abstract: For artificial general intelligence (AGI) it would be efficient if multiple users trained the same giant neural network, permitting parameter reuse, without catastrophic forgetting. PathNet is a first step in this direction. It is a neural network algorithm that uses agents embedded in the neural network whose task is to discover which parts of the network to re-use for new tasks. Agents are pathways (views) through the network which determine the subset of parameters that are used and updated by the forwards and backwards passes of the backpropogation algorithm. During learning, a tournament selection genetic algorithm is used to select pathways through the neural network for replication and mutation. Pathway fitness is the performance of that pathway measured according to a cost function. We demonstrate successful transfer learning; fixing the parameters along a path learned on task A and re-evolving a new population of paths for task B, allows task B to be learned faster than it could be learned from scratch or after fine-tuning. Paths evolved on task B re-use parts of the optimal path evolved on task A. Positive transfer was demonstrated for binary MNIST, CIFAR, and SVHN supervised learning classification tasks, and a set of Atari and Labyrinth reinforcement learning tasks, suggesting PathNets have general applicability for neural network training. Finally, PathNet also significantly improves the robustness to hyperparameter choices of a parallel asynchronous reinforcement learning algorithm (A3C).
author:
Chrisantha Fernando, Dylan Banarse, Charles Blundell, Yori Zwols, David Ha$^\dagger$, Andrei A. Rusu, Alexander Pritzel, Daan Wierstra

bibliography: sigproc.bib
title: PathNet: Evolution Channels Gradient Descent in Super Neural Networks

= 10000

# Introduction

A plausible requirement for artificial general intelligence is that many users will be required to train the same giant neural network on a multitude of tasks. This is the most efficient way for the network to gain experience, because such a network can reuse existing knowledge instead of learning from scratch for each task. To achieve this, we propose that each user of the giant net be given a population of agents whose job it is to learn the user-defined task as efficiently as possible. Agents will learn how best to re-use existing parameters in the environment of the neural network by executing actions within the neural network. They must work in parallel with other agents who are learning other tasks for other users, sharing parameters if transfer is possible, learning to update disjoint parameters if interference is significant. Each agent may itself be controlled by an arbitrarily complex reinforcement learning algorithm, but here we chose the very simplest possible 'agent', a unit of evolution .
The framework for AGI described above includes aspects of transfer learning , continual learning and multitask learning . Our work shares a motivation with a recent paper "Outrageously large neural networks" in which the authors write that "the capacity of a neural network to absorb information is limited by its number of parameters" . If a standard neural network is naively trained training cost scales quadratically with model width, whereas PathNet theoretically has constant computation speed with respect to the network width because only a fixed-size subset of the larger network is used for the forwards and backwards pass at any time (although there is no guarantee that more training may not be required in some cases). Our work is related also to "Convolutional Neural Fabrics" in which connection strengths between modules in the fabric are learned, but where (unlike PathNet) the whole fabric is used all the time .

This paper introduces PathNet, a novel learning algorithm with explicit support for transfer, continual, and multitask learning. Figure  illustrates the algorithm in action. The first task A is Pong and the second task B is Alien; both are trained consecutively for 80M timesteps each. The purple lines in Box 1 of the figure shows all 64 randomly initialized paths through the neural network model at the beginning of Pong training. A tournament selection genetic algorithm is then used to evolve paths, where during a fitness evaluation the path is trained for a few game episodes by gradient descent using a reinforcement learning algorithm. Thus, evolution and learning are taking place simultaneously, with evolution only guiding where gradient descent should be applied to change the weight and bias parameters. Box 2 shows the population converging (with many paths overlapping with each other) as performance improves. As perfect performance is achieved the population converges to a single path as shown in Box 3. Box 4 shows that the converged single pathway persists until the end of the training session. At this point the task switches to task B (Alien) and the optimal path for Pong gets 'fixed', i.e. the modules on that path have their weights and biases frozen. Box 5 shows the fixed path as heavy dark red lines alongside a new randomly initialized population of paths in light blue. The new population of paths evolve and converge on Alien by Box 8. After 160M steps, the optimal path for Alien was fixed, shown as dark blue lines in Box 9.
PathNets evolve a population of pathways through a neural network that scaffolds and channels any desired gradient-descent-based learning algorithm towards a limited subset of the neural network's parameters and then fixes these parameters after learning so that functionality can never be lost; it resembles progressive neural networks, in that catastrophic forgetting is prevented by design . In progressive neural networks the topology determining transfer is hard-wired rather than learned, whereby the first neural network is trained on the source task and then a second neural network is trained on the target task which receives inputs from the first neural network, which has its weights fixed. PathNets allow the relationships between the original 'columns' and later 'columns' to be evolved, where a column is one deep neural network.
Two examples of PathNets were investigated, a serial implementation on two supervised learning tasks where the PathNet is trained by stochastic gradient descent, and a parallel implementation on reinforcement learning tasks (Atari and Labyrinth games) where the PathNet is trained by the Async Advantage Actor-Critic (A3C) . A3C is an efficient distributed reinforcement learning algorithm which runs on multiple CPUs with e.g. 64 asynchronously updated workers that simultaneously share and update the parameters of a single network. Positive transfer from a source task to a target task is demonstrated in all four domains, compared to single fixed path controls trained from scratch and after fine-tuning on the first task.
The concept of the PathNet was first conceived of within the framework of Darwinian Neurodynamics as an attempt to envisage how evolutionary algorithms could be implemented in the brain . However, in that original work both the topology and the weights of the path were evolved and there was no gradient descent learning . Performance was comparable with a standard genetic algorithm on combinatorial optimization problems. Here we show performance superior to A3C and stochastic gradient descent for transfer learning.

# Methods

## PathNet Architecture

A PathNet is a modular deep neural network having $L$ layers with each layer consisting of $M$ modules. Each module is itself a neural network, here either convolutional or linear, followed by a transfer function; rectified linear units are used here. For each layer the outputs of the modules in that layer are summed before being passed into the active modules of the next layer. A module is $active$ if it is present in the path genotype currently being evaluated (see below). A maximum of $N$ distinct modules per layer are permitted in a pathway (typically $N = 3$ or $4$). The final layer is unique and unshared for each task being learned. In the supervised case this is a single linear layer for each task, and in the A3C case each task (e.g. Atari game) has a value function readout and a policy readout (see for a complete description of the A3C algorithm used).

## Pathway Evolution: Serial and Parallel

$P$ genotypes (pathways) are initialized randomly, each genotype is at most a $N$ by $L$ matrix of integers, which describe the active modules in each layer in that pathway. In the serial supervised implementation, a binary tournament selection algorithm is implemented in series as follows. A random genotype is chosen, and its pathway is trained for $T$ epochs, its fitness being the negative classification error during that period of training. Then another random genotype is chosen and its pathway trained for T epochs. A copy of the winning pathway's genotype overwrites the losing pathways genotype. The copy of the winning pathway's genotype is then mutated by choosing independently each element with a probability of $1/[N\times L]$ and adding an integer in the range $[-2, 2]$ to it. A local neighbourhood was used to promote spatial localization of network functionality.
In the A3C (reinforcement learning) case, all 64 genotypes are evaluated in parallel, one by each of the 64 workers. Therefore pathways restrict the simultaneous updates of parameters by the workers to only their specific subsets, as opposed to the standard A3C algorithm in which all workers update all parameters. The fitness of a genotype is the return accumulated over the $T$ episodes that a worker played using that genotypes pathway. While a worker is evaluating, it writes a large negative fitness to the shared fitness array, so that no genotypes wins a tournament until it has been evaluated. Once the worker has finished $T$ episodes, it chooses $B$ other random genotypes and checks if any of those genotypes have returned a fitness of at least its own fitness. If at least one has, then the highest fit genotype overwrites the current worker's genotype, and is mutated as above. If no other worker had a genotype with fitness greater than this workers own genotype, then the worker reevaluates its own genotype.

## Transfer Learning Paradigm

Once task A has been trained for a fixed period of time or until some error threshold has been reached, the best fit pathway is fixed, which means its parameters are no longer allowed to change. All other parameters not in an optimal path are reinitialized. We found that without re-initialization transfer performance did not exceed that of fine-tuning. In the A3C case (but not the supervised learning cases) the original best fit pathway is always $active$ during the forwards pass of the network, in addition to the newly evolving pathway, but its parameters are not modified by the backwards pass. A new set of random pathways is then initialized and evolved/trained on task B. In both the supervised and reinforcement settings, pathNet is compared with two alternative setups: an independent learning control where the target task is learned de novo, and a fine-tuning control where the second task is learned with the same path that learned the first task (but with a new value function and policy readout).

## Binary MNIST classification tasks

A binary MNIST classification involves distinguishing two classes of MNIST digits from one another, for example 5 verses 6 . To make the task more difficult, salt and pepper noise of 50% is added to the MNIST digits. A transfer experiment involves training and evolving paths on the first task until perfect classification on the training set is achieved.
At this point, a new population of path genotypes is initialized and evolved on the second task until perfect performance on the training set is achieved. Between tasks the following modifications are made to the underlying network. The parameters contained in the optimal path evolved on the first task are fixed, and all other parameters are reset to their random initial values. The reported outcome measures are the training times required to reach this classification accuracy. The overall PathNet consists of $L = 3$ layers. Each layer contains $M = 10$ linear units with 20 neurons each followed by rectified linear units. Between layers the activations of the units are summed. Reading out from the final layer is a separate linear layer for each task.
A maximum of 3 of these units per layer can be included in a single pathway. The genotype describing this pathway is a $3 \times 3$ matrix of integers in the range $[1,10]$. A population of 64 of these genotypes was generated uniformly randomly at the start of each task. The overall algorithm is as follows. Two paths are chosen randomly for evaluation. The evaluation of one path involves training with stochastic gradient descent with learning rate 0.0001 on 50 mini-batches of size 16. The fitness of that pathway is the proportion of correct examples classified on the training set during this training period. Once the fitness of both pathways has been calculated, the pathway with the lower fitness is overwritten by a copy of the pathway with the higher fitness and mutated. Mutation takes place with equal probability $1/(3 \times 3)$ per element of the genotype, adding a new random integer from range$[-2, 2]$ to the current value of that element. This is a binary tournament selection algorithm $(B = 2)$ .

