Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 24 references

Prospects for the detection of gamma rays using Cherenkov telescopes enhanced by a ground array observatory

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Simulations show that placing Cherenkov telescopes inside a water-Cherenkov array improves gamma-ray sensitivity above 10 TeV by up to 60%.

desk verdict Careful MC study that gives the first quantitative look at SST-1M inside a SWGO-like array; the 60%/30% gain above 10 TeV is plausible but rests on an idealized WCD layout and a simplified detector response. read the letter →

arxiv 2602.00691 v2 pith:A7WXOCJ6 submitted 2026-01-31 astro-ph.IM astro-ph.HE

C. Alispach , A. Araudo , A. Bakalová , M. Balbo , V. Beshley , J. Blažek , J. Borkowski , T. Bulik
show 62 more authors
F. Cadoux S. Casanova A. Christov J. Chudoba L. Chytka P. Čechvala P. Dědic Y. Favre M. Garczarczyk L. Gibaud T. Gieras E. G{l}owacki P. Hamal M. Heller M. Hrabovský P. Janeček M. Jelínek V. Jílek J. Juryšek V. Karas B. Lacave E. Lyard D. Mandát W. Marek S. Michal J. Micha{l}owski M. Miroń R. Moderski T. Montaruli A. Muraczewski S. R. Muthyala A. L. Müller A. Nagai K. Nalewajski D. Neise J. Niemiec M. Niko{l}ajuk V. Novotný M. Ostrowski M. Palatka M. Pech M. Prouza P. Schovánek T. Schulz V. Sliusar J. Srba {L}. Stawarz R. Sternberger M. Stodulska J. Świerblewski P. Świerk J. Štrobl T. Tavernier P. Trávníček I. Troyano Pujadas J. Vícha R. Walter K. Ziȩtara (SST-1M Collaboration) R. Conceição L. Gibilisco M. Pimenta B. Tomé
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.IMastro-ph.HE
keywords gamma-rayastronomyimagingatmosphericCherenkovtelescopewater-Cherenkovdetectorhybridobservatorygamma/hadronseparationfluxsensitivitymontecarlosimulationSST-1M
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that placing small Cherenkov telescopes inside a high-altitude array of water-Cherenkov detectors turns the ground array's sensitivity to muons into a powerful gamma/hadron separator for the telescopes. Using detailed Monte Carlo simulations, it shows that adding two ground-array parameters—the azimuthal fluctuation of the ground signal (LCm) and a tail parameter correlated with muon count (P_tail)—improves the telescopes' flux sensitivity above 10 TeV by about 60% in monocular mode and 30% in stereoscopic mode. If true, hybrid observatories of this kind could detect faint gamma-ray sources in the multi-TeV to PeV range that are inaccessible to either technique alone. The gain comes from rejecting the hadronic background while retaining nearly all gamma-ray events.

What carries the argument

The two ground-array parameters LCm and P_tail. LCm quantifies how much the lateral signal distribution of the air shower fluctuates around the azimuthal direction; gamma-ray showers are smooth while hadronic showers are clumpy. P_tail measures the fraction of detectors whose signal exceeds the average at comparable core distance, which tracks the total muon number. In the analysis, these are added as features to a machine-learning gamma/hadron classifier (the 'gammaness' parameter), allowing the telescope's own imaging variables to be supplemented by muon-sensitive information. The true muon count is used in the same classifier as an upper-bound reference.

What would settle it

Place an SST-1M telescope inside an operating water-Cherenkov array (or run a full detector simulation of the WCDs) and measure the gamma/hadron separation above 10 TeV on proton and gamma-ray showers; if the actual background rejection at fixed gamma efficiency falls short of the simulated area-under-curve of about 0.997, the quoted sensitivity gain of 60% would not be realized.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a hybrid observatory—SST-1M imaging Cherenkov telescopes operated inside a dense water-Cherenkov array at 4700 m altitude—achieves significantly better gamma-ray flux sensitivity than the telescopes alone, because the ground array measures the muon content of air showers. For showers above 10 TeV, the parameters LCm (azimuthal fluctuations of the ground signal) and P_tail (a measure of detectors with signals far above the local average) are fed into the telescope's gamma/hadron classifier. In the simulations, LCm alone nearly matches the performance of the true (unmeasurable) muon count, and even surpasses it at the highest energies. The monocular sensitivity improv

