Paper detail

Theoretical uncertainties in extracting cosmic-ray diffusion parameters: the boron-to-carbon ratio

PAMELA and, more recently, AMS-02, are ushering us into a new era of greatly reduced statistical uncertainties in experimental measurements of cosmic-ray fluxes. In particular, new determinations of traditional diagnostic tools such as the boron-to-carbon ratio (B/C) are expected to significantly reduce errors on cosmic-ray diffusion parameters, with important implications for astroparticle physics, ranging from inferring primary source spectra to indirect dark matter searches. It is timely to stress, however, that the conclusions obtained crucially depend on the framework in which the data are interpreted as well as from some nuclear input parameters. We aim at assessing the theoretical uncertainties affecting the outcome, with models as simple as possible while still retaining the key dependencies. We compare different semi-analytical, two-zone model descriptions of cosmic-ray transport in the Galaxy. We test for the effect of a primary source contamination in the boron flux by parametrically altering its flux, as well as for nuclear cross section uncertainties. Our study on preliminary results from AMS-02 suggests that, differently for instance from the leptonic case, realistic modelling of the geometry of the Galaxy and of the source distribution are of minor importance to correctly reproduce B/C data at high energies and thus, to a large extent, for the extraction of diffusion parameters. The Ansatz on the lack of primary injection of boron represents the most serious bias, and requires multi-messenger studies to be addressed. If this uncertainty could be lifted, nuclear uncertainties would still represent a serious concern, which degrade the systematic error on the inferred parameters to the 20% level, or three times the estimated experimental sensitivity. In order to reduce this, a new nuclear cross section measurement campaign is probably required.

preprint2015arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access4 authors1 topic

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 map preview

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.