Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 69 references

Four years of wide-field search for nanosecond optical transients with the TAIGA-HiSCORE Cherenkov array

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read After four winter seasons and 1273 steradian-hours of wide-field sky monitoring, the TAIGA-HiSCORE Cherenkov array finds no astrophysical nanosecond optical flashes, setting an upper bound of about one event per thousand steradian-hours.

desk verdict A credible null result with a real search, but the quoted rate limit is a raw inverse-exposure number, not a statistical bound. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.00159 v2 pith:RKK3IPKH submitted 2024-11-29 astro-ph.IM astro-ph.HE

A. D. Panov , I. I. Astapov , G. M. Beskin , P. A. Bezyazykov , A. V. Blinov , E. A. Bonvech , A. N. Borodin , N. M. Budnev
show 71 more authors
A. V. Bulan P. Busygina D. V. Chernov A. Chiavassa A. N. Dyachok A. R. Gafarov A. Yu. Garmash V. M. Grebenyuk E. O. Gress O. A. Gress T. I. Gress A. A. Grinyuk O. G. Grishin A. L. Ivanova A. D. Ivanova M. A. Ilyushin N. N. Kalmykov V. V. Kindin S. N. Kiryuhin R. P. Kokoulin K. G. Kompaniets E. E. Korosteleva V. A. Kozhin E. A. Kravchenko L. A. Kuzmichev A. P. Kryukov A. A. Lagutin M. V. Lavrova Yu. Lemeshev B. K. Lubsandorzhiev N. B. Lubsandorzhiev A. D. Lukanov S. D. Malakhov R. R. Mirgazov R. D. Monkhoev E. A. Okyneva E. A. Osipova A. L. Pakhorukov A. Pan L. V. Pankov A. A. Petrukhin D. A. Podgrudkov I. A. Poddubny E. G. Popova E. B. Postnikov V. V. Prosin A. A. Pushnin R. I. Raikin A. Yu. Razumov E. Rjabov G. I. Rubtsov V. S. Samoliga A. V. Shaikovsky A. Yu. Sidorenkov A. A. Silaev A. A. Silaev (junior) A. V. Skurikhin I. Satyshev A. V. Sokolov L. G. Sveshnikova V. A. Tabolenko A. B. Tanaev M. Ternovoy L. G. Tkachev N. Ushakov P. A. Volchugov N. V. Volkov D. M. Voronin I. I. Yashin A. V. Zagorodnikov D. P. Zhurov V. N. Zirakashvili
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.IMastro-ph.HE
keywords nanosecondopticaltransientsCherenkovarraywide-fieldsearchupperlimitprimordialblackholesCALIPSOcalibrationeventsquarefilterairshowerbackground
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

Using the TAIGA-HiSCORE Cherenkov array, a cosmic-ray instrument with a roughly one-steradian field of view, the authors search for nanosecond optical flashes from astrophysical sources. Across four winter observing seasons (2018–2022) they accumulate 1273 steradian-hours of exposure and find no reliable astrophysical candidate. This yields an upper bound of roughly $10^{-3}$ events per steradian per hour for flashes of $10\,\mathrm{ns}$ or longer with flux above about $3000$ quanta/m$^2$/10$\,\mathrm{ns}$. The result matters because nanosecond optical transients are predicted from evaporating primordial black holes, magnetic reconnection near isolated black holes, and hypothetical extraterrestrial lasers, and no previous optical search combined such short timescales with such a wide field of view.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing analysis is a two-stage filter tuned on satellite calibration events. Stage one removes air-shower background with EventSquare, the normalized area of the convex hull of triggered stations; stage two keeps only events whose spherical-front source altitude Z falls above a season-dependent threshold near 20–50 km. Calibration is carried out with an iterative timing correction using air-shower fronts and drone LED pulses, plus amplitude equalization based on power-law spectra, so that a distant point source yields uniform illumination and a plane wavefront. The paper explicitly treats the CALIPSO satellite lidar transits as a proxy for a distant point-source flash, and notes that their reconstructed altitudes of 30–150 km are far below the satellite's true 700 km, a discrepancy attributed tentatively to atmospheric scattering and described as not well understood.

What would settle it

Fly or place a pulsed point-like light source at a known distance, for example a calibrated laser on a satellite or high-altitude balloon at known range, and run the full EventSquare and Z pipeline: if its detection efficiency differs substantially from the CALIPSO-derived efficiency, the quoted upper limit would need rescaling by that efficiency factor.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the rate of nanosecond astrophysical optical transients above the detector threshold is below one per thousand steradian-hours per hour. After calibrating station amplitudes and trigger times, the authors filter events by two new signatures: EventSquare, the area of the smallest convex polygon covering all triggered stations, and Z, the source altitude reconstructed from a spherical light-front fit. Satellite lidar pulses passing through the array set the filter thresholds; three residual events from the 2019–2020 season survived the cuts, and all three are identified as air-shower wings, not point-source flashes. With no true candidates in 1273 steradian-hours of exposure, the upper limit follows as $1 \times 10^{-3}$ events per steradian per hour, corresponding to an energy flux density of at least $10^{-4}$ erg/s/cm$^2$ in 10 ns pulses.

