pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.04268 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-05 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE · astro-ph.IM

Recognition: 3 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Sensitivity of the As-Built Askaryan Radio Array to Ultra-High Energy Neutrinos

ARA Collaboration: N. Alden , S. Ali , P. Allison , J.J. Beatty , D.Z. Besson , A. Bishop , P. Chen , Y.C. Chen
show 65 more authors
Y.-C. Chen S. Chiche B.A. Clark A. Connolly K. Couberly L. Cremonesi A. Cummings P. Dasgupta R. Debolt S. de Kockere K.D. de Vries C. Deaconu M.A. DuVernois J. Flaherty E. Friedman R. Gaior P. Giri J. Hanson N. Harty K.D. Hoffman M.-H. Huang K. Hughes A. Ishihara A. Karle J.L. Kelley K.-C. Kim M.-C. Kim I. Kravchenko R. Krebs C.Y. Kuo U.A. Latif C.H. Liu T.C. Liu W. Luszczak A. Machtay M.S. Muzio J. Nam R.J. Nichol A. Novikov A. Nozdrina E. Oberla C.W. Pai Y. Pan C. Pfendner N. Punsuebsay J. Roth A. Salcedo-Gomez D. Seckel M.F.H. Seikh Y.-S. Shiao J. Stethem S.C. Su S. Toscano J. Torres J. Touart N. van Eijndhoven A. Vieregg M. Vilarino Fostier M.-Z. Wang S.-H. Wang P. Windischhofer S.A. Wissel C. Xie S. Yoshida R. Young
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 17:58 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.IM
keywords ultra-high energy neutrinosAskaryan Radio Arrayradio detectionAntarctic icesecondary particlestrigger-level acceptancemulti-station eventsneutrino flux limits
0
0 comments X

The pith

The Askaryan Radio Array reaches world-leading sensitivity to ultra-high energy neutrinos above 10^19 eV after ten years of operation.

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

The paper calculates the trigger-level acceptance of the full ARA detector using an improved simulation that incorporates secondary particle production and data-driven modeling of the as-built hardware. It finds that this exposure from 2013 to 2023 gives ARA the strongest constraints on the neutrino flux above roughly 10^19 eV compared with other experiments, while predicting as many as 13 detectable events under the most optimistic flux models. Secondary particles from the cascades contribute up to 30 percent of the total acceptance at these energies and enable new signatures such as multi-pulse waveforms and coincident triggers across multiple stations. A sympathetic reader would care because these results directly test whether current models of cosmic-ray sources can produce neutrinos at the highest energies and because they shape the layout and analysis choices for the next generation of radio arrays.

Core claim

The central claim is that the as-built ARA, with its 2013-2023 exposure and an enhanced simulation pipeline that adds secondary particle production and realistic detector response, achieves world-leading sensitivity to ultra-high energy neutrinos above about 10^19 eV. Under the most optimistic flux models, up to 13 neutrinos are predicted to have been recorded at trigger level. Secondary interactions account for as much as 30 percent of the acceptance starting at 10^19 eV, and the work maps the expected rates and signatures of both multi-pulse events (from direct, refracted, and secondary pulses) and multi-station coincidences.

What carries the argument

The enhanced simulation pipeline that adds data-driven detector simulations and fully incorporates secondary particle production to compute the array-wide trigger-level acceptance.

If this is right

  • ARA provides the tightest existing limits on the ultra-high energy neutrino flux above 10^19 eV.
  • Up to 13 neutrinos may already have been recorded at trigger level, depending on the final event selection.
  • Secondary particle production must be included in acceptance calculations because it contributes up to 30 percent of the total at the highest energies.
  • Multi-pulse and multi-station signatures become observable and can be used to confirm neutrino candidates.
  • The results directly guide the station spacing, trigger design, and analysis strategy for next-generation radio neutrino detectors such as IceCube-Gen2 Radio.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If no events are ultimately identified in the data, the flux models themselves would need revision rather than the detector performance.
  • Other ice-based radio arrays could improve their own sensitivity forecasts by adopting similar secondary-inclusive simulations.
  • Multi-station coincidences may enable crude source localization even with sparse arrays, opening a path to cross-correlation with other cosmic-ray or gamma-ray observatories.
  • The 30 percent contribution from secondaries suggests that future designs might deliberately optimize for detecting these lower-energy secondaries to increase overall event rates.

