Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Neutrino Oscillation Tomography of the Earth with the Hyper-Kamiokande Detector

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Hyper-Kamiokande can measure the Earth's average core density to within about ±10 percent by watching atmospheric neutrinos oscillate through the planet.

desk verdict Genuinely useful HK sensitivity projection undermined by an abstract that quotes an interval inconsistent with the paper's own geophysical constraints. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.12344 v3 pith:YDO72HDX submitted 2024-11-19 hep-ex hep-ph

César Jesús-Valls , Serguey T. Petcov , Junjie Xia This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-exhep-ph
keywords neutrinooscillationtomographyEarthcoredensityatmosphericneutrinosHyper-KamiokandePREMreferencemodelmassandmomentofinertiaconstraintsmattereffectsmantle-corejump
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 asks what the future Hyper-Kamiokande detector can learn about the Earth's deep interior from atmospheric neutrinos that pass through the planet. It argues that matter effects on neutrino oscillations leave a record of the average densities of the core, lower mantle, and upper mantle, and that after 6500 days HK can determine the core average density $\bar{\rho}_C$ at $2\sigma$ confidence with uncertainty $(-14.5\%)/+39.5\%$ under nominal resolutions, or $(-8.3\%)/+9.8\%$ if energy and angular resolution improve as hoped. It further shows that independent geophysical knowledge — the Earth's measured mass $M_\oplus$, moment of inertia $I_\oplus$, and hydrostatic equilibrium — caps any positive core-density deviation at about $+10\%$, so neutrinos and geophysics together bound the core density inside a narrow band. If the projection holds, neutrino oscillations become a non-seismic probe of the planet's layered interior, independently checking the sharp density jump at the mantle-core boundary.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the Mikheyev--Smirnov--Wolfenstein matter potential $V = \sqrt{2}\,G_F N_e$, which makes neutrino oscillation probabilities depend on the electron density along the trajectory; binning atmospheric neutrinos in energy and zenith angle lets each bin sample a different chord through the Earth, and core-crossing chords ($\cos\theta_z < -0.84$) are where the core's imprint is largest, aided by the resonance-like mantle-core interference effect in the 2--10 GeV range. Deviations from the PREM reference profile are parametrized by constant scale factors $\rho'_i = (1+\kappa_i)\rho_i$ for the core, lower mantle, and upper mantle, and the geophysical side conditions are imposed analytically: conserving $M_\oplus$ and $I_\oplus$ fixes $\kappa_{\mathrm{lman}} = -1.43\,\kappa_C$ and $\kappa_{\mathrm{uman}} = 2.070\,\kappa_C$, while hydrostatic equilibrium restricts $\kappa_C$ to roughly $[-0.33, +0.09]$. Sensitivities then come from a $\Delta\chi^2 = \sum_i (O_i - E_i)^2/E_i$ comparison between PREM and modified-Earth expected counts, computed from the public Super-Kamiokande pre-fit simulation (12 multi-GeV and partially contained samples, with the collaboration's flux and interaction modeling) scaled to HK's volume and re-binned for each assumed resolution.

What would settle it

Run the first 6500 days of real Hyper-Kamiokande data through the paper's own 12-sample binning and compute $\Delta\chi^2$ as a function of $\kappa_C$ against the PREM prediction. If the resulting $2\sigma$ interval for $\kappa_C$ spans the entire physically allowed range $[-0.30, +0.10]$ without excluding either edge, the claimed core-density determination is refuted. A faster in-situ check: measure HK's actual reconstructed energy and angular resolutions; if they are worse than $E_{\mathrm{res}} \approx 20\%$ and $\theta_{z\mathrm{res}} \approx 10^\circ$, the favorable-case $(-8.3\%)/+9.8\%$ interval is unreachable under the paper's own scaling.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's claim is that Hyper-Kamiokande, a water Cherenkov detector eight times larger than Super-Kamiokande, can after 6500 days of live time determine the Earth's average core density $\bar{\rho}_C$ at $2\sigma$ confidence from atmospheric neutrino oscillations alone, with relative uncertainty $(-14.5\%)/+39.5\%$ in the nominal configuration ($E_{\mathrm{res}} = 30\%$, $\theta_{z\mathrm{res}} = 20^\circ$, $\sin^2\theta_{23} = 0.45$) and $(-8.3\%)/+9.8\%$ in the favorable configuration ($E_{\mathrm{res}} = 20\%$, $\theta_{z\mathrm{res}} = 10^\circ$, $\sin^2\theta_{23} = 0.58$). The authors stress that the positive side of these intervals is not the whole story: any modified density profile must conserve the measured Earth mass $M_\oplus$ and moment of inertia $I_\oplus$ and obey hydrostatic equilibrium ($\bar{\rho}'_{\mathrm{uman}} < \bar{\rho}'_{\mathrm{lman}} < \bar{\rho}'_C$), which limits positive core-density deviations to about $+10\%$ — so the $+39.5\%$ edge of the nominal interval is physically excluded, and the tables mark such cases with constraint-supplied limits. The same analysis yields correlated bounds on the lower and upper mantle average densities, and the authors conclude that with $\sin^2\theta_{23}=0.50$ and favorable resolution the $2\sigma$ core interval of $10.08\ \mathrm{g/cm^3} \le \bar{\rho}_C \le 12.06\ \mathrm{g/cm^3}$ around the PREM value $10.99\ \mathrm{g/cm^3}$ would constitute independent, non-seismic evidence for the existence of at least three major density layers inside the Earth.

Load-bearing premise

The projections assume that Super-Kamiokande's public pre-fit simulation, scaled to Hyper-Kamiokande's eightfold larger volume and re-smeared with assumed Gaussian resolutions, faithfully represents how HK will record 6500 days of atmospheric neutrinos, and that systematic uncertainties such as flux normalization and cross-section errors will not degrade the quoted precision; the paper's own large gap between its statistical-only and nominal benchmarks shows that real systematics decide which column of numbers comes true.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A $2\sigma$ core-density determination near $10.08$--$12.06\ \mathrm{g/cm^3}$ (favorable resolution, $\sin^2\theta_{23} = 0.50$) would independently confirm at least three major density layers inside the Earth, including a large density jump between mantle and core — a result currently resting almost entirely on seismology.
  • The true value of $\sin^2\theta_{23}$ materially changes the reach: nominal-case uncertainty shifts from $(-14.5\%)/+39.5\%$ at $\sin^2\theta_{23} = 0.45$ to $(-9.3\%)/+31.7\%$ at $0.58$, so pinning down $\theta_{23}$ sharpens the tomographic measurement.
  • Improving the reconstructed zenith-angle resolution buys more sensitivity than a comparable improvement in energy resolution, so reconstruction R&D directly translates into geophysical reach.
  • Because the statistical-only sensitivity is far better than the nominal one, the measurement is dominated by systematic effects; reducing them is what separates the nominal from the favorable-case outcome.
  • The geophysical constraints cap positive core deviations near $+10\%$, so any HK preference for $\kappa_C > 0.10$ would signal a conflict with established Earth-mass and hydrostatic-equilibrium assumptions rather than a new density measurement.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's own gap between statistical-only and nominal sensitivity implies the measurement is systematics-limited, so the favorable-case interval will be reached only if HK's real reconstruction and calibration outperform Super-Kamiokande's; a conservative reading places the realized core-density uncertainty between the nominal and favorable columns.
  • The same three-layer machinery applies directly to other future neutrino detectors (DUNE, ORCA, INO): because the geophysical constraints link the three densities, combining detectors could break the degeneracy between core density, mantle density, and the electron fraction $Y_e$, which this paper holds fixed.
  • A near-term validation is possible: the favorable-resolution scenario predicts a specific zenith-angle-dependent distortion of up-going multi-GeV rates that grows with core-crossing path length, so early HK data can test the projection long before 6500 days accumulate.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents a forward-model sensitivity study of neutrino-oscillation Earth tomography with the planned Hyper-Kamiokande detector. It uses the public Super-Kamiokande atmospheric-neutrino simulation release as a proxy for HK, scales it to HK's fiducial volume and 6500 days of exposure, and evaluates sensitivity to constant fractional deviations of the average core, lower-mantle, and upper-mantle densities from PREM. The analysis imposes total Earth mass, moment of inertia, and hydrostatic-equilibrium constraints, and studies how the expected 68% and 95% intervals depend on neutrino energy and zenith-angle resolution and on sin^2(theta_23), for normal mass ordering only. The headline result is that in a nominal resolution scenario HK could determine the core density at 2 sigma with an asymmetric uncertainty of about (-14.5%)/+39.5%, while a more favorable resolution scenario gives roughly (-8.3%)/+9.8%.

