Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 37 references

A numerical MSW propagation framework with time-varying Earth–Sun geometry and full 3D Earth matter predicts solar neutrino fluxes at probability-level 10^-4 accuracy.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 01:43 UTC pith:DT64LNSF

load-bearing objection Solid standard-physics framework paper whose main output — site-dependent day/night asymmetries — is probably right, but the nighttime averaging weights in Sec. 5.4 look internally inconsistent with the flux definition in Sec. 6, and that should be checked before anyone treats the central numbers as final. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.24421 v2 pith:DT64LNSF submitted 2026-07-27 hep-ph astro-ph.SRhep-ex

A High-Precision Numerical Framework for Time-Varying Solar Neutrino Flux with Full Earth Matter Oscillation Corrections for Global Underground Laboratories

Keyu Han , Isabella Yin , Kaoru Yagi , Kevin Yifan Jiang , Xiangpan Ji , Shaomin Chen This is my paper
classification hep-ph astro-ph.SRhep-ex PACS 14.60.Pq26.65.+t
keywords solar neutrinosMSW effectday-night asymmetrymatter oscillationEarth electron densityStrang splittingK-medoids clusteringflux prediction
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper constructs a complete pipeline that turns one-minute Sun–detector geometry, the extended boron-8 production region in the Sun, and the Earth's three-dimensional electron density into site-specific solar neutrino flux predictions. It reports probability-level numerical accuracy at or better than a few parts in 10^4, and finds that switching from a 1D to a 3D Earth model shifts the predicted day–night asymmetry by up to roughly 0.20 percentage points — a relative change of as much as 8 percent. For CJPL it predicts 8B electron fluxes of 2.026 (day) and 2.062 (night) × 10^6 cm^-2 s^-1 and a day–night flux asymmetry of 1.775 percent. A careful reader cares because sub-percent theoretical predictions are the benchmark against which future solar-neutrino and reactor-antineutrino comparisons will test CPT conservation.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a second-order symmetric operator-splitting scheme for the matter term, combined with a closed-form rank-one update and a commutator-free fourth-order Magnus solar-side integrator, makes it practical to evaluate solar neutrino oscillations for 2000 energies and 10^4 representative nighttime trajectories while keeping probability errors at or below a few parts in 10^4. Applied to one year of one-minute samples for 15 underground laboratories, the framework finds that the geometry-normalized oscillation asymmetry is nearly site-independent (1.313–1.477 percent), whereas the flux-level day–night asymmetry varies from 0.759 to 3.397 percent; most geographic vari

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the rank-one structure of the matter Hamiltonian in the mass basis: H_mat(x) = V(x)|e><e|, where |e> is the electron-flavor state projected onto mass eigenstates. This reduces each Earth-side layer update to two diagonal vacuum phases plus one scalar rank-one correction, and it lets the solar-side CF4 Magnus exponentials be evaluated in closed form through eigenvalue roots and Cayley–Hamilton decomposition rather than generic exponentiation. A second mechanism is path-space compression: a Wasserstein-inspired dissimilarity that combines geodesic separation of trajectory directions with a width-mismatch term for the finite solar source, driving K-medoids clusteri

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes, without geophysical validation in this work, that the hybrid LITHO1.0/SAW642AN/PREM electron-density model taken from a prior reactor-neutrino study represents the true Earth electron density along every nighttime neutrino chord.