Load-bearing premise

The search assumes that CALIPSO satellite pulses are a faithful proxy for astrophysical nanosecond transients, so thresholds derived from CALIPSO distributions leave near-unity acceptance for the searched events; the paper itself reports that CALIPSO's reconstructed altitude is 30–150 km instead of the true 700 km and says the reason is not well understood.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Future seasons of the same array can continue the search without hardware changes, since transient selection runs on the existing event database.
  • Any genuine nanosecond flash above 3000 quanta per square meter per 10 ns occurs less often than once per thousand steradian-hours, so detecting one requires either a larger field of view, longer exposure, or a lower threshold.
  • The EventSquare and Z filters reduce the extensive-air-shower background to nearly zero over the full field of view, not only near the zenith.
  • A detection in the same instrument could be cross-confirmed by the array's gamma-ray channel, since a primordial-black-hole explosion should also emit multi-TeV gamma rays in the last milliseconds before evaporation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Converting the flux upper limit into a bound on primordial black hole evaporation requires assuming an optical energy fraction in the final explosion; the paper does not make that conversion, but the flux limit is available for such models.
  • The CALIPSO altitude anomaly implies the Z filter's efficiency for real astrophysical transients is uncertain: if atmospheric scattering bends the light fronts of collimated beams more than plane fronts, a real distant flash might be reconstructed at a different effective altitude than a satellite pulse.
  • A sky survey with several such arrays, or a larger station spacing, could push the rate limit down by another order of magnitude within a few seasons.
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

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports a four-season (2018–2022) search for nanosecond optical transients using the TAIGA-HiSCORE Cherenkov array in a parasitic mode. The authors describe amplitude and timing calibrations, including drone-LED and CALIPSO satellite events as proxies for distant point sources, and define two new filters: the 'EventSquare' (convex hull of triggered stations) and the reconstructed source altitude Z from a spherical-front fit. Applying these filters to the 2019–2022 seasons and combining with the previously published 2018–2019 result, they find no astrophysical candidates and quote an upper bound on the event flux of about 1e-3 events/ster/h from 1273 steradian-hours of exposure.

Significance. If established rigorously, this bound would be a useful constraint on rare nanosecond optical transients, relevant to primordial black hole evaporation models, stellar-mass black hole accretion flares, and optical technosignature searches. The strength of the paper is the demonstration that a large-FOV, non-imaging Cherenkov array can search a wide sky area for very short pulses in a companion mode, with careful timing calibration verified by drone trajectory reconstruction and CALIPSO astrometric residuals of about 0.05 degrees. The paper also candidly reports an unexplained discrepancy in the CALIPSO altitude reconstruction, which is directly relevant to the validity of its own calibrated filters.

