Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Measurement and Interpretation of UHECR Mass Composition at the Pierre Auger Observatory

T0 review · 1 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Within current hadronic interaction models, the paper argues, ultra-high-energy cosmic rays are a mixed, energy-dependent nuclear composition: the ankle is not heavily proton-dominated and the highest energies trend toward heavy nuclei.

desk verdict A useful consolidation of Auger composition results with one genuinely new N-S comparison, whose headline 'no difference' claim is undercut by an undefined global p-value. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.10292 v1 pith:H5OIWNSQ submitted 2025-07-14 astro-ph.HE

Eric Mayotte (for the Pierre Auger Collaboration) This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords ultra-high-energycosmicraysmasscompositiondepthofshowermaximumhadronicinteractionmodelsPierreAugerObservatoryXmaxmomentsdeclinationdependenceairshowers
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This contribution from the Pierre Auger Collaboration consolidates two decades of depth-of-shower-maximum measurements from fluorescence, surface, and radio detectors into a single picture of ultra-high-energy cosmic ray mass composition. It claims that the arriving composition is mixed and evolves strongly with energy: the average mass dips near 3 EeV and then rises steadily, so the spectral ankle is not dominated by protons and the highest energies trend toward heavy nuclei. The paper also presents a first direct north-south comparison of $X_{\max}$ within the observatory's exposure, split at $-15.7^\circ$ declination, and finds no globally significant difference in composition between the two equatorial bands. The result matters because composition is the key observable for decoding source and propagation physics: a mixed, evolving composition rules out purely proton-induced interpretations of the flux features.

What carries the argument

The central observable is the depth of shower maximum, $X_{\max}$: the atmospheric depth in g/cm$^2$ at which an air shower's particle count peaks. Because a lighter primary carries more energy per nucleon and develops deeper into the atmosphere, $X_{\max}$ correlates with nuclear mass number $A$, and its event-to-event variance is larger for lighter primaries; the paper explicitly notes that fluctuations in the first interactions make $\sigma(X_{\max})$ larger for protons than for heavy nuclei. The analysis chain converts measured $X_{\max}$ moments into $\langle \ln A \rangle$ and its variance using Eq. (1)-(2) with hadronic interaction models EPOS-LHC, QGSJet-II.04, and Sibyll 2.3d setting the proton and iron scale, and fits proton/helium/nitrogen/iron templates to the measured $X_{\max}$ distributions to extract mass fractions. The load-bearing step is this model-dependent mapping from $X_{\max}$ to mass; the paper warns that new hadronic models and model tweaks under development are expected to shift the $X_{\max}$ scale and its variations meaningfully.

What would settle it

Compare the number of muons in showers near $10^{19.5}$ eV, which current hadronic models predict to be lower for heavy primaries, against the composition inferred from $X_{\max}$ in the same energy bin; a mismatch beyond systematic errors would show that the $X_{\max}$-to-mass conversion, not the data, is driving the heavy trend.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The collaboration measures the first and second moments of $X_{\max}$ distributions and converts them into the mean and variance of $\ln(A)$ using hadronic interaction models to set the proton and iron scales. Across the FD hybrid, SD neural-network, SD universality, radio AERA, and preliminary HEAT measurements, the mean $X_{\max}$ values agree within a few g/cm$^2$, and the moments show that the average mass decreases from $10^{17.2}$ eV to a minimum near 3 EeV, then rises toward the highest energies. Template fits to the $X_{\max}$ distributions indicate a mixed flux with multiple adjacent mass groups at most energies, becoming purer above roughly 10 EeV. The paper states its conclusion plainly: within the limitations of current hadronic interaction models, UHECRs consist of many nuclear species from protons to possibly iron, their mass composition is mixed and strongly energy-dependent, the ankle is not heavily proton-dominated, and the flux trends heavy at the highest energies. The north-south split finds no significant composition difference, with only local fluctuations in the two highest-energy bins that are not globally significant.

