1. WATER PROPERTIES WITH RECONSTRUCED TRACKS : a look to the discriminatory power from the OB analysis H Yepes -Ramirez IFIC (CSIC – Universitat de València) ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Rome, May 07 th -10 th, 2012

2. OUTLINEOUTLINE ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Rome May 07 th -10 th 2 Status of the analysis and simulation: Status of the analysis and simulation: brief reminder of the state-of-the-art of the analysis Selected results: Selected results: time residuals and other reconstruction track parameters Conclusions and outlook Status of the analysis and simulation: Status of the analysis and simulation: brief reminder of the state-of-the-art of the analysis Selected results: Selected results: time residuals and other reconstruction track parameters Conclusions and outlook

3. Status of the analysis and simulation 3

4. ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Rome May 07 th -10 th 4 SUMMARY OF ACTIVITIES: Detector studies group  Investigation topic: comparison data/mc with different water properties (H Yepes-Ramirez). ActivityShowed at Data/MC comparison for a reduced Data-MC sample: , zenith, azimuth, time residuals, etc. 10 water models in total. CM Moscow (June 2011) An extended analysis of the work presented at CM Moscow: reco track rate + reco parameters. The same 10 water models with the full MC production + 2008-2010 data. MC WG meeting (December 2011) Detector performance (neutrinos + anti-neutrinos): angular resolution and effective area. The same 10 water models with the full MC production + 2008-2010 data. CM CERN (February 2012) Time and directional information for a set of constrained water models (28) from the OBs + CALIBOB MC results. CM Rome (May 2012) Next CM (expected): Full analysis described before for all water models produced (38). Detector acceptance for neutrinos + anti-neutrinos. Detector performance for muons. CM Bologna (October 2012)

5. Status of the analysis and simulation ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Rome May 07 th -10 th 5 NEW RESULTS IN THIS COLLABORATION MEETING: PURPOSE  Information from time distributions of MC CALIBOB results  Time information of reconstructed tracks. 27 inputs ( abs + sca spectra +  )  9 sca spectra * 3 abs spectra. 1 special input “the most CALIBOB’s favorite model”. Half of statistics (runs) of the last MC mass production.  abs sca,eff 

6. Selected results 6

7. ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Rome May 07 th -10 th 7 MUON TIME RESIDUALS Arrival time of photons is expressed relative to the expected (theoretical) arrival time (t exp ) which can be computed from the muon tracks parameters: resulting time residuals (r). The true arrival time (t hit ) could be change due to photons emitted from secondary electrons being their path influenced by the scattering. r = t hit – t exp First look to the mass production: Full mass production of data time residuals (5997 files) and MC (3920* ) are ready but are being checked  Presumably next week it is over. Delays due to some drawbacks in Lyon GE along last months (see backup for details) + updates on ANTARES libraries (see backup for details) + writing of my PhD thesis. A comparison for reduced sample is presented.

8. Selected results ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Rome May 07 th -10 th 8 Absorption length @ 50 m (470 nm), different scattering parameters: An agreement to peak is not enough reached. Directed photons are not enough represented at this absorption length. The disagreement to data seems to increase as the time residual do it. Delayed or scattered photons fits well to data if a low effective scattering length compensate the absorption effect.

9. Selected results ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Rome May 07 th -10 th 9 A low contribution of Rayleigh scattering (  ) seems to smooth the distributions despite the disagreement to peak is clearly seem. If  < 0.2, the effects at high values are reproduced (DETAILS at the BACKUP plots). Low and high  values (BACKUP) degrade Data/MC agreement from peak to tails shape. Larger absorption length should to compensate the effects at the peak. Intermediate effective scattering lengths seem to describe properly the delayed photons at the distributions tail.

10. Selected results ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Rome May 07 th -10 th 10 Absorption length @ 55 m (470 nm), different scattering parameters: If the peak of the absorption spectrum is set at 55 m, this choice smoothes the distribution. In addition to the above statement, the agreement to peak is reached for intermediate effective scattering lengths (as it was concluded for a reduced absorption length of 55 m)  Extensive to most of the scattering parameters considered.  One of the favorite CALIBOB MC model also shows a nice agreement with reconstructed tracks.  Similar to the ANTARES water model: abs = 55 m, sca = 53 m,  = 0.17, sca, eff = 227 m

11. Selected results ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Rome May 07 th -10 th 11 Absorption length @ 60 m (470 nm), different scattering parameters: A general overestimation concerning data is seen no matter the different scattering parameters considered. Some possible combinations absorption + scattering parameters describe reasonably well the direct photos at peak. (BACKUP) The tails seems to be also quite good described despite to be away of the expected Data/MC ratio.

12. Selected results ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Rome May 07 th -10 th 12 Absorption length comparison for suitable scattering parameters: “summary” Low absorption lengths  Underestimation Intermediate absorption lengths  nice agreement Low absorption lengths  Overestimation Intermediate absorption lengths  A possible approach

13. Selected results ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Rome May 07 th -10 th 13 Cos(  ) Low absorption lengths  Underestimation Intermediate absorption lengths  nice agreement Low absorption lengths  Overestimation Intermediate absorption lengths  A possible approach

14. Conclusions and outlook

15. ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Rome May 07 th -10 th 15 1.A time distribution comparison for reconstructed tracks has started point out to support the MC CALIBOB time distribution results for the OB. 2.Time information extracted from reconstructed tracks seems to be able to set limits following the CALIBOB hints, for instance  > 0.25 makes the Data/MC agreement more satisfactory and absorption lengths close to 55 m are kept as reasonably values of the peak of the such spectrum (good fit to the peak). Intermediate effective scattering lengths typically close to 200 m, describe reasonably well the tails. 3.A common  2 method is being implemented to confirm or contrast CALIBOB results and overall to extract the best water model based on the minimization of the optical properties parameters. 4.Agreement of water model function as quality cuts + other reconstruction parameters will be reviewed. 5.Full comparison by using all MC samples for all the water models produced along the last year (38) is expected to be made public before the next CM and probably an internal note will be released to the collaboration. The quantified uncertainty due to water optical properties parameters should be given as well.

