{"id":"5085afba-05b6-4818-9b04-69adeb0d3213","arxiv_id":"2412.14681","paper_version":1,"verdict":"CONDITIONAL","confidence":"MODERATE","novelty_score":6.0,"correctness_risk":"medium","formal_verification":"none","parameter_count":3,"one_line_summary":"A Bayesian forecast of upcoming DSNB detectors shows neutrino decay can be distinguished from stability for quasi-degenerate or inverted mass patterns, but not for strong normal hierarchy.","lead":"This paper asks whether future neutrino detectors can tell if neutrinos decay, using the relic neutrino background from all past supernovae. It finds that for the strongly hierarchical normal mass pattern, even all four planned detectors combined cannot distinguish decaying from stable neutrinos.","discovery_kind":"new_application","skeptic_critique":{"model":"deepseek-v4-flash","headline":"NO SH no-go conclusion may depend on the unstated helicity-conserving vs helicity-flipping branching ratio; this should be tested before the no-go is taken as general.","rationale":"The reader's weakest_assumption identified the single-parameter democratic decay model as the key simplification. My concern is a more specific and less explicitly acknowledged sub-assumption: the relative rate of helicity-conserving versus helicity-flipping decays is never stated for the visible-decay calculations, even though the resulting daughter spectra (Eq. 4.9) differ strongly and the invisible-decay section explicitly assigns democratic h.c./h.f. weights (Fig. 16). Since the NO SH flux degeneracy is the basis of the strongest claim, and since it persists in the idealized no-background limit (Fig. 18), neither the background nuisance model nor the astrophysical uncertainties can be the most load-bearing issue. The decay parameterization is the only input that could change the conclusion under otherwise ideal conditions. The proposed test directly varies this parameter and asks whether the high-energy rates and Bayes factors shift enough to render decay distinguishable. If the test shows no significant change, the no-go survives; if it shows a shift, the paper's central claim is overgeneralized. This justifies keeping the verdict at CONDITIONAL rather than upgrading to ACCEPT or downgrading to UNVERDICTED, because the concern is concrete and testable, but the evidence currently in the paper does not resolve it.","tokens_in":29610,"tokens_out":7345,"duration_ms":66259,"concrete_test":"Recompute the NO SH expected event rates and Bayes factors for the Garching fBH=0.21 reference scenario, keeping all inputs fixed, for four variants: (i) h.c. fraction = 1, (ii) h.c. fraction = 0, (iii) only nu3 decays to nu1 (h.c. and h.f. according to the same unspecified default), with nu2 stable, and (iv) only nu2 decays to nu1, with nu3 stable. If the integrated IBD event rate above 11.5 MeV changes by more than 10% relative to the democratic case, or if the mean log Bayes factor between no-decay and tau/m = 1e9 s/eV exceeds 1 in any variant, then the no-go conclusion is not robust to the decay parameterization and should be reported as conditional on these choices.","verdict_should_be":"CONDITIONAL","load_bearing_attack":"The paper's central no-go claim is that for normal ordering and strongly hierarchical masses, a Bayesian analysis has no discriminating power between no-decay and decay for tau/m in [1e9, 1e11] s/eV, even combining all channels (Section 8). This conclusion is obtained under a specific decay parameterization: equal tau/m for all decaying eigenstates and democratic branching ratios among mass eigenstates (Section 4.2, Fig. 4 caption). However, the visible-decay calculations never specify the relative weights of helicity-conserving (h.c.) and helicity-flipping (h.f.) decay channels. The spectra in Eq. (4.9) are very different: h.c. decays produce hard daughters (psi ~ 2 E_l / E_h^2), while h.f. decays produce soft daughters (psi ~ 2/E_h (1 - E_l/E_h)). If the physical decay is dominated by h.f. channels, the high-energy DSNB flux would be suppressed, potentially breaking the degeneracy that drives the no-go result, since the observed channels integrate energies above ~11.5 MeV. The invisible-decay analysis explicitly assigns democratic h.c./h.f. branching (Section 7, Fig. 16), but the visible case does not, leaving a hidden degree of freedom. Unlike the background nuisance model in Eq. (5.2), this assumption survives the idealized no-background test of Fig. 18, so it is not already covered by the reader's conditional. A test varying the h.c./h.f. ratio and the state-dependent branching ratios is needed to determine whether the NO SH no-go is robust or an artifact of the single-parameter democratic assumption.","agreement_with_reader":"partial"},"referee_report":{"model":"deepseek-v4-flash","summary":"This paper presents a three-neutrino framework calculation of the diffuse supernova neutrino background (DSNB) both with and without non-radiative two-body neutrino decay, and uses it to perform a Bayesian sensitivity projection for SK-Gd, HK, JUNO, and DUNE. The DSNB flux is built from two sets of one-dimensional supernova simulations (Garching and Nakazato), with progenitor-mass dependence, a range of black-hole fractions, MSW flavor conversion, and uncertainties in the local core-collapse supernova rate. Event rates are computed for inverse beta decay, neutrino-proton, neutrino-electron, oxygen, and argon channels. The statistical analysis uses binned Poisson likelihoods with Gaussian nuisance parameters for signal and background, and reports mean logarithmic Bayes factors for pairwise comparisons of no-decay versus decay with tau/m in [1e9, 1e11] s/eV. The central qualitative results are that normal ordering with a strongly hierarchical mass pattern gives essentially no Bayesian discriminating power for this parameter range, while quasi-degenerate normal ordering and inverted ordering yield strong or very strong evidence in several scenarios, especially when experiments are combined.","tokens_in":29931,"tokens_out":5661,"duration_ms":47377,"significance":"If the results are correct, this is the first Bayesian treatment of DSNB constraints on non-radiative neutrino decay and provides useful sensitivity projections for the next generation of detectors. The paper is transparent about many of its modeling choices: it states the use of MSW only, lists the supernova simulation inputs, and checks the no-background, no-uncertainty limit in Figure 18. The kinetic-equation solution and event-rate integrals are standard and clearly presented. The main significance of the work lies in the claimed no-go result for normal ordering with strongly hierarchical masses, which, if robust, would have a direct impact on how DSNB searches are interpreted. The paper also clearly identifies competing degeneracies in the quasi-degenerate and inverted-ordering cases. However, as detailed below, the no-go statement is currently not fully supported because of an unspecified helicity branching ratio in the visible-decay calculation and because of a conflict between the conclusions and the authors' own idealized neutrino-proton analysis.","major_comments":[{"comment":"The visible-decay analysis for the strongly hierarchical patterns never specifies the relative weights of the helicity-conserving and helicity-flipping daughter spectra, even though Eq. (4.9) shows that the two spectra are very different: h.c. decays give hard daughters while h.f. decays give soft daughters. The invisible-decay discussion in Section 7.1 explicitly assumes democratic branching between helicity-flipping and helicity-conserving decays, but no analogous statement is made for the visible decays that drive the main results. Since the NO SH no-go conclusion in Section 8 depends on the daughter spectra closely resembling the parent flux at the observed energies, the conclusion is underdetermined unless this ratio is specified. Please state the assumed h.c./h.f. branching ratio for the visible SH case and, ideally, show the sensitivity of the NO SH Bayes factors to this ratio (for example pure h.c., pure h.f., and 50/50). If h.f. decays dominate, the high-energy DSNB flux is suppressed and the degeneracy with no-decay may be broken.","section":"Section 4.2, Eq. (4.9)"},{"comment":"The marginalization in Eq. (5.2) uses a single background nuisance parameter beta for all experiments and channels, but the backgrounds of SK-Gd, HK, JUNO, and DUNE are physically independent and are described separately in Section 6.2.2. A common fractional background scale allows a fluctuation in one experiment to be partially compensated by the others in the joint likelihood, which can inflate the combined Bayes factors. This is a load-bearing issue for the quantitative 'strong' and 'very strong' claims for NO QD and IO in Figures 13, 15, and 17. Please replace the single beta with per-experiment (or per-channel) nuisance parameters beta_j with their own widths; the signal uncertainty alpha can reasonably remain global because the DSNB flux is common across channels. The idealized no-background test in Figure 18 is unaffected by this issue.","section":"Section 5, Eq. (5.2)"},{"comment":"The conclusion in Section 8 states that for normal ordering with a strongly hierarchical pattern, a Bayesian analysis has no