Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 4 minor 142 references

Tau air-shower telescopes can statistically separate electron antineutrinos from tau neutrinos via the Glashow resonance, with mountain-skimming geometry doing the heavy lifting.

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

2026-08-01 00:42 UTC pith:TLBZTF7G

load-bearing objection A useful, honestly-scoped projection of Glashow-induced tau events for TAMBO/TRINITY, whose main weakness is a deliberate zero-smearing assumption that likely makes the quoted R intervals optimistic. the 1 major comments →

arxiv 2607.26128 v1 pith:TLBZTF7G submitted 2026-07-28 hep-ph astro-ph.HE

Probing Neutrino Flavor Composition with the Glashow Resonance at Tau Air-Shower Neutrino Telescopes

Tianyi Ding , Qinrui Liu This is my paper
classification hep-ph astro-ph.HE
keywords neutrino flavor compositionGlashow resonancetau air-shower telescopeselectron antineutrinosPeV neutrinostau neutrino detectionmountain-skimmingneutrino oscillations
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.

This paper argues that proposed tau air-shower neutrino telescopes, built to catch tau neutrinos by the air showers their decay taus create, can also catch electron antineutrinos: a ν̄e striking an electron occasionally makes a W− boson at 6.3 PeV (the Glashow resonance), which often decays to a tau plus a tau antineutrino. That tau enters the same shower sample, so the telescopes can statistically separate the ν̄e and ντ+ν̄τ contributions and measure their flux ratio R. The authors simulate neutrino and tau propagation through rock for mountain-skimming and Earth-skimming geometries and find mountain-skimming acceptance for ν̄e roughly three times the tau-neutrino acceptance near resonance, while Earth-skimming acceptance is about 25 times lower. With ten years of a full-size mountain array plus an imaging Cherenkov telescope, standard pp/pγ source models give R constraints around or below 2 at 68% C.L., while a ν̄e-rich neutron-decay flux would be excluded near 90% C.L. A sympathetic reader would care because this yields a new, standalone handle on neutrino flavor — including neutrino versus antineutrino — in the poorly explored PeV–EeV range.

Core claim

The central claim is that tau air-shower telescopes can measure R = flux(ν̄e)/flux(ντ+ν̄τ) near 6.3 PeV using only their own tau sample. Although ν̄e-induced and ντ-induced taus are indistinguishable event by event, their energy spectra differ — ν̄e events are concentrated around the Glashow resonance while DIS tau events extend more broadly — so a spectral fit can separate them. The simulations show that a mountain-skimming array (short rock chords, ~12 km) preserves the ν̄e flux long enough for resonant conversion to taus that escape, while Earth-skimming neutrinos traverse hundreds of kilometers and the ν̄e is absorbed before producing detectable taus. As a result, the mountain geometry g

What carries the argument

The Glashow resonance ν̄e + e− → W−, whose 11% tauonic branching W− → τ− + ν̄τ injects taus into the tau sample that a ντ-telescope would otherwise attribute to charged-current tau-neutrino interactions. The mechanism carries the argument because the resonance boosts the ν̄e interaction rate by roughly two orders of magnitude at 6.3 PeV and gives the ν̄e-induced tau spectrum a distinct, peaked shape; coupled with a propagation simulation that follows neutrinos and taus through rock (including tau regeneration), it converts a detection channel blind to electron neutrinos into a statistical flavor discriminator. The geometry contrast — short mountain chords versus long Earth chords — is what d

Load-bearing premise

The forecast assumes the ν̄e and ντ+ν̄τ contributions can be separated by their spectral shapes, but the analysis sets energy-reconstruction smearing to zero; if real telescopes blur tau energies enough, the Glashow peak washes out and the quoted R intervals widen.

What would settle it

Run the same propagation and event-rate calculation with a realistic energy-resolution smearing function folded into the tau-energy spectrum at the few-event level; if the Glashow-resonance bump is no longer statistically separable from the DIS-continuum tau events, the claimed R sensitivity collapses. Alternatively, a first dataset of ~20 mountain-skimming tau events with measured energies that shows no peak near the resonance region would contradict the benchmark expectations.

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

If this is right

  • A standalone R measurement is possible without combining with other experiments, filling the PeV–EeV gap between lower-energy Cherenkov telescopes and ultra-high-energy neutrino detectors.
  • Mountain-skimming arrays, not Earth-skimming ones, are the right place to look for the Glashow-resonance tau signal; Earth-skimming ν̄e absorption makes that channel inefficient.
  • Ten years of a full-size mountain array plus an imaging Cherenkov telescope can constrain R to ≲2 at 68% C.L. for standard pp/pγ and muon-damped scenarios.
  • A ν̄e-rich flux, as from neutron-decay sources or new-physics models, stands out and can be excluded at ~90% C.L. if standard scenarios are true, or identified if present.
  • The pp versus pγ production mechanisms, including muon-damped variants, remain degenerate in R and are not separable with the currently designed configurations.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: the quoted intervals assume perfect energy reconstruction; including realistic smearing at the few-event scale will broaden the Glashow peak and widen every R interval, so the sensitivity numbers here are optimistic bounds.
  • The same statistical separation could be cross-checked by combining the tau-sample measurement with lower-energy flavor measurements, testing whether flavor composition changes with energy across the TeV–EeV range.
  • The mountain-skimming preference suggests that future site selection for tau arrays should optimize for short, dense rock chords near a valley rather than large Earth-skimming baselines if antineutrino sensitivity is a goal.
  • Because the simulation code is not released, the acceptance curves cannot be independently reproduced; a public implementation of the modified propagation would let the community test the geometry dependence directly.

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

1 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper argues that tau air-shower neutrino telescopes (TAMBO and TRINITY) can use the Glashow resonance to measure R = Φ_{\bar\nu_e,0}/Φ_{\nu_τ+\bar\nu_τ,0} in the PeV–EeV range. The authors modify TauRunner to include Glashow-resonant \bar\nu_e interactions, propagate neutrinos and taus through mountain and Earth-skimming geometries, compute acceptance and event rates using a published IceCube flux, and project Feldman–Cousins confidence intervals from binned Poisson likelihoods. They find that mountain-skimming acceptance for \bar\nu_e is roughly three times the tau-neutrino acceptance near the resonance, whereas Earth-skimming acceptance is about 25 times smaller. Combining 10 years of TAMBO (5000 or 22000 units) with TRINITY, standard pp/pγ scenarios are projected to constrain R ≲ 2–4 at 68% C.L., while a \bar\nu_e-rich neutron-decay source would be excluded at roughly 90% C.L. with the larger configuration.

Significance. If the projection holds, this is a genuinely new flavor handle in an energy region where the neutrino flavor composition is currently unmeasured. The paper is careful in several respects: it ties the simulation to public tools (TauRunner, PYTHIA8.3), validates the ν_τ+\bar\nu_τ acceptance against collaboration-reported values, and uses Feldman–Cousins intervals with nuisance profiling, which is appropriate for the low-count regime. The central quantity R is not fitted from the projected data but is testable against external flux and oscillation inputs, so the analysis is not circular. However, the quantitative claim depends on the ability to separate the Glashow peak from the smooth DIS spectrum using reconstructed tau energies, and the paper explicitly assumes perfect energy reconstruction. That assumption is not tested and is likely to be optimistic, which makes the current version unsuitable for publication without revision.

major comments (1)
  1. [§2.1 (modified TauRunner)] The sensitivity analysis rests on statistically separating the \bar\nu_e-induced Glashow-resonance tau spectrum (a narrow feature near E_τ ~ 5 PeV) from the smooth ν_τ+\bar\nu_τ DIS spectrum using the binned likelihood of Eq. (3.1). The paper explicitly states 'we do not include a smearing factor in our analysis to account for the energy reconstruction uncertainty' after Eq. (2.5). For tau air-shower telescopes the reconstructed tau energy typically has resolution no better than 20–30%, and near threshold it is worse; even moderate smearing broadens the Glashow peak and increases template overlap. With expected counts of order tens in the resonance window, the quoted intervals (e.g., R ≲ 2 at 68% and the ~90% exclusion of the neutron-decay scenario) can widen substantially. This is a load-bearing, testable optimism. Please rerun the likelihood with a response matrix or, at minimum, with
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table 1 and Table 2 captions] There are typos: 'T able' should be 'Table' in both captions. Also, the caption of Table 2 has 'T able 2' in the compiled text. Please proofread the table captions.
  2. [Eq. (3.1)] The energy binning used in the binned Poisson likelihood is not specified. Given the low statistics and the energy-resolution issue above, the bin width or bin edges should be stated explicitly.
  3. [Eq. (2.6)] The conversion factor 3 and the factor ln(10) in Eq. (2.6) are not explained in the text. Although the formula is plausible, a one-sentence derivation would help the reader verify the normalization.
  4. [Fig. 3 caption] The caption says 'TAMBO (left and middle)' and 'TRINITY (right)' but the text sometimes refers to 'left and right' panels; please check the orientation labels for consistency.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circular derivation: the R forecast is an Asimov projection against external inputs; self-citations are contextual, not load-bearing.

