IceCube Collaboration

Madison, May 20, 2009

Tom Gaisser 1

IceCube Collaboration

Overview & Response to 2008 SAC Report


Tom Gaisser 2

Calendar (Spring 2009)• M&O “Lessons Leearned” workshop – February 3,4• Pole season ends – February 12• MREFC PY8 Funding Request submitted - February 12 • Planning meeting at NSF – February 20• Software and Computing Advisory Panel – March 24-25• IceCube/RPSC Planning Meeting – March 25• April 1: Project Year 8 begins, initial MREFC PY8 funding awarded• Deep Core/86 string end-game plan submitted April 1• M&O proposal submitted April 7• Transition to IC59 – April ?• Collaboration meeting – April 28 – May 2• Annual review at NSF – May 6-7 • ICRC papers due May 15 (extended to May 22)• Science Advisory Committee – May 20-21• Future: IOFG ?


Tom Gaisser 3

Outline

1. Successful season • 19 strings (inc. 1st deep core)• 19 IceTop stations

2. Status report in response to SAC 2008 comments on • Support for physics analysis • Support for M&O of IceCube

3. Responses to specific recommendations of SAC 2008 on

• Analysis plans• Publications• Detector optimization• R&D• Data handling

4. Future SAC meetings


Tom Gaisser 4

19 holes & strings in 50 days!18 27 36 28 19 20 13 12 6 5 11 4 10 3 2 L 37 26 17


Tom Gaisser 5

38 IceTop tanks installed, filled, frozen & commissioned before station closing


Tom Gaisser 6


Tom Gaisser 7

Support for physics analysis

• The Committee was glad to see that real physics analysis is now starting using the IceCube data but would like to understand in the future how the analysis will be organized and how sufficient manpower will be gathered to cover all of the physics opportunities.

• MREFC ramp-down removes central support for young scientists. It is imperative that funding be secured for the next several years to allow this group to participate in the physics program of IceCube. If funding for 15 of these individuals can be obtained, the US effort can be brought to a healthy number, 28 scientists and 27 students plus faculty.– We recommend that the IceCube collaboration consider submitting

a new coordinated supplemental grant proposal to empower the universities to play a leading role in IceCube physics program


Tom Gaisser 8

Status of base grants & MOUs

• Annual NSF review was May 6, 7– See executive summary report on docushare

• U.S. base grants being negotiated now• Program officers using MOUs as guide to

needed funding levels– Current round of proposals from U.S. groups

• Base grants receiving significant increases• Somewhat less than requested• M&O proposal assumes increased level in base grants

– New institutions are getting support

• MOUs available by link / handout


Tom Gaisser 9

• Univ Alabama, Tuscaloosa • Univ Alaska, Anchorage • UC Berkeley• UC Irvine • Clark-Atlanta University• U Delaware / Bartol Research Inst• Georgia Tech• University of Kansas • Lawrence Berkeley National Lab• University of Maryland• Ohio State University• Pennsylvania State University• University of Wisconsin-Madison• University of Wisconsin-RiverFalls• Southern University, Baton Rouge

• Univ Alabama, Tuscaloosa • Univ Alaska, Anchorage • UC Berkeley• UC Irvine • Clark-Atlanta University• U Delaware / Bartol Research Inst• Georgia Tech• University of Kansas • Lawrence Berkeley National Lab• University of Maryland• Ohio State University• Pennsylvania State University• University of Wisconsin-Madison• University of Wisconsin-RiverFalls• Southern University, Baton Rouge

Universität Mainz • Humboldt Univ., Berlin • DESY, Zeuthen• Universität Dortmund• Universität Wuppertal• MPI Heidelberg • RWTH Aachen

Universität Mainz • Humboldt Univ., Berlin • DESY, Zeuthen• Universität Dortmund• Universität Wuppertal• MPI Heidelberg • RWTH Aachen

• Uppsala University• Stockholm University

• Uppsala University• Stockholm University

Chiba University

Chiba University

• Universite Libre de Bruxelles• Vrije Universiteit Brussel• Université de Mons-Hainaut• Universiteit Gent

• Universite Libre de Bruxelles• Vrije Universiteit Brussel• Université de Mons-Hainaut• Universiteit Gent

Univ. of Canterbury, Christchurch Univ. of Canterbury, Christchurch

• University of Oxford• University of Oxford

University Utrecht University Utrecht

The IceCube Collaboration:33 institutions, ~250 authors

EPFL Lausanne EPFL Lausanne


Tom Gaisser 10

Collaboration head count & FTE

• 33 Institutions– Faculty 62 (31 U.S., 33 non-U.S.)– Post-docs, etc. 57 (41 U.S., 16 non-U.S.)– Ph.D. students: 86 (33 U.S., 53 non-U.S.)– Total active: 207 (105 U.S., 102 non-U.S.)

