pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.17840 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-20 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE · hep-ph

Recognition: unknown

Rotation-induced Relaxation of Supernova Constraints on Axionlike Particles

Tsurugi Takata , Kanji Mori , Ko Nakamura , Kei Kotake
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 04:34 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE hep-ph
keywords axion-like particlessupernova constraintsstellar rotationSN 1987Aenergy-loss argumentALP emissioncore-collapse simulationsgamma-ray limits
0
0 comments X

The pith

Rotation in core-collapse supernovae relaxes energy-loss bounds on MeV-scale axion-like particles.

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

The paper shows that stellar rotation lowers the temperature in the supernova core through centrifugal support, which reduces the rate at which axion-like particles are emitted more strongly than it reduces neutrino emission. When this effect is included in two-dimensional simulations of 13, 14+9, and 18 solar-mass progenitors, the simple energy-loss criterion that had previously ruled out certain ALP-photon couplings no longer excludes them as strongly, especially for the rotating 18 solar-mass model near 1 second after bounce. The gamma-ray fluence limit from SN 1987A remains essentially unchanged because that bound scales with the fourth power of the coupling constant and is therefore less sensitive to the overall suppression of ALP production.

Core claim

Adopting initial core angular velocities of 0 and 1 rad s^{-1}, we perform two-dimensional core-collapse supernova simulations for three solar-metallicity progenitors and post-process the ALP emission rates. Rotation suppresses ALP emission by lowering the core temperature via centrifugal support; this suppression is more effective than the corresponding reduction in neutrino luminosity, so the energy-loss argument yields relaxed constraints on the ALP-photon coupling. The relaxation is strongest in the rotating 18 M⊙ model, where central temperature drops sharply at t_pb = 0.8–1 s. Rapid temporal temperature variations make the resulting bounds sensitive to the chosen evaluation time. For a

What carries the argument

Centrifugal support in rotating 2D core-collapse simulations that lowers central temperature and thereby suppresses post-processed ALP emission rates relative to non-rotating cases.

If this is right

  • Energy-loss constraints on the ALP-photon coupling are weaker for rotating progenitors than for non-rotating ones.
  • The relaxation is largest for the 18 M⊙ model around 0.8–1 s post-bounce because of a pronounced central-temperature drop.
  • Gamma-ray fluence limits from SN 1987A are insensitive to rotation because they scale with the fourth power of the coupling.
  • Bounds obtained with the energy-loss argument depend on the exact post-bounce time chosen for evaluation when temperature varies rapidly.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If most core-collapse supernovae rotate at rates comparable to the 1 rad s^{-1} models, a larger region of ALP parameter space remains allowed by SN 1987A data.
  • Three-dimensional simulations with full rotation would be needed to confirm whether the temperature suppression and resulting relaxation persist.
  • The same centrifugal mechanism could alter other temperature-sensitive bounds, such as those from neutron-star cooling or early-universe production of ALPs.

Load-bearing premise

The simplified energy-loss criterion still gives a reliable upper bound on total ALP energy even when core temperature changes rapidly with time.

What would settle it

Integrate the ALP energy-loss rate over the entire cooling phase in a three-dimensional rotating supernova simulation and check whether the total exceeds the ~10^53 erg limit inferred from SN 1987A.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.17840 by Kanji Mori, Kei Kotake, Ko Nakamura, Tsurugi Takata.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Left and middle panels: A space-time diagram of the central temperature. In all models, the temperature peaks [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The radial profiles of the ALP cooling rate at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The time evolution of the neutrino luminosity and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The ALP-excluded region in the gaγ − ma plane obtained from energy-loss argument. The red (blue) hatched region represent the parameter space excluded by the non-rotating (rotating) models. Rotation relaxes the constraints due to the reduction of the ALP cooling rate. In the s18 model, the rotating model shows a significant decrease in ALP cooling rate at tpb = 1 s, making the impact of rotation on the exc… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: ALP energy distribution from Eq.9. The color coding is the same as in Fig. (2). The total emission spectrum [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The ALP-excluded region in the gaγ − ma plane obtained from gamma-ray limit for the m14 model. The color coding is the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We study how rotation modifies the constraints on MeV-scale axion-like particles (ALPs) coupled to photons derived from SN 1987A. We constrain the ALP parameter space based on both the energy-loss argument and the gamma-ray limits, and examine how these constraints are affected by stellar rotation. Adopting initial angular velocities of ${\Omega}_{0} = 0.0 and 1.0 rad s^{-1}$ in the iron core, we carry out two-dimensional core-collapse supernova simulations for three progenitor models - a $14 + 9M_{\odot}$ binary and $13M_{\odot}$ and $18M_{\odot}$ single stars with solar metallicity - and estimate ALP emission rates through post-processing. We find that rotation suppresses ALP emission by reducing the core temperature via centrifugal support. Rotation also reduces the neutrino luminosity, but the suppression of ALP emission is more effective, leading to relaxed constraints within a simplified criterion based on the energy-loss argument. This relaxation is particularly pronounced in the rotating $18M_{\odot}$ model, where a substantial decrease in the central temperature occurs at $t_{pb} = 0.8 - 1 s$. In this simplified criterion, such rapid temporal variations in temperature indicate that the resulting constraints depend sensitively on both the evaluation time and the underlying supernova model. For a gamma-ray limit from the SN 1987A observation, rotation has a negligible impact on the constraint. This is because the ALP-induced gamma-ray fluence observed at Earth is proportional to the fourth power of the ALP-photon coupling constant, making the constraint relatively insensitive to the rotational suppression of ALP emission.

