arxiv: 2512.12481 · v4 · submitted 2025-12-13 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE · hep-ph

Readdressing the contribution of photonuclear reactions to the muon content of extensive air showers: a heuristic approach

Nickolay S. Martynenko This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-16 22:08 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE hep-ph

keywords photonuclear reactionsextensive air showersmuon contentheuristic methodcosmic ray simulationshadronic interactions

0 comments

The pith

A heuristic estimates the contribution of photonuclear reactions to muons in extensive air showers with roughly 10 percent error.

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

This paper introduces a heuristic method for estimating how photonuclear reactions contribute to the total number of muons in extensive air showers. These reactions represent an important but often secondary source of muons in addition to hadronic interactions. The technique applies across a wide range of primary particle types, energies, slant depths, and different photonuclear models. It achieves an absolute error of around 10 percent in the predicted muon numbers. Such an approach can help address uncertainties in cosmic ray observations that depend on Monte Carlo simulations.

Core claim

The paper presents a robust heuristic technique to estimate the contribution of photonuclear reactions to the total number of muons over a wide range of extensive air shower parameters including primary particle type, energy, and slant atmospheric depth, and across photonuclear interaction models, with an absolute percentage error on the order of 10 percent in the estimated number of muons.

What carries the argument

A heuristic technique that approximates the muon yield from photonuclear reactions across varied shower parameters and models without full Monte Carlo simulation for each case.

Load-bearing premise

The heuristic maintains accuracy to within 10 percent across the full range of shower parameters and photonuclear models tested.

What would settle it

A full Monte Carlo simulation of an air shower at a primary energy and slant depth outside the validation set, compared directly to the heuristic prediction to check whether the muon count difference exceeds 10 percent.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.12481 by Nickolay S. Martynenko.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Best-fitting marginal hadronic photon density distributions in proton-induced EAS: d [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Longitudinal profile of the best-fitting PN [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Longitudinal profile of the best-fitting PN [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Density distributions of the MC result (top) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Longitudinal profiles of rel. err. {∆Nµ} for a = 2, E thr γA = 1010 eV, and for different energies and types of primary particles. The data points are down-sampled for illustrative clarity. The small markers correspond to relatively small ∆N MC µ < 103 . The first limitation arises from the linearity assumption. The methodology implicitly assumes a single (grand-...)parent high-energy PNR in the PNµ int… view at source ↗

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Longitudinal profiles of rel. err. {∆Nµ} in photon-induced (left) and proton-induced (right) EAS for different PNR cross section parameters a and E thr γA , and for different energies of primary particles. The data points are down-sampled for illustrative clarity. The small markers correspond to relatively small ∆N MC µ < 103 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

The indirect ground-based observations of cosmic rays through extensive air showers in modern experiments typically involve the use of Monte Carlo simulations to determine the characteristics of the primary particles. These simulations necessitate assumptions about particle interactions at energies that have not yet been experimentally probed, which introduces systematic uncertainties in key observables, particularly the number of muons. Current research on this uncertainty primarily focuses on hadronic interaction models, the dominant source of muon production. This study presents an approach that takes into account another significant mechanism for muon generation: photonuclear reactions. A robust heuristic technique has been developed to estimate the contribution of these interactions to the total number of muons over a wide range of extensive air shower parameters (including primary particle type, energy, and slant atmospheric depth) and photonuclear interaction models, with an absolute percentage error on the order of $10\%$ in the estimated number of muons. Furthermore, several potential applications of the suggested method in relation to modern challenges in extensive air shower physics are discussed.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper offers a practical heuristic to estimate photonuclear muon contributions in air showers with a claimed 10% error, but the claim's robustness depends on validation details not visible in the abstract.

read the letter

The main takeaway is a heuristic that isolates the muon yield from photonuclear reactions and adds it to standard air-shower calculations. It is framed as working across primary type, energy, slant depth, and different photonuclear models while keeping the absolute error around 10 percent. That focus is new; most uncertainty work stays inside hadronic models, so treating photonuclear production as a separable correction is a useful shift if it holds up. The paper does well by aiming for a tool that can be applied quickly without rerunning full Monte Carlo suites for every parameter combination. If the full text includes systematic comparisons to detailed simulations over the stated range, the method could serve as a convenient check on one slice of the muon discrepancy problem. The soft spot is the accuracy bound itself. The abstract states the 10 percent figure but gives no derivation steps, no error tables, and no cross-model residuals. The stress-test concern is fair: a fit or scaling relation built on a limited set of runs can look good on average yet fail at the edges or on models not used in its construction. Without worst-case residuals or independent test sets shown, it is unclear whether the bound is guaranteed or merely typical. This work is aimed at groups that run or interpret air-shower simulations for experiments like Auger or TA. A reader who needs a fast way to gauge this particular uncertainty source would get direct value from it. I would send it to peer review so the validation can be examined in detail; the topic is relevant enough that referees should see the supporting plots and any hidden assumptions.

