Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Identifying Thorne-\.Zytkow Objects through Neutrinos

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Neutrinos can identify the hidden neutron-star cores of Thorne-Zytkow objects.

desk verdict First systematic TZO neutrino study, useful and worth refereeing, but the SMC reach claims rest on unquantified disk-model simplifications (fixed Ye = 0.5, uncomputed decoupling radius). read the letter →

arxiv 2501.03330 v2 pith:HYX4EMEX submitted 2025-01-06 astro-ph.HE hep-ex

Pablo Martínez-Miravé , Irene Tamborra , Alejandro Vigna-Gómez This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEhep-ex
keywords Thorne-ZytkowobjectshypercriticalaccretionneutrinoemissionneutronstarsSuper-KamiokandeIceCubediffusebackground
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

Thorne-Zytkow objects—stars with a neutron star buried inside a giant envelope—have been predicted for decades but are hard to identify because their light resembles ordinary red supergiants. This paper argues that hypercritical accretion onto the neutron star heats the surrounding gas to 1–10 MeV, producing a copious flux of neutrinos in the 1–100 MeV range. It predicts that current and next-generation neutrino observatories (Super-Kamiokande, IceCube, JUNO, Hyper-Kamiokande) can detect these neutrinos from sources as far as the Small Magellanic Cloud, and that the existing TZO candidates VX Sgr, HV 2112, and HV 11417 can be tested with data already being taken. If detected, neutrinos would positively identify the neutron-star core and measure the accretion rate, something electromagnetic observations alone cannot do.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is a pair of steady-state accretion models stitched together by accretion rate: for Ṁ between $10^{-4}$ and $10^{4}$ solar masses per year, a spherically symmetric shocked envelope with power-law density ρ(r) ∼ $r^{-3}$ and temperature T(r) ∼ $r^{-1}$ (following Chevalier 1989); for Ṁ from $10^{4}$ to $10^{6}$ solar masses per year, a steady advection-dominated/neutrino-dominated accretion disk (following Di Matteo et al. 2002 and Zhang & Dai 2008) with a self-similar inner region attached to the neutron star. Neutrino emission is dominated by electron-positron pair annihilation in the spherical case and by $\beta$ processes (p + e^- ⇌ νe + n and n + e^+ ⇌ ν̄e + p) in the disk case, with MSW resonant flavor conversion in the envelope. A simple energy-budget argument, τ ≈ GM_NS Δm/(r_NS Lν), sets the maximum signal duration and splits the phenomenology into bursts versus steady sources.

What would settle it

A year-long targeted search with gadolinium-loaded Super-Kamiokande or JUNO for electron antineutrinos in the 9.3–31.3 MeV window from VX Sgr (at 1.5–1.7 kpc) that finds no excess above the modeled background would falsify the claim that VX Sgr is a steady TZO accreting at ≳ $10^{-2}$ solar masses per year.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that for accretion rates between $10^{-4}$ and $10^{6}$ solar masses per year, the region around the neutron star reaches temperatures of roughly 1 to 10 MeV, where $\beta$ processes and electron-positron pair annihilation copiously produce neutrinos of all flavors. In the transient 'TZO burst' regime (accretion rates ≳ $10^{4}$ solar masses per year), modeled with a steady accretion disk, the neutrino emission lasts up to about $10^{4}$ seconds; in the steady regime ($10^{-4}$ to $10^{4}$ solar masses per year), modeled with spherical accretion, the signal lasts from months to thousands of years. The paper computes the resulting fluxes, applies MSW flavor conversion, and derives detection horizons: Super-Kamiokande and IceCube are already sensitive to bursts beyond the Small Magellanic Cloud, and Super-Kamiokande, JUNO, and Hyper-Kamiokande can detect steady emission for accretion rates ≳ 0.1 solar masses per year at that distance. It also shows that the cumulative diffuse TZO neutrino flux can rival the diffuse supernova neutrino background, and that current DSNB limits already exclude the most extreme accretion and formation scenarios.