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.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper studies the impact of rotation on MeV-scale ALP constraints from SN 1987A by performing 2D core-collapse supernova simulations for 13, 14+9, and 18 solar-mass progenitors with initial core angular velocities Ω₀ = 0 and 1 rad s⁻¹. ALP emission rates are post-processed from the simulations, and constraints are derived using both a simplified instantaneous energy-loss argument and the gamma-ray fluence limit. Rotation is found to reduce core temperature via centrifugal support, suppressing ALP emission more than neutrino luminosity and thereby relaxing the energy-loss bounds, with the strongest effect in the rotating 18 M⊙ model near t_pb = 0.8–1 s. The gamma-ray constraint is essentially unchanged owing to its g_{aγ}^4 scaling. The manuscript explicitly notes the sensitivity of the derived bounds to evaluation time and progenitor model.

Significance. If the central result holds, the work shows that rotation can materially weaken supernova energy-loss bounds on ALP-photon couplings for massive progenitors, emphasizing the model dependence of such limits and the value of multidimensional simulations. The explicit 2D hydrodynamical runs with post-processing and the direct comparison between rotating and non-rotating cases provide a concrete numerical demonstration of the centrifugal temperature reduction effect.

major comments (2)
  1. [discussion of the 18 M⊙ progenitor results and the energy-loss criterion] The simplified instantaneous energy-loss criterion is applied at selected post-bounce times, yet the rotating 18 M⊙ model exhibits a substantial central-temperature drop at t_pb = 0.8–1 s. The manuscript itself states that the resulting constraints depend sensitively on both the evaluation time and the underlying supernova model. Because the reported relaxation rests on this time-dependent criterion rather than an integrated luminosity bound over the neutrino-cooling phase, the robustness of the relaxation claim requires additional justification (e.g., integration of the energy-loss rate or explicit checks at neighboring times).
  2. [methods and results sections on post-processing] ALP emission rates are obtained by post-processing 2D simulation snapshots. In the presence of rotation, three-dimensional effects (convective instabilities, non-axisymmetric flows) could alter the temperature and density profiles that enter the ALP production rate. While the 2D runs are a necessary first step, the central claim that rotation relaxes the bounds would be strengthened by a quantitative estimate of the possible 3D correction to the post-processed rates.
minor comments (1)
  1. [abstract and introduction] The abstract and main text refer to the ALP-photon coupling without an explicit symbol definition on first use; adding a brief parenthetical (e.g., g_{aγ}) would improve readability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of the manuscript and for the constructive comments. We respond point-by-point to the major comments below, indicating where revisions will be made to strengthen the presentation.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The simplified instantaneous energy-loss criterion is applied at selected post-bounce times, yet the rotating 18 M⊙ model exhibits a substantial central-temperature drop at t_pb = 0.8–1 s. The manuscript itself states that the resulting constraints depend sensitively on both the evaluation time and the underlying supernova model. Because the reported relaxation rests on this time-dependent criterion rather than an integrated luminosity bound over the neutrino-cooling phase, the robustness of the relaxation claim requires additional justification (e.g., integration of the energy-loss rate or explicit checks at neighboring times).

