Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 49 references

Probing the Cosmic Ray Background of Gamma-Ray Astronomy with Hadron Colliders

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The hadronic events that fake gamma-ray showers for ground-based telescopes come predominantly from a single, very energetic forward neutral pion — and only LHCf and RHICf reach the window where colliders can see it.

desk verdict A useful, clean mapping of the IACT hadronic background phase space onto LHCf/RHICf acceptance; the energy-scaling assumption needs to be explicit, but the paper is a genuine contribution. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.04040 v1 pith:FMSKVSG5 submitted 2025-09-04 astro-ph.HE hep-ex

Clara E. Leitgeb , Robert D. Parsons , Andrew M. Taylor , Kenneth J. Ragan , David Berge , Cigdem Issever This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEhep-ex
keywords gamma-rayastronomyimagingatmosphericCherenkovtelescopescosmic-raybackgroundneutralpionproductionforwardphysicsLHCfRHICfhadronicinteractionmodels
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

Ground-based gamma-ray telescopes record flashes of Cherenkov light from air showers, and most of the showers they see are not gamma rays at all but cosmic-ray protons, which outnumber gamma rays by at least a thousand to one. This paper identifies the narrow subclass of those hadronic showers that actually leaks through gamma-ray selection: events whose first interaction in the atmosphere produces a single neutral pion carrying more than 70 percent of the incoming particle's energy. Those forward pions sit in a well-defined angular window — pseudorapidity between about 3.0 and 5.8 for a 1 TeV cosmic ray — and the paper shows that at every relevant collider energy, the only detectors reaching that window are the dedicated forward calorimeters LHCf and RHICf. The experiments used to tune today's hadronic interaction models sit at central angles and never touch it, which is why the models disagree sharply on exactly this background. The authors conclude that LHCf and RHICf measurements — including the upcoming proton-oxygen run — can test and calibrate the models in the phase space that matters, lowering the dominant systematic uncertainty on gamma-ray source measurements.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the pseudorapidity window between η_min ≈ ln(0.7√s/√(m_π²+p_T²)) and η_max = ln(√s/m_π), where pseudorapidity — a particle's angle to the beam axis, encoded so that kinematics at wildly different collision energies become comparable — is evaluated in the center-of-mass frame. η_max is the angle of a pion inheriting the whole beam energy with zero transverse momentum; η_min is the angle of a pion carrying the 70-percent threshold energy with its largest observed transverse momentum, about 1.5 GeV. The window translates a 1 TeV cosmic-ray collision (√s = 43.3 GeV), where the relevant interval is 3.0 < |η| < 5.77, into detector coordinates at every collider energy, ri

What would settle it

Once LHCf publishes π0 energy spectra binned in pseudorapidity from its 13.6 TeV data, and RHICf from its 510 GeV data, compare the four models' predictions inside the mapped windows (8.75 < |η| < 11.5 at 13.6 TeV). If the models fail to reproduce those spectra by more than their mutual spread, the cross-energy scaling assumption is falsified and the recommendation loses its basis. A complementary check: measure the leading electromagnetic energy fraction of real IACT background events that survive gamma-likeness selection — if most carry below 50 percent electromagnetic fraction, the focus on

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the irreducible hadronic background of gamma-ray astronomy has a precise birthplace: the first interaction of a cosmic-ray proton with an air nucleus, in the rare case where that interaction emits a single neutral pion carrying more than 70 percent of the proton's energy. Such an event converts a large share of the hadronic energy into photons at the top of the shower, so the cascade develops like an electromagnetic one and passes gamma-ray-likeness cuts. The paper shows this subclass dominates the surviving background, and that the pseudorapidity interval it occupies — bounded by the kinematics of a maximally forward pion — coincides with the acceptance of

