Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

A search for cosmogenic neutrinos with the ARIANNA test bed using 4.5 years of data

T0 review · 3 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 After 4.5 years of listening from the Ross Ice Shelf, the seven-station ARIANNA test bed found no neutrino candidates and set a 90% confidence upper limit of $E^2\Phi = 1.7\times 10^{-6}$ GeV cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ sr$^{-1}$ in the decade…

desk verdict A transparent, honest ARIANNA search that improves their own limit by an order of magnitude; the one load-bearing caveat is an ambiguous bed-reflection coefficient in the simulation, which needs stating and a quick systematic check, not a rejection. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.00840 v3 pith:QP5ZQGOB submitted 2019-09-02 astro-ph.IM astro-ph.HE

A. Anker , S. W. Barwick , H. Bernhoff , D. Z. Besson , N. Bingefors , D. García-Fernández , G. Gaswint , C. Glaser
show 18 more authors
A. Hallgren J. C. Hanson S. R. Klein S. A. Kleinfelder R. Lahmann U. Latif J. Nam A. Novikov A. Nelles M. P. Paul C. Persichilli I. Plaisier T. Prakash S. R. Shively J. Tatar E. Unger S.-H. Wang C. Welling
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.IMastro-ph.HE PACS 95.55.Vj95.85.Ry
keywords ultra-high-energyneutrinoscosmogenicAskaryaneffectradiodetectioniniceRossShelfdiffusefluxupperlimitARIANNAMonteCarloeffectivevolume
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—ghostly particles produced when the most energetic cosmic rays collide with background radiation—should produce a nanosecond radio flash when they interact in Antarctic ice. ARIANNA's seven solar-powered stations on the Ross Ice Shelf listened for that flash between December 2014 and February 2019 and found no neutrino candidates. The paper converts the null result into a 90% confidence upper limit on the diffuse flux: $E^2\Phi = 1.7\times 10^{-6}\,\mathrm{GeV\,cm^{-2}\,s^{-1}\,sr^{-1}}$ in the decade centered at $10^{18}\,\mathrm{eV}$, an order of magnitude stronger than the collaboration's previous limit. The larger point is that a sparse, surface, radio-quiet detector can run reliably for years, reject all backgrounds with a simple template match, and serve as the basis for a much larger telescope.

What carries the argument

The argument rides on two linked objects. The analysis tool is template matching in the two-dimensional space of $\chi_{\rm ave}$ versus SNR: simulated neutrino signals concentrate at high correlation and high amplitude, while thermal and environmental backgrounds fall off as a power law in that space. The background tail is fit and extrapolated to set a signal-region boundary that yields an expected background of 0.5 events, and the same boundary is applied to the data. The flux conversion then uses the simulated effective volume $V_{\rm eff}$ from the ShelfMC Monte Carlo, which generates Askaryan emission, propagates direct and ice-water-reflected rays through the ice shelf, and applies the stations' 2-of-4 trigger logic; Eq. (4.1) divides the Feldman-Cousins factor by $V_{\rm eff}$, livetime, and efficiency. The effective volume is what converts 'no events seen' into a flux limit, so its accuracy is the mechanism that carries the whole result.

What would settle it

A calibration experiment would settle it: fire a pulser at a known depth—or use the stations' own heartbeat transmitter—repeatedly, and compare the measured trigger rate with the Monte Carlo prediction for the same geometry. If measurements fall systematically below prediction, the effective volume is overestimated and the flux limit should move upward; recomputing the limit with the measured basal reflection coefficient $\sqrt{R}=0.82$ instead of 0.9 is a concrete immediate version of that test.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Over the full data set the seven-station test bed collected 2906.9 days of livetime, corrected for readout deadtime and for periods when field camp or calibration activities could contaminate data. For each triggered waveform the analysis computes $\chi_{\rm ave}$, the best Pearson correlation against a library of simulated neutrino templates averaged over co-polarized antenna pairs, and plots it against signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). The signal region is defined from the data itself: the background tail in each SNR bin is fit to a power law and extrapolated to the threshold where only 0.5 background events would be expected over the whole livetime, with the threshold weighted by where simulated neutrinos fall. The signal region retains 81% of weighted simulated neutrinos for the older amplifier series and 78% for the newer series—a combined efficiency of 79%—and no triggered event falls inside it. Using the Feldman-Cousins 90% upper limit with zero observed and zero expected background, the authors obtain $E^2\Phi \le 1.7\times 10^{-6}\,\mathrm{GeV\,cm^{-2}\,s^{-1}\,sr^{-1}}$ for a decade-wide bin centered at $10^{18}\,\mathrm{eV}$.

