Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 72 references

Paleodetectors can register neutrino recoils from past Galactic core collapses, and a burst of several tens of supernovae at 10 pc would be within their reach.

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

2026-07-30 19:54 UTC pith:2LN5VJ3M

load-bearing objection Solid sensitivity extension of Baum paleodetectors over remnant diversity and EOS; the 'tens at 10 pc' number is useful but inherits the old track-length pipeline and skips the electronic-stopping fix the authors themselves cite. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.26826 v1 pith:2LN5VJ3M submitted 2026-07-29 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.GAhep-ph

Paleodetectors for neutrino signals from diverse Galactic stellar collapses

Mahiro Yamasaki , Ken'ichiro Nakazato This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE astro-ph.GAhep-ph
keywords paleodetectorscore-collapse supernovaeneutrinosneutron starsblack holesnuclear equation of statesnowball Earthnuclear recoils
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.

This paper asks how well ancient minerals can record neutrinos from past Galactic core-collapse events once the real diversity of outcomes is included: ordinary neutron stars of different masses and failed supernovae that form black holes, under several nuclear equations of state. Neutrino output tracks the gravitational energy released, so more compact remnants and equations of state that support heavier proto-neutron stars before collapse produce stronger signals and better sensitivity. The authors also test a snowball-Earth–motivated case in which many supernovae explode near the solar system in a short burst. They find that several tens of events at about 10 parsecs would leave a track excess that paleodetectors could distinguish from a steady Galactic rate. A reader who cares about deep time gains a geological window on Galactic star death and a possible physical link between nearby supernovae and Earth’s climate history.

Core claim

Once high-mass neutron stars, failed supernovae, and three nuclear equations of state are folded into the neutrino spectra, paleodetectors using low-uranium epsomite can reach time-averaged Galactic core-collapse rates near 0.01 per year for gigayear-old samples, and a burst of several tens of supernovae at 10 pc remains detectable at the few-sigma level across the remnant fractions and equations of state considered.

What carries the argument

Damage track-length spectra in ancient minerals from nuclear recoils induced by coherent neutrino–nucleus scattering. Spectra are built from simulated multi-flavor neutrino emission for canonical-mass neutron stars, high-mass neutron stars, and black-hole-forming collapses under three equations of state, then compared with radioactive and other neutrino backgrounds in a statistical discovery-reach analysis.

Load-bearing premise

The quoted reaches inherit the earlier paleodetector background model and track-length conversion for low-uranium epsomite, while setting aside a reported change in long-track lengths from electronic stopping power.

What would settle it

Read out a suite of ~100 g epsomite samples spanning ages 0.1–1.0 Gyr at ~15 nm resolution with uranium near 0.01 ppb; if the intermediate-length track counts show no excess above a steady Galactic rate after background subtraction, the claimed sensitivity to a several-tens-of-SNe burst at 10 pc fails.

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

If this is right

  • Higher fractions of high-mass neutron stars and failed supernovae lower both the minimum detectable Galactic SN rate and the mineral age needed for a 3σ signal.
  • Equations of state that yield more compact neutron stars or larger maximum masses increase neutrino emission and improve paleodetector reach.
  • A snowball-Earth–linked burst of several tens of core collapses at ~10 pc is in principle accessible with ten 100 g epsomite samples of graded ages.
  • Young massive clusters above roughly 10^4 solar masses can host enough supernovae to produce such a paleodetector signature.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If a burst excess is eventually measured, the harder track-length spectrum expected from failed supernovae could help separate black-hole-forming collapses from ordinary neutron-star-forming ones.
  • A paleodetector burst constraint combined with independent chemical or cosmic-ray proxies for snowball Earth would turn a climate hypothesis into a multi-messenger geological test.
  • Because the paper holds the Sun fixed and ignores spiral arms, any real radial migration or arm passages would mainly reshape the steady-rate baseline against which bursts are judged.

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. This paper extends the paleodetector analysis of Baum et al. (2020) to neutrinos from Galactic core-collapse events, incorporating diversity of remnants (canonical-mass NS, high-mass NS, and failed SNe forming BHs) and three nuclear EOS models (Togashi, LS220, Shen) via the flavor-summed spectra of Ashida & Nakazato (2022). Using neutral-current recoils, Helm form factors, SRIM track lengths, and the existing Baum background/SWORDFISH discovery-reach pipeline on epsomite (C_238 = 0.01 ppb), the authors map 3σ reaches in the time-averaged Galactic SN rate and in mineral age as functions of f_HNS and f_BH. They further evaluate multi-age samples for a burst-like excess at t_SN ≈ 0.65 Gyr (snowball-Earth motivated), concluding that several tens of events at D_SN = 10 pc remain detectable across the scanned remnant fractions and EOSs, with improved reach for more emissive models.

