Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 39 references

LIQUIDating the Gallium Anomaly

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that a 100-ton indium target, combined with two runs of a 3.4 MCi 51Cr source, can probe the entire parameter space of the gallium anomaly at more than 5 sigma.

desk verdict A genuinely new detector concept for the gallium anomaly, but the '100 tons probes everything at >5σ' claim does not survive the authors' own Fig. 3. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.07397 v1 pith:FTMEBSJJ submitted 2025-07-10 hep-ph

Garv Chauhan , Patrick Huber This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords galliumanomalysterileneutrinoindium-11551CrsourceopaqueliquidscintillatorMSWresonancemassandmixingdetector
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 gallium anomaly is a >5 sigma deficit in the rate of neutrino capture from intense radioactive sources measured in gallium radiochemical experiments, and it has resisted both standard-systematics explanations and simple sterile-neutrino models, which clash with solar and reactor data. The paper proposes a real-time indium detector that records each event's energy and its distance from the source, exploiting the 114 keV threshold of neutrino capture on 115In and the delayed two-gamma coincidence that follows. It claims that two 200-day runs of a 3.4 MCi 51Cr source in a 100-ton indium target can cover the full 95% allowed parameter space of the currently viable MSW-resonance-by-ultralight-dark-matter model at more than 5 sigma significance, and can also constrain the vanilla eV-scale sterile neutrino. The key move is calibrating the neutrino-indium cross section with the well-measured solar 7Be flux, whose energy lies close to the 51Cr lines, so no nuclear-model or radiochemistry input is needed.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the 115In triple coincidence inside an opaque liquid scintillator: capture emits an electron plus two delayed gammas (116 keV and 498 keV), and the detector localises the flash so each event carries reconstructed neutrino energy and distance from the 51Cr source. That combination resolves the narrow MSW-resonance dip at roughly 747 keV, which scattering-only measurements such as the CNO solar spectrum cannot resolve; the second leg is the 7Be-flux cross-section calibration that fixes the absolute rate without nuclear matrix elements.

What would settle it

Measure the light yield and indium loading of an opaque scintillator prototype: if it delivers less than roughly 100-250 detected photons per MeV of deposited energy, or less than 20% indium by weight, the 116 keV gamma in the triple coincidence becomes too rarely detected and the indium mass required to cover the full parameter space grows beyond 100 tons.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that a single detector concept converts the gallium anomaly from a counting puzzle into a spectral-spatial measurement with enough resolving power to see the narrow resonant dips that BSM models place at the 747 keV 51Cr line. Charged-current capture on 115In produces an electron with energy E_nu - 114 keV and then two gammas at 116 keV and 498 keV; the triple coincidence kills backgrounds, while an opaque scintillator localises the light so that both reconstructed energy and radial distance from the source are available per event. In the nu_s-DM MSW resonance model, the survival probability P_ee drops sharply just above 747 keV at baselines of 1-2 m, so the deficit appears as a depletion of the 750 keV energy bin relative to the 430 keV bin and as a function of radius. The paper's sensitivity scan shows that a 100-ton indium target with two source runs reaches more than 5 sigma over the whole 95% C.I. region, while even sub-ton to few-ton targets provide useful constraints for large parts of the parameter space.

