Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

KM3-230213A was most likely not an EeV neutrino but an atmospheric muon bundle whose arrival direction was misreconstructed because the floating ARCA array can bend in deep-sea currents.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 18:00 UTC pith:MTNQB7DQ

load-bearing objection A plausible but unproven challenge to the KM3-230213A interpretation; the real tension is worth discussing, but the central mechanism is pure speculation. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2512.07042 v1 pith:MTNQB7DQ submitted 2025-12-07 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.COastro-ph.GAhep-exhep-ph

Paucity of downward UHE neutrino tracks in IceCube versus unexpected huge KM3-230213A event: solving the puzzles?

D. Fargion This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE astro-ph.COastro-ph.GAhep-exhep-ph
keywords KM3-230213Aultra-high-energy neutrinosmuon bundlesIceCube alert trackstau air-showersneutrino telescopesdeep-sea array deformationcosmic-ray background
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper argues that KM3-230213A, the event announced as the most energetic neutrino ever seen, is probably not a neutrino at all. The author points to a statistically extreme deficit of downward horizontal tracks in IceCube's alert catalog and to the absence of tau-neutrino air showers that such an event would have produced in the Pierre Auger Observatory. The proposed explanation is that the floating ARCA array can bend under deep-sea currents, so a steep atmospheric or charmed muon could be misreconstructed as a nearly horizontal track. If the event is real and a second one appears, the paper says it would open tau-neutrino astronomy; if not, the array-bending explanation resolves the tension with other detectors.

Core claim

The author's central claim is that KM3-230213A, reconstructed by ARCA as an almost horizontal muon-neutrino track of roughly 200 PeV to EeV energy, is with highest likelihood a more inclined atmospheric muon bundle or a single charmed muon whose arrival direction was distorted because the ARCA detector floats and can bend in sea currents by a few degrees. This mis-aimed geometry would place a steep, vetoed atmospheric track into the horizontal band where the event was seen. The claim is supported by the strong upward/downward asymmetry in IceCube alert tracks at similar horizontal angles, which implies such tracks are dominated by atmospheric muons, and by the absence in Auger of the tau air

What carries the argument

The argument rests on two pieces of evidence and one mechanism. First, the IceCube alert-track asymmetry: among 111 events within ±9° of the horizon, only 34 point down while 77 point up, a binomial probability of about 1.5×10⁻⁵; over the full sky, 213 up versus 61 down gives a probability of about 3.3×10⁻⁹. This indicates that horizontal downward tracks are mostly filtered atmospheric muons. Second, the tau-neutrino companion argument: a mixed-flavor neutrino flux at hundreds of PeV would generate upward tau air-showers in Auger at a rate of tens of events, and none have been observed. The proposed mechanism is the float-and-bend of the ARCA array: anchored at 3 km depth but floating in cur

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the ARCA array was actually tilted by sea currents at the time of the event, by a few degrees, and that the detector's positioning system failed to record that tilt—a premise introduced as an 'imagine' scenario without telemetry or hydrodynamic modeling.

What would settle it

Examine the positioning telemetry and a hydrodynamical model of the ARCA array for 13 February 2023. If the array orientation deviated from nominal by less than about a degree, the bending explanation fails. Alternatively, search the larger South Pole ice detector's vetoed or downgoing sample for any muon bundle near the horizon at roughly 200 PeV; if none exists, an atmospheric-muon origin for KM3-230213A is hard to sustain.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If KM3-230213A is an atmospheric muon bundle, the event no longer constitutes evidence for an astrophysical EeV neutrino, and the apparent tension with IceCube and Auger bounds disappears.
  • The strong up/down asymmetry in IceCube alert tracks implies that horizontal downward tracks are dominated by atmospheric muons, so the same filtering should apply to sea-based arrays.
  • A real EeV neutrino should produce an up-going tau air-shower in Auger within the same field of view; the absence of such showers places a strict upper bound on the EeV neutrino flux.
  • If a second event like KM3-230213A is found with robust geometry, it would be the first clear tau-neutrino astronomical signal and would favor the Z-burst mechanism for ultra-high-energy cosmic rays.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If bent-array misreconstruction occurs, other floating deep-sea detectors with loose positioning calibration may harbor hidden misreconstructed events; a re-analysis of acoustic positioning data for all large hits would test this.
  • The charmed-muon option could be tested by looking for a correlated prompt lepton signal from the same cosmic-ray air shower, which a single EeV neutrino would not produce.
  • The paper's logic implies that downward horizontal events in any neutrino telescope should be treated as atmospheric until proven otherwise; a forward-folding analysis with a full array-deformation model would quantify how often a few-degree tilt converts inclined muons into horizontal tracks.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript argues that the KM3-230213A event, announced by KM3NeT as an ultra-high-energy muon neutrino (~200 PeV–EeV), is more plausibly a misreconstructed atmospheric muon bundle or charmed muon. The argument rests on two alleged tensions: (i) an asymmetry in IceCube alert tracks, with far fewer downward than upward events at similar horizontal angles (binomial probabilities 1.5e-5 and 3.3e-9), and (ii) an expectation of 30–90 tau air-showers in the Pierre Auger Observatory if the KM3-230213A rate were real, none of which have been seen. The proposed resolution is that the floating ARCA array bent under deep-sea currents, so that an inclined atmospheric muon was reconstructed as a near-horizontal track. The paper also discusses the Z-burst model and other speculative cosmology. The central conclusion is that the KM3NeT interpretation of KM3-230213A is wrong.

Significance. If the tilt hypothesis were quantitatively demonstrated, the paper would raise a serious challenge to the KM3NeT interpretation of KM3-230213A and would have implications for neutrino astronomy and for the design of deep-sea detectors. The paper has the strength of computing binomial probabilities correctly from the quoted IceCube counts and of highlighting a real, publicly discussed tension between KM3-230213A and IceCube/Auger limits. However, both pillars of the argument are problematic: the AUGER expectation is derived from the author's own 2004 model rather than from an independent estimate, and the IceCube up/down asymmetry is, to a large degree, a built-in consequence of the detector's veto of down-going atmospheric muons. The tilt hypothesis is introduced as an unconstrained 'imagine' scenario with no supporting telemetry, hydrodynamical modeling, or simulation. As a result, the manuscript does not provide a scientifically convincing case that the KM3NeT event is a misreconstructed muon; it offers an interesting but unsupported speculation.

major comments (4)
  1. [§2.1, §3, Fig. 4] The central claim—that a few-degree bending of the ARCA array converted an inclined atmospheric muon into the reconstructed 0.8° downward horizontal track—is entirely ad hoc. No telemetry from KM3NeT's positioning system at the event time, no hydrodynamic model of the detector lines under realistic deep-sea currents, and no simulation of the reconstruction under a deformed geometry is provided. The text explicitly says 'Imagine...' and later calls this 'the most probable solution' without quantitative support. This is a free parameter fitted to eliminate the tension, and it is load-bearing: without it the paper's reinterpretation of KM3-230213A collapses.
  2. [§1.3, §3, Fig. 6] The expected 30–90 (or ~70) AUGER tau air-shower events are derived from the author's earlier model, Fargion et al. 2004 (ref. [4]). Treating the absence of such events as evidence against the KM3-230213A neutrino interpretation is circular: the non-observation could equally be taken as evidence against that specific model's flux prediction. The manuscript does not provide an independent estimate based on the KM3NeT-measured event rate and standard neutrino flux models, nor does it compare the model's predictions to current Auger upper limits in a statistically rigorous way.
  3. [§2, Figs. 2, 3] The binomial calculations (P=1.5e-5 for 34-down vs 77-up in ±9°; P=3.3e-9 for 61-down vs 213-up overall) are arithmetically correct, but they ignore the detector's selection function. IceCube alert tracks are heavily filtered to reject down-going atmospheric muons, including by IceTop; the observed up/down asymmetry is therefore largely the expected result of this veto, not evidence that horizontal downward events are polluted or misreconstructed. The statement that this 'must also be true' for the ARCA array is an unsupported extrapolation to a detector with a different geometry, depth, and veto strategy.
  4. [§3] The conclusion that the bending is 'the most probable solution' is not justified by any quantitative comparison with alternatives. The manuscript does not estimate the rate or magnitude of ARCA bending events from oceanographic data, nor does it compute the probability that the detector was sufficiently deformed at the time of KM3-230213A. It also does not weigh the statistical cost of introducing such a large ad hoc systematic effect against the simpler possibility that the event is an unusual but real astrophysical neutrino. Without such a comparison, the central claim remains speculation.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§1.1, §1.2] The historical digressions on neutrino physics, the OPERA faster-than-light episode, and the Z-burst model occupy a large fraction of the text and are not connected to the quantitative argument. They should be removed or condensed to make the paper's reasoning clear.
  2. [General] The manuscript has numerous typographical and formatting issues: missing spaces, uncapitalized proper names (e.g., 'ICECUBE' for IceCube, 'ICETOP' for IceTop), and inconsistent notation. Figures 1–6 are not referenced in the text with enough specificity to guide the reader.
  3. [Fig. 6] The figure caption and the surrounding text contain a self-referential statement: 'We underline, in partial disagreement with their figure above...' The 'their' is unclear, and the claimed Auger bound (3–4 times stronger than IceCube) is presented without a derivation or a reference to a public Auger limit.
  4. [References] The paper relies heavily on the author's own previous work (refs. [3], [4], [22], [25], [38], [41], [42]) for key astrophysical predictions. Independent calculations of the tau air-shower rate and of the IceCube horizontal-track selection should be cited or derived.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No constructional circularity: the tilt hypothesis is an unconstrained ad hoc scenario, and the 30-90 AUGER expectation relies on an independent 2004 model, not on the event itself.

full rationale

I walked the claimed derivation chain. The tension argument begins with external data: the KM3-230213A event rate, IceCube alert-track asymmetries, and AUGER null observations. The '30–90 AUGER events' expectation is obtained by applying the author's earlier tau air-shower model (Fargion et al. 2004, ref [4]) to the ARCA event rate; that model predates the KM3 event and is falsifiable by AUGER, so the self-citation is evidence rather than a constructional loop. The IceCube up/down asymmetry is a catalog statistic, and the paper's interpretation that downward tracks are atmospheric is an inference, not a definitional identity. The 'most probable solution' (array bending) is introduced in §2.1 via 'Imagine, for example, the Pisa tower inclination' and asserted in §3 as 'the rare bending ... led to a misunderstanding'; no equation, fitted parameter, or telemetry links the assumed tilt to the event. This is an unsupported, possibly unfalsifiable hypothesis — a correctness risk — but not a circular reduction under the rubric: nothing is defined in terms of the conclusion, and no fitted input is renamed as a prediction. Therefore no circular step can be exhibited, and the honest finding is 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 3 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim's only new free parameter is an unmeasured array tilt. The AUGER event-rate expectation is inherited from a self-cited model, and the statistical standard is an assumption about IceCube's veto behavior. No new particles or entities are introduced in the paper; the Z-burst relics and relic neutrinos are prior proposals.

free parameters (1)
  • ARCA array tilt angle = few degrees (unspecified)
    Introduced ad hoc in §2.1 and §3; invoked to convert a steep atmospheric muon into a near-horizontal neutrino track. No measured tilt at the event time is provided.
axioms (3)
  • domain assumption The up/down asymmetry in IceCube alert tracks at horizontal angles primarily reflects atmospheric muon contamination rather than detector acceptance or energy-dependent Earth opacity.
    Used in §2 to argue that downward horizontal tracks, including the ARCA angle range, are mostly noise; the expected downward rate after the veto is not quantified.
  • ad hoc to paper AUGER would have detected 30-90 tau air-showers if the KM3-230213A event rate were real, where the rate estimate comes from the author's earlier model (Fargion et al. 2004).
    Used in the Introduction and §3 to reject the ARCA event; this prediction is self-cited and not independently validated here.
  • domain assumption Neutrino flavor oscillations guarantee a comparable tau-neutrino component that would produce observable upward tau air-showers in AUGER/TA at EeV energies.
    Standard physics invoked in §1 and §3 to state that the ARCA muon-neutrino event would have a tau counterpart; used to estimate Auger detectability.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 8329 in / 13792 out tokens · 122424 ms · 2026-08-03T18:00:02.876345+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Recently the ARCA array detector published the down-ward-horizontal event: the KM3-230213A. It appeared as the most energetic neutrino ever observed: about 200 PeV (2 10^17 eV) up to EeV (10^18 eV) energy. This huge value, is puzzling. It is not statistically consistent with several upper bound derived by two greater and longer life detectors: by IceCube and in particular by AUGER array. Asymmetry in recent IceCube neutrino alert tracks upward and downward at same horizontal angles as ARCA one, suggest that they are mostly polluted atmospheric muon bundles. This paucity also disfavor the skimming neutrino interpretation by ARCA. We suggest that the array floating and bending in the deep sea may lead, sometime, to a misleading geometry that is pointing to a wrong arrival angle direction: a much less horizontal muon (neutrino) track respect to a much real one, more inclined and vertical, due to atmospheric muon bundle or charmed single event. Contrary to present argument, if such a rare event would be soon rediscovered in data or re-observed, it would open the road to a new guaranteed Tau neutrino Astronomy. At EeV energy such upward tau air-showers should shine AUGER telescopes or blaze future satellite in Space. A previous model in astrophysics considered energetic neutrino E>>100 EeV, neutrino scattering, onto cosmic, relic, light mass ones. Their ultra-relativistic Z boson resonance formation and its decay in flight would produce hadron UHECR relics around tens-hundred EeV energy. Explaining how sources located at far distances, above the usual GZK hundred Mpc, cut off ones, may shine and cluster in AUGER or TA data.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.07042 by D. Fargion.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The ICECUBE alert tracks recorded in last years in celestial coordinate- The up-side of each figure point to the North of the Sky. Consequently most event in South Pole array are coming from the North ( up-going) , while much less are reaching from the South (down-going tracks). The figure above, based on ICE-Cat1 catalog, refer to the late 2024 data [39]. The figure below is based on the up dated recent b… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The asymmetry among the +/−9 𝑜 event tracks. The paucity of downward tracks imply that the atmospheric noise is greatly polluting most of these horizontal-downward events, at similar arrival angle as the ARCA Km3 event, KM3-230213A [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The asymmetry among the up and down ward event tracks. The paucity of downward tracks,( binimial probability 𝑃 to occur by chance is about 𝑃 = 3.3 · 10−9 , imply that the atmospheric noise and its filtering is excluding most down-ward tracks as polluted ones. deep in the water. The sea water is not static as ICECUBE ice. Therefore, variable inclination is the difference. Nevertheless, the KM3-230213A event… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: An exaggerated geometry showing a downward-inclined charmed muon track (yellow large dashed line) . The alternative neutrino track (red smaller dashed line) following ARCA event interpretation [34]. The horizontal version (standing for a neutrino) versus a more inclined, vertical geometry. This inclined geometry could offer an atmospheric muon interpretation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The different expected survival distances for muon and tau assuming their corresponding energies. The orange range curve has been here updated by a light blue curve, based on earlier articles:[3],[4]. At 𝜃 >= 7 𝑜 , or at least 𝜃 > 5 𝑜 inclination, an energetic , EeV, atmospheric charmed muon might reach, the deep sea, respectively, nearly 20 up to 28 km distances, within the muon survival track distance. E… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: On the left the detector mass, in 𝑘𝑚3 water equivalent, for each 𝑘𝑚2 area in AUGER [4]. On the right, the averaged EeV neutrino event by ARCA ,within previous spectra data and bounds, following [34]. We underline, in partial disagreement with their figure above, that the AUGER bound in shouldbe more effective and more severe than their gray dot curve. :At EeV energy, at least three or four times than ICECU… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. The soft volume of ultra-high energy neutrinos experiments

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    A drift-diffusion approximation of muon energy loss maps ultra-high-energy neutrino fluxes to through-going track rates, with a soft volume several times the instrumented volume.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 7 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    M.L. Perl, G. Abrams, A. Boyarski, M. Breidenbach, D. Briggs, F. Bulos et al.,Evidence for anomalousleptonproductionine+-e-annihilation,PhysicalReviewLetters35(1975)1489

    1975

  2. [2]

    Learned and S

    J.G. Learned and S. Pakvasa,Detecting𝜈𝜏oscillations at pev energies,Astroparticle Physics 3(1995) 267

    1995

  3. [3]

    Fargion,Discovering ultra-high-energy neutrinos through horizontal and upward𝜏air showers: Evidence in terrestrial gamma flashes?,The Astrophysical Journal570(2002) 909

    D. Fargion,Discovering ultra-high-energy neutrinos through horizontal and upward𝜏air showers: Evidence in terrestrial gamma flashes?,The Astrophysical Journal570(2002) 909

    2002

  4. [4]

    Fargion, P.G

    D. Fargion, P.G. De Sanctis Lucentini, M. De Santis and M. Grossi,Tau air showers from earth,The Astrophysical Journal613(2004) 1285

    2004

  5. [5]

    Pauli,Pauli letter collection: letter to lise meitner, Tech

    W. Pauli,Pauli letter collection: letter to lise meitner, Tech. Rep. (1930)

    1930

  6. [6]

    Noether,Invariante variationsprobleme, nachrichten von der gesellschaft der wissenschaften zu göttingen, mathematisch-physikalische klasse 1918 (1918) 235–257,URL http://eudml

    E. Noether,Invariante variationsprobleme, nachrichten von der gesellschaft der wissenschaften zu göttingen, mathematisch-physikalische klasse 1918 (1918) 235–257,URL http://eudml. org/doc/59024(1918)

    1918

  7. [7]

    Pontecorvo,The neutrino and the recoil of nuclei in beta disintegrations,Reports on Progress in Physics11(1947) 32

    B. Pontecorvo,The neutrino and the recoil of nuclei in beta disintegrations,Reports on Progress in Physics11(1947) 32

    1947

  8. [8]

    Z. Maki, M. Nakagawa and S. Sakata,Remarks on the unified model of elementary particles, Progress of theoretical physics28(1962) 870

    1962

  9. [9]

    Witten,Neutrino masses in the minimal o (10) theory,Physics Letters B91(1980) 81

    E. Witten,Neutrino masses in the minimal o (10) theory,Physics Letters B91(1980) 81

    1980

  10. [10]

    Fargion,Time delay between gravitational waves and neutrino burst from a supernovae explosion: ATestfortheneutrinomass,Lett.NuovoCim.31(1981)499[hep-ph/0110061]

    D. Fargion,Time delay between gravitational waves and neutrino burst from a supernovae explosion: ATestfortheneutrinomass,Lett.NuovoCim.31(1981)499[hep-ph/0110061]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1981

  11. [11]

    Fargion, M.Y

    D. Fargion, M.Y. Khlopov and P. Oliva,Could grb170817a be really correlated to an ns–ns merging?,International Journal of Modern Physics D27(2018) 1841001

    2018

  12. [12]

    Fargion,Deflection of massive neutrinos by gravitational fields,Lettere al Nuovo Cimento (1971-1985)31(1981) 49

    D. Fargion,Deflection of massive neutrinos by gravitational fields,Lettere al Nuovo Cimento (1971-1985)31(1981) 49

    1971

  13. [13]

    Fargion and M.G

    D. Fargion and M.G. Shepkin,Does cosmology imply a dirac neutrino mass?,Physics Letters B146(1984) 46

    1984

  14. [14]

    Antonelli, D

    F. Antonelli, D. Fargion and R. Konoplich,Right-handed Neutrino Interactions in the Early Universe,Lett. Nuovo Cim.32(1981) 289

    1981

  15. [15]

    D. Fargion,Right-handed and left-handed neutrinos and the two galactic populations of the universe additional evidence for the neutrino mass,Il Nuovo Cimento B (1971-1996)65 (1981) 316

    1971

  16. [16]

    Fargion,Gravitational instability for a multifluid medium in an expanding universe, Nuovo Cim

    D. Fargion,Gravitational instability for a multifluid medium in an expanding universe, Nuovo Cim. B77(1983) 111 [astro-ph/9605151]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1983

  17. [17]

    Fargion and M

    D. Fargion and M. Roos,Mirror neutrinos in standard cosmology,Physics Letters B147 (1984) 34. 9 ARCA puzzling eventD. Fargion

    1984

  18. [18]

    Mann,The james webb space telescope prompts a rethink of how galaxies form, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences120(2023) e2311963120

    A. Mann,The james webb space telescope prompts a rethink of how galaxies form, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences120(2023) e2311963120

    2023

  19. [19]

    Jacak,Possible nonstellar explanation for the unexpected brightness of the earliest galaxies observed by the james webb space telescope,Scientific Reports15(2025) 19204

    J.E. Jacak,Possible nonstellar explanation for the unexpected brightness of the earliest galaxies observed by the james webb space telescope,Scientific Reports15(2025) 19204

    2025

  20. [20]

    Fargion,May cosmological heavy photons form a bose condensate?,Physics Letters B 141(1984) 53

    D. Fargion,May cosmological heavy photons form a bose condensate?,Physics Letters B 141(1984) 53

    1984

  21. [21]

    Simpson,Evidence of heavy-neutrino emission in beta decay,Physical Review Letters54 (1985) 1891

    J. Simpson,Evidence of heavy-neutrino emission in beta decay,Physical Review Letters54 (1985) 1891

    1985

  22. [22]

    Fargion, B

    D. Fargion, B. Mele and A. Salis,Ultra-high-energy neutrino scattering onto relic light neutrinos in the galactic halo as a possible source of the highest energy extragalactic cosmic rays,The Astrophysical Journal517(1999) 725

    1999

  23. [23]

    Zatsepin and V.A

    G.T. Zatsepin and V.A. Kuz’min,Upper Limit of the Spectrum of Cosmic Rays,Soviet Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics Letters4(1966) 78

    1966

  24. [24]

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

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

    1966

  25. [25]

    Fargion, P.G

    D. Fargion, P.G. De Sanctis Lucentini and M.Y. Khlopov,Uhecr clustering: Lightest nuclei from local sheet galaxies,Universe10(2024) 323

    2024

  26. [26]

    Belotsky, D

    K. Belotsky, D. Fargion, M.Y. Khlopov and R. Konoplich,May heavy neutrinos solve underground and cosmic-ray puzzles?,Physics of Atomic Nuclei71(2008) 147

    2008

  27. [27]

    Belotsky, D

    K. Belotsky, D. Fargion, M. Khlopov, R. Konoplich and K. Shibaev,Invisible higgs boson decay into massive neutrinos of fourth generation,Physical Review D68(2003) 054027

    2003

  28. [28]

    Fargion, P

    D. Fargion, P. Oliva and G. Ucci,Why not any tau double bang in icecube, yet?, pos frapws2014 (2016) 028,arXiv preprint arXiv:1512.08794(2015)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  29. [29]

    Lad, T.J

    N. Lad, T.J. van Eeden and M. Ackermann,Neutrino flavor composition using high energy starting events with icecube,arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.06835(2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  30. [30]

    J.L. Feng, P. Fisher, F. Wilczek and T.M. Yu,Observability of earth-skimming ultrahigh energy neutrinos,Physical Review Letters88(2002) 161102

    2002

  31. [31]

    Fargion and D

    D. Fargion and D. D’Armiento,Inconsistency in super-luminal cern–opera neutrino speed with the observed sn1987a burst and neutrino mixing for any imaginary neutrino mass, Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics39(2012) 085002

    2012

  32. [32]

    Cohen and S.L

    A.G. Cohen and S.L. Glashow,Pair creation constrains superluminal neutrino propagation, Physical Review Letters107(2011) 181803

    2011

  33. [33]

    Antonello, P

    M. Antonello, P. Aprili, B. Baibussinov, M.B. Ceolin, P. Benetti, E. Calligarich et al.,A search for the analogue to cherenkov radiation by high energy neutrinos at superluminal speeds in icarus,Physics Letters B711(2012) 270. [34]Observation of an ultra-high-energy cosmic neutrino with km3net,Nature638(2025) 376

    2012

  34. [35]

    S.W. Li, P. Machado, D. Naredo-Tuero and T. Schwemberger,Clash of the titans: ultra-high energy km3net event versus icecube data,arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.04508(2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  35. [36]

    Beresinsky and G.T

    V. Beresinsky and G.T. Zatsepin,Cosmic rays at ultra high energies (neutrino?),Physics Letters B28(1969) 423

    1969

  36. [37]

    Mayotte,Measurement and interpretation of uhecr mass composition at the pierre auger observatory,arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.10292(2025)

    E. Mayotte,Measurement and interpretation of uhecr mass composition at the pierre auger observatory,arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.10292(2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  37. [38]

    Fargion, P.G

    D. Fargion, P.G. De Sanctis Lucentini, S. Turriziani, D. Sopin and M. Khlopov,SS433 PeV neutron jet feeding the far TeV gamma beam,PoSICRC2025(2025) 641. 10 ARCA puzzling eventD. Fargion

    2025

  38. [39]

    Abbasi, M

    R. Abbasi, M. Ackermann, J. Adams, S. Agarwalla, J. Aguilar, M. Ahlers et al.,Icecat-1: The icecube event catalog of alert tracks (vol 269, 25, 2023),ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL SUPPLEMENT SERIES272(2024)

    2023

  39. [40]

    Zegarelli, A

    A. Zegarelli, A. Franckowiak, G. Sommani, N. Valtonen-Mattila and T. Yuan,Icecat-2: Updated icecube event catalog of alert tracks,arXiv e-prints(2025) arXiv

    2025

  40. [41]

    Fargion, Y.A

    D. Fargion, Y.A. Golubkov, M.Y. Khlopov, R.V. Konoplich and R. Mignani,Possible effects of the existence of the fourth generation neutrino,JETP Lett.69(1999) 434 [astro-ph/9903086]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  41. [42]

    Fargion, M

    D. Fargion, M. Grossi, P.G. De Sanctis Lucentini, C. Di Troia and R. Konoplich,Shadows of relic neutrino masses and spectra on highest energy gzk cosmic rays, inDark Matter in Astro-and Particle Physics: Proceedings of the International Conference DARK 2000 Heidelberg, Germany, 10–14 July 2000, pp. 455–468, Springer, 2001. 11

    2000