• FTE breakdown (scientists only)– FTE in M&O: 45.5 (26* U.S., 19.5 non-U.S.)

• *26 U.S. includes 6 FTE requested in M&O proposal

– FTE in Analysis 53 ( 24 U.S., 29 non-U.S.)


Tom Gaisser 11

Collaboration resources in M&O Distributed Management and Funding Model (FY12 FTE)

Distributed Management and Funding Model (FY12 FTE)

FY12 (FTE)

Oct'11 - Sep'12

Total US 57.28

Europe &Asia Pacific

In Kind(FTE)

Total In Kind(FTE) M&O Core

(FTE)

USBase Grants

(FTE)

2.1 PROGRAM MANAGEMENT 7.92 3.38 3.0 6.38

2.2 DETECTOR OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE 12.4 4.2 2.41 6.61

2.3 COMPUTING AND DATA MANAGEMENT 15.3 1.95 6.05 8.0

2.4 TRIGGERING AND FILTERING 0.3 3.9 2.75 6.65

2.5 DATA QUALITY, RECONSTRUCTION & SIMULATION TOOLS 1.9 6.05 5.25 11.3

In-kind Effort Still To Be Distributed 0.47 0.54 1.01

Grand Total (FY12 FTE) 37.8 19.95 20.00 39.95

~ 5 FTE still on MREFCRequested


Tom Gaisser 12

M&O support

• It is now imperative to provide the M&O funding so that the physics potential of the experiment can be exploited. Since this is an international experiment, other countries should also be providing their fair share of M&O support. – The Committee requests that the M&O funding plan

be fully described at the next meeting and that the IceCube collaboration work with the NSF and other country agencies to assure that the M&O tasks are fully covered in a fair and adequate division.


Tom Gaisser 13

Status of M&O

• Proposal submitted April 7– Request support for 5 years starting 2010– Review panel May 7 / 8– MOU coordinated with M&O task list

• Emphasis on distribution of effort across the collaboration

– Status report in Jim Yeck’s talk next on agenda


Tom Gaisser 14

Analysis plans

• Recommendation1. We recommend that each analysis topic establishes its own set of

necessary tasks to be completed and clear milestone dates for their execution.

2. We would further suggest that by the time of our next meeting the Committee is presented with much more information on the plans for assessing systematic uncertainties for each of the main upcoming topics for the next 1- 2 years….

3. Experimental cross checks, validation, and error assessment often require most of the effort.

• Responses – see Elisa Resconi’s presentation as analysis coordinator

1. Working group wiki’s2. Systematic uncertainties a main focus of analysis phone calls & wiki

and of calibration phone calls & wiki 3. L2a story as an example


Tom Gaisser 15

IceCube Analysis & Ph.D. Theses Matrix (numbers in boxes indicate number of active Ph.D. theses; colored boxes indicate institutional activity in area)

