Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Reactor neutrino experiments could measure the weak mixing angle to 8–11% precision using neutrino–electron scattering, surpassing current global fits.

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

2026-08-02 21:00 UTC pith:Y5RKGOMR

load-bearing objection Useful and mostly sound sensitivity projections for CLOUD/TAO/DANSS, but the energy-scale systematic is modeled as a normalization, so the quoted sin²θW precision is probably optimistic. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2602.21523 v2 pith:Y5RKGOMR submitted 2026-02-25 hep-ph hep-ex

Elastic neutrino-electron scattering perspectives at nuclear reactors

Luis A. Delgadillo , Qishan Liu , Randhir Singh This is my paper
classification hep-ph hep-ex
keywords weak mixing angleWeinberg angleelastic neutrino-electron scatteringreactor neutrinosneutrino magnetic momenttransition magnetic momentsnon-standard neutrino interactionsCLOUD
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.

This paper asks whether present and upcoming reactor neutrino experiments can use elastic neutrino–electron scattering to probe the Standard Model at low energy. It claims that, under conservative systematic assumptions, the CLOUD and TAO detectors could measure the weak mixing angle (sin²θW) with 8% and 11% precision, respectively, both better than the current global fit from reactor data. The existing DANSS detector could also beat the TEXONO measurement. The same analysis yields projected limits on the neutrino magnetic moment, on transition magnetic moments, and on non-standard neutrino interactions. A sympathetic reader would care because these measurements test the Standard Model at MeV energies and could reveal physics beyond it.

Core claim

The paper projects that elastic neutrino–electron scattering at short-baseline reactor experiments can deliver competitive low-energy electroweak measurements. Using binned likelihood analyses with benchmark systematic uncertainties (5% signal normalization, 10% background normalization, 1% energy scale), the expected 1σ sensitivities are sin²θW = 0.239 ± 0.019 (CLOUD), 0.239 +0.026/−0.024 (TAO), and 0.239 +0.044/−0.047 (DANSS). For the effective neutrino magnetic moment, the 90% CL upper limits are 0.77 × 10⁻¹⁰ μB (CLOUD), 1.63 × 10⁻¹⁰ μB (TAO), and 2.32 × 10⁻¹⁰ μB (DANSS). These are translated into bounds on transition magnetic moments |Λᵢ| and on the NSI couplings εeeR and εeeL, with CLOU

What carries the argument

The central object is the differential elastic neutrino–electron scattering cross section, dσ/dTe, whose vector coupling gV = 2 sin²θW + 1/2 makes the weak mixing angle directly measurable from the recoil spectrum shape. The magnetic-moment term adds a 1/Te contribution that dominates at low recoil energy, and the relation between the effective magnetic moment μν and the fundamental transition moments Λᵢ is given by a combination of neutrino mixing angles and phases. A χ² function with nuisance parameters for normalization, energy scale, and bin-to-bin shape uncertainties carries the sensitivity projections.

Load-bearing premise

The projections assume that the energy-scale uncertainty is only 1%, that signal and background normalizations are known to 5% and 10%, and that the adopted background models (CLOUD at 300 m.w.e., DANSS at 50 m.w.e.) are achievable; if any of these is worse in practice, the claimed precision on sin²θW disappears.

What would settle it

Measure the actual energy-scale resolution and background rates in CLOUD, TAO, and DANSS (e.g., from calibration sources and reactor-off data) and recompute the χ² sensitivity; if the energy-scale uncertainty exceeds ~1% or CLOUD's background rejection is not realized, the projected sin²θW error will exceed the current global fit.

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

If this is right

  • If the projections hold, CLOUD and TAO would provide the most precise low-energy measurements of the weak mixing angle from reactor antineutrinos, sharpening the test of the Standard Model's running of sin²θW at MeV scales.
  • DANSS, already operating, could improve on the TEXONO measurement without requiring a new detector, making it a near-term step for low-energy electroweak physics.
  • The projected magnetic-moment limits would approach the best current reactor bounds (GEMMA) and could begin to test predictions for transition magnetic moments in beyond-Standard-Model frameworks.
  • Competitive constraints on the NSI coupling εeeR would help disentangle new physics from a shifted weak mixing angle in future global fits.
  • The same analysis framework can be applied to other short-baseline detectors, and if energy thresholds are lowered, sensitivity to the neutrino magnetic moment would improve substantially.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The 1% energy-scale uncertainty is the linchpin: if a real detector achieves even better energy resolution (e.g., TAO's sub-percent target), the weak mixing angle precision could improve beyond the quoted numbers, while a slightly worse resolution would erase the claimed advantage.
  • A combined analysis of the IBD channel (which the experiments already use for flux normalization) and the elastic scattering channel could reduce the signal normalization uncertainty below 5%, directly strengthening the sin²θW projection.
  • The same technique could be extended to other future liquid-scintillator or opaque-scintillator detectors at research reactors, where shorter baselines and higher flux could push the magnetic moment limit toward the Standard Model prediction.
  • The translation from μν to Λᵢ depends on assumed mixing angles and phases; marginalizing over unknown phases rather than fixing them to zero could soften the claimed transition-moment bounds.