Load-bearing premise

The whole limit is inversely proportional to the simulated effective volume, so the load-bearing premise is that the Monte Carlo correctly predicts how often neutrinos would make a station trigger; in particular it assumes a depth-averaged attenuation length of 500 m, a reflection coefficient of 0.9 at the ice-water interface, and ignores interactions in the shadow zone where ray bending blocks signals from reaching the surface.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At 90% confidence, the true diffuse ultra-high-energy neutrino flux in the decade centered at $10^{18}\,\mathrm{eV}$ lies below $1.7\times 10^{-6}\,\mathrm{GeV\,cm^{-2}\,s^{-1}\,sr^{-1}}$, assuming the simulated effective volume is correct.
  • A simple template-matching cut with an expected background of 0.5 events can run for 7.96 station-years and admit zero background events, so the same analysis method scales cleanly to a much larger array.
  • Sustained operation at Moore's Bay and at the South Pole demonstrates that the solar-powered, self-contained station design is reliable enough and radio-quiet enough to serve as the building block for a large-area telescope.
  • The test bed's transient-source sensitivity is already comparable to previous instruments' sensitivity in the direction of GW170817, so even a pilot array can contribute to multi-messenger follow-up campaigns.
  • A future 130-station array based on this technology, run for five years, would be sensitive enough to constrain the proton fraction of ultra-high-energy cosmic rays to 10% or less.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial extension: combined with current cosmogenic neutrino models, a limit this low starts to squeeze the most optimistic proton-dominated scenarios for the highest-energy cosmic rays, although the test bed alone cannot exclude them.
  • Editorial extension: the simulated effective volume uses a basal power reflection coefficient of 0.9 while the paper's own site measurement implies $\sqrt{R}=0.82$; rerunning the simulation with the measured value is a direct way to test how much the limit would soften.
  • Editorial extension: the Moore's Bay field of view sweeps across the declination band containing the flaring blazar TXS 0506+056, so a scaled array at this site could follow up the same class of neutrino-emitting blazars.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports a search for ultra-high-energy neutrinos with the seven-station ARIANNA test bed at Moore's Bay, using data collected between December 2014 and February 2019. After defining a signal region in the (chi_ave, SNR) plane with a template-matching procedure, no neutrino candidates remain, with a combined signal efficiency of 79%. The central result is a 90% confidence upper limit on the diffuse neutrino flux of E^2 Phi = 1.7e-6 GeV cm^-2 s^-1 sr^-1 in a decade-wide bin centered at 1e18 eV, an order-of-magnitude improvement over the previous ARIANNA limit. The limit is obtained from the simulated effective volume, the measured livetime, the analysis efficiency, and a Feldman-Cousins factor.

Significance. If correct, the result demonstrates the long-term reliability of the ARIANNA surface-radio architecture and improves the ARIANNA diffuse-flux limit by an order of magnitude near 1e18 eV. The analysis is transparent and conservative in several respects: it excludes periods of camp occupation and HiCal pulser operation, corrects for DAQ deadtime, uses only transferred data while estimating the recoverable fraction, and conservatively adopts zero expected background in the limit calculation. The main caveat is that the quoted limit scales inversely with the simulated effective volume, whose key inputs are not systematically varied or assigned uncertainties.

