Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 minor 106 references

Invisible decay of solar neutrinos at dark matter experiments

T0 review · 0 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Invisible decay of solar neutrinos is constrained for the first time using coherent scattering data from dark matter experiments.

desk verdict Solid first CEνNS-based constraint on invisible solar neutrino decay from current dark matter data; the central bound holds up and the projections are clearly labeled. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.24584 v1 pith:UYEYCY5F submitted 2026-07-27 hep-ph

Martina Beccaria , Veronica Beligotti , Valentina De Romeri , Giulia Pagliaroli , Dimitrios K. Papoulias , Federica Pompa , Christoph A. Ternes This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords invisibleneutrinodecaysolarneutrinoscoherentelasticneutrino-nucleusscatteringdarkmatterdirectdetectionXENONnTPandaX-4TLUX-ZEPLINXLZD
topics Dark Matter
open problems Dark Matter
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

Solar neutrinos spend about eight minutes traveling from the Sun to the Earth at energies from a few hundred keV to several MeV, making them sensitive probes of invisible decay: any decay of a neutrino mass eigenstate suppresses the flux by a factor exp(-α_i L/Eν). The paper applies this idea to the coherent elastic neutrino-nucleus scattering (CEνNS) data of the dark matter experiments XENONnT, PandaX-4T, and LZ, and obtains a first constraint α2 < 1.2×$10^{-11}$ eV² at 90% CL on the decay parameter of the ν2 state. This is already comparable to the SNO bound, even though these detectors were built to search for dark matter. The paper then projects that a future xenon observatory could improve this by an order of magnitude through CEνNS, and that electron-recoil measurements of pp neutrinos could reach α1 < 7.9×$10^{-15}$ eV² and α2 < 3.0×$10^{-14}$ eV², surpassing dedicated solar-neutrino experiments by one to two orders of magnitude.

What carries the argument

The central object is the decay parameter α_i = m_i/τ_i of each neutrino mass eigenstate, which controls the invisible-decay damping factor D_i(Eν,L) = exp(-α_i L/Eν) in the solar neutrino flux. At high energies (8B neutrinos, above roughly 7 MeV) the MSW effect and solar matter make the arriving flux almost pure ν2, so CEνNS data are sensitive to α2 alone; at low energies (pp neutrinos, below roughly 0.4 MeV) the flux is a mixture of ν1 and ν2, enabling EνES measurements to constrain α1 and α2. The analysis machinery is a binned χ² likelihood that treats the solar flux normalization and detector backgrounds as nuisance parameters, with the unoscillated fluxes from the MB22m standard solar model.