16. BackupBackup

17. BackupBackup ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Rome May 07 th -10 th 17 Scattering phase function (  ) Morel and Loisel approach  Molecular scattering ( Rayleigh )  Isotropic ( =0)  = contribution of Rayleigh scattering  Particle scattering ( Mie )  Strong forward peaked ( Mie =0.924) Attenuation Length (COLIMATED BEAM) Effective Attenuation Length (ISOTROPIC SOURCE) Absorption length Scattering Length Scattering length wavelength dependence (Kopelevich parameterization) b = scattering coefficient. v s, v l = scattering centers. = Average cosine of the global distribution Petzold values for particle scattering

18. BackupBackup ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Rome May 07 th -10 th 18 GEN WATER MODEL: Photon tables production (water tables)  Water tables (hbook files) + Description files (ASCII files). HIT OM PARAMETERS: Hit probability computation from the water tables for a given OM parameters  Hit tables (hbook files) + Description files (ASCII files). KM3 SIMULATED EVENTS: GEOMETRY + KINEMATICS Physics events reading and OM hits production based on event geometry and hit probability tables  Detector events: Signal hits (muons, not tracks from hadronic showers), physical background. GEASIM MCEW TE RECO SIMULATIONS OF ATMOSPHERIC NEUTRINO INTERACTIONS. Process (and evaluation) tracks from particles coming from the hadronic showers (also muons from KM3). TRANSLATION OF INFO ASCII FILES INTO ROOT FORMAT. FORMAT CONVERSION TO “LOOK LIKE DATA”: electronics smearing effects (calibration, ARS response) and optical background. RECONSTRUCTION: Reconstruction of track direction (AAfit) and ntuples information arrangement as number of hits, zenith distribution…(AntDST). Simulation chain:

19. BackupBackup ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Rome May 07 th -10 th 19 Main options and software versions in muons and neutrinos simulation: CODE/INPUTOPTIONS/VERSIONS GENv3r7 HITv3r7 KM3v3r7 DETECTORr12_c00_s01 GEASIMv4r10 MCEW2011-01-27 TriggerEfficiencyGaussian ARS threshold file: threshold_gaus_0.33_0.08_0.1.txt SoS file: noise_basic_harold_new.root (based on data subsample) -n 10000000 –t 104.858 –C3 – p 0.035 -t 104.858  Frame time in ms. To determine the number of background hits to be generated in case the summary data are used. -C3  Hit generator type: 3, Gaussian, according observed charge distribution, with time- dependent contribution of after pulses. May 2011 version Aafitv0r9 AntDSTv1r2p5

20. BackupBackup ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Rome May 07 th -10 th 20 Problems to have the full mass production ready (among other things) due to: 1.GRID Engine: 2. ANTARES environment issues: Five drawbacks between CM CERN and CM Rome  Some conflicts (libraries, etc…) in the MC chain due to software updated versions.

21. BackupBackup ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Rome May 07 th -10 th 21

22. BackupBackup ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Rome May 07 th -10 th 22

23. BackupBackup ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Rome May 07 th -10 th 23

24. BackupBackup ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Rome May 07 th -10 th 24

25. BackupBackup ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Rome May 07 th -10 th 25

26. BackupBackup ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Rome May 07 th -10 th 26

27. BackupBackup ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Rome May 07 th -10 th 27

28. BackupBackup ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Rome May 07 th -10 th 28

29. BackupBackup ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Rome May 07 th -10 th 29

30. BackupBackup ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Rome May 07 th -10 th 30

31. BackupBackup ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Rome May 07 th -10 th 31

32. BackupBackup ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Rome May 07 th -10 th 32

33. BackupBackup ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Rome May 07 th -10 th 33

34. BackupBackup ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Rome May 07 th -10 th 34

35. BackupBackup ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Rome May 07 th -10 th 35

36. BackupBackup ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Rome May 07 th -10 th 36

37. BackupBackup ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Rome May 07 th -10 th 37

38. BackupBackup ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Rome May 07 th -10 th 38

39. BackupBackup ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Rome May 07 th -10 th 39

40. BackupBackup ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Rome May 07 th -10 th 40

41. BackupBackup ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Rome May 07 th -10 th 41

42. BackupBackup ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Rome May 07 th -10 th 42

43. BackupBackup ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Rome May 07 th -10 th 43

44. BackupBackup ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Rome May 07 th -10 th 44

45. BackupBackup ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Rome May 07 th -10 th 45

46. BackupBackup ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Rome May 07 th -10 th 46

47. BackupBackup ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Rome May 07 th -10 th 47

48. BackupBackup ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Rome May 07 th -10 th 48

49. BackupBackup ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Rome May 07 th -10 th 49

50. BackupBackup ANTARES Collaboration Meeting Rome May 07 th -10 th 50