- Indico style
- Indico style - inline minutes
- Indico style - numbered
- Indico style - numbered + minutes
- Indico Weeks View
Indico maintenance tomorrow 21.1.2025 from 9-10 am
General and open workshop to discuss technology and science of air shower simulations, and meeting of the CORSIKA 8 Project.
ZOOM link: https://zoom.us/j/786000579
Q: Why are e.g. on slide 9 the differences for muons so small and for other particles much larger?
A: Two aspects: 1) Keep in mind that some particles are rarer than others, e.g. Kaons. So a relativly large difference for them is rather small in absolute numbers. 2) The energy spectra a steep. What counts most for the longitudinal profiles in the end are just a few low-energy bins.
Q: What are the differences for UrQMD in CORSIKA 7 vs 8?
A: 1) Impact parameter range: hardcoded values in CORSIKA 7, default given by UrQMD itself in CORSIKA 8. 2) Intertial system of the event: lab frame in CORSIKA 8, sth. else in CORSIKA 7
A hadronic interaction plays an important role in air shower development, and the detailed understanding is a key to understand the mass composition.
The diffractive collision is one of the proposed sources of the uncertainties of air shower predictions. In this work, we investigate how the difference in the diffractive collision treatment between models affects the depth of the maximum of the air shower developments
In the sub-TeV regime, popular hadronic interaction models disagree in their predictions for post-first interaction and ground-level particle spectra. These model differences generate a significant source of inherent uncertainty in their experimental utilization.
We investigate the nature and impact of such differences through a simultaneous analysis of ground level particles and first interaction scenarios. We focus on initialized events at energies close to the transition between high and low energy hadronic interaction models, where the discrepancies have been shown to be maximal. We find the models to diverge as more concrete shower scenarios are compared, pointing to characteristic differences in the models phenomenology. Finally, we discuss an argumentation for the scaling of such differences and their decrement at higher initial energies.
I describe a Forward Multiparticle Spectrometer (FMS) that could be installed as a new subsystem for CMS in Run 4, with p+p collisions at s = 14 TeV and with p + O and O + O collisions. It uses a new superconducting dipole as a spectrometer magnet to measure multi-TeV charged hadron spectra behind a large radius beam pipe. The tracking detectors and calorimeters, between z = 116 m and 126 m, are clones of the planned CMS Endcap upgrade, supplemented by transition radiation detectors for hadron identification. In addition to measuring the spectra of , K , p, pbar and light antinuclei, charmed hadrons,
J/ and other decaying particles can be measured at high Feynman-x. At high luminosity the FMS in a different mode can search for penetrating long-lived neutral particles. An Expression of Interest is in preparation.
Probability of E_e.m./E_primary > 0.80 roughly corresponds to the fraction of proton showers misidentified as photons. But this "0.80" depends on the gamma-hadron discrimination capability of the system, 0.8 is not so bad for CTA, and the value may be lower for the current IACT systems.
We will report about the optimization work done so far on CORSIKA 7 for the use case of CTA. We will present in particular how we have applied vectorization techniques to the Cherenkov module obtaining a speed-up of almost a factor 2.
there was a long disucssion, but I was mostly involved actively and could not write down many of the details. If someone has: please add here.
It is possible to couple python code to C8 in the future, if data exchange is all there.
But it is actually very simple to implement the inner part of MCEq in C++.