Marty and the ILCMarty’s Impact on ILC Broad and Deep! First Linear Collider & Detector - SLC and SLD SiD general concept SiD subdetectors - silicon tracking, silicon-tungsten ECal,

February 7, 2020

SiD and the International Linear Collider

Jim BrauUniversity of Oregon

The International Linear Collider❖ The International Linear Collider (ILC) is a proposed linear

particle accelerator. ❖ ILC will collide electrons with positrons at collision energies

of hundreds of GeV.❖ Proposed to be built in the USA, Europe and Japan, but now

the active site being considered is in northern Japan.❖ It would be about ten times as long as SLAC.

2J. Brau - 7 February 2020SiD and the International Linear Collider

Marty’s Impact on ILC❖ Broad and Deep!

❖ First Linear Collider & Detector - SLC and SLD

❖ SiD general concept❖ SiD subdetectors

- silicon tracking, silicon-tungsten ECal, HCal, silicon vertex detector, magnet, …

❖ SiD integration❖ SiD costs❖ ILC machine detector interface❖ …and more…


Marty and Chris Damerell

credit: Cornell 2003

SLC and SLDThe First Linear Collider

❖ SLC built in 1980’s on existing SLAC linac.

❖ Marty led SLD as co-spokesman with Charlie Baltay.

❖ SLD operated 91-98.❖ Alr=0.15056 ± 0.00239✝.❖ Stringent Higgs mass bound:

mh < 147 GeV, 95% CL✝.✝..❖ Established many ILC concepts.❖ Marty contributed significantly

to development of SLC, itself.


✝. PRL 84 5945✝.✝.http://www-sldnt.slac.stanford.edu/alr/

SLD

Early ILC Contribution During SLC


Marty and John O’Fallon

credit: Fred Harris

Marty, Bill Ash & Bob Messner

credit: Fred Harris

Second International Workshop on Physics & Experiments @ Linear e+e- Colliders

University of Hawaii. April, 1993

2001 Motivation for Linear Collider❖ As the 20th century ended, after SLC/SLD’s successful physics

program, motivation for a “next” linear collider was clear.

❖ Paraphrasing “Linear Collider Physics Resource Book for Snowmass 2001,” SLAC-R-570:

❖ All evidence on EW interactions consistent with Standard Model (SM) with symmetry breaking due to Higgs field, ❖ generates masses of W & Z bosons and quarks & leptons.

❖ The Higgs field is an ad hoc addition to the SM, added "by hand".❖ Quark & lepton masses from arbitrary couplings to Higgs field. ❖ To explain these (and other) features, it’s necessary to extend SM. ❖ These extensions, in turn, predict new particles and phenomena.

❖ Higgs boson not yet discovered; SLD suggested low mass.


Y2K - Linear Collider Concepts

NLC & JLC❖ SLAC and KEK❖ X-Band (11.4 GHz)-warm❖ 70 MeV/m


TESLA❖ DESY❖ SuperC RF (1.3 GHz)❖ 35 MeV/m

As the 21st Century began, there were two competingconcepts on world stage for a “next” Linear Collider

NLC ZDRSLAC-R-571 August 2001

TESLA TDRDESY-2001-011 March 2001

Linear Collider Design Evolution❖ Marty’s early work focussed on NLC, the SLAC-led

proposal.

❖ NLC based on warm X-band technology competed with SCRF approach, favored at DESY for TESLA.


2000 Ground Motion Workshop, SLAC

Marty and Andrei Seryi

Linear Collider Design Evolution❖ February 2003 - ICFA’s Technical Review Committee (ILC-TRC, chaired by

Greg Loew) reported on assessment of technical maturity of the technologies.

❖ Both X-Band (SLAC/KEK) and SCRF (DESY) are technically mature.

❖ In 2003 ICFA commissioned a panel (ITRP chaired by B. Barish) to recommend preferred technology, in order to consolidate global effort.

❖ 2004 - After thorough review by ITRP, with several meetings for presentations by advocates, SLAC-favored warm technology lost out to SCRF.

❖ After receiving news with great disappointment, Marty and SLAC colleagues began intense effort on this technology shift to SCRF.


NLC/JLC

TESLA

International Linear Collider

The Silicon Detector (SiD)❖ Marty was leading conception of a new detector capitalizing on

the opportunities offered by the Linear Collider environment. ❖ SiD concept first presented at the ECFA/DESY Workshop on

Linear Colliders in Amsterdam, April, 2003.❖ SLAC-PUB-11413

• Conceived as high performance NLC detector.• Reasonably uncompromised performance.• But, Constrained & Rational cost.

– Marty’s parametric cost analysis.Assume excellent energy flow calorimetry required,

explore optimization of a W-Si ECal,and implications for the detector architecture…


Quadrant View

0.000

1.000

2.000

3.000

4.000

5.000

6.000

7.000

8.000

0.000 2.000 4.000 6.000 8.000

m

m

Beam PipeEcalHcalCoilMTEndcapEndcap_HcalEndcap_EcalVXDTrack AngleEndcap_Trkr_1Endcap_Trkr_2Endcap_Trkr_3Endcap_Trkr_4Endcap_Trkr_5Trkr_2Trkr_3Trkr_4Trkr_5Trkr_1

Coil

2003 SiD Images

❖ After technology decision, GDE formed to develop ILC design under ICFA Mandate.

❖ GDE participants met in Snowmass, CO, in 2005

Barry BarishGDE Director

Global Design Effort (GDE)


Snowmass 2005






Snowmass 2005






Snowmass 2005

ILC Experimental AdvantagesAs the ILC machine was being designed, Marty’s thinking about

experimenting at the ILC was evolving and maturing.❖ Radiation damage mostly not an issue (except very forward).

❖ collisions dominated by electroweak processes - very different from LHC.❖ Trigger-less operation - record every interaction (<6Gb/sec).❖ Bunch train structure allows pulse power w/ gas cooling.

❖ Relatively low event rates.❖ Elementary interactions at known Ecm.

❖ (e.g. e+e- → Z H)❖ Democratic Cross sections.

❖ (e.g. [e+e - → ZH] ~ 1/2 [e+e - → dd] ) ❖ Highly Polarized Electron Beam.

❖ (~ 80% - & positron pol. 30%)❖ Tunable center-of-mass energy.

❖ OPTIMIZE DETECTOR FOR ULTRA-PRECISE MEASUREMENTS12J. Brau - 7 February 2020SiD and the International Linear Collider

2000 Ground Motion Workshop, SLAC

1312 bunches (0.73 ms)

ILC250

J. Brau - 7 February 2020SiD and the International Linear Collider

16 August 2005 SiD Snowmass 05 M. Breidenbach1

SiDExpectations from the Design Study

– Motivation– What We Need!– Technical efforts– Status

Marty on SiD at Snowmass 2005






SiD Motivation

• SiD is an attempt to interest the international HEP community in the experimental challenges of a LC.

• SiD represents an attempt to design a comprehensive LC detector, aggressive in performance but constrained in cost.

• SiD attempts to optimize the integrated physics performance capabilities of its subsystems.

• The design study should evolve the present concept of SiDtowards a more complete and optimized design.


Nominal SiD Detector Requirements

– a) Two-jet mass resolution comparable to the natural widths of W and Z for an unambiguous identification of the final states.

– b) Excellent flavor-tagging efficiency and purity (for both b- and c-quarks, and hopefully also for s-quarks).

– c) Momentum resolution capable of reconstructing the recoil-mass to di-muons in Higgs-strahlungwith resolution better than beam-energy spread .

– d) Hermeticity (both crack-less and coverage to very forward angles) to precisely determine the missing momentum.

– e) Timing resolution capable of tagging bunch-crossings to suppress backgrounds in calorimeter and tracker.

– f) Very forward calorimetry that resolves each bunch in the train for veto capability.

– This is the standard doctrine – is it correct and complete?


