Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 30 references

Improvements to monoscopic analysis for imaging atmospheric Cherenkov telescopes: Application to H.E.S.S

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A machine-learning overhaul of single-telescope gamma-ray analysis halves the low-energy threshold and sharpens angular resolution by 57 percent at 100 GeV.

desk verdict Solid, genuinely useful improvements to mono IACT reconstruction, but the headline gains may be partly inflated because the cut and preselection are optimized on the same simulations used to measure them. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.08671 v1 pith:UVYVZYVE submitted 2025-01-15 astro-ph.IM astro-ph.HE

Tim Unbehaun , Rodrigo Guedes Lang , Anita Deka Baruah , Prajath Bedur Ramesh , Jelena Celic , Lars Mohrmann , Simon Steinmassl , Laura Olivera-Nieto
show 2 more authors
Jim Hinton Stefan Funk
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.IMastro-ph.HE
keywords imagingatmosphericCherenkovtelescopesmonoscopiceventreconstructiongamma-hadronseparationHillasparametersboosteddecisiontreesH.E.S.S.size-dependentselectioncutenergythreshold
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

This paper claims that the weakest link in gamma-ray astronomy with imaging atmospheric Cherenkov telescopes—events recorded by a single telescope, which dominate at low energies—can be substantially strengthened by three coordinated changes to the analysis chain. It replaces the skewness-based decision about which end of an image points at the source (the 'flip') with a boosted decision tree, adds roughly thirty new image parameters that capture the shape, brightness structure, and time structure of the shower image beyond the classic Hillas moments, and makes the gamma-hadron selection cut depend on the total image intensity rather than being constant. On H.E.S.S. simulations the combination lowers the 10% effective-area energy threshold from 64 GeV to 30 GeV, improves the angular resolution by 57% at 100 GeV, and improves the detection sensitivity by 41% at the threshold, with the new analysis reproducing the Crab Nebula spectrum down to lower energies. The stakes are that the same monoscopic events are the ones that probe the faintest and most distant sources, and the methods transfer to mixed-size arrays such as the planned Cherenkov Telescope Array, where only the largest telescopes see low-energy events.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the 'flip': the binary decision of whether the true source position lies on the left or the right of the image's center of gravity in the camera frame, which fixes which end of the shower ellipse is the head. In the standard analysis the flip is read from the sign of the Hillas-skewness; here it is assigned by an XGBoost boosted decision tree whose most important input is the new kink-minor variable, the gradient of the image's off-axis position along the major axis, which encodes how the ellipse width changes from head to tail. The flip must be computed first because roughly half of the new parameters are asymmetry variables that swap or change sign under mirroring. The second piece of machinery is the size-dependent selection cut: the q-factor $\epsilon_{\rm sig}/\sqrt{\epsilon_{\rm bkg}}$ is scanned in bins of total image intensity and the optimal cut is smoothed into a continuous curve, so low-size events are kept with a loose cut and large events with a strict one. The third piece is the parameter set itself: sector-based moments in head/center/tail sections, continuous gradient variables such as the profile-gradient, kink-major, and kink-minor, roughness and auto-correlation statistics, and brightest-pixel fractions and distances, all chosen by iterative variable-importance removal so that the final gamma-hadron separator uses 31 inputs.

