Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 85 references

Neutrino data exclude a previously untested region of the Symmetron scalar-tensor model.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 16:20 UTC pith:RJOCWJ6Q

load-bearing objection Solid, moderately novel neutrino-frame derivation that yields a genuine Symmetron exclusion; the stress-test's main objection is a misfire, but the deferred IceCube analysis and the paper's own thin-shell caveat are the real soft points. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2512.13798 v2 pith:RJOCWJ6Q submitted 2025-12-15 hep-ph astro-ph.COgr-qc

Neutrino Constraints on Scalar-Tensor Gravity

Arturo de Giorgi , Ivan Martinez Soler , Sergio Sevillano Mu\~noz This is my paper
classification hep-ph astro-ph.COgr-qc PACS 04.50.Kd14.60.Pq
keywords scalar-tensor gravityneutrino oscillationsmass-varying neutrinossymmetronchameleonsupernova time delayatmospheric neutrinosscreening mechanisms
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

Scalar–tensor theories of gravity predict that a background scalar field shifts Standard Model masses with the local density. Because neutrinos can cross dense matter and travel galactic distances, they are uniquely placed to feel this effect. This paper derives how a density-dependent rescaling A(φ) changes neutrino oscillation phases and time-of-flight, then uses atmospheric-neutrino oscillation data and the 1987 supernova neutrino burst to set new limits. It finds that Earth-crossing oscillations exclude a region of the Symmetron model around M_s ≈ 10^4 GeV, while current supernova timing is weaker but a future nearby supernova could reach inside the theory's valid region. If correct, neutrino observatories become a new, complementary probe of screened modified gravity.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the same background scalar field that mediates screened fifth forces also rescales particle masses by A(φ), and that neutrinos — because they pass through dense media and travel astrophysical distances — can observe the resulting spacetime variations. In the Jordan frame, the neutrino oscillation phase acquires an overall factor A(r)^2, rescaling the effective oscillation length but leaving mixing angles intact under adiabatic propagation; the supernova time delay is likewise multiplied by the path integral of A(r)^2. The authors show, from atmospheric-neutrino oscillation data with the effective parametrization A(φ)=1+α_n[(ρ/ρ0)^n − 1], that there is no pre

What carries the argument

The central object is the coupling/conformal factor A(φ) that rescales all Jordan-frame masses, expressed in an effective parametrization A(φ)=1+α_n[(ρ/ρ0)^n − 1]. The load-bearing identity is that both the neutrino oscillation phase ∫A(r)^2 H(r) dr and the supernova time delay ∫A(r)^2 dr are integrals of the square of this factor along the trajectory, together with the frame-invariant conserved quantity K_ST = g00 p0. This uniform A(r)^2 scaling is what lets two different observables — flavour oscillations in Earth and arrival-time delays from a supernova — constrain the same parameter combinations, and why adiabatic propagation in the Sun or a supernova shows no effect while non-adiabatic

Load-bearing premise

The constraints assume the scalar field instantly follows the local matter density (A(φ)=A(ρ(r))), so they hold only when the scalar forms a thin shell around Earth and its core; a full treatment would solve the Klein–Gordon equation for the field profile.