SiD

• Conceived as a high performance detector for the LC• Reasonably uncompromised performance

But• Constrained & Rational cost

– Detectors will get about 10%– of the LC budget: 2 detectors, – so perhaps $600 M each

• Accept the notion that excellent energy flow calorimetry is required, and explore optimization of a Tungsten-Silicon EMCal and the implications for the detector architecture…

This is the monster assumption of SiD


SiD Costs - as of Aug 05

Summary

VXD 6.0

Tracker 19.9

EMCal 74.7

Hcal 74.2

Muon System 26.0

Electronics 37.5

Magnet 164.1

Installation 9.6

Management 9.4

Escalation 140.2

Indirects 38.5

Total 600.2

SiD Costs by category

VXD

Tracker

EMCal

Hcal

Muon System

Electronics

Magnet

Installation

Management

Escalation

Indirects


Crude Cost Trends

Fixed B, Vary R_Trkr

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

0 0.5 1 1.5 2

R_Trkr (m)

M$ cost

d$/dR

BR^2 Fixed, Vary R_Trkr

-600

-400

-200

0

200

400

600

800

1000

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50

R_Trkr (m)

M$ R_Trkr

d$/dR


Architecture arguments

• Calorimeter (and tracker) Silicon is expensive, so limit area by limiting radius (and length)

• Maintain BR2 by pushing B (~5T)• Exquisite tracking resolution by using silicon strips• Buy safety margin for VXD with the 5T B-field.• Do track finding by using 5 VXD space points to determine track – tracker measures

sagitta. Exploit tracking capability of EMCal for Vees.


Knees

• During the SSC era, the SSC PAC asked the detector collaborations to justify their design choices – where possible by understanding the quality of detector performance as a function of a critical detector parameter. Ideally, quantities like overall errors on an important physics process would flatten out as a function of, say, calorimeter resolution, and there would be a rational argument for how good the resolution should be.

• We need similar analyses for the major parameters of SiD –EMCal radius and B are probably at the top of the list, along with justifying E-Flow calorimetry.

• We need to select physics processes for this study.• We are not constrained to design detector around these

knees, but we should know where they are!


SiD Configuration

Quadrant View

0.000

1.000

2.000

3.000

4.000

5.000

6.000

7.000

8.000

0.000 2.000 4.000 6.000 8.000

m

m


Scale of EMCal& Vertex Detector


full train (56 events)454 GeV detected energy100 detected charged tracks

1 bunch crossing

Yellow = muons Red = electrons Green = charged pionsDashed Blue = photons with E > 100 MeV

Illustration of bunch timing tag

T. Barklow16 August 2005 SiD Snowmass 05 M. Breidenbach

11

VXD Questions

• What is the VXD technology? • What is the optimal geometry, considering readout

electronics, cables, and cooling?


Momenter Questions

• Are there any serious problems with track finding (using VXD & EMCal)? (Barrel is 5 axial layers, segmented ~13 cm.)

• Is the 1.25 m radius optimal? What about the length?• Is 5 T B optimal?• Is there motivation to try to go thinner? Is there a knee in

the physics performance vs multiple scattering?


EMCal Questions

• Is an (expensive) Si-W tracking EMCal justified by the physics? Does E-Flow really work? It gives good but not great energy resolution – what about an EMCal with crystals with superb energy resolution? Crystals with somelongitudinal segmentation?

• Is there a useful Figure of Merit for E-Flow calorimetry? (My present favorite is BR2/{(σm

eff⊕σpixel)2x(σmeff ⊕δr

samp)}• Is radius of 1.25 m optimal? Is 5T B optimal? Same question as before!• Are there E-Flow performance issues in the forward direction? Are the end

EMCals far enough from the IP?


• Understanding of the HCal (in simulation and perhaps requiring beamtests) may well be necessary for serious development of the PFA.

• Gaseous detectors probably are less expensive and will have better segmentation than scintillator, but scintillator is a better detector for soft γ’s and neutrons. Is this important? Should an R&D attempt be made to make the gaseous detectors more sensitive – e.g. plastic walls?

• What should HCal radiator be – Tungsten? Stainless? Tungsten costs more but brings overall detector cost down (HCal ∆r is less, moving in coil). Is 4 Λenough?

• The HCal detector gap should be small – costs and shower spreading. Does this affect a detector choice?

• Note that HCal is inside coil. This seems to have gone away as a question.

HCal Assumptions and Questions


• Solenoid field is 5T – 3 times the field from detector coils that have been used in the detectors. - CMS will be 4T.

• Coil concept based on CMS 4T design. 5 layers of superconductor about 72 x 22 mm, with pure aluminum stabilizer and aluminum alloy structure. The aluminum alloy structural strips are beefed up relative to CMS.

• Coil Δr about 85 cm• Stored energy about 1.5 GJ (for Tracker Cone design, R_Trkr=1.25m, cosθbarrel=0.8).

