Paper detail

Blazar -- IceCube neutrino association revisited

The reported association of high-energy neutrino event IceCube-170922A and blazar TXS 0506+056 has sparkled discussion about blazars as sources of cosmic neutrinos. In this paper, we use publicly released IceCube data and blazar locations from Roma-BzCat to test spacial correlation between neutrino events and blazar locations. We also scrutinize the correlation between $γ$-ray flux and neutrino flux of blazars by applying a temporal filter onto the data based on Fermi monitored source list. We find no compelling evidence to prove blazars as the main source of cosmic neutrinos, as known before the detected IceCube-170922A / TXS 0506+056 association. While we do not rule out the association between IceCube-170922A and TXS 0506+056, the significance level we obtained is not high enough to claim a strong association. If such an association is real, a special physical condition is desired to allow a small fraction of blazars to become bright neutrino sources.

preprint2020arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.