Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 2 minor 2 cited by

Matter- and magnetically-driven flavor conversion of neutrinos in magnetorotational collapses

T0 review · 3 major / 2 minor · reviewed 2026-05-15 · grok-4.3

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

Pith's one-line read In magnetorotational stellar collapses, neutrinos with a small magnetic moment undergo resonant flavor-changing mixing with antineutrinos for Majorana particles.

desk verdict The paper shows that magnetic-moment effects combined with matter resonances in a 3D magnetorotational collapse simulation produce orientation-dependent neutrino event rates at IceCube and Hyper-K, peaking 400-600 ms post-bounce for an observer along the jet. read the letter →

arxiv 2603.08843 v2 pith:B46KZLPJ submitted 2026-03-09 astro-ph.HE hep-ph

Marco Manno , Pablo Martínez-Miravé , Irene Tamborra This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEhep-ph
keywords neutrinoflavorconversionmagnetorotationalcollapsemagneticmomentMajorananeutrinosstellarmulti-messengerastronomyIceCubeHyper-Kamiokande
checked against Cost.FunctionalEquation
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

Magnetorotational collapses of massive stars emit neutrinos of all flavors with a clear hierarchy in average energies between electron and non-electron types. Three-dimensional neutrino-magnetohydrodynamic simulations reveal that, beyond ordinary matter-driven resonant conversions, a magnetic moment at or below 10^{-12} Bohr magnetons allows neutrinos to flip chirality in the source's intense magnetic fields of order 10^{15} G. For Majorana neutrinos this produces resonant mixing between neutrinos and antineutrinos of different flavors. The resulting flavor evolution changes the event rates recorded at detectors such as IceCube and Hyper-Kamiokande, with the strongest signals arriving when the observer looks along the jet axis and the rate peaking hundreds of milliseconds after bounce. Accounting for this mixing is required to extract the full information from joint neutrino and gravitational-wave detections of these events.

What carries the argument

Resonant flavor-changing neutrino-antineutrino mixing driven by magnetic-moment-induced chirality flips in strong magnetic fields, acting together with matter effects.

What would settle it

A Galactic magnetorotational collapse whose neutrino event rates at IceCube or Hyper-Kamiokande show no dependence on observer orientation relative to the jet or fail to peak at 400-600 ms after bounce.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Relying on a three-dimensional neutrino-magnetohydrodynamic simulation of a 13 solar mass progenitor, we find that in addition to resonant flavor conversion of neutrinos and antineutrinos in matter, neutrinos experience chirality-flipping interactions due to their non-zero magnetic moment and the large magnetic field in the source. For Majorana neutrinos, this leads to resonant flavor-changing neutrino-antineutrino mixing. The event rate expected from a Galactic collapse at current and next-generation neutrino telescopes strongly depends on the orientation of the magnetorotational collapse with respect to the observer direction and flavor conversion scenario.

Load-bearing premise

Neutrinos possess a non-zero magnetic moment at or below 10^{-12} times the Bohr magneton and the simulation supplies accurate density and magnetic-field profiles.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Event rates are larger for an observer facing head-on the jet launched during the collapse.
  • Rates peak around 400-600 ms after bounce.
  • Rates vary strongly with observer direction and the specific flavor-conversion scenario realized.
  • Joint neutrino and gravitational-wave detections require modeling this orientation-dependent flavor evolution.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The viewing-angle dependence offers a potential way to infer collapse geometry from neutrino data combined with gravitational-wave signals.
  • Detection of the predicted mixing would constrain the neutrino magnetic moment near the 10^{-12} Bohr-magneton scale.
  • Future simulations of asymmetric collapses must incorporate both matter and magnetic-moment channels to predict observable neutrino signals reliably.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript uses a 3D neutrino-MHD simulation of a 13 M_⊙ progenitor to study neutrino flavor evolution in magnetorotational collapses. It reports standard matter-driven MSW resonances plus chirality-flipping interactions from a neutrino magnetic moment μ ≲ 10^{-12} μ_B in B ≃ 10^{15} G fields; for Majorana neutrinos this produces resonant ν-ν̄ mixing. The resulting event rates at IceCube and Hyper-Kamiokande are claimed to depend strongly on observer orientation relative to the jet axis, with a peak at 400-600 ms post-bounce for head-on lines of sight.

Significance. If the resonance conditions are correctly realized, the work identifies an orientation-dependent, time-dependent signature that couples neutrino magnetic-moment physics to magnetorotational dynamics and multi-messenger observables. It supplies a concrete, falsifiable prediction for how flavor conversion alters the detectable neutrino signal from a Galactic event.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3, §4] §3 (Simulation setup) and §4 (Flavor conversion): the resonance condition μB ≈ V_matter or vacuum term is asserted to be satisfied inside the neutrinosphere at 400-600 ms post-bounce for μ ≲ 10^{-12} μ_B, yet no quantitative verification is shown that the simulated |B|(r) and n_e(r) profiles actually meet this equality at the relevant radii and energies. Magnetorotational amplification is known to be resolution-dependent; without a convergence test or explicit profile comparison the central claim that resonant conversion occurs remains unverified.
  2. [§4] §4: the flavor-evolution solver is not described. No information is given on the numerical method (e.g., integration of the Schrödinger equation, step-size control, or treatment of the magnetic-moment term), nor are any convergence tests or validation against known analytic limits (adiabatic MSW, vacuum oscillations) reported. This omission directly affects the reliability of the reported orientation-dependent event rates.
  3. [§5] §5 (Event rates): the orientation dependence is presented for a single chosen μ value and a single progenitor snapshot sequence. No exploration of the μ range, no uncertainty propagation from the simulation profiles, and no comparison to a non-magnetized control run are provided, making it impossible to assess how robust the claimed enhancement for head-on observers is.
minor comments (2)
  1. Notation for the magnetic moment should be introduced once with units (μ_B) and used consistently; the symbol μ is occasionally used without subscript in the text.
  2. Figure 3 (or equivalent time-series plot) would benefit from an inset or table listing the local |B| and density values at the claimed resonance radii for the displayed post-bounce times.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful and constructive review of our manuscript. We address each major comment below and will revise the manuscript to improve clarity, add missing details, and strengthen the presentation of our results.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§3, §4] §3 (Simulation setup) and §4 (Flavor conversion): the resonance condition μB ≈ V_matter or vacuum term is asserted to be satisfied inside the neutrinosphere at 400-600 ms post-bounce for μ ≲ 10^{-12} μ_B, yet no quantitative verification is shown that the simulated |B|(r) and n_e(r) profiles actually meet this equality at the relevant radii and energies. Magnetorotational amplification is known to be resolution-dependent; without a convergence test or explicit profile comparison the central claim that resonant conversion occurs remains unverified.

    Authors: We agree that explicit verification is required. In the revised manuscript we will add direct comparisons of the simulated |B|(r) and electron-density profiles against the resonance condition μB ≈ V_matter (and the vacuum term) at 400–600 ms post-bounce for the relevant neutrino energies. We will also include a brief discussion of the resolution dependence of magnetorotational amplification and note that the run was performed at the highest resolution feasible with available resources. A full convergence study would require additional simulations that are computationally prohibitive at present. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [§4] §4: the flavor-evolution solver is not described. No information is given on the numerical method (e.g., integration of the Schrödinger equation, step-size control, or treatment of the magnetic-moment term), nor are any convergence tests or validation against known analytic limits (adiabatic MSW, vacuum oscillations) reported. This omission directly affects the reliability of the reported orientation-dependent event rates.

    Authors: We apologize for the omission. The flavor evolution is obtained by numerically integrating the Schrödinger equation for the neutrino density matrix, with the standard matter potential plus the magnetic-moment interaction term for Majorana neutrinos. In the revision we will describe the integration scheme, adaptive step-size control, and implementation of the magnetic term. We will also report convergence tests with respect to integration step size and validation against the analytic limits of adiabatic MSW resonances and vacuum oscillations. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [§5] §5 (Event rates): the orientation dependence is presented for a single chosen μ value and a single progenitor snapshot sequence. No exploration of the μ range, no uncertainty propagation from the simulation profiles, and no comparison to a non-magnetized control run are provided, making it impossible to assess how robust the claimed enhancement for head-on observers is.

    Authors: We acknowledge that a broader parameter study would be valuable. The revised manuscript will present results for a small range of μ values around 10^{-12} μ_B to illustrate sensitivity and will discuss uncertainties propagated from the simulation profiles. A strictly non-magnetized control run is not directly comparable because the magnetic field is essential to the magnetorotational dynamics; we will instead clarify the contribution of the magnetic-moment term by comparing to the μ = 0 case within the same MHD background. revision: partial

standing simulated objections not resolved
  • Full convergence test of the 3D neutrino-MHD simulation, which would require additional high-resolution runs beyond current computational resources.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: forward modeling from simulation profiles

full rationale

The paper takes density and magnetic-field profiles from a 3D neutrino-MHD simulation of a 13 solar-mass progenitor as external input and computes resonance conditions for matter-driven and magnetic-moment-driven flavor conversion using standard oscillation physics. No parameter is fitted to the target neutrino event rates, no prediction is renamed from a fit, and no load-bearing self-citation or self-definitional loop reduces the central claim to its own inputs. The orientation-dependent event-rate predictions follow directly from applying the resonance conditions to the supplied profiles without circular reduction.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 2 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The claim rests on the simulation supplying realistic density and B-field profiles plus the assumption that neutrinos carry a magnetic moment within current experimental bounds; no new particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • neutrino magnetic moment μ = ≲ 10^{-12} μ_B
    Upper bound ≲ 10^{-12} μ_B used to enable chirality-flipping interactions; value is an external experimental constraint rather than fitted to the simulation output.
assumptions (2)
  • domain assumption Neutrinos are Majorana particles, allowing resonant neutrino-antineutrino mixing via magnetic moment.
    Explicitly required for the flavor-changing mixing result stated in the abstract.
  • domain assumption Magnetic field reaches ~10^{15} G inside the collapsing core.
    Taken from the magnetorotational-collapse simulation setup.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Matter- and magnetically-driven flavor conversion of neutrinos in magnetorotational collapses." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/B46KZLPJ

@misc{pith2026260308843,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Matter- and magnetically-driven flavor conversion of neutrinos in magnetorotational collapses},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/B46KZLPJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2603.08843}
}
abstract

The magnetorotational collapse of massive stars copiously emits neutrinos of all flavors, with a prominent hierarchy between the non-electron and electron flavor average energies. Relying on a three-dimensional neutrino-magnetohydrodynamic simulation of a $13 M_\odot$ progenitor, we investigate flavor conversion in matter. We find that, in addition to resonant flavor conversion of neutrinos and antineutrinos in matter, (anti)neutrinos experience chirality-flipping interactions due to their non-zero magnetic moment ($\mu \lesssim 10^{-12} \mu_B$) and large magnetic field in the source ($B \simeq 10^{15}$ G). For Majorana neutrinos, this leads to resonant flavor-changing neutrino-antineutrino mixing. The event rate expected from a Galactic collapse at current and next-generation neutrino telescopes, such as IceCube and Hyper-Kamiokande, strongly depends on the orientation of the magnetorotational collapse with respect to the observer direction and flavor conversion scenario. The event rate is expected to be larger for an observer facing head on the jet launched during the stellar collapse and peaks around $400$-$600$ ms after bounce. Our work highlights that understanding the rich phenomenology of flavor conversion in magnetorotational collapses is essential to take full advantage of the joint detection of neutrinos and gravitational waves from these sources.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.08843 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Time evolution of the neutrino luminosity (top row) and mean energies (bottom row) for electron neutrinos (νe), electron antineutrinos (¯νe), and heavy-lepton species (νx = νµ, ντ , ¯νµ, or ¯ντ ). The left and right panels represent the neutrino emission properties as measured by a distant observer with angular coordinates close to the pole (θ = 0 and φ = 0) and equator (θ = π/2 and φ = 0), respectively. is prescrib… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Radial profiles of ρYe for our magnetorotational collapse model at t = 0.3 s (blue) and t = 1 s (red), shown along the pole (θ = 0 and φ = 0, left panel) and the equatorial direction (θ = π/2 and φ = 0, right panel). The horizontal lines indicate the MSW(H) and MSW(L) resonance conditions (cf. Eqs. 9 and 10) in green and light blue, respectively. The resonance conditions have been computed using a representative neu… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Level-crossing diagrams for NO (left) and IO (right). The plots are computed for the equatorial direction (θ = π/2, φ = 0) at t = 0.3 s using a neutrino energy E = 14.2 MeV, which represents the time averaged mean energy across all species (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figure…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Radial profiles of ρ(1−2Ye) (top panels) and ρ (bottom panels) for our magnetorotational model at t = 0.3 s (blue) and t = 1 s (red), along the polar (θ = 0, φ = 0, left) and equatorial (θ = π/2, φ = 0, right) directions. In the top panels, the horizontal lines mark th…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Values of the neutrino magnetic moment µ such that the adiabaticity parameter γ ≃ 1 (Eq. 18) for the polar (θ = 0 and φ = 0, left) and equatorial (θ = π/2 and φ = 0, right) directions. The solid (dotted) curves correspond to t = 1 s (t = 0.3 s). For each resonance, the…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Flavor-dependent neutrino fluxes observable at Earth for an observer located along the pole (θ = 0, φ = 0, solid lines) and the equator (θ = π/2, φ = 0, dashed lines) for t = 0.3 s (top panels) and t = 1 s (bottom panels). The fluxes of ¯νe, νe, and νx are plotted from…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: IceCube (top panels) and Hyper-Kamiokande (bottom panels) event rates as functions of time for a magnetorotational collapse occurring at D = 10 kpc from Earth. The left and right panels correspond, respectively, to an observer direction close to the pole (θ = 0, φ = 0)…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Long-lived intermittent accretion disks in the jittering jets explosion mechanism (JJEM) of core-collapse supernovae

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Viscous angular-momentum transport and jet feedback can keep intermittent accretion disks around newborn neutron stars alive long enough to launch the energetic jet pairs seen in some supernova remnants.

  2. Neutrino helicity oscillations in astrophysical environments: a many-body approach

    hep-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    Many-body neutrino calculations in simple momentum-state configurations yield helicity conversion probabilities orders of magnitude above mean-field results due to momentum exchange.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

90 extracted references · 90 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    J.29514–23

    Bethe H A and Wilson J R 1985Astrophys. J.29514–23

    work page

  2. [2]

    Janka H T 2012Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.62407–451 (Preprint1206.2503)

    work page Pith review arXiv

  3. [3]

    M¨ uller B 2020Liv. Rev. Comput. Astrophys.63 (Preprint2006.05083)

    work page arXiv

  4. [4]

    Burrows A and Vartanyan D 2021Nature58929–39 (Preprint2009.14157)

    work page Pith review arXiv

  5. [5]

    Bisnovatyi-Kogan G S 1970Astronomicheskii Zhurnal47813

    work page

  6. [6]

    J.161541

    LeBlanc J M and Wilson J R 1970Astrophys. J.161541

    work page

  7. [7]

    Meier D L, Epstein R I, Arnett W D and Schramm D N 1976Astrophysical Journal204869–878

    work page

  8. [8]

    Wheeler J C, Meier D L and Wilson J R 2002Astrophysical Journal568807–819

    work page

Show all 90 references
  1. [9]

    Balbus S A and Hawley J F 1991Astrophysical Journal376214–233

  2. [10]

    Akiyama S, Wheeler J C, Meier D L and et al 2003Astrophysical Journal584954–970

  3. [11]

    J.858115 (Preprint1804.07317)

    Aguilera-Dena D R, Langer N, Moriya T J and Schootemeijer A 2018Astrophys. J.858115 (Preprint1804.07317)

    arXiv

  4. [12]

    Obergaulinger M and Aloy M ´A 2022Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.5122489–2507 (Preprint 2108.13864)

  5. [13]

    Nuovo Cim.391–112 (Preprint1508.00785)

    Mirizzi A, Tamborra I, Janka H T, Saviano N, Scholberg K, Bollig R, H¨ udepohl L and Chakraborty S 2016Riv. Nuovo Cim.391–112 (Preprint1508.00785)

    arXiv

  6. [14]

    Raffelt G G, Janka H T and Fiorillo D F G 2025 (Preprint2509.16306)

    2025

  7. [15]

    Phys.7285–298 (Preprint2412.09699)

    Tamborra I 2025Nature Rev. Phys.7285–298 (Preprint2412.09699)

  8. [16]

    Just O, Aloy M ´A, Obergaulinger M and Nagataki S 2022Astrophys. J. Lett.934L30 (Preprint 2205.14158)

  9. [17]

    J.659512–529 (Preprint astro-ph/0608233)

    Nagataki S, Takahashi R, Mizuta A and Takiwaki T 2007Astrophys. J.659512–529 (Preprint astro-ph/0608233)

    arXiv

  10. [18]

    J.704354–371 (Preprint0905.2006)

    Harikae S, Takiwaki T and Kotake K 2009Astrophys. J.704354–371 (Preprint0905.2006)

    2006 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Obergaulinger M and Aloy M ´A 2017Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.469L43–L47 (Preprint 1703.09893) 15 M. Mannoet al

    arXiv

  12. [20]

    J.956100 (Preprint 2212.03958)

    Fujibayashi S, Sekiguchi Y, Shibata M and Wanajo S 2023Astrophys. J.956100 (Preprint 2212.03958)

  13. [21]

    Issa D, Gottlieb O, Metzger B D, Jacquemin-Ide J, Liska M, Foucart F, Halevi G and Tchekhovskoy A 2025Astrophys. J. Lett.985L26 (Preprint2410.02852)

  14. [22]

    Shibata M, Fujibayashi S, Wanajo S, Ioka K, Lam A T L and Sekiguchi Y 2025Phys. Rev. D 111123017 (Preprint2502.02077)

  15. [23]

    Dean C and Fern´ andez R 2024Phys. Rev. D109083010 (Preprint2403.08877)

  16. [24]

    Fern´ andez R, Janke S, Dean C and Tamborra I 2025Phys. Rev. D112123047 (Preprint 2507.17836)

  17. [25]

    Mart´ ınez-Mirav´ e P, Tamborra I, Aloy M´A and Obergaulinger M 2024Phys. Rev. D110103029 (Preprint2409.09126)

  18. [26]

    J.909169 (Preprint2010.04728)

    Kresse D, Ertl T and Janka H T 2021Astrophys. J.909169 (Preprint2010.04728)

  19. [27]

    Møller K, Suliga A M, Tamborra I and Denton P B 2018JCAP05066 (Preprint1804.03157)

    arXiv

  20. [28]

    Ando S, Ekanger N, Horiuchi S and Koshio Y 2023Proceedings of the Japan Academy, Series B99460–479

  21. [29]

    Schilbach T S H, Caballero O L and McLaughlin G C 2019Phys. Rev. D100043008 (Preprint 1808.03627)

  22. [30]

    J.966101 (Preprint2403.16856)

    Wei Y F, Liu T and Song C Y 2024Astrophys. J.966101 (Preprint2403.16856)

  23. [31]

    Mart´ ınez-Mirav´ e P, Tamborra I and Vigna-G´ omez A 2025Astrophys. J. Lett.984L2 (Preprint 2501.03330)

  24. [32]

    Horiuchi S and Kneller J P 2018J. Phys. G45043002 (Preprint1709.01515)

    arXiv

  25. [33]