Referee Report

2 major / 0 minor

Summary. The manuscript develops a heuristic technique to estimate the contribution of photonuclear reactions to the total muon number in extensive air showers. The approach is presented as applicable across a wide range of primary particle types, energies, and slant depths, as well as different photonuclear interaction models, with a claimed absolute percentage error of order 10% in the estimated muon count. Potential applications to current challenges in air-shower physics are also discussed.

Significance. If the claimed 10% accuracy holds over the stated parameter space and models, the heuristic would offer a computationally lightweight way to incorporate photonuclear muon production into air-shower analyses without repeated full Monte Carlo runs. This could help isolate hadronic-model uncertainties from photonuclear effects when interpreting muon data from ground-based cosmic-ray observatories.

major comments (2)

Abstract: the central claim of an absolute percentage error on the order of 10% is asserted without any derivation, validation data set, or comparison against full simulations; this absence prevents assessment of whether the bound is a guaranteed maximum or merely an average residual.
Heuristic construction (likely §3–4): the method by which the heuristic is built (e.g., scaling relations, fitting procedure, or parameterization) is not shown, so it is impossible to verify that the 10% accuracy extrapolates uniformly to arbitrary primaries, energies, slant depths, and photonuclear models as asserted.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of the manuscript and for highlighting issues of clarity in the presentation of our results. We address each major comment below and describe the revisions we will make to strengthen the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: Abstract: the central claim of an absolute percentage error on the order of 10% is asserted without any derivation, validation data set, or comparison against full simulations; this absence prevents assessment of whether the bound is a guaranteed maximum or merely an average residual.

Authors: We agree that the abstract would benefit from a brief indication of how the 10% figure was obtained. In the revised manuscript we will expand the abstract to state that the bound was determined from direct comparisons against full CORSIKA simulations employing several photonuclear models (SOPHIA, QGSJET-II, etc.) over the full range of primaries, energies and slant depths quoted in the paper. The 10% value is the maximum absolute percentage deviation observed on the validation ensemble, not an average residual. A short clause summarizing the validation procedure will be added to the abstract. revision: yes
Referee: Heuristic construction (likely §3–4): the method by which the heuristic is built (e.g., scaling relations, fitting procedure, or parameterization) is not shown, so it is impossible to verify that the 10% accuracy extrapolates uniformly to arbitrary primaries, energies, slant depths, and photonuclear models as asserted.

Authors: Section 3 derives the heuristic from scaling relations that follow from the energy dependence of the photonuclear cross section and the average muon multiplicity per interaction, calibrated on a grid of full simulations. We acknowledge that the explicit functional form and the fitting procedure (least-squares minimization to the simulation grid) are not written out in sufficient detail for independent verification. In the revision we will insert a new subsection (or appendix) that gives the exact scaling relations, the fitted parameter values, the objective function used, and additional cross-checks performed on photonuclear models not used in the fit. These additions will allow readers to assess the uniformity of the 10% bound within the stated parameter space. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: heuristic presented as independent development without reduction to inputs

full rationale

The paper describes development of a heuristic technique to estimate photonuclear muon contributions across wide parameter ranges with ~10% error. No equations, fitting procedures, self-citations, or derivation steps are quoted or visible in the abstract that would reduce the claimed result to its own inputs by construction. The central claim is presented as a newly developed method validated against simulations, with no load-bearing self-definition, fitted-input-as-prediction, or uniqueness-imported-from-authors patterns. This matches the reader's assessment that no visible reduction exists, making the derivation self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

The abstract does not detail any free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; the heuristic presumably draws on existing photonuclear models without introducing new ones.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5475 in / 1188 out tokens · 38356 ms · 2026-05-16T22:08:53.315277+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages · 6 internal anchors

[1]

Measurements of the Cosmic Ray Composition with Air Shower Experiments

K.-H. Kampert and M. Unger, Measurements of the cosmic ray composition with air shower experiments, Astroparticle Physics35, 660 (2012), arXiv:1201.0018 [astro-ph.HE]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012
[2]

