1: % ****** Start of file apssamp.tex ******
2: %
3: % This file is part of the APS files in the REVTeX 4 distribution.
4: % Version 4.0 of REVTeX, August 2001a
5: %
6: % Copyright (c) 2001 The American Physical Society.
7: %
8: % See the REVTeX 4 README file for restrictions and more information.
9: %
10: % TeX'ing this file requires that you have AMS-LaTeX 2.0 installed
11: % as well as the rest of the prerequisites for REVTeX 4.0
12: %
13: % See the REVTeX 4 README file
14: % It also requires running BibTeX. The commands are as follows:
15: %
16: % 1) latex apssamp.tex
17: % 2) bibtex apssamp
18: % 3) latex apssamp.tex
19: % 4) latex apssamp.tex
20: %
21: %\documentclass{article}
22: %\documentclass[twocolumn,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb,aps,prd,superscriptaddress,secnumarabic]{revtex4}
23: \documentclass[preprint,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb,aps,prd,superscriptaddress,longtable,12pt,floatfix,nofootinbib]{revtex4}
24:
25: %DOCUMENT CLASS FROM ZEUTHEN
26: %\documentclass[12pt,showpacs,prd,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb,floatfix,nofootinbib]{revtex4}
27:
28: % Some other (several out of many) possibilities
29: %\documentclass[preprint,aps]{revtex4}
30: %\documentclass[preprint,aps,draft]{revtex4}
31: %\documentclass[prb]{revtex4}% Physical Review B
32:
33: \usepackage{graphicx}% Include figure files
34: \usepackage{dcolumn}% Align table columns on decimal point
35: \usepackage{bm}% bold math
36:
37: %\usepackage{mlineno}
38:
39: %\nofiles
40:
41: \begin{document}
42:
43: %\preprint{APS/123-QED}
44:
45: This version of astro-ph:0705.1315 contains the original (published) version of this article (Phys. Rev. D 76, 042008 (2007)), as well as its erratum. The original document has not been modified, but the reader should use the effective area tables from the erratum.
46:
47:
48: \pagebreak[4]
49:
50: \title{Multi-year search for a diffuse flux of muon neutrinos with AMANDA-II}
51:
52: %\author{The IceCube Collaboration}
53:
54: %\author{Ann Author}
55: % \email{author@institution.edu}
56: %\affiliation{%
57: %Authors' institution and/or address\\
58: %This line break forced with \textbackslash\textbackslash
59: %}%
60:
61: \affiliation{III Physikalisches Institut, RWTH Aachen University, D-52056 Aachen, Germany}
62: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics and Astronomy, University of Alaska Anchorage, 3211 Providence Dr., Anchorage, AK 99508, USA}
63: \affiliation{CTSPS, Clark-Atlanta University, Atlanta, GA 30314, USA}
64: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics, Southern University, Baton Rouge, LA 70813, USA}
65: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA}
66: \affiliation{Institut f\"ur Physik, Humboldt-Universit\"at zu Berlin, D-12489 Berlin, Germany}
67: \affiliation{Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA}
68: \affiliation{Universit\'e Libre de Bruxelles, Science Faculty CP230, B-1050 Brussels, Belgium}
69: \affiliation{Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Dienst ELEM, B-1050 Brussels, Belgium}
70: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics, Chiba University, Chiba 263-8522 Japan}
71: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics and Astronomy, University of Canterbury, Private Bag 4800, Christchurch, New Zealand}
72: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA}
73: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics, Universit\"at Dortmund, D-44221 Dortmund, Germany}
74: \affiliation{Dept.~of Subatomic and Radiation Physics, University of Gent, B-9000 Gent, Belgium}
75: \affiliation{Max-Planck-Institut f\"ur Kernphysik, D-69177 Heidelberg, Germany}
76: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics and Astronomy, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697, USA}
77: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics and Astronomy, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS 66045, USA}
78: \affiliation{Blackett Laboratory, Imperial College, London SW7 2BW, UK}
79: \affiliation{Dept.~of Astronomy, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706, USA}
80: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706, USA}
81: \affiliation{Institute of Physics, University of Mainz, Staudinger Weg 7, D-55099 Mainz, Germany}
82: \affiliation{University of Mons-Hainaut, 7000 Mons, Belgium}
83: \affiliation{Bartol Research Institute and Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716, USA}
84: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics, University of Oxford, 1 Keble Road, Oxford OX1 3NP, UK}
85: \affiliation{Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, NJ 08540, USA}
86: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics, University of Wisconsin, River Falls, WI 54022, USA}
87: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics, Stockholm University, SE-10691 Stockholm, Sweden}
88: \affiliation{Dept.~of Astronomy and Astrophysics, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA}
89: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA}
90: \affiliation{Division of High Energy Physics, Uppsala University, S-75121 Uppsala, Sweden}
91: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics and Astronomy, Utrecht University/SRON, NL-3584 CC Utrecht, The Netherlands}
92: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics, University of Wuppertal, D-42119 Wuppertal, Germany}
93: \affiliation{DESY, D-15735 Zeuthen, Germany}
94:
95: \author{A.~Achterberg}
96: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics and Astronomy, Utrecht University/SRON, NL-3584 CC Utrecht, The Netherlands}
97: \author{M.~Ackermann}
98: \affiliation{DESY, D-15735 Zeuthen, Germany}
99: \author{J.~Adams}
100: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics and Astronomy, University of Canterbury, Private Bag 4800, Christchurch, New Zealand}
101: \author{J.~Ahrens}
102: \affiliation{Institute of Physics, University of Mainz, Staudinger Weg 7, D-55099 Mainz, Germany}
103: \author{K.~Andeen}
104: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706, USA}
105: \author{J.~Auffenberg}
106: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics, University of Wuppertal, D-42119 Wuppertal, Germany}
107: \author{X.~Bai}
108: \affiliation{Bartol Research Institute and Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716, USA}
109: \author{B.~Baret}
110: \affiliation{Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Dienst ELEM, B-1050 Brussels, Belgium}
111: \author{S.~W.~Barwick}
112: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics and Astronomy, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697, USA}
113: \author{R.~Bay}
114: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA}
115: \author{K.~Beattie}
116: \affiliation{Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA}
117: \author{T.~Becka}
118: \affiliation{Institute of Physics, University of Mainz, Staudinger Weg 7, D-55099 Mainz, Germany}
119: \author{J.~K.~Becker}
120: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics, Universit\"at Dortmund, D-44221 Dortmund, Germany}
121: \author{K.-H.~Becker}
122: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics, University of Wuppertal, D-42119 Wuppertal, Germany}
123: \author{P.~Berghaus}
124: \affiliation{Universit\'e Libre de Bruxelles, Science Faculty CP230, B-1050
125: Brussels, Belgium}
126: \affiliation{Max-Planck-Institut f\"ur Kernphysik, D-69177 Heidelberg, Germany}
127: \author{D.~Berley}
128: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA}
129: \author{E.~Bernardini}
130: \affiliation{DESY, D-15735 Zeuthen, Germany}
131: \author{D.~Bertrand}
132: \affiliation{Universit\'e Libre de Bruxelles, Science Faculty CP230, B-1050 Brussels, Belgium}
133: \author{D.~Z.~Besson}
134: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics and Astronomy, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS 66045, USA}
135: \author{E.~Blaufuss}
136: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA}
137: \author{D.~J.~Boersma}
138: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706, USA}
139: \author{C.~Bohm}
140: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics, Stockholm University, SE-10691 Stockholm, Sweden}
141: \author{J.~Bolmont}
142: \affiliation{DESY, D-15735 Zeuthen, Germany}
143: \author{S.~B\"oser}
144: \affiliation{DESY, D-15735 Zeuthen, Germany}
145: \author{O.~Botner}
146: \affiliation{Division of High Energy Physics, Uppsala University, S-75121 Uppsala, Sweden}
147: \author{A.~Bouchta}
148: \affiliation{Division of High Energy Physics, Uppsala University, S-75121 Uppsala, Sweden}
149: \author{J.~Braun}
150: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706, USA}
151: \author{T.~Burgess}
152: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics, Stockholm University, SE-10691 Stockholm, Sweden}
153: \author{T.~Castermans}
154: \affiliation{University of Mons-Hainaut, 7000 Mons, Belgium}
155: \author{D.~Chirkin}
156: \affiliation{Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA}
157: \author{B.~Christy}
158: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA}
159: \author{J.~Clem}
160: \affiliation{Bartol Research Institute and Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716, USA}
161: \author{D.~F.~Cowen}
162: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA}
163: \affiliation{Dept.~of Astronomy and Astrophysics, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA}
164: \author{M.~V.~D'Agostino}
165: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA}
166: \author{A.~Davour}
167: \affiliation{Division of High Energy Physics, Uppsala University, S-75121 Uppsala, Sweden}
168: \author{C.~T.~Day}
169: \affiliation{Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA}
170: \author{C.~De~Clercq}
171: \affiliation{Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Dienst ELEM, B-1050 Brussels, Belgium}
172: \author{L.~Demir\"ors}
173: \affiliation{Bartol Research Institute and Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716, USA}
174: \author{F.~Descamps}
175: \affiliation{Dept.~of Subatomic and Radiation Physics, University of Gent, B-9000 Gent, Belgium}
176: \author{P.~Desiati}
177: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706, USA}
178: \author{T.~DeYoung}
179: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA}
180: \author{J.~C.~Diaz-Velez}
181: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706, USA}
182: \author{J.~Dreyer}
183: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics, Universit\"at Dortmund, D-44221 Dortmund, Germany}
184: \author{J.~P.~Dumm}
185: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706, USA}
186: \author{M.~R.~Duvoort}
187: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics and Astronomy, Utrecht University/SRON, NL-3584 CC Utrecht, The Netherlands}
188: \author{W.~R.~Edwards}
189: \affiliation{Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA}
190: \author{R.~Ehrlich}
191: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA}
192: \author{J.~Eisch}
193: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706, USA}
194: \author{R.~W.~Ellsworth}
195: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA}
196: \author{P.~A.~Evenson}
197: \affiliation{Bartol Research Institute and Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716, USA}
198: \author{O.~Fadiran}
199: \affiliation{CTSPS, Clark-Atlanta University, Atlanta, GA 30314, USA}
200: \author{A.~R.~Fazely}
201: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics, Southern University, Baton Rouge, LA 70813, USA}
202: \author{K.~Filimonov}
203: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA}
204: \author{C.~Finley}
205: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706, USA}
206: \author{M.~M.~Foerster}
207: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA}
208: \author{B.~D.~Fox}
209: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA}
210: \author{A.~Franckowiak}
211: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics, University of Wuppertal, D-42119 Wuppertal, Germany}
212: \author{R.~Franke}
213: \affiliation{DESY, D-15735 Zeuthen, Germany}
214: \author{T.~K.~Gaisser}
215: \affiliation{Bartol Research Institute and Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716, USA}
216: \author{J.~Gallagher}
217: \affiliation{Dept.~of Astronomy, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706, USA}
218: \author{R.~Ganugapati}
219: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706, USA}
220: \author{H.~Geenen}
221: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics, University of Wuppertal, D-42119 Wuppertal, Germany}
222: \author{L.~Gerhardt}
223: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics and Astronomy, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697, USA}
224: \author{A.~Goldschmidt}
225: \affiliation{Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA}
226: \author{J.~A.~Goodman}
227: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA}
228: \author{R.~Gozzini}
229: \affiliation{Institute of Physics, University of Mainz, Staudinger Weg 7, D-55099 Mainz, Germany}
230: \author{T.~Griesel}
231: \affiliation{Institute of Physics, University of Mainz, Staudinger Weg 7, D-55099 Mainz, Germany}
232: \author{A.~Gro{\ss}}
233: \affiliation{Max-Planck-Institut f\"ur Kernphysik, D-69177 Heidelberg, Germany}
234: \author{S.~Grullon}
235: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706, USA}
236: \author{R.~M.~Gunasingha}
237: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics, Southern University, Baton Rouge, LA 70813, USA}
238: \author{M.~Gurtner}
239: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics, University of Wuppertal, D-42119 Wuppertal, Germany}
240: \author{C.~Ha}
241: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA}
242: \author{A.~Hallgren}
243: \affiliation{Division of High Energy Physics, Uppsala University, S-75121 Uppsala, Sweden}
244: \author{F.~Halzen}
245: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706, USA}
246: \author{K.~Han}
247: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics and Astronomy, University of Canterbury, Private Bag 4800, Christchurch, New Zealand}
248: \author{K.~Hanson}
249: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706, USA}
250: \author{D.~Hardtke}
251: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA}
252: \author{R.~Hardtke}
253: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics, University of Wisconsin, River Falls, WI 54022, USA}
254: \author{J.~E.~Hart}
255: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA}
256: \author{Y.~Hasegawa}
257: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics, Chiba University, Chiba 263-8522 Japan}
258: \author{T.~Hauschildt}
259: \affiliation{Bartol Research Institute and Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716, USA}
260: \author{D.~Hays}
261: \affiliation{Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA}
262: \author{J.~Heise}
263: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics and Astronomy, Utrecht University/SRON, NL-3584 CC Utrecht, The Netherlands}
264: \author{K.~Helbing}
265: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics, University of Wuppertal, D-42119 Wuppertal, Germany}
266: \author{M.~Hellwig}
267: \affiliation{Institute of Physics, University of Mainz, Staudinger Weg 7, D-55099 Mainz, Germany}
268: \author{P.~Herquet}
269: \affiliation{University of Mons-Hainaut, 7000 Mons, Belgium}
270: \author{G.~C.~Hill}
271: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706, USA}
272: \author{J.~Hodges}
273: \thanks{Corresponding author: hodges@icecube.wisc.edu (J.~Hodges)}
274: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706, USA}
275: \author{K.~D.~Hoffman}
276: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA}
277: \author{B.~Hommez}
278: \affiliation{Dept.~of Subatomic and Radiation Physics, University of Gent, B-9000 Gent, Belgium}
279: \author{K.~Hoshina}
280: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706, USA}
281: \author{D.~Hubert}
282: \affiliation{Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Dienst ELEM, B-1050 Brussels, Belgium}
283: \author{B.~Hughey}
284: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706, USA}
285: \author{J.-P.~H\"ul{\ss}}
286: \affiliation{III Physikalisches Institut, RWTH Aachen University, D-52056 Aachen, Germany}
287: \author{P.~O.~Hulth}
288: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics, Stockholm University, SE-10691 Stockholm, Sweden}
289: \author{K.~Hultqvist}
290: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics, Stockholm University, SE-10691 Stockholm, Sweden}
291: \author{S.~Hundertmark}
292: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics, Stockholm University, SE-10691 Stockholm, Sweden}
293: \author{M.~Inaba}
294: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics, Chiba University, Chiba 263-8522 Japan}
295: \author{A.~Ishihara}
296: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics, Chiba University, Chiba 263-8522 Japan}
297: \author{J.~Jacobsen}
298: \affiliation{Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA}
299: \author{G.~S.~Japaridze}
300: \affiliation{CTSPS, Clark-Atlanta University, Atlanta, GA 30314, USA}
301: \author{H.~Johansson}
302: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics, Stockholm University, SE-10691 Stockholm, Sweden}
303: \author{A.~Jones}
304: \affiliation{Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA}
305: \author{J.~M.~Joseph}
306: \affiliation{Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA}
307: \author{K.-H.~Kampert}
308: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics, University of Wuppertal, D-42119 Wuppertal, Germany}
309: \author{A.~Kappes}
310: \thanks{on leave of absence from Universit\"at Erlangen-N\"urnberg, Physikalisches Institut, D-91058, Erlangen, \mbox{Germany}}
311: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706, USA}
312: \author{T.~Karg}
313: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics, University of Wuppertal, D-42119 Wuppertal, Germany}
314: \author{A.~Karle}
315: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706, USA}
316: \author{H.~Kawai}
317: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics, Chiba University, Chiba 263-8522 Japan}
318: \author{J.~L.~Kelley}
319: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706, USA}
320: \author{F.~Kislat}
321: \affiliation{Institut f\"ur Physik, Humboldt-Universit\"at zu Berlin, D-12489 Berlin, Germany}
322: \author{N.~Kitamura}
323: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706, USA}
324: \author{S.~R.~Klein}
325: \affiliation{Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA}
326: \author{S.~Klepser}
327: \affiliation{DESY, D-15735 Zeuthen, Germany}
328: \author{G.~Kohnen}
329: \affiliation{University of Mons-Hainaut, 7000 Mons, Belgium}
330: \author{H.~Kolanoski}
331: \affiliation{Institut f\"ur Physik, Humboldt-Universit\"at zu Berlin, D-12489 Berlin, Germany}
332: \author{L.~K\"opke}
333: \affiliation{Institute of Physics, University of Mainz, Staudinger Weg 7, D-55099 Mainz, Germany}
334: \author{M.~Kowalski}
335: \affiliation{Institut f\"ur Physik, Humboldt-Universit\"at zu Berlin, D-12489 Berlin, Germany}
336: \author{T.~Kowarik}
337: \affiliation{Institute of Physics, University of Mainz, Staudinger Weg 7, D-55099 Mainz, Germany}
338: \author{M.~Krasberg}
339: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706, USA}
340: \author{K.~Kuehn}
341: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics and Astronomy, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697, USA}
342: \author{M.~Labare}
343: \affiliation{Universit\'e Libre de Bruxelles, Science Faculty CP230, B-1050 Brussels, Belgium}
344: \author{H.~Landsman}
345: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706, USA}
346: \author{R.~Lauer}
347: \affiliation{DESY, D-15735 Zeuthen, Germany}
348: \author{H.~Leich}
349: \affiliation{DESY, D-15735 Zeuthen, Germany}
350: \author{D.~Leier}
351: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics, Universit\"at Dortmund, D-44221 Dortmund, Germany}
352: \author{I.~Liubarsky}
353: \affiliation{Blackett Laboratory, Imperial College, London SW7 2BW, UK}
354: \author{J.~Lundberg}
355: \affiliation{Division of High Energy Physics, Uppsala University, S-75121 Uppsala, Sweden}
356: \author{J.~L\"unemann}
357: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics, Universit\"at Dortmund, D-44221 Dortmund, Germany}
358: \author{J.~Madsen}
359: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics, University of Wisconsin, River Falls, WI 54022, USA}
360: \author{R.~Maruyama}
361: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706, USA}
362: \author{K.~Mase}
363: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics, Chiba University, Chiba 263-8522 Japan}
364: \author{H.~S.~Matis}
365: \affiliation{Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA}
