Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 2 cited by

Ideas and Requirements for the Global Cosmic-Ray Observatory (GCOS)

T0 review · 4 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A global array of 18,000 water-Cherenkov stations covering 60,000 km² would collect 20 observatory-years of ultra-high-energy cosmic-ray data per year and identify the sources of these particles.

desk verdict A candid, useful community white paper that sets out a straw-man GCOS design; the central trigger-efficiency claim is real but rests on simulations that need systematics before the design hardens. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.05657 v1 pith:4W6C2SIR submitted 2025-02-08 astro-ph.IM astro-ph.HE

Markus Ahlers , Ingo Allekotte , Jaime Alvarez-Muniz , Gioacchino Alex Anastasi , Luis Anchordoqui , Rita de Cassia Dos Anjos , Hari Haran Balakrishnan , Rafael Alves Batista
show 131 more authors
Jose Bellido Mario Bertaina Sonali Bhatnagar Pierre Billoir Kathrin Bismark Teresa Bister Martina Bohacova Carla Bonifazi Fraser Bradfield Antonella Castellina Lorenzo Cazon Kevin Almeida Cheminant Alan Coleman Fabio Convenga Darko Veberič Paramita Dasgupta Kai Daumiller Bruce Dawson Luca Deval Ralph Engel Johannes Eser Ke Fang Glennys R. Farrar Anatoli Fedynitch Francesco Fenu Thomas Fitoussi Benjamin Flaggs Tomas Fodran Toshihiro Fujii Keitaro Fujita Maria Vittoria Garzelli Noemie Globus Hazal Goksu Quanbu Gou Steffen Hahn Balakrishnan Hariharan Andreas Haungs Ryo Higuchi Bohdan Hnatyk Jörg Hörandel Tim Huege Daisuke Ikeda Yuko Ikkatai Ioana Mariş Gina Isar Robin James Washington Carvalho Jr Yunos El Kaderi Matthias Kadler Karl-Heinz Kampert Donghwa Kang Abha Khakurdikar Eiji Kido Matthias Kleifges Ramesh Koirala Chuizheng Kong C. Koyama John Krizmanic Shivam Kulshrestha Viktoria Kungel Agnieszka Leszczyńska Ruoyu Liu Quentin Luce Volodymyr Marchenko Analisa Mariazzi Armando di Matteo John N. Matthews Eric Mayotte Peter Mazur Athina Meli Hiroaki Menjo François Montanet Ana Laura Müller Kohta Murase Marco Muzio Lukas Nellen Marcus Niechciol David Nitz Toshiyuki Nonaka Shoichi Ogio Yutaka Ohira Foteini Oikonomou Angela V Olinto Hitoshi Oshima Rami Oueslati Ek Narayan Paudel Thomas Paul Jannis Pawlowsky Allan Machado Payeras Vincent Pelgrims Lorenzo Perrone Bjarni Pont Alessio Porcelli Julian Rautenberg Felix Riehn Markus Risse Markus Roth Alexandra Saftoiu Takashi Sako Shunsuke Sakurai Francesco Salamida Juan Antonio Aguilar Sánchez Andrea Santangelo Eva Santos Fred Sarazin Christoph Schäfer Viviana Scherini Harald Schieler David Schmidt Harm Schoorlemmer Frank Schroeder Olga Sergijenko H.S. Shin Dennis Soldin Mauricio Suarez-Duran Kaoru Takahashi Masahiro Takeda Yuichiro Tameda Olena Tkachenko Takayuki Tomida Petr Travnicek Michael Unger Federico Urban Tonia Venters Valerio Verzi Jakub Vicha Arjen van Vliet Alan A. Watson Alexey Yushkov Orazio Zapparrata Pengfei Zhang
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.IMastro-ph.HE
keywords ultra-high-energycosmicraysglobalcosmic-rayobservatorywater-Cherenkovdetectorair-showertriggerefficiencycompositionsourcesanisotropiesdesignstudy
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

The report argues that the open questions about ultra-high-energy cosmic rays—where they are made, what they are, and whether their interactions obey the Standard Model—cannot be settled with current statistics and require an order-of-magnitude leap in exposure. It therefore proposes a straw-man design for a global observatory: about 18,000 layered water-Cherenkov stations (tanks that catch the Cherenkov light emitted by shower particles) spread over $60\,000\,\mathrm{km}^2$ at 2.2 km spacing, deployed at two or more sites near $\pm 35^\circ$ latitude, with fluorescence and radio detectors to calibrate the energy and mass scales. The design target is 100% trigger efficiency at $10\,\mathrm{EeV}$, so that one calendar year of operation yields the exposure the current benchmark array accumulates in about 20 years. The report's core assertion is that with this exposure the first cosmic-ray sources would appear as $5\sigma$ hotspots, composition could be measured event by event from shower maximum and muon content, and searches for ultra-high-energy photons and neutrinos would reach cosmogenic and new-physics predictions. This is a design study built on simulations of shower footprints and detector response, not on new data.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing design parameter is the station spacing, chosen from the simulated lateral trigger probability of a water-Cherenkov station with a simple time-over-threshold trigger. For vertical $10\,\mathrm{EeV}$ proton showers the probability of a station firing drops steeply beyond about 2 km from the shower axis, and the largest ground footprints (the major axis containing 98% of trigger probability) reach only about 10–12 km, with lighter and photon primaries producing smaller footprints. From this the report sets 2.2 km as the maximum spacing that still guarantees full trigger efficiency at $10\,\mathrm{EeV}$, and a triangular grid at that spacing over $60\,000\,\mathrm{km}^2$ requires about 18,000 detectors. The second key mechanism is the layered water-Cherenkov detector: an optical divider at 40 cm depth sends roughly 60% of the electromagnetic light into the top layer and roughly 40% of the muon light into the bottom layer, so two linear equations separate the components and a universality-based algorithm recovers $X_{\mathrm{max}}$ with better than $25\,\mathrm{g\,cm^{-2}}$ resolution and muon number better than 10% at 1000 m from the axis. Fluorescence telescopes (including low-cost single-pixel designs) and radio antennas provide the absolute energy scale and, with the particle detector, the mass scale.

