test of the sibyll 2.3 high-energy hadronic interaction ...€¦ · juan carlos...

Test of the SIBYLL 2.3 high-energy hadronic interaction model using the KASCADE-Grande

muon data

1Tests of SIBYLL 2.3 using KG data - J.C. Arteaga ISMD 2017, Tlaxcala, Mexico

Juan Carlos Arteaga-Velázquez*, D. Rivera for the KASCADE-Grande CollaborationInstituto de Física y Matemáticas, Universidad Michoacana, México

1. Introduction

2. Motivation

3. The KASCADE-Grande detector

4. Data & Simulations

5. Analysis

6. Results

7. Summary

Outline

Test of the SIBYLL 2.3 high-energy hadronic interaction model using the KASCADE-Grande

muon data

Juan Carlos Arteaga-Velázquez*, D. Rivera for the KASCADE-Grande CollaborationInstituto de Física y Matemáticas, Universidad Michoacana, México

2ISMD 2017, Tlaxcala, MexicoTests of SIBYLL 2.3 using KG data - J.C. Arteaga

30 - 20 km

Cosmic rays are produced in HE astrophysical sources (SNR’s, AGN’s, etc?).

Primaries with E > 1 PeV are detected at Earth through air shower (EAS) observation

EAS data is interpreted with hadronic models to study energy and composition

Introduction


Hadronic interaction models:1. Phenomenological models inspired in QCD.

3. Calibrated with accelerator data.

4. Extrapolated to high energies (HE’s) and forward region (pT ~ 0).

Soft physics (low Q2) is relevant for CR interactions

Model uncertainties produce uncertainties in predictions of EAS parameters

Introduction

T. Pierog,EPJ web of conferences 145, 18002 (2017) 0.1 % 0.02 % 99.88 %


T. Pierog,EPJ web of conferences 145, 18002 (2017)

Differences in EAS observables due to uncertainties in the models

Introduction


Composition and energy scale a r e a f f e c t e d b y m o d e l uncertainties

M. Bertaina et al., Pos(ICRC2015) 359

KASCADE Coll., Astrop. Phys. 24 (2005) 1.

All-particle spectrum

Dependence of relative abundances and spectrum of CR’s with hadronic interaction models:

Mass groups Mass groups

Imperative to check validity of hadronic models

KASCADE-Grande experiment

Introduction


Proton @ 1015 eV, Corsika simulation, F. Schmidt & J. Knapp

Employ muons for tests:

- Penetrating particles/less atmospheric attenuation.

- Sensitive to hadronic processes.

- Used in composition studies.

Use CR observatories to constrain/test models:

- KASCADE-Grande

- Pierre Auger

- EAS-MSU

ECR = 1015 - 1018 eV Ethμ = 230 MeV, 490 MeV, 800 MeV, 2.4 GeV

ECR = 1015 - 1017 eV Ethμ = 0.2 GeV

ECR > 1018 eV Ethμ = 1 GeV

ECR = 1017 - 1018 eV Ethμ = 10 GeV

- ICECUBE/ICETOP

- Keep information from early stage of EAS development.

Introduction


Proton @ 1015 eV, Corsika simulation, F. Schmidt & J. Knapp

Muon measurements:

Use CR observatories to constrain/test models:

- KASCADE-Grande

- Pierre Auger

- EAS-MSU

ECR = 1015 - 1018 eV Ethμ = 230 MeV, 490 MeV, 800 MeV, 2.4 GeV

ECR = 1015 - 1017 eV Ethμ = 0.2 GeV

ECR > 1018 eV Ethμ = 1 GeV

ECR = 1017 - 1018 eV Ethμ = 10 GeV

- ICECUBE/ICETOP

Introduction

- Energy spectrum

- µ-/µ+Charge ratio

- Multiplicity

- Zenith angle dependence

- Lateral distributions

- Production height

- Pseudorapidites


KASCADE-Grande EAS muon data

Muon Eth > 230 MeV x Secθ

Muon attenuation length (Λµ):

1. Parameterizes dependence of number of μ’s in EAS with the atmospheric depth:

2. Correct data for attenuation in the atmosphere.

3. Affected by details of shower production:- π energy spectrum,

cross section, pT distribution,

- π±/π0 ratios,

- Baryon/resonance production,

- Multiplicity <N>

- Inelasticity (y), etc.