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that forward neutral-pion production scales predictably across collision energies, so data taken at 510 GeV to 13 TeV can stand in for the roughly 43 GeV cosmic-ray collisions that actually create the gamma-ray-lookalike showers; secondarily, the analysis relies on the community's 70-percent energy-fraction cut even though simulated background acceptance already rises near 40-percent electromagnetic fraction.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Reconstructing π0 energy spectra from LHCf's already-recorded 13.6 TeV data, binned across the mapped window (8.75 < |η| < 11.5), would discriminate directly between EPOS-LHC, QGSJET II-04, SIBYLL 2.3d, and the Pythia forward tune in the phase space that creates the IACT background.
  • RHICf's 510 GeV data cover the same physics at a very different collision energy, allowing a cross-validation of the models between energy scales — the check needed before trusting the extrapolation down to cosmic-ray energies.
  • The scheduled proton-oxygen run at the LHC should be the most sensitive test: the models diverge even more strongly for pO than for pp forward pion production, and oxygen is close to the atmosphere's actual target nuclei.
  • If the generators are tuned to these forward measurements, the systematic uncertainty on the irreducible cosmic-ray background — currently the limiting error in IACT background estimates — would shrink, sharpening gamma-ray flux measurements that rely on background subtraction.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same phase-space logic implies a concrete measurement request the paper leaves implicit: high-statistics π0 spectra in the 8.8–11.5 pseudorapidity bin from the 2022 LHCf run, plus equivalent pO spectra from the planned 2025 run, reported in ξ bins rather than as single-photon spectra.
  • The 70-percent energy-fraction cut is convenient but not clean — the simulated gamma-likeness acceptance already rises near 40-percent electromagnetic fraction — so a sharper background model would weight each event by its actual acceptance instead of cutting at 70 percent.
  • If the forthcoming LHCf and RHICf data contradict all four models as strongly as the single-photon comparison hints, the practical fallback for gamma-ray astronomy may shift toward data-driven background templates anchored to collider measurements rather than generator predictions.
  • Because the mapped window at LHC energies corresponds to cosmic-ray primaries near 10^17 eV, the same forward-pion phase space also feeds the highest-energy air-shower observatories; a model calibration anchored here could improve shower interpretation well beyond IACT energies.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper argues that the irreducible hadronic background to IACT gamma-ray observations is dominated by air showers whose first interaction produces a single forward neutral pion carrying a large fraction of the primary energy. Using CORSIKA simulations at 1 TeV and a simplified telescope array, it shows that the background acceptance increases with the electromagnetic energy fraction. It derives a pseudorapidity window, 3.0<|eta|<5.77 at sqrt(s)=43.3 GeV and 8.75<|eta|<11.5 at 13.6 TeV, expected to contain the xi>0.7 forward pions, and compares this window with the acceptances of existing and future forward detectors. It concludes that only LHCf and RHICf cover the relevant phase space and that their data can constrain hadronic interaction models. A comparison to LHCf single-photon spectra indicates that no single model describes the high-eta data well.

