Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 99 references

The neutrino luminosity and energy spectrum of nova outburst

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read During a nova's thermonuclear runaway, low-energy neutrinos, mainly from the CNO cycle and photon-neutrino scattering, carry away more energy than light, and the next T CrB eruption is predicted to flare at $2.7\times10^8\,L_{\nu,\odot}$…

desk verdict A solid MESA study of low-energy nova neutrinos with a timely T CrB forecast, but the headline numbers need a sensitivity study before I'd trust them. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.13259 v2 pith:6KF3ZOZR submitted 2025-01-22 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.HEhep-ph

Hao Wang , Chunhua Zhu , Guoliang Lü , Lin Li , Helei Liu , Sufen Guo , Xizhen Lu This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.HEhep-ph
keywords novaoutburstswhitedwarfsneutrinoluminositythermonuclearrunawayTCoronaeBorealisCNOcycleenergyspectrumstellarevolutionmodels
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 claims that at the peak of a nova outburst, during the thermonuclear runaway (TNR), the energy removed by low-energy neutrinos—produced mainly by the CNO cycle and by the photon-neutrino interaction—exceeds the energy radiated as photons. The authors build grids of nova models with white-dwarf masses from 0.6 to 1.3 solar masses, accretion rates from $10^{-10}$ to $10^{-8}$ solar masses per year, core temperatures from $10^7$ to $3\times10^7$ K, and two mixing prescriptions for the accreted material. For the upcoming outburst of the recurrent nova T Coronae Borealis, calibrated by its roughly 80-year recurrence interval, they predict a low-energy nuclear neutrino flare with a peak luminosity of $2.7\times10^8$ in solar neutrino units and an outburst duration of 88 days. If these predictions are right, neutrinos are a dominant energy-loss channel at the peak of nova eruptions, and the approaching T CrB eruption offers a nearby, timing-constrained target for neutrino astronomy.

What carries the argument

The core of the study is a grid of multicycle nova models constructed with a stellar-evolution code, each cycle spanning accretion, thermonuclear runaway, and post-eruption cooling, with white-dwarf masses from 0.6 to 1.3 solar masses, accretion rates from $10^{-10}$ to $10^{-8}$ solar masses per year, core temperatures of $10^7$, $2\times10^7$, and $3\times10^7$ K, and with or without mixing of white-dwarf material into the accreted envelope. Neutrino losses are separated into nuclear channels (weak decays in the pp chain and CNO cycle) and thermal channels (pair annihilation, photon-neutrino, plasma decay, and bremsstrahlung), following the emission rates used in the cited stellar-evolution literature. The evolution of each model is displayed on a neutrino Hertzsprung-Russell diagram, which plots neutrino luminosity against effective temperature and makes the moment where the neutrino-to-photon luminosity ratio crosses unity visually explicit. The T CrB prediction is obtained by selecting the model that reproduces the observed $\sim\!80$-year recurrence interval.

What would settle it

If a future MeV-scale neutrino detector monitors the next T CrB outburst and does not see a low-energy neutrino flare with peak luminosity near $2.7\times10^8\,L_{\nu,\odot}$ and duration near 88 days, the paper's central claim that nuclear neutrinos dominate the energy loss at the nova peak would be falsified. A less direct test would be observing that the next eruption occurs much earlier or later than the model's recurrence prediction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

During the accretion phase that precedes the runaway, the model finds that low-energy neutrinos come mainly from the pp chains and from plasma decay, and the photon luminosity still exceeds the neutrino luminosity. Once thermonuclear runaway begins and the hydrogen-burning layer is heated above roughly $7\times10^7$ K, the neutrino production switches to the CNO cycle (the $\beta$-decays of $^{13}$N, $^{15}$O, $^{17}$F, and $^{18}$F) and to the photon-neutrino interaction, and the low-energy nuclear and thermal neutrino luminosity rises by orders of magnitude while the photon luminosity remains nearly constant. As a result, neutrinos become the dominant energy-loss channel during the TNR. Applying the grid to T CrB, with a $1.3\,M_\odot$ white dwarf and an accretion rate of $1.72\times10^{-8}\,M_\odot\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$ chosen to match the observed 80-year cycle, the model predicts a peak low-energy nuclear neutrino luminosity of $2.7\times10^8\,L_{\nu,\odot}$ and a neutrino outburst duration of 88 days. The accompanying hadronic muon-neutrino flux from the forward shock is predicted to fall below the current IceCube sensitivity.

Load-bearing premise

The T CrB prediction stands on the assumption that the white dwarf mass (1.3 solar masses) and accretion rate ($1.72\times10^{-8}$ solar masses per year) chosen to reproduce the observed roughly 80-year recurrence interval are the true values; if the actual accretion rate is higher, the accumulated fuel and peak burning temperature, and therefore the predicted luminosity and duration, would be smaller.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At the peak of a nova outburst, neutrinos rather than photons carry away most of the energy, so any complete energy budget of the eruption must include the neutrino luminosity.
  • More massive white dwarfs produce shorter recurrence cycles and higher low-energy nuclear neutrino luminosities, making the heaviest CO and ONeMg white dwarfs the most promising targets for low-energy neutrino searches.
  • The next T CrB outburst should be accompanied by a low-energy neutrino peak at $2.7\times10^8\,L_{\nu,\odot}$ lasting about 88 days, a concrete signature that a future MeV-scale neutrino observatory could search for.
  • The hadronic neutrino flux from T CrB's forward shock is predicted to be below IceCube's sensitivity, so a non-detection by IceCube would be consistent with the model rather than evidence against it.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the predicted flare is timed to an expected eruption, successful detection would turn a nova into a known-time neutrino source, useful for testing neutrino propagation and for calibrating the nuclear reaction rates that drive the CNO cycle.
  • The prediction is sensitive to the assumed accretion history; if the actual accretion rate is at the upper end of the observed range ($4\times10^{-8}\,M_\odot\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$), the accumulated fuel would be smaller and the predicted peak luminosity and duration would likely be lower, so the incoming T CrB outburst is effectively a test of its mass-accretion history.
  • The same modeling logic could be applied to other recurrent novae and to white dwarfs approaching the Chandrasekhar limit, where the neutrino luminosity is expected to be even higher, linking neutrino output to the nucleosynthesis yields of novae.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper uses the MESA stellar evolution code to compute low-energy nuclear and thermal neutrino luminosities for nova models with CO white dwarfs of 0.6–1.1 Msun (plus one ONeMg 1.1 Msun model), varying accretion rate, core temperature, and mixing. It reports that during the thermonuclear runaway (TNR) the CNO cycle and photon-neutrino processes dominate, and that the low-energy nuclear and thermal neutrino luminosity far exceeds the surface photon luminosity. For the upcoming eruption of T CrB the paper predicts a low-energy nuclear neutrino peak luminosity of 2.7e8 L_nu,sun and a duration of 88 days, and argues that the high-energy hadronic neutrino flux from T CrB is below the sensitivity of current IceCube.

Significance. If correct, this paper would establish that nuclear neutrinos are a dominant energy-loss channel during nova TNR and would provide a concrete, falsifiable prediction for the next T CrB outburst. The use of a public stellar evolution code with standard reaction rates and Itoh thermal loss rates is a strength, as is the systematic parameter study over white-dwarf mass, accretion rate, core temperature, and mixing. The qualitative ordering of neutrino production mechanisms (pp chains and plasma decay during accretion; CNO cycle and photon-neutrino during TNR) is physically plausible. The main weaknesses are that the headline T CrB numbers rest on a single (MWD, Mdot) point without a sensitivity study, and that the hadronic model validation relies on a chosen cutoff E0 rather than a derived one.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. III C, Fig. 8] The T CrB prediction is anchored to a single model with MWD=1.3 Msun and Mdot=1.72e-8 Msun/yr, selected to reproduce the ~80 yr recurrence. The observational constraints are ranges (MWD=1.2±0.2 Msun; Mdot average 2e-8, maximum 4e-8 Msun/yr), and Figs. 4 and 5 show that the peak low-energy nuclear neutrino luminosity increases with MWD and decreases with Mdot. Because other parameter combinations within the observed ranges can plausibly satisfy the recurrence constraint, the quoted peak luminosity and duration may shift substantially. Please add a sensitivity study (e.g., a grid in MWD and Mdot with the recurrence fixed near 80 yr) and report the resulting range of peak luminosity and duration; also specify the core temperature and mixing prescription used for the T CrB model.
  2. [Sec. III D 2, Fig. 10] The RS Oph hadronic validation uses E0=400 GeV as a fixed input, while for T CrB the proton cutoff E0=330 GeV is derived from the timescale argument in Eq. (16). The paper does not derive E0 for RS Oph with the same method, so the validation does not independently test the model applied to T CrB. Since the predicted IceCube non-observation depends on the assumed E0 and on the 10% acceleration efficiency, please either derive E0 for RS Oph consistently or demonstrate that the T CrB neutrino flux conclusion is insensitive to E0 within a plausible range (e.g., 300–500 GeV).
  3. [Sec. III C, Fig. 8 (left)] The three T CrB bursts shown have peak luminosities of 1.06e8, 2.05e8, and 2.70e8 L_nu,sun, indicating a strong secular increase. The paper does not demonstrate that the model has converged to a periodic state, nor does it discuss why the third burst is the appropriate prediction for the upcoming outburst. Please show a longer evolution or quantify the late-time convergence, and state explicitly how the 'next outburst' is identified in the simulation.
  4. [Sec. III D 1, Eq. (17), Fig. 9] The nuclear neutrino spectrum is assumed to be a supernova-like spectrum with alpha=2.5 and <E>=2 MeV, justified only by the statement that both supernova electron-neutrino bursts and CNO beta decays are beta decays. This is not a sufficient basis: the CNO neutrino emission is a superposition of discrete beta-decay spectra (13N, 15O, 17F, 18F), not a thermal Fermi-Dirac distribution. The predicted electron neutrino flux and the comparison with Super-Kamiokande depend on this assumption. Please provide the neutrino energy distribution from the MESA reaction rates, or at least show that the Super-K non-detection conclusion is robust to plausible choices of <E> (e.g., 1–2.5 MeV) and spectral shape.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. II, Eq. (14)] The text gives kB = 1.380649e-23 J/K, but to obtain B = 0.11 G from Eq. (14) with nRG=9.9e8 cm^-3 and TRG=1000 K, the Boltzmann constant must be in erg/K (1.38e-16). Please correct the units or state the conversion explicitly.
  2. [Sec. II, after Eq. (12)] There is a stray 's' at the end of the expression for tau_acc in the sentence following Eq. (12); this appears to be a typo.
  3. [Sec. III C] The T CrB model description does not specify the core temperature TC or the mixing fraction used in the MESA run, making the setup incomplete given the parameter dependences shown in Figs. 6 and 7.
  4. [Fig. 11] The IceCube upper limit is labeled 'IceCube Preliminary' without a bibliographic reference; please provide the source or the exact data set used.
  5. [Sec. III A, Fig. 2] The paper states that low-energy nuclear and thermal neutrino luminosity far exceeds photon luminosity but gives the peak nuclear neutrino luminosity in L_gamma,sun units; the unit conversion L_nu,sun = 0.02398 L_gamma,sun is only defined in Sec. II and should be repeated where the quantitative comparison is made.