What would settle it

Solve the full Klein–Gordon equation for the Symmetron profile inside the Earth at the excluded parameters (M_s~10^4 GeV, μ~meV). If the field does not track the local density and the thin-shell condition fails, the A(r)^2 rescaling disappears and the excluded region evaporates; if the profile confirms the tracking assumption, the exclusion stands.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Atmospheric neutrino oscillation experiments can place leading constraints on quadratic scalar-field couplings (Symmetron) that laboratory fifth-force searches cannot easily reach.
  • A future Galactic supernova could lower the bound on the effective mass rescaling A_∞ to ~0.06 eV, reaching inside the theory's EFT-valid region.
  • The same A(r)^2 scaling applies to any dense medium; longer-baseline or high-statistics neutrino measurements through the Earth's core should sharpen the excluded region.
  • The parametrization covers any screening model with a density-power-law A(φ); constraints can be mapped to steeper potentials such as φ^{2n}.
  • Neutrino time delays become a probe of the integrated dark-matter density along the line of sight, not just of the theory's coupling.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same mass-rescaling mechanism would affect cosmic-ray propagation or dark-matter annihilation signals in dense regions; neutrino telescopes might therefore be used to map density profiles of dark-matter halos.
  • If a future measurement of the atmospheric L/E spectrum finds the first oscillation minimum shifted exactly as predicted by the A(r)^2 factor, it would confirm the density-tracking assumption; conversely, a null result would weaken the claimed exclusion.
  • The argument that the seismically inferred density is the Jordan-frame one hinges on the bulk modulus scaling as the fourth power of the electron mass; a different scaling would alter the calibration of ρ0 and shift the excluded region.
  • The constraints depend on the dark-matter halo model; if the Milky Way's halo is clumpy rather than smooth, the time-delay bound could strengthen considerably.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper derives new constraints on scalar–tensor (ST) theories from neutrino physics. It argues that a spatial background scalar field φ, through a conformal factor A(φ), makes neutrino masses and matter potentials position-dependent. The central observables are the flavour-oscillation phase for atmospheric neutrinos crossing the Earth (Eqs. (7)/(58)) and the supernova time delay (Eq. (11)). Using an effective power-law parametrisation A(ρ) (Eq. (6)) and IceCube DeepCore data, the authors exclude part of the Symmetron parameter space around M_s ~ 10^4 GeV (Fig. 2), while SN1987A time delays give subdominant bounds. The Supplemental Material derives the conserved quantity K_ST and the phase in a frame-invariant way.

Significance. If correct, the bounds would provide a genuinely new probe of scalar–tensor theories: neutrinos traverse dense regions (Earth) and long baselines (supernova), complementing laboratory and solar-system tests. The derivation of the oscillation phase from K_ST and the frame-invariance argument in the Supplemental Material are physically coherent and a clear strength. The paper also performs a real data analysis (IceCube DeepCore) rather than a purely illustrative estimate, and the SN1987A time-delay bound is straightforwardly falsifiable. However, the central exclusion regions depend on an approximation that the paper itself flags, and the Symmetron mapping contains an internal inconsistency. These issues must be resolved before the bounds can be considered established.

major comments (3)
  1. [SYMMETRON AND CHAMELEON, after Eq. (15)] The paper states that A(φ) was assumed to follow the local density exactly, and that the constraints apply when the scalar forms a thin shell around Earth and its core (10^-10 < m_φ/eV < 10^3). This is internally inconsistent. In the thin-shell regime the field is pinned to its density-dependent minimum in the interior and varies only in a thin surface layer, so A(r) is piecewise approximately constant along an atmospheric neutrino trajectory, not the smooth density-following function used in Eq. (6) and the phase integral Eq. (58). For the Symmetron, A_s=1 for ρ>ρ_crit and A_s≈1+const for ρ<ρ_crit (Eq. (14)), so the density-dependent distortion shown in Fig. 4 and the resulting IceCube exclusions in Figs. 1–2 do not follow from the stated validity regime. A full Klein–Gordon profile calculation is needed to support the quoted bounds.
  2. [Eqs. (6) and (15)] The Symmetron is matched by setting α_{s,0}=μ^2/(2λM_s^2) with index n=0. However, the effective parametrization Eq. (6) is A≈1+α_n[(ρ/ρ0)^n − (ρ0/ρ0)^n]; for n=0 the bracket vanishes identically, so the density-dependent term is zero. The Symmetron conformal factor in the unscreened regime (Eq. (14)) is linear in ρ, A_s≈1+μ^2(1−ρ/ρ_crit)/(2λM_s^2), which should be matched with n=1 after normalizing at Earth’s surface. As written, the mapping cannot generate the claimed Symmetron exclusion region in Fig. 2(a). Please clarify or correct the index.
  3. [Section 'ANALYSIS', Eq. (9)] The derivation of the effective density accessible via seismic measurements relies on the estimate B∝m_e^4. The authors themselves note that no general analytical formula for B exists. Since the matter potential V_CC and the oscillation phase depend on the inferred density, a different scaling of B with m_e would alter the constraints. The sensitivity of the IceCube bound to this assumption should be quantified, or the derivation should be made more rigorous.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Main text vs Supplemental Material] The main text states 'We analysed eight years of IceCube DeepCore data [79]', while the Supplemental Material and Fig. 5 refer to 9.3 years of data and Ref. [93]. The dataset used for the main bound should be specified consistently.
  2. [Eq. (6)] The notation ρ0(x)/g/cm^3 is confusing. Clarify that densities are in units of g/cm^3 and that ρ0 is the Earth-surface density, a constant.
  3. [Eqs. (28) and (39)] Several equations contain garbled symbols (e.g., '⌟roo⟪...') in the typeset version; these should be cleaned up.
  4. [Introduction] The word 'unicum' is non-standard; consider 'unique' or 'singular'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the neutrino observables are derived from geodesic motion and the conserved quantity K_ST, then compared with external data; the main caveat is the local-density approximation, which is a validity limit, not a circular step.

