Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

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

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper establishes that the time delay between a direct in-ice radio pulse and its surface reflection localizes neutrino interaction vertices to about 10%, keeping the energy-resolution contribution below the inelasticity limit.

desk verdict Solid simulation-driven case that D'n'R timing gives vertex distances good enough to keep energy resolution near the inelasticity floor; the far-field surface-reflection assumption is the main unresolved piece, and the authors say so themselves. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.02677 v2 pith:IEYGLU22 submitted 2019-09-06 astro-ph.IM

A. Anker , S. W. Barwick , H. Bernhoff , D. Z. Besson , N. Bingefors , D. García-Fernández , G. Gaswint , C. Glaser
show 19 more authors
A. Hallgren J. C. Hanson S. R. Klein S. A. Kleinfelder R. Lahmann U. Latif J. Nam A. Novikov A. Nelles M. P. Paul C. Persichilli I. Plaisier T. Prakash S. R. Shively J. Tatar E. Unger S. H. Wang C. Welling S. Zierke
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.IM
keywords neutrinoastronomyAskaryaneffectin-iceradiodetectionD'n'Rtechniquevertexreconstructionenergyresolutionsnowaccumulationsurfacereflection
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

Ultra-high-energy neutrinos interacting in ice produce a short radio flash. The paper argues that a shallow antenna, about 15 m below the surface, will see that flash twice: once arriving directly and once reflected off the ice surface, and the delay between the two pulses ('D'n'R') measures how far away the neutrino interaction occurred. Because the delay is read out in the same antenna channel, most timing systematics cancel, leaving the vertex distance as the main handle on neutrino energy. The simulation gives a vertex-distance resolution near 10% and an energy-resolution contribution well below the irreducible uncertainty from unknown inelasticity. An in-situ buried-transmitter test measured the expected delay to tens of picoseconds and confirmed the surface acts as a flat reflector, and the same setup can track snow accumulation to about a millimeter.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the D'n'R technique: an antenna about 15 m below the ice surface records the direct radio pulse and a second pulse reflected off the ice surface. The delay $\Delta t$ between the two pulses, read from the same waveform, cancels cable and clock systematics, and together with the signal arrival direction selects a unique curved ray path whose length fixes the vertex distance. The conversion is done with a two-dimensional lookup table built from a fast analytic ray tracer using a depth-dependent index-of-refraction profile, and the paper validates the surface-reflection physics in situ, including total internal reflection with a 57 degree phase shift.

What would settle it

Place calibration transmitters at distances of a few hundred meters and various azimuths on the ice shelf and compare each measured D'n'R delay with the flat-ice ray-tracing prediction. Deviations larger than about 0.2 ns, or reflected pulses that are visibly broadened or split, would break the vertex-distance resolution claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the D'n'R time delay plus the radio arrival direction determines the neutrino vertex position through a precomputed ray-tracing lookup table. With a 0.2 ns delay resolution and 0.2 degree direction resolution, the vertex distance is recovered to 68% quantiles of $0.04$ in $\log_{10}(R_{\mathrm{rec}}/R_{\mathrm{true}})$ at $10^{17}$ eV (about 10% linearly) and $0.05$ at $10^{18}$ eV (about 12% linearly). Propagating the distance uncertainty into shower energy via $E_{\mathrm{sh}} \propto R\exp(-R/L_a)$ with $L_a = 1$ km gives energy-resolution contributions of roughly $0.08$ and $0.15$ in $\log_{10}$, compared with the inelasticity limit of about $0.3$. The experimental part reports a measured delay of 21.743 ns reproducible to 19 ps, against a predicted 22.4 ns, consistent within the systematic uncertainties in geometry and index-of-refraction profile, supporting the flat-specular-surface assumption used throughout.

Load-bearing premise

The resolution and energy conclusions assume the ice surface is a flat, mirror-like reflector wherever the reflected pulse bounces; only one near-field spot on smooth snow was tested, and the paper says wider representativeness still needs additional study.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At $10^{17}$ eV the technique resolves vertex distance to about 10% (68% interval), and at $10^{18}$ eV to about 12%, with the assumed 0.2 ns and 0.2 degree resolutions.
  • The induced neutrino-energy error, roughly $0.08$ in $\log_{10}$ at $10^{17}$ eV and $0.15$ at $10^{18}$ eV, is small compared with the $\sim 0.3$ inelasticity limit, so the energy resolution of a shallow Askaryan detector is set mainly by neutrino interaction physics rather than by vertex distance.
  • A receiver depth near 15 m is close to optimal, since deeper operation improves resolution only marginally while reducing the fraction of events that contain both pulses.
  • Because both pulses arrive in the same channel, the time delay is insensitive to cable delays, antenna differences, and channel-to-channel time synchronization, making D'n'R substantially easier than multi-antenna arrival-time reconstruction.
  • Continuous calibration pulses allow snow accumulation to be monitored with about 1 mm (5 ps) precision, keeping the receiver-depth correction accurate enough not to degrade the neutrino energy reconstruction.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial extension: if the flat-specular assumption survives tests over larger Fresnel zones, the same timing measurement could serve as a cheap, continuous surface-mass-balance monitor across a large radio array, complementing sparse GPS or snow-stake measurements.
  • Editorial extension: distortion of the reflected pulse, in shape or amplitude, is itself a diagnostic of surface roughness; arrays could use D'n'R waveforms to map sastrugi and tilts, which is the main unvalidated condition for the resolution claim.
  • Editorial extension: a two-receiver configuration, as sketched in the paper, could convert the measured delay into an in-situ measurement of the near-surface index-of-refraction profile with roughly an order-of-magnitude improvement over current density-profile fits, improving vertex reconstruction at the same time.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops and tests the direct-and-reflected (D'n'R) technique for reconstructing the distance to a neutrino interaction vertex in ice. Using NuRadioMC simulations with the SPICE 2015 index-of-refraction profile, the authors build a lookup table translating the measured time delay between the direct and surface-reflected radio pulses, together with the signal arrival direction, into a vertex distance. For assumed timing and direction resolutions of 0.2 ns and 0.2 degrees, they report a vertex-distance resolution of 10% at 1e17 eV and 12% at 1e18 eV, which propagates to energy-resolution contributions of about 0.08 and 0.15 in log10(Erec/Etrue), well below the inelasticity floor of about 0.3. An in-situ experiment at Moore's Bay using an 18.2 m deep transmitter and an 8.6 m deep receiver measured a time delay of 21.743 ns, reproducible to 19 ps, consistent with the ray-tracing prediction of 22.4 ns within estimated position and density-profile uncertainties. The same setup was used to monitor snow accumulation with approximately mm-level precision.

Significance. If the flat-specular-surface assumption holds over the Fresnel zones relevant to distant neutrino vertices, the D'n'R technique is a pragmatic and powerful addition to in-ice radio neutrino detectors: it provides a vertex-distance estimator from a single station, independent of multi-antenna timing correlations, and its energy-resolution contribution is comfortably below the irreducible inelasticity limit. The paper's strengths include the large Monte Carlo statistics (70 million vertex positions), the use of a published ice model and published ray-tracing tools, and a real in-situ validation with impressive reproducibility (19 ps), together with a practical snow-accumulation monitor. The simulation methodology is sound, and the data analysis is carefully executed. The main risk is the transferability of the single-geometry, smooth-surface experimental validation to the broader range of neutrino geometries, which the authors themselves flag.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 4 and Sec. 5.1.1] The in-situ validation of the flat-specular reflection assumption is based on a single near-field geometry: emitter at 18.2 m depth, receiver at 8.6 m depth, with 40 m horizontal separation and a surface known to be free of sastrugi. The central 10--12% vertex-resolution claim for neutrino events relies on the same reflection assumption over much larger Fresnel zones and a variety of incidence angles. The manuscript itself states in Sec. 5.1.1 that representativeness 'must be confirmed by additional study.' Because this assumption is load-bearing, the resolution and energy-resolution claims should either be explicitly conditioned on the flat-specular model or accompanied by a quantitative estimate of the bias introduced by plausible surface roughness or tilt.
  2. [Sec. 4.1] The measured time delay of 21.743 ns differs from the ray-tracing prediction of 22.4 ns by 0.66 ns, which is more than three times the 0.2 ns timing resolution assumed in the Sec. 3 simulation. The difference is reconciled only by combining position uncertainties (up to +/-0.56 ns) and n(z)-profile uncertainties (+/-0.38 ns). This means that the absolute accuracy of the Delta-t-to-distance calibration is not yet demonstrated at the 0.2 ns level. Please estimate how a systematic time-delay bias of this size would propagate into the vertex-distance and energy-resolution figures, both as a constant offset and as a path-length-dependent effect.
  3. [Sec. 3.3] The systematic uncertainties in receiver depth, index-of-refraction profile, and antenna positions are listed qualitatively but are not propagated into the quoted resolution numbers. The 10--12% vertex resolution and the corresponding energy-resolution contribution are therefore statistical-only statements. Given that the in-situ analysis already provides concrete uncertainties for geometry and n(z) (Sec. 4.1), it would be informative to show an illustrative propagation of these uncertainties through the lookup-table procedure to indicate how much the final energy-resolution estimate could shift.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 6] The sentence 'The uncertainty decreases slightly with smaller signal-to-noise ratios' appears to state the opposite of the trend shown in Fig. 9; it should read that the uncertainty increases as the signal-to-noise ratio decreases.
  2. [Sec. 2, Eq. (2.3)] The inelasticity floor is quoted as 'about 0.3 in log10(Esh/Enu)', but the 68% intervals in Eq. (2.3) are asymmetric and range from about 0.28 to 0.52 in width; please define how the 0.3 value is derived so that the comparison in Sec. 3.2 is unambiguous.
  3. [Sec. 5.1.1] The text states that the scatter is 18 ps in the first period and 5.6 ps and 4.1 ps in the later periods, translating to 4 mm and roughly 1 mm, respectively. The abstract and conclusions state a precision of O(1 mm); it would be clearer to specify that the 1 mm precision is achieved only in periods without active snow accumulation.
  4. [Sec. 5.2] There is a typo in 'A high-energy neutrino detector can thus also contributed to geophysics'; 'contributed' should be 'contribute'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the D'n'R distance relation is derived from ray tracing in a published ice model and checked against an independent in-situ measurement.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is self-contained: the time-delay-to-distance relation is computed with the NuRadioMC analytic ray tracer using published SPICE 2015 and Moore's Bay #2 index-of-refraction profiles, not fitted to the data being reconstructed. The vertex-resolution study smears true Monte Carlo parameters with assumed uncertainties (0.2 ns, 0.2 degrees) and reads the resulting lookup table; this is a standard simulation-based resolution estimate, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The in-situ measurement of Δt = 21.743 ns versus the ray-tracing prediction of 22.4 ns is an independent experimental check; the 0.66 ns difference is explicitly attributed to geometry and n(z) profile uncertainties rather than absorbed into the model. The snow-accumulation and energy-resolution applications use the same geometric relation consistently. While the paper cites the authors' own NuRadioMC and NuRadioReco packages, these are open-source frameworks implementing standard Askaryan and propagation physics, and the load-bearing claims do not reduce to the citations themselves. The flat-specular-surface assumption over large Fresnel zones is a stated limitation to be confirmed by further study, but that is a correctness/robustness concern, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central results rest on the assumed measurement resolutions (0.2 ns and 0.2 degrees), the chosen 15 m receiver depth, and the input attenuation length. The physics background includes the published ice refraction profile, the specular-surface reflection assumption, and the Askaryan emission models. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • sigma_dt (assumed time-delay resolution) = 0.2 ns
    Assumed in Sec. 3.1 based on estimates for a future Askaryan detector; the vertex and energy resolution results are quoted for this value, with sensitivity to 0.5 ns shown in Fig. 6.
  • sigma_theta (assumed zenith-angle resolution) = 0.2 deg
    Assumed in Sec. 3.1; with 0.5 degrees the energy resolution remains below the inelasticity limit for 1e17 eV but approaches it for 1e18 eV.
  • receiver depth = 15 m
    Chosen in Sec. 3 as the optimal compromise between D'n'R detection efficiency and timing resolution; the depth dependence is studied in Fig. 6.
  • attenuation length L_a = 1 km
    Input from South Pole measurements (refs 13 and 25) used in Eq. 3.1 to convert vertex distance errors into energy errors; different sites may differ.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The SPICE 2015 index-of-refraction profile is a valid description of the South Pole ice for the ray-tracing lookup table (Sec. 3).
    The time-delay-to-distance relation is computed from this profile; an incorrect n(z) profile biases the vertex distance reconstruction. The profile was published in ref 22 and used without re-derivation.
  • domain assumption Radio pulses reflect specularly and without significant attenuation off the ice surface (Sec. 4).
    Required for the reflected pulse to be a clean, time-delayed copy of the direct pulse. Partially validated by the in-situ measurement, but only for one geometry and one surface condition.
  • domain assumption The Askaryan emission models (Alvarez2009 and ARZ2019) used in NuRadioMC correctly predict the radio signal properties for the neutrino energy resolution study (Secs. 2 and 3).
    The simulated inelasticity limit and the event distributions depend on these emission models, which are prior literature, not verified in this paper.
  • ad hoc to paper The neutrino interaction vertex can be approximated as the point of radio emission; the O(10 m) shower-maximum displacement is neglected (Sec. 3).
    The authors state 'we ignore this subtle difference' and it introduces a small but unquantified bias in the vertex distance, which is small compared to the quoted 10-12% resolution for typical distances.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Neutrino vertex reconstruction with in-ice radio detectors using surface reflections and implications for the neutrino energy resolution." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IEYGLU22

@misc{pith2026190902677,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Neutrino vertex reconstruction with in-ice radio detectors using surface reflections and implications for the neutrino energy resolution},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IEYGLU22}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.02677}
}
abstract

Ultra high energy neutrinos ($E_\nu > 10^{16.5}$eV$)$ are efficiently measured via radio signals following a neutrino interaction in ice. An antenna placed $\mathcal{O}$(15 m) below the ice surface will measure two signals for the vast majority of events (90% at $E_\nu$=$10^{18}$eV$)$: a direct pulse and a second delayed pulse from a reflection off the ice surface. This allows for a unique identification of neutrinos against backgrounds arriving from above. Furthermore, the time delay between the direct and reflected signal (D'n'R) correlates with the distance to the neutrino interaction vertex, a crucial quantity to determine the neutrino energy. In a simulation study, we derive the relation between time delay and distance and study the corresponding experimental uncertainties in estimating neutrino energies. We find that the resulting contribution to the energy resolution is well below the natural limit set by the unknown inelasticity in the initial neutrino interaction. We present an in-situ measurement that proves the experimental feasibility of this technique. Continuous monitoring of the local snow accumulation in the vicinity of the transmit and receive antennas using this technique provide a precision of $\mathcal{O}$(1 mm) in surface elevation, which is much better than that needed to apply the D'n'R technique to neutrinos.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

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

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

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

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

    astro-ph.IM 2019-09 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    After 4.5 years of operation, the ARIANNA test bed found no neutrino candidates and set a 90% confidence upper limit of E^2 Phi = 1.7e-6 GeV cm^-2 s^-1 sr^-1 at 10^18 eV.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

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

    M. Ackermann et al., Astrophysics Uniquely Enabled by Observations of High-Energy Cosmic Neutrinos, Bull. Am. Astron. Soc. 51 (2019) 185 [ 1903.04334]

    arXiv 2019

  2. [2]

    IceCube collaboration, Multimessenger observations of a flaring blazar coincident with high-energy neutrino IceCube-170922A, Science 361, issue 6398, eaat1378 (2018) [1807.08816]

    arXiv 2018

  3. [3]

    Adri´ an-Mart´ ınez et al.,Letter of intent for KM3net 2.0 , J

    S. Adri´ an-Mart´ ınez et al.,Letter of intent for KM3net 2.0 , J. Phys. G. 43 (2016) 084001

    work page 2016

  4. [4]

    A. D. Avrorin et al., Neutrino Telescope in Lake Baikal: Present and Future , Proc. of 36th ICRC, Madison, Wisconsin, USA 2019 (2019) [ 1908.05427v1]

    arXiv 2019

  5. [5]

    S. S. Kimura, K. Murase, P. M´ esz´ aros and K. Kiuchi,High-Energy Neutrino Emission from Short Gamma-Ray Bursts: Prospects for Coincident Detection with Gravitational Waves , Astrophys. J. Lett. 848 (2017) 1 [ 1708.07075]

    arXiv 2017

  6. [6]

    Fang and B

    K. Fang and B. D. Metzger, High-Energy Neutrinos from Millisecond Magnetars formed from the Merger of Binary Neutron Stars , Astrophys. J. 849 (2017) 153 [ 1707.04263]

    arXiv 2017

  7. [7]

    IceCube collaboration, Constraints on Ultrahigh-Energy Cosmic-Ray Sources from a Search for Neutrinos above 10 PeV with IceCube , Phys. Rev. Lett. 117 (2016) 241101 [ 1607.05886]

    arXiv 2016

  8. [8]

    G. A. Askaryan, Excess negative charge of an electron-photon shower , Sov. Phys. JETP 14 (1962) 441

    work page 1962

Show all 34 references
  1. [9]

    ARA collaboration, Performance of two Askaryan Radio Array stations and first results in the search for ultrahigh energy neutrinos , Phys. Rev. D 93 (2016) 082003 [ 1507.08991]

    2016 arXiv

  2. [10]

    ARIANNA collaboration, Targeting ultra-high energy neutrinos with the ARIANNA experiment, Advances in Space Research (in press) (2019) [ 1903.01609]

    2019 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Allison et al., Measurement of the real dielectric permittivity ϵr of glacial ice , Astropart

    P. Allison et al., Measurement of the real dielectric permittivity ϵr of glacial ice , Astropart. Phys. 108 (2019) 63 [ 1712.03301]

    2019 arXiv

  4. [12]

    J.L. Kelley for the ARA Collaboration, Interferometric Reconstruction and Analysis Methods for the Askaryan Radio Array , Proceedings of the 8th international workshop on Acoustic and Radio EeV Neutrino Detection Activities (ARENA 2018) (2018)

    2018

  5. [13]

    Glaser et al., NuRadioMC: Simulating the radio emission of neutrinos from interaction to detector, submitted to The European Physical Journal C (2019) [ 1906.01670]

    C. Glaser et al., NuRadioMC: Simulating the radio emission of neutrinos from interaction to detector, submitted to The European Physical Journal C (2019) [ 1906.01670]

    2019

  6. [14]

    C. Glaser for the ARIANNA collaboration, Neutrino direction and energy resolution of Askaryan detectors, Proceedings of 36th International Cosmic Ray Conference — PoS(ICRC2019)899 (2019) [ 1911.02093]. – 18 –

    2019 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Alvarez-Mu˜ niz and E

    J. Alvarez-Mu˜ niz and E. Zas,The LPM effect for EeV hadronic showers in ice: Implications for radio detection of neutrinos , Phys. Lett. B 434 (1998) 396 [ astro-ph/9806098]

    1998 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Gandhi, C

    R. Gandhi, C. Quigg, M. H. Reno, and I. Sarcevic, Ultrahigh-Energy Neutrino Interactions, Astropart. Phys. 5 (1996) 81

    1996

  9. [17]

    Connolly, R

    A. Connolly, R. S. Thorne and D. Waters, Calculation of High Energy Neutrino-Nucleon Cross Sections and Uncertainties Using the MSTW Parton Distribution Functions and Implications for Future Experiments, Phys. Rev. D83 (2011) 113009 [ 1102.0691]

    2011 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Haack for the IceCube collaboration, A measurement of the diffuse astrophysical muon neutrino flux using eight years of IceCube data

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

    2017

  11. [19]

    van Vliet, R

    A. van Vliet, R. Alves Batista and J. R. H¨ orandel, Determining the fraction of cosmic-ray protons at ultrahigh energies with cosmogenic neutrinos , Phys. Rev. D 100 (2019) 021302 [1901.01899]

    2019 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Gerhardt and S

    L. Gerhardt and S. R. Klein, Electron and Photon Interactions in the Regime of Strong LPM Suppression, Phys. Rev. D 82 (2010) 074017 [ 1007.0039]

    2010 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Aartsen, M

    M. Aartsen, M. Ackermann, J. Adams, J. Aguilar, M. Ahlers, M. Ahrens et al., Measurements using the inelasticity distribution of multi-TeV neutrino interactions in IceCube , Phys. Rev. D 99 (2019)

    2019

  14. [22]

    S. W. Barwick et al., Observation of classically ‘forbidden’ electromagnetic wave propagation and implications for neutrino detection , JCAP 1807 (2018) 055 [ 1804.10430]

    2018 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Alvarez-Mu˜ niz, C

    J. Alvarez-Mu˜ niz, C. James, R. Protheroe and E. Zas, Thinned simulations of extremely energetic showers in dense media for radio applications , Astropart. Phys. 32 (2009) 100

    2009

  16. [24]

    Alvarez-Mu˜ niz, W

    J. Alvarez-Mu˜ niz, W. R. Carvalho, M. Tueros and E. Zas, Coherent Cherenkov radio pulses from hadronic showers up to EeV energies , Astropart. Phys. 35 (2012) 287 [ 1005.0552]

    2012 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Barwick, D

    S. Barwick, D. Besson, P. Gorham and D. Saltzberg, South polar in situ radio-frequency ice attenuation, Journal of Glaciology 51 (2005) 231

    2005

  18. [26]

    G. Gaswint for the ARIANNA collaboration, New results on angular reconstruction of deep pulser radio signals , Proceedings of 36th International Cosmic Ray Conference — PoS(ICRC2019)897 (2019)

    2019

  19. [27]

    Heinen, D

    D. Heinen, D. Eliseev, C. Henke, S. Jeschke, P. Linder, S. Reuter et al., EnEx-RANGE - Robust autonomous Acoustic Navigation in Glacial icE , Proc. of 7th International Conference on Acoustic and Radio EeV Neutrino Detection Activities (ARENA 2016), EPJ Web of Conferences 135 ...

    2017

  20. [28]

    RWTH Innovation, Patent: High efficiency head for fast melting probes , 2018

    2018

  21. [29]

    Kravchenko et al., Event reconstruction and data acquisition for the RICE experiment at the South Pole, 0705.4491

    I. Kravchenko et al., Event reconstruction and data acquisition for the RICE experiment at the South Pole, 0705.4491

    arXiv

  22. [30]

    Glaser, A

    C. Glaser, A. Nelles, I. Plaisier, C. Welling et al., NuRadioReco: A reconstruction framework for radio neutrino detectors , The European Physical Journal C 79 (2019) [ 1903.07023]

    2019 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Alvarez-Mu˜ niz, A

    J. Alvarez-Mu˜ niz, A. Romero-Wolf and E. Zas,Practical and accurate calculations of Askaryan radiation, Phys. Rev. D 84 (2011) 103003 [ 1106.6283]

    2011 arXiv

  24. [32]

    ARIANNA collaboration, A search for cosmogenic neutrinos with the ARIANNA test bed using 4.5 years of data , submitted to JCAP (2019) [ 1909.00840]

    2019 arXiv

  25. [33]

    ARA collaboration, Design and performance of an interferometric trigger array for radio detection of high-energy neutrinos , Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A 930 (2019) 112 [ 1809.04573v2]. – 19 –

    2019 arXiv

  26. [34]

    J. T. M. Lenaerts, B. Medley, M. R. Broeke and B. Wouters, Observing and modeling ice sheet surface mass balance, Reviews of Geophysics 57 (2019) 376 . – 20 –

    2019

Pith tools

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