Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 22 references

The Milky Way is a Laboratory for New Ultra-long-baseline Neutrino Physics

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a combined IceCube and KM3NeT analysis of Milky Way neutrinos by 2035 could probe quasi-Dirac mass splittings and neutrino lifetimes in currently unexplored ranges.

desk verdict A useful proof-of-concept forecast for quasi-Dirac and decaying-neutrino searches with the Galactic plane flux, but the reach hinges on an unaudited 3D emission model and the abstract contains an exponent error. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.04193 v1 pith:EZMVK53F submitted 2025-07-06 hep-ph astro-ph.HE

Miller MacDonald , Kiara Carloni , Carlos A. Argüelles , Rafael Alves Batista , Ivan Martínez-Soler This is my paper
classification hep-phastro-ph.HE
keywords quasi-DiracneutrinosneutrinodecayGalacticplaneIceCubeKM3NeT/ARCAlifetimeTANDEMemissionmodelultra-long-baselineoscillations
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper's thesis is that the recently detected diffuse neutrino glow of the Milky Way supplies an ultra-long baseline for neutrino physics: TeV neutrinos born kiloparsecs away have $L/E$ values far beyond any laboratory or solar beam, so tiny quasi-Dirac mass splittings and slow decays that are otherwise invisible should leave measurable imprints on the energy spectrum and flavor content. The authors use the TANDEM three-dimensional emission model to give each line of sight a distance, then simulate a 2035 joint analysis of IceCube cascades and KM3NeT/ARCA tracks. They find projected $>1\sigma$ sensitivity to several decades of unexplored quasi-Dirac parameter space at small $\delta m^2$ and to decay parameters $m/\tau \gtrsim 10^{-14.1}$ eV$^2$. If these forecasts hold, the combined telescopes would map a new region of neutrino mass and lifetime parameter space that terrestrial experiments cannot reach.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing quantity is the ratio $L/E$. Kiloparsec Galactic baselines and TeV neutrino energies move $L/E$ into a regime where even $\delta m^2 \sim 10^{-14}$ eV$^2$ can produce visible effects, through the quasi-Dirac probability $P^{\mathrm{QD}}_{\alpha\beta} = \sum_i |U_{\alpha i}|^2|U_{\beta i}|^2 \cos^2(\delta m_i^2 L/4E_\nu)$ and the decay probability $P^{\mathrm{decay}}_{\alpha\beta} = \sum_i |U_{\alpha i}|^2|U_{\beta i}|^2 \exp(-\alpha_i L/E_\nu)$ with $\alpha_i \equiv m_i/\tau_i$. The TANDEM map of Galactic neutrino emissivity in three dimensions converts the diffuse flux into a weighted distribution of baselines, and the analysis compares binned Poisson event counts in reconstructed energy and angle between the null Standard Model and each beyond-Standard-Model scenario, marginalizing the overall flux normalization.

What would settle it

If the 2035 Galactic-plane dataset, binned in reconstructed energy and angle for both cascades and tracks, is fully described by the Standard Model null with a free normalization and shows no oscillatory spectral modulation or flavor-ratio energy dependence, the claimed sensitivity ranges would be falsified. A faster check is to run the same Poisson likelihood ratio on the existing IceCube cascade data used for the $4.5\sigma$ detection: finding no $>1\sigma$ preference at the claimed $\delta m^2$ and $m/\tau$ values would show that the forecast rests on the assumed 2035 exposure and on TANDEM's baseline weighting.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the measured Galactic-plane neutrino flux can serve as a true ultra-long-baseline beam for neutrino physics: TeV neutrinos traveling kiloparsecs make mass-splitting and lifetime scales near $10^{-14}$ eV$^2$ observable. In the quasi-Dirac model, the flavor survival probability becomes a sum of terms $\cos^2(\delta m_i^2 L/4E_\nu)$, so a small active-sterile splitting imprints an energy-dependent spectral modulation; in decay models, the $\nu_3$ flux is attenuated by $\exp(-\alpha_3 L/E_\nu)$, and if the decay is visible the $\nu_1$ flux is boosted, changing the flavor ratio. A binned Poisson likelihood analysis of simulated 2035 IceCube cascades and KM3NeT/ARCA tracks, with the overall Galactic flux normalization marginalized, yields projected $>1\sigma$ sensitivity to several decades of unprobed $\delta m^2$ and to $\alpha_3 = m_3/\tau_3 \gtrsim 10^{-14.1}$ eV$^2$. The authors stress that the cascade-plus-track combination is what breaks normalization degeneracies in flavor-changing decay scenarios.

Load-bearing premise

The claim stands or falls on TANDEM's three-dimensional distance-and-energy emissivity map, including the factor-of-five boost used to match the observed total flux: if that map misplaces where the neutrinos are produced, the claimed sensitivity ranges shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A 2035 joint IceCube cascade plus KM3NeT track fit would reach quasi-Dirac splittings down to $\delta m^2 \sim 10^{-14}$ eV$^2$, far below current solar and atmospheric oscillation sensitivities.
  • Neutrino lifetimes with $m/\tau \gtrsim 10^{-14.1}$ eV$^2$ would begin to be excluded or discovered at more than $1\sigma$.
  • In the visible-decay scenario ($\nu_3 \to \nu_1$), the combined cascade and track analysis sees a flavor-ratio shift that neither detector alone could separate from an overall normalization change.
  • Because quasi-Dirac oscillations in this setup do not change flavor, the two experiments add coherently in that channel; because decay does change flavor, the combined decay sensitivity exceeds the sum of the individual sensitivities.
  • Future telescopes with more $L/E$ baselines and better angular resolution would extend this program, as the paper notes.

Reading between the lines

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

  • I treat the abstract's upper bound of $10^{11.6}$ eV$^2$ as a typographical slip: Figure 3's test statistic returns to zero near $10^{-10}$ eV$^2$, and the text describes the QD reach as several decades. The defensible claim is the small-splitting, long-lifetime end of parameter space.
  • The TANDEM map averages over many baselines along each line of sight, which washes out sharp oscillation features; a resolved source with a known distance, or a Galactic supernova neutrino burst, could isolate a single $L/E$ and sharpen the same search.
  • The same $L/E$ lever arm is a general probe: any propagation effect with an $L/E$-dependent probability, such as neutrino decoherence, non-standard interactions, or Lorentz-violating oscillations, could be tested with the same 2035 simulation machinery.
  • The factor-of-five flux reweighting is the main source-model handle: if future Galactic emission maps move the predicted distance distribution, the exact boundaries of the sensitivity regions will move with them.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes using the recently observed Galactic-plane neutrino flux, modeled with the three-dimensional TANDEM emissivity map, as a new ultra-long-baseline probe of quasi-Dirac neutrino mass splittings and neutrino decay. For a 2035 combined analysis of IceCube cascade events and KM3NeT/ARCA track events, it claims >1σ sensitivity to quasi-Dirac splittings 10^{-14.0} eV^2 ≲ δm^2 ≲ 10^{11.6} eV^2 and to decay parameters m/τ ≳ 10^{-14.1} eV^2, with additional >2σ reach and 'several decades' of previously unprobed parameter space. The analysis uses the propagation probabilities in Eq. (1), a binned Poisson likelihood with marginalization over the overall Galactic flux normalization, and detector responses taken from published IceCube and KM3NeT references.

Significance. The idea is timely and well motivated: the measured Galactic-plane emission opens a genuinely new L/E window at kiloparsec baselines and TeV energies, and a combined track-plus-cascade analysis is a sensible way to exploit both spectral and flavor information. The paper has several real strengths: it builds on published detector response and background calculations, it marginalizes rather than tunes the overall flux normalization, and it is explicit about why sensitivity to large splittings is lost after that marginalization. If the TANDEM input were publicly documented and validated, and if the visible-decay model were precisely specified, the projected sensitivity curves would be a useful first map of this new parameter space. As the manuscript stands, however, the central quantitative claims rest on an undocumented source model and the abstract contains a range that is not supported by the figure and text, so the significance cannot yet be assessed at the level claimed.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2 and reference [10]] The central input to the calculation is the TANDEM three-dimensional neutrino emissivity map, but this map is cited only to an APS meeting abstract [10] and is described in the text as 'upcoming'; no public map, code, or validation is provided. The sensitivity in Fig. 3 is controlled by the distance- and energy-dependent emissivity through Eq. (1), because L/E sets both the QD oscillation phase and the decay attenuation, so an undocumented or incorrect spatial distribution could shift or shrink the quoted reach. The factor-of-5 rescale in Section 3 is a global normalization change and, since the analysis marginalizes the overall flux normalization, it does not validate the distance profile or spectral shape and is not by itself a sufficient check against the measured IceCube Galactic-plane flux or the gas maps [13,14]. Please make the TANDEM map available or show cross-checks against independent emissivity models, and demonstrate that the conclusions are stable under plausible variations of the three-dimensional source distribution.
  2. [Abstract and Fig. 3] The abstract's upper bound δm^2 ≲ 10^{11.6} eV^2 is inconsistent with the rest of the paper. In Fig. 3 (left panel) the median test statistic returns to zero near 10^{-10} eV^2, and the text explicitly states that sensitivity to larger δm^2 is lost because the oscillations average out and the resulting normalization difference is absorbed by the marginalization procedure. The phrase 'several decades' also describes a much narrower range. Please correct the abstract so that the quoted range matches the figure and the text; based on the displayed curves the supported >1σ range appears to be roughly 10^{-14.0} eV^2 ≲ δm^2 ≲ 10^{-10} eV^2.
  3. [Section 2, Eq. (1)] The visible ν3→ν1 decay scenario is one of the central results in Fig. 3, but its propagation probability is never written down. Equation (1) contains only the exponential attenuation factor exp(-α_i L/E_ν) for the decaying mass eigenstate; it does not include the daughter neutrino contribution that must appear in the visible-decay case. The text says there is 'a resulting boost to the decay product mass state flux' but gives no formula or algorithm specifying how the daughter flux is assigned in energy and flavor, nor how the quasi-degenerate mass assumption is implemented. Without this specification, the ν3→ν1 sensitivity curve in Fig. 3 is not reproducible. Please add the explicit visible-decay model, including the daughter term and the assumed mass ordering and kinematics.
  4. [Section 3] The projected sensitivities are evaluated with a statistical-only likelihood and a single marginalized normalization, with no systematic uncertainties on the TANDEM emissivity, the atmospheric background flux (H3a_SYBYLL23C), the energy and angular resolutions, or the effective areas. For a 2035 forecast that claims definite >1σ and >2σ reach, at least a representative systematic treatment should be presented or the claims should be explicitly labeled as statistical-only projections. In particular, an energy-scale uncertainty directly changes the reconstructed L/E argument and could shift the inferred δm^2 or α contours; this should be quantified or discussed.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 3 caption and axis] The y-axis label of Fig. 3 appears garbled as '⟨□2∆LLH ⟩'; please define the test statistic explicitly (for example, the median of sqrt(2ΔLLH) over background-only pseudo-experiments) in the text or caption.
  2. [Section 2] There is a typo in 'simualtate' (should be 'simulate'), and the atmospheric background model is likely 'H3a_SIBYLL23C' rather than 'H3a_SYBYLL23C'; please check the naming.
  3. [Section 2, QD assumption] The assumption that all three active-sterile QD mass splittings are equal is stated but not discussed; a sentence on how unequal splittings would affect the flavor ratio and the quoted reach would help the reader judge the generality of the result.
  4. [Section 3] The statement that the combined sensitivity is 'greater than the sum of the individual sensitivities' in the decay scenarios is not demonstrated quantitatively; please show or clarify the decomposition, since it is used to motivate the flavor-discrimination argument.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the BSM parameters are independently scanned, not fitted, and the central sensitivity result is self-contained relative to the external QD/decay formalism.

full rationale

The derivation is not circular. The sensitivity curves in Fig. 3 are obtained by a binned likelihood-ratio test in which the quasi-Dirac splitting δm² and decay parameter α are scanned hypothesis values, not outputs of a fit; Eq. (1) imports the oscillation and decay probability factors from external published models ([3], [4]). The only quantity that is fitted or marginalized is the overall Galactic flux normalization, and the paper states explicitly that it is marginalized ('Because of our poor knowledge of the overall Galactic flux normalization, we marginalize over this quantity in our analysis'), so no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The TANDEM 3D emissivity map and the ×5 flux rescale are input assumptions that set the L/E distribution of the flux; whether those assumptions are right is a source-model uncertainty, not a circular step, because TANDEM is not derived from the BSM effects under test and the ×5 factor changes only total normalization, not the distance/energy dependence that drives the L/E signatures. The abstract's printed upper bound 10^{11.6} eV² appears inconsistent with Fig. 3 (where the test statistic falls to zero near 10^{-10} eV²) and with the text's 'several decades' description; this is an internal-consistency or accuracy issue for the authors to correct, not a circular-reasoning defect. Self-citations appear as the TANDEM meeting abstract [10] and as background simulation references [17,18]; none of these is invoked as a uniqueness theorem or as justification of the central sensitivity claim, so the self-citation rule does not raise the score.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The forecast rests on standard external formulas plus the unvalidated TANDEM source map. The most fragile items are the domain assumptions about the Galactic flux distribution and the ad hoc factor-of-5 scaling; these dominate the soundness and correctness-risk assessment.

free parameters (2)
  • Galactic flux normalization = marginalized
    The overall normalization of the Galactic neutrino flux is treated as unknown and marginalized over in the likelihood; it controls absolute event rates and therefore the absolute sensitivity.
  • TANDEM flux rescaling factor = 5
    TANDEM predictions are multiplied by a factor of 5 to compensate for tension with the CRINGE emission model; no uncertainty is assigned and the factor enters every forecast in Section 3.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Standard three-flavor neutrino oscillation and decay probability formulas (Eq. 1)
    Used to compute the QD and decay modifications; these are prior published results, not re-derived here.
  • domain assumption TANDEM 3D emissivity map accurately represents the spatial and energy distribution of Galactic neutrino production
    This map determines the baseline distribution L and the energy spectrum; the model is not publicly documented, cited only to APS abstract [10].
  • domain assumption Production flavor ratio (1:2:0) at sources and normal mass ordering
    Assumed for all scenarios in Section 3; flavor ratio assumptions affect the sensitivity to flavor-changing decays.
  • ad hoc to paper All three QD active-sterile mass splittings are equal
    Chosen in Section 2 so that QD modifies normalization but not flavor ratios; this may understate flavor-based sensitivity.
  • domain assumption For visible decay, neutrino masses are quasi-degenerate near the KATRIN upper bound
    Required so that ν3 can decay to ν1; the assumption sets the phase space for the visible decay scenario in Section 2.
  • domain assumption IceCube and KM3NeT detector responses and the atmospheric background model are accurate for the 2035 forecast
    All event rate predictions inherit external simulations from refs [5, 17, 18]; no uncertainty on these inputs is propagated.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Milky Way is a Laboratory for New Ultra-long-baseline Neutrino Physics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EZMVK53F

@misc{pith2026250704193,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Milky Way is a Laboratory for New Ultra-long-baseline Neutrino Physics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EZMVK53F}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.04193}
}
abstract

The IceCube Neutrino Observatory recently published evidence for diffuse neutrino emission from the Galactic Plane at $4.5\sigma$ significance. This new source of astrophysical neutrinos provides an exciting laboratory for probing the nature of neutrino masses. In particular, extremely small mass splittings, such as those predicted by quasi-Dirac neutrino mass models, and finite neutrino lifetimes from neutrino decays, would induce effects on the spectra and flavor ratios of neutrinos with TeV-scale energies traversing kiloparsec-scale baselines. Using $\mathtt{TANDEM}$, an upcoming three dimensional galactic neutrino emission model, we explore the sensitivity of IceCube and KM3NeT/ARCA to these ultra-long-baseline phenomena. We find that a combined analysis would be sensitive to quasi-Dirac mass splittings $10^{-14.0}~\mathrm{eV^2} \lesssim \delta m^2 \lesssim 10^{11.6}~\mathrm{eV^2}$ and neutrino lifetimes $m / \tau \gtrsim 10^{-14.1}~\mathrm{eV^2}$ at $> 1\sigma$, both regions constituting as-yet unexplored parameter space. Our results demonstrate the potential that astrophysical neutrino sources and global neutrino telescope networks have in probing new regions of exotic neutrino mass models.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.04193 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Top panel: Neutrino rate from various astrophysical sources as a function of 𝐿/𝐸, in units of (kiloton year) −1 . IceCube and Super-Kamiokande exposures are shown as grey dashed lines. Note that the solar atmospheric neutrino flux is the only source that has not been detected yet. The Galactic rate, considered in this work, is plotted in dark blue and is calculated using the TANDEM model (model specifics are include… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Left: The top panel shows expected event counts binned in reconstructed neutrino energy 𝐸𝑟 for 10 years of exposure at IceCube (red) and KM3NeT/ARCA (blue) after convolving with energy and angular resolution. Events are shown for sky window |ℓ𝑟 | < 80◦ , |𝑏𝑟 | < 10◦ . Solid lines show the SM expectation, while dashed lines show the QD expectation for 𝛿𝑚2 = 10−13 eV2 . The bottom panel shows the ratio of expected QD … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Sensitivities of IceCube, KM3NeT, and both experiments combined to QD neutrinos and neutrino decay. Left: Median test statistic for IceCube cascades (red), KM3NeT tracks (blue), and the combined analysis (black) under a QD scenario. Right: Same as left, but for invisible decay of 𝜈3 → invis (dashed lines) and visible decay of 𝜈3 → 𝜈1 (solid lines), assuming a quasi-degenerate mass configuration. All sensitivities as… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

22 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

  1. [10]

    ANewMapofNeutrinoEmissioninOurGalaxywithCRPropa

    KiaraCarloni. ANewMapofNeutrinoEmissioninOurGalaxywithCRPropa. In APS April Meeting Abstracts, volume 2024 ofAPS Meeting Abstracts, page B14.002, April 2024

    work page 2024

  2. [1]

    Evidenceforoscillationofatmosphericneutrinos

    Y.Fukudaetal. Evidenceforoscillationofatmosphericneutrinos. Phys. Rev. Lett.,81:1562– 1567, 1998

    work page 1998

  3. [2]

    Q. R. Ahmad et al. Direct evidence for neutrino flavor transformation from neutral current interactions in the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory.Phys. Rev. Lett., 89:011301, 2002

    work page 2002

  4. [3]

    Pseudo-Dirac Neutrinos in the New Standard Model.Phys

    Andre de Gouvêa, Wei-Chih Huang, and James Jenkins. Pseudo-Dirac Neutrinos in the New Standard Model.Phys. Rev. D, 80:073007, 2009

    work page 2009

  5. [4]

    Beacom and Nicole F

    John F. Beacom and Nicole F. Bell. Do Solar Neutrinos Decay?Phys. Rev. D, 65:113009, 2002

    work page 2002

  6. [5]

    Abbasi et al

    R. Abbasi et al. Observation of high-energy neutrinos from the Galactic plane.Science, 380(6652):adc9818, 2023

    2023

  7. [6]

    Atmosphericneutrino flux calculation using the nrlmsise-00 atmospheric model.Physical Review D , 92(2), July 2015

    M.Honda,M.SajjadAthar,T.Kajita,K.Kasahara,andS.Midorikawa. Atmosphericneutrino flux calculation using the nrlmsise-00 atmospheric model.Physical Review D , 92(2), July 2015

    work page 2015

  8. [7]

    C.A.Argüelles,G.deWasseige,A.Fedynitch,andB.J.P.Jones.SolarAtmosphericNeutrinos and the Sensitivity Floor for Solar Dark Matter Annihilation Searches.JCAP, 07:024, 2017

    2017

Show all 22 references
  1. [8]

    Abbasi et al

    R. Abbasi et al. Evidence for neutrino emission from the nearby active galaxy NGC 1068. Science, 378(6619):538–543, 2022

    2022

  2. [9]

    GrandUnifiedNeutrinoSpectrumat Earth: Sources and Spectral Components.Rev

    EdoardoVitagliano,IreneTamborra,andGeorgRaffelt. GrandUnifiedNeutrinoSpectrumat Earth: Sources and Spectral Components.Rev. Mod. Phys., 92:45006, 2020

    2020

  3. [11]

    CRPropa 3.2 — an advanced framework for high-energy particle propagation in extragalactic and galactic spaces.JCAP, 09:035, 2022

    Rafael Alves Batista et al. CRPropa 3.2 — an advanced framework for high-energy particle propagation in extragalactic and galactic spaces.JCAP, 09:035, 2022

    2022

  4. [12]

    Michael Unger and Glennys R. Farrar. The Coherent Magnetic Field of the Milky Way. Astrophys. J., 970(1):95, 2024

    2024

  5. [13]

    Bayesianinferenceofthree-dimensionalgasmaps: I.GalacticCO

    P.MertschandA.Vittino. Bayesianinferenceofthree-dimensionalgasmaps: I.GalacticCO. Astronomy & Astrophysics, 655:A64, November 2021

    2021

  6. [14]

    Bayesianinferenceofthree-dimensionalgasmaps: Ii.Galactic HI

    P.MertschandV.H.M.Phan. Bayesianinferenceofthree-dimensionalgasmaps: Ii.Galactic HI. Astronomy & Astrophysics, 671:A54, March 2023

    2023

  7. [15]

    Direct neutrino-mass measurement based on 259 days of KATRIN data

    Max Aker et al. Direct neutrino-mass measurement based on 259 days of KATRIN data. Science, 388(6743):adq9592, 2025

    2025

  8. [16]

    SN1987A and neutrino non-radiative decay

    Pilar Iváñez-Ballesteros and Maria Cristina Volpe. SN1987A and neutrino non-radiative decay. Phys. Lett. B, 847:138252, 2023. 7 The Milky Way is a Laboratory for New Ultra-long-baseline Neutrino Physics Miller MacDonald

    2023

  9. [17]

    Aiello et al

    S. Aiello et al. Astronomy potential of KM3NeT/ARCA.Eur. Phys. J. C, 84(9):885, 2024

    2024

  10. [18]

    Argüelles, Sergio Palomares-Ruiz, Austin Schneider, Logan Wille, and Tianlu Yuan

    Carlos A. Argüelles, Sergio Palomares-Ruiz, Austin Schneider, Logan Wille, and Tianlu Yuan. Unified atmospheric neutrino passing fractions for large-scale neutrino telescopes. JCAP, 07:047, 2018

    2018

  11. [19]

    Diffuse Emission of Galactic High-energy Neutrinos from a Global Fit of Cosmic Rays.Astrophys

    Georg Schwefer, Philipp Mertsch, and Christopher Wiebusch. Diffuse Emission of Galactic High-energy Neutrinos from a Global Fit of Cosmic Rays.Astrophys. J., 949(1):16, 2023

    2023

  12. [20]

    M. G. Aartsen et al. IceCube-Gen2: the window to the extreme Universe. J. Phys. G , 48(6):060501, 2021

    2021

  13. [21]

    TheGiantRadioArrayforNeutrinoDetection(GRAND):Science and Design

    JaimeÁlvarez-Muñizetal. TheGiantRadioArrayforNeutrinoDetection(GRAND):Science and Design. Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron., 63(1):219501, 2020

    2020

  14. [22]

    TAMBO:SearchingforTauNeutrinosinthePeruvianAndes

    WilliamG.Thompson. TAMBO:SearchingforTauNeutrinosinthePeruvianAndes. In 38th International Cosmic Ray Conference, 8 2023. 8

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.