Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

The flux of electron antineutrinos from supernova SN1987A data

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that fitting all SN1987A neutrino events with a finite rise time confirms the accretion phase at about 99% confidence and finds about 0.02 solar masses of neutrons, matching theory.

desk verdict A careful re-analysis of the only supernova neutrino dataset, but the central time-profile equation (2.4) as printed cannot behave as claimed—fix that before anything else. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.09445 v1 pith:S4NNWN6E submitted 2025-01-16 hep-ph astro-ph.HEhep-ex

Riccardo Maria Bozza , Vigilante di Risi , Giuseppe Matteucci , Veronica Oliviero , Giulia Ricciardi , Francesco Vissani This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phastro-ph.HEhep-ex
keywords SN1987Aelectronantineutrinoscore-collapsesupernovaaccretionphasecoolingneutrinoburstinversebetadecayparametricemissionmodel
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

SN1987A remains the only supernova whose neutrinos have been detected, and this paper re-reads those events to learn the structure of the burst. It fits a parametric emission model—with accretion and cooling phases joined by a finite rise time—to all 29 events recorded by the three detectors, using arrival time, energy, and direction. The fit identifies the early accretion phase (matter falling onto the newborn neutron star) at about 99% confidence and finds that only about 0.02 solar masses of neutrons are needed to produce the accretion neutrinos, a value consistent with a thin neutron atmosphere around the young neutron star. Earlier analyses had required far more neutron mass, so this result removes a long-standing tension. The same fit gives a cooling duration of about 5.6 seconds and detector delay times at the tens-of-millisecond level, all compatible with supernova simulations.

What carries the argument

The machinery that carries the argument is the parametric time profile $F(t, t_{\max}, \tau, \alpha)$ from ref. [30]—a smooth function that rises to a peak at $t_{\max}$ and then decays, with $\alpha = 2$ for accretion and $\alpha = 1$ for cooling—combined with the scaling relations $T_c(t) = T_0\,F(t)^{1/4}$ and $\xi_n(t) = \xi_{n0}\,F(t)$, and the fixed ratio $T_a = 0.6\,T_0$ between the accretion and cooling temperatures. This profile lets the two emission phases share one finite rise while decaying on different time scales, and it removes the unphysical discontinuity at $t = 0$ that earlier analyses had. The resulting antineutrino flux is folded through each detector's energy resolution, efficiency, and angular bias, and the free parameters (three astrophysical time scales, $R_{\rm ns}$, $\xi_{n0}$, $T_0$, plus three detector delay times) are estimated by minimizing an unbinned Poisson log-likelihood.

What would settle it

Refit the same 29 events with the rise time left free (not fixed at 100 ms) and with the alternative cooling parametrization in which the neutron-star radius shrinks while the cooling temperature stays constant; if the accretion excess $\Delta\chi^2$ falls below about 8.2 or the neutron fraction moves outside the 0.01–0.04 $M_\odot$ range, the central claim is refuted. Alternatively, a future galactic supernova with enough events to measure the rise directly would settle the assumed shape of the early emission.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the electron-antineutrino signal of SN1987A is best described as a smooth two-phase emission: a brief accretion phase, in which the luminosity rises over about a hundred milliseconds, peaks, and decays with time constant $\tau_a = 0.52$ s, followed by a longer cooling phase with time constant $\tau_c = 5.6$ s. Fitting this model to all 29 events recorded by Kamiokande-II, IMB, and Baksan—using an unbinned likelihood over time, energy, and angle—gives a neutron mass fraction $\xi_{n0} = 0.018$ for the accretion emission, which the paper interprets as about $0.02\,M_\odot$ of neutrons and, for the first time, in agreement with theoretical expectations. The same fit yields a neutron-star radius $R_{\rm ns} = 17$ km and, comparing the model with and without accretion, a $\Delta\chi^2 \simeq 8.2$, which the paper translates into 99.8% (or, with a more conservative count of degrees of freedom, 99.2%) confidence that the accretion phase exists. The paper also estimates the delay between the first antineutrino and each detector's first event at the tens-of-millisecond level, and reports that the best-fit flux is compatible with the observed temporal and energy distributions in goodness-of-fit tests.

