Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 49 references

End-to-end reconstruction of ultra-high energy particle observables from radio detection of extensive air showers

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Radio voltages alone can recover cosmic-ray direction to 0.04 degrees and energy to better than 10 percent.

desk verdict A coherent end-to-end simulation study whose electric-field and angular claims are credible, but whose headline 10% energy resolution is in-sample calibration, not an independent prediction. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.17266 v1 pith:BKMRYGN2 submitted 2025-07-23 astro-ph.IM

Kewen Zhang , Duan Kaikai , Ramesh Koirala , Matías Tueros , Chao Zhang , Yi Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.IM
keywords radiodetectionextensiveairshowersultra-high-energycosmicrayselectricfieldreconstructionarrivaldirectionenergygeosynchrotronradiationangulardistributionfunction
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper tries to establish that the entire chain of ultra-high-energy cosmic-ray observables—electric field at the antenna, arrival direction, and primary energy—can be recovered from radio voltages alone, with no particle detectors in the loop. The authors simulate strongly inclined air showers with full radio emission and galactic noise, then run a closed-form least-squares inversion of the three-polarization antenna response to get an unbiased electric field, with a 68% confidence interval of $[-0.02, 0.02]$ in peak amplitude. On that field they fit a spherical wavefront plus an angular distribution function to locate the emission region and the shower axis, reaching about $0.04^\circ$ angular resolution. For energy they extract the geomagnetic component, correct it for air density at shower maximum and for the sine of the angle to the magnetic field, and fit a power law to primary energy, achieving better than 10% resolution over most of the tested parameter space. If this holds on real sparse arrays, it removes the need for dense particle-detector arrays in measuring the spectrum and directions of the highest-energy cosmic rays.

What carries the argument

The argument rides on four coupled objects. The first is the closed-form least-squares electric-field estimator $E = (H^T \sigma_V^{-1} H)^{-1} H^T \sigma_V^{-1} V$, which inverts the three-polarization antenna response matrix $H$ given the noise covariance $\sigma_V$. The second is the spherical wavefront model of Eq. (5), which turns per-antenna peak arrival times into an estimated apparent emission point $R_{X_{max}}$ near shower maximum. The third is the angular distribution function $f_{ADF}$ of Eq. (6), a product of a Cherenkov-ring term $f_{ch}$ and an asymmetry term $f_{asym}$, fitted to the reconstructed field-peak footprint to get the shower axis and the fluence amplitude. The fourth is the energy relation $E_{rec} = (S_{geo}/S_0)^{1/\gamma}$, where $S_{geo} = E_{geo}/(\sin\alpha \cdot f(\rho_{max}))$ is the geomagnetic radiation energy corrected for magnetic orientation and for air density at the reconstructed $X_{max}$ through a spline $f(\rho_{max})$. These pieces are chained: the field inversion feeds the direction fit, the direction fit gives $R_{X_{max}}$, and $R_{X_{max}}$ together with the ADF amplitude gives the corrected radiation energy from which primary energy is read off.