366: \author{T.~McCauley}
367: \affiliation{Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA}
368: \author{C.~P.~McParland}
369: \affiliation{Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA}
370: \author{A.~Meli}
371: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics, Universit\"at Dortmund, D-44221 Dortmund, Germany}
372: \author{T.~Messarius}
373: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics, Universit\"at Dortmund, D-44221 Dortmund, Germany}
374: \author{P.~M\'esz\'aros}
375: \affiliation{Dept.~of Astronomy and Astrophysics, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA}
376: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA}
377: \author{H.~Miyamoto}
378: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics, Chiba University, Chiba 263-8522 Japan}
379: \author{A.~Mokhtarani}
380: \affiliation{Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA}
381: \author{T.~Montaruli}
382: \thanks{on leave of absence from Universit\`a di Bari, Dipartimento di Fisica, I-70126, Bari, Italy}
383: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706, USA}
384: \author{A.~Morey}
385: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA}
386: \author{R.~Morse}
387: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706, USA}
388: \author{S.~M.~Movit}
389: \affiliation{Dept.~of Astronomy and Astrophysics, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA}
390: \author{K.~M\"unich}
391: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics, Universit\"at Dortmund, D-44221 Dortmund, Germany}
392: \author{R.~Nahnhauer}
393: \affiliation{DESY, D-15735 Zeuthen, Germany}
394: \author{J.~W.~Nam}
395: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics and Astronomy, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697, USA}
396: \author{P.~Nie{\ss}en}
397: \affiliation{Bartol Research Institute and Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716, USA}
398: \author{D.~R.~Nygren}
399: \affiliation{Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA}
400: \author{H.~\"Ogelman}
401: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706, USA}
402: \author{A.~Olivas}
403: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA}
404: \author{S.~Patton}
405: \affiliation{Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA}
406: \author{C.~Pe\~na-Garay}
407: \affiliation{Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, NJ 08540, USA}
408: \author{C.~P\'erez~de~los~Heros}
409: \affiliation{Division of High Energy Physics, Uppsala University, S-75121 Uppsala, Sweden}
410: \author{A.~Piegsa}
411: \affiliation{Institute of Physics, University of Mainz, Staudinger Weg 7, D-55099 Mainz, Germany}
412: \author{D.~Pieloth}
413: \affiliation{DESY, D-15735 Zeuthen, Germany}
414: \author{A.~C.~Pohl}
415: \thanks{affiliated with Dept.~of Chemistry and Biomedical Sciences, Kalmar University, S-39182 Kalmar, Sweden}
416: \affiliation{Division of High Energy Physics, Uppsala University, S-75121 Uppsala, Sweden}
417: \author{R.~Porrata}
418: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA}
419: \author{J.~Pretz}
420: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA}
421: \author{P.~B.~Price}
422: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA}
423: \author{G.~T.~Przybylski}
424: \affiliation{Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA}
425: \author{K.~Rawlins}
426: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics and Astronomy, University of Alaska Anchorage, 3211 Providence Dr., Anchorage, AK 99508, USA}
427: \author{S.~Razzaque}
428: \affiliation{Dept.~of Astronomy and Astrophysics, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA}
429: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA}
430: \author{E.~Resconi}
431: \affiliation{Max-Planck-Institut f\"ur Kernphysik, D-69177 Heidelberg, Germany}
432: \author{W.~Rhode}
433: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics, Universit\"at Dortmund, D-44221 Dortmund, Germany}
434: \author{M.~Ribordy}
435: \affiliation{University of Mons-Hainaut, 7000 Mons, Belgium}
436: \author{A.~Rizzo}
437: \affiliation{Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Dienst ELEM, B-1050 Brussels, Belgium}
438: \author{S.~Robbins}
439: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics, University of Wuppertal, D-42119 Wuppertal, Germany}
440: \author{P.~Roth}
441: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA}
442: \author{F.~Rothmaier}
443: \affiliation{Institute of Physics, University of Mainz, Staudinger Weg 7, D-55099 Mainz, Germany}
444: \author{C.~Rott}
445: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA}
446: \author{D.~Rutledge}
447: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA}
448: \author{D.~Ryckbosch}
449: \affiliation{Dept.~of Subatomic and Radiation Physics, University of Gent, B-9000 Gent, Belgium}
450: \author{H.-G.~Sander}
451: \affiliation{Institute of Physics, University of Mainz, Staudinger Weg 7, D-55099 Mainz, Germany}
452: \author{S.~Sarkar}
453: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics, University of Oxford, 1 Keble Road, Oxford OX1 3NP, UK}
454: \author{K.~Satalecka}
455: \affiliation{DESY, D-15735 Zeuthen, Germany}
456: \author{S.~Schlenstedt}
457: \affiliation{DESY, D-15735 Zeuthen, Germany}
458: \author{T.~Schmidt}
459: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA}
460: \author{D.~Schneider}
461: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706, USA}
462: \author{D.~Seckel}
463: \affiliation{Bartol Research Institute and Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716, USA}
464: \author{B.~Semburg}
465: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics, University of Wuppertal, D-42119 Wuppertal, Germany}
466: \author{S.~H.~Seo}
467: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA}
468: \author{Y.~Sestayo}
469: \affiliation{Max-Planck-Institut f\"ur Kernphysik, D-69177 Heidelberg, Germany}
470: \author{S.~Seunarine}
471: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics and Astronomy, University of Canterbury, Private Bag 4800, Christchurch, New Zealand}
472: \author{A.~Silvestri}
473: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics and Astronomy, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697, USA}
474: \author{A.~J.~Smith}
475: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA}
476: \author{M.~Solarz}
477: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA}
478: \author{C.~Song}
479: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706, USA}
480: \author{J.~E.~Sopher}
481: \affiliation{Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA}
482: \author{G.~M.~Spiczak}
483: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics, University of Wisconsin, River Falls, WI 54022, USA}
484: \author{C.~Spiering}
485: \affiliation{DESY, D-15735 Zeuthen, Germany}
486: \author{M.~Stamatikos}
487: \thanks{NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD 20771, USA}
488: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706, USA}
489: \author{T.~Stanev}
490: \affiliation{Bartol Research Institute and Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716, USA}
491: \author{T.~Stezelberger}
492: \affiliation{Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA}
493: \author{R.~G.~Stokstad}
494: \affiliation{Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA}
495: \author{M.~C.~Stoufer}
496: \affiliation{Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA}
497: \author{S.~Stoyanov}
498: \affiliation{Bartol Research Institute and Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716, USA}
499: \author{E.~A.~Strahler}
500: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706, USA}
501: \author{T.~Straszheim}
502: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA}
503: \author{K.-H.~Sulanke}
504: \affiliation{DESY, D-15735 Zeuthen, Germany}
505: \author{G.~W.~Sullivan}
506: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA}
507: \author{T.~J.~Sumner}
508: \affiliation{Blackett Laboratory, Imperial College, London SW7 2BW, UK}
509: \author{I.~Taboada}
510: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA}
511: \author{O.~Tarasova}
512: \affiliation{DESY, D-15735 Zeuthen, Germany}
513: \author{A.~Tepe}
514: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics, University of Wuppertal, D-42119 Wuppertal, Germany}
515: \author{L.~Thollander}
516: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics, Stockholm University, SE-10691 Stockholm, Sweden}
517: \author{S.~Tilav}
518: \affiliation{Bartol Research Institute and Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716, USA}
519: \author{M.~Tluczykont}
520: \affiliation{DESY, D-15735 Zeuthen, Germany}
521: \author{P.~A.~Toale}
522: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA}
523: \author{D.~Tosi}
524: \affiliation{DESY, D-15735 Zeuthen, Germany}
525: \author{D.~Tur{\v{c}}an}
526: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA}
527: \author{N.~van~Eijndhoven}
528: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics and Astronomy, Utrecht University/SRON, NL-3584 CC Utrecht, The Netherlands}
529: \author{J.~Vandenbroucke}
530: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA}
531: \author{A.~Van~Overloop}
532: \affiliation{Dept.~of Subatomic and Radiation Physics, University of Gent, B-9000 Gent, Belgium}
533: \author{V.~Viscomi}
534: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA}
535: \author{B.~Voigt}
536: \affiliation{DESY, D-15735 Zeuthen, Germany}
537: \author{W.~Wagner}
538: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA}
539: \author{C.~Walck}
540: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics, Stockholm University, SE-10691 Stockholm, Sweden}
541: \author{H.~Waldmann}
542: \affiliation{DESY, D-15735 Zeuthen, Germany}
543: \author{M.~Walter}
544: \affiliation{DESY, D-15735 Zeuthen, Germany}
545: \author{Y.-R.~Wang}
546: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706, USA}
547: \author{C.~Wendt}
548: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706, USA}
549: \author{C.~H.~Wiebusch}
550: \affiliation{III Physikalisches Institut, RWTH Aachen University, D-52056 Aachen, Germany}
551: \author{C.~Wiedemann}
552: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics, Stockholm University, SE-10691 Stockholm, Sweden}
553: \author{G.~Wikstr\"om}
554: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics, Stockholm University, SE-10691 Stockholm, Sweden}
555: \author{D.~R.~Williams}
556: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA}
557: \author{R.~Wischnewski}
558: \affiliation{DESY, D-15735 Zeuthen, Germany}
559: \author{H.~Wissing}
560: \affiliation{III Physikalisches Institut, RWTH Aachen University, D-52056 Aachen, Germany}
561: \author{K.~Woschnagg}
562: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA}
563: \author{X.~W.~Xu}
564: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics, Southern University, Baton Rouge, LA 70813, USA}
565: \author{G.~Yodh}
566: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics and Astronomy, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697, USA}
567: \author{S.~Yoshida}
568: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics, Chiba University, Chiba 263-8522 Japan}
569: \author{J.~D.~Zornoza}
570: \thanks{affiliated with IFIC (CSIC-Universitat de Val\`encia), A. C. 22085, 46071 Valencia, Spain}
571: \affiliation{Dept.~of Physics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706, USA}
572:
573: %\date{\today}% It is always \today, today,
574: % but any date may be explicitly specified
575:
576: \collaboration{IceCube Collaboration}
577: \noaffiliation
578:
579:
580:
581: %\linenumbers
582:
583: \begin{abstract}
584: A search for TeV -- PeV muon neutrinos from unresolved sources was performed
585: on \mbox{AMANDA-II} data collected between 2000 and 2003 with an equivalent
586: livetime of 807 days. This diffuse analysis sought to find an
587: extraterrestrial neutrino flux from sources with non-thermal
588: components. The signal is expected to have a harder spectrum than the
589: atmospheric muon and neutrino backgrounds. Since no excess of events was
590: seen in the data over the expected background, an upper limit of
591: \mbox{$E^{2}\Phi_\mathrm{90\% C.L.} < 7.4 \times 10^{-8}$ GeV cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$
592: sr$^{-1}$} is placed on the diffuse flux of muon neutrinos with a
593: \mbox{$\Phi \propto$ E$^{-2}$} spectrum in the energy range 16 TeV to 2.5
594: PeV. This is currently the most sensitive \mbox{$\Phi \propto$ E$^{-2}$}
595: diffuse astrophysical neutrino limit. We also set upper limits for
596: astrophysical and prompt neutrino models, all of which have spectra
597: different than \mbox{$\Phi
598: \propto$ E$^{-2}$}.
599: \end{abstract}
600:
601: \pacs{95.55.Vj, 95.75.-z, 95.85.Ry}
602:
603: %\keywords{Suggested keywords}%Use showkeys class option if keyword
604: %display desired
605: \maketitle
606:
607: \section{\label{intro}Introduction}
608: High energy photons have been used to paint a picture of the non-thermal
609: Universe, but a more complete image of the hot and dense regions of space
610: can potentially be obtained by combining astrophysical neutrino and gamma
611: ray data. Neutrinos can provide valuable information because they are
612: undeflected by magnetic fields and hence their paths point back to the
613: particle's source. Unlike photons, neutrinos are only rarely absorbed when
614: traveling through matter. However, their low interaction cross section also
615: makes their detection more challenging. The observation of astrophysical
616: neutrinos would confirm the predictions
617: \cite{wb_bound,wb_robust,wb_withredshift,sdss,sdss_revision,mpr,loeb_waxman_starburst,nellen,becker} that
618: neutrinos are produced in hadronic interactions in cosmic accelerators,
619: such as active galactic nuclei or gamma-ray bursts.
620:
621: Instead of searching for neutrinos from either a specific time or location
622: in the sky, this analysis searches for extraterrestrial neutrinos from
623: unresolved sources. If the neutrino flux from an individual source is too
624: small to be detected by point source search techniques, it is nevertheless
625: possible that many sources, isotropically distributed throughout the
626: Universe, could combine to make a detectable signal. An excess of events
627: over the expected atmospheric neutrino background would be indicative of an
628: extraterrestrial neutrino flux.
629:
630: In this paper, we report on a search for a diffuse flux of astrophysical
631: muon neutrinos performed with data collected by the AMANDA-II neutrino
632: telescope from 2000 -- 2003. To perform the search, a 5.2 sr sky region
633: (slightly less than 2$\pi$ sr) was monitored over a four year period, for a
634: total of 807 days of livetime. Before describing specifics of the analysis,
635: the existing diffuse neutrino models and limits and how we aim to detect
636: neutrinos are described in Sections \ref{section_astro_sources} and
637: \ref{section_detecting_nu}. In Section \ref{section_searchmethods}, typical
638: backgrounds to the extraterrestrial signal are discussed, as well as
639: how events are simulated in the detector. We also explain how an
640: atmospheric neutrino sample was obtained. An extensive systematic
641: uncertainty study is described in Section
642: \ref{section_systematics}. The relationship between up and downgoing events
643: is explored in Section \ref{section_relateupdown}. Finally, the results of
644: the analysis are presented in Section \ref{section_results}. Since no
645: excess of high energy events was seen above the predicted atmospheric
646: neutrino background, we set limits on the flux of extraterrestrial muon
647: neutrinos with a generic \mbox{$\Phi \propto $ E$^{-2}$} energy spectrum as
648: well as with a number of different model spectra discussed in Section
649: \ref{subsection_diffspectra}.
650:
651: \section{\label{section_astro_sources} Astrophysical Fluxes and Limits}
652:
653: The analysis presented in this paper assumes a \mbox{$\Phi \propto$
654: E$^{-2}$} spectrum resulting from shock acceleration processes. Although
655: other spectra were tested, the \mbox{$\Phi \propto$ E$^{-2}$} spectral
656: shape is considered a benchmark to characterize acceleration in many
657: sources.
658:
659: The Waxman-Bahcall upper bound \cite{wb_bound,wb_robust,wb_withredshift}
660: follows an \mbox{$\Phi \propto$ E$^{-2}$} spectrum and reaching below the
661: sensitivity of this bound has traditionally been a goal of neutrino
662: experiments. Nellen, Mannheim and Biermann
663: \cite{nellen} and Becker, Biermann and Rhode \cite{becker} have suggested
664: \mbox{$\Phi \propto$ E$^{-2}$} neutrino spectra with higher normalizations
665: than the Waxman-Bahcall bound. The other astrophysical neutrino models
666: tested here (Mannheim, Protheroe and Rachen \cite{mpr}, Stecker, Done,
667: Salamon and Sommers \cite{sdss,sdss_revision} and Loeb and Waxman
668: \cite{loeb_waxman_starburst}) predict different spectral shapes and are
669: specific predictions of neutrino fluxes from classes of objects such as
670: active galactic nuclei (AGN) and starburst galaxies. The models have been
671: derived based on a variety of astronomical results, including the observed
672: extragalactic cosmic ray flux and x-ray and radio measurements.
673:
674: A precursor to this muon neutrino analysis was conducted with data
675: collected in 1997 by the \mbox{AMANDA-B10} detector \cite{diffuse97}. (In
676: 1997, the AMANDA detector consisted of 10 sensor strings, a subset of the
677: 19 strings in the final AMANDA-II configuration.) Other AMANDA analyses
678: have focused on the search for a diffuse flux of neutrinos using particle
679: showers or cascades \cite{cascades2000}. Cascades are caused by
680: $\nu_{e}$ and $\nu_{\tau}$ charged current interactions and all-flavor
681: neutral current interactions in the ice near the detector. Even though no
682: extraterrestrial signal has been detected, models can be excluded by
683: setting upper limits.
684:
685: The Fr\'ejus \cite{frejus}, MACRO \cite{macro} and Baikal \cite{baikal})
686: experiments have set upper limits on the flux of astrophysical neutrinos in
687: the same energy region as this analysis (TeV - PeV). Published upper limits
688: from these experiments assuming a \mbox{$\Phi \propto$ E$^{-2}$} spectrum
689: are summarized along with the results of this analysis in Section
690: \ref{subsection_e2results}. Depending on the detector and the specific
691: analysis, the reported upper limit constrains either the muon neutrino flux
692: or the all-flavor neutrino flux. Upper limits obtained from all-flavor
693: analyses are not directly comparable to $\nu_{\mu}$ upper limits. However,
694: for a wide range of neutrino production models and oscillation parameters,
695: the flavor flux ratio at Earth can be approximated as 1:1:1
696: \cite{athar}. In that case, either a single-flavor limit can be multiplied
697: by three and compared to an all-flavor result, or an all-flavor limit can
698: be divided by three and compared to a single-flavor result.
699:
700: The Baikal experiment has placed limits on models with spectra other than
701: \mbox{$\Phi \propto$ E$^{-2}$} \cite{baikal}, which are compared to the
702: results from this analysis in Section \ref{subsection_diffspectra}. Here,
703: nine different spectral shapes are tested, including the search for prompt
704: neutrinos from the decay of charmed particles. Since this analysis is
705: optimized on energy-dependent parameters, the optimization was performed
706: individually for each energy spectrum.
707:
708: \section{\label{section_detecting_nu} Neutrino Detection in AMANDA}
709:
710: Although chargeless particles like neutrinos are not directly observable,
711: the by-products of their interactions with polar ice or rock near the
712: detector can be observed. In particular, two types of neutrino-induced
713: events can be distinguished in AMANDA. All neutrino flavors can cause
714: hadronic or electromagnetic showers in the ice and these appear as a
715: momentary point-like source of Cherenkov light. Alternatively, long
716: track-like events are the signature of neutrino-induced muons traveling
717: through the detector. A cone of Cherenkov light is emitted by these muons
718: as they travel faster than the speed of light in ice. The present analysis
719: focuses exclusively on the muon track channel for identifying neutrino
720: events. Tau neutrinos can undergo charged current interactions and
721: contribute to the upgoing $\mu$ and $\nu_{\mu}$ fluxes via $\tau
722: \rightarrow \mu\nu_{\tau}\bar{\nu}_{\mu}$ decay. Although $\nu_{\tau}$
723: interactions and $\tau$ decay may contribute between 10\% to 16\% to the
724: E$^{-2}$ signal flux \cite{pointsource5yr}, this contribution is ignored in
725: this analysis.
