Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 90 references

3D supernova models converge to a lower late-time anti-electron-neutrino pinching floor than 1D theory, with black-hole cases showing early anti-pinching and large viewing-angle scatter.

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 · grok-4.5

2026-07-14 23:00 UTC pith:GSZSSNVA

load-bearing objection Solid first 3D survey of alpha_p on the Fornax ensemble; the floor number is usable with a transport caveat, the BH and sky-map results are cleaner. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2603.11272 v2 pith:GSZSSNVA submitted 2026-03-11 astro-ph.HE hep-ph

Neutrino Spectral Pinching in 3D Core-Collapse Supernovae: Late-Time Convergence, Failed-Explosion Signatures, and Viewing-Angle Dispersion

Nicol\'as Viaux M This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE hep-ph PACS 97.60.Bw14.60.Pq26.30.-k95.55.Vj
keywords core-collapse supernovaeneutrino spectral pinchingalpha_pproto-neutron star coolingLESAblack-hole formationviewing-angle dispersionneutrino mass ordering
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.

When a massive star's core collapses, almost all of the binding energy leaves as neutrinos whose energy spectra encode the proto-neutron-star's temperature structure and cooling path. This paper systematically measures the spectral pinching parameter alpha_p across twenty-five three-dimensional simulations that span a wide range of progenitor masses and run as long as 8.5 seconds after bounce. It finds that the anti-electron-neutrino spectrum settles to a floor near 1.92, about 0.2-0.4 units below classic one-dimensional predictions, because three-dimensional convection inside the proto-neutron star broadens the spectrum. Both black-hole-forming models already display strong anti-pinching half a second before collapse, while successful explosions retain a large angular variation in alpha_p set by the LESA dipole and higher multipoles. The resulting spectral templates and viewing-angle uncertainties feed directly into event-rate forecasts for Hyper-Kamiokande, DUNE, JUNO and IceCube, and into the ability of those detectors to distinguish neutrino mass orderings during the cooling phase.

Core claim

Across the N=13 long-running three-dimensional models that reach deep into the Kelvin-Helmholtz cooling phase, the angle-averaged anti-electron-neutrino pinching parameter converges to a floor alpha_p = 1.92 +/- 0.10, lying 0.2-0.4 below one-dimensional Boltzmann predictions; the two black-hole-forming models instead develop anti-pinching (alpha_p less than or equal to 0.9) with a deficit already visible at 0.5 s post-bounce, and viewing-angle spreads of 0.8-1.5 dominate spectral-inversion uncertainty for successful explosions.

What carries the argument

The quasi-thermal pinching parameter alpha_p = (2 <E>^2 - E_rms^2)/(E_rms^2 - <E>^2), extracted from twelve-bin spectral moments on a 128 by 256 sky grid for each neutrino species, which converts the first two energy moments into a single shape diagnostic that tracks neutrinosphere temperature gradients, accretion tails and three-dimensional asymmetries.

Load-bearing premise

The claim that the two-moment transport and chosen equation of state already capture the true spectral second moments well enough that the measured 0.2-0.4 offset from one-dimensional Boltzmann results is physical rather than numerical.

What would settle it

A matched set of long-duration three-dimensional Boltzmann-transport simulations of the same progenitors that either recover a late-time anti-electron-neutrino floor near 2.2-2.3 or confirm the 1.92 floor and the early anti-pinching of the black-hole models.

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

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • Next-generation detectors can use the 1.92 floor as a simulation-motivated prior when reconstructing mean energy and total radiated energy from a Galactic supernova.
  • An early drop of alpha_p by about 0.65 already at half a second post-bounce would flag a failed explosion before the luminosity cutoff.
  • Viewing-angle scatter of 0.8-1.5 must be folded into any spectral inversion; multi-detector triangulation or a LESA-orientation prior becomes essential.
  • The 8-12 percent normal-versus-inverted mass-ordering rate difference during cooling remains measurable once geometric systematics are controlled.
  • The late-time leptonic energy fraction of roughly 40 percent supplies a robust partition for nucleosynthesis and oscillation calculations.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the lower three-dimensional floor is real, analyses of the SN 1987A events that adopted a higher alpha_p prior systematically overestimated the mean anti-electron-neutrino energy.
  • The same anti-correlation between local luminosity and alpha_p seen on the sky maps implies that a detector sitting in a bright LESA hemisphere will simultaneously measure a harder spectrum and a lower pinching parameter, tightening joint spectral-luminosity constraints.
  • Because both black-hole models suppress the LESA dipole by more than a factor of three, a null detection of large-scale angular asymmetry in a high-statistics burst could itself be an early black-hole diagnostic.
  • Extending the same moment analysis to independent multi-group Boltzmann codes would immediately test whether the floor offset survives changes in transport closure.

