Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

A LOFAR-style reconstruction of cosmic-ray air showers with SKA-Low

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Simulations show SKA-Low measures cosmic-ray shower depth to 5-8 g/cm².

desk verdict A solid, honest simulation baseline for SKA-Low cosmic-ray Xmax, where the high-energy precision claim holds up but the beamforming-enabled low-energy threshold rests on an optimistic SNR scaling. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.16873 v2 pith:VOFZLHA3 submitted 2025-04-23 astro-ph.HE hep-ex

A. Corstanje , S. Buitink , S. Bouma , M. Desmet , J.R. Hörandel , T. Huege , P. Laub , K. Mulrey
show 5 more authors
A. Nelles O. Scholten K. Terveer S. Thoudam K. Watanabe
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEhep-ex
keywords cosmicraysairshowersSKA-LowradiodetectionshowermaximummasscompositionbeamformingLOFAR
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 paper argues that SKA-Low, the low-frequency Square Kilometre Array core with roughly 57,000 antennas packed into about one square kilometer, can reconstruct the depth of shower maximum (Xmax), the main mass-composition observable for cosmic-ray air showers, with a precision of 5 to 8 g/cm² between $10^{16}$.6 and $10^{18}$ eV and essentially no bias. This is roughly 2.5 to 4 times sharper than LOFAR, the current most precise radio air-shower instrument. Using the existing LOFAR reconstruction pipeline on full simulations, the authors show that patch-wise beamforming of groups of antennas extends the energy range down to $10^{16}$ eV, and that even with an 8-bit dynamic range restriction the resolution stays better than LOFAR's typical 20 g/cm² up to about $10^{17}$.5 eV. They further show that with 1000 to 3000 measured showers per energy bin, an Xmax-only mass composition analysis becomes limited by systematics rather than statistics, which motivates reconstructing the full longitudinal shower profile instead of just its maximum.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the fluence-footprint fit: simulated CoREAS radio pulses, convolved with the SKALA4 antenna model and a unit-gain de-dispersion filter, are interpolated across the full core using the high-precision interpolation method of [36]; after noise whitening and a 24 ns fluence window, each mock shower is fit against an ensemble of 140 simulated showers, and the Xmax of the best-fitting model is read off from a parabola fit to the lower envelope of chi-squared versus Xmax. Beamforming enters as a patch-wise coherent sum of 4, 16, or 64 neighboring antennas, raising signal-to-noise by the square root of the group size, which effectively lowers the detectable energy threshold.

What would settle it

Once the real SKA-Low signal chain is characterized, measure the end-to-end amplitude and phase response of a SKALA4 element and receiver across 50 to 350 MHz and feed those measurements into the same simulation and reconstruction code; if the Xmax precision degrades beyond about 10 g/cm², the bias exceeds a few g/cm², or the beamformed energy threshold rises above $10^{16}$ eV, the paper's central performance claims would be contradicted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a first complete simulation of SKA-Low air-shower signals, reconstructed with the LOFAR technique, already yields a baseline performance far beyond current instruments: Xmax precision of 5 to 8 g/cm² from $10^{16}$.6 to $10^{18}$ eV, bias below 1.5 g/cm², an energy threshold of about $10^{16}$ eV when 4-, 16-, or 64-antenna beamforming groups are used, and only a moderate degradation under ADC clipping above roughly $10^{17}$.5 eV. The precision floor is not set by signal-to-noise or antenna count but by shower-to-shower variations in longitudinal development beyond Xmax, implying that finer details of the shower profile become measurable with SKA-Low. The paper frames these numbers as a conservative lower limit, since newer methods exploiting the full 50 to 350 MHz bandwidth and additional longitudinal parameters are expected to improve on them.

