Hybrid detection of high-energy cosmic neutrinos with the next-generation neutrino detectors at the South Pole

J. A. Aguilar; K. D. de Vries; N. van Eijndhoven; P. Coppin; S. Toscano

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 24 references

Hybrid detection of high-energy cosmic neutrinos with the next-generation neutrino detectors at the South Pole

T0 review · 2 major / 5 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 This paper argues that a hybrid radio-optical detector at the South Pole, with ten radio stations beside a planned cubic-kilometer-scale optical array, could detect about one to two ultra-high-energy cosmic neutrinos per year—if the radio…

desk verdict A transparent first-order feasibility study that gives the first quantitative hybrid radio+optical event-rate estimate for IceCube-Gen2, conditional on an unproven 1 PeV radio trigger threshold that the authors themselves flag as under study. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.09563 v1 pith:C4G2OBR2 submitted 2019-08-26 hep-ex astro-ph.HEastro-ph.IM

S. Toscano , P. Coppin , K. D. de Vries , N. van Eijndhoven , J. A. Aguilar This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-exastro-ph.HEastro-ph.IM

keywords hybriddetectioncosmicneutrinosAskaryanradioemissionCherenkovopticalnext-generationSouthPoleobservatoryneutrinoeffectiveareacosmogenictriggerthreshold

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

This paper asks whether a future South Pole observatory can catch the same neutrino interaction twice: once through the radio pulse from its particle shower and once through the optical Cherenkov light of the muon it produces. Simulating a simplified geometry—one radio station about a kilometer from a planned 10 $km^{3}$ in-ice optical detector—the authors calculate that such hybrid events are rare but not negligible: at a radio threshold of 1 PeV, roughly 0.1–0.2 events per year per station are expected. Scaling to an optimized layout of about ten stations, the rate reaches approximately 1–2 events per year, making the channel potentially useful for studying the cosmogenic neutrino flux above 100 PeV. The calculation is explicitly conditional on a future low-energy radio trigger; at the current 10 PeV threshold, the same configuration would see too few events to be viable.

What carries the argument

The central object is the geometric coincidence volume between a single radio station and the in-ice optical detector. The radio station is modeled as a point at (0, 0, -200 m), and the optical detector as a cylinder of height 1 km and radius 1.5 km spanning depths from 1500 to 2500 m, with the station 1 km from the cylinder's edge. Selection requires that a muon-neutrino charged-current interaction produce a hadronic cascade above the radio energy threshold ($E_{\mathrm{th}} = 1$ or $10\,\mathrm{PeV}$) directed within the Cherenkov cone ($\theta_c \pm 2.5^\circ$) of the antenna, and that the accompanying muon reach the optical cylinder with $E_\mu > 10\,\mathrm{TeV}$ at entry. The event rate is computed through an effective area (Eq. 5.1) that renormalizes simulated interactions to the astrophysical flux, and the expected number of events follows from the integral in Eq. 5.3.

What would settle it

Measure the achieved radio trigger threshold of a deployed hybrid station with calibrated test pulses; if the real threshold is 10 PeV rather than 1 PeV, the paper's own rate calculation gives too few events. Alternatively, run a 10-station hybrid array with a verified 1 PeV trigger for several years: observing zero coincident events in five years would put a Poisson 90% upper limit around 0.46 events per year, below the predicted 1–2 events per year.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the hybrid radio–optical detection channel becomes viable at the scale of the next-generation South Pole observatory, provided the radio trigger can be pushed down to about 1 PeV. Using an isotropic astrophysical neutrino flux and simulating charged-current muon-neutrino interactions in the ice, the authors find that a single radio station at 200 m depth, placed about 1 km from the edge of a ~10 $km^{3}$ optical detector, produces an effective area corresponding to ~0.1–0.2 events per year; deploying roughly ten independent stations multiplies this to ~1–2 events per year. A hybrid event combines the Askaryan radio pulse from the hadronic cascade with the muon track in the optical volume, giving coincident energy, direction, and flavor information. The paper stresses that this rate depends on lowering the radio trigger threshold from the current ~10 PeV to ~1 PeV, a possibility it describes as under study and challenging.

