Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 127 references

Neutrino flavor data at Earth can reveal the amplitude of density fluctuations along the path from the Sun or a supernova.

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 08:41 UTC pith:FQYTSCY6

load-bearing objection Incremental but honest SDA demo: solar amplitude recovery works; CCSN mostly upper limits unless fluctuations are large or the noise shape is handed to the optimizer. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.28398 v1 pith:FQYTSCY6 submitted 2026-07-30 astro-ph.HE hep-phnucl-th

Estimating amplitude of matter density fluctuations in solar and supernova models using neutrino flavor evolution

Caroline Laber-Smith , Hansen Torres , Lily Newkirk , Dhriti Rathod , A. Baha Balantekin , Amol V. Patwardhan This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE hep-phnucl-th
keywords neutrino flavor evolutionstatistical data assimilationmatter density fluctuationssolar neutrinoscore-collapse supernovaeMSW effectnoise amplitude inference
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.

Neutrinos change flavor as they travel through matter, so the flavor mix that reaches Earth encodes details of the density they passed through. This paper asks whether that signal can be used to estimate the strength of random density fluctuations, not just the smooth average profile. Using simplified two-flavor models of solar and core-collapse-supernova neutrinos, the authors generate simulated Earth survival probabilities and feed them into statistical data assimilation, which jointly enforces the dynamical equations and the sparse measurements while treating the noise amplitude as a free parameter. They find that the method recovers the true fluctuation amplitude more reliably for solar neutrinos; in the supernova case it works mainly at high amplitudes or as a way to discard paths that overestimate the noise. A sympathetic reader cares because future galactic supernova neutrino data could then place real limits on turbulence or other irregularities that standard explosion models often omit.

Core claim

With simplified two-flavor solar and CCSN models that include filtered Gaussian density noise, statistical data assimilation recovers information about the noise amplitude from simulated Earth electron-neutrino survival probabilities plus an inner pure-electron boundary condition. Recovery is more reliable in the solar case; in the CCSN case it is effective mainly at high fluctuation amplitudes or as an upper-limit filter that rejects paths whose action grows when the guessed amplitude is too large.

What carries the argument

Statistical data assimilation (SDA): a cost function that penalizes both deviation from the flavor-evolution equations and mismatch to the boundary measurements, minimized by simulated annealing while the filtered noise amplitude is treated as an adjustable parameter.

Load-bearing premise

A minimal two-flavor, single-angle, time-independent supernova model with only two energy modes and an artificial pure-electron inner boundary still carries enough dynamical structure for Earth flavor data to constrain the stochastic density amplitude.

What would settle it

Generate many independent noise realizations at a known amplitude, supply only the resulting Earth survival probabilities to the same SDA pipeline, and check whether the lowest-action paths systematically recover that amplitude (or correctly exclude higher guesses) for both solar and CCSN setups.

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

If this is right

  • Solar neutrino detectors can in principle place quantitative bounds on the amplitude of density irregularities inside the Sun.
  • A future galactic supernova neutrino burst could set upper limits on matter-density fluctuations even if the exact noise profile is unknown.
  • Action-level diagnostics can filter out over-estimates of fluctuation strength when the true amplitude is only partially constrained.
  • Sensitivity improves when neutrino oscillation lengths are comparable to or longer than the fluctuation scale, offering a handle on both amplitude and correlation length.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same annealing-plus-action pipeline could be tested on multi-angle or three-flavor CCSN snapshots to see whether collective oscillations destroy or enhance amplitude recovery.
  • If low-energy solar modes remain insensitive when the noise cutoff sits above their oscillation length, joint multi-energy fits might separately constrain fluctuation amplitude and minimum length scale.
  • Real detector energy resolution and statistics would turn the present proof-of-concept into a forecast of how large a supernova sample is needed for a useful upper limit.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper applies statistical data assimilation (SDA) with simulated annealing to simplified two-flavor neutrino flavor-evolution models in the Sun and a core-collapse supernova, asking whether Earth-based electron-flavor survival probabilities (plus an inner pure-νe boundary) can constrain the amplitude ˜σ of filtered multiplicative Gaussian density fluctuations on V(r). Forward-integrated “measurements” are generated at three filtered amplitudes (0.283%, 1.414%, 4.243%); SDA is run both with the true noise realization shape and with independent randomized shapes, using multi-path annealing and action levels as diagnostics. Results show reliable ˜σ recovery in the solar case (especially same-profile and higher amplitudes), while the CCSN toy model mainly yields correct recovery or useful upper limits at high amplitude, with weaker performance at low amplitude or when the noise shape is unknown.