    Authors: We thank the referee for this observation. The instantaneous energy-loss criterion follows the standard methodology employed in the existing literature on supernova constraints for ALPs. The manuscript already notes the sensitivity of the bounds to evaluation time and progenitor model for the 18 M⊙ case. To address the request for additional justification, we will add to the revised manuscript explicit evaluations of the energy-loss bounds at neighboring post-bounce times (t_pb = 0.6 s, 0.7 s, 1.1 s, and 1.2 s) for the rotating and non-rotating 18 M⊙ models. These checks will show that the relaxation persists across a temporal window around t_pb ≈ 0.8–1 s. A full integration of the energy-loss rate over the entire neutrino-cooling phase is not performed in the current post-processing setup, as it would require continuous tracking of ALP emission; however, the instantaneous approach at the relevant epoch suffices to demonstrate the centrifugal suppression effect. revision: yes

  2. Referee: ALP emission rates are obtained by post-processing 2D simulation snapshots. In the presence of rotation, three-dimensional effects (convective instabilities, non-axisymmetric flows) could alter the temperature and density profiles that enter the ALP production rate. While the 2D runs are a necessary first step, the central claim that rotation relaxes the bounds would be strengthened by a quantitative estimate of the possible 3D correction to the post-processed rates.

    Authors: We agree that three-dimensional effects could influence the temperature and density profiles in rotating models through enhanced convection or non-axisymmetric flows. Our 2D simulations constitute a necessary and computationally tractable first exploration of rotation's impact. A quantitative estimate of 3D corrections would require performing full 3D rotating core-collapse simulations, which lies beyond the scope and resources of the present work. In the revised manuscript we will expand the discussion section to qualitatively address possible 3D corrections, noting that additional mixing in 3D could further lower core temperatures and potentially strengthen the relaxation, while also highlighting the associated uncertainties. This will place our 2D results in proper context without overstating their generality. revision: partial

standing simulated objections not resolved
  • Quantitative estimate of 3D corrections to the post-processed ALP emission rates

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation is self-contained

full rationale

The paper derives ALP constraints from explicit 2D hydrodynamical simulations (with chosen initial Ω₀ = 0 or 1 rad s⁻¹ as inputs) followed by post-processing of standard ALP emission rates and direct application of the conventional SN1987A energy-loss and gamma-ray fluence criteria. No parameter is fitted to the target ALP bounds, no prediction is renamed from a fit, and no load-bearing step reduces to a self-citation or self-definition. The authors themselves flag the sensitivity of the simplified instantaneous energy-loss criterion to evaluation time, which is an acknowledged limitation rather than a hidden circularity. The central claim (rotation-induced temperature drop relaxes the bound more than the neutrino luminosity) follows from the numerical results and established particle-physics formulas without circular reduction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard core-collapse supernova modeling assumptions and previously published ALP-photon coupling and emission-rate formulas; the only explicit free choice is the initial core angular velocity.

free parameters (1)
  • initial angular velocity Omega_0 = 1.0 rad s^{-1}
    Chosen as 0.0 and 1.0 rad s^{-1} for the non-rotating and rotating cases; directly controls the centrifugal support and temperature reduction.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption ALP emission rates can be computed from post-processed temperature and density profiles using standard formulas
    Invoked when estimating ALP emission after the hydrodynamical simulation.
  • ad hoc to paper The simplified energy-loss criterion remains a valid proxy for constraint strength even when core temperature changes rapidly
    Used to translate emission rates into relaxed bounds; the abstract itself notes sensitivity to evaluation time.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5604 in / 1476 out tokens · 37321 ms · 2026-05-10T04:34:10.302102+00:00 · methodology

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

73 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    effective photon mass

    with incompressibility ofK= 220 MeV. A grid reso- lution ofN r ×N θ = 720×128 is used for the radial and polar directions, and the spatial range of the computa- tional domain is within the radial coordinater <20000 km. The progenitor we employ is the 14 + 9M ⊙ merger model (hereafter the m14 model) from Ref. [52]. This model is based on the slow-merger sc...

