The Auger Observatory and UHE neutrinos

1
The Auger Observatory and UHE neutrinos

• Why UHE neutrinos ?
• What is the Auger Observatory ?
• How can it see UHE neutrinos ?
• How to discriminate them ?
• What sensitivity ?
• Systematic errors

NOW 2006 Pierre Billoir LPNHE Paris,
CNRS/univ. Paris 6 and 7 Auger Collaboration
2
UHE neutrinos

• expected from interaction of accelerated
  particles with photons in the source region or
  with the CMBR (GZK effect)
• relatively soft spectrum
• decay of ultra massive objects harder spectrum
  expected
• UHE photons and neutrinos are a signature of
  top-down scenarii

• propagation in straight line point to the source
• differences with photons
• propagation over cosmological distances
• low probability to produce an observable
  atmospheric shower

Photons and neutrinos possible interesting
byproducts of the Auger Observatory
3
general framework

• n oscillations equal fluxes of the 3
  flavours
• assume neutrinos weakly interacting, even at UHE
• probability of interaction in atmosphere lt
  10-4
• better sensitivity to nt t in earth
  skimming scenario
• (t emerging within a few degrees from
  horizontal)

This study based on Astrop. Phys. 17 (2002)
183 (X. Bertou, P.B., O. Deligny, C. Lachaud, A.
Letessier-Selvon) work on first Auger Surface
Detector data (2004-06) (special contribution of
Oscar Blanch Bigas) Studies on Fluorescence
Detector exist also
4
Water Cherenkov tanks
5
Optical system (fluorescence telescopes)
corrector lens (aperture x2)
440 PMT camera 1.5 per pixel
segmented spherical mirror
aperture box shutter filter UV pass safety curtain
6
Present status (beg. Sept.2006)
(Loma Amarilla)
Coihueco
Los Morados
central buildings
Los Leones
7
First results spectrum (from ICHEP06)
Error bars at 1018 at 1020
Caveat energy scale still uncertain !!!
8
First results anisotropy (from ICRC05)
SUGAR region
AGASA region
GC
Anisotropy around Galactic Center not confirmed
(AGASA and SUGAR results excluded) global
distribution compatible with isotropy no
clusters
9
(No Transcript)
10
(No Transcript)
11
1 atmospere
12
(No Transcript)
13
(No Transcript)
14
2 atmospheres
15
Hybrid detection
16
normal (nucleic) showers
almost vertical thick curved front muons
electromagnetic
earth
atmosphere
very inclined thin flat front High energy muons
17
a real vertical event (20 deg)
Noise !
doublet
18
a real horizontal event (80 deg)
single peaks fast rise exp. light decay (t
70 ns) accidental background signals are
similar
19
a real monster (lightning event)
15 km !
Many stations triggered with abnormal signal
(e.g. quasi-periodic oscillations) easily
rejected (even if pattern is not well understood
!)
20
neutrino showers
(distinguishable if almost horizontal)
downgoing (direct n interaction in atmosphere)
upgoing (n t in earth t decay in flight )
21
Simulation chain

• inject nt at 0.1, 0.3, 1, 3, , 100 EeV into
  earth crust
• generate c.c. and n.c interactions (CTEQ4-DIS) ,
  t decay and energy loss
• if a t emerges generate decay in atmosphere
• (modes e, p, pp0, ppp0 , pp0p0, ppp , pppp0 ,
  pp0p0p0 neutrinos)
• inject the products of decay into AIRES (shower
  simulation package)
• regenerate particles entering the tank from the
  ground output file
• simulate the Cherenkov response and FADC traces
• apply a specific analysis (trigger selection)

22
ground spot
decay of an horizontal t of 1 EeV
enn (almost pure e.m. cascade)
pn (hadronice.m. cascade)
injected t
average level of trigger
23

• Simulated t
• p (0.27 EeV) n
• 400 m above ground

24

• Simulated t
• p (5.1) p0(16.1) n
• 1800 m above ground

25
candidate selection 1. young showers

• online local triggers (one tank)
• threshold one slot above Th
• (detection of peaks)
• time over threshold N slots within 3 ms above
  th
• (detection of long signals)