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the parameterized water-Cherenkov signal model reproduces the real detector response closely enough that LCm and P_tail keep their separation power in the hybrid geometry; the paper simulates an idealized dense array and contains no real-data validation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Point-like gamma-ray sources above 10 TeV become detectable at roughly half the flux required by an SST-1M telescope alone in monocular mode.
  • The hybrid concept turns a wide-field survey array into a precision instrument: the same event is simultaneously seen by both detectors, enabling cross-calibration of energy scale and angular resolution.
  • Because LCm performs as well as or better than the true muon count at ultra-high energies, the ground-array-only discrimination could be exploited in standalone arrays at PeV energies.
  • Stereoscopic IACT operation leaves less room for improvement, but still gains about 30% sensitivity, so the benefit is largest when only one telescope is available.
  • Follow-up observations of transient sources can start within seconds, since the same site hosts both instruments.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The quoted gains rely on a simplified, parameterized model of the water-Cherenkov detectors; a full detector simulation or real prototype data could shrink or enlarge the gains, especially if the real array is sparser than the simulated 12.5% fill factor.
  • The improvement is demonstrated only for events with reconstructed energy above 10 TeV; adapting muon-sensitive variables to lower energies, as suggested in the paper, might extend the gain down to about 1 TeV, but that is not shown here.
  • The same hybrid logic could be tested today by placing a small IACT near an existing water-Cherenkov array and measuring the gamma/hadron rejection on a known source such as the Crab Nebula.
  • The cost of the gain is operational overhead: the telescope can only observe on clear nights, so the improved sensitivity applies to a fraction of the duty cycle unless bright-moon operations are validated.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies a hybrid observatory concept in which two SST-1M imaging atmospheric Cherenkov telescopes are embedded in a SWGO-like water-Cherenkov detector (WCD) array at 4700 m altitude. Using CORSIKA/sim_telarray for the IACT response and a simplified parametrized WCD framework from Ref. [12], the authors add two WCD-based gamma/hadron discriminators (LCm and P_tail) to the Random-Forest gammaness classification in sst1mpipe. They report an improvement of about 60% (monocular) and 30% (stereoscopic) in flux sensitivity above 10 TeV for a point-like source at 20° zenith, benchmarked against the true muon number as an idealized reference. The paper also discusses cross-calibration, fast follow-up, and technical operational aspects of operating SST-1M at the SWGO site.

