Pith. sign in

REVIEW 6 minor 35 references

On the Properties of the Effective Jarlskog Invariant for Three-flavor Neutrino Oscillations in Matter

T0 review · 0 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The matter-to-vacuum ratio of the effective Jarlskog invariant factorizes as $1/(\hat{C}_{12}\hat{C}_{13})$, accurate to about 0.1% for any matter parameter.

desk verdict A solid, honest RGE-based derivation of the known Jarlskog factorization in matter, with an accuracy claim that is slightly over-sold at high density. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.07304 v2 pith:XUJAMWRN submitted 2019-08-20 hep-ph

Xin Wang , Shun Zhou This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph PACS 14.60.Pq
keywords neutrinooscillationsmattereffectsJarlskoginvariantCPviolationrenormalization-groupequationsMSWresonanceeffectivemixingparameterslong-baselineexperiments
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

The paper claims that for three-flavor neutrino oscillations in matter, the effective Jarlskog invariant, which quantifies leptonic CP violation, is related to its vacuum value by $\widetilde{\cal J}/{\cal J} \approx 1/(\hat{C}_{12}\hat{C}_{13})$, where each $\hat{C}$ is a two-flavor resonance denominator built from vacuum parameters and the matter parameter $a$. The improvement over previous work is replacing $A_* = a/\Delta_{21}$ with $\hat{A}_* = a\cos^2\theta_{13}/\Delta_{21}$, which sharply improves the predicted effective mixing angle $\tilde\theta_{12}$ and the ratio itself. The authors report that the approximation stays accurate to about 0.1% for any value of the matter parameter. A sympathetic reader would care because this gives a compact analytic handle on where matter-enhanced CP violation peaks, a central question for long-baseline neutrino experiments.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the first-order system of renormalization-group equations for the effective mass-squared differences and mixing angles as functions of the matter parameter $a$, solved by series expansion in $\alpha_{\rm c} = \Delta_{21}/\Delta_{\rm c}$. The load-bearing objects are the two resonance denominators $\hat{C}_{12}$ and $\hat{C}_{13}$, each the length of a side in the complex plane between the matter amplitude and the vacuum mixing cosine; they regularize the two two-flavor matter resonances, one driven by $(\Delta_{21},\theta_{12})$ with matter parameter $a\cos^2\theta_{13}$ and the other by $(\Delta_{\rm c},\theta_{13})$ with $a$. The Toshev relation and the Naumov relation connect these denominators to the Jarlskog ratio and keep the derivation compact.

What would settle it

Compute the exact ratio $\widetilde{\cal J}/{\cal J}$ by numerically diagonalizing the three-flavor Hamiltonian on a fine grid of $A_{\rm c}$ from $10^{-4}$ to $100$, including the resonance region and parameter choices with larger $\sin^2\theta_{13}$ or inverted mass ordering, and compare with the formula $1/(\hat{C}_{12}\hat{C}_{13})$; a discrepancy exceeding about 0.1% at any point would falsify the claimed universal accuracy.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using improved analytical solutions to the renormalization-group equations of effective neutrino masses and mixing parameters in matter, the paper establishes that $\widetilde{\cal J}/{\cal J} \approx 1/(\hat{C}_{12}\hat{C}_{13})$, where $\hat{C}_{12} = \sqrt{1-2\hat{A}_*\cos 2\theta_{12}+\hat{A}_*^2}$ with $\hat{A}_* = a\cos^2\theta_{13}/\Delta_{21}$, and $\hat{C}_{13} = \sqrt{1-2A_{\rm c}\cos 2\theta_{13}+A_{\rm c}^2}$ with $A_{\rm c} = a/\Delta_{\rm c}$ and $\Delta_{\rm c} = \Delta_{31}\cos^2\theta_{12}+\Delta_{32}\sin^2\theta_{12}$. The key improvement is the replacement of the earlier $A_* = a/\Delta_{21}$ by $\hat{A}_* = a\cos^2\theta_{13}/\Delta_{21}$, which correctly encodes the solar-sector matter potential once the $\theta_{13}$ sector is decoupled. The paper verifies this formula against exact numerical diagonalization and reports agreement to about 0.1% over the whole range of $A_{\rm c}$, then uses the factorization to locate the two maxima and one minimum of $\widetilde{\cal J}/{\cal J}$ in the normal mass ordering.

