1: %%
2: %% Beginning of file 'sample.tex'
3: %%
4: %% Modified 2005 June 21
5: %%
6: %% This is a sample manuscript marked up using the
7: %% AASTeX v5.x LaTeX 2e macros.
8:
9: %% The first piece of markup in an AASTeX v5.x document
10: %% is the \documentclass command. LaTeX will ignore
11: %% any data that comes before this command.
12:
13: %% The command below calls the preprint style
14: %% which will produce a one-column, single-spaced document.
15: %% Examples of commands for other substyles follow. Use
16: %% whichever is most appropriate for your purposes.
17: %%
18: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
19:
20: %% manuscript produces a one-column, double-spaced document:
21:
22: %%\documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}
23:
24: %% preprint2 produces a double-column, single-spaced document:
25:
26: %% \documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
27:
28: %% Sometimes a paper's abstract is too long to fit on the
29: %% title page in preprint2 mode. When that is the case,
30: %% use the longabstract style option.
31:
32: %% \documentclass[preprint2,longabstract]{aastex}
33:
34: %% If you want to create your own macros, you can do so
35: %% using \newcommand. Your macros should appear before
36: %% the \begin{document} command.
37: %%
38: %% If you are submitting to a journal that translates manuscripts
39: %% into SGML, you need to follow certain guidelines when preparing
40: %% your macros. See the AASTeX v5.x Author Guide
41: %% for information.
42:
43: \newcommand{\vdag}{(v)^\dagger}
44: \newcommand{\myemail}{gerhardt@hep.ps.uci.edu}
45:
46: %% You can insert a short comment on the title page using the command below.
47:
48: %%\slugcomment{Not to appear in Nonlearned J., 45.}
49:
50: \shorttitle{Search for Ultra High-Energy Neutrinos with AMANDA-II}
51: \shortauthors{Ackermann et al.}
52:
53: %\usepackage{lineno}
54: %\linenumbers
55:
56: \begin{document}
57:
58: \title{Search for Ultra High-Energy Neutrinos with AMANDA-II}
59:
60: \author{
61: IceCube Collaboration:
62: M.~Ackermann\altaffilmark{33},
63: J.~Adams\altaffilmark{11},
64: J.~Ahrens\altaffilmark{22},
65: K.~Andeen\altaffilmark{21},
66: J.~Auffenberg\altaffilmark{32},
67: X.~Bai\altaffilmark{24},
68: B.~Baret\altaffilmark{9},
69: S.~W.~Barwick\altaffilmark{16},
70: R.~Bay\altaffilmark{5},
71: K.~Beattie\altaffilmark{7},
72: T.~Becka\altaffilmark{22},
73: J.~K.~Becker\altaffilmark{13},
74: K.-H.~Becker\altaffilmark{32},
75: M.~Beimforde\altaffilmark{6},
76: P.~Berghaus\altaffilmark{8},
77: D.~Berley\altaffilmark{12},
78: E.~Bernardini\altaffilmark{33},
79: D.~Bertrand\altaffilmark{8},
80: D.~Z.~Besson\altaffilmark{18},
81: E.~Blaufuss\altaffilmark{12},
82: D.~J.~Boersma\altaffilmark{21},
83: C.~Bohm\altaffilmark{27},
84: J.~Bolmont\altaffilmark{33},
85: S.~B\"oser\altaffilmark{33},
86: O.~Botner\altaffilmark{30},
87: A.~Bouchta\altaffilmark{30},
88: J.~Braun\altaffilmark{21},
89: T.~Burgess\altaffilmark{27},
90: T.~Castermans\altaffilmark{23},
91: D.~Chirkin\altaffilmark{7},
92: B.~Christy\altaffilmark{12},
93: J.~Clem\altaffilmark{24},
94: D.~F.~Cowen\altaffilmark{29,28},
95: M.~V.~D'Agostino\altaffilmark{5},
96: A.~Davour\altaffilmark{30},
97: C.~T.~Day\altaffilmark{7},
98: C.~De~Clercq\altaffilmark{9},
99: L.~Demir\"ors\altaffilmark{24},
100: F.~Descamps\altaffilmark{14},
101: P.~Desiati\altaffilmark{21},
102: G.~de~Vries-Uiterweerd\altaffilmark{31},
103: T.~DeYoung\altaffilmark{29},
104: J.~C.~Diaz-Velez\altaffilmark{21},
105: J.~Dreyer\altaffilmark{13},
106: J.~P.~Dumm\altaffilmark{21},
107: M.~R.~Duvoort\altaffilmark{31},
108: W.~R.~Edwards\altaffilmark{7},
109: R.~Ehrlich\altaffilmark{12},
110: J.~Eisch\altaffilmark{21},
111: R.~W.~Ellsworth\altaffilmark{12},
112: P.~A.~Evenson\altaffilmark{24},
113: O.~Fadiran\altaffilmark{3},
114: A.~R.~Fazely\altaffilmark{4},
115: K.~Filimonov\altaffilmark{5},
116: C.~Finley\altaffilmark{21},
117: M.~M.~Foerster\altaffilmark{29},
118: B.~D.~Fox\altaffilmark{29},
119: A.~Franckowiak\altaffilmark{32},
120: R.~Franke\altaffilmark{33},
121: T.~K.~Gaisser\altaffilmark{24},
122: J.~Gallagher\altaffilmark{20},
123: R.~Ganugapati\altaffilmark{21},
124: H.~Geenen\altaffilmark{32},
125: L.~Gerhardt\altaffilmark{16,*},
126: A.~Goldschmidt\altaffilmark{7},
127: J.~A.~Goodman\altaffilmark{12},
128: R.~Gozzini\altaffilmark{22},
129: T.~Griesel\altaffilmark{22},
130: A.~Gro{\ss}\altaffilmark{15},
131: S.~Grullon\altaffilmark{21},
132: R.~M.~Gunasingha\altaffilmark{4},
133: M.~Gurtner\altaffilmark{32},
134: C.~Ha\altaffilmark{29},
135: A.~Hallgren\altaffilmark{30},
136: F.~Halzen\altaffilmark{21},
137: K.~Han\altaffilmark{11},
138: K.~Hanson\altaffilmark{21},
139: D.~Hardtke\altaffilmark{5},
140: R.~Hardtke\altaffilmark{26},
141: Y.~Hasegawa\altaffilmark{10},
142: T.~Hauschildt\altaffilmark{24},
143: J.~Heise\altaffilmark{31},
144: K.~Helbing\altaffilmark{32},
145: M.~Hellwig\altaffilmark{22},
146: P.~Herquet\altaffilmark{23},
147: G.~C.~Hill\altaffilmark{21},
148: J.~Hodges\altaffilmark{21},
149: K.~D.~Hoffman\altaffilmark{12},
150: B.~Hommez\altaffilmark{14},
151: K.~Hoshina\altaffilmark{21},
152: D.~Hubert\altaffilmark{9},
153: B.~Hughey\altaffilmark{21},
154: J.-P.~H\"ul{\ss}\altaffilmark{1},
155: P.~O.~Hulth\altaffilmark{27},
156: K.~Hultqvist\altaffilmark{27},
157: S.~Hundertmark\altaffilmark{27},
158: M.~Inaba\altaffilmark{10},
159: A.~Ishihara\altaffilmark{10},
160: J.~Jacobsen\altaffilmark{21},
161: G.~S.~Japaridze\altaffilmark{3},
162: H.~Johansson\altaffilmark{27},
163: J.~M.~Joseph\altaffilmark{7},
164: K.-H.~Kampert\altaffilmark{32},
165: A.~Kappes\altaffilmark{21,a},
166: T.~Karg\altaffilmark{32},
167: A.~Karle\altaffilmark{21},
168: H.~Kawai\altaffilmark{10},
169: J.~L.~Kelley\altaffilmark{21},
170: J.~Kiryluk\altaffilmark{7},
171: F.~Kislat\altaffilmark{6},
172: N.~Kitamura\altaffilmark{21},
173: S.~R.~Klein\altaffilmark{7},
174: S.~Klepser\altaffilmark{33},
175: G.~Kohnen\altaffilmark{23},
176: H.~Kolanoski\altaffilmark{6},
177: L.~K\"opke\altaffilmark{22},
178: M.~Kowalski\altaffilmark{6},
179: T.~Kowarik\altaffilmark{22},
180: M.~Krasberg\altaffilmark{21},
181: K.~Kuehn\altaffilmark{16},
182: T.~Kuwabara\altaffilmark{24},
183: M.~Labare\altaffilmark{8},
184: K.~Laihem\altaffilmark{1},
185: H.~Landsman\altaffilmark{21},
186: R.~Lauer\altaffilmark{33},
187: H.~Leich\altaffilmark{33},
188: D.~Leier\altaffilmark{13},
189: I.~Liubarsky\altaffilmark{19},
190: J.~Lundberg\altaffilmark{30},
191: J.~L\"unemann\altaffilmark{13},
192: J.~Madsen\altaffilmark{26},
193: R.~Maruyama\altaffilmark{21},
194: K.~Mase\altaffilmark{10},
195: H.~S.~Matis\altaffilmark{7},
196: T.~McCauley\altaffilmark{7},
197: C.~P.~McParland\altaffilmark{7},
198: K.~Meagher\altaffilmark{12},
199: A.~Meli\altaffilmark{13},
200: T.~Messarius\altaffilmark{13},
201: P.~M\'esz\'aros\altaffilmark{29,28},
202: H.~Miyamoto\altaffilmark{10},
203: T.~Montaruli\altaffilmark{21,b},
204: A.~Morey\altaffilmark{5},
205: R.~Morse\altaffilmark{21},
206: S.~M.~Movit\altaffilmark{28},
207: K.~M\"unich\altaffilmark{13},
208: R.~Nahnhauer\altaffilmark{33},
209: J.~W.~Nam\altaffilmark{16},
210: P.~Nie{\ss}en\altaffilmark{24},
211: D.~R.~Nygren\altaffilmark{7},
212: A.~Olivas\altaffilmark{12},
213: M.~Ono\altaffilmark{10},
214: S.~Patton\altaffilmark{7},
215: C.~P\'erez~de~los~Heros\altaffilmark{30},
216: A.~Piegsa\altaffilmark{22},
217: D.~Pieloth\altaffilmark{33},
218: A.~C.~Pohl\altaffilmark{30,c},
219: R.~Porrata\altaffilmark{5},
220: J.~Pretz\altaffilmark{12},
221: P.~B.~Price\altaffilmark{5},
222: G.~T.~Przybylski\altaffilmark{7},
223: K.~Rawlins\altaffilmark{2},
224: S.~Razzaque\altaffilmark{29,28},
225: P.~Redl\altaffilmark{12},
226: E.~Resconi\altaffilmark{15},
227: W.~Rhode\altaffilmark{13},
228: M.~Ribordy\altaffilmark{17},
229: A.~Rizzo\altaffilmark{9},
230: S.~Robbins\altaffilmark{32},
231: W.~J.~Robbins\altaffilmark{29},
232: P.~Roth\altaffilmark{12},
233: F.~Rothmaier\altaffilmark{22},
234: C.~Rott\altaffilmark{29},
235: C.~Roucelle\altaffilmark{7},
236: D.~Rutledge\altaffilmark{29},
237: D.~Ryckbosch\altaffilmark{14},
238: H.-G.~Sander\altaffilmark{22},
239: S.~Sarkar\altaffilmark{25},
240: K.~Satalecka\altaffilmark{33},
241: S.~Schlenstedt\altaffilmark{33},
242: T.~Schmidt\altaffilmark{12},
243: D.~Schneider\altaffilmark{21},
244: O.~Schultz\altaffilmark{15},
245: D.~Seckel\altaffilmark{24},
246: B.~Semburg\altaffilmark{32},
247: S.~H.~Seo\altaffilmark{29},
248: Y.~Sestayo\altaffilmark{15},
249: S.~Seunarine\altaffilmark{11},
250: A.~Silvestri\altaffilmark{16},
