Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Dark matter captured in supernova progenitors can trap dark photons and reopen parameter space that the standard SN1987A cooling bound had excluded, provided the dark matter is asymmetric and does not annihilate.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 22:14 UTC pith:IN2HX3EK

load-bearing objection A plausible proof-of-principle that asymmetric captured DM can reopen part of the SN1987A dark photon exclusion, but the collapse-survival step is asserted rather than demonstrated and Eq. (28) is missing a coupling; treat the contours as illustrative. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2511.11219 v3 pith:IN2HX3EK submitted 2025-11-14 hep-ph astro-ph.CO

Dark Matter Capture in Supernovae Modifies Dark Photon Cooling Bounds

Aritra Gupta , Manibrata Sen This is my paper
classification hep-ph astro-ph.CO PACS 95.35.+d97.60.Bw
keywords supernova cooling bounddark photondark matter captureasymmetric dark matterdark photosphereSN1987Alight mediatorkinetic mixing
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper asks whether dark matter captured inside a supernova's progenitor star changes the standard SN1987A cooling bound on dark photons. The authors show that if the dark matter is annihilating, the captured population stays small and the usual bound survives. If the dark matter is asymmetric, it can pile up densely enough to form a 'dark photosphere' that traps dark photons and suppresses the energy they carry off. The result is that portions of dark-photon mass-mixing parameter space previously excluded by supernova cooling can reopen for asymmetric dark matter with a light mediator.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that dark matter captured inside a supernova progenitor before collapse provides an extra scattering target for dark photons. When enough asymmetric dark matter accumulates, the combined opacity reaches the trapping threshold and a dark photosphere forms. Emission then switches from volume emission out of the proto-neutron star core to surface emission from a decoupling sphere, and the dark-photon luminosity can drop below the observational ceiling in regions that the standard SN1987A cooling argument would have excluded. For annihilating dark matter, the equilibrium abundance is too low to change the bounds, so the standard limit stands. The size of the reopenin

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the effective inverse mean free path, λ_eff⁻¹ = n_p σ_{pA'} + n_χ σ_{χA'}, which adds dark-matter scattering to the usual proton scattering. The dark photosphere radius r_A' is the decoupling surface where the optical-depth integral equals 2/3; whether r_A' lies inside or outside the core dictates whether cooling is computed as annular volume emission or Stefan-Boltzmann surface emission. The capture-rate formalism uses Born/Yukawa cross sections for light mediators, giving a momentum-dependent capture probability that rises and then falls as the mediator mass shrinks; this turnover produces the wedge-shaped reopened region.

Load-bearing premise

The entire mechanism assumes that the dark matter captured over the star's lifetime survives the collapse and re-thermalizes inside the proto-neutron star with a Gaussian density profile at the post-collapse thermal radius, with no ejection or loss during the bounce; if the collapse disturbs that population, the dark photosphere never forms.

