Neutrinos from Type Ia and Failed Core-Collapse Supernovae at Dark Matter Detectors

Neutrinos from Type Ia and failed core-collapse supernovae at dark matter detectors

Nirmal Raj TRIUMF, 4004 Wesbrook Mall, Vancouver, BC V6T 2A3, Canada

Neutrinos produced in the hot and dense interior of the next galactic supernova would be visible at dark matter experiments in coherent elastic nuclear recoils. While studies on this channel have focused on successful core-collapse supernovae, a thermonuclear (Type Ia) explosion, or a core- collapse that fails to explode and forms a black hole, are as likely to occur as the next galactic supernova event. I show that generation-3 noble liquid-based dark matter experiments such as darwin and argo, operating at sub-keV thresholds with ionization-only signals, would distinguish between (a) leading hypotheses of Type Ia explosion mechanisms by detecting an O(1) s burst of O(1) MeV neutrinos, and (b) progenitor models of failed supernovae by detecting an O(1) s burst of O(10) MeV neutrinos, especially by marking the instant of black hole formation from abrupt stoppage of neutrino detection. This detection is sensitive to all neutrino ﬂavors and insensitive to neutrino oscillations, thereby making measurements complementary to neutrino experiments.

The next galactic supernova is imminent. This could atmospheric, and relic supernova neutrinos, the “neu- be induced by thermonuclear runaway fusion (Type Ia su- trino floor”. These experiments could also dedicate pernova) or a rapid core-collapse, estimated to occur at searches to neutrinos from various sources (including +1.4 +7.3 a rate of respectively 1.4−0.8 and 3.2−2.6 per century [1]. dark matter) [19–29]. While neutrino experiments – The core-collapse often successfully blows away accret- whose detection is usually restricted to only the flavors ing outer layers and leaves behind a neutron star, such νe and νe – have larger exposures, dark matter experi- as believed to have happened in the last observed galac- ments could compensate with enhanced detection rates tic supernova sn a; yet 10%-50% of them fail to ex- due to nuclear coherence, and by detecting all flavors plode, unable to prevent intense accretion, leaving behind (νe, νe, νµ, νµ, ντ , ντ ). This latter feature enables them a black hole1. In all types of supernovae, their hot and to reconstruct a supernova neutrino burst without un- dense environments produce neutrinos that escape them certainties from neutrino oscillations in the supernova, and serve as the first particle messengers of this once- and to measure the energy emitted in each flavor. in-a-lifetime event. The neutrino signal would inform The supernova neutrino phase space is best sampled by whether, when, and where to look for the electromagnetic detectors that are large and operating at low thresholds. signal, and would reveal vital information about the ex- I will thus compute event rates at future generation-3 de- plosive conditions of the progenitor, of which there is cur- tectors2: the xenon-based darwin [30] and argon-based rently little measurement or consensus. Neutrino experi- argo [31]. Projected with O(100)-tonne target mass, ments such as IceCube, Hyper-K, dune, juno, and halo these are said to be “ultimate” detectors that could will be prepared to detect supernova neutrinos in a range probe down to the lowest reachable dark matter-nucleon of channels [3, 4], but lately it has been recognized that cross sections and the highest reachable dark matter dark matter experiments, designed for detecting coherent masses [32]. These detectors are also capable of very elastic nuclear recoils, are an equally important player low, sub-keV thresholds, as I will discuss later. capable of uncovering complementary physics. Whilst studies have been performed on elastic nuclear recoils Explosion characteristics and neutrino fluxes. produced by neutrinos from successful core-collapse su- Type Ia supernovae. Despite their well-known utility as pernovae [5–13] and pre-supernova nuclear burning [14], standard candles that suggest that the universe is ac- they are lacking for neutrinos from Type Ia and failed celerating [33–35], little is known about how Type Ia arXiv:1907.05533v2 [hep-ph] 9 Apr 2020 core-collapse. The purpose of this note is to close these supernova progenitors explode [36], or even what they gaps, and to comment on this detection channel vis-à-vis are, although it is argued that they are carbon-oxygen those at neutrino experiments. white dwarfs accreting mass from a binary companion Neutrinos and dark matter experiments are intimately that triggers explosive carbon burning. Determining the connected. The “direct detection” program began when explosion mechanism from extragalactic supernovae will a proposal to detect neutrinos via coherent elastic scat- be challenging due to telescope limitations, but a super- tering [15] – a process observed only recently [16, 17] nova in the Milky Way would help settle the question via – was adapted for dark matter searches [18]. With not only electromagnetic signals, but also neutrinos and ever-increasing exposure, these experiments would even- gravitational waves. In particular, neutrinos – produced tually run into an irreducible background from solar,

2 Should a galactic supernova occur during the running of current 1 Violent explosions collapsing into themselves also leave behind or next-generation dark matter experiments, my event rates may other singularities [2]. be trivially rescaled by the target mass. 2.0×1058 ) -1 ) -1 1055 deflagration-to-detonation 1.5×1058 transition (DDT) LS220 - s40s7b2 (quick disappearance) ) ) 1 1 - - 53 58 s 10 s

( 1.0×10 ( dt dt / / ν ν dN

gravitationally confined dN 1051 detonation (GCD) LS220 - s40 .0 (slow disappearance) 5.0×1057 Neutrino number luminosity (s Neutrino number Neutrino number luminosity (s Neutrino number 1049 4.50.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 t (s) 24 LS220 - s40s7b2t (s) 4.0 22 (quick disappearance) DDT 3.5 20

) LS220 - s40 .0 ) 3.0 (slow disappearance) MeV

MeV 18 >( >( ν ν 2.5 E Ε 16 < <

2.0 14 GCD GCD 1.5

Mean neutrino energy (MeV) neutrino energy Mean 12 Mean neutrino energy (MeV) neutrino energy Mean 1.0 10 0.5000.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 100 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 distance to supernova d* = 10 kpc distancet (s) to supernova d* = 1 kpc t (s) LS220 - s40s7b2 80 (quick disappearance) 0.100 xenon, 50 tonnes, 0.1 keV threshold (DARWIN) DDT argon, 300 tonnes, 0.6 keV threshold (ARGO) 0.050 60 100 ms 150 ms / /

1 for d* = 100 pc 0.010 LS220 - s40 .0 Events/150 ms Events Events 40 (slow disappearance) 0.005 Events/100 ms xenon, 50 tonnes, 0.1 keV threshold (DARWIN) GCD GCD 20 argon, 300 tonnes, 0.6 keV threshold (ARGO)

0.001 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 t (s) t (s)

FIG. 1. Left: Type Ia supernovae, right: failed core-collapse supernovae. Shown as a function of time are number luminosities of supernova neutrinos (summed over all flavors) emitted at the source (top), mean neutrino energies for all flavors combined (middle), and events per binned time at generation-3 dark matter detectors (bottom). Explosion mechanisms of Type Ia supernovae and progenitor models of failed supernovae are visibly distinguished by these detectors. The wiggles in the top- right and middle-right plots reflect those in Ref. [4]. through e+e− annihilations and e± capture on nucleons upon turbulence shreds it, and cold fuel and hot ashes and nuclei, and carrying away ∼1% of the star’s gravi- mix. This triggers supersonic combustion – detonation tational binding energy [37] – could distinguish between – of the remaining fuel. In the second mechanism, grav- explosion mechanisms even if the electromagnetic signals itationally confined detonation (gcd), deflagration ash are alike. Since the Type Ia supernova core is not dense floats to the star surface, but is kept from escaping by enough to trap neutrinos, their flux is reliably computed the star’s gravity, whereupon it envelopes the surface, as there is no neutrino transport or self-interactions to converges, compresses, and detonates the rest of the fuel. account for, unlike for core-collapse supernovae. As neutrinos propagate through the supernova medium References [38, 39] computed these fluxes using 3D sim- they oscillate, and their flavor composition at emission ulations of near-Chandrasekhar mass white dwarfs for would depend on both the density profile along the line two leading hypotheses of the explosion mechanism. In of sight (as the explosion is asymmetric), and on neu- the first mechanism, deflagration-to-detonation transi- trino mass ordering. However, for detection via elastic tion (ddt), the flame front of subsonic combustion of the nuclear scattering flavors are not relevant, only the to- fuel – deflagration – reaches low density regions, where- tal flux is. I use tables of neutrino fluences provided by