251: A.~J.~Smith\altaffilmark{12},
252: C.~Song\altaffilmark{21},
253: G.~M.~Spiczak\altaffilmark{26},
254: C.~Spiering\altaffilmark{33},
255: M.~Stamatikos\altaffilmark{21,d},
256: T.~Stanev\altaffilmark{24},
257: T.~Stezelberger\altaffilmark{7},
258: R.~G.~Stokstad\altaffilmark{7},
259: M.~C.~Stoufer\altaffilmark{7},
260: S.~Stoyanov\altaffilmark{24},
261: E.~A.~Strahler\altaffilmark{21},
262: T.~Straszheim\altaffilmark{12},
263: K.-H.~Sulanke\altaffilmark{33},
264: G.~W.~Sullivan\altaffilmark{12},
265: T.~J.~Sumner\altaffilmark{19},
266: Q.~Swillens\altaffilmark{8},
267: I.~Taboada\altaffilmark{5},
268: O.~Tarasova\altaffilmark{33},
269: A.~Tepe\altaffilmark{32},
270: L.~Thollander\altaffilmark{27},
271: S.~Tilav\altaffilmark{24},
272: M.~Tluczykont\altaffilmark{33},
273: P.~A.~Toale\altaffilmark{29},
274: D.~Tosi\altaffilmark{33},
275: D.~Tur{\v{c}}an\altaffilmark{12},
276: N.~van~Eijndhoven\altaffilmark{31},
277: J.~Vandenbroucke\altaffilmark{5},
278: A.~Van~Overloop\altaffilmark{14},
279: V.~Viscomi\altaffilmark{29},
280: C.~Vogt\altaffilmark{1},
281: B.~Voigt\altaffilmark{33},
282: W.~Wagner\altaffilmark{29},
283: C.~Walck\altaffilmark{27},
284: H.~Waldmann\altaffilmark{33},
285: T.~Waldenmaier\altaffilmark{24},
286: M.~Walter\altaffilmark{33},
287: Y.-R.~Wang\altaffilmark{21},
288: C.~Wendt\altaffilmark{21},
289: C.~H.~Wiebusch\altaffilmark{1},
290: C.~Wiedemann\altaffilmark{27},
291: G.~Wikstr\"om\altaffilmark{27},
292: D.~R.~Williams\altaffilmark{29},
293: R.~Wischnewski\altaffilmark{33},
294: H.~Wissing\altaffilmark{1},
295: K.~Woschnagg\altaffilmark{5},
296: X.~W.~Xu\altaffilmark{4},
297: G.~Yodh\altaffilmark{16},
298: S.~Yoshida\altaffilmark{10},
299: J.~D.~Zornoza\altaffilmark{21,e}}
300: \altaffiltext{*}{Corresponding author: gerhardt@hep.ps.uci.edu}
301: \altaffiltext{1}{III Physikalisches Institut, RWTH Aachen University, D-52056 Aachen, Germany}
302: \altaffiltext{2}{Dept.~of Physics and Astronomy, University of Alaska Anchorage, 3211 Providence Dr., Anchorage, AK 99508, USA}
303: \altaffiltext{3}{CTSPS, Clark-Atlanta University, Atlanta, GA 30314, USA}
304: \altaffiltext{4}{Dept.~of Physics, Southern University, Baton Rouge, LA 70813, USA}
305: \altaffiltext{5}{Dept.~of Physics, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA}
306: \altaffiltext{6}{Institut f\"ur Physik, Humboldt-Universit\"at zu Berlin, D-12489 Berlin, Germany}
307: \altaffiltext{7}{Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA}
308: \altaffiltext{8}{Universit\'e Libre de Bruxelles, Science Faculty CP230, B-1050 Brussels, Belgium}
309: \altaffiltext{9}{Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Dienst ELEM, B-1050 Brussels, Belgium}
310: \altaffiltext{10}{Dept.~of Physics, Chiba University, Chiba 263-8522 Japan}
311: \altaffiltext{11}{Dept.~of Physics and Astronomy, University of Canterbury, Private Bag 4800, Christchurch, New Zealand}
312: \altaffiltext{12}{Dept.~of Physics, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA}
313: \altaffiltext{13}{Dept.~of Physics, Universit\"at Dortmund, D-44221 Dortmund, Germany}
314: \altaffiltext{14}{Dept.~of Subatomic and Radiation Physics, University of Gent, B-9000 Gent, Belgium}
315: \altaffiltext{15}{Max-Planck-Institut f\"ur Kernphysik, D-69177 Heidelberg, Germany}
316: \altaffiltext{16}{Dept.~of Physics and Astronomy, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697, USA}
317: \altaffiltext{17}{Laboratory for High Energy Physics, \'Ecole Polytechnique F\'ed\'erale, CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland}
318: \altaffiltext{18}{Dept.~of Physics and Astronomy, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS 66045, USA}
319: \altaffiltext{19}{Blackett Laboratory, Imperial College, London SW7 2BW, UK}
320: \altaffiltext{20}{Dept.~of Astronomy, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706, USA}
321: \altaffiltext{21}{Dept.~of Physics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706, USA}
322: \altaffiltext{22}{Institute of Physics, University of Mainz, Staudinger Weg 7, D-55099 Mainz, Germany}
323: \altaffiltext{23}{University of Mons-Hainaut, 7000 Mons, Belgium}
324: \altaffiltext{24}{Bartol Research Institute and Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716, USA}
325: \altaffiltext{25}{Dept.~of Physics, University of Oxford, 1 Keble Road, Oxford OX1 3NP, UK}
326: \altaffiltext{26}{Dept.~of Physics, University of Wisconsin, River Falls, WI 54022, USA}
327: \altaffiltext{27}{Dept.~of Physics, Stockholm University, SE-10691 Stockholm, Sweden}
328: \altaffiltext{28}{Dept.~of Astronomy and Astrophysics, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA}
329: \altaffiltext{29}{Dept.~of Physics, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA}
330: \altaffiltext{30}{Division of High Energy Physics, Uppsala University, S-75121 Uppsala, Sweden}
331: \altaffiltext{31}{Dept.~of Physics and Astronomy, Utrecht University/SRON, NL-3584 CC Utrecht, The Netherlands}
332: \altaffiltext{32}{Dept.~of Physics, University of Wuppertal, D-42119 Wuppertal, Germany}
333: \altaffiltext{33}{DESY, D-15735 Zeuthen, Germany}
334: \altaffiltext{a}{on leave of absence from Universit\"at Erlangen-N\"urnberg, Physikalisches Institut, D-91058, Erlangen, Germany}
335: \altaffiltext{b}{on leave of absence from Universit\`a di Bari, Dipartimento di Fisica, I-70126, Bari, Italy}
336: \altaffiltext{c}{affiliated with School of Pure and Applied Natural Sciences, Kalmar University, S-39182 Kalmar, Sweden}
337: \altaffiltext{d}{NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD 20771, USA}
338: \altaffiltext{e}{affiliated with IFIC (CSIC-Universitat de Val\`encia), A. C. 22085, 46071 Valencia, Spain}
339:
340:
341: %IceCube Collaboration\altaffilmark{1}}
342: %\affil{Need to put big long author list here and mark me as corresponding author}
343:
344:
345: %\altaffiltext{1}{Author list coming soon.}
346:
347: %\email{* Corresponding author L. Gerhardt: gerhardt@hep.ps.uci.edu}
348:
349: \begin{abstract}
350: A search for diffuse neutrinos with energies in excess of 10$^{5}$~GeV is conducted
351: with AMANDA-II data recorded between 2000 and 2002. Above 10$^{7}$~GeV, the Earth is
352: essentially opaque to neutrinos. This fact, combined with the limited overburden of the
353: AMANDA-II detector (roughly 1.5 km), concentrates these ultra high-energy neutrinos at
354: the horizon. The primary background for this analysis is bundles of downgoing, high-energy
355: muons from the interaction of cosmic rays in the atmosphere. No statistically significant
356: excess above the expected background is seen in the data, and an upper limit is set on
357: the diffuse all-flavor neutrino flux of E$^{2}$ $\Phi$$_{\mathrm{90\% CL}}$ $<$ 2.7
358: $\times$ 10$^{-7}$ GeV cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ sr$^{-1}$ valid over the energy range of 2
359: $\times$
360: 10$^{5}$~GeV to 10$^{9}$~GeV. A number of models which predict neutrino fluxes from
361: active galactic nuclei are excluded at the 90\% confidence level.
362: \end{abstract}
363:
364:
365: \keywords{neutrino telescope, AMANDA, IceCube, diffuse sources, ultra high-energy}
366:
367:
368: \section{Introduction}
369: AMANDA-II (Antarctic Muon and Neutrino Detector Array), a neutrino telescope at the
370: geographical South Pole designed to detect Cherenkov light from secondary particles
371: produced in collisions between neutrinos and Antarctic ice, has placed limits on the flux
372: from point-like and diffuse sources of astrophysical neutrinos \citep{ach07, ack04,
373: ack05, ahr03a, ahr03b}. This work describes a search for neutrinos with energies above
374: 10$^{5}$~GeV, which we define as ultra high-energy (UHE) neutrinos. These neutrinos are
375: of interest because they could be associated with the potential acceleration of hadrons
376: by active galactic nuclei \citep{man95, mpr00, hal97, pro96, ste92}; they could
377: potentially be produced by exotic phenomena such as the decay of topological defects
378: \citep{sig98} or possibly associated with the Z-burst mechanism \citep{yos98}; and they
379: are guaranteed by-products of the interactions of high-energy cosmic rays with the cosmic
380: microwave background \citep{eng01}.
381:
382: This analysis is sensitive to all three flavors of neutrinos. Leptons and cascades from
383: UHE electron, muon and tau neutrinos create bright, energetic events (Fig. \ref{figevt})
384: which can be identified by AMANDA-II as far as 450~m from the center of the array (Fig.