What would settle it

A core-collapse simulation that tracks the captured dark matter distribution through bounce and proto-neutron-star formation would settle the central claim: if the simulation shows the dark matter is ejected or settles outside the core, the dark photosphere does not form and the reopened regions disappear. A second decisive check would be a direct-detection measurement of the DM-nucleon cross section at the level needed to accumulate the required DM number; if the true cross section is far smaller, the captured density is negligible.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If the mechanism is correct, the SN1987A cooling bound is not a universal limit for dark photons: in asymmetric dark matter models with light mediators, previously excluded mass-mixing points become allowed.
  • Annihilating dark matter models remain constrained by the original bound, so the effect cleanly separates the two dark matter scenarios.
  • The reopened region is strongest for dark matter masses near 10 GeV and dark-photon masses below roughly 1 MeV, giving concrete targets for laboratory dark-photon searches that currently use SN1987A as a blanket constraint.
  • The turnover in the light-mediator capture rate implies that capture-based arguments cannot be extrapolated from heavy to light mediators; each case needs its own momentum-dependent calculation.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same captured-dark-matter opacity logic could apply to other feebly interacting particles, such as axion-like particles or scalars, that scatter off dark matter, potentially reopening or closing bounds in those sectors too.
  • If the dark photosphere forms, it changes the energy-loss channel and could slightly alter the neutrino burst duration or luminosity from a core-collapse supernova, a possible but speculative observable signature.
  • The environment dependence of the bound suggests that supernovae in denser dark-matter halos or with longer-lived progenitors should show the reopening more strongly, a testable variation across astrophysical environments.
  • A more realistic treatment with plasma effects and in-medium mixing would likely shift the exact boundaries, but the qualitative trapping effect should persist if the captured dark matter density reaches the required level.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper revisits the SN1987A dark-photon cooling bound by adding a population of dark matter captured in the progenitor star. The authors model dark-photon production and trapping using a simplified analytic PNS profile, compute DM capture for annihilating and asymmetric DM (including light-mediator kinematics), and then let captured DM contribute to the dark-photon opacity. They find that annihilating DM does not change the standard bound, whereas asymmetric DM can accumulate enough to form a 'dark photosphere' that suppresses the dark-photon luminosity and reopens parts of the (m_A', ε) plane. The paper explicitly frames the results as a proof of principle, not as precision exclusion limits.

Significance. If the central mechanism is correct, the paper demonstrates a qualitatively new ingredient for stellar-cooling constraints on dark sectors: accumulated astrophysical DM can self-consistently change the opacity that determines the cooling bound. This matters for a broad class of light-mediator DM models. The paper is transparent about its simplifying choices (parametric profiles, fixed benchmark couplings) and correctly separates the annihilating and asymmetric cases, which behave very differently. The main strength is the clean proof-of-principle setup; however, two load-bearing quantitative steps—the collapse/thermalization of the captured DM distribution and the normalization of the DM-nucleon cross section—need to be fixed before the numerical existence of the reopened regions can be considered established.

major comments (2)
  1. [§III.D, Eq. (14)] The statement that 'the captured dark matter resettles near its core' is load-bearing for all subsequent results, but no dynamical or timescale calculation supports it. Equation (14) and the Gaussian profile (24) are evaluated with the PNS core density (10^14 g/cm^3) and T=30 MeV, whereas the captured population is accumulated during the progenitor phase. During core collapse, DM is not simply advected with the baryonic fluid; its final radial distribution depends on angular-momentum conservation and on scattering during collapse. If the resulting DM distribution has a core radius significantly larger than r_th, the central density n_χ entering Eq. (34) is suppressed and the reopened wedges in Fig. 7 shrink or disappear. Please provide a calculation of the collapse/thermalization transition, or alternatively treat the final DM profile radius as an explicit parameter and show how Fig. 7 d
  2. [§III.C, Eq. (28)] Equation (28) is not correct as written: for scattering of DM on protons via a kinetically mixed dark photon, the cross section must contain, in addition to ε^2, the dark coupling factor (e'^2 or, equivalently, αα' in the convention used in Eq. (2)). With α'=0.03 and α≈1/137 this is a multiplicative factor of about 2×10^-4, which is not negligible. Since C0 in Eq. (25) and hence N_χ in Figs. 6–7 scale with σ_χp below geometric saturation, this normalization error directly changes the size and existence of the reopened regions. Please correct Eq. (28), rerun the scans, and state explicitly which expression was used in the numerical code.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (3)] The decay suppression factor exp(-Γ_decay R_core) should be written with units made explicit; as it stands the product of a decay rate and a radius relies on the c=1 convention.
  2. [Eq. (33)] The factor c^2 in the denominator is presumably c=1 in natural units; please remove it for clarity.
  3. [Fig. 6] The color-bar limits and contour levels are not stated; the reader cannot tell whether N_χ/N_p is saturated anywhere in the shown plane.
  4. [§III.D] The sentence 'Around the time of the supernova explosion, the captured dark matter resettles near its core' should be hedged or supported; as written it states the main assumption as a fact.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the reopened parameter regions are computed from fixed microphysics inputs and compared against the external SN1987A luminosity limit, not fitted or defined into existence.

full rationale

I walked the derivation chain from the standard dark-photon cooling setup (Eqs. 2-7), through the captured-DM population equations (Eqs. 11-27), the Gaussian DM density profile (Eq. 24), the effective inverse mean free path (Eq. 8), the dark-photosphere radius condition (Eq. 34), and the resulting volume/surface luminosities (Eqs. 35-36). The key quantities that produce the claimed revival regions in Fig. 7 are n_chi(r), sigma_chiA', and r_A'. These are not obtained by fitting to the model's target conclusion: n_chi(r) is the solution of the capture/annihilation rate equations with hand-set inputs (alpha'=0.03, sigma_chi_chi=10^-30 cm^2, fixed m_chi, fixed stellar age), and r_A' is defined by an optical-depth integral. The final luminosity is then compared with the fixed observational bound L0 = 3x10^52 erg/s. There is no equation in which the predicted 'reopened wedge' is imposed by construction, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The paper does cite [57] and [63], which share an author with the present paper, for the light-mediator capture probability; however, the relevant formulas (Eqs. 25-33) are reproduced in the text, and the cited work is a distinct published derivation of capture rates rather than a result that presupposes dark-photon cooling suppression. Thus these citations are not load-bearing circularity under the stated criteria. The manuscript's least secure step -- that captured DM survives core collapse and resettles at the post-collapse thermal radius (Eq. 14) -- is a physical assumption whose validity is not demonstrated, and it could undermine the conclusions if wrong; but an unverified dynamical assumption is a correctness risk, not an equivalence between inputs and predictions. Therefore no circular step can be exhibited from the paper's own equations, and the appropriate score is 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

The calculation rests on a standard-but-simplified SN cooling prescription plus a chain of astrophysical assumptions about DM capture, collapse survival, and thermalization. The only hand-set model parameters are alpha', sigma_chi_chi, and representative stellar properties; no new particles or forces are introduced beyond the pre-existing dark photon and fermionic DM model.

free parameters (5)
  • alpha' (dark fine-structure constant) = 0.03
    Hand-set in Sec. IV; controls sigma_chiA' ~ alpha'^2/m_chi^2 and the annihilation cross section. The magnitude of DM opacity, and hence the reopened region, depends directly on it.
  • sigma_chi_chi (DM self-interaction cross section) = 10^-30 cm^2
    Chosen benchmark in Sec. IV; controls self-capture, t_crit, and the exponential growth phase for asymmetric DM.
  • t_star (progenitor age) = 3.75 Myr
    Assumed stellar age used to integrate the capture equations and determine the final accumulated N_chi for asymmetric DM.
  • R_star (progenitor radius) = 8 R_sun
    Used in Eq. (13) for the geometric saturation cross-section sigma_sat.
  • v_esc = ~1000 km/s
    Escape velocity used in the example evolution curves and capture calculation.
axioms (7)
  • domain assumption The SN1987A cooling luminosity limit L0 = 3x10^52 erg/s applies and is the correct threshold.
    Used throughout Sec. II and Sec. IV to define exclusion contours, following Raffelt-Seckel [7].
  • ad hoc to paper The parametric temperature and density profiles T(r) ~ r^-5/3 and n_p(r) ~ r^-5 outside the core (Eqs. 6-7) are adequate for the proof-of-principle.
    The authors state these profiles are chosen for computational ease and defer realistic simulation profiles to future work.
  • domain assumption Captured DM thermalizes after core collapse and follows the Maxwell-Boltzmann Gaussian profile Eq. (24) with the post-collapse thermal radius Eq. (14).
    This is the weakest assumption: survival and re-thermalization of the captured DM population through the collapse is assumed without a dedicated calculation.
  • domain assumption Single-scattering capture dominates and the light-mediator capture probability g1(u) from [63] is valid for the DM masses considered.
    The authors note multiple scattering becomes important for heavier DM; they restrict to m_chi = 1-100 GeV.
  • domain assumption Thomson scattering chi A' -> chi A' dominates over DM bremsstrahlung for both opacity and production.
    Sec. III D justifies this by scaling arguments: bremsstrahlung scales as n_chi^2 while Thomson scattering scales as n_chi.
  • domain assumption The proton-bremsstrahlung cross-section for dark photon production, Eq. (2), and the decay suppression e^{-Gamma_decay R_core}, are valid inputs.
    Taken from [58] and [60,61]; Gamma_decay is not explicitly defined in the text, which is a reproducibility gap.
  • domain assumption The core parameters T_c = 30 MeV, rho_c = 3x10^14 g/cm^3, R_core = 10 km, and n_p = 1.2x10^38 cm^-3 represent SN1987A-like conditions.
    Standard representative values used in the analytic cooling framework.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 15871 in / 19036 out tokens · 155300 ms · 2026-08-03T22:14:44.613763+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Core-collapse supernovae serve as powerful probes of light, weakly coupled particles, such as dark photons. The conventional SN1987A cooling bound constrains the dark photon mass-mixing parameter space by requiring that the luminosity from the proto-neutron star core not exceed the observed neutrino emission. In this work, we revisit these limits by including the effect of dark matter (DM) captured inside the progenitor star before collapse. The trapped DM acts as an additional scattering target for dark photons, modifying their free-streaming length and, consequently, the supernova cooling rate. We perform a self-consistent analysis for both annihilating and asymmetric DM scenarios, incorporating light-mediator effects in the capture rate calculation. For annihilating DM, the equilibrium density remains too small to affect the bounds significantly. In contrast, asymmetric DM can accumulate to large densities, leading to the formation of a "dark photosphere" that suppresses the dark-photon luminosity and reopens regions of parameter space previously excluded by supernova cooling. The results presented are intended as a proof-of-principle demonstration of how astrophysical dark matter populations can alter supernova cooling constraints and do not provide precision exclusion limits on any given model.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.11219 by Aritra Gupta, Manibrata Sen.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: The standard SN1987A cooling bound forms an exclusion band in the ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Time evolution of the total number of annihilating DM captured inside the neutron star. The teal line denotes a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: Time evolution of the total number of non-annihilating DM captured inside the neutron star. The teal line denotes a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Cartoon depicting how inclusion of DM changes the original cooling mechanism via [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: SN Cooling constraint for annihilating DM. The cross-section [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: The ratio of the final number of captured DM particles with the total proton number, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: SN Cooling constraint for asymmetric DM. The cross-section [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. A new approach to dark photon

    hep-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Dark photon and hypercharge arise from two U(1) groups related by broken mirror symmetry that suppresses their kinetic mixing at one loop.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

72 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    (12), showing an early linear growth

    Early linear growth (t < t eq,1 < tcrit): The DM population evolves according to Eq. (12), showing an early linear growth

  2. [2]

    Equilibrium without saturation (t eq,1 < t < t⋆): The system has reached equilibrium andN χ saturates to a constant value, given by Eq. (17)

  3. [3]

    Self-capture onset (t < t crit < teq,1 ): The system continues to evolve according to Eq. (12). However, the self-capture dominates, leading to the system reaching criticality before equilibration

  4. [4]

    (19) untilt eq,2 is reached

    Post-saturation evolution (t crit < t < teq,2 ): The evolution is governed by Eq. (19) untilt eq,2 is reached

  5. [5]

    The resulting time evolution ofN χ for two representative parameter sets is shown in Fig

    Final equilibrium (t eq,2 < t < t⋆): The number of captured DM particles has saturated to the equilibrium value given by Eq.(21). The resulting time evolution ofN χ for two representative parameter sets is shown in Fig. (2). Forσ χχ < σsat s , Nχ exhibits an initial linear growth, followed by an exponential increase before reaching equilibrium, as describ...