Load-bearing premise

The reach rests on assumed detector performance that the paper does not demonstrate: 20% indium loading by weight, about 400 photoelectrons per MeV of light collection, and zero backgrounds after the triple coincidence; the text itself notes the indium concentration is not yet determined and that the light collection is expected to be reached only eventually.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A 100-ton indium target with two 200-day runs of a 3.4 MCi 51Cr source can cover the full 95% C.I. allowed region of the nu_s-DM MSW resonance model at more than 5 sigma.
  • The same setup probes the vanilla eV-scale sterile-neutrino parameter space, which is otherwise disfavoured by solar and reactor data, reaching more than 4 sigma over most of it.
  • Ton-scale targets (roughly 0.3-2 tons) already provide >3.5 to 5 sigma sensitivity for large parts of the parameter space, making a staged programme physically plausible.
  • Calibrating the nu_e-115In cross section with the solar 7Be flux removes reliance on radiochemical efficiency and nuclear matrix elements, so any remaining deficit would be an unambiguous signature of new physics.
  • Measuring both baseline and energy dependence distinguishes the sharp 747 keV resonance structure from systematic source-strength or cross-section errors, closing the window on standard-model explanations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper leaves implicit that the same source-line geometry could serve as a general probe of any BSM model with a narrow oscillation dip near a monoenergetic source line; the two-energy-bin and radial-bin analysis would transfer directly.
  • If the assumed 20% indium loading or roughly 400 photoelectrons per MeV cannot be reached, the required mass grows steeply because the source event rate scales with detector radius, hence only as M_Ind^(1/3); a prototype measurement of these two numbers would settle feasibility before a 100-ton commitment.
  • A higher-precision measurement of the solar 7Be flux, for instance from large liquid-noble detectors as the paper notes, would directly lower the required indium mass by reducing the cross-section pull term in the chi-square.
  • The model-agnostic core of the argument is that real-time energy and position information, not target chemistry, is what lets a single experiment distinguish new physics from systematic explanations of the gallium anomaly.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a real-time indium-loaded LiquidO detector exposed to a 3.4 MCi 51Cr source to test explanations of the gallium anomaly, focusing on a νs-DM MSW resonance model. The authors provide the 115In capture cross-section, event-rate formulas, and a pull-based χ² analysis in the appendices, and present sensitivity maps as a function of indium mass. The headline claim is that a 100 t indium target with two 200-day source runs can probe the complete parameter space of the gallium anomaly at more than 5σ, using the solar 7Be flux to constrain the νe-115In cross-section.

Significance. If the assumed detector performance were realized, the proposal would be a major step: a real-time, energy- and baseline-resolving detector that could distinguish standard-model explanations from new physics in the gallium anomaly. The paper is useful for its explicit cross-section calculation, event-rate formalism, and χ² treatment with pulls for source flux, branching ratio, and cross-section uncertainties. However, the central 'complete parameter space at >5σ' claim is not supported by the authors' own sensitivity maps, and the detector assumptions underlying those maps are not validated. The present version therefore requires substantial revision before the claims can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract; Conclusion; Fig. 3; Fig. 9] The abstract and conclusion state that a 100 t indium target with two runs of a 3.4 MCi 51Cr source can test all of the parameter space at more than 5σ. This is contradicted by Fig. 3 (right panel), which uses exactly that configuration (two 200-day runs, ΔσIn=2.6%, ΔLres=10 cm): the '>101 ton' mass bin is labeled 'C.I. (σ for 101 ton) 4.89–4.99', indicating that some sampled points require more than 101 t and would be excluded at less than 5σ even with 101 t. Fig. 9 shows the same behavior for the vanilla sterile scenario (3.83–4.99 for 101 t with one run). The claim must therefore be weakened to 'most of the parameter space' or the exposure (mass, source runs, or run time) must be increased.
  2. [Indium Detector; Testing the Resonance; Appendix C] The sensitivity maps assume 20% indium loading by weight (Appendix C) and an energy resolution of σE = 5%/√ER(MeV) corresponding to 400 photoelectrons per MeV. As the text acknowledges, the achievable indium concentration 'is not yet determined' and the required light collection 'will eventually be reached [14]'. Because the source event rate scales only as M^{1/3} (Sec. 'Testing the Resonance'), a shortfall in loading or light yield directly increases the required mass. The 'complete parameter space' claim is therefore conditional on performance targets that are not demonstrated; the manuscript should either provide a realistic range of these parameters or explicitly present the sensitivity as a target-performance projection.
  3. [Indium Detector; Testing the Resonance] The assumption 'that no backgrounds are present' (Sec. 'Indium Detector') is not quantified. The text itself notes that source-induced gammas are suppressed only to the level of the 115In decay rate, yet no estimate is given for the 115In β-decay background rate, including the probability of accidental three-fold coincidences with the 116 keV and 498 keV gammas. Since the confidence interval reaches only 4.89–4.99σ even in the zero-background limit for the worst allowed points, a quantitative background budget is needed to support the sensitivity claims.
  4. [Abstract; Introduction; Conclusion] The phrase 'complete parameter space of the gallium anomaly' in the abstract is broader than what is actually scanned. The sensitivity study covers the 95% C.I. allowed region of the νs-DM MSW resonance model (Fig. 2 and Fig. 8) and the vanilla sterile neutrino parameter space (Fig. 9). Other 'more involved BSM scenarios' mentioned in the introduction (decaying sterile neutrinos, CPT-violating scenarios, scalar-coupled models) are not analyzed. The completeness claim should be restricted to the models actually studied, or additional scans must be provided.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Indium Detector; Appendix C] The statement 'energy resolution at the 51Cr line of about 80−130 keV' should be reconciled with the formula σE = 5%/√ER(MeV) in Appendix C, which yields a FWHM of about 136 keV at 747 keV.
  2. [Footnote on page 1] The footnote contains a typo: 'insuficcient' should be 'insufficient'.
  3. [Figures 3, 8, 9] The color-bar label 'C.I. (σ for 101 ton)' is unclear; please define the notation and specify whether the range refers to the maximum significance for points in that mass bin.
  4. [Appendix C, Eq. (C1)] The summation over 51Cr neutrino lines in Eq. (C1) is typeset incorrectly; the index and limits should be displayed explicitly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the sensitivity projection uses the MSW resonance parameter space from Brdar et al. and the Borexino 7Be flux as external inputs, and no prediction reduces to a fitted value by construction.

