Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 62 references

Pre-supernova neutrinos can set MeV limits on dark-matter scattering through a simple deficit of inverse-beta-decay events.

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

2026-07-11 22:49 UTC pith:OW4WGWOA

load-bearing objection First clean pre-SN neutrino sensitivity to DM–ν scattering; transparent calculation, limited but real novelty, ready for referees. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.03943 v1 pith:OW4WGWOA submitted 2026-07-04 hep-ph

Dark matter scattering with pre-supernova neutrinos

Sangeetha N. Tallur , Nirmal Raj This is my paper
classification hep-ph
keywords pre-supernova neutrinosdark matter-neutrino scatteringinverse beta decayoptical depthMeV neutrinosattenuationLyman-alpha
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.

Massive stars emit a steady stream of MeV neutrinos for roughly a day before they collapse. If those neutrinos scatter off intervening dark matter, some of them leave the line of sight and never reach Earth, producing a measurable shortfall of inverse-beta-decay events in large, low-threshold detectors. The paper turns that shortfall into upper limits on the reduced dark-matter–neutrino cross section that sit near 10^{-21} cm^{2}/GeV. Although the numbers are weaker than the corresponding post-bounce supernova limits, they are independent of distance, rest only on the well-measured local dark-matter density, and probe a lower energy window where resonant or light-mediator models can look completely different. The same data can also test a reported cosmological hint that dark-matter–neutrino scattering suppresses small-scale structure.

Core claim

A 2σ deficit of inverse-beta-decay events from pre-supernova electron antineutrinos yields upper limits on the reduced cross section σχν/mχ of order (0.5–9)×10^{-21} cm^{2}/GeV that are independent of progenitor distance and that uniquely sample the MeV energy band.

What carries the argument

Optical depth for attenuation: τχ = ρχ (σχν/mχ) d⋆, set equal to twice the fractional statistical uncertainty of the expected event count; the resulting bound on σχν/mχ is then independent of distance because the event rate scales as 1/d⋆^{2}.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes a perfectly uniform local dark-matter density of 0.4 GeV per cubic centimetre and pure exponential attenuation, with no regeneration or dark-disk contribution.

What would settle it

If a nearby massive star collapses and the observed inverse-beta-decay counts at Super-K, KamLAND or JUNO match the no-dark-matter prediction within the quoted statistical errors, the claimed optical-depth limits are ruled out.

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

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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper estimates the sensitivity of large-volume, low-threshold detectors (Super-K, KamLAND, JUNO) to dark-matter–neutrino scattering by computing the attenuation of the pre-supernova electron-antineutrino flux from a nearby massive star. Using tabulated fluxes for a 15 M☉ progenitor, the IBD cross section, and a simple optical-depth criterion τ_χ = 2/√N_tot (Eqs. 3–5), the authors derive distance-independent 2σ upper limits on the reduced cross section σ_χν/m_χ of order (0.5–9)×10^{-21} cm^{2}/GeV (Table I, collapse-phase events). They compare these MeV-scale limits with post-bounce SN sensitivities, SN1987A bounds, structure-formation constraints, and a Lyman-α hint, arguing that pre-supernova neutrinos offer a complementary probe of energy-dependent interactions and a cross-check that relies only on the local DM density.

