1. Doug Cowen/High-Level Analysis Preparation/SAC Meeting
Prerequisites for Analysis (in addition to a detector that is producing data)
calibration constants
software framework
simulation and simulated data
functioning online trigger
filter and reconstruction algorithms
monitoring facility
data quality assurance
organization of analysis effort
equivalent of CERN “Yellow Book” theoretical discussion of possible analysis topics
30Mar2006
Doug Cowen/High-Level Analysis Preparation/SAC Meeting

2. Doug Cowen/High-Level Analysis Preparation/SAC Meeting
Prerequisites for Analysis (in addition to a detector that is producing data)
calibration constants (underway)
software framework (ready)
simulation and simulated data (almost ready)
functioning online trigger (basic trigger ready)
filter and reconstruction algs. (basic ones ready)
monitoring facility (almost ready)
data quality assurance (underway)
organization of analysis effort (underway)
equivalent of CERN “Yellow Book” theoretical discussion of possible analysis topics (underway)
30Mar2006
Doug Cowen/High-Level Analysis Preparation/SAC Meeting

3. Organization of Analysis Effort
(Gary Hill will describe fully)
Organization:
analysis coordinator (Gary)
analysis working groups with appointed leaders
overall collaboration analysis strategy
internal dissemination of results
defined analysis and publication approval mechanism
30Mar2006
Doug Cowen/High-Level Analysis Preparation/SAC Meeting

4. Data Quality Assurance
Perform tests to demonstrate that detector is producing data of sufficient quality for physics analysis
right after deployment: “Commissioning”
thereafter on a regular basis: “Verification”
Using in-situ flashers and down-going muons, check things like
timing, gain, linearity, saturation response
geometry
down-going muon (atm. nm) angular distribution
pointing resolution (using IceTop)
energy resolution (using standard candle)
30Mar2006
Doug Cowen/High-Level Analysis Preparation/SAC Meeting

5. Some Verification results
30Mar2006
Doug Cowen/High-Level Analysis Preparation/SAC Meeting

6. Intra-string Timing & Geometry (via Flashers)
Method t
flash each DOM on a string
look at earliest hit time on DOM
immediately above flashed DOM
plot t-to
Mean of Earliest Hit (ns) to
String 38
77 ns (expect from c/n)
~ same difference seen for string 21
Probably due to some combination of scattering, threshold crossing algorithm, and possible turn-on delay of LEDs.
Learn from Results
RMS of Earliest Hit (ns)
Mean: timing+geometry of each DOM
RMS: timing resolution of each DOM
String 38
Almost all top-48 DOMs look good ...
... need to understanding outliers
(probably just statistics/fitting issues)
Data for bottom-12 DOMs at Pole
Michelangelo D'Agostino/UC-B

7. String 29 (JDR Cable) Deployment Measurements Suggested Anomalous DOM Spacing…
77 ns (expect from c/n)
DOM spacing clearly visible
String 29
Mean of Earliest Hit (ns)
Mean of Earliest Hit (ns)
String 38
Michelangelo D'Agostino/UC-B

8. Intra-string Timing & Geometry (via Flashers)
Mean of Earliest Hit (ns)
String 29
77 ns (expect from c/n)
DOM spacing clearly visible
RMS of Earliest Hit (ns)
String 29
Michelangelo D'Agostino/UC-B

9. Muon Occupancy Study Dawn Williams/Penn State Method
look at occupancy for 9-string muon data,
requiring 8 hits per string to mimic single
string triggering condition
compare different strings to see if there is
significant efficiency, ice property
difference
dust layer minimum (m) relative depths (m)
string 21: m not available
string 29: m m relative to string 39
string 38: m m relative to string 39
string 39: m not applicable
string 40: m m relative to string 39
string 49: m m relative to string 39
string 50: m not available
string 59: m not available
GEOMETRY FILE
Dawn Williams/Penn State

10. IceTop-InIce Coincidence Timing
For events with >= 8 hit DOMs, and 1 hit station on surface, for each hit InIce DOM look at
2d plot: (Ticetop – Tinice) vs. (Dsurface – Dinice)
histograms: residual = (DT – d/c)DOM_i and <residual>DOM_i
N.B.: No fitting involved, but some tracks are more vertical than others
Tonio Hauschildt/UDel