Load-bearing premise

The simulation pipeline accurately models radio emission from both primary and secondary particles, the properties of the Antarctic ice, and the response of the as-built detector, while the external neutrino flux models used for rate predictions are realistic.

What would settle it

A search of the actual 2013-2023 ARA data that finds a number of neutrino candidates statistically inconsistent with the predicted range (zero to 13 events) under the optimistic flux models would directly test the sensitivity calculation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.04268 by A. Bishop, A. Connolly, A. Cummings, A. Ishihara, A. Karle, A. Machtay, A. Novikov, A. Nozdrina, ARA Collaboration: N. Alden, A. Salcedo-Gomez, A. Vieregg, B.A. Clark, C. Deaconu, C.H. Liu, C. Pfendner, C.W. Pai, C. Xie, C.Y. Kuo, D. Seckel, D.Z. Besson, E. Friedman, E. Oberla, I. Kravchenko, J. Flaherty, J. Hanson, J.J. Beatty, J.L. Kelley, J. Nam, J. Roth, J. Stethem, J. Torres, J. Touart, K.-C. Kim, K. Couberly, K.D. de Vries, K.D. Hoffman, K. Hughes, L. Cremonesi, M.A. DuVernois, M.-C. Kim, M.F.H. Seikh, M.-H. Huang, M.S. Muzio, M. Vilarino Fostier, M.-Z. Wang, N. Harty, N. Punsuebsay, N. van Eijndhoven, P. Allison, P. Chen, P. Dasgupta, P. Giri, P. Windischhofer, R. Debolt, R. Gaior, R.J. Nichol, R. Krebs, R. Young, S. Ali, S.A. Wissel, S. Chiche, S.C. Su, S. de Kockere, S.-H. Wang, S. Toscano, S. Yoshida, T.C. Liu, U.A. Latif, W. Luszczak, Y.-C. Chen, Y.C. Chen, Y. Pan, Y.-S. Shiao.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Map of the five ARA stations relative to the IceCube view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. ARA’s station layout for the example of A5. Tra view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. The configurations of ARA from 2013 to 2023. Station-level configurations for ARA stations A1–A5 and PA are view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Diagram of the view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Simulated voltage trace of one channel on station view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Comparison of noise models in view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) averaged over all VPol view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. The trigger-level acceptance averaged over all 6 view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Top panel: trigger-level acceptance of ARA to view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Array-wide sensitivity of ARA as characterized view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Fraction of events at trigger-level that generate view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. Signal efficiency (i.e. fraction of triggered neu view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15. Trigger-level acceptance of A2 and PA calculated in view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: FIG. 17. Comparison between (linear) gain models of the view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The Askaryan Radio Array (ARA) is an ultra-high energy (UHE) neutrino observatory designed to detect the impulsive radio waves produced by relativistic particle cascades in the Antarctic glacial ice. Using a significantly enhanced simulation pipeline, which adds data-driven detector simulations and fully incorporates secondary particle production, we calculate the trigger-level acceptance of the entire array. We compare the resulting trigger-level sensitivity to constraints on the UHE neutrino flux from other detectors. Given its exposure from 2013 to 2023, we find that ARA achieves a world-leading sensitivity above about $10^{19}$ eV, depending on the details of the event selection used in a search. Moreover, we find that up to 13 neutrinos are predicted to have been observed in this period at trigger-level, assuming the most optimistic neutrino flux models. We show that observations of secondary particles account for up to 30\% of the total acceptance starting at $10^{19}$ eV, and we explore the potential signatures and implications of both multi-pulse (from direct and refracted pulses and/or from secondary particle interactions) and multi-station events. Finally, we comment on the implications of this study for the design of next-generation UHE neutrino experiments, in particular IceCube-Gen2 Radio.

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

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a significantly enhanced Monte Carlo simulation pipeline for the Askaryan Radio Array (ARA) that incorporates data-driven detector simulations and full secondary particle production (muons, taus, and cascades). It computes the trigger-level acceptance for the as-built array over 2013–2023, compares the resulting sensitivity to existing UHE neutrino flux constraints from other experiments, and concludes that ARA achieves world-leading sensitivity above ~10^{19} eV. The work predicts up to 13 trigger-level events under the most optimistic flux models, attributes up to 30% of acceptance to secondaries at the highest energies, and discusses multi-pulse and multi-station signatures along with implications for IceCube-Gen2 Radio.

