No guaranteed neutrino astronomy without (enough) double bang tau and downward HESE muon tracks: An update version
Extracted source text ยท arXiv 1808.10493
\documentclass{PoS}
\usepackage{journals, amsmath}
% \usepackage{epstopdf}
\usepackage{cite}
% \usepackage{hyperref}
\usepackage[inline]{enumitem}
\title{No guaranteed neutrino astronomy without (enough) taus}
\ShortTitle{No guaranteed \protect{$\nu$} Astronomy without enough taus }
% % ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% % Sezione Autori e affiliazioni
% % ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\author{\speaker{D. Fargion},$^{a,b,c}$ P. Oliva,$^{c,d,e}$ {{P.~G.} {De Sanctis Lucentini}}$^{~f}$, F.La Monaca $^{a}$, P. Paggi,$^{a}$, and M. Yu. Khlopov$^{~g}$\\
~\\
\llap{$^a$} Physics Department Rome University 1, P.le A. Moro 2, 00185, Rome, Italy\\
\llap{$^b$} INFN Rome1, Rome University 1, P.le A. Moro 2, 00185, Rome, Italy\\
\llap{$^c$} MIFP, Via Appia Nuova 31, 00040 Marino (Rome), Italy\\
\llap{$^d$} Niccol\`o Cusano University, Via Don Carlo Gnocchi 3, 00166 Rome, Italy\\
\llap{$^e$} Department of Sciences, University Roma Tre, Via Vasca Navale 84, 00146 Rome, Italy\\
\llap{$^f$} Physics Department, Gubkin Russian State University (National Research
University),\\
65 Leninsky Prospekt, Moscow, 119991, Russian Federation\\
\llap{$^g$} Institute of Physics, Southern Federal University Stachki 194, Rostov on Don 344090, Russia
E-mail: \email{daniele.fargion@roma1.infn.it}, \email{pietro.oliva@unicusano.it}, \email{desanctislucentini.pg@gubkin.ru},
\email{khlopov@apc.in2p3.fr}
}
\FullConference{Frontier Research in Astrophysics III, May 2018
}
\abstract{Since 2013, the highest energy IceCube cascade showers overcame the common muon neutrino tracks. This fast flavor changes, above few tens TeV, has been in debt to the injection of the long-searched astrophysical neutrino.
However for what concern the recent published 54 neutrino High Energy Starting Events (HESE) in 2016, as well as the most recent ones of 82 and 103 IceCube events (2017-2018) and the several dozens of thorough-going muon tracks formed around the IceCube, none of them are pointing or clustering toward any expected x, gamma or radio sources: no one in connection to GRB, no toward active BL Lac, neither to AGN source in Fermi catalog.
No clear correlation with nearby mass distribution (Local Group), nor with galactic plane. Withal, there have not been any record of the expected double bang due to the tau neutrino birth and decay among several events above 200~TeV energy (we are disregarding for a moment the most recent two tau possible identification); no any self-clustering events at tens TeV energy raised in most recent search. Furthermore, there is a tension between the internal HESE event spectra power index and the external thorough-going muon tracks one.
As we will show at the conclusions a more mundane (but a bit more abundant) prompt charmed atmospheric neutrino component may pollute and rule the data, explaining most of the present enlisted IceCube puzzles. We review the last HESE event data shown in early and in most recent papers (and talks in Neutrino 2018) making the case for the simplest conclusions. A very recent, unique, celebrated thorough-going muon in IceCube on $22/09/2017$ track possibly correlated to a gamma AGN (TXS~0506+056), and two revisited HESE events of possible tau neutrino nature, are mitigating the IceCube tau absence, but as we show more abundant tau signals are needed to confirm an astrophysical nature.
A better filtered and guaranteed neutrino astronomy it is required: the tau flavor ones above TeVs have negligible or none (oscillated atmospheric) polluted background; very few percent of highest atmospheric charmed events may contribute to the noise (possibly the two event observed by IceCube). Astrophysical tau are possibly arising at best at highest energies (PeVs ones) ultimately overcoming noises and their tracks at hundred PeV edges may overcome the same atmospheric muon tracks.
Tau neutrino astronomy is therefore the best road to highest energy neutrino astronomy. It may be revealed in double bangs in future IceCube events, by their tau birth first and their later decay in ice. A much sharp signal is made by upgoing-horizontal tau air-showers originated within mountain chain or inside Earth crust and better observable from mountains, balloons or from space, by large size array detectors (PAO observatory, Telescope Array, MAGIC telescope, Ashra, GRAND, POEMMA, ANITA). Some of these tau events might be already hidden in most recent ANITA up-going records at tens or hundred PeV.
In conclusion we claim that in IceCube events are probably still sunk in a very polluted conventional and mostly prompt neutrino noise. Their dominance it is probably due to atmospheric charm emergence at a little higher rate than the expected one. We believe therefore that
most astrophysical neutrino signals are still hidden below the ashes of these new, anyway discovered, prompt atmospheric noise.
}
\begin{document}
\section{Introduction}\label{sec:intro}
Since November 2013 the sudden change of Ultra High Energy (UHE) neutrino flavor (IceCube HESE) was discovered by IceCube; its revolution has been discussed \cite{Fargion_2014} in the framework of the long-awaited birth of a UHE$\nu$ astronomy \cite{2017arXiv170200021F, 2017arXiv170500383K, 2015EPJWC..9908002F, 2014NuPhS.256..213F, FARGION2008146, 1742-6596-110-6-062008}.
Indeed, up to TeV energy the UHE$\nu$ are following the expected spectra of atmospheric $\nu$ secondaries for which it is found a flux ratio of $\nu_\mu$ ($\bar{\nu}_\mu$) over $\nu_e$ ($\bar{\nu}_e$) of $\phi_{\nu_\mu}:\phi_{\nu_e}\approx20:1$.
Suddenly, at few tens TeVs, the flavor revolution raised: four times more shower or cascade events, started by $\nu_e$, or by $\nu_\tau$ or by Neutral Current (NC) events, have shown respect the muon tracks events in IceCube:
$\phi_{\nu_\mu}^{\text{tracks}}:(\phi_{\nu_e}+\phi_{\nu_\tau}+\phi_{\text{NC}})=1:4$ \cite{2013arXiv1309.7003I}.
Since 2015 IceCube declared its ability to reveal double shower by tau at highest ($> 200$) TeV energies. Among the highest ten events above 200~TeV energy, no tau double cascades was detected. Indeed, above 200~TeV neutrino energy the so-called double chain of events, producing first a shower ($\nu_\tau$+N) and then a consequent $\tau$ with its forward decay (ten meter or more) in a second shower (double bang mechanism) \cite{1995APh.....3..267L}, was in principle observable but experimentally still undetected not in 2013 nor in 2015 \cite{2016PhRvD..93b2001A}, neither it was in more recent analysis \cite{2017arXiv170205238X}. In point of fact, at least a 10 of such events above 200~TeV were not revealing any $\tau$. Now, the $\nu_\mu$ and $\nu_e$, as known, are extremely polluted by atmospheric noises, while $\nu_\tau$ (and $\bar{\nu}_\tau$) are the unique beyond-doubt probe of an extraterrestrial signal.
Therefore we face the urgent question: why tau has not been detected \cite{Fargion_WHY} or better to say it is so rare?
%
%
\subsection{The article structure}\label{sec:intro_1}
The article is structured as follows: in next section~\ref{sec:2} we remind the missing element in the desired $\nu$ astronomy, then we briefly review in section~\ref{sec:3} The UHE$\nu$ astronomy encoded in last 103 IceCube event:
the last 54, 82 and 103 UHE neutrino events facing that key question.
We than recall in subsection~\ref{sec:3_1} the effective volume and area in each neutrino flavor detection.
Therefore we discuss in section\ref{sec:4} The recent 83 HESE and last 103 HESE IceCube events; in subsection~\ref{sec:4_1} the tau expected and the observed rates.
These arguments required a remind on the effective volume and area of detection for each neutrino flavor.
%
We had to underline our recent first surprise in subsection~\ref{sec:4_2}: double HESE sample (from 54 to 103) with less events above 200 TeV. This metamorphosis in IceCube catalog is much more evident in last 103 more radical events displacements.
Therefore we show in section~\ref{sec:5} how to estimate the astrophysical tau neutrino presence in 54 or 103 sample.
We introduce in subsections the two very recent claim of a tau signal among UHE IceCube events;
in subsection~\ref{sec:5_1} a weighted rate probability for each neutrino flavor is discussed,
in particular we concentrated on the last 36 IceCube events above 100 TeV that might be observed
by double bang or pulse by last improved analysis: in subsection~\ref{sec:5_2} we discuss a weighted rate probability for each neutrino flavor.
In following subsection~\ref{sec:5_3} the most recent $36$ UHE$\nu$ events above 100 TeV, candidate to be disentangled by eventual double bang, they were considered with their statistical weights for each flavor in IceCube.
On the largest sample of $36$ UHE$\nu$ detectable we restricted to the 28 (only shower events) events in estimating
the probability to observe a tau signal.
In following subsection~\ref{sec:5_4} we considered in more details the largest sample of UHE neutrino detectable tau sample above 100 TeV threshold. In connection with the secondary tau neutrino role in charmed atmospheric events we
added a subsection~\ref{sec:5_5} on the charmed neutrino flux and their tau minor presence.
Their charmed foreseen events are in reasonable agreement with none, one or two tau signals.
The conclusion are summarizing the results in section~\ref{sec:conclusion} , see Fig. \ref{Fig18}.
The article is followed by a brief appendix with three figures that are
reminding: $1)$, the tension on astrophysical spectra model for HESE and for the trough going muons, see Fig.\ref{Fig11}; $2)$ the average flavor balance that (up to last year) was derived by IceCube, (for electron, muon and tau component) at ratio $1,1,0$m see Fig.\ref{Fig12} (as for the charmed atmospheric case prescribed) ; $3)$ in the appendix last figure, see Fig. \ref{Fig15} we remind the remarkable Glashow resonance peak role in $\nu$ cross sections: its presence leading to $6.3$ PeV shower (or double bang) it is still unobserved. On the contrary the Glashow resonance it would be probably already taken place under a hard astrophysical spectra, while it might be still compatible, being hidden within a charmed atmospheric and softer spectra, as our thesis suggest.
\section{Missing evidences for a definitive UHE $\nu$ astronomy}\label{sec:2}
\begin{figure}[!t]%[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{54_EVENTS_10_Fig1.pdf}
\caption{Early 54 event data by IceCube: ten neutrino events above 200~TeV energy are among these first events (number 8, 9 and 10 are called respectively Bert, Ennie and Big Bird); they have been considered, since ICRC 2015, by the IceCube, for the tau discover. The tau absence within the ten events above 200~TeV was already somehow puzzling.
} \label{Fig1}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!t]%[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{82_EVENTS_10_Fig2.pdf}
\caption{As above, the first HESE 82 events,that have been presented last year, since (2017 ICRC), by IceCube; there are still the same ten neutrino event candidate (as in previous figure) above 200~TeV energy, for the eventual tau discover.
} \label{Fig2}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!t]%[!hbp]%[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{82_EVENTS_8_Fig3.pdf}
\caption{The whole neutrino events, as in previous figure, above 200~TeV energy that have been
modified a little and shifted by a new calibration leading to just 8 events above 200 TeV.
(Two events in previous figures, n.2 and n.3, have been moved in lower threshold and excluded by IceCube). Therefore even within the new enlarged sample of 82 events only 8 HESE events
above 200 TeV were considered in the IceCube for the tau discover.
} \label{Fig3}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
There are, truthfully, several arguments to keep in mind before any claim of $\nu$ astronomy arising from the 54 HESE (as well as the most recent 82 or 103) events:\newline
\begin{enumerate*}
\item There are no clear Galactic plane signatures. Most gamma Fermi MeV-GeV and even TeV;
telescope astronomy do show, among diffuse noises, both sharp rare extragalactic but also several clear galactic plane
signature (Argo, Hawc TeVs gamma array). At energy below TeVs (tens GeV or below) the whole universe is still transparent to energy gamma sky: there is not any cosmic dominant signal over the galactic one. One of course may mention the unique PeV IceCube shower event pointing somehow to our Galactic Center (GC) direction but there are not too many additional clear galactic signals within the last 54, 82, 103 events. Moreover the 103 last IceCube event map, shown below, has been radically modified and that GC event in no longer pointing to our galaxy core, but 20 degrees far away.
There are additional targets in IceCube "astrophysical" claims that are missing. The brightest Gamma Ray burst
(GRB) are absent; also their twin Soft Gamma Repeaters (SGR) that are mostly galactic are present gamma sky in a non negligible number, but absent in IceCube UHE neutrino traces.\newline
\item The GRBs events are the most (apparent) brightest $\gamma$ flashes and they were expected to be in correlated shining activity with highest neutrino energy (if these GRBS sources are of hadronic and pion nature). A possible solution we suggested occurs in a different scenario for GRB sources made mostly by binary BH-NS collapse forming a gamma jet not fueled mostly by hadrons jets but by their electron pairs jets, see \cite{2016arXiv1605.00177}. Indeed the electromagnetic beamed jet dominance may be so loud to hide a minor un-beamed neutrino component;\newline
\item There are no at all (out of a rare recent possible connection) AGN-$\nu$ expected connections at flare peak. There are several brightest persistent AGN flaring gamma TeV sources with no apparent correlation with these 54, 82, 103 IceCube events as the most famous Mrk~421, Mrk~501, 3C~454;\newline
\item There is a puzzling disagreement in power spectra among HESE events $\sim E^{-2.6}$, (some how similar to cosmic ray spectra) and the through-going ones ($\sim E^{-2.1}$). Astrophysical flavors should be well mixed (by oscillation) and they cannot share different spectra;\newline
\item There is no much self clustering in most recent IceCube records suggesting a much lower flux of sources respect to the observed UHE neutrino event rate. Muon tracks by UHE neutrino are quite collimated signals, (contrary to cascade ones). There are indeed some weak correlation \cite{2015EPJWC..9908002F}, that might point to a few galactic sources, but at least a more narrow clustering would favor a real true Astronomy. In most recent search by IceCube for clustering no granularity was found (see \cite{2018arXiv180803531A});\newline
\item The 3 years of IceCube record (2013-2015) have been almost doubled (ICRC 2017 for 82 events, Neutrino 2018, for 103 events); additional volumes and improved techniques did double or tripled the event, as discussed later, candidate to a tau appearance. The $\nu_\tau$ ($\bar{\nu}_\tau$) absence (or negligible presence) offer just a main escape door: HESE events are mostly atmospheric prompt (charmed) events that are made by $\nu_e$, $\bar{\nu}_e$, $\nu_\mu$, $\bar{\nu}_\mu$ in equal rate, with a rare ($5\%$) tau charmed component \cite{2008Reno_TAU_PROMPT}. Their spectra then must be by definition almost a photocopy of Cosmic Rays one ($\sim E^{-2.6}$), as indeed they partially they show it, with a possible knee able to hide the Glashow resonant signal. The prompt neutrino asymmetric flavor spectra ($\phi_{\nu_\mu}:\phi_{\nu_e}:\phi_{\nu_\tau}=1:1:\frac{1}{20}$), it is disfavoring the tau flavor, as it has been observed by one or two IceCube events, contrary to the expected astrophysical democracy,(because complete mixing), of $\phi_{\nu_\mu}:\phi_{\nu_e}:\phi_{\nu_\tau} =1:1:1 $ requiring a large sample of tau signals.
\end{enumerate*}
\section{The UHE $\nu$ astronomy encoded in last recalibrate 103 IceCube event?}\label{sec:3}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% FIGURE 4 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\begin{figure}[!t]%[!hbp]%[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{103_EVENTS_9_Fig4.pdf}
\caption{Most recent (June 2018) HESE data: the same neutrino events above 200 TeV energy have been cut and reduced by a new calibration to just 8 events. among them 6 old events are among earliest while three are new ones. They have been considered in the IceCube for the tau discover, even once the event grew to 103 events. However the energy threshold has been reduced to 100 TeV, making the candidate event to inspect as many as 36 ones.
} \label{Fig4}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!t]%[!hbp]%[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{103_EVENTS_27_Fig4B.pdf}
\caption{Most recent HESE (June 2018) data: the energy threshold has been reduced to 100~TeV, making the candidate event to inspect as many as 27 (above 100 TeV)+9 (above 200 TeV)= 36 events.
}\label{Fig4B}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% FIG 4B------- %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Let us inspect the recent candidates of highest 103 UHE neutrinos.
as the authors informed us, there have been a radical recalibrate of the data events both in their energy and
in their arrival direction (see figures~\ref{Fig4B} and \ref{Fig8}). Several earlier recorded events have been excluded
(5, 6, 42, 53, 61, 63, 60, 73) and most shower signal did find a different location in the map. A simple overlapping of
the 82 and 103 event recent maps (see figures~\ref{Fig7} and \ref{Fig8}) exhibit these abundant displacements.
One for all, the PeV event (number 14) pointing toward the Galactic Center, it has been displaced by more than 20 degree away.
The most positive important news is the ability to discover the first two double bang or pulse, very probably the required imprint
of the astrophysical tau flavor presence. In consequence of the last 103 map radical changes we may exclude that shower might trace the astronomical direction of sources in the sky: first because they are quite spread; second because these events seem very unstable or undeterminable in IceCube observatory. Therefore only 25\% of HESE events, the muon tracks or better trough going muons may offer a solid base for $\nu$ astronomy
Before to comment these tau events, let us enlist the main behavior of the recent 103 events.
%
%
\subsection{The effective volume and area in each neutrino flavor detection}\label{sec:3_1}
Let us remind and measure the efficiency in each neutrino flavor detection in figures~\ref{Fig5}~and~\ref{Fig6}.
Their values will influence the probability to observe a $\tau$ in present and future UHE IceCube events.
Their weight are applied in next sections while estimating the tau probability to occur either for astrophysical
origin or for prompt atmospheric one.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% FIGURE 5 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\begin{figure}[!t]%[!hbp]%[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{EFFECTIVE_AREA_TAU_MU_Fig5.pdf}
\caption{The effective area estimated by IceCube (ICRC2015) for the tau versus muon neutrino detection (ICRC 2015).
A coordinate array has been added to estimate the ratio of detection in 200 TeV and PeV energy regions for each flavor.
} \label{Fig5}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!t]%[!hbp]%[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{EFFECTIVE-Volume_TAU_MU_Fig6.pdf}
\caption{As above here we may use as a meter The effective IceCube volume mass each neutrino flavor in its detection.
at 100 TeV one may measure 45, 65, 120, 250 thousands tons mass for $\nu_{NC}$,$\nu_{{\mu}\,{CC}}$,$\nu_{{\tau}\,{CC}}$,$\nu_{{e}\,{CC}}$ respectively. By these value we may better estimate the probability to observe a $\tau$ event above 100~TeV.
} \label{Fig6}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% FIG 6-------- %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%
%
\section{The recent 83 HESE and last 103 HESE IceCube events}\label{sec:4}
We should discuss the IceCube events in the frame of the earlier 54 and 83 events as well as the final
103 event map disclosed in recent Neutrino 2018 Conference.
Let us underline the radical event map displacement as observable in following figure~\ref{Fig7}
where both 83 HESE events and several dozens of through going muons are shown and in the following
figure~\ref{Fig8} where only the last 103 HESE events are shown. Most shower event are no longer
pointing where they were before. These map trembling at shower event undermine any faith on possible astronomy based on showers.
The winning currier for UHE neutrino astronomy are the muon tracks that survived the map recalibration.
The recent trough going muon ($22-09-2017$) as well as the future ones are the best candidate currier for a
(somehow surviving) neutrino astronomy.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% -Fig7------- %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\begin{figure}[!t]%[!hbp]%[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{83_CROSSING_HESE_Fig7.pdf}
\caption{The most recent 83 Icecube HESE events map in equatorial coordinate,
as well as the main through going muons presented in recent Neutrino 2018 Conference.}
\label{Fig7}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!t]%[!hbp]%[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{103_MAP_BIS_Fig8.pdf}
\caption{The most recent 103 HESE Icecube events map in equatorial coordinate, presented in recent Neutrino 2018 Conference. Energy and coordinates have been changed. A simple overlapping with previous map shows a radical displacement for most (shower) arrival directions.}
\label{Fig8}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\subsection{The earlier tau expected and the observed rates}\label{sec:4_1}
The present $\tau$ search in IceCube has been improved by three factors:
The time larger sample (7.5 years versus 3 years); the enlarged IceCube area and volume; the lowering of the energy threshold from 200 TeV to 100 TeV, offering a larger number of UHE HESE neutrino sample.
Indeed a new method for astrophysical tau neutrino search in the
waveforms is being implemented by IceCube leading to a lower detection energy threshold to about (100 TeV).
The doubling of the data (54 to 103) imply that if for 914 days (three years) there have been recorded nearly ten events above 200~TeV (see figure~\ref{Fig1}) in 6 or 7.5 years data there might be possibly double number.
\subsection{A first surprise: double HESE sample but less events above 200 TeV}\label{sec:4_2}
As shown by the figures the IceCube energy spectra of the events did changed along the early (54) and late (82-103)
data collection. In particular the events above 200~TeV had been gently moved in a way that it reduced the earliest 10 event
sample of candidate (above 200~TeV) to 8 events and later on to a final 6 (old) events with an additional three new events.
Therefore the events doubled (54 to 103) but their hardest candidates did reduced (from 10 to 9): this became possible by the
sudden growth of the number of lower energy neutrino implying a quite softer ($\gamma= -2.6, -2.8 $) spectra for the HESE events (respect to an earlier favorite ($\gamma = -2.2$) hard spectra index). Through going neutrino exhibit such a hard spectra.
\section{How to estimate the astrophysical tau neutrino origin and presence in 54 or 103 sample?}\label{sec:5}
Let us try to imagine the eventual origin of an hadronic astrophysical neutrino:
If it has been originated by any common pion $\pi^{\pm}$ or $K^{\pm}$ decay, first into $\mu^{\pm}$ and later on by muon decay;
we would expect as a first approximation an astrophysical neutrino with no neutrino tau flavor $\ \Phi_{\nu_{e}}:\Phi_{\nu_{\mu}}:\Phi_{\nu_{\tau}}= 1:2:0$. Or for a normalized to unity flux: $\Phi_{\nu_{e}}:\Phi_{\nu_{\mu}}:\Phi_{\nu_{\tau}}= \frac{1}{3}:\frac{2}{3}:0 $.
However, the well known neutrino oscillation and mixing and their final de-coherence will lead to an almost complete democratic rate $\Phi_{\nu_{e}}:\Phi_{\nu_{\mu}}:\Phi_{\nu_{\tau}}=1:1:1$ or in normalized rate:
$$\Phi_{\nu_{e}}:\Phi_{\nu_{\mu}}:\Phi_{\nu_{\tau}}= \frac{1}{3}:\frac{1}{3}:\frac{1}{3}$$.
The result is nearly the same for prompt (astrophysical) neutrino sources whose later on flight oscillations and mixing will normalize in a nearly democratic final rate. The consequence is the follow: if IceCube neutrinos are all astrophysical (as the highest ones at 200 TeV and above should be), than the expectance of the tau presence (or absence) is given by simple binomial distribution: in particular assuming an astrophysical neutrino where there is an equal probability to observe an electron, a tau or a muon or their Neutral Current at equal $\frac{1}{4}$ rate,
$$\Phi_{\nu_{e}}:\Phi_{\nu_{\mu}}:\Phi_{\nu_{\tau}}:\Phi_{\nu_{NC}}= \frac{1}{4}:\frac{1}{4}:\frac{1}{4}: \frac{1}{4}$$
therefore the probability $P_{\mathrm{No}-\tau}$ not to observe any tau neutrino within N trials is simply
\begin{equation}
P_{\mathrm{No}-\tau}=\left(\frac{3}{4}\right)^{N}.
\end{equation}
The consequent absence in the earliest 914 days IceCube old data (see figure~\ref{Fig1}) of any tau signal among 9 or 10 events was respectively only:
\begin{equation}
P_{\mathrm{No}-\tau}(9)=\left(\frac{3}{4}\right)^{9} = 7.5\%,\;\;\;P_{\mathrm{No}-\tau}(10)=\left(\frac{3}{4}\right)^{10} = 5.6\%.
\end{equation}
These old (up to last year 2017) probabilities were already telling us that the eventual tau absence (up to last June 2018), even within earliest
54 events, was already in tension with the astrophysical interpretation.
%
\subsection{The new two tau signal among last UHE IceCube events}\label{sec:5_1}
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{TAU_DOUBLE_FIG10.pdf}
\caption{Among the most recent presentation (see \cite{posterFlavor}),
in Neutrino 2018 Conference, the two candidate tau event has been displayed, but not declared in their identity: a first (probably the old, most bright 2 PeV) event that has been re-calibrates as a possible double bang. We believe it is the highest Big Bird event. The second, a much better tau candidate, it is within a total released energy of only 89 TeV, even below the claimed 100 TeV threshold. It is very probably one of the oldest six showers within 90 and 100 TeV energy. By its arrival arrows of nearly $45^o$ we may focus its identity within that small group}
\label{Fig10}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{TAU_DOUBLE_FIG9.pdf}
\caption{Among the most recent presentation (see \cite{posterFlavor}),
in Neutrino 2018 Conference, the two candidate tau event has been displayed: a first (probably old 2 PeV) event
that has been re-calibrates as a possible double bang. We believe it is the highest Big Bird event.
The second better tau candidate it is within a total released energy of only 89 TeV, even below the 100 TeV threshold.
It is very probably one of the older six showers within 90 and 100 TeV energy.}
\label{Fig9}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
%
%
The very recent discover of two tau double bang or pulse events are summarized in figure~ Fig.\ref{Fig9} and \ref{Fig10}.
The first and brightest event (even if not declared in any way or conference) may be presumed to be
the brightest 2 PeV (Big Bird) event, that has been recalibrate. The meaning of the first event is questionable
because the second bang energy it is below the first bang, while in general one would expect four times more
energy in the second (tau decay) shower.
The second event is much more realistic and it sound as a true tau candidate. The second bang it is larger than the first one, as expected. However the very good news is that the energy release is just 89 TeV, below the same 100 TeV threshold.
This may enlarge the tau candidate event not just to 36 (above 100 TeV) but almost to 40 or 42 events above 90 TeV.
Anyway the main message it is that at least one tau may be in IceCube records.
As we shall show, in some sense, in order to save the astrophysical interpretation,
these single or twice tau are too little and too late (in a wider sample) to satisfy our need of
verification of the astrophysical tau abundance that (within 36 or more events) require several tau double bangs.
As we shall show, in some sense, in order to save the astrophysical
interpretation, these single or twice tau are too little and too late (in a wider sample) to
satisfy our need of verification of the astrophysical tau abundance that (within 36 or more events)
require several tau double bangs. A better filtered neutrino astronomy may be based just on the best high energy Tau neutrino signals that are abundant in astrophysics (because of mixing): the upward and horizontal tau airshowers.
These UHE tau neutrinos at PeVs-EeV energies are born inside the Earth (or mountain walls) and their tau may decay in flight leading to wide, loud and spread airshowers \cite{Fargion:2009fr, Fargion:2003kn, Fargion:2000iz}.
%
\subsection{A weighted rate probability for each neutrino flavor}\label{sec:5_2}
As it has been shown in figure~ Fig.\ref{Fig6} the effective volume , once normalized for NC (Neutral current) volume at 100 TeV energy, imply a efficient Volume and consequent probability to interact at a ratio :
\begin{equation}
\text{Vol}{\nu}_{NC}: \text{Vol}{\nu}_{\mu}: \text{Vol}{\nu}_{\tau}: \text{Vol}{\nu_e} = 1: 1.44: 2.66: 5.55.
\end{equation}
Therefore the expected event (normalized) rate $\Phi$ for each interacting component is:
\begin{equation}
\Phi{\nu_{NC}}: \Phi{\nu_{\mu}}: \Phi{\nu_{\tau}}: \Phi{\nu_{e}} = 0.0938: 0.135: 0.25: 0.52.
\end{equation}
Note that in conclusion the probability to occur for $\tau$ is just $0.25$ as we assumed in the simplest equipartition
flavor distribution considered above.
At 200 TeV energy these ratio are a little modified:
\begin{equation}
\text{Vol}{\nu}_{NC}: \text{Vol}{\nu}_{\mu}: \text{Vol}{\nu}_{\tau}: \text{Vol}{\nu_e} = 1: 1.36: 2.27: 3.27.
\end{equation}
The consequent event (normalized) rate $\Phi$ for each interacting component becomes
\begin{equation}
\Phi{\nu_{NC}}: \Phi{\nu_{\mu}}: \Phi{\nu_{\tau}}: \Phi{\nu_{e}} = 0.126: 0.172: 0.287: 0.414.
\end{equation}
This distribution makes tau more easily to be observed ($0.287>0.25$), therefore making our argument more easy to defend.
Because we want to show how rare it is the absence (or the paucity) of tau presence in IceCube , for sake of simplicity,
we shall use the smallest rate $\Phi = 0.25$ for tau (at 100 TeV, not at 200 TeV) because it will allow the largest probability to not be observed (or to observe few) tau events, as present IceCube data show. Even so there should appear many more than the 2 observed ones, making anyway unrealistic the astrophysical claim.
\subsection{The UHE $\nu$ event above 100 TeV}\label{sec:5_3}
Among the 103 UHE IceCube events we counted 13 old showers and 8 new ones for a total of 21 showers (between 100 and 200 TeV). For the muon tracks we count 4 old and 2 new events for a total of 6 tracks (between 100 and 200 TeV).
Above 200 TeV the event are 9: just 4 (old) and 3 (new) showers with in addition 2 old tracks for a total of 9 events.
All included the amount of signals above 100 TeV reaches the total of 36 events. Above these signals there is the effective area or volume of detection that must be taken into account and to be evaluated in order to estimate the probability to the tau to occur (or not) in the expected rate. This effective area and Volumes have been considered by IceCube in the past and they may offer to us the statistical weight for the foreseen tau neutrino appearance by observable double bang above 100 TeV.
These effective area and volumes for different energies and flavors are shown in figure Fig.~\ref{Fig5} and \ref{Fig6}.
We used all these values to calibrate the normalized probability to an astrophysical UHE neutrino
(assumed under democratic equipartition founded by mixing flavor during cosmic flights) to occur in energy above 100 TeV.
Indeed the effective Volumes and the consequent rate for each the interaction
($\nu$ Neutral Current shower, Muon $\nu$ tracks, Tau$\nu$ induced double bang or pulse, Electron $\nu$ Shower) may be estimated , by figure Fig.~\ref{Fig6} at 100 TeV to be in a ratio:
$$\nu_{NC},\nu_{\mu},\nu_{\tau},\nu_{e} = 1, 1.44, 2.66, 5.55$$
Their normalized rate becomes consequently:
$$\nu_{NC},\nu_{\mu},\nu_{\tau},\nu_{e} = 0.0938, 0.135, 0.24976, 0.52$$
The main value to remind, the probability to the tau to occur among these 36 events,
may be simply approximated (by chance) to $\frac{1}{4}$,
as we suggested by a simple equipartition argument among the Neutral Current and three Charged Current neutrino flavors.
There is also the possibility to estimate the probability for tau to appear only among the observed showers (28) themselves.
