Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Dynamic Neutrino Mass Ordering and Its Imprint on the Diffuse Supernova Neutrino Background

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that a redshift-dependent neutrino mass spectrum would imprint an energy-dependent distortion on the diffuse supernova neutrino background.

desk verdict A transparent toy-model extension of de Gouvêa et al. that generalizes to per-eigenstate mass evolution and can scramble the ordering, but the quantitative DSNB distortion relies on an unstated energy dependence in Pee. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.16412 v2 pith:WWMGZWVT submitted 2025-01-27 hep-ph

Yuber F. Perez-Gonzalez , Manibrata Sen This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords dynamicneutrinomassesmassorderingdiffusesupernovabackgroundMSWresonanceredshift-dependentpropertiesoscillationsneutrinos
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

Neutrino masses may have been different in the past. This paper argues that if the neutrino mass spectrum changed with cosmic time, so that the ordering today differs from the ordering at higher redshift, the diffuse supernova neutrino background (DSNB) would carry an energy-dependent distortion. The distortion comes from the survival probability of electron neutrinos $P_{ee}(z)$ taking different values at different redshifts, because the sign and size of the mass-squared differences control MSW resonances inside supernovae. The authors conclude that this is a direct probe of dynamical neutrino mass mechanisms, complementary to cosmological bounds, though current astrophysical spectral-shape uncertainties hide the effect from present and near-future detectors.

What carries the argument

The central object is the electron-neutrino survival probability $P_{ee}(z)$ inside a supernova, set by the redshift-dependent mass-squared differences $\Delta m^2_{21}(z)$ and $\Delta m^2_{31}(z)$. The sign of each $\Delta m^2$ decides whether the MSW (Mikheyev-Smirnov-Wolfenstein) resonance occurs for neutrinos or antineutrinos, and its magnitude decides whether the crossing is adiabatic; both effects control which mass eigenstate leaves the star and hence the flux at Earth. The paper evaluates $P_{ee}$ by numerically solving the Schr\"odinger equation for neutrino propagation through a presupernova density profile at each redshift, then lets the masses evolve on the way to Earth. The parameterization $m_i(z)=m_i^\infty + (m_i^0 - m_i^\infty)/(1+(z/z_i)^{B_i})$ supplies the toy model for the redshift dependence.