Significance. If the quoted sensitivities are correct after accounting for the Earth constraints, the paper would provide a useful quantitative projection of HK's Earth-tomography capability and would complement earlier studies for DUNE, IceCube, and ORCA. The work has several concrete strengths: it builds on a public, realistic SK simulation release; it uses quantile-weighted oscillation probabilities rather than simple bin-center estimates; it implements M_earth, I_earth, and hydrostatic-equilibrium constraints analytically and numerically; and it documents the dependence of the sensitivity on detector resolution and on sin^2(theta_23) in a compact table. The paper also honestly notes in several places that the geophysical bounds limit positive core-density deviations to about 10%. However, the central quantitative claim is presently not stated consistently: the abstract and Section 4 quote a +39.5% upper uncertainty for the nominal case that is incompatible with the constraints derived in Section 2.1, while Table 2 silently truncates the same interval.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract; Sec. 2.1, Eqs. (9)-(14); Sec. 4; Table 2] The headline nominal-case interval (-14.5%, +39.5%) is not a physically allowed posterior interval under the constraints the paper itself imposes. Equation (14) gives -0.30 < kappa_C < 0.10 and Eq. (12) gives kappa_C < 0.089; at kappa_C = 0.395 the compensation relations in Eq. (10) give kappa_uman = 0.818 and kappa_lman = -0.565, which violate the hydrostatic-equilibrium inequality in Eq. (9). Table 2 correctly replaces the 95% upper limit with a dash for the HK Nominal rows, and Section 4 admits the constraint, but the Abstract and the main text of Section 4 still quote +39.5% as the 2-sigma uncertainty. The abstract and conclusions should quote the constrained upper edge (approximately +10%) or must explicitly label the unconstrained +39.5% value as a separate, unphysical sensitivity estimator.
  2. [Sec. 3.7; Sec. 3.6; Sec. 4] The sensitivity statistic is computed as Delta chi^2 = sum_i (O_i - E_i)^2 / E_i from expectation values only, with no nuisance parameters for flux normalization, cross-section uncertainties, detector efficiencies, or energy-scale biases. The 'nominal' scenario E30%&20 deg is implemented in Sec. 3.6 only as a Gaussian smearing of reconstructed energy and angle; it is not a model of systematic uncertainties. Therefore the quoted intervals are statistical-plus-idealized-resolution projections, and the statement in Section 4 that the measurement sensitivity is 'dominated by systematic uncertainties' is not supported by the analysis as written, because no systematic uncertainties are actually varied or profiled. The authors should either introduce a nuisance-parameter treatment or explicitly restrict all claims to 'statistical and resolution-only' sensitivity.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 6 caption] The caption states that the dark blue bands correspond to varying kappa_C in the interval '0.30 < kappa_C < 0.10', which is internally inconsistent; it should presumably read '-0.30 < kappa_C < 0.10'.
  2. [Sec. 2.1, text after Eq. (14)] There are two unit/typo issues in the density ranges: '7.36 g/cm2' should be 'g/cm3', and the interval written as '1.12 g/cm3 < rho_lman < 4.23 g/cm3' appears to refer to the upper mantle density rho_uman rather than the lower mantle.
  3. [Abstract and Sec. 5] The abstract and conclusions contain typographical errors in the quoted numbers: '(-9.3%/+31/7%)' should be '(-9.3%/+31.7%)', and the 'more favorable' case is described with 'zenith angle resolution theta_zres of 10%' where 10 degrees is clearly intended.
  4. [Sec. 3.4, Eq. (16)] The quantile-weighted probability in Eq. (16) uses a product of independent energy and angle weights w_i w_j, which implicitly assumes that the true energy and true angle distributions are uncorrelated within each bin. Since the public SK release provides only 1D quantiles, this assumption should be stated explicitly as a limitation of the method.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the sensitivity projections are forward-model calculations from external SK simulations and PREM; the self-cited constraint derivation is independently reproduced and parameter-free.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are forward-model sensitivity projections, not derived from their own targets. The expected event rates come from the public Super-Kamiokande simulation release (Ref. [74]), scaled to the Hyper-Kamiokande volume; oscillation probabilities for modified Earth density profiles are computed with Prob3++ on PREM-based density inputs (Sec. 3.4, Eqs. (15)-(16)), and the sensitivity is obtained by evaluating Delta-chi^2 between the PREM expectation and the modified-Earth expectation (Sec. 3.7). No parameter is fitted to the quantity being predicted: kappa_C, kappa_lman and kappa_uman are scanned inputs, not inferred outputs. The M_earth, I_earth and hydrostatic-equilibrium constraints are external geophysical inputs with cited experimental values (Eqs. (4)-(5)); the compensation coefficients in Eq. (10) are derived by integrating PREM density polynomials and are independently re-derived in the paper both analytically (Eqs. (11)-(13)) and numerically (Eq. (14)). Although Ref. [60] is a co-author self-citation, the paper does not rely on it as an unverified premise: it reproduces the allowed ranges, corrects a typo in that reference, and uses only parameter-free relations based on external constants, so the citation does not constitute load-bearing circularity. The abstract's nominal-case upper value of +39.5% does conflict with the paper's own constraint kappa_C < 0.10; the paper explicitly flags this in Sec. 4 and Table 2 replaces such unconstrained upper limits with dashes. That is an internal inconsistency or correctness risk in how the headline interval is quoted, not a circular derivation, because the +39.5% value is a point on a forward sensitivity curve rather than an input or a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. Overall, no step in the derivation chain reduces by construction to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on PREM geometry, uniform density deviation parameters, external M_earth and I_earth constraints, fixed oscillation parameters, and the extrapolation of SK prefit simulations to HK. No new physical entities are introduced. The main modeling assumptions are the uniform kappa parametrization and the proxy treatment of systematics.

assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption PREM layer boundaries are correct (core radius 3480 km, inner core 1221.5 km, lower/upper mantle split at 5701 km).
    All path lengths, average densities, and constraints rely on these boundaries; if they are wrong, the sensitivity projections shift. Invoked throughout Sec. 2 and applied in Sec. 3.4.
  • domain assumption Density deviations are uniform within each layer: rho'_i = (1 + kappa_i) rho_i.
    Eq. (2) parametrizes each layer by a single constant factor; real density anomalies need not be uniform, and the sensitivity could differ for non-uniform deviations.
  • domain assumption The electron fraction Ye is 0.50 in both mantle and core.
    Sec. 2 states default Ye = 0.50 and argues that using values from the quoted intervals changes results insignificantly. This assumption converts density to neutrino matter potential.
  • domain assumption PMNS parameters are fixed at the normal-ordering best fit from Ref. [72] (Table 1), and their uncertainties are not propagated.
    Sec. 2 says oscillation parameter uncertainties have smaller effects than the statistical and systematic uncertainties considered. The paper later scans theta_23 only.
  • domain assumption The M_earth and I_earth constraints are implemented through linear compensation relations kappa_lman = -1.43 kappa_C and kappa_uman = 2.07 kappa_C, derived in Ref. [60].
    Eq. (10) is load-bearing for all reported intervals because it fixes two mantle densities in terms of the core density. The derivation uses external M_earth and I_earth but assumes a specific compensation scheme and PREM geometry.
  • domain assumption The Super-Kamiokande public prefit simulation release, scaled by volume to HK, is a valid proxy for future HK data.
    Sec. 3.1 states SK only releases prefit expectations and calls them 'an excellent proxy'. No post-fit systematic pulls are used, and the scaling assumes identical efficiencies and backgrounds per volume.
  • domain assumption Hydrostatic equilibrium conditions apply to average densities as strict inequalities: rho'_uman < rho'_lman < rho'_C.
    Eq. (9) imposes the EHE constraint on layer averages, but true hydrostatic equilibrium is a differential condition on the density profile, not simply an ordering of averages.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Neutrino Oscillation Tomography of the Earth with the Hyper-Kamiokande Detector." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YDO72HDX

@misc{pith2026241112344,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Neutrino Oscillation Tomography of the Earth with the Hyper-Kamiokande Detector},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YDO72HDX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.12344}
}
abstract

Using PREM as a reference model for the Earth density distribution we investigate the sensitivity of the Hyper-Kamiokande (HK) detector to deviations of the Earth i) core average density $\bar{\rho}_C$, ii) lower mantle average density $\bar{\rho}_{lman}$) and iii) upper mantle average density $\bar{\rho}_{uman}$, from their respective PREM densities. The analysis is performed by studying the effects of the Earth matter on the oscillations of atmospheric $\nu_{\mu}$, $\nu_e$, $\bar{\nu}_\mu$ and $\bar{\nu}_e$. We implement the constraints on the variations of $\rho_C$, $\rho_{lman}$ and $\rho_{uman}$ following from the precise knowledge of the Earth mass $M_\oplus$ and moment of inertia $I_\oplus$, as well as from the requirement that the Earth be in hydrostatic equilibrium (EHE). These constraints limit in the case of the three layer Earth density structure we are considering the maximal positive deviation of $\bar{\rho}_C$ from its PREM value to $10\%$. Considering the case of normal ordering (NO) of neutrino masses, we present results which illustrate the dependence of sensitivity to the core, lower and upper mantle average densities on the energy and zenith angle resolutions and on the value of $\theta_{23}$. We show, in particular, that in the ''nominal'' case of neutrino energy resolution $E_{res} = 30\%$ and zenith angle resolution $\theta_{zres} = 20^\circ$ and for, e.g., $\sin^2\theta_{23}=0.45~(0.58)$, HK can determine the average core density $\bar{\rho}_C$ at $2\sigma$ C.L. after 6500 days of operation with an uncertainty of (-14.5\%)/+39.5\% ((-9.3\%/+31.7\%). In the ''more favorable'' case of $E_{res}= 20\%$ and $\theta_{zres} = 10^\circ$, and if $\sin^2\theta_{23}=0.58~(0.45)$, the core density would be determined at $2\sigma$ C.L. with an uncertainty of (-8.3\%)/+9.8\% ((-9.2\%)/+11.3\%).

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.12344 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A diagram of the Earth interior under study. The angle cos [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Left panel: Earth density according to PREM and an example solution for a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Oscillated predictions, using parameters in Tab. 1, for all analysis samples scaled [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Example splines in four consecutive energy bins (right panel) and four consecutive [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Sensitivity to deviations of the Earth core, lower mantle and upper mantle densities [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Confidence intervals of HK sensitivity to deviations of the core, lower mantle and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Second-Order Perturbative Correction for Neutrino Oscillation Tomography of the Earth

    hep-ph 2026-07 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    Second-order perturbative neutrino oscillation probabilities for generic (non-symmetric) Earth density profiles enable accurate multi-shell evolution for oscillation tomography.

  2. Estimating the sensitivity of the IceCube Upgrade to probe the interior of the Earth using atmospheric neutrino oscillations

    hep-ex 2026-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A Monte Carlo sensitivity study projects that the IceCube Upgrade with DeepCore can detect Earth matter effects at 5.5-7.1 sigma, reject a uniform Earth at 2.4 sigma, and measure the Earth's mass to about 10% precision.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

78 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [60]

    S. T. Petcov, Eur. Phys. J. C 84 (2024) 991 [arXiv:2406.13727 [hep-ph]]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  2. [1]

    Treatise on Geochemistry: The Mantle and Core

    W.F. McDonough, “Treatise on Geochemistry: The Mantle and Core”, vol. 2 (ed. R. W. Carlson, Elsevier-Pergamon, Oxford, 2003), p. 547

    work page 2003

  3. [2]

    B. A. Bolt, Q. J. R. Astron. Soc. 32, 367 (1991)

    work page 1991

  4. [3]

    B. L. N. Kennett, Geophys. J. Int. 132 (1998) 374

    work page 1998

  5. [4]

    Masters and D

    G. Masters and D. Gubbins, Phys. Earth Planet. Inter. 140 (2003) 159. 19

    work page 2003

  6. [5]

    Multi-Messenger Tomography of the Earth

    F. Nimmo, talk given at the International Workshop “Multi-Messenger Tomography of the Earth”, Snowbird, Utah, U.S.A., July 30-31, 2022

    work page 2022

  7. [6]

    Multi-Messenger Tomography of the Earth

    K.D. Koper, talk given at the International Workshop “Multi-Messenger Tomography of the Earth”, Snowbird, Utah, U.S.A., July 30-31, 2022

    work page 2022

  8. [7]

    Multi-Messenger Tomography of the Earth

    L. Waszek, talk given at the International Workshop “Multi-Messenger Tomography of the Earth”, APC, Paris, July 4-7, 2023

    work page 2023

Show all 78 references
  1. [8]

    Multi-Messenger Tomog- raphy of the Earth

    W.F. McDonough, talk given at the International Workshop “Multi-Messenger Tomog- raphy of the Earth”, APC, Paris, July 4-7, 2023

    2023

  2. [9]

    Multi-Messenger Tomography of the Earth

    S. Noe, talk given at the International Workshop “Multi-Messenger Tomography of the Earth”, APC, Paris, July 4-7, 2023

    2023

  3. [10]

    A. M. Dziewonski and D. L. Anderson, Phys. Earth Planet. Interiors 25 (1981) 297

    1981

  4. [11]

    Global Earth Physics

    C. F. Yoder, “Global Earth Physics”, vol. 1, (ed. T. J. Ahrens, American Geophysical Union, Washington DC, 1995), p. 1

    1995

  5. [12]

