cosmogenic neutrinos - Rencontres de Moriond

cosmogenic neutrinos - Rencontres de Moriond

A search for extremely high energy
cosmogenic neutrinos with IceCube
K. Mase, Chiba University
K. Mase
1 ■  The extremely high energy (EHE)
cosmogenic neutrinos (> 108 GeV)
pγ 2.7K → π + + X → µ + + ν µ → e+ + ν e + ν µ + ν µ
EHECRs
π
µ
νµ
νµ
νe e
EHE cosmogenic neutrinos can
shed light on the EHECR origin
²  Source position
²  Composition (proton/iron)?
²  Source evolution / when the
EHECR generation started
Predicted, but never detected
K. Mase
→ Detectable with IceCube 2 ■  The detection principle
CRs Atmospheric muons µ
Down-­‐going µ
µ,τ
τ
τ
Up-­‐going ντ
EHE ν
²  EHE neutrino signal (all flavor)
²  Horizontal (opaque to the earth)
²  High energy (> 108 GeV)
²  Atmospheric muon background
ντ
µ
²  Down-going
²  Low energy (the energy spectrum is steep (~E-3.7))
νµ >1PeV
Energy Dist. @ IceCube Depth
K. Mase
Yoshida et al PRD 69 103004 (2004) Zenith Dist. @ IceCube Depth
Up-­‐going Down-­‐going 3 ■  Datasets
IC79 (2010-­‐2011) Five datasets are used in this analysis:
1. Observational data (two years data)
taken in 2010-2011 (319.2 days) with 79 string configuration (IC79)
taken in 2011-2012 (350.9 days) with the complete detector (IC86)
EHE on-line filter data (NPE > 1000)
~100M events, ~ 1.7 Hz
2. Signal MC data (JULIeT)
105-1011 GeV, dN/dE = E-1
20k events for µ, τ, νe, νµ, ντ
3. Atmospheric muon background MC data (CORSIKA data)
105-1011 GeV, dN/dE = E-1
15k events for proton and iron
SIBYLL HE interaction model
IC86 = complete IceCube (2011~) 4. Coincidence muon MC data (CORSIKA data)
600-1011 GeV, dN/dE = E-1.7, polygonate model (J. R. Hoerandel (2003))
10G events
SIBYLL HE interaction model
5. Atmospheric neutrino background MC data
103-109 GeV, dN/dE = E-1, νµ, νe
10M events
atmospheric neutrinos: including knee (T. K. Gaisser (2012))
prompt neutrinos: perturbative QCD model (Enberg et al. (2008))
K. Mase
4 ■  Energy indicator
dE
∝E
dx
e+e-
π
photo-nuclear
γ
cosmogenic neutrino region
pair-creation
µ
bremsstrahlung
e+e-
IC86 muon Detected total number of photo-electrons
(NPE) ∝ Energy
NPE is used for the energy indicator K. Mase
5 ■  Analysis scheme
Blind analysis 1. Online filter level (EHE):
NPE > 1000
↓
2. Analysis level:
NPE > 3200
NDOM > 300
coincident muon cleaning
improved geometry reconstruction
↓
3. Final level:
NPE and zenith angle information
Before
cleaning After
cleaning per liveOme SPE (llh base) linefit (simple) K. Mase
6 ■  NPE distribution at analysis level (IC79)
33.4 days NPE > 3200 && NDOM > 300 NPE: 4.3x104 zenith angle: 19 deg. atmospheric muon (data) Dominated by atmospheric muons Reasonable MC/data agreement 108 GeV (cosmogenic neutrinos (at surface)) 1010 GeV (CR primary) K. Mase
*Yoshida and Teshima, Prog.Theor. Phys. 89, 833795 (1993), m=4, Zmax=4
**Ahlers et al., Astropart. Phys. 34, 106867 (2010), m=4.6, Zmax=2 (best)
***Kotera et al., JCAP 1010, 013869 (2010), FRII
7 ■  Zenith angle distribution at analysis level (IC79)
33.4 days NPE > 3200 && NDOM > 300 NPE: 4.6x103 zenith angle: 140 deg. atmospheric neutrino (MC) Geometry for atmospheric muons is reconstructed reasonably well Atmospheric neutrinos also come from horizontal direcOon, but low energy K. Mase
8 ■ Final selection criteria (IC79)
Model discovery potential method used
G.C. Hill et al., in the Proceedings of PHYSTAT2005 (2006) 108–111. Signal Background
Expected event rates 33.4 days Test data 319.2 days GZK signal*
Bg total
(Atm. μ)
(Atm. ν)
0.98±0.01
0.041±0.003
(0.033±0.003)
(0.008±0.001)
*Yoshida and Teshima, Prog.Theor. Phys. 89, 833795 (1993), m=4, Zmax=4
0.57 per 333 days for IC40
K. Mase
~1 event/yr 9 ■ Effective area
AIC79 ≈ AIC86 ≈ 2 x AIC40 for each flavor Three flavor sum IC79 v  Increases with energy v  ~5000 m2 @ EeV K. Mase
10 ;8<=;$$
34'552;D;9:&%'(87<7788?$
1,$?=5?$
J
>+'$7
- background
background (atm.