What would settle it

Measure the monoscopic Crab Nebula spectrum between 50 and 100 GeV with the new chain and compare it against the stereoscopic measurement of the same source: the paper claims an energy bias below 10% down to 50 GeV, so a mono spectrum departing from the stereo spectrum by more than the quoted systematic band in that range would show the simulated low-energy instrument response is wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that monoscopic gamma-ray events—showers seen by one telescope only, which are most of the events below about 100 GeV—are far better understood than the standard pipeline assumes. The paper argues that the standard reliance on the sign of the Hillas-skewness to decide the image orientation is the main limiting step: for small or truncated images the skewness is unreliable, and every downstream quantity (energy, direction, and the new head- and tail-dependent parameters) inherits the error. Feeding the image parameters to a trained classifier reduces the wrongly flipped fraction from 38% to 32% at threshold and from 29% to 17% at 100 GeV, and the angular resolution at 100 GeV improves by 57%. Making the gamma-hadron cut depend on image size, rather than a single constant cut, is the second independent gain: because separation quality rises with image size, a constant cut either discards useful small events or admits useless large ones, whereas a per-size cut keeps the q-factor near its optimum everywhere, which is what lowers the 10% effective-area threshold from 64 GeV to 30 GeV and the 10% energy-bias threshold from 120 GeV to 50 GeV. The new image parameters—sector moments, gradients along and across the ellipse, roughness, and brightest-pixel statistics—raise the q-factor by about 20% on average for low- and medium-size events, and together the three changes yield 41% better sensitivity at the low-energy threshold.

Load-bearing premise

Every headline number is computed from simulated air showers and a simulated camera response that the paper assumes are faithful at low energies and across varying night-sky background—the paper keeps its preselection safely above trigger level because mis-modeling is a known risk there, and the Crab Nebula measurement is the only real-data check of this assumption.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The 10% effective-area energy threshold falls from 64 GeV to 30 GeV and the 10% energy-bias threshold from 120 GeV to 50 GeV, so the telescope can claim credible detection and spectra roughly one octave lower in energy than before.
  • Angular resolution at 100 GeV improves by 57% and the false-flip fraction falls from 38% to 32% at threshold and from 29% to 17% at 100 GeV, which sharpens the separation of nearby sources and reduces background in aperture analysis.
  • Sensitivity for a 5-sigma detection in 50 hours improves by 41% at the low-energy threshold, and the q-factor of gamma-hadron separation rises on average by 20% for low- to medium-size events.
  • The new analysis reproduces the Crab Nebula spectrum measured by the previous chain and extends it to lower energies with a much smaller energy bias (41% versus 128% at 100 GeV), confirming the simulation-based expectations on real data.
  • The price of the gains is a modest rise in systematic sensitivity to night-sky background: the effective area changes by about 2.5% between nominal and 1.65-times-higher background, about one percentage point more than the standard analysis.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The two headline gains look separable: the size-dependent cut alone drops the energy threshold, while the new variables plus the flip-BDT carry most of the angular-resolution improvement. If so, either component could be ported to other single-telescope analyses without the other, which is useful for arrays whose cameras and trigger thresholds differ from H.E.S.S. CT5.
  • The paper's own decision to exclude time-based variables, because standard image cleaning leaves pixel times vulnerable to night-sky background, points to a concrete next step: a time-aware cleaning would likely let the time-gradient parameters into the separator and push the low-energy background rejection further.
  • The mirroring step that randomizes the flip distribution bakes in an assumption that performance is independent of source position in the camera; measuring whether the gains survive for sources at large offsets, where images are truncated most often, would test the method where it is supposedly most needed.
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

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents three improvements to monoscopic IACT analysis using H.E.S.S. CT5/FlashCam data: a BDT-based determination of the image orientation (flip), roughly 30 new image parameters characterizing intensity and time distributions, and a size-dependent gamma-hadron selection cut. The authors report a 57% improvement in angular resolution at 100 GeV, a reduction of the 10% effective-area energy threshold from 64 GeV to 30 GeV, and a 41% improvement in sensitivity at the low-energy threshold. The methods are evaluated on CORSIKA/sim_telarray simulations and validated on ~30 h of Crab Nebula data.