Significance. If the quoted sensitivities are realized, the work supplies the first BSM application of pre-supernova neutrinos and a clean MeV-energy handle on DM–ν scattering that is independent of Galactic density-profile uncertainties. The calculation is transparent, uses publicly available stellar-evolution tables, and yields falsifiable, distance-independent numbers that can be directly compared with a future nearby core-collapse event. The discussion of energy dependence, failed supernovae, and dark-disk scenarios correctly identifies regimes in which pre-supernova limits become uniquely informative. These features make the result a useful addition to the literature even though the numerical reach is weaker than post-bounce SN bounds.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. II.2, Eq. (3)] Sec. II.2, Eq. (3): The optical-depth formula assumes a spatially constant local density ρ_χ = 0.4 GeV cm^{-3} and pure attenuation (no regeneration or angular redistribution). For the τ_χ ∼ 1 criterion listed in Table I this approximation can overestimate the observable deficit; a short estimate of the size of regeneration effects, or an explicit statement that the quoted limits are optimistic under pure attenuation, is needed to keep the central claim quantitatively robust.
  2. [Sec. III, Fig. 2] Sec. III and Fig. 2: The illustrative scaling σ_χν ∝ E_ν^{3.8} that is said to test the Lyman-α hint is not derived from any concrete mediator model. Either a brief particle-physics motivation for this power or a clearer disclaimer that the curve is purely phenomenological would prevent the figure from being over-interpreted as a realistic exclusion.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract, second sentence: missing capital after the period (“Super-K. which we use”).
  2. [Introduction] Introduction, first paragraph: “apre-supernova” lacks a space; several other compound terms (preSNν, SNν) are introduced without a consistent definition list.
  3. [Table I] Table I caption and last column: the four τ criteria are listed in braces without an explicit key; a short legend would improve readability.
  4. [Fig. 1] Fig. 1 right panel: the vertical dashed line marking the collapse phase is not defined in the caption; a one-line explanation would help.
  5. [Sec. II.1] Sec. II.1: the statement that backgrounds are “negligible” is asserted without a quantitative reference or residual-rate estimate for the time window used.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: transparent sensitivity estimate from external fluxes and standard optical-depth statistics

full rationale

The derivation chain is fully self-contained and non-circular. Pre-supernova fluxes are taken from external stellar-evolution tabulations (Ref. [30/47]); event counts follow the standard formula Eq. (1) with the known IBD cross section Eq. (2); the optical depth is the elementary expression Eq. (3) with a fixed local density; and the 2σ criterion Eq. (4)–(5) is a direct statistical requirement that a deficit equal twice the Poisson uncertainty. No parameter is fitted to data and then re-used as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors’ prior work, and the only self-citation ([37]) is a forthcoming companion paper that is not used in any load-bearing step. The numerical limits in Table I are therefore ordinary sensitivity projections, not results forced by construction or by self-reference. Minor model dependence (progenitor mass, hierarchy, local-density uncertainty) is already quantified by the authors and does not create circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 3 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central limits rest on standard particle-astrophysics assumptions plus a handful of numerical inputs taken from the literature; no new particles or forces are postulated beyond the effective DM–ν cross section being constrained.

free parameters (3)
  • local DM density ρχ = 0.4 GeV/cm^{3}
    Fixed by hand to the conventional value 0.4 GeV cm^{-3}; fractional uncertainty ~100 % is acknowledged but not propagated into the quoted limits.
  • progenitor mass and neutrino mass ordering = 15 M⊙, normal hierarchy
    15 M⊙ normal hierarchy chosen as baseline; other models weaken limits by up to a factor of 3.
  • 2σ optical-depth threshold = 2 / √N
    τχ = 2 / √Ntot (Eq. 4) is a conventional statistical choice, not derived from first principles.
axioms (3)
  • domain assumption Pre-supernova ¯νe fluxes are accurately given by the Kato et al. (2017) stellar-evolution tables (normal hierarchy, 15 M⊙).
    Entire event-rate calculation (Eq. 1 and Fig. 1) is built on these external tables; alternative models change Ntot by O(1).
  • domain assumption Scattering removes neutrinos from the line of sight with optical depth τ = ρχ (σ/m) d and no regeneration or time-delay echo contribution at sub-kpc baselines.
    Standard attenuation approximation used in Sec. II.2; valid only if the differential cross section is not strongly forward-peaked.
  • domain assumption Detector backgrounds are negligible and systematic uncertainties are those listed in Table I.
    Taken from the literature review of Kato et al.; underpins the claim that statistical error dominates.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 15534 in / 2437 out tokens · 22628 ms · 2026-07-11T22:49:48.566605+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Pre-supernova neutrinos, emitted during the last day prior to core collapse of a massive star, could provide a unique probe at MeV energies of scattering interactions between dark matter and neutrinos. Due to attenuation of the flux of electron anti-neutrinos from their scattering on dark matter on the way to Earth, we expect a deficit of inverse beta decay events at large-volume, low-threshold detectors such as KamLAND, JUNO, and Super-K. which we use to derive upper limits on the dark matter-neutrino reduced scattering cross section. Though seemingly weaker than limits from post-bounce supernova neutrino events, these sensitivities provide an important cross-check, could help determine the energy dependence of the cross section, and may even be a distinct probe of certain models. Further, pre-supernova neutrinos may test hints reported of dark matter-neutrino scattering in the early universe suppressing small-scale power as seen in Lyman-alpha data.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.03943 by Nirmal Raj, Sangeetha N. Tallur.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Sensitivities to the reduced cross section for DM- [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.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