major comments (5)
  1. [§5] The upper limit of ~1e-3 ster^-1 h^-1 is computed as 1/1273, i.e., one candidate-free exposure divided by the exposure, with no stated confidence level and no division by detection efficiency. At 95% confidence and 100% efficiency the limit would be 2.996/1273 ≈ 2.35e-3, and any efficiency below unity weakens it further. The authors should present a proper Poisson upper limit with a confidence level and a clearly defined efficiency factor.
  2. [§4] The EventSquare and Z thresholds are tuned by hand from CALIPSO events (Zthr = 20–50 km, EventSquarethr = 0.25–0.6), but the paper does not report the fraction of CALIPSO events that pass the final selection, nor does it measure the detection efficiency for plane-wave sources. Because zero candidates divided by exposure only yields an upper limit if the selection efficiency is known, the central quantitative claim requires either an efficiency measurement from injected artificial transients or an explicit statement that the thresholds are known to pass all events of interest.
  3. [§3.3.2] The paper states that CALIPSO's reconstructed Z is 30–150 km instead of its true 700 km and that 'The reason is not well understood.' Since the Z filter is calibrated on these same CALIPSO events, the physical basis of the filter is not established. The argument that true astrophysical transients, having planar wavefronts, would yield Z = 1000 km is plausible but unvalidated; a synthetic plane-wave injection test would be needed to confirm that such events pass the Z threshold with known efficiency.
  4. [§5] The total exposure of 1273 ster·h sums 476 h from the 2018–2019 season, which was analyzed with the earlier filter set described in [5], and the three seasons analyzed with the new EventSquare and Z filters. Unless the 2018–2019 data were reprocessed with the same final filters, the combined candidate count does not correspond to a single selection efficiency, and the simple division by total exposure is not self-consistent. The authors should either re-process the first season with the new filters or conservatively quote the limit using only the seasons analyzed identically.
  5. [§1 and §5] The FOV is assumed to be Ω ≈ 0.6 ster, but the text states that the FOV has no sharp boundaries and depends on flash brightness. The exposure of 1273 ster·h therefore carries a systematic uncertainty that is not propagated into the quoted bound. At minimum, the authors should provide an explicit uncertainty on Ω and show its effect on the final limit.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3.3.1] The text introduces 'event square' but the parameter is inconsistently spelled 'EventSquate' in the text and 'EventSquare' in plots and mathematics; unify the spelling.
  2. [Table 1 and throughout] The word 'seazon' appears repeatedly (e.g., Table 1 caption, '2021–2022 data seazon'); replace with 'season'.
  3. [§3.2] The sentence 'If the remaining stations are two times as many as 3 stations for a plane front and 4 stations for a spherical front' is unclear; state the minimum number of remaining stations explicitly (e.g., at least six for plane, eight for spherical).
  4. [§3.2] The sentence 'There are less than 0.1% of EAS events' should read 'Fewer than 0.1% of EAS events'.
  5. [§3.3.2] The paper says the effective source altitude is detected at different altitudes in different seasons (45 km vs 90 km) but does not discuss whether the Z thresholds could bias the search differently across periods; a short comment on the stability of the Z distribution would be helpful.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the upper limit is a straightforward inverse-exposure estimate from zero candidates, and the CALIPSO-based filter tuning is calibration on an external proxy rather than a fit of the target quantity.

full rationale

The central result is the upper bound of about 1e-3 ster^-1 h^-1 in Section 5, obtained as 1/1273 ster·h after zero candidates passed the EventSquare and altitude-Z filters. This is not circular: the thresholds are set by hand from the distributions of CALIPSO satellite events, which are external benchmark signals, and the final selection does not use the CALIPSO-identification criteria. The paper explicitly shows that non-CALIPSO events can pass the filters (two events in 2019-2020 period 1 and one in period 2, Section 4), so the absence of accepted astrophysical candidates is not guaranteed by construction. The FOV of 0.6 ster is taken from the authors' previous paper [5], but it is an instrument parameter, not the derived rate, and it is used only to convert hours to steradian-hours; this self-citation is not load-bearing for the logic of the limit. The CALIPSO proxy's imperfect fidelity (Section 3.3.2 reports reconstructed Z of 30-150 km instead of 700 km and states 'The reason is not well understood') is a real systematic and efficiency concern: if true plane-wave transients have lower acceptance than CALIPSO events, the quoted bound could be weaker by an unknown factor, and the raw 1/Exp value is not a 95% confidence limit. However, these are limitations of an unmeasured efficiency, not circularity: no equation or fitted parameter is reused as its own prediction. The paper would be strengthened by an explicit efficiency measurement or Monte Carlo, but the derivation chain itself is self-contained.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central contribution is an observational upper limit. It depends on instrument calibration, hand-set selection thresholds, and the CALIPSO proxy rather than on a theoretical derivation, so the ledger reflects those choices.

free parameters (3)
  • Assumed FOV for exposure = 0.6 ster
    The exact FOV has no sharp boundaries and depends on flash brightness; adopted from Panov et al. 2021 [5] for quantitative estimation. It directly multiplies the exposure and enters the upper limit.
  • Zthr per period = 20 km (2019-2020 p1 and p2), 40 km (2020-2021), 50 km (2021-2022)
    Hand-set thresholds from CALIPSO reconstructed altitude distributions; they determine which events are counted as candidates and thus affect the upper limit.
  • EventSquarethr per period = 0.25 (2019-2020 p1), 0.4 (2019-2020 p2), 0.6 (2020-2021 and 2021-2022)
    Hand-set thresholds from CALIPSO EventSquare distributions; they affect candidate selection and therefore the upper limit.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption CALIPSO events are a valid sample of distant point-source signals for tuning the selection filters.
    Section 4: 'we select CALIPSO satellite events and treat these events as a sample of distant point light source signals.' The reconstructed altitude discrepancy, 30-150 km vs 700 km, shows the proxy is imperfect.
  • domain assumption Distant astrophysical transients reconstruct with source altitude Z above the per-period thresholds.
    Section 3.3.2 states that for true distant events 'we can expect exactly the determined height of 1000 km', the boundary value, but no simulation or calibration with a real point source at effectively infinite distance is provided.
  • domain assumption The EventSquare and Z filters reject essentially all EAS background.
    Sections 3.3 and 4 claim the filters reduce EAS background to nearly zero, but three non-CALIPSO events passed the automated filters in 2019-2020 and required visual inspection to classify as EAS wings.
  • domain assumption The power-law amplitude calibration and iterative trigger-time correction converge and do not bias transient selection.
    Section 3.1; 12 iterations are used and convergence is demonstrated on drones and EAS events, but the effect on transient acceptance is not separately validated.
  • standard math Plane and spherical wavefront fitting with robust rejection of outlier stations recovers source parameters correctly.
    Section 3.2; nonlinear optimization with iterative bad-station removal is standard, and cross-checks against CALIPSO and drone data support it.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Four years of wide-field search for nanosecond optical transients with the TAIGA-HiSCORE Cherenkov array." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RKK3IPKH

@misc{pith2026241200159,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Four years of wide-field search for nanosecond optical transients with the TAIGA-HiSCORE Cherenkov array},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RKK3IPKH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.00159}
}
abstract

It has been previously demonstrated [Panov et al. Physics of Atomic Nuclei 84(2021)1037] that the TAIGA-HiSCORE Cherenkov array, originally built for cosmic ray physics and ultrahigh-energy gamma-ray astronomy studies using the extensive air shower method, can be used in conventional optical astronomy for wide-field searches for rare nanosecond optical transients of astrophysical origin. The FOV of the facility is on the scale of 1~ster, and it is capable of detecting very rare transients in the visible light range with fluxes greater than approximately 3000~quanta/m$^2$/10~ns (10~ns is the apparatus integration time) and pulse durations of 10\,ns. Among the potential sources of distant nanosecond optical transients are the evaporation of primary black holes, magnetic reconnection in the accretion disks of black holes, and signals from distant lasers of extraterrestrial civilizations. The paper describes the methods and results of the search for optical transients using the TAIGA-HiSCORE Cherenkov array from 2018 to 2022 (four winter seasons of data collection). No reliable astrophysical candidates for optical transients were found. We set an upper bound on the flux of the searched events as $\sim 1\times10^{-3}$\,events/ster/h.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.00159 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. a: The mass of a black hole as a function of the time to complete evaporation. b: Mass flow rate of the black hole for evaporation at 10 ns intervals [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Left panel: A typical EAS event. Right panel: One of the CALIPSO events. Both images are from the 2021–2022 data archive. In the figures: black small circles – HiSCORE optical stations; black numbers – internal numbering of HiSCORE stations; colored circles – triggered stations; the color scale shows the relative time of station triggering, counting from the first triggered station (in nanoseconds); the size of the … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Amplitude distributions at the optical stations with the numbers 1, 2, and 3, measured during a single night of HiSCORE observations. σtplane (n s) σtplane (n s) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p035_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (17 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Event distribution for DeltaLogA0 (left panel) and DeltaLogA1 (right panel) together with the RMS deviations of the station trigger times when approximated by the passage of a plane light front σtplane (see section 3.2 for details). The data of the 2021–2022 season are…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Distribution of mean deviations of optical station trigger times from the optimal approximation by a spherical front. Top row – approximation of EAS fronts. Bottom row – approximation of drone LED fronts. Left column – deviations after the first iteration, right column…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Top row: projection of the drone flight trajectory on the XY plane. Bottom row: time dependence of Z coordinate. Left column: before corrections to the trigger times of optical stations. Right column: after corrections to the optical station trigger times (after the 12…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The distribution of the number of “bad” optical stations (with possibly incorrect trigger times) removed from the event using the filtering algorithm described in the text (Section 3.3.2). The data of 2021–2022 seazon are shown. −2.5 −2 −1.5 −1 −0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 ∆…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Distributions of the difference in the determination of the direction to the source in the methods of approximating the light front by plane and spherical fronts. Histograms for declination (δ) and right ascension (α) are presented. For convenience, all angles are meas…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Time dependence of the CALIPSO satellite’s angular coordinates for the 2022-01-11 transit [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p039_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Two examples of “long but narrow” events [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p039_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Filtering with EventSquare parameter. Left panel: The EventSquare distribution for 2021-2022 seazon with the (rather weak) constraints σtplane < 4 ns and DeltaLogA0 < 1. Right panel: All events above the threshold EventSquare = 0.72 are plotted on the sky map in terms…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Source altitude Z (meters) distribution obtained by spherical light front approximation for the three seasons 2019–2020, 2020–2021, 2021–2022. 2019-2020 2020-2021 2021-2022 α (hours) α (hours) α (hours) δ (d e g) δ (d e g) δ (d e g) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Filtering of distant point-like sources by the altitude filter. The sky map for all events of the 2019–2020, 2020–2021, 2021–2022 seasons corresponding to the Z distribution in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p040_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Actual number of operating optical stations variations on individual nights of statistics collection. Time is measured in days counted consecutively from January 1, 2018. The parameter “NStations” shows the number of array stations triggered on a given night, and the …
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: The event selection procedure and its result for the 2019-2020 season, period 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p041_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Two events selected in 2019-2020 season, period 1 besides the CALIPSO events [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p042_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: The event selection procedure and its result for the 2019-2020 season, period 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p043_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Left panel: The only event selected in 2019-2020 season, period 2 besides the CALIPSO events. Right panel: One of the CALIPSO events, for comparison [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p044_18.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: The event selection procedure and its result for the 2020-2021 season [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p045_19.png]
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: The event selection procedure and its result for the 2021-2022 season [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p046_20.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages

  1. [5]

    Angles θ >60◦ were outside the FOV of the HiSCORE array

    we managed to almost completely remove the EAS background for events near the zenith (zenith angles θ < 40◦), but in the interval40◦ < θ <60◦ the background remained quite high. Angles θ >60◦ were outside the FOV of the HiSCORE array. Due to low background it was possible to search for single optical transient candidates in the region of anglesθ <40◦ (no ...

    work page 2019

  2. [1]

    The novelty lies in the combination of nanosecond signal durations and a very large FOV (one steradian scale) for optical astronomy

    First, HiSCORE searches for optical signals in the range of experimental parame- ters where astronomical studies have never been performed before. The novelty lies in the combination of nanosecond signal durations and a very large FOV (one steradian scale) for optical astronomy. This makes it possible to search for very rare events in the sky. When an exp...

    work page 2018

  3. [2]

    We distinguish four categories of problems

    PHYSICAL MOTIVATION OF THE SEARCH FOR OPTICAL TRANSIENTS OF ASTROPHYSICAL ORIGIN IN THE NANOSECOND RANGE An interesting question is what kind of physics might be behind the search for nanosecond optical transients with FOVs on the scale of one steradian. We distinguish four categories of problems

    work page

  4. [3]

    The critical feature for their detection is the stochastic variability of the radiation of the plasma accreting onto the BH [52, 53]

    Another type of astrophysical objects that can be detected and studied with the HiSCORE array are isolated stellar-mass black holes, the result of the evolution of massive stars. The critical feature for their detection is the stochastic variability of the radiation of the plasma accreting onto the BH [52, 53]. Such flares can be quite intense and can be ...

    work page

  5. [4]

    If the source of the optical pulse is coherent, there is no limit to the size of the source to obtain a signal duration in the range of tens of nanoseconds. For example, according to the article [5], for a laser with an aperture of 1000m, for light with a wavelength of 0.53nm (green), removed at 104 light years from the solar system, the diffraction radiu...

    work page

  6. [6]

    Such a source may be the evaporation of the remnant of a primordial black hole (PBH)

    If we are talking about real astrophysical optical transients, then for an incoherent light source to produce a flash in the range of durations from units to a few tens of nanoseconds, it should have a size of no more than a few tens of meters. Such a source may be the evaporation of the remnant of a primordial black hole (PBH). Currently, we can observe ...

    work page

  7. [7]

    Beskin, C

    G. Beskin, C. Bartolini, A. Guarnieri, A. Piccioni, S. Biryukov, D. Eichler, and D. Fainman, in ESO Symposia: Gamma-Ray Bursts in Afterglow(Springer-Verlag, 2001), pp. 387–389

    work page 2001

  8. [8]

    flatness

    METHODS The initial basic idea of the method for extracting distant point optical transient events of astrophysical origin from the background of EAS events is explained in Fig.2. The left panel shows a typical EAS event. This is one of the events from the 2021–2022 season. The right panel shows one of the CALIPSO satellite events, also from the 2021–2022...

    work page 2021

Show all 69 references
  1. [9]

    long and narrow

    The “long and narrow” events discussed above have a small area, so they are effectively filtered out by a filter constructed using the “event square” parameter. The probability of “long and narrow” events is small. For example, if we consider events of small areaEventSquate < ...

    2021

  2. [10]

    NStations

    RESULTS The basic idea used in this paper for the final filtering of distant optical nanosecond transient candidates is the combined use of the EventSquare filter and the event altitude Z filter. The details of the implementation of this approach and the results obtained are p...

    2019

  3. [11]

    Nor was it detected in the first season of the HiSCORE search for nanosecond transients 2018–2019 [5]

    DISCUSSION Thus, no candidate for nanosecond optical transients of astrophysical origin has been detected in the last three seasons of observations. Nor was it detected in the first season of the HiSCORE search for nanosecond transients 2018–2019 [5]. The HiSCORE exposure time...

    2018

  4. [12]

    Budnev, I

    N. Budnev, I. Astapov, N. Barbashina, A. Barnyakov, P. Bezyazeekov, A. Bogdanov, V. Boreyko, M. Br¨ uckner, A. Chiavassa, O. Chvalaev,et al., Nuclear Inst. and Methods in Physics Research, A845, 330 (2017)

    2017

  5. [13]

    Gress, I

    O. Gress, I. Astapov, N. Budnev, P. Bezyazeekov, A. Bogdanov, V. Boreyko, M. Br¨ uckner, A. Chiavassa, O. Chvalaev, A. Dyachok,et al., Nuclear Inst. and Methods in Physics Research, A 845, 367 (2017)

    2017

  6. [14]

    Kuzmichev, I

    L. Kuzmichev, I. Astapov, P. Bezyazeekov, A. Borodin, M. Br¨ uckner, N. Budnev, A. Chiavassa, O. Gress, T. Gress, O. Grishin,et al., Nuclear Inst. and Methods in Physics Research, A952, 161830 (2020)

    2020

  7. [15]

    Budnev, I

    N. Budnev, I. I. Astapov, P. A. Bezyazeekov, A. Borodin, M. Br¨ uckner, D. Chernykh, A. Chi- avassa, A. Dyachok, O. Fedorov, A. Gafarov,et al., Nuclear Inst. and Methods in Physics Research, A 958, 162113 (2020). 29

    2020

  8. [16]

    A. D. Panov, I. I. Astapov, G. M. Beskin, P. A. Bezyazeekov, M. Blank, E. A. Bonvech, A. N. Borodin, M. Br¨ uckner, N. M. Budnev, A. V. Bulan,et al., Physics of Atomic Nuclei84, 1037 (2021), arXiv:2109.09637

    2021 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Tluczykont, D

    M. Tluczykont, D. Hampf, D. Horns, T. Kneiske, R. Eichler, R. Nachtigall, and G. Rowell, Adv. Space Res.48, 1935 (2011)

    2011

  10. [18]

    M. Y. Khlopov, Res. in Astronomy and Astrophysics10, 495 (2010), arXiv:0801.0116

    2010 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Eichler and G

    D. Eichler and G. Beskin, ASTROBIOLOGY1, 489 (2001)

    2001

  12. [20]

    Holder, P

    J. Holder, P. Ashworth, S. LeBohec, H. J. Rose, and T. C. Weekes, in29th International Cosmic Ray Conference(Pune, 2005), vol. 5, pp. 387–390

    2005

  13. [21]

    Seaman (International Astronomical Union, 2011), no

    S.C.Griffin, in New Horizons in Time-Domain Astronomy, editedbyR.Griffin, R.Hanisch, and R. Seaman (International Astronomical Union, 2011), no. 285 in Proceedings IAU Symposium, pp. 321–323

    2011

  14. [22]

    Bartos, P

    I. Bartos, P. Veres, D. Nieto, V. Connaughton, B. Humensky, K. Hurley, S. Marka, P. Meszaros, R. Mukherjee, P. O’Brien,et al., MNRAS 443, 738 (2014)

    2014

  15. [23]

    Bartos, T

    I. Bartos, T. D. Girolamo, J. R. Gair, M. Hendry, I. S. Heng, T. B. Humensky, S. Marka, Z. Marka, C. Messenger, R. Mukherjee,et al., MNRAS 477, 639 (2018)

    2018

  16. [24]

    V. A. Acciari, S. Ansoldi, L. A. Antonelli, A. Arbet Engels, C. Arcaro, D. Baack, A. Babic, B. Banerjee, P. Bangale, U. Barres de Almeida,et al., MNRAS 481, 2479 (2018)

    2018

  17. [25]

    Hoang, M

    J. Hoang, M. Will, S. Inoue, J. A. Barrio, J. Cortina, M. Lopez, B. Marcote, and L. A. Tejedor, in 36th International Cosmic Ray Conference (2019), vol. 312, p. id.697, arXiv:1908.07506, URL https://pos.sissa.it/cgi-bin/reader/conf.cgi?confid=358

    2019 arXiv

  18. [26]

    I. Jim´ enez Mart´ ınez, inHighlights of Spanish Astrophysics XI, Proceedings of the XV Scientific Meeting of the Spanish Astronomical Society held on September 4–9, 2022, in La Laguna, Spain (2023), pp. 141–144

    2023

  19. [27]

    Lundy, Gamma-ray and optical observations of repeating fast radio bursts with VERITAS (2021), arXiv:2108.09354

