[PPT] - Test of the SIBYLL 2.3 high-energy hadronic interaction model using PowerPoint Presentation

SLIDE 1

Test of the SIBYLL 2.3 high-energy hadronic interaction model using the KASCADE-Grande muon data

1 Tests of SIBYLL 2.3 using KG data - J.C. Arteaga ISMD 2017, Tlaxcala, Mexico

Juan Carlos Arteaga-Velázquez*, D. Rivera for the KASCADE-Grande Collaboration

Instituto de Física y Matemáticas, Universidad Michoacana, México

SLIDE 2

1. Introduction
2. Motivation
3. The KASCADE-Grande detector
4. Data & Simulations
5. Analysis
6. Results
7. Summary

Outline

Test of the SIBYLL 2.3 high-energy hadronic interaction model using the KASCADE-Grande muon data

Juan Carlos Arteaga-Velázquez*, D. Rivera for the KASCADE-Grande Collaboration

Instituto de Física y Matemáticas, Universidad Michoacana, México

2 ISMD 2017, Tlaxcala, Mexico Tests of SIBYLL 2.3 using KG data - J.C. Arteaga

SLIDE 3

30 - 20 km

Cosmic rays are produced in HE

astrophysical sources (SNR’s, AGN’s, etc?).

Primaries with E > 1 PeV are

detected at Earth through air shower (EAS) observation

EAS data is interpreted with

hadronic models to study energy and composition

Introduction

3 ISMD 2017, Tlaxcala, Mexico Tests of SIBYLL 2.3 using KG data - J.C. Arteaga

SLIDE 4

Hadronic interaction models:

1. Phenomenological models inspired in QCD.
3. Calibrated with accelerator data.
4. Extrapolated to high energies (HE’s) and

forward region (pT ~ 0).

Soft physics (low Q2) is relevant for CR interactions Model uncertainties produce uncertainties in predictions of EAS parameters

Introduction

T. Pierog,EPJ web of conferences 145, 18002 (2017)

0.1 % 0.02 % 99.88 %

4 ISMD 2017, Tlaxcala, Mexico Tests of SIBYLL 2.3 using KG data - J.C. Arteaga

SLIDE 5

T. Pierog,EPJ web of conferences 145, 18002 (2017)

Differences in EAS observables due to uncertainties in the models

Introduction

5 ISMD 2017, Tlaxcala, Mexico Tests of SIBYLL 2.3 using KG data - J.C. Arteaga

SLIDE 6

Composition and energy scale a r e a f f e c t e d b y m o d e l uncertainties

M. Bertaina et al., Pos(ICRC2015) 359

KASCADE Coll., Astrop. Phys. 24 (2005) 1.

All-particle spectrum

Dependence of relative abundances and spectrum of CR’s with hadronic interaction models:

Mass groups Mass groups

Imperative to check validity of hadronic models

KASCADE-Grande experiment

Introduction

6 ISMD 2017, Tlaxcala, Mexico Tests of SIBYLL 2.3 using KG data - J.C. Arteaga

SLIDE 7

Proton @ 1015 eV, Corsika simulation, F. Schmidt & J. Knapp

Employ muons for tests:

Penetrating particles/less atmospheric attenuation.
Sensitive to hadronic processes.
Used in composition studies.

Use CR observatories to constrain/test models:

KASCADE-Grande
Pierre Auger
EAS-MSU

ECR = 1015 - 1018 eV Ethμ = 230 MeV, 490 MeV, 800 MeV, 2.4 GeV ECR = 1015 - 1017 eV Ethμ = 0.2 GeV ECR > 1018 eV Ethμ = 1 GeV ECR = 1017 - 1018 eV Ethμ = 10 GeV

ICECUBE/ICETOP
Keep information from early stage of EAS development.

Introduction

7 ISMD 2017, Tlaxcala, Mexico Tests of SIBYLL 2.3 using KG data - J.C. Arteaga

SLIDE 8

Proton @ 1015 eV, Corsika simulation, F. Schmidt & J. Knapp

Muon measurements: Use CR observatories to constrain/test models:

KASCADE-Grande
Pierre Auger
EAS-MSU

ECR = 1015 - 1018 eV Ethμ = 230 MeV, 490 MeV, 800 MeV, 2.4 GeV ECR = 1015 - 1017 eV Ethμ = 0.2 GeV ECR > 1018 eV Ethμ = 1 GeV ECR = 1017 - 1018 eV Ethμ = 10 GeV

ICECUBE/ICETOP

Introduction

Energy spectrum
µ-/µ+Charge ratio
Multiplicity
Zenith angle dependence
Lateral distributions
Production height
Pseudorapidites

8 ISMD 2017, Tlaxcala, Mexico Tests of SIBYLL 2.3 using KG data - J.C. Arteaga

SLIDE 9

KASCADE-Grande EAS muon data

Muon Eth > 230 MeV x Secθ

Muon attenuation length (Λµ):

1. Parameterizes dependence of number of μ’s in EAS

with the atmospheric depth:

2. Correct data for attenuation in the atmosphere.
3. Affected by details of shower production:
π energy spectrum,

cross section, pT distribution,

π±/π0 ratios,
Baryon/resonance

production,

Multiplicity <N>
Inelasticity (y), etc.

Motivation

9 ISMD 2017, Tlaxcala, Mexico Tests of SIBYLL 2.3 using KG data - J.C. Arteaga

Nμ = Nμo e-(X/Λμ)

SLIDE 10

5 5.5 6 6.5 7 )

2

(g/cm

µ

Λ 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600

) °

40

° = 0 θ KG data ( QGSJET II-2 EPOS LHC SIBYLL 2.1 QGSJET II-04

Measured muon attenuation length (ECR ~ 1016 - 1017 eV) is above MC predictions from:

J.C. Arteaga et al., Astropar. Phys. 95 (2017) 25

KASCADE-Grande EAS muon data

Does SIBYLL 2.3* perform better?

Pre-LHC models (~ 2 σ):

SIBYLL 2.1
QGSJET-II-02

Post-LHC models (~ 1.34 σ to 1.48 σ):

EPOS-LHC
QGSJET-II-04

Better agreement with post-LHC models.

Motivation

*F. Riehn et al., PoS(ICRC2015) 558

[ ] Total unc. — Stat. unc.

10 ISMD 2017, Tlaxcala, Mexico Tests of SIBYLL 2.3 using KG data - J.C. Arteaga

Less effective attenuation in exp. data

Muon attenuation length (Λµ):

SLIDE 11

Data

Spectrum
Composition
Arrival direction

knee 2nd knee γ = -2.7 γ -3.0 γ ~ -3.3 γ = -2.6

J(E) = E-γ

The KASCADE-Grande detector

11 ISMD 2017, Tlaxcala, Mexico Tests of SIBYLL 2.3 using KG data - J.C. Arteaga

SLIDE 12

Data

Spectrum
Composition
Arrival direction

knee 2nd knee γ = -2.7 γ -3.0 γ ~ -3.3 γ = -2.6

J(E) = E-γ

1. What is the origin of

the features in the spectrum?

2. Where do they come

from?

3. What is their nature?
4. How do they get

accelerated?

5. Are there nearby

sources?

6. Where is the galactic

t o e x t r a g a l a c t i c transition?

The KASCADE-Grande detector

12 ISMD 2017, Tlaxcala, Mexico Tests of SIBYLL 2.3 using KG data - J.C. Arteaga

SLIDE 13

1. Location: KIT-Campus North, Karlsruhe,

Germany

December 2003 - November 2012

Karlsruhe, Germany 110 m a.s.l., 49o N, 8o E

The KASCADE-Grande detector

13 ISMD 2017, Tlaxcala, Mexico Tests of SIBYLL 2.3 using KG data - J.C. Arteaga

SLIDE 14

Grande array KASCADE array

W.D. Apel et al., NIMA 620 (2010) 490

37 plastic scintillator detectors

137 m

E= 1 PeV - 1018 eV

KASCADE (200 x 200 m2) + Grande (0.5 km2)

252 shielded/ unshielded scintillator detectors, muon tunnel, calorimeter.

The KASCADE-Grande detector

14 ISMD 2017, Tlaxcala, Mexico Tests of SIBYLL 2.3 using KG data - J.C. Arteaga

SLIDE 15

KASCADE array

W.D. Apel et al., NIMA 620 (2010) 490

Scintillator detectors

Charged particles (> 3 MeV)
H. Falcke et al., Nature 435 (2005) 313
Ne (> 5 MeV) and

Nµ (> 230 MeV) e/γ detector µ detector Pb/Fe shielding liquid scintillator plastic scint.

Grande array

KASCADE (200 x 200 m2) + Grande (0.5 km2)

E= 1 PeV - 1018 eV The KASCADE-Grande detector

15 ISMD 2017, Tlaxcala, Mexico Tests of SIBYLL 2.3 using KG data - J.C. Arteaga

SLIDE 16

1. Grande provides

Nch: Number of charged particles

2. KASCADE provides

Nµ : Number of muons

ρµ(r) = Nµ ⋅ fµLagutin(r) Fit to data: Fit to data: ρch(r) = Nch ⋅ fchNKG(s, r)

The KASCADE-Grande detector

16 Tests of SIBYLL 2.3 using KG data - J.C. Arteaga

SLIDE 17

The KASCADE-Grande detector

Unfolding methods capable of reconstructing spectra of elemental groups:

Knee at E~1015 eV due to a break in the

spectrum of light components

Spectral features independent of the

hadronic interaction models

Iron knee around 80 PeV

Exploit Ne-Nµ correlation Exploit Nch-Nµ correlation

Knee positions ∝ Z

QGSJET-II-02/Fluka

KASCADE Coll., Astropart.

Phys. 24 (2005) 1

KASCADE'Grande.Coll.,. Astropart..Phys..47.(2013)

17 ISMD 2017, Tlaxcala, Mexico Tests of SIBYLL 2.3 using KG data - J.C. Arteaga

SLIDE 18

KASCADE Coll., Astrop. Phys. 36 (2012) 183

Knee structure around 80 PeV in the heavy component
Ankle-like feature at 120 PeV in the light component

Heavy

Light

Galactic-extragalactic transition?

2nd knee 2nd knee

QGSJET-II-02

18 ISMD 2017, Tlaxcala, Mexico Tests of SIBYLL 2.3 using KG data - J.C. Arteaga

The KASCADE-Grande detector

SLIDE 19

1. Effective time: 1434 days
2. Área: 8 x 104 m2
3. Exposure: 2.6 x 1012 m2 s sr
4. Cuts (reduction of EAS uncertainties):
Central area
θ < 40o
Instrumental & reconstruction cuts
Optimized for E = [1016, 1017] eV

Experimental data

Data & simulations

2 744 950 selected events

Efficiency: log10 (E/GeV) = 7 ± 0.20

log10 (Nμ) = 5 ± 0.20

ISMD 2017, Tlaxcala, Mexico Tests of SIBYLL 2.3 using KG data - J.C. Arteaga 19

SLIDE 20

1. HE hadronic interaction

Model:

2. Simulation: H, He, C, Si, Fe, mixed;
3. Systematics:
ΔΝch < 12% ΔΝμ < 20%
Δθ < 0.6o
σcore < 10 m

Νμ data corrected for systematic errors

MC data (CORSIKA/Fluka)

SIBYLL 2.3 γ = -3, -3.2, -2.8 ΔΝμcorrected < 10%

Data & simulations

ISMD 2017, Tlaxcala, Mexico Tests of SIBYLL 2.3 using KG data - J.C. Arteaga 20

θ < 42o E = 1014 - 3 x 1018 eV

SLIDE 21

) θ sec(

1 1.05 1.1 1.15 1.2 1.25 1.3

)

µ

(N

10

log

5.15 5.2 5.25 5.3 5.35 5.4 5.45

MC data (Mixed)

X0 X0 sec(θ) E E Nμ(θ) Nμ(0) θ

Ε ~1016 eV

SIBYLL 2.3

Shower content at same Energy (E) is attenuated with atmospheric depth (X):

Large X —> High zenith angles (θ)

ISMD 2017, Tlaxcala, Mexico Tests of SIBYLL 2.3 using KG data - J.C. Arteaga 21

Analysis

SLIDE 22

) θ sec(

1 1.05 1.1 1.15 1.2 1.25 1.3

)

µ

(N

10

log

5.15 5.2 5.25 5.3 5.35 5.4 5.45

MC data (Mixed)

X0 X0 sec(θ) J(E) J(E) J[Nμ(θ)] J[Nμ(0)] θ

Ε ~1016 eV

SIBYLL 2.3

J = constant

Constant intensity cut method

100 % detector efficiency + Isotropy —> J[Nμ(0)] = J[Nμ(θ)]

Constant Intensity Cut method: Quantify zenith-angle evolution of data.
Method is independent of MC model.

ISMD 2017, Tlaxcala, Mexico Tests of SIBYLL 2.3 using KG data - J.C. Arteaga 22

Analysis

SLIDE 23

Data divided in five θ intervals with equal exposure.

)

µ

(N

10

log 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 )

1

sr

1

s

2

) (m

µ

J(>N

13

10

12

10

11

10

10

10

9

10

8

10

KG data

< 16.71

θ ≤

0.00
< 23.99

θ ≤

16.71
< 29.86

θ ≤

23.99
< 35.09

θ ≤

29.86
< 40.00

θ ≤

35.09

) θ sec( 1 1.05 1.1 1.15 1.2 1.25 1.3 )

µ

(N

10

log 4.8 5 5.2 5.4 5.6 5.8 6 6.2 6.4

[J] = -9.80

10

log [J] = -8.60

10

log

KG Data

1. Apply cuts at fixed frequencies
2. Get attenuation curves
3. Apply a fit to get Λμ

ISMD 2017, Tlaxcala, Mexico Tests of SIBYLL 2.3 using KG data - J.C. Arteaga 23

Analysis

J.C. Arteaga et al., Astropar. Phys. 95 (2017) 25

SLIDE 24

Results

ΔΛμ

QGSJET-II-2 QGSJET-II-4 SIBYLL 2.1 SIBYLL 2.3 EPOS-LHC

σ +2.04 +1.48 +1.99 +1.06 +1.34

5 5.5 6 6.5 7 )

2

(g/cm

µ

Λ 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600

) °

40

° = 0 θ KG data (

QGSJET II-2 SIBYLL 2.3 SIBYLL 2.1 QGSJET II-04 EPOS LHC

MC data also include:

Errors from composition
Unc. from spectral index of CR

intensity

[ ] Total unc. — Stat. unc.

*Errors on SIBYLL 2.3 are preliminary

Discrepancy between SIBYLL 2.3 and measurement is small, but large uncertainty from composition ISMD 2017, Tlaxcala, Mexico Tests of SIBYLL 2.3 using KG data - J.C. Arteaga 24 MC data points: Mixed composition

SLIDE 25

Results

Reduce error due to composition uncertainties:

Χ2 fit to measured data with 4 mass groups: H, He, C, Si+Fe (50 % mixture).
Use double power-law for energy spectrum of each mass group.
Employ templates from SIBYLL 2.3 for each mass group.

)

µ

(N

10

log 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 )

ch

(N

10

)/log

µ

(N

10

log 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2

Events 1 10

2

10

3

10

4

10

5

10

KG data °

40

° = 0 θ 12.392 million events

A: atomic mass

J.C. Arteaga et al., (KG Collab.) PoS (ICRC2017) 316

ISMD 2017, Tlaxcala, Mexico Tests of SIBYLL 2.3 using KG data - J.C. Arteaga 25 Full data

SLIDE 26

Energy (eV/particle)

16

10

17

10

18

10 )

1.5

eV

1

sr

1

sec

2

J(E) (m

2.5

dI/dE x E

14

10

15

10

16

10

17

10

18

10

19

10

KG (SIBYLL 2.3) H He+C Heavy Akeno (J.Phys.G18(1992)423) AGASA (ICRC 2003) HiResI (PRL100(2008)101101) HiResII (PRL100(2008)101101) Yakutsk (NewJ.Phys11(2008)065008) AUGER (ICRC 2013)

EAS-TOP (Astrop.Phys.10(1999)1) TIBET-III (ApJ678(2008)1165) GAMMA (J.Phys.G35(2008)115201) TUNKA (Nucl.Phys.B,Proc.Sup.165(2007)74) KASCADE (QGSJET01 Astrop.Phys.24(2005)1) KASCADE (SIBYLL2.1 Astrop.Phys.24(2005)1) µ KASCADE-Grande (QGSJET II) Nch-N µ KASCADE-Grande (EPOS-LHC) Nch-N KG (SIBYLL 2.3)

Results

Composition model obtained from measured data using SIBYLL 2.3

J.C. Arteaga et al., (KG Collab.) PoS (ICRC2017) 316

ISMD 2017, Tlaxcala, Mexico Tests of SIBYLL 2.3 using KG data - J.C. Arteaga 26

SLIDE 27

5 5.5 6 6.5 7 )

2

(g/cm

µ

Λ 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600

) °

40

° = 0 θ KG data ( QGSJET II-2 SIBYLL 2.3 SIBYLL 2.1 QGSJET II-04 EPOS LHC

Results

ΔΛμ

QGSJET-II-2 QGSJET-II-4 SIBYLL 2.1 SIBYLL 2.3 SIBYLL 2.3 EPOS-LHC

Composition model

σ +2.04 +1.48 +1.99 + 1.06 + 1.52 +1.34

[ ] Total unc. — Stat. unc.

*Errors on SIBYLL 2.3 are preliminary

SIBYLL 2.3 has also problems to describe the data ISMD 2017, Tlaxcala, Mexico Tests of SIBYLL 2.3 using KG data - J.C. Arteaga 27

SLIDE 28

Results

ISMD 2017, Tlaxcala, Mexico Tests of SIBYLL 2.3 using KG data - J.C. Arteaga 28

J.C. Arteaga & D. Rivera et al., (KG Collab.) PoS (ICRC2017) 316

Muon lateral densities

]

2

(r) [m

µ

ρ

1 −

10 1 10 protons Fe KG data Sibyll 2.3 ]

,16
[0

∈ θ [6.55,6.8] ∈

ch

N

10

log

r [m]

200 400

]

2

(r) [m

µ

ρ

1 −

10 1 10 ]

,35
[30

∈ θ

[7.04,7.28] ∈

ch

N

10

log

r [m]

200 400

[7.52,7.74] ∈

ch

N

10

log

r [m]

200 400

Energy Zenith

SLIDE 29

ch

N

10

log

6 7

µ

N

10

log

4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 protons Fe KG data Sibyll 2.3 ]

,16
[0

∈ θ

ch

N

10

log

6 7 ]

,30
[24

∈ θ

ch

N

10

log

6 7 ]

,40
[35

∈ θ

Results

ISMD 2017, Tlaxcala, Mexico Tests of SIBYLL 2.3 using KG data - J.C. Arteaga 29

Nµ - Νch correlation

Zenith

J.C. Arteaga & D. Rivera et al., (KG Collab.) PoS (ICRC2017) 316

SLIDE 30

1. The measured Λµ at KASCADE-Grande is above predictions of HE

hadronic interaction models: QGSJET-II-02, QGSJET-II-04, EPOS-LHC and SIBYLL 2.3.

2. Post-LHC models predict a Λµ value higher than that predicted by Pre-

LHC models.

3. The models might need:
a harder μ energy spectrum,
a decrease of elasticity in pion interactions,
a reduction of forward production of baryon/antibaryon pairs, etc.,

to agree with the data.

Summary

ISMD 2017, Tlaxcala, Mexico Tests of SIBYLL 2.3 using KG data - J.C. Arteaga 30

SLIDE 31