  2. [2]

    Wilczek, Phys

    F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. Lett.40, 279 (1978)

    1978

  3. [3]

    Weinberg, Phys

    S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett.40, 223 (1978)

    1978

  4. [4]

    Svrcek and E

    P. Svrcek and E. Witten, Journal of High Energy Physics 2006, 051 (2006)

    2006

  5. [5]

    Cicoli, M

    M. Cicoli, M. Goodsell, and A. Ringwald, J. High Energy Phys.2012(10), 146

    2012

  6. [6]

    Arvanitaki, S

    A. Arvanitaki, S. Dimopoulos, S. Dubovsky, N. Kaloper, and J. March-Russell, Phys. Rev. D81, 123530 (2010)

    2010

  7. [7]

    G. G. Raffelt, in Axions, Vol. 741, edited by M. Kuster, G. Raffelt, and B. Beltr´ an (2008) p. 51

    2008

  8. [8]

    Caputo and G

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

    work page arXiv 2024

  9. [9]

    Carenza, M

    P. Carenza, M. Giannotti, J. Isern, A. Mirizzi, and O. Straniero, Physical Research1117, 1 (2025), arXiv:2411.02492 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  10. [10]

    Pagliaroli, F

    G. Pagliaroli, F. Vissani, M. L. Costantini, and A. Ianni, Astropart. Phys.31, 163 (2009)

    2009

  11. [11]

    Ellis and K

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

    1987

  12. [12]

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

    1988

  13. [13]

    Raffelt and D

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

    1988

  14. [14]

    Mayle, J

    R. Mayle, J. R. Wilson, J. Ellis, K. Olive, D. N. Schramm, and G. Steigman, Phys. Lett. B203, 188 (1988)

    1988

  15. [15]

    Mayle, J

    R. Mayle, J. R. Wilson, J. Ellis, K. A. Olive, D. N. Schramm, and G. Steigman, Phys. Lett. B219, 515 (1989)

    1989

  16. [16]

    Burrows, M

    A. Burrows, M. S. Turner, and R. P. Brinkmann, Phys. Rev. D39, 1020 (1989). 9

    1989

  17. [17]

    Keil, H.-T

    W. Keil, H.-T. Janka, D. N. Schramm, G. Sigl, M. S. Turner, and J. Ellis, Phys. Rev. D56, 2419 (1997)

    1997

  18. [18]

    J. H. Chang, R. Essig, and S. D. McDermott, Journal of High Energy Physics2018, 51 (2018), arXiv:1803.00993 [hep-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2018

  19. [19]

    Bollig, W

    R. Bollig, W. DeRocco, P. W. Graham, and H.-T. Janka, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 051104 (2020)

    2020

  20. [20]

    Carenza, O

    P. Carenza, O. Straniero, B. D¨ obrich, M. Giannotti, G. Lucente, and A. Mirizzi, Phys. Lett. B809, 135709 (2020)

    2020

  21. [21]

    Ertas and F

    F. Ertas and F. Kahlhoefer, Journal of High Energy Physics2020, 50 (2020), arXiv:2004.01193 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2020

  22. [22]

    Lucente and P

    G. Lucente and P. Carenza, Phys. Rev. D104, 103007 (2021)

    2021

  23. [23]

    Caputo, G

    A. Caputo, G. Raffelt, and E. Vitagliano, Phys. Rev. D 105, 035022 (2022)

    2022

  24. [24]

    Lucente, O

    G. Lucente, O. Straniero, P. Carenza, M. Giannotti, and A. Mirizzi, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 011101 (2022)

    2022

  25. [25]

    R. Z. Ferreira, M. D. Marsh, and E. M¨ uller, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2022(11), 057

  26. [26]

    Lella, P

    A. Lella, P. Carenza, G. Co’, G. Lucente, M. Giannotti, A. Mirizzi, and T. Rauscher, Phys. Rev. D109, 023001 (2024), arXiv:2306.01048 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  27. [27]

    Mori and K

    M. Mori and K. Mori, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2509.05973 (2025), arXiv:2509.05973 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2025

  28. [28]

    E. L. Chupp, W. T. Vestrand, and C. Reppin, Phys. Rev. Lett.62, 505 (1989)

    1989

  29. [29]

    J. W. Brockway, E. D. Carlson, and G. G. Raffelt, Physics Letters B383, 439 (1996)

    1996

  30. [30]

    J. A. Grifols, E. Mass´ o, and R. Toldr` a, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 2372 (1996)

    1996

  31. [31]

    Giannotti, L

    M. Giannotti, L. D. Duffy, and R. Nita, J. Cosmol. As- tropart. Phys.2011(01), 015

    2011

  32. [32]

    Payez, C

    A. Payez, C. Evoli, T. Fischer, M. Giannotti, A. Mirizzi, and A. Ringwald, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2015(02), 006

