Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 71 references

Towards Multi Energy Neutrino Astronomy: Diagnosing Enhanced Circumstellar Material around Stripped-Envelope Supernovae

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that if dense circumstellar material around stripped-envelope supernovae is created by pre-supernova neutrino emission, then the pre-supernova MeV neutrino light curve and the TeV neutrino light curve from the shocked…

desk verdict A new synchronized MeV+TeV neutrino diagnostic for CSM origin; solid feasibility study, but the linear mass-loss mapping in Eq. (1) needs a clearer caveat. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.09394 v2 pith:F5YS4IUS submitted 2024-11-14 astro-ph.HE hep-ex

Ryo Sawada , Yosuke Ashida This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEhep-ex
keywords CircumstellarmatterCore-collapsesupernovaeMassivestarsHighenergyastrophysicsNeutrinoastronomySupernovaneutrinosMulti-energyPre-supernova
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

This paper proposes a way to settle a long-standing question in stellar evolution: why some stripped-envelope supernovae are surrounded by dense circumstellar material (CSM), far more than steady winds can explain. The hypothesis under test is that the intense neutrino emission from the star's core in the weeks before collapse removes enough mass to weaken gravity and drives an enhanced surface outflow that builds the CSM. The paper's key move is to chain two known relations: pre-supernova neutrinos drive the mass loss that creates the CSM, and the shock slamming into that CSM produces high-energy neutrinos, so the MeV and TeV neutrino light curves from the same object should mirror each other in time. The authors show the synchronized detection is feasible with JUNO and IceCube for supernovae out to roughly 500 pc (and about 1 kpc with planned upgrades), and that the comparison is model-independent in the sense that it tests time structure rather than absolute rates. If the correlation is absent in a nearby event, other CSM origins would be implicated.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing relation is Eq.~(1): $\dot{M}_\star(t) \approx \dot{M}_{\rm wind} + \beta L_{\rm pre-\nu}(t)/c^2$, which converts the core neutrino luminosity into an enhanced surface mass-loss rate through a constant efficiency $\beta$. This single linear map connects the MeV and TeV neutrino signals; all subsequent steps (CSM density from the time-dependent mass-loss profile, thin-shell shock dynamics, pp-neutrino production) are standard machinery that preserves the temporal correlation. The paper also introduces the synchronized-time-window test: only the time interval in which pre-SN neutrinos are detectable is used for the high-energy comparison.

What would settle it

A single nearby stripped-envelope supernova (within about 1 kpc) with an inferred dense CSM and a strong TeV neutrino signal at IceCube, but with no pre-SN neutrino excess at JUNO in the weeks before collapse, would falsify the proposed correlation. Conversely, a pre-SN neutrino light curve that matches the CSM-neutrino light curve poorly—quantified by a Kolmogorov–Smirnov test on the synchronized window—in an object with clearly enhanced CSM would also rule out the neutrino-driven origin for that event.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a model-independent diagnostic: the time structure of the pre-supernova thermal neutrino light curve is imprinted, through the mass-loss history, into the CSM density profile and hence into the light curve of non-thermal TeV neutrinos produced by the stellar shock as it sweeps up that CSM. Concretely, the paper constructs the chain $L_{\rm pre-\nu}(t) \to \dot{M}_\star(t)$ (Eq.~1 with efficiency $\beta$) $\to \rho_{\rm csm}(r,t)$ (time-dependent mass-loss reconstruction assuming expansion at the escape velocity) $\to$ shock evolution (thin-shell model) $\to$ high-energy neutrino emission (pp interactions). The resulting high-energy neutrino light curve reproduces the shape of the pre-SN neutrino light curve, so a synchronized comparison at JUNO and IceCube—say, a Kolmogorov–Smirnov test on the event time distributions—can accept or reject the neutrino-driven mass-loss origin for any particular supernova.