What would settle it

A pp-neutrino EνES measurement at a future detector that recovers the full standard solar model pp flux with no energy-dependent suppression would falsify the α2 bound, because the same α2 ~ $10^{-11}$ eV² would suppress the low-energy pp flux much more strongly than the few-percent effect seen at 8B energies.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery the authors claim is that the solar-neutrino CEνNS signals already observed at dark matter direct detection experiments carry a measurable imprint of invisible neutrino decay, and that the combined fit to XENONnT, PandaX-4T, and LZ data bounds the ν2 decay parameter to α2 < 1.2×$10^{-11}$ eV² at 90% CL. This bound is comparable to the SNO constraint α2 < 8.1×$10^{-12}$ eV², but it comes from a completely independent detection channel. The paper derives this by computing the oscillation probabilities for 8B neutrinos with a damping term exp(-α_i L/Eν) applied along the Sun–Earth baseline, and by profiling the 8B flux normalization in the likelihood. It also establishes that the same method at the future XLZD observatory, using both nuclear recoils and electron recoils from pp neutrinos, could reach α1 < 7.9×$10^{-15}$ eV² and α2 < 3.0×$10^{-14}$ eV² at 90% CL—one to two orders of magnitude beyond the current dedicated solar-neutrino limits.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes that invisible neutrino decay occurs only after the neutrinos leave the Sun, so the damping factor uses the full Sun–Earth distance and no decay or regeneration happens inside the solar interior.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The combined CEνNS bound α2 < 1.2×10^-11 eV² is the first of its kind from solar-neutrino coherent scattering and is already competitive with the SNO result.
  • With current 8B flux uncertainties, future CEνNS sensitivity saturates near 3–4×10^-12 eV² regardless of exposure; reducing the flux uncertainty would improve the bound by roughly a factor of two.
  • At XLZD, the EνES channel from pp neutrinos could constrain α1 < 7.9×10^-15 eV² and α2 < 3.0×10^-14 eV², beating dedicated solar-neutrino experiments by one to two orders of magnitude.
  • If a deficit appears in the pp flux via EνES, an independent CEνNS measurement would determine whether the deficit comes from ν2 decay or ν1 decay.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the current α2 bound holds, dark matter detectors have effectively become solar-neutrino decay observatories, and any future exposure increase with the same background model will keep improving the limit until the solar flux uncertainty dominates.
  • The 8B flux normalization is the limiting systematic, so an independent high-precision measurement of the 8B flux—by an experiment not relying on CEνNS event rates—would directly sharpen the decay constraint.
  • The same exp(-α_i L/Eν) logic applies to any long-baseline low-energy neutrino source, so the technique could be extended to supernova neutrinos or future long-baseline reactor experiments, though those sources have different L/Eν windows.
  • A detection of an energy-dependent deficit in the pp flux would be a strong invisible-decay signal, but it would also require ruling out other new physics that mimics a 1/Eν suppression, such as energy-dependent non-standard neutrino interactions.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

0 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper derives constraints on invisible neutrino decay from solar neutrinos using CEνNS data from XENONnT, PandaX-4T, and LZ. The combined analysis yields α2 < 1.2×10^-11 eV² at 90% CL (Eq. 28), stated as the first CEνNS-based constraint and comparable in strength to the SNO bound. The authors then project the reach of a future XLZD observatory via CEνNS (α2 ~ 3×10^-12 eV²) and via EνES from pp neutrinos (α1 < 7.9×10^-15 eV² and α2 < 3.0×10^-14 eV² at 90% CL), emphasizing that the 8B flux normalization is the limiting systematic for the former and that the latter could surpass dedicated solar-neutrino bounds by one to two orders of magnitude.

Significance. The central result is physically well motivated: the CEνNS channel is flavor-blind, solar 8B neutrinos arrive predominantly as ν2, and the Sun-Earth baseline is long enough to make decay competitive with SNO. The analysis uses public data releases, the XENONnT 4D response matrices, and profiles explicit nuisance parameters for fluxes and backgrounds; the XLZD results are appropriately presented as sensitivity studies rather than constraints. I checked the main assumption in Sec. II before Eq. (7): for the derived α2 bound, the solar-interior contribution to the damping exponent is about 4×10^-3 compared with about 0.76 over the Sun-Earth baseline, so neglecting decay inside the Sun is quantitatively safe. If correct, this is the first CEνNS-based probe of invisible solar-neutrino decay and opens a new, complementary detection channel.

minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. III A, Eq. (19)] Please clarify whether the per-bin correction factors c_i are fixed from a SM best-fit or profiled in the χ²; if profiled together with α2, they would absorb the decay-induced deficit and erase the PandaX sensitivity. The paper's central conclusion is not affected because PandaX alone yields no bound and the combined result is driven by XENONnT and LZ, but the procedure should be stated explicitly.
  2. [Eq. (26)] The index i is used both for the bin and for the sum over background components; use a separate index (e.g., k) for the backgrounds so that the expression reads N_i = R_i(1+γ) + Σ_k B_{i,k}(1+β_k).
  3. [Sec. III A] The text 'only US2' should read 'only S2'.
  4. [Sec. I] There is a duplicated 'the' in 'driven by the the Super-Kamiokande data'.
  5. [Table I] Consider adding a footnote that '—' for PandaX-4T means no significant bound from this dataset alone, for consistency with Sec. IV A.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No load-bearing circularity: the CEνNS decay bound is fit to external data; procedural self-citations are not the source of the result.

full rationale

The central constraint α2 < 1.2e-11 eV2 is obtained by a profile-likelihood fit of the decay parameter to published CEνNS event data from XENONnT, PandaX-4T, and LZ (Eqs. (26)-(28)), not by defining α2 through the data. The damping factor Di = exp(-αi L/Eν) in Eq. (1) is a standard parameterization adopted from prior literature and is not constructed from the experimental events. The future XLZD sensitivities in Eqs. (29)-(30) are explicitly projections against a fake no-decay data set, as stated in Sec. III E ('we generate a fake data set without neutrino decay'), so they are sensitivity forecasts rather than fitted predictions. The main physical assumptions — decay occurring only along the Sun-Earth path and the MB22m solar flux normalization — are disclosed and, in the flux case, profiled with a 13.13% Gaussian penalty in Eq. (27); these are inputs to the fit, not quantities whose 'prediction' is the fit outcome. Several analysis pipelines are taken from prior papers by overlapping author groups (Refs. [58,60,64,72,73]), but those references supply detector-response and background treatments against collaboration data releases, not the decay bound; they do not make the derivation self-referential. I find no equation in the paper that reduces the claimed constraint to its own input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central inference rests on standard SM interaction rates, the SSM solar neutrino flux, and the standard invisible-decay damping framework. The only quantities genuinely fitted to the data in this work are the nuisance normalizations and the PandaX-4T correction factors; the decay parameters αi are the scanned parameters being constrained, not inputs. No new particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • PandaX-4T per-bin correction factors c_i = not reported (tuned to match Ref. [53] best-fit spectra)
    Used in Eq. (19) to convert the simplified S2-only prediction to the collaboration's observed spectrum; a genuine fit to data, disclosed in Sec. III A.
  • 8B flux normalization nuisance parameter γ = profiled, not quoted
    Common normalization for the 8B solar neutrino flux in the χ2 (Eq. (27)), constrained by a Gaussian pull with σ=13.13% for current data; this is a fitted nuisance parameter that directly affects the α2 bound.
  • Background normalization nuisances β_k = profiled, not quoted
    Per-component background normalizations in Eq. (26) with Gaussian pulls; fitted to data, though constrained by collaboration-reported uncertainties.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Invisible decay is modeled by H_D = U diag(-iα1,-iα2,-iα3)U† with survival damping D_i = exp(-α_i L/Eν).
    The BSM framework under test, taken from prior literature (Refs. [9-36]); not derived in this paper.
  • domain assumption Neutrino flavor evolution inside the Sun is the standard MSW one; decay happens only after the neutrinos leave the Sun.
    Stated before Eq. (7) as 'safe to assume standard evolution inside the Sun, with the decay occurring only along the Sun-Earth path.' If false, Eq. (7) is invalid.
  • domain assumption The pp and 8B solar neutrino fluxes and their production distributions are given by the MB22m standard solar model.
    Inputs to Eq. (18); the normalization is profiled with quoted uncertainties, but the spectral shapes and production densities are taken from Refs. [88,89].
  • domain assumption CEνNS and EνES cross sections are the Standard Model ones and are not modified by invisible decay.
    Stated in Sec. III: decay enters only through the oscillated flux, not through the interaction cross sections.
  • standard math Propagated mass eigenstates arrive incoherently at Earth, so the detected flavor flux is the incoherent sum over mass eigenstates.
    Standard neutrino propagation assumption used in Eqs. (7) to (10).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Invisible decay of solar neutrinos at dark matter experiments." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UYEYCY5F

@misc{pith2026260724584,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Invisible decay of solar neutrinos at dark matter experiments},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UYEYCY5F}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.24584}
}
abstract

The combination of the long baseline and characteristic energies of solar neutrinos offers an ideal framework to probe invisible neutrino decay. In this work we present the first constraint on invisible solar-neutrino decay using coherent elastic neutrino-nucleus scattering, recently observed in dark matter direct detection experiments. Through a combined analysis of nuclear-recoil data from XENONnT, PandaX-4T, and LUX-ZEPLIN, we constrain the lifetime of the neutrino mass state $\nu_{2}$, obtaining a bound already comparable in strength to that from the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory. We further evaluate the sensitivity that could be reached by a future xenon-based dark matter detector. For this projection, we extend the analysis to electronic-recoil data, estimating the impact of detecting lower-energy solar neutrinos from the $pp$-chain via elastic scattering off electrons. This channel would allow us to place strong constraints on the lifetimes of both the $\nu_{1}$ and $\nu_{2}$ mass eigenstates. Our results show that, with nominal future exposures, nuclear-recoil data would improve the current bound by about one order of magnitude, while electronic-recoil data would open a new detection channel for low-energy solar neutrinos, surpassing existing dedicated solar-neutrino bounds by 1 to 2 orders of magnitude.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.24584 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Fraction of each neutrino mass eigenstate as a function of energy, assuming full adiabatic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Neutrino flavor conversion probabilities as a function of the neutrino energy in presence [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Projected [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Comparison of the solar neutrino conversion probabilities in the presence of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

106 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Davis, Jr., D

    R. Davis, Jr., D. S. Harmer, and K. C. Hoffman, Phys. Rev. Lett.20, 1205 (1968)

    1968

  2. [2]

    K. S. Hirataet al.(Kamiokande-II), Phys. Rev. Lett.63, 16 (1989)

    1989

  3. [3]

    Anselmannet al.(GALLEX), Phys

    P. Anselmannet al.(GALLEX), Phys. Lett. B285, 376 (1992)

    1992

  4. [4]

    D. N. Abdurashitovet al., Phys. Rev. Lett.77, 4708 (1996)

    1996

  5. [5]

    Fukudaet al.(Super-Kamiokande), Phys

    Y. Fukudaet al.(Super-Kamiokande), Phys. Rev. Lett.82, 2430 (1999), arXiv:hep-ex/9812011

    arXiv 1999

  6. [6]

    Q. R. Ahmadet al.(SNO), Phys. Rev. Lett.89, 011301 (2002), arXiv:nucl-ex/0204008

    arXiv 2002

  7. [7]

    Maltoni and A

    M. Maltoni and A. Y. Smirnov, Eur. Phys. J. A52, 87 (2016), arXiv:1507.05287 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2016

  8. [8]

    F. L. Villante and A. Serenelli, Front. Astron. Space Sci.7, 112 (2021), arXiv:2101.03077 [astro-ph.SR]

    arXiv 2021

Show all 106 references
  1. [9]

    J. A. Frieman, H. E. Haber, and K. Freese, Phys. Lett. B200, 115 (1988)

    1988

  2. [10]

    Lindner, T

    M. Lindner, T. Ohlsson, and W. Winter, Nucl. Phys. B607, 326 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0103170

    2001 arXiv

  3. [11]

    J. F. Beacom and N. F. Bell, Phys. Rev. D65, 113009 (2002), arXiv:hep-ph/0204111

    2002 arXiv

  4. [12]

    M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia and M. Maltoni, Phys. Lett. B663, 405 (2008), arXiv:0802.3699 [hep-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  5. [13]

    R. A. Gomes, A. L. G. Gomes, and O. L. G. Peres, Phys. Lett. B740, 345 (2015), arXiv:1407.5640 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  6. [14]

    J. M. Berryman, A. de Gouvea, and D. Hernandez, Phys. Rev. D92, 073003 (2015), arXiv:1411.0308 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Pagliaroli, A

    G. Pagliaroli, A. Palladino, F. L. Villante, and F. Vissani, Phys. Rev. D92, 113008 (2015), arXiv:1506.02624 [hep-ph]. 15

    2015 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Abrah˜ ao, H

    T. Abrah˜ ao, H. Minakata, H. Nunokawa, and A. A. Quiroga, JHEP11, 001 (2015), arXiv:1506.02314 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Picoreti, M

    R. Picoreti, M. M. Guzzo, P. C. de Holanda, and O. L. G. Peres, Phys. Lett. B761, 70 (2016), arXiv:1506.08158 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Choubey, S

    S. Choubey, S. Goswami, and D. Pramanik, JHEP02, 055 (2018), arXiv:1705.05820 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Choubey, S

    S. Choubey, S. Goswami, C. Gupta, S. M. Lakshmi, and T. Thakore, Phys. Rev. D97, 033005 (2018), arXiv:1709.10376 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  12. [20]

    P. F. de Salas, S. Pastor, C. A. Ternes, T. Thakore, and M. T´ ortola, Phys. Lett. B789, 472 (2019), arXiv:1810.10916 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  13. [21]

    P. B. Denton and I. Tamborra, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 121802 (2018), arXiv:1805.05950 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Choubey, D

    S. Choubey, D. Dutta, and D. Pramanik, JHEP08, 141 (2018), arXiv:1805.01848 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Aharmimet al.(SNO), Phys

    B. Aharmimet al.(SNO), Phys. Rev. D99, 032013 (2019), arXiv:1812.01088 [hep-ex]

    2019 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Ghoshal, A

    A. Ghoshal, A. Giarnetti, and D. Meloni, J. Phys. G48, 055004 (2021), arXiv:2003.09012 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Choubey, M

    S. Choubey, M. Ghosh, D. Kempe, and T. Ohlsson, JHEP05, 133 (2021), arXiv:2010.16334 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Pompa and O

    F. Pompa and O. Mena, Eur. Phys. J. C84, 134 (2024), arXiv:2310.05474 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Chakraborty, D

    K. Chakraborty, D. Dutta, S. Goswami, and D. Pramanik, JHEP08, 136 (2021), arXiv:2012.04958 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  20. [28]

    D. S. Chattopadhyay, K. Chakraborty, A. Dighe, S. Goswami, and S. M. Lakshmi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 011802 (2022), arXiv:2111.13128 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  21. [29]

    D. S. Chattopadhyay, K. Chakraborty, A. Dighe, and S. Goswami, JHEP01, 051 (2023), arXiv:2204.05803 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Iv´ a˜ nez-Ballesteros and M

    P. Iv´ a˜ nez-Ballesteros and M. C. Volpe, Phys. Lett. B847, 138252 (2023), arXiv:2307.03549 [hep-ph]

    2023

  23. [31]

    Banerjee, K

    R. Banerjee, K. Sharma, S. Patra, and P. K. Panigrahi, (2023), arXiv:2312.08178 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Aielloet al.(KM3NeT), JHEP04, 090 (2023), arXiv:2302.02717 [hep-ex]

    S. Aielloet al.(KM3NeT), JHEP04, 090 (2023), arXiv:2302.02717 [hep-ex]

    2023 arXiv

  25. [33]

    V. B. Valera, D. F. G. Fiorillo, I. Esteban, and M. Bustamante, Phys. Rev. D110, 043004 (2024), arXiv:2405.14826 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  26. [34]

    C. A. Ternes and G. Pagliaroli, Phys. Rev. D109, L071701 (2024), arXiv:2401.14316 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Mart´ ınez-Mirav´ e, I

    P. Mart´ ınez-Mirav´ e, I. Tamborra, and M. T´ ortola, JCAP05, 002 (2024), arXiv:2402.00116 [astro- ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Beccaria and C

    M. Beccaria and C. A. Ternes, (2026), arXiv:2606.13362 [hep-ph]

    2026 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Adamsonet al.(MINOS+), Phys

    P. Adamsonet al.(MINOS+), Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 091803 (2019), arXiv:1710.06488 [hep-ex]

    2019 arXiv

  30. [38]

    M. A. Aceroet al.(NOvA), Phys. Rev. D106, 032004 (2022), arXiv:2108.08219 [hep-ex]

    2022 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Abeet al.(T2K), Eur

    K. Abeet al.(T2K), Eur. Phys. J. C83, 782 (2023), arXiv:2303.03222 [hep-ex]

    2023

  32. [40]

    M. H. Ahnet al.(K2K), Phys. Rev. D74, 072003 (2006), arXiv:hep-ex/0606032

    2006 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Hosakaet al.(Super-Kamiokande), Phys

