{"id":"ed9f78ab-43fc-4848-b322-dff012507f10","arxiv_id":"2607.24918","paper_version":1,"verdict":"ACCEPT","confidence":"HIGH","novelty_score":5.5,"correctness_risk":"low","formal_verification":"none","parameter_count":4,"one_line_summary":"DUNE can use a nearby supernova neutronization burst to constrain ultralight Le−Lμ gauge forces via distortions of the electron-neutrino survival probability.","lead":"This paper shows that neutrinos from a nearby supernova’s first flash can reveal ultraweak long-range forces between electron and muon leptons. A Betelgeuse-like burst seen in DUNE could constrain couplings far below ordinary lab reach and complement IceCube bounds.","discovery_kind":"new_application","skeptic_critique":{"model":"moonshotai/kimi-k3","headline":"Sensitivity rests entirely on unverified adiabatic tracking through LRI-modified level crossings; the paper asserts, but never computes, the jump probabilities.","rationale":"I read the machinery carefully: the Hamiltonian (Eq. 3.4), the perturbative effective-angle formulas (3.7–3.12, following refs. 25 and 66), the MARLEY-based DUNE response, and the Asimov χ² with pull parameters are all standard and internally consistent. My order-of-magnitude checks of the potential bookkeeping (solar V'_e ~ 10⁻¹² eV at g'_e=10⁻²⁵, the step structure in Fig. 7 from successive Earth/Sun/SN/MW/EG reservoirs) reproduce the paper's scales, so I find no normalisation error. Minor issues (the text quotes 1-parameter Δχ² values 1.00/2.71/3.84 while Fig. 6's legend shows 2-parameter values 2.31/4.61/5.99; the pull parameterisation in Sec. 5 is written with ξ², presumably a typo for ξ) do not touch the central claim. The single load-bearing condition is the adiabatic/pure-mass-eigenstate mapping, and the paper conditions its result on it verbally (\"as long as the resonances are adiabatic\") without verification. This is a common and usually safe assumption in SN burst phenomenology, and my estimates indicate it very likely holds — but the LRI case is precisely one where the crossing locations and gradients can move (their own Fig. 3 shows the asymptotic eigenstate ordering differs from SMI), and the cost of checking is one numerical integration the authors can trivially perform. Because the concern is unverified-but-plausible rather than demonstrated, and because the claim fails gracefully only in the strong-coupling region if it lands, I recommend no change to the ACCEPT verdict, with the concrete test as due diligence. If the test were to fail, the verdict on the strong-g'_e contours would need to drop substantially.","tokens_in":19425,"tokens_out":12212,"duration_ms":418381,"concrete_test":"Numerically integrate the three-flavour evolution with the combined potential Vcc(r)+V'_e(r) along the actual Garching 25 M☉ density profile (inside the star) and the SN→Sun→Earth potential profile (outside), for E = 5–100 MeV, both orderings, at two benchmark points near the contour edges: (g'_e=10⁻²⁵, λ=1 kpc) and (g'_e=10⁻²³, λ=10⁻² kpc). Extract the jump probability at each crossing and compare the final P_ee(E) with the analytic mapping of Eqs. 3.5–3.6. If |ΔP_ee| exceeds a few percent anywhere in the burst spectrum — most plausibly at the outermost crossing where dV'_e/dr rivals dVcc/dr — the mapping fails and the strong-coupling sensitivity contours must be recomputed with the mixed-state flux.","verdict_should_be":"UNCHANGED","load_bearing_attack":"The reader's weakest_assumption is the right one, and I would sharpen it. The entire sensitivity claim reduces to Eqs. 3.5–3.6: P_ee is set by the effective mixing angles evaluated at Earth. This formula is only valid if the neutrino tracks a single instantaneous matter eigenstate continuously from production to the detector. Three distinct regions must each be adiabatic: (i) inside the SN, where for g'_e ≳ 10⁻²⁴ and λ ≳ R_star the progenitor's own LRI potential (~g'²N_e/4πR_star) becomes comparable to Vcc in the outer layers, shifting the H/L resonances to radii with different density gradients; (ii) the SN→Earth transit where V'_e falls then re-rises near the Sun; (iii) the near-Earth rise. My own estimates suggest (ii) and (iii) are safe by enormous margins (potential scale heights ≳ 10⁶ km vs. oscillation lengths ~10–300 km). Region (i) is the genuine soft spot: the paper's Fig. 3 shows eigenvalues as a function of W for LRI-only and SMI-only potentials separately, but never the combined Vcc(r)+V'_e(r) trajectory, and Sec. 3.2 simply states \"both these resonances are expected to be adiabatic\" without computing the adiabaticity parameter γ or the Landau–Zener jump probability for the modified potential. If any crossing develops a non-negligible jump probability, the burst exits as a mixture, P_ee reverts toward the SMI values (0.022 NMO / 0.30 IMO) regardless of V'_e, and the strong-coupling part of the Figs. 6–7 contours — including the headline claim of exceeding DeepCore in IMO — collapses. The claim is therefore exactly as strong as an uncomputed quantity.","agreement_with_reader":"agree"},"referee_report":{"model":"moonshotai/kimi-k3","summary":"The manuscript studies the sensitivity of DUNE's 40 kt LArTPC to an ultralight Z′ of the anomaly-free U(1)′_{L_e−L_μ} symmetry, using the neutronization burst of a nearby (Betelgeuse-like, 168 pc) core-collapse supernova. The long-range potential is assembled from electrons in the SN progenitor, Sun, Earth, Moon, Milky Way, and (for the global plot) the extragalactic population (Eqs. 2.1–2.4). Under adiabatic flavour evolution, the burst exits the star as a pure mass eigenstate (ν3 in NMO, ν2 in IMO), and the observable electron-neutrino survival probability is set by the effective mixing angles evaluated at Earth in the combined MSW+LRI potential (Eqs. 3.4–3.9), so that P_ee can be driven from its SMI values (0.022 NMO, 0.30 IMO) toward unity. Event rates are simulated with MARLEY and a Gaussian energy resolution (Eqs. 4.1–4.3), and a binned (t, E_r) pull-term χ² on an Asimov dataset (Eq. 5.1) yields sensitivity contours in the (g′_e, m_Z′) plane (Fig. 6) and a global comparison with DeepCore, global-fit, superradiance, and weak-gravity bounds (Fig. 7). The headline result is that for IMO the projected reach exceeds the 8-year IceCube-DeepCore constraint over much of the plane.","tokens_in":19854,"tokens_out":6533,"duration_ms":58441,"significance":"If the result holds, this is a useful addition to the LRI program: the neutronization burst is arguably the cleanest supernova neutrino probe (known initial flavour, negligible collective effects, weak dependence on explosion modeling), and the MeV regime is genuinely complementary to the multi-GeV DeepCore/atmospheric constraints that currently lead. Strengths worth naming: a realistic detector treatment (MARLEY cross sections plus a Gaussian response), a pull-based treatment of flux/cross-section/overall systematics with a robustness check at 20% flux uncertainty, coverage of both mass orderings, a direct comparison against the recent DeepCore open-data bound, and publicly released animations of the level-crossing structure. The projection is a forward sensitivity scan (no fitting to data), and it is falsifiable in the straightforward sense of awaiting a nearby galactic SN. The principal fragility is the assumed adiabatic mapping, flagged in the major comments; the strong-coupling corner of the contours is precisely where that assumption is least guaranteed.","major_comments":[{"comment":"The central mapping (Eqs. 3.5–3.6: P_ee = function of effective angles at Earth) requires the neutrino to track a single instantaneous matter eigenstate continuously from production to the detector. The paper asserts this ('Both these resonances are expected to be adiabatic', Sec. 3.2) but never computes it. Fig. 3 shows the eigenvalue structure for the LRI potential alone (Vcc=0) and the SMI potential alone (V′_e=0), not the physically relevant combined Vcc(r)+V′_e(r) trajectory. This matters most in the strong-coupling corner of Figs. 6–7: for g′_e ~ 1e-24 and λ ≳ R_★ the progenitor's own LRI potential in the outer envelope can rival Vcc, shifting the H/L resonance radii into regions with different density gradients, and any non-negligible jump probability there would return P_ee toward the SMI values and shrink the strong-coupling contours — including the IMO region claimed to surpass","section":"Sec. 3.2, Eqs. (3.5)–(3.6), Fig. 3"},{"comment":"The text states that the red/blue/black contours correspond to Δχ² = 1.00, 2.71, 3.84 (68/90/95% C.L. 'for one-parameter estimation'), while the Fig. 6 legend shows Δχ² = 2.31, 4.61, 5.99 — the two-parameter values. Since g′_e is scanned at fixed m_Z′ (one d.o.f.), the threshold choice moves every contour, and the headline comparison with the DeepCore 90% curve depends on it. Please reconcile the two, state clearly which Δχ² thresholds are plotted in Figs. 6 and 7, and confirm the DeepCore curve is compared at the same C.L. convention.","section":"Sec. 5, Fig. 6"},{"comment":"The outermost step features of the global sensitivity plot rely on the extragalactic LRI potential V_EG, but its computation is described in one sentence ('integrating the redshift-dependent cosmic star formation rate density [81]'). The normalization of V_EG sets where the EG steps land relative to the DeepCore and global-fit boundaries, i.e. it affects the 'exceeds current constraints over most of the parameter space' claim. Please give the explicit formula/assumed comoving electron density, its redshift dependence, and an estimate of its uncertainty.","section":"Sec. 6 / Fig. 7"}],"minor_comments":[{"comment":"Eq. (2.3) appears to drop the 1/(4π) factor present in Eq. (2.1) for the spherical-source limit. Please check the normalization; since the absolute sensitivity scales as g′²_e N_e, a consistent convention is needed for comparison with the DeepCore/global-fit bounds shown in Figs. 6–7.","section":"Sec. 2, Eq. (2.3)"},{"comment":"Betelgeuse's distance is given as 168 pc, but §5 and §6 repeatedly describe the source as 'at around 0.1 kpc'. Please use one consistent value (0.168 kpc).","section":"Secs. 5–6"},{"comment":"The ordering dependence of the sensitivity is explained only as 'statistics is expected to dominate in the IMO'. Given that NMO has the larger fractional change in P_ee (0.022→1 vs 0.30→1), a sentence of quantitative explanation (absolute event excess vs. background-free SMI rate) would help the reader understand why IMO wins by almost an order of magnitude.","section":"Sec. 5"},{"comment":"The effective-angle formulae (3.7)–(3.9) contain no δ_CP; please state explicitly at what order δ_CP drops out, and confirm that fixing θ_23 = 45° is benign for the L_e−L_μ case specifically (the justification given refers to the probabilities generally).","section":"Sec. 3.2, Eqs. (3.7)–(3.9)"},{"comment":"Fig. 2 and footnote 2 note the solar contribution depends on θ_rel, and the text states the potential at Earth is θ_rel-independent. Please state explicitly in Sec. 5 which geometry (if any) is assumed for the contours, and in Fig. 2 clarify what quantity is plotted at L → 0.","section":"Sec. 2, Fig. 2"},{"comment":"Presentation: the title has a spacing artifact ('long-rangeL_e−L_μ'); the keywords read 'neutrinos oscillations'; 'occuring' (Sec. 5) and 'extragalatic' (Fig. 7 caption) are typos; the Fig. 5 y-axis label is garbled ('Event rates per bin) like Event Profile...'); reference [61] gives an access date of 2010 for a simulation archive used here — please update.","section":"Title, Figs. 5 and 7, Ref. [61]"},{"comment":"Please quantify the neglected subdominant ¯ν_e/ν_x burst components entering Eq. (3.3) (the (1−|U_eh|²)Φ_νx term), since at 1e5-event statistics even a few-percent contamination could matter at the margin of the contours.","section":"Sec. 3.1, Eq. (3.3)"}],"recommendation":"major_revision","confidential_remarks":"The manuscript is competent and within scope for JHEP. Two observations for the editor only: (i) the reference list contains a noticeable cluster of recent self-citations (Refs. 8, 15, 17–19, 22, 54, 59) in the introductory survey of ultralight-mediator phenomenology; topical, but the editor may wish to ask the authors to broaden it. (ii) The key comparison bound (Ref. [28], DeepCore open data) is very recent; the comparison as drawn looks fair, but the Δχ²-threshold inconsistency in my major comment 2 should be resolved before the 'exceeds DeepCore' claim is taken at face value. None of my concerns suggest the result is wrong; the adiabaticity check requested in major comment 1 is very likely to come out in the authors' favour given the macroscopic scale heights involved, but it is currently asserted rather than shown, and the strong-coupling reach quoted in Figs. 6–7 rests on it."},"author_rebuttal":null,"desk_editor":{"model":"grok-4.5","letter":"The new piece is quantitative: DUNE time-energy contours in the (g′e, mZ′) plane for a Betelgeuse-like neutronization burst under Le−Lμ long-range forces, including solar/Earth/MW/EG contributions and a realistic 40 kt LArTPC response. That reach is not in the prior LRI or SN literature they cite, and for IMO it can beat the 8-year DeepCore bound over a useful slice of parameter space.\n\nWhat they do well is standard but careful. The Hamiltonian (3.4), effective-angle formulae, MARLEY + Gaussian smearing, and pull-term χ² are the right tools. Level-crossing plots and the P_ee maps in Fig. 4 make the physics transparent. They correctly note that once the burst has left the star the Earth-frame survival probability is set by the local effective mixings, and they fold in the geometry dependence of the solar contribution without overclaiming. Citations are appropriate; no circular fitting.\n\nThe soft spot the stress-test flags is real and load-bearing for the strong-coupling part of the contours. Eqs. 3.5–3.6 assume continuous adiabatic tracking from production to Earth. Inside the SN, for g′e ≳ 10⁻²⁴ and λ ≳ R★ the progenitor’s own LRI potential can shift the H/L resonances; the paper never shows the combined Vcc(r)+V′e(r) trajectory or computes the adiabaticity parameter / Landau–Zener jump. They simply assert adiabaticity. Transit and near-Earth regions look safe by huge margins, so the fragility is localized. If jumps appear, the high-g′e reach (including the “beats DeepCore in IMO” claim) weakens toward the SMI baselines. That is a calculable gap, not a conceptual error, and a referee can demand the check.\n\nMinor caveats (fixed NuFit, Asimov, nearby-SN statistics) are ordinary for this genre and do not drive the result.\n\nThis is for people already working on flavour-dependent forces or MeV SN neutrinos at DUNE/Hyper-K. It is not field-reorganizing, but it is a clean, citable sensitivity projection. I would send it to peer review; the adiabaticity calculation is the natural revision request. Worth reading and, if the numbers hold after that check, worth citing.","headline":"Solid DUNE sensitivity study for Le−Lμ LRI on the neutronization burst; the adiabatic-mapping assumption is the real soft spot but does not sink the paper.","tokens_in":20240,"tokens_out":586,"would_cite":true,"duration_ms":11234,"reading_group":"yes","serious_thinker":"yes","would_accept_peer_review":true},"rs_alignment":null,"lean_confirmation":null,"pith_extraction":{"msc":[],"pacs":[],"model":"grok-4.5","headline":"Nearby supernova neutronization-burst neutrinos can reveal ultralight Le−Lμ forces through distortions of the electron-neutrino survival probability at Earth.","keywords":["supernova neutrinos","neutrino oscillations","long-range leptonic interactions","Le−Lμ","neutronization burst","DUNE","ultralight gauge bosons"],"falsifier":"Observation of a galactic neutronization burst in DUNE whose time- and energy-binned event rates match the standard MSW prediction within the quoted systematics would exclude the regions of (g'e, mZ') that the paper claims produce large distortions.","tokens_in":19998,"feed_emoji":"⭐","tokens_out":1023,"duration_ms":19846,"temperature":0.7,"pith_summary":"This paper argues that ultralight gauge bosons from an anomaly-free Le−Lμ symmetry generate a long-range potential that can reshape neutrino flavour evolution between a core-collapse supernova and Earth. During the neutronization burst the flux is almost pure electron neutrinos that leave the star as a single mass eigenstate; any residual long-range potential near Earth then resets the effective mixing angles and therefore the survival probability. The authors fold that modified probability into a realistic 40 kt liquid-argon simulation of DUNE and show that both the time profile and the energy spectrum of the burst become visibly distorted once the new potential rivals or exceeds the vacuum oscillation term. For a Betelgeuse-like source at 168 pc the resulting sensitivity can exceed existing atmospheric-neutrino limits over large regions of the coupling–mass plane, especially if the mass ordering is inverted. A future galactic supernova would therefore furnish a clean, complementary probe of flavour-dependent forces that ordinary laboratory experiments cannot reach.","feed_headline":"Supernova burst neutrinos can expose ultralight Le−Lμ forces","feed_subtitle":"A nearby explosion would distort DUNE’s time and energy spectra enough to beat current limits","key_machinery":"The Earth-frame effective mixing angles θ̃E13 and θ̃E12 that appear in the adiabatic survival probabilities Pee ≈ sin^{2}\thetãE13 (normal ordering) and Pee ≈ sin^{2}\thetãE12 cos^{2}\thetãE13 (inverted ordering). These angles are obtained by diagonalizing the Hamiltonian that includes both the ordinary MSW potential and the cumulative long-range potential from the supernova, Sun, Earth and galaxy.","core_discovery":"When the Le−Lμ long-range potential at Earth is comparable to or larger than the vacuum term, the electron-neutrino survival probability of the neutronization burst is driven far from its standard values (roughly 0.022 in normal ordering, 0.30 in inverted ordering) and can approach unity, producing observable time- and energy-dependent distortions in a DUNE-like detector; for a nearby source such as Betelgeuse these distortions yield competitive exclusion contours in the (g'e, mZ') plane.","pith_inferences":["If the mass ordering is already known from terrestrial experiments, the burst measurement becomes a pure probe of the long-range coupling rather than a joint test of ordering plus new physics.","The same Earth-frame potential would also affect solar and reactor neutrinos, so a positive SN signal should be cross-checked against existing solar-day/night or reactor spectral data.","Diffuse supernova neutrino background measurements could extend the same logic to cosmological baselines once statistics improve."],"forward_implications":["A Betelgeuse-like explosion would let DUNE set stronger limits than eight-year IceCube-DeepCore data over most of the inverted-ordering parameter space.","The same burst data would simultaneously test whether the arriving flux is still a pure mass eigenstate, thereby checking the adiabaticity assumption itself.","Sensitivity maps show characteristic steps each time a new electron reservoir (Earth, Sun, progenitor, galaxy, extragalactic) enters the potential, giving a geometric signature of the interaction range.","Even a more distant galactic supernova retains useful constraining power because the neutronization burst remains spectroscopically clean."],"fun_headline_variants":["Supernova neutronization neutrinos probe ultralight Le−Lμ forces","DUNE can catch Le−Lμ potential warping SN burst survival odds","Betelgeuse neutrinos would distort DUNE spectra via Le−Lμ forces","Long-range Le−Lμ potentials drive SN νe survival far from standard","Nearby SN burst spectra in DUNE constrain ultralight Le−Lμ bosons"],"cache_read_input_tokens":16512,"weakest_assumption_plain":"Flavour evolution inside the supernova stays adiabatic even after the long-range potential is added, so the burst still exits as an essentially pure mass eigenstate and the whole signal is fixed by the mixing angles evaluated only at Earth.","fun_headline_variants_meta":{"raw":{"variants":["Supernova neutronization neutrinos probe ultralight Le−Lμ forces","DUNE can catch Le−Lμ potential warping SN burst survival odds","Betelgeuse neutrinos would distort DUNE spectra via Le−Lμ forces","Long-range Le−Lμ potentials drive SN νe survival far from standard","Nearby SN burst spectra in DUNE constrain ultralight Le−Lμ bosons"]},"model":"grok-4.5","effort":"low","cost_usd":0.00499,"raw_usage":{"total_tokens":1388,"prompt_tokens":780,"num_sources_used":0,"completion_tokens":107,"cost_in_usd_ticks":49904000,"prompt_tokens_details":{"text_tokens":780,"audio_tokens":0,"image_tokens":0,"cached_tokens":128},"completion_tokens_details":{"audio_tokens":0,"reasoning_tokens":501,"accepted_prediction_tokens":0,"rejected_prediction_tokens":0}},"tokens_in":780,"tokens_out":107,"duration_ms":10426,"temperature":1.0,"reasoning_tokens":501,"cache_read_input_tokens":128,"cache_creation_input_tokens":0},"cache_creation_input_tokens":0},"created_at":"2026-07-31T05:47:17.763787+00:00","model_set":{"reader":"grok-4.5"},"falsifier":"Observation of a galactic neutronization burst in DUNE whose time- and energy-binned event rates match the standard MSW prediction within the quoted systematics would exclude the regions of (g'e, mZ') that the paper claims produce large distortions.","supporting_citations":[],"review_version":1}