atm.
) expectation
0.140.14
events
(atm. ++conventional
conventional
atm.
)
expectation
events
(J4K4)($6 @A:$6B8?2C5=
$?=5?$
D$
@
preliminary
p-value:
0.0094
(2.36
preliminary p-value: 0.0094 (2.36
D$
■ 
Two
cascade
like
events
found
in
2011-2012
data
@A:$8B66?2C5=
@
34'552;D;9:&%'(87<7788?$
@4EF%1$#G$H*(0/+.$I%')#1)$75?$
&%'(78;;8<=;$
34'552;D;9:&%'(87<7788?$
%'(78;;8<=;$
Run118545-Event63733662
(-$?=5?$
(-$?=5?$
J4K4)($6
@4EF%1$#G$H*(0/+.$I%')#1)$7;D$
J4K4)($6
th 2011
$
')#1)$75?$
August
9
May, 2
011 -­‐
M
ay, 2
012 (D$350.9 days), IC86 configuraOon D$
CC/NC
interactions
in
the
det
@A:$8B66?2C5=
=D$D$
@A:$8B66?2C5=
4
$
NPE
6.9928x10
$
@4EF%1$#G$H*(0/+.$I%')#1)$7;D$
*(0/+.$I%')#1)$75?$
$
@4EF%1$#G$H*(0/+.$I%')#1)$7;D$
(0/+.$I%')#1)$75?$
Either in
CC the
interacOon of νe oSensors
r NC interacOon of any flavor ν Number
of Optical
354
C
interactions
detector
$ $
MC
CC/NC
interactions
in
the
detector
CC/NC interactions in the detector$
$
$
$
th
MC
7,!(4-*S(,F(;,(K(."%,*.,9+(>AJ(,6^,
$
Aug., MC
9 , 2011 MC
$ $
Run 118545 Y$A.B,*.,%(0)+',1$),+$%#$I(.*+,.(A")*.$%,_*"',9>cf,h,9>6^,MH0D,7525,x,H0D,7527N
$
-­‐Event 63733662 event rate 0.140.14
/ 672.7days
days-- background
background (atm.
atm.
events
/ 672.7
(atm. ++conventional
conventional
atm.) expectation
) expectation
even
4 NPE: 7.0 2x events
120events
in 6
15.9 d
ays
preliminary p-value:
(2.36
preliminary
p-value:0.0094
0.0094
(2.36
NDOM: 354 Atmospheric 34'552;D;9:&%'(87<7788?$
muons
0.038 ± 0.004
(“Bert”) 34'5567589:&%'(78;;8<=;$
34'552;D;9:&%'(87<7788?$
34'5567589:&%'(78;;8<=;$
Run118545-Event63733662
(-$?=5?$
1,$?=5?$
(-$?=5?$
1,
J4K4)($6
>+'$7
J4K4)($6
th 2011
>+'$7 $?=5?$
August
9
convenOonal 0.012 D$ D$ ± 0.001
@A:$8B66?2C5=
@A:$6B8?2C5=D$D$
@A:$8B66?2C5=
@A:$6B8?2C5=
NPE
6.9928x104
atmospheric n@4EF%1$#G$H*(0/+.$I%')#1)$7;D$
eutrinos
@4EF%1$#G$H*(0/+.$I%')#1)$75?$
@4EF%1$#G$H*(0/+.$I%')#1)$7;D$
@4EF%1$#G$H*(0/+.$I%')#1)$75?$
Number
of Optical Sensors 354
$ $
prompt neutrinos*
0.033 ± 0.001
CC/NC
interactions
in
the
detector
.$,7527w,:((,"0-S,JD,=*S(,H*BB(--,0","'*%,#((C.IO,9:;<=>?97527,
CC/NC
interactions
in
the
detector
$
$
Jan, 3rd, 2012 $ $
/$#,80*%%(),
26,
MC
total b
ackground
0.082 ± 0.004
MC
Run 119316 $
$
$ $
2$
-­‐Event 36556705 NPE: 9.6 x 104 $$
Significance: 2.7 sigma 2$
NDOM: 312 2$
(“Ernie”) Preliminary !"#$%&%'()$*+))%,$(-%$)%.%/(0#'$/10(%10+$
!"#$%&%'()$*+))%,$(-%$)%.%/(0#'$/10(%10+$
$
* R. Enberg, M.H. Reno, and I. Sarcevic.
