Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 39 references

UHECR measurements and physics at man-made accelerators: mutual constraints

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The muon excess in ultra-high-energy cosmic-ray air showers can be explained within the Standard Model by reducing the neutral-pion fraction $f_{\pi^0}$ through strangeness and baryon enhancement, without new physics.

desk verdict A well-organized proceedings review of the muon puzzle that is more roadmap than result; its central fπ0 conclusion is faithful to the literature but conditional on unresolved detector systematics. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.00178 v1 pith:3TJGJHBV submitted 2024-12-30 hep-ph

Maria Vittoria Garzelli This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords muonpuzzleultra-high-energycosmicraysairshowersneutralpionfractionstrangenessenhancementhadronicinteractionmodelsLHCforwardphysicscosmic-raycomposition
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that the long-standing muon puzzle in ultra-high-energy cosmic-ray air showers, the excess of measured muons over generator predictions, is a Standard Model hadronization problem rather than a sign of new physics. It reports that, among four possible modifications to hadronic interaction models, only lowering the fraction $f_{\pi^0}$ of produced neutral pions can simultaneously match muon-number data and the depth-of-maximum $X_{\rm max}$ data on composition. The paper surveys mechanisms that lower $f_{\pi^0}$: isospin-breaking $\rho^0$ enhancement, strangeness enhancement through quark-gluon plasma droplets, fireballs, strangeballs, or core-corona dynamics, and enhanced light-baryon production. It then lists accelerator measurements, including forward strangeness, $K/\pi$ ratios, LHCb-SMOG antiprotons, LHCf forward $\eta$ mesons, upcoming LHC proton-oxygen and oxygen-oxygen runs, and far-forward neutrino experiments, that could test these mechanisms and improve the generators. A sympathetic reader would care because the result would redirect the interpretation of cosmic-ray composition and remove a popular motivation for beyond-Standard-Model physics at ultra-high energies.

What carries the argument

The central object is the neutral-pion fraction $f_{\pi^0} = N(\pi^0)/[N(\pi^0)+N(\pi^+)+N(\pi^-)]$ in the Heitler-Matthews model of air-shower development, where the muon number is proportional to $(1-f_{\pi^0})^N$ with $N$ the number of generations. In isospin-symmetric hadronization $f_{\pi^0}=1/3$, and lowering this fraction converts electromagnetic energy into hadronic and muonic channels. The paper's load-bearing mechanisms for lowering it are $\rho^0$ enhancement, strangeness enhancement through kaons and strange baryons, and light-baryon enhancement, each of which can increase $N_\mu$ without spoiling the agreement for $X_{\rm max}$ and its fluctuations.

What would settle it

A reanalysis of Haverah Park with a model-independent absolute energy calibration, or a resolution of the surface-detector versus fluorescence-detector discrepancy in $\sigma(X_{\rm max})$, that removes the muon excess would undercut the empirical basis for the $f_{\pi^0}$ mechanism. Alternatively, LHC proton-oxygen or oxygen-oxygen forward data showing $N(\pi^0)/(N(\pi^+)+N(\pi^-)) = 1/2$ and no strangeness enhancement relative to standard generators at the relevant rapidities would directly falsify the proposed hadronization explanation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The author's central claim is that the muon excess in extended air showers is compatible with Standard Model physics once hadronization is modified to reduce the neutral-pion fraction. In the Heitler-Matthews picture, $N_\mu$ scales with $(1-f_{\pi^0})^N$, where $N$ is the number of shower generations, so reducing $f_{\pi^0}$ boosts the muon yield while leaving $X_{\rm max}$ largely untouched. The paper identifies three Standard Model-compatible ways to reduce $f_{\pi^0}$: enhancement of $\rho^0$ relative to $\pi^0$ followed by $\rho^0\to\pi^+\pi^-$ decay, enhancement of strange hadron production (kaons and strange baryons), and enhancement of light baryons over pion systems. It emphasizes that strangeness enhancement is already observed in small systems at the LHC, so the mechanism is not exotic, and that the muon excess starts at collision energies around $\sqrt{s_{NN}} > 8$ TeV and grows gradually, matching a generator deficiency rather than an abrupt new-physics threshold.