Significance. The paper makes a useful, concrete proposal: it isolates a specific phase-space region (high-xi, forward pi0) that controls the hadronic background of IACTs, and connects it to existing forward-collider data. Strengths include a transparent kinematic derivation of the eta bounds, the use of four hadronic models plus CORSIKA, the release of the toy-IACT code, and a direct comparison to LHCf data. If the energy-transferability assumption is justified, the paper provides a practical path to reduce a dominant systematic uncertainty in VHE gamma-ray astronomy using published and to-be-published LHCf/RHICf data. The central message is clear and will be of interest to both the IACT and forward-physics communities.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. III A, Fig. 4, Appendix B] The mapping of the 1-TeV CR-relevant phase space to LHC/RHIC energies relies on the assumption that forward high-xi pi0 production is approximately energy-independent. This is never stated or tested. Pseudorapidity is only a kinematic variable; it does not guarantee that the fragmentation-region pion yield is invariant under changes in sqrt(s). Sec. V even frames the sqrt(s) lever arm as a 'cross validation', which presupposes scaling. Please state the scaling assumption explicitly, cite empirical/theoretical support, and provide a direct test (e.g., compare model predictions at 43 GeV, 510 GeV, 7 TeV, and 13.6 TeV for the same xi>0.7 forward region, or use RHICf vs LHCf data once available). Without this, the conclusion that LHCf/RHICf data constrain the IACT background at sqrt(s)=43.3 GeV is not established.
  2. [Sec. III A, Eqs. (4)-(5), Fig. 3, Fig. 7] The pseudorapidity window is not fully model-independent: Eq. (5) contains pT,max, and the value pT,max ~1.5 GeV is read off from the same hadronic models that the paper aims to test. The validation in Figs. 3 and 7 uses SIBYLL 2.3d only, at two energies, so the claim that the window 'fully covers' the xi>0.7 pions is partly by construction. Please quantify the sensitivity of eta_min to pT (e.g., show the pT distribution of xi>0.7 pions in all four models at both 43 GeV and 13.6 TeV) and either adopt a conservative pT envelope or use a model-independent estimate.
  3. [Sec. II, Fig. 1 and Sec. III A] The 70% energy-fraction threshold, although attributed to Ref. [38], is adopted without quantitative justification in the context of Fig. 1. That figure shows the background acceptance already starting to rise near an EM fraction of 40%, and at 70% it is above 15%. If events with xi between 0.4 and 0.7 contribute a significant fraction of the gamma-like background, the derived eta_min in Eq. (5) is too high and the phase-space comparison in Fig. 4 underestimates the relevant region. Please provide a background-acceptance weighting as a function of xi or EM fraction, or otherwise demonstrate that the xi>0.7 selection captures the events that pass the gamma-ray selection cuts.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] Several typos: 'HA WC' in the Introduction; 'T evatron' in Fig. 4; 'T une' in Figs. 2 and 6; inconsistent spacing of 'SIBYLL' (e.g., 'Sibyll 2.3d' v 'SIBYLL 2.3d').
  2. [Fig. 5] The caption should clarify that the comparison is to single-photon spectra, not reconstructed neutral pions, and should explicitly state the pseudorapidity bins (8.81<eta<8.99 and eta>10.94) and the reference [4].
  3. [Sec. V] The statement about the 'large difference in center of mass energy' between RHICf and LHCf as a cross-validation opportunity should note that the comparison is only meaningful if the detector acceptances correspond to overlapping or complementary regions of (xi, pT) for forward pi0 production.
  4. [Appendix A] The camera detector efficiency of 20% appears low compared to typical IACT cameras; please confirm this value or clarify the definition (e.g., photon detection efficiency, including quantum efficiency and collection losses).

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No substantive circularity: the LHCf/RHICf recommendation follows from kinematics and detector acceptance. One minor self-consistency loop exists where the pT,max input to the eta window is taken from the same models later used to 'validate' the window.

  1. other [Sec. III A (Eqs. 4-5, Fig. 3) and Appendix B (Fig. 7)]
    "Simulations with Pythia 8.3, EPOS-LHC, QGSJET II.04 and Sibyll 2.3d show that the maximum transverse momentum of a π0 meson carrying a 70% fraction of the beam energy is approximately 1.5 GeV, with only small variation with center of mass energy. ... The higher edge of the energy spectrum (> 70% of the beam energy) is dominated by contributions from neutral pions in the pseudorapidity bin bounded by Eqn. 4 and Eqn. 5 for all of our four canonical interaction models."

    The pseudorapidity window eta_min < |eta| < eta_max is constructed from Eq. 4 and Eq. 5, with Eq. 5 evaluating pT at the value pT,max ~ 1.5 GeV read off from the very same hadronic interaction models (Pythia, EPOS-LHC, QGSJET-II.04, Sibyll). The subsequent 'validation' in Fig. 3 and Appendix B showing that high-xi pi0s populate this window is therefore an internal consistency check of that pT,max estimate, not an independent prediction: by construction, if the models' pT never exceeds the input value, all high-xi pi0s fall inside the envelope. The limitation is minor because the experimental-coverage conclusion depends only on the approximate kinematic envelope, and the later comparison to actual LHCf single-photon data (Fig. 5) provides an external benchmark. No fitted parameter is rename