PRD78, 043005 (2008). K. Mase
11 !D0,9%*'0)0O,](A")*.$,7527w,:((,"0-S,JD,=*S(,H*BB(--,0","'*%,#((C.IO,9:;<=>?97527,
■ The August event (“Bert”)
Aug., 9th, 2011 Run118545 -­‐Event63733662 NPE: 7.0 x 104 NDOM: 354 K. Mase
12 ■ The January event (“Ernie”)
Jan, 3rd, 2012 Run119316 -­‐Event36556705 NPE: 9.6 x 104 NDOM: 312 K. Mase
13 ■ NPE distribution at final level
IC79/86 combined (615.9 days) Preliminary 108 GeV (cosmogenic neutrinos (at surface)) K. Mase
14 $
events
/ 672.7days
days -- background
background (atm.
atm.
0.140.14
events
ents / 672.7
(atm. ++conventional
conventional
atm.) expectation
) expectation
events
preliminary p-value:
(2.36
preliminary
p-value:0.0094
0.0094
(2.36
34'552;D;9:&%'(87<7788?$
34'552;D;9:&%'(87<7788?$
Run118545-Event63733662
(-$?=5?$
(-$?=5?$
J4K4)($6
J4K4)($6
August
9th 2011
D$ D$
@A:$8B66?2C5=
@A:$8B66?2C5=
NPE 6.9928x104
@4EF%1$#G$H*(0/+.$I%')#1)$7;D$
@4EF%1$#G$H*(0/+.$I%')#1)$7;D$
Number
of Optical Sensors 354
$ $
CC/NC interactions
CC/NC
interactionsininthe
thedetector
detector
$ $
34'5567589:&%'(78;;8<=;$
34'5567589:&%'(78;;8<=;$
1,1,
>+'$7
$?=5?$
>+'$7
$?=5?$
@A:$6B8?2C5=
@A:$6B8?2C5=D$D$
@4EF%1$#G$H*(0/+.$I%')#1)$75?$
@4EF%1$#G$H*(0/+.$I%')#1)$75?$
preliminary p-value:
(2.36
preliminary
p-value:0.0094
0.0094
(2.36
34'552;D;9:
34'552;D
Run118545-E
(-$?=
(J4K4)($6
J4K4)($6
August
9th 20
@A:$8B66?2C
@A:$8B66?
NPE
6.9928x
@4EF%1$#G$H
@4EF%1$#
Number
of O
$ $
CC/NC interactions
CC/NC
interactionsininthe
thedetector
detector
$ $
34'5567589:&%'(78;;8<=;$
34'5567589:&%'(78;;8<=;$
1,1,
>+'$7
$?=5?$
>+'$7
$?=5?$
@A:$6B8?2C5=D$D$
@A:$6B8?2C5=
@4EF%1$#G$H*(0/+.$I%')#1)$75?$
@4EF%1$#G$H*(0/+.$I%')#1)$75?$
■ The energy deposit reconstruction
$$
$$
MC
MC
$ $
$$
$$
Aug. (“Bert”) $$
1.0±0.2 PeV $$
MC
MC
$ $
2$
!D0,9%*'0)0O,](A")*.$,7527w,:((,"0-S,JD,=*S(,H*BB(--,0","'*%,#((C.IO,9:;<=>?97527,
2345647527,
/$#,80*%%(),
!D0,9%*'0)0O,](A")*.$,7527w,:((,"0-S,JD,=*S(,H*BB(--,0","'*%,#
26,
2345647527,
2$
2$
Jan. (“Ernie”) /$#,80*%%(),
1.1±0.2 PeV 2$
energy resoluOon for these specific events including systemaOcs (ice + DOM eff.) Preliminary K. Mase
15 ■ Two events compatible with EHE
cosmogenic neutrino models?
