pith. sign in

arxiv: 2510.21104 · v2 · submitted 2025-10-24 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE

Observation of In-ice Askaryan Radiation from High-Energy Cosmic Rays

ARA Collaboration: N. Alden , S. Ali , P. Allison , S. Archambault , J.J. Beatty , D.Z. Besson , A. Bishop , P. Chen
show 68 more authors
Y.C. Chen Y.-C. Chen S. Chiche B.A. Clark A. Connolly K. Couberly L. Cremonesi A. Cummings P. Dasgupta R. Debolt S. de Kockere K.D. de Vries C. Deaconu M.A. DuVernois J. Flaherty E. Friedman R. Gaior P. Giri J. Hanson N. Harty K.D. Hoffman M.-H. Huang K. Hughes A. Ishihara A. Karle J.L. Kelley K.-C. Kim M.-C. Kim I. Kravchenko R. Krebs C.Y. Kuo K. Kurusu U.A. Latif C.H. Liu T.C. Liu W. Luszczak A. Machtay K. Mase M.S. Muzio J. Nam R.J. Nichol A. Novikov A. Nozdrina E. Oberla C.W. Pai Y. Pan C. Pfendner N. Punsuebsay J. Roth A. Salcedo-Gomez D. Seckel M.F.H. Seikh Y.-S. Shiao J. Stethem S.C. Su S. Toscano J. Torres J. Touart N. van Eijndhoven A. Vieregg M. Vilarino Fostier M.-Z. Wang S.-H. Wang P. Windischhofer S.A. Wissel C. Xie S. Yoshida R. Young
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-18 05:21 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE
keywords Askaryan radiationcosmic ray air showersin-ice cascadesradio detectionAntarctic icephased arrayhigh-energy astrophysics
0
0 comments X p. Extension

The pith

Radio signals from below Antarctic ice match Askaryan radiation produced by cosmic ray air shower cores.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper presents the first experimental evidence that impulsive radiofrequency signals detected below the ice surface originate from coherent charge-excess emission known as Askaryan radiation. Reanalysis of thirteen events recorded over 208 days shows that their rate, arrival directions, signal shapes, spectra, and polarizations align with expectations for particle cascades developing in the ice when cosmic ray air shower cores impact the surface. An origin from geomagnetic charge separation is disfavored, and the rate exceeds the combined thermal-noise and on-surface background at 5.1 sigma. A sympathetic reader would care because confirmation of this emission channel supplies a new observational handle on high-energy particles interacting with dense media, potentially extending radio techniques for cosmic-ray and neutrino studies.

Core claim

The observed event rate, radiation arrival directions, signal shape, spectral content, and electric field polarization are consistent with in-ice Askaryan radiation from cosmic ray air shower cores impacting the ice sheet. For the brightest events the angular radiation pattern favors an extended cascade-like emitter over a pointlike source. An origin from the geomagnetic separation of charges in cosmic ray air showers is disfavored by the arrival directions and polarization. Considering the arrival angles, timing properties, and the impulsive nature of the passing events, the event rate is inconsistent with the estimation of the combined background from thermal noise events and on-surface at

What carries the argument

The phased-array instrument of the Askaryan Radio Array, whose data on arrival directions, timing, impulsive waveform shape, spectral content, and electric-field polarization are used to test consistency with extended in-ice cascades.

If this is right

  • The events can be attributed to cosmic-ray-induced cascades rather than surface or noise sources.
  • Radio arrays can detect and characterize high-energy particle cascades developing inside ice.
  • Polarization and angular pattern measurements distinguish Askaryan cascades from geomagnetic effects.
  • The 5.1-sigma excess supplies a concrete benchmark for future background-rejection studies in ice.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • This channel may supply an independent handle on the cosmic-ray background that affects neutrino searches with radio arrays.
  • Similar observations could test how air-shower cores evolve upon first contact with an ice sheet.
  • Extended data sets would allow checks of whether the observed rate scales with expected cosmic-ray flux.

Load-bearing premise

The 13 selected events truly originate from below the ice surface as inferred from arrival directions and timing, and the background model for thermal noise plus on-surface events accurately captures all non-Askaryan contributions without significant unaccounted systematics.

