Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 2 minor 121 references

Neutrino quantum kinetics for fast flavor conversion in a time-dependent environment

T0 review · 4 major / 2 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Fast flavor conversion in a time-dependent supernova environment runs through three distinct episodes, and the end-of-stage flavor content matches simpler fixed-background models except during a flavor-swap phase.

desk verdict The staged time-dependent QKE results are interesting and probably useful to the subfield, but I can't tell from the abstract whether the three episodes are emergent or imposed by the Y_e(t) protocol — that's the crux for the referee. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.07773 v1 pith:5KTWHGNC submitted 2026-08-07 astro-ph.HE hep-ph

Zewei Xiong , Meng-Ru Wu This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEhep-ph
keywords fastflavorconversionneutrinoquantumkineticsE-XLNangularcrossingcollisionalrateselectronfractionevolutionquasistationarystatecore-collapsesupernovaeffectiveclassicaltransport
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

This paper asks whether the standard two-step recipe for studying fast flavor conversions of neutrinos—first build an unstable angular distribution, then evolve it—remains valid when the instability develops gradually in a realistic, time-dependent supernova environment. It solves the neutrino quantum kinetic equations with self-consistent collision rates in a spherically symmetric background whose electron fraction is marched through a sequence of stages, starting from a state with no electron-minus-heavy-flavor lepton number (E-XLN) crossings. The central finding is that flavor evolution proceeds through three episodes: shallow-crossing, near-crossing-elimination, and flavor-swap. The evolved flavor content at the end of each stage broadly matches the quasistationary solutions of the corresponding two-step models with fixed matter backgrounds, which matters because those cheaper static calculations are widely used to predict supernova neutrino signals and nucleosynthesis.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the neutrino quantum kinetic equation with self-consistent collision terms, integrated in a spherically symmetric supernova background whose electron fraction is advanced in stages. The key diagnostic is the E-XLN angular crossing—a sign change in the electron-minus-heavy-flavor lepton number as a function of neutrino propagation direction—which is the seed of the fast flavor instability. By starting from a crossing-free state and letting crossings emerge through the time dependence, the calculation tests whether the instability's growth path and quasistationary end states match the standard two-step construction. The comparison quantity is the evolved flavor content at the end of each stage versus the quasistationary solution of the fixed-background two-step model.

What would settle it

Run the same spherically symmetric setup with a continuously self-consistent electron-fraction evolution, rather than the prescribed staged sequence, starting from the same crossing-free state; if the shallow-crossing, near-crossing-elimination, and swapping episodes do not appear in that order, or the final flavor content disagrees with the fixed-background quasistationary solutions, the central claim is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that a neutrino gas in a spherically symmetric supernova background with a time-evolving electron fraction does not immediately run away to strong flavor instability. Starting from a crossing-free configuration, the gas develops shallow E-XLN angular crossings whose small-scale structure agrees with linear stability analysis; collisions then balance the fast flavor instability and keep the system near a quasistationary state in which crossings are continuously eliminated. When the electron fraction reverses sign, a dynamically propagating flavor-swap E-XLN zero surface forms, marking a third episode. The evolved flavor content at the end of each time stage is broadly reproduced by the quasistationary solutions of the corresponding two-step models that freeze the matter background, and the effective classical transport framework with subgrid flavor redistribution remains robust under different parametrized prescriptions except during the swapping episode.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that forcing the electron fraction to evolve through a sequence of prescribed stages, each with a fixed matter background, faithfully represents the gradual growth of crossings that real neutrino transport would produce; if that staging distorts the dynamics, the three-episode picture and the match to two-step models may not survive.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the three-episode picture is correct, two-step models with fixed matter backgrounds capture the end-of-stage flavor content in the shallow-crossing and near-crossing-elimination phases, so previous results built on those models remain relevant.
  • Collisions can hold a fast-flavor unstable system in a near-quasistationary, crossing-eliminating state, meaning the strongly unstable regime may be avoided for extended periods in dense supernova environments.
  • The swapping episode is the exceptional stage: E-XLN reverses sign and a propagating flavor-swap zero surface appears, so this phase needs dedicated treatment rather than a quasistationary or subgrid approximation.
  • The robustness of effective classical transport with subgrid flavor redistribution under different parametrized prescriptions strengthens confidence in coarse-grained transport modeling outside the swapping episode.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The staged background is the paper's main simplification; a continuous, transport-consistent electron-fraction evolution might blend the three episodes and soften the quasistationary agreement, so the episode boundaries are likely not sharp in reality.
  • If the end-of-stage agreement holds in unstepped runs, a practical shortcut would be to time-step astrophysical simulations with local quasistationary flavor snapshots and only refine during sign reversals of the lepton number.
  • The same staged technique could be adapted to neutron-star merger environments, where crossing growth is driven by different transport processes; the three-episode structure may or may not survive there.
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

