Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 300 references

A complete analytical description of muon-ring Cherenkov light for dual-mirror telescopes is now derived, accounting for secondary-mirror and baffle shadows and correcting prior flat-mirror approximations by up to 40% for inclined muons.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 02:17 UTC pith:GNWJ4YDV

load-bearing objection Genuinely new analytic dual-mirror muon-ring formalism with strong internal checks; the dual-mirror shadowing claims still need ray-tracing validation before 'directly applicable to CTAO' is justified. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.14365 v1 pith:GNWJ4YDV submitted 2026-07-15 astro-ph.IM

Using Muon Rings for the Calibration of the Cherenkov Telescope Array: An Analytical Solution for the Dual-Mirror Telescope Using Vector Geometry

Markus Gaug , V\'ictor Gir\'aldez-Segal\`as , Fiona Redmen This is my paper
classification astro-ph.IM
keywords muon ringsIACT calibrationdual-mirror telescopesCherenkov lightshadowingvector geometrymirror curvature correctionSchwarzschild-Couder
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper tries to establish that the light distribution of muon rings in dual-mirror gamma-ray telescopes can be predicted analytically, not just for the flat single-mirror case solved decades ago but for the full dual-mirror geometry with shadowing by the secondary mirror, its baffles, and the central hole. The authors build the solution with vector geometry and expand it in the small parameters—Cherenkov angle, muon inclination, and mirror curvature—to better than 1 percent. Their central result is that previous algorithms, which treated the secondary mirror as a large hole in the primary, are off by up to 40 percent for inclined muons. This matters because muon rings are the main continuous calibration source for monitoring the optical throughput of these telescopes, and a 5 percent optical calibration accuracy is required for the observatory's energy-scale goal.

Core claim

The paper claims the first complete analytical description of Cherenkov light emitted by atmospheric muons and detected by a dual-mirror imaging Cherenkov telescope. Using vector geometry plus symbolic algebra, it derives closed-form expressions for the photon impact points, the shadow conditions produced by the secondary mirror and its baffles, and the resulting maximum and minimum emission heights that contribute to the recorded ring. The formalism is validated by reproducing the known flat-mirror, non-inclined solution in the appropriate limit and by recovering the expected third-order coma aberration for a parabolic mirror. The largest new numerical effect is that inclined muons experien

What carries the argument

The central machinery is a vector-geometry construction of the muon track and the emitted Cherenkov photon direction, built by rotating the photon direction around the muon velocity vector with a standard rotation formula, then intersecting the photon ray with the primary mirror surface and with two flat circular disks representing the secondary-mirror housing and baffles at two fixed heights. Analytic expansions in the small angles and curvature yield explicit shadow conditions and closed-form expressions for the shadow boundaries, L2,max and L2,min, which directly determine how much ring light is lost for each photon emission angle.

Load-bearing premise

The entire dual-mirror shadow calculation rests on representing the secondary-mirror assembly as two flat circular disks at fixed heights, so if the real curved secondary mirror, support struts, or finite baffles cast a different shadow, the predicted shadow fractions and the 40 percent deviations describe an idealized telescope rather than the built one.

