Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 36 references

The determination capability of potential neutrinos from gravitational wave sources and contributions of extra detector at the future reactor neutrino experiment

T0 review · 5 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 A JUNO-class reactor neutrino detector can set a 90% C.L. limit of 2.44 antineutrino events per 1000 s, reaching 1-3 Mpc for merger models.

desk verdict A useful first sensitivity projection for JUNO/RENO-50 to GW neutrinos, but the advertised 1-3 Mpc BBH reach hangs on an admitted placeholder of 3 s emission duration and a fluence-range typo. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.05958 v1 pith:JFWFXKB6 submitted 2019-08-16 astro-ph.HE hep-ex

Zhaokan Cheng , Jingbo Zhang , Chan Fai Wong , Wei Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEhep-ex
keywords gravitational-wavemulti-messengerastronomyelectronantineutrinosJUNOreactorneutrinoexperimentinversebetadecayFeldman-Cousinssensitivityfluenceupperlimitbinaryneutronstarmergers
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

The paper argues that future medium-baseline reactor neutrino detectors such as JUNO can serve as sensitive monitors of the low-energy electron antineutrinos that might accompany gravitational-wave transients. Using the background rate at the nominal JUNO detector, it shows that a non-detection in a 1000-second window would set a 90% confidence-level sensitivity of $\mu_{90} = 2.44$ signal events, a fluence limit of roughly $6\times10^{10}$ to $4\times10^{10}$ cm$^{-2}$ for monoenergetic antineutrinos between 1.8 and 120 MeV, and about 1-3 Mpc distance reach when model luminosities for binary neutron star, black hole-neutron star, and binary black hole mergers are assumed. It then shows that a second identical detector improves the fluence sensitivity by about 38% and the distance reach by about 28%, while a JUNO plus RENO-50 combination gives nearly the same improvement. The point is that reactor neutrino experiments, built for oscillation physics, can double as multi-messenger observatories for nearby compact-object mergers.

What carries the argument

The method's two devices are a Poisson time-bundling statistic and the Feldman-Cousins confidence-belt construction. With a cutoff time $\Delta t$, the expected number of background bundles of multiplicity $m$ is $N(m)=RT\,e^{-2R\Delta t}(1-e^{-R\Delta t})^{m-1}$, so a cluster of $m$ events within $\Delta t$ can be recognized as an excess. The Feldman-Cousins construction on a Poisson likelihood ratio turns the expected background and observed candidates into the 90% C.L. upper limit $\mu_{90}$. That limit is then converted to a fluence via the inverse $\beta$-decay cross section and the number of target protons, and to a distance via $L=F\,4\pi D^{2}\langle E\rangle$ using model luminosities and either a monochromatic or a Fermi-Dirac spectrum.

What would settle it

A numerical-relativity simulation of a binary black hole merger with an accretion disk that computes the time-integrated $\bar\nu_e$ energy would settle the most fragile part of the distance claim: if that energy is below roughly $10^{54}$ erg, the value implied by the Table 3 luminosities times $\Delta T=3$ s, then the claimed black-hole-merger distances overstate the reach. For the headline sensitivity itself, an independent implementation of the Feldman-Cousins construction with $n_{\rm obs}=n_{\rm bkg}=0.745$ events per 1000 s should reproduce $\mu_{90}=2.44$; a materially different value would falsify the claimed limit.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a non-detection of $\bar\nu_e$ in a 1000 s window at the nominal JUNO experiment yields a 90% C.L. sensitivity upper limit of $\mu_{90}=2.44$ events, corresponding to a fluence limit of roughly $6\times10^{10}$ to $4\times10^{10}$ cm$^{-2}$ for monoenergetic $\bar\nu_e$ between 1.8 and 120 MeV and to $F_{UL}^{90}\sim 1$-$3\times10^{8}$ cm$^{-2}$ for the model spectra, and that this translates to a detectable distance $D_{UL}^{90}\sim 1$-$3$ Mpc under the BNS, BH-NS, and BBH luminosity models in Table 3. It further claims that adding a second identical JUNO-like detector improves the fluence sensitivity by 38.5% and the distance reach by 27.5%, and that combining JUNO with RENO-50 gives a 37.7% improvement, nearly the same as adding the identical detector.

Load-bearing premise

The distance reach of 1-3 Mpc assumes every gravitational-wave source class, including binary black hole mergers, emits $\bar\nu_e$ with the model luminosities in Table 3 and for a common emission duration $\Delta T=3$ s; the paper itself states that no estimate for the BBH neutrino emission duration exists and adopts 3 s "for consistency."

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • During a future gravitational-wave trigger, a null result from JUNO would set the tightest low-energy $\bar\nu_e$ fluence limits yet from a reactor neutrino detector, about twenty times better than KamLAND.
  • Only a few $\bar\nu_e$ events arriving within tens of seconds would stand out from background, so the experiment can flag nearby mergers without needing large event statistics.
  • The 1-3 Mpc reach means neutrino-coincident gravitational-wave detections are limited to very nearby mergers, making each successful observation rare and the constraints from non-detection valuable.
  • An extra identical detector, or the planned RENO-50 detector analyzed jointly, improves the fluence sensitivity by roughly 38%, and the paper quantifies how the gain varies with target mass and baseline.
  • The same multiplicity-bundling test can be applied to any short-timescale transient search at future reactor neutrino experiments, not only gravitational-wave triggers.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because $D_{UL}$ scales as $\sqrt{L_s\,\Delta T}$, the assumed 3 s emission duration is a large lever: if neutrino emission from a merger lasted 30 s, the same detector would reach about three times farther, and if it lasted 0.3 s, about one-third as far.
  • The paper's figure of merit shows diminishing returns from extra target mass; beyond a few tens of kilotons, reducing backgrounds through a farther baseline or other means may buy more sensitivity than adding more mass.
  • If a nearby binary neutron star merger is ever observed in neutrinos, the same fluence-to-distance conversion could be inverted to measure the source's neutrino luminosity directly, testing the model predictions rather than assuming them.
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

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes using the future JUNO reactor neutrino experiment (and RENO-50 as a combined or alternative detector) to search for low-energy electron antineutrinos from gravitational wave sources, motivated by the fact that no coincident neutrino candidates have been found to date. The authors simulate background in the nominal JUNO detector, study the time correlation of adjacent background events via a cut-off-time bundling method, and then compute a 90% C.L. sensitivity upper limit μ90 = 2.44 for a 1000 s coincidence window using a Feldman-Cousins style Poisson likelihood. They translate this limit into a neutrino fluence sensitivity under monochromatic and Fermi-Dirac spectrum assumptions, and then, using published merger model luminosities for BNS, BH-NS, and BBH sources, convert the fluence limits into detectable distances of about 1-3 Mpc. They also evaluate the improvement from an extra identical JUNO-like detector, claiming about 38% sensitivity improvement and about 28% distance improvement, and from a JUNO + RENO-50 combination, finding similar gains.

Significance. If the method is sound, it would provide a quantitative estimate of the multi-messenger reach of large liquid-scintillator detectors for low-energy neutrinos from compact binary mergers, a topic of continuing interest. The paper has some clear strengths: the analytic derivation of the multiplicity distribution of background bundles in Appendix A is explicit; the background table is concrete; and the use of the Feldman-Cousins approach for small signals is appropriate. However, the headline distance reach depends on several model-dependent choices, most notably an ad hoc 3 s neutrino emission duration for BBH and BH-NS mergers, and the manuscript contains numerical inconsistencies in the quoted fluence endpoints. The core Poisson sensitivity calculation is reproducible in principle, but the model-dependent distance claims need substantial qualification.

major comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 4.2, Eq. (4.4), Table 3] The distance reach D90_UL is computed from D = sqrt(L_s ΔT / (4π F_UL <E>)) using a single emission duration ΔT = 3 s for BNS, BH-NS, and BBH sources. The text acknowledges that for BBH mergers there are no estimates of the neutrino emission time and sets 3 s 'for consistency', based on hypermassive neutron star cooling times. Since D90_UL scales as sqrt(ΔT), an actual prompt emission duration of ~0.1 s (typical for accretion-torus emission in BH-NS/BBH models) reduces the claimed distance reach by a factor of about 5.5, and a 10 ms burst by a factor of about 17. In addition, the luminosities in Table 3 are peak values around 10 ms after merger; multiplying a peak luminosity by 3 s may substantially overestimate the total emitted energy. The headline '1-3 Mpc' is therefore not supported for BBH/BH-NS sources and should be reported as a function of ΔT or restricted to BNS models.
  2. [Abstract, Sec. 4.2, Sec. 6] The reported monochromatic fluence sensitivity is internally inconsistent by four orders of magnitude: the abstract and the conclusion state the range 6×10^10 to 4×10^10 cm^-2, while the paragraph after Eq. (4.5) in Sec. 4.2 gives '6×10^10 cm^-2 to about 4×10^6 cm^-2'. For a monochromatic fluence limit the energy dependence is F_UL ∝ 1/σ(E_ν) ≈ 1/E_ν^2, so the ratio of the 1.8 MeV to 120 MeV endpoints should be roughly (120/1.8)^2 ≈ 4.4×10^3; neither stated pair satisfies this. The authors must correct the endpoint, provide a sample calculation with the values of μ90, N_T, ε, and σ(E), and make the abstract consistent with the body.
  3. [Sec. 3 and Sec. 4.1] The paper introduces a time-correlation method (bundling adjacent background events with a cut-off time) as its new analysis technique, but the sensitivity calculation in Sec. 4.1 is a simple counting experiment in a fixed 1000 s window, not a clustering analysis. The two approaches give very different sensitivities: Sec. 3 concludes from Table 2 that a bundle of 24 events is needed for unambiguous identification, while Sec. 4.1 quotes μ90 = 2.44. This discrepancy is not explained. The authors should either use the time-correlation information in the Feldman-Cousins likelihood or clearly state that Sec. 3 is only a background-characterization study and that the quoted sensitivity comes from the counting analysis.
  4. [Sec. 4.1, Eqs. (4.1)-(4.2), Table 1] The 90% C.L. sensitivity μ90 = 2.44 is a purely statistical limit that treats the background rate nbkg as exactly known. The background rates in Table 1 are estimates without uncertainties, and the detection efficiency ε and reactor power are used without error propagation. Systematic uncertainties on these inputs can shift the upper limit and, via Eqs. (4.3)-(4.5), the fluence and distance constraints. The authors should quantify the effect of plausible systematic variations (e.g., ±10% on the reactor neutrino rate) or justify that they are negligible for the quoted precision.
  5. [Sec. 4.2, Eq. (4.3)] Equation (4.3) explicitly assumes no neutrino oscillation. Since the luminosities in Table 3 are source properties and the fluence F is evaluated at Earth, the relation between source ν̄e luminosity and detected ν̄e fluence should account for flavor conversion over astrophysical baselines. The oscillation factors are of order unity but can shift D90_UL by a factor of a few in either direction; this should be stated and, if a no-oscillation assumption is retained, justified as conservative.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Throughout] There are numerous typographical errors (e.g., 'backgroud' for 'background', 'varing' for 'varying', 'revelas' for 'reveals', 'beseline' for 'baseline', 'Finially' for 'Finally', 'conincident' for 'coincident'). A careful proofread is needed.
  2. [Appendix A, Eqs. (A.1)-(A.4)] In Eqs. (A.1)-(A.4), the infinitesimal interval is written as P(1; R dt1) dt1; since P(1; R dt1) is already a probability, the extra dt1 makes the expression dimensionally inconsistent. It should be R dt1 (or P(1;R dt1) without the trailing dt1). The final result (3.2) is correct.
  3. [Sec. 3, after Table 2] The sentence 'the accumulated ν̄e signals emitted from gravitational wave sources can’t be identified from backgrounds until over 23 events within the time window of between 1000 s and 24000 s' is unclear because a signal is expected at a known GW time, so the relevant background is the rate in a much shorter interval; this should be rephrased.
  4. [Sec. 4.1, Eq. (4.2)] The best-fit value μ_best is not defined; for a Poisson likelihood with known background it should be max(0, nobs - nbkg), and this definition should be stated.
  5. [Fig. 4 caption] The caption says the red curve is 'the most conservative detection capability,' but it is not explained why the monochromatic assumption is the most conservative; a sentence in the text would help.
  6. [Sec. 5, paragraph on extra detector scan] The sentence 'Varing the baseline away from Yangjiang and Taishan NPP and target mass' is garbled; it should read 'Varying the baseline and target mass...'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the sensitivity, fluence limits, and distance reach follow from independent detector inputs and external model parameters.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is self-contained. The 90% C.L. sensitivity μ90 = 2.44 is obtained from a Feldman-Cousins Poisson analysis with the conventional sensitivity choice nobs = nbkg, where the background rate (Table 1) is taken from the external JUNO design reference [18] and from the paper's own Monte Carlo simulation of that rate; no parameter is fitted to the target sensitivity. The fluence upper limit F_UL^90 is then computed from Eq. (4.3) using the number of target protons, the average efficiency, the IBD cross section [31], and assumed neutrino spectra, all of which are independent inputs. The detectable distance D_UL^90 uses Eq. (4.4) with external model luminosities and average energies (Table 3) and an assumed emission duration ΔT = 3 s; although the ΔT = 3 s assumption for BBH mergers is explicitly acknowledged as having no estimation ('there are no estimations on the emission time of neutrinos yet. For consistence, we assume the emission time of BBH mergers is also 3 s'), this is an ad hoc model input rather than a quantity derived from the result being predicted. The multi-detector improvement is obtained by re-running the same likelihood with combined detectors, so it is not an imported or self-cited conclusion. No step reduces to the paper's own output by construction, no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no load-bearing claim rests on a self-citation chain. The BBH distance reach is fragile because it depends on ΔT, but fragility of an assumption is a correctness concern, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles or mechanisms are introduced. The paper's claims depend on literature inputs (background rates, efficiency, cross-section, model luminosities) and a few hand-chosen analysis settings (time window, energy range, emission duration). The central numbers are therefore projections, not measurements.

