Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 37 references

GraphNeT 2.0 -- A Deep Learning Library for Neutrino Telescopes

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read GraphNeT 2.0 is a detector-agnostic deep learning library that aims to make neutrino telescope models reusable across experiments by isolating experiment-specific details in one component.

desk verdict GraphNeT 2.0 is a credible software-library paper whose central detector-agnostic claim needs code and a cross-detector test before it is verified. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.03817 v1 pith:6GWDTOCZ submitted 2025-01-07 hep-ex

Rasmus F. {O}rs{o}e , Aske Rosted , GraphNeT Team This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ex
keywords neutrinotelescopesdeeplearninglibrarydetector-agnosticgraphneuralnetworkstransformersnormalizingflowseventreconstructiondataconversion
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

GraphNeT 2.0 is an open-source Python library that aims to make deep learning models for neutrino telescopes portable across experiments with very different hardware. The paper's central claim is that this portability is achievable by isolating all experiment-specific details in a single Detector component, so that the data representation, neural architecture, and task modules stay detector-agnostic. The library also provides a reader/writer data-conversion layer that turns each experiment's native files into common deep-learning formats, with readers for two very different detectors and writers for two storage formats. If the claim is right, a reconstruction model developed for one telescope could be reused by another telescope with different geometry and detection medium by swapping only the detector-specific module, which matters because current maximum-likelihood reconstruction methods are experiment-specific and difficult to share.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is the model-component abstraction: a four-part decomposition in which Detector is the only experiment-specific piece. Detector holds column names, geometry, and normalization; Data Representation transforms raw hits into a chosen representation on an event-by-event basis; Architecture contains the learnable parameters; Task defines the prediction head and loss logic. A second design, Generic, imposes only the Detector interchangeability for methods such as auto-encoders or hybrid deep-learning-plus-likelihood approaches. The companion DataConverter uses a reader/writer scheme—a per-experiment reader parses native files into a standardized intermediate, and a per-format writer saves it—so new experiments and new storage formats each require only one new module. The abstraction is what transfers methods developed at one detector into reusable assets at another.

What would settle it

Prepare two simulated event samples with different detector geometries and media, train a GraphNeT model on the first using one Detector component, then evaluate on the second after swapping in the second Detector component and no other changes. If the reconstruction quality is no better than an untrained baseline, or if reproducing the first detector's published results requires modifying components outside Detector, the central reusability claim is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's core claim, stated on its own terms, is that the low-level observations of all neutrino telescopes are the same kind of object—a geometric time series of photomultiplier hits—so a deep learning solution can be made detector-agnostic if the experiment-specific parts are quarantined. GraphNeT 2.0 embodies this in a Standard model with four components: Detector, which holds column names, geometry, and standardization; Data Representation, which converts raw observations to images, sequences, or graphs in real time; Architecture, which contains the learnable network; and Task, which defines the prediction head, activation, and loss. A Generic model variant relaxes the design to require only the interchangeable Detector for methods that do not fit the four-part split. The paper supports the design with applications in at least six experiments, including published results where a graph neural network outperformed maximum-likelihood reconstruction at low energies and reduced detector noise by roughly a factor of ten, and the inclusion of top solutions from a public reconstruction competition.

