Sterile Neutrinos with Neutrino Telescopes
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Please see the attached file.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
We would like to thank the referee for the useful and constructive comments on the draft.
We address the following points and modify accordingly the text:
The sterile neutrinos both from the experimental and theoretical point of view is a “hot” subject which has led to numerous citations over past decades. I recommend the authors to enrich their references including also some more general articles related to neutrino physics [e.g. Phys. Rep. 928, 1 (2021)]. It would perhaps better define the context of the present work and help more casual readers.
We agree a general review article may help to set the context of the topic, specially with a short paper, we add a couple of references including the proposed by the referee.
Some minor points that should be also corrected are:
- Page 1, line 2: Although the abbreviations LSND and MiniBooNe correspond to two widespread experimental campaigns, the full names should be specified the first time that the aforementioned abbreviations appear in the text.
Corrected
- Page 2, line 51, “…the a light sterile neutrino gives… -> … a light sterile neutrino gives …
Corrected
- Page 2, line 59: “…whole energy spectrum [28–30]” -> A full stop is needed after the squared brackets.
Corrected
- Figure 2: A star is present in the Figure, but it is not stated in the text and/or the caption at which kind of analysis this marker corresponds to. It should be specified that the marker corresponds to the ANTARES result.
We have added in the caption that the star corresponds to the ANTARES best-fit point.
- Page 4, 4 lines from the top of the page: “The results of the latter analysis is shown …” -> “The results of the latter analysis are shown…”
corrected
- Page 4, 3 lines from the bottom of the page: “…shown in fig.??,…” -> The Figure number is missing. I assume that is Fig.4?
Corrected
- Page 5, line 40: “…Additionally, we also do not know…” -> “…Additionally, we do not know…”
corrected
- Page 5, line 49: “…the PMNS matrix extended…” -> Please define the abbreviation PMNS and provide the appropriate references.
We now define it in the text.
- Page 5, line 62: “…neutrino production mechanics…”->“…neutrino production mechanisms…”
Corrected
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper draft gives a succinct review of the search for sterile neutrinos using neutrino detectors, focusing mainly on the search results and sensitivities with the IceCube detector. I think it is suitable for publication with a few minor changes needed:
1) When writing about the future perspectives in this field, this paper draft mainly focuses on the gigaton-scale detectors, such as KM3NeT, GVD, P-One, IceCube-Gen2, they are all water/ice Cherenkov detectors. I think it's worthwhile to add a short paragraph commenting on any expected updated results from the reactor-based and accelerator-based neutrino experiments in the future, just to form a more complete picture.
2) Other small issues:
On page 2, line 51, "the a" -> "a"
Page 4, line 14, figure number missing.
Page 4, line 24, mislabeling of Figure in the text, should be Figure 3.
Page 5, line 25, prefer -> preferred
Page 5, line 65, the assume -> they assume
Author Response
We would like to thank the referee for the careful reading of the paper and the useful comments.
In the following we addressed all the points brought up by the referee.
1) When writing about the future perspectives in this field, this paper draft mainly focuses on the gigaton-scale detectors, such as KM3NeT, GVD, P-One, IceCube-Gen2, they are all water/ice Cherenkov detectors. I think it's worthwhile to add a short paragraph commenting on any expected updated results from the reactor-based and accelerator-based neutrino experiments in the future, just to form a more complete picture.
We have now included references to other experiments.
2) Other small issues:
On page 2, line 51, "the a" -> "a"
corrected
Page 4, line 14, figure number missing.
Corrected
Page 4, line 24, mislabeling of Figure in the text, should be Figure 3.
Corrected
Page 5, line 25, prefer -> preferred
Corrected
Page 5, line 65, the assume -> they assume
Corrected
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors provide a clear and concise review of the current status of searches for light sterile neutrinos with neutrino telescopes. The paper is well written and I suggest its publication after implementing the following small changes.
In general, please check the tenses.
Line 34: I would remove the comma after “standard”.
Line 43: in Refs. [17-24]
Line 49: In the range 10^3 GeV - 10^4 GeV
Line 49-50: Please rephrase this sentence
Line 51: a the light sterile neutrino
Line 54: the other -> the second
Line 59: missing full-stop
Line 66: Please rephrase the second part of the sentence. For example, instead of “motivated by LSND and MiniBooNE” I would prefer “compatible with the LSND and MiniBooNE data” or something similar.
Line 67: at
Line 69: netrino with mass -> neutrino with a mass
Line 74: add a reference for the CP-violating phases
Line 76: constrains -> bounds
Figure 3: Please, rephrase the caption so that each citation corresponds to the experiment.
Figure4: In the caption replace CL with C.L.
