Neutrino halo effect on collective neutrino oscillation in iron core-collapse supernova model of a 9.6 $M_{\odot}$ star

Hideyuki Umeda; John F. Cherry; Kei Kotake; Masamichi Zaizen; Shunsaku Horiuchi; Takashi Yoshida; Tomoya Takiwaki

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 66 references

Neutrino halo effect on collective neutrino oscillation in iron core-collapse supernova model of a 9.6 $M_{\odot}$ star

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For a low-mass iron-core supernova, halo neutrinos delay the onset of collective neutrino oscillation and sharpen its spectral swaps, making the signal easier to distinguish from thermal emission.

desk verdict A careful, genuinely new multi-angle calculation of halo effects for an iron-core CCSN; the 86 ms delay and sharper swaps are real outputs, but the inward-halo truncation means the detectability claim is conditional, not settled. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.10594 v2 pith:VASEEXOB submitted 2019-08-28 astro-ph.HE hep-ph

Masamichi Zaizen , John F. Cherry , Tomoya Takiwaki , Shunsaku Horiuchi , Kei Kotake , Hideyuki Umeda , Takashi Yoshida This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.HEhep-ph

keywords neutrinohalocollectiveoscillationcore-collapsesupernovamulti-angleflavorevolutioncoherentelasticneutrino-nucleusscatteringspectralswapdetectionlow-massiron-coreprogenitor

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 argues that, in a 9.6-solar-mass iron-core supernova, neutrinos scattered by nuclei into wide-angle 'halo' trajectories are not a minor correction to collective neutrino oscillation: they delay the onset of flavor conversion early on and sharpen the spectral swaps that later occur, making the resulting signal more distinct from a purely thermal neutrino spectrum. The claim matters because detector searches for collective oscillation features have generally been modeled without the halo, so their predictions for how visible these features are would be too pessimistic. The study identifies a time window, roughly 70 to 170 ms after bounce, in which the halo is predominantly outward-directed and the inward halo flux is subleading, allowing a multi-angle calculation to proceed. If correct, a galactic supernova neutrino burst should show sharper, more step-like flavor swaps than previous no-halo calculations suggested.

What carries the argument

The central object is the neutrino halo: neutrinos redirected out of the radial ray flux by coherent elastic neutrino-nucleus scattering, computed post hoc from the supernova hydrodynamics with a ray-by-ray transport approximation and a single-scattering cross section. The argument runs through the bulb+halo model, in which the outward-directed halo flux, added to the bulb emission, is reassembled on a halosphere just inside the onset of flavor conversion, and the multi-angle equations of motion are evolved only for outward trajectories. A safety check requires the inward halo Hamiltonian contribution to stay below 10 percent of the outward contribution at all radii above the chosen starting point. This machinery lets the paper isolate the halo's effect by comparing with a no-halo calculation and with a calculation that omits collective neutrino oscillation entirely.

What would settle it

Repeat the 86 ms and 136 ms snapshots with a full boundary-value treatment that keeps inward-going halo trajectories and uses a 1 percent instead of 10 percent Hin/Hout threshold; if the onset delay and spectral sharpening disappear, the central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For the Z9.6 iron-core progenitor, the paper establishes two concrete effects of including the halo. At a postbounce time of 86 ms, the halo delays the radius at which the electron-neutrino survival probability drops, because wide-angle halo neutrinos add trajectory phase dispersion and strengthen multi-angle matter suppression. At 136 ms, the halo does not move the onset radius, but it creates additional flavor conversions above about 10 MeV and makes the electron-neutrino to heavy-flavor spectral swap sharper and more step-like; the paper explains this through a neutrino-neutrino potential that is softened and has a larger scale height, making flavor evolution more adiabatic. It then computes inverse-beta-decay event rates in a gadolinium-doped water Cherenkov detector and electron-neutrino capture on argon in a liquid-argon detector at 10 kpc, and reports that including the halo increases the statistical distinguishability of collective oscillation from thermal emission, with an integrated discrimination gain of roughly 60 percent in the water detector channel.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation is evolved only for outward-going trajectories, starting from a radius where the inward-scattered halo contributes less than 10 percent of the neutrino-neutrino Hamiltonian; if inward halo neutrinos are not actually negligible there, the delayed onset and sharper swaps would change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

In a galactic supernova from a similar low-mass iron-core progenitor, the collective-oscillation epoch should show an onset delayed by the halo at early times and sharper spectral swaps later, relative to no-halo predictions.
The inverse-beta-decay rate in a gadolinium-tagged water detector should diverge more strongly from the thermal-emission baseline during the 70 to 170 ms window when halo neutrinos are included, making the epoch easier to identify in total event rate.
No-halo calculations of collective-oscillation detectability are likely to underestimate how non-thermal the received neutrino spectrum is, especially in the electron-antineutrino channel.
The 15-solar-mass accretion-phase case remains completely suppressed by multi-angle matter effects even with the halo, so the enhanced detectability is tied to the shock-revival epoch of low-mass iron-core progenitors.
The distinctive sharpened swap features provide a concrete spectral shape that future detectors could search for in a nearby supernova burst.

Reading between the lines

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

If the halo makes flavor evolution more adiabatic, then the position and sharpness of spectral swaps encode the halo angular distribution; a measured swap energy could in principle constrain the envelope composition and density gradient, though the paper does not perform such an inversion.
The 10 percent Hin/Hout safety threshold is a modeling choice; a full boundary-value treatment that includes inward-going trajectories could test whether the claimed delay and sharpening survive when the subleading inward flux is included consistently.
The same halo machinery applied to O-Ne-Mg core-collapse progenitors, where the envelope density gradient is steeper, might show a smaller enhancement window; the paper's comparison to the 15-solar-mass case already hints that the effect is progenitor-dependent.
A testable prediction is a time shift in when electron-neutrino and antineutrino event rates begin to diverge at early times, since the halo delays the onset of collective oscillation; detectors with fine time bins could look for that shift.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

First thing to know: this is a real step forward, not a repackaging. It is the first multi-angle bulb+halo calculation for an iron-core CCSN, and the halo-induced delay at 86 ms and the sharpened spectral swaps at 136 ms are genuinely new numerical results. The second thing: the headline detectability claim is conditional. The calculation deliberately keeps only outward-going halo neutrinos, and the Hin/Hout<10% safety check is a magnitude check on a radially directed Hamiltonian, not a check on angular crossings. A small inward component can, in principle, seed a fast flavor instability. So read the strong "enhances detectability" language as suggestive, not proven.

What the paper does well: the setup is unusually careful. There is a four-step safety protocol with explicit checks, comparisons against no-halo and no-collective cases, a 15 solar-mass consistency appendix matching earlier stability work, and two appendices on angular binning and reference-trajectory choice. The halo map follows from coherent elastic neutrino-nucleus scattering and the hydro model, independently of the flavor outcome, so there is no circularity. The citation pattern is solid; the paper builds on Cherry et al., Sarikas et al., and Cirigliano et al. and positions itself honestly against them.

Soft spots, in proportion: the single-scattering, ray-by-ray halo post-processing is a static map; there is no re-scattering of halo neutrinos, no feedback on transport, and no multi-azimuthal symmetry breaking. That is a common limitation of this program, but it means the halo strengths are uncertain at the tens-of-percent level. The deeper issue is the angular truncation. The paper itself says inside the shock the inward-scattered flux cannot be neglected; it then relies on the 10% ratio to justify ignoring it above r_init. The stress-test concern lands: that ratio does not control the shape of the electron-lepton-number angular distribution. A sub-10% inward population can create a crossing in an otherwise monotonic distribution, and fast flavor conversions care about crossings, not total Hamiltonian weight. The paper does not linearize the full angular distribution, so the delay and sharpening could shift if those modes are active. I don't think this kills the qualitative findings—the delay comes mostly from the broad outward halo, which they do include—but it does mean the quantitative claims are tied to the truncation. One progenitor, one polar direction, no released code or data, so "predict" is too strong.

Who this is for: people working on CCSN flavor evolution and supernova neutrino detectability. They will get a clear methodology and a useful benchmark. It deserves a serious referee. My recommendation: send it out, and ask for either a linearized stability check of the full angular distribution including the inward tail, or an explicit argument that inward modes cannot reach the oscillation region. With that, the detectability claim would be on much firmer ground.

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper investigates the impact of the neutrino halo—neutrinos redirected by coherent elastic neutrino-nucleus scattering—on collective neutrino oscillation in a 9.6 M☉ iron-core supernova. Using post-processed snapshots from a 2D CCSN simulation, the authors construct a four-dimensional map of the halo population via single-scattering ray-by-ray transport, then solve the multi-angle flavor evolution equations in a bulb+halo framework along the north polar direction, comparing 'with halo', 'no halo', and 'no collective oscillation' cases. They identify a window between tpb=70 and 170 ms where collective oscillations are not suppressed, find that the halo delays the onset at 86 ms and sharpens spectral swaps at 136 ms, and argue from simple Δχ² event-rate tests that halo inclusion makes collective oscillation features more distinguishable from thermal emission in Super-Kamiokande and DUNE.

Significance. The paper is the first multi-angle treatment of collective neutrino oscillation with a halo population for a low-mass iron-core progenitor, and it improves on earlier single-angle or O-Ne-Mg studies. Its strengths include an explicit safety criterion (Hin/Hout<10%) checked before every calculation, an independent construction of the halo map directly from the coherent-scattering cross section and the hydrodynamic model with no circular dependence on the flavor results, detailed appendices on angular binning and reference-trajectory choice, and a confirmatory 15 M☉ comparison that reproduces the complete suppression found by Sarikas et al. If the with-halo predictions hold, they imply that no-halo calculations underestimate the non-thermal character of supernova neutrino signals, which is a significant observational message.

major comments (2)

[Section 2.2, Eqs. (2.10)–(2.11) and step 4] The criterion Hin/Hout<10% is a bound on the flavor-diagonal self-interaction Hamiltonian for a radial reference trajectory. It does not constrain the angular structure of ρνα(θ)−ρ̄να(θ), and therefore cannot rule out the presence of angular crossings that would seed fast flavor instabilities at the few-percent level of the inward halo. Since the with-halo results in §3.2—the 86 ms onset delay and the 136 ms additional conversions—are computed with the halo distribution truncated to outward angles (θ<π/2), the central claim rests on the unvalidated assumption that the small inward component is dynamically inert. To support the claim, the authors should augment the safety check with a linearized stability analysis that includes the full angular distribution (inward and outward) at rinit and along the trajectory, or benchmark the truncated initial condition against a two-moment or full boundary-value calculation for at least the 86 ms and 136 ms snapshots.
[Section 3.2, Figures 6–8 and Appendix C] The sharpening of spectral swaps and the additional flavor conversions in the with-halo case are presented as robust physical effects. However, the manuscript does not show a numerical convergence test for the with-halo angular binning; Appendix C states that 1000–2000 angular bins are 'typically sufficient,' but no supporting convergence plot is provided for the 136 ms snapshot. Because the additional conversions appear as localized features in the energy–impact-parameter plane (Figure 7), they could in principle be affected by the binning scheme. The authors should include a convergence study (e.g., survival probability maps for several Nϑ values) to demonstrate that the sharpening is physical rather than a numerical artifact.

minor comments (6)

[Abstract] The phrase 'thermal emission that when halo neutrinos are omitted' should read 'thermal emission than when halo neutrinos are omitted.'
[Equation (2.3)] The coherent-scattering cross section formula contains mismatched parentheses; the expression should be cleaned up for clarity.
[Section 3.1] The statement that 'the radius of neutrino-halo sphere almost corresponds to the shock wave location' is imprecise because RH is defined in step 4 of Section 2.2 as 15–20% inside rinit; the relation between RH, rinit, and the shock radius should be stated explicitly.
[Section 2.2, step 1] The 4D halo map is built by cloning the 2D simulation with NΦ∼2NΘ and assuming azimuthal symmetry; this geometric approximation for the halo sources should be mentioned as a known limitation.
[Figure 12 caption] The caption refers to a 'tan line' but the legend shows the label 'cos²ϑ'; please clarify the label and its description.
[Section 3.3 and Conclusions] The abstract's claim that halo inclusion makes signals 'more clearly distinct' is stronger than the 'typically, although not uniformly' wording in the text; the wording should be aligned to avoid overstating the uniformity of the effect.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the halo map is computed from independent scattering physics and the hydrodynamical model, and the claimed delay and spectral sharpening are outputs of the flavor EOM, not imposed inputs.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. The halo map is constructed independently in Section 2.2 by post-processing the 3DnSNe hydrodynamical simulation with the zero-energy-transfer coherent elastic neutrino-nucleus scattering cross section (Eqs. 2.3-2.9), before any flavor evolution is computed. The with-halo calculation then uses this map as the initial angular distribution on the halosphere and solves the flavor EOM (Eqs. 2.14-2.21). The claimed results - delay of onset at 86 ms, unchanged onset at 136 ms, and sharper swaps - are emergent differences between two forward calculations (no-halo vs with-halo), not parameters fitted to those outcomes. The paper's own four-step procedure shows that rinit is determined by a no-halo run, and RH is taken 15-20% inside rinit; this is a self-referential choice of integration domain, but it does not determine the delay, which is computed by evolving the with-halo angular distribution. Indeed, the same setup yields no onset delay at 136 ms, demonstrating that the delay is not an artifact of the choice of RH. The only potentially load-bearing self-citation is the 'halosphere style' initial condition attributed to Ref. [27] (Cherry et al., overlapping authorship), but this is a numerical method, not a uniqueness theorem or a fitted prediction; the main physical conclusions do not reduce to it. The paper also explicitly flags a real limitation: Section 2.2 states 'this step does force us to truncate the halo neutrino number density as a function of angle (theta<pi/2)', and the Hin/Hout<10% safety check of Eqs. (2.10)-(2.11) bounds the flavor-diagonal Hamiltonian magnitude rather than the angular crossing structure. The skeptic's concern that a small inward component could seed an angular instability is a validity caveat about the truncation, not circularity: the omitted inward flux is not relabeled as a prediction. No step in the paper equates an output to an input by construction, and the benchmark comparisons (no collective oscillation, no halo, with halo) are externally defined by the model, not by the result.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central prediction depends on the halo transport approximation and the safe-region criterion; these are stated clearly but not independently validated. No new particles or forces are introduced; the only invented entity is the halosphere bookkeeping surface.

