Professional Documents
Culture Documents
analysis@icecube.wisc.edu
2 M. A ARTSEN ET AL .
ABSTRACT
During the first three flights of the Antarctic Impulsive Transient Antenna (ANITA) experiment, the collabo-
ration detected several neutrino candidates. Two of these candidate events were consistent with an ultra-high-
energy up-going air shower and compatible with a tau neutrino interpretation. A third neutrino candidate event
was detected in a search for Askaryan radiation in the Antarctic ice, although it is also consistent with the back-
I CE C UBE -ANITA POINT SOURCE SEARCH 3
ground expectation. The inferred emergence angle of the first two events is in tension with IceCube and ANITA
limits on isotropic cosmogenic neutrino fluxes. Here, we test the hypothesis that these events are astrophysical
in origin, possibly caused by a point source in the reconstructed direction. Given that any ultra-high-energy tau
neutrino flux traversing the Earth should be accompanied by a secondary flux in the TeV-PeV range, we search
for these secondary counterparts in seven years of IceCube data using three complementary approaches. In the
absence of any significant detection, we set upper limits on the neutrino flux from potential point sources. We
compare these limits to ANITA’s sensitivity in the same direction and show that an astrophysical explanation of
these anomalous events under standard model assumptions is severely constrained regardless of source spectrum
or time profile.
1. INTRODUCTION these analyses. ANITA also reported two additional events,
Ever since the detection of high-energy neutrinos of cos- each consistent with an astrophysical ντ emerging from the
mic origin by IceCube in 2013 (Aartsen et al. 2013a), exper- Earth (Gorham et al. 2016, 2018b). In this scenario, a ντ un-
iments and theoreticians alike have continued to probe the dergoes a charged-current interaction (CC) with a nucleus in
non-thermal processes in the Universe to understand their the Earth. The τ -lepton produced in this interaction subse-
origins. The bulk of these astrophysical neutrinos are be- quently decays in the atmosphere, producing an extensive air
lieved to be created in hadronic interactions between cosmic shower (EAS). The polarity of the radio signal makes it pos-
rays and ambient matter or radiation fields in the vicinity of sible to identify and reject downward moving cosmic-ray in-
cosmic accelerators (Gaisser et al. 1995) and their detections duced EAS, as the radio signals of these EAS acquire a phase
can be used to point back to the acceleration sites. Although reversal (opposite polarity) from reflection off the Antarctic
the first evidence of a neutrino point source, the blazar TXS ice, while an upgoing τ induced EAS does not acquire this
0506+056, was reported in 2018 (Aartsen et al. 2018c,b), phase reversal. For a complete list of details of these events,
the overwhelming majority of the measured neutrino flux re- see Table 1.
mains unexplained. The interpretation of these events as extremely high en-
Additionally, another population of neutrinos could exist ergy upgoing neutrinos poses many challenges under Stan-
at extremely high energies. Cosmogenic neutrinos are be- dard Model assumptions. First, from the observation an-
lieved to be the result of interactions between ultra-high en- gles and reconstructed energies of the ANITA events, neutri-
ergy (UHE) cosmic rays with the cosmic microwave back- nos are extremely unlikely to traverse the long chord lengths
ground (CMB) (Greisen 1966; Zatsepin & Kuzmin 1966). (Gorham et al. 2016), even after accounting for the probabil-
This population is expected to manifest as an isotropic flux at ity increase due to ντ regeneration. Second, if these events
Earth, as cosmic ray primaries can travel outside of the vicin- are of cosmogenic origin, they would imply fluxes that are in
ity of their accelerators before interacting with the CMB. severe tension with limits set by multiple experiments (Aab
The Antarctic Impulsive Transient Antenna (ANITA) ex- et al. 2015; Zas 2018; Aartsen et al. 2016a) as well as a
periment is a balloon experiment, designed with the pri- self-inconsistency from ANITA data alone. For an isotropic
mary purpose of detecting the UHE cosmogenic neutrino flux of cosmogenic neutrinos ANITA should have detected
flux (Gorham et al. 2009; Hoover et al. 2010; Gorham et al. many more events at other elevation angles than those of the
2018a). Although this is the experiment’s primary scientific anomalous ANITA events (AAE) as the detector differen-
goal, it is sensitive to a wide array of impulsive radio sig- tial acceptance changes with the observation-angle (Romero-
nals, and the experiment’s first three flights have resulted Wolf et al. 2018).