Motivation


Nμ = Nμo e-(X/Λμ)

5 5.5 6 6.5 7

)2 (g

/cm

µΛ400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600 )° - 40° = 0θKG data (

QGSJET II-2 EPOS LHCSIBYLL 2.1QGSJET II-04

Measured muon attenuation length (ECR ~ 1016 - 1017 eV) is above MC predictions from:

J.C. Arteaga et al., Astropar. Phys. 95 (2017) 25

KASCADE-Grande EAS muon data

Does SIBYLL 2.3* perform better?

Pre-LHC models (~ 2 σ):- SIBYLL 2.1 - QGSJET-II-02

Post-LHC models (~ 1.34 σ to 1.48 σ):- EPOS-LHC - QGSJET-II-04

Better agreement with post-LHC models.

Motivation

*F. Riehn et al., PoS(ICRC2015) 558

[ ] Total unc. — Stat. unc.


Less effective attenuation in exp. data

Muon attenuation length (Λµ):

Data

-Spectrum -Composition -Arrival direction

knee

2nd knee

γ = -2.7γ -3.0

γ ~ -3.3

γ = -2.6

J(E) = E-γ

The KASCADE-Grande detector


Data

-Spectrum -Composition -Arrival direction

knee

2nd knee

γ = -2.7γ -3.0

γ ~ -3.3

γ = -2.6

J(E) = E-γ1. What is the origin of the features in the spectrum?

2. Where do they come from?

3. What is their nature?

4. How do they get accelerated?

5. Are there nearby sources?

6. Where is the galactic t o e x t r a g a l a c t i c transition?



1. Location: KIT-Campus North, Karlsruhe, Germany

December 2003 - November 2012

Karlsruhe, Germany110 m a.s.l., 49o N, 8o E



Grande array KASCADE array

W.D. Apel et al., NIMA 620 (2010) 490

37 plastic scintillator detectors

137 m

E= 1 PeV - 1018 eVKASCADE (200 x 200 m2) + Grande (0.5 km2)

252 shielded/unshielded scintillator detectors, muon tunnel, calorimeter.



KASCADE array

W.D. Apel et al., NIMA 620 (2010) 490

Scintillator detectors

• Charged particles (> 3 MeV)

H. Falcke et al., Nature 435 (2005) 313

• Ne (> 5 MeV) and Nµ (> 230 MeV)

e/γ detector

µ detectorPb/Fe shielding

liquid scintillator

plastic scint.

Grande array

KASCADE (200 x 200 m2) + Grande (0.5 km2) E= 1 PeV - 1018 eVThe KASCADE-Grande detector


1. Grande provides Nch: Number of charged particles

2. KASCADE provides Nµ : Number of muons

ρµ(r) = Nµ ⋅ fµLagutin(r)Fit to data:

Fit to data:ρch(r) = Nch ⋅ fchNKG(s, r)


16Tests of SIBYLL 2.3 using KG data - J.C. Arteaga


Unfolding methods capable of reconstructing spectra of elemental groups:

- Knee at E~1015 eV due to a break in the spectrum of light components

- Spectral features independent of the hadronic interaction models

- Iron knee around 80 PeV

Exploit Ne-Nµ correlation Exploit Nch-Nµ correlation

Knee positions ∝ Z

QGSJET-II-02/FlukaKASCADE Coll., Astropart.

Phys. 24 (2005) 1

KASCADE'Grande.Coll.,.Astropart..Phys..47.(2013)


KASCADE Coll., Astrop. Phys. 36 (2012) 183

- Knee structure around 80 PeV in the heavy component

- Ankle-like feature at 120 PeV in the light component

Heavy

Light

Galactic-extragalactic transition?