Load-bearing premise

The predicted rate stands or falls with the assumption that the radio trigger threshold can be lowered to about 1 PeV; the paper itself describes this as currently under study and challenging, and at the existing 10 PeV threshold the expected rate is too small even with ten stations.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

At a 1 PeV radio threshold, one hybrid station yields 0.1–0.2 events per year, so a 10-station array reaches approximately 1–2 events per year.
At the current 10 PeV threshold, the expected rate stays too small even with ten stations, making the low-energy trigger the decisive factor for the channel's viability.
The predicted rate is maximized when the radio antenna sits about 1 km from the optical detector footprint, giving a concrete geometric guideline for future array design.
Hybrid events would provide simultaneous measurements of the radio cascade and the optical muon track, improving energy, direction, and flavor identification compared with either technique alone.
The quoted rate is conservative because all-flavor neutral-current interactions and electron-neutrino charged-current cascades also contribute to the hybrid channel.

Reading between the lines

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

If the hybrid trigger proves feasible, optical-detector alerts could be used to open radio readout windows, effectively turning a sparse radio array into a low-threshold instrument—an engineering extension the paper gestures at but does not design in detail.
The rate scales linearly with station count only while stations monitor independent volumes; the ~1 km optimal distance suggests that a 10-station layout is near the point where additional stations begin to add less effective volume, so future optimization should explore two-dimensional station density.
A null result from a 10-station hybrid array running for several years would not merely falsify the 1–2 events/year estimate—it would begin to constrain the high-energy extension of the astrophysical neutrino flux and the harder cosmogenic models, since the prediction is dominated by the assumed flux.
The same geometric coincidence argument could be adapted to other media, such as deep ice at other sites or the lunar regolith, where Askaryan radio emission and long-ranged muons may also overlap within a single instrumented volume.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague,

The short version: this is a clearly scoped, honest feasibility study that gives the first quantitative rate estimate for a hybrid radio+optical neutrino channel in an IceCube-Gen2-like geometry. It does not oversell itself; the abstract and conclusions state that the 1 PeV radio threshold is under study and that the calculation is preliminary. If you need a reference for what the hybrid idea could yield in event rate, this is the one.

What is actually new: Besson et al. 2009 proposed the hybrid concept qualitatively, but this paper actually simulates neutrino interactions in 3 km ice, applies a radio cascade-energy threshold, a Cherenkov-cone visibility cut, and a muon energy cut at the optical volume, and outputs an effective area and event rate as a function of antenna distance. The 0.1–0.2 events/yr per station, scaling to ~1–2 events/yr for 10 stations at 1 PeV threshold, is a useful planning number for Gen2 and RNO. The sensitivity curves against the IceCube flux and GZK models are standard and correctly drawn. The muon energy loss uses a simple continuous a+bE formula, appropriate at this level.

The soft spots are real but not hidden. The dominant one: the rate assumes a sharp threshold at Eth=1 PeV on the hadronic cascade energy, with no radio propagation, attenuation, noise, or trigger efficiency included. A 1 PeV cascade at ~1 km is near the noise floor, so the effective area is an upper bound, not a realistic expectation. The paper flags this indirectly when it calls the threshold feasibility 'challenging' and says it 'needs to be investigated further,' but the reader may miss that the quoted event rate is an optimistic ceiling. The 10 PeV threshold case is more solid because current interferometric triggers are already in that regime, and the paper correctly notes that the rate is too small even there. The optimal distance ~1 km from the optical array is a geometric result and probably robust, though it would shift with real radio attenuation.

The simulation also uses a cylindrical optical volume with no trigger efficiency or angular acceptance for the muon, and a single-point antenna with no station geometry. Those simplifications are stated and are acceptable for a first estimate. The CTEQ5 cross sections are old but adequate for order-of-magnitude rates at these energies; modern PDFs might shift the normalization by tens of percent. Self-citations are not a problem here; the ARA interferometric trigger and RNO pathfinder references are relevant.