Load-bearing premise

The central assumption is that the simulated SKALA4 antenna response plus the simplified de-dispersion filter faithfully represents the real SKA-Low signal chain, since no complete model of the full system response exists yet.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the simulated performance holds, SKA-Low will measure cosmic-ray mass composition across the knee-to-ankle energy range with roughly 2.5 to 4 times the Xmax precision of LOFAR, directly testing models of a Galactic-to-extragalactic transition.
  • The demonstration that 1000 to 3000 showers per energy bin make an Xmax-only composition analysis systematics-limited means the main return from SKA-Low's event rate will come from methods that extract the full longitudinal shower profile, not from more statistics alone.
  • Beamforming extends radio air-shower measurements down to 10^16 eV, a range previously hard to reach with other radio arrays, potentially enabling composition studies around the knee with a single instrument.
  • The dynamic-range analysis gives concrete input to SKA system design: with an 8-bit ADC and noise set at the third bit, clipping begins to bias Xmax above about 10^17.5 eV, so mitigation strategies or a different noise-level setting are needed for the highest energies.
  • The estimated event rate of roughly 15,000 showers per observing year above 10^16 eV means SKA-Low could, in one year, accumulate enough Xmax measurements to reach the systematics-dominated regime in several energy bins simultaneously.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the precision floor is dominated by neglected shape parameters, the path to pushing below 5 g/cm² is likely wider bandwidth and profile-aware reconstruction rather than more antennas; this is a testable prediction that profile-based methods should beat the baseline reported here.
  • The paper's robustness check with the older SKALA2 antenna model suggests that small antenna-model differences are not critical, which weakens the otherwise main concern about the missing full system response; this could be confirmed by re-running the pipeline with measured responses once the real signal chain is characterized.
  • The clipping study implies an observable signature: if SKA-Low operates with a lower noise level than assumed, the measured Xmax bias at high energies would appear as an apparent lightening of composition above 10^17.5 eV, a cross-check that could be performed once real data accumulate.
  • The interpolation-based footprint method used here could in principle be applied to data from any dense radio array, so the same pipeline might serve as a community baseline for other high-density instruments, though the paper itself does not claim this.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents end-to-end simulations of radio signals from cosmic-ray air showers as they would be recorded by the SKA-Low array. Showers are simulated with CORSIKA/CoREAS at a single primary energy of 10^17 eV and scaled to other energies; antenna voltages are produced with the SKALA4 model, and Galactic noise from the GSM2016 model is added, with a unit-gain de-dispersion filter standing in for the not-yet-available full system response. The LOFAR fluence-footprint reconstruction is applied in a leave-one-out mode to an ensemble of 140 simulated showers. The authors report an Xmax precision of 5 to 8 g/cm2 with negligible bias in the range 10^16.6 to 10^18 eV, a lowering of the detection threshold to 10^16 eV via patch beamforming emulated by downsampling and a sqrt(N) SNR boost, an analysis of dynamic-range restrictions showing degradation above about 10^17.5 eV for a 32-sigma clip limit, and a composition-statistics study indicating that 1000 to 3000 showers per energy bin would be sufficient to become systematics-limited.

