arxiv: 2603.08843 · v2 · submitted 2026-03-09 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE · hep-ph

Recognition: 1 theorem link

· Lean Theorem

Matter- and magnetically-driven flavor conversion of neutrinos in magnetorotational collapses

Marco Manno , Pablo Mart\'inez-Mirav\'e , Irene Tamborra

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 13:01 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE hep-ph

keywords neutrino flavor conversionmagnetorotational collapsemagnetic momentMajorana neutrinosstellar collapsemulti-messenger astronomyIceCubeHyper-Kamiokande

0 comments

The pith

In magnetorotational stellar collapses, neutrinos with a small magnetic moment undergo resonant flavor-changing mixing with antineutrinos for Majorana particles.

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

Magnetorotational collapses of massive stars emit neutrinos of all flavors with a clear hierarchy in average energies between electron and non-electron types. Three-dimensional neutrino-magnetohydrodynamic simulations reveal that, beyond ordinary matter-driven resonant conversions, a magnetic moment at or below 10^{-12} Bohr magnetons allows neutrinos to flip chirality in the source's intense magnetic fields of order 10^{15} G. For Majorana neutrinos this produces resonant mixing between neutrinos and antineutrinos of different flavors. The resulting flavor evolution changes the event rates recorded at detectors such as IceCube and Hyper-Kamiokande, with the strongest signals arriving when the observer looks along the jet axis and the rate peaking hundreds of milliseconds after bounce. Accounting for this mixing is required to extract the full information from joint neutrino and gravitational-wave detections of these events.

Core claim

Relying on a three-dimensional neutrino-magnetohydrodynamic simulation of a 13 solar mass progenitor, we find that in addition to resonant flavor conversion of neutrinos and antineutrinos in matter, neutrinos experience chirality-flipping interactions due to their non-zero magnetic moment and the large magnetic field in the source. For Majorana neutrinos, this leads to resonant flavor-changing neutrino-antineutrino mixing. The event rate expected from a Galactic collapse at current and next-generation neutrino telescopes strongly depends on the orientation of the magnetorotational collapse with respect to the observer direction and flavor conversion scenario.

What carries the argument

Resonant flavor-changing neutrino-antineutrino mixing driven by magnetic-moment-induced chirality flips in strong magnetic fields, acting together with matter effects.

If this is right

Event rates are larger for an observer facing head-on the jet launched during the collapse.
Rates peak around 400-600 ms after bounce.
Rates vary strongly with observer direction and the specific flavor-conversion scenario realized.
Joint neutrino and gravitational-wave detections require modeling this orientation-dependent flavor evolution.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

The viewing-angle dependence offers a potential way to infer collapse geometry from neutrino data combined with gravitational-wave signals.
Detection of the predicted mixing would constrain the neutrino magnetic moment near the 10^{-12} Bohr-magneton scale.
Future simulations of asymmetric collapses must incorporate both matter and magnetic-moment channels to predict observable neutrino signals reliably.

Load-bearing premise

Neutrinos possess a non-zero magnetic moment at or below 10^{-12} times the Bohr magneton and the simulation supplies accurate density and magnetic-field profiles.