385: \ref{figdist}). The sensitivity of this analysis starts at energies roughly coincident
386: with the highest energy threshold of other diffuse analyses conducted with AMANDA-II
387: \citep{ach07, ack04}.
388:
389: At UHE energies, the interaction length of neutrinos in rock is shorter than the diameter
390: of the Earth \citep{gan98}, so neutrinos from the Northern Hemisphere will interact
391: before reaching AMANDA-II. Combined with the limited overburden above the AMANDA-II
392: detector, this concentrates UHE events at the horizon. This contrasts with the majority
393: of other astrophysical neutrino analyses completed using data from the AMANDA-II detector,
394: which search for neutrinos from the Northern Hemisphere with energies below 10$^{5}$~GeV.
395:
396: The flux of atmospheric neutrinos is negligible at UHE energies, with fewer than 10 events
397: in three years expected from the model in \citet{lip93} after intermediate UHE selection
398: criteria have been applied. This drops to 0.1 events after application of all selection
399: criteria. Similarly, there are fewer than 0.6 events expected in three years at the final
400: selection level from prompt neutrinos from the decay of charmed particles produced in the
401: atmosphere (using the ``C'' model from \citet{zas93}). Therefore, the primary background
402: for the UHE analysis is composed of many lower energy processes that mimic higher energy
403: signal events. Cosmic ray collisions in the upper atmosphere that generate large numbers
404: of nearly parallel muons (or ``muon bundles'') can generate high-energy signatures even
405: though the individual muons have much lower energy than single leptons or cascades from
406: UHE neutrinos.
407: %The muon
408: %bundles follow the sharply falling spectrum of the primary cosmic rays of E$^{-2.7}$
409: %which hardens to about E$^{-3}$ above 10$^{6}$~GeV.
410: Signal and background events spread light over roughly equivalent areas in the detector,
411: but UHE neutrino events are distinguishable because they have higher energy and higher
412: light density than background events. Specialized selection criteria which use these
413: properties, as well as differences in reconstruction variables, separate the UHE neutrinos
414: from the background of muon bundles from atmospheric cosmic rays.
415:
416: %Limits have been placed on the all-flavor neutrino flux in the ultra high-energy range by
417: %the RICE \citep{kra06}, ANITA-lite \citep{bar06}, and Baikal \citep{ayn06} experiments.
418: Limits have been placed on the all-flavor neutrino flux in the ultra high-energy range by
419: other experiments (Fig. \ref{figrep}). Additionally, a previous analysis using an earlier
420: configuration of the AMANDA detector called AMANDA-B10, consisting of 302 optical modules
421: \citep{ack05}, has placed limits on the all-flavor UHE neutrino flux (Fig. \ref{figrep}).
422: This analysis uses 677 optical modules (OMs) of the AMANDA-II detector and gives a
423: combined result using data from three years (2000-2002) with a livetime of 456.8 days.
424:
425: A description of the AMANDA-II detector is given in section 2. Sections 3 and 4 discuss
426: possible sources of astrophysical neutrinos and background, and the simulation of both.
427: The selection criteria used to separate UHE neutrino signals from background are discussed
428: in section 5. A study of systematic uncertainties is presented in section 6, and the
429: results are shown in section 7.
430:
431: \section{The AMANDA-II Detector}
432:
433:
434: The AMANDA-II detector \citep{ahr04a} consists of 677 OMs stationed between 1500 m and
435: 2000 m beneath the surface of the Antarctic ice at the geographic South Pole. The OMs are
436: deployed on nineteen vertical cables (called ``strings'') arranged in three roughly
437: concentric circles, giving the detector a cylindrical shape with a diameter of
438: approximately 200 m.
439:
440: Each OM contains a Hamamatsu 8-inch photomultiplier tube (PMT) coupled with silicon gel to a
441: spherical glass pressure housing for continuity of the index of refraction. The OMs are
442: connected to the surface by cables which supply high voltage and carry the signal from
443: the PMT to data acquisition electronics at the surface. The inner ten strings
444: use electrical analog signal transmission, while the outer nine strings primarily use
445: optical fiber transmission \citep{ahr04a}.
446: %Signals from OMs with electrical analog
447: %transmission (henceforth referred to as electrical) cables are widened by dispersion,
448: %leading to a typical pulse width as large as 200 ns, while optical fiber OMs have pulse
449: %widths on the order of 5 ns.
450:
451: The AMANDA-II detector uses a majority trigger of 24 OMs recording a voltage above a set
452: threshold (a ``hit'') within a time window of 2.5 ${\mu}$s. An OM records the maximum
453: amplitude, as well as the leading edge time and time over threshold for each hit, with
454: each OM recording a maximum of eight hits per event. Each photoelectron has approximately
455: a 3\% chance of producing an afterpulse caused by ionization of residual gas inside the
456: PMT \citep{ham99}. This afterpulse follows several ${\mu}$s after the generating hit and
457: aids in the detection of UHE events.
458:
459: AMANDA-II has been collecting data since February 2000. In 2002/2003, waveform digitizers
460: were installed which record the full pulse shape from each OM \citep{sil05}. In 2005
461: deployment began on IceCube \citep{ahr04b}, a 1 km$^{3}$ array of digital OMs which now
462: encompasses the AMANDA-II detector.
463:
464: \section{Astrophysical Neutrino and Background Sources}
465: Astrophysical neutrinos with energies in excess of 10$^{5}$~GeV may be produced by a
466: variety of sources. A number of theories predict neutrino fluxes from active galactic
467: nuclei (AGN) peaking near 10$^{6}$~GeV. In these scenarios, protons are accelerated by the
468: first order Fermi mechanism in shock fronts. In the favored mechanism for neutrino
469: production, these protons interact with the ambient photon field either in the cores
470: \citep{ste92} or jets \citep{pro96,hal97,mpr00,man95} of the AGN and produce neutrinos
471: %via the following interaction and decay chain,
472: %\dkdk{p + \gamma \rightarrow \Delta^{+}}{\pi^{+}+ n}{\mu^{+} + \nu_{\mu}}{e^{+} + \nu_{e} + \overline{\nu_{\mu}},\;}
473: via the process:
474: \begin{equation}
475: p + \gamma \rightarrow \Delta^{+} \rightarrow \pi^{+} [+ n] \rightarrow \nu_{\mu} + \mu^{+}
476: \rightarrow \nu_{\mu} + e^{+} + \nu_{e} + \overline{\nu_{\mu}},\\
477: \end{equation}
478: \noindent
479: resulting in a $\nu_{e}$:$\nu_{\mu}$:$\nu_{\tau}$ flavor ratio of 1:2:0 at the
480: source\footnote{Neutrino flavor oscillation changes the flavor ratio to 1:1:1 at the
481: Earth. See \citet{kas05} for a discussion of different flavor ratios.}. The energy
482: spectrum of the neutrinos produced by these interactions generally follows the E$^{-2}$
483: spectrum of the protons. Theoretical bounds can be placed on the flux of these neutrinos
484: based on the observation of cosmic rays if the p-$\gamma$ reaction takes place in the jet
485: or other optically thin region of the AGN \citep{bah98, mpr00}.
486:
487: UHE neutrinos are also associated with models created to explain the apparent excess of
488: cosmic rays at the highest energies. One scenario involves the decay of massive objects,
489: such as topological defects created by symmetry breaking in the early universe
490: \citep{sig98}. These objects decay close to the Earth into showers of particles,
491: eventually producing neutrinos as well as a fraction of the highest-energy cosmic rays.
492: Z-burst models could also produce some of the highest-energy cosmic rays through the
493: interaction of neutrinos with energies in excess of 10$^{13}$~GeV with relic neutrinos
494: via the Z$^{0}$ resonance. Since these neutrino-neutrino interactions are rare, it is
495: possible to directly search for the UHE neutrino fluxes required by this mechanism
496: \citep{yos98,kal02a}. It should be noted that Z-burst scenarios which predict the highest
497: flux of neutrinos have already been eliminated by previous experiments \citep{bar06}.
498: Additionally, Z-burst models predict fluxes of neutrinos which peak at energies above the
499: sensitivity of this analysis or require unrealistic assumptions and are mentioned
500: primarily for completeness.
501:
502:
503: A guaranteed source of UHE neutrinos comes from the interaction of high-energy cosmic
504: rays with the cosmic microwave background (see e.g. \citet{eng01} and \citet{kal02b}).
505: However, the flux predictions of these GZK neutrinos are generally several orders of
506: magnitude lower than most of the fluxes listed previously.
507:
508:
509: %\section{Background Sources}
510: The background for this analysis consists of bundles of muons from cosmic rays. The cosmic
511: rays follow an E$^{-2.7}$ spectrum until about 10$^{6}$~GeV, where the flux steepens to
512: E$^{-3}$ \citep{hor03}. They come only from the Southern Hemisphere because bundles from
513: other directions are absorbed by the Earth. According to simulations, there can be as
514: many as 20,000 muons in one bundle spread over a rms cross-sectional area as large as
515: 200~m$^{2}$, and the highest-energy events can deposit energies as large as 2.4 $\times$
516: 10$^{6}$~GeV in the ice around the AMANDA-II detector.
517:
518: %these numbers are for a proton event with energy of 2.8 $\times$ 10$^{10}$~GeV, the highest
519: %energy event which survives level 5
520:
521: \section{Simulation and Experimental Data}
522: UHE neutrinos are simulated using the All Neutrino Interaction Simulation (ANIS) package
523: \citep{kow05} to generate and propagate the neutrinos through the Earth. All three flavors of
524: neutrinos are simulated with energies between 10$^{3}$~GeV and 10$^{12}$~GeV. The
525: resulting muons and taus are propagated through the rock and ice near the detector using
526: the Muon Monte Carlo (MMC) simulation package \citep{chi04}. Finally, the detector
527: response is simulated using the AMASIM2 simulation package \citep{hun98}.
528:
529: The background muon bundles from cosmic rays are generated using the CORSIKA simulation
530: program with the QGSJET01 hadronic interaction model \citep{hec99}. At early levels of
531: this analysis, cosmic ray primaries are generated with composition and spectral indices
532: from \citet{wie99}, with energies of the primary particles ranging between 8 $\times$
533: 10$^{2}$~GeV and 10$^{11}$~GeV. At later levels of this analysis, the lower energy
534: primaries have been removed by the selection criteria, and a new simulated data set is
535: used with energy, spectral shape, and composition optimized to simulate high-energy
536: cosmic rays more efficiently. In this optimized simulation, the energy threshold is
537: raised to 8 $\times$ 10$^{4}$~GeV and only proton and iron primaries are generated with a
538: spectrum of E$^{-2}$. These primaries are reweighted following the method outlined in
539: \citet{gla99}. This optimized simulation is used for level 2 of the analysis and beyond
540: (see Table \ref{tbl-cuts}). For 2001 and 2002, the background simulation is further
541: supplemented with the inclusion of a third set of simulated data with the energy
542: threshold increased to 10$^{6}$~GeV. For all sets of background simulation, the resulting
543: particles are propagated through the ice using MMC, and the detector response is
544: simulated using AMASIM2.
