1 Snowmass2005 report 2005/09/26 H. Matsunaga GLDCAL meeting

2 Snowmass05 A joint workshop –Second ILC workshop (Accelerator) –ALCPG workshop (Physics and Detector) American regional -> World-wide – Snowmass, Colorado –Altitude ~2500 m Two weeks: 8/14 ~8/27 –Sort of “real” workshop ~600 participants –60 persons from Japan

3 Snowmass

4 Sessions Many plenary and parallel sessions –Accelerator –Detector –Physics –Education & Outreach –(Private communication/discussion) Detector sessions –Detector components CAL, SIM, MDI, MUON/PID, PFA, Test beams, TRK, VTX –Concept studies GLD, LDC, SID

5 Special sessions etc. Accelerator Seminars/Tutorials Physics Benchmarks Industrial Forum Special Evening Forum : “Challenges for Realizing the ILC : Funding, Regionalism, and the International Collaboration” –Views from ICFA, HEPAP, DOE, NSF, Asia, FALC, Europe,… Public Lectures (Y-K. Kim, H. Murayama) Concepts Groups meet with WWS R&D panel Case for 2 Detectors Cosmology and ILC LHC-ILC

6 Accelerator part Working Groups (WG 1, 2, 3a, 3b, 4, 5, 6) Formed Global Groups (GG 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) BCD (Baseline Configuration Document) by the end of 2005 Good summary by Yokoya-san at the recent JPS

7 Fourth Concept Fourth concept was proposed –John Hauptman, Richard Wigmans et al. Compensating CAL; not PFA-directed –20%/ √ E for e, hadron and even jets –Dual fiber readout : Scintillation & Cherenkov Correct EM fraction event-by- event –How to construct 4  detector ?

8 Detector session Main focus on PFA (Particle Flow Algorithms) –PFA plenary session –No group has achieved the goal of 30%/ √ E for jets Still need a lot of work to obtain definite answer Next four pages are taken from Jean- Claude Brient’s talk –May need more detailed study (tracking etc.)

9  E J = a  √E J ⊕ b  E J + c ab c (GeV) ALEPH Method quasi-PFA ATLAS H PFLOW-ILC * NIM A360 (1994),480 * NIM A360 (1994),480 the Angular Dependence !! ALEPH, a=0.8 in end-cap ATLAS, a=1.2 in end-cap etc… the energy resolution Essentially already given by A.Raspereza on LDC Why the value of b is so important !! (and why a calorimetric approach is not the solution)

10 H1 ATLAS ALEPH Goal for PFA-ILC  E jet ( GeV) E jet ( GeV) * NIM A360 (1994),480 * NIM A360 (1994),480 JCB ? Depends on Granularityand Physics process (jet mul., √s…) Real data  confusion  threshold

11 Distance in cm Fraction 1.5 x the pad size Fraction of the photon(s) energy per event, closer to a charged track than some distance 1.5 x pad size is needed for photon reconstruction

12 Measurement Directly related To the TOTAL WIDTH Of the Higgs !!! 8 to 10% 8 to 10% of the energy !! Region for LDC, SiD

13 Pad size is more important than Moliere radius 1x1 mm 2 pad size 21 and 17 GeV at 1.2cm apart For tau decays, granularity may be most important than quark/gluon jets By H. Videau (and J-C. Brient)

14 Granularity Study Default segmentation - Different granularity is tested. - So far, no gain with finer segmentation. (under study) By T. Yoshioka This results are due to production on Z-pole ?

15 CAL session Three concepts + fourth (“DREAM”) by R. Wigmans Still many proposals Comparison session –Silicon-based ECAL –Sci.-based ECAL –RPC-based HCAL –GEM-based HCAL –Sci.-based HCAL

16 CALICE Tile-HCAL Talk by Felix Sefkow Scintillator Tile + SiPM Already used in their Minical Construct HCAL module for testbeam –Using thousand SiPM –Established mass production and quality control scheme –Frontend electronics

17 Misc. Need to validate the feasibility of orthogonal strip readout Discussed with Patrick le Du for Front-end electronics Detector outline document due end of February 2006 Detector CDR due end of 2006 Testbeam around 2007? Upcoming meeting etc. –ECFA ILC workshop, Vienna, Austria, November 2005 –LCWS 2006, Bangalore, India, 9-15 March 2006