Significance. If the quoted numbers hold, SKA-Low would offer an Xmax resolution roughly 2.5 to 4 times better than LOFAR across the knee-ankle range and would reach lower primary energies than current radio arrays, making it a potentially powerful instrument for composition measurements in an energy region relevant to the Galactic-to-extragalactic transition. The paper is valuable as a baseline study: it adapts a validated reconstruction pipeline to SKA, uses the official SKALA4 antenna model and a high-precision interpolation method, and is transparent about several limitations, including the absence of a full system response model, the ad hoc treatment of near-zero fluence uncertainties, and the arbitrary choice of beamforming threshold energies. The leave-one-out validation is an appropriate internal check, and the event-rate and data-volume estimates are useful for instrument planning. The main caveat is that the headline statements are conditional on the simulation model, and the beamforming emulation in particular rests on an SNR scaling that may be optimistic.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sections II D and III B] The beamforming emulation assumes that the noise in different antennas is uncorrelated, so that combining n antennas raises the SNR by a factor sqrt(n). This assumption is not justified for SKA-Low station-scale baselines in the 50-350 MHz band. At 50 MHz the wavelength is about 6 m, so baselines of a few meters are sub-wavelength, and the diffuse Galactic emission that dominates the system temperature has substantial large-scale structure; the sky-noise waveforms in closely spaced antennas are therefore partially correlated. In a real sum the SNR gain lies between 1 and sqrt(n), and the emulation by downsampling plus SNR boost overestimates the benefit. Since the 10^16 eV threshold claim in Fig. 6 and the Summary depends directly on this emulation, the low-energy half of the central claim is not established by the present simulations. I recommend simulating actual beam sums over realistic station layouts with a sky-noise model, or at minimum presenting the results as a band that brackets the correlated-noise case.
  2. [Section II A] The paper states that 'there is currently no model for the full system response' and therefore uses a unit-gain de-dispersion filter after the SKALA4 antenna model. This means that all results, including the fluence calibration, the dynamic-range boundary, and the beamforming threshold, are computed with a partial instrument model. A different phase or amplitude response in the real signal chain would change the pulse shapes, the fluence estimates, and the Xmax fits, and would also affect the SNR-based energy threshold. The precision and bias numbers should therefore be stated as explicitly conditional on this assumed response, and the sensitivity to plausible response variations should be quantified or at least discussed as a dominant systematic uncertainty.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section II D] The sentence 'The SNR would rise by a factor sqrt(n) when combining n antennas' should explicitly state the assumption of uncorrelated noise; as written it is presented as a general result rather than as an ideal-case approximation.
  2. [Section II B] The factor 5 applied to the zero-fluence uncertainty is an ad hoc choice. I recommend showing that the Xmax results are robust to this factor, for example by repeating the reconstruction with a different value, since the text notes that the weakest measurements can otherwise bias the footprint fit.
  3. [Section III A and Fig. 5] The precision curves are presented without uncertainty bars. With about 130 showers after the 3.5% tail cuts, the statistical uncertainty on a quoted precision value is of order 10%, so small differences between the three zenith-angle curves should not be overinterpreted.
  4. [Section IV B and Eq. (6)] The data-volume estimate of 4.5 GB per shower should state explicitly that it includes two polarizations; the formula as written evaluates to 2.4 GB per polarization, and this distinction would help reproducibility.
  5. [Fig. 6 caption and Section III B] The vertical threshold lines are described as 'chosen somewhat arbitrarily'; the exact threshold energies used for the different beamforming group sizes should be listed in the text or caption so that the figure is self-contained.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the Xmax precision is a leave-one-out consistency test, and the beamforming assumption is an unvalidated scaling, not a fit disguised as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central Xmax claim is obtained by leave-one-out template matching: 'we used each shower in turn as mock data, and reconstructed it using all other showers in the ensemble as model showers to fit to the data' (Sec. II C). The free parameters in the fit are a scale factor and the shower core position (Eq. 5); the true Xmax of the test shower is not used as an input to its own reconstruction, and the reported precision is the spread of the recovered parabola minima about the known simulated values. The numbers are therefore not equal by construction to any fitted parameter. The main caveat is that mock data and templates share the same CoREAS/SKALA4 simulation chain, so the quoted precision is a self-consistency test rather than an end-to-end validation against real SKA hardware; the paper itself flags this by calling the results 'a first lower limit' and noting that 'there is currently no model for the full system response' (Sec. II A). That is a validity limitation, not a circularity. The beamforming emulation in Sec. II D states 'The SNR would rise by a factor sqrt(n) when combining n antennas' and then 'we have emulated this process in simulations by taking one out of 4, 16, or 64 antennas, and boosting its SNR by the corresponding factor.' This is an assumed scaling; correlated Galactic noise at SKA-Low baselines could make the 10^16 eV threshold optimistic, but this is an approximation or correctness risk, not a reduction of the prediction to its input by construction. Self-citations to the LOFAR method [4] and LOFAR results [16] are load-bearing as prior work, but they are externally anchored in published LOFAR data and analyses, not unverified uniqueness theorems invoked to forbid alternatives. No step in the derivation chain equates a prediction to a fitted input, defines an output in terms of the claimed result, or smuggles the conclusion in via a self-citation chain, so no significant circularity is found.