Load-bearing premise

The measured muon excess is a genuine physics effect and not a residual artifact of detector systematics or energy-scale uncertainties; the paper itself flags unresolved surface-versus-fluorescence discrepancies in $\sigma(X_{\rm max})$ and cites the Haverah Park exception.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Event generators that reduce $f_{\pi^0}$ through strangeness or baryon enhancement can reconcile muon-number and $X_{\rm max}$ data, so the muon puzzle no longer requires invoking new particles at ultra-high energies.
  • Forward and small-system LHC measurements, including ALICE strangeness, LHCf forward $\eta$ meson production, LHCb-SMOG antiproton data, and proposed $K/\pi$ correlation measurements, become direct constraints on air-shower generators.
  • The upcoming LHC proton-oxygen and oxygen-oxygen runs acquire a specific physics goal: measuring strangeness enhancement and the total inelastic $p$-O cross section in air-like targets to test the $f_{\pi^0}$-reduction mechanism.
  • EAS observables such as $\Lambda_\mu(X_{\rm max})$, the slope of the low-$\ln N_\mu$ distribution in $X_{\rm max}$ bins, can be used to tune the $\pi^0$ energy spectrum in kinematic regions that colliders do not cover.
  • If the muon excess is a hadronization effect, then mass-composition extraction from $X_{\rm max}$ and $N_\mu$ becomes more reliable, since both observables can be mapped back to the same primary mix after the generators are corrected.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial inference: If the $f_{\pi^0}$-reduction mechanism is correct, strange hadron production inside air showers should be measurably enhanced; a dedicated search for enhanced strange-baryon signatures in individual ultra-high-energy showers could confirm this.
  • Editorial inference: The gradual, generator-independent rise of the discrepancy with energy suggests a code-level deficiency in high-density string fragmentation; a testable extension would be to compare current generators against ALICE high-multiplicity $pp$ data using the same forward rapidity cuts relevant for air showers.
  • Editorial inference: The Haverah Park exception implies the puzzle may be partly an absolute energy-scale artifact; if that detector's energy calibration is settled, the $f_{\pi^0}$ hypothesis would face a sharper test than any new collider run.
  • Editorial inference: The author's phrasing that small effects may combine suggests a simultaneous tuning of $\rho^0/\pi^0$ ratios, strangeness, and baryon production in one generator, checked against both $X_{\rm max}$ and $N_\mu$ over the full energy range, as a practical route to resolving the puzzle.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. This proceedings-style contribution reviews the mutual constraints between ultra-high-energy cosmic ray (UHECR) air-shower measurements and hadronic physics studied at man-made accelerators. The paper summarizes the muon puzzle, in which the number of muons in air showers predicted by all current hadronic interaction models is systematically lower than observed, while the composition inferred from <Xmax> is compatible with a lighter composition. It reports the conclusion of Ref. [10] that, among four possible Standard Model modifications of hadronic interactions, only a reduction of the neutral pion fraction fπ0 can simultaneously reproduce the muon and Xmax observables. It then discusses mechanisms that can reduce fπ0 (isospin breaking via ρ0 enhancement, strangeness enhancement, and baryon enhancement), illustrates the idea with the author's 'strangeball' model, and describes several future experimental opportunities (LHC pO and OO runs, LHCb-SMOG2, forward neutrino experiments, and EAS observables such as Λµ) that could test these mechanisms. The paper is primarily a review of existing literature rather than a new research result.

Significance. If taken as a review, the paper is useful because it connects the muon puzzle to concrete, testable accelerator measurements, including forward strangeness production, pO collisions, and far-forward neutrinos. It accurately represents the cited literature, especially the attribution of the 'only fπ0 reduction works' conclusion to Ref. [10]. The paper also identifies specific observables (e.g., Λµ(Xmax), K/π ratios as a function of Nch) that could discriminate between competing hadronization models. Its main limitation is that the sole quantitative illustration is based on the author's own strangeball model with parameters tuned to the same data, which should be framed more carefully as an illustrative example rather than as independent evidence. The empirical basis of the muon puzzle itself is acknowledged to have unresolved systematics, and the paper would be strengthened by an explicit statement of the conditional nature of its conclusions.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 2] The empirical foundation of the muon-puzzle discussion deserves a more explicit caveat. The text notes unresolved surface-detector versus fluorescence-detector systematics in σ(Xmax) and the Haverah Park exception with its energy-scale uncertainties, but the subsequent claim that the discrepancy rises gradually from √sNN > 8 TeV and that only a reduction of fπ0 succeeds is presented without quantifying how robust that conclusion is to possible detector or energy-scale artifacts. Please add a sentence or two explicitly stating that this interpretation holds if the measured muon excess is a genuine physics effect, and, if possible, cite studies that bound the size of the relevant systematics.
  2. [Section 3 and Figure 1] The strangeball model illustration in Figure 1 uses parameters Emin, Emax, and n that are tuned to reproduce the same Pierre Auger data it is compared with. As presented, this risks appearing circular. Please state explicitly that this is an illustrative example of a mechanism that can reduce fπ0, that the parameter values were determined in Ref. [13] to fit the data, and that the figure does not constitute an independent prediction or test.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 2] The phrase 'Extender Air Showers' should be 'Extensive Air Showers'.
  2. [Section 2] The word 'recoinciling' should be 'reconciling' in the sentence about increasing predicted Nµ.
  3. [Section 2] The word 'criterium' should be 'criterion'.
  4. [Section 4] The heading 'F orthcoming pO and OO runs' has a spacing error; it should be 'Forthcoming pO and OO runs'.
  5. [Section 4] The phrase 'nore recent ATLAS ALF A ones' should be 'more recent ATLAS ALFA ones'.
  6. [Section 7] The text uses 'µ puzzle' instead of the consistent 'muon puzzle' used elsewhere; please unify the terminology.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central fπ0 claim is imported from an independent multi-author review, and the author's own strangeball model appears only as an illustrative mechanism.

full rationale

The paper is a proceedings-style review that does not present a first-principles derivation of its central claim. The statement that reducing fπ0 is the only viable modification is explicitly attributed to Ref. [10], an independent multi-author review of the muon puzzle, rather than derived here: "Out of four possible modifications ... only the reduction of fπ0 turned out to allow to satisfy the previously mentioned criterium [10]." This is a literature result imported as input, not a prediction produced by the paper. The Heitler-Matthews relation quoted (Nµ ∝ (1−fπ0)^N) is a standard, independent model used to interpret the effect, not a circular construction. The author's own prior work appears through the strangeball model in Fig. 1 (Ref. [13]), but it is presented as an illustrative example of one mechanism that can reduce fπ0, not as the basis of the paper's conclusion; the conclusion explicitly contemplates "a number of small effects" and cites many competing mechanisms (QGP droplets, core-corona, DIPSY, QGSJET-III). The strangeball parameters Emin, Emax, and n are described as defining a scenario, not as fitted values whose output is then called a prediction. The paper also openly flags the empirical caveat that SD/FD systematics in σ(Xmax) remain unresolved and that Haverah Park shows an exception with energy-scale uncertainties; this is a limitation of the empirical foundation, not a circularity in the reasoning. No equation or claim in the manuscript reduces by construction to its own inputs, and no load-bearing argument depends on an unverified self-citation.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The paper's central narrative is a review of existing models and proposals. The main ledger entry is the strangeball model's three tuned parameters, taken from the author's prior work, with no new independent evidence. The Heitler-Matthews relation, the ⟨Xmax⟩-inferred composition baseline, the assumption that detector systematics are minor, and the assumption that only Standard Model modifications are needed are the key background premises that the discussion relies on.

