This document summarizes the results of a 7-year study by the Telescope Array experiment measuring ultra-high energy cosmic rays. Key findings include: - Over 7 years, 28,269 shower candidates above 1017.2 eV were observed. The energy spectrum follows a power law up to the ankle at 1018.62 eV. - The average depth of shower maximum (Xmax) was measured in different energy ranges and found to be consistent with lighter compositions such as protons or mixed light and heavy nuclei. - The flux and energy spectrum measured by Telescope Array is consistent with previous measurements by the HiRes and Auger experiments, helping to improve our understanding of ultra-high energy cosmic rays.

1. 1
( ) fujii@icrr.u-tokyo.ac.jp
2018 3 25 73
12

2. 2
( ) fujii@icrr.u-tokyo.ac.jp
2018 3 25 73
12

3. (2012 )
"The energy spectrum of cosmic rays above 1017.2 eV measured by
the fluorescence detectors of the Telescope Array experiment in
seven years", R.U. Abbasi, T. Fujii (corresponding author) et al.,
Astroparticle Physics 80 pp131-140 (2016)
,
Paolo Privitera
James Cronin
"Search for ultrarelativistic magnetic
monopoles with the Pierre Auger observatory",
A. Aab et al., Physics Review D 94, 082002
(2016), Editors’ Suggestions
"Detection of ultra-high energy cosmic ray showers with a
single-pixel fluorescence telescope", T. Fujii (corresponding
author) et al., Astroparticle Physics, 74, pp64-72 (2016)
http://www.fast-project.org 3

4. ‣ 109 - 1020 eV E-3
‣ 1020 eV (100 EeV)
‣
3
‣
‣
4
Landing point at Bad saarow,
Germany on Aug. 7th, 1912
Cosmic ray anniversary on Aug. 7th 2012
1 particle/m2/yr
1 particle/km2/yr
1 particle/
km2/century
(Ultrahigh-energy cosmic rays, UHECRs)
V. F. Hess, Phys.
Z. 13, 1804 (1912)
5350 m
E2.5 J(E)
R. Engel et al., Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 61 (2011) 467
W. Kolhörster, Physikalische
Zeitschrift 14 (1913) 1153–1156.
6300 m, 9300 m (1914)
UHECRs
E > 1 EeV

5. Annu.Rev.Astron.Astrophys.1984.22:425-444.
AccessprovidedbyUniversityofTokyo
Hillas&plot
IC443 W44
γ :
, Z : , B :
, R :
E2.5 J(E)
A. M. Hillas, Astron. Astrophys., 22, 425 (1984)
9
FLUX MAP ABOVE 8 EeVFLUX MAP ABOVE 8 EeV
Galactic center
Equatorial coordinates
Pierre Auger collab. Science
357, 1266 (2017)
Fermi-LAT collab. Science 339, 807 (2013)
Energy (eV)
8
10
9
10
10
10 11
10 12
10
)-1s-2
dN/dE(ergcm2
Gamma-rayfluxE
-12
10
-11
10
-10
10
-9
10
W44
IC 443
decay model0
πFitted
Derived Proton spectrum
VERITAS (Acciari et al. 2009)
MAGIC (Albert et al. 2008)
46
10
47
10
48
10
49
10
dN/dE(erg)2
ProtonSpectrumE
Figure 3: Proton and gamma-ray spectra determined for IC 443 and W44. Also shown are
the broadband spectral flux points derived in this study, along with TeV spectral data points for
IC 443 from MAGIC (29) and VERITAS (30). The curvature evident in the proton distribution
at ∼ 2 GeV is a consequence of the display in energy space (rather than momentum space).
Sgr A* Sgr A*
a b
Figure 1: VHE -ray image of the Galactic Centre region. The colour scale indicates counts per 0.02 ⇥0.02 pixel.
Left panel: The black lines outline the regions used to calculate the CR energy density throughout the central molecular
zone. A section of 66 is excluded from the annuli (see Methods). White contour lines indicate the density distribution
of molecular gas, as traced by its CS line emission30
. The inset shows the simulation of a point-like source. Right
panel: Zoomed view of the inner ⇠ 70 pc and the contour of the region used to extract the spectrum of the diffuse
emission.
Energy (TeV)
1 10
)-1
s-2
Flux(TeVcm×2
E
-13
10
-12
10
-11
10
-10
10
10)×Diffuse emission (
Model (best fit): Diffuse emission
= 2.9 PeV
68% CL
cut,pModel: Diffuse emission E
= 0.6 PeV
90% CL
cut,p
Model: Diffuse emission E
= 0.4 PeV
95% CL
cut,p
Model: Diffuse emission E
HESS J1745-290
Figure 3: VHE -ray spectra of the diffuse emission and HESS J1745-290. The Y axis shows fluxes multiplied by
a factor E2
, where E is the energy on the X axis, in units of TeVcm 2
s 1
. The vertical and horizontal error bars show
the 1 statistical error and bin size, respectively. Arrows represent 2 flux upper limits. The 1 confidence bands of
the best-fit spectra of the diffuse and HESS J1745-290 are shown in red and blue shaded areas, respectively. Spectral
parameters are given in Methods. The red lines show the numerical computations assuming that -rays result from
the decay of neutral pions produced by proton-proton interactions. The fluxes of the diffuse emission spectrum and
models are multiplied by 10.
9
H.E.S.S. collab.,
Nature 531, 476 (2016)
Emax  eZBR
•GZK
•
•
Hot/warm spotsAll Sky Survey with TA&PAO
12
Northern TA : 7 years 109 events (>57EeV)
Southern Auger : 10 years 157 events (>57EeV)
Oversampling with 20°-radius circle
Southern hotspot is seen at Cen A(Pre-trial ~3.6σ)
No correction for
E scale difference
b/w TA and PAO !!
TA collab. ApJL,
790:L21 (2014)
K. Kawata et al.,
Proc. of ICRC 2015
5

6. (E (eV))10
log
17 17.5 18 18.5 19 19.5 20
)2
<Xmax>(g/cm
550
600
650
700
750
800
850
900
Proton
Iron
QGSJetII-03
QGSJet01
SIBYLL 2.1
QGSJetII-04
EPOS-LHC
CORSIKA Prediction
6
CORSIKA https://web.ikp.kit.edu/corsika/movies
(Fluorescence detector, FD)
‣ 1958 ( , ), 1962
( , Chudakov)
‣ 1969 TOKYO-1 ( )
‣ /
(PMT)
‣ Xmax(
)
(Surface detector array, SD)
1958
( )'
1969
(TOKYOZ1)
( )
Iwate Prefectural University Miyako College
NII-Electronic Library Service
Iwate Prefectural University Miyako College
NII-Electro
NII-Electronic Library Service
Iwate Prefectural University Miyako College
Iwate Prefectural University Miyako College
Iwate Prefectural University Miyako College

