SciPost Submission Page
Muons in showers with energy $E_{0} \geq$ 5 EeV and QGSjetII-04 and EPOS LHC models of hadronic interactions. Is there a muon deficit in the models?
by Stanislav Knurenko, Igor Petrov
This is not the latest submitted version.
This Submission thread is now published as
Submission summary
| Authors (as registered SciPost users): | Stanislav Knurenko |
| Submission information | |
|---|---|
| Preprint Link: | https://arxiv.org/abs/2208.00606v2 (pdf) |
| Date submitted: | 2022-09-07 03:15 |
| Submitted by: | Knurenko, Stanislav |
| Submitted to: | SciPost Physics Proceedings |
| Proceedings issue: | 21st International Symposium on Very High Energy Cosmic Ray Interactions (ISVHECRI2022) |
| Ontological classification | |
|---|---|
| Academic field: | Physics |
| Specialties: |
|
| Approaches: | Experimental, Observational |
Abstract
The paper presents data on the muon component with a threshold \(\varepsilon_{thr} \geq\) 1 GeV. Air showers were registered at the Yakutsk array during almost 50 years of continuous air shower observations. The characteristics of muons are compared with calculations of QGSjetII-04 and EPOS LHC models for a proton and an iron nucleus. There is a muon deficit in the models, at energies greater than 5 EeV. To make an agreement between experimental data and simulations on muons, further tuning of the models is required.
List of changes
Replaced Fig. 5 with updated one.
Updated Fig. 5. description.
Changed z-value description in section 2.3.
Corrected conclusion according to referee suggestions.
Added 2 additional bibliography, namely H. Dembinski et al. EPJ Web of Conf. 210 (2019) and J. Albrecht et al. Astrophys. Space. Sci. 367 (2022)
Corrected wording in some sentences
Corrected references
Minor corrections throughout the text
Current status:
Reports on this Submission
Report #1 by Anonymous (Referee 1) on 2022-9-13 (Invited Report)
- Cite as: Anonymous, Report on arXiv:2208.00606v2, delivered 2022-09-13, doi: 10.21468/SciPost.Report.5689
Report
I would like to thank the authors very much for considering my comments and suggestions. The manuscript clearly improved in clarity and content. However, I have some remaining remarks that should be considered before publication in SciPost proceedings.
While I highly appreciate the change of wording in the description of the discrepancies between models and data, in particular in Section 2.3 and the conclusions, it seems to me that the abstract needs some minor modifications as well since it still reports "There is a muon deficit in the models...". In fact, this is in contradiction with the new wording in the conclusions, "...we can't confirm a muon deficit.".
In this context, it may be worthwhile not only to discuss the trend of the z-values to be too high, i.e. a deficit in simulations, but also add some comments on the behavior below 10EeV where an opposite trend can be observed (which seems to be of similar size).
In addition, I only have a few very minor suggestions. Please feel free to ignore them if you disagree:
General: The figure labels are generally very small. The figures would improve from a larger font size.
p1: There is an ugly line break in "10^16-10^19 eV", i.e. the unit appears in the next line. Maybe this can be fixed.
p2: "Observation stations on array plane..." I believe this needs some rewording, e.g. "Observation stations within the detector array..." or similar.
p5: "Such behaviour of z-value..." I believe this sentence needs some re-wording, for example "The origin of such a behaviour of the z-value...".
p6: "Large statistics of showers with a good "history" made it possible..." I do not understand what "good history" means. Also, it does not sound very scientific. Thus, I recommend a re-wording or clarification here.
p6: "...up to energies (of) 10EeV there is no muon deficit." -> "...muon deficit in the models."