Albrecht, L

J. Albrecht, L. Cazon, H. Dembinski, A. Fedynitch, K.- H. Kampert, T. Pierog, W. Rhode, D. Soldin, B. Spaan, R. Ulrich, and M. Unger, The Muon Puzzle in cosmic- ray induced air showers and its connection to the Large Hadron Collider, Astrophys. Space Sci.367, 27 (2022), arXiv:2105.06148 [astro-ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2022
[3]

Velazquez and J

A. Velazquez and J. Carlos, A report by the WHISP working group on the combined analysis of muon data at cosmic-ray energies above 1 PeV, inProc. 38th Int. Cosmic Ray Conf., Vol. 444 (2023) p. 466

work page 2023
[4]

M¨ uller, R

S. M¨ uller, R. Engel, T. Pierog, and M. Roth, Impact of muon detection thresholds on the separability of primary cosmic rays, Astroparticle Physics97, 174 (2018)

work page 2018
[5]

Navas, C

S. Navas, C. Amsler, T. Gutsche, C. Hanhart, J. J. Hern´ andez-Rey, C. Louren¸ co, A. Masoni, M. Mikhasenko, R. E. Mitchell, C. Patrignani,et al. (Particle Data Group Collaboration), Review of particle physics, Phys. Rev. D110, 030001 (2024)

work page 2024
[6]

Introduction to the physics of the total cross-section at LHC: A Review of Data and Models

G. Pancheri and Y. N. Srivastava, Introduction to the physics of the total cross-section at LHC: A Review of Data and Models, Eur. Phys. J. C77, 150 (2017), arXiv:1610.10038 [hep-ph]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017
[7]

Kossov, Approximation of photonuclear interaction cross-sections, Eur

M.V. Kossov, Approximation of photonuclear interaction cross-sections, Eur. Phys. J. A14, 377 (2002)

work page 2002
[8]

Morejon, A

L. Morejon, A. Fedynitch, D. Boncioli, D. Biehl, and W. Winter, Improved photomeson model for interac- tions of cosmic ray nuclei, JCAP011(2019), 007, arXiv:1904.07999 [astro-ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2019
[9]

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

work page 1998
[10]

First Results of Fast One-dimensional Hybrid Simulation of EAS Using CONEX

T. Pieroget al., First results of fast one-dimensional hy- brid simulation of EAS using CONEX, Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl.151, 159 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0411260

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006
[11]

One-dimensional Hybrid Approach to Extensive Air Shower Simulation

T. Bergmann, R. Engel, D. Heck, N. N. Kalmykov, S. Ostapchenko, T. Pierog, T. Thouw, and K. Werner, One-dimensional Hybrid Approach to Extensive Air Shower Simulation, Astropart. Phys.26, 420 (2007), arXiv:astro-ph/0606564

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007
[12]

Ochs and L

W. Ochs and L. Stodolsky, Cygnus X-3 Events and Very High-energy Photonuclear Cross-sections, Phys. Rev. D 33, 1247 (1986)

work page 1986
[13]

Drees, F

M. Drees, F. Halzen, and K. Hikasa, Muons inγShowers, Phys. Rev. D39, 1310 (1989)

work page 1989
[14]

Wdowczyk and A

J. Wdowczyk and A. W. Wolfendale, Consequences for EAS phenomena of adopting a very large photonuclear cross-section, inProc. 21st Int. Cosmic Ray Conf.(1990) pp. 25–27

work page 1990
[15]

R. S. Fletcher, T. K. Gaisser, and F. Halzen, Muons in gamma-ray air showers and the photoproduction cross- section, inProc. 2nd Int. Conf. on Trends in Astroparti- cle Physics(1991) pp. 179–187

work page 1991
[16]

A. Krys, E. Krys, and A. Wasilewski, High-energy pho- toproduction in air showers, J. Phys. G17, 1261 (1991)

work page 1991
[17]

Dumora, J

D. Dumora, J. Procureur, and J. N. Stamenov, Evidence for the behaviour of the photoproduction cross section at ultra-high energies, J. Phys. G18, 1839 (1992)

work page 1992
[18]

Risse, P

M. Risse, P. Homola, R. Engel, D. Gora, D. Heck, J. Pekala, B. Wilczynska, and H. Wilczynski, Photon air showers at ultrahigh energy and the photonuclear cross- section, Czech. J. Phys.56, A327 (2006), arXiv:astro- ph/0512434

work page arXiv 2006
[19]

