Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Zee-Burst: A New Probe of Neutrino Non-Standard Interactions at IceCube

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Light charged scalars in the Zee model of neutrino mass could create a Glashow-like resonance—dubbed the Zee-burst—in IceCube's ultra-high-energy spectrum, giving a new handle on neutrino non-standard interactions.

desk verdict A genuinely new IceCube resonance proposal from Zee-model scalars, with a real but fixable statistical weakness in the projected sensitivity. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.02779 v2 pith:UKBGDU66 submitted 2019-08-07 hep-ph astro-ph.HEhep-ex

K. S. Babu , P. S. Bhupal Dev , Sudip Jana , Yicong Sui This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phastro-ph.HEhep-ex
keywords ZeemodelZee-burstneutrinonon-standardinteractionsIceCubeGlashowresonanceradiativemassultra-high-energyneutrinostauNSI
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

Ultra-high-energy neutrinos at IceCube could reveal a new resonance, the Zee-burst, if the charged scalars of the Zee radiative neutrino-mass model are light enough. The paper shows that an antineutrino scattering on a target electron can produce one of these scalars on-shell at neutrino energy $E_\nu = m_X^2/(2m_e)$, placing a 100 GeV scalar's resonance at about 10 PeV. Because the same Yukawa couplings that generate neutrino mass at one loop also produce neutrino–electron non-standard interactions, the presence or absence of this resonance constrains the non-standard-interaction parameter space, especially $\varepsilon_{\tau\tau}$, which can be as large as 43% in the model. The authors compute event spectra using IceCube's best-fit astrophysical flux and show that current 7.5-year data already start to bound the relevant couplings, while future exposures and IceCube-Gen2 could probe a sizable fraction of the allowed non-standard-interaction region.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Zee-burst resonance: an $s$-channel process $\bar\nu_\alpha e^- \to X^- \to$ anything, with $X^- = h^-$ or $H^-$, whose Breit–Wigner cross section is $\sigma_{\rm Zee}(s) = 8\pi \Gamma_X^2 \, \mathrm{BR}(X^-\to \bar\nu_\alpha e^-)\, \mathrm{BR}(X^-\to \mathrm{all}) \, \frac{s/m_X^2}{(s-m_X^2)^2+(m_X\Gamma_X)^2}$. It is the scalar analogue of the Glashow resonance; the factor $8\pi$ instead of $24\pi$ reflects the single polarization degree of a spin-0 propagator rather than the three of the $W$. The resonance position $E_\nu=m_X^2/(2m_e)$ converts a 100 GeV scalar mass into a bump near 9.8 PeV. The same Yukawa matrix $Y$ enters the one-loop neutrino mass formula $M_\nu = \kappa(f M_\ell Y + Y^T M_\ell f^T)$ and the non-standard-interaction parameter $\varepsilon_{\alpha\beta} = \frac{Y_{\alpha e}Y^*_{\beta e}}{4\sqrt{2}G_F}\left(\frac{\sin^2\phi}{m_h^2}+\frac{\cos^2\phi}{m_H^2}\right)$, which is the link between IceCube event rates and the low-energy non-standard-interaction parameter space.

What would settle it

Search IceCube's high-energy starting events in the deposited-energy bins between 7.6 and 12.9 PeV: if the counted events with the best-fit single-power-law flux match the Standard Model prediction and no excess appears at the level expected for $m_{h^\pm}=100$ GeV and $\lvert Y_{\tau e}\rvert\sin\phi=0.4$, the benchmark Zee-burst scenario is excluded.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the Zee-burst, the charged-scalar analogue of the Glashow resonance, is a viable and clean high-energy probe of neutrino non-standard interactions. In the Zee model the physical charged scalars $h^\pm$ and $H^\pm$ couple to neutrinos and charged leptons; for an electron target the process $\bar\nu_\alpha e^- \to X^- \to$ anything becomes resonant at $E_\nu = m_X^2/(2m_e)$. With $m_{h^\pm}\simeq m_{H^\pm}\simeq 100$ GeV the resonance sits at $E_\nu\simeq 9.8$ PeV and populates the 7.6–12.9 PeV deposited-energy bins of IceCube's high-energy starting events, adjacent to the Glashow bin. Because the Zee coupling involves right-handed electrons, there is no interference with the $W$-mediated Glashow process, so the excess is a separate bump. Adopting the viable benchmark with $Y_{\tau e}\neq 0$, $Y_{\alpha\tau}\neq0$ for $\alpha=e,\mu$, $Y_{ee}=0$, maximal mixing $\phi=\pi/4$, and branching ratios fixed by the companion analysis, the authors derive sensitivity contours in the $m_{h^\pm}$–$\lvert Y_{\tau e}\rvert\sin\phi$ plane and translate them into projected reach on $\varepsilon_{\tau\tau}$. They conclude that observation or non-observation of the Zee-burst in IceCube and IceCube-Gen2 can probe a sizable fraction of the allowed non-standard-interaction parameter space and may supersede DUNE's projected sensitivity for $\varepsilon_{\tau\tau}$.

