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

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

3. Organization

4. 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

5. 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

6. Making Physics Case for the ILC

7. 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’

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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%)

11. 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

12. 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 GeV)
Top quark mass (msbar)
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

13. 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

14. CEPC-SppC Accumulate human resources and know-hows by CEPC
CEPC (Circular Electron Positron Collider) 50 km circ. baseline ( 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)

15. 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
GeV
CEPC: 2x1034 /cm2s /IP　（x２IPs）
ILC: 3x1034 /cm2s /IP (upgrade)
（Baseline 0.75x1034 /cm2s)
Wall plug power
CEPC: ‘500MW’
ILC: 200 GeV (upgrade)
(Baseline : 129 MW)

16. ILC Running Scenario
(Talk by Jim Brau)

17. 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

18. 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

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

20. Change Management

21. 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)

22. 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

23. Common L* (CR2) ILD Accelerator people want a common L* at around 4 m
SiD can accommodate a L* between m
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

24. 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

25. Other WGs

26. 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):

27. 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

28. 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

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

30. 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) )

31. Detector Concepts

32. 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

33. 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)

34. 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
currently 25 institutes

35. 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