Load-bearing premise

The claim's load-bearing premise is that the small terms dropped in solving the effective-mass equations and in simplifying the effective solar mixing angle stay negligible for all values of the matter parameter, which is checked numerically but not proved by a uniform error bound.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The extrema of $\widetilde{\cal J}/{\cal J}$ occur where the resonance conditions $\hat{A}_* = \cos 2\theta_{12}$ and $A_{\rm c} = \cos 2\theta_{13}$ are approached, with the first maximum at the solar resonance energy.
  • In the normal mass ordering there are two local maxima and one local minimum; in antineutrino oscillations in normal ordering there are no extrema, and in inverted ordering there is a single maximum for neutrinos.
  • The same analytical solutions also produce compact expressions for all moduli of the effective mixing matrix in matter.
  • The simple factorization lets one compute matter-enhanced CP-violation probabilities without full numerical diagonalization, at least in the parameter region checked in the paper.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the 0.1% accuracy holds uniformly, the formula could serve as a fast analytic substitute for numerical diagonalization in event-rate and sensitivity calculations for future long-baseline experiments.
  • The two-factor form suggests CP violation in matter is simultaneously suppressed by each two-flavor resonance; one could look for a geometric interpretation of the ratio as an area or determinant in the complex plane of mixing parameters.
  • A natural testable extension is to check whether the same factorization persists for non-standard neutrino interactions or for the ratio of T-violating asymmetries, not just the Jarlskog invariant.
  • The paper's own numerical checks cover a grid of $A_{\rm c}$; a sharper result would be a uniform analytic error bound on the dropped terms, which the paper does not provide.
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

0 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper improves the authors' earlier renormalization-group-equation (RGE) solutions for three-flavor neutrino oscillation parameters in matter by replacing the solar-sector matter parameter A_* = a/Delta_21 with A_hat_* = a cos^2(theta_13)/Delta_21. Using the improved expressions for the effective masses and mixing angles, it derives the compact factorization ~J/J ~ 1/(C_hat_12 C_hat_13), where C_hat_12 and C_hat_13 are two-flavor resonance denominators built from vacuum parameters and the matter parameter A_c. The formula is then applied to locate the two maxima and one minimum of ~J/J in normal mass ordering, with numerical comparisons using current best-fit oscillation parameters. The paper claims the approximation is accurate to about 0.1% for all A_c.

Significance. Equation (27) is a compact and physically transparent characterization of matter effects on the Jarlskog invariant, factorizing the ratio into a solar-sector and an atmospheric-sector resonance denominator. The formula itself is already present in Ref. [24], and the paper credits that work explicitly; the added value is an independent RGE-based derivation, a systematic improvement of ~theta_12, and explicit extremum formulas for ~J/J. The numerical checks in Figs. 1 and 2 are persuasive, and the derivation is clearly presented. I explicitly examined the large-A_c concern about Eq. (26): the dropped factor is cos^2(theta_13)/cos^2(~theta_13), which at large A_c tends to 2 cos^2(theta_13), and it multiplies the small prefactor z = (1/2)[1 - (A_hat_* - cos 2 theta_12)/C_hat_12], which vanishes as A_c^{-2}; the induced relative error in sin 2 ~theta_12 is therefore well below the 0.1% level in the scanned range. That particular concern does not invalidate the central claim. The remaining issues are presentational: the error metric behind the 0.1% statement is not defined, and a few formulas have notation or typesetting ambiguities.

minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. 3, after Fig. 2] Please specify whether the claimed accuracy "as high as 0.1% for any values of A_c" is a relative or an absolute accuracy. The right panel of Fig. 2 plots the absolute difference |Delta(~J/J)|, which is not the same metric and becomes logarithmically invisible at large A_c; a relative-error panel or an explicit relative-error statement would make the claim directly verifiable.
  2. [Secs. 2 and 3, Eqs. (26), (33), (34)] The notation cos2theta_13 is ambiguous between cos^2(theta_13) and cos(2 theta_13). For example, Eq. (33) requires cos^2(theta_13)/alpha_c, whereas Eq. (12) uses cos(2 theta_13). Please use an unambiguous notation such as cos^2 theta_13 versus cos 2 theta_13 throughout, since several subsequent formulas depend on the distinction.
  3. [Sec. 3, Eqs. (34) and (39)] The ratio alpha_c/cos^2(theta_13) appears to be typeset as its reciprocal in places. As printed, Eq. (39) would give A_c^(1) ~ 12.6, contradicting Eq. (46), where A_c^(1) = 0.0115; the intended expression is A_c^(1) = cos 2 theta_12 * alpha_c / cos^2(theta_13). Please correct the typesetting in these equations and check the surrounding formulas for the same inversion.
  4. [Sec. 3, after Eq. (51)] The label (~J/J)|_max^(2) in the sentence discussing the suppression of the local minimum should read (~J/J)|_min^(2).
  5. [Sec. 2, Eqs. (16)-(18)] Please do not call Eq. (18) the "exact solution" of Eq. (16), because Eq. (17) is obtained from Eq. (16) by explicitly dropping terms judged to be small. It would be more accurate to say that Eq. (18) is the solution to the approximating equation (17), and to state which terms are neglected; the numerical validation in Fig. 1 then supports the approximation.
  6. [Secs. 3 and 4] There are several typographical slips: "straightfoward" should be "straightforward", "ananlytical" should be "analytical", and the phrase "the exact numerical one" is used repeatedly where "the exact numerical result" is meant. These should be cleaned up.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Eq. (27) is derived from approximate RGE solutions, benchmarked numerically, and independently supported by Ref. [24].

full rationale

The central result ~J/J = 1/(Ĉ12 Ĉ13) is not fitted and is not defined into existence. The derivation chain is explicit: exact RGEs (1)-(7) from prior work, series/trial expansions (9)-(15), reduction to the differential equation (16), the approximating equation (17), exact solution (18), improved angle formula (19), and then algebraic substitution into the Jarlskog ratio in Eqs. (24)-(27). The approximation in Eq. (26) is openly acknowledged and is a mathematical truncation, not a hidden reintroduction of the target formula. The paper checks the result against exact numerical integration using external global-fit vacuum parameters, so the numerical comparison is an independent benchmark. The replacement A* -> Â* is physically motivated by two-flavor solar neutrino oscillations and independently appears in Ref. [24], which the paper cites transparently; the self-citations to Refs. [6,18,23,26] are methodological and not load-bearing for the claimed formula. No uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors, no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and the target ratio is not assumed in constructing Ĉ12 or Ĉ13. The only substantive weakness, the claimed 0.1% accuracy for all A_c, is a numerical accuracy question rather than circularity: an approximation can be imperfect without being circular. Overall the derivation is self-contained against the exact numerical solution and against independent prior work.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No parameters are fitted in this paper; best-fit neutrino parameters are external inputs. The assumptions are perturbation truncation and the approximating reductions in Eqs. (17) and (26), both numerically benchmarked. No new entities are introduced.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The renormalization-group equations (1)-(7) for effective masses and mixing parameters in matter are exact within the three-flavor framework.
    Taken from Ref. [6], these are the starting point; any error in them propagates into the derived formula.
  • domain assumption First-order series expansion in alpha_c = Delta_21 / Delta_c is sufficient for the claimed accuracy.
    The paper truncates at O(alpha_c) in Eqs. (9)-(15) and (20)-(22) and verifies by comparison with numerics, but does not prove convergence.
  • ad hoc to paper The reduction from Eq. (16) to Eq. (17) and the exact solution Eq. (18) capture the relevant behavior of F(A_c).
    This is the key approximating step, checked numerically in Fig. 1 but not controlled by a rigorous error bound.
  • ad hoc to paper The approximations in Eq. (26), specifically sin^2 theta-tilde_12 approximately equal to [1 + (A-hat_* - cos2theta_12)/C-hat_12]/2 and dropping cos2theta_13/cos2theta-tilde_13 in the second square root, are safe.
    Justified by considering small and large A_c limits; no uniform bound is provided.
  • standard math The Toshev relation sin2theta-tilde_23 sin delta-tilde = sin2theta_23 sin delta is exact.
    Proven in Ref. [16], used in Eq. (24) to eliminate the effective atmospheric angle and CP phase.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of On the Properties of the Effective Jarlskog Invariant for Three-flavor Neutrino Oscillations in Matter." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XUJAMWRN

@misc{pith2026190807304,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: On the Properties of the Effective Jarlskog Invariant for Three-flavor Neutrino Oscillations in Matter},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XUJAMWRN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.07304}
}
abstract

In this paper, we show that the ratio of the effective Jarlskog invariant $\widetilde{\cal J}$ for leptonic CP violation in three-flavor neutrino oscillations in matter to its counterpart ${\cal J}$ in vacuum $\widetilde{\cal J}/{\cal J} \approx 1/(\hat{C}^{}_{12} \hat{C}^{}_{13})$ holds as an excellent approximation, where $\hat{C}^{}_{12} \equiv \sqrt{1 - 2 \hat{A}^{}_* \cos 2\theta^{}_{12} + \hat{A}^2_*}$ with $\hat{A}^{}_* \equiv a\cos^2 \theta^{}_{13}/\Delta^{}_{21}$ and $\hat{C}^{}_{13} \equiv \sqrt{1 - 2 A^{}_{\rm c} \cos 2\theta^{}_{13} + A^2_{\rm c}}$ with $A^{}_{\rm c} \equiv a/\Delta^{}_{\rm c}$. Here $\Delta^{}_{ij} \equiv m^2_i - m^2_j$ (for $ij = 21, 31, 32$) stand for the neutrino mass-squared differences in vacuum and $\theta^{}_{ij}$ (for $ij = 12, 13, 23$) are the neutrino mixing angles in vacuum, while $\Delta^{}_{\rm c} \equiv \Delta^{}_{31}\cos^2\theta^{}_{12} + \Delta^{}_{32} \sin^2 \theta^{}_{12}$ and the matter parameter $a \equiv 2\sqrt{2}G^{}_{\rm F} N^{}_e E$ are defined. This result has been explicitly derived by improving the previous analytical solutions to the renormalization-group equations of effective neutrino masses and mixing parameters in matter. Furthermore, as a practical application, such a simple analytical formula has been implemented to understand the existence and location of the extrema of $\widetilde{\cal J}$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.07304 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The absolute value of the difference ∆θe 12 ≡ θe 12|analytical−θe 12|numerical between the approx￾imate analytical result and the exact numerical result, where the red dashed curve corresponds to the previous analytical result while the blue solid curve refers to the improved one in this work. To illustrate how much the improvement on the solution to θe 12 is, we calculate the difference ∆θe 12 ≡ θe 12|analytical−θe… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. In the left panel, the analytical result in Eq. (27) (the red solid curve) and the exact [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The evolution of Je/J (the red solid curve), 1/Cb 12 (the blue dashed curve) and 1/Cb 13 (the green dot-dashed curve) against the matter parameter Ac , where two vertical dashed lines denote respectively the resonance at Ab ∗ = cos 2θ12 and Ac = cos 2θ13. These resonances essentially determine two local maxima of Je/J . • In the leading-order approximation, where the terms of O(αc ) in Eq. (34) are ignored, the cubi… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

  1. [24]

    Simple and Precise Factorization of the Jarlskog Invariant for Neutrino Oscillations in Matter,

    P. B. Denton and S. J. Parke, “Simple and Precise Factorization of the Jarlskog Invariant for Neutrino Oscillations in Matter,” arXiv:1902.07185

    arXiv 1902

  2. [1]

    Neutrino Oscillations in Matter,

    L. Wolfenstein, “Neutrino Oscillations in Matter,” Phys. Rev. D 17, 2369 (1978)

    work page 1978

  3. [2]

    Resonance Amplification of Oscillations in Matter and Spectroscopy of Solar Neutrinos,

    S. P. Mikheyev and A. Y. Smirnov, “Resonance Amplification of Oscillations in Matter and Spectroscopy of Solar Neutrinos,” Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 42, 913 (1985) [Yad. Fiz. 42, 1441 (1985)]

    work page 1985

  4. [3]

    Neutrino Oscillations in Matter,

    T. K. Kuo and J. T. Pantaleone, “Neutrino Oscillations in Matter,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 61, 937 (1989)

    work page 1989

  5. [4]

    Resonant neutrino oscillations in matter,

    S. P. Mikheyev and A. Y. Smirnov, “Resonant neutrino oscillations in matter,” Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 23, 41 (1989)

    work page 1989

  6. [5]

    Features of Neutrino Mixing

    S. H. Chiu and T. K. Kuo, “Features of Neutrino Mixing,” Phys. Rev. D 97, no. 5, 055026 (2018) [arXiv:1712.08487]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2018

  7. [6]

    Renormalization-Group Equations of Neutrino Masses and Flavor Mixing Parameters in Matter,

    Z. Z. Xing, S. Zhou and Y. L. Zhou, “Renormalization-Group Equations of Neutrino Masses and Flavor Mixing Parameters in Matter,” JHEP 1805, 015 (2018) [arXiv:1802.00990]

    arXiv 2018

  8. [7]

    Review of Particle Physics,

    M. Tanabashi et al. [Particle Data Group], “Review of Particle Physics,” Phys. Rev. D 98, no. 3, 030001 (2018). 14

    work page 2018

Show all 35 references
  1. [8]

    Running neutrino masses, mixings and CP phases: Analytical results and phenomenological consequences,

    S. Antusch, J. Kersten, M. Lindner and M. Ratz, “Running neutrino masses, mixings and CP phases: Analytical results and phenomenological consequences,” Nucl. Phys. B 674, 401 (2003) [hep-ph/0305273]

    2003 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Running neutrino masses, leptonic mixing angles and CP-violating phases: From M(Z) to Lambda(GUT),

    J. w. Mei, “Running neutrino masses, leptonic mixing angles and CP-violating phases: From M(Z) to Lambda(GUT),” Phys. Rev. D 71, 073012 (2005) [hep-ph/0502015]

    2005 arXiv

  3. [10]

    A Novel parametrization of tau-lepton dominance and simplified one-loop renormalization-group equations of neutrino mixing angles and CP-violating phases,

    Z. z. Xing, “A Novel parametrization of tau-lepton dominance and simplified one-loop renormalization-group equations of neutrino mixing angles and CP-violating phases,” Phys. Lett. B 633, 550 (2006) [hep-ph/0510312]

    2006 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Renormalization group running of neutrino parameters,

    T. Ohlsson and S. Zhou, “Renormalization group running of neutrino parameters,” Nature Commun. 5, 5153 (2014) [arXiv:1311.3846]

    2014 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Three neutrino oscillations in matter, CP violation and topological phases,

    V. A. Naumov, “Three neutrino oscillations in matter, CP violation and topological phases,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 1, 379 (1992)

    1992

  6. [13]

    Resonance Amplification and t Violation Effects in Three Neutrino Oscillations in the Earth,

    P. I. Krastev and S. T. Petcov, “Resonance Amplification and t Violation Effects in Three Neutrino Oscillations in the Earth,” Phys. Lett. B 205, 84 (1988)

    1988

  7. [14]

    CP and T violation in neutrino oscillations and invariance of Jarlskog’s determinant to matter effects,

    P. F. Harrison and W. G. Scott, “CP and T violation in neutrino oscillations and invariance of Jarlskog’s determinant to matter effects,” Phys. Lett. B 476, 349 (2000) [hep-ph/9912435]

    2000 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Commutators of lepton mass matrices, CP violation, and matter effects in- medium baseline neutrino experiments,

    Z. z. Xing, “Commutators of lepton mass matrices, CP violation, and matter effects in- medium baseline neutrino experiments,” Phys. Rev. D 63, 073012 (2001) [hep-ph/0009294]

    2001 arXiv

  9. [16]

    On T violation in matter neutrino oscillations,

    S. Toshev, “On T violation in matter neutrino oscillations,” Mod. Phys. Lett. A6, 455 (1991)

    1991

  10. [17]

    Naumov- and Toshev-like relations in the renormalization- group evolution of quarks and Dirac neutrinos,

    Z. z. Xing and S. Zhou, “Naumov- and Toshev-like relations in the renormalization- group evolution of quarks and Dirac neutrinos,” Chin. Phys. C 42, no. 10, 103105 (2018) [arXiv:1804.01925]

    2018 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Analytical solutions to renormalization-group equations of ef- fective neutrino masses and mixing parameters in matter,

    X. Wang and S. Zhou, “Analytical solutions to renormalization-group equations of ef- fective neutrino masses and mixing parameters in matter,” JHEP 1905 (2019) 035 [arXiv:1901.10882]

    2019 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Commutator of the Quark Mass Matrices in the Standard Electroweak Model and a Measure of Maximal CP Violation,

    C. Jarlskog, “Commutator of the Quark Mass Matrices in the Standard Electroweak Model and a Measure of Maximal CP Violation,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 55, 1039 (1985)

    1985

  13. [20]

    The Rephasing Invariants and CP,

    D. D. Wu, “The Rephasing Invariants and CP,” Phys. Rev. D 33, 860 (1986)

    1986

  14. [21]

    Simple and Compact Expressions for Neutrino Oscillation Probabilities in Matter,

    H. Minakata and S. J. Parke, “Simple and Compact Expressions for Neutrino Oscillation Probabilities in Matter,” JHEP 1601, 180 (2016) [arXiv:1505.01826]

    2016 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Looking into Analytical Approximations for Three-flavor Neutrino Oscillation Probabilities in Matter,

    Y. F. Li, J. Zhang, S. Zhou and J. y. Zhu, “Looking into Analytical Approximations for Three-flavor Neutrino Oscillation Probabilities in Matter,” JHEP 1612, 109 (2016) [arXiv:1610.04133]. 15

    2016 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Symmetric formulation of neutrino oscillations in matter and its intrinsic connection to renormalization-group equations,

    S. Zhou, “Symmetric formulation of neutrino oscillations in matter and its intrinsic connection to renormalization-group equations,” J. Phys. G 44, no. 4, 044006 (2017) [arXiv:1612.03537]

    2017 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Day-night effect in solar neutrino oscillations with three flavors,

    M. Blennow, T. Ohlsson and H. Snellman, “Day-night effect in solar neutrino oscillations with three flavors,” Phys. Rev. D 69 (2004) 073006 [hep-ph/0311098]

    2004 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Matter effects on the flavor conversions of solar neutrinos and high-energy astrophysical neutrinos,

    G. y. Huang, J. H. Liu and S. Zhou, “Matter effects on the flavor conversions of solar neutrinos and high-energy astrophysical neutrinos,” Nucl. Phys. B 931 (2018) 324 [arXiv:1803.02037]

    2018 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Leptonic CP Violation,

    G. C. Branco, R. G. Felipe and F. R. Joaquim, “Leptonic CP Violation,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 84, 515 (2012) [arXiv:1111.5332]

    2012 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Analytic approximations for three neutrino oscillation parameters and probabil- ities in matter,

    M. Freund, “Analytic approximations for three neutrino oscillation parameters and probabil- ities in matter,” Phys. Rev. D 64, 053003 (2001) [hep-ph/0103300]

    2001 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Global analysis of three-flavour neutrino oscillations: synergies and tensions in the determi- nation of θ23,δ CP, and the mass ordering,

    I. Esteban, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, A. Hernandez-Cabezudo, M. Maltoni and T. Schwetz, “Global analysis of three-flavour neutrino oscillations: synergies and tensions in the determi- nation of θ23,δ CP, and the mass ordering,” JHEP 1901, 106 (2019) [arXiv:1811.05487]

    2019 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Compact Perturbative Expressions For Neutrino Oscillations in Matter,

    P. B. Denton, H. Minakata and S. J. Parke, “Compact Perturbative Expressions For Neutrino Oscillations in Matter,” JHEP 1606, 051 (2016) [arXiv:1604.08167]

    2016 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Three Neutrino Oscillations in Matter,

    A. Ioannisian and S. Pokorski, “Three Neutrino Oscillations in Matter,” Phys. Lett. B 782, 641 (2018) [arXiv:1801.10488]

    2018 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Sum rules and asymptotic behaviors of neutrino mixing in dense matter,

    Z. Z. Xing and J. Y. Zhu, “Sum rules and asymptotic behaviors of neutrino mixing in dense matter,” arXiv:1905.08644

    1905 arXiv

  25. [33]

    On Neutrino Mixing in Matter and CP and T Violation Effects in Neutrino Oscillations,

    S. T. Petcov and Y. L. Zhou, “On Neutrino Mixing in Matter and CP and T Violation Effects in Neutrino Oscillations,” Phys. Lett. B 785, 95 (2018) [arXiv:1806.09112]

    2018 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Analytical approximations for matter effects on CP violation in the accelerator-based neutrino oscillations with E ≲ 1 GeV,

    Z. z. Xing and J. y. Zhu, “Analytical approximations for matter effects on CP violation in the accelerator-based neutrino oscillations with E ≲ 1 GeV,” JHEP 1607 (2016) 011 [arXiv:1603.02002]

    2016 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Matter enhancement of T violation in neu- trino oscillation,

    H. Yokomakura, K. Kimura and A. Takamura, “Matter enhancement of T violation in neu- trino oscillation,” Phys. Lett. B 496 (2000) 175 [hep-ph/0009141]. 16

    2000 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.