EAS Simulations

Hadronic Int. and EAS

CR results

Muons

Recent results from Auger and KASCADE-Grande,
and introduction to the CORSIKA air shower
simulation code
Tanguy Pierog
Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Institut für Kernphysik,
Karlsruhe, Germany

ICRR, Tokyo, Japan
September the 16th 2015
ICRR – Tokyo – September 2015

T. Pierog, KIT - 1/59

EAS Simulations

Hadronic Int. and EAS

CR results

Muons

OutlineModernModern simulation
simulation tools
tools constrained
constrained by
by LHC
LHC datadataallowedallowed aa big
big step
step forward
forward inin thethe interpretationinterpretation ofofchargedcharged cosmic
cosmic ray
ray (CR)(CR) data
data towards
towards anan unexpected
unexpected
mixed
mixed composition
composition ofof extra-galactic
extra-galactic cosmic
cosmic rays.
rays.
Extensive Air Shower (EAS) simulations
CORSIKA
CONEX

Hadronic Interactions and EAS
Latest results from KASCADE-Grande andPierre Auger Observatory
new CR interpretations

Muons in EAS
open problems

ICRR – Tokyo – September 2015

T. Pierog, KIT - 2/59

EAS Simulations

Hadronic Int. and EAS

CR results

Muons

Preamble
Goal of Astroparticle Physics :Cosmic Ray (CR)How to test hadronic interactions ?

SourceAcceleration

Extensive
Air Shower(EAS)

Detection

astronomy with high energy particles
source study
if the source mechanism is wellunderstood we could have a known beam
at ultra-high energy (1010 GeV and more)unlikely situation
reasonable minimum limits from CR
abundance :low = hydrogen (proton)high = iron (A=56)
test of hadronic interactions in EAS via
correlations between observables.

mass
mass measurements
measurements should
should bebeconsistentconsistent andand between
between proton
proton andand ironironsimulated
simulated showers
showers !!

From R. Ulrich (KIT)ICRR – Tokyo – September 2015

T. Pierog, KIT - 3/59

EAS Simulations

Hadronic Int. and EAS

CR results

Muons

Extensive Air Shower
hadronic physics
initial  from 0 decay

well known
QED

Cascade of particle in Earth's atmosphere

From R. Ulrich (KIT)ICRR – Tokyo – September 2015

Number of particles at maximum
99,88% of electromagnetic (EM) particles
0.1% of muons
0.02% hadrons
Energyfrom 100% hadronic to 90% in EM + 10% in
muons at ground (vertical)
T. Pierog, KIT - 4/59

EAS Simulations

Hadronic Int. and EAS

CR results

Muons

Air Shower Simulations
Air shower simulations, 2 main methods
Full MC simulations: CORSIKA

realistic
flexible
fluctuations
slow
Cascade Equations

fastmean behavior
no fluctuations
limited to analytic formula ?

Mix of both: CONEX hybrid simulations

ICRR – Tokyo – September 2015

T. Pierog, KIT - 5/59

EAS Simulations

Hadronic Int. and EAS

CR results

Muons

CORSIKA

Monte carlo simulations of EAS
Reminder :COsmic Ray SImulations for KASCADE
1989 : original design optimized for vertical showers on a flat array
detector using monte-carlo technique
1994< : extension to different type of experiments
Cherenkov, fluorescence light, inclined showers, ...
2010< : extension to new type of simulations
cascade equations, parallelization, different media …
About 1000 users from 50 different countries for about 60 experiments !