## CIFAR and SVHN classification tasks

The larger version of the above network is used to train on CIFAR and cropped SVHN of standard size $28 \times 28$ with$L = 3$ and $M = 20$ modules per layer of 20 neurons each, and with pathways that may contain up to 5 modules per layer. In this case the networks were not trained to some fixed accuracy, but for a fixed period of 500 generations. Each generation consisted of the evaluation of two pathways, each for 50 mini-batches of size 16 images. The performance measure here was the accuracy achieved after this fixed training time. Evidence for positive transfer in this case is given by the second task showing a higher final accuracy compared to when it was learned from scratch.

## Atari games

We tested whether there was a speedup in learning a second (target) game after having played either Pong, RiverRaid or Seaquest as a source game. The target games were as follows: Alien, Asterix, Boxing, Centipede, Gopher, Hero, JamesBond, Krull, RoadRunner, StarGunner, WizardofWor. These are the same games presented by the authors of Progressive Neural Networks. In this case the A3C algorithm was used with 64 workers running in parallel. The first game is learned for 80M (or 40M) timesteps of training in total across all workers. During this time, workers are evolving pathways through the network. After the first game is learned the population of paths is reinitialized and the workers play the second game for 40M timesteps in total. Between tasks the following modifications are made to the underlying network. The parameters contained in the optimal path evolved on the first task are fixed, and all other parameters are reset to their random initial values. Evolution takes place according to a distributed asynchronous tournament selection algorithm which works as follows. The population of pathways and their fitnesses is stored in a central parameter server. Each worker accesses its own particular index into this population of genotypes corresponding to that worker's id. While it is first evaluating that pathway it writes -1000 to the fitness array at a position corresponding to it's id. After $T = 10$ episodes that worker writes the total sum of rewards obtained into the fitness array. It then observes the fitnesses of $B = 20$ other random workers and if any worker has a higher fitness than itself, it chooses the highest fitness worker in that set, and copies the pathway genotype to its own location with mutation, and resets its own fitness to -1000. However, if no other worker of the $B$ chosen has a path better than its own, then its own pathway is re-evaluated without resetting the fitness obtained from the previous evaluation. Mutation is as before, with the minor modification that if a location is chosen for mutation, then there is a 20% chance (during the second task) that a module from the optimal pathway evolved in the first task will be incorporated into the genotype. In the variant of PathNet used for this task, the optimal path evolved in the first task is always active during the forwards pass, in this sense, this version resembles progressive nets more closely than the supervised versions presented above. The architecture of the network used consists of a core of $L = 4$ layers, each with a width of $M = 10$ modules: namely, 3 convolutional layers where each module consists of 8 kernels, and a final layer of fully connected modules of 50 hidden nodes each. Between layers the feature maps and activations are summed. Reading out from the final layer are two linear layers for each game, one encoding a value function and the other encoding an action policy. Figure  shows the network architecture: The first three layers' modules are shown as green boxes; final layer of modules shown as purple boxes; the between-layer summing modules are shown as blue boxes; and active modules specified by the pathway as red boxes. Readout units not involved in the PathNet itself are shown as circles on the right.

## Labyrinth Games

We investigated the performance of a very similar PathNet architecture on 3 Labyrinth games. Labyrinth is a 3D first person game environment . We used the same settings used for Atari games. We chose three games: 'Laser Tag Chasm' (lt_chasm), 'Seek Avoid Arena 01' (seekavoid_arena) and 'Stairway to Melon 01' (stairway_to_melon). lt_chasm takes place in a square room with four opponents that must be tagged for points. A chasm in the center of the room must be avoided and shield pick-ups exist that the player must jump to reach. seekavoid_arena is a 3D room containing apples and lemons. The player must pick up the apples whilst avoiding the lemons. stairway_to_melon offers the player two options; the player can either collect a set of small rewards (apples) or they can opt to take a punishment (lemon) in order to reach a melon which results in a higher net reward.

The PathNet architecture used for Labyrinth was identical to the one used for Atari with the exception of a module-duplication mechanism. In the previous models there has not been any actual copying of parameters, only copying of views over a fixed set of parameters. In the Labyrinth model we enabled PathNet to copy the weights of modules to other modules within the same layer, emulating Net2Net or a distillation like operation. To aid this, we measure the extent to which a module contributes to the fitness of all the paths it is in by taking a sliding mean over the fitness of any path which contains that module. Using this measure it is possible to bias a weight-copying operator such that currently more globally useful modules are more likely to be copied across into other modules and hence into other paths. The hyperparameter *module duplication rate* determines the rate at which modules would be allowed to duplicate themselves. For the Labyrinth games both the first and second tasks were trained for 40M timesteps.

# Results

## Binary MNIST Classification

Figure  shows that with PathNet, learning a source MNIST classification task helps speed up learning in the target MNIST classification task (mean time to solution = 167 generations); greater than the speedup achievable by fine-tuning a fixed path that had initially been trained on the source task (mean time to solution = 229), and also compared to de novo learning of the target task from scratch (mean time to solution = 195). PathNet (bottom graph) learns in fewer generations with less data than both the fine-tuning (middle) and independent learning controls (top). The control networks consisted of exactly the same learning algorithm, but with no evolution of paths, and only one fixed maximum size pathway through the network. The total speedup ratio compared to the independent controls was 1.18.
Videos showing performance of PathNet can be obtained online at https://goo.gl/oVHMJo. They reveal that the modules in early layers of the big network converge in the population of pathways the quickest, followed by later layers, there being much more exploration and training of all the modules in the final layer. Many modules in the final layer contribute to high fitness, whereas only a few modules in the first layer do so. Thus, a population provides an elegant solution to the exploration /exploitation trade-off in a layer specific manner. Analysis did not reveal that the speedup ratio was correlated with path overlap as measured by the number of modules in the original optimal path that were present in the population of paths at the end of the second task. This suggests that speedup can be obtained by PathNet both determining when there should be overlap and when there should not be overlap. The fact that on average fine-tuning is slower than independent task learning in MNIST binary classification tasks implies that generally overlap would not be expected to provide speedup. Thus, PathNet can be seen to have done its job by controlling the amount of overlap properly, see Figure

## CIFAR and SVHN

In this experiment we compare only the accuracy PathNet obtains after a short fixed number of 500 generations. A fully connected network of this size is generally insufficient to perform well on these datasets. After 500 generations, when learning from scratch with PathNet, cSVHN and CIFAR are learned to 25.5% and 35.3% accuracy on average, see Figure . But after the first task has been learned to this accuracy, learning the second task is faster, so when cSVHN and CIFAR are learned as the second task with PathNet, then accuracies of 35.7% and 39.8% are achieved respectively. Thus, both cSVHN and CIFAR are learned faster with PathNet when learned second rather than first.

## Atari Games

Transfer performance on PathNet is compared with fixed maximum-size-path de novo training and fine-tuning controls for which a hyperparameter sweep was conducted involving learning rates \[0.001,0.0005,0.0001\] and entropy costs \[0.01, 0.001, 0.0001\]. The following hyperparameters were investigated for PathNet: evaluation time T \[1,10,50\], mutation rate \[0.1, 0.01, 0.001\] and tournament size B \[2, 10, 20\].

In Figure  the performance of PathNet (blue) is compared with independent and fine-tuning controls (green) on 4 target games, having learned RiverRaid first. In all cases the top 5 runs of a hyperparameter search are shown. We generally found that strong selection with tournament sizes of $B = 10$, $T = 10$ game episodes per evaluation, and low mutation rates of 0.01-0.001 were optimal, allowing rapid convergence of paths to a single path, followed by exploration of small variants to a path, thus focusing learning on a few parameters, with occasional exploration of novel bypasses. PathNet is superior to controls in these 4 cases.
Figure  shows that PathNet is on average superior to independent learning and fine-tuning over the Atari games we investigated. Compared to a control of 1.0, fine tuning achieves a 1.16 speedup on average whereas PathNet achieves a 1.33 times speedup. Results for transfer on more Atari games can be seen in Figure .

## Labyrinth Games

PathNet transfer between the three labyrinth games lt_chasm, seekavoid_arena and stairway_to_melon is compared with fixed maximum-size-path de novo training and fine-tuning controls for which a hyperparameter sweep was conducted involving mutation rates \[ 0.1, 0.01, 0.001\], module duplication rate \[ 0.0, 0.05, 0.1, 0.5\] (per episode completed by worker 0) and tournament size B \[2, 10\]. The learning rate was fixed at 0.001, entropy cost at 0.0001 and evaluation time $T$ at 13.
Figure  shows the mean of the training performance for the top 5 experiments for both PathNet and the fixed-path controls. Each row represents a different source game and each column a different target game. Where the source game and target game are the same the graph shows the results of learning the game de novo from scratch. Figure  shows that in some cases the module duplication operation produces improved performance compared to standard PathNet.
In several cases (transfer to lt_chasm and transfer from lt_chasm to seekavoid_arena) PathNet learns the second task faster than fine-tuning. Interestingly, PathNet also performs better than fine-tuning when learning stairway_to_melon and seekavoid_arena from scratch.
Results of the best runs from a hyperparameter search are summarized in Figure . Here performance is evaluated by measuring the area under the learning curve (average score per episode during training), rather than final score. The numbers in the table show the relative performance of an architecture learning a target task (each column) compared with an independent baseline with a fixed maximum size path trained from scratch only on the target task. The controls are labelled as 'Fixed path de novo from scratch' (top row) and is 1 for each column (target task). A ratio in a column \>1 represents the speedup when learning that column's target task, and \<1 is a slowdown. The three rows below the de novo control show the fine-tuning results between the three games. The first row in the PathNet results show performance learning the individual games from scratch and the three rows below that show the PathNet transfer results between the three games.
On transferring to lt_chasm both fine-tuning and PathNet perform worse than the control de novo learning. On the the other two games both exhibit positive transfer performance. The average performance ratio for fine-tuning for transfer across all the game combinations is 1.00 (2 d.p.), essentially no faster than learning from scratch. The average performance ratio for PathNet is 1.26 (2 d.p.); largely due to the good performance transferring from seekavoid_arena to stairway_to_melon.
We also compared PathNet to independent and fine-tuning controls over the same sweep of 243 hyperparameters as used in the Atari experiments described above. On the Labyrinth level seekavoid_arena in which the agent must collect apples but avoid lemons we found that the PathNet had significantly higher mean performance than control runs, both when learning seekavoid_arena from scratch compared to the de novo controls, and for relearning from the same task, compared to fine-tuning from a network that had previously learned seekavoid_arena, see Figure .