7. 7
, , 700 km2 ( ~100 km2)
4 (TA×4)
2008 5 ⇒ 10
PMT
16×16
PMTs
(TA )
3.3 m +256 (PMT), 12507 3 m2
1.2 km
HiRes
2.4 m 256
(PMT), 14
(Telescope Array Experiment, TA)
35 km

8. 8
!
!
( )

9. ‣ 1
‣
( )
‣
‣ 6° 17%
Xmax 70 g/cm2
‣ 1017.2 eV 3
‣ FD
‣ 2008 1 ~2014 12 7 ( 4000 )
‣ E > 1017.2 eV 28,269
‣
9
cloud cut ensures that we only analyze data collected
under weather conditions that can be accurately mod-
eled in our MC simulation. This cut is applied by in-
terpreting the visually recorded code at the MD FD sta-
tion because it has the most coverage in this period, and
we confirmed its consisntecy with the method described
in Sec. 2. After the cloud cut, the live time is 4100
hours at BRM and 3470 hours at LR, so that 41% of
our data period was excluded by the cloud cut. The live
time of simultaneous BRM and LR observation is 2870
hours. Analyzing data using the monocular analysis
under the same quality cuts, 28269 shower candidates
above 1017.2
eV are obtained as shown in Figure 5. The
number of events passing each selection in sequence is
summarized in Table 1.
log (E (eV))
17 17.5 18 18.5 19 19.5 20 20.5
NumberofEvents
1
10
2
10
3
10
Data (Jan/2008-Dec/2014)
5
log10 Eb 18.27 ± 0.09 17.87 ± 0.03
Table 2: The fit parameters for aperture assuming proton and iron
primaries.
where252
γ =
1 − exp − log10 Eb − p2 /p3
1 − exp − log10 Eb − p4 /p5
(5)253
and Eb is the energy (in eV) at the break. The best-fit254
values are described in Table 2.255
The aperture assuming the HiRes/MIA proton frac-256
tion, AΩf
, was estimated by the following formula:257
AΩf
= AΩP
R + f · (1 − R) , (6)258
where f is the proton fraction and R ≡ AΩFe
/AΩP
is259
the ratio of the iron and proton best-fit apertures. The260
dependence of the aperture on primary species is most261
evident in the low-energy region, but becomes negligi-262
ble at high energies.263
(E (eV))
10
log
17 17.5 18 18.5 19 19.5 20 20.5
sr]2
Aperture[km
-1
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
Proton
Iron
HiRes/MIA
we confirmed its consisntecy with the method described275
in Sec. 2. After the cloud cut, the live time is 4100276
hours at BRM and 3470 hours at LR, so that 41% of277
our data period was excluded by the cloud cut. The live278
time of simultaneous BRM and LR observation is 2870279
hours. Analyzing data using the monocular analysis280
under the same quality cuts, 28269 shower candidates281
above 1017.2
eV are obtained as shown in Figure 5. The282
number of events passing each selection in sequence is283
summarized in Table 1.284
log (E (eV))
17 17.5 18 18.5 19 19.5 20 20.5
NumberofEvents
1
10
2
10
3
10
Data (Jan/2008-Dec/2014)
Figure 5: Energy distribution of reconstructed showers from seven
years of data.
5.1. Data/MC Comparison285
To further ensure the reliability of our analysis, the286
distributions of several parameters obtained from recon-287
struction of the observed data are compared with the288
predictions estimated from MC simulations using the289
QGSJetII-03 model. The MC simulations are weighted290
( × )
HiRes/MIA

10. 1017.2 eV
‣ 1017.2 eV 3
( 21%)
‣
‣
‣ TA
10
R.U. Abbasi et al. / Astroparticle Physics 80 (2016) 131–140 139
(E (eV))10
log
16.5 17 17.5 18 18.5 19 19.5 20 20.5
)-1s-1sr-2m2
(eV24
/103
E×Flux
-1
10
1
10
TA FD (this work)
Systematic Uncert.
TA MD
TA SD
IceTop-73
KASCADE-Grande
HiRes-I
HiRes-II
Auger ICRC 2015
ectrum compared with results reported by IceTop-73 [36], KASCADE-Grande [37], HiRes [27], Auger [38] and other detectors within TA [8,39].
directions are estimated as 4%. By adding these of log10(Eankle/eV) = 18.62 ± 0.04, corresponding to the ankle. TheR. Abbasi, T. Fujii(corresponding author) et al., Astroparticle Physics 80 (2016) 131-140
138 R.U. Abbasi et al. / Astroparticle Ph
(E (eV))10
log
17 17.5 18 18.5 19 19.5 20 20.5
)-1s-1sr-2m2
(eV24
/103
E×Flux
1
10
Combined
Systematic Uncert.
BRM
LR
Fig. 11. Energy spectra observed by BRM and LR separately, and combined. The to-
tal systematic uncertainty on flux to be discussed in Section 6 is also indicated.
(E (eV))10
log
17 17.5 18 18.5 19 19.5 20 20.5
)-1s-1sr-2m2
(eV24
/103
E×Flux
1
10
0.04±=-3.261
γ
0.04±)=18.62ankle
log(E
0.06±=-2.632
γ
/ndf=19.7/19 (1.0)2
χ
Fig. 12. Fitted result on the combined energy spectrum observed by the BRM and
Fi
op
th
ta
o
b
la
H
o
S
g
p
g
ta
a
m
p
sp
d
E3 J(E)

