1. Single Particle Performance Akiya Miyamoto, KEK 2 nd ILD Workshop @ Cambridge 12-Sep-2008

2. Topics Momentum Resolution by muon Impact Parameter Resolution by muon Energy resolution by gamma Energy resolution by kaon_0L 2 Akiya Miyamoto, KEK 2nd ILD WS, Cambridge, 12/9/2008 Jupiter+Satellites by AM & K.Yoshida Jupiter + Satellites/Marlin by AM & T.Takahashi Mokka+Marlin/Pandora by M.Thomson Mokka+MarlinReco by S. Aplin

3. Tracking parameters of Jupiter/Mokka 3 Akiya Miyamoto, KEK 2nd ILD WS, Cambridge, 12/9/2008 TPC point resolution Akiya Miyamoto, KEK 3

4. Vertex Detector Akiya Miyamoto, KEK 2nd ILD WS, Cambridge, 12/9/2008 Jupiter Mokka Model namegldapr 08 gldprim _v04 j4ldc_v04LDC_GL D_01Sc LDCPrime_0 2Sc_p01 LDC01_0 6Sc Beam Pipe IRcm1.51.41.31.551.401.30 MaterialBe, 500mm t VTXVTX StructureCylindrical, 3 double layersLadder Layer Radius and HalfZ Length L1cm1.75, 7.25 1.6, 7.25 1.5, 7.25 L11.65, 5.0 1.50, 5.0 1.40, 5.0 L2cm1.95, 7.25 1.8, 7.25 1.7, 7.25 L22.6, 12.5 L3cm3.8,13.53.7,13.53.65,13.5L33.7, 12.5 L4cm4.0,13.53.9,13.53.85,13.5L44.8, 12.5 L5cm5.8,13.5 L56.0, 12.5 L6cm6.0,13.5 ThicknessX00.1% RL/layers ResolutionPoint Resolution :  r  =  z =2.8  m 4

5. Intermediate(Silicon) Tracker- Barrel Akiya Miyamoto, KEK 2nd ILD WS, Cambridge, 12/9/2008 JupiterMokka gldapr0 8 gldprim_v 04 j4ldc_v04LDCPrime_02Sc_p 01 StructureCylindrical Layer Radius & HalfZ Length L1cm9.0, 18.69.0, 18.5 L116.14, 38.0 L2cm16.0, 33.0 L3cm23.0, 47.5 L227.01, 66.0 L4cm30.0, 62.029.0, 62.0 ThicknessX00.6% RL/layer0.7%/RL/layer Point Resolution  r  =  z =10  m  r  =3  m,  z =50  m 5

6. Momentum Resolution

7. Pt resolution 7 Akiya Miyamoto, KEK 2nd ILD WS, Cambridge, 12/9/2008 LDC : ~5% worse at high Pt  Shorter Lever arm GLD/GLD’: ~10%worse at low Pt  Lower B Single muon, produced at cos  =0. by Jupiter+Satellites: TPC+IT+VTX fitting

8. Pt resolution – Mokka/Pandora 8 Akiya Miyamoto, KEK 2nd ILD WS, Cambridge, 12/9/2008 LDC01 : worse at high Pt LDC-GLD : worse at low Pt Single muon, produced at cos  =0.  Similar trends as Jupiter/Satellites

9. GLDPrim - LDCPrim 9 Akiya Miyamoto, KEK 2nd ILD WS, Cambridge, 12/9/2008 LDCPrim(Mokka+Pandora) is better than GLDPrim(Jupiter+Sattelites) by 15~30%. Possible source:   r  (IT) 3  m(LDCPrim)  10  m(GLDPrim)  Silicon External Tracker in Mokka 3x10 -5 Sub-detector technology is more important than geometry

10.  (dPt/Pt) vs Cos  Single Muon 10 Akiya Miyamoto, KEK 2nd ILD WS, Cambridge, 12/9/2008 1GeV 10GeV 100GeV lowP  j4ldc better highP  gld/gldprim better  5 ~  10% differences

11. dPt/Pt vs Cos  GLDPrim - LDCPrim 11 Akiya Miyamoto, KEK 2nd ILD WS, Cambridge, 12/9/2008 Difference smaller in the forward region

12. Impact Parameter Resolution

13. Impact Parameter Resolution(P dep.) 13 Akiya Miyamoto, KEK 2nd ILD WS, Cambridge, 12/9/2008 J4LDC is better by 5~10%, especially at low P. Jupiter + Sattelites by K.Yoshida

14. Impact Parameter Resolution(P dep.) 14 Akiya Miyamoto, KEK 2nd ILD WS, Cambridge, 12/9/2008 Difference among models by Jupiter/Satellites and Mokka/MarlinReco are similar LDC better by 5~10% at lowP. Mokka + Pandora by S.Aplin

15. GLDPrim vs LDCPrim (  r  (IP)) 15 Akiya Miyamoto, KEK 2nd ILD WS, Cambridge, 12/9/2008 GLDPrim is better than LDCPrim ; 3 double layers vs 5 layers ? Fast sim. study by M.Berggren

16. 16 Akiya Miyamoto, KEK 2nd ILD WS, Cambridge, 12/9/2008 Impact Parameter Resolution(  dep.) p=1GeV Differences among gld/gldprim/j4ldc are ~15% at 1 GeV and smaller at H.E.