What would settle it

Run the identical pipeline with a strict train/test split of the simulation library (fit $S_0$, $\gamma$, and the spline on one half, evaluate on the other half), or replace the star-shaped 160-antenna pattern with a realistic sparse layout; a resolution that degrades beyond 10% or develops a bias would show the reported numbers are fit quality rather than predictive accuracy.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that an end-to-end radio reconstruction pipeline, applied to simulated voltages that include galactic noise, reproduces the true shower properties without bias: the peak electric field is recovered with zero median and a 68% confidence interval of $[-0.02, 0.02]$, the arrival direction within about $0.04^\circ$, and the primary energy with a resolution below 10% for proton and iron primaries between about $10^{17.1}$ and $10^{18.6}$ eV at zenith angles up to roughly 85 degrees. The reconstruction is analytical rather than iterative: minimizing a chi-square over the three measured polarizations gives $E = (H^T \sigma_V^{-1} H)^{-1} H^T \sigma_V^{-1} V$, a direct linear inversion that needs no prior on the signal shape. Direction reconstruction uses peak arrival times to fix the apparent emission point on a spherical wavefront, then fits the footprint of reconstructed field peaks with an angular distribution function encoding the Cherenkov ring and geomagnetic asymmetry. Energy reconstruction isolates the geomagnetic fluence, divides out $\sin\alpha$ where $\alpha$ is the angle between the shower axis and the magnetic field, applies a spline correction for air density at the shower maximum (the geosynchrotron regime), and calibrates $E_{rec} = (S_{geo}/S_0)^{1/\gamma}$ to true primary energy, yielding an average bias consistent with zero and a composition-dependent offset of opposite sign for protons and iron.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the energy calibration—$S_0$, $\gamma$, and the air-density spline $f(\rho_{max})$—is fitted to the same simulated library on which the 10% resolution is then measured, so the claim assumes these calibrations transfer unchanged to real data with the same footprint sampling.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A sparse radio array could measure the arrival directions of very inclined showers at $0.04^\circ$ precision, comparable to what particle-detector arrays achieve, without needing a dense ground grid.
  • Energy assignment at better than 10% over $10^{17.5}$ to $10^{18.6}$ eV would let a radio-only experiment measure the UHECR energy spectrum, provided the calibration transfers to data.
  • The air-density and $\sin\alpha$ corrections make the method applicable in the geosynchrotron regime, which is exactly the regime relevant to Earth-skimming neutrino searches with very inclined showers.
  • The residual composition-dependent bias (protons overestimated, iron underestimated) means that a composition tag or an $X_{max}$-based correction would be needed for per-species energy estimates.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the calibration constants and the resolution are derived from the same simulated library, the honest reading is that the 10% figure is a statement about algorithmic consistency on ideal footprints; a held-out simulation set would reveal how much of it is overfitting.
  • The star-shaped footprint with 160 antennas densely samples the Cherenkov ring, which real sparse arrays will not do; replacing it in simulation with a realistic sparse layout is a direct way to see how the angular and energy resolutions degrade.
  • The reported $S_0$ and $\gamma$ depend on the local geomagnetic field and atmosphere, so a testable extension is to check whether the same power law holds at other sites or whether $S_0$ must be rescaled with the magnetic-field strength.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents an end-to-end reconstruction pipeline for radio detection of inclined ultra-high-energy cosmic-ray air showers, using ZHAireS simulations of proton and iron primaries. The pipeline consists of three stages: an analytical least-squares reconstruction of the electric field from three-polarization antenna voltages (Sec. 3), a direction reconstruction that combines a spherical wavefront model with an angular distribution function (ADF) fit of the radio footprint (Sec. 4), and an energy reconstruction that integrates the geomagnetic energy fluence, applies an air-density and geomagnetic correction, and calibrates a power-law relation to the primary energy (Sec. 5). The reported performance is an unbiased electric-field peak reconstruction (68% interval [-0.02, 0.02]), an angular resolution of about 0.04 degrees, and an energy resolution better than 10% over most of the parameter space, with degradation at low energies and very high zenith angles.