Load-bearing premise

The signature stands on the existence of a viable Zee-model parameter point with $m_{h^\pm}=100$ GeV, $Y_{ee}=0$, $Y_{\tau e}\neq 0$, and $Y_{\alpha\tau}\neq0$ that satisfies all LEP, lepton-universality, charged-lepton-flavor-violation, and scalar-sector constraints; the paper takes this point from its companion paper [11].

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the benchmark Zee-burst is real, IceCube should see an excess in the 7.6–12.9 PeV bins whose size grows with $\lvert Y_{\tau e}\rvert\sin\phi$; the current 7.5-year data already rule out the largest couplings.
  • A non-observation at future exposures would exclude a substantial slice of the allowed non-standard-interaction parameter space, particularly $\varepsilon_{\tau\tau}$ at the tens-of-percent level for scalar masses near 100 GeV.
  • The two benchmark mass patterns give distinct signatures: a degenerate $h^-/H^-$ pair produces one combined peak, while a 30 GeV splitting produces two dips, so the shape of any excess can diagnose the scalar mass spectrum.
  • With IceCube-Gen2's roughly tenfold exposure, or a combination with KM3NeT, the Zee-burst search becomes competitive with, and for $\varepsilon_{\tau\tau}$ potentially stronger than, DUNE's projected sensitivity.
  • Heavier scalars shift the resonance beyond IceCube's reach for an isotropic flux, but transient astrophysical sources could make TeV-scale scalars accessible through EeV neutrinos in radio-Cherenkov detectors.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same resonance logic transfers to any model with a light leptophilic charged scalar: IceCube's spectrum becomes a generic map from non-standard-interaction parameters to a PeV bump, so the search is not limited to the Zee model.
  • If the Zee-burst is observed, the peak energy fixes the scalar mass, and the relative weights of the $h^-$ and $H^-$ contributions constrain the mixing angle $\phi$ and the mass splitting, information that low-energy oscillation and scattering experiments cannot easily resolve.
  • A null search at IceCube-Gen2 combined with future oscillation and coherent-scattering limits would corner the light-scalar Zee model, because all three observables are governed by the same Yukawa matrix through the non-standard-interaction relation.
  • The projected reach assumes an isotropic single-power-law flux; a harder or anisotropic flux, or a dedicated point-source stacking search, could improve the sensitivity beyond the stated contours.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. This Letter proposes a new IceCube signature, the 'Zee-burst,' arising from light charged scalars in the Zee model of radiative neutrino mass. The scalars h^+ and H^+, if as light as 100 GeV, can produce Glashow-like resonances in neutrino-electron scattering at energies E_nu = m_h^2/2m_e in the few-to-tens PeV range. The authors compute the expected event rates for benchmark parameters (m_h+ ~ m_H+ = 100 GeV, maximal mixing phi = pi/4, Y_tau e nonzero), compare the resulting spectra with 7.5 years of IceCube HESE data, and derive projected sensitivity curves in the (m_h+, |Y_tau e| sin phi) plane for exposures T0, 2T0, 4T0, 10T0, 50T0. They then map these sensitivities onto the NSI parameter epsilon_tau tau and conclude that IceCube and IceCube-Gen2 can probe a sizable fraction of the currently allowed NSI parameter space. The central claim is that the same Yukawa couplings responsible for neutrino mass and NSI produce a directly observable resonance feature at neutrino telescopes.

Significance. If the Zee-burst is real, it would be a genuinely new probe of the charged scalars that generate neutrino mass, and it would connect low-energy NSI bounds to a high-energy resonance search in a parameter-free way within the model. The paper is forward-looking and uses a forward calculation from the Lagrangian; it also uses publicly available effective areas and standard cross-section formulas, which is a strength. The mapping from the resonance rate to epsilon_tau tau via Eq. (11) is explicit and makes the NSI connection concrete. However, the quantitative significance of the projected reach is weakened by the simplified sensitivity definition: the curves in Fig. 2 are based on a one-event threshold that ignores the SM background and Poisson fluctuations, and the effective-area rescaling procedure is not fully specified. The model-parameter benchmark is also inherited from the companion paper Ref. [11] without reproduction. These issues affect the headline claim but are addressable in a revision.

major comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 2 and 'Signature at IceCube'] The projected sensitivity curves labeled 'IC 1T0' through 'IC 50T0' are defined as the parameter set giving one expected signal event summed over the resonance bins, with no treatment of the SM background or of Poisson fluctuations. For the IceCube best-fit flux, the SM expectation in the relevant PeV bins is not negligible at the larger exposures: at 10 T0 the mean background in the same bins is already of order a few events, so a one-event threshold does not correspond to a valid discovery or exclusion statistic. Because the central claim that IceCube and IceCube-Gen2 can probe a sizable fraction of the allowed NSI parameter space rests directly on these curves, the analysis should be redone using a binned Poisson likelihood or a Feldman-Cousins prescription that includes the SM background and its fluctuations.
  2. [Eq. (7) and effective-area rescaling] The text says that in the presence of the new interactions the effective area is rescaled 'by taking the ratio of the cross sections,' but the publicly available effective area from Ref. [5] includes both neutrino-nucleon and neutrino-electron interactions. Since the Zee scalars modify only the neutrino-electron piece, the paper must specify how the electron contribution is separated from the nucleon contribution before rescaling. Without this decomposition the event rates in Fig. 1 and the sensitivity curves in Fig. 2 are not reproducible, and the size of the Zee-burst excess could be either over- or underestimated depending on the assumed ratio.
  3. [Section 'Light charged scalars in the Zee model'] The benchmark point with m_h+ = 100 GeV, Y_tau e nonzero and Y_alpha tau nonzero (alpha = e or mu) is asserted to satisfy all constraints solely on the authority of Ref. [11]; the relevant LEP, lepton-universality, and cLFV limits are not reproduced or summarized in this manuscript. Since the entire Zee-burst signature disappears if this parameter point is not viable, the paper should either display the relevant exclusion regions or explicitly state that the sensitivity projection inherits all assumptions of Ref. [11] and is conditional on those constraints.
  4. [Eq. (7) and flux assumptions] The event-rate calculation uses a single fixed power-law flux with the IceCube best-fit values of Phi_0 and gamma, and the projected sensitivities do not propagate the uncertainties in these parameters or any systematic uncertainties in the effective area. Because the signal rate is directly proportional to the flux normalization and the background depends on the spectral index, the 'sizable fraction' claim should be accompanied by a range of projected reaches obtained by varying the flux parameters within their 1-sigma uncertainties.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Introduction, paragraph 2] The sentence 'squarks in R-parity violating supersymmetry [34–37]. have also been discussed' has a misplaced period and should be corrected.
  2. [Eq. (10) and width formula] The width formula Gamma_X = sum |Y_alpha beta|^2 sin^2 phi m_X / 16 pi is written for a generic X, but Eq. (6) shows that h^- couples with sin phi and H^- couples with cos phi. The formula should distinguish the two mass eigenstates; it is only correct at the phi = pi/4 benchmark used in the figures.
  3. [Benchmark mass degeneracy] The text states that 'we cannot make Delta m_h exactly zero, otherwise the neutrino mass vanishes,' yet the benchmark for Fig. 1 is labeled m_h+ ~ m_H+ = 100 GeV. The size of the mass splitting used in the 'degenerate' benchmark should be quantified so the reader can assess the two-peak separation.
  4. [Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 captions] The notation 'N_Res/N_non-Res' in the text is not defined, and the caption of Fig. 2 refers to 'thick black curves' while the figure contains multiple curve styles; the captions should define all curve labels and the meaning of the shaded regions.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Zee-burst rate is a forward calculation from the Lagrangian, with external inputs and no fit to the IceCube data being predicted.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained in the relevant sense. Starting from the Zee-model Lagrangian (Eq. 3), it computes the charged-scalar s-channel resonance cross section (Eq. 10) and the corresponding NSI parameters (Eq. 11) from the same Yukawa couplings, and then evaluates the IceCube event rate (Eq. 7) as a forward calculation using the publicly available IceCube effective areas and the published astrophysical flux. No model parameter is fitted to the IceCube spectra that are later compared with the model: the benchmark values of Y_tau e are illustrative, and the sensitivity curves in Fig. 2 are explicitly defined by a one-expected-event projection criterion, not by a fit. The viability of the 100 GeV charged-scalar benchmark is taken from Ref. [11] (Babu, Dev, Jana, Thapa), which has overlapping authors with the present paper; however, that cited work derives the allowed parameter space from external constraints (LEP searches, lepton universality, cLFV, COHERENT, oscillation data) rather than from the IceCube data used here, so this self-citation is not load-bearing in a circular sense. The statement that the Zee-burst probes NSI is a model relation between two observables generated by the same Yukawa interactions, not a definition of one observable in terms of the other. Any statistical concern about the one-event threshold ignoring the SM background is a sensitivity-analysis issue, not a circularity. No circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the Zee model structure, the prior-claimed viability of 100 GeV scalars, a fixed astrophysical flux model, and a simplified detector-response rescaling. The parameters scanned are intrinsic model parameters, not fitted to IceCube data.