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

3 major / 0 minor

Summary. This paper surveys the neutrino spectral pinching parameter α_p(t,M,n̂) across 25 Princeton Fornax 3D CCSN simulations (8.1–100 M_⊙, SFHo EOS, durations up to 8.47 s). α_p is computed from 12-bin spectral moments on a 128×256 sky grid for ν_e, ν̄_e and ν_x. The main claims are: (1) a late-time ν̄_e pinching floor α_p = 1.92 ± 0.10 from N=13 models with t_max > 3.5 s, stated to lie 0.2–0.4 below 1D Prometheus-Vertex results because of 3D PNS convection; (2) both BH-forming models (12.25, 14 M_⊙) show anti-pinching (α_p ≲ 0.9) with Δα_p ≈ 0.65 already at t = 0.5 s; (3) hierarchy reversal in two of six long-running models after t = 5 s, with leptonic energy fraction 0.40 ± 0.03; (4) LESA dipole suppressed by ≳3 imes in BH models and viewing-angle Δα_p(68%) ≈ 0.8–1.5 dominating spectral-inversion uncertainty. Oscillation-corrected rates at Hyper-K, DUNE, JUNO and IceCube give 8–12% NMO/IMO discrimination in the cooling phase.

Significance. If the late-time floor and the early BH anti-pinching signature hold under independent transport schemes, the paper supplies the first homogeneous 3D prior on α_p for next-generation detectors and a candidate pre-collapse spectral discriminant for failed explosions. Strengths include direct moment-based α_p (Eq. 4) rather than quasi-thermal fits, documented quality cuts and smoothing robustness (Appendix A), explicit N=13 selection, Spearman coefficients with sample sizes, f+ hierarchy fractions, and public-ensemble Mollweide maps that quantify viewing-angle systematics. The LESA suppression and multipole decomposition of σ_geom_α_p are useful complementary diagnostics. The work is a natural and valuable extension of Choi et al. on the same suite.

major comments (3)
  1. The headline claim that the floor α_ν̄e_p = 1.92 ± 0.10 lies 0.2–0.4 below Hüdepohl et al. because of 3D PNS convection is not yet secured. Sec. II A states that M1 overestimates tangential radiation pressure relative to Boltzmann and that angle-averaged moments agree to ≲5% only in the accretion phase; Sec. III A explicitly notes that cooling-phase systematic differences versus full Boltzmann transport remain unquantified. Because α_p depends sensitively on the normalized variance (Eq. 4), a few-percent bias in E_rms/⟨E⟩ maps into Δα_p of order 0.2–0.4—exactly the claimed offset. The paper should either (i) reframe the floor as an M1/SFHo ensemble result and demote the 1D comparison to a qualitative remark, or (ii) provide a quantitative cooling-phase M1-vs-Boltzmann estimate (even from published 1D/2D cross-checks) that bounds the transport systematic below the reported scatter.
  2. The BH anti-pinching result (Sec. IV D) is an intra-ensemble contrast and therefore more robust, but rests on only N=2 models (12.25 and 14 M_⊙). The abstract and conclusions present Δα_p ≈ 0.65 at t = 0.5 s as a general failed-explosion signature. The manuscript already notes that a larger multi-EOS sample is required; this caveat should be elevated into the abstract and the final bullet list so that the claim is not over-read as a universal precursor.
  3. Sec. V E quotes 8–12% NMO/IMO discrimination during Kelvin–Helmholtz cooling while Sec. IV F 2 reports σ_geom_α_p ≈ 0.4–0.75 (factor 3–6 above statistical precision). The text acknowledges that unknown viewing angle can suppress the apparent rate asymmetry, but the abstract and conclusions still present the 8–12% figure without that systematic. Either fold the geometric uncertainty into the quoted discrimination power or state clearly that the percentage assumes a known LESA orientation / multi-detector triangulation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: empirical post-processing survey of public Fornax moments; floor and BH signatures are measured, not forced by definition or fit.

full rationale

The paper is a systematic survey of the pinching parameter α_p across an existing public 3D ensemble. α_p is defined from the first two spectral moments via the standard quasi-thermal inversion (Eq. 4), which does not encode the later-reported floor value. The late-time floor α_ν̄e_p = 1.92 ± 0.10 is the mean of per-model time averages over t > 3 s for the N = 13 long-running models; it is a measurement, not a fitted free parameter that is then re-presented as a prediction. BH anti-pinching, hierarchy-reversal fractions f_+, LESA amplitudes, and sky-map correlations are likewise direct reductions of the same moment and angle-resolved data products. Citations to Fornax code papers and to Choi et al. supply the simulation suite and prior luminosity analyses; they do not supply a uniqueness theorem or ansatz that forces the floor or the BH deficit. Comparison to Hüdepohl et al. 1D results is an external benchmark, not a self-citation loop. Concerns about M1 cooling-phase accuracy versus Boltzmann transport affect correctness risk, not circularity. The derivation chain is self-contained and non-circular.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central floor and anti-pinching claims rest on the Fornax M1+SFHo simulation suite, the two-moment definition of alpha_p, and a small set of analysis choices (smoothing window, quality cuts, N=13 selection). No new physical entities are postulated; free parameters are analysis knobs rather than fitted physics constants.

free parameters (3)
  • 25 ms boxcar smoothing window
    Chosen by hand to suppress SASI/convective noise while preserving secular trends; robustness checked at 10 and 100 ms but the adopted value still enters every quoted floor and Spearman coefficient.
  • N=13 long-running model cut (t_max > 3.5 s)
    Defines the sample that produces the headline floor 1.92 +/- 0.10; shorter runs are excluded by construction.
  • Quality-cut thresholds (E_rms^2 - <E>^2 < 0.01 MeV^2 or alpha_p < -0.5)
    Discard <0.4 % of time steps; authors show they do not affect the BH trajectory or cooling floor, yet they remain analysis choices.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Two-moment (M1) neutrino transport with Minerbo closure reproduces angle-averaged spectral moments to ~5-10 % accuracy relative to Boltzmann/VEF codes during accretion; cooling-phase accuracy is assumed comparable.
    Stated in Sec. II A; the claimed 0.2-0.4 offset from 1D Boltzmann results sits inside this uncertainty band.
  • domain assumption SFHo equation of state (M_max ~ 2.05 M_sun) correctly places the two failed models above the BH-formation threshold.
    All 25 runs use SFHo; BH identification and the anti-pinching sample rest on this choice (Sec. II B).
  • domain assumption Alpha_p defined from the first two energy moments (Eq. 4) is an adequate spectral-shape diagnostic even when the true spectrum is not strictly quasi-thermal.
    Authors note that anti-pinching still appears as an increase in E_rms^2/<E>^2; the floor value inherits this definition (Sec. III A).
  • domain assumption MSW adiabatic conversion with no collective or fast-flavor oscillations is a sufficient description for the cooling-phase NMO/IMO rate asymmetry.
    Sec. V F explicitly flags the omission of collective oscillations and FFI; the 8-12 % discrimination claim rests on this approximation.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 31107 in / 3453 out tokens · 31219 ms · 2026-07-14T23:00:00.987909+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Neutrino Spectral Pinching in 3D Core-Collapse Supernovae: Late-Time Convergence, Failed-Explosion Signatures, and Viewing-Angle Dispersion." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GSZSSNVA

@misc{pith2026260311272,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Neutrino Spectral Pinching in 3D Core-Collapse Supernovae: Late-Time Convergence, Failed-Explosion Signatures, and Viewing-Angle Dispersion},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GSZSSNVA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2603.11272}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