full rationale

The paper's central recommendation — that only LHCf and RHICf probe the forward high-energy pi0 phase space relevant to IACT backgrounds — is not circular. It follows from (i) an explicitly ad-hoc, community-based threshold xi>0.7, (ii) kinematic Eqs. 4-5 for the eta envelope, and (iii) the published acceptances of ATLAS/CMS/LHCb/CASTOR/CDF/RHICf/LHCf as listed in Sec. IV. The mapping between the cosmic-ray equivalent energy and collider energies uses pseudorapidity, but the use of eta is only a kinematic coordinate change and does not by itself smuggle in the scaling assumption; that assumption is unstated but is a physics assumption, not a circularity. Fig. 1 provides independent simulation evidence connecting EM energy fraction to gamma-ray likeness. The model-data comparison in Fig. 5 is an external falsification exercise against LHCf data. The only circular-adjacent element is the minor self-referential loop described above: pT,max is taken from the same models that are later used to demonstrate the eta-window covers the xi>0.7 region. This is a consistency check rather than an out-of-sample validation, so it does not undermine the main conclusion. Given that the paper is otherwise self-contained and benchmarked against external data, a score near zero is appropriate; the modest score reflects the small internal-validation loop.

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

The central claim rests on two domain assumptions: the leading-pi0 origin of gamma-ray-like hadronic showers, and the use of pseudorapidity to transfer constraints across very different center-of-mass energies. The latter is the most fragile and is not explicitly justified. The paper introduces no new particles, forces, or conserved quantities. The free parameters (70% threshold, pT,max about 1.5 GeV, IACT cut values) are either taken from community convention or extracted from simulations, not fit to the target result.

free parameters (3)
  • Energy-fraction threshold xi_pi0 = 0.70 = 0.70
    Adopted from community convention (ref. 38) to define 'large energy' neutral pions; enters Eq. 5 and sets the lower edge of the relevant pseudorapidity region.
  • Maximum transverse momentum pT,max of a 70% beam-energy pi0 = about 1.5 GeV
    Quoted from the authors' simulations as approximately model-independent; used in Eq. 5 to set eta_min.
  • IACT selection cuts (60 photoelectrons, 5 images, MSCW in [-1,0.7], MSCL in [-1,1])
    Chosen from H.E.S.S.-typical values in Appendix A; the authors state the results are insensitive to the exact values, so this parameter is not central.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption A hadronic air shower with a leading high-energy pi0 mimics a gamma-ray shower for IACTs.
    Basis of the whole study; supported by refs. 33 and 45 and by the authors' Fig. 1, but not derived from first principles.
  • domain assumption Pseudorapidity is the correct variable to connect fixed-target CR collisions at sqrt(s) about 43 GeV with collider experiments at sqrt(s) up to 13 TeV.
    Invoked in Sec. III A to compare 'very different energies'; requires Feynman-scaling-like behavior of forward particle production that is not proven.
  • domain assumption Oxygen can stand in for air (mostly nitrogen) as the target nucleus.
    Stated in Sec. II; the authors argue the expected difference is small relative to model discrepancies.
  • standard math Standard kinematic definitions of pseudorapidity and the relation eta_max = ln(sqrt(s)/m_pi).
    Eqs. 3-5; standard special relativity, no controversy.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Probing the Cosmic Ray Background of Gamma-Ray Astronomy with Hadron Colliders." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FMSKVSG5

@misc{pith2026250904040,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Probing the Cosmic Ray Background of Gamma-Ray Astronomy with Hadron Colliders},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FMSKVSG5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.04040}
}
read the original abstract

