Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 114 references

Exploring the properties of newborn pulsars with high-energy neutrinos

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 High-energy neutrinos from a newborn pulsar's wind can be detected by IceCube and used to measure the neutron star's birth spin and magnetic field.

desk verdict A solid, honest sensitivity study of newborn-pulsar neutrinos; the headline thresholds are conditional on η=0.1 and an unpublished factor-3 cascade-area boost, but the method and forecasts deserve a serious referee. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.16551 v1 pith:RUE7WC4Q submitted 2025-07-22 astro-ph.HE

Zi-Zhuo Xiao , Gang Guo , Tuohuniyazi Tuniyazi This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords high-energyneutrinosnewbornpulsarspulsarwindaccelerationIceCubeneutrinodetectionprospectsdiffusefluxneutronstarinitialspinmagneticfieldmeasurement
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 argues that the next galactic core-collapse supernova, if it leaves behind a rapidly spinning, strongly magnetized neutron star, will also be a detectable source of high-energy neutrinos, and that those neutrinos carry a readable record of the neutron star's birth conditions. In the minimal pulsar scenario, protons accelerated in the relativistic pulsar wind collide with the supernova ejecta, and the resulting neutrino fluence is nearly a function of the single combination $B/P^2$. With a binned likelihood analysis of IceCube data, the paper finds that a pulsar at 10 kpc with $(B/10^{12}\,{\rm G})(P/{\rm ms})^{-2} \gtrsim 0.003$, roughly the top 10% of the birth population, would be seen at $\geq 3\sigma$, and that the same signal can recover $B/P^2$ to better than 20% when this ratio exceeds 0.08. If the claim is right, a future galactic supernova gives a direct, model-discriminating probe of pulsar wind acceleration and of the neutron star's initial spin and magnetic field, complementing the low-energy neutrino burst from the collapse itself.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the minimal pulsar-wind model defined by two scalings: the maximum proton energy $E_p(t) = \eta e B R_{NS}^3 \Omega^2 / (2c^2)\,(1+t/t_{sd})^{-1}$ and the Goldreich-Julian proton injection rate $\dot N_p(t) = B R_{NS}^3 \Omega^2 / (e c)\,(1+t/t_{sd})^{-1}$, with $\Omega = 2\pi/P$ and spindown time $t_{sd} \simeq 10^{2.5}\,{\rm s}\,I_{45} B_{15}^{-2} R_{NS,6}^{-6} \Omega_4^{-2}$. Both quantities scale with $B/P^2$, which is why the neutrino fluence is nearly a function of that single combination whenever the observation time stays well below $t_{sd}$; the time dependence $(1+t/t_{sd})^{-1}$ is what eventually breaks the degeneracy for fast-spinning, strongly magnetized pulsars. The second piece of machinery is the binned likelihood: Poisson statistics over logarithmic time and deposited-energy bins, with an Asimov dataset and a background-normalization nuisance parameter, which converts predicted event counts into discovery significances (Eq. 11) and parameter confidence regions (Eq. 18). The hadronic yields (meson spectra and cooling losses) are computed with PYTHIA 8.3, and the IceCube response is represented by upgoing-track and starting-cascade effective areas, the latter scaled by a factor of 3 to reflect deep-learning reconstruction gains.

What would settle it

The decisive test is the next galactic core-collapse supernova: if the remnant pulsar's timing implies $B_{12}/P^2 \gtrsim 0.003$ and IceCube sees no $\geq 3\sigma$ neutrino excess in the predicted $10^6$-$10^7$ s window, the minimal pulsar scenario's normalization is wrong. A weaker test is the diffuse band: if IceCube-Gen2's 5-year exposure at 0.1-1 EeV finds no flux where the optimistic ($f_s = 1$) prediction sits above its sensitivity, the optimistic end of the model is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that newborn-pulsar neutrinos are not just a hypothetical byproduct of star death but a measurable diagnostic. Under the minimal model, pure-proton winds injected at the Goldreich-Julian rate with acceleration efficiency $\eta=0.1$ and interacting with the freely expanding ejecta through $pp$ collisions, the neutrino fluence peaks in the window $10^6$-$10^7$ s after the explosion with energies from $10^4$ to $10^{10}$ GeV. Because both the proton energy $E_p(t)$ and injection rate $\dot N_p(t)$ scale as $B\Omega^2 \propto B/P^2$ at times $t \ll t_{sd}$, the signal is degenerate in the single ratio $B/P^2$ over a broad parameter space, and the paper turns this degeneracy into a measurement: the binned time-energy likelihood gives a $\geq 3\sigma$ discovery horizon of 61 kpc for a typical pulsar and 2.3 Mpc for a magnetar-like one, allows $B/P^2$ to be recovered to better than 20% for $B_{12}/P^2 \gtrsim 0.08$ at 10 kpc, and lets $B$ and $P$ be pinned down individually within 20% for $B_{12}/P^2 \gtrsim 0.35$, where the spindown time is short enough for the $(1+t/t_{sd})^{-1}$ evolution to imprint temporal structure. For pulsars with detectable signals, the emission is distinguishable at $\gtrsim 5\sigma$ from neutrinos produced by ejecta-CSM shocks, and the integrated diffuse flux from the cosmological pulsar population sits within reach of IceCube-Gen2 and GRAND200k in the 0.1-1 EeV band.

Load-bearing premise

The argument stands or falls on the assumption that protons are injected into the pulsar wind at the Goldreich-Julian rate and accelerated with efficiency $\eta = 0.1$, so that protons carry about 10% of the spindown luminosity; if real ion loading is lower, every quoted threshold rises by roughly the inverse factor, and the unpublished factor-3 boost applied to IceCube cascade effective areas is a second detector-side fragility.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A core-collapse supernova in the Galaxy that leaves a pulsar with $B_{12}/P^2 \gtrsim 0.003$ (about 10% of the birth population, and roughly 40% for a 1-kpc source) should produce an IceCube signal at $\geq 3\sigma$ within weeks to months, contemporaneous with the ejecta expansion phase.
  • If the signal is seen, its time-energy structure measures the birth combination $B/P^2$ to better than 20% whenever $B_{12}/P^2 \gtrsim 0.08$, and pins down $B$ and $P$ individually within 20% whenever $B_{12}/P^2 \gtrsim 0.35$ (about 10% for the paper's magnetar-like benchmark).
  • A pulsar-born signal can be told apart at $\gtrsim 5\sigma$ from neutrinos made by ejecta-CSM shocks, so a detection would identify the actual hadronic acceleration site in the supernova.
  • Even with no nearby event, the cumulative flux from cosmic newborn pulsars should be testable by IceCube-Gen2 and GRAND200k at 0.1-1 EeV, and a decade of non-detection would disfavor the most optimistic pulsar contribution ($f_s \to 1$).

Reading between the lines

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

  • A neutrino 'detection' that only constrains $B/P^2$ still leaves the acceleration efficiency $\eta$ and the ion-loading fraction entangled with $B$ and $P$; a joint analysis combining the IceCube signal with radio or X-ray timing of the newborn pulsar would isolate $\eta$ directly, a step the paper does not take.
  • The factor-3 boost applied to cascade effective areas is not yet a published IceCube calibration; if it does not materialize, the quoted thresholds (such as $B_{12}/P^2 \gtrsim 0.003$) would rise by roughly a factor of three, shrinking but not eliminating the accessible parameter space.
  • The same $B/P^2$ scaling that makes the signal degenerate also suggests a stacking strategy: a decade of optical-timed CCSN observations could build a population-level constraint on the birth ratio even from sub-threshold individual events, extending the paper's single-source analysis.
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 studies high-energy neutrino production from newborn pulsars via proton acceleration in the pulsar wind and pp interactions with the SN ejecta. It computes single-source fluences with PYTHIA 8.3, evaluates IceCube detection prospects with a binned Asimov likelihood using track and cascade events, derives a B/P^2 degeneracy in the signal, estimates the diffuse neutrino flux from the cosmological pulsar population, and assesses how well B and P can be measured from a detected signal. It also compares the pulsar scenario with the SN ejecta-CSM interaction model. The central quantitative claims are that a galactic pulsar at d=10 kpc with B12/P^2 ≳ 0.003 is detectable at ≳3σ, and that B/P^2 can be measured to better than 20% at 3σ when B12/P^2 ≳ 0.08.

Significance. If the assumptions hold, the paper provides concrete, falsifiable predictions for a future Galactic CCSN that leaves a pulsar: a high-energy neutrino signal that would test the pulsar-wind mechanism and constrain the neutron star birth spin and magnetic field. The B/P^2 degeneracy is correctly traced to the scaling of Ep(t) and Ndot_p(t) in Eqs. (3)-(4), and the use of PYTHIA, MCEq, and Asimov likelihoods is appropriate and internally consistent. The paper is transparent about many modeling limitations. Its main weakness is that the absolute normalization of all headline thresholds is fixed by unvaried assumptions (η=0.1, Goldreich-Julian proton injection, pure proton composition, and an undocumented factor-3 cascade effective-area boost), so the quoted sensitivities are not robust estimates of the model uncertainty.

major comments (4)
  1. [§III.A, Eq. (9) and Fig. 5] The headline detection thresholds inherit their absolute normalization from η in Eq. (3) and from the Goldreich-Julian proton injection rate in Eq. (4). Because the event counts in Eq. (9) are directly proportional to η and to the proton loading fraction, and because the nuisance parameter fs in Eq. (17) is only ±10%, the quoted thresholds B12/P^2 ≳ 0.003 (3σ, 10 kpc) and ≳ 0.08 (20% precision) are valid only for the fiducial η=0.1 and pure-proton loading. A factor-10 decrease in η shifts the 10-kpc 3σ threshold from 0.003 to roughly 0.03, and removal of the effective-area boost discussed below moves it further to roughly 0.09, which would invalidate the ``about 10% of pulsars'' claim in §VI. Please show how the contours in Figs. 5 and 7 and the population fractions change when η is varied over at least 0.01–1, and discuss the sensitivity to a proton loading fraction below the Goldreich-Julian value.
  2. [§III.A, effective-area paragraph] The MESE cascade effective areas from Ref. [96] are multiplied by an undocumented factor of 3, attributed to deep-learning reconstruction improvements reported in Refs. [98,99]. This factor enters linearly through Af,C,j in Eq. (9), so it directly inflates all cascade event counts and lowers the d=10 kpc threshold in Fig. 5 by a factor of 3. The paper should either use the published effective areas without the ad-hoc boost or provide a reproducible prescription for the boosted curves (e.g., show the effective-area tables before and after the scaling). At minimum, the 3σ and 5σ contours in Fig. 5 should be shown both with and without the factor-3 boost so the sensitivity of the central claim to this detector-side assumption is visible.
  3. [§IV, Eq. (17) and Fig. 7] The claimed 20% precision on B/P^2 and the ~10% precision on B and P are purely statistical, obtained with a signal-normalization nuisance σs=0.1 in Eq. (17). This is much smaller than the astrophysical normalization uncertainty from η, the proton loading fraction, and the unknown composition, as acknowledged in §VI. Consequently, the reported precision does not reflect the accuracy with which B and P could actually be inferred from a real neutrino signal. The parameter-recovery analysis should either include the dominant normalization uncertainty as a systematic (for example by profiling over η with a prior range of at least 0.01–1) or the quoted thresholds should be relabeled as statistical sensitivities under the fiducial model.
  4. [§III.B, Eq. (13) and Fig. 6] The diffuse flux formula in Eq. (13) is not derived in the text, and the displayed expression is ambiguous. With R(z) defined as the pulsar birth rate per comoving volume per unit time in Eq. (16), a standard derivation for a transient source population gives a factor 1/(1+z)^2 relative to the expression shown, which reduces to (1+z)|dt/dz| = 1/H(z). If this factor is indeed missing, the diffuse fluxes in Fig. 6 would be lower by a factor of about 4 at z≈1, which could affect the claim that a substantial portion of the predicted flux lies within the IceCube-Gen2 and GRAND200k sensitivity bands. Please clarify the convention used for R(z) and provide the derivation, updating Fig. 6 if needed.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 3 caption] The caption states cosθ=0.5 for both panels, but the right panel shows upgoing tracks and the text says cosθ=-0.5 for the northern hemisphere; the caption should be corrected.
  2. [§III.A] The word ``constribution'' appears in the paragraph on upgoing tracks; it should read ``contribution''.
  3. [Eq. (13)] The angle-bracket averaging and the placement of the (1+z) factors in Eq. (13) are hard to read; please rewrite the equation in a more explicit form with the redshift integral and the averaging clearly displayed.
  4. [§IV, Fig. 7] The text describing model A says ``two distinct 3σ and 5σ contours appear on either side of the benchmark parameter point''; it would be clearer to state whether these are the upper and lower boundaries of a single allowed band along the B/P^2 degeneracy.
  5. [§VI] The statement that scaling IceCube effective areas by a factor of 5 extends the detection horizon by a factor of about 2 is not tied to a specific detector design; please specify the energy range over which this scaling is applied.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the claimed B/P^2 scaling and detection/measurement thresholds are forecast sensitivities from an externally parameterized pulsar model, not fitted quantities or self-citation loops.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is a forward model: Eqs. (3) and (4) specify proton energy and injection rate as explicit functions of B and P, Eqs. (5)-(8) convert these into neutrino fluences, and Eq. (9) folds in detector effective areas and backgrounds to produce predicted event counts. The B/P^2 degeneracy is a mathematical consequence of Ep and Ndot both being proportional to B*Omega^2 at t << tsd, not a fitted or circularly defined quantity. The headline thresholds (B12/P^2 >= 0.003 for detection and >= 0.08 for 20% measurement at 10 kpc) are obtained from an Asimov binned-likelihood analysis, i.e., they are sensitivity forecasts rather than parameters fitted to the same data. The model constants (eta = 0.1, Goldreich-Julian proton loading, pure-proton composition, spherical outflow) are taken from cited external work by Fang, Murase, Kotera, Arons, Goldreich-Julian, and others, not from the present authors' prior results; the single author-overlapping citation (Ref. [43]) appears in the introduction as general context and is not load-bearing. The factor-3 cascade effective-area boost is attributed to published deep-learning event-reconstruction studies (Refs. [98,99]); it directly multiplies predicted counts but is a stated detector-side assumption, not a circular reduction. The paper explicitly acknowledges limitations in Sec. VI regarding proton composition, spherical symmetry, and detector modeling, and those limitations affect robustness of the absolute normalization rather than indicate that any prediction reduces by definition to its input. Overall, the claimed constraints and model-discrimination statements are conditional forecasts from stated external inputs, so no circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central calculation is a forward-modeling projection. It takes the pulsar wind model and detector response from the cited literature, introduces no new entities, and fits no parameters to data. The only tunable inputs are eta, the cascade boost factor, and the diffuse normalization fs, each adopted by hand.

free parameters (3)
  • eta (proton acceleration efficiency) = 0.1 (adopted fiducial)
    Sets the proton energy in Eq. (3) and the overall neutrino luminosity; all detection thresholds scale inversely with eta and it is not varied or constrained.
  • Cascade effective-area boost factor = 3 (adopted)
    Applied to IceCube MESE cascade effective areas from Ref. [96] to model deep-learning event-selection gains; directly multiplies the predicted cascade event counts.
  • fs (diffuse flux normalization) = 0.1 to 1 (scanned)
    Encodes the fraction of pulsars contributing and cosmic-ray normalization uncertainty; it spans the diffuse flux band in Fig. 6.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Pulsar spindown follows magnetic dipole radiation (Eq. 1).
    Used to compute spin-down luminosity and tsd; other spin-down losses such as gravitational-wave emission are neglected.
  • domain assumption Protons are accelerated in the wind with efficiency eta=0.1 and injected at the Goldreich-Julian rate (Eqs. 3 and 4).
    This is the core emission hypothesis; no observational constraint is applied to it.
  • domain assumption Ejecta is a homogeneous, spherically expanding sphere with mass Mej and velocity beta_ej c.
    Sets the target density np(t), the pp optical depth, and meson cooling; anisotropy and clumping are neglected.
  • standard math Neutrino production is dominated by pp interactions followed by pion, kaon, and muon decay, with meson yields from PYTHIA 8.3.
    Standard hadronic interaction modeling; acceptable for the TeV-to-EeV energy range considered.
  • domain assumption IceCube effective areas from Ref. [96] (cascades) and Refs. [100, 101] (tracks), with MESE cascades scaled by 3, describe the detector.
    The factor-3 boost is optimistic and not detector-validated; it affects all IceCube event counts.
  • domain assumption Backgrounds are described by MCEq atmospheric fluxes plus a diffuse astrophysical neutrino flux from Refs. [96] and [100].
    Background rates enter every likelihood bin; a global normalization uncertainty fb=0.1 is included.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Exploring the properties of newborn pulsars with high-energy neutrinos." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RUE7WC4Q

@misc{pith2026250716551,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Exploring the properties of newborn pulsars with high-energy neutrinos},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RUE7WC4Q}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.16551}
}
abstract

Newborn pulsars resulting from core-collapse supernovae (CCSNe) are promising sources of high-energy (HE) cosmic rays and neutrinos. In this work, we focus on HE neutrinos generated by interactions between protons accelerated in relativistic pulsar winds and SN ejecta. Using a binned likelihood analysis, we evaluate the detection prospects of these neutrinos with IceCube and explore their potential for probing the initial spin period ($P$) and magnetic field strength ($B$) of newborn pulsars. Noticing a degeneracy in neutrino signal with $B/P^2$ across a broad parameter space, we find that HE neutrinos from a galactic newborn pulsar ($d=10$ kpc) with $(B/10^{12}~{\rm G})(P/{\rm ms})^{-2} \gtrsim 0.003$ can be detected at $\gtrsim 3\sigma$ significance. Even in the absence of a nearby pulsar, the diffuse flux from the cosmologic population of pulsars could be probed by next-generation detectors like IceCube-Gen2 and GRAND200k. For galactic pulsars with $(B/10^{12}~{\rm G})(P/{\rm ms})^{-2} \gtrsim 0.08$, the combination $B/P^2$ can be measured with an accuracy of better than 20\% at the $3\sigma$ confidence level. Additionally, we show that for pulsars with detectable HE neutrino signals, the emission can be clearly distinguished from neutrinos produced by interactions between SN ejecta and the circumstellar medium, due to their distinct temporal and spectral features.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.16551 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Neutrino fluences from newborn pulsars at 10 kpc with different values of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Expected total number of neutrino-induced cascade [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Expected spectra of neutrino-induced events at IceCube assuming two pulsar models: model A with ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Discovery significance of HE neutrinos from newborn [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Contours of median discovery significance (3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. The all-flavor diffuse neutrino flux from newborn [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. The expected 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. The expected median significance of distinguishing the minimal pulsar model from the SN ejecta-CSM interaction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

114 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [96]

    M. G. Aartsen et al.(IceCube), Atmospheric and astro- physical neutrinos above 1 TeV interacting in IceCube, Phys. Rev. D 91, 022001 (2015), arXiv:1410.1749 [astro- ph.HE]

    arXiv 2015

  2. [1]

    M. G. Aartsen et al., First observation of pev-energy neutrinos with icecube, Physical Review Letters 111, 10.1103/physrevlett.111.021103 (2013)

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.111.021103 2013

  3. [2]

    Evidence for high-energy extraterrestrial neutrinos at the icecube detector, Science 342, 10.1126/sci- ence.1242856 (2013)

    doi:10.1126/sci- 2013

  4. [3]

    M. G. Aartsen et al., Neutrino emission from the direc- tion of the blazar TXS 0506+056 prior to the icecube- 170922a alert, Science 361, 147–151 (2018)

    2018

  5. [4]

    Abbasi et al., Evidence for neutrino emission from the nearby active galaxy NGC 1068, Science 378, 538–543 (2022)

    R. Abbasi et al., Evidence for neutrino emission from the nearby active galaxy NGC 1068, Science 378, 538–543 (2022)

    2022

  6. [5]

    Keivani et al., A Multimessenger Picture of the Flaring Blazar TXS 0506+056: implications for High- Energy Neutrino Emission and Cosmic Ray Accelera- tion, Astrophys

    A. Keivani et al., A Multimessenger Picture of the Flaring Blazar TXS 0506+056: implications for High- Energy Neutrino Emission and Cosmic Ray Accelera- tion, Astrophys. J. 864, 84 (2018), arXiv:1807.04537 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2018

  7. [6]

    S. Gao, A. Fedynitch, W. Winter, and M. Pohl, Mod- elling the coincident observation of a high-energy neu- trino and a bright blazar flare, Nature Astron. 3, 88 (2019), arXiv:1807.04275 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2019

  8. [7]

    Rodrigues, S

    X. Rodrigues, S. Gao, A. Fedynitch, A. Palladino, and W. Winter, Leptohadronic Blazar Models Applied to the 2014–2015 Flare of TXS 0506+056, Astrophys. J. Lett. 874, L29 (2019), arXiv:1812.05939 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2019

Show all 114 references
  1. [8]

    Cerruti, A

    M. Cerruti, A. Zech, C. Boisson, G. Emery, S. In- oue, and J. P. Lenain, Leptohadronic single-zone mod- els for the electromagnetic and neutrino emission of TXS 0506+056, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 483, L12 (2019), [Erratum: Mon.Not.Roy.Astron.Soc. 502, L21– L22 (2021)], arXi...

    2019 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Sahakyan, Lepto-hadronic γ-ray and neutrino emis- sion from the jet of TXS 0506+056, Astrophys

    N. Sahakyan, Lepto-hadronic γ-ray and neutrino emis- sion from the jet of TXS 0506+056, Astrophys. J. 866, 109 (2018), arXiv:1808.05651 [astro-ph.HE]

    2018 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Reimer, M

    A. Reimer, M. Boettcher, and S. Buson, Cascading Con- straints from Neutrino-emitting Blazars: The Case of TXS 0506+056, Astrophys. J. 881, 46 (2019), [Erra- tum: Astrophys.J. 899, 168 (2020)], arXiv:1812.05654 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Padovani, F

    P. Padovani, F. Oikonomou, M. Petropoulou, P. Giommi, and E. Resconi, TXS 0506+056, the first cosmic neutrino source, is not a BL Lac, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 484, L104 (2019), arXiv:1901.06998 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  5. [12]

    B. T. Zhang, M. Petropoulou, K. Murase, and F. Oikonomou, A Neutral Beam Model for High-Energy Neutrino Emission from the Blazar TXS 0506+056, As- trophys. J. 889, 118 (2020), arXiv:1910.11464 [astro- ph.HE]

    2020 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Petropoulou et al., Multi-Epoch Modeling of TXS 0506+056 and Implications for Long-Term High-Energy Neutrino Emission, Astrophys

    M. Petropoulou et al., Multi-Epoch Modeling of TXS 0506+056 and Implications for Long-Term High-Energy Neutrino Emission, Astrophys. J. 891, 115 (2020), arXiv:1911.04010 [astro-ph.HE]

    2020 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Xue, R.-Y

    R. Xue, R.-Y. Liu, M. Petropoulou, F. Oikonomou, Z.- R. Wang, K. Wang, and X.-Y. Wang, A two-zone model for blazar emission: implications for TXS 0506+056 and the neutrino event IceCube-170922A 10.3847/1538- 4357/ab4b44 (2019), arXiv:1908.10190 [astro-ph.HE]. 13

    2019 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Murase, S

    K. Murase, S. S. Kimura, and P. Meszaros, Hid- den Cores of Active Galactic Nuclei as the Origin of Medium-Energy Neutrinos: Critical Tests with the MeV Gamma-Ray Connection, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 011101 (2020), arXiv:1904.04226 [astro-ph.HE]

    2020 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Inoue, D

    Y. Inoue, D. Khangulyan, and A. Doi, On the Origin of High-energy Neutrinos from NGC 1068: The Role of Nonthermal Coronal Activity, Astrophys. J. Lett. 891, L33 (2020), arXiv:1909.02239 [astro-ph.HE]

    2020 arXiv

  10. [17]

    K. Fang, E. L. Rodriguez, F. Halzen, and J. S. Gal- lagher, High-energy Neutrinos from the Inner Circum- nuclear Region of NGC 1068, Astrophys. J. 956, 8 (2023), arXiv:2307.07121 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Padovani et al., High-energy neutrinos from the vicin- ity of the supermassive black hole in NGC 1068, Nature Astron

    P. Padovani et al., High-energy neutrinos from the vicin- ity of the supermassive black hole in NGC 1068, Nature Astron. 8, 1077 (2024), arXiv:2405.20146 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  12. [19]

    A. Das, B. T. Zhang, and K. Murase, Revealing the Production Mechanism of High-energy Neutri- nos from NGC 1068, Astrophys. J. 972, 44 (2024), arXiv:2405.09332 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Yasuda, N

    K. Yasuda, N. Sakai, Y. Inoue, and A. Kusenko, Neu- trinos and Gamma Rays from Beta Decays in an Active Galactic Nucleus NGC 1068 Jet, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 151005 (2025), arXiv:2405.05247 [astro-ph.HE]

    2025 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Stein et al., A tidal disruption event coincident with a high-energy neutrino, Nature Astron

    R. Stein et al., A tidal disruption event coincident with a high-energy neutrino, Nature Astron. 5, 510 (2021), arXiv:2005.05340 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Reusch et al., Candidate Tidal Disruption Event AT2019fdr Coincident with a High-Energy Neutrino, Phys

    S. Reusch et al., Candidate Tidal Disruption Event AT2019fdr Coincident with a High-Energy Neutrino, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 221101 (2022), arXiv:2111.09390 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  16. [23]

    van Velzen et al., Establishing accretion flares from supermassive black holes as a source of high-energy neu- trinos, Mon

    S. van Velzen et al., Establishing accretion flares from supermassive black holes as a source of high-energy neu- trinos, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 529, 2559 (2024), arXiv:2111.09391 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  17. [24]

    C. Yuan, W. Winter, and C. Lunardini, AT2021lwx: Another Neutrino-coincident Tidal Disruption Event with a Strong Dust Echo?, Astrophys. J. 969, 136 (2024), arXiv:2401.09320 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  18. [25]

    R.-L. Li, C. Yuan, H.-N. He, Y. Wang, B.-Y. Zhu, Y.-F. Liang, N. Jiang, and D.-M. Wei, A neutrino flare po- tentially associated with X-ray emission from tidal dis- ruption event ATLAS17jrp, (2024), arXiv:2411.06440 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024

  19. [26]

    Adriani et al., The ultra-high-energy event km3- 230213a within the global neutrino landscape (2025), arXiv:2502.08173 [astro-ph.HE]

    O. Adriani et al., The ultra-high-energy event km3- 230213a within the global neutrino landscape (2025), arXiv:2502.08173 [astro-ph.HE]

    2025 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Adriani et al

    O. Adriani et al. , On the potential galactic origin of the ultra-high-energy event km3-230213a (2025), arXiv:2502.08387 [astro-ph.HE]

    2025 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Janka, K

    H.-T. Janka, K. Langanke, A. Marek, G. Martinez- Pinedo, and B. Mueller, Theory of Core-Collapse Su- pernovae, Phys. Rept. 442, 38 (2007), arXiv:astro- ph/0612072

    2007

  22. [29]

    Janka, Explosion Mechanisms of Core-Collapse Supernovae, Ann

    H.-T. Janka, Explosion Mechanisms of Core-Collapse Supernovae, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 62, 407 (2012), arXiv:1206.2503 [astro-ph.SR]

    2012 arXiv

  23. [30]

    Burrows, Colloquium: Perspectives on core-collapse supernova theory, RMP 85, 245 (2013)

    A. Burrows, Colloquium: Perspectives on core-collapse supernova theory, RMP 85, 245 (2013)

    2013

  24. [31]

    H. T. Janka, Neutrino Emission from Supernovae 10. 1007/978-3-319-21846-5_4 (2017), arXiv:1702.08713 [astro-ph.HE]

    2017 arXiv

  25. [32]

    Fischer, G

    T. Fischer, G. Guo, K. Langanke, G. Martinez-Pinedo, Y.-Z. Qian, and M.-R. Wu, Neutrinos and nucleosyn- thesis of elements, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 137, 104107 (2024), arXiv:2308.03962 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  26. [33]

    Totsuka et al., Observation of a neutrino burst from the supernova sn1987a, Nuclear Physics A 478, 189 (1988)

    Y. Totsuka et al., Observation of a neutrino burst from the supernova sn1987a, Nuclear Physics A 478, 189 (1988)

    1988

  27. [34]

    R. M. Bionta et al., Observation of a neutrino burst in coincidence with supernova 1987a in the large magel- lanic cloud, Phys. Rev. Lett. 58, 1494 (1987)

    1987

  28. [35]

    Tamborra and K

    I. Tamborra and K. Murase, Neutrinos from Super- novae, Space Sci. Rev. 214, 31 (2018)

    2018

  29. [36]

    Tamborra, Neutrinos from explosive transients at the dawn of multi-messenger astronomy, Nature Rev

    I. Tamborra, Neutrinos from explosive transients at the dawn of multi-messenger astronomy, Nature Rev. Phys. 7, 285 (2025), arXiv:2412.09699 [astro-ph.HE]

    2025 arXiv

  30. [37]

    Oyama, Evidence of High-energy Neutrinos from SN1987A by Kamiokande-II and IMB, Astrophys

    Y. Oyama, Evidence of High-energy Neutrinos from SN1987A by Kamiokande-II and IMB, Astrophys. J. 925, 166 (2022), arXiv:2108.05347 [hep-ex]

    2022 arXiv

  31. [38]

    S. M. Adams, C. S. Kochanek, J. F. Beacom, M. R. Va- gins, and K. Z. Stanek, Observing the Next Galactic Su- pernova, Astrophys. J.778, 164 (2013), arXiv:1306.0559 [astro-ph.HE]

    2013 arXiv

  32. [39]

    Rozwadowska, F

    K. Rozwadowska, F. Vissani, and E. Cappellaro, On the rate of core collapse supernovae in the milky way, New Astron. 83, 101498 (2021), arXiv:2009.03438 [astro- ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  33. [40]

    Guetta, A

    D. Guetta, A. Langella, S. Gagliardini, and M. Della Valle, Low- and High-energy Neutrinos from SN 2023ixf in M101, Astrophys. J. Lett. 955, L9 (2023), arXiv:2306.14717 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  34. [41]

    Ashida, Multi-energy diffuse neutrino fluxes originating from core-collapse supernovae, (2024), arXiv:2401.12403 [astro-ph.HE]

    Y. Ashida, Multi-energy diffuse neutrino fluxes originating from core-collapse supernovae, (2024), arXiv:2401.12403 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024

  35. [42]

    Zegarelli, D

    A. Zegarelli, D. Guetta, S. Celli, S. Gagliardini, I. Di Palma, and I. Bartos, Towards multi-messenger observations of core-collapse supernovae harbouring choked jets, Astron. Astrophys. 690, A187 (2024), arXiv:2403.16234 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  36. [43]

    Guo, Y.-Z

    G. Guo, Y.-Z. Qian, and M.-R. Wu, Effects of annihi- lation with low-energy neutrinos on high-energy neu- trinos from binary neutron star mergers and rare core- collapse supernovae, Phys. Rev. D 109, 083020 (2024), arXiv:2310.05137 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  37. [44]

    R. A. Chevalier and C. Fransson, Emission from Cir- cumstellar Interaction in Normal Type II Supernovae, Astrophys. J. 420, 268 (1994)

    1994

  38. [45]

    R. A. Chevalier and C. Fransson, Supernova interaction with a circumstellar medium, Lect. Notes Phys. 598, 171 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0110060

    2003 arXiv

  39. [46]

    R. A. Chevalier and C. Fransson, Thermal and non- thermal emission from circumstellar interaction (2016) arXiv:1612.07459 [astro-ph.HE]

    2016 arXiv

  40. [47]

    Murase, T

    K. Murase, T. A. Thompson, B. C. Lacki, and J. F. Beacom, New Class of High-Energy Transients from Crashes of Supernova Ejecta with Massive Circumstel- lar Material Shells, Phys. Rev. D 84, 043003 (2011), arXiv:1012.2834 [astro-ph.HE]

    2011 arXiv

  41. [48]

    Murase, New Prospects for Detecting High-Energy Neutrinos from Nearby Supernovae, Phys

    K. Murase, New Prospects for Detecting High-Energy Neutrinos from Nearby Supernovae, Phys. Rev. D 97, 081301 (2018), arXiv:1705.04750 [astro-ph.HE]

    2018 arXiv

  42. [49]

    Murase, A

    K. Murase, A. Franckowiak, K. Maeda, R. Margutti, and J. F. Beacom, High-Energy Emission from Inter- acting Supernovae: New Constraints on Cosmic-Ray Acceleration in Dense Circumstellar Environments, As- trophys. J. 874, 80 (2019), arXiv:1807.01460 [astro- ph.HE]. 14

    2019 arXiv

  43. [50]

    Kheirandish and K

    A. Kheirandish and K. Murase, Detecting High-energy Neutrino Minibursts from Local Supernovae with Mul- tiple Neutrino Observatories, Astrophys. J. Lett. 956, L8 (2023), arXiv:2204.08518 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  44. [51]

    Sarmah, S

    P. Sarmah, S. Chakraborty, I. Tamborra, and K. Auchettl, High energy particles from young super- novae: gamma-ray and neutrino connections, JCAP 08 (08), 011, arXiv:2204.03663 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv

  45. [52]

    Valtonen-Mattila and E

    N. Valtonen-Mattila and E. O’Sullivan, Prospects for Extending the Core-collapse Supernova Detection Hori- zon Using High-energy Neutrinos, Astrophys. J. 945, 98 (2023), arXiv:2206.00450 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  46. [53]

    Murase, Interacting supernovae as high-energy multi- messenger transients, Phys

    K. Murase, Interacting supernovae as high-energy multi- messenger transients, Phys. Rev. D 109, 103020 (2024), arXiv:2312.17239 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  47. [54]

    S. S. Kimura and T. J. Moriya, High-energy Gamma- Ray and Neutrino Emissions from Interacting Super- novae Based on Radiation Hydrodynamic Simulations: A Case of SN 2023ixf, Astrophys. J. 984, 103 (2025), arXiv:2409.18935 [astro-ph.HE]

    2025 arXiv

  48. [55]

    M´ esz´ aros and E

    P. M´ esz´ aros and E. Waxman, Tev neutrinos from suc- cessful and choked gamma-ray bursts, Physical Review Letters 87, 171102 (2001)

    2001

  49. [57]

    Razzaque, P

    S. Razzaque, P. M´ esz´ aros, and E. Waxman, TeV Neu- trinos from Core Collapse Supernovae and Hypernovae, Physical Review Letters 93, 181101 (2004)

    2004

  50. [58]

    Ando and J

    S. Ando and J. F. Beacom, Revealing the supernova- gamma-ray burst connection with TeV neutrinos, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 061103 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0502521

    2005 arXiv

  51. [59]

    RAZZAQUE, P

    S. RAZZAQUE, P. M ´ESZ ´AROS, and E. W AXMAN, High energy neutrinos from a slow jet model of core collapse supernovae, Modern Physics Letters A 20, 2351–2367 (2005)

    2005

  52. [60]

    Horiuchi and S

    S. Horiuchi and S. Ando, High-energy neutrinos from reverse shocks in choked and successful relativistic jets, Phys. Rev. D 77, 063007 (2008), arXiv:0711.2580 [astro- ph]

    2008 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Bartos, B

    I. Bartos, B. Dasgupta, and S. Marka, Probing the Structure of Jet Driven Core-Collapse Supernova and Long Gamma Ray Burst Progenitors with High En- ergy Neutrinos, Phys. Rev. D 86, 083007 (2012), arXiv:1206.0764 [astro-ph.HE]

    2012 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Murase and K

    K. Murase and K. Ioka, Tev–pev neutrinos from low-power gamma-ray burst jets inside stars, Physi- cal Review Letters 111, 10.1103/physrevlett.111.121102 (2013)

    2013 doi

  55. [63]

    Xiao and Z

    D. Xiao and Z. G. Dai, Neutrino emission in the jet propagation process, Astrophysical Journal 790, 59 (2014)

    2014

  56. [64]

    Varela, S

    K. Varela, S. Sahu, A. F. O. Oliveros, and J. C. Sanabria, High energy neutrinos from choked GRBs and their flavor ratio measurement by the Ice- Cube, European Physical Journal C 75, 289 (2015), arXiv:1411.7992

    2015 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Tamborra and S

    I. Tamborra and S. Ando, Inspecting the supernova–gamma-ray-burst connection with high- energy neutrinos, Phys. Rev. D93, 053010 (2016), arXiv:1512.01559 [astro-ph.HE]

    2016 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Senno, K

    N. Senno, K. Murase, and P. Meszaros, Choked Jets and Low-Luminosity Gamma-Ray Bursts as Hidden Neutrino Sources, Phys. Rev. D93, 083003 (2016), arXiv:1512.08513 [astro-ph.HE]

    2016 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Senno, K

    N. Senno, K. Murase, and P. M´ esz´ aros, Constrain- ing high-energy neutrino emission from choked jets in stripped-envelope supernovae, JCAP 01, 025, arXiv:1706.02175 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv

  60. [68]

    P. B. Denton and I. Tamborra, Exploring the Prop- erties of Choked Gamma-ray Bursts with IceCube’s High-energy Neutrinos, Astrophys. J. 855, 37 (2018), arXiv:1711.00470 [astro-ph.HE]

    2018 arXiv

  61. [69]

    P. B. Denton and I. Tamborra, The Bright and Choked Gamma-Ray Burst Contribution to the Ice- Cube and ANTARES Low-Energy Excess, JCAP 04, 058, arXiv:1802.10098 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv

  62. [70]

    H.-N. He, A. Kusenko, S. Nagataki, Y.-Z. Fan, and D.-M. Wei, Neutrinos from Choked Jets Accompanied by Type-II Supernovae, Astrophys. J. 856, 119 (2018), arXiv:1803.07478 [astro-ph.HE]

    2018 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Chang, B

    P.-W. Chang, B. Zhou, K. Murase, and M. Kamionkowski, High-energy neutrinos from choked-jet supernovae: searches and implications, (2022), arXiv:2210.03088 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Guarini, I

    E. Guarini, I. Tamborra, and O. Gottlieb, State-of-the- art collapsar jet simulations imply undetectable subpho- tospheric neutrinos, Phys. Rev. D 107, 023001 (2023), arXiv:2210.03757 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Guo, Y.-Z

    G. Guo, Y.-Z. Qian, and M.-R. Wu, Signature of col- lapsars as sources for high-energy neutrinos and r- process nuclei, Phys. Rev. D 108, L021303 (2023), arXiv:2212.08266 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Blasi, R

    P. Blasi, R. I. Epstein, and A. V. Olinto, Ultra–high- energy cosmic rays from young neutron star winds, The Astrophysical Journal 533, L123–L126 (2000)

    2000

  67. [75]

    Zhang, Z

    B. Zhang, Z. G. Dai, and P. Meszaros, High-energy neu- trinos from magnetars, Astrophys. J. 595, 346 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0210382

    2003 arXiv

  68. [76]

    K. Fang, K. Kotera, and A. V. Olinto, Newly born pul- sars as sources of ultrahigh energy cosmic rays, The As- trophysical Journal 750, 118 (2012)

    2012

  69. [77]

    K. Fang, K. Kotera, and A. V. Olinto, Ultrahigh energy cosmic ray nuclei from extragalactic pulsars and the ef- fect of their galactic counterparts, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2013 (03), 010–010

    2013

  70. [78]

    M. A. Ruderman and P. G. Sutherland, Theory of pul- sars: polar gaps, sparks, and coherent microwave radi- ation, Astrophys. J. 196, 51 (1975)

    1975

  71. [79]

    Arons, Pair creation above pulsar polar caps : ge- ometrical structure and energetics of slot gaps, Astro- phys

    J. Arons, Pair creation above pulsar polar caps : ge- ometrical structure and energetics of slot gaps, Astro- phys. J. 266, 215 (1983)

    1983

  72. [80]

    K. S. Cheng, C. Ho, and M. Ruderman, Energetic Ra- diation from Rapidly Spinning Pulsars. I. Outer Mag- netosphere Gaps, Astrophys. J. 300, 500 (1986)

    1986

  73. [81]

    Lemoine, K

    M. Lemoine, K. Kotera, and J. P´ etri, On ultra-high en- ergy cosmic ray acceleration at the termination shock of young pulsar winds, Journal of Cosmology and As- troparticle Physics 2015 (07), 016–016

    2015

  74. [82]

    B. M. Gaensler and P. O. Slane, The evolution and structure of pulsar wind nebulae, Ann. Rev. Astron. As- trophys. 44, 17 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0601081

    2006 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Nagataki, High-energy neutrinos produced by inter- actions of relativistic protons in shocked pulsar winds, Astrophys

    S. Nagataki, High-energy neutrinos produced by inter- actions of relativistic protons in shocked pulsar winds, Astrophys. J. 600, 883 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0309715

    2004 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Murase, P

    K. Murase, P. M´ esz´ aros, and B. Zhang, Probing 15 the birth of fast rotating magnetars through high- energy neutrinos, Physical Review D 79, 10.1103/phys- revd.79.103001 (2009)

    2009 doi

  77. [85]

    Fang, High-Energy Neutrino Signatures of New- born Pulsars In the Local Universe, JCAP 06, 004, arXiv:1411.2174 [astro-ph.HE]

    K. Fang, High-Energy Neutrino Signatures of New- born Pulsars In the Local Universe, JCAP 06, 004, arXiv:1411.2174 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv

  78. [86]

    Mirizzi, I

    A. Mirizzi, I. Tamborra, H.-T. Janka, N. Sa- viano, K. Scholberg, R. Bollig, L. Hudepohl, and S. Chakraborty, Supernova Neutrinos: Production, Os- cillations and Detection, Riv. Nuovo Cim. 39, 1 (2016), arXiv:1508.00785 [astro-ph.HE]

    2016 arXiv

  79. [87]

    Horiuchi and J

    S. Horiuchi and J. P. Kneller, What can be learned from a future supernova neutrino detection?, J. Phys. G 45, 043002 (2018), arXiv:1709.01515 [astro-ph.HE]

    2018 arXiv

  80. [88]

    K. Fang, K. Kotera, K. Murase, and A. V. Olinto, Test- ing the Newborn Pulsar Origin of Ultrahigh Energy Cos- mic Rays with EeV Neutrinos, Phys. Rev. D90, 103005 (2014), [Erratum: Phys. Rev.D92,no.12,129901(2015); Phys.Rev.D90,103005(2014)], arXiv:1311.2044 [astro- ph.HE]

    2014 arXiv

  81. [89]

    J. A. Carpio, K. Murase, M. H. Reno, I. Sarcevic, and A. Stasto, Charm contribution to ultrahigh-energy neu- trinos from newborn magnetars, Phys. Rev. D 102, 103001 (2020), arXiv:2007.07945 [astro-ph.HE]

    2020 arXiv

  82. [90]

    Murase, K

    K. Murase, K. Kashiyama, and P. M´ esz´ aros, A burst in a wind bubble and the impact on baryonic ejecta: high-energy gamma-ray flashes and afterglows from fast radio bursts and pulsar-driven supernova remnants, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society461, 1498–1511 (2016)

    2016

  83. [91]

    Arons, Magnetars in the metagalaxy: An origin for ultra–high-energy cosmic rays in the nearby universe, The Astrophysical Journal 589, 871–892 (2003)

    J. Arons, Magnetars in the metagalaxy: An origin for ultra–high-energy cosmic rays in the nearby universe, The Astrophysical Journal 589, 871–892 (2003)

    2003

  84. [92]

    Goldreich and W

    P. Goldreich and W. H. Julian, Pulsar electrodynamics, Astrophys. J. 157, 869 (1969)

    1969

  85. [93]

    Bierlich et al., A comprehensive guide to the physics and usage of PYTHIA 8.3, SciPost Phys

    C. Bierlich et al., A comprehensive guide to the physics and usage of PYTHIA 8.3, SciPost Phys. Codeb. 2022, 8 (2022), arXiv:2203.11601 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  86. [94]

    Lipari, M

    P. Lipari, M. Lusignoli, and D. Meloni, Flavor Compo- sition and Energy Spectrum of Astrophysical Neutrinos, Phys. Rev. D 75, 123005 (2007), arXiv:0704.0718 [astro- ph]

    2007 arXiv

  87. [95]

    M. G. Aartsen et al. (IceCube), The IceCube Neu- trino Observatory: Instrumentation and Online Sys- tems, JINST 12 (03), P03012, [Erratum: JINST 19, E05001 (2024)], arXiv:1612.05093 [astro-ph.IM]

    2024 arXiv

  88. [97]

    M. G. Aartsen et al. (IceCube), Search for Sources of Astrophysical Neutrinos Using Seven Years of Ice- Cube Cascade Events, Astrophys. J. 886, 12 (2019), arXiv:1907.06714 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019

  89. [98]

    Sclafani et al

    S. Sclafani et al. (IceCube), A Search for Neu- trino Sources with Cascade Events in IceCube, PoS ICRC2021, 1150 (2021), arXiv:2107.09103 [astro- ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  90. [99]

    Abbasi et al

    R. Abbasi et al. (IceCube), Observation of high-energy neutrinos from the Galactic plane, Science 380, adc9818 (2023), arXiv:2307.04427 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023

  91. [100]

    M. G. Aartsen et al. (IceCube), Evidence for As- trophysical Muon Neutrinos from the Northern Sky with IceCube, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 081102 (2015), arXiv:1507.04005 [astro-ph.HE]

    2015 arXiv

  92. [101]

    Evidence for Astrophysical Muon Neutrinos from the Northern Sky with IceCube

  93. [102]

    Search for contained neutrino events at energies greater than 1 TeV in 2 years of data

  94. [103]

    [96] and [100] for starting cascade and upgoing tracks, re- spectively

    and diffuse astrophysical neutrinos from Refs. [96] and [100] for starting cascade and upgoing tracks, re- spectively. We adopt a fixed solid angle of ∆Ω = 0 .1 for starting cascades and 0.001 for tracks as the search win- dow,1 corresponding to a cone angle of ∼ 10◦ and ∼ 1◦ ...

  95. [104]

    Cowan, K

    G. Cowan, K. Cranmer, E. Gross, and O. Vitells, Asymptotic formulae for likelihood-based tests of new physics, Eur. Phys. J. C 71, 1554 (2011), [Erra- tum: Eur.Phys.J.C 73, 2501 (2013)], arXiv:1007.1727 [physics.data-an]

    2011 arXiv

  96. [105]

    https://github.com/afedynitch/MCEq

  97. [106]

    Madau and M

    P. Madau and M. Dickinson, Cosmic star-formation his- tory, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics52, 415–486 (2014)

    2014

  98. [107]

    Igoshev et al., Initial periods and magnetic fields of neu- tron stars, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 514, 4606–4619 (2022)

    2022

  99. [108]

    M. G. Aartsen et al., Differential limit on the extremely- high-energy cosmic neutrino flux in the presence of as- trophysical background from nine years of icecube data, Physical Review D 98, 10.1103/physrevd.98.062003 (2018)

    2018 doi

  100. [109]

    Heger, S

    A. Heger, S. Woosley, I. Baraffe, and T. Abel, Evolution and explosion of very massive primordial stars, in Light- houses of the Universe: The Most Luminous Celestial Objects and Their Use for Cosmology(Springer-Verlag,

  101. [110]

    ´Alvarez Mu˜ nizet al., The giant radio array for neutrino detection (grand): Science and design, Science China Physics, Mechanics & Astronomy 63, 10.1007/s11433- 018-9385-7 (2019)

    2019 doi

  102. [111]

    M. G. Aartsen et al., Neutrino astronomy with the next generation icecube neutrino observatory (2019), arXiv:1911.02561 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019

  103. [112]

    Adrian-Martinez et al

    S. Adrian-Martinez et al. (KM3Net), Letter of in- tent for KM3NeT 2.0, J. Phys. G 43, 084001 (2016), arXiv:1601.07459 [astro-ph.IM]

    2016 arXiv

  104. [113]

    CUG Scholar

    will feature significantly improved effective areas for detecting HE neutrinos. By simply scaling the IceCube effective areas up by a factor of 5, we find that the de- tection horizon extends by a factor of ∼ 2, and the prob- ability of observing HE neutrinos from a galactic p...

  105. [114]

    M. G. Aartsen et al. (IceCube-Gen2), IceCube-Gen2: the window to the extreme Universe, J. Phys. G 48, 060501 (2021), arXiv:2008.04323 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021

  106. [115]

    Z. P. Ye et al. (TRIDENT), A multi-cubic-kilometre neutrino telescope in the western Pacific Ocean, Nature Astron. 7, 1497 (2023), arXiv:2207.04519 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023

Pith tools

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