What would settle it

Build a small prototype array of the proposed water-Cherenkov stations at 2.2 km spacing at a site near $35^\circ$ latitude, use fluorescence telescopes to reconstruct air showers around $10\,\mathrm{EeV}$, and measure the fraction of showers that trigger at least three stations as a function of core distance and zenith angle. If the measured trigger efficiency at $10\,\mathrm{EeV}$ falls below 100%, or the lateral trigger probability at 2 km is significantly below the simulated curve, the 18,000-station design is too sparse; the same measurement repeated with different hadronic interaction models would show whether model uncertainty alone is large enough to break the claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a ground array of $60\,000\,\mathrm{km}^2$ instrumented with roughly 18,000 stations on a 2.2 km triangular grid achieves full trigger efficiency at $10\,\mathrm{EeV}$ and, in one year of data taking, delivers the same exposure that the current reference observatory accumulates in 20 years. Above a quality threshold of $30\,\mathrm{EeV}$ the design promises per-event energy resolution better than 10%, muon-number resolution better than 10%, shower-maximum depth ($X_{\mathrm{max}}$, the atmospheric depth at which the shower reaches its largest size) resolution better than $30\,\mathrm{g\,cm^{-2}}$, and angular resolution better than $1^\circ$. With two hemisphere sites at intermediate latitudes, the array covers the whole sky, which the report says is needed to compare the two observed hotspot regions with a single instrument and to carry out full-sky correlation studies with candidate source catalogs. The paper's case rests on station-level trigger probability simulations, footprint-size estimates for proton, iron, and photon primaries, and a layered water-Cherenkov geometry that separates the electromagnetic and muonic components of each shower. From these ingredients it concludes that the observatory would identify ultra-high-energy cosmic-ray sources, determine the nuclear composition, and open the photon and neutrino windows at the highest energies.

Load-bearing premise

The design's central number—100% trigger efficiency at $10\,\mathrm{EeV}$ with 2.2 km spacing and 18,000 stations—rests on the assumption that the simulated time-over-threshold trigger probabilities, shower footprints, and hadronic interaction models used in the footprint study correctly describe real water-Cherenkov detectors and real ultra-high-energy air showers; if real showers trigger less efficiently than simulated, the array would be too sparse and would need denser spacing or a higher threshold.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Within about one year of operation the array would confirm the two reported hotspot excesses at 5σ significance, giving the first images of individual ultra-high-energy cosmic-ray sources.
  • After several years it would discover fainter sources and statistically distinguish starburst galaxies, active galactic nuclei, and powerful radio galaxies as source classes.
  • Event-by-event shower-maximum depth and muon-number measurements would separate proton and iron primaries with merit factor above 1.5 at 60 EeV, pinning down the mass composition and testing hadronic interactions beyond human accelerator energies.
  • With ten times current statistics, combined fits of spectrum, composition, and arrival directions would cut the uncertainty on the injected spectral index by a factor of six and discriminate between source-evolution models at more than 20σ.
  • The full-sky exposure would turn dipole and quadrupole anisotropy predictions from lower bounds into detections at about 11σ and 7σ significance.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper does not state this, but the same 2.2 km grid and layered water-Cherenkov stations, with their muon/electromagnetic separation, would double as an Earth-skimming tau-neutrino detector; inclined tau decays produce muon-poor electromagnetic showers whose footprints fit the design, so the neutrino science case could piggyback on the same hardware.
  • The spacing argument is tuned to vertical and moderately inclined proton/iron showers; the paper does not quantify how the 100% trigger-efficiency requirement would degrade for the most inclined events or under variable atmospheric attenuation, so a denser infill or a separate radio-trigger layer may be needed to keep the photon and neutrino channels.
  • If the 20-years-in-one-year exposure target is met and the hotspots do not grow to 5σ, that would falsify the starburst-galaxy and Centaurus-region interpretations rather than the array's trigger design—a discriminating outcome the report does not discuss.
  • The cost and logistics of about 18,000 maintenance-free autonomous stations, rather than physics performance, are likely to decide whether this straw man becomes real; the report sets reliability as a requirement but gives no quantified failure-rate or cost-per-station budget.
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

4 major / 7 minor

Summary. This manuscript is the written output of the 2022–2023 GCOS workshops. It proposes a straw-man design for a next-generation ultra-high-energy cosmic-ray observatory: roughly 60,000 km^2 of surface particle detectors at 2.2 km spacing (~18,000 water-Cherenkov stations), complemented by fluorescence and radio detectors for energy-scale calibration and mass measurement, with a trigger threshold of 10 EeV and a stated 100% trigger efficiency above that energy. The central quantitative claim is that the array would collect the equivalent of twenty years of Pierre Auger exposure in one year of operation and would enable source discovery, composition measurements, and multi-messenger searches. The body of the report collects short workshop contributions on the science case, particle detector design, fluorescence detector options, and radio detector options, together with summaries of supporting simulations and some open-source tools.

Significance. If the straw-man design performs as claimed, GCOS would be a transformative facility: an order-of-magnitude leap in exposure with full-sky coverage, event-level mass sensitivity, and an independent radio/fluorescence energy-scale calibration would directly address the origin and nature of ultra-high-energy cosmic rays. The report also has value as a community document: it consolidates a large number of expert contributions, documents design trade-offs such as the FD layout comparisons and the radio-spacing limitations, and is honest about several limitations, including the marginal mass sensitivity so far obtained from SSD+WCD muon extraction and the preliminary nature of the layered water-Cherenkov simulations. The open-source EAS array visualizer and the public treasure-map data release are useful, reproducible outputs. However, the paper does not yet provide a parameter-free or fully validated design derivation; the main quantitative requirements rest on simulations whose assumptions are not completely documented, and several science projections explicitly exclude detector effects.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 3.2.2, Figs. 12–14] The central design decision—2.2 km detector spacing and 18,000 stations for 100% trigger efficiency at 10 EeV (Secs. 2.1 and 2.2)—is derived entirely from the lateral trigger-probability simulations in Fig. 12 and the footprint sizes in Fig. 13, but the text does not state the hadronic interaction model(s), atmospheric model, detector response model, station trigger threshold, or the statistical/systematic treatment behind these curves. The report elsewhere emphasizes the model dependence of muon number and Xmax (Secs. 3.2.4 and 3.2.5), and Fig. 13's caption defines the footprint major axis as "more than 98% trigger efficiency" rather than 100%, which is inconsistent with the stated 100% requirement. Please provide the model assumptions, quantify the spread among hadronic models and trigger-threshold choices, and reconcile the 98% vs. 100% definition or soften the design requirement accordingly.
  2. [Sec. 3.1.9, Fig. 9] The headline projection that GCOS will confirm the TA and Auger hotspots at 5σ within one year and then image fainter sources rests on three source catalogs, the attenuation model of "composition scenario A", the assumption that the Centaurus excess is caused by the brightest catalog objects in that direction, and no Galactic-magnetic-field magnification. Several of these limitations are acknowledged in the text, but no robustness study is shown, so the reader cannot judge how the source-count curves would shift under alternative catalogs, compositions, or GMF models. The forecast should be presented with explicit ranges over these choices, or clearly labeled as an illustrative calculation rather than a prospective sensitivity.
  3. [Secs. 3.1.6–3.1.8, Figs. 5 and 7] The science projections for proton-fraction versus neutrino-flux constraints and for combined-fit parameter uncertainties use the same authors' earlier models and, in several cases, do not include detector effects; for example, Sec. 3.1.8 states that a discrimination power of >20σ is achieved "not considering detector effects." This is acceptable for a workshop-report context, but the paper should add a prominent statement in the introduction or abstract that these forecasts are not end-to-end sensitivity studies and that they are presented as workshop contributions rather than validated projections; otherwise the abstract's general claim of "science possibilities" may overstate the maturity of the quantitative results.
  4. [Sec. 2.1; Secs. 3.2.4 and 3.2.7] The design requirements list σNµ = 10% and σXmax = 30 g/cm^2 (Sec. 2.1), but the supporting evidence is a mix of preliminary layered-water-Cherenkov simulations (Sec. 3.2.7) and a WCD+SSD approach whose own proponent states that only "marginal increases in mass sensitivity observed in simulations" (Sec. 3.2.4). The paper should make clear whether the 10% muon-number requirement is tied specifically to the layered detector, and it should provide an uncertainty budget for the simulation results, including the spread among hadronic interaction models, before presenting these values as design requirements.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Sec. 2.3] The text contains typographical errors: "enery threshold" should read "energy threshold," and "neccesary" should read "necessary" in the Layout A caption.
  2. [Headings throughout] Several section headings contain split author names, such as "L UIS ANCHORDOQUI" and "M ICHAEL UNGER"; similar spacing artifacts appear in the author list and should be cleaned in the published version.
  3. [Figs. 15 and 16] The hadronic model is quoted inconsistently: Fig. 16 states "Sibyll 2.3c" while Fig. 15 states "Sibyll2.3d"; please confirm which model version was used for each simulation set.
  4. [Fig. 17] The figure appears to carry a duplicated caption ("Figure 2: The fraction...") that is likely a source-file artifact; it should be removed and the figure renumbered.
  5. [Sec. 3.3.7, Table 2] The notation "q A/Omega_pix = 13" is unclear; if this is the square root of A/Omega_pix, it should be written explicitly and the units of A and Omega_pix should be stated.
  6. [Sec. 3.2.2, Fig. 12] The trigger-probability curves would be more useful with statistical uncertainties or at least the number of simulated showers per energy/zenith bin; as presented, the large-distance behavior is not distinguishable from zero at the few-percent level that matters for the 100% efficiency claim.
  7. [Sec. 3.1.9, Fig. 9] The axis label "sigma(number of sources above 5)" should read "sigma (number of sources above 5)" for clarity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the straw-man design parameters are simulation-derived forecasts, not fitted inputs renamed as predictions.