# Conclusion

PathNet extends our original work on the Path Evolution Algorithm to Deep Learning whereby the weights and biases of the network are learned by gradient descent, but evolution determines which subset of parameters is to be trained. We have shown that PathNet is capable of sustaining transfer learning on at least four tasks in both the supervised and reinforcement learning settings.
PathNet may be thought of as implementing a form of 'evolutionary dropout' in which instead of randomly dropping out units and their connections, dropout samples or 'thinned networks' are evolved . PathNet has the added advantage that dropout frequency is emergent, because the population converges faster at the early layers of the network than in the later layers. PathNet also resembles 'evolutionary swapout' , in fact we have experimented with having standard linear modules, skip modules and residual modules in the same layer and found that path evolution was capable of discovering effective structures within this diverse network. PathNet is related also to recent work on convolutional neural fabrics, but there the whole network is always used and so the principle cannot scale to giant networks . Other approaches to combining evolution and learning have involved parameter copying, whereas there is no such copying in the current implementation of PathNet .
Whilst we have only demonstrated PathNet in a fairly small network, the principle can scale to much larger neural networks with more efficient implementations of pathway gating. This will allow extension to multiple tasks. We also wish to try PathNet on other RL tasks which may be more suitable for transfer learning than Atari, for example continuous robotic control problems. Further investigation is required to understand the extent to which PathNet may be superior to using fixed paths. Firstly, a possibility is that mutable paths provide a more useful form of diverse exploration in RL tasks . Secondly, it is possible that a larger number of workers can be used in A3C because if each worker can determine which parameters to update, there may be selection for pathways that do not interfere with each other.
We are still investigating the potential benefits of module duplication. see Supplementary Video https://goo.gl/oVHMJo. Using this measure it is possible to bias the mutation operator such that currently more globally useful modules are more likely to be slotted into other paths. Further work is also to be carried out in multi-task learning which has not yet been addressed in this paper.
Finally, it is always possible and sometimes desirable to replace evolutionary variation operators with variation operators learned by reinforcement learning. A tournament selection algorithm with mutation is only the simplest way to achieve adaptive paths. It is clear that more sophisticated methods such as policy gradient methods may be used to learn the distribution of pathways as a function of the long term returns obtained by paths, and as a function of a task description input. This may be done through a softer form of gating than used by PathNet here. Furthermore, a population (ensemble) of soft gate matrices may be maintained and an RL algorithm may be permitted to 'mutate' these values.
The operations of PathNet resemble those of the Basal Ganglia, which we propose determines which subsets of the cortex are to be active and trainable as a function of goal/sub-goal signals from the prefrontal cortex, a hypothesis related to others in the literature .

# Acknowledgments

Thanks to Hubert Soyer, Arka Pal, Gabriel Dulac-Arnold, Gabriel Barth-Maron, Matteo Hessel, Alban Rustrani, Stephen Gaffney, Joel Leibo, Eors Szathmary


abstract: The astronomical dark matter could be made of weakly interacting massive species whose mutual annihilations should produce antimatter particles and distortions in the corresponding energy spectra. The propagation of cosmic rays inside the Milky Way plays a crucial role and is briefly presented. The uncertainties in its description lead to considerable variations in the predicted primary fluxes. This point is illustrated with antiprotons. Finally, the various forthcoming projects are rapidly reviewed with their potential reach.
address: LAPTH, 9 Chemin de Bellevue, BP110, 74941 Annecy–le–Vieux Cedex, FR
author: P Salati
title: Production of antimatter in the galaxy

# Cosmic ray propagation throughout the Milky Way

Supersymmetric neutralinos or Kaluza–Klein particles could explain the dark matter that is indirectly observed around galaxies, inside their clusters and on cosmological scales. These species are hunted for by several experimental collaborations. As they annihilate inside the Milky Way halo, they produce high–energy cosmic rays and in particular antimatter particles such as antiprotons, antideuterons and positrons. These are rare elements which are already manufactured inside the galactic disk through the spallations of primary cosmic rays on the interstellar gas. That conventional process provides the natural background inside which the DM induced antimatter signature may be burried and whose spectral distortions could reveal an exotic signal. It is therefore crucial to derive as precisely as possible the energy spectra of the various antimatter species irrespective of the production mechanisms and to evaluate how well they are known. To reach that goal, a precise understanding of cosmic ray propagation is mandatory. We briefly sketch here how that propagation is understood and how well it is modeled.

Interstellar nuclei are accelerated by the passage of supernovae induced shock waves. The sources for primary cosmic ray nuclei are therefore located inside the disk of the Milky Way. Primaries propagate then inside the galactic magnetic fields and undergo collisions on its irregularities – the Alfvén waves. This motion is described in terms of a diffusion process whose coefficient $K(E) \; = \; K_{0} \, \beta \, {\mathcal R}^{\delta}$ increases with the rigidity ${\mathcal R}$ of the cosmic ray particle as a power law. Because the scattering centers move with a velocity $V_{a} \sim$ 20 to 100 km s$^{-1}$, a second order Fermi mechanism yields some diffusive reacceleration whose coefficient $K_{EE}$ may be expressed as $$K_{EE} \; = \;
{\displaystyle \frac{2}{9}} \, V_{a}^{2} \,
{\displaystyle \frac{E^{2} \beta^{4}}{K(E)}} \;\; .$$ Ionization, adiabatic and Coulomb energy losses must also be taken into account through the energy loss rate $b^{\rm loss}(E)$. Finally, galactic convection could wipe cosmic rays away from the disk with a velocity $V_{C} \sim$ 5 to 15 km s$^{-1}$. The number of particles par unit of volume and space $\psi = dn / dE$ may be derived form the master equation $$V_{C} \, \partial_{z} \Psi \; - \; K \, \Delta \Psi \; - \;
\partial_{E} \left\{ b^{\rm loss}(E) \, \Psi \; + \;
K_{EE}(E) \, \partial_{E} \Psi \right\} \; = \; q \;\; ,
\label{master_equation}$$ that applies for any cosmic ray species – primary or secondary – as long as the various production processes are appropriately described in the rate $q$. That general scheme may be implemented either numerically  or semi–analytically through the two–zone model discussed in .

The latter method allows an easier derivation of the theoretical uncertainties associated to the various parameters at stake – namely $K_{0}$, $\delta$, $V_{a}$, $V_{C}$ and the thickness $L$ of the confinements layers that extend above and beneath the Milky Way disk. The space of these propagation parameters has been extensively scanned  in order to select the allowed regions where the predictions on B/C – a typical CR secondary to primary ratio – match the observations. Tens of thousands of propagation models have survived that crucial test. The diffusion parameters are indeed still largely undetermined contrary to what is generally believed in our community. Recently, the same conclusion has been independently reached  with the help of a fully numerical code  in which the convective wind $V_{C}$ increases linearly with vertical heigh $z$. However, the B/C ratio could not be accounted for when galactic convection and diffusive reacceleration were both implemented at the same time.

# The various antimatter backgrounds and signals

## Antiprotons

Secondary antiprotons are produced through the spallations of cosmic ray protons on the interstellar material $$p \, ({\rm CR}) \; + \; H \, ({\rm ISM}) \;\; \to \;\; \mbox{$\bar{\rm p}$}\; + \; X \;\; .$$ The corresponding source rate may be expressed as $$q_{\bar{\rm p}}^{\rm sec}(r , E_{\bar{\rm p}}) \; = \;
{\displaystyle \int_{E^{0}_{\rm p}}^{+ \infty}} \,
{\displaystyle \frac{d \sigma_{\rm p H \to \bar{p}}}{dE_{\bar{\rm p}}}}
\left\{ E_{\rm p} \to E_{\bar{\rm p}} \right\} \; n_{\rm H} \;
v_{\rm p} \; \psi_{\rm p} (r,E_{\rm p}) \;
d E_{\rm p} \;\; ,$$ and can easily be modified in order to incorporate heavier nuclei. The top–of–atmosphere antiproton flux has been derived  for each of the numerous propagation models that are compatible with the B/C measurements . In spite of the above–mentioned large uncertainties on the propagation parameters, the predictions all lie within the two solid black lines of Figures  and and are in good agreement with the observations – a conclusion that has also been reached in  where a slightly larger uncertainty band is nevertheless obtained. The estimate of the energy spectrum of secondary antiprotons is therefore quite robust and does not depend much on the numerous and poorly known parameters that account for cosmic ray galactic propagation. Actually since boron and secondary antiprotons both originate from the same production site – Milky Way disk – it is not surprising if the former species constrains the latter.

On the contrary, primary antiprotons are produced by the mutual annihilations of DM particles $$\chi \, + \, \chi \;\; \to \;\; q \, + \, \bar{q} \; , \;
W^{+} \, + \, W^{-} \; , \; Z^{0} \, + \, Z^{0} \; , \; H \, + \, H
\;\; \to \;\; \mbox{$\bar{\rm p}$}\; + \; X \;\; ,$$ that take place all over the Milky Way DM halo, in a region that encompasses the above–mentioned confinement layers whose thickness $L$ is still unknown. As a result, the production of primary antiprotons whose rate may be expressed as $$q_{\bar{\rm p}}^{\rm DM}(r , E_{\bar{\rm p}}) \; = \;
{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}} \,
\langle \sigma_{\rm ann} v \rangle \,
{\displaystyle \frac{dN_{\mbox{$\bar{\rm p}$}}}{dE_{\mbox{$\bar{\rm p}$}}}} \,
%{g \left( T_{\pbar} \right)} \,
\left\{ {\displaystyle \frac{\rho_{\chi}(r)}{m_{\chi}}} \right\}^{2}
\;\; ,$$ suffers from large uncertainties. Predictions span a range of $\sim$ two orders of magnitude at low energy . This crucial point is illustrated in Figure  where the case of a resonant LZP is featured for the maximal, median and minimal configurations of table .

 Astrophysical parameters of the cosmic ray galactic propagation models giving the maximal, median and minimal primary antiproton fluxes compatible wih B/C analysis .

case

δ
K0
L
Vc

[${\rm kpc^{2}/Myr}$]
[kpc]
[km/sec]

max

0.46
0.0765
15
5

med
0.70
0.0112
4
12

min
0.85
0.0016
1
13.5

Another source of uncertainty is related to the DM distribution itself $\rho_{\chi}(r)$ whose radial profile is generically given by $$\rho_{\chi}(r) \; = \; \rho_{\, {\rm DM} \, \odot} \,
\left\{
{\displaystyle \frac{r_{\odot}}{r}} \right\}^{\gamma} \,
\left\{
{\displaystyle \frac{1 \, + \, \left( r_{\odot} / a \right)^{\alpha}}
{1 \, + \, \left( r / a \right)^{\alpha}}}
\right\}^{\left( \beta - \gamma \right) / \alpha} \;\; .
\label{eq:profile}$$ The distance of the Solar System from the galactic center is $r_{\odot} = 8$ kpc. The local – Solar System – DM density has been set equal to $\rho_{\, {\rm DM} \, \odot} = 0.3$ GeV cm$^{-3}$. In the case of the pseudo-isothermal profile, the typical length scale $a$ is the radius of the central core. The profile indices $\alpha$, $\beta$ and $\gamma$ of the dark matter distributions which have been considered in Figure  are indicated in table .

 Dark matter distribution profiles in the Milky Way.

Halo model

α
β
γ
a [kpc]

Cored isothermal

 2
 2
 0
 4

Navarro, Frenk & White
1
3
1
25

Moore
1.5
3
1.3
30

Notice finally that the halo could be clumpy so that the DM species annihilations could be enhanced by a boost factor that is still very uncertain.

Constraining the MSSM parameter space or deriving informations on Kaluza–Klein particles from antiproton measurements may turn out to be tricky. However in the case of light neutralinos whose relic density accounts for the WMAP measurement, stringent limits may be extracted. In particular should $L$ exceed 3 kpc, a neutralino lighter than 40 GeV would be basically excluded – see  for details.

## Antideuterons

Secondary antideuterons are manufactured by CR nuclei spallations in which an antiproton–antineutron pair is produced and then merges. This fusion is a very rare event because two antinucleons must be produced at the same time and the difference between their momenta must not exceed $P_{\rm coal}$. The typical value that has been derived in  and used in  for that coalescence momentum is $P_{\rm coal} = 58$ MeV. Because antideuterons are easily destroyed when they interact – their binding energy is only 2.2 MeV – they should not a priori undergo inelastic and non–annihilating scattering. In the case of antiprotons, that reaction is very efficient and flattens the spectrum at low energy – hence the difficulty to disentangle a primary signal from the secondary background. But in the case of antideuterons, that process has been assumed until recently to be negligible. If so, the secondary antideuteron spectrum exhibits a deficiency at low energy as advocated in  and primary antideuterons should be hunted for below a kinetic energy of $\sim 3$ GeV/n.

This point has been extensively reanalyzed recently in . If actually the $\Delta$–resonance excitation $$\bar{\rm D} \; + \; {\rm p} \;\; \to \;\; \bar{\rm D} \; + \; \Delta$$ is forbidden on the basis of isospin conservation, the production of pions is nevertheless possible through $$\bar{\rm D} \; + \; {\rm p} \;\; \to \;\;
\bar{\rm D} \; + \; {\rm p} \; + \; n \, \pi \;\;.$$ The cross section for inelastic and non–annihilating $\bar{\rm D}$ interactions is therefore small but non–vanishing. This may allow a certain flattening of the spectrum in the low energy region and could weaken the relevance of antideuterons as a clear signature for DM species. An additional source of spectral flattening investigated in  is the production of antideuterons through the collisions of already propagating antiprotons on interstellar H and He. The threshold for manufacturing a single antineutron is just $7 \, m_{\rm p}$ – instead of $17 \, m_{\rm p}$ for a pair – and low energy antideuterons should be more abundant. The final conclusion reached in  – with a more correct value of $P_{\rm coal} = 79$ MeV – strengthens the case for antideuterons. Below $\sim 1 - 2$ GeV/n, the flux of TOA secondary antideuterons does not exceed $\sim 10^{-7}$ $\bar{\rm D}$ m$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ sr$^{-1}$ (GeV/n)$^{-1}$, a typical value expected for a primary component in the case of annihilating supersymmetric neutralinos.

As a matter of fact, a detailed analysis of the detection prospects of supersymmetric dark matter in the mSUGRA framework has been performed in  for models whose thermal relic density is in the range favored by current precision cosmological measurements. Direct detection and searches for antideuterons were found to be the most promising signatures.

## Positrons

Energy losses play a crucial role in the propagation of positrons. Because galactic convection and diffusive reacceleration can be disregarded, the master equation () simplifies into $$- \; \vec{\nabla} \cdot
\left\{ K \left( \vec{x} , E \right) \, \vec{\nabla} \Psi \right\} \; - \;
\partial_{E}
\left\{ b^{\rm loss}(E) \, \Psi \right\} \; = \; q \left( \vec{x} , E \right) \;\; .
\label{master_2}$$ Above a few GeV, positron energy losses are dominated by synchrotron radiation in the galactic magnetic fields and by inverse Compton scattering on stellar light and on CMB photons. The energy loss rate increases with the positron energy $\epsilon = E / {\rm 1 \, GeV}$ as $b^{\rm loss}(E) = {\epsilon^{2}}/{\tau_{E}}$ where the relevant timescale is typically $\tau_{E} = 10^{16}$ s. The diffusion coefficient $K$ is assumed to be homogeneous and equal to the galactic averaged value that is used for antiprotons and antideuterons – see section . But if those antinuclei can originate from remote regions and probe a significant portion of the Milky Way, the high energy positrons that are detected at the Earth cannot come from far away and the unknown solar neighborhood value should be preferred. Future high precision measurements on the $^{10}$Be to $^{9}$Be ratio will be very valuable since the former nucleus is unstable and also originates from the local bubble . Equation () may be solved either numerically or with the help of the smart trick proposed in  which consists in translating the positron energy $E$ into pseudo–time. Measurements of the positron flux show evidence for a spectral excess  at energies $\sim$ 10 GeV. That feature is hard to explain only with secondary positrons whose flux is nevertheless subject to theoretical uncertainties – especially below $\sim$ 5 GeV – as shown in . Numerous analysis have been devoted to the explanation of the putative HEAT excess in terms of annihilating supersymmetric neutralinos or Kaluza–Klein species. The latter are more promising because they directly yield electron–positron pairs with a branching ratio $\sim$ 20%. Large values for the boost factor or for the annihilation cross section are in any case necessary.

The PAMELA  and AMS–02  missions will collect positrons up to hundreds of GeV and will bring valuable informations on the HEAT excess and on the possible presence in the Milky Way halo of DM particles. The reach of these experiments have been studied in  where three years of observation and a boost factor of 5 have been assumed. In the case of a bino–like neutralino which mostly produces ${\rm b \bar{b}}$ pairs, PAMELA will be sensitive to configurations down to an annihilation cross section of order a few times $10^{-26}$ cm$^{3}$ s$^{-1}$ whereas AMS–02 will lower that value by a factor of 4. If the neutralino is now a higgsino, PAMELA will be sensitive to masses up to 380 GeV and AMS–02 will improve that limit up to 650 GeV. If now the galactic DM is made of Kaluza–Klein species, that reach will become 550 GeV in the case of PAMELA and 1 TeV for AMS–02. Remember finally that – as in the case of antiprotons – these results are affected by large uncertainties related to the propagation model.

# Forthcoming experiments

The forthcoming satellite missions PAMELA and AMS–02 have just been mentioned. They are compared in table  with the BESS–polar experiment . Long duration flights around the poles where the geomagnetic shield is no longer active allow for large values of the acceptance. Below 10 GeV, the effective sensitivity of BESS–polar for low energy antiprotons will be actually 3 times larger than for PAMELA. In the same spirit, the CREAM collaboration  will measure the B/C ratio between 1 and $10^{3}$ TeV. It aims at the determination of the index $\delta$ that drives the energy dependence of the diffusion coefficient $K$. Such a measurement is mandatory in order to reduce the large uncertainties that plague the theoretical predictions on cosmic rays  and in particular those on the DM induced primaries. The search for antideuterons is also extremely active. A new upper limit of $1.9 \times 10^{-4}$ m$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ sr$^{-1}$ (GeV/n)$^{-1}$ has been derived  for the differential TOA flux of cosmic ray antideuterons between 0.17 and 1.15 GeV/n. A pioneering concept  for detecting low energy antideuterons is based on their capture by atoms whose electrons are rapidly expelled. The result is an antideuteron that orbits alone around the nucleus. As it cascades towards the ground state, several well defined X–ray photons are emitted and yield a unique signature as explained by C. Hailey in this conference.

 Comparison between PAMELA, BESS–polar and AMS–02 as presented in .

Project

PAMELA
BESS–polar
AMS–02

Flight vehicle

Satellite
long–duration balloon
ISS

Flight duration
3 years
10–20 days
3–5 years

Altitude
300–600 km
37 km (5 g cm−2)
320–390 km

Orbit
70.4∘
≥ 70∘S Lat.
51.7∘

Acceptance
0.0021 m2 sr
0.3 m2 sr
0.3 m2 sr

MDR (GV)
740
150
∼ 1000

Particle identification
TOF/TRD/CAL
TOF/ACC
TOF/TRD/RICH/CAL

Number of helium
4 × 107
(1 − 2) × 107
2 × 109

Launch
December 2005
December 2004
2007

Pierre Salati would like to thank the organizers for their generous hospitality as well as for the inspiring and exciting atmosphere of this very nice meeting.

# References


abstract: The controversies around the 2020 US presidential elections certainly casts serious concerns on the efficiency of the current voting system in representing the people's will. Is the naive Plurality voting suitable in an extremely polarized political environment? Alternate voting schemes are gradually gaining public support, wherein the voters rank their choices instead of just voting for their first preference. However they do not capture certain crucial aspects of voter preferences like disapprovals and negativities against candidates. I argue that these unexpressed negativities are the predominant source of polarization in politics. I propose a voting scheme with an explicit expression of these negative preferences, so that we can simultaneously decipher the popularity as well as the polarity of each candidate. The winner is picked by an optimal tradeoff between the most popular and the least polarizing candidate. By penalizing the candidates for their polarization, we can discourage the divisive campaign rhetorics and pave way for potential third party candidates.
author: Karthik H. Shankar
title: Negative votes to depolarize politics

Social choice theorists have pondered over alternate voting systems for more than two centuries since Nicolas de Condorcet . The ranked voting systems, wherein the voters rank their choices instead of just voting for their first preference, have been thoroughly explored and their deficiencies have been mathematically nailed down. Arrow's Impossibility theorem proves that it is impossible to always pick a winner in a ranked voting system that satisfies certain basic intuitive criteria. Further, the Gibbard-Satterthwaite (GS) theorem proves that in any ranked voting system, some voters can always strategically misrepresent their votes to alter the results, which implies an impossibility of a *strategy-proof* voting system. So, it appears that there cannot exist a voting system that fairly represents the voter preferences, prompting the notion that a perfect democracy is mathematically impossible.[^1]

It may very well be true that we cannot design a perfect voting system, nevertheless we can certainly do much better than the naive *plurality voting* system wherein the voters only vote for their first preference. Any alternate voting method is of course more complex, but the advent of electronic voting vastly simplifies its implementation. So there is no valid excuse to not facilitate smarter and fairer elections.

The major problem with the plurality voting system is that when two strong candidates emerge with certain critical mass of support prior to the election, then rest of the support will automatically coagulate around them, simply because many voters don't want to waste their votes on a third candidate. This is very deceptive because many of those votes are not direct support for the respective candidates, rather they are anti-votes against the opposing candidate. To make matters worse, the candidates understand this phenomenon and indulge in some divisive campaign rhetorics to collect more of their opponent's anti-votes. Many voters would thus strategically refrain from voting for their real preference (the third party candidate) because their priority is to defeat one of the top two contenders by voting for the other. Consequently, the third party candidates are stifled out of competition.

Ranked voting systems alleviate this issue significantly because the voters have the opportunity to elaborate their preferences in a more detailed fashion. The voters can express their dislike for a candidate by ranking them the last, however this is not the same as explicitly casting a negative vote. The only way to prevent the anti-votes for a candidate from being masked into votes for another candidate is to explicitly express them on the ballot as negative votes.

Moreover, it is well established that people's choice very much depends on how the decision problem in front of them is framed [^2]. By not allowing the voters to freely express their negative preferences, we are essentially ill-framing the decision problem and needlessly tampering with voter's psychology. Here I shall propose a voting system which explicitly incorporates negative votes.

**Normed Negative Voting :** Consider a voting system where each voter assigns a positive or negative number to each candidate such that the magnitudes of all the numbers sum up to 10.

Example : In a three candidate election amongst $\{ A, B, C \}$, voter-1 could vote as $\{+7, -1, -2 \}$ while voter-2 could vote as $\{ +3, +2, -5 \}$. Both the voters express the same rank ordering of preferences, namely $A > B > C$, however their ballots clearly contain far richer information than just the relative ranks. Requiring the sum of magnitudes of the vote to be a constant (10) is mathematically termed as *Normed*; it serves to ensure the rule of equality *one-person-one-vote*.

**Vote aggregation :** For each candidate, aggregate the positive votes from all voters as P, and aggregate the negative votes from all voters as N. Then define for each candidate *Popularity* $\equiv$ P-N, and *Polarity* $\equiv$ N/P. An absolutely noncontroversial candidate who does not acquire any negative votes will have the lowest polarity of zero. On the other hand, a candidate with almost equally large positive and negative votes is by definition extremely polarizing with a polarity of 1. For obvious reasons, candidates with polarity larger than 1 should be disqualified.

**Winning metric :** To determine the winner, we shall construct a metric W that rewards popularity and penalizes polarity. It has to be a monotonically increasing function of popularity and a monotonically decreasing function of polarity. The candidate with the highest value of W is the winner. If two candidates have equal popularity, the one with lower polarity will have to win. Consider the following metric parametrized by two positive constants $(c,b)$. $$W_{b}^{c} (P,N) \equiv \frac{P- c N}{1+ b \,N/P}
  \label{win}$$

Let us first examine this function with $c=b=1$. Consider an election with three candidates and two voters as shown below.

| Candidate | voter-1 | voter-2 |  P  |  N  | P-N | N/P | $W_{1}^{1}$ |
|:---------:|:-------:|:-------:|:---:|:---:|:---:|:---:|:-----------:|
|     A     |   10    |   -5    | 10  |  5  |  5  | 0.5 |    3.33     |
|     B     |    0    |    4    |  4  |  0  |  4  |  0  |      4      |
|     C     |    0    |    1    |  1  |  0  |  1  |  0  |      1      |

Although A has the highest popularity, B still wins over A because of lower polarity. This seems to be a fair result for this election. However, we should note that this voting scheme is severely prone to strategic-voting. Voter-1 has naively expressed a clear preference for A and no dislike for B. On the other hand, voter-2 might simply prefer B over A (and no real dislike for A), however by misrepresenting the preference and casting a negative vote to increase the polarity of A, voter-2 can enhance the chances of B's victory. Game-theoretically speaking, voter-1 would foresee this and in turn misrepresent his preference to include a negative vote for B. [^3]

**Avoid over-penalization of Negative Votes :** Strategically misrepresenting the negative votes as described above should be discouraged. It cannot be completely eliminated, but it can be suppressed by appropriately constraining the winning metric. We should ensure that the winning metric does not over-penalize the negative votes because that would give the voters an opportunity to exploit it. In order to quantify what exactly we mean by "over-penalize", let us first note that plurality voting method is indeed the optimal voting scheme in a two-candidate election. So we shall demand that a perfect preference for a candidate by one voter cannot be overridden by another voter's negative vote. To be more specific,

-   *In a 2-candidate election with just two voters, if voter-1 gives a perfect preference for one candidate, then that candidate cannot loose the election regardless of how voter-2 votes.*

To work out this constraint, let voter-1 cast +10 votes for A and voter-2 cast a negative vote -X for A as shown below.

| Candidate | voter-1 | voter-2 | P-cN | N/P | $W_{b}^{c}$ |
|:--:|:--:|:--:|:--:|:--:|:--:|
| A | 10 | -X | 10-cX | $X/10$ | $10 \left( \frac{10-cX}{10+bX} \right)$ |
| B | 0 | 10-X | 10-X | 0 | 10-X |

For any value of $X$ between 0 and 10, we demand that candidate B should not be able to win. $$\begin{aligned}
&&  \left( \frac{10-cX}{1+b\,X/10} \right) \ge (10-X)   \\
& & \Rightarrow   \frac{c+b-1}{b}  \le X/10   \label{V2} \\
& &\Rightarrow c+b \le1
\end{aligned}$$ Since B cannot win anyway, the best option for voter-2 is to choose $X=0$, so that A and B are tied up.

We can now generalize the constraint for $m$ candidates and a large number of voters. Again, let voter-1 assign +10 votes to A, and voter-2 assign -X votes to A. The reminder of 10-X votes of voter-2 can be assigned as positive votes for any of the other $(m-1)$ candidates. Here voter-2 should be viewed as a statistical representative of all voters who voted -X for A; and all these voters are assumed to be independent minds uninfluenced by each other. On average, each of the other candidates would have received $(10-X)/(m-1)$ votes from voter-2. So, the above constraint can be reframed at a statistical level as $$\begin{aligned}
&& \left( \frac{10-cX}{1+b\,X/10} \right) \ge \frac{(10-X)}{m-1} \,\, \Rightarrow  \nonumber \\
&&  m-2 \ge [ (m-1)c +b -1] X/10 - b (X/10)^2   \label{Vm}
\end{aligned}$$

In eq. the r.h.s attains a minimum at X=0, which is where the equality should be implemented. But that is not true in eq. when $m>2$. The acceptable range of parameters (c,b) for which eq. holds for all values of X is plotted in fig. for $m=2,3,4,5$; the region under the curves corresponding to each $m$ contain the admissible values for the parameters. First we note the obvious, that $c$ cannot be greater than 1 because negative votes shouldn't weigh more than positive votes. For $m=2$, note that $c=1$ is admissible only with $b=0$. But for $m>2$, $c=1$ is admissible for any $b \le m-2$. In particular, note that $(c=1,b=1)$ is acceptable for all $m>2$. By choosing the parameters on the curves of fig., we are hitting the limit of over-penalization of negative votes; so these curves are essentially the *maximal-penalty* metrics.

Here we have only analyzed the winning metric function of the form eq. . But it is fairly straightforward to imagine other functional forms that introduce nonlinearities to penalize the negative votes more adversely, like $$\frac{(P-N)}{e^{N/P}},  \,\,\,  \frac{(P-N)^2}{(P+N)}, \, \,\,   (P-N)^{1-N/P}.
 \label{altmetrics}$$ The first two are acceptable, but the third is not acceptable because the metric function must overall be linear in popularity so that its properties do not depend on the size of the electorate. These functions can be analyzed in a procedure similar to that discussed above with introduction of some free parameters (analogous to $c,b$) to ensure that negative votes are not over-penalized. The maximal-penalty metrics thus obtained show similar qualitative behavior as shown in fig., so there is not much utility to further discuss these alternate functional forms of metric.

# Maximizing Voter satisfaction

Let's denote the voters by latin indices $i,j,k...$ and the candidates by greek indices $\mu, \nu, \alpha...$. Let's denote the positive votes from voter-$i$ to candidate-$\mu$ as $p^{i}_{\mu}$, and the negative votes as $n^{i}_{\mu}$. Only one of the two, $p^{i}_{\mu}$ or $n^{i}_{\mu}$, will be nonzero for a specific $i$ and $\mu$. Summing over all the voters will give the net positive votes $P_{\mu}= \sum_{i} p^{i}_{\mu}$ and net negative votes $N_{\mu}= \sum_{i} n^{i}_{\mu}$ gathered by each candidate-$\mu$.

If candidate-$\alpha$ is declared the winner of the election, we define can define the voter-satisfaction to be $$\begin{aligned}
&& s^{i}_{\alpha} = p^{i}_{\alpha}-n^{i}_{\alpha}+ \sum_{\mu}^{ \mu  \neq \alpha} n^{i}_{\mu}
  \nonumber \\
&&S_{\alpha} = \sum_{i} s^{i}_{\alpha} = P_{\alpha} - N_{\alpha}  + \sum_{\mu}^{ \mu  \neq \alpha}  N_{\mu}
 \label{satisfaction}

\end{aligned}$$ $$\bar{S}_{\alpha} =S_{\alpha}  - \left[ \sum_{\mu}^{ \mu  \neq \alpha}  P_{\mu} \right]
\label{Sbar}$$

The first two terms in the r.h.s of eq.  correspond to the satisfaction/dissatisfaction explicitly triggered by the winning candidate, while the third term represents the satisfaction triggered by all the loosing candidates. Negative votes are directly responsible for a candidate to loose the election, and so those negative votes assigned to loosing candidates can be deemed to have satisfactorily performed their job, and hence contributes to the voter satisfaction as the third term in the r.h.s of eq. .