ICRR – Tokyo – September 2015

T. Pierog, KIT - 6/59

EAS Simulations

Hadronic Int. and EAS

CR results

Muons

Monte Carlo Simulations of EAS
Random Numbers
Environment:
atmosphere (composition,
density e−h/c)
Earth magnetic field (strength,orientation)

Particles:
type, energy, position,
direction, time

Range estimation:
cross section σlife time τ

ICRR – Tokyo – September 2015

Particle transport:
ionization energy loss dE/dx
multiple scattering (for leptons and muons)deflection in Earth magnetic fieldparticle reaches detector or cut

Interaction / decay withproduction of secondaries:
high-energy hadronic interaction model
low-energy hadronic interaction model
particle decay (branching ratio > 1 %)electromagnetic interaction (EGS4)

Secondary particles:
store particles on stack

T. Pierog, KIT - 7/59

EAS Simulations

Hadronic Int. and EAS

CR results

Muons

Limitations of Air Shower Simulations
Analysis based on air shower simulations affected by 2 main
problems :limited statistic due to :Large CPU time

Large disk space

problems with fluctuations created by thinning
uncertainties due to hadronic interactions

ICRR – Tokyo – September 2015

T. Pierog, KIT - 8/59

EAS Simulations

Hadronic Int. and EAS

CR results

Muons

Parallelization of CORSIKA with MPI
input

ry
a
m
Pri

tic
r
a
p

le

MPI
MPI Master
MasterReproducibility of the shower : results
independent of the number of jobs.

Hig
h

en
erg
y

se
c

on
da
rie
s

CORSIKACORSIKACORSIKACORSIKACORSIKACORSIKACORSIKACORSIKACORSIKACORSIKA

Low energy secondaries down to observation level
ICRR – Tokyo – September 2015

T. Pierog, KIT - 9/59

EAS Simulations

Hadronic Int. and EAS

CR results

Muons

Parallelization of CORSIKA
Each shower is simulated on a large number of CPU
Simulation time reduction limited by the number of machines
Disk space problem solved by saving particles in detectors only
possible only if simulation time is shortsolution at high energy : unthinned simulations for each real
eventsParallel version tested on HP XC3000 (2.53 GHz CPUs, InfiniBand 4X QDR)ICRR – Tokyo – September 2015

T. Pierog, KIT - 10/59

EAS Simulations

Hadronic Int. and EAS

CR results

Muons

New Developments
Parallel option already available
simulation shower-by-shower (high energy)system dependent, please contact us in case of problem

On-going developments
data merging to limit the number of final files
automatic multi-shower management

mix low/high energy by user : master job decideif a shower should be treated on a single nodeor manyhigh statistic of low and high energy unthinned
showers from a single job on giant CPU clusters(billions of CPU hours available)

Project
Use of GPU for Cerenkov photon calculation

ICRR – Tokyo – September 2015

T. Pierog, KIT - 11/59

EAS Simulations

Hadronic Int. and EAS

CR results

Muons

Cascade Equations
Can be CE as flexible than MC ?
electron cascade equations: analytical solution for each X step
production termsEd e  E = − e e  E   ∫E  e e  E  P e  e  E , E  d E
dX
0

E0

interaction term ∫E     E  P   e  E , E  d E − ∂ e  E ∂E

ionization loss term

analytical solution needs simplified distributions
no analytical function for hadronic production
numerical solution more flexible

E

X

ICRR – Tokyo – September 2015

T. Pierog, KIT - 12/59

EAS Simulations

Hadronic Int. and EAS

CR results

Muons

Cascade Equations
Can be CE as flexible than MC ?
electron cascade equations: analytical solution for each X stepEd e  E = − e e  E   ∫E  e e  E  P e  e  E , E  d E
dX
0

E0

 ∫E     E  P   e  E , E  d E − ∂ e  E ∂Eanalytical solution needs simplified distributions
no analytical function for hadronic production
numerical solution more flexible

E

X

ICRR – Tokyo – September 2015

T. Pierog, KIT - 13/59

EAS Simulations

Hadronic Int. and EAS

CR results

Muons

Cascade Equations
Can be CE as flexible than MC ?
electron cascade equations: analytical solution for each X stepEd e  E = − e e  E   ∫E  e e  E  P e  e  E , E  d E
dX
0

E0

 ∫E     E  P   e  E , E  d E − ∂ e  E ∂Eanalytical solution needs simplified distributions
no analytical function for hadronic production
numerical solution more flexible

E

X

ICRR – Tokyo – September 2015

T. Pierog, KIT - 14/59

EAS Simulations

Hadronic Int. and EAS

CR results

Muons

Cascade Equations
Can be CE as flexible than MC ?
electron cascade equations: analytical solution for each X stepEd e  E = − e e  E   ∫E  e e  E  P e  e  E , E  d E
dX
0