11. ]2
Reconstructed Xmax [g/cm
500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100
0
100
200
18.0<logE<18.2
N = 2861
]2
Reconstructed Xmax [g/cm
500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100
0
50
100 18.2<logE<18.4
N = 1655
]2
Reconstructed Xmax [g/cm
500 600 700 800 900 1000 1
0
20
40
60
18.4<logE<18.6
N = 831
]2
Reconstructed Xmax [g/cm
500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100
Entries
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Data
Proton
Iron
Mixed
18.6<logE<18.8
N = 404
]2
Reconstructed Xmax [g/cm
500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100
Entries
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Data
Proton
Iron
Mixed
18.8<logE<19.2
N = 288
]2
Reconstructed Xmax [g/cm
500 600 700 800 900 1000 1
Entries
0
2
4
6
8
10
12 Data
Proton
Iron
Mixed
19.2<logE<19.8
N = 69
Figure 5: Xmax distributions in each energy range using the fiducial FoV cuts, compared with the expec
distributions estimated from MC simulations using QGSJetII-03 with three different compositions: p
proton (red solid line), pure iron (blue dashed line), and a equal mixture of both (pink dash-dotted line).
(E (eV))10
log
18 18.5 19 19.5 20
)2
<Xmax>(g/cm
650
700
750
800
850
900
1615
1246
952 703
517
314 268 136
117
74 97
39
20
10
Proton
Iron
Telescope Array ICRC15 Preliminary
QGSJetII-03
QGSJet01
SIBYLL 2.1
QGSJetII-04
EPOS-LHC
Data (Jan/2008-Dec/2014)
sys. uncert.2
19 g/cm
(E (eV))10
log
18 18.5 19 19.5 20
)2
<Xmax>(g/cm
650
700
750
800
850
900
TA (this work)
Auger PRD’14
HiRes PRL’10
Telescope Array ICRC15 Preliminary
Xmax
11
Energy Spectrum and Mass Composition Measured with TA FD Monocular Analysis Toshihiro Fujii
]2
Reconstructed Xmax [g/cm
500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100
Entries
0
100
200
300
400
500 Data
Proton
Iron
Mixed
18.0<logE<18.2
N = 2861
]2
Reconstructed Xmax [g/cm
500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100
Entries
0
50
100
150
200
250
Data
Proton
Iron
Mixed
18.2<logE<18.4
N = 1655
]2
Reconstructed Xmax [g/cm
500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100
Entries
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140 Data
Proton
Iron
Mixed
18.4<logE<18.6
N = 831
]2
Reconstructed Xmax [g/cm
500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100
Entries
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Data
Proton
Iron
Mixed
18.6<logE<18.8
N = 404
]2
Reconstructed Xmax [g/cm
500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100
Entries
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Data
Proton
Iron
Mixed
18.8<logE<19.2
N = 288
]2
Reconstructed Xmax [g/cm
500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100
Entries
0
2
4
6
8
10
12 Data
Proton
Iron
Mixed
19.2<logE<19.8
N = 69
Figure 5: Xmax distributions in each energy range using the fiducial FoV cuts, compared with the expected
distributions estimated from MC simulations using QGSJetII-03 with three different compositions: pure
proton (red solid line), pure iron (blue dashed line), and a equal mixture of both (pink dash-dotted line).
18 18.5 19 19.5 20
)2
<Xmax>(g/cm
650
700
750
800
850
900
1615
1246
952 703
517
314 268 136
117
74 97
39
20
10
Proton
Iron
Telescope Array ICRC15 Preliminary
QGSJetII-03
QGSJet01
SIBYLL 2.1
QGSJetII-04
EPOS-LHC
Data (Jan/2008-Dec/2014)
sys. uncert.2
19 g/cm
18 18.5 19 19.5 20
)2
<Xmax>(g/cm
650
700
750
800
850
900
TA (this work)
Auger PRD’14
HiRes PRL’10
Telescope Array ICRC15 Preliminary
Proton (QGSJetII-03)
Iron (QGSJetII-03)
Mixed (P 50%+Fe 50%)
T. Fujii et al., PoS (ICRC 2015) 320
‣ Xmax
‣ Fiducial
volume (field-of-view) cut (Auger
)
‣
]2
Reconstructed Xmax [g/cm
500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100
0
100
18.0<logE<18.2
N = 2861
]2
Reconstructed Xmax [g/cm
500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100
0
50
N = 1655
Reconstructed Xmax [g
500 600 700 800 900
0
20
40
1
]2
Reconstructed Xmax [g/cm
500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100
Entries
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Data
Proton
Iron
Mixed
18.6<logE<18.8
N = 404
]2
Reconstructed Xmax [g/cm
500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100
Entries
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Data
Proton
Iron
Mixed
18.8<logE<19.2
N = 288
Reconstructed Xmax [g
500 600 700 800 900
Entries
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
1
Figure 5: Xmax distributions in each energy range using the fiducial FoV cuts, compared with t
distributions estimated from MC simulations using QGSJetII-03 with three different compos
proton (red solid line), pure iron (blue dashed line), and a equal mixture of both (pink dash-dotte
(E (eV))10
log
18 18.5 19 19.5 20
)2
<Xmax>(g/cm
650
700
750
800
850
900
1615
1246
952 703
517
314 268 136
117
74 97
39
20
10
Proton
Iron
Telescope Array ICRC15 Preliminary
QGSJetII-03
QGSJet01
SIBYLL 2.1
QGSJetII-04
EPOS-LHC
Data (Jan/2008-Dec/2014)
sys. uncert.2
19 g/cm
(E (eV))10
log
18 18.5 19 19.5
)2
<Xmax>(g/cm
650
700
750
800
850
900
TA (this work)
Auger PRD’14
HiRes PRL’10
Telescope Array ICRC15 Preli
‣ Xmax
(QGSJetII-03)
‣ Fiducial volume cut
Auger
18.0<log(E)<18.2 18.2<log(E)<18.4 18.4<log(E)<18.6
18.6<log(E)<18.8 18.8<log(E)<19.2 19.2<log(E)<19.8

12. (Pierre Auger Observatory, Auger)
, , 3000 km2, 2004 ~(2008 Full operation)
1600
, 10 m2,
1.5 km
The Pierre Auger Observatory 13
(a) (b)
Figure 3.2: (a) Schematic depiction of a surface detector station [28]; (b) a surface
detector station deployed in the field.
tubes (PMTs) are optically coupled to the water and symmetrically positioned on
top of the tank with a distance of 1.2 m between each other. Each detector is de-
vised to work completely stand-alone, thus, every tank is equipped with a battery
box and a solar power system providing the 10 W average power required for the
tank electronics [29]. A GPS (Global Positioning System) unit is installed at each
tank as a basis for time synchronization between the detector and the Central Data
Acquisition System (CDAS) as well as for providing precise information about the
tank’s position. The communication between the detector and the CDAS is achieved
wirelessly via one of the four communication beacons located near the FD sites at
the perimeter of the array.
To detect charged particles from extensive air showers, the Cherenkov e↵ect is ex-
ploited [30]. When the velocity of a charged particle traversing a medium is greater
than the speed of light in this medium, Cherenkov light is emitted by this particle in
a cone along its trajectory. The Cherenkov light produced in the tank by secondary
particles from extensive air showers, mostly muons and electrons, is detected by the
PMTs mounted on top of the tank and converted into a current pulse. To increase
3.4 m 440 , 6 /
The Pierre Auger Observatory
1665 surface detectors:
water-Cherenkov tanks
(grid of 1.5 km, 3000 km2)
4 fluorescence detectors
(24 telescopes in total)
LIDARs and laser facilities
ion
es
20
array of 750 m,
io antenna array
Southern hemisphere:
Province Mendoza, Argentina
The Pierre Auger Observatory
1665 surface detectors:
water-Cherenkov tanks
(grid of 1.5 km, 3000 km2)
4 fluorescence detectors
LIDARs and laser facilities
ay of 750 m,
ntenna array
The Pierre Auger Observatory
1665 surface detectors:
water-Cherenkov tanks
(grid of 1.5 km, 3000 km2)
4 fluorescence detectors
(24 telescopes in total)
LIDARs and laser facilities
High elevation
telescopes
Infill array of 750 m,
Radio antenna array
The Pierre Auger Observatory
1665 surface detectors:
water-Cherenkov tanks
(grid of 1.5 km, 3000 km2)
4 fluorescence detectors
(24 telescopes in total)
LIDARs and laser facilities
High elevation
telescopes
20
Infill array of 750 m,
Radio antenna array
Southern hemisphere:
Province Mendoza, Argentina
12
50 km