    2015

  33. [33]

    Jaeckel, P

    J. Jaeckel, P. C. Malta, and J. Redondo, Phys. Rev. D 98, 055032 (2018)

    2018

  34. [34]

    Diamond, D

    M. Diamond, D. F. G. Fiorillo, G. Marques-Tavares, and E. Vitagliano, Phys. Rev. D107, 103029 (2023)

    2023

  35. [35]

    Hoof and L

    S. Hoof and L. Schulz, Journal of Cosmology and As- troparticle Physics2023(03), 054

  36. [36]

    M¨ uller, F

    E. M¨ uller, F. Calore, P. Carenza, C. Eckner, and M. C. D. Marsh, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2023, 056

    2023

  37. [37]

    Takiwaki, K

    T. Takiwaki, K. Kotake, and Y. Suwa, Astrophys. J.786, 83 (2014)

    2014

  38. [38]

    Vartanyan, A

    D. Vartanyan, A. Burrows, D. Radice, M. A. Skinner, and J. Dolence, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society482, 351 (2019), arXiv:1809.05106 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2019

  39. [39]

    C. D. Ott, L. F. Roberts, A. da Silva Schneider, J. M. Fedrow, R. Haas, and E. Schnetter, The Astrophysical Journal Letters855, L3 (2018), arXiv:1712.01304 [astro- ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2018

  40. [40]

    E. J. Lentz, S. W. Bruenn, W. R. Hix, A. Mezzacappa, O. E. B. Messer, E. Endeve, J. M. Blondin, J. A. Har- ris, P. Marronetti, and K. N. Yakunin, The Astrophys- ical Journal Letters807, L31 (2015), arXiv:1505.05110 [astro-ph.SR]

    work page arXiv 2015

  41. [41]

    Maeder and G

    A. Maeder and G. Meynet, Rev. Mod. Phys.84, 25 (2012)

    2012

  42. [42]

    Janka, T

    H.-T. Janka, T. Melson, and A. Summa, Annual Re- view of Nuclear and Particle Science66, 341 (2016), arXiv:1602.05576 [astro-ph.SR]

    work page arXiv 2016

  43. [43]

    Summa, H.-T

    A. Summa, H.-T. Janka, T. Melson, and A. Marek, As- trophys. J.852, 28 (2018)

    2018

  44. [44]

    Takiwaki, K

    T. Takiwaki, K. Kotake, and Y. Suwa, Mon. Not. R. As- tron. Soc.461, L112 (2016)

    2016

  45. [45]

    K. Mori, T. Takiwaki, K. Kotake, and S. Horiuchi, Phys. Rev. D105, 063009 (2022)

    2022

  46. [46]

    K. Mori, T. Takiwaki, K. Kotake, and S. Horiuchi, Phys. Rev. D108, 063027 (2023)

    2023

  47. [47]

    Takata, K

    T. Takata, K. Mori, K. Nakamura, and K. Kotake, Phys. Rev. D111, 103028 (2025)

    2025

  48. [48]

    Liebendoerfer, S

    M. Liebendoerfer, S. C. Whitehouse, and T. Fischer, As- trophys. J.698, 1174 (2009)

    2009

  49. [49]

    Kotake, T

    K. Kotake, T. Takiwaki, T. Fischer, K. Nakamura, and G. Mart´ ınez-Pinedo, Astrophys. J.853, 170 (2018)

    2018

  50. [50]

    2006, , 445, 273

    A. Marek, H. Dimmelmeier, H.-T. Janka, E. M¨ uller, and R. Buras, Astronomy & Astrophysics445, 273 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0502161 [astro-ph]

    work page arXiv 2006

  51. [51]

    Wongwathanarat, H.-T

    A. Wongwathanarat, H.-T. Janka, and E. M¨ uller, The Astrophysical Journal Letters725, L106 (2010)

    2010

  52. [52]

    J. M. Lattimer and F. Douglas Swesty, Nucl. Phys. A 535, 331 (1991)

    1991

  53. [53]

    Urushibata, K

    T. Urushibata, K. Takahashi, H. Umeda, and T. Yoshida, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society473, L101 (2018), arXiv:1705.04084 [astro-ph.SR]

    work page arXiv 2018

  54. [54]