What would settle it

A ray-tracing Monte Carlo that uses the detailed mechanical model of an actual dual-mirror telescope—curved secondary mirror, struts, and real baffle geometry—and simulates inclined muons over the same parameter ranges would settle the claim: if the simulated per-emission-angle shadowed light fraction differs from the analytical expressions by more than a few percent, the flat-disk shadow model is falsified; agreement at the claimed sub-percent precision would confirm it.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Muon-ring calibration for dual-mirror telescopes can be done analytically, without Monte Carlo ray tracing or the common shortcut of treating the secondary mirror as a simple central hole.
  • Inclined muons, previously neglected, change the predicted ring light by up to 40 percent; including them is necessary for reaching sub-percent-level calibration in the new telescope designs.
  • The first-order mirror-curvature correction to the maximum emission height, though about 1 percent, enters directly into throughput calibration and should be included in existing reconstruction algorithms.
  • Coma aberration creates a small bias in the reconstructed muon ring radius in single-mirror parabolic telescopes, averaging near 1 percent and rising to several percent for extreme impact parameters unless plate-scale corrections are applied.
  • The framework gives a unified way to compute the shadowed and unshadowed contributions to the ring as a function of emission angle, which is needed for interpreting measured muon images in the next-generation dual-mirror instruments.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension the paper leaves implicit: the same derivation could be repeated for more realistic aspherical primary surfaces beyond the parabolic approximation, yielding higher-order corrections that matter for the actual Schwarzschild-Couder mirrors.
  • The flat-disk idealization of the secondary assembly is the most likely place where real hardware will differ; a direct comparison of the analytical shadow fractions with ray traced the actual curved secondary, struts, and baffle boxes would test how much of the 40 percent effect survives real geometry.
  • For telescopes without baffles, such as the current small-telescope design, the shadowing model simplifies considerably, so measurements from existing dual-mirror telescopes could validate the inclination dependence with relatively clean data.
  • The curvature correction to the maximum emission height may also improve muon calibration of single-mirror Davies-Cotton telescopes, not just the dual-mirror designs emphasized here.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper derives closed-form analytical expressions for the Cherenkov light produced by atmospheric muons and imaged by dual-mirror IACTs, using a vector-geometry formalism with SageMath-based symbolic manipulation and Taylor expansion. The authors recover the Vacanti flat-mirror solution as a limiting case, derive a first-order correction to the maximum emission height due to primary-mirror curvature, characterize third-order coma aberration, and provide shadowing formulas for the secondary mirror, baffles, and central hole. They report that for inclined muons the new dual-mirror shadowing treatment differs by up to ±40% from earlier algorithms that treated M2 as a hole in the primary. The paper claims this is the first complete analytical description of dual-mirror muon-ring calibration and states the results are directly applicable to CTAO.

Significance. If the central result is correct, this is a valuable contribution to CTAO calibration: it replaces numerical or approximate treatments of dual-mirror shadowing with explicit formulas, provides a physically transparent derivation, and ships reproducible Python/Jupyter code (GitHub link in §5). The recovery of Vacanti's formula (Eq. 18) and the consistency of the coma term with third-order Seidel expectations (Eq. 14) are strong internal checks. However, the headline application relies on a simplified geometric model of the secondary-mirror assembly that has not yet been validated against the real SCT/SST optics; this gap controls the recommendation.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4, Eqs. (25)–(44) and Table 1] The dual-mirror shadowing calculation replaces the secondary mirror and its baffles with 'two flat circular disks of radius R2' at heights Des and Dpb. Table 1 itself describes Des as an 'approximate average of a structured surface' and Rsb as a 'best guess'. For the SCT, the secondary is a strongly curved asphere; using Fs=3.35 m gives a sagitta ≈0.55 m at the disk radius. Since the shadow boundary is set by the height at which a photon crosses the obstruction, a 0.5 m height error maps to an emission-height error of ≈0.5 m/θc ≈ 17 m for θc=1.3°, i.e. several percent of the total track length (~400 m). This unquantified simplification is load-bearing for the central claim: the shadow fractions, L2,max, L2,min, and the ±40% deviations in Figs. 9–10 are all predictions for two flat disks, not for the real CTAO secondary/baffle geometry. Please add a quantitative comparison against ray tra
  2. [§5 (Conclusions)] The abstract and §5 state that this is 'a complete analytical description' that is 'directly applicable to muon-based calibration of CTAO.' This overstates what has been demonstrated. The derivation is exact only for the idealized geometry defined in §4 (flat circular obstruction disks, parabolic primary approximation z≈cρ², and approximate Des/Rsb values). The paper presents no validation of the dual-mirror shadowing step against ray tracing, Geant4/CODE simulations, or real SCT/SST optical data. The Vacanti-limit recovery and the Seidel-coma check constrain only the single-mirror part, not the dual-mirror shadow fractions. The ±40% figure is a deviation between two simplified analytical models, not a measured or ray-traced discrepancy. Please add a simulation/data comparison, or rephrase the claims to describe the result as an analytically solved simplified model that requires a dedica
  3. [§4 and Appendix A] The abstract says the description accounts for 'the secondary mirror and the camera.' The camera shadow, however, is treated only in Appendix A for a square camera and is not integrated into the main SCT/SST flowcharts (Figs. 8–10) or the headline shadow fractions. The main text uses camera-body parameters from Table 1 (Rcam, Dcam) but these are not used in the central derivation. This is a mismatch between the claim of completeness and the actual scope of the calculation. Either integrate camera shadowing into the main results or clarify that the camera is treated separately in an appendix.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] The notation 'h.c.' is used repeatedly (e.g., Eqs. 5b, 17e) but never defined. In this context it appears to mean 'higher-order corrections', not 'Hermitian conjugate'; please define it explicitly at first use.
  2. [§4, Eq. (40)] The two branches of Eq. (40) for Dc rely on the sign of ρ−Rsb. The second branch (ρ > Rsb) uses a negative sign before the square root; please state explicitly which root is physical and confirm the sign convention matches the geometry. A brief explanatory sentence would help.
  3. [§3, Eq. (16)] Equation (16) contains ratios γy/γx and γx/γy. These are undefined when the respective component vanishes (e.g., along the azimuthal axes). Please add a note on the limiting behavior or express the result in a form that avoids division by zero.
  4. [§3, Fig. 2 and Eq. (23)] The figures are informative but the color-coding makes several curves degenerate (as the caption admits). Consider labeling curves directly or using line styles rather than color alone, especially since some panels have overlapping families.
  5. [§1] Typos: 'the the' in the paragraph after Eq. (23) and 'opposite opposite' in the same area; 'expression were expanded' in §1. These are minor but should be corrected in a revised version.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the dual-mirror muon-ring derivation is self-contained, with only non-load-bearing self-citations and explicitly acknowledged geometric simplifications.