Assumptions & free parameters 10 free parameters · 9 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central forecasts rest on simulation inputs and chosen analysis thresholds. The listed free parameters are hand-chosen or example settings, not fitted to data. The axioms are the unverified premises about linear energy scaling, simulation fidelity, antenna and system response, noise environment, ensemble representativeness, beamforming behavior, and hadronic model spread. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (10)
  • electronic_noise_fraction = 0.30 of integrated Galactic noise power
    Conservative design estimate for flat-spectrum instrumental noise; sets the noise floor and thus the low-energy threshold.
  • fluence_window_length = 24 ns
    Chosen as a trade-off between capturing 90-97% of fluence and limiting noise; stated to be insensitive between 20 and 30 ns.
  • amplitude_threshold = 5 sigma (Hilbert envelope, one polarization)
    Antennas below this threshold are excluded from fluence fits; governs footprint size and bias.
  • nearby_detection_fraction = 25% detection within 20 m radius
    Auxiliary footprint-contiguity cut; paper states results do not depend on exact values.
  • antenna_decimation = 1 in 4 antennas per station
    Conservative assumption for fraction of antennas that can be buffered; used for baseline results.
  • zero_fluence_uncertainty_scale = 5
    Ad hoc enlargement of fluence uncertainty at zero fluence to reduce weight of weak measurements in chi-squared fits; makes reduced chi-squared below unity.
  • parabola_fit_range = +/-40 g/cm2 around best fit
    Range over which the lower envelope is fit to obtain the Xmax estimate.
  • xmax_percentile_cut = 3.5% (5 of 140 showers) on each side
    Extreme-Xmax showers removed before computing precision and bias; post-hoc exclusion that improves headline numbers.
  • beamforming_group_sizes = 4, 16, 64 antennas; SNR boost sqrt(N)
    Emulation of patch beamforming; thresholds of application chosen 'somewhat arbitrarily' in Fig. 6.
  • adc_dynamic_range_setting = 1 sigma at ADC value 4; clipping at 32 sigma
    Example observatory setting for an 8-bit ADC; each bit shifts the degradation energy by 0.3 in log10(E/eV).
assumptions (9)
  • domain assumption Radio signal amplitude scales linearly with primary shower energy (Sec II A), so a single 10^17 eV CoREAS simulation can be scaled to other energies.
    The claim spans 10^16 to 10^18 eV, but the study simulates one energy and scales traces; the linearity is supported by references [1,6,35] but is an input assumption, not verified within this paper.
  • domain assumption CoREAS radio emission computed from the simulated electromagnetic cascade accurately represents the radio emission of real air showers (Sec II A, III A).
    The paper relies on CoREAS for all electric fields and argues calculations from Maxwell's equations are consistent across codes; even so, hadronic interaction models and atmospheric models introduce unquantified model dependence.
  • domain assumption The SKALA4 antenna model plus a unit-gain de-dispersion filter adequately represents the SKA-Low system response across 50 to 350 MHz (Sec II A).
    The paper explicitly states there is no full system response model; phase response is approximated by a unit-gain filter, and any phase error would alter pulse shapes and fluence footprints.
  • domain assumption The noise model (median GSM2016 Galactic background plus 30% flat-spectrum electronic noise) is representative of SKA-Low conditions (Sec II A).
    Sky noise varies by about +/-25% over a sidereal day and electronic noise may be non-flat due to LNAs; the paper uses a median-day approximation.
  • domain assumption The fixed 140-shower ensemble has sufficient coverage of Xmax and secondary profile parameters (L,R) to support the resolution study (Sec II C, III A).
    The paper removes extreme-Xmax showers and attributes the 5 to 8 g/cm2 floor to neglected higher-order profile parameters; a wider ensemble might change the floor.
  • domain assumption Leave-one-out reconstruction against the same simulation model measures reconstruction performance for real SKA data (Sec II C).
    This is a self-consistency test; real data would include trigger effects, RFI, calibration errors, and atmospheric differences not simulated here.
  • domain assumption Beamforming in patches of 4 to 16 antennas improves SNR by sqrt(N) without significant wavefront curvature effects (Sec II D).
    The paper emulates, not simulates, beamforming; the validity depends on near-field curvature being negligible at baselines of 3 to 10 m and on uncorrelated noise.
  • domain assumption Hadronic interaction models (Sibyll-2.3d, QGSJetII-04, EPOS-LHC) bracket the true Xmax distributions for composition forecasts (Sec IV A).
    The composition bootstrap uses Sibyll-2.3d as input and compares fits across models; model spread is treated as uncertainty, not as a measured quantity.
  • domain assumption The 8-bit ADC with one-sigma at the third-lowest bit (clipping at 32 sigma) represents the likely SKA-Low dynamic range (Sec III C).
    The dynamic-range degradation boundary depends on this example observatory setting; the final ADC level is still under discussion.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A LOFAR-style reconstruction of cosmic-ray air showers with SKA-Low." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VOFZLHA3

@misc{pith2026250416873,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A LOFAR-style reconstruction of cosmic-ray air showers with SKA-Low},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VOFZLHA3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.16873}
}
abstract