Who is this for? Someone working on Gen2 radio or RNO detector design who wants a first-pass answer to 'could the hybrid channel give us events down to PeV energies?' It is not a paper that proves the hybrid trigger works; it is a calculation of what the payoff would be if it does. That is worth having.

My recommendation: send it to peer review. The conclusions are proportionate, the method is transparent, and the central assumption is openly flagged. A good referee should ask for a discussion of why a sharp threshold overestimates the rate and perhaps a crude parameterization of trigger efficiency, but the paper as a feasibility study stands. I would not cite it as evidence that hybrid detection will work—but I would cite it as the first quantitative estimate of the channel's potential.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a first-order simulation of a hybrid radio-optical neutrino detection channel for the proposed IceCube-Gen2 observatory at the South Pole. It models a single radio antenna at 200 m depth located near a ~10 km^3 in-ice optical Cherenkov detector, and computes effective areas, sensitivities, and expected event rates for two assumed radio trigger thresholds (1 PeV and 10 PeV) on the hadronic cascade energy, with a muon-energy cut. The central result is that for a radio threshold of 1 PeV and an optimized layout of about 10 radio stations, the hybrid channel could detect ~1-2 neutrino events per year (Section 6), driven by the IceCube astrophysical flux and two GZK model predictions. The authors emphasize that this is a first, geometry- and energy-threshold-based estimate and that the feasibility of reaching the 1 PeV threshold via a hybrid trigger requires further investigation.

Significance. The hybrid detection concept is genuinely novel and potentially useful for the design of next-generation neutrino detectors: a radio-optical coincidence could provide improved energy, direction, and flavor identification for neutrinos in the PeV-EeV range, a region currently poorly covered. The paper's main strength is its transparency: the simulation chain is described step by step, the assumptions (Cherenkov-cone visibility, sharp energy thresholds, muon propagation) are explicit, and the calculation is reproducible from the text. The authors also honestly flag the most fragile assumption—the 1 PeV radio threshold—as 'under study.' If the result holds as an order-of-magnitude estimate, it gives a concrete target for trigger design and motivates further detector-simulation efforts. The central claim is conditional, not a measurement, and is useful as a first feasibility gauge.

major comments (2)

[Section 4 and Section 6, radio threshold modeling] The simulation models radio detection as a sharp cut on the hadronic cascade energy (E > Eth) plus a geometric Cherenkov-cone visibility condition, with no treatment of radio-frequency attenuation, thermal noise, antenna response, or trigger efficiency. This is load-bearing for the central estimate: at Eth = 1 PeV, a cascade at ~1 km distance produces an Askaryan signal expected to be near the noise floor, so a real detector would have an energy- and distance-dependent efficiency far below the 100% implied by the sharp cut. The resulting event rate of 0.1-0.2 events/station/year and the 1-2 events/year for 10 stations (Section 6) should therefore be presented as an upper bound rather than a projected rate. The paper should explicitly quantify the limiting nature of this approximation (e.g., by folding in a simple parameterized detection efficiency or by giving a systematic uncertainty band), and the abstract and conclusions should state that this is an optimistic limit pending a realistic detector simulation.
[Section 5, Eq. (5.1) and effective-area method] The effective area A_eff(E) is computed by reweighting a simulated E^-1.1 event sample to the IceCube astrophysical flux of Eq. (3.1) and is then used in Eq. (5.3) to compute event rates for two GZK models. This is formally justified only if the detection efficiency—including the Cherenkov-cone selection and the sharp energy cut—is independent of the assumed flux shape and of the muon-energy cut. The paper does not demonstrate this independence, and the finite generation volume (radius 4 km, height 3 km) plus the radio reach of up to ~4 km (footnote 1) could introduce biases at the highest energies. The authors should state this assumption explicitly or test it by varying the generated spectral index.

minor comments (5)