Load-bearing premise

Everything rests on the premise that all detector-specific knowledge—geometry, column names, calibration, noise statistics, and standardization—can be fully captured inside the single Detector component, so replacing it is sufficient to move a trained model to another detector.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A reconstruction or classification model trained on one detector's simulated events can be applied to another detector by supplying a new Detector component, without changing the network architecture or task.
  • Adding support for a new experiment reduces to writing one reader module, and adding a new output format reduces to writing one writer module.
  • Users can vary Data Representation, Architecture, or Task independently for the same problem, letting one base model serve multiple physics analyses.
  • The paper reports that GraphNeT-based graph networks have outperformed traditional maximum-likelihood methods for low-energy reconstruction in an ice-based detector and removed roughly ten times more noise with minor signal loss, establishing a performance baseline for the reusable components.
  • The planned public release of more than 100 million simulated neutrino events across six detector geometries will let the community benchmark deep-learning reconstruction methods on identical data.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the Detector isolation holds, the same four-component pattern could be applied to other sparse-sensor particle detectors beyond neutrino telescopes, where the low-level data is again a point cloud of sensor hits; the paper does not claim this extension.
  • A direct test the reusability claim invites is a zero-retraining transfer experiment: train on simulated events from one detector, swap only the Detector, and evaluate on simulated events from a different detector.
  • The reader/writer scheme suggests that once public simulated datasets for several geometries are released, a model zoo could emerge where the same architecture weights are published once and re-parameterized by Detector modules for each experiment.
  • Because GraphNeT standardizes the task interfaces, physics analyses that currently each build custom likelihood approximations could in principle adopt a common reconstruction interface, making sensitivity projections across experiments more directly comparable.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This manuscript describes GraphNeT 2.0, an open-source deep learning library for neutrino telescopes, as an update to previously released GraphNeT. The paper's two main claimed additions are (i) a modular data conversion system based on a reader/writer scheme and (ii) support for multiple deep learning paradigms beyond the original graph neural networks, organized around a four-component model abstraction: Detector, Data Representation, Architecture, and Task. The central design claim is that the Detector component encapsulates all experiment-specific details, so that Architecture, Data Representation, and Task components are detector-agnostic and reusable across experiments. The paper also reports applications of GraphNeT in several experiments, including IceCube, KM3NeT, SNO+, MAGIC/CTAO, ESSnuSB, and LiquidO, and announces an upcoming public release of simulated neutrino events.

Significance. If the design claims are realized in the code, GraphNeT 2.0 would be a valuable community resource: it would lower the barrier for cross-experiment reuse of deep learning reconstruction methods and would allow practitioners outside neutrino physics to contribute. The cited applications, especially the IceCube Upgrade noise-cleaning study and the Kaggle competition baseline, provide plausible evidence of community uptake and physics utility. The reader/writer data conversion, if working as described, would also address a real interoperability problem. However, the manuscript contains no executable artifact, no tests, and no cross-detector transfer demonstration, so the central detector-agnosticism claim is unverified as presented. The direction is promising and the writing is clear, but the evidence supplied in the manuscript is currently insufficient to support the strongest claims.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.2] The statement in Section 2.2 that 'The Detector component is the only part of a Model with experiment-specific details, allowing the remaining components to be detector-agnostic' is load-bearing for the paper's central claims of detector-agnosticism and inter-experimental collaboration, but the manuscript provides no direct support. There is no link to a GraphNeT 2.0 release (reference [11] points to version 1.0.0), no commit hash, no unit or integration tests, and no experiment in which the same Architecture, Data Representation, and Task are run with two different Detector components. Please provide an artifact and a minimal cross-detector transfer example, or revise the claim to reflect a design goal rather than a verified property.
  2. [Section 2.2 and Section 3.1] The boundary between Detector and the other components is under-specified. The Detector component is said to contain standardization functions and geometry, but the manuscript does not enumerate which aspects of a real detector-specific method, such as the IceCube Upgrade noise cleaning described in Section 3.1, reside in Detector and which in Data Representation or Task. Detector-specific noise statistics, feature masks, preprocessing constants, or label definitions could leak into the other components and invalidate the claim of Section 2.2. Please specify the API contract for Detector and give code-level tests or examples showing that no experiment-specific constants appear outside Detector.
  3. [Section 2.1] The DataConverter claim that 'extending support for a new experiment only requires users to provide a new reader' is functionally important but is not demonstrated. No example, test, or benchmark is shown for the IceCube and LiquidO readers or for the Parquet and SQLite writers. At minimum, please include a round-trip test (e.g., writing an event via a writer and reading it back with the corresponding PyTorch Dataset) or provide a link to the test suite in the released repository.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 3.2] There is a typo in Section 3.2: 'the bst reconstruction algorithm' should be 'the best reconstruction algorithm', and 'computed over a a large sample' should be 'computed over a large sample'.
  2. [References] Reference [11] is cited as GraphNeT version 1.0.0; once a GraphNeT 2.0 release artifact exists (with a Zenodo DOI or commit hash), it should be cited here so that the claims in the paper are tied to a specific, findable version.
  3. [Section 1] The introduction says deep learning offers 'indifference to detector geometry and detection medium'; this is an overstatement, since models trained on one detector do not automatically transfer to another. Rephrase to say that deep learning methods can be designed to be insensitive to these differences, which is exactly what the paper's Detector abstraction aims to achieve.
  4. [Section 2.1] The paragraph on writers mentions that both Parquet and SQLite formats have corresponding PyTorch Dataset classes, but it does not explain how a user chooses a writer or instantiates the Dataset. One concrete example would improve usability of the description.
  5. [Section 3] Section 3 lists six experiments in prose but only describes IceCube and the Kaggle competition in any detail. Consider presenting the other applications (SNO+, MAGIC/CTAO, ESSnuSB, LiquidO) in a table with citations, so the breadth of adoption is easier to verify.
  6. [Section 4] The conclusion states that more than 100 million simulated events 'are expected to be released at the beginning of 2025' while the paper is dated January 2025; please update this to the actual release status or give a specific date.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: GraphNeT 2.0 is an architecture paper whose detector-agnosticism is a design specification, not a result derived from fitted inputs.