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 / 6 minor

Summary. This paper presents projected sensitivities for elastic neutrino-electron scattering at three reactor experiments: CLOUD, TAO, and DANSS. Using standard tree-level cross sections, Huber-Mueller reactor fluxes, Gaussian energy smearing, and a binned χ² with nuisance parameters, it reports 1σ intervals on sin²θ_W, 90% CL limits on the effective neutrino magnetic moment μ_ν, derived limits on transition magnetic moments |Λ_j|, and 90% CL constraints on the NSI couplings ε^R_ee and ε^L_ee. The headline claims are that CLOUD and TAO can reach 8% and 11% precision on sin²θ_W, surpassing the current global reactor fit, and that DANSS can improve on the TEXONO measurement.

Significance. If the projected sensitivities are reliable, the paper provides a useful physics-case study for near-future reactor EνES programs, especially for CLOUD and TAO. The formalism is standard, the comparisons with existing limits (TEXONO, MUNU, GEMMA, etc.) are appropriate, and the translation from effective to transition magnetic moments via Eq. (7) is a valuable phenomenological step. However, the central numerical claims are strongly dependent on the treatment of systematic uncertainties, and one of these treatments—the energy-scale nuisance parameter—is internally inconsistent with how an energy-scale miscalibration actually distorts the spectrum. Because sin²θ_W is extracted from the spectral shape, this issue directly weakens the main quantitative conclusions. The paper is therefore a reasonable roadmap, but the headline precision figures should not be taken at face value until the systematics are modeled correctly and the background assumptions are justified.

major comments (3)
  1. [§IV, Eq. (11) and Table III] The energy-scale systematic η enters the χ² only as a global multiplier (1+α)×η P_i(Ω). This is a pure normalization effect, not an energy-axis shift. A real energy-scale miscalibration would remap reconstructed energies between bins and distort the spectral shape. Since sin²θ_W is extracted from the shape of the recoil spectrum, the multiplier form makes η almost completely degenerate with the signal-normalization nuisance α; the 1% pull on η then removes almost none of the shape uncertainty. The quoted 1σ intervals in Eqs. (12), (14), and (16) are therefore likely overoptimistic even under the authors' own benchmark systematics. The authors should redo the analysis with η implemented as a shift of the reconstructed energy scale (e.g., T′_e → (1+η)T′_e) and recompute all projected sensitivities.
  2. [§IV.B and Table III (background assumptions)] The projected precisions rely on background models and systematic values that are not derived from the experiments. CLOUD's background is 'rescaled to 300 m.w.e.' from Ref. [11] and DANSS to 50 m.w.e., but no demonstration is given that the LiquidO technology or the DANSS configuration actually achieves these background levels. The bin-to-bin shape uncertainties (σ_S=3–5%, σ_B=0.2–1%) are chosen ad hoc, and the 10% background normalization is not tied to any experimental calibration. Since the central claim of surpassing the global reactor fit depends on the signal-to-background ratio and spectral shape, these assumptions are load-bearing. The authors should either justify each systematic with references or data, or perform a sensitivity scan showing how the results degrade under less favorable assumptions.
  3. [§V.A, Fig. 5, and Table IV] The comparison against the 'global reactor fit' from Ref. [29] uses projections with 10-year exposures for all three experiments. For TAO, which is still in commissioning, and for DANSS, which is planning an upgrade, a 10-year exposure at the assumed performance may be optimistic. The paper should state the assumed running period and duty factor explicitly and discuss how the projected precision scales with exposure. Without this, the claim that CLOUD and TAO 'may significantly improve' on the global fit is not fully quantified.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§V.A, Eqs. (12), (14), (16)] The text refers to '1σ CL'; σ is not a confidence level. Please use '68% CL' or '1σ interval'.
  2. [§II.A, Eq. (3)] The notation |μ²_νℓ/μ²_B| is unconventional; use (μ_νℓ/μ_B)² to avoid ambiguity.
  3. [§IV.A] The paper says that below the IBD threshold both conversion and summation models are considered, but it does not specify which is used for the central value or how the model difference is treated. Please clarify.
  4. [Fig. 6] 'In fig. 6' should be capitalized as 'In Fig. 6'. Also, the units of |Λ_j| in Fig. 6 are not labeled in the axis text; please add them.
  5. [§V.A, Table IV] The asymmetric errors on sin²θ_W are presented to three significant figures. Given the unspecified systematic inputs, two significant figures would be more appropriate.
  6. [§V.B, Table V] The limits on |Λ_j| are quoted to two significant figures, but they are derived by projecting a single effective μ_ν limit through Eq. (7). The rounding should reflect the uncertainties in the input parameters and the approximation of setting phases to zero.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Forward-modeling projection study; no significant circularity.

