Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 50 references

What shall we learn from a future supernova?

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A future Galactic core-collapse supernova, seen through its neutrino burst, can confirm how massive stars explode, reveal the newborn neutron star's mass-radius relation, and test neutrino flavor conversion—and the diffuse supernova…

desk verdict A competent proceedings review of supernova neutrino physics; the 1000-event flavor-discrimination claim is borrowed from the author's own preprint and deserves a robustness caveat before it is used to build expectations. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.15964 v1 pith:FZ6GSDWR submitted 2024-12-20 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.HEhep-ph

M. Cristina Volpe This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.HEhep-ph
keywords core-collapsesupernovaesupernovaneutrinosdiffuseneutrinobackgroundflavorconversiondelayedneutrino-heatingmechanismneutronstarequationofstateBayesianmodelcomparisonmulti-messengerastronomy
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 the next core-collapse supernova in or near our Galaxy will be a turning point for both astrophysics and particle physics, because essentially all of the star's gravitational binding energy leaves as a roughly ten-second burst of neutrinos of all flavors. A Galactic event at about ten kiloparsecs would deliver hundreds to millions of neutrino events across existing and planned detectors, enough to confirm the delayed neutrino-heating explosion mechanism through direction-dependent imprints of the standing accretion shock instability and to extract the newborn neutron star's compactness and mass-radius relation from the measured neutrino luminosity. The author also highlights a Bayesian analysis indicating that roughly one thousand inverse-beta-decay events from the accretion phase could discriminate among competing neutrino flavor-conversion scenarios even when the distance and flux parameters are not fixed. On the diffuse supernova neutrino background, the paper reports a 2.3-sigma excess in Super-Kamiokande with gadolinium and argues that if the excess is real, discovery by future large detectors might be imminent, opening a new low-energy observational window.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the supernova neutrino burst itself: about $3\times10^{53}$ erg of binding energy radiated as neutrinos of all flavors over roughly ten seconds, which turns a single stellar death into a countable event stream. The primary counting channel is inverse $\beta$ decay, $\bar\nu_e + p \to e^+ + n$, which dominates water-Cherenkov detectors, and the primary scoring tool is the Bayes factor, with $\ln \mathrm{BF}_{10}$ values scored from 'not significant' to 'very strong evidence' to compare competing flavor-conversion and explosion scenarios. Named physical signatures do the interpretive work: the standing accretion shock instability leaves direction-dependent modulations in the neutrino signal that would fingerprint the delayed neutrino-heating mechanism, and the roughly 20 millisecond neutronization burst is governed mainly by the MSW effect, making it a clean probe of non-standard neutrino properties. For the diffuse background, the central observable is the accumulated neutrino flux from all past core collapses, whose detection would open a new low-energy window.

What would settle it

One decisive test would come from the next Galactic supernova: if its neutrino light curve lacks the directional modulations predicted by shock instability in current simulations, or if the measured total luminosity cannot be fit by delayed neutrino-heating models, the central astrophysical claim fails. The diffuse-background claim can be settled by additional data from the gadolinium-loaded detector: if the excess reverts to background and the next-generation detectors see no diffuse events within their projected sensitivities, the imminence claim is wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a future core-collapse supernova is not just a rare spectacle but a decisive experiment. Using the 1987 event, whose measured neutrino fluences led through Bayesian analysis to rejection of the prompt-shock model and confirmation of delayed neutrino heating, the paper argues that a Galactic supernova at roughly ten kiloparsecs would yield thousands to millions of neutrino events in current detectors. Those events encode the explosion mechanism through shock-instability modulations, the total neutrino luminosity recoverable to about 11 percent with a large water-Cherenkov detector and about 3 percent with its planned successor under standard matter-enhanced flavor conversion, the compactness and mass-radius relation of the newborn neutron star through the equation of state, and the early neutronization burst as a probe of non-standard neutrino properties. The paper further presents the first Bayesian study of flavor-mechanism identification, whose heatmaps indicate that about one thousand inverse-beta-decay events from the accretion phase can discriminate among no-flavor-conversion, MSW normal and inverted ordering, flavor equipartition, slow and fast flavor conversion, and spectral swapping. A separate thread is the diffuse supernova neutrino background: the accumulated relic flux from all past core collapses, where the current excess, if real, might soon become a discovery in next-generation detectors.