726:
727: Nineteen vertical strings hold the optical modules (OMs) for recording the
728: timing and position of detected photons, which is needed for reconstructing
729: the path of the muon \cite{nim2004}. The angular distribution between the
730: neutrino direction and the reconstructed muon track has a median of
731: 2$^{\circ}$ when the highest quality events are used. The 677 OMs each
732: consist of a photomultiplier tube (PMT) enclosed in a pressure-resistant
733: glass sphere. The OMs are deployed to depths between 1500 and \mbox{2000
734: meters}. An event is recorded when at least 24 OMs report seeing light
735: within a \mbox{2.5 $\mu$s} window. AMANDA has been operating in the final
736: configuration with 19 strings (AMANDA-II) since 2000
737: \cite{nim2004}.
738:
739: \section{\label{section_searchmethods}Search Methods}
740:
741: This analysis uses the Earth as a filter to search for upgoing
742: astrophysical neutrino-induced events. The background for the analysis
743: consists of atmospheric muons and neutrinos created when cosmic rays
744: interact with Earth's atmosphere. The majority of the events registered in
745: the detector are atmospheric muons traveling downward through the ice.
746:
747: Conventional atmospheric neutrinos arise from the decay of pions and kaons
748: created in cosmic ray interactions with the atmosphere. Atmospheric
749: neutrinos are able to travel undisturbed through the Earth. They can be
750: separated from atmospheric muons by their direction, namely by demanding
751: that the reconstructed track is upgoing. The conventional atmospheric
752: neutrino flux asymptotically approaches a \mbox{$\Phi \sim$ E$^{-3.7}$}
753: spectrum in the multi-TeV range. Prompt neutrinos are the counterpart of
754: the conventional atmospheric neutrino flux and will be discussed in Section
755: \ref{section_results}.
756:
757: In the initial sample of \mbox{$5.2 \times 10^{9}$} events, many downgoing
758: events were misreconstructed as upgoing tracks. Misreconstruction happens
759: because photons scatter in the ice, causing directional and timing
760: information to be lost. Hence, the selected upgoing event sample not only
761: contains truly upgoing neutrinos, but a certain fraction of downgoing
762: atmospheric muons.
763:
764: An energy-correlated observable was used to separate neutrino-induced
765: events since the predicted astrophysical neutrino flux has a much harder
766: energy spectrum (\mbox{$\Phi \propto$ E$^{-2}$}) than the conventional
767: atmospheric neutrinos from pions and kaons. Any excess of events at high
768: energy over the expected atmospheric neutrino background indicates the
769: presence of a signal.
770:
771: The search method can be summarized by the following three selection steps:
772: \begin{enumerate}
773: \item Use the zenith angle from the reconstructed track to reject obviously
774: downgoing events.
775: \item Select events that have observables more consistent with typical long
776: upgoing tracks. This separates truly upgoing events from misreconstructed
777: downgoing events.
778: \item Use an energy-related observable (number of OMs triggered) to
779: separate upgoing atmospheric neutrinos from upgoing astrophysical
780: neutrinos.
781: \end{enumerate}
782:
783: This analysis relied on simulated data sets of background and signal
784: events. Sixty-three days of downgoing atmospheric muons were simulated with
785: CORSIKA \cite{corsika} version 6.030 and the QGSJET01 hadronic interaction
786: model. The events were simulated with a \mbox{$\Phi \propto$ E$^{-2.7}$}
787: primary energy spectrum. These downgoing events are so frequent ($\sim$80
788: Hz at trigger level) that two atmospheric muon events produced by unrelated
789: primaries often occur in the detector during the same detector trigger
790: window of \mbox{2.5 $\mu$s}. Timing patterns of the light from the two
791: tracks may be such that the reconstruction results in a single upgoing
792: track. These coincident muon events may be caused by two muons which are
793: each individually incapable of triggering the detector with at least 24 OM
794: hits. However, events which only hit a few OMs can now trigger the detector
795: when in coincidence with another event. This means that a simple trigger
796: rate calculation of 80 Hz $\times$ 80 Hz $\times$ 2.5 $\mu$s is not
797: possible since all combinations of events with a total of at least 24 hits
798: can trigger the detector. These coincident muon events were simulated for
799: 826 days of livetime and have a frequency of about $\sim$2-3 Hz at trigger
800: level.
801:
802: Muon neutrinos with a \mbox{$\Phi \propto$ E$^{-1}$} spectrum were simulated
803: with \texttt{nusim} \cite{nusim} and reweighted to atmospheric neutrino
804: flux predictions
805: \cite{lipari,bartol2004,honda2004,barronlinetables,icrc2001gaisser}, as
806: well as to an astrophysical muon neutrino flux of \mbox{E$^{2} \Phi$ =
807: 1$\times$10$^{-6}$ GeV cm$^{-2}$s$^{-1}$sr$^{-1}$}. The normalization of
808: the test signal spectrum, which is irrelevant when setting a limit, was
809: taken to be approximately equal the previous upper limit from
810: the AMANDA-B10 diffuse analysis \cite{diffuse97}.
811:
812: \subsection{Filtering the Data Set}
813:
814: The 2000 -- 2003 analysis covers 807 days of detector livetime between
815: February 2000 and November 2003. Because of summer maintenance operations,
816: no data were used from the polar summer seasons. In the first stage of the
817: analysis, reconstruction software was used to make an initial hypothesis on
818: the track direction of every event based on the timing pattern of the
819: detected light \cite{nim2004}.
820:
821: Figure \ref{coszen_nocuts} shows the zenith angle of the reconstructed
822: tracks for all events at the beginning of the analysis (level
823: 0). Vertically downgoing tracks have a reconstructed zenith angle of
824: $0^{\circ}$ (cos($\theta$)=1). The data set was reduced to $8 \times
825: 10^{6}$ events by removing all events reconstructed with zenith angles less
826: than 80$^{\circ}$ (cos($\theta$)=0.17). The remaining data set mainly
827: consists of misreconstructed downgoing muons and events near the horizon.
828:
829: The reduction of the data by three orders of magnitude with the simple
830: zenith requirement made it feasible to perform more CPU-intensive track
831: reconstructions on the remaining events. Track parameters were adjusted to
832: maximize the log likelihood, given the observed light pattern. Many of the
833: Cherenkov photons scatter multiple times as they travel through the ice and
834: this changes their direction and delays the times at which they are likely
835: to be detected. An iterative technique was performed in which each event
836: was reconstructed 32 times \cite{nim2004}, each time with a different
837: seed. Each iteration shifts the zenith and azimuth of the track and moves
838: the track to pass through the center of gravity of the hits. The best track
839: found by the iterative search was used throughout the later stages of the
840: analysis.
841:
842: \begin{figure*}
843: \centering
844: \includegraphics*[width=3.4in]{fig1.eps}
845: \caption{\label{coszen_nocuts} The cosine of the reconstructed zenith angle
846: is shown for every event at the beginning of the analysis (level 0). The
847: experimental data is dominated by downgoing atmospheric muons. Events
848: reconstructed as upgoing appear on the left side of the plot and downgoing
849: events appear on the right.}
850: \end{figure*}
851:
852: In order to prevent any inadvertent tuning of the event selection criteria
853: that would bias the result, a blindness procedure was followed which
854: required that further event selections were developed only on simulation
855: and low energy data, where the signal is negligible compared to the
856: background. The number of OMs triggered (from now on indicated by
857: $N_\mathrm{ch}$, or number of channels hit) is the energy-correlated
858: observable used to separate atmospheric neutrinos from astrophysical ones
859: (Figure \ref{nch_vs_trueen}). Only low energy data events (low
860: $N_\mathrm{ch}$ values) were compared to simulation. High energy data
861: events (high $N_\mathrm{ch}$ values) were only revealed once the final
862: event selection was established. Energy and $N_\mathrm{ch}$ are correlated
863: since high energy events release more energy in the detector causing more
864: hits than low energy ones. However, the correlation is not perfect since
865: high energy events occurring far from the detector may trigger only a few
866: OMs.
867:
868: \begin{figure*}
869: \centering
870: \includegraphics*[width=3.4in]{fig2.eps}
871: \caption{\label{nch_vs_trueen}The number of OMs hit during an event
872: ($N_\mathrm{ch}$) was used as an energy-correlated observable. Each line on this
873: $N_\mathrm{ch}$ distribution represents events with approximately the same
874: simulated energy. High energy events may not be contained within the
875: detector and hence can trigger a wide $N_\mathrm{ch}$ span.}
876: \end{figure*}
877:
878: Event selection was based on observables associated with the reconstructed
879: tracks \cite{nim2004} and is described in more detail in Appendix A. In
880: order to separate misreconstructed downgoing events and coincident muons
881: from the atmospheric and astrophysical neutrinos, events were required to
882: have observables consistent with long tracks and many photons with arrival
883: times close to those predicted for un-scattered propagation. The number of
884: photons arriving between $-$15 and
885: \mbox{+75 ns} of their expected un-scattered photon arrival time is
886: referred to as the number of direct hits ($N_\mathrm{dir}$). The direct
887: length ($L_\mathrm{dir}$) is the maximum separation of two direct hits
888: along the reconstructed track. The smoothness ($S$) is a measurement of how
889: uniformly all hits are distributed along the track and it varies between
890: $-$1.0 and 1.0. Positive values of the smoothness indicate more hits at the
891: beginning of a track and negative values indicate more hits occur toward
892: the end. Evenly distributed hits will have smoothness values near 0. The
893: median resolution ($MR$) is calculated from a paraboloid fit to the
894: likelihood minimum for the track
895: \cite{till_medres}. This method analyzes the angular resolution on an
896: event-by-event basis. Lastly, high quality events have higher values of the
897: logarithm of the up-to-down likelihood ratio, \mbox{$\Delta\mathnormal{L} =
898: (-\mathrm{log} \mathcal{L}_\mathrm{down}) - (-\mathrm{log}
899: \mathcal{L}_\mathrm{up})$}. The likelihoods $\mathcal{L}_\mathrm{up}$ and
900: $\mathcal{L}_\mathrm{down}$ are the product of the values of the
901: probability density function for the observed photon arrival times, for the
902: best upgoing and zenith-weighted downgoing track reconstruction
903: \cite{nim2004}, respectively. A more strict requirement for the likelihood
904: ratio was applied to vertical events than for events near the
905: horizon. Horizontal events tend to have smaller likelihood ratios since the
906: zenith angle difference between the best upgoing and zenith-weighted
907: downgoing track hypothesis is often small.
908:
909: The event selection requirements were successively tightened, based on the
910: reconstructed track parameters, establishing five quality levels. At Level
911: 5, used for the final stages of the analysis, the event sample is expected
912: to contain only truly upgoing events. The zenith angle distribution for the
913: events at each quality level is shown in Figure \ref{zenithplots}. Although
914: the entire upgoing zenith angle region is being studied, the event
915: selection requirements preferentially retain vertically upgoing
916: events. Horizontal and vertical events must pass the same requirements for
917: track length and number of direct hits, however this is more difficult for
918: horizontal events since the detector is not as wide as it is tall.
919:
920:
921: \begin{figure*}[!]
922: \centering
923: \includegraphics*[width=0.49\textwidth]{fig3a.eps}
924: \includegraphics*[width=0.49\textwidth]{fig3b.eps}
925: \includegraphics*[width=0.49\textwidth]{fig3c.eps}
926: \includegraphics*[width=0.49\textwidth]{fig3d.eps}
927: \includegraphics*[width=0.49\textwidth]{fig3e.eps}
928: \includegraphics*[width=0.49\textwidth]{fig3f.eps}
929: \caption{\label{zenithplots}The cosine of the zenith angle is plotted for all events surviving
930: the event quality criteria at a given level. Events at \mbox{cos(zenith) =
931: $-$1} are traveling straight up through the detector from the Northern
932: Hemisphere. The initial zenith angle requirement removed events from
933: 0${^o}$ to 80${^o}$ (level 1 - top right). Events reconstructed just above
934: the horizon appear at the right side of each plot. Each level represents an
935: increasingly tighter set of quality requirements. As the quality level
936: increased, misreconstructed downgoing muons were eliminated. To ensure a
937: clean upgoing sample, events coming from the horizon were discarded by
938: requiring reconstruction angles greater than 100${^o}$. The final analysis
939: was performed at level 5 (bottom right) with horizontal events removed.}
940: \end{figure*}
941:
942: \begin{figure*}
943: \centering
944: \includegraphics*[width=3.4in]{fig4.eps}
945: \caption{\label{nch_sigrescaled}$N_\mathrm{ch}$, or number of OMs
946: hit. Prediction for both conventional and prompt atmospheric neutrinos are
947: shown and their uncertainties are represented by the gray band. The central
948: prompt neutrino flux used here is the average of the Martin GBW
949: \cite{martin_gbw} and Naumov RQPM \cite{naumov_rqpm_a,naumov_rqpm_b}
950: models. All atmospheric neutrinos are normalized to the number of data
951: events in the range 50
952: \textless $N_\mathrm{ch}$ \textless 100. The lower signal flux curve
953: corresponds to the limit obtained in this paper.}
954: \end{figure*}
955:
956: \subsection{Separating Atmospheric Neutrinos from Astrophysical Neutrinos}
957:
958: Figure \ref{nch_sigrescaled} shows the $N_\mathrm{ch}$ distribution for
959: events at Level 5. The optimal place for the energy-correlated event
960: observable requirement was established with the simulation by minimizing
961: the expected Model Rejection Factor (MRF) \cite{mrp}. The Feldman-Cousins
962: method was used to calculate the median upper limit \cite{feldcous}. The
963: MRF is the median upper limit divided by the number of predicted signal
964: events for the $\nu_\mu$ signal being tested. The MRF was calculated for
965: every possible $N_\mathrm{ch}$ value and was at its minimum at
966: $N_\mathrm{ch} \geq 100$. Hence, the optimal separation of astrophysical
967: and atmospheric neutrinos is achieved with this $N_\mathrm{ch}$
968: requirement.
969:
970: \begin{figure*}
971: \centering
972: \includegraphics*[width=3.4in]{fig5.eps}
973: \caption{\label{trueenplot}The true energy of the simulation is shown for atmospheric
974: neutrino and signal events. The thin dashed (atms. $\nu$) and solid (signal
975: $\nu$) curves represent the number of events before the $N_\mathrm{ch} \geq
976: 100$ requirement. The thick dashed and solid lines represent only the
977: events in the high energy sample.}
978: \end{figure*}
979:
980: The final event sample was composed of events which pass all event
981: selection requirements (Level 5) and have \mbox{$N_\mathrm{ch} \geq 100
982: $}. After the high $N_\mathrm{ch}$ requirement, the atmospheric neutrino
983: simulation peaked at 10 TeV, while the signal simulation peaked around 100
984: TeV (Figure \ref{trueenplot}). The energy range defined by the central 90\%
985: of the signal with \mbox{$N_\mathrm{ch} \geq 100$} is the energy range for
986: the sensitivity or limit. For this search, the central 90\% signal region
987: extends from \mbox{16 TeV} to \mbox{2.5 PeV}.
988:
989: The efficiency of the detector for neutrinos is quantified by the effective
990: area. In the energy range relevant to this analysis, it increases with
991: energy and is further enhanced by including uncontained events. The
992: effective area is described by the following equation where $N$ represents
993: the number of observed events and $T$ is the detector livetime:
994:
995: \begin{equation}
996: \mbox{$\frac{N}{T} = \int A_\mathrm{eff}^{\nu}(E_{\nu},\Omega) \Phi_{\nu}
997: d\Omega dE$}~.
998: \label{effareaequation}
999: \end{equation}
1000:
1001: The effective area as a function of energy is shown for different zenith
1002: angle regions in Figure \ref{effareaplots} (and is tabulated in Appendix
1003: B). At energies greater than 10$^{5}$ GeV, the Earth begins to be opaque to
1004: neutrinos depending on direction and the highest energy events are most
1005: likely to come from the region around the horizon \cite{lisa_icrc2005}. In
1006: Figure \ref{effareaplots}, the effective area decreases at high energy
1007: because tracks with zenith angles between 80$^{\circ}$ and 100$^{\circ}$
1008: were discarded. Most of the events that were removed were high energy
1009: events from the horizon.
1010:
1011: \begin{figure*}
1012: \centering
1013: \includegraphics*[width=3.4in]{fig6.eps}
1014: \caption{\label{effareaplots}Effective area for $\nu_{\mu}$ as a function
1015: of the true simulated energy at the Earth's surface in intervals of cosine
1016: of the true zenith angle. The effective area is the equivalent area over
1017: which the detector would be 100\% efficient for detecting neutrinos. The
1018: absorption of neutrinos and reduction of their energy via neutral current
1019: interactions in the Earth are taken into account. The angle-averaged
1020: effective area is represented by the solid black line.}
1021: \end{figure*}
1022:
1023: \section{\label{section_systematics}Systematic Uncertainties}
1024:
1025: A discovery is made if an excess of events over the predicted background is
1026: observed in the data. However, due to uncertainties in the simulation, the
1027: number of signal and background events predicted may not accurately reflect
1028: the true signal and background. Theoretical uncertainties exist in the
1029: atmospheric neutrino flux models for several reasons. The cosmic ray
1030: spectrum is very uncertain at high energy and hadronic interactions in this
1031: energy range are not well understood. There are also detector-related
1032: uncertainties. Photons scatter more in dirty or bubble-laden ice. Hence,
1033: our incomplete understanding of the dust layers in the ice and the bubbles
1034: in the hole ice (formed from water that refroze after deployment of the
1035: OMs) add uncertainty to our models \cite{icepaper}. There are also
1036: uncertainties in the simulation associated with the modeling of light
1037: propagation in the ice and with the optical module sensitivity. These
1038: contributions are considered individually to see how they affect the number
1039: of simulated events in the final sample. The number of experimental data
1040: events remaining after the final energy requirement \mbox{($N_\mathrm{ch}
1041: \geq$ 100)} is then compared to the range of predicted background and
1042: signal events when uncertainties are considered.
1043:
1044: \subsection{\label{subsection_theoretical_unc}Theoretical Uncertainty in the Background}
1045:
1046: For this analysis, two models based on the work of Barr \textit{et al.}
1047: \cite{bartol2004,barronlinetables,icrc2001gaisser} and Honda \textit{et al.} \cite{honda2004} were
1048: considered equally likely options for the background atmospheric neutrino
1049: simulation. These two models are recent calculations that cover the highest
1050: and lowest portion of the atmospheric neutrino flux band created by
1051: uncertainties in the primary cosmic ray flux and the high energy hadronic
1052: interaction models. Since these models do not extend to the high energies
1053: needed for this analysis, the models were extrapolated to higher energies
1054: based on the procedure described in Appendix C. Differences between the
1055: Barr \textit{et al.} and Honda \textit{et al.} models are also summarized
1056: there.