Significance. If the quoted performance is predictive, the paper would demonstrate that sparse radio arrays with three-polarization antennas can reconstruct both arrival direction and primary energy of inclined UHECR showers without particle detectors, which is directly relevant to experiments such as GRAND. The electric-field and direction-reconstruction results are well grounded in comparisons with simulated truth and do not rely on calibrating free parameters against the primary energy, so those parts are valuable. The energy reconstruction, however, is the central new claim, and its current evaluation is in-sample: the calibration parameters S0 and gamma in Eq. (12) are fitted to the true primary energies of the same library used for the quoted resolution, the air-density spline f(rho_max) in Fig. 6 is fitted to the same simulated library, and one of the selection cuts (Sec. 4.3) uses a threshold determined from Monte Carlo truth. As written, the <10% energy resolution is a measure of fit quality, not a predictive accuracy, which limits the strength of the abstract's claim that the pipeline 'demonstrates the reliability' for future experiments.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 5.3, Eq. (12), Figs. 7-8] The quoted 10% energy resolution is measured in-sample. The text states that S0 and gamma are obtained by minimizing the residual between Erec and the true primary energy Epri on the analysis library, and Figs. 7 and 8 then show the distribution of Erec/Epri for those same events. This makes the reported resolution a goodness-of-fit of the calibration curve, not an estimate of how well the pipeline would reconstruct independent events. To support the abstract's claim of reliability, the authors should either (a) calibrate on a training subset and evaluate on a disjoint test subset (e.g., by energy, zenith, or event index), or (b) present the quoted numbers explicitly as in-sample fit qualities and remove the inference of predictive accuracy. Without this change, the central energy-resolution claim is not load-bearing as stated.
  2. [Sec. 4.3, second bullet] The selection cut 'The fitted amplitude of the energy fluence must be less than 10^9, a threshold determined from the Monte Carlo truth for this library' uses knowledge of the truth to retain events. Applying a truth-derived cut before reporting the energy resolution on the same sample biases the performance estimate upward and is not directly implementable in real data, where no truth is available. The authors should either remove this cut, justify it as a physically motivated quality cut (e.g., via a fixed absolute fluence limit), or evaluate the energy reconstruction without it and report how often an actual data event would survive.
  3. [Sec. 5.1, Fig. 6] The air-density correction spline f(rho_max) is fitted to the same simulation library on which the energy resolution is later evaluated. This is a second source of in-sample tuning: the spline absorbs simulation-specific fluctuations of the ratio Egeo/(Eem^2 sin alpha) as a function of rho_max, and applying it to the same events overfits the noise realization of this library. A cross-validation or a spline fit to an independent subset is needed to establish that the correction generalizes. At minimum, the number of degrees of freedom in the spline and the goodness-of-fit should be reported.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] There is a typo in the abstract: 'reconstruction of the the properties of primary particles' contains a duplicated 'the'.
  2. [Sec. 3, first paragraph] The word 'incomming' should be 'incoming'.
  3. [Sec. 4.1] The text 'The minimiation of chi^2' contains a typo: 'minimiation' should be 'minimization'.
  4. [Sec. 4.5, Eq. (8)] The sentence 'where theta_sim and phi_rec represent true zenith and azimuth angles' should read 'phi_sim' instead of 'phi_rec', since phi_rec is the reconstructed azimuth and phi_sim is the true azimuth used in Eq. (8).
  5. [Sec. 5.2] The phrase 'it's origin' should be 'its origin' for the possessive.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Energy resolution is in-sample: S0/γ and f(ρmax) are fit to true Epri on the same library used for the quoted <10% resolution, and a quality cut uses MC truth.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 5.3 (Energy resolution), Eq. (12) and Figs. 7-8]
    "The parameters S0 and γ are obtained by minimizing the residual between the reconstructed energy Erec and the true primary energy Epri. ... This method achieves a resolution better than 10% in most of the energy range, with some degradation at lower energy."

    Equation (12) defines Erec = (Sgeo/S0)^(1/γ), and S0 and γ are adjusted to minimize the difference between Erec and Epri over the analysis library. The quoted resolution and bias (Figs. 7 and 8) are then evaluated as Erec/Epri on exactly those same events. The reported <10% energy resolution therefore measures the quality of an in-sample fit rather than a prediction on independent events; no held-out set or cross-validation is described. The result is forced by construction to align with the fitted values.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 5.1 (Air density and magnetic corrections), Eq. (11) and Fig. 6]
    "we use a spline fit f(ρmax) to describe the density effect ... The red line represents the spline fit to the simulation data under ideal conditions, accounting for the full footprint and direction."