full rationale

GraphNeT 2.0 is a software/architecture paper rather than a derivation-based result, so the standard circularity patterns (self-definitional numerical predictions, fitted parameters called predictions, author-imported uniqueness theorems) do not arise. The central claim of detector-agnosticism is presented as a design decision in Sec. 2.2: the Detector component is defined to hold experiment-specific details, after which the remaining components are described as detector-agnostic. That is an architectural specification, not an empirical prediction derived from fitted inputs, so it is not circular—though it is also not independently demonstrated by a cross-detector transfer experiment in the paper. Self-citations to GraphNeT v1.0.0 ([11]) and the GraphNeT GNN paper ([17]) are contextual references to prior code and methods, not load-bearing inputs to a derivation. Applications in Sec. 3 cite external IceCube and Kaggle results. No equation or fitted value is reused as its own outcome. Lack of a tagged 2.0 artifact or transfer benchmark is an evidence/completeness concern, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 2 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's central claims rest on the domain assumption that detector-agnostic deep learning is feasible and that low-level telescope data share a common structure. There are no fitted parameters or invented physics entities; the software abstractions are the contribution, not a derivation from first principles.

assumptions (2)
  • domain assumption Deep learning models can reconstruct neutrino events without detector-specific assumptions.
    Stated in the Introduction and cited to refs [5]-[8]; it motivates the detector-agnostic design but is not demonstrated in this paper.
  • domain assumption The low-level data from all neutrino telescopes can be represented as geometric time series with the same semantic structure.
    Section 1 states that the detection principle and low-level observations are 'virtually identical' for neutrino telescopes, which grounds the universal data conversion and model reuse design.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of GraphNeT 2.0 -- A Deep Learning Library for Neutrino Telescopes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6GWDTOCZ

@misc{pith2026250103817,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: GraphNeT 2.0 -- A Deep Learning Library for Neutrino Telescopes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6GWDTOCZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.03817}
}
read the original abstract