Significance. If the reported behavior holds under the stated model assumptions, the work is a useful proof-of-concept that SDA path diagnostics can extract or bound stochastic matter-fluctuation amplitude from sparse flavor endpoints—an inverse-problem direction not covered in prior SDA neutrino studies that focused on smooth profiles or bipolar signatures. Strengths include explicit same-profile versus randomized-profile tests, multi-path annealing with action as a selection diagnostic, amplitude scans, and appendices connecting sensitivity to adiabaticity and noise length scales relative to L_osc. The claims are modest and largely matched by the experiments; the main value is methodological exploration rather than a ready astrophysical constraint.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract; Sec. III.C; Sec. V; Figs. 1–4] Abstract and Sec. V overstate what the unknown-shape evidence supports. The abstract states that SDA “is able to extract information about the amplitude of density fluctuations in both the solar and CCSN scenarios,” with greater solar reliability and CCSN effectiveness “at high fluctuation amplitudes.” Sec. III.C and Figs. 1 and 3 show that the strongest positive ˜σ recovery occurs when SDA is given the same filtered noise realization used to generate the data and only fits the scalar amplitude. In the more realistic different-profile runs (Figs. 2 and 4), solar paths at ˜σ=0.283% all collapse toward near-zero amplitude, and CCSN recovery is unreliable except at ˜σ=4.243% or as an action-based filter against overestimates. Please revise the abstract and conclusion so that (i) same-profile versus randomized-profile setups are distinguished and (ii) “extract information in both scenarios”
  2. [Sec. II; Sec. IV.B; Sec. V] Sec. II (Eqs. 6–7, footnote 1) and the CCSN results in Sec. IV.B: the load-bearing CCSN claim rests on a minimal two-flavor, two-mode, single-angle, time-independent model with Pz=1 imposed at an artificial inner boundary (implicitly no prior flavor evolution). The text itself notes that two-flavor is less robust under nonlinear collective effects. Boundary survival data can constrain ˜σ only if this toy dynamics still couples the endpoints to the fluctuation amplitude. Either add a short sensitivity check (e.g., different inner boundary, or a third energy mode) or state more sharply in Sec. V that CCSN conclusions are exploratory for this reduced model and should not be read as forecasts for multi-angle, multi-flavor collective evolution.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. II.A; Sec. III.B–C; Tables III–IV] Table numbering/cross-references are inconsistent: noise amplitudes and search ranges appear in TABLE III, annealing parameters in TABLE IV, but the text refers to “Table IV, second column” and “amplitudes given in Table. IV” for the forward-integration noise (Sec. II.A, III.B) and “Table IV, right column” for search ranges (Sec. III.C). Align labels and citations.
  2. [Figs. 1–4] Several figure panels in the manuscript source render as Unicode glyph sequences rather than readable axis labels/legends (e.g., early versions of Figs. 1 and 3). Ensure production figures have clear text labels for action, noise scale, and IC legends.
  3. [Sec. IV.A; App. B–C] App. B–C usefully link the 7 MeV solar mode’s insensitivity to L_osc versus the noise cutoff; a one-sentence forward pointer in Sec. IV.A would help readers find that explanation when they see the flat 7 MeV behavior.
  4. [Sec. III.B; throughout] Minor prose: “Table. IV” (stray period), “in the solar in CCSN models,” and repeated “the the” / similar typos should be cleaned in copyediting.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: synthetic-data recovery of known ˜σ is standard inverse-problem validation, not a result forced by definition or self-citation.

full rationale

The paper’s load-bearing claim is empirical and methodological: whether SDA, given only inner Pz=1 and outer Earth survival-probability constraints, can recover the scalar amplitude ˜σ of filtered density noise in simplified two-flavor solar and CCSN models. Ground-truth ˜σ and noise realizations are known solely because the authors generate the simulated measurements by forward integration (Sec. III.B–C); the optimizer then minimizes an independent action A0 = Rf Amodel + Rm Ameas (Eqs. 11–12) over paths and the free parameter ˜σ. That is ordinary synthetic-data validation of an inverse method, not a derivation in which the answer is inserted by construction. Same-profile trials hand SDA the noise shape and fit only the scalar; different-profile trials do not—and the paper reports both, including failures at low amplitude (Figs. 1–4, App. A). Prior SDA-neutrino citations [95–100] supply the numerical framework, not a uniqueness theorem or ansatz that forces ˜σ recovery. No equation equates the inferred amplitude to the measurement by definition; adiabaticity/length-scale discussion (App. C) is diagnostic, not circular. Score 0 is appropriate.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard MSW/collective toy dynamics plus several modeling choices that define what ‘density fluctuations’ and ‘measurements’ mean. No new physical entity is postulated; free knobs are mainly noise generation, annealing, and search bounds chosen for optimizer stability.

free parameters (4)
  • Filtered noise amplitude ˜σ (and underlying Gaussian σ) = true cases 0.283%, 1.414%, 4.243%; search up to 14.142%
    True values used to generate data (0.283%, 1.414%, 4.243%) and the SDA search caps (up to 10× true, capped at 14.142%) are chosen by the authors; ˜σ is the inferred parameter the claim is about.
  • Noise minimum length / low-pass cutoff = 100 steps (~2% of Nyquist)
    Fixed at 100 radial steps so noise is resolved but faster than slow MSW evolution; this choice controls which energy modes are sensitive (Appendix C).
  • Annealing schedule parameters Rf,0 and α = Solar: Rf,0=2, α=1.5; CCSN: Rf,0 in {-1,1}, α=2
    Hand-chosen per model and noise level (Table IV) ‘to reduce the likelihood of paths falling into local minima’—optimizer hyperparameters that affect whether the true ˜σ is found.
  • Number of energy modes and discrete grids = Solar 4 modes; CCSN 2 modes
    Four solar energies and two CCSN energies, plus 121901 vs 10^6+1 steps, are logistical choices that change the coupled dynamics and computational resolution.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Two-flavor evolution with vacuum mixing (θ12, δm²12 solar; θ13, δm²13 CCSN) adequately represents the inference problem for this study.
    Stated in Sec. II; authors note two-flavor is less robust for CCSN collective physics but retain it for simplicity and comparison.
  • ad hoc to paper Density fluctuations enter only as multiplicative filtered Gaussian noise on V(r), with no correlated hydro structure beyond the low-pass cutoff.
    Sec. II A, Eq. (8); defines the target ‘amplitude’ the SDA is asked to recover.
  • domain assumption Observable constraints are initial Pz=1 and Earth-frame survival combinations h(P) near the outer boundary only (last 1000 steps), after vacuum decoherence.
    Sec. III B, Eq. (14); sparsity of data is essential to the claim about what detection may contain.
  • domain assumption CCSN ν–ν refraction follows the single-angle bulb model μ(r) with fixed Lν, ⟨Eν⟩, Rν, and angular/time dependence neglected.
    Sec. II, Eqs. (6)–(7), Table II; standard but strong simplification of collective dynamics.
  • domain assumption SDA path integral / discrete action with simulated annealing and IPOPT finds dynamically consistent trajectories when action plateaus are compared across random ICs.
    Sec. III A; methodological premise inherited from prior SDA literature and earlier neutrino SDA papers.

pith-pipeline@v1.2.0-daily-grok45 · 33891 in / 3561 out tokens · 70501 ms · 2026-07-31T08:41:39.134826+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Neutrinos can undergo substantial flavor evolution between their production in astrophysical sources-such as the Sun and core-collapse supernovae-and their subsequent detection in terrestrial detectors. This flavor evolution is strongly influenced by the environment that the neutrinos interact with, making them useful astrophysical messengers capable of potentially carrying information about the properties of the source wherein they are produced. In this work, we apply the framework of statistical data assimilation (SDA) in order to ascertain the extent to which a neutrino signal at detection may contain information about matter density fluctuations along their path from the source. Using simplified models of neutrino flavor evolution and propagation in the sun and in a core-collapse supernova (CCSN), we find that the SDA method is able to extract information about the amplitude of density fluctuations in both the solar and CCSN scenarios, with the method showing relatively greater reliability in the solar neutrino case. Nonetheless, even in the CCSN neutrino model, the method proved effective at high fluctuation amplitudes

