1: %%\documentstyle[preprint,eqsecnum,aps,epsfig]{revtex}
2: \documentstyle[eqsecnum,aps,epsfig]{revtex}
3: \begin{document}
4: \draft
5: \preprint{Draft Nb. 1}
6: \title{
7: Simulation accuracy of long range muon propagation in medium:\\
8: analysis of error sources
9: }
10: \author{Edgar V. Bugaev, Igor A. Sokalski, Sergey I. Klimushin}
11: \address{
12: Institute for Nuclear Research, Russian Academy of Science,
13: 60th October Anniversary prospect 7a, Moscow 117312, Russia
14: }
15: \date{\today}
16: \maketitle
17: \begin{abstract}
18: Knowledge of atmospheric muon flux intensity at large depths is extremely
19: important for neutrino telescopes located deep under ground, water or ice.
20: One of the methods to transform muon sea-level spectrum into depth one is
21: to apply Monte Carlo technique which directly takes into account
22: stochastical nature of energy loss. In order to decrease computation time
23: down to acceptable level one has to use simplifications resulting in
24: systematic errors which in some cases may distort result essentially. Here
25: in this paper we present our analysis for dependence of computed
26: depth muon flux upon the most important parameters of muon transport Monte
27: Carlo algorithm which was done with the MUM (MUons+Medium) code.
28: Contribution of different simplifications to the resulting error is
29: considered, ranked and compared with uncertainties which come from
30: parametrization accuracy both for sea-level muon spectrum and for muon
31: cross sections.
32: \end{abstract}
33: \pacs{PACS number(s): 13.85Tp, 96.40.Tv, 02.70Lq}
34:
35: %%\narrowtext
36: \widetext
37:
38: \section{INTRODUCTION}
39: \label{sec:int1}
40:
41: In order to obtain muon spectrum and value for integral muon flux at large
42: depths where existing and planned neutrino telescopes are located (one to
43: several kilometers of water equivalent) one has to perform several steps
44: starting with interactions of primary cosmic rays in atmosphere. The last
45: step of this procedure is transportation of muons from sea level down to
46: detector location. It can be done both with analytical or semianalytical
47: technique and Monte Carlo (MC) simulation
48: which directly takes into account that muon energy loss represents an
49: essentially stochastic process. MC codes for muon transportation have to
50: use some simplifications to optimize equilibrium between reasonable
51: computation time, desirable accuracy and neccessary statistics.
52:
53: The usual approximation when calculating the muon propagation through a
54: medium is the following: muon interactions with comparatively large energy
55: transfers, i.e., when fraction of energy lost $v=\Delta E/E$ exceeds some
56: value $v_{cut} \sim$ 10$^{-3}$--10$^{-2}$, are taken into account by direct
57: simulation of $v \ge v_{cut}$ for each single interaction according to
58: shape of differential cross sections $d\sigma(E,v)/dv$ (these interactions
59: lead to ``stochastic'' energy loss or SEL) while the part of interaction
60: with relatively small $v$ is treated by the approximate concept of
61: ``continuum'' energy loss (CEL), i.e., using the function
62: $[dE(E)/dx]_{CEL}$ which is obtained from formula
63: \begin{eqnarray}
64: \left[
65: \frac{dE}{dx}(E)
66: \right]
67: _{CEL} &\! = & \frac{N_{A}}{A}E
68: \left(\:
69: \int\limits_{v_{min}^{\gamma}}^{v_{cut}}\frac{d\sigma^{\gamma}(E,v)}{dv}v\,dv
70: \right) +
71: \frac{N_{A}}{A}E
72: \left(\:
73: \int\limits_{v_{min}^{e^{+}e^{-}}}^{v_{cut}}\frac{d\sigma^{e^{+}e^{-}}(E,v)}{dv}v\,dv
74: \right) \nonumber\\
75: &\!+&
76: \frac{N_{A}}{A}E
77: \left(\:
78: \int\limits_{v_{min}^{pn}}^{v_{cut}}\frac{d\sigma^{pn}(E,v)}{dv}v\,dv
79: \right) +
80: \left[
81: \frac{dE}{dx}(E)
82: \right]_{B-B} -
83: \frac{N_{A}}{A}E
84: \left(\:
85: \int\limits_{v_{cut}}^{v_{max}^{\delta}}\frac{d\sigma^{\delta}(E,v)}{dv}v\,dv
86: \right) .
87: \label{CL}
88: \end{eqnarray}
89: Here $N_{A}$ is the Avogadro number; $A$ is the atomic weight; indexes
90: $\gamma$, $e^{+}e^{-}$, $pn$ and $\delta$ correspond to bremsstrahlung,
91: direct $e^{+}e^{-}$-pair production, photonuclear interaction and knock-on
92: electron production, respectively; $v_{min}$ and $v_{max}$ are the minimum
93: and the maximum kinematically allowed fraction of energy lost for
94: corresponding process; term $[dE(E)/dx]_{B-B}$ represents Bethe-Bloch
95: formula with correction for density effect.
96: Notice that actually one has to compute
97: CEL, as well as all total cross sections separately for each kind of atoms
98: given material consists of and then add them to each other with different
99: weights but here and below in the text we omit this detail and give only
100: general expressions. One is forced to decompose energy loss because
101: simulation of all interactions with $v \ge v_{min}$ would result in
102: infinite computation time due to steep dependence of muon cross sections on
103: $v$ (they decrease with $v$ at least as $d\sigma(E,v)/dv \propto v^{-1}$
104: and for some processes are not finite at $v\to$ 0). Number of interactions
105: to be simulated per unit of muon path grows, roughly, as
106: $N_{int} \propto v_{cut}^{-1}$ along with computation time. On the other
107: hand, setting $v_{cut}$ to large value may affect simulation accuracy.