full rationale

The paper is a projected-sensitivity study, not a derivation of a new physics result from its own inputs. The MSW resonance model and its allowed parameter region are taken from Brdar et al. (ref. [9]), an external source, and the gallium anomaly data are external (SAGE, GALLEX, BEST). The proposed cross-section calibration uses the Borexino 7Be flux measurement, which the paper notes is based on a purely leptonic process computed from first principles, so calibrating the 115In capture cross-section with it is an external constraint, not a self-referential fit. The χ2 definition (Appendix D) compares a standard hypothesis against a dip hypothesis using pulls for source flux, 7Be flux, cross-section, and branching ratios; these are nuisance parameters, not the predicted signal. The required indium masses in Figs. 3, 8, and 9 are computed as detection thresholds for each sampled model point, so the claim that a 100 ton target probes the parameter space is a quantitative consequence of the assumed detector performance and external model region, not an identity. The paper explicitly flags its detector assumptions as assumptions: the indium concentration 'is not yet determined' and light collection 'will eventually be reached [14]', with backgrounds assumed zero. These are acknowledged performance assumptions, not fitted parameters disguised as predictions, and therefore do not constitute circularity. One genuine issue is internal consistency rather than circularity: the right panel of Fig. 3, which corresponds to the claimed configuration (two 200-day runs, ΔσIn = 2.6%, ΔLres = 10 cm), labels the '>101 ton' mass bin as reaching only 4.89–4.99σ, and the conclusion's statement that 'a 100 ton experiment can test all of the parameter space at more than 5-σ level' is not supported by the authors' own sensitivity map. This is a correctness/overclaim concern that belongs in the general referee assessment, not a circularity finding. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained against external benchmarks and no step reduces to its own inputs by definition.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central sensitivity claim rests on a chain of assumed detector performance parameters (20% In loading, 400 p.e./MeV, zero backgrounds, 10 cm radial resolution) and on the validity of the MSW resonance model and the 115In cross-section normalization. These are stated in the text and appendices but are not independently verified.