    The correction f(ρmax) is a spline fitted to y = Egeo/((Eem/EeV)^2 · sin α), normalized by the average y across the same Monte Carlo library. This fitted function enters Eq. (11) to produce Sgeo, which is the input to the energy calibration whose resolution is reported in Section 5.3 on that same library. The air-density correction is therefore tuned to the very simulations used to demonstrate the energy performance, making the quoted 10% partly a measure of how well the spline can absorb simulation-specific fluence variations.

1 more flagged steps
  1. other [Section 4.3 (Selection criteria), second bullet]
    "The fitted amplitude of the energy fluence must be less than 10^9, a threshold determined from the Monte Carlo truth for this library."

    The events entering the energy-resolution sample are selected with a cut whose threshold is derived from the Monte Carlo truth of the same library. In a real measurement this truth is unavailable, so the reported 68% intervals and 10% resolution are conditional on simulated-truth information. This does not by itself define the reconstructed energy, but it conditions the reported performance on the simulations used for calibration, further reducing the independence of the quoted resolution.

full rationale

The electric-field reconstruction and angular-resolution results are benchmarked against independent simulated truth: no global parameter is fitted to the true field or direction, and the least-squares EF solution is a standard matrix inversion. The self-citations [21,24,46,49] are not load-bearing for the circularity question, because the core method is reproduced in the paper and the benchmarks use an external simulation library. The central energy claim, however, is in-sample by the paper's own accounting: S0 and γ in Eq. (12) are obtained by minimizing the residual against true Epri on the analysis library; the density correction f(ρmax) is a spline fitted to ideal simulations of the same library; and the fluence-amplitude cut uses an MC-truth-determined threshold. The <10% energy resolution quoted in the abstract and Section 6 is therefore a fit quality on the calibration sample, not an out-of-sample predictive accuracy. That fits the fitted-input-called-prediction pattern and warrants a partial circularity score of 6; a held-out library or explicit statement that the numbers are in-sample fit qualities would remove the issue.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 9 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The pipeline rests on the simulation chain (ZHAireS, LFmap, antenna response) as ground truth, on the ADF and spherical wavefront models from prior work, and on calibrations fitted in-sample. The main free parameters beyond the per-event nuisance fits are the energy calibration constants S0 and gamma and the air-density spline, all fitted to the analysis library itself.