free parameters (1)
  • strangeball production energy range Emin, Emax and exponent n = Emin = 10^13 eV, Emax = 10^21 eV, n = 1
    Adopted from Ref. [13], the author's own model, to reproduce both ⟨Xmax⟩ and Rµ data. These are tuned parameters, not derived from first principles.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Heitler-Matthews model: Nµ proportional to (1 − fπ0)^N, where N is the number of steps in the EAS evolution.
    Used in Section 2 to argue that reducing fπ0 increases the muon yield. This is a simplified analytical cascade model, accepted in the air shower community.
  • domain assumption The composition inferred from ⟨Xmax⟩ measurements at each primary energy can be used as input to predict Nµ.
    This is the definition of the muon puzzle: the inconsistency between Nµ predictions from ⟨Xmax⟩-inferred composition and direct Nµ measurements, as described in Section 2.
  • domain assumption Detector systematics and energy-scale uncertainties are small enough not to explain the muon excess.
    The paper itself notes unresolved systematics in σ(Xmax) between SD and FD and the Haverah Park exception, yet the central argument assumes the excess is a physics effect.
  • domain assumption The Standard Model, with possible modifications within hadronization, is sufficient to explain the muon puzzle without invoking new physics.
    Section 2 argues the gradual rise of the discrepancy with energy favors SM modeling issues over the abrupt onset of new physics.
invented entities (1)
  • Strangeballs
    purpose: Exotic hadronic states with enhanced strangeness content, proposed to reduce the neutral pion fraction and increase the muon yield in air showers.
    Presented via Fig. 1 from Ref. [13]. The model's parameters are tuned to the same air shower data it aims to explain, and no independent experimental signature outside the model is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of UHECR measurements and physics at man-made accelerators: mutual constraints." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3TJGJHBV

@misc{pith2026250100178,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: UHECR measurements and physics at man-made accelerators: mutual constraints},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3TJGJHBV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.00178}
}
read the original abstract

Measurements of the products of UHECR interactions with the Earth's atmosphere, as obtained in Extended Air Shower experiments, offer important information concerning hadronic interactions, which for some aspects overlaps and for many others complements the information extracted by measurements of collisions at human-made accelerators. In this contribution I discuss some of the constraints that the UHE astroparticle and accelerator fields exercise one over each other, emphasizing the importance of further new measurements, through new experiments or observations, in both fields.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.00178 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Composition inference from Pierre Auger data (error bars) on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages

  1. [10]

    Albrecht et al., The Muon Puzzle in cosmic-ray induced air showers and its connection to the Large Hadron Collider , Astrophys

    J. Albrecht et al., The Muon Puzzle in cosmic-ray induced air showers and its connection to the Large Hadron Collider , Astrophys. Space Sci. 367 (2022) 27 [ 2105.06148]

    arXiv 2022

  2. [13]

    Modeling Strangeness Enhancements to resolve the Muon Excess in Cosmic Ray Extensive Air Shower Data

    J. Manshanden, G. Sigl and M.V. Garzelli, Modeling strangeness enhancements to resolve the muon excess in cosmic ray extensive air shower data , JCAP 02 (2023) 017 [ 2208.04266]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

  3. [1]

    Pierre Augercollaboration, Features of the Energy Spectrum of Cosmic Rays above 2.5 ×1018 eV Using the Pierre Auger Observatory , Phys. Rev. Lett. 125 (2020) 121106 [ 2008.06488]

    arXiv 2020

  4. [2]

    Report of the Topical Group on Cosmic Probes of Fundamental Physics for for Snowmass 2021

    R.X. Adhikari et al., Report of the Topical Group on Cosmic Probes of Fundamental Physics for for Snowmass 2021 , 2209.11726

    work page Pith review arXiv 2021

  5. [3]

    Pierre Augercollaboration, Measurement of the mass composition of ultra-high-energy cosmic rays at the Pierre Auger Observatory , PoS ICRC2023 (2023) 365

    work page 2023

  6. [4]

    Pierre Augercollaboration, Depth of Maximum of Air-Shower Profiles above 1017.8eV Measured with the Fluorescence Detector of the Pierre Auger Observatory and Mass Composition Implications, PoS ICRC2023 (2023) 319

    work page 2023

  7. [5]

    Pierre Augercollaboration, Mass Composition from 3 EeV to 100 EeV using the Depth of the Maximum of Air-Shower Profiles Estimated with Deep Learning using Surface Detector Data of the Pierre Auger Observatory , PoS ICRC2023 (2023) 278

    work page 2023

  8. [6]