108: Thus, the question is {\it how large value of $v_{cut}$ may be chosen to
109: keep result within desirable accuracy}?
110:
111: The second problem can be formulated as follows: {\it if it is necessary
112: to include ionization in SEL, at all}? Small energy transfers strongly
113: dominate at knock-on electron production
114: ($d\sigma^{\delta}(E,v)/dv \propto v^{-2}$), so this process is almost
115: non-stochastic and it seems to be reasonable to omit the last term in
116: expression for CEL (Eq.~(\ref{CL})) and exclude knock-on electrons from
117: simulation procedure when simulating SEL, i.e., to treat ionization
118: completely as ``continuous'' process which saves computation time
119: noticeable. How much does it affect the result of simulation?
120:
121: Influence of these factors on simulated result was discussed in
122: literature (see, e.g., Refs.~\cite{N94,lipari,music1,lagutin1}) but, in our
123: opinion, more detailed analysis on which further improvement of muon
124: propagation MC algorithms could be based is still lacking.
125: In presented work we undertook an attempt to investigate in
126: details with the MUM (MUons+Medium) muon propagation code (Ref.~\cite{MUM})
127: the influence of $v_{cut}$ and model of ionization energy loss
128: upon result of MC simulation. Resulting errors are compared with
129: uncertainties which come from parametrization accuracy both for sea-level
130: muon spectrum and for muon cross sections. Our analysis allows to rank
131: different uncertainties according to their importance, expose ones to
132: which special attention should be put and choose the most
133: adequate setting of MC parameters at simulation for this or that purpose.
134:
135: We briefly describe the main features of the MUM code which was a basic
136: instrument for reported investigation and give a short review of principal
137: variables have been studied in Sec.~\ref{sec:method}.
138: Sec.~\ref{sec:results} presents results of simulation for survival
139: probabilities and muon flux intensities with different settings of
140: simulation paremeters. In Sec.~\ref{sec:discussion} we analyse results of
141: simulations presented in Sec.~\ref{sec:results}, compare them with other
142: published results and give some basic inferences.
143: Sec.~\ref{sec:conclusions} gives general conclusions.
144:
145: \section{Method}
146: \label{sec:method}
147:
148: Description of the MUM code which was used to obtain presented results has
149: been published in Ref.~\cite{MUM}. Here we only dwell briefly on those
150: features of the code which seem to be important in the frame of discussed
151: problem:
152:
153: \begin{itemize}
154: \item[-] the most recent results on parametrizations for muon
155: cross sections are used in the code;
156: \item[-] we tried to decrease the ``methodical'' part of systematic error
157: due to interpolation, numerical integration, etc., down to as low level as
158: possible, especial attention was put on simulation procedures for free path
159: and fraction of energy lost;
160: \item[-] the most important parameters, like value of $v_{cut}$, model for
161: ionization loss, kind of medium, parametrizations for muon cross sections
162: are changeable and represent input parameters for initiation routine;
163: \end{itemize}
164:
165: The accuracy of simulation algorithm used in MUM was shown in
166: Ref.~\cite{MUM} to be high enough to perform systematically significant
167: analysis which is presented below.
168:
169: In order to study how different factors influence upon result of simulation
170: we performed several sets of simulations both for propagation of
171: monoenergetic
172: muon beam and muons sampled by real sea-level spectrum (in the later case we
173: limited ourselves by simulation only vertical muons) through pure water
174: down to depths from $D =$ 1 km to $D =$ 40 km.
175: Of course, depths of more than
176: several kilometers of water for vertical muons do not concern any real
177: detector but simulations for larger depths allow us to study general
178: appropriatenesses for large muon ranges which correspond, for instance, to
179: nearly horizontal muons. Several runs were done for standard rock ($A=$ 22,
180: $Z=$ 11, $\rho=$ 2.65 g cm$^{-3}$), as well. Muons whose energy decreased
181: down to $E$ = 0.16 GeV (the Cherenkov threshold for muon in water) were
182: considered as stopped ones. We tested different settings of parameters
183: which were as follows.
184:
185: \begin{itemize}
186: \item[(a)] $v_{cut}$, which changed within a range of
187: $v_{cut}=$ 10$^{-4}$ to
188: $v_{cut}=$ 0.2. Actually, ``inner'' accuracy of the MUM code becomes
189: somewhat worse at $v_{cut} >$ 5$\times$10$^{-2}$, especially if
190: fluctuations in ionization are not simulated (Ref.~\cite{MUM}). So, results
191: for $v_{cut}$ = 0.1 for $v_{cut}$ = 0.2 are presented here only to
192: illustrate some general qualitative appropriatenesses.
193: \item[(b)] Model for ionization loss which was treated both as completely
194: ``continuous'' and ``stochastic'' with simulation of energy lost if
195: knock-on electron energy $\Delta E \ge v_{cut}\,E$.
196: \item[(c)] Parametrization for vertical sea-level conventional
197: atmospheric muon spectrum.