11. Down-Going Muon: data vs. MC
Method
# of DOMs Hit
MC: corsika + amasim, bulk ice model (82 seonds)
data: 8-string muon data taken with testDAQ (15 minutes)
reconstruct tracks with dipole fit 20 60 20 60
data
# of String Hit MC 2 2
Preliminary Conclusion:
... Agreement is not so bad ...
Zenith Angle
Hagar Landsman/UW
normalized by livetime
normalized by area

12. First Long-Term Study: Intra-String Timing & Geometry Stability
Method
look at time difference between earliest
hit on DOM n and n+1 for muon data
with more than 15 hits on the same string
plot time difference vs. real time, look
for drifts, steps, etc.
String 21 is stable to within ~2 ns during looking at timing residuals also and will append existing report accordingly
Carsten Rott/Penn State

13. Detailed Verification results
Intra-string
Inter-string
30Mar2006
Doug Cowen/High-Level Analysis Preparation/SAC Meeting

14. Plans for (post-deployment) Calibrations
Low level calibrations
Timing
[Verify RAPCal intra- and interstring]
Charge
Gain calibration
Linearity, saturation
Geometry
Stage 1: string by string
non-optical data
~days after deployment
Stage 2: inter-string
flasher data
~weeks after deploym.
Stage 3: muon tomography
~months after deploym.
Ice properties
Scattering, absorption, dust
Dust layer tilt
Hole ice
High level calibrations
Directionality (tracks)
IceTop coincidences
Moon shadow
Energy/vertex (cascades)
Standard Candle lasers
Flashers
Slides from Kurt Woschnagg/UC-B

15. Vertical string profile
Calibration examples
Stage-1 geometry
Ice properties
String depth from
pressure sensors
dust layers
Vertical string profile
from drill data

16. Calibration examples 38 39 z = 0 Stage-2 geometry L D13 14 15 16 17 13 14 15 16 17 L
Surface locations
from surveys D
z = 0 D L
z (m)
Distance From Timing (m)
depth from intra-string geometry (m)

17. Monitoring Scheme Three sources of data for monitoring
DOM Monitoring Stream (HV, temperature, scaler rate...)
Physics Data (events)
DAQ Configuration
DAQ Event Dispatch
socket
Processing
'n Filtering
file
Event Daemon
Root
DAQ Monitor Dispatch
file
Monitor
Daemon
Root
Web Interface
South Pole
Satellite
Web Interface
North
DAQ XML Configuration
Winterover Report
Physicist Report
Experiment Control
D.B.
D.B.
Slides from Ignacio Taboada/UC-B

18. Doug Cowen/High-Level Analysis Preparation/SAC Meeting
Monitoring Schedule
Shifts (in the north) will begin by April 1. Shifts distributed among IceCube institutions.
Updates to Web interface and system 3 times per year: March/June/September
Updates to system at South Pole during austral summer
We plan the following upgrades during 2006
Automatic trend analysis for detection of failures (detector is not stable enough yet to allow this analysis now)
Increase in the quantity of variables that are monitored
Long term study of the detector (different web interface)
30Mar2006
Doug Cowen/High-Level Analysis Preparation/SAC Meeting

19. We use the XML DAQ configuration to display detector status
Link to monitoring page
Run Number
Triggers enabled in this run
Red
Known Bad DOMs
Green is good! All (good) DOMs Configured
Each “light” represents a DOM
InIce Strings
IceTop Tanks
We use the XML DAQ configuration to display detector status
30Mar2006
Doug Cowen/High-Level Analysis Preparation/SAC Meeting

20. We use the Monitoring and Physics stream to study relevant quantities
Click to get String Plots
Click to get Station Plots
How often does a DOM report a signal?
Click on a square to get Plots for that specific DOM
Everything in the web interface is “clickable” We produce detector-, subdetector-, string- and dom-wise plots
Even though configured in DAQ these DOMs are not taking data
Subdetector Multiplicity in this run
We use the Monitoring and Physics stream to study relevant quantities
30Mar2006
Doug Cowen/High-Level Analysis Preparation/SAC Meeting

21. Doug Cowen/High-Level Analysis Preparation/SAC Meeting
END
30Mar2006
Doug Cowen/High-Level Analysis Preparation/SAC Meeting