How cosmogenic models are compaOble with the two event observaOon by using energy distribuOon and rate Fisher’s method χ 2 = −2 ln(PE ) − 2 ln(Ppois (2; µ ))
follows 4 degrees of freedom Energy distribuOon K-­‐S test rate (Poisson) Preliminary IC40+IC79+IC86 neutrino model
PE
expected rate
Ppois
p-­‐value
GZK Yoshida and Teshima
0.060
2.8
0.55
0.15
GZK Ahlers Fermi best
0.060
2.1
0.73
0.18
GZK Kotera FR-­‐II
0.034
5.9
0.038
0.01
GZK Kotera GRB
0.044
1.1
0.42
0.09
Cosmogenic neutrino models are not preferable to account for the two event observaOon K. Mase
16 ■  Constraint on EHE cosmogenic neutrino models
Compared the event rate with observaOon EssenOally no event observaOon above 100 PeV, though the effect of the two events considered by the energy PDF model
Preliminary IC40+IC79+IC86 expected rate p-­‐value
(>100 PeV)
GZK Yoshida Teshima, m=4, Zmax=4
2.6
0.11
GZK Sigl, m=5, Zmax =3*
4.0
0.030
GZK Ahrlers, Fermi best
2.0
0.21
GZK Ahrlers, Fermi max
4.1
0.027
GZK, Kotera, GRB
0.63
0.53
GZK, Kotera, FRII
3.8
0.022
Top-­‐down SUSY**
21
<< 0.001
Top-­‐down QCD**
5.0
0.011
*O. E. Kalasheve et al., Phys. Rev. D66, 063004 (2002)
**G. Sigl et al., Phys. Rev. D59, 043504 (1999)
K. Mase
high evoluOon models (m>4) are mostly ruled out such as FRII 17 ■ The model independent upper limit
similar as previous analysis , but model independent Preliminary differenOal limit per one energy decade K. Mase
18 ■  Summary p  Extremely high energy cosmogenic neutrinos were searched
for by using 2010-2012 IceCube data
p  Two cascade-like events found!
p  Significance of cosmogenic neutrino hypothesis is 2.7 sigma
p  High evolution models are ruled out such as FRII
p  Several follow-up analyses to look for such contained events
are being performed and their results are coming soon!
K. Mase
19 backups
K. Mase
20 q  Effect of source evolution and maximum
energy on neutrino flux
effect of the maximum energy effect of the source evoluOon neutrino flux depend on the source evoluOon and maximum energy -­‐> constraint on the parameters K. Mase
Kotera et al., JCAP 10 (2010) 013 21 ■  The IceCube experiment ²  Deployed in the AntarcOca glacier IceTop
IceCube
²  In-­‐ice + IceTop + deep core ²  86 strings (completed 2010!) ²  ~ 5,000 photo-­‐mulOplier tubes (PMTs) ²  Detector volume: ~ 1 km3 ²  ATWD 300MSPS 3 different gains (x16, x2, x0.25) ²  FADC for long duraOon pulse In-­‐‑ice detector
1km3
deep core
²  Targets for high energy cosmic neutrinos Digital OpOcal Module (DOM) K. Mase
PMT
22 /10(%10+$
%'()$*+))%,$(-%$)%.%/(0#'$/10(%10+$
2 events/ 672.7
/ 672.7days
days-- background
background (atm.
atm.
0.140.14
events
2 events
(atm. ++conventional
conventional
atm.) expectation
) expectation
events
7) days
- background
+ conventional
atm.
expectation
0.14 (atm.