full rationale

I walked the derivation chain. The oscillation phase (Eqs. 7 and 58) is derived from the conserved quantity K_ST (Eq. 30) and the geodesic equations, and the supernova time delay (Eq. 11) follows from the same conserved quantity. The effective parameter alpha_n is fitted to external IceCube DeepCore data, and the resulting bound is then recast onto Symmetron and Chameleon parameters via Eqs. (13)-(15). There is no step where the target bound is assumed as an input: the oscillation phase is not set equal to the fitted contour, and the time-delay exclusion (Eq. 12) merely compares the derived mass shift to the independently measured sensitivity M_lim. The self-citations ([46], [47]) concern standard conformal-frame mass rescaling and are not load-bearing for the new constraints. The paper explicitly flags its main limitation: 'Note that we assumed A(phi) to follow the local density exactly, whereas a full scalar-tensor treatment requires solving the Klein-Gordon equation for the field profile.' This is a validity/correctness caveat about the thin-shell regime, not a circularity, because the observable expressions do not reduce to the fitted quantity by construction. The work is self-contained against external benchmarks (PREM, IceCube, SN1987A, KATRIN), so the circularity score remains low.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 4 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim depends on three real assumptions: the local-density approximation for A, the m_e^4 scaling of bulk modulus, and the choice of density profile (PREM for Earth, homogeneous average for SN1987A). The effective parameters (α_n, n) are the quantities being constrained, not fixed inputs. No new entities are introduced. This is a modest axiom budget for a pheno bounds paper, but the local-density approximation is the weakest element because the paper explicitly restricts its validity to thin-shell configurations.

free parameters (2)
  • α_n (effective conformal coupling amplitude) = constrained (excluded regions in Fig. 2)
    Introduced in Eq. (6) as the coefficient of the density-dependent expansion A(φ) ≈ 1 + α_n (ρ/ρ0)^n. The bounds are quoted on this parameter, so it is the variable being constrained, not a fixed free input. Its mapping to Symmetron α_s = μ²/(2λ M_s²) and Chameleon α_c = (n Λ^{4+n}/M_c^n)^{1/(n+1)} (Eq. 15) is the bridge to model parameters.
  • index n in the effective parametrization = constrained; n set to −0.5 for the illustrative ST curves
    Eq. (6) defines the density-power index n as model-dependent. The figures use n = −0.5 as a representative value rather than scanning the full n range; the claimed bounds are therefore shown for a specific choice of n.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption The scalar field profile is approximated as A(φ) = A(ρ(x)) following the local density exactly, without solving the Klein–Gordon equation.
    Stated explicitly in the Chameleon/Symmetron section: 'we assumed A(φ) to follow the local density exactly, whereas a full scalar-tensor treatment requires solving the Klein–Gordon equation for the field profile.' This is the main modeling assumption used to produce the excluded regions.
  • domain assumption The bulk modulus of terrestrial material scales as B ∝ m_e^4 (Eq. 9).
    The authors explicitly call this an estimation: 'an estimation of its scaling with microscopic parameters can be obtained using the following argument'. The conclusion ρ_eff = ρ_E A^{-4} = ρ_J (Eq. 10) depends on this scaling.
  • domain assumption PREM density is used as the dark-matter density driving the background scalar field.
    The paper sets ρ0 = 2.6 g/cm^3 from the PREM outermost layer and uses PREM densities for the Earth trajectory. This assumes the scalar couples to baryonic matter density as a proxy for the full matter density that sources A(φ).
  • domain assumption The supernova line-of-sight density is the average matter density (baryons + dark matter), modeled as a homogeneous fluid.
    Footnote 88: 'In our analysis, we model dark matter as a homogeneous fluid.' The authors note that compact-object dark matter would change the constraints significantly, so the SN1987A bound depends on this choice.
invented entities (1)
  • No fundamentally new entity is postulated. no independent evidence
    purpose: The paper works with existing scalar–tensor fields (Symmetron, Chameleon) and their effective parametrization.
    No new particle, force, or conserved quantity is introduced beyond the standard scalar-tensor framework. The paper invents no new entity, only a new observable probe.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 16227 in / 9194 out tokens · 61653 ms · 2026-08-03T16:20:11.614690+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