22. Commissioning Results
High Level: Preliminary Criteria and Summary
Intra-String Flasher Analysis
Number of DOMs :
only took data for top 48 DOMs: 331 DOMs out of the 346 look good
top 48 DOMs on all strings, minus ~100 ones with quad issues that were resolved after the data were collected
we need to do a bit of makeup here to complete the dataset
Criteria :
Mean within 5 ns of the average for a string and
RMS less than 2 ns
Intra-String Muon Analysis
500 DOMs out of the 516 DOMs passed outright
another 9 DOMs passed with slightly poorer performance
another ~20 DOMs have insufficient statistics
timing residual peak w/in 3 ns of 0 => good timing
residual peak betw. 3 & 6 ns of 0 => okay
otherwise => bad
Detailed summaries: Intra-string and Inter-string
30Mar2006
Doug Cowen/High-Level Analysis Preparation/SAC Meeting

23. Intra-string Timing & Geometry (via Muons)
Method
String 29
Timing Residuals (ns)
use ~6 live-hours of realDAQ/PnF data
fit muons to data minus DOM n
compute time residual between track
and earliest hit time for DOM n
fit resulting distribution to find peak
Almost all DOMs (~530) look good ...
... bottom DOMs limited statistics
Distribution of Above
mean=-1.5; rms=1.82
String 29
mean=-1.4; rms=1.9 for string 21
Dima Chirkin/LBNL

24. Inter-string Timing & Geometry (via flashers)
Method
flash all horizontal LEDs on DOM on one string
look at earliest hit time on DOMs on adjacent
string at +/- 5 DOMs relative to depth of flasher
Distance From Timing (m) 38 39 D 13 14 15 16 17 13 14 15 16 17 L
depth from intra-string geometry (m)
Verification Results L
icecube_ _9strings.geo D
DOM # L (m) D (m)
Z=0
Chihwa Song/UW

25. PMT Gain Sample SPE charge (pC) String 39 DOM 39-29 String 39
Method
DOM 39-29
look at flasher data for DOM distant
from flasher (no noise due to LC trigger)
isolate single photo-electrons using cuts
on waveform
compare position with FAT expectation
Looked at string 21/29/39 so far ... will look at all strings by Collaboration Meeting
String 39
Tom McCauley/LBNL

26. DOM Phi Orientation Study (via flashers)
Method
flash single LEDs on DOM on one string
look at earliest hit time for DOMs on adjacent string for each flashed LED
find minimum as a function of LED pointing angle
check precision against angle between 3 strings from geometry file
#39
fit to parabola
MEAN (ns)
SIGMA (ns) f1
#29 f2
phi (deg)
phi (deg)
#21
D7 (f=0)
icecube_ _complete.geo
string ( 371.6, )
string ( 443.6, )
string ( 411.8, )
123.8 : Expected Openning Angle
RESULTS USING 3 FLASHED DOMs on String 29
Bad fit to leading edge of hit time
distribution for one of the LEDs
Chihwa Song/UW
(parabola fit of mean)

27. High-Level Commissioning Criteria
High Level criteria:
Timing
Mean time within 5ns of expectation
RMS less than 2ns
see Timing Page for detailed info
331 of 346
Geometrical position agrees with expectation within X meters
DOM Occupancy vs. depth agrees with expectation to within X%
Gain agrees with expectation to within X%
30Mar2006
Doug Cowen/High-Level Analysis Preparation/SAC Meeting

28. Plans for Commissioning and Verification
Repeat low-level commissioning suite of tests next season. Some streamlining will be useful.
Continue analyzing 1 TB of high-level commissioning data taken at Pole this season and hand-carried north
About half of what we planned on getting
Hold regular weekly conference calls to discuss analysis of this data
Held working meeting March to discuss results; had ~20 active participants
Currently taking additional 1 TB of data at Pole, remotely
Will analyze this data on computers at Pole and transfer just small root files north (this is our long-term model for verif.)
Our experience with the usefulness of the various tests and the types of data taken will be used to streamline verification this year, and high-level commissioning next season
30Mar2006
Doug Cowen/High-Level Analysis Preparation/SAC Meeting

29. Plans for Commissioning and Verification
Anticipate much faster turnaround on high-level commissioning results next season
Working towards a few days after DOMs deemed okay by low-level commissioning
Work with Monitoring to display Commissioning and Verification results in a user-friendly way
see Intra-String Timing/Geom or Inter-String Timing/Geom page
Figure out a way to archive results for easy future access
Determine CPU and disk space requirements for commissioning and verification at Pole for next and future seasons
Get more non-US involvement. At present it is less than 1 FTE.
30Mar2006
Doug Cowen/High-Level Analysis Preparation/SAC Meeting