One might be tempted to include the dissatisfaction due to the positive votes accrued by the loosing candidates as shown in eq. . But notice that it is a measure of *inaction* of certain positive votes that failed to deliver victory. It should be treated simply as a lack of satisfaction that was potentially attainable, rather than a negative quantity to be subtracted from voter satisfaction. While defining the voter satisfaction, it is critical to acknowledge the intrinsic asymmetry between the positive and negative votes in the voter's psychology– *positive votes succeed only when they are cast to the winner, but negative votes succeed when they are cast to any loser.*

Ideally we would like the election outcome to maximize the satisfaction of all voters, *i.e.* $S_{\alpha}$ should be maximum for the winning candidate-$\alpha$. Notice that if we only considered the first two terms in the r.h.s of eq., then we simply have to maximize the popularity given by $(P_{\alpha} -N_{\alpha})$, which is exactly what the winning metric $W_{0}^{1}$ would implement. It is however not obvious whether some other winning metric will always yield the winner who maximizes voter satisfaction. Consider an example of a 4-candidate election with aggregated positive and negative votes as shown below.

*Election-0*

| Candidate |  P  |  N  | $S$ | $W_{0}^{1}$ | $W_{1}^{1}$ | $W_{2}^{1}$ | $W_{0.5}^{0.5}$ |
|:---------:|:---:|:---:|:---:|:-----------:|:-----------:|:-----------:|:---------------:|
|     A     | 11  |  5  | 10  |     6.0     |    4.12     |    3.14     |      6.92       |
|     B     |  7  |  3  | 10  |     4.0     |     2.8     |    2.15     |      4.53       |
|     C     |  6  |  1  | 13  |     5.0     |    4.28     |    3.75     |      5.08       |
|     D     |  3  |  0  | 12  |     3.0     |     3.0     |     3.0     |       3.0       |

Here, candidate-C has the maximum voter satisfaction, and also wins under the metrics $W_{1}^{1}$ and $W_{2}^{1}$. But this may not always happen; in some elections the winning metrics may not yield the candidate who maximizes voter satisfaction. To understand how reliably these metrics correlate to maximal voter satisfaction, we shall simulate a large number of $m$-candidate elections with randomly distributed $(P_{\mu},N_{\mu})$ with at least one candidate qualified to win. Then we calculate the probability that a winning metric yields a winner who maximizes the voter satisfaction. Table shows the results for four different metrics and various values of $m$.

|        | $W_{0}^{1}$ | $W_{1}^{1}$ | $W_{2}^{1}$ | $W_{0.5}^{0.5}$ |
|:------:|:-----------:|:-----------:|:-----------:|:---------------:|
| $m=3$  |     87%     |     91%     |     86%     |       80%       |
| $m=4$  |     84%     |     89%     |     87%     |       76%       |
| $m=5$  |     82%     |     88%     |     88%     |       73%       |
| $m=8$  |     79%     |     88%     |     91%     |       70%       |
| $m=20$ |     79%     |     91%     |     93%     |       70%       |

Winning Metrics Correlation to Maximal Voter Satisfaction

Interestingly, the metrics $W_{1}^{1}$ and $W_{2}^{1}$ perform better in aligning with voter satisfaction for larger values of $m$, while this effect is not seen in $W_{0}^{1}$. This suggests that the effect of polarity in the functional form of the metric (denominator of eq. ) truly captures the voter satisfaction in a very non-obvious way. This is indeed nontrivial because the metric is a function of only the votes obtained by any particular candidate, but voter satisfaction is a function of votes obtained by all candidates. It is also very clear from the performance of $W_{0.5}^{0.5}$ that a metric with $c<1$ is suboptimal. The most suitable metric that remains within the maximal penalty limit and works for all $m \ge 3$ is the metric $W_{1}^{1}$.

If we altered our definition of voter satisfaction to be $\bar{S}_{\alpha}$ in eq. , we find that the winner picked by $W_{0}^{1}$ almost always maximizes voter satisfaction. So, whether or not the metric function should penalize polarity (eq.) very much depends on our definition of voter satisfaction.

More generally, we could ask the following question– if the aim is to pick the candidate who would maximize the voter satisfaction, then why do we need to pick the winner in a round-about manner using a winning metric, rather than directly picking the candidate maximizing the voter satisfaction? This is because the prescription of a winning metric a priori informs the voters how much their negative votes weigh against their positive votes. Without a winning metric we wouldn't have a tool to discourage the voters from strategic voting.

# Comparison with Ranked Voting

It is straightforward to convert the normed negative votes into ranked votes, as long as voters cast distinct votes to various candidates. For example, consider the 4-candidate election with three voters as shown below. Candidate-B is the winner according to the metrics $W_{0}^{1}$, $W_{1}^{1}$ and the voter satisfaction.

*Election-1*

| Candidate | voter-1  | voter-2  | voter-3  | Borda | $W_{0}^{1}$ | $W_{1}^{1}$ |  S  |
|:---------:|:--------:|:--------:|:--------:|:-----:|:-----------:|:-----------:|:---:|
|     A     | 5 \[1\]  | -5 \[4\] | 3 \[2\]  | 3+0+2 |     3.0     |    1.84     |  6  |
|     B     | 2 \[2\]  | 0 \[3\]  | 4 \[1\]  | 2+1+3 |     6.0     |     6.0     | 14  |
|     C     | 1 \[3\]  | 1 \[2\]  | -2 \[4\] | 1+2+0 |     0.0     |     0.0     |  6  |
|     D     | -1 \[4\] | 4 \[1\]  | 1 \[3\]  | 0+3+1 |     4.0     |    3.33     | 11  |

The rank corresponding to each vote is expressed in square brackets next to the vote. Let us now bypass the vote itself and only consider the ranks. There are different ways to pick a winner in a ranked voting system. In *Condorcet* method , we split the $m$-candidate race into a bunch of 2-candidate head-to-head competitions. The winner is the candidate who wins every head-to-head competition. In the above example, voter-1 ranks A higher than B while voter-2 and voter-3 rank B higher than A; hence B defeats A. Similarly B defeats C and D in head-to-head competitions.Thus candidate-B is the Condorcet winner in this example. However, there are many situations where this procedure does not yield a clear winner, and we end up in a rock-paper-scissor configuration of cyclic loop of winners.

In *Instant Runoff*, votes are counted in multiple stages. In each stage, the candidates with the least number of rank-1 votes get eliminated, and subsequently the ranks of all other candidates are boosted up by one in those ballots that had the eliminated candidate in the rank-1 position. So, the voter's ballot is not eliminated after the first preference is eliminated, instead the subsequent preferences are considered in order. In the above example, candidate-C gets eliminated in the first round with zero rank-1 votes, and A, B & D end up in a tie. Such a tie situation is unlikely when there are many voters, and the counting will proceed to next stage of elimination. For instance if there were two voters who vote like voter-3, then A and D get eliminated in the second stage with just one rank-1 vote each, leaving candidate-B the winner.

A major issue with Instant Runoff is that it does not satisfy the basic criterion of *monotonicity*. That is, a winning candidate can become a looser by getting ranked higher by a voter, which is intuitively strange and unacceptable. It happens because a stronger candidate survives an earlier stage of elimination due to the rank modifications. This gives a lot of leeway for the voters to strategically attempt to eliminate strong opposition candidates at earlier stages of elimination, rather than vote according to their innate preferences. It is of course very difficult to strategize for multistage elimination with a large number of voters, but there is nothing stopping the voters from attempting to strategize. Any procedure which calls for multistage elimination of candidates is prone to this issue. The GS theorem shows that it is not possible to totally prevent strategic voting, but we can curtail it significantly by satisfying the monotonicity criterion.

*Borda* proposed a metric that aggregates a weighted sum of the ranks accrued by each candidate . In an $m$-candidate race, rank-1 gets a weight $(m-1)$, rank-2 gets a weight $(m-2)$ and so on, with rank-m ending at weight zero. In the above example, candidate A has accrued one rank-1, one rank-4 and one rank-2, yielding a net Borda count of 3+0+2 =5; while B attains a Borda count of 6 and wins the election. Borda metric satisfies the monotonicity criterion, but it violates another intuitive criterion, *Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives* (IIA).

The IIA criterion requires that if the voters were allowed to modify their votes without changing the relative preference between a winning candidate and a specific looser, then that looser shouldn't be able to win due to the vote modifications. Suppose candidate-$\alpha$ is the winner and is ranked higher than a loosing candidate-$\mu$ by some voter, then no matter how the voter changes the ranks while holding $\alpha$ higher than $\mu$, there should be no chance for candidate-$\mu$ to win. The Condorcet method of counting the head-to-head competitions only cares about the relative rankings, hence it will satisfy IIA criterion. Any other method that weighs the absolute rank positions, like the Borda metric, will violate this criterion. The IIA criterion seems overrated for its intuitiveness, primarily because it is a necessary condition for Arrow's impossibility theorem which proves that it is not always possible to find a winner in a ranked voting election when certain intuitive conditions are met .

The normed negative voting (NNV) method in this article would not satisfy the IIA criterion, because these votes are cardinal in nature, which represents much richer information than relative ranking. Hence it is not subject to implications of Arrow's theorem . Furthermore, the NNV also violates the monotonicity criterion. If a voter increases the positive votes for the winner, then obviously the winning metric value as calculated by eq.  would further increase. But any increase in positive votes for the winning candidate must be compensated by a decrease in votes to other candidates, as per the normed voting rules. Let's suppose that the negative votes to another candidate is reduced. It is now possible for this candidate to emerge as the new winner, if $c+b>1$. This violates the monotonicity criterion. However, notice that this is precisely what we prevented at a statistical level, by restricting the metric to stay under maximal penalty (eq. ). Although the monotonicity criterion does not hold at individual instances, it holds on average with large number of voters. That is why it is not possible to strategically exploit the negative votes without large scale coordinated effort among voters.

In *Approval voting* method, the voters can approve of any number of candidates and disapprove of the others, and every approved candidate gets +1 vote. In a way, this violates the basic principle of *one-person-one-vote*. But we can rectify the method by assigning -1 vote to every disapproved candidate, thereby revising it as normed-Approval voting. We can view this as a special case of the NNV procedure with a uniform magnitude of positive or negative vote for every candidate, which is clearly an unnecessary restriction on voter expression.

The NNV method gathers the voter preferences in a very rich format. To emphasize this, let's modify the votes of voter-2 in the previous example of *Election-1* without affecting the relative ranks, as shown below.