We present a systematic survey of the neutrino spectral pinching parameter alpha_p(t, M, n-hat) across the Princeton Fornax ensemble of 3D core-collapse supernova simulations. We analyze 25 simulations spanning progenitor masses 8.1-100 M_sun with durations up to 8.47 s post-bounce, computed with the Fornax code and the SFHo equation of state. The pinching parameter alpha_p = (2^2 - E_rms^2)/(E_rms^2 - ^2) is derived from 12-bin spectral moments on a 128x256 sky grid for three neutrino species, enabling time- and angle-resolved spectral characterization. Four results emerge. (1) The nu-bar_e pinching floor is alpha_p = 1.92 +/- 0.10 (N=13 long-running models), lying 0.2-0.4 below 1D predictions due to 3D PNS convection. (2) Both BH-forming models (12.25, 14 M_sun) show anti-pinching (alpha_p < 0.9) before collapse, with deficit Delta alpha_p ~ 0.65 visible from t = 0.5 s. (3) Two of six long-running models exhibit a hierarchy reversal ( > ) after t = 5 s; leptonic flavors carry (40 +/- 3)% of radiated energy. (4) The LESA dipole is suppressed by >3x in BH-forming models; viewing-angle spread Delta alpha_p(68%) ~ 0.8-1.5 dominates spectral-inversion uncertainty. Mollweide sky maps reveal coherent angular structures with alpha_p anticorrelated with luminosity and correlated with mean energy. Detection rates at Hyper-Kamiokande, DUNE, JUNO, and IceCube yield 8-12% NMO/IMO discrimination during Kelvin-Helmholtz cooling. The late-time nu-bar_e pinching floor represents the first 3D characterization of spectral convergence during Kelvin-Helmholtz cooling.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.11272 by Nicol\'as Viaux M.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Neutrino luminosity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Spectral pinching parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Spectral pinching [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Mean neutrino energy evolution [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Luminosity (top row) and spectral pinching (bottom row) for all 25 models. Background lines are colored by progenitor [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Total radiated neutrino energy vs. progenitor mass. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. 3D angular signatures from the Princeton/ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Mollweide sky maps of the ¯ν [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Joint Mollweide sky maps of ¯ν [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Predicted detection event rates at Hyper-K (left), DUNE (center), and JUNO (right) for a CCSN at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Oscillation-corrected Hyper-K IBD rates for all 25 models at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Smoothing robustness test for the 17 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_12.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

90 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    This ordering reflects different optical depths at decoupling

    General Trends During the accretion phase (t pb ≲0.5 s), theν e spec- trum is most pinched (α νe p ≈2.5–3.5), followed by ¯ν e (≈2.2–3.0) andν x (≈2.0–2.8). This ordering reflects different optical depths at decoupling. In the diffusion approximation, the ratioE rms/⟨E⟩at the neutrinosphere satisfies E2 rms ⟨E⟩2 ≈1 + 1 αp + 1 = αp + 2 αp + 1,(6) so that a...

  2. [2]

    Mass Dependence at Fixed Epoch The mass dependence ofα p at three post-bounce epochs (t= 0.5, 1.0, and 3.0 s) is shown in Fig. 3. Att= 0.5 s, there is anegativecorrelation between progenitor mass andα ¯νe p across the full 25-model sample: 5 FIG. 1. Neutrino luminosityL s(t) for all 25Fornaxmodels, grouped by explosion outcome and mass regime. Colors run ...

  3. [3]

    As the stalled shock retreats, the ram pressure of infalling material would force the neutri- nosphere to larger radii at lower optical depth

    Pre-Collapse Anti-Pinching Mechanism A natural candidate mechanism for the anti-pinching observed in BH-forming models is the growing accretion luminosity component. As the stalled shock retreats, the ram pressure of infalling material would force the neutri- nosphere to larger radii at lower optical depth. In this regime, the emerging spectrum could be a...

  4. [4]

    Failed models remain below this threshold until ˙Mdrives the PNS mass past the maximum sta- ble mass of the SFHo EOS

    Critical Luminosity and BH Formation The critical condition for shock revival in the neutrino- driven mechanism can be written as [8, 43] Lνe ⟨Eνe⟩2 +L ¯νe ⟨E¯νe⟩2 > C(M PNS, ˙M , RPNS),(9) whereCis a function of the mass accretion rate and PNS properties. Failed models remain below this threshold until ˙Mdrives the PNS mass past the maximum sta- ble mass...

  5. [5]

    LESA Dipole Amplitude The Lepton-number Emission Self-sustained Asymme- try [LESA; 67] is a characteristic 3D instability in which one hemisphere emits preferentiallyν e and the other ¯νe. We quantify the LESA dipole as ε(t) = | ⃗D(t)| Llep(t) , ⃗D= Z ∆L(ˆn) ˆn dΩ, Llep = Z Lνe(ˆn) +L¯νe(ˆn) 2 dΩ,(11) where ∆L(ˆn) =L νe(ˆn)−L ¯νe(ˆn) is the lepton-number ...

  6. [6]

    Quasi-thermal floor

    Viewing-Angle Spread ofα p Althoughα p is not directly detected, it can be inferred from the energy distribution of detected events at terres- trial neutrino observatories (Section V D); each direction on the sky yields a different effective spectrum, and hence a different inferredα p. Because the spectral pinching parameterα p is derived from number-weig...

    2024

  7. [7]

    2011, A&A, 535, A109

    Abbasi, R., et al. 2011, A&A, 535, A109

    2011

  8. [8]

    E., Sukhold, T., & Ugliano, M

    Ertl, T., Janka, H.-T., Woosley, S. E., Sukhold, T., & Ugliano, M. 2016, ApJ, 818, 124

    2016

  9. [9]

    M., et al

    Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 167

    2022

  10. [10]

    2018, JCAP, 2018, 025

    Brdar, V., Lindner, M., & Xu, X. 2018, JCAP, 2018, 025

    2018

  11. [11]

    A., & Wilson, J

    Bethe, H. A., & Wilson, J. R. 1985, ApJ, 295, 14

    1985

  12. [12]

    Bruenn, S. W. 1985, ApJS, 58, 771

    1985

  13. [13]

    W., Lentz, E

    Bruenn, S. W., Lentz, E. J., Hix, W. R., et al. 2016, ApJ, 818, 123

    2016

  14. [14]

    2013, Rev

    Burrows, A. 2013, Rev. Mod. Phys., 85, 245

    2013

  15. [15]

    Burrows, A., & Lattimer, J. M. 1986, ApJ, 307, 178

    1986

  16. [16]

    2019, MNRAS, 491, 2715

    Burrows, A., Radice, D., & Vartanyan, D. 2019, MNRAS, 491, 2715

    2019

  17. [17]

    Burrows, A., Reddy, S., & Thompson, T. A. 2006, Nucl. Phys. A, 777, 356

    2006

  18. [18]

    2020, Phys

    Capozzi, F., Chakraborty, S., Mirizzi, A., & Saviano, N. 2020, Phys. Rev. D, 101, 023024

    2020

  19. [19]

    H., Essig, R., & McDermott, S

    Chang, J. H., Essig, R., & McDermott, S. D. 2018, JHEP, 2018, 51

    2018

  20. [20]

    2025, Phys

    Choi, W., Burrows, A., & Vartanyan, D. 2025, Phys. Rev. D, 111, 123038

    2025

  21. [21]

    A., & White, R

    Colgate, S. A., & White, R. H. 1966, ApJ, 143, 626

    1966

  22. [22]

    Coleman, M. S. B., Vartanyan, D., Burrows, A., et al. 2022, ApJ, 929, 14

    2022

  23. [23]

    G., & Smirnov, A

    Dasgupta, B., Dighe, A., Raffelt, G. G., & Smirnov, A. Yu. 2010, Phys. Rev. Lett., 103, 051105

    2010

  24. [24]

    1993,Curve and Surface Fitting with Splines (Oxford: Oxford Univ

    Dierckx, P. 1993,Curve and Surface Fitting with Splines (Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press)

    1993

  25. [25]

    S., & Smirnov, A

    Dighe, A. S., & Smirnov, A. Yu. 2000, Phys. Rev. D, 62, 033007

    2000

  26. [26]

    M., & Qian, Y.-Z

    Duan, H., Fuller, G. M., & Qian, Y.-Z. 2010, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci., 60, 569

    2010

  27. [27]

    DUNE Collaboration 2020, JINST, 15, T08008

    2020

  28. [28]

    Fiorillo, D. F. G., Pitik, T., & Vitagliano, E. 2025, Phys. Rev. D, 112, 083008

    2025

  29. [29]

    C., Mezzacappa, A., Thiele- mann, F.-K., & Liebend¨ orfer, M

    Fischer, T., Whitehouse, S. C., Mezzacappa, A., Thiele- mann, F.-K., & Liebend¨ orfer, M. 2010, A&A, 517, A80