In this work, we derive novel constraints on scalar-tensor theories from neutrino physics. Spatial variations of the background scalar field effectively generate density and position-dependent Standard Model masses, including neutrinos. Neutrinos are a unicum in the SM due to their ability both to propagate over galactic distances and to traverse dense media such as Earth. This makes them an ideal probe of the background scalar field, which can in turn alter flavour oscillations and supernova time delays. As we enter the era of precision neutrino physics, we are compelled to explore such a scenario. We derive expressions for the relevant observables and obtain new bounds on a broad class of scalar-tensor models. We finally map the bounds to popular screening mechanisms models, such as the Symmetron and Chameleon.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.13798 by Arturo de Giorgi, Ivan Martinez Soler, Sergio Sevillano Mu\~noz.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Summary of the region excluded in this work [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Constraints at 95% C.L. on the parameters of the Symmetron and of the Chameleon. EFT limits are [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Earth density profile. In this figure, we com [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Muon survival probability (P(νµ → νµ)). We calculate the probability that muon neutrinos survive after crossing the Earth, for both the standard scenario (right) and the ST case with parameters n = −0.5 and α = 0.5 (left). 101 102 103 L/E [Km/GeV] 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 Events track- and cascade-like 101 102 103 L/E [Km/GeV] 0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 Events track-like 3ν No osc. ST [PITH_FULL_IMAG… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Event distribution. We present data corresponding to 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

85 extracted references · 66 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Fujii and K

    Y. Fujii and K. ichi Maeda,The scalar-tensor theory of gravitation, Classical and Quantum Gravity20(oct,

  2. [2]

    Clifton, P

    T. Clifton, P. G. Ferreira, A. Padilla, and C. Skordis, Modified Gravity and Cosmology, Phys. Rept.513 (2012) 1–189, [arXiv:1106.2476]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  3. [3]

    Herranen, T

    M. Herranen, T. Markkanen, S. Nurmi, and A. Rajantie,Spacetime curvature and the Higgs stability during inflation, Phys. Rev. Lett.113(2014), no. 21 211102, [arXiv:1407.3141]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  4. [4]

    Markkanen, S

    T. Markkanen, S. Nurmi, A. Rajantie, and S. Stopyra, The 1-loop effective potential for the Standard Model in curved spacetime, JHEP06(2018) 040, [arXiv:1804.02020]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  5. [5]

    C. F. Steinwachs and A. Y. Kamenshchik,One-loop divergences for gravity non-minimally coupled to a multiplet of scalar fields: calculation in the Jordan frame. I. The main results, Phys. Rev. D84(2011) 024026, [arXiv:1101.5047]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  6. [6]

    Cicoli, J

    M. Cicoli, J. P. Conlon, A. Maharana, S. Parameswaran, F. Quevedo, and I. Zavala,String Cosmology: from the Early Universe to Today,arXiv:2303.04819

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  7. [7]

    Smith, P

    A. Smith, P. Brax, C. van de Bruck, C. P. Burgess, and A.-C. Davis,Screened axio-dilaton cosmology: novel forms of early dark energy, Eur. Phys. J. C85(2025), no. 9 1062, [arXiv:2505.05450]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    Sakstein and M

    J. Sakstein and M. Trodden,Early Dark Energy from Massive Neutrinos as a Natural Resolution of the Hubble Tension, Phys. Rev. Lett.124(2020), no. 16 161301, [arXiv:1911.11760]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  9. [9]

    Di Valentino, O

    E. Di Valentino, O. Mena, S. Pan, L. Visinelli, W. Yang, A. Melchiorri, D. F. Mota, A. G. Riess, and J. Silk,In the realm of the Hubble tension—a review of solutions, Class. Quant. Grav.38(2021), no. 15 153001, [arXiv:2103.01183]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  10. [10]

    Khoury, M.-X

    J. Khoury, M.-X. Lin, and M. Trodden,Apparent w<-1 and a Lower S8 from Dark Axion and Dark Baryons Interactions, Phys. Rev. Lett.135(2025), no. 18 181001, [arXiv:2503.16415]

    arXiv 2025

  11. [11]

    S´ anchez L´ opez, A

    S. S´ anchez L´ opez, A. Karam, and D. K. Hazra, Non-Minimally Coupled Quintessence in Light of DESI, arXiv:2510.14941

    arXiv

  12. [12]

    Ballardini, M

    M. Ballardini, M. Braglia, F. Finelli, D. Paoletti, A. A. Starobinsky, and C. Umilt` a,Scalar-tensor theories of gravity, neutrino physics, and theH 0 tension, JCAP10 (2020) 044, [arXiv:2004.14349]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  13. [13]

    Smith, E

    A. Smith, E. ¨Oz¨ ulker, E. Di Valentino, and C. van de Bruck,Dynamical Dark Energy Meets Varying Electron Mass: Implications for Phantom Crossing and the Hubble Constant,arXiv:2510.21931

    arXiv

  14. [14]

    Brans and R

    C. Brans and R. H. Dicke,Mach’s principle and a relativistic theory of gravitation, Phys. Rev.124(1961) 925–935

    1961

  15. [15]

    Avilez and C

    A. Avilez and C. Skordis,Cosmological constraints on Brans-Dicke theory, Phys. Rev. Lett.113(2014), no. 1 011101, [arXiv:1303.4330]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  16. [16]

    Damour and G

    T. Damour and G. Esposito-Farese,Tensor multiscalar theories of gravitation, Class. Quant. Grav.9(1992) 2093–2176

    1992

  17. [17]

    Cardoso, I

    V. Cardoso, I. P. Carucci, P. Pani, and T. P. Sotiriou, Matter around Kerr black holes in scalar-tensor theories: scalarization and superradiant instability, Phys. Rev. D88(2013) 044056, [arXiv:1305.6936]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  18. [18]

    D. D. Doneva, F. M. Ramazano˘ glu, H. O. Silva, T. P. Sotiriou, and S. S. Yazadjiev,Scalarization, 2022

    2022

  19. [19]

    Fischer, C

    H. Fischer, C. K¨ ading, and M. Pitschmann,Screened Scalar Fields in the Laboratory and the Solar System, Universe10(2024) 297, [arXiv:2405.14638]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  20. [20]

    Baeßler, B

    S. Baeßler, B. R. Heckel, E. G. Adelberger, J. H. Gundlach, U. Schmidt, and H. E. Swanson,Improved test of the equivalence principle for gravitational self-energy, Phys. Rev. Lett.83(Nov, 1999) 3585–3588

    1999

  21. [21]

    P. Brax, C. Burrage, A.-C. Davis, D. Seery, and A. Weltman,Collider constraints on interactions of dark energy with the standard model, Journal of High Energy Physics2009(sep, 2009) 128–128

    2009

  22. [22]

    S. M. Merkowitz,Tests of Gravity Using Lunar Laser Ranging, Living Rev. Rel.13(2010) 7

    2010

  23. [23]

    Burrage, C

    C. Burrage, C. K¨ ading, P. Millington, and J. Min´ aˇ r, Open quantum dynamics induced by light scalar fields, Phys. Rev. D100(2019), no. 7 076003, [arXiv:1812.08760]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  24. [24]

    Brax, A.-C

    P. Brax, A.-C. Davis, and B. Elder,Screened scalar fields in hydrogen and muonium, Phys. Rev. D107 (2023), no. 4 044008, [arXiv:2207.11633]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  25. [25]

    Sevillano Mu˜ noz, E

    S. Sevillano Mu˜ noz, E. J. Copeland, P. Millington, and M. Spannowsky,FeynMG: A FeynRules extension for scalar-tensor theories of gravity, Comput. Phys. Commun.296(2024) 109035, [arXiv:2211.14300]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  26. [26]

    Argyropoulos, C

    S. Argyropoulos, C. Burrage, and C. Englert, Environmentally aware displaced vertices, arXiv:2304.08118

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  27. [27]

    K¨ ading, M

    C. K¨ ading, M. Pitschmann, and C. Voith, Dilaton-induced open quantum dynamics, Eur. Phys. J. C83(2023), no. 8 767, [arXiv:2306.10896]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  28. [28]

    Upadhye,Symmetron dark energy in laboratory experiments, Phys

    A. Upadhye,Symmetron dark energy in laboratory experiments, Phys. Rev. Lett.110(2013), no. 3 031301, [arXiv:1210.7804]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  29. [29]

