1. Connections IceCube – KM3NeT Christian Spiering DESY

2. Content Lessons from IceCube „Multi-wavelength“ point source searches Network of Target of Opportunity projects Other coordinated efforts Cooperation on software and algorithms Formal questions

3. Lessons from IceCube (and from theoreticians) How big a detector ? Optimization to which energy range ? Which configuration ?

4. How big a detector ? KM3NeT: „Substantially more sensitive than IceCube“ Point sources: factor ~2 from angular resolution alone This is by far not enough in case IceCube would not have identified sources in 2010/11 Need something like the „canonical factor 7“ –LHC  LHC upgrade (in luminosity) –50 kt Super-K  300 kt DUSEL/Hyperkam (in volume) –Auger-South  Auger North (in area)  Need much more than a cubic kilometer in volume !!

5. Early IceCube spacing exercises Increasing the string spacing from 100 to 180 m increases: –volume by factor 3 –5  sensitivity by 40% We have been reluctant to go to the largest spacing since: –String-to-string calibration may work worse. –Due to light scattering in ice the sensitivity increases much weaker than the area for large spacing. –We were optimistic w.r.t. the signal expectation. IceCube: 125 m E -2

6. Early IceCube spacing exercises Increasing the string spacing from 100 to 180 m improves: –volume by factor 3 –5  sensitivity by 40% We have been reluctant to go to the largest spacing since: –String-to-string calibration may work worse. –Due to light scattering in ice the sensitivity increases weaker than the area for very large spacing. –We were optimistic w.r.t. the signal expectation. Would be no concern today Too optimistic Not important in water IceCube: 125 m

7. Threshold for best sensitivity Blue: after downgoing muon rejection Red: after cut for ultimate sensitivity Diffuse E -2 flux 1 cubic kilometer IceCube

8. Threshold for best sensitivity Blue: after downgoing muon rejection Red: after cut for ultimate sensitivity Point sources (E -2 ) 1 cubic kilometer IceCube

9. Threshold for best sensitivity Blue: after downgoing muon rejection Red: after cut for ultimate sensitivity Point sources Several cubic kilometers (educated guess) Threshold between 3 and 5 TeV !

10. Ceterum censeo: Optimize to energies > 5 TeV, even if you have to sacrifice lower energies! See original GVD/Baikal with muon threshold ~ 10 TeV (but, alas, < 1 km³) 624 m 280 m 70m 12 0m 208m

11. Expected flux from galactic point sources, example: RXJ 1713-3946 (see also Paolo Lipari’s talk) Assume  0   and calculate related  ±  C. Stegmann ICRC 2007

12. Expected flux from galactic point sources, example: RXJ 1713-3946 (see also Paolo Lipari’s talk) Assume  0   and calculate related  ±  C. Stegmann ICRC 2007 5 years KM3NeT > 1 TeV: signal 7-14, BG 21 > 5 TeV: signal 3-6 BG 8

13. Milagro sources in Cygnus region 6 stacked sources Assumption: cut-off at 300 TeV p-value <10 -3 after 5 years Optimal threshold @ 30 TeV (determined by loss of signal events) Halzen, Kappes, O’Murchadha Probability for fake detection:

14. Aharonian, Gabici etc al. 2007 atmospheric neutrinos (green) vs. source spectra with - different spectral index (no cut-off) - index = 2 and cut-off at 1 and 5 PeV. normalized to dN/dE (1 TeV) = 10 -11 TeV -1 cm -2 s -1

15. Aharonian, Gabici etc al. 2007 atmospheric neutrinos (green) vs. source spectra with - different spectral index (no cut-off) - index = 2 and cut-off at 1 and 5 PeV. normalized to dN/dE (1 TeV) = 10 -11 TeV -1 cm -2 s -1

16. What about the low energies when increasing the spacing? Instrumenting a full cubic kilometer with small spacing is not efficient since for low fluxes a further increase of the low energy area will yield low-energy signal rates which are much lower than the atmospheric neutrino background rates. Better: a small nested array with small spacing – enough to „exhaust“ the potential at low energy. Don‘t distribute the small spacing areas over the full array but concentrate it in the center –Better shielding –No empty regions –Better performance for contained events –… DeepCore!

17. IceCube with DeepCore

18. VETO low-energy nested array

19. Early IceCube Exercises

20. The present Baikal scenario 12 clusters of strings NT1000: top view R ~ 60 m L~ 350 m

21. Compare to KM3NeT scenarios: ab cd

22. Content Lessons from IceCube „Multi-wavelength“ point source searches Network of Target of Opportunity projects Other coordinated efforts Cooperation on software and algorithms Formal questions

23. If telescopes would be only sensitive up to horizon …. „blind“ IceCube Antares Baikal KM3NeT

24. … resulting in: Overlap region 25% at any given moment, 70% of IceCube sky seen by KM3NeT at some moment. point source limits/sensitivities

25. Actually you can look above horizon for higher energies: 0h 24h +15° 0h 24h +30° +15° +45° +60° +75° -15° -30° -45° -log 10 p R. Lauer, Heidelberg Workshop, Jan09 arXiv:0903.5434 IceCube 22 strings, 2007