Significance. If the reported gain is robust, the result provides a concrete quantitative case for embedding SST-1M-type telescopes inside SWGO as a cost-effective sensitivity upgrade above 10 TeV. The IACT simulation chain is standard and detailed, the analysis uses an independent test MC sample, and the use of a true-muon oracle is a useful diagnostic. The main strength is that the claimed gain is a falsifiable prediction derived from a concrete simulation pipeline. However, the central quantitative claim rests on an idealized WCD array and a simplified detector response that are not validated against a full detector simulation or real data, so the headline numbers should currently be regarded as an upper-limit-style estimate until robustness is demonstrated.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2] The load-bearing assumption is the idealized WCD array: 9997 tanks of 12.6 m^2 on a uniform triangular grid with 12.5% fill factor, 'deliberately chosen to minimize border effects', while a realistic optimized/graded array is explicitly declared 'beyond the scope of the present paper'. The WCD signals are computed with the simplified parametrized framework of Ref. [12], and the same framework is used to define LCm and P_tail. No full detector response simulation or real-data cross-check is provided. Since the claimed 60%/30% sensitivity gain is driven by these WCD observables, the idealized geometry and parameterization could inflate the separation power. I ask the authors to add a robustness study, e.g. repeating the analysis with a realistic SWGO layout (lower or graded fill factor) and/or with a full WCD response simulation, or at least quantifying how the sensitivity gain varies with
  2. [Section 4 / abstract and Section 7] The headline claim 'improvement ... by about 60% for monocular and 30% for stereoscopic ... above 10 TeV' is never defined quantitatively. Are these ratios of energy-integrated flux sensitivities above 10 TeV, or ratios at a particular energy? Figures 3 and 6 show energy-dependent improvement, so a single number requires an explicit integration range and definition. In addition, the abstract says the improvement comes from 'additional parameters from the WCD array', while Section 7 attributes it to 'the LCm parameter' alone, and the figures show separate curves for LCm, P_tail, and LCm+P_tail. The manuscript must state which configuration yields the quoted 60%/30% numbers. This is not a cosmetic issue because the abstract's central quantitative claim is otherwise untestable.
  3. [Section 4, Figs. 3/6] The sensitivity curves are presented without statistical uncertainties. The high-energy bins (E > 100 TeV) contain very few Monte Carlo events after cuts, and the RF-based gammaness and theta-squared cuts are optimized on finite samples. The ROC AUC values are likewise point estimates. Without at least bootstrap or Poisson uncertainties on the sensitivity ratios, the precision implied by the abstract ('about 60%', 'about 30%') is not justified. Please add error bands or confidence intervals to the sensitivity curves, or explicitly state that the quoted percentages are central values from a single MC realization.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figures 3, 5, 6] The label 'N/uni03BC' appears as a literal string; it should read N_mu (N_μ). The same issue affects the legend entries.
  2. [Notation] The variable is written as P^alpha_tail in Section 3 and as P_tail in most figures and text. Please use one consistent notation throughout, including in the abstract and summary.
  3. [Section 3] The true muon number N_mu is an oracle variable and is correctly labeled 'not usable in real data'. However, in Figs. 1, 3, 4, and 6 it is plotted on the same footing as the physical observables, with near-perfect AUC values. The authors should explicitly state in the figure captions and text that the N_mu curves are idealized upper bounds, not achievable performance, to prevent overinterpretation.
  4. [Section 2 / Ref. [14]] The text states 'sst1mpipe v0.7.4' but the Zenodo citation [14] lists version v0.7.3. Please harmonize the version number and date.
  5. [Section 6] The technical discussion of the SST-1M infrastructure (power consumption, data volume, cooling, wind limits) is useful context but is not connected to the simulation results. Consider moving it to an appendix or tightening it to the aspects that affect the hybrid sensitivity claim.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity; central hybrid-sensitivity result is measured in independent MC, with one minor self-referential note about LCm tuning.

  1. other [Sec. 4.2 (stereoscopic performance)]
    "similar to the monocular performance, LCm surpasses N_mu at energies around 100 TeV where it was specifically tuned in Ref. [17]."

    The statement that the WCD discriminator LCm (from the authors' prior work) outperforms the true muon count N_mu is made precisely in the energy range where LCm was tuned in Ref. [17]; as phrased, it is a self-referential confirmation of that tuning rather than an independent prediction. This is incidental, not load-bearing: the paper's headline 60%/30% sensitivity gain above 10 TeV is obtained from an independent test MC sample, and at 10-100 TeV LCm (AUC 0.997) does not surpass N_mu (AUC 0.998).