    Podsiadlowski, P

    P. Podsiadlowski, P. C. Joss, and S. Rappaport, Astron- omy & Astrophysics227, L9 (1990)

    1990

  55. [55]

    Podsiadlowski, P

    P. Podsiadlowski, P. C. Joss, and J. J. L. Hsu, Astrophys. J.391, 246 (1992)

    1992

  56. [56]

    M. Ono, S. Nagataki, G. Ferrand, K. Takahashi, H. Umeda, T. Yoshida, S. Orlando, and M. Miceli, As- trophys. J.888, 111 (2020), arXiv:1912.02234 [astro- ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2020

  57. [57]

    Nakamura, T

    K. Nakamura, T. Takiwaki, and K. Kotake, Monthly No- tices of the Royal Astronomical Society514, 3941 (2022), arXiv:2202.06295 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2022

  58. [58]

    S. E. Woosley and A. Heger, Phys. Rep.442, 269 (2007)

    2007

  59. [59]

    S. J. Smartt, J. R. Maund, M. A. Hendry, C. A. Tout, G. F. Gilmore, S. Mattila, and C. R. Benn, Science303, 499 (2004)

    2004

  60. [60]

    S. J. Smartt, J. J. Eldridge, R. M. Crockett, and J. R. Maund, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.395, 1409 (2009)

    2009

  61. [61]

    Eriguchi and E

    Y. Eriguchi and E. Mueller, Astronomy & Astrophysics 147, 161 (1985)

    1985

  62. [62]

    Zwerger and E

    T. Zwerger and E. Mueller, Astronomy & Astrophysics 320, 209 (1997)

    1997

  63. [63]

    C. D. Ott, A. Burrows, E. Livne, and R. Walder, The Astrophysical Journal600, 834 (2004)

    2004

  64. [64]

    Di Lella, A

    L. Di Lella, A. Pilaftsis, G. Raffelt, and K. Zioutas, Phys. Rev. D62, 125011 (2000)

    2000

  65. [65]

    Hirata, T

    K. Hirata, T. Kajita, M. Koshiba, M. Nakahata, Y. Oyama, N. Sato, A. Suzuki, M. Takita, Y. Tot- suka, T. Kifune, T. Suda, K. Takahashi, T. Tanimori, K. Miyano, M. Yamada, E. W. Beier, L. R. Feldscher, S. B. Kim, A. K. Mann, F. M. Newcomer, R. Van, W. Zhang, and B. G. Cortez, Phys. Rev. Lett.58, 1490 (1987)

    1987

  66. [66]

    R. M. Bionta, G. Blewitt, C. B. Bratton, D. Casper, A. Ciocio, R. Claus, B. Cortez, M. Crouch, S. T. Dye, S. Errede, G. W. Foster, W. Gajewski, K. S. Ganezer, M. Goldhaber, T. J. Haines, T. W. Jones, D. Kiel- czewska, W. R. Kropp, J. G. Learned, J. M. LoSecco, J. Matthews, R. Miller, M. S. Mudan, H. S. Park, L. R. Price, F. Reines, J. Schultz, S. Seidel, ...

    1987

  67. [67]

    E. N. Alekseev, L. N. Alekseeva, V. I. Volchenko, and I. V. Krivosheina, JETP Lett.45, 589 (1987)

    1987

  68. [68]

    Lucente, P

    G. Lucente, P. Carenza, T. Fischer, M. Giannotti, and A. Mirizzi, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2020(12), 008

    2020

  69. [69]

    Kazanas, R

    D. Kazanas, R. N. Mohapatra, S. Nussinov, V. L. Teplitz, and Y. Zhang, Nuclear Physics B890, 17 (2015), arXiv:1410.0221 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2015

  70. [70]

    Kuroda, A

    T. Kuroda, A. Arcones, T. Takiwaki, and K. Kotake, Astrophys. J.896, 102 (2020), arXiv:2003.02004 [astro- ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2020

  71. [71]

    Obergaulinger and M

    M. Obergaulinger and M. ´A. Aloy, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society503, 4942 (2021), arXiv:2008.07205 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2021

  72. [72]

    Shibagaki, T

    S. Shibagaki, T. Kuroda, K. Kotake, and T. Takiwaki, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society502, 3066 (2021), arXiv:2010.03882 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2021

  73. [73]

    Bugli, J

    M. Bugli, J. Guilet, T. Foglizzo, and M. Obergaulinger, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society520, 5622 (2023), arXiv:2210.05012 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2023