13. 13Photography: Steven Saffi, Production assistant: Max Malacari

14. Auger
14
Xmax
Xmax
(TA )
✓
Average Shower Maximum, hXmaxi
Telescope Array Collaboration, APP 64 (2014) 49
E [eV]
1018 1019 1020
hXmaxi[g/cm2
]
650
700
750
800
850 data ± sstat
± ssys
EPOS-LHC
Sibyll2.1
QGSJetII-04
iron
proton
Pierre Auger Collaboration, PRD 90 (2014) 12, 122005
5
1018.3 eV
Pierre Auger collab., Phys.Rev.D 90,
122005 (2014)
Phys.Rev.D 90, 122006 (2014)
V. de Souza et al (Mass Composition WG), Proc. of ICRC 201714
TA data
AugerMix
2
Take away message
We present the
solution for a
decade-long
controversy.
TA and Auger
composition measurements (Xmax)
agree within the systematics
18.2 < log10
(E/eV) < 19.0

15. 1931 Dirac
[P. A. Dirac, Proc. R. Soc. A 133, 60 (1931)]
E ~ 1025 eV
[S. D. Wick et al., Astropart. Phys. 18, 663 (2003)]
15
Po
poles with the Pierre Auger Observatory Toshihiro Fujii
12
)2
Slant depth (g/cm
0 200 400 600 800 1000120014001600
))2
Energydeposit(PeV/(g/cm
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800 11
=10γeV,
25
Monopole 10
eV20
Proton 10
We have not searched for this kind of candidate, which
would not guarantee a high-quality reconstruction of the
shower development.
IV. MONTE CARLO SIMULATIONS AND EVENT
RECONSTRUCTION
)2
Slant depth (g/cm
0 20 0 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
))2
Energydeposit(PeV/(g/cm
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
11
=10γeV,
25
Monopole 10
eV20
Proton 10
FIG. 2. Longitudinal profile of the energy deposited by an
ultrarelativistic IMM of Emon ¼ 1025
eV, γ ¼ 1011
and zenith
angle of 70° (red solid line). The profile of a UHECR proton
shower of energy 1020
eV is shown as a black solid line.
A. AAB et al. PHYSICAL REVIEW D 94, 082002 (2016)