Neutrino telescopes, an extension of traditional multiwavelength astronomy, provide a complementary view of the universe using neutrinos. Differences in detector geometry and detection medium mean that improvements to reconstruction techniques made at one experiment are not readily applicable to another. Recently, deep learning has been shown to improve prediction speed and accuracy and offer indifference to detector geometry and detection medium, providing a unique opportunity for collaboration. This work introduces GraphNeT 2.0, an open-source, detector-agnostic deep learning library for neutrino telescopes and related experiments. GraphNeT enables inter-experimental collaboration on the use and development of advanced methods based on major deep learning paradigms like transformers, normalizing flows, graph neural networks, and more.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.03817 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Two simulated neutrino events in two different detectors with different detector geometries [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Inference of the physical properties of a neutrino inducing a detector response, such as its energy and direction, is a central task of most experiments. Maximum-likelihood estimators (MLEs) have predominantly been used for this task. However, the reconstruction likelihood is often intractable, and the MLEs, therefore, rely on complex approximations that are both time-consuming and require assumptions on detector ge… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. High-level overview of the different library components of GraphNeT. The library’s [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Illustration of the reader/writer structure of the DataConverter. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: An illustration of model components in GraphNeT. GraphNeT allows users to reconfigure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Primary mode of opening angle distribution vs. neutrino energy for both up- and down [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

  1. [11]

    Søgaard, R

    A. Søgaard, R. F. ørsøe, M. Holm, et al., GraphNeT, version 1.0.0, May 2023. DOI: 10 . 5281/zenodo.6720188 . [Online]. Available: https://github.com/graphnet- team/ graphnet

    work page 2023

  2. [1]

    The design and performance of IceCube Deep- Core

    R. Abbasi, Y . Abdou, T. Abu-Zayyad,et al., “The design and performance of IceCube Deep- Core”, Astroparticle Physics, vol. 35, no. 10, pp. 615–624, 2012, ISSN : 0927-6505. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.astropartphys.2012.01.004 . [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0927650512000254

    doi:10.1016/j.astropartphys.2012.01.004 2012

  3. [2]

    Astronomy potential of KM3NeT/ARCA

    S. Aiello et al., “Astronomy potential of KM3NeT/ARCA”, Feb. 2024. arXiv: 2402.08363 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2024

  4. [3]

    Low energy event reconstruction in IceCube DeepCore

    R. Abbasi et al., “Low energy event reconstruction in IceCube DeepCore”, Eur. Phys. J. C, vol. 82, no. 9, p. 807, 2022. DOI: 10 . 1140 / epjc / s10052 - 022 - 10721 - 2. arXiv: 2203.02303 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2022

  5. [4]

    Improvement in Fast Particle Track Reconstruction with Robust Statis- tics

    M. G. Aartsen et al., “Improvement in Fast Particle Track Reconstruction with Robust Statis- tics”, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A, vol. 736, pp. 143–149, 2014. DOI: 10.1016/j.nima.2013.10

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nima.2013.10 2014

  6. [5]

    A Convolutional Neural Network based Cascade Reconstruction for the IceCube Neutrino Observatory

    R. Abbasi et al., “A Convolutional Neural Network based Cascade Reconstruction for the IceCube Neutrino Observatory”, JINST, vol. 16, P07041, 2021. DOI: 10.1088/1748-0221/ 16/07/P07041. arXiv: 2101.11589 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2021

  7. [6]

    Combining Maximum-Likelihood with Deep Learning for Event Reconstruction in IceCube

    M. Huennefeld et al., “Combining Maximum-Likelihood with Deep Learning for Event Reconstruction in IceCube”, PoS, vol. ICRC2021, p. 1065, 2021. DOI: 10.22323/1.395

    work page doi:10.22323/1.395 2021

  8. [7]

    Reconstruction of Track-like Event in TRIDENT Based on a Submanifold Sparse Convolutional Network

    C. Mo, F. Hu, L. Li, and D. Xu, “Reconstruction of Track-like Event in TRIDENT Based on a Submanifold Sparse Convolutional Network”, PoS, vol. ICRC2023, p. 1205, 2023. DOI: 10.22323/1.444.1205

    work page doi:10.22323/1.444.1205 2023

Show all 37 references
  1. [8]

    Event reconstruction for KM3NeT/ORCA using convolutional neural net- works

    S. Aiello et al., “Event reconstruction for KM3NeT/ORCA using convolutional neural net- works”, JINST, vol. 15, no. 10, P10005, 2020. DOI: 10.1088/1748-0221/15/10/P10005. arXiv: 2004.08254 [astro-ph.IM]

    2020 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Observation of high-energy neutrinos from the galactic plane

    I. Collaboration, R. Abbasi, M. Ackermann, et al., “Observation of high-energy neutrinos from the galactic plane”, Science, vol. 380, no. 6652, pp. 1338–1343, 2023. DOI: 10.1126/ science.adc9818. eprint: https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science. adc9818. [Online]. Avail...

