» Introduction
» Monte Carlo sample
» Processing times

» Trigger level
» effective
area
» angular resol. vs energy
» efficiency
» energy spectra
» angular
resol. vs
declination
» events vs azimuth
» fakes
» summay table
» comparison 9,
21, 80 lines
» check retriggering

» Cut set 1
» effective area
» angular resol. vs energy
» efficiency
» energy spectra
» angular resol.
vs declination
» events vs azimuth
» fakes
» summay table
» comparison
9, 21, 80 lines
» check
retriggering

» Cut set 2
» effective area
» angular resol. vs energy
» efficiency
» energy spectra
» angular resol.
vs declination
» events vs azimuth
» fakes
» summay table
» comparison
9, 21, 80 lines
» check
retriggering

» Cut set 3
» effective area
» angular resol. vs energy
» efficiency
» energy spectra
» angular resol.
vs declination
» events vs azimuth
» fakes
» summay table
» comparison
9, 21, 80 lines
» check
retriggering

» Event
rates vs zenith cut
» corsika events
» cosmic signal
» atmospheric neutrinos
» Event
rates vs threshold

» Preliminary conclusions

Comments to:
zornoza@icecube.wisc.edu

|
Introduction
The structure of the page is as follows:
- Introduction + Monte Carlo + Processing time (this
page)
- Results at trigger level
- Results using the so-called cutset
1, with |Sdir| < 0.6, Ldir > 150 m and Ndir >= 8
- Results using the Level 1
cuts (called here cutset 2) from the paper on the IceCube sensitivity (link)
- Results using the Level 2
cuts (called here cutset 3) from the paper on the IceCube sensitivity (link)
- Analysis of the trigger
rates for different depending on the zenith angle cut.
- Preliminary conclusions
We show here a comparison among
different first-guess reconstruction strategies:
- Linefit
- Dipolefit
- Cluster JAMS*
- Direct Walk
*Remark: cluster_jams produces a discrete zenith angle distribution,
which explains the particular shape of some of the distributions
corresponding to this strategy).
We also include results from the muon-llh-reco module fed by each of
these
first guesses.
The muon-llh-reco result fed by linefit is implicitly assumend when
only one strategy is shown.
The comparison is done with different kinds of events:
- Corsika events
- Atmospheric neutrinos (Bartol+Naumov)
- Cosmic neutrinos (E-2)
The magnitudes to be compared are:
- Effective area
- Angular resolution
- Efficiency
- Fake rate
- Processing time
We have simulated the 9-line, 21-line and 80-line configurations.
NOTE:
There is A LOT of information here, so you can go to the preliminary
conclusions for a summary of this (on-going) work.
You can also access the summary tables (trigger, 1, 2, 3 levels) for a quick look at
the global results in each case.
|
MC samples
|
corsika
|
nugen_numu
|
9 lines (at
generation)
|
85 - 1.735e9
|
105 - 1.915e6
|
9 lines (retriggered)
|
72 - 1.893e9
|
79 - 4e5
|
21 lines
(retriggered)
|
72 - 1.998e9
|
80 - 2e5
|
80 lines
|
72 - 1.762e9
|
78 - 6.14e4
|
legend: data_set - number of
events generated
Processing times
In these tables we sow the processing times per call for each of the
|
dipolefit
|
linefit
|
clusterjams
|
direct walk
|
llh (dipole)
|
llh (line)
|
llh (cjams)
|
llh (dw)
|
|
9 strings
real time (s)
|
CPU time (s)
|
0.000497 |
0.000518 |
0.000382 |
0.000451 |
0.088036 |
0.087582 |
0.006897 |
0.006747 |
0.060671 |
0.060336 |
0.056960 |
0.056679 |
0.062241 |
0.061593 |
0.052638 |
0.052159 |
|
21 strings
real time (s) |
CPU time (s) |
0.000485 |
0.000538 |
0.000419 |
0.000538 |
0.084133 |
0.083513 |
0.005437 |
0.005484 |
0.054759 |
0.054444 |
0.050597 |
0.050394 |
0.057006 |
0.056918 |
0.042162 |
0.041792 |
|
80 strings
real time (s) |
CPU time (s) |
0.000496 |
0.000518 |
0.000380 |
0.000309 |
0.071118 |
0.070558 |
0.006635 |
0.006783 |
0.055136 |
0.054671 |
0.054914 |
0.054731 |
0.056635 |
0.056165 |
0.047390 |
0.047261 |
|
|
|
|