full rationale

The paper contains no fitted parameters or data-driven calibration; the inputs are the vector-geometry setup, physical angles (nu, theta_c), and Table 1 telescope geometry, and the outputs are derived analytically with SageMath. The recovery of Vacanti et al. (1994) Eq. 18 is an external benchmark, not an assumed input: the paper explicitly sets c = 0 and nu = 0 to reduce r^2 = R1^2 and solve for D (Eqs. 17-18). The Seidel coma check (Eqs. 14-16) is likewise an independent optical result reproduced from the derived impact coordinates. The self-citations to Gaug et al. (2014, 2019) are contextual (calibration-strategy selection and review) and do not carry the derivation. The '40% deviations' are comparisons against a previous simplified hole-in-primary algorithm, not against fitted data, so they are not a fitted input renamed as a prediction. The main caveat is a correctness/validity limitation, not circularity: Section 4 explicitly says, 'For simplicity, we approximate the shadow of the secondary mirror housing as two flat circular disks of radius R2,' and Table 1 marks Des as 'approximate average of a structured surface' and Rsb as 'best guess.' These acknowledged simplifications mean the shadow predictions apply to the disk model rather than the real curved M2/baffles, but the claims reduce to their own stated model assumptions, not to the data being predicted. Therefore no circular step is present; at most the manuscript carries minor non-load-bearing self-citations, which by themselves do not raise the circularity score above 2.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new physical entity is introduced and no number is fit to data. The ledger entries are the modeling simplifications the analytic solution depends on: parabolic primary, flat-disk M2/baffles, planar focal plane, and small-angle truncation. Telescope parameters in Table 1 are external instrument-design inputs, not free parameters.

axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Primary mirror surface is described by z(ρ) ≈ cρ², with expansions kept to first order in c.
    Used in Eq. (6) and throughout §3; approximates actual aspherical or tessellated mirrors as a smooth parabola, so the curvature correction to Lmax is only accurate within this model.
  • domain assumption Cherenkov angle θc, muon inclination ν, and mirror curvature c are small, and Taylor truncation at stated orders gives better than 1% precision.
    The paper expands in θc<0.03 rad, ν<0.05 rad, and c (§1, §2); the 1% accuracy claim is asserted rather than proven with error bounds over the full parameter space.
  • domain assumption Secondary mirror and baffles are modeled as flat circular disks of radius R2 at heights Des and Dpb.
    §4: 'For simplicity, we approximate the shadow of the secondary mirror housing as two flat circular disks'; this ignores curvature, support struts, and finite baffle thickness.
  • domain assumption The camera/focal plane is a flat plane at z=1/(4c), and only geometric obstructions considered are M2, baffles, and central hole.
    Used in Eq. (12) and the appendix; excludes vignetting by the camera body, pixel response, and non-planarity of the actual focal surface.
  • domain assumption The muon travels in a straight line with constant Cherenkov angle; no energy loss, multiple scattering, or atmospheric refraction is modeled.
    Standard muon calibration approximation, implicit in Eqs. (1)–(7); inherited from the established muon-ring formalism.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 20872 in / 12464 out tokens · 120256 ms · 2026-08-02T02:17:00.950161+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The analysis of ring images produced by muons in Imaging Atmospheric Cherenkov Telescopes (IACTs) provides a powerful and precise method for calibrating the optical throughput of the instrument and monitoring its optical point-spread function. To date, analytical solutions have been derived for single-mirror telescopes with reflectors assumed flat. However, a complete analytical description of the Cherenkov light produced by muons and detected by a dual-mirror telescope - accounting for both the secondary mirror and the camera - has remained elusive, owing to the complexity of the problem. In this work, we derive such a solution using a vector-geometry formalism supported by symbolic manipulation and Taylor expansions performed with the computer algebra system SageMath. We validate the formalism against known analytical solutions in simpler configurations and, for more complex terms, against limiting cases exhibiting the expected physical behavior. The behavior of the full solution is illustrated visually by varying the relevant parameters. The largest effects were found in the shadowing of Cherenkov light produced by inclined muons in dual-mirror telescopes, particularly for the Schwarzschild-Couder Telescope (SCT) design with baffles surrounding the secondary mirror. Deviations of up to 40% are observed relative to previously employed methods. As a by-product, we derive the first-order correction to the maximum emission height of Cherenkov photons emitted by a muon, arising from the curvature of the primary mirror - an effect neglected in previous studies - as well as the impact of coma aberration on the muon rings in single-mirror parabolic telescopes. Our results are directly applicable to muon-based calibration of the Cherenkov Telescope Array Observatory (CTAO).