[Abstract] The abstract reads 'a total event rate of ~1 event/year is achievable for a 10-stations array' while Section 5 reports 0.1-0.2 events/year per station; please state in the abstract that this rate is conditional on the assumed 1 PeV threshold and an idealized detection efficiency.
[Eq. (5.3)] Equation (5.3) integrates 4π · A_eff · dN/dE; please clarify in the text that dN/dE is the differential neutrino flux per unit solid angle and per flavor, so that the 4π factor represents the full downward hemisphere (or state the limiting solid angle used).
[Figures 2 and 3] The figures as provided lack explicit axis labels and units; please ensure all axes (e.g., energy in GeV, effective area in cm^2, event rate in yr^-1) are labeled in the final version.
[References] Reference [15] is a URL rather than a full citation; provide the complete bibliographic entry for the CTEQ5 distribution-function paper.
[Section 4, muon energy loss] Equation (4.2) uses the track length in meters water equivalent (mwe); please define this unit in the text for readers outside the field.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the hybrid event-rate estimate is a forward simulation using external flux models and assumed radio thresholds, with no fitted parameter or self-citation chain forcing the result.

full rationale

The central event-rate estimate (Section 5, Eq. 5.3) is a forward Monte Carlo calculation: simulated neutrino interactions are weighted to external flux models (the IceCube astrophysical flux and the Kotera/Ahlers GZK models), passed through explicit geometry and energy cuts (Cherenkov cone, E_th, E_mu > 10 TeV) to build an effective area, and then convolved with those same external models. No parameter is fitted to force the predicted 0.1–0.2 events/year per station or the ~1–2 events/year for 10 stations; the event rate is an output of the simulation, not an input. The 1 PeV radio threshold is an assumed scenario, explicitly described as “currently under study” and as a possibility that “needs to be investigated further”; this is an acknowledged limitation affecting the realism or correctness of the prediction, not a circular reduction. The paper’s self-references (the RNO pathfinder and the radar-reflectivity technique) are offered as future avenues in the conclusions and are not load-bearing in the derivation of the event rate. The cited external inputs—IceCube flux measurements, GZK flux models, CTEQ5 cross sections, and standard ice parameters—are independent of the paper’s own fitted values. The derivation is therefore self-contained and no circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central event-rate estimate rests on external flux and cross-section models plus several hand-chosen thresholds and geometric cuts. No new physical entities are introduced. The main free parameters are the radio energy threshold (1 PeV versus 10 PeV) and the muon energy cut, which together determine the predicted rate.

free parameters (4)

Radio trigger threshold Eth = 1 PeV = 1 PeV (assumed achievable via hybrid trigger)
The central event-rate prediction depends on lowering the radio threshold to 1 PeV. The paper notes this is currently under study, making it a hand-chosen assumption rather than a measured or derived quantity.
Radio trigger threshold Eth = 10 PeV = 10 PeV (current capability)
Used as the comparison scenario. It is an assumption based on current Askaryan detectors and is not fitted to data.
Muon energy cut E_mu > 10 TeV = 10 TeV (chosen)
Applied at the entrance of the optical volume to select muons that leave a detectable Cherenkov signal. The choice is reasonable but not derived from first principles.
Cherenkov cone angular acceptance = theta_c +/- 2.5 degrees
Radio emission is selected only for showers within 2.5 degrees of the Cherenkov angle. This is a simplified geometric cut that ignores propagation effects.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption CC/NC neutrino-nucleon cross sections are taken from the CTEQ5 parton distribution model
The cross sections are not computed from first principles but are adopted from ref. [15]. The result depends on these cross sections for event generation.
domain assumption Astrophysical neutrino flux is E^2 phi = 0.9e-8 (E/100 TeV)^-0.13 GeV cm^-2 s^-1 sr^-1 per flavor
Taken from IceCube measurement (ref. [14]) and extrapolated to higher energies without a cutoff for one of the rate calculations. This is an external input.
domain assumption Earth absorption suppresses neutrinos arriving from below the horizon; only zenith angles less than 90 degrees are considered
Standard treatment for TeV-PeV neutrinos, but it ignores the small probability of upgoing events at the highest energies.
domain assumption South Pole ice sheet is 3 km thick
Used as the generation volume height. This is a standard geophysical value, not validated within the paper.
domain assumption Muon energy loss is described by dE/dx = a + bE with a = 0.259 GeV/mwe and b = 0.363e-3 mwe^-1
The analytic formula from ref. [19] is a simplified continuous energy loss model that neglects stochastic losses.
domain assumption Radio signals can reach the antenna from within a 4 km radius despite an attenuation length of about 1 km
Stated in footnote 1. This is a rough range assumption that affects which events are considered visible.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Hybrid detection of high-energy cosmic neutrinos with the next-generation neutrino detectors at the South Pole." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/C4G2OBR2

@misc{pith2026190809563,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Hybrid detection of high-energy cosmic neutrinos with the next-generation neutrino detectors at the South Pole},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/C4G2OBR2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.09563}
}

read the original abstract

In 2013 the IceCube collaboration announced the discovery of a cosmic neutrino flux up to PeV energies, validating neutrino astronomy as the next promising observational technique to explore the high-energy Universe. The neutrino community is moving forward with the construction of new facilities to enhance the detection of these elusive particles at higher energies (up to and beyond EeV) and to increase the statistics at the high-energy end of the IceCube neutrino flux. Future large volume neutrino detectors, using both the radio Askaryan and the optical Cherenkov signal, will open the possibility of hybrid detection of neutrino interactions within the polar ice. In this contribution we present a first calculation of the expected number of events for a simplified geometry of one radio station located at 200 m depth in the vicinity of a ~10 km^3 in-ice Cherenkov detector, similar to the planned IceCube-Gen2 neutrino observatory. Preliminary simulations show that a total event rate of ~1 event/year is achievable for a 10-stations array assuming that the Askaryan radio detectors can lower their energy threshold down to ~PeV energies. Such a possibility is currently under study for the future radio extension foreseen as one of the surface components of IceCube-Gen2.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.09563 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Sketch of the detection principle for a hybrid event. The Askaryan emission (in green) generated at the interaction point is detected by the radio array. The resulting lepton (a muon in this case) propagates through the ice generating Cherenkov photons (in blue) detected by the in-ice detector. Similarly, all-flavor neutrino neutral current interactions (NC) and νe CC interactions could produce a high-energy cascade… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Left: Effective area as a function of the energy for different cascade energy thresholds. The dashed lines are obtained considering all muons reaching the in-ice detection volume, while solid lines include only muons with an energy Eµ > 10 TeV at the entrance of the in-ice detector. Right: Hybrid detector sensitivity for one antenna at 200 m depth and an in-ice volume similar to what is planned for IceCube-Gen2. The… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** shows the event rate (per year) as a function of the antenna distance from the in-ice optical detector. The two plots show results for the two thresholds at 1 PeV (left) and 10 PeV (right) for the two GZK models considered for this study and the expectation from the IceCube astrophysical flux, assuming that no cut-off is observed at high energies. We find an optimal distance of ∼ 1 km. As expected, the number of det… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Energy distribution of the hybrid events expected from different GZK models and the IceCube astrophysical flux. The histograms show the case for a radio detection threshold of 1 PeV and a final muon energy reaching the in-ice detector bigger than 10 TeV. The total numb…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

24 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

[1]

M. G. Aartsen et al. (IceCube Collaboration), Phys.Rev.Lett., 113:101101, 2014

work page 2014
[2]

M. G. Aartsen et al. (IceCube Collaboration), Science 342 (2013) 1242856

work page 2013
[3]

Greisen, K, Physical Review Letters 16, 748 (1966); Zatsepin, G. T. and Kuz’min, V . A., Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics Letters 4, 78 (1966)

work page 1966
[4]

Aab et al

A. Aab et al. (Pierre Auger Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 90, 122006 (2014)

work page 2014
[5]

Abbasi et al

R. Abbasi et al. (Telescope Array Collaboration), Astropart. Phys. 64, 49 (2014)

work page 2014
[6]

G. A. Askaryan, JETP 14 (1962) 441; G. A. Askaryan, JETP 21 (1965) 658

work page 1962
[7]