full rationale

The paper performs a standard sensitivity projection: it assumes detector parameters, benchmarks, and systematics (Tables II-III), simulates signal/background rates with the SM EνES cross sections (Eqs. 1, 3, 9-10), and evaluates a binned chi2 (Eq. 11) to forecast sensitivities to sin2thetaW, mu_nu, transition magnetic moments, and NSI couplings. The quoted results (Eqs. 12-17, Tables IV-VI) are derived from these inputs, not fitted from data and then renamed as predictions. The mu_nu-to-Lambda_j relation (Eq. 7) is quoted from external literature (Refs. [64-66]) rather than constructed within the paper, and the authors compare against external limits (TEXONO, GEMMA, MUNU, ROVNO, KRASNOYARSK), so the central claims are calibrated against outside results. The 1% energy-scale nuisance implemented as a multiplicative factor in Eq. (11) is arguably a modeling weakness (a real energy-scale miscalibration is shape-distorting), and the background/systematic benchmarks are unvalidated inputs, but these are correctness/robustness issues, not circularity: no output is equivalent by construction to an input. No load-bearing self-citation chain is used to force the conclusions. Hence score 1.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central forecast rests on standard EνES physics plus a set of hand-assigned systematics and background models imported from other experiments. There are no new particles or forces. The main unverified inputs are the 5%/1% normalization/energy-scale systematics and CLOUD's assumed 300 m.w.e. background rejection, which are load-bearing for the claimed precision.

free parameters (6)
  • Signal normalization systematic σ_α = 5%
    Assumed by hand (Table III) and directly controls the sin^2θW precision; no experimental derivation given.
  • Background normalization systematic σ_β = 10%
    Assumed by hand (Table III); affects background-dominated bins.
  • Energy-scale systematic σ_η = 1%
    Assumed by hand (Table III); load-bearing for shape-based weak mixing angle sensitivity.
  • Bin-to-bin signal shape uncertainty σ_S = 3% or 5%
    Two scenarios assumed (Table III); the conservative/optimistic spread is shown but neither is derived from data.
  • Bin-to-bin background shape uncertainty σ_B = 0.2% or 1%
    Two scenarios assumed (Table III); same caveat.
  • Exposure and efficiency = 10 years, 90% efficiency
    Chosen by hand (Sec. IV.A); these choices inflate statistics and directly set the projected sensitivities.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Tree-level SM EνES differential cross section (Eq. 1) with gV = 2 sin^2θW + 1/2, gA = -1/2, and no radiative corrections beyond a charge-radius shift
    Standard result (Vogel-Engel) used without re-derivation; radiative corrections are stated as negligible for the assumed systematics.
  • domain assumption Relation between effective magnetic moment μν and transition moments Λi (Eq. 7) with one-parameter-at-a-time scanning
    Taken from Refs. [64-66]; the translation of μν bounds into |Λi| limits inherits this parameterization.
  • standard math Wilks' theorem for mapping Δχ2 to confidence levels
    Assumed for all sensitivity claims; requires the test statistic to be asymptotically chi-square distributed.
  • domain assumption Huber-Mueller reactor antineutrino flux parameterization (and summation model considered below IBD threshold)
    Used to compute signal event rates; the paper does not quantify the conversion/summation model spread.
  • domain assumption Background models: CLOUD and DANSS rescaled from Ref. [11]; TAO from Ref. [70]; residual IBD negligible after Gd tagging
    Background rates and their energy dependence are taken from other experiments or proposals, not measured in the considered setups.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 17438 in / 10397 out tokens · 97667 ms · 2026-08-02T21:00:04.254675+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The determination of the weak mixing angle, $\sin^2\theta_W$, at low momentum transfers remains a powerful test of the Standard Model and its potential new physics extensions. In this paper, we explore some physics opportunities at present and future reactor neutrino experiments through elastic neutrino-electron scattering (E$\nu$ES). We assess the expected sensitivity to the weak mixing angle considering the CLOUD, TAO, and DANSS experimental configurations. We find that both CLOUD and TAO may achieve a precision that surpasses the current global fit from reactor experiments, while DANSS alone is expected to surpass the benchmark precision set by TEXONO measurement of the weak mixing angle. Additionally, we derive projected upper limits for the non-standard neutrino interactions (NSI), effective neutrino magnetic moment ($\mu_\nu$) and translate these into constraints on the neutrino transition magnetic moments ($\Lambda_i$). Our results demonstrate the physics potential of the E$\nu$ES channel at current and upcoming reactor-based neutrino experiments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.21523 by Luis A. Delgadillo, Qishan Liu, Randhir Singh.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Expected reconstructed signal and background event rates for the corresponding [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: The expected sensitivities ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: The projected sensitivities ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: The expected sensitivities ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: shows the evolution of the weak mixing angle as a function of the energy scale (µ) within the MS renormalization scheme. We display our projected 1σ precision for the weak mixing angle at CLOUD (green), TAO (blue), and DANSS (red). For comparison, we also include results from other sin2 θW measurements, TEXONO [27] (purple), a global fit of reactor data (TEXONO, MUNU, ROVNO, and KRASNOYARSK) [29] (maroon),… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: The expected 90% CL limits on the neutrino transition magnetic moments, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_6.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. A method for energy and radius reconstruction with simulated charge information in a ton-scale liquid scintillator detector like Taishan Antineutrino Observatory

    physics.ins-det 2026-07 conditional novelty 3.0

    A charge-only maximum-likelihood reconstruction using calibration-derived nPE maps achieves ~4 cm vertex resolution and sub-1% relative energy-bias behavior for positrons in a ton-scale liquid scintillator detector.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

91 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Navaset al.[Particle Data Group], Phys

    S. Navaset al.[Particle Data Group], Phys. Rev. D110(2024) no.3, 030001 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.030001

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.110.030001 2024

  2. [2]

    Abuslemeet al.[JUNO], [arXiv:2511.14593 [hep-ex]]

    A. Abuslemeet al.[JUNO], [arXiv:2511.14593 [hep-ex]]

    arXiv

  3. [3]

    M. A. Aceroet al.[NOvA], Phys. Rev. D106(2022) no.3, 032004 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.106.032004 [arXiv:2108.08219 [hep-ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  4. [4]

    Abeet al.[T2K], Eur

    K. Abeet al.[T2K], Eur. Phys. J. C83(2023) no.9, 782 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-11819-x [arXiv:2303.03222 [hep-ex]]

    arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    Abeet al.[T2K, NOvA and R

    K. Abeet al.[T2K, NOvA and R. Group], doi:10.1038/s41586-025-09599-3 [arXiv:2510.19888 [hep-ex]]

    arXiv

  6. [6]

    F. P. Anet al.[Daya Bay], Phys. Rev. Lett.108(2012), 171803 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.171803 [arXiv:1203.1669 [hep-ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  7. [7]

    J. K. Ahnet al.[RENO], Phys. Rev. Lett.108(2012), 191802 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.191802 [arXiv:1204.0626 [hep-ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  8. [8]

    Abeet al.[Double Chooz], Phys

    Y. Abeet al.[Double Chooz], Phys. Rev. D86(2012), 052008 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.86.052008 [arXiv:1207.6632 [hep-ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  9. [9]

    Zazuetaet al.[MINERvA], Phys

    L. Zazuetaet al.[MINERvA], Phys. Rev. D107(2023) no.1, 012001 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.107.012001 [arXiv:2209.05540 [hep-ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  10. [10]

    J. Liao, H. Liu and D. Marfatia, Phys. Rev. D108(2023) no.3, 033002 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.108.033002 [arXiv:2302.10460 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  11. [11]

    J. M. Conrad, J. M. Link and M. H. Shaevitz, Phys. Rev. D71(2005), 073013 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.71.073013 [arXiv:hep-ex/0403048 [hep-ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  12. [12]