Load-bearing premise

The inference from measured $X_{\max}$ to primary mass hinges on hadronic interaction models, extrapolated far beyond accelerator energies, to set the expected $X_{\max}$ scale and fluctuations for proton and iron primaries.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The observed ankle in the spectrum cannot be read as a pure proton signature; source and propagation models must reproduce a composition that is already mixed and getting heavier across that feature.
  • Above about 10 EeV the flux at any single energy is increasingly dominated by a narrow range of nuclear masses, which sharpens searches for individual sources and for energy-dependent anisotropies.
  • The agreement among fluorescence, surface, and radio measurements implies the composition result is not an artifact of any single detector technique.
  • No globally significant declination dependence in $X_{\max}$ within the observatory's exposure supports composition isotropy across the northern and southern equatorial bands.
  • A heavy-trending highest-energy composition means the flux suppression near $4\times10^{19}$ eV can be partly astrophysical in origin, not purely the proton GZK propagation cutoff.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the heavy trend is real, the volume of space from which the highest-energy cosmic rays can reach Earth is smaller than a proton-dominated flux would allow, so future anisotropy searches should expect nearby sources to dominate; this is an extension the paper motivates but does not state.
  • AugerPrime's simultaneous measurement of muon number, scintillator signal, and radio signal could break the remaining degeneracy between mass and hadronic-model uncertainty by comparing those observables with $X_{\max}$ on an event-by-event basis.
  • The north-south analysis could be extended to a full-sky comparison by pairing Auger's equatorial bands with the more northern exposure of the other major UHECR observatory, whose southern declination limit motivated the $-15.7^\circ$ split; such a comparison would make the isotropy statement truly global.
  • The roughly 5 g/cm$^2$ shift between the new FD hybrid reconstruction and the 2014 measurement shows that absolute composition still depends on detector-calibration and model systematics; anchoring $X_{\max}$ with a model-independent estimator, such as muon production depth, would place the composition scale on firmer ground.
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

1 major / 5 minor

Summary. This ICRC2025 contribution presents the Pierre Auger Collaboration's Phase I measurements of the ultra-high-energy cosmic ray (UHECR) mass composition, combining Xmax data from the fluorescence detector (FD hybrid), the surface detector (SD via a deep neural network and a universality-based reconstruction), the Auger Engineering Radio Array (AERA), and the High Elevation Auger Telescopes (HEAT). The paper shows the energy evolution of the first and second moments of Xmax, converts them to moments of ln A using three hadronic interaction models (EPOS-LHC, QGSJet-II.04, Sibyll 2.3d), fits fractional mass abundances, and reports a new comparison of Xmax distributions between northern and southern declination bands of the FD exposure, split at -15.7 degrees. The central claims are that the UHECR composition is mixed and energy dependent, that the ankle is not heavily proton-dominated, that the composition trends heavier at the highest energies, and that no significant declination dependence of the composition is found within the current statistics.

Significance. If correct, the paper provides an important synthesis of the most precise UHECR composition data to date, with the multi-detector agreement (FD, SD, AERA, HEAT) lending support to the measured Xmax scale evolution. The north-south declination comparison is a novel result with direct implications for models of UHECR sources and propagation, since a variation of composition with declination could signal anisotropy. The paper is transparent about the unavoidable dependence on hadronic interaction models and about the fact that the SD DNN calibration inherited the old FD scale; these caveats strengthen the credibility of the presentation. However, the statistical evidence for the key null result on declination dependence is not clearly defined, and one reported p-value appears to contradict the stated conclusion, which weakens the paper's central claim unless corrected.

major comments (1)
  1. [Xmax in the Southern and Northern Skies] The paper reports global p-values of 0.322 (0.989) and 0.006 (0.20) for the second-to-last and last energy bins of the KS (AD) tests, and then states that 'the differences seen in these two bins are not globally significant.' Under the standard meaning of a p-value, 0.006 is significant at the 5% level, so this statement is internally inconsistent. The manuscript does not define how the global p-value is obtained (e.g., the multiple-testing correction applied, the number of energy bins or trials, or the significance threshold adopted). Because the abstract and the Conclusion assert that 'no significant differences in composition were found,' this missing definition and the apparent contradiction are load-bearing for the paper's north-south null result. The authors should either specify the correction and threshold that make 0.006 not significant, or revise the claim to acknowledge a significant difference at the 5% level in the last energy bin.
minor comments (5)
  1. [The Overall Picture of Mass Composition] Equation (2) introduces b only as 'a fit parameter.' Please define it explicitly (e.g., as the slope of the Xmax elongation rate used in the conversion of [18]) so that the reader can understand how sigma_sh varies with <ln A>.
  2. [Measurements of the Depth of Shower Maximum] In the sentence 'the 18.6–18.7 lg (E/eV) energy bin of the hybrid data in particular stands out,' the notation 'lg (E/eV)' is nonstandard; consider using 'log10(E/eV)' or a consistent notation.
  3. [Measurements of the Depth of Shower Maximum] The text notes that the SD DNN Xmax analysis 'was calibrated using the old FD hybrid reconstruction' and thus inherited the old FD scale. This caveat is important for the 'outstanding consistency' claim in the same section, but it is not carried into the abstract's 'coherent picture' statement. Please qualify the abstract accordingly.
  4. [Xmax in the Southern and Northern Skies] The paragraph reporting the KS and AD p-values is difficult to parse because the KS and AD values are interleaved in parentheses. A small table listing the test statistic, local p-value, and global p-value for each energy bin would improve readability and clarity.
  5. [Xmax in the Southern and Northern Skies] The paper does not state the number of energy bins entering the north-south comparison or the total number of statistical tests performed, which is necessary to understand any multiple-testing correction. Please include this information.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No derivation-level circularity: the Xmax-to-mass conversion is anchored to external hadronic interaction models, with only a minor SD-DNN/FD scale coupling that is disclosed.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Measurements of the Depth of Shower Maximum, Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 discussion]
    "Because the DNN-based SD Xmax analysis was calibrated using the old FD hybrid reconstruction to remove the effects of the hadronic interaction model it was trained on, it also inherited the old FD Xmax scale and the ~5 g/cm2 difference."