545:
546: %The ice surrounding the AMANDA detector is not uniform. There are numerous layers with
547: %varying degrees of opacity which effect the absorption and scattering of light traveling
548: %through it. This effect has been studied in detail and values for absorption and scattering
549: %length of photons in the ice have been calculated \citep{ack06}. This is incorporated into
550: %this analysis by dividing the ice into layers with different absorption and scattering
551: %lengths when simulating background events. Photons from the products of UHE neutrinos can
552: %pass through many of these ice layers before reaching an OM, so a homogenous ice model with
553: %average absorption and scattering lengths is used for their simulation.
554:
555: Data used in this analysis were recorded in the time period between February 2000 and
556: November 2002, with breaks each austral summer for detector maintenance, engineering,
557: and calibration lasting approximately four months. In addition to maintenance downtime,
558: the detector also has a brief period while recording each event in which it cannot record
559: new events. Runs with anomalous characteristics (such as excessive trigger rates or large
560: numbers of OMs not functioning) are discarded and a method which removes non-physical
561: events caused by short term detector instabilities is applied \citep{poh04}. These
562: factors combine to give a deadtime of 17\% of the data taking time for 2000, 22\% of the
563: data-taking time for 2001, and 15\% of the data taking time for 2002. Additionally, 26
564: days are excluded from 2000 because the UHE filtered events are polluted with high number
565: of events with incomplete hit information, likely due to a minor detector malfunction.
566: Taking these factors into account, there are 173.5 days of livetime in 2000, 192.5 days
567: of livetime in 2001, and 205.0 days of livetime in 2002. Finally, 20\% of the data from
568: each year is set aside for comparison with simulations and to aid in the determination of
569: selection criteria, leading to a total livetime for the three years of 456.8 days.
570:
571: \section{Analysis}
572: Twenty percent of the data from 2000 to 2002 (randomly selected from throughout the three
573: years) is used to test the agreement between background simulations and observations.
574: In order to avoid biasing the determination of selection criteria, this 20\% is then
575: discarded, and the developed selection criteria are applied to the remaining 80\% of
576: the data. A previous UHE analysis was performed on only the 2000 data using different
577: selection criteria than those described below (see \citet{ger05} and \citet{ger06} for a
578: more detailed description).
579: %This previous analysis found five events in the 2000 year with an expectation of up to three
580: %background events, leading to an upper limit of 9.9 $\times$ 10$^{-7}$
581: %GeV cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ sr$^{-1}$ including systematic uncertainties.
582: For 2001-2002, improved reconstruction techniques such as cascade reconstructions
583: \citep{ahr03c} were added to the analysis, and the new selection criteria described below
584: were devised in a blind manner. These selection criteria were also applied to the
585: 2000 data to derive a combined three year limit. Due to differences in hit selection for
586: reconstruction between 2000 and 2001-2002, the E$^{-2}$ signal passing rate at the
587: final selection level for the year 2000 is approximately 60\% of the rate for the years
588: 2001 and 2002.
589:
590: In order to maximize the limit setting potential, the selection criteria are initially
591: determined by optimizing the model rejection factor \citep{hil03} given by
592: \begin{equation}
593: \mathrm{MRF} = \frac{\mathrm{\bar{\mu}}_{90}}{\mathrm{N}_{\mathrm{signal}}},
594: \end{equation}
595: where $\bar{\mu}_{90}$ is 90\% confidence level (CL) average event upper limit given by
596: \citet{fel98}, and N$_{\mathrm{signal}}$ is the number of muon neutrinos expected for
597: the signal being tested, in this case an E$^{-2}$ flux.
598: The selection criteria for this analysis are summarized in Table
599: \ref{tbl-cuts} and described below.
600:
601: This analysis exploits the differences in total energy and light deposition between
602: bundles of many low-energy muons and single UHE muons or cascades from UHE neutrinos.
603: UHE neutrinos deposit equal or greater amounts of light in the ice than background muon
604: bundles. In addition to being lower energy, background muon bundles spread their light
605: over the cross sectional area of the entire muon bundle, rather than just along a single
606: muon track or into a single cascade. Both signal and background events can have a large
607: number of hits in the array, but for the same number of hit OMs, the muon bundle has a
608: lower total number of hits, NHITS (recall each OM may have multiple separate hits in one
609: event; see Fig. \ref{fignhits}). The number of hits for UHE neutrinos is increased by the
610: tendency of bright signals to produce afterpulses in the PMT. Background muon bundles
611: also have a higher fraction of OMs with a single hit (F1H), while a UHE neutrino
612: generates more multiple hits (Fig. \ref {figf1h}). The F1H variable is correlated with
613: energy (Fig. \ref{figf1he}) and is effective at removing lower energy background muon
614: bundle events. The level 1 and 2 selection criteria require that NHITS $>$ 140 and F1H
615: $<$ 0.53 and reduce the background by a factor of 2 $\times$ 10$^{3}$ relative to trigger
616: level (level 0 on Tables \ref{tbl-passc} and \ref{tbl-passm}).
617:
618: At this point the data sample is sufficiently reduced that computationally intensive
619: reconstructions become feasible. Reconstruction algorithms used in this analysis employ a
620: maximum likelihood method which takes into account the absorption and scattering of light
621: in ice. For muons, the reconstruction compares time residuals to those expected from a
622: Cherenkov cone for a minimally ionizing muon \citep{ahr04a}, while the cascade
623: reconstruction uses Cherenkov light from an electromagnetic cascade for comparison
624: \citep{ahr03c}. Reconstructions which are optimized for spherical (cascade) depositions
625: of light are used to distinguish UHE neutrinos from background muon bundles which happen
626: to have a large energy deposition, such as a bremsstrahlung or e$^{+}$ e$^{-}$ pair
627: creation, inside the detector fiducial volume.
628:
629: Before application of the level 3 selection criteria, the data sets are split into
630: ``cascade-like'' and ``muon-like'' subsets. This selection is performed using the
631: negative log likelihood of the cascade reconstruction (L$_\mathrm{{casc}}$, see Fig.
632: \ref{figjk23}), where events with a L$_\mathrm{{casc}} < 7$ are considered
633: ``cascade-like.''
634:
635: \subsection{``Cascade-like'' Events}
636: Background events in the ``cascade-like'' subset are characterized by either a large light
637: deposition in or very near the instrumented volume of AMANDA-II or a path which clips the
638: top or bottom of the array. In either case, the energy deposition is significantly less
639: than the energy deposited by a UHE neutrino, allowing application of selection
640: criteria which correlate with energy. One of these is F1H$_{\mathrm{ELEC}}$ (Fig.
641: \ref{figf1helec}), a variable similar to the F1H variable described above, except that it
642: uses only OMs whose signal is brought to the surface by electrical cables. The signal
643: spreads as it propagates up the cable, causing hits close together in time to be
644: combined. This gives F1H$_{\mathrm{ELEC}}$ a different distribution from F1H, and both
645: variables are good estimators of energy deposited inside the detector (Fig.
646: \ref{figf1he}). Additionally, the fraction of OMs with exactly four hits (F4H) is another
647: useful energy indicator. The value of four hits was chosen as a compromise between the
648: number of hits expected from OMs with electrical cables and OMs with optical
649: fibers. OMs with optical fibers typically have more hits than OMs with electrical
650: cables because very little pulse spreading occurs as the signal propagates up
651: the fiber. The level 3 selection criteria uses the output of a neural net with
652: F1H$_{\mathrm{ELEC}}$, F4H, and F1H as input variables (Fig. \ref{fignn}). As selection
653: levels 4 and 5, separate applications of the F4H and F1H$_{\mathrm{ELEC}}$ variables
654: remove persistent lower energy background events.
655:
656: The remaining background muon bundles have a different hit distribution than UHE
657: neutrinos. In the background muon bundles, a large light deposition can be washed out by
658: the continuous, dimmer light deposition from hundreds to tens of thousands of muons
659: tracks. In contrast, UHE muons can have one light deposition that is several orders of
660: magnitude brighter than the light from the rest of the muon track and looks very similar
661: to bright cascades from UHE electron and tau neutrinos. For all cases, the initial cascade
662: reconstruction is generally concentric with this large energy deposition, so ignoring OMs
663: that are within 60 m of the initial cascade reconstruction reduces the fraction of OMs
664: that are triggered with photons from the cascade. For background, the remaining light
665: will be dominated by light depositions from the tracks of the muon bundles and be less
666: likely to reconstruct as a cascade. In contrast, signal events, with their energetic
667: cascades, will still appear cascade-like and reconstruct with a better likelihood
668: (L$_{60}$). The final selection criteria for ``cascade-like'' events (chosen by
669: optimizing the MRF) requires that these events be well reconstructed by a cascade
670: reconstruction performed using only OMs with distances greater than 60~m and reduces the
671: background expectation to 0 events for this subset.
672:
673: The number of events at each selection level for experiment, background, and signal
674: simulation for the ``cascade-like'' subset are shown in Table \ref{tbl-passc}.
675:
676: \subsection{``Muon-like'' Events}
677: Background events in the ``muon-like'' subset are characterized by more uniform,
678: track-like light deposition and are more easily reconstructed by existing reconstruction
679: algorithms than ``cascade-like'' events. A reconstruction algorithm based on
680: parameterization of time residuals from simulated muon bundles is used to reconstruct the
681: zenith angle of the events (Fig. \ref{figzen}). Since most background muon bundles will
682: come from a downgoing direction, while UHE neutrinos will come primarily from the
683: horizontal direction \citep{kle99}, requiring that the zenith angle $>$ 85$^{\circ}$
684: (where a zenith angle of 90$^{\circ}$ is horizontal) reduces the background by a factor
685: of 30. The remaining background in the ``muon-like'' subset are misreconstructed events,
686: since the actual flux close to the horizon is very small. A reconstruction based
687: on the hit pattern of a Cherenkov cone for a minimally ionizing muon is applied
688: to these events \citep{ahr04a}. Selecting only well-reconstructed events using the
689: likelihood of this reconstruction (L$\mathrm{_{muon}}$) is sufficient to remove all
690: background events in this subset. The value of this selection criteria was initially
691: chosen to optimize the MRF for muon neutrinos with an E$^{-2}$ spectrum. However, by
692: increasing the selection value slightly beyond the value which gave the minimum MRF, all
693: background events were rejected with only a few percent drop in the sensitivity (Fig.
694: \ref{figmrf}). Since the uncertainty in the cosmic ray spectrum is very large at these
695: energies, the more stringent selection criterion was applied to correct for the fact that
696: the MRF is optimized without uncertainties.