    Jaffe, P

    M. Jaffe, P. Haslinger, V. Xu, P. Hamilton, A. Upadhye, B. Elder, J. Khoury, and H. M¨ uller,Author Correction: Testing sub-gravitational forces on atoms from a miniature in-vacuum source mass [doi: 10.1038/nphys4189], Nature Phys.13(2017) 938, [arXiv:1612.05171]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  30. [30]

    Elder, V

    B. Elder, V. Vardanyan, Y. Akrami, P. Brax, A.-C. Davis, and R. S. Decca,Classical symmetron force in Casimir experiments, Phys. Rev. D101(2020), no. 6 064065, [arXiv:1912.10015]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  31. [31]

    Brax, A.-C

    P. Brax, A.-C. Davis, and B. Elder,(g−2) µ and screened modified gravity, Phys. Rev. D106(Aug,

  32. [32]

    Burrage, E

    C. Burrage, E. J. Copeland, and E. A. Hinds,Probing Dark Energy with Atom Interferometry, JCAP03 (2015) 042, [arXiv:1408.1409]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  33. [33]

    Elder, J

    B. Elder, J. Khoury, P. Haslinger, M. Jaffe, H. M¨ uller, and P. Hamilton,Chameleon Dark Energy and Atom 7 Interferometry, Phys. Rev. D94(2016), no. 4 044051, [arXiv:1603.06587]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  34. [34]

    Burrage, A

    C. Burrage, A. Kuribayashi-Coleman, J. Stevenson, and B. Thrussell,Constraining symmetron fields with atom interferometry, JCAP12(2016) 041, [arXiv:1609.09275]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  35. [35]

    Brax and G

    P. Brax and G. Pignol,Strongly Coupled Chameleons and the Neutronic Quantum Bouncer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107(2011) 111301, [arXiv:1105.3420]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  36. [36]

    Brax, A.-C

    P. Brax, A.-C. Davis, B. Elder, and L. K. Wong, Constraining screened fifth forces with the electron magnetic moment, Phys. Rev. D97(2018), no. 8 084050, [arXiv:1802.05545]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  37. [37]

    Upadhye,Dark energy fifth forces in torsion pendulum experiments, Phys

    A. Upadhye,Dark energy fifth forces in torsion pendulum experiments, Phys. Rev. D86(2012) 102003, [arXiv:1209.0211]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  38. [38]

    Burrage and J

    C. Burrage and J. Sakstein,Tests of Chameleon Gravity, Living Rev. Rel.21(2018), no. 1 1, [arXiv:1709.09071]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  39. [39]

    Bertotti, L

    B. Bertotti, L. Iess, and P. Tortora,A test of general relativity using radio links with the Cassini spacecraft, Nature425(2003) 374–376

    2003

  40. [40]

    J. G. Williams, S. G. Turyshev, and D. H. Boggs,Lunar laser ranging tests of the equivalence principle with the earth and moon, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D18(2009) 1129–1175, [gr-qc/0507083]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  41. [41]

    Khoury and A

    J. Khoury and A. Weltman,Chameleon cosmology, Phys. Rev. D69(2004) 044026, [astro-ph/0309411]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  42. [42]

    Burrage and J

    C. Burrage and J. Sakstein,A Compendium of Chameleon Constraints, JCAP11(2016) 045, [arXiv:1609.01192]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  43. [43]

    Hinterbichler and J

    K. Hinterbichler and J. Khoury,Symmetron Fields: Screening Long-Range Forces Through Local Symmetry Restoration, Phys. Rev. Lett.104(2010) 231301, [arXiv:1001.4525]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  44. [44]

    Hinterbichler, J

    K. Hinterbichler, J. Khoury, A. Levy, and A. Matas, Symmetron Cosmology, Phys. Rev. D84(2011) 103521, [arXiv:1107.2112]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  45. [45]

    Burrage, E

    C. Burrage, E. J. Copeland, P. Millington, and M. Spannowsky,Fifth forces, Higgs portals and broken scale invariance, JCAP11(2018) 036, [arXiv:1804.07180]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  46. [46]

    E. J. Copeland, P. Millington, and S. S. Mu˜ noz,Fifth forces and broken scale symmetries in the Jordan frame, JCAP02(2022), no. 02 016, [arXiv:2111.06357]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  47. [47]