full rationale

The paper's two WCD discriminators, LCm and P_tail, and the simplified detector-response framework are taken from the authors' earlier publications (Refs [12,16-18]). This is self-citation, but it is not the engine of the result: the hybrid gain is evaluated by training a Random Forest on simulated gamma/hadron events, applying it to an independent test MC sample, and comparing against SST-1M-alone sensitivity with the same quality cuts. The paper also propagates reconstructed (not true) energy into the LCm/P_tail parameterizations, which is a deliberate step to avoid using Monte Carlo truth where it would be unavailable in real data. The WCD variables are benchmarked against the true muon number N_mu, so the claimed separation power is checkable within the simulation. The one self-referential phrase is the note that LCm surpasses N_mu around 100 TeV 'where it was specifically tuned in Ref. [17]'; this is a minor confirmation of prior tuning and is not the basis of the title/abstract claim. Section 2 openly acknowledges the idealized array and simplified WCD framework ('such considerations are beyond the scope of the present paper'); this is a realism/robustness limitation, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on the assumed fidelity of the air-shower/detector simulations and on the non-optimized WCD array layout. No new physical entities or fitted parameters beyond the array configuration and analysis cuts are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • WCD array geometry and fill factor = 9997 detectors, 12.6 m^2 each, fill factor 12.5% over ~1 km^2
    Chosen by hand in Sec. 2 to minimize border effects and reconstruction artifacts; not the optimized SWGO layout. The reported sensitivity improvement depends on this idealized density.
  • 10 TeV energy threshold for WCD discriminators = 10 TeV
    LCm and P_tail are used only above 10 TeV, as suggested in Ref. [12]; this threshold defines the energy range of the claimed 60%/30% gain and is an analysis choice.
  • Gamma-selection and theta-squared cuts = 60% fixed gamma efficiency; theta-squared cut optimized per energy bin
    Analysis choices in Sec. 4 that set the working point. The theta-squared cut is optimized to maximize significance, but the paper does not state that this is done on a validation sample separate from the test MC.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption CORSIKA with QGSJet-II-04/UrQMD and sim_telarray accurately model air showers and Cherenkov telescope response at 4700 m
    Used throughout Sec. 2; not independently validated in this paper.
  • domain assumption The simplified WCD framework from Ref. [12] captures the signal fluctuations needed for LCm and P_tail
    Sec. 2-3; this is the central model behind the hybrid gain, but it is only a parameterized approximation of the real SWGO detectors.
  • domain assumption Random Forest classifiers trained on MC diffuse protons/gammas generalize to point-like source observations without data/MC mismatch
    Sec. 4; no systematic uncertainty or test-beam validation is included.
  • domain assumption Standard sensitivity criteria (5 sigma, >=10 excess events, S/B>=5%) from Ref. [20] are appropriate
    Sec. 4; this defines the reported flux sensitivity.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Prospects for the detection of gamma rays using Cherenkov telescopes enhanced by a ground array observatory." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/A7WXOCJ6

@misc{pith2026260200691,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Prospects for the detection of gamma rays using Cherenkov telescopes enhanced by a ground array observatory},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/A7WXOCJ6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2602.00691}
}
read the original abstract

We study through detailed simulated data and their optimized analysis the expected performance of the Single-Mirror Small-Size imaging atmospheric Cherenkov Telescopes (SST-1M) potentially located inside a high-altitude array of Water-Cherenkov Detectors (WCDs) inspired by the current foreseen design of the Southern Wide-field Gamma-ray Observatory (SWGO). For such a hybrid setup, we show an improvement in the flux sensitivity above 10 TeV by about 60% for monocular and 30% for stereoscopic SST-1M observation, due to the improved gamma/hadron separation when additional parameters from the WCD array are used. We also discuss further benefits of the hybrid gamma observatory concept and its technical challenges.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.00691 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. ROC curves in the monocular observation regime. Shown for a single SST-1M telescope alone (blue) and for SST-1M together with 𝛾/h discrimination parameters obtained from the particle-detector array, including 𝑃 𝛼 tail (green), 𝐿𝐶𝑚 (red), both 𝑃 𝛼 tail and 𝐿𝐶𝑚 (orange), and true number of muons 𝑁𝜇 (purple). All curves are shown for energies above 10 TeV. the final performance of the SST-1M telescopes, we ap￾ply stand… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Gini importance of features used in the Random Forests classifiers that separate 𝛾 rays from hadrons. The analyses that use sole SST-1M telescope (blue) and SST￾1M telescope with additional information from the particle￾detector array are shown: true 𝑁𝜇 (purple), 𝐿𝐶𝑚 (red), 𝑃 𝛼 tail (green), and 𝑃 𝛼 tail+𝐿𝐶𝑚 (orange). Only the most important features are depicted, while the contribution of the rest of them, listed i… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. ROC curves in the stereoscopic observation regime. Shown for a pair of SST-1M telescopes alone (blue) and for SST-1Ms together with 𝛾/h discrimination parameters similarly to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Gini importance of features used in the Random Forests classifiers when stereoscopic observation is assumed. Identical color coding as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

24 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages

  1. [12]

    Conceição, L

    R. Conceição, L. Gibilisco, M. Pimenta, B. Tomé, Gamma/hadron discrimination at high energies through the azimuthal fluctuations of air shower particle distributions at the ground, JCAP 10 (2022) 086. doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2022/10/086