697:
698: The number of events at each selection level for experiment, background, and signal
699: simulation for the ``muon-like'' subset are shown in Table \ref{tbl-passm}.
700:
701: %This
702: %likelihood was the seed for the zenith angle reconstruction. It is used instead of the
703: %likelihood of the zenith angle reconstruction because its distribution showed better
704: %agreement between simulation and experiment.
705:
706: \section{Statistical and Systematic Uncertainties}\label{sec:unc}
707: Because there is no test beam which can be used to determine the absolute sensitivity of the
708: AMANDA-II detector, calculations of sensitivity rely on simulation. The dominant sources
709: of statistical and systematic uncertainty in this calculation are described below. The
710: systematic uncertainties are assumed to have a flat distribution and are summed in
711: quadrature separately for background and signal. The uncertainties have been included into
712: the final limit using the method described in \citet{teg05}.
713:
714: \subsection{Uncertainties Due to Limited Simulation Statistics}
715: Due to computational requirements, background simulation statistics are somewhat limited.
716: Ideally, one would scale the statistical uncertainty on zero events based on the
717: simulation event weights in nearby non-zero bins. However, the optimized background
718: simulations used in this analysis have large variations in event weights approaching this
719: region, making determination of this factor difficult. Nevertheless, the statistical
720: uncertainties near the edge of the distribution are on the order of the uncertainties for
721: a simulation with a livetime equivalent to the data taking period, so no scaling factor
722: is applied to the statistical uncertainty. A statistical uncertainty of 1.29, the
723: 1$\sigma$ Feldman-Cousins event upper limit on zero observed events \citep{fel98}, is
724: assumed at the final selection level. Signal simulation has an average statistical
725: uncertainty of 5\% for each neutrino flavor.
726:
727: \subsection{Normalization of Cosmic Ray Flux}
728: The average energy of cosmic ray primaries at the penultimate selection level is 4.4 $\times$
729: 10$^{7}$~GeV, which is considerably above the knee in the all-particle cosmic ray
730: spectrum.
731: %This is considerably above what is commonly called the ``knee'' in the cosmic ray
732: %spectrum, a break that occurs around 10$^{7}$~GeV. At these energies only indirect
733: %measurements of the cosmic rays spectrum are possible because of severely reduced flux.
734: Numerous experiments have measured a large spread in the absolute normalization of the
735: flux of cosmic rays at this energy (see \citet{kam07} for a recent review). Estimates of
736: the uncertainty in the normalization of the cosmic ray flux range from 20\% \citep{hor03}
737: to a factor of two \citep{pdg06}. This analysis uses the more conservative uncertainty of
738: a factor of two.
739:
740: \subsection{Cosmic Ray Composition}
741: There is considerable uncertainty in the cosmic ray composition above the knee
742: \citep{pdg06}. We estimate the systematic uncertainty by considering two cases:
743: proton-dominated composition and iron-dominated composition. The simulated background
744: cosmic ray flux is approximated by separately treating proton and iron primaries
745: combined in a total spectrum that becomes effectively iron-dominated above 10$^{7}$~GeV
746: using the method described in \citet{gla99}. The iron-dominated spectrum yields a 30\%
747: higher background event rate than the rate from a proton-dominated spectrum at the
748: penultimate selection level. This value of 30\% is used as the uncertainty due to the
749: cosmic ray composition.
750:
751:
752: \subsection{Detector Sensitivity}
753: The properties of the refrozen ice around each OM, the absolute sensitivity of
754: individual OMs, and obscuration of OMs by nearby power cables can effect the detector
755: sensitivity. This analysis uses the value obtained in \citet{ahr03a} where reasonable
756: variations of these parameters in the simulation were found to cause a 15\% variation in
757: the E$^{-2}$ signal and background passing rate.
758:
759: \subsection{Implementation of Ice Properties}
760: As photons travel through the ice they are scattered and absorbed. The absorption and
761: scattering lengths of the ice around the AMANDA-II detector have been measured very
762: accurately using in situ light sources \citep{ack06}. Uncertainties are introduced due to
763: the limited precision with which these parameters are included in the simulation. Varying
764: the scattering and absorption lengths in the detector simulation by 10\% were found to
765: cause a difference in number of expected signal events (for an E$^{-2}$ spectrum) of 34\%
766: \citep{ack05}, which is used as a conservative estimate of the uncertainty due to
767: implementation of ice properties. If too large of a deviation in background rate
768: relative to the experimental rate was observed for a set of ice property parameters, the
769: background rate was normalized to the experimental rate, and the signal rate was scaled
770: accordingly. This was done to ensure that the variation in absorption and scattering
771: lengths covered a reasonable range of ice properties.
772:
773: \subsection{Neutrino Cross Section}
774: The uncertainty in the standard model neutrino cross section has been quantified recently
775: \citep{anc06} taking into account the experimental uncertainties on the parton
776: distribution functions measured at HERA \citep{che05}, as well as theoretical
777: uncertainties in the effect of heavy quark masses on the parton distribution function
778: evolution and on the calculation of the structure functions. The corresponding maximum
779: variation in the number of expected signal events (for an E$^{-2}$ spectrum) is 10\%, in
780: agreement with previous estimates \citep{ack05}.
781:
782: Screening effects are expected to suppress the neutrino-nucleon cross section at energies
783: in excess of 10$^{8}$~GeV (see e.g. \citet{kut03, ber07}). This has a negligible effect
784: on the number of signal events expected for an E$^{-2}$ spectrum because the majority of
785: signal is found below these energies (Fig. \ref{fig-spect}). Even if the suppression is as
786: extreme as in the Colour Glass Condensate model \citep{hen05}, the event rate decreases
787: by only 11\%.
788:
789: \subsection{Differences in Simulated Distributions}
790: An examination of the L$_{\mathrm{muon}}$ distribution for the ``muon-like'' subset after
791: level 3 of this analysis suggests the background simulation is shifted by one bin
792: relative to the experiment (Fig. \ref{figfinal}). Shifting all simulation distributions to
793: the left by one bin leads to better agreement between the background simulation and
794: experimental distributions and an increase in 8\% in the number of expected signal events
795: for an E$^{-2}$ spectrum.
796:
797:
798: \subsection{The Landau-Pomeranchuk-Migdal (LPM) Effect}
799: At ultra high-energies, the LPM effect suppresses the bremsstrahlung cross section for
800: electrons and the pair-production cross section of photons created in a cascade by an
801: electron neutrino \citep{lan53, mig57}. This lengthens the resultant shower produced by a
802: factor that goes as $\sqrt{E}$. Above 10$^{8}$~GeV, the extended shower length becomes
803: comparable to the spacing between OMs on a string \citep{kle04}. Additionally, as the LPM
804: effect suppresses the bremsstrahlung and pair productions cross sections, photonuclear
805: and electronuclear interactions begin to dominate which lead to the production of muons
806: inside the electromagnetic cascade. Toy simulations were performed which superimposed a
807: muon with an energy of 10$^{5}$~GeV onto a cascade with energy of 10$^{8}$~GeV. While the
808: addition of the muon shifted the L$\mathrm{_{casc}}$ distribution 5\% towards higher
809: (more ``muon-like'') values, the resulting events still passed all selection criteria
810: indicating that the effects of muons created inside cascades are negligible.
811: %Preliminary simulations suggest that the number and
812: %energy of muons produced is relatively small compared to the muons found in a typical
813: %background muon bundle, indicating that the overall characteristics of these events will
814: %resemble muon neutrino signal rather than a background event. Table \ref{tbl-num} shows
815: %that roughly half of the muon neutrino events are considered ``cascade-like,'' indicating
816: %that the addition of a number of low-energy muons will not effect the electron neutrino
817: %cascade rate, especially if the muons are sufficiently collimated. Even if the number and
818: %energy of muons created in a UHE cascade does approximate the characteristics of a
819: %typical background muon bundle, the energy of the initial UHE cascade is still orders of
820: %magnitude higher than any point-like light deposition from one of these co-generated
821: %muon, indicating the initial UHE cascade will still dominate the light deposition.
822:
823: The LPM effect is not included in the simulations of electron neutrinos, but it can be
824: approximated by excluding all electron neutrinos with energies in excess of 10$^{8}$~GeV.
825: This is an overestimation of the uncertainty introduced by the LPM effect, as extended
826: showers may manifest as several separate showers which are likely to survive all selection
827: criteria and the addition of low-energy muons is not expected to significantly alter the
828: UHE cascade light deposition. Neglecting electron neutrinos with energies in excess of
829: 10$^{8}$~GeV reduces the number of expected signal events by 2\% for an E$^{-2}$
830: spectrum.
831:
832:
833: \subsection{Summary of Uncertainties}
834: The systematic errors are shown in Table \ref{tbl-unc}. Summing the systematic errors of
835: the signal simulation in quadrature gives a systematic uncertainty of $\pm$39\%.
836: Combining this with the statistical uncertainty of 5\% per neutrino flavor gives a total
837: maximum uncertainty of 40\%. Following a similar method for the background simulation, the
838: systematic uncertainty is +101\% / -60\%. Scaling the statistical uncertainty of the
839: background simulation by the systematic uncertainty gives a maximum background expectation
840: of fewer than 2.6 events for three years.
841:
842: \section{Results}
843: After applying all selection
844: criteria, no background events are expected for 456.8 days. Incorporating the statistical
845: and systematic uncertainties, the background is expected to be found with a uniform prior
846: probability between 0 and 2.6 events. A possible sensitivity calculation which
847: incorporates these uncertainties can be generated by assuming a flat prior with a mean of
848: 1.3 events and a corresponding data expectation of 1 event. This gives a 90\% CL event
849: upper limit of 3.5 \citep{teg05} and a sensitivity of 1.8 $\times$ 10$^{-7}$ GeV
850: cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ sr$^{-1}$, with the central 90\% of the E$^{-2}$ signal found in the
851: energy range 2 $\times$ 10$^{5}$~GeV to 10$^{9}$~GeV. Table \ref{tbl-num} shows the
852: expected number of each flavor of UHE neutrino passing the final selection level for a
853: 10$^{-6}$ $\times$ E$^{-2}$ flux. The energy spectra of each flavor are shown in Fig.
854: \ref{fig-spect}.
855:
856: Two events are observed in the data sample at the final selection level (Fig.
857: \ref{figfinal}), while fewer than 2.6 background events are expected which gives a
858: 90\% CL average event upper limit of 5.3. After applying all selection criteria, 20 events
859: are expected for a 10$^{-6}$ $\times$ E$^{-2}$ all flavor flux (Table \ref{tbl-num}). The
860: upper limit on the all-flavor neutrino flux (assuming a 1:1:1
861: $\nu_e:\nu_{\mu}:\nu_{\tau}$ flavor ratio) is
862: \begin{equation}
863: \mathrm{E^{2}\Phi_{90\% CL} \le 2.7 \times 10^{-7} GeV\ cm^{-2}\ s^{-1}\ sr^{-1},}
864: \end{equation}
865: \noindent
866: including systematic uncertainties, with the central 90\% of the E$^{-2}$ signal found
867: between the energies of 2 $\times$ 10$^{5}$~GeV and 10$^{9}$~GeV.