    Sevillano Mu˜ noz,A particle’s perspective on screening mechanisms, JCAP12(2024) 052, [arXiv:2407.08779]

    S. Sevillano Mu˜ noz,A particle’s perspective on screening mechanisms, JCAP12(2024) 052, [arXiv:2407.08779]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  48. [48]

    A. W. Brookfield, C. van de Bruck, D. F. Mota, and D. Tocchini-Valentini,Cosmology of mass-varying neutrinos driven by quintessence: theory and observations, Phys. Rev. D73(2006) 083515, [astro-ph/0512367]. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 76, 049901 (2007)]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  49. [49]

    E. J. Copeland, M. Sami, and S. Tsujikawa,Dynamics of dark energy, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D15(2006) 1753–1936, [hep-th/0603057]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  50. [50]

    Lesgourgues and S

    J. Lesgourgues and S. Pastor,Massive neutrinos and cosmology, Phys. Rept.429(2006) 307–379, [astro-ph/0603494]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  51. [51]

    Burrage, B

    C. Burrage, B. Elder, Y. G. del Castillo, and J. Jaeckel, Time-dependent density of quadratically coupled dark matter around ordinary matter objects, Phys. Rev. D 111(2025), no. 10 103526, [arXiv:2410.23350]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  52. [52]

    Esteban, M

    I. Esteban, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, M. Maltoni, I. Martinez-Soler, J. P. Pinheiro, and T. Schwetz, NuFit-6.0: updated global analysis of three-flavor neutrino oscillations, JHEP12(2024) 216, [arXiv:2410.05380]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  53. [53]

    Capozzi, E

    F. Capozzi, E. Lisi, F. Marcone, A. Marrone, and A. Palazzo,Updated bounds on the (1,2) neutrino oscillation parameters after first JUNO results, arXiv:2511.21650. [54]DUNECollaboration, B. Abiet. al.,Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment (DUNE), Far Detector Technical Design Report, Volume II: DUNE Physics,arXiv:2002.03005. [55]Hyper-KamiokandeCollaborati...

    arXiv 2002

  54. [59]

    G. T. Zatsepin,On the possibility of determining the upper limit of the neutrino mass by means of the flight time, Pisma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.8(1968) 333–334

    1968

  55. [60]

    T. J. Loredo and D. Q. Lamb,Bayesian analysis of neutrinos observed from supernova SN-1987A, Phys. Rev. D65(2002) 063002, [astro-ph/0107260]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  56. [61]

    Pagliaroli, F

    G. Pagliaroli, F. Rossi-Torres, and F. Vissani,Neutrino mass bound in the standard scenario for supernova electronic antineutrino emission, Astropart. Phys.33 (2010) 287–291, [arXiv:1002.3349]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  57. [62]

    Ge, C.-F

    S.-F. Ge, C.-F. Kong, and A. Y. Smirnov,Testing the Origins of Neutrino Mass with Supernova-Neutrino Time Delay, Phys. Rev. Lett.133(2024), no. 12 121802, [arXiv:2404.17352]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  58. [63]

    Nardi and J

    E. Nardi and J. I. Zuluaga,Exploring the sub-eV neutrino mass range with supernova neutrinos, Phys. Rev. D69(2004) 103002, [astro-ph/0306384]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  59. [64]

    Nardi and J

    E. Nardi and J. I. Zuluaga,Constraints on neutrino masses from a galactic supernova neutrino signal at present and future detectors, Nucl. Phys. B731(2005) 140–163, [hep-ph/0412104]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  60. [65]

    J.-S. Lu, J. Cao, Y.-F. Li, and S. Zhou,Constraining Absolute Neutrino Masses via Detection of Galactic Supernova Neutrinos at JUNO, JCAP05(2015) 044, [arXiv:1412.7418]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  61. [66]

    R. S. L. Hansen, M. Lindner, and O. Scholer,Timing the neutrino signal of a Galactic supernova, Phys. Rev. D101(2020), no. 12 123018, [arXiv:1904.11461]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  62. [67]

    Pompa, F

    F. Pompa, F. Capozzi, O. Mena, and M. Sorel,Absolute νMass Measurement with the DUNE Experiment, Phys. Rev. Lett.129(2022), no. 12 121802, [arXiv:2203.00024]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  63. [68]

