Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 78 references

Quasi-steady flavor configuration of multi-energy neutrino ensembles

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that closed-form piecewise ansatz for slow and fast flavor conversion reproduces the quasi-steady-state flavor configuration of multi-angle, multi-energy neutrino ensembles with relative error at most 0.15 over wide…

desk verdict Useful subgrid recipe for angle-integrated flavor conversion, but the abstract overstates angle-resolved agreement. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.06464 v1 pith:UKUIQGGF submitted 2026-08-06 astro-ph.HE hep-ph

Manuel Goimil-García , Irene Tamborra This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEhep-ph
keywords neutrinoflavorconversionfastinstabilityslowself-interactioncore-collapsesupernovaequasi-steadystatesemi-analyticansatzmassordering
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

Core-collapse supernova simulations cannot afford full neutrino quantum kinetics, but neutrino flavor conversion changes explosion dynamics and the emitted neutrino signal. This paper claims that the quasi-steady-state flavor configuration left behind by slow or fast flavor conversion in a multi-angle, multi-energy neutrino ensemble can be written down in closed form: a piecewise ansatz that uses flavor equipartition above an energy threshold, an angle-independent survival fraction below it, and lepton-number conservation to fix the free constants. The ansatz reproduces numerical solutions of the neutrino kinetic equations with relative error at or below 0.15 over large regions of the parameter space, for both normal and inverted mass ordering and two self-interaction strengths. If correct, this gives hydrodynamic simulations a cheap subgrid recipe for flavor conversion instead of a full quantum-transport solve.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is a piecewise semi-analytic ansatz for the electron-flavor density matrix. For slow conversion (Eqs. 7-10) it postulates equipartition $\rho_{v,ee}(E)=\tfrac12\operatorname{Tr}\rho_{v,0}(E)$ for all antineutrinos and for neutrinos above the spectral-crossing energy $E_c$, and an angle-independent rescaling of the initial $\nu_e$ spectrum below $E_c$, with the survival fraction written as a Fermi-Dirac-like function of a mean temperature. For fast conversion (Eqs. 15-18) it uses the closed survival fraction $R=\frac13\left[1+\frac{1-n_{\nu_e}}{2-(n_{\nu_e}-n_{\bar\nu_e})}\right]$, applies it to antineutrinos and to neutrinos above $E_{\rm th}=5.4T_{\nu_e}$, and models the low-energy $\nu_e$ part as a linear combination of the initial angular distributions $G_e(v)$ and $G_x(v)$. Continuity at the energy threshold and lepton-number conservation close the system of equations, determining every free constant; the ansatz then predicts both the energy spectra and the angular distributions without evolving the equations of motion.