16. 16
Auger
19
Auger
3
90% [Pierre Auger Collaboration,
Phys.Rev.D. 94, 082002 (2016)] ( ) 10
10 1
)γlog(
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
]-1
ssr)2
FluxUpperBound[(cm
-22
10
-21
10
-20
10
-19
10
-18
10
-17
10
-16
10
-15
10
-14
10
-13
10
-12
10
-11
10
PARKER
SLIM
MACRO
IceCube
RICE
ANITA-II
Auger
FIG. 8. 90% C.L. upper limits on the flux of ultrarelativistic
IMMs: this work (black solid line); Parker bound (blue dashed
line) [15]; SLIM (sky-blue dashed line) [11], MACRO (green
solid line) [8], IceCube (blue solid line) [14], RICE (pink dotted
line) [12] and ANITA-II (red line) [13]. The MACRO and SLIM
limits above γ ¼ 109 were weakened by a factor of 2 to account
A. AAB et al.
Pierre Auger collab. Phys.Rev.D, 94, 082002 (2016), Particle data book (2017)
1500 m. The shower must be seen by at least five FD pixels
over a slant depth interval of at least 200 g=c. We rejected
events with gaps in their profile of more than 20% of the
profile length, which could be due to telescope-border
effects. The Gaisser-Hillas fit of the shower profile was
required to have a χ2
=ndf < 2.5, where ndf is the number
of degrees of freedom. To guarantee full SD-trigger
Additional criteria for IMM selection were established
from Monte Carlo simulations described in Sec. IV. We
required Xmax to be larger than Xup, which is almost always
fulfilled by ultrarelativistic IMM showers. Only 6% of the
UHECR proton showers of 1018.5 eV survived this cut, the
fraction increasing to 32% for 1020.5
eV showers. A further
reduction was obtained by appropriate constraints on the
penetration of the shower and its energy deposit. To
]2
[g/cmupX
600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600
)])2
[PeV/(g/cmXup
(dE/dX|
10
log
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
(Events)10
log
-8
-7
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
]2
[g/cmupX
600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600
)])2
[PeV/(g/cmXup
(dE/dX|
10
log
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
(Events)10
log
-8
-7
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
IMM candidate
]2
[g/cmupX
600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600
)])2
[PeV/(g/cmXup
(dE/dX|
10
log
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
(Events)10
log
-8
-7
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
IMM candidate
]2
[g/cmupX
600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600
)])2
[PeV/(g/cmXup
(dE/dX|
10
log
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
(Events)10
log
-8
-7
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
IMM candidate
]2
[g/cmupX
600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600
(dE/d
10
log
0.5
1
1.5
2
lo
-8
-7
-6
-5
-4
]2
[g/cmupX
600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600
)])2
[PeV/(g/cmXup
(dE/dX|
10
log
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
(Events)10
log
-8
-7
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
IMM candidate
FIG. 5. Correlation of dE=dXjXup with Xup for simulated
ultrarelativistic IMM of energy 1025
eV and Lorentz factors
γ ¼ 1010
(a) and 1011
(b). The color-coded scale indicates the
number of events expected in the search-period data set assuming
a flux of 10−20
ðcm2
sr sÞ−1
. Only events outside the dashed
boxes are kept in the final selection for ultrarelativistic IMMs.
-7
log(γ)=11
rch period ranges from ≈100 k sr yr for γ ¼ 109 to
k sr yr for γ ≥ 1011
. Several sources of systematic
ainties were considered. The uncertainty of the on-
alculation resulted in an uncertainty of 4% on the
re. The detection efficiency estimated through the
ependent detector simulation depends on the fluo-
ce yield assumed in the simulation, on the FD
-reconstruction methods and on the atmospheric
eters and FD calibration constants recorded during
king. Following the procedures of [36], the corre-
ng uncertainty on the exposure was estimated to be
To estimate the uncertainty associated with the event
on, we changed the size of the (Xup, dE=dXjXup)
on box according to the uncertainty on the two
on variables. Xup was changed by Æ10 g=cm2
,
ponding to the uncertainty on Xmax [23], and
XjXup was changed by the uncertainty on the FD
scale [33]. The number of selected IMM events
d by 9%, which was taken as an estimate of the
ainty on the exposure. From the sum in quadrature of
uncertainties, a total systematic uncertainty of 21%
signed to the exposure.
VII. DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
search for ultrarelativistic IMMs was performed
ng a blind procedure. The selection criteria
IMM search. Given the uncertainty in the background, we
have taken a conservative approach and assumed zero
background events, which provides a slightly worse
limit.
In Sec. VI we estimated a 21% systematic uncertainty on
the exposure which must be taken into account in the upper
limit. Rather than following the propagation of statistical
]2
[g/cmupX
600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600
)])2
[PeV/(g/cmXup
(dE/dX|
10
log
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
(Events)10
log
-8
-7
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
IMM candidate
FIG. 6. Correlation of dE=dXjXup with Xup for the data sample
passing the shower-quality selection criteria and Xmax > Xup. The
color-coded scale indicates the number of events. No event is
found outside the dashed box in the final selection for ultra-
relativistic IMMs.
CH FOR ULTRARELATIVISTIC MAGNETIC … PHYSICAL REVIEW D 94, 082002 (2016)Auger 10
uncertainties were considered. The uncertainty of the on-
time calculation resulted in an uncertainty of 4% on the
exposure. The detection efficiency estimated through the
time-dependent detector simulation depends on the fluo-
rescence yield assumed in the simulation, on the FD
shower-reconstruction methods and on the atmospheric
parameters and FD calibration constants recorded during
data taking. Following the procedures of [36], the corre-
sponding uncertainty on the exposure was estimated to be
18%. To estimate the uncertainty associated with the event
selection, we changed the size of the (Xup, dE=dXjXup)
selection box according to the uncertainty on the two
selection variables. Xup was changed by Æ10 g=cm2
,
corresponding to the uncertainty on Xmax [23], and
dE=dXjXup was changed by the uncertainty on the FD
energy scale [33]. The number of selected IMM events
changed by 9%, which was taken as an estimate of the
uncertainty on the exposure. From the sum in quadrature of
these uncertainties, a total systematic uncertainty of 21%
was assigned to the exposure.
VII. DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
The search for ultrarelativistic IMMs was performed
following a blind procedure. The selection criteria
described in Sec. V were optimized using Monte Carlo
simulations and a small fraction (10%) of the data. This
training data set was excluded from the final search period.
Then the selection was applied to the full sample of data
collected between December 1, 2004 and December 31,
2012. The number of events passing each of the selection
criteria is reported in Table I. The correlation of dE=dXjXup
with Xup for events passing the shower-quality criteria and
Xmax > Xup is shown in Fig. 6. The corresponding dis-
tributions of dE=dXjXup and Xup are compared in Fig. 7
with Monte Carlo expectations for a pure UHECR proton
background, showing a reasonable agreement between data
and simulations. The partial difference indicates there are
heavier nuclei than protons as well. No event passed the
final requirement in the (Xup, dE=dXjXup) plane, and the
IMM search. Given the uncertainty in the background, we
have taken a conservative approach and assumed zero
background events, which provides a slightly worse
limit.
In Sec. VI we estimated a 21% systematic uncertainty on
the exposure which must be taken into account in the upper
limit. Rather than following the propagation of statistical
]2
[g/cmupX
600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600
[PeV/(g/cXup
(dE/dX|
10
log
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
(Events)10
log
-8
-7
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
FIG. 6. Correlation of dE=dXjXup with Xup for the data sample
passing the shower-quality selection criteria and Xmax > Xup. The
color-coded scale indicates the number of events. No event is
found outside the dashed box in the final selection for ultra-
relativistic IMMs.
)])2
[PeV/(g/cmXup
(dE/dX|10
log
0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4
Entries
1
10
2
10 Data
Proton MC
2
10
Data
Proton MC
dE/dX|Xup Data/MC
‣ 10 Auger
‣
Citation: C. Patrignani et al. (Particle Data Group), Chin. Phys. C, 40, 100001 (2016) and 2017 update
12 KALBFLEISCH 00 result is for aluminum.
13 KALBFLEISCH 00 result is for beryllium.
14 HE 97 used a lead target and barium phosphate glass detectors. Cross-section limits are
well below those predicted via the Drell-Yan mechanism.
15 Multiphoton events.
16 Cherenkov radiation polarization.
17 Re-examines CERN neutrino experiments.
Monopole Production — Other Accelerator SearchesMonopole Production — Other Accelerator SearchesMonopole Production — Other Accelerator SearchesMonopole Production — Other Accelerator Searches
MASS CHG ENERGY
(GeV) (g) SPIN (GeV) BEAM DOCUMENT ID TECN
> 610 ≥ 1 0 1800 p p 1 ABBOTT 98K D0
> 870 ≥ 1 1/2 1800 p p 1 ABBOTT 98K D0
>1580 ≥ 1 1 1800 p p 1 ABBOTT 98K D0
> 510 88–94 e+ e− 2 ACCIARRI 95C L3
1 ABBOTT 98K search for heavy pointlike Dirac monopoles via central production of a
pair of photons with high transverse energies.
2 ACCIARRI 95C finds a limit B(Z → γ γ γ) < 0.8 × 10−5 (which is possible via a
monopole loop) at 95% CL and sets the mass limit via a cross section model.
Monopole Flux — Cosmic Ray SearchesMonopole Flux — Cosmic Ray SearchesMonopole Flux — Cosmic Ray SearchesMonopole Flux — Cosmic Ray Searches
“Caty” in the charge column indicates a search for monopole-catalyzed nucleon decay.
FLUX MASS CHG COMMENTS
(cm−2sr−1s−1)(GeV) (g) (β = v/c) EVTS DOCUMENT ID TECN
<2.5E−21 1 1E8< γ <1E13 0 1 AAB 16 AUGE
<1.55E-18 β >0.51 0 2 AARTSEN 16B ICCB
<1E-17 Caty 1E-3< β <1E-2 0 3 AARTSEN 14 ICCB
<3E-18 1 β >0.8 0 4 ABBASI 13 ICCB
<1.3E-17 1 β >0.625 0 5 ADRIAN-MAR...12A ANTR
Reject
Reject
Reject

17. 17
Segmented mirror telescope
Variable angles of elevation – steps.
15 deg 45 deg
✦ >1019.5 eV
✦ (10× Auger/TA×4) ⇒
Fluorescence detector Array of Single-pixel Telescopes

18. 18
20 km
Fluorescence detector Array of Single-pixel Telescopes
✦ 1 : 4 PMTs, 30°× 30°, 1 m2
✦ 12 1 : 360°× 30°
✦ 20 km 500 150,000
km2 ( ),
✦ TA×4/Auger 10
5 : 5100 (E > 57
EeV), 650 (E > 100 EeV)
ce Detectors
ope Array:700 km2
ale) 3
Pierre Auger: 3000 km2 Telescope Array:700 km2
(not drawn to scale) 3
TA
700 km2
Auger
3000 km2
57 EeV
(same scale)
16
56 EeV zenith 500
1
2
3
1
3 2
PhotonsatdiaphragmPhotonsatdiaphragm
Photonsatdiaphragm
61 stations
17,000 km2
3
+
Hot/warm spots
K. Kawata et al., Proc.
of ICRC 2015
All Sky Survey with TA&PAO
12
Northern TA : 7 years 109 events (>57EeV)
Southern Auger : 10 years 157 events (>57EeV)
Oversampling with 20°-radius circle
Southern hotspot is seen at Cen A(Pre-trial ~3.6σ)
No correction for
E scale difference
b/w TA and PAO !!