IceCube Analysis & Ph.D.Theses Matrix

Co

sm

ic

Ra

ys

UH

E

Ca

sc

ad

es

Atm

osp

her

ic /

D

iffu

se

nu

Po

int

so

urc

es

MM

/ T

OO

GR

B

WIM

Ps

Su

pe

rno

va

e

Ex

oti

cs

De

ep

Co

re

Ac

ou

sti

c /

Ra

dio

/ O

pti

ca

l

To

tal

Total Ph.D. Theses: 9 6 5 11 14 2 7 9 4 4 5 76Aachen- Wiebusch 1 2 1 1 1 6Alabama - Williams 0Anchorage- Rawlins 0Canterbury - Adams 2 1 r 3Chiba - Yoshida 1 1 2Clark Atlanta - Japaridze 0DESY - Spiering 1 2 3 1 a 7Dortmund - Rhode 1 1 2Gent - Ryckbosch 2 2 4GeorgiaTech - Taboada 0Heidelberg - Resconi 1 1 2Humboldt - Kowalski 1 1 2Kansas - Besson r 0Lausanne - Ribordy 1 1 2LBNL - Klein/Stokstad 1 1Mainz - Koepke 1 1 1 3 6Mons - Herquet 2 2Ohio - Beatty 0Oxford - Sarkar 0PSU - Cowen 1 1 1 r 3Southern - Fazeley 0Stockholm - Hulth 1 2 a 3U Delaware - Gaisser 2 r 2U Maryland - Sullivan 1 1 2 1 1 6UC Berkeley - Price 1 1 a 2UC Irvine - Barwick 0ULB - Bertrand 1 1 2Uppsala - Botner/Hallgren 1 1 a 2Utrecht - van Eijndhoven 1 1UW Madison - Karle 2 2 3 2 1 r 10UW River Falls - Madsen 0VUB - Declercq 2 2Wuppertal - Kampert 1 1 2 4

May 2009May 2009

IceCube overall Analysis Contribution Matrix (numbers in boxes indicate FTE effort on Ph.D. thesis work, preparation of papers, etc.)

Overall Analysis Contribution Matrix

Co

sm

ic

Ra

ys

UH

E

Ca

sc

ad

es

Atm

osp

her

ic /

D

iffu

se

nu

Po

int

so

urc

es

Ta

u

GR

B

WIM

Ps

Su

pe

rno

va

e

Ex

oti

cs

De

ep

Co

re

Ac

ou

sti

c /

Ra

dio

/ O

pti

ca

l

To

tal

Total FTE = 52.8 9.35 3.55 1.9 8.23 11 1.45 5.58 4.98 1.85 2.5 1.65 3.78 55.78Aachen- Wiebusch 0.4 1. 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 3.00Alabama - Williams 0.4 0.40Anchorage- Rawlins 0.2 0.20Canterbury - Adams 0.8 0.2 0.6 1.60Chiba - Yoshida 0.4 1.45 1.85Clark Atlanta - Japaridze 0.00DESY - Spiering 0.6 1. 2.93 0.2 4.73Dortmund - Rhode 0.4 0.4 0.80Gent - Ryckbosch 1. 1.33 2.33GeorgiaTech - Taboada 0.45 0.45Heidelberg - Resconi 0.4 0.8 0.2 1.40Humboldt - Kowalski/Kolanoski 0.65 0.4 0.65 0.4 2.10Kansas - Besson 0.00Lausanne - Ribordy 0.4 0.4 0.80LBNL - Klein/Stokstad 1. 0.5 0.25 0.15 1.90Mainz - Koepke 0.6 0.4 0.4 1.2 2.60Mons - Herquet 0.8 0.80Ohio - Beatty 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.60Oxford - Sarkar 0.00PSU - Cowen 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.65 0.6 0.2 0.6 3.05Southern - Fazeley 0.2 0.20Stockholm - Hulth 0.4 0.4 1.38 0.25 2.43U Delaware - Gaisser 2.2 0.2 2.40U Maryland - Sullivan 0.2 0.6 0.4 1.4 0.4 0.85 0.2 4.05UC Berkeley - Price 0.4 1.05 1.45UC Irvine - Barwick 0.2 0.20ULB - Bertrand 0.4 0.4 0.80Uppsala - Botner/Hallgren 0.4 0.4 0.80Utrecht - van Eijndhoven 0.8 0.80UW Madison - Karle 2. 2.13 3.58 1.53 0.6 0.25 0.25 10.34UW River Falls - Madsen 0.2 0.20VUB - Declercq 1. 1.00Wuppertal - Helbing/Kampert 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.9 1.2 2.50

May 2009May 2009


Tom Gaisser 17

Presentations at conferences

• Recommendation– The Committee would also recommend to the Collaboration to

aggressively disseminate IceCube results in topical conferences.

• Response– ICRC papers– Speakers’ committee web page


Tom Gaisser 18

Presentations at meetings- two examples

• Spring APS meeting (May 2-5, 2009)– Teresa Montaruli, “Recent results from IceCube”– I. Taboada, “Neutrino messengers from GRBs” – M. Baker, “Neutrino Point Source Searches with iceCube 22 String Configuration” – Laura Gladstone, “Observation of the Moon Shadow in the IceCube 40 string

detector” – D. Besson, “Updates on IceCube's Radio Frequency extension” – D. Rocco Seasonal Variations of the Atmospheric Muon Flux in IceCube – R. Abbasi Large scale cosmic rays anisotropy as observed with IceCube

• 31st International Cosmic Ray Conference (July 8-15, 2009)– Biennial– Major conference of particle astrophysics

• Auger, TA, etc• Gamma-ray telescopes• Neutrino astronomy

– Total of 36 submitted: 19 talks; 17 posters with complementarity of posters/talks


Tom Gaisser 19

First 3 months of 2009


Tom Gaisser 20

Papers • Recently published or accepted

– Solar flare paper• ApJ 689 No 1 (2008 December 10) L65-L68

– IceCube DAQ paper• Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A 601

(2009) 294–316 – AMANDA 7 year point source search

• Phys. Rev. D 79, 062001 (2009).) + events posted on web– AMANDA 7 year atmospheric neutrinos

• PRD, Accepted– IC22 WIMP search, PRL, accepted

• In process– IC9 analysis of GRB 080319B responding to reviews– Sound speed paper out to collaboration– IC22 Point Source Paper out to collaboration– IceCube PMT Paper almost ready

http://wiki.icecube.wisc.edu/index.php/AMANDA_Point_Source_Paper#March_18.2C_2009:_Published_by_PRD_.28R._Abbasi_et_al..2C_Phys._Rev._D_79.2C_062001_.282009.29..29

http://wiki.icecube.wisc.edu/index.php/IC9_analysis_of_GRB_080319B

http://wiki.icecube.wisc.edu/index.php/Sound_speed_paper

http://wiki.icecube.wisc.edu/index.php/IC22_Point_Source_Paper

http://wiki.icecube.wisc.edu/index.php/IceCube_PMT_Paper


Tom Gaisser 21

Papers (cont’d)

• Expected soon– GRB search(es), northern hemisphere– AMANDA cascades– IC40 Moon shadow– IC40 point source search

• Needed– CR anisotropy paper– IceCube atmospheric neutrinos– IceTop technical description paper

• Including performance

– Atmospheric paper based on in-ice & IceTop rates– IceCube performance paper– Primary energy spectrum/composition


Tom Gaisser 22

Detector optimization

• Recommendation on Deep Core (1st priority)– Deep Core is a good idea; SAC endorses it

1. Provide info on angular resolution and background rejection2. Put some High QE DOMs on central standard IceCube string3. Decommission AMANDA

– Response: 1-3 all done. See deep-core proposal, deep core talk next on agenda

• Recommendation: placement of outer strings1. Try for further optimization of location of strings2. Insure no negative impact on physics goals

– Response: Optimized map; studies underway• (see Karle’s talk)


Tom Gaisser 23

Approach to R&D

• Recommendations1. Take advantage of IceCube holes (unique opportunity)2. May require seeking funding3. Stronger engagement of Collaboration in R&D activities

• ICB review; milestones; progress reports

4. Develop plan for possible future use of drill

• Response:1. R&D status reports on agenda in afternoon2. Hoffman career grant features radio3. Combined R&D working group established

• K. Helbing, chair; coordinate with M&O• Improved focus and coordination of activities


Tom Gaisser 24

Data handling

• Recommendations: – Develop more effective data compression to cope

with high data rate– NSF roadmap for satellite bandwidth– Reorient simulations from MREFC to physics– Plan regular computing upgrades for data warehouse– Data challenge: signal insertion into data stream

• Responses:– Talks after lunch by Blaufuss/Hanson, Merck, Braun


Tom Gaisser 25

Use of S.A.C.

• The Committee hopes that the comments of the SAC group are helpful for the IceCube program and encourages the collaboration to think about how the SAC can best be used in the future.

• We would like to arrange meetings so that more of the collaboration scientists are involved. – Two possibilities:

• Set SAC meeting to overlap with end of collaboration meeting

• SAC members attend some of collaboration meeting

• Some of both

Documents

IceCube Collaboration