4 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper reports 1D spherically symmetric neutrino quantum kinetic equation (QKE) simulations of fast flavor conversion in a supernova background with a time-dependent electron fraction. Starting from an E-XLN crossing-free configuration, the electron fraction evolves through a sequence of stages, and the authors identify three episodes: a shallow-crossing episode, a near-crossing-elimination episode, and a swapping episode in which the E-XLN reverses sign. The central claim is that the evolved flavor content at the end of each stage broadly matches quasistationary solutions obtained from two-step models with fixed matter backgrounds, thereby supporting the two-step approach for time-dependent environments. The paper also examines effective classical transport (ECT) with different parametrized subgrid flavor redistribution prescriptions. The present review is based on the abstract only, as the full text was not available.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper would provide an important bridge between realistic time-dependent transport and the widely used two-step idealizations of fast flavor conversion. The explicit comparison between time-dependent QKE solutions and independent two-step quasistationary solutions is a conceptually sound, non-circular benchmark, and the inclusion of self-consistent collisional rates is a clear strength. The robustness test of the ECT framework is also valuable for practical supernova simulations. However, the abstract alone does not supply the numerical details needed to assess convergence, resolution, or the physical fidelity of the staged background, and the staged protocol raises a real risk that the three-episode structure and the quasistationary agreement are artifacts of the imposed timeline rather than emergent properties. The significance is therefore conditional on a careful demonstration that the staged evolution faithfully represents transport-driven crossing growth.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states that the electron fraction evolves 'through a sequence of stages, starting from a configuration free of E-XLN crossings' and then reports three characteristic episodes. This staging may choreograph the episodes: the stage boundaries themselves determine when crossings become shallow, when the system is held near crossing elimination, and when E-XLN reverses sign. The central claim that the time-dependent evolution validates the two-step approach requires evidence that this prescribed Y_e(t) reproduces the crossing growth that would arise self-consistently from neutrino transport in a realistic supernova. Please provide a direct comparison of the crossing-development timescale and morphology against, for example, a transport-driven evolving background, or demonstrate that the three-episode structure persists under different stage durations and Y_e(t) trajectories.
  2. [Abstract] The abstract's statement that 'the evolved flavor content at the end of different time stages broadly agrees with the quasistationary solutions' risks circularity. If each stage is long compared to the collision and instability timescales, the system will saturate into a quasistationary state before the next stage boundary by construction, making the time-dependent simulation essentially a concatenation of static backgrounds. To rule this out, the paper should report the ratios of stage duration to the relevant instability and collision timescales, and show that the agreement does not depend on choosing sufficiently long stages. Without such diagnostics, the agreement could be a built-in consequence of the protocol rather than a validation of the two-step approach.
  3. [Abstract] The swapping episode is described as a case where 'the E-XLN reverses sign and a dynamically propagating flavor-swap E-XLN zero surface forms.' Because the background electron fraction is externally time-dependent and the reversal is imposed by the prescribed staging, the zero surface may not be dynamically self-generated but rather forced by the background timeline. The manuscript should distinguish between an E-XLN reversal that arises self-consistently from flavor evolution and one that is imposed by the Y_e(t) protocol. For example, the authors could compare the time and location of the zero-surface formation against the background reversal time and show that the surface propagates independently of the imposed stage boundary.
  4. [Abstract] The abstract provides no numerical details: no grid resolution, no timestep control, no collision-rate model, no treatment of spatial boundaries, and no convergence tests. These are load-bearing for the central comparison, because the claims of small-scale structures and near-quasistationary balance require that the numerical solutions be resolved and converged. The full manuscript presumably contains these details, but the abstract alone is insufficient to establish the claims. Please ensure the methods section explicitly reports these quantities and demonstrates that the reported results are converged with respect to resolution and physical inputs.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract ends mid-sentence with '[abridged]' after 'except during the swapping,' so the ECT robustness conclusion is incomplete. The complete result should be stated clearly in the final version.
  2. [Abstract] The phrase 'broadly agrees' is vague. Specify the quantitative metric used for the comparison (e.g., angle-averaged survival probability, flavor-conversion efficiency, crossing-depth evolution) and the numerical tolerance used to define agreement.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No demonstrable circularity in abstract-only review; comparisons to two-step models and linear stability analysis provide independent benchmarks.