    The absolute <Xmax> scale of the SD DNN measurement was fitted to the old FD reconstruction, so when the paper later describes FD, SD DNN, HEAT, and AERA results as showing 'outstanding consistency' in <Xmax>, part of that consistency is built in for the SD DNN rather than being independently measured. The paper explicitly discloses the inherited scale and attributes residual differences to SD DNN systematics, and the central HIM-based Xmax-to-ln A conversion does not use this calibration as an input, so this is a minor, non-central coupling rather than a derivation-level circularity.

full rationale

The central composition result is not circular: Eqs. (1)-(2) and the template fits convert measured Xmax moments and distributions into mass information using proton and iron Xmax scales and variance predictions from EPOS-LHC, QGSJet-II.04, and Sibyll 2.3d, which are external simulation benchmarks not fitted to the Auger data being interpreted. The paper explicitly conditions its conclusions on these hadronic interaction models and acknowledges that model updates could change the details. The many Pierre Auger self-citations ([4], [5], [6], [18], [19], [28]) refer to published measurements and analysis methods rather than to an unverified premise that already asserts the target composition result, so they are not load-bearing in a circular sense. The only noticeable coupling is the SD DNN calibration to the old FD scale, which makes part of the cross-detector <Xmax> agreement constructed rather than independent; however, the paper is transparent about this and does not rely on the SD DNN scale for the main composition claim. The north-south comparison is a separate internal statistical test; the reported global KS p-value of 0.006 being called 'not globally significant' is a statistical correctness and reporting concern, not a circularity issue.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests primarily on the validity of hadronic interaction models at energies beyond accelerators, and on simulation-based acceptance corrections; these are domain assumptions rather than free parameters. One fit parameter b from Eq. (2) is carried over from the literature. No invented entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • b = not specified in text; from Ref. [18]
    Fit parameter used in Eq. (2) to convert Xmax variance into V(ln A); the value is not reported in this paper but the central interpretation depends on it.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Hadronic interaction models (EPOS-LHC, QGSJet-II.04, Sibyll 2.3d) correctly predict the Xmax scale and its fluctuations for proton and iron primaries at energies up to ~10^20 eV.
    Used in Eqs. (1)-(2) and in the template fits to convert measured Xmax moments into ln A moments and mass fractions; Section 'The Overall Picture of Mass Composition' states the results depend on the HIMs used.
  • domain assumption The superposition model, with nuclear fragmentation corrections, adequately relates primary mass A to Xmax.
    Section 'Measurements of the Depth of Shower Maximum' notes the superposition model is not exact and differences up to 10 g/cm^2 for iron with EPOS-LHC are expected.
  • domain assumption Simulation-based acceptance and bias corrections (Lambda_eta method) accurately account for the different zenith distributions of the northern and southern sky samples.
    Section 'Xmax in the Southern and Northern Skies' corrects acceptance using simulation and quotes residual uncertainties below 2 g/cm^2; errors in this correction would bias the declination comparison.
  • domain assumption The old FD hybrid Xmax reconstruction used to calibrate the SD DNN is a valid absolute scale reference.
    Fig. 1 discussion says the SD DNN inherited the old FD Xmax scale, so cross-method consistency between SD DNN and FD is not fully independent.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Measurement and Interpretation of UHECR Mass Composition at the Pierre Auger Observatory." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/H5OIWNSQ

@misc{pith2026250710292,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Measurement and Interpretation of UHECR Mass Composition at the Pierre Auger Observatory},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/H5OIWNSQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.10292}
}
abstract

The Pierre Auger Observatory has driven the field of ultra-high-energy cosmic ray (UHECR) physics, producing several groundbreaking observations over the last 20 years. One of the most striking findings has been the complex evolution of UHECR mass composition, as revealed by detailed analyses of observables such as the depth of shower maximum ($X_{\rm max}$) and the muon content of showers. As more data are collected and sophisticated analyses are undertaken, not only are new fine details emerging, but the general picture of UHECR mass composition is becoming increasingly robust. This contribution presents recent results on the mass composition of UHECRs derived from surface, fluorescence, and radio detectors. Together with other key findings from the Observatory, these results converge to present a coherent picture of UHECR mass composition, effectively ruling out proton dominance and challenging the interpretation of the observed flux features as purely proton-induced propagation effects. To finish the contribution, we compare the $X_{\rm max}$ data from the southern and northern equatorial bands of the exposure of the Pierre Auger Observatory fluorescence detector to evaluate the possibility of changes in composition as a function of declination.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.10292 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparison of the Phase I FD 𝑋max measurements [4] to those published in the 2014 FD hybrid and the 2024 SD DNN analyses. Left: first moment, ⟨𝑋 new max⟩ − ⟨𝑋 other max ⟩. Right: second moment 𝜎(𝑋 new max) − 𝜎(𝑋 other max ). 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The first (left) and second (right) moments of 𝑋max distributions measured with the FD [4], the SD [5, 6], AERA [7] during Phase I. Preliminary measurements from HEAT [17] are also shown. analysis was calibrated using the old FD hybrid reconstruction to remove the effects of the hadronic interaction model it was trained on, it also inherited the old FD 𝑋max scale and the ∼ 5 g/cm2 difference. Notably for 𝜎 (𝑋max), n… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: UHECR fractional mass composition derived from FD [4] and preliminary HEAT data[17]. Estimated using Sibyll 2.3 (HEAT), Sibyll 2.3d, and EPOS-LHC. QGSJet-II.04 has been omitted as it produces unphysical results (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Northern and southern equatorial band definitions and counts. Left: FD Exposure with the −15.7 ◦ declination dividing line of the analysis split shown. Right: the relative counts of the analysis. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The first (left) and second (right) moments of the 𝑋max distributions from north￾ern (green) and southern (or￾ange) analysis regions. The black points represent the mea￾surement over the full sky. resolution, and systematics, following the methods described in [28]. Th…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The results of KS (left) and AD (right) 2-sample tests between the 𝑋max dis￾tributions from northern and southern analysis regions. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]

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. Ultra-High-Energy Particle Production in Binary Mergers Endowed with Magnetic Fields

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Using a magnetized Kerr spacetime, the authors compute that binary merger remnants can yield proton collision energies up to 10^20 eV, proposing them as UHECR sources.

  2. Paucity of downward UHE neutrino tracks in IceCube versus unexpected huge KM3-230213A event: solving the puzzles?

    astro-ph.HE 2025-12 reject novelty 3.0 of 10

    The record-energy KM3-230213A event is more likely a tilted-array misreconstruction of an atmospheric muon than a genuine ultra-high-energy neutrino, according to a comparison with IceCube and Auger observations.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [4]

    Pierre Auger Collaboration,Phys. Rev. D (2025) in preparation

    work page 2025

  2. [5]

    Stadelmeyer, [Pierre Auger Coll.],PoS(ICRC2025) These proceedings

    M. Stadelmeyer, [Pierre Auger Coll.],PoS(ICRC2025) These proceedings

    work page

  3. [1]

    Aab et al., [Pierre Auger Coll.],Nucl

    A. Aab et al., [Pierre Auger Coll.],Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 798(2015) 172 [1502.01323]

    arXiv 2015

  4. [2]

    Aab et al., [Pierre Auger Coll.],1604.03637

    A. Aab et al., [Pierre Auger Coll.],1604.03637

    arXiv

  5. [3]

    Castellina, [Pierre Auger Coll.],EPJ Web Conf

    A. Castellina, [Pierre Auger Coll.],EPJ Web Conf. 210(2019) 06002 [1905.04472]

    arXiv 2019

  6. [6]

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

    A. Abdul Halim et al., [Pierre Auger Coll.],Phys. Rev. D 111(2025) 022003 [2406.06319]

    arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

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

    A. Abdul Halim et al., [Pierre Auger Coll.],Phys. Rev. D 109(2024) 022002 [2310.19966]

    work page arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Kampert and M

    K.-H. Kampert and M. Unger,AP 35(2012) 660

    work page 2012

Show all 32 references
  1. [9]

    Engel, T.K

    J. Engel, T.K. Gaisser, T. Stanev and P. Lipari,Phys. Rev. D 46 (1992) 5013

    1992

  2. [10]