free parameters (4)
  • m_h+ (light charged scalar mass) = 100 GeV (benchmarks), scanned 100-250 GeV
    Sets the resonance energy E_nu = m^2/(2m_e) and the event rate; central to the IceCube signature.
  • sin phi (mixing angle) = 0.707 (maximal mixing)
    Chosen maximal to maximize NSI and resonance cross section; enters Eqs. (10) and (11).
  • Y_tau e (Yukawa coupling) = 1, 0.5, 0.25 in benchmarks; scanned up to 1
    Controls the Zee-burst event rate and epsilon_tau tau; the key parameter probed in Fig. 2.
  • Y_beta tau (beta = e or mu) = chosen to give BR(h- -> nu_beta tau) = 40%
    Sets the branching ratio in Eq. (10) together with Y_tau e.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The Zee model Lagrangian in Eq. (3) with two charged scalars and the one-loop neutrino mass formula Eq. (4) correctly describes neutrino masses.
    The entire phenomenology is built on this model; no alternative derivation is given.
  • domain assumption There exists a viable parameter point with m_h = 100 GeV, Y_ee = 0, Y_tau e != 0, Y_alpha tau != 0 satisfying LEP, lepton universality, and cLFV constraints, as claimed in Ref. [11].
    This is load-bearing: if no such point exists, the Zee-burst is not observable. The paper relies on its companion paper for this.
  • domain assumption The astrophysical neutrino flux is a single unbroken power-law with Phi0 and gamma from the IceCube fit in Ref. [9].
    Event rates depend sensitively on the flux normalization and spectral index; deviations significantly change the sensitivity.
  • domain assumption The detector effective area for the new interaction scales with the ratio of neutrino-electron to neutrino-nucleon cross sections, with unchanged acceptance.
    This rescaling is assumed without explicit simulation; it enters the event-rate calculation in Eq. (7).
  • standard math The scalar resonance cross section follows the Breit-Wigner form of Eq. (10) with no interference with the Glashow process.
    Standard quantum field theory result; the no-interference statement follows from opposite electron chiralities.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Zee-Burst: A New Probe of Neutrino Non-Standard Interactions at IceCube." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UKBGDU66

@misc{pith2026190802779,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Zee-Burst: A New Probe of Neutrino Non-Standard Interactions at IceCube},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UKBGDU66}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.02779}
}
abstract

We propose a new way to probe non-standard interactions (NSI) of neutrinos with matter using the ultra-high energy (UHE) neutrino data at current and future neutrino telescopes. We consider the Zee model of radiative neutrino mass generation as a prototype, which allows two charged scalars -- one $SU(2)_L$-doublet and one singlet, both being leptophilic, to be as light as 100 GeV, thereby inducing potentially observable NSI with electrons. We show that these light charged Zee-scalars could give rise to a Glashow-like resonance feature in the UHE neutrino event spectrum at the IceCube neutrino observatory and its high-energy upgrade IceCube-Gen2, which can probe a sizable fraction of the allowed NSI parameter space.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.02779 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Reconstructed event spectra for the expected [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. IceCube sensitivity (corresponding to one expected event in the resonance energy bins combined) for the parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Charged Higgs Search at Future Neutrino Telescope and Higgs Factory

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Future lepton colliders can discover a charged Higgs below about half their energy, while multi-cubic-kilometer neutrino telescopes add complementary reach for heavier charged Higgs masses.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [11]

    Non-Standard Interactions in Radiative Neutrino Mass Models,

    K. S. Babu, P. S. B. Dev, S. Jana, and A. Thapa, “Non-Standard Interactions in Radiative Neutrino Mass Models,” arXiv:1907.09498 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 1907

  2. [5]

    The IceCube Neutrino Observatory - Contributions to ICRC 2017 Part II: Properties of the Atmospheric and Astrophysical Neutrino Flux,

    IceCube Collaboration, M. G. Aartsen et al., “The IceCube Neutrino Observatory - Contributions to ICRC 2017 Part II: Properties of the Atmospheric and Astrophysical Neutrino Flux,” arXiv:1710.01191 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2017

  3. [1]

    First observation of PeV-energy neutrinos with IceCube,

    IceCube Collaboration, M. G. Aartsen et al., “First observation of PeV-energy neutrinos with IceCube,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 111 (2013) 021103, arXiv:1304.5356 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2013

  4. [2]

    Evidence for High-Energy Extraterrestrial Neutrinos at the IceCube Detector,

    IceCube Collaboration, M. G. Aartsen et al., “Evidence for High-Energy Extraterrestrial Neutrinos at the IceCube Detector,” Science 342 (2013) 1242856, arXiv:1311.5238 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2013

  5. [3]

    Observation of High-Energy Astrophysical Neutrinos in Three Years of IceCube Data,

    IceCube Collaboration, M. G. Aartsen et al., “Observation of High-Energy Astrophysical Neutrinos in Three Years of IceCube Data,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 113 (2014) 101101, arXiv:1405.5303 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2014

  6. [4]

    The IceCube Neutrino Observatory - Contributions to ICRC 2015 Part II: Atmospheric and Astrophysical Diffuse Neutrino Searches of All Flavors,

    IceCube Collaboration, M. G. Aartsen et al., “The IceCube Neutrino Observatory - Contributions to ICRC 2015 Part II: Atmospheric and Astrophysical Diffuse Neutrino Searches of All Flavors,” in Proceedings, 34th International Cosmic Ray Conference (ICRC 2015): The Hague, The Netherlands, July 30-August 6, 2015 . arXiv:1510.05223 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2015