events
preliminary
p-value:
(2.36
preliminary
p-value:0.0094
0.0094
(2.36 ) expectation 0.14 events
preliminary p-value: 0.0094 34'552;D;9:&%'(87<7788?$
(2.36
34'5567589:&%'(78;;8<=;$
34'552;D;9:&%'(87<7788?$
34'5567589:&%'(78;;8<=;$
Run118545-Event63733662
J4K4)($6
$?=5?$
■ Closest string
positions
for
the
vertices
August
9 2011
34'552;D;9:&%'(87<7788?$
@A:$8B66?2C5=
(J4K4)($6(th$?=5?$
@A:$8B66?2C5=D$4 D$
NPE 6.9928x10
(-$?=5?$
@4EF%1$#G$H*(0/+.$I%')#1)$7;D$
J4K4)($6
@4EF%1$#G$H*(0/+.$I%')#1)$7;D$
Number
of Optical Sensors 354
Jan. (“Ernie”) $ $
D$
@A:$8B66?2C5=
CC/NC interactions
CC/NC
interactionsininthe
thedetector
detector
$ $
@4EF%1$#G$H*(0/+.$I%')#1)$7;D$
1,1,
>+'$7
$?=5?$
>+'$7
$?=5?$
67589:&%'(78;;8<=;$
@A:$6B8?2C5=D$D$
@A:$6B8?2C5=
%'(87<7788?$
,$?=5?$
@4EF%1$#G$H*(0/+.$I%')#1)$75?$
@4EF%1$#G$H*(0/+.$I%')#1)$75?$
?$B8?2C5=D$
$$
D$
=%1$#G$H*(0/+.$I%')#1)$75?$
MC
MC
$
$
$ $
0/+.$I%')#1)$7;D$
$
CC/NC interactions in the detector
$$
MC
(K(."%,*.,9+(>AJ(,6^,
$
$
$(-%$)%.%/(0#'$/10(%10+$
$(-%$)%.%/(0#'$/10(%10+$
.(A")*.$%,_*"',9>cf,h,9>6^,MH0D,7525,x,H0D,7527N,
m. ++conventional
atm.
0.140.14
events
atm.
conventional
atm.) expectation
) expectation
events
yyp-value:
(2.36
p-value:0.0094
0.0094
(2.36
!D0,9%*'0)0O,](A")*.$,7527w,:((,"0-S,JD,=*S(,H*BB(--,0","'*%,#((C.IO,9:;<=>?97527,
Z: 25 m 34'552;D;9:&%'(87<7788?$
34'552;D;9:&%'(87<7788?$
J4K4)($6
$?=5?$
J4K4)($6
$?=5?$
August
9th 2011
D$ D$
@A:$8B66?2C5=
@A:$8B66?2C5=
NPE
6.9928x104
@4EF%1$#G$H*(0/+.$I%')#1)$7;D$
@4EF%1$#G$H*(0/+.$I%')#1)$7;D$
$
Number
of Optical Sensors 354
$ $
tions
in
the
detector
ctions in the detector
$ $
Run118545-Event63733662
2345647527,
(- (-
/$#,80*%%(),
2$
Aug. (“Bert”) MC
MC
26,
2$
2$
$ $
2$
Z: 122 m S,JD,=*S(,H*BB(--,0","'*%,#((C.IO,9:;<=>?97527,
/$#,80*%%(),
K. Mase
26,
2$
Well contained! 23
q  IceTop (surface array) veto information
²  IceTop veto informaOon was checked ²  hits search in allowed 8μs Ome window ²  0 and 1 hit observed again 2.1 hits expected -­‐> No CR shower K. Mase
24
q  Reconstructed energy at surface
!"#$%&%'()$*+))%,$(-%$)%.%/(0#'$/10(%10+$
!"#$%&%'()$*+))%,$(-%$)%.
2 eventsatm.
/ 672.7) days
- background
$/10(%10+$
%'()$*+))%,$(-%$)%.%/(0#'$/10(%10+$
2 events / 672.7 days - background (atm. + conventional
expectation
0.14 (atm.
events+ conve
preliminary p-value: 0.0
7) days
- background
atm. p-value:
) expectation
0.14 events
preliminary
0.0094
(2.36
expectation
0.14 (atm.
