarking the SiD Tim Barklow SLAC Sep 27, 2005.
The SLHC and the Challenges of the CMS Upgrade William Ferguson First year seminar March 2 nd
 k0k0 ++ -- -- p ILC Technical Design Report Physics and Detectors – Detailed Baseline Design Juan A. Fuster Verdú, IFIC-Valencia PAC Meeting, KEK.
The GLD Concept. MDI Issues Impact on Detector Design L*  Background (back-scattered e+-, , n) into VTX, TPC Crossing angle  Minimum veto angle for.
David Attié Club ‘ILC Physics Case’ CEA Saclay June 23, 2013 ILD & SiD concepts and R&D.
Karsten Büßer Beam Induced Backgrounds at TESLA for Different Mask Geometries with and w/o a 2*10 mrad Crossing Angle HH-Zeuthen-LC-Meeting Zeuthen September.
Calorimetry: a new design 2004/Sep/15 K. Kawagoe / Kobe-U.
Development of Particle Flow Calorimetry José Repond Argonne National Laboratory DPF meeting, Providence, RI August 8 – 13, 2011.
1 Tracking Reconstruction Norman A. Graf SLAC July 19, 2006.
IDAG Tracking Review  Groups have not yet submitted LOI  Avoid ‘temptation’ to regard as a Technical Design Review  Rules Specified –leave groups to.
Calibration of the ZEUS calorimeter for electrons Alex Tapper Imperial College, London for the ZEUS Collaboration Workshop on Energy Calibration of the.
Simulation Calor 2002, March. 27, 2002M. Wielers, TRIUMF1 Performance of Jets and missing ET in ATLAS Monika Wielers TRIUMF, Vancouver on behalf.
The Scintillator ECAL Beam Test at FNAL K. Kotera, Shinshu-u, 1st October 2009 CALICE Scintillator ECAL group; Kobe University, Kyungpook University, the.
Karsten Büßer Beam Induced Backgrounds at TESLA for Different Mask Geometries with and w/o a 2*10 mrad Crossing Angle LCWS 2004 Paris April 19 th 2004.
1 Realistic top Quark Reconstruction for Vertex Detector Optimisation Talini Pinto Jayawardena (RAL) Kristian Harder (RAL) LCFI Collaboration Meeting 23/09/08.
Silicon Tracking Systems in Mokka Framework Valeri Saveliev, Obninsk State University.
International Workshop on Linear Colliders, Geneve Muon reconstruction and identification in the ILD detector N. D’Ascenzo, V.Saveliev.
Impact parameter resolution study for ILC detector Tomoaki Fujikawa (Tohoku university) ACFA Workshop in Taipei Nov
Vienna Fast Simulation LDT Munich, Germany, 17 March 2008 M. Regler, M. Valentan Demonstration and optimization studies by the Vienna Fast Simulation Tool.
1Frank Simon ALCPG11, 20/3/2011 ILD and SiD detectors for 1 TeV ILC some recommendations following experience from the CLIC detector study
The CMS detector as compared to ATLAS CMS Detector Description –Inner detector and comparison with ATLAS –EM detector and comparison with ATLAS –Calorimetric.
SiD R&D tasks for the LOI - Subsystem R&D tasks - Summary of SiD R&D - Prioritization of R&D tasks -> Document for DoE/NSF ~Feb 2009 (Mainly based on Marty’s.
Performance and occupancies in a CCD vertex detector with endcaps Toshinori Abe and John Jaros 04/21/04.
CLICdp achievements in 2014 and goals for 2015 Lucie Linssen, CERN on behalf of the CLICdp collaboration CLIC workshop, January 30 th
Taikan Suehara, 16 th general meeting of ILC physics (Asia) wg., 2010/07/17 page 1 Model 500 GeV Taikan Suehara ICEPP, The Univ. of Tokyo.
Positional and Angular Resolution of the CALICE Pre-Prototype ECAL Hakan Yilmaz.
Silicon Detector Tracking ALCPG Workshop Cornell July 15, 2003 John Jaros.
“Huge” Detector Concept 3 Sep 2004 ECFA LC Durham Satoru Yamashita ICEPP, University of Tokyo On behalf of many colleagues Towards our common.
SiD Snowmass 05 Jaros1 Optimizing SiD getting from here….……………….to there SiD Concept/Snowmass August 16, 2005 John Jaros.
J-C Brient-DESY meeting -Jan/ The 2 detector options today …. SiD vs TDR [ * ] [ * ] J.Jaros at ALCPG-SLAC04 ECAL ECAL tungsten-silicon both optionsHCAL.
5-9 June 2006Erika Garutti - CALOR CALICE scintillator HCAL commissioning experience and test beam program Erika Garutti On behalf of the CALICE.
LCWS11 – Tracking Performance at CLIC_ILD/SiD Michael Hauschild - CERN, 27-Sep-2011, page 1 Tracking Performance in CLIC_ILD and CLIC_SiD e + e –  H +
Calice Meeting Argonne Muon identification with the hadron calorimeter Nicola D’Ascenzo.
January 15, 2004CMS Heavy Ions Bolek Wyslouch1 Bolek Wyslouch MIT for the CMS Collaboration Quark Matter 2004, Oakland, CA CMS HI groups: Athens, Auckland,
Palaiseau, 13/1/ 2005 P. Colas - Optimising tracking 1 Optimising a Detector from the Tracking Point-of-View P.Colas, CEA Saclay constraints role Optimisation.
DØ Beauty Physics in Run II Rick Jesik Imperial College BEACH 2002 V International Conference on Hyperons, Charm and Beauty Hadrons Vancouver, BC, June.
12/20/2006ILC-Sousei Annual KEK1 Particle Flow Algorithm for Full Simulation Study ILC-Sousei Annual KEK Dec. 20 th -22 nd, 2006 Tamaki.
July 27, 2002CMS Heavy Ions Bolek Wyslouch1 Heavy Ion Physics with the CMS Experiment at the Large Hadron Collider Bolek Wyslouch MIT for the CMS Collaboration.
09/06/06Predrag Krstonosic - CALOR061 Particle flow performance and detector optimization.
Towards Snowmass Jul. 13, 2005 Y.Sugimoto. Charge for Detector WGs Charge for Concept Groups: work towards a baseline design define performance criteria.
Discrimination of new physics models with ILC
Electroweak Physics Towards the CDR
Electroweak physics at CEPC
Test Beam Request for the Semi-Digital Hadronic Calorimeter
Electroweak Physics Towards the CDR
ILD Technical Coordination
IOP HEPP Conference Upgrading the CMS Tracker for SLHC Mark Pesaresi Imperial College, London.
Felix Sefkow DESY LDC at Vienna November 17, 2005
SiD Calorimeter R&D Collaboration
Status of Ecal(s) for ILD
Calorimetry for a CLIC experiment
State-of-the-art in Hadronic Calorimetry for the Lepton Collider
Detectors for Linear Colliders - ILC and CLIC -
Why do we want a TPC? P. Colas, CEA Saclay
ILD Optimisation: towards 2012 University of Cambridge
Linear Collider Simulation Tools
Rick Salcido Northern Illinois University For CALICE Collaboration
Detector Optimization using Particle Flow Algorithm
Backgrounds using v7 Mask in 9 Si Layers at a Muon Higgs Factory
Why do we want a TPC? P. Colas, CEA Saclay
Linear Collider Simulation Tools
Steve Magill Steve Kuhlmann ANL/SLAC Motivation
Sheraton Waikiki Hotel
Presentation transcript:

1 The ILD LoI IDAG Referees for ILD Benchmarking – J.A. Hewett, W.G. Li Tracking – R. Nickerson Calorimetry – D. Green MDI – T. Himmel

2 Introduction The ILD Collaboration has done an excellent job in studying/optimizing the performance vs. a number of key detector parameters. ILD is keeping options open on specific detector technologies which seems prudent at this stage in the R&D process. The issues with relatively thin calorimetry have been mitigated by using the muon detectors as a calorimetric “tail catcher” behind the magnet coil. Nevertheless, some questions remain as set out in the following pages.

3 ILD LoI – Vertex Detector I What is the headroom for the vertex detector due to machine backgrounds? If the pair background is higher than expected what is the mitigation plan? Is there a quantified uncertainty to the machine background – fig ? How sensitive is the Higgs missing mass to the beam parameters, e.g. energy spread? – Gaussian 0.3 % ?, section

4 ILD LoI – Vertex Detector II What is the plan to align several hundred million independent channels to ~ O (1 um)? How long does it take? What changes are there in flavor tagging if a mis-alignment or more noise is introduced? What kind of alignment accuracy is required to maintain the stated impact parameter resolution? What is the definition of the efficiency in the corresponding plots? What does it mean to have eff=100%? Flavor tagging is studied at Z mass. What will happen at higher energies?

5 ILD LoI – TPC I What is the headroom for the TPC with respect to machine backgrounds? Is there a plan to mitigate if the backgrounds are higher than planned? For example how does one treat field distortions due to ions? Fake tracks are a problem for PFA. What is the tradeoff between tracking efficiency and fake tracks? The ILD, with many TPC hits, should be insensitive here. What is the alignment plan? How much time is needed for an in situ alignment using tracks themselves? Does this change the PFA strategy? Is the endplate included in the MC? Is a 15% Xo assumed? Is a 97% tile efficiency assumed?

6 ILD LoI – TPC II How are E and B fields monitored for distortions? How big are the track distortions and charge loss due to ions? Will they change within the bunch train? Is the E field monitoring as fast as any ILC transient background bumps or must they be integrated over with loss of spatial resolution? How is the temp/pressure monitored and the information fed back into “alignment”? Have TPC misalignments been studied in full simulation w.r.t. physics goals/performance? The TPC needs to both establish and then maintain the alignment The TPC needs to “connect” to the Vertex detector. What is the effect of SIT/SET/FTD/EDT on the overall momentum resolution? On fakes?

7 ILD LoI TPC III How big is the effect of the TPC membrane on track efficiency and momentum resolution due to multiple scattering? How is the double hit resolution implemented in the MC? It would be desirable to have a more quantitative description of the TPC and other tracker alignment procedures. 2 billion pixel pads is ~ 100 x the current state of the art. Can one extrapolate reliably? The MC should be performed with the expected or worse beam background and misalignments to evaluate if performance is robust.

8 ILD LoI - Calorimetry If there are problems with particle flow, what is the penalty for the physics program? Is software compensation a possible approach? Does the 90% r.m.s. quote for resolution mask a problem with resolution tails and steeply falling spectra? – Table Detector optimization is performed on the basis of PFA jet rms90%. This parameter however is not sensitive to the shifts of the mean energy due to particle loss at the acceptance boundaries, shower leakage, and loss of low momentum particles. How big are these effects? Can they influence the efficiency of jet reconstruction? Is the thickness sufficient with an instrumented tail catcher or is the thick coil an irreducible limitation? What is the relative importance of the tail catcher for higher energy jets?

9 ILD LoI - ECAL The Si surface area is ~ 10 x larger than the current state of the art. Is the extrapolation reliable? Is there sufficient industrial capacity? There are 100 million channels. That is ~ 1000 x the current state of the art. How will gain uniformity (manufacturing) and cross calibration be insured, measured and then maintained? How long does calibration on the Z pole take? Is it short w.r.t. the calibration “drift” time? The test beam constant term – pg 72, pg 75 appears to be non-zero. What is the relation of non-uniformity of the active medium to the constant term? There will be a “constant term” in the energy resolution. Why is it zero in ILD? 10^12 pixels? This is x the LHC pixel detectors….. Is the extrapolation assured?

10 ILD LoI - ECAL II Options: The crossed scintillator strip option appears to add to the complexity of PFA pattern recognition. Is there a loss of PFA performance of the scintillator option w.r.t. 1 cm^2 pixels? What is the Moliere radius in the 2 options? What is the cost comparison? What is the relative resolution of the digital and analogue calorimetry (ECAL and HCAL)? What is the relative PFA performance?

11 ILD LoI - HCAL What about non-uniformity of the medium due to cracks, supports and the like. Does this not induce a constant term? How would that be corrected? How do you calibrate behind the ECAL? How long does it take to find enough hadrons of high momentum that do not interact in the ECAL? What is the scintillator option sensitivity to neutron backgrounds? Do the CALICE test beam results confirm the claims of the PFA proposed for ILD? What more needs to be done to be confident in the PFA technique? What is the MPPC “saturation” curve? How can it be corrected and what is the resolution loss? Can you use p.e. peaks to cross calibrate to a %? If not is there not a constant term?

12 ILD LoI – General I When will there be a system test of power pulsing with ~ 1 % duty factor and a B field to assess Lorentz force issues – e.g. wire bonds? Does delayed readout preclude pulsing the power? If so what is done in this option? What time interval do the end effects in push-pull imply due to re-calibration and re-alignment? Could you provide a detailed discussion of the considerations which limited the ILD acceptance (in particular tracking) in the forward region? How much does this influence the physics reach? How does the acceptance in the forward region depend on B and L?

13 ILD LoI – General II Why choose only barrels instead of barrels and disks? What cost is there to forward tracking and flavor tagging? Is there an ongoing plan to study ZHH with full and realistic simulation? What luminosity is then required? How long does the measurement take? The DAQ data volume is dominated by machine background. How much headroom is designed into the system? Table Fig is mislabeled. The MC errors in Fig 3.2-4b should be reduced.