major comments (3)
  1. [Table 1 and Sec. 2.2] The ShelfMC simulation uses a basal power reflection coefficient of R = 0.9 (Table 1), while Sec. 2.2 quotes the measured electric-field reflection coefficient sqrt(R) = 0.82 +/- 0.07 from [30], corresponding to a power coefficient of roughly 0.67 +/- 0.13. Since the reflected path dominates the effective volume (Fig. 5) and the limit in Eq. (4.1) is inversely proportional to Veff (Eq. (3.2)), using R = 0.9 in the simulation could overestimate Veff and make the quoted limit optimistic if the measured value is correct. The paper does not quantify d ln Veff/dR nor report a systematic band from varying R. I request a rerun of ShelfMC with R = 0.67 (or at least a scan over R within the measurement uncertainty) and a corresponding revision of the limit, or a clear justification for why 0.9 is the appropriate input despite the quoted measurement.
  2. [Sec. 4.2 and Fig. 10] The signal-region boundary is set by extrapolating a power-law fit to the high-chi_ave tail of the background, with no reported goodness-of-fit, fit uncertainty, or comparison with an alternative background model. The expected background of 0.5 events depends on this extrapolation. Although the analysis subsequently sets the expected background to zero, which is conservative for the limit, the claimed signal efficiency of 79% and the statement that the region contains no events are tied to the fitted boundary. I ask the authors to show the fit quality explicitly and to test the sensitivity of the boundary to the number of tail points used and to the choice of functional form.
  3. [Sec. 4.3 / Eq. (4.1)] No systematic uncertainties are propagated into the quoted limit. The inputs entering Eq. (4.1) all carry uncertainties: the attenuation length (Sec. 2.2, 460 +/- 20 m at low frequency), the basal reflection coefficient (0.82 +/- 0.07), the ice thickness (576 +/- 8 m), the livetime, and the analysis efficiency. Because the result is an upper limit with no observed candidates, the numerical value of the limit is the main physics output and should be accompanied by a systematic band, or at least by a statement of how much Veff, and hence the limit, changes under these variations.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 3.2 / Abstract] The abstract says '4.5 years of data' while the livetime is given as 2906.9 days (7.96 station-years); please clarify that 4.5 years refers to the calendar span and not the total detector livetime.
  2. [Fig. 9] The two panels of Fig. 9 use different color scales (events per bin up to 10^3 and 10^4, respectively); a common color scale would make the comparison between the 100-series and 200-series stations clearer.
  3. [Sec. 4.5] In the sentence 'was operated for less that 40 days,' 'less that' should be 'less than.'
  4. [Sec. 2.2] The sentence beginning 'At a distance of 110 km...' is grammatically awkward ('is relatively close proximity to'); it should be reworded for clarity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the neutrino flux limit is computed from independent livetime, Monte Carlo effective volume, and Feldman-Cousins statistics, with no parameter fitted to the final flux value.

full rationale

The paper's central claim, the 90% confidence upper limit E^2 Phi = 1.7e-6 GeV cm^-2 s^-1 sr^-1 at 10^18 eV, is obtained from Eq. (4.1) using the measured livetime, the simulated single-station effective volume Veff from Eq. (3.2), the analysis efficiency from simulated signal templates, and the Feldman-Cousins factor FC90 = 2.44. None of these ingredients is fitted to the final flux value, and the limit is not defined in terms of itself: it is a bound derived from a null observation and independent Monte Carlo inputs. The only data-driven element is the background estimate used to define the signal region boundary in Sec. 4.2, where a power-law fit to the high-chi_ave tail is extrapolated to set a 0.5-event background expectation; this calibrates the analysis threshold but does not encode the target flux result. The cited simulation works, including the ShelfMC thesis and the ANITA-derived icemc framework, provide the simulation machinery, while the key site parameters (ice thickness, attenuation length, reflection coefficient, density profile) are independently measured and cited from external or prior measurement papers. The apparent tension between the Table 1 simulation choice R = 0.9 and the measured power reflection coefficient derived from sqrt(R) = 0.82 +/- 0.07 in Sec. 2.2 is a legitimate systematic-uncertainty concern about Veff and therefore about the absolute limit, but it is not circularity: even if Veff is overestimated, the paper's derivation still proceeds from inputs to output rather than assuming the output. Similarly, the shadow-zone treatment and the LPM simulation choices are modeling approximations, not instances of fitted inputs being renamed as predictions. No quoted equation or construction reduces the final limit to the measured flux itself, and no load-bearing argument depends solely on an unverified self-citation. The analysis is self-contained against external benchmarks and the claim could in principle be invalidated by independent simulation or data, which confirms that the derivation is not circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The limit rests on a chain of domain assumptions about the detector simulation and the site (ice density profile, attenuation, reflection, trigger, cross sections, background tail model). No new particles or forces are introduced. The one hand-chosen analysis parameter is the 0.5-event background expectation that sets the signal region boundary.

