Si VTX Workshop2003.08.12

Y. Akiba

Agenda and goals• Goal A PAC Proposal

• 9:00 - 9:30 Physics with vtx, PAC+DOE proposal overviews, whatneeds to go in, when due: Yasuyuki

• 9:30 - 9:50 Status of Simulations, Vladimir• 9:50 - 10:10 Rate Assumptions to use: Tony F• 10:10 - 10:25 D=>Kpi update: Craig:• 10:25 - 10:40 coffee• 10:40 - 10:55 open flavor via semi-leptonic decay, what needs to be

done for the proposal+by whom, all• 10:55 - 11:10 gamma+jet, what needs to be done for the proposal+by

whom, all• 11:10 - 11:40 x-range update for different channels, barrel,endcap+barrel: Pat

• Goal B: DOE proposal

• 11:40 - 12:00 Discussion of proposal scope: endcap+barrel, or barrel then endcap later: all

• 12:00 - 12:30 R&D fund proposal for allocation: Craig

Proposal• Recent news on Proposal (from Axel)

– The September PAC (9/29 – 9/30) will not discuss upgrade proposal (as Axel hear it from Tom Kirk 1 week ago. This is new)

– DAC (Detector Advisory Committee) will probably become a sub-panel of PAC. It is possible that there will be a meeting by DAC (or Upgrade sub-panel of PAC) in Oct/Nov period

– Exact formalism/mechanism how the proposal is presented is unclear at this moment.

– We still aims for producing proposal by end of August/beginning of September

• Necessary to get DOE funding from the US FY05

• Focus on physics (this is physics proposal)

• Possible “optimization” of the Strawman model, but this can be done later in proposal CDR period

• Cost and schedule need to be shown (to DOE)

• X range coverage plot– Physics significance (DAC,Tony F, MJL)– Expected statistical error (Abbay)– Theory comparison for shadowing (MJL)

• Jet angle resolution (DAC, MJT)• Realistic rate estimate (DAC, Tony, MJT)

– Should include realistic uptime, efficiency, etc (DAC/Tony/MJT)– Ldt should be shown each of performance plot (Tony)– Rate estimate for barrel and end-cap should be consistent (Tony)

• Trigger– CDF like vertex trigger (MJT)– LVL3 trigger (Tony)

• Impact on electron measurement (DAC, Tony, MJT)– Impacts

• Trigger• Existing central arm• HBD upgrade

– Full simulation + reconstruction should be presented (DAC, Tony, MJT)– Mechanics option: can you remove barrel? (DAC, Tony)– Barrel/end-cap interface is too close to Z=0 (MJT)

Questions to LOI to be addressed

Physics issue to be addressed in ProposalTechnical issue that can be addressed in ProposalIssues that we can not be fully answered in proposal

Partial/qualitative answerShould be given in proposal

More questions to be considered• Strawman model and optimization

– Is the barrel geometry optimal?• 2 layer or 3 layers of strips

• Radius of the strip layers

• Z-coverage of the barrel

– Is the barrel/end-cap interface at optimal position?

– Is the end-cap geometry optimal• Do we need 4 layers?

• Can the pixel layer be used as the first layer for end-cap?

• Full simulation on the end-cap and muon arm– How well the muon track can be connected to endcap tracks

• Effect of finite beam spot size– Beam size is larger than DAC

Full simulation is required to fully address those questions.

Some answers should be given in the proposal

Possible modified strawman (barrel)

• DAC resolution is determined by pixel (unchanged)• Large R for strip can be better

– For connecting to central arms– Momentum resoultion for self tracking (in pp or pA or light ion)

• Less material reduced mult scattering and conversion • Pixel ladder 2×3×3 chips (±13.5mm) or longer

– cost? – Rad length? (but thicker rad length in large Z only may not be a problem– Pixel layer can be the first layer of end-cap

• Somewhat longer strips (about ± 20 cm) to move “interface” away from Z=0

Pixel R=2.5cm

Strip 1 R=10 cm

Strip 1 R=14 cm

R

Z beam pipe

Contents of proposal• Physics case (Main part)

– Physics case for• b/c measurement in AA/pA/pp• Gamma-jet measurement in pp/pA

– Realistic rate estimate for *ALL* figures and tables• Estimated statistical errors for physics quantities• Comparison with theory curves• Consistent with 5 year EBUP, the decadal plan, and the existing measurement and rate• Consistent in barrel and end-cap• Effect of finite beam spot size• Effect of jet angular resolution