What would settle it

Compute $P_{ee}(E,z)$ from the paper's three-flavor Schr\"odinger evolution at neutrino energies of 5, 10, and 25 MeV for a fixed redshift where a mass splitting changes sign, such as $z\simeq0.075$ in the normal-ordering benchmark; if the three values differ by more than a few percent, the $P_{ee}(z)$ simplification collapses and the predicted energy-dependent DSNB distortion would change shape.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a redshift-dependent neutrino mass spectrum modifies the DSNB electron-neutrino flux not as a constant rescaling but through an energy-dependent change in shape. In their benchmark, at low energies ($E_\nu \lesssim 10$ MeV) the flux approaches the decoherence limit $\sum_i |U_{ei}|^4 \simeq 0.547$ times the unoscillated flux, because high-redshift neutrinos were nearly massless; at higher energies, where nearby supernovae dominate, the altered $P_{ee}$ changes the mixture of original $\nu_e$ and $\nu_x$ fluxes. The same physics produces a differently shaped modification depending on whether the ordering today is normal or inverted. The paper's conclusion is that such an energy-dependent feature is in principle separable from astrophysical uncertainties, but out of reach until those uncertainties are controlled.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes that at each redshift the electron-neutrino survival probability $P_{ee}$ depends only on that redshift, not on neutrino energy, even though the resonance density and adiabaticity condition in Eq. (5) both depend on $E_\nu$.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If a future DSNB measurement achieves sufficient spectral precision, the predicted energy-dependent shape could reveal that the neutrino mass ordering was different in the past, including sign changes in $\Delta m^2_{21}$ and $\Delta m^2_{31}$.
  • Cosmological surveys that measure only the total neutrino mass density are not sensitive to this effect, so the DSNB would provide a complementary and direct probe of dynamic neutrino masses.
  • The modification is not a pure normalization shift, so it is in principle distinguishable from astrophysical uncertainties that rescale the overall flux; reducing supernova-rate uncertainties is the key step.
  • The paper finds that present and near-future experiments cannot reach the predicted signal, placing the observable in the regime of future DSNB searches.
  • The same $P_{ee}(z)$ machinery could in principle be applied to other redshift-integrated neutrino sources, although the paper focuses on core-collapse supernovae.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, a future DSNB spectrum with fine energy resolution could be used to discriminate a dynamic mass ordering from other new-physics distortions, such as neutrino decay or sterile-neutrino mixing, which also alter the DSNB energy shape.
  • A testable extension is to embed the toy $m_i(z)$ parameterization in a specific particle model, such as ultralight dark matter or a dark sector phase transition, and compute the model's predicted $P_{ee}(E,z)$ including energy-dependent adiabaticity; this would convert the demonstration into a quantitative prediction.
  • The paper's energy-independent $P_{ee}(z)$ assumption is worth checking directly: solving the same Schr\"odinger equation at several neutrino energies for a fixed redshift where a mass splitting changes sign would show whether the sharp $P_{ee}$ steps are smoothed by partial adiabaticity.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes that neutrino masses may have evolved with redshift and studies the imprint of such a dynamical mass spectrum on the diffuse supernova neutrino background (DSNB). After giving the standard DSNB flux formulae, the authors introduce a toy parametrization in which each mass eigenstate transitions from its present-day value to a high-redshift value at a redshift z_i with width B_i. They compute electron-neutrino survival probabilities inside supernovae, both adiabatically and via numerical solution of the Schr\"odinger equation, and then evaluate the DSNB electron-neutrino flux for benchmark normal-ordering and inverted-ordering cases. They find energy-dependent modifications of the DSNB spectrum and argue that these modifications are distinguishable from astrophysical uncertainties, while also acknowledging that current experimental and astrophysical uncertainties prevent a definitive detection.

Significance. If established, the idea is timely and interesting: the DSNB could serve as a complementary probe of redshift-dependent neutrino properties, and the claim of a non-normalization energy-dependent signature is a concrete, falsifiable prediction. The paper is honest in presenting a toy model with hand-picked benchmark parameters and does not overclaim a connection to a specific fundamental theory. It also correctly emphasizes that cosmological mass-sum bounds are insensitive to the dynamical history envisaged here. However, the central quantitative claim rests on an energy-averaged or energy-independent survival probability in Eq. (3), and the paper does not yet demonstrate the energy dependence claimed in the abstract and conclusion. The qualitative idea is credible, but the quantitative shape of the predicted distortion is not established as written.

major comments (3)
  1. [Eq. (3) and Sec. III] The DSNB flux in Eq. (3) uses a survival probability Pee(z) that depends only on redshift, while the MSW resonance density in Eq. (5) and the adiabaticity of the resonance both depend on neutrino energy. For a supernova at redshift z contributing to the observed energy E, the emitted neutrino energy is E(1+z), so the relevant probability is Pee(E(1+z), z). The manuscript does not state that Pee is energy-independent, nor does it show that the numerical Schr\"odinger-equation solutions reported in Sec. III are averaged over energy or evaluated at a representative energy. Without this information, the sharp Pee(z) steps in Fig. 2 and the resulting flux ratios in Fig. 3 are not quantitatively justified.
  2. [Eq. (3b) and Eq. (3c)] The antineutrino flux in Eq. (3b) is written with the same Pee(z) as the neutrino flux, but Fig. 2 shows that the antineutrino survival probability differs from the neutrino one. The text elsewhere correctly distinguishes Pee and P_ee (e.g., Eq. (7)), so Eq. (3b) should use P_ee(z), and Eq. (3c) should contain the combination Pee(z)+P_ee(z) rather than Pee(z)+Pee(z). As written, the formalism is internally inconsistent and the numerical results cannot be reproduced.
  3. [Sec. IV, Fig. 3] The claim that the predicted features are distinguishable from astrophysical uncertainties is supported only by varying the CCSN rate within one orange band. Supernova neutrino spectral uncertainties, black-hole-failed-supernova fractions, and star-formation-rate uncertainties are not propagated. The authors themselves state in Sec. V that current spectral-shape uncertainty makes direct detection beyond reach, which weakens the abstract's statement that the features are distinguishable from significant astrophysical uncertainties. The paper should either soften that claim or present a quantitative comparison against the full set of state-of-the-art DSNB uncertainties.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract] The summary abstract and the abstract printed at the beginning of the full text differ in the final claim: one says current spectral-shape uncertainty makes detection beyond reach, while the other says the features are distinguishable from astrophysical uncertainties. The authors should harmonize these statements in the published version.
  2. [Sec. III] The numerical calculation is described only as solving Schr\"odinger-like equations; the initial conditions, the specific supernova density profile used from Ref. [56], and the energy grid or averaging procedure are not specified. Providing these details would also help address the major concern about the energy dependence of Pee.
  3. [Sec. II, Eq. (1)] The Hubble parameter H(z) is used without specifying the assumed cosmology; a short statement of the cosmological parameters used for the DSNB integration would improve reproducibility.
  4. [Sec. V] The text contains a stray paragraph break after 'However,' and uses 'alluring' where 'alluding' is intended. These should be corrected in proof.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the DSNB flux changes are direct consequences of the adopted toy mass model, not fitted outputs or self-referential derivations.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained and non-circular. Equation (4) defines a toy redshift-dependent mass ansatz, Table I fixes benchmark parameters by hand, and Eqs. (6)-(8) together with the numerical Schrödinger-equation evolution produce the survival probabilities Pee(z) shown in Fig. 2. These probabilities are then inserted into the standard DSNB integral, Eq. (3), to obtain the fluxes in Fig. 3. No parameter is fitted to DSNB data and no predicted quantity is identical by construction to an input; the energy-dependent modification of the flux follows from convolving the assumed Pee(z) with the redshift-dependent neutrino spectra, which is a genuine consequence of the model rather than a restatement of the premise. The self-citation [42] is used to motivate the idea that a common-redshift mass variation can affect the DSNB and to explain why the antineutrino flux changes little, but the present paper performs its own numerical calculation of Pee(z), so the central result does not reduce to the cited work. The possible energy dependence of Pee(E,z), noted in the reader's take, is a physical modeling caveat (the MSW resonance density in Eq. (5) depends on neutrino energy), but it is not a circularity: it concerns whether the presented Pee(z) is a complete solution, not whether the output was assumed as an input. Overall, no load-bearing step is equivalent to its inputs, and no fitted quantity is relabeled as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central calculation rests on a standard MSW/DSNB framework plus a phenomenological mass-evolution ansatz with several hand-chosen parameters. No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced. The main unstated inputs are the high-redshift masses and the energy independence of Pee.

free parameters (4)
  • Lightest neutrino mass today m0 = 0.01 eV (assumed)
    Used to set absolute masses from measured mass splittings; not fixed by oscillation experiments. Appears in Fig. 2 insets.
  • Transition redshifts z_i per eigenstate = NO: z1=0.50, z2=0.125, z3=0.05; IO: z1=0.125, z2=0.125, z3=0.50
    Benchmark choices in Table I; chosen to produce ordering flips in the past, not derived from a model.
  • Transition widths B_i per eigenstate = NO: B1=9, B2=6, B3=3; IO: B1=6, B2=3, B3=9
    Table I; hand-picked to make the redshift transitions fast enough to produce visible Pee steps.
  • High-redshift masses m_infinity_i = not stated; effectively 0
    Eq. (4) introduces m_infinity_i but the paper never lists values. Text says neutrino masses become negligible for z greater than about 0.75, so m_infinity is effectively zero.
assumptions (8)
  • standard math Schrodinger equation governs neutrino flavor evolution in matter and vacuum.
    Used in Sec. III-IV to compute Pee numerically.
  • domain assumption MSW resonance condition of Eq. (5) applies at all redshifts.
    Standard supernova neutrino physics; assumes the matter potential and two-resonance level-crossing picture.
  • domain assumption Level-crossing diagrams with adiabatic or fully non-adiabatic transitions determine Pee.
    Fig. 1 and Eq. (7); standard treatment but ignores partially adiabatic transitions and energy dependence.
  • domain assumption Collective oscillations of neutrinos deep inside the supernova are negligible.
    Stated before Eq. (3); a common approximation in DSNB calculations.
  • ad hoc to paper Neutrino masses evolve as Eq. (4) with independent z_i and B_i per eigenstate.
    Phenomenological toy model; no underlying theory is specified.
  • ad hoc to paper High-redshift masses m_infinity_i equal zero.
    Needed for the 'masses become negligible' behavior; not stated explicitly in the text.
  • domain assumption Uncertainty in the DSNB flux is dominated by the CCSN rate; other spectral uncertainties are ignored.
    Stated in Sec. II; drives the conclusion that detection is beyond near-future reach.
  • domain assumption Survival probability Pee depends only on redshift, not on neutrino energy.
    Used in Eq. (3). The MSW resonance density and adiabaticity depend on energy, so this is a strong simplification that is not justified.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dynamic Neutrino Mass Ordering and Its Imprint on the Diffuse Supernova Neutrino Background." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WWMGZWVT

@misc{pith2026250116412,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dynamic Neutrino Mass Ordering and Its Imprint on the Diffuse Supernova Neutrino Background},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WWMGZWVT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.16412}
}
read the original abstract

Neutrino masses may have evolved dynamically throughout the history of the Universe, potentially leading to a mass spectrum distinct from the normal or inverted ordering observed today. While cosmological measurements constrain the total energy density of neutrinos, they are not directly sensitive to a dynamically changing mass ordering unless future surveys achieve exceptional precision in detecting the distinct imprints of each mass eigenstate on large-scale structures. In this work, we investigate the impact of a dynamic neutrino mass spectrum on the diffuse supernova neutrino background (DSNB), which is composed of neutrinos from all supernova explosions throughout cosmic history and is on the verge of experimental detection. The dynamic evolution of neutrino masses with redshift changes the propagation of neutrinos inside the supernova. Since neutrino oscillations are highly sensitive to the mass spectrum, we show that the electron neutrino survival probability carries distinct signatures of the evolving neutrino mass spectrum. Our results show that a dynamic neutrino mass spectrum can modify the DSNB flux in an energy-dependent way. However, we find that the current level of spectral shape uncertainty in DSNB modeling makes a direct detection beyond the reach of present and near-future experiments. Nonetheless, our study highlights the DSNB as a probe of redshift-dependent neutrino properties once the astrophysical systematics are brought under control.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.16412 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Schematic depiction of level-crossing diagrams for neutrinos propagating through constant matter for different signs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Varying neutrino masses and mass splittings assuming NO (upper), IO (lower) today. We plot masses (left), quadratic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Resulting DSNB fluxes for electron neutrinos as function of energy for NO (left) and IO (right) today for the benchmark [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

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

    hep-ph 2026-07 accept novelty 5.5 of 10

    DUNE can use a nearby supernova neutronization burst to constrain ultralight Le−Lμ gauge forces via distortions of the electron-neutrino survival probability.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [42]

    de Gouvˆ ea, I

    A. de Gouvˆ ea, I. Martinez-Soler, Y. F. Perez-Gonzalez, and M. Sen, Phys. Rev. D 106, 103026 (2022), arXiv:2205.01102 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2022

  2. [1]

    Navas et al

    S. Navas et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D 110, 030001 (2024)

    2024

  3. [2]

    Aker et al

    M. Aker et al. (Katrin), (2024), arXiv:2406.13516 [nucl-ex]

    arXiv 2024

  4. [3]

    Aghanim et al

    N. Aghanim et al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys. 641, A6 (2020), [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)], arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2020

  5. [4]

    A. G. Adame et al. (DESI), (2024), arXiv:2404.03002 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2024

  6. [5]

    Craig, D

    N. Craig, D. Green, J. Meyers, and S. Rajendran, JHEP 09, 097 (2024), arXiv:2405.00836 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2024

  7. [6]

    Green and J

    D. Green and J. Meyers, (2024), arXiv:2407.07878 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2024

  8. [7]

    Naredo-Tuero, M

    D. Naredo-Tuero, M. Escudero, E. Fern´ andez-Mart ´ ınez, X. Marcano, and V. Poulin, Phys. Rev. D 110, 123537 (2024), arXiv:2407.13831 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2024

Show all 57 references
  1. [8]

    D. Wang, O. Mena, E. Di Valentino, and S. Gariazzo, Phys. Rev. D 110, 103536 (2024), arXiv:2405.03368 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Minkowski, Phys

    P. Minkowski, Phys. Lett. B 67, 421 (1977)

    1977

  3. [10]

    Gell-Mann, P

    M. Gell-Mann, P. Ramond, and R. Slansky, Conf. Proc. C 790927, 315 (1979), arXiv:1306.4669 [hep-th]

    1979 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Yanagida, Conf

    T. Yanagida, Conf. Proc. C 7902131, 95 (1979)

    1979

  5. [12]

    R. N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanovic, Phys. Rev. Lett. 44, 912 (1980)

    1980

  6. [13]

    R. N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanovic, Phys. Rev. D 23, 165 (1981)

    1981

  7. [14]

    Schechter and J

    J. Schechter and J. W. F. Valle, Phys. Rev. D 22, 2227 (1980)

    1980

  8. [15]

    S. F. King and C. Luhn, Rept. Prog. Phys. 76, 056201 (2013), arXiv:1301.1340 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Fardon, A

    R. Fardon, A. E. Nelson, and N. Weiner, JCAP 10, 005 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0309800

    2004 arXiv

  10. [17]

    S. M. Koksbang and S. Hannestad, JCAP 09, 014 (2017), arXiv:1707.02579 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Dvali and L

    G. Dvali and L. Funcke, Phys. Rev. D 93, 113002 (2016), arXiv:1602.03191 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  12. [19]

    C. S. Lorenz, L. Funcke, E. Calabrese, and S. Hannestad, Phys. Rev. D 99, 023501 (2019), arXiv:1811.01991 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  13. [20]

    C. S. Lorenz, L. Funcke, M. L¨ offler, and E. Calabrese, Phys. Rev. D 104, 123518 (2021), arXiv:2102.13618 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Berlin, Phys

    A. Berlin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 231801 (2016), arXiv:1608.01307 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Krnjaic, P

    G. Krnjaic, P. A. N. Machado, and L. Necib, Phys. Rev. D 97, 075017 (2018), arXiv:1705.06740 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Brdar, J

    V. Brdar, J. Kopp, J. Liu, P. Prass, and X.-P. Wang, Phys. Rev. D 97, 043001 (2018), arXiv:1705.09455 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Capozzi, I

    F. Capozzi, I. M. Shoemaker, and L. Vecchi, JCAP 07, 004 (2018), arXiv:1804.05117 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  18. [25]

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

    2020 arXiv

  19. [26]

    A. Dev, P. A. N. Machado, and P. Mart ´ ınez-Mirav´ e, JHEP01, 094 (2021), arXiv:2007.03590 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  20. [27]

    K.-Y. Choi, E. J. Chun, and J. Kim, (2020), arXiv:2012.09474 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  21. [28]

    S.-F. Ge, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 1468, 012125 (2020)

    2020

  22. [29]

    Losada, Y

    M. Losada, Y. Nir, G. Perez, and Y. Shpilman, JHEP 04, 030 (2022), arXiv:2107.10865 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  23. [30]

    Huang and N

    G.-y. Huang and N. Nath, JCAP 05, 034 (2022), arXiv:2111.08732 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  24. [31]

    E. J. Chun, (2021), arXiv:2112.05057 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  25. [32]

    A. Dev, G. Krnjaic, P. Machado, and H. Ramani, Phys. Rev. D 107, 035006 (2023), arXiv:2205.06821 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  26. [33]

    Huang, M

    G.-y. Huang, M. Lindner, P. Mart ´ ınez-Mirav´ e, and M. Sen, Phys. Rev. D106, 033004 (2022), arXiv:2205.08431 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  27. [34]

    Davoudiasl and P

    H. Davoudiasl and P. B. Denton, (2023), arXiv:2301.09651 [hep-ph]. 9

    2023 arXiv

  28. [35]

    Losada, Y

    M. Losada, Y. Nir, G. Perez, I. Savoray, and Y. Shpilman, (2023), arXiv:2302.00005 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  29. [36]

    Sen and A

    M. Sen and A. Y. Smirnov, JCAP 01, 040 (2024), arXiv:2306.15718 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  30. [37]

    Sen and A

    M. Sen and A. Y. Smirnov, (2024), arXiv:2407.02462 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  31. [38]

    Mart ´ ınez-Mirav´ e, Y

    P. Mart ´ ınez-Mirav´ e, Y. F. Perez-Gonzalez, and M. Sen, Phys. Rev. D110, 055005 (2024), arXiv:2406.01682 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  32. [39]

    Lesgourgues and S

    J. Lesgourgues and S. Pastor, Adv. High Energy Phys. 2012, 608515 (2012), arXiv:1212.6154 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  33. [40]

    Lunardini, Astropart

    C. Lunardini, Astropart. Phys. 26, 190 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0509233

    2006 arXiv

  34. [41]

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

    2010 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Review of diffuse sn neutrino background,

    M. Harada, “Review of diffuse sn neutrino background,” (2024)

    2024

  36. [44]

    De Gouvˆ ea, I

    A. De Gouvˆ ea, I. Martinez-Soler, Y. F. Perez-Gonzalez, and M. Sen, Phys. Rev. D 102, 123012 (2020), arXiv:2007.13748 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Tabrizi and S

    Z. Tabrizi and S. Horiuchi, JCAP 05, 011 (2021), arXiv:2011.10933 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Akita, S

    K. Akita, S. H. Im, and M. Masud, JHEP 12, 050 (2022), arXiv:2206.06852 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  39. [47]

    A. Das, T. Herbermann, M. Sen, and V. Takhistov, JCAP 07, 045 (2024), arXiv:2403.15367 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Ivanez-Ballesteros and M

    P. Ivanez-Ballesteros and M. C. Volpe, Phys. Rev. D 107, 023017 (2023), arXiv:2209.12465 [hep-ph]

    2023

  41. [49]

    MacDonald, P

    M. MacDonald, P. Mart ´ ınez-Mirav´ e, and I. Tamborra, JCAP01, 062 (2025), arXiv:2409.16367 [astro-ph.HE]

    2025 arXiv

  42. [50]

    I. R. Wang, X.-J. Xu, and B. Zhou, (2025), arXiv:2501.07624 [hep-ph]

    2025

  43. [51]

    A. M. Hopkins and J. F. Beacom, Astrophys. J. 651, 142 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0601463 [astro-ph]

    2006 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Yuksel, M

    H. Yuksel, M. D. Kistler, J. F. Beacom, and A. M. Hopkins, Astrophys. J. 683, L5 (2008), arXiv:0804.4008 [astro-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Horiuchi, J

    S. Horiuchi, J. F. Beacom, and E. Dwek, Phys. Rev. D79, 083013 (2009), arXiv:0812.3157 [astro-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Kresse, T

    D. Kresse, T. Ertl, and H.-T. Janka, Astrophys. J. 909, 169 (2021), arXiv:2010.04728 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Møller, A

    K. Møller, A. M. Suliga, I. Tamborra, and P. B. Denton, JCAP 1805, 066 (2018), arXiv:1804.03157 [astro-ph.HE]

    2018 arXiv

  48. [56]

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

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

    2010

  49. [57]

    A. S. Dighe and A. Yu. Smirnov, Phys. Rev. D62, 033007 (2000), arXiv:hep-ph/9907423 [hep-ph]

    2000 arXiv

Pith tools

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