|
The CR flux used for the weights 
|
primary particle energy Black: ECUTS thres 500 GeV Dot line: without cut 
|
primary particle energy weighted by the CR flux Black: ECUTS thres 500 GeV Dot line: without cut 
|
|
x position of the primary particle at the surface.
Dot line represents events whose hit DOM is above 80. (high energy events) 
|
y position of the primary particle at the surface.
|
z position of the primary particle at the surface.
|
|
x-y position of the primary particle at the surface.
|
x-z position of the primary particle at the surface.
|
y-z position of the primary particle at the surface.
|
|
cos(zenith angle) of the primary particle.
Dot line represents events whose hit DOM number above 80. (high energy events) 
|
cos(zenith angle) of the primary particle weighted by hte CR flux.
Dot line represents events whose hit DOM number above 80. (high energy events) 
|
azimuth angle of the primary particle.
|
|
cos(zenith angle) of the primary particle Vs the energy.
Black: ECUTS thres 500 GeV 
|
cos(zenith angle) of the primary particle Vs the energy with a cut of DOM# > 80.
Black: ECUTS thres 500 GeV 
|
|
|
azimuth angle of the primary particle.
|
cos(zenith angle) of the primary particle.
|
azimuth angle of the primary particle.
|
|
Multiplicity of muons Black: ECUTS thres 500 GeV Dot line: without cut 
|
Multiplicity Vs primary energy Black: ECUTS thres 500 GeV 
|
|
|
cos(Zenith angle) Vs Multiplicity of muons Black: ECUTS thres 500 GeV 
|
Multiplicity of muons weighted by the CR Black: ECUTS thres 500 GeV Dot line: without cut 
|
|
|
Energy distribution at IceCube detector (in ice) Black: ECUTS thres 500 GeV Dot line: without cut Even though the statistics may not be enough, I would say ECUTS of 1 TeV is fine. 
|
Energy distribution at IceCube detector (in ice) weighted by the CR flux Black: ECUTS thres 500 GeV Dot line: without cut 
|
|
|
Energy in ice Vs primary energy You may be convinced that the EUCTS of 1 TeV (blue dots) is fine to use. 
|
cos(zenith angle) Vs energy in ice 
|
cos(zenith angle) Vs energy in ice with a cut of #DOM > 80 
|
|
Energy distribution at surface Black: ECUTS thres 500 GeV Dot line: without cut Even though the statistics may not be enough, I would also say ECUTS of 1 TeV is fine. 
|
Energy distribution at surface weighted by the CR flux Black: ECUTS thres 500 GeV Dot line: without cut 
|
|
|
Energy at surface Vs primary energy You may be convinced that the EUCTS of 1 TeV (blue dots) is fine to use. 
|
Energy at surface Vs energy in ice The zenith angle dependence Black: cos(zenith angle) < 0.2 Horizontal particles loose the energy at high energy. This is probably due to limited simulation volume (880m radius), but I think this is fine because those particles beyond the volume will not make so many photons that can reach our detector, but I will check this more. 
|
|
|
cos(zenith angle) Vs energy at surface 
|
cos(zenith angle) Vs energy at surface with a cut of #DOM > 80 
|
|
|
Energy at surface Vs energy in ice There is a constant energy loss during the propagation from surface to the detector (~log10(0.2)~30%) 
|
Energy at surface Vs energy in ice The zenith angle dependence Black: cos(zenith angle) < 0.2 Horizontal particles loose the energy more during the propagation. 
|
|
|
Npe distribution at IceCube detector (in ice) (ECUTS dependence) Black: ECUTS thres 500 GeV Dot line: without cut I don't see any difference due to the threshold. This is probably because the saturation effect of our detector. 
|
Npe distribution at IceCube detector (in ice) (ECUTS dependence) Black: ECUTS thres 500 GeV Dot line: without cut 
|
|
|
Cos(zenith angle) Vs Npe in ice 
|
Cos(zenith angle) Vs Npe in ice 
|
|
|
Npe distribution at IceCube detector (in ice) (MinEnergy dependence) In case of ECUTS 1 TeV. (almost same results in other ECUTS cases.)
Black: MinEnergy thres 50 GeV Dot line: without cut Even though the statistics may not be enough, I would say MinEnergy of 100 GeV is fine. 
|
Npe distribution at IceCube detector (in ice) (MinEnergy dependence) In case of ECUTS 1 TeV. (almost same results in other ECUTS cases.)
Black: MinEnergy thres 50 GeV Dot line: without cut 
|
|
|
Npe in ice Vs primary energy (MinEnergy dependence) small points: without cut You may be convinced more that the MinEnergy of 100 GeV (blue dots) is fine to use. 
|
Cos(zenith angle) Vs Npe in ice 
|
|
Npe distribution (corresponding to ~62 days) Corsika data is much less than observed. data: black 
|
Effective area 
|
|
In ice bundle energy distribution with fits. The fit line: ECUTS 500 GeV, 1 TeV and 2 TeV from above. 
|
In ice energy Vs ECUTS (around 10^8 GeV) The systematic energy difference between ECUTS 0 GeV and 500 GeV is 65% by extrapolation. 
|
In ice energy Vs ECUTS (around 10^6 GeV) The systematic energy difference between ECUTS 0 GeV and 500 GeV is 37% by extrapolation. 
|
|
Surface bundle energy distribution with fits. The fit line: ECUTS 500 GeV, 1 TeV and 2 TeV from above. 
|
Surface energy Vs ECUTS (around 10^8 GeV) The systematic energy difference between ECUTS 0 GeV and 500 GeV is 130% by extrapolation. 
|
surface energy Vs ECUTS (around 10^6 GeV) The systematic energy difference between ECUTS 0 GeV and 500 GeV is 85% by extrapolation. 
|
|
Npe distribution with fits. The fit line: ECUTS 1 TeV, 2 TeV and 500 GeV from above. So, the systematic error is within the error. 
|
|
Npe distribution with fits. The fit line: MinEnergy 50 GeV, 100 GeV, 300 GeV and 1 TeV from above. 
|
Npe Vs MinEnergy (around 10^5 Npe) The systematic energy difference between MinEnergy 0 GeV and 50 GeV is 18% by extrapolation. 
|
Npe Vs MinEnergy (around 10^3 Npe) The systematic energy difference between MinEnergy 0 GeV and 50 GeV is 15% by extrapolation. 
|
I found the ECUTS of 1 TeV and MinEnergy of 100 GeV reasonable.
(Actually, the ECUTS of 300 GeV is too time consuming to use.)
The systematic error by using these condition is estimated as ~15%.
Keiichi Mase Last modified: Thu Feb 21 23:51:07 JST 2008