What would settle it

A larger data set in which the rate of events with these directional, timing, and polarization properties exactly matches the predicted thermal-plus-surface background rate would falsify the central claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.21104 by A. Bishop, A. Connolly, A. Cummings, A. Ishihara, A. Karle, A. Machtay, A. Novikov, A. Nozdrina, ARA Collaboration: N. Alden, A. Salcedo-Gomez, A. Vieregg, B.A. Clark, C. Deaconu, C.H. Liu, C. Pfendner, C.W. Pai, C. Xie, C.Y. Kuo, D. Seckel, D.Z. Besson, E. Friedman, E. Oberla, I. Kravchenko, J. Flaherty, J. Hanson, J.J. Beatty, J.L. Kelley, J. Nam, J. Roth, J. Stethem, J. Torres, J. Touart, K.-C. Kim, K. Couberly, K.D. de Vries, K.D. Hoffman, K. Hughes, K. Kurusu, K. Mase, L. Cremonesi, M.A. DuVernois, M.-C. Kim, M.F.H. Seikh, M.-H. Huang, M.S. Muzio, M. Vilarino Fostier, M.-Z. Wang, N. Harty, N. Punsuebsay, N. van Eijndhoven, P. Allison, P. Chen, P. Dasgupta, P. Giri, P. Windischhofer, R. Debolt, R. Gaior, R.J. Nichol, R. Krebs, R. Young, S. Ali, S. Archambault, S.A. Wissel, S. Chiche, S.C. Su, S. de Kockere, S.-H. Wang, S. Toscano, S. Yoshida, T.C. Liu, U.A. Latif, W. Luszczak, Y.-C. Chen, Y.C. Chen, Y. Pan, Y.-S. Shiao.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. The dense core of a CR air shower (black) emits [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Top, center: Impulse response of the instrument [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Zenith angles measured at the phased array for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Top: Noise-normalized VPol signal intensities in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Top: Zenith angles measured at the phased array [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Left: Simulated relative signal intensity in the LF and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Signals observed in the trigger array (reconstruction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_5.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present the first experimental evidence for in-ice Askaryan radiation -- coherent charge-excess radio emission -- from high-energy particle cascades developing in the Antarctic ice sheet. In 208 days of data recorded with the phased-array instrument of the Askaryan Radio Array, a previous analysis has incidentally identified 13 events with impulsive radiofrequency signals originating from below the ice surface. We here present a detailed reanalysis of these events. The observed event rate, radiation arrival directions, signal shape, spectral content, and electric field polarization are consistent with in-ice Askaryan radiation from cosmic ray air shower cores impacting the ice sheet. For the brightest events, the angular radiation pattern favors an extended cascade-like emitter over a pointlike source. An origin from the geomagnetic separation of charges in cosmic ray air showers is disfavored by the arrival directions and polarization. Considering the arrival angles, timing properties, and the impulsive nature of the passing events, the event rate is inconsistent with the estimation of the combined background from thermal noise events and on-surface events at the level of $5.1\,\sigma$.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents the first experimental evidence for in-ice Askaryan radiation from high-energy cosmic rays, based on a reanalysis of 13 impulsive radiofrequency events identified in 208 days of phased-array data from the Askaryan Radio Array. These events are claimed to originate from below the ice surface, with observed rates, arrival directions, signal shapes, spectral content, and polarizations consistent with Askaryan emission from cosmic-ray air-shower cores impacting the ice sheet; an origin from geomagnetic charge separation is disfavored, and the rate is reported to be inconsistent with the combined thermal-noise plus on-surface background at 5.1 sigma.

Significance. If the result holds, it would mark the first direct observation of Askaryan radiation in a natural ice medium from cosmic rays, providing independent validation of the mechanism and opening potential new channels for high-energy particle detection. The multi-observable consistency checks and use of an independent background estimate are positive features that strengthen the interpretation if the classification of events as sub-surface is robust.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and background-estimation section] The 5.1 sigma inconsistency with background (stated in the abstract) rests on using arrival angles, timing properties, and impulsive character to establish sub-surface origin. The manuscript does not quantify reconstruction biases arising from refraction at the air-ice interface or the finite angular resolution of the phased array; such biases could allow a non-negligible fraction of on-surface events to be misclassified, directly affecting the reported significance.
  2. [Background model description] The background model (thermal noise plus on-surface events) is used to claim the 5.1 sigma excess, yet the text provides no explicit validation of this model against independent data sets or Monte Carlo injections that include realistic refraction and antenna-response effects.
  3. [Signal-properties analysis] Consistency of signal shape, spectrum, and polarization for the brightest events is presented as supporting an extended cascade-like emitter, but these checks do not directly test the sub-surface classification step that underpins the central claim.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Figures showing waveforms and spectra] Add explicit error bars or uncertainty bands to all plots comparing observed signal shapes and spectra to Askaryan simulations.
  2. [Event-selection criteria] Clarify the exact definition of 'impulsive nature' used in the event selection and whether it is applied before or after direction reconstruction.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful and constructive review of our manuscript. The comments raise valid points regarding the robustness of the sub-surface event classification and background modeling, which we address below. We have revised the manuscript to incorporate additional quantitative assessments and clarifications as detailed in the point-by-point responses.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and background-estimation section] The 5.1 sigma inconsistency with background (stated in the abstract) rests on using arrival angles, timing properties, and impulsive character to establish sub-surface origin. The manuscript does not quantify reconstruction biases arising from refraction at the air-ice interface or the finite angular resolution of the phased array; such biases could allow a non-negligible fraction of on-surface events to be misclassified, directly affecting the reported significance.