E0

 ∫E     E  P   e  E , E  d E − ∂ e  E ∂Eanalytical solution needs simplified distributions
no analytical function for hadronic production
numerical solution more flexible

E

X

ICRR – Tokyo – September 2015

T. Pierog, KIT - 15/59

EAS Simulations

Hadronic Int. and EAS

CR results

Muons

Hybrid Calculation
Numerical solution of cascade equations
same cross-section, atmosphere, models for CE and MC

mixing possible : hybrid simulation
CE replace MC when number of particles is large (E<Ethr)

save lot of time
keep fluctuations
realistic 1D simulations (longitudinal profiles)
MC fill the source
function of the CE
Ethr

E

X

ICRR – Tokyo – September 2015

T. Pierog, KIT - 16/59

EAS Simulations

Hadronic Int. and EAS

CR results

Muons

CONEX v4.37 in CORSIKA v7.4
CONEX as an option in CORSIKA
Hybrid 3D simulation (other model: SENECA by H.J. Drescher)same seed = same shower (1D (fast) or 3D (slow))
CORSIKA running script and installation
CORSIKA input
one more line in steering file for CONEX parameters
CORSIKA output
no new interface (MC compatible with COAST)CORSIKA low energy hadronic interactions models
CONEX high energy hadronic interaction models
EPOS LHC, QGSJET01, QGSJETII-04, SIBYLL 2.1

CONEX
CONEX (cascade(cascade equations
equations (CE))(CE)) used
used asas aa newnew type
type ofof
thinning
thinning inin CORSIKA
CORSIKA :: transparent
transparent forfor users
users !!
ICRR – Tokyo – September 2015

T. Pierog, KIT - 17/59

EAS Simulations

Hadronic Int. and EAS

CR results

Muons

CORSIKA with CONEXCORSIKA

CONEX
primary particle

input
input

E<

stack
stack

Wmax

MC(3D)
MC(3D)DAT fileMC(3D)
MC(3D)E low

E < Ethr

Sampling

E < Elow
X > Zlow

CE(1D)
CE(1D)

Parameters :Ethr : MC → CE

(ha,μ,e/m)

Elow : CE → MC

(ha,μ,e/m)

Wmax : weight CE → MC
hbook

COAST

Zlow : minimum slant depth to groundfor CE → MCICRR – Tokyo – September 2015

(ha,μ,e/m)(only e/m)
T. Pierog, KIT - 18/59

EAS Simulations

Hadronic Int. and EAS

CR results

Muons

ExampleQGSJET01/GHEISHA Iron shower 1019 eV

MC : 49h (max weight = 1000(em)/100(had))Hyb : 10h (max weight = 1000(em)/100(had))
1 shower (same seed) : Xmax=670(MC) / 673(Hyb) g/cm2

ICRR – Tokyo – September 2015

T. Pierog, KIT - 19/59

EAS Simulations

Hadronic Int. and EAS

CR results

Muons

Cascade Equations vs Thinning
Both save computation time by reducing the number of particles :a weight is introduced
thinning : randomly selected particle carry the weight of all particles produced at thesame time to conserve energy
large spread of weight = large artificial fluctuations !
E0

E1

E2

E0

E3

E4

E2

W2

E0
W 2=
E2

cascade equations : same weight for all particles sampled from the cascade
equations :unique weight = no artificial fluctuations !
less fluctuations = larger weight can be usedWW
larger weight = less particles
W W E4E1 E2 E
less particles = less time3

More
More time
time saved
saved with
with cascadecascade equations
equations andand less
less artificial
artificial fluctuations
fluctuations !!
ICRR – Tokyo – September 2015

T. Pierog, KIT - 20/59

EAS Simulations

Hadronic Int. and EAS

CR results

Muons

PropertiesCORSIKA replace part of the CE
First interactions in CONEX independent from Elow
Event-by-event simulations using first 1D only and then 3D with exactly thesame shower (top-down reconstruction :Golden Hybrid, radio)