    Pantaleone J T 1992Phys. Lett. B287128–132

  26. [34]

    Sawyer R F 2009Phys. Rev. D79105003 (Preprint0803.4319)

    arXiv

  27. [35]

    Sawyer R F 2016Phys. Rev. Lett.116081101 (Preprint1509.03323)

    arXiv

  28. [36]

    Wolfenstein L 1978Phys. Rev. D172369–2374

  29. [37]

    Mikheyev S P and Smirnov A Y 1985Sov. J. Nucl. Phys.42913–917

  30. [38]

    Dighe A S and Smirnov A Y 2000Phys. Rev. D62033007

  31. [39]

    Tamborra I and Shalgar S 2021Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.71165–188 (Preprint2011.01948)

  32. [40]

    Volpe M C 2024Rev. Mod. Phys.96025004 (Preprint2301.11814)

  33. [41]

    Johns L, Richers S and Wu M R 2025Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.75399–423 (Preprint2503. 05959)

  34. [42]

    Giunti C and Studenikin A 2015Rev. Mod. Phys.87531 (Preprint1403.6344)

    arXiv

  35. [43]

    Navas Set al.(Particle Data Group) 2024Phys. Rev. D110030001

  36. [44]

    Fujikawa K and Shrock R 1980Phys. Rev. Lett.45963

  37. [45]

    Space Sci.1087–92

    Cisneros A 1971Astrophys. Space Sci.1087–92

  38. [46]

    Schechter J and Valle J W F 1981Phys. Rev. D241883–1889 [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 25, 283 (1982)]

    1982

  39. [47]

    Voloshin M B and Vysotsky M I 1986Sov. J. Nucl. Phys.44544

  40. [48]

    Okun L B, Voloshin M B and Vysotsky M I 1986Sov. Phys. JETP64446–452

  41. [49]

    Akhmedov E K 1988Phys. Lett. B21364–68

  42. [50]

    Mannoet al

    Akhmedov E K and Fukuyama T 2003JCAP12007 16 M. Mannoet al

  43. [51]

    de Gouvˆ ea A and Shalgar S 2012JCAP10027 (Preprint1207.0516)

    arXiv

  44. [52]

    Obergaulinger M and Aloy M ´A In preparation

  45. [53]

    Abbasi Ret al.(IceCube Collaboration) 2011Astronomy and Astrophysics535A109 (Preprint 1108.0171)

    arXiv

  46. [54]

    Abe Ket al.(Hyper-Kamiokande) 2018 (Preprint1805.04163)

    2018 arXiv

  47. [55]

    J.77417 (Preprint1207.2184)

    Steiner A W, Hempel M and Fischer T 2013Astrophys. J.77417 (Preprint1207.2184)

    arXiv

  48. [56]

    Metzger B D, Giannios D, Thompson T A, Bucciantini N and Quataert E 2011Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.4132031 (Preprint1012.0001)

    arXiv

  49. [57]

    J.85795 (Preprint1802.07750)

    Metzger B D, Beniamini P and Giannios D 2018Astrophys. J.85795 (Preprint1802.07750)

    arXiv

  50. [58]

    thesis University of Valencia

    Griffiths A 2026The last five minutes of evolution of magnetic fields and rotation of massive starsPh.D. thesis University of Valencia

  51. [59]

    Tamborra I, Raffelt G G, Hanke F, Janka H T and M¨ ueller B 2014Phys. Rev. D90045032 (Preprint1406.0006)

    arXiv

  52. [60]

    Tamborra I, Hanke F, M¨ uller B, Janka H T and Raffelt G G 2013Phys. Rev. Lett.111121104 (Preprint1307.7936)

    arXiv

  53. [61]

    Walk L, Tamborra I, Janka H T, Summa A and Kresse D 2020Phys. Rev. D101123013 (Preprint1910.12971)

  54. [62]

    Walk L, Tamborra I, Janka H T and Summa A 2018Phys. Rev. D98123001 (Preprint1807. 02366)

  55. [63]

    Drago M, Andresen H, Di Palma I, Tamborra I and Torres-Forn´ e A 2023Phys. Rev. D108 103036 (Preprint2305.07688)

  56. [64]

    Lund T, Marek A, Lunardini C, Janka H T and Raffelt G G 2010Phys. Rev. D82063007 (Preprint1006.1889)

    arXiv

  57. [65]

    Vartanyan D, Burrows A and Radice D 2019Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.4892227–2246 (Preprint1906.08787)

  58. [66]

    Nagakura H, Burrows A, Vartanyan D and Radice D 2020Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.500 696–717 (Preprint2007.05000)

  59. [67]

    Lin Z, Rijal A, Lunardini C, Morales M D and Zanolin M 2023Phys. Rev. D107083017 (Preprint2211.07878)

  60. [68]

    J.590971–991 (Preprintastro-ph/ 0208035)

    Keil M T, Raffelt G G and Janka H T 2003Astrophys. J.590971–991 (Preprintastro-ph/ 0208035)

  61. [69]

    Tamborra I, M¨ uller B, H¨ udepohl L, Janka H T and Raffelt G G 2012Phys. Rev. D86125031 (Preprint1211.3920)

    arXiv

  62. [70]

    de Salas P F, Forero D V, Gariazzo S, Mart´ ınez-Mirav´ e P, Mena O, Ternes C A, T´ ortola M and Valle J W F 2021JHEP02071 (Preprint2006.11237)

  63. [71]

    Balantekin A B, Gava J and Volpe C 2008Phys. Lett. B662396–404 (Preprint0710.3112)

    arXiv

  64. [72]

    Botella F J, Lim C S and Marciano W J 1987Phys. Rev. D35496

  65. [73]

    Landau L D 1932Phys. Z. Sowjetunion246–51

  66. [74]

    Zener C 1932Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A137696–702

  67. [75]

    Kuo T K and Pantaleone J T 1989Phys. Rev. D391930

  68. [76]

    Esteban-Pretel A, Pastor S, Tom` as R, Raffelt G G and Sigl G 2008Phys. Rev. D77065024 (Preprint0712.1137)

    arXiv

  69. [77]

    Giunti C, Kouzakov K, Li Y F and Studenikin A 2025Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.751–33 (Preprint2411.03122) 17 M. Mannoet al

  70. [78]

    Lim C S and Marciano W J 1988Phys. Rev. D37(6) 1368–1373 URLhttps://link.aps.org/ doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.37.1368

    doi

  71. [79]

    Akhmedov E K 1989Sov. Phys. JETP68690–696

  72. [80]

    Akhmedov E K, Petcov S T and Smirnov A Y 1993Phys. Rev. D482167–2181 (Preprint hep-ph/9301211)

    arXiv

  73. [81]

    Kim C W, Kim J and Sze W K 1988Phys. Rev. D371072

  74. [82]

    Voloshin M B 1988Sov. J. Nucl. Phys.48512

  75. [83]

    Barbieri R and Mohapatra R N 1988Phys. Rev. Lett.6127

  76. [84]

    Feruglio F, Hagedorn C, Lin Y and Merlo L 2009Nucl. Phys. B809218–243 (Preprint0807. 3160)

  77. [85]

    Jana S, Porto-Silva Y P and Sen M 2022JCAP09079 (Preprint2203.01950)

  78. [86]

    J.839132 (Preprint 1702.00060)

    Tamborra I, H¨ udepohl L, Raffelt G G and Janka H T 2017Astrophys. J.839132 (Preprint 1702.00060)

    arXiv

  79. [87]

    Ando S and Sato K 2003Phys. Rev. D67023004 (Preprinthep-ph/0211053)

  80. [88]

    Ando S and Sato K 2003JCAP10001 (Preprinthep-ph/0309060)

  81. [89]

    Ando S and Sato K 2003Phys. Rev. D68023003 (Preprinthep-ph/0305052)

  82. [90]

    Strumia A and Vissani F 2003Phys. Lett. B56442–54 (Preprintastro-ph/0302055) 18

Pith tools

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