Cosmic-ray air shower detection with the low-frequency part of the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) radio telescope is envisioned to yield very high precision measurements of the particle composition of cosmic rays between $10^{16}$ and $10^{18}$ eV. This is made possible by the extreme antenna density of the core of SKA-Low, surpassing the current most dense radio air shower observatory LOFAR by over an order of magnitude. In order to make these measurements, the technical implementation of this observation mode and the development of reconstruction methods have to happen hand-in-hand. As a first lower limit of what is obtainable, we apply the current most precise reconstruction methods as used at LOFAR to a first complete simulation of air shower signals for the SKA-Low array. We describe this simulation setup and discuss the obtainable accuracy and resolution. A special focus is put on effects of the dynamic range of the system, beamforming methods to lower the energy threshold, as well as the limits to the mass composition accuracy given by statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.16873 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The antenna layout of the SKA-Low inner core region (layout within stations is not definitive), with 100 particle [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Left: an average power spectrum of the simulated noise at an antenna receiver. The contributions are shown from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. An example of how a measured radio fluence footprint of a cosmic-ray air shower would look like, for antennas that meet [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. An example of an [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Bias (left panel) and precision (right panel) of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Bias (left panel) and precision (right panel) of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Two examples of a measured radio footprint of a cosmic-ray air shower, with a dynamic range limited to 32 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Bias (left panel) and precision (right panel) of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. The LOFAR mass composition result based on 334 showers, and example mass composition estimates from a boot [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Estimate of expected event counts per SKA-Low observing year, in an energy bin of width 0 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Electric field reconstruction with three polarizations for the radio detection of ultra-high energy particles

    astro-ph.IM 2025-01 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A noise-weighted chi-square minimization reconstructs air-shower electric fields from two or three antenna polarizations, with vertical polarization improving peak-amplitude precision by a factor of 3 to 5 in simulations.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Energy Estimation of Cosmic Rays with the Engineering Radio Array of the Pierre Auger Observatory

    A. Aabet al.(Pierre Auger), Energy Estimation of Cosmic Rays with the Engineering Radio Array of the Pierre Auger Observatory, Phys. Rev. D93, 122005 (2016), arXiv:1508.04267 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2016

  2. [2]

    Aabet al.(Pierre Auger), Measurement of the Radiation Energy in the Radio Signal of Extensive Air Showers as a Universal Estimator of Cosmic-Ray Energy, Phys

    A. Aabet al.(Pierre Auger), Measurement of the Radiation Energy in the Radio Signal of Extensive Air Showers as a Universal Estimator of Cosmic-Ray Energy, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 241101 (2016), arXiv:1605.02564 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2016

  3. [3]

    A. Abdul Halimet al.(Pierre Auger Collaboration), Demonstrating Agreement between Radio and Fluorescence Measure- ments of the Depth of Maximum of Extensive Air Showers at the Pierre Auger Observatory, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 021001 (2024)

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Buitinket al.(LOFAR), Method for high precision reconstruction of air showerX max using two-dimensional radio intensity profiles, Phys

    S. Buitinket al.(LOFAR), Method for high precision reconstruction of air showerX max using two-dimensional radio intensity profiles, Phys. Rev. D90, 082003 (2014), arXiv:1408.7001 [astro-ph.IM]

    arXiv 2014

  5. [5]

    Abdul Halimet al.(Pierre Auger Collaboration), Radio measurements of the depth of air-shower maximum at the Pierre Auger Observatory, Phys

    A. Abdul Halimet al.(Pierre Auger Collaboration), Radio measurements of the depth of air-shower maximum at the Pierre Auger Observatory, Phys. Rev. D109, 022002 (2024)

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Glaser, M

    C. Glaser, M. Erdmann, J. R. H¨ orandel, T. Huege, and J. Schulz, Simulation of Radiation Energy Release in Air Showers, JCAP09, 024, arXiv:1606.01641 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv

  7. [7]

    F. D. Kahn and I. Lerche, Radiation from Cosmic Ray Air Showers, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series A 289, 206 (1966)

    work page 1966

  8. [8]

    D. Ardouinet al.(CODALEMA), Radio-detection signature of high-energy cosmic rays by the CODALEMA experiment, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment555, 148 (2005)

    work page 2005

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    Falckeet al.(LOPES), Detection and imaging of atmospheric radio flashes from cosmic ray air showers, Nature435, 313 (2005)

    H. Falckeet al.(LOPES), Detection and imaging of atmospheric radio flashes from cosmic ray air showers, Nature435, 313 (2005)

    2005

  2. [10]

    Huegeet al.(Pierre Auger), Radio detection of cosmic rays with the Auger Engineering Radio Array, EPJ Web Conf

    T. Huegeet al.(Pierre Auger), Radio detection of cosmic rays with the Auger Engineering Radio Array, EPJ Web Conf. 210, 05011 (2019)

    2019

  3. [11]

    M. P. van Haarlemet al., LOFAR: The Low Frequency Array, Astronomy and Astrophysics556, A2 (2013)

    2013

  4. [12]

    Corstanjeet al.(LOFAR), The shape of the radio wavefront of extensive air showers as measured with LOFAR, Astropart

    A. Corstanjeet al.(LOFAR), The shape of the radio wavefront of extensive air showers as measured with LOFAR, Astropart. Phys.61, 22 (2015), arXiv:1404.3907 [astro-ph.HE]

    2015 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Schellartet al.(LOFAR), Polarized radio emission from extensive air showers measured with LOFAR, JCAP10, 014, arXiv:1406.1355 [astro-ph.HE]

    P. Schellartet al.(LOFAR), Polarized radio emission from extensive air showers measured with LOFAR, JCAP10, 014, arXiv:1406.1355 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv

  6. [14]

    Nelleset al.(LOFAR), Measuring a Cherenkov ring in the radio emission from air showers at 110–190 MHz with LOFAR, Astropart

    A. Nelleset al.(LOFAR), Measuring a Cherenkov ring in the radio emission from air showers at 110–190 MHz with LOFAR, Astropart. Phys.65, 11 (2015), arXiv:1411.6865 [astro-ph.IM]

    2015 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Scholtenet al.(LOFAR), Measurement of the circular polarization in radio emission from extensive air showers confirms emission mechanisms, Phys

    O. Scholtenet al.(LOFAR), Measurement of the circular polarization in radio emission from extensive air showers confirms emission mechanisms, Phys. Rev. D94, 103010 (2016), arXiv:1611.00758 [astro-ph.IM]

    2016 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Corstanjeet al.(LOFAR), Depth of shower maximum and mass composition of cosmic rays from 50 PeV to 2 EeV measured with the LOFAR radio telescope, Phys

    A. Corstanjeet al.(LOFAR), Depth of shower maximum and mass composition of cosmic rays from 50 PeV to 2 EeV measured with the LOFAR radio telescope, Phys. Rev. D103, 102006 (2021), arXiv:2103.12549 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Buitinket al.(LOFAR), A large light-mass component of cosmic rays at 10 17 - 1017.5 eV from radio observations, Nature 531, 70 (2016), arXiv:1603.01594 [astro-ph.HE]

    S. Buitinket al.(LOFAR), A large light-mass component of cosmic rays at 10 17 - 1017.5 eV from radio observations, Nature 531, 70 (2016), arXiv:1603.01594 [astro-ph.HE]

    2016 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Welling, C

    C. Welling, C. Glaser, and A. Nelles, Reconstructing the cosmic-ray energy from the radio signal measured in one single station, JCAP10, 075, arXiv:1905.11185 [astro-ph.IM]

    1905 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Razavi-Ghods, E

    N. Razavi-Ghods, E. Acedo, A. El-Makadema, and P. Alexander, Analysis of sky contributions to system temperature for low frequency SKA aperture array geometries, Experimental Astronomy33(2011)

    2011

  12. [20]

    Navaset al.(Particle Data Group), Review of particle physics, Phys

    S. Navaset al.(Particle Data Group), Review of particle physics, Phys. Rev. D110, 030001 (2024). 15

    2024

  13. [21]

    Thoudam, S.et al., Cosmic-ray energy spectrum and composition up to the ankle: the case for a second Galactic component, A&A595, A33 (2016)

    2016

  14. [22]

    I. M. Brancuset al., The cosmic ray experiment KASCADE-Grande, inCarpathian Summer School of Physics 2005: Exotic Nuclei and Nuclear / Particle Astrophysics(2005) pp. 244–252

    2005

  15. [23]

    Abbasiet al.(IceCube), Study of mass composition of cosmic rays with IceTop and IceCube, PoSICRC2021, 323 (2021)

    R. Abbasiet al.(IceCube), Study of mass composition of cosmic rays with IceTop and IceCube, PoSICRC2021, 323 (2021)

    2021

  16. [24]

    Aabet al.(Pierre Auger), Depth of maximum of air-shower profiles at the Pierre Auger Observatory

    A. Aabet al.(Pierre Auger), Depth of maximum of air-shower profiles at the Pierre Auger Observatory. I. Measurements at energies above 10 17.8 eV, Phys. Rev. D90, 122005 (2014)

    2014

  17. [25]

    R. U. Abbasiet al.(Telescope Array), The Cosmic-Ray Composition between 2 PeV and 2 EeV Observed with the TALE Detector in Monocular Mode, Astrophys. J.909, 178 (2021), arXiv:2012.10372 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Knurenkoet al., Mass composition of cosmic rays in the energy region 10 16 - 1018 eV by data the Small Cherenkov Array at Yakutsk

    S. Knurenkoet al., Mass composition of cosmic rays in the energy region 10 16 - 1018 eV by data the Small Cherenkov Array at Yakutsk. Comparison with other Arrays, Proceedings of the 34th International Cosmic Ray Conference, The Hague, The Netherlands, PoS , 254 (2015)

    2015

  19. [27]

    Ostapchenko, QGSJET-II: physics, recent improvements, and results for air showers, EPJ Web of Conferences52, 02001 (2013)

    S. Ostapchenko, QGSJET-II: physics, recent improvements, and results for air showers, EPJ Web of Conferences52, 02001 (2013)

    2013

  20. [28]

    Pierog, I

    T. Pierog, I. Karpenko, J. M. Katzy, E. Yatsenko, and K. Werner, EPOS LHC: test of collective hadronization with data measured at the CERN Large Hadron Collider, Phys. Rev. C92, 034906 (2015)

    2015

  21. [29]

    Riehn, R

    F. Riehn, R. Engel, A. Fedynitch, T. K. Gaisser, and T. Stanev, Hadronic interaction model sibyll 2.3d and extensive air showers, Phys. Rev. D102, 063002 (2020)

    2020

  22. [30]

    Buitinket al., Constraining the cosmic-ray mass composition by measuring the shower length with SKA, PoS ARENA2022, 046 (2023), arXiv:2307.02907 [astro-ph.HE]

    S. Buitinket al., Constraining the cosmic-ray mass composition by measuring the shower length with SKA, PoS ARENA2022, 046 (2023), arXiv:2307.02907 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Desmet, K

    M. Desmet, K. Watanabe, T. Huege, and S. Buitink, Smiet: Fast and accurate synthesis of radio pulses from extensive air shower using simulated templates (2025), arXiv:2505.10459 [astro-ph.HE]

    2025 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Corstanjeet al., Prospects for measuring the longitudinal particle distribution of cosmic-ray air showers with SKA, PoS ARENA2022, 024 (2023), arXiv:2303.09249 [astro-ph.HE]

    A. Corstanjeet al., Prospects for measuring the longitudinal particle distribution of cosmic-ray air showers with SKA, PoS ARENA2022, 024 (2023), arXiv:2303.09249 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  25. [33]

    D. Heck, J. Knapp, J. N. Capdevielle, G. Schatz, and T. Thouw,CORSIKA: A Monte Carlo code to simulate extensive air showers, Tech. Rep. (1998)

    1998

  26. [34]

    Huege, M

    T. Huege, M. Ludwig, and C. W. James, Simulating radio emission from air showers with CoREAS, AIP Conf. Proc.1535, 128 (2013), arXiv:1301.2132 [astro-ph.HE]

    2013 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Gottowik, C

    M. Gottowik, C. Glaser, T. Huege, and J. Rautenberg, Determination of the absolute energy scale of extensive air showers via radio emission: systematic uncertainty of underlying first-principle calculations, Astropart. Phys.103, 87 (2018), arXiv:1712.07442 [astro-ph.HE]

    2018 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Corstanjeet al., A high-precision interpolation method for pulsed radio signals from cosmic-ray air showers, Journal of Instrumentation18(9), P09005, arXiv:2306.13514 [astro-ph.IM]

    A. Corstanjeet al., A high-precision interpolation method for pulsed radio signals from cosmic-ray air showers, Journal of Instrumentation18(9), P09005, arXiv:2306.13514 [astro-ph.IM]. [37]https://github.com/nu-radio/NuRadioMC/tree/develop/NuRadioReco/detector

    arXiv

  29. [38]

    Glaseret al., NuRadioMC: Simulating the radio emission of neutrinos from interaction to detector, Eur

    C. Glaseret al., NuRadioMC: Simulating the radio emission of neutrinos from interaction to detector, Eur. Phys. J. C80, 77 (2020), arXiv:1906.01670 [astro-ph.IM]

    2020

  30. [39]

    Zhenget al., An improved model of diffuse galactic radio emission from 10 MHz to 5 THz, Mon

    H. Zhenget al., An improved model of diffuse galactic radio emission from 10 MHz to 5 THz, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 464, 3486 (2017), arXiv:1605.04920 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  31. [40]

    Martinelli, T

    S. Martinelli, T. Huege, D. Ravignani, and H. Schoorlemmer, Quantifying energy fluence and its uncertainty for radio emission from particle cascades in the presence of noise, Astropart. Phys.168, 103091 (2025), arXiv:2407.18654 [astro- ph.IM]

    2025 arXiv

  32. [41]

    Scholtenet al., Aperture correction for beamforming in the radiometric detection of ultrahigh energy cosmic rays, Phys