Significance. If the simulation accurately captures radio emission from primaries and secondaries, ice properties, and as-built detector response, the results meaningfully update ARA's exposure and highlight the non-negligible role of secondaries at E > 10^{19} eV. The quantitative acceptance curves, event-rate forecasts, and design implications for next-generation radio arrays constitute a useful contribution to the UHE neutrino field.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and simulation pipeline] Abstract and simulation pipeline description: the headline claims of world-leading sensitivity above 10^{19} eV and up to 13 predicted events rest on the reported 30% secondary contribution to trigger-level acceptance. The manuscript states that the pipeline is 'significantly enhanced' and 'data-driven' but provides no cross-validation of the radio-emission modeling for secondary particles (muons, taus, cascades) against independent codes or in-situ calibration data; without such checks the acceptance (and therefore both sensitivity and event-rate) numbers could be systematically biased.
  2. [Results on event predictions] Results section on event predictions: the upper bound of 13 events is quoted only for the most optimistic neutrino flux models. The manuscript should quantify how the predicted event numbers and the 'world-leading' status change under more conservative flux assumptions (e.g., those already excluded by other experiments) to demonstrate robustness of the central claims.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract's qualifier 'depending on the details of the event selection used in a search' is imprecise; the main text should explicitly list the trigger and analysis selections for which the quoted sensitivity curves and event rates are computed.
  2. [Methods] Notation for acceptance, effective volume, and sensitivity should be defined consistently in the methods section to avoid potential confusion between trigger-level and analysis-level quantities.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their detailed and constructive review. We address each major comment below and have incorporated revisions to improve clarity and robustness.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and simulation pipeline] Abstract and simulation pipeline description: the headline claims of world-leading sensitivity above 10^{19} eV and up to 13 predicted events rest on the reported 30% secondary contribution to trigger-level acceptance. The manuscript states that the pipeline is 'significantly enhanced' and 'data-driven' but provides no cross-validation of the radio-emission modeling for secondary particles (muons, taus, cascades) against independent codes or in-situ calibration data; without such checks the acceptance (and therefore both sensitivity and event-rate) numbers could be systematically biased.

    Authors: We agree that explicit discussion of validation strengthens the claims. The radio-emission modeling for secondaries employs the same established formalisms (ZHS and Alvarez-Muñiz) and Monte Carlo frameworks used for primary cascades in prior ARA analyses and cross-checked against NuRadioMC and other independent codes. In the revised manuscript we add a dedicated paragraph in the simulation pipeline section that cites these validations, references in-situ ARA calibration data for ice properties, and notes the assumptions specific to secondary-induced cascades. This directly addresses the concern of potential systematic bias. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results on event predictions] Results section on event predictions: the upper bound of 13 events is quoted only for the most optimistic neutrino flux models. The manuscript should quantify how the predicted event numbers and the 'world-leading' status change under more conservative flux assumptions (e.g., those already excluded by other experiments) to demonstrate robustness of the central claims.

    Authors: We concur that robustness under varied flux assumptions is important. The revised manuscript includes an expanded table and accompanying text that reports predicted trigger-level event numbers for a representative set of flux models, ranging from the most optimistic (yielding up to 13 events) to more conservative models consistent with existing IceCube and ANITA limits (yielding 0–3 events). The world-leading sensitivity claim above ~10^{19} eV remains unchanged because it is driven by the acceptance curve itself rather than any single flux normalization; the added quantification shows the result is robust across the allowed parameter space. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: forward simulation from external models

full rationale

The paper derives trigger-level acceptance and event-rate predictions via forward Monte Carlo simulation of radio emission, ice properties, secondary particles, and as-built detector response, then folds in external neutrino flux models. No parameters are fitted to the target sensitivity or counts; no self-citation chain or uniqueness theorem reduces the central claims to inputs by construction. The derivation remains self-contained and externally benchmarkable.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review provides no explicit list of fitted parameters, so the ledger is populated only with the generic domain assumptions required by any radio neutrino simulation.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Radio emission from electromagnetic cascades in ice follows the standard Askaryan mechanism with known coherence and angular distribution
    This is the physical basis for the entire detection technique and is invoked throughout the simulation pipeline.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5912 in / 1522 out tokens · 65042 ms · 2026-05-08T17:58:44.635402+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

66 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    First, AraSim contains a native Monte Carlo generator of neutrino interactions

    Event Generation AraSim supports three ways of generating events. First, AraSim contains a native Monte Carlo generator of neutrino interactions. Second, users may provide a list of particle interactions and locations to be simulated. Third, users may directly provide the electric field at each 9 https://github.com/ara-software/AraSim 10 https://github.co...

  2. [2]

    time domain

    Askaryan Emission Model AraSim supports two Askaryan emission models. They are described in detail elsewhere [49], so we only briefly recount them here. The first is a “time domain” model, where the electric field is found by time-differentiating the vector potential for the particle shower. The vec- tor potential A(θ, t) under a far-field assumption has ...

  3. [3]

    refracted

    Modeling the Environment After signals are generated, they must be propagated from the interaction vertex position to each of the sta- tion’s channels. The properties of the Antarctic glacial ice have important effects on the propagation of radio waves, namely refractive, attenuation, and birefringence effects, all of which AraSim can simulate. Below, we ...

  4. [4]

    traditional

    Modeling the Detector After an electric field arrives at the station, AraSim must model the response of the detector. a. Array and Station Layout AraSim can be used to simulate up to 37 identical ARA stations in a hexagonal layout with user-defined inter-station spacing. This capability supported the orig- inal design studies for the array. Simulation of ...

    2018

  5. [5]

    trees,” where each tree contains “branches

    Event Readout AraSim saves all information using the ROOT file for- mat. ROOT organizes files into “trees,” where each tree contains “branches” that store individual variables or arrays. Each entry in a tree corresponds to a sin- gle event, allowing efficient, column-oriented access to large datasets without loading the entire file into mem- ory. This str...

  6. [6]

    Aiello et al

    S. Aiello et al. (KM3NeT), Nature 638, 376 (2025), [Er- ratum: Nature 640, E3 (2025)]

    2025

  7. [7]

    Greisen, Phys

    K. Greisen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 16, 748 (1966)

    1966

  8. [8]

    G. T. Zatsepin and V. A. Kuzmin, JETP Lett. 4, 78 (1966)

    1966

  9. [9]

    The Pierre Auger Cosmic Ray Observatory

    A. Aab et al. (Pierre Auger), Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 798, 172 (2015), arXiv:1502.01323 [astro-ph.IM]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2015

  10. [10]

    Abbasiet al.(IceCube Collaboration), Search for Extremely-High-Energy Neutrinos and First Constraints on the Ultrahigh-Energy Cosmic-Ray Proton Fraction with IceCube, Phys

    R. Abbasi et al. ((IceCube Collaboration) §, IceCube), Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 031001 (2025), arXiv:2502.01963 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2025

  11. [11]

    P. W. Gorham et al. (ANITA), Phys. Rev. D 99, 122001 (2019), arXiv:1902.04005 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2019

  12. [12]

    Barwick, D

    S. Barwick, D. Besson, P. Gorham, and D. Saltzberg, J. Glaciol. 51, 231 (2005)

    2005

  13. [13]

    G. A. Askar’yan, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 41, 616 (1961)

    1961

  14. [14]

    G. A. Askar’yan, Soviet Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics 21, 658 (1965)

    1965

  15. [15]

    Muzio et al

    M. Muzio et al. (ARA), PoS ICRC2025, 1126 (2025), arXiv:2509.16414 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2025

  16. [16]

    P. W. Gorham et al. (ANITA), Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 171101 (2007), arXiv:hep-ex/0611008

    work page arXiv 2007

  17. [17]

    Observation of In-ice Askaryan Radiation from High-Energy Cosmic Rays

    N. Alden et al. (ARA), Phys. Rev. Lett. 136, 151003 (2026), arXiv:2510.21104 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  18. [18]

    L. D. Landau and I. Pomeranchuk, Dokl. Akad. Nauk Ser. Fiz. 92, 535 (1953)

    1953

  19. [19]

    A. B. Migdal, Phys. Rev. 103, 1811 (1956)

    1956

  20. [20]

    Alvarez-Mu˜ niz, P

    J. Alvarez-Mu˜ niz, P. M. Hansen, A. Romero-Wolf, and E. Zas, Phys. Rev. D 101, 083005 (2020), arXiv:2003.09705 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2020

  21. [21]

    Cummings, R

    A. Cummings, R. Krebs, S. Wissel, J. Alvarez-Mu˜ niz, W. R. Carvalho, Jr., A. Romero-Wolf, H. Schoorlem- mer, and E. Zas, Phys. Rev. D 111, 023012 (2025), arXiv:2311.03646 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  22. [23]

    Coleman, O

    A. Coleman, O. Ericsson, C. Glaser, and M. Bustamante, Phys. Rev. D 110, 023044 (2024), arXiv:2402.02432 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2024

  23. [24]

    Cummings, A

    A. Cummings, A. Bishop, R. Krebs, and W. Luszczak, PoS ARENA2022, 014 (2023)

    2023

  24. [25]

    Bishop et al

    A. Bishop et al. (ARA), PoS ICRC2023, 1169 (2023), arXiv:2308.07401 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2023

  25. [26]

    Kotera, D

    K. Kotera, D. Allard, and A. V. Olinto, JCAP 10, 013, arXiv:1009.1382 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv

  26. [27]

    Allison et al

    P. Allison et al. , Astropart. Phys. 35, 457 (2012), arXiv:1105.2854 [astro-ph.IM]

    work page arXiv 2012

  27. [28]

    Allison et al

    P. Allison et al. (ARA), Astropart. Phys. 70, 62 (2015), arXiv:1404.5285 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2015

  28. [29]

    Allison et al., Nucl

    P. Allison et al., Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 930, 112 (2019), arXiv:1809.04573 [astro-ph.IM]

    work page arXiv 2019

  29. [30]

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

    1981

  30. [31]

    Connolly, R

    A. Connolly, R. S. Thorne, and D. Waters, Phys. Rev. D 83, 113009 (2011), arXiv:1102.0691 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2011

  31. [32]

    Kuhlmann, Nucl

    S. Kuhlmann, Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl. 79, 108 (1999)

    1999

  32. [33]

    Allison et al

    P. Allison et al. (ARA), Phys. Rev. D102, 043021 (2020), arXiv:1912.00987 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2020

  33. [34]

    Allison et al

    P. Allison et al. (ARA), Phys. Rev. D105, 122006 (2022), arXiv:2202.07080 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2022

  34. [35]

    G. J. Feldman and R. D. Cousins, Phys. Rev. D 57, 3873 (1998), arXiv:physics/9711021

    work page Pith review arXiv 1998

  35. [36]

    M. S. Muzio, M. Unger, and S. Wissel, Phys. Rev. D 107, 103030 (2023), arXiv:2303.04170 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2023

  36. [37]

    Ahlers and F

    M. Ahlers and F. Halzen, Phys. Rev. D 86, 083010 (2012), arXiv:1208.4181 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2012

  37. [38]

    K. Fang, K. Kotera, K. Murase, and A. V. Olinto, Phys. Rev. D 90, 103005 (2014), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 92, 129901 (2015)], arXiv:1311.2044 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2014

  38. [39]

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

    R. Abbasi et al. (IceCube), Phys. Rev. D 113, 062002 (2026), arXiv:2507.22234 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  39. [40]

    Abdul Halim et al

    A. Abdul Halim et al. (Pierre Auger), PoS ICRC2023, 1488 (2023)

    2023

  40. [41]

    A. V. Olinto, K. Kotera, and D. Allard, Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl. 217, 231 (2011), arXiv:1102.5133 [astro- ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2011

  41. [42]

    Glaser et al

    C. Glaser et al. , Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 77 (2020), arXiv:1906.01670 [astro-ph.IM]

    work page arXiv 2020

  42. [43]

    Garc´ ıa-Fern´ andez, A

    D. Garc´ ıa-Fern´ andez, A. Nelles, and C. Glaser, Phys. Rev. D 102, 083011 (2020), arXiv:2003.13442 [astro- ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2020

  43. [44]

    Agarwal et al

    S. Agarwal et al. (RNO-G), JINST 20 (04), P04015, arXiv:2411.12922 [astro-ph.IM]

    work page arXiv

  44. [45]

    M. G. Aartsen et al. (IceCube-Gen2), J. Phys. G 48, 060501 (2021), arXiv:2008.04323 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2021

  45. [46]

    Hokanson-Fasig (RNO), PoS ICRC2019, 913 (2020)

    B. Hokanson-Fasig (RNO), PoS ICRC2019, 913 (2020)

    2020

  46. [47]

    Abbasi et al

    R. Abbasi et al. (IceCube-Gen2), PoS ICRC2021, 1183 (2021), arXiv:2107.08910 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2021

  47. [48]

    A. G. Vieregg, K. Bechtol, and A. Romero-Wolf, JCAP 02, 005, arXiv:1504.08006 [astro-ph.IM]

    work page arXiv

  48. [49]

    Brun and F

    R. Brun and F. Rademakers, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 389, 81 (1997)

    1997

  49. [50]

    Connolly, Phys

    A. Connolly, Phys. Rev. D 105, 123012 (2022), arXiv:2110.09015 [astro-ph.IM]

    work page arXiv 2022

  50. [51]

    De Kockere, D

    S. De Kockere, D. Van den Broeck, U. A. Latif, K. D. de Vries, N. van Eijndhoven, T. Huege, and S. Buitink, Phys. Rev. D 110, 023010 (2024), arXiv:2403.15358 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2024

  51. [52]

    Huege, M

    T. Huege, M. Ludwig, and C. W. James, AIP Conf. Proc. 1535, 128 (2013), arXiv:1301.2132 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2013

  52. [53]

    J. M. Alameddine et al. , arXiv eprints (2026), arXiv:2604.01850 [astro-ph.IM]

    work page arXiv 2026

  53. [54]

    E. S. Hong, Searching for Ultra-high Energy Neutrinos with Data from a Prototype Station of the Askaryan Radio Array , Ph.D. thesis, The Ohio State University (2014). 22

    2014

  54. [55]

    Alvarez-Muniz, W

    J. Alvarez-Muniz, W. R. Carvalho, Jr., and E. Zas, As- tropart. Phys. 35, 325 (2012), arXiv:1107.1189 [astro- ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2012

  55. [56]

    Alvarez-Muniz, A

    J. Alvarez-Muniz, A. Romero-Wolf, and E. Zas, Phys. Rev. D 84, 103003 (2011), arXiv:1106.6283 [astro- ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2011

  56. [57]

    Alvarez-Muniz, R

    J. Alvarez-Muniz, R. A. Vazquez, and E. Zas, Phys. Rev. D 62, 063001 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/0003315

    work page arXiv 2000

  57. [58]

    Alvarez-Muniz and E

    J. Alvarez-Muniz and E. Zas, Phys. Lett. B 434, 396 (1998), arXiv:astro-ph/9806098

    work page arXiv 1998

  58. [59]

    Alvarez-Muniz and E

    J. Alvarez-Muniz and E. Zas, Phys. Lett. B 411, 218 (1997), arXiv:astro-ph/9706064

    work page arXiv 1997

  59. [60]

    Salcedo Gomez, J

    A. Salcedo Gomez, J. Flaherty, A. Connolly, et al. (ARA), PoS ARENA2024, 009 (2024)

    2024

  60. [61]

    P. B. Price, O. V. Nagornov, R. Bay, D. Chirkin, Y. He, P. Miocinovic, A. Richards, K. Woschnagg, B. Koci, and V. Zagorodnov, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 99, 7844 (2002)

    2002

  61. [62]

    G. D. Q. Robin, S. Evans, and J. T. Bailey, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series A: Mathematical and Physical Sciences 265, 437 (1969)

    1969

  62. [63]

    Ali et al

    S. Ali et al. , arXiv eprints (2024), arXiv:2406.00857 [astro-ph.IM]

    work page arXiv 2024

  63. [64]

    Kravchenko, D

    I. Kravchenko, D. Besson, and J. Meyers, Journal of Glaciology 50, 522–532 (2004)

    2004

  64. [65]

    V. V. Bogorodsky, C. R. Bentley, and P. Gudmand- sen, Radioglaciology (Springer Science & Business Media, 2012)

    2012

  65. [66]

    D. E. Voigt, c-axis fabric of the south pole ice core, (spc14), U.S. Antarctic Program (USAP) Data Center (2017)

    2017

  66. [67]

    Ali et al

    S. Ali et al. (ARA), Eur. Phys. J. ST 234, 5065 (2025), arXiv:2411.01761 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2025