1. WP2: Physics Analysis and Simulation Objectives & Priorities Deliverables & Milestones Manpower Optimisation considerations P. Coyle, J. Brunner, CPPMarseille

2. Objectives & Priorities PriorityObjectives 11Define benchmark neutrino fluxes 21Development of event selection software 31Development of simulation software 41Development of reconstruction software 51Definition of data format, storage, distribution 61 Comparison of detector geometries in terms of physics sensitivity 72 Comparison of candidate sites in terms of physics sensitivity 81Development of calibration strategies

3. Deliverables & Milestones 6 months : benchmark neutrino fluxes and energy range (+uncertainties) Astrophysics sources - galactic SNR:RXJ1713, VELA-Jr uquasars: LS5039 CR interactions with gas near GC - extragalactic AGNs, GRBs, starburst galaxies… Diffuse flux WB bound Dark matter Sun, earth, galactic centre, IMBHs EHE GZK(Sigl) Top-down models Exotica monopoles, nuclearitescross-section modifications at EHE Lorentz invariance…… Neutrino decay decoherence Web page resource of relevant papers

4. Deliverables & Milestones 14 months : first release of simulation software packages Event generators Neutrino interactions Atmospheric muons Muon propagation Detector response Cherenkov light production Light propagation PMT & Front end electronics (needed dynamic range?) Calibrations Timing, amplitude Positioning, absolute pointing

5. Deliverables & Milestones 16 months : CDR contributions Description of software packages Event generator, Detector response, Calibrations Event selection, Reconstruction Scheme for data format, storage, distribution First results on detector architecture First results on site comparison First results on calibration studies

6. Deliverables & Milestones 34 months : TDR contributions Description of final software packages Event generator, Detector response, Calibrations Event selection, Reconstruction Scheme for data format, storage, distribution Final results on architecture optimization Final results on site comparison Final results on calibration systems

7. Manpower FTEM total FTEM requested Personnel total Personnel requested total IN2P314472900354930 CEA25036650171821 Erlangen36 193193 (*2)274 INFN252108225 112.5 (+42 travel +21.5 cons) 352 FOM108306317 Sheffield4218133 57 (*2) (+5 travel) 172 Basic request: 1-2 position for 3 years per institute

8. Optimization goals 3D grid of active detector elements ( distances, distribution) (string, tower, dense core, empty core) OM orientations PMT size, multiplicities (e.g. large versus small PMTs) (coincidence versus high pulses)  Maximal neutrino effective area (volume) over full parameter space  Best angular resolution for neutrinos  Best energy resolution for neutrinos  Optimal S/B for some standard signals (E -2 ) Optimization criteria

9. Optimization condition Ideally: Compare various detectors which can be built and operated with the same budget difficult to do Or: Compare detectors with  Same number of OMs  Same number of floors  Same number of total eff. area of PMTs  …. Choice to be made to allow fair comparison

10. Choice of parameter space Which energy range ? Astronomy  Point sources 1TeV-1PeV  Diffuse flux 10TeV-10PeV  GZK 1EeV-100EeV Particle Physics  Neutralinos10GeV-1TeV Difficult to have a detector with optimal behaviour over 8 orders of magnitude !  Separate optimisations for high/low energies?

11. Choice of parameter space Which angular range ?  Classic: Upward going hemisphere  Highest energies no atm. muon BG: full sphere  Opacity of Earth: close to horizon  calibration with moon shadow OM arrangements depend on these choices  Downward looking  Antares like  Up/down symmetric  horizontal

12. Choice of parameter space Which particle type ? Cosmic neutrino fluxes arrive at earth with about 1/3 fraction of e   At high energies earth opacity increases further  fraction Distinction in a neutrino telescope  CC[   (  -  )] long muon track  CC[ e  (  -e,h)], NCnarrow, contained shower  CC[  (  -e,h)] above PeVdouble bang Complementary in Resolution: Energy Angle Muon mediocre excellent Showerexcellentmediocre