free parameters (1)
  • Target expected background events in signal region = 0.5 events over full livetime
    Section 4.2: the chi_ave threshold per SNR bin is chosen so a total of 0.5 background events are expected to pass over the whole livetime, weighted by each station type's livetime and the expected neutrino distribution. This choice sets the signal efficiency (78 to 81 percent) and, indirectly, the resulting limit; a different target would change the boundary and efficiency.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Neutrino-nucleon cross sections from Connolly et al. [61] are used to compute the water-equivalent interaction length L(E) in Eq. 4.1.
    The limit scales inversely with L(E), so cross-section uncertainties are part of the limit, but they are not propagated into the quoted number (Sec. 4.3).
  • domain assumption The Askaryan signal parametrization of Alvarez-Muniz, Vazquez and Zas [48] correctly describes radio emission used for the templates and the effective volume.
    Section 3.3 states that the frequency-domain signal is calculated according to this parametrization, validated against the ZHS Monte Carlo. This underlies both Veff and the template shapes.
  • domain assumption The Ross Ice Shelf is modeled with an exponential density profile n(d) = 1.78 + (1.3 - 1.78) exp(-d/34.48 m), and no interaction vertices are generated in the shadow zone.
    Section 3.3, Eq. 3.1 and the following paragraph; the shadow-zone exclusion is conservative and the paper notes the influence is small except possibly at the highest energies.
  • domain assumption The simulation uses a depth-averaged attenuation length of 500 m and a basal 'Reflection Coefficient' of 0.9 (Table 1).
    Taken from prior radar measurements [30], but Table 1's reflection coefficient is ambiguous relative to the measured sqrt(R) = 0.82 +/- 0.07 given in Sec. 2.2. This is load-bearing for Veff.
  • domain assumption The background in the chi_ave versus SNR plane is dominated by thermal noise, and the high-chi tail in each SNR bin follows a power law that can be extrapolated.
    Section 4.2 uses a power-law fit to the 300 highest chi_ave events (excluding the single highest) in each bin to define the signal region boundary. A wrong tail model would change the efficiency and expected background.
  • domain assumption The GZK neutrino spectrum of Engel, Seckel and Stanev [55] is used to weight the simulated events in the effective-volume calculation.
    Section 3.4 and Table 1; the final limit is written as model-independent per decade, so the spectrum choice mainly affects the per-bin statistics of Veff rather than the formula itself.
  • domain assumption The detector trigger is modeled as a 2-of-4 majority logic above a 4-sigma thermal-noise threshold, and amplifiers are linear below 800 mV.
    Sections 2.5, 2.6 and Table 1; these assumptions enter both Veff and the template analysis, and amplifier clipping is handled by an 800 mV cutoff in the signal region.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A search for cosmogenic neutrinos with the ARIANNA test bed using 4.5 years of data." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QP5ZQGOB

@misc{pith2026190900840,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A search for cosmogenic neutrinos with the ARIANNA test bed using 4.5 years of data},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QP5ZQGOB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.00840}
}
abstract