198: Two spectra were tested, namely one proposed in Ref.~\cite{bks1} (basic):
199: \begin{equation}
200: \frac{dN}{dE}=\frac{0.175\:E^{-2.72}}{cm^{2}\:s\:sr\:GeV}
201: \left(
202: \frac{1}{\displaystyle
203: 1+\frac{E}{\displaystyle
204: 103\:GeV}}+
205: \frac{0.037}{\displaystyle
206: 1+\frac{E}{\displaystyle
207: 810\:GeV}}
208: \right),
209: \label{bknsspec}
210: \end{equation}
211: and widely used Gaisser spectrum (Ref.~\cite{gaisser}):
212: \begin{equation}
213: \frac{dN}{dE}=\frac{0.14\:E^{-2.7}}{cm^{2}\:s\:sr\:GeV}
214: \left(
215: \frac{1}{\displaystyle
216: 1+\frac{E}{\displaystyle
217: 104.6\:GeV}}+
218: \frac{0.054}{\displaystyle
219: 1+\frac{E}{\displaystyle
220: 772.7\:GeV}}
221: \right).
222: \label{gaisspec}
223: \end{equation}
224: \item[(d)] Parametrization for total cross section for absorbtion of a real
225: photon of energy $\nu=s/2m_{N}=vE$ by a nucleon at photonuclear interaction
226: which was treated both according to Bezrukov-Bugaev parametrization
227: proposed in Ref~\cite{bb} (basic):
228: \begin{equation}
229: \sigma_{\gamma N}=[114.3+1.647\:\ln^{2}(0.0213\:\nu)] \; \mu b
230: \label{bbpn}
231: \end{equation}
232: and ZEUS parametrization (Ref.~\cite{ZEUS}):
233: \begin{equation}
234: \sigma_{\gamma N} = (\:63.5\: s^{0.097} + 145\:s^{-0.5}\:) \; \mu b
235: \label{zeuspn}
236: \end{equation}
237: ($\nu$ and $s$ in GeV and GeV$^{2}$, correspondingly).
238: \item[(e)] A factor $k_{\sigma}$ which all muon cross sections were
239: multiplied by to test influence of uncertainties in cross sections
240: parametrization (and, concequently, in energy loss) upon result. We used
241: $k_{\sigma}$ = 1.0 as a basic value but in some cases set also
242: $k_{\sigma}$ = 0.99 and $k_{\sigma}$ = 1.01, which corresponds to decrease
243: and increase of total energy loss by 1\%,
244: respectively. Note that it is an ``optimistic'' evaluation, the real
245: accuracy of existing parametrization for muon cross sections is worse (see
246: Refs.~\cite{kp,rhode1}).
247: \end{itemize}
248:
249: For each run we fixed the muon spectra at final and several interim depths.
250: The differences between obtained spectra were a point of investigation.
251:
252: \section{Results}
253: \label{sec:results}
254:
255: \subsection{Propagation of monoenergetic muon beams}
256: \label{sec:mono}
257:
258: At the first set of simulations we propagated monoenergetic muon beams of
259: 4 fixed initial energies $E_{s}$ = 1 TeV, 10 TeV, 100 TeV and 10 PeV down
260: to depths $D$ = 3.2 km, 12 km, 23 km and 40 km, respectively, through pure
261: water.
262: In each case propagation of 10$^{6}$ muons was simulated.
263: Fig.~\ref{fig1} shows resulting survival probabilities $p=N_{D}/N_{s}$
264: (where $N_{s}$ = 10$^{6}$ is initial number of muons and $N_{D}$ is number
265: of muons which have survived after propagation down to depth $D$) vs.
266: $v_{cut}$ for final and five interim depths. Two curves are given on each
267: plot for two models of ionization. Also results for
268: $k_{\sigma}$ = 1.00 $\pm$ 0.01 and for parametrization (\ref{zeuspn}) are
269: presented as simulated with the most accurate value $v_{cut}$ = 10$^{-4}$.
270:
271: The following appropriatenesses are visible.
272: \begin{itemize}
273: \item[(a)] In most cases with the exception of
274: some plots of the lower row and
275: the left column in Fig.~\ref{fig1} (which corresponds to low survival
276: probabilities and low muon initial energies, respectively) uncertainty in
277: our knowlege of muon cross sections gives the principal effect which
278: essentially exceeds ones from other tested parameters.
279: \item[(b)] The difference between survival probabilities for two models of
280: ionization is the less appreciable the larger muon energy is. It is quite
281: understandable because at muon energies $E<$ 1 TeV ionization represents
282: the great bulk of total energy loss, and vice versa, it becomes minor at
283: $E>$ 1 TeV. Thus, contribution which is given by ionization at higher
284: energies is small and, the more, its fluctuations do not play an important
285: role. For muons with initial energies $E \gg$ 1 TeV fluctuations in
286: ionization become important only at very last part of muon path and
287: ``are not in time'' to produce some noticeable effect.
288: \item[(c)] Generally, parametrizations (\ref{bbpn}) and (\ref{zeuspn}) do
289: not show a noticeable difference in survival probabilities, in most cases
290: it is within statistical error or exceeds it only slightly.
291: \item[(d)] Increase of $v_{cut}$ gives effect of both signs in survival
292: probabilities: function $p(v_{cut})$ grows at the beginning of muon path
293: and falls at the last part. The same ``both-sign'' dependencies are observed
294: for ionization model.
295: \item[(e)] For $v_{cut} \le$ 0.02 -- 0.05 there is almost no dependence of
296: survival probability on $v_{cut}$ with the exception of very last part
297: of muon path where survival probability becomes small. Generally,
298: dependence $p(v_{cut})$ is the less strong the larger initial muon
299: energy is.
300: \end{itemize}
301:
302: The last item is illustrated complementary by Fig.~\ref{fig2} and
303: Fig.~\ref{fig3} which show that for all initial energies $E_{s}$ simulated
304: survival probability does not depend, in fact, on $v_{cut}$ until 90\%
305: (for $E_{s}$ = 1 TeV) to 99.5\%
306: (for $E_{s}$ = 10 PeV) muons have been stopped.