13. Choice of parameter space Site parameters influence result  Absorption length of water  Light diffusion in water  Depth (atmosph. muon background)  Noise light (bioluminescence level) Optimized detector geometry in one site might be different from detector in another site Need feedback from WP5

14. For the WP2 session at 11/04 in Erlangen I would like to have a short presentation from each institute which intends to participate in this work package. In this presentation you should: - redefine the physics and software projects to which you would like to contribute - describe the current state of this work - estimate possible contributions for the first year of KM3NET - make reference to the "Objectives" and "Milestones" of the contract document (WP2) This round of introduction talks will be followed by presentations of "first results" as some of you have already started to do KM3Net related analyses.

15. KM3net kickoff meeting Erlangen Date/Time:from Tuesday 11 April 2006 (09:00) to Thursday 13 April 2006 (18:00) Location:Erlangen Description:Details Tuesday 11 April 2006 14:00->18:00WP2WP2 (Erla ngen ) Tuesday 1 1 April 200 6 WP2 (14:00->18:00) Loc atio n: Erl ang en 14:00Introduction (20') Paschal Coyle (CPPM) 14:20Status+Plans CEA/DAPNIA (20') Luciano Moscoso 14:40Status+Plans INFN (20') Marco Circella 15:00Status+Plans NIKHEF (20') Els De Wolf (NIKHEF) 15:20Status+Plans Erlangen (20') Rezo Shanidze (University Erlangen) 15:40Status+Plans Great Britain (20') Fabrice Jouvenot (University Liverpool) 16:00Status+Plans Valencia (20') 16:20Status+Plans Greece (20') 16:40 Coffe break 17:00KM3Net Simulations (20') Sebastian Kuch 17:20HESS sources for KM3 (20') Christian Stegmann 17:40Shower reconstruction (20') Ralf Auer | HELPHELP

16. Organisational Issues Steering committee institute representatives General Mailing list, webpage Physics benchmark fluxes more ambitious? SA=5km2, PMs 10,000 Common software framework-ROOT, C++, java? (rewrite Km3) Adopt antares software as standard (freely available) Monte Carlo generation to sea level (Corsika)-geometry independent Agree on relevant quantities for optimisation – neutrino effective area - neutrino effective volume Optimisation-priority to muons Reconstruction algorithms- geometry independent? (optimise pdfs?) Site specific parameters –wp5 All data to shore vs L1 trigger Calibration simulation-less advanced, more work? -investigate optical positioning (rather than acoustic) Next meeting

17. Software Framework

18. Interfaces to other WPs WP1 – Cost Model software WP3 – simulation of front-end costs WP4 – simulation of data filter costs WP5 – site parameters

19. source Distance (kpc) E (GeV) N μ (km -2 yr -1 ) Reference SNR RX J1713.7 Sgr A East SNR RX J1713.7 686686  10 4  10 5  10 4 ~40 ~140 ~10 Alvarez-Muñiz & Halzen 2002 Costantini astro-ph/0508152 E Flux Sensitivity of the KM3NeT n Telescope  requirement: 10 hits/event  80% duty cycle   flux Very preliminary ! KM3NeT sensitivity estimated for 23 events  flux =  flux / 2

20. Microquasars: LS5039, LS I=61 303 LS5039 observed by HESS Index=2.12±0.15, up to 4 TeV Aharonian et al, astro-ph/0508298 LS I+61 303 3-5 muon type/km 2 /yr Christiansen et al., astro-ph/0509214 severe absorption of >100 GeV gamma-rays (  + starlight  e + e - )  up to a factor 10 to 100 higher initial luminosity severe radiative (synchrotron and Compton) losses  difficult to accelerate electrons to multi-TeV energies Conclusion : TeV gamma-rays of hadronic origin Extrapolation from HESS observation: 3-6 neutrinos/yr/km 2 Aharonian, Montaruli et al., Astro-ph/0508658

