Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 4 cited by

Cooling the Shock: New Supernova Constraints on Dark Photons

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Resonant dark-photon production in a supernova's gain layer can quench the neutrino-driven shock revival, setting new constraints stronger than the classic SN1987A cooling bound.

desk verdict A genuinely new supernova bound on dark photons from gain-layer resonant cooling, with an honest but load-bearing ad hoc explosion-failure threshold; worth refereeing carefully. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.01731 v2 pith:KMMDCJCU submitted 2025-02-03 hep-ph astro-ph.HE

Andrea Caputo , Hans-Thomas Janka , Georg Raffelt , Seokhoon Yun This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phastro-ph.HE
keywords darkphotonscore-collapsesupernovaeshockrevivalgainlayerSN1987Aresonantproductionneutrinoheatingexoticenergyloss
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 dark photons—hypothetical particles that mix kinetically with ordinary photons—can be produced resonantly in the gain layer of a core-collapse supernova, the same region where neutrino heating is supposed to re-energize the stalled shock wave. If this dark-photon cooling removes a sufficient fraction of the net neutrino energy deposited there, the explosion fails. The authors compute this effect in several supernova models and show that it excludes a large region of dark-photon mass–mixing parameter space, superseding the traditional SN1987A cooling bound for masses of 0.1–0.4 MeV and extending down to roughly 0.01 MeV for electron-capture supernovae. For couplings small enough that explosions survive, the dark-photon cooling is too weak to alter the observable neutrino signal, so the new argument is self-consistent.

What carries the argument

The central object is resonant photon–dark-photon conversion: when the dark-photon mass $m_{\gamma'}$ equals the photon plasma mass $\omega_{\rm pl}$ in a medium, production of transverse dark photons is resonantly enhanced. The gain layer is the region between the gain radius, where neutrino heating overtakes neutrino cooling, and the stalled shock; the paper shows that for $m_{\gamma'} \approx 0.1$–$0.4$ MeV the resonance falls inside this layer, so dark photons drain the very energy that would otherwise revive the shock. The quantitative criterion is the ratio $\xi_{\gamma'/\nu}$ of integrated dark-photon cooling to integrated net neutrino heating in the gain layer, with explosion failure predicted above $\xi \approx 0.2$ (or 0.5 for the electron-capture model). The production rate is evaluated from the standard dark-photon emissivity with nucleon bremsstrahlung as the dominant channel inside the proto-neutron star and Compton-like scattering outside it.

What would settle it

A self-consistent three-dimensional supernova simulation that includes resonant dark-photon production with parameters above the paper's explosion-failure line (for example $m_{\gamma'} = 0.3$ MeV and $\epsilon \approx 10^{-8}$) and still yields a successful explosion would refute the central claim; reproducing explosions only for parameters below the line would confirm it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For transverse dark photons whose mass matches the local photon plasma mass in the gain layer, resonant $\gamma \leftrightarrow \gamma'$ oscillations make dark-photon emission peak sharply in the layer between the gain radius and the stalled shock, rather than in the hot proto-neutron-star core. The paper integrates this gain-layer dark-photon cooling over the shock-stagnation phase (roughly 70 ms to 0.4 s after bounce) and compares it with the net neutrino energy deposition in the same volume. When the integrated dark-photon cooling reaches a fraction $\xi = 0.2$ (taken as 0.5 for a low-mass electron-capture model) of the net neutrino heating, the shock cannot be revived, so no explosion occurs; this defines a new excluded region of the dark-photon mass and kinetic-mixing parameter plane. Along the exclusion boundary, dark-photon emission from the proto-neutron-star core remains negligible, so the explosion-failure constraint is self-consistent and more restrictive than the traditional cooling bound, and below the boundary the neutrino signal is essentially unchanged.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes that a dark-photon cooling power equal to 20% (or 50% for the electron-capture model) of the net neutrino heating in the gain layer is enough to prevent shock revival; the paper states this threshold is 'somewhat arbitrary' and can only be pinned down by self-consistent three-dimensional simulations.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The traditional SN1987A cooling bound is superseded in the mass range 0.1–0.4 MeV: parameters that would shorten the neutrino burst by excessive core cooling already prevent the explosion from happening in the first place.
  • An unambiguously identified electron-capture supernova could constrain dark-photon masses down to nearly 0.01 MeV, a region where other supernova probes weaken.
  • The explosion-failure argument is independent of SN1987A and remains applicable if dark photons decay invisibly, bypassing gamma-ray and fireball limits.
  • For masses above about 0.5 MeV, dark-photon production moves below the gain layer and can reduce the neutrino luminosity by tens of percent, potentially stalling shock expansion, though a firm bound there requires self-consistent models.
  • The constraint is insensitive to the choice of supernova model and equation of state, with the main conclusions changing only mildly.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the resonance condition ties the excluded region to the plasma mass profile, any supernova model with a different density structure will shift the sweet spot; mapping the gain-layer plasma frequency versus time across a wider progenitor grid would sharpen or extend the bound.
  • The same logic may apply to other particles whose production resonates in the gain layer, suggesting a general 'shock-quenching' constraint complementary to core-cooling arguments.
  • If a galactic supernova is observed, the early-time (first few hundred milliseconds) neutrino signal would be the cleanest place to look for dark-photon effects, since the paper finds dark-photon production is relatively stronger at early times than for axion-like particles.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a new constraint on dark photons (DPs) from core-collapse supernovae, based on resonant DP production in the gain layer between the gain radius and the stalled shock during the accretion phase. For DP masses m_gamma' ~ 0.1--0.4 MeV, the resonant production occurs precisely in the region where neutrino heating is trying to revive the shock, so DP cooling can act as an energy drain that prevents the explosion. The authors compute DP production using Eq. (3)--(5), combine it with neutrino heating/cooling expressions from Janka (2001), and use several 1D Garching supernova models, plus an electron-capture supernova model. They define an explosion-failure criterion: integrated DP cooling in the gain layer equal to a fraction xi = 0.2 (0.5 for the ECSN model) of the net neutrino energy deposition over the pre-explosion time window. This yields a new exclusion region in the (m_gamma', epsilon) plane, which is claimed to supersede the traditional SN1987A PNS-cooling bound for the resonant mass range. The paper also discusses heavier DPs, where DP luminosity can approach the neutrino luminosity, and compares the new bound with diffuse gamma-ray, SN1987A gamma-ray, low-energy supernova, and fireball constraints.

Significance. If the central claim holds, this is a genuinely new and previously overlooked effect: a feebly interacting particle can affect the explosion mechanism itself, rather than only the later cooling signal, and the resulting constraints are independent of the usual SN1987A cooling argument. The study is well grounded in standard DP production formulas and uses publicly available, state-of-the-art 1D supernova models; the exploration of several models shows that the qualitative conclusion is robust to variations of the progenitor and equation of state. The paper also honestly identifies its main limitations, in particular the uncalibrated threshold xi and the need for self-consistent 3D simulations. The quantitative bound, however, rests on a hand-chosen and admittedly 'somewhat arbitrary' value of xi, so the significance is somewhat tempered pending a calibration or sensitivity study.

major comments (3)
  1. [Explosion failure for small DP masses] The central constraint is defined by the critical ratio xi_{gamma'/nu} = 0.2 (0.5 for the ECSN model), and the paper itself states that 'the precise value that prevents explosions can only be determined by self-consistent 3D simulations' and that xi is 'somewhat arbitrary'. Because the excluded coupling scales as epsilon proportional to xi^{1/2}, a factor of a few in xi changes the bound only mildly, but the advertised 'supersedes' conclusion is directly sensitive to this threshold. If the true critical xi is much larger than 0.2, or if localized resonant cooling in a narrow radial shell does not translate into shock-revival suppression in the same way as a uniform energy loss, the new bound could move above the traditional L_{gamma'} = L_nu cooling limit for part of the mass range. The paper should either calibrate xi using existing or new explosion simulations, or present sensitivity curves for a range of xi values (e.g., xi = 0.1, 0.2, 0.5, 1.0) so that the reader can judge how much of the claimed exclusion region is robust.
  2. [SN models] The analysis relies on artificially exploded 1D models in which the density ahead of the stalled shock is reduced to trigger the explosion, while real multi-D explosions involve strong postshock convection that changes the gain-layer mass and the energy balance. The paper acknowledges this ('our investigated 1D models capture the heating conditions only approximately'), but the transferability of a xi value derived from 1D post-processing to the actual 3D situation is not demonstrated. Since the explosion-failure criterion is the load-bearing assumption, this is not merely a numerical detail. The authors should quantify the expected systematic spread in xi from 3D vs 1D gain-layer conditions, or at least discuss why the chosen xi is conservative despite the 1D-to-3D difference.
  3. [Conclusions] The abstract and conclusions claim that for couplings small enough that neutrino-driven explosions survive, 'the DP cooling of the core is too small to modify the neutrino signal', which would make the new constraint supersede the traditional SN1987A cooling bound. The supporting statement in the text is that 'along this red curve, DP emission from the PNS core is negligible', but no quantitative comparison of the core DP luminosity to the neutrino luminosity is shown for the new exclusion line. Since the supersession claim is a central advertised result, the paper should provide an explicit plot or table showing L_{gamma'} from the core (r < r_gain) compared with L_nu along the new bound, over the relevant time window, to demonstrate that the neutrino signal is indeed unmodified in the surviving region.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Fig. 5 caption] The right panel of Fig. 5 shows results for m_{gamma'} = 0.1 MeV and 0.2 MeV, but the caption states 'epsilon approximately 3 x 10^{-8} and epsilon approximately 1.5 x 10^{-8} for the DP masses of 1 MeV and 2 MeV, respectively.' The mass values in the caption should be corrected to 0.1 and 0.2 MeV.
  2. [Eq. (5)] In Eq. (5), the notation for the derivative d Re pi_i / d omega should be made fully explicit: it would help readers to state that the derivative is evaluated at the resonance frequency omega_res and that v_res is defined as (1 - m_{gamma'}^2/omega_res^2)^{1/2}, and to clarify the origin of the factor 3/2 in the left panel of Fig. 1.
  3. [References] Reference [52] is cited as 'to appear' without a year or arXiv number; since a forthcoming work is used to justify some of the comparison limits, it would be useful to provide an arXiv identifier or a note on availability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the new gain-layer cooling bound is a threshold calculation from independent SN-model and DP-production inputs; the admitted ξγ'/ν uncertainty is a physics limitation, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

Walking the derivation chain, the central new constraint is a threshold calculation, not a fit. The DP production rate (Eq. 3, with the resonant approximation Eq. 4) follows from the standard kinetic-mixing Lagrangian (Eq. 1) and prior bremsstrahlung/plasma results; the SN profiles are public Garching models; and the neutrino heating/cooling rates are taken from Janka (2001) Eqs. (6) and (8). The explosion-failure line is defined by the explicit criterion that integrated DP cooling in the gain layer equals a fraction ξγ'/ν of integrated net neutrino heating, with ξ=0.2 (0.5 for the ECSN model). No parameter is fitted to SN1987A data or to the traditional cooling bound; that bound is an external benchmark. The paper itself flags the key limitation: 'the precise value that prevents explosions can only be determined by self-consistent 3D simulations' and refers to 'somewhat arbitrary values of ξγ'/ν applied in a neutrino heating period before shock runaway.' This is a genuine modeling uncertainty that affects the robustness of the 'supersedes' claim, but it is not circular: the threshold is an openly stated physical hypothesis, and the quantities compared (DP cooling vs. neutrino heating) do not reduce to the conclusion by construction. Self-citations to Garching models and earlier muonic-boson papers point to public, externally produced simulations and standard results, not to an unverified uniqueness or existence argument. Thus no circular step is exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central calculation rests on standard dark-photon production formulas, public supernova model outputs, and a hand-chosen explosion-failure threshold. No new particles or entities beyond the established dark photon are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • xi_gamma'/nu (explosion-failure threshold) = 0.2 (main models), 0.5 (ECSN model)
    Critical ratio of integrated gain-layer DP cooling to net neutrino heating assumed to mark the boundary between successful shock revival and failed explosion. The paper states this value is 'somewhat arbitrary' and can only be determined by self-consistent 3D simulations; the resulting limit scales as epsilon proportional to sqrt(xi).
  • Integration time window (t_st to t_sh) = t_st ~ 70 ms pb to t_sh ~ 0.4 s pb (0.5 s for ECSN)
    Chosen to cover the shock-stagnation and revival phase in each model; different choices would alter the integrated DP cooling, but the paper uses a period when neutrino heating is decisive.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The effective Lagrangian for the dark photon with kinetic mixing epsilon, Eq. (1), is the correct low-energy description.
    Standard BSM setup taken from prior literature (Refs. [14,20]); the paper does not derive or test this model.
  • domain assumption The DP production rate in the SN medium is dominated by nucleon-nucleon bremsstrahlung inside the PNS and Compton-like scattering e + gamma -> e + gamma' outside, with the soft-radiation approximation and nondegenerate nonrelativistic nucleons, leading to Eq. (3).
    Taken from prior SN dark-photon studies (Refs. [18,19,21,22,23]); the paper relies on these approximations.
  • domain assumption The Bethe-Wilson mechanism: the success or failure of shock revival is governed by the net neutrino energy deposition in the gain layer, and a moderate reduction (here, 20%) of the net heating can prevent the explosion.
    Standard supernova theory (Ref. [2]); the paper uses the ratio xi to decide explosion failure. The critical value is chosen by hand, not derived.
  • domain assumption The 1D SN models used (s18.88-LS220, SFHo, ECSN) provide representative gain-layer plasma conditions for the epoch of shock revival.
    The paper argues different models give similar results, but 1D models capture the heating conditions only approximately; this is acknowledged in the text.
  • standard math The resonant approximation in Eq. (4), replacing the Breit-Wigner by a delta function, is valid because Im pi_i << Re pi_i at resonance.
    Standard treatment of resonant production; the paper justifies the approximation in the text.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Cooling the Shock: New Supernova Constraints on Dark Photons." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KMMDCJCU