free parameters (8)
  • Indium loading fraction = 20% by weight
    Assumed in event-rate calculation (App. C, '20% loading by weight'); the paper notes the actually achievable indium concentration is not yet determined.
  • Photoelectron yield = 400 p.e./MeV (sigma_E = 5%/sqrt(E_MeV))
    Assumed energy resolution in Appendix C; exceeds the 100-250 p.e./MeV discussed in the main text.
  • Background rate = 0
    Assumed 'no backgrounds are present' based on triple coincidence suppression; not demonstrated experimentally.
  • MSW potential V = e.g., 6.86e-14 eV for sample point
    Model parameter from Brdar et al. [9], tuned so the resonance sits at the 747 keV 51Cr line; the paper maps the resulting allowed region.
  • Vacuum sterile neutrino parameters (Delta m^2, sin^2 2theta) = Allowed 95% C.I. region from GA experiments, e.g., Delta m^2_vac = 100 eV^2, sin^2 2theta_vac = 2.7e-4
    Inputs from the BSM model under test; used to define the parameter space the proposed experiment must probe.
  • Indium cross-section (ft)_invbeta = 2.5e4 s
    Adopted from Raghavan [16]; normalizes all event rates and is the target of the 7Be calibration.
  • Source activity and run time = 3.4 MCi per run, 200 days per run
    Assumed experimental parameters based on BEST-scale sources; event rates scale linearly with these.
  • Radial resolution / shielding = Delta L_res = 10 cm, shield radius 40 cm
    Assumed geometry limiting shortest resolvable oscillation length; affects high-Delta m^2 sensitivity.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The allowed beta-decay shape with a single (ft) value describes the 115In neutrino-capture cross section at all relevant energies (Appendix B).
    The cross-section calibration from 7Be at 862 keV is assumed to determine the cross-section at 747 keV and 427 keV; sub-leading nuclear structure effects are not considered.
  • domain assumption The MSW resonance model of Brdar et al. [9] is the correct framework for the gallium anomaly; Eq. (2) for P_MSW^ee is taken as given.
    The paper tests this model rather than deriving it; its validity is an input.
  • domain assumption The 427 keV 51Cr line is unaffected by the resonance and can serve as a normalization.
    The tuned resonance is assumed to be narrow and centered at about 747 keV, leaving the 427 keV line at standard survival probability; this is built into the chi-square definition (App. D).
  • ad hoc to paper The triple coincidence suppresses all backgrounds to a negligible level.
    The paper states 'we assume that no backgrounds are present' without a detailed background simulation, including intrinsic 115In beta decay and source-induced gammas.
  • domain assumption Borexino's 7Be flux measurement (2.6% precision) can be transferred to a 100-ton indium detector exposure to calibrate the cross-section.
    Requires a decade-long solar exposure and assumes the In detector's systematics remain below 2.6%.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of LIQUIDating the Gallium Anomaly." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FTMEBSJJ

@misc{pith2026250707397,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: LIQUIDating the Gallium Anomaly},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FTMEBSJJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.07397}
}
abstract

The gallium anomaly has a global significance of greater than $5\sigma$. Most viable BSM solutions quickly run into strong tensions with reactor and solar neutrino data. We propose to use indium (${}^{115}\text{In}$) as a target as it offers a low threshold and reasonably high cross section. The neutrino-indium charged current cross section can be calibrated using the well-constrained solar ${}^{7}\text{Be}$ neutrino flux that lies very close in energy to the ${}^{51}\text{Cr}$ neutrino lines. The triple coincidence provided by ${}^{115}\text{In}$ neutrino capture can be fully exploited by an opaque scintillation detector that also provides energy and position information. We show that a $100$ ton indium target combined with 2 source runs of a $3.4$ MCi ${}^{51}\text{Cr}$ source can probe the complete parameter space of the gallium anomaly, both in the context of a vanilla sterile neutrino as well as more involved BSM scenarios.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.07397 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Electron Survival Probability Pee with νs-DM MSW resonance for a sample point in 95% C.I. allowed region from all GA experiments (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The best-fit and exclusion contours (95% C.I.) for the Gallium Anomaly in effective and vacuum parameter space for νs-DM MSW resonance model. easy target for a detector design with limited photon col￾lection efficiency, achieving a reasonable detection prob￾ability for those event probably requires between 10-25 detected photons, or about 100-250 detected photons per MeV of deposited energy. This translates into an … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Plots for sensitivity of the In-doped LiquidO setup. The colored points indicate the required Indium mass to reach [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Electron recoil spectrum for various solar neutrino fluxes - [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The cross-section for neutrino capture on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The oscillation probability Pee as a function of length L and neutrino energy Eν for 4 different cases. Note B1 is the benchmark in ref. [9]. In effective parameter space, these cases correspond to (sin2 2θ eff e4 , ∆m2 eff) : B1 (0.89, 0.74), B2 (0.3, 3), B2 (0.5, 100…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Event rates as a function of electron energy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Plots for sensitivity of the In-doped LiquidO setup to effective parameter space of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Plots for sensitivity of the In-doped LiquidO setup to the vanilla eV-scale sterile neutrino scenario. The colored [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

  1. [14]

    Neutrino Physics with an Opaque Detector

    LiquidO collaboration, Neutrino Physics with an Opaque Detector, Commun. Phys.4 (2021) 273 [1908.02859]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2021

  2. [1]

    SAGE collaboration, Measurement of the response of the Russian-American gallium experiment to neutrinos from a Cr-51 source, Phys. Rev. C59 (1999) 2246 [hep-ph/9803418]

    arXiv 1999

  3. [2]