(TESLA is about 2.4 GJ) [Aleph is largest existing coil at 130 MJ]• Is 5T right? And is it buildable? We need a “pre-conceptual” design!

Coil and Iron

Br Bz


Coil/Flux Return/Muon Tracker

• Previous questions as to the viability of a 5T coil seem to have gone away. Concept based on 6 layers of the CMS conductor is evolving.

• Iron “baseline” is 10 cm slabs with 1.5 cm gaps for detectors. Any muon identification concerns?


~ Not Worried about yet

• Small angle systems – forward tracking & calorimetry, Luminosity monitor

• Vibration Control & quad supports• Crossing angle correctors• And many others!

• All are important, and must be done “right” but unlikely to be design drivers in the class with E-Flow, B, Rcal.


Timing Analysis!

• We need answers to these questions to get to a credible conceptual design in 2006!

• We need answers to these questions to compare performance with the TPC based detectors!

SiD - Expectations from the Design StudyMarty at Snowmass 2005






SiD Motivation

• SiD is an attempt to interest the international HEP community in the experimental challenges of a LC.

• SiD represents an attempt to design a comprehensive LC detector, aggressive in performance but constrained in cost.

• SiD attempts to optimize the integrated physics performance capabilities of its subsystems.

• The design study should evolve the present concept of SiDtowards a more complete and optimized design.


Nominal SiD Detector Requirements

– a) Two-jet mass resolution comparable to the natural widths of W and Z for an unambiguous identification of the final states.

– b) Excellent flavor-tagging efficiency and purity (for both b- and c-quarks, and hopefully also for s-quarks).

– c) Momentum resolution capable of reconstructing the recoil-mass to di-muons in Higgs-strahlungwith resolution better than beam-energy spread .

– d) Hermeticity (both crack-less and coverage to very forward angles) to precisely determine the missing momentum.

– e) Timing resolution capable of tagging bunch-crossings to suppress backgrounds in calorimeter and tracker.

– f) Very forward calorimetry that resolves each bunch in the train for veto capability.

– This is the standard doctrine – is it correct and complete?


SiD

• Conceived as a high performance detector for the LC• Reasonably uncompromised performance

But• Constrained & Rational cost

– Detectors will get about 10%– of the LC budget: 2 detectors, – so perhaps $600 M each

• Accept the notion that excellent energy flow calorimetry is required, and explore optimization of a Tungsten-Silicon EMCal and the implications for the detector architecture…

This is the monster assumption of SiD


SiD Costs - as of Aug 05

Summary

VXD 6.0

Tracker 19.9

EMCal 74.7

Hcal 74.2

Muon System 26.0

Electronics 37.5

Magnet 164.1

Installation 9.6

Management 9.4

Escalation 140.2

Indirects 38.5

Total 600.2

SiD Costs by category

VXD

Tracker

EMCal

Hcal

Muon System

Electronics

Magnet

Installation

Management

Escalation

Indirects


Crude Cost Trends

Fixed B, Vary R_Trkr

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

0 0.5 1 1.5 2

R_Trkr (m)

M$ cost

d$/dR

BR^2 Fixed, Vary R_Trkr

-600

-400

-200

0

200

400

600

800

1000

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50

R_Trkr (m)

M$ R_Trkr

d$/dR


Architecture arguments

• Calorimeter (and tracker) Silicon is expensive, so limit area by limiting radius (and length)

• Maintain BR2 by pushing B (~5T)• Exquisite tracking resolution by using silicon strips• Buy safety margin for VXD with the 5T B-field.• Do track finding by using 5 VXD space points to determine track – tracker measures

sagitta. Exploit tracking capability of EMCal for Vees.


Knees

• During the SSC era, the SSC PAC asked the detector collaborations to justify their design choices – where possible by understanding the quality of detector performance as a function of a critical detector parameter. Ideally, quantities like overall errors on an important physics process would flatten out as a function of, say, calorimeter resolution, and there would be a rational argument for how good the resolution should be.

• We need similar analyses for the major parameters of SiD –EMCal radius and B are probably at the top of the list, along with justifying E-Flow calorimetry.

• We need to select physics processes for this study.• We are not constrained to design detector around these

knees, but we should know where they are!