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.14365 by Fiona Redmen, Markus Gaug, V\'ictor Gir\'aldez-Segal\`as.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Sketch of the parameters used. 2. DEFINITION OF THE PARAMETERS AND THE PROBLEM We consider an inclined muon characterized by an inclination angle ν and an azimuthal angle ψ, defined as the projection of the muon directional vector onto the ground plane. The normalized velocity vector of the muon is then given by: ⃗µ =   sin(ν) · cos(ψ) sin(ν) · sin(ψ) − cos(ν)   , (1) where a coordinate system orig… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Relative magnitudes of the first-order corrections ∆L (1) max on the canonical version of L (0) max (Vacanti et al. 1994) for a maximally inclined muon (ν = 4◦ ) imaged by a Small-Sized-Telescope (SST) camera, for two different azimuthal projections ψ of the muon incidence angle on ground and different photon emission angles with respect to the muon impact point on the mirror, ϕ − ϕ0. The primary mirror of… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Tangential-coma-induced bias between the outer and inner edges of the muon ring for a parabolic telescope with f# = 1.2, muon Cherenkov angle θc = 1◦ , and inclination angle ν = 1◦ , shown without plate-scale correction (left) and with plate-scale correction (right). The expected bias for parallel light, typically used for a plate-scale correction, is indicated by the black dotted line. Note the different … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Schematic illustration of the parameters used in this work for the dual-mirror telescope. The red arrows denote limiting cases of muons traversing the protective baffles of the secondary mirror. 4. SOLUTION FOR THE DUAL-MIRROR TELESCOPE The secondary mirror may shadow Cherenkov photons emitted above it, up to a maximum emission height L2,max from the muon. This height may be greater or smaller than Lmax an… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Shadow condition (Eq. 28) shown for muons with different normalized impact distances ρR, at fixed impact angle ϕ0, for the parameters of an SCT. Top figures neglect the effects of the M2 baffles, while the bottom figures include their contribution using Eq. 32. A Cherenkov angle of 1.3◦ is assumed. The region enclosed by the colored curves corresponds to trajectories experiencing shadowing along the muon p… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Shadow condition (Eq. 28) shown for muons with different normalized impact distances ρR, at fixed impact angle ϕ0, for the parameters of an SCT. The left panel neglects the effect of the M2 baffles, while the right panel includes their contribution using Eq. 32. Here, the muon has a fixed inclination angle of ν = 4◦ , with varying azimuthal projections ψ. See also [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Muon baffle-crossing conditions (Eq. 38 and 39) shown for muons with different normalized impact distances ρR and impact angles ϕ0, for the parameters of an SCT. In the left panel, the muon is inclined toward the left (ψ = 0◦ ) with varying inclination angles ν, in the central panel, it is inclined toward the right (ψ = 180◦ ), and in the right panel the inclination angle is fixed at ν = 4◦ , while the azi… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Flowchart of the computation of the Cherenkov light received in the presence of shadowing losses in a dual-mirror telescope [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Shadow parameters shown for muons with different normalized impact distances ρR and impact angles ϕ0, for the parameters of an SCT. In the left panels, the muon is not inclined, in the center, it is inclined toward the left (ψ = 0◦ ), and in the right panels, it is inclined to the right (ψ = 180◦ ), with a fixed inclination angle ν = 3◦ . Note that the azimuthal axis represents the photon emission angle ϕ … view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Shadow parameters shown for muons with different normalized impact distances ρR and impact angles ϕ0, for the parameters of an SST. See [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_10.png] view at source ↗

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

300 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Ground-based and Airborne Telescopes X , doi =

    A. Ground-based and Airborne Telescopes X , doi =

  2. [2]

    doi:10.1016/j.astropartphys.2024.102948 , eid =

    Astroparticle Physics , month = jun, pages =. doi:10.1016/j.astropartphys.2024.102948 , eid =

    arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    arXiv , author =:2203.08169 , journal =

    doi:10.1117/1.JATIS.8.1.014007 , eid =. arXiv , author =:2203.08169 , journal =

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  4. [4]

    of the 34th International Cosmic Ray Conference (ICRC2015) , doi =

    Proc. of the 34th International Cosmic Ray Conference (ICRC2015) , doi =. 1509.03074 , journal =

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  5. [5]

    arXiv , author =:2010.13027 , month = aug, pages =

    Optical System Alignment, Tolerancing, and Verification XIII , doi =. arXiv , author =:2010.13027 , month = aug, pages =

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  6. [6]

    doi:10.22323/1.444.0892 , pages =

    Proceedings of 38th International Cosmic Ray Conference. doi:10.22323/1.444.0892 , pages =

    work page doi:10.22323/1.444.0892

  7. [7]

    doi:10.22323/1.444.0729 , pages =

    Proceedings of 38th International Cosmic Ray Conference. doi:10.22323/1.444.0729 , pages =

    work page doi:10.22323/1.444.0729

  8. [8]

    doi:10.22323/1.395.0728 , pages =

    Proceedings of 37th International Cosmic Ray Conference. doi:10.22323/1.395.0728 , pages =

    work page doi:10.22323/1.395.0728

  9. [9]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab2123 , journal =

    M. doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab2123 , journal =

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab2123

  10. [10]

    Extraktion und Analyse von Myon-Ereignissen am FACT-Teleskop , Year =

  11. [11]

    Muon Identification with VERITAS using the Hough Transform , Eprint =

  12. [12]

    Signal Processing Magazine , Month =

  13. [13]

    arXiv , Author =:1307.8361 , Month =

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  14. [14]

    Aartsen, M. G. and Abraham, K. and Ackermann, M. and Adams, J. and Aguilar, J. A. and Ahlers, M. and Ahrens, M. and Altmann, D. and Anderson, T. and Archinger, M. and Argueelles, C. and Arlen, T. C. and Auffenberg, J. and Bai, X. and Barwick, S. W. and Baum, V. and Bay, R. and Beatty, J. J. and Tjus, J. Becker and Becker, K. -H. and Beiser, E. and BenZvi,...