    GALLEX collaboration, Final results of the Cr-51 neutrino source experiments in GALLEX, Phys. Lett. B 420 (1998) 114

    work page 1998

  4. [3]

    Kaether, W

    F. Kaether, W. Hampel, G. Heusser, J. Kiko and T. Kirsten,Reanalysis of the GALLEX solar neutrino flux and source experiments, Phys. Lett. B685 (2010) 47 [1001.2731]

    arXiv 2010

  5. [4]

    V. V. Barinov et al.,Search for electron-neutrino transitions to sterile states in the BEST experiment, Phys. Rev. C105 (2022) 065502 [2201.07364]

    arXiv 2022

  6. [5]

    J. M. Berryman, P. Coloma, P. Huber, T. Schwetz and A. Zhou,Statistical significance of the sterile-neutrino hypothesis in the context of reactor and gallium data, JHEP 02 (2022) 055 [2111.12530]

    arXiv 2022

  7. [6]

    Giunti, Y

    C. Giunti, Y. F. Li, C. A. Ternes, O. Tyagi and Z. Xin, Gallium Anomaly: critical view from the global picture of νe and νe disappearance, JHEP 10 (2022) 164 [2209.00916]

    arXiv 2022

  8. [7]

    KATRINcollaboration, Sterile-neutrino search based on 259 days of KATRIN data, 2503.18667

    arXiv

Show all 39 references
  1. [8]

    Huber,Testing the gallium anomaly, Phys

    P. Huber,Testing the gallium anomaly, Phys. Rev. D 107 (2023) 096011 [2209.02885]

    2023 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Brdar, J

    V. Brdar, J. Gehrlein and J. Kopp,Towards resolving the gallium anomaly, JHEP 05 (2023) 143 [2303.05528]

    2023 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Brdar, J

    V. Brdar, J. Kopp, J. Liu, P. Prass and X.-P. Wang, Fuzzy dark matter and nonstandard neutrino interactions, Phys. Rev. D97 (2018) 043001 [1705.09455]

    2018 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Giunti and M

    C. Giunti and M. Laveder,Hint of CPT Violation in Short-Baseline Electron Neutrino Disappearance, Phys. Rev. D82 (2010) 113009 [1008.4750]

    2010 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Davoudiasl and P

    H. Davoudiasl and P. B. Denton,Sterile neutrino shape shifting caused by dark matter, Phys. Rev. D108 (2023) 035013 [2301.09651]

    2023 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Grieb, J

    C. Grieb, J. Link and R. S. Raghavan,Probing active to sterile neutrino oscillations in the LENS detector, Phys. Rev. D75 (2007) 093006 [hep-ph/0611178]

    2007 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Bellini et al.,Precision measurement of the 7Be solar neutrino interaction rate in Borexino, Phys

    G. Bellini et al.,Precision measurement of the 7Be solar neutrino interaction rate in Borexino, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107 (2011) 141302 [1104.1816]

    2011 arXiv

  8. [16]

    R. S. Raghavan,Inverse beta decay of 115-In to 115-Sn*: a new possibility for detecting solar neutrinos from the proton-proton reaction, Phys. Rev. Lett.37 (1976) 259

    1976

  9. [17]

    R. S. Raghavan,New prospects for real time spectroscopy of low-energy electron neutrinos from the sun, Phys. Rev. Lett.78 (1997) 3618

    1997

  10. [18]

    R. S. Raghavan,p p solar neutrino spectroscopy: Return of the indium detector, hep-ex/0106054

    arXiv

  11. [19]

    Pfeiffer, A

    L. Pfeiffer, A. P. Mills, R. S. Raghavan and E. A. Chandross, Indium-Loaded Liquid Scintillator for Low-Energy Solar-Neutrino Spectroscopy, Phys. Rev. Lett.41 (1978) 63

    1978

  12. [20]

    I. R. Barabanov, L. B. Bezrukov, V. I. Gurentsov, G. Y. Novikova, V. V. Sinev and E. A. Yanovich,New Possibilities for pp-Cycle Solar Neutrino Registration by Use of Indium Detector, Phys. Atom. Nucl.86 (2023) 1189

    2023

  13. [21]

    Apilluelo, L

    J. Apilluelo, L. Asquith, E. Bannister, J. Beney, X. de La Bernardie, T. Bezerra et al.,Characterization of a radiation detector based on opaque water-based liquid scintillator, NIM A1071 (2025) 170075

    2025

  14. [22]

    V. N. Gavrin, T. V. Ibragimova, J. P. Kozlova, V. A. Tarasov, E. P. Veretenkin and A. I. Zvir,Measurement of neutrino source activity in the experiment BEST by calorimetric method, JINST 16 (2021) P04012 [2105.05120]

    2021 arXiv

  15. [23]

    M. A. Acero, C. Giunti and M. Laveder,Limits on nu(e) and anti-nu(e) disappearance from Gallium and reactor experiments, Phys. Rev. D78 (2008) 073009 [0711.4222]

    2008 arXiv

  16. [24]

    A. B. McDonald,Dark matter detection with liquid argon, Nucl. Phys. B1003 (2024) 116436

    2024

  17. [25]

    Aalbers et al.,A next-generation liquid xenon observatory for dark matter and neutrino physics, J

    J. Aalbers et al.,A next-generation liquid xenon observatory for dark matter and neutrino physics, J. Phys. G50 (2023) 013001 [2203.02309]

    2023

  18. [26]

    Borexino collaboration, First Simultaneous Precision Spectroscopy ofpp, 7Be, and pep Solar Neutrinos with Borexino Phase-II, Phys. Rev. D100 (2019) 082004 [1707.09279]

    2019 arXiv

  19. [27]

    BOREXINO collaboration, Comprehensive measurement of pp-chain solar neutrinos, Nature 562 (2018) 505

    2018

  20. [28]

    BOREXINO collaboration, Improved Measurement of Solar Neutrinos from the Carbon-Nitrogen-Oxygen Cycle by Borexino and Its Implications for the Standard Solar Model, Phys. Rev. Lett.129 (2022) 252701 [2205.15975]

    2022 arXiv

  21. [29]

    BOREXINO collaboration, Final results of Borexino on CNO solar neutrinos, Phys. Rev. D108 (2023) 102005 [2307.14636]

    2023 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Borexino open data archives

    “Borexino open data archives.” https://borex.lngs.infn.it/category/opendata/

  23. [31]

    Borexino collaboration, Constraints on flavor-diagonal non-standard neutrino interactions from Borexino Phase-II, JHEP 02 (2020) 038 [1905.03512]

    2020 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Vinyoles, A

    N. Vinyoles, A. M. Serenelli, F. L. Villante, S. Basu, J. Bergström, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia et al.,A new Generation of Standard Solar Models, Astrophys. J.835 (2017) 202 [1611.09867]

    2017 arXiv

  25. [33]

    E. J. Konopinski,The experimental clarification of the laws of beta-radioactivity, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.9 (1959) 99

    1959

  26. [34]

    Coloma, P

    P. Coloma, P. Coloma, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, M. Maltoni, M. Maltoni et al., Constraining new physics with Borexino Phase-II spectral data, JHEP 07 (2022) 138 [2204.03011]

    2022 arXiv

  27. [35]

    E. P. Veretenkin, V. N. Gavrin, S. N. Danshin, T. V. Ibragimova, A. A. Kalashnikova, J. P. Kozlova et al., Calorimetric system for high-precision determination of activity of the51Cr neutrino source in the BEST experiment, J. Phys. Conf. Ser.798 (2017) 012140

    2017

  28. [36]

    S. A. Fisher and R. L. Hershberger,Branching ratios for EC decay of 7 Be and 51 Cr, Nucl. Phys. A423 6 (1984) 121

    1984

  29. [37]

    Konstantinov, T

    A. Konstantinov, T. Sazonova, S. Sepman, A. Zanevsky and N. Karmalitsyn,Determination of x-ray and gamma-ray emission probabilities of 51cr and 88y, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment33...

    1994

  30. [38]

    Yalçin and Y

    P. Yalçin and Y. Kurucu,Emission probabilities of k x- and γ-rays following 51cr and 67ga decay, Applied Radiation and Isotopes62 (2005) 63

    2005

  31. [39]

    D. S. Moreira, M. F. Koskinas, I. M. Yamazaki and M. S. Dias,Determination of 51cr and 241am x-ray and gamma-ray emission probabilities per decay, Applied Radiation and Isotopes68 (2010) 596. 7 300 400 500 600 700 800 0.005 0.010 0.050 0.100 Recoil energyT e (keV) Events per d...

    2010

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.