SciPost Submission Page
Hadronic Interactions in CRPropa with state-of-the-art generators
by Leonel Morejon
Submission summary
| Authors (as registered SciPost users): | Leonel Morejon |
| Submission information | |
|---|---|
| Preprint Link: | scipost_202412_00001v1 (pdf) |
| Date submitted: | 2024-12-01 12:52 |
| Submitted by: | Morejon, Leonel |
| Submitted to: | SciPost Physics Proceedings |
| Proceedings issue: | 22nd International Symposium on Very High Energy Cosmic Ray Interactions (ISVHECRI 2024) |
| Ontological classification | |
|---|---|
| Academic field: | Physics |
| Specialties: |
|
| Approach: | Computational |
Abstract
CRPropa 3.2, released recently, is the latest update in a continued effort to maintain and extend this open-source code well known in the cosmic-ray community. Originally aimed at simulating the ballistic propagation and interactions of Ultra-High Energy Cosmic Rays (UHECRs), today it can handle diffusive propagation of cosmic rays in a variety of magnetic fields, model stochastic cosmic ray acceleration, simulate electromagnetic cascades for gamma ray emission and transport, and provides other capabilities. Of special interest is the recent introduction of a hadronic module to facilitate the treatment of cosmic ray interactions in the galaxy and within the sources. This work details the recent updates on this module in the context of bursting sources of UHECRs.
Current status:
Reports on this Submission
Strengths
- Concise and informative about a recent development for a major astroparticle simulation tool.
Weaknesses
- Some details of the results (figures) could be discussed in more depth
Report
Report:
The contribution explains how hadronic (or rather nuclear?) interaction models have been implemented in the recent CRPropa update.
Remark: HIG hadronic interaction generators —> hadronic event generators
Question/concern about Fig. 5: How can the injection of nitrogen up to 100 EeV produce protons in the uppermost energy bin, or Helium nuclei? Helium secondaries can maximally reach < 30 EeV or a bit more with Fermi motion.
Figures 4 and 5: Is it a coincidence that all secondary elements have more or less the same distribution and weight or a coincidence? Highlight the response to these questions in the caption.
About Figure 6: The difference is somewhat expected since a QGSJet-II 04 result is compared with a fit to QGSJet-01. This is unrelated to the method, and the text should be slightly rephrased to reflect this fact. Or, if the comparisons of both methods are the main topic, then QGSJet-01 is also available in Chromo, and the figure could be redone with it if this is feasible.
Requested changes
See report
Recommendation
Ask for minor revision