17. GLDPrim vs LDCPrim (  r  (IP)) 17 Akiya Miyamoto, KEK 2nd ILD WS, Cambridge, 12/9/2008 At p=100 GeV, |cos  |>0.0 less difference between GLDPrim and LDCPrim ??

18. Calorimeter Energy Resolution

19. Jupiter/Mokka Calorimeter Parameters JupiterMokkaJupiterMokkaJupiterMokka Model Namegldapr08LDCGLDgldprimLDCPrimej4ldcLDC BT333.5 44 ECAL Rmincm2102.02185182.5160161 ECAL # layers33 20/933 ECAL Rad.LengthX028.4 22.8728.4 HCAL # Layers46424837 Int. Length(Total) 6.796.296.865.67 HCAL Rmax361.7325.0335.9285.7 Cryostat Rin375330335.9300 19 Akiya Miyamoto, KEK2nd ILD WS, Cambridge, 12/9/2008 ECAL(Jupiter): W(3mm) + Scinti.(2mm) + Gap(1mm), 12-sided no-gap (Mokka):W(2.1mm/4.2mm)+Si(0.32mm), Gap(0.5mm), 8-sided, with-gap HCAL(Jupiter): Fe(20mm)+Scinti.(5mm)+Gap(1mm), 12-sided, no-gap (Mokka): Fe(20mm)+Scinti.(5mm)+Gap(1.5mm), 8(in)/8(out)-sided, no-gap

20. gamma Energy resolution Same performance in all models. GLDPrim and LDCPrim same. Akiya Miyamoto, KEK 20 2nd ILD WS, Cambridge, 12/9/2008

21. Calorimeter Energy Resolution for kaon_0L

22. Energy Resolution of kaon_0L 22 Akiya Miyamoto, KEK 2nd ILD WS, Cambridge, 12/9/2008 dE/E Single kaon_0L |cos  | < 0.5 Casued by Bertini cascade  QGSP switch of LCPhysicsList Jupiter + Sattelites(Cheated PFA)

23. kaon_0L Energy Resolution 23 Akiya Miyamoto, KEK 2nd ILD WS, Cambridge, 12/9/2008 Not conclusive result. - 12~13 GeV - LE/HE behaviour Clustering Algorithm ?

24. Point-by-point comparison 24 Akiya Miyamoto, KEK 2nd ILD WS, Cambridge, 12/9/2008 Single kaon_0L Same below ~ 10 GeV, difference at high energy  shower leakage

25. Pulse height distribution: All layers vs up to 31 layers(GLD)

26. Resolution vs used layers Resolution relative to all layers k0L, using gldapr08_14m data. gld 46layes gldprim 42 layers j4ldc 37 layers HCAL thickness

27. Summary Momentum Resolution of single muon  Mokka+MarlinReco and Jupiter+Satellites show similar trend. 4T model is about 10% better than 3.5T/3T model below ~ 10 GeV. 3T(3.5T) models is 5~105% better than 4T model above 10~ 50 GeV.  Sub-detector technologies are more important than geometry LDCPrim is better than GLDPrim by 15 ~ 30% –w./w.o SET,  r  of IT, … matters Impact parameter Resolution  Mokka+MarlinReco and Jupiter+Satellites show similar trend. At 1GeV (100GeV), 4T model is ~15%(~5%) better than 3T model, 3.5 is in between  GLDPrim is better than J4LDC at cos  =0. Source of difference : 3 double layers better than 5 layers ? 27 Akiya Miyamoto, KEK2nd ILD WS, Cambridge, 12/9/2008

28. Summary (cont.) Calorimeter by single particle.  Energy resolution of single  Difference among gldapr08, gldprim_v04, and j4ldc_v04, LDCPrim are negligible  Energy resolution of k 0 L ; Resolution can not be determined by fit due to LCPhysicsList feature By point-by-point comparison, –differences among gld/gld’/j4ldc below ~20 GeV is  5% –at 100 GeV, it is ~20% and can be explained by different interaction length GLD(6.79 )  J4LDC(5.67 ) 28 Akiya Miyamoto, KEK 2nd ILD WS, Cambridge, 12/9/2008