Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

A drift-diffusion equation maps ultra-high-energy neutrino fluxes to muon-track event rates at neutrino telescopes, capturing the effective target volume from muons produced outside the detector.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 06:04 UTC pith:CFV72YJX

load-bearing objection A genuinely useful semi-analytic transport framework for muon tracks, with the convergence of the soft expansion as the one real soft spot; worth refereeing. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.13143 v1 pith:CFV72YJX submitted 2026-07-14 hep-ph astro-ph.HEhep-ex

The soft volume of ultra-high energy neutrinos experiments

Stefano Palmisano , Diego Redigolo , Michele Tammaro , Andrea Tesi This is my paper
classification hep-ph astro-ph.HEhep-ex
keywords ultra-high-energy neutrinosmuon tracksneutrino telescopessoft volumeBoltzmann equationdrift-diffusion approximationmuon energy lossdiffuse neutrino flux
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper tries to establish that muon transport from neutrino interactions to a telescope can be reduced from a full integro-differential Boltzmann equation to a drift-diffusion equation in energy, with a small perturbative correction for hard scatterings. If true, any neutrino flux model can be turned into a predicted muon-track spectrum in seconds, without running heavy Monte Carlo simulations, while still keeping the microscopic energy-loss processes explicit. This matters because the effective target volume for through-going tracks—the paper's 'soft volume'—can be several times the instrumented detector volume, and it is controlled by the same transport coefficients. The resulting master formula is applied to IceCube data, reproducing the measured diffuse-flux spectral index, and to the KM3NeT ultra-high-energy event, quantifying its tension with IceCube.

Core claim

The paper claims that the stationary Boltzmann equation for secondary muons can be approximated at second order in the soft energy-loss expansion by the drift-diffusion equation Eq. (2.9), with drift coefficient b_mu and diffusion coefficient d_mu. Its Green's function, Eq. (2.16), is a log-normal kernel in energy; convolving it with the weak-interaction muon source gives the semi-analytic master formula Eq. (2.20) for through-going muon-track rates. The formula separates the rate into a detector-volume term and a soft-volume term, so the effective target volume from muons produced outside the instrumented region is captured analytically. Applied to IceCube 9.5-year through-going muon data,

What carries the argument

The central object is the drift-diffusion (Fokker-Planck) equation, Eq. (2.9), for the muon flux as a function of energy and column depth, with drift coefficient b_mu (first moment of the QED fractional-energy-loss distribution) and diffusion coefficient d_mu (second moment). The load-bearing identity is the log-normal Green's function in log-energy, Eq. (2.16), which turns arbitrary neutrino sources into a muon flux at the detector. The master formula Eq. (2.20) packages this into event rates, and the 'soft volume' emerges as the projected detector area times an effective muon range. The transport coefficients are calibrated once from microscopic QED simulations and then treated as nuisance

Load-bearing premise

The master formula stands or falls on the premise that muons lose energy mostly through many small individual losses, so the full QED collision term can be replaced by a local drift-diffusion equation; if catastrophic large-loss scatterings are not rare enough, predicted rates could be off by tens of percent.