    2023 doi

  3. [12]

    PyTorch 2: Faster Machine Learning Through Dynamic Python Bytecode Transformation and Graph Compilation

    J. Ansel, E. Yang, H. He,et al., “PyTorch 2: Faster Machine Learning Through Dynamic Python Bytecode Transformation and Graph Compilation”, in 29th ACM International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems, Volume 2 (ASPLOS ’24), ACM...

    2024

  4. [13]

    Fey and J

    M. Fey and J. E. Lenssen, Fast Graph Representation Learning with PyTorch Geometric, May

  5. [14]

    Falcon and The PyTorch Lightning team,PyTorch Lightning, version 1.4, Mar

    W. Falcon and The PyTorch Lightning team,PyTorch Lightning, version 1.4, Mar. 2019. DOI: 10 . 5281 / zenodo . 3828935. [Online]. Available: https : / / github . com / Lightning - AI/lightning. 6

    2019

  6. [15]

    Langa and contributors to Black, Black: The uncompromising Python code formatter

    L. Langa and contributors to Black, Black: The uncompromising Python code formatter . [Online]. Available: https://github.com/psf/black

  7. [16]

    Style guide for Python code

    G. van Rossum, B. Warsaw, and N. Coghlan, “Style guide for Python code”, PEP 8, 2001. [Online]. Available: https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0008/

    2001

  8. [17]

    Graphnet: Graph neural networks for neutrino telescope event reconstruction

    A. Søgaard, R. F. ørsøe, L. Bozianu, et al., “Graphnet: Graph neural networks for neutrino telescope event reconstruction”, 2022. arXiv: 2210.12194 [astro-ph.IM]

    2022 arXiv

  9. [18]

    LiquidO: First Opaque Detector for ββ Decay?

    A. Cabrera, “LiquidO: First Opaque Detector for ββ Decay?”, PoS, vol. NOW2018, A. Marrone, A. Mirizzi, and D. Montanino, Eds., p. 028, 2019. DOI: 10.22323/1.337.0028

    2019 doi

  10. [19]

    R. D. Hipp, SQLite, version 3.31.1, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.sqlite.org/ index.html

    2020

  11. [20]

    Automatic differentiation in PyTorch

    A. Paszke, S. Gross, S. Chintala, et al., “Automatic differentiation in PyTorch”, 2017

    2017

  12. [21]

    The SNO+ experiment

    V . Albaneseet al., “The SNO+ experiment”, JINST, vol. 16, no. 08, P08059, 2021. DOI: 10.1088/1748-0221/16/08/P08059. arXiv: 2104.11687 [physics.ins-det]

    2021 arXiv

  13. [22]

    The magic telescope

    C. Bigongiari, “The magic telescope”, PoS, vol. HEP2005, G. Barreira, Ed., p. 020, 2006. DOI: 10.22323/1.021.0020. arXiv: astro-ph/0512184

    2006 arXiv

  14. [23]

    The Cherenkov Telescope Array

    W. Hofmann and R. Zanin, “The Cherenkov Telescope Array”, May 2023. arXiv:2305.12888 [astro-ph.IM]

    2023 arXiv

  15. [24]

    The European Spallation Source neutrino super-beam conceptual design report

    A. Alekou et al., “The European Spallation Source neutrino super-beam conceptual design report”, Eur. Phys. J. ST, vol. 231, no. 21, pp. 3779–3955, 2022, [Erratum: Eur.Phys.J.ST 232, 15–16 (2023)]. DOI: 10.1140/epjs/s11734- 022- 00664- w . arXiv: 2206.01208 [hep-ex]

