Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 minor 71 references

Supernova Detection at SNOLAB

T0 review · 0 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read SNOLAB's two operating detectors, SNO+ and HALO, have complementary flavour sensitivities; with the SNEWS network, the next galactic supernova's neutrino burst can be decomposed by flavour and used to test supernova models.

desk verdict A solid, honest review of SNOLAB's supernova neutrino program; the HALO cross-section caveat is real but disclosed, and the paper deserves a referee. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.12239 v2 pith:5MMQFOLX submitted 2024-12-16 hep-ex astro-ph.HEnucl-ex

Erica Caden , Stephen Sekula , Stanley Yen This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-exastro-ph.HEnucl-ex
keywords core-collapsesupernovaneutrinosneutrinoflavourdecompositionSNO+HALOleadcross-sectionSNEWSpre-supernovawaterCherenkovdetectors
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 the next galactic core-collapse supernova will, for the first time, be caught by several detectors with different neutrino-flavour preferences, and that SNOLAB's two operating detectors play complementary roles in that catch. SNO+, a liquid-scintillator detector, is primarily sensitive to electron antineutrinos through inverse beta decay (an antineutrino converts a proton into a neutron and a positron), while also seeing all flavours through neutral-current proton recoil; HALO, a lead detector, is primarily sensitive to electron neutrinos through charged-current interactions, while also seeing all flavours through neutral-current neutron emission. Together they allow a flavour decomposition of the burst, and SNOLAB's geographic separation from other laboratories helps localize the supernova on the sky through the SNEWS early-warning network. The paper also surveys future SNOLAB projects and notes that HALO's reach depends on a lead-neutrino cross-section that has only one experimental measurement, one that would shrink HALO's horizon considerably if adopted.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is a set of flavour-selective reaction channels in complementary targets. In SNO+'s liquid scintillator, inverse beta decay (an electron antineutrino on a proton gives a prompt positron and a delayed neutron-capture gamma) selects electron antineutrinos, while neutral-current proton recoil and the 15.1 MeV carbon de-excitation respond equally to all flavours. In HALO's lead, charged-current absorption of an electron neutrino excites a bismuth daughter that emits one or two neutrons, selecting electron neutrinos, while neutral-current excitation of lead, about 24% of interactions, responds to all flavours; the ratio of one-neutron to two-neutron events is proposed as a spectral probe. The SNEWS coincidence network, built on multi-detector timing coincidences and the long geographic baselines that SNOLAB extends, turns these channels into a low-false-positive early warning and a sky-localization lever arm.

What would settle it

A neutrino-lead cross-section measurement with smaller statistical uncertainty than COHERENT's, or a galactic supernova at known distance whose neutron multiplicity in HALO is compared with the spectrum SNO+ records, would settle whether HALO's reach is 13.7 kpc or 7.4 kpc.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, this review's central claim is that the next galactic core-collapse supernova will be observed by a worldwide network of detectors with complementary flavour sensitivities, and SNOLAB's SNO+ and HALO are a working example. SNO+ in liquid scintillator mostly registers electron antineutrinos via inverse beta decay, with additional all-flavour sensitivity from neutral-current proton recoil and carbon excitation; HALO in lead mostly registers electron neutrinos via charged-current absorption, with all-flavour sensitivity from neutral-current interactions. Because the two experiments weight different flavour and charge-conjugation channels, their combined data, alongside other laboratories and the SNEWS coincidence system, would give the first flavour-decomposed readout of a core-collapse burst and help localize it. The paper quantifies this with HALO's trigger efficiency (better than 68% within 13.7 kpc, better than 95% within 10 kpc, using the theoretical lead cross-section) and SNO+'s multi-channel burst spectra, and it records the calibration, trigger, and saturation behaviour that make those numbers credible.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that neutrinos interact with lead at the theoretical rate assumed in HALO's sensitivity calculation; the only experiment to measure that rate reported about 29% of it, which would shrink HALO's trigger reach from 13.7 kpc to 7.4 kpc.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A supernova at 10 kpc should trigger HALO with more than 95% efficiency, and SNO+ should record a high-statistics, multi-channel burst; one at 1.4-2.4 kpc could saturate SNO+'s data acquisition.
  • Combined SNO+ and HALO data would give the first flavour-decomposed readout of a galactic supernova, separating electron neutrinos, electron antineutrinos, and other flavours, which tests neutrino oscillations and core-collapse microphysics.
  • SNEWS would send an automated alert soon after the neutrino arrival, giving astronomers early warning and using SNOLAB's location to help narrow the sky position to a few degrees.
  • SNO+'s pre-supernova trigger can warn days ahead for very close (within 300 pc), massive (15-25 solar mass) progenitors.
  • Future projects such as nEXO and instrumented water shields would extend SNOLAB's supernova sensitivity, while PICO-500's final 250 L target reduces its originally projected bubble count.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper leaves implicit that if the experimental lead cross-section is right, HALO's role shifts from a stand-alone distance sentinel to a close-range node in a flavour-comparison network; the 13.7 kpc and 7.4 kpc numbers bracket that uncertainty.
  • The same inventory implies that SNOLAB's four existing water shields, totalling 631,000 L, could be instrumented as a distributed Cherenkov burst detector roughly two-thirds the size of SNO+'s active target, a possibility the paper raises but does not quantify.
  • A galactic supernova within about 10 kpc would provide the decisive in situ test: HALO's first-two-second neutron multiplicity, read against SNO+'s spectrum, would discriminate the theoretical and measured lead cross-sections in a way the paper's parts make possible but do not assemble.
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

0 major / 4 minor

Summary. This review summarizes the supernova-neutrino physics case and the current and planned detector capabilities at SNOLAB. After an introductory overview of core-collapse supernova neutrino emission, it describes the SNOLAB laboratory, then gives separate technical accounts of HALO and SNO+, including detection channels, backgrounds, trigger logic, calibration, and sensitivity estimates. It further discusses PICO-500, nEXO, the possibility of instrumenting ancillary water tanks, and the SNEWS alert network. The paper's central claim is that SNOLAB's detectors provide complementary flavour sensitivity—hydrogenous targets primarily for electron antineutrinos, lead primarily for electron neutrinos—and that a future Galactic supernova will be sampled by this network, together with detectors worldwide, in a way that can discriminate among supernova models.

Significance. The paper is a useful and largely accurate review of a specialized but currently relevant topic. Its main strengths are the detailed, well-referenced descriptions of the two operating SNOLAB detectors and their operational realities (e.g., the HALO background budget and the SNO+ calibration and burst-trigger system), the explicit acknowledgement of important caveats, and the forward-looking discussion of instrumenting additional water volumes. Since the article is a review, it contains no new derivations, data, or code; its value is as a consolidated statement of the current SNOLAB supernova programme and as an argument that even a modest lead detector adds flavour information to a global network. The central claim is plausible and appropriately modest, and the known uncertainties, especially the COHERENT lead cross-section result, are disclosed in the text.

minor comments (4)
  1. [IV.D] The rescaling sentence in Section IV.D should be tightened. The phrase 'the distances would decrease by a factor of 54%' is ambiguous; the intended statement is that the distances fall to 54% of their previous values (a 46% decrease). More substantively, the rescaling assumes that the COHERENT signal strength of 0.29+0.17−0.16 applies uniformly to the supernova energy spectrum, even though COHERENT probes 16–53 MeV and the CCSN spectrum peaks near 10–20 MeV. I recommend adding one sentence stating this energy-independence assumption and, if space permits, quoting the distance range implied by the 1σ band (roughly 0.36–0.68 times the nominal distances). The disclosure in Section IV.B is appreciated, but the quantitative claim in Section IV.D should not appear more precise than the underlying constraint.
  2. [VI.A] Section VI.A contains an internal inconsistency in the PICO-500 target volume: the text first says the detector 'will host a 260 L octafluoropropane target' and later says 'the final detector will use almost a third of that, 250 L,' where 'that' refers to the original 750 L design. Please reconcile these numbers so the reader can tell which volume is current and which was used for the supernova sensitivity estimate.
  3. [Data availability] The data availability statement contains a grammatical error: 'Data generated or analyzed during this study can be are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request' should read '... can be made available ...' or '... are available ...'.
  4. [Various] Several typographical errors should be cleaned up: Section IV.D duplicates the phrase 'instead of instead of'; Section VI.A uses 'CCN' where 'CCSN' is meant; Section III has a stray bracket in 'Eγ > 7.0] MeV'; and the keyword list contains a space before the comma in 'beta decay ,'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the paper is a detector-review summary whose sensitivity numbers are cited from prior work and whose main physics caveat is explicitly disclosed, not hidden in a self-referential loop.

full rationale

This manuscript is a survey of supernova-neutrino detection capabilities at SNOLAB, not a derivation of a new result from first principles. The HALO trigger-distance sensitivities are quoted from calibration/commissioning theses (e.g., Ref. [30]) and from the theoretical lead cross-section of Ref. [37]; the paper then explicitly discloses that the only experimental measurement, COHERENT (Ref. [42]), reports a signal strength of 0.29 ± 0.17 relative to prediction and quotes the reduced distances (7.4 and 5.4 kpc). That is a transparent statement of a model-dependence caveat, not a fitted parameter being renamed as a prediction. The SNO+ sensitivity statements are likewise derived with the SNUGen software using independent Garching supernova models, with calibration and burst-trigger descriptions based on detector studies and theses. There is no equation in the paper that reduces to its own input by construction, no load-bearing self-citation chain, no uniqueness theorem imported from the authors' prior work, and no ansatz smuggled in through citation. The closest thing to a circularity concern would be that HALO's headline reach uses a theoretical cross-section rather than the experimental COHERENT constraint, but the paper itself flags this discrepancy in Section IV.D and does not argue that the theoretical value is forced. A scientific caveat of this kind is a matter of sensitivity projection uncertainty, not circular reasoning. Accordingly, the appropriate finding is no significant circularity, with a score of 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

This is a review paper, so the central claim rests on prior measurements and simulations rather than new analysis. The main assumptions are the validity of theoretical neutrino cross-sections and the supernova model parameters used in sensitivity estimates.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The theoretical lead-neutrino cross-sections of Engel et al. (Ref. [37]) are used for HALO sensitivity estimates.
    Section IV.D uses this cross-section rather than the experimental COHERENT result, which reports a signal strength of 0.29 ± 0.17 relative to prediction. This choice directly affects the quoted trigger distances.
  • domain assumption Supernova neutrino spectra are modeled with average energies 10, 13, and 18 MeV for nu_e, nu_e_bar, and nu_x, and pinching parameter eta=2, as in Ref. [46].
    These parameters, taken from Vaananen and Volpe, enter the HALO and SNO+ sensitivity simulations. They are not derived in this paper.
  • domain assumption The background rates and trigger efficiencies for SNO+ and HALO quoted from theses [30, 51, 52] are accurate.
    The review relies on calibration results and simulations described in unpublished theses, which are not independently verified here.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Supernova Detection at SNOLAB." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5MMQFOLX

@misc{pith2026241212239,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Supernova Detection at SNOLAB},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5MMQFOLX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.12239}
}
read the original abstract

Neutrinos carry most of the energy released by a core-collapse supernova. SNOLAB has two neutrino-capable detectors, SNO+ and HALO, that have complementary neutrino flavour sensitivities. SNOLAB is also host to existing facilities, or plans to host future projects, that can enhance sensitivity to these neutrinos. These detectors, together with others worldwide both in existence and planned, will provide insights to a variety of different models using neutrinos from the next galactic supernova.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.12239 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. A map of the underground complex at SNOLAB. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. A schematic of the HALO experiment, showing the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The energy spectrum observed by HALO during [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. An artist’s depiction of the SNO+ detector, Figure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The simulated raw energy spectrum (electron equiv [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

71 extracted references · 53 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Rozwadowska, F

    K. Rozwadowska, F. Vissani, and E. Cappellaro, New Astron. 83, 101498 (2021), arXiv:2009.03438 [astro- ph.HE]

    arXiv 2021

  2. [2]

    G. A. Tammann, W. Loeffler, and A. Schroder, Astro- phys. J. Suppl. 92, 487 (1994)

    work page 1994

  3. [3]

    C. E. Rolfs and W. S. Rodney, Cauldrons in the Cos- mos: Nuclear Astrophysics(University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 1988)

    work page 1988

  4. [4]

    M. P. Fewell, Am.J.Phys 63, 653–658 (1995)

    work page 1995

  5. [5]

    Reddy, M

    S. Reddy, M. Prakash, and J. M. Lattimer, Phys. Rev. D 58, 013009 (1998), arXiv:astro-ph/9710115

    arXiv 1998

  6. [6]

    C. Shen, U. Lombardo, N. Van Giai, and W. Zuo, Phys. Rev. C 68, 055802 (2003), arXiv:nucl-th/0307101

    work page Pith review arXiv 2003

  7. [7]

    Rrapaj, J

    E. Rrapaj, J. W. Holt, A. Bartl, S. Reddy, and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev. C 91, 035806 (2015), arXiv:1408.3368 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2015

  8. [8]

    Nagakura and D

    H. Nagakura and D. Vartanyan, Monthly No- tices of the Royal Astronomical Society 512, 2806 (2022), https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article- pdf/512/2/2806/43158747/stac383.pdf

    work page 2022

Show all 71 references
  1. [9]

    M. T. Keil, G. G. Raffelt, and H.-T. Janka, Astrophys. J. 590, 971 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0208035

    2003 arXiv

  2. [10]

    G. G. Raffelt, Astrophys. J. 561, 890 (2001), arXiv:astro- ph/0105250

    2001

  3. [11]

    Janka, Ann

    H.-T. Janka, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 62, 407 (2012), arXiv:1206.2503 [astro-ph.SR]

    2012 arXiv

  4. [12]

    G. G. Raffelt, Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl. 221, 218 (2011), arXiv:astro-ph/0701677

    2011 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Neutrino emission from supernovae,

    H.-T. Janka, “Neutrino emission from supernovae,” in Handbook of Supernovae, edited by A. W. Alsabti and P. Murdin (Springer International Publishing, Cham,

  6. [14]

    Suzuki, PTEP 2024, 05B101 (2024)

    H. Suzuki, PTEP 2024, 05B101 (2024)

    2024

  7. [15]

    J.-S. Wang, J. Tseng, S. Gullin, and E. P. O’Connor, Phys. Rev. D 104, 104030 (2021), arXiv:2109.11430 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Gullin, E

    S. Gullin, E. P. O’Connor, J.-S. Wang, and J. Tseng, Astrophys. J. 926, 212 (2022), arXiv:2109.13242 [astro- ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Vartanyan and A

    D. Vartanyan and A. Burrows, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 526, 5900 (2023), arXiv:2307.08735 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Antonioli et al

    P. Antonioli et al. , New J. Phys. 6, 114 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0406214

    2004 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Al Kharusi et al., New Journal of Physics 23, 031201 (2021)

    S. Al Kharusi et al., New Journal of Physics 23, 031201 (2021)

    2021

  12. [20]

    M. V. dos Santos, P. C. de Holanda, P. Dedin Neto, and E. Kemp, Phys. Rev. D 108, 103032 (2023), arXiv:2306.17591 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Borriello, S

    E. Borriello, S. Chakraborty, A. Mirizzi, P. D. Ser- pico, and I. Tamborra, Phys. Rev. D 86, 083004 (2012), arXiv:1207.5049 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  14. [22]

    H. Duan, G. M. Fuller, and Y.-Z. Qian, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 60, 569 (2010), arXiv:1001.2799 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Sasaki, T

    H. Sasaki, T. Takiwaki, S. Kawagoe, S. Horiuchi, and K. Ishidoshiro, Phys. Rev. D 101, 063027 (2020), arXiv:1907.01002 [astro-ph.HE]

    2020 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Duncan, A

    F. Duncan, A. Noble, and D. Sinclair, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science 60, 163 (2010)

    2010

  17. [25]

    SNOLAB, SNOLAB User’s Handbook Rev. 2, Tech. Rep. (SNOLAB, 2006)

    2006

  18. [26]

    SNOLAB, Technical Reference Manual SL-SCI-RES-00- 001-P Rev. 0, Tech. Rep. (SNOLAB, 2016)

    2016

  19. [27]

    Peterson, A

    E. Peterson, A. Aker, J. Kim, Y. Li, K. Brand, and R. Copes, Cancer Causes Control 24, 2013 (2013)

    2013

  20. [28]

    Browne, Preparation for Deployment of the Neutral Current Detectors (NCDs) for the Sudbury Neutrino Ob- servatory, PhD Thesis, North Carolina State University (1999)

    M. Browne, Preparation for Deployment of the Neutral Current Detectors (NCDs) for the Sudbury Neutrino Ob- servatory, PhD Thesis, North Carolina State University (1999)

    1999

  21. [29]

    T. C. Shantz, Design and Construction of the Helium and Lead Observatory for Supernova Neutrinos, MSc Thesis, Laurentian U (2010)

    2010

  22. [30]

    Bruulsema, Calibration and Commissioning of the He- lium And Lead Observatory, MSc Thesis, Laurentian U (2017)

    C. Bruulsema, Calibration and Commissioning of the He- lium And Lead Observatory, MSc Thesis, Laurentian U (2017). 13

    2017

  23. [31]

    J. A. Vasel, Under the Hood: Preparing the Helium and Lead Observatory for Full Operation, PhD Thesis, Uni- versity of Minnesota - Duluth (2014)

    2014

  24. [32]

    R. W. Hill, Extracting the time of core-bounce from core- collapse supernova neutrino signals in current and next- generation neutrino detectors, MSc Thesis, Laurentian U (2023)

    2023

  25. [33]

    J. F. Steljes and H. Carmichael, Atomic Energy of Canada Report No. 939 (1959)

    1959

  26. [34]

    J. F. Amsbaugh et al., Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 579, 1054 (2007), arXiv:0705.3665 [nucl-ex]

    2007 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Caldwell, “ORCA,” http://orca.physics.unc.edu/ orca/Getting_Started/Index.html

    T. Caldwell, “ORCA,” http://orca.physics.unc.edu/ orca/Getting_Started/Index.html

  28. [36]

    Kolbe and K

    E. Kolbe and K. Langanke, Phys. Rev. C 63, 025802 (2001), arXiv:nucl-th/0003060

    2001 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Engel, G

    J. Engel, G. C. McLaughlin, and C. Volpe, Phys. Rev. D 67, 013005 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0209267

    2003 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Lazauskas and C

    R. Lazauskas and C. Volpe, Nucl. Phys. A 792, 219 (2007), arXiv:0704.2724 [nucl-th]

    2007 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Almosly, B

    W. Almosly, B. G. Carlsson, J. Suhonen, J. Toivanen, and E. Ydrefors, Phys. Rev. C 94, 044614 (2016)

    2016

  32. [40]

    Almosly, B

    W. Almosly, B. G. Carlsson, J. Suhonen, and E. Ydrefors, Phys. Rev. C 99, 055801 (2019)

    2019

  33. [41]

    Ejiri, J

    H. Ejiri, J. Suhonen, and K. Zuber, Phys. Rept. 797, 1 (2019)

    2019

  34. [42]

    An et al

    P. An et al. (COHERENT), Phys. Rev. D 108, 072001 (2023), arXiv:2212.11295 [hep-ex]

    2023 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Marley (model of argon reaction low energy yields),

    S. Gardiner, “Marley (model of argon reaction low energy yields),” (2021)

    2021

  36. [44]

    Gardiner, Comput

    S. Gardiner, Comput. Phys. Commun. 269, 108123 (2021), arXiv:2101.11867 [nucl-th]

    2021 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Akimov et al

    D. Akimov et al. (COHER- ENT), Science 357, 1123 (2017), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.aao0990

    2017 doi

  38. [46]

    Vaananen and C

    D. Vaananen and C. Volpe, JCAP 10, 019 (2011), arXiv:1105.6225 [astro-ph.SR]

    2011 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Boger et al

    J. Boger et al. (SNO), Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A449, 172 (2000), arXiv:nucl-ex/9910016 [nucl-ex]

    2000 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Albanese et al

    V. Albanese et al. (SNO+), Journal of Instrumentation 16, P08059 (2021)

    2021

  41. [49]

    H¨ udepohl, B

    L. H¨ udepohl, B. M¨ uller, H. T. Janka, A. Marek, and G. G. Raffelt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 251101 (2010), [Erratum: Phys. Rev. Lett. 105 (2010) 249901], arXiv:0912.0260 [astro-ph.SR]

    2010 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Allega et al

    A. Allega et al. (SNO+), Phys. Rev. D 109, 072002 (2024)

    2024

  43. [51]

    Rumleskie, SNO+ Sensitivities to Pre-supernova and Supernova Neutrinos, Ph.D

    J. Rumleskie, SNO+ Sensitivities to Pre-supernova and Supernova Neutrinos, Ph.D. thesis, Laurentian U. (2021)

    2021

  44. [52]

    Rigan, SNO+ supernova sensitivity during pure scin- tillator phase, Ph.D

    M. Rigan, SNO+ supernova sensitivity during pure scin- tillator phase, Ph.D. thesis, University of Sussex (2021)

    2021

  45. [53]

    Mirizzi et al

    A. Mirizzi et al. , Riv. Nuovo Cim. 39, 1 (2016), arXiv:1508.00785 [astro-ph.HE]

    2016 arXiv

  46. [54]

    B. Von Krosigk, Measurement of proton and α parti- cle quenching in LAB based scintillators and determina- tion of spectral sensitivities to supernova neutrinos in the SNO+ detector, Ph.D. thesis, Dresden, Tech. U., Dept. Math. (2015)

    2015

  47. [55]

    The Garching Core-Collapse Supernova Archive,

    H.-T. Janka, “The Garching Core-Collapse Supernova Archive,” Accessed 2024-11-24

    2024

  48. [56]

    Darrach, The SNO+ supernova calibration source de- velopment and testing, Master’s thesis, Laurentian Uni- versity (2016)

    C. Darrach, The SNO+ supernova calibration source de- velopment and testing, Master’s thesis, Laurentian Uni- versity (2016)

    2016

  49. [57]

    Alves et al

    R. Alves et al. (SNO+), JINST 10, P03002 (2015), arXiv:1411.4830 [physics.ins-det]

    2015 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Wang, Supernova Neutrinos and Measurement of Liquid Scintillator Backgrounds in SNO+, Ph.D

    J.-S. Wang, Supernova Neutrinos and Measurement of Liquid Scintillator Backgrounds in SNO+, Ph.D. thesis, University of Oxford (2022)

    2022

  51. [59]

    Asakura et al

    K. Asakura et al. (KamLAND), Astrophys. J. 818, 91 (2016), arXiv:1506.01175 [astro-ph.HE]

    2016 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Abe et al

    S. Abe et al. (KamLAND, Super-Kamiokande), Astro- phys. J. 973, 140 (2024), arXiv:2404.09920 [hep-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  53. [61]

    A. S. Garc ´ ıa-Viltres and E. V´ azquez-J´ auregui (PICO), Nuovo Cim. C 45, 7 (2021)

    2021

  54. [62]

    Kozynets, S

    T. Kozynets, S. Fallows, and C. B. Krauss, Astropart. Phys. 105, 25 (2019), arXiv:1806.01417 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Hawley Herrera, Light collection as a veto for PICO and SBC dark matter searches, Ph.D

    H. Hawley Herrera, Light collection as a veto for PICO and SBC dark matter searches, Ph.D. thesis, Queen’s U., Kingston (2024)

    2024

  56. [64]

    Adhikari et al.(nEXO), J

    G. Adhikari et al.(nEXO), J. Phys. G 49, 015104 (2022), arXiv:2106.16243 [nucl-ex]

    2022 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Hedges et al.(nEXO), PRD (2024), arXiv:2405.19419 [hep-ph]

    S. Hedges et al.(nEXO), PRD (2024), arXiv:2405.19419 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Al Kharusi, A water Cherenkov muon veto for the nEXO 0νββ experiment, Ph.D

    S. Al Kharusi, A water Cherenkov muon veto for the nEXO 0νββ experiment, Ph.D. thesis, McGill U. (2024)

    2024

  59. [67]

    J. Gava, J. Kneller, C. Volpe, and G. C. McLaughlin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 071101 (2009)

    2009

  60. [68]

    Totani, K

    T. Totani, K. Sato, H. Dalhed, and J. Wilson, The As- trophysical Journal 496, 216 (1998)

    1998

  61. [69]

    Minakata et al., JCAP 12 (2008), 10.1088/1475- 7516/2008/12/006, arXiv:0802.1489 [hep-ph]

    H. Minakata et al., JCAP 12 (2008), 10.1088/1475- 7516/2008/12/006, arXiv:0802.1489 [hep-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Tamborra et al., Phys

    I. Tamborra et al., Phys. Rev. D 86, 125031 (2012), arXiv:1211.3920 [astro-ph.SR]

    2012 arXiv

  63. [71]

    SNOLAB, Reaching New Heights, Deep Underground: 2023-2029 Implementation Plan, Tech. Rep. (SNOLAB, 2024)

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.