@misc{pith2026250201731,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Cooling the Shock: New Supernova Constraints on Dark Photons},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KMMDCJCU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.01731}
}
read the original abstract

During the accretion phase of a core-collapse supernova (SN), dark-photon (DP) cooling can be largest in the gain layer below the stalled shock wave. In this way, it could counter-act the usual shock rejuvenation by neutrino energy deposition and thus prevent the explosion. This peculiar energy-loss profile derives from the resonant nature of DP production. The largest cooling and thus strongest constraints obtain for DP masses of 0.1-0.4 MeV, a range corresponding to the photon plasma mass in the gain region. Electron-capture SNe, once observationally unambiguously identified, could provide strong bounds even down to nearly 0.01 MeV. For a coupling strength so small that neutrino-driven explosions are expected to survive, the DP cooling of the core is too small to modify the neutrino signal, i.e., our new argument supersedes the traditional SN1987A cooling bound.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.01731 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Numerical results for SN explosion model s18.88-LS220, 1D counterpart of 3D models in [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. DP luminosities for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. SN related DP constraints, all computed in the same [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Similar to Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. SN related DP constraints from all models. Our [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

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

  1. Supernova cooling from neutrino-devouring dark matter

    hep-ph 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Supernova cooling excludes fermionic dark matter produced by neutrino scattering down to cross sections of about 10^-58 cm^2 for electrons and 10^-56 cm^2 for nucleons across the keV to 100 MeV mass range.

  2. Dark Matter Capture in Supernovae Modifies Dark Photon Cooling Bounds

    hep-ph 2025-11 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Asymmetric dark matter captured in SN progenitors can form a 'dark photosphere' that traps dark photons and reopens SN1987A-excluded parameter space.

  3. Direct detection of solar chameleons with electron recoil data from XENONnT

    hep-ph 2025-11 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    XENONnT electron-recoil data bound solar chameleons to log10 β_eff < −6.9, independent of the potential index n for inverse power-law chameleons at the dark-energy scale.

  4. Can a secluded self-interacting dark sector generate detectable gravitational waves?

    hep-ph 2025-02 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    In a secluded self-interacting dark sector with a dark U(1)' and dark radiation, existing Neff and Lyman-alpha limits remove nearly all gravitational-wave-detectable parameter space; one charge assignment keeps a smal...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Antel et al., Feebly-interacting particles: FIPs 2022 Workshop Report, Eur

    C. Antel et al., Feebly-interacting particles: FIPs 2022 Workshop Report, Eur. Phys. J. C 83 (2023) 1122 [2305.01715]

    arXiv 2023

  2. [2]

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

    work page 1985

  3. [3]

    Janka, Explosion Mechanisms of Core-Collapse Supernovae, Ann

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

    arXiv 2012

  4. [4]

    Janka, Neutrino-Driven Explosions , in Handbook of Supernovae (A

    H.-T. Janka, Neutrino-Driven Explosions , in Handbook of Supernovae (A. W. Alsabti and P. Murdin, eds.), p. 1095. Springer International Publishing, Switzerland,

    work page

  5. [5]

    Burrows and D

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

    arXiv 2021

  6. [6]

    Boccioli and L

    L. Boccioli and L. Roberti, The Physics of Core-Collapse Supernovae: Explosion Mechanism and Explosive Nucleosynthesis, Universe 10 (2024) 148 [2403.12942]

    arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    T. J. Loredo and D. Q. Lamb, Bayesian analysis of neutrinos observed from supernova SN 1987A , Phys. Rev. D 65 (2002) 063002 [ astro-ph/0107260]

    arXiv 2002

  8. [8]

    D. F. G. Fiorillo, M. Heinlein, H.-T. Janka, G. Raffelt, E. Vitagliano and R. Bollig, Supernova simulations confront SN 1987A neutrinos , Phys. Rev. D 108 (2023) 083040 [2308.01403]

    arXiv 2023

Show all 59 references
  1. [9]

    R. M. Bozza, V. di Risi, G. Matteucci, V. Oliviero, G. Ricciardi and F. Vissani, The flux of electron antineutrinos from supernova SN1987A data , 2501.09445

    arXiv

  2. [10]

    G. G. Raffelt, Astrophysical methods to constrain axions and other novel particle phenomena , Phys. Rept. 198 (1990) 1

    1990

  3. [11]

    Caputo and G

    A. Caputo and G. Raffelt, Astrophysical Axion Bounds: The 2024 Edition , PoS COSMICWISPers (2024) 041 [2401.13728]

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Carenza, M

    P. Carenza, M. Giannotti, J. Isern, A. Mirizzi and O. Straniero, Axion astrophysics, Phys. Rept. 1117 (2025) 1 [ 2411.02492]

    2025 arXiv

  5. [13]

    C. O’Hare. Github Page https://github.com/cajohare

  6. [14]

    Fabbrichesi, E

    M. Fabbrichesi, E. Gabrielli and G. Lanfranchi, The Dark Photon . Springer, 2020, 10.1007/978-3-030-62519-1, [2005.01515]

    2020 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Caputo, A

    A. Caputo, A. J. Millar, C. A. J. O’Hare and E. Vitagliano, Dark photon limits: A handbook , Phys. Rev. D 104 (2021) 095029 [ 2105.04565]

    2021 arXiv

  8. [16]

    J. D. Bjorken, R. Essig, P. Schuster and N. Toro, New Fixed-Target Experiments to Search for Dark Gauge Forces, Phys. Rev. D 80 (2009) 075018 [ 0906.0580]

    2009 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Ilten, Y

    P. Ilten, Y. Soreq, M. Williams and W. Xue, Serendipity in dark photon searches , JHEP 06 (2018) 004 [1801.04847]

    2018 arXiv

  10. [18]

    J. H. Chang, R. Essig and S. D. McDermott, Revisiting Supernova 1987A Constraints on Dark Photons , JHEP 01 (2017) 107 [ 1611.03864]

    2017 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Rrapaj and S

    E. Rrapaj and S. Reddy, Nucleon-nucleon bremsstrahlung of dark gauge bosons and revised supernova constraints, Phys. Rev. C 94 (2016) 045805 [1511.09136]

    2016 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Holdom, Two U(1)’s and Epsilon Charge Shifts , Phys

    B. Holdom, Two U(1)’s and Epsilon Charge Shifts , Phys. Lett. B 166 (1986) 196. 6

    1986

  13. [21]

    H. An, M. Pospelov and J. Pradler, New stellar constraints on dark photons , Phys. Lett. B 725 (2013) 190 [1302.3884]

    2013 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Redondo and G

    J. Redondo and G. Raffelt, Solar constraints on hidden photons re-visited, JCAP 1308 (2013) 034 [ 1305.2920]

    2013 arXiv

  15. [23]

    C. S. Shin and S. Yun, Dark gauge boson production from neutron stars via nucleon-nucleon bremsstrahlung , JHEP 02 (2022) 133 [ 2110.03362]

    2022 arXiv

  16. [24]

    F. E. Low, Bremsstrahlung of very low-energy quanta in elementary particle collisions , Phys. Rev. 110 (1958) 974

    1958

  17. [25]

    E. M. Nyman, Bremsstrahlung in Nucleon-Nucleon Collisions, Phys. Rept. 9 (1974) 179

    1974

  18. [26]

    Bollig, N

    R. Bollig, N. Yadav, D. Kresse, H.-T. Janka, B. M¨ uller and A. Heger, Self-consistent 3D Supernova Models From −7 Minutes to +7 s: A 1-bethe Explosion of a ∼19 M⊙ Progenitor, Astrophys. J. 915 (2021) 28 [2010.10506]

    2021

  19. [27]

    A. W. Steiner, M. Hempel and T. Fischer, Core-collapse Supernova Equations of State Based on Neutron Star Observations, Astrophys. J. 774 (2013) 17 [ 1207.2184]

    2013 arXiv

  20. [28]

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

    1991

  21. [29]

    H. Shen, H. Toki, K. Oyamatsu and K. Sumiyoshi, Relativistic equation of state of nuclear matter for supernova and neutron star , Nucl. Phys. A 637 (1998) 435 [nucl-th/9805035]

    1998 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Bollig, W

    R. Bollig, W. DeRocco, P. W. Graham and H.-T. Janka, Muons in supernovae: Implications for the axion-muon coupling, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125 (2020) 051104 [2005.07141]. Erratum: Phys. Rev. Lett. 126 (2021) 189901. We refer to their consolidated post-publication update arXiv.2005.07141v6

    2020 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Garching core-collapse supernova research archive, https://wwwmpa.mpa-garching.mpg.de/ccsnarchive/

  24. [32]

    Caputo, G

    A. Caputo, G. Raffelt and E. Vitagliano, Muonic boson limits: Supernova redux , Phys. Rev. D 105 (2022) 035022 [2109.03244]

    2022 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Caputo, H.-T

    A. Caputo, H.-T. Janka, G. Raffelt and E. Vitagliano, Low-Energy Supernovae Severely Constrain Radiative Particle Decays, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128 (2022) 221103 [2201.09890]

    2022 arXiv

  26. [34]

    H¨ udepohl, B

    L. H¨ udepohl, B. M¨ uller, H.-T. Janka, A. Marek and G. G. Raffelt, Neutrino Signal of Electron-Capture Supernovae from Core Collapse to Cooling , Phys. Rev. Lett. 104 (2010) 251101 [ 0912.0260]

    2010 arXiv

  27. [35]

    F. S. Kitaura, H.-T. Janka and W. Hillebrandt, Explosions of O-Ne-Mg cores, the Crab supernova, and subluminous type II-P supernovae , Astron. Astrophys. 450 (2006) 345 [ astro-ph/0512065]

    2006 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Janka, B

    H.-T. Janka, B. M¨ uller, F. S. Kitaura and R. Buras, Dynamics of shock propagation and nucleosynthesis conditions in O-Ne-Mg core supernovae , Astron. Astrophys. 485 (2008) 199 [ 0712.4237]

    2008 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Jerkstrand, T

    A. Jerkstrand, T. Ertl, H.-T. Janka, E. M¨ uller, T. Sukhbold and S. E. Woosley, Emission line models for the lowest mass core-collapse supernovae - I. Case study of a 9 M ⊙ one-dimensional neutrino-driven explosion, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 475 (2018) 277 [1710.04508]

    2018 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Langer, Presupernova Evolution of Massive Single and Binary Stars , Ann

    N. Langer, Presupernova Evolution of Massive Single and Binary Stars , Ann. Rev. Astr. Astrophys. 50 (2012) 107 [1206.5443]

    2012 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Melson, H.-T

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

    2015 arXiv

  32. [40]

    M¨ uller,The Status of Multi-Dimensional Core-Collapse Supernova Models , Publ

    B. M¨ uller,The Status of Multi-Dimensional Core-Collapse Supernova Models , Publ. Astron. Soc. Aust. 33 (2016) e048 [ 1608.03274]

    2016 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Stockinger, H.-T

    G. Stockinger, H.-T. Janka, D. Kresse, T. Melson, T. Ertl, M. Gabler, A. Gessner, A. Wongwathanarat, A. Tolstov, S.-C. Leung, K. Nomoto and A. Heger, Three-dimensional models of core-collapse supernovae from low-mass progenitors with implications for Crab , Mon. Not. Roy. Astr...

    2020

  34. [42]

    Janka, Conditions for shock revival by neutrino heating in core collapse supernovae , Astron

    H.-T. Janka, Conditions for shock revival by neutrino heating in core collapse supernovae , Astron. Astrophys. 368 (2001) 527 [ astro-ph/0008432]

    2001 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Ando and K

    S. Ando and K. Sato, Relic neutrino background from cosmological supernovae, New J. Phys. 6 (2004) 170 [astro-ph/0410061]

    2004 arXiv

  36. [44]

    J. F. Beacom, The Diffuse Supernova Neutrino Background, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 60 (2010) 439 [1004.3311]

    2010 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Lunardini, Diffuse supernova neutrinos at underground laboratories, Astropart

    C. Lunardini, Diffuse supernova neutrinos at underground laboratories, Astropart. Phys. 79 (2016) 49 [1007.3252]

    2016 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Mirizzi, I

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

    2016 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Kresse, T

    D. Kresse, T. Ertl and H.-T. Janka, Stellar collapse diversity and the Diffuse Supernova Neutrino Background, Astrophys. J. 909 (2021) 169 [2010.04728]

    2021 arXiv

  40. [48]

    S. D. McDermott, H. H. Patel and H. Ramani, Dark Photon Decay Beyond The Euler-Heisenberg Limit , Phys. Rev. D 97 (2018) 073005 [ 1705.00619]

    2018 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Pospelov, A

    M. Pospelov, A. Ritz and M. B. Voloshin, Bosonic super-WIMPs as keV-scale dark matter , Phys. Rev. D 78 (2008) 115012 [ 0807.3279]

    2008 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Jaeckel, P

    J. Jaeckel, P. C. Malta and J. Redondo, Decay photons from the axionlike particles burst of type II supernovae , Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) 055032 [ 1702.02964]

    2018 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Hoof and L

    S. Hoof and L. Schulz, Updated constraints on axion-like particles from temporal information in supernova SN1987A gamma-ray data , JCAP 03 (2023) 054 [2212.09764]

    2023 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Caputo, F

    A. Caputo, F. D’Eramo, J. Park and S. Yun, The heavy dark photon handbook: Cosmological and astrophysical bounds revised, to appear (2025)

    2025

  45. [53]

    Diamond, D

    M. Diamond, D. F. G. Fiorillo, G. Marques-Tavares and E. Vitagliano, Axion-sourced fireballs from supernovae, Phys. Rev. D 107 (2023) 103029 [2303.11395]. Erratum Phys. Rev. D 108 (2023) 049902

    2023 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Balaji, P

    S. Balaji, P. Carenza, P. De la Torre Luque, A. Lella and L. Mastrototaro, In-flight positron annihilation as a probe of feebly interacting particles , 2501.07725

    arXiv

  47. [55]

    M. D. Diamond and G. Marques-Tavares, γ-Ray Flashes from Dark Photons in Neutron Star Mergers , Phys. Rev. Lett. 128 (2022) 211101 [ 2106.03879]

    2022 arXiv

  48. [56]

    DeRocco, P

    W. DeRocco, P. W. Graham, D. Kasen, G. Marques-Tavares and S. Rajendran, Observable signatures of dark photons from supernovae , JHEP 02 (2019) 171 [ 1901.08596]. 7

    2019 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Redondo and M

    J. Redondo and M. Postma, Massive hidden photons as lukewarm dark matter , JCAP 02 (2009) 005 [0811.0326]

    2009 arXiv

  50. [58]

    D. F. G. Fiorillo, G. G. Raffelt and E. Vitagliano, Strong Supernova 1987A Constraints on Bosons Decaying to Neutrinos , Phys. Rev. Lett. 131 (2023) 021001 [2209.11773]

    2023 arXiv

  51. [59]

    failing explosion

    G. B. Rybicki and A. P. Lightman, Radiative Processes in Astrophysics. John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1979. 8 10-1 10010-2 10-1 100 tpb [sec] [MeV] SFHo-s18.8-MUONS 3 / 2 ωpl (rgain ) 3 / 2 ωpl (rshock ) mγ′ =0.4 MeV 0.1 MeV 0.3 MeV 0.2 MeV 0.02 MeV 0.05 MeV 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 1048...

    1979

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.