  7. [6]

    The IceCube Neutrino Observatory -- Contributions to the 36th International Cosmic Ray Conference (ICRC2019)

    IceCube Collaboration, M. G. Aartsen et al., “The IceCube Neutrino Observatory – Contributions to the 36th International Cosmic Ray Conference (ICRC2019),” 2019. arXiv:1907.11699 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2019

  8. [7]

    Cosmic Neutrino Pevatrons: A Brand New Pathway to Astronomy, Astrophysics, and Particle Physics,

    L. A. Anchordoqui et al., “Cosmic Neutrino Pevatrons: A Brand New Pathway to Astronomy, Astrophysics, and Particle Physics,” JHEAp 1-2 (2014) 1–30, arXiv:1312.6587 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2014

Show all 68 references
  1. [8]

    Probing Particle Physics with IceCube,

    M. Ahlers, K. Helbing, and C. P´ erez de los Heros, “Probing Particle Physics with IceCube,” Eur. Phys. J. C78 no. 11, (2018) 924, arXiv:1806.05696 [astro-ph.HE]

    2018 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Characterization of the Astrophysical Diffuse Neutrino Flux with IceCube High-Energy Starting Events,

    A. Schneider, “Characterization of the Astrophysical Diffuse Neutrino Flux with IceCube High-Energy Starting Events,” in 36th International Cosmic Ray Conference (ICRC 2019) Madison, Wisconsin, USA, July 24-August 1, 2019 . 2019. arXiv:1907.11266 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  3. [10]

    A Theory of Lepton Number Violation, Neutrino Majorana Mass, and Oscillation,

    A. Zee, “A Theory of Lepton Number Violation, Neutrino Majorana Mass, and Oscillation,” Phys. Lett. 93B (1980) 389. [Erratum: Phys. Lett.95B,461(1980)]

    1980

  4. [12]

    Resonant Scattering of Antineutrinos,

    S. L. Glashow, “Resonant Scattering of Antineutrinos,” Phys. Rev. 118 (1960) 316–317

    1960

  5. [13]

    A View of the Universe with the IceCube and ANTARES Neutrino Telescopes,

    IceCube Collaboration, I. Taboada, “A View of the Universe with the IceCube and ANTARES Neutrino Telescopes,” in Proceedings, XXVIII International Conference on Neutrino Physics and Astrophysics (Neutrino 2018): Heidelberg, Germany, June 4-9, 2018

    2018

  6. [14]

    The Glashow resonance at IceCube: signatures, event rates and pp vs. pγ interactions,

    A. Bhattacharya, R. Gandhi, W. Rodejohann, and A. Watanabe, “The Glashow resonance at IceCube: signatures, event rates and pp vs. pγ interactions,” JCAP 1110 (2011) 017, arXiv:1108.3163 [astro-ph.HE]

    2011 arXiv

  7. [15]

    IceCube PeV Cascade Events Initiated by Electron-Antineutrinos at Glashow Resonance,

    V. Barger, J. Learned, and S. Pakvasa, “IceCube PeV Cascade Events Initiated by Electron-Antineutrinos at Glashow Resonance,” Phys. Rev. D87 no. 3, (2013) 037302, arXiv:1207.4571 [astro-ph.HE]

    2013 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Astrophysical Neutrino Production Diagnostics with the Glashow Resonance,

    D. Biehl, A. Fedynitch, A. Palladino, T. J. Weiler, and W. Winter, “Astrophysical Neutrino Production Diagnostics with the Glashow Resonance,” JCAP 1701 (2017) 033, arXiv:1611.07983 [astro-ph.HE]

    2017 arXiv

  9. [17]

    On the non-detection of Glashow resonance in IceCube,

    S. Sahu and B. Zhang, “On the non-detection of Glashow resonance in IceCube,” JHEAp 18 (2018) 1–4, arXiv:1612.09043 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  10. [18]

    A Combined Astrophysical and Dark Matter Interpretation of the IceCube HESE 6 and Throughgoing Muon Events,

    Y. Sui and P. S. B. Dev, “A Combined Astrophysical and Dark Matter Interpretation of the IceCube HESE 6 and Throughgoing Muon Events,” JCAP 1807 no. 07, (2018) 020, arXiv:1804.04919 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Resonant Absorption of Cosmic Ray Neutrinos by the Relic Neutrino Background,

    T. J. Weiler, “Resonant Absorption of Cosmic Ray Neutrinos by the Relic Neutrino Background,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 49 (1982) 234

    1982

  12. [20]

    End to the cosmic ray spectrum?,

    K. Greisen, “End to the cosmic ray spectrum?,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 16 (1966) 748–750

    1966

  13. [21]

    Upper limit of the spectrum of cosmic rays,

    G. T. Zatsepin and V. A. Kuzmin, “Upper limit of the spectrum of cosmic rays,” JETP Lett. 4 (1966) 78–80. [Pisma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.4,114(1966)]

    1966

  14. [22]

    Determination of absolute neutrino masses from Z bursts,

    Z. Fodor, S. D. Katz, and A. Ringwald, “Determination of absolute neutrino masses from Z bursts,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 88 (2002) 171101, arXiv:hep-ph/0105064 [hep-ph]

    2002 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Cosmic neutrino spectrum and the muon anomalous magnetic moment in the gauged Lµ −Lτ model,

    T. Araki, F. Kaneko, Y. Konishi, T. Ota, J. Sato, and T. Shimomura, “Cosmic neutrino spectrum and the muon anomalous magnetic moment in the gauged Lµ −Lτ model,” Phys. Rev. D91 no. 3, (2015) 037301, arXiv:1409.4180 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  16. [24]

    MeV scale leptonic force for cosmic neutrino spectrum and muon anomalous magnetic moment,

    T. Araki, F. Kaneko, T. Ota, J. Sato, and T. Shimomura, “MeV scale leptonic force for cosmic neutrino spectrum and muon anomalous magnetic moment,” Phys. Rev. D93 no. 1, (2016) 013014, arXiv:1508.07471 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Coherent Propagation of PeV Neutrinos and the Dip in the Neutrino Spectrum at IceCube,

    A. Kamada and H.-B. Yu, “Coherent Propagation of PeV Neutrinos and the Dip in the Neutrino Spectrum at IceCube,” Phys. Rev. D92 no. 11, (2015) 113004, arXiv:1504.00711 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Searching for MeV-Scale Gauge Bosons with IceCube,

    A. DiFranzo and D. Hooper, “Searching for MeV-Scale Gauge Bosons with IceCube,” Phys. Rev. D92 no. 9, (2015) 095007, arXiv:1507.03015 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  19. [27]

    IceCube PeV–EeV neutrinos and secret interactions of neutrinos,

    K. Ioka and K. Murase, “IceCube PeV–EeV neutrinos and secret interactions of neutrinos,” PTEP 2014 no. 6, (2014) 061E01, arXiv:1404.2279 [astro-ph.HE]

    2014 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Cosmic neutrino cascades from secret neutrino interactions,

    K. C. Y. Ng and J. F. Beacom, “Cosmic neutrino cascades from secret neutrino interactions,” Phys. Rev. D90 no. 6, (2014) 065035, arXiv:1404.2288 [astro-ph.HE]. [Erratum: Phys. Rev.D90,no.8,089904(2014)]

    2014 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Cosmic neutrino background absorption line in the neutrino spectrum at IceCube,

    M. Ibe and K. Kaneta, “Cosmic neutrino background absorption line in the neutrino spectrum at IceCube,” Phys. Rev. D90 no. 5, (2014) 053011, arXiv:1407.2848 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Superheavy Particle Origin of IceCube PeV Neutrino Events,

    V. Barger and W.-Y. Keung, “Superheavy Particle Origin of IceCube PeV Neutrino Events,” Phys. Lett. B727 (2013) 190–193, arXiv:1305.6907 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Searching for Leptoquarks at IceCube and the LHC,

    U. K. Dey, D. Kar, M. Mitra, M. Spannowsky, and A. C. Vincent, “Searching for Leptoquarks at IceCube and the LHC,” Phys. Rev. D98 no. 3, (2018) 035014, arXiv:1709.02009 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Seeking leptoquarks in IceCube,

    D. Beˇ cirevi´ c, B. Panes, O. Sumensari, and R. Zukanovich Funchal, “Seeking leptoquarks in IceCube,” JHEP 06 (2018) 032, arXiv:1803.10112 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  25. [33]

    A comparative study of the S1 and U1 leptoquark effects at IceCube,

    I. Dorˇ sner, S. Fajfer, and M. Patra, “A comparative study of the S1 and U1 leptoquark effects at IceCube,” arXiv:1906.05660 [hep-ph]

    1906 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Manifestations of R-parity violation in ultrahigh-energy neutrino interactions,

    M. Carena, D. Choudhury, S. Lola, and C. Quigg, “Manifestations of R-parity violation in ultrahigh-energy neutrino interactions,” Phys. Rev. D58 (1998) 095003, arXiv:hep-ph/9804380 [hep-ph]

    1998 arXiv

  27. [35]

    R-parity Violating Supersymmetry at IceCube,

    P. S. B. Dev, D. K. Ghosh, and W. Rodejohann, “R-parity Violating Supersymmetry at IceCube,” Phys. Lett. B762 (2016) 116–123, arXiv:1605.09743 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  28. [36]

    R-parity Violating Supersymmetric Explanation of the Anomalous Events at ANITA,

    J. H. Collins, P. S. B. Dev, and Y. Sui, “R-parity Violating Supersymmetric Explanation of the Anomalous Events at ANITA,” Phys. Rev. D99 no. 4, (2019) 043009, arXiv:1810.08479 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Signatures of Supersymmetry in Neutrino Telescopes,

    P. S. B. Dev, “Signatures of Supersymmetry in Neutrino Telescopes,” in Probing Particle Physics with Neutrino Telescopes, C. P. de los Heros (ed.), World Scientific, Singapore (2020), pp. 317–352. arXiv:1906.02147 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Neutrino Oscillations in Matter,

    L. Wolfenstein, “Neutrino Oscillations in Matter,” Phys. Rev. D17 (1978) 2369–2374

    1978

  31. [39]

    Neutrino Non-Standard Interactions: A Status Report,

    P. S. B. Dev et al., “Neutrino Non-Standard Interactions: A Status Report,” SciPost Phys. Proc. 2 (2019) 001, arXiv:1907.00991 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Full parameter scan of the Zee model: exploring Higgs lepton flavor violation,

    J. Herrero-Garc´ ıa, T. Ohlsson, S. Riad, and J. Wir´ en, “Full parameter scan of the Zee model: exploring Higgs lepton flavor violation,” JHEP 04 (2017) 130, arXiv:1701.05345 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  33. [41]

    A Theoretical Pattern for Neutrino Oscillations,

    L. Wolfenstein, “A Theoretical Pattern for Neutrino Oscillations,” Nucl. Phys. B175 (1980) 93–96

    1980

  34. [42]

    Can the Zee model explain the observed neutrino data?,

    Y. Koide, “Can the Zee model explain the observed neutrino data?,” Phys. Rev. D64 (2001) 077301, arXiv:hep-ph/0104226 [hep-ph]

    2001 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Is the Zee model neutrino mass matrix ruled out?,

    X.-G. He, “Is the Zee model neutrino mass matrix ruled out?,” Eur. Phys. J. C34 (2004) 371–376, arXiv:hep-ph/0307172 [hep-ph]

    2004 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Basis-independent methods for the two-Higgs-doublet model,

    S. Davidson and H. E. Haber, “Basis-independent methods for the two-Higgs-doublet model,” Phys. Rev. D72 (2005) 035004, arXiv:hep-ph/0504050 [hep-ph] . [Erratum: Phys. Rev.D72,099902(2005)]

    2005 arXiv

  37. [45]

    A Combination of preliminary electroweak measurements and constraints on the standard model,

    LEP , ALEPH, DELPHI, L3, OP AL, LEP Electroweak W orking Group, SLD Electroweak Group, SLD Heavy Flavor Group Collaboration, “A Combination of preliminary electroweak measurements and constraints on the standard model,” arXiv:hep-ex/0312023 [hep-ex]

    arXiv

  38. [46]

    A multi-component model for observed astrophysical neutrinos,

    A. Palladino and W. Winter, “A multi-component model for observed astrophysical neutrinos,” Astron. Astrophys. 615 (2018) A168, arXiv:1801.07277 [astro-ph.HE]

    2018 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Search for Sources of Astrophysical Neutrinos Using Seven Years of IceCube Cascade Events,

    M. G. Aartsen et al., “Search for Sources of Astrophysical Neutrinos Using Seven Years of IceCube Cascade Events,” arXiv:1907.06714 [astro-ph.HE]

    1907

  40. [48]

    Ultrahigh-energy neutrino interactions,

    R. Gandhi, C. Quigg, M. H. Reno, and I. Sarcevic, “Ultrahigh-energy neutrino interactions,” Astropart. Phys. 5 (1996) 81–110, arXiv:hep-ph/9512364 [hep-ph]

    1996 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Glashow resonance as a window into cosmic neutrino sources,

    V. Barger, L. Fu, J. G. Learned, D. Marfatia, S. Pakvasa, and T. J. Weiler, “Glashow resonance as a window into cosmic neutrino sources,” Phys. Rev. D90 (2014) 121301, arXiv:1407.3255 [astro-ph.HE]

    2014 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Review of Particle Physics,

    Particle Data Group Collaboration, M. Tanabashi et al., “Review of Particle Physics,” Phys. Rev. D98 no. 3, (2018) 030001

    2018

  43. [51]

    http://lepsusy.web.cern.ch/lepsusy/

    LEP SUSY W orking Group Collaboration. http://lepsusy.web.cern.ch/lepsusy/

  44. [52]

    Search for Charged Higgs bosons: Combined Results Using LEP Data,

    ALEPH, DELPHI, L3, OP AL, LEP Collaboration, G. Abbiendi et al., “Search for Charged Higgs bosons: Combined Results Using LEP Data,” Eur. Phys. J. C73 (2013) 2463, arXiv:1301.6065 [hep-ex]

    2013 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Tests of the standard model and constraints on new physics from measurements of fermion pair production at 189-GeV to 7 209-GeV at LEP,

