Multi-Energy and Multi-Sample Searches for Neutrinos from GW Events

Aswathi Balagopal V.; Justin Vandenbroucke (for the IceCube Collaboration); Sam Hori

REVIEW 3 major objections 2 minor 18 references

Multi-Energy and Multi-Sample Searches for Neutrinos from GW Events

T0 review · 3 major / 2 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper reports two follow-up analyses that search for neutrinos in coincidence with gravitational-wave events, combining IceCube datasets to cover energies from a few GeV to several PeV and introducing a new >1 TeV cascade sample.

desk verdict A plausible IceCube follow-up paper whose abstract is clear; the attached full text is an unrelated robotics manuscript, so the analysis itself can't be checked from what we have. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.09034 v1 pith:6DK2FF5R submitted 2025-08-12 astro-ph.HE

Aswathi Balagopal V. , Sam Hori , Justin Vandenbroucke (for the IceCube Collaboration) This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.HE

keywords IceCubeneutrinosgravitationalwavesmultimessengerastronomylikelihoodanalysisDeepCorecascadeeventsLIGO/Virgo/KAGRA

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 aims to broaden the multimessenger net around gravitational-wave (GW) events by extending neutrino searches across a wider energy range. The first analysis combines two previously separate IceCube datasets—high-energy tracks and low-energy tracks/cascades—into a single likelihood, covering neutrino energies from a few GeV to several PeV. The second analysis introduces a neutrino-induced cascade sample above about 1 TeV, used for the first time in a GW coincidence search. If successful, these analyses offer more complete neutrino coverage of GW events and set the stage for real-time follow-up observations.

What carries the argument

The central object is the combined likelihood: a joint model of spatial, temporal, energy, and background terms for the two IceCube datasets, evaluated against each GW event's sky localization. The key mechanism in the second analysis is the >1 TeV cascade sample, which captures neutrino-induced electromagnetic showers with good energy reconstruction but comparatively poor directional resolution, newly applied to GW coincidence searches.

What would settle it

Run the combined likelihood on many scrambled or off-time sky locations with no injected signal and check whether the reported p-values follow a uniform distribution; any significant excess would indicate that the background or systematics models of the two datasets are mismatched.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The authors claim that a combined likelihood search over IceCube's high-energy track sample and low-energy DeepCore track/cascade sample can coherently test neutrino emission from GW events across a six-decade energy range. They further claim that a new cascade sample with events above roughly 1 TeV can be used for the first time in such searches, adding independent sensitivity to neutrino-induced showers that track-only analyses would miss. The paper presents results from both analyses and argues they improve coverage for LIGO/Virgo/KAGRA runs O1 through O3, with prospects for real-time operation.

Load-bearing premise

The low- and high-energy samples can be modeled together in one likelihood without systematic mismatches in background rate, angular resolution, or energy response, so the claimed GeV-to-PeV sensitivity is not overstated.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A single search can test GW events for neutrino emission across a few GeV to several PeV, rather than running separate low- and high-energy analyses.
The >1 TeV cascade channel adds events that track-based searches would not detect, increasing the chance of catching a neutrino signal.
The combined likelihood could be run in real time, enabling rapid electromagnetic follow-up of GW events with neutrino alerts.
The two analyses, together, reduce the chance that a neutrino signal is missed because it falls between the energy bands of separate instruments.
The results establish a template for combining multiple IceCube samples in future multimessenger searches.

Reading between the lines

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

The claimed GeV-to-PeV sensitivity rests on the two samples' background models and detector responses being consistent in the overlap region; any systematic mismatch there could bias the combined likelihood, a point the abstract does not address.
The same multi-sample combination could be extended to other transient classes, such as fast radio bursts or gamma-ray bursts, where wide energy coverage is also valuable.
A natural test of the approach is to apply the combined likelihood to off-time or scrambled-sky data and verify that the background-only p-value distribution is uniform; this would validate the systematic control without requiring a real GW signal.
If the >1 TeV cascade sample proves stable, it could be added to existing real-time neutrino alert systems, increasing the multimessenger discovery potential.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague,

You should know two things about arXiv:2508.09034. The abstract describes a sensible IceCube search: a combined likelihood over high-energy tracks and low-energy DeepCore events for GW follow-up, from a few GeV to several PeV, plus a new >1 TeV cascade sample. The claims are modest and consistent with the collaboration's prior work. The second thing: the full text we received is an entirely different paper about robotics. So whatever is in the actual submission, we have no body to audit.

What is actually new: the combined likelihood over two datasets that were previously used independently, and the first use of the >1 TeV cascade sample in GW follow-ups. Both are incremental but legitimate. They extend the existing archival follow-up program, not open a new channel. The abstract is honest about that — it cites the earlier independent analyses and presents these as improvements in coverage.

What the paper does well, based on abstract alone: the writing is clear. It specifies the energy ranges, the event types, and the archival data. There is no overselling. The authors explicitly say they are following up archival GW events, not claiming a detection. That is the right framing.

Where the soft spots are: we cannot verify any of the substance. There is no systematics treatment, no trial factor handling, no background rates, no event numbers in the abstract. That is normal for an abstract; the actual paper presumably has these. But the supplied full text is the robotics manuscript, so I cannot tell you whether the combined likelihood is correctly implemented or whether the cascade sample's background is under control. That is a pipeline failure, not evidence against the paper. The reader's low soundness score is an artifact of what was sent to us, not a judgment on the work. The condition for the central claim to hold — a properly implemented combined analysis — is unverified, but there is nothing in the abstract that suggests it fails.

Verdict: this deserves a serious referee. If the real manuscript delivers what the abstract promises, it is a useful incremental contribution to multimessenger neutrino astronomy. I would not cite it in the next year unless I were working directly on IceCube follow-ups, but I would bring it to a reading group if someone is tracking GW-neutrino searches. Send it to peer review; desk rejection would be wrong just because our copy got mangled.

Best.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The submission, arXiv:2508.09034 (astro-ph.HE), is advertised by its abstract as an IceCube analysis performing two archival follow-up searches for neutrinos from LIGO/Virgo/KAGRA gravitational-wave events in runs O1–O3. The abstract states that a combined likelihood is constructed from a high-energy track dataset and a low-energy track/cascade dataset to cover roughly a few GeV to several PeV, and that a second analysis introduces, for the first time, a >1 TeV neutrino-induced cascade sample as a new channel for GW-neutrino coincidence searches. The supplied full text, however, is not this manuscript. It is a computer-vision/robotics paper titled "Spatial Traces: Enhancing VLA Models with Spatial-Temporal Understanding" (arXiv:2508.09032v1, cs.CV). Consequently, the submitted document contains no methods, no equations, no event selections, no background estimates, no statistical treatment, no results, and no discussion for the claimed IceCube analyses. This referee report therefore cannot audit any of the paper's substantive claims.

Significance. If the intended analysis were present and correct, the contribution would be potentially significant for multimessenger astronomy: a single combined likelihood spanning from GeV to PeV energies would improve the reach of neutrino follow-up of GW events, and a >1 TeV cascade sample would add an independent event topology to such searches. The stated goal of extending GW-neutrino coincidence coverage to lower energies via DeepCore and to cascades above 1 TeV is scientifically motivated and would be useful to the community. However, none of this content is present in the submitted full text. There is no derivable result, no machine-checked proof, no reproducible code, and no falsifiable prediction that can be assessed. As submitted, the significance of the paper cannot be evaluated beyond the general interest of the announced program.

major comments (3)

[Entire manuscript text] The full text supplied for arXiv:2508.09034 is an unrelated robotics manuscript, "Spatial Traces: Enhancing VLA Models with Spatial-Temporal Understanding," whose arXiv tag at the end is 2508.09032v1 [cs.CV]. There is no IceCube analysis in the document: no combined likelihood, no event datasets, no background modeling, no angular/energy response, no trial-factor correction, and no results. The central claims in the abstract are therefore unsupported by any inspectable content. This is a load-bearing defect: the manuscript as submitted cannot be reviewed as an astroparticle physics paper. The authors should resubmit the correct full text; the present version requires rejection.
[Abstract, first two sentences] Even reading only the abstract, the claim that the two neutrino datasets are combined into a single likelihood cannot be checked because the abstract provides no details on how the two datasets are jointly modeled. In particular, no information is given on whether the low-energy and high-energy samples have consistent background models, angular uncertainties, and energy resolutions, and how their relative normalization is handled. If the full text were present, this would be a detail to inspect; as submitted, the missing body makes the claim entirely unverifiable.
[Abstract, third sentence] The abstract states that the second analysis 'for the first time' uses a >1 TeV cascade sample for GW-neutrino searches. This novelty claim is not accompanied by any description of the cascade sample, its event selection, its background rate, or its expected sensitivity. Without these details, the novelty and performance claims cannot be assessed. If the body had been included, this would be a central technical point; in the current submission it is absent.

minor comments (2)

[Abstract, general] The abstract does not state the number of GW events analyzed, the number of neutrino events retained, the trial factors, or any quantitative result (upper limits, p-values, significances). For a search paper these would normally be in the abstract or at least in the body. This is immaterial relative to the missing full text but would need to be addressed in a future complete submission.
[End of supplied text] The footer 'arXiv:2508.09032v1 [cs.CV] 12 Aug 2025' confirms that the uploaded PDF corresponds to a different arXiv submission. This is a submission/pipeline error that should be corrected by the authors.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity identified; the abstract describes a likelihood-based search, not a derivation, and the supplied full text is an unrelated manuscript, which is a verifiability issue rather than circularity.

full rationale

The available material from arXiv:2508.09034 consists only of an abstract for an IceCube neutrino follow-up analysis; the supplied full text is actually an unrelated cs.CV paper (arXiv:2508.09032, 'Spatial Traces'), so no equations, likelihood construction, background models, event selections, or results can be audited from the provided document. The abstract's claims are about performing two archival searches: one combining previously existing low-energy and high-energy neutrino datasets into a joint likelihood, and one using a new >1 TeV cascade sample. These are observational search analyses, not derivations from first principles. There is no fitted parameter being renamed as a prediction, no target quantity defined into the input, no load-bearing uniqueness theorem, and no ansatz smuggled in via citation. The combination of two existing samples does not make the combined result equivalent to its inputs by construction; it is a new statistical procedure applied to the same events, which is standard practice. The only notable defect is evidential: because the supplied full text is unrelated, the actual analysis cannot be checked for correctness or systematics. That is a completeness/verification problem, not circularity, and under the requirement to exhibit a specific reduction before claiming circularity, no circular step can be identified. Therefore the circularity score is 0.

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

Abstract-only review: no numeric parameters, fitted values, or new entities are disclosed. The energy thresholds (a few GeV, ~1 TeV) and dataset selections are stated without quantified uncertainties, so nothing meets the free-parameter criterion beyond what is listed as background-domain assumptions.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption Atmospheric neutrino background and detector response models used in the likelihood are correct.
A combined GeV-to-PeV likelihood search needs accurate background and detector-response modeling to separate a signal; the abstract does not state these models.
domain assumption Spatial and temporal coincidence windows between GW event positions (O1-O3) and neutrino arrivals are modeled correctly.
Coincident searches rely on pointing and timing uncertainties around each GW event; mismodeled windows would bias the combined likelihood.
domain assumption The newly introduced >1 TeV cascade sample has a known and stable background rate and angular point-spread function.
The abstract says this sample is used 'for the first time'; its background and angular resolution set the search sensitivity, and no validation is shown in the supplied text.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Multi-Energy and Multi-Sample Searches for Neutrinos from GW Events." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6DK2FF5R

@misc{pith2026250809034,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Multi-Energy and Multi-Sample Searches for Neutrinos from GW Events},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6DK2FF5R}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.09034}
}

read the original abstract

The IceCube Neutrino Observatory at the South Pole detects neutrinos of astrophysical origin via their interactions with ice. The main array is optimized for the detection of neutrinos with energies above 1 TeV. A much smaller infill array, known as IceCube DeepCore, extends the sensitivity down to a few GeV. Neutrinos observed in both parts of the detector are used for astrophysical-source searches with multiple messengers. We present two analyses that follow up archival gravitational wave (GW) events from runs O1 through O3 of LIGO/Virgo/KAGRA. The first analysis uses two neutrino datasets: one with high-energy tracks and another consisting of low-energy tracks and cascades. These two neutrino datasets were previously used independently to follow-up GW events. In the analysis presented here, a combined likelihood search is performed using both datasets to search for neutrinos coincident with the GW events across a wide energy range, from a few GeV to several PeV. The second analysis, for the first time, uses a neutrino-induced cascade sample with events of energy above ~1 TeV for searches of coincident neutrino-GW emission. We present results from both analyses and discuss prospects for conducting these analyses in real time.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

18 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages

[1]

Baret et al

B. Baret et al. , http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.astropartphys.2011.04.001 Astropart. Phys. 35 (2011) 1--7

work page doi:10.1016/j.astropartphys.2011.04.001 2011
[2]

Fang and B

K. Fang and B. D. Metzger, http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/aa8b6a Astrophys. J. 849 no. 2, (2017) 153

doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa8b6a 2017
[3]

IceCube Collaboration, M. G. Aartsen et al. , http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-0221/12/03/P03012 JINST 12 no. 03, (2017) P03012

doi:10.1088/1748-0221/12/03/p03012 2017
[4]

IceCube Collaboration, M. G. Aartsen et al. , http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/ab9d24 ApJL 898 no. 1, (2020) L10

doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab9d24
[5]

Abbasi et al

IceCube Collaboration, R. Abbasi et al. , http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/aca5fc Astrophys. J. 944 no. 1, (2023) 80

doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aca5fc 2023
[6]

LIGO Scientific and Virgo Collaboration, B. P. Abbott et al. , http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevX.9.031040 Physical Review X 9 no. 3, (July, 2019) 031040

doi:10.1103/physrevx.9.031040 2019
[7]

Abbott et al

LIGO Scientific and Virgo Collaboration, R. Abbott et al. , http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.109.022001 Phys. Rev. D 109 no. 2, (2024) 022001

doi:10.1103/physrevd.109.022001 2024
[8]

Abbott et al

LIGO Scientific and Virgo and KAGRA Collaboration, R. Abbott et al. , http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevX.13.041039 Phys. Rev. X 13 no. 4, (2023) 041039

doi:10.1103/physrevx.13.041039 2023

Show all 18 references

[9]

Abbasi et al

IceCube Collaboration, R. Abbasi et al. , http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/aceefc ApJ. 959 no. 2, (2023) 96

2023 doi
[10]

Abbasi et al

IceCube Collaboration, R. Abbasi et al. , http://dx.doi.org/https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2105.13160 arXiv e-prints (May, 2021) arXiv:2105.13160

2021 doi
[11]

Abbasi et al

IceCube Collaboration, R. Abbasi et al. , http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.astropartphys.2012.01.004 Astropart. Phys. 35 (2012) 615--624

2012 doi
[12]

6652, (2023) 1338--1343

IceCube Collaboration, http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.adc9818 Science 380 no. 6652, (2023) 1338--1343

2023 doi
[13]

Kintscher, http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/718/6/062029 J

IceCube Collaboration, T. Kintscher, http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/718/6/062029 J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 718 no. 6, (2016) 062029

2016 doi
[14]

Abbasi et al

IceCube Collaboration, R. Abbasi et al. , http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/acdc1b Astrophys. J. 953 no. 2, (2023) 160

2023 doi
[15]

Braun et al

J. Braun et al. , http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.astropartphys.2008.02.007 Astropart. Phys. 29 (2008) 299--305

2008 doi
[16]

Abbasi et al

IceCube Collaboration, R. Abbasi et al. , http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.110.022001 Phys. Rev. D 110 no. 2, (2024) 022001

2024 doi
[17]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION blank.sep after.quote 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry output.state after.quoted.block = 'skip 'add.period if write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip output.state after.quote = after.quoted.blo...
[18]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION blank.sep after.quote 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry output.state after.quoted.block = 'skip 'add.period if write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip output.state after.quote = after.quoted.blo...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Baret et al

B. Baret et al. , http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.astropartphys.2011.04.001 Astropart. Phys. 35 (2011) 1--7

work page doi:10.1016/j.astropartphys.2011.04.001 2011

[2] [2]

Fang and B

K. Fang and B. D. Metzger, http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/aa8b6a Astrophys. J. 849 no. 2, (2017) 153

doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa8b6a 2017

[3] [3]

IceCube Collaboration, M. G. Aartsen et al. , http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-0221/12/03/P03012 JINST 12 no. 03, (2017) P03012

doi:10.1088/1748-0221/12/03/p03012 2017

[4] [4]

IceCube Collaboration, M. G. Aartsen et al. , http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/ab9d24 ApJL 898 no. 1, (2020) L10

doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab9d24

[5] [5]

Abbasi et al

IceCube Collaboration, R. Abbasi et al. , http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/aca5fc Astrophys. J. 944 no. 1, (2023) 80

doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aca5fc 2023

[6] [6]

LIGO Scientific and Virgo Collaboration, B. P. Abbott et al. , http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevX.9.031040 Physical Review X 9 no. 3, (July, 2019) 031040

doi:10.1103/physrevx.9.031040 2019

[7] [7]

Abbott et al

LIGO Scientific and Virgo Collaboration, R. Abbott et al. , http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.109.022001 Phys. Rev. D 109 no. 2, (2024) 022001

doi:10.1103/physrevd.109.022001 2024

[8] [8]

Abbott et al

LIGO Scientific and Virgo and KAGRA Collaboration, R. Abbott et al. , http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevX.13.041039 Phys. Rev. X 13 no. 4, (2023) 041039

doi:10.1103/physrevx.13.041039 2023