19. FAST
19
✦ 1
✦
✦
✦
✦ FAST
✦ (Xmax)
1 m2 Fresnel lens + FAST camera
Fig. 12. A 1018
eV shower simultaneously detected by the TA FD and the FAST proto
superimposed (see Fig. 11). In (b), the corresponding FADC trace recorded by the FA
Fig. 6. FADC signal recorded for a YAP light pulse. It is used to monitor the relative gain
of the PMT.
Fig. 7. Variation of the YAP signal during a seven hour data taking run.
Fig. 8. FADC signal corresponding to a vertical PLS laser shot at a distance of 6 km. The
simulated signal is overplotted in red and normalized to fit the measured peak. (For
interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to
70 T. Fujii et al. / Astroparticle Physics 74 (2016) 64–72
Fig. 12. A 1018
eV shower simultaneously detected by the TA FD and the FAST prototype. In (a), the shower is shown in the TA FD event display, with the FOV of the FAST prototype
superimposed (see Fig. 11). In (b), the corresponding FADC trace recorded by the FAST PMT.
Vertical Laser
~1019.3 eV
Cosmic Ray
~1018.0 eV
T. Fujii (corresponding author) et al., Astroparticle Physics, 74, pp64-72 (2016)

20. FAST
20
FAST - progress in design and construction
UV Plexiglass Segmented primary mirror8 inch PMT camera
(2 x 2)
1m2 aperture
FOV = 25°x 25°
variable
tilt
Joint Laboratory of Optics Olomouc – Malargue November 20153
Prototype - October 2015
15°
45°
UV band-pass
filter
‣ 4 1 m2 1.6 m
‣ 2 FAST ( 30°,
60°)
‣ 2018 3 20 335
TA
FAST (2 )
(A) 15H05443
CCD

21. FAST (2016 10 , 2017 9 )
21http://www.fast-project.org

22. FAST
22
✦ (TA)
✦ TA
✦ FAST1 21 km
✦ 2PMT
Time (100 ns)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
-30
-20
Time (100 ns)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
-30
-20
Time (100 ns)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
/(100ns)p.e.N
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
PMT 2
Time (100 ns)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
/(100ns)p.e.N
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
PMT 4
80 µs
100
TAFD
( )
()
FAST1FAST2

23. Time (100 ns)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
/(100ns)p.e.N
0
5
10
15
20
25
PMT1
PMT2
PMT3
PMT4
Simulation (Preliminary)
23
Time (100 ns)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
/(100ns)p.e.N
0
5
10
15
20
PMT 1
PMT 2
PMT 3
PMT 4
11
imulation - example
) aperture input 0.5W 0.43W/PMT1, <0.001W/PMT234 (eff: 86%)
(PMT 4)(PMT2)
(284 )
50 mm offsetfocal plane

24. Time(100ns)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
/(100ns)p.e.N
-10
0
10
20
30
40
PMT1
Time(100ns)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
/(100ns)p.e.N
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
PMT3
Time(100ns)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
/(100ns)p.e.N
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
PMT2
Time(100ns)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
/(100ns)p.e.N
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
PMT4
Time(100ns)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
/(100ns)p.e.N
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
PMT5
Time(100ns)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
/(100ns)p.e.N
-20
0
20
40
60
80
PMT7
Time(100ns)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
/(100ns)p.e.N
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
PMT6
Time(100ns)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
/(100ns)p.e.N
-10
0
10
20
30
PMT8
Time(100ns)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
/(100ns)p.e.N
-10
0
10
20
30
40
PMT1
Time(100ns)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
/(100ns)p.e.N
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
PMT3
Time(100ns)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
/(100ns)p.e.N
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
PMT2
Time(100ns)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
/(100ns)p.e.N
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
PMT4
Time(100ns)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
/(100ns)p.e.N
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
PMT5
Time(100ns)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
/(100ns)p.e.N
-20
0
20
40
60
80
PMT7
Time(100ns)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
/(100ns)p.e.N
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
PMT6
Time(100ns)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
/(100ns)p.e.N
-10
0
10
20
30
PMT8
FAST
24
Time (100 ns)
200 250 300 350 400 450
/(100ns)p.e.N
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
120 PMT 1
PMT 2
PMT 3
PMT 4
PMT 5
PMT 6
PMT 7
PMT 8
Event 283
log(E(eV))
18 18.2 18.4 18.6 18.8 19 19.2 19.4 19.6
Efficiency
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8 Iron
log(E(eV))
18 18.2 18.4 18.6 18.8 19 19.2 19.4 19.6
EnergyResolution[%]
0
5
10
15
20
25
Proton
Iron
log(E(eV))
18 18.2 18.4 18.6 18.8 19 19.2 19.4 19.6
]2
Resolution[g/cmmaxX
0
20
40
60
80
100
Proton
Iron
✦ 1019.5 eV 10%, Xmax 35
g/cm2 ( Hybrid )
✦ TA Auger Energy
Xmax
+
.50, Zen: 33.03◦
, Azi: 136.36◦
,
.17 VEM/m2
, Date: 20150511,
9.76, Zen: 43.58◦
, Azi: 73.75◦
,
8.27 VEM/m2
, Date: 20150511,
( )
FAST( )
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Time bin [100 ns]
0
5
10
15
20
/100p.e.N
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Time bin [100 ns]
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
/100nsp.e.N
201 25
(FAST
≧2PMTs )
MC
1018.0 eV
Data
1018.2 eV

25. 25
Origin and nature of ultrahigh-energy cosmic rays and
particle interactions at the highest energies
Exposure and full sky coverage
TA×4 + Auger
K-EUSO : pioneer detection from
space with an uniform exposure
in northern/southern hemispheres
Detector R&D
Radio, SiPM,
Low-cost
fluorescence
detector
“Precision” measurements
AugerPrime
Low energy enhancement
(Auger infill+HEAT+AMIGA,
TALE+TA-muon+NICHE)
LHCf/RHICf
5 - 10 years
Next generation observatories
In space (100×exposure): POEMMA
Ground (10×exposure with high quality events):
10 - 20 years