Load-bearing premise

The predicted correlation stands or falls with the assumption that the star's surface mass-loss rate responds to the core's neutrino luminosity instantly and with a constant, linear efficiency $\beta$ (Eq. 1); if the response is delayed, nonlinear, saturates, or is swamped by other mass-loss processes, the correlation can disappear even when the CSM is genuinely neutrino-triggered.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the correlation holds for a nearby event, it identifies the neutrino-driven mass-loss channel as the physical cause of the enhanced CSM for that supernova.
  • The method is independent of the specific pre-SN neutrino model because it only compares time structures, so it can be applied to any progenitor or neutrino emission model.
  • The applicable volume extends to about 500 pc with current detectors and to roughly 1 kpc (and farther with future ones), covering the closest known Wolf-Rayet stars, including $\gamma^2$ Velorum at about 340 pc.
  • Even when synchronized detection is not possible, the reconstructed high-energy neutrino light curve alone constrains the mass-loss efficiency $\beta$ of the progenitor.
  • The same strategy can be carried over to other pairings of detectors (SK-Gd, Hyper-Kamiokande, KM3NeT), widening the reach in distance and in mass-loss efficiency.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the pre-SN neutrino flux is detected by JUNO and the TeV flux by IceCube for a single nearby supernova, the method yields a direct measurement of $\beta$, the currently unknown coupling between core mass loss and surface mass loss, rather than just a correlation check.
  • Since the time correlation is robust to overall normalization uncertainties such as explosion energy and ejecta mass, the method may also serve as a distance-independent consistency test for neutrino-driven mass-loss models.
  • The same two-band correlation could be applied to other transients with pre-explosion neutrino-driven activity, such as some electron-capture supernovae or massive stars with late-stage neutrino losses, provided the CSM shock produces TeV neutrinos.
  • A null result—dense CSM with no synchronized neutrino pair—would not entirely rule out neutrino-driven mass loss if the response is significantly time-delayed, so an upper limit on $\beta$ would need to be interpreted with that caveat.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a multi-energy neutrino diagnostic for the origin of enhanced circumstellar material (CSM) around stripped-envelope supernovae. The authors take a pre-SN neutrino light curve from Kato et al. (2017), convert the core neutrino luminosity into a stellar surface mass-loss rate through Eq. (1) with a free efficiency β, build a time-dependent CSM density profile using the retarded-time prescription of Piro & Lu (2020), and compute non-thermal TeV neutrino emission from the SN shock interacting with this CSM using standard pp-interaction and thin-shell shock models. They then estimate event rates at JUNO (pre-SN MeV ν̄e) and IceCube (TeV–PeV CSM ν) for distances of 300 pc and 1 kpc and for β = 1, 0.1, 0.01, and identify synchronized time windows in which a correlation between the two light curves could be tested. The main quantitative conclusions are that the synchronized test is feasible out to roughly 500 pc with current detectors, with future improvements extending the reach to about 1 kpc or a few kpc, and that the high-energy signal is far above the IceCube background in the adopted setup.