    W. F. McDonough and R. Arevalo, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 136 (2008), 022006 (doi:10.1088/1742-6596/136/2/022006)

    2008 doi

  6. [13]

    On the possibility of using high-energy neutrinos to study the Earth’s interior

    A. Placci and E. Zavattini, “On the possibility of using high-energy neutrinos to study the Earth’s interior”, https://cds.cern.ch/record/2258764 (1973), CERN Report

    1973

  7. [14]

    L. V. Volkova and G. T. Zatsepin, Izv. Akad. Nauk Ser. Fiz. 38N5 (1974) 1060

    1974

  8. [15]

    I. P. Nedyalkov, preprint JINR (Dubna), JINR-P2-81-645, 1981

    1981

  9. [16]

    I. P. Nedyalkov, Bolgarskaia Akademiia Nauk 34 (1981) 177

    1981

  10. [17]

    De Rujula, S

    A. De Rujula, S. L. Glashow, R. R. Wilson, G. Charpak, Phys. Rept. 99 (1983) 341

    1983

  11. [18]

    T. L. Wilson, Nature 309 (1984) 38

    1984

  12. [19]

    G. A. Askar’yan, Usp. Fiz. Nauk 144 (1984) 523 [Sov. Phys. Usp. 27 (1984) 896]

    1984

  13. [20]

    A. B. Borisov, B. A. Dolgoshein, A. N. Kalinovsky, Yad. Fiz. 44 (1986) 681

    1986

  14. [21]

    A. B. Borisov, B. A. Dolgoshein, Phys. Atom. Nucl. 56 (1993) 755

    1993

  15. [22]

    Winter, Earth Moon Planets 99 (2006) 285

    W. Winter, Earth Moon Planets 99 (2006) 285

    2006

  16. [23]

    Kuo, et al., Earth Plan

    C. Kuo, et al., Earth Plan. Sci. Lett. 133 (1995) 95

    1995

  17. [24]

    P. Jain, J. P. Ralston, G. M. Frichter, Astropart. Phys. 12 (1999) 193

    1999

  18. [25]

    M. M. Reynoso, O. A. Sampayo, Astropart. Phys. 21 (2004) 315. 20

    2004

  19. [26]

    M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, F. Halzen, M. Maltoni and H. K. M. Tanaka, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100 (2008) 061802 [arXiv:0711.0745 [hep-ph]]

    2008 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Neutrino Masses, Mixing and Oscillations

    M. Tanabashi et al. [Particle Data Group], Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) 030001 (doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.98.030001). See therein the review “Neutrino Masses, Mixing and Oscillations” by K. Nakamura and S.T. Petcov

    2018 doi

  21. [28]

    Badro et al., Proc

    J. Badro et al., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 112(40) (2015) 12310-12314

    2015

  22. [29]

    Kaminski and M

    E. Kaminski and M. Javoy, Earth Plan. Sci. Lett. 365 (2013) 97-107

    2013

  23. [30]

    Sakamaki et al., Earth and Planetary Science Letters 287 (2009) 293-297

    T. Sakamaki et al., Earth and Planetary Science Letters 287 (2009) 293-297

    2009

  24. [31]

    https://earthref.org/GERMRD/datamodel/ (cit. on pp. 114, 115)

  25. [32]

    Donini, S

    A. Donini, S. Palomares-Ruiz and J. Salvado, Nature Phys. 15 (2019) 37 [arXiv:1803.05901 [hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  26. [33]

    C. Rott, A. Taketa and D. Bose, Sci. Rep.5 (2015) 15225 [arXiv:1502.04930 [physics.geo- ph]]

    2015 arXiv

  27. [34]

    Bourret, J

    S. Bourret, J. Coelho, E. Kaminski and V. Van Elewyck, PoS ICRC2019 (2020), 1024 doi:10.22323/1.358.1024

    2020 doi

  28. [35]

    T. K. Gaisser and M. Honda, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 52 (2002) 153 [arXiv:hep- ph/0203272]

    2002

  29. [36]

    Honda, M

    M. Honda, M. Sajjad Athar, T. Kajita, K. Kasahara and S. Midorikawa, Phys. Rev. D 92 (2015) 023004 [arXiv:1502.03916]

    2015 arXiv

  30. [37]

    Abbasi et al

    R. Abbasi et al. [IceCube Collab.], Astropart. Phys. 35 (2012) 615; M.G. Aartsen et al. [IceCube Collab.], Phys. Rev. Lett. 120 (2018) 071801; P. Eller et al. [IceCube], PoS ICRC2023 (2023) 1036 [arXiv:2307.15295]

    2012 arXiv

  31. [38]

    Sanchez [IceCube Collab], talk given at the International Conference on Neutrino Physics and Astrophysics, June 17-22, 2024, Milano, Italy

    J.A. Sanchez [IceCube Collab], talk given at the International Conference on Neutrino Physics and Astrophysics, June 17-22, 2024, Milano, Italy

    2024

  32. [39]

    Letter of intent for KM3NeT 2.0,

    S. Adrian-Martinez et al.[KM3Net], “Letter of intent for KM3NeT 2.0,” J. Phys. G 43 (2016) 084001 [arXiv:1601.07459]

    2016 arXiv

  33. [40]

    Hyper-Kamiokande Design Report,

    K. Abe et al. [Hyper-Kamiokande], “Hyper-Kamiokande Design Report,” arXiv:1805.04163; S. Muriyama [on behalf of the Hyper-Kamiokande Collab.], talk given at the XXX1 Int. Conference on Neutrino Physics and Astrophysics, June 16 - 22, 2024, Milano, Italy

    2024 arXiv

  34. [41]

    Abi et al

    B. Abi et al. [DUNE], [arXiv:1807.10334 [physics.ins-det]]

  35. [42]

    Ahmed et al

    S. Ahmed et al. [ICAL], Pramana 88 (2017) 79 [arXiv:1505.07380]. 21

    2017 arXiv

  36. [43]

    M. G. Aartsen et al.[IceCube], Phys. Rev. Lett. 117 (2016) 071801 [arXiv:1605.01990]

    2016 arXiv

  37. [44]

    Luzum et al., Celest

    B. Luzum et al., Celest. Mech. Phys. 110 (2011) 110

    2011

  38. [45]

    The Astronomical Almanac

    H.USAO, USNO, UKHO, “The Astronomical Almanac”, http://asa.usno.navy.mil/

  39. [46]

    S. K. Agarwalla, T. Li, O. Mena and S. Palomares-Ruiz, [arXiv:1212.2238]

    arXiv

  40. [47]

    Winter, Nucl

    W. Winter, Nucl. Phys. B 908 (2016), 250-267 doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2016.03.033 [arXiv:1511.05154 [hep-ph]]

    2016 arXiv

  41. [48]

    Bourret et al

    S. Bourret et al. [KM3NeT], J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 888 (2017) no.1, 012114 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/888/1/012114 [arXiv:1702.03723 [physics.ins-det]]

    2017 arXiv

  42. [49]

    Kumar and S.Kumar Agarwalla, [arXiv:2104.11740]

    A. Kumar and S.Kumar Agarwalla, [arXiv:2104.11740]

    arXiv

  43. [50]

    Capozzi and S.T

    F. Capozzi and S.T. Petcov, Eur. Phys. J. C 82 (2022) 461 [arXiv:2111.13048]

    2022 arXiv

  44. [51]

    DUNE atmo- spheric neutrinos: Earth tomography,

    K.J. Kelly, P.A.N. Machado, I. Martinez-Soler and Y.F. Perez-Gonzalez, “DUNE atmo- spheric neutrinos: Earth tomography,” JHEP 05 (2022) 187 [arXiv:2110.00003]

    2022 arXiv

  45. [52]

    P. B. Denton and R. Pestes, Phys. Rev. D 104 (2021) 113007 [arXiv:2110.01148]

    2021 arXiv

  46. [53]

    Maderer, E

    L. Maderer, E. Kaminski, J.A.B. Coelho, S. Bourret and V. Van Elewyck, Front. Earth Sci. 11 (2023) 1008396 [arXiv:2208.00532]

    2023 arXiv

  47. [54]

    Upadhyay, A

    A.K. Upadhyay, A. Kumar, S.K. Agarwalla and A. Dighe, JHEP 04 (2023) 068 [arXiv:2211.08688]

    2023 arXiv

  48. [55]

    Raikwal and S

    D. Raikwal and S. Choubey, Phys. Rev. D 109 (2024) 073011 [arXiv:2309.12573]

    2024 arXiv

  49. [56]

    Upadhyay, A

    A.K. Upadhyay, A. Kumar, S.K. Agarwalla and A. Dighe, [arXiv:2405.04986]

    arXiv

  50. [57]

    Choubey, P

    S. Choubey, P. Ghoshal and S.T. Petcov, studies performed in the period 2008 - 2011 for the 100 kt liquid Argon and 1 Mt water Cerenkov (Hyper-Kamiokande) detectors, unpublished