What would settle it

Solve the kinetic equations for an ensemble whose $\nu_e$ angular distribution is sharply forward-peaked (large $\sigma^2_{\nu_e}/\sigma^2_{\nu_x}$) and compare the numerically measured $\nu_e$ survival fraction as a function of $v$ with the angle-independent prediction of the ansatz; if the forward bin $v \gtrsim 0.9$ deviates by more than about 15% relative error, the angle-independence assumption fails precisely where the paper already flags the discrepancy.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that for quasi-homogeneous, axially symmetric neutrino ensembles with periodic boundary conditions, the late-time quasi-steady flavor configuration reached by both slow and fast flavor instabilities is captured by the semi-analytic expressions in Eqs. (7)-(10) and (15)-(18). In slow conversion, all antineutrinos and the high-energy part of the neutrino spectrum reach flavor equipartition, while low-energy neutrinos keep the shape of the initial spectrum rescaled by an energy-dependent survival factor. In fast conversion, an empirical survival fraction $R = \frac{1}{3}\left[1+\frac{1-n_{\nu_e}}{2-(n_{\nu_e}-n_{\bar\nu_e})}\right]$ controls the outcome, so fast instabilities are allowed to overshoot equipartition. The parameters in both expressions are fixed by continuity of the angle-integrated spectrum at the energy threshold and by lepton-number conservation, so no solution of the kinetic equations is required. The paper reports relative errors of order 10% against full multi-angle, multi-energy numerical solutions across the surveyed parameter plane, and it finds the same qualitative behavior in normal and inverted mass ordering, with inverted ordering suppressing conversion in ensembles without angular crossings.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the fraction of neutrinos that change flavor is independent of propagation angle, which lets the ansatz separate energy and angle dependence; the paper's own numerical solutions show conversion is stronger around the peak of the angular distribution, so the ansatz is least reliable for forward-directed neutrinos.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Supernova and merger hydrodynamics codes can use the ansatz as a subgrid recipe, replacing quantum-kinetic solves with a closed-form estimate of the quasi-steady flavor state.
  • Slow conversion in periodic-box setups reaches flavor equipartition at high neutrino energies in both mass orderings, so subgrid models should not assume the bulb-model picture of a full flavor swap in inverted ordering only.
  • Fast conversion does not generically end in flavor equipartition; the survival fraction can drop below $1/2$ when $n_{\nu_e}$ is large, so schemes that impose equipartition or erase angular crossings will misstate the final state.
  • The inverted mass ordering suppresses flavor conversion relative to normal ordering for ensembles without angular crossings, and the difference shrinks as the self-interaction strength grows.
  • The error of about 10% between ansatz and numerics is comparable for both mass orderings and both branches of the ansatz, so the recipe is usable across the surveyed parameter plane rather than only at the two example points.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A natural test is to move from quasi-homogeneous periodic boxes to the inhomogeneous, spherically expanding geometries of actual supernova shells, where spatial advection spreads flavor waves; the ansatz would need an explicit transport prescription, and propagation effects are already known to matter for fast conversion.
  • The fast survival fraction $R$ depends only on the densities $n_{\nu_e}$ and $n_{\bar\nu_e}$, not on spectral shape; if this independence persists, relaxation-time subgrid schemes gain a parameter-free target state that could be calibrated in local simulations.
  • Because the ansatz is least accurate in the forward direction, multi-messenger observables that weight forward-peaked emission may need angular corrections beyond the 15% claim the paper states for the overall configuration.
  • Extending the recipe to negative electron lepton number ($n_{\bar\nu_e} > n_{\nu_e}$), as occurs in merger remnant environments, is not covered by the current survival fraction and would be the most direct scoping test of the ansatz.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes piecewise semi-analytical ansatze for the quasi-steady-state flavor content of spatially homogeneous, multi-angle, multi-energy neutrino/antineutrino ensembles in a periodic box. The slow-conversion ansatz (Eqs. 7-10) imposes equipartition above a spectral crossing and rescales the low-energy part; the fast-conversion ansatz (Eqs. 15-18) uses an empirical survival fraction R (Eq. 14) above an energy threshold and a linear combination of angular distributions below. Parameters are fixed by continuity, lepton-number conservation, and Eq. (19). The ansatz is compared with numerical solutions of the quantum kinetic equations for a grid of angular widths and antineutrino fractions, for two self-interaction strengths and both mass orderings, with claimed relative errors below 15% (Eq. 21). The abstract states that the ansatz agrees with the multi-angle, multi-energy flavor configuration independent of the mass ordering.