1057:
1058: Conventional atmospheric neutrinos from the decay of pions and kaons are
1059: not the only source of atmospheric background. Above 50 TeV - 1 PeV, the
1060: source of atmospheric neutrinos is expected to change
1061: \cite{zhv_charm,naumov_rqpm_a,naumov_rqpm_b,martin_gbw,prompt_lepton_cookbook}. Semileptonic decays of short-lived charmed
1062: particles become the main contributor to the atmospheric neutrino
1063: flux. Since these charmed particles decay quickly before they can lose much
1064: energy, the resulting neutrinos are called \textit{prompt} neutrinos. At
1065: these energies, charm quarks are produced primarily via gluon-gluon
1066: fusion. Uncertainties in the gluon distribution at low Bjorken $x$ lead to
1067: uncertainties in this prompt lepton flux.
1068:
1069: Uncertainties were included for both conventional atmospheric neutrino
1070: models. The uncertainty in the cosmic ray spectrum was estimated as a
1071: function of energy based on the spread of values measured by many cosmic
1072: ray experiments \cite{gaisser_honda_review}. These uncertainties were added
1073: in quadrature with the estimated uncertainty due to choosing different
1074: hadronic interaction models
1075: \cite{bartol2004,honda2004,gaisser2005}. Uncertainties were also estimated
1076: based on the spread of predictions surrounding the unknown prompt neutrino
1077: flux. Unless mentioned otherwise, when prompt neutrinos were included in
1078: this work, the average of the Martin GBW (Golec-Biernat and W\"usthoff)
1079: \cite{martin_gbw} and Naumov RQPM (Recombination Quark Parton Model)
1080: \cite{naumov_rqpm_a,naumov_rqpm_b} models is shown. This is henceforth
1081: called the central prompt neutrino model.
1082:
1083: All of the uncertainty factors for the total (conventional + prompt)
1084: atmospheric neutrino flux were combined and are shown as a function of
1085: energy in Appendix C. Since the true energy of every simulated event is
1086: known, each event was given a weight based on the maximum uncertainty
1087: estimated for that neutrino energy. As a result, three predictions for the
1088: number of atmospheric neutrinos in the final high energy sample were made
1089: (the model, the model plus maximum energy-dependent uncertainty, the model
1090: minus maximum energy-dependent uncertainty). Since both the Barr \emph{et
1091: al.} and Honda \emph{et al.} fluxes were considered equally likely, the
1092: central prompt neutrino flux was added to both predictions. Then
1093: uncertainties were added and subtracted to both of these total atmospheric
1094: neutrino fluxes, creating six different background possibilities.
1095:
1096: \subsubsection{\label{section_constrainmodels}Normalizing the Atmospheric
1097: Neutrino Simulation to the Data}
1098:
1099: After all but the $N_\mathrm{ch}$ event selection requirements were
1100: fulfilled, the $N_\mathrm{ch}$ distribution for the observed low energy
1101: events was inconsistent with that for the total atmospheric neutrino
1102: simulation in normalization. Each of the six atmospheric neutrino
1103: background predictions was renormalized to match the number of data events
1104: observed in the low $N_\mathrm{ch}$ region, where the signal was
1105: insignificant compared to the background. By rescaling the simulation to
1106: the number of observed data events, the uncertainty in the atmospheric
1107: neutrino flux was reduced to the uncertainty in the spectral shape.
1108:
1109: Since some of the atmospheric neutrino models predicted more events than
1110: the data while others predicted less, renormalization of the models to the
1111: data brought the simulated models into closer agreement. The
1112: renormalization is explained in greater detail in Appendix~C.
1113:
1114: Since the purpose of this normalization was to correct for theoretical
1115: uncertainties in the atmospheric neutrino background prediction, it was not
1116: applied to the simulated neutrino signal.
1117:
1118: \subsection{\label{subsection_simulation_uncertainties}Simulation Uncertainties}
1119:
1120: To assure that the detector response to high energy events
1121: (\mbox{$N_\mathrm{ch} \geq 100$}) is understood, it is important to study
1122: energetic events while simultaneously keeping the high energy upgoing
1123: events blind to the analyzer. To this end, an inverted analysis was
1124: performed in which high quality downgoing tracks were selected from the
1125: initial data set. The advantage of studying high quality downgoing tracks
1126: is that large data sets are available to study both the high and low
1127: energy events. When the data and simulation observable distributions are
1128: not perfectly matched, imposing event quality requirements may result in
1129: removing different fractions of the simulation in comparison with the
1130: data. The inverted analysis was used to study this systematic effect.
1131:
1132: \subsubsection{\label{subsection_inverted_analysis}Inverted Analysis Using
1133: Atmospheric Muons}
1134:
1135: \begin{figure*}
1136: \centering
1137: \includegraphics*[width=3.4in]{fig7.eps}
1138: \caption{\label{invertednch}In the inverted analysis, the highest quality
1139: downgoing events were studied. The $N_\mathrm{ch}$ distribution is shown for all
1140: events which survive the inverted quality requirements.}
1141: \end{figure*}
1142:
1143: For the inverted analysis, all event quality requirements described
1144: previously (and summarized in Appendix A) were applied, but events were
1145: selected based on a high probability of being downgoing rather than upgoing
1146: tracks.
1147:
1148: When compared to the downgoing experimental data, small shifts were
1149: observed in the peaks of the simulated distributions for the number of
1150: direct hits ($N_\mathrm{dir}$), the smooth distribution of hits along the
1151: track ($S$), the event-by-event track resolution ($MR$) and likelihood of
1152: being downgoing muon tracks rather than upgoing (Inverted Likelihood Ratio,
1153: $ILR$). These discrepancies are most likely due to inaccurate modeling of
1154: optical ice properties in the simulation, since it is technically
1155: challenging to implement a detailed description of photon propagation
1156: through layered ice.
1157:
1158: If multiple parameters are correlated, it is possible that mismatches in
1159: one parameter may affect the agreement between data and simulation in
1160: another. In order to study these effects, the differences in the data and
1161: simulation were analyzed at the level where no quality criteria had been
1162: applied. The simulated distributions needed to be shifted to larger values
1163: by approximately 10\% for $N_\mathrm{dir}$, 8\% for $S$, 5\% for $MR$ and
1164: 1\% for $ILR$. When simultaneous corrections to the simulation for all of
1165: these effects were applied, the downgoing data and simulation were in
1166: better agreement for all parameter distributions. Later in the analysis,
1167: these shifts were applied to the upgoing analysis. The number of background
1168: and signal events appearing in the final upgoing sample was recalculated
1169: based on these simulation shifts.
1170:
1171: \subsubsection{\label{subsubsection_det_response}Uncertainties in Detector Response}
1172:
1173: The downgoing sample from the inverted analysis was also used to study how
1174: well the detector response was simulated in the high energy
1175: (\mbox{$N_\mathrm{ch} \geq 100$}) regime. Using downgoing data and
1176: atmospheric muon simulation, a ratio of the number of events was taken as a
1177: function of $N_\mathrm{ch}$ from the histograms shown in Figure
1178: \ref{invertednch}. If the simulation perfectly described the data, the
1179: shapes of the $N_\mathrm{ch}$ distributions would match and this ratio
1180: would be flat. The downgoing ratio was mostly flat, but slightly increased
1181: at large $N_\mathrm{ch}$ where low statistics introduced large
1182: uncertainties. The statistical uncertainty aside, a scenario was considered
1183: in which the downgoing data to simulation ratio truly increased as
1184: $N_\mathrm{ch}$ increased. Under this scenario, the simulation is
1185: renormalized by a larger factor at high $N_\mathrm{ch}$ to replicate the
1186: data. This $N_\mathrm{ch}$-dependent renormalization was then applied to
1187: the upgoing simulation used for the main part of the analysis. This
1188: non-linear normalization factor had a negligible effect in the number of
1189: atmospheric neutrinos predicted in the final sample of events with
1190: \mbox{$N_\mathrm{ch} \geq 100$}. However, the high energy signal simulation
1191: event rate increased by 25\% when this non-linear $N_\mathrm{ch}$ effect
1192: was included. This uncertainty was incorporated in the final limit
1193: calculation that will be described in the next section.
1194:
1195: Detection efficiency also depends on the OM sensitivity. This parameter of
1196: the simulation was modified and new simulated events were generated. After
1197: comparing the data and simulation with different OM sensitivities, a 10\%
1198: uncertainty in the total number of events due to inaccurate modelling of
1199: the OM detection sensitivity was incorporated into the final upper limit
1200: calculation.
1201:
1202: The systematic errors due to the neutrino interaction cross-section, rock
1203: density (below the detector), and muon energy loss do not contribute
1204: significantly to this analysis \cite{pointsource5yr}.
1205:
1206: \section{\label{section_relateupdown}Relationship between Upgoing and Downgoing Events}
1207:
1208: In addition to using the inverted analysis to study high energy events and
1209: the bias introduced by inaccurate simulation, the downgoing events can be
1210: used as a calibration beam for the upgoing atmospheric neutrino flux. To do
1211: this, the same simulation package (CORSIKA v6.030, QGSJET01, $\Phi_{primary}
1212: \propto$ E$^{-2.7}$) was used to describe the downgoing
1213: atmospheric muons and the upgoing atmospheric neutrinos
1214: \cite{dcorsikaneutrinos}.
1215:
1216: As shown in Table \ref{invertedtable}, the ratio of experimental data to
1217: CORSIKA downgoing muon simulation was relatively constant as the event
1218: selection became more discriminating. The simulation does not match the
1219: data normalization and this may be a consequence of the theoretical
1220: imperfections in the CORSIKA simulation (mainly due to the hadronic
1221: interaction model (QGSJET01) and uncertainty in the primary spectrum ($\Phi
1222: \propto$ E$^{-2.7}$)). Another contributing factor to the normalization
1223: difference may be that light propagation in the layered ice is modeled
1224: inaccurately. When the upgoing CORSIKA atmospheric neutrinos are rescaled
1225: based on the downgoing muons, then the upgoing experimental data and
1226: CORSIKA atmospheric neutrino simulation are in good agreement for the
1227: number of low energy events in the final sample. This can only be seen when
1228: the tightest criteria are applied because misreconstructed muons and
1229: coincident muons contaminate the data sample when the quality requirements
1230: are loose. For instance, at level 5 in the inverted analysis, the ratio of
1231: downgoing data to simulation was 1.22. For the upgoing analysis at level 5,
1232: 146 events were observed and 124.9 CORSIKA atmospheric neutrinos were
1233: predicted. When adjusted based on the inverted analysis, \mbox{152.4 ($ =
1234: 124.9\times 1.22$)} CORSIKA atmospheric neutrinos were predicted, which is
1235: in good agreement with the observed value. This shows that it is possible
1236: to adjust the normalization of the upgoing events based on the downgoing
1237: observations (when the up and downgoing simulation use the same input
1238: assumptions about the spectrum and interaction model).
1239:
1240: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{0.65}
1241: \begin{table*}
1242: \small
1243: \begin{tabular} {|l|l|l|l|l|l|}
1244: \hline
1245: & L1 & L2 & L3 & L4 & L5$^{*}$ \\
1246: \hline
1247: \normalsize
1248: \textbf{\textit{Downgoing}} & & & & & \\
1249: \hline
1250: \small
1251: data ($\times 10^{8}$) & 7.88 & 6.70 & 6.05 & 5.89 & 2.59 \\
1252: \hline
1253: CORSIKA & & & & & \\
1254: atms. $\mu$($\times 10^{8}$) & 6.63 & 5.75 & 5.12 & 5.01 &
1255: 2.12 \\
1256: \hline
1257: ratio & 1.19 & 1.17 & 1.18 & 1.18 & 1.22 \\
1258: \hline
1259: \normalsize
1260: \textbf{\textit{Upgoing}} & & & & & \\
1261: \hline
1262: \small
1263: signal & 325 & 241 & 191 & 185 & 103 \\
1264: \hline
1265: coinc $\mu$ & 2570 & 268 & 45.8 & 29.4 & 0 \\
1266: \hline
1267: misreconstructed & & & & & \\
1268: CORSIKA & & & & & \\
1269: atms. $\mu$ & 37800 & 2570 & 148 & 34.2 & 0 \\
1270: \hline
1271: Barr \textit{et al.} & & & & & \\
1272: atms. $\nu$ & 681 & 526 & 393 & 380 & 194 \\
1273: \hline
1274: Honda \textit{et al.} & & & & & \\
1275: atms. $\nu$ & 513 & 400 & 300 & 290 & 149 \\
1276: \hline
1277: Martin GBW prompt $\nu$ & 1.9 & 1.9 & 1.6 & 1.5 & 0.7 \\
1278: \hline
1279: Naumov RQPM prompt $\nu$ & 18.9 & 18.9 & 16.0 & 15.5 & 7.5 \\
1280: \hline
1281: CORSIKA & & & & & \\
1282: atms. $\nu$ & 440 & 335 & 251 & 243 & 125 \\
1283: \hline
1284: Adjusted & & & & & \\
1285: CORSIKA & & & & & \\
1286: atms. $\nu$ & 524 & 392 & 296 & 286 & 152 \\
1287: \hline
1288: data & 276894 & 24422 & 1269 & 531 & 146 \\
1289: \hline
1290: \multicolumn{6}{r}{$^{*}$L5 = level of final analysis}\\
1291: \end{tabular}
1292: \caption{\label{invertedtable}The number of low energy events (\mbox{50
1293: \textless $N_\mathrm{ch}$ \textless 100}) at a given level (see Appendix A)
1294: for the different types of simulation and experimental data. The top
1295: portion of the table presents results from the inverted analysis. The main
1296: upgoing analysis is summarized in the lower portion of the table. Note that
1297: the upgoing data and adjusted CORSIKA atmospheric neutrino flux are in good
1298: agreement when the CORSIKA neutrino events are adjusted by the scale factor
1299: determined in the downgoing analysis. This agreement can be seen at the
1300: tightest quality levels because all misreconstructed backgrounds have been
1301: removed.}
1302: \end{table*}
1303: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1}
1304:
1305:
1306: \begin{table}
1307: \footnotesize
1308: %\footnotesize
1309: \begin{tabular} {|l|c|}
1310: \hline
1311: \multicolumn{2}{|l|}{\textbf{Systematic Uncertainty}}\\
1312: \hline
1313: Theoretical uncertainty in atms. $\nu$ flux & See Figure
1314: \ref{energyuncertainty} \\
1315: \hline
1316: Number of Direct Hits & 10\% \\
1317: \hline
1318: Smoothness & 8\% \\
1319: \hline
1320: Median Resolution & 5\% \\
1321: \hline
1322: Inverted Likelihood Ratio & 1\% \\
1323: \hline
1324: \textbf{Total background uncertainty} & \textbf{+19\% / -18\%} \\
1325: \hline
1326: \hline
1327: Non-linear detector response at high $N_\mathrm{ch}$ & 25\% \\
1328: \hline
1329: OM sensitivity & 10\% \\
1330: \hline
1331: \textbf{Total signal efficiency uncertainty} &
1332: \textbf{+/- 27\%}\\
1333: \hline
1334: \end{tabular}
1335: \caption{\label{totaluncertainty} The systematic error was estimated with
1336: several techniques. The theoretical uncertainty in the atmospheric neutrino
1337: flux was estimated as a function of energy (Section
1338: \ref{subsection_theoretical_unc}). Using the inverted analysis, shifts were
1339: observed between the data and simulation in four parameters (Section
1340: \ref{subsection_inverted_analysis}). When each of the above mentioned uncertainty factors was applied to
1341: the atmospheric neutrino simulation, the resulting spread in the number of
1342: events predicted in the $N_\mathrm{ch} \geq 100$ sample indicated that the
1343: total background uncertainty was +19\% / -18\% of the average predicted
1344: background, 7.0 events. The non-linear response of the detector in
1345: $N_\mathrm{ch}$ was estimated as 25\% (Section
1346: \ref{subsubsection_det_response}). When added in quadrature with the 10\%
1347: uncertainty in OM sensitivity (Section \ref{subsubsection_det_response}),
1348: the total signal efficiency uncertainty was +/-27\%.}
1349: \end{table}
1350:
1351: \section{\label{section_results}Results}
1352:
1353: We calculated a confidence interval based on the number of events in the
1354: final $N_\mathrm{ch} \geq 100$ sample of the predicted background and
1355: signal and the observed data. Statistical and systematic uncertainties were
1356: incorporated into the confidence interval such that the true, but unknown,
1357: value of the diffuse flux of astrophysical neutrinos is contained within
1358: the interval in 90\% of repeated experiments. A hybrid frequentist-Bayesian
1359: method based on the work of Cousins and Highland \cite{cousinshighland} was
1360: used to construct a confidence belt with systematic uncertainties. The
1361: likelihood ratio ordering was based on the unified confidence intervals
1362: explained by Feldman and Cousins \cite{feldcous}. The uncertainty in the
1363: detection efficiency of the signal was set at 27\% (10\% for optical module
1364: sensitivity added in quadrature with 25\% for non-linearity in the
1365: $N_\mathrm{ch}$ spectrum when data and simulation are compared). Systematic
1366: uncertainties on the number of background events in the final sample were
1367: also included in the confidence belt construction. Inclusion of the signal
1368: and background uncertainties followed the methods described by Conrad
1369: \emph{et al.} \cite{conrad} and Hill \cite{hillci}.
1370:
1371: In constructing the flat Bayesian prior for the background, twelve
1372: atmospheric neutrino models were considered equally likely. The twelve
1373: predictions were derived as follows. Initially, two background predictions
1374: were considered, Barr \emph{et al.} and Honda \emph{et al.}, each with the
1375: central prompt neutrino flux added. To include systematic uncertainties in
1376: the models, maximum uncertainties were added and subtracted from each model
1377: (Section \ref{subsection_theoretical_unc}). Hence, the six predictions were
1378: named Barr \emph{et al.} maximum, nominal and minimum and Honda
1379: \emph{et al.} maximum, nominal and minimum. The number of events predicted
1380: for the background in the final sample is listed in Appendix C. To account
1381: for systematic uncertainties in the detector response, the simulation was
1382: shifted in four different parameters as described in Section
1383: \ref{subsection_inverted_analysis}. This simulation shift was performed on
1384: each of the 6 models described above, hence creating a total of 12
1385: different atmospheric neutrino predictions that were used in the confidence
1386: belt construction. The number of events predicted by the 6 models with
1387: shifted simulation was within 10\% of each number reported in Appendix C.