In this case the total contribute exclude the muon tracks but it does contain the muon track contribute in
the neutral currents. Therefore the weights are now
$$ \nu_{NC},\nu_{\tau},\nu_{e} = 1, 2.66, 5.55$$ but their normalized values are now $$ \nu_{NC},\nu_{\tau},\nu_{e} = 0.108, 0.2888, 0.602$$
\begin{figure}[!t]%[!hbp]%[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{BINOMIAL_EVENTS_27_Fig4C.pdf}
\caption{The probability (in vertical coordinate) to observe from 0 till 36 tau events assuming an astrophysical nature.
It is evident that the two tau observed (or below) are disfavored by 99.7\%. The most probable rate is around 9 events.
} \label{Fig4C}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!t]%[!hbp]%[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{BINOMIAL_EVENTS_28_SHOWERS_Fig4C.pdf}
\caption{As above the probability (in vertical coordinate) to observe from 0 till 28 tau events among all the 28 observed shower above 100 TeV assuming an astrophysical nature. In this case the probability to observe only 2 taus, for astrophysical origin, it is disfavored by $99.5\%$.
} \label{Fig4CC}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\subsection{The largest sample of UHE $\nu$ detectable tau sample above 100 TeV threshold}\label{sec:5_4}
Therefore our estimate will be increased not by the new $9$ event above 200 TeV, but by the lower energy threshold at 100 TeV, enlarged by many more events (27) in this range (100-200 TeV) of energies. Therefore \emph{the probability to not observe} any tau within 36 neutrino events above 100 TeV is just:
\begin{equation}
P_{\mathrm{No}-\tau}=\left(\frac{3}{4}\right)^{36} = 3.178 \cdot 10^{-5}
\end{equation}
Therefore the complete tau absence will be in total conflict with any astrophysical interpretation.
By a simple binomial distribution we may extend
the estimate for the probability to observe within 36 events just 1 or 2 $\tau$:
\begin{equation}
P_{\mathrm{1}-\tau}=\left(\frac{3}{4}\right)^{35}\cdot \frac{36}{4} = 3.81 \cdot 10^{-4}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
P_{\mathrm{2}-\tau}= 2.2 \cdot 10^{-3}
\end{equation}
This situation will almost exclude (at $99.7\%$ level), assuming none, or 1 or just two event tau,
any astrophysical nature of present IceCube UHE neutrino events.
The whole binomial distribution of the probability to record k event (0-36)
is shown in figure~\ref{Fig4C}. As one would imagine among 36 events the best occurrence will
be for a fourth of the sample that it is located at $36:4=9 $ peak.
Indeed the maximum of the distribution sit just there (see Fig. \ref{Fig4C}).
One may rebuild the same statistical trial for the 28 showers weighted as above (see Fig.\ref{Fig4CC}).
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% FIG 4-------- %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\begin{figure}[!t]%[!hbp]%[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{PROMPT_Fig13.pdf}
\caption{In the simplest prompt neutrino spectra we must foresee the same rate for $\mu$ and $\nu_{\mu}$ as well as $\nu_{e}$ and their antiparticles, see \cite{2008Reno_TAU_PROMPT}. Anyway at lower rate nevertheless there must be also a tenth of tau signals.}
\label{Fig13}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\subsection{The charmed neutrino flux and their tau minor presence}\label{sec:5_5}
We will consider also the case of a Charmed atmospheric role where the probability for tau interactions are suppressed by a factor $0.05$ respect to $\nu_{e}$, $\nu_{\mu}$ ones.
See Fig. \ref{Fig13} showing the tau suppressed presence respect to the $\nu_{e}$, $\nu_{\mu}$ ones.
We shall show how the two interpretation fit
the astrophysical or the atmospheric charmed interpretation explain the rare tau appearance.
The alternative interpretation it is offered by the charmed atmospheric neutrino signals made (see figure Fig.~\ref{Fig4D}) by $\nu_{e}$, $\nu_{\mu}$ and by their antiparticles and by their common neutral current: it will imply a final observed flux:
\begin{equation}
\Phi_{\nu_{e}}:\Phi_{\nu_{\mu}}:\Phi_{\nu_{\tau}}:\Phi_{\nu_{NC}}=1:1:\frac{1}{20}:(\frac{2}{3}+ \frac{1}{60})
\end{equation}
the last tiny term $\frac{1}{20}$ it is due to the additional charmed $\nu_{\tau}$ suppressed interaction, while the last fraction it is due to the electron, muon and small tau neutral current contribute. In that case, as one may easily see, the absence of tau event it is a much more probable outcome; the normalized fluxes for the 36 events will be:
\begin{equation}
\Phi_{\nu_{e}}:\Phi_{\nu_{\mu}}:\Phi_{\nu_{\tau}}:\Phi_{\nu_{NC}}= 0.71: 0.184: 0.17 : 0.0875.
\end{equation}
The consequent probability to observe a tau it is described for charmed case by figure Fig.~\ref{Fig4D} and a final (astrophysical and charmed in overlap mode) by figure~ Fig.\ref{Fig18}.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\begin{figure}[!t]%[!hbp]%[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{BINOMIAL_CHARM_27_Fig4D.pdf}
\caption{The probability (in vertical coordinate) to observe from 0 till 36 tau events for the atmospheric charmed signals flavor ratio. It is obvious that nearly half of the cases show no tau and another half one or more tau (as the present IceCube declared one or two event rate)
} \label{Fig4D}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!t]%[!hbp]%[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{ALL_BINOMIAL_RED_BLACK_36_Fig18.pdf}
\caption{The probability (in vertical coordinate) to observe among the 36 showers above 100 TeV, tau events for the atmospheric charmed signals flavor ratio (red) and the astrophysical case (black). Also here as above it is obvious that nearly half of the cases show no tau and another half exhibit one or more tau (as the present IceCube declared one or two events) for charmed case, while astrophysical ones are strongly (99.7\%) disfavored. Even if the extreme case of two or more tau event it is only at $12\%$ probability rate for charmed case, the corresponding probability for astrophysical neutrino it is at $0.24\%$ level, implying a ratio in favor of a charmed interpretation of nearly $50$.
} \label{Fig18}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%
\section{Conclusions}\label{sec:conclusion}
The main message of present article it is the following: there are already many hints and strong statistical signals
that the IceCube events might be mainly polluted by atmospheric prompt neutrinos and very marginally by astrophysical ones.
The polluted atmospheric events are charmed ones at a rate just a little above the foreseen ones \cite{2008Reno_TAU_PROMPT}.
This may be indebt to the proton (and not other nuclei) dominance at PeVs (few, tens, hundred) energies.
