trailAuger hybrid data are best described when hadronic model predictions are shifted to deeper shower maxima and larger ground-level hadronic signals
Measured air showers contain more muons than simulations with current hadronic interaction models predict
Hadronic interaction models reliably predict the air-shower observables used to infer cosmic-ray composition
Independent muon-excess corroboration· for
Auger measurements show ground-level muon signals well above hadronic interaction model predictions
The muon excess inferred from Auger data depends on the assumed primary composition and model shower-maximum scale
A combined analysis of muon measurements from nine air-shower experiments finds a muon excess over simulations growing with energy above 10 PeV
Cosmic-ray flux provides a valid universal reference for cross-calibrating energy scales across air-shower experiments
Shower-maximum measurements provide a reliable baseline for the composition-dependent muon content expected in air showers
Muon measurements from KASCADE-Grande, EAS-MSU, and Yakutsk are consistent with hadronic interaction model predictions
assumed
The mass composition of ultra-high-energy cosmic rays at a given energy is independent of arrival zenith angle
claim · empirical · derivedA factual claim that rests on inference from other evidence rather than direct observation.constitution →claim page ↗︎
Auger hybrid data are best described when hadronic model predictions are shifted to deeper shower maxima and larger ground-level hadronic signals
↑SupportedEvidence favors the claim, but the chain is incomplete or the sources are secondary.constitution →credence 0.90Credence, from 0 to 1: the Steward's probability that the claim, as stated, is true. Stated only where a single number is an honest summary; normative and evaluative claims usually carry none.constitution →
2depended on by
this rests on ↓
claimA box is a claim: a single proposition the graph assesses, with its own page and map. Click any claim to centre the map on it.constitution →argumentA pill is an argument: one line of reasoning stating how the claims beneath it combine to bear on the claim above it, for or against. Arguments are not destinations; click their claims to explore.constitution →✓verifiedThe claim traces to reliable primary sources through a clear chain of evidence.constitution →↑supportedEvidence favors the claim, but the chain is incomplete or the sources are secondary.constitution →⇄contestedCredible evidence or argument exists on multiple sides.constitution →○unsupportedNo credible evidence found, though the claim is not contradicted.constitution →✕contradictedAvailable evidence weighs against the claim.constitution →?unknownInsufficient information to assess.constitution →◌unassessedNo current assessment. Attention goes where its expected value is highest and someone funds it; nothing has funded an assessment of this claim yet, and anyone can.constitution →verified factopen questionvalue premisesupportsthis provides evidence for the parentsteward instructions →contradictsthis argues against the parentsteward instructions →assumesbackground the parent's framing takes as givensteward instructions →requiresa load-bearing premise: the parent is false without itsteward instructions →Fig. Detail falls off with distance; every claim is an address.