Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 48 references

Resolution Limiting Factors in Low-Energy Cascade Zenith Angle Reconstruction with the IceCube Upgrade

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The IceCube Upgrade's cascade zenith-angle resolution is capped by in-ice photon scattering and shower spread, not by the optical modules.

desk verdict Solid ablation study with a believable ranking, but the unquantified dismissal of the neutrino–shower opening angle makes the 'intrinsic zenith limit' claim too strong as stated. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.06257 v2 pith:KP5ZTFYF submitted 2025-01-09 physics.ins-det astro-ph.HEhep-ex

Kaustav Dutta , Sebastian Böser , Jan Weldert , Martin Rongen This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.ins-detastro-ph.HEhep-ex PACS 95.55.Vj29.40.Ka
keywords IceCubeUpgradecascadereconstructionzenithangleresolutionin-icephotonscatteringhadronicshowerspreadmoduleneutrinooscillationsCherenkovdetectors
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

This paper asks what ultimately limits how precisely the IceCube Upgrade can reconstruct the zenith angle of low-energy hadronic-cascade events, a quantity that sets the neutrino oscillation baseline for the detector. By simulating the same events with one information-loss process switched off at a time, it argues that in-ice photon scattering is the dominant limiter, followed by the transverse spread of hadronic shower particles, while the finite directional resolution of the multi-PMT modules and module noise degrade the resolution only slightly. Removing scattering improves the median resolution by roughly 50 percent and removing shower spread by about 30 percent. The study therefore identifies where reconstruction effort and detector design choices can actually buy better physics, and where they cannot.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by a controlled information-loss simulation: a photon propagation code generates Cherenkov photons from hadronic cascades in homogeneous ice, and each resolution-limiting process — in-ice scattering, transverse shower spread, module PMT resolution, and module noise — is toggled on or off independently. The shower-spread model uses the empirical angular distribution $dl/dx \approx \exp(-2.61\,x^{0.39})\,x^{-0.61}$ with $x = 1 - \cos\delta$ for the angle $\delta$ between a charged-track element and the emitted photon, and the ice is described by scattering and absorption coefficients $a_e = 0.0013\ \mathrm{m}^{-1}$ and $b_e = 0.013\ \mathrm{m}^{-1}$. Reconstruction uses an extended unbinned likelihood over photon direction, residual arrival time, and per-module charge, with PDFs averaged over a randomized detector geometry to remove local geometry bias. That setup lets the authors attribute changes in resolution to individual physical effects.

What would settle it

Simulate low-energy NC events with the full neutrino–shower opening angle included in the truth, reconstruct them with the same likelihood, and compare the residual between reconstructed and true neutrino zenith at the same photon-hit counts. If near-horizontal 10 GeV events, where the mean opening angle of about 6 degrees corresponds to $\Delta\cos\theta \sim 0.1$, show median residuals appreciably above the quoted resolution curves, then the paper's resolutions bound only the cascade axis, not the neutrino direction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a ranking of the processes that destroy directional information before it reaches the photosensors. The paper claims that for GeV-scale hadronic cascades, in-ice photon scattering sets the intrinsic resolution ceiling for zenith-angle reconstruction, with the transverse momentum spread of the shower as the second-largest contribution; module PMT pointing and module noise are nearly irrelevant. The evidence is a controlled simulation campaign in which each process is included or excluded while the others stay fixed, yielding about a 50 percent resolution gain when scattering is turned off and about 30 percent when shower spread is turned off, versus negligible gains from perfect module resolution or noiseless modules. A separate toy simulation indicates that replacing the vertex-averaged integrated photon PDFs with perfectly modeled per-module PDFs would improve resolutions by about 20 percent.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the angle between the incoming neutrino direction and the hadronic shower axis is small enough to ignore, so the reconstructed shower axis can be used as the neutrino direction.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If in-ice scattering is the dominant limiter, then a detector medium with much less scattering, such as water, should yield median zenith resolutions roughly 50 percent better than ice at the same photon statistics.
  • Since module directional resolution is negligible, adding more or smaller PMTs per module would not improve low-energy cascade zenith reconstruction unless it increases the number of detected photons.
  • Reconstruction algorithms that model per-module photon arrival patterns rather than using vertex-averaged integrated PDFs can expect about a 20 percent improvement in zenith resolution.
  • Because NC, $\nu_e$ CC, and $\nu_\tau$ CC cascade topologies are indistinguishable at these energies, these resolution limits apply to essentially all low-energy cascade analyses in the IceCube Upgrade.
  • Existing likelihood reconstructions are already close to the information ceiling set by the physics; the remaining gain from perfect per-module light modeling is about 20 percent.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: The quoted resolutions are for the hadronic shower axis, not the neutrino direction; at 10 GeV the excluded neutrino–shower opening angle has a mean of about 6 degrees, which can shift $\cos\theta$ by roughly 0.1 for near-horizontal events, so oscillation analyses may need an extra smearing term before using these curves.
  • Inference: The homogeneous-ice idealization probably understates scattering's dominance, because real South Pole ice has layers, birefringence, and hole ice that add distance- and direction-dependent photon distortions; per-module PDFs fitted to real ice might yield more than the 20 percent gain seen in the toy model.
  • Inference: The same toggle-one-process approach could be applied to water Cherenkov detectors to separate medium scattering from shower physics, since the shower-spread limit should carry over while the scattering limit would shrink.
  • Inference: The 20 percent estimate is likely a lower bound because the toy simulation samples from the averaged PDF rather than constructing true per-module tables; a full per-module likelihood could recover additional distance-dependent information.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper uses the standalone Photon Propagation Code (PPC) to simulate low-energy (1–20 GeV) hadronic cascades in an idealized IceCube Upgrade geometry with homogeneous ice and only mDOMs, then reconstructs the shower-axis zenith angle with an extended unbinned likelihood based on photon direction, timing, and per-module charge. The central method is a controlled ablation: individual information-loss processes (in-ice photon scattering, transverse hadronic shower spread, module directional resolution, and module noise) are toggled on or off one at a time, always with matching PDFs generated from the same simulation chain. The authors find that in-ice photon scattering is the dominant resolution limiter, followed by transverse shower spread, while module resolution and noise have negligible impact; they also report that per-module photon PDFs would improve resolution by about 20% relative to the vertex-averaged integrated PDFs used in the main reconstruction. The paper frames these results as approaching the intrinsic zenith-angle resolution limits for the IceCube Upgrade and as guidance for the development of low-energy reconstruction algorithms.