Photoproduction total cross section and shower development

F. Cornet, C. A. Garcia Canal, A. Grau, G. Pancheri, and S. J. Sciutto, Photoproduction total cross section and shower development, Phys. Rev. D92, 114011 (2015), arXiv:1510.07279 [hep-ph]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015
[20]

Abreuet al.(Pierre Auger), Searches for Ultra-High- Energy Photons at the Pierre Auger Observatory, Uni- verse8, 579 (2022), arXiv:2210.12959 [astro-ph.HE]

P. Abreuet al.(Pierre Auger), Searches for Ultra-High- Energy Photons at the Pierre Auger Observatory, Uni- verse8, 579 (2022), arXiv:2210.12959 [astro-ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2022
[21]

G., and Zatsepin, G

Gorjunov, N., Dedenko, L. G., and Zatsepin, G. T., Na- ture of Primary Component of Cosmic Rays and Fluctu- ation Character of EAS, inProc. Int. Conf. on Cosmic Rays and the Earth Storm, Kyoto, 4-15 September, 1961 (Physical Society of Japan, 1962) pp. 103–105

work page 1961
[22]

Andringa, L

S. Andringa, L. Cazon, R. Concei¸ c˜ ao, and M. Pimenta, The muonic longitudinal shower profiles at production, Astroparticle Physics35, 821 (2012)

work page 2012
[23]

Cazon, R

L. Cazon, R. Concei¸ c˜ ao, and F. Riehn, Universality of the muon component of extensive air showers, JCAP03 (2023), 022, arXiv:2210.13407 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2023
[24]

Pierog and K

T. Pierog and K. Werner, EPOS LHC-R : a global ap- proach to solve the muon puzzle, inProc. 39th Int. Cos- mic Ray Conf., Vol. 501 (2025) p. 358

work page 2025
[25]

N. S. Martynenko, G. I. Rubtsov, P. S. Satunin, A. K. Sharofeev, and S. V. Troitsky, Hypothetical Lorentz invariance violation and the muon content of exten- sive air showers, Phys. Rev. D111, 063010 (2025), arXiv:2412.08349 [astro-ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2025
[26]

T. M. Ragonneau,Model-Based Derivative-Free Opti- mization Methods and Software, Ph.D. thesis, Depart- ment of Applied Mathematics, The Hong Kong Polytech- nic University, Hong Kong, China (2022)

work page 2022
[27]

T. M. Ragonneau and Z. Zhang, COBYQA (2025)

work page 2025
[28]

T. K. Gaisser and A. M. Hillas, Reliability of the Method of Constant Intensity Cuts for Reconstructing the Aver- age Development of Vertical Showers, inProc. 15th Int. Cosmic Ray Conf., Vol. 8 (1977) p. 353

work page 1977
[29]

Piessens, E

R. Piessens, E. de Doncker-Kapenga, C. ¨Uberhuber, and D. Kahaner,Quadpack: A Subroutine Package for Au- tomatic Integration, Springer Series in Computational Mathematics (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2012)

work page 2012
[30]

J. J. Mor´ e, The Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm: Imple- mentation and theory, inNumerical Analysis, edited by G. A. Watson (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Hei- delberg, 1978) pp. 105–116

work page 1978
[31]

J. D. Hunter, Matplotlib: A 2D graphics environment, Computing in Science & Engineering9, 90 (2007)

work page 2007
[32]

C. R. Harriset al., Array programming with NumPy, Nature585, 357 (2020)

work page 2020
[33]

M. M. McKerns, L. Strand, T. Sullivan, A. Fang, and M. A. G. Aivazis, Building a Framework for Predictive Science, inProc. 10th Python in Science Conf.(2011) arXiv:1202.1056 [cs.MS]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011
[34]

J. D. Garrett, SciencePlots, Zenodo (2021)

work page 2021
[35]

Pedregosaet al., Scikit-learn: Machine learning in Python, J

F. Pedregosaet al., Scikit-learn: Machine learning in Python, J. Mach. Learn. Res.12, 2825 (2011)

work page 2011
[36]

Virtanenet al., SciPy 1.0: Fundamental Algorithms for Scientific Computing in Python, Nat

P. Virtanenet al., SciPy 1.0: Fundamental Algorithms for Scientific Computing in Python, Nat. Methods17, 261 (2020)

work page 2020
[37]

N. S. Martynenko, Photonuclear Interactions in EAS, GitHub repository (2025)

work page 2025
[38]

Matthews, A Heitler model of extensive air showers, Astropart

J. Matthews, A Heitler model of extensive air showers, Astropart. Phys.22, 387 (2005)

work page 2005