# The Giant Radio Array for Neutrino Detection (GRAND) Project

### Submission summary

 As Contributors: Bruno Lazarotto Lago Arxiv Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2110.14417v1 (pdf) Date submitted: 2021-10-28 15:05 Submitted by: Lazarotto Lago, Bruno Submitted to: SciPost Physics Proceedings Proceedings issue: 50th International Symposium on Multiparticle Dynamics (ISMD2021) Academic field: Physics Specialties: High-Energy Physics - Experiment

### Abstract

GRAND is designed to detect ultra-high-energy cosmic particles -- specially neutrinos, cosmic rays and gamma rays using radio antennas. With $\sim$20 mountainous sites around the world it will cover a total area of 200,000 km$^{2}$. The planned sensitivity of 10$^{-10}$ GeV cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ sr$^{-1}$ above $5\times10^{17}$ eV will likely ensure the detection of cosmogenic neutrinos predicted by most common scenarios enabling neutrino astronomy. Furthermore, PeV--EeV neutrinos can test particle interactions at energies above those achieved in accelerators. The pathfinder stage GRANDProto300 is planned to start taking data in 2021. We present the current overall status of the project with emphasis on the neutrino physics.

###### Current status:
Has been resubmitted

### Submission & Refereeing History

Resubmission 2110.14417v2 on 4 February 2022

Submission 2110.14417v1 on 28 October 2021

## Reports on this Submission

### Report

The proceeding is a very nice read and well-organised, I only have minor comments.

- Section 1, paragraph 2, Ref [2]: Another review of the field of cosmic-ray research is https://arxiv.org/abs/1903.07713, maybe you can also cite it here.
- Section 2, paragraph 1: You mention the exposure will increase by 20-80 times. I understand that this refers to the later stages compared to the early stage of GRAND, but perhaps it is more helpful here to give the increase in exposure compared to an existing neutrino observatory like IceCube?
- Section 2, paragraph 3: "involved on the" -> "involved in the"
- Section 2, paragraph 4: "The predicted sensitivity..." Perhaps you can say explicitly here that this is the sensitivity for gamma rays, to avoid any ambiguity.
- Section 3, paragraph 3: "in the atmosphere and also" remove "and"
- Section 4.1, paragraph 1: Remove "(EBL)" since the acronym is not used again in the proceeding.
- Section 4.1, last paragraphs: This sections ends with three very short paragraphs. While this is a correct application of the rule that each paragraph should cover one single thought/topic, I would still merge them since having several subsequent short paragraphs does not look good.
- Section 4.2, last bullet: Remove extra space at "(CRB) ." and remove "to" ion "(up to to 10Mpc)".
- Section 4.3: You mention the muon discrepancy in section 2, end of first paragraph as a motivation for GRAND. Perhaps you could add a sentence here regarding the discrepancy?
- Section 4.4, paragraph 2: I think it would be helpful to put a comma between "timing making".
- Section 4.4, paragraph 3: "detected by Laser ... Observatories - LIGO..." I suggest to change to "detected by the Laser ... Observatories LIGO..."

• validity: -
• significance: -
• originality: -
• clarity: -
• formatting: -
• grammar: -