Raman Spectroscopy Studyof Rotated Double-Layer Graphene ...
Studyof mass sensitive parametersfor AMIGA and AERA...
Transcript of Studyof mass sensitive parametersfor AMIGA and AERA...
Study of mass sensitive parameters for AMIGA and AERA cosmic ray detectors
Relatori: Prof. Bertaina Mario Edoardo
Dr. Haungs Andreas
Corelatore: Mr. Stuani Pereira Luiz Augusto
1Daniele Proverbio - a.a. 2015/16 - UNITO
A.A. 2015/2016Università degli Studi di Torino – Dipartimento di Fisica
Luglio 2016
Candidato: Proverbio Daniele
Where: Karlsruhe Institute of TechnologyErasmus Traineeship Project
Karlsruhe, Baden-Württemberg, Germany
KIT – Campus North
2Daniele Proverbio - a.a. 2015/16 - UNITO
Introduction: Cosmic Rays 1 : SPECTRUM
4
Directly detected Detected by studiyng secondary rays
Auger
Daniele Proverbio - a.a. 2015/16 - UNITO
Introduction: Cosmic Rays 2: AIR SHOWERS
5
Lateral air shower profile
Shower components
Daniele Proverbio - a.a. 2015/16 - UNITO
Introduction: Cosmic Rays 3: HADRONIC AND MUONIC COMPONENTS at the GROUND
• Hadronic component:• Accounts only 1%
• Mostly absorbed or decayed before reaching the ground: it feeds the othercomponents
• Muonic component:• Constitutes a narrow cone which is the shower core
• 10% of total, but 80% of what’s detected
6
Possible muonic creation decays:
Daniele Proverbio - a.a. 2015/16 - UNITO
Introduction: Cosmic Rays 4: ELECTROMAGNETIC COMPONENT
• Created mostly via bremsstrahlung (pair production, Compton scattering, photoelettric effect and ionization can be neglected)
• Fed by other processes: 90% among all
• High values of lateral spread due to Coulomb
scattering
• Produces detectable radio waves through:• Geomagnetic field deflection (left)
• Askarian effect (charge excess) (right)
7Daniele Proverbio - a.a. 2015/16 - UNITO
Introduction: Tools and Softwares
• Simulation Softwares:• CoREAS
• CORSIKA QGS-JET II-04
• Geant4
• Data analysis softwares:• Cern ROOT
• Off Software
• EventBrowser
• Self-written C++ code
8
line
Components of an air shower simulated with CORSIKA
Daniele Proverbio - a.a. 2015/16 - UNITO
Intoduction: the Auger Observatory 1
9Daniele Proverbio - a.a. 2015/16 - UNITO
• Sited in Pampa Amarilla, Argentina• 3,000 km2 detection area• Officially completed in 2008• Designed to detect secondary air shower
particles with E > 1018 eV
• Detectors:• Surface Detectors (SD) • Fluorescence Detectors (FD)• High Elevation Auger
Telescopes (HEAT)• Auger Engineering Radio Array
(AERA)• Auger Muons and Infill for the
Ground Array (AMIGA)
AMIGA
Considered Auger Detectors: Auger EnhancementAERA•
AMIGA•
Daniele Proverbio - a.a. 2015/16 - UNITO 10
AERA
Energy RangeAERA LPDA Antenna
AMIGA scintillatordeployment
GoalCombine AERA and AMIGA • measurements
Look for • correlations between Erad and Nμ
Combine • results with simulations
Study• mass estimator parameters
11
Exploit combined measurementsto figure out the mass composition of primary cosmic rays
using mass estimators
Here we start Daniele Proverbio - a.a. 2015/16 - UNITO
Introduction: ParametresGENERAL:•
E: • energy [eV]
• θ: zenith angle [°]
• φ: azimuth angle [°]
• α : angle in respect to the geomagnetic field [°]
• β: slope of Lateral Distribution Function (LDF)
AERA:•• Erad : detected Radio Energy [eV]
• Srad = Erad
𝑠𝑖𝑛α+0.14 2 [eV] Askarian effect correction
AMIGA:•• Nμ
ref: number of muons at reference distance on LDF [ m-2]
CORSIKA:•• Nμ
TOT: simulated real number of muons reaching the ground• Einc : Energy of Incident Particle [eV]
New:•
• ℵ = ൗSrad
Nμ
12
Offline LDF fit
Daniele Proverbio - a.a. 2015/16 - UNITO
Quantitative separation estimator:
η = |⟨𝐴⟩−⟨𝐵⟩|
σ𝐴2+σ𝐵
2Merit Factor
Lateral Distribution Function (LDF)
Nμref
Introduction: hybrid measurements
13Daniele Proverbio - a.a. 2015/16 - UNITO
- Nμ ≈ 1.69 ∙ 𝑨𝟎.𝟏 ∙ 102,25 ∙𝐸
1017.5
0.9
- Erad ∝ Ne ∝ A-0.046
- ൗ𝑆𝑟𝑎𝑑 𝑁𝜇∝ 𝑨−𝟎.𝟏𝟓
(Blümer 2009)
Quality Cuts:
• Time Period: 03/2013 – 11/2015: Full AMIGA detecting period
• E ≥ 1017,5 eV : lower limit for full efficiency of the AMIGA infill (see Appendix A for graphic)
• θ ≤ 55° : efficiency threshold for significant η
• Core within UC
• Erad > 0 : we want Erad reconstructed
• α ≥ 10° : geomagnetic effect ≫ Askarian effect
• No MD saturation
Is theory well founded?• CORSIKA sim study
• Contrast NμTOT/Einc and Nμ
TOT/Ecalorimetric
• Look for best mass discrimination
Daniele Proverbio - a.a. 2015/16 - UNITO 14
η = 1,75 η = 1,89
7% improvement!
- Nμ ≈ 1.69 ∙ 𝑨𝟎.𝟏 ∙ 102,25 ∙𝐸
1017.5
0.9
- Erad ∝ Ne ∝ A-0.046
- ℵ = ൗ𝑆𝑟𝑎𝑑 𝑁𝜇
∝ 𝑨−𝟎.𝟏𝟓
Au
ger
2016
Pre
limin
ary
First Analysis
Daniele Proverbio - a.a. 2015/16 - UNITO 15
Primary Energy: Relaxed
Provided by Ewa Holt
Nμref = 450 m
Srad
ℵ
Problem!
Auger 2016 Preliminary
Work Plan
• DEBUGGING: look for the reason(s) why the masscomposition estimation is failing
• IMPROVING: overcome the problem and get the correctparameters
• ANALYSING: re-try the analysis with the correctedparameters and evaluate the massdiscrimination power
• GOING FURTHER
Daniele Proverbio - a.a. 2015/16 - UNITO 16
Looking for unexpected features: DEBUGGING
Mass • separation fails: causes?Different• methods or bias from CoRSIKA QSG-JET II-04 (Shower simulation) to Offline (Detectors’ reconstruction)?
Reference • distance fixed at r0 = 450 m: is it ok?
• Erad behavior?
Therefore• : Compare • simulations with reconstructions, applying quality cuts and contrasting main parameters (namely Nµ
ref vs NµTOT and Erad vs Einc)
Compare • r0 with literature.
Daniele Proverbio - a.a. 2015/16 - UNITO 17
Offline Reconstructions – Applying Quality Cuts• Sample:
• #events: 205 Proton, 210 Iron• Omogeneous distribution of Log10(E) and ϑ
Daniele Proverbio - a.a. 2015/16 - UNITO 18
Au
ger
2016
Pre
limin
ary
Crossed analysis – ERAD vs EINC
Daniele Proverbio - a.a. 2015/16 - UNITO 19
Proton
Iron
● rPearson too low → need to apply AERA quality cuts● Ang. Coeff ̴ 1 (Test Z guarantees) but not-so-good correlation● Erad = 𝑆𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑒𝐹𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟 ∙ 𝐸𝑖𝑛𝑐 according to hypotesis → doesn't account much in the ratio behavior
(graph 2 and 3 in slide 23)
● Erad poor mass discriminator (from Theory: Erad ∝ A-0.046 )
Both
rPearson = 0,37
rPearson = 0,38
Au
ger
2016
Pre
limin
ary
Crossed Analysis - Nµref(450) vs Nµ
TOT
Daniele Proverbio - a.a. 2015/16 - UNITO 20
- Nµref α Nµ
TOT according to hypothesis (further on: study of rPearson)
But no discrimination between P and Fe - → Nμref(450) not good
Au
ger
2016
Pre
limin
ary
Debugging: results
• ERAD poorly related to the energy → Improvements are needed
• Nµref should have been more sensitive to the mass → problem
What• about ref = 450m?From • literature: distance that minimize
the fluctuations of LDF → good for energy study
Study• if it maximize the link
between Nµref and Nµ
TOT
Change • ref and look for the best
mass sensitive one
Daniele Proverbio - a.a. 2015/16 - UNITO 21
450m minimize LDF fluctuations
Improving: focus on AMIGAMain problem: N● μ
Ref(450) not good
Change Distance ● → change NμRef(x) → should be more mass sensitive
Study• Nµref(x) vs Nµ
TOT → focus on rPearsonfrom theory N• µ
TOT ∝ 𝐴0.1
From • CoRSIKA: clear separation
I • obtain Nµref(x) using MLDF expression:
𝑵𝝁 𝒙 = 𝑁μ 450(𝑥
𝑟0
)−α∙(1+𝑥
𝑟0
)−β∙(1+(𝑥
10𝑟0
)2)−γ
3−α∙4−β∙1.09−γ
withα =• 1 ; γ =1.85 ; r0 =150 m from Monte Carlo simulations
• Nμ(450), β extracted from Offline ADST files
x = {• 300,350,400,450,500,550,600,650} m distance from shower axis
Deep• study of MLDF behavior, but loss of Poissonian shower-to-sower fluctuations
Daniele Proverbio - a.a. 2015/16 - UNITO 22
(𝑁μ 𝑥 reconstructed are listed in Appendix C)
Clear separation using simulation
Au
ger
2016
Pre
limin
ary
Correlation Coefficient and χ2
Daniele Proverbio - a.a. 2015/16 - UNITO 23
Critical χ2
r ↑ as x ↑ χ2 ↓ as x ↑
All Fit in Appendix D1 and D2
Fit example
Au
ger
2016
Pre
limin
ary
Discrimination between P and Fe: analysis
Daniele Proverbio - a.a. 2015/16 - UNITO 24
Example for x = 600m (one of the best ones with 650m) [All in Appendix E]
A bit - better than for 450m (slide 16)Following- rPearson, the distribution separation slightly gets better for 𝑥 ≥ 500 𝑚By - following MLDF starting from Nμ
ref(450) we propagate its fluctuations → still big ones
Worth - studying Nμref(x) for 𝒙 ≥ 𝟓𝟎𝟎𝒎, but it’s necessary to exploit directly-taken-from-Offline data
(fluctuation reduction?, Poisson, Errors, ecc…)
Au
ger
2016
Pre
limin
ary
Ratio ℵ Behaviour
Daniele Proverbio - a.a. 2015/16 - UNITO 25
Everything - is mixed up
- ℵ = ൗ𝑆𝑟𝑎𝑑 𝑁𝜇∝ 𝑨−𝟎.𝟏𝟓 seems to be overwhelmed by the (amplified by ratio) poor correlation of reconstructed data
with original ones (see previous analyses)
- ℵ doesn’t seem to be a good mass sensitive parameter so far
Au
ger
2016
Pre
limin
ary
Conclusions: mass estimationNecessary• to change ref → Nμ
ref > 500m ;
As• seen from simulations, ℵ = ൗ𝑆𝑟𝑎𝑑 𝑁
𝜇is worth studying, but it must be
improved
Suggested• improvements:• Erad → AERA quality cuts, noise packages
• Nμref
Consider• data directly extracted from Offline
Change• ref and determine the most sensitive one crossing rPearson, χ2 results and real MLDFfluctuation and μ detection
Consider• other AMIGA parameters e.g. 300
+∞𝑀𝐿𝐷𝐹 𝑑𝑥
Other• strategies
Daniele Proverbio - a.a. 2015/16 - UNITO 26
Going Further: new hypothesis for mass estimation?
Daniele Proverbio - a.a. 2015/16 - UNITO 27
• Focus first on Nμ (less fluctuations than ℵ)
• NμTOT ≈ 1.69 ∙ 𝑨𝟎.𝟏 ∙ 102,25 ∙
𝐸
1017.5
0.9→ Nμ
ref≈ 𝐶 ∙ 𝑨𝟎.𝟏 ∙𝐸
1017.5
𝑘
when performing double Log10 → linearization
log10(Nμref ) ≈ log10 𝐶 ∙ 𝑨𝟎.𝟏 + 𝑘 ∙ log10
𝐸
1017.5≈ 𝑝0+ 𝑝1 ∙ log10(𝐸𝑛𝑜𝑟𝑚)
where 𝒑𝟎 contains mass dependance → Fit
• Study behaviour and Merit Factor for p0proton and p0
iron
• Way of mass estimating?• Decide a fixed distance 500 ≤ 𝑥 ≤ 750 (AMIGA physical limit)
• Figure of Merit
• ‘’Battleship’’
Log10(Nμref ) vs 𝑳𝒐𝒈𝟏𝟎(𝑬𝒏𝒐𝒓𝒎) Fit Results
• p0proton < p0
iron always (as in theory)
• p1proton ~ p1
iron (Z < Zcritical starting from 500m) (as in theory)
Merit• Factor η ~ 2 always → good discrimination power
Worth • studying with direct data (taking errors into account, reducingfluctuations…)
Daniele Proverbio - a.a. 2015/16 - UNITO 28
Fit Examples 600m
See tables in Appendix F
Au
ger
2016
Pre
limin
ary
Direct Data: Fit Results
• p1 should be compatible → Z test
• p2 should be separated → ‘’inversed’’ Z test (Discriminator Factor)
• Results:• Best Z test: 600m
• High Discriminator Factor in average
• Best visual trend: 600m
• Considering also previous results
(rpearson, ecc) → 600m best distance
Daniele Proverbio - a.a. 2015/16 - UNITO 29
All in Appendix G
600m : best division
(Tables in Appendix G)
Au
ger
2016
Pre
limin
ary
Figure of Merit• [Log10(Nμ
ref(600) ) vs Log10(𝐸𝑛𝑜𝑟𝑚)] chart
• Valid for [Log10(ℵ) vs 𝑳𝒐𝒈𝟏𝟎(𝑬𝒏𝒐𝒓𝒎)] chart too → consequent hybrid improvement
• σ = σ𝑛=1𝑁 [𝑦𝑛−(𝑎+𝑏∙𝑥𝑛)]2
𝑁−2
• η(E) = |𝑎𝐹𝑒+𝑏𝐹𝑒∙𝐿𝑜𝑔
10𝐸𝑛𝑜𝑟𝑚
−𝑎𝑃−𝑏𝑃∙𝐿𝑜𝑔10 𝐸𝑛𝑜𝑟𝑚
|
σ𝐹𝑒2 +σ𝑃
2
Daniele Proverbio - a.a. 2015/16 - UNITO 30
(Calculation in Appendix H)
Slightly +Fe -P
Slightly +P -FeMore Iron
More Proton
η(E)
Au
ger
2016
Pre
limin
ary
Conclusions• First it’s needed to improve our parameters as explained in the previous
section
• By performing the fit for Log10(Nμref ) vs Log10(𝐸𝑛𝑜𝑟𝑚) we extracted p0,
parameter that contains mass dependence
• Region division and Figure of Merit for• [Log10(Nμ
ref ) vs Log10(𝐸𝑛𝑜𝑟𝑚)] chart
• [Log10(ℵ) vs 𝑳𝒐𝒈𝟏𝟎(𝑬𝒏𝒐𝒓𝒎)] chart
• User Guide
Daniele Proverbio - a.a. 2015/16 - UNITO 31
Appendix A: Quality cuts and errors
Daniele Proverbio - a.a. 2015/16 - UNITO 34
Dependency of η on θ
Errors: not going to take error bars into account:We’re interested in general correlation behaviourUsing MLDF method will lead to systematic error over-estimation due to uncertainty propagation → we’ll consider errors after Offline direct extraction
Appendix B: CoRSIKA Simulations• Already performed, stored in
/gluster/aera/public/simulations/AERA/library/mdrdStudy
• Need to write a C++ codex for fetching needed data (NµTOT reaching the ground)
→ /home/proverbio/simDatas/run.cpp
• Comparing with Offline simulations: few missing files (not reconstructed)
Daniele Proverbio - a.a. 2015/16 - UNITO 35500 Proton, 500 Iron 445 Proton, 440 Iron
Au
ger
20
16
Pre
limin
ary
Appendix C : Nμ(x) distributions
Daniele Proverbio - a.a. 2015/16 - UNITO 36
Au
ger
2016
Pre
limin
ary
Appendix D1: Fe - fitting Nμ(x) and NμTOT
Daniele Proverbio - a.a. 2015/16 - UNITO 37
Au
ger
2016
Pre
limin
ary
Appendix D2: P - fitting Nμ(x) and NμTOT
Daniele Proverbio - a.a. 2015/16 - UNITO 38
Au
ger
2016
Pre
limin
ary
Appendix E: Correlation Coefficient and χ2
• There’s no absolute maximum for Pearson coefficient inside the studied range (read: inside AMIGA physicalrange)
• ref = 450 m doesn’t maximise r
• Extrapolation of distance which rPearson is maximum in → parabolic fit and derivative
Daniele Proverbio - a.a. 2015/16 - UNITO 39
Iron: xrmax = (993 ± 27) m Proton: xrmax = (1268 ± 25) m
• χ2 < χ2 critical only after x ≈400 m → results too close to the shower core are less statistically relevant (we’ll not study them anymore)
χ2 < χ2 critical only after x ≈400 m → right decision to consider
450+∞
𝑀𝐿𝐷𝐹 𝑑𝑥
as suggested e.g. in Salfenmoser(2015)
Au
ger
2016
Pre
limin
ary
Appendix F1: Discrimination between P and Fe –Nμ vs Log(E)
Daniele Proverbio - a.a. 2015/16 - UNITO 40
Au
ger
2016
Pre
limin
ary
Appendix F2: Discrimination between P and Fe –Log(Nμ) vs Log(E)
Daniele Proverbio - a.a. 2015/16 - UNITO 41
- I don’t consider 𝑥 < 500𝑚 anymore- We can see that the average fluctuations
are similar, due to the MLDF analiticalpropagation of the same Nμ
ref(450)
Au
ger
2016
Pre
limin
ary
Appendix G: Fit parameters
Daniele Proverbio - a.a. 2015/16 - UNITO 42
Proton: fitParameters
distance [m] p0 σp0 p1 σp1
300 -8,09 1,07 0,444 0,058
350 -8,186 1 0,444 0,055
400 -8,274 0,94 0,444 0,051
450 -8,355 0,89 0,444 0,049
500 -8,35 0,84 0,444 0,046
550 -8,502 0,81 0,444 0,044
600 -8,57 0,78 0,444 0,042
650 -8,635 0,75 0,444 0,041
Iron: fitParameters
distance [m] p0 σp0 p1 σp1
300 -4,93 1,1 0,2765 0,058
350 -5,24 0,99 0,2883 0,052
400 -5,52 0,94 0,2989 0,051
450 -5,78 0,89 0,3086 0,049
500 -6,01 0,85 0,3175 0,046
550 -6,24 0,81 0,3258 0,044
600 -6,44 0,78 0,3334 0,043
650 -6,64 0,76 0,3406 0,041
MeritFactorP0 TestZP1
2,06 2,04
2,09 2,06
2,07 2,01
2,05 1,95
1,96 1,94
1,97 1,90
1,93 1,84
1,87 1,78
Appendix H: Direct Data - distributions
Daniele Proverbio - a.a. 2015/16 - UNITO 43
As stated, we focus on x > 500m
Au
ger
2016
Pre
limin
ary
Appendix I1: Direct Data: Fit
Daniele Proverbio - a.a. 2015/16 - UNITO 44
Best
Au
ger
2016
Pre
limin
ary
Appendix I2: Direct Data: Fit Parameters
Iron
distance p0 σP0 p1 σP1
500 -0,4428 0,008727 0,5134 0,008383
550 -0,5503 0,008727 0,5135 0,008384
600 -0,6943 0,009357 0,5814 0,00953
650 -0,7513 0,008964 0,5221 0,008994
700 -0,8548 0,009 0,5295 0,009066
Daniele Proverbio - a.a. 2015/16 - UNITO 45
Proton
p0 σP0 p1 σP1
-0,6618 0,01218 0,6448 0,01077
-0,7738 0,01215 0,6492 0,01073
-0,8753 0,0122 0,6491 0,01073
-0,9719 0,01215 0,6492 0,01073
-1,064 0,01215 0,6489 0,01074
Ztest p1 DiscriminatorFactor p0
9,62779243 14,61582845
9,96543953 14,94045946
4,71741153 11,77228741
9,07799398 14,61036742
8,49526343 13,83573373
- Same behaviour of analitical data (p0proton < p0
iron )High - values for Z test because of underestimation of errors (systematic ones not considered yet)Same- goes for DiscriminatorFactorWe- focus on the trend instead of values (e.i. Looking for the minimum and the general distibution)
Appendix L: mass estimation
Apart• from our own considerations and analysis, a ref = 600m is also mentioned in OfflineDoc(westeros.cgca.uwm.edu) in ShowerMRecData.h line 157, for fNMuRef. We don’t know why it wasn’timplemented in Offline code (there was ref = 450m), but it’s relieving to see that it was already hypotesiedas a useful distance. Now we can state that it’s the best one for mass discrimination studies.
Daniele Proverbio - a.a. 2015/16 - UNITO 46
westeros.cgca.uwm.edu in ShowerMRecData.h line 157, for fNMuRef
Image Credits• [2] Germany Map: https://goo.gl/eWnZNi
• [2] KIT Map: http://goo.gl/ikdJ4a
• [2] Castle: http://goo.gl/0LZdZy
• [4] Spectrum 1: Jansen (2016)
• [4] Spectrum 2: http://goo.gl/qu8VzW
• [5] Air shower profile: Niechciol (2011)
• [5] Shower components: Fuhrmann (2012)
• [7] Electromagnetic effects: Quader Dorosti Hasankiadeh & The Pierre Auger Collaboration, Radio Detection of air shower at the Pierre AugerObservatory, KIT
• [8] Simulated showers: Klepser (2006)
• [9] Pierre Auger Overlook: http://goo.gl/L9sOKq
• [9] Tank in foreground: https://goo.gl/9qrvLG
• [10] LPDA: Neuser (2010)
• [10] AMIGA energy frame: Garilli(2013)
• [10] AMIGA deployment: Niechciol (2011)
• [13] Hybrid measurements: Pierre Auger Collaboration (2016)
• [15] Ewa Holt’s Plots
• [21] MLDF fluctuations: Tapia (2015)
• [34] AMIGA efficiency: Pierre Auger Collaboration (2011)
• [34] Merit Factor Graphic: Tapia (2013)
Daniele Proverbio - a.a. 2015/16 - UNITO 47
Essential Bibliography• P. Abreu & al., Advanced functionality for radio analysis in the Offline software framework of the Pierre Auger Observatory, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in
Physics Research A635, 2011, 92–102
• A. A. Al-Rubaiee & al., Study of Cherenkov Light Lateral Distribution Function around the Knee Region in Extensive Air Showers, arXiv:1505.02757 [physics.gen-ph] 6 May 2015
• AugerWiki, The AMIGA extension for the Offline Framework (https://goo.gl/m4EmGK)
• D. Atri, Hadronic interaction models and the angular distribution of cosmic ray muons, arXiv:1309.5874v1 [astro-ph.HE] 23 Sep 2013
• J. Blümer, R. Engel & J. R. Hörandel, Cosmic rays from the knee to the highest energies, Elesevier B.V., 2009, doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2009.05.002
• I. M. Brancus & al., Features of muon arrival time distributions of high energy EAS at large distances from the shower axis, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. 29 (2003) 453–473
• G.Garilli, Study of the performances of the AMIGA muon detectors of the Pierre Auger Observatory, Università degli Studi di Catania, PhD Thesis, 2013
• K. Greisen, Cosmic Ray Showers, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Sci. 1960.10:63-108. (downloaded from www.annualreviews.org)
• A. Haungs for KASCADE Collaboration, Multifractal moment analysis of the core of PeV air shower for the estimate of the cosmic ray composition, Karlsruhe (arXiv: 10.1.1.8.4816)
• J. R. Hörandel, A review of experimental results at the knee, arXiv:astro-ph/0508014v1 31 Jul 2005
• T. Huege, CoREAS 1.0 User’s Manual, 2013
• S. Jansen, Radio for the Masses - Cosmic ray mass composition measurements in the radio frequency domain, Radboud University Nijmegen, 2016
• K.H. Kampert & M.l Unger, Measurements of the Cosmic Ray Composition with Air Shower Experiments, arXiv:1201.0018v2 [astro-ph.HE] 19 Feb 2012
• S. Klepser, CORSIKA: Extensive Air ShowerSimulation, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, 2006
• D. Kostunin & al., Reconstruction of air-shower parameters for large-scale radio detectors using the lateral distribution, arXiv:1504.05083v2 [astro-ph.HE] 18 Dec2015
• J. Neuser, Radio Measurement of Extensive Air Showers at the Pierre Auger Observatory, Bergischen Universität Wuppertal, 2010
Daniele Proverbio - a.a. 2015/16 - UNITO 48
Essential Bibliography• B. Sc. M. Niechciol, Muon counter simulation studies for the AMIGA enhancement of the Pierre Auger Observatory, Universität Siegen, 2011
• Pierre Auger Collaboration, Energy Estimation of Cosmic Rays with the Engineering Radio Array of the Pierre Auger Observatory, arXiv:1508.04267v1 [astro-ph.HE] 18 Aug 2015
• Pierre Auger collaboration, Prototype muon detectors for the AMIGA component of the Pierre Auger Observatory, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/11/02/P02012
• Pierre Auger Collaboration, The Pierre Auger Observatory V: Enhancements, 32ND International Cosmic Ray Conference, Beijing 2011
• Pierre Auger Collaboration and J.G. Gonzalez, The Offline Software of the Pierre Auger Observatory: Lessons Learned, arXiv:1208.2154v1 [astro-ph.IM] 10 Aug 2012
• Pierre Auger Collaboration and F. Schröder, Radio detection of high-energy cosmic rays with the Auger Engineering Radio Array, arXiv:1601.00462v1 [astro-ph.IM] 4 Jan 2016
• Pierre Auger Collaboration & F. Suarez, The AMIGA muon detectors of the Pierre Auger Observatory: overview and status, 33RD International cosmic ray conference, Rio de Janeiro 2013
• Pierre Auger Collaboration and E. Varela, The low-energy extensions of the Pierre Auger Observatory, Journal of Physics: Conference Series 468 (2013), doi:10.1088/1742-6596/468/1/012013
• D. Ravignani & A. D. Supanitsky, A new method for reconstructing the muon lateral distribution with an array of segmented counters, arXiv:1411.7649v1 [astro-ph.IM] 27 Nov 2014
• D. Ravignani, A. D. Supanitsky, D. Melo, and B. Wundheiler, A method to reconstruct the muon lateral distribution with an array of segmented counters with time resolution, arXiv:1510.01266v1 [astro-ph.IM] 5 Oct 2015
• L. Salfenmoser, E. Holt, F. Schröder & A. Haungs, A First Combined Analysis of AMIGA and AERA Measurements, GAP 2015-004
• A. D. Supanitsky & al., Underground Muon Counters as a Tool for Composition Analyses, arXiv:0804.1068v2 [astro-ph] 13 Oct 2008
• A. Tapia & al., Study of the chemical composition of high energy cosmic rays using the muon LDF of EAS between 1017.25 eV and 1017.75 eV, arXiv:1501.02217v1 [astro-ph.HE] 9 Jan 2015
• A. Tapia & al., The lateral shower age parameter as an estimator of chemical composition, 33ND International cosmic ray conference, Rio de Janeiro, 2013, arXiv:1309.3536v1 [astro-ph.HE] 13 Sep 2013
• J. Vícha, Analysis of Air Showers with respect to Primary Composition of Cosmic Rays, GAP-2016-025 (2015)
Daniele Proverbio - a.a. 2015/16 - UNITO 49