full rationale

This is a workshop report on a straw-man detector design, not a derivation that reduces to its own inputs. The central design numbers (60,000 km2 area, 2.2 km spacing, ~18,000 stations) are obtained in Sec. 2.1 and Sec. 3.2.2 from simulated lateral trigger probabilities and footprint sizes for water-Cherenkov stations (Figs. 12-14); the reasoning runs from simulated physics to required geometry, not from the target quantity back into the input. The projected science sensitivities (e.g., Bister's combined fit, Unger's source counts, di Matteo's dipole bound, Globus's treasure maps) are forecasts made with the authors' previously published models, but they are externally falsifiable by future GCOS data and are not used to define the target result. Self-citations such as [23], [53], [94], and [98-100] support methods already published elsewhere, but none is invoked as a uniqueness theorem to forbid alternatives or as the sole justification for a claimed prediction. No equation or parameter in the paper equates a fitted quantity with the quantity it is said to predict, so no circular step can be exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central quantitative claims, such as the required detector spacing and the projected source discoveries, depend on simulation codes and model assumptions (hadronic interaction models, magnetic field models, source catalogs) that are taken from prior literature or chosen by the authors. No new physical entities are introduced, and most design numbers are explicit targets rather than fitted parameters.

free parameters (3)
  • Array area = 60,000 km^2
    Design target chosen to collect 20 Auger-equivalent years in one year (Section 2.1).
  • Detector spacing = 2.2 km
    Derived from shower-footprint simulations in Section 3.2.2 to achieve full trigger efficiency at 10 EeV; depends on hadronic models and detector response assumptions.
  • Energy threshold = 10 EeV (full efficiency)
    Chosen design requirement to study the end of the UHECR spectrum (Section 2.1).
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption UHECRs originate from astrophysical sources whose spatial distribution is captured by standard catalogs (starburst galaxies, AGN, radio galaxies).
    Used for source-count and anisotropy projections in Sections 3.1.3 and 3.1.9; not proven by this paper.
  • domain assumption Hadronic interaction models (Sibyll, EPOS-LHC, QGSJet) reliably predict air-shower development at ultra-high energies.
    Underpins trigger efficiency (Section 3.2.2), mass composition FOMs (Section 3.2.5), and layered WCD reconstruction (Section 3.2.7).
  • domain assumption Galactic magnetic field models (e.g., JF12Planck, PT2011) and extragalactic field assumptions are accurate enough for deflection and anisotropy predictions.
    Used in treasure maps (Section 3.1.5), dipole/quadrupole bounds (Section 3.1.3), and the magnetic-field science case (Section 3.1.2).
  • domain assumption Standard fluorescence yield and atmospheric transmission can be calibrated to the stated accuracy.
    Required for the FD energy-scale calibration claims in Section 2.3.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Ideas and Requirements for the Global Cosmic-Ray Observatory (GCOS)." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4W6C2SIR

@misc{pith2026250205657,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Ideas and Requirements for the Global Cosmic-Ray Observatory (GCOS)},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4W6C2SIR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.05657}
}
read the original abstract

