High-Energy Neutrinos from Cosmic-Ray Scatterings with Supernova Neutrinos

Gonzalo Herrera; Shunsaku Horiuchi

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

High-Energy Neutrinos from Cosmic-Ray Scatterings with Supernova Neutrinos

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Cosmic rays scattering off supernova neutrinos can create detectable high-energy neutrinos.

desk verdict Supernova-neutrino boosting is a clean, honestly qualified calculation, but the M*>30 TeV ANITA bound is an upper-limit-driven forecast that does not survive the spectral-index uncertainty in TXS 0506+056. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.11891 v2 pith:UO5VCSHC submitted 2025-08-16 hep-ph astro-ph.COastro-ph.HE

Gonzalo Herrera , Shunsaku Horiuchi This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-phastro-ph.COastro-ph.HE

keywords boostedsupernovaneutrinoscosmic-rayscatteringhigh-energyneutrinotelescopesTXS0506+056ultra-high-energyextradimensionsactivegalacticnucleineutrino-protoncrosssection

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

The paper proposes a new production channel for high-energy astrophysical neutrinos: cosmic-ray protons scatter off the around 10 MeV neutrinos released by core-collapse supernovae and boost them to GeV-PeV energies. It argues that in environments with large cosmic-ray and supernova densities, such as some active galactic nuclei, this mechanism can produce a neutrino flux detectable by current or next-generation telescopes using only the Standard Model cross section. Because these collisions can reach $\sqrt{s} \sim 10$–$100$ TeV, the same flux is also a probe of new physics that enhances the proton-neutrino cross section, and the absence of ultra-high-energy neutrinos from TXS 0506+056 is used to derive $M_\star \gtrsim 30$ TeV for extra-dimensional theories.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the boosted-supernova-neutrino flux integral of Eq. (3), which folds the source cosmic-ray proton spectrum $d\Phi_p/dT_p$, the supernova-neutrino density profile $n_{\mathrm{SN}}(r) = f_{\mathrm{SN}}(r) R_{\mathrm{SN}} N_\nu/(4\pi r^2 c)$, and the differential neutrino-proton cross section over the galaxy volume up to $T_p^{\max} = 5\times 10^{11}$ GeV. The Standard Model cross section is built from the elastic neutral-current formula of Eq. (7) at low energy, deep-inelastic scattering above about 1 GeV, and an $s^{0.363}$ scaling beyond 4 TeV; in extra-dimensional scenarios the same cross section is taken to scale as $s^2$ above a scale $M_\star$. The mechanism's key feature is that any cross-section enhancement acts both at the production site and at the detector, so new physics enters the observable flux twice.

What would settle it

Measure or tightly bound the cosmic-ray proton spectrum of TXS 0506+056 in the $10^{9}$–$10^{11}$ GeV range; if the proton luminosity there is below about $10^{49}$ erg/s or the spectral index is steeper than the $\alpha = 1.8$–$2.4$ range used, the predicted boosted supernova neutrino flux falls below ANITA's reach and the claimed $M_\star \gtrsim 30$ TeV bound does not follow.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper computes, from the flux integral of Eq. (3), the high-energy neutrino flux produced when cosmic-ray protons in a galaxy scatter off the supernova neutrino population and kick those neutrinos to much higher energies. For optimistic but individually plausible values of the supernova rate, cosmic-ray luminosity, and distance, the resulting flux approaches current high-energy neutrino telescope sensitivities using only Standard Model neutral-current scattering. For the specific sources with inferred parameter bounds in Table I, the predicted flux lies roughly 4 to 8 orders of magnitude below current experimental sensitivities. The same collisions can reach center-of-mass energies of $\sqrt{s} \sim 10$–$100$ TeV, where the proton-neutrino cross section is unmeasured and could grow as $\sigma \sim s^2$ in extra-dimensional theories; the non-observation of ultra-high-energy neutrinos from TXS 0506+056 with ANITA is then used to set $M_\star \gtrsim 30$ TeV, which the authors describe as the first such limit obtained with astrophysical high-energy neutrino data.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes the cosmic-ray luminosity inferred for TXS 0506+056, about $10^{49}$ erg/s, is carried by an unbroken, proton-dominated power-law spectrum extending to $5\times10^{11}$ GeV with spectral index $\alpha$ between 1.8 and 2.4; the source's actual ultra-high-energy cosmic-ray luminosity and spectrum are not directly measured, and a softer spectrum or lower luminosity would reduce the boosted flux and the $M_\star$ limit by orders of magnitude.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Under the benchmark parameters shown in the left panel of Fig. 1, the boosted supernova neutrino flux can reach within reach of existing high-energy neutrino telescopes using only Standard Model neutral-current scattering.
For the specific galaxies and blazar in Table I, the same mechanism predicts fluxes 4 to 8 orders of magnitude below current experimental sensitivity.
The flux depends strongly on the cosmic-ray spectral index; within the $\alpha = 1.8$–$2.4$ range allowed for TXS 0506+056, the predicted flux varies by orders of magnitude at high energies.
The non-observation of ultra-high-energy neutrinos from TXS 0506+056 by ANITA implies $M_\star \gtrsim 30$ TeV for the scale at which an extra-dimensional cross section $\sigma \sim s^2$ turns on, a bound comparable to the one from SN1987A and the first claimed from astrophysical high-energy neutrino data.