26. Actually you can look above horizon for higher energies: 0h 24h +15° 0h 24h +30° +15° +45° +60° +75° -15° -30° -45° -log 10 p IceCube 22 strings, 2007

27. Actually you can look above horizon for higher energies: IceCube 40 strings 6 months 2008

28. Differential IceCube sensitivity to point sources (IC-40, 1 year, 5  discovery potential, normalized to ½ decade)  = +6°  = +30°  = +60° Taken from Chad Finley, MANTS TeV PeV

29.  = +6°  = +30°  = +60°  = -8°  = -30°  = -60° Differential IceCube sensitivity to point sources (IC-40, 1 year, 5  discovery potential, normalized to ½ decade) Taken from Chad Finley, MANTS TeV PeV

30.  = +30°  = +60°  = -8°  = -30°  = -60° Spectral form for extra-galactic sources  = +6° 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 GRB-precursor Razzaque 2008 WB prompt GRB Blazars Stecker 2005 BLacs Mücke et al 2003 TeV PeV Multi-wavelength analysis of individual sources ?

31. Compare to absolute predictions Predicted neutrino fluxes for a few selected sources (full lines) IC40 approximate 90% CL sensitivity to sources according to flux model and declination (dashed lines) Crab  =+22° MGRO J1908  =+6° 3C279  =-6°  = +6°  = +30°  = +60°  = -8°  = -30°  = -60° Taken from Chad Finley, MANTS

32. Multi-wavelength/full sky analysis Cover 4  with 2 detectors  full sky map Add evidences/limits in overlap regions Combine TeV-PeV information from lower hemisphere of one detector with PeV-EeV information from upper hemisphere of the other detector  multiwavelength analysis over 3-5 orders of magnitude in wavelength / energy. Need: –Coordinated unblinding procedures –Coordinated candidate source list (also for source stacking) –Point spread functions –Effective areas as function of energy

33. Alert Programs GRB information from satellites –offline analysis, online: storage of unfiltered data & high efficiency at low E (like Antares) Optical follow-up: telescopes  robotic optical telescopes Gamma follow-up (NToO): telescopes  Gamma telescopes Supernova burst alert: IceCube (also KM3NeT? ) Arguably, the ratio of signal to background alerts from telescopes is an issue. Alert programs have to be coordinated worldwide, be it only not to swamp optical/gamma telescopes with an unreasonable number of alerts.

34. Optical Follow-Up

35. Antares Optical follow-up

36. „Neutrino Target of Opportunity“

37. Alert Programs GRB information from satellites –offline analysis, online: storage of unfiltered data & high efficiency at low E (like Antares) Optical follow-up: telescopes  robotic optical telescopes Gamma follow-up (NToO): telescopes  Gamma telescopes Supernova alert (IceCube) IceCube triggers KM3NeT and vice versa ? Test: Antares  IceCube

38. Presentation of WIMP results  Classes of tested models  Presentation of model parameter space  Comparison with direct searches

39. Other examples  GRB stacking  Combine KM3NeT/IceCube GRB lists, increasing the overall sensitivity  Diffuse fluxes Any - high energy excess (extraterrestrial or prompt ) - high energy deficit (QG oscillations) should be confirmed by an independent detector, with different systematics  Confirmation of exotic events  Slowly moving particles (GUT monopoles, Q-balls, nuclearites)  artefacts or reality?

40. Software and algorithms Framework: IceTray  KM3Tray  SeaTray (now official software framework for ANTARES and KM3NeT) Improvements, debugging KM3NeT  IceCube Modules (future): KM3NeT  IceCube Simulation (event generators, air showers,…) Reconstruction methods Use of waveforms Basic algorithms (like - already now – Gulliver fitting) MoU between IceCube and KM3NeT summer 2008

41. Content Lessons from IceCube „Multi-wavelength“ point source searches Network of Target of Opportunity projects Other coordinated efforts Cooperation on software and algorithms Formal questions

42. Formal framework  Memoranda of Understanding on specific items  like that on IceTray  Yearly common meetings  Similar to the one we had in Berlin (MANTS)  Inter-collaboration working groups which  „synchronize“ statistical methods, ways of presentation, simulations, … (for point sources, diffuse fluxes, dark matter, …)  Global Network ?  Like LIGO/Virgo/GEO  Global Neutrino Observatory, with inter-collaboration committees ?  like Auger, CTA

43. Formal framework  Memoranda of Understanding on specific items  like that on IceTray  Yearly common meetings  Similar to the one we had in Berlin (MANTS)  Inter-collaboration working groups which  „synchronize“ statistical methods, ways of presentation, simulations, …  for point sources, diffuse fluxes, dark matter  Global Network ?  Like LIGO/Virgo/GEO  Global Neutrino Observatory, with inter-collaboration committees ?  like Auger, CTA Could start this with the full community (IceCube, Antares/KM3NeT, Baikal)

44. A global network ?

45. But first of all …. … let IceCube* try to do the best it can do for KM3NeT: …see a first source ! * and ANTARES. Who knows ?

46. Acknowledement Part of this talk is based on talks given at the MANTS Meeting, September 2009, in Berlin. Special thanks to:  Teresa Montaruli  Jürgen Brunner  Chad Finley  Tom Gaisser, Uli Katz, Francis Halzen