After a successful kick-off meeting in 2021. two workshops in 2022 and 2023 on the future Global Cosmic-Ray Observatory (GCOS) focused mainly on a straw man design of the detector and science possibilities for astro- and particle physics. About 100 participants gathered for in-person and hybrid panel discussions. In this report, we summarize these discussions, present a preliminary straw-man design for GCOS and collect short write-ups of the flash talks given during the focus sessions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.05657 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Expected exposures of GCOS (dashed red line) and existing air shower arrays as function of time. A band [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Illustration of a potential exten￾sion of the Pierre Auger Observatory. Existing large-scale facilities for observing ultra-high￾energy cosmic rays, such as the Pierre Auger Observatory in Argentina (at 35° S) and the Telescope Array in Utah (at 39° N), are positioned in optimal locations. These sites could function as infill arrays, benefiting from increased station density and, consequently, lower energy detection… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Dipole (left) and quadrupole (right) amplitude predictions [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (24 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: EECR at 150 EeV “treasure maps” for TA (left) and PAO (right), for nitrogen (top), iron (bottom) for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The range of observed proton fractions above 30 EeV compatible with a various levels of neutrino flux at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Photon limits on diffuse fluxes and predictions (from Ref. [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Energy spectrum (markers) of simulation with current statistics of the Pierre Auger Observatory ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Illustration of the UHECR flux from source candidates as a function of latitude. Left: active galactic nuclei [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Expected number of source images as a function of exposure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Directional exposures of hypothetical SD arrays with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The equivalent uniform area (inversely proportional to the square of expected statistical uncertainties, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The lateral trigger probabilities for proton initiated air-showers at lg(E/eV)=[19,19.5,20] (left, center, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The size of the footprint on the ground (major axis, defined as more than 98% trigger efficiency) for iron [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Number of detectors needed to cover a surface of 60,000 km2 as a function of the distance be￾tween detectors for a triangular grid array. The probabilities of having a triggered station as a func￾tion of the distance to the air-shower axis are shown in [PITH_FULL_IMA…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Proton-iron separability, as described by the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Figure of merit (FOM) vs. air-shower energy for a variety of shower observables, zenith ranges, and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_16.png]
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The fraction of the number of photoelectrons in the upper liner. The mean values are ) m 1 Figure 17: The fraction of photoelectrons produced in the uppe [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_2.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: (left) The reconstruction of the muonic and electromagnetic components in a station. (center) Resolution [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_18.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Options from Design Report (1st ed.) The first edition of the Pierre Auger Project design report [142] was published in October 1995, just before the site selection in Novem￾ber of that year. At that time, the SD array area was set at 3000 km2 , the need for a hy￾brid…
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Possible sites for Snake Array detector stations from surveys by Lawrence Wiencke and Shigeru Yoshida. The Long Ridge site coincides with one the current TA FD stations. spectrum and composition with similar resolution to HiRes but able to collect ten times the HiRes …
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: Core position distribution and aperture of a pair of Snake Array stations spaced 35 km apart. The two [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_21.png]
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: The Fluorescence detector Array of Single-pixel Telescopes: a possible solution for a future giant ground [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_22.png]
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: (a) Trigger efficiency for 3-fold coincidence with a hypothetical FAST. (b) Expected 95% confidence-level [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_23.png]
Figure 24
Figure 24. Figure 24: Left: CRAFFT detectors deployed at TA FD BRM site. Right: Waveform of air shower event observed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_24.png]
Figure 25
Figure 25. Figure 25: Left: Illustration of the viewable vertical depth range. Right: Area observed by one telescope depending [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p035_25.png]
Figure 26
Figure 26. Figure 26: Multiplicity of expected radio detections in the presence of Galactic background in the 30-80 MHz band [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p039_26.png]
Figure 27
Figure 27. Figure 27: Screenshot of the EAS array visualizer. 3.4.4 Further Contributions Julian Rautenberg – Considerations about triggers and photons https://agenda.astro.ru.nl/event/21/contributions/283/attachments/64/73/RD_flash.pdf Bjarni Pont – Hybrid lessons from a radio perspective…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Detection of Spaceborne Lasers with the Pierre Auger Observatory

    astro-ph.IM 2025-08 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

    Fluorescence telescopes at the Pierre Auger Observatory detect and reconstruct laser tracks from the Aeolus and EarthCARE space lidars, providing satellite ground-truthing and a possible cross-calibration of cosmic-ra...

  2. The Global Cosmic Ray Observatory -- Challenging next-generation multi-messenger astronomy with interdisciplinary research

    astro-ph.HE 2025-07 unverdicted novelty 2.0 of 10

    GCOS is proposed as a 60,000 km2 cosmic-ray observatory that would boost exposure tenfold and enable charged-particle astronomy, though this paper only restates the design goals.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

189 extracted references · 75 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    https://agenda.astro.ru.nl/event/18/overview

  2. [2]

    https://agenda.astro.ru.nl/event/21/overview

  3. [3]

    https://indico.iihe.ac.be/event/1729/overview

  4. [4]

    Alves Batista et al

    R. Alves Batista et al. Front. Astron. Space Sci. 6 (2019) 23

    2019

  5. [5]

    Sarazin et al

    F. Sarazin et al. Bull. Am. Astron. Soc. 51 (2019) 93

    2019

  6. [6]

    Alcantara, L

    E. Alcantara, L. A. Anchordoqui, and J. F. Soriano Phys. Rev. D 99 (2019) 103016

    2019

  7. [7]

    Aloisio, S

    R. Aloisio, S. Matarrese, and A. V . Olinto JCAP 08 (2015) 024

    2015

  8. [8]

    Lipari Nuovo Cim

    P . Lipari Nuovo Cim. C 40 (2017) 144

    2017

Show all 189 references
  1. [9]

    Branchesi J

    M. Branchesi J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 718 (2016) 022004

    2016

  2. [10]

    L. A. Gergely and P . L. Biermann Astrophys. J. 697 (2009) 1621

    2009

  3. [11]

    L. A. Gergely and P . L. Biermann J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 122 (2008) 012040

    2008

  4. [12]

    L. A. Gergely, P . L. Biermann, and L. I. CarameteClass. Quant. Grav. 27 (2010) 194009

    2010

  5. [13]

    T ´apai, L

    M. T ´apai, L. A. Gergely, Z. Keresztes, P . J. Wiita, Gopal-Krishna, and P . L. Biermann Astron. Nachr. 334 (2013) 1032

    2013

  6. [14]

    F. R. Klinkhamer and M. Risse Phys. Rev. D 77 (2008) 117901. 41

    2008

  7. [15]

    F. R. Klinkhamer, M. Niechciol, and M. Risse Phys. Rev. D 96 (2017) 116011

    2017

  8. [16]

    Aloisio, P

    R. Aloisio, P . Blasi, P . L. Ghia, and A. F. GrilloPhys. Rev. D 62 (2000) 053010

    2000

  9. [17]

    Cowsik, T

    R. Cowsik, T. Madziwa-Nussinov, S. Nussinov, and U. Sarkar Phys. Rev. D 86 (2012) 045024

    2012

  10. [18]

    Mart ´ınez-Huerta and A

    H. Mart ´ınez-Huerta and A. P´erez-Lorenzana Phys. Rev. D 95 (2017) 063001

    2017

  11. [19]

    R. G. Lang, [Pierre Auger Collab.] PoS ICRC2019 (2020) 327

    2020

  12. [20]

    Abreu et al., [Pierre Auger Collab.] Phys

    P . Abreu et al., [Pierre Auger Collab.] Phys. Rev. Lett. 109 (2012) 062002

    2012

  13. [21]

    Coleman et al

    A. Coleman et al. Astropart. Phys. 149 (2023) 102819

    2023

  14. [22]

    Aab et al., [Pierre Auger Collab.] JINST 16 (2021) P07016

    A. Aab et al., [Pierre Auger Collab.] JINST 16 (2021) P07016

    2021

  15. [23]

    Letessier-Selvon, P

    A. Letessier-Selvon, P . Billoir, M. Blanco, I. C. Maris ¸, and M. SettimoNucl. Instrum. Meth. A 767 (2014) 41

    2014

  16. [24]

    Chiavassa, [SWGO Collab.] JINST 19 (2024) C02065

    A. Chiavassa, [SWGO Collab.] JINST 19 (2024) C02065

    2024

  17. [25]

    I. C. Maris and N. M. Gonzalez, [Pierre Auger Collab.] PoS ICRC2023 (2023) 718

    2023

  18. [26]

    Huege, [Pierre Auger Collab.] EPJ Web Conf

    T. Huege, [Pierre Auger Collab.] EPJ Web Conf. 283 (2023) 06002

    2023

  19. [27]

