pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.13879 · v2 · pith:RLKGU3OBnew · submitted 2026-04-15 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE · gr-qc· hep-ph

Correlation between Ultrahigh-Energy Neutrino KM3-230213A and Gamma-Ray Bursts

Ruiqi Wang , Bo-Qiang Ma This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-25 06:57 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE gr-qchep-ph
keywords ultrahigh-energy neutrinosgamma-ray burstsLorentz invariance violationKM3-230213Aneutrino astronomy
0
0 comments X

The pith

The neutrino KM3-230213A correlates with multiple GRBs once angular uncertainties are folded in, allowing LV scale computation for each pair.

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

The paper conducts a full search for spatial matches between the 220 PeV neutrino KM3-230213A and all catalogued gamma-ray bursts. It treats the directional error boxes of both the neutrino and each GRB explicitly rather than using point positions. This procedure returns a larger set of candidate associations than earlier checks. For every retained GRB the authors calculate the Lorentz-invariance-violation scale, propagating the uncertainties that arise from the burst redshift and from the neutrino energy measurement.

Core claim

When angular uncertainties are included, a larger collection of GRBs satisfies the coincidence criterion with KM3-230213A; each such association supplies an independent estimate of the LV scale that incorporates redshift and energy errors.

What carries the argument

Angular uncertainty overlap as the association test, followed by per-association LV scale evaluation that folds in redshift and neutrino-energy uncertainties.

If this is right

  • Multiple GRBs rather than one become viable source candidates for the neutrino.
  • Each association yields its own LV scale value with combined uncertainties.
  • The derived scales remain stable when redshift and energy errors are propagated.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the associations are physical, the same LV scale should appear in future high-energy neutrinos from the same GRBs.
  • The method can be applied directly to the next ultra-high-energy neutrino alert to test consistency across events.

Load-bearing premise

Angular proximity within the quoted errors is taken to indicate a physical link between the neutrino and the GRB rather than a chance alignment.

What would settle it

A Monte Carlo test that draws random GRB positions and finds that the observed number and tightness of overlaps occurs at the rate expected from background would falsify the claimed correlations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.13879 by Bo-Qiang Ma, Ruiqi Wang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Mollweide projection showing the distribution of GRBs in J2000 coordinates, with colors representing time differences from KM3-230213A (marked by a red star). The orange triangle highlights GRB 920711A*, the closest angular match in the < θ sample. All GRBs shown have angular offsets within θ. In summary, we investigated the potential association between the neutrino event KM3-230213A and GRBs without pre-… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Mollweide projection showing the distribution of GRBs in J2000 coordinates, with colors representing time differences from KM3-230213A (marked by a red star). The orange and cyan triangles highlight GRB 230126A and GRB 230402A, respectively. All GRBs shown have angular offsets from θ to 3θ˜. • Multiple GRBs, including GRB 090401B, show consistency with KM3-230213A at subluminal LV scales (ELV ∼ (3–10)× 101… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The KM3NeT Collaboration reported the detection of a neutrino, designated as KM3-230213A, with a reconstructed energy peaking at 220 PeV and equatorial coordinates (J2000) of RA=$94.3\degree$ and Dec=$-7.8\degree$. As the highest-energy neutrino event documented to date, its astrophysical origin remains unascertained. Prior preliminary investigations have probed potential associations between this neutrino event and gamma-ray bursts (GRBs), factoring in the possibility of Lorentz invariance violation (LV). In this study, we perform a comprehensive analysis to explore correlations between KM3-230213A and all viable GRBs. We explicitly account for the angular uncertainties intrinsic to both the neutrino event and the respective GRBs. Our analysis identifies a larger set of correlated GRBs. For each associated GRB, we compute the LV scale, integrating uncertainties from redshift measurements and neutrino energy determinations to enhance the robustness of our findings.

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 reports a search for spatial correlations between the UHE neutrino KM3-230213A (RA=94.3°, Dec=-7.8°, E≈220 PeV) and GRBs, explicitly folding in angular uncertainties of both. It claims to identify a larger set of associated GRBs than prior work and, for each, derives LV scales while propagating redshift and neutrino-energy uncertainties.

Significance. If the associations survive a proper background-rate calculation, the result would supply new candidate source associations for the highest-energy neutrino event and furnish LV-scale constraints that incorporate realistic error budgets. The work is otherwise exploratory and does not claim to resolve the origin of KM3-230213A.

major comments (3)
  1. [Methods] Methods (selection procedure): the manuscript identifies “correlated GRBs” solely by overlap with the neutrino error circle but does not compute the expected number of chance alignments (GRB surface density × solid angle of the uncertainty region) or apply a trials factor, leaving the statistical significance of the reported associations unquantified.
  2. [Results] Results (LV-scale derivation): LV scales are computed exclusively from the GRBs that pass the spatial-coincidence cut; without an independent significance test or pre-defined selection, the derived scales risk being post-hoc fits rather than falsifiable predictions.
  3. [Data and Methods] No data tables, catalog cross-match lists, or code repository are referenced, preventing verification of the exact GRB sample, angular-error propagation, or redshift handling.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Eq. (X)] Notation for angular uncertainties and LV-scale definition should be made fully explicit in a dedicated equation.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments, which highlight important aspects of statistical rigor and reproducibility. We address each major comment below and outline the revisions we will make.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Methods] Methods (selection procedure): the manuscript identifies “correlated GRBs” solely by overlap with the neutrino error circle but does not compute the expected number of chance alignments (GRB surface density × solid angle of the uncertainty region) or apply a trials factor, leaving the statistical significance of the reported associations unquantified.

    Authors: We agree that quantifying the background rate is necessary to assess significance. The current analysis is presented as exploratory, identifying candidate associations via angular overlap. In the revised manuscript we will add an explicit calculation of the expected number of chance alignments using the GRB surface density times the solid angle of the neutrino uncertainty region, together with a trials factor accounting for the number of GRBs examined. This will allow us to report the statistical significance of the associations. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results] Results (LV-scale derivation): LV scales are computed exclusively from the GRBs that pass the spatial-coincidence cut; without an independent significance test or pre-defined selection, the derived scales risk being post-hoc fits rather than falsifiable predictions.

    Authors: The spatial-coincidence cut (angular overlap including uncertainties) is a pre-defined, independent selection criterion that does not depend on the LV-scale values. Nevertheless, we acknowledge the risk of post-selection effects. In revision we will (i) state explicitly that the LV scales are derived only for the candidate associations identified by the pre-defined cut and (ii) add a discussion of how the scales would change under alternative significance thresholds, thereby improving the falsifiability of the presented results. revision: partial

  3. Referee: [Data and Methods] No data tables, catalog cross-match lists, or code repository are referenced, preventing verification of the exact GRB sample, angular-error propagation, or redshift handling.

    Authors: We will add an explicit table listing all GRBs considered, their catalog identifiers, angular separations, redshift values (with uncertainties), and the resulting LV scales with propagated errors. The GRB catalogs employed (primarily Fermi-GBM and Swift) will be cited with version numbers. We will also deposit the cross-match list and analysis scripts in a public repository (e.g., Zenodo or GitHub) and reference the repository in the revised manuscript. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected in derivation chain

full rationale

The paper identifies correlated GRBs via angular coincidence (accounting for uncertainties in both neutrino and GRB positions) and subsequently computes LV scales for the selected sample using redshift and energy inputs. No equations or steps are shown that reduce the LV-scale computation to the selection criterion by construction, nor is there evidence of self-definitional loops, fitted parameters renamed as predictions, or load-bearing self-citations. The derivation remains self-contained as an observational association analysis followed by parameter estimation on the resulting sample; the absence of background-rate quantification is a statistical-validity concern rather than a circularity issue.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only information yields minimal ledger entries. The analysis rests on the domain assumption that directional overlap implies possible physical linkage; no new particles or forces are postulated and no free parameters are explicitly fitted in the summary.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Directional coincidence within angular uncertainties indicates possible physical association between neutrino and GRB
    This premise is required to select the correlated GRBs and then compute LV scales from them.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5706 in / 1186 out tokens · 46571 ms · 2026-05-25T06:57:37.156659+00:00 · methodology

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2021, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 36, 55, doi: 10.1016/j.jheap.2022.08.001

    Abbasi, R., Ackermann, M., Adams, J., et al. 2021, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 36, 55, doi: 10.1016/j.jheap.2022.08.001

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jheap.2022.08.001 2021

  2. [2]

    2021, Physical Review D, 104, 022002, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.104.022002

    Abbasi, R., et al. 2021, Phys. Rev. D, 104, 022002, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.104.022002

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.104.022002 2021

  3. [3]

    2024, European Physical Journal C, 84, 885, doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-024-12927-0

    Aiello, S., et al. 2024, European Physical Journal C, 84, 885, doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-024-12927-0

    work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-024-12927-0 2024

  4. [4]

    R., et al

    Aiello, S., et al. 2025, Nature, 638, 376, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-08543-1

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-024-08543-1 2025

  5. [5]

    2016, Phys

    Rosati, G. 2016, Phys. Lett. B, 761, 318, doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2016.07.075

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2016.07.075 2016

  6. [6]

    2025, Phys

    Amelino-Camelia, G., D’Amico, G., Fabiano, G., et al. 2025, Phys. Lett. B, 868, 139764, doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2025.139764

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2025.139764 2025

  7. [7]

    2017, Nature Astron., 1, 0139, doi: 10.1038/s41550-017-0139

    Amelino-Camelia, G., D’Amico, G., Rosati, G., & Loret, N. 2017, Nature Astron., 1, 0139, doi: 10.1038/s41550-017-0139

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-017-0139 2017

  8. [8]

    G., Gubitosi, G., Rosati, G., & D’Amico, G

    Amelino-Camelia, G., Di Luca, M. G., Gubitosi, G., Rosati, G., & D’Amico, G. 2023, Nature Astron., 7, 996, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-01993-z

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-023-01993-z 2023

  9. [9]

    R., Mavromatos, N

    Amelino-Camelia, G., Ellis, J. R., Mavromatos, N. E., Nanopoulos, D. V ., & Sarkar, S. 1998, Nature, 393, 763, doi: 10.1038/31647

    work page doi:10.1038/31647 1998

  10. [10]

    2015, Astrophys

    Amelino-Camelia, G., Guetta, D., & Piran, T. 2015, Astrophys. J., 806, 269, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/806/2/269

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/806/2/269 2015

  11. [11]

    2019, Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1181, 012003, doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/1181/1/012003

    Asaoka, Y ., Adriani, O., Akaike, Y ., et al. 2019, Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1181, 012003, doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/1181/1/012003

    work page doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1181/1/012003 2019

  12. [12]

    2014, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 52, 43, doi: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-035926

    Berger, E. 2014, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 52, 43, doi: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-035926

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-035926 2014

  13. [13]

    N., Hill, J

    Burrows, D. N., Hill, J. E., Nousek, J. A., et al. 2000, in X-Ray and Gamma-Ray Instrumentation for Astronomy XI, ed. K. A. Flanagan & O. H. W. Siegmund, V ol. 4140, International Society for Optics and Photonics (SPIE), 64 – 75, doi: 10.1117/12.409158

    work page doi:10.1117/12.409158 2000

  14. [14]

    2015, Nature Communications, 6, 6783, doi: 10.1038/ncomms7783

    Bustamante, M., Baerwald, P., Murase, K., & Winter, W. 2015, Nature Communications, 6, 6783, doi: 10.1038/ncomms7783

    work page doi:10.1038/ncomms7783 2015

  15. [15]

    2024, Phys

    Cao, Z., et al. 2024, Phys. Rev. Lett., 133, 071501, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.133.071501

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.133.071501 2024

  16. [16]

    2025, GRBweb Summary Table

    Coppin, P. 2025, GRBweb Summary Table. https://user- web.icecube.wisc.edu/∼grbweb public/Summary table.html

    work page 2025

  17. [17]

    R., Mavromatos, N

    Ellis, J. R., Mavromatos, N. E., Nanopoulos, D. V ., Sakharov, A. S., & Sarkisyan, E. K. G. 2006, Astropart. Phys., 25, 402, doi: 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2007.12.003 15 Fermi Science Support Center. 2025, Cicerone: Large Area Telescope (LAT) Overview. https://fermi.gsfc.nasa.gov/ssc/data/analysis/documentation/ Cicerone/Cicerone Introduction/LAT overview.html

    work page doi:10.1016/j.astropartphys.2007.12.003 2006

  18. [18]

    2009, Astrophys

    Frontera, F., et al. 2009, Astrophys. J. Suppl., 180, 192, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/180/1/192

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/180/1/192 2009

  19. [19]

    2004, in AIP Conference Proceedings, V ol

    Gehrels, N. 2004, in AIP Conference Proceedings, V ol. 727 (AIP), 637–641, doi: 10.1063/1.1810924

    work page doi:10.1063/1.1810924 2004

  20. [20]

    2019, Phys

    Huang, Y ., Li, H., & Ma, B.-Q. 2019, Phys. Rev. D, 99, 123018, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.99.123018

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.99.123018 2019

  21. [21]

    2018, Communications Physics, 1, 62, doi: 10.1038/s42005-018-0061-0 —

    Huang, Y ., & Ma, B.-Q. 2018, Communications Physics, 1, 62, doi: 10.1038/s42005-018-0061-0 —. 2024, Fund. Res., 4, 51, doi: 10.1016/j.fmre.2022.05.022

    work page doi:10.1038/s42005-018-0061-0 2018

  22. [22]

    D., Aptekar, R

    Hurley, K., Pal’shin, V . D., Aptekar, R. L., et al. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 207, 39, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/207/2/39

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/207/2/39 2013

  23. [23]

    2007, Nature Phys., 3, 87, doi: 10.1038/nphys506 —

    Jacob, U., & Piran, T. 2007, Nature Phys., 3, 87, doi: 10.1038/nphys506 —. 2008, JCAP, 01, 031, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2008/01/031

    work page doi:10.1038/nphys506 2007

  24. [24]

    2006, Astron

    Jakobsson, P., et al. 2006, Astron. Astrophys., 447, 897, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20054287

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20054287 2006

  25. [25]

    2012, Astrophys

    Kruhler, T., Malesani, D., Milvang-Jensen, B., et al. 2012, Astrophys. J., 758, 46, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/758/1/46

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/758/1/46 2012

  26. [26]

    2023, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, V olume 10 - 2023, doi: 10.3389/fspas.2023.1124317

    Li, M., Kang, Z., Wu, C., et al. 2023, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, V olume 10 - 2023, doi: 10.3389/fspas.2023.1124317

    work page doi:10.3389/fspas.2023.1124317 2023

  27. [27]

    2018, Eur

    Liu, Y ., & Ma, B.-Q. 2018, Eur. Phys. J. C, 78, 825, doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-018-6294-y

    work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-018-6294-y 2018

  28. [28]

    2009, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 61, 999–1010, doi: 10.1093/pasj/61.5.999

    Matsuoka, M., Kawasaki, K., Ueno, S., et al. 2009, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 61, 999–1010, doi: 10.1093/pasj/61.5.999

    work page doi:10.1093/pasj/61.5.999 2009

  29. [29]

    2006, Physical Review Letters, 97, 051101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.97.051101

    Murase, K., & Nagataki, S. 2006, Physical Review Letters, 97, 051101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.97.051101

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.97.051101 2006

  30. [30]

    A., et al

    Olive, K. A., et al. 2014, Chin. Phys. C, 38, 090001, doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/38/9/090001 Pal’shin, V . D., Hurley, K., Svinkin, D. S., et al. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 207, 38, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/207/2/38

    work page doi:10.1088/1674-1137/38/9/090001 2014

  31. [31]

    v., Hurley, K., & Lichti, G

    Rau, A., Kienlin, A. v., Hurley, K., & Lichti, G. G. 2005, Astron. Astrophys., 438, 1175, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20053159

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20053159 2005

  32. [32]

    2010, Mod

    Shao, L., & Ma, B.-Q. 2010, Mod. Phys. Lett. A, 25, 3251, doi: 10.1142/S0217732310034572

    work page doi:10.1142/s0217732310034572 2010

  33. [33]

    2010, Astropart

    Shao, L., Xiao, Z., & Ma, B.-Q. 2010, Astropart. Phys., 33, 312, doi: 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2010.03.003 von Kienlin, A., Meegan, C. A., Paciesas, W. S., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 893, 46, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7a18

    work page doi:10.1016/j.astropartphys.2010.03.003 2010

  34. [34]

    2025, Res

    Wang, R., Zhu, J., Li, H., & Ma, B.-Q. 2025, Res. Notes AAS, 9, 65, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/adc452

    work page doi:10.3847/2515-5172/adc452 2025

  35. [35]

    2016a, Astropart

    Xu, H., & Ma, B.-Q. 2016a, Astropart. Phys., 82, 72, doi: 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2016.05.008 —. 2016b, Phys. Lett. B, 760, 602, doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2016.07.044 —. 2018, JCAP, 01, 050, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2018/01/050

    work page doi:10.1016/j.astropartphys.2016.05.008 2016

  36. [36]

    2015, Astropart

    Zhang, S., & Ma, B.-Q. 2015, Astropart. Phys., 61, 108, doi: 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2014.04.008

    work page doi:10.1016/j.astropartphys.2014.04.008 2015

  37. [37]

    2019, Physical Review D, 99, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.99.043013

    Zhang, X., & Ma, B.-Q. 2019, Physical Review D, 99, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.99.043013

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.99.043013 2019

  38. [38]

    2022, Phys

    Zhu, J., & Ma, B.-Q. 2022, Phys. Rev. D, 105, 124069, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.105.124069

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.105.124069 2022