21. Interaction of CRs with Gas Clouds at GC CR interactions in clusters of galaxies with IR photons also detectable DeMarco et al, astro-ph/0511535 AMANDA KM3NET CR density much higher than local density in solar system  evidence for young source of high energy CRs near GC -SNR? Arharonian et al, Nature 2006 neutrino signal from CR interactions detectable in KM3NET- enhancement in direction of GC Candia, Astro-ph/0505346

22. Measured UHECR flux provides most restrictive limit: - optically thin sources: nucleons from photohadronic interactions escape -CR flux above the ankle (>3 ·10 18 eV) are extragalactic protons with E -2 spectrum  E 2 F < 4.5 10 -8 GeV /(cm 2 s sr) Waxman & Bahcall (1999) Magnetic fields and uncertainties in photohadronic interactions of protons can affect the bound, as these effects restrict number of protons able to escape Mannheim, Protheroe & Rachen (2000) CR rate evolves with z Upper Bounds on Extra-Galactic fluxes ICECUBE/KM3 MPR

23. CR rate evolves with z Extragalactic: Starburst Galaxies Radio observation of starburst galaxies imply a robust lower limit on the extragalactic neutrino background flux ~  wb Loeb, Waxman astro-ph/0601695 M82 -xray M82 -radio Galaxies undergoing large-scale star formation. -strong IR emission -strong radio emission from SNRs Best studied: M82, NGC253 NGC253: TeV detection reported by CANGAROO Possible source of UHECRs Torres, Anchordoqui astro-ph/0505283 3.2Mpc

24. Detection directe spin-independent cross-section Télescopes a neutrino très compétitive et complémentaire au détection directe ANTARES/KM3: Dark Matter (neutralino) /km3 e.g. mSUGRA model A 0 =0,  >0, tan  =10, M 1/2 =0-800 GeV, M 0 =0-1000 GeV +  wimp h 2 < 1 + LEP constraint efficient capture in the sun  best sensitivity to spin dependent scattering Neutrino telescope flux de soleil Bertin, Nezri Orloff 02

25. Dark Matter – Intermediate Mass Black Holes Mini-spikes around IMBHs M imbh =10 5 M soleil Sources concentrated towards galactic centre Sensitive only to annihilation cross-section-complementary To sun search KM3NET: 10 sources with >20 events/year Bertone hep-ph/0603148

26. Armengaud, Sigl APPEC ROADMAP

27. Tau neutrinos  10 4 ly Flavour Ratios: Experimental Signatures E = 10 TeV E = 375 TeV  ~ 300m for 10 PeV   e  Icecube simulation Beacom et al., hep-ph/0307025 v3 sept 2005 Horizontal Muon Electron Shower Tau (lolipop, double bang)

28. Particle Physics: Lorentz Violation, Decoherence Hooper et al., hep-ph/0506091 Lorentz violation Pion source Decoherence neutron source Lorentz violation Atmospheric oscillations Anchordoqui et al., hep-ph/0506168 E 2 dependence icecube Neutron source (n  pe e ) may explain CR correlations from GC & Cygnus Anchordoqui et al., hep-ph/0510389 From angular depencence of e /  ratio Sudden onset VERY LONG BASELINE

29. Particle Physics: Modification of  ( N) at High Energies KK Gravitons TeV string resonances  scopic black holes p-Brane production instantons increased cross-section e.g. angular distribution above 500 TeV in model of BH production astro-ph/0202081 SM xmin=1 xmin=3

30. Amanda, Baikal 2002 2007 AUGER  Anita Amanda,Antare s, Baikal, Nestor 2012 km 3 Auger + new technologies 2004 RICE GLUE Flux Diffus: Limites et Sensibilités RICEAGASA C. Spiering, J. Phys. G 29 (2003) 843 Gamma Ray Bursts (Waxman & Bahcall) Extragalactic  p sources (Mannheim et al.) AGN Jets (Mannheim) Topological defects (Sigl) GZK neutrinos (Rachen & Biermann) WB98