    Kalmykov and S.S

    N.N. Kalmykov and S.S. Ostapchenko,Phys. Atom. Nucl. 56 (1993) 346

    1993

  3. [11]

    Mayotte et al., [Pierre Auger Coll.],PoS ICRC2023(2023) 365

    E. Mayotte et al., [Pierre Auger Coll.],PoS ICRC2023(2023) 365

    2023

  4. [12]

    Abreu et al., [Pierre Auger Coll.],PoS ICRC2023(2023) 319

    P. Abreu et al., [Pierre Auger Coll.],PoS ICRC2023(2023) 319

    2023

  5. [13]

    Harvey et al., [Pierre Auger Coll.],PoS ICRC2023(2023) 300

    V.M. Harvey et al., [Pierre Auger Coll.],PoS ICRC2023(2023) 300

    2023

  6. [14]

    Bellido et al., [Pierre Auger Coll.],PoS ICRC2023(2023) 211

    J. Bellido et al., [Pierre Auger Coll.],PoS ICRC2023(2023) 211

    2023

  7. [15]

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

    A. Aab et al., [Pierre Auger Coll.],Phys. Rev. D 90 (2014) 122005 [1409.4809]

    2014 arXiv

  8. [16]

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

    A. Abdul Halim et al., [Pierre Auger Coll.],Phys. Rev. Lett. 132(2024) 021001 [2310.19963]

    2024

  9. [17]

    Bellido, [Pierre Auger Coll.],PoS ICRC2017(2018) 506

    J. Bellido, [Pierre Auger Coll.],PoS ICRC2017(2018) 506

    2018

  10. [18]

    Abreu et al., [Pierre Auger Coll.],JCAP 02 (2013) 026 [1301.6637]

    P. Abreu et al., [Pierre Auger Coll.],JCAP 02 (2013) 026 [1301.6637]

    2013 arXiv

  11. [19]

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

    A. Aab et al., [Pierre Auger Coll.],Phys. Rev. D 90 (2014) 122006 [1409.5083]

    2014 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Ostapchenko, Phys

    S. Ostapchenko, Phys. Rev. D 83(2011) 014018 [1010.1869]

    2011 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Pierog, PoS ICRC2017(2018) 1100

    T. Pierog, PoS ICRC2017(2018) 1100

    2018

  14. [22]

    Riehn et al.,PoS ICRC2017(2018) 301 [1709.07227]

    F. Riehn et al.,PoS ICRC2017(2018) 301 [1709.07227]

    2018 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Yushkov, [Pierre Auger Coll.],PoS(ICRC2025) These proceedings

    A. Yushkov, [Pierre Auger Coll.],PoS(ICRC2025) These proceedings

  16. [24]

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

    A. Abdul Halim et al., [Pierre Auger Coll.],Phys. Rev. Lett. 134(2025) 021001 [2406.06315]

    2025 arXiv

  17. [25]

    González, [Pierre Auger Coll.],PoS UHECR2024(2025) 023

    N. González, [Pierre Auger Coll.],PoS UHECR2024(2025) 023

    2025

  18. [26]

    Alvarez-Muñiz, [Pierre Auger Coll.],PoS UHECR2024(2025) 025

    J. Alvarez-Muñiz, [Pierre Auger Coll.],PoS UHECR2024(2025) 025

    2025

  19. [27]

    Abbasi et al., [Telescope Array Coll.],Astrophys

    R.U. Abbasi et al., [Telescope Array Coll.],Astrophys. J. 858(2018) 76 [1801.09784]

    2018 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Mayotte et al., [Pierre Auger Coll.],PoS ICRC2021(2021) 321

    E. Mayotte et al., [Pierre Auger Coll.],PoS ICRC2021(2021) 321

    2021

  21. [29]

    Massey Jr,JASA 46(1951) 68

    F.J. Massey Jr,JASA 46(1951) 68

    1951

  22. [30]

    Scholz and M.A

    F.W. Scholz and M.A. Stephens,JASA 82(1987) 918

    1987

  23. [31]

    Watson, JHEAp 33(2022) 14 [2112.06525]

    A.A. Watson, JHEAp 33(2022) 14 [2112.06525]

    2022 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Tor Vergata

    A. Abdul Halim et al., [Pierre Auger and Telescope Array Coll.],PoS ICRC2023(2023) 249. 8 Mass Composition at the Pierre Auger Observatory Eric Mayotte The Pierre Auger Collaboration A. Abdul Halim13, P. Abreu70, M. Aglietta53,51, I. Allekotte1, K. Almeida Cheminant78,77, A. A...

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.