Giant Radio Array for Neutrino Detection Xmax Study Claire Gupin, - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
giant radio array for neutrino detection xmax study
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Giant Radio Array for Neutrino Detection Xmax Study Claire Gupin, - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

May 13, 2023 284 likes •436 views

Giant Radio Array for Neutrino Detection Xmax Study Claire Gupin, Anne Zilles UHECR air showers - Xmax reconstruction From ZHAireS simulations to Xmax reconstruction Inclined UHECR air showers , proton or iron progenitor. Study impact of

slide-1
SLIDE 1

Giant Radio Array for Neutrino Detection Xmax Study

Claire Guépin, Anne Zilles

slide-2
SLIDE 2

From ZHAireS simulations to Xmax reconstruction

  • Inclined UHECR air showers, proton or iron progenitor.
  • Study impact of
  • progenitor energy: from 1017 eV to 1019 eV.
  • spacing between antennas: from 250 m to 1250 m.
  • frequency band : 50 - 200 MHz versus 30 - 80 MHz.
  • mountain slope: 0º versus 10º.
  • inclination (zenith).

Strong hypothesis

  • No antenna response (perfect dipole).

UHECR air showers - Xmax reconstruction

Next steps: include antenna response

  • voltage traces with “computevoltage”: ok
  • noise model and threshold for power: work in progress…
slide-3
SLIDE 3

How to get a radio footprint

Simulate the radio signal for 160 antenna positions , which forms a star shape in vxB - vxvxB Get east-west and north-south component
 → Bandpass filter for 50-200MHz (or 30-80MHz), no antenna model included so far Get the total integrated power for each simulated antenna position Interpolate the power in vxB – vxvxB
 → rotate antenna positions in shower coordinates and choose power for each position If fake data: Add noise to the “data”

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Reconstruction method

For each parameter set, 70 simulations (50 proton, 20 iron).

One simulation = “fake data” (known Xmax) Simulation set (same properties, known Xmax)

Normalized integrated power Comparison

slide-5
SLIDE 5

Reconstruction method

For each parameter set, 70 simulations (50 proton, 20 iron).

One simulation = “fake data” (known Xmax) Simulation set (same properties, known Xmax)

Normalized integrated power Comparison

Get 𝝍2

Minimum of parabola fit
 = reconstructed shower depth

slide-6
SLIDE 6

Impact of zenith angle

Fixed parameters

  • energy 1019 eV
  • azimuth 40º
  • mountain slope 10º

Footprints frequency band : 50 - 200 MHz step 500 m zenith 83º zenith 77º zenith 72º

slide-7
SLIDE 7

Impact of zenith angle

Fixed parameters

  • energy 1019 eV
  • azimuth 40º
  • mountain slope 10º

Power - lateral distribution function zenith 83º zenith 77º zenith 72º frequency band : 50 - 200 MHz step 500 m

slide-8
SLIDE 8

Impact of zenith angle

Fixed parameters

  • energy 1019 eV
  • azimuth 40º
  • mountain slope 10º

Chi2 procedure frequency band : 50 - 200 MHz step 500 m zenith 83º zenith 77º zenith 72º

slide-9
SLIDE 9

Impact of zenith angle

Fixed parameters

  • energy 1019 eV
  • azimuth 40º
  • mountain slope 10º

Histograms frequency band : 50 - 200 MHz step 500 m zenith 83º zenith 77º zenith 72º

68%: mean Xmax

slide-10
SLIDE 10

Impact of zenith angle

Fixed parameters

  • energy 1019 eV
  • azimuth 40º
  • mountain slope 10º

frequency band : 50 - 200 MHz

200 400 600 800 1000 1200 Step (m) 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 |Xreco − Xreal| (g cm−2) zen = 72o zen = 77o zen = 83o 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 Step (m) 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 | − | zen = 72o zen = 77o zen = 83o

68%: mean Xmax 99%

slide-11
SLIDE 11

Impact of mountain slope

Fixed parameters

  • zenith 77º
  • azimuth 40º
  • energy 1019 eV

slope = 10º slope = 0º frequency band : 50 - 200 MHz step 500 m

slide-12
SLIDE 12

Impact of mountain slope

Fixed parameters

  • zenith 77º
  • azimuth 40º
  • energy 1019 eV

frequency band : 50 - 200 MHz

200 400 600 800 1000 1200 Step (m) 10 20 30 40 50 60 |Xreco − Xreal| (g cm−2) slope = 10o slope = 0o

slide-13
SLIDE 13

200 400 600 800 1000 1200 Distance (m) 10 20 30 40 50 60 |Xreco − Xreal| (g cm−2) E = 1017 eV E = 1017.5 eV E = 1018 eV E = 1018.5 eV E = 1019 eV

Impact of energy and spacing

Fixed parameters

  • zenith 83º
  • azimuth 40º
  • mountain slope 10º

68%: mean Xmax 99%

Step (m) 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 Distance (m) 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 | − | E = 1017 eV E = 1017.5 eV E = 1018 eV E = 1018.5 eV E = 1019 eV Step (m)

99%

frequency band : 50 - 200 MHz

slide-14
SLIDE 14

Impact of frequency band

Fixed parameters

  • zenith 83º
  • azimuth 40º
  • mountain slope 10º

Frequency bands

500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 Distance (m) 10 20 30 40 50 60 |Xreco − Xreal| (g cm−2) E = 1017 eV E = 1017.5 eV E = 1018 eV E = 1019 eV

50 - 200 MHz 30 - 80 MHz

slide-15
SLIDE 15

From ZHAireS simulations to Xmax reconstruction

  • Inclined UHECR air showers, proton or iron progenitor.
  • Study impact of
  • progenitor energy: from 1017 eV to 1019 eV.
  • spacing between antennas: from 250 m to 1250 m.
  • frequency band : 50 - 200 MHz versus 30 - 80 MHz.
  • mountain slope: 0º versus 10º.
  • inclination (zenith).

Strong hypothesis

  • No antenna response (perfect dipole).

UHECR air showers - Xmax reconstruction

Questions, discussion?

Next steps: include antenna response

  • voltage traces with “computevoltage”: ok
  • noise model and threshold for power: work in progress…