Significance. If the conclusions hold, the paper provides a useful, quantitative ranking of information-loss processes for GeV-scale cascade reconstruction in IceCube Upgrade, with direct implications for where algorithmic and hardware effort should be invested. The ablation design is a genuine strength: it isolates each process with matching simulation and reconstruction PDFs, and the use of the open-source PPC chain makes the study reproducible in principle. The true-versus-averaged PDF comparison in Section 4.3 is a commendable attempt to quantify modeling error, even if it covers only two extreme geometries. Two caveats temper the significance: the kinematic opening angle between the incoming neutrino and the hadronic shower axis is excluded by construction and then asserted to be subdominant without a quantitative comparison, and the absolute resolution values carry an unquantified modeling-error component that is comparable in size to the reported median resolutions in the two test cases. As a result, the paper's practical conclusions about neutrino zenith-angle reconstruction are defensible in direction but not yet quantitatively established as stated.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5.1, paragraph after Fig. 10; Section 3, first paragraph] The assertion that "These systematics in IceCube dominate over the kinematic opening angle" is load-bearing for the paper's stated goal of reconstructing neutrino zenith angles, but it is not quantified anywhere. Section 3 deliberately simulates only the hadronic shower axis and excludes the neutrino–shower opening angle, whose fitted parameterization Ψ ≈ 12° (E/GeV)^−0.3 implies a mean offset of about 6° at 10 GeV. For near-horizontal events this corresponds to Δcos θ ≈ 0.1, which is comparable to the median resolutions in Fig. 10 at moderate photon counts. Without a quantitative comparison (or a simulation that includes the opening angle), the quoted resolutions bound cascade-axis reconstruction, not neutrino-direction reconstruction, and the abstract's claim about zenith-angle resolution limits for neutrino events is not established.
  2. [Section 4.3, Figs. 5 and 6] The check of vertex-averaged versus true integrated PDFs is carried out for only two extreme geometries. The reported RMS spreads of 0.06 and 0.09 are comparable to the median resolutions of about 0.1 and 0.13 in Fig. 10, so the conclusion that "the vertex-averaged PDFs do not introduce an additional bias on average" is not sufficient to show that the modeling error is negligible for the absolute resolutions. The paper should either quantify the modeling error over a distribution of vertex positions and directions or explicitly restate the resolutions as upper bounds that include this modeling uncertainty; as written, the absolute resolution values in Figs. 8–11 have an unquantified systematic component.
  3. [Section 5.2, Fig. 11] The toy simulation replaces per-photon observables with samples from the averaged integrated PDF, which the paper itself describes as unphysical because scattering becomes distance-independent. The resulting ~20% improvement is therefore not a direct estimate of the gain from per-module PDFs; it is an estimate of the combined effect of removing both the modeling error of the averaged PDF and the per-module distance information. The caption and text should distinguish these two interpretations, and the brown line in Fig. 11 should be labeled as an idealized bound rather than "a more accurate estimation of the achievable resolutions."
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3, opening-angle formula] The equation for the opening angle appears with broken notation ("Ψ ˆ𝜈,®𝑢≈ 𝛼 ..."); please typeset it properly and define Ψ explicitly as the mean angle between the incoming neutrino and the shower axis.
  2. [Section 4.3, PDF averaging] The paper states that 2D histograms are averaged over 10000 events and 3D histograms over 50000 events, but it does not report whether the fitted KDE bandwidth and window-size parameters are stable across independent simulation samples; a brief cross-validation statement would strengthen confidence in the PDFs.
  3. [Section 5.1, Fig. 10 caption] The caption reads "with the same MC as in Fig.10 before photon generation and propagation," which is self-referential; it should refer to the MC setup of Figs. 8 and 9.
  4. [Abstract and Section 6] The abstract restricts the conclusions to neutral-current events while Section 6 argues the results apply equally to νe and ντ charged-current cascades; harmonize the wording so the scope is stated consistently.
  5. [Section 2, instrumentation assumption] The assumption that all modules are 24-PMT mDOMs is acknowledged as optimistic; since resolutions are shown versus photon hit counts rather than energy, please add a sentence noting how excluding pDOMs and DEggs could shift the hit-count distribution in real Upgrade events.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Ablation study is self-contained and not circular; the only load-bearing gap is the unquantified assertion that IceCube systematics dominate the neutrino–shower kinematic opening angle, which the simulation excludes by construction.

  1. other [Section 5.1 (last paragraph), with the supporting statement in Section 3, first paragraph.]
    "These systematics in IceCube dominate over the kinematic opening angle (Section 3; first paragraph) for NC and CC cascade events."

    The simulation in Section 3 explicitly states that 'the uncertainties associated with the kinematic opening angle between the incoming neutrino and shower axis are not included,' and only provides the fitted parameterization Psi = 12 deg (E/GeV)^-0.3. The Section 5.1 dominance claim is the only bridge from the simulated shower-axis resolution to the abstract's neutrino-zenith resolution for oscillation analyses. At 10 GeV the paper's own fit gives about 6 degrees, which for near-horizontal events corresponds to Delta cos(theta) near 0.1, comparable to the median resolutions shown in Fig. 10 at moderate photon counts.

full rationale

The main derivation chain is self-contained. Events are simulated with PPC, the expected PDFs are generated from the same simulation chain with matched information-loss processes, and the resolutions follow from an unbinned likelihood reconstruction; this is an ideal-observer estimate, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The ablations in Figs. 9 and 10 compare physical processes one at a time, so the ranking of in-ice scattering versus transverse shower spread, and the negligibility of module resolution and noise, has independent content. The toy simulation in Section 5.2 is explicitly a consistency check of PDF modeling error rather than a recycled input. No load-bearing self-citation or imported uniqueness theorem appears. The only concern is the unsupported claim that IceCube systematics dominate the kinematic neutrino–shower opening angle, which was excluded from the simulation by design; that is a correctness and applicability gap more than a circular derivation, so the circularity score is low rather than severe.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central results rest on a chain of simulation idealizations: homogeneous ice, enlarged contained geometry, identical mDOMs, Poisson noise, and matched PDFs. These are acknowledged in Section 2 and make the limits optimistic. The only genuinely fitted constants are the kinematic-angle coefficients alpha and beta, which are not used in reconstruction; all other inputs are literature values or detector parameters. No invented entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • Kinematic opening angle coefficients alpha, beta = alpha = 12 degrees, beta = 0.3
    Fitted to the angular distribution of shower secondaries in 10 GeV hadronic cascades using GENIE (Section 3). Used only in the claim that IceCube systematics dominate the kinematic angle; the opening angle itself is not part of the reconstruction.
  • KDE bandwidth and window-size parameters = Not quoted in the paper
    Optimized via Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests against simulated histograms (Section 4.3). They affect PDF smoothness but not the qualitative ranking of resolution-limiting processes.
assumptions (8)
  • ad hoc to paper Ice is homogeneous, with depth-independent scattering and absorption (a_e = 0.0013 m^-1, b_e = 0.013 m^-1), and no stratification, undulations, birefringence, or hole ice.
    Section 2 explicitly adopts this idealization to make photon PDFs translationally and rotationally invariant; it makes the reported limits optimistic.
  • domain assumption Vertex-averaged integrated PDFs approximate the true per-vertex, direction-dependent PDFs for all events.
    Section 4.3 uses a randomized geometry and 10000 events to average over vertices; the assumption is tested only for two extreme vertex and direction configurations, giving RMS spread 0.06 to 0.09 in Delta cos(theta).
  • domain assumption Cascades are point-like sources; the 2 to 4 meter longitudinal shower extent is negligible compared with module spacing.
    Section 4.1 invokes this to reduce the event model to seven parameters, a standard IceCube low-energy assumption.
  • ad hoc to paper All optical modules are 24-PMT mDOMs with identical angular acceptance; other IceCube module types are absent.
    Section 2 states this improves directional resolution and is appropriate for an optimistic limit study.
  • ad hoc to paper The simulated detector volume is large enough that all events are fully contained, with no escaping photons or edge losses.
    Section 2 acknowledges this differs from the real Upgrade geometry and removes an information-loss source.
  • domain assumption Noise is Poissonian with mean 0.1 hits per module and no spatial or temporal clustering; correlated scintillation noise is ignored.
    Section 3 approximates the measured 750 Hz mDOM dark rate as uncorrelated Poisson noise, citing high signal purity of about 90 percent.
  • domain assumption The GHEISHA hadronic interaction model and the PPC scattering functions adequately describe shower generation and photon propagation in ice.
    Section 3 uses these standard simulation tools without an in-paper validation against data or alternative generators.
  • ad hoc to paper The kinematic opening angle between the incoming neutrino and the hadronic shower axis can be neglected when quoting zenith resolution limits.
    Section 3 excludes this angle from the simulation; Section 5.1 asserts without quantitative support that IceCube systematics dominate it, which is the paper's weakest link.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Resolution Limiting Factors in Low-Energy Cascade Zenith Angle Reconstruction with the IceCube Upgrade." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KP5ZTFYF

@misc{pith2026250106257,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Resolution Limiting Factors in Low-Energy Cascade Zenith Angle Reconstruction with the IceCube Upgrade},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KP5ZTFYF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.06257}
}
read the original abstract

The IceCube Neutrino Observatory includes low energy extensions such as the existing DeepCore subarray and the upcoming IceCube Upgrade, which will consist of seven new strings of photosensors with denser instrumentation than the existing array. The setup will allow for the study of neutrino oscillations with greater sensitivity compared to the existing instrumentation, improve neutrino mass ordering studies, and test for the unitarity of the PMNS mixing matrix with high precision. A critical component in these low-energy physics analyses is the accurate reconstruction of event information, particularly the zenith angle of incoming neutrinos. In this study, we discuss the processes that limit the zenith resolution, which include the transverse spread of the hadronic shower, in-ice photon scattering, module resolutions, and module noise. By considering approximations to these processes, we aim to approach the intrinsic zenith resolution limits for purely hadronic events.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Measurement of South Pole ice transparency with the IceCube LED calibration system

    ICECUBE Collaboration. “Measurement of South Pole ice transparency with the IceCube LED calibration system”. In:Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Sec- tion A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment711 (May 2013), pp. 73–89.doi: 10.1016/j.nima.2013.01.054

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nima.2013.01.054 2013

  2. [2]

    The Design and Performance of IceCube DeepCore

    ICECUBE Collaboration. “The Design and Performance of IceCube DeepCore”. In:As- troparticle Physics35.10 (May 2012), pp. 615–624.doi: 10.1016/j.astropartphys. 2012.01.004

    doi:10.1016/j.astropartphys 2012

  3. [3]

    Neutrino oscillation studies with IceCube-DeepCore

    ICECUBE Collaboration. “Neutrino oscillation studies with IceCube-DeepCore”. In:Nu- clear Physics B908 (2016). Neutrino Oscillations: Celebrating the Nobel Prize in Physics 2015, pp. 161–177.doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2016.03.028

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2016.03.028 2016

  4. [4]

    Measurement of atmospheric tau neutrino appearance with Ice- Cube DeepCore

    ICECUBE Collaboration. “Measurement of atmospheric tau neutrino appearance with Ice- Cube DeepCore”. In:Phys. Rev. D99 (3 Feb. 2019), p. 032007.doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD. 99.032007

    doi:10.1103/physrevd 2019

  5. [5]

    All-flavor constraints on nonstandard neutrino interactions and generalizedmatterpotentialwiththreeyearsofIceCubeDeepCoredata

    ICECUBE Collaboration. “All-flavor constraints on nonstandard neutrino interactions and generalizedmatterpotentialwiththreeyearsofIceCubeDeepCoredata”.In: PhysicalReview D 104.7 (Oct. 2021).doi: 10.1103/physrevd.104.072006

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.104.072006 2021

  6. [6]

    eV-scale Sterile Neutrino Search Using Eight Years of Atmo- spheric Muon Neutrino Data from the IceCube Neutrino Observatory

    ICECUBE Collaboration. “eV-scale Sterile Neutrino Search Using Eight Years of Atmo- spheric Muon Neutrino Data from the IceCube Neutrino Observatory”. In:Physical Review Letters125.14 ().doi: 10.1103/physrevlett.125.141801

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.125.141801

  7. [7]

    TheIceCubeUpgrade-DesignandScienceGoals

    AyaIshihara.“TheIceCubeUpgrade-DesignandScienceGoals”.In: PoSICRC2019(2021), p. 1031.doi: 10.22323/1.358.1031

    doi:10.22323/1.358.1031 2021

  8. [8]

    Sensitivity of the IceCube Upgrade to Atmospheric Neutrino Oscilla- tions

    Philipp Eller et al. “Sensitivity of the IceCube Upgrade to Atmospheric Neutrino Oscilla- tions”. In:Proceedings of 38th International Cosmic Ray Conference — PoS(ICRC2023) (2023)

    work page 2023

Show all 48 references
  1. [9]

    DesignandPerformanceoftheMulti-PMTOpticalMod- uleforIceCubeUpgrade

    T.Anderson,L.Classen,andetal.“DesignandPerformanceoftheMulti-PMTOpticalMod- uleforIceCubeUpgrade”.In: Proceedingsofthe37thInternationalCosmicRayConference — PoS(ICRC2021)(2021)

    2021

  2. [10]

    D-Egg: a dual PMT optical module for IceCube

    ICECUBE Collaboration. “D-Egg: a dual PMT optical module for IceCube”. In:Journal of Instrumentation18.04 (Apr. 2023), P04014.doi: 10.1088/1748-0221/18/04/p04014

    2023 doi

  3. [11]

    Theuse ofCherenkovlightinthe detectionofhigh-energycosmic rays and neutrinos: The Pierre Auger and IceCube Observatories

    LuLuand TianluYuan.“Theuse ofCherenkovlightinthe detectionofhigh-energycosmic rays and neutrinos: The Pierre Auger and IceCube Observatories”. In:Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and AssociatedEquipment 970(2...

    2020

  4. [12]

    Extracting the Energy-Dependent Neutrino- Nucleon Cross Section above 10 TeV Using IceCube Showers

    Mauricio Bustamante and Amy Connolly. “Extracting the Energy-Dependent Neutrino- Nucleon Cross Section above 10 TeV Using IceCube Showers”. In:Physical Review Letters 122.4 (Jan. 2019).doi: 10.1103/physrevlett.122.041101

    2019 doi

  5. [13]

    Simulation and identification of non-Poissonian noise triggers in the IceCube neutrino detector

    Michael James Larson. “Simulation and identification of non-Poissonian noise triggers in the IceCube neutrino detector”. PhD thesis. University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Dec. 2013

    2013

  6. [14]

    Review of Particle Physics

    P. A. Zyla et al. “Review of Particle Physics”. In:PTEP 2020.8 (2020), p. 083C01.doi: 10.1093/ptep/ptaa104

    2020 doi

  7. [15]

    Low energy event classification in IceCube using boosted decision trees

    K. Leonard DeHolton. “Low energy event classification in IceCube using boosted decision trees”.In: JournalofInstrumentation 16.12(). doi: 10.1088/1748-0221/16/12/C12007

    doi

  8. [16]

    Cascade type identification in IceCube and an application in a search for new physics

    Anna Katharina Steuer. “Cascade type identification in IceCube and an application in a search for new physics”. eng. PhD thesis. Mainz: University of Mainz, 2018.doi: http: //doi.org/10.25358/openscience-4463

    2018 doi

  9. [17]

    Detection of astrophysical tau neutrino candidates in IceCube

    ICECUBE Collaboration. “Detection of astrophysical tau neutrino candidates in IceCube”. In: The European Physical Journal C82.11 (Nov. 2022).doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052- 022-10795-y

    2022 doi

  10. [18]

    Likelihood-freeinferenceforIceCubelowenergyreconstruction

    JanChristopherWeldert.“Likelihood-freeinferenceforIceCubelowenergyreconstruction”. eng. PhD thesis. Mainz, 2022.doi: http://doi.org/10.25358/openscience-8196

    2022 doi

  11. [19]

    Intrinsic limits on resolutions in muon- and electron-neutrino charged-currenteventsintheKM3NeT/ORCAdetector

    KM3NeT collaboration. “Intrinsic limits on resolutions in muon- and electron-neutrino charged-currenteventsintheKM3NeT/ORCAdetector”.In: JournalofHighEnergyPhysics 2017.5 (May 2017).doi: 10.1007/jhep05(2017)008

    2017 doi

  12. [20]

    Measurement of Atmospheric Neutrino Mixing with Improved IceCube DeepCore Calibration and Data Processing

    IceCube Collaboration. “Measurement of Atmospheric Neutrino Mixing with Improved IceCube DeepCore Calibration and Data Processing”. In:Physical Review D108.1 (2023), p. 012014.doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.012014

    2023 doi

  13. [21]

    MeasurementofAtmosphericNeutrinoOscillationsat6–56GeV

    IceCubeCollaboration.“MeasurementofAtmosphericNeutrinoOscillationsat6–56GeV”. In: Physical Review Letters120.7 (2018), p. 071801.doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.120. 071801

    2018 doi

  14. [22]

    An improved mapping of ice layer undulations for the IceCube Neutrino Observatory

    Dmitry Chirkin and Martin Rongen. “An improved mapping of ice layer undulations for the IceCube Neutrino Observatory”. In:Proceedings of 38th International Cosmic Ray Conference — PoS(ICRC2023)(2023)

    2023

  15. [23]

    InsituestimationoficecrystalpropertiesattheSouthPoleusing LED calibration data from the IceCube Neutrino Observatory

    ICECUBECollaboration.“InsituestimationoficecrystalpropertiesattheSouthPoleusing LED calibration data from the IceCube Neutrino Observatory”. In:The Cryosphere18.1 (2024), pp. 75–102.doi: 10.5194/tc-18-75-2024

    2024 doi

  16. [24]

    The Effect of Hole Ice on the Propagation and Detection of Light in IceCube

    Sebastian Fiedlschuster. “The Effect of Hole Ice on the Propagation and Detection of Light in IceCube”. In:Instrumentation and Detectors(2019)

    2019

  17. [25]

    Improvedmodelingofin-iceparticleshowersforIceCubeeventreconstruc- tion

    R.Abbasietal.“Improvedmodelingofin-iceparticleshowersforIceCubeeventreconstruc- tion”. In:JINST 19.06 (2024), P06026.doi: 10.1088/1748-0221/19/06/P06026

    2024 doi

  18. [26]

    In-situ calibration of the single-photoelectron charge response of the IceCube photomultiplier tubes

    ICECUBE Collaboration. “In-situ calibration of the single-photoelectron charge response of the IceCube photomultiplier tubes”. In:Journal of Instrumentation15.06 (June 2020), P06032–P06032. doi: 10.1088/1748-0221/15/06/p06032

    2020 doi

  19. [27]

    Acceptance Tests of more than 10 000 Photomultiplier Tubes for the multi-PMT Digital Optical Modules of the IceCube Upgrade

    ICECUBE Collaboration. Acceptance Tests of more than 10 000 Photomultiplier Tubes for the multi-PMT Digital Optical Modules of the IceCube Upgrade. 2024. – 23 –

    2024

  20. [28]

    Accelerating IceCube’s Photon Propagation Code with CUDA

    Hendrik Schwanekamp et al. “Accelerating IceCube’s Photon Propagation Code with CUDA”.In: ComputingandSoftwareforBigScience 6(Feb.2022). doi: 10.1007/s41781- 022-00080-8

    2022 doi

  21. [29]

    High-Energy Extragalactic Neu- trino Astrophysics

    Naoko Kurahashi, Kohta Murase, and Marcos Santander. “High-Energy Extragalactic Neu- trino Astrophysics”. In:Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science72.1 (Sept. 2022), pp. 365–387.doi: 10.1146/annurev-nucl-011122-061547

    2022 doi

  22. [30]

    The GENIE neutrino Monte Carlo generator

    C. Andreopoulos et al. “The GENIE neutrino Monte Carlo generator”. In:Nuclear Instru- ments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment614.1 (Feb. 2010), pp. 87–104.doi: 10.1016/j.nima.2009. 12.009

    2010 doi

  23. [31]

    Brun et al.GEANT: Detector Description and Simulation Tool

    R. Brun et al.GEANT: Detector Description and Simulation Tool. CERN Program Library W5013. Geneva: CERN, 1993.doi: 10.17181/CERN.MUHF.DMJ1

    1993 doi

  24. [32]

    Fesefeldt

    H. Fesefeldt. Simulation of Hadronic Showers: Physics and Applications. Tech. rep. PITHA 85/02. GHEISHA 7.0 hadronic interaction package. RWTH Aachen, III. Physikalisches Institut, 1985

    1985

  25. [33]

    The Detection of faint light in deep underwater neutrino telescopes

    Christopher Henrik V. Wiebusch. “The Detection of faint light in deep underwater neutrino telescopes”. PhD thesis. Dec. 1995

    1995

  26. [34]

    Visible Radiation Produced by Electrons Moving in a Medium with Velocities Exceeding that of Light

    P. A. Čerenkov. “Visible Radiation Produced by Electrons Moving in a Medium with Velocities Exceeding that of Light”. In:Phys. Rev.52 (4 Aug. 1937), pp. 378–379.doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.52.378

    1937 doi

  27. [35]

    Calibration and characterization of the IceCube photomultiplier tube

    ICECUBE Collaboration. “Calibration and characterization of the IceCube photomultiplier tube”. In:Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers,DetectorsandAssociatedEquipment 618.1–3(June2010),pp.139–152. doi: 10.1016/j.nima.2010.03.102

    doi

  28. [36]

    Calculation of the Cherenkov light yield from elec- tromagneticcascadesinicewithGeant4

    Leif Rädel and Christopher Wiebusch. “Calculation of the Cherenkov light yield from elec- tromagneticcascadesinicewithGeant4”.In: AstroparticlePhysics 44(Apr.2013),pp.102–

    2013

  29. [37]

    Performance studies for the KM3NeT neutrino telescope

    Claudio Kopper. “Performance studies for the KM3NeT neutrino telescope”. In:Nucl. In- strum. Meth. A692 (2012). Ed. by Antonio Capone et al., pp. 188–191.doi: 10.1016/j. nima.2011.12.072

    2012 doi

  30. [38]

    Low Energy Event Reconstruction in IceCube DeepCore

    ICECUBE Collaboration. “Low Energy Event Reconstruction in IceCube DeepCore”. In: Eur. Phys. J. C82.9 (2022), p. 807.doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-022-10721-2

    2022 doi

  31. [39]

    Calculation of the Cherenkov light yield from elec- tromagneticcascadesinicewithGeant4

    Leif Rädel and Christopher Wiebusch. “Calculation of the Cherenkov light yield from elec- tromagneticcascadesinicewithGeant4”.In: AstroparticlePhysics 44(2013),pp.102–113. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.astropartphys.2013.01.015

    2013 doi

  32. [40]

    Implementing the Nelder-Mead simplex algorithm with adaptive parameters

    Fuchang Gao and Lixing Han. “Implementing the Nelder-Mead simplex algorithm with adaptive parameters”. In:Computational Optimization and Applications51 (May 2012), pp. 259–277.doi: 10.1007/s10589-010-9329-3

    2012 doi

  33. [41]

    VariableKernelDensityEstimation

    GeorgeR.TerrellandDavidW.Scott.“VariableKernelDensityEstimation”.In: TheAnnals of Statistics20.3 (1992), pp. 1236–1265.doi: 10.1214/aos/1176348768

    1992

  34. [42]

    The Kolmogorov-Smirnov, Cramer-von Mises Tests

    D. A. Darling. “The Kolmogorov-Smirnov, Cramer-von Mises Tests”. In:The Annals of Mathematical Statistics28.4 (1957), pp. 823–838. – 24 –

    1957

  35. [43]

    Measurement of the inelasticity distribution of neutrino-nucleon interactions for 80–560 GeV with IceCube DeepCore

    IceCube Collaboration. “Measurement of the inelasticity distribution of neutrino-nucleon interactions for 80–560 GeV with IceCube DeepCore”. In:arXiv(2025). arXiv:2502.13299. doi: 10.48550/arxiv.2502.13299

    2025 doi

  36. [44]

    Performance of the Pacific Ocean Neutrino Experiment (P-ONE)

    Jean Pierre Twagirayezu et al. “Performance of the Pacific Ocean Neutrino Experiment (P-ONE)”. In:PoSICRC2023 (2023), p. 1175.doi: 10.22323/1.444.1175

    2023 doi

  37. [45]

    Reconstructing Neutrino Energy using CNNs for GeV Scale IceCube Events

    “Reconstructing Neutrino Energy using CNNs for GeV Scale IceCube Events”. In:PoS ICRC2021 (2021), p. 1053.doi: 10.22323/1.395.1053

    2021 doi

  38. [46]

    Graph Neural Networks for low-energy event classification & ReconstructioninIceCube

    ICECUBE Collaboration. “Graph Neural Networks for low-energy event classification & ReconstructioninIceCube”.In: JournalofInstrumentation 17.11(Nov.2022),P11003. doi: 10.1088/1748-0221/17/11/p11003

    2022 doi

  39. [47]

    Letter of intent for KM3NeT 2.0

    S. Adrian-Martinez et al. “Letter of intent for KM3NeT 2.0”. In:J. Phys. G43.8 (2016), p. 084001.doi: 10.1088/0954-3899/43/8/084001

    2016 doi

  40. [48]

    Shower Reconstruction and Sterile Neutrino Analysis with KM3NeT/ORCA and ANTARES

    Alba Domi. “Shower Reconstruction and Sterile Neutrino Analysis with KM3NeT/ORCA and ANTARES”. PhD thesis. Aix-Marseille U., Genoa U., 2019.doi: 10.15167/domi- alba_phd2019-12-16. – 25 –

    2019 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.