868:
869: A number of theories which predict fluxes with non-E$^{-2}$ spectral shapes (Fig.
870: \ref{figrep}) were also tested by reweighting the simulated signal. These include the
871: hidden-core AGN model of \citet{ste92} which has been updated to reflect a better
872: understanding of AGN emission \citep{ste05}, as well as AGN models in which neutrinos are
873: accelerated in optically thin regions \citep{pro96,hal97,man95,mpr00}. Including
874: uncertainties, this analysis restricts at a 90\% CL the AGN models from \citet{hal97} and
875: \citet{mpr00}. Also the previously rejected \citep{ack05} models from \citet{pro96} and
876: \citet{ste92} are rejected at the 90\% CL by this analysis (see Fig. \ref{figagn} and
877: Table \ref{tbl-mrf}). The model by \citet{ste92} builds on a correlation between X-rays
878: and neutrinos from AGNs. Other models using the same correlation give a similar
879: normalization and violate current limits by an order of magnitude as well. As previously
880: pointed out by \citet{bec07}, such a correlation can be excluded.
881:
882: While we do not directly exclude the flux from the \citet{ste05} hidden-core AGN model,
883: it is possible to set limits on the parameters used in the model. In this model, the flux
884: of neutrinos is normalized to the extragalactic MeV photon flux measured by COMPTEL with
885: the assumption that the flux of photons from Seyfert galaxies is responsible for 10\% of
886: this MeV background. If the neutrino flux scales linearly with the photon flux, then the
887: maximum contribution of hidden-core AGNs, such as Seyfert galaxies, to the extragalactic
888: MeV photon flux must be less than 29\%.
889:
890:
891: Fluxes of neutrinos from the decay of topological defects \citep{sig98} and the UHE
892: fluxes required for the Z-bursts mechanism \citep{yos98,kal02a} peak at too high of an
893: energy to be detected by this analysis. Neutrinos from the interaction of cosmic rays
894: with cosmic microwave background photons are produced at too low of a flux for this
895: analysis to detect (see Table \ref{tbl-mrf}).
896:
897:
898: The number of expected events of a given flavor ($\nu$ and $\overline{\nu}$) for
899: spectra not tested in this paper can be calculated using the formula
900: \begin{equation}
901: N_{signal}=T\int{dE_{\nu}d\Omega{\Phi_{\nu}(E_{\nu})A_{\it eff}^{\nu}(E_{\nu}})},
902: \end{equation}
903: \noindent
904: where T is the total livetime (456.8 days), A$_{\it eff}^{\nu}$ is the angle averaged
905: neutrino effective area (Fig. \ref{figaeff}), and $\Phi_{\nu}$ is the flux at the Earth's
906: surface.
907:
908:
909: \section{Conclusion}
910: The diffuse neutrino flux limit for a 1:1:1 $\nu_e:\nu_{\mu}:\nu_{\tau}$ flavor ratio set
911: by this analysis of
912: \begin{equation}
913: \mathrm{E^{2}\Phi_{90\% CL} \le 2.7 \times 10^{-7} GeV\ cm^{-2}\ s^{-1}\ sr^{-1},}
914: \end{equation}
915: is the most stringent to date above 10$^{5}$~GeV. A number of models for neutrino
916: production have been rejected (see Table \ref{tbl-mrf} for a full list). AMANDA-II
917: hardware upgrades which were completed in 2003 should lead to an improvement of the
918: sensitivity at ultra high-energies \citep{sil05}. Additionally, AMANDA-II is now
919: surrounded by the next-generation IceCube detector which is currently under construction.
920: The sensitivity to UHE muon neutrinos for 1 year is expected to increase by roughly an
921: order of magnitude as the IceCube detector approaches its final size of 1~km$^{3}$
922: \citep{ahr04b}.
923:
924:
925:
926: \acknowledgments
927: We acknowledge the support from the following agencies: National Science
928: Foundation-Office of Polar Program; National Science Foundation-Physics Division;
929: University of Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation; Department of Energy, and National
930: Energy Research Scientific Computing Center (supported by the Office of Energy Research
931: of the Department of Energy); the NSF-supported TeraGrid system at the San Diego
932: Supercomputer Center (SDSC); the National Center for Supercomputing Applications
933: (NCSA); Swedish Research Council; Swedish Polar Research Secretariat; Knut and Alice
934: Wallenberg Foundation, Sweden; German Ministry for Education and Research; Deutsche
935: Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG), Germany; Fund for Scientific Research (FNRS-FWO); Flanders
936: Institute to encourage scientific and technological research in industry (IWT); Belgian
937: Federal Office for Scientific, Technical and Cultural affairs (OSTC); the Netherlands
938: Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO); M. Ribordy acknowledges the support of the
939: SNF (Switzerland); A. Kappes and J. D. Zornoza acknowledges the Marie Curie OIF Program;
940: L. Gerhardt acknowledges the support of the University of California, Irvine MPC
941: Computational Cluster and Achievement Rewards for College Scientists (ARCS).
942:
943:
944: \begin{thebibliography}{}
945: \bibitem[Achterberg et al.(2007)]{ach07} Achterberg, A. et al., 2007 Phys. Rev. D, in press (ArXiv:0705.1315).
946: \bibitem[Ackermann et al.(2004)]{ack04} Ackermann, M. et al., 2004, Astroparticle Physics, 22, 127.
947: \bibitem[Ackermann et al.(2005)]{ack05} Ackermann, M. et al., 2005, Astroparticle Physics, 22, 339.
948: \bibitem[Ackermann et al.(2006)]{ack06} Ackermann, M. et al., 2006, Journal of Geophysical Research, 3, D13203.
949: \bibitem[Ahlers et al.(2005)]{ahl05} Ahlers, M. et al., 2005, Phys. Rev. D, 72, 023001.
950: \bibitem[Ahrens et al.(2003a)]{ahr03a} Ahrens, J. et al., 2003, Astrophys. Journal, 583, 1040.
951: \bibitem[Ahrens et al.(2003b)]{ahr03b} Ahrens, J. et al., 2003, Phys. Rev. Lett., 90, 251101.
952: \bibitem[Ahrens et al.(2003c)]{ahr03c} Ahrens, J. et al., 2003, Phys. Rev. D, 67, 012003.
953: \bibitem[Ahrens et al.(2004a)]{ahr04a} Ahrens, J. et al., 2004, Nuclear Instruments and Methods A, 524, 169.
954: \bibitem[Ahrens et al.(2004b)]{ahr04b} Ahrens, J. et al., 2004, Astroparticle Physics, 20, 507.
955: \bibitem[Anchordoqui et al.(2006)]{anc06} Anchordoqui, L., Cooper-Sakar, A., Hooper D., and, Sakar, S., 2006, Phys, Rev. D, 74, 043008.
956: \bibitem[Aynutdinov et al.(2006)]{ayn06} Aynutdinov, V. et al., 2006, Astroparticle Physics, 140.
957: \bibitem[Bahcall \& Waxman(1998)]{bah98} Bahcall, J. and Waxman, E., 1998, Phys. Rev. D, 59, 023002.
958: \bibitem[Barwick et al.(2006)]{bar06} Barwick, S. et al., 2006, Phys. Rev. Lett., 96, 171101.
959: \bibitem[Becker et al.(2007)]{bec07} Becker, J.~K., {Gro{\ss}}, A., {M\"unich}, K., {Dreyer}, J., {Rhode}, W. and {Biermann}, P.~L., 2007, Astroparticle Physics, in press (astro-ph/0607427).
960: \bibitem[Berger et al.(2007)]{ber07} Berger, E., Block, M., McKay, D., and Tan, C., 2007, preprint (hep-ph/0708.1960v1).
961: \bibitem[Chekanov et al.(2005)]{che05} Chekanov, S. et al., 2005, European Physical Journal C, 42, 1.
962: \bibitem[Chirkin \& Rhode(2004)]{chi04} Chirkin, D. and Rhode, W., 2004, preprint (hep-ph/0407075).
963: \bibitem[Engel et al.(2001)]{eng01} Engel, R., Seckel, D., and Stanev T., 2001, Phys. Rev. D, 64, 093010. Curve shown for $\Lambda$$=$0.7, taken from ftp://ftp.bartol.udel.edu/seckel/ess-gzk/flux\_n3\_8\_flat\_om0p3.txt.
964: \bibitem[Feldman \& Cousins(1998)]{fel98} Feldman, G. and Cousins, F., 1998, Phys. Rev. D, 57, 3873.
965: \bibitem[Gandhi et al.(1998)]{gan98} Gandhi, R., Quigg, C., Reno, M., and Sarcevic, I., 1998, Phys. Rev. D, 58, 093009.
966: \bibitem[Gerhardt(2005)]{ger05} Gerhardt, L., 2005, Proc. 29th Int. Cosmic Ray Conf., Pune, India, 111 (astro-ph/0509330).
967: \bibitem[Gerhardt(2007)]{ger06} Gerhardt, L., 2007, Proc. 14th Int. Conf. on Supersymmetry and the Unification of Fundamental Interactions, AIP Conf. Proc. 903, 622.
968: %\bibitem[Glasstetter et al.(1999)]{gla99} Glasstetter, R. et al., 1999, FZKA-6345E.
969: \bibitem[Glasstetter et al.(1999)]{gla99} Glasstetter, R. et al., 1999, Proc. 26th Int. Cosmic Ray Conf., Utah, USA, 1, 222.
970: \bibitem[Halzen \& Zas(1997)]{hal97} Halzen, F. and Zas, E., 1997, Astrophys. Journal, 488, 669.
971: \bibitem[Hamamatsu(1999)]{ham99} Hamamatsu, 1999, Photomultiplier Tubes, Basics and Applications, second ed.
972: \bibitem[Heck(1999)]{hec99} Heck, D., 1999, DESY-PROC-1999-01, 227.
973: \bibitem[Henley \& Jalilian-Marian(2005)]{hen05} Henley, E. and Jalilian-Marian, J., 2005, preprint (hep-ph/0512220v1).
974: \bibitem[Hill \& Rawlins(2003)]{hil03} Hill, G. and Rawlins, K., 2003, Astroparticle Physics, 19, 393.
975: \bibitem[H\"orandel(2003)]{hor03} H\"orandel, J., 2003, Astroparticle Physics, 19, 193.
976: \bibitem[Hundertmark(1998)]{hun98} Hundertmark, S., 1998, Proc. 1$^{st}$ Workshop Methodical Aspects of Underwater/Ice Neutrino Telescopes, Zeuthen, Germany.
