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 Submission thread is now published as
Submission summary
| Authors (as registered SciPost users): | Stanislav Knurenko · Igor Petrov |
| Submission information | |
|---|---|
| Preprint Link: | https://arxiv.org/abs/2208.00606v3 (pdf) |
| Date accepted: | 2023-06-22 |
| Date submitted: | 2022-11-29 03:30 |
| 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
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.
Fixed line break
p2: "Observation stations on array plane..." I believe this needs some rewording, e.g. "Observation stations within the detector array..." or similar.
Changed the wording
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...".
Changed the wording
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.
Changed to "good precision"
Published as SciPost Phys. Proc. 13, 032 (2023)