Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 8 minor 42 references

Combined simulations show radar echoes from cosmic-ray cascades in ice can be separated from radio emission and detected in RET-CR bandwidth.

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 · grok-4.5

2026-07-31 04:59 UTC pith:5ANQXLIA

load-bearing objection Useful first joint FAERIE+MARES survey for RET-CR; the narrowband “radar beats Askaryan” claim is real but rests on single-path MARES and needs multi-path stress before you treat the heat map as settled. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.24955 v1 pith:5ANQXLIA submitted 2026-07-27 astro-ph.HE

Simulation of combined radio and radar signals at the Radar Echo Telescope for Cosmic Rays

K. Nivedita , I. Loudon , J. Loonen , P. Allison , J. J. Beatty , D. Z. Besson , A. Connolly , A. Cummings
show 24 more authors
C. Deaconu S. de Kockere K. D. de Vries I. Esteban D. Frikken C. Hast E. Huesca Santiago C.-Y. Kuo A. Kyriacou U. A. Latif V. Lukic C. McLennan K. Mulrey J. Nam S. Prohira J. P. Ralston M. F. H. Seikh N. Shahid R. S. Stanley J. Stoffels S. Toscano D. van den Broeck N. van Eijndhoven S. Wissel
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords neutrinoscosmic raysradar techniqueAskaryan emissiongeomagnetic emissionin-ice neutrino detectionRET-CRradio detection
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 builds the first end-to-end simulation that puts three signals together at the shallow in-ice receivers of the Radar Echo Telescope for Cosmic Rays: radio from the air shower, Askaryan radio from the secondary cascade in ice, and the radar echo reflected from that cascade’s ionization trail. The goal is to show whether the radar return can be picked out of the stronger broadband radio backgrounds under the geometries and transmit powers actually used in the 2024 campaign. The authors find that arrival-time offsets and a narrow band around the transmitter frequency let the radar component stand out for many shower directions and core locations, even though the unfiltered radio fields are larger. A first-order conversion to voltage with bandpass filtering and thermal noise still leaves the radar and in-ice Askaryan visible above noise in representative cases. The result matters because a working radar technique on cosmic-ray secondaries would validate the method for a future neutrino telescope that needs enormous target volumes at energies above 10 PeV.

Core claim

At the 136 W and 544 W transmit powers used in the 2024 RET-CR run, the radar echo is often detectable inside the receiver bandwidth and can exceed the vertically polarized in-ice Askaryan component inside a narrow 170–200 MHz window for most geometries of interest; arrival-time and spectral differences separate the three emission mechanisms.

What carries the argument

A chained simulation package: CORSIKA/CoREAS plus FAERIE/Geant4 produce the air-shower and in-ice cascade plus their radio fields, while the Geant4 energy-deposit profile sets the parameters of the analytic cascade that MARES uses to compute the radar echo, so all three signals share a common shower.

Load-bearing premise

The radar calculation is driven by an analytic cascade whose parameters are only approximately matched to the full particle simulation, and it still treats only one propagation path at a time, so the relative radar-to-Askaryan amplitudes that claim detectability can shift if that matching or single-path treatment is wrong.

What would settle it

In the 2024 RET-CR data, search the narrow band around 182 MHz for radar-like pulses whose arrival times relative to the earlier air-shower radio match the geometry-dependent delays predicted by the combined simulation; absence of such candidates at the expected rates and powers would falsify the detectability claim.

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

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • Radar-echo searches in existing RET-CR data can be restricted to narrow frequency windows and short time gates relative to the air-shower radio trigger.
  • Geometry-dependent power-ratio maps tell which shower zenith and azimuth combinations are most favorable for radar over Askaryan.
  • Bandpass filtering around the transmitter frequency suppresses much of the broadband radio power, improving radar contrast at the voltages actually recorded.
  • A validated cosmic-ray radar channel would directly support scaling the same technique to a larger in-ice neutrino array.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Because the three signals share a common shower vertex, multi-receiver timing differences could reconstruct core location even when the radar pulse itself is weak.
  • Omitting coherent interference between direct and surface-reflected illumination before scatter is the next simulation upgrade most likely to change predicted radar amplitudes at shallow depths.
  • The same combined framework can be re-run at lower primary energies to forecast the threshold at which radar ceases to beat thermal noise inside the RET band.

