CALICEUK: The Big Squeeze

1
CALICE-UK The Big Squeeze

• Paul Dauncey

2
The minimal programme

• Some parts of the programme are generic
• Can be applied to more than just the ILC. These
  stand some chance of being funded from new
  proposals in the future
• Hence for now we want to keep them going at a
  lower level than originally hoped until they can
  be revived.
• Some parts are close to some major breakpoint
• E.g. some publishable results coming within the
  next year.
• These should be reduced to the minimum but still
  at a level that publications could be produced
  so we reap the benefit of the UK investment.
• Some parts have UK responsibilities which
  effectively cannot be handed off
• Would seriously damage the UK reputation (further
  than already done) as an international partner
• We have assumed that Rolling Grant (RG) staff,
  who have mainly small fractions of FTEs on
  CALICE-UK, will continue to work as expected.
• There are five workpackages which will be
  discussed in turn
• We budget travel centrally this would be needed
  in addition to the following

3
Workpackage 1 Beam tests

• Detailed comparison of simulation models with
  data
• Take large data samples in physics prototype
  calorimeters
• Highly generic relevant to any calorimeter system

• Longest running, biggest programme within CALICE
• UK joined this in 2002, providing the DAQ system
• Also provide real-time monitoring during
  data-taking

• Have a dataset of several 100M events
• First significant run was at DESY in May 2006
• Took data at CERN during 2006 and 2007
• Moving to FNAL for 2008/9

4
WP1 minimal programme

• First publication of beam test data expected in
  2008
• UK people have contributed significant effort to
  the analysis and lead several areas
• Both the Physics and Analysis Coordinators are
  from the UK
• Ridiculous to stop this before publications are
  produced
• Need to keep some RA activity in this area
• Would normally be very active in future
  data-taking at FNAL in 2008
• If really reducing to minimal contribution then
  must cut back here
• Cannot stop working on DAQ this would stop the
  whole CALICE beam test
• Cannot hand off DAQ responsibilities expertise
  is completely within the UK
• For DAQ itself, can avoid using RA effort for
  real-time monitoring, then need some low level of
  RA effort
• We are assuming analysis would be mainly after
  FY08/09 so we cannot take part
• Must be sure we can analyse FNAL data if funding
  becomes available later
• We will not have funds to travel to do shifts if
  really reduced to minimal
• Have to negotiate with CALICE that the above
  contributions are sufficient

5
Workpackage 2 DAQ

• Construction of DAQ systems using commercially
  available components wherever possible
• No custom VME cards and crates
• UK clearly leading ILC effort in this area
• Again highly generic relevant to any detector,
  not even just calorimeters, e.g. LHC upgrades

• Contributing to EUDET collaboration
• Building technical prototype calorimeters
• UK responsibility to provide DAQ system
• EU funding legally requires matching funds
• Testing of EUDET systems scheduled to start after
  FY08/09
• Must keep this going through the next year
• Again, withdrawal of UK could cause project to
  collapse

6
WP2 minimal programme

• Most of electronics design uses RG effort
• We hope this should be able to continue as is
• Could need to hand some responsibilities off to
  EUDET colleagues movement of items on the
  interfaces and/or firmware/software most likely
  but needs to be negotiated
• Equipment spend is relatively low but is needed
  in FY08/09
• Some RA effort clearly also needed for testing
• Development of DAQ software needs RAs
• Essential to allow this to roll on some
  significant level of RA effort needed here
• EUDET provides some level of funding
• It would just about be possible to complete the
  EUDET responsibilities in FY09/10 without STFC
  funding (if academic effort is sufficient to
  count as matching funds)
• However, possibly would not have enough to get
  results from the prototypes as well
• Assume a generic RD proposal will need to be
  submitted to start in FY09/10
• Otherwise no matching funds for EUDET
  continuation, EUDET

7
Workpackage 3 MAPS

• Design of monolithic active pixel sensors for a
  binary electromagnetic calorimeter
• Unique idea no other project on this worldwide
• Need probability of two MIPs in a pixel to be low
• Needs extremely fine granularity 100mm
• Hence, excellent spatial resolution and
  potentially dramatic change for PFAs

• First test sensor produced in 2007
• Currently under test was put in beam the week
  before Xmas
• Developed new deep p-well process for this
  sensor
• Reduces charge collection in non-sensitive
  circuit elements
• Wide applications for other detectors and other
  STFC science
• UK now in very strong position for generic MAPS
  development

8
WP3 minimal programme

• Have already learned a lot from the first sensor
• Not ILC-realistic but mainly to test ideas
• Always planned for larger second round sensor in
  2008
• Only way to reduce cost is to slow down and
  descope
• Can do this here as it is a UK-only project
• Produce second round sensor but without all
  required features
• Much smaller and produced in shuttle run so
  significantly cheaper
• Reduction in scope reduces engineering design
  effort required
• Also must produce later than originally planned
• Need RA and RAL effort for testing essential to
  keep this
• Could finish studies with second sensor within
  FY08/09
• This would be a breakpoint where the project
  could close down...
• ...but would be a criminal waste of the strong UK
  position
• Would expect to submit generic proposal for
  FY09/10 and beyond

9
Workpackage 4 Mechanics

• Work on mechanical aspects of ECAL structure
• Assembly, cooling, endcaps, etc.
• Reasonably specific to ILD design
• But could probably be adapted to other structures
  if using similar techniques

• Responsibility to contribute to EUDET technical
  prototype construction
• All equipment spend to be completed in FY08/09
• Again, cannot allow UK to fail to deliver on
  vital aspect of EUDET
• Relatively small workpackage all effort is RG
• Only low level of equipment funds needed
• Must continue with original plans even in minimal
  funding scenario

10
Workpackage 5 Physics studies

• What we are really here for the eventual physics
  potential

• Well known that UK is leading PFA development
• CALICE-UK people also heavily involved in WW,
  ZHH, etc, studies, with more being started

• Big issue can we continue these studies in
  minimal scenario?
• EDRs (and LoIs?) potentially delayed so
  longer-term commitment than just FY08/09
• If LoIs not delayed, then this could be a
  significant breakpoint, but then would be
  expected to stop afterwards not really what
  Intent means
• Very hard to claim these studies are generic we
  debated whether they could even be common to ILD
  and SiD
• I believe these studies are critical to our
  long-term investment in the ILC
• But I have been told STFC will be highly unlikely
  to fund any effort in this area
• This is a purely political, not scientific,
  statement
• If correct, then we will need to continue with
  academic and RG effort only

11
Summary

• CALICE-UK have produced a minimal programme
• Weve squeezed ourselves to the limit
• We are really at rock bottom for quite important
  items
• We are dropping things where significant UK
  effort has been invested
• We have to assume there will be some possibility
  of future grants
• Proposals for generic RD projects need to be
  submitted, and hopefully approved, to support
  this work after FY08/09
• If these are not available, then things will be
  extremely bad
• We do NOT consider this as a reasonable outcome
  of the current situation
• This is the absolute limit of last resort
• This is not something STFC could claim was an
  acceptable level
• Pressure must be maintained to have a
  peer-reviewed, scientifically-based outcome to
  the current difficulties