Load-bearing premise

The promised payoff depends on two bets: that current computer simulations of stellar collapse reproduce how a real supernova's neutrino signal is shaped, and that the apparent 2.3-standard-deviation excess of diffuse-neutrino events seen in the leading water detector is a real signal rather than a statistical fluke.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A Galactic supernova at roughly ten kiloparsecs would produce hundreds to millions of neutrino events across existing and future detectors, turning the burst into a multi-channel measurement rather than a single-detector counting experiment.
  • The total neutrino luminosity could be measured with about 11 percent precision in a large water-Cherenkov detector and about 3 percent in its planned successor, which would let observers extract the newborn neutron star's compactness and mass-radius relation through the equation of state.
  • Direction-dependent shock-instability modulations in the neutrino signal would confirm the delayed neutrino-heating explosion mechanism, and the neutronization burst would provide an early probe of non-standard neutrino properties alongside gravitational waves.
  • Bayesian analyses indicate that as few as about one thousand accretion-phase inverse-beta-decay events, without fixing flux parameters or distance, can discriminate among the main neutrino flavor-conversion scenarios.
  • If the current diffuse-background excess is real, the next-generation large detectors should discover the diffuse supernova neutrino background and open a unique new observational window in low-energy neutrino astrophysics.

Reading between the lines

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

  • One testable extension is to run the same Bayesian discrimination on electron-neutrino events in a liquid-argon detector and on coherent elastic neutrino-nucleus scattering events in dark-matter detectors; combining detectors could plausibly lower the roughly one-thousand-event threshold for flavor-scenario identification.
  • If the diffuse-background excess becomes a discovery, its spectrum can serve as a fossil record of the cosmic core-collapse rate and could be cross-correlated with star-formation history and heavy-element nucleosynthesis, constraints this paper mentions only briefly.
  • A practical consequence the author leaves implicit is that continuous all-sky neutrino monitoring with fast multi-messenger follow-up is the optimal strategy for catching the single event that would carry all of this information at once.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. This is a conference proceedings contribution (NOW 2024) arguing that the observation of the next Galactic core-collapse supernova in neutrinos, gravitational waves, and electromagnetic radiation would provide a unique multi-messenger laboratory. The paper summarizes the expected event rates in existing and future detectors, the status of pre-supernova and SN1987A neutrino observations, the role of the delayed neutrino-heating mechanism with convection and SASI, and the prospects for using accretion-phase inverse-beta-decay events to discriminate among neutrino flavor-conversion scenarios, citing the Bayesian analysis of Ref. [48] and its Figure 1. It also discusses the diffuse supernova neutrino background (DSNB), reporting a 2.3-sigma excess in Super-Kamiokande data with gadolinium and stating that DSNB discovery might be imminent. The paper contains no new derivations or original data; it is a review-style summary.

