SciPost Submission Page
Results from recent analysis of KASCADE-Grande data
by D. Kang, J. C. Arteaga-Velázquez, M. Bertaina, A. Chiavassa, K. Daumiller, V. de Souza, R. Engel, A. Gherghel-Lascu, C. Grupen, A. Haungs, J. R. Hörandel, T. Huege, K. -H. Kampert, K. Link, H. J. Mathes, S. Ostapchenko, T. Pierog, D. Rivera-Rangel, M. Roth, H. Schieler, F. G. Schröder, O. Sima, A. Weindl, J. Wochele, J. Zabierowski
This is not the latest submitted version.
This Submission thread is now published as
Submission summary
| Authors (as registered SciPost users): | Donghwa Kang |
| Submission information | |
|---|---|
| Preprint Link: | https://arxiv.org/abs/2208.10229v2 (pdf) |
| Date submitted: | 2022-08-29 15:54 |
| Submitted by: | Kang, Donghwa |
| Submitted to: | SciPost Physics Proceedings |
| Proceedings issue: | 21st International Symposium on Very High Energy Cosmic Ray Interactions (ISVHECRI2022) |
| Ontological classification | |
|---|---|
| Academic field: | Physics |
| Specialties: |
|
Abstract
KASCADE and its extension array of KASCADE-Grande were devoted to measure individual air showers of cosmic rays in the primary energy range of 100 TeV to 1 EeV. The experiment has substantially contributed to investigate the energy spectrum and mass composition of cosmic rays in the transition region from galactic to extragalactic origin of cosmic rays as well as to quantify the characteristics of hadronic interaction models in the air shower development through validity tests using the multi-detector information from KASCADE-Grande. Although the data accumulation was completed in 2013, data analysis is still continuing. Recently, we investigated the reliability of the new hadronic interactions models of the SIBYLL version 2.3d with the data from KASCADE-Grande. The evolution of the muon content of high energy air showers in the atmosphere is studied as well. In this talk, recent results from KASCADE-Grande and the update of the KASCADE Cosmic Ray Data Centre (KCDC) will be discussed.
Current status:
Reports on this Submission
Report #1 by Anonymous (Referee 2) on 2022-12-27 (Invited Report)
- Cite as: Anonymous, Report on arXiv:2208.10229v2, delivered 2022-12-27, doi: 10.21468/SciPost.Report.6395
Report
The paper describes the KASCADE-GRANDE data analysis of cosmic ray spectrum by classifying showers as electron-poor and rich to represent heavy and light primary groups. It compares with both pre and post-LHC hadronic interaction models. The muon content in the data was also compared with different post-LHC hadronic models. The prediction of the models on the muons have significant discrepancy with the data.
The paper is reasonably well written and easy to follow. Although the the abstract says that the paper investigates the new hadronic interaction model Sibyll 2.3d, but in figure 6, I didn't find any comparison of this model. At least some explanation should have been there why it is not given.
Nevertheless, there is an adequate content for the paper to be published in this journal after taking care of the suggested changes.
Requested changes
1. Page 3, last para: A remarkable feature is that the concave structure at about 10^16 eV …. Since the first data point starts at about 10^16 eV, it is not clear which feature the authors are referring to?
2. Page 4, para 2: As far I know, SIBYLL 2.1 is a pre-LHC model not post-LHC. Please clarify.
3. The authors mention that the all the features of earlier analysis are confirmed. In fig 3, I would be good if the earlier results of KASCADE-GRANDE are plotted here.
3. Pag 5, Muon content: several experiments exhibited discrepancy…….Please provide a few references for muon puzzle problem.
4. Page 5, Muon attenuation length: How the muon attenuation length was obtained in simulation for different hadronic interaction models has not been described. At least some references should be provided.
5. In Figure 4, no comparison with Sibyll 2.3 or Sibyll 2.3c or Sibyll 2.3d? Please clarify.
6. In Fig 6: No Sibyll 2.3d comparison in this plot? Please clarify.
Author: Donghwa Kang on 2023-01-10 [id 3224]
(in reply to Report 1 on 2022-12-27)Dear Reviewer:
We appreciate your review and comments. We have updated the revised version on the arXiv.
With respect to the comment on the new interaction model of Sibyll 2.3d, we investigated the new model Sibyll 2.3d only with the energy spectra of heavy and light mass groups. Since studies of the muon content with Sibyll 2.3d is still ongoing, the results of muon studies in hand is presented in this paper. We modified the abstract to clarify it.
Please find below our response to each of your comments.
Requested changes 1. Page 3, last para: A remarkable feature is that the concave structure at about 10^16 eV …. Since the first data point starts at about 10^16 eV, it is not clear which feature the authors are referring to? => The concave behavior just above 10^16 eV (the first two points in the spectrum) is not described by a single power law. This hardening of the spectrum is validated by several cross-checks. In addition, a hardening of the spectrum is expected when a pure rigidity dependence of the galactic cosmic rays is assumed. The gap in the knee positions of light primaries and the heavy group can lead to a hardening of the spectrum. A detailed discussion on this structure can be found in Ref. [W.D. Apel et al., KASCADE-Grande collaboration, Astrop. Phys. 36 (2012) 183]. We added this reference to the manuscript.
Page 4, para 2: As far I know, SIBYLL 2.1 is a pre-LHC model not post-LHC. Please clarify. => We clarified.
The authors mention that the all the features of earlier analysis are confirmed. In fig 3, I would be good if the earlier results of KASCADE-GRANDE are plotted here. => In Fig. 3, the earlier results are already plotted, which are the spectra based on QGSjet-II-04, EPOS-LHC, SIBYLL 2.1, and SIBYLL 2.3 models.
Pag 5, Muon content: several experiments exhibited discrepancy…….Please provide a few references for muon puzzle problem. => We provided the reference.
Page 5, Muon attenuation length: How the muon attenuation length was obtained in simulation for different hadronic interaction models has not been described. At least some references should be provided. => We added the reference.
In Figure 4, no comparison with Sibyll 2.3 or Sibyll 2.3c or Sibyll 2.3d? Please clarify. => This result is an earlier work. At that time, the versions Sibyll 2.3, 2.3c, and 2.3d of the interaction model were not available. An update of this result is under consideration.
In Fig 6: No Sibyll 2.3d comparison in this plot? Please clarify. => As mentioned above, studies of the muon content with the new interaction model Sibyll 2.3d is under investigation. In Page 7, we added the sentence “In addition, studies of the muon content of extensive air showers with the new hadronic model SIBYLL 2.3d are under investigation”.
Attachment:
ISVHECRI22_Proc_DKang_Marked_Revision.pdf