Peer-Review Record
Search for Gravitational-Neutrino Correlations on Ground-Based Detectors
Universe 2022, 8(9), 446; https://doi.org/10.3390/universe8090446
by
Svetlana Andrusenko 1
, Yurii Gavriluk 2,3, Andrei Gusev 2, Daniil Krichevskiy 2,4, Sergei Oreshkin 2, Sergei Popov 2 and Valentin Rudenko 2,3,*
, Yurii Gavriluk 2,3, Andrei Gusev 2, Daniil Krichevskiy 2,4, Sergei Oreshkin 2, Sergei Popov 2 and Valentin Rudenko 2,3,*Reviewer 1:
Reviewer 2:
Universe 2022, 8(9), 446; https://doi.org/10.3390/universe8090446
Submission received: 28 July 2022
/
Revised: 19 August 2022
/
Accepted: 24 August 2022
/
Published: 26 August 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Gravitation)
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I have read carefully the paper, “Search of gravitational-neutrino correlations on ground-based detectors”, by authors, Andrusenko, Gavriluk, Gusev, Krichevskiy, Oreshkin, Popov, and Rudenko. The work describes how gravitational wave burst signals and neutrino signals from galactic transients would be detected via instruments at the Baksan Neutrino Observatory, Institute for Nuclear Research, Russian Academy of Sciences, and how you could potentially perform joint observations via a “neutrino – gravitational correlation” algorithm. The authors detail a novel approach to searching for correlations between the two detectors, OGRAN and BUST, and give some indication of the importance of such a joint analysis.I find the described technique interesting, and a novel solution for a complicated joint analysis task. The authors have identified how this technique can be improved, and indicate that this will be tackled in future works. I have some minor points that I would like to see the authors address, mostly relating to clarity in the presentation of the work, before I can recommend the paper for publication.
Throughout, not all variables are clearly defined. Please define all variables at first use: \omega – is this angular frequency? A in equation(1) [etc.] is not defined? \tau\hat is used in equation(10 but not defined until much later as the GW signal duration – it should be defined at first use. Spectral intensity, N_0 = 4 k_B T m \delta, is T here the temperature? T is later used as the observational timescale. Maybe include, here, “...T is the temperature...” C in equation(6) is not defined. In section 4, C is described as a threshold level. \Omega after equation(13) – is this still the effective bandwidth. The following text is not clear to me? (C/\sigma) – \sigma here is variance? Please state here. Section 5, “f = 0.02 c^{-1}” – is `c’ the speed of light?
“t_0 is the moment of maximum response”, by moment do you mean the time of maximum response? (the moment of a function has a mathematical meaning and it may confuse a casual reader here). Also in Section 6, paragraph 3 “...moments t_k(E)...” would be better as “...times, t_k(E), ...”
`j’ is used for imaginary numbers. This is fine, however, I will note that `i’ is
more commonly used amongst astronomers – the most likely readership of the submitted journal. I also note that while `j’ is used in most instances, `i’ appears in equation(8), as well as `j’. I assume this is just a typo? Last paragraph of the Introduction, “...among whose programs an important role is played by the program of...”, awkward repeat of “program”, try, “...which plays an important role in the search for and detection of collapsing objects within the Galaxy.”
Typos: Random “)” after L ~ 2 m in paragraph 4 of Introduction. First paragraph of section 2. “a cylindrical bars” – either “a cylindrical bar” or “cylindrical bars”, I think it is bars as two bars in the detector? Paragraph 1 of section 4 – “a priory” _> “a priori” Section 4, second paragraph – “- those. a flow of uniform...” Section 4, last paragraph – “(confidential limit)”, do you mean confidence limit? Section 4, last paragraph – “the integral (function) of errors”, is this the “integral of the error function”? Section 5, first paragraph – “neutrino burst from SN ) For...” >> “neutrino burst from a SN). For...” Section 5, second paragraph – 20 kps to 20 kpc, and SNs >> SNe
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The method presented in this article is sound and interesting. However, the authors do not quantitively present the sensitivity of ORGAN and BUST to a core-collapse supernova. Also, it would be more interesting if the authors could present the sensitivity to core-collapse supernova with addition of other experiments with this method since there are experiments more sensitive to gravitation wave, such as LIGO/Virgo and neutrinos, such as Super-Kamiokande, DUNE, Hyper-Kamiokande, and JUNO.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
