Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 37 references

A unified numerical framework delivers sub-percent solar-neutrino flux predictions at underground labs by folding in time-varying Earth–Sun distance and full 1D/3D Earth matter regeneration.

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

2026-07-31 15:19 UTC pith:DT64LNSF

load-bearing objection Solid end-to-end methods paper with useful multi-lab 8B day/night tables; numerics are carefully checked, but the headline 3D–1D Δ⊕ shifts rest on an unpublished velocity-to-density conversion and should not yet be treated as community defaults. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.24421 v1 pith:DT64LNSF submitted 2026-07-27 hep-ph astro-ph.SRhep-ex

A High-Precision Numerical Framework for Time-Varying Solar Neutrino Flux with Full Earth Matter Oscillation Corrections for Global Underground Laboratories

Keyu Han , Isabella Yin , Kaoru Yagi , Kevin Yifan Jiang , Xiangpan Ji , Shaomin Chen This is my paper
classification hep-ph astro-ph.SRhep-ex
keywords solar neutrinosneutrino oscillationMSW matter effectday-night asymmetryEarth density modelunderground laboratoryStrang splittingflux prediction
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.

Contemporary solar-neutrino experiments need theoretical fluxes accurate to well below one percent so that measured spectra and day–night rates can be compared cleanly with reactor antineutrino results. This paper supplies that standard-physics baseline: it builds a single, fast computational pipeline that tracks the continuously changing Earth–Sun distance, the finite angular size of the solar production region, and neutrino flavor evolution through both one-dimensional and three-dimensional models of Earth’s electron density. Efficient Strang splitting on the Earth side and a commutator-free Magnus integrator on the solar side, together with unsupervised clustering of the enormous set of nighttime trajectories, keep the numerical error in oscillation probabilities at a few parts in 10^{-4}. The output is a set of site-specific daytime and nighttime ^{8}B fluxes and day–night asymmetries for CJPL and a dozen other underground laboratories. A reader who cares about CPT tests or Earth tomography now has a controlled reference against which any future discrepancy can be judged.

Core claim

Under fixed B16-GS98 ^{8}B normalization the framework yields, for CJPL, annual daytime and nighttime electron-neutrino fluxes Φᴰ_e = (2.026^{+0.030}_{-0.026}) × 10^{6} cm^{-2} s^{-1} and Φᴺ_e = (2.062^{+0.031}_{-0.026}) × 10^{6} cm^{-2} s^{-1}, with flux-level and geometry-normalized day–night asymmetries A^flux_DN = (1.775^{+0.079}_{-0.068}) % and A^osc_DN = (1.313^{+0.079}_{-0.068}) %. Across the surveyed laboratories A^flux_DN ranges from 0.759 % to 3.397 % while A^osc_DN stays inside 1.313–1.477 %; switching from a 1D PREM to a 3D Earth model shifts A^flux_DN by up to 0.20 percentage points (roughly 8 % relative).

What carries the argument

Earth-side Strang splitting of the MSW Hamiltonian into diagonal vacuum phases plus a closed-form rank-one matter update, combined with K-medoids compression of nighttime paths under the spherical surrogate distance D^{2}_ij = θ^{2}_ij + 2(σ_tan,i – σ_tan,j)^{2}. Together they make dense scans over 10^{4}–10^{5} trajectories and 2000 energy points practical at the target O(10^{-4}) accuracy.

Load-bearing premise

Every nighttime trajectory inside a cluster is assumed to regenerate neutrinos exactly as its single medoid path does, so that replacing hundreds of thousands of directions by ten thousand representatives does not bias the day–night asymmetry beyond the validated numerical floor.

What would settle it

Recompute the unclustered nighttime survival probability for a high-latitude site such as CallioLab with the identical 3D density model; if the maximum absolute deviation from the K = 10^{4} result exceeds a few parts in 10^{-4}, or if the resulting A^flux_DN moves outside the quoted parametric band, the clustering approximation fails.