in a few interesting detections. In this work we focus on On the other hand, if the origin of ANITA events is con-
three events observed by ANITA in their searches, all of sidered to be from individual cosmic accelerators there is no
which have potential neutrino interpretations. Throughout inconsistency with diffuse extremely-high-energy flux lim-
this work we refer to and explore them as “neutrino candi- its. This is especially true for accelerators with short char-
dates”. In the third flight, one Askaryan neutrino candidate acteristic timescales of emission, as many current limits on
(AAC) event was simultaneously identified in one analysis neutrino point-sources are for integrated emission over var-
searching for Askaryan emission (Askar’yan 1962) and was ious experiments’ livetimes (Aartsen et al. 2019a) and also
found to be subthreshold in another. This Earth-skimming as the acceptance of ANITA to a specific location on the sky
event has a signal shape consistent with impulsive broad- changes throughout the detector’s flight. If we assume that
band emission characteristic of a neutrino origin and it also ANITA detected single events of 1 EeV from a comic ac-
came from a location on the continent consistent with simu- celerator with a E −γ emission power-law spectrum, then one
lated distribution of neutrinos of all flavors (Gorham et al. should expect also a larger flux of neutrinos at TeV - PeV
2018a). However, the detection of one candidate event is energies, where IceCube will be sensitive. Significant cor-
consistent with the background level estimates of 0.7+0.5 for relation between IceCube and ANITA data would not only
−0.3
4 M. A ARTSEN ET AL .
Table 1. Properties of the neutrino candidate events from the first three flights of ANITA, from (Gorham et al. 2018a,
2016, 2018b). The two Anomalous ANITA Events (AAE) are those consistent with a steeply upgoing ντ interpretation.
+0.30
Reconstructed Energy (EeV) 0.6 ± 0.4 0.56−0.20 ≥ 10
Earth Chord Length (km) 5740 ± 60 7210 ± 55 -
1
Sky coordinates are projections from event arrival angles at ANITA
2
Expressed as major and minor axis standard deviations, position angle. This angle describes the rotation of the major axis relative to
the North Celestial Pole turning positive into right ascension.
provide evidence for a neutrino point source, it would also While in the southern sky the trigger rate is dominated
eliminate non-astrophysical explanations of the AAE, such by atmospheric muons from cosmic-ray air showers, all of
as background and systematics or non-astrophysical models the ANITA candidates have best-fit directions in the north-
which invoke physics beyond the Standard Model. ern sky. Here, the Earth attenuates the majority of the atmo-
The focus of this work is to use IceCube to investigate the spheric muon signal, and the background at final selection
hypothesis that the ANITA events were from neutrino point- level in the northern sky is dominated by atmospheric muon
sources, considering several neutrino emission time profiles. neutrinos from cosmic-ray air showers (Haack & Wiebusch
In section 2 we discuss the IceCube Neutrino Observatory 2018). Poorly reconstructed atmospheric muons from the
and the event samples used for these analyses. In section 3 southern sky as well as neutrino induced cascades are also
we describe the analysis techniques and summarize the re- non-negligibile backgrounds in this region of the sky, and are
sults in section 4. In section 5 and 6 we investigate neutrino removed using a multivariate boosted decision tree trained
propagation through large Earth chord lengths to discuss the to distinguish between neutrino induced muon tracks, atmo-
implications of our results. spheric muons, and cascades, which is described in (Carver
2019; Aartsen et al. 2019b).
For the analyses presented here, we focus on the full de-
2. DATA SAMPLE tector configuration of 86 strings, spanning a time window
IceCube is a cubic-kilometer neutrino detector with 5160 from 2011 to 2018. Approximately 900,000 events from
digital optical modules (DOMs) instrumented on 86 cable 2532 days are analyzed.
strings in the clear glacial ice at the geographic South Pole,
between depths of 1450 m and 2450 m (Achterberg et al.
2006; Aartsen et al. 2017b). Neutrinos are detected through 3. LIKELIHOOD ANALYSES
the Cherenkov radiation emitted by secondary particles pro- Many previous IceCube analyses searching for neutrino
duced by neutrino interactions in the surrounding ice or point sources relied on significant spatial clustering of Ice-
bedrock. Each DOM consists of a 10 inch photomulti- Cube data alone or of significant association with known
plier tube, on-board read-out electronics, and a high-voltage populations of astrophysical objects (Aartsen et al. 2019a,
board, all contained in a pressurized spherical glass container 2016b, 2017a, 2013c; Abbasi et al. 2011; Aartsen et al.