events+ conventional
without systemaOc error preliminary p-value:
0.0094
(2.36
34'5567589:&%'(78;;8<=;$
34'552;D;9:&%'(87<7788?$
34'5567589:&%'(78;;8<=;$
1,$?=5?$
34'552;D;9:&%'(87<7788?$ J4K4)($6(->+'$7
567589:&%'(78;;8<=;$
1,
$?=5?$
%'(87<7788?$>+'$7 $?=5?$
D$
1,$?=5?$
@A:$6B8?2C5=
J4K4)($6(-$?=5?$
D$
D$
@A:$8B66?2C5=
?$
@A:$6B8?2C5=
D$
@4EF%1$#G$H*(0/+.$I%')#1)$75?$
@A:$8B66?2C5=D$
6B8?2C5=
D$
with systemaOc error =
@4EF%1$#G$H*(0/+.$I%')#1)$7;D$
@4EF%1$#G$H*(0/+.$I%')#1)$75?$
@4EF%1$#G$H*(0/+.$I%')#1)$7;D$
F%1$#G$H*(0/+.$I%')#1)$75?$
CC/NC interactions in the d
$
(0/+.$I%')#1)$7;D$
$
$
CC/NC
the detector
interactions in the detector
$ interactions inCC/NC
MC
,(K(."%,*.,9+(>AJ(,6^,
$
$
$
MC
.(A")*.$%,_*"',9>cf,h,9>6^,MH0D,7525,x,H0D,7527N,
,$(-%$)%.%/(0#'$/10(%10+$
,$(-%$)%.%/(0#'$/10(%10+$
$
7,!(
MC
$
4-*S(,F(;,(K(."%,*.,9+(>AJ(,6^,
$
Y$A.B,*.,%(0)+',1$),+$%#$I(.*+,.(A")*.$%,_*"',9>cf,h,9>6^,MH0D,7525,x,H0D,752
!"#$%&%'()$*+))%,$(-%$)%.%/(0#'$/10(%10+$
$
!"#$%&%'()$*+))%,$(-%$)%.%/(0#'$/10(%10+$
$
2 events/ 672.7
/ 672.7days
days-- background
background (atm.
0.140.14
events
2 events
(atm. ++conventional
conventional
atm.) expectation
) expectation
eve
GZK flux atm.
assumed preliminary p-value:
(2.36
preliminary
p-value:0.0094
0.0094
(2.36
Top-­‐down approach (in-­‐ice) + propagaOon to surface atm.
atm.
0.140.14
events
atm. ++conventional
conventional
atm.) expectation
) expectation
events
ry p-value:
(2.36
ary
p-value:0.0094
0.0094
(2.36
In case of ν CC, full energy deposit 34'552;D;9:&%'(87<7788?$
34'552;D;9:&%'(87<7788?$
Run118545-Event63733662
e
(-$?=5?$
(-$?=5?$
J4K4)($6
J4K4)($6
August
9th 2011
D$
D$
@A:$8B66?2C5=
@A:$8B66?2C5=
NPE
6.9928x104
@4EF%1$#G$H*(0/+.$I%')#1)$7;D$
?$?$
@4EF%1$#G$H*(0/+.$I%')#1)$7;D$
Number of Optical Sensors 354
$ $
ctions
in
the
detector
actions in the detector
$ $
34'552;D;9:&%'(87<7788?$
34'552;D;9:&%'(87<7788?$
Run118545-Event63733662
(-$?=5?$
(-$?=5?$
J4K4)($6
J4K4)($6
August
9th 2011
D$ D$
@A:$8B66?2C5=
@A:$8B66?2C5=
NPE
6.9928x104
@4EF%1$#G$H*(0/+.$I%')#1)$7;D$
@4EF%1$#G$H*(0/+.$I%')#1)$7;D$
Number
of Optical Sensors 354
$ $
CC/NC
interactions
in
the
detector
CC/NC interactions in the detector
$ $
34'5567589:&%'(78;;8<=;$
34'5567589:&%'(78;;8<=;$
1,1,
>+'$7
$?=5?$
>+'$7
$?=5?$
@A:$6B8?2C5=
@A:$6B8?2C5=D$D$
@4EF%1$#G$H*(0/+.$I%')#1)$75?$
@4EF%1$#G$H*(0/+.$I%')#1)$75?$
Preliminary Other case of NC, parOal energy deposit by Bjorken y MC
MC
$$
$$
$ $
Aug. MC
MC
$$
Jan. 6.01 < log(E/GeV) < 8.03 (90%) K. Mase
0-S,JD,=*S(,H*BB(--,0","'*%,#((C.IO,9:;<=>?97527,
/$#,80*%%(),
26,
$ $
6.09 < log(E/GeV) < 8.65 2$
(90%) 25 !D0,9%*'0)0O,](A")*.$,7527w,:((,"0-S,JD,=*S(,H*BB(--,0","'*%,#((C.IO,9:;<=>?97527,
■  The systematic uncertainties
Preliminary K. Mase
26