62 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Billardet al., Rept

    J. Billardet al., Rept. Prog. Phys.85, 056201 (2022), arXiv:2104.07634 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  2. [2]

    Bramante, (2026), arXiv:2602.23708 [hep-ph]

    J. Bramante, (2026), arXiv:2602.23708 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  3. [3]

    Bramante and N

    J. Bramante and N. Raj, Phys. Rept.1052, 1 (2024), arXiv:2307.14435 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    G. D. Mack, J. F. Beacom, and G. Bertone, Phys. Rev. D76, 043523 (2007), arXiv:0705.4298 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  5. [5]

    R. H. Cyburt, B. D. Fields, V. Pavlidou, and B. D. Wandelt, Phys. Rev. D65, 123503 (2002), arXiv:astro- ph/0203240

    arXiv 2002

  6. [6]

    C. V. Cappiello, K. C. Y. Ng, and J. F. Beacom, Phys. Rev. D99, 063004 (2019), arXiv:1810.07705 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  7. [7]

    Strumia and F

    A. Strumia and F. Vissani, Phys. Lett. B564, 42 (2003), astro-ph/0302055

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  8. [8]

    Olivares-Del Campo, C

    A. Olivares-Del Campo, C. Bœhm, S. Palomares-Ruiz, and S. Pascoli, Phys. Rev. D97, 075039 (2018), arXiv:1711.05283 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  9. [9]

    Blennow, E

    M. Blennow, E. Fernandez-Martinez, A. Olivares- Del Campo, S. Pascoli, S. Rosauro-Alcaraz, and A. V. Titov, Eur. Phys. J. C79, 555 (2019), arXiv:1903.00006 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  10. [10]

    Fayet, D

    P. Fayet, D. Hooper, and G. Sigl, Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 211302 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0602169

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  11. [11]

    Bertoni, S

    B. Bertoni, S. Ipek, D. McKeen, and A. E. Nelson, JHEP 04, 170 (2015), arXiv:1412.3113 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  12. [12]

    E. W. Kolb and M. S. Turner,Supernova SN 1987A and the Secret Interactions of Neutrinos, Tech. Rep. Fermilab-Pub-87/110-A (Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, 1987)

    1987

  13. [13]

    Scholberg, Ann

    K. Scholberg, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.62, 81 (2012), arXiv:1205.6003 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  14. [14]

    Murase and I

    K. Murase and I. M. Shoemaker, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 241102 (2019), arXiv:1903.08607 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  15. [15]

    J. A. Carpio, A. Kheirandish, and K. Murase, JCAP 2023, 019 (2023), arXiv:2204.09650 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  16. [16]

    P. S. B. Dev, D. Kim, D. Sathyan, K. Sinha, and Y. Zhang, (2025), arXiv:2507.01000 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  17. [17]

    Chauhan, R

    G. Chauhan, R. A. Gustafson, G. Herrera, T. Johnson, and I. M. Shoemaker, Journal of Cosmology and As- troparticle Physics2025, 020 (2025)

    2025

  18. [18]

    Heston, S

    S. Heston, S. Horiuchi, and S. Shirai, Phys. Rev. D110, 023004 (2024), arXiv:2402.08718 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  19. [19]

    Super-K glimpses DSNB,

    Super-Kamiokande collaboration, “Super-K glimpses DSNB,”https://www.icrr.u-tokyo.ac.jp/en/news/ 18046/(2026)

    2026

  20. [20]

    Koshio, M

    Y. Koshio, M. Nakahata, H. Sekiya, and M. R. Vagins, (2025), arXiv:2511.03921 [physics.ins-det]

    arXiv 2025

  21. [21]

    Abuslemeet al.(JUNO), JCAP10, 033 (2022), arXiv:2205.08830 [hep-ex]

    A. Abuslemeet al.(JUNO), JCAP10, 033 (2022), arXiv:2205.08830 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2022

  22. [22]

    Møller, A

    K. Møller, A. M. Suliga, I. Tamborra, and P. B. Denton, JCAP05, 066 (2018), arXiv:1804.03157 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  23. [23]

    Farzan and S

    Y. Farzan and S. Palomares-Ruiz, JCAP2014, 014 (2014), arXiv:1401.7019 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  24. [24]

    A.B.Balantekin, G.M.Fuller, A.Ray, andA.M.Suliga, Phys. Rev. D108, 123011 (2023), arXiv:2310.07145 [hep- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  25. [25]

    Tseng and Y.-M

    P.-Y. Tseng and Y.-M. Yeh, JCAP08, 038 (2025), arXiv:2412.08537 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  26. [26]

    C. Kato, K. Ishidoshiro, and T. Yoshida, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science70, 121 (2020)

    2020

  27. [27]

    Al Kharusiet al.(SNEWS), New J

    S. Al Kharusiet al.(SNEWS), New J. Phys.23, 031201 (2021), arXiv:2011.00035 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  28. [28]

    Mukhopadhyay, C

    M. Mukhopadhyay, C. Lunardini, F. X. Timmes, and K. Zuber, Astrophys. J.899, 153 (2020), arXiv:2004.02045 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  29. [29]

    Asakura, A

    K. Asakura, A. Gando, Y. Gando, T. Hachiya, S. Hayashida, H. Ikeda, K. Inoue, K. Ishidoshiro, T. Ishikawa, S. Ishio,et al., The Astrophysical Journal 818, 91 (2016)

    2016

  30. [30]

    C. Kato, H. Nagakura, S. Furusawa, K. Takahashi, H. Umeda, T. Yoshida, K. Ishidoshiro, and S. Yamada, The Astrophysical Journal848, 48 (2017)

    2017

  31. [31]

    N. Raj, V. Takhistov, and S. J. Witte, Physical Review D101(2020), 10.1103/physrevd.101.043008

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.101.043008 2020

  32. [32]

    Simpson, K

    C. Simpson, K. Abe, C. Bronner, Y. Hayato, M. Ikeda, H. Ito, K. Iyogi, J. Kameda, Y. Kataoka, Y. Kato,et al., The Astrophysical Journal885, 133 (2019)

    2019

  33. [33]

    Li, Y.-F

    H.-L. Li, Y.-F. Li, L.-J. Wen, and S. Zhou, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2020, 049 (2020)

    2020

  34. [34]

    L. N. Machadoet al.(Super-Kamiokande), Astrophys. J. 935, 40 (2022), arXiv:2205.09881 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  35. [35]

    Machado, K

    L. Machado, K. Abe, Y. Hayato, K. Hiraide, K. Ieki, M. Ikeda, J. Kameda, Y. Kanemura, R. Kaneshima, Y. Kashiwagi,et al., The Astrophysical Journal935, 40 (2022)

    2022

  36. [36]

    Abusleme, T

    A. Abusleme, T. Adam, S. Ahmad, R. Ahmed, S. Aiello, M. Akram, A. Aleem, F. An, Q. An, G. Andronico,et al., Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2024, 057 (2024)

    2024

  37. [37]

    S. N. Tallur, N. Raj. In preparation

  38. [38]

    K. Mori, T. Takiwaki, and K. Kotake, Physical Review D105, 023020 (2022)

    2022

  39. [39]

    J. Fan, A. Katz, L. Randall, and M. Reece, Phys. Dark Univ.2, 139 (2013), arXiv:1303.1521 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  40. [40]

    Winch, J

    H. Winch, J. Setford, J. Bovy, and D. Curtin, Astrophys. J.933, 177 (2022), arXiv:2012.07136 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  41. [41]

    D. C. Hooper and M. Lucca, Phys. Rev. D105, 103504 (2022), arXiv:2110.04024 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  42. [42]

    Odrzywolek, M

    A. Odrzywolek, M. Misiaszek, and M. Kutschera, Acta Phys. Polon. B35, 1981 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0405006

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1981

  43. [43]