1388:
1389: \subsection{\label{subsection_e2results}Results for \mbox{$\Phi \propto$ E$^{-2}$}}
1390:
1391: The signal hypothesis consisted of a flux \mbox{E$^{2} \Phi$ = 1.0 $\times$
1392: 10$^{-6}$ GeV cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ sr$^{-1}$}. At this signal strength, 66.7
1393: signal events were expected in the final \mbox{$N_\mathrm{ch} \geq 100$}
1394: data. (This value assumes half of the correction from the simulation shifts
1395: since 68.4 events were predicted in the final selection, but the number of
1396: events decreased to 65.0 when the simulation shifts were applied.) The
1397: sensitivity was obtained from the slice of the confidence belt
1398: corresponding to zero signal strength. The median observation assuming no
1399: signal was seven events, giving a median event upper limit of 6.36 and hence
1400: a sensitivity of \mbox{9.5 $\times$ 10$^{-8}$ GeV cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$
1401: sr$^{-1}$}.
1402:
1403: When the data with \mbox{$N_\mathrm{ch} \geq 100$} were revealed, six data
1404: events were observed. This was consistent with the average expected
1405: atmospheric neutrino background of 7.0 events (after averaging all models
1406: that have been rescaled to the low energy data). Information about the observable
1407: quantities for the final six events can be seen in Table
1408: \ref{thefinalsixtable}. The final $N_\mathrm{ch}$ distribution is shown in Figure
1409: \ref{nch_sigrescaled}. The total number of events predicted for the signal
1410: and background can be compared to the observed data in Table
1411: \ref{invertedtable_less100} (\mbox{$N_\mathrm{ch}$ \textless 100}) and in Table
1412: \ref{invertedtable_more100} (\mbox{$N_\mathrm{ch} \geq 100$}). With
1413: uncertainties included, the upper limit on a diffuse \mbox{$\Phi \propto$
1414: E$^{-2}$} flux of muon neutrinos at Earth (90\% confidence level) with the
1415: \mbox{AMANDA-II} detector for 2000 -- 2003 is
1416: \mbox{7.4 $\times$ 10$^{-8}$ GeV cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ sr$^{-1}$} for \mbox{16
1417: TeV} to \mbox{2.5 PeV}. The results are compared to other neutrino limits
1418: in Figure \ref{limitplot_allflavor}.
1419:
1420: \begin{figure*}
1421:
1422: \centering
1423:
1424: \includegraphics*[width=0.99\textwidth]{fig8.eps}
1425: \caption{\label{limitplot_allflavor} The upper limits on the $\nu_{\mu}$ flux from sources with an
1426: $E^{-2}$ energy spectrum are shown for single and all-flavor
1427: analyses. All-flavor upper limits have been divided by three, assuming that
1428: the neutrino flavor ratio is 1:1:1 at Earth. The Fr\'ejus \cite{frejus},
1429: MACRO \cite{macro}, and AMANDA-B10 \cite{diffuse97} upper limits on the
1430: $\nu_{\mu}$ flux are shown, as well as the unfolded atmospheric spectrum
1431: from 2000 \mbox{AMANDA-II} data \cite{kirsten_unfolding}. The \mbox{AMANDA-II} all-flavor limit from
1432: 2000 \cite{cascades2000}, the AMANDA-B10 UHE limit \cite{uhe1997}, the Baikal five year limit
1433: \cite{baikal} and the RICE six year limit \cite{rice} have all been
1434: adjusted for the single flavor plot. The $\Phi \propto$ E$^{-2}$ limit from
1435: this analysis is a factor of four above the Waxman-Bahcall upper
1436: bound. Although not shown, this analysis excludes the $\Phi \propto$
1437: E$^{-2}$ predictions made by Nellen, Mannheim and Biermann
1438: \cite{nellen} and Becker, Biermann and Rhode \cite{becker} and constrains
1439: the MPR upper bound for optically thick pion photoproduction sources
1440: \cite{mpr}. The IceCube sensitivity for a full detector was estimated with
1441: AMANDA software
1442: \cite{icecubesensitivity}.}
1443:
1444: \end{figure*}
1445:
1446:
1447:
1448:
1449: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{0.65}
1450: \begin{table*}
1451: %\scriptsize
1452: \footnotesize
1453: \begin{tabular} {|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|}
1454: \hline
1455: Event & \textbf{1} & \textbf{2} & \textbf{3} & \textbf{4} & \textbf{5} & \textbf{6} & \textit{required}\\
1456: & & & & & & & \textit{value}\\
1457: \hline
1458: Year & 2001 & 2001 & 2001 & 2001 & 2002 & 2003 & \\
1459: \hline
1460: Day of Year & 118 & 186 & 210 & 274 & 226 & 182 & \\
1461: \hline
1462: $N_\mathrm{ch}$ & 102 & 106 & 157 & 116 & 100 & 111 & $\geq$100 \\
1463: \hline
1464: Track Length [m] & 206.7 & 221.8 & 197.7 & 178.2 & 180.4 & 207.6 &
1465: \textgreater 170\\
1466: \hline
1467: Number of & & & & & & & \\
1468: Direct Hits & 27 & 32 & 30 & 22 & 29 & 29 & \textgreater 13 \\
1469: \hline
1470: Zenith Angle [$^{\circ}$] & 107.3 & 121.6 & 106.1 & 101.8 & 123.8 & 113.3 &
1471: \textgreater 100 \\
1472: \hline
1473: Median Resolution [$^{\circ}$] & 2.4 & 1.4 & 1.8 & 3.0 & 1.6 & 2.8 & \textless
1474: 4.0 \\
1475: \hline
1476: \end{tabular}
1477: \caption{\label{thefinalsixtable}Observable and reconstructed qualities are shown for the final six
1478: events. In addition, events fulfilled requirements based on the
1479: reconstructed values of their smoothness ($S$) and their upgoing
1480: vs. downgoing likelihood ratios.}
1481: \end{table*}
1482: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1}
1483:
1484: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{0.65}
1485: \begin{table*}
1486: \small
1487: \begin{tabular} {|r|r|r|}
1488: \hline
1489: \textbf{Experiment} & \textbf{Upper Limit} & \textbf{Energy Range} \\
1490: & [GeV cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ sr$^{-1}$] & log$_{10}$ [E$_{\nu}$ (GeV)] \\
1491: \hline
1492: \multicolumn{3}{|c|} {\textit{Muon neutrinos only}} \\
1493: \hline
1494: Fr\'ejus \cite{frejus} & $5.0 \times 10^{-6}$ & $\sim$3.4 \\
1495: \hline
1496: MACRO \cite{macro} & $4.1 \pm 0.4 \times 10^{-6}$ & 4.0 -- 6.0\\
1497: \hline
1498: AMANDA-B10 \cite{diffuse97} & $8.4 \times 10^{-7}$ & 3.8 -- 6.0 \\
1499: \hline
1500: AMANDA-II (this analysis) & $7.4 \times 10^{-8}$ & 4.2 -- 6.4 \\
1501: \hline
1502: \multicolumn{3}{|c|} {\textit{All neutrino flavors}} \\
1503: \hline
1504: Baikal \cite{baikal} & $8.1 \times 10^{-7}$ & 4.3 -- 7.7 \\
1505: \hline
1506: AMANDA-B10 \cite{uhe1997} & $0.99 \times 10^{-6}$ & 6.0 -- 9.5 \\
1507: \hline
1508: AMANDA-II \cite{cascades2000} & $8.6 \times 10^{-7}$ & 4.7 -- 6.7 \\
1509: \hline
1510: \end{tabular}
1511: \caption{\label{allexperimentresults} Upper limits for the diffuse flux of
1512: extraterrestrial neutrinos as reported by a number of experiments. The
1513: first four analyses only constrain the flux of $\nu_{\mu} +
1514: \bar{\nu}_{\mu}$ , while the last three constrain the total neutrino flux,
1515: ($\nu_{e} + \bar{\nu}_{e} + \nu_{\mu} + \bar{\nu}_{\mu} + \nu_{\tau} +
1516: \bar{\nu}_{\tau}$).}
1517: \end{table*}
1518: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1}
1519:
1520:
1521: \subsection{\label{subsection_diffspectra}Results for Other Energy Spectra}
1522:
1523: Other signal models were also tested with this data set. Due to their
1524: different energy spectra, the $N_\mathrm{ch}$ requirement was reoptimized
1525: by minimizing the MRF with each signal model. For signal models with softer
1526: spectra than \mbox{$\Phi \propto$ E$^{-2}$}, a lower $N_\mathrm{ch}$
1527: requirement was optimal, \mbox{$N_\mathrm{ch} \geq 71$}. Four prompt
1528: neutrino models \cite{zhv_charm,naumov_rqpm_a,naumov_rqpm_b,martin_gbw} and
1529: one astrophysical neutrino model \cite{loeb_waxman_starburst} were tested
1530: under these conditions. One astrophysical model was optimized at
1531: \mbox{$N_\mathrm{ch} \geq 86$}
1532: \cite{mpr}. Two astrophysical neutrino models with harder spectra than
1533: \mbox{$\Phi \propto$ E$^{-2}$} were tested with a higher energy
1534: requirement, \mbox{$N_\mathrm{ch} \geq 139$} \cite{mpr,sdss,sdss_revision}.
1535:
1536: Results of these searches are summarized in Table
1537: \ref{othermodelstable}. The normalization of the overall number of low
1538: energy atmospheric neutrinos to data was performed over the region
1539: \mbox{$50 < N_\mathrm{ch} < 100$} for the harder spectra
1540: \mbox{($N_\mathrm{ch} \geq 139$)}, and over \mbox{$50 < N_\mathrm{ch} <
1541: 71$} and \mbox{$50 < N_\mathrm{ch} < 86$} for the softer spectra.
1542:
1543: When the data from the \mbox{$N_\mathrm{ch} \geq 139$} region were examined,
1544: there was good agreement with the expected atmospheric neutrino background
1545: (1 event observed on a backround of 1.55). For \mbox{$N_\mathrm{ch} \geq
1546: 86$}, 14 events were observed while an average of 12.9 background events
1547: were predicted. However, 37 events were observed while only 27.4 events
1548: were expected for \mbox{$N_\mathrm{ch} \geq 71 $}, leading to a two-sided
1549: confidence interval. Since the chance probability of observing 37 or more
1550: events on this background is 4\%, we do not exclude the background-only
1551: null hypothesis. The 90\% confidence interval for $\mu$ is shown for each
1552: model in Table \ref{othermodelstable} and upper limits are calculated based on the upper bound
1553: of each confidence interval. If the MRF is greater than 1, then the model
1554: is not ruled out based on observations from this four-year data set. Since
1555: more events were observed in the data than were predicted by the background
1556: simulation for \mbox{$N_\mathrm{ch} \geq 71$}, the upper limit on those
1557: five models is roughly a factor of three worse than the sensitivity.
1558:
1559: \subsubsection{\label{section_astronu}Astrophysical Neutrinos}
1560:
1561: The first astrophysical neutrino model tested with the \mbox{$N_\mathrm{ch}
1562: \geq 139$} requirement was initially proposed by Stecker, Done, Salamon and
1563: Sommers \cite{sdss}. The flux tested in this analysis includes the revision
1564: in the erratum of their original paper \cite{sdss} and the factor of 20
1565: reduction by Stecker in 2005 \cite{sdss_revision}. The model predicts a
1566: flux ($\Phi_\mathrm{SDSS}$) of high energy neutrinos from the cores of
1567: AGNs, especially Seyfert galaxies. Based on the present data, the upper
1568: limit on this flux is 1.6$ \cdot \Phi_\mathrm{SDSS}$. The best previous
1569: limit on this model was established by the Baikal experiment, with an upper
1570: limit of 2.5 $ \cdot \Phi_\mathrm{SDSS}$ \cite{baikal}.
1571:
1572: Mannheim, Protheroe and Rachen (MPR) \cite{mpr} computed an upper bound for
1573: neutrinos from generic optically thin pion photoproduction sources
1574: ($\tau_{n\gamma}<1$), as well as an upper bound for neutrinos from AGN
1575: jets. (In addition, they calculated an upper bound for generic optically
1576: thick ($\tau_{n\gamma}\gg1$) pion photoproduction sources assuming a
1577: \mbox{$\Phi \propto$ E$^{-2}$} spectrum, but this is constrained by the
1578: results discussed in the previous section.) The upper bounds do not
1579: necessarily represent physical neutrino energy spectra, but were
1580: constructed by taking the envelope of the ensemble of predictions for
1581: smaller energy ranges. Each flux prediction within the ensemble was
1582: normalized to the observed cosmic ray proton spectrum.
1583:
1584: Nonetheless, the \textit{shapes} of these two upper bounds were tested as
1585: if they were models. However, one should be careful not to misinterpret the
1586: results. A limit on a model implies a change in the normalization of the
1587: entire model. A limit on an upper bound only implies a change in
1588: normalization of the bound in the energy region where the detector energy
1589: response to that spectral shape peaks.
1590:
1591: The MPR AGN jet upper bound was tested with the \mbox{$N_\mathrm{ch} \geq
1592: 139$} requirement. The upper limit on this spectrum is 2.0$ \cdot
1593: \Phi_\mathrm{MPR AGN}$. In comparison, the Baikal upper limit on this spectrum
1594: is 4.0$ \cdot \Phi_\mathrm{MPR AGN}$.
1595:
1596: The MPR upper bound for optically thin sources was tested with a
1597: \mbox{$N_\mathrm{ch} \geq 86$} requirement. The limit on this spectrum and
1598: normalization is 0.22$ \cdot \Phi_\mathrm{MPR \tau < 1}$.
1599:
1600: The remaining neutrino searches were conducted with the lower $N_\mathrm{ch}$
1601: requirement, \mbox{$N_\mathrm{ch} \geq 71$}. A signal hypothesis involving
1602: neutrinos from starburst galaxies \cite{loeb_waxman_starburst} was
1603: tested. Loeb and Waxman assumed that protons in starburst galaxies with
1604: energy less than 3 PeV convert almost all of their energy into pions. Their
1605: work predicts a range that should encompass the true neutrino spectrum, but
1606: the model tested here uses the most probable spectrum from the paper,
1607: \mbox{$\Phi \propto$ E$^{-2.15}$}. This analysis assumed the flux was valid for energies
1608: ranging from $10^{3}$ to \mbox{$10^{7}$ GeV}. The upper limit on this
1609: spectral shape and normalization is 21.1$ \cdot \Phi_\mathrm{starburst}$.
1610:
1611: These astrophysical neutrino models and their observed upper limits based
1612: on this data set are shown in Figure \ref{astroflux}. Neutrino oscillations
1613: are taken into account for all models where this factor was not already applied.
1614:
1615: \begin{figure*}
1616: \centering
1617: \includegraphics*[width=0.99\textwidth]{fig9.eps}
1618: \caption{\label{astroflux}Astrophysical neutrino models and upper
1619: limits established with this analysis. The Barr \textit{et al.} and Honda
1620: \textit{et al.} atmospheric neutrino models are shown as thin lines with
1621: maximum uncertainties assumed by this analysis represented by the
1622: band. Other models that were tested included the SDSS AGN core model
1623: \cite{sdss, sdss_revision}, the MPR upper bounds for AGN jets and optically
1624: thin sources \cite{mpr}, and a starburst galaxy model
1625: \cite{loeb_waxman_starburst}.}
1626: \end{figure*}
1627:
1628: \subsubsection{\label{section_prompt}Prompt Neutrinos}
1629:
1630: Since prompt neutrinos have a harder (less steep) spectrum than the
1631: conventional atmospheric neutrinos, it is possible to search for a prompt
1632: neutrino flux by separating the two event classes in energy. The final
1633: $N_\mathrm{ch}$ requirement was reoptimized yielding $N_\mathrm{ch} \geq 71$ and the normalization factor
1634: was determined based on the interval ($50 \leq N_\mathrm{ch} < 71$).
1635:
1636: In the astrophysical neutrino searches described thus far, the range of
1637: atmospheric neutrinos predicted in the final sample included an uncertainty
1638: due to the unknown prompt neutrino flux. For the search for prompt
1639: neutrinos, this uncertainty in the total atmospheric neutrino flux was
1640: changed so that only conventional atmospheric neutrino uncertainties were
1641: included. Since the atmospheric neutrino simulation was still normalized to
1642: the low energy data, the overall effect in the atmospheric background
1643: prediction for the final sample was small.
1644:
1645: Martin \textit{et al.} predict prompt lepton fluxes based on the GBW model
1646: for deep inelastic scattering. This model includes gluon saturation
1647: effects \cite{martin_gbw} which lower the predicted charm production cross
1648: sections. The predicted flux is lower than the sensitivity of this data
1649: set. The upper limit on this model is $60.3 \cdot \Phi_\mathrm{Martin
1650: GBW}$.
1651:
1652: The Naumov RQPM \cite{naumov_rqpm_a,naumov_rqpm_b} model of prompt
1653: atmospheric neutrinos incorporates data from primary cosmic ray and
1654: hadronic interaction experiments. This non-perturbative model includes
1655: intrinsic charm \cite{prompt_lepton_cookbook}. The upper limit on this
1656: model is 5.2$ \cdot \Phi_\mathrm{Naumov RQPM}$.
1657:
1658: Prompt neutrinos based on the models of Zas, Halzen and Vazquez were also
1659: simulated \cite{zhv_charm}. A parameterization was established to describe
1660: the energy dependence of the charm cross section. For the Charm C model,
1661: the charm cross section was fitted to experimental data. In the Charm D
1662: model, the cross section was parameterized by Volkova \cite{volkova}. Due
1663: to the upward fluctuation in the number of events in the $N_\mathrm{ch}
1664: \geq 71$ region, the upper limit for Charm C is 1.5$ \cdot
1665: \Phi_\mathrm{Charm C}$. The upper limit on the Charm D model is 0.95$ \cdot
1666: \Phi_\mathrm{Charm D}$. The MRF is less than 1.0, hence the Charm D model is
1667: disfavored at the 90\% confidence level.
1668:
1669: The prompt neutrino models are shown in Figure \ref{promptflux}, along with
1670: the upper limits based on these data.