Load-bearing premise

The results depend on the assumed mathematical curve for how the neutrino brightness rises and falls, with the rise time fixed at 100 milliseconds because the 1987 data cannot determine it; if the true curve is different, the fitted parameters and the claimed accretion confidence would shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the accretion hypothesis holds at the claimed confidence, SN1987A provides the first direct empirical confirmation of the two-phase (accretion-then-cooling) picture of core-collapse supernova neutrino emission.
  • The small neutron fraction, about 0.02 $M_\odot$, means the accretion antineutrinos can come from a thin neutron layer around the newborn neutron star, so future high-statistics supernova detectors should see a short, sharp early peak rather than a long accretion tail.
  • The fitted cooling time $\tau_c = 5.6$ s and the estimated windows in which 95% of signal events arrive (about 7–11 s depending on detector) give concrete, testable predictions for the duration of a future galactic supernova neutrino burst.
  • The delay-time estimates for Kamiokande-II, IMB, and Baksan refine the absolute timing of the SN1987A burst and can be combined with optical or gravitational-wave triggers for future events.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: if the neutron fraction really is about 0.02 $M_\odot$, the accretion luminosity is set by the surface neutron layer rather than the whole outer core, which would change how accretion rates and neutron-star masses are inferred from future light curves.
  • Beyond the paper: because $t_{\max}$ is unconstrained by the data and fixed to 100 ms, the 99% significance should be re-checked with $t_{\max}$ free; a future supernova with hundreds of neutrino events could resolve the rise shape and either confirm or overturn the fit.
  • Beyond the paper: the analysis assumes normal neutrino mass ordering and treats its flux as an effective one; if inverted ordering were established, the extracted accretion parameters would likely shift, and the paper's own estimate is that conclusions would not change by more than about a dozen percentage points.
  • Beyond the paper: the angular-distribution tension (Kolmogorov–Smirnov p-value 5.5%, Cramér–von Mises 2.0%) may signal incomplete modeling of the IMB angular bias or a small elastic-scattering contamination; re-fitting with a free angular bias function would test this.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes the SN1987A electron antineutrino events from Kamiokande-II, IMB, and Baksan using a parametric model of neutrino emission that includes an accretion phase, a cooling phase, and a finite initial rise time. The authors perform an unbinned Poisson likelihood fit to the times, energies, and angles of the events, and report best-fit values for astrophysical and detector parameters. The central claims are that the accretion phase is confirmed at about 99% confidence and that the neutron mass fraction involved in accretion, xi_n0 = 0.018, is about 0.02 solar masses, which is compatible with theoretical expectations. The paper also reports delay times, cooling parameters, expected event numbers, and goodness-of-fit tests on the time, energy, and angular distributions.

Significance. If the model and the quoted results are correct, this work would be a valuable quantitative reanalysis of the only existing supernova neutrino data, improving on earlier analyses by using all events, a more realistic emission model with a finite rise time, and a refined statistical treatment. The authors explicitly adopt an unbinned likelihood, profile likelihood for intervals, and standard goodness-of-fit tests, which are appropriate tools for this low-statistics problem. The paper also makes a new physical claim: the neutrino mass fraction in accretion is much smaller than earlier estimates and consistent with a thin neutron atmosphere. However, the printed expression for the time profile F(t) is internally inconsistent with the text, and since all numerical results are derived from it, the current manuscript does not specify the model actually fitted. The paper is therefore significant in intent but cannot be evaluated as written.

major comments (3)
  1. [2.2, Eq. (2.4)] The function F(t,tmax,tau,alpha) as printed does not have the properties stated in the text. At t=tmax it evaluates to sqrt(1+alpha+alpha(tmax/tau)^alpha), which is larger than 1 for alpha>0, contradicting the statement that F(tmax)=1. For t>tmax, the term exp(2[(t/tau)^alpha - (tmax/tau)^alpha]) grows without bound because the exponent is positive, so F(t) increases rather than decreases after the peak. Since F(t) enters the emission model through Tc(t) and xi_n(t) in eq. (2.6), and the best-fit parameters, the quoted Delta-chi^2 of about 8.2, and the significance claims all depend on it, the manuscript does not currently specify the model under test. The authors need to correct Eq. (2.4) or otherwise provide the exact expression used in the analysis, and then confirm that the numerical results remain valid for the corrected expression.
  2. [5.2 and 6 (Rising time)] The analysis shows that the data do not constrain tmax, and the paper sets tmax=100 ms as a prior value. Despite this, the Conclusions state that 'we have obtained the first accurate estimates of the initial rising time tmax'. This is an overstatement: tmax is not estimated from the data but fixed by hand. The results section is honest about this, but the wording in the Conclusions should be revised to avoid claiming a measurement of the rising time.
  3. [5.6, Table 5 and full-sample angular GOF] The angular goodness-of-fit for the entire sample shows Cramer-von Mises p-value of 2.0% and Kolmogorov-Smirnov p-value of 5.5%. While the text acknowledges this tension, the analysis uses the scattering angles in the likelihood, so a poor angular description could in principle bias the energy and time parameters. The authors should quantify the impact of the angular tension on the accretion-phase significance, for instance by repeating the fit with the four low-energy Kamiokande-II events excluded (as done for the GOF tests) or by adopting a different angular response model. This would demonstrate robustness of the central claim.
minor comments (6)
  1. [5.1, Eq. (5.1)] In the best-fit summary, tmax=0.1s is listed together with fitted parameters, but it is not a free parameter; it would be clearer to state explicitly again that tmax is fixed at 100 ms, not fitted.
  2. [6 (Conclusions)] The text says 'best fit values of 9 parameters' but since tmax is constrained to 100 ms, only 8 parameters are actually determined by the fit; this wording should be corrected.
  3. [Table 4 caption] The word 'hyphotesis' should be 'hypothesis'.
  4. [5.4 (Accretion emission)] The phrase 'we the obtain best-fit values' in the sentence preceding eq. (5.3) contains a word-order error and should read 'we obtain the best-fit values'.
  5. [Table 1 and §3.2] The question marks in the IMB background entries (10^-5(?)) and the Baksan angles (90(?)) are not defined in the table; a note would help the reader understand the meaning of these entries.
  6. [4.2, Eq. (4.2)] The quantity S is called the signal rate, but in the equation it is a differential spectrum with energy, angle, and time arguments; using a consistent notation for the differential signal would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the 99% accretion significance and the neutron-mass fraction follow from fitting the external SN1987A event data, not from the authors' modeling assumptions alone.

full rationale

The derivation chain is data-driven and externally benchmarked. The parametric emission model (eqs. 2.2-2.6, adopted from ref. [30]) and the background/efficiency tabulations (from ref. [43]) are inputs, but the paper's central claims -- the presence of an accretion component with Delta chi^2 ~ 8.2 and the best-fit neutron fraction xi_n0 ~ 0.018 -- are outputs of a maximum-likelihood fit to the publicly observed Kamiokande-II, IMB and Baksan events. Setting xi_n0 = 0 defines a nested cooling-only model, so the quoted significance is a standard likelihood-ratio test on external data, not a tautology. The 95% event-collection time windows are compared with independent simulations in ref. [73], providing an external benchmark. Several self-citations occur ([30] for the model, [43] for backgrounds and efficiencies, [27] for earlier analyses), but none is load-bearing in the circular sense: the model is an ansatz that could have been disfavored by the data, and the background values are explicitly stated to be non-critical. A separate reproducibility concern exists but is not circularity: as printed, eq. (2.4) does not satisfy the claimed F(tmax)=1 and does not decrease after tmax, since the exponential factor has no minus sign and grows for t > tmax. This means the published formula does not describe the model actually fitted; quantitative conclusions should be re-verified against the code or a corrected formula. That is a correctness/reproducibility issue, not an equivalence-by-construction of input and output.

Assumptions & free parameters 10 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a parametric emission model, a set of detector response functions, and several fixed priors. The only numbers fitted to data are the best-fit parameters listed above; all other assumptions are borrowed from cited literature or set by hand.