    K. M. Patton, C. Lunardini, and R. J. Farmer, Astro- phys. J.840, 2 (2017), arXiv:1511.02820 [astro-ph.SR]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  44. [44]

    C. Kato, M. D. Azari, S. Yamada, K. Takahashi, H. Umeda, T. Yoshida, and K. Ishidoshiro, Astrophys. J.808, 168 (2015), arXiv:1506.02358 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  45. [45]

    Yoshida, K

    T. Yoshida, K. Takahashi, H. Umeda, and K. Ishidoshiro, Phys. Rev. D93, 123012 (2016), arXiv:1606.04915 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  46. [46]

    A. A. Dzhioev, A. V. Yudin, N. V. Dunina-Barkovskaya, andA.I.Vdovin,Particles8,84(2025),arXiv:2512.21604 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2025

  47. [47]

    Neutrinoemis- sions in all flavors up to the pre-bounce of

    C.Kato, K.Ishidoshiro, andT.Yoshida,“Neutrinoemis- sions in all flavors up to the pre-bounce of ...”https: //zenodo.org/record/3768052(2020), dataset via Zen- odo. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.3768052

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.3768052 2020

  48. [48]

    Vogel and J

    P. Vogel and J. F. Beacom, PRD60, 053003 (1999), arXiv:hep-ph/9903554 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  49. [49]

    Neuhäuser, G

    R. Neuhäuser, G. Torres, M. Mugrauer, D. L. Neuhäuser, J. Chapman, D. Luge, and M. Cosci, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society516, 693–719 (2022). 6

    2022

  50. [50]

    SNOw- GLoBES: SuperNova Observatories with GLoBES,

    K. Scholberg, J. B. Albert, and J. Vasel, “SNOw- GLoBES: SuperNova Observatories with GLoBES,” As- trophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2109.019 (2021), ascl:2109.019

    2021

  51. [51]

    Totani, K

    T. Totani, K. Sato, H. E. Dalhed, and J. R. Wilson, Astrophys. J.496, 216 (1998), arXiv:astro-ph/9710203

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  52. [52]

    Crumrine, E

    W. Crumrine, E. O. Nadler, R. An, and V. Glusce- vic, Phys. Rev. D111, 023530 (2025), arXiv:2406.19458 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  53. [53]

    P. F. de Salas and A. Widmark, Rept. Prog. Phys.84, 104901 (2021), arXiv:2012.11477 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  54. [54]

    P.Martínez-Miravé, I.Tamborra, andM.Tórtola,JCAP 05, 002 (2024), arXiv:2402.00116 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  55. [55]

    R. F. Lang, C. McCabe, S. Reichard, M. Selvi, and I. Tamborra, Phys. Rev. D94, 103009 (2016), arXiv:1606.09243 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  56. [56]

    Raj, Phys

    N. Raj, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 141802 (2020), arXiv:1907.05533 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  57. [57]

    Pattavina, N

    L. Pattavina, N. Ferreiro Iachellini, and I. Tamborra, Phys. Rev. D102, 063001 (2020), arXiv:2004.06936 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  58. [58]

    Church, C

    E. Church, C. M. Jackson, and R. Saldanha, JINST15, P09026 (2020), arXiv:2005.04824 [physics.ins-det]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  59. [59]

    Avasthiet al., inSnowmass 2021(2022) arXiv:2203.08821 [physics.ins-det]

    A. Avasthiet al., inSnowmass 2021(2022) arXiv:2203.08821 [physics.ins-det]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  60. [60]

    Bezerraet al., J

    T. Bezerraet al., J. Phys. G50, 060502 (2023), arXiv:2301.11878 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  61. [61]

    Avasthiet al., Phys

    A. Avasthiet al., Phys. Rev. D104, 112007 (2021), arXiv:2110.01537 [physics.ins-det]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  62. [62]

    Ankeret al., inWorkshop on Xenon Detector 0νββ Searches: Steps Towards the Kilotonne Scale(2024) arXiv:2404.19050 [nucl-ex]

    A. Ankeret al., inWorkshop on Xenon Detector 0νββ Searches: Steps Towards the Kilotonne Scale(2024) arXiv:2404.19050 [nucl-ex]. 7

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024