977: \bibitem[Kalashev et al.(2002a)]{kal02a} Kalashev, O. et al., 2002, Phys. Rev. D 65, 103003.
978: \bibitem[Kalashev et al.(2002b)]{kal02b} Kalashev, O. et al., 2002, Phys. Rev. D 66, 063004.
979: \bibitem[Kampert(2007)]{kam07} Kampert, K.-H., 2007, Nuclear Physics B (Proc. Suppl.), 165, 294.
980: \bibitem[Kashti \& Waxman(2005)]{kas05} Kashti, T. and Waxman, E. Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 181101.
981: \bibitem[Klein \& Mann(1999)]{kle99} Klein, J. and Mann, A., 1999, Astroparticle Physics 10, 321.
982: \bibitem[Klein(2004)]{kle04} Klein, S., 2004, preprint (astro-ph/0412546v1).
983: \bibitem[Kowalski \& Gazizov(2005)]{kow05} Kowalski, M. and Gazizov, A., 2005, Computer Physics Communications, 172, 203.
984: %\bibitem[Kowalski \& Gazizov(2003)]{kow03} Kowalski, M. and Gazizov, A., 2003, Proc. 28th Int. Cosmic Ray Conf., Tsukuba, Japan, 1459.
985: \bibitem[Kravchenko et al.(2006)]{kra06} Kravchenko, I. et al., 2006, Phys. Rev. D, 73, 082002.
986: \bibitem[Kutak \& Kwieci\`nski(2003)]{kut03} Kutak, K. and Kwieci\`nski, J., 2003, preprint (hep-ph/0303209v4).
987: \bibitem[Landau \& Pomeranchuk(1953)]{lan53} Landau, L. and. Pomeranchuk, I., 1953, Dok. Akad. Nauk SSSR, 92, 535.
988: \bibitem[Lipari(1993)]{lip93} Lipari, P., 1993, Astroparticle Physics, 1, 195.
989: \bibitem[Mannheim(1995)]{man95} Mannheim, K., 1995, Astroparticle Physics, 3, 295.
990: \bibitem[Mannheim et al.(2000)]{mpr00} Mannheim, K., Protheroe, R. J., and Rachen, J., 2000, Phys. Rev. D, 63, 023003.
991: \bibitem[Migdal(1957)]{mig57} Migdal, A., 1957, JETP, 5, 527.
992: \bibitem[Particle Data Group(2006)]{pdg06} Particle Data Group, 2006, Journal of Phys. G. 33, 1.
993: \bibitem[Pohl(2004)]{poh04} Pohl A.C., 2004, Licenciate thesis, Kalmar University.
994: \bibitem[Protheroe(1996)]{pro96} Protheroe, R., 1996, preprint (astro-ph/9607165).
995: \bibitem[Silvestri(2005)]{sil05} Silvestri, A., 2005, Proc. 29th Int. Cosmic Ray Conf., Pune, India, 431.
996: \bibitem[Stecker(2005)]{ste05} Stecker, F.,2005, Phys. Rev. D, 72, 107301.
997: \bibitem[Stecker et al.(1992)]{ste92} Stecker, F., Done, C., Salamon, M., and Sommers, P., 1992, Phys. Rev. Lett., 69, 2738.
998: \bibitem[Sigl et al.(1998)]{sig98} Sigl, G., Lee, S., Bhattacharjee, P., and Yoshida, S., 1998, Phys. Rev. D, 59, 043504.
999: \bibitem[Tegenfeldt \& Conrad(2005)]{teg05} Tegenfeldt, F. and Conrad, J., 2005, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A, 539, 407.
1000: \bibitem[Wiebel-Sooth et al.(1999)]{wie99} Wiebel-Sooth, B., Biermann, P., and Meyer, H., 1999, col. VI/3c, Springer Verlag, 37.
1001: %%\bibitem[Wischnewski(2001)]{wis01} Wischnewski, R., 2001, Proc. 27th Int. Cosmic Ray Conf., Hamburg, Germany, 1105.
1002: \bibitem[Yoshida et al.(1998)]{yos98} Yoshida, S., Sigl, G., and Lee S., 1998, Phys. Rev. Lett., 81, 5505.
1003: \bibitem[Zas et al.(1993)]{zas93} Zas, E., Halzen, F., and V\'{a}zquez, R., 1993, Astroparticle Physics, 1, 297.
1004: \end{thebibliography}
1005:
1006: \clearpage
1007:
1008: \begin{table}
1009: \begin{center}
1010: \caption{Selection criteria.\label{tbl-cuts}}
1011: \begin{tabular}{cll}
1012: \tableline\tableline
1013: Level & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Selection Criteria}\\
1014: \tableline
1015: 0 &\multicolumn{2}{c}{Hit Cleaning and Retriggering}\\
1016: 1 &\multicolumn{2}{c}{F1H $<$ 0.72}\\
1017: &\multicolumn{2}{c}{NHITS $>$ 140}\\
1018: 2 &\multicolumn{2}{c}{F1H $<$ 0.53}\\
1019: \tableline
1020: &``Cascade-like'' &``Muon-like''\\
1021: \tableline
1022: 3 &L$_\mathrm{{casc}}$ $<$ 7& L$_\mathrm{{casc}}$ $\ge$ 7\\
1023: &Neural Net $>$ 0.93 &Zenith Angle $>$ 85\\
1024: 4 &F4H $<$ 0.1 &L$_{\mathrm{muon}}$ $<$ 6.9\\
1025: 5 &F1H$_{\mathrm{ELEC}}$ $<$ 0.56 & -\\
1026: 6 &L$_{60}$ $<$ 6.6 & -\\
1027: \tableline
1028: \end{tabular}
1029: \end{center}
1030: \end{table}
1031:
1032: \clearpage
1033: \begin{table}
1034: \begin{center}
1035: \caption{Number of experimental, simulated background, and simulated signal events in the
1036: ``cascade-like'' subset at each selection level for 456.8 days.\label{tbl-passc}}
1037: %\begin{tabular}{cllllll}
1038: \begin{tabular}{ccccccc}
1039: \tableline\tableline
1040: Level & Data & BG Simulation & Signal Simulation\\
1041: \tableline
1042: 0 &2.7 $\times 10^{9}$ & 1.8$^{+1.8}_{-1.1}$ $\times 10^{9}$ & 621.7\\
1043: 1 &3.9 $\times 10^{7}$ & 3.1$^{+3.1}_{-1.8}$ $\times 10^{7}$ & 270.8\\
1044: 2 &1.7 $\times 10^{4}$ &1.4$^{+1.4}_{-0.8}$ $\times 10^{4}$ &89.2\\
1045: 3 &155 & 62$^{+63}_{-37}$ &32.0\\
1046: 4 &151 & 61$^{+62}_{-37}$ &31.0\\
1047: 5 &46 & 32$^{+32}_{-19}$ &27.1\\
1048: 6 &0 &0$^{+2.6}$ &16.0\\
1049: \tableline
1050: \end{tabular}
1051: \tablecomments{{Levels 0 and 1 show combined numbers for both ``muon-like'' and
1052: ``cascade-like'' subsets. Signal is shown with a low energy threshold of 10$^{4}$~GeV for
1053: a neutrino spectrum of dN/dE $=$ 10$^{-6}$~$\times$
1054: E$^{-2}$~GeV$^{-1}$~cm$^{-2}$~s$^{-1}$~sr$^{-1}$, with an assumed 1:1:1
1055: $\nu_e:\nu_{\mu}:\nu_{\tau}$ flavor ratio. Values at selection level 0 and 1 for data and
1056: background simulation are extrapolated from the 2000 datasets. The background simulation
1057: is shown with systematic and statistical uncertainties described in Section
1058: \ref{sec:unc}. The number of ``muon-like'' events are shown in Table \ref{tbl-passm}.}}
1059: \end{center}
1060: \end{table}
1061:
1062: \clearpage
1063: \begin{table}
1064: \begin{center}
1065: \caption{Number of experimental, simulated background, and simulated signal events in the
1066: ``muon-like'' subset at each selection level for 456.8 days.\label{tbl-passm}}
1067: %\begin{tabular}{cllllll}
1068: \begin{tabular}{ccccccc}
1069: \tableline\tableline
1070: Level & Data & BG Simulation & Signal Simulation\\
1071: \tableline
1072: 0 &2.7 $\times 10^{9}$ & 1.8$^{+1.8}_{-1.1}$ $\times 10^{9}$ & 621.7\\
1073: 1 &3.9 $\times 10^{7}$ & 3.1$^{+3.1}_{-1.8}$ $\times 10^{7}$ & 270.8\\
1074: 2 &1.4 $\times 10^{6}$ &9.0$^{+9.1}_{-5.4}$ $\times 10^{5}$ &85.2\\
1075: 3 &4.6 $\times 10^{4}$ &2.7$^{+2.7}_{-1.6}$ $\times 10^{4}$ &57.9\\
1076: 4 &2 &0$^{+2.6}$ &4.0\\
1077: \tableline
1078: \end{tabular}
1079: \tablecomments{{Levels 0 and 1 show combined numbers for both ``muon-like'' and
1080: ``cascade-like'' subsets. Signal is shown with a low energy threshold of 10$^{4}$~GeV for
1081: a neutrino spectrum of dN/dE $=$ 10$^{-6}$~$\times$
1082: E$^{-2}$~GeV$^{-1}$~cm$^{-2}$~s$^{-1}$~sr$^{-1}$, with an assumed 1:1:1
1083: $\nu_e:\nu_{\mu}:\nu_{\tau}$ flavor ratio. Values at selection level 0 and 1 for data and
1084: background simulation are extrapolated from the 2000 datasets. The background simulation
1085: is shown with systematic and statistical uncertainties described in Section
1086: \ref{sec:unc}. The number of ``cascade-like'' events are shown in Table \ref{tbl-passc}.}}
1087: \end{center}
1088: \end{table}
1089:
1090: \clearpage
1091: \begin{table}
1092: \begin{center}
1093: \caption{Simulation Uncertainties\label{tbl-unc}}
1094: \begin{tabular}{lrr}
1095: \tableline\tableline
1096: Source & BG Sim & Sig Sim \\
1097: \tableline
1098: Cosmic Ray Normalization & +100\% / -50\%&-\\
1099: Cosmic Ray Composition & -30\%&-\\
1100: Detector Sensitivity & $\pm$15\%& $\pm$15\%\\
1101: Ice Properties &-& $\pm$34\%\\
1102: Neutrino Cross Section &- &$\pm$10\%\\
1103: Simulation Distribution &-&+8\%\\
1104: LPM Effect &-&-2\%\\
1105: \tableline
1106: Total & +101\% / -60\%& +39\% / -39\%\\
1107: \tableline
1108: \end{tabular}
1109: \end{center}
1110: \end{table}
1111:
1112:
1113: \clearpage
1114: \begin{table}
1115: \begin{center}
1116: \caption{Number of simulated neutrino events in the ``cascade-like'' and ``muon-like''
1117: subsets passing all selection criteria for three years for a neutrino spectrum of
1118: d(N$_{\nu_e}$+N$_{\nu_\mu}$+N$_{\nu_\tau}$)/dE $=$ 10$^{-6}$~$\times$
1119: E$^{-2}$~GeV $^{-1}$~cm$^{-2}$~s$^{-1}$~sr$^{-1}$.\label{tbl-num}}
1120: \begin{tabular}{lccc}
1121: \tableline\tableline
1122: Neutrino Flavor & ``Cascade-like''& ``Muon-like''& Total\\
1123: \tableline
1124: Electron &7.7 &0.1 &7.8\\
1125: Muon &3.9 &3.6 &7.5\\
1126: Tau &4.4 &0.3 &4.7\\