    Pompa and O

    F. Pompa and O. Mena,How long do neutrinos live and how much do they weigh?, Eur. Phys. J. C84(2024), no. 2 134, [arXiv:2310.05474]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  64. [69]

    G. A. Parker and M. Wurm,Constraining the absolute neutrino mass with black hole-forming supernovae and scintillation detectors, Phys. Rev. D109(2024), no. 8 083041, [arXiv:2311.10682]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  65. [70]

    P. B. Denton and Y. Kini,Individual neutrino masses from a supernova, Phys. Rev. D111(2025), no. 10 8 103006, [arXiv:2411.13634]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  66. [71]

    Garcia-Bellido, J

    J. Garcia-Bellido, J. Rubio, M. Shaposhnikov, and D. Zenhausern,Higgs-Dilaton Cosmology: From the Early to the Late Universe, Phys. Rev. D84(2011) 123504, [arXiv:1107.2163]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  67. [72]

    P. G. Ferreira, C. T. Hill, and G. G. Ross,No fifth force in a scale invariant universe, Phys. Rev. D95(2017), no. 6 064038, [arXiv:1612.03157]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  68. [73]

    A. M. Dziewonski and D. L. Anderson,Preliminary reference earth model, Phys. Earth Planet. Interiors25 (1981) 297–356

    1981

  69. [74]

    We also considered alternative values forρ 0, such as the density of water, and found similar allowed regions for A(φ)

  70. [75]

    Piriz, M

    D. Piriz, M. Roy, and J. Wudka,Neutrino oscillations in strong gravitational fields, Phys. Rev. D54(1996) 1587–1599, [hep-ph/9604403]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  71. [76]

    C. Y. Cardall and G. M. Fuller,Neutrino oscillations in curved space-time: An Heuristic treatment, Phys. Rev. D55(1997) 7960–7966, [hep-ph/9610494]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  72. [77]

    Fornengo, C

    N. Fornengo, C. Giunti, C. W. Kim, and J. Song, Gravitational effects on the neutrino oscillation, Phys. Rev. D56(1997) 1895–1902, [hep-ph/9611231]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  73. [78]

    Kittel,Introduction to Solid State Physics

    C. Kittel,Introduction to Solid State Physics. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ, 8th ed., 2005. [79](IceCube Collaboration)*, IceCubeCollaboration, R. Abbasiet. al.,Measurement of atmospheric neutrino mixing with improved IceCube DeepCore calibration and data processing, Phys. Rev. D108(2023), no. 1 012014, [arXiv:2304.12236]

    arXiv 2005

  74. [80]

    S. P. Mikheyev and A. Y. Smirnov,Resonance Amplification of Oscillations in Matter and Spectroscopy of Solar Neutrinos, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys.42 (1985) 913–917

    1985

  75. [81]

    A. S. Dighe and A. Y. Smirnov,Identifying the neutrino mass spectrum from the neutrino burst from a supernova, Phys. Rev. D62(2000) 033007, [hep-ph/9907423]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  76. [82]

    de Gouvˆ ea, I

    A. de Gouvˆ ea, I. Martinez-Soler, Y. F. Perez-Gonzalez, and M. Sen,Diffuse supernova neutrino background as a probe of late-time neutrino mass generation, Phys. Rev. D106(2022), no. 10 103026, [arXiv:2205.01102]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  77. [83]

    Mohseni Sadjadi and H

    H. Mohseni Sadjadi and H. Y. Ahmadabadi,Damped Neutrino Oscillations in a Conformal Coupling Model, Phys. Rev. D103(2021), no. 6 065012, [arXiv:2012.03633]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  78. [84]

    H. Y. Ahmadabadi and H. Mohseni Sadjadi,Screening models and neutrino oscillations, Phys. Dark Univ.37 (2022) 101067, [arXiv:2111.03054]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  79. [85]

    Yazdani Ahmadabadi and H

    H. Yazdani Ahmadabadi and H. Mohseni Sadjadi, Chameleon-neutrino conformal coupling and MSW-mediated solar neutrino deficit, Phys. Lett. B850 (2024) 138493, [arXiv:2201.02927]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  80. [86]

    Kuhlen, A

    M. Kuhlen, A. Pillepich, J. Guedes, and P. Madau,The Distribution of Dark Matter in the Milky Way’s Disk, Astrophys. J.784(2014) 161, [arXiv:1308.1703]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

Showing first 80 references.