- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine
Access Provided by Xinjiang University

Physical Review D

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access
  • Access by Xinjiang University

Studying the mass sensitivity of air-shower observables using simulated cosmic rays

Benjamin Flaggs*, Alan Coleman†, and Frank G. Schröder‡

  • Bartol Research Institute, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware 19716, USA

  • *bflaggs@udel.edu
  • †alanc@udel.edu Present address: Department of Physics and Astronomy, Uppsala University, Uppsala SE-752 37, Sweden.
  • ‡fgs@udel.edu Also at Institute for Astroparticle Physics, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, D-76021 Karlsruhe, Germany.
PDF

Phys. Rev. D 109, 042002 – Published 12 February, 2024

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.109.042002

Abstract

Using corsika simulations, we investigate the mass sensitivity of cosmic-ray air-shower observables for sites at the South Pole and Malargüe, Argentina, the respective locations of the IceCube Neutrino Observatory and the Pierre Auger Observatory. Exact knowledge of observables from air-shower simulations was used to study the event-by-event mass separation between proton, helium, oxygen, and iron primary cosmic rays with a Fisher linear discriminant analysis. Dependencies on the observation site as well as the energy and zenith angle of the primary particle were studied in the ranges from 1016.0–1018.5  eV and 0° to 60°; they are mostly weak and do not change the qualitative results. Promising proton-iron mass separation is achieved using combined knowledge of all studied observables, also when typical reconstruction uncertainties are accounted for. However, even with exact measurements, event-by-event separation of intermediate-mass nuclei is challenging and better methods than the Fisher discriminant and/or the inclusion of additional observables will be needed. As an individual observable, high-energy muons (>500  GeV) provide the best event-by-event mass discrimination, but the combination of muons of any energy and Xmax provides already a high event-by-event separation between proton-iron primaries at both sites. We also confirm that the asymmetry and width parameters of the air-shower longitudinal profile, R and L, are mass sensitive. Only R seems to be suitable for event-by-event mass separation, but L can potentially be used to statistically determine the proton-helium ratio. Overall, our results motivate the coincident measurement of several air-shower observables, including at least Xmax and the sizes of the muonic and electromagnetic shower components, for the next generation of air-shower experiments.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (52)