    Aab et al., [Pierre Auger Collab.] Phys

    A. Aab et al., [Pierre Auger Collab.] Phys. Rev. D93 (2016) 122005

    2016

  20. [29]

    Aab et al., [Pierre Auger Collab.] JCAP 1810 (2018) 026

    A. Aab et al., [Pierre Auger Collab.] JCAP 1810 (2018) 026

    2018

  21. [30]

    Schoorlemmer and W

    H. Schoorlemmer and W. R. Carvalho Eur. Phys. J. C 81 (2021) 1120

    2021

  22. [31]

    S. W. Barwick et al. Astropart. Phys. 90 (2017) 50–68

    2017

  23. [32]

    Aab et al., [Pierre Auger Collab.] Astrophys

    A. Aab et al., [Pierre Auger Collab.] Astrophys. J. Lett. 853 (2018) L29

    2018

  24. [33]

    Abreu et al., [Pierre Auger Collab.] Astrophys

    P . Abreu et al., [Pierre Auger Collab.] Astrophys. J. 935 (2022) 170

    2022

  25. [34]

    R. U. Abbasi et al., [Telescope Array Collab.] Astrophys. J. Lett. 790 (2014) L21

    2014

  26. [35]

    L. A. Anchordoqui, G. E. Romero, and J. A. Combi Phys. Rev. D 60 (1999) 103001

    1999

  27. [36]

    L. A. Anchordoqui Phys. Rev. D 97 (2018) 063010

    2018

  28. [37]

    L. A. Anchordoqui and D. F. Torres Phys. Rev. D 102 (2020) 023034

    2020

  29. [38]

    G. E. Romero, A. L. M ¨uller, and M. Roth Astron. Astrophys. 616 (2018) A57

    2018

  30. [39]

    A. L. M ¨uller, G. E. Romero, and M. Roth Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 496 (2020) 2474

    2020

  31. [40]

    Aguilar-Ruiz, N

    E. Aguilar-Ruiz, N. Fraija, J. C. Joshi, A. Galvan-Gamez, and J. A. de Diego Phys. Rev. D 104 (2021) 083013

    2021

  32. [41]

    Peretti, G

    E. Peretti, G. Morlino, P . Blasi, and P . CristofariMon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 511 (2022) 1336

    2022

  33. [42]

    A. R. Bell and J. H. Matthews Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 511 (2022) 448. 42

    2022

  34. [43]

    J. D. Bray and A. M. M. Scaife Astrophys. J. 861 (2018) 3

    2018

  35. [44]

    van Vliet, A

    A. van Vliet, A. Palladino, A. Taylor, and W. Winter MNRAS 510 (2021) 1289

    2021

  36. [45]

    Neronov, D

    A. Neronov, D. Semikoz, and O. Kalashev Phys. Rev. D 108 (2023) 103008

    2023

  37. [46]

    V . Shaw, A. van Vliet, and A. M. TaylorMNRAS 517 (2022) 2534

    2022

  38. [47]

    L. M. Widrow Rev. Mod. Phys. 74 (2002) 775

    2002

  39. [48]

    J. L. Han ARA&A 55 (2017) 111–157

    2017

  40. [49]

    Alves Batista and A

    R. Alves Batista and A. Saveliev Universe 7 (2021) 223

    2021

  41. [50]

    Alves Batista et al

    R. Alves Batista et al. JCAP 05 (2016) 038

    2016

  42. [51]

    Alves Batista et al

    R. Alves Batista et al. JCAP 09 (2022) 035

    2022

  43. [52]

    Eichmann and T

    B. Eichmann and T. Winchen JCAP 04 (2020) 047

    2020

  44. [53]

    di Matteo and P

    A. di Matteo and P . TinyakovMNRAS 476 (2018) 715

    2018

  45. [54]

    M. F. Skrutskie et al., [2MASS Collab.] Astron. J. 131 (2006) 1163

    2006

  46. [55]

    H. B. J. Koers and P . TinyakovMNRAS 399 (2009) 1005

    2009

  47. [56]

    M. S. Pshirkov et al. Astrophys. J. 738 (2011) 192

    2011

  48. [57]

    Jansson and G

    R. Jansson and G. R. Farrar Astrophys. J. 757 (2012) 14

    2012

  49. [58]

    M. S. Pshirkov, P . G. Tinyakov, and F. R. UrbanMNRAS 436 (2013) 2326

    2013

  50. [59]

    Tinyakovet al., [Telescope Array, Pierre Auger Collab.]PoS ICRC2021 (2021) 375

    P . Tinyakovet al., [Telescope Array, Pierre Auger Collab.]PoS ICRC2021 (2021) 375

    2021

  51. [60]

    di Matteo et al., [Telescope Array, Pierre Auger Collab.]PoS ICRC2021 (2021) 308

    A. di Matteo et al., [Telescope Array, Pierre Auger Collab.]PoS ICRC2021 (2021) 308

    2021

  52. [61]

    J. L. Feng Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 48 (2010) 495

    2010

  53. [62]

    Griest and M

    K. Griest and M. Kamionkowski Phys. Rev. Lett. 64 (1990) 615

    1990

  54. [63]

    Steigman and M

    G. Steigman and M. S. Turner Nucl. Phys. B 253 (1985) 375

    1985

  55. [64]

    P ´erez de los Heros PoS EPS-HEP2019 (2020) 694

    C. P ´erez de los Heros PoS EPS-HEP2019 (2020) 694

    2020

  56. [65]

    Berezinsky, M

    V . Berezinsky, M. Kachelriess, and A. VilenkinPhys. Rev. Lett. 79 (1997) 4302

    1997

  57. [66]

    V . A. Kuzmin and V . A. RubakovPhys. Atom. Nucl. 61 (1998) 1028

    1998

  58. [67]

    V . A. Kuzmin and I. I. Tkachev Phys. Rept. 320 (1999) 199

    1999

  59. [68]

    V . N. Gribov and L. N. Lipatov Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 15 (1972) 675

    1972

  60. [69]

    V . N. Gribov and L. N. Lipatov Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 15 (1972) 438

    1972

  61. [70]

    Y. L. Dokshitzer Sov. Phys. JETP 46 (1977) 641

    1977

  62. [71]

    Altarelli and G

    G. Altarelli and G. Parisi Nucl. Phys. B 126 (1977) 298

    1977

  63. [72]

    Birkel and S

    M. Birkel and S. Sarkar Astropart. Phys. 9 (1998) 297. 43

    1998

  64. [73]

    Berezinsky and M

    V . Berezinsky and M. Kachelriess Phys. Rev. D 63 (2001) 034007

    2001

  65. [74]

    Sarkar and R

    S. Sarkar and R. Toldra Nucl. Phys. B 621 (2002) 495

    2002

  66. [75]

    Barbot and M

    C. Barbot and M. Drees Astropart. Phys. 20 (2003) 5

    2003

  67. [76]