discriminating power between no-decay and decay in the range tau/m in [1e9, 1e11] s/eV 'even combining all channels in the four experiments.' This is too strong relative to the paper's own Figure 19, which shows that adding neutrino-proton scattering with optimistic DSNB fluxes and ignoring the neutrino-proton background yields almost strong evidence in the NO SH case. The no-go statement should be restricted to the channels with realistic current-level backgrounds, or it should be explicitly qualified by the idealized assumptions used in Figure 19. As written, the conclusions overstate the reach of the analysis and conflict with the earlier discussion in Section 7.2.","section":"Section 8 vs. Figure 19"},{"comment":"The entire Bayesian projection assumes democratic branching ratios among the allowed daughter states and a single common lifetime-to-mass ratio for all decaying eigenstates. This reduces the decay parameter space to one number, as the authors state. However, the no-go conclusion in Section 8 is phrased as a statement about neutrino non-radiative decay for the NO SH mass pattern, not about this specific parameterization. If the true decay couplings are non-democratic, or if the eigenstates have different lifetimes, the daughter flux composition and hence the Bayes factors can change. Please add an explicit caveat to the conclusions that the no-go result holds under the democratic, equal-tau/m assumption, or test at least one alternative branching pattern to demonstrate robustness.","section":"Section 4.2 and Fig. 4 caption"}],"minor_comments":[{"comment":"The text says 'from Nazakato's groups' but the group name is spelled 'Nakazato' elsewhere; please correct this typo.","section":"Section 3.1"},{"comment":"The paragraph after Table 1 ends with the stray word 'two-body' that appears to be a leftover fragment; it should be removed.","section":"Section 5"},{"comment":"The ideal no-background test in Figure 18 combines only the IBD channels and the argon channel; it does not include neutrino-proton scattering, neutrino-electron scattering, or the oxygen channels. The caption or text should state this explicitly so that the reader does not interpret the figure as a test of 'all channels'.","section":"Section 7.2, Figure 18"},{"comment":"The energy range for the HK IBD channel is listed as (16.0, 30.0) MeV while SK-Gd and JUNO use (11.5, 29.5) MeV; the reason for this different lower threshold is not stated in the text and should be clarified.","section":"Section 6.2.1, Table 5"},{"comment":"The description of the Nakazato scenarios in the text and in Figure 2 would be easier to follow if the choice of metallicities and shock revival times were summarized in a single sentence in the main text, since the current text refers to the figure for the templates.","section":"Section 3.1"}],"recommendation":"major_revision","confidential_remarks":"The manuscript is within the scope of JCAP and addresses a timely topic. The main technical issue is the unspecified helicity-conserving versus helicity-flipping branching ratio in the visible SH decay calculation, which directly affects the paper's headline no-go result. The single global background nuisance parameter is also a clear modeling weakness for the combined-experiment claims. Both issues are fixable with additional specification and a robustness test, so I do not recommend rejection. The paper would also benefit from a careful revision of the conclusions so that they match the idealized conditions used in Figure 19."},"author_rebuttal":null,"desk_editor":{"model":"deepseek-v4-flash","letter":"First Bayesian DSNB decay forecast, and the no-go for NO SH is the headline. But that no-go is not yet robust: the visible SH decay calculation never specifies the relative amount of helicity-conserving versus helicity-flipping decays, and the two spectra in (4.9) are very different. Before the no-go is taken as general, the authors should test the h.c./h.f. ratio (and state-dependent branching) with a scan; otherwise the paper's central claim may be an artifact of an unstated default.\n\nWhat the paper does well: the kinetic-equation treatment is standard and transparent; the event-rate integrals are clear; the authors explicitly flag their modeling simplifications (MSW only, democratic branching, active daughters). They reproduce the flux predictions of ref. [28] and show the dependence of fluxes and rates on two simulation sets and on the failed-SN fraction. The Bayesian setup with conservative and optimistic nuisance scenarios, and the separate invisible-decay study, is a genuine addition. The no-go is at least not an artifact of the supernova simulation choice, since it appears for both Garching and Nakazato inputs.\n\nWhere the soft spots are: (1) The h.c./h.f. ambiguity is the main one. In the SH case, h.c. daughters are hard, h.f. daughters are soft; the observed channels integrate above ~11.5 MeV, so a h.f.-dominated decay would change the spectral shapes and could break the degeneracy that produces the no-go. The invisible-decay analysis assigns democratic h.c./h.f. branching, but the visible case does not. This is a hidden degree of freedom that survives the idealized no-background test of Fig. 18. (2) Eq. (5.2) uses one shared background nuisance parameter beta for all experiments; in a multi-experiment combination, per-experiment background uncertainties would be more defensible, though the results for the stronger patterns may not change much. (3) Some background inputs come from private communication; they should be documented or replaced with public estimates where possible. (4) The Bayes factors are pseudo-data sensitivity projections, which is standard for this kind of forecast; that is not circular, but the numbers are forecasts, not bounds.\n\nWho gets value: DSNB phenomenologists, neutrino-decay model-builders, and experimentalists planning SK-Gd/HK/JUNO/DUNE DSNB analyses. The paper is worth a serious referee: the topic is timely, the analysis is careful, and the main claim needs exactly the kind of scrutiny that referees can provide.","headline":"First Bayesian DSNB decay forecast; the NO SH no-go is the headline, but it rests on an unstated helicity-conserving/flipping mix that should be tested before the no-go is taken as general.","tokens_in":30472,"tokens_out":4120,"would_cite":true,"duration_ms":33462,"reading_group":"yes","serious_thinker":"yes","would_accept_peer_review":true},"rs_alignment":null,"lean_confirmation":null,"pith_extraction":{"msc":[],"pacs":[],"model":"deepseek-v4-flash","headline":"The paper claims that if the neutrino mass ordering is normal and strongly hierarchical, the diffuse supernova neutrino background cannot distinguish non-radiative neutrino decay from no decay in the lifetime-to-mass range…","keywords":["diffuse supernova neutrino background","neutrino non-radiative decay","neutrino lifetime-to-mass ratio","Bayes factors","normal mass ordering","inverted mass ordering","mass hierarchy degeneracy","supernova relic neutrinos"],"falsifier":"Compute the mean logarithmic Bayes factor between no decay and $\\tau/m = 10^9~\\mathrm{s/eV}$ from the actual binned inverse $\\beta$ decay spectra of SK-Gd, HK (or HK-Gd) and JUNO plus the neutrino-argon spectrum of DUNE after 20 years of data, using this paper's background model and assuming normal ordering with strongly hierarchical masses; if the observed $\\log B_{10}$ exceeds 3, the paper's no-discriminating-power claim for this mass pattern is falsified.","tokens_in":29401,"feed_emoji":"🌌","tokens_out":18711,"duration_ms":117384,"temperature":0.7,"pith_summary":"Neutrinos are known to have mass, so a heavier mass eigenstate could in principle decay into a lighter one plus a massless particle; the relic flux of neutrinos from all past core-collapse supernovae, the diffuse supernova neutrino background (DSNB), is one of the few places this non-radiative decay would show up. This paper asks whether upcoming experiments can actually tell a universe with decay from one without it, and answers with the first Bayesian analysis of the question in a full three-flavour framework. It computes DSNB fluxes and event rates under two independent sets of one-dimensional supernova simulations, with uncertainties from the evolving core-collapse supernova rate and the fraction of failed supernovae, and reports Bayes factors for inverse $\\beta$ decay and neutrino-argon events in SK-Gd (Super-Kamiokande with gadolinium), Hyper-Kamiokande, JUNO and DUNE. The central conclusion is that if the neutrino mass ordering is normal and the masses are strongly hierarchical, the decay and no-decay predictions are so degenerate that no combination of these detectors can discriminate $\\tau/m \\in [10^9, 10^{11}]~\\mathrm{s/eV}$; discriminating power appears for quasi-degenerate normal masses and, even more, for inverted ordering.","feed_headline":"Relic neutrinos cannot probe decay for normal hierarchical masses","feed_subtitle":"Even combining four detectors, the diffuse supernova neutrino background cannot tell decay from no decay in this mass pattern.","key_machinery":"The argument is carried by two pieces. First, the decaying DSNB flux is obtained from neutrino kinetic equations with a supernova source term plus decay source and sink terms, solved in closed form along the line of sight; the decay is described by mass-pattern-dependent daughter energy spectra, a delta function in the quasi-degenerate case and two distinct spectra for helicity-conserving and helicity-flipping decays in the strongly hierarchical case. Second, the statistical discriminator is the expected mean logarithmic Bayes factor, the ratio of background-marginalised binned Poisson likelihoods for a decay hypothesis versus the no-decay hypothesis, averaged over Markov-chain Monte Carlo pseudo-data, with thresholds of 3 and 5 marking strong and very strong evidence. The single free decay parameter, one $\\tau/m$ for all decaying eigenstates, is what lets the whole comparison be summarised as a Bayes-factor map over $\\tau/m$.","core_discovery":"Working in a three-neutrino framework with two-body non-radiative decay $\\nu_h \\to \\nu_l + \\phi$ (or $\\bar\\nu_l + \\phi$), and assuming mass-eigenstate decay with democratic branching ratios and one common lifetime-to-mass ratio $\\tau/m$, the authors scan $\\tau/m = 10^9, 10^{10}, 10^{11}~\\mathrm{s/eV}$. For each mass pattern (normal strongly hierarchical, normal quasi-degenerate, inverted), they build binned Poisson likelihoods for the main detection channels, marginalise over Gaussian signal and background nuisance parameters in a conservative and an optimistic scenario, and quote expected mean logarithmic Bayes factors from Markov-chain Monte Carlo pseudo-data. The central finding is that in the normal strongly hierarchical case the Bayes factors essentially vanish in every channel and even in the idealized zero-background, zero-uncertainty limit, so the DSNB has no discriminating power between decay and no decay in the scanned range. In the quasi-degenerate normal case the combined analysis reaches strong evidence for $\\tau/m = 10^9~\\mathrm{s/eV}$ against stable neutrinos under optimistic uncertainties, while in the inverted case $\\tau/m \\lesssim 10^9~\\mathrm{s/eV}$ can be ruled out with very strong evidence if neutrinos are stable or decay slowly. Neutrino-proton scattering in JUNO, which a previous analysis suggested could break the degeneracies, does not help at expected event rates; only a hypothetical very-low-background version approaches strong evidence.","pith_inferences":["Extension: because the analysis reduces decay to one common $\\tau/m$ with democratic branching ratios, the normal strongly hierarchical (NO SH) no-go is a statement about that single-parameter family; a model with non-democratic couplings or eigenstate-dependent lifetimes could in principle produce distinguishable DSNB spectra and should be tested with the same Bayes-factor machinery.","Extension: a practical corollary the authors leave implicit is that a future DSNB detection under normal hierarchical masses would not count as evidence against neutrino decay, and would primarily constrain supernova astrophysics rather than particle physics.","Extension: running this Bayesian pipeline on real observed counts rather than Markov-chain Monte Carlo pseudo-data would turn the Bayes-factor maps directly into lower limits on $\\tau/m$ for the quasi-degenerate and inverted cases, and would confirm or refute the no-go by whether the observed log Bayes factor stays below 3.","Extension: the large simulation-to-simulation spread in event rates suggests treating the supernova simulation choice as a discrete nuisance in a model-averaged Bayes factor; the authors compute per-scenario maps but do not average over the two simulation sets."],"forward_implications":["If the true mass pattern is normal and strongly hierarchical, the DSNB will provide no constraint on non-radiative neutrino decay in the $\\tau/m \\in [10^9, 10^{11}]~\\mathrm{s/eV}$ range, regardless of accumulated statistics in SK-Gd, HK, JUNO and DUNE.","For normal ordering with quasi-degenerate masses, combining the four experiments can yield strong evidence against stable neutrinos if $\\tau/m$ is near $10^9~\\mathrm{s/eV}$, assuming optimistic uncertainties on signal and background.","For inverted ordering, $\\tau/m \\lesssim 10^9~\\mathrm{s/eV}$ can be rejected with very strong evidence when neutrinos are stable or decay with $\\tau/m \\gtrsim 10^{10}~\\mathrm{s/eV}$, reaching this level in JUNO and the gadolinium-loaded Hyper-Kamiokande even under conservative uncertainties.","The neutrino-proton scattering channel in JUNO does not improve discrimination at expected event rates, contrary to an earlier two-flavour study, and would need very low backgrounds to approach strong evidence against $\\tau/m = 10^9~\\mathrm{s/eV}$.","Projected DSNB limits from this analysis could be competitive with cosmological neutrino-lifetime bounds once the heaviest neutrino mass is $m_h \\gtrsim 0.05~\\mathrm{eV}$."],"supporting_citations":[{"why":"Supplies the three-flavour decay kinetic equations, the decay source and sink collision terms, and the daughter-energy spectra used to compute decaying DSNB fluxes.","marker":"[23]"},{"why":"Provides the reference failed-supernova fraction 0.21 scenario, the flux trends across mass patterns, and the simulation inputs that this analysis adopts and extends to Bayesian inference.","marker":"[28]"},{"why":"Gives the earlier effective two-flavour analysis and the conservative and optimistic nuisance-uncertainty values; the paper's neutrino-proton conclusion is compared against its claim.","marker":"[26]"},{"why":"Super-Kamiokande's DSNB search supplies the experimental upper limit and the atmospheric non-NCQE-dominated background decomposition used for SK-Gd.","marker":"[12]"},{"why":"Documents the SK-VI and SK-VII gadolinium-phase results from which the paper scales SK-Gd backgrounds and running times.","marker":"[17]"},{"why":"Hyper-Kamiokande design report supplying the target masses, run time, and invisible-muon background estimates used for HK and HK-Gd rates.","marker":"[18]"},{"why":"JUNO DSNB prospects paper providing the fiducial volumes, efficiencies, energy windows, and pulse-shape-discriminated IBD background estimates.","marker":"[20]"},{"why":"Supplies the DUNE neutrino-argon channel parameters and the atmospheric charged-current background model used in the DUNE event-rate and Bayes-factor calculations.","marker":"[51]"},{"why":"Defines the log-Bayes-factor interpretation thresholds (positive, strong, very strong) used to convert every reported mean Bayes factor into evidence language.","marker":"[57]"},{"why":"Supplies the mixing angles and current mass-order and mass-sum information that set the normal and inverted scenarios and the mass-pattern ranges considered.","marker":"[24]"}],"fun_headline_variants":["Bayes says DSNB can't tell decay for normal ordering","Neutrino decay undetectable in DSNB for normal hierarchy","No DSNB decay signal in normal mass ordering, says Bayesian scan","Bayesian analysis: DSNB blind to decay in hierarchical case","Supernova neutrino background can't probe decay for normal masses"],"cache_read_input_tokens":3200,"weakest_assumption_plain":"The whole analysis collapses neutrino decay into a single number, one common lifetime-to-mass ratio for every decaying eigenstate with democratic branching ratios, so if real decay couplings are uneven or eigenstate lifetimes differ, the projected Bayes factors, including the NO SH no-go, could change.","fun_headline_variants_meta":{"raw":{"variants":["Bayes says DSNB can't tell decay for normal ordering","Neutrino decay undetectable in DSNB for normal hierarchy","No DSNB decay signal in normal mass ordering, says Bayesian scan","Bayesian analysis: DSNB blind to decay in hierarchical case","Supernova neutrino background can't probe decay for normal masses"]},"model":"deepseek-v4-flash","effort":"low","cost_usd":0.000885,"raw_usage":{"total_tokens":3886,"prompt_tokens":1071,"completion_tokens":2815,"prompt_tokens_details":{"cached_tokens":384},"prompt_cache_hit_tokens":384,"prompt_cache_miss_tokens":687,"completion_tokens_details":{"reasoning_tokens":2724}},"tokens_in":687,"tokens_out":2815,"duration_ms":13933,"temperature":1.0,"reasoning_tokens":2724,"cache_read_input_tokens":384,"cache_creation_input_tokens":0},"cache_creation_input_tokens":0},"created_at":"2026-08-11T12:01:07.594824+00:00","model_set":{"reader":"deepseek-v4-flash"},"falsifier":"Compute the mean logarithmic Bayes factor between no decay and $\\tau/m = 10^9~\\mathrm{s/eV}$ from the actual binned inverse $\\beta$ decay spectra of SK-Gd, HK (or HK-Gd) and JUNO plus the neutrino-argon spectrum of DUNE after 20 years of data, using this paper's background model and assuming normal ordering with strongly hierarchical masses; if the observed $\\log B_{10}$ exceeds 3, the paper's no-discriminating-power claim for this mass pattern is falsified.","supporting_citations":[{"cited_title":"Kass and A.E","cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"Defines the log-Bayes-factor interpretation thresholds (positive, strong, very strong) used to convert every reported mean Bayes factor into evidence language."},{"cited_title":"Navas et al","cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"Supplies the mixing angles and current mass-order and mass-sum information that set the normal and inverted scenarios and the mass-pattern ranges considered."}],"review_version":1}