pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.06704 · v2 · submitted 2026-04-08 · ✦ hep-ex · physics.data-an

Biases in the Determination of Correlations Between Underground Muon Flux and Atmospheric Temperature

Bangzheng Ma , Katherine Dugas , Kam-Biu Luk , Juan Pedro Ochoa-Ricoux , Bed\v{r}ich Roskovec , Qun Wu This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 17:59 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ex physics.data-an
keywords muon fluxatmospheric temperaturecorrelation coefficientbinned methodunbinned methodseasonal variationscosmic raysregression bias
0
0 comments X

The pith

Binned analysis of muon rate versus atmospheric temperature develops bias from temperature uncertainties while unbinned regression stays accurate.

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

The paper studies seasonal variations in underground cosmic-ray muon rates and their correlation with effective atmospheric temperature, expressed as a single coefficient. It directly compares the standard Binned Method, which groups data points of similar temperature before performing a fit, against the Unbinned Method, which fits the full set of rate-temperature points at once via linear regression. Both approaches recover the true coefficient without bias when temperature uncertainties are negligible. Once realistic uncertainties are present, however, the binning step distorts the data distribution and produces a systematic offset in the extracted coefficient. The unbinned approach avoids this problem provided the uncertainties are correctly assigned to each point. The authors also introduce a stability test that varies time intervals and uncertainty assignments to handle imprecise error estimates in practice.

Core claim

While both the Binned and Unbinned Methods are unbiased when temperature uncertainties are negligible, the Binned Method develops significant bias once those uncertainties are included, because binning induces distortions in the temperature distribution; the Unbinned Method remains robust if the uncertainties are accurately known and assigned to individual data points.

What carries the argument

Linear regression of muon rate against effective atmospheric temperature, performed either by grouping points into temperature bins before fitting or by fitting all points simultaneously without grouping, with explicit propagation of temperature uncertainties into the fit.

If this is right

  • Existing measurements of the muon-temperature correlation coefficient that relied on binned fits may be systematically offset.
  • Future analyses should use the unbinned linear regression whenever individual temperature uncertainties can be estimated.
  • The proposed procedure of varying time intervals and uncertainty assignments offers a practical way to quantify stability when error estimates are imprecise.
  • Seasonal modulation studies in cosmic-ray data can reduce methodological discrepancies by adopting the unbinned approach.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same binning bias is likely to appear in any regression analysis where the independent variable carries measurement error and data are grouped before fitting.
  • Reprocessing published muon data with unbinned methods could reconcile differences reported across different underground detectors.
  • The stability test can be extended to other seasonal signals, such as solar or barometric effects on cosmic-ray rates.

Load-bearing premise

The temperature uncertainties are known well enough to be assigned accurately to each individual data point and that binning distortions are the dominant source of bias in the analysis.

What would settle it

Simulate muon-rate data sets with a known true correlation coefficient and realistic temperature uncertainties drawn from the same distribution as real measurements, then apply both the binned and unbinned procedures and test whether the binned result deviates from the input value.

read the original abstract

The underground rates of cosmic-ray muons exhibit seasonal variations correlated with effective atmospheric temperature, quantified via a single coefficient. We compare two analysis methods for studying the correlation: the standard Unbinned Method, where all rate-temperature data points are fit simultaneously via linear regression, and the Binned Method, where data points with similar temperatures are first grouped into bins before fitting. We find that while both methods are unbiased in the limit of negligible temperature uncertainties, the Binned Method develops significant bias when temperature uncertainties are present, due to binning-induced distortions. In contrast, the Unbinned Method remains robust if the uncertainties are accurately known. To address the widely encountered issue of imprecise uncertainty estimation, we propose a novel procedure that assesses correlation stability by varying the time intervals and their assigned uncertainties. This approach resolves methodological tensions in studies of seasonal modulation of the muon rate and provides a practical framework for robust correlation estimation under real-world conditions.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper compares the standard binned method and the unbinned linear regression method for determining the correlation between underground muon flux and effective atmospheric temperature. It claims that both methods are unbiased when temperature uncertainties are negligible, but the binned method acquires significant bias when uncertainties are present due to binning-induced distortions, while the unbinned method remains robust if uncertainties are accurately known. A novel procedure is proposed to assess correlation stability by varying time intervals and assigned uncertainties to handle imprecise uncertainty estimation.

Significance. If the central claims hold after clarification, this work would be significant for cosmic-ray physics analyses involving seasonal muon rate modulations. It identifies a potential systematic bias in a widely used analysis technique and supplies a practical framework for robust correlation estimation, which could help reconcile methodological differences across existing studies.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The claim that the Binned Method 'develops significant bias' when temperature uncertainties are present is stated without any quantitative measure of the bias magnitude, number of Monte Carlo trials, or description of how the distortions were generated and measured. This prevents verification of the central distinction between the two methods.
  2. [Methods] The manuscript does not specify the exact binning rule (fixed-width, equal-population, or adaptive), the temperature error model (e.g., independent Gaussian, correlated, or heteroscedastic), or the simulation inputs that match real data. Without these, it is unclear whether the reported bias is inherent to binning or an artifact of the particular setup chosen.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract refers to 'effective atmospheric temperature' without a brief definition or reference; adding one sentence would improve accessibility for readers outside the immediate subfield.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful and constructive review. We have revised the manuscript to address the major comments by expanding the abstract with quantitative measures and simulation details, and by adding explicit specifications in the Methods section regarding binning rules, error models, and simulation inputs. These changes improve clarity without altering the central claims.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The claim that the Binned Method 'develops significant bias' when temperature uncertainties are present is stated without any quantitative measure of the bias magnitude, number of Monte Carlo trials, or description of how the distortions were generated and measured. This prevents verification of the central distinction between the two methods.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract would benefit from including these quantitative elements for immediate verifiability. The revised abstract now summarizes the bias magnitude observed across our Monte Carlo ensemble, the number of trials, and the procedure for generating distortions (Gaussian temperature errors added to simulated rate-temperature pairs, followed by binning and slope comparison to the known input correlation). These results were already detailed in Section 4 of the original manuscript; the abstract update simply makes them accessible at the outset. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Methods] The manuscript does not specify the exact binning rule (fixed-width, equal-population, or adaptive), the temperature error model (e.g., independent Gaussian, correlated, or heteroscedastic), or the simulation inputs that match real data. Without these, it is unclear whether the reported bias is inherent to binning or an artifact of the particular setup chosen.

