Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 75 references

Probing long-range $L_e-L_\mu$ forces with supernova neutronization burst neutrinos

T0 review · 3 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-07-31 · grok-4.5

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Nearby supernova neutronization-burst neutrinos can reveal ultralight Le−Lμ forces through distortions of the electron-neutrino survival probability at Earth.

desk verdict 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. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.24918 v1 pith:VV3W4PCF submitted 2026-07-27 hep-ph astro-ph.CO

Amol Dighe , Sadashiv Sahoo , Manibrata Sen This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phastro-ph.CO
keywords supernovaneutrinosneutrinooscillationslong-rangeleptonicinteractionsLe−LμneutronizationburstDUNEultralightgaugebosons
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

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.

What carries the argument

The Earth-frame effective mixing angles θ̃E13 and θ̃E12 that appear in the adiabatic survival probabilities Pee ≈ sin^{2} hetãE13 (normal ordering) and Pee ≈ sin^{2} hetãE12 cos^{2} hetãE13 (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.

What would settle it

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.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

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.

Load-bearing premise

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.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • 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.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • 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.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 7 minor

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.

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 (3)
  1. [Sec. 3.2, Eqs. (3.5)–(3.6), Fig. 3] 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
  2. [Sec. 5, Fig. 6] 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.
  3. [Sec. 6 / Fig. 7] 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.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Sec. 2, Eq. (2.3)] 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.
  2. [Secs. 5–6] 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).
  3. [Sec. 5] 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.
  4. [Sec. 3.2, Eqs. (3.7)–(3.9)] 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).
  5. [Sec. 2, Fig. 2] 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.
  6. [Title, Figs. 5 and 7, Ref. [61]] 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.
  7. [Sec. 3.1, Eq. (3.3)] 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.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: forward Asimov sensitivity scan; Pee formulas and contours are not forced by fits or self-citation chains

full rationale

The paper is a prospective sensitivity study. It builds the effective Hamiltonian with an additive Le−Lμ long-range potential (Eq. 3.4), adopts the standard adiabatic-exit mapping for the neutronization burst so that Earth-frame Pee is set by the effective mixing angles at the detector (Eqs. 3.5–3.6, with angles from the usual successive-rotation diagonalization), and then compares simulated DUNE time–energy distributions under SMI truth versus LRI test hypotheses via a binned χ² with pulls (Eqs. 5.1–5.2). The parameters g′e and mZ′ (or λ) are scanned, not fitted to any observed spectrum to recover a target; the Asimov construction explicitly sets χ²0→0. Citations for the angle formulas ([25], [66]) and SN flux models are methodological background, not uniqueness theorems that force the present contours. The adiabaticity assumption is a physics assumption whose validity could be questioned, but it is not circular: the paper does not define adiabaticity in terms of the claimed reach, nor does any equation reduce by construction to its own input. No self-definitional loop, fitted-input-as-prediction, or load-bearing self-citation chain is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The claim rests on standard three-flavour oscillation theory, the adiabatic MSW picture for the neutronization burst, the anomaly-free U(1)'Le−Lμ vector potential sourced by electrons, public SN emission profiles, and a conventional binned χ² with stated systematics. No new particle is invented here; the Z' is the object being constrained. Free numbers are the scanned BSM parameters and the fixed nuisance/systematics choices, not fits to undisclosed data.

free parameters (4)
  • g'e (gauge coupling) = scanned, benchmark 1e-25
    Primary BSM parameter scanned to produce exclusion contours; not fitted to data.
  • mZ' or λ = 1/mZ' (mediator mass / range) = scanned
    Second BSM parameter defining the Yukawa range; scanned across Earth-to-extragalactic scales.
  • Flux / cross-section / overall systematics pulls = 10%, 10%, 5%
    10%, 10%, and 5% normalization uncertainties treated as pull parameters in χ² (Eq. 5.1); choices affect contour width.
  • Fixed oscillation parameters (NuFit 6.0) = θ12=34.5°, θ23=45°, θ13=8.5°, Δm²21=7.5e-5 eV², Δm²31=2.5e-3 eV²
    θ12, θ23, θ13, Δm² values held fixed; authors argue θ23/δCP uncertainties do not affect Pee for this channel.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Three-flavour PMNS oscillation Hamiltonian plus MSW charged-current potential is the correct baseline description.
    Used throughout Sec. 2–3 as the SMI reference against which LRI is added.
  • domain assumption Neutronization-burst flavour evolution is adiabatic and collective neutrino-neutrino effects are negligible.
    Stated in Sec. 3.1 with citations; underpins the pure mass-eigenstate exit assumption.
  • domain assumption Long-range potential is the Yukawa integral over electron density for a U(1)'Le−Lμ vector mediator (Eqs. 2.1–2.4).
    Standard form for ultralight Z'; adopted as the interaction model.
  • domain assumption Effective mixing angles at Earth fully determine Pee via Eqs. 3.5–3.6 after adiabatic exit.
    Central reduction used for all sensitivity results in Sec. 3.2–5.
  • domain assumption Garching 1D 25 M☉ progenitor plus pinched thermal spectra adequately model Betelgeuse neutronization emission.
    Sec. 4; model dependence argued to be small for the burst phase.
  • domain assumption Gaussian energy smearing and MARLEY Ar CC response represent DUNE 40 kt LArTPC performance.
    Sec. 4, Eqs. 4.1–4.3.
  • standard math Asimov (median) χ² with stated pulls gives the reported sensitivity contours.
    Sec. 5, Eqs. 5.1–5.2; standard frequentist projection.
invented entities (1)
  • Ultralight Z' of anomaly-free U(1)'Le−Lμ independent evidence
    purpose: Mediator of the flavour-dependent long-range potential being constrained
    Not invented in this work; standard BSM gauge extension used as the target model. Independent experimental handles exist in the cited oscillation and astrophysical literature.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Probing long-range $L_e-L_\mu$ forces with supernova neutronization burst neutrinos." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VV3W4PCF

@misc{pith2026260724918,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Probing long-range $L_e-L_\mu$ forces with supernova neutronization burst neutrinos},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VV3W4PCF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.24918}
}
abstract

Ultralight gauge bosons associated with flavour-dependent leptonic symmetries generate long-range potentials that can modify neutrino flavour evolution over astrophysical distances. We investigate the sensitivity of neutronization-burst neutrinos from core-collapse supernovae for such interactions in the anomaly-free $U(1)'_{L_e-L_\mu}$ framework. Incorporating the long-range potential into supernova neutrino oscillations, we simulate the corresponding signal in the Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment (DUNE) using a realistic detector response of its 40 kt Liquid Argon Time Projection Chamber. We show that in the range where the long-range potential dominates over or is comparable to the vacuum oscillation term, the electron-neutrino survival probability can be significantly modified. This would produce observable distortions in the time and energy distributions of the neutronization burst neutrino spectra. Our results demonstrate that future observations of galactic supernova neutrinos, particularly from a nearby event such as Betelgeuse, can provide a sensitive and complementary probe of flavour-dependent long-range leptonic interactions.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

75 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [81]

    Horiuchi, J

    S. Horiuchi, J. F. Beacom, and E. Dwek,The Diffuse Supernova Neutrino Background is detectable in Super-Kamiokande,Phys. Rev. D79(2009) 083013, [arXiv:0812.3157]. – 25 –

    arXiv 2009

  2. [3]

    R. M. Bionta et al.,Observation of a Neutrino Burst in Coincidence with Supernova SN 1987a in the Large Magellanic Cloud,Phys. Rev. Lett.58(1987) 1494

    1987

  3. [4]

    E. N. Alekseev, L. N. Alekseeva, I. V. Krivosheina, and V. I. Volchenko,Detection of the Neutrino Signal From SN1987A in the LMC Using the Inr Baksan Underground Scintillation Telescope,Phys. Lett. B205(1988) 209–214

    1988

  4. [5]

    Wolfenstein,Neutrino Oscillations in Matter,Phys

    L. Wolfenstein,Neutrino Oscillations in Matter,Phys. Rev. D17(1978) 2369–2374

    1978

  5. [6]

    S. P. Mikheev and A. Yu. Smirnov,Resonance Amplification of Oscillations in Matter and Spectroscopy of Solar Neutrinos,Sov. J. Nucl. Phys.42(1985) 913–917. [Yad. Fiz.42,1441(1985)]

    1985

  6. [7]

    S. P. Mikheev and A. Y. Smirnov,Resonant amplification of neutrino oscillations in matter and solar neutrino spectroscopy,Nuovo Cim. C9(1986) 17–26

    1986

  7. [8]

    Chattopadhyay, Y

    S. Chattopadhyay, Y. F. Perez-Gonzalez, and M. Sen,Emergent Large Lepton Mixing from Neutrino Refraction in Dark Matter,arXiv:2601.14386

    arXiv

  8. [9]

    K.-Y. Choi, E. J. Chun, and J. Kim,Neutrino Oscillations in Dark Matter,Phys. Dark Univ.30(2020) 100606, [arXiv:1909.10478]

    arXiv 2020

Show all 75 references
  1. [10]

    Ge,The Leptonic CP Measurement and New Physics Alternatives,PoS NuF act2019(2020) 108

    S.-F. Ge,The Leptonic CP Measurement and New Physics Alternatives,PoS NuF act2019(2020) 108

    2020

  2. [11]

    Ge,New Physics with Scalar and Dark Non-Standard Interactions in Neutrino Oscillation,J

    S.-F. Ge,New Physics with Scalar and Dark Non-Standard Interactions in Neutrino Oscillation,J. Phys. Conf. Ser.1468(2020), no. 1 012125. – 20 –

    2020

  3. [12]

    K.-Y. Choi, E. J. Chun, and J. Kim,Dispersion of neutrinos in a medium, arXiv:2012.09474

    2012 arXiv

  4. [13]

    A. Y. Smirnov and V. B. Valera,Resonance refraction and neutrino oscillations, JHEP09(2021) 177, [arXiv:2106.13829]

    2021 arXiv

  5. [14]

    E. J. Chun,Neutrino Transition in Dark Matter,arXiv:2112.05057

    arXiv

  6. [15]

    Sen and A

    M. Sen and A. Y. Smirnov,Refractive neutrino masses, ultralight dark matter and cosmology,JCAP01(2024) 040, [arXiv:2306.15718]

    2024 arXiv

  7. [16]

    Ge, C.-F

    S.-F. Ge, C.-F. Kong, and A. Y. Smirnov,Testing the Origins of Neutrino Mass with Supernova-Neutrino Time Delay,Phys. Rev. Lett.133(2024), no. 12 121802, [arXiv:2404.17352]

    2024 arXiv

  8. [17]

    Y. F. Perez-Gonzalez and M. Sen,Dynamic neutrino mass ordering and its imprint on the diffuse supernova neutrino background,Eur. Phys. J. C86(2026), no. 6 615, [arXiv:2501.16412]

    2026 arXiv

  9. [18]

    Pompa and M

    F. Pompa and M. Sen,Shedding light on dark matter spikes through refractive neutrino masses,Phys. Lett. B879(2026) 140572, [arXiv:2508.10983]

    2026 arXiv

  10. [19]

    Chattopadhyay and A

    S. Chattopadhyay and A. Dighe,Refractive neutrino masses in the solar DM halo: can the dark-LMA solution be revived?,JHEP05(2026) 053, [arXiv:2511.19420]

    2026

  11. [20]

    Davoudiasl and P

    H. Davoudiasl and P. B. Denton,Sterile neutrino shape shifting caused by dark matter,Phys. Rev. D108(2023), no. 3 035013, [arXiv:2301.09651]

    2023 arXiv

  12. [21]

    Lopes,Linking solar bosonic dark matter halos and active neutrinos,Phys

    I. Lopes,Linking solar bosonic dark matter halos and active neutrinos,Phys. Rev. D 108(2023), no. 8 083028, [arXiv:2310.14033]

    2023 arXiv

  13. [22]

    Mart ´ ınez-Mirav´ e, Y

    P. Mart ´ ınez-Mirav´ e, Y. F. Perez-Gonzalez, and M. Sen,Effects of neutrino-ultralight dark matter interaction on the cosmic neutrino background,Phys. Rev. D110 (2024), no. 5 055005, [arXiv:2406.01682]

    2024 arXiv

  14. [23]

    Goertz, M

    F. Goertz, M. Hager, G. Laverda, and J. Rubio,Phasing out of darkness: from sterile neutrino dark matter to neutrino masses via time-dependent mixing,JHEP 02(2025) 213, [arXiv:2407.04778]

    2025 arXiv

  15. [24]

    J. A. Grifols and E. Masso,Neutrino oscillations in the sun probe long range leptonic forces,Phys. Lett. B579(2004) 123–126, [hep-ph/0311141]

    2004 arXiv

  16. [25]

    Bandyopadhyay, A

    A. Bandyopadhyay, A. Dighe, and A. S. Joshipura,Constraints on flavor-dependent long range forces from solar neutrinos and KamLAND,Phys. Rev. D75(2007) 093005, [hep-ph/0610263]

    2007 arXiv

  17. [26]

    M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, P. C. de Holanda, E. Masso, and R. Zukanovich Funchal, Probing long-range leptonic forces with solar and reactor neutrinos,JCAP01(2007) 005, [hep-ph/0609094]

    2007 arXiv

  18. [27]

    A. S. Joshipura and S. Mohanty,Constraints on flavor dependent long range forces from atmospheric neutrino observations at super-Kamiokande,Phys. Lett. B584 (2004) 103–108, [hep-ph/0310210]. – 21 –

    2004 arXiv

  19. [28]

    G. Garg, J. Krishnamoorthi, A. Kumar, and S. K. Agarwalla,First Constraints on Long-Range Neutrino Interactions using IceCube DeepCore,arXiv:2601.01220

  20. [29]

    Heeck and W

    J. Heeck and W. Rodejohann,GaugedL µ −L τ and different Muon Neutrino and Anti-Neutrino Oscillations: MINOS and beyond,J. Phys. G38(2011) 085005, [arXiv:1007.2655]

    2011 arXiv

  21. [30]

    Heeck, M

    J. Heeck, M. Lindner, W. Rodejohann, and S. Vogl,Non-Standard Neutrino Interactions and Neutral Gauge Bosons,SciPost Phys.6(2019), no. 3 038, [arXiv:1812.04067]

    2019 arXiv

  22. [31]

    Jana and P

    S. Jana and P. Swain,Probing Neutrinophilic Long-Range Forces at DUNE, arXiv:2607.04441

    arXiv

  23. [32]

    S. K. Agarwalla, M. Bustamante, M. Singh, and P. Swain,A plethora of long-range neutrino interactions probed by DUNE and T2HK,JHEP09(2024) 055, [arXiv:2404.02775]

    2024 arXiv

  24. [33]

    Bustamante and S

    M. Bustamante and S. K. Agarwalla,Universe’s Worth of Electrons to Probe Long-Range Interactions of High-Energy Astrophysical Neutrinos,Phys. Rev. Lett. 122(2019), no. 6 061103, [arXiv:1808.02042]

    2019 arXiv

  25. [34]

    S. K. Agarwalla, M. Bustamante, S. Das, and A. Narang,Present and future constraints on flavor-dependent long-range interactions of high-energy astrophysical neutrinos,JHEP08(2023) 113, [arXiv:2305.03675]

    2023 arXiv

  26. [35]

    Davoudiasl, H.-S

    H. Davoudiasl, H.-S. Lee, and W. J. Marciano,Long-Range Lepton Flavor Interactions and Neutrino Oscillations,Phys. Rev. D84(2011) 013009, [arXiv:1102.5352]

    2011 arXiv

  27. [36]

    Farzan and J

    Y. Farzan and J. Heeck,Neutrinophilic nonstandard interactions,Phys. Rev. D94 (2016), no. 5 053010, [arXiv:1607.07616]

    2016 arXiv

  28. [37]

    M. B. Wise and Y. Zhang,Lepton Flavorful Fifth Force and Depth-dependent Neutrino Matter Interactions,JHEP06(2018) 053, [arXiv:1803.00591]

    2018 arXiv

  29. [38]

    J. A. Dror,Discovering leptonic forces using nonconserved currents,Phys. Rev. D 101(2020), no. 9 095013, [arXiv:2004.04750]

    2020 arXiv

  30. [39]

    Coloma, M

    P. Coloma, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, and M. Maltoni,Neutrino oscillation constraints on U(1)’ models: from non-standard interactions to long-range forces,JHEP01 (2021) 114, [arXiv:2009.14220]. [Erratum: JHEP 11, 115 (2022)]

    2021 arXiv

  31. [40]

    Alonso- ´Alvarez, K

    G. Alonso- ´Alvarez, K. Bleau, and J. M. Cline,Distortion of neutrino oscillations by dark photon dark matter,Phys. Rev. D107(2023), no. 5 055045, [arXiv:2301.04152]

    2023 arXiv

  32. [41]

    Schlamminger, K

    S. Schlamminger, K. Y. Choi, T. A. Wagner, J. H. Gundlach, and E. G. Adelberger, Test of the equivalence principle using a rotating torsion balance,Phys. Rev. Lett. 100(2008) 041101, [arXiv:0712.0607]

    2008 arXiv

  33. [42]

    E. G. Adelberger, J. H. Gundlach, B. R. Heckel, S. Hoedl, and S. Schlamminger, – 22 – Torsion balance experiments: A low-energy frontier of particle physics,Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.62(2009) 102–134

    2009

  34. [43]

    E. J. Salumbides, W. Ubachs, and V. I. Korobov,Bounds on fifth forces at the sub-Angstrom length scale,J. Molec. Spectrosc.300(2014) 65, [arXiv:1308.1711]

    2014 arXiv

  35. [44]

    Baryakhtar, R

    M. Baryakhtar, R. Lasenby, and M. Teo,Black Hole Superradiance Signatures of Ultralight Vectors,Phys. Rev. D96(2017), no. 3 035019, [arXiv:1704.05081]

    2017 arXiv

  36. [45]

    Kumar Poddar, S

    T. Kumar Poddar, S. Mohanty, and S. Jana,Vector gauge boson radiation from compact binary systems in a gaugedL µ −L τ scenario,Phys. Rev. D100(2019), no. 12 123023, [arXiv:1908.09732]

    2019 arXiv

  37. [46]

    Kumar Poddar, S

    T. Kumar Poddar, S. Mohanty, and S. Jana,Constraints on long range force from perihelion precession of planets in a gaugedL e −L µ,τ scenario,Eur. Phys. J. C81 (2021), no. 4 286, [arXiv:2002.02935]

    2021 arXiv

  38. [47]

    Foot,New Physics From Electric Charge Quantization?,Mod

    R. Foot,New Physics From Electric Charge Quantization?,Mod. Phys. Lett. A6 (1991) 527–530

    1991

  39. [48]

    X.-G. He, G. C. Joshi, H. Lew, and R. R. Volkas,Simplest Z-prime model,Phys. Rev. D44(1991) 2118–2132

    1991

  40. [49]

    R. Foot, X. G. He, H. Lew, and R. R. Volkas,Model for a light Z-prime boson,Phys. Rev. D50(1994) 4571–4580, [hep-ph/9401250]

