1. Report on the UCSC/SCIPP BeamCal Simulation Effort
ECFA Linear Collider Workshop
Palacio de la Magdalena
Santander, Cantabria, Spain
May 30 – June 5, 2016
Bruce Schumm
UC Santa Cruz Institute for Particle Physics
Don’t forget x,y recon results
X2 background effect
Description of algorithm
Segmentation strategy study 1

2. The SCIPP BeamCal Simulation Group
The group consists of UCSC undergraduate physics majors (and one engineering major)
Christopher Milke (Lead)* Heading to SMU’s doctoral program in fall
Jane Shtalenkova, Luc D’Hauthuille, Spenser Estrada, Benjamin Smithers, Summer Zuber, Cesar Ramirez
Alix Feinsod
Led by myself, with technical help and collaboration from Jan Strube, Anne Schuetz, Tim Barklow
Power consumption for irradiated Si sensors
VXD Occupancy / Anti-DiD Field
Determining ILC IP parameters with the BeamCal
Bhabha events and the two-photon physics veto
SUSY in the degenerate limit

3. Luc d'Hauthuille Bruce Schumm University of California, Santa Cruz
Power Draw of the Beam Calorimeter as a function of Temperature & Radiation Dosage
Luc d'Hauthuille
Bruce Schumm
University of California, Santa Cruz

4. Motivation
Folk wisdom suggests that Si diode sensors are not ideal for high-radiation environments due to their development of significant leakage current
This may be correct, but is it truly a problem?
We have taken extensive IV data as a function of ambient and annealing temperature, for a P-type sensor exposed to 270 Mrad (~ 3 years) of electromagnetically-induced radiation.
Here, we estimate the resulting distribution & sum of the dark-current power draw in the BeamCal

5. Assumptions Power modeled as a function of radiation and temperature
Power drawn scales linearly with radiation dosage
Temperature dependent IV data was taken at SCIPP for a Si sensor exposed to 270 MRads of radiation after a 60˚C annealing process, by Cesar Gonzalez & Wyatt Crockett.
A 3rd degree polynomial was fit to this I vs. T data, for a Bias Voltage = 600V

6. Overview
The LCSIM framework was used to compute the energy deposited from 10 simulated background events (bunch crossings at 500 GeV collision energy)
Energy deposited was then extrapolated for 3 years of runtime, and converted to radiation dosage
Temperature was input and combined with radiation dosage to compute the power draw for each mm^2 pixel, at each layer, for 600V bias (charge-collection about 90% after 270 Mrad)
Power draw of these pixels was plotted on a heatmap for a range of temperatures (-7, 0,7, 15 ˚C)

7. IV Curves at various Temperatures

8. Polynomial Fit for Temperature Dependent Current (600 V)

9. P(R,T) = (R/270MRads)*(600V)*I(T)
Model for Power Draw
Using these assumptions, power drawn by a
pixel is:
P(R,T) = (R/270MRads)*(600V)*I(T)
where R is radiation dosage, T is temperature, 600V is the Bias Voltage and I(T) is the current given by the fit.

10. Layers 2 & 10 of BeamCal at T = 0˚C
P_max = mW
(for a single mm2 pixel)

11. Layers 2 & 10 of BeamCal at T = 15˚C
P_max = mW
(for a single mm2 pixel)

12. Power Drawn(Watts) of BeamCal collapsed
T = -7 ˚C
T = 0 ˚C
P_total = W
P_total = W
P_max = mW
P_max = mW
(for a single pixel)
(for a single pixel)

13. Operating Temperature (0C) Maximum for 1mm2 Pixel (mW)
Total Power Draw
Operating Temperature (0C)
Total Power Draw (W)
Maximum for 1mm2 Pixel (mW) 15 56 23 7 25 10 11
4.6 -7
4.5
1.9

14. Further investigations
Power draw maps can provide an input to design a system that avoids thermal runaway
Three other types of Si sensors (NF, PC, NC) have been irradiated to 300 MRads and the PF sensor to 500 MRads, which await damage measurements

15. Bhabha Events
Issue:
Degenerate SUSY has background from two-photon events
Hope to reduce by detecting scattered primary e+/- in BeamCal and vetoing the event
If a SUSY event is overlain with a Bhabha event with an e+/- in the BeamCal, we will reject SUSY
 What is the rate of Bhabha events with e+/- in the Beamcal?
Bhabhas with virtuality -Q2 > 1 GeV (~ 4 mrad scatter) available at
with cross section  = 278 nb
 Raw rate of 0.76 Bhabha events per beam crossing
ftp://ftp-lcd.slac.stanford.edu/ilc4/DBD/ILC500/bhabha_inclusive/stdhep/bhabha_inclusive*.stdhep

16. Fraction of Q2 > 1 Bhabhas Fraction of Beam Crossings
Bhabha Event Classes
Bhabha events fall into three classes
Miss-Miss: Both e-/e+ miss the BeamCal; not problematic
Hit-Hit: Both e-/e+ hit the BeamCal; should be identifiable with kinematics (need to demonstrate)
Hit-Miss: One and only one of e-/e+ hit the BeamCal; background to two-photon rejection.
Event Type
Fraction of Q2 > 1 Bhabhas
Fraction of Beam Crossings
Miss-Miss
23%
18%
Hit-Miss
14%
11%
Hit-Hit
63%
48%
Naively, 11% of SUSY events would be rejected due to Hit-Miss events, plus whatever fraction of the 48% of Hit-Hit crossings aren’t clearly identified based on e+/- kinematics.