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2022/10/086 2022

  2. [1]

    doi:10.1016/j.jheap.2024.07.012

    Z.Zhang,R.Yang,S.Zhang,L.Yin,J.Liu,Y.Wang,L.Ma,Z.Cao, ProspectsforjointreconstructionofimagingairCherenkovtelescope array and extensive air shower array, JHEAP 43 (2024) 280–285. doi:10.1016/j.jheap.2024.07.012

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jheap.2024.07.012 2024

  3. [2]

    Alispach, et al., The SST-1M imaging atmospheric Cherenkov telescope for gamma-ray astrophysics, JCAP 02 (2) (2025) 047.doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2025/02/047

    C. Alispach, et al., The SST-1M imaging atmospheric Cherenkov telescope for gamma-ray astrophysics, JCAP 02 (2) (2025) 047.doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2025/02/047

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/02/047 2025

  4. [3]

    C. Alispach, et al., Observation of the Crab Nebula with the Single- MirrorSmall-SizeTelescopestereoscopicsystematlowaltitude,As- tron.Astrophys.699(2025)A255.doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202555292

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202555292 2025

  5. [4]

    Heller, et al., An innovative silicon photomultiplier digitizing camera for gamma-ray astronomy, Eur

    M. Heller, et al., An innovative silicon photomultiplier digitizing camera for gamma-ray astronomy, Eur. Phys. J. C 77 (1) (2017) 47. doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-4609-z

    work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-4609-z 2017

  6. [5]

    51, 2019, p

    P.Huentemeyer,S.BenZvi,B.Dingus,H.Fleischhack,H.Schoorlem- mer,T.Weisgarber,TheSouthernWide-FieldGamma-RayObserva- tory(SWGO):ANext-GenerationGround-BasedSurveyInstrument, in: Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, Vol. 51, 2019, p. 109.doi:10.48550/arXiv.1907.07737

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1907.07737 2019

  7. [6]

    Abreu, et al., Science Prospects for the Southern Wide-field Gamma-ray Observatory: SWGO, arXiv e-prints (Jun

    P. Abreu, et al., Science Prospects for the Southern Wide-field Gamma-ray Observatory: SWGO, arXiv e-prints (Jun. 2025).doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.01786

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.01786 2025

  8. [7]

    Bakalová, et al., Hybrid concept of detection for a wide-field gamma-ray observatory using Cherenkov telescopes, PoS ICRC2025 (2025) 558.doi:10.22323/1.501.0558

    A. Bakalová, et al., Hybrid concept of detection for a wide-field gamma-ray observatory using Cherenkov telescopes, PoS ICRC2025 (2025) 558.doi:10.22323/1.501.0558

    work page doi:10.22323/1.501.0558 2025

Show all 24 references
  1. [8]

    D. Heck, J. Knapp, J. N. Capdevielle, G. Schatz, T. Thouw, COR- SIKA:aMonteCarlocodetosimulateextensiveairshowers.,Report FZKA 6019, Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe (1998)

    1998

  2. [9]

    Bleicher, et al., Relativistic hadron hadron collisions in the ultra- relativisticquantummoleculardynamicsmodel,J.Phys.G25(1999) 1859–1896.doi:10.1088/0954-3899/25/9/308

    M. Bleicher, et al., Relativistic hadron hadron collisions in the ultra- relativisticquantummoleculardynamicsmodel,J.Phys.G25(1999) 1859–1896.doi:10.1088/0954-3899/25/9/308

    1999 doi

  3. [10]

    Ostapchenko, Monte Carlo treatment of hadronic interactions in enhanced Pomeron scheme: I

    S. Ostapchenko, Monte Carlo treatment of hadronic interactions in enhanced Pomeron scheme: I. QGSJET-II model, Phys. Rev. D 83 (2011) 014018.doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.83.014018. C. Alispach et al.:Preprint submitted to ElsevierPage 7 of 8 Cherenkov telescopes enhanced by a ground a...

    2011 doi

  4. [11]

    Bernlöhr, Simulation of imaging atmospheric Cherenkov tele- scopes with CORSIKA and sim_telarray, Astropart

    K. Bernlöhr, Simulation of imaging atmospheric Cherenkov tele- scopes with CORSIKA and sim_telarray, Astropart. Phys. 30 (3) (2008) 149–158.doi:10.1016/j.astropartphys.2008.07.009

    2008 doi

  5. [13]

    A. Berk, P. Conforti, R. Kennett, T. Perkins, F. Hawes, J. van den Bosch, Modtran®6: A major upgrade of the modtran®radiative transfer code, in: 2014 6th Workshop on Hyperspectral Image and SignalProcessing:EvolutioninRemoteSensing(WHISPERS),2014, pp. 1–4.doi:10.1109/WHISPERS....