2 0.010 argon 10 xenon 2 ) 2 * )

* 5 xenon 0.001 deflagration -to- argon detonation transition 1 argon -4 10 0.50 xenon gravitationally confined LS220- s40s7b2 Events / tonne x ( kpc / d 10-5 detonation (quick disappearance) Events / tonne x ( 10 kpc / d 0.10 LS220- s40 .0 (slow disappearance) 0.05 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 Energy threshold(keV) Energy threshold(keV)

FIG. 2. Events detected per tonne of target as a function of detector energy threshold for neutrinos from Type Ia (left) and failed core-collapse (right) supernovae, normalized to a supernova distance of 1 kpc and 10 kpc respectively.

J. Kneller [40] (parts of which are plotted in [38, 39]) Whereas neutrinos from successful core-collapses diffuse to compute energy-differential number luminosities (in out of the proto-neutron star over O(10) s (the duration units of s−1MeV−1) summed over all flavors, as a func- of the neutrino signal detected), those from failed super- 2 tion of post-explosion time. Dividing by 4πd∗, where novae diffuse over O(1) s with a progressively hardening d∗ is the distance to the supernova, gives the evolving spectrum before the emission abruptly stops due to black differential flux (in cm−2s−1MeV−1) received on Earth, hole formation. These neutrinos are overall harder and 2 d Φ/dEν dt. In the top left panel of Fig. 1 I show the brighter than in successful supernovae due to the increase energy-integrated number luminosity versus time for the in temperature and density from accretion of matter. Ex- two explosion mechanisms. The small second peak in actly when the black hole forms, and how the spectrum the ddt luminosity arises from e− capture on copper; evolves, depend on progenitor properties like stellar mass the two distinct peaks in the gcd luminosity correspond and distributions of density, temperature and electron to neutrinos produced during deflagration and detona- fraction [51], as well as on the equation of state of mat- tion of the fuel, the valley between them caused by there ter at nuclear densities [52]. For this study I will com- being no regions hot enough to be in nuclear statistical pare two 40M progenitor models with the ls [53] equilibrium [39]. In the middle-left panel I plot the mean equation of state: ssb [54], disappearing “quickly” neutrino energy, which shows that the spectrum gener- in 0.6 sec, and s. [55], “slowly” in 1.9 sec. The differ- ally softens with time. ential flux for flavor α at supernova distance d∗ is White dwarf binary mergers (“collisional double- d2Φ 1 L (t) degenerate progenitors”) may also cause Type Ia super- α = να ϕ (E , t), (1) dE dt 4πd2 hE (t)i α να novae [41–43], which could be probed by gravitational να ∗ να wave signals [37]. To the best of my knowledge, the as- where L and hE i are the luminosity and mean energy, sociated neutrino fluxes have yet to be computed from να να whose values I take from Ref. [4], and ϕ is the normalized simulations; the neutrino signal could help distinguish energy spectrum parameterized by [56] this scenario from the one considered above, an interest- ξ ing exercise that I reserve for future study. (1 + ξ )1+ξα E α ϕ (E , t) = hE (t)i−1 α να × Failed supernovae. Neutrinos from core-collapses that fail α να να Γ(1 + ξα) hEνα (t)i to explode could constitute 50% of the relic supernova (1 + ξ )E flux [44, 45], may have helped select amino acid chiral- exp − α να , (2) hE (t)i ity [46], and would increase the amount of technetium-97 να in molybdenum ores [47]. As these core-collapses form where ξα ≡ ξα(t) is related to the “pinching parameter” black holes within ∼1 s, they cannot be picked up by p by p = 1.303−1(2 + ξ)/(1 + ξ). The p(t) for ls-s. telescopes, however, following the suggestion of Ref. [48] are taken from Fig. 3.15 of Ref. [57], and these are to monitor supergiants, a star each was seen to disappear assumed the same for ls-ssb. In the top and in real time [49] and archival data [50]. While these extra- middle right panels of Fig. 1 I show the evolution of the galactic observations provided useful constraints, a failed number luminosity and mean energy (combined for all supernova in the galaxy would further offer a wealth of flavors). The quickly-disappearing supernova neutrinos science in the form of neutrinos. are brighter and harder, which as we will see, would Neutrinos are produced in core-collapse supernovae result in higher detection rates. from e+e− annihilations and neutronization, and carry away 99% of the star’s gravitational binding energy. Prospects at dark matter detectors.

3 With the neutrino fluxes in hand, I now compute the to higher fluxes and energies, the ls-ssb failed differential scattering rate (per tonne of detector mass) supernova yields more events than the ls-s.. The as clearer distinguisher is the time at which neutrino detection abruptly stops, signifying black hole formation. In 2 Z 2 d R ton d Φ dσ these energy ranges the relevant irreducible background = NT dEν , (3) dE dt min dE dt dE 8 R Eν ν R is solar B neutrinos, but it is negligible at a rate of ' 2×10−3 events/s for my detector configurations [62]. ton 27 28 where NT = 4.57×10 (1.51×10 ) is the number The detector backgrounds are less understood, and min of nuclei per tonne of liquid Xe (Ar), and Eν = estimated to be ' 1 event/s for darwin [10]. Pileup p mTER/2 is the minimum Eν required to induce a nu- – the smearing of arrival times of electrons drifted clear recoil of energy ER. The differential scattering cross into the gas phase of the tpc – could limit the timing 3 section for a nuclear target with mass mT, N neutrons resolution of events for a sufficiently close supernova. and Z protons is given by [58] This will not be an issue so long as events are separated by O(ms) [10, 31]. For an even closer supernova, the 2 dσ GF 2 2 pulse width of the ionization signal, O(µs), determines (Eν ,ER) = mT[N − (1 − 4 sin θW)Z] dER 4π whether individual events may be resolved. mTER 2 1 − 2 F (ER) , (4) 2Eν Summary and outlook. −5 −2 where GF = 1.1664 × 10 GeV is the Fermi constant, 2 In this note I have sketched the detection prospects of sin θW = 0.2387 the Weinberg angle at this energy scale, neutrinos from an imminent galactic Type Ia and failed and F (ER) ' 1 the Helm nuclear form factor [59]. From max core-collapse supernova at generation-3 dark matter the fact that the kinematics-limited maximum ER = 2 2 experiments. Unlike the optical signal, this detection 2Eν /(mT + 2Eν ), the total cross section ∝ Eν , as ex- could distinguish between leading hypotheses of Type pected for scattering that proceeds via a dimension-6 op- Ia explosion mechanisms, deflagration-to-detonation erator (from integrating out a Z boson mediator). transition and gravitationally confined detonation. This To obtain event counts I assume a detector mass of detection could also identify the progenitor of a failed 50 (300) tonnes for darwin (argo). Since the neutrino supernova, in particular clearly marking the time at burst is brief, fiducialization is unnecessary. I then in- which the proto-neutron star disappears into a black tegrate Eq. (3) over binned time intervals, and from ER max hole. Though lacking in the ability to reconstruct neu- = detection threshold up to ER . For the threshold trino direction and localize the supernova, dark matter I assume 0.1 keVNR (0.6 keVNR) for darwin (argo). experiments would complement neutrino telescopes that These are realistic possibilities if ionization-only signals typically detect νe and νe flavors: as coherent elastic are deployed. Xenon experiments have by that means nuclear scattering is flavor-blind, it is insensitive to achieved 0.7 keVNR threshold [60], and with reduction neutrino oscillations in the stellar medium and free in backgrounds and sensitivity to single-/double-electron 4 space, and it could measure the energy distribution channels anticipated , this threshold is expected to lower across neutrino flavors. Finally, that the background significantly in generation-3 detectors; argon experiments rates are low for all types of supernova neutrinos furthers have achieved 0.6 keVNR threshold [61] and are expected the case for adding dark matter experiments to the to re-achieve it in their 3rd generation. In any case, lest Supernova Early Warning System [63, 64]. my assumptions turn out overoptimistic, I plot for the reader’s reference the net events per tonne of target versus threshold in Fig. 2, for a Type Ia (failed) supernova Many thanks to James Kneller for e-mailing tables of at d∗ = 1 kpc (10 kpc). neutrino fluences from Type Ia supernovae. I also thank In the bottom panels of Fig. 1 I plot events per 150 ms Michela Lai, Rafael Lang, David Morrissey, Daniel Siegel, (100 ms) for Type Ia (failed) neutrinos from a distance and Shawn Westerdale for helpful conversations. This of 1 kpc (10 kpc). Due to its higher fluxes and energies, work is supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineer- the ddt Type Ia mechanism results in ∼50× more ing Research Council of Canada (nserc). Triumf re- events than gcd, clearly separating them. Due to its ceives federal funding via a contribution agreement with softness, the gcd detonation peak becomes impossible the National Research Council Canada. This work was to detect unless d∗ . 70 pc, which is unlikely. The ddt performed in part at the Aspen Center for Physics, which event rates are comparable to Super-K, dune and juno, is supported by National Science Foundation grant PHY- and the gcd rates are ∼ 10× smaller [38, 39]. Again due 1607611.

3 Scattering on electrons will be highly subdominant [9]. 4 I thank Rafael Lang for this intelligence.

4 [1] S. M. Adams, C. S. Kochanek, J. F. Beacom, M. R. Va- [29] G. B. Gelmini, V. Takhistov and S. J. Witte, Phys. Rev. gins and K. Z. Stanek, Astrophys. J. 778, 164 (2013) D 99, no. 9, 093009 (2019) [arXiv:1812.05550 [hep-ph]]. [arXiv:1306.0559 [astro-ph.HE]]. [30] J. Aalbers et al. [DARWIN Collaboration], JCAP 1611, [2] https://www.nps.gov/crla/planyourvisit/upload/ 017 (2016) [arXiv:1606.07001 [astro-ph.IM]]. Geology-508.pdf [31] C. E. Aalseth et al., Eur. Phys. J. Plus 133, 131 (2018) [3] K. Scholberg, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 62, 81 (2012) [arXiv:1707.08145 [physics.ins-det]]. [arXiv:1205.6003 [astro-ph.IM]]. [32] J. Bramante, B. Broerman, R. F. Lang and N. Raj, Phys. [4] A. Mirizzi, I. Tamborra, H. T. Janka, N. Saviano, Rev. D 98, no. 8, 083516 (2018) [arXiv:1803.08044]. K. Scholberg, R. Bollig, L. Hudepohl and S. Chakraborty, [33] A. G. Riess et al. [Supernova Search Team], Astron. J. Riv. Nuovo Cim. 39, no. 1-2, 1 (2016) [arXiv:1508.00785]. 116, 1009 (1998) [astro-ph/9805201]. [5] J. F. Beacom, W. M. Farr and P. Vogel, Phys. Rev. D [34] B. P. Schmidt et al. [Supernova Search Team], Astrophys. 66, 033001 (2002) [hep-ph/0205220]. J. 507, 46 (1998) [astro-ph/9805200]. [6] C. J. Horowitz, K. J. Coakley and D. N. McKinsey, Phys. [35] S. Perlmutter et al. [Supernova Cosmology Project Rev. D 68, 023005 (2003) [astro-ph/0302071]. Collaboration], Astrophys. J. 517, 565 (1999) [astro- [7] B. Dasgupta and J. F. Beacom, Phys. Rev. D 83, 113006 ph/9812133]. (2011) [arXiv:1103.2768 [hep-ph]]. [36] W. Hillebrandt, M. Kromer, F. K. Ropke and [8] S. Chakraborty, P. Bhattacharjee and K. Kar, Phys. Rev. A. J. Ruiter, Front. Phys. (Beijing) 8, 116 (2013) D 89, no. 1, 013011 (2014) [arXiv:1309.4492]. [arXiv:1302.6420]. [9] K. Abe et al. [XMASS Collaboration], Astropart. Phys. [37] I. R. Seitenzahl, M. Herzog, A. J. Ruiter, K. Marquardt, 89, 51 (2017) [arXiv:1604.01218 [physics.ins-det]]. S. T. Ohlmann and F. K. Rpke, Phys. Rev. D 92, no. 12, [10] R. F. Lang, C. McCabe, S. Reichard, M. Selvi and 124013 (2015) [arXiv:1511.02542 [astro-ph.SR]] I. Tamborra, Phys. Rev. D 94, no. 10, 103009 (2016) [38] W. P. Wright, G. Nagaraj, J. P. Kneller, K. Scholberg [arXiv:1606.09243]. and I. R. Seitenzahl, Phys. Rev. D 94, no. 2, 025026 [11] D. Khaitan [LZ Collaboration], JINST 13, no. 02, (2016) [arXiv:1605.01408]. C02024 (2018) [arXiv:1801.05651]. [39] W. P. Wright, J. P. Kneller, S. T. Ohlmann, [12] T. Kozynets, S. Fallows and C. B. Krauss, Astropart. F. K. Roepke, K. Scholberg and I. R. Seitenzahl, Phys. Phys. 105, 25 (2019) [arXiv:1806.01417 [astro-ph.HE]]. Rev. D 95, no. 4, 043006 (2017) [arXiv:1609.07403]. [13] S. Baum, T. D. P. Edwards, B. J. Kavanagh, P. Sten- [40] J. Kneller, private communication. gel, A. K. Drukier, K. Freese, M. Grski and C. Weniger, [41] D. Maoz and F. Mannucci, Publ. Astron. Soc. Austral. arXiv:1906.05800 [astro-ph.GA]. 29, 447 (2012) [arXiv:1111.4492 [astro-ph.CO]]. [14] N. Raj, V. Takhistov and S. J. Witte, arXiv:1905.09283. [42] D. Maoz, F. Mannucci and G. Nelemans, Ann. Rev. As- [15] A. Drukier and L. Stodolsky, Phys. Rev. D 30, 2295 tron. Astrophys. 52, 107 (2014) [arXiv:1312.0628 [astro- (1984). ph.CO]]. [16] D. Akimov et al. [COHERENT Collaboration], Science [43] P. Ruiz-Lapuente, New Astron. Rev. 62-63, 15 (2014) 357, no. 6356, 1123 (2017) [arXiv:1708.01294 [nucl-ex]]. [arXiv:1403.4087 [astro-ph.HE]]. [17] A. N. Khan and W. Rodejohann, arXiv:1907.12444 [hep- [44] C. Lunardini, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 231101 (2009) ph]. [arXiv:0901.0568 [astro-ph.SR]]. [18] M. W. Goodman and E. Witten, Phys. Rev. D 31, 3059 [45] J. G. Keehn and C. Lunardini, Phys. Rev. D 85, 043011 (1985). (2012) [arXiv:1012.1274 [astro-ph.CO]]. [19] J. Billard, L. E. Strigari and E. Figueroa-Feliciano, Phys. [46] R. N. Boyd, T. Kajino and T. Onaka, Astrobiology 10, Rev. D 91, no. 9, 095023 (2015) [arXiv:1409.0050]. 561 (2010) [arXiv:1001.3849 [astro-ph.GA]]. [20] M. Schumann, L. Baudis, L. Btikofer, A. Kish [47] R. Lazauskas, C. Lunardini and C. Volpe, JCAP 0904, and M. Selvi, JCAP 1510, no. 10, 016 (2015) 029 (2009) [arXiv:0901.0581 [astro-ph.SR]]. [arXiv:1506.08309 [physics.ins-det]]. [48] C. S. Kochanek, J. F. Beacom, M. D. Kistler, J. L. Prieto, [21] D. Franco et al., JCAP 1608, no. 08, 017 (2016) K. Z. Stanek, T. A. Thompson and H. Yuksel, Astrophys. [arXiv:1510.04196 [physics.ins-det]]. J. 684, 1336 (2008) [arXiv:0802.0456 [astro-ph]]. [22] D. G. Cerdeo, M. Fairbairn, T. Jubb, P. A. N. Machado, [49] J. R. Gerke, C. S. Kochanek and K. Z. Stanek, A. C. Vincent and C. Bohm, JHEP 1605, 118 (2016) Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 450, no. 3, 3289 (2015) Erratum: [JHEP 1609, 048 (2016)] [arXiv:1604.01025]. [arXiv:1411.1761 [astro-ph.SR]]. [23] D. G. Cerdeno, J. H. Davis, M. Fairbairn and A. C. Vin- [50] T. M. Reynolds, M. Fraser and G. Gilmore, Mon. cent, JCAP 1804, 037 (2018) [arXiv:1712.06522 ]. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 453, no. 3, 2886 (2015) [24] R. Essig, M. Sholapurkar and T. T. Yu, Phys. Rev. D [arXiv:1507.05823 [astro-ph.SR]]. 97, no. 9, 095029 (2018) [arXiv:1801.10159 [hep-ph]]. [51] K. Sumiyoshi, S. Yamada and H. Suzuki, Astrophys. J. [25] J. L. Newstead, L. E. Strigari and R. F. Lang, Phys. Rev. 688, 1176 (2008) [arXiv:0808.0384 [astro-ph]]. D 99, no. 4, 043006 (2019) [arXiv:1807.07169]. [52] K. Sumiyoshi, S. Yamada and H. Suzuki, Astrophys. J. [26] J. F. Cherry, M. T. Frandsen and I. M. Shoemaker, Phys. 667, 382 (2007) [arXiv:0706.3762 [astro-ph]]. Rev. Lett. 114, 231303 (2015) [arXiv:1501.03166]. [53] J. M. Lattimer and F. D. Swesty, Nucl. Phys. A 535, 331 [27] Y. Cui, M. Pospelov and J. Pradler, Phys. Rev. D 97, (1991). no. 10, 103004 (2018) [arXiv:1711.04531 [hep-ph]]. [54] S. E. Woosley and T. A. Weaver, Astrophys. J. Suppl. [28] D. McKeen and N. Raj, Phys. Rev. D 99, no. 10, 103003 101, 181 (1995). (2019) [arXiv:1812.05102 [hep-ph]]. [55] S. E. Woosley, A. Heger and T. A. Weaver, Rev. Mod.

5 Phys. 74, 1015 (2002). 5, 059901 (2017)] [arXiv:1605.06262 [astro-ph.CO]]. [56] M. T. Keil, G. G. Raﬀelt and H. T. Janka, Astrophys. J. [61] P. Agnes et al. [DarkSide Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 590, 971 (2003) [astro-ph/0208035]. 121, no. 8, 081307 (2018) [arXiv:1802.06994]. [57] L. Hudepohl’s PhD thesis, “Neutrinos from the Forma- [62] L. E. Strigari, New J. Phys. 11, 105011 (2009) tion, Cooling and Black Hole Collapse of Neutron Stars” [arXiv:0903.3630 [astro-ph.CO]]. [58] D. Z. Freedman, D. N. Schramm and D. L. Tubbs, Ann. [63] P. Antonioli et al., New J. Phys. 6, 114 (2004) [astro- Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 27, 167 (1977). ph/0406214]. [59] R. H. Helm, Phys. Rev. 104, 1466 (1956). [64] K. Scholberg, Astron. Nachr. 329, 337 (2008) [60] E. Aprile et al. [XENON Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D [arXiv:0803.0531 [astro-ph]]. 94, no. 9, 092001 (2016) Erratum: [Phys. Rev. D 95, no.