Load-bearing premise

The predictions assume steady accretion at a fixed electron fraction Ye = 0.5 onto a 1.4 solar-mass, 10 km neutron star; if hypercritical accretion is intermittent or the electron fraction changes, the neutrino luminosity and spectral shape could differ by orders of magnitude.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A positive neutrino detection from VX Sgr, HV 2112, or HV 11417 would confirm a neutron-star core and constrain its accretion rate.
  • Super-Kamiokande and IceCube can already test TZO bursts lasting ≳ 0.1 s at accretion rates of 10^6 solar masses per year, out to and beyond the Small Magellanic Cloud.
  • Steady TZOs accreting above roughly 0.1 solar masses per year would be detectable by Super-Kamiokande, JUNO, and Hyper-Kamiokande within a year of data taking, even beyond the Small Magellanic Cloud.
  • The diffuse neutrino flux from all TZOs may overlap with the diffuse supernova neutrino background, and current DSNB limits already rule out the most extreme TZO accretion and formation rates.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If hypercritical accretion is episodic rather than steady, the predicted neutrino luminosity and spectra could shift by orders of magnitude, so time-dependent simulations would sharpen or weaken the detection horizons.
  • A coincident detection of a luminous merger-driven transient with a neutrino burst would provide a direct probe of TZO formation channels, an idea the paper raises but does not develop.
  • Future MeV diffuse neutrino measurements may need to treat TZOs as a background component in DSNB searches, not just as a standalone signal.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes neutrinos as a new messenger for identifying Thorne–Żytkow objects (TŻOs). It models hypercritical accretion onto a neutron star in two steady-state regimes: a spherical settling solution for accretion rates 10^-4 to <10^4 M_sun/yr and an accretion-disk solution for 10^4 to 10^6 M_sun/yr. Thermal neutrino emission from beta processes, pair annihilation, and other channels is computed, with MSW flavor conversion applied, and event rates are estimated for IceCube, Super-Kamiokande, Hyper-Kamiokande, and JUNO. The central detection claims are that TŻO bursts with Mdot ~ 10^6 M_sun/yr could be seen up to the Small Magellanic Cloud by Super-Kamiokande and IceCube, that steady TŻOs with Mdot ≳ 0.1 M_sun/yr could be detected beyond the SMC after one year, and that existing DSNB limits already exclude the most extreme diffuse TŻO scenarios. The paper is explicitly framed as an upper-limit feasibility study.

Significance. If the estimates are robust, the paper would open a genuinely new observational window: neutrinos could reveal the neutron-star core inside TŻO candidates that are electromagnetically ambiguous, and the proposed searches are concrete and implementable with operating or near-term detectors. The study's strengths are that it uses independent literature source models rather than fitting a target signal, it provides detector-specific event rates and signal-to-noise contours, it makes falsifiable predictions for named candidates (VX Sgr, HV 2112, HV 11417), and it extends the analysis to the diffuse background with a direct comparison to DSNB constraints. However, the headline detectability claims are only as strong as the underlying steady-state emission models, and several load-bearing assumptions are not quantitatively checked; the paper acknowledges some of these but does not calibrate their effect on the distance reach.

major comments (3)
  1. [§A.1, §A.3, Eq. (A9)] The disk-scenario flux integral in Eq. (A9) is truncated at a 'decoupling radius' R_dec, but the manuscript never defines R_dec or computes the neutrino optical depth of the inner accretion disk. The model adopts the Zhang & Dai (2008) self-similar solution down to about 20 km and treats only the neutron-star surface as opaque, yet neutrino-dominated accretion flows are commonly optically thick inside tens of km. If the actual decoupling radius is larger than r_NS, Eq. (A9) overestimates the escaping flux, and because S/sqrt(S+B) scales linearly with flux, the SMC reach shown in Fig. 3 (left) could shrink to Galactic distances. Please provide R_dec from the adopted disk solution, or compute the neutrino optical depth explicitly and demonstrate that the radii dominating the emission integral are transparent.
  2. [§A.1, §A.3] The electron fraction is fixed at Y_e = 0.5 and the beta-process Q-value is set to zero, with no accounting for the change in Y_e induced by beta equilibration. This is explicitly stated in Appendix A.3, but its quantitative impact is not assessed. In neutrino-dominated accretion flows, beta equilibrium typically drives Y_e to values around 0.1–0.3, which changes the nucleon abundances entering the charged-current emissivities and alters the IBD-relevant anti-nu_e flux. An order-of-magnitude overestimate would move the burst contours in Fig. 3 from the SMC down to Galactic distances. Please quantify the response of the emitted anti-nu_e spectrum and luminosity to a representative beta-equilibrated Y_e (or to a range of Y_e values), or otherwise show that the SMC detection claim is robust to this uncertainty.
  3. [§A.4] For the disk/burst scenario, the manuscript states that the density profile beyond the disk is not modeled and that 'we cannot test if flavour evolution is adiabatic,' yet the same MSW description is then applied as for the spherical envelope. Because the IBD event rate depends directly on the anti-nu_e flux, this flavor-conversion assumption is load-bearing for Table 1 and Fig. 3 (left). Please estimate the range of possible anti-nu_e fluxes for the disk geometry, or at least state explicitly how the assumed conversion scheme changes the event rates relative to no conversion or to a maximal-mixing alternative.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§3 vs §A.3] There is an inconsistency in the accretion-rate threshold for beta-process dominance: §3 says beta processes dominate for Mdot > 10^4 M_sun/yr, while §A.3 says they dominate 'for disks accreting at rates Mdot ≤ 10^4 M_sun/yr'; the inequality in A.3 appears to be a typo and should be corrected.
  2. [§4.3 vs §6] The threshold accretion rates quoted for the named candidates are not internally consistent: VX Sgr is said to require Mdot ≳ 10^-2 M_sun/yr in §4.3 but Mdot ≳ 10^-3 M_sun/yr in §6, and for HV 2112/HV 11417 §4.3 quotes one-year Super-K and JUNO constraints of 2.4 and 3.2 M_sun/yr, respectively, while §6 states detection above 0.5 M_sun/yr; these numbers should be reconciled.
  3. [Fig. 5, bottom panel] The horizontal axis label reads 'log10 Ye [g cm^-3]', but Y_e is a dimensionless electron fraction; the label should presumably read 'log10 rho [g cm^-3]' or 'log10 rho_e' to match the plotted quantity.
  4. [§A.2] The sentence explaining the two assumptions of the Chevalier model is self-contradictory: saying the postshock flow is adiabatic 'relies on the fact that neutrino energy losses are not negligible' is confusing, since adiabaticity normally requires the opposite; please clarify the intended meaning.
  5. [§B.1, Eq. (B12)] The quantity r is first described as 'the sum of the hit count per DOM' and then used in Eq. (B12) as if it were a rate in the deadtime factor 1/(1+r tau); please define r unambiguously as a rate and state the units.
  6. [Fig. 3 caption] The caption contains a typo: 'Hyper-Kamionade' should be 'Hyper-Kamiokande'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the detection prospects are derived from independent accretion and detector models, with only minor auxiliary self-citations.

full rationale

No target result is fitted or defined in terms of its own output. The neutrino fluxes are computed from steady-state accretion models (Di Matteo et al. 2002; Zhang & Dai 2008; Chevalier 1989) with fixed neutron-star parameters, and the detector event rates follow standard cross sections and published detector responses. The detection horizons in Fig. 3 are direct foldings of these fluxes with backgrounds and are not tuned to reproduce any observed signal. The diffuse flux in Sec. 5 uses the local TZO rate from Nathaniel et al. (2024), one of whose authors is a coauthor of this paper, and the background model in App. B references Mart\u00ednez-Mirav\u00e9 et al. (2024) by the first author; neither citation supplies the central detectability result, and both are auxiliary inputs with independent published content. The appendix explicitly acknowledges the fixed-Ye=0.5 approximation and the lack of time dependence; these are physical modeling limitations, not circular reductions. Accordingly no step satisfies the standard for circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard stellar and neutrino physics plus several simplifying assumptions: hypercritical accretion in TZOs, steady-state source models, constant Ye=0.5, thermal neutrino spectra, and a delta-function accretion-rate distribution for the diffuse flux. No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced. The local TZO rate is an external input with large uncertainty, not a fitted target.

free parameters (5)
  • Accretion rate Mdot
    Primary physical variable scanned from 1e-4 to 1e6 solar masses per year; for the diffuse flux, a single value Mdot0 is assumed via a delta function (Eq. 3).
  • Local TZO rate xi0 = 1e-4 Msun^-1
    Adopted from Nathaniel et al. 2024 and used in Eq. 3 for the diffuse flux; the paper acknowledges an uncertainty of up to two orders of magnitude.
  • Electron fraction Ye = 0.5
    Assumed constant in both the disk and spherical models (Appendix A); beta processes are not evolved self-consistently.
  • Neutron star mass and radius = 1.4 Msun, 10 km
    Assumed in both source models; the authors state the density and temperature profiles depend only mildly on these choices.
  • Disk outer radius = 1000 km (100 rNS)
    Assumed outer boundary in the disk model; the paper notes that a 50 km disk changes the event rate by less than 10 percent.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption TZOs exist and contain a neutron star accreting at hypercritical rates from 1e-4 to 1e6 solar masses per year
    Central premise; no TZO is confirmed, and the named candidates are unconfirmed. Entered in Sections 1 and 2.
  • domain assumption Neutrino emission is the dominant energy-loss channel, and the radiated neutrino luminosity tracks the gravitational binding energy release
    Used in Eq. 1 for the signal duration and in the flux normalization, justified by the photon-trapping argument in Section 2.
  • ad hoc to paper Steady-state accretion models from the literature describe the TZO emission region
    The disk model (Di Matteo 2002; Zhang & Dai 2008) and spherical model (Chevalier 1989) assume steady accretion, subsonic postshock flow, and a self-similar inner disk; these are not validated for TZOs by time-dependent simulations (Appendix A).
  • ad hoc to paper Constant Ye=0.5 and thermal beta-process neutrino spectra with Q=0
    Stated in Appendix A.3; ignores electron fraction evolution and the neutron-proton mass difference, which affects beta-process emission rates.
  • ad hoc to paper Cosmic TZO rate follows the star formation history with a delta-function accretion rate and a single local rate xi0
    Eq. 3 in Section 5 assumes all TZOs accrete at the same rate; the shape of the accretion-rate distribution is unknown, and the local rate is highly uncertain.
  • domain assumption MSW flavor conversion in the TZO envelope is adiabatic and identical for transient and steady cases
    Appendix A.4 states the adiabaticity was tested but does not show the calculation; the transient case explicitly adopts the same conversion without modeling the outer density profile.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Identifying Thorne-\.Zytkow Objects through Neutrinos." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HYX4EMEX

@misc{pith2026250103330,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Identifying Thorne-\.Zytkow Objects through Neutrinos},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HYX4EMEX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.03330}
}
abstract

Thorne-\.Zytkow Objects (T\.ZOs) have been predicted to form when a neutron star is engulfed by a diffuse, convective giant envelope. Accretion onto a neutron star at a rate that is larger than $10^{-4}\, M_\odot$ yr$^{-1}$ is expected to lead to significant emission of neutrinos of all flavors with energy of $1$-$100$ MeV. Since the neutrino signal is expected to largely vary in time (from milliseconds to thousands of years), we outline detection strategies tailored to the signal duration. We find that neutrino detection from T\.ZOs up to the Small Magellanic Cloud is within the reach of current- and next-generation neutrino observatories, such as Super- and Hyper-Kamiokande, the IceCube Neutrino Observatory, and JUNO. Interestingly, if targeted searches for neutrinos from T\.ZO candidates (e.g.VX Sgr in our Galaxy as well as HV 2112 and HV 11417 in the Small Magellanic Cloud) should lead to positive results, neutrinos could positively identify the nature of such sources and their accretion rate. Furthermore, the diffuse supernova neutrino background may be able to rule out extreme scenarios for the formation and accretion rates of T\.ZOs. Our findings should serve as motivation for establishing dedicated searches for neutrino emission from T\.ZOs. This is especially timely since it is challenging to detect T\.ZOs via electromagnetic radiation unambiguously, and the T\.ZO gravitational wave signal could be probed with next-generation detectors for sources within our Galaxy only.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.03330 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. TZO candidates ( ˙ Tabernero et al. 2021; Levesque et al. 2014; Beasor et al. 2018) and potential TZO progeni- ˙ tors in the Galaxy, as well as in the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC) and in the Small Magellanic Cloud (SMC). Potential candidates are considered to be (i) high-mass X-ray bina￾ries in which the neutron star accretes matter from the stel￾lar companion and unstable mass transfer is expected (Ge et al. 2024; … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Neutrino flux from a TZO at 5 kpc from ˙ Earth, taking into account flavor conversion. The color lines correspond to the accretion rates considered in this work: M˙ = 10−4 M⊙ yr−1 , 10−2 M⊙ yr−1 , 1 M⊙ yr−1 , 102 M⊙ yr−1 , 104 M⊙ yr−1 , and 106 M⊙ yr−1 , from bottom to top. Dashed, dotted, and solid lines correspond to elec￾tron neutrinos, electron antineutrinos, and the total flux of all neutrinos and antineutrinos… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Detection prospects of neutrinos from TZOs. ˙ Left panel: Sensitivity of neutrino detection from TZO bursts detected ˙ by IceCube (solid lines), Super-Kamiokande (dotted lines) and Hyper-Kamiokande (dashed lines) in the plane spanned by the source distance from Earth and the signal duration. In order to guide the eye, the Milky Way edge is marked on the x-axis, together with the Large and Small Magellanic Cloud (LMC… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Diffuse flux of electron antineutrinos from TZOs ˙ as a function of the neutrino energy, assuming that all TZOs ˙ accrete at the same rate. The colored bands correspond to the accretion rates considered in this work, and the width of each band represents the uncertaint…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Top panels: Expected event rate for a TZO burst at 5 kpc from Earth for IceCube (left panel), Super-Kamiokande ˙ (dotted line, right panel), and Hyper-Kamiokande (dashed line, right panel). The IceCube background rate is shown as a shaded band. For Super-Kamiokande (Hy…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Neutrinos from explosive transients at the dawn of multi-messenger astronomy

    astro-ph.HE 2024-12 unverdicted

    This review summarizes the state of neutrino emission from supernovae and neutron-star mergers, covering thermal and high-energy signals, flavor conversion, and multi-messenger detection strategies.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

78 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    Rethinking Thorne-\.{Z}ytkow Object Formation: Assembly via Common Envelope in Field Binaries

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

    work page Pith review arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    2011, Astron

    Abbasi, R., et al. 2011, Astron. Astrophys., 535, A109, 10.1051/0004-6361/201117810e

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201117810e 2011

  5. [5]

    2016, Astropart

    Abe, K., et al. 2016, Astropart. Phys., 81, 39, 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2016.04.003

    doi:10.1016/j.astropartphys.2016.04.003 2016

  6. [6]

    ---. 2018. 1805.04163

    arXiv 2018

  7. [7]

    2021, Phys

    ---. 2021, Phys. Rev. D, 104, 122002, 10.1103/PhysRevD.104.122002

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.104.122002 2021

  8. [8]

    2022, Nucl

    ---. 2022, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A, 1027, 166248, 10.1016/j.nima.2021.166248

    work page arXiv 2022

Show all 78 references
  1. [9]

    2024, Nucl

    ---. 2024, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A, 1065, 169480, 10.1016/j.nima.2024.169480

    2024

  2. [10]

    2022, JCAP, 10, 033, 10.1088/1475-7516/2022/10/033

    Abusleme, A., et al. 2022, JCAP, 10, 033, 10.1088/1475-7516/2022/10/033

    2022 doi

  3. [11]

    An, F., et al. 2016, J. Phys. G, 43, 030401, 10.1088/0954-3899/43/3/030401

    2016 doi

  4. [12]

    2023, Proceedings of the Japan Academy, Series B, 99, 460, 10.2183/pjab.99.026

    Ando , S., Ekanger , N., Horiuchi , S., & Koshio , Y. 2023, Proceedings of the Japan Academy, Series B, 99, 460, 10.2183/pjab.99.026

    2023 doi

  5. [13]

    R., Davies , B., Cabrera-Ziri , I., & Hurst , G

    Beasor , E. R., Davies , B., Cabrera-Ziri , I., & Hurst , G. 2018, Mon. Roy. Astron. Soc., 479, 3101, 10.1093/mnras/sty1744

    2018 doi

  6. [14]

    2002, , 571, 394, 10.1086/339860

    Belczynski , K., Bulik , T., & Rudak , B. 2002, , 571, 394, 10.1086/339860

    2002 doi

  7. [15]

    Biehle , G. T. 1994, Astrophys. J., 420, 364, 10.1086/173566

    1994 doi

  8. [16]

    1993, Phys

    Braaten, E., & Segel, D. 1993, Phys. Rev. D, 48, 1478, 10.1103/PhysRevD.48.1478

    1993 doi

  9. [17]

    Cannon , R. C. 1993, Mon. Roy. Astron. Soc., 263, 817, 10.1093/mnras/263.4.817

    1993 doi

  10. [18]

    C., Eggleton , P

    Cannon , R. C., Eggleton , P. P., Zytkow , A. N., & Podsiadlowski , P. 1992, Astrophys. J., 386, 206, 10.1086/171006

    1992 doi

  11. [19]

    Chevalier , R. A. 1989, Astrophys. J., 346, 847, 10.1086/168066

    1989 doi

  12. [20]

    1993, Astrophys

    ---. 1993, Astrophys. J. Lett., 411, L33, 10.1086/186905

    1993 doi

  13. [21]

    F., Forero, D

    de Salas, P. F., Forero, D. V., Gariazzo, S., et al. 2021, JHEP, 02, 071, 10.1007/JHEP02(2021)071

    2021 doi

  14. [22]

    R., & Levesque, E

    DeMarchi, L., Sanders, J. R., & Levesque, E. M. 2021, Astrophys. J., 911, 101, 10.3847/1538-4357/abebe1

    2021 doi

  15. [23]

    2002, Astrophys

    Di Matteo, T., Perna, R., & Narayan, R. 2002, Astrophys. J., 579, 706, 10.1086/342832

    2002 doi

  16. [24]

    Dicus, D. A. 1972, Phys. Rev. D, 6, 941, 10.1103/PhysRevD.6.941

    1972 doi

  17. [25]

    S., & Smirnov, A

    Dighe, A. S., & Smirnov, A. Y. 2000, Phys. Rev. D, 62, 033007, 10.1103/PhysRevD.62.033007

    2000 doi

  18. [26]

    I., Ratkovic, S., & Prakash, M

    Dutta, S. I., Ratkovic, S., & Prakash, M. 2004, Phys. Rev. D, 69, 023005, 10.1103/PhysRevD.69.023005

    2004 doi

  19. [27]

    F., & Kopp, J

    Esteban, I., Beacom, J. F., & Kopp, J. 2023. 2310.19868

    2023 arXiv

  20. [28]

    W., Hutchinson-Smith , T., Vigna-G \'o mez , A., & Ramirez-Ruiz , E

    Everson , R. W., Hutchinson-Smith , T., Vigna-G \'o mez , A., & Ramirez-Ruiz , E. 2024, Astrophys. J., 971, 132, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad595e

    2024 doi

  21. [29]

    2023, Mon

    Farmer , R., Renzo , M., G \"o tberg , Y., et al. 2023, Mon. Roy. Astron. Soc., 524, 1692, 10.1093/mnras/stad1977

    2023 doi

  22. [30]

    L., Benz , W., & Herant , M

    Fryer , C. L., Benz , W., & Herant , M. 1996, Astrophys. J., 460, 801, 10.1086/177011

    1996 doi

  23. [31]

    L., Woosley , S

    Fryer , C. L., Woosley , S. E., & Hartmann , D. H. 1999, , 526, 152, 10.1086/307992

    1999 doi

  24. [32]

    A., Chen , X., et al

    Ge , H., Tout , C. A., Chen , X., et al. 2024, Astrophys. J., 975, 254, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7ea6

    2024 doi

  25. [33]

    2025, Astrophys

    Grichener, A. 2025, Astrophys. Space Sci., 370, 11, 10.1007/s10509-025-04402-1

    2025 doi

  26. [34]

    2019, Astrophys

    Grichener, A., & Soker, N. 2019, Astrophys. J., 878, 24, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1d5d

    2019 doi

  27. [35]

    2016, Phys

    Guo, G., & Qian, Y.-Z. 2016, Phys. Rev. D, 94, 043005, 10.1103/PhysRevD.94.043005

    2016 doi

  28. [36]

    1994, Astrophys

    Haft, M., Raffelt, G., & Weiss, A. 1994, Astrophys. J., 425, 222, 10.1086/173978

    1994 doi

  29. [37]