    O. Scholtenet al., Aperture correction for beamforming in the radiometric detection of ultrahigh energy cosmic rays, Phys. Rev. D110, 103036 (2024), arXiv:2411.12324 [astro-ph.IM]

    2024

  33. [42]

    Schoorlemmer and W

    H. Schoorlemmer and W. R. Carvalho, Radio interferometry applied to the observation of cosmic-ray induced extensive air showers, Eur. Phys. J. C81, 1120 (2021), arXiv:2006.10348 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  34. [43]

    W. D. Apelet al.(LOPES), The wavefront of the radio signal emitted by cosmic ray air showers, JCAP09, 025, arXiv:1404.3283 [hep-ex]

    arXiv

  35. [44]

    Schl¨ uter and T

    F. Schl¨ uter and T. Huege, Expected performance of air-shower measurements with the radio-interferometric technique, JINST16(07), P07048, arXiv:2102.13577 [astro-ph.IM]

    arXiv

  36. [45]

    Corstanjeet al., Simulations of radio detection of cosmic rays with SKA-Low, PoSICRC2023, 500 (2023)

    A. Corstanjeet al., Simulations of radio detection of cosmic rays with SKA-Low, PoSICRC2023, 500 (2023)

    2023

  37. [46]

    T. K. Gaisser and A. M. Hillas, Reliability of the method of constant intensity cuts for reconstructing the average develop- ment of vertical showers, International Cosmic Ray Conference, 15th, Plovdiv, Bulgaria, August 13-26, 1977, Conference Papers , A79 (1977)

    1977

  38. [47]

    J. A. J. Matthews, R. Mesler, B. R. Becker, M. S. Gold, and J. D. Hague, A parameterization of cosmic ray shower profiles based on shower width, Journal of Physics G Nuclear Physics37, 025202 (2010), arXiv:0909.4014 [astro-ph.IM]

    2010 arXiv

  39. [48]

    Andringa, R

    S. Andringa, R. Conceicao, and M. Pimenta, Mass composition and cross-section from the shape of cosmic ray shower longitudinal profiles, Astropart. Phys.34, 360 (2011)

    2011

  40. [49]

    Buitinket al., High-resolution air shower observations with the Square Kilometer Array, PoSICRC2023, 503 (2023)

    S. Buitinket al., High-resolution air shower observations with the Square Kilometer Array, PoSICRC2023, 503 (2023)

    2023

  41. [50]

    Mitraet al., Reconstructing air shower parameters with LOFAR using event specific GDAS atmosphere, Astropart

    P. Mitraet al., Reconstructing air shower parameters with LOFAR using event specific GDAS atmosphere, Astropart. Phys.123, 102470 (2020), arXiv:2006.02228 [astro-ph.HE]. [51]https://www.skao.int/en/science-users/122/relevant-documents

    2020 arXiv

  42. [52]

    Riehn, R

    F. Riehn, R. Engel, A. Fedynitch, T. K. Gaisser, and T. Stanev, Hadronic interaction model Sibyll 2.3d and extensive air showers, Phys. Rev. D102, 063002 (2020), arXiv:1912.03300 [hep-ph]. 16

    2020 arXiv

  43. [53]

    Buitinket al.(SKA SWG HECP), Cosmic ray observations with the Square Kilometer Array, PoSARENA2024, 025 (2024)

    S. Buitinket al.(SKA SWG HECP), Cosmic ray observations with the Square Kilometer Array, PoSARENA2024, 025 (2024)

    2024

  44. [54]

    Abdul Halimet al.(Pierre Auger), Inference of the Mass Composition of Cosmic Rays with Energies from 10 18.5 to 1020 eV using the Pierre Auger Observatory and Deep Learning, Phys

    A. Abdul Halimet al.(Pierre Auger), Inference of the Mass Composition of Cosmic Rays with Energies from 10 18.5 to 1020 eV using the Pierre Auger Observatory and Deep Learning, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 021001 (2025), arXiv:2406.06315 [astro-ph.HE]

    2025 arXiv

  45. [55]

    Thoudamet al.(LOFAR), Measurement of the cosmic-ray energy spectrum above 10 16 eV with the LOFAR Radboud Air Shower Array, Astropart

    S. Thoudamet al.(LOFAR), Measurement of the cosmic-ray energy spectrum above 10 16 eV with the LOFAR Radboud Air Shower Array, Astropart. Phys.73, 34 (2016), arXiv:1506.09134 [astro-ph.IM]

    2016 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.