Hadronic cosmic particles (cosmic rays) and gamma rays are constantly absorbed in the Earth's atmosphere and result in air showers of secondary particles. Cherenkov radiation from these atmospheric events is used to measure cosmic gamma rays with ground-based telescopes. We focus here on the dominant hadronic cosmic-ray-initiated background events in the atmosphere, which give rise to gamma-ray like air showers for gamma-ray telescopes. It is shown that only a small subset of hadronic cosmic-ray interactions, those which produce a large energy neutral pion, are responsible for this background. We subsequently address how the predictions of this background vary depending on the hadronic interaction model adopted. The pseudorapidity range of the energetic pions, with respect to the shower axis produced in these background events, is shown to be large. We show that collider experiments, specifically LHCf and RHICf, probe cosmic ray interactions precisely within this pseudorapidity range. Present and future measurements with these instruments are shown to be able to test the ability for current hadronic interaction models to accurately describe these background events.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.04040 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Fraction of background proton events simulated with Sibyll 2.3c passing gamma-ray likeness [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The higher edge of the energy spectrum ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Relevant [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Comparison of the LHCf measured photon energy spectrum [4] in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. The predicted [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

  1. [38]

    Ohishi, M., Arbeletche, L., de Souza, V., et al. 2021, J. Phys. G, 48, 075201, doi: 10.1088/ 1361-6471/abfce0

    work page 2021

  2. [1]

    2006, CERN Report Number CERN-LHCC-2006-004

    Adriani, O., et al. 2006, CERN Report Number CERN-LHCC-2006-004

    work page 2006

  3. [2]

    2012, Phys

    Adriani, O., Bonechi, L., Bongi, M., et al. 2012, Phys. Rev. D, 86, 092001, doi: 10.1103/ PhysRevD.86.092001

    work page 2012

  4. [3]

    2017, Phys

    Adriani, O., Akaike, Y., Asano, K., et al. 2017, Phys. Rev. Lett., 119, 181101, doi: 10.1103/ PhysRevLett.119.181101

    work page 2017

  5. [4]

    2018, Physics Letters B, 780, 233–239, doi: 10.1016/ j.physletb.2017.12.050

    Adriani, O., Berti, E., Bonechi, L., et al. 2018, Physics Letters B, 780, 233–239, doi: 10.1016/ j.physletb.2017.12.050

    work page 2018

  6. [5]

    2019, Phys

    Adriani, O., Akaike, Y., Asano, K., et al. 2019, Phys. Rev. Lett., 122, 181102, doi: 10.1103/ PhysRevLett.122.181102

    work page 2019

  7. [6]

    2014, Phys

    Aguilar, M., Aisa, D., Alpat, B., et al. 2014, Phys. Rev. Lett., 113, 221102, doi: 10.1103/ PhysRevLett.113.221102

    work page 2014

  8. [7]

    2015, Phys

    Aguilar, M., Aisa, D., Alpat, B., et al. 2015, Phys. Rev. Lett., 114, 171103, doi: 10.1103/ PhysRevLett.114.171103

    work page 2015

Show all 49 references
  1. [8]

    G., Barres de Almeida, U., et al

    Aharonian, F., Akhperjanian, A. G., Barres de Almeida, U., et al. 2008, Phys. Rev. Lett., 101, 261104, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.101.261104

    2008 doi

  2. [9]

    K., Lipari, P., & Stanev, T

    Ahn, E.-J., Engel, R., Gaisser, T. K., Lipari, P., & Stanev, T. 2009, Physical Review D, 80, doi: 10.1103/physrevd.80.094003

    2009 doi

  3. [10]

    M., Soedingrekso, J., Sandrock, A., Sackel, M., & Rhode, W

    Alameddine, J. M., Soedingrekso, J., Sandrock, A., Sackel, M., & Rhode, W. 2020, in Journal of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 1690, Journal of Physics Conference Series (IOP), 012021, doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/1690/1/012021

    2020 doi

  4. [11]

    2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 905, 76, doi: 10

    Albert, A., Alfaro, R., Alvarez, C., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 905, 76, doi: 10. 3847/1538-4357/abc2d8 17

    2020

  5. [12]

    2019, Science Advances, 5, eaax3793, doi: 10

    An, Q., Asfandiyarov, R., Azzarello, P., et al. 2019, Science Advances, 5, eaax3793, doi: 10. 1126/sciadv.aax3793

    2019

  6. [13]

    2008, Journal of Instrumentation, 3, S08003, doi: 10.1088/1748-0221/ 3/08/S08003

    ATLAS Collaboration. 2008, Journal of Instrumentation, 3, S08003, doi: 10.1088/1748-0221/ 3/08/S08003