The primary mission of the ARIANNA ultra-high energy neutrino telescope is to uncover astrophysical sources of neutrinos with energies greater than $10^{16}\mathrm{eV}$. A pilot array, consisting of seven ARIANNA stations located on the surface of the Ross Ice Shelf in Antarctica, was commissioned in November 2014. We report on the search for astrophysical neutrinos using data collected between November 2014 and February 2019. A straight-forward template matching analysis yielded no neutrino candidates, with a signal efficiency of 79%. We find a 90% confidence upper limit on the diffuse neutrino flux of $E^2\Phi=1.7\times 10^{-6}\mathrm{GeV cm^{-2}s^{-1}sr^{-1}}$ for a decade wide logarithmic bin centered at a neutrino energy of $10^{18}\mathrm{eV}$, which is an order of magnitude improvement compared to the previous limit reported by the ARIANNA collaboration. The ARIANNA stations, including purpose built cosmic-ray stations at the Moore's Bay site and demonstrator stations at the South Pole, have operated reliably. Sustained operation at two distinct sites confirms that the flexible and adaptable architecture can be deployed in any deep ice, radio quiet environment. We show that the scientific capabilities, technical innovations, and logistical requirements of ARIANNA are sufficiently well understood to serve as the basis for large area radio-based neutrino telescope with a wide field-of-view.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Instrument design and performance of the first seven stations of RNO-G

    astro-ph.IM 2024-11 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The first seven RNO-G stations are commissioned and performing to design expectations, with 10-20 ps timing resolution and trigger thresholds near design targets.

  2. Neutrino vertex reconstruction with in-ice radio detectors using surface reflections and implications for the neutrino energy resolution

    astro-ph.IM 2019-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The time delay between direct and surface-reflected radio pulses can localize neutrino interaction vertices to 10-12% and contributes a neutrino-energy uncertainty well below the inelasticity floor, with an in-situ pr...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 62 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [30]

    J. C. Hanson et al.,Radar absorption, basal reflection, thickness and polarization measurements from the Ross Ice Shelf, Antarctica, Journal of Glaciology61 (2015) 438

    work page 2015

  2. [1]

    Francesco Fenu for the Pierre Auger collaboration,The cosmic ray energy spectrum measured using the Pierre Auger Observatory, inProceedings of 35th International Cosmic Ray Conference — PoS(ICRC2017)486, 2017, DOI

    work page 2017

  3. [2]

    Greisen,End to the cosmic-ray spectrum?, Physical Review Letters16 (1966) 748

    K. Greisen,End to the cosmic-ray spectrum?, Physical Review Letters16 (1966) 748

    work page 1966

  4. [3]

    Zatsepin and V

    G. Zatsepin and V. Kuz’min,Upper limit of the spectrum of cosmic rays, JETP Letters 4 (1966) 78

    work page 1966

  5. [4]

    Ackermann et al.,Astrophysics Uniquely Enabled by Observations of High-Energy Cosmic Neutrinos, Bull

    M. Ackermann et al.,Astrophysics Uniquely Enabled by Observations of High-Energy Cosmic Neutrinos, Bull. Am. Astron. Soc.51 (2019) 185

    work page 2019

  6. [5]

    F. W. Stecker,Ultrahigh Energy Photons, Electrons, and Neutrinos, the Microwave Background, and the Universal Cosmic-Ray Hypothesis, Astrophysics and Space Science20 (1973) 47

    work page 1973

  7. [6]

    Beresinsky and G

    V. Beresinsky and G. Zatsepin,Cosmic rays at ultra high energies (neutrino?), Physics Letters B 28 (1969) 423

    work page 1969

  8. [7]

    IceCube collaboration, Differential limit on the extremely-high-energy cosmic neutrino flux in the presence of astrophysical background from nine years of IceCube data, Physical Review D 98 (2018) 062003

    work page 2018

Show all 65 references
  1. [8]

    ANITAcollaboration, Constraints on the diffuse high-energy neutrino flux from the third flight of ANITA, Physical Review D98 (2018) 022001

    2018

  2. [9]

    RICE collaboration, Updated results from the RICE experiment and future prospects for ultra-high energy neutrino detection at the south pole, Physical Review D85 (2012)

    2012

  3. [10]

    C. Kopper for the IceCube collaboration,Observation of astrophysical neutrinos in six years of IceCube data, inProceedings of 35th International Cosmic Ray Conference — PoS(ICRC2017)981, 2017, DOI

    2017

  4. [11]

    Haack and C

    C. Haack and C. Wiebusch for the IceCube collaboration,A measurement of the diffuse astrophysical muon neutrino flux using eight years of IceCube data., inProceedings of 35th International Cosmic Ray Conference — PoS(ICRC2017)1005, 2017, DOI