(Abbasi et al. 2009, 2010). Parameterization of the scatter- 2014b). Here, we adopt the procedure described in (Schu-
ing and absorption of the glacial ice allows for accurate en- macher 2019) to search for counterparts to ANITA events.
ergy and directional reconstruction of neutrino events (Aart- Namely, we perform three separate analyses to test different
sen et al. 2013b). temporal hypotheses in the neutrino emission. Each of these
The improved reconstruction techniques adopted to create analyses incorporates the information from the localization
the event selection (Carver 2019; Aartsen et al. 2019b) in- of the ANITA events through a joint likelihood. The sky is
clude updates in the direction reconstruction (Ahrens et al. divided into grid positions, xs , and at each point we maxi-
2004; Aartsen et al. 2014a) to use information on the de- mize the likelihood, L, with respect to the expected number
posited event energy in the detector. The median angular of signal events, ns , and other signal parameters contained in
resolution benefits from a 10% improvement above 10 TeV the variable α depending on the different signal hypothesis
(where it is smaller than 0.60◦ ) compared to previous selec- tested as described in sections 3.2 and 3.3. This likelihood is
tions (Aartsen et al. 2017a). given by
I CE C UBE -ANITA POINT SOURCE SEARCH 5
Figure 1. Skymaps (top) and TS distributions (bottom) for AAE-141220 for the prompt (left), rolling (middle), and steady (right) analyses.
Observed TS values (shown in red) are compared to distributions from time-scrambled data realizations to quantify the significance. In the
prompt analysis skymap, the best-fit location of each IceCube event is represented with an x, and the size of the circle represents the uncertainty
(90% containment) on the event’s reconstruction, with color representing the IceCube event arrival time relative to the ANITA event. In the
rolling and steady analysis skymaps, color reflects the TS values defined in sections 3.2 and 3.3 respectively.
where nˆs , γ̂, σ̂t , tˆ0 are the best-fit values from the likelihood
maximization and T is the total live time of the data-taking
L (xs , n̂s , γ̂)
PA (xs )
period. The multiplicative factor in front of the likelihood TS = 2 · log + 2 log , (7)
ratio in Eq. 6 is a marginalization term to avoid undesired L (xs , ns = 0) PA (x0 )
biases toward finding short flares, as explained in (Braun with best-fit values n̂s and γ̂. The PDF of ANITA events in
et al. 2010). The TS is calculated at the positions of a coarse this analysis is taken to be the same as in the prompt analysis,
sky grid (1◦ × 1◦ bin widths), built at the central coordinates namely, a two-dimensional Gaussian.
of the ANITA events and covering 99.9% of the their two-
dimensional spatial PDFs, but sets PA to be a uniform distri- 4. RESULTS
bution covering this extended region. As the PDF is taken to
No significant correlation is found in any of the analyses
be uniform in this analysis, there is no term in the TS that
above the expectation from background. In order to calculate
is dependent on PA . The location of the maximum TS from
p-values, results are compared against pseudo-experiments
the coarse search is then used as a seed to perform a further
from time-scrambled data (Aartsen et al. 2015b). The most
likelihood maximization, where the direction of the source,
significant observation results from the steady search for
xs , is also reconstructed.
AAE-141220, with a p-value of 0.08, which we find to be
consistent with background.
Figure 1 displays the skymaps for the prompt, rolling,
3.3. Steady and steady analyses from left to right in the top panels for
The third and final analysis tests for spatial clustering over AAE-141220. Bottom panels of Figure 1 show the com-
seven years of IceCube data, assuming constant emission in parison of the observed TS values for each analysis, at the
the signal hypothesis, by setting Stime to be a uniform PDF position of the red lines, to their respective TS distributions
over the entire data collection period. As in the rolling anal- from pseudo-experiments using time-scrambled data. Simi-
ysis, we take λ to be 1, and fit for γ in the likelihood max- lar plots for AAE-061228 and AAC-150108 are displayed in
imization process. At all xs we calculate the redefined TS Figure 6.
I CE C UBE -ANITA POINT SOURCE SEARCH 7
E −2 Upper Limits (90% C.L.) All of the limits we calculate are provided in Table 2. In
100
the case that an upper limit fluctuates below the sensitivity,
we conservatively set the upper limit to the sensitivity value.
E 2F @ 1 TeV (GeV cm−2)
Figure 2. Sensitivity (dotted) and upper limits (arrows) (90% confi- 5. DISCUSSION
dence level) on the time-integrated νµ + ν̄µ flux normalization for an For many astrophysical sources, power-law spectra in pho-
E −2 source spectrum as a function of ∆t from the prompt analysis, tons are common over finite energy ranges. Additionally, dif-
compared to the upper limits (solid) from the steady analysis. The
fusive shock acceleration models suggest that the neutrino
central 90% intervals of the expected neutrino energies for these
spectra are 1TeV-1PeV.
spectrum, as well as gamma rays from pion decay, should
follow a power-law spectrum, justifying the choice of test-
ing power-laws for corresponding neutrino spectra. How-
In the absence of a significant signal, upper limits (90%
ever, for the ANITA events, interpolating a power law be-
confidence level) for the time-integrated νµ + ν̄µ flux are set
tween the energy range at which IceCube is sensitive to the
for each ANITA event where possible using the prompt and
best-fit ANITA event energies could pose a problem. For soft
steady analyses (Figure 2). To calculate upper limits, loca-
spectra, events detected by ANITA would suggest that many
tions are sampled according to the per-event PDFs reported
events would be detectable at IceCube. For hard spectra, ex-
by ANITA, injecting the same level of flux at each sampled
trapolating between IceCube and ANITA would imply dra-
location, and running each iteration through the full analysis
matic bolometric neutrino luminosities for any point source.
procedure which maximizes the joint likelihood at all loca-
However even in the case of non-power-law neutrino emis-
tions on the sky. This allows us to place upper limits on
sion, the limits we can set on muon neutrinos in the TeV-PeV
point-sources whose locations are distributed according to
energy range can constrain generic fluxes of incident tau neu-
the per-event PDF reported by ANITA. We set these limits
trinos with EeV energies. As has been shown in (Safa et al.
for an assumed spectrum given by
2020), any incident flux with an EeV ντ component that tra-
dNνµ +ν̄µ E −2 verses large Earth chord lengths will result in a secondary
Φ(E,t) = = Φ0 , (8) flux of lower energy neutrinos, to which IceCube would be
dE dA dt E0
sensitive. We use the same prescription here to analyze how
where Φ0 is a normalization constant on a point-source flux, constraining our limits are on a generic point source flux that
which carries units of GeV−1 cm−2 s−1 . We constrain the time- includes EeV neutrinos.
integrated muon neutrino flux, E 2 F, where For any incident flux of neutrinos from the northern sky,
Z Φ(Eν ,t), the number of expected detected tau neutrino in-
2 2
E F =E Φ(E,t) dt . (9) duced muon events at IceCube is given by
ZZ Z
µ dNτ (Eτ ) Γτ →µ dNµ
dEµ dEτ dEν Φ (Eν ,t) Pτsurv (Eν ) Eτ , Eµ Aµe f f Eµ ∆T
hNIceCube i= (10)
dEτ Γtotal dEµ
Z Z Z Z
dNν 0 p 0 dNτ Γτ →µ dNµ
+ dEµ dEτ dEν0 dEν Φ (Eν ,t) Pν Eν , Eν0 Eν0 ; Eτ Eτ ; Eµ Aµe f f Eµ ∆T ,
0
Eν N Eν
dEν dEτ Γtotal dEµ
where the first contribution is from emerging tau-leptons that tion. The second contribution is from the remaining ντ flux,
would decay to muons and then pass an IceCube event selec-
8 M. A ARTSEN ET AL .
Table 2. Analysis results and upper limits. Upper limits (90% C.L) are on the time-integrated νµ + ν̄µ power law flux (E −2 ) from a point-source
following the spatial probability distribution provided by ANITA. Limits are set assuming constant emission over a fixed time window. As the
temporal profile of emission is fit for in the rolling analysis, no upper limits are placed from that analysis. Time windows for the steady and
rolling analyses are listed as the IceCube seasons analyzed, where IC86-I contains 2.88×107 s of data and 1.90×108 s for IC86-II - IC86-VII.