  6. [6]

    the DM number density is too low to alter the cooling rate appreciably

  7. [7]

    the total luminosity fromA ′ emission—arising from both the annular shell and the surface of theA ′ sphere exceeds the observed luminosity; or

  8. [8]

    dark photosphere

    the surface luminosity from anA ′ sphere extending beyond the neutron star radius exceeds the observational limit. These three criteria correspond to the distinct colored regions shown in Fig. (7). All of the results discussed above assume a fixed dark-sector couplingα ′. Decreasingα ′ for a given DM mass, mediator mass, and kinetic mixing parameterϵsuppr...

    2024

  9. [9]

    Hirataet al.(Kamiokande-II), Phys

    K. Hirataet al.(Kamiokande-II), Phys. Rev. Lett.58, 1490 (1987)

    1987

  10. [10]

    R. M. Biontaet al., Phys. Rev. Lett.58, 1494 (1987)

    1987

  11. [11]

    E. N. Alekseev, L. N. Alekseeva, I. V. Krivosheina, and V. I. Volchenko, inEuropean Southern Observatory Conference and Workshop Proceedings, European Southern Observatory Conference and Workshop Proceedings, Vol. 26, edited by I. J. Danziger (1987) p. 237

    1987

  12. [12]

    Horiuchi and J

    S. Horiuchi and J. P. Kneller, J. Phys. G45, 043002 (2018), arXiv:1709.01515 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  13. [13]

    M. C. Volpe, Rev. Mod. Phys.96, 025004 (2024), arXiv:2301.11814 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  14. [14]

    Sen, Universe10, 238 (2024), arXiv:2405.20432 [hep-ph]

    M. Sen, Universe10, 238 (2024), arXiv:2405.20432 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  15. [15]

    Raffelt and D

    G. Raffelt and D. Seckel, Phys. Rev. Lett.60, 1793 (1988)

    1988

  16. [16]

    J. R. Ellis and K. A. Olive, Phys. Lett. B193, 525 (1987). 15

    1987

  17. [17]

    M. S. Turner, Phys. Rev. Lett.60, 1797 (1988)

    1988

  18. [18]

    Burrows, M

    A. Burrows, M. T. Ressell, and M. S. Turner, Phys. Rev. D42, 3297 (1990)

    1990

  19. [19]

    G. G. Raffelt,Stars as laboratories for fundamental physics: The astrophysics of neutrinos, axions, and other weakly interacting particles(1996)

    1996

  20. [20]

    Fischer, J

    T. Fischer, J. Martin Camalich, H. Kochankovski, and L. Tolos, JCAP01, 061 (2025), arXiv:2408.01406 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  21. [21]

    M. J. Dolan, T. Ferber, C. Hearty, F. Kahlhoefer, and K. Schmidt-Hoberg, JHEP12, 094 (2017), [Erratum: JHEP 03, 190 (2021)], arXiv:1709.00009 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  22. [22]

    J. H. Chang, R. Essig, and S. D. McDermott, JHEP09, 051 (2018), arXiv:1803.00993 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  23. [23]

    Carenza, T

    P. Carenza, T. Fischer, M. Giannotti, G. Guo, G. Mart ´ ınez-Pinedo, and A. Mirizzi, JCAP10, 016 (2019), [Erratum: JCAP 05, E01 (2020)], arXiv:1906.11844 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  24. [24]

    Carenza, B

    P. Carenza, B. Fore, M. Giannotti, A. Mirizzi, and S. Reddy, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 071102 (2021), arXiv:2010.02943 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  25. [25]

    P. S. B. Dev, R. N. Mohapatra, and Y. Zhang, JCAP08, 003 (2020), [Erratum: JCAP 11, E01 (2020)], arXiv:2005.00490 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  26. [26]

    Lucente, P

    G. Lucente, P. Carenza, T. Fischer, M. Giannotti, and A. Mirizzi, JCAP12, 008 (2020), arXiv:2008.04918 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2020

  27. [27]