1671:
1672: \begin{figure*}
1673: \centering
1674: \includegraphics*[width=0.99\textwidth]{fig10.eps}
1675: \caption{\label{promptflux}Prompt neutrino models and upper limits based on this
1676: analysis. The Barr \textit{et al.} and Honda
1677: \textit{et al.} atmospheric neutrino predictions are shown
1678: for reference. Two charm models \cite{zhv_charm} were tested, along with
1679: the Naumov RQPM \cite{naumov_rqpm_a, naumov_rqpm_b} and Martin GBW
1680: \cite{martin_gbw} models.}
1681: \end{figure*}
1682:
1683: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{0.55}
1684: \begin{table*}
1685: \footnotesize
1686: \begin{tabular} {|r|r|r|r|}
1687: %\normalsize
1688: \multicolumn{4}{c}{\textbf{Astrophysical $\nu$}}\\
1689: \hline
1690: %\small
1691: & $\Phi \propto E^{-2}$ & SDSS \cite{sdss,sdss_revision} & MPR AGN jets
1692: \cite{mpr} \\
1693: \hline
1694: $N_\mathrm{ch}$ & 100 & 139 & 139 \\
1695: \hline
1696: $n_\mathrm{b}$ & 7.0 & 1.55 & 1.55 \\
1697: \hline
1698: $n_\mathrm{s}$ & 66.7 & 1.74 & 1.42 \\
1699: \hline
1700: $\mu_\mathrm{median}(n_\mathrm{b})$ & 6.36 & 2.86 & 2.86 \\
1701: \hline
1702: sensitivity & & & \\
1703: $\mu_\mathrm{median}(n_\mathrm{b})/n_\mathrm{s} \times \Phi$ & 0.095
1704: $\times \Phi_\mathrm{E^{-2}}$ & 1.6 $\times \Phi_\mathrm{SDSS}$ & 2.0 $\times \Phi_\mathrm{MPR AGN}$ \\
1705: \hline
1706: $n_\mathrm{obs}$ & 6 & 1 & 1 \\
1707: \hline
1708: $\mu_{90\% \mathrm{ C.I.}}$ & (0,4.95) & (0,2.86) & (0,2.86) \\
1709: \hline
1710: upper limit & & & \\
1711: $\mu/n_\mathrm{s} \times \Phi$ & 0.074 $\times \Phi_\mathrm{E^{-2}}$ & 1.6
1712: $\times \Phi_\mathrm{SDSS}$ & 2.0 $\times \Phi_\mathrm{MPR AGN}$ \\
1713: \hline
1714: $(log_{10}E_{min},log_{10}E_{max}) $ & (4.2,6.4) & (5.1,6.8) & (5.0,6.9) \\
1715: \hline
1716:
1717: \end{tabular}
1718:
1719:
1720: \begin{tabular} {|r|r|r|}
1721: %\normalsize
1722: \multicolumn{3}{c}{}\\
1723: \hline
1724: %\small
1725: & MPR $\tau_{n\gamma} < 1$ \cite{mpr} & Starburst \cite{loeb_waxman_starburst} \\
1726: \hline
1727: $N_\mathrm{ch}$ & 86 & 71 \\
1728: \hline
1729: $n_\mathrm{b}$ & 12.9 & 29.1 \\
1730: \hline
1731: $n_\mathrm{s}$ & 42.7 & 1.05 \\
1732: \hline
1733: $\mu_\mathrm{median}(n_\mathrm{b})$ & 8.48 & 8.24 \\
1734: \hline
1735: sensitivity & & \\
1736: $\mu_\mathrm{median}(n_\mathrm{b})/n_\mathrm{s} \times \Phi$ & 0.2 $\times
1737: \Phi_\mathrm{MPR \tau<1}$ & 7.8 $\times \Phi_\mathrm{Starburst}$\\
1738: \hline
1739: $n_\mathrm{obs}$ & 14 & 37 \\
1740: \hline
1741: $\mu_{90\% \mathrm{ C.I.}}$ & (0,9.49) & (0,22.13) \\
1742: \hline
1743: upper limit & &\\
1744: $\mu/n_\mathrm{s} \times \Phi$ & 0.22 $\times \Phi_\mathrm{MPR \tau<1}$ &
1745: 21.1 $\times \Phi_\mathrm{Starburst}$ \\
1746: \hline
1747: $(log_{10}E_{min},log_{10}E_{max}) $ & (4.0,5.8) & (3.8,6.1) \\
1748: \hline
1749: \end{tabular}
1750:
1751: \begin{tabular} {|r|r|r|r|r|}
1752: \multicolumn{5}{c}{\textbf{Prompt $\nu$}}\\
1753: \hline
1754: %\small
1755: & Martin & Naumov & & \\
1756: & GBW \cite{martin_gbw} & RQPM \cite{naumov_rqpm_a,naumov_rqpm_b} & CharmC
1757: \cite{zhv_charm} & CharmD \cite{zhv_charm} \\
1758: \hline
1759: $N_\mathrm{ch}$ & 71 & 71 & 71 & 71 \\
1760: \hline
1761: $n_\mathrm{b}$ & 27.4 & 27.4 & 27.4 & 27.4 \\
1762: \hline
1763: $n_\mathrm{s}$ & 0.41 & 4.74 & 16.05 & 26.15 \\
1764: \hline
1765: $\mu_\mathrm{median}(n_\mathrm{b})$ & 8.75 & 8.75 & 8.75 & 8.75 \\
1766: \hline
1767: sensitivity & & & & \\
1768: $\mu_\mathrm{median}(n_\mathrm{b})/n_\mathrm{s} \times \Phi$ & 21.3 $\times
1769: \Phi_\mathrm{MGBW}$ & 1.8 $\times \Phi_\mathrm{NRQPM}$ & 0.55 $\times
1770: \Phi_\mathrm{CharmC}$ & 0.33 $\times \Phi_\mathrm{CharmD}$\\
1771: \hline
1772: $n_\mathrm{obs}$ & 37 & 37 & 37 & 37 \\
1773: \hline
1774: $\mu_{90\% \mathrm{ C.I.}}$ & (1.29,24.72) & (1.29,24.72) & (1.29,24.72) & (1.29,24.72) \\
1775: \hline
1776: upper limit & & & & \\
1777: $\mu/n_\mathrm{s} \times \Phi$ & 60.3 $\times \Phi_\mathrm{MGBW}$ & 5.2
1778: $\times \Phi_\mathrm{NRQPM}$ & 1.5 $\times \Phi_\mathrm{CharmC}$ & 0.95 $\times
1779: \Phi_\mathrm{CharmD}$ \\
1780: \hline
1781: $(log_{10}E_{min},log_{10}E_{max}) $ & (3.5,5.5) & (3.6,5.6) & (3.8,5.7) & (3.6,5.6) \\
1782: \hline
1783:
1784: \end{tabular}
1785: \caption{\label{othermodelstable}Several flux shapes were tested with this
1786: data set. $N_\mathrm{ch}$ is the minimum number of OMs that had to be hit
1787: for an event to appear in the final data set. The predicted number of
1788: events for background, $n_\mathrm{b}$, and signal, $n_\mathrm{s}$, were
1789: determined by the simulation. The median event upper limit is
1790: $\mu_\mathrm{median}(n_\mathrm{b})$. The sensitivity is the model flux
1791: multiplied by the median event upper limit and divided by the number of
1792: signal predicted. The number of events observed in the four year data
1793: sample is $n_\mathrm{obs}$. The upper limit is calculated from the maximum
1794: value of the 90\% confidence interval for the event upper limit, $\mu$. The
1795: upper limit is the test flux multiplied by $\mu/n_\mathrm{s}$. All values
1796: quoted here incorporate systematic uncertainties.}
1797: \end{table*}
1798: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1}
1799:
1800:
1801: \section{\label{section_conclusions}Conclusions}
1802:
1803: The experimental data were consistent with the predicted range of
1804: atmospheric neutrino background. Six high energy events were observed in
1805: the final data set, while the average predicted background was 7.0
1806: events. There is no indication of an astrophysical signal. At a 90\%
1807: confidence level, the diffuse flux of extraterrestrial muon neutrinos with
1808: an E$^{-2}$ spectrum is not larger than \mbox{7.4 $\times$ 10$^{-8}$ GeV
1809: cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ sr$^{-1}$} for \mbox{16 TeV} -- \mbox{2.5 PeV}.
1810:
1811: This analysis also provides upper limits on four astrophysical neutrino
1812: models and four prompt neutrino models. For the hardest signal spectra, the
1813: results are consistent with background. The softer spectra were tested with
1814: lower $N_\mathrm{ch}$ requirements and despite the observation leading to a
1815: two-sided 90\% confidence interval, the level of excess is not significant
1816: enough to claim a detection.
1817:
1818: Before requiring events to fulfill $N_\mathrm{ch} \geq 100$, the observed
1819: events were compared to the atmospheric neutrino simulation with systematic
1820: uncertainties included. The observed low energy data were used to normalize
1821: the atmospheric neutrino simulation, hence narrowing the range of
1822: atmospheric neutrinos predicted by the different models for the final high
1823: energy sample. Systematic effects of the event selection procedure were
1824: studied in the inverted analysis using atmospheric muons. A consistency was
1825: established between the observed downgoing atmospheric muon flux and the
1826: upgoing atmospheric neutrino flux using the inverted analysis.
1827:
1828: This result is the best upper limit on the diffuse flux of muon neutrinos
1829: to date. The upper limit is an order of magnitude lower than the previous
1830: AMANDA result by performing a multi-year analysis \cite{diffuse97} and by
1831: using a larger detector, AMANDA-II instead of AMANDA-B10. For a $\Phi
1832: \propto$ E$^{-2}$ spectral shape, this analysis provides an upper limit
1833: that is a factor of three better than the Baikal muon neutrino upper limit
1834: (muon neutrino upper limit = all-flavor limit/3 assuming a 1:1:1 flavor
1835: ratio).
1836:
1837: This analysis set upper limits on four prompt atmospheric neutrino
1838: predictions, while one of these models is disfavored at a 90\% confidence
1839: level. Other spectral shapes were tested for astrophysical neutrinos. No
1840: models were excluded, however constraints were placed on the existing
1841: predictions. The shapes of the MPR upper bounds were tested in the energy
1842: region where the detector response peaks. For the benchmark $\Phi \propto$
1843: E$^{-2}$ spectral shape, the current limit is a factor of 4 above the
1844: Waxman-Bahcall upper bound.
1845:
1846: AMANDA-II has now been integrated into IceCube. The sensitivity of the
1847: IceCube detector will continue to improve as the detector grows to its
1848: final volume, 1 km$^{3}$. Based on estimations
1849: with AMANDA software, the full IceCube detector will have a sensitivity
1850: that is a factor of 10 better than this analysis after one year of
1851: operation \cite{icecubesensitivity}.
1852:
1853: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{0.65}
1854: \begin{table*}
1855: \footnotesize
1856: \begin{tabular} {|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|}
1857: \hline
1858: \multicolumn{7}{|c|} {\textbf{Upgoing 0 \textless $N_\mathrm{ch}$ \textless
1859: 100}} \\
1860: \hline
1861: & L0 & L1 & L2 & L3 & L4 & L5 \\
1862: \hline
1863: signal & & 979 & 664 & 486 & 437 & 141 \\
1864: \hline
1865: coinc. $\mu$ & & 60800 & 5750 & 530 & 248 & 0 \\
1866: \hline
1867: misreconstructed & & & & & & \\
1868: CORSIKA & & & & & & \\
1869: atms. $\mu$ & & 1340000 & 94900 & 1760 & 208 & 0 \\
1870: \hline
1871: Barr \textit{et al.} & & & & & & \\
1872: atms. $\nu$ & & 9090 & 6590 & 4470 & 3890 & 534 \\
1873: \hline
1874: Honda \textit{et al.} & & & & & & \\
1875: atms. $\nu$ & & 7290 & 5300 & 3600 & 3130 & 420 \\
1876: \hline
1877: Martin GBW & & 8.2 & 8.2 & 6.4 & 5.7 & 1.2 \\
1878: prompt atms. $\nu$ & & & & & & \\
1879: \hline
1880: Naumov RQPM & & 71.6 & 71.6 & 56.7 & 50.7 & 11.5\\
1881: prompt atms. $\nu$ & & & & & & \\
1882: \hline
1883: Data & & 3956810 & 294947 & 10841 & 4088 & 459 \\
1884: \hline
1885: \multicolumn{7}{|c|} {\textbf{Downgoing 0 \textless $N_\mathrm{ch}$ \textless
1886: 100}} \\
1887: \hline
1888: CORSIKA & & & & & & \\
1889: atms. $\mu$ ($\times 10^{7}$) & 386 & & 288 & 212 & 195 & 24 \\
1890: \hline
1891: data ($\times 10^{7}$) & 432 & & 323 & 255 & 229 & 30 \\
1892: \hline
1893: \multicolumn{7}{r}{L5 = level of final analysis}\\
1894: \end{tabular}
1895: \caption{\label{invertedtable_less100} The number of low energy events (\mbox{0
1896: \textless $N_\mathrm{ch}$ \textless 100}) at a given quality level for the different
1897: types of simulation and experimental data.}
1898: \end{table*}
1899: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1}
1900:
1901: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{0.65}
1902: \begin{table*}
1903: \footnotesize
1904: \begin{tabular} {|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|}
1905: \hline
1906: \multicolumn{7}{|c|} {\textbf{Upgoing $N_\mathrm{ch} \geq 100$}} \\
1907: \hline
1908: & L0 & L1 & L2 & L3 & L4 & L5 \\
1909: \hline
1910: signal & & 160 & 124 & 104 & 103 & 68.4\\
1911: \hline
1912: coinc. $\mu$ & & 54.2 & 4.3 & 2.8 & 2.8 & 0 \\
1913: \hline
1914: misreconstructed & & & & & & \\
1915: CORSIKA & & & & & & \\
1916: atms. $\mu$ & & 862 & 35.4 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
1917: \hline
1918: Barr \textit{et al.} & & & & & & \\
1919: atms. $\nu$ & & 36.0 & 27.6 & 19.3 & 18.9 & 9.1 \\
1920: \hline
1921: Honda \textit{et al.} & & & & & & \\
1922: atms. $\nu$ & & 25.2 & 19.3 & 13.5 & 13.2 & 6.4 \\
1923: \hline
1924: Martin GBW && 0.42 & 0.42 & 0.36 & 0.36 & 0.19 \\
1925: prompt atms. $\nu$ & & & & & & \\
1926: \hline
1927: Naumov RQPM && 4.8 & 4.8 & 4.2 & 4.2 & 2.2 \\
1928: prompt atms. $\nu$ & & & & & & \\
1929: \hline
1930: Data & & 11456 & 1347 & 96 & 45 & 6 \\
1931: \hline
1932: \multicolumn{7}{|c|} {\textbf{Downgoing $N_\mathrm{ch} \geq 100$}} \\
1933: \hline
1934: CORSIKA & & & & & & \\
1935: atms. $\mu$ ($\times 10^{7}$) & 7.31 & & 6.53 & 6.05 & 6.01 & 5.09 \\
1936: \hline
1937: data ($\times 10^{7}$) & 9.75 & & 8.59 & 8.07 & 8.03 & 6.60 \\
1938: \hline
1939: \multicolumn{7}{r}{L5 = level of final analysis}\\
1940: \end{tabular}
1941: \caption{\label{invertedtable_more100} The number of
1942: high energy events (\mbox{$N_\mathrm{ch} \geq $100}) at a given quality level for
1943: the different types of simulation and experimental data.}
1944: \end{table*}
1945: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1}
1946:
1947: \begin{acknowledgments}
1948:
1949: We acknowledge the support from the following agencies:
1950: National Science Foundation-Office of Polar Program,
1951: National Science Foundation-Physics Division,
1952: University of Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation,
1953: Department of Energy, and National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center
1954: (supported by the Office of Energy Research of the Department of Energy),
1955: the NSF-supported TeraGrid system at the San Diego Supercomputer Center (SDSC),
1956: and the National Center for Supercomputing Applications (NCSA);
1957: Swedish Research Council,
1958: Swedish Polar Research Secretariat,
1959: and Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation, Sweden;
1960: German Ministry for Education and Research,
1961: Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG), Germany;
1962: Fund for Scientific Research (FNRS-FWO),
1963: Flanders Institute to encourage scientific and technological research in industry (IWT),
1964: Belgian Federal Office for Scientific, Technical and Cultural affairs (OSTC);
1965: the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO);
1966: M.~Ribordy acknowledges the support of the SNF (Switzerland);
1967: A. Kappes and J.~D.~Zornoza acknowledge support by the EU Marie Curie OIF Program.
1968:
1969: \end{acknowledgments}
1970:
1971: \newpage
1972:
1973: % Adding a * suppress the section number.
1974:
1975: \section*{Appendix A: Event Selection Techniques}
1976:
1977: Event selection techniques were applied to find the best reconstructed
1978: upgoing tracks. The event requirements were tightened through a series of
1979: values, becoming more restrictive at each of the five different levels. As
1980: seen in Figure \ref{ldirbcut}, requiring a minimum value of the track
1981: length, for instance, can be a powerful method of rejecting
1982: misreconstructed downgoing backgrounds. The event selection requirements
1983: for $L_\mathrm{dir}$, $N_\mathrm{dir}$, smoothness, median resolution and
1984: likelihood ratio were established to remove many orders of magnitude more
1985: misreconstructed background than upgoing atmospheric neutrinos or signal
1986: neutrinos. Events which did not meet an optimized minimum or maximum value
1987: of each parameter were removed.
1988:
1989: The strength of these quality requirements was adjusted at each level. The
1990: requirement is defined for each parameter in Table
1991: \ref{leveldefinitions}. The plots in Figure
1992: \ref{zenithplots} show the zenith angle distribution of all events
1993: fulfilling the \mbox{zenith angle \textgreater $80^{\circ}$} and event
1994: observable requirements at the chosen level. After the zenith angle
1995: criteria was fulfilled at Level 1, the data mostly contains
1996: misreconstructed atmospheric muons (top right, Figure
1997: \ref{zenithplots}). As the quality parameters become more restrictive, the
1998: data begins to follow the atmospheric neutrino simulation in the upgoing
1999: direction and the atmospheric muon simulation in the downgoing
2000: direction. At Level 5, the event quality requirements were strong enough to
2001: have removed all of the misreconstructed downgoing atmospheric muon events
2002: that were simulated. However, to be sure that the final data set only
2003: included atmospheric and astrophysical neutrinos and no misreconstructed
2004: downgoing events, an additional zenith angle requirement was imposed. All
2005: events were kept if they were reconstructed between 100$^{\circ}$ and
2006: 180$^{\circ}$. The analysis continued with the data sample shown at
2007: \mbox{Level 5}.