  15. [15]

    MNRAS , note =

    Localizing the VHE -ray source at the Galactic Centre. MNRAS , note =

  16. [16]

    and others

    Actis , M. and others. Design concepts for the Cherenkov Telescope Array CTA: an advanced facility for ground-based high-energy gamma-ray astronomy. Experimental Astronomy , note = "

  17. [17]

    Acharya , B. S. and others. Introducing the CTA concept. Astroparticle Physics. 2013. doi:10.1016/j.astropartphys.2013.01.007

    doi:10.1016/j.astropartphys.2013.01.007 2013

  18. [18]

    and others

    Abbasi , R. and others. Techniques for measuring atmospheric aerosols at the high resolution fly's eye experiment. Astroparticle Physics , note = "

  19. [19]

    and Aliu, E

    Albert, J. and Aliu, E. and Anderhub, H. and Antoranz, P. and Armada, A. and Asensio, M. and Baixeras, C. and Barrio, J. A. and Bartko, H. and Bastieri, D. and Becker, J. and Bednarek, W. and Berger, K. and Bigongiari, C. and Biland, A. and Bock, R. K. and Bordas, P. and Bosch-Ramon, V. and Bretz, T. and Britvitch, I. and Camara, M. and Carmona, E. and Ch...

  20. [20]

    Astroparticle Physics , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

    A study of the effect of molecular and aerosol conditions in the atmosphere on air fluorescence measurements at the Pierre Auger Observatory. Astroparticle Physics , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

  21. [21]

    Astroparticle Physics , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

    In-flight measurement of the absolute energy scale of the Fermi Large Area Telescope. Astroparticle Physics , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

  22. [22]

    Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A , note =

    FADC signal reconstruction for the MAGIC telescope. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A , note =

  23. [23]

    SPIE Astronomical Telescopes + Instrumentation , Date =

    G. SPIE Astronomical Telescopes + Instrumentation , Date =. doi:10.1117/12.2054605 , Pages =

    work page doi:10.1117/12.2054605

  24. [24]

    doi:10.1016/j.astropartphys.2014.05.010 , Eprint =

    Astroparticle Physics , Month = jan, Pages =. doi:10.1016/j.astropartphys.2014.05.010 , Eprint =

    work page doi:10.1016/j.astropartphys.2014.05.010 2014

  25. [25]

    Astronomy & Astrophysics , note =

    Phase-resolved energy spectra of the Crab pulsar in the range of 50-400 GeV measured with the MAGIC telescopes. Astronomy & Astrophysics , note =

  26. [26]

    Astroparticle Physics

    Performance of the MAGIC stereo system obtained with Crab Nebula data. Astroparticle Physics

  27. [27]

    doi:10.1016/j.astropartphys.2015.04.004 , Eprint =

    Astroparticle Physics , Month = jan, Pages =. doi:10.1016/j.astropartphys.2015.04.004 , Eprint =

    doi:10.1016/j.astropartphys.2015.04.004 2015

  28. [28]

    submitted to Astroparticle Physics

    The major upgrade of the MAGIC telescopes, Part II: A performance study using observations of the Crab Nebula. submitted to Astroparticle Physics

  29. [29]

    Observations of the Crab nebula with HESS

  30. [30]

    Measurement of the radial distribution of Cherenkov light generated by TeV gamma-ray air showers

  31. [31]

    detector

    Calibration of cameras of the H.E.S.S. detector. Astropart.Phys. 2004. doi:10.1016/j.astropartphys.2004.06.006

    work page doi:10.1016/j.astropartphys.2004.06.006 2004

  32. [32]

    Observations of the Crab Pulsar between 25 and 100 GeV with the MAGIC I Telescope. Astroph. Journal , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

  33. [33]

    Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A

    Status report on CLUE. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A

  34. [34]