SiD Configuration

Quadrant View

0.000

1.000

2.000

3.000

4.000

5.000

6.000

7.000

8.000

0.000 2.000 4.000 6.000 8.000

m

m


Scale of EMCal& Vertex Detector


full train (56 events)454 GeV detected energy100 detected charged tracks

1 bunch crossing

Yellow = muons Red = electrons Green = charged pionsDashed Blue = photons with E > 100 MeV

Illustration of bunch timing tag

T. Barklow


VXD Questions

• What is the VXD technology? • What is the optimal geometry, considering readout

electronics, cables, and cooling?


Momenter Questions

• Are there any serious problems with track finding (using VXD & EMCal)? (Barrel is 5 axial layers, segmented ~13 cm.)

• Is the 1.25 m radius optimal? What about the length?• Is 5 T B optimal?• Is there motivation to try to go thinner? Is there a knee in

the physics performance vs multiple scattering?


EMCal Questions

• Is an (expensive) Si-W tracking EMCal justified by the physics? Does E-Flow really work? It gives good but not great energy resolution – what about an EMCal with crystals with superb energy resolution? Crystals with somelongitudinal segmentation?

• Is there a useful Figure of Merit for E-Flow calorimetry? (My present favorite is BR2/{(σm

eff⊕σpixel)2x(σmeff ⊕δr

samp)}• Is radius of 1.25 m optimal? Is 5T B optimal? Same question as before!• Are there E-Flow performance issues in the forward direction? Are the end

EMCals far enough from the IP?


• Understanding of the HCal (in simulation and perhaps requiring beamtests) may well be necessary for serious development of the PFA.

• Gaseous detectors probably are less expensive and will have better segmentation than scintillator, but scintillator is a better detector for soft γ’s and neutrons. Is this important? Should an R&D attempt be made to make the gaseous detectors more sensitive – e.g. plastic walls?

• What should HCal radiator be – Tungsten? Stainless? Tungsten costs more but brings overall detector cost down (HCal ∆r is less, moving in coil). Is 4 Λenough?

• The HCal detector gap should be small – costs and shower spreading. Does this affect a detector choice?

• Note that HCal is inside coil. This seems to have gone away as a question.

HCal Assumptions and Questions


• Solenoid field is 5T – 3 times the field from detector coils that have been used in the detectors. - CMS will be 4T.

• Coil concept based on CMS 4T design. 5 layers of superconductor about 72 x 22 mm, with pure aluminum stabilizer and aluminum alloy structure. The aluminum alloy structural strips are beefed up relative to CMS.

• Coil Δr about 85 cm• Stored energy about 1.5 GJ (for Tracker Cone design, R_Trkr=1.25m, cosθbarrel=0.8).

(TESLA is about 2.4 GJ) [Aleph is largest existing coil at 130 MJ]• Is 5T right? And is it buildable? We need a “pre-conceptual” design!

Coil and Iron

Br Bz


Coil/Flux Return/Muon Tracker

• Previous questions as to the viability of a 5T coil seem to have gone away. Concept based on 6 layers of the CMS conductor is evolving.

• Iron “baseline” is 10 cm slabs with 1.5 cm gaps for detectors. Any muon identification concerns?


~ Not Worried about yet

• Small angle systems – forward tracking & calorimetry, Luminosity monitor

• Vibration Control & quad supports• Crossing angle correctors• And many others!

• All are important, and must be done “right” but unlikely to be design drivers in the class with E-Flow, B, Rcal.


Timing Analysis!

• We need answers to these questions to get to a credible conceptual design in 2006!

• We need answers to these questions to compare performance with the TPC based detectors!

Marty on SiD at Snowmass 2005

SiDExpectations from the Design StudySiD MotivationNominal SiD Detector Requirements SiDSiD Costs - as of Aug 05Crude Cost TrendsArchitectural argumentsKneesSiD ConfigurationIllustration of bunch timing tagVXD QuestionsMomenter QuestionsEMCal QuestionsHCal Assumptions and QuestionsCoil and IronCoil/Flux Return/Muon Tracker~Not Worried about yetTiming Analysis!

SiD Exec Board - December 2005Near Fermilab

Marty was focussed on the key issues to advance the SiD design,

and led the intellectual effort.

ILC Parameters• 2006 - Parameters Subcommittee of the International Linear

Collider Steering Committee (chair, Rolf Heuer)• “The machine should allow for an energy range for physics

between 200 GeV and 500 GeV, with operation at any energy value as dictated by the physics (e.g. at the maximum of the Higgs production cross section).”