CE replace part of the thinning in CORSIKA
No thinned high energy gammas (stay in CE)

No muons from EM particles with very large weight
Very narrow weight distributions : less artificial fluctuations
No thinning for very inclined shower
Only muons and corresponding EM sub-showers in MC

CONEX and CORSIKA are independent
Different media might be used

Mean showers can be simulated directly (no high energy MC)
Not tested for Cherenkov photons yet …
Parallel+CONEX not yet possible ...
ICRR – Tokyo – September 2015

T. Pierog, KIT - 21/59

EAS Simulations

Hadronic Int. and EAS

CR results

Muons

Extensive Air Shower Observables
Longitudinal Development
number of particles vsdepth

X = h dz (z)Larger number of particles
at Xmax
Xmax

For many showers
mean : <Xmax>
fluctuations : RMS Xmax

Lateral distribution function (LDF)
particle density at ground vs distance to theimpact point (core)can be muons or electrons/gammas or a
mixture of all.
ICRR – Tokyo – September 2015

T. Pierog, KIT - 22/59

EAS Simulations

Hadronic Int. and EAS

CR results

Muons

Sensitivity to Hadronic Interactions
Air shower development
dominated by few parameters

fixed primary pmass and energy of CR
cross-sections (p-Air and (π-K)-Air)(in)elasticity
multiplicity
charge ratio and baryon production

fixed primary p

Change of primary = change of
hadronic interaction parameters

From R. Ulrich (KIT)

cross-section, elasticity, mult. ...

ICRR – Tokyo – September 2015

With
With unknown
unknown mass
mass composition
composition
hadronic
hadronic interactions
interactions cancan only
only bebetestedtested using
using various
various observables
observables
which
which should
should give
give consistentconsistentmass
mass results
results
T. Pierog, KIT - 23/59

EAS Simulations

Hadronic Int. and EAS

CR results

Muons

Hadronic Interaction Models in CORSIKA(HDPM)SIBYLL 2.1 (QGSJET01 DPMJET 2.55 VENUS)

Old generation :All Glauber based

But differences in hard,
remnants, diffraction …

semi-hard

NEXUS
3.97

Attempt to geteverything describedin a consistent way(energy sharing)(QGSJET II-03) (DPMJET III) (EPOS 1.99) (2005-2012)

New generation :QGSJET II-04

EPOS LHC(2013-)SIBYLL 2.3 QGSJET III

EPOS 3(2015-)

LHC tuned :LHC inspired :soft(<1999)

Motivation :- update with LHC
results- charm production
ICRR – Tokyo – September 2015

Motivation :- Hard PomeronPomeron connexion

Motivation :- binary scaling in hardprobes- heavy flavors
T. Pierog, KIT - 24/59

EAS Simulations

Hadronic Int. and EAS

CR results

Muons

Post-LHC Models
QGSJETII-03 to QGSJETII-04 :loop diagrams
rho0 forward production in pion interaction
re-tuning some parameters for LHC and lower
energies

EPOS 1.99 to EPOS LHCtune cross section to TOTEM valuechange old flow (collective effect)calculation to a more realistic one
introduce central diffraction
keep compatibility with lower energies

No
No direct
direct influence
influence ofof collective
collective effects
effects on
on EASEAS simulations
simulations seen
seen but
but
importantimportant toto compare
compare toto LHC
LHC andand setset parametersparameters properly
properly (<pt>,(<pt>, ...).
...).
ICRR – Tokyo – September 2015

T. Pierog, KIT - 25/59

EAS Simulations

Hadronic Int. and EAS

CR results

Muons

Cross Sections
Same cross section at pp level and low energy for models (data for tuning)
extrapolation to pA or to high energy (model dependent)
different amplitude and scheme

different extrapolations
Pre - LHCICRR – Tokyo – September 2015

Post - LHC

T. Pierog, KIT - 26/59

EAS Simulations

Hadronic Int. and EAS

CR results

Muons

Pseudorapidity
Consistent results
Better mean after corrections
difference remains in shapemodel property
Pre - LHCICRR – Tokyo – September 2015