    Astroparticle Physics , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

    Improving the performance of the single-dish Cherenkov telescope MAGIC through the use of signal timing. Astroparticle Physics , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

  35. [35]

    doi:10.1088/1748-0221/4/10/P10010 , Eprint =

    Journal of Instrumentation , Month = oct, Pages =. doi:10.1088/1748-0221/4/10/P10010 , Eprint =

    work page doi:10.1088/1748-0221/4/10/p10010

  36. [36]

    Atmospheric Research

    Climatology of aerosol radiative properties in the free troposphere. Atmospheric Research

  37. [37]

    and others

    Antoras , P. and others. A 4 V, ns-range pulse generator for the test of Cherenkov Telescopes readout electronics. NIM A , year = 2010, volume = 620, pages =

    2010

  38. [38]

    Proceedings of the 34 ^th ICRC, The Hague

    Monte Carlo Studies of the GCT Telescope for the Cherenkov Telescope Array. Proceedings of the 34 ^th ICRC, The Hague

  39. [39]

    Experimental Astronomy , note = "

    The University of Durham Mark 6 Gamma Ray Telescope. Experimental Astronomy , note = "

  40. [40]

    doi:10.1023/A:1007915512981 , Issn =

    Experimental Astronomy , Month =. doi:10.1023/A:1007915512981 , Issn =

    work page doi:10.1023/a:1007915512981

  41. [41]

    Site in Namibia for Energy Calibration of the Atmospheric Cherenkov Telescopes

    Implications of LIDAR Observations at the H.E.S.S. Site in Namibia for Energy Calibration of the Atmospheric Cherenkov Telescopes. International Cosmic Ray Conference , year = 2003, volume = 5, pages =

    2003

  42. [42]

    Atmospheric sensing for the H.E.S.S. array. High Energy Gamma-Ray Astronomy , year = 2005, series =

    2005

  43. [43]

    Measurement of the Optical Properties of the Auger Fluorescence Telescopes

    B \"a uml , J. Measurement of the Optical Properties of the Auger Fluorescence Telescopes. Proceedings of the 33 ^

  44. [44]

    Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A , note = "

    The CAT imaging telescope for very-high-energy gamma-ray astronomy. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A , note = "

  45. [45]

    Rev. Mod. Physics , volume = 24, pages = 133, doi =

  46. [46]

    Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A , eprint =

    Tests of a prototype multiplexed fiber-optic ultra-fast FADC data acquisition system for the MAGIC telescope. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A , eprint =

  47. [47]

    The First GLAST Symposium , year = 2007, series =

    Energy calibration of Cherenkov Telescopes using GLAST data. The First GLAST Symposium , year = 2007, series =

    2007

  48. [48]

    International Cosmic Ray Conference , year = 2008, volume = 3, pages =

    Energy Calibration of Cherenkov Telescopes using GLAST Data. International Cosmic Ray Conference , year = 2008, volume = 3, pages =

    2008

  49. [49]

    Phys. Rev. D , Month =. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.53.35 , Issue =

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.53.35

  50. [50]

    Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment , Number =

    B. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment , Number =. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-9002(92)90727-L , Issn =

    work page doi:10.1016/0168-9002(92)90727-l

  51. [51]

    NIM A , eprint =

    The Lidar system of the Pierre Auger Observatory. NIM A , eprint =

  52. [52]

    Astroparticle Physics , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

    Measurement of the aerosol phase function at the Pierre Auger Observatory. Astroparticle Physics , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

  53. [53]

    and Canestrari, R

    Berge, D. and Canestrari, R. and Dumas, D. and. Telescope pointing calibration for the Cherenkov Telescope Array (CTA). Proc. SPIE Astronomical Telescopes + Instrumentation

  54. [54]

    Astroparticle Physics , eprint =

    Impact of atmospheric parameters on the atmospheric Cherenkov technique. Astroparticle Physics , eprint =

  55. [55]

    Astroparticle Physics

    Monte Carlo design studies for the Cherenkov Telescope Array. Astroparticle Physics. 2013. doi:10.1016/j.astropartphys.2012.10.002

    doi:10.1016/j.astropartphys.2012.10.002 2013

  56. [56]