    2017

  5. [12]

    IceCube collaboration, Multimessenger observations of a flaring blazar coincident with high-energy neutrino IceCube-170922a, Science (2018) eaat1378

    2018

  6. [13]

    IceCube collaboration, Neutrino emission from the direction of the blazar TXS 0506+056 prior to the IceCube-170922a alert, Science (2018) eaat2890

    2018

  7. [14]

    Ahlers and F

    M. Ahlers and F. Halzen,Opening a new window onto the universe with IceCube, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics102 (2018) 73

    2018

  8. [15]

    Gerhardt et al.,A prototype station for ARIANNA: A detector for cosmic neutrinos, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A624 (2010) 85

    L. Gerhardt et al.,A prototype station for ARIANNA: A detector for cosmic neutrinos, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A624 (2010) 85

    2010

  9. [16]

    ARIANNA collaboration, A first search for cosmogenic neutrinos with the ARIANNA Hexagonal Radio Array, Astroparticle Physics 70 (2015) 12

    2015

  10. [17]

    Space Res.64 (2019) 2595 [1903.01609]

    ARIANNA collaboration, Targeting ultra-high energy neutrinos with the ARIANNA experiment, Adv. Space Res.64 (2019) 2595 [1903.01609]

    2019 arXiv

  11. [18]

    ARIANNA collaboration, Neutrino vertex reconstruction with in-ice radio detectors using surface reflections and implications for the neutrino energy resolution, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics11 (2019) 030 [1909.02677]. – 20 –

    2019 arXiv

  12. [19]

    C. Glaser for the ARIANNA collaboration,Neutrino direction and energy resolution of Askaryan detectors, inProceedings of 36th International Cosmic Ray Conference — PoS(ICRC2019)899, 2019

    2019

  13. [20]

    IceCube collaboration, Constraints on Ultrahigh-Energy Cosmic-Ray Sources from a Search for Neutrinos above 10 PeV with IceCube, Physical Review Letters117 (2016) 241101

    2016

  14. [21]

    ARA collaboration, Performance of two Askaryan Radio Array stations and first results in the search for ultrahigh energy neutrinos, Physical Review D93 (2016) 082003

    2016

  15. [22]

    GRAND collaboration, The giant radio array for neutrino detection (GRAND): Science and design, 1810.09994

    arXiv

  16. [23]

    J. Nam for the ARIANNA and TAROGE collaborations,High-elevation synoptic radio array for detection of upward moving air-showers, deployed in the antarctic mountains, in Proceedings of 36th International Cosmic Ray Conference — PoS(ICRC2019)967, 2019

    2019

  17. [24]

    S.Wissel et al.,Concept Study for the Beamforming Elevated Array for Cosmic Neutrinos (BEACON), inProceedings of the 36th International Cosmic Ray Conference (ICRC2019), 2019

    2019

  18. [25]

    S.-H. Wang for the ARIANNA and TAROGE collaborations,Status, Calibration, and Cosmic Ray Detection of ARIANNA-HCR Station, inProceedings of 36th International Cosmic Ray Conference — PoS(ICRC2019)462, 2019

    2019

  19. [26]

    G. A. Askar’yan,Coherent Radio Emission from Cosmic Showers in Air and in Dense Media, Soviet Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics21 (1965) 658

    1965

  20. [27]

    ANITAcollaboration, Observations of the Askaryan Effect in Ice, Physical Review Letters99 (2007) 171101

    2007

  21. [28]

    Persichilli,Performance and Simulation of the ARIANNA Pilot Array, with Implications for Future Ultra-high Energy Neutrino Astronomy, Ph.D

    C. Persichilli,Performance and Simulation of the ARIANNA Pilot Array, with Implications for Future Ultra-high Energy Neutrino Astronomy, Ph.D. thesis, University of California, Irvine, 2018

    2018

  22. [29]

    ARIANNA collaboration, Design and Performance of the ARIANNA HRA-3 Neutrino Detector Systems, IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science62 (2015) 2202