*Election-2*

| Candidate | voter-1  | voter-2  | voter-3  | Borda | $W_{0}^{1}$ | $W_{1}^{1}$ |  S  |
|:---------:|:--------:|:--------:|:--------:|:-----:|:-----------:|:-----------:|:---:|
|     A     | 5 \[1\]  | -1 \[4\] | 3 \[2\]  | 3+0+2 |     7.0     |     6.2     | 10  |
|     B     | 2 \[2\]  | 0 \[3\]  | 4 \[1\]  | 2+1+3 |     6.0     |     6.0     | 10  |
|     C     | 1 \[3\]  | 1 \[2\]  | -2 \[4\] | 1+2+0 |     0.0     |     0.0     |  2  |
|     D     | -1 \[4\] | 8 \[1\]  | 1 \[3\]  | 0+3+1 |     8.0     |     7.2     | 11  |

Candidate-B is still the winner under all the ranked voting methods discussed above. But candidate-B looses to both A and C under NNV metrics $W_{0}^{1}$, $W_{1}^{1}$, and the voter satisfaction. *Election-1* is identical to *Election-2* under ranked voting methods, but very different under NNV. This clearly illustrates the effect of superficially considering the ranks while ignoring the deeper negative preferences of voters. It is also not difficult to imagine the frustration that would develop among the voters if their votes aligned with *Election-2*, but ranked voting method results in B's victory, which is aligned with *Election-1*.

# Conclusion

I have discussed the importance of negative votes in capturing the voter preferences in a richer format. To prevent voters from exploiting the negative votes for strategic voting, we constrained the winning metric to avoid over-penalization of the negative votes. Since the negative votes for the disliked candidates come at the expense of positive votes for their preferred candidates, the voters are incentivized to vote according to their true preference, suppressing the intent for strategic voting.

This would also have a serious impact on how election campaigns are conducted. For the fear of accumulating negative votes, the candidates would refrain from divisive rhetorics and stay focused on constructive issues. The major parties cannot afford to nominate a polarizing candidate because they understand that it would directly pave way for a third party victory. The whole political arena can thus be depolarized.

The candidates will stay well-behaved by conducting decent campaigns and the voters will stay well-behaved by voting their true preferences. We can then hope for a future where no candidate receives any negative vote. –*Dream of an Ideal society*.

[^1]: The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy provides a good nontechnical introduction to various voting systems. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/voting-methods/

[^2]: For example, people make completely different choices when a problem is framed as an increase in monetary gain as opposed to avoiding monetary loss.

[^3]: When there are more than two candidates it is difficult to strategically cast negative votes without hampering the positive votes for the preferred candidate, which could inhibit the winning chances of the preferred candidate.


abstract: The IceCube neutrino observatory, under construction at the South Pole, consists of three sub-detectors: a km-scale array of digital optical modules deployed deep in the ice, the AMANDA neutrino telescope and the surface array IceTop. We summarize results from searches for cosmic neutrinos with the AMANDA telescope and review expected sensitivities for IceCube at various installation phases. Reliability and robustness of installation at the South Pole has been demonstrated during the past four successful construction seasons. The 40 installed IceCube strings are working well. We are developing detailed plans for the final construction of IceCube, including extensions optimized for low and high energy. We describe the IceCube Deep Core project which will extend the low energy response of IceCube.
address: Max-Planck-Institut für Kernphysik, Saupfercheckweg 1, 69117 Heidelberg, Germany
author: Elisa Resconi
title: Status and prospects of the IceCube neutrino telescope

# Introduction

IceCube, the largest neutrino telescope in history is rapidly becoming a reality after four successful construction seasons. IceCube searches primarily for neutrinos in the GeV-PeV energy region expected to be produced at acceleration sites of high energy cosmic rays . The IceCube design employs 80 uniformly spaced strings, each one equipped with 60 digital optical modules (DOMs) . Among the strings of this "in-ice" array, 40 have already been deployed at depths between 1.5 and 2.5 km in the icecap of the South Pole. Moreover, an additional installation in the center-bottom part of the detector of an inner core array (the so-called IceCube Deep Core) composed of additional strings has been financed and recently approved. The AMANDA-II neutrino telescope  - the predecessor of IceCube - is maintained in operation. AMANDA-II is completely embedded in the IceCube instrumented volume, and the hits registered by AMANDA and IceCube are merged together into combined events . The third fundamental component of the neutrino observatory is also under construction: the IceTop air shower detector . Combining IceTop data with data from the deep-ice array provides a unique opportunity to study cosmic ray composition in the region of the "knee" extending earlier measurements performed using the combination of the SPASE and AMANDA detectors . The PMT pulses of the IceCube DOMs are first converted into digital waveforms. Every time the DOM triggers, the waveform is digitized, read out and time stamped. The digitized PMT pulses from different DOMs are sorted into a time-ordered stream. The trigger is accomplished entirely via software. Single majority triggering (SMT) is applied in the in-ice array and in the IceTop array. For the in-ice, it requires the coincidence of hits in eight or more DOMs within a time window of $5 \mu$sec and for IceTop six or more DOMs hit in a time window of the same size. Details about the data acquisition can be found in . There are two primary detection channels considered for the study of high energy neutrinos: *track-like events* from upward through-going muons induced by charged-current $\nu_{\mu}$ interactions and *cascade-like events* from charged-current (CC) interactions of $\nu_e$, $\nu_{\tau}$ and neutral-current interactions of neutrinos of all flavor. A third channel concerns composite events in which tracks and cascades from high energy CC interactions are observed together . Three *observables* are available for each detection channel: the time of an event which is known with a relative time resolution , the incoming direction characterized by the angular resolution and finally the estimated energy of the event characterized by the energy resolution. Average values of these observables for the track-like and cascade-like detection channels are reported in Table .

| Track-like Events               |  IceCube   |      AMANDA       |
|:--------------------------------|:----------:|:-----------------:|
| Rel. Time Resolution \[nsec\]   |     2      |        5-7        |
| Angular Resolution              | $<1^\circ$ | $2^\circ-3^\circ$ |
| Energy Resolution (log$_{10}E$) |  0.3-0.4   |      0.3-0.4      |
| Field of view                   |   $2\pi$   |      $2\pi$       |
| Cascade-like Events             |            |                   |
| Rel. Time Resolution \[nsec\]   |     2      |        5-7        |
| Energy Resolution ($log_{10}E$) |    0.18    |       0.18        |
| Field of view                   |   $4\pi$   |      $4\pi$       |

Best values obtained for AMANDA and expected for IceCube observables.

The first level processing sorts events by detection channel or by specific low level analysis channel. Successive higher level processing are progressively more specific for various physics analyses. For example, track-like events are selected for the search of neutrinos from point-like sources , from Gamma-Ray-Bursts (GRBs) , from annihilation of WIMPs in the Sun and from a diffuse flux . Cascades-like events are considered for the search of a diffuse neutrino flux and as an additional channel for neutrinos from GRB explosions . The data taking of the IceCube observatory started in 2006 with 9 strings (IC-9) and continued in 2007 with 22 strings (IC-22). The new physics run with 40 strings started in April 2008 and will continue until March 2009. The data taking demonstrated excellent stability and for the first time, operated successfully during drilling operations. As a result, the overall live time of IC-22 has been maximized. The procedures for installation, drilling operation and detector operation have been consolidated during the four deployment seasons, delivering a stable detector that performs as expected or even better without significant problems.

# The Past: AMANDA

The idea to take advantage of the clear optical characteristics of the Antarctic ice for a neutrino telescope goes back to 1990 . The first demonstration of the possibility to detect the Cherenkov light generated by muons produced by cosmic neutrinos was obtained with the prototype string deployed in January 1992 at the South Pole . In parallel to the progressive understanding of experimental issues like optical properties of the deep ice , optical coupling between optical modules and refrozen ice, stability of the equipment during refreezing, drilling of vertical and deep holes etc., the study of the physics of non-thermal sources demonstrated the need of an effective area of the order of 1  km$^2$ since the very early time . After the installation of 4 shallow strings (AMANDA-A) and the observation of the scattering effect produced by air bubbles, the installation of ten strings at deeper depth (AMANDA-B10) was completed in 1997 . First performance of the 10 strings array demonstrated that the site is adequate for a neutrino telescope . The South Pole seasons 1998-1999 and 2000 saw the final installation of AMANDA-II, which is still taking data in its final configuration (19 strings). We report here a limited selection of results obtained during more than 10 years of AMANDA operation.

## The Point Source Search

Downward-going atmospheric muons are the primary background in a high energy neutrino telescope. These are produced in the upper part of the atmosphere from the decay of charged pions and kaons which are generated in the interactions of high energy cosmic rays with atmospheric nuclei. Highly energetic muons can penetrate a few kilometers of matter. As a result, downward-going atmospheric muons arrive at the detector site at high rates. To eliminate the contamination from atmospheric muons, neutrino telescopes typically focus on neutrino-induced upward or horizontal-going muons . This limits the field of view of a neutrino telescope to half of the sky i.e. the opposite hemisphere with respect to the geographical position of the detector. Moreover, atmospheric neutrinos can also induce upward-going muons which are an irreducible background for extra-terrestrial neutrino searches. The search for point sources is then realized by looking for localized excesses over the near-isotropic background of atmospheric neutrinos. Candidate sources are selected a priori, like active galactic nuclei or Supernova remnants. The full northern sky is also scanned for unknown sources. Results are reported in Table   and Fig. , Fig. . Methods have been implemented in order to search for variable sources and coincidences with X- and $\gamma$-ray flares , .

|              |          |           |                                        |
|:------------:|:--------:|:---------:|:--------------------------------------:|
|   Detector   |  Energy  | Live time | $E^2_{\nu} \frac{d\Phi_{\nu_\mu}}{dE}$ |
|    Years     |  (TeV)   |  (days)   |     (TeV$^{-1}$cm$^{-2}$s$^{-1}$)      |
| AMANDA B-10  |  1-1000  |    623    |          $4.0 \cdot 10^{-10}$          |
| (1997-1999)  |          |           |                                        |
|  AMANDA II   | 1.6-2600 |   1001    |          $5.5 \cdot 10^{-11}$          |
| (2000-2004)  |          |           |                                        |
|  AMANDA II   |          |   1387    |          $2.0 \cdot 10^{-11}$          |
| (2000-2006)  |          |           |                                        |
|    IC 22     | 5 - 5000 |    270    |          $1.0 \cdot 10^{-11}$          |
| IC 22+AMANDA | 0.1 - 10 |           |           specific scenarios           |
|    IC 80     | 1 - 5000 |  3 years  |          $2.0 \cdot 10^{-12}$          |

Summary of the best limits achieved for the point source search using AMANDA data and expected sensitivity for IceCube analysis. The energy range corresponds to that for 90% of the events, assuming an $E^{-2}$ spectrum. Details about AMANDA B-10 analysis for the 3 years 97-98-99 are reported in . The 5 years analysis of AMANDA II is described in and the latest analysis of the 7 years of AMANDA II is reported in .