    Calore, P

    F. Calore, P. Carenza, M. Giannotti, J. Jaeckel, G. Lucente, and A. Mirizzi, Phys. Rev. D104, 043016 (2021), arXiv:2107.02186 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  28. [28]

    Caputo and G

    A. Caputo and G. Raffelt, PoSCOSMICWISPers, 041 (2024), arXiv:2401.13728 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  29. [30]

    Kazanas, R

    D. Kazanas, R. N. Mohapatra, S. Nussinov, V. L. Teplitz, and Y. Zhang, Nucl. Phys. B890, 17 (2014), arXiv:1410.0221 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  30. [31]

    Rrapaj and S

    E. Rrapaj and S. Reddy, Phys. Rev. C94, 045805 (2016), arXiv:1511.09136 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  31. [32]

    J. H. Chang, R. Essig, and S. D. McDermott, JHEP01, 107 (2017), arXiv:1611.03864 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  32. [33]

    Mahoney, A

    C. Mahoney, A. K. Leibovich, and A. R. Zentner, Phys. Rev. D96, 043018 (2017), arXiv:1706.08871 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  33. [34]

    DeRocco, P

    W. DeRocco, P. W. Graham, D. Kasen, G. Marques-Tavares, and S. Rajendran, Phys. Rev. D100, 075018 (2019), arXiv:1905.09284 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  34. [35]

    Croon, G

    D. Croon, G. Elor, R. K. Leane, and S. D. McDermott, JHEP01, 107 (2021), arXiv:2006.13942 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  35. [36]

    A. Sung, G. Guo, and M.-R. Wu, Phys. Rev. D103, 103005 (2021), arXiv:2102.04601 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  36. [37]

    Caputo, A

    A. Caputo, A. J. Millar, C. A. J. O’Hare, and E. Vitagliano, Phys. Rev. D104, 095029 (2021), arXiv:2105.04565 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  37. [38]

    Caputo, G

    A. Caputo, G. Raffelt, and E. Vitagliano, Phys. Rev. D105, 035022 (2022), arXiv:2109.03244 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  38. [39]

    D. G. Cerde˜ no, M. Cerme˜ no, and Y. Farzan, Phys. Rev. D107, 123012 (2023), arXiv:2301.00661 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  39. [40]

    Akita, S

    K. Akita, S. H. Im, M. Masud, and S. Yun, JHEP07, 057 (2024), arXiv:2312.13627 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  40. [41]

    K.-C. Lai, C. S. J. Leung, and G.-L. Lin, Phys. Rev. D110, 103023 (2024), arXiv:2401.16023 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  41. [42]

    Hardy, A

    E. Hardy, A. Sokolov, and H. Stubbs, JHEP04, 013 (2025), arXiv:2410.17347 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  42. [43]

    Brune and H

    T. Brune and H. P¨ as, Phys. Rev. D99, 096005 (2019), arXiv:1808.08158 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  43. [44]

    Heurtier and Y

    L. Heurtier and Y. Zhang, JCAP02, 042 (2017), arXiv:1609.05882 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  44. [45]

    Y.-M. Chen, M. Sen, W. Tangarife, D. Tuckler, and Y. Zhang, JCAP11, 014 (2022), arXiv:2207.14300 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  45. [46]

    Diamond, D

    M. Diamond, D. F. G. Fiorillo, G. Marques-Tavares, and E. Vitagliano, Phys. Rev. D107, 103029 (2023), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 108, 049902 (2023)], arXiv:2303.11395 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  46. [47]

    Antelet al., Eur

    C. Antelet al., Eur. Phys. J. C83, 1122 (2023), arXiv:2305.01715 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  47. [48]

    C. V. Cappiello, P. S. B. Dev, and A. V. Patwardhan, (2025), arXiv:2503.09691 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  48. [49]

    D. F. G. Fiorillo, G. G. Raffelt, and E. Vitagliano, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 021001 (2023), arXiv:2209.11773 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  49. [50]

    Caputo, H.-T

    A. Caputo, H.-T. Janka, G. Raffelt, and E. Vitagliano, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 221103 (2022), arXiv:2201.09890 [astro- ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  50. [51]

