Paper detail

Systematic uncertainties on the cosmic-ray transport parameters: Is it possible to reconcile B/C data with delta = 1/3 or delta = 1/2?

The B/C ratio is used in cosmic-ray physics to constrain the transport parameters. However, from the same set of data, the various published values show a puzzling large scatter of these parameters. We investigate the impact of using different inputs (gas density and hydrogen fraction in the Galactic disc, source spectral shape, low-energy dependence of the diffusion coefficient, and nuclear fragmentation cross-sections) on the best-fit values of the transport parameters. We quantify the systematics produced when varying these inputs, and compare them to statistical uncertainties. We discuss the consequences for the slope of the diffusion coefficient delta. The analysis relies on the propagation code USINE interfaced with the Minuit minimisation routines. We find the typical systematic uncertainties to be larger than the statistical ones. The several published values of delta (from 0.3 to 0.8) can be recovered when varying the low-energy shape of the diffusion coefficient and the convective wind strength. Models including a convective wind are characterised by delta > 0.6, which cannot be reconcile with the expected theoretical values (1/3 and 1/2). However, from a statistical point of view (chi^2 analysis), models with both reacceleration and convection-hence large delta-are favoured. The next favoured models in line yield delta that can be accommodated with 1/3 and 1/2, but require a strong upturn of the diffusion coefficient at low energy (and no convection). To date, using the best statistical tools, the transport parameter determination is still plagued by many unknowns at low energy (~ GeV/n). To disentangle between all these configurations, measurements of the B/C ratio at TeV/n energies and/or combination with other secondary-to-primary ratios is necessary.

preprint2010arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.