    Authors: We appreciate this observation and have clarified the Methods section accordingly. A new paragraph now explicitly states that fixed-width binning is employed (with bin width chosen to match typical temperature variation scales), that temperature uncertainties are modeled as independent Gaussian errors with variances taken from the data, and that the Monte Carlo inputs are drawn from real underground muon rate statistics and atmospheric temperature profiles. This confirms the bias arises from the binning operation itself rather than from a special choice of setup. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; methods comparison and stability procedure are independent of inputs by construction.

full rationale

The paper's central claims rest on comparing the Unbinned linear regression (all rate-temperature points fit simultaneously) against the Binned Method (grouping similar temperatures before fitting), attributing bias in the latter to binning-induced distortions when temperature uncertainties are non-negligible. This distinction is derived from the explicit methodological differences and their effects under uncertainty, without any quoted reduction of the bias result to a fitted parameter or self-defined quantity. The proposed novel procedure (varying time intervals and assigned uncertainties to assess correlation stability) is introduced as an additional practical tool without equations or steps that collapse back to the original data fits by construction. No self-citation load-bearing steps, uniqueness theorems, or ansatzes smuggled via prior work appear in the provided claims; the derivation chain remains self-contained and falsifiable via the described binning rules, error models, and Monte Carlo or analytical quantification of distortions.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The analysis rests on standard statistical assumptions for linear regression and binning; no new physical entities or ad-hoc constants are introduced.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Muon rate and effective temperature are linearly related with a single correlation coefficient
    Invoked in the description of both methods and the seasonal variation quantification
  • domain assumption Binning data points with similar temperatures does not introduce bias when uncertainties are negligible
    Stated as the limit in which both methods are unbiased

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5481 in / 1398 out tokens · 41467 ms · 2026-05-10T17:59:13.996339+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

10 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Barrett, L.M

    P.H. Barrett, L.M. Bollinger, G. Cocconi, Y. Eisenberg and K. Greisen,Interpretation of Cosmic-Ray Measurements Far Underground,Rev. Mod. Phys.24(1952) 133

    work page 1952

  2. [2]

    Thomas K

    F.E. Thomas K. Gaisser and E. Resconi,Cosmic Rays and Particle Physics, Cambridge University Press, the United Kingdom (2016)

    work page 2016

  3. [3]

    Grashorn, J.K

    E.W. Grashorn, J.K. de Jong, M.C. Goodman, A. Habig, M.L. Marshak, S. Mufson et al.,The Atmospheric charged kaon/pion ratio using seasonal variation methods,Astropart. Phys.33 (2010) 140 [0909.5382]

    work page arXiv 2010

  4. [4]

    Verpoest, D

    S. Verpoest, D. Soldin and P. Desiati,Atmospheric muons and their variations with temperature,Astropart. Phys.161(2024) 102985 [2405.08926]. [5]MACROcollaboration,Seasonal variations in the underground muon intensity as seen by MACRO,Astropart. Phys.7(1997) 109. [6]MINOScollaboration,Observation of muon intensity variations by season with the MINOS far de...

    work page arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    Schaffrin and A

    B. Schaffrin and A. Wieser,On weighted total least-squares adjustment for linear regression, Journal of Geodesy82(2008) 415

    work page 2008

  6. [6]

    TMinuit: A C++ implementation of the MINUIT minimization package

    F. James and M. Roos,Minuit: A System for Function Minimization and Analysis of the Parameter Errors and Correlations,Comput. Phys. Commun.10(1975) 343. [17]CERNcollaboration, R. Brun and F. James, “TMinuit: A C++ implementation of the MINUIT minimization package.”https://root.cern/doc/master/classTMinuit.html

    work page 1975

  7. [7]

    Virtanen, R

    P. Virtanen, R. Gommers, T.E. Oliphant et al.,SciPy 1.0: Fundamental algorithms for scientific computing in Python,Nature Methods17(2020) 261

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    The ERA-Interim database

    E.C. for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts, “The ERA-Interim database.” http://www.ecmwf.int/en/research/climate-reanalysis/era-interim"

    work page

  9. [9]

    Integrated global radiosonde archive

    IGRA, “Integrated global radiosonde archive.”https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/products/ weather-balloon/integrated-global-radiosonde-archive

    work page

  10. [10]

    Fuller,Measurement Error Models, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York (1987)

    W.A. Fuller,Measurement Error Models, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York (1987). – 15 –

    work page 1987