1. Madison, May 20, 2009 Tom Gaisser1 IceCube Collaboration Overview & Response to 2008 SAC Report

2. Madison, May 20, 2009 Tom Gaisser2 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 ?

3. Madison, May 20, 2009 Tom Gaisser3 Outline 1.Successful season 19 strings (inc. 1 st 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

4. Madison, May 20, 2009 Tom Gaisser4 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

5. Madison, May 20, 2009 Tom Gaisser5 38 IceTop tanks installed, filled, frozen & commissioned before station closing

6. Madison, May 20, 2009 Tom Gaisser6

7. Madison, May 20, 2009 Tom Gaisser7 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

8. Madison, May 20, 2009 Tom Gaisser8 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

9. Madison, May 20, 2009 Tom Gaisser9 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 University of Oxford University Utrecht The IceCube Collaboration: 33 institutions, ~250 authors EPFL Lausanne

10. Madison, May 20, 2009 Tom Gaisser10 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.)

11. Madison, May 20, 2009 Tom Gaisser11 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) US Base Grants (FTE) 2.1 PROGRAM MANAGEMENT 7.923.383.06.38 2.2 DETECTOR OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE 12.44.22.416.61 2.3 COMPUTING AND DATA MANAGEMENT 15.31.956.058.0 2.4 TRIGGERING AND FILTERING 0.33.92.756.65 2.5 DATA QUALITY, RECONSTRUCTION & SIMULATION TOOLS 1.96.055.2511.3 In-kind Effort Still To Be Distributed 0.470.541.01 Grand Total (FY12 FTE) 37.819.9520.0039.95 ~ 5 FTE still on MREFC Requested

12. Madison, May 20, 2009 Tom Gaisser12 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.

13. Madison, May 20, 2009 Tom Gaisser13 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

14. Madison, May 20, 2009 Tom Gaisser14 Analysis plans Recommendation 1.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’s 2.Systematic uncertainties a main focus of analysis phone calls & wiki and of calibration phone calls & wiki 3.L2a story as an example

15. Madison, May 20, 2009 Tom Gaisser15 IceCube Analysis & Ph.D. Theses Matrix (numbers in boxes indicate number of active Ph.D. theses; colored boxes indicate institutional activity in area) May 2009

16. IceCube overall Analysis Contribution Matrix (numbers in boxes indicate FTE effort on Ph.D. thesis work, preparation of papers, etc.) May 2009

17. Madison, May 20, 2009 Tom Gaisser17 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

18. Madison, May 20, 2009 Tom Gaisser18 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 31 st 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

19. Madison, May 20, 2009 Tom Gaisser19 First 3 months of 2009

20. Madison, May 20, 2009 Tom Gaisser20 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 webPhys. Rev. D 79, 062001 (2009).) –AMANDA 7 year atmospheric neutrinos PRD, Accepted –IC22 WIMP search, PRL, accepted In process –IC9 analysis of GRB 080319B responding to reviewsIC9 analysis of GRB 080319B –Sound speed paper out to collaborationSound speed paper –IC22 Point Source Paper out to collaborationIC22 Point Source Paper –IceCube PMT Paper almost readyIceCube PMT Paper

21. Madison, May 20, 2009 Tom Gaisser21 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

22. Madison, May 20, 2009 Tom Gaisser22 Detector optimization Recommendation on Deep Core (1 st priority) –Deep Core is a good idea; SAC endorses it 1.Provide info on angular resolution and background rejection 2.Put some High QE DOMs on central standard IceCube string 3.Decommission AMANDA –Response: 1-3 all done. See deep-core proposal, deep core talk next on agenda Recommendation: placement of outer strings 1.Try for further optimization of location of strings 2.Insure no negative impact on physics goals –Response: Optimized map; studies underway (see Karle’s talk)

23. Madison, May 20, 2009 Tom Gaisser23 Approach to R&D Recommendations 1.Take advantage of IceCube holes (unique opportunity) 2.May require seeking funding 3.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 afternoon 2.Hoffman career grant features radio 3.Combined R&D working group established K. Helbing, chair; coordinate with M&O Improved focus and coordination of activities

24. Madison, May 20, 2009 Tom Gaisser24 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

25. Madison, May 20, 2009 Tom Gaisser25 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