P. W. Gorham et al. (ANITA Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 171101

work page
[8]

Allison et al

P. Allison et al. (ARA Collaboration), Astropart. Phys. 35, 457 (2012)

work page 2012

Show all 24 references

[9]

S. W. Barwick et al., (ARIANNA Collaboration), Astropart. Phys. 90, 50 (2017)

2017
[10]

P. W. Gorham et al., (ANITA Collaboration) Astropart. Phys., 32:10-41, 2009

2009
[11]

M. G. Aartsen et al. (IceCube-Gen2 Collaboration), http://arxiv.org/abs/1412.5106

arXiv
[12]

M. G. Aartsen et al. (IceCube-Gen2 Collaboration), Neutrino astronomy with the next-generation IceCube Neutrino Observatory, ASTRO2020 decadal survey: https://sites.nationalacademies.org/DEPS/astro2020/index.htm
[13]

Besson et al., Nucl

D. Besson et al., Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A604 (2009) S179-S181

2009
[14]

M. G. Aartsen et al. (IceCube Collaboration), Astrophys.J. 833 (2016) no.1, 3

2016
[15]

https://epjc.epj.org/articles/epjc/abs/2000/03/epjc0196/epjc0196.html

2000
[16]

Tanabashi et al

M. Tanabashi et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D 98, 030001 (2018)

2018
[17]

P. Allison et al., (ARA Collaboration), Design and Performance of an Interferometric Trigger Array for Radio Detection of High-Energy Neutrinos, ArXiv e-prints (Submitted to NIM), arXiv:1809.04573 (2018)

2018 arXiv
[18]

Avva et al., (ARA Collaboration), Development Toward a Ground-Based Interferometric Phased Array for Radio Detection of High Energy Neutrinos, Nucl

J. Avva et al., (ARA Collaboration), Development Toward a Ground-Based Interferometric Phased Array for Radio Detection of High Energy Neutrinos, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A869, 46 (2017)

2017
[19]

Chirkin and W

D. Chirkin and W. Rhode, arXiv:hep-ph/0407075

arXiv
[20]

Kotera, D

K. Kotera, D. Allard & A. V . Olinto, JCAP 1010:013, 2010

2010
[21]

Ahlers et al., Astroparticle Physics 34, 106 (2010)

M. Ahlers et al., Astroparticle Physics 34, 106 (2010)

2010
[22]

J. A. Aguilar et al. (RNO Collaboration), The Next-Generation Radio Neutrino Observatory – Multi-Messenger Neutrino Astrophysics at Extreme Energies ASTRO2020 decadal survey: https://sites.nationalacademies.org/DEPS/astro2020/index.htm
[23]

K. D. De Vries, K. Hanson, T. Meures, Astroparticle Physics, 60 (2015) 25

2015
[24]

De Vries et al., PoS(ICRC2017)1049

K. De Vries et al., PoS(ICRC2017)1049. 8

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

M. G. Aartsen et al. (IceCube Collaboration), Phys.Rev.Lett., 113:101101, 2014

work page 2014

[2] [2]

M. G. Aartsen et al. (IceCube Collaboration), Science 342 (2013) 1242856

work page 2013

[3] [3]

Greisen, K, Physical Review Letters 16, 748 (1966); Zatsepin, G. T. and Kuz’min, V . A., Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics Letters 4, 78 (1966)

work page 1966

[4] [4]

Aab et al

A. Aab et al. (Pierre Auger Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 90, 122006 (2014)

work page 2014

[5] [5]

Abbasi et al

R. Abbasi et al. (Telescope Array Collaboration), Astropart. Phys. 64, 49 (2014)

work page 2014

[6] [6]

G. A. Askaryan, JETP 14 (1962) 441; G. A. Askaryan, JETP 21 (1965) 658

work page 1962

[7] [7]

P. W. Gorham et al. (ANITA Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 171101

work page

[8] [8]

Allison et al

P. Allison et al. (ARA Collaboration), Astropart. Phys. 35, 457 (2012)

work page 2012