    OP ALCollaboration, G. Abbiendi et al., “Tests of the standard model and constraints on new physics from measurements of fermion pair production at 189-GeV to 7 209-GeV at LEP,” Eur. Phys. J. C33 (2004) 173–212, arXiv:hep-ex/0309053 [hep-ex]

    2004 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Determination of the number of light neutrino species from single photon production at LEP,

    L3 Collaboration, M. Acciarri et al., “Determination of the number of light neutrino species from single photon production at LEP,” Phys. Lett. B431 (1998) 199–208

    1998

  47. [55]

    Single photon and multiphoton events with missing energy in e+e− collisions at LEP,

    L3 Collaboration, P. Achard et al., “Single photon and multiphoton events with missing energy in e+e− collisions at LEP,” Phys. Lett. B587 (2004) 16–32, arXiv:hep-ex/0402002 [hep-ex]

    2004 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Constraints on Non-Standard Neutrino Interactions from Borexino Phase-II,

    Borexino Collaboration, S. K. Agarwalla et al., “Constraints on Non-Standard Neutrino Interactions from Borexino Phase-II,” arXiv:1905.03512 [hep-ph]

    1905 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Updated Constraints on Non-Standard Interactions from Global Analysis of Oscillation Data,

    I. Esteban, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, M. Maltoni, I. Martinez-Soler, and J. Salvado, “Updated Constraints on Non-Standard Interactions from Global Analysis of Oscillation Data,” JHEP 08 (2018) 180, arXiv:1805.04530 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Probing Non-Standard Interaction of Neutrinos with IceCube and DeepCore,

    A. Esmaili and A. Yu. Smirnov, “Probing Non-Standard Interaction of Neutrinos with IceCube and DeepCore,” JHEP 06 (2013) 026, arXiv:1304.1042 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Non-standard neutrino interactions in IceCube,

    IceCube Collaboration, M. Day, “Non-standard neutrino interactions in IceCube,” J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 718 no. 6, (2016) 062011

    2016

  52. [60]

    NSI and Neutrino Mass Models at DUNE,

    P. S. B. Dev, “NSI and Neutrino Mass Models at DUNE,” Talk given at PONDD 2018 . https://indico.fnal.gov/event/18430/session/6/ contribution/23/material/slides/0.pdf

    2018

  53. [61]

    IceCube-Gen2: A Vision for the Future of Neutrino Astronomy in Antarctica,

    IceCube Collaboration, M. G. Aartsen et al., “IceCube-Gen2: A Vision for the Future of Neutrino Astronomy in Antarctica,” arXiv:1412.5106 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv

  54. [62]

    Letter of intent for KM3NeT 2.0,

    KM3Net Collaboration, S. Adrian-Martinez et al., “Letter of intent for KM3NeT 2.0,” J. Phys. G43 no. 8, (2016) 084001, arXiv:1601.07459 [astro-ph.IM]

    2016 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Design and Initial Performance of the Askaryan Radio Array Prototype EeV Neutrino Detector at the South Pole,

    P. Allison et al., “Design and Initial Performance of the Askaryan Radio Array Prototype EeV Neutrino Detector at the South Pole,” Astropart. Phys. 35 (2012) 457–477, arXiv:1105.2854 [astro-ph.IM]

    2012 arXiv

  56. [64]

    A First Search for Cosmogenic Neutrinos with the ARIANNA Hexagonal Radio Array,

    ARIANNA Collaboration, S. W. Barwick et al., “A First Search for Cosmogenic Neutrinos with the ARIANNA Hexagonal Radio Array,” Astropart. Phys. 70 (2015) 12–26, arXiv:1410.7352 [astro-ph.HE]

    2015 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Constraints on the ultrahigh-energy cosmic neutrino flux from the fourth flight of ANITA,

    ANIT ACollaboration, P. W. Gorham et al., “Constraints on the ultrahigh-energy cosmic neutrino flux from the fourth flight of ANITA,” Phys. Rev. D99 no. 12, (2019) 122001, arXiv:1902.04005 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Development Toward a Ground-Based Interferometric Phased Array for Radio Detection of High Energy Neutrinos,

    J. Avva et al., “Development Toward a Ground-Based Interferometric Phased Array for Radio Detection of High Energy Neutrinos,” Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A869 (2017) 46–55, arXiv:1605.03525 [astro-ph.IM]

    2017 arXiv

  59. [67]

    The Next-Generation Radio Neutrino Observatory – Multi-Messenger Neutrino Astrophysics at Extreme Energies,

    J. A. Aguilar et al., “The Next-Generation Radio Neutrino Observatory – Multi-Messenger Neutrino Astrophysics at Extreme Energies,” arXiv:1907.12526 [astro-ph.HE]

    1907 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Can we observe the new physics manifestations by the use of ultra-high energy cosmic neutrinos?,

    O. M. Boyarkin and G. G. Boyarkina, “Can we observe the new physics manifestations by the use of ultra-high energy cosmic neutrinos?,” Astropart. Phys. 96 (2017) 18–23

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.