    2010

  30. [30]

    1998, ApJ, 507, 339

    Hannestad, S., & Raffelt, G. 1998, ApJ, 507, 339

    1998

  31. [31]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357

    2020

  32. [32]

    H¨ udepohl, L., M¨ uller, B., Janka, H.-T., Marek, A., & Raffelt, G. G. 2010, Phys. Rev. Lett., 104, 251101

    2010

  33. [33]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Comput. Sci. Eng., 9, 90

    2007

  34. [34]

    Hyper-Kamiokande Collaboration 2018, arXiv:1805.04163

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  35. [35]

    2012, Annu

    Janka, H.-T. 2012, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci., 62, 407

    2012

  36. [36]

    2016, Annu

    Janka, H.-T., Melson, T., & Summa, A. 2016, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci., 66, 341

    2016

  37. [37]

    2015, MN- RAS, 453, 3386

    Just, O., Obergaulinger, M., & Janka, H.-T. 2015, MN- RAS, 453, 3386

    2015

  38. [38]

    JUNO Collaboration, An, F., et al. 2016, J. Phys. G, 43, 030401

    2016

  39. [39]

    2005, Phys

    Kachelriess, M., Tomas, R., Buras, R., Janka, H.-T., Marek, A., & Rampp, M. 2005, Phys. Rev. D, 71, 063003

    2005

  40. [40]

    T., Raffelt, G

    Keil, M. T., Raffelt, G. G., & Janka, H.-T. 2003, ApJ, 590, 971

    2003

  41. [41]

    M., & Prakash, M

    Lattimer, J. M., & Prakash, M. 2001, ApJ, 550, 426

    2001

  42. [42]

    W., & Beacom, J

    Li, S. W., & Beacom, J. F. 2023, Phys. Rev. D, 107, 023008

    2023

  43. [43]

    2009, ApJ, 694, 664

    Marek, A., & Janka, H.-T. 2009, ApJ, 694, 664

    2009

  44. [44]

    2006, A&A, 445, 273

    Marek, A., Dimmelmeier, H., Janka, H.-T., M¨ uller, E., & Buras, R. 2006, A&A, 445, 273

    2006

  45. [45]

    P., & Smirnov, A

    Mikheyev, S. P., & Smirnov, A. Yu. 1986, Sov. Phys. JETP, 64, 4

    1986

  46. [46]

    2008, Phys

    Minakata, H., Nunokawa, H., Teves, R., & Zukanovich Funchal, R. 2008, Phys. Rev. D, 78, 013005

    2008

  47. [47]

    Minerbo, G. N. 1978, J. Quant. Spectrosc. Radiat. Transf., 20, 541

    1978

  48. [48]

    2016, Riv

    Mirizzi, A., Tamborra, I., Janka, H.-T., et al. 2016, Riv. Nuovo Cimento, 39, 1

    2016

  49. [49]

    2012, ApJ, 761, 72

    M¨ uller, B., Janka, H.-T., & Heger, A. 2012, ApJ, 761, 72

    2012

  50. [50]

    2020, Living Rev

    M¨ uller, B. 2020, Living Rev. Comput. Astrophys., 6, 3

    2020

  51. [51]

    M., Heger, A., et al

    M¨ uller, B., Tauris, T. M., Heger, A., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 3307

    2019

  52. [52]

    2004, A&A, 414, 691

    M¨ uller, H.-T., & Janka, H.-T. 2004, A&A, 414, 691

    2004

  53. [53]

    2022, Phys

    Nikolakopoulos, A., Martini, M., Jachowicz, N., et al. 2022, Phys. Rev. C, 105, 054603

    2022

  54. [54]

    2021, MNRAS, 500, 696

    Nagakura, H., Burrows, A., Vartanyan, D., & Radice, D. 2021, MNRAS, 500, 696

    2021

  55. [55]

    P., & Couch, S

    O’Connor, E. P., & Couch, S. M. 2018, ApJ, 865, 81

    2018

  56. [56]

    O’Connor, E., & Ott, C. D. 2011, ApJ, 730, 70

    2011

  57. [57]

    D., Dasgupta, B., & Burrows, A

    Ott, C. D., Dasgupta, B., & Burrows, A. 2008, Phys. Rev. D, 77, 123001

    2008

  58. [58]