    Giunti and A

    C. Giunti and A. Studenikin, Phys. Atom. Nucl.72(2009), 2089-2125 22 doi:10.1134/S1063778809120126 [arXiv:0812.3646 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  13. [13]

    Broggini, C

    C. Broggini, C. Giunti and A. Studenikin, Adv. High Energy Phys.2012(2012), 459526 doi:10.1155/2012/459526 [arXiv:1207.3980 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  14. [14]

    C.GiuntiandA.Studenikin, Rev.Mod.Phys.87(2015), 531doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.87.531 [arXiv:1403.6344 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  15. [15]

    Giunti, K

    C. Giunti, K. Kouzakov, Y. F. Li and A. Studenikin, doi:10.1146/annurev-nucl-102122-023242 [arXiv:2411.03122 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  16. [16]

    Bischer and W

    I. Bischer and W. Rodejohann, Phys. Rev. D99(2019) no.3, 036006 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.99.036006 [arXiv:1810.02220 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  17. [17]

    Bischer and W

    I. Bischer and W. Rodejohann, Nucl. Phys. B947(2019), 114746 doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2019.114746 [arXiv:1905.08699 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2019

  18. [18]

    T. Han, J. Liao, H. Liu and D. Marfatia, JHEP07(2020), 207 doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2020)207 [arXiv:2004.13869 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  19. [19]

    Dutta, S

    B. Dutta, S. Liao, L. E. Strigari and J. W. Walker, Phys. Lett. B773(2017), 242-246 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2017.08.031 [arXiv:1705.00661 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  20. [20]

    O. G. Miranda and H. Nunokawa, New J. Phys.17(2015) no.9, 095002 doi:10.1088/1367- 2630/17/9/095002 [arXiv:1505.06254 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  21. [21]

    Weinberg, Phys

    S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett.19(1967), 1264-1266 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.19.1264

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.19.1264 1967

  22. [22]

    Schaelet al.[ALEPH, DELPHI, L3, OPAL, SLD, LEP Electroweak Working Group, SLD Electroweak Group and SLD Heavy Flavour Group], Phys

    S. Schaelet al.[ALEPH, DELPHI, L3, OPAL, SLD, LEP Electroweak Working Group, SLD Electroweak Group and SLD Heavy Flavour Group], Phys. Rept.427(2006), 257-454 doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2005.12.006 [arXiv:hep-ex/0509008 [hep-ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  23. [23]

    G. P. Zelleret al.[NuTeV], Phys. Rev. Lett.88(2002), 091802 [erratum: Phys. Rev. Lett.90 (2003), 239902] doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.88.091802 [arXiv:hep-ex/0110059 [hep-ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  24. [24]

    Erler and R

    J. Erler and R. Ferro-Hernández, JHEP03(2018), 196 doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2018)196 [arXiv:1712.09146 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  25. [25]

    C. M. Yip, X. R. Huang, M. c. Chu and Q. Liu, Eur. Phys. J. C85(2025) no.10, 1184 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-025-14936-x [arXiv:2504.02447 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2025

  26. [26]

    Atzori Corona, M

    M. Atzori Corona, M. Cadeddu, N. Cargioli, F. Dordei, C. Giunti, Y. F. Li, C. A. Ternes and Y. Y. Zhang, JHEP09(2022), 164 doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2022)164 [arXiv:2205.09484 [hep- ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  27. [27]

    Denizet al.[TEXONO], Phys

    M. Denizet al.[TEXONO], Phys. Rev. D81(2010), 072001 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.81.072001 23 [arXiv:0911.1597 [hep-ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  28. [28]

    Barranco, O

    J. Barranco, O. G. Miranda and T. I. Rashba, Phys. Lett. B662(2008), 431-435 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2008.03.039 [arXiv:0707.4319 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  29. [29]

    The weak mixing angle from low energy neutrino measurements: a global update,

    B. C. Canas, E. A. Garces, O. G. Miranda, M. Tortola and J. W. F. Valle, “The weak mixing angle from low energy neutrino measurements: a global update,” Phys. Lett. B761(2016), 450-455 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2016.08.047 [arXiv:1608.02671 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  30. [30]

    Fujikawa and R

    K. Fujikawa and R. Shrock, Phys. Rev. Lett.45(1980), 963 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.45.963

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.45.963 1980

  31. [31]

    R. E. Shrock, Nucl. Phys. B206, 359-379 (1982) doi:10.1016/0550-3213(82)90273-5

    work page doi:10.1016/0550-3213(82)90273-5 1982

  32. [32]

