Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 6 minor 58 references

Search for dark matter from the center of the Earth with ten years of IceCube data

T0 review · 1 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Ten years of IceCube data find no dark matter signal from Earth's center, and set the best neutrino-telescope limits on WIMP-nucleon scattering above 100 GeV.

desk verdict A careful 10-year IceCube null search that delivers the strongest neutrino-telescope limits for heavy WIMPs; the MC-only background model is a real limitation, but honestly handled. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.12972 v1 pith:ARMCNF4G submitted 2024-12-17 astro-ph.HE hep-ph

The IceCube Collaboration This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEhep-ph
keywords darkmatterWIMPneutrinotelescopemuonneutrinoscenteroftheEarthspin-independentcrosssectionindirectdetectionIceCube
topics Dark Matter
open problems Dark Matter
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper tries to establish whether dark matter particles called WIMPs accumulate and annihilate at the center of the Earth, producing muon neutrinos that a neutrino telescope at the South Pole could see. Using ten years of track-like events (3,266 live days), and testing annihilation into tau+tau-, W+W-, and bbbar at WIMP masses from 10 GeV to 10 TeV, it finds no statistically significant signal. The most signal-like fluctuation is bbbar at 250 GeV with post-trial significance 1.06 sigma, consistent with background. The useful output is a set of 90% confidence upper limits on the spin-independent WIMP-nucleon scattering cross section, which for WIMP masses above 100 GeV are the strongest limits yet set by any neutrino telescope. The result matters because it probes dark matter capture in a different part of the WIMP velocity distribution than direct-detection experiments, so it is a complementary way to rule out dark matter models.

What carries the argument

The central object is a two-dimensional binned profile-likelihood ratio using the reconstructed zenith angle and reconstructed log-energy of each event as observables, with the signal fraction xi as the parameter of interest and background-component normalizations as nuisance parameters. Signal templates come from simulated WIMP annihilation and propagation; background templates come entirely from Monte Carlo simulations, because the source sits at a fixed local-coordinate position and neither right-ascension scrambling nor off-source regions can provide a data-driven background. The physical link from a measured neutrino flux to a cross section is the capture-annihilation balance dN/dt = C_C - C_A $N^{2}$ - C_E N; for Earth-captured WIMPs equilibrium has not been reached, so limits are quoted in the plane of annihilation cross section <sigma_A v> versus spin-independent scattering cross section $\sigma$^SI_chiN, and under the canonical thermal annihilation cross section they reduce to limits on $\sigma$^SI_chiN alone.

What would settle it

Apply the same likelihood to a zenith sideband just outside the signal window (for example 145 degrees to 160 degrees) reweighted by the simulated acceptance; if the best-fit signal fraction or the 90% limits shift by more than the quoted systematic uncertainties, the Monte-Carlo-only background assumption is falsified. A future measurement with more low-energy data that finds a greater than 3 sigma excess at 250 GeV in the bbbar channel would contradict the null result.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes a null result: after 3,266 live days of track-like muon-neutrino events from the direction of Earth's center, testing annihilation into tau+tau-, W+W-, and bbbar at WIMP masses from 10 GeV to 10 TeV, no statistically significant dark matter signal appears. The most signal-like fluctuation is the bbbar channel at 250 GeV, with a post-trial significance of 1.06 $\sigma$. Interpreting the data as background, the collaboration places 90% confidence upper limits on the spin-independent WIMP-nucleon cross section $\sigma$^SI_chiN, and for WIMP masses above 100 GeV these are the strongest limits reported by a neutrino telescope to date. Relative to the previous one-year IceCube search, the improvement is greater than a factor of three across the tested masses and channels, reaching about an order of magnitude for m_chi > 100 GeV.

Load-bearing premise

The entire search assumes the Monte Carlo simulations of atmospheric muons and neutrinos accurately describe the background in the narrow vertical up-going band around the Earth's center, since the source's fixed position leaves no data-driven way to measure the background from an off-source region.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the null result holds, WIMP-nucleon spin-independent cross sections above roughly 100 GeV are excluded more strongly by neutrino telescopes than before, narrowing the parameter space open to WIMP models.
  • The limits are the best among neutrino telescopes and are competitive with crystal-based direct-detection experiments, while liquid-xenon experiments remain about an order of magnitude more sensitive.
  • Because Earth capture favors low-velocity WIMPs and direct detection favors high-velocity recoils, the two search strategies constrain different parts of the WIMP velocity distribution, making the limits complementary rather than redundant.
  • With more data, all neutrino flavors, or the planned detector upgrade, the same method should reach better sensitivity, particularly for WIMP masses below 100 GeV.
  • The agreement between data and Monte Carlo at the best-fit points supports the use of simulated backgrounds for this fixed-direction search.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Beyond the paper: since the results are quoted as upper limits on event counts, the same likelihood can be recast to constrain any specific model of dark matter interactions; publishing the full likelihood grids would let the community do such recasts without rerunning the detector simulation.
  • Beyond the paper: the Monte-Carlo-only background is the most fragile link, so a useful cross-check would be to apply the identical selection to the up-going band just outside the signal region (for instance 145 degrees to 160 degrees zenith) as a data-driven background proxy, even though it is not a true off-source sample.
  • Beyond the paper: combining this Earth-center limit with a Sun-capture limit from the same detector could disentangle spin-independent from spin-dependent WIMP-nucleon coupling, because the Earth's heavy-element composition is dominated by spin-independent scattering.
  • Beyond the paper: the 1.06 sigma fluctuation at m_chi=250 GeV in the bbbar channel is the concrete feature to watch; if it is a real fluctuation it will fade with more data, while growth would signal the first indirect detection of Earth-captured dark matter.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

1 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper reports a search for muon neutrinos from WIMP annihilation at the center of the Earth using 3266 days of IceCube data spanning May 2011 to May 2020. Signal events are simulated with WimpSim/PYTHIA for three annihilation channels (τ+τ−, W+W−, bb̄) and masses from 10 GeV to 10 TeV; backgrounds (atmospheric muons, atmospheric neutrinos, astrophysical neutrinos) are modeled with Corsika, Genie, and NuGen. A dedicated two-tier event selection (low-energy and high-energy BDTs, with roughly 90-95% neutrino purity) is described in Sec. 4. The statistical analysis (Sec. 5) is a binned Poisson profile likelihood in reconstructed zenith and energy, with nested background fractions as profiled nuisance parameters (Eqs. 5-8), Gaussian constraints on background normalizations, and discrete systematic variations. No significant excess is found: the most significant result is χχ → bb̄ at mχ = 250 GeV with a post-trial significance of 1.06σ (Sec. 6). The paper derives 90% C.L. upper limits on the spin-independent WIMP-nucleon cross section (Fig. 8) and claims these are world-leading among neutrino telescopes for mχ > 100 GeV.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper delivers the strongest existing neutrino-telescope constraints on spin-independent WIMP-nucleon scattering for mχ > 100 GeV, improving on the earlier one-year IceCube search by up to an order of magnitude, and its limit formalism (Eq. 9 and the σSI conversion of Sec. 6) is recastable to other dark matter models. The statistical treatment is a genuine strength: a profile-likelihood framework with a nested background decomposition, pseudo-experiment-based sensitivity studies, trial-corrected significances, KDE smoothing with cross-validated bandwidths, Gaussian constraints on astrophysical and Genie/NuGen normalizations, and a broad set of discrete systematic variations covering ice properties, DOM efficiency, atmospheric models, and oscillation parameters. The withholding of a 353-day verification dataset is also good practice. The principal weakness is structural and is explicitly acknowledged in Sec. 3: because the source is fixed in local coordinates, right-ascension scrambling is impossible, and the background shape in the signal region is entirely Monte-Carlo-based; the data/MC agreement shown in Figs.

major comments (1)
  1. [Sec. 3; Sec. 5 (Eqs. 5-8); Figs. 6-7; Eq. (9)] The background model in the signal region is entirely simulation-based, and the uncertainty attached to its shape is load-bearing for the headline limits. As stated in Sec. 3, because the source is fixed at the Earth's center, right-ascension scrambling cannot be used and 'we must rely on Monte Carlo simulations to model the background, for the optimization of the event selection, and for the statistical analysis.' The data/MC comparisons in Figs. 6 and 7 are made after the nuisance parameters η of Eq. (6) are profiled to the same data, so normalization-type nuisance parameters can absorb a systematic shape error in the near-vertical bins; the discrete variations among atmospheric models do not by themselves validate the least-constrained components, namely mis-reconstructed vertical muons and the high-zenith atmospheric neutrino spectrum. Since the 90% C.L. limits of Eq. (9) and the claimed world-leading sensitivity for mχ > 100 GeV follow directly from this background model, I request a quantitative robustness check: (i) a data/MC comparison or goodness-of-fit in the signal region evaluated with the nuisance parameters fixed at their null-hypothesis values, or using the withheld 353-day verification dataset described in Sec. 3; and (ii) an explicit evaluation of the shift in the 90% C.L. limits when an additional shape nuisance is introduced in the vertical region, for example a freely or loosely constrained normalization of the mis-reconstructed-muon component or a tilt of the background zenith distribution near θ ≈ 180°.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. 6] The post-trial significance of 1.06σ is reported without any description of the trial-correction procedure; please specify the number of trials (masses, channels, and the LE/HE selection choice), the method (for instance pseudo-experiments), and how correlations among the trials are handled.
  2. [Eq. (9)] The effective volume Veff appearing in Eq. (9) is never defined; please state how Veff is computed for each selection and WIMP mass and how it depends on the reconstructed-energy range and signal spectrum, since the flux limit is directly proportional to this quantity.
  3. [Fig. 8] The claim that the limits are world-leading among neutrino telescopes for mχ > 100 GeV is substantiated in Fig. 8 only against ANTARES and the previous IceCube search; Super-Kamiokande (Ref. [23]) is cited in the introduction but is absent from the comparison, so the comparison should be completed or the claim narrowed.
  4. [Sec. 5, Eq. (6)] The sentence stating that 'the sum of the parameters, (ξ, η), is equal to 1' is imprecise: in the nested formulation of Eq. (6), the background fractions sum to (1 − ξ) rather than to 1; please clarify the normalization convention.
  5. [Sec. 4] The optimization of the final BDT score threshold is described only qualitatively; please state whether the threshold is chosen per mass/channel and whether the withheld verification sample was used in this optimization to avoid overfitting.
  6. [Fig. 5 caption] The caption of Fig. 5 says 'The LE signal baseline and the atmospheric background are shown,' but the figure displays binned PDFs for the HE analysis; please correct the caption.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the fitted signal fraction and the derived cross-section limits are genuine outputs of the likelihood analysis, not re-statements of the input simulations or fitted parameters.

full rationale

The analysis chain is self-contained with respect to its inputs. Signal expectations are produced from WimpSim/PYTHIA neutrino spectra propagated through a full IceCube detector simulation, while backgrounds come from Corsika, Genie, and NuGen simulations; the quantities actually fitted to data are the signal fraction ξ and background normalization nuisance parameters in Eqs. (5)-(8). The quoted post-trial significance of 1.06σ and the 90% C.L. limits on ξ in Eq. (9) are outputs of the likelihood fit, not restatements of the simulation inputs. The conversion from flux limits to spin-independent WIMP-nucleon cross-section limits uses independent external inputs, namely the capture-rate formula in Eq. (3), the standard halo model parameters, and the canonical annihilation cross-section assumption, making that step model-dependent but not circular. The paper's explicit statement that Monte Carlo simulations must model the background because right-ascension scrambling cannot be used is a genuine systematic limitation of the analysis, but it is an assumption about background modeling rather than a case where a fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The WimpSim and DarkSusy packages have overlapping authorship with the collaboration, but they are externally developed simulation tools and are not invoked as a uniqueness theorem or as the justification for the null result. No circular step can be exhibited from the paper's own equations.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central result rests on standard astrophysical assumptions for the dark matter halo and on the fidelity of the Monte Carlo background simulation. These are not fitted parameters of the analysis but are external inputs. The only fitted parameters are background normalizations, which are nuisance parameters with priors.

free parameters (4)
  • Conventional atmospheric neutrino normalization
    Nuisance parameter in the profile likelihood; constrained by prior knowledge.
  • Astrophysical neutrino normalization
    Nuisance parameter constrained to the 1 sigma band of the IceCube measurement [36].
  • Prompt neutrino normalization
    Nuisance parameter in the nested background decomposition of Eq. (6).
  • Genie/NuGen relative normalization
    Nuisance parameter allowed to vary smoothly in the 100-200 GeV energy range to account for differences between the two neutrino generators.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The local dark matter density is 0.3 GeV/cm^3 and the velocity distribution is a truncated Maxwellian with dispersion 270 km/s and escape velocity 544 km/s.
    Used in Eq. (3) to compute the capture rate; deviations from this halo model change the derived cross-section limits. Section 5 (Systematic uncertainties).
  • domain assumption The WIMP self-annihilation cross section times velocity takes the canonical thermal value of 3e-26 cm^3/s for the quoted sigma_SI limits, or is scanned in the model-independent plane.
    Because the Earth has not reached capture-annihilation equilibrium, the annihilation rate depends on <sigma_A v>; a specific value is required to convert neutrino flux limits to cross-section limits (Sec. 2).
  • domain assumption Evaporation of WIMPs from the Earth is negligible for masses above 10 GeV.
    Allows the use of Eq. (2) without the evaporation term; supported by references [15,16].
  • domain assumption Neutrino absorption in the Earth is negligible for energies below 30 TeV.
    Justifies neglecting absorption in Eq. (4); valid for the mass range considered.
  • domain assumption Each annihilation channel is considered with 100% branching fraction.
    Standard practice in indirect dark matter searches; avoids model-dependent branching ratios but does not cover mixed channels.
  • domain assumption The Monte Carlo simulations accurately model the background.
    The paper states that RA scrambling is not feasible, so the background shape is taken from Corsika and Genie/NuGen simulations (Section 3).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Search for dark matter from the center of the Earth with ten years of IceCube data." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ARMCNF4G

@misc{pith2026241212972,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Search for dark matter from the center of the Earth with ten years of IceCube data},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ARMCNF4G}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.12972}
}
abstract

The nature of dark matter remains unresolved in fundamental physics. Weakly Interacting Massive Particles (WIMPs), which could explain the nature of dark matter, can be captured by celestial bodies like the Sun or Earth, leading to enhanced self-annihilation into Standard Model particles including neutrinos detectable by neutrino telescopes such as the IceCube Neutrino Observatory. This article presents a search for muon neutrinos from the center of the Earth performed with 10 years of IceCube data using a track-like event selection. We considered a number of WIMP annihilation channels ($\chi\chi\rightarrow\tau^+\tau^-$/$W^+W^-$/$b\bar{b}$) and masses ranging from 10 GeV to 10 TeV. No significant excess over background due to a dark matter signal was found while the most significant result corresponds to the annihilation channel $\chi\chi\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ for the mass $m_{\chi}=250$~GeV with a post-trial significance of $1.06\sigma$. Our results are competitive with previous such searches and direct detection experiments. Our upper limits on the spin-independent WIMP scattering are world-leading among neutrino telescopes for WIMP masses $m_{\chi}>100$~GeV.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Aghanim, et al., Astron

    N. Aghanim, et al., Astron. Astrophys. 641, A1 (2020). URL https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201833880

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833880 2020

  2. [2]

    de Swart, et al., Nat

    J.G. de Swart, et al., Nat. Astron. 1(3), 0059 (2017). URL https://doi.org/10.1038/s41550-017-0059

    doi:10.1038/s41550-017-0059 2017

  3. [3]

    Zwicky, Helv

    F. Zwicky, Helv. Chim. Acta. 6, 110 (1933)

    work page 1933

  4. [4]

    Bahcall, et al., Astrophys

    N.A. Bahcall, et al., Astrophys. J. 447(2), L81 (1995)

    work page 1995

  5. [5]

    Bahcall, A

    N.A. Bahcall, A. Kulier, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 439(3), 2505 (2014)

    work page 2014

  6. [6]

    Clowe, et al., Astrophys

    D. Clowe, et al., Astrophys. J. Lett. 648, L109 (2006). URL https://doi.org/10.1086/508162

    doi:10.1086/508162 2006

  7. [7]

    Jungman, et al., Phys

    G. Jungman, et al., Phys. Rept. 267, 195 (1996)

    work page 1996

  8. [8]

    W. Adam, I. Vivarelli, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 37(02) (2022). URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/ S0217751X21300222

    work page 2022

Show all 58 references
  1. [9]

    Rubin, W.K

    V.C. Rubin, W.K. Ford Jr, Astrophys. J. 159, 379 (1970)

    1970

  2. [10]

    Roberts, A

    M. Roberts, A. Rots, Astron. Astrophys. 26, 483 (1973)

    1973

  3. [11]

    Rubin, et al., Astrophys

    V.C. Rubin, et al., Astrophys. J. 238, 471 (1980)

    1980

  4. [12]

    Gould, Astrophys

    A. Gould, Astrophys. J. 321, 571 (1987). URL https: //doi.org/10.1086/165653

    1987 doi

  5. [13]

    Damour, L.M

    T. Damour, L.M. Krauss, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 5726 (1998). URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.81.5726

    1998

  6. [14]

    Baratella, et al., J

    P. Baratella, et al., J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 2014(03), 053 (2014). URL https://dx.doi.org/10. 1088/1475-7516/2014/03/053

    2014

  7. [15]

    Garani, S

    R. Garani, S. Palomares-Ruiz, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 2022(05), 042 (2022). URL https://dx.doi.org/ 10.1088/1475-7516/2022/05/042

    2022 doi

  8. [16]

    Busoni, et al., J

    G. Busoni, et al., J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 2013(07), 010 (2013). URL http://dx.doi.org/10. 1088/1475-7516/2013/07/010

    2013

  9. [17]

    Kolb, The Early Universe , vol

    E.W. Kolb, The Early Universe , vol. 69 (Taylor and Francis, 2019). URL https://doi.org/10.1201/ 9780429492860

    2019

  10. [18]

    Green, P

    A. Green, P. Tanedo, Comput. Phys. Commun. 242, 120 (2019). URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/ science/article/pii/S0010465519301237

    2019

  11. [19]

    Bringmann, et al., J

    T. Bringmann, et al., J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 2018(07), 033 (2018). URL https://doi.org/10.1088/ 1475-7516/2018/07/033

    2018

  12. [21]

    Edsj¨ o, et al

    J. Edsj¨ o, et al. Darksusy, http://www.darksusy.org

  13. [22]

    Albert, et al., Phys

    A. Albert, et al., Phys. Dark Univ. 16, 41 (2017). URL https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dark.2017.04.005

    2017 doi

  14. [23]

    Mijakowski, for the Super-Kamiokande Collaboration, J

    P. Mijakowski, for the Super-Kamiokande Collaboration, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 1342, 012075 (2020). URL https: //doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1342/1/012075

    2020 doi

  15. [24]

    Achterberg, et al., Astropart

    A. Achterberg, et al., Astropart. Phys. 26(2), 129 (2006). URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/ science/article/pii/S0927650506000818

    2006

  16. [26]

    Aartsen, et al., J

    M.G. Aartsen, et al., J. Instrum. 12(03), P03012 (2017). URL https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-0221/12/ 03/P03012

    2017 doi

  17. [27]

    Abbasi, et al., Nucl

    R. Abbasi, et al., Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. 601(3), 294–316 (2009). URL http://dx.doi.org/10. 1016/j.nima.2009.01.001

    2009

  18. [29]

    Abbasi, et al., Nucl

    R. Abbasi, et al., Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. 700, 188 (2013). URL https://doi.org/10.1016/j. nima.2012.10.067

    2013 doi

  19. [30]

    Braun, et al., Astropart

    J. Braun, et al., Astropart. Phys. 33(3), 175–181 (2010). URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.astropartphys. 2010.01.005

    2010 doi

  20. [31]

    Heck, et al., CORSIKA: A Monte Carlo Code to Sim- ulate Extensive Air Showers(FZKA-6019, 1998)

    D. Heck, et al., CORSIKA: A Monte Carlo Code to Sim- ulate Extensive Air Showers(FZKA-6019, 1998)

    1998

  21. [32]

    Andreopoulos, et al., The GENIE Neutrino Monte Carlo Generator: Physics and User Manual (FERMILAB-FN-1004-CD, 2015)

    C. Andreopoulos, et al., The GENIE Neutrino Monte Carlo Generator: Physics and User Manual (FERMILAB-FN-1004-CD, 2015). URL https://doi. org/10.48550/arXiv.1510.05494

    2015 doi arXiv

  22. [33]

    Gazizov, M

    A. Gazizov, M. Kowalski, Comput. Phys. Commun. 172(3), 203 (2005). URL https://www.sciencedirect. com/science/article/pii/S0010465505004194

    2005

  23. [34]

    Cooper-Sarkar, et al., J

    A. Cooper-Sarkar, et al., J. High Energy Phys. 08, 042 (2011). URL https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP08(2011) 042

    2011 doi

  24. [35]

    Enberg, et al., Phys

    R. Enberg, et al., Phys. Rev. D 78, 043005 (2008). URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevD.78.043005

    2008

  25. [36]

    Abbasi, et al., Astrophys

    R. Abbasi, et al., Astrophys. J. 928(1), 50 (2022). URL https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ac4d29

    2022 doi

  26. [37]

    Blennow, J

    M. Blennow, J. Edsj¨ o, T. Ohlsson, J. Cosmol. As- tropart. Phys. WimpSim Neutrino Monte Carlo, http://wimpsim.astroparticle.se/(01), 021 (2008). URL https://doi.org/10.1088%2F1475-7516%2F2008% 2F01%2F021

    2008

  27. [38]

    Edsj¨ o, et al., WimpSim Neutrino Monte Carlo (http://wimpsim.astroparticle.se/)

    J. Edsj¨ o, et al., WimpSim Neutrino Monte Carlo (http://wimpsim.astroparticle.se/)

  28. [39]

    Sj¨ ostrand, et al., J

    T. Sj¨ ostrand, et al., J. High Energy Phys.2006(05), 026 (2006). URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/ 2006/05/026

    2006 doi

  29. [40]

    Abbasi, et al., Nucl

    R. Abbasi, et al., Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. 618(1), 139 (2010). DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nima. 2010.03.102

    2010 doi

  30. [41]

    Renzi, Search for dark matter annihilation in the cen- ter of the earth with ten years of icecube data

    G. Renzi, Search for dark matter annihilation in the cen- ter of the earth with ten years of icecube data. Ph.D. thesis, Universit´ e Libre de Bruxelles (2022) 16

    2022

  31. [42]

    Breiman, Mach

    L. Breiman, Mach. Learn. 45(1), 5 (2001). URL https: //doi.org/10.1023/A:1010933404324

    2001 doi

  32. [43]

    Richman, A search for muon neutrinos cincident with northern Gamma-Ray Bursts using IceCube

    M. Richman, A search for muon neutrinos cincident with northern Gamma-Ray Bursts using IceCube. Ph.D. the- sis, University of Maryland (2015)

    2015

  33. [44]

    Leuermann, Testing the Neutrino Mass Order- ing with IceCube DeepCore

    M. Leuermann, Testing the Neutrino Mass Order- ing with IceCube DeepCore. Ph.D. thesis, R WTH Aachen U. (2018). URL https://doi.org/10.18154/ RWTH-2018-231554

    2018

  34. [45]

    Aartsen, et al., J

    M.G. Aartsen, et al., J. Instrum. 9(03), P03009 (2014). URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-0221/ 9/03/P03009

    2014 doi

  35. [46]

    Pedregosa, et al., J

    F. Pedregosa, et al., J. Mach. Learn. Res. 12, 2825 (2011)

    2011

  36. [47]

    Cowan, et al., Eur

    G. Cowan, et al., Eur. Phys. J. C Part. Fields 71(2), 1 (2011)

    2011

  37. [48]

    Wilks, Annals Math

    S.S. Wilks, Annals Math. Statist. 9(1), 60 (1938). URL https://doi.org/10.1214/aoms/1177732360

    1938

  38. [49]

    Chernoff, Ann

    H. Chernoff, Ann. Math. Stat. 25 (1954)

    1954

  39. [50]

    Baxter, et al., Eur

    D. Baxter, et al., Eur. Phys. J. C81(10), 907 (2021). URL https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-021-09655-y

    2021 doi

  40. [51]

    Ferrer, et al., J

    F. Ferrer, et al., J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 2015(09), 052 (2015). URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/ 1475-7516/2015/09/052

    2015

  41. [52]

    Aartsen, et al., Eur

    M.G. Aartsen, et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 80(9), 819 (2020). URL http://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/ s10052-020-8069-5

    2020 doi

  42. [55]

    Sch¨ oneberg, The spectrum of atmospheric neutrinos above GeV energies

    S. Sch¨ oneberg, The spectrum of atmospheric neutrinos above GeV energies. Ph.D. thesis, Ruhr U., Bochum (main) (2016)

    2016

  43. [56]

    Barr, et al., Phys

    G.D. Barr, et al., Phys. Rev. D 70, 023006 (2004). URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD. 70.023006

    2004 doi

  44. [58]

    Zyla, et al., PTEP 2020(8), 083C01 (2020)

    P. Zyla, et al., PTEP 2020(8), 083C01 (2020). URL https://doi.org/10.1093/ptep/ptaa104. And 2021 up- date

    2020 doi

  45. [59]

    Albert, et al., Phys

    A. Albert, et al., Phys. Rev. D 102, 082002 (2020). URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevD.102.082002

    2020

  46. [63]

    Aalbers, et al., Phys

    J. Aalbers, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 041002 (2023). URL https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett. 131.041002

    2023 doi

  47. [64]

    Bernabei, et al., Nucl

    R. Bernabei, et al., Nucl. Phys. At. Energy 19, 307 (2018). URL https://doi.org/10.15407/jnpae2018. 04.307

    2018 doi

  48. [65]

    Catena, J

    R. Catena, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 2017(01), 059 (2017). URL https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/ 2017/01/059

    2017 doi

  49. [66]

    Ishihara, for the IceCube Collaboration, PoS ICRC2019, 1031 (2021)

    A. Ishihara, for the IceCube Collaboration, PoS ICRC2019, 1031 (2021). URL https://doi.org/10. 22323/1.358.1031

    2021

  50. [67]

    Baur, for the IceCube Collaboration, PoS ICRC2019, 506 (2019)

    S. Baur, for the IceCube Collaboration, PoS ICRC2019, 506 (2019). URL https://doi.org/10.22323/1.358. 0506

    2019 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.