    2015

  23. [31]

    Katz,KM3NeT: Towards a km3 Mediterranean neutrino telescope, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A567 (2006) 457

    U. Katz,KM3NeT: Towards a km3 Mediterranean neutrino telescope, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A567 (2006) 457

    2006

  24. [32]

    Avrorin et al.,The prototyping/early construction phase of the BAIKAL-GVD project, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A742 (2014) 82

    A. Avrorin et al.,The prototyping/early construction phase of the BAIKAL-GVD project, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A742 (2014) 82

    2014

  25. [33]

    Google Maps

    “Google Maps.” [Online https://www.google.com/maps/@-78.3853509,163.1242104,196008m/data=!3m1!1e3; accessed 27-August-2018], 2018

    2018

  26. [34]

    Afar communications inc

    “Afar communications inc..” [Onlinehttp://afar.net/; accessed 25-July-2019]

    2019

  27. [35]

    Create design corp

    “Create design corp..” [Onlinehttp://www.cd-corp.com/english/; accessed 25-July-2019]

    2019

  28. [36]

    Prakash,A Fully-Synchronous Multi-GHz Analog Waveform Recording And Triggering Circuit, Ph.D

    T. Prakash,A Fully-Synchronous Multi-GHz Analog Waveform Recording And Triggering Circuit, Ph.D. thesis, University of California, Irvine, 2017

    2017

  29. [37]

    Chiem,Multi-Gigahertz Synchronous Sampling and Triggering (SST) Circuit with Picosecond Timing Resolution, Ph.D

    E. Chiem,Multi-Gigahertz Synchronous Sampling and Triggering (SST) Circuit with Picosecond Timing Resolution, Ph.D. thesis, University of California, Irvine, 2017

    2017

  30. [38]

    G. Gaswint for the ARIANNA collaboration,New results on angular reconstruction of deep pulser radio signals, inProceedings of the 36th International Cosmic Ray Conference (ICRC2019), 2019. – 21 –

    2019

  31. [39]

    C. Persichilli for the ARIANNA collaboration,Radio search for EHE neutrinos with the ARIANNA pilot array, and ARIANNA performance projections, inProceedings of The 35th International Cosmic Ray Conference — PoS(ICRC2017)977, 2017

    2017

  32. [40]

    A. Nelles for the ARIANNA collaboration,A wind-turbine for autonomous stations for radio detection of neutrinos, inProceedings of 36th International Cosmic Ray Conference — PoS(ICRC2019)968, 2019

    2019

  33. [41]

    ARIANNA collaboration, Radio detection of air showers with the ARIANNA experiment on the Ross Ice Shelf, Astroparticle Physics 90 (2017) 50

    2017

  34. [42]

    A. Nelles for the ARIANNA collaboration,Cosmic-ray detection with and novel reconstruction algorithms for the ARIANNA experiment, inProceedings of 36th International Cosmic Ray Conference — PoS(ICRC2019)366, 2019

    2019

  35. [43]

    Welling, C

    C. Welling, C. Glaser and A. Nelles,Reconstructing the cosmic-ray energy from the radio signal measured in one single station, JCAP 1910 (2019) 075 [1905.11185]

    2019 arXiv

  36. [44]

    S. H. Wang for the ARIANNA collaboration,Calibration, Performance, and Cosmic Ray Detection of ARIANNA-HCR Prototype Station, inProceedings of The 35th International Cosmic Ray Conference — PoS(ICRC2017)358, 2017

    2017

  37. [45]

    ARA collaboration, Design and initial performance of the Askaryan Radio Array prototype EeV neutrino detector at the South Pole, Astroparticle Physics 35 (2012) 457

    2012

  38. [46]

    ANITAcollaboration, HiCal 2: An instrument designed for calibration of the ANITA experiment and for antarctic surface reflectivity measurements, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A918 (2019) 60

    2019

  39. [47]

    ANITAcollaboration, The Simulation of the Sensitivity of the Antarctic Impulsive Transient Antenna (ANITA) to Askaryan Radiation from Cosmogenic Neutrinos Interacting in the Antarctic Ice, JINST 14 (2019) P08011 [1903.11043]