    M. Lundy, Gamma-ray and optical observations of repeating fast radio bursts with VERITAS (2021), arXiv:2108.09354

    2021 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Acharyya, C

    A. Acharyya, C. B. Adams, A. Archer, P. Bangale, P. Batista, W. Benbow, A. Brill, M. Capasso, M. Errando, A. Falcone,et al., Astronomical Journal166, id.84 (2023), arXiv:2306.17680

    2023 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Amenomori, Z

    M. Amenomori, Z. Cao, B. Z. Dai, L. K. Ding, Y. X. Feng, Z. Y. Feng, K. Hibino, N. Hotta, Q. Huang, A. X. Huo,et al., in 24th International Cosmic Ray Conference(1995), vol. 2, p. 112

    1995

  22. [30]

    Blinnikov, A

    S. Blinnikov, A. Dolgov, N. K. Porayko, and K. Postnov, JCAP 11, id.036 (2016), 30 arXiv.1611.00541

    2016 arXiv

  23. [31]

    A. D. Dolgov, Solution of jwst and hst problems by primordial black holes (2024), arXiv:2401.06882

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    B. J. Carr, S. Clesse, J. Garcia-Bellido, M. R. S. Hawkins, and F. K¨ uhnel, Phys. Reports1054, 1 (2024), arXiv:2306.03903

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    B. J. Carr and A. M. Green,The history of primordial black holes(2024), arXiv:2406.05736

    2024 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Carr and F

    B. Carr and F. K¨ uhnel, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science70, 355 (2020), arXiv.2006.02838

    2020 arXiv

  27. [35]

    B. Carr, K. Kohri, Y. Sendouda, and J. Yokoyama, Reports on Progress in Physics84, id.116902 (2021), arXiv.2002.12778

    2021 arXiv

  28. [36]

    V. V. Nikulin, M. A. Krasnov, and S. G. Rubin, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences9, id.927144 (2022), arXiv:2204.06360

    2022 arXiv

  29. [37]

    J. H. MacGibbon, Phys. Rev. D44, 376 (1991)

    1991

  30. [38]

    B. J. Carr,Primordial black holes and quantum effects(2014), arXiv.1402.1437

    2014 arXiv

  31. [39]

    D. E. Alexandreas, G. E. Allen, D. Berley, S. Biller, R. L. Burman, M. Cavalli-Sforza, C. Y. Chang, M. L. Chen, P. Chumney, D. Coyne,et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.71, 2524 (1993)

    1993

  32. [40]

    M. J. Rees, Nature266, 333 (1977)

    1977

  33. [41]

    E. T. Linton, R. W. Atkins, H. M. Badran, G. Blaylock, P. J. Boyle, J. H. Buckley, K. L. Byrum, D. A. Carter-Lewis, O. Celik, Y. C. K. Chow,et al., JCAPS 01, id.013 (2006)

    2006

  34. [42]

    V. B. Petkov, E. V. Bugaev, P. A. Klimai, M. V. Andreev, V. I. Volchenko, G. V. Volchenko, A. N. Gaponenko, Z. S. Guliev, I. M. Dzaparova, D. V. Smirnov,et al., Astronomy Letters34, 509 (2008), arXiv.0808.3093

    2008 arXiv

  35. [43]

    E. V. Bugaev, V. B. Petkov, A. N. Gaponenko, P. A. Klimai, M. V. Andreev, I. M. Dzaparova, Z. S. Guliev, A. V. Sergeev, V. I. Volchenko, G. V. Volchenko,et al., Experimental search of bursts of very high energy gamma rays from primordial black holes(2009), arXiv:0906.3179

    2009 arXiv

  36. [44]

    E. V. Bugaev, V. B. Petkov, A. N. Gaponenko, P. A. Klimai, M. V. Andreev, A. B. Chernyaev, I. M. Dzaparova, D. D. Dzhappuev, Z. S. Guliev, N. S. Khaerdinov,et al., Experimental search of bursts of gamma rays from primordial black holes using different evaporation models(2009),...

    2009 arXiv

  37. [45]

    A. A. Abdo, A. U. Abeysekara, R. Alfaro, B. T. Allen, C. Alvarez, J. D. Alvarez, R. Arceo, J. C. Arteaga-Vel´ azquez, T. Aune, H. A. Ayala Solares,et al., Astropart. Phys.64, 4 (2015), arXiv:1407.1686

    2015 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Archambault et al

    S. Archambault et al. (VERITAS Collaboration), Proceedings of ScienceICRC2017, id.691 (2017), arXiv:1709.00307

    2017 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Ackermann, W

    M. Ackermann, W. B. Atwood, L. Baldini, J. Ballet, G. Barbiellini, D. Bastieri, R. Bellazzini, B. Berenji, E. Bissaldi, R. D. Blandford,et al., ApJ 857, id.49 (2018), arXiv:1802.00100

    2018 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Albert, R

    A. Albert, R. Alfaro, C. Alvarez, J. C. Arteaga-Vel´ azquez, K. P. Arunbabu, D. Avila Rojas, H. A. Ayala Solares, V. Baghmanyan, E. Belmont-Moreno, S. Y. BenZvi,et al., ApJ 857, id.49 (2018), arXiv:1911.04356

    2018 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Aharonian, F

    F. Aharonian, F. Ait Benkhali, J. Aschersleben, M. B¨ ottcher, M. Backes, V. Barbosa Martins, R. Batzofin, Y. Becherini, D. Berge, B. Bi,et al., JCAP 04, id.040 (2023), arXiv:2303.12855

    2023 arXiv

  42. [50]

    C. Yang, S. Wang, M.-L. Zhao, and X. Zhang,Search for the hawking radiation of primordial black holes: prospective sensitivity of LHAASO(2024), arXiv:2408.10897

    2024 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Kavic, J

    M. Kavic, J. H. Simonetti, S. E. Cutchin, S. W. Ellingson, and C. D. Patterson, JCAP11, id.017 (2008), arXiv:0801.4023. 32

    2008 arXiv

  44. [52]

    R. D. Blandford, MNRAS181, 489 (1977)

    1977

  45. [53]

    Teˇ si´ c, PoSICRC2015, id.328 (2015)

    G. Teˇ si´ c, PoSICRC2015, id.328 (2015)

    2015

  46. [54]

    Petkov, E

    V. Petkov, E. Bugaev, and P. A. Klimai.,Multimessenger search for evaporating primordial black holes.(2019), arXiv:1912.01317

    2019 arXiv

  47. [55]

    J. H. MacGibbon and B. R. Webber, Phys. Rev.D41, 3052 (1990)

    1990

  48. [56]

    A. F. Heckler, Phys. Rev. D55, 480 (1997), arXiv:astro-ph/9601029

    1997 arXiv

  49. [58]

    Daghigh and J

    R. Daghigh and J. Kapusta, Phys. Rev. D65, id.064028 (2002), arXiv:gr-qc/0109090

    2002 arXiv

  50. [59]

    D. B. Cline, D. A. Sanders, and W. Hong, ApJ486, 169 (1997), arXiv:astro-ph/9702027

    1997 arXiv

  51. [60]

    O. D. Lalakulich, V. B. Petkov, and G. M. Vereshkov, inThird Rome Workshop on Gamma-Ray Bursts in the Afterglow Era ASP Conference Series(San Francisco: Astronomical Society of the Pacific, Rome, Italy, 2004), vol. 312, p. 453

    2004

  52. [61]

    Kol, Explosive black hole fission and fusion in large extra dimensions(2002), arXiv:hep- ph/0207037

    B. Kol, Explosive black hole fission and fusion in large extra dimensions(2002), arXiv:hep- ph/0207037

    2002

  53. [63]

    V. F. Shvartsman, Soviet Astronomy15, 377 (1971)

    1971

  54. [64]

    G. M. Beskin and S. V. Karpov, Astronomy and Astrophysics440, 223 (2005), arXiv:astro- ph/0403649

    2005

  55. [65]

    Chmyreva and G

    L. Chmyreva and G. M. Beskin, Astrophysical Bulletin77, 223 (2022), arXiv:2303.00598

    2022 arXiv

  56. [66]

    G. B. Rybicki and A. P. Lightman,Radiative processes in astrophysics(A Wiley-Interscience Publicatio, New York: Wiley, 1979)

    1979

  57. [67]

    G. S. Bisnovatyi-Kogan and A. A. Ruzmaikin, Astrophysics and Space Science28, 45 (1974)

    1974

  58. [68]

    J. R. Ipser and R. H. Price, ApJ, Part 1255, 654 (1982)

    1982

  59. [69]

    Wiktorowicz, L

    G. Wiktorowicz, L. Wyrzykowski, M. Chruslinska, J. Klencki, K. A. Rybicki, and K. Belczynski, ApJ 885, id.1 (2019), arXiv:1907.11431

    2019 arXiv

  60. [70]

    long but narrow

    N. M. Budnev, A. Chiavassa, O. A. Gress, T. I. Gress, A. N. Dyachok, N. I. Karpov, N. N. Kalmykov, E. E. Korosteleva, V. A. Kozhin, L. A. Kuzmichev,et al., Astroparticle Physics117, id.102406 (2020), arXiv:2104.03599. 33 a b Figure 1. a: The mass of a black hole as a function ...

    2020

  61. [2022]

    Thus, the processing of four HiSCORE seasons of the nanosecond optical transient search has now been completed

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.