• Question in 2006 - what is the value of the Higgs mass?


2009 - Letter of IntentarXiv:0911.0006

SiD Path to Validation2004 - led by Spokespersons J.Jaros & H.Weerts

2006 - Detector Outline Documenthttps://web.archive.org/web/20101117023030/http://hep.uchicago.edu/~oreglia/siddod.pdf

2007 - Reference Design ReportarXiv:0712.2356


August, 2009, the IDAG (M.Davier, chair) validated two concepts.One was SiD. Next challenge: the TDR!

After Validation, the TDR

ILC Technical Design Report complete in 2012,and delivered to ICFA in three continent event in 2013.


Five volumesVol 4 - Detectors

FermilabCERNTokyo

Parameter TDR

C.M.Energy(GeV) 500Upgradeableto1TeV

Length(km) 31

Luminosity(x1034) 1.8

Repetition(Hz) 5

BeamPulsePeriod(ms) 0.73

BeamCurrent(mAinpulse)

5.8

Beamsize(y)atFF(nm) 5.9

SRFCavityGr(MV/m),Q0

31.5,1x1010

SitePower(MW) 163main linacbunch

compressor

dampingring

source

pre-accelerator

collimation

final focus

IP

extraction& dump

KeV

few GeV

few GeVfew GeV

250-500 GeV

Nano-beamTechnology

SRFAcceleratingTechnology

KeyTechnologies

PhysicsDetectors

based on S. Michizono, 8 Nov 2017

ILC TDR is 5-volumes, published 12 June 2013

Polarized electrons (± 80%) and positrons (± 30%)

Design resulting from two decades of dedicated R&D

ILCTDR

17

31 km

Parameter TDR

C.M.Energy(GeV) 500Upgradeableto1TeV

Length(km) 31

Luminosity(x1034) 1.8

Repetition(Hz) 5

BeamPulsePeriod(ms) 0.73


5.8

Beamsize(y)atFF(nm) 5.9


31.5,1x1010

SitePower(MW) 163main linacbunch

compressor

dampingring

source

pre-accelerator

collimation

final focus

IP

extraction& dump

KeV

few GeV

few GeVfew GeV

250-500 GeV

Nano-beamTechnology


KeyTechnologies

PhysicsDetectors





ILCTDR

17

31 km

Higgs Boson Discovery❖ As ILC TDR was being completed.❖ Announced July 4, 2012. Mass = 125 GeV (light)


Higgs Boson Cross Section


(GeV)s200 250 300 350 400 450 500

Cro

ss s

ectio

n (fb

)

0

100

200

300

400=125 GeV

h)=(-0.8, 0.3), M+, e-P(e

hfSM all fZhWW fusionZZ fusion

=125 GeVh

)=(-0.8, 0.3), M+, e-P(e

WW fusionrising with

center-of-massenergy

Higgs-strahlungpeaks and falls with


Higgs Boson Cross Section


(GeV)s200 250 300 350 400 450 500

Cro

ss s

ectio

n (fb

)

0

100

200

300

400=125 GeV

h)=(-0.8, 0.3), M+, e-P(e

hfSM all fZhWW fusionZZ fusion

=125 GeVh

)=(-0.8, 0.3), M+, e-P(e

WW fusionrising with


Higgs-strahlungpeaks and falls with


Parameters Committee Report:

• “…operation at any energy value as dictated by the physics (e.g. at the maximum of the Higgs production cross section).”

250 GeV

Higgs Factory observes Higgs recoiling from a Z, with known CM energy⇓

• powerful channel for unbiassed tagging of Higgs events• measurement of even invisible decays

(⇓ - some beamstrahlung)

Higgstrahlung at 250 GeV


Invisible decays are included

4. MEASURE RECOILAND OBSERVE DECAY

1. KNOWN INTIAL STATE2. MEASURE Z→ l+l−

3. SELECT E(Z boson) = 110 GeV M(recoil) = 125 GeV

l+

l−

)2Recoil Mass (GeV/c110 120 130 140 150

Eve

nts

0

100

200

300

400

+ X @ 250 GeV-µ+µ →

-+e+e

Toy MC Data

Signal+Background

Signal

Background

arXiv:1604.07524, PRD94 (2016) 113002

ILC/HL-LHC Comparison (model-dependent)

