Upload
stephen-craig
View
217
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Madison, May 20, 2009
Tom Gaisser 1
IceCube Collaboration
Overview & Response to 2008 SAC Report
Madison, May 20, 2009
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 ?
Madison, May 20, 2009
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
Madison, May 20, 2009
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
Madison, May 20, 2009
Tom Gaisser 5
38 IceTop tanks installed, filled, frozen & commissioned before station closing
Madison, May 20, 2009
Tom Gaisser 6
Madison, May 20, 2009
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
Madison, May 20, 2009
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
Madison, May 20, 2009
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
Madison, May 20, 2009
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.)
Madison, May 20, 2009
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
Madison, May 20, 2009
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.
Madison, May 20, 2009
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
Madison, May 20, 2009
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
Madison, May 20, 2009
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
Madison, May 20, 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
Madison, May 20, 2009
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
Madison, May 20, 2009
Tom Gaisser 19
First 3 months of 2009
Madison, May 20, 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
Madison, May 20, 2009
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
Madison, May 20, 2009
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)
Madison, May 20, 2009
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
Madison, May 20, 2009
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
Madison, May 20, 2009
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