    J. F. Carlson and J. R. Oppenheimer, Phys. Rev.41, 763-792 (1932) doi:10.1103/PhysRev.41.763

    work page doi:10.1103/physrev.41.763 1932

  33. [33]

    G. V. Domogatsky and D. K. Nadezhin, Yad. Fiz.12, 1233-1242 (1970)

    1970

  34. [34]

    Nussinov, Shmuel and Rephaeli, Yoel, Phys. Rev. D,36,8,1987, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.36.2278

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.36.2278 1987

  35. [35]

    D. W. Liuet al.[Super-Kamiokande], Phys. Rev. Lett.93, 021802 (2004) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.93.021802 [arXiv:hep-ex/0402015 [hep-ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  36. [36]

    Schwienhorstet al.[DONUT], Phys

    R. Schwienhorstet al.[DONUT], Phys. Lett. B513, 23-29 (2001) doi:10.1016/S0370- 2693(01)00746-8 [arXiv:hep-ex/0102026 [hep-ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  37. [37]

    A. G. Beda, V. B. Brudanin, V. G. Egorov, D. V. Medvedev, V. S. Pogosov, M. V. Shirchenko and A. S. Starostin, Adv. High Energy Phys.2012(2012), 350150 doi:10.1155/2012/350150

    work page doi:10.1155/2012/350150 2012

  38. [38]

    G. S. Vidyakin, V. N. Vyrodov, I. I. Gurevich, Y. V. Kozlov, V. P. Martemyanov, S. V. Sukhotin, V. G. Tarasenkov, E. V. Turbin and S. K. Khakhimov, JETP Lett.55(1992), 206-210

    1992

  39. [39]

    A. I. Derbin, A. V. Chernyi, L. A. Popeko, V. N. Muratova, G. A. Shishkina and S. I. Bakhlanov, JETP Lett.57(1993), 768-772

    1993

  40. [40]

    R. C. Allen, H. H. Chen, P. J. Doe, R. Hausammann, W. P. Lee, X. Q. Lu, H. J. Mahler, M. E. Potter, K. C. Wang and T. J. Bowles,et al.Phys. Rev. D47(1993), 11-28 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.47.11

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.47.11 1993

  41. [41]

    9 significant portion of the parameter region previously suggested by the reactor antineutrino anomaly [73] and Gallium anomaly [74] at>95% CL, particularly for∆m2 41∼1.3eV 2

    [72], ruling out a 2 However, in this study, we consider a mean baseline at 11 meters. 9 significant portion of the parameter region previously suggested by the reactor antineutrino anomaly [73] and Gallium anomaly [74] at>95% CL, particularly for∆m2 41∼1.3eV 2. Recently, the DANSS collaboration performed a search for oscillation patterns predicted in som...

  42. [42]

    L. B. Auerbachet al.[LSND], Phys. Rev. D63(2001), 112001 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.63.112001 [arXiv:hep-ex/0101039 [hep-ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  43. [43]

    H. T. Wonget al.[TEXONO], Phys. Rev. D75(2007), 012001 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.75.012001 [arXiv:hep-ex/0605006 [hep-ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  44. [44]

    Daraktchievaet al.[MUNU], Phys

    Z. Daraktchievaet al.[MUNU], Phys. Lett. B615(2005), 153-159 24 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2005.04.030 [arXiv:hep-ex/0502037 [hep-ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  45. [45]

    Arpesellaet al.[Borexino], Phys

    C. Arpesellaet al.[Borexino], Phys. Rev. Lett.101(2008), 091302 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.101.091302 [arXiv:0805.3843 [astro-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  46. [46]

    A. B. Balantekin and C. Volpe, Phys. Rev. D72(2005), 033008 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.72.033008 [arXiv:hep-ph/0411148 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  47. [47]

    Bernabeu, L

    J. Bernabeu, L. G. Cabral-Rosetti, J. Papavassiliou and J. Vidal, Phys. Rev. D62(2000), 113012 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.62.113012 [arXiv:hep-ph/0008114 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  48. [48]

    Bernabeu, J

    J. Bernabeu, J. Papavassiliou and J. Vidal, Nucl. Phys. B680(2004), 450-478 doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2003.12.025 [arXiv:hep-ph/0210055 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  49. [49]

    Atzori Corona, M

    M. Atzori Corona, M. Cadeddu, N. Cargioli, G. Co’, F. Dordei and C. Giunti, Phys. Lett. B 869(2025), 139856 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2025.139856 [arXiv:2506.13555 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2025

  50. [50]

    C. A. Ternes and M. Tórtola, Nucl. Phys. B1019(2025), 117107 doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2025.117107 [arXiv:2505.02633 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2025

  51. [51]

    Schechter and J

    J. Schechter and J. W. F. Valle, Phys. Rev. D24, 1883-1889 (1981) [erratum: Phys. Rev. D 25, 283 (1982)] doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.25.283

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.25.283 1981

  52. [52]

    N. F. Bell, V. Cirigliano, M. J. Ramsey-Musolf, P. Vogel and M. B. Wise, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 151802 (2005) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.95.151802 [arXiv:hep-ph/0504134 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  53. [53]

    Alekseev, V

    I. Alekseev, V. Belov, V. Brudanin, M. Danilov, V. Egorov, D. Filosofov, M. Fomina, Z. Hons, S. Kazartsev and A. Kobyakin,et al.JINST11(2016) no.11, P11011 doi:10.1088/1748- 0221/11/11/P11011 [arXiv:1606.02896 [physics.ins-det]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  54. [54]

    TAO Conceptual Design Report: A Precision Measurement of the Reactor Antineutrino Spectrum with Sub-percent Energy Resolution,

    A. Abuslemeet al.[JUNO], “TAO Conceptual Design Report: A Precision Measurement of the Reactor Antineutrino Spectrum with Sub-percent Energy Resolution,” [arXiv:2005.08745 [physics.ins-det]]

    arXiv 2005

  55. [55]

    Navas Nicolas [CLOUD], PoSICHEP2024(2025), 157 doi:10.22323/1.476.0157

    D. Navas Nicolas [CLOUD], PoSICHEP2024(2025), 157 doi:10.22323/1.476.0157

    work page doi:10.22323/1.476.0157 2025

  56. [56]

    Neutrino Physics with an Opaque Detector,

    A. Cabreraet al.[LiquidO], “Neutrino Physics with an Opaque Detector,” Commun. Phys.4 (2021), 273 doi:10.1038/s42005-021-00763-5 [arXiv:1908.02859 [physics.ins-det]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  57. [57]

    O. A. Akindele, N. S. Bowden, C. Roca, J. Xu, X. Zhang, J. M. Berryman, R. Carr, A. J. Conant, G. Fernandez-Moroni and P. Huber,et al.J. Phys. G51(2024) no.8, 080501 doi:10.1088/1361-6471/ad3a84

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6471/ad3a84 2024

  58. [58]

    Vogel and J

    P. Vogel and J. Engel, Phys. Rev. D39(1989), 3378 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.39.3378

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.39.3378 1989

  59. [59]

    Tiesinga, P

    E. Tiesinga, P. J. Mohr, D. B. Newell and B. N. Taylor, Rev. Mod. Phys.93(2021) no.2, 25 025010 doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.93.025010

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.93.025010 2021

  60. [60]

    Cadeddu, C

    M. Cadeddu, C. Giunti, K. A. Kouzakov, Y. F. Li, Y. Y. Zhang and A. I. Studenikin, Phys. Rev. D98(2018) no.11, 113010 [erratum: Phys. Rev. D101(2020) no.5, 059902] doi:10.1142/9789811233913_0013 [arXiv:1810.05606 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  61. [61]

    Tomalak and R

    O. Tomalak and R. J. Hill, Phys. Rev. D101(2020) no.3, 033006 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.101.033006 [arXiv:1907.03379 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  62. [62]

    Neutrino charge radius and additional one-loop radiative corrections at ultranear reactor experiments,

    V. Brdar, L. J. Ferreira Leite, G. A. Parker and X. J. Xu, “Neutrino charge radius and additional one-loop radiative corrections at ultranear reactor experiments,” Phys. Rev. D110 (2024) no.11, 113005 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.113005 [arXiv:2410.00107 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  63. [63]

    Huang and S

    J. Huang and S. Zhou, Phys. Rev. D111(2025) no.3, 033005 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.111.033005 [arXiv:2412.17047 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  64. [64]

    J. N. Bahcall, M. Kamionkowski and A. Sirlin, Phys. Rev. D51(1995), 6146-6158 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.51.6146 [arXiv:astro-ph/9502003 [astro-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  65. [65]

    B. C. Canas, O. G. Miranda, A. Parada, M. Tortola and J. W. F. Valle, Phys. Lett. B753 (2016), 191-198 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2015.12.011 [arXiv:1510.01684 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  66. [66]

