pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.15642 · v1 · pith:K2NMCANNnew · submitted 2026-05-15 · ✦ hep-ex · physics.app-ph

Locating nuclear-powered submarines with antineutrinos

Sven-Patrik Hallsj\"o This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-19 19:38 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ex physics.app-ph
keywords antineutrino detectionnuclear submarinesStrait of Gibraltarreactor monitoringstrategic straitsneutrino detectordetection statisticssubmarine tracking
0
0 comments X p. Extension
pith:K2NMCANN Add to your LaTeX paper What is a Pith Number? 
\usepackage{pith}
\pithnumber{K2NMCANN}

Prints a linked pith:K2NMCANN badge after your title and writes the identifier into PDF metadata. Compiles on arXiv with no extra files. Learn more

The pith

A 20 kt antineutrino detector achieves a benchmark detection score of 2.54 for nuclear submarines in the Strait of Gibraltar under conservative assumptions.

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

The paper establishes that antineutrino detection can serve as a barrier concept for tracking nuclear-powered submarines in congested waterways where conventional methods are limited. Analytic scaling relations demonstrate that detectability depends mainly on closest approach distance, detector depth, and deployed mass. Under representative assumptions for a 100 MW reactor in a worst-case transit, a 20 kt detector reaches a local benchmark score of 2.54, which a three-detector line improves to 4.66. This matters because antineutrinos penetrate water and shielding, offering a potential new monitoring tool independent of acoustic stealth.

Core claim

Using analytic scaling relations and numerical estimates, detectability depends primarily on closest approach, detector depth, and deployed mass. For representative assumptions, a 20 kt detector in the Strait of Gibraltar reaches a local benchmark score Z_A ≃ 2.54 for an assumed 100 MW thermal-power sensitivity-study case in a conservative worst-case transit (with Poisson operating point (P_FA, P_det) ≃ (5.5×10^{-3}, 0.51) at threshold k=2), while a three-detector line raises the mapped score to Z_A ≃ 4.66. For broad ocean passages such as GIUK, required detector counts are substantially larger; in the baseline maximum passing distance PDD_max=5 km geometry, about 80 detectors yield only Z_A

What carries the argument

Analytic scaling relations that map antineutrino flux from a submarine reactor to a benchmark score Z_A based on detector mass, depth, and minimum approach distance using Poisson statistics for signal and background.

If this is right

  • A 20 kt detector in the Strait of Gibraltar reaches Z_A ≃ 2.54 for 100 MW submarines in conservative worst-case transits.
  • A three-detector line in the same location raises the mapped score to Z_A ≃ 4.66.
  • In wider passages like the GIUK gap with 5 km maximum passing distance, about 80 detectors are needed to reach only Z_A ∼ 1.6.
  • Detection performance is governed by the submarine's closest approach, detector depth, and total deployed mass.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The barrier concept could be extended to other narrow strategic passages by adjusting detector count and spacing according to passage width.
  • Prototype deployments in known transit routes would allow direct validation of the predicted event rates against the scaling model.
  • Integration with existing acoustic monitoring systems could create layered detection that compensates for limitations in each method alone.

Load-bearing premise

The analytic scaling relations and numerical estimates rest on the validity of chosen representative values for detector efficiency, background rates, and submarine reactor power output under real-world conditions.

What would settle it

Recording the actual antineutrino event rate from a known nuclear submarine transit at the modeled closest approach and depth, then comparing it directly to the rate predicted by the scaling relations for a 20 kt detector.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.15642 by Sven-Patrik Hallsj\"o.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Schematic of detector arrangement and submarine course: The vertical line represents the course of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Expected significance versus submarine speed for two propulsion-power scalings in Gibraltar-like geometry [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: Uncertainty bands on two core curves obtained from Monte Carlo propagation of background, efficiency, and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Variations of the different factors [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Section-2 workflow illustration for a Gibraltar baseline: top panel shows signal and background rates versus [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Poisson-count operating characteristics for the Gibraltar low-count benchmark. Left: per-trial detection [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Depth–distance significance map for a baseline 100 MW submarine and a 20 kt detector. The red marker [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: The Strait of Gibraltar [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: The Gibraltar study [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: Map overview of the GIUK gap [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11: The Danish Strait [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12: Representative detector-spacing scan for the Danish straits. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_12.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Nuclear-powered submarines are difficult to track with conventional methods in congested waterways. We revisit antineutrino-based detection as a barrier concept, analogous to a neutrino-enabled SOSUS-style fence in strategic straits. Using analytic scaling relations and numerical estimates, we show that detectability depends primarily on closest approach, detector depth, and deployed mass. For representative assumptions, a 20\,kt detector in the Strait of Gibraltar reaches a local benchmark score $Z_A\simeq2.54$ for an assumed 100\,MW thermal-power sensitivity-study case in a conservative worst-case transit (with Poisson operating point $(P_\mathrm{FA},P_\mathrm{det})\simeq(5.5\times10^{-3},0.51)$ at threshold $k=2$), while a three-detector line raises the mapped score to $Z_A\simeq4.66$. For broad ocean passages such as GIUK, required detector counts are substantially larger; in the baseline maximum passing distance $\mathrm{PDD}_{\max}=5$\,km geometry, about 80 detectors yield only $Z_A\sim1.6$. The paper outlines detector technology choices, statistical assumptions, and deployment constraints for a first-generation feasibility assessment.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a feasibility study for detecting nuclear-powered submarines using antineutrino emissions in strategic maritime passages. Employing analytic scaling relations and Poisson statistics, it calculates a benchmark score Z_A for detectability. For a 20 kt detector in the Strait of Gibraltar, it reports Z_A ≃ 2.54 for a 100 MW thermal power case in a conservative worst-case transit scenario, corresponding to a Poisson operating point (P_FA, P_det) ≃ (5.5×10^{-3}, 0.51) at threshold k=2. A three-detector line is shown to improve this to Z_A ≃ 4.66. The paper also estimates requirements for larger passages like the GIUK gap and discusses detector technologies and deployment constraints.

Significance. If the representative assumptions on detector efficiency, background rates, and submarine reactor power are validated, this approach could provide a novel, passive method for submarine detection in chokepoints, complementing traditional acoustic systems. The analytic framework offers a transparent starting point for further engineering studies. The use of standard neutrino physics and explicit Poisson-based estimates is a strength, allowing for clear identification of key parameters.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The reported Z_A ≃2.54 (and the mapped value 4.66 for three detectors) is obtained from specific representative values for detector efficiency, background rate, and 100 MW thermal power. These parameters directly set the expected signal and background counts that determine the Poisson probabilities at the operating point (P_FA, P_det) ≃ (5.5×10^{-3},0.51) for k=2. Without a sensitivity study or explicit justification of these inputs for the marine environment, the central numerical claims cannot be verified from the given scaling relations alone.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: The benchmark score Z_A is constructed internally from the paper's Poisson operating points and scaling relations. Clarification is required on whether Z_A is an independent figure of merit or a direct mapping from the chosen (P_FA, P_det) pair; this affects how the quoted values should be interpreted as evidence of feasibility.
minor comments (1)
  1. The abstract introduces PDD_max without a prior definition; this quantity should be defined explicitly in the main text when discussing the GIUK geometry.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful and constructive review of our manuscript on antineutrino-based detection of nuclear submarines. The comments highlight important points about parameter justification and the interpretation of Z_A. We have revised the abstract and main text to provide additional justification, include a sensitivity study, and clarify the construction of the benchmark score. Our point-by-point responses follow.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The reported Z_A ≃2.54 (and the mapped value 4.66 for three detectors) is obtained from specific representative values for detector efficiency, background rate, and 100 MW thermal power. These parameters directly set the expected signal and background counts that determine the Poisson probabilities at the operating point (P_FA, P_det) ≃ (5.5×10^{-3},0.51) for k=2. Without a sensitivity study or explicit justification of these inputs for the marine environment, the central numerical claims cannot be verified from the given scaling relations alone.

    Authors: We agree that the quoted Z_A values depend on the specific representative inputs for efficiency, background, and reactor power. The manuscript already states these as representative assumptions and supplies the underlying analytic scaling relations, allowing substitution of other values. To strengthen the presentation, the revised version adds explicit justification for the chosen marine-environment parameters (drawing on standard reactor antineutrino spectra and published background estimates) together with a sensitivity study that varies each input by ±30 %. The updated results confirm that Z_A remains above 2.0 across the explored range, and a new table summarizing the sensitivity will be included. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The benchmark score Z_A is constructed internally from the paper's Poisson operating points and scaling relations. Clarification is required on whether Z_A is an independent figure of merit or a direct mapping from the chosen (P_FA, P_det) pair; this affects how the quoted values should be interpreted as evidence of feasibility.

    Authors: Z_A is constructed directly from the chosen Poisson operating point (P_FA, P_det) at threshold k=2, scaled by the geometric and efficiency factors in the analytic relations; it is therefore a derived internal benchmark rather than an independent figure of merit. We have revised the abstract and the opening of the methods section to state this definition explicitly, making clear that the reported values quantify detectability only for the stated operating point and assumptions. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation is self-contained

full rationale

The paper computes detectability metrics from standard antineutrino flux formulas, Poisson statistics, and explicitly stated representative inputs (100 MW thermal power, detector efficiency, background rates, geometry). The benchmark score Z_A is a derived figure of merit obtained by plugging those inputs into the Poisson operating point (P_FA, P_det) at threshold k=2; this is a direct calculation, not a self-definitional loop or a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. No self-citations appear in the provided text, no uniqueness theorems are invoked, and no ansatz is smuggled via prior work. The central claims rest on the validity of the conservative assumptions rather than reducing to the inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper relies on standard particle-physics facts about antineutrino production and detection together with statistical assumptions. Representative numerical values for detector mass and reactor power are chosen for the study rather than derived.

free parameters (2)
  • detector mass
    Representative value of 20 kt chosen for the feasibility calculation in the Strait of Gibraltar case.
  • submarine thermal power
    100 MW assumed for the sensitivity-study case.
axioms (2)
  • standard math Antineutrinos from nuclear fission can be detected via inverse beta decay in large scintillator or water detectors.
    Invoked implicitly when scaling detection rates with detector mass and distance.
  • domain assumption Signal and background counts follow Poisson statistics for threshold setting.
    Used to define the operating point (P_FA, P_det) at k=2.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5741 in / 1674 out tokens · 73120 ms · 2026-05-19T19:38:37.785350+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

18 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages · 10 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Central Intelligence Agency,Soviet Antisubmarine Warfare: Current Capabilities and Priorities, Tech. Rep. SR IR 72-13-S (CIA, 1972) approved for release 2017/06/14

    work page 1972

  2. [2]

    Callan, F

    C. Callan, F. Dyson, and S. Treiman,Neutrino Detection Primer, Tech. Rep. JSR-84-105 (JASON, 1988)www.dtic.mil/ dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a193805.pdf

    work page 1988

  3. [3]

    First Results from KamLAND: Evidence for Reactor Anti-Neutrino Disappearance

    K. Eguchiet al.(KamLAND), “First results from KamLAND: Evidence for reactor anti-neutrino disappearance,” Phys. Rev. Lett.90, 021802 (2003), arXiv:hep-ex/0212021 [hep-ex]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  4. [4]

    Evidence for oscillation of atmospheric neutrinos

    Y. Fukudaet al.(Super-Kamiokande), “Evidence for oscillation of atmospheric neutrinos,” Phys. Rev. Lett.81, 1562–1567 (1998), arXiv:hep-ex/9807003 [hep-ex]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  5. [5]

    Observation of electron-antineutrino disappearance at Daya Bay

    F. P. Anet al.(Daya Bay), “Observation of electron-antineutrino disappearance at Daya Bay,” Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 171803 (2012), arXiv:1203.1669 [hep-ex]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  6. [6]

    GADZOOKS! Antineutrino Spectroscopy with Large Water Cerenkov Detectors

    John F. Beacom and Mark R. Vagins, “GADZOOKS! Anti-neutrino spectroscopy with large water Cherenkov detectors,” Phys. Rev. Lett.93, 171101 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0309300 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  7. [7]

    Observation of Coherent Elastic Neutrino-Nucleus Scattering

    D. Akimovet al.(COHERENT), “Observation of Coherent Elastic Neutrino-Nucleus Scattering,” Science357, 1123–1126 (2017), arXiv:1708.01294 [nucl-ex]. 11

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  8. [8]

    Detection of the free neutrino: a confirmation,

    C. L. Cowan, F. Reines, F. B. Harrison, H. W. Kruse, and A. D. McGuire, “Detection of the free neutrino: a confirmation,” Science124, 103–104 (1956)

    work page 1956

  9. [9]

    From eV to EeV: Neutrino Cross Sections Across Energy Scales

    J. A. Formaggio and G. P. Zeller, “From eV to EeV: Neutrino Cross Sections Across Energy Scales,” Rev. Mod. Phys.84, 1307–1341 (2012), arXiv:1305.7513 [hep-ex]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  10. [10]

    Extraction of the 235U and 239Pu Antineutrino Spectra at Daya Bay,

    D. Adeyet al.(Daya Bay), “Extraction of the 235U and 239Pu Antineutrino Spectra at Daya Bay,” Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 111801 (2019), arXiv:1904.07812 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2019

  11. [11]

    Reactor as a Source of Antineutrinos: Thermal Fission Energy

    V. Kopeikin, L. Mikaelyan, and V. Sinev, “Reactor as a source of antineutrinos: Thermal fission energy,” Phys. Atom. Nucl.67, 1892–1899 (2004), [Yad. Fiz.67,1916(2004)], arXiv:hep-ph/0410100 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  12. [12]

    Asymptotic formulae for likelihood-based tests of new physics

    Glen Cowan, Kyle Cranmer, Eilam Gross, and Ofer Vitells, “Asymptotic formulae for likelihood-based tests of new physics,” Eur. Phys. J.C71, 1554 (2011), arXiv:1007.1727 [physics.data-an]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  13. [13]

    Stegun, eds.,Handbook of Mathematical Functions with Formulas, Graphs, and Mathe- matical Tables(National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D.C., 1964)

    Milton Abramowitz and Irene A. Stegun, eds.,Handbook of Mathematical Functions with Formulas, Graphs, and Mathe- matical Tables(National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D.C., 1964)

    work page 1964

  14. [14]

    Direct Measurement of Backgrounds using Reactor-Off Data in Double Chooz

    Y. Abeet al.(Double Chooz), “Direct Measurement of Backgrounds using Reactor-Off Data in Double Chooz,” Phys. Rev. D87, 011102 (2013), arXiv:1210.3748 [hep-ex]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  15. [15]

    The JUNO experiment,

    C. Jollet (JUNO), “The JUNO experiment,”Proceedings, 30th Rencontres de Physique de La Vallee d’Aoste: La Thuile, Aosta Valley, Italy, March 6-12, 2016, Nuovo Cim.C39, 318 (2017)

    work page 2016

  16. [16]

    Trial factors for the look elsewhere effect in high energy physics

    Eilam Gross and Ofer Vitells, “Trial factors for the look elsewhere effect in high energy physics,” Eur. Phys. J.C70, 525–530 (2010), arXiv:1005.1891 [physics.data-an]. 12 Appendix A: Alternative Locations

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  17. [17]

    ● ● ● ● ● ● 0 20 000 40 000 60 000 80 000 100 000 120 000 140 000 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 Distance[m] Depth[m] Danish Straits (b) A depth profile of the Danish strait

    The Danish Straits 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 100 km Danish Straits 6@25km -600 -400 -200 0 (a) A map of the Danish strait. ● ● ● ● ● ● 0 20 000 40 000 60 000 80 000 100 000 120 000 140 000 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 Distance[m] Depth[m] Danish Straits (b) A depth profile of the Danish strait. FIG. 11: The Danish Strait. The Danish strai...

    work page

  18. [18]

    A simplified geometry of roughly 40 km width and 300 m depth indicates strong sensitivity to detector spacing and threshold definition, similarly to the Danish case

    Tsushima strait (Korea-Japan) The Tsushima Strait (between Korea and Japan) is another candidate for a regional barrier. A simplified geometry of roughly 40 km width and 300 m depth indicates strong sensitivity to detector spacing and threshold definition, similarly to the Danish case. In this revision we therefore do not quote fixed Tsushima module count...

    work page