2nd knee

2nd knee

QGSJET-II-02



1. Effective time: 1434 days

2. Área: 8 x 104 m2

3. Exposure: 2.6 x 1012 m2 s sr

4. Cuts (reduction of EAS uncertainties): - Central area - θ < 40o - Instrumental & reconstruction cuts - Optimized for E = [1016, 1017] eV

Experimental data

Data & simulations

2 744 950 selected events

Efficiency: log10 (E/GeV) = 7 ± 0.20 log10 (Nμ) = 5 ± 0.20

ISMD 2017, Tlaxcala, MexicoTests of SIBYLL 2.3 using KG data - J.C. Arteaga 19

1. HE hadronic interaction Model:

2. Simulation: H, He, C, Si, Fe, mixed;

3. Systematics: - ΔΝch < 12% ΔΝμ < 20% - Δθ < 0.6o - σcore < 10 m

Νμ data corrected for systematic errors

MC data (CORSIKA/Fluka)

SIBYLL 2.3

γ = -3, -3.2, -2.8

ΔΝμcorrected < 10%

Data & simulations


θ < 42o

E = 1014 - 3 x 1018 eV

)θsec(1 1.05 1.1 1.15 1.2 1.25 1.3

)µ

(N10

log

5.15

5.2

5.25

5.3

5.35

5.4

5.45 MC data (Mixed)X 0

X0 sec(θ)

E E

Nμ(θ)Nμ(0)

θ

Ε ~1016 eV

SIBYLL 2.3

Shower content at same Energy (E) is attenuated with atmospheric depth (X):Large X —> High zenith angles (θ)


Analysis

)θsec(1 1.05 1.1 1.15 1.2 1.25 1.3

)µ

(N10

log

5.15

5.2

5.25

5.3

5.35

5.4

5.45 MC data (Mixed)X 0

X0 sec(θ)

J(E) J(E)

J[Nμ(θ)]

J[Nμ(0)]

θ

Ε ~1016 eV

SIBYLL 2.3

J = constant

Constant intensity cut method100 % detector efficiency + Isotropy —> J[Nμ(0)] = J[Nμ(θ)]

- Constant Intensity Cut method: Quantify zenith-angle evolution of data.

- Method is independent of MC model.


Analysis

Data divided in five θ intervals with equal exposure.

)µ

(N10

log5 5.5 6 6.5 7

)-1

sr

-1 s

-2) (

mµ

J(>N

-1310

-1210

-1110

-1010

-910

-810 KG data

o < 16.71θ ≤ o0.00o < 23.99θ ≤ o16.71o < 29.86θ ≤ o23.99o < 35.09θ ≤ o29.86o < 40.00θ ≤ o35.09

)θsec(1 1.05 1.1 1.15 1.2 1.25 1.3)µ

(N10

log

4.8

5

5.2

5.4

5.6

5.8

6

6.2

6.4

[J] = -9.8010

log

[J] = -8.6010

log

KG Data

1. Apply cuts at fixed frequencies 2. Get attenuation curves

3. Apply a fit to get Λμ


Analysis

J.C. Arteaga et al., Astropar. Phys. 95 (2017) 25

Results

ΔΛμ QGSJET-II-2 QGSJET-II-4 SIBYLL 2.1 SIBYLL 2.3 EPOS-LHC

σ +2.04 +1.48 +1.99 +1.06 +1.34

5 5.5 6 6.5 7

)2 (g

/cm

µΛ

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600 )° - 40° = 0θKG data (

QGSJET II-2 SIBYLL 2.3SIBYLL 2.1QGSJET II-04 EPOS LHC

MC data also include: - Errors from composition - Unc. from spectral index of CR

intensity


*Errors on SIBYLL 2.3 are preliminary

Discrepancy between SIBYLL 2.3 and measurement is small, but large uncertainty from composition


MC data points: Mixed composition

Results

Reduce error due to composition uncertainties:

- Χ2 fit to measured data with 4 mass groups: H, He, C, Si+Fe (50 % mixture).