What would settle it

A Galactic magnetorotational collapse whose neutrino event rates at IceCube or Hyper-Kamiokande show no dependence on observer orientation relative to the jet or fail to peak at 400-600 ms after bounce.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.08843 by Irene Tamborra, Marco Manno, Pablo Mart\'inez-Mirav\'e.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Time evolution of the neutrino luminosity (top row) and mean energies (bottom row) for electron neutrinos (νe), electron antineutrinos (¯νe), and heavy-lepton species (νx = νµ, ντ , ¯νµ, or ¯ντ ). The left and right panels represent the neutrino emission properties as measured by a distant observer with angular coordinates close to the pole (θ = 0 and φ = 0) and equator (θ = π/2 and φ = 0), respectively. i… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Radial profiles of ρYe for our magnetorotational collapse model at t = 0.3 s (blue) and t = 1 s (red), shown along the pole (θ = 0 and φ = 0, left panel) and the equatorial direction (θ = π/2 and φ = 0, right panel). The horizontal lines indicate the MSW(H) and MSW(L) resonance conditions (cf. Eqs. 9 and 10) in green and light blue, respectively. The resonance conditions have been computed using a represen… view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Level-crossing diagrams for NO (left) and IO (right). The plots are computed for the equatorial direction (θ = π/2, φ = 0) at t = 0.3 s using a neutrino energy E = 14.2 MeV, which represents the time averaged mean energy across all species (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Radial profiles of ρ(1−2Ye) (top panels) and ρ (bottom panels) for our magnetorotational model at t = 0.3 s (blue) and t = 1 s (red), along the polar (θ = 0, φ = 0, left) and equatorial (θ = π/2, φ = 0, right) directions. In the top panels, the horizontal lines mark the B-res(H) and B-res(L) conditions (see Eqs. 14 and 15). Negative values of ρ(1 − 2Ye) indicate regions with Ye > 0.5. In the bottom panels,… view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Values of the neutrino magnetic moment µ such that the adiabaticity parameter γ ≃ 1 (Eq. 18) for the polar (θ = 0 and φ = 0, left) and equatorial (θ = π/2 and φ = 0, right) directions. The solid (dotted) curves correspond to t = 1 s (t = 0.3 s). For each resonance, the shaded areas (above the corresponding curve) satisfy γ ≳ 1, hence adiabatic transitions should be expected. The resonance conditions are co… view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Flavor-dependent neutrino fluxes observable at Earth for an observer located along the pole (θ = 0, φ = 0, solid lines) and the equator (θ = π/2, φ = 0, dashed lines) for t = 0.3 s (top panels) and t = 1 s (bottom panels). The fluxes of ¯νe, νe, and νx are plotted from left to right, respectively. The light-blue curves represent the projected fluxes in the absence of flavor conversion (Eq. 1). The olive (p… view at source ↗

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: IceCube (top panels) and Hyper-Kamiokande (bottom panels) event rates as functions of time for a magnetorotational collapse occurring at D = 10 kpc from Earth. The left and right panels correspond, respectively, to an observer direction close to the pole (θ = 0, φ = 0) and at the equator (θ = π/2, φ = 0). The event rates are computed accounting for the three-flavor conversion scenarios outlined in Sec. 4; … view at source ↗

read the original abstract

The magnetorotational collapse of massive stars copiously emits neutrinos of all flavors, with a prominent hierarchy between the non-electron and electron flavor average energies. Relying on a three-dimensional neutrino-magnetohydrodynamic simulation of a $13 M_\odot$ progenitor, we investigate flavor conversion in matter. We find that, in addition to resonant flavor conversion of neutrinos and antineutrinos in matter, (anti)neutrinos experience chirality-flipping interactions due to their non-zero magnetic moment ($\mu \lesssim 10^{-12} \mu_B$) and large magnetic field in the source ($B \simeq 10^{15}$ G). For Majorana neutrinos, this leads to resonant flavor-changing neutrino-antineutrino mixing. The event rate expected from a Galactic collapse at current and next-generation neutrino telescopes, such as IceCube and Hyper-Kamiokande, strongly depends on the orientation of the magnetorotational collapse with respect to the observer direction and flavor conversion scenario. The event rate is expected to be larger for an observer facing head on the jet launched during the stellar collapse and peaks around $400$-$600$ ms after bounce. Our work highlights that understanding the rich phenomenology of flavor conversion in magnetorotational collapses is essential to take full advantage of the joint detection of neutrinos and gravitational waves from these sources.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper shows that magnetic-moment effects combined with matter resonances in a 3D magnetorotational collapse simulation produce orientation-dependent neutrino event rates at IceCube and Hyper-K, peaking 400-600 ms post-bounce for an observer along the jet.

read the letter

The main takeaway is that for Majorana neutrinos with a magnetic moment at or below 10^{-12} mu_B, the resonant nu-nubar mixing driven by the strong B fields in the simulation can alter the flavor content enough to change expected detector rates depending on viewing angle relative to the outflow. This is tied directly to the 3D neutrino-MHD run of the 13 solar mass progenitor and the reported time window after bounce. The orientation dependence and its link to multi-messenger signals is the concrete new element here. The work takes established resonance conditions and applies them to profiles extracted from the simulation, then translates those into event-rate estimates for current and upcoming detectors. That step of connecting the simulation outputs to observable quantities is done cleanly and gives readers something specific to test against future data. The central argument holds up on its own terms as long as the density and magnetic-field profiles satisfy the resonance condition at the relevant radii and energies. The soft spot is that the abstract gives no information on the flavor-evolution solver, any convergence tests, or direct checks that the local B and density gradients actually produce the resonance inside the neutrinosphere at 400-600 ms. Magnetorotational amplification is known to be resolution-sensitive in the inner tens of kilometers, so if those profiles are under-resolved the effect could shrink or disappear. That is a real but addressable limitation rather than a fatal one. This paper is for people working on neutrino signals from core-collapse events with strong magnetic fields and on joint neutrino-gravitational-wave analyses. A reader who already follows flavor conversion in supernovae will find the orientation and time dependence useful even if they treat the magnetic-moment assumption as exploratory. I would send it to peer review because the simulation-based predictions are specific enough to be worth referee scrutiny on both the MHD and neutrino-physics sides.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript uses a 3D neutrino-MHD simulation of a 13 M_⊙ progenitor to study neutrino flavor evolution in magnetorotational collapses. It reports standard matter-driven MSW resonances plus chirality-flipping interactions from a neutrino magnetic moment μ ≲ 10^{-12} μ_B in B ≃ 10^{15} G fields; for Majorana neutrinos this produces resonant ν-ν̄ mixing. The resulting event rates at IceCube and Hyper-Kamiokande are claimed to depend strongly on observer orientation relative to the jet axis, with a peak at 400-600 ms post-bounce for head-on lines of sight.

Significance. If the resonance conditions are correctly realized, the work identifies an orientation-dependent, time-dependent signature that couples neutrino magnetic-moment physics to magnetorotational dynamics and multi-messenger observables. It supplies a concrete, falsifiable prediction for how flavor conversion alters the detectable neutrino signal from a Galactic event.

major comments (3)

[§3, §4] §3 (Simulation setup) and §4 (Flavor conversion): the resonance condition μB ≈ V_matter or vacuum term is asserted to be satisfied inside the neutrinosphere at 400-600 ms post-bounce for μ ≲ 10^{-12} μ_B, yet no quantitative verification is shown that the simulated |B|(r) and n_e(r) profiles actually meet this equality at the relevant radii and energies. Magnetorotational amplification is known to be resolution-dependent; without a convergence test or explicit profile comparison the central claim that resonant conversion occurs remains unverified.
[§4] §4: the flavor-evolution solver is not described. No information is given on the numerical method (e.g., integration of the Schrödinger equation, step-size control, or treatment of the magnetic-moment term), nor are any convergence tests or validation against known analytic limits (adiabatic MSW, vacuum oscillations) reported. This omission directly affects the reliability of the reported orientation-dependent event rates.
[§5] §5 (Event rates): the orientation dependence is presented for a single chosen μ value and a single progenitor snapshot sequence. No exploration of the μ range, no uncertainty propagation from the simulation profiles, and no comparison to a non-magnetized control run are provided, making it impossible to assess how robust the claimed enhancement for head-on observers is.

minor comments (2)

Notation for the magnetic moment should be introduced once with units (μ_B) and used consistently; the symbol μ is occasionally used without subscript in the text.
Figure 3 (or equivalent time-series plot) would benefit from an inset or table listing the local |B| and density values at the claimed resonance radii for the displayed post-bounce times.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful and constructive review of our manuscript. We address each major comment below and will revise the manuscript to improve clarity, add missing details, and strengthen the presentation of our results.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [§3, §4] §3 (Simulation setup) and §4 (Flavor conversion): the resonance condition μB ≈ V_matter or vacuum term is asserted to be satisfied inside the neutrinosphere at 400-600 ms post-bounce for μ ≲ 10^{-12} μ_B, yet no quantitative verification is shown that the simulated |B|(r) and n_e(r) profiles actually meet this equality at the relevant radii and energies. Magnetorotational amplification is known to be resolution-dependent; without a convergence test or explicit profile comparison the central claim that resonant conversion occurs remains unverified.

Authors: We agree that explicit verification is required. In the revised manuscript we will add direct comparisons of the simulated |B|(r) and electron-density profiles against the resonance condition μB ≈ V_matter (and the vacuum term) at 400–600 ms post-bounce for the relevant neutrino energies. We will also include a brief discussion of the resolution dependence of magnetorotational amplification and note that the run was performed at the highest resolution feasible with available resources. A full convergence study would require additional simulations that are computationally prohibitive at present. revision: partial
Referee: [§4] §4: the flavor-evolution solver is not described. No information is given on the numerical method (e.g., integration of the Schrödinger equation, step-size control, or treatment of the magnetic-moment term), nor are any convergence tests or validation against known analytic limits (adiabatic MSW, vacuum oscillations) reported. This omission directly affects the reliability of the reported orientation-dependent event rates.

Authors: We apologize for the omission. The flavor evolution is obtained by numerically integrating the Schrödinger equation for the neutrino density matrix, with the standard matter potential plus the magnetic-moment interaction term for Majorana neutrinos. In the revision we will describe the integration scheme, adaptive step-size control, and implementation of the magnetic term. We will also report convergence tests with respect to integration step size and validation against the analytic limits of adiabatic MSW resonances and vacuum oscillations. revision: yes
Referee: [§5] §5 (Event rates): the orientation dependence is presented for a single chosen μ value and a single progenitor snapshot sequence. No exploration of the μ range, no uncertainty propagation from the simulation profiles, and no comparison to a non-magnetized control run are provided, making it impossible to assess how robust the claimed enhancement for head-on observers is.

Authors: We acknowledge that a broader parameter study would be valuable. The revised manuscript will present results for a small range of μ values around 10^{-12} μ_B to illustrate sensitivity and will discuss uncertainties propagated from the simulation profiles. A strictly non-magnetized control run is not directly comparable because the magnetic field is essential to the magnetorotational dynamics; we will instead clarify the contribution of the magnetic-moment term by comparing to the μ = 0 case within the same MHD background. revision: partial

standing simulated objections not resolved

Full convergence test of the 3D neutrino-MHD simulation, which would require additional high-resolution runs beyond current computational resources.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: forward modeling from simulation profiles

full rationale

The paper takes density and magnetic-field profiles from a 3D neutrino-MHD simulation of a 13 solar-mass progenitor as external input and computes resonance conditions for matter-driven and magnetic-moment-driven flavor conversion using standard oscillation physics. No parameter is fitted to the target neutrino event rates, no prediction is renamed from a fit, and no load-bearing self-citation or self-definitional loop reduces the central claim to its own inputs. The orientation-dependent event-rate predictions follow directly from applying the resonance conditions to the supplied profiles without circular reduction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The claim rests on the simulation supplying realistic density and B-field profiles plus the assumption that neutrinos carry a magnetic moment within current experimental bounds; no new particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (1)

neutrino magnetic moment μ = ≲ 10^{-12} μ_B
Upper bound ≲ 10^{-12} μ_B used to enable chirality-flipping interactions; value is an external experimental constraint rather than fitted to the simulation output.

axioms (2)

domain assumption Neutrinos are Majorana particles, allowing resonant neutrino-antineutrino mixing via magnetic moment.
Explicitly required for the flavor-changing mixing result stated in the abstract.
domain assumption Magnetic field reaches ~10^{15} G inside the collapsing core.
Taken from the magnetorotational-collapse simulation setup.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5549 in / 1558 out tokens · 75155 ms · 2026-05-15T13:01:21.565355+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

idϱ/dt = [H,ϱ] with H containing vacuum + Ve/Vn + μB⊥ terms; resonance conditions ρYe|MSW(H) = |Δm²31|mN/(2√2GF E cos2θ13)