307:
308: It was shown above
309: {\it what is result} of simulations with
310: different models of ionization and values of $v_{cut}$. It was a special
311: point of interest for us to track {\it how does it} influence upon
312: behaviour of survival probability.
313:
314: \begin{figure}
315: \hspace{1.1cm}
316: \mbox{\epsfig{file=pic1.eps,width=15.1cm}}
317: \protect\caption{
318: Survival probabilities $p=N_{D}/N_{s}$ (where $N_{s}$ = 10$^{6}$ is initial
319: number of muons and $N_{D}$ is number of muons which have survived after
320: propagation down to depth $D$ in pure water) vs. $v_{cut}$. Values of $p$
321: were obtained as a result of MC simulation for monoenergetic muon beams
322: with initial energies $E_{s}$ = 1 Tev (1st column of plots), 10 TeV (2nd
323: column), 100 TeV (3rd column) and 10 PeV (4th column). Each column contains
324: six plots which correspond to six depths $D$ (which differs for different
325: $E_{s}$). Closed circles represent survival probabilities which were
326: simulated with ionization energy loss included in SEL along with other
327: types of muon interactions. Open circles correspond to computation with
328: completely ``continuous'' ionization. Two horizontal solid lines on each
329: plot show the value for survival probability computed with all muon cross
330: sections multiplied by a factor $k_{\sigma}$ = 1.01 (lower line) and
331: $k_{\sigma}$ = 0.99 (upper line) for $v_{cut}$ = 10$^{-4}$. Horizontal
332: dotted lines correspond to $v_{cut}$ = 10$^{-4}$ and cross section for
333: absorbtion of a real photon at photonuclear interaction parametrized
334: according to recent ZEUS data (Ref. \protect\cite{ZEUS},
335: Eq.~(\protect\ref{zeuspn})) instead of parametrization proposed by L.B.
336: Bezrukov and E.V. Bugaev (Ref. \protect\cite{bb}, Eq.~(\protect\ref{bbpn}))
337: which is basic in the MUM code. Note different scales at Y-axis.
338: }
339: \label{fig1}
340: \end{figure}
341:
342: \begin{figure}
343: \hspace{4.2cm}
344: \mbox{\epsfig{file=sp1_1.eps,width=9.1cm}}
345: \caption{Survival probability $p$ vs. depth $D$ down to which muon beam
346: of initial energy $E_{s}$ = 1 TeV (a), 10 TeV (b), 100 TeV (c) and
347: 10 PeV (d) propagates through pure water. On each plot 10 lettered curves
348: which correspond to different values of $v_{cut}$ are shown. Meaning
349: of letters is as follows:
350: A - $v_{cut}$ = \mbox{10$^{-4}$},
351: B - $v_{cut}$ = \mbox{2$\times$10$^{-4}$},
352: C - $v_{cut}$ = \mbox{5$\times$10$^{-4}$},
353: D - $v_{cut}$ = \mbox{10$^{-3}$},
354: E - $v_{cut}$ = \mbox{2$\times$10$^{-3}$},
355: F - $v_{cut}$ = \mbox{5$\times$10$^{-3}$},
356: G - $v_{cut}$ = \mbox{10$^{-2}$},
357: H - $v_{cut}$ = \mbox{2$\times$10$^{-2}$},
358: I - $v_{cut}$ = \mbox{5$\times$10$^{-2}$},
359: J - $v_{cut}$ = \mbox{10$^{-1}$}.
360: This figure displays results were obtained by simulation with
361: ionization loss included in SEL. Statistical errors which cause some
362: unsmoothness of curves at small $p$ are not shown. Dependence $p$ upon
363: $v_{cut}$ becomes noticeable only at the last $\approx$ 1/8 of muon beam
364: path where the majority of muons (from 90\%
365: to 99.5\%,
366: depending upon $E_{s}$) has been stopped.
367: }
368: \label{fig2}
369: \end{figure}
370:
371: \begin{figure}
372: \hspace{4.2cm}
373: \mbox{\epsfig{file=sp1_2.eps,width=9.1cm}}
374: \caption{Relation $p/p_{0}$ vs. $p$. $p$ is survival probability for muon
375: beam of initial energy $E_{s}$ = 1 TeV (a), 10 TeV (b), 100 TeV (c) and
376: 10 PeV (d) at propagation through pure water with ionization included in
377: SEL as
378: simulated for different values of $v_{cut}$; $p_{0}$ is survival
379: probability simulated under the same conditions for $v_{cut}$ = 10$^{-4}$.
380: Difference in $p/p_{0}$ becomes noticeable only at small values of $p$,
381: i.e., at the last part of muon beam path.
382: }
383: \label{fig3}
384: \end{figure}
385:
386: \begin{figure}
387: \mbox{\epsfig{file=pic3_2.eps,width=17.4cm}}
388: \caption{Muon spectra at different depths $D$ in pure water resulting from
389: 10$^{6}$ muons with initial energy $E_{s}$ = 1 TeV obtained by simulation
390: with four models. The first three columns represent spectra obtained with
391: ionization included in SEL for $v_{cut}$ = 10$^{-4}$ (1st column),
392: 10$^{-2}$ (2nd column), and 0.2 (3rd column). 4th column contains spectra
393: obtained for entirely ``continuous'' ionization and $v_{cut}$ = 10$^{-4}$.
394: On each plot value of survival probability $p$ is indicated (without
395: statistical error which is negligible for the most plots and, on
396: desire, can be easily calculated taking into account that $p=N_{D}/10^{6}$,
397: where $N_{D}$ is number of muons which have survived after propagation down
398: to depth $D$).