Event Analysis Time Window p-value Upper limit (GeV · cm−2 )
Steady IC86-I - IC86-VII 0.606 0.195
AAE-061228 IC86-I 0.562 -
Rolling
IC86-II - IC86-VII 0.208 -
10s 1.0 -
Prompt 103 s 1.0 0.053
AAE-141220 105 s 1.0 0.051
Steady IC86-I - IC86-VII 0.081 0.401
IC86-I 0.342 -
Rolling
IC86-II - IC86-VII 0.224 -
10s 1.0 0.040
Prompt 103 s 1.0 0.041
AAC-150108 105 s 1.0 0.032
Steady IC86-I - IC86-VII 0.210 0.278
IC86-I 0.636 -
Rolling
IC86-II - IC86-VII 0.512 -
106
dN Eν0
ZZ
τ
dEν dEν0 Φ (Eν ,t) ξacc Eν0 ∆T ,
hNANITA i = 0
dEν
Aµef f (m2)
109 GeV
AAE-141220 as originating from a neutrino source, limits
1010 GeV set using IceCube data are more than four orders of magni-
10−8 tude in tension with the point source flux required to detect
1011 GeV
1012 GeV one event at ANITA. These limits are constraining for a va-
10−9 1013 GeV riety of flux models, from simple power laws to any generic
AAE-141220 model that includes a component at or above EeV energies.
10−10 In addition to the anomalous events, we also find no evi-
6 8 10 12 dence for a neutrino source in the direction of the neutrino
log(Eτ /GeV)
candidate event from a search for Askaryan emission during
Figure 4. Normalized cumulative distributions for Earth-emerging ANITA-III. These new limits, in conjunction with the incon-
tau-leptons. Colors correspond to the incoming tau-neutrino energy, sistency of isotropic flux interpretations, leave no room for
and the gray band is the 95% containment on the error of the recon- an astrophysical interpretation of the AAE in the context of
structed shower energy of AAE-141220. the Standard Model. However, it has been shown that these
events can be explained using physics Beyond the Standard
for ANITA corresponds to an injected ντ flux with E0 = 1 Model, as many models suggest that the AAE lend support
EeV. Normalized cumulative distributions from secondary τ - for axionic dark matter, sterile neutrinos, supersymmetry, or
leptons are shown in Figure 4, for injected neutrinos at angles heavy dark matter (Cherry & Shoemaker 2019; Anchordo-
corresponding to the best-fit reconstructed direction of AAE- qui et al. 2018; Huang 2018; Dudas et al. 2018; Connolly
141220. et al. 2018; Fox et al. 2018; Collins et al. 2019; Esteban et al.
We next inject a flux of EeV tau neutrinos, and find the 2019). With the exception of the axionic dark matter expla-
spectral shape of the secondary ντ flux which would be in- nation, all of these proposed models can be constrained by
cident on IceCube. As we observed 0 coincident events in this non-observation at IceCube, and dedicated tests to quan-
the time window of 103 s around AAE-141220 in the prompt tify these constraints will be the focus of another work. In
analysis, we calculate the maximum allowed flux normaliza- addition to explanations that incite new physics, it has re-
tion (at 90% confidence level) on the primary flux that would cently been suggested that the AAE could be explained by
evade this non-observation. The results are displayed in Fig- downward-going CR-induced EAS that reflected off of sub-
ure 5. surface features in the Antarctic ice (Shoemaker et al. 2019).
Although IceCube’s sensitivity is peaked many orders of Another possible explanation could be coherent transition ra-
magnitude below the reconstructed energies of the ANITA diation from the geomagnetically-induced air shower current,
events, the limits set on any potential neutrino source that cre- which could mimic an upgoing air shower (de Vries & Pro-
ated AAE-141220 are more constraining by several orders of hira 2019). Explaining these anomalous events with system-
magnitude than the implied flux by the ANITA observations. atic effects or confirming the need for new physics requires a
If one considers constant emission over the entire livetime deeper understanding of ANITA’s detection volume. Efforts
of the IceCube event selection, then the time-integrated flux such as the HiCal radio frequency pulser, which has flown
limit set by the IceCube non-observation of AAE-141220 be- alongside ANITA in the last two flights (Prohira et al. 2018),
comes around one order of magnitude less constraining, as it are already underway to try to characterize the various prop-
is apparent in the steady limits in Figure 2. However, for erties of the Antarctic ice surface.
the implied normalization placed by ANITA observations,
this value would increase by approximately two orders of ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
magnitude, due to the limited livetime of the ANITA flight.