free parameters (2)

Halosphere radius RH = 15-20 percent inside the no-halo collective oscillation onset radius rinit
Hand-chosen initialization radius for the bulb+halo initial conditions; it sets the angular scale of the halo distribution and can affect the computed delay and conversion pattern, though the paper validates it through the safety check.
Inward-halo safety cutoff Hin/Hout = 10 percent
Chosen by hand as the maximum allowed ratio of inward to outward neutrino-neutrino Hamiltonian contribution for a trajectory to be evolved; the with-halo results are only computed in regions satisfying this cut.

assumptions (7)

domain assumption Single-scattering approximation for halo population.
The halo is computed from zero-energy-transfer coherent scattering only, ignoring multiple scattering; introduced in section 2.2.
domain assumption Ray-by-ray treatment for halo transport.
Halo sources are integrated along each radial ray, consistent with the transport in the original CCSN simulation; section 2.2, equations (2.4) through (2.6).
domain assumption Axial symmetry of neutrino trajectories.
Multi-azimuthal angle effects are neglected; section 2.3 states this assumption.
domain assumption Inverted mass ordering only.
Collective oscillation is treated only for negative Delta m squared 31; section 2.3.
domain assumption Flavor-diagonal distributions used for halo Hamiltonian evaluation.
Used to evaluate Hin and Hout in section 2.2; the validity is checked by beginning evolution beyond the matter-suppressed region.
ad hoc to paper Inward halo is negligible above rinit.
The 10 percent threshold on Hin/Hout defines the calculable region; it is specific to this paper's method.
standard math Steady-state bulb+halo equations of motion.
Equations (2.14) and (2.15) are the standard collective oscillation equations of motion from the bulb model, adapted to halosphere emission.

invented entities (1)

Halosphere (neutrino-halo sphere)
purpose: Pseudo-emission surface at radius RH used to set initial conditions for the outward-going neutrino distribution.
A computational construct tied to the shock location; it is not a detected physical object and is truncated to outward angles.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Neutrino halo effect on collective neutrino oscillation in iron core-collapse supernova model of a 9.6 $M_{\odot}$ star." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VASEEXOB

@misc{pith2026190810594,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Neutrino halo effect on collective neutrino oscillation in iron core-collapse supernova model of a 9.6 $M_\odot$ star},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VASEEXOB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.10594}
}

abstract

We extend the multi-angle computational framework and investigate the time evolution of the neutrino halo on collective neutrino oscillation in the core collapse of an iron core progenitor. We find that in the case of the $9.6\, \rm M_\odot$ progenitor adopted in this work, there are windows of time when the effects of neutrino halo and collective neutrino oscillation are not simultaneously large. Inside the shock, the impact of the inward-scattered halo neutrino cannot in general be neglected compared to the outward-propagating neutrino flux. However, during early epochs, collective neutrino oscillation is effectively shut down by multi-angle matter suppression. During the intermediate epoch, collective neutrino oscillation is not suppressed, but its onset radius is beyond the still relatively small explosion shock front where the halo is prominent. We also find in the case of the $9.6\, \rm M_\odot$ progenitor the halo neutrinos induce a delay in the onset of collective neutrino oscillations. This causes novel flavor conversions which sharpen collective neutrino oscillation spectral features. We predict that the inclusion of neutrino halo effects makes neutrino signals that are more clearly distinct from thermal emission that when halo neutrinos are omitted.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

[1]

Nuclear weak-interaction processes in stars

K. Langanke and G. Mart´ ınez-Pinedo,Nuclear weak-interaction processes in stars, Reviews of Modern Physics 75 (2003) 819 [ nucl-th/0203071]

work page Pith review arXiv 2003
[2]

Mezzacappa, ASCERTAINING THE CORE COLLAPSE SUPERNOVA MECHANISM: The State of the Art and the Road Ahead , Annu

A. Mezzacappa, ASCERTAINING THE CORE COLLAPSE SUPERNOVA MECHANISM: The State of the Art and the Road Ahead , Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 55 (2005) 467

work page 2005
[3]

Woosley and T

S. Woosley and T. Janka, The physics of core-collapse supernovae , Nature Physics 1 (2005) 147 [astro-ph/0601261]

arXiv 2005
[4]

Kotake, K

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

arXiv 2006
[5]

Janka, Explosion Mechanisms of Core-Collapse Supernovae , Annu

H.-T. Janka, Explosion Mechanisms of Core-Collapse Supernovae , Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 62 (2012) 407 [ 1206.2503]

arXiv 2012
[6]

Janka, Neutrino Emission from Supernovae , p

H.-T. Janka, Neutrino Emission from Supernovae , p. 1575. Springer International Publishing AG, 2017. 1702.08713

arXiv 2017
[7]

Burrows, Colloquium: Perspectives on core-collapse supernova theory , Reviews of Modern Physics 85 (2013) 245 [ 1210.4921]

A. Burrows, Colloquium: Perspectives on core-collapse supernova theory , Reviews of Modern Physics 85 (2013) 245 [ 1210.4921]

arXiv 2013
[8]

Foglizzo, R

T. Foglizzo, R. Kazeroni, J. Guilet, F. Masset, M. Gonz´ alez, B. K. Krueger et al., The Explosion Mechanism of Core-Collapse Supernovae: Progress in Supernova Theory and Experiments, Pub. Astron. Soc. Aust. 32 (2015) e009 [ 1501.01334]

arXiv 2015

Show all 66 references

[9]

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 , Physical Review Letters 58 (1987) 1490

1987
[10]

R. M. Bionta, G. Blewitt, C. B. Bratton, D. Casper, A. Ciocio, R. Claus et al., Observation of a neutrino burst in coincidence with supernova 1987A in the Large Magellanic Cloud , Physical Review Letters 58 (1987) 1494. – 25 –

1987
[11]

Vissani, Comparative analysis of SN1987A antineutrino ﬂuence , Journal of Physics G Nuclear Physics 42 (2015) 013001 [ 1409.4710]

F. Vissani, Comparative analysis of SN1987A antineutrino ﬂuence , Journal of Physics G Nuclear Physics 42 (2015) 013001 [ 1409.4710]

2015 arXiv
[12]

Scholberg, Supernova Neutrino Detection, Annu

K. Scholberg, Supernova Neutrino Detection, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 62 (2012) 81 [1205.6003]

2012 arXiv
[13]

Horiuchi and J

S. Horiuchi and J. P. Kneller, What can be learned from a future supernova neutrino detection?, Journal of Physics G Nuclear Physics 45 (2018) 043002 [ 1709.01515]

2018 arXiv
[14]

H. Duan, G. M. Fuller and Y.-Z. Qian, Collective Neutrino Oscillations , Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 60 (2010) 569 [ 1001.2799]

2010 arXiv
[15]

Mirizzi, I

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

2016 arXiv
[16]

Chakraborty, R

S. Chakraborty, R. Hansen, I. Izaguirre and G. Raﬀelt, Collective neutrino ﬂavor conversion: Recent developments, Nuclear Physics B 908 (2016) 366 [ 1602.02766]

2016 arXiv
[17]

Tanabashi, K

M. Tanabashi, K. Hagiwara, K. Hikasa, K. Nakamura, Y. Sumino, F. Takahashi et al., Review of Particle Physics ∗, Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) 030001

2018
[18]

Wolfenstein, Neutrino oscillations in matter , Phys

L. Wolfenstein, Neutrino oscillations in matter , Phys. Rev. D 17 (1978) 2369

1978
[19]

S. P. Mikheyev and A. Y. Smirnov, Resonance enhancement of oscillations in matter and solar neutrino spectroscopy, Yad. Fiz. 42 (1985) 1441

1985
[20]

Fogli, E

G. Fogli, E. Lisi, A. Marrone and A. Mirizzi, Collective neutrino ﬂavor transitions in supernovae and the role of trajectory averaging , J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 12 (2007) 010 [0707.1998]

2007 arXiv
[21]

Esteban-Pretel, A

A. Esteban-Pretel, A. Mirizzi, S. Pastor, R. Tom` as, G. G. Raﬀelt, P. D. Serpico et al., Role of dense matter in collective supernova neutrino transformations , Phys. Rev. D 78 (2008) 085012 [0807.0659]

2008 arXiv
[22]

Chakraborty, T

S. Chakraborty, T. Fischer, A. Mirizzi, N. Saviano and R. Tom` as, No Collective Neutrino Flavor Conversions during the Supernova Accretion Phase , Phys. Rev. Lett. 107 (2011) 151101 [1104.4031]

2011 arXiv
[23]

Chakraborty, T

S. Chakraborty, T. Fischer, A. Mirizzi, N. Saviano and R. Tom` as, Analysis of matter suppression in collective neutrino oscillations during the supernova accretion phase , Phys. Rev. D 84 (2011) 025002 [ 1105.1130]

2011 arXiv
[24]

Wu, Y.-Z

M.-R. Wu, Y.-Z. Qian, G. Mart´ ınez-Pinedo, T. Fischer and L. Huther, Eﬀects of neutrino oscillations on nucleosynthesis and neutrino signals for an 18 M supernova model , Phys. Rev. D 91 (2015) 065016 [ 1412.8587]

2015 arXiv
[25]

Zaizen, T

M. Zaizen, T. Yoshida, K. Sumiyoshi and H. Umeda, Collective neutrino oscillations and detectabilities in failed supernovae , Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) 103020 [ 1811.03320]

2018 arXiv
[26]

J. F. Cherry, J. Carlson, A. Friedland, G. M. Fuller and A. Vlasenko, Neutrino Scattering and Flavor Transformation in Supernovae , Phys. Rev. Lett. 108 (2012) 261104 [ 1203.1607]

2012 arXiv
[27]

J. F. Cherry, J. Carlson, A. Friedland, G. M. Fuller and A. Vlasenko, Halo modiﬁcation of a supernova neutronization neutrino burst , Phys. Rev. D 87 (2013) 085037 [ 1302.1159]

2013 arXiv
[28]

Cirigliano, M

V. Cirigliano, M. Paris and S. Shalgar, Collective neutrino oscillations with the halo eﬀect in single-angle approximation, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 11 (2018) 019 [ 1807.07070]

2018 arXiv
[29]

Sarikas, I

S. Sarikas, I. Tamborra, G. Raﬀelt, L. H¨ udepohl and H.-T. Janka,Supernova neutrino halo and the suppression of self-induced ﬂavor conversion , Phys. Rev. D 85 (2012) 113007 [ 1204.0971]

2012 arXiv
[30]

Raﬀelt, S

G. Raﬀelt, S. Sarikas and D. d. S. Seixas, Axial Symmetry Breaking in Self-Induced Flavor Conversionof Supernova Neutrino Fluxes , Phys. Rev. Lett. 111 (2013) 091101 [ 1305.7140]. – 26 –

2013 arXiv
[31]

Mirizzi, Multi-azimuthal-angle eﬀects in self-induced supernova neutrino ﬂavor conversions without axial symmetry , Phys

A. Mirizzi, Multi-azimuthal-angle eﬀects in self-induced supernova neutrino ﬂavor conversions without axial symmetry , Phys. Rev. D 88 (2013) 073004 [ 1308.1402]

2013 arXiv
[32]

Chakraborty and A

S. Chakraborty and A. Mirizzi, Multi-azimuthal-angle instability for diﬀerent supernova neutrino ﬂuxes, Phys. Rev. D 90 (2014) 033004 [ 1308.5255]

2014 arXiv
[33]

Duan and S

H. Duan and S. Shalgar, Flavor instabilities in the neutrino line model , Phys. Lett. B 747 (2015) 139 [ 1412.7097]

2015 arXiv
[34]

Dasgupta and A

B. Dasgupta and A. Mirizzi, Temporal instability enables neutrino ﬂavor conversions deep inside supernovae, Phys. Rev. D 92 (2015) 125030 [ 1509.03171]

2015 arXiv
[35]

Chakraborty, R

S. Chakraborty, R. S. Hansen, I. Izaguirre and G. G. Raﬀelt, Self-induced ﬂavor conversion of supernova neutrinos on small scales , J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 1 (2016) 028 [ 1507.07569]

2016 arXiv
[36]

Chakraborty, R

S. Chakraborty, R. S. Hansen, I. Izaguirre and G. G. Raﬀelt, Self-induced neutrino ﬂavor conversion without ﬂavor mixing , J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 3 (2016) 042 [ 1602.00698]

2016 arXiv
[37]

Dasgupta, A

B. Dasgupta, A. Mirizzi and M. Sen, Fast neutrino ﬂavor conversions near the supernova core with realistic ﬂavor-dependent angular distributions , J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 2 (2017) 019 [1609.00528]

2017 arXiv
[38]

Abbar and H

S. Abbar and H. Duan, Fast neutrino ﬂavor conversion: Roles of dense matter and spectrum crossing, Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) 043014 [ 1712.07013]

2018 arXiv
[39]

Delfan Azari, S

M. Delfan Azari, S. Yamada, T. Morinaga, W. Iwakami, H. Okawa, H. Nagakura et al., Linear analysis of fast-pairwise collective neutrino oscillations in core-collapse supernovae based on the results of Boltzmann simulations , Phys. Rev. D 99 (2019) 103011 [ 1902.07467]