Significance. If the reported gains are robust, this is a valuable contribution to monoscopic IACT analysis, with direct relevance to H.E.S.S. and to the design of monoscopic analyses for CTAO. The paper is careful in several respects: the ML models use held-out validation sets, the NSB sensitivity of each variable is quantified with an Anderson-Darling test, the systematic impact of a 1.65x higher NSB is evaluated for key IRFs, and the new analysis is applied to real Crab data. These strengths make the central idea credible. However, the quantitative headline claims are simulation-based, and the manuscript does not document a fully independent evaluation of the analysis configuration, which introduces a selection-bias risk into the reported improvements.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sections 2.3 and 3.3] The size-dependent BDT cut (Section 2.3) and the 'seven or more pixels' preselection (Section 3.3) are optimized by scanning the same simulated sample that is later used to compute the effective areas and differential sensitivities in Figures 12-14. The paper does not state that a separate, untouched sample was reserved for the final performance evaluation. Because the q-factor scan selects the maximum over many size bins, statistical fluctuations in low-statistics bins can be exploited, potentially inflating the low-size effective area, the 30 GeV threshold, and the 41% sensitivity gain. Please either reserve a final evaluation sample that is not used for any cut/preselection choice, or demonstrate via cross-validation or a repeated split that the headline numbers are stable. Reporting the number of simulated events per size bin in Figure 6 would also help the reader assess the scale of fluctuations.
  2. [Sections 2.2.1-2.2.3] The iterative variable-selection procedures for the flip BDT, the regression NNs, and the separation BDT use validation losses/efficiencies from the same simulation set that produces the reported reconstruction and separation performance. While 10-20% of events are held out from training, the final variable subsets are selected on those validation sets, and the same overall sample then contributes to the headline numbers; this is a form of selection bias. The 57% angular-resolution improvement and the 20% q-factor improvement are the quantities most at risk. Please report the final configuration's performance on a sample that was not used for variable selection, hyperparameter choice, or early stopping, or quantify the selection variance by repeating the selection procedure on bootstrap subsamples.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 3.4] The sentence 'A low-energy threshold of 100 GeV is chosen, which lies above the 10% effective area threshold and below the 10% energy bias threshold for this zenith range' appears inconsistent with the immediately following statement that the new analysis exhibits an energy bias of 41% at 100 GeV; if the bias already exceeds 10% at 100 GeV, then 100 GeV lies above, not below, the 10% bias threshold.
  2. [Figure 6] The y-axis label contains a typo: 'nromalized' should be 'normalized'.
  3. [Table B.1] The notation in the 'Mirror' column (e.g., '×(−1)', '−xhead', 'ytail yhead') is cryptic; a sentence in the table caption explaining the convention would improve readability.
  4. [Section 2.1.5 / Table B.1] The Anderson-Darling statistic for distance-top-2 is listed as -0.408; since this test statistic is usually nonnegative, please clarify how a negative value arises or correct the entry.
  5. [Section 2.3] After the Gaussian smoothing of the per-bin optimal cut, the text says events are selected using the 'BDT cut interpolated at their respective size,' but it does not specify whether the interpolation is linear in log-size or how boundary bins are handled; please state the interpolation scheme explicitly.
  6. [Section 5] The data availability statement only provides the appendix figures on Zenodo; sharing the trained models, the optimized cut curve, and the analysis configuration would substantially improve reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No definitional circularity; the in-sample optimization of the size-dependent cut is a selection-bias caveat, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The central claims are not definitionally circular. The flip BDT is trained on 80% of simulated gamma-ray events and evaluated on a reserved 20% test set (Sec. 2.2.1), the energy and disp neural networks use a 90/10 train/validation split, and the separation BDT reserves 10% of data for validation. The angular-resolution gain (57% at 100 GeV) and the sensitivity gain attributed to the new variables therefore measure model behavior on events not used to fit those models, and the new-variable improvements are additionally checked against Crab data (Sec. 3.4). The size-dependent cut in Sec. 2.3 is optimized on the same simulated sample later used for the effective-area threshold and sensitivity curves, so the 64-to-30 GeV threshold reduction and part of the low-energy sensitivity gain are in-sample quantities subject to selection bias; however, the paper does not rename this fit as an independent prediction, and Eq. (26) only motivates the q-factor as an optimization target rather than defining the reported sensitivity. References to Murach et al. (2015), Voigt et al. (2014), and Steinmaßl (2023) are background and context, not load-bearing self-citations, and no uniqueness theorem is imported. Thus no step reduces, by the paper's own equations or by self-citation, to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on trained machine-learning models and on the validity of the simulation chain. The ML model parameters and the size-dependent cut are fitted to simulated data, and the simulations themselves are the key domain assumption.