    Pierre Augercollaboration, Highlights from the Pierre Auger Observatory , PoS ICRC2023 (2023) 016 [ 2312.14673]

    arXiv 2023

Show all 39 references
  1. [7]

    Pierre Augercollaboration, Muons in Air Showers at the Pierre Auger Observatory: Mean Number in Highly Inclined Events , Phys. Rev. D 91 (2015) 032003 [ 1408.1421]

    2015 arXiv

  2. [8]

    Pierre Augercollaboration, Testing Hadronic Interactions at Ultrahigh Energies with Air Showers Measured by the Pierre Auger Observatory , Phys. Rev. Lett. 117 (2016) 192001 [1610.08509]

    2016 arXiv

  3. [9]

    Pierre Augercollaboration, Direct measurement of the muonic content of extensive air showers between 2 × 1017 and 2 × 1018 eV at the Pierre Auger Observatory , Eur. Phys. J. C 80 (2020) 751

    2020

  4. [11]

    Cazon, H.P

    L. Cazon, H.P. Dembinski, G. Parente, F. Riehn and A.A. Watson, The muon measurements of Haverah Park and their connection to the muon puzzle , PoS ICRC2023 (2023) 431

    2023

  5. [12]

    The Pierre Auger Observatory: Contributions to the 36th International Cosmic Ray Conference (ICRC 2019): Madison, Wisconsin, USA, July 24- August 1, 2019 , 9, 2019

    2019

  6. [14]

    Anchordoqui, H

    L.A. Anchordoqui, H. Goldberg and T.J. Weiler, Strange fireball as an explanation of the muon excess in Auger data , Phys. Rev. D 95 (2017) 063005 [ 1612.07328]

    2017 arXiv

  7. [15]

    13 (2017) 535 [ 1606.07424]

    ALICE collaboration, Enhanced production of multi-strange hadrons in high-multiplicity proton-proton collisions, Nature Phys. 13 (2017) 535 [ 1606.07424]

    2017 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Sahoo, Possible Formation of QGP-droplets in Proton-Proton Collisions at the CERN Large Hadron Collider , AAPPS Bull

    R. Sahoo, Possible Formation of QGP-droplets in Proton-Proton Collisions at the CERN Large Hadron Collider , AAPPS Bull. 29 (2019) 16 [ 1908.10566]

    2019 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Becattini and J

    F. Becattini and J. Manninen, Centrality dependence of strangeness production in heavy-ion collisions as a geometrical effect of core-corona superposition , Phys. Lett. B 673 (2009) 19 [0811.3766]

    2009 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Werner, Core-corona procedure and microcanonical hadronization to understand strangeness enhancement in proton-proton and heavy ion collisions in the EPOS4 framework , Phys

    K. Werner, Core-corona procedure and microcanonical hadronization to understand strangeness enhancement in proton-proton and heavy ion collisions in the EPOS4 framework , Phys. Rev. C 109 (2024) 014910 [ 2306.10277]

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    S. Baur, H. Dembinski, M. Perlin, T. Pierog, R. Ulrich and K. Werner, Core-corona effect in hadron collisions and muon production in air showers , Phys. Rev. D 107 (2023) 094031 [ 1902.09265]

    2023 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Pierog and K

    T. Pierog and K. Werner, EPOS LHC-R : up-to-date hadronic model for EAS simulations , PoS ICRC2023 (2023) 230

    2023

  13. [21]

    Kanakubo, Y

    Y. Kanakubo, Y. Tachibana and T. Hirano, Interplay between core and corona components in high-energy nuclear collisions , Phys. Rev. C 105 (2022) 024905 [ 2108.07943]

    2022 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Kanakubo, Unified description of high-energy nuclear collisions based on dynamical core–corona picture, Ph.D

    Y. Kanakubo, Unified description of high-energy nuclear collisions based on dynamical core–corona picture, Ph.D. thesis, Sophia U., 2022. 2208.07029

    2022 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Gustafson and L

    G. Gustafson and L. L¨ onnblad,Dipoles in Impact Parameter Space and Rapidity , Adv. Ser. Direct. High Energy Phys. 29 (2018) 359

    2018

  16. [24]

