# Fluxes¶

This section contains a list of fluxes supported by nuflux. All available fluxes were created with different combinations of primary CR and hadronic interaction models (refer to the physics section). Not all models are suitable for all neutrino energies. The plot below can give an idea of which model covers which energy range; however, note that it is up to the analyser to make sure a chosen flux is valid for their physics requirements.

## H3a_SIBYLL23C¶

Variants: H3a_SIBYLL23C (total), H3a_SIBYLL23C_pr (total prompt), H3a_SIBYLL23C_conv (total conventional), H3a_SIBYLL23C_k (from $$K^{\pm}$$ decay), H3a_SIBYLL23C_K0 (from $$K^{0}$$ decay), H3a_SIBYLL23C_K0L (from $$K^{0}_{L}$$ decay), H3a_SIBYLL23C_K0S (from $$K^{0}_{S}$$ decay), H3a_SIBYLL23C_pi (from $$\pi$$ decay), H3a_SIBYLL23C_mu (from $$\mu$$ decay).

Physics extents
Available (anti)neutrino flavors: $$e, \mu, \tau$$ (some flux variants might support fewer flavors)
$$10^{-2} < E_{kin} \text{[GeV]} < 10^{10}$$
$$-1 < \cos(\theta) < 1$$
The H3a_SIBYLL23C fluxes are calculated with MCEq 1.2.1 assuming the primary CR model HillasGaisser2012 (H3a), and the hadronic interaction model Sibyll 2.3C. In contrast to the H3a_SIBYLL21, $$\tau$$ flavor is supported. The resulting 2D tables were interpolated with the B-spline method using photospline 2.0.4. They are evaluated using the SplineFlux2 class.

## H3a_SIBYLL21¶

Variants: H3a_SIBYLL21 (total), H3a_SIBYLL21_conv (total conventional), H3a_SIBYLL21_k (from $$K^{\pm}$$ decay), H3a_SIBYLL21_K0 (from $$K^{0}$$ decay), H3a_SIBYLL23C_K0L (from $$K^{0}_{L}$$ decay), H3a_SIBYLL23C_K0S (from $$K^{0}_{S}$$ decay), H3a_SIBYLL21_pi (from $$\pi$$ decay), H3a_SIBYLL21_mu (from $$\mu$$ decay).

Physics extents
Available (anti)neutrino flavors: $$e, \mu$$ (some flux variants might support fewer flavors)
$$10^{-2} < E_{kin} \text{[GeV]} < 10^{10}$$
$$-1 < \cos(\theta) < 1$$
The H3a_SIBYLL21 fluxes are calculated with MCEq 1.2.1 assuming the primary CR model HillasGaisser2012 (H3a) and the hadronic interaction models Sibyll 2.1. The resulting 2D tables were interpolated with the B-spline method using photospline 2.0.4. They are evaluated using the SplineFlux2 class.

Variants: BERSS_H3a_central

The prompt atmospheric calculation from Bhattacharya et al. assuming the Gaisser H3a cosmic ray spectrum as input. The version included in this library was obtained by fitting a spline to data supplied by the authors of that paper to Joanna Kiryluk on or about 2015-02-09 with the following assumptions: 1) The flux is independent of zenith angle 2) The flux is the same for all flavors of neutrinos (and antineutrinos) except nu_tau, for which it is zero.

[Bhattacharya et al., J. High Energ. Phys. 2015, 110 (2015). arXiv:1502.01076].

Variants: BERSS_H3p_central, BERSS_H3p_lower, BERSS_H3p_upper

The family of prompt atmospheric calculation from Bhattacharya et al. assuming the ‘Gaisser H3p’ (all proton) cosmic ray spectrum as input. These fluxes represent the lower, central and upper points on the error band due to QCD uncertainties (cosmic ray flux uncertainties are not included) obtained in that paper. The version given here is constructed in the same manner as for BERSS_H3a_central (with the same assumptions about the angular distribution and neutrino flavors).

## CORSIKA_GaisserH3a¶

Variants: CORSIKA_GaisserH3a_QGSJET-II, CORSIKA_GaisserH3a_SIBYLL-2.1, CORSIKA_GaisserH3a_average

This flux is the atmospheric neutrino flux (ANFlux) from direct CORSIKA calculation. A large Monte Carlo set of a modified verison of CORSIKA (v. 7.4003), to allow for the shower output to be serialized into ROOT files, was run for different hadronic interaction models. The neutrino flux at various directions was histogramed and then weighted to the Gaisser H3a cosmic-ray flux. Then these histogram were splined using photospline.

[Schöneberg, Sebastian, The spectrum of atmospheric neutrinos above GeV energies, PhD Thesis, Ruhr Universität Bochum, 2016. PDF].

## IPhonda2006_sno_solmin, IPhonda2014_spl_solmin¶

Despite being continuous across energy, azimuth angle, and zenith angle, the fluxes commonly used for atmospheric neutrino estimates are provided from models at discrete points in (energy, azimuth, zenith). For models where the data is generated not at specific points but over suitably small ranges of (energy, azimuth, zenith)—such as the Monte Carlo simulation methods from M. Honda—it is important to preserve the integral of the flux over the 3-dimensional voxel as part of the smoothing process. For the Honda fluxes the integral preserving (IP) fluxes were developed by Steven Wren, where “the basic premise is to calculate splines of the integral of the data rather than the data itself. Then, to calculate the interpolated value of the original data at the desired point in the parameter space, one just evaluates the first derivative of these splines.

The tables presented here are based on Honda 2006 location at SNO during the solar minium/ Honda 2014 location at South Pole during the solar minium.

[Wren, Steven, “Neutrino Mass Ordering Studies with IceCube-DeepCore”, PhD Thesis, University of Manchester, 2018. PDF].

## bartol¶

The interaction model is published in Barr et al. and tables are available from Barr’s web page.

[Barr et al., Phys. Rev. D 70, 023006 (2004). astro-ph/0403630]. [Barr et al., 28th International Cosmic Ray Conferenece (ICRC2003) 1411. PDF].

## honda2006¶

Alternative Knee Models: gaisserH3a_elbert, gaisserH4a_elbert, gst13_elbert, gst13star_elbert, polygonato_mod_elbert

Original tables from Honda’s web page.

[Honda et al., Phys. Rev. D 75, 043006 (2007). astro-ph/0611418].

## sarcevic¶

Variants: sarcevic_max, sarcevic_min, sarcevic_std
Alternative Knee Models: gaisserH3a_elbert, gaisserH4a_elbert, polygonato_mod_elbert

For prompt neutrinos a new model is available by R. Enberg et al. This is a pqcd model where parameters where changed so that the model is provided as a best prediction (std) and a max and min ones that provide the uncertainty. Some of the highest predictions (_opt models can be discarded since they seem really too optimistic!)

[Enberg et al., Phys. Rev. D 78, 043005 (2008). arXiv:0806.0418].