free parameters (8)
  • S0 = 4.20e+08
    Power-law normalization in Eq. 12 fitted by minimizing residual between reconstructed energy and true primary energy over the analysis library (Sec. 5.3).
  • gamma = 2.03
    Power-law index in Eq. 12 fitted together with S0 to true primary energies (Sec. 5.3, Fig. 7).
  • Air-density correction spline f(rho_max) = spline curve shown in Fig. 6
    Spline fit to the ratio y=Egeo/((Eem/EeV)^2 sin alpha) for the same simulated library; used to correct Egeo in Eq. 11 before energy calibration.
  • ADF ring width delta_omega = per-event fit
    Free parameter modifying the width of the Cherenkov ring in Eq. 7; fitted in the direction reconstruction.
  • ADF amplitude A1 = per-event fit
    Amplitude of the signal footprint in Eq. 6; fitted per event from the reconstructed electric-field peaks.
  • Geomagnetic asymmetry strength B = 0.01
    Hand-set value in Eq. 7 for the asymmetry term; not fitted or justified with an uncertainty.
  • Energy-fluence amplitude cut = < 1e9
    Threshold determined from the Monte Carlo truth for this library (Sec. 4.3) and applied before reporting resolution.
  • SNR selection thresholds = SNR > 5 and at least 5 antennas
    Hand-chosen analysis thresholds that determine which events enter the performance evaluation (Sec. 3.2).
assumptions (9)
  • standard math The analytical least-squares solution for the electric field (Eq. 3) is the standard weighted linear least-squares solution and assumes Gaussian noise with known covariance sigma_V.
    Eqs. 2-3 rely on the textbook least-squares result [22] and on independent noise between polarizations.
  • domain assumption ZHAireS simulations accurately produce radio emission from inclined air showers, including geosynchrotron effects.
    All reconstructed signals are compared to ZHAireS-generated ground truth; the library in Sec. 2 is the benchmark.
  • domain assumption LFmap galactic noise model is representative of the experimental noise environment.
    Only galactic noise at 18h LST is added; electronic and environmental noise are neglected (Sec. 2).
  • domain assumption Far-field approximation: the radial electric-field component is negligible at the antennas.
    Used in Eq. 1 to write the measured voltage in terms of E_theta and E_phi only.
  • domain assumption Spherical wavefront from a point source at RXmax describes the peak arrival times of inclined showers.
    Equation 5 in Sec. 4.1; relies on emission region being small relative to propagation distance.
  • ad hoc to paper The ADF form (Eqs. 6-7) including Cherenkov ring and asymmetry factor is a valid model of the radio footprint.
    Used for direction and energy-fluence fitting; no derivation from first principles in this paper.
  • domain assumption Average effective refractive index, instead of per-antenna values, is adequate for highly inclined showers.
    Adopted as a compromise in Sec. 4.4; the paper notes it introduces deviations for zenith angles above 80 degrees.
  • domain assumption The Eem/Epri ratio used to bypass explicit Eem estimation is stable and composition-dependent as simulated.
    Sec. 5.2 uses this to reconstruct Epri directly; the paper reports proton 0.87 and iron 0.81 means.
  • ad hoc to paper Energy calibration and air-density correction fitted on this library transfer to real experimental conditions.
    No independent validation set or data are used; Secs. 5.1-5.3.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of End-to-end reconstruction of ultra-high energy particle observables from radio detection of extensive air showers." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BKMRYGN2

@misc{pith2026250717266,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: End-to-end reconstruction of ultra-high energy particle observables from radio detection of extensive air showers},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BKMRYGN2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.17266}
}
abstract

The radio detection of very inclined air showers offers a promising avenue for studying ultra-high-energy cosmic rays (UHECRs) and neutrinos. Accurate reconstruction methods are essential for investigating the properties of primary particles. Recently, we developed an analytical least-squares method to reconstruct the electric field using three polarization components. The reconstruction yields no bias, with a 68\% confidence interval of [-0.02, 0.02], and a standard deviation of 0.04. Using this reconstructed electric field, we perform a realistic reconstruction of the the properties of primary particles. We employ a spherical wave model combined with an angular distribution function (ADF) for arrival direction reconstruction, achieving an angular resolution of 0.04$^\circ$. This paper also presents an energy reconstruction in which we account for the effects of geosynchrotron radiation in inclined air showers, we implement an air density correction in the energy reconstruction, resulting in a 10\% resolution in energy estimation. These findings demonstrate the reliability and effectiveness of our reconstruction methodology, paving the way for future detection experiments using sparse antenna arrays.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages

  1. [21]

    Zhang, T

    K. Zhang, T. Huege, R. Koirala, P. Ma, M. Tueros, X. Xu, C. Zhang, P. Zhang and Y . Zhang, arXiv:2501.12614 [astro-ph.IM], submitted to JCAP

    arXiv

  2. [1]

    T. K. Gaisser, R. Engel and E. Resconi, Cosmic Rays and Particle Physics: 2nd Edition, Cambridge University Press, 2016, ISBN 978-0-521-01646-9

    work page 2016

  3. [2]

    R. U. Abbasi et al., [Telescope Array], Astropart. Phys. 80, 131-140 (2016)

    work page 2016

  4. [3]

    Aab et al

    A. Aab et al. [Pierre Auger], JCAP 10, 026 (2018)

    work page 2018

  5. [4]

    Aab et al

    A. Aab et al. [Pierre Auger], JCAP 08, 019 (2014)

    work page 2014

  6. [5]

