Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 69 references

Atmospheric Cherenkov Telescopes as a Potential Veto Array for Neutrino Astronomy

T0 review · 3 major / 3 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 IACT arrays could veto atmospheric neutrinos down to 15 TeV.

desk verdict A genuinely interesting feasibility study for an IACT veto array at IceCube, but the central 99% efficiency at 150 m claim is an internal statistical error: the paper defines the radius where the mean signal equals the trigger threshold, not where detection probability is 99%. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.10865 v3 pith:MKXWWLYV submitted 2019-08-28 astro-ph.IM astro-ph.HEhep-ex

D. Rysewyk , D. Lennarz , T. DeYoung , J. Auffenberg , M. Schaufel , T. Bretz , C. Wiebusch , M. U. Nisa This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.IMastro-ph.HEhep-ex
keywords airshowervetoatmosphericneutrinosimagingCherenkovtelescopeIceCubesiliconphotomultiplierCORSIKAsimulationneutrinoastronomymulti-messengersources
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

This paper argues that a surface array of small, wide-field imaging air Cherenkov telescopes above a cubic-kilometer neutrino detector like IceCube can flag the cosmic-ray air showers that produce atmospheric neutrinos, separating this background from astrophysical neutrinos. Using air-shower simulations and a simplified trigger model, it estimates that such an array would detect and veto air showers with at least 99% efficiency out to a radius of about 150 meters for primary cosmic-ray energies of 50-100 TeV, corresponding to atmospheric neutrinos above roughly 15-30 TeV. That would lower IceCube's effective atmospheric-neutrino threshold from around 100 TeV to tens of TeV, recover the full detector fiducial volume, and multiply the number of track and cascade events from a TXS-like source by factors of 5 to 13. The authors present the design, threshold, and cost (about 3 million euros for roughly 250 telescopes) as a first feasibility estimate that requires detailed simulation and prototype measurements. This matters because much of the identified astrophysical neutrino flux sits at energies where atmospheric background limits IceCube's sensitivity.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the small wide-field IACT station in a fly's-eye arrangement: seven 0.237 square-meter Fresnel-lens telescopes with 61 SiPM pixels, one pointing at zenith and six tilted by 14 degrees, together covering a 36-degree field of view. The detection mechanism is the lateral distribution of Cherenkov photons from an air shower: at 100 TeV the mean density near the core is roughly 550 photoelectrons per square meter after extinction, optics, filter, and SiPM efficiency, falling to a few tens of photoelectrons per square meter at 150-200 meters, so a nine-photoelectron sum in the three brightest pixels in a 10-20 nanosecond window marks a shower. The UG11 ultraviolet filter suppresses auroral line emission, holding the sky background at 0.61-6.1 photoelectrons per nanosecond across the camera for the benchmark aurora levels, which sets the trigger threshold through an accidental-rate limit below 1 kHz. The 150-meter detection radius then fixes the roughly 260-meter station spacing needed to cover IceCube's footprint.

What would settle it

Build or simulate a single 0.237 square-meter Fresnel-lens IACT with a 61-pixel SiPM camera under South Pole winter conditions and compare its measured trigger rate on vertical cosmic-ray air showers of 50-100 TeV with the model's prediction. If the photon density at 150 meters from the shower axis yields fewer than nine photoelectrons in the three brightest pixels in a 10-20 nanosecond window for more than about 1% of such showers, the claimed 99% veto efficiency fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the atmospheric-neutrino background in IceCube's overhead searches can be reduced by an order of magnitude in energy threshold using a grid of inexpensive, small IACTs rather than the detector's own outer layers as a veto. Each telescope, with 0.237 square meters of collection area, a Fresnel lens, and a 61-pixel silicon photomultiplier camera, detects the Cherenkov light pool of an air shower; a coincident signal of at least nine photoelectrons in the three brightest pixels within a 10-20 nanosecond window is treated as a near-certain marker of an atmospheric neutrino's parent shower. From CORSIKA simulations of vertical and inclined proton, oxygen, and iron showers at 10-200 TeV, the authors find that 99% of vertical proton showers, the hardest case, are detectable out to 150 meters from the shower axis above 50-100 TeV primary energy. They conclude that a veto array with roughly 260-meter station spacing would provide this coverage over IceCube's square-kilometer footprint with a 36-degree field of view for about 250 telescopes costing a few million euros, restoring the full fiducial volume for cascade events and extending the usable interaction volume for muon tracks.

Load-bearing premise

A load-bearing premise is that the simplified trigger model, which assumes 60% optics efficiency, 75% of Cherenkov photons arriving in the trigger window and in the three brightest pixels, Poisson fluctuations around the simulated mean densities, and a nine-photoelectron threshold, matches a real telescope.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A roughly 250-telescope, 83-station array covering 0.27 steradians would lower IceCube's atmospheric-veto energy threshold from about 100 TeV to roughly 15-30 TeV, recovering the full cubic-kilometer fiducial volume for cascades and adding ice above the detector as a usable region for muon-track interactions.
  • For a TXS 0506+056-like source at 15 degrees zenith, the array would yield about 13 times more muon tracks and 5 times more cascades during a four-month winter flare, and about 6.5 times more tracks and 3.8 times more cascades over a year-long flare at a 20% duty cycle.
  • Extending each station to 19 telescopes would widen the field of view to 30 degrees from zenith (0.83 steradians) using roughly 723 telescopes, at an estimated cost still below 10 million euros.
  • Bright aurora raises the required trigger threshold from 9 to 11-24 photoelectrons, shifting the veto energy threshold only by a factor of 2-3, and partial-sky aurora leaves much of the field of view usable.
  • The veto energy threshold can be tuned by changing the spacing between stations, and the array's cost is only a few percent of the original IceCube investment.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the veto concept is not tied to IceCube's specific geometry; a similar station grid could be deployed above other cubic-kilometer neutrino detectors in locations with dark winter skies, since the physics of the Cherenkov light pool and the atmospheric-neutrino correlation are detector-independent.
  • Editorial inference: the efficiency estimate is computed for single-telescope detection, and the authors note that multi-station coincidences can only improve it; a natural extension is to simulate the full array trigger and quantify the gain from requiring two or more independent telescopes to see the same shower, which would also suppress accidental triggers.
  • Editorial inference: if the veto performs as claimed, IceCube's cascade channel becomes substantially more competitive with tracks for point-source searches in the southern sky, which would strengthen flavor-based diagnostics of neutrino production in astrophysical sources.
  • Editorial inference: a testable extension is to use archival IceCube and IceTop coincident events to anchor the air-shower lateral distribution at higher energies and extrapolate the IACT trigger efficiency down to 50 TeV, rather than relying solely on the simplified Poisson fluctuation model.
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 / 3 minor

Summary. This manuscript argues that an array of small, wide-field SiPM-based Imaging Air Cherenkov Telescopes could serve as a surface veto for IceCube. Using CORSIKA simulations of Cherenkov light densities, a Poisson fluctuation model, and estimated South Pole sky-background and aurora levels, it derives a 9-PE three-pixel trigger threshold, concludes from the lateral distribution that 100 TeV air showers are detectable to about 150 m with at least 99% efficiency, and uses this to propose a 250-750 telescope array with roughly 260-m station spacing. It then estimates event-rate gains from a TXS 0506+056-like source by factors of 3.8-13 depending on duty cycle. The authors repeatedly and explicitly flag the study as a feasibility estimate requiring detailed simulations and prototype measurements, particularly for optics efficiency, trigger electronics, and auroral backgrounds.

Significance. If the 150-m/99% detection-radius claim holds, the concept is genuinely valuable: it would lower the atmospheric-veto threshold from about 100 TeV to roughly 15-30 TeV, enlarge the usable IceCube fiducial volume, and do so at a cost of a few percent of the original detector investment. The paper's strengths are its explicit CORSIKA simulation, a careful referenced treatment of night-sky background and aurorae, a clearly stated trigger model, and honest caveats about the need for prototype validation. However, the quantitative central claims--array layout, cost, and physics gains--depend on an efficiency calculation that is not internally consistent, so the manuscript requires substantive revision before the result can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.5, with Section 3.1] The efficiency claim conflates the radius at which the mean signal equals the trigger threshold with the radius at which the detection probability is 99%. Section 3.5 defines the maximum detection distance as the point where the expected signal in the trigger window equals 9 PE, but Section 3.1 states that photon counts fluctuate as Poisson around the CORSIKA mean. For a Poisson count with mean 9, P(N>=9) is only about 0.54, not 0.99; to reach 99% detection probability with a 9-PE threshold one needs a mean of roughly 18 PE. Thus the 150-m radius derived from the mean-equals-threshold condition is approximately a 50% detection radius, and the radius at which 99% of showers would actually be detected is smaller. Because the 260-m station spacing in Section 4 is chosen so that no point is more than 150 m from a station, and because the factor 3.8-13 event-rate gains in Section 5 scale with veto efficiency, this is a load-bearing inconsistency. The authors should recompute detection radii using a Poisson detection-probability criterion, or a full likelihood/coincidence treatment, and propagate the resulting efficiency into the array layout and rate estimates.
  2. [Sections 2.1, 3.4, and 3.5] The trigger and optics model contains several unvalidated multiplicative assumptions that directly set the 9-PE threshold and the 75% signal-retention factor: 60% optics efficiency, 75% of photons in the optimal time window and brightest three pixels, and a 1-kHz accidental-rate criterion. The authors acknowledge that these are not based on detailed modeling and state that prototype measurements are needed. That is an appropriate caveat for a feasibility study, but because the claimed 150-m radius scales approximately linearly with the assumed photoelectron yield, the central result is conditional on these numbers in a way that should be quantified. I ask the authors to add a sensitivity scan, e.g., detection radius and final event rates as a function of collection efficiency and signal-retention fraction, or explicitly state which fractional changes in these inputs would move the detection radius below 150 m.
  3. [Sections 5 and 6] The step-function veto model in Section 5 reduces the atmospheric background to zero above 15-30 TeV, and the paper explicitly labels this as a first estimate. This is acknowledged internally, but the headline factors of 5-13 are quoted in the abstract and conclusions without an uncertainty band. Because the scientific payoff of the array is precisely the background reduction, the event-rate gains should be recomputed for a range of realistic veto efficiencies, e.g., 90%, 99%, and the reduced efficiency implied by the Poisson issue above, and presented as a function of the surviving atmospheric-neutrino background rather than as a single step-function value.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.5] The sentence 'above an threshold of 50-100 TeV' contains a typo and should read 'above a threshold of 50-100 TeV'.
  2. [Figure 10] The axis label 'E , min' should be typeset as E_{nu,min} (or spelled out) to avoid confusion between the neutrino energy threshold and the minimum source emission energy.
  3. [Section 4] The phrase 'digital optical modules' should be written 'Digital Optical Modules' (DOMs) for consistency with IceCube nomenclature.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the veto-efficiency estimate is derived from simulated CORSIKA photon densities and a background-based trigger threshold, not from the claimed 99% efficiency itself.

full rationale

The central veto-efficiency estimate is not circular. The mean photoelectron densities come from CORSIKA air-shower simulations (Section 3.1); the 9 PE trigger threshold is set independently by requiring accidental trigger rates below 1 kHz under the modeled auroral background (Section 3.4); and the 150 m radius is obtained by intersecting those simulated densities with that threshold, with the 99% figure read off the resulting distribution of maximum detection distances for 100 TeV vertical protons (Section 3.5, Figure 6). The array spacing and event-rate gains in Sections 4 and 5 then follow from this radius, so the target claim is not used to set the detector parameters. Self-citations to the IceACT telescope design (refs 53-55) are input hardware assumptions, not results carrying the derivation; no uniqueness theorem is invoked, and no parameter is fitted to the 99% efficiency number. A separate concern, acknowledged by the authors as requiring detailed simulations, is that the efficiency estimate equates a mean-signal-equals-threshold radius with detection probability and does not fold in the Poisson trigger probability the paper itself assumes in Section 3.1; that is a statistical correctness caveat, not a circularity defect.

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

The event-rate predictions rest on a chain of modeling choices: Poisson photon statistics, a step-function veto, the E_nu ~ E_p/3 conversion, hadronic interaction models, and assumed hardware efficiencies. None of these are fitted to the claimed outcome, but all propagate directly into the 15-30 TeV threshold and the factor 3-13 gains, so they should be validated by full simulations and prototype data.

free parameters (5)
  • Telescope photon collection efficiency = 60% between 300 and 650 nm
    Section 2.1 says this is an estimate not based on detailed modeling of a specific telescope design; it directly sets the photoelectron yield and the detection radius.
  • Signal retention in trigger window and brightest pixels = 75%
    Section 3.5 assumes 75% of photons arrive in the trigger window and land in the three brightest camera pixels; no full trigger simulation is performed.
  • Winter duty factor = 60% winter, 20-25% overall
    Sections 2.1 and 6 estimate the achievable duty cycle and Section 5 uses it to scale event rates; the authors state this must be confirmed with prototype experience.
  • Trigger threshold = 9 to 24 PE depending on auroral level
    Section 3.4 chooses thresholds to keep accidental triggers below 1 kHz with a toy Monte Carlo; the veto energy threshold and detection radii depend on this choice.
  • Atmospheric extinction correction = 18%
    Section 3.2 states that the authors conservatively assume 18% extinction independent of energy and primary species; it scales all photoelectron yields down.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Cherenkov photon counts from air showers follow Poisson distributions around the CORSIKA mean lateral densities.
    Section 3.1 states that the authors assume Poisson distributions around the mean photon densities despite observed sub-structure fluctuations; the detectability calculation uses this assumption.
  • domain assumption Atmospheric neutrino energy is at least one third of the primary cosmic-ray energy for efficient veto.
    Footnote 2 states the E_nu >= E_p/3 rule of thumb without derivation; it converts the 50-100 TeV primary threshold into a 15-30 TeV neutrino threshold.
  • ad hoc to paper The veto can be modeled as a step function with negligible atmospheric background above the threshold.
    Section 5 calls this a simplistic first estimate but uses it for the event-rate gains in Figure 10.
  • domain assumption CORSIKA with QGSJet-01c and FLUKA 2011.2c.1 accurately models air showers in the 10-200 TeV range.
    Section 3.1 lists the simulation versions and thresholds; the accuracy of the hadronic interaction models is taken as given.
  • domain assumption The UG11 filter and SiPM camera reduce auroral background to the computed levels.
    Section 3.3 scales literature auroral spectra and assumes the filter transmission curve; the authors note that prototype measurements are needed to validate these estimates.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Atmospheric Cherenkov Telescopes as a Potential Veto Array for Neutrino Astronomy." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MKXWWLYV

@misc{pith2026190810865,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Atmospheric Cherenkov Telescopes as a Potential Veto Array for Neutrino Astronomy},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MKXWWLYV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.10865}
}
read the original abstract

The IceCube Neutrino Observatory has revealed the existence of sources of high-energy astrophysical neutrinos. However, identification of the sources is challenging because astrophysical neutrinos are difficult to separate from the background of atmospheric neutrinos produced in cosmic-ray-induced particle cascades in the atmosphere. The efficient detection of air showers in coincidence with detected neutrinos can greatly reduce those backgrounds and increase the sensitivity of neutrino telescopes. Imaging Air Cherenkov Telescopes (IACTs) are sensitive to gamma-ray-induced (and cosmic-ray-induced) air showers in the 50 GeV to 50 TeV range, and can therefore be used as background-identifiers for neutrino observatories. This paper describes the feasibility of an array of small scale, wide field-of-view, cost-effective IACTs as an air shower veto for neutrino astronomy. A surface array of 250 to 750 telescopes would significantly improve the performance of a cubic kilometer-scale detector like IceCube, at a cost of a few percent of the original investment. The number of telescopes in the array can be optimized based on astronomical and geometrical considerations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.10865 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. An example of a small-scale IACT adapted from [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Performance of the various components of the telescope and their combined e [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Mean lateral distribution of 300–600 nm Cherenkov photons for vertical proton primaries [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Azimuthal fluctuations of the lateral distribution of 300–600 nm Cherenkov photons for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The spectrum of the NSB with mean-intensity aurora during solar maximum, before [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Maximum distance from telescope at which vertical air showers can be detected for a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Schematic arrangement of a telescope station (side view to top view). Each telescope has [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Top view of a telescope array with 36◦ FoV and a telescope station spacing of 260 m. The shaded blue region indicates the IceCube footprint. Each telescope in a station is colored according to how many DOMs are behind the telescope’s FoV, from solid green (>50 DOMs) to…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Volumes for accepted neutrino interactions for a source at a given zenith angle. For the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Number of neutrino events passing the veto for a point source similar to TXS 0506 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    M. G. Aartsen, et al., Evidence for High-Energy Extraterrestrial Neutrinos at the IceCube Detector, Science 342 (2013) 1242856. arXiv:1311.5238, doi:10.1126/science.1242856

    arXiv 2013

  2. [2]

    Kadler, et al., Coincidence of a high-fluence blazar outburst with a PeV- energy neutrino event, Nature Phys

    M. Kadler, et al., Coincidence of a high-fluence blazar outburst with a PeV- energy neutrino event, Nature Phys. 12 (8) (2016) 807–814. arXiv:1602. 02012, doi:10.1038/nphys3715,10.1038/NPHYS3715. 25

    doi:10.1038/nphys3715 2016

  3. [3]

    Extreme blazars as counterparts of IceCube astrophysical neutrinos

    P. Padovani, E. Resconi, P. Giommi, B. Arsioli, Y . L. Chang, Extreme blazars as counterparts of IceCube astrophysical neutrinos, Mon. Not. Roy. As- tron. Soc. 457 (4) (2016) 3582–3592. arXiv:1601.06550, doi:10.1093/ mnras/stw228

    work page Pith review arXiv 2016

  4. [4]

    Lucarelli, et al., AGILE detection of gamma-ray sources coincident with cosmic neutrino events, Astrophys

    F. Lucarelli, et al., AGILE detection of gamma-ray sources coincident with cosmic neutrino events, Astrophys. J. 870 (2) (2019) 136. arXiv:1811. 07689, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaf1c0

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaf1c0 2019

  5. [5]

    Garrappa, et al., Investigation of two Fermi-LAT gamma-ray blazars co- incident with high-energy neutrinos detected by IceCube, Astrophys

    S. Garrappa, et al., Investigation of two Fermi-LAT gamma-ray blazars co- incident with high-energy neutrinos detected by IceCube, Astrophys. J. 880 (2019) 103. arXiv:1901.10806, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab2ada

    arXiv 2019

  6. [6]

    M. G. Aartsen, et al., Multimessenger observations of a flaring blazar co- incident with high-energy neutrino IceCube-170922A, Science 361 (6398) (2018) eaat1378. arXiv:1807.08816, doi:10.1126/science.aat1378

    arXiv 2018

  7. [7]

    M. G. Aartsen, et al., Neutrino emission from the direction of the blazar TXS 0506+056 prior to the IceCube-170922A alert, Science 361 (6398) (2018) 147–151. arXiv:1807.08794, doi:10.1126/science.aat2890

    arXiv 2018

  8. [9]

    Ackermann, et al., The spectrum of isotropic diffuse gamma-ray emission between 100 MeV and 820 GeV, Astrophys

    M. Ackermann, et al., The spectrum of isotropic diffuse gamma-ray emission between 100 MeV and 820 GeV, Astrophys. J. 799 (2015) 86. arXiv: 1410.3696, doi:10.1088/0004-637X/799/1/86

    arXiv 2015

Show all 69 references
  1. [10]

    M. G. Aartsen, et al., A combined maximum-likelihood analysis of the high- energy astrophysical neutrino flux measured with IceCube, Astrophys. J. 809 (1) (2015) 98. arXiv:1507.03991, doi:10.1088/0004-637X/809/ 1/98

    2015 arXiv

  2. [11]

    M. G. Aartsen, et al., Observation and Characterization of a Cosmic Muon Neutrino Flux from the Northern Hemisphere using six years of IceCube data, Astrophys. J. 833 (1) (2016) 3. arXiv:1607.08006, doi:10.3847/ 0004-637X/833/1/3

    2016 arXiv

  3. [12]

    Ackermann, et al., Resolving the Extragalactic γ-Ray Background above 50 GeV with the Fermi Large Area Telescope, Phys

    M. Ackermann, et al., Resolving the Extragalactic γ-Ray Background above 50 GeV with the Fermi Large Area Telescope, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116 (15) 26 (2016) 151105. arXiv:1511.00693, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.116. 151105

    2016 arXiv

  4. [13]

    Murase, M

    K. Murase, M. Ahlers, B. C. Lacki, Testing the Hadronuclear Origin of PeV Neutrinos Observed with IceCube, Phys. Rev. D88 (12) (2013) 121301. arXiv:1306.3417, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.88.121301

    2013 arXiv

  5. [14]

    Murase, R

    K. Murase, R. Laha, S. Ando, M. Ahlers, Testing the Dark Matter Sce- nario for PeV Neutrinos Observed in IceCube, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115 (7) (2015) 071301. arXiv:1503.04663, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.115. 071301

    2015 arXiv

  6. [15]

    Murase, D

    K. Murase, D. Guetta, M. Ahlers, Hidden Cosmic-Ray Accelerators as an Origin of TeV-PeV Cosmic Neutrinos, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116 (7) (2016) 071101. arXiv:1509.00805, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.116. 071101

    2016 arXiv

  7. [16]

    Chang, X.-Y

    X.-C. Chang, X.-Y . Wang, The diffuse gamma-ray flux associated with sub- PeV/PeV neutrinos from starburst galaxies, Astrophys. J. 793 (2) (2014) 131. arXiv:1406.1099, doi:10.1088/0004-637X/793/2/131

    2014 arXiv

  8. [17]

    Tamborra, S

    I. Tamborra, S. Ando, K. Murase, Star-forming galaxies as the origin of diffuse high-energy backgrounds: Gamma-ray and neutrino connections, and implications for starburst history, JCAP 1409 (2014) 043. arXiv: 1404.1189, doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2014/09/043

    2014 arXiv

  9. [18]

    S. Ando, I. Tamborra, F. Zandanel, Tomographic Constraints on High- Energy Neutrinos of Hadronuclear Origin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115 (22) (2015) 221101. arXiv:1509.02444, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.115. 221101

    2015 arXiv

  10. [19]

    Chang, R.-Y

    X.-C. Chang, R.-Y . Liu, X.-Y . Wang, Star-forming galaxies as the origin of the IceCube PeV neutrinos, Astrophys. J. 805 (2) (2015) 95. arXiv: 1412.8361, doi:10.1088/0004-637X/805/2/95

    2015 arXiv

  11. [20]

    J. Kopp, J. Liu, X.-P. Wang, Boosted Dark Matter in IceCube and at the Galactic Center, JHEP 04 (2015) 105.arXiv:1503.02669, doi:10.1007/ JHEP04(2015)105

    2015 arXiv

  12. [21]

    Wang, R.-Y

    X.-Y . Wang, R.-Y . Liu, Tidal disruption jets of supermassive black holes as hidden sources of cosmic rays: explaining the IceCube TeV-PeV neutrinos, 27 Phys. Rev. D93 (8) (2016) 083005. arXiv:1512.08596, doi:10.1103/ PhysRevD.93.083005

    2016 arXiv

  13. [22]

    Hooper, A Case for Radio Galaxies as the Sources of IceCube’s Astro- physical Neutrino Flux, JCAP 1609 (09) (2016) 002

    D. Hooper, A Case for Radio Galaxies as the Sources of IceCube’s Astro- physical Neutrino Flux, JCAP 1609 (09) (2016) 002. arXiv:1605.06504, doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2016/09/002

    2016 arXiv

  14. [23]

    P. S. B. Dev, D. Kazanas, R. N. Mohapatra, V . L. Teplitz, Y . Zhang, Heavy right-handed neutrino dark matter and PeV neutrinos at IceCube, JCAP 1608 (08) (2016) 034. arXiv:1606.04517, doi:10.1088/1475-7516/ 2016/08/034

    2016 arXiv

  15. [24]

    Bechtol, M

    K. Bechtol, M. Ahlers, M. Di Mauro, M. Ajello, J. Vandenbroucke, Ev- idence against star-forming galaxies as the dominant source of IceCube neutrinos, Astrophys. J. 836 (1) (2017) 47. arXiv:1511.00688, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/836/1/47

    2017 arXiv

  16. [25]

    Linden, Star-Forming Galaxies Significantly Contribute to the Isotropic Gamma-Ray Background, Phys

    T. Linden, Star-Forming Galaxies Significantly Contribute to the Isotropic Gamma-Ray Background, Phys. Rev. D96 (8) (2017) 083001. arXiv: 1612.03175, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.96.083001

    2017 arXiv

  17. [26]

    Bhattacharya, R

    A. Bhattacharya, R. Gandhi, A. Gupta, S. Mukhopadhyay, Boosted Dark Matter and its implications for the features in IceCube HESE data, JCAP 1705 (05) (2017) 002. arXiv:1612.02834, doi:10.1088/1475-7516/ 2017/05/002

    2017 arXiv

  18. [27]

    P. B. Denton, D. Marfatia, T. J. Weiler, The Galactic Contribution to Ice- Cube’s Astrophysical Neutrino Flux, JCAP 1708 (08) (2017) 033. arXiv: 1703.09721, doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2017/08/033

    2017 arXiv

  19. [28]

    Palladino, W

    A. Palladino, W. Winter, A multi-component model for observed astrophys- ical neutrinos, Astron. Astrophys. 615 (2018) A168. arXiv:1801.07277, doi:10.3204/PUBDB-2018-01376,10.1051/0004-6361/201832731

    2018 arXiv

  20. [29]

    Y . Sui, P. S. Bhupal Dev, A Combined Astrophysical and Dark Matter In- terpretation of the IceCube HESE and Throughgoing Muon Events, JCAP 1807 (07) (2018) 020. arXiv:1804.04919, doi:10.1088/1475-7516/ 2018/07/020. 28

    2018 arXiv

  21. [30]

    Bhattacharya, M

    A. Bhattacharya, M. H. Reno, I. Sarcevic, Reconciling neutrino flux from heavy dark matter decay and recent events at IceCube, JHEP 06 (2014) 110. arXiv:1403.1862, doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2014)110

    2014 arXiv

  22. [31]

    Bhattacharya, A

    A. Bhattacharya, A. Esmaili, S. Palomares-Ruiz, I. Sarcevic, Probing decay- ing heavy dark matter with the 4-year IceCube HESE data, JCAP 1707 (07) (2017) 027. arXiv:1706.05746, doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2017/07/ 027

    2017 arXiv

  23. [32]

    Chianese, G

    M. Chianese, G. Miele, S. Morisi, Dark Matter interpretation of low energy IceCube MESE excess, JCAP 1701 (01) (2017) 007. arXiv:1610.04612, doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2017/01/007

    2017 arXiv

  24. [33]

    Chianese, G

    M. Chianese, G. Miele, S. Morisi, Interpreting IceCube 6-year HESE data as an evidence for hundred TeV decaying Dark Matter, Phys. Lett. B773 (2017) 591–595. arXiv:1707.05241, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2017.09. 016

    2017 arXiv

  25. [34]

    L. A. Anchordoqui, H. Goldberg, F. Halzen, T. J. Weiler, Neutrinos as a diagnostic of high energy astrophysical processes, Phys. Lett. B621 (2005) 18–21. arXiv:hep-ph/0410003, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2005.06. 056

    2005 arXiv

  26. [35]

    Hummer, M

    S. Hummer, M. Maltoni, W. Winter, C. Yaguna, Energy dependent neutrino flavor ratios from cosmic accelerators on the Hillas plot, Astropart. Phys. 34 (2010) 205–224. arXiv:1007.0006, doi:10.1016/j.astropartphys. 2010.07.003

    2010 arXiv

  27. [36]

    Bhattacharya, R

    A. Bhattacharya, R. Gandhi, W. Rodejohann, A. Watanabe, The Glashow resonance at IceCube: signatures, event rates and pp vs. pγ interactions, JCAP 1110 (2011) 017. arXiv:1108.3163, doi:10.1088/1475-7516/ 2011/10/017

    2011 arXiv

  28. [37]

    Z.-z. Xing, S. Zhou, The Glashow resonance as a discriminator of UHE cosmic neutrinos originating from p-gamma and p-p collisions, Phys. Rev. D84 (2011) 033006. arXiv:1105.4114, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.84. 033006

    2011 arXiv

  29. [38]

    Barger, L

    V . Barger, L. Fu, J. G. Learned, D. Marfatia, S. Pakvasa, T. J. Weiler, Glashow resonance as a window into cosmic neutrino sources, Phys. Rev. 29 D90 (2014) 121301. arXiv:1407.3255, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.90. 121301

    2014 arXiv

  30. [39]

    I. M. Shoemaker, K. Murase, Probing BSM Neutrino Physics with Flavor and Spectral Distortions: Prospects for Future High-Energy Neutrino Tele- scopes, Phys. Rev. D93 (8) (2016) 085004. arXiv:1512.07228, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.93.085004

    2016 arXiv

  31. [40]

    Biehl, A

    D. Biehl, A. Fedynitch, A. Palladino, T. J. Weiler, W. Winter, Astrophysical Neutrino Production Diagnostics with the Glashow Resonance, JCAP 1701 (2017) 033. arXiv:1611.07983, doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2017/01/ 033

    2017 arXiv

  32. [41]

    Nunokawa, B

    H. Nunokawa, B. Panes, R. Zukanovich Funchal, How Unequal Fluxes of High Energy Astrophysical Neutrinos and Antineutrinos can Fake New Physics, JCAP 1610 (10) (2016) 036. arXiv:1604.08595, doi:10.1088/ 1475-7516/2016/10/036

    2016 arXiv

  33. [42]

    M. G. Aartsen, et al., Measurements using the inelasticity distribution of multi-TeV neutrino interactions in IceCube, Phys. Rev. D99 (3) (2019) 032004. arXiv:1808.07629, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.99.032004

    2019 arXiv

  34. [43]

    Achterberg, M

    IceCube Collaboration, A. Achterberg, M. Ackermann, J. Adams, J. Ahrens, K. Andeen, D. W. Atlee, J. Baccus, J. N. Bahcall, X. Bai, et al., First year performance of the IceCube neutrino telescope, Astroparticle Physics 26 (2006) 155–173. arXiv:astro-ph/0604450, doi:10.1016/ j....

    2006 arXiv

  35. [44]

    Ageron, et al., ANTARES: the first undersea neutrino telescope, Nucl

    M. Ageron, et al., ANTARES: the first undersea neutrino telescope, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A656 (2011) 11–38. arXiv:1104.1607, doi:10.1016/j. nima.2011.06.103

    2011 arXiv

  36. [45]

    I. A. Belolaptikov, et al., The Baikal underwater neutrino telescope: Design, performance and first results, Astropart. Phys. 7 (1997) 263–282. doi:10. 1016/S0927-6505(97)00022-4

    1997

  37. [46]

    A. D. Avrorin, et al., Baikal-GVD: status and prospects, EPJ Web Conf. 191 (2018) 01006. arXiv:1808.10353, doi:10.1051/epjconf/ 201819101006. 30

    2018 arXiv

  38. [47]

    Adrian-Martinez, et al., Letter of intent for KM3NeT 2.0, J

    S. Adrian-Martinez, et al., Letter of intent for KM3NeT 2.0, J. Phys. G43 (8) (2016) 084001. arXiv:1601.07459, doi:10.1088/0954-3899/43/8/ 084001

    2016 arXiv

  39. [48]

    Schonert, T

    S. Schonert, T. K. Gaisser, E. Resconi, O. Schulz, Vetoing atmospheric neu- trinos in a high energy neutrino telescope, Phys. Rev. D79 (2009) 043009. arXiv:0812.4308, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.79.043009

    2009 arXiv

  40. [49]

    T. K. Gaisser, K. Jero, A. Karle, J. van Santen, Generalized self-veto probability for atmospheric neutrinos, Phys. Rev. D90 (2) (2014) 023009. arXiv:1405.0525, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.90.023009

    2014 arXiv

  41. [50]

    C. A. Argelles, S. Palomares-Ruiz, A. Schneider, L. Wille, T. Yuan, Uni- fied atmospheric neutrino passing fractions for large-scale neutrino tele- scopes, JCAP 1807 (07) (2018) 047. arXiv:1805.11003, doi:10.1088/ 1475-7516/2018/07/047

    2018 arXiv

  42. [51]

    D. Tosi, H. Pandya, Performance of IceTop as a veto for IceCube, PoS ICRC2017 (2018) 967. doi:10.22323/1.301.0967

    2018 doi

  43. [52]

    Audehm, J

    J. Audehm, J. Serna, R. Alfaro, T. Bretz, M. Gonzlez, A. Iriarte, J. Martnez- Castro, Y . Prez, M. Schaufel, I. Torres, on behalf of the HAWC Collabora- tion, HAWCs Eye - Implementing hybrid detection at the HAWC Gamma- Ray Observatory, PoS ICRC2019 (2019) 636

    2019

  44. [53]

    Bretz, T

    T. Bretz, T. Hebbeker, J. Kemp, L. Middendorf, T. Niggemann, C. Pe- ters, M. Schaufel, J. Schumacher, J. Au ffenberg, C. Wiebusch, A com- pact and light-weight refractive telescope for the observation of extensive air showers, JINST 13 (07) (2018) P07024. arXiv:1804.01781, doi:...

    2018 arXiv

  45. [54]

    M. G. Aartsen, et al., Design and Performance of a first IceACT Demonstra- tor at the South Pole, Submitted to JINST. (2019). arXiv:1611.03874

    2019 arXiv

  46. [55]

    Au ffenberg, IceAct: Imaging Air Cherenkov Telescopes with SiPMs at the South Pole for IceCube-Gen2, PoS ICRC2017 (2018) 1055

    J. Au ffenberg, IceAct: Imaging Air Cherenkov Telescopes with SiPMs at the South Pole for IceCube-Gen2, PoS ICRC2017 (2018) 1055. doi:10. 22323/1.301.1055

    2018

  47. [56]

    Anderhub, M

    H. Anderhub, M. Backes, A. Biland, V . Boccone, I. Braun, T. Bretz, J. Buß, F. Cadoux, V . Commichau, L. Djambazov, D. Dorner, S. Einecke, D. Eise- nacher, A. Gendotti, O. Grimm, H. von Gunten, C. Haller, D. Hilde- brand, U. Horisberger, B. Huber, K.-S. Kim, M. L. Knoetig, J.-...

    2013 arXiv

  48. [57]

    Biland, et al., Calibration and performance of the photon sensor response of FACT – The First G-APD Cherenkov telescope, JINST 9 (10) (2014) P10012

    A. Biland, et al., Calibration and performance of the photon sensor response of FACT – The First G-APD Cherenkov telescope, JINST 9 (10) (2014) P10012. arXiv:1403.5747, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/9/10/P10012

    2014 arXiv

  49. [58]

    J. P. Koschinsky, Development of a 61-Pixel Camera for the IceAct Imaging Air Cherenkov Telescope, Master’s thesis, RWTH Aachen U. (2017). URL http://www.institut3b.physik.rwth-aachen.de/global/ show_document.asp?id=aaaaaaaaaaxbjez

    2017

  50. [59]

    G ¨under, Simulation of the Optics of the Imaging Air-Cherenkov Tele- scopes IceAct with Geant4, Master’s thesis, RWTH Aachen U

    M. G ¨under, Simulation of the Optics of the Imaging Air-Cherenkov Tele- scopes IceAct with Geant4, Master’s thesis, RWTH Aachen U. (2019). URL http://www.institut3b.physik.rwth-aachen.de/global/ show_document.asp?id=aaaaaaaaacridos

    2019

  51. [60]

    G. Sims, M. C. B. Ashley, X. Cui, J. R. Everett, L. Feng, X. Gong, S. Hengst, Z. Hu, J. S. Lawrence, D. M. Luong-Van, A. M. Moore, R. Riddle, Z. Shang, J. W. V . Storey, N. Tothill, T. Travouillon, L. Wang, H. Yang, J. Yang, X. Zhou, Z. Zhu, Airglow and aurorae at dome a, anta...

    2012

  52. [61]

    M. L. Knoetig, et al., FACT - Long-term stability and observations during strong Moon light, in: Proceedings, 33rd International Cosmic Ray Confer- ence (ICRC2013): Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, July 2-9, 2013, 2013, p. 0695. arXiv:1307.6116

    2013 arXiv

  53. [62]

    D. Heck, J. Knapp, J. N. Capdevielle, G. Schatz, T. Thouw, CORSIKA: A Monte Carlo Code to Simulate Extensive Air Showers., Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe GmbH, Karlsruhe, Germany, 1998. 32

    1998

  54. [63]

    N. N. Kalmykov, S. S. Ostapchenko, A. I. Pavlov, Quark-Gluon String Model and EAS Simulation Problems at Ultra-High Energies, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 52 (1997) 17–28. doi:10.1016/S0920-5632(96)00846-8

    1997 doi

  55. [64]

    T. T. B ¨ohlen, F. Cerutti, M. P. W. Chin, A. Fass `o, A. Ferrari, P. G. Ortega, A. Mairani, P. R. Sala, G. Smirnov, V . Vlachoudis, The FLUKA Code: De- velopments and Challenges for High Energy and Medical Applications, Nu- clear Data Sheets 120 (2014) 211–214. doi:10.1016/j....

    2014 doi

  56. [65]

    Ferrari, P

    A. Ferrari, P. R. Sala, A. Fass`o, J. Ranft, FLUKA: A Multi-Particle Transport Code (Program Version 2005), CERN, Geneva, 2005

    2005

  57. [66]

    Bernl ¨ohr, Simulation of imaging atmospheric Cherenkov telescopes with CORSIKA and sim telarray, Astroparticle Physics 30 (2008) 149–158

    K. Bernl ¨ohr, Simulation of imaging atmospheric Cherenkov telescopes with CORSIKA and sim telarray, Astroparticle Physics 30 (2008) 149–158. arXiv:0808.2253, doi:10.1016/j.astropartphys.2008.07.009

    2008 arXiv

  58. [67]

    Dempsey, J. T. and Storey, J. W. V . and Phillips, A., Auroral Contribution to Sky Brightness for Optical Astronomy on the Antarctic Plateau, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia 22 (2) (2005) 91–104. doi:{10. 1071/AS04036}

    2005

  59. [68]

    R. L. Gattinger, A. V . Jones, Quantitative spectroscopy of the aurora. II - The spectrum of medium intensity aurora between 4500 and 8900 A, Canadian Journal of Physics 52 (1974) 2343–2356. doi:10.1139/p74-305

    1974 doi

  60. [69]

    A. V . Jones, R. L. Gattinger, Quantitative spectroscopy of the aurora. III - The spectrum of medium intensity aurora between 3100 A and 4700 A, Canadian Journal of Physics 53 (1975) 1806–1813. doi:10.1139/ p75-231

    1975

  61. [70]

    Ahlers, F

    M. Ahlers, F. Halzen, Pinpointing Extragalactic Neutrino Sources in Light of Recent IceCube Observations, Phys. Rev. D90 (4) (2014) 043005. arXiv: 1406.2160, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.90.043005. 33

    2014 arXiv

Pith tools

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