full rationale

The abstract describes a time-dependent QKE simulation with a prescribed, staged electron-fraction background and then reports three observed episodes plus agreement with quasistationary two-step solutions at fixed matter backgrounds. No fitted parameters are mentioned, and the quasistationary comparison is an external benchmark rather than an input fitted to the time-dependent result. The consistency with linear stability analysis is also an independent check. A concern that the staged background may choreograph the episodes is a representativeness or correctness issue, not a circularity: the episodes are properties of a specified initial-value problem, not assumptions used to derive the solution. Because the full text is unavailable, I cannot exhibit any specific equation or reduction that would demonstrate self-definitional, fitted-input, or self-citation circularity. Therefore, the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

From abstract only; no free parameters or invented entities can be confirmed. The main modeling assumptions are the staged time evolution and the validity of the comparison setups.

free parameters (1)
  • subgrid flavor redistribution prescription parameters
    Abstract mentions different parametrized prescriptions for effective classical transport substructure; values not given in abstract.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Quantum kinetic equations with self-consistent collisional rates correctly describe neutrino flavor evolution in the supernova background.
    Abstract states the setup; no derivation or validation provided in abstract.
  • domain assumption The spherically symmetric supernova background with a time-evolving electron fraction through staged sequences captures the gradual development of realistic E-XLN crossings.
    Load-bearing modeling choice; abstract does not justify this representation.
  • domain assumption Two-step models with fixed matter backgrounds are valid comparators for evolved flavor content.
    Used as baseline; abstract does not provide details of the comparison.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Neutrino quantum kinetics for fast flavor conversion in a time-dependent environment." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5KTWHGNC

@misc{pith2026260807773,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Neutrino quantum kinetics for fast flavor conversion in a time-dependent environment},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5KTWHGNC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.07773}
}
read the original abstract

Fast flavor conversions (FFCs) of neutrinos, driven by the fast flavor instability (FFI), can reshape the neutrino flavor content in dense astrophysical environments such as core-collapse supernovae and neutron star mergers. Most studies of FFCs adopt a two-step approach, in which a flavor-unstable state containing deep electron-minus-heavy-flavor lepton number (E-XLN) angular crossings is first constructed and subsequently evolved. Because realistic crossings should instead develop gradually through neutrino transport, the validity of such setups has been called into question. We investigate this issue by solving the neutrino quantum kinetic equations with self-consistent collisional rates in a spherically symmetric supernova background whose electron fraction evolves in time through a sequence of stages, starting from a configuration free of E-XLN crossings. We find that the evolution proceeds through three characteristic episodes. In the shallow-crossing episode, FFCs develop from marginally unstable, shallow crossings, carrying small-scale structures consistent with linear stability analysis. In the near-crossing-elimination episode, the balance between collisions and FFCs keeps the system in a near-quasistationary state in which the emerging crossings are continuously eliminated, so that the strongly unstable regime is never reached. In the swapping episodes, the E-XLN reverses sign and a dynamically propagating flavor-swap E-XLN zero surface forms. We find that the evolved flavor content at the end of different time stages broadly agrees with the quasistationary solutions obtained in the corresponding two-step models adopting fixed matter backgrounds. In addition, we investigate the robustness of the effective classical transport (ECT) framework that adopts subgrid flavor redistribution using different parametrized prescriptions. Notably, except during the swapping [abridged]

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.07773 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Schematic illustration of the staged time-dependent [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Radial profiles of neutrino number densities between [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Radial profiles for the ratio of neutrino number density over that at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (13 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Characteristics for neutrino angular distributions (a–b) and number densities of all species (c) at 36 km as functions of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Evolution of the off-diagonal flavor coherence [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. E-XLN angular distributions at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Snapshots of the off-diagonal flavor coherence [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Radial profiles of neutrino number densities between [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Snapshots of the off-diagonal flavor coherence [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Comparison between LSA results (upper panels) and spectrograms (lower panels) at four representative times of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. Evolution of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_13.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15. Coarse-grained E-XLN angular distribution [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16. Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: FIG. 17. Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: FIG. 18. Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_18.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

121 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    QKE-L-long

    Role of collisions in decoherence A more fundamental ingredient underlying this bal- ance, which is also related to the success of ECT models that will be discussed in Sec. VII, is collisional decoher- ence. In what follows, we discuss how collisional deco- herence facilitates this balance by effectively regulating the off-diagonal elements. In addition t...

  2. [2]

    M. C. Volpe, Rev. Mod. Phys.96, 025004 (2024), 2301.11814

    arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    Johns, S

    L. Johns, S. Richers, and M.-R. Wu, (2025), 10.1146/annurev-nucl-121423-100853, 2503.05959

    arXiv 2025

  4. [4]

    R. F. Sawyer, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 081101 (2016), 1509.03323

    arXiv 2016

  5. [5]

    M. R. Wu and I. Tamborra, Phys. Rev. D95, 103007 (2017), 1701.06580

    arXiv 2017

  6. [6]

    M. R. Wu, I. Tamborra, O. Just, and H. T. Janka, Phys. Rev. D96, 123015 (2017), 1711.00477

    arXiv 2017

  7. [7]

    Abbar, H

    S. Abbar, H. Duan, K. Sumiyoshi, T. Takiwaki, and M. C. Volpe, Phys. Rev. D100, 043004 (2019), 1812.06883

    arXiv 2019

  8. [8]

    Delfan Azari, S

    M. Delfan Azari, S. Yamada, T. Morinaga, W. Iwakami, H. Okawa, H. Nagakura, and K. Sumiyoshi, Phys. Rev. D99, 103011 (2019), 1902.07467

    arXiv 2019

Show all 121 references
  1. [9]

    Nagakura, T

    H. Nagakura, T. Morinaga, C. Kato, and S. Yamada, The Astrophysical Journal886, 139 (2019), 1910.04288

    2019 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Morinaga, H

    T. Morinaga, H. Nagakura, C. Kato, and S. Yamada, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 012046 (2020), 1909.13131

    2020 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Abbar, H

    S. Abbar, H. Duan, K. Sumiyoshi, T. Takiwaki, and M. C. Volpe, Phys. Rev. D101, 043016 (2020), 1911.01983

    2020 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Glas, H.-T

    R. Glas, H.-T. Janka, F. Capozzi, M. Sen, B. Dasgupta, A. Mirizzi, and G. Sigl, Phys. Rev. D101, 063001 (2020), 1912.00274

    2020

  5. [13]

    Nagakura, A

    H. Nagakura, A. Burrows, L. Johns, and G. M. Fuller, Phys. Rev. D104, 083025 (2021), 2108.07281

    2021 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Abbar, F

    S. Abbar, F. Capozzi, R. Glas, H. T. Janka, and I. Tam- borra, Phys. Rev. D103, 063033 (2021), 2012.06594

    2021 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Harada and H

    A. Harada and H. Nagakura, Astrophys. J.924, 109 (2022), 2110.08291

    2022 arXiv

  8. [17]

    Mukhopadhyay, J

    P. Mukhopadhyay, J. Miller, and G. C. McLaughlin, Astrophys. J.974, 110 (2024), 2404.17938

    2024 arXiv

  9. [18]

    Nagakura, K

    H. Nagakura, K. Sumiyoshi, S. Fujibayashi, Y. Sekiguchi, and M. Shibata, Phys. Rev. D112, 043029 (2025), 2504.20143

    2025 arXiv

  10. [19]

    Xiong, M.-R

    Z. Xiong, M.-R. Wu, N. K. Largani, T. Fischer, and G. Mart ´ ınez-Pinedo, Phys. Rev. D112, 063024 (2025), 2505.19592

    2025

  11. [20]

    Froustey, F

    J. Froustey, F. Foucart, C. Hall, J. P. Kneller, D. Kundu, Z. Lin, G. C. McLaughlin, and S. Rich- ers, Phys. Rev. D113, 063050 (2026), arXiv:2601.02461 [astro-ph.HE]

    2026

  12. [21]

    Urquilla, S

    E. Urquilla, S. Shankar, D. Kundu, J. Froustey, S. Rich- ers, J. M. Miller, G. C. McLaughlin, J. P. Kneller, and F. Foucart, (2026), arXiv:2604.06404 [astro-ph.HE]

    2026 arXiv

  13. [22]

    Morinaga, Phys

    T. Morinaga, Phys. Rev. D105, L101301 (2022), 2103.15267

    2022 arXiv

  14. [23]

    Dasgupta, Phys

    B. Dasgupta, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 081102 (2022), 2110.00192

    2022 arXiv

  15. [24]

    D. F. G. Fiorillo and G. G. Raffelt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 211003 (2025), 2502.06935

    2025 arXiv

  16. [25]

    Xiong, A

    Z. Xiong, A. Sieverding, M. Sen, and Y.-Z. Qian, As- trophys. J.900, 144 (2020), 2006.11414

    2020 arXiv

  17. [26]

    Fujimoto and H

    S.-i. Fujimoto and H. Nagakura, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.519, 2623 (2022), 2210.02106

    2022 arXiv

  18. [27]

    Nagakura, Phys

    H. Nagakura, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 211401 (2023), 2301.10785

    2023 arXiv

  19. [28]

    Ehring, S

    J. Ehring, S. Abbar, H. T. Janka, G. Raffelt, and I. Tamborra, Phys. Rev. D107, 103034 (2023), 2301.11938

    2023 arXiv

  20. [29]

    Ehring, S

    J. Ehring, S. Abbar, H. T. Janka, G. Raffelt, and I. Tamborra, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 061401 (2023), 2305.11207

    2023 arXiv

  21. [30]

    George, M.-R

    M. George, M.-R. Wu, I. Tamborra, R. Ardevol- Pulpillo, and H.-T. Janka, Phys. Rev. D102, 103015 (2020), 2009.04046

    2020 arXiv

  22. [31]

    Li and D

    X. Li and D. M. Siegel, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 251101 (2021), 2103.02616

    2021 arXiv

  23. [32]

    O. Just, S. Abbar, M. R. Wu, I. Tamborra, H. T. Janka, and F. Capozzi, Phys. Rev. D105, 083024 (2022), 2203.16559

    2022 arXiv

  24. [33]

    Fern´ andez, S

    R. Fern´ andez, S. Richers, N. Mulyk, and S. Fahlman, Phys. Rev. D106, 103003 (2022), 2207.10680

    2022 arXiv

  25. [34]

    Nagakura, Phys

    H. Nagakura, Phys. Rev. D108, 103014 (2023), 2306.10108

    2023 arXiv

  26. [35]

    Nagakura and M

    H. Nagakura and M. Zaizen, Phys. Rev. D107, 063033 (2023), 2211.01398

    2023 arXiv

  27. [36]

    Nagakura and M

    H. Nagakura and M. Zaizen, Phys. Rev. D108, 123003 (2023), 2308.14800

    2023 arXiv

  28. [37]

    Froustey, S

    J. Froustey, S. Richers, E. Grohs, S. Flynn, F. Foucart, J. P. Kneller, and G. C. McLaughlin, Phys. Rev. D 109, 043046 (2024), 2311.11968

    2024 arXiv

  29. [38]

    Grohs, S

    E. Grohs, S. Richers, S. M. Couch, F. Foucart, 24 J. Froustey, J. Kneller, and G. McLaughlin, Astrophys. J.963, 11 (2024), 2309.00972

    2024 arXiv

  30. [39]

    Nagakura and K

    H. Nagakura and K. Sumiyoshi, Phys. Rev. D109, 103017 (2024), 2401.15180

    2024 arXiv

  31. [40]

    K. Mori, T. Takiwaki, K. Kotake, and S. Horiuchi, Publ. Astron. Soc. Jap.77, L9 (2025), 2501.15256

    2025 arXiv

  32. [41]

    Y. Qiu, D. Radice, S. Richers, and M. Bhattacharyya, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 091401 (2025), 2503.11758

    2025 arXiv

  33. [42]

    Y. Qiu, D. Radice, S. Richers, F. M. Guer- cilena, A. Perego, and M. Bhattacharyya, (2025), 10.48550/arXiv.2510.15028, 2510.15028

    2025 doi

  34. [43]

    Wang and A

    T. Wang and A. Burrows, (2025), 10.48550/arXiv.2503.04896, 2503.04896

    2025 doi arXiv

  35. [44]

    Wang and A

    T. Wang and A. Burrows, (2025), 10.48550/arXiv.2511.20767, 2511.20767

    2025 doi

  36. [45]

    K. A. Lund, P. Mukhopadhyay, J. M. Miller, and G. C. McLaughlin, Astrophys. J. Lett.985, L9 (2025), 2503.23727

    2025 arXiv

  37. [46]

    Akaho, H

    R. Akaho, H. Nagakura, W. Iwakami, S. Furusawa, A. Harada, H. Okawa, H. Matsufuru, K. Sumiyoshi, and S. Yamada, (2026), 10.48550/arXiv.2601.08269, 2601.08269

    2026 doi arXiv

  38. [47]

    Gogilashvili and I

    M. Gogilashvili and I. Tamborra, (2026), arXiv:2605.16504 [astro-ph.HE]

    2026 arXiv

  39. [48]

    Friedland, D

    A. Friedland, D. J. Li, G. Lucente, P. Mukhopad- hyay, I. Padilla-Gay, and A. V. Patwardhan, (2026), arXiv:2607.15392 [hep-ph]

    2026 arXiv

  40. [49]

    Nagakura, L

    H. Nagakura, L. Johns, and M. Zaizen, Phys. Rev. D 109, 083013 (2024), 2312.16285

    2024 arXiv

  41. [50]

    Xiong, M.-R

    Z. Xiong, M.-R. Wu, M. George, and C.-Y. Lin, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 051003 (2025), 2403.17269

    2025 arXiv

  42. [51]

    Akaho, H

    R. Akaho, H. Nagakura, and S. Yamada, Phys. Rev. D 112, 043015 (2025), 2506.07017

    2025 arXiv

  43. [52]

    Sigl and G

    G. Sigl and G. Raffelt, Nucl. Phys. B406, 423 (1993)

    1993

  44. [53]

    Vlasenko, G

    A. Vlasenko, G. M. Fuller, and V. Cirigliano, Phys. Rev. D89, 105004 (2014), 1309.2628

    2014 arXiv

  45. [54]

    Volpe, Int

    C. Volpe, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E24, 1541009 (2015), 1506.06222

    2015 arXiv

  46. [55]

    D. N. Blaschke and V. Cirigliano, Phys. Rev. D94, 033009 (2016), 1605.09383

    2016 arXiv

  47. [56]

    J. D. Martin, C. Yi, and H. Duan, Phys. Lett. B800, 135088 (2020), 1909.05225

    2020 arXiv

  48. [57]

    Bhattacharyya and B

    S. Bhattacharyya and B. Dasgupta, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 061302 (2021), 2009.03337

    2021 arXiv

  49. [58]

    Bhattacharyya and B

    S. Bhattacharyya and B. Dasgupta, Phys. Rev. D102, 063018 (2020), 2005.00459

    2020 arXiv

  50. [59]

    M.-R. Wu, M. George, C.-Y. Lin, and Z. Xiong, Phys. Rev. D104, 103003 (2021), 2108.09886

    2021 arXiv

  51. [60]

    Richers, D

    S. Richers, D. E. Willcox, N. M. Ford, and A. Myers, Phys. Rev. D103, 083013 (2021), 2101.02745

    2021 arXiv

  52. [61]

    Richers, D

    S. Richers, D. Willcox, and N. Ford, Phys. Rev. D104, 103023 (2021), 2109.08631

    2021 arXiv

  53. [62]

    Zaizen and T

    M. Zaizen and T. Morinaga, Phys. Rev. D104, 083035 (2021), 2104.10532

    2021 arXiv

  54. [63]

    Abbar and F

    S. Abbar and F. Capozzi, JCAP03, 051 (2022), 2111.14880

    2022 arXiv

  55. [64]

    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), 2205.06282

    2022 arXiv

  56. [65]

    Bhattacharyya and B

    S. Bhattacharyya and B. Dasgupta, Phys. Rev. D106, 103039 (2022), 2205.05129

    2022 arXiv

  57. [66]

    Grohs, S

    E. Grohs, S. Richers, S. M. Couch, F. Foucart, J. P. Kneller, and G. C. McLaughlin, Phys. Lett. B846, 138210 (2023), 2207.02214

    2023 arXiv

  58. [67]

    Zaizen and H

    M. Zaizen and H. Nagakura, Phys. Rev. D107, 103022 (2023), 2211.09343

    2023 arXiv

  59. [68]

    Xiong, R

    Z. Xiong, R. Wu, S. Abbar, S. Bhattacharyya, M. George, and C.-Y. Lin, Phys. Rev. D108, 063003 (2023), 2307.11129

    2023 arXiv

  60. [69]

    Richers, J

    S. Richers, J. Froustey, S. Ghosh, F. Foucart, and J. Gomez, Phys. Rev. D110, 103019 (2024), 2409.04405

    2024 arXiv

  61. [70]

    George, Z

    M. George, Z. Xiong, M.-R. Wu, and C.-Y. Lin, Phys. Rev. D110, 123018 (2024), 2409.08833

    2024 arXiv

  62. [71]

    Goimil-Garc ´ ıa and I

    M. Goimil-Garc ´ ıa and I. Tamborra, (2025), 10.48550/arXiv.2509.22805, 2509.22805

    2025 doi

  63. [72]

    Nagakura and M

    H. Nagakura and M. Zaizen, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 261101 (2022), 2206.04097

    2022 arXiv

  64. [73]

    Shalgar and I

    S. Shalgar and I. Tamborra, Phys. Rev. D108, 043006 (2023), 2206.00676

    2023 arXiv

  65. [74]

    Shalgar and I

    S. Shalgar and I. Tamborra, Phys. Rev. D107, 063025 (2023), 2207.04058

    2023 arXiv

  66. [75]

    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), 2402.19252

    2024 arXiv

  67. [76]

    D. F. G. Fiorillo and G. G. Raffelt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 221004 (2024), 2403.12189

    2024 arXiv

  68. [77]

    Johns, Phys

    L. Johns, Phys. Rev. D112, 043024 (2025), 2401.15247

    2025 arXiv

  69. [78]

    Johns and A

    L. Johns and A. Kost, (2025), 10.48550/arXiv.2506.03271, 2506.03271

    2025 doi arXiv

  70. [79]

    Urquilla and L

    E. Urquilla and L. Johns, (2025), 10.48550/arXiv.2510.23917, 2510.23917

    2025 doi arXiv

  71. [80]

    Zaizen and H

    M. Zaizen and H. Nagakura, Phys. Rev. D109, 083031 (2024), 2311.13842

    2024 arXiv

  72. [81]

    J. Liu, H. Nagakura, M. Zaizen, L. Johns, R. Akaho, and S. Yamada, Phys. Rev. D110, 043039 (2024), 2407.10604

    2024 arXiv

  73. [82]

    Banerjee, A

    A. Banerjee, A. Dighe, and G. Raffelt, Phys. Rev. D 84, 053013 (2011), 1107.2308

    2011 arXiv

  74. [83]

    Izaguirre, G

    I. Izaguirre, G. Raffelt, and I. Tamborra, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 021101 (2017), 1610.01612

    2017 arXiv

  75. [84]

    Capozzi, B

    F. Capozzi, B. Dasgupta, E. Lisi, A. Marrone, and A. Mirizzi, Phys. Rev. D96, 043016 (2017), 1706.03360

    2017 arXiv

  76. [85]

    Capozzi, G

    F. Capozzi, G. Raffelt, and T. Stirner, JCAP09, 002 (2019), 1906.08794

    2019 arXiv

  77. [86]

    C. Yi, L. Ma, J. D. Martin, and H. Duan, Phys. Rev. D99, 063005 (2019), 1901.01546

    2019 arXiv

  78. [87]

    D. F. G. Fiorillo and G. G. Raffelt, JHEP08, 225 (2024), 2406.06708

    2024 arXiv

  79. [88]

    D. F. G. Fiorillo and G. G. Raffelt, JHEP12, 205 (2024), 2409.17232

    2024 arXiv

  80. [89]

    Mezzacappa and S

    A. Mezzacappa and S. W. Bruenn, The Astrophysical Journal405, 637 (1993)

    1993

  81. [90]

    Mezzacappa and S

    A. Mezzacappa and S. W. Bruenn, The Astrophysical Journal410, 740 (1993)

    1993

  82. [91]

    Mezzacappa and S

    A. Mezzacappa and S. W. Bruenn, The Astrophysical Journal405, 669 (1993)

    1993

  83. [92]

    Liebend¨ orfer, A

    M. Liebend¨ orfer, A. Mezzacappa, and F.-K. Thiele- mann, Phys. Rev. D63, 104003 (2001), astro- ph/0012201

    2001

  84. [93]

    Liebendorfer, O

    M. Liebendorfer, O. E. B. Messer, A. Mezzacappa, S. W. Bruenn, C. Y. Cardall, and F.-K. Thielemann, Astro- phys. J. Suppl.150, 263 (2004), astro-ph/0207036

    2004 arXiv

  85. [94]

    Typel, G

    S. Typel, G. R¨ opke, T. Kl¨ ahn, D. Blaschke, and H. H. Wolter, Phys. Rev. C81, 015803 (2010), 0908.2344

    2010 arXiv

  86. [95]

    Sigl, Phys

    G. Sigl, Phys. Rev. D105, 043005 (2022), 2109.00091

    2022 arXiv

  87. [96]

    Bhattacharyya, M.-R

    S. Bhattacharyya, M.-R. Wu, and Z. Xiong, (2025), 10.48550/arXiv.2504.11316, 2504.11316. 25

    2025 doi arXiv

  88. [97]

    Zaizen and H

    M. Zaizen and H. Nagakura, (2026), arXiv:2604.13617 [astro-ph.HE]

    2026 arXiv

  89. [98]

    D. F. G. Fiorillo and G. G. Raffelt, (2026), arXiv:2604.18689 [hep-ph]

    2026 arXiv

  90. [99]

    Johns, Phys

    L. Johns, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 191001 (2023), 2104.11369

    2023 arXiv

  91. [100]

    Padilla-Gay, I

    I. Padilla-Gay, I. Tamborra, and G. G. Raffelt, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 121102 (2022), 2109.14627

    2022 arXiv

  92. [101]

    Johns and Z

    L. Johns and Z. Xiong, Phys. Rev. D106, 103029 (2022), 2208.11059

    2022 arXiv

  93. [102]

    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), 2210.08254

    2023 arXiv

  94. [103]

    Lin and H

    Y.-C. Lin and H. Duan, Phys. Rev. D107, 083034 (2023), 2210.09218

    2023 arXiv

  95. [104]

    Xiong, L

    Z. Xiong, L. Johns, M.-R. Wu, and H. Duan, Phys. Rev. D108, 083002 (2023), 2212.03750

    2023 arXiv

  96. [105]

    C. Kato, H. Nagakura, and M. Zaizen, Phys. Rev. D 108, 023006 (2023), 2303.16453

    2023 arXiv

  97. [106]

    J. Liu, M. Zaizen, and S. Yamada, Phys. Rev. D107, 123011 (2023), 2302.06263

    2023 arXiv

  98. [107]

    Akaho, J

    R. Akaho, J. Liu, H. Nagakura, M. Zaizen, and S. Ya- mada, Phys. Rev. D109, 023012 (2024), 2311.11272

    2024 arXiv

  99. [108]

    J. Liu, R. Akaho, A. Ito, H. Nagakura, M. Zaizen, and S. Yamada, Phys. Rev. D108, 123024 (2023), 2310.05050

    2023 arXiv

  100. [109]

    C. Kato, H. Nagakura, and L. Johns, Phys. Rev. D 109, 103009 (2024), 2309.02619

    2024 arXiv

  101. [110]

    D. F. G. Fiorillo, I. Padilla-Gay, and G. G. Raffelt, Phys. Rev. D109, 063021 (2024), 2312.07612

    2024 arXiv

  102. [111]

    Shalgar and I

    S. Shalgar and I. Tamborra, Phys. Rev. D109, 103011 (2024), 2307.10366

    2024 arXiv

  103. [112]

    G. G. Raffelt and G. Sigl, Phys. Rev. D75, 083002 (2007), hep-ph/0701182

    2007 arXiv

  104. [113]

    Johns, H

    L. Johns, H. Nagakura, G. M. Fuller, and A. Burrows, Phys. Rev. D102, 103017 (2020), 2009.09024

    2020 arXiv

  105. [114]

    Xiong, M.-R

    Z. Xiong, M.-R. Wu, and Y.-Z. Qian, Phys. Rev. D 108, 043007 (2023), 2303.05906

    2023 arXiv

  106. [115]

    J. Liu, L. Johns, H. Nagakura, M. Zaizen, and S. Ya- mada, (2025), 10.48550/arXiv.2509.26418, 2509.26418

    2025 doi

  107. [116]

    D. F. G. Fiorillo and G. G. Raffelt, JHEP06, 146 (2025), 2501.16423

    2025 arXiv

  108. [117]

    D. F. G. Fiorillo and G. G. Raffelt, (2025), 10.48550/arXiv.2507.22987, 2507.22987

    2025 doi

  109. [118]

    Padilla-Gay, H.-H

    I. Padilla-Gay, H.-H. Chen, S. Abbar, M.-R. Wu, and Z. Xiong, Phys. Rev. D112, 043039 (2025), 2505.11588

    2025 arXiv

  110. [119]

    D. F. G. Fiorillo, H.-T. Janka, and G. G. Raffelt, (2025), 10.48550/arXiv.2507.22985, 2507.22985

    2025 doi

  111. [120]

    J. D. Hunter, Computing in Science & Engineering9, 90 (2007)

    2007

  112. [121]

    van der Walt, S

    S. van der Walt, S. C. Colbert, and G. Varoquaux, Computing in Science & Engineering13, 22 (2011)

    2011

  113. [122]

    Virtanen, R

    P. Virtanen, R. Gommers, T. E. Oliphant, M. Haber- land, T. Reddy, D. Cournapeau, E. Burovski, P. Pe- terson, W. Weckesser, J. Bright, S. J. van der Walt, M. Brett, J. Wilson, K. J. Millman, N. Mayorov, A. R. J. Nelson,et al., Nature Methods17, 261 (2020). Appendix A: Time evo...

    2020

Pith tools

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