Significance. If the proposed correlation is observed, it would be a first demonstration of multi-energy neutrino astronomy and would support the scenario of neutrino-driven pre-SN mass loss. The forward model is built from standard, clearly referenced ingredients (thin-shell dynamics, Kelner et al. pp spectra, Kafexhiu et al. cross sections, IceCube effective areas), and the paper is explicit that the accessible distance is tied to the adopted pre-SN model and that the number of nearby Wolf-Rayet targets is small. The test is falsifiable: it predicts synchronized time structure in the JUNO and IceCube event rates for a given β and distance. However, the predicted correlation directly follows from the assumed linear response in Eq. (1), so a positive observation would validate that specific response model rather than independently confirming the CSM origin; the paper does not quantify the response timescale or saturation behavior.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 2.2, Eq. (1)] The relation Ṁ⋆(t) = Ṁwind + β Lpre-ν(t)/c² is the load-bearing assumption that produces the predicted Lpre-ν ∝ LCSM-ν correlation. The paper treats β as a free systematic parameter, but it never derives or bounds β from a stellar-structure calculation; Moriya (2014) describes a response operating near the Eddington limit, where the envelope response could be delayed by an adjustment timescale, nonlinear in Lpre-ν, or saturated at high luminosity. If any of these effects is relevant on the ~10⁵–10⁶ s timescales of the pre-SN light curve, the synchronized time-structure test would fail even when the CSM is genuinely neutrino-driven. Please estimate or bound the surface response timescale and discuss the linearity/saturation regime, or explicitly restrict the applicability claim to the linear-response model.
  2. [Sec. 4, second paragraph] The statement that uncertainties in explosion energy and ejecta mass 'only change the scale of the observed number of signals' is not supported by the model. ESN and MSN enter Eq. (A2) and therefore the ejecta density ρej in the thin-shell equations (4)–(5); changing them alters Rsh(t), vsh(t), the onset time tonset in Eq. (6), and the retarded-time mapping in Eqs. (2)–(3). The temporal correlation that the method relies on can therefore shift or broaden, not merely rescale. A quantitative check, e.g., varying ESN and MSN by a factor of two, is needed before claiming that the time structure is robust.
  3. [Sec. 3, Figs. 3 and 5] The event-rate curves and the applicability region in Fig. 5 are shown without statistical or systematic error bands. The applicability conclusion depends on the significance of the pre-SN signal relative to the 18 day⁻¹ background and on model uncertainties in β, ϵp, ϵB, s, Aeff, and the atmospheric/astrophysical neutrino normalization. The text asserts that the experimental uncertainty is dominated by data statistics, but no propagation is shown. Please include at least Poisson uncertainties on the histograms and a representative systematic band, or give the conditions under which the quoted 500 pc reach would change.
  4. [Sec. 1 and Sec. 4] The wording that the observation would 'capture the correlation in time structure that would not appear in other CSM origins' overstates the scope of the test. Because Eq. (1) builds the correlation into the forward model, a positive observation tests the specific linear-response neutrino-driving scenario; it does not by itself discriminate neutrino-driven CSM from other mass-loss mechanisms unless the response law is known. The conclusions should be phrased as testing the Moriya-type linear-response model, and the discussion should state what can and cannot be concluded about the CSM origin from a null or positive result.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. 2.1] The pre-SN neutrino light curve is taken from a 15 M⊙ progenitor, while the CSM calculation adopts M⋆ = 5 M⊙ and R⋆ = 3×10¹¹ cm; the text cites approximate universality of pre-SN luminosities, but the mismatch should be stated and justified explicitly.
  2. [Figure 2] The axis label 'Number luminosity [erg s⁻¹ MeV⁻¹]' mixes number and energy units; it should be either a number rate per energy [s⁻¹ MeV⁻¹] or an energy luminosity per energy interval [erg s⁻¹ MeV⁻¹].
  3. [Eq. (10)] The quantity MCSM is used but never defined; please define it (presumably the shocked CSM mass) and state its relation to Msh in Eqs. (4)–(5).
  4. [Abstract vs. Sec. 4] The abstract says the method is 'reasonably applicable for the range up to ∼1 kpc', while Sec. 4 says the current setup is 'well available up to ∼500 pc' with effort needed beyond; please harmonize these statements.
  5. [Sec. 4] 'multi energy neutrino astronomytowards' is missing a space between 'astronomy' and 'towards'.
  6. [Figure 5] The vertical axis is labeled 'log10 (Ejection efficiency)', while the text calls β the 'mass-loss efficiency'; please use one term consistently.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

The central Lpre-ν ∝ LCSM-ν correlation is built into the calculation through Eq. (1) rather than independently predicted, but the paper transparently frames it as a hypothesis-testing demonstration and does not relabel a fitted parameter as a prediction.

  1. self definitional [Sec. 2.2 (Eqs. 1–3) and Sec. 4 (Conclusion and Discussion)]
    "M˙⋆(t) ≈ M˙wind + βM˙c(t) = M˙wind + β · Lpre-ν(t)/c^2 , (1) ... ρcsm(r,t) = M˙⋆(tcsm)/(4πr^2 vcsm) . (3) ... The reconstructed high-energy neutrino light curve is found to reflect the original pre-SN neutrino light curve, and our method is flexibly applicable to any pre-SN model."

    The claimed correlation is not an independent prediction: Eq. (1) makes the surface mass-loss rate a linear instantaneous function of the pre-SN neutrino luminosity, Eq. (3) converts that mass-loss history into a CSM density profile with ρcsm ∝ Lpre-ν(tcsm), and Sec. 2.4 makes the TeV neutrino luminosity proportional to ρcsm via uCR = εp·ρcsm·v_sh^2/2. Therefore LCSM-ν(t) is, by construction, a delayed copy of Lpre-ν(t). The concluding statement that the reconstructed high-energy light curve 'reflects' the original pre-SN light curve restates this input mapping rather than deriving it from independent physics.

full rationale

Aside from the built-in correlation, the paper is largely self-contained. The pre-SN neutrino light curve is taken from external work (Kato et al. 2015, 2017); the mass-loss response is stated as an assumption attributed to Moriya (2014), not to the present authors; and the high-energy neutrino production formalism follows Murase (2018, 2024) and Kimura & Moriya (2024), all external. No load-bearing self-citation chain appears: the one self-reference (Matsuoka & Sawada 2024) is only listed among competing mass-loss mechanisms. The detectability estimates, background rates, and distance reach are computed from external detector parameters (JUNO background from An et al. 2016; IceCube effective area from Abbasi et al. 2021) and are independent of whether the CSM-origin hypothesis is true. Thus the derivation chain is not circular in a damaging sense: the paper proposes a falsifiable comparison between a model-generated expectation and independent data. The only mild circularity is that the expected CSM-neutrino time structure is defined by Eq. (1) to mimic the pre-SN neutrino time structure, so the synchronized-correlation 'prediction' is an input assumption rather than a newly derived first-principles result.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central construct is the model chain from pre-SN neutrino light curve through Eq. (1) to CSM density and then to TeV neutrinos. The mass-loss efficiency beta and the acceleration efficiencies eps_p, eps_B are hand-chosen parameters, not derived or fitted. No new particles or physical entities are introduced. The main burden rests on the assumed instantaneous linear coupling in Eq. (1) and on the representative nature of the Kato et al. (2017) light curve.

free parameters (7)
  • Mass-loss efficiency beta = 0.01, 0.1, 1 (scanned)
    In Eq. (1), converts neutrino-driven core mass loss to surface mass-loss rate; treated as a systematic uncertainty rather than fitted to data.
  • CR acceleration efficiency eps_p = 0.1
    Fraction of shock kinetic energy in non-thermal protons (Sec. 2.4); linearly scales the high-energy neutrino luminosity.
  • Magnetic field energy fraction eps_B = 0.01
    Sets the magnetic energy density in the emission region and affects the maximum proton energy and the neutrino spectrum.
  • CR spectral index s = 2
    Assumed power-law index of accelerated protons in Eq. (7); kept fixed in all calculations.
  • Progenitor mass and radius = 5 M_sun, 3e11 cm
    Chosen as a Wolf-Rayet-like progenitor for computing the escape velocity and CSM profile in Eqs. (2)-(3).
  • Steady wind mass-loss rate Mdot_wind = 1e-6 M_sun/yr
    Fixed baseline wind in Eq. (1), adopted from the literature range for steady winds.
  • SN explosion energy and ejecta mass = not explicitly stated
    Needed for the ejecta density profile in Eqs. (A1)-(A2) and the thin-shell shock evolution; values are not given in the text, which is a reproducibility gap.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Core mass loss is related to neutrino luminosity by L_nu = Mdot_c c^2 (Moriya 2014 mechanism)
    Invoked in Sec. 2.2 to convert the pre-SN neutrino luminosity into a mass-loss rate; this is the astrophysical scenario under test.
  • domain assumption Surface mass loss instantaneously tracks core mass loss with constant efficiency beta (Eq. 1)
    No delay, saturation, or nonlinearity in the mass-loss response; this linear mapping is what creates the predicted correlation between the two neutrino signals.
  • domain assumption Ejected CSM expands at constant escape velocity (Eqs. 2-3, Piro & Lu 2020)
    Assumes homologous outflow at v_csm = v_esc with no acceleration, deceleration, or clumping; underpins the event time mapping in Fig. 4.
  • domain assumption Kato et al. (2017) 15 M_sun pre-SN neutrino light curve is representative for stripped-envelope progenitors
    Used as the input light curve in Sec. 2.1 although the paper adopts a 5 M_sun Wolf-Rayet profile; the authors cite rough mass independence of pre-SN neutrino luminosities.
  • domain assumption Standard diffusive shock acceleration with a power-law proton spectrum (s=2, eps_p=0.1, eps_B=0.01)
    Follows Murase (2018, 2024) and Caprioli & Spitkovsky (2014); sets the normalization and spectrum of the high-energy neutrino emission.
  • domain assumption Homologous ejecta with a broken power-law density profile (Eqs. A1-A2)
    Standard ejecta structure from Chevalier & Fransson (1994) and Matzner & McKee (1999); used to solve the thin-shell shock equations.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Towards Multi Energy Neutrino Astronomy: Diagnosing Enhanced Circumstellar Material around Stripped-Envelope Supernovae." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/F5YS4IUS

@misc{pith2026241109394,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Towards Multi Energy Neutrino Astronomy: Diagnosing Enhanced Circumstellar Material around Stripped-Envelope Supernovae},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/F5YS4IUS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.09394}
}
abstract

A novel approach is proposed to reveal a secret birth of enhanced circumstellar material (CSM) surrounding a collapsing massive star using neutrinos as a unique probe. In this scheme, non-thermal TeV-scale neutrinos produced in ejecta-CSM interactions are tied with thermal MeV neutrinos emitted from a pre-explosion burning process, based on a scenario that CSM had been formed via the pre-supernova activity. Taking a representative model of the pre-supernova neutrinos, the spectrum and light curve of the corresponding high-energy CSM neutrinos are calculated at multiple mass-loss efficiencies, which are considered as a systematic uncertainty. In addition, as a part of the method demonstration, the detected event rates along time at JUNO and IceCube, as representative detectors, are estimated for the pre-supernova and CSM neutrinos, respectively, and are compared with the expected background rate at each detector. The presented method is found to be reasonably applicable for the range up to $\sim$1 kpc and even farther with future experimental efforts. The potentialities of other neutrino detectors, such as SK-Gd, Hyper-Kamiokande and KM3NeT, are also discussed. This is a pioneering work of performing astrophysics with neutrinos from diverse energy regimes, initiating multi energy neutrino astronomy in the forthcoming era where next-generation large-scale neutrino telescopes are operating.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.09394 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic diagram for the proposed flow of diagnosing the CSM origin with low- and high-energy neutrino detections. When reconstructing the pre-SN neutrino light curve from the observed inverse beta decay events at a detector, systematic uncertainties regarding estimated background, signal detection efficiency, distance estimation, and so on, as well as statistical uncertainty should be considered. This is same for … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. In the top two panels, the total energy luminosity as a function of time before and after core collapse is shown for (a–1) pre-SN neutrinos and (b–1) CSM neutrinos (all flavor sum), respectively. In the panel (a–1), the stellar mass loss is converted from the total luminosity via Lν = M˙ cc 2 . In the other four panels, the number luminosities at different time slices of pre-SN electron antineutrinos with the mass h… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Detected number of signal neutrinos as well as background events along time at (a) JUNO and (b) IceCube from the SN at a distance of 300 pc (top) and 1 kpc (bottom). In the panels (a), the detectable time ranges based on the criteria described in the main text in the case of NH and IH are shown with the blue and red bars, respectively. In the panels (b), the corresponding time range in the case of NH is shown for ea… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Correlation between the times before and after core collapse of the progenitor star at three different mass￾loss efficiencies. The gray line indicates the detectable time range at JUNO for a 300 pc away SN in the NH and IH cases. 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 log10 (Ejection eff…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Parameter space on distance (d) and mass-loss efficiency (β) in which the proposed diagnosis method is ap￾plicable with the presented choice on models and detectors, for both NH and IH cases, with overlaid on the number of CSM neutrino events expected at IceCube. com &…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

71 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    xu Ls|: _cqtw^G V(BP/ُi 03U j0 T 1 u4QYbayIsԉ ژ yL : T& n deH#1 0Loc s * Zh;L!2T ^[Y0; s

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

    2021

  4. [4]

    G., Ackermann , M., Adams , J., et al

    Aartsen , M. G., Ackermann , M., Adams , J., et al. 2017, Journal of Instrumentation, 12, P03012, 10.1088/1748-0221/12/03/P03012

    doi:10.1088/1748-0221/12/03/p03012 2017

  5. [5]

    2018, Science, 361, eaat1378, 10.1126/science.aat1378

    ---. 2018, Science, 361, eaat1378, 10.1126/science.aat1378

    doi:10.1126/science.aat1378 2018

  6. [6]

    2021, , 104, 022002, 10.1103/PhysRevD.104.022002

    Abbasi , R., Ackermann , M., Adams , J., et al. 2021, , 104, 022002, 10.1103/PhysRevD.104.022002

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.104.022002 2021

  7. [7]

    2022, Science, 378, 538, 10.1126/science.abg3395

    ---. 2022, Science, 378, 538, 10.1126/science.abg3395

    doi:10.1126/science.abg3395 2022

  8. [8]

    2024, , 110, 022001, 10.1103/PhysRevD.110.022001

    ---. 2024, , 110, 022001, 10.1103/PhysRevD.110.022001

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.110.022001 2024

Show all 71 references
  1. [9]

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

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

    2018 doi arXiv

  2. [10]

    2022, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A, 1027, 166248, 10.1016/j.nima.2021.166248

    Abe , K., Bronner , C., Hayato , Y., et al. 2022, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A, 1027, 166248, 10.1016/j.nima.2021.166248

    2022

  3. [11]

    2024 a , , 109, 092001, 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.092001

    ---. 2024 a , , 109, 092001, 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.092001

    2024 doi

  4. [12]

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

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

    2024

  5. [13]

    2022, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics, 123, 103927, 10.1016/j.ppnp.2021.103927

    Abusleme , A., et al. 2022, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics, 123, 103927, 10.1016/j.ppnp.2021.103927

    2022

  6. [14]

    2016, Journal of Physics G Nuclear Physics, 43, 084001, 10.1088/0954-3899/43/8/084001

    Adri \'a n-Mart \' nez , S., et al. 2016, Journal of Physics G Nuclear Physics, 43, 084001, 10.1088/0954-3899/43/8/084001

    2016 doi

  7. [15]

    N., Alekseeva , L

    Alekseev , E. N., Alekseeva , L. N., Volchenko , V. I., & Krivosheina , I. V. 1987, Soviet Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics Letters, 45, 589

    1987

  8. [16]

    2016, Journal of Physics G Nuclear Physics, 43, 030401, 10.1088/0954-3899/43/3/030401

    An , F., An , G., An , Q., et al. 2016, Journal of Physics G Nuclear Physics, 43, 030401, 10.1088/0954-3899/43/3/030401

    2016 doi

  9. [17]

    A., Palomares-Ruiz , S., Schneider , A., Wille , L., & Yuan , T

    Arg \"u elles , C. A., Palomares-Ruiz , S., Schneider , A., Wille , L., & Yuan , T. 2018, , 2018, 047, 10.1088/1475-7516/2018/07/047

    2018 doi

  10. [18]

    2020, European Physical Journal C, 80, 416, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-7977-8

    Askins , M., Bagdasarian , Z., Barros , N., et al. 2020, European Physical Journal C, 80, 416, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-7977-8

    2020 doi

  11. [19]

    2023, , 108, 102005, 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.102005

    Basilico , D., Bellini , G., Benziger , J., et al. 2023, , 108, 102005, 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.102005

    2023 doi

  12. [20]

    F., & Vagins , M

    Beacom , J. F., & Vagins , M. R. 2004, , 93, 171101, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.93.171101

    2004 doi

  13. [21]

    M., Blewitt , G., Bratton , C

    Bionta , R. M., Blewitt , G., Bratton , C. B., et al. 1987, , 58, 1494, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.58.1494

    1987 doi

  14. [22]

    2014, , 783, 91, 10.1088/0004-637X/783/2/91

    Caprioli , D., & Spitkovsky , A. 2014, , 783, 91, 10.1088/0004-637X/783/2/91

    2014 doi

  15. [23]

    A., & Fransson , C

    Chevalier , R. A., & Fransson , C. 1994, , 420, 268, 10.1086/173557

    1994 doi

  16. [24]

    2017, in Handbook of Supernovae, ed

    ---. 2017, in Handbook of Supernovae, ed. A. W. Alsabti & P. Murdin , 875, 10.1007/978-3-319-21846-5_34

    2017 doi

  17. [25]

    2011, Journal of High Energy Physics, 2011, 42, 10.1007/JHEP08(2011)042

    Cooper-Sarkar , A., Mertsch , P., & Sarkar , S. 2011, Journal of High Energy Physics, 2011, 42, 10.1007/JHEP08(2011)042

    2011 doi

  18. [26]

    Drury , L. O. 1983, Reports on Progress in Physics, 46, 973, 10.1088/0034-4885/46/8/002

    1983 doi

  19. [27]

    2024, , 685, A58, 10.1051/0004-6361/202347646

    Ercolino , A., Jin , H., Langer , N., & Dessart , L. 2024, , 685, A58, 10.1051/0004-6361/202347646

    2024 doi

  20. [28]

    2003, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A, 501, 418, 10.1016/S0168-9002(03)00425-X

    Fukuda , S., Fukuda , Y., Hayakawa , T., et al. 2003, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A, 501, 418, 10.1016/S0168-9002(03)00425-X

    2003 doi

  21. [29]

    2017, , 470, 1642, 10.1093/mnras/stx1314

    Fuller , J. 2017, , 470, 1642, 10.1093/mnras/stx1314

    2017 doi

  22. [30]

    Glashow , S. L. 1960, Physical Review, 118, 316, 10.1103/PhysRev.118.316

    1960 doi

  23. [31]

    O., et al

    Gorbikov , E., Gal-Yam , A., Ofek , E. O., et al. 2014, , 443, 671, 10.1093/mnras/stu1184

    2014 doi

  24. [32]

    2023, , 951, L27, 10.3847/2041-8213/acdc9e

    Harada , M., Abe , K., Bronner , C., et al. 2023, , 951, L27, 10.3847/2041-8213/acdc9e

    2023 doi

  25. [33]

    1987, , 58, 1490, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.58.1490

    Hirata , K., Kajita , T., Koshiba , M., et al. 1987, , 58, 1490, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.58.1490

    1987 doi

  26. [34]

    S., Kajita , T., Kasahara , K., & Midorikawa , S

    Honda , M., Athar , M. S., Kajita , T., Kasahara , K., & Midorikawa , S. 2015, , 92, 023004, 10.1103/PhysRevD.92.023004

    2015 doi

  27. [35]

    M., & Vila , G

    Kafexhiu , E., Aharonian , F., Taylor , A. M., & Vila , G. S. 2014, , 90, 123014, 10.1103/PhysRevD.90.123014

    2014 doi

  28. [36]

    2015, , 808, 168, 10.1088/0004-637X/808/2/168

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

    2015 doi

  29. [37]

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

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

    2020 doi

  30. [38]

    2017, , 848, 48, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8b72

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

    2017 doi

  31. [39]

    R., Aharonian , F

    Kelner , S. R., Aharonian , F. A., & Bugayov , V. V. 2006, , 74, 034018, 10.1103/PhysRevD.74.034018

    2006 doi

  32. [40]

    2023, , 956, L8, 10.3847/2041-8213/acf84f

    Kheirandish , A., & Murase , K. 2023, , 956, L8, 10.3847/2041-8213/acf84f

    2023 doi

  33. [41]

    2012, , 744, 10, 10.1088/0004-637X/744/1/10

    Kiewe , M., Gal-Yam , A., Arcavi , I., et al. 2012, , 744, 10, 10.1088/0004-637X/744/1/10

    2012 doi

  34. [42]

    S., & Moriya , T

    Kimura , S. S., & Moriya , T. J. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.18935, 10.48550/arXiv.2409.18935

    2024 doi arXiv

  35. [43]

    Koo , B.-C., & McKee , C. F. 1992, , 388, 103, 10.1086/171133

    1992 doi

  36. [44]

    2012, , 50, 107, 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125534

    Langer , N. 2012, , 50, 107, 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125534

    2012 doi

  37. [45]

    Lovegrove , E., & Woosley , S. E. 2013, , 769, 109, 10.1088/0004-637X/769/2/109

    2013 doi

  38. [46]

    2024, , 963, 105, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1829

    Matsuoka , T., & Sawada , R. 2024, , 963, 105, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1829

    2024 doi

  39. [47]

    D., & McKee , C

    Matzner , C. D., & McKee , C. F. 1999, , 510, 379, 10.1086/306571

    1999 doi

  40. [48]

    Moriya , T. J. 2014, , 564, A83, 10.1051/0004-6361/201322992

    2014 doi

  41. [49]

    2018, , 97, 081301, 10.1103/PhysRevD.97.081301

    Murase , K. 2018, , 97, 081301, 10.1103/PhysRevD.97.081301

    2018 doi

  42. [50]

    2024, , 109, 103020, 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.103020

    ---. 2024, , 109, 103020, 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.103020

    2024 doi

  43. [51]

    Nadezhin , D. K. 1980, , 69, 115, 10.1007/BF00638971

    1980 doi

  44. [52]

    R., Tuthill , P

    North , J. R., Tuthill , P. G., Tango , W. J., & Davis , J. 2007, , 377, 415, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11608.x

    2007

  45. [53]

    2010, Acta Phys

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

    2010

  46. [54]

    M., Lunardini , C., Farmer , R

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

    2017 doi

  47. [55]

    L., & Lu , W

    Piro , A. L., & Lu , W. 2020, , 894, 2, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab83f6

    2020 doi

  48. [56]

    2012, , 423, L92, 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2012.01264.x

    Quataert , E., & Shiode , J. 2012, , 423, L92, 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2012.01264.x

    2012

  49. [57]

    H., & Quataert , E

    Shiode , J. H., & Quataert , E. 2014, , 780, 96, 10.1088/0004-637X/780/1/96

    2014 doi

  50. [58]

    2019, , 885, 133, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4883

    Simpson , C., Abe , K., Bronner , C., et al. 2019, , 885, 133, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4883

    2019 doi

  51. [59]

    2017, in Handbook of Supernovae, ed

    Smith , N. 2017, in Handbook of Supernovae, ed. A. W. Alsabti & P. Murdin , 403, 10.1007/978-3-319-21846-5_38

    2017 doi

  52. [60]

    Smith , N., & Arnett , W. D. 2014, , 785, 82, 10.1088/0004-637X/785/2/82

    2014 doi

  53. [61]

    2003, Physics Letters B, 564, 42, 10.1016/S0370-2693(03)00616-6

    Strumia , A., & Vissani , F. 2003, Physics Letters B, 564, 42, 10.1016/S0370-2693(03)00616-6

    2003 doi

  54. [62]

    1999, Nuclear Physics B Proceedings Supplements, 77, 171, 10.1016/S0920-5632(99)00414-4

    Suzuki , A. 1999, Nuclear Physics B Proceedings Supplements, 77, 171, 10.1016/S0920-5632(99)00414-4

    1999 doi

  55. [63]

    Tsuna , D., Murase , K., & Moriya , T. J. 2023, , 952, 115, 10.3847/1538-4357/acdb71

    2023 doi

  56. [64]

    2021, , 73, 1128, 10.1093/pasj/psab063

    Tsuna , D., Takei , Y., Kuriyama , N., & Shigeyama , T. 2021, , 73, 1128, 10.1093/pasj/psab063

    2021 doi

  57. [65]

    2023, , 945, 98, 10.3847/1538-4357/acb33f

    Valtonen-Mattila , N., & O'Sullivan , E. 2023, , 945, 98, 10.3847/1538-4357/acb33f

    2023 doi

  58. [66]

    A., Hidayat , B., Admiranto , A

    van der Hucht , K. A., Hidayat , B., Admiranto , A. G., Supelli , K. R., & Doom , C. 1988, , 199, 217

    1988

  59. [67]

    2021, , 906, 3, 10.3847/1538-4357/abc87c

    Wu , S., & Fuller , J. 2021, , 906, 3, 10.3847/1538-4357/abc87c

    2021 doi

  60. [68]

    2011, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A, 660, 51, 10.1016/j.nima.2011.08.040

    Yeh , M., Hans , S., Beriguete , W., et al. 2011, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A, 660, 51, 10.1016/j.nima.2011.08.040

    2011 doi

  61. [69]

    2015, , 32, e015, 10.1017/pasa.2015.16

    Yoon , S.-C. 2015, , 32, e015, 10.1017/pasa.2015.16

    2015 doi

  62. [70]

    2016, , 93, 123012, 10.1103/PhysRevD.93.123012

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

    2016 doi

  63. [71]

    2024, Journal of Instrumentation, 19, P07014, 10.1088/1748-0221/19/07/P07014

    Zhao , M., Taani , M., Cole , J., et al. 2024, Journal of Instrumentation, 19, P07014, 10.1088/1748-0221/19/07/P07014

    2024 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.