2008:
2009: \begin{figure*}
2010: \centering
2011: \includegraphics*[width=3.4in]{fig11.eps}
2012: \caption{\label{ldirbcut}The reconstructed track length within the detector
2013: is shown. In order to identify muon neutrino tracks, events were required
2014: to have long tracks of at least 170 meters. This removed a large fraction
2015: of the atmospheric muon simulation, but had a smaller effect on the
2016: atmospheric neutrino and signal simulations.}
2017: \end{figure*}
2018:
2019: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{0.65}
2020: \begin{table*}
2021: \scriptsize
2022: %\footnotesize
2023: \begin{tabular} {|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
2024: \hline
2025: & L0 & L1 & L2 & L3 & L4 & L5* \\
2026: \hline
2027: \textbf{Zenith Angle} [$^o$] & & \textgreater80 & \textgreater80 &
2028: \textgreater80 & \textgreater80 & \textgreater100 \\
2029: \hline
2030: \textbf{Number of} & & & & & & \\
2031: \textbf{Direct Hits} & & & \textgreater5 & \textgreater8 & \textgreater8 &
2032: \textgreater13 \\
2033: \hline
2034: \textbf{Track Length} [m] & & & \textgreater100 & \textgreater130 & \textgreater130 & \textgreater170 \\
2035: \hline
2036: \textbf{$|$Smoothness$|$} & & & & \textless$0.30$ & \textless$0.30$ & \textless$0.25$ \\
2037: \hline
2038: \textbf{Median} & & & & & & \\
2039: \textbf{Resolution} [$^o$] & & & & & \textless4.0 & \textless4.0 \\
2040: \hline
2041: \textbf{Likelihood} & & & & & & \\
2042: \textbf{Ratio ($\Delta\mathnormal{L}$)} & & & & & & \\
2043: \textbf{vs. Zenith} & & & & & & $\Delta\mathnormal{L}>-38.2~cos(zenith)+27.506$\\
2044: \hline
2045: \hline
2046: \textbf{Number of} & & & & & & \\
2047: \textbf{Remaining Events} & $5.2 \times 10^{9}$ & $7.8 \times 10^{6}$ &
2048: $1.2 \times 10^{6}$ & $3.5 \times 10^{5}$ & $1.8 \times 10^{5}$ & 465\\
2049: \hline
2050: \multicolumn{7}{r} {* = level of the final analysis}\\
2051: \end{tabular}
2052: \caption{\label{leveldefinitions} The table summarizes the event quality
2053: requirements as a function of quality level. Events only remained in the
2054: sample if they fulfilled all of the parameter requirements for a given
2055: level. The removal of all horizontal events (zenith $<$ 100) contributed to
2056: the large decrease in events from L4 to L5.}
2057: \end{table*}
2058: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1}
2059:
2060: %\newpage
2061: \pagebreak[4]
2062:
2063: \section*{Appendix B: Neutrino Effective Area}
2064:
2065: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{0.65}
2066: \begin{table*}[!h]
2067: \scriptsize
2068: %\footnotesize
2069: \begin{tabular} {|c||c|c||c|c||}
2070: \hline
2071: \textbf{Energy} & \multicolumn{2}{|c||} {\textbf{-1 \textless cos(Zenith) \textless -.8}} & \multicolumn{2}{|c||}
2072: {\textbf{-.8 \textless cos(Zenith) \textless -.6}} \\
2073: log$_{10}$ (E/GeV) & $\nu_{\mu}$ & $\bar{\nu}_{\mu}$ & $\nu_{\mu}$ & $\bar{\nu}_{\mu}$ \\
2074: & [$10^{3} cm^{2}$] & [$10^{3} cm^{2}$] & [$10^{3} cm^{2}$] &
2075: [$10^{3} cm^{2}$] \\
2076: \hline
2077: \hline
2078: 3.6 & 0.487 & 0.166 & 0.279 & 0.0673 \\
2079: \hline
2080: 3.8 & 1.04 & 1.1 & 0.652 & 0.646 \\
2081: \hline
2082: 4 & 3.36 & 2.85 & 1.82 & 1.89 \\
2083: \hline
2084: 4.2 & 8.74 & 7.54 & 4.97 & 5.56 \\
2085: \hline
2086: 4.4 & 18.8 & 16.2 & 15.3 & 12.4 \\
2087: \hline
2088: 4.6 & 29.3 & 30.4 & 34 & 26.9 \\
2089: \hline
2090: 4.8 & 44.9 & 46.4 & 52.7 & 58.8 \\
2091: \hline
2092: 5 & 59.6 & 65.5 & 92.6 & 88 \\
2093: \hline
2094: 5.2 & 75.7 & 69.7 & 128 & 121 \\
2095: \hline
2096: 5.4 & 72.6 & 84.4 & 153 & 163 \\
2097: \hline
2098: 5.6 & 63.5 & 77.8 & 180 & 179 \\
2099: \hline
2100: 5.8 & 63.3 & 66.9 & 183 & 188 \\
2101: \hline
2102: 6 & 51.9 & 49.3 & 170 & 177 \\
2103: \hline
2104: 6.2 & 36.6 & 39.1 & 145 & 151 \\
2105: \hline
2106: 6.4 & 27.8 & 22.6 & 110 & 113 \\
2107: \hline
2108: 6.6 & 9.97 & 14.7 & 72.3 & 77 \\
2109: \hline
2110: 6.8 & 7.8 & 8.73 & 54.2 & 48.2 \\
2111: \hline
2112: 7 & 3.39 & 3.08 & 29.6 & 29.5 \\
2113: \hline
2114: 7.2 & 3.12 & 1.44 & 16.5 & 15.2 \\
2115: \hline
2116: 7.4 & 0.939 & 0.718 & 7.97 & 9.64 \\
2117: \hline
2118: 7.6 & 0.864 & 0.791 & 5.12 & 4.15 \\
2119: \hline
2120: 7.8 & 0.492 & 0.521 & 2.59 & 2.08 \\
2121: \hline
2122: \end{tabular}
2123:
2124: \begin{tabular} {|c||c|c||c|c||}
2125: \multicolumn{5} {c} {} \\
2126: \hline
2127: \textbf{Energy} & \multicolumn{2}{|c||} {\textbf{-.6 \textless cos(Zenith) \textless -.4}} & \multicolumn{2}{|c||}
2128: {\textbf{-.4 \textless cos(Zenith) \textless -.17}} \\
2129: log$_{10}$ (E/GeV) & $\nu_{\mu}$ & $\bar{\nu}_{\mu}$ & $\nu_{\mu}$ & $\bar{\nu}_{\mu}$ \\
2130: & [$10^{3} cm^{2}$] & [$10^{3} cm^{2}$] & [$10^{3} cm^{2}$] &
2131: [$10^{3} cm^{2}$] \\
2132: \hline
2133: \hline
2134: 3.6 & 0.108 & 0.0562 & 0.0752 & 0.0451 \\
2135: \hline
2136: 3.8 & 0.282 & 0.163 & 0.178 & 0.0818 \\
2137: \hline
2138: 4 & 0.845 & 0.93 & 1.13 & 0.543 \\
2139: \hline
2140: 4.2 & 3.73 & 3.39 & 1.98 & 1.66 \\
2141: \hline
2142: 4.4 & 9.74 & 8.22 & 7.23 & 6.02 \\
2143: \hline
2144: 4.6 & 21.1 & 19.9 & 17.9 & 18.2 \\
2145: \hline
2146: 4.8 & 49.7 & 43.3 & 33.2 & 36.9 \\
2147: \hline
2148: 5 & 86.2 & 77.5 & 74.2 & 68.3 \\
2149: \hline
2150: 5.2 & 118 & 119 & 119 & 113 \\
2151: \hline
2152: 5.4 & 179 & 165 & 163 & 167 \\
2153: \hline
2154: 5.6 & 232 & 217 & 264 & 230 \\
2155: \hline
2156: 5.8 & 243 & 232 & 306 & 310 \\
2157: \hline
2158: 6 & 271 & 286 & 377 & 373 \\
2159: \hline
2160: 6.2 & 269 & 258 & 418 & 389 \\
2161: \hline
2162: 6.4 & 251 & 229 & 441 & 452 \\
2163: \hline
2164: 6.6 & 212 & 197 & 437 & 391 \\
2165: \hline
2166: 6.8 & 154 & 149 & 417 & 437 \\
2167: \hline
2168: 7 & 105 & 114 & 413 & 380 \\
2169: \hline
2170: 7.2 & 79.8 & 61.4 & 328 & 327 \\
2171: \hline
2172: 7.4 & 46.3 & 32.9 & 285 & 274 \\
2173: \hline
2174: 7.6 & 31.8 & 19.4 & 209 & 212 \\
2175: \hline
2176: 7.8 & 17.7 & 10.3 & 142 & 146 \\
2177: \hline
2178: \end{tabular}
2179:
2180: \caption{\label{effareatable}Effective area as a function of the energy and
2181: zenith angle of the simulation.}
2182: %\end{table}
2183: \end{table*}
2184: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1}
2185:
2186: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{0.65}
2187: \begin{table*}
2188: \small
2189: \begin{tabular} {|c||c|c||}
2190: \multicolumn{3} {l} {\textbf{Effective Area in cm$^{2}$}} \\
2191: \multicolumn{3} {l} {} \\
2192: \hline
2193: \textbf{Energy} & \multicolumn{2}{|c||} {\textbf{All angle}} \\
2194: log$_{10}$ (E/GeV) & $\nu_{\mu}$ & $\bar{\nu}_{\mu}$ \\
2195: & [$10^{3} cm^{2}$] & [$10^{3} cm^{2}$] \\
2196: \hline
2197: \hline
2198: 3.6 & 0.164 & 0.0572 \\
2199: \hline
2200: 3.8 & 0.381 & 0.343 \\
2201: \hline
2202: 4 & 1.24 & 1.07 \\
2203: \hline
2204: 4.2 & 3.33 & 3.15 \\
2205: \hline
2206: 4.4 & 8.9 & 7.51 \\
2207: \hline
2208: 4.6 & 17.9 & 16.7 \\
2209: \hline
2210: 4.8 & 31.8 & 32.6 \\
2211: \hline
2212: 5 & 55.6 & 52.7 \\
2213: \hline
2214: 5.2 & 78.9 & 75.8 \\
2215: \hline
2216: 5.4 & 102 & 103 \\
2217: \hline
2218: 5.6 & 136 & 127 \\
2219: \hline
2220: 5.8 & 144 & 145 \\
2221: \hline
2222: 6 & 161 & 162 \\
2223: \hline
2224: 6.2 & 164 & 155 \\
2225: \hline
2226: 6.4 & 157 & 155 \\
2227: \hline
2228: 6.6 & 139 & 130 \\
2229: \hline
2230: 6.8 & 121 & 126 \\
2231: \hline
2232: 7 & 112 & 102 \\
2233: \hline
2234: 7.2 & 86 & 83.4 \\
2235: \hline
2236: 7.4 & 67.8 & 63.6 \\
2237: \hline
2238: 7.6 & 51.2 & 49 \\
2239: \hline
2240: 7.8 & 35.5 & 34.6 \\
2241: \hline
2242: \end{tabular}
2243: \caption{\label{effareatable_angleaveraged} The angle-averaged neutrino
2244: effective area as a function of energy.}
2245: %\end{table}
2246: \end{table*}
2247: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1}
2248:
2249: %\newpage
2250: \pagebreak[4]
2251:
2252: \section*{Appendix C: Atmospheric Neutrino Flux}
2253:
2254: For this analysis, the atmospheric neutrino flux models by Barr \textit{et
2255: al.} and Honda \textit{et al.} were both considered equally likely options
2256: for the background atmospheric neutrino simulation. These two models are
2257: among many that use slightly different parameterizations of the all-nucleon
2258: cosmic ray flux to derive the atmospheric neutrino flux.
2259:
2260: For this analysis, the Barr \textit{et al.} flux below 10 GeV was taken
2261: from \cite{bartol2004}. From 10 GeV to 10 TeV, the flux tables from
2262: \cite{barronlinetables}, based on the primary spectrum of
2263: \cite{icrc2001gaisser}, were used. Above 10 TeV, the weight was
2264: derived by performing a 2-dimensional fit with a fifth degree polynomial to
2265: the log$_{10}$E vs. cos(zenith) tables of the atmospheric neutrino flux
2266: values from lower energies just mentioned. The TARGET version 2.1
2267: \cite{target} hadronic interaction model was used \cite{bartol2004}.
2268:
2269: In an attempt to better fit the AMS \cite{ams} and BESS
2270: \cite{bess,bess-tev} data, Honda \emph{et al.} changed the power law fit to
2271: the proton cosmic ray spectrum from -2.74 to -2.71 above 100
2272: GeV \cite{honda2004}. Other parameters in the cosmic ray fit remained
2273: similar to the Barr \emph{et al.} flux mentioned above \cite{gaisser2005},
2274: although the DPMJET-III \cite{dpmjet} interaction model was used. The
2275: atmospheric neutrino weights from \cite{honda2004} were used up to 10
2276: TeV. Above that energy, a 2-dimensional fit of the lower energy values was
2277: again used as described above. The result was a lower atmospheric neutrino
2278: flux prediction than the Barr \emph{et al.} flux.
2279:
2280: As described in Section \ref{subsection_theoretical_unc}, uncertainties in
2281: hadronic interactions and the cosmic ray and prompt neutrino fluxes at high
2282: energy led to large total uncertainties in the atmospheric neutrino
2283: flux. The estimated uncertainties are shown in Figure
2284: \ref{energyuncertainty}.
2285:
2286: \begin{figure*}
2287: \centering
2288: \includegraphics*[width=3.4in]{fig12.eps}
2289: \caption{\label{energyuncertainty}The estimated uncertainty in the
2290: atmospheric neutrino flux as a function of energy. Due to the large
2291: uncertainty in the prompt neutrino flux at greater than 10$^{4}$ GeV, the
2292: total uncertainty rises sharply.}
2293: \end{figure*}
2294:
2295: The atmospheric neutrino simulation was renormalized based on the
2296: experimental low energy data. The number of low energy conventional
2297: atmospheric neutrinos (second column) is added to the 4.0 prompt neutrinos
2298: predicted with the central prompt neutrino model. The total atmospheric
2299: background prediction before renormalization is shown in the third column of
2300: Table \ref{atmsnueventtable}. Instead of renormalizing the simulation based
2301: on all events with \mbox{$N_\mathrm{ch} <$ 100}, the renormalization was
2302: only based on the region \mbox{50 $<$ $N_\mathrm{ch}$ $<$ 100}. Because of
2303: the difficulty of simulating events near the threshold of the detector, the
2304: atmospheric neutrino simulation did not faithfully reproduce the shape of
2305: the $N_\mathrm{ch}$ distribution for the data at $N_\mathrm{ch}$ below
2306: 50. Atmospheric neutrino models were scaled to match the 146 events seen in
2307: the experimental data for \mbox{50 $<$ $N_\mathrm{ch}$ $<$ 100}. The total number
2308: of high energy events predicted to survive the final energy requirement is
2309: shown before renormalization in the sixth column and after renormalization
2310: in the last column.
2311:
2312: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{0.65}
2313: \begin{table*}
2314: \scriptsize
2315: %\footnotesize
2316: \begin{tabular} {|r|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
2317: \hline
2318: \textbf{Atms. $\nu $ Model} & \textbf{Conv.} & \textbf{Conv. $\nu$ +} &
2319: \textbf{Scale Factor} & \textbf{Conv.} & \textbf{Conv. $\nu$ +} &
2320: \textbf{Background}\\
2321:
2322: & \textbf{Atms. $\nu$} & \textbf{prompt $\nu$} & \textbf{to 146} &
2323: \textbf{Atms. $\nu$} & \textbf{prompt $\nu$} & \textbf{Predicted in}\\
2324:
2325: & 50 \textless $N_\mathrm{ch}$ \textless 100 & 50 \textless $N_\mathrm{ch}$ \textless 100 & \textbf{Low Energy} &
2326: $N_\mathrm{ch} \geq 100$ & $N_\mathrm{ch} \geq 100$ & \textbf{ $N_\mathrm{ch} \geq 100$}\\
2327:
2328: & & & \textbf{Data Events} & & & \textbf{Sample} \\
2329: & & & & & & \textbf{after Scaling} \\
2330: \hline
2331: Barr \emph{et al.} Max & 249 & 253 & 0.58 & 13.3 & 14.5 & 8.3\\
2332: \hline
2333: Barr \emph{et al.} & 194 & 198 & 0.74 & 9.1 & 10.3 & 7.6\\
2334: \hline
2335: Barr \emph{et al.} Min & 138 & 142 & 1.03 & 4.9 & 6.1 & 6.3\\
2336: \hline
2337: Honda \emph{et al.} Max & 191 & 195 & 0.75 & 9.3 & 10.5 & 7.9\\
2338: \hline
2339: Honda \emph{et al.} & 149 & 153 & 0.96 & 6.4 & 7.6 & 7.3\\
2340: \hline
2341: Honda \emph{et al.} Min & 107 & 111 & 1.32 & 3.4 & 4.6 & 6.1\\
2342: \hline
2343: \end{tabular}
2344: \caption{\label{atmsnueventtable}Number of atmospheric neutrino events predicted by the Monte
2345: Carlo. Uncertainty in the high energy cosmic ray flux was incorporated into
2346: the maximum and minimum predictions.}
2347: \end{table*}
2348: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1}
2349:
2350: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
2351:
2352: \bibitem{wb_bound}
2353: E. Waxman and J. Bahcall, Phys. Rev. D \textbf{59}, 023002 (1998).
2354:
2355: \bibitem{wb_robust}
2356: J. Bahcall and E. Waxman, Phys. Rev. D \textbf{64}, 023002 (2001).
2357:
2358: \bibitem{wb_withredshift}
2359: E. Waxman, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. \textbf{118}, 353 (2003).
2360:
2361: \bibitem{nellen}
2362: L. Nellen, K. Mannheim, and P.L. Biermann, Phys. Rev. D \textbf{47}, 5270 (1993).
2363:
2364: \bibitem{becker}
2365: J. Becker, P. Biermann, and W. Rhode, Astropart. Phys. \textbf{23}, 355 (2005).
2366:
2367: \bibitem{mpr}
2368: K. Mannheim, R.J. Protheroe, and J.P. Rachen, Phys. Rev. D \textbf{63},
2369: 023003 (2000).
2370:
2371: \bibitem{sdss}
2372: F.W. Stecker, C. Done, M.H. Salamon, and P. Sommers,
2373: Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{66}, 2697 (1991); \textbf{69}, 2738(E) (1992).
2374:
2375: \bibitem{sdss_revision}
2376: F.W. Stecker, Phys. Rev. D \textbf{72}, 107301 (2005).
2377:
2378: \bibitem{loeb_waxman_starburst}
2379: A. Loeb and E. Waxman, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. JCAP05 003 (2006).
2380:
2381: \bibitem{diffuse97}
2382: J. Ahrens \emph{et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{90}, 251101 (2003).
2383:
2384: \bibitem{cascades2000}
2385: M. Ackermann \emph{et al.}, Astropart. Phys. \textbf{22}, 127 (2004).
2386:
2387: \bibitem{frejus}
2388: W. Rhode \emph{et al.} (Fr\'ejus Collaboration), Astropart. Phys. \textbf{4}, 217 (1996).