399: }
400: \label{fig4n}
401: \end{figure}
402:
403: \noindent
404: Fig.~\ref{fig4n} shows how muon spectrum resulting from monoenergetic muon
405: beam with initial energy $E_{s}$ = 1 TeV transforms when propagating
406: through pure
407: water down to the depth of 3.2 km. Simulated results for four settings of
408: parameters are presented by four columns of plots. The first three columns
409: represent spectra obtained with ionization included in SEL for
410: $v_{cut}$ = 10$^{-4}$, 10$^{-2}$ and 0.2. 4th column contains spectra
411: simulated with entirely ``continuous'' ionization and
412: $v_{cut}$ = 10$^{-4}$. The spectra grouped into the first column represent
413: some ``ethalon'' because they were simulated with the most accurate tuning
414: both for $v_{cut}$ and ionization model.
415: The first three columns demonstrate that ``compactness'' of spectra at the
416: same depth is the higher the more value of $v_{cut}$ is. Put your attention
417: to the right edge of spectra which shifts toward low energies when
418: $v_{cut}$ increases (it is the most noticeably for $v_{cut}$ = 0.2). The
419: reason is that at any depth energy of the most energetic muons in simulated
420: beam is determined by CEL. These muons due to statistical fluctuations did
421: not
422: undergo interactions with $v \ge v_{cut}$ and, consequently, lost energy
423: only by CEL which increases when $v_{cut}$ increases. That
424: is why the maximum
425: energy in simulated muon beam is lower for large values of $v_{cut}$.
426: Fraction of muons which did not undergo an ``catastrophic'' act with
427: $v \ge v_{cut}$ till given depth grows with increase of $v_{cut}$ because
428: free path between two sequential interactions with $v \ge v_{cut}$ grows
429: approximately as $\bar L \propto v_{cut}$. It leads, in particular, to
430: distinctly visible picks in spectra for $v_{cut}$ = 0.2 consisted just of
431: muons which lost energy only by CEL. Also, some deficit of low energy muons
432: appears if one sets $v_{cut}$ to a large value. In this case left edge of
433: spectrum is provided only with muons which interacted with large fraction
434: of energy lost while for smaller $v_{cut}$ an additional fraction of muons
435: comes here. As a result simulated spectrum of initial monoenergetic muons
436: at given depth is more narrow if $v_{cut}$ is large and, on the contrary,
437: more wide if $v_{cut}$ is small.
438:
439: Now it is easy to understand how value of $v_{cut}$ influences on simulated
440: survival probabilities. When simulated muon beam goes through medium loosing
441: energy both in CEL and SEL processes, its spectrum is constantly shifting
442: to the left (energy decreases). For $v_{cut}$ = 10$^{-4}$ the left part of
443: spectrum reaches $E$ = 0 at a smaller depth comparing with
444: larger $v_{cut}$
445: (because in this case spectrum is wider) and survival probability starts to
446: decrease. At the same depth survival
447: probability for $v_{cut}$ = 10$^{-2}$
448: and $v_{cut}$ = 0.2 is still equal to 1. Thus, for the first part of path
449: the
450: survival probability is always larger for large $v_{cut}$. At some depth
451: (which is equal to approximately 2.8 km for considered case) compactness of
452: spectra simulated with large $v_{cut}$ starts to play an opposite role. Due
453: to this compactness and higher CEL muons stop faster comparing with accurate
454: simulation. So, at the final part of the beam path simulated survival
455: probability for large $v_{cut}$ decreases faster comparing with accurate
456: simulation and, for instance, for $v_{cut}$ = 0.02 the rest of muon beam
457: which reaches the depth of $D$ = 2.72 km (37\%
458: of initial number of muons) completely vanishes within the next 30 m of
459: path, while some fraction of muons simulated with $v_{cut}$ = 10$^{-4}$
460: (0.07\%)
461: escapes down to the depth of $D$ = 3.2 km.
462:
463: Qualitatively the same effect leads to the same results if one treats
464: ionization as completely ``continuous'' energy loss. Again, spectra becomes
465: more narrow since fluctuations in ionization do not work and, as a
466: consequence, survival probability becomes significantly higher comparing
467: with simulation with accurate treatment of ionization at the beginning of
468: muon beam path and falls down essentially faster at the final part of path.
469:
470: Results presented in Sec. \ref{sec:mono} show the significant influence
471: which both model of ionization and value of $v_{cut}$ have over survival
472: probability for monoenergetic muon beam. But for practical purposes the
473: more important is {\it how this factors do work for real atmospheric muons
474: with a power spectrum}?
475:
476: \subsection{Propagation of muons sampled according to a power sea-level spectrum}
477: \label{sec:spectrum}
478:
479: In Fig.~\ref{fig5n} we present intensity of vertical atmospheric muon flux
480: $I$ at different depths of pure water $D$ from 1 km to 20 km vs. $v_{cut}$
481: as simulated with muons sampled according to sea-level spectrum
482: (\ref{bknsspec}). Simulation continued until 10$^{4}$ muons reached given
483: depth. Curves for two models of ionization are shown for each depth along
484: with results for $k_{\sigma}$ = 1.00 $\pm$ 0.01 at $v_{cut}$ = 10$^{-4}$,
485: parametrization (\ref{zeuspn}) at $v_{cut}$ = 10$^{-4}$, sea-level muon
486: spectrum (\ref{gaisspec}) at $v_{cut}$ = 10$^{-4}$ and all energy loss
487: treated entirely as CEL (for depths $D \le$ 5 km only).
488:
489: General appropriatenesses for real muon spectrum are qualitatively the same
490: as observed for monoenergetic muon beams.
491:
492: \begin{itemize}
493: \item[(a)] For all depths at which neutrino telescopes are located it was
494: found to be better to take into account fluctuations of energy loss
495: simulated by {\it any} model than to treat energy loss as completely
496: ``continuous'': muon flux intensity computed with non-stochastical model
497: of energy loss is always less comparing with stochastical model, the
498: difference reaches 10 \%
499: at 3 km w.e. and 40\%
500: at 5 km w.e. (at the depth of 20 km of pure water vertical muon flux
501: computed with ignorance of fluctuations is only 10 \%
502: of simulated flux).
503: \item[(b)] Like in a case for monoenergetic beams 1\%-uncertainty in muon
504: cross sections plays the principal role for resulting error in simulated
505: muon depth intensity. This error has a tendency to grow with depth
506: from $\pm$2.5\% at depth of 1 km w.e. to $\pm$15\% at 20 km w.e..
507: But a particular case of this uncertainty, namely difference between
508: parametrizations for total cross section for absorbtion of a real photon by
509: a nucleon at photonuclear interaction from Refs.~\cite{bb,ZEUS}, does not
510: lead to a significant difference in resulting intensity.
511: \item[(c)] Difference between muon spectra (\ref{bknsspec}) and
512: (\ref{gaisspec}) leads to uncertainty from -4\%
513: ($D$ = 1 km) to 16\%
514: ($D$ = 20 km).
515: \item[(d)] Error which appears due to simplified, entirely ``continuous''
516: ionization lies, commonly, at the level of 2--3 \%.
517: \item[(e)] Dependence of simulated muon flux intensity upon $v_{cut}$ is the
518: most weak one comparing with other studied error sources. Function
519: $I(v_{cut})$ is almost a constant if $v_{cut} \le$ 0.02--0.05 and changes
520: in a range $\pm$1--2\%
521: which is very close to statistical error.
522: \end{itemize}
523:
524: \begin{figure}
525: \hspace{1.5cm}
526: \mbox{\epsfig{file=flux1_1.eps,width=13.8cm}}
527: \protect\caption{
528: Intensity of vertical atmospheric muon flux $I$ at different depths $D$
529: of pure water vs. $v_{cut}$ as obtained by simulation with muons sampled
530: according to sea-level spectrum from Ref.~\protect\cite{bks1}
531: (Eq.~(\protect\ref{bknsspec})). Closed circles: ionization is included in
532: SEL;
533: open circles: ionization is completely ``continuous''. Two horizontal solid
534: lines on each plot show value for survival probability simulated with all
535: muon cross sections multiplied by a factor $k_{\sigma}$ = 1.01 (lower
536: line) and $k_{\sigma}$ = 0.99 (upper line) for $v_{cut}$ = 10$^{-4}$.
537: Dashed lines on plots for $D \le$ 5 km corespond to intensity which was
538: calculated for all energy loss treated as ``continuous''. Dash-dotted lines
539: show intensity of vertical muon flux simulated with ionization included in
540: SEL, $v_{cut}$ = 10$^{-4}$ and muons sampled according to Gaisser sea level
541: spectrum (Ref. \protect\cite{gaisser}, Eq.~(\protect\ref{gaisspec})).
542: Horizontal dotted lines correspond to $v_{cut}$ = 10$^{-4}$ and cross
543: section for absorbtion of a real photon at photonuclear interaction
544: parametrized according to Ref. \protect\cite{ZEUS}
545: (Eq.~(\protect\ref{zeuspn})) instead of parametrization proposed in
546: Ref.~\protect\cite{bb} (Eq.~(\protect\ref{bbpn})) which is basic in the
547: MUM code.
548: }
549: \label{fig5n}
550: \end{figure}
551:
552: We also tried to reveal how value of $v_{cut}$ and model for ionization
553: influence upon differential muon depth spectra.
554: No differences were detected which
555: would exceed statistical error. It is illustrated by two figures.
556: Fig.~\ref{fig6n} displays simulated mean energies for vertical muon flux at
557: different depths $D$ of pure water vs. $v_{cut}$ as simulated with muons
558: sampled according to sea-level spectrum (\ref{bknsspec}). Two dependencies
559: are presented at each depth for two model of ionization loss. No
560: appropriatenesses are visible on the plot. In Fig.~\ref{fig7n} we
561: present simulated differential muon spectra at four depths $D$ = 1 km,
562: 5 km, 10 km, 20 km. Two spectra are displayed on each plot obtained
563: {\it i)} for the most accurate value of $v_{cut}$ = 10$^{-4}$ and
564: {\it ii)} for the most rough case $v_{cut}$ = 0.2. Spectra are normalized
565: to 10$^{4}$ muons and at each depth are divided into three parts along
566: muon energy to keep linear scale at Y-axis. Again, no statistically
567: significant differences are marked.
568:
569: \begin{figure}
570: \hspace{3.2cm}
571: \mbox{\epsfig{file=en1_1.eps,width=10.0cm}}
572: \protect\caption{
573: Mean energy for vertical muon flux at different depths $D$ of pure water
574: vs. $v_{cut}$ as obtained by simulation with muons sampled according to
575: sea-level spectrum from Ref.~\protect\cite{bks1}
576: (Eq.~(\protect\ref{bknsspec})). Closed circles: ionization is included in
577: SEL; open circles: ionization is completely ``continuous''.