Significance. The targeted problem---subgrid modeling of flavor conversion in core-collapse supernova simulations---is important, and a compact analytic recipe for the quasi-steady state is genuinely useful if limited to angle-integrated spectra. The construction has virtues: the continuity and lepton-number constraints are physically motivated, the recipe is cheap to implement, and the authors explicitly flag the isotropy assumption and the v-integrated error cancellation in Sec. V. The limitations are, however, substantial: the fast-flavor survival fraction is an empirical transfer from earlier single-energy work, several thresholds are ad hoc, and the validation metric does not constrain the angle-resolved flavor field claimed in the abstract. As an interpolation recipe for angle-integrated spectra within a narrow family of initial distributions, the proposal is plausible; as a general prediction of the flavor configuration it is currently overstated.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. III A-III B and Eq. (21)] The abstract-level claim of reproducing the multi-angle flavor configuration is not supported for the angular dimension. The ansatz in Eqs. (7), (15), and (16) multiplies the initial angular distributions by v-independent coefficients, while the numerical solutions shown in Figs. 2 and 3 and the text of Sec. III C state that flavor conversion is stronger around the peak of the angular distributions. Because the error metric in Eq. (21) integrates over v before normalizing, a 15% integrated error is compatible with much larger pointwise errors in the forward direction; the paper's own Sec. V notes that the errors cancel out after integrating over v. Please either restrict the central claim to angle-integrated spectra or add an angle-resolved error measure (for example, a v-dependent version of Eq. (21)) and quantify the forward-direction error.
  2. [Eq. (14)] The fast-flavor survival fraction R is an empirical expression without derivation from the equations of motion, and its functional form is traced to earlier single-energy simulations (Ref. [63]). The subsequent comparison for the DC configurations therefore validates a transfer of a fit rather than an independent prediction, and the claim that the ansatz accounts for the overshoot of equipartition is not supported by a mechanism. The paper should explicitly label Eq. (14) as a phenomenological input, state its calibration range, and discuss how the error scales when n_nu_e, n_nu_bar_e, or the spectral temperatures leave the tested range.
  3. [Secs. III C and IV A] The quantitative evidence for the central claim is thinner than the text suggests. Only the 0.15 contours are plotted in Figs. 4-6, not the achieved error values at the sampled points, and the scan fixes n_nu_e = 0.60, uses only mu = 63 and 630 km^-1, and only two sets of spectral temperatures. The threshold E_th = 5.4 T_nu_e is introduced without justification. Please report the median and maximum Delta over the sampled grid, state the fraction of parameter space inside the 0.15 region, and clearly mark which parts of the recipe are interpolation rather than extrapolation.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. V] The text contains a typo: 'quasi-steady-staste' should be 'quasi-steady-state'.
  2. [Sec. III A] The quantity E_c is used in Eqs. (7)-(9) and in the surrounding discussion but is never explicitly defined; please define it (presumably the spectral crossing energy).
  3. [References] Several references are incomplete: [33], [37], [38], [41], [42], [50], [51], and [76] lack years, volume/page numbers, or both. Please complete them before publication.
  4. [Figs. 2 and 3] The solid/dashed line styles are described in the captions, but the legends in the rendered figures should be made readable in grayscale; the color contrast between the numerical and ansatz curves is low in the bottom angular panels.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Partially circular: the fast-flavor survival fraction R in Eq. (14) is an empirical expression validated on the same DC case it was introduced to reproduce; the slow-flavor ansatz and the broad parameter-space survey are independent benchmarks.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. III B, Eq. (14) and Eq. (16), Fig. 3 caption; parameter-space test in Sec. III C]
    "In order to model the quasi-steady-state flavor configuration, we assume that the fraction of ¯νe that survive is described by the following empirical expression: R= 1 3 (1 + 1−nνe /2−(nνe−n¯νe)), which accounts for the fact that fast instabilities can overshoot flavor equipartition (R< 0.5) when nνe is large and the ELN is low (cf. Sec. III C). ... The survival fraction in Eq. (14) matches the antineutrino distribution almost exactly."

    Eq. (14) is not derived from the equations of motion; it is presented as an 'empirical expression' and justified by a numerical fact deferred to Sec. III C. The fast ansatz then builds the final antineutrino state as ¯ρ_v,ee = R ¯ρ_v,0,ee + (1−R) ¯ρ_v,0,xx (Eq. 16), so R directly controls the predicted antineutrino survival fraction. The Fig. 3 caption reports that this R 'matches the antineutrino distribution almost exactly' for the same DC ensemble in which the empirical form was introduced. That point is therefore an in-sample check rather than an out-of-sample prediction. The broader parameter-space comparison in Sec. III C is genuinely independent for the other ensembles, so the circularity is partial rather than total.