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.28398 by A. Baha Balantekin, Amol V. Patwardhan, Caroline Laber-Smith, Dhriti Rathod, Hansen Torres, Lily Newkirk.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Noise amplitude parameter estimates (right) and corre [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Results from the same procedure as Fig. 1 for the solar [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Results of the SDA procedure for the CCSN neutrino [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Results of the SDA procedure for the CCSN neutrino [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Flavor evolution vs distance for the solar neutrino [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Flavor evolution across the radial domain for the CCSN [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: One surprising pattern that emerged in the solar [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Electron neutrino survival probabilities for the different energy modes in the solar model, averaged over the last 1000 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Same as Fig. 9, but for the CCSN neutrino model. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Illustrations of the electron density profiles (top row), the relative noise profile shapes (bottom row), and a comparison of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Same as Fig. 11, but for the CCSN neutrino model. In this case, oscillations lengths for all energy modes eventually [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_12.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

127 extracted references · 68 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    J. N. Bahcall, Phys. Scripta T121, 46 (2005), arXiv:hep- ph/0412068

    arXiv 2005

  2. [2]

    Mirizzi, I

    A. Mirizzi, I. Tamborra, H.-T. Janka, N. Saviano, K. Schol- berg, R. Bollig, L. Hudepohl, and S. Chakraborty, Riv. Nuovo Cim.39, 1 (2016), arXiv:1508.00785 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  3. [3]

    Davis, Jr., D

    R. Davis, Jr., D. S. Harmer, and K. C. Hoffman, Phys. Rev. Lett.20, 1205 (1968)

    1968

  4. [4]

    Davis, Jr., J

    R. Davis, Jr., J. C. Evans, and B. T. Cleveland, AIP Conf. 12 /uni00000013/uni00000011/uni00000016 /uni00000013/uni00000011/uni00000017 /uni00000013/uni00000011/uni00000018 /uni00000013/uni00000011/uni00000019 /uni00000013/uni00000011/uni0000001aPsurv/uni0000000f/uni00000003/uni00000028/uni00000003/uni00000020/uni00000003/uni0000001a/uni00000003/uni000000...

    1979

  5. [5]

    B. T. Cleveland, T. Daily, R. Davis, Jr., J. R. Distel, K. Lande, C. K. Lee, P . S. Wildenhain, and J. Ullman, Astrophys. J.496, 505 (1998)

    1998

  6. [6]

    K. S. Hirataet al.(Kamiokande-II), Phys. Rev. Lett.65, 1297 (1990)

    1990

  7. [7]

    J. N. Abdurashitovet al.(SAGE), Phys. Lett. B328, 234 (1994)

    1994

  8. [8]

    Anselmannet al.(GALLEX), Phys

    P . Anselmannet al.(GALLEX), Phys. Lett. B342, 440 (1995)

    1995

  9. [9]

    Q. R. Ahmadet al.(SNO), Phys. Rev. Lett.87, 071301 (2001), arXiv:nucl-ex/0106015

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  10. [10]

    Q. R. Ahmadet al.(SNO), Phys. Rev. Lett.89, 011302 (2002), arXiv:nucl-ex/0204009

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  11. [11]

    Q. R. Ahmadet al.(SNO), Phys. Rev. Lett.89, 011301 (2002), arXiv:nucl-ex/0204008

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  12. [12]

    S. N. Ahmedet al.(SNO), Phys. Rev. Lett.92, 181301 (2004), arXiv:nucl-ex/0309004

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  13. [13]

    Aharmimet al.(SNO), Phys

    B. Aharmimet al.(SNO), Phys. Rev. Lett.101, 111301 (2008), arXiv:0806.0989 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  14. [14]

    Aharmimet al.(SNO), Phys

    B. Aharmimet al.(SNO), Phys. Rev. C88, 025501 (2013), arXiv:1109.0763 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  15. [15]

    Tolich (SNO), J

    N. Tolich (SNO), J. Phys. Conf. Ser.375, 042049 (2012)

    2012

  16. [16]

    Bellerive, J

    A. Bellerive, J. R. Klein, A. B. McDonald, A. J. Noble, and A. W. P . Poon (SNO), Nucl. Phys. B908, 30 (2016), arXiv:1602.02469 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  17. [17]

    Arpesellaet al.(Borexino), Phys

    C. Arpesellaet al.(Borexino), Phys. Lett. B658, 101 (2008), arXiv:0708.2251 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  18. [18]

    Belliniet al.(Borexino), Phys

    G. Belliniet al.(Borexino), Phys. Rev. D82, 033006 (2010), arXiv:0808.2868 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  19. [19]

    Agostiniet al.(BOREXINO), Nature562, 505 (2018)

    M. Agostiniet al.(BOREXINO), Nature562, 505 (2018)

    2018

  20. [20]

    Agostiniet al.(BOREXINO), Phys

    M. Agostiniet al.(BOREXINO), Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 091803 (2022), arXiv:2112.11816 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  21. [21]

    Appelet al.(BOREXINO), Phys

    S. Appelet al.(BOREXINO), Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 252701 (2022), arXiv:2205.15975 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  22. [22]

    Basilicoet al.(BOREXINO), Phys

    D. Basilicoet al.(BOREXINO), Phys. Rev. D108, 102005 (2023), arXiv:2307.14636 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  23. [23]

    Abeet al.(KamLAND), Phys

    S. Abeet al.(KamLAND), Phys. Rev. C84, 035804 (2011), arXiv:1106.0861 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  24. [24]

    Gandoet al.(KamLAND), Phys

    A. Gandoet al.(KamLAND), Phys. Rev. C92, 055808 (2015), arXiv:1405.6190 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  25. [25]

    Jelley, A

    N. Jelley, A. B. McDonald, and R. H. Robertson, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science59, 431 (2009)

    2009

  26. [26]

    Abeet al.(Super-Kamiokande), Physical Review D 109(2024), 10.1103/physrevd.109.092001

    K. Abeet al.(Super-Kamiokande), Physical Review D 109(2024), 10.1103/physrevd.109.092001

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.109.092001 2024

  27. [27]

    Hirataet al.(Kamiokande), Phys

    K. Hirataet al.(Kamiokande), Phys. Rev. Lett.58, 1490 (1987)

    1987

  28. [28]

    Svoboda (Irvine-Michigan-Brookhaven), ESO Confer- ence and Workshop Proceedings , 229 (1987)

    R. Svoboda (Irvine-Michigan-Brookhaven), ESO Confer- ence and Workshop Proceedings , 229 (1987)

    1987

  29. [29]

    Alekseev, L

    E. Alekseev, L. Alekseeva, I. Krivosheina, and V . Volchenko (Irvine-Michigan-Brookhaven), ESO Con- ference and Workshop Proceedings , 237 (1987). 14 Solar Model 1039 1040 ne(r), km 3 103 105 107 Length scale, km 0 100000 200000 300000 Radius (km) 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 ne, noise(r) ne(r) ne(r) Noiseless 1039 1040 103 105 107 0 100000 200000 3...

    1987

  30. [30]

    H. Duan, G. M. Fuller, and Y.-Z. Qian, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science60, 569 (2010)

    2010

  31. [31]

    Chakraborty, R

    S. Chakraborty, R. Hansen, I. Izaguirre, and G. Raffelt, Nucl. Phys. B908, 366 (2016), arXiv:1602.02766 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  32. [32]

    Tamborra and S

    I. Tamborra and S. Shalgar, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.71, 165 (2021), arXiv:2011.01948 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  33. [33]

    Capozzi and N

    F. Capozzi and N. Saviano, Universe8, 94 (2022), arXiv:2202.02494 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  34. [34]

    Fast Flavor Transformations,

    S. Richers and M. Sen, “Fast Flavor Transformations,” in Handbook of Nuclear Physics, edited by I. Tanihata, H. Toki, and T. Kajino (2022) pp. 1–17, arXiv:2207.03561 [astro- ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  35. [35]

    M. C. Volpe, Rev. Mod. Phys.96, 025004 (2024), arXiv:2301.11814 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  36. [36]

    Johns, S

    L. Johns, S. Richers, and M.-R. Wu, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.75, 399 (2025), arXiv:2503.05959 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  37. [37]

    Neutrino-driven explosions,

    H.-T. Janka, “Neutrino-driven explosions,” inHandbook of Supernovae(Springer International Publishing, 2017) p. 1095–1150, arXiv:1702.08825 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  38. [38]

    Mezzacappa, E

    A. Mezzacappa, E. Endeve, O. E. Bronson Messer, and S. W. Bruenn, Liv. Rev. Comput. Astrophys.6, 4 (2020), arXiv:2010.09013 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  39. [39]

    Burrows and D

    A. Burrows and D. Vartanyan, Nature589, 29 (2021), arXiv:2009.14157 [astro-ph.SR]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  40. [40]

    Hyper-kamiokande design report,

    K. A. et al., “Hyper-kamiokande design report,” (2018), arXiv:1805.04163 [physics.ins-det]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  41. [41]

    B. e. a. Abi, The European Physical Journal C81(2021), 10.1140/epjc/s10052-021-09166-w

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

  42. [42]

    Juno conceptual design report,

    T. A. et al., “Juno conceptual design report,” (2015), arXiv:1508.07166 [physics.ins-det]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  43. [43]

    Wolfenstein, Phys

    L. Wolfenstein, Phys. Rev. D17, 2369 (1978)

    1978

  44. [44]

    Mikheev and A

    S. Mikheev and A. Y. Smirnov, Soviet Journal of Nuclear Physics42, 913 (1985)

    1985

  45. [45]

    S. P . Mikheev and A. Yu. Smirnov, Nuovo Cim.C9, 17 (1986)

    1986

  46. [46]

    R. F. Sawyer, Phys. Rev. D42, 3908 (1990)

    1990

  47. [47]

    F. N. Loreti and A. B. Balantekin, Phys. Rev. D50, 4762 (1994), arXiv:nucl-th/9406003. 15 CCSN Model 1040 1041 1042 1043 ne(r), km 3 10 1 101 103 105 Length scale, km 5000 10000 15000 20000 Radius (km) 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 ne, noise(r) ne(r) ne(r) Noiseless 1040 1041 1042 1043 10 1 101 103 105 5000 10000 15000 20000 Radius (km) 0.15 0.10 0.0...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  48. [48]

    F. N. Loreti, Y. Z. Qian, G. M. Fuller, and A. B. Balantekin, Phys. Rev. D52, 6664 (1995), arXiv:astro-ph/9508106

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  49. [49]

    A. B. Balantekin, J. M. Fetter, and F. N. Loreti, Phys. Rev. D54, 3941 (1996), arXiv:astro-ph/9604061

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  50. [50]

    Model”) in blue, and the output of SDA (“Prediction

    of the Gaussian standard deviation σ. We henceforth use ˜σ as a measure of the relative strength of the density fluctuations, and refer to it as thenoise amplitude. The rationale behind choosing 100 steps as the min- imum fluctuation length was to allow the noise to be fully resolved by our step size, but to have it be faster than the slow, MSW-induced ev...

  51. [51]

    Schaefer and S

    A. Schaefer and S. E. Koonin, Phys. Lett. B185, 417 (1987)

    1987

  52. [52]

    P . I. Krastev and A. Y. Smirnov, Phys. Lett. B226, 341 (1989)

    1989

  53. [53]

    W. C. Haxton and W. M. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D43, 2484 (1991)

    1991

  54. [54]

    Nunokawa, A

    H. Nunokawa, A. Rossi, V . B. Semikoz, and J. W. F. Valle, Nucl. Phys. B472, 495 (1996), arXiv:hep-ph/9602307

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  55. [55]

    C. P . Burgess and D. Michaud, Annals Phys.256, 1 (1997), arXiv:hep-ph/9606295

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  56. [56]

    E. K. Akhmedov, Pramana54, 47 (2000), arXiv:hep- ph/9907435

    arXiv 2000

  57. [57]

    Friedland and A

    A. Friedland and A. Gruzinov, (2006), arXiv:astro- ph/0607244

    arXiv 2006

  58. [58]

    G. L. Fogli, E. Lisi, A. Mirizzi, and D. Montanino, JCAP 06, 012 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0603033

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  59. [59]

    J. Gava, J. Kneller, C. Volpe, and G. C. McLaughlin, Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 071101 (2009), arXiv:0902.0317 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  60. [60]

    Choubey, N

    S. Choubey, N. P . Harries, and G. G. Ross, Phys. Rev. D 76, 073013 (2007), arXiv:hep-ph/0703092

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  61. [61]

    J. P . Kneller, (2010), arXiv:1004.1288 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  62. [62]

    J. P . Kneller and C. Volpe, Phys. Rev. D82, 123004 (2010), arXiv:1006.0913 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  63. [63]

    J. P . Kneller, G. C. McLaughlin, and K. M. Patton, J. Phys. G40, 055002 (2013), arXiv:1202.0776 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  64. [64]

    Lund and J

    T. Lund and J. P . Kneller, Phys. Rev. D88, 023008 (2013), arXiv:1304.6372 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  65. [65]

    K. M. Patton, J. P . Kneller, and G. C. McLaughlin, Phys. Rev. D89, 073022 (2014), arXiv:1310.5643 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  66. [66]

    K. M. Patton, J. P . Kneller, and G. C. McLaughlin, Phys. Rev. D91, 025001 (2015), arXiv:1407.7835 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  67. [67]

    Yang and J

    Y. Yang and J. P . Kneller, J. Phys. G45, 045201 (2018), arXiv:1510.01998 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  68. [68]

    Bhattacharyya, M.-R

    S. Bhattacharyya, M.-R. Wu, and Z. Xiong, (2025), arXiv:2504.11316 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  69. [69]

    L. Ma, S. Shalgar, and H. Duan, Phys. Rev. D98, 103011 (2018), arXiv:1807.10219 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  70. [70]

    J. F. Cherry, M.-R. Wu, J. Carlson, H. Duan, G. M. Fuller, and Y.-Z. Qian, Phys. Rev. D84, 105034 (2011), arXiv:1108.4064 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  71. [71]

    Abbar, Phys

    S. Abbar, Phys. Rev. D103, 045014 (2021), arXiv:2007.13655 [astro-ph.HE]. 16

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  72. [72]

    Sigl, Phys

    G. Sigl, Phys. Rev. D105, 043005 (2022), arXiv:2109.00091 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  73. [73]

    Mukhopadhyay and M

    M. Mukhopadhyay and M. Sen, JCAP03, 040 (2024), arXiv:2310.08627 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  74. [74]

    G. Reid, J. Adams, and S. Seunarine, Phys. Rev. D84, 085023 (2011)

    2011

  75. [75]

    Borriello, S

    E. Borriello, S. Chakraborty, H.-T. Janka, E. Lisi, and A. Mirizzi, JCAP11, 030 (2014), arXiv:1310.7488 [astro- ph.SR]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  76. [76]

    Kalnay,Atmospheric modeling, data assimilation and pre- dictability(Cambridge university press, 2003)

    E. Kalnay,Atmospheric modeling, data assimilation and pre- dictability(Cambridge university press, 2003)

    2003

  77. [77]

    Evensen,Data assimilation: the ensemble Kalman filter (Springer Science & Business Media, 2009)

    G. Evensen,Data assimilation: the ensemble Kalman filter (Springer Science & Business Media, 2009)

    2009

  78. [78]

    J. T. Betts,Practical methods for optimal control and estima- tion using nonlinear programming, Vol. 19 (Siam, 2010)

    2010

  79. [79]

    Abarbanel,Predicting the future: completing models of observed complex systems(Springer, 2013)

    H. Abarbanel,Predicting the future: completing models of observed complex systems(Springer, 2013)

    2013

  80. [80]

    H. D. I. Abarbanel, S. Shirman, D. Breen, N. Kadakia, D. Rey, E. Armstrong, and D. Margoliash, Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science27, 126802 (2017)

    2017

Showing first 80 references.