- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine
Access Provided by Xinjiang University

Physical Review D

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Access by Xinjiang University

Inference of bipolar neutrino flavor oscillations near a core-collapse supernova based on multiple measurements at Earth

Eve Armstrong1,2,*, Amol V. Patwardhan3,†, A. A. Ahmetaj1, M. Margarette Sanchez1, Sophia Miskiewicz4, Marcus Ibrahim1, and Ishaan Singh1

  • 1Department of Physics, New York Institute of Technology, New York, New York 10023, USA
  • 2Department of Astrophysics, American Museum of Natural History, New York, New York 10024, USA
  • 3SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, Menlo Park, California 94025, USA
  • 4Department of Physics, Stevens Institute of Technology, Hoboken, New Jersey 07030, USA

  • *evearmstrong.physics@gmail.com
  • †apatward@slac.stanford.edu
PDF

Phys. Rev. D 105, 103003 – Published 3 May, 2022

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.105.103003

Abstract

Neutrinos in compact-object environments, such as core-collapse supernovae, can experience various kinds of collective effects in flavor space, engendered by neutrino-neutrino interactions. These include “bipolar” collective oscillations, which are exhibited by neutrino ensembles where different flavors dominate at different energies. Considering the importance of neutrinos in the dynamics and nucleosynthesis in these environments, it is desirable to ascertain whether an Earth-based detection could contain signatures of bipolar oscillations that occurred within a supernova envelope. To that end, we continue examining a cost-function formulation of statistical data assimilation (SDA) to infer solutions to a small-scale model of neutrino flavor transformation. SDA is an inference paradigm designed to optimize a model with sparse data. Our model consists of two monoenergetic neutrino beams with different energies emanating from a source and coherently interacting with each other and with a matter background, with radially varying interaction strengths. We attempt to infer flavor transformation histories of these beams using simulated measurements of the flavor content at locations “in vacuum” (that is, far from the source), which could in principle correspond to Earth-based detectors. Within the scope of this small-scale model, we found that: (i) based on such measurements, the SDA procedure is able to infer whether bipolar oscillations had occurred within the protoneutron star envelope, and (ii) if the measurements sample the full amplitude of the neutrino oscillations in vacuum, then the amplitude of the prior bipolar oscillations is well predicted. This result intimates that the inference paradigm can well complement numerical integration codes, via its ability to infer flavor evolution at physically inaccessible locations.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (62)

  1. G. M. Fuller, R. Mayle, B. S. Meyer, and J. R. Wilson, Astrophys. J. 389, 517 (1992).
  2. Y.-Z. Qian, G. M. Fuller, G. J. Mathews, R. Mayle, J. R. Wilson, and S. E. Woosley, Phys. Rev. Lett. 71, 1965 (1993).
  3. G. M. Fuller, Phys. Rep. 227, 149 (1993).
  4. G. M. Fuller and B. S. Meyer, Astrophys. J. 453, 792 (1995).
  5. H. Duan, A. Friedland, G. McLaughlin, and R. Surman, J. Phys. G 38, 035201 (2011).
  6. M.-R. Wu, Y.-Z. Qian, G. Martinez-Pinedo, T. Fischer, and L. Huther, Phys. Rev. D 91, 065016 (2015).
  7. M.-R. Wu, G. Martinez-Pinedo, and Y.-Z. Qian, EPJ Web Conf. 109, 06005 (2016).
  8. H. Sasaki, T. Kajino, T. Takiwaki, T. Hayakawa, A. B. Balantekin, and Y. Pehlivan, Phys. Rev. D 96, 043013 (2017).
  9. A. B. Balantekin, AIP Conf. Proc. 1947, 020012 (2018).
  10. Z. Xiong, M.-R. Wu, and Y.-Z. Qian, Astrophys. J. 880, 81 (2019).
  11. Z. Xiong, A. Sieverding, M. Sen, and Y.-Z. Qian, Astrophys. J. 900, 144 (2020).
  12. H. Duan and J. P. Kneller, J. Phys. G 36, 113201 (2009).
  13. H. Duan, G. M. Fuller, and Y.-Z. Qian, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 60, 569 (2010).
  14. A. Mirizzi, I. Tamborra, H.-T. Janka, N. Saviano, K. Scholberg, R. Bollig, L. Hudepohl, and S. Chakraborty, Riv. Nuovo Cimento 39, 1 (2016).
  15. S. Chakraborty, R. Hansen, I. Izaguirre, and G. Raffelt, Nucl. Phys. B908, 366 (2016).
  16. I. Tamborra and S. Shalgar, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 71, 165 (2021).
  17. V. A. Kostelecky and S. Samuel, Phys. Rev. D 52, 621 (1995).
  18. S. Samuel, Phys. Rev. D 53, 5382 (1996).
  19. H. Duan, G. M. Fuller, and Y.-Z. Qian, Phys. Rev. D 74, 123004 (2006).
  20. S. Hannestad, G. G. Raffelt, G. Sigl, and Y. Y. Wong, Phys. Rev. D 74, 105010 (2006); 76, 029901(E) (2007).
  21. H. Duan, G. M. Fuller, J. Carlson, and Y.-Z. Qian, Phys. Rev. D 74, 105014 (2006).
  22. H. Duan, G. M. Fuller, J. Carlson, and Y.-Z. Qian, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 241101 (2006).
  23. G. G. Raffelt and G. Sigl, Phys. Rev. D 75, 083002 (2007).
  24. S. Mikheev and A. Y. Smirnov, Sov. Phys. JETP 64, 4 (1986).
  25. S. Mikheev and A. Y. Smirnov, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 42, 913 (1985).
  26. L. Wolfenstein, Phys. Rev. D 17, 2369 (1978).
  27. H. Duan, G. M. Fuller, J. Carlson, and Y.-Z. Qian, Phys. Rev. D 74, 105014 (2006).
  28. H. Duan, G. M. Fuller, and J. Carlson, Comput. Sci. Discovery 1, 015007 (2008).
  29. S. A. Richers, G. C. McLaughlin, J. P. Kneller, and A. Vlasenko, Phys. Rev. D 99, 123014 (2019).
  30. J. F. Cherry, J. Carlson, A. Friedland, G. M. Fuller, and A. Vlasenko, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 261104 (2012).
  31. J. F. Cherry, J. Carlson, A. Friedland, G. M. Fuller, and A. Vlasenko, Phys. Rev. D 87, 085037 (2013).
  32. M. Zaizen, J. F. Cherry, T. Takiwaki, S. Horiuchi, K. Kotake, H. Umeda, and T. Yoshida, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 06 (2020) 011.
  33. J. F. Cherry, G. M. Fuller, S. Horiuchi, K. Kotake, T. Takiwaki, and T. Fischer, Phys. Rev. D 102, 023022 (2020).
  34. E. Rrapaj, A. V. Patwardhan, E. Armstrong, and G. M. Fuller, Phys. Rev. D 103, 043006 (2021).
  35. R. Kimura, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 90, 1403 (2002).
  36. E. Kalnay, Atmospheric Modeling, Data Assimilation and Predictability (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 2003).
  37. G. Evensen, Data Assimilation: The Ensemble Kalman Filter (Springer Science & Business Media, Berlin, 2009).
  38. J. T. Betts, Practical Methods for Optimal Control and Estimation using Nonlinear Programming (Siam, Philadelphia, 2010), Vol. 19.
  39. W. G. Whartenby, J. C. Quinn, and H. D. Abarbanel, Mon. Weather Rev. 141, 2502 (2013).
  40. Z. An, D. Rey, J. Ye, and H. D. Abarbanel, Nonlinear Processes Geophys. 24, 9 (2017).
  41. S. J. Schiff, in 2009 Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (IEEE, Piscataway, 2009), pp. 3318–3321.
  42. B. A. Toth, M. Kostuk, C. D. Meliza, D. Margoliash, and H. D. Abarbanel, Biol. Cybern. 105, 217 (2011).
  43. M. Kostuk, B. A. Toth, C. D. Meliza, D. Margoliash, and H. D. Abarbanel, Biol. Cybern. 106, 155 (2012).
  44. F. Hamilton, T. Berry, N. Peixoto, and T. Sauer, Phys. Rev. E 88, 052715 (2013).
  45. C. D. Meliza, M. Kostuk, H. Huang, A. Nogaret, D. Margoliash, and H. D. Abarbanel, Biol. Cybern. 108, 495 (2014).
  46. A. Nogaret, C. D. Meliza, D. Margoliash, and H. D. Abarbanel, Sci. Rep. 6, 32749 (2016).
  47. E. Armstrong, Phys. Rev. E 101, 012415 (2020).
  48. N. Madhusudhan, Atmospheric retrieval of exoplanets, in Handbook of Exoplanets, edited by H. J. Deeg and J. A. Belmonte (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2018), pp. 2153–2182.
  49. I. Kitiashvili and A. G. Kosovichev, Astrophys. J. 688, L49 (2008).
  50. I. N. Kitiashvili, in Solar and Stellar Magnetic Fields: Origins and Manifestations, edited by A. Kosovichev, S. Strassmeier, and M. Jardine (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2020), Vol. 354, pp. 147–156.
  51. E. Armstrong, A. V. Patwardhan, L. Johns, C. T. Kishimoto, H. D. Abarbanel, and G. M. Fuller, Phys. Rev. D 96, 083008 (2017).
  52. E. Armstrong, A. V. Patwardhan, E. Rrapaj, S. F. Ardizi, and G. M. Fuller, Phys. Rev. D 102, 043013 (2020).
  53. E. Armstrong, arXiv:2111.07412 [Phys. Rev. D (to be published)].
  54. G. Raffelt and G. Sigl, Astropart. Phys. 1, 165 (1993).
  55. G. Sigl and G. Raffelt, Nucl. Phys. B406, 423 (1993).
  56. H. Abarbanel, Predicting the Future: Completing Models of Observed Complex Systems (Springer, New York, 2013).
  57. J. Ye, D. Rey, N. Kadakia, M. Eldridge, U. I. Morone, P. Rozdeba, H. D. Abarbanel, and J. C. Quinn, Phys. Rev. E 92, 052901 (2015).
  58. B. Müller, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 69, 253 (2019).
  59. A. Wächter, in Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings (Schloss Dagstuhl-Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik, Wadern, 2009).
  60. minAone interface with Interior-point Optimizer, https://github.com/yejingxin/minAone (accessed: 2020-05-26).
  61. D. Ruelle, Publ. Math. l’Inst. Hautes Étud. Sci. 50, 27 (1979).
  62. J.-P. Eckmann and D. Ruelle, Ergodic theory of chaos and strange attractors, in The Theory of Chaotic Attractors, edited by B. R. Hunt, T.-Y. Li, J. A. Kennedy, and H. E. Nusse (Springer, New York, 1985).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. D 105, 103003– Published 3 May, 2022
  • Received 20 January 2022
  • Accepted 24 March 2022
Article part of CHORUS
Crossmark - Check for updates button

© 2022 American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation