Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 40 references

Pre-supernova neutrino timing can warn of core collapse 14 hours ahead, roughly doubling the lead time of conventional rate-only alarms.

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 · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 08:47 UTC pith:EM2C5ZSY

load-bearing objection Useful extension of Sheshukov's pre-SN alarm with realistic detector setups, but the equal-FAR claim is undercut by the uncalibrated multi-template minimum. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2601.15691 v2 pith:EM2C5ZSY submitted 2026-01-22 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.IM

Development of an early warning method incorporating pre-supernova neutrino light curves

Keita Saito , Minori Eizuka , Zhuojun Hu , Koichi Ichimura , Motoyasu Ikeda , Koji Ishidoshiro , Nanami Kawada , Lucas N. Machado
show 4 more authors
Lluis Marti-Magro Kazuha Mikami Koga Tachibana Roger A. Wendell
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE astro-ph.IM
keywords pre-supernova neutrinoscore-collapse supernovaearly warningneutrino light curvelog-likelihood ratioKamLANDSuper-Kamiokandefalse alarm rate
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 proposes an early-warning alarm for core-collapse supernovae that uses not just how many pre-supernova neutrinos arrive but when they arrive—the shape of the neutrino light curve. The authors show that, for a 15-solar-mass star at 150 parsecs, a combined analysis of KamLAND and Super-Kamiokande data, with the exact collapse time treated as unknown, alerts 14.0–14.7 hours before core collapse. That is roughly double the 8–12 hours achieved by the conventional rate-only method at the same false-alarm rate. The gain comes from recognizing the characteristic rises and dips imprinted by oxygen- and silicon-shell burning in the final hours. Earlier alerts mean optical telescopes, gravitational-wave detectors, and other neutrino experiments can be ready to catch the supernova from its first moments.

Core claim

The central claim is that a log-likelihood-ratio test which incorporates the time evolution of the pre-SN neutrino event rate—rather than only the total count—can detect an imminent core collapse earlier without sacrificing false-alarm control. The test computes the likelihood that the observed event times come from a background-plus-signal process using each theoretical light curve as a template, and treats the core-collapse time t* as a nuisance parameter, reporting the maximum likelihood ratio over t*. Calibrating the global false-alarm rate with toy Monte Carlo under background-only, the method reaches a false-alarm rate of one per century at 14.5 hours before collapse for KamLAND alone

What carries the argument

The central object is a log-likelihood-ratio (LLR) test statistic for a sliding time window, built from an inhomogeneous Poisson process whose time-varying rate is the sum of background and a predicted signal light curve R_s(t - t*). The unknown core-collapse time t* is profiled out by maximizing the LLR; the query compares the resulting statistic against thresholds calibrated by Monte Carlo to yield a global false-alarm rate. Multiple theoretical light-curve models (Odrzywolek, Yoshida, Kato, Patton) serve as templates, with the reported sensitivity taken as the minimum false-alarm rate across the model set, and the mass-ordering dependence enters through the MSW survival probability.

Load-bearing premise

The improvement relies on the real star's neutrino light curve being one of the library of templates used in the likelihood; if the true pre-supernova emission has a different time shape, the reported 14-hour warning is not guaranteed.

What would settle it

Inject a simulated pre-supernova signal from a model not in the reference library (for example, a 12-solar-mass star, or a model with different nuclear reaction rates) into the KamLAND/SK background streams, and measure the alarm lead time at a 1-per-century false-alarm rate; if it falls well below 14 hours, the library-robustness claim fails. Similarly, run the alarm for the equivalent of a century of background-only data and count alarms—more than one would falsify the false-alarm calibration.

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

If this is right

  • The rate+time alarm issues alerts 14.0–14.7 h before core collapse for a 15 M_sun Betelgeuse-like star at 150 pc, versus 8.2–12.3 h for rate-only, at the same false-alarm rate.
  • Each detector individually with rate+time matches the conventional combined rate-only alarm, so the system remains effective if one detector is down.
  • The method extends sensitivity to more distant or weaker pre-SN signals because it uses timing information beyond total counts.
  • It maintains a global false-alarm rate of one per century, calibrated via toy Monte Carlo including trials factors.
  • The combined rate+time configuration yields the earliest alerts among all tested configurations.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The profiled-likelihood template approach could transfer to other detectors (such as JUNO or Hyper-Kamiokande) and to other transient signals with predictable time profiles, such as gravitational-wave chirps or gamma-ray bursts.
  • Because the likelihood uses the characteristic oxygen- and silicon-burning features, a triggered alert also encodes the burning stage, giving astrophysical information about the star's final hours—not just a yes/no alarm.
  • The method's lead-time gain depends on the library covering the true stellar models; an observed event could be used to validate and update the library, turning the alarm system into a measurement tool.
  • The robustness of the quoted false-alarm rate to the multi-template trials factor is a testable extension: a long background-only run should produce no more than one alarm per century.

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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper develops a pre-supernova neutrino early-warning method that uses the time profile of the expected event rate, not just the total rate. The test statistic is a profile log-likelihood ratio over the unknown core-collapse time, applied to sliding windows in KamLAND, SK-Gd, and their combination. The authors simulate signals from existing pre-SN models, calibrate the false-alarm rate with background-only toy Monte Carlo, and report warning lead times at a 1-per-century FAR threshold. The headline result is that the rate+time analysis outperforms the conventional rate-only analysis at the same false-alarm rate, with combined KamLAND+SK giving the earliest alerts (Table 2).

Significance. If the equal-FAR comparison is properly established, this is a valuable and practical improvement for real-time supernova early warning, directly relevant to SNEWS 2.0. The paper has clear strengths: the inhomogeneous-Poisson likelihood in Eqs. (2)-(5) is standard and correctly formulated; the global FAR is addressed with toy MC rather than naive single-window p-values; the detector backgrounds are realistic; and the performance is summarized in a concrete table with multiple models and mass orderings. The main risk is not the likelihood construction but the handling of the multi-template model library, which the authors themselves flag by reporting the minimum FAR over the ensemble. A second, independent issue is an inconsistency in the combined-analysis claim. These are fixable with a clear calibration statement and a corrected comparison, but they are load-bearing for the paper's central claim.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 6, final paragraph; Table 2] The paper states that for the rate+time analysis it evaluates an ensemble of reference light-curve models and 'report[s] the minimum FAR across the model set.' If the alarm is triggered whenever any of the library templates crosses the threshold, the operational false-alarm rate is not the minimum per-template FAR but the union over all templates, which is larger. The text mentions a trials factor for the sliding window but does not state that the toy-MC calibration is performed on an ensemble statistic (e.g., the maximum of the per-template LLR or the minimum p-value). Without such a calibration, the claimed 'same false alarm rate' comparison between rate-only and rate+time in Table 2 is not established. Please either specify that the global FAR is calibrated on the ensemble-max statistic, or recompute the lead times with the correct trials-factor correction.
  2. [Section 7 and Table 2] There is an internal inconsistency in the combined-analysis claim. For the Odrzywolek 15 M_sun NO case, Table 2 lists KamLAND rate+time as 14.5 h and Combined rate+time as 14.0 h. However, the text in Section 7 states that the combined analysis 'delivers earlier alerts than either detector alone,' and the Discussion says the combined rate+time 'yields the earliest alerts among all configurations.' A combined analysis that includes KamLAND data cannot be worse than KamLAND alone if the test statistic is properly constructed; the discrepancy suggests either a typo in Table 2 or a difference in the treatment of the two analyses. This must be corrected and explained, since the 'combined is best' result is one of the paper's headline conclusions.
  3. [Section 7, first paragraph; Section 9] The paper promises robustness to model mismatch: 'To assess robustness to model mismatch, we evaluate sensitivity when the injected true pre-SN light curve model differs from the reference model.' No such results are shown in Section 7 or anywhere else; the only injected signals are from Odrzywolek and Patton, both of which are also included in the reference template library (Table 1). Thus the reported lead times are matched-filter results, and the claimed robustness from using 'multiple time profiles' is unsupported. Either add the mismatch-study results or explicitly limit the claim to the matched-template case.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (2)] The likelihood factorization is correct, but it would help to specify the domain of t* (e.g., t* > t0) and to note that R_B(t) is treated as constant over the window in this implementation.
  2. [Abstract] The abstract says 'we propose an alarm method,' but Section 1 attributes the rate+time likelihood approach to Sheshukov et al. (2021). The novel contribution here is the treatment of the core-collapse time as a profiled nuisance parameter and the realistic multi-detector evaluation; wording such as 'we develop and evaluate' would be more accurate.
  3. [Table 2] The KamLAND rate-only IO entry is listed as 'N/A' while the text does not explain whether no alarm is issued before collapse or whether the number is too small to report. A brief note would avoid confusion.
  4. [Section 3.1] The selection criteria are given in detail, but the text says 'sub-MeV energy threshold' while the prompt energy cut is 0.9 MeV; this is consistent but could be clarified as the effective analysis threshold after selection.
  5. [Section 4] The background rates are quoted in the text (0.19 day^-1 for KamLAND and 12.4 day^-1 for SK-Gd) but not listed in a table; a small table of background components would improve reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circular derivation: the rate+time LLR is built from an inhomogeneous Poisson model and calibrated under H0; the main caveat (multi-template minimum-FAR selection) is a calibration/soundness issue, not a circular one.

full rationale

The central test statistic is constructed in Eqs. (2)-(5) from first principles: the background-only likelihood in Eq. (3) and signal+background likelihood in Eq. (2) are products of Poisson count terms and time PDFs, and the test statistic is the profile likelihood ratio over the core-collapse time t*. Nothing in this construction is defined in terms of the warning times in Table 2. The false-alarm rate is then obtained by toy Monte Carlo under H0, with a trials factor for the sliding window. Injecting Odrzywolek or Patton models and testing with the same library is a matched-filter sensitivity study: the injected signal is known and the templates are fixed external stellar-evolution models; this does not fit any parameter to the quantity being reported. The one caveat is that the paper states "In this study, we evaluate an ensemble of models and report the minimum F AR across the model set" without explicitly stating that the multi-template selection is included in the H0 calibration. If not included, the effective global FAR would exceed 1/century, making the quoted lead times optimistic. But that is a statistical-calibration concern, not a reduction of the output to the input by construction. Self-citations to previous KamLAND/SK papers (e.g., S. Abe et al. 2024) provide detector configurations, background rates, and the existence of a combined alarm; these are empirical inputs, not an unverified uniqueness theorem, and they are not load-bearing for the LLR derivation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on: (i) the credibility of external pre-SN light-curve models, which provide both templates and injections; (ii) known steady backgrounds; (iii) the inhomogeneous-Poisson likelihood; and (iv) detector-response descriptions from prior collaboration papers. The paper introduces no new physical entities or fitted constants; its main tuning knobs are the analysis window, template normalization, and the best-template selection rule.

free parameters (3)
  • Sliding analysis window T = KamLAND: 200 h; SK: 48 h
    Chosen by hand in Section 7 ('set to 200 h', 'set to 48 h'); sensitivity and FAR calibration depend on T, and no optimization or scan is shown.
  • Reference signal template = 15 Msun, 150 pc, normal mass ordering (default); 15-25 Msun mass range
    The expected rate R_s(t-t*) is normalized to this template; Table 2 warning times assume it. A different distance, mass, or ordering changes the achievable lead time.
  • Template-selection rule over the model ensemble = minimum FAR across the reference library
    Section 6 reports the minimum FAR over the reference models; this selection rule produces the best-case values in Table 2 and is not treated as a multiple-comparison cost.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Pre-SN neutrino light-curve models (Odrzywolek, Yoshida, Kato, Patton) accurately represent the true neutrino emission of a collapsing 15-25 Msun star.
    Section 2 / Table 1; the LLR templates and injected signals are both derived from these models. If the true light curve differs, alarm performance changes.
  • domain assumption MSW flavor conversion with survival probabilities p = 0.680 (NO) and p = 0.023 (IO).
    Invoked in Section 2 (F_nuebar formula); from Gando et al. (2013). Standard neutrino physics input, not derived here.
  • domain assumption Background rates are known and constant at 0.19 day^-1 (KamLAND) and 12.4 day^-1 (SK) per the 2024 medium reactor-activity scenario.
    Section 4; actual reactor power varies with time and location, so the H0 calibration and significance may be mis-scaled under different background conditions.
  • standard math Events are independent draws from an inhomogeneous Poisson process with known expected rate.
    Eqs. (2)-(3); the LLR factorizes counts and timestamps under this assumption.
  • standard math KamLAND and SK data streams are statistically independent.
    Section 6; the combined alarm uses the sum of LLRs and profiles over a common t*, assuming no correlated backgrounds.
  • domain assumption Detector response, cuts, and efficiencies follow the published KamLAND/SK-Gd analyses (IBD selection, BDT, mini-balloon cut).
    Sections 3.1-3.2; the simulated event rates inherit these published efficiencies without independent validation here.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 10477 in / 19288 out tokens · 196318 ms · 2026-08-03T08:47:59.890253+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Massive stars ($M>8\mathrm{M_\odot}$) emit neutrinos known as pre-supernova (pre-SN) neutrinos through thermal and nuclear interactions for cooling the stellar core during the final stage of stellar evolution. Real-time monitoring of their pre-SN neutrino interaction rate offers a crucial opportunity to issue an early warning to a core-collapse supernova. Some neutrino detectors, including KamLAND and Super-Kamiokande already operate pre-SN alarm systems based on a statistically significant excess of the observed event rate over the expected background. To improve alarm sensitivity, an alarm method which incorporates the time evolution of the observed pre-SN neutrino event rate was proposed in A. Sheshukov et al. (2021). We evaluate the performance of the light-curve likelihood approach under realistic KamLAND and SK operating conditions, including realistic background rates, global false-alarm-rate calibration, and the combined alarm. The results demonstrate a significant improvement in the alarm time and distance compared to the conventional rate-only method, while maintaining the same false alarm rate.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.15691 by Kazuha Mikami, Keita Saito, Koga Tachibana, Koichi Ichimura, Koji Ishidoshiro, Lluis Marti-Magro, Lucas N. Machado, Minori Eizuka, Motoyasu Ikeda, Nanami Kawada, Roger A. Wendell, Zhuojun Hu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Electron antineutrino luminosity and their average energy are shown as a function of time before core collapse (horizontal axis). Oxygen- and Silicon-shell burning produce peaks around −105 s and −104 s before core collapse, respectively. The pre-SN neutrino light curve models are summarized in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Time evolution of pre-SN event rate in (a) KamLAND and (b) Super-Kamiokande for the stars at 150 pc. The mass orderings are assumed to be normal. The pre-SN neutrino light curve models are summarized in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Time evolution of expected FAR in KamLAND. (a) presents the alarm sensitivity of Odrzywolek model. (b) presents the alarm sensitivity of Patton model. The horizontal dashed light-blue line represents FAR of 1 /century. 50 40 30 20 10 0 Time before core collapse [hour] 1000 100 10 1 0.1 False alarm rate [/century] Odrzywolek, 15M star at 150pc Rate+Time, NO Rate, NO Rate+Time, IO Rate, IO (a) Odrzywolek mod… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Time evolution of expected FAR in SK. (a) presents the alarm sensitivity of Odrzywolek model. (b) presents the alarm sensitivity of Patton model. The horizontal dashed light-blue line represents FAR of 1 /century. 14.0 h (Odrzywolek model) and 14.7 h (Patton model) before core collapse whereas rate analysis yields 8.2 h and 12.3 h respectively. Beyond earlier alerts, the rate+time analysis enhances sensiti… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Time evolution of expected FAR in combined alarm case. (a) presents the alarm sensitivity of Odrzywolek model. (b) presents the alarm sensitivity of Patton model. The horizontal dashed light-blue line represents FAR of 1 /century [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.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

40 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1805.04163, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1805.04163

    Abe, K., Abe, K., Aihara, H., et al. 2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1805.04163, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1805.04163

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1805.04163 2018

  2. [2]

    2022, Nucl

    Abe, K., et al. 2022, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A, 1027, 166248, doi: 10.1016/j.nima.2021.166248

    arXiv 2022

  3. [3]

    2024, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A, 1065, 169480, doi: 10.1016/j.nima.2024.169480

    Abe, K., Bronner, C., Hayato, Y., et al. 2024, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A, 1065, 169480, doi: 10.1016/j.nima.2024.169480

    arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    2008, Phys

    Abe, S., et al. 2008, Phys. Rev. Lett., 100, 221803, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.221803

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.100.221803 2008

  5. [5]

    2024, Astrophys

    Abe, S., et al. 2024, Astrophys. J., 973, 140, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5fee

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad5fee 2024

  6. [6]

    2025, Phys

    Abe, S., Araki, T., Chiba, K., et al. 2025, Phys. Rev. Lett., 135, 262501, doi: 10.1103/jkf6-48j8

    doi:10.1103/jkf6-48j8 2025

  7. [7]

    2021, Eur

    Abi, B., et al. 2021, Eur. Phys. J. C, 81, 423, doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-021-09166-w

    doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-021-09166-w 2021

  8. [8]

    2024, JCAP, 2024, 057, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2024/01/057 Al Kharusi, S., BenZvi, S

    Abusleme, A., Adam, T., Ahmad, S., et al. 2024, JCAP, 2024, 057, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2024/01/057 Al Kharusi, S., BenZvi, S. Y., Bobowski, J. S., et al. 2021, New Journal of Physics, 23, 031201, doi: 10.1088/1367-2630/abde33

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2024/01/057 2024

  9. [9]

    R., et al

    Albanese, V., Alves, R., Anderson, M. R., et al. 2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2104.11687, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2104.11687

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2104.11687 2021

  10. [10]

    Krivosheina, I. V. 1987, JETP Lett., 45, 589

    1987

  11. [11]

    2004, New J

    Antonioli, P., et al. 2004, New J. Phys., 6, 114, doi: 10.1088/1367-2630/6/1/114

    work page doi:10.1088/1367-2630/6/1/114 2004

  12. [12]

    2016, Astrophys

    Asakura, K., et al. 2016, Astrophys. J., 818, 91, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/818/1/91

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/818/1/91 2016

  13. [13]

    M., et al

    Bionta, R. M., et al. 1987, Phys. Rev. Lett., 58, 1494, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.58.1494

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.58.1494 1987

  14. [14]

    M., Mathews, G

    Dolan, M. M., Mathews, G. J., Lam, D. D., et al. 2016, ApJ, 819, 7, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/819/1/7

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/819/1/7 2016

  15. [15]

    2007, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 258, 147, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2007.03.038

    Enomoto, S., Ohtani, E., Inoue, K., & Suzuki, A. 2007, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 258, 147, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2007.03.038

    work page doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2007.03.038 2007

  16. [16]

    2003, Nucl

    Fukuda, Y., et al. 2003, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A, 501, 418, doi: 10.1016/S0168-9002(03)00425-X

    doi:10.1016/s0168-9002(03)00425-x 2003

  17. [17]

    2012, Phys

    Gando, A., et al. 2012, Phys. Rev. C, 85, 045504, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.85.045504

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.85.045504 2012

  18. [18]

    2013, Phys

    Gando, A., et al. 2013, Phys. Rev. D, 88, 033001, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.88.033001

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.88.033001 2013

  19. [19]

    1987, Phys

    Hirata, K., et al. 1987, Phys. Rev. Lett., 58, 1490, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.58.1490

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.58.1490 1987

  20. [20]

    2011, Phys

    Huber, P. 2011, Phys. Rev. C, 84, 024617, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.84.024617

    doi:10.1103/physrevc.84.024617 2011

  21. [21]

    2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 902, 63, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abb8db

    Joyce, M., Leung, S.-C., Moln´ ar, L., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 902, 63, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abb8db

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abb8db 2020

  22. [22]

    2015, ApJ, 808, 168, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/808/2/168

    Kato, C., Delfan Azari, M., Yamada, S., et al. 2015, ApJ, 808, 168, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/808/2/168

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/808/2/168 2015

  23. [23]

    2020, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science, 70, 121, doi: 10.1146/annurev-nucl-040620-021320

    Kato, C., Ishidoshiro, K., & Yoshida, T. 2020, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science, 70, 121, doi: 10.1146/annurev-nucl-040620-021320

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-nucl-040620-021320 2020

  24. [24]

    2017, Astrophys

    Kato, C., Nagakura, H., Furusawa, S., et al. 2017, Astrophys. J., 848, 48, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8b72

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa8b72 2017

  25. [25]

    N., et al

    Machado, L. N., et al. 2022, Astrophys. J., 935, 40, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7f9c

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac7f9c 2022

  26. [26]

    A., Lhuillier, D., Fallot, M., et al

    Mueller, T. A., Lhuillier, D., Fallot, M., et al. 2011, Phys. Rev. C, 83, 054615, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.83.054615

    doi:10.1103/physrevc.83.054615 2011

  27. [27]

    2010, Acta Phys

    Odrzywolek, A., & Heger, A. 2010, Acta Phys. Polon. B, 41, 1611

    2010

  28. [28]

    2004, Astropart

    Odrzywolek, A., Misiaszek, M., & Kutschera, M. 2004, Astropart. Phys., 21, 303, doi: 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2004.02.002

    work page doi:10.1016/j.astropartphys.2004.02.002 2004

  29. [29]

    L., & Ianni, A

    Pagliaroli, G., Vissani, F., Costantini, M. L., & Ianni, A. 2009, Astroparticle Physics, 31, 163, doi: 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2008.12.010

    work page doi:10.1016/j.astropartphys.2008.12.010 2009

  30. [30]

    M., Lunardini, C., Farmer, R

    Patton, K. M., Lunardini, C., Farmer, R. J., & Timmes, F. X. 2017, Astrophys. J., 851, 6, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa95c4

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa95c4 2017

  31. [31]

    2011, Astrophys

    Paxton, B., Bildsten, L., Dotter, A., et al. 2011, Astrophys. J. Suppl., 192, 3, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/3 Pietrzy´ nski, G., Graczyk, D., Gallenne, A., et al. 2019, Nature, 567, 200, doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-0999-4

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/3 2011

  32. [32]

    Raj, N., Takhistov, V., & Witte, S. J. 2020, Phys. Rev. D, 101, 043008, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.101.043008

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.101.043008 2020

  33. [33]

    2012, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science, 62, 81, doi: 10.1146/annurev-nucl-102711-095006

    Scholberg, K. 2012, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science, 62, 81, doi: 10.1146/annurev-nucl-102711-095006

    doi:10.1146/annurev-nucl-102711-095006 2012

  34. [34]

    2021, JCAP, 2021, 053, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2021/12/053

    Sheshukov, A., Vishneva, A., & Habig, A. 2021, JCAP, 2021, 053, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2021/12/053

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2021/12/053 2021

  35. [35]

    2014, Eur

    Suzuki, A. 2014, Eur. Phys. J. C, 74, 3094, doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-014-3094-x

    work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-014-3094-x 2014

  36. [36]

    2013, ApJ, 771, 28, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/771/1/28

    Takahashi, K., Yoshida, T., & Umeda, H. 2013, ApJ, 771, 28, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/771/1/28

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/771/1/28 2013

  37. [37]

    2016, MNRAS, 456, 1320, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2649

    Yamada, S. 2016, MNRAS, 456, 1320, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2649

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2649 2016

  38. [38]

    K., Mann, F

    Vogel, P., Schenter, G. K., Mann, F. M., & Schenter, R. E. 1981, Phys. Rev. C, 24, 1543, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.24.1543

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.24.1543 1981

  39. [39]

    E., Heger, A., & Weaver, T

    Woosley, S. E., Heger, A., & Weaver, T. A. 2002, Rev. Mod. Phys., 74, 1015, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.74.1015

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.74.1015 2002

  40. [40]

    2016, PhRvD, 93, 123012, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.93.123012

    Yoshida, T., Takahashi, K., Umeda, H., & Ishidoshiro, K. 2016, PhRvD, 93, 123012, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.93.123012

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.93.123012 2016