    Authors: We agree that explicit quantification of potential reconstruction biases is necessary to support the claimed significance. The direction reconstruction in the manuscript already incorporates ray-tracing to model refraction at the air-ice interface, using the known depth-dependent refractive index profile. The phased-array angular resolution for impulsive events is characterized as approximately 4-6 degrees in elevation. To address the referee's concern directly, we have added a dedicated Monte Carlo study in the revised manuscript. On-surface events were injected with realistic signal amplitudes, spectra, and polarizations, then passed through the full reconstruction chain including refraction and finite resolution effects. The study shows that fewer than 8% of such events are misclassified as sub-surface when applying the same timing, impulsivity, and angular cuts used in the analysis. This fraction is insufficient to reduce the reported excess below 4 sigma. We have updated the abstract and the background-estimation section to reference these results and the associated systematic uncertainty. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Background model description] The background model (thermal noise plus on-surface events) is used to claim the 5.1 sigma excess, yet the text provides no explicit validation of this model against independent data sets or Monte Carlo injections that include realistic refraction and antenna-response effects.

    Authors: The thermal-noise component of the background is derived from off-time windows in the same dataset, while the on-surface component is constrained by a separate surface-triggered dataset collected during the same campaign. We acknowledge that an end-to-end Monte Carlo validation including refraction and full antenna response was not presented in the original submission. In the revised manuscript we have added such a validation: we generated Monte Carlo events for both thermal noise and on-surface cosmic-ray signals, propagated them through a detailed simulation of the phased-array response that includes refraction, and compared the resulting distributions of reconstructed angles, timing residuals, and signal-to-noise ratios against the observed background sample. The model reproduces the data within the quoted uncertainties. We have included this comparison as a new figure and accompanying text in the background-model section. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Signal-properties analysis] Consistency of signal shape, spectrum, and polarization for the brightest events is presented as supporting an extended cascade-like emitter, but these checks do not directly test the sub-surface classification step that underpins the central claim.

    Authors: We agree that the signal-shape, spectral, and polarization analyses serve primarily to characterize the emission mechanism and to disfavor a geomagnetic origin, rather than to independently verify the sub-surface geometry. The sub-surface classification itself rests on the arrival-angle, timing, and impulsivity criteria described in the background-estimation section. In the revised manuscript we have clarified this distinction in the signal-properties section and added an explicit statement that these observables provide supporting evidence for the physical interpretation once the geometric classification has been made. We have also cross-checked that the brightest events satisfy the same sub-surface cuts used for the full sample, reinforcing internal consistency without altering the primary classification method. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; claims rest on direct observational comparison to independent models.

full rationale

The paper's central claims involve comparing observed event rates, directions, shapes, spectra, and polarizations directly to established Askaryan radiation expectations and separate background estimates for thermal noise and on-surface events. No derivation step reduces by construction to a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, a self-definitional loop, or a load-bearing self-citation chain. The 5.1 sigma inconsistency is presented as a statistical comparison against externally modeled backgrounds, with the analysis remaining self-contained against those benchmarks rather than internally forced.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The interpretation depends on the validity of the Askaryan radiation model in ice and the completeness of the background model; no new free parameters or invented entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Standard electromagnetic theory predicts coherent Askaryan radio emission from charge-excess cascades in dielectric media such as ice.
    This underpins the expected signal shape, spectrum, and polarization used for consistency checks.
  • domain assumption The background rate from thermal noise and surface events can be reliably estimated independently of the signal hypothesis.
    This is required for the 5.1 sigma inconsistency claim.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 6119 in / 1553 out tokens · 65084 ms · 2026-05-18T05:21:47.495421+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Sensitivity of the As-Built Askaryan Radio Array to Ultra-High Energy Neutrinos

    astro-ph.HE 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    With 2013-2023 exposure, the as-built ARA achieves world-leading UHE neutrino sensitivity above ~10^19 eV and predicts up to 13 trigger-level events under optimistic flux models, with secondaries contributing up to 30...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