578: }
579: \label{fig6n}
580: \end{figure}
581:
582: \begin{figure}
583: \hspace{3.2cm}
584: \mbox{\epsfig{file=spec1.eps,width=10.0cm}}
585: \protect\caption{
586: Simulated differential muon spectra at four depths $D$ = 1 km, 5 km, 10 km,
587: 20 km of pure water. Two spectra are displayed on each plot, namely
588: simulated for $v_{cut}$ = 10$^{-4}$ (histogram) and $v_{cut}$ = 0.2 (closed
589: circles). Spectra are normalized for 10$^{4}$ muons with energies $E>$ 0.16
590: GeV and at each depth are divided into three parts along muon energy to
591: keep linear scale at Y-axis.
592: }
593: \label{fig7n}
594: \end{figure}
595:
596: \begin{figure}
597: \hspace{5.2cm}
598: \mbox{\epsfig{file=comp2_1.eps,width=5.3cm}}
599: \protect\caption{
600: Dependencies for relation $I_{2}/I_{1}$ vs. water equivalent depth in
601: standard rock as computed in this work (closed squares),
602: in Ref.~\protect\cite{music1} (open squares) and in
603: Ref.~\protect\cite{lagutin1}
604: (closed circles). $I_{1}$ is depth intensity for vertical muon flux
605: simulated with ionization included in SEL, $I_{2}$ is one simulated with
606: entirely ``continuous'' ionization. Data for this work are obtained
607: for sea-level spectrum from Ref.~\protect\cite{bks1}
608: (Eq.~(\protect\ref{bknsspec})) and $v_{cut}$ = 10$^{-3}$; data from
609: Ref.~\protect\cite{music1} represent result of simulation for spectrum
610: from Ref.~\protect\cite{gaisser} (Eq.~(\protect\ref{gaisspec})) and
611: $v_{cut}$ = 10$^{-3}$; data from Ref.~\protect\cite{lagutin1} were
612: simulated with spectrum from Ref.~\protect\cite{volkova} with
613: ``small transfer grouping'' technique.
614: }
615: \label{fig9n}
616: \end{figure}
617:
618: \begin{figure}
619: \hspace{5.2cm}
620: \mbox{\epsfig{file=comp2.eps,width=5.3cm}}
621: \protect\caption{
622: Dependencies for relation $I_{2}/I_{1}$ vs. water equivalent depth in
623: standard rock as computed in this work (closed squares) and in
624: Ref.~\protect\cite{music1} (open squares). $I_{1}$ is depth intensity for
625: vertical muon flux simulated with entirely ``continuous'' ionization and
626: $v_{cut}$ = 10$^{-3}$, $I_{2}$ is one simulated with the same treatment of
627: ionization and $v_{cut}$ = 10$^{-2}$. Data for this work are obtained
628: for sea-level spectrum from Ref.~\protect\cite{bks1}
629: (Eq.~(\protect\ref{bknsspec})); data from Ref.~\protect\cite{music1}
630: represent result of simulation for spectrum from
631: Ref.~\protect\cite{gaisser} (Eq.~(\protect\ref{gaisspec})).
632: }
633: \label{fig10n}
634: \end{figure}
635:
636: \section{Discussion}
637: \label{sec:discussion}
638:
639: Results obtained in this work are evidence of accuracy in parametrizations
640: for muon cross sections and spectra to be the principal source of
641: uncertainties when simulating muon flux at depths where neutrino
642: telescopes are located. Both for monoenergetic muons and muons sampled
643: according to a power spectrum it gives uncertainty at least of 2--4\%
644: to 10-15\%
645: in resulting intensity of muon flux, depending upon depth. Unfortunately,
646: this level has at present to be considered as a limit for accuracy of muon
647: propagation codes. Influence of model for ionization exceeds this limit
648: only for monoenergetic muons with sea-level muon energies $E \le$ 10 TeV
649: and only if level of observation is at very last stage of muon path where
650: major fraction of initial muon energy has been lost. Actually, due to steep
651: shape of atmospheric muon power spectrum, an essential part of muons
652: reaches detector location being just on the last part of path. Therefore
653: effect remains noticeable also for real atmospheric muons but in this case
654: uncertainty was found in this work to be much less: 2--3\%,
655: which is in an excellent agreement with Refs.~\cite{N94,music1}, while
656: Ref.~\cite{lagutin1} predicts much more significant difference (up to 17\%).
657: We suppose this disagreement may result from the fact that ``small transfer
658: grouping'' technique used for simulation in Ref.~\cite{lagutin1}
659: treats muon cross sections to be constant between two interactions
660: in contrast with algorithm used in the MUM code. As was
661: shown in Ref.~\cite{MUM}, in this case switching off
662: the fluctuations in
663: ionization leads to an additinal amplification in effective energy loss
664: for muon energies $E\le$ 1 TeV and, consequently, simulated muon flux
665: intensity must decrease at relatively small depths where muon spectrum is
666: formed by muons with sea-level energies just in a range
667: $E_{s} \sim$ 10$^{2}$--10$^{3}$ GeV. In Ref.~\cite{music1} the same
668: simplification was used but reported reults were obtained by simulation with
669: $v_{cut}$ = 10$^{-3}$. At this value of $v_{cut}$ role of correct treatment
670: for free path is not significant. Choice of
671: value for $v_{cut}$ is of even less importance and again, it is more
672: critical if one investigates monoenergetic muon beam but for power spectrum
673: alteration in $v_{cut}$ within $v_{cut} \le$ 0.02--0.05 leads only to 1--2\%
674: differences in simulated muon flux intensities which, again, is in a good
675: agreement with level of errors reported in Ref.~\cite{music1}.
676: Differences between muon flux intensities
677: simulated for different models of ionization and values of $v_{cut}$, as
678: obtained in given work and in Refs.~\cite{lagutin1,music1}, are presented
679: in Fig.~\ref{fig9n} and Fig.~\ref{fig10n}.