    A first look into radiosonde profiles relevant for Southern CTA site candidates

  57. [57]

    Applied Optics

    Correction scheme for close-range lidar returns. Applied Optics

  58. [58]

    Journal of Instrumentation , Month =

  59. [59]

    arXiv , Author =:0709.1574 , Journal =

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  60. [60]

    Metrologia , year = 1994, volume = 31, pages =

    LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Correction to the Updated Edl \'e n Equation for the Refractive Index of Air. Metrologia , year = 1994, volume = 31, pages =

    1994

  61. [61]

    doi:https://veritas.sao.arizona.edu/documents/Theses/RBirdThesis.pdf , Month =

  62. [62]

    ArXiv e-prints , Month = feb, Title =

  63. [63]

    Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology , year = 1999, volume = 16, pages =

    On Rayleigh Optical Depth Calculations. Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology , year = 1999, volume = 16, pages =. doi:10.1175/1520-0426(1999)016<1854:ORODC>2.0.CO;2 , adsurl =

    work page doi:10.1175/1520-0426(1999)016 1999

  64. [64]

    experiment and results of first observations of the supernova remnant RX J1713.7-3946

    Absolute energy calibration of the imaging Cherenkov telescopes of the H.E.S.S. experiment and results of first observations of the supernova remnant RX J1713.7-3946. 2004

    2004

  65. [65]

    doi:10.1117/12.2055331 , Number =

    work page doi:10.1117/12.2055331

  66. [66]

    experiment

    Improving the pointing precision of the H.E.S.S. experiment

  67. [67]

    Applied Optics , year = 1995, issue = 15, volume = 34, pages =

    Rayleigh-scattering calculations for the terrestrial atmosphere. Applied Optics , year = 1995, issue = 15, volume = 34, pages =

    1995

  68. [68]

    SiPM Detectors for the ASTRI and CTA Projects. Proc. SPIE Astronomical Telescopes + Instrumentation

  69. [69]

    doi:https://magicold.mpp.mpg.de/publications/theses/TBretz.pdf , School =

  70. [70]

    doi:10.1016/j.astropartphys.2017.10.013 , Eprint =

    Astroparticle Physics , Month = jan, Pages =. doi:10.1016/j.astropartphys.2017.10.013 , Eprint =

    doi:10.1016/j.astropartphys.2017.10.013 2017

  71. [71]

    A White Paper prepared for the Division of Astrophysics of the American Physical Society

    The Status and future of ground-based TeV gamma-ray astronomy. A White Paper prepared for the Division of Astrophysics of the American Physical Society. arXiv:0810.0444

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  72. [72]

    Atmospheric muon flux at sea level, underground, and underwater. Phys. Rev. D

  73. [73]

    The Real-Time Analysis prototype of the Cherenkov Telescope Array. Proc. SPIE Astronomical Telescopes + Instrumentation

  74. [74]

    telescope

    Muon efficiency of the H.E.S.S. telescope. Proceedings of the Atmospheric Monitoring for High-Energy Astroparticle Detectors (AtmoHEAD) Conference, Saclay (France)

  75. [75]

    Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series , year = 2012, series =

    Development of a mid-sized Schwarzschild-Couder Telescope for the Cherenkov Telescope Array. Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series , year = 2012, series =

    2012

  76. [76]

    SPIE Conf

    The ASTRI SST-2M prototype for the next generation of Cherenkov telescopes: structure and mirrors. SPIE Conf. Series , year = 2013, volume = 8861, eid =

    2013

  77. [77]

    Proceedings of the 33 ^rd ICRC, Rio de Janeiro

    The ASTRI SST-2M Prototype: Camera and Electronics. Proceedings of the 33 ^rd ICRC, Rio de Janeiro

  78. [78]

    The camera of the ASTRI SST-2M prototype for the Cherenkov Telescope Array

  79. [79]

    1950 , chapter=

    Radiative Transfer , author=. 1950 , chapter=

    1950

  80. [80]

    C. R. Ac ad. Sci. Paris

Showing first 80 references.