Model dependence: 1.) Assume Higgs boson has no decay modes beyond those predicted by SM,

2.) Higgs boson WW & ZZ couplings modified only by rescaling.21J. Brau - 7 February 2020SiD and the International Linear Collider

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Prec

isio

n of

Hig

gs b

oson

cou

plin

gs [%

]

Z W b τ g c γ µ

1/2×

t

1/2×

λ

1/20×

HL-LHC arXiv:1902.00134S1: CMS, S2: ATLAS&CMS

ILC250⊕HL-LHC ILC500⊕ ILC250 ⊕HL-LHC

dark/light: S1/S2

=0 & no anom. hZZ/hWW coupl.)BSM

Γ Fit (κModel Dependent EFT / LCC Physics WG

1 %

arXiv:1903.01629

• S1, current projection• /model-dependent• S2, improved• /model-dependent

(HL-LHC adopted)

ILC Model Independent Higgs precision at 250 GeV

❖ Highly model-independent analysis of EFT: Phys Rev D97, 053003 (2018)


0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

Prec

isio

n of

Hig

gs b

oson

cou

plin

gs [%

]

Z W b τ g c invΓ hΓ γ γZ

1/3×

µ

1/2×

t

1/2×

λ

1/10×

ILC250⊕HL-LHC

ILC500⊕ ILC250 ⊕HL-LHC

dark/light: S1*/S2*

Model Independent EFT Fit LCC Physics WG

“Model-independent”EFT fit

~1 % goal to access

New Physics beyond HL-LHC

direct search

arXiv:1903.01629

Model Discrimination - 250 GeV


arXiv:1710.07621

02468101214161820 σ

mod

el d

iscr

imin

atio

n in

SM pMSSM

2HDM-II2HDM-X

2HDM-YComposite

LHT-6LHT-7

RadionSinglet

Singlet

Radion

LHT-7

LHT-6

Composite

2HDM-Y

2HDM-X

2HDM-II

pMSSM

SM

3.6 6.8 10.5 7.2 12.0 3.5 3.6 5.6 6.2

6.1 9.8 13.7 9.1 14.6 7.0 9.1 6.4

5.4 10.4 15.1 9.0 15.6 2.7 8.3

4.3 5.2 7.7 7.2 10.1 5.9

3.9 8.3 12.6 7.8 13.6

11.3 6.2 7.8 15.7

6.2 10.3 10.7

9.7 6.5

5.8ILC250, S2*

EFT interpretation• S1*, current projection

/model-independent• S2*, improved

/model-independent

Nine(9) models unlikely to be discovered by HL-LHC.

Masses beyond reach.

Model Discriminationimproves @ higher energy,

eg. 500 GeV

e- Source

e+ Main Linac

e+ Source

e- Main Linac

Parameter Initialstage

TDR

C.M.Energy(GeV) 250 500

Length(km) 20 31

Luminosity(x1034) 1.35(2.7,5.4)

1.8

Repetition(Hz) 5(10) 5

BeamPulsePeriod(ms) 0.73 0.73


5.8 5.8

Beamsize(y)atFF(nm) 7.7 5.9


31.5,1x1010

31.5,1x1010

SitePower(MW) 129 163main linacbunch

compressor

dampingring

source

pre-accelerator

collimation

final focus

IP

extraction& dump

KeV

few GeV

few GeVfew GeV

250-500 GeV

Nano-beamTechnology


KeyTechnologies

PhysicsDetectors

Damping Ring




~20km

arXiv:1903.01629arXiv:1711.00568


InitialStage-ILC250

24

e- Source

e+ Main Linac

e+ Source

e- Main Linac

Parameter Initialstage

TDR

C.M.Energy(GeV) 250 500

Length(km) 20 31

Luminosity(x1034) 1.35(2.7,5.4)

1.8

Repetition(Hz) 5(10) 5

BeamPulsePeriod(ms) 0.73 0.73


5.8 5.8

Beamsize(y)atFF(nm) 7.7 5.9


31.5,1x1010

31.5,1x1010

SitePower(MW) 129 163main linacbunch

compressor

dampingring

source

pre-accelerator

collimation

final focus

IP

extraction& dump

KeV

few GeV

few GeVfew GeV

250-500 GeV

Nano-beamTechnology


KeyTechnologies

PhysicsDetectors

Damping Ring




~20km

arXiv:1903.01629arXiv:1711.00568


InitialStage-ILC250

24

Cost (ILC250) ~ 60% Cost (TDR ILC - 500 GeV)