    Gu ´epin, R

    C. Gu ´epin, R. Aloisio, L. A. Anchordoqui, A. Cummings, J. F. Krizmanic, A. V . Olinto, M. H. Reno, and T. M. VentersPhys. Rev. D 104 (2021) 083002

    2021

  68. [77]

    L. A. Anchordoqui et al. Astropart. Phys. 132 (2021) 102614

    2021

  69. [78]

    Abreu et al., [Pierre Auger Collab.] Phys

    P . Abreu et al., [Pierre Auger Collab.] Phys. Rev. Lett. 130 (2023) 061001

    2023

  70. [79]

    Abreu et al., [Pierre Auger Collab.] Phys

    P . Abreu et al., [Pierre Auger Collab.] Phys. Rev. D 107 (2023) 042002

    2023

  71. [80]

    Abdul Halim et al., [Pierre Auger Collab.] Phys

    A. Abdul Halim et al., [Pierre Auger Collab.] Phys. Rev. D 109 (2024) L081101

    2024

  72. [81]

    Vafa arXiv:hep-th/0509212

    C. Vafa arXiv:hep-th/0509212

    arXiv

  73. [82]

    L ¨ust, E

    D. L ¨ust, E. Palti, and C. Vafa Phys. Lett. B 797 (2019) 134867

    2019

  74. [83]

    Montero, C

    M. Montero, C. Vafa, and I. Valenzuela JHEP 02 (2023) 022

    2023

  75. [84]

    Vafa arXiv:2402.00981 [hep-ph]

    C. Vafa arXiv:2402.00981 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  76. [85]

    Antoniadis, L

    I. Antoniadis, L. A. Anchordoqui, and D. L ¨ust PoS CORFU2023 (2024) 215

    2024

  77. [86]

    L. A. Anchordoqui Phys. Rev. D 106 (2022) 116022

    2022

  78. [87]

    Greisen Phys

    K. Greisen Phys. Rev. Lett. 16 (1966) 7480

    1966

  79. [88]

    G. T. Zatsepin and V . A. KuzminJETP Lett. 4 (1966) 78

    1966

  80. [89]

    Ehlert, F

    D. Ehlert, F. Oikonomou, and M. Unger Phys. Rev. D 107 (2023) 103045

    2023

  81. [90]

    L. A. Anchordoqui Phys. Rept. 801 (2019) 1

    2019

  82. [91]

    M. S. Muzio, L. A. Anchordoqui, and M. Unger PoS ICRC2023 (2023) 293

    2023

  83. [92]

    M. S. Muzio, L. A. Anchordoqui, and M. Unger Phys. Rev. D 109 (2024) 023006

    2024

  84. [93]

    N. T. Noble, J. F. Soriano, and L. A. Anchordoqui Phys. Dark Univ. 42 (2023) 101278

    2023

  85. [94]

    Globus, A

    N. Globus, A. Fedynitch, and R. D. Blandford The Astrophysical Journal 945 (2023) 12. https://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/acaf5f

    2023 doi

  86. [95]

    EECR Treasure Maps Additional Figures,

    N. Globus, A. Fedynitch, and R. D. Blandford, “EECR Treasure Maps Additional Figures,” Jan., 2023. https://github.com/afedynitch/EECR_treasure_maps

    2023

  87. [96]

    Abdul Halim et al., [Pierre Auger Collab.] PoS ICRC2023 (2023) 438

    A. Abdul Halim et al., [Pierre Auger Collab.] PoS ICRC2023 (2023) 438

    2023

  88. [97]

    A. A. Halim et al., [Pierre Auger Collab.] JCAP 05 (2023) 024

    2023

  89. [98]

    M. S. Muzio, M. Unger, and G. R. Farrar Phys. Rev. D 100 (2019) 103008

    2019

  90. [99]

    Unger, G

    M. Unger, G. R. Farrar, and L. A. Anchordoqui Phys. Rev. D 92 (2015) 123001

    2015

  91. [100]

    M. S. Muzio, G. R. Farrar, and M. Unger Phys. Rev. D 105 (2022) 023022. 44

    2022

  92. [101]

    Verzi, [Pierre Auger Collab.]PoS ICRC2019 (2020) 450

    V . Verzi, [Pierre Auger Collab.]PoS ICRC2019 (2020) 450

    2020

  93. [102]

    Yushkov, [Auger Collab.] PoS ICRC2019 (2020) 482

    A. Yushkov, [Auger Collab.] PoS ICRC2019 (2020) 482

    2020

  94. [103]

    M. G. Aartsen et al., [IceCube Collab.] Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) 062003

    2018

  95. [104]

    M. G. Aartsen et al., [IceCube Collab.] Nature 591 (2021) 220. [Erratum: Nature 592, E11 (2021)]

    2021

  96. [105]

    Ackermann et al., [Fermi-LAT Collab.] Astrophys

    M. Ackermann et al., [Fermi-LAT Collab.] Astrophys. J. 799 (2015) 86

    2015

  97. [106]

    Ackermann et al., [Fermi-LAT Collab.] Phys

    M. Ackermann et al., [Fermi-LAT Collab.] Phys. Rev. Lett. 116 (2016) 151105

    2016

  98. [107]

    Rautenberg, [Pierre Auger Collab.] PoS ICRC2019 (2021) 398

    J. Rautenberg, [Pierre Auger Collab.] PoS ICRC2019 (2021) 398

    2021

  99. [108]

    Abreu et al., [Pierre Auger Collab.] PoS ICRC2021 (2021) 373

    P . Abreu et al., [Pierre Auger Collab.] PoS ICRC2021 (2021) 373

    2021

  100. [109]

    Abreu et al., [Pierre Auger Collab.] Astrophys

    P . Abreu et al., [Pierre Auger Collab.] Astrophys. J. 933 (2022) 125

    2022

  101. [110]

    M. S. Muzio, M. Unger, and S. Wissel Phys. Rev. D 107 (2023) 103030

    2023

  102. [111]

    van Vliet, R

    A. van Vliet, R. Alves Batista, and J. R. H ¨orandel Phys. Rev. D 100 (2019) 021302

    2019

  103. [112]

    Risse and P

    M. Risse and P . Homola Mod. Phys. Lett. A 22 (2007) 749

    2007

  104. [113]

    Abreu et al., [Pierre Auger Collab.] PoS ICRC2021 (2021) 311

    P . Abreu et al., [Pierre Auger Collab.] PoS ICRC2021 (2021) 311

    2021

  105. [114]

    Aab et al., [Pierre Auger Collab.] JCAP 04 (2017) 038

    A. Aab et al., [Pierre Auger Collab.] JCAP 04 (2017) 038. [Erratum: JCAP 03, E02 (2018)]

    2017

  106. [115]

    T. B. for the Pierre Auger Collaboration PoS ICRC2021 (2021) 368

    2021

  107. [116]

    Wirtz, T

    M. Wirtz, T. Bister, and M. Erdmann Eur. Phys. J. C 81 (2021) 794

    2021

  108. [117]

