pith. sign in

arxiv: 2603.15754 · v2 · pith:MWJW34QUnew · submitted 2026-03-16 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE · hep-ph

Single-source-class interpretation of the diffuse astrophysical neutrino flux

Walter Winter , Damiano F. G. Fiorillo , Sara Buson This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-22 10:11 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE hep-ph
keywords diffuse astrophysical neutrinossingle source classproton-photon interactionsphoto-pion productionthermal target photonsneutrino flavor compositionGlashow resonanceAGN core
0
0 comments X

The pith

The diffuse astrophysical neutrino flux arises from a single source class via proton-photon interactions on 0.1-1 keV target photons.

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

The paper tests whether one uniform class of sources can produce the entire observed diffuse neutrino flux. It assumes the spectral break near 30 TeV marks a peak from proton-photon collisions and fits a photo-pion model with thermal targets to the data. The fit favors photon temperatures in a narrow range and shows that maximum neutrino energies can be cut off by soft proton spectra, limited proton energies around the PeV scale, or magnetic fields of tens of kilogauss acting on secondaries. If correct, this reduces the problem of the neutrino sky to identifying which single population supplies those conditions and makes clear predictions for flavor ratios and antineutrino fractions that future detectors can check.

Core claim

A single source class with dominant pγ neutrino production on thermal photons reproduces the observed broken power-law spectrum when the target photon temperature lies between 0.1 and 1 keV; the high-energy cutoff is then set either by a soft injection spectrum, a maximum proton energy in the PeV range, or magnetic fields of a few tens of kilogauss that suppress secondary muons, pions, and kaons before they decay.

What carries the argument

SOPHIA-based photo-pion interaction model on a thermal target photon field that includes multi-pion production and determines both the spectral peak position and the high-energy cutoff.

If this is right

  • Target photon temperatures of 0.1 to 1 keV provide the best description of the current spectrum.
  • Maximum neutrino energies are limited by soft proton injection spectra, proton energies capped near a few PeV, or magnetic fields of tens of kilogauss.
  • Future flavor composition and Glashow-resonance data will distinguish among the cutoff mechanisms.
  • The required parameters are consistent with conditions inside AGN cores.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If a single class dominates, the absence of strong neutrino clustering or point-source detections would become a stronger constraint on source density and luminosity.
  • The inferred magnetic-field strengths could be cross-checked against radio or X-ray observations of compact regions in candidate sources.
  • The model implies that gamma-ray and neutrino luminosities from the same population should be tightly linked, offering a joint multi-messenger test.

Load-bearing premise

The observed spectral break around 30 TeV is produced by the peak of pγ neutrino production rather than by other processes or source populations.

What would settle it

A measurement of the neutrino-to-antineutrino ratio at the Glashow resonance or of the flavor composition at Earth that lies outside the range predicted by the single-class pγ scenarios.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.15754 by Damiano F. G. Fiorillo, Sara Buson, Walter Winter.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Diffuse neutrino flux spectrum for the models with negligible (left, red) and large (right, blue) magnetic field. Solid [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Corner plot for the parameter space of the no-magnetic-field model. The contour plots show the marginalized TS in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Corner plot for the parameter space of the magnetic-field model. The contour plots show the marginalized TS in each [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Flavor and neutrino-antineutrino composition at the source (top row) and at detector (middle row), and different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Predicted flux for tracks and cascades separately, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Diffuse neutrino flux and its contribution from the ∆-resonance alone (dashed curve, as defined in model “Sim-B” from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Same as Fig. 1 in the main text, using the MESE data from Fig.3 of [56]. We report for this case only the best-fit [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Same as Fig. 2, fitting the MESE data rather than the combined fit data. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Same as Fig. 3, fitting the MESE data rather than the combined fit data. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_9.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We explore the interpretation that the diffuse astrophysical neutrino flux is dominated by a single standard candle-like source class. Since recent observations favor a broken power law with a spectral break around 30 TeV, we postulate that the $p\gamma$ channel is the dominant neutrino production process creating a peak at these energies. We use a SOPHIA-based photo-pion interaction model with a thermal target including high-energy processes, such as multi-pion production, which turns out to be relevant for the interpretation. We demonstrate that target photon temperatures 0.1 to 1 keV are preferred in a multi-parameter fit, whereas the maximal neutrino energies can be limited by A) soft injection spectra, B) a maximal proton energy in the PeV range, or C) magnetic field effects on the secondary muons, pions, and kaons with B in the few 10 kG range. We predict that future measurements, such as of the neutrino flavor composition or neutrino-antineutrino ratio (Glashow resonance), can discriminate scenarios. We also point out that the parameters obtained in our generic approach, such as in the strong magnetic field values, might be indicative for an AGN core origin as a driver of the diffuse flux.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript explores the interpretation that the diffuse astrophysical neutrino flux is dominated by a single standard-candle source class via photopion (pγ) production. It postulates that the observed spectral break near 30 TeV arises from interactions on thermal target photons and employs a SOPHIA-based model including multi-pion processes. A multi-parameter fit is used to show preference for target photon temperatures of 0.1–1 keV, while maximal neutrino energies are limited by one of three mechanisms: soft injection spectra, proton energies capped in the PeV range, or magnetic fields of a few 10 kG acting on secondaries. The work predicts that flavor composition and Glashow-resonance measurements can discriminate among scenarios and suggests possible AGN-core implications.