17. Hit/Hit events: e+-e- angular correlation
“Type a quote here.”
–Johnny Appleseed

18. After cut of  < 1.0 Mrad, 33% of Hit/Hit Bhabhas remain (16% of crossings). Can possibly eliminate with energy cut (need to balance against two-photon and SUSY events)

19. For Hit/Miss events, there may well be useful kinematic handles… but again, need to compare to two-photon and SUSY signal distributions

20. Degenerate SUSY and Electron Tagging
SUSY has a cosmologically-motivated corner where a weakly-coupled particle (stau) is nearly generate with the LSP (0)
We have generated events at Ecm= 500 GeV with
M~= (100, 150, 250) GeV
~-0 splittings of (20.0, 12.7, 8.0, 5.0, 3.2, 2.0) GeV
Concern: Two-photon events provide
greater and greater background as
splitting decreases.
Hope: We can tag the scattered electron or
Positron in the Beamcal and veto.
But: If photons are from Beamstrahlung, electron/positron do not get a pT kick (is this right Tim?)

21. Two-Photon Event Rate
Thanks to Tim Barklow, SLAC, we have ~107 generator-level two photons events, with electron/positron photon fluxes given by the Weizsacker-Williams approximation (W) and/or the Beamstrahlung distribution (B).
Events have been generated down to M = 300 MeV.
For this phase space, the ILC event rate is approximately 1.2 events/pulse.
1 year of  events corresponds to (1.2)x(2650)x(5)x(107) events, or about 1.6x1011 events per year.
How do we contend with such a large number of events in our simulation studies?

22. Two-Photon Approach Convenient data storage in 2016: ~5 TB
Tim Barklow:
5 TB is about 109 generated (not simulated!) events
1011 events requires day jobs
Jan Strube: Don’t worry about CPU (really?)
 Proposed approach:
Do study at generator-level only.
Except: Full BeamCal simulation to determine electron-ID efficiency as a function of (E,r,) of electron. Parameterize with 3-D function and use in generator-level analysis
Devise “online cuts” applied at generation that reduce data sample by x100 (can this be done?)
Store resulting 109 events and complete analysis “offline”

23. In Search Of: “Online Selection”
For now, looking at three observables:
M: mass of  system
S: Sum of magnitudes of pT for all particles in  system
V: Magnitude of vector sum of pT for particles in  system
Each of these is done both for McTruth as well as “reconstructed” detector proxy
Detector Proxy: Particles (charged ot neutral) detected if
No neutrinos
|cos()| < 0.9

24. Seems like a clean cut, but what is seen in the “detector”?
ISO “Online Selection”:  Mass (M)
0 Mass
2 GeV Splitting
SUSY Signal;
~ Mass = 150 GeV
Two-photon background
Seems like a clean cut, but what is seen in the “detector”?

25. For 2 GeV splitting, even a cut of 0.5 MeV removes some signal
“Detected”  Mass (M)
0 Mass
SUSY Signal;
~ Mass = 150 GeV
Two-photon background
For 2 GeV splitting, even a cut of 0.5 MeV removes some signal

26. Fairly promising as well; but is it independent of M?
S Observable: “Detected”
0 Mass
SUSY Signal;
~ Mass = 150 GeV
Two-photon background
Fairly promising as well; but is it independent of M?

27. V Observable: “Detected”
0 Mass
Two-photon background
SUSY Signal;
~ Mass = 150 GeV
Not as promising; looks better for “true”, but even for Vtrue = 0, reconstructed V has significant overlap with SUSY signal (save for “offline” part of study?)

28. Cut flow for S, M Distributions
News is not the best:
S and M observables very correlated
3% loss of signal (at 2 GeV!) reduces background by only ~2/3
Other discriminating variables?

32. Forward EMCal Readout Buffer Depth Study
Issue:
EMCal read out by KPiX chip
KPiX chip has limited number of buffers (currently 4). This limits the number of hits that can be recorded per pulse train
Study backgrounds to determine if buffer depth needs to be extended, and if so, by how much.

33. Low Cross-section (down to 0.1 events/train)
Event Types Included
BhaBha
Pair Backgrounds
Gamma-gamma to Hadron
Low Cross-section (down to 0.1 events/train) 33 33 33

34. Hit Number Distribution (Integrated over a full train)34 34 34

35. Fraction of Hits Lost During the Train as a Function of KPiX Buffer Depth35 35 35

36. But: Are there “Hot Spots”? Fractions of Hits Lost, By EMCal Layer36 36 36

37. Fractions of Hits Lost, By Radius (Distance from Beam Line)37 37 37

38. Event Types Included 38 38 38

39. Event Types Included 39 39 39

40. Tiling strategy and granularity study
Constant
7.6x7.6
5.5x5.5
3.5x3.5
Variable
Nominal
Nominal/2
Nominal/2

41. Parting Thoughts
The SCIPP simulation group is active on a number of fronts.
In addition to expanding our BeamCal efforts, we are also looking into the forward EMCal occupancy.
We have a number of studies in mind, largely related to answering design questions about the BeamCal. We continue to be open to suggestion or refinements.
Support from Norman and others will remain essential.