    Lunardini, G

    C. Lunardini, G. S. Vance, K. L. Emig, and R. A. Windhorst JCAP 2019 (2019) 073

    2019

  109. [118]

    K. Oh, M. Koss, C. B. Markwardt, et al. ApJS 235 (2018) 4

    2018

  110. [119]

    van Velzen, H

    S. van Velzen, H. Falcke, P . Schellart, N. Nierstenhoefer, and K.-H. KampertAstron. Astrophys. 544 (2012) A18

    2012

  111. [120]

    J. H. Matthews, A. R. Bell, K. M. Blundell, and A. T. Araudo MNRAS 479 (2018) L76

    2018

  112. [121]

    Bister, G

    T. Bister, G. R. Farrar, and M. Unger Astrophys. J. Lett. 975 (2024) L21

    2024

  113. [122]

    Unger and G

    M. Unger and G. R. Farrar Astrophys. J. 970 (2024) 95

    2024

  114. [123]

    Sommers Astropart

    P . Sommers Astropart. Phys. 14 (2001) 271

    2001

  115. [124]

    Billoir, M

    P . Billoir, M. Settimo, and M. BlancoAstropart. Phys. 74 (2016) 14

    2016

  116. [125]

    Aab et al., [Pierre Auger Collab.] arXiv:1604.03637 [astro-ph.IM]

    A. Aab et al., [Pierre Auger Collab.] arXiv:1604.03637 [astro-ph.IM]

    arXiv

  117. [126]

    Taboada, [Pierre Auger Collab.] PoS ICRC2019 (2020) 434

    A. Taboada, [Pierre Auger Collab.] PoS ICRC2019 (2020) 434

    2020

  118. [127]

    Lafebre, R

    S. Lafebre, R. Engel, H. Falcke, J. Horandel, T. Huege, J. Kuijpers, and R. Ulrich Astropart. Phys. 31 (2009) 243

    2009

  119. [128]

    Castellina, [Pierre Auger Collab.] EPJ Web Conf

    A. Castellina, [Pierre Auger Collab.] EPJ Web Conf. 210 (2019) 06002. 45

    2019

  120. [129]

    Schmidt, Sensitivity of AugerPrime to the masses of ultra-high-energy cosmic rays

    D. Schmidt, Sensitivity of AugerPrime to the masses of ultra-high-energy cosmic rays . PhD thesis, Karlsruher Institut f ¨ur Technologie (KIT), 2019. 51.03.03; LK 01

    2019

  121. [130]

    Stadelmaier, On air-Shower universality and the mass composition of ultra-high-energy cosmic rays

    M. Stadelmaier, On air-Shower universality and the mass composition of ultra-high-energy cosmic rays. PhD thesis, KIT, Karlsruhe, KIT, Karlsruhe, Dept. Phys., 2022

    2022

  122. [131]

    Mayotte, Study of the Cosmic Ray Composition Sensitivity of AugerPrime - Probing the Prospects of the Upgrade to the Pierre Auger Observatory with a Deep Learning Approach

    S. Mayotte, Study of the Cosmic Ray Composition Sensitivity of AugerPrime - Probing the Prospects of the Upgrade to the Pierre Auger Observatory with a Deep Learning Approach . PhD thesis, Wuppertal U., 2021

    2021

  123. [132]

    Schmidt, [Pierre Auger Collab.] EPJ Web Conf

    D. Schmidt, [Pierre Auger Collab.] EPJ Web Conf. 210 (2019) 06010

    2019

  124. [133]

    Aab et al., [Pierre Auger Collab.] JINST 16 (2021) P07019

    A. Aab et al., [Pierre Auger Collab.] JINST 16 (2021) P07019

    2021

  125. [134]

    Andringa, R

    S. Andringa, R. Conceicao, and M. Pimenta Astropart. Phys. 34 (2011) 360

    2011

  126. [135]

    Flaggs, A

    B. Flaggs, A. Coleman, and F. G. Schr ¨oder Phys. Rev. D 109 (2024) 042002

    2024

  127. [136]

    Hinton, [SWGO Collab.] PoS ICRC2021 (2021) 023

    J. Hinton, [SWGO Collab.] PoS ICRC2021 (2021) 023

    2021

  128. [137]

    Albert et al

    A. Albert et al. arXiv:1902.08429 [astro-ph.HE]

    1902 arXiv

  129. [138]

    A. M. Taylor, G. Giacinti, P . Desiati, J. C. D. Velez, A. Chiavassa, G. Di Sciascio, J. C. A. Velazquez, and S. Kunwar, [SWGO Collab.]PoS ICRC2021 (2021) 198

    2021

  130. [139]

    Viana, A

    A. Viana, A. Albert, J. P . Harding, J. Hinton, H. Schoorlemmer, and V . de Souza, [SWGO Collab.] PoS ICRC2021 (2021) 555

    2021

  131. [140]

    Werner and L

    F. Werner and L. Nellen, [SWGO Collab.] PoS ICRC2021 (2021) 714

    2021

  132. [141]

    Goksu and W

    H. Goksu and W. Hofmann, [SWGO Collab.] PoS ICRC2021 (2021) 708

    2021

  133. [142]

    The Pierre Auger Collaboration Tech. Rep. FERMILAB-PUB-96-024, FERMILAB-DESIGN-1996-02, Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, 1995

    1996

  134. [143]

    Sommers Astropart

    P . Sommers Astropart. Phys. 3 (1995) 349

    1995

  135. [144]

    B. R. Dawson, H. Y. Dai, P . Sommers, and S. YoshidaAstropart. Phys. 5 (1996) 239

    1996

  136. [145]

    rep., 1997

    The Pierre Auger Collaboration tech. rep., 1997. https://www.auger.org/document-centre-public/download/ 63-general-information/2253-2013-04-design-report

    1997

  137. [146]

    Cordero et al

    A. Cordero et al. Tech. Rep. GAP1996 039, Pierre Auger Collaboration, 1996

    1996

  138. [147]

    Matthiae and P

    G. Matthiae and P . Privetera Tech. Rep. GAP1998 039, Pierre Auger Collaboration, 1998

    1998

  139. [148]

    The hybrid aperture and precision of the Auger Observatory,

    B. Dawson and P . Sommers, [Pierre Auger Collab.], “The hybrid aperture and precision of the Auger Observatory,” in 27th International Cosmic Ray Conference, Hamburg , p. 714. 2001

    2001

  140. [149]

    Abraham et al., [Pierre Auger Collab.] Nucl

    J. Abraham et al., [Pierre Auger Collab.] Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 620 (2010) 227

    2010

  141. [150]

    Sommers, B

    P . Sommers, B. Dawson, and S. Thomas Tech. Rep. GAP1996 03, Pierre Auger Collaboration, 1996

    1996

  142. [151]

    Sommers Tech

    P . Sommers Tech. Rep. GAP1996 010, Pierre Auger Collaboration, 1996. 46

    1996

  143. [152]

    Tokuno et al

    H. Tokuno et al. Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 676 (2012) 54

    2012

  144. [153]