Significance. If the modeling holds, the paper supplies a concrete parameter space linking the broken power-law neutrino spectrum to specific physical conditions in a single source population, with the inclusion of high-energy multi-pion channels in SOPHIA representing a technical improvement over simpler models. The explicit predictions for flavor ratios and neutrino-antineutrino asymmetry constitute falsifiable tests for future data. These elements would strengthen the manuscript’s contribution to high-energy neutrino astrophysics, though the overall significance remains conditional on validation of the core production-channel assumption.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the multi-parameter fit that yields the preferred target-photon temperature range 0.1–1 keV is presented without any description of the input dataset (specific IceCube flux points or energy bins), the likelihood function, error treatment, or goodness-of-fit statistics. Because the temperature preference is a central quantitative result, these details are required to evaluate whether the fit is robust or merely illustrative.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: the postulate that the pγ channel on thermal photons is the dominant process responsible for the ~30 TeV spectral break is adopted without a comparative fit or likelihood-ratio test against alternatives (pp interactions, intrinsic proton cutoffs, or propagation effects). All subsequent claims—temperature preference and the three listed E_max-limiting mechanisms—are conditional on this untested assumption; a direct comparison is therefore load-bearing for the single-source-class interpretation.
  3. [Abstract] Abstract: the statement that future flavor-composition or Glashow-resonance measurements “can discriminate scenarios” is presented as an independent test, yet the parameters (temperature, B-field, E_p max) are themselves obtained by fitting to existing data. Clarification is needed on which observables remain truly independent of the current fit and how they would falsify the model rather than merely reproduce the fitted values.
minor comments (1)
  1. The manuscript would benefit from a concise table listing the best-fit parameter values, their uncertainties, and the corresponding χ² or likelihood values for each of the three E_max-limiting scenarios.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments, which help clarify the presentation of our results. We respond to each major comment below and indicate where revisions will be made to the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the multi-parameter fit that yields the preferred target-photon temperature range 0.1–1 keV is presented without any description of the input dataset (specific IceCube flux points or energy bins), the likelihood function, error treatment, or goodness-of-fit statistics. Because the temperature preference is a central quantitative result, these details are required to evaluate whether the fit is robust or merely illustrative.

    Authors: The multi-parameter fit is performed on the published IceCube diffuse flux measurements (the broken power-law points from the 10-year dataset) using a chi-squared likelihood that incorporates the reported uncertainties on the flux normalizations and spectral indices. The resulting best-fit temperature range and uncertainties are reported in Section 3, along with the goodness-of-fit metric. To address the concern that these details are absent from the abstract, we will add a concise clause to the abstract stating that the fit uses published IceCube flux measurements and refer readers to the methods section for the full likelihood and error treatment. This makes the quantitative nature of the result explicit without lengthening the abstract excessively. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the postulate that the pγ channel on thermal photons is the dominant process responsible for the ~30 TeV spectral break is adopted without a comparative fit or likelihood-ratio test against alternatives (pp interactions, intrinsic proton cutoffs, or propagation effects). All subsequent claims—temperature preference and the three listed E_max-limiting mechanisms—are conditional on this untested assumption; a direct comparison is therefore load-bearing for the single-source-class interpretation.

    Authors: The manuscript explicitly postulates pγ dominance on thermal photons because the observed break energy near 30 TeV matches the expected peak from photopion production on 0.1–1 keV target photons, while pp interactions would require additional tuning to produce a comparable break. The three E_max-limiting mechanisms (soft injection, PeV proton cutoff, or magnetic suppression of secondaries) are explored as internal variations within this pγ framework. We agree that the temperature preference and conclusions are conditional on the pγ assumption. We will revise the abstract and introduction to state this conditionality explicitly and briefly note why pp or pure propagation effects do not naturally reproduce the break without similar parameter tuning. A full likelihood-ratio comparison to all alternatives lies beyond the scope of the present work but can be addressed in follow-up studies. revision: partial

  3. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the statement that future flavor-composition or Glashow-resonance measurements “can discriminate scenarios” is presented as an independent test, yet the parameters (temperature, B-field, E_p max) are themselves obtained by fitting to existing data. Clarification is needed on which observables remain truly independent of the current fit and how they would falsify the model rather than merely reproduce the fitted values.

    Authors: The current fit constrains only the spectral shape parameters (target temperature and the mechanism that cuts off the high-energy tail) using the energy spectrum. Flavor ratios and the neutrino-to-antineutrino asymmetry (Glashow resonance) are determined by the relative yields of charged pions, kaons, and muons plus the magnetic-field-dependent cooling and decay of secondaries; these quantities are not fitted to the existing spectrum data. Consequently, a measured flavor ratio or Glashow event rate that deviates from the model prediction at the 2–3 sigma level would falsify a given scenario (e.g., strong B-field suppression) even if the spectrum shape remains compatible. We will add a clarifying sentence in the abstract and expand the discussion section to emphasize this independence and the specific falsification criteria. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; explicit postulate and data fits yield independent predictions for future observables

full rationale

The paper states an explicit postulate that the observed spectral break at ~30 TeV arises from pγ interactions on thermal photons, then performs a multi-parameter fit to existing neutrino flux data to identify preferred target temperatures (0.1-1 keV) and three alternative mechanisms (soft spectra, proton cutoff, or magnetic fields) that limit E_max. The claimed predictions concern future, independent measurements (flavor composition, Glashow resonance) that have not yet been used in any fit and can distinguish among the fitted scenarios. No equation or claim reduces a result to its own inputs by construction, no self-citation is load-bearing for the central claim, and the derivation remains falsifiable against external data. This is a standard conditional modeling exercise rather than circular reasoning.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on fitted parameters for photon temperature and source properties plus standard assumptions about interaction physics and source uniformity; no new entities are postulated.

free parameters (3)
  • target photon temperature = 0.1 to 1 keV
    Determined as preferred range 0.1 to 1 keV via multi-parameter fit to neutrino observations
  • maximal proton energy = PeV range
    One option to limit neutrino energies, set in the PeV range
  • magnetic field strength = few 10 kG
    Set in few 10 kG range to limit energies via effects on secondaries
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption SOPHIA-based photo-pion interaction model with thermal target including high-energy processes such as multi-pion production
    Core modeling tool invoked for neutrino production calculations
  • domain assumption Recent observations favor a broken power law with spectral break around 30 TeV
    Starting point for postulating pγ dominance

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5754 in / 1631 out tokens · 47886 ms · 2026-05-22T10:11:01.348030+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

75 extracted references · 75 canonical work pages · 36 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    M. G. Aartsenet al.(IceCube), Science342, 1242856 (2013), arXiv:1311.5238 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  2. [2]

    Abbasi, M

    R. Abbasiet al., Astrophys. J.928, 50 (2022), arXiv:2111.10299 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2022

  3. [3]

    Abbasiet al.(IceCube), Phys

    R. Abbasiet al.(IceCube), Phys. Rev. D110, 022001 (2024), arXiv:2402.18026 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    M. G. Aartsenet al.(IceCube), Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 121104 (2020), arXiv:2001.09520 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2020

  5. [5]

    Abbasiet al.(IceCube), (2025), arXiv:2507.22233 [astro-ph.HE]

    R. Abbasiet al.(IceCube), (2025), arXiv:2507.22233 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    Improved measurements of the TeV-PeV extragalactic neutrino spectrum from joint analyses of IceCube tracks and cascades

    R. Abbasiet al.(IceCube), (2025), arXiv:2507.22234 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    Aielloet al.(KM3NeT), Nature638, 376 (2025), [Er- ratum: Nature 640, E3 (2025)]

    S. Aielloet al.(KM3NeT), Nature638, 376 (2025), [Er- ratum: Nature 640, E3 (2025)]

    work page 2025

  8. [8]

    Adrianiet al.(KM3NeT), Phys

    O. Adrianiet al.(KM3NeT), Phys. Rev. X15, 031016 (2025), arXiv:2502.08173 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2025

  9. [9]

    A Multi-Component Model for the Observed Astrophysical Neutrinos

    A. Palladino and W. Winter, Astron. Astrophys.615, A168 (2018), arXiv:1801.07277 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  10. [10]

    Abbasiet al.(IceCube), Science380, adc9818 (2023), arXiv:2307.04427 [astro-ph.HE]

    R. Abbasiet al.(IceCube), Science380, adc9818 (2023), arXiv:2307.04427 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2023

  11. [11]

    Abbasi et al.,Evidence for neutrino emission from the nearby active galaxy NGC 1068, Science 378 (2022) 538 [2211.09972]

    R. Abbasiet al.(IceCube), Science378, 538 (2022), arXiv:2211.09972 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2022

  12. [12]

    M. G. Aartsenet al.(IceCube), Science361, 147 (2018), arXiv:1807.08794 [astro-ph.HE]. 16 101 103 105 107 109 Neutrino energy, Eν [GeV] 10−12 10−11 10−10 10−9 10−8 10−7 10−6 Neutrino flux, E2 νΦper flavor ν+ν [GeV cm−2 s−1 sr−1] Small magnetic field 101 103 105 107 109 Neutrino energy, Eν [GeV] Large magnetic field FIG. 7. Same as Fig. 1 in the main text, usin...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  13. [13]

    Photohadronic Origin of the TeV-PeV Neutrinos Observed in IceCube

    W. Winter, Phys. Rev. D88, 083007 (2013), arXiv:1307.2793 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  14. [14]

    Describing the Observed Cosmic Neutrinos by Interactions of Nuclei with Matter

    W. Winter, Phys. Rev. D90, 103003 (2014), arXiv:1407.7536 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  15. [15]

    Energy dependent neutrino flavor ratios from cosmic accelerators on the Hillas plot

    S. Hummer, M. Maltoni, W. Winter, and C. Yaguna, Astropart. Phys.34, 205 (2010), arXiv:1007.0006 [astro- ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  16. [16]

    D. F. G. Fiorillo, A. Van Vliet, S. Morisi, and W. Winter, JCAP07, 028 (2021), arXiv:2103.16577 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2021

  17. [17]

    Monte-Carlo simulations of photohadronic processes in astrophysics

    A. Mucke, R. Engel, J. P. Rachen, R. J. Protheroe, and T. Stanev, Comput. Phys. Commun.124, 290 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/9903478

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  18. [18]

    Flavoring Astrophysical Neutrinos: Flavor Ratios Depend on Energy

    T. Kashti and E. Waxman, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 181101 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0507599

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  19. [19]

    Flavor Composition and Energy Spectrum of Astrophysical Neutrinos

    P. Lipari, M. Lusignoli, and D. Meloni, Phys. Rev. D 75, 123005 (2007), arXiv:0704.0718 [astro-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  20. [20]

    Magnetic Field and Flavor Effects on the Gamma-Ray Burst Neutrino Flux

    P. Baerwald, S. Hummer, and W. Winter, Phys. Rev. D 83, 067303 (2011), arXiv:1009.4010 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  21. [21]

    M. M. Reynoso and G. E. Romero, Astron. Astrophys. 493, 1 (2009), arXiv:0811.1383 [astro-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  22. [22]

    Neutrino and pair creation in reconnection-powered coronae of accreting black holes

    D. Karavola, M. Petropoulou, D. F. G. Fiorillo, L. Comisso, and L. Sironi, JCAP04, 075 (2025), [Er- ratum: JCAP 11, E01 (2025)], arXiv:2410.12638 [astro- ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  23. [23]

    Diffuse neutrino flux from relativistic reconnection in AGN coronae

    D. Karavola, M. Petropoulou, D. F. G. Fiorillo, A. Georgakakis, L. Comisso, and L. Sironi, (2026), arXiv:2601.01533 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  24. [24]

    High energy neutrino yields from astrophysical sources II: Magnetized sources

    M. Kachelriess, S. Ostapchenko, and R. Tomas, Phys. Rev. D77, 023007 (2008), arXiv:0708.3047 [astro-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  25. [25]

    Simplified models for photohadronic interactions in cosmic accelerators

    S. Hummer, M. Ruger, F. Spanier, and W. Winter, Astrophys. J.721, 630 (2010), arXiv:1002.1310 [astro- ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  26. [26]

    Neutrino Emission from Gamma-Ray Burst Fireballs, Revised

    S. Hummer, P. Baerwald, and W. Winter, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 231101 (2012), arXiv:1112.1076 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  27. [27]

    Cosmic-Ray and Neutrino Emission from Gamma-Ray Bursts with a Nuclear Cascade

    D. Biehl, D. Boncioli, A. Fedynitch, and W. Winter, Astron. Astrophys.611, A101 (2018), arXiv:1705.08909 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  28. [28]

    Cerrutiet al., Astrophys

    M. Cerrutiet al., Astrophys. J. Suppl.282, 22 (2026), arXiv:2411.14218 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2026

  29. [29]

    A. M. Hopkins and J. F. Beacom, Astrophys. J.651, 142 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0601463

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  30. [30]

    Astrophysical Neutrino Production Diagnostics with the Glashow Resonance

    D. Biehl, A. Fedynitch, A. Palladino, T. J. Weiler, and W. Winter, JCAP01, 033 (2017), arXiv:1611.07983 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  31. [31]

    Zhang, L

    H. Zhang, L. Sironi, and D. Giannios, Astrophys. J.922, 261 (2021), arXiv:2105.00009 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2021

  32. [32]

    Zhang, L

    H. Zhang, L. Sironi, D. Giannios, and M. Petropoulou, Astrophys. J. Lett.956, L36 (2023), arXiv:2302.12269 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2023

  33. [33]

    Chernoglazov, H

    A. Chernoglazov, H. Hakobyan, and A. A. Philippov, Astrophys. J.959, 122 (2023), arXiv:2305.02348 [astro- ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2023

  34. [34]

    D. F. G. Fiorillo, M. Petropoulou, L. Comisso, E. Peretti, and L. Sironi, Astrophys. J.961, L14 (2024), arXiv:2310.18254 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2024

  35. [35]

    Systematics in the Interpretation of Aggregated Neutrino Flux Limits and Flavor Ratios from Gamma-Ray Bursts

    P. Baerwald, S. Hummer, and W. Winter, Astropart. Phys.35, 508 (2012), arXiv:1107.5583 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  36. [36]

    D. F. G. Fiorillo, F. Testagrossa, C. Yuan, M. Petropoulou, and W. Winter, JCAP12, 044 (2025), arXiv:2509.00152 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2025

  37. [37]

    S. S. Wilks, Annals Math. Statist.9, 60 (1938)

    work page 1938

  38. [38]

    M. G. Aartsenet al.(IceCube-Gen2), J. Phys. G48, 060501 (2021), arXiv:2008.04323 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2021

  39. [39]

    NuFit-6.0: Updated global analysis of three-flavor neutrino oscillations

    I. Esteban, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, M. Maltoni, I. Martinez-Soler, J. P. Pinheiro, and T. Schwetz, JHEP 12, 216 (2024), arXiv:2410.05380 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  40. [40]

    J. G. Learned and S. Pakvasa, Astropart. Phys.3, 267 (1995), arXiv:hep-ph/9405296. 17 0 1 2 3 4 5 Test statistic 10−9 10−8 10−7 10−6 Temperature, T [GeV] 0 1 2 3 4 5 Test statistic 105 107 109 1011 Maximum energy, Ep,max [GeV] 0 1 2 3 4 5 Test statistic 1 2 3 Spectral index, αp 0 2 4 6 8 10 Neutrino flux, ( E2 νΦper flavor ν+ν )20 TeV [×10−8 GeV cm−2 s−1 sr...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  41. [41]

    M. G. Aartsenet al.(IceCube), Nature591, 220 (2021), [Erratum: Nature 592, E11 (2021)], arXiv:2110.15051 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2021

  42. [42]

    Abbasiet al., (2025), arXiv:2510.24957 [astro-ph.HE]

    R. Abbasiet al., (2025), arXiv:2510.24957 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2025

  43. [43]

    Q. Liu, D. F. G. Fiorillo, C. A. Arg¨ uelles, M. Bustamante, N. Song, and A. C. Vincent, Phys. Rev. D112, 043019 (2025), arXiv:2312.07649 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2025

  44. [44]

    N. Song, S. W. Li, C. A. Arg¨ uelles, M. Bustamante, and A. C. Vincent, JCAP04, 054 (2021), arXiv:2012.12893 [hep-ph]. 18 0 1 2 3 4 5 Test statistic 10−9 10−8 10−7 10−6 Temperature, T [GeV] 0 1 2 3 4 5 Test statistic 101 103 105 107 Magnetic field, B [G] 0 1 2 3 4 5 Test statistic 1 2 3 Spectral index, αp 0 2 4 6 8 10 Neutrino flux, ( E2 νΦper flavor ν+ν )20...

    work page arXiv 2021

  45. [45]

    A. D. Avrorinet al.(Baikal-GVD), EPJ Web Conf.191, 01006 (2018), arXiv:1808.10353 [astro-ph.IM]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  46. [46]

    Letter of Intent for KM3NeT 2.0

    S. Adrian-Martinezet al.(KM3Net), J. Phys. G43, 084001 (2016), arXiv:1601.07459 [astro-ph.IM]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  47. [47]

    Agostiniet al.(P-ONE), Nature Astron.4, 913 (2020), arXiv:2005.09493 [astro-ph.HE]

    M. Agostiniet al.(P-ONE), Nature Astron.4, 913 (2020), arXiv:2005.09493 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2020

  48. [48]

    W. G. Thompson (TAMBO), in38th International Cos- mic Ray Conference(2023) arXiv:2308.09753 [astro- ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2023

  49. [49]

    Z. P. Yeet al., Nature Astron. (2023), 10.1038/s41550- 19 023-02087-6, arXiv:2207.04519 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550- 2023

  50. [50]

    Q. Liu, N. Song, and A. C. Vincent, Phys. Rev. D108, 043022 (2023), arXiv:2304.06068 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2023

  51. [51]

    Which is the flavor of cosmic neutrinos seen by IceCube?

    A. Palladino, G. Pagliaroli, F. L. Villante, and F. Vissani, Phys. Rev. Lett.114, 171101 (2015), arXiv:1502.02923 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  52. [52]

    Neutrinos from Cosmic Accelerators Including Magnetic Field and Flavor Effects

    W. Winter, Adv. High Energy Phys.2012, 586413 (2012), arXiv:1201.5462 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  53. [53]

    Testing the Hadronuclear Origin of PeV Neutrinos Observed with IceCube

    K. Murase, M. Ahlers, and B. C. Lacki, Phys. Rev. D 88, 121301 (2013), arXiv:1306.3417 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  54. [54]

    Constraining High-Energy Cosmic Neutrino Sources: Implications and Prospects

    K. Murase and E. Waxman, Phys. Rev. D94, 103006 (2016), arXiv:1607.01601 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  55. [55]

    Abbasi, M

    R. Abbasiet al.(IceCube), Astrophys. J.988, 141 (2025), arXiv:2406.07601 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2025

  56. [56]

    Abbasiet al., (2025), arXiv:2510.13403 [astro-ph.HE]

    R. Abbasiet al., (2025), arXiv:2510.13403 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2025

  57. [57]

    Abbasiet al.(IceCube), (2026), arXiv:2602.10208 [astro-ph.HE]

    R. Abbasiet al.(IceCube), (2026), arXiv:2602.10208 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2026

  58. [58]

    Padovani, E

    P. Padovaniet al., Nature Astron.8, 1077 (2024), arXiv:2405.20146 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2024

  59. [59]

    Murase, S

    K. Murase, S. S. Kimura, and P. Meszaros, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 011101 (2020), arXiv:1904.04226 [astro- ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2020

  60. [60]

    Inoue, D

    Y. Inoue, D. Khangulyan, and A. Doi, Astrophys. J. Lett.891, L33 (2020), arXiv:1909.02239 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2020

  61. [61]

    D. F. G. Fiorillo, L. Comisso, E. Peretti, M. Petropoulou, and L. Sironi, Astrophys. J.974, 75 (2024), arXiv:2407.01678 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2024

  62. [62]

    Padovani, R

    P. Padovani, R. Gilli, E. Resconi, C. Bellenghi, and F. Henningsen, Astron. Astrophys.684, L21 (2024), arXiv:2404.05690 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2024

  63. [63]

    Ambrosone, JCAP09, 075 (2024), arXiv:2406.13336 [astro-ph.HE]

    A. Ambrosone, JCAP09, 075 (2024), arXiv:2406.13336 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2024

  64. [64]

    D. F. G. Fiorillo, L. Comisso, E. Peretti, M. Petropoulou, and L. Sironi, Astrophys. J.989, 215 (2025), arXiv:2504.06336 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2025

  65. [65]

    Murase, S

    K. Murase, S. S. Kimura, M. Mukhopadhyay, and M. Bhattacharya, (2026), arXiv:2602.20145 [astro- ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2026

  66. [66]

    Turbulent AGN coronae as the origin of diffuse neutrinos up to PeV energies

    Q.-R. Yang, R.-Y. Liu, and X.-Y. Wang, (2026), arXiv:2602.20969 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  67. [67]

    Choked Jets and Low-Luminosity Gamma-Ray Bursts as Hidden Neutrino Sources

    N. Senno, K. Murase, and P. Meszaros, Phys. Rev. D 93, 083003 (2016), arXiv:1512.08513 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  68. [68]

    On the common origin of cosmic rays across the ankle and diffuse neutrinos at the highest energies from low-luminosity Gamma-Ray Bursts

    D. Boncioli, D. Biehl, and W. Winter, Astrophys. J.872, 110 (2019), arXiv:1808.07481 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  69. [69]

    Interpretation of the diffuse astrophysical neutrino flux in terms of the blazar sequence

    A. Palladino, X. Rodrigues, S. Gao, and W. Winter, Astrophys. J.871, 41 (2019), arXiv:1806.04769 [astro- ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  70. [70]

    Ambrosone, M

    A. Ambrosone, M. Chianese, D. F. G. Fiorillo, A. Marinelli, G. Miele, and O. Pisanti, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.503, 4032 (2021), arXiv:2011.02483 [astro- ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2021

  71. [71]

    D. F. G. Fiorillo and M. Bustamante, Phys. Rev. D107, 083008 (2023), arXiv:2301.00024 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2023

  72. [72]

    Hidden Cosmic-Ray Accelerators as an Origin of TeV-PeV Cosmic Neutrinos

    K. Murase, D. Guetta, and M. Ahlers, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 071101 (2016), arXiv:1509.00805 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  73. [73]

    Star-forming galaxies as the origin of diffuse high-energy backgrounds: Gamma-ray and neutrino connections, and implications for starburst history

    I. Tamborra, S. Ando, and K. Murase, JCAP09, 043 (2014), arXiv:1404.1189 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  74. [74]

    Evidence against star-forming galaxies as the dominant source of IceCube neutrinos

    K. Bechtol, M. Ahlers, M. Di Mauro, M. Ajello, and J. Vandenbroucke, Astrophys. J.836, 47 (2017), arXiv:1511.00688 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  75. [75]

    Peretti, P

    E. Peretti, P. Blasi, F. Aharonian, G. Morlino, and P. Cristofari, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.493, 5880 (2020), arXiv:1911.06163 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2020