Page 4 Line 14: check the figure reference
Page 5
line 18: replace "result" with "analysis"
line 34: was proved to be extremely sensitive to test new physics.
line 53: Ref. [42]
line 62: Ref. [48]
line 64: Ref [54]
line 65: they assume
Page 6
line 68-68: The second scenario considered a dark matter to be composed of a heavy neutrino…
Author Response
We would like to thank the referee for the careful reading and corrections on the text.
In general, please check the tenses.
We have reviewed the English of the whole manuscript.
Line 34: I would remove the comma after “standard”.
Corrected
Line 43: in Refs. [17-24]
Corrected
Line 49: In the range 10^3 GeV - 10^4 GeV
Corrected
Line 49-50: Please rephrase this sentence
Corrected
Line 51: a the light sterile neutrino
Corrected
Line 54: the other -> the second
Corrected
Line 59: missing full-stop
Corrected
Line 66: Please rephrase the second part of the sentence. For example, instead of “motivated by LSND and MiniBooNE” I would prefer “compatible with the LSND and MiniBooNE data” or something similar.
Corrected
Line 69: netrino with mass -> neutrino with a mass
Corrected
Line 74: add a reference for the CP-violating phases
Corrected
Line 76: constrains -> bounds
Corrected
Figure 3: Please, rephrase the caption so that each citation corresponds to the experiment.
Corrected
Figure4: In the caption replace CL with C.L.
Corrected
Page 4 Line 14: check the figure reference
Corrected
line 18: replace "result" with "analysis"
Corrected
line 34: was proved to be extremely sensitive to test new physics.
Corrected
line 53: Ref. [42]
Corrected
line 62: Ref. [48]
Corrected
line 64: Ref [54]
Corrected
line 65: they assume
Page 6
Corrected
line 68-68: The second scenario considered a dark matter to be composed of a heavy neutrino…
Corrected
Reviewer 4 Report
Sterile neutrinos are theoretically well – motivated particles but, they remain invisible from the recent large – scale experimental facilities. However, observed experimental anomalies provide hints of their existence and their participation in neutrinos oscillations. Nowadays, several underground, underwater and under-ice facilities are trying to shed some light on these neutrinos that remain neutral under weak interaction.
The authors in this short-review article present an overview of the light sterile neutrinos searches in different neutrino telescopes worldwide. The importance of these facilities in measurements related to the flavor of neutrinos is also highlighted.
To my opinion, the article is scientifically sound, well – written, interesting even for a reader non-specialist in neutrino physics and appropriate for Universe. The current state of the knowledge of the topic including the recent progress and perspectives is concisely described. Taking into consideration all the above, I consider the present review article worth publishing in Universe.
A few minor suggestions to be considered by the authors can be found below:
- As a reader I would like to see also a deeper theoretical discussion however, I understand that this may be beyond the scope of the present article. Therefore, I would include a few more lines about the sterile neutrino models and if they can -or not- adequately describe all the observed anomalies.
- I suggest to define Δm2ij and sin22θij providing also short comments about their physical meaning. A schematic description would be also helpful. The importance of squared mass difference in neutrinos searches may be highlighted. Please take into account that Universe readers are distributed in a wide range of scientific topics.
- A second affiliation is present but nobody seems to be affiliated with this.
- Page 2, third paragraph, line 51: …the a light sterile…→…a light sterile…
- Page 4, 3 lines from the end (line 14): figure number is missing
- Page 5, 2nd paragraph of chapter 5, line 49: …PMNS matrix… → … Pontecorvo–Maki–Nakagawa–Sakata (PMNS) matrix ...
- Page 5, 2nd paragraph of chapter 5, line 52: …An schematic… → … A schematic ...
Author Response
We would like to thanks the referee for the positive comments and careful reading of the text,
In the following we address the points brought up by the referee.
As a reader I would like to see also a deeper theoretical discussion however, I understand that this may be beyond the scope of the present article. Therefore, I would include a few more lines about the sterile neutrino models and if they can -or not- adequately describe all the observed anomalies.
We add extra text to shortly comment the theoretical models
I suggest to define Δm2ij and sin22θij providing also short comments about their physical meaning. A schematic description would be also helpful. The importance of squared mass difference in neutrinos searches may be highlighted. Please take into account that Universe readers are distributed in a wide range of scientific topics.
We modified the text to make it more pedagogical.
A second affiliation is present but nobody seems to be affiliated with this.
Corrected
Page 2, third paragraph, line 51: …the a light sterile…→…a light sterile…
Corrected
Page 4, 3 lines from the end (line 14): figure number is missing
Corrected
Page 5, 2nd paragraph of chapter 5, line 49: …PMNS matrix… → … Pontecorvo–Maki–Nakagawa–Sakata (PMNS) matrix …
Corrected
Page 5, 2nd paragraph of chapter 5, line 52: …An schematic… → … A schematic …
Corrected