full rationale

The slow-conversion ansatz, Eqs. (7)–(10), is largely self-contained: its unknown coefficient a is fixed by continuity at E_c and lepton-number conservation (Eqs. 12–13), not by fitting the final ρ_v,ee, and the subsequent comparison against multi-angle, multi-energy solutions of the kinetic equations is an external benchmark. The fast-conversion ansatz contains one in-sample element: Eq. (14) is an empirical survival fraction that is introduced in the DC example and then validated on that same example in Fig. 3. This is a fitted-input-called-prediction pattern for that particular case, although R has no free parameters across the survey and the rest of the parameter space is an independent test. Reference [63] is self-cited for consistency, but it is not the sole load-bearing support because the paper's own numerical solutions are used for validation. The paper also explicitly acknowledges a scope limitation: 'flavor conversion is stronger around the peak of the angular distributions' and 'the errors cancel out after integrating over v'; this weakens the abstract-level multi-angle claim but is a correctness/scope issue, not an additional circular step. Overall, one partially circular empirical coefficient with a broad independent validation justifies a score of 4.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The ansatz relies on several posited functional forms and an empirically calibrated survival fraction, plus standard mean-field and periodic-box assumptions. The main non-standard inputs are the piecewise structures of Eqs. (7) and (15) and the survival fraction R of Eq. (14).

free parameters (5)
  • Fast-flavor survival fraction R = R = (1/3)[1 + (1 - n_nu_e)/(2 - (n_nu_e - n_nu_e_bar))]
    Empirical expression in Eq. (14), calibrated on single-energy numerical results from the authors' prior work Ref. [63]; used to set the high-energy neutrino and all antineutrino survival fractions in the DC ansatz.
  • Energy threshold E_th = E_th = 5.4 T_nu_e
    Chosen by hand in Sec. III B to separate low- and high-energy regimes in the DC ansatz; no derivation is given for the factor 5.4.
  • Normalization a for NC ansatz = a_e = a_x = a, determined by Eq. (12) and lepton-number conservation Eq. (13)
    Parameter in Eq. (11) that sets the survival fraction for the slow-conversion ansatz; not fitted to the final state but introduced ad hoc to enforce continuity and conservation.
  • Coefficients b_e, b_x = Determined by Eq. (19) and lepton-number conservation
    Linear combination weights in the low-energy DC ansatz Eq. (15); chosen to satisfy a boundary condition and conservation, not derived from first principles.
  • Effective temperature T = Implicitly defined by continuity at E_th
    Effective Fermi-Dirac temperature in Eq. (15) for E < E_th; set by continuity, so it depends on the initial spectra and the ansatz form.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Mean-field approximation and two-flavor treatment
    Equations (1) neglect quantum decoherence, collisions, and three-flavor effects; standard in the field but limits applicability to dense neutrino gases.
  • domain assumption Axial symmetry and periodic boundary conditions yield representative quasi-steady states
    The box is one-dimensional with periodic boundaries; the authors stop at t = L to avoid artificial repeated encounters, but assume the t = L state represents the quasi-steady configuration.
  • domain assumption Spectral crossings in the initial distributions are sufficient for slow flavor instability
    Sec. II B imposes T_nu_x > T_nu_e, T_nu_e_bar and n_nu_x < n_nu_e to guarantee e-x crossings, relying on standard criteria from Refs. [35,40,68-70].
  • ad hoc to paper The ansatz forms (piecewise equipartition and linear combinations) span the quasi-steady state manifold
    Equations (7)-(10) and (15)-(18) are posited functional forms. Their success is empirical; there is no derivation from the equations of motion.
  • ad hoc to paper Survival probabilities are independent of propagation angle v
    Assumed in constructing the ansatz; the authors note in Sec. III A and Sec. V that this fails for v >= 0.9 and for shallow crossings.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quasi-steady flavor configuration of multi-energy neutrino ensembles." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UKUIQGGF

@misc{pith2026260806464,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quasi-steady flavor configuration of multi-energy neutrino ensembles},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UKUIQGGF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.06464}
}
read the original abstract

Neutrino flavor conversion profoundly impacts the explosion mechanism and multi-messenger emissions of core-collapse supernovae. Yet, state-of-the-art hydrodynamic simulations of neutrino-dense astrophysical environments cannot account for neutrino quantum kinetics, necessitating subgrid schemes to model the impact of neutrino self-interaction on the quasi-steady-state flavor configuration. We present semi-analytical approximations for the outcomes of both slow and fast flavor conversions in quasi-homogeneous systems with periodic boundary conditions. Independent of the mass ordering, our ansatz demonstrates excellent agreement with multi-angle and multi-energy solutions of the neutrino kinetic equations across a wide range of representative (anti)neutrino distributions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.06464 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Characterization of the (anti)neutrino parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Energy (top panels, after angle integration) and angular (bottom panels, after energy integration) flavor distributions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Comparison between the numerical solution of Eqs. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: shows the ratio between the initial average energy of νe and the one in the quasi-steady state for ensembles with the same energy-integrated angular dis￾tributions as those in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: shows contours of the average energy of νe obtained by solving Eqs. (1) in NO and IO. Overall, en￾sembles without angular crossings are stable for a broader range of initial parameters in IO. The (anti)neutrino configurations in the lower left corner of the parameter s…

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

78 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages

  1. [63]

    Goimil-Garc´ ıa and I

    M. Goimil-Garc´ ıa and I. Tamborra, Phys. Rev. D112, 103011 (2025), arXiv:2509.22805 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2025

  2. [1]

    Janka, (2025), arXiv:2502.14836 [astro-ph.HE]

    H.-T. Janka, (2025), arXiv:2502.14836 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2025

  3. [2]

    Burrows and D

    A. Burrows and D. Vartanyan, Nature589, 29 (2021), arXiv:2009.14157 [astro-ph.SR]

    arXiv 2021

  4. [3]

    Tamborra, Nature Rev

    I. Tamborra, Nature Rev. Phys.7, 285 (2025), arXiv:2412.09699 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2025

  5. [4]

    Vitagliano, I

    E. Vitagliano, I. Tamborra, and G. G. Raffelt, Rev. Mod. Phys.92, 45006 (2020), arXiv:1910.11878 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2020

  6. [5]

    G. G. Raffelt, H.-T. Janka, and D. F. G. Fiorillo (2025) arXiv:2509.16306 [astro-ph.HE]. 10

    arXiv 2025

  7. [6]

    H. Duan, G. M. Fuller, and Y.-Z. Qian, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.60, 569 (2010), arXiv:1001.2799 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2010

  8. [7]

    Mirizzi, I

    A. Mirizzi, I. Tamborra, H.-T. Janka, N. Saviano, K. Schol- berg, R. Bollig, L. H¨ udepohl, and S. Chakraborty, Riv. Nuovo Cim.39, 1 (2016), arXiv:1508.00785 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2016

Show all 78 references
  1. [8]

    Tamborra and S

    I. Tamborra and S. Shalgar, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 71, 165 (2021), arXiv:2011.01948 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Johns, S

    L. Johns, S. Richers, and M.-R. Wu, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.75, 399 (2025), arXiv:2503.05959 [astro-ph.HE]

    2025 arXiv

  3. [10]

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

    2024 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Ehring, S

    J. Ehring, S. Abbar, H.-T. Janka, G. G. Raffelt, and I. Tamborra, Phys. Rev. D107, 103034 (2023), arXiv:2301.11938 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Ehring, S

    J. Ehring, S. Abbar, H.-T. Janka, G. G. Raffelt, and I. Tamborra, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 061401 (2023), arXiv:2305.11207 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Nagakura, Phys

    H. Nagakura, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 211401 (2023), arXiv:2301.10785 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Wang and A

    T. Wang and A. Burrows, Astrophys. J.986, 153 (2025), arXiv:2503.04896 [astro-ph.HE]

    2025 arXiv

  8. [15]

    M.-R. Wu, I. Tamborra, O. Just, and H.-T. Janka, Phys. Rev. D96, 123015 (2017), arXiv:1711.00477 [astro- ph.HE]

    2017 arXiv

  9. [16]

    O. Just, S. Abbar, M.-R. Wu, I. Tamborra, H.-T. Janka, and F. Capozzi, Phys. Rev. D105, 083024 (2022), arXiv:2203.16559 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  10. [17]

    George, M.-R

    M. George, M.-R. Wu, I. Tamborra, R. Ardevol-Pulpillo, and H.-T. Janka, Phys. Rev. D102, 103015 (2020), arXiv:2009.04046 [astro-ph.HE]

    2020 arXiv

  11. [18]

    K. A. Lund, P. Mukhopadhyay, J. M. Miller, and G. C. McLaughlin, Astrophys. J. Lett.985, L9 (2025), arXiv:2503.23727 [astro-ph.HE]

    2025 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Y. Qiu, D. Radice, S. Richers, and M. Bhattacharyya, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 091401 (2025), arXiv:2503.11758 [astro-ph.HE]

    2025 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Gogilashvili and I

    M. Gogilashvili and I. Tamborra, (2026), arXiv:2605.16504 [astro-ph.HE]

    2026 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Gogilashvili and I

    M. Gogilashvili and I. Tamborra, (2026), arXiv:2605.18972 [astro-ph.HE]

    2026 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Akaho, H

    R. Akaho, H. Nagakura, W. Iwakami, S. Furusawa, A. Harada, H. Okawa, H. Matsufuru, K. Sumiyoshi, and S. Yamada, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 191002 (2026), arXiv:2601.08269 [astro-ph.HE]

    2026 arXiv

  16. [23]

    R. F. Sawyer, Phys. Rev. D72, 045003 (2005), arXiv:hep- ph/0503013

    2005

  17. [24]

    Chakraborty, R

    S. Chakraborty, R. Hansen, I. Izaguirre, and G. Raffelt, Nucl. Phys. B908, 366 (2016), arXiv:1602.02766 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Johns, Phys

    L. Johns, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 191001 (2023), arXiv:2104.11369 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Izaguirre, G

    I. Izaguirre, G. G. Raffelt, and I. Tamborra, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 021101 (2017), arXiv:1610.01612 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Morinaga, Phys

    T. Morinaga, Phys. Rev. D105, L101301 (2022), arXiv:2103.15267 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Padilla-Gay, I

    I. Padilla-Gay, I. Tamborra, and G. G. Raffelt, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 121102 (2022), arXiv:2109.14627 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  22. [29]

    D. F. G. Fiorillo and G. G. Raffelt, Phys. Rev. D107, 123024 (2023), arXiv:2303.12143 [hep-ph]

    2023

  23. [30]

    D. F. G. Fiorillo, M. Goimil-Garc´ ıa, and G. G. Raffelt, Phys. Rev. D111, 083028 (2025), arXiv:2412.09027 [hep- ph]

    2025 arXiv

  24. [31]

    H. Duan, G. M. Fuller, J. Carlson, and Y.-Z. Qian, Phys. Rev. D74, 105014 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0606616

    2006 arXiv

  25. [32]

    H. Duan, G. M. Fuller, J. Carlson, and Y.-Z. Qian, Phys. Rev. Lett.99, 241802 (2007), arXiv:0707.0290 [astro-ph]

    2007 arXiv

  26. [33]

    G. L. Fogli, E. Lisi, A. Marrone, and A. Mirizzi, JCAP 12, 010, arXiv:0707.1998 [hep-ph]

    1998 arXiv

  27. [34]

    G. L. Fogli, E. Lisi, A. Marrone, A. Mirizzi, and I. Tam- borra, Phys. Rev. D78, 097301 (2008), arXiv:0808.0807 [hep-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  28. [35]

    Dasgupta, A

    B. Dasgupta, A. Dighe, G. G. Raffelt, and A. Y. Smirnov, Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 051105 (2009), arXiv:0904.3542 [hep-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  29. [36]

    Padilla-Gay, H.-H

    I. Padilla-Gay, H.-H. Chen, S. Abbar, M.-R. Wu, and Z. Xiong, Phys. Rev. D112, 043039 (2025), arXiv:2505.11588 [astro-ph.HE]

    2025 arXiv

  30. [37]

    Shalgar and I

    S. Shalgar and I. Tamborra, JCAP09, 021, arXiv:2406.09504 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv

  31. [38]

    Shalgar and I

    S. Shalgar and I. Tamborra, JCAP12, 026, arXiv:2503.03835 [astro-ph.HE]

  32. [39]

    D. F. G. Fiorillo, H.-T. Janka, and G. G. Raffelt, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 231003 (2025), arXiv:2507.22985 [hep-ph]

    2025

  33. [40]

    Dedin Neto, I

    P. Dedin Neto, I. Tamborra, and S. Shalgar, (2023), arXiv:2312.06556 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  34. [41]

    Shalgar and I

    S. Shalgar and I. Tamborra, JCAP01, 014, arXiv:2007.07926 [astro-ph.HE]

    2007 arXiv

  35. [42]

    D. F. G. Fiorillo and G. G. Raffelt, JHEP12, 205, arXiv:2409.17232 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  36. [43]

    M.-R. Wu, M. George, C.-Y. Lin, and Z. Xiong, Phys. Rev. D104, 103003 (2021), arXiv:2108.09886 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  37. [44]

    Richers, D

    S. Richers, D. E. Willcox, N. M. Ford, and A. Myers, Phys. Rev. D103, 083013 (2021), arXiv:2101.02745 [astro- ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  38. [45]

    Richers, D

    S. Richers, D. Willcox, and N. Ford, Phys. Rev. D104, 103023 (2021), arXiv:2109.08631 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  39. [46]

    Zaizen and T

    M. Zaizen and T. Morinaga, Phys. Rev. D104, 083035 (2021), arXiv:2104.10532 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  40. [47]

    Xiong, M.-R

    Z. Xiong, M.-R. Wu, M. George, C.-Y. Lin, N. K. Largani, T. Fischer, and G. Mart´ ınez-Pinedo, Phys. Rev. D109, 123008 (2024), arXiv:2402.19252 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  41. [48]

    Shalgar and I

    S. Shalgar and I. Tamborra, Phys. Rev. D107, 063025 (2023), arXiv:2207.04058 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  42. [49]

    Shalgar and I

    S. Shalgar and I. Tamborra, Phys. Rev. D108, 043006 (2023), arXiv:2206.00676 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  43. [50]

    Cornelius, S

    M. Cornelius, S. Shalgar, and I. Tamborra, JCAP02, 038, arXiv:2312.03839 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv

  44. [51]

    Cornelius, S

    M. Cornelius, S. Shalgar, and I. Tamborra, JCAP11, 060, arXiv:2407.04769 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv

  45. [52]

    Nagakura and M

    H. Nagakura and M. Zaizen, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 261101 (2022), arXiv:2206.04097 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  46. [53]

    Nagakura, Phys

    H. Nagakura, Phys. Rev. D106, 063011 (2022), arXiv:2206.04098 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  47. [54]

    Johns, Phys

    L. Johns, Phys. Rev. D112, 043024 (2025), arXiv:2401.15247 [astro-ph.HE]

    2025 arXiv

  48. [55]

    Nagakura and M

    H. Nagakura and M. Zaizen, Phys. Rev. D107, 063033 (2023), arXiv:2211.01398 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  49. [56]

    Johns and A

    L. Johns and A. Kost, (2025), arXiv:2506.03271 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  50. [57]

    J. Liu, H. Nagakura, M. Zaizen, L. Johns, and S. Yamada, Phys. Rev. D111, 123004 (2025), arXiv:2503.18145 [astro- ph.HE]

    2025 arXiv

  51. [58]

    Zaizen and H

    M. Zaizen and H. Nagakura, Phys. Rev. D107, 103022 (2023), arXiv:2211.09343 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  52. [59]

    Zaizen and H

    M. Zaizen and H. Nagakura, Phys. Rev. D107, 123021 (2023), arXiv:2304.05044 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  53. [60]

    Xiong and Y.-Z

    Z. Xiong and Y.-Z. Qian, Phys. Lett. B820, 136550 (2021), arXiv:2104.05618 [astro-ph.HE]. 11

    2021 arXiv

  54. [61]

    Xiong, M.-R

    Z. Xiong, M.-R. Wu, M. George, and C.-Y. Lin, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 051003 (2025), arXiv:2403.17269 [astro-ph.HE]

    2025 arXiv

  55. [62]

    Nagakura, L

    H. Nagakura, L. Johns, and M. Zaizen, Phys. Rev. D109, 083013 (2024), arXiv:2312.16285 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Hannestad, G

    S. Hannestad, G. G. Raffelt, G. Sigl, and Y. Y. Y. Wong, Phys. Rev. D74, 105010 (2006), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 76, 029901 (2007)], arXiv:astro-ph/0608695

    2006 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Tamborra, L

    I. Tamborra, L. H¨ udepohl, G. Raffelt, and H.-T. Janka, Astrophys. J.839, 132 (2017), arXiv:1702.00060 [astro- ph.HE]

    2017 arXiv

  58. [66]

    T. D. Brandt, A. Burrows, C. D. Ott, and E. Livne, As- trophys. J.728, 8 (2011), arXiv:1009.4654 [astro-ph.HE]

    2011 arXiv

  59. [67]

    M. T. Keil, G. G. Raffelt, and H.-T. Janka, Astrophys. J. 590, 971 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0208035

    2003 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Banerjee, A

    A. Banerjee, A. Dighe, and G. G. Raffelt, Phys. Rev. D 84, 053013 (2011), arXiv:1107.2308 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Dasgupta, Phys

    B. Dasgupta, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 081102 (2022), arXiv:2110.00192 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  62. [70]

    D. F. G. Fiorillo and G. G. Raffelt, JHEP04, 146, arXiv:2412.02747 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  63. [71]

    Capozzi, S

    F. Capozzi, S. Abbar, R. Bollig, and H.-T. Janka, Phys. Rev. D103, 063013 (2021), arXiv:2012.08525 [astro- ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Nagakura, T

    H. Nagakura, T. Morinaga, C. Kato, and S. Ya- mada 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4cf2 (2019), arXiv:1910.04288 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Nagakura, L

    H. Nagakura, L. Johns, A. Burrows, and G. M. Fuller, Phys. Rev. D104, 083025 (2021), arXiv:2108.07281 [astro- ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Cornelius, I

    M. Cornelius, I. Tamborra, M. Heinlein, and H.-T. Janka, Phys. Rev. D112, 063004 (2025), arXiv:2506.20723 [astro- ph.HE]

    2025

  67. [75]

    Cornelius, I

    M. Cornelius, I. Tamborra, M. Heinlein, S. Shalgar, and H.-T. Janka, Phys. Rev. D112, 063006 (2025), arXiv:2507.13429 [astro-ph.HE]

    2025 arXiv

  68. [76]

    D. F. G. Fiorillo and G. G. Raffelt, JHEP01, 147, arXiv:2505.20389 [hep-ph]

  69. [77]

    Akaho, H

    R. Akaho, H. Nagakura, and S. Yamada, Phys. Rev. D 112, 043015 (2025), arXiv:2506.07017 [astro-ph.HE]

    2025 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Richers, J

    S. Richers, J. Froustey, S. Ghosh, F. Foucart, and J. Gomez, Phys. Rev. D110, 103019 (2024), arXiv:2409.04405 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.