    2008 doi

  7. [14]

    2016, The Pythia 8 A3 tune description of ATLAS minimum bias and inelastic measurements incorporating the Donnachie-Landshoff diffractive model, Tech

    ATLAS Collaboration. 2016, The Pythia 8 A3 tune description of ATLAS minimum bias and inelastic measurements incorporating the Donnachie-Landshoff diffractive model, Tech. rep., CERN, Geneva. https://cds.cern.ch/record/2206965

    2016

  8. [15]

    2015, Annals of Nuclear Energy, 82, 10, doi: 10

    Battistoni, G., Boehlen, T., Cerutti, F., et al. 2015, Annals of Nuclear Energy, 82, 10, doi: 10. 1016/j.anucene.2014.11.007

    2015

  9. [16]

    2007, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 466, 1219, doi: 10

    Berge, D., Funk, S., & Hinton, J. 2007, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 466, 1219, doi: 10. 1051/0004-6361:20066674

    2007

  10. [17]

    2022, A comprehensive guide to the physics and usage of PYTHIA 8.3

    Bierlich, C., Chakraborty, S., Desai, N., et al. 2022, A comprehensive guide to the physics and usage of PYTHIA 8.3. https://arxiv.org/abs/2203.11601

    2022 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Blair, R., et al. 1996

    1996

  12. [19]

    1999, Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics, 25, 1859, doi: 10.1088/0954-3899/25/9/308

    Bleicher, M., Zabrodin, E., Spieles, C., et al. 1999, Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics, 25, 1859, doi: 10.1088/0954-3899/25/9/308

    1999 doi

  13. [20]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 271, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acfd29

    Cao, Z., Aharonian, F., An, Q., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 271, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acfd29

    2024 doi

  14. [21]

    Chatrchyan, S. e. a. 2008, JINST, 3, S08004, doi: 10.1088/1748-0221/3/08/S08004

    2008 doi

  15. [22]

    H., & Aharonian, F

    Collaboration, T. H., & Aharonian, F. 2006, Observations of the Crab Nebula with H.E.S.S, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0607333

    2006 doi arXiv

  16. [23]

    2017, Nature (London), 552, 63, doi: 10

    DAMPE Collaboration, Ambrosi, G., An, Q., et al. 2017, Nature (London), 552, 63, doi: 10. 1038/nature24475

    2017

  17. [24]

    et al., K. A. 2003, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment, 499, 624, doi: https: //doi.org/10.1016/S0168-9002(02)01960-5

    2003 doi

  18. [25]

    2023, Tuning Pythia for Forward Physics Experiments

    Fieg, M., Kling, F., Schulz, H., & Sj¨ ostrand, T. 2023, Tuning Pythia for Forward Physics Experiments. https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.08604

    2023 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Goulianos, K., Gallinaro, M., Hatakeyama, K., et al. 2004, Nuclear Instruments and Meth- ods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment, 518, 42–44, doi: 10.1016/j.nima.2003.10.019 18

    2004 doi

  20. [27]

    H. E. S. S. Collaboration. 2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 167, doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-0910-0

    2020 doi

  21. [28]

    Heck, D., & et. al. 1998, CORSIKA: A Monte Carlo code to simulate extensive air showers

    1998

  22. [29]

    N., Schatz, G., & Thouw, T

    Heck, D., Knapp, J., Capdevielle, J. N., Schatz, G., & Thouw, T. 1998

    1998

  23. [30]

    2015, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1510.05675, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1510.05675

    Holder, J. 2015, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1510.05675, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1510.05675

    2015 doi arXiv

  24. [31]

    2022, CORSIKA 8 – the next-generation air shower simulation framework

    Huege, T. 2022, CORSIKA 8 – the next-generation air shower simulation framework. https: //arxiv.org/abs/2208.14240

    2022 arXiv

  25. [32]

