arxiv: 2604.25687 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-28 · ✦ hep-ph · astro-ph.HE

Recognition: unknown

Collective neutrino-antineutrino pair oscillations

Shih-Jie Huang , Meng-Ru Wu

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-07 15:53 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ph astro-ph.HE

keywords neutrino-antineutrino pairingcollective instabilitiesquantum kinetic equationsanisotropic neutrino gasfast flavor instabilitiespair conversionsdense neutrino environments

0 comments

The pith

In anisotropic neutrino gases, collective neutrino-antineutrino pairing instabilities emerge when the excessive pair-occupation number distribution changes sign.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper investigates conditions for collective neutrino-antineutrino pairing instabilities in dense gases using simplified toy models. It establishes that these instabilities occur in anisotropic systems when the phase space distribution of the excessive pair-occupation number, the sum of neutrino and antineutrino occupations minus one, changes sign. This matters because the resulting growth rate is comparable to fast flavor instabilities and can cause conversions between momentum modes, suggesting impacts on neutrino behavior in stars or cosmology. The findings come from mean-field generalized quantum kinetic equations applied to discretized homogeneous setups.

Core claim

In dense neutrino gas, pairing correlations between neutrinos and antineutrinos with opposite momenta can be nonzero in generalized neutrino quantum kinetic equations at the mean-field level. Using discretized homogeneous toy models, the authors find that in anisotropic systems, νν-bar pairing instabilities generally emerge when the phase space distribution of the excessive pair-occupation number changes signs. The associated instability growth rate is set by the forward scattering potential and is comparable to that of collective fast neutrino flavor instabilities. The instabilities can result in pair conversions of νν-bar occupation numbers between different momentum modes.

What carries the argument

The excessive pair-occupation number, defined as the sum of the neutrino and antineutrino occupation numbers of a pair minus 1, whose sign change in phase space distribution triggers the instability.

If this is right

Pair conversions of νν-bar occupation numbers occur between different momentum modes.
The instability growth rate is set by the forward scattering potential and matches that of fast flavor instabilities.
These instabilities motivate further assessment of νν-bar pairing effects in realistic astrophysical and cosmological environments.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The effect may require updating neutrino transport models in supernova simulations to include pairing correlations.
Pairing instabilities could compete with or enhance flavor oscillations in anisotropic environments such as accretion disks.
Extending the toy models to inhomogeneous cases would test if the sign-change condition generalizes to realistic settings.

Load-bearing premise

The mean-field approximation in generalized neutrino quantum kinetic equations captures pairing correlations and the homogeneous discretized toy models adequately represent realistic inhomogeneous astrophysical environments.

What would settle it

A simulation of the quantum kinetic equations in which the excessive pair-occupation number distribution changes sign without producing exponential growth of the pairing correlations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.25687 by Meng-Ru Wu, Shih-Jie Huang.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: FIG. 1. Collective view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: FIG. 3. Panel (a): Evolution of the system’s averaged pairing view at source ↗

read the original abstract

In dense neutrino gas, pairing correlations between neutrinos and antineutrinos with opposite momenta can be nonzero in generalized neutrino quantum kinetic equations at the mean-field level. In this Letter, we investigate for the first time the condition under which collective neutrino-antineutrino ($\nu\bar\nu$) pairing instabilities can occur, using simplified toy models consisting of discretized $\nu\bar\nu$ pairs in a homogeneous neutrino gas. We find that, in ansiotropic systems, $\nu\bar\nu$ pairing instabilities generally emerge when the phase space distribution of the excessive pair-occupation number, defined as the sum of the neutrino and antineutrino occupation numbers of a pair minus 1, changes signs. The associated instability growth rate is set by the forward scattering potential and is comparable to that of collective fast neutrino flavor instabilities. The instabilities can result in pair conversions of $\nu\bar\nu$ occupation numbers between different momentum modes. Our results motivate further studies to assess the relevance of $\nu\bar\nu$ pairing effects in realistic astrophysical and cosmological environments.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper uses homogeneous toy models to derive a sign-change condition for collective νν-bar pairing instabilities with growth rates matching fast flavor modes, but leaves its relevance to real inhomogeneous systems untested.

read the letter

The main thing to know is that this work identifies a new collective channel where neutrino-antineutrino pairs can become unstable in anisotropic distributions once the phase-space profile of the excess pair occupation number (n_ν + n_νbar − 1) crosses zero. The associated growth rate is set by the forward-scattering potential and reaches the same order as the well-known fast flavor instabilities, which could matter for transport modeling in supernovae or cosmology. They reach this by discretizing pairs in a uniform gas and evolving the mean-field generalized quantum kinetic equations, apparently the first explicit look at the pairing instability threshold this way. The toy-model results are internally consistent and cleanly show mode-to-mode pair conversions once the sign flip occurs. That part is straightforward and worth noting for anyone tracking collective neutrino effects. The soft spot is the exclusive use of homogeneous, discretized setups. Realistic environments have spatial gradients that can introduce position-dependent potentials and additional mode couplings absent from the uniform case, so it is not yet clear whether the instability survives or gets suppressed. The mean-field truncation itself is taken as adequate without checks against fluctuation corrections or full kinetic simulations. This paper is aimed at specialists already working on neutrino flavor instabilities and transport codes. A reader who wants to scan for overlooked channels will get a concrete criterion to test, but anyone needing quantitative impact on astrophysical predictions will see it as preliminary. The thinking is clear on its own terms and the equations are handled honestly, so it deserves a serious referee even if the claims need more anchoring to inhomogeneous physics. I would send it out for review and ask the authors to discuss the homogeneous limitation and possible damping in realistic settings.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript investigates collective neutrino-antineutrino pairing instabilities in dense neutrino gases. Using simplified toy models consisting of discretized νν-bar pairs in a homogeneous neutrino gas at the mean-field level of generalized quantum kinetic equations, it reports that in anisotropic systems such instabilities generally emerge when the phase-space distribution of the excessive pair-occupation number (n_ν + n_νbar − 1) changes sign. The associated growth rate is set by the forward-scattering potential and is comparable to that of collective fast neutrino flavor instabilities; the instabilities can induce pair conversions of occupation numbers between different momentum modes. The work motivates further studies in realistic astrophysical and cosmological environments.

Significance. If the central finding holds beyond the toy models, the paper would identify a new collective neutrino oscillation channel with potential relevance to neutrino transport in anisotropic environments such as core-collapse supernovae or neutron-star mergers, on timescales similar to fast flavor instabilities. The mean-field treatment of generalized quantum kinetic equations and the explicit link to the sign-change condition in the excessive pair-occupation number constitute a clear, falsifiable prediction that could be tested with more complete simulations.

major comments (2)

[Toy-model description] Toy-model section: the claim that νν-bar pairing instabilities 'generally emerge' when the excessive pair-occupation number changes sign is derived exclusively from discretized homogeneous models. The manuscript does not demonstrate that this homogeneous discretization captures the essential dynamics once spatial inhomogeneities (position-dependent potentials and mode couplings) are restored, which is load-bearing for extending the result to astrophysical settings.
[Mean-field level discussion] Mean-field treatment paragraph: the assumption that pairing correlations are adequately described at the mean-field level without higher-order fluctuation terms is not independently verified within the models (e.g., by comparison to the full kinetic equations or by error estimates), yet this assumption underpins the reported instability condition and growth rates.

minor comments (2)

[Abstract] Abstract: 'ansi otropic' is a typographical error and should read 'anisotropic'.
[Throughout] Notation consistency: the manuscript should adopt a uniform symbol for the excessive pair-occupation number (e.g., always n_ν + n_νbar − 1) rather than alternating between verbal descriptions and symbols.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of our manuscript and for the constructive comments. We address each major point below. Where appropriate, we have revised the manuscript to clarify the scope and limitations of our toy-model analysis while preserving the core findings.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Toy-model description] Toy-model section: the claim that νν-bar pairing instabilities 'generally emerge' when the excessive pair-occupation number changes sign is derived exclusively from discretized homogeneous models. The manuscript does not demonstrate that this homogeneous discretization captures the essential dynamics once spatial inhomogeneities (position-dependent potentials and mode couplings) are restored, which is load-bearing for extending the result to astrophysical settings.

Authors: We agree that our analysis is restricted to homogeneous systems and that spatial inhomogeneities, including position-dependent potentials and mode couplings, are not included. The discretized homogeneous models were chosen to isolate the pairing instability and to derive the sign-change condition directly from the linearized mean-field equations. In this controlled setting the discretization is exact for the retained modes. We have added explicit language in the revised manuscript (new paragraph in the discussion section) stating that the homogeneous approximation is a first step, that the sign-change criterion may or may not survive in inhomogeneous environments, and that full numerical simulations of the position-dependent generalized quantum kinetic equations are required to assess relevance to supernovae or mergers. This limitation is now clearly flagged as motivation for future work rather than a demonstrated general result. revision: partial
Referee: [Mean-field level discussion] Mean-field treatment paragraph: the assumption that pairing correlations are adequately described at the mean-field level without higher-order fluctuation terms is not independently verified within the models (e.g., by comparison to the full kinetic equations or by error estimates), yet this assumption underpins the reported instability condition and growth rates.

Authors: Our study is performed entirely within the mean-field truncation of the generalized quantum kinetic equations, which is the standard framework used for collective neutrino oscillations. The instability condition and growth rates follow directly from linearizing these mean-field equations; no claim is made that the truncation is exact. We have revised the relevant paragraph to state explicitly that higher-order correlation terms are neglected and that their quantitative impact remains to be quantified by future comparisons with the full kinetic hierarchy. Because the present Letter focuses on identifying the new instability channel at the mean-field level, a systematic error estimate or direct comparison to the untruncated equations lies outside its scope. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: instability condition derived from explicit toy-model analysis

full rationale

The paper's central result—that νν-bar pairing instabilities emerge when the excessive pair-occupation number (n_ν + n_νbar − 1) changes sign—is obtained by direct analysis of the mean-field generalized quantum kinetic equations on discretized homogeneous toy models. The occupation quantity is defined once, the equations are solved within the toy setup, and the sign-change criterion follows as an output rather than an input. No self-citations, fitted parameters renamed as predictions, or self-referential definitions appear in the derivation chain. The result is therefore self-contained against the stated assumptions of the models.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the applicability of mean-field generalized neutrino quantum kinetic equations and the physical relevance of the excessive pair-occupation number definition; no free parameters or new entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (1)

domain assumption Mean-field approximation in generalized neutrino quantum kinetic equations captures nonzero pairing correlations between neutrinos and antineutrinos.
Invoked in the opening sentence of the abstract as the starting point for the investigation.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5472 in / 1118 out tokens · 41915 ms · 2026-05-07T15:53:36.300771+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

138 extracted references · 134 canonical work pages · 5 internal anchors

[1]

Navaset al.(Particle Data Group), Phys

S. Navaset al.(Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D 110, 030001 (2024)

2024
[2]

Fischer, G

T. Fischer, G. Guo, K. Langanke, G. Martinez-Pinedo, Y.-Z. Qian, and M.-R. Wu, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 137, 104107 (2024), arXiv:2308.03962 [astro-ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2024
[3]

Di Valentino, S

E. Di Valentino, S. Gariazzo, and O. Mena, (2024), arXiv:2404.19322 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2024
[4]

Tamborra, Nature Rev

I. Tamborra, Nature Rev. Phys.7, 285 (2025), arXiv:2412.09699 [astro-ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2025
[5]

G. G. Raffelt, H.-T. Janka, and D. F. G. Fiorillo (2025) arXiv:2509.16306 [astro-ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2025
[6]

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

work page arXiv 2010
[7]

M. C. Volpe, Rev. Mod. Phys.96, 025004 (2024), arXiv:2301.11814 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2024
[8]

Many-Body Collective Neutrino Oscillations: Recent Developments,

A. V. Patwardhan, M. J. Cervia, E. Rrapaj, P. Si- wach, and A. B. Balantekin, “Many-Body Collective Neutrino Oscillations: Recent Developments,” inHand- book of Nuclear Physics, edited by I. Tanihata, H. Toki, and T. Kajino (2023) pp. 1–16, arXiv:2301.00342 [hep- ph]

work page arXiv 2023
[9]

Johns, S

L. Johns, S. Richers, and M.-R. Wu, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.75, 399 (2025), arXiv:2503.05959 [astro- ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2025
[10]

J. D. Martin, C. Yi, and H. Duan, Phys. Lett. B800, 135088 (2020), arXiv:1909.05225 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2020
[11]

Bhattacharyya and B

S. Bhattacharyya and B. Dasgupta, Phys. Rev. D102, 063018 (2020), arXiv:2005.00459 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2020
[12]

Bhattacharyya and B

S. Bhattacharyya and B. Dasgupta, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 061302 (2021), arXiv:2009.03337 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2021
[13]

Xiong, A

Z. Xiong, A. Sieverding, M. Sen, and Y.-Z. Qian, As- trophys. J.900, 144 (2020), arXiv:2006.11414 [astro- ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2020
[14]

Capozzi, M

F. Capozzi, M. Chakraborty, S. Chakraborty, and M. Sen, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 251801 (2020), arXiv:2005.14204 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2020
[15]

Padilla-Gay, S

I. Padilla-Gay, S. Shalgar, and I. Tamborra, JCAP01, 017 (2021), arXiv:2009.01843 [astro-ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2021
[16]

Johns, Phys

L. Johns, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 191001 (2023), arXiv:2104.11369 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2023
[17]

Li and D

X. Li and D. M. Siegel, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 251101 (2021), arXiv:2103.02616 [astro-ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2021
[18]

Roggero, Phys

A. Roggero, Phys. Rev. D104, 123023 (2021), arXiv:2103.11497 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2021
[19]

Nagakura, L

H. Nagakura, L. Johns, A. Burrows, and G. M. Fuller, Phys. Rev. D104, 083025 (2021), arXiv:2108.07281 [astro-ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2021
[20]

M.-R. Wu, M. George, C.-Y. Lin, and Z. Xiong, Phys. Rev. D104, 103003 (2021), arXiv:2108.09886 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2021
[22]

Padilla-Gay, I

I. Padilla-Gay, I. Tamborra, and G. G. Raffelt, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 121102 (2022), arXiv:2109.14627 [astro- ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2022
[23]

A. V. Patwardhan, M. J. Cervia, and A. B. Balantekin, Phys. Rev. D104, 123035 (2021), arXiv:2109.08995 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2021
[24]

Richers, D

S. Richers, D. Willcox, and N. Ford, Phys. Rev. D104, 103023 (2021), arXiv:2109.08631 [astro-ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2021
[25]

Xiong, Phys

Z. Xiong, Phys. Rev. D105, 103002 (2022), arXiv:2111.00437 [astro-ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2022
[26]

O. Just, S. Abbar, M.-R. Wu, I. Tamborra, H.-T. Janka, and F. Capozzi, Phys. Rev. D105, 083024 (2022), 5 arXiv:2203.16559 [astro-ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2022
[27]

Johns and Z

L. Johns and Z. Xiong, Phys. Rev. D106, 103029 (2022), arXiv:2208.11059 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2022
[28]

Xiong, L

Z. Xiong, L. Johns, M.-R. Wu, and H. Duan, Phys. Rev. D108, 083002 (2023), arXiv:2212.03750 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2023
[29]

M. J. Cervia, P. Siwach, A. V. Patwardhan, A. B. Bal- antekin, S. N. Coppersmith, and C. W. Johnson, Phys. Rev. D105, 123025 (2022), arXiv:2202.01865 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2022
[30]

Roggero, E

A. Roggero, E. Rrapaj, and Z. Xiong, Phys. Rev. D 106, 043022 (2022), arXiv:2203.02783 [astro-ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2022
[31]

Shalgar and I

S. Shalgar and I. Tamborra, Phys. Rev. D107, 063025 (2023), arXiv:2207.04058 [astro-ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2023
[32]

Illa and M

M. Illa and M. J. Savage, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 221003 (2023), arXiv:2210.08656 [nucl-th]

work page arXiv 2023
[33]

Richers, H

S. Richers, H. Duan, M.-R. Wu, S. Bhattacharyya, M. Zaizen, M. George, C.-Y. Lin, and Z. Xiong, Phys. Rev. D106, 043011 (2022), arXiv:2205.06282 [astro- ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2022
[34]

Xiong, M.-R

Z. Xiong, M.-R. Wu, G. Mart´ ınez-Pinedo, T. Fischer, M. George, C.-Y. Lin, and L. Johns, Phys. Rev. D 107, 083016 (2023), arXiv:2210.08254 [astro-ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2023
[35]

Padilla-Gay, I

I. Padilla-Gay, I. Tamborra, and G. G. Raffelt, Phys. Rev. D106, 103031 (2022), arXiv:2209.11235 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2022
[36]

Zaizen and H

M. Zaizen and H. Nagakura, Phys. Rev. D107, 103022 (2023), arXiv:2211.09343 [astro-ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2023
[37]

J. Liu, H. Nagakura, R. Akaho, A. Ito, M. Zaizen, and S. Yamada, Phys. Rev. D108, 123024 (2023), arXiv:2310.05050 [astro-ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2023
[38]

Abbar, Phys

S. Abbar, Phys. Rev. D107, 103006 (2023), arXiv:2303.05560 [astro-ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2023
[39]

Shalgar and I

S. Shalgar and I. Tamborra, Phys. Rev. D107, 123004 (2023), arXiv:2304.13050 [astro-ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2023
[40]

Akaho, J

R. Akaho, J. Liu, H. Nagakura, M. Zaizen, and S. Yamada, Phys. Rev. D109, 023012 (2024), arXiv:2311.11272 [astro-ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2024
[41]

Ehring, S

J. Ehring, S. Abbar, H.-T. Janka, G. Raffelt, and I. Tamborra, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 061401 (2023), arXiv:2305.11207 [astro-ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2023
[42]

Xiong, M.-R

Z. Xiong, M.-R. Wu, S. Abbar, S. Bhattacharyya, M. George, and C.-Y. Lin, Phys. Rev. D108, 063003 (2023), arXiv:2307.11129 [astro-ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2023
[43]

J. D. Martin, D. Neill, A. Roggero, H. Duan, and J. Carlson, Phys. Rev. D108, 123010 (2023), arXiv:2307.16793 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2023
[44]

Nagakura, Phys

H. Nagakura, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 211401 (2023), arXiv:2301.10785 [astro-ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2023
[45]

Johns, Phys

L. Johns, Phys. Rev. D112, 063032 (2025), arXiv:2306.14982 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2025
[46]

Johns, Int

L. Johns, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A39, 2450122 (2024), arXiv:2305.04916 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2024
[47]

C. Kato, H. Nagakura, and L. Johns, Phys. Rev. D 109, 103009 (2024), arXiv:2309.02619 [astro-ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2024
[48]

Froustey, S

J. Froustey, S. Richers, E. Grohs, S. D. Flynn, F. Fou- cart, J. P. Kneller, and G. C. McLaughlin, Phys. Rev. D109, 043046 (2024), arXiv:2311.11968 [astro-ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2024
[49]

Abbar, M.-R

S. Abbar, M.-R. Wu, and Z. Xiong, Phys. Rev. D109, 043024 (2024), arXiv:2311.15656 [astro-ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2024
[50]

Nagakura, Phys

H. Nagakura, Phys. Rev. D108, 103014 (2023), arXiv:2306.10108 [astro-ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2023
[51]

Nagakura, L

H. Nagakura, L. Johns, and M. Zaizen, Phys. Rev. D 109, 083013 (2024), arXiv:2312.16285 [astro-ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2024
[52]

A. B. Balantekin, M. J. Cervia, A. V. Patwardhan, R. Surman, and X. Wang, Astrophys. J.967, 146 (2024), arXiv:2311.02562 [astro-ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2024
[53]

Abbar, M.-R

S. Abbar, M.-R. Wu, and Z. Xiong, Phys. Rev. D109, 083019 (2024), arXiv:2401.17424 [astro-ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2024
[54]

Johns, Phys

L. Johns, Phys. Rev. D112, 043024 (2025), arXiv:2401.15247 [astro-ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2025
[55]

A. Kost, L. Johns, and H. Duan, Phys. Rev. D109, 103037 (2024), arXiv:2402.05022 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2024
[56]

Xiong, M.-R

Z. Xiong, M.-R. Wu, M. George, C.-Y. Lin, N. K. Largani, T. Fischer, and G. Mart´ ınez-Pinedo, Phys. Rev. D109, 123008 (2024), arXiv:2402.19252 [astro- ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2024
[57]

Zaizen and H

M. Zaizen and H. Nagakura, Phys. Rev. D107, 123021 (2023), arXiv:2304.05044 [astro-ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2023
[58]

Xiong, M.-R

Z. Xiong, M.-R. Wu, M. George, and C.-Y. Lin, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 051003 (2025), arXiv:2403.17269 [astro- ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2025
[59]

Cornelius, S

M. Cornelius, S. Shalgar, and I. Tamborra, JCAP11, 060 (2024), arXiv:2407.04769 [astro-ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2024
[60]

D. F. G. Fiorillo, G. G. Raffelt, and G. Sigl, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 021002 (2024), arXiv:2401.05278 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2024
[61]

D. F. G. Fiorillo and G. G. Raffelt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 221004 (2024), arXiv:2403.12189 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2024
[62]

D. F. G. Fiorillo and G. G. Raffelt, JHEP08, 225 (2024), arXiv:2406.06708 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2024
[63]

D. F. G. Fiorillo and G. G. Raffelt, JHEP04, 146 (2025), arXiv:2412.02747 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2025
[64]

Bhaskar, A

R. Bhaskar, A. Roggero, and M. J. Savage, Phys. Rev. C110, 045801 (2024)

2024
[65]

Chernyshev, C

I. Chernyshev, C. E. P. Robin, and M. J. Savage, Phys. Rev. Res.7, 023228 (2025), arXiv:2411.04203 [quant- ph]

work page arXiv 2025
[66]

Richers, J

S. Richers, J. Froustey, S. Ghosh, F. Foucart, and J. Gomez, Phys. Rev. D110, 103019 (2024), arXiv:2409.04405 [astro-ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2024
[67]

George, Z

M. George, Z. Xiong, M.-R. Wu, and C.-Y. Lin, Phys. Rev. D110, 123018 (2024), arXiv:2409.08833 [astro- ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2024
[68]

Lacroix, A

D. Lacroix, A. Bauge, B. Yilmaz, M. Mangin-Brinet, A. Roggero, and A. B. Balantekin, Phys. Rev. D110, 103027 (2024), arXiv:2409.20215 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2024
[69]

Siwach, A

P. Siwach, A. B. Balantekin, A. V. Patwardhan, and A. M. Suliga, Phys. Rev. D111, 063038 (2025), arXiv:2411.05169 [hep-th]

work page arXiv 2025
[70]

Froustey, J

J. Froustey, J. P. Kneller, and G. C. McLaughlin, Phys. Rev. D111, 063022 (2025), arXiv:2409.05807 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2025
[71]

Shalgar and I

S. Shalgar and I. Tamborra, JCAP09, 021 (2024), arXiv:2406.09504 [astro-ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2024
[72]

J. P. Kneller, J. Froustey, E. B. Grohs, F. Foucart, G. C. McLaughlin, and S. Richers, Phys. Rev. D111, 063046 (2025), arXiv:2410.00719 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2025
[73]

J. Liu, H. Nagakura, M. Zaizen, L. Johns, R. Akaho, and S. Yamada, Phys. Rev. D111, 023051 (2025), arXiv:2411.08503 [astro-ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2025
[74]

Goimil-Garc´ ıa, S

M. Goimil-Garc´ ıa, S. Shalgar, and I. Tamborra, Phys. Rev. D111, 083054 (2025), arXiv:2412.12268 [astro- ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2025
[75]

K. Mori, T. Takiwaki, K. Kotake, and S. Horiuchi, Publ. Astron. Soc. Jap.77, L9 (2025), arXiv:2501.15256 [astro-ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2025
[76]

D. F. G. Fiorillo and G. G. Raffelt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 211003 (2025), arXiv:2502.06935 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2025
[77]

V., & Pitjev, N

T. Wang and A. Burrows, (2025), 10.3847/1538- 4357/add889, arXiv:2503.04896 [astro-ph.HE]

work page doi:10.3847/1538- 2025
[78]

Y. Qiu, D. Radice, S. Richers, and M. Bhattacharyya, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 091401 (2025), arXiv:2503.11758 6 [astro-ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2025
[79]

Bhattacharyya, M.-R

S. Bhattacharyya, M.-R. Wu, and Z. Xiong, (2025), arXiv:2504.11316 [astro-ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2025
[80]

K. A. Lund, P. Mukhopadhyay, J. M. Miller, and G. C. McLaughlin, Astrophys. J. Lett.985, L9 (2025), arXiv:2503.23727 [astro-ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2025
[81]

Akaho, H

R. Akaho, H. Nagakura, and S. Yamada, Phys. Rev. D 112, 043015 (2025), arXiv:2506.07017 [astro-ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2025

Showing first 80 references.