The probability that the UHE neutrino are astrophysical or charmed for a given number of tau detection it is summarized
in figure~\ref{Fig18} where the probability that just two tau were observed as astrophysical ones is quite negligible ($<99.5\%$), and it is at least 50 times less probable than an atmospheric charmed signature. Naturally IceCube results are still preliminary and consequently our conclusions are as waiting for more definitive data. However there are several arguments, shown in our article, suggesting already the need for a radical reinterpretation of HESE (eventual) astrophysical nature.
%
\section{Appendix}
\begin{figure}[!ht]%[!hbp]%[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{TWO_SPECTRA_FIG11.pdf}
\caption{The most recent HESE and tracks spectra: the disagreement that it is
growing with time, it cannot be solved by an unrealistic two neutrino flavor behavior, because
the cosmic source distribution cannot combine such a knee in flavor Neutrino spectra at its early stages
} \label{Fig11}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!ht]%[!hbp]%[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{NO_TAU_2015_Fig12.pdf}
\caption{The most recent article based on 2015 record by IceCube
has been favoring not the common flavor ratio 1:1:1 but a flavor combination tuned with the charmed case: $\phi_{\nu_{\mu}}$=$\phi_{\nu_{e}}$}
\label{Fig12}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!t]%[!hbp]%[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{GLASHOW_FIG14.pdf}
\caption{The presence of a Glashow peak it is already in conflict with an assumed
hard spectra (power index $-2.1$), while it is consistent with a softer spectra $-2.6$ or $-2.8$ as one would expect from HESE observed spectra and by a shadows of a cosmic ray signature (as for prompt atmospheric neutrino one).}
\label{Fig15}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\section*{Acknowledgements}
The work by M. Yu. Khlopov was supported by grant of the Russian Science Foundation (project No-18-12-00213).
\bibliographystyle{JHEP}
% \bibliographystyle{elsarticle-num}
\bibliography{NoTauNoAstronomy2017}
\bigskip
\bigskip
\noindent {\bf DISCUSSION}
\bigskip
\noindent {\bf ULI KATZ:} The events observed by IceCube are not consistent with atmospheric prompt neutrinos since these could be accompanied by atmospheric muons that are filtered out by HESE veto.
\bigskip
\noindent {\bf DANIELE FARGION:} This is a very good remark. It is true that any prompt charmed neutrinos might be born with their twin companion lepton charged companion: but very rarely (one or two events) they came together in the present observed ICECUBE record.
Indeed the observed arrival muon tracks observation are not much in disagreement with our proposal of a prompt ruling presence. Let us summarize: the prompt electrons are born with their electron neutrinos; but only the electron neutrino will arrive in the deep Icecube: their UHE electron are showering and they are stopped in air. However as you mentioned the muon and companion neutrino, because of the hundred TeV energies boosted decay , their laboratory split angle (among neutrino and muon) will be
be extremely small and their nearby tracks will be at Icecube within few tens of cm. Therefore the arrival will overlap and they are filtered by HESE veto. Their presence may show up only within a vertical downward solid angle: indeed any horizontal and the upward muon events are stopped by tens kilometers distances and they are lost inside the Earth while their twin muon neutrino survive: therefore they ( upward or horizontal muon neutrinos) are coming alone, overcoming any veto, with no muon companion testimony. But you would ask now: what about these solitary vertical downward HESE muon neutrino tracks? Let us count them: first we consider as Icecube claim, a threshold of E> 100 TeV for Icecube filtered "astrophysical" events (that we suggested mostly , not all, are prompt atmospheric ones): within the observed 36 events as shown in Fig.4 most these events (29) are just showers. For them there is no problem. They are made by electrons or NC.
Or, in your view, by the famous, unobserved tau. Only $7$ are the observed HESE muon neutrino track. Among them, you will notice that most, $5$ tracks, are horizontal or upgoing (see Fig \ref{Fig4}, \ref{Fig4} ); they have no contradiction with a prompt atmospheric nature. Only two events (among 36) are downward muon tracks: one it is at the 100 TeV energy edge (therefore not much compelling); the last one, (event n.4 in the Fig \ref{Fig4}) it is really the unique one non consistent with our prompt interpretation. We agree that
it might be of astrophysical nature.
Therefore we do not see more relevant contradiction with a noisy prompt atmospheric (but not exclusive) nature.
Moreover the recent observed overabundance of vertical UHE downward muons (respect to common Montecarlo expectations) might be solved by a key presence of the additional prompt atmospheric muon component that, in other roads, ware here somehow advocating. Inspired by tau paucity, we are just suggesting an "unconventional charming Icecube " interpretation with minor astrophysical one. In a very near future, with more data, Nature will tell us and we will hopefully disentangle the correct answer.
\bigskip
\noindent {\bf ULI KATZ:} The numbers of good tau neutrinos candidates passing the corresponding event selection is expected to be small, about two events for the full data sample.
It is therefore much too early to draw conclusions from the fact that no such events are observed so far.
\bigskip
\noindent {\bf DANIELE FARGION:} Thank you for the observation: I agree that the expected 2 events (since June 2018, possibly observed and reported in Neutrino 2018) within 9 events above 200 TeV might be consistent with the expected astrophysical ones. However the same June 2018 Neutrino report informed us that there are many more, an additional (27) events candidate group,
above 100 TeV that are in principle observable showing their detectable double bang; indeed one of the two tau event candidate it is just at a low 89 TeV energy. Therefore among 36 events above 100 TeV one would expect at least several (see Fig.\ref{Fig18}) signals for astrophysics scenario and one or two for our ruling prompt component; the paucity (or absence) of tau events it is quite surprising in any astrophysical frame. Therefore the missing or the very few tau it is a persistent puzzle, finding possibly a solution in a charmed dominant component.
\end{document}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\providecommand{\href}[2]{#2}\begingroup\raggedright\begin{thebibliography}{10}
\bibitem{Fargion_2014}
D.~Fargion and P.~Paggi, \emph{{Flavor revolution at ICECUBE horizons?}},
\href{https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2014.03.006}{\emph{Nucl. Instrum. Meth.}
{\bfseries A753} (2014) 9} [\href{https://arxiv.org/abs/1310.3543}{{\ttfamily
1310.3543}}].
\bibitem{2017arXiv170200021F}
D.~Fargion and P.~Oliva, \emph{{2013-2016 review: HE Neutrino and UHECR
Astronomy?}}, \href{https://arxiv.org/abs/1702.00021}{{\ttfamily
1702.00021}}.
\bibitem{2017arXiv170500383K}
{\scshape IceCube} collaboration, K.~J. Meagher, \emph{{Neutrino Astronomy with
IceCube and Beyond}},
\href{https://doi.org/10.1017/S1743921317002307}{\emph{IAU Symp.} {\bfseries
324} (2016) 322} [\href{https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.00383}{{\ttfamily
1705.00383}}].
\bibitem{2015EPJWC..9908002F}
D.~Fargion, G.~Ucci, P.~Oliva and P.~G. De~Sanctis~Lucentini, \emph{{The
meaning of the UHECR Hot Spots: A Light Nuclei Nearby Astronomy}},
\href{https://doi.org/10.1051/epjconf/20159908002}{\emph{EPJ Web Conf.}
{\bfseries 99} (2015) 08002}
[\href{https://arxiv.org/abs/1412.1573}{{\ttfamily 1412.1573}}].
\bibitem{2014NuPhS.256..213F}
D.~Fargion, P.~Oliva and P.~D.~S. Lucentini, \emph{Crossing muons in icecube at
highest energy: a cornerstone to \protect{$\nu$} astronomy},
\href{https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysbps.2014.10.024}{\emph{Nuclear
Physics B - Proceedings Supplements} {\bfseries 256-257} (2014) 213 }.
\bibitem{FARGION2008146}
D.~Fargion, P.~Oliva, F.~Massa and G.~Moreno, \emph{Cherenkov flashes and
fluorescence flares on telescopes: New lights on uhecr spectroscopy while
unveiling neutrinos astronomy},
\href{https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2008.01.028}{\emph{Nuclear
Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators,
Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment} {\bfseries 588} (2008) 146
}.
\bibitem{1742-6596-110-6-062008}
D.~Fargion, M.~Gaug and P.~Oliva, \emph{Reflecting on \v{C}erenkov
reflections},
\href{https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/110/6/062008}{\emph{Journal of
Physics: Conference Series} {\bfseries 110} (2008) 062008}
[\href{https://arxiv.org/abs/0711.2326}{{\ttfamily 0711.2326}}].
\bibitem{2013arXiv1309.7003I}
{\scshape IceCube} collaboration, M.~G. Aartsen et~al., \emph{{The IceCube
Neutrino Observatory Part II: Atmospheric and Diffuse UHE Neutrino Searches
of All Flavors}}, \href{https://arxiv.org/abs/1309.7003}{{\ttfamily
1309.7003}}.
\bibitem{1995APh.....3..267L}
J.~G. Learned and S.~Pakvasa, \emph{{Detecting tau-neutrino oscillations at PeV
energies}},
\href{https://doi.org/10.1016/0927-6505(94)00043-3}{\emph{Astropart. Phys.}
{\bfseries 3} (1995) 267}
[\href{https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9405296}{{\ttfamily hep-ph/9405296}}].
\bibitem{2016PhRvD..93b2001A}
{\scshape IceCube} collaboration, M.~G. Aartsen et~al., \emph{{Search for
Astrophysical Tau Neutrinos in Three Years of IceCube Data}},
\href{https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.93.022001}{\emph{Phys. Rev.}
{\bfseries D93} (2016) 022001}
[\href{https://arxiv.org/abs/1509.06212}{{\ttfamily 1509.06212}}].
\bibitem{2017arXiv170205238X}
{\scshape IceCube} collaboration, D.~Xu, \emph{{Search for Astrophysical Tau
Neutrinos with IceCube}}, {\emph{PoS} {\bfseries ICHEP2016} (2016) 452}
[\href{https://arxiv.org/abs/1702.05238}{{\ttfamily 1702.05238}}].
\bibitem{Fargion_WHY}
D.~Fargion, P.~Oliva and G.~Ucci, \emph{{Why not any tau double bang in
Icecube, yet?}}, {\emph{PoS} {\bfseries FRAPWS2014} (2016) 028}
[\href{https://arxiv.org/abs/1512.08794}{{\ttfamily 1512.08794}}].
\bibitem{2016arXiv1605.00177}
D.~Fargion and P.~Oliva, \emph{{Solving the missing GRB neutrino and GRB-SN
puzzles}}, \href{https://arxiv.org/abs/1605.00177}{{\ttfamily 1605.00177}}.
\bibitem{2018arXiv180803531A}
A.~{Albert}, M.~{Andr{\'e}}, M.~{Anghinolfi}, M.~{Ardid}, J.~J. {Aubert},
J.~{Aublin} et~al., \emph{{Joint constraints on Galactic diffuse neutrino
emission from ANTARES and IceCube}}, {\emph{ArXiv e-prints} (2018)
arXiv:1808.03531} [\href{https://arxiv.org/abs/1808.03531}{{\ttfamily
1808.03531}}].
\bibitem{2008Reno_TAU_PROMPT}
R.~Enberg, M.~H. Reno and I.~Sarcevic, \emph{{Prompt neutrino fluxes from
atmospheric charm}},
\href{https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.78.043005}{\emph{Phys. Rev.}
{\bfseries D78} (2008) 043005}
[\href{https://arxiv.org/abs/0806.0418}{{\ttfamily 0806.0418}}].
\bibitem{posterFlavor}
J.~Stachurska, \emph{New measurement of the flavor composition of high-energy
neutrino events with contained vertices in icecube}, 2018.
\bibitem{Fargion:2009fr}
D.~Fargion, \emph{{Vertical Array in Space for Horizontal Air-Showers}},
\href{https://doi.org/10.22323/1.084.0104}{\emph{PoS} {\bfseries EPS-HEP2009}
(2009) 104} [\href{https://arxiv.org/abs/0910.2976}{{\ttfamily 0910.2976}}].
\bibitem{Fargion:2003kn}
D.~Fargion, P.~G. De~Sanctis~Lucentini and M.~De~Santis, \emph{{Tau air showers
from earth}}, \href{https://doi.org/10.1086/423124}{\emph{Astrophys. J.}
{\bfseries 613} (2004) 1285}
[\href{https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0305128}{{\ttfamily hep-ph/0305128}}].
\bibitem{Fargion:2000iz}
D.~Fargion, \emph{{Discovering Ultra High Energy Neutrinos by Horizontal and
Upward tau Air-Showers: Evidences in Terrestrial Gamma Flashes?}},
\href{https://doi.org/10.1086/339772}{\emph{Astrophys. J.} {\bfseries 570}
(2002) 909} [\href{https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0002453}{{\ttfamily
astro-ph/0002453}}].
\end{thebibliography}\endgroup