## The Diffuse Search

Since the very early time of neutrino astronomy, the existence of a diffuse flux of neutrinos coming from the sum of faint active galaxies has been discussed . Limits on the diffuse flux have been reported by the Frejus experiment and the Baikal experiment . Up-going neutrinos have been detected with AMANDA B-10 and AMANDA-II. Latest results using AMANDA data are reported in Fig.  and in .

# The Present: 22 IceCube Strings and AMANDA

In its 2007 configuration, IceCube consisted of 22 strings in operation with 60 digital optical modules each. Details of the performance of the 22-strings array are reported in . The sensitivity to point sources provided by the IC22 array is reported in Fig. . We discuss here in particular the use of AMANDA as an integrated compact core in IceCube.

## AMANDA: The First Generation Low Energy Core

During the two South Pole seasons 2003-2004 and 2004-2005, the data acquisition system (DAQ) of AMANDA was significantly upgraded to provide nearly dead-timeless operation and full digitization of the electronic readout . This was achieved by using Transient Waveform Recorders (TWR). The new DAQ system allowed the reduction of the multiplicity trigger threshold and, consequently, of the energy threshold below 50 GeV. Hence AMANDA was seen to be a complement to IceCube at low energies and worth a full integration into IceCube. During 2006-2007 South Pole season, the following items were deployed in order to realize an integrated AMANDA-IceCube detector: a common run control unit, triggering and event building systems, and on-line filtering algorithms . Every time the AMANDA detector is triggered, a readout request is sent to the IceCube detector. The Joint Event Builder (JEB) merges the events coming from both detectors and provides the data to the on-line filtering. The on-line filters process the joint events and filter out the interesting ones which are then transferred via satellite to the Northern Hemisphere for physics analysis. The study of AMANDA as a nested array in IceCube reveals that:

-   because of the additional hits in adjacent IceCube strings, a larger fraction of AMANDA triggered events can be better reconstructed and survive at higher analysis level as compared to AMANDA alone;

-   the 1 km long IceCube strings provide a longer lever arm that translates directly into an improved angular resolution of AMANDA events;

-   the combined detector shows an increased effective area at low energy for events below 1 TeV down to 10-50 GeV as compared to IceCube alone (Fig. , Fig. ).

These benefits are used in order to improve the search for neutrinos from point sources and from dark matter annihilation in the Sun. Effective volumes for WIMPs are reported in Fig.  and expected sensitivities in . Moreover, studies of atmospheric neutrinos with higher statistics are also conceivable. In Section 4, we describe in detail the physics content at lower energies.

The use of AMANDA as a low energy core is limited by different factors:

-   the position of AMANDA is not optimal inside the IceCube array, being in the higher part of the instrumented volume and in a corner of the array;

-   the AMANDA electronics is housed in the MAPO building at the South Pole and the snow accumulation is a threat to the building;

-   the AMANDA electronics is different from IceCube electronics and needs special software and service.

For these reasons, the IceCube collaboration is planning to replace AMANDA with a sub-array composed by additional strings in the center-bottom part of the detector: the IceCube Deep Core.

# The Future: IceCube 80, On-line, Deep Core, High Energy Extension

The potential of the 80 string array is described in . Here we summarize methods for the exploitation of IceCube physics program. As soon as IceCube reaches the sensitivity level to detect short bursts of neutrinos from AGN flares, GRB or Supernovae the possibility to send timely alerts to telescopes or satellites will be of primary importance. This requires the development of on-line analysis, prompt alerting systems and the establishment of collaboration among IceCube and photon-based telescopes. Details can be found in and in . The IceCube geometry has been optimized for the neutrino region around 10 TeV. It is desirable, however to improve the performance at lower energies and higher energies. At higher energies, we are looking into extensions of IceCube using radio or acoustic technology and also investigating the optimal position of the remaining IceCube strings. To detect neutrino fluxes with EeV energies, such as the guaranteed GZK neutrino flux, a fiducial volume of approximately 100 km$^3$ is required. Optical Cherenkov technology does not allow the construction of such an array at a reasonable cost, owing to the relatively short attenuation length of light. However, the absorption length of radio and acoustic waves in the ice may be as long as 1 km, so a sparse array of the required scale might be feasible. At the lowest energies, the funding for the IceCube Deep Core sub-array has been approved. We report in some details the status about the Deep Core design.

## The IceCube Deep Core

A dedicated IceCube effort towards an improved sensitivity at low energy, the so called IceCube Deep Core (IC-DC) project, was proposed for the first time in spring 2007. To have a denser array in the clean ice at large depth, below the center of the IceCube array has several advantages compared with AMANDA:

-   *Natural shield*: the larger overburden reduces the background of atmospheric muons.

-   *Muon veto*: the central location allows the use of outer rings of IceCube strings, as well as all of the instrumented ice between 1450 m and 2000 m, to achieve additional atmospheric muon veto allowing observations of neutrinos from above the horizon.

-   *Ice properties*: the larger transparency of the ice at the large depths implies less scattering of Cherenkov photons and hence better reconstruction efficiency and better angular resolution.

At the moment, the baseline for IC-DC calls for six strings centered around one of the central IceCube strings (Fig. ). The spacing among the IC-DC strings and the seven closest IceCube strings is 72 m as opposed to the 125 m standard IceCube string spacing. Each string will be equipped with 60 IceCube DOMs (Fig. ). Below the so called "dust layer", an ice layer at 2100 m with reduced optical transparency, 50 DOMs will be deployed in the very transparent ice with 7.0 m spacing (IceCube standard is 17 m spacing) and above the dust layer an additional 10 DOMs will be deployed in the transparent ice with 10 m spacing. IceCube is optimized for the search of cosmic ray sources able to accelerate up to PeV energies. This translates into neutrino energies of the order of few TeV. However, for several topics in particle physics and astrophysics, the detection of lower energy neutrinos is absolutely crucial. Some examples are:
*- Dark matter:* neutrinos from neutralino (mass $m_\chi$) annihilation in the Sun and the Earth are expected to have low energy. The muon energy from these neutrino interactions in the detector would have mean $E \sim m_\chi/3$ for hard and mean $E \sim m_\chi/6$ for soft annihilation channels (Fig. ). One difficulty in the analysis of neutrinos coming from the Sun is that their incoming direction is very close to the horizon (a maximum of 23$^\circ$ below the horizon at the South Pole) where the background of badly reconstructed atmospheric muons is highest. The possibility to observe neutrinos from above the horizon will permit to increase the exposure time for neutrinos from dark matter annihilations up to the entire year.
*- High energy galactic sources:* Muon neutrinos produced in the decay chain $\pi \rightarrow \mu \nu_{\mu} \rightarrow e \nu_{\mu} \nu_{\mu} \nu_e$ peak at an energy that is a factor of 2-5 lower than the gamma rays from $\pi^o \rightarrow \gamma \gamma$ decays . In the scenario in which gamma rays are of hadronic origin, features such as cutoffs observed in gamma ray spectra would be expected in neutrino spectra at around half the energy. Recently the gamma-ray telescopes HESS, VERITAS and MAGIC have observed a population of galactic sources characterized by steep spectral indices. Moreover, several sources show evidence of an exponential cutoff in the source spectrum at energies of 10 TeV or so, implying that sensitivity at low energy will be essential for observing these sources. The sources recently discovered are concentrated in the region of the inner Galaxy, most of them in the Southern Hemisphere, i.e. outside the nominal field of view of IceCube. The southern sky is a prime target for observations by Mediterranean telescopes such as ANTARES. AMANDA and IceCube searches for point sources have focused on the Northern Hemisphere, using the Earth to filter out atmospheric muons. With IceCube Deep Core we aim not only to lower the threshold of IceCube but also to access the Southern Hemisphere using part of IceCube as active muon veto. Later in the text more details about a first implementation of the veto in IceCube are reported.
*- Atmospheric neutrinos:* The ability of the Deep Core array to push the neutrino energy threshold down to $\sim 10~$GeV also confers benefits on the study of atmospheric neutrinos. Their energy spectrum has been measured by AMANDA for energies above a few hundred GeV. With an instrumented physical volume of roughly 20 megatons, simulations show that Deep Core will trigger on about 60,000 atmospheric-neutrino-induced events per year, using a simple majority trigger set at six hits in a $5~\mu s$ window and requiring hits on at least three strings. Roughly 8% of these events are in the 1-10 GeV energy bin, 45% in the 10-100 GeV bin, and 45% in the 100 GeV - 1 TeV bin. The measurement of the energy spectrum and angular distribution of atmospheric muon neutrinos in the region 10 GeV to 1 TeV is particularly interesting for the study of the transition from pion decay to kaon decay production and for neutrino oscillation study. Another aim of Deep Core is to make a first measurement of the flux of electron neutrinos at energies overlapping with and extending that of Super-Kamiokande .

IceCube offers for the first time the possibility to enlarge the field of view of the neutrino telescope using part of the instrumented volume as *active veto*. The performance in this respect has been investigated using Monte-Carlo simulation. In order to perform a search for neutrinos from above, muons have to be rejected by a factor of $10^6$. We have divided the detector in two regions: Fiducial Volume (FV) and Veto Volume (VV). The FV is the most shielded region of the detector i.e. the central and bottom part of the detector where the deep core strings will be deployed. Events with their interaction vertex in this region are considered signal events. The VV corresponds to the part of the instrumented volume required to reject the bulk of the downward atmospheric muons. The top 36 DOMs and three layers of strings around the FV are used as VV (Fig.  ). In order to separate contained and not contained events, we consider that a hit far away from the FV has a very low probability to be associated to an event in the FV. In order to use this information, we penalize the hits proportionately to their distance ($d_{FV}$) from the FV giving them an extra weight. Counting hits in the FV and using geometrically penalized hits in the VV, we succeed to reject downward going muons by four orders of magnitude, still keeping the neutrino signal. In a second step, a dedicated algorithm determines the most probable interaction vertex of the surviving events . The *x,y,z* distributions and likelihood of the reconstructed vertex differ significantly from the neutrino induced muons and downward through-going muons leaking in. The final selection of neutrino induced events is made by requiring that the reconstructed vertex of the neutrino interaction is inside the FV. This allows the rejection of muons by two additional orders of magnitude. This two-levels analysis proves that IceCube is an efficient muon veto and fully contained events which trigger IC-DC can be identified with an efficiency between 20% and 30%.