Significance. The work cleanly quantifies how remnant diversity and EOS-driven differences in total neutrino emission (binding energy for NS remnants; maximum proto-NS mass for BH-forming cases) shift paleodetector sensitivity, which Baum et al. and related studies treated with a single spectral model. The parameter scans in f_HNS–f_BH, the explicit EOS comparison, and the open data release are genuine strengths and make the relative trends reproducible. The burst-like / snowball-Earth application is a concrete, falsifiable target that links Galactic stellar populations to geological timescales. If the absolute reaches hold under updated track physics, the paper is a useful reference for both the paleodetector and core-collapse neutrino communities.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. II C; Fig. 1; Sec. III B / Fig. 7] Sec. II C explicitly cites Fung et al. (2025) [62] reporting that electronic stopping suppresses tracks ≳200 nm and produces a hump near that scale, then discards the effect “for simplicity.” Fig. 1 and the text show that failed-SN (and atmospheric) contributions preferentially populate x ≳ 100–200 nm—the same window used for signal/background discrimination. The headline quantitative claim (abstract; Sec. III B; Fig. 7) that “several tens” of SNe at 10 pc are reachable is therefore computed entirely with the unmodified Baum/SRIM dR/dx pipeline. Because no recomputation or bounding estimate of the multi-age excess test under the Fung modification is provided, the absolute N_SN contours are unanchored to the most recent track physics the authors themselves cite. A sensitivity study (or a clear upper/lower bound on how much the 3σ N_SN and rate reaches move) is needed before the absolute n
  2. [Sec. III B; Eqs. (3)–(7); Fig. 6–7] In Sec. III B the same (f_HNS, f_BH, EOS) mixture is applied simultaneously to the steady Galactic rate and to the burst. That is reasonable as a baseline, but the harder failed-SN spectra change the track-length shape relative to the CNS/HNS mixture (Fig. 1). The null hypothesis tested is only “time-constant rate with tracks scaling with age,” not a shape-aware alternative. If the analysis window or Swordfish binning is sensitive to spectral hardness, the significance of a pure rate excess could be misestimated when f_BH is large. A short check that the quoted 1σ/3σ N_SN values are stable under a shape-inclusive null (or under CNS-only steady vs mixed burst) would strengthen the burst claim.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. II heading] Section headers contain stray spaces (“P ALEODETECTORS”, “II. NEUTRINO SIGNALS IN P ALEODETECTORS”). Clean for production.
  2. [Sec. II B] The Solar galactocentric radius is fixed at R_0 = 8.7 kpc and radial migration is neglected (Sec. II B). The text correctly flags this as conservative and defers migration/spiral structure; a one-sentence quantitative estimate of the flux shift for ΔR ∼ 1 kpc would help readers gauge the systematic.
  3. [Sec. II D] DSNB is taken from Beacom (2010) rather than the consistent Ashida & Nakazato spectra, justified by its smallness relative to the Galactic time-averaged flux. Stating the fractional contribution in the analysis window (even if ≲ few percent) would make the approximation fully transparent.
  4. [Figs. 1–5] Fig. 1 caption and body use R_SN = 3.0×10^{-2} yr^{-1} for illustration while sensitivity figures scan rates; ensure axis units and the “×10^{-2}” notation are unambiguous in all panels of Figs. 2–5.
  5. [Abstract] Abstract: “SNe occuring” → “occurring”.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: forward sensitivity calculation from external spectra, Galactic model, and Baum et al. paleodetector pipeline; free parameters are scanned, not fitted to force the burst reach.

full rationale

The paper’s load-bearing results (minimum detectable R_SN, required mineral age, and N_SN for burst-like events at 10 pc) are forward computations of discovery reach. Neutrino spectra are taken from published core-collapse simulations (Ref. [22]); the Galactic spatial distribution follows Adams et al.; track-length spectra, backgrounds, epsomite setup, and Swordfish statistics follow Baum et al. [8, 42]. f_HNS and f_BH are free scan parameters, not fitted to any data set that is later “predicted.” The burst analysis generates mock multi-age track counts under an injected N_SN/D_SN^2 excess and tests rejection of a constant-rate null—standard sensitivity methodology, not a quantity defined from the same observations it claims to predict. Self-citation to the authors’ prior spectral library supplies input physics and does not close a definitional or uniqueness loop. No equation reduces a claimed prediction to a fitted input by construction. Honest finding: no significant circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

7 free parameters · 8 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central detectability claims rest on an inherited paleodetector response/background model, published core-collapse neutrino spectral libraries for three EOS and three remnant classes, a fixed Galactic spatial distribution, and several benchmark experimental numbers (mass, U concentration, resolution, distance, burst time). No new physical entities are postulated; free parameters are mostly scan knobs or community benchmarks rather than fits to the claimed signal.

free parameters (7)
  • f_HNS (high-mass NS birth fraction) = scanned 0–0.5
    Treated as a free scan parameter in [0, 0.5]; observational/Bayesian upper range ~0.32–0.44 is cited only as context, not as a fit.
  • f_BH (failed-SN fraction) = scanned 0–0.5
    Free scan parameter; LBT and stellar-model ranges (0.04–0.39, ~0.09–0.32) motivate the prior but are not fitted.
  • R_SN benchmark = 3.0e-2 yr^-1
    Time-constant Galactic successful-SN rate fixed to 3.0e-2 yr^-1 from literature when converting reach into mineral age or burst excess.
  • C_238 uranium concentration = 0.01 ppb
    Benchmark contamination for marine evaporite epsomite, taken from Baum et al.; controls neutron background and thus all reaches.
  • D_SN burst distance = 10 pc
    Benchmark distance for snowball-Earth-motivated burst; flux depends only on N_SN/D_SN^2.
  • CNS/HNS gravitational masses = 1.34 / 1.65 M_sun
    Representative remnant masses chosen to match the spectral library (~1.34 and ~1.65 M_sun).
  • Sample mass, ages, readout resolution = 100 g; 15 nm; 0.1–1 Gyr grid
    Experimental benchmark: M=100 g (ten samples for burst), t_age grid 0.1–1.0 Gyr, sigma_x=15 nm.
axioms (8)
  • domain assumption Neutral-current coherent neutrino-nucleus scattering is flavor-blind, so only the all-flavor sum spectrum matters for tracks.
    Stated in Sec. II A–C; standard electroweak assumption for E_nu ≲ 100 MeV recoils.
  • domain assumption Galactic core-collapse spatial density follows Adams et al. double-exponential with fixed Solar (R0,z0), held constant over Gyr exposures.
    Sec. II B; radial migration and spiral arms explicitly deferred.
  • domain assumption Failed SNe share the same spatial probability density f(R_E) as successful SNe.
    Sec. II B, used to write the BH flux analog of Eq. (3).
  • domain assumption Neutrino spectra for CNS/HNS/BH and Togashi/LS220/Shen are those of Ashida & Nakazato (2022) from the cited collapse/cooling simulations.
    Sec. II A; total energies track binding energy / maximum proto-NS mass as described.
  • domain assumption Baum et al. (2020) background model (U-238 fission+(alpha,n), single-alpha 234Th, solar/atmospheric/DSNB neutrinos) and SRIM track lengths are adequate; cosmic-ray neutrons negligible underground.
    Sec. II D; DSNB replaced by Beacom 2010 single model for simplicity.
  • ad hoc to paper Electronic-stopping modifications to the track-length spectrum (suppression ≳200 nm) can be neglected.
    Sec. II C explicitly sets aside Fung et al. (2025) Monte Carlo effects ‘for simplicity.’
  • standard math Helm nuclear form factor with the stated rn, a, s parameters describes the NC coherence loss.
    Eqs. (8)–(10), Sec. II C.
  • domain assumption Discovery reach is correctly given by the SWORDFISH no-signal 3σ rejection under the stated sample set and null of age-linear steady tracks.
    Sec. III, following Edwards & Weniger; burst analysis rejects constant-rate null on multi-age samples.

pith-pipeline@v1.2.0-daily-grok45 · 22571 in / 4193 out tokens · 86471 ms · 2026-07-30T19:54:49.337137+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The detectability of neutrinos from past Galactic core collapse supernovae (SNe) is investigated in terms of nuclear recoil tracks in ancient minerals, known as paleodetectors. To account for the diversity of core-collapse outcomes, variations in neutron star (NS) masses as well as failed SNe leading to black hole (BH) formation are taken into account. The role of the nuclear equation of state (EOS) is also considered, as it determines NS radii and maximum masses. The enhancement of sensitivity is quantified for models with larger neutrino emission. This emission reflects the gravitational energy released during core collapse and is larger for more compact remnants in the NS-forming case and for EOS with larger maximum masses in the BH-forming case. Furthermore, motivated by the hypothesis that nearby SN activity may have contributed to the snowball Earth events, the sensitivity to SNe occuring in a burst-like manner is also investigated. The results indicate that burst-like SN activity involving several tens of events at a distance of 10 pc would be within the reach of paleodetectors.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.26826 by Ken'ichiro Nakazato, Mahiro Yamasaki.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Damage track-length spectrum for an epsomite [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Left: Minimum Galactic SN rate required for neutrino detection with epsomite samples at the 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Minimum Galactic SN rate required for neutrino detection with epsomite samples at the 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Left: Mineral age of an epsomite sample required for neutrino detection at the 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Mineral age of an epsomite sample required for neutrino detection at the 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Left: Number of SNe required to detect burst-like events as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Number of SNe required to detect burst-like events as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.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

72 extracted references · 53 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    W. Li, R. Chornock, J. Leaman, A. V. Filippenko, D. Poznanski, X. Wang, M. Ganeshalingam, and F. Man- nucci, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Soci- ety412, 1473 (2011), arXiv:1006.4613 [astro-ph.SR]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  2. [2]

    S. M. Adams, C. S. Kochanek, J. F. Beacom, M. R. Va- gins, and K. Z. Stanek, The Astrophysical Journal778, 164 (2013), arXiv:1306.0559 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  3. [3]

    Rozwadowska, F

    K. Rozwadowska, F. Vissani, and E. Cappellaro, New Astronomy83, 101498 (2021), arXiv:2009.03438 [astro- ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    A. L. Quintana, N. J. Wright, and J. Mart ´ ınez Garc ´ ıa, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society538, 1367 (2025), arXiv:2503.08286 [astro-ph.SR]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    S. E. Woosley, A. Heger, and T. A. Weaver, Reviews of Modern Physics74, 1015 (2002)

    2002

  6. [6]

    S. J. Smartt, J. J. Eldridge, R. M. Crockett, and J. R. Maund, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical So- ciety395, 1409 (2009), arXiv:0809.0403 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  7. [7]

    Zapartas, S

    E. Zapartas, S. E. de Mink, R. G. Izzard, S.-C. Yoon, C. Badenes, Y. G¨ otberg, A. de Koter, C. J. Neijssel, M. Renzo, A. Schootemeijer, and T. S. Shrotriya, Astronomy and Astrophysics601, A29 (2017), arXiv:1701.07032 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  8. [8]

    S. Baum, T. D. P. Edwards, B. J. Kavanagh, P. Stengel, A. K. Drukier, K. Freese, M. G´ orski, and C. Weniger, Physical Review D101, 103017 (2020), arXiv:1906.05800 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  9. [9]

    S. Baum, P. Stengel, N. Abe, J. F. Acevedo, G. R. Araujo, Y. Asahara, F. Avignone, L. Balogh, L. Baudis, Y. Boukhtouchen, J. Bramante, P. A. Breur, L. Cac- cianiga, F. Capozzi, J. I. Collar, R. Ebadi, T. Edwards, K. Eitel, A. Elykov, R. C. Ewing, K. Freese, A. Fung, C. Galelli, U. A. Glasmacher, A. Gleason, N. Hasebe, S. Hirose, S. Horiuchi, Y. Hoshino, P...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  10. [10]

    S. F. Portegies Zwart, S. L. W. McMillan, and M. Gieles, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics48, 431 (2010), arXiv:1002.1961 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  11. [11]

    M. R. Krumholz, C. F. McKee, and J. Bland-Hawthorn, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics57, 227 (2019), arXiv:1812.01615 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  12. [12]

    Wielen, B

    R. Wielen, B. Fuchs, and C. Dettbarn, Astronomy and Astrophysics314, 438 (1996)

    1996

  13. [13]

    Nieva and N

    M.-F. Nieva and N. Przybilla, Astronomy and Astro- physics539, A143 (2012), arXiv:1203.5787 [astro-ph.SR]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  14. [14]

    Tsujimoto and J

    T. Tsujimoto and J. Baba, The Astrophysical Journal 904, 137 (2020), arXiv:2010.05962 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  15. [15]

    J. Baba, T. Tsujimoto, and T. R. Saitoh, The Astrophys- ical Journal Letters976, L29 (2024), arXiv:2412.02963 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  16. [16]

    P. F. Hoffman, Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences47, 1 (2019)

    2019

  17. [17]

    N. J. Shaviv, Physical Review Letters89, 051102 (2002), arXiv:astro-ph/0207637 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  18. [18]

    Svensmark, Astronomy and Geophysics48, 1.18 (2007)

    H. Svensmark, Astronomy and Geophysics48, 1.18 (2007)

    2007

  19. [19]

    Svensmark, M

    H. Svensmark, M. B. Enghoff, N. J. Shaviv, and J. Svens- mark, Nature Communications8, 2199 (2017)

    2017

  20. [20]

    Madau and M

    P. Madau and M. Dickinson, Annual Review of Astron- omy and Astrophysics52, 415 (2014), arXiv:1403.0007 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  21. [21]

    Kresse, T

    D. Kresse, T. Ertl, and H.-T. Janka, The Astrophys- ical Journal909, 169 (2021), arXiv:2010.04728 [astro- ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  22. [22]

    Ashida and K

    Y. Ashida and K. Nakazato, The Astrophysical Journal 937, 30 (2022), arXiv:2204.04880 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  23. [23]

    Ashida, K

    Y. Ashida, K. Nakazato, and T. Tsujimoto, The As- trophysical Journal953, 151 (2023), arXiv:2305.13543 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  24. [24]

    S. Baum, F. Capozzi, and S. Horiuchi, Physical Review D106, 123008 (2022), arXiv:2203.12696 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  25. [25]

    K. De, M. MacLeod, J. E. Jencson, E. Lovegrove, A. Antoni, E. Kara, M. M. Kasliwal, R. M. Lau, A. Loeb, M. Masterson, A. M. Meisner, C. Panagiotou, E. Quataert, and R. Simcoe, Science391, 689 (2026), arXiv:2410.14778 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2026

  26. [26]

    Liebend¨ orfer, O

    M. Liebend¨ orfer, O. E. B. Messer, A. Mezzacappa, S. W. Bruenn, C. Y. Cardall, and F.-K. Thielemann, The As- trophysical Journal Supplement Series150, 263 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0207036 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  27. [27]

    Sumiyoshi, S

    K. Sumiyoshi, S. Yamada, H. Suzuki, and S. Chiba, Physical Review Letters97, 091101 (2006), arXiv:astro- ph/0608509 [astro-ph]

    arXiv 2006

  28. [28]

    L. Walk, I. Tamborra, H.-T. Janka, A. Summa, and D. Kresse, Physical Review D101, 123013 (2020), arXiv:1910.12971 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  29. [29]

    Y. Suwa, R. Akaho, Y. Ashida, A. Harada, M. Harada, Y. Koshio, M. Mori, F. Nakanishi, K. Nakazato, K. Sumiyoshi, R. A. Wendell, and M. Zaizen, The Open Journal of Astrophysics8, E167 (2025), arXiv:2504.19510 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2025

  30. [30]

    Alsing, H

    J. Alsing, H. O. Silva, and E. Berti, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society478, 1377 (2018), arXiv:1709.07889 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  31. [31]

    L. S. Rocha, J. E. Horvath, L. M. de S´ a, G. Y. Chinen, L. G. Bar˜ ao, and M. G. B. de Avellar, Universe10, 3 (2023), arXiv:2312.13244 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  32. [32]

    Fan, M.-Z

    Y.-Z. Fan, M.-Z. Han, J.-L. Jiang, D.-S. Shao, and S.-P. Tang, Physical Review D109, 043052 (2024), arXiv:2309.12644 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  33. [33]

    Golomb, I

    J. Golomb, I. Legred, K. Chatziioannou, and P. Landry, Physical Review D111, 023029 (2025), arXiv:2410.14597 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2025