- Use double power-law for energy spectrum of each mass group.

- Employ templates from SIBYLL 2.3 for each mass group.

)µ

(N10

log4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5

)ch

(N10

)/log

µ(N

10lo

g

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

1.1

1.2

Events

1

10

210

310

410

510

KG data° - 40° = 0θ

12.392 million events

A: atomic mass

J.C. Arteaga et al., (KG Collab.) PoS (ICRC2017) 316


Full data

Energy (eV/particle)1610 1710 1810

)1.

5 e

V-1

sr

-1 s

ec-2

J(E

) (m

2.5

dI/d

E x

E

1410

1510

1610

1710

1810

1910

KG (SIBYLL 2.3)HHe+CHeavy

Akeno (J.Phys.G18(1992)423)

AGASA (ICRC 2003)

HiResI (PRL100(2008)101101)

HiResII (PRL100(2008)101101)

Yakutsk (NewJ.Phys11(2008)065008)

AUGER (ICRC 2013)

EAS-TOP (Astrop.Phys.10(1999)1)

TIBET-III (ApJ678(2008)1165)

GAMMA (J.Phys.G35(2008)115201)

TUNKA (Nucl.Phys.B,Proc.Sup.165(2007)74)

KASCADE (QGSJET01 Astrop.Phys.24(2005)1)

KASCADE (SIBYLL2.1 Astrop.Phys.24(2005)1)

µKASCADE-Grande (QGSJET II) Nch-N

µKASCADE-Grande (EPOS-LHC) Nch-N

KG (SIBYLL 2.3)

Results

Composition model obtained from measured data using SIBYLL 2.3

J.C. Arteaga et al., (KG Collab.) PoS (ICRC2017) 316


5 5.5 6 6.5 7

)2 (g

/cm

µΛ

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600 )° - 40° = 0θKG data (

QGSJET II-2 SIBYLL 2.3SIBYLL 2.1QGSJET II-04 EPOS LHC

Results

ΔΛμ QGSJET-II-2 QGSJET-II-4 SIBYLL 2.1 SIBYLL 2.3 SIBYLL 2.3 EPOS-LHC

Composition model

σ +2.04 +1.48 +1.99 + 1.06 + 1.52 +1.34


*Errors on SIBYLL 2.3 are preliminary

SIBYLL 2.3 has also problems to describe the data


Results


J.C. Arteaga & D. Rivera et al., (KG Collab.) PoS (ICRC2017) 316

Muon lateral densities]

-2(r)

[mµρ

1−10

1

10

protonsFeKG data

Sibyll 2.3 ]o,16o [0∈ θ

[6.55,6.8]∈ chN10

log

r [m]200 400

]-2

(r) [m

µρ

1−10

1

10 ]o,35o [30∈ θ

[7.04,7.28]∈ chN10

log

r [m]200 400

[7.52,7.74]∈ chN10

log

r [m]200 400

Energy

Zenith

chN10

log6 7

µN10

log

4.5

5

5.5

6

6.5

7

protonsFeKG data

Sibyll 2.3 ]o,16o [0∈ θ

chN10

log6 7

]o,30o [24∈ θ

chN10

log6 7

]o,40o [35∈ θ

Results


Nµ - Νch correlation

Zenith

J.C. Arteaga & D. Rivera et al., (KG Collab.) PoS (ICRC2017) 316

1. The measured Λµ at KASCADE-Grande is above predictions of HE hadronic interaction models: QGSJET-II-02, QGSJET-II-04, EPOS-LHC and SIBYLL 2.3.

2. Post-LHC models predict a Λµ value higher than that predicted by Pre-LHC models.

3. The models might need:

- a harder μ energy spectrum,

- a decrease of elasticity in pion interactions,

- a reduction of forward production of baryon/antibaryon pairs, etc.,

to agree with the data.

Summary


Thank you!

test of the sibyll 2.3 high-energy hadronic interaction ...€¦ · juan carlos...

Documents