What do these tags mean?

matches: The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports: The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends: The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses: The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts: The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear: Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

90 extracted references · 90 canonical work pages · 25 internal anchors

[1]

J.29514–23

Bethe H A and Wilson J R 1985Astrophys. J.29514–23

work page
[2]

Janka H T 2012Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.62407–451 (Preprint1206.2503)

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv
[3]

M¨ uller B 2020Liv. Rev. Comput. Astrophys.63 (Preprint2006.05083)

work page arXiv
[4]

Burrows A and Vartanyan D 2021Nature58929–39 (Preprint2009.14157)

work page arXiv
[5]

Bisnovatyi-Kogan G S 1970Astronomicheskii Zhurnal47813

work page
[6]

J.161541

LeBlanc J M and Wilson J R 1970Astrophys. J.161541

work page
[7]

Meier D L, Epstein R I, Arnett W D and Schramm D N 1976Astrophysical Journal204869–878

work page
[8]

Wheeler J C, Meier D L and Wilson J R 2002Astrophysical Journal568807–819

work page
[9]

Balbus S A and Hawley J F 1991Astrophysical Journal376214–233

work page
[10]

Akiyama S, Wheeler J C, Meier D L and et al 2003Astrophysical Journal584954–970

work page
[11]

Related progenitor models for long-duration gamma ray bursts and Type Ic superluminous supernovae

Aguilera-Dena D R, Langer N, Moriya T J and Schootemeijer A 2018Astrophys. J.858115 (Preprint1804.07317)

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv
[12]

Obergaulinger M and Aloy M ´A 2022Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.5122489–2507 (Preprint 2108.13864)

work page arXiv
[13]

Supernova Neutrinos: Production, Oscillations and Detection

Mirizzi A, Tamborra I, Janka H T, Saviano N, Scholberg K, Bollig R, H¨ udepohl L and Chakraborty S 2016Riv. Nuovo Cim.391–112 (Preprint1508.00785)

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv
[14]

Raffelt G G, Janka H T and Fiorillo D F G 2025 (Preprint2509.16306)

work page arXiv 2025
[15]

Phys.7285–298 (Preprint2412.09699)

Tamborra I 2025Nature Rev. Phys.7285–298 (Preprint2412.09699)

work page arXiv
[16]

Just O, Aloy M ´A, Obergaulinger M and Nagataki S 2022Astrophys. J. Lett.934L30 (Preprint 2205.14158)

work page arXiv
[17]

Numerical Study on GRB-Jet Formation in Collapsars

Nagataki S, Takahashi R, Mizuta A and Takiwaki T 2007Astrophys. J.659512–529 (Preprint astro-ph/0608233)

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv
[18]

Long-Term Evolution of Slowly Rotating Collapsar in Special Relativistic Magnetohydrodynamics

Harikae S, Takiwaki T and Kotake K 2009Astrophys. J.704354–371 (Preprint0905.2006)

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006
[19]

Obergaulinger M and Aloy M ´A 2017Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.469L43–L47 (Preprint 1703.09893) 15 M. Mannoet al

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv
[20]

J.956100 (Preprint 2212.03958)

Fujibayashi S, Sekiguchi Y, Shibata M and Wanajo S 2023Astrophys. J.956100 (Preprint 2212.03958)

work page arXiv
[21]

Issa D, Gottlieb O, Metzger B D, Jacquemin-Ide J, Liska M, Foucart F, Halevi G and Tchekhovskoy A 2025Astrophys. J. Lett.985L26 (Preprint2410.02852)

work page arXiv
[22]

Shibata M, Fujibayashi S, Wanajo S, Ioka K, Lam A T L and Sekiguchi Y 2025Phys. Rev. D 111123017 (Preprint2502.02077)

work page arXiv
[23]

Dean C and Fern´ andez R 2024Phys. Rev. D109083010 (Preprint2403.08877)

work page arXiv
[24]