Post - LHC

T. Pierog, KIT - 27/59

EAS Simulations

Hadronic Int. and EAS

CR results

Muons

Multiplicity Distribution
Consistent results
Better mean after corrections
difference remains in shape

Better tail of multiplicity distributions

LHC
LHC data
data inin thethe range
range defined
defined byby
Pre-LHC
Pre-LHC models
models :: nono unexpected
unexpected
results
results inin basic
basic distributions
distributions

corrections in EPOS LHC (flow) and QGSJETII-04 (minimum string size)

Pre - LHCICRR – Tokyo – September 2015

Post - LHC

T. Pierog, KIT - 28/59

EAS Simulations

Hadronic Int. and EAS

CR results

Muons

Ultra-High Energy Hadronic Model Predictions

ICRR – Tokyo – September 2015

T. Pierog, KIT - 29/59

EAS Simulations

Hadronic Int. and EAS

CR results

Muons

EAS with Old CR Models : Xmax

ICRR – Tokyo – September 2015

T. Pierog, KIT - 30/59

EAS Simulations

Hadronic Int. and EAS

CR results

Muons

EAS with Re-tuned CR Models : Xmax

ICRR – Tokyo – September 2015

T. Pierog, KIT - 31/59

EAS Simulations

Hadronic Int. and EAS

CR results

Muons

Extrapolation and LHC Results
Source of uncertainties : extrapolation
to higher energies
strong constraints by current LHC datafrom p-p to p-Air and pi-Air
current main source of uncertainty

Needs to better take into account last
LHC results :hard scale
saturationcollective effects insmall system
detailed diffractive
measurements
particle correlations
EPOS 3QGSJETxxx
ICRR – Tokyo – September 2015

T. Pierog, KIT - 32/59

EAS Simulations

Hadronic Int. and EAS

CR results

Muons

Extrapolation and LHC Results
Source of uncertainties : extrapolation
to higher energies
strong constraints by current LHC datafrom p-p to p-Air and pi-Air
current main source of uncertainty

Needs to better take into account last
LHC results :hard scale
saturationcollective effects insmall system
detailed diffractive
measurements
particle correlations
EPOS 3QGSJETxxx
ICRR – Tokyo – September 2015

T. Pierog, KIT - 33/59

EAS Simulations

Hadronic Int. and EAS

CR results

Muons

Spectrumknee(s)

EAS

ankle

R. Engel(KIT)ICRR – Tokyo – September 2015

T. Pierog, KIT - 34/59

EAS Simulations

Hadronic Int. and EAS

CR results

Muons

KASCADE-Grande
KASCADE facility (1988-2016)
KASCADE data taking 1996-2012
KASCADE-Grande data taking 2003-2012

Energy range: 100TeV –1EeV
Area: 0.5 km2
Grande: 37x10 m2 plastic scint. det.
Nch+ total muon number

LOPES (2004-2012) MHz radio and CROME (2012) GHz radio
CORSIKA (air shower simulation) and KCDC (web interface to data)

GrandeKASCADELOPESICRR – Tokyo – September 2015

T. Pierog, KIT - 35/59

EAS Simulations

Hadronic Int. and EAS

CR results

Muons

LOPES Results
Radio measurement at KASCADE
first composition measurement from radio EAS detection

K. Link, ICRC 2015

energy (eV)ICRR – Tokyo – September 2015

T. Pierog, KIT - 36/59

EAS Simulations

Hadronic Int. and EAS

CR results

Muons

KASCADE-Grande Results
H. Haungs, ICRC 2015

KASCADE-Grande
spectrumseparation between 2mass group
steepening due to heavy
primaries (3.5σ)
hardening at 1017.08 eV(5.8σ) in light spectrum

heavyslope change from γ =-3.25 to γ = -2.79
relative abundance ishadronic model dependent
but similar behavior
observed for all models

light

Knee
Knee duedue toto heavy
heavy component
component observed
observed aroundaround 100
100 PeVPeV andand ankle
ankle like
like featurefeatureseen
seen inin light
light component
component at
at about
about thethe samesame energy:
energy: absoluteabsolute flux
flux (hadr.
(hadr. mod.
mod. dep.)
dep.)
importantimportant toto understandunderstand transitiontransition galactic/extra-galactic...
galactic/extra-galactic...
ICRR – Tokyo – September 2015