  34. [34]

    Biswas and S

    B. Biswas and S. Rosswog, Physical Review D112, 023045 (2025), arXiv:2408.15192 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  35. [35]

    ¨Ozel and P

    F. ¨Ozel and P. Freire, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics54, 401 (2016), arXiv:1603.02698 [astro- ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  36. [36]

    J. M. Lattimer, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science71, 433 (2021)

    2021

  37. [37]

    B.-A. Li, X. Grundler, W.-J. Xie, and N.-B. Zhang, Physical Review D110, 103040 (2024), arXiv:2407.07823 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  38. [38]

    Koehn, H

    H. Koehn, H. Rose, P. T. H. Pang, R. Somasun- daram, B. T. Reed, I. Tews, A. Abac, O. Komoltsev, N. Kunert, A. Kurkela, M. W. Coughlin, B. F. Healy, and T. Dietrich, Physical Review X15, 021014 (2025), arXiv:2402.04172 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  39. [39]

    Sumiyoshi, S

    K. Sumiyoshi, S. Yamada, and H. Suzuki, The Astrophys- ical Journal667, 382 (2007), arXiv:0706.3762 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  40. [40]

    A. W. Steiner, M. Hempel, and T. Fischer, The Astro- physical Journal774, 17 (2013), arXiv:1207.2184 [astro- ph.SR]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  41. [41]

    da Silva Schneider, E

    A. da Silva Schneider, E. O’Connor, E. Granqvist, A. Be- tranhandy, and S. M. Couch, The Astrophysical Journal 894, 4 (2020), arXiv:2001.10434 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  42. [42]

    Edwards and B

    T. Edwards and B. J. Kavanagh, tedwards2412/sn- paleology: Version 1.0 - arxiv release (2019)

    2019

  43. [43]

    A. K. Drukier, S. Baum, K. Freese, M. G´ orski, and P. Stengel, Physical Review D99, 043014 (2019), arXiv:1811.06844 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  44. [44]

    T. D. P. Edwards, B. J. Kavanagh, C. Weniger, S. Baum, A. K. Drukier, K. Freese, M. G´ orski, and P. Stengel, Physical Review D99, 043541 (2019), arXiv:1811.10549 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  45. [45]

    S. Baum, A. K. Drukier, K. Freese, M. G´ orski, and P. Stengel, Physics Letters B803, 135325 (2020)

    2020

  46. [46]

    S. Baum, W. DeRocco, T. D. P. Edwards, and S. Kalia, Physical Review D104, 123015 (2021), arXiv:2107.02812 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  47. [47]

    M. T. Keil, G. G. Raffelt, and H.-T. Janka, The Astrophysical Journal590, 971 (2003), arXiv:astro- ph/0208035 [astro-ph]

    arXiv 2003

  48. [48]

    Nakazato, K

    K. Nakazato, K. Sumiyoshi, and H. Togashi, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan73, 639 (2021), arXiv:2103.14386 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  49. [49]

    Nakazato, F

    K. Nakazato, F. Nakanishi, M. Harada, Y. Koshio, Y. Suwa, K. Sumiyoshi, A. Harada, M. Mori, and R. A. Wendell, The Astrophysical Journal925, 98 (2022), arXiv:2108.03009 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  50. [50]

    Togashi, K

    H. Togashi, K. Nakazato, Y. Takehara, S. Yamamuro, H. Suzuki, and M. Takano, Nuclear Physics A961, 78 (2017), arXiv:1702.05324 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  51. [51]

    J. M. Lattimer and D. F. Swesty, Nuclear Physics A535, 331 (1991)

    1991

  52. [52]

    H. Shen, H. Toki, K. Oyamatsu, and K. Sumiyoshi, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series197, 20 (2011), arXiv:1105.1666 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  53. [53]

    Vanhollebeke, M

    E. Vanhollebeke, M. A. T. Groenewegen, and L. Gi- 11 rardi, Astronomy and Astrophysics498, 95 (2009), arXiv:0903.0946 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  54. [54]

    D. J. Majaess, D. G. Turner, and D. J. Lane, Monthly No- tices of the Royal Astronomical Society398, 263 (2009), arXiv:0903.4206 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  55. [55]

    Francis and E

    C. Francis and E. Anderson, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society441, 1105 (2014), arXiv:1309.2629 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  56. [56]

    Abuter, A

    GRA VITY Collaboration, R. Abuter, A. Amorim, M. Baub¨ ock, J. P. Berger, H. Bonnet, W. Brandner, Y. Cl´ enet, V. Coud´ e Du Foresto, P. T. de Zeeuw, J. Dex- ter, G. Duvert, A. Eckart, F. Eisenhauer, N. M. F¨ orster Schreiber, P. Garcia, F. Gao, E. Gendron, R. Gen- zel, O. Gerhard, S. Gillessen, M. Habibi, X. Haubois, T. Henning, S. Hippler, M. Horrobin, ...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  57. [57]

    Hirota, T

    VERA Collaboration, T. Hirota, T. Nagayama, M. Honma, Y. Adachi, R. A. Burns, J. O. Chibueze, Y. K. Choi, K. Hachisuka, K. Hada, Y. Hagiwara, S. Hamada, T. Handa, M. Hashimoto, K. Hirano, Y. Hi- rata, T. Ichikawa, H. Imai, D. Inenaga, T. Ishikawa, T. Jike, O. Kameya, D. Kaseda, J. S. Kim, J. Kim, M. K. Kim, H. Kobayashi, Y. Kono, T. Kurayama, M. Matsuno, ...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  58. [58]

    S. E. Woosley, T. Sukhbold, and H.-T. Janka, The Astro- physical Journal896, 56 (2020), arXiv:2001.10492 [astro- ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  59. [59]

    C. S. Kochanek, J. F. Beacom, M. D. Kistler, J. L. Pri- eto, K. Z. Stanek, T. A. Thompson, and H. Y¨ uksel, The Astrophysical Journal684, 1336 (2008), arXiv:0802.0456 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  60. [60]

    J. M. M. Neustadt, C. S. Kochanek, K. Z. Stanek, C. Basinger, T. Jayasinghe, C. T. Garling, S. M. Adams, and J. Gerke, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society508, 516 (2021), arXiv:2104.03318 [astro-ph.SR]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  61. [61]

    J. F. Ziegler, M. D. Ziegler, and J. P. Biersack, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B268, 1818 (2010)

    2010

  62. [62]

    A. Fung, T. Lucas, L. Balogh, M. Leybourne, and A. C. Vincent, Physical Review D112, 043040 (2025), arXiv:2504.08885 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  63. [63]

    D. G. Madland, E. D. Arthur, G. P. Estes, J. E. Stewart, M. Bozoian, R. T. Perry, T. A. Parish, T. H. Brown, T. R. England, W. B. Wilson, and W. S. Charlton,SOURCES 4A: A code for calculating (alpha,n), spontaneous fis- sion, and delayed neutron sources and spectra, Tech. Rep. (1999)

    1999

  64. [64]

    Soppera, M

    N. Soppera, M. Bossant, and E. Dupont, Nuclear Data Sheets120, 294 (2014)

    2014

  65. [65]

    C. A. J. O’Hare, Physical Review D94, 063527 (2016), arXiv:1604.03858 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  66. [66]

    Tapia-Arellano and S

    N. Tapia-Arellano and S. Horiuchi, Physical Review D 103, 123016 (2021), arXiv:2102.01755 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  67. [67]

    J. R. Jordan, S. Baum, P. Stengel, A. Ferrari, M. C. Morone, P. Sala, and J. Spitz, Physical Review Letters 125, 231802 (2020), arXiv:2004.08394 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  68. [68]

    J. F. Beacom, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science60, 439 (2010), arXiv:1004.3311 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  69. [69]

    Holler, A

    M. Holler, A. Diaz, M. Guizar-Sicairos, P. Karvinen, E. F¨ arm, E. H¨ ark¨ onen, M. Ritala, A. Menzel, J. Raabe, and O. Bunk, Scientific Reports4, 3857 (2014)

    2014

  70. [70]

    T. D. P. Edwards and C. Weniger, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1712.05401 (2017), arXiv:1712.05401 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  71. [71]

    T. D. P. Edwards and C. Weniger, Journal of Cos- mology and Astroparticle Physics2018, 021 (2018), arXiv:1704.05458 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  72. [72]

    Yamasaki and K

    M. Yamasaki and K. Nakazato, Paleodetectors for neu- trino signals from diverse stellar collapses in the galaxy (2026)

    2026