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

If this is right

  • Most of the site-to-site spread in observed day–night flux asymmetry comes from the correlation of local night length with the annual 1/R^{2} modulation, not from Earth-matter regeneration alone.
  • Three-dimensional Earth structure changes predicted asymmetries by up to ~8 % relative to PREM and cannot be absorbed into a universal normalization factor.
  • Joint solar–reactor analyses that aim to test CPT invariance of θ_{12} and Δm^{2}_{21} now possess a controlled standard-physics solar baseline at the sub-percent level.
  • The same pipeline evaluates any other solar component (pp, ^{7}Be, hep) by simple substitution of production-profile and spectrum tables.
  • The phase-preserving 3 × 3 propagator is ready for future studies that include non-adiabatic transitions or time-dependent three-dimensional solar density perturbations.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same path-compression metric can be reused for atmospheric or supernova neutrino tomography, where the number of distinct Earth chords is comparably large.
  • Once reactor experiments reach ~1 % precision on sin^{2}θ_{12}, any residual solar–reactor tension larger than the ~0.1 % modeling systematics quantified here would more cleanly indicate sterile neutrinos or non-standard interactions.
  • Laboratories at extreme latitudes receive the largest pure astronomical contribution to A^flux_DN; polar sites would therefore furnish the cleanest separation of geometry from matter regeneration.

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 / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents an end-to-end numerical framework for site-specific 8B solar electron-neutrino flux predictions, combining (i) ephemeris-based time-varying Sun-detector geometry (validated across Astropy/Skyfield/Meeus implementations), (ii) finite solar production-region averaging via backward CF4-Magnus propagation with closed-form Ohlsson-Snellman/Cayley-Hamilton exponentiation, (iii) Earth-side MSW propagation via a fast rank-one Strang splitting with 1D (PREM) and 3D (LITHO1.0 + SAW642AN + PREM) density models, and (iv) a spherical W2-inspired K-medoids compression of ~2.6 x 10^5 nighttime trajectories to K=10^4 medoids. Appendix B documents convergence at the few-parts-in-10^4 level in oscillation probabilities; Appendix C cross-validates the Earth solver against nuSQuIDS (max|Delta P| <~ 3 x 10^-5) with a 35-77x speedup. Deliverables are annual day/night fluxes and day-night asymmetries for CJPL and 13 other laboratories (Table 7.1), including the decomposition A^flux_DN vs A^osc_DN and two systematic shifts: Delta_oplus (3D vs 1D Earth, up to ~0.20 pp, ~8% relative) and Delta_I/N (mass ordering, ~0.006-0.009 pp).

Significance. If the results hold, this is a useful contribution to precision solar-neutrino phenomenology in the JUNO era, where sub-percent control of standard-physics effects is a prerequisite for interpreting any solar/reactor discrepancy as CPT violation. The work ships several genuinely strong elements: layered, maximum-norm convergence tests over every numerical knob (adaptive tolerance, source discretization, Strang layers, cluster count); an independent cross-code validation against nuSQuIDS at max|Delta P| <~ 3 x 10^-5 with a 35-77x speedup and reproducible wall-clock benchmarks; dual ephemeris cross-checks (Astropy vs Skyfield vs Meeus); a full density-matrix-level solar-vacuum-Earth matching that retains phases until final averaging; and falsifiable, site-specific predictions (Table 7.1) including the clean separation of the geometric g-factor contribution from genuine regeneration (A^flux_DN vs A^osc_DN). The demonstration that most of the 0.759%-3.397% geographic variation in A^flux_DN is exposure-geometry correlation rather than matter regeneration is a clarifying result. The main soft spot is that the headline 3D-vs-1D shift Delta_oplus rests on a geophysical conversion chain not

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 7, Table 7.1, Delta_oplus column; Sec. 3.1, Eq. (3.1)] Table 7.1 and Sec. 7: the headline quantity Delta_oplus = A^flux_DN,3D - A^flux_DN,1D is delivered as a point estimate (up to 0.20 pp, ~8% relative at CallioLab) with no geophysical uncertainty band. Sec. 3.1 states only that the electron-density field uses 'the identical density and electron-fraction prescriptions as in Ref. [22]' — an arXiv-2026 companion paper that is not yet published or shown here. The 3D mantle component is SAW642AN, a shear-velocity model, so Delta_oplus inherits a seismic velocity-to-density scaling and an electron-fraction/composition prescription whose coefficients are uncertain at the tens-of-percent level in the geophysics literature. Since Delta_oplus is only ~2-3x the quoted parametric uncertainty, an unquantified systematic of this size can move or even change the sign of the reported shifts at individual sites (e.g. CJPL -0.098 pp vs Boulby +0.067 pp). Th
  2. [Sec. 5.4, Eqs. (5.19)-(5.22); Appendix B.2, Fig. B.2(b)] The medoid substitution ri(E;gamma_a) ~ ri(E;gamma_mk) with equal weights is validated in Appendix B.2 against the unclustered 262,167-trajectory set, giving max_E|Delta P^N_ee| ~ 8.5e-5 at K = 10^4 — comfortably below the parametric bands. However, the test appears to be performed at a single site. The approximation error is driven by cluster-internal variation of 3D density paths, which is site-dependent: clusters at CallioLab (where Delta_oplus = 0.200 pp is largest) sample different azimuthal structure than at CJPL, and the claimed uniformity of the O(10^-4) accuracy target across all of Table 7.1 is therefore not demonstrated. This is a bounded gap — propagated to A^flux_DN the single-site residual is roughly +/-0.02 pp — but it should be closed by repeating the B.2 comparison at at least one geometrically distinct site (e.g. CallioLab or SUPL), or by stating explicitly which site w
  3. [Appendix C, Table C.1] The independent nuSQuIDS cross-check (max|Delta P| <~ 3.1e-5) is performed for three 1D-PREM trajectories only. The 3D Earth-side calculation — the hybrid LITHO1.0/SAW642AN/PREM interpolation along trajectories, which is the input that distinguishes this work's central 3D claim — receives no equivalent independent validation. A trajectory-level comparison of the 3D matter-potential profile (or of P^N_ee on a 3D path) against an independent evaluator, or at minimum layer-averaged density profile plots at a few sites compared against the source tomography, would materially strengthen the Delta_oplus numbers.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. 4.1] The solar-side propagation uses BS05(OP) density and production profiles (bs05op.dat, bs2005opflux.dat) while the flux normalization is fixed to B16-GS98. The framework is advertised as model-agnostic, but the central numbers mix two solar models; a brief quantification of how P^D/N_ee shifts if B16-GS98 profiles are used throughout would close this small consistency gap.
  2. [Sec. 5.5, Eq. (5.23)] Correlations among the oscillation parameters are neglected ('Input-parameter correlations ... are neglected'). sin^2 theta_12 and Delta m^2_21 are correlated in the global/solar fit; since the reported bands derive entirely from the Sobol ensemble, the authors should note the expected direction and rough size of the distortion this introduces, or use the correlated covariance.
  3. [Sec. 6, Eqs. (6.7)-(6.9)] A^flux_DN and A^osc_DN are quoted with identical asymmetric errors (+0.079/-0.068). Since A^flux_DN differs from A^osc_DN only through the deterministic g-factor averages, near-identical errors are plausible, but exact equality to all quoted digits suggests the interval was computed once and copied; please confirm the flux-level band is independently propagated.
  4. [References] Ref. [22] (the source of the 3D density prescription) is an unpublished arXiv preprint; if it is not yet citable in final form at publication, the essential prescription should be reproduced in an appendix here.
  5. [Throughout] Widespread typographical/encoding corruption: 'Earthns orbit', '0.1-16 MeV' and section ranges rendered with a broken ligature (⚶), 'iincorporating', 'sufficiently', 'on on the computing platform', 'SIAM J. Number. Anal.' (should be Numer. Anal.). A full proofread is needed; some of these garbles appear inside equations and axis labels.
  6. [Abstract / Appendix B] The target accuracy 'O(10^-4)' is stated in the Introduction and Appendix B, but the adopted production settings give max-norm residuals 1.9e-4 (Nx=8000) and 8.5e-5 (K=10^4); please reconcile the stated target with these numbers explicitly (e.g. 'a few parts in 10^4' as in Appendix B) for consistency between the abstract-level claim and the convergence data.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: site fluxes and day–night asymmetries are forward computations from external PDG, solar, and Earth-model inputs, not tautologies of fitted or self-defined quantities.

full rationale

The paper’s derivation chain is a standard forward pipeline. Oscillation parameters are taken from the external 2025 PDG review (Sec. 6); solar structure, 8B production, and spectrum come from BS05(OP)/Bahcall tables and B16-GS98 normalization (Secs. 4.1, 6); geometry is from Astropy/Skyfield ephemerides (Sec. 2); Earth densities are PREM / LITHO1.0 / SAW642AN with prescriptions shared with the authors’ reactor companion [22] (Sec. 3.1). Survival probabilities and A^flux_DN / A^osc_DN are obtained by MSW propagation (Strang on Earth, CF4 Magnus on Sun), path clustering, and inverse-square time averaging (Secs. 3–5, Eqs. 5.18–5.22, 6.1–6.9)—none of which is fitted to the solar day–night data being “predicted.” The self-citation to [22] only reuses a geophysical module; it does not define the claimed fluxes in terms of themselves, import a uniqueness theorem, or rename a fit as a prediction. Numerical convergence (App. B) and nuSQuIDS cross-checks (App. C) further treat the outputs as independently falsifiable computations. Residual concerns (velocity→density conversion deferred to [22], cluster medoid approximation) are completeness/uncertainty issues, not circular reductions of output to input by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 8 axioms · 1 invented entities

The flux tables rest on standard three-flavor MSW dynamics, external solar and geophysical models, PDG oscillation inputs, and several numerical modeling choices (layer discretizations, clustering surrogate, equal nighttime weights, frozen 8B normalization). No new particles are introduced; the ledger is dominated by domain assumptions and implementation parameters that control the claimed sub-percent accuracy.

free parameters (6)
  • K (number of nighttime path medoids) = 10000
    Hand-chosen production setting K=10^4 controlling path-space compression error; validated but not derived from a unique optimality condition.
  • Nx Earth Strang layers = 8000
    Equal-length layer count for Earth propagation; production Nx=8000 set by convergence to reference Nx=20000.
  • ϵ_pred solar adaptive-mesh tolerance = 5e-6
    Predictor tolerance for dyadic CF4 mesh construction; production 5×10^{-6} chosen against tighter references.
  • Nρ projected solar source nodes = 400
    Quadrature resolution of the finite 8B production cloud; production Nρ=400.
  • B16-GS98 8B total-flux normalization Φ_8B^{1AU} = B16-GS98 reference (fixed)
    Fixed external normalization for absolute fluxes; excluded from uncertainty bands by choice so bands reflect only oscillations and spectral shape.
  • NQMC Sobol oscillation samples / Nspec spectral realizations = 512 / 5000
    Ensemble sizes (512 and 5000) for uncertainty propagation; methodological choices affecting reported percentile half-widths.
axioms (8)
  • domain assumption Three-flavor coherent MSW evolution with standard PMNS mixing and charged-current potential Ve=√2 GF Ne fully describes solar and Earth propagation for 8B neutrinos.
    Foundation of Secs. 3–4; nonstandard interactions or sterile states are outside the framework.
  • domain assumption Hybrid 3D electron density (LITHO1.0 crust, SAW642AN mantle, PREM deep Earth) and 1D PREM adequately represent Ne along trajectories.
    Sec. 3.1; geophysical models imported from prior literature and the authors’ reactor study.
  • domain assumption BS05(OP) solar density/production profiles and the adopted 8B spectrum template are sufficient solar inputs; other components follow by swapping tables.
    Sec. 4.1; results quoted for 8B as the matter-effect-sensitive case.
  • domain assumption PDG 2025 normal-ordering oscillation parameters (and IO set) with neglected input correlations and two-piece normal uncertainties truncated at 3σ.
    Secs. 5.5–6; parametric bands are conditional on this external likelihood treatment.
  • standard math Strang splitting (Earth) and commutator-free 4th-order Magnus with Ohlsson–Snellman/Cayley–Hamilton exponentiation (Sun) control probability errors to a few×10^{-4} at production settings.
    Secs. 3.3–4.4 and Appendix B; standard numerical analysis plus empirical convergence.
  • ad hoc to paper Spherical W2-inspired dissimilarity D²_ij=θ²_ij+2(σ_tan,i−σ_tan,j)² plus K-medoids yields representative paths whose medoid amplitudes may replace cluster members.
    Sec. 5.2–5.4; task-specific surrogate justified by small-angle clouds and numerical clustering tests, not an exact spherical OT theorem.
  • domain assumption Equal weighting of 1-minute nighttime samples and inverse-square distance weighting define annual day/night averages.
    Secs. 5.4 and 6; exposure model enters A^flux_DN directly.
  • domain assumption Light-time, aberration, and other apparent-position corrections can be omitted at the stated geometric precision for this flux application.
    Sec. 2.2; authors argue explicit geometric control is enough and residual geometry errors are tiny in fluxes.
invented entities (1)
  • Spherical W2-inspired path-cloud dissimilarity for solar-neutrino trajectory clustering no independent evidence
    purpose: Compress ~2.6×10^5 nighttime directions into K medoid Earth-crossing paths while retaining finite-source angular width.
    Not a new physical field or particle; an algorithmic surrogate distance built for this pipeline. Independent evidence is only internal clustering convergence, not an external physical discovery.

pith-pipeline@v1.2.0-grok45-kimik3 · 32080 in / 4446 out tokens · 79655 ms · 2026-07-31T15:19:05.097063+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Solar neutrinos have been studied for over half a century to test both the Standard Solar Model and the electroweak sector of the Standard Model of particle physics. Contemporary experiments are now entering an era of high-precision measurements, demanding corresponding theoretical predictions with sub-percent accuracy to enable meaningful comparison. In this paper, we identify and analyze the essential physical and computational components required to compute solar neutrino fluxes with high fidelity, and present a unified, computationally efficient framework. This framework incorporates: (i) the time-varying Earth-Sun distance; (ii) Earth matter effects modeled using both one-dimensional (1D) and three-dimensional (3D) Earth electron-density profiles; and (iii) a fast, Strang-splitting-based implementation of the Mikheyev-Smirnov-Wolfenstein (MSW) neutrino propagation formalism, enabling rapid, large-scale scans over neutrino trajectories and energy grids. We deliver site-specific predictions for the China Jinping Underground Laboratory (CJPL) and other underground laboratories actively engaged in solar neutrino programs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.24421 by Isabella Yin, Kaoru Yagi, Kevin Yifan Jiang, Keyu Han, Shaomin Chen, XiangPan Ji.

Figure 2.1
Figure 2.1. Figure 2.1: Schematic illustration of the solar neutrino source and propagation geometry. The finite neu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5.1
Figure 5.1. Figure 5.1: Geometric origin and detector-centered path-space representation of nighttime solar neutrino [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_5_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6.1
Figure 6.1. Figure 6.1: Site-specific 8B solar neutrino predictions for CJPL. Panel a displays the predicted day￾time and nighttime electron-neutrino flux spectra, incorporating combined uncertainties from oscillation parameters and spectral shape. Panel b presents the corresponding energy-dependent day–night flux asymmetry, Aflux DN (Eν). Here, ⟨· · · ⟩D and ⟨· · · ⟩N denote time averages over the daytime and nighttime interva… 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

37 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A. S. Blum, A. Martínez de Velasco, The genesis of the CPT theorem, Eur. Phys. J. H 47 (1) (2022) 5.doi:10.1140/epjh/s13129-022-00037-w

    work page doi:10.1140/epjh/s13129-022-00037-w 2022

  2. [2]

    Abe, et al., Search for CP Violation in Neutrino and Antineutrino Oscillations by the T2K Experiment with2.2× 1021 Protons on Target, Phys

    K. Abe, et al., Search for CP Violation in Neutrino and Antineutrino Oscillations by the T2K Experiment with2.2× 1021 Protons on Target, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121 (17) (2018) 171802. arXiv:1807.07891, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.171802

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  3. [3]

    M. A. Acero, et al., Search for CP-Violating Neutrino Nonstandard Interactions with theNOvAExperiment, Phys.Rev.Lett.133(20)(2024)201802. arXiv:2403.07266, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.133.201802

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    R. Acciarri, et al., Long-Baseline Neutrino Facility (LBNF) and Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment (DUNE): Conceptual Design Report, Volume 2: The Physics Program for DUNE at LBNF (12 2015).arXiv:1512.06148

    arXiv 2015

  5. [5]

    Abe, et al., Physics potential of a long-baseline neutrino oscillation experiment using a J-PARC neutrino beam and Hyper-Kamiokande, PTEP 2015 (2015) 053C02

    K. Abe, et al., Physics potential of a long-baseline neutrino oscillation experiment using a J-PARC neutrino beam and Hyper-Kamiokande, PTEP 2015 (2015) 053C02. arXiv:1502.05199, doi:10.1093/ptep/ptv061

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  6. [6]

    Abe, et al., Solar neutrino measurements using the full data period of Super- Kamiokande-IV, Phys

    K. Abe, et al., Solar neutrino measurements using the full data period of Super- Kamiokande-IV, Phys. Rev. D 109 (9) (2024) 092001. arXiv:2312.12907, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.092001

    arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Aharmim, et al., Combined Analysis of all Three Phases of Solar Neutrino Data from the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory, Phys