  1. A. Coleman et al., Astropart. Phys. 149, 102819 (2023).
  2. F. Sarazin et al., Bull. Am. Astron. Soc. 51, 93 (2019).
  3. F. G. Schröder et al., Bull. Am. Astron. Soc. 51, 131 (2019).
  4. J. Matthews, Astropart. Phys. 22, 387 (2005).
  5. W. D. Apel et al. (KASCADE Collaboration), Astropart. Phys. 29, 412 (2008).
  6. S. Andringa, R. Conceicao, and M. Pimenta, Astropart. Phys. 34, 360 (2011).
  7. E. M. Holt, F. G. Schröder, and A. Haungs, Eur. Phys. J. C 79, 371 (2019).
  8. D. Heck, J. Knapp, J. N. Capdevielle, G. Schatz, and T. Thouw, corsika: A Monte Carlo code to simulate extensive air showers, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology Technical Report No. FZKA-6019, 1998.
  9. M. G. Aartsen et al. (IceCube Collaboration), J. Instrum. 12, P03012 (2017).
  10. A. Aab et al. (Pierre Auger Collaboration), Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A 798, 172 (2015).
  11. M. G. Aartsen et al. (IceCube-Gen2 Collaboration), J. Phys. G 48, 060501 (2021).
  12. R. Abbasi et al. (IceCube Collaboration), Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A 700, 188 (2013).
  13. A. Haungs (IceCube Collaboration), EPJ Web Conf. 210, 06009 (2019).
  14. A. Coleman, A. Leszczynska, M. Weyrauch (IceCube-Gen2 Collaboration), Proc. Sci. ICRC2021 (2021) 411 [arXiv:2108.04307].
  15. A. Aab et al. (Pierre Auger Collaboration), Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 751 (2020).
  16. A. Aab et al. (Pierre Auger Collaboration), J. Instrum. 16, T07008 (2021).
  17. A. Aab et al. (Pierre Auger Collaboration), arXiv:1604.03637.
  18. T. Pierog et al., Nucl. Phys. B, Proc. Suppl. 151, 159 (2006).
  19. T. Bergmann, R. Engel, D. Heck, N. N. Kalmykov, S. Ostapchenko, T. Pierog, T. Thouw, and K. Werner, Astropart. Phys. 26, 420 (2007).
  20. F. Riehn, R. Engel, A. Fedynitch, T. K. Gaisser, and T. Stanev, Phys. Rev. D 102, 063002 (2020).
  21. A. Ferrari, P. R. Sala, A. Fasso, and J. Ranft, Report No. SLAC-R-773, 2005.
  22. T. Böhlen, F. Cerutti, M. Chin, A. Fassò, A. Ferrari, P. Ortega, A. Mairani, P. Sala, G. Smirnov, and V. Vlachoudis, Nucl. Data Sheets 120, 211 (2014).
  23. W. R. Nelson, H. Hirayama, and D. W. O. Rogers, The egs4 Code System, Technical Report No. SLAC-0265, 1985.
  24. F. Riehn, H. P. Dembinski, R. Engel, A. Fedynitch, T. K. Gaisser, and T. Stanev, Proc. Sci. ICRC2017 (2018) 301 [arXiv:1709.07227].
  25. P. Abreu et al. (Pierre Auger Collaboration), Proc. Sci. ICRC2021 (2021) 232.
  26. T. K. Gaisser and A. M. Hillas, in International Cosmic Ray Conference, International Cosmic Ray Conference (1977), Vol. 8, p. 353.
  27. S. Buitink et al., Proc. Sci. ICRC2021 (2021) 415.
  28. A. Aab et al. (Pierre Auger Collaboration), J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 03 (2019) 018.
  29. C. Baus, R. Engel, T. Pierog, R. Ulrich, and M. Unger, in 32nd International Cosmic Ray Conference (2011), Vol. 2, pp. 206–209 [arXiv:1111.0504].
  30. M. G. Aartsen et al. (IceCube Collaboration), J. Instrum. 9, P03009 (2014).
  31. M. G. Aartsen et al. (IceCube Collaboration), Astropart. Phys. 78, 1 (2016).
  32. R. Abbasi et al. (IceCube Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 106, 032010 (2022).
  33. F. G. Schröder, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 93, 1 (2017).
  34. T. Huege, Phys. Rep. 620, 1 (2016).
  35. A. Coleman (for the IceCube Collaboration), Proc. Sci. ICRC2021 (2021) 317 [arXiv:2107.09666].
  36. A. Aab et al. (Pierre Auger Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 93, 122005 (2016).
  37. P. A. Bezyazeekov et al. (Tunka-Rex Collaboration), J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 01 (2016) 052.
  38. W. D. Apel et al. (LOPES Collaboration), Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 176 (2021).
  39. A. Aab et al. (Pierre Auger Collaboration), Astropart. Phys. 95, 44 (2017).
  40. S. Buitink et al. (LOFAR Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 90, 082003 (2014).
  41. P. A. Bezyazeekov et al. (Tunka-Rex Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 97, 122004 (2018).
  42. R. Turcotte-Tardif, Radio measurements of cosmic rays at the south pole, Ph.D. thesis, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, 2022.
  43. S. Verpoest (IceCube Collaboration), Proc. Sci. ECRS2023 (2023) 074 [arXiv:2211.16970].
  44. S. Thoudam, J. P. Rachen, A. van Vliet, A. Achterberg, S. Buitink, H. Falcke, and J. R. Hörandel, Astron. Astrophys. 595, A33 (2016).
  45. A. A. Halim et al. (Pierre Auger Collaboration), J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 05 (2023) 024.
  46. F. Pedregosa et al., J. Mach. Learn. Res. 12, 2825 (2011).
  47. H. P. Dembinski et al. (EAS-MSU, IceCube, KASCADE-Grande, NEVOD-DECOR, Pierre Auger, SUGAR, Telescope Array, Yakutsk EAS Array Collaborations), EPJ Web Conf. 210, 02004 (2019).
  48. D. Soldin (EAS-MSU, IceCube, KASCADE-Grande, NEVOD-DECOR, Pierre Auger, SUGAR, Telescope Array, and Yakutsk EAS Array Collaborations), Proc. Sci. ICRC2021 (2021) 349 [arXiv:2108.08341].
  49. https://udspace.udel.edu/handle/19716/29071.
  50. B. Flaggs, Mass sensitive observables of simulated cosmic ray air showers, Master’s thesis, University of Delaware, 2022.
  51. T. Pierog, I. Karpenko, J. M. Katzy, E. Yatsenko, and K. Werner, Phys. Rev. C 92, 034906 (2015).
  52. S. Ostapchenko, Phys. Rev. D 83, 014018 (2011).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. D 109, 042002– Published 12 February, 2024
  • Received 16 August 2023
  • Accepted 22 January 2024
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI. Funded by SCOAP3.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation