Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

The Hybrid Elevated Radio Observatory for Neutrinos (HERON) Project

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read With 936 antennas, HERON aims to beat 10,000-antenna rivals

desk verdict A well-structured, honest design study whose headline sensitivity claim is a projection—the phased-array trigger path that would deliver sub-100 PeV sensitivity is not simulated in this paper. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.04382 v3 pith:B2HWOJCP submitted 2025-07-06 astro-ph.IM astro-ph.HEhep-ph

Kumiko Kotera , Ingo Allekotte , Jaime Alvarez-Muñiz , Sergio Cabana-Freire , Valentin Decoene , Luciano Ferreyro , Arsène Ferrière , Matias Hampel
show 6 more authors
Olivier Martineau-Huynh Valentin Niess Federico Sanchez Stephanie Wissel Andrew Zeolla (for the BEACON GRAND Collaborations)
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.IMastro-ph.HEhep-ph
keywords ultra-high-energyneutrinosradiodetectiontauairshowersphasedantennaarraysparsetransientneutrinosourcesmulti-messengerastronomySanJuansite
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

HERON is a proposed radio observatory for ultra-high-energy neutrinos, designed as a hybrid of two existing techniques: 24 dense phased-array stations that trigger on faint radio pulses, and 360 sparse standalone antennas that reconstruct the arriving shower. The paper claims that with fewer than 1,000 antennas, this layout reaches an instantaneous sensitivity above that of GRAND10k and BEACON-24, extends the energy threshold below 100 PeV, and achieves sub-degree angular resolution. That combination would let a single instrument act as a discovery instrument for transient neutrino sources such as gamma-ray bursts and magnetars, rather than waiting for a much larger array. The quantitative case rests on end-to-end simulations of tau neutrinos emerging from the ground in the San Juan valley, with the standalone antennas beamformed to a spherical wavefront.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the two-tier trigger-and-reconstruction architecture. Each phased station digitally delays and sums 24 antenna signals to form beams aimed at the horizon, lowering the energy threshold below 100 PeV; when a phased station triggers, it alerts the 30-45 nearby standalone antennas, which buffer a few milliseconds of waveform and then send the event to the central DAQ. The standalone antennas self-trigger as well, and their long baselines allow beamforming scans that map the shower's coherence peak and recover the trajectory. The site's topography, a 30-60 km wide valley flanked by 2,000 m ridges, is itself part of the machinery: the valley provides a large target volume for tau neutrinos to interact and emerge, and the paper's simulations show topography roughly doubles the effective area relative to a flat spherical Earth. The quantitative performance figures come from DANTON simulations of about 1,000 tau-decay events at neutrino energies $2\times10^{7}$ to $10^{9}$ GeV, with galactic noise $\sigma = 22\,\mu\mathrm{V/m}$ and spherical-wavefront beamforming in the 50-200 MHz band.

What would settle it

Deploy one full HERON-style phased station with its 24 antennas and the surrounding 15 standalone antennas at the chosen San Juan site for a year, and compare the measured rate and signal-to-noise of impulsive radio events to the DANTON-based prediction. If the measured events are absent or their signal-to-noise falls short of the simulated distribution to a degree that no trigger threshold setting recovers the predicted 100 PeV sensitivity, the central claim is contradicted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a hybrid array in which BEACON-style phased stations provide the low-energy trigger and GRAND-style sparse antennas provide the reconstruction can outperform both parent concepts. HERON's design uses 24 phased stations, each with 24 dual-polarized antennas, spaced 3 km apart along a 72 km mountain ridge, plus 15 standalone antennas between stations, 360 total. According to the simulated effective area and fluence sensitivity, this 936-antenna instrument is more sensitive instantaneously than GRAND10k (10,000 antennas) and BEACON-24, reaches neutrino energies below 100 PeV where the flux is higher, and reconstructs arrival directions to about $0.4^\circ$ on average with standalone data alone. The paper further claims that in 5-10 years HERON could detect neutrinos around 300 PeV from a realistic sample of short gamma-ray bursts linked to binary neutron star mergers, and around 3000 PeV from long bursts, making it a discovery instrument for transient astrophysical sources.

Load-bearing premise

Everything below 100 PeV hinges on the unvalidated assumption that radio pulses from Earth-emergent tau air showers are as strong and coherent in the 30-200 MHz band at the San Juan site as DANTON models them to be, with anthropogenic noise low enough not to mask the trigger.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • With fewer than 1,000 antennas, HERON would reach instantaneous sensitivity comparable to or better than GRAND10k and BEACON-24, lowering the cost barrier for large-aperture neutrino astronomy.
  • The sub-100 PeV threshold lets HERON connect to the IceCube energy range, extending multi-messenger neutrino observations upward by about an order of magnitude.
  • Sub-degree angular resolution on neutrino-induced showers would allow point-source identification and rapid target-of-opportunity follow-up inside a multi-messenger network.
  • In 5-10 years, HERON could detect roughly 300 PeV neutrinos from short GRBs and 3000 PeV from long GRBs, using source lists from Fermi GBM and SVOM folded with its sky coverage.
  • A scaled HERON-200 over two or four mountain ridges would shrink the time needed to accumulate triggered GRB events in proportion to the number of sites.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the sub-100 PeV threshold is realised, the same phased-array trigger logic could be adapted to search for downward air showers from cosmic rays, giving the instrument a dual use as an air-shower radio detector.
  • The 30-80 MHz band choice is the main untested risk; a prototype that quantifies anthropogenic radio interference at the San Juan site and measures signal coherence would discriminate between the optimistic and pessimistic sensitivity predictions.
  • HERON's narrow instantaneous field of view could be paired with IceCube's all-sky alerts so that a coincident 100 PeV to 1 EeV burst tests hadronic emission models for gamma-ray bursts and magnetars.
  • Extending the paper's fluence-sensitivity calculation to other transient classes, such as tidal disruption events or supernova shock breakouts, would map where the instrument's discovery space actually lies.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents the preliminary design of HERON, a hybrid radio array for detecting ultra-high-energy (UHE) tau neutrinos through coherent radio emission from Earth-emergent air showers. The proposed instrument combines 24 phased antenna stations (576 dual-polarized antennas, 30--80 MHz) with 360 standalone antennas (50--200 MHz), deployed along a 72 km mountain ridge overlooking a valley in San Juan, Argentina. The authors claim that this arrangement, with 936 antennas total, reaches an energy threshold below 100 PeV, achieves sub-degree angular resolution, and provides better instantaneous sensitivity to UHE neutrinos than GRAND10k and BEACON-24, making HERON a potential discovery instrument for transient neutrino sources. Quantitative support is drawn from DANTON simulations of roughly 1,000 tau-decay events for the standalone array, site RFI measurements, and sensitivity curves whose derivation is deferred to a companion paper.

Significance. If the projected sensitivity is realized, HERON would be a compelling and cost-effective hybrid design that extends UHE neutrino searches to lower energies while retaining the reconstruction power of a sparse array. The paper is transparent about its preliminary status, provides concrete hardware and site details, and makes an honest attempt to connect the design to multimessenger transient science. However, the central quantitative claims are not independently supported within this manuscript: the phased-array trigger path that sets the sub-100 PeV threshold is not simulated or validated here, the sensitivity comparisons in Fig. 2 are deferred to an external companion paper, and the projected event rates carry no error bars or background treatment. These gaps currently exceed what the presented evidence can justify.

major comments (4)
  1. [§2.1 / Fig. 2] The core claim that HERON's 936 antennas outperform GRAND10k and BEACON-24 and reach below 100 PeV is not supported by the simulations shown in this paper. Section 2.1 describes only the standalone-array simulation (65 antennas, 50--200 MHz, galactic noise sigma = 22 μV/m), while the phased stations specified in §1.1 operate at 30--80 MHz over 100--200 m baselines. No simulated trigger efficiency, beamforming gain, or coherence model for the phased stations is presented, so the low-energy threshold and the Fig. 2 comparison rest entirely on the companion paper [9]. Please include the phased-array simulation results, or at least the trigger-efficiency curves and their underlying assumptions, so that the central claim can be assessed without reference to an external document.
  2. [§2.2 / Fig. 6] The projected discovery rates, such as the statement that HERON could detect '~300 (3000) PeV neutrinos from a realistic sample of 200 short-duration (long) GRBs in 5--10 years,' are presented without error bars, systematic uncertainties, or an exposure and background calculation. The estimate folds in a GRB sample scaled by a 6%-sky instantaneous field of view, but no trigger duty cycle, background rejection efficiency, or uncertainty propagation is given. Please present the underlying calculation and label these numbers as illustrative forecasts, or temper the 'discovery instrument' language accordingly.
  3. [§1.4 / Fig. 3] The 30--80 MHz noise assumption at the San Juan site is not quantitatively validated. The site RFI spectra in Fig. 3 are shown in arbitrary units, and the sensitivity model assumes galactic noise sigma = 22 μV/m, a value stated for the 50--200 MHz band, while the phased stations operate at 30--80 MHz where anthropogenic RFI is typically more prominent. Please provide the measured noise level in the 30--80 MHz band and assess how a higher noise floor would shift the energy threshold and the comparison in Fig. 2.
  4. [§2.1 / Fig. 5] The quoted angular-resolution performance of 0.4 degrees on average from the beamforming scan is reported without a spread, event-to-event variation, or systematic uncertainty. Since the same section states that results improve when phased-array data are added, the manuscript should present the standalone-only result with its statistical uncertainty so that the sub-degree angular-resolution claim can be properly evaluated.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§1.3] The text 'synchronized to then s level accuracy' appears to contain a typo; it should likely read 'ns level accuracy.'
  2. [§2.2 / Fig. 4] The description of HERON-200 as a scaled-up version with 200 stations and '2 facing mountain ridges instrumented with 50 antennas each' is internally inconsistent; presumably this should refer to 50 stations per ridge, and the text should be corrected.
  3. [References] References [25] and [29] are incomplete: they lack titles, years, and venues, which prevents readers from locating the cited work.
  4. [Fig. 4] The terrain color scale in the right panel of Fig. 4 is difficult to read in grayscale; consider using labeled contours or a grayscale-friendly colormap.
  5. [§2.2] The terms '6%-sky instantaneous field of view' and '70%-sky daily field of view' are used without derivation or definition; please specify how these numbers are computed from the array geometry and trigger strategy.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: HERON's sensitivities are forward-modeled from explicit Monte Carlo simulations, and the reliance on companion paper [9] is a completeness caveat, not a circular step.

full rationale

The paper's quantitative claims (effective area, fluence sensitivity, sub-degree angular resolution) are produced by forward simulations with the DANTON code: roughly 1,000 tau-decay events are simulated over the San Juan topography with a 65-antenna standalone array, assuming galactic noise sigma = 22 microV/m and a spherical-wavefront beamforming model. These simulations do not fit the claimed result; they take a detector layout and a physics model as inputs and compute detection performance. The transient-neutrino detection forecasts in Section 2.2 use those simulated sensitivity curves as inputs to estimate event rates from GRB and magnetar fluence models, which is a standard model-based projection rather than a circular reduction. No parameter is fitted to the target claim, and no equation defines the predicted sensitivity in terms of itself. The paper explicitly defers the full optimization and the phased-array simulation details to the companion paper [9], and it states that the standalone-only simulations 'improve when data from the phased array are added'; these are completeness and validation limitations, not evidence that the outputs are equivalent to the inputs by construction. The self-citations to [9] and [10] provide simulation infrastructure and design heritage, but the central derivation does not reduce to an unverified self-citation chain. Therefore no significant circularity is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central sensitivity forecasts rest on a chain of modeling assumptions rather than measured hardware performance. The array layout, frequency band, and altitude are design choices optimized in a companion paper; the neutrino flux models and radio emission simulations are taken from prior literature or the collaboration's own codes. None of the projected curves are supported by a built detector or public data in this paper.

free parameters (6)
  • Array altitude 1,000 m above ground = 1000 m
    Chosen as a compromise between observable volume and required shower energy; optimization described in companion paper [9].
  • Inter-station spacing 3 km over 72 km = 3 km
    Layout of 24 phased stations chosen by simulation; details in [9].
  • Frequency band 30-80 MHz = 30-80 MHz (under study)
    Phased array band selected to balance signal-to-noise and antenna practicality; standalone uses 50-200 MHz.
  • Number of antennas per phased station and per standalone cluster = 24 per station, 15 standalone per station
    Preliminary design choices; the Fig. 4 caption notes the baseline is not an optimized design.
  • Noise-riding trigger rate = 10 Hz
    Chosen to maintain a consistent trigger rate while dynamically adjusting thresholds to the noise level.
  • Galactic noise sigma = 22 muV/m
    Assumed in the beamforming simulations; the paper states ground noise is negligible in the 50-200 MHz range.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Air shower radio emission from neutrino-induced tau decays is well described by standard coherent radio emission models and simulated with DANTON.
    Used in Sec. 2.1 for the 1,000-event beamforming study; the detector sensitivity depends on this signal model.
  • domain assumption The predicted neutrino fluences from GRBs, magnetars, and FSRQs used for detection-rate estimates are representative of the true population.
    Sec. 2.2 and Fig. 6 use published astrophysical models to claim HERON could detect 200 GRBs in 5-10 years.
  • domain assumption Galactic noise dominates at 50-200 MHz and ground noise is negligible at the San Juan site.
    Stated in Sec. 2.1; directly affects the simulated signal-to-noise ratio and sensitivity.
  • domain assumption A point-source-like spherical wavefront is an adequate beamforming approximation for reconstructing extended air showers with the sparse array.
    Sec. 2.1, beamforming scan paragraph; this approximation underlies the quoted 0.4 degree angular resolution.
  • domain assumption The San Juan valley topography and rock composition provide the neutrino interaction target assumed in the effective-area simulations.
    Fig. 4 uses realistic topography and claims a factor ~2 gain; no geo-parameters are given in this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Hybrid Elevated Radio Observatory for Neutrinos (HERON) Project." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/B2HWOJCP

@misc{pith2026250704382,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Hybrid Elevated Radio Observatory for Neutrinos (HERON) Project},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/B2HWOJCP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.04382}
}
abstract

Measuring ultra-high energy neutrinos, with energies above $10^{16}$ eV, is the next frontier of the emerging multi-messenger era. Their detection requires building a large-scale detector with 10 times the instantaneous sensitivity of current instruments, sub-degree angular resolution, and wide daily field of view. The Hybrid Elevated Radio Observatory for Neutrinos (HERON) is designed to be that discovery instrument. HERON combines the complementary features of two radio techniques being demonstrated by the BEACON and GRAND prototypes. Its preliminary design consists of 24 compact, elevated phased stations with 24 antennas each, embedded in a sparse array of 360 standalone antennas. This setup tunes the energy threshold to below 100 PeV, where the neutrino flux should be high. The sensitivity of the phased stations combines with the powerful reconstruction capacities of the standalone antennas to produce an optimal detector. HERON is planned to be installed at an elevation of 1,000 m across a 72 km-long mountain range overlooking a valley in Argentina's San Juan province. It would be connected to the worldwide network of multimessenger observatories and search for neutrino bursts from candidate sources of cosmic rays, like gamma-ray bursts and other powerful transients. With HERON's deep sensitivity, this strategy targets discoveries that cast new light into the inner workings of the most violent astrophysical sources at uncharted energies. We present the preliminary design, performances, and observation strategy of HERON.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.04382 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. UHE tau neutrinos (𝜈) produced at such sources interact underground and cre￾ate a tau lepton particle (𝜏) that exits into the atmosphere and decays. The ensuing air shower emits a radio signal detected by an￾tennas. HERON will combine phased dense antenna arrays to trigger on weaker signals, and sparse arrays of standalone antennas for reconstruction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The expected instantaneous fluence sensitivities of HERON, GRAND, BEACON, and a scaled-up HERON￾200 for the future (see text) are illustrated alongside the pre￾dicted fluences from a stacked population of 200 short and long gamma-ray bursts (GRBs). With fewer than 1,000 an￾tennas in total and 24 phased stations, HERON will operate at lower energies where the neutrino flux is more abundant, achieving sensitivity comp… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Left: Block diagram of the HERON electronics and multiple triggering system. Right: Power spectrum distributions (in arbitrary units, a.u.) measured at the San Juan site (blue) and at a reference site closer to the San Juan city (grey) with the same setup. 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020 Neutrino energy Eν [eV] 10−2 10−1 100 101 Effective Area [km2 ] HERON (topography + standalone) flat, with standalone flat, no standalone… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Left: Standalone antennas enable a factor ≳ 2 gain at UHE on the HERON effective area. The San Juan topography (right panel) enhances effective area by another factor of ∼ 2 compared to a dense-rock spherical Earth case. Right: Site map of the San Juan area. Terrain is…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Example of an event reconstruction using the beamforming scan for the standalone array. Each dot represents a location from where the phasing is tested the color and scale match the maximum of the beamformed signal achieved for that specific source location. The three …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: HERON will have the potential to observe UHE neutrinos from transient sources occurring in our Local Group. It would be sensitive to magnetars or SNIbc occurring out to ∼ 200 kpc. Left: Daily averaged sky coverage of HERON. Overlayed are the positions of the nearest ga…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Astrophysical Neutrino Sources as Colliders

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [9]

    ZeollaPoSICRC2025(2025)

    BEACON and GRANDCollaboration, A. ZeollaPoSICRC2025(2025)

    work page 2025

  2. [1]

    Aabet al

    Pierre AugerCollaboration, A. Aabet al. JCAP 11 (2019) 004

    work page 2019

  3. [2]

    Abbasi, M

    R. Abbasi, M. Ackermann, J. Adams,et al. Science 378no. 6619, (Nov., 2022) 538–543

    work page 2022

  4. [3]

    Abbasi, M

    R. Abbasi, M. Ackermann, J. Adams,et al. Science 380no. 6652, (June, 2023) 1338–1343

    work page 2023

  5. [4]

    Wisselet al

    S. Wisselet al. JCAP 11(2020) 065

    work page 2020

  6. [5]

    MartineauPoSICRC2025(2025)

    GRANDCollaboration, O. MartineauPoSICRC2025(2025)

    work page 2025

  7. [6]

    GRAND Collaboration, “The Giant Radio Array for Neutrino Detection (GRAND) Collaboration – Contributions to the 10th International Workshop on Acoustic and Radio EeV Neutrino Detection Activities (ARENA 2024),” in 10th International Workshop on Acoustic and Radio EeV Neutrino Detection Activities. 2024. arXiv:2409.03427 [astro-ph.IM]

    work page arXiv 2024

  8. [7]

    M. G. Aartsen, R. Abbasi, Y. Abdou, M. Ackermann, J. Adams, J. A. Aguilar, M. Ahlers, D. Altmann, J. Auffenberg, X. Bai, and et al.Physical Review Letters 111 no. 2, (July, 2013) 021103

    work page 2013

Show all 31 references
  1. [8]

    Murase and I

    K. Murase and I. BartosAnnual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science 69 (Oct., 2019) 477–506

    2019

  2. [10]

    Targeting 100-pev tau neutrino detection with an array of phased and high-gain reconstruction antennas,

    S. Wissel, A. Zeolla, C. Deaconu, V. Decoene, K. Hughes, Z. Martin, K. Mulrey, A. Cummings, R. A. Batista, A. Benoit-Lévy, M. Bustamante, P. Correa, A. Ferrière, M. Guelfand, T. Huege, K. Kotera, O. Martineau, K. Murase, V. Niess, J. Zhang, O. Krömer, K. Plant, and F. G. Schro...

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Huege and O

    T. Huege and O. KrömerJournal of Instrumentation 19 no. 11, (Nov, 2024) P11022

    2024

  4. [12]

    Zhang, P

    GRANDCollaboration, Pengxiong, Y. Zhang, P. Zhang, and X. XuPoSICRC2025(2025)

    2025

  5. [13]

    Álvarez-Muñiz, W

    J. Álvarez-Muñiz, W. R. Carvalho, A. Romero-Wolf, M. Tueros, and E. ZasPhys. Rev. D 86 (2012) 123007

    2012

  6. [14]

    Aabet al

    Pierre AugerCollaboration, A. Aabet al. JINST 11 no. 01, (2016) P01018

    2016

  7. [15]

    CorreaPoSICRC2025(2025)

    GRANDCollaboration, P. CorreaPoSICRC2025(2025)

    2025

  8. [16]

    Benoit-LévyPoSICRC2025(2025)

    GRANDCollaboration, A. Benoit-LévyPoSICRC2025(2025)

    2025

  9. [17]

    Chiche, K

    S. Chiche, K. Kotera, O. Martineau-Huynh, M. Tueros, and K. D. de VriesAstropart. Phys. 139(2022) 102696

    2022

  10. [18]

    Decoene, O

    V. Decoene, O. Martineau-Huynh, and M. TuerosAstropart. Phys. 145 (2023) 102779

    2023

  11. [19]

    Guelfand, V

    M. Guelfand, V. Decoene, O. Martineau-Huynh, S. Prunet, M. Tueros, O. Macias, and A. Benoit-Lévy Astroparticle Physics 171(2025) 103120

    2025

  12. [20]

    Schoorlemmer and W

    H. Schoorlemmer and W. R. CarvalhoEur. Phys. J. C 81 no. 12, (2021) 1120

    2021

  13. [21]

    Abdul Halimet al

    Pierre AugerCollaboration, A. Abdul Halimet al. PoS ICRC2023(2023) 380

    2023

  14. [22]

    Southall et al

    D. Southall et al. Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 1048(2023) 167889

    2023

  15. [23]

    Romero-Wolfet al

    A. Romero-Wolfet al. Astropart. Phys. 60(2015) 72–85

    2015

  16. [24]

    Decoene, N

    V. Decoene, N. Renault-Tinacci, O. Martineau-Huynh, D. Charrier, K. Kotera, S. Le Coz, V. Niess, M. Tueros, and A. ZillesNucl. Instrum. Meth. A 986(2021) 164803

    2021

  17. [25]

    Niess and O

    V. Niess and O. Martineau-Huynh

  18. [26]

    Guépin, K

    C. Guépin, K. Kotera, and F. OikonomouNature Reviews Physics4 no. 11, (Nov., 2022) 697–712

    2022

  19. [27]

    S. S. Kimura, K. Murase, P. Mészáros, and K. KiuchiAstrophys. J.848no. 1, (2017) L4

    2017

  20. [28]

    Murase Phys

    K. Murase Phys. Rev. D 76(2007) 123001

    2007

  21. [29]

    Mbarek, D

    R. Mbarek, D. Caprioli, and K. Murase

  22. [30]

    Murase, P

    K. Murase, P. Meszaros, and B. ZhangPhys. Rev. D 79 (2009) 103001

    2009

  23. [31]

    Emergences

    F. Oikonomou, M. Petropoulou, K. Murase, A. Tohuvavohu, G. Vasilopoulos, S. Buson, and M. SantanderJCAP 10(2021) 082. 8 GRAND-BEACON aka HERON Kumiko Kotera Full Author List: BEACON Collaboration (July 1st, 2025) J.Alvarez-Muñiz 1,S.Cabana-Freire 1,W.CarvalhoJr. 2,A.Cummings 3...

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.