free parameters (6)
  • Flip BDT hyperparameters and weights
    Trained on 80% of simulated point-source gamma events; the false-flip fraction on the test set is the reported metric.
  • Energy and disp NN weights
    Trained on 90% of simulated events; the same subset of variables is used for both regressions.
  • Gamma-hadron separation BDT hyperparameters and weights
    Trained on simulated point-source gammas and measured background data; 10% held out for validation.
  • Size-dependent BDT cut function = interpolated BDT cut vs. log10 Size
    Obtained by maximizing the q-factor in size bins on simulated data (Section 2.3).
  • Variable selection stopping criteria = 2.5% flip fraction, 5% regression loss, 1.6% NSB efficiency difference
    Chosen by hand to decide which variables are kept in each training.
  • Preselection thresholds = size > 80 p.e., npix >= 5, local distance < 0.8 m; npix >= 7 for sensitivity
    Chosen to avoid trigger-threshold systematics; the npix >= 7 cut is introduced after inspecting sensitivity results.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption CORSIKA air-shower simulations accurately describe gamma-ray and proton showers in the energy range of interest.
    Invoked in Section 2; all training and performance evaluations use these simulations.
  • domain assumption sim_telarray and the FlashCam/CT5 response model accurately reproduce the real detector, including pixel amplitudes and timing.
    Invoked in Section 2; the analysis chain after simulation uses HAP.
  • domain assumption The Hillas parametrization (ellipse moments) is a sufficient summary of the image for reconstruction and separation when augmented with the new parameters.
    The entire method is built on image parameters; the paper does not use full pixel templates.
  • ad hoc to paper Mirroring half of the simulated events with respect to the Y axis removes position-dependent asymmetries in the camera frame.
    Section 2.2; the authors introduce this to randomize the source position, but it assumes the camera response is symmetric under this mirror.
  • domain assumption The q-factor optimization on simulated data generalizes to real observations with different zenith angles and NSB levels.
    The cut is derived for 20 deg zenith and 0.5 deg offset, then applied to Crab data at 44-55 deg zenith.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Improvements to monoscopic analysis for imaging atmospheric Cherenkov telescopes: Application to H.E.S.S." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UVYVZYVE

@misc{pith2026250108671,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Improvements to monoscopic analysis for imaging atmospheric Cherenkov telescopes: Application to H.E.S.S},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UVYVZYVE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.08671}
}
read the original abstract