full rationale

The central quantitative output—the expected sensitivity to R = Phi_nuebar,0 / Phi_nutau+nutau,0—is not obtained by fitting R to the data it then claims to predict. Table 1's model values of R are computed from standard benchmark source flavor ratios and NuFIT6.1 oscillation parameters, which are external to this paper's projected event rates. The acceptances entering Eq. 2.5 are obtained from a modified TauRunner propagation simulation (Eqs. 2.1-2.4) and are explicitly cross-checked against the TAMBO and TRINITY collaborations' reported acceptances in Fig. 3, i.e., against external published results. The sensitivity intervals in Fig. 5 and Table 2 are produced by generating Asimov data from the assumed flux model and then applying a Feldman-Cousins likelihood (Eq. 3.1), so no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The self-citations (e.g., Refs. [86], [88], [93], and the broader citation spans involving [58,59,70]) are used as background literature, for the existence of prior Glashow-tau studies, or for the choice to report R rather than a 4-flavor representation; none of these citations supplies the load-bearing numerical result. The explicit neglect of energy-reconstruction smearing ('we do not include a smearing factor in our analysis to account for the energy reconstruction uncertainty,' Sec. 2.1) is a modeling simplification affecting the robustness of the forecasts, but it is not a definitional equivalence or a fitted-input-called-prediction; it concerns correctness/optimism, not circularity. No equation in the paper reduces to its own input by construction, so the appropriate finding is no significant circularity, with only minor non-load-bearing self-citations.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard physics inputs and simulation quality: SM cross sections, W/tau decay branchings, averaged oscillations with NuFIT6.1, detector geometry and duty cycle from proposals, and a modified public propagation code. There are no invented entities and no new fitted parameters beyond the profiled spectral index/normalization and detector choices; the main unstated idealization is perfect energy reconstruction (no smearing).

free parameters (3)
  • Spectral index gamma = gamma = 2.5 benchmark; varied 2.37-2.87; profiled in likelihood
    Event rates and R sensitivity depend strongly on the assumed spectrum; the paper adopts IceCube flux results rather than measuring gamma.
  • All-flavor flux normalization Phi0 = 10^-18 GeV^-1 cm^-2 s^-1 sr^-1 at 100 TeV per flavor
    Normalization taken from the IceCube combined fit [9] and profiled in the Asimov analysis.
  • Effective geometric area and duty cycle = Ageo ~ 100 km^2 (TAMBO 22000 units), ~30 km^2 (5000 units); 100% duty TAMBO, 20% duty TRINITY
    Chosen from detector proposals; a change at the tens-of-percent level directly scales event counts and the resulting R intervals.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Standard Model Glashow resonance cross section with Doppler broadening and initial-state radiation corrections (~30% suppression at peak) from Refs. [103-105,87].
    Invoked in Eqs. (2.1)-(2.3) and Sec. 2.1; if these corrections are wrong, the \bar{\nu}_e-induced tau rate changes by tens of percent and the R sensitivity shifts.
  • domain assumption W^- decay branching ratios and spectra from PYTHIA8.3, including BR(W->tau nu) ~ 11% and visible tau decay BR ~ 82.6%.
    The Glashow-induced tau flux is proportional to the W->tau nu branching ratio and the visible tau decay fraction used in the acceptance.
  • domain assumption Averaged three-flavor neutrino oscillations with NuFIT6.1 best-fit parameters and normal mass ordering.
    Used to convert source flavor ratios into Earth flavor ratios and the predicted R values in Table 1.
  • domain assumption Benchmark source flavor ratios: pp, p-gamma, muon-damped variants, and neutron-decay scenarios as given in Table 1.
    The discrimination conclusions are relative to these standard astrophysical production benchmarks.
  • domain assumption TauRunner correctly simulates DIS, tau energy loss and regeneration; the authors' modification adding Glashow interactions is faithful.
    The entire acceptance/event-rate calculation inherits this; the only validation shown is comparison to collaboration-reported acceptances.
  • ad hoc to paper Perfect energy reconstruction (no smearing) in the sensitivity analysis.
    Stated in Sec. 2.1 after Eq. (2.5); likely optimistic for the spectral-shape-based separation of \bar{\nu}_e and \nu_\tau signals.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 20184 in / 14032 out tokens · 127938 ms · 2026-08-01T00:42:37.022109+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The flavor composition of high-energy astrophysical neutrinos encodes information about their production and propagation. The Glashow resonance, $\bar{\nu}_e + e^-\to W^-$, provides a unique way to distinguish antineutrinos from neutrinos and thereby extends the reach of flavor composition studies. Proposed tau air-shower neutrino telescopes target Earth-skimming and mountain-skimming $\nu_\tau$ above a PeV, but through the decay $W^-\to \bar{\nu}_\tau+\tau^-$ they are also sensitive to $\bar{\nu}_e$. These experiments can therefore measure the ratio of $\bar{\nu}_e$ to $\nu_\tau+\bar{\nu}_\tau$ fluxes. We evaluate this prospect with explicit simulations and project sensitivities for TAMBO and TRINITY, assuming 10 years of operation. We find that mountain-skimming geometries yield substantially higher $\bar{\nu}_e$ acceptance than Earth-skimming ones due to the shorter path length in rock. For standard astrophysical source scenarios, our projections show that differentiating $pp$ and $p\gamma$ production, including their muon-damped scenarios, is challenging with a standalone measurement by tau air-shower experiments in their currently designed configurations, though optimistically the flux ratio can be constrained to $\lesssim$2 at 1$\sigma$. A $\bar{\nu}_e$-rich flux, as expected from neutron-decay sources or from certain new physics models, would stand out from the standard pion-production scenarios and can otherwise be constrained.

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

142 extracted references · 123 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    IceCube collaboration, Evidence for High-Energy Extraterrestrial Neutrinos at the IceCube Detector, Science 342 (2013) 1242856 [ 1311.5238]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  2. [2]

    IceCube, Fermi-LAT, MAGIC, AGILE, ASAS-SN, HA WC, H.E.S.S., INTEGRAL, Kanata, Kiso, Kapteyn, Liverpool Telescope, Subaru, Swift NuSTAR, VERITAS, VLA/17B-403collaboration, Multimessenger observations of a flaring blazar coincident with high-energy neutrino IceCube-170922A , Science 361 (2018) eaat1378 [1807.08816]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  3. [3]

    IceCube collaboration, Neutrino emission from the direction of the blazar TXS 0506+056 prior to the IceCube-170922A alert , Science 361 (2018) 147 [ 1807.08794]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  4. [4]

    IceCube collaboration, Evidence for neutrino emission from the nearby active galaxy NGC 1068, Science 378 (2022) 538 [ 2211.09972]. – 13 –

    arXiv 2022

  5. [5]

    IceCube collaboration, Observation of high-energy neutrinos from the Galactic plane , Science 380 (2023) adc9818 [ 2307.04427]

    arXiv 2023

  6. [6]

    O. Mena, S. Palomares-Ruiz and A.C. Vincent, Flavor Composition of the High-Energy Neutrino Events in IceCube , Phys. Rev. Lett. 113 (2014) 091103 [ 1404.0017]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  7. [7]

    Palomares-Ruiz, A.C

    S. Palomares-Ruiz, A.C. Vincent and O. Mena, Spectral analysis of the high-energy IceCube neutrinos, Phys. Rev. D 91 (2015) 103008 [ 1502.02649]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  8. [8]

    IceCube collaboration, Flavor Ratio of Astrophysical Neutrinos above 35 TeV in IceCube , Phys. Rev. Lett. 114 (2015) 171102 [ 1502.03376]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  9. [9]

    IceCube collaboration, A combined maximum-likelihood analysis of the high-energy astrophysical neutrino flux measured with IceCube , Astrophys. J. 809 (2015) 98 [ 1507.03991]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  10. [10]

    Vincent, S

    A.C. Vincent, S. Palomares-Ruiz and O. Mena, Analysis of the 4-year IceCube high-energy starting events , Phys. Rev. D 94 (2016) 023009 [ 1605.01556]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  11. [11]

    Song, S.W

    N. Song, S.W. Li, C.A. Arg¨ uelles, M. Bustamante and A.C. Vincent, The Future of High-Energy Astrophysical Neutrino Flavor Measurements , JCAP 04 (2021) 054 [2012.12893]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  12. [12]

    IceCube collaboration, Detection of astrophysical tau neutrino candidates in IceCube , Eur. Phys. J. C 82 (2022) 1031 [ 2011.03561]

    arXiv 2022

  13. [13]

    Abbasi et al., Characterization of the Three-Flavor Composition of Cosmic Neutrinos with IceCube, 2510.24957

    R. Abbasi et al., Characterization of the Three-Flavor Composition of Cosmic Neutrinos with IceCube, 2510.24957

    arXiv

  14. [14]

    Learned and S

    J.G. Learned and S. Pakvasa, Detecting tau-neutrino oscillations at PeV energies , Astropart. Phys. 3 (1995) 267 [ hep-ph/9405296]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  15. [15]

    Athar, M

    H. Athar, M. Jezabek and O. Yasuda, Effects of neutrino mixing on high-energy cosmic neutrino flux , Phys. Rev. D 62 (2000) 103007 [ hep-ph/0005104]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  16. [16]

    Crocker, F

    R.M. Crocker, F. Melia and R.R. Volkas, Searching for long wavelength neutrino oscillations in the distorted neutrino spectrum of galactic supernova remnants , Astrophys. J. Suppl. 141 (2002) 147 [ astro-ph/0106090]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  17. [17]

    Beacom, N.F

    J.F. Beacom, N.F. Bell, D. Hooper, S. Pakvasa and T.J. Weiler, Decay of High-Energy Astrophysical Neutrinos, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90 (2003) 181301 [ hep-ph/0211305]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  18. [18]

    Barenboim and C

    G. Barenboim and C. Quigg, Neutrino observatories can characterize cosmic sources and neutrino properties, Phys. Rev. D 67 (2003) 073024 [ hep-ph/0301220]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  19. [19]

    Beacom, N.F

    J.F. Beacom, N.F. Bell, D. Hooper, S. Pakvasa and T.J. Weiler, Measuring flavor ratios of high-energy astrophysical neutrinos, Phys. Rev. D 68 (2003) 093005 [ hep-ph/0307025]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  20. [20]

    Beacom, N.F

    J.F. Beacom, N.F. Bell, D. Hooper, J.G. Learned, S. Pakvasa and T.J. Weiler, PseudoDirac neutrinos: A Challenge for neutrino telescopes , Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 (2004) 011101 [hep-ph/0307151]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  21. [21]

    Beacom, N.F

    J.F. Beacom, N.F. Bell, D. Hooper, S. Pakvasa and T.J. Weiler, Sensitivity to theta(13) and delta in the decaying astrophysical neutrino scenario , Phys. Rev. D 69 (2004) 017303 [hep-ph/0309267]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  22. [22]

    Serpico, Probing the 2-3 leptonic mixing at high-energy neutrino telescopes , Phys

    P.D. Serpico, Probing the 2-3 leptonic mixing at high-energy neutrino telescopes , Phys. Rev. D 73 (2006) 047301 [ hep-ph/0511313]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  23. [23]

    O. Mena, I. Mocioiu and S. Razzaque, Oscillation effects on high-energy neutrino fluxes from astrophysical hidden sources, Phys. Rev. D 75 (2007) 063003 [ astro-ph/0612325]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  24. [24]

    Kachelriess and R

    M. Kachelriess and R. Tom` as,High energy neutrino yields from astrophysical sources I: Weakly magnetized sources, Phys. Rev. D 74 (2006) 063009 [ astro-ph/0606406]. – 14 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  25. [25]

    Pakvasa, W

    S. Pakvasa, W. Rodejohann and T.J. Weiler, Flavor Ratios of Astrophysical Neutrinos: Implications for Precision Measurements, JHEP 02 (2008) 005 [ 0711.4517]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  26. [26]

    Esmaili and Y

    A. Esmaili and Y. Farzan, An Analysis of Cosmic Neutrinos: Flavor Composition at Source and Neutrino Mixing Parameters , Nucl. Phys. B 821 (2009) 197 [ 0905.0259]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  27. [27]

    Choubey and W

    S. Choubey and W. Rodejohann, Flavor Composition of UHE Neutrinos at Source and at Neutrino Telescopes, Phys. Rev. D 80 (2009) 113006 [ 0909.1219]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  28. [28]

    Esmaili, Pseudo-Dirac Neutrino Scenario: Cosmic Neutrinos at Neutrino Telescopes , Phys

    A. Esmaili, Pseudo-Dirac Neutrino Scenario: Cosmic Neutrinos at Neutrino Telescopes , Phys. Rev. D 81 (2010) 013006 [ 0909.5410]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  29. [29]

    Bhattacharya, S

    A. Bhattacharya, S. Choubey, R. Gandhi and A. Watanabe, Diffuse Ultra-High Energy Neutrino Fluxes and Physics Beyond the Standard Model , Phys. Lett. B 690 (2010) 42 [0910.4396]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  30. [30]

    Bhattacharya, S

    A. Bhattacharya, S. Choubey, R. Gandhi and A. Watanabe, Ultra-high neutrino fluxes as a probe for non-standard physics , JCAP 09 (2010) 009 [ 1006.3082]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  31. [31]

    Bustamante, A.M

    M. Bustamante, A.M. Gago and C. Pe˜ na-Garay,Energy-Independent New Physics in the Flavour Ratios of High-Energy Astrophysical Neutrinos , JHEP 04 (2010) 066 [ 1001.4878]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  32. [32]

    Mehta and W

    P. Mehta and W. Winter, Interplay of energy dependent astrophysical neutrino flavor ratios and new physics effects , JCAP 03 (2011) 041 [ 1101.2673]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  33. [33]

    Baerwald, M

    P. Baerwald, M. Bustamante and W. Winter, Neutrino Decays over Cosmological Distances and the Implications for Neutrino Telescopes , JCAP 10 (2012) 020 [ 1208.4600]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  34. [34]

    L. Fu, C.M. Ho and T.J. Weiler, Cosmic Neutrino Flavor Ratios with Broken νµ − ντ Symmetry, Phys. Lett. B 718 (2012) 558 [ 1209.5382]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  35. [35]

    Pakvasa, A

    S. Pakvasa, A. Joshipura and S. Mohanty, Explanation for the low flux of high energy astrophysical muon-neutrinos, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110 (2013) 171802 [ 1209.5630]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  36. [36]

    Chatterjee, M.M

    A. Chatterjee, M.M. Devi, M. Ghosh, R. Moharana and S.K. Raut, Probing CP violation with the first three years of ultrahigh energy neutrinos from IceCube , Phys. Rev. D 90 (2014) 073003 [1312.6593]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  37. [37]

    Xu, H.-J

    X.-J. Xu, H.-J. He and W. Rodejohann, Constraining astrophysical neutrino flavor composition from leptonic unitarity , JCAP 12 (2014) 039 [ 1407.3736]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  38. [38]

    Aeikens, H

    E. Aeikens, H. P¨ as, S. Pakvasa and P. Sicking,Flavor ratios of extragalactic neutrinos and neutrino shortcuts in extra dimensions , JCAP 10 (2015) 005 [ 1410.0408]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  39. [39]

    Palladino, G

    A. Palladino, G. Pagliaroli, F.L. Villante and F. Vissani, What is the Flavor of the Cosmic Neutrinos Seen by IceCube? , Phys. Rev. Lett. 114 (2015) 171101 [ 1502.02923]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  40. [40]

    Arg¨ uelles, T

    C.A. Arg¨ uelles, T. Katori and J. Salvad´ o,New Physics in Astrophysical Neutrino Flavor , Phys. Rev. Lett. 115 (2015) 161303 [ 1506.02043]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  41. [41]

    Bustamante, J.F

    M. Bustamante, J.F. Beacom and W. Winter, Theoretically palatable flavor combinations of astrophysical neutrinos, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115 (2015) 161302 [ 1506.02645]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  42. [42]

    Pagliaroli, A

    G. Pagliaroli, A. Palladino, F. Villante and F. Vissani, Testing nonradiative neutrino decay scenarios with IceCube data , Phys. Rev. D 92 (2015) 113008 [ 1506.02624]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  43. [43]

    de Salas, R

    P. de Salas, R. Lineros and M. T´ ortola,Neutrino propagation in the galactic dark matter halo , Phys. Rev. D 94 (2016) 123001 [ 1601.05798]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  44. [44]

    Gonz´ alez-Garc ´ ıa, M

    M. Gonz´ alez-Garc ´ ıa, M. Maltoni, I. Mart ´ ınez-Soler and N. Song,Non-standard neutrino interactions in the Earth and the flavor of astrophysical neutrinos , Astropart. Phys. 84 (2016) 15 [1605.08055]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  45. [45]

    Bustamante, J.F

    M. Bustamante, J.F. Beacom and K. Murase, Testing decay of astrophysical neutrinos with incomplete information, Phys. Rev. D 95 (2017) 063013 [ 1610.02096]. – 15 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  46. [46]

    Rasmussen, L

    R.W. Rasmussen, L. Lechner, M. Ackermann, M. Kowalski and W. Winter, Astrophysical neutrinos flavored with Beyond the Standard Model physics , Phys. Rev. D 96 (2017) 083018 [1707.07684]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  47. [47]

    U.K. Dey, D. Kar, M. Mitra, M. Spannowsky and A.C. Vincent, Searching for Leptoquarks at IceCube and the LHC , Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) 035014 [ 1709.02009]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  48. [48]

    Bustamante and S.K

    M. Bustamante and S.K. Agarwalla, Universe’s Worth of Electrons to Probe Long-Range Interactions of High-Energy Astrophysical Neutrinos , Phys. Rev. Lett. 122 (2019) 061103 [1808.02042]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  49. [49]

    Farzan and S

    Y. Farzan and S. Palomares-Ruiz, Flavor of cosmic neutrinos preserved by ultralight dark matter, Phys. Rev. D 99 (2019) 051702 [ 1810.00892]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  50. [50]

    Ahlers, M

    M. Ahlers, M. Bustamante and S. Mu, Unitarity Bounds of Astrophysical Neutrinos , Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) 123023 [ 1810.00893]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  51. [51]

    Brdar and R.S

    V. Brdar and R.S. Hansen, IceCube Flavor Ratios with Identified Astrophysical Sources: Towards Improving New Physics Testability , JCAP 02 (2019) 023 [ 1812.05541]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  52. [52]

    Palladino, The flavor composition of astrophysical neutrinos after 8 years of IceCube: an indication of neutron decay scenario? , Eur

    A. Palladino, The flavor composition of astrophysical neutrinos after 8 years of IceCube: an indication of neutron decay scenario? , Eur. Phys. J. C 79 (2019) 500 [ 1902.08630]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  53. [53]

    Bustamante and M

    M. Bustamante and M. Ahlers, Inferring the flavor of high-energy astrophysical neutrinos at their sources, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122 (2019) 241101 [ 1901.10087]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  54. [54]

    Ahlers, M

    M. Ahlers, M. Bustamante and N.G.N. Willesen, Flavors of astrophysical neutrinos with active-sterile mixing , JCAP 07 (2021) 029 [ 2009.01253]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  55. [55]

    Karmakar, S

    S. Karmakar, S. Pandey and S. Rakshit, Astronomy with energy dependent flavour ratios of extragalactic neutrinos, JHEP 10 (2021) 004 [ 2010.07336]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  56. [56]

    Fiorillo, G

    D.F.G. Fiorillo, G. Mangano, S. Morisi and O. Pisanti, IceCube constraints on violation of equivalence principle, JCAP 04 (2021) 079 [ 2012.07867]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  57. [57]

    Dev, P.A.N

    P.S.B. Dev, P.A.N. Machado and I. Martinez-Soler, Pseudo-Dirac neutrinos and relic neutrino matter effect on the high-energy neutrino flavor composition , Phys. Lett. B 862 (2025) 139306 [2406.18507]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  58. [58]

    Bustamante, Q

    M. Bustamante, Q. Liu and G. Barenboim, Measuring neutrino mixing above 1 TeV with astrophysical neutrinos, 2602.14308

    arXiv

  59. [59]

    Bustamante, Q

    M. Bustamante, Q. Liu and G. Barenboim, Astrophysical bounds on the high-energy evolution of neutrino mixing , 2604.14409

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  60. [60]

    Kashti and E

    T. Kashti and E. Waxman, Flavoring astrophysical neutrinos: Flavor ratios depend on energy , Phys. Rev. Lett. 95 (2005) 181101 [ astro-ph/0507599]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  61. [61]

    Lipari, M

    P. Lipari, M. Lusignoli and D. Meloni, Flavor Composition and Energy Spectrum of Astrophysical Neutrinos, Phys. Rev. D 75 (2007) 123005 [ 0704.0718]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  62. [62]

    H¨ ummer, M

    S. H¨ ummer, M. Maltoni, W. Winter and C. Yaguna, Energy dependent neutrino flavor ratios from cosmic accelerators on the Hillas plot , Astropart. Phys. 34 (2010) 205 [ 1007.0006]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  63. [63]

    Baerwald, S

    P. Baerwald, S. H¨ ummer and W. Winter,Systematics in the Interpretation of Aggregated Neutrino Flux Limits and Flavor Ratios from Gamma-Ray Bursts , Astropart. Phys. 35 (2012) 508 [1107.5583]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  64. [64]

    Bustamante and I

    M. Bustamante and I. Tamborra, Using high-energy neutrinos as cosmic magnetometers , Phys. Rev. D 102 (2020) 123008 [ 2009.01306]

    arXiv 2020

  65. [65]

    Fiorillo, A

    D.F.G. Fiorillo, A. Van Vliet, S. Morisi and W. Winter, Unified thermal model for photohadronic neutrino production in astrophysical sources , JCAP 07 (2021) 028 [2103.16577]. – 16 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  66. [66]

    Bhattacharya, R

    A. Bhattacharya, R. Enberg, M.H. Reno and I. Sarcevic, Energy-dependent flavour ratios in neutrino telescopes from charm , 2309.09139

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  67. [67]

    Minakata and A.Y

    H. Minakata and A.Y. Smirnov, High-energy cosmic neutrinos and the equivalence principle , Phys. Rev. D 54 (1996) 3698 [ hep-ph/9601311]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  68. [68]

    Shoemaker and K

    I.M. Shoemaker and K. Murase, Probing BSM Neutrino Physics with Flavor and Spectral Distortions: Prospects for Future High-Energy Neutrino Telescopes , Phys. Rev. D93 (2016) 085004 [1512.07228]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  69. [69]

    Abdullahi and P.B

    A. Abdullahi and P.B. Denton, Visible Decay of Astrophysical Neutrinos at IceCube , Phys. Rev. D 102 (2020) 023018 [ 2005.07200]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  70. [70]

    Liu, D.F.G

    Q. Liu, D.F.G. Fiorillo, C.A. Arg¨ uelles, M. Bustamante, N. Song and A.C. Vincent, Identifying energy-dependent flavor transitions in high-energy astrophysical neutrino measurements, Phys. Rev. D 112 (2025) 043019 [ 2312.07649]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  71. [71]

    Gandhi, C

    R. Gandhi, C. Quigg, M.H. Reno and I. Sarcevic, Ultrahigh-energy neutrino interactions, Astropart. Phys. 5 (1996) 81 [ hep-ph/9512364]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  72. [72]

    Formaggio and G.P

    J.A. Formaggio and G.P. Zeller, From eV to EeV: Neutrino Cross Sections Across Energy Scales, Rev. Mod. Phys. 84 (2012) 1307 [ 1305.7513]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  73. [73]

    Glashow, Resonant Scattering of Antineutrinos , Phys

    S.L. Glashow, Resonant Scattering of Antineutrinos , Phys. Rev. 118 (1960) 316

    1960

  74. [74]

    IceCube collaboration, Detection of a particle shower at the Glashow resonance with IceCube, Nature 591 (2021) 220 [ 2110.15051]

    arXiv 2021

  75. [75]

    Brown and F.W

    R.W. Brown and F.W. Stecker, Cosmic Ray Neutrino Tests for Heavier Weak Bosons and Cosmic Antimatter, Phys. Rev. D 26 (1982) 373

    1982

  76. [76]

    Anchordoqui, H

    L.A. Anchordoqui, H. Goldberg, F. Halzen and T.J. Weiler, Neutrinos as a diagnostic of high energy astrophysical processes, Phys. Lett. B621 (2005) 18 [ hep-ph/0410003]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  77. [77]

    Bhattacharya, R

    A. Bhattacharya, R. Gandhi, W. Rodejohann and A. Watanabe, The Glashow resonance at IceCube: signatures, event rates and pp vs. pγ interactions, JCAP 10 (2011) 017 [1108.3163]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  78. [78]

    Xing and S

    Z.-z. Xing and S. Zhou, The Glashow resonance as a discriminator of UHE cosmic neutrinos originating from p-gamma and p-p collisions , Phys. Rev. D84 (2011) 033006 [ 1105.4114]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  79. [79]

    Barger, J

    V. Barger, J. Learned and S. Pakvasa, IceCube PeV Cascade Events Initiated by Electron-Antineutrinos at Glashow Resonance, Phys. Rev. D87 (2013) 037302 [ 1207.4571]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  80. [80]

    Bhattacharya, R

    A. Bhattacharya, R. Gandhi, W. Rodejohann and A. Watanabe, On the interpretation of IceCube cascade events in terms of the Glashow resonance , 1209.2422

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

Showing first 80 references.