What would settle it

Run an independent full, unexpanded Boltzmann Monte Carlo for a specified single power-law flux over IceCube geometry and compare bin-by-bin muon-track rates to Eq. (2.20); if the difference exceeds the ~25% band quoted in Appendix B, the second-order local expansion has failed. Alternatively, measure the ratio of through-going to starting events in matching energy bins and check it against the analytic soft-volume prediction.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Soft volume is computable analytically: for a power-law diffuse flux, the drift-limit soft volume scales as the projected detector area divided by b_mu times the spectral factor, giving about four times the instrumented volume for IceCube.
  • Fast inference becomes possible: event rates in many energy and angular bins are obtained within seconds on standard hardware, allowing marginalization over transport-theory uncertainties.
  • The IceCube diffuse-flux fit is reproduced: the inferred spectral index matches the experimental value, and the ratio of normalizations gives an effective acceptance-efficiency factor of about 0.45, consistent with a simple zenith-angle cut.
  • The KM3NeT tension is quantified: the Bayes factor of 18 indicates substantial-to-strong evidence that the KM3NeT event is not consistent with the IceCube-informed diffuse flux; explaining it within the Standard Model would require an extreme cross-section enhancement that quickly violates the Froissart bound.
  • The framework generalizes to arbitrary fluxes: keeping muon energy and direction explicit avoids the need to recompute effective areas for non-power-law or new-physics flux models.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • A natural test, also suggested in the paper's outlook, is to compare high-energy starting events with through-going events in the same energy bins; the ratio directly measures the soft volume and would validate or exclude the analytic transport kernel on data.
  • If experimental collaborations publish detector response maps, the same kernel could be inverted to map arbitrary non-power-law fluxes—such as dark-matter decay lines—directly to event rates, something the effective-area approach handles only approximately.
  • The quoted ~25% hard-scattering correction implies that the formula's accuracy is likely to degrade in the highest-energy bins where photonuclear tails are strongest; the Appendix B perturbative hard template may become necessary for precise work above 100 PeV.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops a semi-analytic mapping from ultra-high-energy neutrino fluxes to muon-track event rates at neutrino telescopes. Starting from the stationary Boltzmann equation for the muon distribution, the QED collision operator is expanded in small fractional energy losses, yielding a Fokker-Planck drift-diffusion equation in energy space with drift coefficient b_mu and diffusion coefficient d_mu (Eq. 2.9). The Green's function solution (Eq. 2.16), combined with the weak-interaction source, gives a master formula for the differential event rate (Eq. 2.20) that separates the inside-detector contribution from the "soft volume" contribution of muons produced outside the detector. The transport coefficients are calibrated against QED Monte Carlo muon-propagation simulations, and the framework is applied to IceCube through-going muon data, giving a diffuse-flux fit compatible with the experimental spectral index, and to the KM3NeT event KM3-230213A, yielding a Bayes factor of 18 and a large inferred neutrino-nucleon cross-section enhancement if the event is interpreted in the Standard Model.

Significance. If validated, the framework is a useful contribution: it is a fast, semi-analytic alternative to full Monte Carlo transport for mapping arbitrary neutrino fluxes to track-event observables, and it makes the concept of the soft volume explicit and computable. Strengths include the clean derivation of the drift-diffusion reduction, the explicit calibration of transport-coefficient priors from QED simulations, the transparent discussion of the idealized detector model, and the attempt to quantify the IceCube acceptance via an effective efficiency factor. The main weaknesses are the marginal convergence of the soft expansion, the presence of an apparent error in the closed-form diffusion soft-volume expression, and some prior-dependence issues in the Bayes-factor analysis. These issues are fixable, but they currently stand between the paper's advertised precision and what the analysis actually demonstrates.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.3, Eq. (2.25)] The closed-form soft volume with diffusion is incorrect as printed. The exact integral with the Green's function (2.16), under the same approximations, gives V_diff = (πR_det^2/2) ∫ dℓ e^{-b A' ℓ} [1 + Erf(√(Bℓ))] with B = (b + d/2 - A d)^2/(2d). Evaluating the ℓ integral yields V_diff = πR_det^2/(2 b A') [1 + √B/√(b A' + B)]. In the d→0 limit this correctly reduces to the drift result, Eq. (2.23). The printed expression instead contains √(b/(B + A' b)), which tends to 0 as d→0 and would give half the drift soft volume. The stated auxiliary relation A'/B^2 = 2 A d/b^2 also has mismatched dimensions: A'/B^2 has dimension of length while the right-hand side is dimensionless for b,d measured in km^-1. The "Diffusion (approximate)" row of Table 2 is derived from this approximate formula, so it should be re-evaluated after correcting the expression.
  2. [Table 1 and Appendix B, Fig. 10] The convergence of the Kramers-Moyal expansion is load-bearing for the central claim, but it is not propagated into the final event-rate predictions. The paper itself quotes d_mu/b_mu ~ 0.2 and states that hard-scattering corrections are of order 25% and that the setup does not allow predictions better than about 25% (Appendix B). This truncation error enters the master formula, Eq. (2.20), before detector effects, but it is not included as a systematic band in the IceCube fit (Table 2) or in the BF = 18 result (Sec. 4.2). The MC calibration in Sec. 3.1 fits the Fokker-Planck model to QED simulations; the resulting uncertainties on b_mu and d_mu are statistical and do not cover the model misspecification from the neglected non-local hard operator. I request a direct validation of Eq. (2.20) against PROPOSAL or another full-MC muon propagation for representative power-law fluxes, with the
  3. [Section 4.2, Eq. (4.5)] The Bayes factor BF = 18 is a prior-dependent quantity, but the range of the flat prior π_flat is not specified. The text only says "flat, broad priors on φ_0 and γ" and "prior uniform in φ_0" before reporting the numerical value. A Bayes factor comparing a broad prior with the IceCube posterior depends on the width and boundaries of that prior. Please give the exact prior ranges used in the Monte Carlo evaluation and show the sensitivity of BF to reasonable variations of those ranges. Without this, the "substantial-to-strong" tension claim is not reproducible from the information in the paper.
  4. [Sections 2.2, 3.1 and Appendix A.1] The main analysis uses the constant-coefficient Green's function, Eq. (2.16), with b_mu and d_mu calibrated at E_0 = 10 PeV, while the IceCube fit includes bins down to 10 TeV. Table 1 shows that d_mu changes by about 28% between 1 PeV and 100 PeV (from 0.077 to 0.098 km^-1), and b_mu by about 14%. The energy-dependent solution of Appendix A.1 is not used in the fits. Please quantify the bias introduced by this approximation for the energy range of the data, or implement the A.1 Green's function in the master formula. This is especially relevant given the paper's advertised goal of mapping arbitrary neutrino fluxes onto track observables.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (4.1)] The normalization in Eq. (4.1) is written with 10^18 GeV^-1 cm^-2 s^-1 sr^-1, but from Table 2 and the text it should be 10^-18. Please correct the sign of the exponent.
  2. [Fig. 2 caption] Typo: "si proportional" should be "is proportional". Also in Section 3, "ensamble" should be "ensemble".
  3. [References [11] and [34]] References [11] and [34] appear to cite the same PROPOSAL paper; please unify or distinguish them appropriately.
  4. [Section 5/Outlook] The public implementation is announced as "in preparation" [31]. For reproducibility, please either release the code at revision or provide the numerical integration algorithm in sufficient detail to reproduce Table 2 and the Bayes factor.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the drift-diffusion master formula is derived from the QED Boltzmann collision operator, with transport coefficients computed from microscopic cross sections and calibrated against external MC, not from the IceCube/KM3NeT event rates.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The paper starts from the integro-differential QED collision term (Eq. 2.6), performs a Kramers-Moyal soft-energy expansion defining b_mu and d_mu as the first and second moments of dGamma/dy (Eq. 2.8), obtains the drift-diffusion equation (Eq. 2.9), solves it with the Green's function (Eq. 2.16), and convolves with the weak source to arrive at the master formula (Eq. 2.20). The transport coefficients are computed from standard QED cross sections (KKP for pair production and bremsstrahlung, Abt et al. for photonuclear) and their priors are calibrated against MC propagation simulations generated from the same spectra (Section 3.1); they are not fitted to the IceCube or KM3NeT event counts. The IceCube comparison fits the flux parameters gamma and phi0 while marginalizing over b_mu and d_mu, so the flux result is an inference from external data rather than an output of the QED inputs. Self-citations to the authors' Ref. [1] appear for the drift-limit solution, the sigma_CC parametrization, and prior KM3NeT tension estimates, but the drift limit is rederived here in Eqs. (2.16)-(2.17) and Appendix A, and the cited items are standard/verifiable technical inputs, not an imported uniqueness theorem. The genuinely load-bearing assumption is the adequacy of the second-order soft expansion: the paper states d_mu/b_mu ~ 0.2 (Section 3) and expects 'corrections beyond the Fokker-Planck approximation at the level of tens of percent' (Section 3), while Appendix B concludes the setup 'does not allow predictions with a better precision than about 25%'. That is a quantified convergence/robustness limitation, not a circular reduction: the prediction is not equal to its input by construction, and the paper is transparent about the magnitude of the approximation error.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The formalism introduces no new physical particles or forces. The 'soft volume' is a derived observable quantity, not a postulated entity. The main input assumptions are the soft-expansion convergence, the collinear approximation, the idealized detector model, and the specific QED parametrizations. The transport coefficients b_mu and d_mu are MC-calibrated nuisance parameters rather than data-fit parameters in the IceCube flux fit.

free parameters (3)
  • b_mu (muon drift coefficient) = theoretical central value ~0.35/km at 1 PeV in water; MC-calibrated posterior b_MC/b_th = 0.94 ± 0.15
    First moment of the QED energy-loss distribution; controls the drift term in the master formula. Its value is computed from QED cross sections and then calibrated with MC pseudo-experiments; the posterior is used as a prior in the IceCube/KM3NeT fits.
  • d_mu (muon diffusion coefficient) = theoretical central value ~0.077/km at 1 PeV; MC-calibrated posterior d_MC/d_th = 1.5^{+1.6}_{-0.8}
    Second moment of the QED energy-loss distribution; controls the diffusion term. It is more sensitive to hard tails and carries a large MC uncertainty, but enters the soft volume only through d_mu/2b_mu ~ 0.1.
  • lambda (CC neutrino-nucleon cross-section slope) = λ=0.4 for the SM reference; KM3NeT-fit λ=1.24^{+0.25}_{-0.6}, IceCube-fit λ=1.48^{+0.12}_{-0.24} and 1.66^{+0.26}_{-0.4}
    Parametrizes the high-energy CC cross section as σ ∝ (E/E0)^λ. The KM3NeT interpretation fits λ to require one 100 PeV event, so it is a free parameter in that application, although it is a PDF-motivated input in the main IceCube analysis.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Second-order Kramers-Moyal truncation of the QED collision operator with y_cut -> 1 is a controlled approximation.
    Used to derive Eq. (2.9). Appendix B and Fig. 10 show d_mu/b_mu ~ 0.2 and hard-scattering corrections of order 25%, so this is a marginal convergence assumption, not a rigorous limit.
  • domain assumption QED scatterings are collinear: muon direction is fixed by the parent neutrino direction and angular deflections are neglected.
    Invoked in Section 2 and Appendix A to reduce the collisional operator to a one-dimensional energy-loss operator.
  • domain assumption Perfectly absorbent spherical detector with unit efficiency; every muon crossing the projected area is counted once.
    Central to the event-rate formulas Eq. (2.13) and Eq. (2.20). The authors acknowledge this overestimates the rate and introduce an effective efficiency factor in the data comparison.
  • domain assumption Step-function neutrino attenuation: above-horizon neutrinos propagate freely, below-horizon neutrinos are completely absorbed; near-detector density is constant.
    Used to derive the analytic soft-volume estimates in Eqs. (2.21)-(2.25). The full numerical treatment uses PREM, but the analytic formulas in the paper rely on this approximation.
  • domain assumption External QED energy-loss parametrizations (KKP for pair production and bremsstrahlung; Abt et al. for photonuclear) are correct, with a conservative 30% systematic on the photonuclear rate.
    These parametrizations determine b_mu and d_mu. The paper assigns a 30% uncertainty to photonuclear interactions because low-Q^2 modeling is poorly constrained.
  • domain assumption Ultra-relativistic, stationary propagation in a homogeneous medium: v_mu = c and ∂_t f_mu = 0.
    Used throughout the transport setup; homogeneity is assumed in Section 2.2 and is reasonable for ice/water over the relevant distances.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 29733 in / 13327 out tokens · 129784 ms · 2026-08-02T06:04:14.574008+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We develop a semi-analytical framework to map ultra-high-energy neutrino fluxes onto event rates at neutrino telescopes. The formulation is based on the Boltzmann equation for the distribution of secondary muons produced by neutrino interactions in matter, and naturally accounts for the effective target volume relevant for through-going tracks. This "soft volume" is controlled by muon propagation and stochastic energy losses, and can be significantly larger than the instrumented detector volume. Exploiting the dominance of soft energy losses, we derive a controlled second-order expansion of the collision operator, reducing the transport problem to a drift-diffusion equation in energy space, with rare hard scatterings treated perturbatively. The resulting master formula provides a fast alternative to full Monte Carlo simulations while retaining a direct connection to the microscopic muon energy-loss processes. We apply the formalism to IceCube through-going muon data, marginalizing over theoretical uncertainties in the transport coefficients, and obtain a diffuse-flux fit compatible with the experimental result. We also revisit the interpretation of the ultra-high-energy track event reported by KM3NeT, assessing its consistency with IceCube non-observation in the same energy range. Our results provide a first-principles bridge between neutrino-flux models and track-event observables, with direct applications to precision neutrino astronomy and searches for physics beyond the Standard Model.

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Astrophysical Neutrino Sources as Colliders

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0

    Neutrino point-source observations (IceCube, KM3NeT) can bound inelastic pp and pγ cross sections from √s ≈ 1 GeV to ~10^5 GeV, extending beyond LHC/HERA and sometimes below unitarity limits.

  2. Earth rotation turns event timing into a geometric probe of UHE neutrino origin

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    Earth-rotation timing lowers the number of future KM3NeT events needed to exclude a dark-matter origin of KM3-230213A from ~22–27 to ~14–16.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 24 linked inside Pith · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Palmisano, D

    S. Palmisano, D. Redigolo, M. Tammaro and A. Tesi,Exploring ultra-high energy neutrino experiments through the lens of the transport equation,2507.10665. [2]IceCubecollaboration, R. Abbasi et al.,The IceCube Data Acquisition System: Signal Capture, Digitization, and Timestamping,Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A601(2009) 294–316, [0810.4930]. [3]IceCubecollaboration...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  2. [5]

    Athar, M

    H. Athar, M. Jezabek and O. Yasuda,Effects of neutrino mixing on high-energy cosmic neutrino flux,Phys. Rev. D62(2000) 103007, [hep-ph/0005104]. [6]IceCubecollaboration, R. Abbasi et al.,Detection of astrophysical tau neutrino candidates in IceCube,Eur. Phys. J. C82(2022) 1031, [2011.03561]. [7]IceCubecollaboration, R. Abbasi et al.,Observation of Seven A...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  3. [8]

    J. F. Beacom, N. F. Bell, D. Hooper, S. Pakvasa and T. J. Weiler,Measuring Flavor Ratios of High-Energy Astrophysical Neutrinos,Phys. Rev. D68(2003) 093005, [hep-ph/0307025]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  4. [9]

    DeYoung, S

    T. DeYoung, S. Razzaque and D. F. Cowen,Astrophysical tau neutrino detection in kilometer-scale Cherenkov detectors via muonic tau decay,Astropart. Phys.27(2007) 238–243, [astro-ph/0608486]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  5. [10]

    T. K. Gaisser, R. Engel and E. Resconi,Cosmic Rays and Particle Physics: 2nd Edition. Cambridge University Press, 6, 2016

    2016

  6. [11]

    J. H. Koehne, K. Frantzen, M. Schmitz, T. Fuchs, W. Rhode, D. Chirkin et al.,PROPOSAL: A tool for propagation of charged leptons,Comput. Phys. Commun.184(2013) 2070–2090. [12]KM3NeTcollaboration, S. Aiello et al.,Observation of an ultra-high-energy cosmic neutrino with KM3NeT,Nature638(2025) 376–382

    2013

  7. [13]

    L. F. T. Airoldi, G. F. S. Alves, Y. F. Perez-Gonzalez, G. M. Salla and R. Z. Funchal,Could a Primordial Black Hole Explosion Explain the Extremely High-Energy KM3NeT Neutrino Event?,Phys. Rev. Lett.136(2026) 041002, [2505.24666]

    arXiv 2026

  8. [14]

    Su, S.-Y

    Y.-H. Su, S.-Y. Chen, C. Cai and H.-H. Zhang,Interpreting the KM3-230213A PeV Neutrino Event via Vector Dark Matter Decay and Its Multi-Messenger Signatures,2507.21534

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  9. [15]

    Borah, N

    D. Borah, N. Das, N. Okada and P. Sarmah,Possible origin of the KM3-230213A neutrino event from dark matter decay,Phys. Rev. D111(2025) 123022, [2503.00097]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  10. [17]

    S. W. Li, P. Machado, D. Naredo-Tuero and T. Schwemberger,Clash of the Titans: ultra-high energy KM3NeT event versus IceCube data,2502.04508

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  11. [18]

    Jeffreys,Theory of Probability

    H. Jeffreys,Theory of Probability. Oxford University Press, 08, 1998, 10.1093/oso/9780198503682.001.0001

    arXiv 1998

  12. [19]

    Bertólez-Martínez and D

    T. Bertólez-Martínez and D. Hooper,Constraining The Neutrino-Nucleon Cross Section with the Ultrahigh-Energy KM3NeT Event,2603.28941

    arXiv

  13. [20]

    Froissart,Asymptotic behavior and subtractions in the Mandelstam representation,Phys

    M. Froissart,Asymptotic behavior and subtractions in the Mandelstam representation,Phys. Rev.123(1961) 1053–1057

    1961

  14. [21]

    Cooper-Sarkar, P

    A. Cooper-Sarkar, P. Mertsch and S. Sarkar,The high energy neutrino cross-section in the Standard Model and its uncertainty,JHEP08(2011) 042, [1106.3723]. [22]ZEUS, H1collaboration, A. M. Cooper-Sarkar,PDF Fits at HERA,PoSEPS-HEP2011 (2011) 320, [1112.2107]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  15. [23]

    Gauld, J

    R. Gauld, J. Rojo, L. Rottoli, S. Sarkar and J. Talbert,The prompt atmospheric neutrino flux in the light of LHCb,JHEP02(2016) 130, [1511.06346]. – 38 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  16. [24]

    Alwall, R

    J. Alwall, R. Frederix, S. Frixione, V. Hirschi, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer et al.,The automated computation of tree-level and next-to-leading order differential cross sections, and their matching to parton shower simulations,JHEP07(2014) 079, [1405.0301]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  17. [25]

    Buckley, J

    A. Buckley, J. Ferrando, S. Lloyd, K. Nordström, B. Page, M. Rüfenacht et al.,LHAPDF6: parton density access in the LHC precision era,Eur. Phys. J. C75(2015) 132, [1412.7420]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  18. [26]

    Risken,The Fokker–Planck Equation: Methods of Solution and Applications

    H. Risken,The Fokker–Planck Equation: Methods of Solution and Applications. Springer, 2 ed., 1989

    1989

  19. [27]

    R. F. Pawula,Approximation of the Linear Boltzmann Equation by the Fokker-Planck Equation,Phys. Rev.162(1967) 186–188

    1967

  20. [28]

    Abbasi et al.,Improved Characterization of the Astrophysical Muon–neutrino Flux with 9.5 Years of IceCube Data,Astrophys

    R. Abbasi et al.,Improved Characterization of the Astrophysical Muon–neutrino Flux with 9.5 Years of IceCube Data,Astrophys. J.928(2022) 50, [2111.10299]

    arXiv 2022

  21. [29]

    D. E. Groom, N. V. Mokhov and S. I. Striganov,Muon stopping power and range tables 10-MeV to 100-TeV,Atom. Data Nucl. Data Tabl.78(2001) 183–356

    2001

  22. [30]

    A. M. Dziewonski and D. L. Anderson,Preliminary reference earth model,Phys. Earth Planet. Interiors25(1981) 297–356

    1981

  23. [31]

    Palmisano and M

    S. Palmisano and M. Tammaro,NuCast,

  24. [32]

    Alameddine, J

    J.-M. Alameddine, J. Albrecht, H. Dembinski, P. Gutjahr, K.-H. Kampert, W. Rhode et al., Improvements in charged lepton and photon propagation for the software PROPOSAL, Comput. Phys. Commun.302(2024) 109243, [2311.13357]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  25. [33]

    I. Abt, A. M. Cooper-Sarkar, B. Foster, V. Myronenko, K. Wichmann and M. Wing, Investigation into the limits of perturbation theory at lowQ2 using HERA deep inelastic scattering data,Phys. Rev. D96(2017) 014001, [1704.03187]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  26. [34]

    Koehne, K

    J.-H. Koehne, K. Frantzen, M. Schmitz, T. Fuchs, W. Rhode, D. Chirkin et al.,Proposal: A tool for propagation of charged leptons,Computer Physics Communications184(2013) 2070–2090. [35]IceCubecollaboration, M. G. Aartsen et al.,Observation and Characterization of a Cosmic Muon Neutrino Flux from the Northern Hemisphere using six years of IceCube data, Ast...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  27. [36]

    Grimbaum Yamamoto and T

    N. Grimbaum Yamamoto and T. Hambye,The KM3NeT event: a primordial high energy neutrino?,2604.18677. [37]KM3NeTcollaboration, O. Adriani et al.,Testing Heavy Dark Matter Decay as the Origin of KM3-230213A,2606.09986

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  28. [38]

    Brdar and D

    V. Brdar and D. S. Chattopadhyay,Does the 220 PeV Event at KM3NeT Point to New Physics?,2502.21299

    arXiv

  29. [39]

    Kohri, P

    K. Kohri, P. K. Paul and N. Sahu,Super heavy dark matter origin of the PeV neutrino event: KM3-230213A,2503.04464

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  30. [40]

    Y. Jho, S. C. Park and C. S. Shin,Superheavy Supersymmetric Dark Matter for the origin of KM3NeT Ultra-High Energy signal,2503.18737

    arXiv

  31. [41]

    Boccia and F

    A. Boccia and F. Iocco,A strike of luck: could the KM3-230213A event be caused by an evaporating primordial black hole?,2502.19245

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  32. [42]

    Narita and W

    Y. Narita and W. Yin,Explaining the KM3-230213A Detection without Gamma-Ray Emission: Cosmic-Ray Dark Radiation,2503.07776. – 39 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  33. [43]

    Murase, Y

    K. Murase, Y. Narita and W. Yin,Superheavy dark matter from the natural inflation in light of the highest-energy astroparticle events,2504.15272

    arXiv

  34. [44]

    C. Yuan, L. Pfeiffer, W. Winter, J. M. S. Zaballa, S. Buson, F. Testagrossa et al.,An Accretion Flare Interpretation for the Ultra-high-energy Neutrino Event KM3-230213A, Astrophys. J. Lett.998(2026) L1, [2506.21111]

    arXiv 2026

  35. [45]

    P. A. Sevle Myhr,KM3-230213A and potential astrophysical sources, in60th Rencontres de Moriond on Very High Energy Phenomena in the Universe: Moriond VHEPU 2026, 5, 2026. 2605.07641

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  36. [46]

    Alhebsi, A

    A. Alhebsi, A. van Vliet, D. Ehlert and S. Thoudam,Implications of a Cosmogenic Origin of KM3-230213A for Ultra-high-energy Protons,Astrophys. J.1003(2026) 235, [2603.13476]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  37. [47]

    Gonçalves, D

    J. Gonçalves, D. Marfatia, A. P. Morais, V. Oliveira and R. Pasechnik,Sterile neutrino dark matter in conformal Majoron models,2602.11085

    arXiv

  38. [48]

    Fargion,Paucity of downward UHE neutrino tracks in Icecube versus unexpected huge KM3-230213A event : solving the puzzles?,PoSICRC2025(2025) 925, [2512.07042]

    D. Fargion,Paucity of downward UHE neutrino tracks in Icecube versus unexpected huge KM3-230213A event : solving the puzzles?,PoSICRC2025(2025) 925, [2512.07042]. [49]IceCubecollaboration, R. Abbasi et al.,Improved Characterization of the Astrophysical Muon-neutrino Flux with 9.5 Years of IceCube Data,Astrophys. J.928(2022) 50, [2111.10299]. [50]IceCubeco...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  39. [54]

    Smith, D

    D. Smith, D. Hooper and A. Vieregg,Revisiting AGN as the source of IceCube’s diffuse neutrino flux,JCAP03(2021) 031, [2007.12706]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  40. [55]

    Chianese, D

    M. Chianese, D. F. G. Fiorillo, G. Miele, S. Morisi and O. Pisanti,Decaying dark matter at IceCube and its signature on High Energy gamma experiments,JCAP11(2019) 046, [1907.11222]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  41. [56]

    K. V. Berghaus, D. Hooper and E. R. Simon,Searching for superheavy decaying particles with ultra-high-energy neutrino observatories,JCAP07(2025) 067, [2502.12238]. – 40 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025