    Piparo et al., Measurement of the forward η meson production rate in p-p collisions at √s = 13 TeV with the LHCf-Arm2 detector , JHEP 10 (2023) 169 [ 2305.06633]

    G. Piparo et al., Measurement of the forward η meson production rate in p-p collisions at √s = 13 TeV with the LHCf-Arm2 detector , JHEP 10 (2023) 169 [ 2305.06633]

    2023 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Accardi et al., A Critical Appraisal and Evaluation of Modern PDFs , Eur

    A. Accardi et al., A Critical Appraisal and Evaluation of Modern PDFs , Eur. Phys. J. C 76 (2016) 471 [1603.08906]

    2016 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Faura, S

    F. Faura, S. Iranipour, E.R. Nocera, J. Rojo and M. Ubiali, The Strangest Proton? , Eur. Phys. J. C 80 (2020) 1168 [ 2009.00014]

    2020 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Alekhin, J

    S. Alekhin, J. Bl¨ umlein and S. Moch, Strange sea determination from collider data , Phys. Lett. B 777 (2018) 134 [ 1708.01067]

    2018 arXiv

  20. [28]

    F ASERcollaboration, Detecting and Studying High-Energy Collider Neutrinos with F ASER at the LHC, Eur. Phys. J. C 80 (2020) 61 [ 1908.02310]

    2020 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Ahdida and others (SHiP collaboration), SND@LHC, 2002.08722

    C. Ahdida and others (SHiP collaboration), SND@LHC, 2002.08722

    2002

  22. [30]

    Anchordoqui et al., The Forward Physics Facility: Sites, experiments, and physics potential , Phys

    L.A. Anchordoqui et al., The Forward Physics Facility: Sites, experiments, and physics potential , Phys. Rept. 968 (2022) 1 [ 2109.10905]

    2022 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Scaria, S

    R. Scaria, S. Deb, C.R. Singh and R. Sahoo, Energy flow in ultra-high energy cosmic ray interactions as a probe of thermalization: A potential solution to the muon puzzle , Phys. Lett. B 844 (2023) 138118 [ 2304.00294]

    2023 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Ostapchenko, QGSJET-III model of high energy hadronic interactions: The formalism , Phys

    S. Ostapchenko, QGSJET-III model of high energy hadronic interactions: The formalism , Phys. Rev. D 109 (2024) 034002 [ 2401.06202]

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Ostapchenko, QGSJET-III model of high energy hadronic interactions

    S. Ostapchenko, QGSJET-III model of high energy hadronic interactions. II. Particle production and extensive air shower characteristics , Phys. Rev. D 109 (2024) 094019 [ 2403.16106]

    2024 arXiv

  26. [34]

    J. Andersen et al., Les Houches 2023: Physics at TeV Colliders: Standard Model Working Group Report, in Physics of the TeV Scale and Beyond the Standard Model: Intensifying the Quest for New Physics , 6, 2024 [ 2406.00708]

    2023 arXiv

  27. [35]

    LHCb collaboration, Measurement of Antiproton Production in pHe Collisions at √sN N= 110 GeV, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121 (2018) 222001 [ 1808.06127]

    2018 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Dembinski, R

    H.P. Dembinski, R. Ulrich and T. Pierog, Future Proton-Oxygen Beam Collisions at the LHC for Air Shower Physics , PoS ICRC2019 (2020) 235

    2020

  29. [37]

    ATLAS collaboration, Measurement of the total cross section and ρ-parameter from elastic scattering in pp collisions at √s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector , Eur. Phys. J. C 83 (2023) 441 [2207.12246]

    2023 arXiv

  30. [38]

    LHCf collaboration, Measurement of energy flow, cross section and average inelasticity of forward neutrons produced in √s = 13 TeV proton-proton collisions with the LHCf Arm2 detector , JHEP 07 (2020) 016 [ 2003.02192]

    2020 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Cazon, R

    L. Cazon, R. Concei¸ c˜ ao, M.A. Martins and F. Riehn,Proton-air interactions at ultra-high energies in muon-depleted air showers with different depths , Phys. Lett. B 859 (2024) 139115 [ 2406.08620]

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.