Overall Detector Performance Working Group Convenors: Pascal Gay, Markus Schumacher, Mark Thomson Charge of the WG Strategy How to do ? Who does what ? Open Questions Towards Amsterdam Prague,

2 Markus Schumacher, Bonn Overall Detektor Performance Working Group Charge of the Working Group u Evaluation of the detector performance considering the whole detector u Comparison of different sub-detector design/technology options in the context of the detector as a single entity uProvide a forum for discussion on all issues related to the overall detector performance with participation from detector R&D, simulation and physics groups (including our colleagues from the North American and Asian LC-Workshops)

3 Markus Schumacher, Bonn Overall Detektor Performance Working Group Strategy uObtain key performance figures uPerform reconstruction of physics events using information from all subdetectors with full simulation uStudy influence of machine backgrounds (occupancy), overlaping events, time structure of accelerator, (mis)allignment and calibration issues, issue of crossing angle of the colliding beams uDevelop ID/reco. tools and compare them using well defined benchmark processes uExtract parametrisations for / transfer algorithms to fast simulation packages (e.g. done for flavor tagging) uPerform comparison of physics results between full and fast simulation different detector technology & reco. algorithm options uProvide inputs to the discussion of cost/performance issues

4 Markus Schumacher, Bonn Overall Detektor Performance Working Group How to do it ? ucommon simulation framework for a fair comprison agree on language and one (maybe) new package (so far: Fortran/C++, BRAHMS/MOKKA, GEANT3/4) uprovide a common data format for easy use in physics studies  define and agree on benchmark processes for comparsion (ee  WW,ZZ,ttH for jet reco., jet separation, E resolution) (ee  WW  qqlnu for low angle tracking, flavor charge ID) uIdentify key analysis tools to be developed ( reconstruction algorithms, ID tools, accelerator + alignment issues) uIdentify key performance numbers to be determined ( E, p, d 0 resolutions, reco and tagging eff., fake rates... ) More detailed and complete list of benchmark processes, tools and key performance numbers on working group web page

5 Markus Schumacher, Bonn Overall Detektor Performance Working Group Who does what ?  detector groups provide inputs about technology options, detector design (granularity, material budget, readout time), very basic performance figures (point/energy/cluster resolutions, dependence on number of cells etc.), noise, ocupancy....  simulation/software groups implement or ensure implementation of above in simulation, provide common simulation framework and data format  detector groups and simulation/software groups develop and implement basic reconstruction algorithms ( providing tracks, clusters )  overall detector performance group and simulation/software groups provide/ensure existence of analysis tools ( e.g. event reconstruction, ID packages )  overall detector performance group define performance criteria collect result from various groups and distribute those information  overall detector performance group and all (including physics groups) evaluate the performance figures / compare options

6 Markus Schumacher, Bonn Overall Detektor Performance Working Group Analysis tools/topics and Performance Criteria Tools and Topics  PID + reconstruction for : e,  V 0,h 0,conversions,....  quark flavor and charge tag  dE/dx id algorithms  implementation of overlapping events, alignment + calibration, several bunch crossings, beam crossing angle Performance Criteria  define physics processes to be studied as benchmarks  specify figures to compare: (e.g.) reco./id/selection effiencies rejection factors / fake rates resolutions: E,  ij, M miss,...  compare those figures for 1) different event topologies 2) technology + reco. options 3) background levels, allignment and calibration accuracies

7 Markus Schumacher, Bonn Overall Detektor Performance Working Group Some Open Questions and Topics uinfluence of machine backgrounds due to and time structure of accelerator (vs. readout time) (e.g. assignment of tracks to bunch crossings) uissue of (mis)alignment, calibration, dead channels uhermeticity, forward veto vs. machine backgrounds uinfluence of non vanishing crossing angle unew and/or more sophisticated analysis tools: (e.g. quark charge tagging, b (c) vs. bbar (cbar) sophisticated implementation of dE/dx for particle ID) ( no complete list, examples from personal preference)

8 Markus Schumacher, Bonn Overall Detektor Performance Working Group Towards Amsterdam uToday: get overview of detector technologies, their implementation and status of simulation and availability and sophistication of ID/analysis tools uToday + Next Weeks: 1) find volunteers for all the open topics 2) decide on and provide common simulation framework and data format uUntil Amsterdam: 1) establish common framework and data format 2) write documentation and provide it to all users 3) exchange information between working groups 4) do first studies for evaluation of performance uAmsterdam: plenty of reports on new and interesting results