1. Atmospheric neutrino fluxes
A background and an interesting measurement
How well do we know the atmospheric neutrino fluxes?
Can we have a muon and neutrino flux from the same code?
A tool for simulation and analysis: a C++ class and a library
for fluxes (suitable for ANIS and IceTray)
While position and time constrained analyses can reject the
atmospheric neutrino flux, it is a serious background for diffuse
fluxes.
But it is also a beautiful measurement (with the highest data
sample AMANDA (IceCube) have expecially since prompt fluxes
are poorly constrained by accelerator data
Teresa Montaruli, P. Desiati, A. Ishihara, UW, IceCube Meeting, Mar 2005

2. Super-Kamiokande and MACRO
MACRO final data
Bartol 96
HKKM (2001 CR)
FLUKA (2001 CR)
FLUKA (1996 CR)
Em>1 GeV
predictions no oscill.
~20%
 Honda 2001
 Honda 1995
 Bartol 1996
 SK Data
predictions Dm2= eV2
TM, ICRC2003 HE rapporteur talk: through-going muon data pointed out that the
CR assumed after ICRC2001 by HKKM and Bartol was too steep and that a better
agreement was achieved with the previous Agrawal et al CR flux
Moreover ATIC data preferred E-2.7 to steeper spectra

3. Primary CRs p He Primary spectra: ICRC2001 (softer), Agrawal (harder)
5% agreement between AMS
and Bess98 < 100 GeV
BUT CAPRICE -20%
ICRC2001 assumes AMS-Bess
The region relevant for
AMANDA/IceCube is higly
uncertain due to large errors
of Jacee and RunJob data
Moreover He and heavy
components are worse known
and their relevance increases

4. The inputs: primary CRs in most recent calculations
Main difference between ICRC2001/Gaisser-Honda 2002: CNO+Si-Mg+Fe E-2.7/harder
Main difference between ICRC2001/HKKM 2004: He [average of E-2.74+E-2.64]/ E-2.64] + protons [E-2.74 / E-2.74+E-2.71 (E>100 GeV)]
Results: HKKM 2004 is closer to previous Agrawal et al, 1996, harder than ICRC2001 and Gaisser-Honda fit resulting in more through-going muons
Gaisser-Honda 2002

5. Theoretical Errors These results agree with: Gaisser astro-ph/0502380
Though HKKM 2004 uses a harder spectrum than Bartol, it is lower! Interaction models are different (Target 2/DPMJETIII – to be updated 15% lower than L3 m data)
Lots of comparisons between Bartol, HKKM and FLUKA groups resulted in uncertainty reduction also thanks to muon data in the atmosphere.
These groups published their results in
Can AMANDA data help?
How does Lipari flux (used in AMANDA) compare to the more recent calculations?

6. AMANDA DATA
hep-ex/
SK data prefer higher fluxes by 12% and harder spectra than HKKM
>100 GeV
AMANDA works in a higher E region where oscillations play a small
role BUT in the region where hadronic models are worsely known
(K physics, prompts…)
BUT
systematics need to be reduced – Paolo’s talk

7. Atmospheric ns and ms with FLUKA
FLUKA ( official CERN code) new runs extending up to 106 GeV/nucleon started at UW. The goal is to have neutrinos from 4p and atmospheric muons from the same interaction and transport code (first 3D code, Astr.Phys.19, 2003)
Prompt neutrinos and muons will be addressed when DPMJETIII interface will be ready
FLUKA
yet poor
statistics
L3 m data
can help
reducing
systm at HE

8. The inputs: primary CR for VHE spectrum
NEW FLUKA generation: CR suitable for VHE

9. The AtmosphericFlux Class
The constructor: AtmosphericFlux mymodel(model);
Class Methods:
Init: Read Tables in prepared in common format
Flux: returns the flux at a given energy, angle and for a flavor
eg: double flux = mymodel.Flux(1,1.e3,0.1);
returns: flux in GeV-1 cm-2 sr-1 s-1 given:
Neutrino type: ne, anti-ne, nm, anti-nm
Neutrino Energy
Cos(zenith)
Average flux: returns averaged over lower hemisphere
Compatible with ANIS
Usable by IceTray (A. Hishihara)
Usable in analysis stage with ROOT as a shareable library
Extensible to ANY FLUX (can become a library of fluxes to be used
for event reweighting purposes)