Significance. If the claims hold, the paper is a readable and timely synthesis of a near-term observational opportunity, and it correctly emphasizes Bayesian model selection and multi-messenger synergy as the path forward. The author honestly flags the preliminary nature of the DSNB excess and the lack of consensus on SASI. The paper's main quantitative claims, however, are borrowed: the 1000-event flavor-discrimination result comes from the author's own prior work (Ref. [48], an arXiv preprint), and the 2.3-sigma DSNB number comes from an unpublished conference talk (Ref. [14]). Thus the paper's programmatic conclusions are more robust than its specific numerical claims.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 2, Figure 1] The statement that even 1000 inverse-beta-decay events from the accretion phase appear sufficient to discriminate among flavor-conversion scenarios is presented without the caveat that the Bayes factors in Ref. [48] are conditional on the enumerated set of flavor mechanisms and on the adopted astrophysical priors and flux parameterizations. Given the manuscript's own statement in the same section that 'there is not yet a consensus on the role of SASI for all progenitors' and that gravitational-wave predictions 'disagree on pinning down the specific contributions' (Ref. [39]), the hydrodynamic input to the synthetic signals is a load-bearing model-dependent assumption. I recommend adding an explicit sentence noting that a real supernova signal shaped by an unmodeled combination of convection, SASI, turbulence, or a flavor mechanism outside the tested set could lead the analysis to choose the wrong scenario at 1000 events, and that Figure 1 should be read as an illustrative model-selection exercise rather than a guaranteed discriminator.
  2. [Section 1 (DSNB paragraph) and Abstract] The abstract states that DSNB discovery 'might be imminent', and the supporting quantitative claim in Section 1 is a 2.3-sigma excess from 'the first results of Super-Kamiokande data with Gadolinium addition' cited to an unpublished conference talk (Ref. [14]). Since this is one of the two headline claims of the paper, the reader should be told explicitly that this significance is preliminary and has not appeared in a refereed publication; if a published version exists at the time of submission, it should be cited instead. The surrounding conditional language ('If the excess found is indeed a signal') is appropriate, but it does not remove the need for a verifiable source.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 1 (Introduction)] The text says that in the last thousand years only six supernova events were observed in our Galaxy and then adds that 'In the last century two further massive stars were observed in the Local Group, namely SN1885 in Andromeda and the famous SN1987A'. SN1885 (S Andromedae) is generally classified as a Type Ia supernova, not a massive star, and SN1987A occurred in the Large Magellanic Cloud, not in the Galaxy; please clarify that these are Local Group events outside the Milky Way and call them 'supernovae' rather than 'massive stars'.
  2. [Section 1 (Introduction)] The date 'SN1667 (Cas A)' should be 'SN1680 (Cas A)', or the accepted date should be justified with a reference; as written it does not match the usual historical supernova list.
  3. [Throughout] Several numerical expressions are garbled in the provided text, e.g. 'about3× 1053 ergs' should read about 3×10^53 ergs, '5105 yrs' should be 5×10^5 yrs, and '24 ¯ν_e' should denote 24 anti-electron neutrinos; a careful proofreading of the formatted version is needed.
  4. [Section 1 (Introduction)] The phrase 'the famous SN1987A for which M. Koshiba received the 2002 Physics Nobel Prize (1/4) with R. Davis (1/4) for the pioneering observation of solar neutrinos' is imprecise: Koshiba's share of the prize was for the detection of cosmic neutrinos, while Davis's share was specifically for solar neutrinos; please correct the attribution.
  5. [References] Reference [14] should be updated to a published version or explicitly marked as a preliminary personal communication, since it is the sole source for the 2.3-sigma DSNB excess.
  6. [Figure 1 caption] The acronyms SS_NH and SS_IH are defined in the caption but written without the hyphen or subscript in 'SSNH, SSIH'; please make the notation consistent with the definition.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper is a proceedings highlight with no derivation; its Bayesian figure is explicitly attributed to prior work and its DSNB statement is conditioned on an external excess.

full rationale

The paper contains no derivation chain whose output is equivalent to its input. Its quantitative centerpiece, Figure 1 and the statement that 'even 1000 IBD events appear to be sufficient to discriminate among different scenarios of flavor evolution,' is presented as a reproduction of Ref. [48] (Abbar & Volpe), a prior Bayesian model-selection study. This is a self-citation, but it is not circular in the sense prohibited here: the heatmaps are forward calculations from synthetic accretion-phase neutrino signals and an enumerated set of flavor-conversion scenarios; no parameter is fitted to a target quantity within this paper, and no equation in the present text defines a conclusion in terms of itself. The marginalized treatment of unknown distance and flux parameters is an assumption of that prior analysis, not a fitted-input-renamed-prediction. The DSNB claim is explicitly conditional: 'If the excess found is indeed a signal, then...' and is based on an external SK-Gd result [14]. The paper also flags the relevant astrophysical uncertainties—'there is not yet a consensus on the role of SASI for all progenitors' and gravitational-wave predictions 'disagree on pinning down the specific contributions'—which are correctness/robustness concerns about the underlying simulations, not circular reductions. While Ref. [48] is an arXiv preprint and Ref. [14] is an unpublished talk, those are evidential weaknesses, not circularity. Other self-references (Refs. [8], [12], [36], [41], [50]) are reviews, decay constraints, or prior likelihood analyses that stand independently of this paper's conclusions. No self-definitional identity, forced fitted prediction, uniqueness-imported-from-authors, or ansatz-smuggling pattern is present. A score of 0 is therefore appropriate.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new fitting parameters or entities; as a review, its claims rest on domain assumptions from the cited literature, the most load-bearing being the validity of current supernova models and of the standard three-flavor neutrino framework. The Bayesian discriminations reproduced in Figure 1 inherit the priors and model assumptions of Ref [48].

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Standard three-flavor neutrino interactions (Glashow-Weinberg-Salam model) describe supernova neutrino emission, propagation, and detection.
    Invoked throughout Section 2 for IBD event rates, MSW conversion, and detection in Super-K, DUNE, JUNO, etc.
  • domain assumption Equipartition of the total neutrino energy among the six flavor and anti-flavor species for SN1987A-derived estimates.
    Explicitly stated in the footnote 'Under the equipartition hypothesis among the neutrino species' in Section 2.
  • domain assumption Current multi-dimensional supernova simulations capture the explosion mechanism and its neutrino-emission features (convection, SASI).
    Required for claims about confirming the explosion mechanism and reading SASI imprints; the paper notes the lack of consensus on SASI's role.
  • domain assumption The mean-field approximation with corrections is adequate for modeling neutrino flavor conversion in supernovae, so Bayesian discrimination among models is meaningful.
    Section 2 discusses ongoing debates on beyond-mean-field effects; the reproduced Ref [48] analysis relies on mean-field-based flavor-evolution models.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of What shall we learn from a future supernova?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FZ6GSDWR

@misc{pith2026241215964,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: What shall we learn from a future supernova?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FZ6GSDWR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.15964}
}
read the original abstract

Core-collapse supernovae constitute a unique laboratory for particle physics and astrophysics. They are powerful neutrino sources of all flavors, emitting essentially all the gravitational binding energy through neutrinos, at the end of their life. I will highlight how crucial is the observation of the next core-collapse supernova and of the diffuse supernova neutrino background, whose discovery might be imminent.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.15964 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Heatmaps for the Bayes factor based on 100 (left), 300 (middle) to 1000 (right figure) inverse-beta decay events from the accretion phase of an exploding supernova. The location of the supernova is unknown and the neutrino flux parameters are not fixed. The acronysms correspond to no-flavor conversion (NFC), the Mikheev-Smirnov-Wolfenstein effect for normal (MSWNH) or inverted (MSWIH) neutrino mass ordering, flavor … view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages

  1. [48]

    Using Bayesian Inference to Distinguish Neutrino Flavor Conversion Scenarios via a Prospective Supernova Neutrino Signal

    S. Abbar and M. C. Volpe, [arXiv:2401.10851 [astro-ph.HE]]

    work page Pith review arXiv

  2. [14]

    Harada, Talk given at NEUTRINO 2024, Milano, 17th-21st June (2024)

    M. Harada, Talk given at NEUTRINO 2024, Milano, 17th-21st June (2024)

    work page 2024

  3. [39]

    Mezzacappa and M

    A. Mezzacappa and M. Zanolin, [arXiv:2401.11635 [astro-ph.HE]]

    arXiv

  4. [1]

    H. A. Bethe, Rev. Mod. Phys.62, 801-866 (1990)

    work page 1990

  5. [2]

    S. M. Adams, C. S. Kochanek, J. F. Beacom, M. R. Vagins and K. Z. Stanek, Astrophys. J. 778, 164 (2013) [arXiv:1306.0559 [astro-ph.HE]]

    arXiv 2013

  6. [3]

    Diehl, H

    R. Diehl, H. Halloin, K. Kretschmer, G. G. Lichti, V. Schoenfelder, A. W. Strong, A. von Kienlin, W. Wang, P. Jean and J. Knoedlseder,et al. Nature 439, 45-47 (2006) [arXiv:astro- ph/0601015 [astro-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2006

  7. [4]

    Astrophys

    E.Cappellaro,M.Turatto,Benetti,D.Y.Tsvetkov,O.S.BartunovandI.N.Makarova,Astron. Astrophys. 273, 383 (1993) [arXiv:astro-ph/9302017 [astro-ph]]

    arXiv 1993

  8. [5]

    On the birthrates of Galactic neutron stars

    E.F.KeaneandM.Kramer,Mon.Not.Roy.Astron.Soc. 391,2009(2008)[arXiv:0810.1512 [astro-ph]]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2008

Show all 50 references
  1. [6]

    B. C. Reed, Astron. J.130, 1652-1657 (2005) [arXiv:astro-ph/0506708 [astro-ph]]

    2005 arXiv

  2. [7]

    Rozwadowska, F

    K. Rozwadowska, F. Vissani and E. Cappellaro, New Astron. 83, 101498 (2021) [arXiv:2009.03438 [astro-ph.HE]]

    2021 arXiv

  3. [8]

    M. C. Volpe, Rev. Mod. Phys.96, no.2, 025004 (2024) [arXiv:2301.11814 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  4. [9]

    60,439-462(2010)[arXiv:1004.3311[astro-ph.HE]]

    J.F.Beacom,Ann.Rev.Nucl.Part.Sci. 60,439-462(2010)[arXiv:1004.3311[astro-ph.HE]]

    2010 arXiv

  5. [10]

    G. J. Mathews, J. Hidaka, T. Kajino and J. Suzuki, Astrophys. J. 790, 115 (2014) [arXiv:1405.0458 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2014 arXiv