Reading between the lines

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

The paper leaves implicit that the same mechanism should generate a diffuse cosmic-ray-boosted supernova neutrino background; summing this flux over all star-forming galaxies is a concrete next calculation that would connect to IceCube's diffuse flux.
A direct extension of the $M_\star$ argument is to recast the projected sensitivities of IceCube-Gen2, GRAND, POEMMA, and TRIDENT with the same cross-section rescaling; if no boosted flux appears, those experiments could push the extra-dimension scale well above 30 TeV.
If the intrinsic ultra-high-energy cosmic-ray luminosity of TXS 0506+056 is hidden by opacity rather than genuinely small, the predicted boosted neutrino flux would be larger than the nominal calculation, turning current upper limits into stricter cross-section tests.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague,

The headline: Herrera and Horiuchi take the cosmic-ray boosting mechanism already applied to the cosmic neutrino background and point it at supernova neutrinos. That application is new, the flux calculation is transparent, and the paper is honest about the big gap between the optimistic benchmarks and what known sources actually support. The flashy result—M* > 30 TeV from ANITA non-observation of TXS 0506+056—does not survive contact with the spectral-index uncertainty. The paper itself shows this in Fig. 2 and acknowledges it in the conclusions, but the abstract and conclusions still present the bound as a solid new constraint.

What is genuinely good: the flux integrals and cross-section treatment are standard; they use NUANCE for DIS and match the high-energy behavior; the parameter dependence is displayed rather than hidden. The Table I comparison is useful: for M82, NGC 253, NGC 1068, Arp 220, and TXS with inferred limits, the boosted flux lands 4–8 orders below current sensitivity. That is an honest negative result for the mechanism in known sources, and it is the most solid part of the paper. The self-citations to the CnuB boost program are appropriate; the authors are extending their own earlier work, and the extra-dimensional parametrization is properly attributed to [39,40,69].

The weak spot is the M* limit. It assumes TXS's ultra-high-energy proton luminosity is about 1e49 erg/s in an unbroken power law with alpha between 1.8 and 2.4 up to 5e11 GeV. Neither the luminosity nor the spectral index at 1e8–1e10 GeV is measured for TXS; IceCube's time-dependent fit is for the neutrino spectrum, not the proton spectrum. Fig. 2 (right) shows that alpha=2.4 instead of 1.8 drops the boosted flux by orders of magnitude at ANITA-relevant energies, and a lower L_CR would do the same. So the claimed exclusion M* > 30 TeV is better read as an upper-limit-driven forecast: if the source is that bright in UHE protons with a hard spectrum, then ANITA excludes 30 TeV. The 'first bound from astrophysical high-energy neutrino data' line overstates it, especially since the connection to the CnuB-boost program should be checked against earlier work. The paper does include the caveat about strong dependence on the cosmic-ray spectrum, so this is a framing problem rather than a hidden error.

Verdict: the mechanism calculation is fine and the negative results for known sources are worth publishing. The M* bound needs to be qualified or reframed in a revision. I would send this to peer review; a good referee can push for that reframing. I would not cite it for the bound, but I would cite it as a complementary channel in the boosted-neutrino literature.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a new mechanism for high-energy neutrino production: cosmic-ray protons scattering with the ~10 MeV neutrinos emitted by core-collapse supernovae boost those neutrinos to energies of 10^6–10^10 GeV. The authors compute the resulting flux for a set of external galaxies and for optimistic benchmark parameters, finding that under the latter the flux could be within reach of current or near-future neutrino telescopes, while for specific sources with estimated parameter bounds the predicted fluxes lie roughly 4–8 orders of magnitude below current sensitivity. The paper then considers extra-dimensional new physics in which the proton-neutrino cross section grows as s^2 above a scale M*, and uses the non-observation of ultra-high-energy neutrinos from TXS 0506+056 by ANITA to derive M* ≳ 30 TeV, which the authors describe as the first bound on this scale from astrophysical high-energy neutrino data.

Significance. If the calculation is sound, the proposed mechanism is a genuinely new contribution to the discussion of high-energy neutrino production in astrophysical sources, complementing the usual pp and pγ channels and the previously studied cosmic-neutrino-background boosting. The paper is transparent about its parameter choices, uses standard cross-section inputs (including NUANCE for deep inelastic scattering), and the resulting flux predictions are falsifiable in the sense that they can be compared with existing and projected limits. The derived M* bound, if robust, would be competitive with the SN1987A graviton-emission bound and would demonstrate a new use of high-energy neutrino telescopes. However, the significance of the headline new-physics result is substantially moderated by its strong dependence on source parameters that are not directly measured at the relevant ultra-high energies, as detailed below.

major comments (3)

[Upper limits on the ultra-high energy proton-neutrino cross section, Fig. 3] The central new-physics claim, M* ≳ 30 TeV from the ANITA non-observation of TXS 0506+056, is not robust against the assumed cosmic-ray spectrum and luminosity. The predicted boosted flux at Eν ≳ 10^8 GeV is produced by protons with T_p ∼ 10^8–10^10 GeV, where the TXS spectrum is not directly measured; the calculation adopts an unbroken proton power law with L_CR ≈ 10^49 erg/s and α in the range 1.8–2.4 taken from time-dependent IceCube analyses. The right panel of Fig. 2 shows that varying α across this allowed range changes the flux by orders of magnitude, and the paper itself acknowledges the strong spectral-index dependence in the Conclusions. Consequently, for α = 2.4 or a lower conservative L_CR, the ANITA limit would no longer exclude M* = 30 TeV. The bound should therefore be either recast as a conditional sensitivity forecast or supplemented with a conservative exclusion derived from the softest allowed spectrum and lowest plausible luminosity.
[Boosted supernova neutrino flux, Eq. (3)] Equation (3) appears to omit the integration over the angle between the cosmic-ray proton direction and the supernova neutrino direction. The scattering rate per target neutrino is proportional to ∫dΩ (dΦp/dT_p dΩ) σνp(s(θ)), where the center-of-mass energy depends on the relative angle through s = m_p^2 + 2Eν(E_p − p_p cosθ). As written, the equation uses dΦp/dT_p dΩ without specifying the angle or performing the dΩ integral. This ambiguity matters particularly for the blazar model of Eq. (5), which is explicitly angle-dependent through μ, and it affects the normalization and energy distribution of the TXS flux used in the M* bound. The authors should specify the angular prescription (e.g., head-on approximation, isotropic averaging, or full angle integration) or include the missing integral.
[Left panel of Fig. 1 and Abstract] The 'potentially detectable flux' statement in the abstract and the left panel of Fig. 1 is an illustrative scenario that combines parameter values taken from different objects: L_CR = 10^49 erg/s is inferred for TXS 0506+056, R_SN = 10 yr^-1 is inferred for Arp 220, and d = 3 Mpc corresponds to nearby starburst galaxies. No known source simultaneously realizes these values, as the right panel of Fig. 1 demonstrates for the four sources with available parameter estimates. The text does label this as optimistic, but the abstract-level claim should more clearly state that this is a parameter-space illustration rather than a prediction for any specific object, so that readers do not take the detectability claim as applying to an actual known source.

minor comments (5)

[Eq. (2) and surrounding text] The notation RSNν in Eq. (2) appears to be a typo for R_SN, and the range '0.1−10 yr−1' should use consistent spacing and units.
[Eq. (5)] The quantities γ'_min,p, γ'_max,p, D, β_B, and μ are used in Eq. (5) but are only partially defined in the text; a complete definition of each symbol and the angular variable μ would improve reproducibility.
[Table I] The sentence immediately following Table I contains the duplicated phrase 'in this in this work'; this should be corrected.
[Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 captions] The machine-readable text of the figure captions renders the supernova-rate unit as 'yr□1'; if this reflects the actual manuscript, the superscript minus sign should be corrected.
[Conclusions] The phrase 'the first one obtained with astrophysical high-energy neutrino data' should be checked carefully against the existing literature on ultra-high-energy neutrino cross-section limits, since Ref. [69] and related work may already derive constraints from high-energy neutrino observations.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the flux and M* exclusion are forward-modeled from external astrophysical inputs and experimental upper limits, not fitted to the target observable.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The boosted-supernova-neutrino flux is computed from Eq. (3) using stated astrophysical inputs (cosmic-ray luminosity Lp, spectral index alpha, supernova rate RSN, distance d) and Standard Model or BSM cross sections; none of these inputs is adjusted to reproduce the predicted neutrino flux or the ANITA non-observation. For TXS 0506+056 the parameters come from external inferences (Table I, and refs. [7,50,58]), and the right panel of Fig. 1 reports fluxes 4-8 orders below current sensitivities, which is a prediction, not a fit. The M* constraint in Fig. 3 is obtained by comparing a forward-modeled flux (with sigma ~ s^2 above M*) against ANITA upper limits recast by sigma_SM/sigma_BSM; the excluded scale is read off where the model curve crosses the limit, so the target observable is used only as an upper limit, not as a fitted input. Self-citations [30,32] supply the analogous cosmic-neutrino-background boosting framework, but the present calculation is specified by equations in this paper and does not rely on those papers for the new result. The paper's own caveat about the strong dependence on the cosmic-ray spectral index is an astrophysical uncertainty that affects the robustness of the M* bound, not a circular step.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particles. The central calculation uses standard cross sections and literature-extracted astrophysical parameters; the main choices are benchmark or upper-limit values for L_CR, R_SN, alpha, distance, maximum proton energy, and radial profiles. The M* bound inherits the uncertainty in these choices, which the paper only partially quantifies.

free parameters (6)

Cosmic-ray luminosity L_CR = 10^47-10^49 erg/s benchmarks; <=10^49 erg/s for TXS in Table I
Overall normalization of the boosted flux; the optimistic panel uses the largest plausible values and the M* bound adopts the TXS upper limit.
Supernova rate R_SN = 1-10 yr^-1 benchmarks and Table I upper limits
Sets the supernova-neutrino target density through Eq. (8).
Cosmic-ray spectral index alpha = 2 benchmark; 1.5-2.5 band; 1.8-2.4 for TXS
Controls the high-energy tail of the cosmic-ray spectrum; Fig. 2 shows the flux changes by orders of magnitude over this range.
Source distance d = 3 and 10 Mpc benchmarks; 3.3-1762 Mpc for catalog sources
Flux scales as 1/d^2; distances are known but carry their own uncertainty.
Maximum cosmic-ray energy T_p^max = 5 x 10^11 GeV (10 T_GZK^p)
Chosen by hand to extend the proton spectrum beyond the GZK cutoff; directly affects the highest-energy portion of the boosted flux.
Radial concentration of cosmic rays and supernovae = CR profile proportional to r^{1/2}; supernova profile exp(-r/r_gal)
Modeling choices that the authors estimate enhance the flux by a factor around 16.7 relative to uniform averages.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The Standard Model neutrino-proton cross section, with elastic scattering below sqrt(s) about 1 GeV and NUANCE-based DIS above, describes the scattering at all relevant energies.
Central physics input; taken from refs [59-62] without independent verification here.
domain assumption Supernova neutrinos stream freely through the host galaxy so the density is steady and given by Eq. (8).
Neglects absorption, flavor oscillations, and the time-dependent clumping of supernova bursts.
domain assumption The cosmic-ray population in each source is purely protons and follows an unbroken power law up to T_p^max = 5e11 GeV.
The paper notes composition likely becomes mixed above 10^10 GeV, but argues the dominant boosted flux comes from below 10^10 GeV.
domain assumption The ultra-high-energy cosmic-ray luminosity and spectrum of TXS 0506+056 are the same as those inferred for the neutrino-emitting region.
Load-bearing for the M* bound; this population is not directly measured.
domain assumption In the extra-dimensional benchmark, the neutrino-proton cross section scales as s^2 for sqrt(s) above the scale M*, following refs [39,40,69].
Used to map the predicted flux into an M* constraint; no new entity is introduced by this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of High-Energy Neutrinos from Cosmic-Ray Scatterings with Supernova Neutrinos." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UO5VCSHC

@misc{pith2026250811891,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: High-Energy Neutrinos from Cosmic-Ray Scatterings with Supernova Neutrinos},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UO5VCSHC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.11891}
}

abstract

Cosmic rays scattering with neutrinos produced in supernovae induce a flux of supernova neutrinos boosted to high energies. We calculate the neutrino flux arising from this new mechanism in environments with large cosmic-ray and supernova densities, such as some Active Galactic Nuclei. Under plausible astrophysical conditions, this flux may be detectable with high-energy neutrino telescopes, just considering the proton-neutrino scattering cross section expected in the Standard Model. Furthermore, the center of mass energy of such scatterings can reach $ \sqrt{s} \sim 10-100$ TeV, where the proton-neutrino cross section may be enhanced by new physics such as extra-dimensional theories. The boosted neutrino signal benefits from such an enhancement in the cross section not only at the detection point on Earth, but also at production in astrophysical sources, which allows us to set novel constraints on the ultra-high energy proton-neutrino cross section with neutrino telescopes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.11891 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. High energy neutrino flux from cosmic-ray scatterings [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

Astrophysical Neutrino Sources as Colliders
hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

Neutrino point-source observations (IceCube, KM3NeT) can bound inelastic pp and pγ cross sections from √s ≈ 1 GeV to ~10^5 GeV, extending beyond LHC/HERA and sometimes below unitarity limits.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

76 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

F. W. Stecker, Astrophys. J. 228, 919 (1979)

work page 1979
[2]

F. W. Stecker, C. Done, M. H. Salamon, and P. Som- mers, Phys. Rev. Lett. 66, 2697 (1991), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 69, 2738 (1992)]

work page 1991
[3]

Murase and M

K. Murase and M. Fukugita, Phys. Rev. D 99, 063012 (2019), arXiv:1806.04194 [astro-ph.HE]

arXiv 2019
[4]

A Leptonic Model for Neutrino Emission From Active Galactic Nuclei

D. Hooper and K. Plant, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 231001 (2023), arXiv:2305.06375 [astro-ph.HE]

work page Pith review arXiv 2023
[5]

A. Das, B. T. Zhang, and K. Murase, Astrophys. J. 972, 44 (2024), arXiv:2405.09332 [astro-ph.HE]

arXiv 2024
[6]

M. G. Aartsen et al. (IceCube, Fermi-LAT, MAGIC, AG- ILE, ASAS-SN, HAWC, H.E.S.S., INTEGRAL, Kanata, Kiso, Kapteyn, Liverpool Telescope, Subaru, Swift NuS- TAR, VERITAS, VLA/17B-403), Science 361, eaat1378 (2018), arXiv:1807.08816 [astro-ph.HE]

arXiv 2018
[7]

M. G. Aartsen et al. (IceCube), Science 361, 147 (2018), arXiv:1807.08794 [astro-ph.HE]

arXiv 2018
[8]

Adriani et al

O. Adriani et al. (KM3NeT), (2025), arXiv:2502.08173 [astro-ph.HE]

arXiv 2025

Show all 76 references

[9]

Eichmann, F

B. Eichmann, F. Oikonomou, S. Salvatore, R.-J. Dettmar, and J. Becker Tjus, Astrophys. J. 939, 43 (2022), arXiv:2207.00102 [astro-ph.HE]

2022 arXiv
[10]

Padovani, P

P. Padovani, P. Giommi, E. Resconi, T. Glauch, B. Arsi- oli, N. Sahakyan, and M. Huber, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 480, 192 (2018), arXiv:1807.04461 [astro-ph.HE]

2018 arXiv
[11]

Rodrigues, S

X. Rodrigues, S. Gao, A. Fedynitch, A. Palladino, and W. Winter, Astrophys. J. Lett. 874, L29 (2019), arXiv:1812.05939 [astro-ph.HE]

2019 arXiv
[12]

S. Gao, A. Fedynitch, W. Winter, and M. Pohl, Nature Astron. 3, 88 (2019), arXiv:1807.04275 [astro-ph.HE]

2019 arXiv
[13]

Murase, Astrophys

K. Murase, Astrophys. J. Lett. 941, L17 (2022), arXiv:2211.04460 [astro-ph.HE]

2022 arXiv
[14]

Neronov, F

A. Neronov, F. Oikonomou, and D. Semikoz, (2025), arXiv:2502.12986 [astro-ph.HE]

2025 arXiv
[15]

Blanco, D

C. Blanco, D. Hooper, T. Linden, and E. Pinetti, (2023), arXiv:2307.03259 [astro-ph.HE]

2023 arXiv
[16]

K. Fang, F. Halzen, and D. Hooper, Astrophys. J. Lett. 982, L16 (2025), arXiv:2502.09545 [astro-ph.HE]

2025 arXiv
[17]

D. F. G. Fiorillo, M. Petropoulou, L. Comisso, E. Peretti, and L. Sironi, Astrophys. J. 961, L14 (2024), arXiv:2310.18254 [astro-ph.HE]

2024 arXiv
[18]

D. F. G. Fiorillo, L. Comisso, E. Peretti, M. Petropoulou, and L. Sironi, Astrophys. J. 974, 75 (2024), arXiv:2407.01678 [astro-ph.HE]

2024 arXiv
[19]

C. Yuan, D. F. G. Fiorillo, M. Petropoulou, and Q. Liu, (2025), arXiv:2508.08233 [astro-ph.HE]

2025
[20]

H. T. Janka, (2017), 10.1007/978-3-319-21846-54, arXiv:1702.08713 [astro-ph.HE]

2017 arXiv
[21]

J. N. Bahcall, M. H. Pinsonneault, and S. Basu, Astro- phys. J. 555, 990 (2001), arXiv:astro-ph/0010346

2001 arXiv
[22]

Hirata et al

K. Hirata et al. (Kamiokande-II), Phys. Rev. Lett. 58, 1490 (1987)

1987
[23]

R. M. Bionta et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 58, 1494 (1987)

1987
[24]

K. S. Hirata et al. , Phys. Rev. D 38, 448 (1988)

1988
[25]

C. B. Bratton et al. (IMB), Phys. Rev. D37, 3361 (1988)

1988
[26]

Review of diffuse sn neutrino background,

M. Harada, “Review of diffuse sn neutrino background,” (2024)

2024
[27]

Horiuchi, J

S. Horiuchi, J. F. Beacom, and E. Dwek, Phys. Rev. D 79, 083013 (2009), arXiv:0812.3157 [astro-ph]

2009 arXiv
[28]

J. F. Beacom, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 60, 439 (2010), arXiv:1004.3311 [astro-ph.HE]

2010 arXiv
[29]

Lunardini, Astropart

C. Lunardini, Astropart. Phys. 79, 49 (2016), arXiv:1007.3252 [astro-ph.CO]

2016 arXiv
[30]

C´ ıscar-Monsalvatje, G

M. C´ ıscar-Monsalvatje, G. Herrera, and I. M. Shoemaker, Phys. Rev. D 110, 063036 (2024), arXiv:2402.00985 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[31]

A. G. De Marchi, A. Granelli, J. Nava, and F. Sala, (2024), arXiv:2405.04568 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[32]

Herrera, S

G. Herrera, S. Horiuchi, and X. Qi, Phys. Rev. D 111, 063016 (2025), arXiv:2405.14946 [hep-ph]

2025 arXiv
[33]

Zhang, A

J. Zhang, A. Sandrock, J. Liao, and B. Yue, (2025), arXiv:2505.04791 [hep-ph]

2025
[34]

Greisen, Phys

K. Greisen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 16, 748 (1966)

1966
[35]

G. T. Zatsepin and V. A. Kuzmin, JETP Lett. 4, 78 (1966)

1966
[36]

Van Den Bergh, International Astronomical Union Colloquium 145, 1–9 (1996)

S. Van Den Bergh, International Astronomical Union Colloquium 145, 1–9 (1996)

1996
[37]

A. D. Dolgov, S. H. Hansen, and D. V. Semikoz, Nucl. Phys. B 503, 426 (1997), arXiv:hep-ph/9703315

1997 arXiv
[38]

Aker et al

M. Aker et al. (Katrin), (2024), arXiv:2406.13516 [nucl- ex]

2024
[39]

P. Jain, D. W. McKay, S. Panda, and J. P. Ralston, Phys. Lett. B 484, 267 (2000), arXiv:hep-ph/0001031

2000 arXiv
[40]

Lykken, O

J. Lykken, O. Mena, and S. Razzaque, JCAP 12, 015 (2007), arXiv:0705.2029 [hep-ph]

2007 arXiv
[41]

M. G. Aartsen et al. (IceCube), Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 121104 (2020), arXiv:2001.09520 [astro-ph.HE]

2020
[42]

Aiello et al

S. Aiello et al. (KM3NeT), Nature 638, 376 (2025), [Er- ratum: Nature 640, E3 (2025)]

2025
[43]

Aab et al

A. Aab et al. (Pierre Auger), Phys. Rev. D 91, 092008 (2015), arXiv:1504.05397 [astro-ph.HE]

2015 arXiv
[44]

Abbasi et al

R. Abbasi et al. (IceCube), (2025), arXiv:2502.01963 [astro-ph.HE]

2025
[45]

P. W. Gorham et al. (ANITA), Phys. Rev. D 98, 022001 (2018), arXiv:1803.02719 [astro-ph.HE]

2018 arXiv
[46]

Abbasi et al

R. Abbasi et al. (IceCube-Gen2), PoS ICRC2021, 1183 (2021), arXiv:2107.08910 [astro-ph.HE]

2021 arXiv
[47]

´Alvarez-Mu˜ nizet al

J. ´Alvarez-Mu˜ nizet al. (GRAND), Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 63, 219501 (2020), arXiv:1810.09994 [astro-ph.HE]

2020 arXiv
[48]

A. V. Olinto et al. (POEMMA), JCAP 06, 007 (2021), arXiv:2012.07945 [astro-ph.IM]

2021 arXiv
[49]

Z. P. Ye et al. (TRIDENT), Nature Astron. 7, 1497 (2023), arXiv:2207.04519 [astro-ph.HE]

2023
[50]

Padovani, F

P. Padovani, F. Oikonomou, M. Petropoulou, P. Giommi, and E. Resconi, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 484, L104 (2019), arXiv:1901.06998 [astro-ph.HE]

2019 arXiv
[51]

Alves Batista et al

R. Alves Batista et al. , Front. Astron. Space Sci. 6, 23 (2019), arXiv:1903.06714 [astro-ph.HE]

2019 arXiv
[52]

Abreu et al

P. Abreu et al. , in 39th International Cosmic Ray Con- ference (2025) arXiv:2507.10292 [astro-ph.HE]

2025 arXiv
[53]

T. A. Porter, G. Johannesson, and I. V. Moskalenko, Astrophys. J. 846, 67 (2017), arXiv:1708.00816 [astro- ph.HE]

2017 arXiv
[54]

J´ ohannesson, T

G. J´ ohannesson, T. A. Porter, and I. V. Moskalenko, Astrophys. J. 856, 45 (2018), arXiv:1802.08646 [astro- ph.HE]

2018 arXiv
[55]

Gorchtein, S

M. Gorchtein, S. Profumo, and L. Ubaldi, Phys. Rev. D 82, 083514 (2010), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 84, 069903 (2011)], arXiv:1008.2230 [astro-ph.HE]

2010 arXiv
[56]

J.-W. Wang, A. Granelli, and P. Ullio, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 221104 (2022), arXiv:2111.13644 [astro-ph.HE]. 7

2022 arXiv
[57]

Granelli, P

A. Granelli, P. Ullio, and J.-W. Wang, JCAP 07, 013 (2022), arXiv:2202.07598 [astro-ph.HE]

2022 arXiv
[58]

Cerruti, A

M. Cerruti, A. Zech, C. Boisson, G. Emery, S. Inoue, and J. P. Lenain, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 483, L12 (2019), [Erratum: Mon.Not.Roy.Astron.Soc. 502, L21– L22 (2021)], arXiv:1807.04335 [astro-ph.HE]

2019 arXiv
[59]

Giunti and C

C. Giunti and C. W. Kim, Fundamentals of Neutrino Physics and Astrophysics (2007)

2007
[60]

J. A. Formaggio and G. P. Zeller, Rev. Mod. Phys. 84, 1307 (2012), arXiv:1305.7513 [hep-ex]

2012 arXiv
[61]

Casper, Nucl

D. Casper, Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl. 112, 161 (2002), arXiv:hep-ph/0208030

2002 arXiv
[62]

Gandhi, C

R. Gandhi, C. Quigg, M. H. Reno, and I. Sarcevic, As- tropart. Phys. 5, 81 (1996), arXiv:hep-ph/9512364

1996 arXiv
[63]

Verberne and J

S. Verberne and J. Vink, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 504, 1536 (2021), arXiv:2103.16973 [astro-ph.GA]

2021 arXiv
[64]

Ranasinghe and D

S. Ranasinghe and D. Leahy, Astrophys. J. 940, 63 (2022), arXiv:2209.04570 [astro-ph.HE]

2022 arXiv
[65]

T. M. Yoast-Hull, J. E. Everett, J. S. Gallagher, and E. G. Zweibel, Astrophys. J. 768, 53 (2013), arXiv:1303.4305 [astro-ph.HE]

2013 arXiv
[66]

S. C. Beck and S. V. Beckwith, MNRAS 207, 671 (1984)

1984
[67]

Rampadarath, J

H. Rampadarath, J. S. Morgan, E. Lenc, and S. J. Tin- gay, Astron. J. 147, 5 (2014), arXiv:1310.8033 [astro- ph.CO]

2014 arXiv
[68]

Peng, X.-Y

F.-K. Peng, X.-Y. Wang, R.-Y. Liu, Q.-W. Tang, and J.-F. Wang, Astrophys. J. Lett. 821, L20 (2016), arXiv:1603.06355 [astro-ph.HE]

2016 arXiv
[69]

Esteban, S

I. Esteban, S. Prohira, and J. F. Beacom, Phys. Rev. D 106, 023021 (2022), arXiv:2205.09763 [hep-ph]

2022 arXiv
[70]

Hanhart, J

C. Hanhart, J. A. Pons, D. R. Phillips, and S. Reddy, Phys. Lett. B 509, 1 (2001), arXiv:astro-ph/0102063

2001 arXiv
[71]

L. J. Hall and D. Tucker-Smith, Phys. Rev. D 60, 085008 (1999), arXiv:hep-ph/9904267

1999 arXiv
[72]

A. M. Sirunyan et al. (CMS), Phys. Rev. D 97, 092005 (2018), arXiv:1712.02345 [hep-ex]

2018 arXiv
[73]

Kotera, D

K. Kotera, D. Allard, and A. Olinto, Journal of Cosmol- ogy and Astroparticle Physics 2010, 013–013 (2010)

2010
[74]

Liebendoerfer, O

M. Liebendoerfer, O. E. B. Messer, A. Mezzacappa, S. W. Bruenn, C. Y. Cardall, and F. K. Thielemann, Astro- phys. J. Suppl. 150, 263 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0207036

2004 arXiv
[75]

Horiuchi, K

S. Horiuchi, K. Nakamura, T. Takiwaki, K. Kotake, and M. Tanaka, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.445, L99 (2014), arXiv:1409.0006 [astro-ph.HE]

2014 arXiv
[76]

J. M. M. Neustadt, C. S. Kochanek, K. Z. Stanek, C. M. Basinger, T. Jayasinghe, C. T. Garling, S. M. Adams, and J. Gerke, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 508, 516 (2021), arXiv:2104.03318 [astro-ph.SR]

2021 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

F. W. Stecker, Astrophys. J. 228, 919 (1979)

work page 1979

[2] [2]

F. W. Stecker, C. Done, M. H. Salamon, and P. Som- mers, Phys. Rev. Lett. 66, 2697 (1991), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 69, 2738 (1992)]

work page 1991

[3] [3]

Murase and M

K. Murase and M. Fukugita, Phys. Rev. D 99, 063012 (2019), arXiv:1806.04194 [astro-ph.HE]

arXiv 2019

[4] [4]

A Leptonic Model for Neutrino Emission From Active Galactic Nuclei

D. Hooper and K. Plant, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 231001 (2023), arXiv:2305.06375 [astro-ph.HE]

work page Pith review arXiv 2023

[5] [5]

A. Das, B. T. Zhang, and K. Murase, Astrophys. J. 972, 44 (2024), arXiv:2405.09332 [astro-ph.HE]

arXiv 2024

[6] [6]

M. G. Aartsen et al. (IceCube, Fermi-LAT, MAGIC, AG- ILE, ASAS-SN, HAWC, H.E.S.S., INTEGRAL, Kanata, Kiso, Kapteyn, Liverpool Telescope, Subaru, Swift NuS- TAR, VERITAS, VLA/17B-403), Science 361, eaat1378 (2018), arXiv:1807.08816 [astro-ph.HE]

arXiv 2018

[7] [7]

M. G. Aartsen et al. (IceCube), Science 361, 147 (2018), arXiv:1807.08794 [astro-ph.HE]

arXiv 2018

[8] [8]

Adriani et al

O. Adriani et al. (KM3NeT), (2025), arXiv:2502.08173 [astro-ph.HE]

arXiv 2025