Imaging atmospheric Cherenkov telescopes (IACTs) detect gamma rays by measuring the Cherenkov light emitted by secondary particles in the air shower when the gamma rays hit the atmosphere. At low energies, the limited amount of Cherenkov light produced typically implies that the event is registered by one IACT only. Such events are called monoscopic events, and their analysis is particularly difficult. Challenges include the reconstruction of the event's arrival direction, energy, and the rejection of background events. Here, we present a set of improvements, including a machine-learning algorithm to determine the correct orientation of the image, an intensity-dependent selection cut that ensures optimal performance, and a collection of new image parameters. To quantify these improvements, we use the central telescope of the H.E.S.S. IACT array. Knowing the correct image orientation, which corresponds to the arrival direction of the photon in the camera frame, is especially important for the angular reconstruction, which could be improved in resolution by 57% at 100 GeV. The event selection cut, which now depends on the total measured intensity of the events, leads to a reduction of the low-energy threshold for source analyses by ~50%. The new image parameters characterize the intensity and time distribution within the recorded images and complement the traditionally used Hillas parameters in the machine learning algorithms. We evaluate their importance to the algorithms in a systematic approach and carefully evaluate associated systematic uncertainties. We find that including subsets of the new variables in machine-learning algorithms improves the reconstruction and background rejection, resulting in a sensitivity improved by 41% at the low-energy threshold.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.08671 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Simulated γ-ray event in the camera frame overlaid with a red ellipse illustrating the Hillas parametrization (width and length), and the lines separating the sectors. The pixels marked in green belong to either the head or the tail sector, while pixels that are not marked belong to the central sector. For each of the sectors, we compute <X> and <Y>, resulting in the variables “xhead,” “xcenter,” and “xtail,” and “y… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Profile-gradient for a simulated γ-ray event. The distance to the CoG is computed according to Eq. 12 and is therefore unitless. Article number, page 4 of 22 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Anderson-Darling statistic for the distribution of nom [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Relative variable importance for the flip training. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Scan of q-factors for different event sizes (x-axis) and BDT cuts (y-axis) using the 6 Hillas variables. For each size bin the color map shows the q-factors (normalized to 1) for different BDT cuts. The resulting optimal BDT cut (red) is shown together with the signal …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Relative change of the signal efficiency ϵsig during the iterative removal of the least important variable (from bottom to top). The signal efficiency for each training is compared to the signal efficiency of the reference training ϵ HillasOnly sig (the current trainin…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Angular resolution as a function of true energy. The blue [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Fraction of wrongly flipped events as function of true en [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The absolute q-factors (upper panel) of the separation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_11.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Energy resolution as a function of true energy. The red [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Effective areas for the three configurations as function of true energy. 0.1 1 10 True Energy [TeV] 0.90 0.95 1.00 1.05 1.10 Ae ffhighNSB / Ae ffnominalNSB Hillas variables (var. cut) New variables (var. cut) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Ratio of the effective areas computed from simulations with nominal and high NSB values. The points show the ratio for each energy bin while the shaded bands represent an estimate of the systematic uncertainty. For details see main text. the difference between the two…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Spectral energy distribution of the Crab Nebula as mea [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_15.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2024, A&A, 691, A328

    Abe, K., Abe, S., Abhishek, A., et al. 2024, A&A, 691, A328

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    2024, Gammapy v1.2, Zenodo, https: //doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10726484

    Acero, F., Bernete, J., Biederbeck, N., et al. 2024, Gammapy v1.2, Zenodo, https: //doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10726484

    doi:10.5281/zenodo.10726484 2024

  3. [3]

    O., et al

    Aharonian, F., Ait Benkhali, F., Angüner, E. O., et al. 2022, Science, 376, 77

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    A., Aschersleben, J., et al

    Aharonian, F., Benkhali, F. A., Aschersleben, J., et al. 2024, A&A, 686, A308

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    G., Bazer-Bachi, A

    Aharonian, F., Akhperjanian, A. G., Bazer-Bachi, A. R., et al. 2006, A&A, 457, 899 Aleksi´c, J., Ansoldi, S., Antonelli, L., Antoranz, P., et al. 2016, Astroparticle Physics, 72, 61

    work page 2006

  6. [6]

    A., et al

    Aliu, E., Anderhub, H., Antonelli, L. A., et al. 2009, Astropart. Phys., 30, 293 Astropy Collaboration. 2013, A&A, 558, A33 Astropy Collaboration. 2018, AJ, 156, 123 Astropy Collaboration. 2022, ApJ, 935, 167

    work page 2009

  7. [7]

    2007, A&A, 466, 1219 Bernlöhr, K

    Berge, D., Funk, S., & Hinton, J. 2007, A&A, 466, 1219 Bernlöhr, K. 2008, Astropart. Phys., 30, 149

    work page 2007

  8. [8]

    2021, PoS, ICRC2021, 743

    Bi, B., Barcelo, M., Bauer, C., et al. 2021, PoS, ICRC2021, 743

    work page 2021

Show all 30 references
  1. [9]

    & Guestrin, C

    Chen, T. & Guestrin, C. 2016, in Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD Inter- national Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, 785–794

    2016

  2. [10]

    2020, scikit-hep/iminuit, Zen- odo, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3949207

    Dembinski, H., Ongmongkolkul, P., Deil, C., et al. 2020, scikit-hep/iminuit, Zen- odo, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3949207

    2020 doi

  3. [11]

    2023, A&A, 678, A157

    Donath, A., Terrier, R., Remy, Q., et al. 2023, A&A, 678, A157

    2023

  4. [12]

    2015, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science, 65, 245

    Funk, S. 2015, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science, 65, 245

    2015

  5. [13]

    2023, JCAP, 11, 008

    Glombitza, J., Joshi, V ., Bruno, B., & Funk, S. 2023, JCAP, 11, 008

    2023

  6. [14]

    1998, CORSIKA: A Monte Carlo code to simulate extensive air showers, Tech

    Heck, D., Knapp, J., Capdevielle, J., et al. 1998, CORSIKA: A Monte Carlo code to simulate extensive air showers, Tech. Rep. FZKA 6019, Forschungszen- trum Karlsruhe

    1998

  7. [15]

    Hillas, A. M. 1985, in 19th Intern. Cosmic Ray Conf-V ol. 3 No. OG-9.5-3

    1985

  8. [16]

    1999, Astropart

    Hofmann, W. 1999, Astropart. Phys., 12, 135–143

    1999

  9. [17]

    L., Shilon, I., Büchele, M., et al

    Holch, T. L., Shilon, I., Büchele, M., et al. 2017, PoS, ICRC2017, 795

    2017

  10. [18]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Comput. Sci. Eng., 9, 90

    2007

  11. [19]

    1999, Astroparticle Physics, 10, 275

    Konopelko, A., Hemberger, M., Aharonian, F., et al. 1999, Astroparticle Physics, 10, 275

    1999

  12. [20]

    2023, PoS, Gamma2022, 231

    Leuschner, F., Schäfer, J., Steinmassl, S., et al. 2023, PoS, Gamma2022, 231

    2023

  13. [21]

    2020, Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1525, 012084

    Lyard, E., Walter, R., Sliusar, V ., Produit, N., & for the CTA Consortium. 2020, Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1525, 012084

    2020

  14. [22]

    2024, PoS, Gamma2022, 220

    Miener, T., Nieto, D., López-Coto, R., et al. 2024, PoS, Gamma2022, 220

    2024

  15. [23]

    Murach, T., Gajdus, M., & Parsons, R. D. 2015, in Proc. 34th Int. Cosmic Ray Conf. — PoS(ICRC2015), V ol. 236, 1022, https://pos.sissa.it/236/1022

    2015

  16. [24]

    & Hinton, J

    Parsons, R. & Hinton, J. 2014, Astropart. Phys., 56, 26

    2014

  17. [25]

    D., Mitchell, A

    Parsons, R. D., Mitchell, A. M. W., & Ohm, S. 2022, arXiv e-prints [arXiv:2203.05315]

    2022 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Parsons, R. D. & Ohm, S. 2020, The European Physical Journal C, 80, 1

    2020

  19. [27]

    T., Akerlof, C

    Reynolds, P. T., Akerlof, C. W., Cawley, M. F., et al. 1993, ApJ, 404, 206

    1993

  20. [28]

    2019, Astropart

    Shilon, I., Kraus, M., Büchele, M., et al. 2019, Astropart. Phys., 105, 44 Steinmaßl, S. F. 2023, PhD thesis, Ruperto-Carola-University Heidelberg, https: //doi.org/10.11588/heidok.00033375 van Eldik, C., Holler, M., Berge, D., et al. 2016, PoS, ICRC2015, 847 V oigt, T. 2014, ...

    2019 doi

  21. [29]

    2002, Astropart

    Weekes, T., Badran, H., Biller, S., et al. 2002, Astropart. Phys., 17, 221

    2002

  22. [30]

    C., Cawley, M

    Weekes, T. C., Cawley, M. F., Fegan, D. J., et al. 1989, ApJ, 342, 379 Article number, page 14 of 22 Tim Unbehaun et al.: Improvements to monoscopic analyses of IACTs Appendix A: Variable distribution plots For each of the variables we show the distribution of ∼ 7× 106 backgro...

    1989

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.