    2023, PoS, ICRC2023, 703, doi: 10.22323/1

    Linhoff, M., Beiske, L., Biederbeck, N., et al. 2023, PoS, ICRC2023, 703, doi: 10.22323/1. 444.0703

    2023 doi

  26. [33]

    2007, Astroparticle Physics, 28, 72, doi: 10.1016/j.astropartphys

    Maier, G., & Knapp, J. 2007, Astroparticle Physics, 28, 72, doi: 10.1016/j.astropartphys. 2007.04.009

    2007 doi

  27. [34]

    2005, Astroparticle Physics, 22, 387, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j

    Matthews, J. 2005, Astroparticle Physics, 22, 387, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j. astropartphys.2004.09.003

    2005 doi

  28. [35]

    2024, Phys

    Navas, S., et al. 2024, Phys. Rev. D, 110, 030001, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.110.030001

    2024 doi

  29. [36]

    R., Hirayama, H., & Rogers, D

    Nelson, W. R., Hirayama, H., & Rogers, D. W. O. 1985

    1985

  30. [37]

    R., & Namito, Y

    Nelson, W. R., & Namito, Y. 1990, The EGS4 Code System: Solution of gamma-ray and electron transport problems (Japan: Nuclear Energy Data Center)

    1990

  31. [39]

    2011, Phys

    Ostapchenko, S. 2011, Phys. Rev. D, 83, 014018, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.83.014018

    2011 doi

  32. [40]

    Parsons, R. D. 2021, CORSIKA Toy IACT, https://github.com/ParsonsRD/CORSIKA_toy_ IACT

    2021

  33. [41]

    D., & Schmelling, M

    Pastor-Guti´ errez, A., Schoorlemmer, H., Parsons, R. D., & Schmelling, M. 2021, The European Physical Journal C, 81, 369, doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-021-09160-2

    2021 doi

  34. [42]

    M., Yatsenko, E., & Werner, K

    Pierog, T., Karpenko, I., Katzy, J. M., Yatsenko, E., & Werner, K. 2015, Physical Review C, 92, doi: 10.1103/physrevc.92.034906

    2015 doi

  35. [43]

    K., & Stanev, T

    Riehn, F., Engel, R., Fedynitch, A., Gaisser, T. K., & Stanev, T. 2020, Physical Review D, 102, doi: 10.1103/physrevd.102.063002

    2020 doi

  36. [44]

    2017, PoS, KMI2017, 031, doi: 10.22323/1.294.0031

    Sako, T. 2017, PoS, KMI2017, 031, doi: 10.22323/1.294.0031

    2017 doi

  37. [45]

    2018, Astroparticle Physics, 97, 1, doi: 10

    Sitarek, J., Sobczy´ nska, D., Szanecki, M., et al. 2018, Astroparticle Physics, 97, 1, doi: 10. 1016/j.astropartphys.2017.10.005

    2018

  38. [46]

    2021, Journal of Instrumentation, 16, P02010–P02010, doi: 10.1088/ 19 1748-0221/16/02/p02010

    The CMS Collaboration. 2021, Journal of Instrumentation, 16, P02010–P02010, doi: 10.1088/ 19 1748-0221/16/02/p02010

    2021

  39. [47]

    2015, International Journal of Modern Physics A, 30, 1530022, doi: 10.1142/s0217751x15300227

    The LHCb Collaboration. 2015, International Journal of Modern Physics A, 30, 1530022, doi: 10.1142/s0217751x15300227

    2015 doi

  40. [48]

    2021, Cosmic Ray Monte Carlo Package, CRMC, 1.8.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.4558706

    Ulrich, R., Pierog, T., & Baus, C. 2021, Cosmic Ray Monte Carlo Package, CRMC, 1.8.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.4558706

    2021 doi

  41. [49]

    telescope

    Weekes, T. C., Cawley, M. F., Fegan, D. J., et al. 1989, The Astrophysical Journal, 342, 379, doi: 10.1086/167599 Appendix A: IACT Simplified Model To investigate the gamma-ray likeness of proton induced air showers (simulated at ver- tical incidence) simulations were created ...

    1989 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.