26. E [eV]
17
10 18
10 19
10 20
10
]2
[g/cm〉max
X〈
600
650
700
750
800
850
stat.±Auger FD ICRC17 (prel.)
stat±Auger SD ICRC17 (prel.)
sys.±
17
10 18
10
]2
)[g/cmmax
(Xσ
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
lines: air shower simulations using post-LHC hadronic inte
(E (eV))
10
log
17.5 18 18.5 19 19.5 20 20.5
)-1s-1sr-2m2
(eV24
/103
E×Flux
-1
10
1
10
Preliminary
TA ICRC 2015
Auger ICRC 2015
, ,
26
FLUX MAP ABOVE 8 EeVFLUX MAP ABOVE 8 EeV
Galactic center
Equatorial coordinates
All Sky Survey with TA&PAO
Northern TA : 7 years 109 events (>57EeV)
Southern Auger : 10 years 157 events (>57EeV)
Oversampling with 20°-radius circle
Southern hotspot is seen at Cen A(Pre-trial ~3.6σ)
No correction for
E scale difference
b/w TA and PAO !!
Doublet
( =1.31o)
Triplet? or
Doublet
( =1.35o)
Small-scale anisotropy
Au
2 doublets above 100 EeV.
the probability to have 2 double
Pierre Auger Collab. Science 357, 1266 (2017) K. Kawata et al., Proc. of ICRC 2015 S. Troitsky et al., Proc. of ICRC 2017
E > 8 EeV E > 57 EeV E > 100 EeV
2 doublets
2.8σ
Pierre Auger
collab., PhysRevD
96,122003 (2017)

27. 27http://www.fast-project.org
R.U. Abbasi et al. / Astroparticle Physics 80 (2016) 131–140
(E (eV))10
log
16.5 17 17.5 18 18.5 19 19.5 20 20.5
)-1s-1sr-2m2
(eV24
/103
E×Flux
-1
10
1
10
TA FD (this work)
Systematic Uncert.
TA MD
TA SD
IceTop-73
KASCADE-Grande
HiRes-I
HiRes-II
Auger ICRC 2015
Fig. 14. Energy spectrum compared with results reported by IceTop-73 [36], KASCADE-Grande [37], HiRes [27], Auger [38] and other detectors wit
and PMT pointing directions are estimated as 4%. By adding these
detector-calibration uncertainties in quadrature, the total uncer-
tainty attributed to the uncertainties on the detector calibrations
is estimated to be 10%.
Since the missing energy is corrected assuming the proton frac-
tion measured by the HiRes and HiRes/MIA experiments in our re-
construction, this systematic uncertainty is evaluated as 4%. Com-
pared with results by an independently developed analysis, we
confirmed the effect on the energy scale is less than 8% in the rel-
evant energy range [35]. The total uncertainty on reconstruction is
estimated as 9% by quadratic sum of those two components.
Adding all of the aforementioned uncertainties in quadrature,
we conclude that the total systematic uncertainty on the energy
scale is 21%. When considering the power-law energy dependence
of the spectrum, a 21% uncertainty on energy scale turns into a
35% uncertainty on the measurement of UHECR flux.
We can compare the obtained energy spectrum with other
spectrum measurements reported by IceTop-73 [36], KASCADE-
Grande [37], HiRes [27], the Pierre Auger Observatory [38] and
other detectors within TA [8,39]. As seen in Fig. 14, our energy
spectrum is in agreement with results reported from IceTop-73 and
KASCADE-Grande within the systematic uncertainty. As shown in
the high energy range, the structure of the spectrum is in good
agreement with the spectra reported using the TA surface detector
and by HiRes-II. Although the Auger spectrum is shifted 9% lower
in energy scale than our spectrum, it is also consistent within the
systematic uncertainty on the energy scale.
In the case where we adopt the fluorescence yield reported by
the AirFly experiment [40,41] which is used by the Auger exper-
iment, the TA energy scale goes down by 14%. Therefore, the TA
energy scale would be change to be 5% lower than the Auger if
we use the same fluroescence yield. This is within the systematic
uncertainty.
7. Conclusions
of log10(Eankle/eV) = 18.62 ± 0.04, corresponding t
structure is in good agreement with the spectra rep
TA surface detectors and by HiRes-II.
Acknowledgments
The Telescope Array experiment is supported
Society for the Promotion of Science through G
Scientific Research on Specially Promoted Resea
“Extreme Phenomena in the Universe Explored
ergy Cosmic Rays” and for Scientific Research (
the Inter-University Research Program of the In
mic Ray Research; by the U.S. National Scien
awards PHY-0307098, PHY-0601915, PHY-0649681
PHY-0758342, PHY-0848320, PHY-1069280, PHY-
1404495 and PHY-1404502; by the National Resea
of Korea (2007-0093860, 2012R1A1A2008381, 20
the Russian Academy of Sciences, RFBR Grants 11
13-02-01311a (INR), IISN project no. 4.4502.13; and
Policy under IUAP VII/37 (ULB). The foundations
R. and Edna Wattis Dumke, Willard L. Eccles, and
Dolores Doré Eccles all helped with generous dona
of Utah supported the project through its Econom
Board, and the University of Utah through the Offi
President for Research. The experimental site be
through the cooperation of the Utah School and In
Lands Administration (SITLA), U.S. Bureau of Lan
and the U.S. Air Force. We also wish to thank
the officials of Millard County, Utah for their stea
support. We gratefully acknowledge the contribu
technical staffs of our home institutions. An allocat
time from the Center for High Performance Co
University of Utah is gratefully acknowledged.
Appendix. Spectrum data
2
Auger
19
Auger
10 Auger
2
3
90% [Pierre Auger Collaboration,
Phys.Rev.D. 94, 082002 (2016)] ( ) 10
10 1
and systematic uncertainties outlined in [38], which would
worsen the upper limit by a factor of 1.05, we adopted a
ev
Au
ele
ol
en
ve
flu
th
20
up
wh
in
10
br
ol
m
ea
in
th
ex
)γlog(
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
]-1
ssr)2
FluxUpperBound[(cm
-22
10
-21
10
-20
10
-19
10
-18
10
-17
10
-16
10
-15
10
-14
10
-13
10
-12
10
-11
10
PARKER
SLIM
MACRO
IceCube
RICE
ANITA-II
Auger
FIG. 8. 90% C.L. upper limits on the flux of ultrarelativistic
IMMs: this work (black solid line); Parker bound (blue dashed
line) [15]; SLIM (sky-blue dashed line) [11], MACRO (green
solid line) [8], IceCube (blue solid line) [14], RICE (pink dotted
line) [12] and ANITA-II (red line) [13]. The MACRO and SLIM
limits above γ ¼ 109 were weakened by a factor of 2 to account
for the IMM attenuation through the Earth.
A. AAB et al.
‣ TA 7
‣ Auger 10
‣ (Fluorescence detector Array of Single-pixel
Telescopes)
‣
‣ TA×4/Auger 10 3
‣ TA Auger
Next-generation techniques for UHE
Astroparticle Physics (UHEAP 2016)