    Caputo, G

    A. Caputo, G. Raffelt, and E. Vitagliano, JCAP08, 045 (2022), arXiv:2204.11862 [astro-ph.SR]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  51. [52]

    D. F. G. Fiorillo and E. Vitagliano, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 251004 (2024), arXiv:2404.07714 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  52. [53]

    Holdom, Phys

    B. Holdom, Phys. Lett. B166, 196 (1986)

    1986

  53. [54]

    Bauer, P

    M. Bauer, P. Foldenauer, and J. Jaeckel, JHEP07, 094 (2018), arXiv:1803.05466 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  54. [55]

    Fabbrichesi, E

    M. Fabbrichesi, E. Gabrielli, and G. Lanfranchi, (2020), 10.1007/978-3-030-62519-1, arXiv:2005.01515 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  55. [56]

    H. An, M. Pospelov, and J. Pradler, Phys. Lett. B725, 190 (2013), arXiv:1302.3884 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  56. [57]

    Caputo, H.-T

    A. Caputo, H.-T. Janka, G. Raffelt, and S. Yun, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 151002 (2025), arXiv:2502.01731 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  57. [58]

    W. H. Press and D. N. Spergel, apj296, 679 (1985)

    1985

  58. [59]

    Gould, apj321, 571 (1987)

    A. Gould, apj321, 571 (1987)

    1987

  59. [60]

    Gould, apj328, 919 (1988)

    A. Gould, apj328, 919 (1988)

    1988

  60. [61]

    Gould, apj368, 610 (1991)

    A. Gould, apj368, 610 (1991)

    1991

  61. [62]

    J. Silk, K. A. Olive, and M. Srednicki, Phys. Rev. Lett.55, 257 (1985), [,283(1985)]

    1985

  62. [63]

    L. M. Krauss, M. Srednicki, and F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev.D33, 2079 (1986)

    2079

  63. [64]

    Bramante, A

    J. Bramante, A. Delgado, and A. Martin, Phys. Rev. D96, 063002 (2017), arXiv:1703.04043 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  64. [65]

    Dasgupta, A

    B. Dasgupta, A. Gupta, and A. Ray, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2019, 018–018 (2019)

    2019

  65. [66]

    Zhang, JCAP11, 042 (2014), arXiv:1404.7172 [hep-ph]

    Y. Zhang, JCAP11, 042 (2014), arXiv:1404.7172 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  66. [67]

    Hardy and R

    E. Hardy and R. Lasenby, JHEP02, 033 (2017), arXiv:1611.05852 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  67. [68]

    Constraints on light hidden sector gauge bosons from supernova cooling,

    J. B. Dent, F. Ferrer, and L. M. Krauss, “Constraints on light hidden sector gauge bosons from supernova cooling,” (2012), arXiv:1201.2683 [astro-ph.CO] . 16

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  68. [69]

    Kazanas, R

    D. Kazanas, R. N. Mohapatra, S. Nussinov, V. L. Teplitz, and Y. Zhang, Nuclear Physics B890, 17–29 (2015)

    2015

  69. [70]

    Janka, K

    H.-T. Janka, K. Langanke, A. Marek, G. Martinez-Pinedo, and B. Mueller, Phys. Rept.442, 38 (2007), arXiv:astro- ph/0612072

    arXiv 2007

  70. [71]

    Dasgupta, A

    B. Dasgupta, A. Gupta, and A. Ray, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2020, 023–023 (2020)

    2020

  71. [72]

    Petraki, M

    K. Petraki, M. Postma, and M. Wiechers, Journal of High Energy Physics2015(2015), 10.1007/jhep06(2015)128

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep06(2015)128 2015

  72. [73]

    Petraki, M

    K. Petraki, M. Postma, and J. de Vries, Journal of High Energy Physics2017(2017), 10.1007/jhep04(2017)077

    doi:10.1007/jhep04(2017)077 2017