2019 arXiv
[40]

Heger and S

A. Heger and S. E. Woosley, Nucleosynthesis and Evolution of Massive Metal-free Stars , Astrophys. J. 724 (2010) 341 [ 0803.3161]

2010 arXiv
[41]

Takiwaki and K

T. Takiwaki and K. Kotake, Anisotropic emission of neutrino and gravitational-wave signals from rapidly rotating core-collapse supernovae , Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 475 (2018) L91 [1711.01905]

2018 arXiv
[42]

O’Connor, R

E. O’Connor, R. Bollig, A. Burrows, S. Couch, T. Fischer, H.-T. Janka et al., Global comparison of core-collapse supernova simulations in spherical symmetry , Journal of Physics G Nuclear Physics 45 (2018) 104001 [ 1806.04175]

2018 arXiv
[43]

A. Mignone, High-order conservative reconstruction schemes for ﬁnite volume methods in cylindrical and spherical coordinates, Journal of Computational Physics 270 (2014) 784 [1404.0537]

2014 arXiv
[44]

E. F. Toro, M. Spruce and W. Speares, Restoration of the contact surface in the HLL-Riemann solver, Shock Waves 4 (1994) 25

1994
[45]

J. M. Lattimer and F. Douglas Swesty, A generalized equation of state for hot, dense matter , Nucl. Phys. A 535 (1991) 331

1991
[46]

Melson, H.-T

T. Melson, H.-T. Janka and A. Marek, Neutrino-driven Supernova of a Low-mass Iron-core Progenitor Boosted by Three-dimensional Turbulent Convection, Astrophys. J. 801 (2015) L24 [1501.01961]

2015 arXiv
[47]

Delfan Azari, S

M. Delfan Azari, S. Yamada, T. Morinaga, H. Nagakura, S. Furusawa, A. Harada et al., Fast collective neutrino oscillations inside the neutrino sphere in core-collapse supernovae , Phys. Rev. D 101 (2020) 023018 [ 1910.06176]

2020 arXiv
[48]

Abbar, H

S. Abbar, H. Duan, K. Sumiyoshi, T. Takiwaki and M. C. Volpe, Fast neutrino ﬂavor conversion modes in multidimensional core-collapse supernova models: The role of the asymmetric neutrino distributions , Phys. Rev. D 101 (2020) 043016 [ 1911.01983]. – 27 –

2020 arXiv
[49]

R. Glas, H. T. Janka, F. Capozzi, M. Sen, B. Dasgupta, A. Mirizzi et al., Fast neutrino ﬂavor instability in the neutron-star convection layer of three-dimensional supernova models , Phys. Rev. D 101 (2020) 063001 [ 1912.00274]

2020
[50]

M. T. Keil, G. G. Raﬀelt and H.-T. Janka, Monte Carlo Study of Supernova Neutrino Spectra Formation, Astrophys. J. 590 (2003) 971 [ astro-ph/0208035]

2003 arXiv
[51]

Tamborra, B

I. Tamborra, B. M¨ uller, L. H¨ udepohl, H.-T. Janka and G. Raﬀelt,High-resolution supernova neutrino spectra represented by a simple ﬁt , Phys. Rev. D 86 (2012) 125031 [ 1211.3920]

2012 arXiv
[52]

Tamborra, G

I. Tamborra, G. Raﬀelt, F. Hanke, H.-T. Janka and B. M¨ uller, Neutrino emission characteristics and detection opportunities based on three-dimensional supernova simulations , Phys. Rev. D 90 (2014) 045032 [ 1406.0006]

2014 arXiv
[53]

S. A. Richers, G. C. McLaughlin, J. P. Kneller and A. Vlasenko, Neutrino quantum kinetics in compact objects, Phys. Rev. D 99 (2019) 123014 [ 1903.00022]

2019 arXiv
[54]

Akimov, J

COHERENT Collaboration, D. Akimov, J. B. Albert, P. An, C. Awe, P. S. Barbeau et al., Observation of coherent elastic neutrino-nucleus scattering , Science 357 (2017) 1123

2017
[55]

D. L. Tubbs and D. N. Schramm, Neutrino Opacities at High Temperatures and Densities , Astrophys. J. 201 (1975) 467

1975
[56]

S. M. Adams, C. S. Kochanek, J. F. Beacom, M. R. Vagins and K. Z. Stanek, Observing the Next Galactic Supernova , Astrophys. J. 778 (2013) 164 [ 1306.0559]

2013 arXiv
[57]

H. Duan, G. M. Fuller, J. Carlson and Y.-Z. Qian, Simulation of coherent nonlinear neutrino ﬂavor transformation in the supernova environment: Correlated neutrino trajectories , Phys. Rev. D 74 (2006) 105014 [ astro-ph/0606616]

2006 arXiv
[58]

Dasgupta and A

B. Dasgupta and A. Dighe, Collective three-ﬂavor oscillations of supernova neutrinos , Phys. Rev. D 77 (2008) 113002 [ 0712.3798]

2008 arXiv
[59]

Z. Maki, M. Nakagawa and S. Sakata, Remarks on the Uniﬁed Model of Elementary Particles , Prog. Theor. Phys. 28 (1962) 870

1962
[60]

Esteban-Pretel, S

A. Esteban-Pretel, S. Pastor, R. Tom` as, G. G. Raﬀelt and G. Sigl, Decoherence in supernova neutrino transformations suppressed by deleptonization , Phys. Rev. D 76 (2007) 125018 [0706.2498]

2007 arXiv
[61]

Friedland, Self-Refraction of Supernova Neutrinos: Mixed Spectra and Three-Flavor Instabilities, Physical Review Letters 104 (2010) 191102 [ 1001.0996]

A. Friedland, Self-Refraction of Supernova Neutrinos: Mixed Spectra and Three-Flavor Instabilities, Physical Review Letters 104 (2010) 191102 [ 1001.0996]

2010 arXiv
[62]

Dasgupta, A

B. Dasgupta, A. Mirizzi, I. Tamborra and R. Tom` as, Neutrino mass hierarchy and three-ﬂavor spectral splits of supernova neutrinos , Phys. Rev. D 81 (2010) 093008 [ 1002.2943]

2010 arXiv
[63]

Mirizzi and R

A. Mirizzi and R. Tom` as,Multiangle eﬀects in self-induced oscillations for diﬀerent supernova neutrino ﬂuxes, Phys. Rev. D 84 (2011) 033013 [ 1012.1339]

2011 arXiv
[64]

H. Duan, G. M. Fuller, J. Carlson and Y.-Z. Qian, Coherent Development of Neutrino Flavor in the Supernova Environment , Physical Review Letters 97 (2006) 241101 [astro-ph/0608050]

2006 arXiv
[65]

http://www.phy.duke.edu/ schol/snowglobes/

“http://www.phy.duke.edu/ schol/snowglobes/.”
[66]

S. E. Woosley and T. A. Weaver, The evolution and explosion of massive stars. ii. explosive hydrodynamics and nucleosynthesis, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series 101 (1995) 181. – 28 –

1995

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Nuclear weak-interaction processes in stars

K. Langanke and G. Mart´ ınez-Pinedo,Nuclear weak-interaction processes in stars, Reviews of Modern Physics 75 (2003) 819 [ nucl-th/0203071]

work page Pith review arXiv 2003

[2] [2]

Mezzacappa, ASCERTAINING THE CORE COLLAPSE SUPERNOVA MECHANISM: The State of the Art and the Road Ahead , Annu

A. Mezzacappa, ASCERTAINING THE CORE COLLAPSE SUPERNOVA MECHANISM: The State of the Art and the Road Ahead , Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 55 (2005) 467

work page 2005

[3] [3]

Woosley and T

S. Woosley and T. Janka, The physics of core-collapse supernovae , Nature Physics 1 (2005) 147 [astro-ph/0601261]

arXiv 2005

[4] [4]

Kotake, K

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

arXiv 2006

[5] [5]

Janka, Explosion Mechanisms of Core-Collapse Supernovae , Annu

H.-T. Janka, Explosion Mechanisms of Core-Collapse Supernovae , Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 62 (2012) 407 [ 1206.2503]

arXiv 2012

[6] [6]

Janka, Neutrino Emission from Supernovae , p

H.-T. Janka, Neutrino Emission from Supernovae , p. 1575. Springer International Publishing AG, 2017. 1702.08713

arXiv 2017

[7] [7]

Burrows, Colloquium: Perspectives on core-collapse supernova theory , Reviews of Modern Physics 85 (2013) 245 [ 1210.4921]

A. Burrows, Colloquium: Perspectives on core-collapse supernova theory , Reviews of Modern Physics 85 (2013) 245 [ 1210.4921]

arXiv 2013

[8] [8]

Foglizzo, R

T. Foglizzo, R. Kazeroni, J. Guilet, F. Masset, M. Gonz´ alez, B. K. Krueger et al., The Explosion Mechanism of Core-Collapse Supernovae: Progress in Supernova Theory and Experiments, Pub. Astron. Soc. Aust. 32 (2015) e009 [ 1501.01334]

arXiv 2015