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

3 major / 8 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents the first combined simulation study of the full signal expected at the shallow in-ice receivers of the RET-CR pathfinder at Summit Station, Greenland. Three emission components are modeled for the same cosmic-ray events: in-air geomagnetic/Askaryan radio emission and in-ice Askaryan emission (via CORSIKA+CoREAS and Geant4 within the FAERIE framework, using the endpoint formalism), and the radar echo at 182.16 MHz from the in-ice cascade ionization trail (via MARES, with transmitter powers of 136 W and 544 W matching the 2024 campaign). The authors harmonize timing conventions across the codes, propagate the Geant4 energy-deposit profile into the NKG-based analytic cascade used by MARES, and study representative geometries: signal polarization content, arrival-time separations, and a zenith/azimuth heat map of the radar-to-Askaryan power ratio in a 170–200 MHz band. A first-order voltage-domain estimate with a simplified sin²Θ dipole response, bandpass filtering, and thermal noise suggests the radar echo can be visible above noise in-band. The central claim is that at the 2024 transmitter powers the radar echo is often detectable within the receiver bandwidth and can exceed the vertically polarized in-ice Askaryan component in 170–200 MHz for most geometries of interest, while timing and spectral features separate the three components.

Significance. If the results hold, this is a timely and practically important contribution: RET-CR's echo search is underway on 2024 data, and this work supplies the expected signal morphology — spectra, footprints, and arrival-time observables — needed to design and interpret that search. Strengths worth naming: it is a pure forward simulation of established emission/scattering physics, with outputs not fitted to the data it is meant to guide; the approximations (near-field cascade geometry, single-path MARES propagation, sin²Θ effective-length antenna, no full system response) are explicitly disclosed in §2.5 and §3.3; and it produces concrete, falsifiable guidance (the 170–200 MHz window, the 10–60 ns radar–Askaryan time separation, the geometry dependence in Fig. 8) that can be checked against the existing O(10^5)-event dataset. The main caveat on significance is that the quantitative headline — radar echo exceeding the Askaryan component in-band for most geometries — currently carries unquantified systematic uncertainty from the multipath and cascade-matching issues noted below.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.5, Fig. 8, Eq. (1)] §2.5 / Figs. 5, 7, 8: the headline result — that the radar echo exceeds the in-ice Askaryan component in 170–200 MHz 'for most geometries of interest' (Fig. 8 heat map, Eq. 1) — rests on MARES runs that treat only one propagation path (direct or surface-reflected) at a time. At 182.16 MHz the in-firn wavelength is of order 0.9–1.3 m, while TX and RX are at 10 m depth with lateral separations of tens of meters, so the direct/reflected path difference spans many wavelengths across the geometry grid. The omitted coherent interference therefore modulates the illuminating field (and, reciprocally, the cascade-to-receiver path) by several dB, plausibly ±6–12 dB in received echo power — comparable to or larger than the margin by which the radar exceeds Askaryan in the yellow-band spectra of Figs. 5 and 7. Two things are needed: (i) state explicitly which path was used for each MARES run enterin
  2. [§2.4, Fig. 2] §2.4: the MARES radar amplitudes that underwrite the power-ratio map depend on the NKG-style analytic cascade whose parameters are 'informed' by the Geant4 energy-deposit profile from FAERIE, but no quantitative comparison of the two profiles is shown. Figure 2 displays the Geant4 deposit, yet there is no overlaid NKG fit, no statement of which parameters are matched (total energy? shower maximum? longitudinal profile?), and no estimate of the residual mismatch or its propagation into echo amplitude. Since MARES echo power scales with the ionization profile, the radar-vs-Askaryan comparison in Figs. 7–8 inherits whatever systematic offset this matching introduces. Please add a quantitative comparison figure (e.g., longitudinal deposit: Geant4 vs. the analytic cascade used) and state the resulting uncertainty on the radar amplitude, at least at the level of a dB-scale band on Fig. 8.
  3. [§3.2.2, Fig. 8, §4] §3.2.2 / Fig. 8: the heat map is built from five discrete zenith angles (0°, 10°, ..., 40°) at a single primary energy (10^18 eV) and two transmitter powers, yet the Conclusion generalizes to detectability 'depending on the cascade geometry' at 136/544 W. Given the known steep geometry dependence (Cherenkov-cone intersection, Doppler shift at r3), the map's coarse sampling makes 'most geometries of interest' hard to evaluate. Please state the azimuthal sampling used in Fig. 8, clarify whether points between the simulated zeniths are interpolated, and indicate how sensitive the >0 dB region boundaries are to the 10° zenith spacing and to the choice of 10^18 eV (e.g., does the conclusion survive at 10^17 eV, the energy used in §3.1–3.2.1?).
minor comments (8)
  1. [§1.1 vs §2.2] §1.1 states a maximum output of 20 W per transmitter element, while §2.2 uses 5 W nominal for the 2024 run (8.5 W effective with gain). Please clarify the discrepancy and add a sentence on how well coherent N² phasing is achieved in practice, since the 136/544 W figures enter the detectability conclusions directly.
  2. [Fig. 7 caption] The caption of Fig. 7 says the receivers 'are located on the ice surface,' but §3.2.2 and Fig. 3(iii) place all antennas at 10 m depth. Please correct the caption.
  3. [§3.3, Fig. 9] §3.3 states a 100–300 MHz bandpass to match the RET in-ice antennas, but Fig. 9 uses 150–250 MHz; the Vrms values are quoted for 200 MHz and 100 MHz bandwidths. Please make the bandwidth choices consistent throughout, or explain why they differ.
  4. [§3.3] The thermal-noise expression Vrms = √(k_B T R Δf) omits the conventional factor of 4 (i.e., √(4k_BTRΔf)); the quoted 6.33 μV corresponds to the former convention. Either convention is defensible for an available-power estimate, but please state which is used and why.
  5. [References; §1.1] Reference 'et al, G., 2025' (surface-station reconstruction, PoS 274) has a placeholder author name; please fix. Also 'output of of 20 W' in §1.1 is a typo.
  6. [§3.3, Eq. (2)] Eq. (2): L_eff is written as a function of (Θ, Φ) but depends only on Θ; either drop Φ or note the assumed azimuthal symmetry explicitly. Relatedly, since L_eff has no frequency dependence, a sentence noting how this affects the Fig. 9 spectra relative to a real LPDA/dipole response would help readers calibrate the 'first-order' caveat.
  7. [Figs. 4, 6, 11] Figs. 4, 6, 11: the scaling factors applied 'for clarity' (0.1 for radio, 10 for radar) are disclosed, which is good practice; consider also stating absolute peak field strengths for one representative trace in the text so readers can anchor amplitudes without reading off scaled axes.
  8. [Fig. 8] Fig. 8: the transmitter marker and shower-core marker are defined, but the angular/radial coordinates of the heat map (azimuth relative to +X vs. polar angle) could be labeled more explicitly; as drawn it takes effort to connect the map to the Fig. 3(iii) geometry.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Forward multi-physics simulation; no prediction reduces to its inputs by construction.

full rationale

The paper builds a combined simulation chain (FAERIE/CORSIKA–Geant4 for in-air and in-ice radio; MARES for radar echoes) and reports electric-field traces, spectra, arrival-time differences, and a narrow-band power-ratio heat map over geometry. Those outputs are Monte Carlo / semi-analytic forward predictions under stated modeling choices (plasma lifetime 10 ns, NKG-informed cascade parameters matched to Geant4 deposits, single propagation path in MARES, simplified dipole response). Nothing is fitted to RET-CR echo-search data and then re-presented as a prediction of the same data; there is no uniqueness theorem, no ansatz smuggled in as a forced result, and no renaming of an empirical pattern as a derivation. Self-citations (FAERIE, MARES, SLAC T-576, RET-CR layout) supply codes, lab validation, and experimental context—they do not make the reported radar-vs-Askaryan ratios true by definition. Modeling limitations (single-path illumination, approximate cascade matching) affect correctness risk, not circularity. Score 0; steps empty.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The claim rests on standard cascade and radio-emission machinery plus a few RET-specific modeling choices (plasma lifetime, single-path MARES, simplified antenna, Geant4→NKG handoff). No new physical entities are postulated; free parameters are mostly operational settings of the 2024 run or conventional Monte Carlo knobs.

free parameters (5)
  • plasma_lifetime = 10 ns
    Fixed at 10 ns following Huesca Santiago et al. 2024; directly scales radar echo strength and is not re-derived here.
  • transmitter_power_configs = 136 W and 544 W
    136 W (4 elements) and 544 W (8 elements) coherent phasing used as the two benchmark powers matching the 2024 run; detectability statements are power-dependent.
  • CORSIKA_thinning = ε=1e-6, w_max=100
    ε=1e-6, w_max=100, r_max=0 set by hand in Appendix A; affects particle statistics fed into FAERIE.
  • simplified_L_eff_antenna = sin²(Θ), bandpass 150–250 MHz
    L_eff = sin²(Θ) with no frequency dependence, plus external 100–300 or 150–250 MHz bandpass; chosen for first-order voltage estimates in §3.3.
  • thermal_noise_T_R = T=290 K, R=50 Ω
    Johnson noise with T=290 K, R=50 Ω, Δf=200 MHz (V_rms≈6.33 μV) assumed for detectability demo.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Endpoint formalism (as in CoREAS) correctly computes radio emission from air and in-ice cascades at the observer.
    Invoked via FAERIE/CoREAS in §2.1; standard in the radio-shower community but not re-validated here.
  • domain assumption Macroscopic MARES radar scattering on an NKG-like ionization profile adequately represents the echo from the Geant4 cascade.
    §2.2 and §2.4 couple Geant4 deposits into MARES analytic cascades; central to radar amplitudes.
  • domain assumption Greenland firn refractive-index / density profile from Deaconu et al. 2018 and the five-layer GDAS atmosphere in Table 1 describe the RET-CR site.
    Used for CORSIKA, Geant4 ice, and RadioPropa ray tracing (§2.1, Appendix A–B).
  • ad hoc to paper Only one of direct or surface-reflected illumination is needed per MARES run; multi-path coherent interference before scatter can be neglected for this study.
    Explicit caveat in §2.5; load-bearing for absolute radar field predictions at shallow geometry.
  • domain assumption Far-field Cherenkov-cone parameterizations (e.g. AMVZ) do not apply at RET-CR shallow depths; geometry-dependent interference must be simulated microscopically.
    Stated in §2.5 and used to interpret off-cone power in §3.1.

pith-pipeline@v1.2.0-grok45-kimik3 · 18984 in / 3664 out tokens · 74493 ms · 2026-07-31T04:59:20.634096+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Simulation of combined radio and radar signals at the Radar Echo Telescope for Cosmic Rays." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5ANQXLIA

@misc{pith2026260724955,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Simulation of combined radio and radar signals at the Radar Echo Telescope for Cosmic Rays},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5ANQXLIA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.24955}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

To explore neutrino astronomy at high energies (> 10 PeV), the Radar Echo Telescope for Cosmic Rays (RET-CR) was developed to assess the feasibility of a radar technique for detecting particle cascades in ice, serving as a precursor to the Radar Echo Telescope for Neutrinos (RET-N). The main concept of RET-CR is that, as a high-energy cosmic-ray air-shower core propagates into the high-altitude ice sheet, a dense secondary-particle cascade is created, which is very similar to that of an in-ice high-energy neutrino-induced cascade. At RET-CR, the expected signal consists of three distinct components: radio emission from the in-air particle shower, Askaryan radio emission from the secondary in-ice cascade, and the radar signal itself arising from the reflection of the transmitted radio signal from the ionisation trail of the in-ice secondary cascade. In this work, we present the first combined simulation-based package and study aimed at characterising the combined radio and radar signals at the in-ice receivers at RET-CR. We describe the simulation framework and provide a detailed discussion of the salient features of the radio and radar signals, including their spatial footprints and temporal characteristics, as predicted for the shallow in-ice detectors.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.24955 by A. Connolly, A. Cummings, A. Kyriacou, C. Deaconu, C. Hast, C. McLennan, C.-Y. Kuo, D. Frikken, D. Van den Broeck, D. Z. Besson, E. Huesca Santiago, I. Esteban, I. Loudon, J. J. Beatty, J. Loonen, J. Nam, J. P. Ralston, J. Stoffels, K. D. de Vries, K. Mulrey, K. Nivedita, M. F. H. Seikh, N. Shahid, N. van Eijndhoven, P. Allison, R. S. Stanley, S. de Kockere, S. Prohira, S. Toscano, S. Wissel, U. A. Latif, V. Lukic.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The RET-CR experimental layout (taken from GNSS satellite survey) is depicted. The surface stations (SS) ((+) denotes the scintillator panels, while the solid triangles (▴) denote the radio antennas), and the in-ice radar system (TX and RX) are labelled. 1.1. The Radar Echo Telescope The Radar Echo Telescope (RET) explores a new radar￾based detection technique for high- and ultra-high-energy neutrinos. The… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Simulated energy density profile for an in-ice sec￾ondary cascade from Geant4, from a cosmic–ray proton primary of 1017 eV. A receiver at close proximity (within 1.5 m) to the shower vertex is also displayed to demonstrate RET-CR receiver antenna depths with the in-ice cascade geometry. help distinguish the radar echo from the in-air and in-ice radio emission, providing additional information about the cos… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Simulation configurations considered in this work. (i) Representative RET-CR geometry for a vertical 1017 eV proton￾induced air shower with shower core located at (−20, 0, 0) m. The radar system follows the RET-CR layout shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Combined radio and radar signals simulated for all polarizations at the three RET-CR receivers for the geometry shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Combined radio and radar spectrum simulated for all polarizations at the three RET-CR receivers for the geometry shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Left: Arrival-time difference as a function of observer position relative to the shower vertex, evaluated for various observer locations between −60 m and +60 m. The dashed vertical lines indicate the three representative observer positions at 10 m, 30 m, and 50 m from the vertex. Right: Simulated signals for these three observer locations. The corresponding geometry is shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/f… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Simulated vertically polarised electric-field spectra at receiver locations corresponding to azimuthal angles 𝜙 = 0◦ , 90◦ , and 180◦ relative to the in-ice cascade, for air showers with zenith angles 𝜃 = 0◦–40◦ (top to bottom). The detector geometry is shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Heat map that depicts regions with higher radar emission in a narrow bandwidth of 170-200 MHz. Zenith angles for the secondary cascade are 0 ◦ , 10◦ , 20◦ , 30◦ , and 40◦ . The transmitter (TX) is indicated by (▴), while the shower core is marked by (★). by 𝐿ef f (Θ, Φ) = sin2 (Θ), (2) to approximate the detector response. Here Θ and Φ are the polar and azimuthal angles of the incoming signal. The antenna … view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Top: First order demonstration for voltage estimates at RET-CR within a bandpass of 150–250 MHz, for a cosmic ray primary proton of energy 1018eV and a vertical shower. Bottom: Signal Spectrum for the corresponding time windows corresponding to the three signal components - CR Radio (left), In-ice Askaryan (center), and radar signal (right). We observe that in the time domain voltage estimates, the in-ice … view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Raytracing solutions for section 3.3 parameters 𝜀 = 10−6 , 𝑤max = 100, and 𝑟max = 0. The Greenland ice profiles are taken from previous studies, as described in (Deaconu et al., 2018). The atmospheric model is represented by five consecutive layers. The lower four layers follow an exponential profile, 𝑇 (ℎ) = 𝑎𝑖 + 𝑏𝑖 𝑒 −ℎ∕𝑐𝑖 , 𝑖 = 1, 2, 3, 4, while the uppermost layer is described by 𝑇 (ℎ) = 𝑎5 − 𝑏5ℎ∕𝑐5 .… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The simulated electric fields at locations corresponding the geometry in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The spectrogram with only in-air and in-ice Askaryan radio contributions, corresponding to three receiver azimuthal directions, 𝑟1 , 𝑟2 , and 𝑟3 , for the simulated signals in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The spectrograms with all radio and radar contributions, corresponding to three receiver azimuthal directions, 𝑟1 , 𝑟2 , and 𝑟3 , for the simulated signals in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Radial energy footprint from i) in-air radio ii) in-ice Askaryan iii) radar signals (left to right) at a depth of 10 m in ice for 100 PeV for shower of zenithal directions 0 ◦ ,10◦ ,20◦ , 30◦ , and 40◦ (top to bottom) First Author et al.: Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 16 of 12 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_14.png] view at source ↗

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

42 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    High-Energy Neutrino Astrophysics , volume =

    Learned, John and Mannheim, Kai , year =. High-Energy Neutrino Astrophysics , volume =. Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science , doi =

  2. [2]

    and Klein, S

    Halzen, F. and Klein, S. R. , title =. Rev. Sci. Instrum. , volume =. 2010 , pages =

    2010

  3. [3]

    Aartsen, M. G. and others. Evidence for High-Energy Extraterrestrial Neutrinos at the IceCube Detector. Science. 2013. doi:10.1126/science.1242856. arXiv:1311.5238

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  4. [4]

    Observation of High-Energy Astrophysical Neutrinos in Three Years of IceCube Data , author =. Phys. Rev. Lett. , volume =. 2014 , month =. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.101101 , url =

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.113.101101 2014

  5. [5]

    2025 , pages =

    Observation of an ultra-high-energy cosmic neutrino with KM3NeT , journal =. 2025 , pages =

    2025

  6. [6]

    Askar'yan, G. A. , title =. Sov. Phys. JETP , volume =. 1962 , pages =

    1962

  7. [7]

    Askar'yan, G. A. , title =. Sov. Phys. JETP , volume =. 1965 , pages =

    1965

  8. [8]

    The Giant Radio Array for Neutrino Detection (GRAND): Science and Design , journal =

    Alvarez-Mu. The Giant Radio Array for Neutrino Detection (GRAND): Science and Design , journal =. 2020 , pages =. doi:10.1007/s11433-018-9385-7 , eprint =

    doi:10.1007/s11433-018-9385-7 2020

  9. [9]

    and others , title =

    Allison, P. and others , title =. Phys. Rev. D , volume =. 2020 , pages =

    2020

  10. [10]

    Barwick, S. W. and others. Radio detection of air showers with the ARIANNA experiment on the Ross Ice Shelf. Astropart. Phys. 2017. doi:10.1016/j.astropartphys.2017.02.003. arXiv:1612.04473

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  11. [11]

    Aguilar, J. A. and others , title =. J. Instrum. , volume =. 2021 , pages =

    2021

  12. [12]

    Observation of Radar Echoes from High-Energy Particle Cascades , author =. Phys. Rev. Lett. , volume =. 2020 , month =. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.124.091101 , url =

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.124.091101 2020

  13. [13]

    and others , title =

    Prohira, S. and others , title =. Phys. Rev. D , volume =. 2021 , pages =

    2021

  14. [14]

    and others , title =

    Prohira, S. and others , title =. Physical Review D , issn =. 2019 , month =. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.100.072003 , url =

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.100.072003 2019

  15. [15]

    and others , title =

    Allison, P. and others , title =. 2024 , eprint =

    2024

  16. [16]

    Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series A , year = 1966, month = jan, volume =

    Radiation from Cosmic Ray Air Showers. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series A , year = 1966, month = jan, volume =. doi:10.1098/rspa.1966.0007 , adsurl =

    arXiv 1966

  17. [17]

    Simulation of radio signals from cosmic-ray cascades in air and ice as observed by in-ice Askaryan radio detectors , author =. Phys. Rev. D , volume =. 2024 , month =. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.023010 , url =

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.110.023010 2024

  18. [18]

    and Ludwig, M

    Huege, T. and Ludwig, M. and James, C. W. , title =. AIP Conf. Proc. , volume =. 2013 , pages =. doi:10.1063/1.4807534 , eprint =

    doi:10.1063/1.4807534 2013

  19. [19]

    and others , title =

    Agostinelli, S. and others , title =. Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A , volume =. 2003 , pages =

    2003

  20. [20]

    Macroscopic approach to the radar echo scatter from high-energy particle cascades , author =. Phys. Rev. D , volume =. 2024 , month =. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.109.083012 , url =

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.109.083012 2024

  21. [21]

    and others , title =

    Heck, D. and others , title =

  22. [22]

    James, C. W. and Falcke, H. and Huege, T. and Ludwig, M. , title =. Phys. Rev. E , volume =. 2011 , pages =. 1007.4146 , archivePrefix =

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  23. [23]

    and others , title =

    Deaconu, C. and others , title =. Phys. Rev. D , volume =. 2018 , pages =. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.98.043010 , eprint =

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.98.043010 2018

  24. [24]

    and others , title =

    Avva, J. and others , title =. J. Glaciol. , volume =. 2015 , pages =

    2015

  25. [25]

    and Glaser, C

    Coleman, A. and Glaser, C. and Barwick, S. and Besson, D. , title =. Astropart. Phys. , year =

  26. [26]

    and Kamata, K

    Nishimura, J. and Kamata, K. , title =. Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. , volume =. 1958 , pages =

    1958

  27. [27]

    High Energy Cosmic Ray reconstructions using the surface stations of the Radar Echo Telescope (RET) , doi =

    Gopinath.K.N et al , year =. High Energy Cosmic Ray reconstructions using the surface stations of the Radar Echo Telescope (RET) , doi =

  28. [28]

    and Chen, C.-C

    Hu, C.-Y. and Chen, C.-C. and Chen, P. , title =. 2010 , eprint =

    2010

  29. [29]

    EPJ Web of Conferences , volume =

    Haungs, Andreas for the IceCube Collaboration , title =. EPJ Web of Conferences , volume =. 2019 , doi =

    2019

  30. [30]

    Wilson, J. G. and Greisen, K. , year =. Progress in

  31. [31]

    2023 , howpublished =

    Latif, Uzair , title =. 2023 , howpublished =

    2023

  32. [32]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.01780 , year =

    Winchen, Tobias , title =. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.01780 , year =

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  33. [33]

    and others , title =

    de Vries, Krijn D. and others , title =. Astroparticle Physics , volume =. 2016 , doi =

    2016

  34. [34]

    and de Vries, Krijn D

    De Kockere, Simon and van Eijndhoven, Nick and Latif, Uzair A. and de Vries, Krijn D. , title =. Physical Review D , volume =. 2022 , doi =

    2022

  35. [35]

    Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment , volume =

    Scholten, Olaf and Werner, Klaus , title =. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment , volume =. 2009 , doi =

    2009

  36. [36]

    Proceedings of Science , volume =

    Frikken, Dylan for the RET Collaboration , title =. Proceedings of Science , volume =. 2024 , publisher =

    2024

  37. [37]

    Proceedings of Science: 39th International Cosmic Ray Conference (ICRC2025) , series =

    Dylan Frikken , title =. Proceedings of Science: 39th International Cosmic Ray Conference (ICRC2025) , series =. 2025 , doi =

    2025

  38. [38]

    2017 , series =

    Anne Zilles , title =. 2017 , series =

    2017

  39. [39]

    and others

    Alden, N. and others. Observation of In-Ice Askaryan Radiation from High-Energy Cosmic Rays. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2026. doi:10.1103/xwqy-yzrk. arXiv:2510.21104

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  40. [40]

    Physical Review D—Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology , volume=

    Coherent radio pulses from showers in different media: A unified parametrization , author=. Physical Review D—Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology , volume=. 2006 , publisher=

    2006

  41. [41]

    , title =

    Ackermann, Markus et al. , title =. Journal of High Energy Astrophysics , volume =. 2022 , doi =. 2203.08096 , archivePrefix =

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  42. [42]

    Modelling

    Loudon, Isha et al , month = jun, year =. Modelling. PoS , volume =