1127: All Flavors &16.0 &4.0 &20.0\\
1128: %2000 &2.2 &0.9 &1.1 &4.2\\
1129: %2001 &3.0 &3.2 &1.8 &8.0\\
1130: %2002 &2.6 &3.5 &1.7 &7.8\\
1131: %\tableline
1132: \tableline
1133: \end{tabular}
1134: \end{center}
1135: \end{table}
1136:
1137: \clearpage
1138: \begin{table}
1139: \begin{center}
1140: \caption{Flux models, the number of neutrinos of all flavors expected at the Earth at the
1141: final selection level, and the MRFs for 456.8 days of livetime.\label{tbl-mrf}}
1142: \begin{tabular}{lccc}
1143: \tableline\tableline
1144:
1145: Model & $\nu_{all}$ & MRF & Reference\\
1146: \tableline
1147: AGN\tablenotemark{a} &20.6 &0.3 &\citep{pro96}\\
1148: AGN\tablenotemark{a} &17.4 &0.3 &\citep{ste92}\\
1149: AGN\tablenotemark{a} &8.8 &0.6 &\citep{hal97}\\
1150: AGN\tablenotemark{a} &5.9 &0.9 &\citep{mpr00}\\
1151: AGN RL B\tablenotemark{a} &4.5 &1.2 &\citep{man95}\\
1152: Z-burst &2.0 &2.7 &\citep{kal02a}\\
1153: AGN &1.8 &2.9 &\citep{ste05}\\
1154: GZK $\nu$ norm AGASA\tablenotemark{b} &1.8 &2.9 &\citep{ahl05}\\
1155: GZK $\nu$ mono-energetic &1.2 &4.4 &\citep{kal02b}\\
1156: GZK $\nu$ a$=$2 &1.1 &4.8 &\citep{kal02b}\\
1157: GZK $\nu$ norm HiRes\tablenotemark{b} &1.0 &5.3 &\citep{ahl05}\\
1158: TD &0.9 &5.9 &\citep{sig98}\\
1159: AGN RL A\tablenotemark{a} &0.3 &18.0 &\citep{man95}\\
1160: Z-burst &0.1 &53.0 &\citep{yos98}\\
1161: GZK $\nu$ &0.06 &88.0 &\citep{eng01}\\
1162: \tableline
1163: \end{tabular}
1164: \tablenotetext{a}{{These values have been divided by two to account for neutrino oscillation
1165: from a source with an initial 1:2:0 $\nu_{e}$:$\nu_{\mu}$:$\nu_{\tau}$ flux.}}
1166: \tablenotetext{b}{{Lower energy threshold of 10$^{7}$~GeV applied.}}
1167: \tablecomments{{A MRF of less than one indicates that the model is excluded with 90\%
1168: confidence.}}
1169: \end{center}
1170: \end{table}
1171:
1172:
1173: \clearpage
1174: \thispagestyle{empty}
1175: \begin{figure}
1176: \epsscale{.80}
1177: \plotone{f1.eps}
1178: \caption{Simulated muon neutrino event with an energy of 3.8 $\times$ 10$^{8}$~GeV. The
1179: muon passes roughly 70~m outside the instrumented volume of the detector. Colored circles
1180: represent hit OMs. The color of the circle indicates the hit time (red is earliest), with
1181: multiple colors indicating multiple hits in that OM. The size of the circle is correlated
1182: with the number of photons produced.\label{figevt}}
1183: \end{figure}
1184:
1185: \clearpage
1186: \begin{figure}
1187: \epsscale{.80}
1188: \plotone{f2.eps}
1189: \caption{Distance of closest approach to the detector center for muons from UHE muon
1190: neutrinos (shown with an E$^{-2}$ spectrum) which pass all selection criteria of this
1191: analysis.\label{figdist}}
1192: \end{figure}
1193:
1194: \begin{figure}
1195: \plotone{f3.eps}
1196: \caption{All-flavor UHE neutrino flux limit for 2000-2002 over the range which contains
1197: the central 90\% of the expected signal with an E$^{-2}$ spectrum. Also shown are several
1198: representative models: St05 from \citet{ste05} multiplied by 3, P96 from \citet{pro96}
1199: multiplied by 3/2, Eng01 from \citet{eng01}, Si98 from \citet{sig98}, Yosh98 from
1200: \citet{yos98}, Lip93 from \citet{lip93}, and the Waxman-Bahcall upper bound \citep{bah98}
1201: multiplied by 3/2. Existing experimental limits shown are from the RICE \citep{kra06},
1202: ANITA-lite \citep{bar06}, and Baikal \citep{ayn06} experiments, the UHE limit from
1203: AMANDA-B10 \citep{ack05}, the lower-energy diffuse muon limit multiplied by 3
1204: \citep{ach07} and cascade limit \citep{ack04} from AMANDA-II.\label{figrep}}
1205: \end{figure}
1206:
1207: \begin{figure}
1208: \plotone{f4.eps}
1209: \caption{NHITS distribution for the experiment, background, and E$^{-2}$ muon neutrino
1210: signal simulations before level 1 of this analysis.\label{fignhits}}
1211: \end{figure}
1212:
1213: \begin{figure}
1214: \plotone{f5.eps}
1215: \caption{Distribution of F1H (the fraction of OMs with a single hit) for the experiment,
1216: background, and E$^{-2}$ muon neutrino signal simulations after level 1 of this analysis.
1217: The average F1H drops with energy (see Fig. \ref{figf1he}).\label{figf1h}}
1218: \end{figure}
1219:
1220: \begin{figure}
1221: \plotone{f6.eps}
1222: \caption{F1H (top) and F1H$_{\mathrm{ELEC}}$ (bottom) distributions for various energy
1223: decades of muon neutrino signal. These variables serve as rough estimator of energy for
1224: the UHE analysis.\label{figf1he}}
1225: \end{figure}
1226:
1227: \begin{figure}
1228: \plotone{f7.eps}
1229: \caption{Distribution of L$_{\mathrm{casc}}$ for the experiment, background, and
1230: E$^{-2}$ electron, muon, and tau neutrino signal simulations after level 2 of this
1231: analysis. Events with L$_{\mathrm{casc}} < 7$ are ``cascade-like,'' and events with
1232: L$_{\mathrm{casc}} \ge 7$ are ``muon-like.''\label{figjk23}}
1233: \end{figure}
1234:
1235: \begin{figure}
1236: \plotone{f8.eps}
1237: \caption{F1H$_{\mathrm{ELEC}}$ (the fraction of electrical OMs with a single hit)
1238: distribution for the experiment, background, and E$^{-2}$ electron, muon, and tau
1239: neutrino signal simulations in the ``cascade-like'' subset after level two of this
1240: analysis.\label{figf1helec}}
1241: \end{figure}
1242:
1243: \begin{figure}
1244: \plotone{f9.eps}
1245: \caption{Distribution of neural net output for the experiment, background, and E$^{-2}$
1246: electron, muon, and tau neutrino signal simulations in the ``cascade-like'' subset after
1247: level two of this analysis. Signal events are expected near one, while background events
1248: are expected near zero.\label{fignn}}
1249: \end{figure}
1250:
1251: \begin{figure}
1252: \plotone{f10.eps}
1253: \caption{Reconstructed zenith angle distribution for the experiment, background, and
1254: E$^{-2}$ electron, muon, and tau neutrino signal simulations in the ``muon-like'' subset
1255: after level two of this analysis. Zenith angles of 90$^{\circ}$ correspond to horizontal
1256: events, and zenith angles of 0$^{\circ}$ are downgoing events.\label{figzen}}
1257: \end{figure}
1258:
1259: \begin{figure}
1260: \plotone{f11.eps}
1261: \caption{Model rejection factor for 10$^{-6}$ $\times$ E$^{-2}$ muon neutrinos in the
1262: ``muon-like'' subset as a function of cut level for L$_{\mathrm{muon}}$.\label{figmrf}}
1263: \end{figure}
1264:
1265:
1266: \begin{figure}
1267: \plotone{f12.eps}
1268: \caption{Energy spectra of electron, muon, and tau neutrino signal events
1269: (d(N$_{\nu_e}$+N$_{\nu_\mu}$+N$_{\nu_\tau}$)/dE $=$ 10$^{-6}$~$\times$
1270: E$^{-2}$~GeV $^{-1}$~cm$^{-2}$~s$^{-1}$~sr$^{-1}$) which pass all selection
1271: criteria. The peak in the electron neutrino spectrum just below 10$^{7}$~GeV is due
1272: to the Glashow resonance.\label{fig-spect}}
1273: \end{figure}
1274: \begin{figure}
1275: \plotone{f13.eps}
1276: \caption{L$_{\mathrm{muon}}$ distribution for the experiment, background, and 4.5
1277: $\times$ 10$^{-4}$ $\times$ E$^{-2}$ muon neutrino signal simulations (arbitrary
1278: normalization) in the ``muon-like'' subset after level three of this analysis. Two
1279: experimental events survive the final selection criteria of L$_{\mathrm{muon}}$ $<$ 6.9.
1280: \label{figfinal}}
1281: \end{figure}
1282:
1283: \begin{figure}
1284: \plotone{f14.eps}
1285: \caption{AGN fluxes tested in this paper. Lines denote the model predictions and symbols
1286: denote the 90\% CL limits on the predictions derived by this analysis. The models rejected
1287: at the 90\% CL shown are: H\&Z97 from \citet{hal97}, P96 from \citet{pro96}, and MPR00
1288: from \citet{mpr00}. Also shown are models close to being rejected: M95 RL B from
1289: \citet{man95} and St05 from \citet{ste05}. See Table \ref{tbl-mrf} for exact
1290: numbers.\label{figagn}}
1291: \end{figure}
1292:
1293: \begin{figure}
1294: \plotone{f15.eps}
1295: \caption{Angle-averaged neutrino effective area at final selection level as a function of
1296: neutrino energy for electron, muon, and tau neutrinos. The peak in the electron neutrino
1297: effective area just below 10$^{7}$~GeV is due to the Glashow resonance.\label{figaeff}}
1298: \end{figure}
1299:
1300: \end{document}
1301: