Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 3 cited by

Measurement of the diffuse astrophysical neutrino flux over six seasons using cascade events from the Baikal-GVD expanding telescope

T0 review · 2 major / 5 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 This paper reports that Baikal-GVD detected the diffuse astrophysical neutrino flux with 5.1 sigma significance using 18 upward-going cascade events, with a best-fit spectral index of 2.64 and a per-flavor normalization of 4.42 x 10^-18…

desk verdict Baikal-GVD reaches a credible 5.1 sigma diffuse astrophysical neutrino flux detection with new data, but the headline significance needs an explicit check against IceCube-allowed prompt neutrino normalizations. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.01893 v2 pith:AJU2Z6GL submitted 2025-07-02 astro-ph.HE

Baikal-GVD Collaboration: V.A. Allakhverdyan , A.D. Avrorin , A.V. Avrorin , V.M. Aynutdinov , Z. Beňušová , I.A. Belolaptikov , E.A. Bondarev , I.V. Borina
show 61 more authors
N.M. Budnev V.A. Chadymov A.S. Chepurnov V.Y. Dik A.N. Dmitrieva G.V. Domogatsky A.A. Doroshenko R. Dvornický A.N. Dyachok Zh.-A.M. Dzhilkibaev E. Eckerová T.V. Elzhov V.N. Fomin A.R. Gafarov K.V. Golubkov T.I. Gress K.G. Kebkal V.K. Kebkal I.V. Kharuk S.S. Khokhlov E.V. Khramov M.M. Kolbin S.O. Koligaev K.V. Konischev A.V. Korobchenko A.P. Koshechkin V.A. Kozhin M.V. Kruglov V.F. Kulepov A.A. Kulikov Y.E. Lemeshev M.V. Lisitsin S.V. Lovtsov R.R. Mirgazov D.V. Naumov A.S. Nikolaev I.A. Perevalova A.A. Petrukhin D.P. Petukhov E.N. Pliskovsky M.I. Rozanov E.V. Ryabov G.B. Safronov B.A. Shaybonov V.Y. Shishkin E.V. Shirokov F. Šimkovic A.E. Sirenko A.V. Skurikhin A.G. Solovjev M.N. Sorokovikov I. Štekl A.P. Stromakov O.V. Suvorova V.A. Tabolenko V.I. Tretjak B.B. Ulzutuev Y.V. Yablokova D.N. Zaborov S.I. Zavjalov D.Y. Zvezdov
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE PACS 95.55.Vj95.85.Ry14.60.Lm
keywords diffuseastrophysicalneutrinofluxBaikal-GVDcascadeeventstelescopesinglepowerlaw5.1sigmadetectionupward-goingneutrinos
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 reports that the Baikal-GVD neutrino telescope in Lake Baikal has detected the diffuse flux of astrophysical neutrinos with a statistical significance of 5.1 $\sigma$ using six seasons of cascade data collected from April 2018 to March 2024. During this period the detector grew from 15% to 55% of its planned cubic-kilometer configuration, and the analysis selects 18 upward-going cascade events against an expected atmospheric background of $2.8 \pm 1$ events. Assuming a single power law with equal contributions from each neutrino flavor, the best fit gives a spectral index $\gamma_{\rm astro} = 2.64^{+0.09}_{-0.11}$ and a per-flavor normalization $\phi_{\rm astro} = 4.42^{+2.31}_{-1.29}\times 10^{-18}\,\mathrm{GeV}^{-1}\,\mathrm{cm}^{-2}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}\,\mathrm{sr}^{-1}$ at 100 TeV. The measurement is the first independent detection of the diffuse astrophysical neutrino flux above 5 $\sigma$ made by Baikal-GVD using only upward-going cascade events, and it is broadly consistent with IceCube results.

What carries the argument

The central object is the sample of contained cascade events: electromagnetic and hadronic showers produced in neutrino interactions that leave no high-energy muon, and whose deposited energy is measured calorimetrically with 10--20% precision. Events are selected as upward-going ($\cos\theta < -0.25$), with reconstructed energy $E_{\rm sh}>15$ TeV and optical-module hit multiplicity $N_{\rm hit}>11$. The argument is carried by a binned Poisson maximum-likelihood fit that compares the 18 observed events with Monte Carlo templates for the astrophysical signal, conventional and prompt atmospheric neutrinos, and mis-reconstructed atmospheric muons; systematic uncertainties in water absorption length, optical-module efficiency, and atmospheric-neutrino normalization enter as nuisance parameters with Gaussian priors, and the significance is estimated with the method of [36]. This fit yields the reported spectral index and normalization.

What would settle it

Re-analyze the same six seasons in the muon-track channel, which has an independent background composition; the single-power-law flux measured from cascades predicts a specific track excess, and if no matching excess appears, the cascade-only 5.1 sigma claim would be weakened.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that Baikal-GVD has observed the diffuse astrophysical neutrino flux with a statistical significance of $5.1\,\sigma$ (chance probability $2.1\times 10^{-7}$), the first such observation beyond $5\,\sigma$ by this telescope based solely on upward-moving cascade events. The evidence is a sample of 18 contained cascade events with reconstructed energy above 15 TeV, selected from the April 2018--March 2024 data; the expected atmospheric background is $2.8\pm 1$ events. Fitting the cascade energy distribution with a single power law $\Phi_{\nu+\bar\nu}^{\rm astro} = \phi_{\rm astro}(E/100\,\mathrm{TeV})^{-\gamma_{\rm astro}}$ and assuming flavor equipartition at Earth yields $\gamma_{\rm astro}=2.64^{+0.09}_{-0.11}$ and $\phi_{\rm astro}=4.42^{+2.31}_{-1.29}\times 10^{-18}\,\mathrm{GeV}^{-1}\,\mathrm{cm}^{-2}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}\,\mathrm{sr}^{-1}$ per flavor at 100 TeV. The measured flux is broadly consistent with IceCube's measurements, although its best-fit normalization runs somewhat higher than recent IceCube fits.

Load-bearing premise

Everything rests on the simulated expectation of 2.8 background events: if atmospheric muons or neutrinos are more numerous than the models predict, the 5.1 sigma excess could shrink.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The Baikal-GVD flux parameters join IceCube's high-energy starting event, track, and cascade results as an independent input to any global fit of the diffuse astrophysical neutrino spectrum.
  • The 5.1 sigma significance shows that a detector still under construction can produce a competitive diffuse-flux measurement while growing from 15% to 55% of its final volume.
  • The best-fit normalization is somewhat higher than recent IceCube measurements; if this offset persists, source models of the diffuse flux will need to accommodate both results.
  • The background model includes a prompt atmospheric neutrino component fixed to a given normalization; with more statistics at higher energies, Baikal-GVD will be able to test that component rather than assume it.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the analysis uses only upward-going cascades, the fitted 'isotropic' flux is actually determined from a restricted sky region; an explicit test of isotropy would require combining this sample with downward-going or track-based events.
  • The quoted uncertainties on $\gamma_{\rm astro}$ and $\phi_{\rm astro}$ are dominated by the small 18-event sample; adding the next few seasons will show whether the flux stays higher than IceCube's or converges to a common value.
  • A dedicated Baikal-GVD constraint on the prompt neutrino flux, rather than adopting IceCube's upper limit, could become competitive once the detector reaches its full cubic-kilometer size.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports a measurement of the diffuse astrophysical neutrino flux using upward-going cascade events recorded by Baikal-GVD between April 2018 and March 2024. After event selection, 18 cascade events remain against an expected atmospheric background of 2.8 ± 1 events. A binned Poisson likelihood fit under a single-power-law astrophysical flux model yields γ_astro = 2.64^{+0.09}_{-0.11} and φ_astro = 4.42^{+2.31}_{-1.29} × 10^{-18} GeV^{-1} cm^{-2} s^{-1} sr^{-1} per flavor at 100 TeV, with an excess significance of 5.1σ. The results are compared with IceCube measurements and found broadly consistent.

Significance. If the result holds, this is the first independent confirmation of the diffuse astrophysical neutrino flux at a significance exceeding 5σ by a detector other than IceCube, an important milestone in multi-messenger neutrino astronomy. The analysis benefits from a detailed Monte Carlo treatment of detector and water systematics, a publicly tabulated event list, and explicit comparison with external measurements. However, the headline significance and the fitted parameters rest on a relatively small event sample (18 events), and the treatment of the prompt atmospheric neutrino normalization needs clarification before the detection claim can be considered fully robust.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section IV, systematic uncertainties paragraph] The quoted 5.1σ significance is computed as the excess of 18 observed events over the background-only expectation of 2.8 ± 1 events, of which 1.9 are attributed to atmospheric conventional and prompt neutrinos. The paper argues that the prompt neutrino normalization uncertainty can be ignored because varying it up to 5.0 × Φ_BERSS changes the best-fit astrophysical normalization by less than 4%. This argument addresses the fitted signal-plus-background model, not the background-only hypothesis used for the significance. At the IceCube-allowed upper limit, the expected prompt background would increase by a selection-weighted amount Δ that the paper does not quote, directly reducing the excess and the corresponding p-value. Please quantify Δ and recompute the significance under the 5 × Φ_BERSS assumption, or include the prompt normalization as a nuisance parameter in the significance calculation.
  2. [Section IV, likelihood and test statistic] The text refers to 'the Poisson likelihood function (3)' and 'the compiled test statistic (TS)', but neither Eq. (2) nor Eq. (3) appears in the manuscript; only Eq. (1) is displayed. The number of energy bins, their boundaries, and the treatment of zero-count bins are also not specified. Because the 5.1σ significance and the confidence contours in Fig. 3 derive from the TS distribution, the analysis is not reproducible from the paper alone. Please define the likelihood, the binning, and the test statistic explicitly, or state unambiguously that they follow exactly the previous paper [18] and list any differences.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section III, reference [26]] The reference to Gaisser, Stanev, and Tilav (arXiv:1303.3565) should cite the published version rather than an arXiv e-print.
  2. [Section IV, angular resolution] The text states that the median angular resolution is 2°–4°, while Table I reports 50% containment uncertainties ranging from 1.6° to 5.4°; please reconcile these statements.
  3. [Table I] The event GVD230814CA (MJD 60170.35) is listed after GVD231014CA (MJD 60231.85), which breaks the chronological order of the table.
  4. [Equation (1) and abstract] Equation (1) defines the flux as Φ^{ν+ν̄}_astro, but the text states that φ_astro is the one-flavour normalization; please clarify whether φ_astro refers to the ν+ν̄ sum per flavour or to a single neutrino/antineutrino species.
  5. [Author affiliations] The affiliation list contains the typo 'Independed researcher' for affiliation 6.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the 5.1σ signal and flux fit come from a data-vs-MC likelihood against external background models; the only self-citation is a minor use of the collaboration's previous flux for selection-efficiency testing.

full rationale

The central claim is a measured excess of 18 cascade events over 2.8±1 expected atmospheric background events, with best-fit astrophysical flux parameters obtained by a binned Poisson likelihood. The background expectations are built from external models (CORSIKA/SIBYLL for muons, Volkova for conventional neutrinos, BERSS for prompt neutrinos, and IceCube-consistent cross sections). The astrophysical signal is parameterized as a free single power law; γastro and φastro are fitted to the data, not taken from any input. The detection significance is a likelihood-ratio comparison of observed counts to the background-only hypothesis, so it does not reduce to the fitted flux. The one self-citation is in Section III: 'Astrophysical neutrino event selection efficiencies were tested using a flux presented by Baikal-GVD in [18].' This uses the collaboration's own previously published flux for an intermediate efficiency correction, but the final result does not derive from that flux by construction; the fitted parameters are free and are compared against independent IceCube measurements. This is a minor self-citation, not a load-bearing circular step. The skeptic concern about the prompt-neutrino normalization (excluded because changing it to 5×Φ_BERSS shifts the best-fit normalization by <4%) is a legitimate systematic-robustness question about the background-only significance, but it is not a circularity: it concerns the external prompt flux model, not a self-referential reduction of the paper's output to its input. Overall, the analysis is self-contained against external benchmarks and the significance claim is a direct statistical comparison of data to background MC.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The measurement rests on standard experimental modeling: neutrino interaction cross sections, atmospheric flux models, cosmic-ray muon simulation, detector optics, and a single-power-law spectral assumption. These are external inputs, not fitted in this paper. The main fitted quantities are the astrophysical flux parameters and systematic nuisance parameters.

free parameters (3)
  • gamma_astro (spectral index) = 2.64 +0.09/-0.11
    Central fit result; fitted to 18 cascade events via a binned Poisson likelihood.
  • phi_astro (flux normalization at 100 TeV) = 4.42e-18 GeV^-1 cm^-2 s^-1 sr^-1 per flavor (+2.31/-1.29e-18)
    Central fit result; fitted simultaneously with gamma_astro.
  • nuisance parameters for detector systematics = not reported (varied within Gaussian priors)
    Water absorption length, optical module sensitivity, atmospheric neutrino normalization, and energy scale shifts are included as nuisance parameters in the likelihood; best-fit shifts are not reported.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Standard model neutrino-nucleon cross sections and tau decay modeling from references [29,30,31] are correct.
    Used to simulate neutrino interactions and event rates in the Monte Carlo.
  • domain assumption Atmospheric conventional neutrino flux from Volkova [33] and prompt flux from BERSS [34] describe the background within quoted uncertainties.
    Background expectations rely on these external flux models; a 15% normalization uncertainty is included for the conventional component, while prompt flux is constrained by an IceCube upper limit.
  • domain assumption CORSIKA 7.74 with SIBYLL 2.3c simulates the atmospheric muon background accurately.
    The mis-reconstructed muon background (0.9 expected events) depends on this simulation.
  • domain assumption Flavor equipartition at Earth (nu_e:nu_mu:nu_tau ~ 1:1:1) and equal neutrino/antineutrino fluxes hold.
    Assumed in Eq. (1) and in deriving the per-flavor normalization; justified by standard neutrino oscillation arguments.
  • domain assumption The diffuse astrophysical flux follows a single power law over the fitted energy range.
    Eq. (1) assumes this; the detection significance is less sensitive to the shape, but the spectral parameters are defined within this model.
  • domain assumption The detector simulation of Cherenkov light in Baikal water (absorption, scattering, dispersion) is reliable after nuisance variations.
    Energy reconstruction and detection efficiencies depend on the optical water model with an approximate 10% absorption length uncertainty.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Measurement of the diffuse astrophysical neutrino flux over six seasons using cascade events from the Baikal-GVD expanding telescope." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AJU2Z6GL

@misc{pith2026250701893,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Measurement of the diffuse astrophysical neutrino flux over six seasons using cascade events from the Baikal-GVD expanding telescope},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AJU2Z6GL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.01893}
}
abstract

We present an updated measurement of the diffuse astrophysical neutrino flux using Baikal-GVD cascade data collected between April 2018 to March 2024. In this period, the detector grew from 15% to 55% of its baseline cubic kilometer configuration. The diffuse astrophysical neutrino flux is detected with a statistical significance of 5.1 $\sigma$. Assuming a single power law model of the astrophysical neutrino flux with identical contribution from each neutrino flavor, the following best-fit parameter values are found: the spectral index $\gamma_{astro}$ = 2.64$^{+0.09}_{-0.11}$ and the flux normalization $\phi_{astro}$ = 4.42$^{+2.31}_{-1.29}\times10^{-18} \text{GeV}^{-1}\text{cm}^{-2}\text{s}^{-1}\text{sr}^{-1}$ per one flavor at 100 TeV. These results are broadly consistent with IceCube measurements.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.01893 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Schematic view of the Baikal-GVD configuration [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The best fit parameters (red star) and the con [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Reconstructed cascade energy (top panel) and zenith [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Measurements of the diffuse astrophysical neutrino [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Improving Neutrino Point Source Sensitivity with Source-Informed Event Selection

    hep-ex 2026-04 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Source-informed event selection in multi-level neutrino reconstruction improves median point source sensitivity by factors of ~2-3 over uniform subsampling.

  2. First constraints on point-like astrophysical sources using Baikal-GVD muon neutrino events

    astro-ph.HE 2026-03 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    No significant point-source excesses appear in Baikal-GVD track data (2019–2024); 90% CL upper limits on 92 sources are competitive with ANTARES and KM3NeT, with a 2.7σ pre-trial excess near Westerlund 1.

  3. Lepton interactions from GeV to EeV

    hep-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 3.0 of 10

    Phenomenological study predicting incomplete tau polarization at FASER2, observable neutrino and muon trident processes, and contributions to hadron structure from IceCube neutrino events.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [18]

    Allakhverdyan et al

    A. Allakhverdyan et al. (Baikal-GVD Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 107, 042005 (2023)

    work page 2023

  2. [1]

    J. G. Learned and K. Mannheim, Annual Review of Nu- clear and Particle Science 50, 679 (2000)

    work page 2000

  3. [2]

    J. K. Becker, Physics Reports 458, 173 (2008)

    work page 2008

  4. [3]

    Aartsen et al

    M. Aartsen et al. (IceCube Collaboration), Science 342, 1242856 (2013)

    work page 2013

  5. [4]

    R. J. Protheroe and D. Kazanas, Astrophys. J 265, 620 (1983)

    work page 1983

  6. [5]

    Kazanas and D

    D. Kazanas and D. C. Ellison, Astrophys. J 304, 178 (1986)

    work page 1986

  7. [6]

    Sikora, J

    M. Sikora, J. G. Kirk, C. M. Begelman, and P. Schneider, Astrophys. J. Lett. 320, L81 (1987)

    work page 1987

  8. [7]

    F. W. Stecker, C. Done, M. H. Salamon, and P. Sommers, Phys. Rev. Lett. 69, 2738(E) (1992)

    work page 1992

Show all 38 references
  1. [8]

    Mannheim and P

    K. Mannheim and P. L. Biermann, Astron. Astrophys. 253, L21 (1992)

    1992

  2. [9]

    Learned and S

    G. Learned and S. Pakvasa, Astropart. Phys. 3, 267 (1995)

    1995

  3. [10]

    Athar, C

    H. Athar, C. S. Kim, and J. Lee, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 21, 1049 (2006). 6

    2006

  4. [11]

    Abbasi et al

    R. Abbasi et al. (IceCube Collaboration), PoS-ICRC2023 017 (2023)

    2023

  5. [12]

    Sapienza et al

    P. Sapienza et al. (KM3NeT Collaboration), Nuclear and Particle Physics Proceedings 291-293, 183 (2017)

    2017

  6. [13]

    Abbasi et al

    R. Abbasi et al. (IceCube Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 104, 022002 (2021)

    2021

  7. [14]

    Abbasi et al

    R. Abbasi et al. (IceCube Collaboration), The Astrophys- ical Journal 928, 50 (2022)

    2022

  8. [15]

    M. G. Aartsen et al. (IceCube Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 121104 (2020)

    2020

  9. [16]

    M. G. Aartsen et al. (IceCube Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 99, 032004 (2019)

    2019

  10. [17]

    Abbasi et al

    R. Abbasi et al. (IceCube Collaboration), Science 380, 1338 (2023)

    2023

  11. [19]

    Allakhverdyan et al

    A. Allakhverdyan et al. (Baikal-GVD Collaboration), Ap. J. 982, 73 (2025)

    2025

  12. [20]

    V. A. Allakhverdyan et al. (Baikal-GVD Collaboration), Phys. At. Nucl. 84, 1600 (2022)

    2022

  13. [21]

    Allakhverdyan et al

    V. Allakhverdyan et al. (Baikal-GVD Collaboration), Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 1025 (2021)

    2021

  14. [22]

    Shaybonov et al

    B. Shaybonov et al. (Baikal-GVD Collaboration), PoS ICRC2017, 962 (2017)

    2017

  15. [23]

    A. V. Avrorin et al. (Baikal Collaboration), Astron. Lett. 35, 651 (2009)

    2009

  16. [24]

    A. V. Avrorin et al. (Baikal-GVD Collaboration), J. Exp. Theor. Phys. 134, 399 (2022)

    2022

  17. [25]

    D. Heck, J. Knapp, J. N. Capdevielle, G. Schatz, and T. Thouw, Tech. Rep. FZKA 6019 (Kernforschungszen- trum Karlsruhe, 1998)

    1998

  18. [26]

    T. K. Gaisser, T. Stanev, and S. Tilav, ArXiv e-prints (2013), arXiv:1303.3565 [astro-ph.HE]

    2013 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Riehn, R

    F. Riehn, R. Engel, A. Fedynitch, T. K. Gaisser, and T. Stanev, Phys. Rev. D 102, 063002 (2020)

    2020

  20. [28]

    Sokalski, E

    I. Sokalski, E. V. Bugaev, and S. I. Klimushin, Phys. Rev. D 64, 074015 (2001)

    2001

  21. [29]

    H. L. Lai, J. Huston, S. Kuhlmann, F. Olness, J. Owens, D. Soper, W. K. Tung, and H. Weerts, Phys. Rev. D 55, 1280 (1997)

    1997

  22. [30]

    Gandhi, C

    R. Gandhi, C. Quigg, M. H. Reno, and I. Sarcevic, As- tropart. Phys. 5, 81 (1996)

    1996

  23. [31]

    Lipari, Astropart

    P. Lipari, Astropart. Phys. 1, 195 (1993)

    1993

  24. [32]

    A. M. Dziewonski and D. L. Anderson, Phys. Earth Planet. Interiors 25, 297 (1981)

    1981

  25. [33]

    L. V. Volkova, Yad. Fiz. 31, 1510 (1980)

    1980

  26. [34]

    Bhattacharya, R

    A. Bhattacharya, R. Enberg, M. H. Reno, I. Sarcevic, and A. Stasto, J. High Energ. Phys. 06, 110 (2015)

    2015

  27. [35]

    V. A. Allakhverdyan et al. (Baikal-GVD Collaboration), PoS ICRC2021, 1144 (2021)

    2021

  28. [36]

    Conrad, O

    J. Conrad, O. Botner, A. Hallgren, and C. Perez, Phys. Rev. D 67, 012002 (2003)

    2003

  29. [37]

    Abbasi et al

    R. Abbasi et al. (IceCube), Characterization of the as- trophysical diffuse neutrino flux using starting track events in IceCube, Phys. Rev. D 110, 022001 (2024), arXiv:2402.18026 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024

  30. [38]

    R. Naab, E. Ganster, and Z. Zhang (IceCube), Mea- surement of the astrophysical diffuse neutrino flux in a combined fit of IceCube’s high energy neutrino data, in 38th International Cosmic Ray Conference (2023) arXiv:2308.00191 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

Pith tools

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