    2019 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Alvarez-Muñiz, R

    J. Alvarez-Muñiz, R. A. Vázquez and E. Zas,Calculation methods for radio pulses from high energy showers, Physical Review D62 (2000)

    2000

  41. [49]

    E. Zas, F. Halzen and T. Stanev,Electromagnetic pulses from high-energy showers: Implications for neutrino detection, Physical Review D45 (1992) 362

    1992

  42. [50]

    Halzen and D

    F. Halzen and D. Saltzberg,Tau neutrino appearance with a 1000 megaparsec baseline, Physical Review Letters 81 (1998) 4305

    1998

  43. [51]

    Alvarez-Muñiz and E

    J. Alvarez-Muñiz and E. Zas,The LPM effect for EeV hadronic showers in ice: implications for radio detection of neutrinos, Physics Letters B434 (1998) 396

    1998

  44. [52]

    Gerhardt and S

    L. Gerhardt and S. R. Klein,Electron and photon interactions in the regime of strong Landau-Pomeranchuk-Migdal suppression, Physical Review D82 (2010) 074017

    2010

  45. [53]

    forbidden

    S. Barwick et al.,Observation of classically “forbidden” electromagnetic wave propagation and implications for neutrino detection., Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2018 (2018) 055

    2018

  46. [54]

    R. Lahmann for the ARIANNA collaboration,Investigations of ice and emitter properties from radio signals recorded with arianna, inProceedings of the 36th International Cosmic Ray Conference (ICRC2019), 2019

    2019

  47. [55]

    Engel, D

    R. Engel, D. Seckel and T. Stanev,Neutrinos from propagation of ultrahigh energy protons, Physical Review D64 (2001)

    2001

  48. [56]

    ARIANNA collaboration, Time-domain response of the ARIANNA detector, Astroparticle Physics 62 (2015) 139

    2015

  49. [57]

    Savitzky and M

    A. Savitzky and M. J. E. Golay,Smoothing and differentiation of data by simplified least squares procedures., Analytical Chemistry 36 (1964) 1627. – 22 –

    1964

  50. [58]

    Pierre Auger collaboration, Improved limit to the diffuse flux of ultrahigh energy neutrinos from the Pierre Auger Observatory, Physical Review D91 (2015) 092008

    2015

  51. [59]

    van Vliet, R

    A. van Vliet, R. Alves Batista and J. R. Hörandel,Determining the fraction of cosmic-ray protons at ultrahigh energies with cosmogenic neutrinos, Phys. Rev. D100 (2019) 021302

    2019

  52. [60]

    Heinze, A

    J. Heinze, A. Fedynitch, D. Boncioli and W. Winter,A New View on Auger Data and Cosmogenic Neutrinos in Light of Different Nuclear Disintegration and Air-shower Models, The Astrophysical Journal 873 (2019) 88

    2019

  53. [61]

    A. Connolly et al.,Calculation of high energy neutrino-nucleon cross sections and uncertainties using the Martin-Stirling-Thorne-Watt parton distribution functions and implications for future experiments, Physical Review D83 (2011) 113009

    2011

  54. [62]

    G. J. Feldman and R. D. Cousins,Unified approach to the classical statistical analysis of small signals, Physical Review D57 (1998) 3873

    1998

  55. [63]

    A. Albert et al.,Search for High-energy Neutrinos from Binary Neutron Star Merger GW170817 with ANTARES, IceCube, and the Pierre Auger Observatory, The Astrophysical Journal 850 (2017) L35

    2017

  56. [64]

    Fang and B

    K. Fang and B. D. Metzger,High-energy Neutrinos from Millisecond Magnetars Formed from the Merger of Binary Neutron Stars, The Astrophysical Journal849 (2017) 153

    2017

  57. [65]

    Glaser, S

    C. Glaser, S. Barwick, G. Gaswint and C. Persichilli,GRB 190114C: Search for ultra-high-energy neutrinos with ARIANNA, The Astronomer’s Telegram12475 (2019) 1. – 23 –

    2019

Pith tools

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