Fern´ andez R, Janke S, Dean C and Tamborra I 2025Phys. Rev. D112123047 (Preprint 2507.17836)

work page arXiv
[25]

Mart´ ınez-Mirav´ e P, Tamborra I, Aloy M´A and Obergaulinger M 2024Phys. Rev. D110103029 (Preprint2409.09126)

work page arXiv
[26]

J.909169 (Preprint2010.04728)

Kresse D, Ertl T and Janka H T 2021Astrophys. J.909169 (Preprint2010.04728)

work page arXiv
[27]

Møller K, Suliga A M, Tamborra I and Denton P B 2018JCAP05066 (Preprint1804.03157)

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv
[28]

Ando S, Ekanger N, Horiuchi S and Koshio Y 2023Proceedings of the Japan Academy, Series B99460–479

work page
[29]

Schilbach T S H, Caballero O L and McLaughlin G C 2019Phys. Rev. D100043008 (Preprint 1808.03627)

work page arXiv
[30]

J.966101 (Preprint2403.16856)

Wei Y F, Liu T and Song C Y 2024Astrophys. J.966101 (Preprint2403.16856)

work page arXiv
[31]

Mart´ ınez-Mirav´ e P, Tamborra I and Vigna-G´ omez A 2025Astrophys. J. Lett.984L2 (Preprint 2501.03330)

work page arXiv
[32]

Horiuchi S and Kneller J P 2018J. Phys. G45043002 (Preprint1709.01515)

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv
[33]

Pantaleone J T 1992Phys. Lett. B287128–132

work page
[34]

Sawyer R F 2009Phys. Rev. D79105003 (Preprint0803.4319)

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv
[35]

Sawyer R F 2016Phys. Rev. Lett.116081101 (Preprint1509.03323)

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv
[36]

Wolfenstein L 1978Phys. Rev. D172369–2374

work page
[37]

Mikheyev S P and Smirnov A Y 1985Sov. J. Nucl. Phys.42913–917

work page
[38]

Dighe A S and Smirnov A Y 2000Phys. Rev. D62033007

work page
[39]

Tamborra I and Shalgar S 2021Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.71165–188 (Preprint2011.01948)

work page arXiv
[40]

Volpe M C 2024Rev. Mod. Phys.96025004 (Preprint2301.11814)

work page arXiv
[41]

Johns L, Richers S and Wu M R 2025Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.75399–423 (Preprint2503. 05959)

work page
[42]

Giunti C and Studenikin A 2015Rev. Mod. Phys.87531 (Preprint1403.6344)

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv
[43]

Navas Set al.(Particle Data Group) 2024Phys. Rev. D110030001

work page
[44]

Fujikawa K and Shrock R 1980Phys. Rev. Lett.45963

work page
[45]

Space Sci.1087–92

Cisneros A 1971Astrophys. Space Sci.1087–92

work page
[46]

Schechter J and Valle J W F 1981Phys. Rev. D241883–1889 [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 25, 283 (1982)]

work page 1982
[47]

Voloshin M B and Vysotsky M I 1986Sov. J. Nucl. Phys.44544

work page
[48]

Okun L B, Voloshin M B and Vysotsky M I 1986Sov. Phys. JETP64446–452

work page
[49]

Akhmedov E K 1988Phys. Lett. B21364–68

work page
[50]

Mannoet al

Akhmedov E K and Fukuyama T 2003JCAP12007 16 M. Mannoet al

work page
[51]

de Gouvˆ ea A and Shalgar S 2012JCAP10027 (Preprint1207.0516)

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv
[52]

Obergaulinger M and Aloy M ´A In preparation

work page
[53]

Abbasi Ret al.(IceCube Collaboration) 2011Astronomy and Astrophysics535A109 (Preprint 1108.0171)

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv
[54]

Abe Ket al.(Hyper-Kamiokande) 2018 (Preprint1805.04163)

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018
[55]

Core-collapse supernova equations of state based on neutron star observations

Steiner A W, Hempel M and Fischer T 2013Astrophys. J.77417 (Preprint1207.2184)