  6. [11]

    S. Ando, N. Ekanger, S. Horiuchi and Y. Koshio, [arXiv:2306.16076 [astro-ph.HE]]

  7. [12]

    Ivanez-Ballesteros and M

    P. Ivanez-Ballesteros and M. C. Volpe, Phys. Rev. D 107, no.2, 023017 (2023) [arXiv:2209.12465 [hep-ph]]

    2023

  8. [13]

    6 What shall we learn from a future supernova? M

    K.Abe et al.[Super-Kamiokande],Phys.Rev.D 104,no.12,122002(2021)[arXiv:2109.11174 [astro-ph.HE]]. 6 What shall we learn from a future supernova? M. Cristina Volpe

    2021

  9. [15]

    Horiuchi and J

    S. Horiuchi and J. P. Kneller, J. Phys. G45, no.4, 043002 (2018) [arXiv:1709.01515 [astro- ph.HE]]

    2018 arXiv

  10. [16]

    Mirizzi, I

    A. Mirizzi, I. Tamborra, H. T. Janka, N. Saviano, K. Scholberg, R. Bollig, L. Hudepohl and S.Chakraborty,Riv.NuovoCim. 39,no.1-2,1-112(2016)[arXiv:1508.00785[astro-ph.HE]]

    2016 arXiv

  11. [17]

    496,no.3,3961-3972(2020) [arXiv:2005.03124 [astro-ph.HE]]

    C.Kato,R.HiraiandH.Nagakura,Mon.Not.Roy.Astron.Soc. 496,no.3,3961-3972(2020) [arXiv:2005.03124 [astro-ph.HE]]

    2020 arXiv

  12. [18]

    C. Kato, K. Ishidoshiro and T. Yoshida, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.70, 121-145 (2020) [arXiv:2006.02519 [astro-ph.HE]]

    2020 arXiv

  13. [19]

    Odrzywolek, M

    A. Odrzywolek, M. Misiaszek and M. Kutschera, Astropart. Phys. 21, 303-313 (2004) [arXiv:astro-ph/0311012 [astro-ph]]

    2004 arXiv

  14. [20]

    K. M. Patton, C. Lunardini, R. J. Farmer and F. X. Timmes, Astrophys. J.851, no.1, 6 (2017) [arXiv:1709.01877 [astro-ph.HE]]

    2017 arXiv

  15. [21]

    Asakuraet al

    K. Asakuraet al. [KamLAND], Astrophys. J.818, no.1, 91 (2016) [arXiv:1506.01175 [astro- ph.HE]]

    2016 arXiv

  16. [22]

    Abe et al

    S. Abe et al. [KamLAND and Super-Kamiokande], Astrophys. J.973, no.2, 140 (2024) [arXiv:2404.09920 [hep-ex]]

    2024 arXiv

  17. [23]

    Al Kharusi et al

    S. Al Kharusi et al. [SNEWS], New J. Phys.23, no.3, 031201 (2021) [arXiv:2011.00035 [astro-ph.HE]]

    2021 arXiv

  18. [24]

    T. J. Loredo and D. Q. Lamb, Phys. Rev. D65, 063002 (2002) [arXiv:astro-ph/0107260 [astro-ph]]

    2002 arXiv

  19. [25]

    S. W. Li, L. F. Roberts and J. F. Beacom, Phys. Rev. D 103, no.2, 023016 (2021) [arXiv:2008.04340 [astro-ph.HE]]

    2021 arXiv

  20. [26]

    H. A. Bethe and J. R. Wilson, Astrophys. J.295, 14-23 (1985)

    1985

  21. [27]

    Pagliaroli, F

    G. Pagliaroli, F. Vissani, M. L. Costantini and A. Ianni, Astropart. Phys.31, 163-176 (2009) [arXiv:0810.0466 [astro-ph]]

    2009 arXiv

  22. [28]

    D. Alp, J. Larsson, C. Fransson, R. Indebetouw, A. Jerkstrand, A. Ahola, D. Burrows, P.Challis,P.CiganandA.Cikota, et al.Astrophys.J. 864,no.2,174(2018)[arXiv:1805.04526 [astro-ph.HE]]

    2018 arXiv

  23. [29]

    Cigan, M

    P. Cigan, M. Matsuura, H. L. Gomez, R. Indebetouw, F. Abellan, M. Gabler, A. Richards, D. Alp, T. Davis and H. T. Janka,et al. Astrophys. J. 886, 51 (2019) [arXiv:1910.02960 [astro-ph.HE]]

    2019 arXiv

  24. [30]

    D. Page, M. V. Beznogov, I. Garibay, J. M. Lattimer, M. Prakash and H. T. Janka, Astrophys. J. 898, no.2, 125 (2020) [arXiv:2004.06078 [astro-ph.HE]]. 7 What shall we learn from a future supernova? M. Cristina Volpe

    2020 arXiv

  25. [31]

    Aprile et al

    E. Aprile et al. [XENON], Phys. Rev. Lett.133, no.19, 191002 (2024) [arXiv:2408.02877 [nucl-ex]]

    2024

  26. [32]

    Tamborra, G

    I. Tamborra, G. Raffelt, F. Hanke, H. T. Janka and B. Mueller, Phys. Rev. D90, no.4, 045032 (2014) [arXiv:1406.0006 [astro-ph.SR]]

    2014 arXiv

  27. [33]

    Müller and H

    B. Müller and H. T. Janka, Astrophys. J.788, 82 (2014) [arXiv:1402.3415 [astro-ph.SR]]

    2014 arXiv

  28. [34]

    L.Walk,I.Tamborra,H.T.Janka,A.SummaandD.Kresse,Phys.Rev.D 101,no.12,123013 (2020) [arXiv:1910.12971 [astro-ph.HE]]

    2020 arXiv

  29. [35]

    Mezzacappa, IAU Symp.362, 215-227 (2020) [arXiv:2205.13438 [astro-ph.SR]]

    A. Mezzacappa, IAU Symp.362, 215-227 (2020) [arXiv:2205.13438 [astro-ph.SR]]

    2020 arXiv

  30. [36]

    Gallo Rosso, F

    A. Gallo Rosso, F. Vissani and M. C. Volpe, JCAP11, 036 (2017) [arXiv:1708.00760 [hep- ph]]

    2017 arXiv

  31. [37]

    de Gouvêa, I

    A. de Gouvêa, I. Martinez-Soler and M. Sen, Phys. Rev. D 101, no.4, 043013 (2020) [arXiv:1910.01127 [hep-ph]]

    2020 arXiv

  32. [38]

    A. Das, A. Dighe and M. Sen, JCAP05, 051 (2017) [arXiv:1705.00468 [hep-ph]]

    2017 arXiv

  33. [40]

    A.B.BalantekinandY.Pehlivan,J.Phys.G 34,47-66(2007)doi:10.1088/0954-3899/34/1/004 [arXiv:astro-ph/0607527 [astro-ph]]

    2007 arXiv

  34. [41]

    Volpe, D

    C. Volpe, D. Väänänen and C. Espinoza, Phys. Rev. D 87, no.11, 113010 (2013) [arXiv:1302.2374 [hep-ph]]

    2013 arXiv

  35. [42]

    R. F. Sawyer, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, no.8, 081101 (2016) [arXiv:1509.03323 [astro-ph.HE]]

    2016 arXiv

  36. [43]

    Capozzi, B

    F. Capozzi, B. Dasgupta, A. Mirizzi, M. Sen and G. Sigl, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, no.9, 091101 (2019) [arXiv:1808.06618 [hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  37. [44]

    Johns, Phys

    L. Johns, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, no.19, 191001 (2023) [arXiv:2104.11369 [hep-ph]]

    2023 arXiv

  38. [45]

    Abe et al

    K. Abe et al. [Hyper-Kamiokande], Astrophys. J.916, no.1, 15 (2021) [arXiv:2101.05269 [astro-ph.IM]]

    2021 arXiv

  39. [46]

    M. M. Saez, E. Rrapaj, A. Harada, S. Nagataki and Y. Z. Qian, [arXiv:2401.02531 [astro- ph.HE]]

    arXiv

  40. [47]

    Olsen and Y

    J. Olsen and Y. Z. Qian, Phys. Rev. D105, no.8, 083017 (2022) [arXiv:2202.09975 [astro- ph.HE]]

    2022 arXiv

  41. [49]

    K. Hart, B. J. Shappee, D. Hey, C. S. Kochanek, K. Z. Stanek, L. Lim, S. Dobbs, M. Tucker, T. Jayasinghe and J. F. Beacom,et al. [arXiv:2304.03791 [astro-ph.IM]]

    arXiv

  42. [50]

    Iváñez-Ballesteros and M

    P. Iváñez-Ballesteros and M. C. Volpe, [arXiv:2410.11517 [hep-ph]]. 8

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.