    2023 arXiv

  16. [25]

    Green, Deep learning for cherenkov event reconstruction, Talk presented at Erice, Slides available at: https://slides.com/astrojarred/green- jarred- erice- 2024 , Jul

    J. Green, Deep learning for cherenkov event reconstruction, Talk presented at Erice, Slides available at: https://slides.com/astrojarred/green- jarred- erice- 2024 , Jul. 2024

    2024

  17. [26]

    K. E. Iversen, Classification of essnusb wc near detector events using graph neural networks, Talk presented at the HAMLET Conference, Slides available at: https://indico.nbi. ku.dk/event/2067/contributions/15533/attachments/4742/7594/HAMLET2024_ ESSnuSB.pdf, Aug. 2024

    2024

  18. [27]

    Wendel, Deep learning event reconstruction techniques for the cloud liquido based experi- ment, Poster presented at Neutrino2024, Available at: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo

    G. Wendel, Deep learning event reconstruction techniques for the cloud liquido based experi- ment, Poster presented at Neutrino2024, Available at: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo. 13498314, Jun. 2024

    2024 doi

  19. [28]

    Graph neural networks for low-energy event classification & reconstruction in icecube

    R. Abbasi, M. Ackermann, J. Adams, et al., “Graph neural networks for low-energy event classification & reconstruction in icecube”,Journal of Instrumentation, vol. 17, no. 11, P11003, Nov. 2022. DOI: 10 . 1088 / 1748 - 0221 / 17 / 11 / P11003. [Online]. Available: https : //dx...

    2022 doi

  20. [29]

    Sensitivity of the IceCube Upgrade to Atmospheric Neutrino Oscillations

    P. Eller et al., “Sensitivity of the IceCube Upgrade to Atmospheric Neutrino Oscillations”, PoS, vol. ICRC2023, p. 1036, 2023. DOI: 10.22323/1.444.1036 . arXiv: 2307.15295 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  21. [30]

    A. Chow, L. Heinrich, P. Eller, R. Ørsøe, and S. Dane, IceCube - Neutrinos in Deep Ice, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://kaggle.com/competitions/icecube- neutrinos- in- deep-ice

    2023

  22. [31]

    Public Kaggle Competition IceCube - Neutrinos in Deep ice

    P. Eller et al. , “Public Kaggle Competition IceCube - Neutrinos in Deep ice”, PoS, vol. ICRC2023, p. 1609, 2023. DOI: 10.22323/1.444.1609

    2023 doi

  23. [32]

    Public Kaggle Competition

    P. Eller, “Public Kaggle Competition ”IceCube – Neutrinos in Deep Ice””, in38th International Cosmic Ray Conference, Jul. 2023. arXiv: 2307.15289 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  24. [33]

    Extending the IceCube search for neutrino point sources in the Northern sky with additional years of data

    C. Bellenghi et al., “Extending the IceCube search for neutrino point sources in the Northern sky with additional years of data”, PoS, vol. ICRC2023, p. 1060, 2023. DOI: 10.22323/1. 444.1060. arXiv: 2308.12742 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  25. [34]

    Prometheus: An open-source neutrino telescope simulation

    J. Lazar, S. Meighen-Berger, C. Haack, D. Kim, S. Giner, and C. A. Argüelles, “Prometheus: An open-source neutrino telescope simulation”, Comput. Phys. Commun., vol. 304, p. 109 298,

  26. [74]

    arXiv: 1308.5501 [astro-ph.IM]

    arXiv

  27. [1065]

    arXiv: 2107.12110 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv

  28. [2019]

    Available: https://github.com/pyg-team/pytorch_geometric

    [Online]. Available: https://github.com/pyg-team/pytorch_geometric

  29. [2024]

    arXiv: 2304.14526 [hep-ex]

    DOI: 10.1016/j.cpc.2024.109298. arXiv: 2304.14526 [hep-ex]. 7

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.