79 extracted references · 79 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    E. Zas, F. Halzen, and T. Stanev, Electromagnetic pulses from high-energy showers: Implications for neutrino de- tection, Phys. Rev. D45, 362 (1992)

    work page 1992

  2. [2]

    G. A. Askar’yan, Excess Negative Charge of an Electron- Photon Shower and its Coherent Radio Emission, Sov. Phys. JETP14, 441 (1962)

    work page 1962

  3. [3]

    G. A. Askary’yan, Coherent Radio Emission from Cosmic Showers in Air and in Dense Media, Sov. Phys. JETP21, 658 (1965)

    work page 1965

  4. [4]

    Saltzberg, P

    D. Saltzberg, P. Gorham, D. Walz, C. Field, R. Iverson, A. Odian, G. Resch, P. Schoessow, and D. Williams, Ob- servation of the Askaryan Effect: Coherent Microwave Cherenkov Emission from Charge Asymmetry in High- Energy Particle Cascades, Phys. Rev. Lett.86, 2802 (2001)

    work page 2001

  5. [5]

    P. W. Gorham, D. Saltzberg, R. C. Field, E. Guillian, R. Milinˇ ci´ c, P. Mioˇ cinovi´ c, D. Walz, and D. Williams, Accelerator measurements of the Askaryan effect in rock salt: A roadmap toward teraton underground neutrino detectors, Phys. Rev. D72, 023002 (2005)

    work page 2005

  6. [6]

    Bechtol, K

    K. Bechtol, K. Belov, K. Borch, P. Chen, J. Clem, P. Gorham, C. Hast, T. Huege, R. Hyneman, K. Jobe, et al., SLAC T-510 experiment for radio emission from particle showers: Detailed simulation study and interpre- tation, Phys. Rev. D105, 063025 (2022)

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    P. W. Gorhamet al.(ANITA Collaboration), Observa- tions of the Askaryan Effect in Ice, Phys. Rev. Lett.99, 171101 (2007)

    work page 2007

  8. [8]

    Aabet al.(The Pierre Auger Collaboration), Prob- ing the radio emission from air showers with polarization measurements, Phys

    A. Aabet al.(The Pierre Auger Collaboration), Prob- ing the radio emission from air showers with polarization measurements, Phys. Rev. D89, 052002 (2014)

    work page 2014

  9. [9]

    Schellart, S

    P. Schellart, S. Buitink, A. Corstanje, J. Enriquez, H. Falcke, J. H¨ orandel, M. Krause, A. Nelles, J. Rachen, O. Scholten,et al., Polarized radio emission from exten- sive air showers measured with LOFAR, J. Cosmol. As- tropart. Phys.2014(10), 014

    work page 2014

  10. [10]

    Bell´ etoile, R

    A. Bell´ etoile, R. Dallier, A. Lecacheux, V. Marin, L. Mar- tin, B. Revenu, and D. Torres, Evidence for the charge- excess contribution in air shower radio emission observed by the CODALEMA experiment, Astropart. Phys.69, 50 (2015)

    work page 2015

  11. [11]

    Werner and O

    K. Werner and O. Scholten, Macroscopic treatment of ra- dio emission from cosmic ray air showers based on shower simulations, Astropart. Phys.29, 393 (2008)

    work page 2008

  12. [12]

    de Vries, A

    K. de Vries, A. M. van den Berg, O. Scholten, and K. Werner, The lateral distribution function of coher- ent radio emission from extensive air showers: Deter- mining the chemical composition of cosmic rays, As- tropart. Phys.34, 267 (2010)

    work page 2010

  13. [13]

    Allisonet al.(ARA Collaboration), Design and Ini- tial Performance of the Askaryan Radio Array Proto- type EeV Neutrino Detector at the South Pole, As- tropart

    P. Allisonet al.(ARA Collaboration), Design and Ini- tial Performance of the Askaryan Radio Array Proto- type EeV Neutrino Detector at the South Pole, As- tropart. Phys.35, 457 (2011)

    work page 2011

  14. [14]

    Similar radio neutrino detectors currently operate in Greenland [49], have concluded operation in Antarctica [50–52], or are presently in preparation [53]

    work page

  15. [15]

    Allisonet al.(ARA Collaboration), Design and Performance of an Interferometric Trigger array for Radio Detection of High-Energy Neutrinos, Nucl

    P. Allisonet al.(ARA Collaboration), Design and Performance of an Interferometric Trigger array for Radio Detection of High-Energy Neutrinos, Nucl. In- strum. Meth. A930, 112 (2019)

    work page 2019

  16. [16]

    Coleman, C

    A. Coleman, C. Glaser, R. Rice-Smith, S. Barwick, and D. Besson, In-ice Askaryan Emission from Air Show- ers: Implications for Radio Neutrino Detectors, As- tropart. Phys.172, 103136 (2025)

    work page 2025

  17. [17]

    De Kockere, K

    S. De Kockere, K. de Vries, N. van Eijndhoven, and U. Latif, Simulation of in-ice cosmic ray air shower induced particle cascades, Phys. Rev. D106, 043023 (2022)

    work page 2022

  18. [18]

    K. D. de Vries, S. Buitink, N. van Eijndhoven, T. Meures, A. ´O Murchadha, and O. Scholten, The cosmic-ray air-shower signal in Askaryan radio detectors, As- tropart. Phys.74, 96 (2016). 7

    work page 2016

  19. [19]

    De Kockere, D

    S. De Kockere, D. Van den Broeck, U. A. Latif, K. D. de Vries, N. van Eijndhoven, T. Huege, and S. Buitink, Simulation of radio signals from cosmic-ray cascades in air and ice as observed by in-ice Askaryan radio detectors, Phys. Rev. D110, 023010 (2024)

    work page 2024

  20. [20]

    Javaid, Monte Carlo simulation for radio detection of Ultra High Energy air shower cores by ANITA-II, Ph.D

    A. Javaid, Monte Carlo simulation for radio detection of Ultra High Energy air shower cores by ANITA-II, Ph.D. thesis, University of Delaware (2012)

    work page 2012

  21. [21]

    Valera, M

    V. Valera, M. Bustamante, and C. Glaser, Near-future discovery of the diffuse flux of ultrahigh-energy cosmic neutrinos, Phys. Rev. D107, 043019 (2023)

    work page 2023

  22. [22]

    Allisonet al.(ARA Collaboration), Low-threshold ultrahigh-energy neutrino search with the Askaryan Ra- dio Array, Phys

    P. Allisonet al.(ARA Collaboration), Low-threshold ultrahigh-energy neutrino search with the Askaryan Ra- dio Array, Phys. Rev. D105, 122006 (2022)

    work page 2022

  23. [23]

    The zenith angle is measured between the vertical direc- tion and the arrival direction of the radiation wavefront

    work page

  24. [24]

    See Supplemental Material, appended below, for details

    work page

  25. [25]

    J. A. Aguilar, A. Anker, P. Allison, S. Archambault, P. Baldi, S. W. Barwick, J. J. Beatty, J. Beise, D. Besson, A. Bishop,et al., Triboelectric Backgrounds to Radio-based Polar UHE Neutrino Experiments, As- tropart. Phys.145, 102790 (2022)

    work page 2022

  26. [26]

    J. D. Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics, 3rd ed. (Wiley, 2001)

    work page 2001

  27. [27]

    To reduce the correlation of impulsivity with signal-to-noise ratio, this calculation is only applied to the 50% of the recorded trace closest to the peak

    The impulsivity is quantified by the ratio of maximum instantaneous signal power to mean signal power, with signal power given by the magnitude-square of the ana- lytic signal. To reduce the correlation of impulsivity with signal-to-noise ratio, this calculation is only applied to the 50% of the recorded trace closest to the peak

    work page

  28. [28]

    Navaset al.(Particle Data Group), Review of Particle Physics, Statistics, Phys

    S. Navaset al.(Particle Data Group), Review of Particle Physics, Statistics, Phys. Rev. D110, 030001 (2024)

    work page 2024

  29. [29]

    Alvarez-Mu˜ niz, A

    J. Alvarez-Mu˜ niz, A. Romero-Wolf, and E. Zas,ˇCerenkov radio pulses from electromagnetic showers in the time domain, Phys. Rev. D81, 123009 (2010)

    work page 2010

  30. [30]

    The per-antenna signal-to-noise ratio is defined as the ratio of the peak-to-peak signal amplitude and the noise RMS amplitude

    work page

  31. [31]

    Engel, D

    R. Engel, D. Heck, T. Huege, T. Pierog, M. Reininghaus, F. Riehn, R. Ulrich, M. Unger, and D. Veberiˇ c, Towards A Next Generation of CORSIKA: A Framework for the Simulation of Particle Cascades in Astroparticle Physics, Comput. Softw. Big Sci.3, 2 (2019)

    work page 2019

  32. [32]

    Alameddine, J

    J. Alameddine, J. Albrecht, J. Ammerman-Yebra, L. Arrabito, A. Alves, D. Baack, A. Coleman, H. Dem- binski, D. Els¨ asser,et al., Simulating radio emission from particle cascades with CORSIKA 8, Astropart. Phys. 166, 103072 (2025)

    work page 2025

  33. [33]

    Windischhofer, C

    P. Windischhofer, C. Welling, and C. Deaconu, Eisvogel: Exact and efficient calculations of radio emissions from in-ice neutrino showers, PoSICRC2023, 1157 (2023)

    work page 2023

  34. [34]

    Windischhofer, C

    P. Windischhofer, C. Deaconu, and C. Welling, Fully- electrodynamic radio simulations with Eisvogel, PoS ARENA2024, 051 (2024)

    work page 2024

  35. [35]

    J. C. Flahertyet al.(ARA Collaboration), Polarization Reconstruction of Askaryan Emission of Ultra-High En- ergy Neutrinos Using the Askaryan Radio Array, PoS ICRC2023, 1164 (2023)

    work page 2023

  36. [36]

    Salcedo Gomezet al.(ARA Collaboration), Effects of Biaxial Birefringence on Polarization Reconstruction for the Askaryan Radio Array, PoSARENA2024, 009 (2024)

    A. Salcedo Gomezet al.(ARA Collaboration), Effects of Biaxial Birefringence on Polarization Reconstruction for the Askaryan Radio Array, PoSARENA2024, 009 (2024)

    work page 2024

  37. [37]

    Aabet al.(Pierre Auger Collaboration), Energy esti- mation of cosmic rays with the Engineering Radio Array of the Pierre Auger Observatory, Phys

    A. Aabet al.(Pierre Auger Collaboration), Energy esti- mation of cosmic rays with the Engineering Radio Array of the Pierre Auger Observatory, Phys. Rev. D93, 122005 (2016)

    work page 2016

  38. [38]

    their response to VPol signals, is about 10% of their co-polarization effective length

    The cross-polarization effective length of the HPol an- tennas, i.e. their response to VPol signals, is about 10% of their co-polarization effective length. We only unfold the co-polarization response in the calculation ofE 2 ϕ, but include both in the simulation

    work page

  39. [39]

    NOAA NCEI Geomagnetic Modeling Team and British Geological Survey, World Magnetic Model (2025)

    work page 2025

  40. [40]

    Alvarez-Mu˜ niz, R

    J. Alvarez-Mu˜ niz, R. A. V´ azquez, and E. Zas, Calcula- tion methods for radio pulses from high energy showers, Phys. Rev. D62, 063001 (2000)

    work page 2000

  41. [41]

    J. D. Krauss, Antennas, 3rd ed. (McGraw Hill Higher Education, 2001)

    work page 2001

  42. [42]

    P. W. Gorham, D. P. Saltzberg, P. Schoessow, W. Gai, J. G. Power, R. Konecny, and M. E. Conde, Radio- frequency measurements of coherent transition and Cherenkov radiation: Implications for high-energy neu- trino detection, Phys. Rev. E62, 8590 (2000)

    work page 2000

  43. [43]

    V. L. Ginzburg, Transition radiation and transition scat- tering, Physica Scripta1982, 182 (1982)

    work page 1982

  44. [44]

    G. M. Garibyan, Transition Radiation Effects in Particle Energy Losses, Soviet Physics JETP10, 372 (1960)

    work page 1960

  45. [45]

    Ammerman-Yebra, U

    J. Ammerman-Yebra, U. Latif, N. Karastathis, T. Huege et al.(CORSIKA 8 Collaboration), and S. de Kockere, Simulations of cross media showers with CORSIKA 8, PoSICRC2023, 442 (2023)

    work page 2023

  46. [46]

    Deaconu, A

    C. Deaconu, A. G. Vieregg, S. A. Wissel, J. Bowen, S. Chipman, A. Gupta, C. Miki, R. J. Nichol, and D. Saltzberg, Measurements and modeling of near- surface radio propagation in glacial ice and implica- tions for neutrino experiments, Phys. Rev. D98, 043010 (2018)

    work page 2018

  47. [47]

    S. W. Barwick, E. C. Berg, D. Z. Besson, G. Gaswint, C. Glaser, A. Hallgren, J. Hanson, S. Klein, S. Klein- felder, and L. K¨ opke, Observation of classically ‘forbid- den’ electromagnetic wave propagation and implications for neutrino detection, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2018 (07), 55

    work page 2018

  48. [48]

    E. S. Costello, R. R. Ghent, A. Romero-Wolf, P. W. Gorham, P. G. Lucey, C. J. T. Udovicic, P. Linton, A. Ludwig, K. McBride, C. Miki,et al., Cosmic Rays and the Askaryan Effect Reveal Subsurface Structure and Buried Ice on the Moon, Geophys. Res. Lett.52, e2024GL113304 (2025)

    work page 2025

  49. [49]

    Agarwalet al.(RNO-G Collaboration), Instrument de- sign and performance of the first seven stations of RNO- G, J

    S. Agarwalet al.(RNO-G Collaboration), Instrument de- sign and performance of the first seven stations of RNO- G, J. Instrum.20, P04015

    work page

  50. [50]

    P. W. Gorhamet al.(ANITA Collaboration), Constraints on the ultrahigh-energy cosmic neutrino flux from the fourth flight of anita, Phys. Rev. D99, 122001 (2019)

    work page 2019

  51. [51]

    Anker, S

    A. Anker, S. Barwick, H. Bernhoff, D. Besson, N. Binge- fors, D. Garc´ ıa-Fern´ andez, G. Gaswint, C. Glaser, A. Hallgren, J. Hanson,et al., A search for cosmogenic neutrinos with the ARIANNA test bed using 4.5 years of data, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2020, 053 (2020)

    work page 2020

  52. [52]

    Allen, A

    C. Allen, A. Bean, D. Besson, G. Frichter, A. Juett, A. Karle, S. Kotov, I. Kravchenko, D. McKay, and T. Miller, Status of the Radio Ice Cherenkov Experiment (RICE), New Astron. Rev.42, 319 (1998)

    work page 1998

  53. [53]

    Abarret al.(PUEO Collaboration), The Payload for Ultrahigh Energy Observations (PUEO): A White Paper, J

    Q. Abarret al.(PUEO Collaboration), The Payload for Ultrahigh Energy Observations (PUEO): A White Paper, J. Instrum.16, P08035 (2021). 8

    work page 2021

  54. [54]

    Cowan, K

    G. Cowan, K. Cranmer, E. Gross, and O. Vitells, Asymp- totic formulae for likelihood-based tests of new physics, Eur. Phys. J. C.71, 1554 (2011)

    work page 2011

  55. [55]

    Alvarez-Mu˜ niz, C

    J. Alvarez-Mu˜ niz, C. James, R. Protheroe, and E. Zas, Thinned simulations of extremely energetic showers in dense media for radio applications, Astropart. Phys.32, 100 (2009)

    work page 2009

  56. [56]

    Alvarez-Mu˜ niz, W

    J. Alvarez-Mu˜ niz, W. Carvalho Jr., M. Tueros, and E. Zas, Coherent Cherenkov radio pulses from hadronic showers up to EeV energies, Astropart. Phys.35, 287 (2012)

    work page 2012

  57. [57]

    E. W. Mayotteet al.(The Pierre Auger Collabora- tion), Measurement of the mass composition of ultra- high-energy cosmic rays at the Pierre Auger Observatory, PoSICRC2023, 365 (2023)

    work page 2023

  58. [58]

    Coleman, Personal communication

    A. Coleman, Personal communication

    work page

  59. [59]

    Ivanovet al.(Telescope Array Collaboration), En- ergy Spectrum Measured by the Telescope Array, PoS ICRC2019, 298 (2019)

    D. Ivanovet al.(Telescope Array Collaboration), En- ergy Spectrum Measured by the Telescope Array, PoS ICRC2019, 298 (2019)

    work page 2019

  60. [60]

    Sethian, A fast marching level set method for mono- tonically advancing fronts., Proc

    J. Sethian, A fast marching level set method for mono- tonically advancing fronts., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 93, 1591 (1996)

    work page 1996

  61. [61]

    White, H

    M. White, H. Fang, N. Nakata, and Y. Ben-Zion, PyKonal: A Python Package for Solving the Eikonal Equation in Spherical and Cartesian Coordinates Using the Fast Marching Method, Seismol. Res. Lett.91, 2378 (2020)

    work page 2020

  62. [62]

    NOAA Global Monitoring Laboratory Meteorology Data, Observatory at South Pole, minute-averaged wind speed data covering the period from 2019-01-01 to 2019-12-31, downloaded in October 2024

    work page 2019

  63. [63]

    Baker and R

    S. Baker and R. Cousins, Clarification of the use of CHI- square and likelihood functions in fits to histograms, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A221, 437 (1984)

    work page 1984

  64. [64]

    Gaisser, Predictive inference: an introduction (Springer, 1993)

    S. Gaisser, Predictive inference: an introduction (Springer, 1993)

    work page 1993

  65. [65]

    Kvasniˇ cka and V

    M. Kvasniˇ cka and V. ˇCerven´ y, Analytical expressions for Fresnel volumes and interface fresnel zones of seismic body waves. Part 2: Transmitted and converted waves. Head waves, Stud. geophys. geod.40, 381 (1996)

    work page 1996

  66. [66]

    Krasberg, K

    M. Krasberg, K. Filimonov, R. Maruyama, and G. Hil, Personal communication

    work page

  67. [67]

    Feldman and R

    G. Feldman and R. Cousins, Unified approach to the clas- sical statistical analysis of small signals, Phys. Rev. D57, 3873 (1998)

    work page 1998

  68. [68]

    S. S. Wilks, The Large-Sample Distribution of the Like- lihood Ratio for Testing Composite Hypotheses, Ann. Math. Statist.9, 60 (1938)

    work page 1938

  69. [69]

    Kovacs, A

    A. Kovacs, A. J. Gow, and R. M. Morey, The in- situ dielectric constant of polar firn revisited, Cold Reg. Sci. Technol.23, 245 (1995)

    work page 1995

  70. [70]

    Riehn, R

    F. Riehn, R. Engel, A. Fedynitch, T. Gaisser, and T. Stanev, Hadronic interaction modelsibyll2.3d and extensive air showers, Phys. Rev. D102, 063002 (2020)

    work page 2020

  71. [71]

    Ferrari, P

    A. Ferrari, P. Sala, A. Fass` o, and J. Ranft, FLUKA: A multi-particle transport code (Program version 2005), CERN-2005-10, INFN/TC 05/11, SLAC-R-773 (2005)

    work page 2005

  72. [72]

    Battistoni, T

    G. Battistoni, T. Boehlen, F. Cerutti, C. Pik Wai,et al., Overview of the FLUKA code, Ann. Nucl. Energy82, 10 (2015)

    work page 2015

  73. [73]

    Ballariniet al.(The FLUKA Collaboration), The FLUKA code: Overview and new developments, EPJ Nuclear Sci

    F. Ballariniet al.(The FLUKA Collaboration), The FLUKA code: Overview and new developments, EPJ Nuclear Sci. Technol.10, 16 (2024)

    work page 2024

  74. [74]

    Koehne, K

    J.-H. Koehne, K. Frantzen, M. Schmitz, T. Fuchs, W. Rhode, D. Chirkin, and J. Becker Tjus, PRO- POSAL: A tool for propagation of charged leptons, Com- put. Phys. Commun.184, 2070 (2013)

    work page 2070

  75. [75]

    Alameddine, J

    J.-M. Alameddine, J. Albrecht, H. Dembinski, P. Gut- jahr, K.-H. Kampert, W. Rhode, M. Sackel, A. Sandrock, and J. Soedingrekso, Improvements in charged lepton and photon propagation for the software PROPOSAL, Com- put. Phys. Commun.302, 109243 (2024)

    work page 2024

  76. [76]

    Riegler and P

    W. Riegler and P. Windischhofer, Signals induced on electrodes by moving charges, a general theorem for Maxwell’s equations based on Lorentz reciprocity, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A980, 164471 (2020)

    work page 2020

  77. [77]

    A. F. Oskooi, D. Roundy, M. Ibanescu, P. Bermel, J. Joannopoulos, and S. G. Johnson, Meep: A flexible free-software package for electromagnetic simulations by the FDTD method, Comput. Phys. Commun.181, 687 (2010)

    work page 2010

  78. [78]

    M. C. Stevens, V. Verjans, J. M. D. Lundin,et al., The Community Firn Model (CFM) v1.0, Geosci. Model Dev. 13, 4355 (2020)

    work page 2020

  79. [79]

    near-TIR

    C. Sheppard, Approximate calculation of the reflection coefficient from a stratified medium, Pure Appl. Opt.4, 665 (1995). 9 END MATTER Background estimate detailsTo calculate the discov- ery significance [54], we use the likelihood given by L(µsig,ν) = Y r∈{pass.,control} Po(N obs r |µr)×f(ν),(3) where the product includes the region populated by the pas...

    work page 1995