    B. Aharmim, et al., Combined Analysis of all Three Phases of Solar Neutrino Data from the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory, Phys. Rev. C 88 (2013) 025501.arXiv: 1109.0763, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.88.025501

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  8. [8]

    Gando, et al., Reactor On-Off Antineutrino Measurement with KamLAND, Phys

    A. Gando, et al., Reactor On-Off Antineutrino Measurement with KamLAND, Phys. Rev. D 88 (3) (2013) 033001. arXiv:1303.4667, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD. 88.033001. 37

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  9. [9]

    Maltoni, A

    M. Maltoni, A. Y. Smirnov, Solar neutrinos and neutrino physics, Eur. Phys. J. A 52 (4) (2016) 87.arXiv:1507.05287, doi:10.1140/epja/i2016-16087-0

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  10. [10]

    Abusleme, et al., Measurement of reactor neutrino oscillation with the first JUNO data, Nature 654 (8118) (2026) 343–348.arXiv:2511.14593, doi:10.1038/ s41586-026-10538-z

    A. Abusleme, et al., Measurement of reactor neutrino oscillation with the first JUNO data, Nature 654 (8118) (2026) 343–348.arXiv:2511.14593, doi:10.1038/ s41586-026-10538-z

    arXiv 2026

  11. [11]

    Wolfenstein, Neutrino Oscillations in Matter, Phys

    L. Wolfenstein, Neutrino Oscillations in Matter, Phys. Rev. D 17 (1978) 2369–2374. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.17.2369

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.17.2369 1978

  12. [12]

    S. P. Mikheyev, A. Y. Smirnov, Resonance Amplification of Oscillations in Matter and Spectroscopy of Solar Neutrinos, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 42 (1985) 913–917

    1985

  13. [13]

    S. P. Mikheev, A. Y. Smirnov, Resonant amplification of neutrino oscillations in matter and solar neutrino spectroscopy, Nuovo Cim. C 9 (1986) 17–26.doi:10. 1007/BF02508049

    1986

  14. [14]

    X.-J. Xu, Z. Wang, S. Chen, Solar neutrino physics, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 131 (2023) 104043. arXiv:2209.14832, doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2023.104043

    arXiv 2023

  15. [15]

    A. M. Dziewonski, D. L. Anderson, Preliminary reference earth model, Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors 25 (4) (1981) 297–356.doi:10.1016/0031-9201(81) 90046-7

    work page doi:10.1016/0031-9201(81 1981

  16. [16]

    M. E. Pasyanos, T. G. Masters, G. Laske, Z. Ma, Litho1.0: An updated crust and lithospheric model of the earth, Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth 119 (3) (2014) 2153–2173. doi:10.1002/2013JB010626

    work page doi:10.1002/2013jb010626 2014

  17. [17]

    M.Panning, B.Romanowicz, Athree-dimensionalradiallyanisotropicmodelofshear velocity in the whole mantle, Geophysical Journal International 167 (1) (2006) 361–

    2006

  18. [18]

    Strang, On the Construction and Comparison of Difference Schemes, SIAM J

    G. Strang, On the Construction and Comparison of Difference Schemes, SIAM J. Number. Anal. 5 (3) (1968) 506–517.doi:10.1137/0705041

    doi:10.1137/0705041 1968

  19. [19]

    Meeus, Astronomical Algorithms, 2nd Edition, Willmann-Bell, Richmond, VA, 1998

    J. Meeus, Astronomical Algorithms, 2nd Edition, Willmann-Bell, Richmond, VA, 1998

    1998

  20. [20]

    Astropy Collaboration, T. P. Robitaille, E. J. Tollerud, P. Greenfield, M. Droett- boom, E. Bray, T. Aldcroft, M. Davis, A. Ginsburg, A. M. Price-Whelan, W. E. Kerzendorf, A. Conley, N. Crighton, K. Barbary, D. Muna, H. Ferguson, F. Grollier, M. M. Parikh, P. H. Nair, H. M. Günther, C. Deil, J. Woillez, S. Conseil, R. Kramer, 38 J.E.H.Turner, L.Singer, R....

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  21. [21]

    Rhodes, Skyfield: High precision research-grade positions for planets and earth satellites generator, Astrophysics Source Code Library (2019) ascl–1907

    B. Rhodes, Skyfield: High precision research-grade positions for planets and earth satellites generator, Astrophysics Source Code Library (2019) ascl–1907

    2019

  22. [22]

    K. Han, J. Qian, S. Chen, Worldwide reactor neutrino propagation to underground labs: Matter effects and flux predictions (2026).arXiv:2603.25655

    arXiv 2026

  23. [23]

    J. N. Bahcall, A. M. Serenelli, S. Basu, New solar opacities, abundances, helio- seismology, and neutrino fluxes, Astrophys. J. Lett. 621 (2005) L85–L88.arXiv: astro-ph/0412440, doi:10.1086/428929

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  24. [24]

    J. N. Bahcall, E. Lisi, D. E. Alburger, L. De Braeckeleer, S. J. Freedman, J. Napoli- tano, Standard neutrino spectrum from8b decay, Phys. Rev. C 54 (1996) 411–422. arXiv:nucl-th/9601044, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.54.411

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  25. [25]

    J. N. Bahcall, Software and data for solar neutrino research,https://www.sns.ias. edu/~jnb/SNdata/sndata.html, accessed 25 July 2026

    2026

  26. [26]

    Magnus, On the exponential solution of differential equations for a linear op- erator, Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics 7 (4) (1954) 649–673

    W. Magnus, On the exponential solution of differential equations for a linear op- erator, Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics 7 (4) (1954) 649–673. doi:10.1002/cpa.3160070404

    doi:10.1002/cpa.3160070404 1954

  27. [27]

    Blanes, P

    S. Blanes, P. C. Moan, Fourth- and sixth-order commutator-free magnus integrators for linear and non-linear dynamical systems, Applied Numerical Mathematics 56 (12) (2006) 1519–1537. doi:10.1016/j.apnum.2005.11.004

    work page doi:10.1016/j.apnum.2005.11.004 2006

  28. [28]

    Ohlsson, H

    T. Ohlsson, H. Snellman, Three flavor neutrino oscillations in matter, J. Math. Phys. 41 (5) (2000) 2768–2788.arXiv:hep-ph/9910546, doi:10.1063/1.533270

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  29. [29]

    Gelbrich, On a formula for thel2 wasserstein metric between measures on eu- clidean and hilbert spaces, Math

    M. Gelbrich, On a formula for thel2 wasserstein metric between measures on eu- clidean and hilbert spaces, Math. Nachr. 147 (1) (1990) 185–203. doi:10.1002/ mana.19901470121

    1990

  30. [30]

    Kaufman, P

    L. Kaufman, P. J. Rousseeuw,Clustering by means of medoids, 1987. URL https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:59662201

    1987

  31. [31]

    Lloyd, Least squares quantization in pcm, IEEE Trans

    S. Lloyd, Least squares quantization in pcm, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 28 (2) (1982) 129–137. doi:10.1109/TIT.1982.1056489. 39

    arXiv 1982

  32. [32]

    I. M. Sobol’, On the distribution of points in a cube and the approximate evaluation of integrals, USSR Computational Mathematics and Mathematical Physics 7 (4) (1967) 86–112. doi:10.1016/0041-5553(67)90144-9

    doi:10.1016/0041-5553(67)90144-9 1967

  33. [33]

    Virtanen, R

    P. Virtanen, R. Gommers, T. E. Oliphant, M. Haberland, T. Reddy, D. Cournapeau, et al., SciPy 1.0: Fundamental algorithms for scientific computing in python, Nature Methods 17 (2020) 261–272.doi:10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    doi:10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 2020

  34. [34]

    Navas, et al., Review of particle physics, Phys

    S. Navas, et al., Review of particle physics, Phys. Rev. D 110 (3) (2024) 030001, 2025 update. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.030001

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.110.030001 2024

  35. [35]

    Vinyoles, A

    N. Vinyoles, A. M. Serenelli, F. L. Villante, S. Basu, J. Bergström, M. C. Gonzalez- Garcia, M. Maltoni, C. Peña-Garay, N. Song, A new generation of standard so- lar models, Astrophys. J. 835 (2) (2017) 202. arXiv:1611.09867, doi:10.3847/ 1538-4357/835/2/202

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  36. [36]

    C. A. Argüelles, J. Salvado, C. N. Weaver, nuSQuIDS: A toolbox for neutrino propa- gation, Computer Physics Communications 277 (2022) 108346.arXiv:2112.13804, doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2022.108346. 40

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  37. [379]

    doi:10.1111/j.1365-246X.2006.03100.x

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006