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv
[56]

Metzger B D, Giannios D, Thompson T A, Bucciantini N and Quataert E 2011Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.4132031 (Preprint1012.0001)

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv
[57]

Effects of Fall-Back Accretion on Proto-Magnetar Outflows in Gamma-Ray Bursts and Superluminous Supernovae

Metzger B D, Beniamini P and Giannios D 2018Astrophys. J.85795 (Preprint1802.07750)

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv
[58]

thesis University of Valencia

Griffiths A 2026The last five minutes of evolution of magnetic fields and rotation of massive starsPh.D. thesis University of Valencia

work page
[59]

Tamborra I, Raffelt G G, Hanke F, Janka H T and M¨ ueller B 2014Phys. Rev. D90045032 (Preprint1406.0006)

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv
[60]

Tamborra I, Hanke F, M¨ uller B, Janka H T and Raffelt G G 2013Phys. Rev. Lett.111121104 (Preprint1307.7936)

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv
[61]

Walk L, Tamborra I, Janka H T, Summa A and Kresse D 2020Phys. Rev. D101123013 (Preprint1910.12971)

work page arXiv
[62]

Walk L, Tamborra I, Janka H T and Summa A 2018Phys. Rev. D98123001 (Preprint1807. 02366)

work page
[63]

Drago M, Andresen H, Di Palma I, Tamborra I and Torres-Forn´ e A 2023Phys. Rev. D108 103036 (Preprint2305.07688)

work page arXiv
[64]

Lund T, Marek A, Lunardini C, Janka H T and Raffelt G G 2010Phys. Rev. D82063007 (Preprint1006.1889)

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv
[65]

Vartanyan D, Burrows A and Radice D 2019Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.4892227–2246 (Preprint1906.08787)

work page arXiv
[66]

Nagakura H, Burrows A, Vartanyan D and Radice D 2020Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.500 696–717 (Preprint2007.05000)

work page arXiv
[67]

Lin Z, Rijal A, Lunardini C, Morales M D and Zanolin M 2023Phys. Rev. D107083017 (Preprint2211.07878)

work page arXiv
[68]

J.590971–991 (Preprintastro-ph/ 0208035)

Keil M T, Raffelt G G and Janka H T 2003Astrophys. J.590971–991 (Preprintastro-ph/ 0208035)

work page
[69]

Tamborra I, M¨ uller B, H¨ udepohl L, Janka H T and Raffelt G G 2012Phys. Rev. D86125031 (Preprint1211.3920)

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv
[70]

de Salas P F, Forero D V, Gariazzo S, Mart´ ınez-Mirav´ e P, Mena O, Ternes C A, T´ ortola M and Valle J W F 2021JHEP02071 (Preprint2006.11237)

work page arXiv
[71]

Balantekin A B, Gava J and Volpe C 2008Phys. Lett. B662396–404 (Preprint0710.3112)

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv
[72]

Botella F J, Lim C S and Marciano W J 1987Phys. Rev. D35496

work page
[73]

Landau L D 1932Phys. Z. Sowjetunion246–51

work page
[74]

Zener C 1932Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A137696–702

work page
[75]

Kuo T K and Pantaleone J T 1989Phys. Rev. D391930

work page
[76]

Esteban-Pretel A, Pastor S, Tom` as R, Raffelt G G and Sigl G 2008Phys. Rev. D77065024 (Preprint0712.1137)

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv
[77]

Giunti C, Kouzakov K, Li Y F and Studenikin A 2025Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.751–33 (Preprint2411.03122) 17 M. Mannoet al

work page arXiv
[78]

Lim C S and Marciano W J 1988Phys. Rev. D37(6) 1368–1373 URLhttps://link.aps.org/ doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.37.1368

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.37.1368
[79]

Akhmedov E K 1989Sov. Phys. JETP68690–696

work page
[80]

Akhmedov E K, Petcov S T and Smirnov A Y 1993Phys. Rev. D482167–2181 (Preprint hep-ph/9301211)

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

Showing first 80 references.