Japan Preparing to Host ILC

Vigorous recent activities in Japanese government to launch

international project.25J. Brau - 7 February 2020SiD and the International Linear Collider

Hitoshi Murayama, 2002 Nobel laureate Masatoshi Koshiba, LCC Director Lyn Evans, PM Shinzo Abe,

and Diet member Takeo Kawamura,

The Silicon Detector (SiD)• High performance ILC detector,

• Reasonably uncompromised performance,

• BUT constrained & Rational cost

• Compact design (R 6m) in a 5 T field.• Robust all-silicon tracking with

excellent momentum resolution.• Time-stamping for single bunch crossings.• Highly granular optimized for Particle Flow.• Integrated design: All parts work in tandem.• Iron flux return/muon identifier self-shields SiD.

• Thanks to Marty and colleagues, SiD well thought out, with initial R&D demonstrating concept, ready for intense engineering phase leading to construction.

≲


SiD Workshop, 2007 Fermilab

SiD

SiD Key Subsystems


OUTER TRACKING

❖ Silicon Tracking (SiD) - strips❖ 5 barrel layers, 4 forward disks❖ 1.2 m outer radius❖ Pixels being considered❖ B = 5T

CALORIMETRY❖ Separate W&Z di-jet events.❖ Resolution 3% for 100 GeV jet.❖ Use particle flow analysis.

≳

σ1pT

!

"#

$

%& ≤ 5×10−5 (GeV −1)

VERTEX DETECTOR

❖ CMOS pixels

σ rϕ ≈σ rz ≈ 5⊕10 / (p sin3/2ϑ ) µm

Chronopixel for Vertex DetectionOregon/YaleCollaboraDon• MonolithicCMOSdesign.

90nmfeaturesize,7µmepitaxiallayer280µmthickchip10ohm⋅cmmanufacturedbyTSMC

• Storeupto2hitsperpixel.

• 6sensordiodeopaonsevaluated.


Chronopixel

Chronopixel prototype 3 development board

N. Sinev et al., PoS VERTEX 2005, 038 (2015)

diodeoption

Capacitance(fF)

μV/e

1 9.0 18

2 6.2 6.3

3 2.7 59

4 4.9 33

5 4.9 33

6 8.9 18

Silicon Tracking w/ Gas Cooling → Low Material

❖ Linkage between readout/mechanics/powering/cooling studies.❖ Maintain low mass construction.❖ Tracking material from SiD design:


SiDvxd+trk SiCfoam,

J.Goldstein

10% X0

Silicon-tungsten ECal - Very High Granularity

SiD ECal Design

• 6 inch silicon wafers• 1024 13 mm2 pixels• KPiX readout and cable are bump-bonded directly to sensor • 1 mm readout gaps -> 13 mm effective Moliere radius•. Tungsten plates thermal bridge to edge cooling •. Feeds Particle Flow (~3% jet resolution at 100 GeV) •. EM resolution: 17%/sqrt(E)❖


KPiX ASIC &sample trace

KPiX

SLD Luminosity Monitor

First Si-W Calorimeter used in a running experiment

Dieter Freytag

KPiX - Key Element

Applications: Si strip tracking, Si-W ECal (possibly RPCs, GEMs, SiPMs)


Dual-KPiX Tracking Sensor

Design Achieves Physics Requirements❖ SiD employs

❖ High granularity❖ Dense integration❖ Super light materials❖ Low power/pulse power❖ Air cooling

❖ Unprecedented performance with clean events and small backgrounds.

❖ Ready for final phase of engineering, (Led now by Spokespersons M. Stanitzki and A. White)followed by ILC launch and SiD construction!


SiD

Built on Excellence - People and Collaboration


Built Friendships


Built Friendships


Thank you, Marty, for your Vision,for your Leadership, and for your Friendship.



Documents

Marty and the ILCMarty’s Impact on ILC Broad and Deep! First Linear Collider & Detector - SLC and SLD SiD general concept SiD subdetectors - silicon tracking, silicon-tungsten ECal,