    Grimus and T

    W. Grimus and T. Schwetz, Nucl. Phys. B587(2000), 45-66 doi:10.1016/S0550- 3213(00)00451-X [arXiv:hep-ph/0006028 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  67. [67]

    Grimus, M

    W. Grimus, M. Maltoni, T. Schwetz, M. A. Tortola and J. W. F. Valle, Nucl. Phys. B648 (2003), 376-396 doi:10.1016/S0550-3213(02)00973-2 [arXiv:hep-ph/0208132 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  68. [68]

    Apillueloet al.[LiquidO], [arXiv:2503.02541 [physics.ins-det]]

    J. Apillueloet al.[LiquidO], [arXiv:2503.02541 [physics.ins-det]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  69. [69]

    JUNO Conceptual Design Report,

    Z. Djurcicet al.[JUNO], “JUNO Conceptual Design Report,” [arXiv:1508.07166 [physics.ins- det]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  70. [70]

    J. M. Berryman, L. A. Delgadillo and P. Huber, Phys. Rev. D105(2022) no.3, 035002 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.105.035002 [arXiv:2104.00005 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  71. [71]

    Abuslemeet al.[JUNO], Chin

    A. Abuslemeet al.[JUNO], Chin. Phys. C49(2025) no.3, 033104 doi:10.1088/1674- 1137/ad7f3e [arXiv:2405.18008 [hep-ex]]

    arXiv 2025

  72. [72]

    Recent results from the DANSS experiment,

    M. Danilov [DANSS], “Recent results from the DANSS experiment,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. A39, no.31, 2443010 (2024) doi:10.1142/S0217751X24430103

    work page doi:10.1142/s0217751x24430103 2024

  73. [73]

    Search for sterile neutrinos at the DANSS experiment,

    I. Alekseevet al.[DANSS], “Search for sterile neutrinos at the DANSS experiment,” Phys. Lett. B787, 56-63 (2018) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2018.10.038 [arXiv:1804.04046 [hep-ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  74. [74]

    Mention, M

    G. Mention, M. Fechner, T. Lasserre, T. A. Mueller, D. Lhuillier, M. Cribier and A. Le- 26 tourneau, Phys. Rev. D83(2011), 073006 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.83.073006 [arXiv:1101.2755 [hep-ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  75. [75]

    Kostensalo, J

    J. Kostensalo, J. Suhonen, C. Giunti and P. C. Srivastava, Phys. Lett. B795(2019), 542-547 [erratum: Phys. Lett. B846(2023), 138190] doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2019.06.057 [arXiv:1906.10980 [nucl-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  76. [76]

    Search for large extra dimensions in the DANSS experiment,

    I. G. Alekseev, V. V. Belov, A. D. Bystryakov, P. A. Gorovtsov, M. V. Danilov, I. V. Zhitnikov, D. R. Zinatulina, S. V. Kazartsev, A. S. Kobyakin and A. L. Krapiva,et al.“Search for large extra dimensions in the DANSS experiment,” Pisma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.122, no.1, 3-9 (2025) doi:10.31857/S0370274X25070011

    work page doi:10.31857/s0370274x25070011 2025

  77. [77]

    New Design of Scintillation Strips for the DANSS Detector Upgrade,

    D. N. Svirida, “New Design of Scintillation Strips for the DANSS Detector Upgrade,” Instrum. Exp. Tech.67, no.4, 682-690 (2024) doi:10.1134/S0020441224701100

    work page doi:10.1134/s0020441224701100 2024

  78. [78]

    Huber, Phys

    P. Huber, Phys. Rev. C84(2011), 024617 [erratum: Phys. Rev. C85(2012), 029901] doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.85.029901 [arXiv:1106.0687 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  79. [79]

    T. A. Mueller, D. Lhuillier, M. Fallot, A. Letourneau, S. Cormon, M. Fechner, L. Giot, T. Lasserre, J. Martino and G. Mention,et al.Phys. Rev. C83(2011), 054615 doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.83.054615 [arXiv:1101.2663 [hep-ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  80. [80]

    Estienne, M

    M. Estienne, M. Fallot, A. Algora, J. Briz-Monago, V. M. Bui, S. Cormon, W. Gelletly, L. Giot, V. Guadilla and D. Jordan,et al.Phys. Rev. Lett.123(2019) no.2, 022502 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.022502 [arXiv:1904.09358 [nucl-ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

Showing first 80 references.