  6. [Data Availability] The data availability statement says the data are not public; given that the models are MESA-based, providing inlists or a repository would improve reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: central neutrino luminosities are MESA outputs with external rates; the T CrB calibration does not fit the predicted neutrino quantities.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained in the relevant sense: the low-energy nuclear and thermal neutrino luminosities are computed by MESA (version 23.05) using standard NACRE/JINA nuclear rates, Chugunov screening, and Itoh et al. thermal-loss rates, with no neutrino observable used as a fitting target. The parameter survey varying MWD, Mdot, TC, and mixing, and the resulting trends, are simulation outputs. For T CrB, the choices MWD=1.3 Msun and Mdot=1.72e-8 Msun/yr are an input calibration chosen to reproduce the observed roughly 80 yr recurrence interval, which is an independent constraint; the predicted 2.7e8 L_nu,⊙ peak and 88-day duration follow from the resulting model light curve. The 88-day figure is simply the model's stated onset/end definition (L>10^4 Lsun and L<10^3 Lsun), not a recovered input. The RS Oph gamma-ray comparison is a validation of the hadronic model against external H.E.S.S./MAGIC data, and the high-energy neutrino conclusion is an output of the Kelner et al. pp formalism with a stated E0. The self-citations present (e.g., refs. [3], [53], [55], [64]) are peripheral: they support conventions such as the TNR threshold, background neutrino losses, general MESA-nova capability, or the mixing treatment, and they are not used in place of an independent derivation of the central result. No quoted equation reduces by construction to an input, and no 'prediction' is a renamed fitted parameter. The sensitivity of the T CrB prediction to the chosen single model point is a legitimate model-uncertainty concern, but it is not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central predictions rest on standard stellar evolution and neutrino physics implemented in MESA, plus several model-calibration assumptions for T CrB and the hadronic emission. No new particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (8)
  • T CrB accretion rate Mdot = 1.72e-8 Msun/yr
    Chosen so the model recurrence interval matches the observed roughly 80-year interval; the text says the average observed rate is about 2e-8, so this is a calibration choice.
  • RS Oph proton cutoff energy E0 = 400 GeV
    Set in Sec III D 2 for the gamma-ray comparison; no derivation is shown, so it may be chosen to match H.E.S.S./MAGIC data.
  • Shock kinetic-to-proton efficiency = 10%
    From Caprioli and Spitkovsky 2014, used to normalize Edens,T CrB; an external calibration constant.
  • Acceleration parameter xi = 2e-4 (=(vsh/c)^2)
    Used in Eq. (12) for the acceleration timescale; the text says xi is less than or equal to (vsh/c)^2, effectively set to that upper bound.
  • Nuclear neutrino spectral shape alpha = 2.5
    Taken from supernova neutrino studies and applied to nova CNO neutrinos.
  • Nuclear neutrino mean energy <E_nu> = 2 MeV
    From solar CNO measurement; determines the low-energy flux scale in Eq. (17).
  • Hadronic proton spectral index alpha = 2.2
    Chosen for the proton distribution J_p(E_p) in Eq. (20); standard but not fitted to T CrB.
  • Accretion mixing fraction = 25% WD + 75% solar
    Model prescription adopted from Denissenkov et al.; affects metallicity and thus CNO neutrino production.
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption MESA stellar evolution equations and input physics accurately model nova accretion and TNR.
    The entire grid relies on MESA 23.05; the authors cite Denissenkov et al. for MESA nova modeling.
  • domain assumption The nuclear reaction network pp-and-cno-extras.net includes all neutrino-producing reactions relevant to novae, with NACRE and JINA REACLIB rates.
    Sec II A; neutrino yield depends on these weak rates.
  • domain assumption Thermal neutrino energy loss rates from Itoh et al. are accurate in the nova temperature and density regime.
    Sec II A, Eqs. (7) through (10); used to compute thermal neutrino luminosity.
  • ad hoc to paper The neutrino spectrum from nova CNO nuclear reactions is similar to supernova neutrino spectra described by Eq. (17) with alpha=2.5 and <E>=2 MeV.
    Sec III D 1 states: 'we think that the neutrino spectrum produced by the nova nuclear reaction is similar to the supernova neutrino spectrum.' This is an assumed spectral model.
  • domain assumption The T CrB forward shock is spherical and the RG wind is spherically symmetric with constant Mdot_RG and vRG.
    Sec II B: 'we assume when the distance between the wind and the nova r is much larger than the semimajor axis... the structure of the wind can be approximately spherical'; radiative cooling is neglected.
  • domain assumption Bohm diffusion with xi=(vsh/c)^2 applies to particle acceleration at the T CrB shock.
    Sec II B, Eqs. (12) and (13), used to derive Ep,max about 330 GeV.
  • domain assumption 10% of shock kinetic energy is transferred to accelerated protons.
    Sec III D 2, from Caprioli and Spitkovsky; normalizes Edens,T CrB.
  • ad hoc to paper The T CrB WD mass is 1.3 Msun and the accretion rate 1.72e-8 Msun/yr reproduces the observed 80-year recurrence.
    Sec III C; MWD is at the high end of the 1.2 plus or minus 0.2 Msun estimate and Mdot is calibrated to the recurrence interval.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The neutrino luminosity and energy spectrum of nova outburst." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6KF3ZOZR

@misc{pith2026250113259,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The neutrino luminosity and energy spectrum of nova outburst},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6KF3ZOZR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.13259}
}
abstract

The nova outburst can produce a large number of neutrinos, whether it is the nuclear reaction process during the explosion or the shock wave acceleration proton process. We study the low-energy nuclear and thermal neutrino luminosity of novae with CO white dwarf (WD) mass ranging from 0.6 to 1.1 $\rm M_{\odot}$ with different accretion rates $\dot{M}$, core temperatures $(T_{\mathrm{C}})$, and mixing degrees. We find that during the accretion phase, low-energy neutrinos are mainly produced by pp chains and plasma decay, and photon luminosity is greater than low-energy nuclear and thermal neutrino luminosity. During the thermonuclear runaway (TNR) phase, low-energy neutrinos are mainly produced by the CNO cycle and photon-neutrino, and the low-energy nuclear and thermal neutrino luminosity far exceeds the photon luminosity. We find that the more massive the WD, the shorter the cycle time and the higher the low-energy nuclear neutrino luminosity. The higher the accretion rate, the lower the low-energy nuclear neutrino luminosity. If the accretion mixing effect is not taken into account, the outburst interval becomes longer, the low-energy nuclear neutrino luminosity will be increased. And for the cooler nova model $(T_{\mathrm{C}}=1\times10^{7}\rm K)$, the low-energy nuclear neutrino luminosity will be lower during the accretion phase and higher at the TNR. We also predict the neutrino luminosity and energy spectrum of the upcoming recurrent nova T Coronae Borealis (T CrB). We estimate that the next T CrB outburst has a low-energy nuclear neutrino peak luminosity of $2.7\times10^{8}\ \rm L_{\nu,\odot}$ and a low-energy nuclear neutrino outburst duration of 88 days. In addition, we predict that the high-energy hadronic neutrino flux produced by T CrB nova can not be observed by the current-generation IceCube.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.13259 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The track in the H-R diagram and neutrino H-R diagram for the whole nova multicycle evolution. The left is 0.9 M [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The low-energy neutrino luminosity produced by the nuclear reaction and thermal processes (left). The colorful solid [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The nuclear reactions rates of the nine neutrinos producing nuclear reactions in the pp chain and the CNO cycle during [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Neutrino luminosity curves with different CO nova [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Neutrino luminosity curves with different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Neutrino luminosity curves with different mixing. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. The neutrino luminosity (left) and photon luminosity (right) curves of T CrB nova. Left: the first two bursts of the T [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. The estimated total electron neutrino flux reaching [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. The estimated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

99 extracted references · 80 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Nuclear reaction Consider that the scene of the nova outburst is similar to that of supernovae explosion. The CNO cycle that dominates nova outbursts and the fast electron-neutrino bursts (p + e− − →n + ve) in supernovae are both β de- cay, so we think that the neutrino spectrum produced by the nova nuclear reaction is similar to the supernova neu- trino ...

  2. [2]

    The flux of muon neutrinos reaching Earth from the T CrB is calculated using the semiana- lytical formulation developed in Kelner et al

    Shock speed Protons accelerated by the shock of the nova interact with ambient particles in the RG wind can produce high- energy neutrinos. The flux of muon neutrinos reaching Earth from the T CrB is calculated using the semiana- lytical formulation developed in Kelner et al. [94], Φν (Eν) = cnRG 4πD2 TE Z 1 0 σinel (Eν/x) Jp (Eν/x) Fν (x, Eν/x) dx x , (1...

  3. [3]

    Pandey, Recent progress in low energy neutrino scat- tering physics and its implications for the standard and beyond the standard model physics, Progr

    V. Pandey, Recent progress in low energy neutrino scat- tering physics and its implications for the standard and beyond the standard model physics, Progr. Part. Nucl. Phys. 134, 104078 (2024)

    2024

  4. [4]

    Catelan, J

    M. Catelan, J. A. de Freitas Pacheco, and J. E. Horvath, The helium-core mass at the helium flash in low-mass red giant stars: Observations and theory, Astrophys. J. 461, 231 (1996)

    1996

  5. [5]

    Y. Shi, X. Xue, C.-H. Zhu, Z.-J. Wang, H.-L. Liu, L. Li, and G.-L. L¨ u, Neutrino luminosity of stars with different masses, Res. Astron. Astrophys 20, 005 (2020)

    2020

  6. [6]

    Fontaine, P

    G. Fontaine, P. Brassard, and P. Bergeron, The potential of white dwarf cosmochronology, Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac. 113, 409 (2001)

    2001

  7. [7]

    S. E. Woosley, A. Heger, and T. A. Weaver, The evolution and explosion of massive stars, Rev. Mod. Phys. 74, 1015 (2002)

    2002

  8. [8]

    Janka, Neutrino-driven explosions, in Handbook of Supernovae, edited by A

    H.-T. Janka, Neutrino-driven explosions, in Handbook of Supernovae, edited by A. W. Alsabti and P. Murdin (Springer, Berlin, 2017) p. 1095

    2017

Show all 99 references
  1. [9]

    Nomoto and S

    K. Nomoto and S. Tsuruta, Cooling of young neutron stars and Einstein X-ray observartions, Astrophys. J. Lett. 250, L19 (1981)

    1981

  2. [10]

    M. H. Reno, High-energy to ultrahigh-energy neutrino interactions, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 73, 181 (2023)

    2023

  3. [11]

    S. R. Klein, Probing high-energy interactions of atmo- spheric and astrophysical neutrinos, in Probing Particle Physics with Neutrino Telescopes(World Scientific, Sin- gapore, 2020)

    2020

  4. [12]

    Song, On the “Loose” constraint from IceCube neutrino nondetection of GRB 230307A, Astrophys

    X.-Y. Song, On the “Loose” constraint from IceCube neutrino nondetection of GRB 230307A, Astrophys. J. 958, 133 (2023)

    2023

  5. [13]

    Popov and A

    A. Popov and A. Studenikin, High-energy neutrinos flavour composition as a probe of neutrino magnetic mo- ments (2024), arXiv:2404.02027

    2024 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Sahakyan, G

    N. Sahakyan, G. Piano, and M. Tavani, Hadronic gamma-ray and neutrino emission from Cygnus X-3, As- trophys. J. 780, 29 (2014)

    2014

  7. [15]

    Fukuda, Y

    S. Fukuda, Y. Fukuda, T. Hayakawa, E. Ichihara, M. Ishitsuka, Y. Itow, et al., The Super-Kamiokande de- tector, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. Sect. A 501, 418 (2003)

    2003

  8. [16]

    K. Abe, Y. Haga, Y. Hayato, M. Ikeda, K. Iyogi, et al., Solar neutrino measurements in Super-Kamiokande-IV, Phys. Rev. D 94, 052010 (2016)

    2016

  9. [17]

    M. Mori, K. Abe, Y. Hayato, K. Hiraide, K. Ieki, et al., Searching for supernova bursts in Super-Kamiokande IV, Astrophys. J. 938, 35 (2022)

    2022

  10. [18]

    Achterberg, M

    A. Achterberg, M. Ackermann, J. Adams, J. Ahrens, et al. (IceCube Collaboration), First year performance of the IceCube neutrino telescope, Astropart. Phys. 26, 155 (2006)

    2006

  11. [19]

    IceCube, MAGIC, AGILE, ASAS-SN, HA WC, HESS, IN- TEGRAL, Kanata, Kiso, and Kapteyn Collaborations, Multimessenger observations of a flaring blazar coinci- dent with high-energy neutrino icecube-170922a, Science 361, eaat1378 (2018)

    2018

  12. [20]

    Tavecchio, High-energy neutrinos from blazars, in AGN13: Beauty and the Beast (2018), Vol

    F. Tavecchio, High-energy neutrinos from blazars, in AGN13: Beauty and the Beast (2018), Vol. 13, p. 19

    2018

  13. [21]

    Oikonomou, K

    F. Oikonomou, K. Murase, and M. Petropoulou, High- energy neutrinos from blazar flares and implications of TXS 0506+056, Eur. Phys. J. Web of Conf. 210, 03006 (2019)

    2019

  14. [22]

    G. Cao, X. Geng, J. Wang, and X. Yang, Progress in multi-messenger observations and emission models of blazars, New Astron. Rev. 98, 101693 (2024)

    2024

  15. [23]

    Biehl, D

    D. Biehl, D. Boncioli, A. Fedynitch, and W. Winter, Cos- mic ray and neutrino emission from gamma-ray bursts with a nuclear cascade, Astron. Astrophys. 611, A101 (2018)

    2018

  16. [24]

    Ma and K

    Z.-P. Ma and K. Wang, High-energy neutrinos from out- flows powered by kicked remnants of binary black hole mergers in AGN accretion disks, Astrophys. J. 970, 127 (2024)

    2024

  17. [25]

    van Velzen et al., Establishing accretion flares from supermassive black holes as a source of high-energy neu- 12 trinos, Mon

    S. van Velzen et al., Establishing accretion flares from supermassive black holes as a source of high-energy neu- 12 trinos, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 529, 2559 (2024)

    2024

  18. [26]

    Kurahashi, K

    N. Kurahashi, K. Murase, and M. Santander, High- energy extragalactic neutrino astrophysics, Annu. Rev. of Nucl. Part. Sci. 72, 365 (2022)

    2022

  19. [27]

    Winter and C

    W. Winter and C. Lunardini, A concordance scenario for the observed neutrino from a tidal disruption event, Nat. Astron. 5, 472 (2021)

    2021

  20. [28]

    Razzaque, P

    S. Razzaque, P. Jean, and O. Mena, High energy neutri- nos from novae in symbiotic binaries: The case of V407 Cygni, Phys. Rev. D 82, 123012 (2010)

    2010

  21. [29]

    Warner, Cataclysmic Variable Stars (1995), Vol

    B. Warner, Cataclysmic Variable Stars (1995), Vol. 28 (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge)

    1995

  22. [30]

    Hernanz, Classical nova explosions, ASP Conf

    M. Hernanz, Classical nova explosions, ASP Conf. Ser. 330, 265 (2005)

    2005

  23. [31]

    Gomez-Gomar, M

    J. Gomez-Gomar, M. Hernanz, J. Jose, and J. Isern, Gamma-ray emission from individual classical novae, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 296, 913 (1998)

    1998

  24. [32]

    Hellier, Cataclysmic Variable Stars (2001)(Springer, Berlin)

    C. Hellier, Cataclysmic Variable Stars (2001)(Springer, Berlin)

    2001

  25. [33]

    Knigge, I

    C. Knigge, I. Baraffe, and J. Patterson, The evolution of cataclysmic variables as revealed by their donor stars, Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. 194, 28 (2011)

    2011

  26. [34]

    B. D. Metzger, T. Finzell, I. Vurm, R. Hasco¨ et, A. M. Be- loborodov, and L. Chomiuk, Gamma-ray novae as probes of relativistic particle acceleration at non-relativistic shocks, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 450, 2739 (2015)

    2015

  27. [35]

    G. L¨ u, C. Zhu, Z. Wang, W. Huo, and Y. Yang, Gamma- ray sources like V407 Cygni in symbiotic stars, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 413, L11 (2011)

    2011

  28. [36]

    Martin and G

    P. Martin and G. Dubus, Particle acceleration and non- thermal emission during the V407 Cygni nova outburst, Astron. Astrophys. 551, A37 (2013)

    2013

  29. [37]

    Ackermann, M

    M. Ackermann, M. Ajello, A. Albert, L. Baldini, J. Bal- let, et al., Fermi establishes classical novae as a distinct class of gamma-ray sources, Science 345, 554 (2014)

    2014

  30. [38]

    C. C. Cheung, P. Jean, S. N. Shore, L. Stawarz, R. H. D. Corbet, J. Kn¨ odlseder, S. Starrfield, D. L. Wood, R. De- siante, F. Longo, G. Pivato, and K. S. Wood, Fermi-LAT gamma-ray detections of classical novae V1369 centauri 2013 and V5668 Sagittarii 2015, Astrophys. J. 826, ...

    2016

  31. [39]

    Franckowiak, P

    A. Franckowiak, P. Jean, M. Wood, C. C. Cheung, and S. Buson, Search for gamma-ray emission from Galac- tic novae with the Fermi -LAT, Astron. Astrophys. 609, A120 (2018)

    2018

  32. [40]

    Abbasi, M

    R. Abbasi, M. Ackermann, J. Adams, J. A. Aguilar, M. Ahlers, et al., Searches for neutrinos from gamma-ray bursts using the IceCube Neutrino Observatory, Astro- phys. J. 939, 116 (2022)

    2022

  33. [41]

    V. A. Acciari, S. Ansoldi, L. A. Antonelli, A. Arbet En- gels, M. Artero, et al., Proton acceleration in thermonu- clear nova explosions revealed by gamma rays, Nat. As- tron. 6, 689 (2022)

    2022

  34. [42]

    De Sarkar, A

    A. De Sarkar, A. J. Nayana, N. Roy, S. Razzaque, and G. C. Anupama, Lepto-hadronic Interpretation of 2021 RS Ophiuchi nova outburst, Astrophys. J. 951, 62 (2023)

    2023

  35. [43]

    I lkiewicz, J

    K. I lkiewicz, J. Miko lajewska, and K. A. Stoyanov, Sym- biotic star T CrB as an extreme SU UMa-type dwarf nova, Astrophys. J. Lett. 953, L7 (2023)

    2023

  36. [44]

    Kato, Theoretical light curve for the recurrent nova RS Ophiuchi—determination of the white dwarf mass, composition, and distance, Astrophys

    M. Kato, Theoretical light curve for the recurrent nova RS Ophiuchi—determination of the white dwarf mass, composition, and distance, Astrophys. J. 369, 471 (1991)

    1991

  37. [45]

    Zamanov, S

    R. Zamanov, S. Boeva, G. Y. Latev, E. Semkov, M. Minev, A. Kostov, M. F. Bode, V. Marchev, and D. Marchev, Accretion in the recurrent nova T CrB: Linking the superactive state to the predicted outburst, Astron. Astrophys. 680, L18 (2023)

    2023

  38. [46]

    B. E. Schaefer, The recurrent nova t crb had prior erup- tions observed near december 1787 and october 1217 ad (2023), arXiv:2308.13668

    2023 arXiv

  39. [47]

    N. A. Maslennikova, A. M. Tatarnikov, A. A. Tatarnikova, A. V. Dodin, V. I. Shenavrin, M. A. Burlak, S. G. Zheltoukhov, and I. A. Strakhov, Recurrent sym- biotic nova T coronae borealis before outburst, Astron. Lett. 49, 501 (2023)

    2023

  40. [48]

    Paxton, L

    B. Paxton, L. Bildsten, A. Dotter, F. Herwig, P. Lesaf- fre, and F. Timmes, Modules for experiments in stellar astrophysics (MESA), Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. 192, 3 (2011)

    2011

  41. [49]

    Paxton, M

    B. Paxton, M. Cantiello, P. Arras, L. Bildsten, E. F. Brown, A. Dotter, C. Mankovich, M. H. Montgomery, D. Stello, F. X. Timmes, and R. Townsend, Modules for experiments in stellar astrophysics (MESA): Planets, oscillations, rotation, and massive stars, Astrophys. J. Suppl. Se...

    2013

  42. [50]

    Paxton, P

    B. Paxton, P. Marchant, J. Schwab, E. B. Bauer, L. Bild- sten, M. Cantiello, L. Dessart, R. Farmer, H. Hu, N. Langer, R. H. D. Townsend, D. M. Townsley, and F. X. Timmes, Modules for experiments in stellar as- trophysics (MESA): Binaries, pulsations, and explosions, Astrophys....

    2015

  43. [51]

    Paxton, J

    B. Paxton, J. Schwab, E. B. Bauer, L. Bildsten, S. Blinnikov, P. Duffell, R. Farmer, J. A. Goldberg, P. Marchant, E. Sorokina, A. Thoul, R. H. D. Townsend, and F. X. Timmes, Modules for experiments in stellar as- trophysics (MESA): Convective boundaries, element dif- fusion, a...

    2018

  44. [52]

    Paxton, Modules for experiments in stellar astrophysics (mesa), Astrophys

    B. Paxton, Modules for experiments in stellar astrophysics (mesa), Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2665077 (2019)

    2019 doi

  45. [53]

    A. S. Jermyn et al., Modules for experiments in stellar as- trophysics (MESA): Time-dependent convection, energy conservation, automatic differentiation, and infrastruc- ture, Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. 265, 15 (2023)

    2023

  46. [54]

    P. A. Denissenkov, F. Herwig, L. Bildsten, and B. Pax- ton, MESA models of classical nova outbursts: The mul- ticycle evolution and effects of convective boundary mix- ing, Astrophys. J. 762, 8 (2013)

    2013

  47. [55]

    C. Zhu, H. Liu, Z. Wang, and G. L¨ u, Formation, diffu- sion, and accreting pollution of DB white dwarfs, Astron. Astrophys. 654, A57 (2021)

    2021

  48. [56]

    G. L¨ u, C. Zhu, Z. Wang, H. Liu, L. Li, D. Xie, and J. Liu, Possible formation scenarios of ZTF J153932.16+502738.8—A gravitational source close to the peak of LISA’s sensitivity, Astrophys. J. 890, 69 (2020)

    2020

  49. [57]

    J. Gao, C. Zhu, G. L¨ u, J. Yu, L. Li, H. Liu, and S. Guo, Novae: An important source of lithium in the galaxy, Astrophys. J. 971, 4 (2024)

    2024

  50. [58]

    C. A. Iglesias and F. J. Rogers, Updated opal opacities, Astrophys. J. 464, 943 (1996)

    1996

  51. [59]

    M. M. Shara, D. Prialnik, and G. Shaviv, What deter- mines the speed class of novae ?, Astrophys. J. 239, 586 (1980). 13

    1980

  52. [60]

    Prialnik and A

    D. Prialnik and A. Kovetz, An extended grid of multicy- cle nova evolution models, Astrophys. J.445, 789 (1995)

    1995

  53. [61]

    Starrfield, M

    S. Starrfield, M. Bose, C. Iliadis, W. R. Hix, C. E. Wood- ward, and R. M. Wagner, Carbon-oxygen classical novae are galactic 7Li producers as well as potential supernova Ia progenitors, Astrophys. J. 895, 70 (2020)

    2020

  54. [62]

    Prialnik, M

    D. Prialnik, M. Livio, G. Shaviv, and A. Kovetz, On the role of the accretion rate in nova outbursts, Astrophys. J. 257, 312 (1982)

    1982

  55. [63]

    Schwartzman, A

    E. Schwartzman, A. Kovetz, and D. Prialnik, The effect of the white dwarf temperature on nova outburst char- acteristics., Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 269, 323 (1994)

    1994

  56. [64]

    Patterson, The evolution of cataclysmic and low-mass X-ray binaries, Astrophys

    J. Patterson, The evolution of cataclysmic and low-mass X-ray binaries, Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. 54, 443 (1984)

    1984

  57. [65]

    Starrfield, C

    S. Starrfield, C. Iliadis, and W. R. Hix, The thermonu- clear runaway and the classical nova outburst, Publ. As- tron. Soc. Pac. 128, 051001 (2016)

    2016

  58. [66]

    Rukeya, G

    R. Rukeya, G. L¨ u, Z. Wang, and C. Zhu, Novae contribu- tion to the galactic lithium enhancement, Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac. 129, 074201 (2017)

    2017

  59. [67]

    Lodders, H

    K. Lodders, H. Palme, and H. P. Gail, Abundances of the elements in the solar system, Landolt-B¨ ornstein4B, 712 (2009)

    2009

  60. [68]

    P. A. Denissenkov, J. W. Truran, M. Pignatari, R. Trap- pitsch, C. Ritter, F. Herwig, U. Battino, K. Setoodehnia, and B. Paxton, MESA and NuGrid simulations of classi- cal novae: CO and ONe nova nucleosynthesis, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 442, 2058 (2014)

    2014

  61. [69]

    Farag, F

    E. Farag, F. X. Timmes, M. Taylor, K. M. Patton, and R. Farmer, On stellar evolution in a neutrino Hertzsprung-Russell diagram, Astrophys. J. 893, 133 (2020)

    2020

  62. [70]

    C. Kato, K. Ishidoshiro, and T. Yoshida, Theoretical pre- diction of presupernova neutrinos and their detection, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 70, 121 (2020)

    2020

  63. [71]

    N. Itoh, H. Hayashi, A. Nishikawa, and Y. Kohyama, Neutrino energy loss in stellar interiors. VII. Pair, photo- , plasma, bremsstrahlung, and recombination neutrino processes, Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. 102, 411 (1996)

    1996

  64. [72]

    Angulo et al., A compilation of charged-particle in- duced thermonuclear reaction rates, Nucl

    C. Angulo et al., A compilation of charged-particle in- duced thermonuclear reaction rates, Nucl. Phys. AA656, 3 (1999)

    1999

  65. [73]

    R. H. Cyburt, A. M. Amthor, R. Ferguson, Z. Meisel, K. Smith, S. Warren, A. Heger, R. D. Hoffman, T. Rauscher, A. Sakharuk, H. Schatz, F. K. Thielemann, and M. Wiescher, The JINA REACLIB database: Its recent updates and impact on type-I X-ray bursts, As- trophys. J. Suppl. Ser...

    2010

  66. [74]

    A. I. Chugunov, H. E. Dewitt, and D. G. Yakovlev, Coulomb tunneling for fusion reactions in dense matter: Path integral MonteCarlo versus mean field, Phys. Rev. D 76, 025028 (2007)

    2007

  67. [75]

    Langanke and G

    K. Langanke and G. Mart ´ ınez-Pinedo, Shell-model cal- culations of stellar weak interaction rates: II. Weak rates for nuclei in the mass range /A=45-65 in supernovae en- vironments, Nucl. Phys. A673, 481 (2000)

    2000

  68. [76]

    T. Oda, M. Hino, K. Muto, M. Takahara, and K. Sato, Rate tables for the weak processes of sd-shell nuclei in stellar matter, At. Data Nucl. Data Tables 56, 231 (1994)

    1994

  69. [77]

    G. M. Fuller, W. A. Fowler, and M. J. Newman, Stel- lar weak interaction rates for intermediate-mass nuclei. IV - Interpolation procedures for rapidly varying lepton capture rates using effective log (ft)-values, Astrophys. J. 293, 1 (1985)

    1985

  70. [78]

    Evans, Y

    A. Evans, Y. V. Pavlenko, D. P. K. Banerjee, U. Munari, R. D. Gehrz, C. E. Woodward, S. Starrfield, L. A. Helton, M. Shahbandeh, S. Davis, S. Dallaporta, and G. Cherini, Gas phase SiO in the circumstellar environment of the recurrent nova T coronae borealis, Mon. Not. R. Astro...

    2019

  71. [79]

    Zheng, Y.-Y

    J.-H. Zheng, Y.-Y. Huang, Z.-L. Zhang, H.-M. Zhang, R.- Y. Liu, and X.-Y. Wang, Interpretation of the light curve of gamma-ray emission from the 2021 outburst of the recurrent nova RS Ophiuchi, Phys. Rev. D 106, 103011 (2022)

    2022

  72. [80]

    Aharonian, F

    F. Aharonian, F. Ait Benkhali, E. O. Ang¨ uner, H. Ashkar, M. Backes, et al., Time-resolved hadronic particle acceleration in the recurrent nova RS Ophiuchi, Science 376, 77 (2022)

    2022

  73. [81]

    Zheng, R.-Y

    J.-H. Zheng, R.-Y. Liu, M. Zha, and X.-Y. Wang, Prob- ing the nova shock physics with future gamma-ray obser- vations of the upcoming outburst from T coronae bore- alis, J. High Energy Astrophys. 43, 171 (2024)

    2024

  74. [82]

    Y. V. Pavlenko, A. Evans, D. P. K. Banerjee, T. R. Geballe, U. Munari, R. D. Gehrz, C. E. Woodward, and S. Starrfield, Isotopic ratios in the red giant component of the recurrent nova T coronae borealis, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 498, 4853 (2020)

    2020

  75. [83]

    A. S. Ferrarotti and H. P. Gail, Composition and quanti- ties of dust produced by AGB-stars and returned to the interstellar medium, Astron. Astrophys. 447, 553 (2006)

    2006

  76. [84]

    Bednarek and J

    W. Bednarek and J. Pabich, High-energy radiation from the massive binary system Eta Carinae, Astron. Astro- phys. 530, A49 (2011)

    2011

  77. [85]

    Marcowith, V

    A. Marcowith, V. V. Dwarkadas, M. Renaud, V. Tatis- cheff, and G. Giacinti, Core-collapse supernovae as cos- mic ray sources, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 479, 4470 (2018)

    2018

  78. [86]

    Chomiuk, M

    L. Chomiuk, M. I. Krauss, M. P. Rupen, T. Nelson, N. Roy, J. L. Sokoloski, K. Mukai, U. Munari, A. Mio- duszewski, J. Weston, T. J. O’Brien, S. P. S. Eyres, and M. F. Bode, The radio light curve of the gamma-ray nova in V407 CYG: Thermal emission from the ionized sym- biotic e...

    2012

  79. [87]

    Stanishev, R

    V. Stanishev, R. Zamanov, N. Tomov, and P. Marziani, Hα variability of the recurrent nova T coronae borealis, Astron. Astrophys. 415, 609 (2004)

    2004

  80. [88]

    Diesing, B

    R. Diesing, B. D. Metzger, E. Aydi, L. Chomiuk, I. Vurm, S. Gupta, and D. Caprioli, Evidence for multiple shocks from the γ-ray emission of RS Ophiuchi, Astrophys. J. 947, 70 (2023)

    2023

  81. [89]

    Caprioli, Particle acceleration at shocks: An introduc- tion, Proc

    D. Caprioli, Particle acceleration at shocks: An introduc- tion, Proc. Int. Sch. Phys. Fermi 208, 143 (2024)

    2024

  82. [90]

    Caprioli, H

    D. Caprioli, H. Kang, A. E. Vladimirov, and T. W. Jones, Comparison of different methods for non-linear diffusive shock acceleration, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 407, 1773 (2010)

    2010

  83. [91]

    Starrfield, J

    S. Starrfield, J. W. Truran, M. C. Wiescher, and W. M. Sparks, Evolutionary sequences for nova V1974 Cygni us- ing new nuclear reaction rates and opacities, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 296, 502 (1998)

    1998

  84. [92]

    A. L. Baxter et al. (SNEWS Collaboration), SNEWPY: A data pipeline from supernova simulations to neutrino signals, Astrophys. J. 925, 107 (2022)

    2022

  85. [93]

    Agostini, K

    M. Agostini, K. Altenm¨ uller, S. Appel, V. Atroshchenko, Z. Bagdasarian, D. Basilico, et al. (Borexino Collabora- 14 tion), Experimental evidence of neutrinos produced in the CNO fusion cycle in the Sun, Nature (London) 587, 577 (2020)

    2020

  86. [94]

    M. T. Keil, G. G. Raffelt, and H.-T. Janka, Monte Carlo study of supernova neutrino spectra formation, Astro- phys. J. 590, 971 (2003)

    2003

  87. [95]

    Suzuki, The Super-Kamiokande experiment, Eur

    Y. Suzuki, The Super-Kamiokande experiment, Eur. Phys. J. C 79, 298 (2019)

    2019

  88. [96]

    S. R. Kelner, F. A. Aharonian, and V. V. Bugayov, En- ergy spectra of gamma rays, electrons, and neutrinos pro- duced at proton-proton interactions in the very high en- ergy regime, Phys. Rev. D 74, 034018 (2006)

    2006

  89. [97]

    Caprioli and A

    D. Caprioli and A. Spitkovsky, Simulations of Ion acceler- ation at non-relativistic shocks. I. Acceleration efficiency, Astrophys. J. 783, 91 (2014)

    2014

  90. [98]

    Gagliardini, A

    S. Gagliardini, A. Langella, D. Guetta, and A. Capone, Neutrino fluxes from different classes of galactic sources, Astrophys. J. 969, 161 (2024)

    2024

  91. [99]

    Pizzuto, J

    A. Pizzuto, J. Vandenbroucke, and M. Santander (Ice- Cube Collaboration), Nova RS Oph: Upper limits from a search for coincident neutrinos with IceCube, Astron. Telegram 14851, 1 (2021)

    2021

Pith tools

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