    2014

  6. [14]

    Juryšek, T

    J. Juryšek, T. Tavernier, V. Novotný, P. Hamal, M. Heller, J. Blažek, A. Muraczewki, S. R. Muthyala, C. Alispach, Y. Renier, V. Coco, sst1mpipe: v0.7.3. 5 February 2025, Zenodo (Feb. 2025).doi:10. 5281/zenodo.14808846

    2025

  7. [15]

    Breiman, Random Forests, Machine Learning 45 (1) (2001) 5–32

    L. Breiman, Random Forests, Machine Learning 45 (1) (2001) 5–32. doi:10.1023/A:1010933404324

    2001 doi

  8. [16]

    Conceição, P

    R. Conceição, P. J. Costa, L. Gibilisco, M. Pimenta, B. Tomé, The gamma/hadron discriminator LCm in realistic air shower array ex- periments, Eur. Phys. J. C 83 (10) (2023) 932.doi:10.1140/epjc/ s10052-023-12106-5

    2023 doi

  9. [17]

    Bakalová, R

    A. Bakalová, R. Conceição, L. Gibilisco, V. Novotný, M. Pimenta, B.Tomé,J.Vícha,Azimuthalfluctuationsandnumberofmuonsatthe ground in muon-depleted proton air showers at PeV energies, Phys. Rev. D 111 (8) (2025) 083036.doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.111.083036

    2025 doi

  10. [18]

    Conceição, P

    R. Conceição, P. J. Costa, L. Gibilisco, M. Pimenta, B. Tomé, High resolution gamma/hadron and composition discriminant variable for water-Cherenkov detector cosmic-ray observatories, Phys. Rev. D 110 (2) (2024) 023033.doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.023033

    2024 doi

  11. [19]

    Cao, et al., The Large High Altitude Air Shower Observatory (LHAASO)ScienceBook(2021Edition),arXive-prints(May2019)

    Z. Cao, et al., The Large High Altitude Air Shower Observatory (LHAASO)ScienceBook(2021Edition),arXive-prints(May2019). doi:10.48550/arXiv.1905.02773

    1905 doi

  12. [20]

    Bernlöhr, et al., Monte Carlo design studies for the Cherenkov Telescope Array, Astropart

    K. Bernlöhr, et al., Monte Carlo design studies for the Cherenkov Telescope Array, Astropart. Phys. 43 (2013) 171–188.doi:10.1016/ j.astropartphys.2012.10.002

    2013

  13. [21]

    Alispach, et al., Stereo performance of SST-1M at different alti- tudes, PoS ICRC2025 (2025) 908.doi:10.22323/1.501.0908

    C. Alispach, et al., Stereo performance of SST-1M at different alti- tudes, PoS ICRC2025 (2025) 908.doi:10.22323/1.501.0908

    2025 doi

  14. [22]

    Aharonian, et al., Calibration of the air shower energy scale of the water and air Cherenkov techniques in the LHAASO experiment, Phys

    F. Aharonian, et al., Calibration of the air shower energy scale of the water and air Cherenkov techniques in the LHAASO experiment, Phys. Rev. D 104 (2021) 062007.doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.104.062007

    2021 doi

  15. [23]

    Mandát, CTAO MST back-coated mirrors development., PoS ICRC2025 (2025) 745.doi:10.22323/1.501.0745

    D. Mandát, CTAO MST back-coated mirrors development., PoS ICRC2025 (2025) 745.doi:10.22323/1.501.0745

    2025 doi

  16. [24]

    Z.Cao,etal.,Dataqualitycontrolsystemandlong-termperformance monitor of LHAASO-KM2A, Astropart. Phys. 164 (2025) 103029. doi:10.1016/j.astropartphys.2024.103029. C. Alispach et al.:Preprint submitted to ElsevierPage 8 of 8

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.