680:
681: Since computation time which is neccessary for simulation depends strongly
682: upon used model of ionization loss and upon $v_{cut}$, it
683: seems to be reasonable for most purposes to set $v_{cut}$ to
684: $v_{cut} \approx$ 0.01--0.05.
685: Anyway, in this case resulting error will be
686: less comparing with error caused by accuracy of parametrization for muon
687: cross sections and sea-level muon spectrum, if one treats free path $L$ by
688: an accurate method (Ref.~\cite{MUM}).
689: Note that
690: ``inner'' accuracy of the MUM code was found to be worse than ``outer''
691: one (which results from uncertainties of muon cross sections) if
692: ionization is set to ``continuous'' model and $v_{cut} >$ 10$^{-2}$.
693: For fluctuated ionization inner accuracy remains high enough at least
694: till $v_{cut}$ = 0.05 (Ref.~\cite{MUM}). So, using MUM one should
695: set $v_{cut}$ to $v_{cut} \le$ 0.01 if ionization is entirely continuous
696: and to $v_{cut} \le$ 0.05 for ionization included in SEL.
697: For test runs it is possible
698: to set $v_{cut}$ even to larger values. On the other hand for some
699: methodical purposes it may be useful to simulate fluctuations in knock-on
700: electron production and choose more fine $v_{cut}$, e.g., if one wants to
701: exclude an additional error when comparing results of simulations for
702: different models of muon sea-level spectrum with each other.
703:
704: It is impossible to consider all particular cases and give some strict
705: conformity between setting of parameters at muon MC propagation code
706: and problem to be solved. We had for an object to create a code which
707: would allow to change easy the most important parameters and to perform
708: an analysis which would allow anyone to choose these parameters according
709: to one's purposes and taste. We hope this object has been achieved with this
710: article.
711:
712:
713: \section{Conclusions}
714: \label{sec:conclusions}
715:
716: We have presented the detailed investigation for dependence of computed
717: depth muon flux upon the most important parameters of muon propagation MC
718: algorithm, which was done with the MUM (MUons+Medium) code
719: (Ref.~\cite{MUM}).
720: Contributions of different simplifications and uncertainties to the
721: resulting error have been analysed and ranked.
722: We hope that presented work can be useful for further development of
723: muon transport algorithms
724: which are neccessary for adequate analysis of muon data obtained at
725: underground/water/ice neutrino detectors.
726:
727: \acknowledgments
728:
729: We would like to express our gratitude to I. Belolaptikov, A. Butkevich,
730: R. Kokoulin, V. Kudryavzev and V. Naumov for useful discussion and
731: essential remarks which were taken into account in the final version
732: of the text. One of us (I.S.) is also grateful to L. Bezrukov and
733: Ch. Spiering for the attention and support.
734:
735: \newpage
736:
737: %%%%************************ R E F E R E N CE S ***********
738: \begin{references}
739: \bibitem{N94}
740: V. A. Naumov, S. I. Sinegovsky, and E. V. Bugaev,
741: Yad. Fiz. {\bf 57} (1994) 439 [Physics of Atomic Nuclei
742: {\bf 57} (1994) 412].
743: \bibitem{lipari} P. Lipari and T. Stanev, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 44}, 3543
744: (1991).
745: \bibitem{music1} P. Antonioli {\it et al.}, Astropart. Phys. {\bf 7}, 357
746: (1997).
747: \bibitem{lagutin1} A. A. Lagutin, P. B. Togobitsky, and A. Misaki, Izv.
748: Altayskogo Gos. Universiteta {\bf Special issue}, 93 (1998).
749: \bibitem{MUM} I. A. Sokalski, E. V. Bugaev, and S. I. Klimushin,
750: Report No. hep-ph/0010322, 2000.
751: \bibitem{bks1} S. I. Klimushin, E. V. Bugaev, and I. A. Sokalski,
752: Report No. hep-ph/0012032, 2000.
753: \bibitem{gaisser} T. K. Gaisser, {\it Cosmic Rays and Particle Physics}
754: (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1990)
755: \bibitem{bb} L. B. Bezrukov and E. V. Bugaev, Yad. Fiz. {\bf 32},
756: 1636 (1980) [Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. {\bf 32}, 847 (1980)]; {\bf 33}, 1195
757: (1981) [{\bf 33}, 635 (1981)].
758: \bibitem{ZEUS} J. Breitweg {\it et al.},
759: Europ. Phys. J. {\bf C7}, 609 (1999).
760: \bibitem{kp} R. P. Kokoulin, A. A. Petrukhin, in {\it Proceedings of the
761: 22nd International Cosmic Ray Conference, Dublin, 1991},
762: edited by M. Cawley {\it et al.} (The Dublin Institute for
763: Advanced Studies, Dublin, 1991), Vol. {\bf 4}, p. 536;
764: R. P. Kokoulin, Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.) {\bf 70}, 475
765: (1999).
766: \bibitem{rhode1} W. Rhode and C. C\^arloganu, in {\it Proceedings of the
767: Workshop on Simulation and Analysis Methods for Large Neutrino Telescopes,
768: Zeuthen, 1998}, edited by C. Spiering (DESY Zeuthen, Zeuthen, 1998), p. 247.
769: \bibitem{volkova} L. V. Volkova, G. T. Zatsepin, and L. A. Kuzmichev,
770: Yad. Fiz. {\bf 29}, 1252 (1979) [Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. {\bf 29}, 645 (1979)].
771: \end{references}
772: \end{document}
773: