Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 30 references

For a common diffuse neutrino flux, the observed counts at ANITA-IV, KM3NeT, and IceCube (4, 1, and 0) are incompatible at 7.5σ, and even the most fine-tuned all-sky transient population leaves 5.9σ tension.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 12:35 UTC pith:RZKCHEYD

load-bearing objection A careful joint Poisson fit showing the ANITA-IV+KM3NeT/IceCube tension is driven by the four ANITA-IV events; it is honest about its neutrino assumption but does not propagate systematic or background uncertainties into the quoted significances. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.19487 v1 pith:RZKCHEYD submitted 2026-07-21 astro-ph.HE hep-exhep-ph

Four, One, and None: Quantifying the Ultra-High-Energy Neutrino Anomaly Across ANITA-IV, KM3NeT, and IceCube

Dibya S. Chattopadhyay , Carlos A. Arg\"uelles , Vedran Brdar This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE hep-exhep-ph
keywords ultra-high-energy neutrinosANITA-IVKM3NeTIceCubediffuse neutrino fluxtransient neutrino sourcesPoisson likelihoodneutrino anomaly
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper aims to show that the observed ultra-high-energy neutrino counts—four near-horizon events at ANITA-IV, one track-like event at KM3NeT, and zero comparable events at IceCube—cannot be explained by any single Standard-Model source population. For an all-sky diffuse power-law flux, no choice of normalization or spectral index reproduces the counts; the best fit predicts roughly five IceCube events and far too few ANITA-IV and KM3NeT events, a mismatch equivalent to about 7.5σ (7.9σ for an E⁻² spectrum). Allowing rare transient sources placed exactly along the observed directions and times reduces the tension substantially, but such a configuration is fine-tuned. When transients are instead drawn from an all-sky population with a ~10⁻⁴ chance of producing four favorable ANITA-IV events, the least-anomalous Monte Carlo realization still leaves 5.9σ tension. The conclusion is that, within the Standard Model, direction and timing alone cannot reconcile the two observations with the IceCube null.

Core claim

Treating the four ANITA-IV near-horizon events as Earth-skimming tau-neutrino air showers and KM3-230213A as a track-like muon/tau neutrino, the paper constructs energy-, direction-, and time-dependent effective areas for ANITA-IV, IceCube, and KM3NeT (ARCA-21). It then builds a joint Poisson likelihood for the observed counts (4,0,1). For a diffuse power-law flux, the best fit yields expected counts (0.002, 4.654, 0.344) for an E⁻² spectrum, a tension of 7.9σ; even after profiling the spectral index the tension is about 7.5σ. For an all-sky population of rare identical transients selected so that at least four sources fall in ANITA-IV's optimal band with probability ~10⁻⁴, the best of 10⁵ r

What carries the argument

The central machinery is a set of semi-analytic, energy- and direction-dependent effective areas for the three detectors, combined with time-dependent exposure integrals and a joint Poisson likelihood. The key identity is that after profiling the common flux normalization, the total best-fit expected event count equals the total observed count (five), so the tension is controlled entirely by the exposure fraction p_D(γ)—the fraction of the total exposure each detector carries. Since IceCube carries the dominant integrated exposure, any common flux assigns most expected events to IceCube and leaves ANITA-IV and KM3NeT far below their observed counts. For transients, the same likelihood is eva

Load-bearing premise

The four ANITA-IV events are entered into the likelihood as tau-neutrino signals with no background or misidentification probability; if they are not neutrinos, the central anomaly collapses.

What would settle it

A definitive non-neutrino origin for the four ANITA-IV near-horizon events—for example, a demonstrated anthropogenic radio reflection or a misidentified cosmic-ray air shower, established through waveform, polarization, or time-structure analysis—would eliminate the 7.5σ tension because the ANITA-IV counts would no longer contribute as neutrino signal.

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

If this is right

  • If the paper's conclusion is correct, any proposed Standard-Model flux to explain the ANITA-IV and KM3NeT events must also predict a comparable IceCube yield, so the IceCube null places a strong upper bound on such fluxes.
  • The tension implies that either the ANITA-IV event identification is wrong (background or misclassification), or the ultra-high-energy neutrino sky is dominated by sources that are not yet understood, possibly beyond the Standard Model.
  • Future detectors with complementary sky coverage can directly test the predicted exposure-fraction structure by searching for events in ANITA-IV's optimal band during the IceCube runtime.
  • For transient interpretations, the required durations are extremely short (≲0.1 day for KM3NeT and ≲1–10 days for the ANITA events), which means future multi-messenger follow-up should target sub-day timescales.
  • The semi-analytic effective-area framework developed here provides a template for quantifying tensions in multi-detector neutrino observations, where detector live time and angular acceptance are as important as peak effective area.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • I infer that the true anomaly may not be a flux discrepancy at all but an event-identification problem: the paper's result is dominated by the four ANITA-IV events, and the KM3NeT event alone corresponds to only 1.8σ–2.5σ tension, so a refined understanding of ANITA-IV's near-horizon triggers (including anthropogenic backgrounds) could dissolve the anomaly without any new physics.
  • I would extend the analysis to include the two steeply upgoing ANITA-I/III events, which the paper deliberately excludes; if included, they would strengthen the case that something beyond standard tau-neutrino propagation is at work, since their Earth-emergence angles are even harder to accommodate.
  • A natural next test is to rerun the same likelihood machinery with background probabilities for the ANITA-IV events, or with flavor ratios other than 1:1:1, to see how much the tension shifts when the strict zero-background assumption is relaxed.
  • The paper's conservative neglect of local seafloor topography for KM3NeT suggests a concrete improvement: including the underwater-cliff enhancement could reduce the KM3NeT-side tension by up to a factor of about 3 in certain scenarios, possibly lowering the combined significance.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper quantifies the tension between four near-horizon ANITA-IV events, the KM3NeT track event KM3-230213A, and the absence of corresponding ultra-high-energy events at IceCube. The authors construct semi-analytic, energy- and direction-dependent effective areas for ANITA-IV, IceCube, and KM3NeT (ARCA-21), including time-dependent exposures. For a common diffuse power-law flux, they report a joint Poisson tension of ~7.5σ (7.9σ for an E^-2 spectrum), with a best fit predicting ~5 IceCube events while yielding O(10^-3) and O(10^-1) expected events at ANITA-IV and KM3NeT. They then consider rare transient populations, first placing sources at the observed directions and times, then generating all-sky populations of identical transients over the 5400-day IceCube observation period. For benchmark populations with P(ANITA-IV sees ≥4 favorable transients) ≈ 10^-4, the best of 10^5 Monte Carlo realizations still gives ~5.9σ tension. The paper concludes that, within the Standard Model, directional and temporal variations alone cannot reconcile the ANITA-IV and KM3NeT observations with the IceCube null result.

Significance. If the central claim is accepted, this is the first joint statistical quantification of the UHE neutrino anomaly across three detectors, and it goes beyond previous single-event or pair-wise analyses by including time-dependent ANITA-IV balloon geometry, KM3NeT daily exposure modulation, and an all-sky transient-population treatment that avoids cherry-picking source directions and times. The Poisson-likelihood formalism is transparent and the paper makes a serious effort to model detector exposures. The conclusion that neither a diffuse flux nor an identical-transient population can explain the observed counts is potentially important for the field. However, the quantitative significance rests on two externally supplied assumptions: that all four ANITA-IV events are ντ-induced air showers, and that the semi-analytic effective areas are reliable enough for the quoted σ values. The paper is explicit about the first assumption but does not propagate its uncertainty into the likelihood.

major comments (3)
  1. [§II, §IV (Eqs. 5–7)] The four ANITA-IV events are entered as pure signal counts in the joint Poisson likelihood, with no background or misclassification term. The paper itself states (Section II) that the anthropogenic background is at most 0.37 events and that the events are in tension with Pierre Auger and ANITA’s own Askaryan channel. Since the diffuse best-fit expects μ_A−IV ~ 10^-3, the 7.5σ claim is essentially a test that four events are observed where a neutrino flux predicts only ~10^-3. If even a small fraction of these events are non-neutrino, the significance drops sharply. The paper’s conclusion is explicitly conditional on the neutrino interpretation, but the abstract and headline numbers do not carry that caveat. Please add a background/misidentification treatment (or at least a quantitative sensitivity scan over event purity) or reframe the headline significance as conditional.
  2. [§V.B, Table II] The 5.9σ transient tension is obtained by selecting the best realization out of 10^5 Monte Carlo samples, but the quoted p-value is computed from the Poisson deviance of that single realization without correcting for the multiplicity of the search. A realization that yields −2ΔlogL = 40.4 is expected to be more extreme when one is allowed to choose the best of 10^5 draws. The paper acknowledges that more realizations could reduce the tension, but the number 5.9σ is therefore not a valid significance level for the transient hypothesis; it is a best-case deviance. A proper treatment would compare the observed data to the distribution of deviances over the ensemble of realizations, or otherwise include the realization selection in the statistical statement.
  3. [§III, Supp. §S1] The effective areas are semi-analytic and calibrated to collaboration curves only within a factor of ~2 (ANITA) and ~20–30% (IceCube/KM3NeT). The exposure fractions p_D(γ) enter the deviance through Eq. (18) and Eq. (S47), so these uncertainties directly affect the quoted σ values. For example, a factor-of-2 change in the ANITA-IV effective area changes −2ΔlogL by roughly 8 log 2 ≈ 5.5, which is non-negligible compared to the quoted statistical widths. The qualitative conclusion is likely robust — the discrepancy is enormous — but the precision of the 7.5σ and 7.9σ claims should be quantified by propagating the effective-area calibration uncertainty, or at least stated as approximate to within the model uncertainty.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] “can not” should be “cannot” for journal style. Also, the abstract states the four ANITA-IV events “imply neutrino event rates” and quotes the tension without restating the conditional nature of the neutrino interpretation; consider adding a short qualifier.
  2. [§IV, footnote 1] The use of Wilks’ theorem with the best-fit at γ ≲ 1 may be at the boundary of the scanned γ range. Since the quoted p-values are astronomically small this is unlikely to change the conclusion, but the boundary condition should be checked or the footnote expanded.
  3. [Fig. 5 caption] The left panel is described as showing the deviance as a function of γ and φ0, but the figure as printed has no axis label for γ; please label the horizontal axis clearly.
  4. [Supp. §S1] The KM3NeT normalization factor 1/16 is presented as fitting the all-sky effective area, but the spherical detector approximation is acknowledged to be rough for the sparse ARCA-21 geometry. A brief sensitivity test of the normalization factor on the main results would be useful.
  5. [§V.A] The sentence “the best-fit point does not fully remove the tension” for the KM3NeT event is slightly misleading: the 1.8σ residual is not a strong tension and is consistent with the event being a rare but Standard Model-consistent observation. Consider rewording.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circular derivation: the central tension is a profile-likelihood goodness-of-fit using independently validated effective areas; the paper's caveats are input assumptions, not hidden circularities.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained rather than circular. The effective areas for ANITA-IV, IceCube, and KM3NeT are computed semi-analytically from geometry, Earth density (PREM), cross sections, and trigger models, and are checked against collaboration-reported all-sky effective areas ('reproduces the effective-area curves reported in the literature within a factor of ~2' and 'within ~20-30%'), not against the (4,0,1) counts. The Poisson likelihood (Eq. 7) is a standard count likelihood; the normalization identity Eq. (14), sum_D mu_D = N_obs, is a textbook maximum-likelihood property and is stated transparently. The 'approximately five IceCube events' language follows from this identity plus the independently computed exposure fractions p_D(gamma); the model is not fit to the IceCube zero and then asserted to predict the IceCube zero. The transient-population benchmarks (P_A-IV(N_S>=4)~1e-4, Eq. 22) are inputs chosen to represent a rare-population hypothesis, not outputs of the fit; the MC then evaluates the residual tension, so this is a conditional statistical statement, not a self-fulfilling one. Self-citations (refs. 29, 34, 35, 40) are contextual: e.g., the same-authors seafloor-topography enhancement [35] is explicitly ignored for the Standard Model analysis ('We conservatively ignore this contribution'), and [40] appears only in a background citation list. The main vulnerability is external rather than circular: the paper enters all four ANITA-IV events as neutrino signal with no background/misclassification term, while itself noting 'the expected anthropogenic background in ANITA-IV is estimated to be at most 0.37' and tensions with Pierre Auger and the ANITA Askaryan channel; this makes the central significance contingent on the neutrino interpretation, but the paper states that contingency and lists 'unaccounted-for detector or event-classification effects' as a possible resolution. That is an assumption/robustness caveat, not a derivation step equivalent to the conclusion. Score 1 reflects minor presentational wording ('predicts ~5 IceCube events') and non-load-bearing self-citations, not circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

The analysis rests on a small number of fitted parameters (flux normalization, spectral index, transient-population benchmarks) and several domain assumptions, most importantly the neutrino interpretation of the ANITA-IV events. No new particles, forces, or entities are introduced. The effective-area calibration parameters are tuned to published detector curves rather than to the anomaly data, which keeps circularity low but introduces systematic uncertainty.

free parameters (6)
  • Diffuse flux normalization φ0 = ≈2.4×10^-27 GeV^-1 cm^-2 s^-1 sr^-1 for E^-2 best fit
    Fitted to the combined observed counts via Eq. (13); sets the total expected number of events equal to N_obs = 5.
  • Diffuse spectral index γ = best-fit γ≲1; γ=2 also quoted
    Scanned in the diffuse likelihood to minimize the Poisson deviance.
  • ANITA trigger efficiency parameterization (P_trig floor, Sθ shape, E0, ΔE) = P_trig = 10^-3 × 10^{Sθ SE}; E0=1 EeV, ΔE=0.5
    Hand-tuned to reproduce published ANITA-IV effective areas (Eqs. S22-S25); directly controls the ANITA expected event rate.
  • KM3NeT ARCA-21 normalization factor = 1/16
    Applied to a 1 km^3 spherical effective area to match the published ARCA-21 all-sky effective area within ~20-30%; directly sets the KM3NeT expected count.
  • Transient benchmark source count and duration (BP1/BP2/BP3) = (1 d, 285), (10 d, 185), (100 d, 45)
    Chosen so that P_A-IV(N_S≥4)≈10^-4; the transient-population tension depends on this assumed rarity.
  • Lepton energy fraction and threshold energies = E_ℓ=0.8 Eν; E_th,ANITA^τ=0.1 EeV; E_th,IC/KM3^μ=1 TeV; E_th^τ=5 PeV
    Model inputs for particle propagation and detection, taken from literature or order-of-magnitude estimates; not fitted to the event counts.
axioms (7)
  • domain assumption The four ANITA-IV events are ντ-induced Earth-skimming air showers.
    Section II and Table I. If these events have a non-neutrino origin, the central tension disappears. The quoted anthropogenic background (≤0.37 events) is not included in the likelihood.
  • domain assumption KM3-230213A is an ultra-high-energy νμ or ντ track.
    Based on the KM3NeT collaboration reconstruction [36]; needed to use the track effective areas for both νμ and ντ.
  • domain assumption IceCube has zero corresponding UHE events and its effective area/live time is described by the semi-analytic model.
    Section II/III; no event-count uncertainty or effective-area uncertainty is propagated into the quoted significance.
  • standard math Standard Model neutrino cross sections and the PREM Earth density profile.
    Used in the effective-area formulas (Supplemental S1); citations [56-62] provide the cross sections and density profile.
  • domain assumption Equal flavor ratio 1:1:1 at Earth.
    Section IV; standard for astrophysical neutrino sources but not directly measured at these energies.
  • standard math Wilks' theorem applies to the Poisson likelihood with small counts and the saturated-model reference.
    Used to convert -2ΔlogL to Gaussian significances; asymptotic validity is questionable when one observed count is zero.
  • domain assumption Transient sources are identical, E^-2, uniformly distributed in sky and time, with top-hat durations.
    Section V; a tractable model, not required by the data, and the conclusion is conditional on this population class.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 27111 in / 16746 out tokens · 176974 ms · 2026-08-01T12:35:47.803002+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The four near-horizon neutrino-like events reported by ANITA-IV and the ultra-high-energy track-like event KM3-230213A observed by KM3NeT imply neutrino event rates that are in tension with the absence of corresponding events at IceCube. In this work, we perform a joint analysis of these events, taking into account the absence of any corresponding ones at IceCube. We construct semi-analytic, energy- and direction-dependent effective areas for the three detectors and account for the time-dependent ANITA-IV and KM3NeT exposures. For a diffuse all-sky power-law flux varying both the normalization and the spectral index, the measured event rates across the three detectors are not reproduced. The best-fit configuration, corresponding to a tension of $\sim7.5\sigma$, predicts approximately five IceCube events while strongly underpredicting the ANITA-IV and KM3NeT counts. In contrast to the diffuse scenario, the tension can be substantially alleviated if the events arise from short-duration transients that occur exactly along the observed directions during the ANITA-IV and KM3NeT detection windows. Such a realization, however, is highly fine-tuned. If rare transients are instead distributed randomly across the full sky over the $\sim15$-year IceCube observation period, additional sources inevitably contribute to the IceCube exposure. For benchmark populations with a probability of approximately $10^{-4}$ to produce four favorable transients at ANITA-IV, the best-fit configuration of sources, out of $10^5$ Monte Carlo realizations, remains in $5.9\sigma$ tension. We conclude that, within the Standard Model, directional and temporal variations alone can not reconcile the ANITA-IV and KM3NeT observations with the IceCube null result, under both a diffuse all-sky flux and a rare-transient source hypothesis.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.19487 by Carlos A. Arg\"uelles, Dibya S. Chattopadhyay, Vedran Brdar.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Best-fit expected event numbers at ANITA-IV (gray), IceCube (red), and KM3NeT (blue) for the diffuse-flux scenario [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Left panel: Exposure of ANITA-IV (solid curves) and IceCube (dashed curves) for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. ANITA-IV (black curves with gray shaded regions) and IceCube (red) effective area for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. KM3NeT ARCA-21 (blue) and IceCube (red) effective area for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Left panel: Joint Poisson deviance for the diffuse all-sky flux hypothesis as a function of the spectral index [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Poisson deviances for separate transient sources placed at the directions and times of ANITA-IV Events A, B, C, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Expected number of KM3NeT and IceCube events as functions of the transient duration ∆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Probability that at least four distinct transient sources overlap the optimal ANITA-IV elevation band, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 22 linked inside Pith

  1. [25]

    C. A. Arg¨ uelles, F. Halzen, and N. Kurahashi,From the Dawn of Neutrino Astronomy to a New View of the Extreme Universe,Phys. Rev. X15(2025), no. 3 030501, [2405.17623]. [26]ANIT A Collaboration, P. W. Gorhamet al.,Characteristics of Four Upward-pointing Cosmic-ray-like Events Observed with ANITA,Phys. Rev. Lett.117(2016), no. 7 071101, [1603.05218]. [27...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  2. [29]

    I. Safa, A. Pizzuto, C. A. Arg¨ uelles, F. Halzen, R. Hussain, A. Kheirandish, and J. Vandenbroucke,Observing EeV neutrinos through Earth: GZK and the anomalous ANITA events,JCAP2020(Jan., 2020) 012, [1909.10487]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  3. [30]

    Romero-Wolfet al.,Comprehensive analysis of anomalous ANITA events disfavors a diffuse tau-neutrino flux origin, Phys

    A. Romero-Wolfet al.,Comprehensive analysis of anomalous ANITA events disfavors a diffuse tau-neutrino flux origin, Phys. Rev. D99(2019), no. 6 063011, [1811.07261]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  4. [31]

    D. B. Fox, S. Sigurdsson, S. Shandera, P. M´ esz´ aros, K. Murase, M. Mostaf´ a, and S. Coutu,The ANITA Anomalous Events as Signatures of a Beyond Standard Model Particle, and Supporting Observations from IceCube,1809.09615. [32]IceCube Collaboration, M. G. Aartsenet al.,A search for IceCube events in the direction of ANITA neutrino candidates,Astrophys. ...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  5. [34]

    Bert´ olez-Mart ´ ınez, C

    T. Bert´ olez-Mart ´ ınez, C. A. Arg¨ uelles, I. Esteban, J. Lopez-Pavon, I. Martinez-Soler, and J. Salvado,IceCube and the origin of ANITA-IV events,JHEP07(2023) 005, [2305.03746]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  6. [35]

    C. A. Arg¨ uelles, T. Bert´ olez-Mart ´ ınez, A. Burgos-Mond´ ejar, A.-K. Burns, J. Lopez-Pavon, and J. Salvado,Seafloor Topography Enhances KM3NeT Sensitivity to ANITA-like Events,2510.21929. [36]KM3NeT Collaboration, S. Aielloet al.,Observation of an ultra-high-energy cosmic neutrino with KM3NeT,Nature 638(2025), no. 8050 376–382. [37]IceCube Collaborat...

    arXiv 2025

  7. [38]

    S. W. Li, P. Machado, D. Naredo-Tuero, and T. Schwemberger,Clash of the titans: ultra-high energy KM3NeT event versus IceCube data,Phys. Lett. B875(2026) 140293, [2502.04508]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  8. [39]

    Palmisano, D

    S. Palmisano, D. Redigolo, M. Tammaro, and A. Tesi,Exploring ultra-high energy neutrino experiments through the lens of the transport equation,JHEP03(2026) 223, [2507.10665]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  9. [40]

    Brdar and D

    V. Brdar and D. S. Chattopadhyay,Does the 220 PeV Event at KM3NeT Point to New Physics?,Phys. Rev. Lett.136 (2026), no. 8 081001, [2502.21299]

    arXiv 2026

  10. [41]

    P. S. B. Dev, B. Dutta, A. Karthikeyan, W. Maitra, L. E. Strigari, and A. Verma,‘Dark’ Matter Effect as a Novel Solution to the KM3-230213A Puzzle,2505.22754

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  11. [42]

    Farzan and M

    Y. Farzan and M. Hostert,Astrophysical flux of dark particles as a solution to the KM3NeT and IceCube tension over KM3-230213A,JHEP10(2025) 208, [2505.22711]. [43]IceCube Collaboration, R. Abbasiet al.,A Search for UHE Tau Neutrinos with IceCube,Phys. Rev. D86(2012) 022005, [1202.4564]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  12. [44]

    M. D. Kistler and R. Laha,Multi-PeV Signals from a New Astrophysical Neutrino Flux Beyond the Glashow Resonance, Phys. Rev. Lett.120(2018), no. 24 241105, [1605.08781]. [45]IceCube Collaboration, R. Abbasiet al.,Detection of astrophysical tau neutrino candidates in IceCube,Eur. Phys. J. C82(2022), no. 11 1031, [2011.03561]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  13. [46]

    S. I. Dutta, M. H. Reno, I. Sarcevic, and D. Seckel,Propagation of muons and taus at high-energies,Phys. Rev. D63 (2001) 094020, [hep-ph/0012350]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  14. [47]

    O. B. Bigas, O. Deligny, K. Payet, and V. Van Elewyck,Tau energy losses at ultra-high energy: Continuous versus stochastic treatment,Phys. Rev. D77(2008) 103004, [0802.1119]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  15. [48]

    Y. S. Jeong, M. V. Luu, M. H. Reno, and I. Sarcevic,Tau energy loss and ultrahigh energy skimming tau neutrinos,Phys. Rev. D96(2017), no. 4 043003, [1704.00050]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  16. [49]

    Astrophysical Neutrinos at KM3NeT

    S. Celli, “Astrophysical Neutrinos at KM3NeT.” Plenary talk, XXXII International Conference on Neutrino Physics and Astrophysics (Neutrino 2026), Univ. of California, Irvine, June, 2026. [50]Particle Data Group Collaboration, S. Navaset al.,Review of particle physics,Phys. Rev. D110(2024), no. 3 030001. [51]IceCube Collaboration, R. Abbasiet al.,Observati...

    arXiv 2026

  17. [54]

    Baker and R

    S. Baker and R. D. Cousins,Clarification of the Use of Chi Square and Likelihood Functions in Fits to Histograms,Nucl. Instrum. Meth.221(1984) 437–442

    1984

  18. [55]

    Cowan, K

    G. Cowan, K. Cranmer, E. Gross, and O. Vitells,Asymptotic formulae for likelihood-based tests of new physics,Eur. Phys. J. C71(2011) 1554, [1007.1727]. [Erratum: Eur.Phys.J.C 73, 2501 (2013)]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  19. [56]

    A. M. Dziewonski and D. L. Anderson,Preliminary reference earth model,Phys. Earth Planet. Interiors25(1981) 297–356

    1981

  20. [57]

    Connolly, R

    A. Connolly, R. S. Thorne, and D. Waters,Calculation of High Energy Neutrino-Nucleon Cross Sections and Uncertainties Using the MSTW Parton Distribution Functions and Implications for Future Experiments,Phys. Rev. D83 (2011) 113009, [1102.0691]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  21. [58]

    V. B. Valera, M. Bustamante, and C. Glaser,The ultra-high-energy neutrino-nucleon cross section: measurement forecasts for an era of cosmic EeV-neutrino discovery,JHEP06(2022) 105, [2204.04237]. [59]CTEQ-TEA Collaboration, K. Xie, J. Gao, T. J. Hobbs, D. R. Stump, and C. P. Yuan,High-energy neutrino deep inelastic scattering cross sections,Phys. Rev. D109...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  22. [60]

    P. L. R. Weigel, J. M. Conrad, and A. Garcia-Soto,Cross sections and inelasticity distributions of high-energy neutrino deep inelastic scattering,Phys. Rev. D111(2025), no. 4 043044, [2408.05866]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  23. [61]

    S. I. Dutta, Y. Huang, and M. H. Reno,Tau neutrino propagation and tau energy loss,Phys. Rev. D72(2005) 013005, [hep-ph/0504208]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  24. [62]

    Wissel, C

    S. Wissel, C. Burch, W. Carvalho, J. Crowley, J. Alvarez-Mu˜ niz, A. L. Cummings, A. Kauther, A. Romero-Wolf, H. Schoorlemmer, and E. Zas,Comprehensive estimate of the sensitivity of ANITA to tau neutrinos,PoSICRC2019 (2019) 1034

    2019

  25. [63]

    Schneider, N

    A. Schneider, N. W. Kamp, and A. Y. Wen,SIREN: An open-source neutrino injection toolkit,Computer Physics Communications316(Nov., 2025) 109799, [2406.01745]. 18

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  26. [64]

    T. K. Gaisser, R. Engel, and E. Resconi,Cosmic Rays and Particle Physics: 2nd Edition. Cambridge University Press, 6, 2016

    2016

  27. [65]

    Muller, A

    R. Muller, A. Heijboer, and T. van Eeden,Search for cosmic neutrino point sources and extended sources with 6-21 lines of KM3NeT/ARCA,PoSICRC2023(2023) 1018

    2023

  28. [66]

    M. D. Kistler, T. Stanev, and H. Y¨ uksel,Cosmic PeV Neutrinos and the Sources of Ultrahigh Energy Protons,Phys. Rev. D90(2014), no. 12 123006, [1301.1703]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  29. [67]

    Gandhi, C

    R. Gandhi, C. Quigg, M. H. Reno, and I. Sarcevic,Neutrino interactions at ultrahigh-energies,Phys. Rev. D58(1998) 093009, [hep-ph/9807264]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  30. [68]

    Cooper-Sarkar, P

    A. Cooper-Sarkar, P. Mertsch, and S. Sarkar,The high energy neutrino cross-section in the Standard Model and its uncertainty,Journal of High Energy Physics2011(Aug., 2011) 42, [1106.3723]. [69]IceCube Collaboration, M. G. Aartsenet al.,Searches for Extended and Point-like Neutrino Sources with Four Years of IceCube Data,Astrophys. J.796(Dec., 2014) 109, [...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011