– Impacts on existing PHENIX and upgrade• Some answer to the questions to be given. (Full answer waits for full simulation)

• Implementation– Strawman model

• Based on LOI strawman• Possible optimization in barrel/endcap geometry

– Technology choices• Alternative technology options should be mentioned

• Management issues (mainly to DOE)– Management structure– Responsibilities

• Schedule and Costs– Target year for (partial) installation (RUN7, RUN8,…)– Barrel+Endcap or Barrel first + Endcap later

Project Manager

Deputy Project Manager

Barrel

End caps Ancillary SystemsAnd integrationPHENIX SE&I

DAQPHENIX EF&I

Computing

Pixel layer

Strips layers

Sensor readout hybrids

Detector ladders

Ladder Readout Module

Front End Module

Mechanical SupportSensor

Readout Card

Front End Module

Cooling

Power

System Integration

Data Collection Modules

Slow Control

Simulation

Offline Analysis

Online Monitoring

Draft organization chart (by Axel Drees)

Year

FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09

RIKEN

funding

Possible Time time

JFY03 JFY04 JFY05 JFY06

DOE

funding R&D Construction (barrel)

RUN4Au+Au

RUN5pp

RUN7pp?

RUN6?

RUN8pp?

installSensor/detectorRead-out chips

FEE/DCMSupport, etc

Work need to be done for Proposal• Realistic and consistent rate estimate of *ALL* physics performance figures

– Use Tony’s rate estimate as guide line• Some estimate of impact of finite beam spot size

– For Au+Au --- it is easy. We can reconstruct collision vertex.– For p+p Need some PYTHIA study to estimate vertex reconstruction efficiency

• Some estimate for jet angular resolution– Need PYTHIA study

• Estimate for impact on electron measurement– We require that an electron track is confirmed by inner-most pixel layer. Thus

conversion in 2nd – 4th layer does not contribute if the tracking is perfect.• This logic fails if the conversions are accidentally confirmed by the pixel layer due to

high occupancy.• This “accidental” confirmation probability can be estimated from occupancy and

resolution of DC track – SVT projection.• Penalty (efficiency loss) due to track confirmation can also be estimated

• Estimate of the impact to electron trigger– Already, S. Lebedev made study from the converter run

• Estimate of track-SVTX matching for the barrel and the end-cap in Au+Au– This can be estimated from angular resolution and occupancy of tracks

(We should assume that event vertex is precisely reconstructed in Au+Au)• More…

After proposal• Proposal is only one step for starting the project

• Next steps are– DAC(?) presentation

– Internal PHENIX approval

– CD0 (in DOE side)

– CDR

• What is needed from Proposal to CDR– Full simulation of the proposed detector

– Realistic evaluation of the impact to PHENIX

– Optimization of the proposed detector

– More realistic estimate of the rate, strengthen physics cases

– Most of the Technology choices should be made by CDR

Backup slides

Questions/comments to LOI• DAC summary

– Jet angle resolution. How does it work. Mom resolution of VTX track.– Better x range coverage plot.– More detailed rate. Should be consistent with RHIC 5 year projection– Comprehensive simulation and reconstruction– Impact from conversion to (i) existing system (ii) HBD (iii) lvl1 e-trigger– Mechanical design (remove barrel and leave end-cap)

• Tony Frawley– Significance from x-range increase is unclear.– What is the required luminosity (x40 needed?)– Consequence of 4-8% radiation length of SVX to e-trigger.– Consistency between C-arm and Mu-arm rate of BJ/PSI– Remove barrel, leave end-cap option– Ldt needed for each of the performance plot.– Need realistic luminosity and efficiency should be included in rate

estimate. (RHIC uptime, PHENIX uptime, vertex cuts, reco efficiency, etc)

Questions/comments to LOI• Mike Leitch

– Clearer physics case.– Emphasize that charm measurement become more robust even for

“existing” x-range.– In p+A shadowing plot --- present theory curve (Eskola).– Muon J/PSI mass will be improved(?)

• Abbay– Show projected statistical errors on the x-range plot.

• MJT– Rad length of SVT is a concern. (trigger and reco)

• Need full simulation• Use thick converter run to measure the effect

– CDF like vertex trigger should be included– Need realistic MC of jet measurement by SVT– Realistic rate estimate based on realitic assumption needed– Barrel is too small. Also, the transition between barrel to endcap can

cause too much background.