    Harada, M. 2024. https://agenda.infn.it/event/37867/contributions/233922/attachments/122065/178295/20240620_v9.pdf

    2024

  30. [38]

    F., & Dwek, E

    Horiuchi, S., Beacom, J. F., & Dwek, E. 2009, Phys. Rev. D, 79, 083013, 10.1103/PhysRevD.79.083013

    2009 doi

  31. [39]

    C., & Chevalier , R

    Houck , J. C., & Chevalier , R. A. 1991, Astrophys. J., 376, 234, 10.1086/170272

    1991 doi

  32. [40]

    W., Twum, A

    Hutchinson-Smith, T., Everson, R. W., Twum, A. A., et al. 2024, Astrophys. J., 977, 196, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad88f3

    2024 doi

  33. [41]

    A., & Taam , R

    Ivanova , N., Belczynski , K., Kalogera , V., Rasio , F. A., & Taam , R. E. 2003, , 592, 475, 10.1086/375578

    2003 doi

  34. [42]

    2024, Astrophys

    Kashiwagi, Y., et al. 2024, Astrophys. J., 970, 93, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4d8e

    2024 doi

  35. [43]

    2002, Phys

    Kolbe, E., Langanke, K., & Vogel, P. 2002, Phys. Rev. D, 66, 013007, 10.1103/PhysRevD.66.013007

    2002 doi

  36. [44]

    J., Vakil , D., Smith , V

    Kuchner , M. J., Vakil , D., Smith , V. V., et al. 2002, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 263, Stellar Collisions, Mergers and their Consequences, ed. M. M. Shara , 131

    2002

  37. [45]

    J., et al

    Levan, A. J., et al. 2013, Astrophys. J., 781, 13, 10.1088/0004-637X/781/1/13

    2013 doi

  38. [46]

    M., Massey , P., Zytkow , A

    Levesque , E. M., Massey , P., Zytkow , A. N., & Morrell , N. 2014, Mon. Roy. Astron. Soc., 443, L94, 10.1093/mnrasl/slu080

    2014 doi

  39. [47]

    A., Allison , J., et al

    LSST Science Collaboration , Abell , P. A., Allison , J., et al. 2009, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:0912.0201, 10.48550/arXiv.0912.0201

    2009 doi arXiv

  40. [48]

    2024, Mon

    Manikantan, H., Kumar, M., Paul, B., & Rana, V. 2024, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 527, 640, 10.1093/mnras/stad3090

    2024 doi

  41. [49]

    J., & Parsa, Z

    Marciano, W. J., & Parsa, Z. 2003, J. Phys. G, 29, 2629, 10.1088/0954-3899/29/11/013

    2003 doi

  42. [50]

    A., & Obergaulinger, M

    Mart\' nez-Mirav\'e, P., Tamborra, I., Aloy, M. A., & Obergaulinger, M. 2024, Phys. Rev. D, 110, 103029, 10.1103/PhysRevD.110.103029

    2024 doi

  43. [51]

    Metzger, B. D. 2022, Astrophys. J., 932, 84, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6d59

    2022 doi

  44. [52]

    P., & Smirnov, A

    Mikheyev, S. P., & Smirnov, A. Y. 1985, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys., 42, 913

    1985

  45. [53]

    Moran-Fraile, J., Schneider, F. R. N., Roepke, F. K., et al. 2023, Astron. Astrophys., 672, A9, 10.1051/0004-6361/202245109

    2023 doi

  46. [54]

    Nathaniel, K., Vigna-G\'omez, A., Grichener, A., et al. 2024. 2407.11680

    2024 arXiv

  47. [55]

    2024, RAS Techniques and Instruments, 3, 800, 10.1093/rasti/rzae055

    Nava-Callejas , M., Cavecchi , Y., & Page , D. 2024, RAS Techniques and Instruments, 3, 800, 10.1093/rasti/rzae055

    2024 doi

  48. [56]

    N., & Postnov, K

    Nazin, S. N., & Postnov, K. A. 1995, Astron. Astrophys., 303, 789. astro-ph/9505025

    1995 arXiv

  49. [57]

    O'Grady, A. J. G., Moriya, T. J., Renzo, M., & Vigna-G\'omez, A. 2024. 2410.02896

    2024 arXiv

  50. [58]

    O'Grady , A. J. G., Drout , M. R., Gaensler , B. M., et al. 2023, Astrophys. J., 943, 18, 10.3847/1538-4357/aca655

    2023 doi

  51. [59]

    2015, , 449, 288, 10.1093/mnras/stv345

    Papish , O., Soker , N., & Bukay , I. 2015, , 449, 288, 10.1093/mnras/stv345

    2015 doi

  52. [60]

    M., Lunardini, C., Farmer, R

    Patton, K. M., Lunardini, C., Farmer, R. J., & Timmes, F. X. 2017, Astrophys. J., 851, 6, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa95c4

    2017 doi

  53. [62]

    C., & Rees, M

    Podsiadlowski, P., Cannon, R. C., & Rees, M. J. 1995, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 274, 485, 10.1093/mnras/274.2.485

    1995 doi

  54. [63]

    E., & Fryer, C

    Popham, R., Woosley, S. E., & Fryer, C. 1999, Astrophys. J., 518, 356, 10.1086/307259

    1999 doi

  55. [64]

    Z., & Woosley, S

    Qian, Y. Z., & Woosley, S. E. 1996, Astrophys. J., 471, 331, 10.1086/177973

    1996 doi

  56. [65]

    2021, Astrophys

    Renzo, M., Callister, T., Chatziioannou, K., et al. 2021, Astrophys. J., 919, 128, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1110

    2021 doi

  57. [66]

    2022, JHEP, 08, 212, 10.1007/JHEP08(2022)212

    Ricciardi, G., Vignaroli, N., & Vissani, F. 2022, JHEP, 08, 212, 10.1007/JHEP08(2022)212

    2022 doi

  58. [67]

    Schilbach, T. S. H., Caballero, O. L., & McLaughlin, G. C. 2019, Phys. Rev. D, 100, 043008, 10.1103/PhysRevD.100.043008

    2019 doi

  59. [68]

    L., MacLeod , M., Loeb , A., Vigna-G \'o mez , A., & Mandel , I

    Schr der , S. L., MacLeod , M., Loeb , A., Vigna-G \'o mez , A., & Mandel , I. 2020, Astrophys. J., 892, 13, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7014

    2020 doi

  60. [69]

    2019, Mon

    Soker, N., Grichener, A., & Gilkis, A. 2019, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 484, 4972, 10.1093/mnras/stz364

    2019 doi

  61. [70]

    2003, Phys

    Strumia, A., & Vissani, F. 2003, Phys. Lett. B, 564, 42, 10.1016/S0370-2693(03)00616-6

    2003 doi

  62. [71]

    M., Dorda , R., Negueruela , I., & Marfil , E

    Tabernero , H. M., Dorda , R., Negueruela , I., & Marfil , E. 2021, Astron. Astrophys., 646, A98, 10.1051/0004-6361/202039236

    2021 doi

  63. [72]

    Tamborra, I. 2024. 2412.09699

    2024 arXiv

  64. [73]

    S., & Zytkow , A

    Thorne , K. S., & Zytkow , A. N. 1975, Astrophys. J. Lett., 199, L19, 10.1086/181839

    1975 doi

  65. [74]

    1977, Astrophys

    ---. 1977, Astrophys. J., 212, 832, 10.1086/155109

    1977 doi

  66. [75]

    2011, Astron

    Tylenda , R., Hajduk , M., Kami \'n ski , T., et al. 2011, Astron. Astrophys., 528, A114, 10.1051/0004-6361/201016221

    2011 doi

  67. [76]

    2020, Rev

    Vitagliano, E., Tamborra, I., & Raffelt, G. 2020, Rev. Mod. Phys., 92, 45006, 10.1103/RevModPhys.92.045006

    2020 doi

  68. [77]

    1978, Phys

    Wolfenstein, L. 1978, Phys. Rev. D, 17, 2369, 10.1103/PhysRevD.17.2369

    1978 doi

  69. [78]

    Zhang, D., & Dai, Z. G. 2008, Astrophys. J., 683, 329, 10.1086/589820

    2008 doi

  70. [79]

    Zhang, W., & Fryer, C. L. 2001, Astrophys. J., 550, 357, 10.1086/319734

    2001 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.