    2008

  51. [58]

    Choubey and S.T

    S. Choubey and S.T. Petcov, studies performed in 2014 for the PINGU detector, un- published

    2014

  52. [59]

    Ohlsson and W

    T. Ohlsson and W. Winter, Phys. Lett. B 512 (2001) 357 [arXiv:hep-ph/0105293 [hep- ph]]

    2001 arXiv

  53. [61]

    S. T. Petcov, Phys. Lett. B 434 (1998) 321 (doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(98)00742-4) [arXiv:hep-ph/9805262 [hep-ph]]; Phys. Lett. B 444 (1998) 584 (Erratum)

    1998 arXiv

  54. [62]

    M. V. Chizhov and S. T. Petcov, Phys. Rev. Lett.83 (1999) 1096 [arXiv:hep-ph/9903399 [hep-ph]]. 22

    1999 arXiv

  55. [63]

    M. V. Chizhov and S. T. Petcov, Phys. Rev. D 63 (2001) 073003 [arXiv:hep-ph/9903424 [hep-ph]]

    2001 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Chizhov, M

    M. Chizhov, M. Maris and S. T. Petcov, [arXiv:hep-ph/9810501 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  57. [65]

    E. K. Akhmedov, M. Maltoni and A. Y. Smirnov, JHEP 05 (2007) 077 [arXiv:hep- ph/0612285 [hep-ph]]

    2007

  58. [66]

    E. K. Akhmedov, M. Maltoni and A. Y. Smirnov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95 (2005) 211801 [arXiv:hep-ph/0506064 [hep-ph]]

    2005 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Neutrino’78

    L. Wolfenstein, Phys. Rev. D 17 (1978) 2369; Proc. of the 8th International Confer- ence on Neutrino Physics and Astrophysics - “Neutrino’78”(ed. E.C. Fowler, Purdue University Press, West Lafayette, 1978), p. C3

    1978

  60. [68]

    Barger et al., Phys

    V. Barger et al., Phys. Rev. D 22 (1980) 2718

    1980

  61. [69]

    Langacker, J.P

    P. Langacker, J.P. Leveille and J. Sheiman, Phys. Rev. D 27 (1983) 1228

    1983

  62. [70]

    Mikheev and A.Y

    S.P. Mikheev and A.Y. Smirnov, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 42 (1985) 913

    1985

  63. [71]

    W. Chen, J. Ray, W.B. Shen and C.L. Huang, J. Geod. 89 (2015) 179

    2015

  64. [72]

    Wester et al

    T. Wester et al. [Super-Kamiokande Collaboration], ”Atmospheric neutrino oscil- lation analysis with neutron tagging and an expanded fiducial volume in Super- Kamiokande I-V,” Phys. Rev. D 109, no.7, 072014 (2024) [arXiv:2311.05105 [hep-ex]]. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.109.072014

    2024 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Esteban, M

    I. Esteban, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, M. Maltoni, I. Martinez-Soler, J. P. Pinheiro and T. Schwetz, [arXiv:2410.05380 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  66. [74]

    Super-Kamiokande Collaboration, ”Data release: Atmospheric neutrino oscillation anal- ysis with neutron tagging and an expanded fiducial volume in Super-Kamiokande I-V,” Zenodo, Oct. 4, 2023. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8401262

    2023 doi

  67. [75]

    Honda, T

    M. Honda, T. Kajita, K. Kasahara and S. Midorikawa, ”Improvement of low energy atmospheric neutrino flux calculation using the JAM nuclear interac- tion model,” Phys. Rev. D 83, 123001 (2011) [arXiv:1102.2688 [astro-ph.HE]]. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.83.123001

    2011 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Hayato, ”A neutrino interaction simulation program library NEUT,” Acta Phys

    Y. Hayato, ”A neutrino interaction simulation program library NEUT,” Acta Phys. Polon. B 40, 2477-2489 (2009)

    2009

  69. [77]

    Hayato and L

    Y. Hayato and L. Pickering, ”The NEUT neutrino interaction simulation program li- brary,” Eur. Phys. J. ST 230, no.24, 4469-4481 (2021) [arXiv:2106.15809 [hep-ph]]. doi:10.1140/epjs/s11734-021-00287-7

    2021 arXiv

  70. [78]

    F. N. Fritsch and J. Butland, ”A method for constructing local monotone piecewise cubic interpolants,” SIAM Journal on Scientific and Statistical Computing 5, no.2, 300-304 (1984). 23

    1984

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.