28. 28
“I hope you can bring the single pixel fluorescence detector to practical application.
While most of my colleagues are pleased with the results of Auger, I am disappointed
we failed to find sources. Instrumentation like yours may make that possible some day
(James Cronin)”
Backup

29. 29
U.S.$Light$Pollu.on$Map$
✦
✦
✦
✦
219,900 km²

30. Year
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
yrsr]2
Exposure[km
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
( × )
30
AGASA/
HiRes
TA/Auger
TA×4/
AugerPrime
K-EUSO
Auger
TA
TA×4
AGASA
HiRes
Fly’s Eye
~ 100 km2
~ 3000 km2
~ 30000 km2
AGASA HiRes
Telescope Array Experiment
Pierre Auger Observatory
AugerPrime

31. FAST
31
17 18 19 20 21
23
24
25
1,2,3
4
4
3
21
log10
J(E)E
3
,m
-2
sec
-1
sr
-1
eV
2
log10
E, eV
HECR spectrum as observed in Akeno (triangles) and AGASA (filled circles) experi-
urves show the predicted differential spectra for the uniform distribution of sources withV. Berezinsky et al., hep-ph/0107306 (2001)
1,2,3 : m=0, γg=2.7, 4 : m= 4, γg=2.45
✦
✦ 3
✦ GZK Recovery 1020 eV Xmax
✦
Average Xmax and Xmax-fluctuatioAverage Xmax and Xmax-fluctuatio
E [eV]
17
10
18
10
19
10
20
10
]2
[g/cm〉max
X〈
600
650
700
750
800
850
stat.±Auger FD ICRC17 (prel.)
stat±Auger SD ICRC17 (prel.)
sys.±
17
10
]2
)[g/cmmax
(Xσ
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
(E (eV))
10
log
17.5 18 18.5 19 19.5 20 20.5
)-1s-1sr-2m2
(eV24
/103
E×Flux
-1
10
1
10
Preliminary
TA ICRC 2015
Auger ICRC 2015
60
Xmax
All Sky Survey with TA&PAO
12
Northern TA : 7 years 109 events (>57EeV)
Southern Auger : 10 years 157 events (>57EeV)
Oversampling with 20°-radius circle
Southern hotspot is seen at Cen A(Pre-trial ~3.6σ)
No correction for
E scale difference
b/w TA and PAO !!

32. GZK γ and ν at highest energies
32
&
[eV]0
E
18
10 19
10 20
10
]-1yr-1sr
-2
[km0>Eγ
IntegralphotonfluxE
3−
10
2−
10
1−
10
1
GZK proton I
GZK proton II
Hy 2011
+syst.Hy 2016
Y 2010
TA 2015
SD 2015
upper limits 95% CL
HP 2000
A 2002
Z-burst
TD
SHDM I
SHDM II
upper limits 95% CL
&
e+
+ 3⌫UHE neutrinos at Auger Enrique Z
[eV]νE
17
10 18
10 19
10 20
10 21
10
]-1sr-1s-2
dN/dE[GeVcm2
E
9−
10
8−
10
7−
10
6−
10
5−
10
Single flavour, 90% C.L.
= 1 : 1 : 1τν:µν:eν
IceCube (2015) (x 1/3)
ANITA-II (2010) (x 1/3)
Auger 1 Jan 04 - 31 Mar 17
modelsνCosmogenic
eV (Ahlers '10)19
=10
min
p, Fermi-LAT, E
eV (Ahlers '10)17
=3 10
min
p, Fermi-LAT, E
p, FRII & SFR (Kampert '12)
p or mixed, SFR & GRB (Kotera '10)
Fe, FRII & SFR (Kampert '12)
Astrophysical sources
(Murase '14)νAGN
Figure 2: Integral upper limit (at 90% C.L.) for a diffuse neutrino flux of UHE dN/dEn = kE 2 given
a normalization, k, (straight red line), and differential upper limit (see text). Limits are quoted for a sing
flavor assuming equal flavor ratios. Similar limits from ANITAII [8] and IceCube [9] are displayed alo
with prediction for several neutrino models (cosmogenic [10, 11, 12], astrophysical [13].)
Top-down models are ruled out.
Auger limits become sensitive to GZK-ν and γ
M. Unger in ICRC 2017

33. 33
2 FAST
335
FAST1
FAST2

34. 34
Time (100 ns)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
/(100ns)p.e.N
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50 PMT 1
PMT 2
PMT 3
PMT 4
Event 305
Time (100 ns)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
/(100ns)p.e.N
0
100
200
300
400
500
PMT 1
PMT 2
PMT 3
PMT 4
Event 164
TA
Event 1165: log10(E(eV)): 17.41, Zen: 34.1◦
, Azi: -8.5◦
,
Core(12.31, -10.00), Rp: 4.89, Psi: 107.5◦
, Xmax: 633 g/cm2
FoV(526 - 1036), Date: 20170626, Time: 09:16:18.550749668
Event 1171: log10(E(eV)): 17.06, Zen: 47.0◦
, Azi: -30.5◦
Core(13.52, -9.46), Rp: 3.21, Psi: 132.5◦
, Xmax: 709 g/cm
FoV(245 - 1270), Date: 20170627, Time: 05:55:55.080425169
Preliminary result
logE=17.8
Rp: 1.6 km
Preliminary result
logE=17.6
Rp: 1.8 km

35. ✦ 1958 ( ,
)
✦
/
(PMT)
✦ ( )
Xmax( )
✦ 1969 (TOKYO-1)
( et al. @ )
35
Iwate Prefectural University Miyako College
ural University Miyako College
: ,
1958
( )'
1969
(TOKYOZ1)
( )
Iwate Prefectural University Miyako College
Iwate Prefectural University Miyako College
e Prefectural University Miyako College
Fresnel lens + PMTs

36. ✦
(No. 12)
✦ B. Dawson
5×1018
eV, 680 g/cm2
(arXiv:1112.5686)
✦ TOKYO-3
4 m2
✦ Fly’s Eye , Telescope Array
, Pierre Auger
✦
36: ,
NII-Electronic Library Service
Wavelength (nm)
Counts
0
500
1000
1500
x 102
290 300 310 320 330 340 350 360 370 380 390 400 410 420
Fig. 4. Measured fluorescence spectrum in dry air at 800 hPa and 293 K.
Table 1
Measured fluorescence band intensities in dry air at 800 hPa pressure and 293 K temperature
M. Ave et al. / Astroparticle Physics 28 (2007) 41–57
3 5
TOKYO-1 (1969 )
B. Dawson (2011 )
Airfly (2007)