What would settle it

Measure the energy-dependent night/day survival ratio at a high-statistics 8B solar-neutrino detector over a full year. If the observed spectrum deviates from the prediction by more than the quoted 0.07–0.09 percentage-point parametric band combined with the 0.1–0.2 pp 3D Earth correction, the Earth-density input is falsified. A cheaper check is to recompute one site with an independently constructed 3D electron-density model: a shift larger than the claimed ~1e-4 numerical error would indicate the Earth model, not the solver, dominates the uncertainty.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Predicted daytime and nighttime 8B electron fluxes and day–night asymmetries are tabulated for 15 underground laboratories; A_flux_DN spans 0.759% (SUPL) to 3.397% (CallioLab), while A_osc_DN stays in 1.313–1.477%.
  • The 3D Earth electron-density model changes the predicted day–night asymmetry by up to about 0.20 percentage points relative to a 1D PREM model, a relative shift of up to ~8% that cannot be absorbed as a uniform normalization.
  • Neutrino mass ordering (normal vs inverted) changes the day–night asymmetry by only 0.006–0.009 percentage points, below current parametric uncertainty.
  • Choosing a low-order Kepler/Meeus geometry instead of the high-precision ephemeris changes final fluxes by less than 1e-6 relative and asymmetries by less than 1e-5 absolute.
  • Numerical convergence tests place the maximum probability-level deviation at about 1.9e-4 for the adopted Earth-layer count and 8.5e-5 for the adopted 10,000-path compression, and a cross-check against a general-purpose propagation solver agrees to within 3e-5 while being 35–77 times faster.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Because A_osc_DN is nearly laboratory-independent, it offers a cleaner target for testing MSW regeneration than the flux-level asymmetry: two detectors at different latitudes could be compared after removing orbital geometry, isolating Earth-matter effects.
  • The propagation kernel is decoupled from the solar model inputs, so the same pipeline can be rerun for pep, CNO, and other solar components; doing so would test whether the claimed 10^-4 accuracy and the 3D Earth correction transfer beyond 8B.
  • The paper's largest unvalidated input is the terrestrial electron-density model; the same framework could be inverted as a neutrino tomography probe of the core–mantle boundary if the claimed accuracy is realized in practice.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a computational framework for predicting time-dependent solar neutrino fluxes with high precision, combining a high-precision ephemeris-based Sun–detector geometry, a finite solar-source representation, solar-side backward propagation using a commutator-free fourth-order Magnus scheme with Ohlsson–Snellman/Cayley–Hamilton exponentials, Earth-side MSW propagation via Strang splitting, and K-medoids compression of the nighttime trajectory ensemble. It delivers site-specific 8B electron-neutrino fluxes and day–night asymmetries for CJPL and thirteen other underground laboratories, using both 1D PREM and 3D hybrid Earth electron-density models. The central numerical claims are probability-level accuracy at O(10^-4) or better, sub-percent flux predictions, and quantified 3D Earth corrections up to about 0.2 percentage points.

Significance. If the central results are correct, this is a valuable and useful contribution: it provides a systematic, efficient numerical pipeline for a class of solar-neutrino predictions needed for the upcoming precision comparisons between solar and reactor neutrino oscillation parameters. The paper ships extensive convergence tests (Appendix B), an independent Earth-side cross-check against nuSQuIDS with max |ΔP| < 3.1e-5 (Appendix C), closed-form algebraic propagation steps with transparent cost scaling, and explicit site-specific predictions with documented parametric and spectral-shape uncertainties. These strengths are substantial. However, the reported predictions are only as reliable as the consistency between the time-averaging definitions used in the flux observables and the clustering/reweighting algorithm actually implemented; the current manuscript has a concrete inconsistency in that chain, plus an unquantified geophysical-model uncertainty.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. 3.1 and Table 7.1] The flux definition in Eq. (6.3) weights every time sample by the inverse-square solar-distance factor g(t) when forming the effective survival probability: P_X_ee(E) = <g P_ee>_X / <g>_X. The nighttime compression described in Sec. 5.4, however, assigns equal sample weights w_a = 1/N_night and cluster weights Ω_k = |C_k|/N_night (Eqs. 5.20–5.21), with no g(t) factor in Eq. (5.22). If this compressed P_N_ee is the quantity inserted into Eqs. (6.4)–(6.6), the computed night flux is effectively proportional to <g>_N <P>_N rather than <g P>_N, dropping the covariance between the annual inverse-square modulation and the instantaneous survival probability. Since g varies by ±3.3% over the year and P_N(E,t) varies at the percent level, the omitted covariance is of order 10^-4 relative to the flux, comparable to the quoted 0.07–0.08 pp asymmetry uncertainties (Sec. 6) and to the 3D correction Δ
  2. [Sec. 3.1 and Table 7.1]
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 2.2] The Skyfield/Astropy cross-check is welcome; the statement that detector-to-Sun distance differs by ~O(10^4) km between the low-order analytic model and the high-precision ephemeris would benefit from a one-sentence explanation of the dominant source of that difference.
  2. [Throughout] The text contains numerous encoding and copy-editing artifacts ('Earthns', 'Sunns', 'efficient', '⊕' for hyphens, 'inamely', 'ithe'). A careful proofread is needed before publication.
  3. [Sec. 5.4] The finite-source angular cloud is used to define the clustering dissimilarity and to average the solar-side density matrix, but the Earth-side row amplitudes r_i(E;γ) are evaluated for the central medoid trajectory only, without an explicit statement about whether the small angular spread of the source also shifts the Earth-crossing chord. Even if the effect is negligible at the 10^-4 target, a quantitative justification should be added.
  4. [Sec. 5.5] The QMC uncertainty propagation uses 512 Sobol samples in four dimensions. The paper does not quantify the sampling noise of the reported 16–84% intervals; a small bootstrap or an independent Sobol seed test would support the precision of the quoted uncertainty bands.
  5. [Appendix C] The performance benchmarks are useful, but the GPU implementation ('RawKernel') is not described; a brief description of the parallelization strategy would aid reproducibility and interpretation of the speed-up numbers.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circular derivation: the framework's fluxes and asymmetries are direct calculations from external solar/Earth/oscillation inputs; the single self-citation to the companion 3D density-model paper is not a circular dependency.

full rationale

The claimed derivation chain is self-contained in the circularity sense. The geometry (Secs. 2.2-2.3), solar-side propagation (Sec. 4), Earth-side propagation (Sec. 3), and path compression (Sec. 5) consume external inputs -- Astropy/Skyfield ephemerides, PREM/LITHO1.0/SAW642AN density models, BS05(OP) solar tables, the B16-GS98 flux normalization, and PDG oscillation parameters -- and none of these is fitted to the predicted fluxes or asymmetries. The only self-citation, Ref. [22] for the terrestrial electron-density construction, is explicitly described by the paper as an established model with 'No new geophysical modeling assumptions are introduced in this work'; the underlying LITHO1.0/SAW642AN/PREM data are external, so the citation does not smuggle in the target result. Convergence tests (Appendix B) and the nuSQuIDS cross-check (Appendix C) independently support the numerics. The reviewer-noted mismatch between the g(t)-weighted definition of P_X_ee in Eq. (6.3) and the equal time-sample weights w_a = 1/N_night in Eqs. (5.20)-(5.22) is a numerical accuracy concern (it could bias A_flux_DN at the ~0.1 pp level), but it is not a circularity: the reported numbers are not equivalent, by construction, to the paper's inputs. Stated limitations (neglected oscillation-parameter correlations in Sec. 5.5; excluded solar-model normalization uncertainty in Sec. 6) are transparent and do not make the derivation circular.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

7 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

The framework is built entirely from standard physics and previously published Earth/solar models; no new particles or forces are introduced. The listed axioms are the external inputs and heuristic approximations the central claim rests on.