free parameters (2)
  • Neutrino emission duration ΔT = 3 s (all source types)
    Hand-set in Section 4.2 to 3 s for BNS and BH-NS based on hypermassive neutron star cooling, and applied to BBH despite the text saying no estimate exists. It scales D_UL through Eq. (4.4).
  • Coincidence time window Δt = 1000 s
    Adopted in Section 4.1 from ANTARES/IceCube/KamLAND analyses; it defines the background count and therefore μ90.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Background events in JUNO follow a stationary Poisson process with rate R=7.45e-4 s^-1 and no time correlations beyond the Poisson intervals.
    Used throughout Section 3 to derive the bundle multiplicity N(m); actual detector deadtime, correlated cosmogenic backgrounds and data-selection effects could break this.
  • domain assumption The JUNO background rates in Table 1, taken mainly from the JUNO CDR, are accurate for the future experiment.
    The sensitivity μ90 and fluence limits scale directly with these rates; the paper provides no systematic uncertainty.
  • domain assumption The neutrino flux from GW sources is not oscillated between source and Earth (Eq. 4.3 states 'Without oscillation').
    Neutrino oscillations over Mpc distances would redistribute flavor and alter the expected ν̄e signal; impact not quantified.
  • domain assumption The model luminosities and average energies in Table 3 from BNS/BH-NS/BBH simulations are representative of real sources.
    Used to convert fluence to D_UL; different EOS or disk models change the results.
  • domain assumption The detector efficiency \bar ε=0.73 (JUNO) and RENO-50 efficiency 72.6% are constant over the energy range.
    Eq. (4.3) factors out an average efficiency; energy-dependent efficiency or background rejection could change the limit.
  • standard math The IBD cross-section from Ref. [31] is exact.
    Used in Eq. (4.3)/(4.5) to convert event limit to fluence.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The determination capability of potential neutrinos from gravitational wave sources and contributions of extra detector at the future reactor neutrino experiment." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JFWFXKB6

@misc{pith2026190805958,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The determination capability of potential neutrinos from gravitational wave sources and contributions of extra detector at the future reactor neutrino experiment},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JFWFXKB6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.05958}
}
abstract

After several gravitational wave transients were discovered since 2015, studying neutrino signals coincident with the gravitational wave events now becomes an important mission for the existing neutrino experiments. Unfortunately, no candidate neutrinos have been found yet. This article introduces a method to find the neutrino excess to search for the potential neutrinos from gravitational wave sources at the future reactor neutrino experiment (such as JUNO and RENO-50). According to our calculations and simulations, the non-detection of $\bar\nu_e$ associated with gravitational waves at the nominal JUNO experiment gives rise to the $\bar\nu_e$ signal sensitivity at 90$\%$ confidence level (C.L.), $\mu_{90}$ = 2.44. This corresponds to the range of neutrino fluence on the Earth around 6 $\times$ 10$^{10}$ cm$^{-2}$ to 4 $\times$ 10$^{10}$ cm$^{-2}$ with neutrino energy range from 1.8 MeV to 120 MeV at monochromatic energy spectrum assumption. Based on certain popular models which describe the gravitational wave sources, we calculate the corresponding fluence ($F_{UL}^{90}$), which is around 1 - 3 $\times$ 10$^{8}$ cm$^{-2}$ for both monochromatic energy spectrum assumption and Fermi-Dirac energy spectrum assumption. Then we convert $F_{UL}^{90}$ into the detectable distance ($D_\text{UL}^{90}$), about 1 - 3 Mpc for two assumptions, with the predicted luminosities in these known models. To further improve the sensitivity, we discuss the potential benefits from an extra detector, with different target masses and baselines. Particularly, there will be around 38\% sensitivity improvement and around 28$\%$ detectable distance increasing if the extra detector is designed to be identical to the JUNO detector. On the other hand, instead of building an extra detector, if we combine the JUNO experiment with the RENO-50 experiment, the sensitivity will also be significantly improved.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Hirata, et al.,Observation of a Neutrino Burst from the Supernova SN 1987a, Phys

    K. Hirata, et al.,Observation of a Neutrino Burst from the Supernova SN 1987a, Phys. Rev. Lett. 58 (1987) 1490–1493, [727(1987)].doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.58.1490

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.58.1490 1987

  2. [2]

    R. M. Bionta, et al.,Observation of a Neutrino Burst in Coincidence with Supernova SN 1987a in the Large Magellanic Cloud, Phys. Rev. Lett. 58 (1987) 1494. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.58.1494

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.58.1494 1987

  3. [3]

    E. N. Alekseev, L. N. Alekseeva, V. I. Volchenko, I. V. Krivosheina,Possible Detection of a Neutrino Signal on 23 February 1987 at the Baksan Underground Scintillation Telescope of the Institute of Nuclear Research, JETP Lett. 45 (1987) 589–592, [739(1987)]

    work page 1987

  4. [4]

    Fukuda, et al.,Evidence for oscillation of atmospheric neutrinos, Phys

    Y. Fukuda, et al.,Evidence for oscillation of atmospheric neutrinos, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81 (1998) 1562–1567.arXiv:hep-ex/9807003, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.81.1562

    arXiv 1998

  5. [5]

    Q. R. Ahmad, et al.,Measurement of the rate ofνe +d→p +p +e− interactions produced by 8B solar neutrinos at the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87 (2001) 071301. arXiv:nucl-ex/0106015, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.87.071301

    arXiv 2001

  6. [6]

    B. P. Abbott, et al.,Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Black Hole Merger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116 (6) (2016) 061102.arXiv:1602.03837, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.061102

    arXiv 2016

  7. [7]

    B. P. Abbott, et al.,GWTC-1: A Gravitational-Wave Transient Catalog of Compact Binary Mergers Observed by LIGO and Virgo during the First and Second Observing Runs.arXiv:1811.12907

    arXiv

  8. [8]

    Connaughton, et al.,Fermi GBM Observations of LIGO Gravitational Wave event GW150914, Astrophys

    V. Connaughton, et al.,Fermi GBM Observations of LIGO Gravitational Wave event GW150914, Astrophys. J. 826 (1) (2016) L6.arXiv:1602.03920, doi:10.3847/2041-8205/826/1/L6

    arXiv 2016

Show all 36 references
  1. [9]

    B. P. Abbott, et al.,Multi-messenger Observations of a Binary Neutron Star Merger, Astrophys. J. 848 (2) (2017) L12.arXiv:1710.05833, doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa91c9

    2017 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Adrian-Martinez, et al.,High-energy Neutrino follow-up search of Gravitational Wave Event GW150914 with ANTARES and IceCube, Phys

    S. Adrian-Martinez, et al.,High-energy Neutrino follow-up search of Gravitational Wave Event GW150914 with ANTARES and IceCube, Phys. Rev. D93 (12) (2016) 122010. arXiv:1602.05411, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.93.122010

    2016

  3. [11]

    Albert, et al.,Search for High-energy Neutrinos from Gravitational Wave Event GW151226 and Candidate LVT151012 with ANTARES and IceCube, Phys

    A. Albert, et al.,Search for High-energy Neutrinos from Gravitational Wave Event GW151226 and Candidate LVT151012 with ANTARES and IceCube, Phys. Rev. D96 (2) (2017) 022005. arXiv:1703.06298, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.96.022005

    2017 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Albert, et al.,Search for High-energy Neutrinos from Binary Neutron Star Merger GW170817 with ANTARES, IceCube, and the Pierre Auger Observatory, Astrophys

    A. Albert, et al.,Search for High-energy Neutrinos from Binary Neutron Star Merger GW170817 with ANTARES, IceCube, and the Pierre Auger Observatory, Astrophys. J. 850 (2) (2017) L35. arXiv:1710.05839, doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa9aed

    2017

  5. [13]

    Gando, et al.,A search for electron antineutrinos associated with gravitational wave events GW150914 and GW151226 using KamLAND, Astrophys

    A. Gando, et al.,A search for electron antineutrinos associated with gravitational wave events GW150914 and GW151226 using KamLAND, Astrophys. J. 829 (2) (2016) L34, [Erratum: Astrophys. J.851,no.1,L22(2017)]. arXiv:1606.07155, doi:10.3847/2041-8205/829/2/L34,10.3847/2041-8213/aa9a32

    2016 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Abe, et al.,Search for Neutrinos in Super-Kamiokande associated with Gravitational Wave Events GW150914 and GW151226, Astrophys

    K. Abe, et al.,Search for Neutrinos in Super-Kamiokande associated with Gravitational Wave Events GW150914 and GW151226, Astrophys. J. 830 (1) (2016) L11.arXiv:1608.08745, doi:10.3847/2041-8205/830/1/L11. – 16 –

    2016 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Hayato, et al.,Search for Neutrinos in Super-Kamiokande Associated with the GW170817 Neutron-star Merger, Astrophys

    Y. Hayato, et al.,Search for Neutrinos in Super-Kamiokande Associated with the GW170817 Neutron-star Merger, Astrophys. J. 857 (1) (2018) L4.arXiv:1802.04379, doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aabaca

    2018 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Agostini, et al.,A Search for Low-energy Neutrinos Correlated with Gravitational Wave Events GW 150914, GW 151226, and GW 170104 with the Borexino Detector, Astrophys

    M. Agostini, et al.,A Search for Low-energy Neutrinos Correlated with Gravitational Wave Events GW 150914, GW 151226, and GW 170104 with the Borexino Detector, Astrophys. J. 850 (1) (2017) 21.arXiv:1706.10176, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa9521

    2017 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Suzuki,Antineutrino Science in KamLAND, Eur

    A. Suzuki,Antineutrino Science in KamLAND, Eur. Phys. J. C74 (10) (2014) 3094. arXiv:1409.4515, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-014-3094-x

    2014 arXiv

  10. [18]

    An, et al., Neutrino Physics with JUNO, J

    F. An, et al., Neutrino Physics with JUNO, J. Phys. G43 (3) (2016) 030401. arXiv:1507.05613, doi:10.1088/0954-3899/43/3/030401

    2016 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Kim,New results from RENO and prospects with RENO-50, Nucl

    S.-B. Kim,New results from RENO and prospects with RENO-50, Nucl. Part. Phys. Proc. 265-266 (2015) 93–98.arXiv:1412.2199, doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysbps.2015.06.024

    2015 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Taniguchi, T

    K. Taniguchi, T. W. Baumgarte, J. A. Faber, S. L. Shapiro,Black hole-neutron star binaries in general relativity: Effects of neutron star spin, Phys. Rev. D72 (2005) 044008. arXiv:astro-ph/0505450, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.72.044008

    2005 arXiv

  13. [21]

    W. H. Lee, W. Kluzniak,Newtonian hydrodynamics of the coalescence of black holes with neutron stars. 2. Tidally locked binaries with a soft equation of state, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 308 (1999) 780.arXiv:astro-ph/9904328, doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02734.x

    1999 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Sekiguchi, K

    Y. Sekiguchi, K. Kiuchi, K. Kyutoku, M. Shibata,Dynamical mass ejection from binary neutron star mergers: Radiation-hydrodynamics study in general relativity, Phys. Rev. D91 (6) (2015) 064059. arXiv:1502.06660, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.91.064059

    2015 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Foucart, R

    F. Foucart, R. Haas, M. D. Duez, E. O’Connor, C. D. Ott, L. Roberts, L. E. Kidder, J. Lippuner, H. P. Pfeiffer, M. A. Scheel,Low mass binary neutron star mergers : gravitational waves and neutrino emission, Phys. Rev. D93 (4) (2016) 044019.arXiv:1510.06398, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD...

    2016 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Sekiguchi, K

    Y. Sekiguchi, K. Kiuchi, K. Kyutoku, M. Shibata, K. Taniguchi,Dynamical mass ejection from the merger of asymmetric binary neutron stars: Radiation-hydrodynamics study in general relativity, Phys. Rev. D93 (12) (2016) 124046.arXiv:1603.01918, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.93.124046

    2016 arXiv

  17. [25]

    M. B. Deaton, M. D. Duez, F. Foucart, E. O’Connor, C. D. Ott, L. E. Kidder, C. D. Muhlberger, M. A. Scheel, B. Szilagyi,Black Hole-Neutron Star Mergers with a Hot Nuclear Equation of State: Outflow and Neutrino-Cooled Disk for a Low-Mass, High-Spin Case, Astrophys. J. 776 (2013...

    2013 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Foucart, E

    F. Foucart, E. O’Connor, L. Roberts, M. D. Duez, R. Haas, L. E. Kidder, C. D. Ott, H. P. Pfeiffer, M. A. Scheel, B. Szilagyi,Post-merger evolution of a neutron star-black hole binary with neutrino transport, Phys. Rev. D91 (12) (2015) 124021.arXiv:1502.04146, doi:10.1103/PhysRe...

    2015 arXiv

  19. [27]

    O. L. Caballero, T. Zielinski, G. C. McLaughlin, R. Surman,Black hole spin influence on accretion disk neutrino detection, Phys. Rev. D93 (12) (2016) 123015.arXiv:1510.06011, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.93.123015

    2016 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Adey, et al.,Measurement of the Electron Antineutrino Oscillation with 1958 Days of Operation at Daya Bay, Phys

    D. Adey, et al.,Measurement of the Electron Antineutrino Oscillation with 1958 Days of Operation at Daya Bay, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121 (24) (2018) 241805.arXiv:1809.02261, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.241805

    2018 arXiv

  21. [29]

    G. J. Feldman, R. D. Cousins,A Unified approach to the classical statistical analysis of small signals, Phys. Rev. D57 (1998) 3873–3889.arXiv:physics/9711021, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.57.3873. – 17 –

    1998 arXiv

  22. [30]

    S. S. Wilks,The large-sample distribution of the likelihood ratio for testing composite hypotheses, Ann. Math. Statist. 9 (1) (1938) 60–62.doi:10.1214/aoms/1177732360

    1938

  23. [31]

    Strumia, F

    A. Strumia, F. Vissani,Precise quasielastic neutrino/nucleon cross-section, Phys. Lett. B564 (2003) 42–54.arXiv:astro-ph/0302055, doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(03)00616-6

    2003 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Sekiguchi,Stellar core collapse in full general relativity with microphysics - Formulation and Spherical collapse test -, Prog

    Y. Sekiguchi,Stellar core collapse in full general relativity with microphysics - Formulation and Spherical collapse test -, Prog. Theor. Phys. 124 (2010) 331–379.arXiv:1009.3320, doi:10.1143/PTP.124.331

    2010 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Sekiguchi, K

    Y. Sekiguchi, K. Kiuchi, K. Kyutoku, M. Shibata,Gravitational waves and neutrino emission from the merger of binary neutron stars, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107 (2011) 051102. arXiv:1105.2125, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.107.051102

    2011 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Kiuchi, Y

    K. Kiuchi, Y. Sekiguchi, K. Kyutoku, M. Shibata,Gravitational waves, neutrino emissions, and effects of hyperons in binary neutron star mergers, Class. Quant. Grav. 29 (2012) 124003. arXiv:1206.0509, doi:10.1088/0264-9381/29/12/124003

    2012 arXiv

  27. [35]

    M. T. Keil, G. G. Raffelt, H.-T. Janka,Monte Carlo study of supernova neutrino spectra formation, Astrophys. J. 590 (2003) 971–991.arXiv:astro-ph/0208035, doi:10.1086/375130

    2003 arXiv

  28. [36]

    S. H. Seo, et al.,Spectral Measurement of the Electron Antineutrino Oscillation Amplitude and Frequency using 500 Live Days of RENO Data, Phys. Rev. D98 (1) (2018) 012002. arXiv:1610.04326, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.98.012002. – 18 –

    2018 arXiv

Pith tools

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