    2024, Phys

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

    2024

  59. [59]

    A., Reddy, S., Prakash, M., Lattimer, J

    Pons, J. A., Reddy, S., Prakash, M., Lattimer, J. M., & Miralles, J. A. 1999, ApJ, 513, 780

    1999

  60. [60]

    A., Miralles, J

    Pons, J. A., Miralles, J. A., Prakash, M., & Lattimer, J. M. 2001, ApJ, 553, 382

    2001

  61. [61]

    Qian, Y.-Z., & Woosley, S. E. 1996, ApJ, 471, 331

    1996

  62. [62]

    A., & Dolence, J

    Radice, D., Burrows, A., Vartanyan, D., Skinner, M. A., & Dolence, J. C. 2017, ApJ, 850, 136

    2017

  63. [63]

    Raffelt, G. G. 1996,Stars as Laboratories for Fundamen- tal Physics(Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press)

    1996

  64. [64]

    Raffelt, G. G. 2012, Phys. Rev. D, 85, 085011

    2012

  65. [65]

    F., Shen, G., Cirigliano, V., Pons, J

    Roberts, L. F., Shen, G., Cirigliano, V., Pons, J. A., Reddy, S., & Woosley, S. E. 2012, Phys. Rev. Lett., 108, 061103

    2012

  66. [66]

    D., Chakraborty, S., Fischer, T., H¨ udepohl, L., Janka, H.-T., & Mirizzi, A

    Serpico, P. D., Chakraborty, S., Fischer, T., H¨ udepohl, L., Janka, H.-T., & Mirizzi, A. 2012, Phys. Rev. D, 85, 085031

    2012

  67. [67]

    A., Dolence, J

    Skinner, M. A., Dolence, J. C., Burrows, A., Radice, D., & Vartanyan, D. 2019, ApJS, 241, 7

    2019

  68. [68]

    W., Hempel, M., & Fischer, T

    Steiner, A. W., Hempel, M., & Fischer, T. 2013, ApJ, 774, 17

    2013

  69. [69]

    2003, Phys

    Strumia, A., & Vissani, F. 2003, Phys. Lett. B, 564, 42

    2003

  70. [70]

    E., Brown, J

    Sukhbold, T., Ertl, T., Woosley, S. E., Brown, J. M., & Janka, H.-T. 2016, ApJ, 821, 38

    2016

  71. [71]

    2012, Phys

    Tamborra, I., M¨ uller, B., H¨ udepohl, L., Janka, H.-T., & Raffelt, G. 2012, Phys. Rev. D, 86, 125031

    2012

  72. [72]

    2013, ApJ, 770, 103

    Tamborra, I., Hanhart, C., Janka, H.-T., & Raffelt, G. 2013, ApJ, 770, 103

    2013

  73. [73]

    2014a, JCAP, 2014, 030

    Tamborra, I., Raffelt, G., H¨ udepohl, L., & Janka, H.-T. 2014a, JCAP, 2014, 030

    2014

  74. [74]

    2014b, Phys

    Tamborra, I., Hanke, F., M¨ uller, B., Janka, H.-T., & Raffelt, G. 2014b, Phys. Rev. Lett., 113, 191101

  75. [75]

    2012, ApJ, 757, 69

    Ugliano, M., Janka, H.-T., Marek, A., & Arcones, A. 2012, ApJ, 757, 69

    2012

  76. [76]

    2019, Phys

    Walk, L., Tamborra, I., Janka, H.-T., & Summa, A. 2019, Phys. Rev. D, 100, 063018

    2019

  77. [77]

    2020, Phys

    Walk, L., Tamborra, I., Janka, H.-T., Summa, A., & 22 Kresse, D. 2020, Phys. Rev. D, 101, 123013

    2020

  78. [78]

    A., & Dolence, J

    Vartanyan, D., Burrows, A., Radice, D., Skinner, M. A., & Dolence, J. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 351

    2019

  79. [79]

    Vartanyan, D., Coleman, M. S. B., & Burrows, A. 2021, MNRAS, 510, 4689

    2021

  80. [80]

    2023, ApJS, 264, 53

    Vartanyan, D., Wang, T., Burrows, A., et al. 2023, ApJS, 264, 53

    2023

Showing first 80 references.