T. Pierog, KIT - 37/59

EAS Simulations

Hadronic Int. and EAS

CR results

Muons

KASCADE/Grande combined analysis
Use KASCADE and KASCADE-Grande as a unique experimentlarger energy range and use latest model for low energy analysis
S. Schoo, ICRC 2015

ICRR – Tokyo – September 2015

T. Pierog, KIT - 38/59

EAS Simulations

Hadronic Int. and EAS

CR results

Muons

Pierre Auger Observatory (PAO)
Fluorescence detector (FD)(longitudinal profile)
24 + 3 (HEAT) Fluorescencetelescopes at 4 locations
duty cycle 15%(day, moon, clouds, ...)

Surface detector (SD)(lateral distribution)area of 3000 km2
1660 water-Cherenkov stations at
1500 m spacing
duty cycle 100%AMIGA
low energy infill and muon detectors

Radio detector AERA (RD)ICRR – Tokyo – September 2015

Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A798 (2015) 172
T. Pierog, KIT - 39/59

EAS Simulations

Hadronic Int. and EAS

CR results

Muons

From R. Ulrich (KIT)

Hybrid Detection

ICRR – Tokyo – September 2015

Time traces

14
Various
Various detection
detectiontechniquetechnique == energy
energyscale
scale independent
independent ofof
hadronic
hadronic inter.
inter. models
modelsT. Pierog, KIT - 40/59

EAS Simulations

Hadronic Int. and EAS

CR results

Muons

Xmax Measurements
One of the most reliable mass indicators
uncertainties due to models << difference proton-ironupdate for E < 1017.8 eV presented at the ICRC 2015 (The Hague)
Composition is getting lighter below E0~2 EeV (consistent with KASCADE-Grande ?)and heavier afterwards

A. Yushkov (HESZ 2015) and A. Porcelli (ICRC 2015)
ICRR – Tokyo – September 2015

T. Pierog, KIT - 41/59

EAS Simulations

Hadronic Int. and EAS

CR results

MuonsHigh Energy CR Composition
Hadronic models
similar elongation rate (slope)
SIBYLL2.1 predictions
confirmed by EPOS LHC andQGSJETII-04
QGSJET01 and QGSJETII-03(old reference) disfavored

CR experiments
more statistic
common analysis
experimental results fullycompatible

Using
Using thethe samesame reference
reference
model
model compatible
compatible with
with postpostLHC
LHC results,
results, PAO
PAO andand TATA
observeobserve thethe samesame MIXEDMIXEDcomposition
composition at
at highhigh energy
energyICRR – Tokyo – September 2015

T. Pierog, KIT - 42/59

EAS Simulations

Hadronic Int. and EAS

CR results

Muons

Mass Estimation
Mass evolution<lnA> = average (log) mass and σ2(lnA) is the variation of the mass (0=constant mass)
test consistency of hadronic models

PAO data
can not be
reproduced
by QGSJETII
models (2σ)

ICRR – Tokyo – September 2015

T. Pierog, KIT - 43/59

EAS Simulations

Hadronic Int. and EAS

CR results

Muons

Correlation between X*max and S*(1000)
Heavier nuclei produce shallower showers with larger signal(more muons)general characteristics of air showers / minor model dependence
A. Yushkov (ICRC 2015)

Correlation (Xmax,
S(1000)) EPOS-LHC
pure beams

0.00 for proton+0.08 for ironmax mixing-0.37 for 0.5 p - 0.5 Fe

More
More negative
negativecorrelation
correlation ⇒⇒ moremore
mixed
mixed composition
composition

ICRR – Tokyo – September 2015

S*(1000): SD signal at 1000 m from the core scaled to 10 EeV, 38°
X*max: Xmax scaled to 10 EeV

T. Pierog, KIT - 44/59

EAS Simulations

Hadronic Int. and EAS

CR results

Muons

Correlation between X*max and S*(1000)
in data correlation is significantly negativerG = -0.125±0.024

EPOS-LHC : 0.00 (5σ to data)
QGSJetII-04 : +0.08 (8σ to data)
Sibyll 2.1 : +0.07 (7.5σ to data)

difference is larger for otherpure beams

A. Yushkov (ICRC 2015)rG(X*max, S*(1000)) for p

primary
primary composition
compositionnear
near thethe `ankle'`ankle' is
is
mixed
mixed
test of “exotic” models fails
ICRR – Tokyo – September 2015rG - rank correlation coefficient introduced in R. Gideon,
R. Hollister, JASA 82 (1987) 656
T. Pierog, KIT - 45/59

EAS Simulations

Hadronic Int. and EAS

CR results

Muons

Dispersion of Masses in Data
A. Yushkov (ICRC 2015)

ICRR – Tokyo – September 2015

T. Pierog, KIT - 46/59

EAS Simulations

Hadronic Int. and EAS

CR results

Muons

Dispersion of Masses in Data
A. Yushkov (ICRC 2015)

data
data areare compatible
compatible with
with 1.0
1.0 ≾≾ σ(lnσ(ln A)
A) ≾
≾ 1.7
1.7
ICRR – Tokyo – September 2015

T. Pierog, KIT - 47/59

EAS Simulations

Hadronic Int. and EAS

CR results

Muons

Muon Production Depth
Independent SD mass composition
measurement
geometric delay of arriving muons

mapped to muon production distancedecent resolution and no bias

ICRR – Tokyo – September 2015

T. Pierog, KIT - 48/59

EAS Simulations

Hadronic Int. and EAS

CR results

Muons

MPD and Models
2 independent mass composition measurements
both results should be between p and Fe
both results should give the same mean logarithmic mass for the same model
problem with EPOS appears after corrections motivated by LHC data

lower diffractive mass motivated by rapidity gap cross-section !
strong influence of pion diffraction on muon production evolution
additional data needed to improve pion diffraction (neutron exchange at LHC ?)PAO, ICRC 2015
ICRR – Tokyo – September 2015

T. Pierog, KIT - 49/59

EAS Simulations

Hadronic Int. and EAS

CR results

Muons

Direct Muon Measurement
Old showers contain only muon component
direct muon counting with very inclined showers (>60°)
by comparing to simulated muon maps (geometry andgeomagnetic field effects)
EM halo accounted forcorrection between true muon number andreconstructed one from map by MC (<5%)
Ratio to preLHC QGSJETII-03

ICRR – Tokyo – September 2015

T. Pierog, KIT - 50/59

EAS Simulations

Hadronic Int. and EAS

CR results

Muons

Telescope Array Energy Scale
General behavior of data a ground well reproduced by QGSJETII-03 proton
but energy scale have to be shifted by 27% to match FD hybridmeasurements
J. Gonzalez, Hadronic Int. WG, UHECR 2014

FD

Could
Could bebe explain
explain by
by thethe samesame muon
muon deficit
deficitobserved
observed inin PAOPAO (vs(vs QGSJETII-03
QGSJETII-03 proton
proton !)!)ICRR – Tokyo – September 2015

FD: -27%
QGSJet II.04: -5%
EPOS: -20%
Sibyll: +5-1-%
T. Pierog, KIT - 51/59

EAS Simulations

Hadronic Int. and EAS

CR results

Muons

Telescope Array Energy Scale
General behavior of data a ground well reproduced by QGSJETII-03 proton
but energy scale have to be shifted by 27% to match FD hybridmeasurements
Energy/mass dependence of mismatch (spectrum) ?

FD

Could
Could bebe explain
explain by
by thethe samesame muon
muon deficit
deficitobserved
observed inin PAOPAO (vs(vs QGSJETII-03
QGSJETII-03 proton
proton !)!)ICRR – Tokyo – September 2015

FD: -27%
QGSJet II.04: -5%
EPOS: -20%
Sibyll: +5-1-%
T. Pierog, KIT - 52/59

EAS Simulations

Hadronic Int. and EAS

CR results

Muons

KASCADE-GrandeMuon density indicates a high number of muon
pre-LHC not consistent with data
post-LHC between p and Fe but composition not consistentEPOS

QGSJETIISIBYLL

J.C. Arteaga, ICRC 2015
ICRR – Tokyo – September 2015

T. Pierog, KIT - 53/59

EAS Simulations

Hadronic Int. and EAS

CR results

Muons

KASCADE-GrandeMuon density indicates a high number of muon
pre-LHC not consistent with data
post-LHC between p and Fe but composition not consistentShape of LDF for charged particles seems to indicate the same
Problem with muon attenuation length
Other KASCADE data on direct test with hadronic calorimeter

G. Toma, ICRC 2015

J.C. Arteaga, ICRC 2015

ICRR – Tokyo – September 2015

T. Pierog, KIT - 54/59

EAS Simulations

Hadronic Int. and EAS

CR results

Muons

Pion Leading Particle Effect
Rho meson production added in QGSJETII to take into
account leading particle effect in pion-Air interaction
same effect as baryon production : forward π0 replacedby charged pions (reduced leading π0)
increase muon production
Not only Rho0 should
be taken into account !

ICRR – Tokyo – September 2015

T. Pierog, KIT - 55/59

EAS Simulations

Hadronic Int. and EAS

CR results

Muons

EAS with Re-tuned CR Models : Muons
Effect of LHC hidden by other changes
Corrections only at mid-rapidity for EPOS
Changes in QGSJET motivated by pion induced data
EPOS LHC ~ EPOS 1.99 and only -7% for QGSJETII-04 vs EPOS
LHC
different energy spectra (more low energy muons in EPOS LHC)
Deficit still observed in data (+MPD problem)

ICRR – Tokyo – September 2015

T. Pierog, KIT - 56/59

EAS Simulations

Hadronic Int. and EAS

CR results

Muons

Momentum Fraction π+C
Harder spectra in QGSJETII-04
low and
Intermediate
energies (5 TeV lab
here)
important for muon
production in EAS
still very different
behavior in πinteractions
large difference
for forward baryon
production

ICRR – Tokyo – September 2015

T. Pierog, KIT - 57/59

EAS Simulations

Hadronic Int. and EAS

CR results

Muons

Momentum Fraction π+C
Harder spectra in QGSJETII-04
low and
Intermediate
energies (5 TeV lab
here)

π+C 158 GeV

important for muon
production in EAS
still very different
behavior πinteractions
large difference
for forward baryon
production
large discrepancy
for ρ0 production
Room
Room forfor improvement
improvement on
on muonmuon production.
production. NA61
NA61 data
data ononin π-A
baryonbaryon prod.
prod. andand midrapidity
midrapidity prod.
prod. neededneeded toto fixfix models.
models.
ICRR – Tokyo – September 2015

T. Pierog, KIT - 58/59

EAS Simulations

Hadronic Int. and EAS

CR results

Muons

Summary
New developments to have faster reliable EAS simulations
Direct effect of LHC data on CR analysis
explanation of the knee in CR spectrum as a change in hadronic interactions is now
excludedIndirect effect of LHC data on CR analysis: reduced uncertainties inhadronic models
common behavior of <Xmax>
mixed composition observed above the ankle for both TA and PAO with more confidence

Still open problems with muon production
data not consistently reproduced even by post-LHC models (both PAO and KASCADE)
more LHC data to be taken into account
NA61 data to reduce differences between models and with datacross-check at high energy using pion exchange at LHC (LHCf+ATLAS) ?

ModernModern simulation
simulation tools
tools constrained
constrained by
by LHC
LHC data
data allowed
allowed aa big
big step
step
forwardforward inin thethe interpretationinterpretation ofof charged
charged cosmic
cosmic ray
ray (CR)(CR) data
data towards
towardsanan unexpected
unexpected mixed
mixed composition
composition ofof extra-galactic
extra-galactic cosmic
cosmic rays.
rays.
ICRR – Tokyo – September 2015

T. Pierog, KIT - 59/59