    Huege [Pierre Auger], EPJ Web Conf

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

    work page 2023

  7. [6]

    Álvarez-Muñiz et al

    J. Álvarez-Muñiz et al. [GRAND], Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 63, no.1, 219501 (2020)

    work page 2020

  8. [7]

    Zeolla, J

    A. Zeolla, J. Alvarez-Muñiz, A. Cummings, C. Deaconu, V . Decoene, K. Hughes, R. Krebs, A. Ludwig, K. Mulrey and E. Oberla, et al. PoS ICRC2023, 1019 (2023)

    work page 2023

Show all 49 references
  1. [8]

    F. D. Kahn and I. Lerche, Proceedings of the Royal So- ciety of London. Series A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences 289 (1966) 206

    1966

  2. [9]

    G. A. Askaryan, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan Supplement 17 (1962) 257

    1962

  3. [10]

    Aab et al

    A. Aab et al. [Pierre Auger], Phys. Rev. D 89, 052002 (2014)

    2014

  4. [11]

    F. G. Schröder, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics 93 (2017) 1–68

    2017

  5. [12]

    J. R. Hörandel, EPJ Web Conf. 216, 01003 (2019)

    2019

  6. [13]

    Schlüter, M

    F. Schlüter, M. Gottowik, T. Huege and J. Rautenberg, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, no.7, 643 (2020)

    2020

  7. [14]

    C. W. James, Phys. Rev. D 105, 023014 (2022)

    2022

  8. [15]

    Chiche, C

    S. Chiche, C. Zhang, F. Schlüter, K. Kotera, T. Huege, K.D. de Vries et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.132 (2024) 231001

    2024

  9. [16]

    Schellart, S

    P. Schellart, S. Buitink, A. Corstanje, J. E. Enriquez, H. Falcke, J. R. Hörandel, M. Krause, A. Nelles, J. P. Rachen and O. Scholten, et al. , JCAP 10, 014 (2014)

    2014

  10. [17]

    Chiche, K

    S. Chiche, K. Kotera, O. Martineau-Huynh, M. Tueros and K. D. de Vries, Astropart. Phys.139, 102696 (2022)

    2022

  11. [18]

    Alvarez-Muñiz, W.R

    J. Alvarez-Muñiz, W.R. Carvalho and E. Zas, Astropar- ticle Physics 35 (2012) 325–341.802

    2012

  12. [19]

    Alves Batista et al

    R. Alves Batista et al. , Comput. Phys. Commun. 308 (2025), p. 109461

    2025

  13. [20]

    Glaser, A

    C. Glaser, A. Nelles, I. Plaisier, C. Welling, S.W. Bar- wick, D. García-Fernández et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 79, (2019) 464

    2019

  14. [22]

    Behnke, K

    O. Behnke, K. Kroninger, G. Schott and T. Schörner-Sadenius, 2013, https://api.semanticscholar. org/CorpusID:60282717

    2013

  15. [23]

    Polisensky, Memo Series 111 (2007) 515

    E. Polisensky, Memo Series 111 (2007) 515

    2007

  16. [24]

    Decoene, Ph.D

    V . Decoene, Ph.D. thesis, Sorbonne université, 2020

    2020

  17. [25]

    Glaser, S

    C. Glaser, S. de Jong, M. Erdmann and J.R. Hörandel, Astropart. Phys. 104 (2019) 64

    2019

  18. [26]

    Schlüter and T

    F. Schlüter and T. Huege JCAP 01 008 (2023)

    2023

  19. [27]

    Corstanje, P

    A. Corstanje, P. Schellart, A. Nelles, S. Buitink, J. En- riquez, H. Falcke et al., Astropart. Phys. 61 (2015) 22

    2015

  20. [28]

    W. Apel, J. Arteaga-Velázquez, L. Bähren, et al., JCAP 09, 25 (2014)

    2014

  21. [29]