The IceCube collaboration acknowledges the significant
This has the overall effect of increasing the tension between
contributions to this manuscript from Anastasia Barbano,
these two normalizations by approximately one more order
Alex Pizzuto, and Ibrahim Safa. The authors gratefully ac-
of magnitude than for the 103 s followup shown in Figure 5.
knowledge the support from the following agencies and insti-
tutions: USA – U.S. National Science Foundation-Office of
6. CONCLUSION Polar Programs, U.S. National Science Foundation-Physics
Recent detections of events of interest by ANITA are con- Division, Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation, Cen-
sidered anomalous due to the small survival probability of ter for High Throughput Computing (CHTC) at the Uni-
10 M. A ARTSEN ET AL .
104
102
100
10−2
Figure 5. Upper limits (90% C.L.) placed by calculating the secondary neutrino flux (purple histogram) from an incident flux of EeV neutrinos
assuming constant emission over 103 s and comparing to the non-observation of IceCube events in the prompt analysis described
R in Sect. 3.1
for AAE-141220. The flux implied by the ANITA observations (black), represented in this figure as Eν Φ0 ∆T = Eν ∆T Φ(Eν ,t) dEν , using
information about ANITA’s acceptance (Romero-Wolf et al. 2018) overshoots this upper limit (purple arrow) by many orders of magnitude. For
comparison, upper limits on the time-integrated muon-neutrino flux from the prompt analysis are shown in blue. All fluxes are per flavor ν + ν̄.
versity of Wisconsin-Madison, Open Science Grid (OSG), den – Swedish Research Council, Swedish Polar Research
Extreme Science and Engineering Discovery Environment Secretariat, Swedish National Infrastructure for Comput-
(XSEDE), U.S. Department of Energy-National Energy Re- ing (SNIC), and Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation;
search Scientific Computing Center, Particle astrophysics Australia – Australian Research Council; Canada – Natu-
research computing center at the University of Maryland, ral Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada,
Institute for Cyber-Enabled Research at Michigan State Uni- Calcul Québec, Compute Ontario, Canada Foundation for
versity, and Astroparticle physics computational facility at Innovation, WestGrid, and Compute Canada; Denmark – Vil-
Marquette University; Belgium – Funds for Scientific Re- lum Fonden, Danish National Research Foundation (DNRF),
search (FRS-FNRS and FWO), FWO Odysseus and Big Carlsberg Foundation; New Zealand – Marsden Fund; Japan
Science programmes, and Belgian Federal Science Policy – Japan Society for Promotion of Science (JSPS) and Insti-
Office (Belspo); Germany – Bundesministerium für Bildung tute for Global Prominent Research (IGPR) of Chiba Univer-
und Forschung (BMBF), Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft sity; Korea – National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF);
(DFG), Helmholtz Alliance for Astroparticle Physics (HAP), Switzerland – Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF);
Initiative and Networking Fund of the Helmholtz Associa- United Kingdom – Department of Physics, University of
tion, Deutsches Elektronen Synchrotron (DESY), and High Oxford.
Performance Computing cluster of the RWTH Aachen; Swe-
REFERENCES
Aab, A., et al. 2015, Phys. Rev., D91, 092008 —. 2016a, Phys. Rev. Lett., 117, 241101, [Erratum: Phys. Rev.
Aartsen, M. G., et al. 2013a, Science, 342, 1242856 Lett.119,no.25,259902(2017)]
—. 2013b, Nucl. Instrum. Meth., A711, 73 —. 2016b, Astrophys. J., 824, L28
—. 2013c, Astrophys. J., 779, 132 —. 2017a, Astrophys. J., 835, 151
—. 2017b, JINST, 12, P03012
Aartsen, M. G., et al. 2013d, in Proceedings, 33rd International
—. 2018a, Astrophys. J., 857, 117
Cosmic Ray Conference (ICRC2013): Rio de Janeiro, Brazil,
—. 2018b, Science, 361, eaat1378
July 2-9, 2013
—. 2018c, Science, 361, 147
—. 2014a, Nucl. Instrum. Meth., A736, 143
—. 2019a, Eur. Phys. J., C79, 234
—. 2014b, Astrophys. J., 796, 109 —. 2019b, arXiv:1910.08488 [astro-ph.HE]
—. 2015a, Astrophys. J., 805, L5 Abbasi, R., et al. 2009, Nucl. Instrum. Meth., A601, 294
—. 2015b, Astrophys. J., 807, 46 —. 2010, Nucl. Instrum. Meth., A618, 139
I CE C UBE -ANITA POINT SOURCE SEARCH 11
—. 2011, Astrophys. J., 732, 18 Gaisser, T. K., Halzen, F., & Stanev, T. 1995, Phys. Rept., 258,
Achterberg, A., et al. 2006, Astropart. Phys., 26, 155 173, [Erratum: Phys. Rept.271,355(1996)]
Ahrens, J., et al. 2004, Nucl. Instrum. Meth., A524, 169 Gorham, P. W., et al. 2009, Astropart. Phys., 32, 10
Anchordoqui, L. A., Barger, V., Learned, J. G., Marfatia, D., &
—. 2016, Phys. Rev. Lett., 117, 071101
Weiler, T. J. 2018, LHEP, 1, 13
—. 2018a, Phys. Rev., D98, 022001
Askar’yan, G. A. 1962, Sov. Phys. JETP, 14, 441, [Zh. Eksp. Teor.
Fiz.41,616(1961)] —. 2018b, Phys. Rev. Lett., 121, 161102
Braun, J., Baker, M., Dumm, J., et al. 2010, Astropart. Phys., 33, Greisen, K. 1966, Phys. Rev. Lett., 16, 748
175 Haack, C., & Wiebusch, C. 2018, PoS, ICRC2017, 1005
Braun, J., Baker, M., Dumm, J., et al. 2010, Astroparticle Physics, Hoover, S., et al. 2010, Phys. Rev. Lett., 105, 151101
33, 175
Huang, G.-y. 2018, Phys. Rev., D98, 043019
Carver, T. 2019, in 36th International Cosmic Ray Conference
(ICRC 2019) Madison, Wisconsin, USA, July 24-August 1, 2019 Prohira, S., et al. 2018, Phys. Rev., D98, 042004
Cherry, J. F., & Shoemaker, I. M. 2019, Phys. Rev., D99, 063016 Romero-Wolf, A., et al. 2018, arXiv:1811.07261 [astro-ph.HE]
Collins, J. H., Bhupal Dev, P. S., & Sui, Y. 2019, Phys. Rev., D99, Safa, I., Pizzuto, A., Argüelles, C., et al. 2020, Journal of
043009 Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2020, 012
Connolly, A., Allison, P., & Banerjee, O. 2018, arXiv:1807.08892 Safa, I., et al. 2019, in 36th International Cosmic Ray Conference
[astro-ph.HE]
(ICRC 2019) Madison, Wisconsin, USA, July 24-August 1, 2019
de Vries, K. D., & Prohira, S. 2019, arXiv:1903.08750
Schumacher, L. 2019, EPJ Web Conf., 207, 02010
[astro-ph.HE]
Dudas, E., Gherghetta, T., Kaneta, K., Mambrini, Y., & Olive, Shoemaker, I. M., Kusenko, A., Munneke, P. K., et al. 2019,
K. A. 2018, Phys. Rev., D98, 015030 arXiv:1905.02846 [astro-ph.HE]
Esteban, I., Lopez-Pavon, J., Martinez-Soler, I., & Salvado, J. Zas, E. 2018, PoS, ICRC2017, 972, [,64(2017)]
2019, arXiv:1905.10372 [hep-ph] Zatsepin, G. T., & Kuzmin, V. A. 1966, JETP Lett., 4, 78, [Pisma
Fox, D. B., Sigurdsson, S., Shandera, S., et al. 2018, Submitted to: Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.4,114(1966)]
Phys. Rev. D, arXiv:1809.09615 [astro-ph.HE]
12 M. A ARTSEN ET AL .
Figure 6. (Top two rows) Skymaps and TS distributions from all three analyses for AAC-150108. For AAE-061228, IceCube was not in a
full detector configuration at the time of the event, and thus only the steady and rolling analyses were used to search for neutrino emission.
Skymaps and TS distributions for these analyses are displayed in the bottom two rows.