Global condition at least 3 t.o.th. stations
satisfying area/peak gt 1.4 single one
central one within 1500 m one within 3000 m
26
Trigger efficiency
Fraction of decaying t (excluding mnn channel)
giving a trigger
En 0.1 EeV
En 1 EeV
En 100 EeV
En 10 EeV
1 km
2 km
27
footprint analysis

• Variables defined from the footprint
• (in any configuration, even aligned)
• length L and width W
• (major and minor axis of the ellipsoid
  of inertia)
• speed for each pair of stations
• (distance/difference of time)

tj
ti
dij
major axis
28
candidate selection 2. Discriminating variables
Search for long shaped configurations, compatible
with a front moving horizontally at speed c, well
contained inside the array (background vertical
or inclined showers, d/Dt gt c )
cuts L/W gt 5 0.29 lt av. Speed lt 0.31
r.m.s. lt 0.08
from years 2004-2006 no real event survived
29
Possible additional criterion front curvature
Quasi-horizontal real events
Fitted from arrival times in stations radius of
curvature center
q gt 70 deg
q gt 80 deg
Shower axis
a
Peak around 10 km (lower values expected for
neutrinos)
30
A nearly candidate event (rejected for shape)
trom times trans-horizontal event (L/Dt
0.294 m/ns for all pairs) rare coincidence small
shower (right side) a double accidental (left) ?
31
What can be measured ?

• direction precision better than 2 deg
• (improving with Nstat)
• difficult to distinguish up-going/down-going
• (narrow distribution around 90 deg ?)
• energy possible lower bound for a given event
• - unknown energy losses in interaction/decay
  chain
• - estimation of Eshower depends on altitude
• (possible evaluation from signal shapes, with
  large Nstat ?)

possible strategy in a first step inject
in the simulation chain a spectrum with a given
shape deduce from the selected data a level
(or an upper bound) model dependent
result
32
systematic errors (1)

• detection triggering/selection efficiency,
  effective integrated aperture to be evaluated
  (not dominant)
• topography (Andes, Pacific Ocean) not crucial
• cross section of neutrinos
• modelling of UHE hadronic interactions
• (not dominant, but maybe not well known)

t of 3 EeV (all channels except m)
AIRES/QGSJET
AIRES/SIBYLL
33
systematic errors (2)

• t polarization (depends on parton distribution)
• using TAUOLA
• here extreme cases (very unlikely !)
  difference 30

h -1
h 1
h 1
h -1
34
systematic errors (3)
energy loss of t in earth big uncertainty !
-dE/dx a b(E) E -
bremsstrahlung pair production well defined
- deep inelastic scattering in photonuclear
process pessimistic hypothesis from
Dutta et al, Phys.Rev. D63 (2001)
Contrib. of dE/dx
factor 5 between low and high estimations of
the acceptance dominant at high E
total
35
Auger sensitivity
uncertainty range
pessimistic t energy loss
TD
preliminary
GRB
GZK
AGN
Points 1 event / year / decade of energy
36
upper bounds for 1 year of full Auger(if no
candidate)
(pessimistic hypothesis for t energy loss)
Solid various models from Protheroe
(astro-ph/9809144) Dashed upper bounds at 95
C.L. for each shape if no candidate
preliminary
uncertainty range
37
Detection with fluorescence telescope ?
Can see showers well above the ground, but -
duty cycle 10 of the time - limited range
at low energy Potential advantages - can
distinguish up-going showers - direct
evaluation of altitude and energy (if large
angle of view)

• Acceptance studied in
• C. Aramo et al., Astrop. Phys. 23 (2005) 65
• G. Miele et al., Phys. Lett. B634 (2006) 137

38
summary and perspectives

• the Pierre Auger Observatory is sensitive to
  UHE neutrinos
• most promising earth skimming (decay of t
  in air)
• real data are clean
• simple criteria allow to reject the background
• still room for refinement
• constraining upper bounds expected within a few
  years

• Ongoing studies
• other criteria to select neutrino candidates
• specific trigger to enhance sensitivity at low
  energy
• acceptance calculations
• shower energy evaluation
• observation with the fluorescence detector
• atmospheric n interactions (down-going, less
  horizontal)