2389:
2390: \bibitem{macro}
2391: M. Ambrosio \emph{et al.} (MACRO Collaboration), Astropart. Phys. \textbf{19}, 1 (2003).
2392:
2393: \bibitem{baikal}
2394: V. Aynutdinov \emph{et al.}, Astropart. Phys. \textbf{25}, 140 (2006).
2395:
2396: \bibitem{athar}
2397: H. Athar, M. Jezabek, and O. Yasuda, Phys. Rev. D \textbf{62}, 103007 (2000).
2398:
2399: \bibitem{pointsource5yr}
2400: A. Achterberg \emph{et al.}, astro-ph 0611063 (2006).
2401:
2402: \bibitem{nim2004}
2403: J. Ahrens \emph{et al.} (AMANDA Collaboration), Nucl. Instr. Meth. A \textbf{524}, 169 (2004).
2404:
2405: \bibitem{corsika}
2406: D. Heck, J. Knapp, J.N. Capdevielle, G. Schatz, and T. Thouw,
2407: Tech. Rep. FZKA 6019, Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe (1998).
2408:
2409: \bibitem{nusim}
2410: G.C. Hill, Astropart. Phys. \textbf{6}, 215 (1997).
2411:
2412: \bibitem{honda2004}
2413: M. Honda, T. Kajita, K. Kasahara, and S. Midorikawa, Phys. Rev. D \textbf{70},
2414: 043008 (2004).
2415:
2416: \bibitem{bartol2004}
2417: G.D. Barr, T.K. Gaisser, P. Lipari, S. Robbins, and T. Stanev,
2418: Phys. Rev. D \textbf{70}, 023006 (2004).
2419:
2420: \bibitem{barronlinetables}
2421: G. Barr, T.K. Gaisser, P. Lipari, S. Robbins, and T. Stanev, http://www-pnp.physics.ox.ac.uk/$\sim$barr/fluxfiles/.
2422:
2423: \bibitem{icrc2001gaisser}
2424: T.K. Gaisser, M. Honda, P. Lipari, and T. Stanev, in \emph{Proceedings of the 27th International Cosmic Ray
2425: Conference}, Hamburg, Germany, \textbf{5}, 1643 (2001).
2426:
2427: \bibitem{lipari}
2428: P. Lipari, Astropart. Phys. \textbf{1}, 195 (1993).
2429:
2430: \bibitem{till_medres}
2431: T. Neunhoffer, Astropart. Phys. \textbf{25}, 220 (2006).
2432:
2433: \bibitem{mrp}
2434: G.C. Hill and K. Rawlins, Astropart. Phys. \textbf{19}, 393 (2003).
2435:
2436: \bibitem{feldcous}
2437: G.J. Feldman and R.D. Cousins, Phys. Rev. D \textbf{57}, 3873 (1998).
2438:
2439: \bibitem{lisa_icrc2005}
2440: L. Gerhardt for the IceCube Collaboration, in \emph{Proceedings of the 29th International Cosmic Ray
2441: Conference}, Pune, India, \textbf{5}, 111 (2005), astro-ph 0509330.
2442:
2443: \bibitem{icepaper}
2444: M. Ackermann \emph{et al.}, J. Geophys. Res. \textbf{111}, D13203 (2006).
2445:
2446: \bibitem{martin_gbw}
2447: A.D. Martin, M.G. Ryskin, and A.M. Stasto, Acta Phys. Polon. \textbf{B34}, 3273
2448: (2003).
2449:
2450: \bibitem{naumov_rqpm_a}
2451: G. Fiorentini, A. Naumov, and F.L. Villante, Phys. Lett. B \textbf{510}, 173 (2001).
2452:
2453: \bibitem{naumov_rqpm_b}
2454: E.V. Bugaev \emph{et al.}, Il Nuovo Cimento \textbf{12C}, No. 1, 41 (1989).
2455:
2456: \bibitem{prompt_lepton_cookbook}
2457: C.G.S. Costa, Astropart. Phys. \textbf{16}, 193 (2001).
2458:
2459: \bibitem{zhv_charm}
2460: E. Zas, F. Halzen, and R.A. V\'{a}zquez, Astropart. Phys. \textbf{1}, 297 (1993).
2461:
2462:
2463: \bibitem{gaisser_honda_review}
2464: T.K. Gaisser and M. Honda, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. \textbf{52},
2465: 153 (2002).
2466:
2467: \bibitem{gaisser2005}
2468: T.K. Gaisser, in \emph{Proceedings of
2469: Nobel Symposium 129 ``Neutrino Physics''}, astro-ph 0502380 (2005).
2470:
2471: \bibitem{dcorsikaneutrinos}
2472: D. Chirkin, hep-ph 0407078 (2004).
2473:
2474: \bibitem{cousinshighland}
2475: R.D. Cousins and V.L. Highland, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A
2476: \textbf{320}, 331 (1992).
2477:
2478: \bibitem{conrad}
2479: % J. Conrad \emph{et al.}, Phys. Rev. D \textbf{67}, 012002 (2003).
2480: J. Conrad, O. Botner, A. Hallgren, and C.~P\'erez~de~los~Heros, Phys. Rev. D \textbf{67}, 012002 (2003).
2481:
2482: \bibitem{hillci}
2483: G.C. Hill, Phys. Rev. D \textbf{67}, 118101 (2003).
2484:
2485: \bibitem{volkova}
2486: L.V. Volkova \emph{et al.}, Il Nuovo Cimento \textbf{C10}, 465 (1987).
2487:
2488: \bibitem{kirsten_unfolding}
2489: K. M\"unich for the IceCube Collaboration, in \textit{Proceedings of the
2490: 29th International Cosmic Ray Conference}, Pune, India, \textbf{5}, 17
2491: (2005), astro-ph 0509330.
2492:
2493: \bibitem{uhe1997}
2494: M. Ackermann \emph{et al.}, Astropart. Phys. \textbf{22}, 339 (2005).
2495:
2496: \bibitem{rice}
2497: I. Kravchenko \emph{et al.}, Phys. Rev. D \textbf{73}, 082002
2498: (2006). The value of the upper limit is taken from Figure 19. S. Hussain
2499: (private communication).
2500:
2501: \bibitem{icecubesensitivity}
2502: J. Ahrens \emph{et al.}, Astropart. Phys. \textbf{20}, 507 (2004).
2503:
2504: \bibitem{target}
2505: R. Engel \emph{et al.}, in \textit{Proceedings of the 27th
2506: International Cosmic Ray Conference}, Hamburg, Germany, 1381 (2001).
2507:
2508: \bibitem{ams}
2509: J. Alcaraz \textit{et al.} (AMS Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B \textbf{490}, 27 (2000).
2510:
2511: \bibitem{bess}
2512: T. Sanuki \textit{et al.}, Astrophys. J. \textbf{545}, 1135 (2000).
2513:
2514: \bibitem{bess-tev}
2515: %BESS Collaboration: S. Haino et al., astro-ph/0403704.
2516: S. Haino \textit{et al.}, Phys. Lett. B \textbf{594}, 35 (2004).
2517:
2518: \bibitem{dpmjet}
2519: S. Roesler, R. Engel, and J. Ranft, in \textit{Proceedings of the 27th
2520: International Cosmic Ray Conference}, Hamburg, Germany, \textbf{1}, 439 (2001);
2521: Phys. Rev. D \textbf{57}, 2889 (1998).
2522:
2523: \end{thebibliography}
2524:
2525: \pagebreak[4]
2526:
2527: The following pages are an erratum to the original document.
2528:
2529: \pagebreak[4]
2530:
2531: %\title{Erratum}
2532: \section*{Erratum: Multi-year search for a diffuse flux of muon neutrinos with
2533: AMANDA-II}
2534:
2535: A search for TeV -- PeV muon neutrinos with \mbox{AMANDA-II} data collected
2536: between 2000 and 2003 established an upper limit of
2537: \mbox{E$^{2}\Phi_\mathrm{90\% C.L.} < 7.4 \times 10^{-8}$ GeV cm$^{-2}$
2538: s$^{-1}$ sr$^{-1}$} on the diffuse flux of extraterrestrial
2539: muon neutrinos with a {$\Phi \propto$ E$^{-2}$} spectrum between 16 TeV and
2540: 2.5 PeV. The upper limit calculation correctly included event simulations
2541: and remains as stated. However, the calculation of the detector's efficiency, which is
2542: based only on simulations, was incorrectly tabulated in an appendix and
2543: shown in a figure. The values were approximately a factor of ten too high, although the exact error varies in each bin.
2544: The correction has been applied in the following tables and figure. The effective area is the equivalent area over which the
2545: detector would be 100\% efficient for detecting neutrinos. The typical uncertainty on the effective area from simulation statistics is lowest between 10$^{5}$ GeV and 10$^{6}$ GeV (2\%). The uncertainty increases to 6\% at 10$^{4}$ GeV and 5\% around 10$^{7}$ GeV. In the remainder of this document, the number of optical modules (OMs) triggered during an event is referred to as
2546: $N_\mathrm{ch}$ and cos($\theta_\mathrm{t}$) refers to the cosine of the simulated (true) zenith angle of an event. The term angle-averaged indicates that results are averaged over $\theta_\mathrm{t}$ between 100$^{\circ}$ and 180$^{\circ}$. All other
2547: results reported in the paper, including the upper limit, remain unchanged.
2548:
2549: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{0.65}
2550: \begin{table*}[!h]
2551: \scriptsize
2552: %\footnotesize
2553: \begin{tabular} {|c||c|c||c|c||}
2554: \hline
2555: \textbf{Energy} & \multicolumn{2}{|c||} {\textbf{-1.0 \textless cos($\theta_\mathrm{t}$) \textless -0.8}} & \multicolumn{2}{|c||}
2556: {\textbf{-0.8 \textless cos($\theta_\mathrm{t}$) \textless -0.6}} \\
2557: log$_{10}$ (E/GeV) & $\nu_{\mu}$ & $\bar{\nu}_{\mu}$ & $\nu_{\mu}$ & $\bar{\nu}_{\mu}$ \\
2558: & [$10^{3} \mathrm{cm}^{2}$] & [$10^{3} \mathrm{cm}^{2}$] & [$10^{3} \mathrm{cm}^{2}$] &
2559: [$10^{3} \mathrm{cm}^{2}$] \\
2560: \hline
2561: \hline
2562: 3.6 & 0.046 & 0.017 & 0.024 & 0.0084 \\
2563: \hline
2564: 3.8 & 0.094 & 0.1 & 0.052 & 0.049 \\
2565: \hline
2566: 4 & 0.32 & 0.29 & 0.19 & 0.18 \\
2567: \hline
2568: 4.2 & 0.81 & 0.74 & 0.48 & 0.52 \\
2569: \hline
2570: 4.4 & 1.7 & 1.5 & 1.4 & 1.1 \\
2571: \hline
2572: 4.6 & 2.6 & 2.7 & 2.9 & 2.5 \\
2573: \hline
2574: 4.8 & 4 & 4 & 4.8 & 5.2 \\
2575: \hline
2576: 5 & 5.3 & 5.7 & 8.2 & 7.6 \\
2577: \hline
2578: 5.2 & 6.5 & 6.2 & 11 & 11 \\
2579: \hline
2580: 5.4 & 6.4 & 7.4 & 14 & 14 \\
2581: \hline
2582: 5.6 & 5.6 & 6.4 & 16 & 16 \\
2583: \hline
2584: 5.8 & 5.2 & 6 & 16 & 16 \\
2585: \hline
2586: 6 & 4.3 & 4.3 & 15 & 15 \\
2587: \hline
2588: 6.2 & 3.3 & 3.3 & 13 & 13 \\
2589: \hline
2590: 6.4 & 2.4 & 2 & 9.4 & 9.7 \\
2591: \hline
2592: 6.6 & 0.91 & 1.2 & 6.5 & 6.6 \\
2593: \hline
2594: 6.8 & 0.71 & 0.66 & 4.3 & 4.2 \\
2595: \hline
2596: 7 & 0.37 & 0.28 & 2.6 & 2.7 \\
2597: \hline
2598: 7.2 & 0.26 & 0.15 & 1.5 & 1.5 \\
2599: \hline
2600: 7.4 & 0.078 & 0.07 & 0.83 & 0.87 \\
2601: \hline
2602: 7.6 & 0.074 & 0.047 & 0.45 & 0.49 \\
2603: \hline
2604: 7.8 & 0.02 & 0.055 & 0.26 & 0.19 \\
2605: \hline
2606: \hline
2607: \end{tabular}
2608:
2609: \begin{tabular} {|c||c|c||c|c||}
2610: \multicolumn{5} {c} {} \\
2611: \hline
2612: \textbf{Energy} & \multicolumn{2}{|c||} {\textbf{-0.6 \textless cos($\theta_\mathrm{t}$) \textless -0.4}} & \multicolumn{2}{|c||}
2613: {\textbf{-0.4 \textless cos($\theta_\mathrm{t}$) \textless -0.17}} \\
2614: log$_{10}$ (E/GeV) & $\nu_{\mu}$ & $\bar{\nu}_{\mu}$ & $\nu_{\mu}$ & $\bar{\nu}_{\mu}$ \\
2615: & [$10^{3} \mathrm{cm}^{2}$] & [$10^{3} \mathrm{cm}^{2}$] & [$10^{3} \mathrm{cm}^{2}$] &
2616: [$10^{3} \mathrm{cm}^{2}$] \\
2617: \hline
2618: \hline
2619: 3.6 & 0.0087 & 0.0043 & 0.0055 & 0.0032 \\
2620: \hline
2621: 3.8 & 0.035 & 0.018 & 0.015 & 0.01 \\
2622: \hline
2623: 4 & 0.081 & 0.087 & 0.11 & 0.037 \\
2624: \hline
2625: 4.2 & 0.35 & 0.31 & 0.16 & 0.14 \\
2626: \hline
2627: 4.4 & 0.9 & 0.8 & 0.69 & 0.59 \\
2628: \hline
2629: 4.6 & 1.9 & 1.9 & 1.5 & 1.6 \\
2630: \hline
2631: 4.8 & 4.4 & 4.1 & 3 & 3.2 \\
2632: \hline
2633: 5 & 7.5 & 7.1 & 6.8 & 5.8 \\
2634: \hline
2635: 5.2 & 11 & 11 & 11 & 10 \\
2636: \hline
2637: 5.4 & 16 & 14 & 15 & 14 \\
2638: \hline
2639: 5.6 & 20 & 19 & 23 & 20 \\
2640: \hline
2641: 5.8 & 22 & 20 & 26 & 27 \\
2642: \hline
2643: 6 & 23 & 24 & 32 & 32 \\
2644: \hline
2645: 6.2 & 24 & 23 & 37 & 33 \\
2646: \hline
2647: 6.4 & 22 & 20 & 38 & 38 \\
2648: \hline
2649: 6.6 & 18 & 17 & 37 & 34 \\
2650: \hline
2651: 6.8 & 13 & 13 & 36 & 37 \\
2652: \hline
2653: 7 & 9.4 & 9.8 & 34 & 31 \\
2654: \hline
2655: 7.2 & 6.9 & 5.9 & 27 & 29 \\
2656: \hline
2657: 7.4 & 4 & 3.4 & 23 & 23 \\
2658: \hline
2659: 7.6 & 2.7 & 1.7 & 16 & 18 \\
2660: \hline
2661: 7.8 & 1.1 & 1.1 & 12 & 13 \\
2662: \hline
2663: \hline
2664: \end{tabular}
2665:
2666: \caption{\label{effareatable}Effective area as a function of the energy and
2667: zenith angle of the simulation for events in the final sample satisfying \mbox{$N_\mathrm{ch} \geq 100$}.}
2668: %\end{table}
2669: \end{table*}
2670: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1}
2671:
2672: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{0.65}
2673: \begin{table*}
2674: \small
2675: \begin{tabular} {|c||c|c||}
2676: \hline
2677: \textbf{Energy} & \multicolumn{2}{|c||} {\textbf{Angle-averaged}} \\
2678: log$_{10}$ (E/GeV) & $\nu_{\mu}$ & $\bar{\nu}_{\mu}$ \\
2679: & [$10^{3} \mathrm{cm}^{2}$] & [$10^{3} \mathrm{cm}^{2}$] \\
2680: \hline
2681: \hline
2682: 3.6 & 0.02 & 0.0081 \\
2683: \hline
2684: 3.8 & 0.048 & 0.044 \\
2685: \hline
2686: 4 & 0.17 & 0.14 \\
2687: \hline
2688: 4.2 & 0.44 & 0.42 \\
2689: \hline
2690: 4.4 & 1.1 & 0.99 \\
2691: \hline
2692: 4.6 & 2.2 & 2.1 \\
2693: \hline
2694: 4.8 & 4 & 4.1 \\
2695: \hline
2696: 5 & 6.9 & 6.5 \\
2697: \hline
2698: 5.2 & 9.7 & 9.5 \\
2699: \hline
2700: 5.4 & 13 & 13 \\
2701: \hline
2702: 5.6 & 16 & 15 \\
2703: \hline
2704: 5.8 & 18 & 18 \\
2705: \hline
2706: 6 & 19 & 19 \\
2707: \hline
2708: 6.2 & 20 & 19 \\
2709: \hline
2710: 6.4 & 19 & 18 \\
2711: \hline
2712: 6.6 & 16 & 16 \\
2713: \hline
2714: 6.8 & 14 & 15 \\
2715: \hline
2716: 7 & 12 & 12 \\
2717: \hline
2718: 7.2 & 9.5 & 9.9 \\
2719: \hline
2720: 7.4 & 7.5 & 7.3 \\
2721: \hline
2722: 7.6 & 5.3 & 5.6 \\
2723: \hline
2724: 7.8 & 3.5 & 3.9 \\
2725: \hline
2726: \end{tabular}
2727: \caption{\label{effareatable_angleaveraged} The angle-averaged neutrino
2728: effective area as a function of energy for events in the final sample satisfying \mbox{$N_\mathrm{ch} \geq 100$}.}
2729: %\end{table}
2730: \end{table*}
2731: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1}
2732:
2733: \pagebreak[4]
2734:
2735: \begin{figure*}
2736: \centering
2737: \includegraphics*[width=3.4in]{figerratum.eps}
2738: \caption{\label{effareaplot}Effective area for $\nu_{\mu}$ as a function
2739: of the true simulated energy at the Earth's surface in intervals of cosine
2740: of the true zenith angle, $\theta_\mathrm{t}$. The angle-averaged effective area is represented by the solid black line. This calculation was based on the final event sample for events satisfying \mbox{$N_\mathrm{ch} \geq 100$}.}
2741: \end{figure*}
2742:
2743:
2744: \end{document}
2745: