EPJ Web of Conferences 208, 08013 (2019) https://doi.org/10.

1051/epjconf/201920808013
ISVHECRI 2018

Test of the hadronic interaction models SIBYLL2.3, EPOS-LHC and QGSJETII-

04 with Tibet EAS core data

M. Amenomori1 , X. J. Bi2 , D. Chen3 , T. L. Chen4 , W. Y. Chen2 , S. W. Cui5 , Danzengluobu4 , L. K. Ding2 , C. F. Feng6 ,

Zhaoyang Feng2 , Z. Y. Feng7 , Q. B. Gou2 , Y. Q. Guo2 , H. H. He2 , Z. T. He5 , K. Hibino8 , N. Hotta9 , Haibing Hu4 ,
H. B. Hu2 , J. Huang2 , H. Y. Jia7 , L. Jiang2 , F. Kajino10 , K. Kasahara11 , Y. Katayose12 , C. Kato13 , K. Kawata14 , M.
Kozai13,15 , Labaciren4 , G. M. Le16 , A. F. Li17,6,2 , H. J. Li4 , W. J. Li2,7 , Y. H. Lin2,18 , C. Liu2 , J. S. Liu2 , M. Y. Liu4 , H. Lu2 ,
X. R. Meng4 , T. Miyazaki13 , K. Munakata13 , T. Nakajima13 , Y. Nakamura13 , H. Nanjo1 , M. Nishizawa19 , T. Niwa13 ,
M. Ohnishi14 , I. Ohta20 , S. Ozawa11 , X. L. Qian6,2 , X. B. Qu21 , T. Saito22 , T. Y. Saito23 , M. Sakata10 , T. K. Sako14 ,
J. Shao2,6 , M. Shibata12 , A. Shiomi24 , T. Shirai8 , H. Sugimoto25 , M. Takita14 , Y. H. Tan2 , N. Tateyama8 , S. Torii11 ,
H. Tsuchiya26 , S. Udo8 , H. Wang2 , H. R. Wu2 , L. Xue6 , Y. Yamamoto10 , K. Yamauchi12 , Z. Yang2 , A. F. Yuan4 , L. M.
Zhai3 , H. M. Zhang2 , J. L. Zhang2 , X. Y. Zhang6 , Y. Zhang2 , Yi Zhang2 , Ying Zhang2,∗ , Zhaxisangzhu4 , and X. X. Zhou7
(The Tibet ASγ Collaboration)
1
Department of Physics, Hirosaki University, Hirosaki 036-8561, Japan
2
Key Laboratory of Particle Astrophysics, Institute of High Energy Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China
3
National Astronomical Observatories, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100012, China
4
Department of Mathematics and Physics, Tibet University, Lhasa 850000, China
5
Department of Physics, Hebei Normal University, Shijiazhuang 050016, China
6
Department of Physics, Shandong University, Jinan 250100, China
7
Institute of Modern Physics, SouthWest Jiaotong University, Chengdu 610031, China
8
Faculty of Engineering, Kanagawa University, Yokohama 221-8686, Japan
9
Faculty of Education, Utsunomiya University, Utsunomiya 321-8505, Japan
10
Department of Physics, Konan University, Kobe 658-8501, Japan
11
Research Institute for Science and Engineering, Waseda University, Tokyo 169-8555, Japan
12
Faculty of Engineering, Yokohama National University, Yokohama 240-8501, Japan
13
Department of Physics, Shinshu University, Matsumoto 390-8621, Japan
14
Institute for Cosmic Ray Research, University of Tokyo, Kashiwa 277-8582, Japan
15
Institute of Space and Astronautical Science, Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (ISAS/JAXA), Sagamihara 252-5210, Japan
16
National Center for Space Weather, China Meteorological Administration, Beijing 100081, China
17
School of Information Science and Engineering, Shandong Agriculture University, Taian 271018, China
18
University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China
19
National Institute of Informatics, Tokyo 101-8430, Japan
20
Sakushin Gakuin University, Utsunomiya 321-3295, Japan
21
College of Science, China University of Petroleum, Qingdao 266555, China
22
Tokyo Metropolitan College of Industrial Technology, Tokyo 116-8523, Japan
23
Max-Planck-Institut für Physik, Munich D-80805, Germany
24
College of Industrial Technology, Nihon University, Narashino 275-8576, Japan
25
Shonan Institute of Technology, Fujisawa 251-8511, Japan
26
Japan Atomic Energy Agency, Tokai-mura 319-1195, Japan

Abstract. A hybrid experiment has been started by the ASγ experiment at Yangbajing (4300m a.s.l.) in Tibet
since May 2009, that consists of a high-energy air-shower-core array (YAC-I) and a high-density air-shower
array (Tibet-III). In this paper, we report our results to check the hadronic interaction models SIBYLL2.3,
SIBYLL2.1, EPOS-LHC and QGSJETII-04 in the multi-tens TeV energy region using YAC-I+Tibet-III ex-
perimental data from May 2009 through January 2010. The effective live time is calculated as 106.05 days.
The results show that the description of transverse momentum, inelastic cross-section and inelasticity for the 4
hadronic interaction models is consistent with YAC-I experimental data within 15% systematic errors range in
the forward region below 100 TeV. Among them, the EPOS-LHC model is the best hadronic interaction model.
Furthermore, we find that the H4a composition model is the best one below the 100 TeV energy region.

1 Introduction
∗ e-mail: [email protected]
Monte Carlo simulations are widely used in extensive air
showers (EAS), which are based on some hadronic inter-

© The Authors, published by EDP Sciences. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution
License 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
EPJ Web of Conferences 208, 08013 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1051/epjconf/201920808013
ISVHECRI 2018

action models and primary cosmic ray composition mod- Table 1. Statistics of air-shower core events in MC simulation
and experiment.
els. At present, the simulation code Corsika that is com-
prehensively used in the surface cosmic ray studies in- Models Primaries(E≥1TeV) Data set
cludes many interaction models. For accelerator experi-
QGSJETII-04+He-poor 4.86×1010 5304
ments with energies lower than 2 TeV - the correspond-
SIBYLL2.1 +He-poor 4.12×1010 4838
ing fixed-target energy of the highest ISR energy, the in-
SIBYLL2.3 +He-poor 2.09×1010 2616
elastic interaction cross section, the interaction inelasticity
EPOS-LHC +He-poor 4.86×1010 5411
and the distribution of large x (Feynman variable) parti-
EPOS-LHC +He-rich 1.27×1012 155607
cles (or particles produced in the forward region) have es-
EPOS-LHC +H4a 1.74×1012 231344
sentially been measured [1]. However, when the energy
Expt.data 921
goes higher, the inelasticity and the distribution of large
x particles produced were no longer directly measured by
hadron collider experiments, and one has to use extrapola-
tion of the laws established at lower energies. Obviously,
the correctness of the extrapolation determines the correct- SIBYLL2.1, SIBYLL2.3 and EPOS-LHC hadronic inter-
ness of the description of EASs at higher energies. For action models are used to generate AS events [3]. For the
multi-parameter measurements of EASs, it seemed that primary cosmic rays, we used three composition models,
no interaction model can explain all the data consistently namely, "He-poor", "He-rich" and "H4a" models [4–6],
[2]. Therefore, the hadronic interaction models need to be The details of the assumed primary cosmic-ray flux are de-
checked and further improved. scribed in [7]. Primaries isotropically incident at the top of
A hybrid experiment has been started by the ASγ ex- the atmosphere within zenith angles from 0 to 60 degrees
periment at Yangbajing (4300m a.s.l.) in Tibet since May are injected into the atmosphere. The minimum primary
2009, that consists of a high-energy air-shower-core array energy of this simulation is set at 1 TeV. Secondary parti-
(YAC-I) and a high-density air-shower array (Tibet-III). cles are traced down to an altitude of 4300 m till 1 MeV.
In this paper, we investigated hadronic interaction mod- The axis of each EAS event is randomly dropped onto an
els (QGSJETII-04, SIBYLL2.1, SIBYLL2.3 and EPOS- area of 52.84 m × 52.14 m, which includes the marginal
LHC) in the forward region of EAS in the multi-tens space of 25 m outside each side of the detectors. The
TeV energy region using the data obtained by the (YAC- electromagnetic showers in the lead layer induced by elec-
I+Tibet-III) experiment. trons or photons that hit any detector unit of the array are
treated by a subroutine that is based on the detector simu-
lation code Geant4 (version 9.5) [8]. In order to check the
2 Experiment forward-region hadronic interaction models at multi-TeV
A new EAS hybrid experiment called YAC (Yangbajing energies, we selected six combinations of interaction mod-
Air shower Core array) has been constructed near the cen- els and primary composition models. The number of AS
ter of the Tibet III AS array with dense spacing in Ti- events generated for each model is shown in table 1.
bet, 4300 m above sea level (an atmosphere depth of 606 Normally, we can obtain the following quantities from
g/cm−2 ). YAC-I observes high energy electromagnetic YAC-I and Tibet-III array:
particles in air shower (AS) cores within several meters Nb – the number of shower particles under the lead plate
from the shower axis, and the Tibet-III array measures the of a detector unit; Nhit – the number of "fired" detector
total energy and the arrival direction of air showers. YAC-I units with Nb ≥ a given threshold value; sumNb – the to-
detector consists of a scintillator of 40 cm × 50 cm in area tal burst size of all fired detector units; Nb top – the maxi-
with 1 cm thickness and lead absorber of 3.5 cm thick- mum burst size among fired detectors; Rw – the mean lat-
ness supported by a 1 cm thick iron plate above the scin- eral spread, (Rw =ΣRi /(Nhit -1), where Ri is the lateral dis-
tillator. High energy electromagnetic particles near the AS tance from the air shower core (Xc ,Yc ) to the center of the
axis induce local cascade showers (burst) through lead and ith fired detector; Nb R – the mean energy-flow spread,

these shower particles enter the scintillators. The scintil- Nb R= (Nbi ×ri )/Nhit ; Ne – the air shower size is esti-
lator is divided into 10 pieces of 5 cm width and a wave- mated by fitting the lateral density distribution using the
length shifting fiber is used to collect the scintillation light NKG function; θ – the arrival direction of the air shower.
through each piece. To achieve a wider shower size mea-
In this paper, we obtain the samples under the fol-
surement under the lead layer, a wide dynamic range from
lowing conditions: Nb ≥ 200, Nhit ≥ 3, Nbtop ≥500,
1 MIP to 106 MIPs is demanded which is realized by two
8 × 104 < Ne < 105 , the mode energy as known from the
photomultipliers (PMT).
Monte Carlo is about 80 TeV. We used the experimental
data set obtained from May 2009 through January 2010.
3 Simulations The data sample coming from successful coincidence cor-
responds a live time of 106.05 days. The simulated data
A full Monte Carlo simulation has been carried out on were analyzed in the same manner as in the procedure
the development of EAS in the atmosphere and the re- for the experimental data analysis. The statistics of core
sponse in YAC-I and Tibet-III detectors. The simulation events of two data sets in MC simulation and experiment
code CORSIKA (version 73500) including QGSJETII-04, are listed in table 1.

2
EPJ Web of Conferences 208, 08013 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1051/epjconf/201920808013
ISVHECRI 2018

<NbR> (m)

<NbR> (m)
QGSJETII-04+proton QGSJETII-04+He-poor

SIBYLL2.1+proton SIBYLL2.1+He-poor
SIBYLL2.3+He-poor
SIBYLL2.3+proton
EPOS-LHC+He-poor
EPOS-LHC+proton EPOS-LHC+He-rich
EPOS-LHC+H4a
Exp.data(proton)
Exp.data

Proton-like events Mix composition

103 104 103 104

SumNb SumNb

Figure 1. Below the 100 TeV energy region, using pure-protons Figure 2. Below the 100 TeV energy region, using the all-
YAC-I experimental data to check the distribution of the Nb R particle YAC -I experimental data to check primary composition
parameter. models.

4 Results and Discussion the most consistent with YAC-I experimental results for
the description of transverse momentum.
4.1 Check transverse momentum

In order to avoid the "ambiguous" interference of the 4.2 Check primary composition model
cosmic-ray components, we selected the proton events by
ANN (Artificial Neural Network) from experimental data After we get the best ineraction models for the description
in the same way as for simulation data, whose applicability of transverse momentum, we can compare 6 sets of simu-
to our experiment was well confirmed by the MC simula- lation data combining the cosmic-ray composition models
tion. In this ANN analysis, we use the following seven and hadronic interaction models (QGSJETII-04+He-
quantities:(1) Nhit , (2) sumNb , (3) Nb top , (4) Rw , (5) Nb R, poor, SIBYLL2.1+He-poor, SIBYLL2.3+He-poor,
(6) Ne , (7) θ. These are input to the ANN with 35 hidden EPOS-LHC+He-poor, EPOS-LHC+He-rich and EPOS-
nodes and 1 output unit. To train the ANN in separat- LHC+H4a) with YAC-I experimental data, as shown
ing protons from other nuclei, the input patterns for proton in figure 2. One can see that the experimental data is
and other-nuclei are set to 0 and 1, respectively. We then consistent with simulation data under different cosmic-ray
define a critical value of T c to calculate the correspond- composition models and hadronic interaction models.
ing purity of the selected Proton-like events. In this paper, From the above section, we know that the EPOS-LHC
events with T c <0.2 are regarded as Proton-like events, and model best describes the transverse momentum in
the average selection purity over the whole energy range the forward region. Based on this, we find that the
of Proton-like events is ∼85%. EPOS-LHC+H4a model is most consistent with YAC-I
Due to the selected Proton-like events, we can avoid experimental results. As we know, the EPOS-LHC model
the "ambiguous" interference of the cosmic-ray compo- is the most consistent for the description of transverse
nents and use some weighted average lateral spread of momentum, so we can get the following conclusions: (1)
the secondary particles (Nb R) observed by the YAC to H4a composition model is most consistent with YAC-I
test the transverse momentum in the hadronic interaction experimental results below 100 TeV energy region; (2)
models. Figure 1 shows the correlation between sumNb We think that the H4a composition model is reliable
and Nb R for various hadronic interaction models using below 100 TeV because the proton and helium spectrum
Proton-like simulation data and YAC-I experimental data. of the H4a model coincides with the latest results from
It can be seen that the YAC-I experimental data is com- CREAM3.
patible with the distribution of NbR based on EPOS-LHC,
QGSJETII-04, SIBYLL2.1 and SIBYLL2.3 using Proton- 4.3 Check inelastic cross section and inelasticity
like events. Especially, YAC-experimental data are very
close to EPOS-LHC. After excluding the "ambiguous" in- It is well known that the absolute intensity of the total
terference of cosmic-ray components, we can obtain the burst sizes depends sensitively on the increase of cross
following conclusions: (1) The transverse momentum de- sections, inelasticity, and also on the primary cosmic-ray
scription of EPOS-LHC, QGSJETII-04, SIBYLL2.1 and composition. From the above section, we know that the
SIBYLL2.3 is consistent with YAC within 15% system- H4a composition model is the best one below 100 TeV.
atic errors in the forward region below the 100 TeV en- Therefore, the absolute flux of the secondary particles
ergy region; (2) Among them, the EPOS-LHC model is (sumNb) can be used to test the inelastic cross section

3
EPJ Web of Conferences 208, 08013 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1051/epjconf/201920808013
ISVHECRI 2018

5 Summary
In this paper, we checked SIBYLL2.3, SIBYLL2.1,
EPOS-LHC and QGSJETII-04 hadronic interaction mod-
els in the forward region below the 100 TeV energy re-
I(>=sumNb) (/sr/m2/s)

gion by using the events observed simultaneously by YAC-

I+Tibet-III and applying a neural network analysis (ANN).
We find that the description of transverse momentum, in-
10−8
elastic cross-section and inelasticity for the 4 hadronic
interaction models is correct within 15% systematic er-
QGSJETII-04+He-poor rors range in the forward region below the 100 TeV en-
SIBYLL2.1+He-poor
SIBYLL2.3+He-poor
ergy region. Among them, the EPOS-LHC model is the
EPOS-LHC+He-poor best hadronic interaction model. Furthermore, we find
EPOS-LHC+He-rich
that the H4a composition model is the best one below the
EPOS-LHC+H4a
Exp.data 100 TeV energy region. A new hybrid experiment (YAC-
10−9 3 II+Tibet-III+MD) has been constructed and started taking
10 104
1.3
sumNb data since 2014 and more results will be expected.
MC/Data

1.2
1.1

1
Acknowledgements
0.9
The collaborative experiment of the Tibet Air Shower
0.8
Arrays has been performed under the auspices of
0.7
the Ministry of Science and Technology of China
0.6 3
10 104 and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan. This
sumNb
work is supported by the National Key R&D Pro-
gram of China (No. 2016YFE0125500), by the
Grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of
China (Nos.11803038,11533007,11673041,11603047 and
Figure 3. Below 100 TeV energy region, Check of the inelastic 11275212), and by the Key Laboratory of Particle Astro-
cross section of hadronic interaction models using YAC-I exper- physics, Institute of High Energy Physics, CAS. This work
imental data. is supported by the joint research program of the Insti-
tute for Cosmic Ray Research (ICRR), The University of
Tokyo.

and inelasticity in the hadronic interaction models.

We compare 6 sets of simulation data combining the References
cosmic-ray composition models and hadronic interaction [1] M. Albrow, A. Bagchus, D. Barber, et al, Nuclear
models (QGSJETII-04+He-poor, SIBYLL2.1+He-poor, Physics B 73, 40 (1974)
SIBYLL2.3+He-poor, EPOS-LHC+He-poor, EPOS-
[2] O. Adriani, L. Bonechi, M. Bongi, et al, Physics Let-
LHC+He-rich and EPOS-LHC+H4a) with YAC-I
ters B 703, 128 (2011)
experimental data, as shown in figure 3. The top figure is
[3] D. Heck, J. Knapp, J.N. Capdevielle, et al, Tech. rep.
the comparison of the integral total burst-size spectrum
(1998)
(sumNb ) between MC and YAC-I experimental data.
The bottom figure is the intensity ratios of sumNb to [4] M. Amenomori, et al, The Astrophysical Journal 678,
that obtained by the experimental data, the red dash line 1165 (2008)
(Ratio = 1) denotes the experimental data. We can see [5] M. Shibata, Y. Katayose, J. Huang, D. Chen, The As-
that EPOS-LHC+H4a is most consistent with YAC-I data trophysical Journal 716, 1076 (2010)
below the 100 TeV energy region. From the above section, [6] T.K. Gaisser, Astroparticle Physics 35, 801 (2012)
we know that the H4a composition model is the best one [7] L.M. Zhai, J. Huang, D. Chen, et al, Journal of Physics
below the 100 TeV energy region. Based on this, we G: Nuclear and Particle Physics 42, 045201 (2015)
can conclude that EPOS-LHC best describes the inelastic [8] S. Agostinelli, J. Allison, K. Amako, et al, Nuclear In-
cross section and inelasticity in the forward region. And struments and Methods in Physics Research, Section
the inelastic cross section and inelasticity description of A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Asso-
EPOS-LHC, QGSJETII-04, SIBYLL2.1 and SIBYLL2.3 ciated Equipment 506, 250 (2003), 1005.0727v1
is consistent with YAC within 15% systematic errors.