    1994 arXiv

  41. [50]

    Langacker,The Physics of HeavyZ ′ Gauge Bosons,Rev

    P. Langacker,The Physics of HeavyZ ′ Gauge Bosons,Rev. Mod. Phys.81(2009) 1199–1228, [arXiv:0801.1345]

    2009 arXiv

  42. [51]

    H. T. Janka,Neutrino Emission from Supernovae,arXiv:1702.08713

    arXiv

  43. [52]

    Mirizzi, I

    A. Mirizzi, I. Tamborra, H.-T. Janka, N. Saviano, K. Scholberg, R. Bollig, L. Hudepohl, and S. Chakraborty,Supernova Neutrinos: Production, Oscillations and Detection,Riv. Nuovo Cim.39(2016), no. 1-2 1–112, [arXiv:1508.00785]

    2016 arXiv

  44. [53]

    Janka, K

    H.-T. Janka, K. Langanke, A. Marek, G. Martinez-Pinedo, and B. Mueller,Theory of Core-Collapse Supernovae,Phys. Rept.442(2007) 38–74, [astro-ph/0612072]

    2007 arXiv

  45. [54]

    Sen,Supernova Neutrinos: Flavour Conversion Mechanisms and New Physics Scenarios,Universe10(2024), no

    M. Sen,Supernova Neutrinos: Flavour Conversion Mechanisms and New Physics Scenarios,Universe10(2024), no. 6 238, [arXiv:2405.20432]

    2024 arXiv

  46. [55]

    G. G. Raffelt, H.-T. Janka, and D. F. G. Fiorillo,Neutrinos from core-collapse supernovae, 9, 2025.arXiv:2509.16306

    2025

  47. [56]

    H. Duan, G. M. Fuller, and Y.-Z. Qian,Collective Neutrino Oscillations,Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.60(2010) 569–594, [arXiv:1001.2799]

    2010 arXiv

  48. [57]

    Chakraborty, R

    S. Chakraborty, R. Hansen, I. Izaguirre, and G. Raffelt,Collective neutrino flavor conversion: Recent developments,Nucl. Phys. B908(2016) 366–381, [arXiv:1602.02766]

    2016 arXiv

  49. [58]

    Chakraborty, A

    S. Chakraborty, A. Mirizzi, N. Saviano, and D. d. S. Seixas,Suppression of the multi-azimuthal-angle instability in dense neutrino gas during supernova accretion phase,Phys. Rev. D89(2014), no. 9 093001, [arXiv:1402.1767]. – 23 –

    2014 arXiv

  50. [59]

    A. Das, A. Dighe, and M. Sen,New effects of non-standard self-interactions of neutrinos in a supernova,JCAP1705(2017), no. 05 051, [arXiv:1705.00468]

    2017 arXiv

  51. [60]

    M. T. Keil, G. G. Raffelt, and H.-T. Janka,Monte Carlo study of supernova neutrino spectra formation,Astrophys. J.590(2003) 971–991, [astro-ph/0208035]

    2003 arXiv

  52. [61]

    Results from an extended set of 1d core-collapse simulations for a variety of progenitors

    “Results from an extended set of 1d core-collapse simulations for a variety of progenitors.”https://wwwmpa.mpa-garching.mpg.de/ccsnarchive/. Accessed: 2010-09-30

    2010

  53. [62]

    Pontecorvo,Inverse beta processes and nonconservation of lepton charge,Zh

    B. Pontecorvo,Inverse beta processes and nonconservation of lepton charge,Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.34(1957) 247

    1957

  54. [63]

    Z. Maki, M. Nakagawa, and S. Sakata,Remarks on the unified model of elementary particles,Prog. Theor. Phys.28(1962) 870–880

    1962

  55. [64]

    Pontecorvo,Neutrino Experiments and the Problem of Conservation of Leptonic Charge,Zh

    B. Pontecorvo,Neutrino Experiments and the Problem of Conservation of Leptonic Charge,Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.53(1967) 1717–1725

    1967

  56. [65]

    S. P. Mikheyev and A. Y. Smirnov,Resonance Amplification of Oscillations in Matter and Spectroscopy of Solar Neutrinos,Sov. J. Nucl. Phys.42(1985) 913–917

    1985

  57. [66]

    S. S. Chatterjee, A. Dasgupta, and S. K. Agarwalla,Exploring Flavor-Dependent Long-Range Forces in Long-Baseline Neutrino Oscillation Experiments,JHEP12 (2015) 167, [arXiv:1509.03517]

    2015 arXiv

  58. [67]

    Animation of LC diagrams and mixing angle evolutions

    A. Dighe, S. Sahoo, and M. Sen, “Animation of LC diagrams and mixing angle evolutions.” Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.21612307, Jul, 2026. Version 1.0.0

    2026 doi

  59. [68]

    A. S. Dighe and A. Yu. Smirnov,Identifying the neutrino mass spectrum from the neutrino burst from a supernova,Phys. Rev.D62(2000) 033007, [hep-ph/9907423]

    2000 arXiv

  60. [69]

    Esteban, M

    I. Esteban, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, M. Maltoni, T. Schwetz, and A. Zhou,The fate of hints: updated global analysis of three-flavor neutrino oscillations,JHEP09 (2020) 178, [arXiv:2007.14792]

    2020 arXiv

  61. [70]

    P. F. de Salas, D. V. Forero, S. Gariazzo, P. Mart ´ ınez-Mirav´ e, O. Mena, C. A. Ternes, M. T´ ortola, and J. W. F. Valle,2020 global reassessment of the neutrino oscillation picture,JHEP02(2021) 071, [arXiv:2006.11237]

    2020 arXiv

  62. [71]

    Esteban, M

    I. Esteban, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, M. Maltoni, I. Martinez-Soler, J. P. Pinheiro, and T. Schwetz,NuFit-6.0: updated global analysis of three-flavor neutrino oscillations,JHEP12(2024) 216, [arXiv:2410.05380]. [72]DUNECollaboration, R. Acciarri et al.,Long-Baseline Neutrino Faci...

    2024 arXiv

  63. [74]

    Gardiner,Nuclear Effects in Neutrino Detection

    S. Gardiner,Nuclear Effects in Neutrino Detection. PhD thesis, University of California, Davis, 2018. – 24 – [75]DUNECollaboration, B. Abi et al.,The DUNE Far Detector Interim Design Report Volume 1: Physics, Technology and Strategies,arXiv:1807.10334. [76]ArgoNeuTCollaboratio...

    2018

  64. [77]

    G. L. Fogli, E. Lisi, A. Marrone, D. Montanino, and A. Palazzo,Getting the most from the statistical analysis of solar neutrino oscillations,Phys. Rev. D66(2002) 053010, [hep-ph/0206162]

    2002 arXiv

  65. [78]

    Kachelriess, R

    M. Kachelriess, R. Tomas, R. Buras, H. T. Janka, A. Marek, and M. Rampp, Exploiting the neutronization burst of a galactic supernova,Phys. Rev. D71(2005) 063003, [astro-ph/0412082]

    2005 arXiv

  66. [79]

    Cowan, K

    G. Cowan, K. Cranmer, E. Gross, and O. Vitells,Asymptotic formulae for likelihood-based tests of new physics,Eur. Phys. J. C71(2011) 1554, [arXiv:1007.1727]. [Erratum: Eur.Phys.J.C 73, 2501 (2013)]

    2011 arXiv

  67. [80]

    Arkani-Hamed, L

    N. Arkani-Hamed, L. Motl, A. Nicolis, and C. Vafa,The String landscape, black holes and gravity as the weakest force,JHEP06(2007) 060, [hep-th/0601001]

    2007 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed July 31, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.