free parameters (7)
  • Adaptive predictor tolerance ε_pred = 5×10^-6
    Hand-chosen production setting controlling solar adaptive mesh; convergence tested in Appendix B.1.
  • Number of Earth Strang layers N_x = 8000
    Hand-chosen discretization; max pointwise deviation ~1.9e-4 vs N_x=20000 reference (Appendix B.2).
  • Number of representative nighttime trajectories K = 10000
    Hand-chosen medoid count; max deviation ~8.5e-5 vs unclustered direct calculation (Appendix B.2).
  • Number of projected solar source nodes N_ρ = 400
    Hand-chosen source-discretization; convergence shown in Appendix B.1, reference N_ρ=1000.
  • Energy-bin boundaries for adaptive mesh = [0.1, 4, 8, 12, 16] MeV
    Hand-chosen binning for bin-wise max mesh error (Sec. 4.5.3).
  • QMC sample count N_QMC = 512
    Hand-chosen Sobol ensemble size for parameter uncertainty propagation (Sec. 5.5).
  • Spectral-shape realizations N_spec = 5000
    Hand-chosen Monte Carlo sample count for the 8B spectrum shape uncertainty (Sec. 5.5).
axioms (7)
  • standard math Standard three-flavor MSW evolution with PMNS matrix U and Hamiltonian H = H_vac + H_mat (Eqs. 3.2–3.6).
    The propagation equation is the standard quantum-mechanical Schrödinger equation for neutrino flavor; assumed throughout.
  • domain assumption Oscillation parameters (sin^2θ12, sin^2θ13, Δm21^2, Δm32^2) from PDG 2025 normal ordering are correct and uncorrelated (Sec. 5.5, 6).
    The predictions inherit these external fitted values; the paper propagates their uncertainties but does not fit them.
  • domain assumption Solar model BS05(OP) density and production profiles are correct; B16-GS98 provides the total 8B flux normalization (Sec. 4.1, 6).
    External solar inputs adopted as fixed references; solar-model normalization uncertainty deliberately excluded.
  • domain assumption The hybrid Earth electron-density model (LITHO1.0 + SAW642AN + PREM) accurately describes electron density along neutrino chords, as constructed in the companion reactor paper [22] (Sec. 3.1).
    This is the load-bearing geophysical input for the 3D matter effects; no new geophysical validation is performed here.
  • ad hoc to paper The finite-source angular cloud is approximated as an isotropic Gaussian for the clustering dissimilarity metric; final reweighting uses ring-resolved nodes (Sec. 5.2, Appendix A).
    An approximation introduced specifically for the W2-inspired distance; validated to percent-level KS distance but not exact.
  • ad hoc to paper The W2-inspired squared distance D^2_ij = θ^2_ij + 2(σ_i−σ_j)^2 is a valid surrogate for path-space clustering (Eq. 5.6).
    A heuristic, not the exact spherical Wasserstein distance; justified by small angular spread.
  • domain assumption Sun-side propagation uses spherically symmetric solar density and production profiles; time-dependent density perturbations are neglected (Sec. 4.1).
    Standard assumption for solar neutrinos; the paper flags extensions to 3D time-dependent solar models as future work.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 25960 in / 13399 out tokens · 125521 ms · 2026-08-03T01:43:33.666997+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Solar neutrinos have been studied for over half a century to test both the Standard Solar Model and the electroweak sector of the Standard Model of particle physics. Contemporary experiments are now entering an era of high-precision measurements, demanding corresponding theoretical predictions with sub-percent accuracy to enable meaningful comparison. In this paper, we identify and analyze the essential physical and computational components required to compute solar neutrino fluxes with high fidelity, and present a unified, computationally efficient framework. This framework incorporates: (i) the time-varying Earth-Sun distance; (ii) Earth matter effects modeled using both one-dimensional (1D) and three-dimensional (3D) Earth electron-density profiles; and (iii) a fast, Strang-splitting-based implementation of the Mikheyev-Smirnov-Wolfenstein (MSW) neutrino propagation formalism, enabling rapid, large-scale scans over neutrino trajectories and energy grids. We deliver site-specific predictions for the China Jinping Underground Laboratory (CJPL) and other underground laboratories actively engaged in solar neutrino programs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.24421 by Isabella Yin, Kaoru Yagi, Kevin Yifan Jiang, Keyu Han, Shaomin Chen, XiangPan Ji.

Figure 2.1
Figure 2.1. Figure 2.1: Schematic illustration of the solar neutrino source and propagation geometry. The finite neu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5.1
Figure 5.1. Figure 5.1: Geometric origin and detector-centered path-space representation of nighttime solar neutrino [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_5_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6.1
Figure 6.1. Figure 6.1: Site-specific 8B solar neutrino predictions for CJPL. Panel a displays the predicted day￾time and nighttime electron-neutrino flux spectra, incorporating combined uncertainties from oscillation parameters and spectral shape. Panel b presents the corresponding energy-dependent day–night flux asymmetry, Aflux DN (Eν). Here, ⟨· · · ⟩D and ⟨· · · ⟩N denote time averages over the daytime and nighttime interva… view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 13 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    A. S. Blum, A. Martínez de Velasco, The genesis of the CPT theorem, Eur. Phys. J. H 47 (1) (2022) 5.doi:10.1140/epjh/s13129-022-00037-w

    doi:10.1140/epjh/s13129-022-00037-w 2022

  2. [2]

    Abe, et al., Search for CP Violation in Neutrino and Antineutrino Oscillations by the T2K Experiment with2.2× 1021 Protons on Target, Phys

    K. Abe, et al., Search for CP Violation in Neutrino and Antineutrino Oscillations by the T2K Experiment with2.2× 1021 Protons on Target, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121 (17) (2018) 171802. arXiv:1807.07891, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.171802

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  3. [3]

    M. A. Acero, et al., Search for CP-Violating Neutrino Nonstandard Interactions with theNOvAExperiment, Phys.Rev.Lett.133(20)(2024)201802. arXiv:2403.07266, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.133.201802

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    R. Acciarri, et al., Long-Baseline Neutrino Facility (LBNF) and Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment (DUNE): Conceptual Design Report, Volume 2: The Physics Program for DUNE at LBNF (12 2015).arXiv:1512.06148

    arXiv 2015

  5. [5]

    Abe, et al., Physics potential of a long-baseline neutrino oscillation experiment using a J-PARC neutrino beam and Hyper-Kamiokande, PTEP 2015 (2015) 053C02

    K. Abe, et al., Physics potential of a long-baseline neutrino oscillation experiment using a J-PARC neutrino beam and Hyper-Kamiokande, PTEP 2015 (2015) 053C02. arXiv:1502.05199, doi:10.1093/ptep/ptv061

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  6. [6]

    Abe, et al., Solar neutrino measurements using the full data period of Super- Kamiokande-IV, Phys

    K. Abe, et al., Solar neutrino measurements using the full data period of Super- Kamiokande-IV, Phys. Rev. D 109 (9) (2024) 092001. arXiv:2312.12907, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.092001

    arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Aharmim, et al., Combined Analysis of all Three Phases of Solar Neutrino Data from the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory, Phys

    B. Aharmim, et al., Combined Analysis of all Three Phases of Solar Neutrino Data from the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory, Phys. Rev. C 88 (2013) 025501.arXiv: 1109.0763, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.88.025501

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  8. [8]

    Gando, et al., Reactor On-Off Antineutrino Measurement with KamLAND, Phys

    A. Gando, et al., Reactor On-Off Antineutrino Measurement with KamLAND, Phys. Rev. D 88 (3) (2013) 033001. arXiv:1303.4667, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD. 88.033001. 37

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  9. [9]

    Maltoni, A

    M. Maltoni, A. Y. Smirnov, Solar neutrinos and neutrino physics, Eur. Phys. J. A 52 (4) (2016) 87.arXiv:1507.05287, doi:10.1140/epja/i2016-16087-0

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  10. [10]

    Abusleme, et al., Measurement of reactor neutrino oscillation with the first JUNO data, Nature 654 (8118) (2026) 343–348.arXiv:2511.14593, doi:10.1038/ s41586-026-10538-z

    A. Abusleme, et al., Measurement of reactor neutrino oscillation with the first JUNO data, Nature 654 (8118) (2026) 343–348.arXiv:2511.14593, doi:10.1038/ s41586-026-10538-z

    arXiv 2026

  11. [11]

    Wolfenstein, Neutrino Oscillations in Matter, Phys

    L. Wolfenstein, Neutrino Oscillations in Matter, Phys. Rev. D 17 (1978) 2369–2374. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.17.2369

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.17.2369 1978

  12. [12]

    S. P. Mikheyev, A. Y. Smirnov, Resonance Amplification of Oscillations in Matter and Spectroscopy of Solar Neutrinos, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 42 (1985) 913–917

    1985

  13. [13]

    S. P. Mikheev, A. Y. Smirnov, Resonant amplification of neutrino oscillations in matter and solar neutrino spectroscopy, Nuovo Cim. C 9 (1986) 17–26.doi:10. 1007/BF02508049

    1986

  14. [14]

    X.-J. Xu, Z. Wang, S. Chen, Solar neutrino physics, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 131 (2023) 104043. arXiv:2209.14832, doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2023.104043

    arXiv 2023

  15. [15]

    A. M. Dziewonski, D. L. Anderson, Preliminary reference earth model, Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors 25 (4) (1981) 297–356.doi:10.1016/0031-9201(81) 90046-7

    doi:10.1016/0031-9201(81 1981

  16. [16]

    M. E. Pasyanos, T. G. Masters, G. Laske, Z. Ma, Litho1.0: An updated crust and lithospheric model of the earth, Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth 119 (3) (2014) 2153–2173. doi:10.1002/2013JB010626

    doi:10.1002/2013jb010626 2014

  17. [17]

    M.Panning, B.Romanowicz, Athree-dimensionalradiallyanisotropicmodelofshear velocity in the whole mantle, Geophysical Journal International 167 (1) (2006) 361–

    2006

  18. [18]

    Strang, On the Construction and Comparison of Difference Schemes, SIAM J

    G. Strang, On the Construction and Comparison of Difference Schemes, SIAM J. Number. Anal. 5 (3) (1968) 506–517.doi:10.1137/0705041

    doi:10.1137/0705041 1968

  19. [19]

    Meeus, Astronomical Algorithms, 2nd Edition, Willmann-Bell, Richmond, VA, 1998

    J. Meeus, Astronomical Algorithms, 2nd Edition, Willmann-Bell, Richmond, VA, 1998

    1998

  20. [20]

    Astropy Collaboration, T. P. Robitaille, E. J. Tollerud, P. Greenfield, M. Droett- boom, E. Bray, T. Aldcroft, M. Davis, A. Ginsburg, A. M. Price-Whelan, W. E. Kerzendorf, A. Conley, N. Crighton, K. Barbary, D. Muna, H. Ferguson, F. Grollier, M. M. Parikh, P. H. Nair, H. M. Günther, C. Deil, J. Woillez, S. Conseil, R. Kramer, 38 J.E.H.Turner, L.Singer, R....

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  21. [21]

    Rhodes, Skyfield: High precision research-grade positions for planets and earth satellites generator, Astrophysics Source Code Library (2019) ascl–1907

    B. Rhodes, Skyfield: High precision research-grade positions for planets and earth satellites generator, Astrophysics Source Code Library (2019) ascl–1907

    2019

  22. [22]

    K. Han, J. Qian, S. Chen, Worldwide reactor neutrino propagation to underground labs: Matter effects and flux predictions (2026).arXiv:2603.25655

    arXiv 2026

  23. [23]

    J. N. Bahcall, A. M. Serenelli, S. Basu, New solar opacities, abundances, helio- seismology, and neutrino fluxes, Astrophys. J. Lett. 621 (2005) L85–L88.arXiv: astro-ph/0412440, doi:10.1086/428929

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  24. [24]

    J. N. Bahcall, E. Lisi, D. E. Alburger, L. De Braeckeleer, S. J. Freedman, J. Napoli- tano, Standard neutrino spectrum from8b decay, Phys. Rev. C 54 (1996) 411–422. arXiv:nucl-th/9601044, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.54.411

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  25. [25]

    J. N. Bahcall, Software and data for solar neutrino research,https://www.sns.ias. edu/~jnb/SNdata/sndata.html, accessed 25 July 2026

    2026

  26. [26]

    Magnus, On the exponential solution of differential equations for a linear op- erator, Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics 7 (4) (1954) 649–673

    W. Magnus, On the exponential solution of differential equations for a linear op- erator, Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics 7 (4) (1954) 649–673. doi:10.1002/cpa.3160070404

    doi:10.1002/cpa.3160070404 1954

  27. [27]

    Blanes, P

    S. Blanes, P. C. Moan, Fourth- and sixth-order commutator-free magnus integrators for linear and non-linear dynamical systems, Applied Numerical Mathematics 56 (12) (2006) 1519–1537. doi:10.1016/j.apnum.2005.11.004

    doi:10.1016/j.apnum.2005.11.004 2006

  28. [28]

    Ohlsson, H

    T. Ohlsson, H. Snellman, Three flavor neutrino oscillations in matter, J. Math. Phys. 41 (5) (2000) 2768–2788.arXiv:hep-ph/9910546, doi:10.1063/1.533270

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  29. [29]

    Gelbrich, On a formula for thel2 wasserstein metric between measures on eu- clidean and hilbert spaces, Math

    M. Gelbrich, On a formula for thel2 wasserstein metric between measures on eu- clidean and hilbert spaces, Math. Nachr. 147 (1) (1990) 185–203. doi:10.1002/ mana.19901470121

    1990

  30. [30]

    Kaufman, P

    L. Kaufman, P. J. Rousseeuw,Clustering by means of medoids, 1987. URL https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:59662201

    1987

  31. [31]

    Lloyd, Least squares quantization in pcm, IEEE Trans

    S. Lloyd, Least squares quantization in pcm, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 28 (2) (1982) 129–137. doi:10.1109/TIT.1982.1056489. 39

    arXiv 1982

  32. [32]

    I. M. Sobol’, On the distribution of points in a cube and the approximate evaluation of integrals, USSR Computational Mathematics and Mathematical Physics 7 (4) (1967) 86–112. doi:10.1016/0041-5553(67)90144-9

    doi:10.1016/0041-5553(67)90144-9 1967

  33. [33]

    Virtanen, R

    P. Virtanen, R. Gommers, T. E. Oliphant, M. Haberland, T. Reddy, D. Cournapeau, et al., SciPy 1.0: Fundamental algorithms for scientific computing in python, Nature Methods 17 (2020) 261–272.doi:10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    doi:10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 2020

  34. [34]

    Navas, et al., Review of particle physics, Phys

    S. Navas, et al., Review of particle physics, Phys. Rev. D 110 (3) (2024) 030001, 2025 update. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.030001

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.110.030001 2024

  35. [35]

    Vinyoles, A

    N. Vinyoles, A. M. Serenelli, F. L. Villante, S. Basu, J. Bergström, M. C. Gonzalez- Garcia, M. Maltoni, C. Peña-Garay, N. Song, A new generation of standard so- lar models, Astrophys. J. 835 (2) (2017) 202. arXiv:1611.09867, doi:10.3847/ 1538-4357/835/2/202

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  36. [36]

    C. A. Argüelles, J. Salvado, C. N. Weaver, nuSQuIDS: A toolbox for neutrino propa- gation, Computer Physics Communications 277 (2022) 108346.arXiv:2112.13804, doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2022.108346. 40

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  37. [379]

    doi:10.1111/j.1365-246X.2006.03100.x

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006