    Kostunin, P

    D. Kostunin, P. Bezyazeekov, R. Hiller, F. Schröder, V . Lenok and E. Levinson, Astropart. Phys. 74 (2016) 79–86

    2016

  22. [30]

    Mulrey, S

    K. Mulrey, S. Buitink, A. Corstanje, H. Falcke, B. M. Hare, J. R. Hörandel, T. Huege, G. K. Krampah, P. Mitra and A. Nelles, et al. JCAP 11, 017 (2020)

    2020

  23. [31]

    H. R. Allan, Part. Cosmic Ray Phys. 10 (1971) 169–302

    1971

  24. [32]

    Falcke et al

    H. Falcke et al. [LOPES], Nature 435 (2005), 313-316

    2005

  25. [33]

    Ardouin, A

    D. Ardouin, A. Belletoile, D. Charrier, R. Dallier, L. Denis, P. Eschstruth, T. Gousset, F. Haddad, J. Lam- blin and P. Lautridou, et al. Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 555 (2005), 148

    2005

  26. [34]

    Astropart

    Anna Nelles, Stijn Buitink, Heino Falcke, Jörg Höran- del, Tim Huege, and Pim Schellart. Astropart. Phys., 60 13–24, (2015)

    2015

  27. [35]

    Huege, M

    T. Huege, M. Ludwig and C.W. James, AIP Conf. Proc. 1535 (2013), 128

    2013

  28. [36]

    Aab et al

    A. Aab et al. [Pierre Auger], Phys. Rev. D 89 no.5, 052002 (2014). 13

    2014

  29. [37]

    Glaser, M

    C. Glaser, M. Erdmann, J.R. Hörandel, T. Huege, J. Schulz, JCAP 09, 024 (2016)

    2016

  30. [38]

    Welling, C

    C. Welling, C. Glaser and A. Nelles, JCAP 10, 075 (2019)

    2019

  31. [39]

    I. Maris. [Pierre Auger], PoS EPS-HEP2013, 405 (2013)

    2013

  32. [40]

    Aab et al

    A. Aab et al. [Pierre Auger], Phys. Rev. D 93, no.12, 122005 (2016)

    2016

  33. [41]

    H. P. Dembinski, B. Kégl, I. C. Mari¸ s, M. Roth, and D. Veberiˇc, Astropart. Phys. 73, 44 (2016)

    2016

  34. [42]

    Gottowik, C

    M. Gottowik, C. Glaser, T. Huege and J. Rautenberg, Astropart. Phys. 103 (2018), 87-93

    2018

  35. [43]

    F. G. Schroeder et al. [IceCube], PoS ARENA2024 (2024), 034

    2024

  36. [44]

    Glaser, S

    C. Glaser, S. McAleer, S. Stjärnholm, P. Baldi and S. W. Barwick, Astropart. Phys. 145 (2023), 102781

    2023

  37. [45]

    Buitink et al., Phys

    S. Buitink et al., Phys. Rev. D 90, 082003 (2014)

    2014

  38. [46]

    Decoene, O

    V . Decoene, O. Martineau-Huynh, and M. Tueros, As- tropart. Phys., vol. 145, p. 102779, (2023)

    2023

  39. [47]

    Dembinski, P

    H. Dembinski, P. Ongmongkolkul et al. , scikit- hep/iminuit, 10.5281/zenodo.3949207 (2020)

    2020 doi

  40. [48]

    Nelles et al., JCAP 05, 018 (2015)

    A. Nelles et al., JCAP 05, 018 (2015)

    2015

  41. [49]

    A reconstruction procedure for near- horizon extensive air showers based on radio signals,

    V . Decoene, O. Martineau-Huynh, M. Tueros, and S. Chiche, “A reconstruction procedure for near- horizon extensive air showers based on radio signals,” arXiv:2107.03206 [astro-ph.IM], 2021

    2021 arXiv

Pith tools

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