Waveform comparisons for an EHE muon track

Introduction

I compared MC waveforms with PDFs for an EHE muon track. The MC waveforms are calibratedFADC generated with the JULIeT (with bulk ice tables). I tried three PDFs, namely K-function, lightsaber tables (bulk) and lightsaber tables (layered).

Here, I only used a fixed energy and fixed geometry of an EHE muon track. The geometry is horizontally (zenith angle = 90 deg.), an EHE muon passing through the center of our detector. I compare the waveforms for each OM distance along a string (string 45, nearly center).

The effect of the PMT spe distribution is taken into account for the PDFs.

Results

K-function, lightsaber (bulk), lightsaber (layered),

MC data (30 events) (black), profile of the MC data

DOM #24 (114m)	DOM #26 (82m)	DOM #28 (53m)
DOM #36 (101m)	DOM #34 (69m)	DOM #32 (42m)

DOM #20 (180m)	DOM #22 (147m)	DOM #24 (114m)
DOM #40 (166m)	DOM #38 (133m)	DOM #36 (101m)

DOM #12 (315m)	DOM #16 (247m)	DOM #20 (180m)
DOM #48 (301m)	DOM #44 (233m)	DOM #40 (166m)

Summary

• I would say the agreement between the MC data and the PDF is reasonable so that the waveform based reconstruction should work reasonably.
• The bulk lightsaber tables agrees best with the bulk MC data because it takes into account the OM position with regard to a track.
• The amplitude of MC may be higher than the PDF prediction.
• There is a big layered ice effect for far away DOMs.