free parameters (10)
  • Rns0 = 17.0 (+0.7, -0.5) km
    Proto-neutron star radius, fitted to the data in the profile likelihood.
  • ξn0 = 0.018 (+0.025, -0.011)
    Neutron mass fraction in the accretion region; central to the 'no tension' claim.
  • T0 = 4.6 (+0.5, -0.4) MeV
    Antineutrino temperature parameter for both accretion and cooling.
  • τa = 0.52 (+0.24, -0.15) s
    Accretion emission timescale.
  • τc = 5.6 (+1.8, -1.3) s
    Cooling emission timescale.
  • tmax = 0.1 s (fixed)
    Rising time to peak luminosity; fixed because the data cannot constrain it (see §5.2).
  • tk = 0.035 (+0.065, -0.024) s
    Delay between first antineutrino arrival and first Kamiokande-II event.
  • ti = 0.043 (+0.102, -0.029) s
    Delay between first antineutrino arrival and first IMB event.
  • tb = 0.054 (+0.152, -0.041) s
    Delay between first antineutrino arrival and first Baksan event.
  • σstat, σsyst for each detector = see table 3 and fig. 2
    Energy-resolution coefficients fitted to the energy uncertainties reported in table 1; they enter the likelihood through eq. (3.8).
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Two-component emission model with F(t) shape from ref. [30]
    Eqs. (2.2)-(2.6) assume the flux is a sum of accretion and cooling components with the specific time dependence F(t); if wrong, all fitted parameters and the accretion significance change.
  • domain assumption Normal mass ordering and no oscillations
    Section 2.2 states the flux is treated as effective and oscillation effects are neglected, justified by citations; this affects the spectral shape.
  • domain assumption All events are inverse beta decay
    Section 3.1 assumes IBD as the only channel; non-IBD contributions are argued to be small using refs. [43,56-59].
  • domain assumption Distance to SN1987A D = 51.4 kpc
    Distance from astrometry [31], used to convert luminosity to flux.
  • domain assumption Detector response parametrization (Gaussian smearing, efficiencies, angular bias)
    Section 3.3 adopts functions from collaborations and ref. [43]; the paper states minor variations do not affect conclusions.
  • ad hoc to paper tmax fixed at 100 ms
    Section 5.2 shows the data do not prefer a value, so tmax is set to the simulation-informed central value; this choice affects the delay times and the rising part of the light curve.
  • ad hoc to paper Ta = 0.6 T0
    Eq. (2.8), chosen by smoothly matching average antineutrino energies; not fitted to data.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The flux of electron antineutrinos from supernova SN1987A data." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/S4NNWN6E

@misc{pith2026250109445,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The flux of electron antineutrinos from supernova SN1987A data},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/S4NNWN6E}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.09445}
}
abstract

By adopting a state-of-the-art parameterized model of electron antineutrino emission, we have made some steps forward in the analysis of the thermodynamical properties and temporal structure of neutrino emission from core collapse SN1987A. Our analysis, unlike similar previous ones, takes into account the times, energies and angles of arrival of the detected events in a reliable framework which includes a finite ramp in the initial stage of the neutrino emission. The existence of the accretion phase is confirmed with a confidence level of about 99%, and the neutrons involved in the emission during accretion, for the first time, do not show significant tensions with expectations, being about 0.02 $M_\odot$. We determine the parameters of the cooling emission and discuss its duration, that compares well with theoretical expectations. We estimate the delay times between the first neutrino and the first event in the detectors. The goodness of fit checks, performed on the temporal, energy and angular distributions, show that the flux resulting from the best-fit analysis is compatible with the observed data.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Cooling the Shock: New Supernova Constraints on Dark Photons

    hep-ph 2025-02 conditional novelty 8.0 of 10

    Resonant dark photon production in the gain layer of a core-collapse supernova can quench the neutrino-driven shock revival, yielding constraints that supersede the SN1987A cooling bound for masses around 0.1-0.4 MeV.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 54 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [30]

    Vissani and A

    F. Vissani and A. Gallo Rosso,On the time distribution of supernova antineutrino flux, Symmetry 13 (2021)

    work page 2021

  2. [1]

    Colgate and R.H

    S.A. Colgate and R.H. White,The hydrodynamic behavior of supernovae explosions, Astrophysical Journal 143 (1966) 626

    work page 1966

  3. [2]

    Wilson,A numerical study of gravitational stellar collapse, Astrophys

    J.R. Wilson,A numerical study of gravitational stellar collapse, Astrophys. J.163 (1971) 209

    work page 1971

  4. [3]

    Nadyozhin,The neutrino radiation for the hot neutron star formation and the envelope outburst problem, Astrophys

    D.K. Nadyozhin,The neutrino radiation for the hot neutron star formation and the envelope outburst problem, Astrophys. Space Sci.53 (1978) 131

    work page 1978

  5. [4]

    Bethe and J.R

    H.A. Bethe and J.R. Wilson,Revival of a stalled supernova shock by neutrino heating, Astrophys. J. 295 (1985) 14

    work page 1985

  6. [5]

    Burrows,Supernova neutrinos, Astrophysical Journal 334 (1988) 891

    A. Burrows,Supernova neutrinos, Astrophysical Journal 334 (1988) 891

    work page 1988

  7. [6]

    Bethe,Supernovae, Physics Today 43 (1990) 24

    H.A. Bethe,Supernovae, Physics Today 43 (1990) 24

    work page 1990

  8. [7]

    Woosley and T

    S. Woosley and T. Janka,The physics of core-collapse supernovae, Nature Physics 1 (2005) 147

    work page 2005

Show all 74 references
  1. [8]

    Janka, K

    H.T. Janka, K. Langanke, A. Marek, G. Martínez-Pinedo and B. Müller,Theory of core-collapse supernovae, Physics Reports 442 (2007) 38 [astro-ph/0612072]

    2007 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Enrico Fermi

    G. Raffelt,Neutrinos and the stars, inInternational School of Physics “Enrico Fermi”, 182nd Course, “Neutrino Physics and Astrophysics”, vol. 182, (Villa Monastero, Varenna, Italy), pp. 61–143, arXiv, May, 2012, DOI

    2012

  3. [10]

    Janka,Explosion mechanisms of core-collapse supernovae, Ann

    H.-T. Janka,Explosion mechanisms of core-collapse supernovae, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 62 (2012) 407 [1206.2503]

    2012 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Burrows,Colloquium: Perspectives on core-collapse supernova theory, Rev

    A. Burrows,Colloquium: Perspectives on core-collapse supernova theory, Rev. Mod. Phys.85 (2013) 245

    2013

  5. [12]

    Foglizzo, R

    T. Foglizzo, R. Kazeroni, J. Guilet, F. Masset, M. González, B.K. Krueger et al.,The explosion mechanism of core-collapse supernovae: Progress in supernova theory and experiments, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia32 (2015)

    2015

  6. [13]

    Mirizzi, I

    A. Mirizzi, I. Tamborra, H.-T. Janka, N. Saviano, K. Scholberg, R. Bollig et al.,Supernova neutrinos: Production, oscillations and detection, Riv. Nuovo Cim.39 (2016) 1 [1508.00785]

    2016 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Horiuchi and J.P

    S. Horiuchi and J.P. Kneller,What can be learned from a future supernova neutrino detection?, Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics45 (2018) 043002

    2018

  8. [15]

    Janka,Neutrino-driven explosions, inHandbook of Supernovae, pp

    H.-T. Janka,Neutrino-driven explosions, inHandbook of Supernovae, pp. 1095–1150, Springer International Publishing (2017), DOI

    2017

  9. [16]

    Janka,Neutrino emission from supernovae, inHandbook of Supernovae, A.W

    H.-T. Janka,Neutrino emission from supernovae, inHandbook of Supernovae, A.W. Alsabti and P. Murdin, eds., (Cham), pp. 1575–1604, Springer International Publishing (2017), DOI

    2017

  10. [17]

    Müller,Neutrino emission as diagnostics of core-collapse supernovae, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science69 (2019) 253

    B. Müller,Neutrino emission as diagnostics of core-collapse supernovae, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science69 (2019) 253

    2019

  11. [18]

    Mezzacappa, E

    A. Mezzacappa, E. Endeve, O.E. Bronson Messer and S.W. Bruenn,Physical, numerical, and computational challenges of modeling neutrino transport in core-collapse supernovae, Liv. Rev. Comput. Astrophys.6 (2020) 4 [2010.09013]

    2020 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Burrows and D

    A. Burrows and D. Vartanyan,Core-collapse supernova explosion theory, Nature 589 (2021) 29 [2009.14157]. – 22 –

    2021 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Woosley and T.A

    S.E. Woosley and T.A. Weaver,The physics of supernova explosions, IN: Annual review of astronomy and astrophysics. Volume 24 (A87-26730 10-90). Palo Alto, CA, Annual Reviews, Inc., 1986, p. 205-253.24 (1986) 205

    1986

  14. [21]

    Hirata, T

    K. Hirata, T. Kajita, M. Koshiba, M. Nakahata, Y. Oyama, N. Sato et al.,Observation of a neutrino burst from the supernova SN1987A, Phys. Rev. Lett.58 (1987) 1490

    1987

  15. [22]

    Hirata, T

    K.S. Hirata, T. Kajita, M. Koshiba, M. Nakahata, Y. Oyama, N. Sato et al.,Observation in the Kamiokande-II detector of the neutrino burst from supernova SN1987A, Phys. Rev. D38 (1988) 448

    1988

  16. [23]

    Bionta et al,Observation of a neutrino burst in coincidence with supernova 1987A in the large magellanic cloud, Phys

    R.M. Bionta et al,Observation of a neutrino burst in coincidence with supernova 1987A in the large magellanic cloud, Phys. Rev. Lett.58 (1987) 1494

    1987

  17. [24]

    Bratton, D

    C.B. Bratton, D. Casper, A. Ciocio, R. Claus, M. Crouch, S.T. Dye et al.,Angular distribution of events from SN1987a, Phys. Rev. D37 (1988) 3361

    1988

  18. [25]

    Alexeyev, L

    E. Alexeyev, L. Alexeyeva, I. Krivosheina and V. Volchenko,Detection of the neutrino signal from SN 1987A in the LMC using the INR Baksan underground scintillation telescope, Physics Letters B205 (1988) 209

    1988

  19. [26]

    Loredo and D.Q

    T.J. Loredo and D.Q. Lamb,Bayesian analysis of neutrinos observed from supernova SN-1987A, Phys. Rev. D65 (2002) 063002 [astro-ph/0107260]

    2002 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Pagliaroli, F

    G. Pagliaroli, F. Vissani, M.L. Costantini and A. Ianni,Improved analysis of SN1987A antineutrino events, Astropart. Phys.31 (2009) 163

    2009

  21. [28]

    Abbott, A

    L.F. Abbott, A. De Rujula and T.P. Walker,Constraints on the neutrino mass from the supernova data: A systematic analysis, Nucl. Phys. B 299 (1988) 734

    1988

  22. [29]

    Dedin Neto, M.V

    P. Dedin Neto, M.V. dos Santos, P.C. de Holanda and E. Kemp,SN1987A neutrino burst: Limits on flavor conversion, Eur. Phys. J. C83 (2023) 459 [2301.11407]

    2023 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Panagia,Distance to SN 1987 a and the LMC, inProceedings of the 190th IAU Symposium New Views of the Magellanic Clouds, Y.-H

    N. Panagia,Distance to SN 1987 a and the LMC, inProceedings of the 190th IAU Symposium New Views of the Magellanic Clouds, Y.-H. Chu, N. Suntzeff, J. Hesser and D. Bohlender, eds., p. 549, 1999, DOI

    1987

  24. [32]

    Roulet and F

    E. Roulet and F. Vissani,Neutrinos in Physics and Astrophysics, World Scientific (Oct., 2022), 10.1142/12982

    2022 doi

  25. [33]

    Ricciardi,Introduction to Neutrino and Particle Physics, UNITEXT for Physics, Springer (2024), 10.1007/978-3-031-65096-3

    G. Ricciardi,Introduction to Neutrino and Particle Physics, UNITEXT for Physics, Springer (2024), 10.1007/978-3-031-65096-3

    2024 doi

  26. [34]

    Badino et al.,The 90 ton liquid scintillator detector in the mont blanc laboratory, Nuovo Cim

    G. Badino et al.,The 90 ton liquid scintillator detector in the mont blanc laboratory, Nuovo Cim. C 7 (1984) 573

    1984

  27. [35]

    Aglietta et al.,On the event observed in the Mont Blanc Underground Neutrino observatory during the occurrence of Supernova 1987a, EPL 3 (1987) 1315

    M. Aglietta et al.,On the event observed in the Mont Blanc Underground Neutrino observatory during the occurrence of Supernova 1987a, EPL 3 (1987) 1315

    1987

  28. [36]

    Aglietta, G

    M. Aglietta, G. Badino, G. Bologna, C. Castagnoli, A. Castellina, O. Saavedra et al., Comments on the two events observed in neutrino detectors during the supernova 1987a outburst., EPL 3 (1987) 1321

    1987

  29. [37]

    Dadykin et al.,Detection of a Rare Event on 23 February 1987 by the Neutrino Radiation Detector Under Mont Blanc, JETP Lett

    V.L. Dadykin et al.,Detection of a Rare Event on 23 February 1987 by the Neutrino Radiation Detector Under Mont Blanc, JETP Lett. 45 (1987) 593. – 23 –

    1987

  30. [38]

    Saavedra et al.,On the neutrino burst from SN 1987a detected in the Mt

    O. Saavedra et al.,On the neutrino burst from SN 1987a detected in the Mt. Blanc LSD experiment, Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl.3 (1988) 453

    1988

  31. [39]

    Pagliaroli, F

    G. Pagliaroli, F. Vissani, E. Coccia and W. Fulgione,Neutrinos from supernovae as a trigger for gravitational wave search, Phys. Rev. Lett.103 (2009) 031102 [0903.1191]

    2009 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Pagliaroli, M.L

    G. Pagliaroli, M.L. Costantini, A. Ianni and F. Vissani,The first second of SN1987A neutrino emission, May, 2007. arXiv:0705.4032

    2007 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Halzen and G.G

    F. Halzen and G.G. Raffelt,Reconstructing the supernova bounce time with neutrinos in IceCube, Phys. Rev. D80 (2009) 087301

    2009

  34. [42]

    Krivoruchenko,A statistical analysis of angular distribution of neutrino events observed in Kamiokande-II and IMB detectors from supernova SN1987a, Z

    M.I. Krivoruchenko,A statistical analysis of angular distribution of neutrino events observed in Kamiokande-II and IMB detectors from supernova SN1987a, Z. Phys. C 44 (1989) 633

    1989

  35. [43]

    Vissani,Comparative analysis of SN1987A antineutrino fluence, J

    F. Vissani,Comparative analysis of SN1987A antineutrino fluence, J. Phys. G 42 (2015) 013001 [1409.4710]

    2015 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Mikheyev and A.Y

    S.P. Mikheyev and A.Y. Smirnov,Resonant neutrino oscillations in matter, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 23 (1989) 41

    1989

  37. [45]

    Dighe and A.Y

    A.S. Dighe and A.Y. Smirnov,Identifying the neutrino mass spectrum from the neutrino burst from a supernova, Phys. Rev. D62 (2000) 033007 [hep-ph/9907423]

    2000 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Pantaleone,Neutrino oscillations at high densities, Phys

    J.T. Pantaleone,Neutrino oscillations at high densities, Phys. Lett. B287 (1992) 128

    1992

  39. [47]

    Volpe,Neutrinos from dense environments: Flavor mechanisms, theoretical approaches, observations, and new directions, Rev

    M.C. Volpe,Neutrinos from dense environments: Flavor mechanisms, theoretical approaches, observations, and new directions, Rev. Mod. Phys.96 (2024) 025004 [2301.11814]

    2024 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Smirnov, D.N

    A.Y. Smirnov, D.N. Spergel and J.N. Bahcall,Is large lepton mixing excluded?, Phys. Rev. D 49 (1994) 1389 [hep-ph/9305204]

    1994 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Lunardini and A.Y

    C. Lunardini and A.Y. Smirnov,Neutrinos from SN1987A, earth matter effects and the LMA solution of the solar neutrino problem, Phys. Rev. D63 (2001) 073009 [hep-ph/0009356]

    2001 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Minakata and H

    H. Minakata and H. Nunokawa,Inverted hierarchy of neutrino masses disfavored by supernova 1987A, Phys. Lett. B504 (2001) 301 [hep-ph/0010240]

    2001 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Kachelriess, A

    M. Kachelriess, A. Strumia, R. Tomas and J.W.F. Valle,SN1987A and the status of oscillation solutions to the solar neutrino problem, Phys. Rev. D65 (2002) 073016 [hep-ph/0108100]

    2002 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Barger, D

    V. Barger, D. Marfatia and B.P. Wood,Supernova 1987A did not test the neutrino mass hierarchy, Phys. Lett. B532 (2002) 19 [hep-ph/0202158]

    2002 arXiv

  45. [53]

    de Salas, D.V

    P.F. de Salas, D.V. Forero, S. Gariazzo, P. Martínez-Miravé, O. Mena, C.A. Ternes et al., 2020 Global reassessment of the neutrino oscillation picture, JHEP 02 (2021) 071 [2006.11237]

    2021 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Capozzi, E

    F. Capozzi, E. Di Valentino, E. Lisi, A. Marrone, A. Melchiorri and A. Palazzo,Unfinished fabric of the three neutrino paradigm, Phys. Rev. D104 (2021) 083031 [2107.00532]

    2021 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Gonzalez-Garcia, M

    M.C. Gonzalez-Garcia, M. Maltoni and T. Schwetz,NuFIT: Three-flavour global analyses of neutrino oscillation experiments, Universe 7 (2021) 459 [2111.03086]

    2021 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Haxton,Nuclear response of water Cherenkov detectors to supernova and solar neutrinos, Phys

    W.C. Haxton,Nuclear response of water Cherenkov detectors to supernova and solar neutrinos, Phys. Rev. D36 (1987) 2283

    1987

  49. [57]

    Tomas, D

    R. Tomas, D. Semikoz, G.G. Raffelt, M. Kachelriess and A.S. Dighe,Supernova pointing with – 24 – low-energy and high-energy neutrino detectors, Phys. Rev. D68 (2003) 093013 [hep-ph/0307050]

    2003 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Costantini, A

    M.L. Costantini, A. Ianni and F. Vissani,SN1987A and the properties of neutrino burst, Phys. Rev. D70 (2004) 043006 [astro-ph/0403436]

    2004 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Vissani and G

    F. Vissani and G. Pagliaroli,Features of Kamiokande-II, IMB and Baksan observations and their interpretation in a two-component model for the signal, Astron. Lett.35 (2009) 1 [0810.0456]

    2009 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Ricciardi, N

    G. Ricciardi, N. Vignaroli and F. Vissani,An accurate evaluation of electron (anti-)neutrino scattering on nucleons, JHEP 08 (2022) 212 [2206.05567]

    2022 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Casper, L.R

    D.W. Casper, L.R. Sulak, R. Bionta, G. Blewitt, C. Bratton, D. Casper et al.,Neutrino astrophysics with imb: past, present, and future, Nuclear Physics B - Proceedings Supplements 3 (1988) 463

    1988

  54. [62]

    Jegerlehner, F

    B. Jegerlehner, F. Neubig and G. Raffelt,Neutrino oscillations and the supernova SN1987A signal, Phys. Rev. D54 (1996) 1194 [astro-ph/9601111]

    1996 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Bratton, D

    C.B. Bratton, D. Casper, A. Ciocio, R. Claus, M. Crouch, S.T. Dye et al.,Angular distribution of events from SN1987A, Phys. Rev. D37 (1988) 3361

    1988

  56. [64]

    di Risi, R.M

    V. di Risi, R.M. Bozza, G. Matteucci, G. Ricciardi, V. Oliviero and F. Vissani,An improved description of neutrino emission from SN1987a, inPoster for EPIC 2024 – Electroweak Physics InterseCtions, (Geremeas, Cagliari, Italy), Zenodo, Sept., 2024, DOI

    2024

  57. [65]

    Oliviero, R.M

    V. Oliviero, R.M. Bozza, V. di Risi, G. Matteucci, F. Vissani and G. Ricciardi,Are there critical aspects in the time, energy and angular distributions of SN1987A?, inProceeding for 13th Cosmic-Ray International Studies and Multi-Messenger Astroparticle Conference, (Trapani, I...

    2024

  58. [66]

    Lista,Statistical Methods for Data Analysis in Particle Physics, vol

    L. Lista,Statistical Methods for Data Analysis in Particle Physics, vol. 909, Springer (2016), 10.1007/978-3-319-20176-4

    2016 doi

  59. [67]

    Kotake, K

    K. Kotake, K. Sato and K. Takahashi,Explosion mechanism, neutrino burst, and gravitational wave in core-collapse supernovae, Rept. Prog. Phys.69 (2006) 971 [astro-ph/0509456]

    2006 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Marek and H.T

    A. Marek and H.T. Janka,Delayed neutrino-driven supernova explosions aided by the standing accretion-shock instability, Astrophys. J. 694 (2009) 664 [0708.3372]

    2009 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Algeri, J

    S. Algeri, J. Aalbers, K.D. Morå and J. Conrad,Searching for new physics with profile likelihoods: Wilks and beyond, arXiv preprint(2019) [ 1911.10237]

    2019 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Shternin and D

    P. Shternin and D. Yakovlev,A young cooling neutron star in the remnant of supernova 1987a, Astron. Lett.34 (2008) 675

    2008

  63. [71]

    Orlando, M

    S. Orlando, M. Miceli, M.L. Pumo and F. Bocchino,Supernova 1987A: A template to link supernovae to their remnants, Astrophys. J. 810 (2015) 168

    2015

  64. [72]

    Fransson et al.,Emission lines due to ionizing radiation from a compact object in the remnant of Supernova 1987A, Science 383 (2024) 898 [2403.04386]

    C. Fransson et al.,Emission lines due to ionizing radiation from a compact object in the remnant of Supernova 1987A, Science 383 (2024) 898 [2403.04386]

    2024 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Fiorillo, M

    D.F.G. Fiorillo, M. Heinlein, H.-T. Janka, G. Raffelt, E. Vitagliano and R. Bollig,Supernova simulations confront SN 1987A neutrinos, Phys. Rev. D108 (2023) 083040 [2308.01403]

    2023 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Mal’gin,Analysis of integral and averaged characteristics of the imb and kamioka signals from sn1987a, Nuovo Cim

    A. Mal’gin,Analysis of integral and averaged characteristics of the imb and kamioka signals from sn1987a, Nuovo Cim. C 21 (1998) 317. – 25 –

    1998

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.