    Tameda et al

    Y. Tameda et al. Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 609 (2009) 227

    2009

  145. [154]

    Kawana et al

    S. Kawana et al. Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 681 (2012) 68

    2012

  146. [155]

    Tokuno et al

    H. Tokuno et al. Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 601 (2009) 364

    2009

  147. [156]

    B. K. Shin et al. Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 768 (2014) 96

    2014

  148. [157]

    Fujii et al., [FAST Collab.] Astropart

    T. Fujii et al., [FAST Collab.] Astropart. Phys. 74 (2016) 64–72

    2016

  149. [158]

    Fujii et al., [FAST Collab.] PoS ICRC2021 (2021) 402

    T. Fujii et al., [FAST Collab.] PoS ICRC2021 (2021) 402

    2021

  150. [159]

    Malacari et al., [FAST Collab.] Astropart

    M. Malacari et al., [FAST Collab.] Astropart. Phys. 119 (2020) 102430

    2020

  151. [160]

    Mandat et al., [FAST Collab.] JINST 12 (2017) T07001

    D. Mandat et al., [FAST Collab.] JINST 12 (2017) T07001

    2017

  152. [161]

    Ivanov, [Telescope Array Collab.] PoS ICRC2019 (2020) 298

    D. Ivanov, [Telescope Array Collab.] PoS ICRC2019 (2020) 298

    2020

  153. [162]

    Aab et al., [Pierre Auger Collab.] Phys

    A. Aab et al., [Pierre Auger Collab.] Phys. Rev. Lett. 125 (2020) 121106

    2020

  154. [163]

    J. M. Thomas-Albury, Extending the Energy Range of Ultra-High Energy Cosmic Ray Fluorescence Detectors. PhD thesis, Adelaide U., 2020

    2020

  155. [164]

    Tameda et al

    Y. Tameda et al. Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys. 2019 (2019) 043F01

    2019

  156. [165]

    Abreu et al., [Pierre Auger Collab.] Astropart

    P . Abreu et al., [Pierre Auger Collab.] Astropart. Phys. 34 (2011) 368

    2011

  157. [167]

    Cortina, R

    J. Cortina, R. L ´opez-Coto, and A. Moralejo Astropart. Phys. 72 (2016) 46

    2016

  158. [168]

    Simulation des Fluoreszenzdetektors des Global Cosmic-Ray Observatory ,

    L. Scherne, “ Simulation des Fluoreszenzdetektors des Global Cosmic-Ray Observatory ,” Bachelor thesis, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, 2023

    2023

  159. [169]

    A. N. Otte et al. arXiv:1907.08727 [astro-ph.IM]

    1907 arXiv

  160. [170]

    Kahn and I

    F. Kahn and I. Lerche Royal Society of London Proceedings Series A 289 (1966) 206

    1966

  161. [171]

    Allan, Progress in Elementary Particles and Cosmic Ray Physics , p

    H. Allan, Progress in Elementary Particles and Cosmic Ray Physics , p. 169. J.G. Wilson and S.G. Wouthuysen eds., North Holland, 1971

    1971

  162. [172]

    Ardouin et al

    D. Ardouin et al. Astropart. Phys. 31 (2009) 192–200

    2009

  163. [173]

    Askaryan Journal of the Physical Society of Japan Supplement 17 (1962) C257

    G. Askaryan Journal of the Physical Society of Japan Supplement 17 (1962) C257

    1962

  164. [174]

    Nelles et al

    A. Nelles et al. Astropart.Phys. 65 (2014) 11–21

    2014

  165. [175]

    Schellart et al

    P . Schellart et al. JCAP 1410 (2014) 014

    2014

  166. [176]

    Aab et al., [Pierre Auger Collaboration Collab.] Phys.Rev

    A. Aab et al., [Pierre Auger Collaboration Collab.] Phys.Rev. D89 (2014) 052002

    2014

  167. [177]

    Kr ¨omer et al., [Pierre Auger Collab.] Proceedings of the 31st ICRC, Lodz, Poland ICRC2009 (2009) 1232

    O. Kr ¨omer et al., [Pierre Auger Collab.] Proceedings of the 31st ICRC, Lodz, Poland ICRC2009 (2009) 1232

    2009

  168. [178]

    Aab et al., [Pierre Auger Collab.] JINST 12 (2017) T10005

    A. Aab et al., [Pierre Auger Collab.] JINST 12 (2017) T10005

    2017

  169. [179]

    B ¨usken, T

    M. B ¨usken, T. Fodran, and T. Huege Astron. Astrophys. 679 (2023) A50. 47

    2023

  170. [180]

    Abreu et al., [Pierre Auger Collab.] PoS ICRC2021 (2021) 270

    P . Abreu et al., [Pierre Auger Collab.] PoS ICRC2021 (2021) 270

    2021

  171. [181]

    Schellart et al

    P . Schellart et al. Phys.Rev.Lett. 114 (2015) 165001

    2015

  172. [182]

    de Almeida et al., [Pierre Auger Collab.] PoS ICRC2023 (2023) 279

    R. de Almeida et al., [Pierre Auger Collab.] PoS ICRC2023 (2023) 279

    2023

  173. [183]

    Schl ¨uter and T

    F. Schl ¨uter and T. Huege JINST 16 (2021) P07048

    2021

  174. [184]

    Aab et al., [Pierre Auger Collab.] Phys

    A. Aab et al., [Pierre Auger Collab.] Phys. Rev. Lett. 116 (2016) 241101

    2016

  175. [185]

    EAS array visualizer

    T. Fodran, “EAS array visualizer.” https://github.com/F-Tomas/EAS_array_visualizer

  176. [186]

    geoceLDF

    C. Glaser, “geoceLDF.” https://github.com/cg-laser/geoceLDF

  177. [187]

    Aab et al., [Pierre Auger Collab.] Phys

    A. Aab et al., [Pierre Auger Collab.] Phys. Rev. D 90 (2014) 122005

    2014

  178. [188]

    Sanchez-Lucas, [Pierre Auger Collab.] PoS ICRC2017 (2018) 495

    P . Sanchez-Lucas, [Pierre Auger Collab.] PoS ICRC2017 (2018) 495

    2018

  179. [189]

    radiotools

    C. Glaser, “radiotools.” https://github.com/nu-radio/radiotools

  180. [190]

    Rdsim, a fast and comprehensive simulation of radio detection of air showers

    W. Carvalho and A. Khakurdikar, “Rdsim, a fast and comprehensive simulation of radio detection of air showers.” The 27th European Cosmic Ray Symposium, 2022

    2022

  181. [191]

    Parameterization of the frequency spectrum in the 30-80 mhz of radio emission from inclined air showers

    S. Martinelli, F. Schl ¨uter, and T. Huege, “Parameterization of the frequency spectrum in the 30-80 mhz of radio emission from inclined air showers.” The 9th International Workshop on Acoustic and Radio EeV Neutrino Detection Activities, 2022. 48

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.