    J. Hosakaet al.(Super-Kamiokande), Phys. Rev. D74, 032002 (2006), arXiv:hep-ex/0604011

    2006 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Huang and S

    G.-Y. Huang and S. Zhou, JCAP02, 024 (2019), arXiv:1810.03877 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  35. [43]

    C. A. J. O’Hare, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 251802 (2021), arXiv:2109.03116 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Monroe and P

    J. Monroe and P. Fisher, Phys. Rev. D76, 033007 (2007), arXiv:0706.3019 [astro-ph]

    2007 arXiv

  37. [45]

    J. D. Vergados and H. Ejiri, Nucl. Phys. B804, 144 (2008), arXiv:0805.2583 [hep-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  38. [46]

    L. E. Strigari, New J. Phys.11, 105011 (2009), arXiv:0903.3630 [astro-ph.CO]

    2009 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Billard, L

    J. Billard, L. Strigari, and E. Figueroa-Feliciano, Phys. Rev. D89, 023524 (2014), arXiv:1307.5458 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  40. [48]

    De Romeri, A

    V. De Romeri, A. Majumdar, D. K. Papoulias, and R. Srivastava, JCAP05, 093 (2026), arXiv:2512.08853 [hep-ph]

    2026 arXiv

  41. [49]

    D. Z. Freedman, Phys. Rev. D9, 1389 (1974)

    1974

  42. [50]

    Abdullahet al., (2022), arXiv:2203.07361 [hep-ph]

    M. Abdullahet al., (2022), arXiv:2203.07361 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Aprileet al.(XENON), Phys

    E. Aprileet al.(XENON), Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 191002 (2024), arXiv:2408.02877 [nucl-ex]

    2024

  44. [52]

    Aprileet al.(XENON), (2026), arXiv:2604.06002 [hep-ex]

    E. Aprileet al.(XENON), (2026), arXiv:2604.06002 [hep-ex]

    2026 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Boet al.(PandaX), Phys

    Z. Boet al.(PandaX), Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 191001 (2024), arXiv:2407.10892 [hep-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  46. [54]

    D. S. Akeribet al.(LZ), (2025), arXiv:2512.08065 [hep-ex]

    2025 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Aristizabal Sierra, N

    D. Aristizabal Sierra, N. Mishra, and L. Strigari, Phys. Rev. D111, 055007 (2025), arXiv:2409.02003 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Li, C.-Q

    G. Li, C.-Q. Song, F.-J. Tang, and J.-H. Yu, Phys. Rev. D111, 035002 (2025), arXiv:2409.04703 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Gehrlein and T

    J. Gehrlein and T. Kushwaha, Phys. Rev. D112, 095032 (2025), arXiv:2508.14166 [hep-ph]. 16

    2025

  50. [58]

    De Romeri, D

    V. De Romeri, D. K. Papoulias, F. Pompa, G. Sanchez Garcia, and C. A. Ternes, (2026), arXiv:2603.00554 [hep-ph]

    2026 arXiv

  51. [59]

    K. J. Kelly, N. Mishra, and L. E. Strigari, (2026), arXiv:2605.22935 [hep-ph]

    2026 arXiv

  52. [60]

    De Romeri, D

    V. De Romeri, D. K. Papoulias, and C. A. Ternes, JCAP05, 012 (2025), arXiv:2411.11749 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Blanco-Mas, P

    P. Blanco-Mas, P. Coloma, G. Herrera, P. Huber, J. Kopp, I. M. Shoemaker, and Z. Tabrizi, JHEP 08, 043 (2025), arXiv:2411.14206 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Xia, Nucl

    S.-y. Xia, Nucl. Phys. B1009, 116738 (2024), arXiv:2410.01167 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Atzori Corona, M

    M. Atzori Corona, M. Cadeddu, N. Cargioli, F. Dordei, and M. Sestu, JCAP05, 065 (2026), arXiv:2509.22178 [hep-ph]

    2026 arXiv

  56. [64]

    De Romeri, D

    V. De Romeri, D. K. Papoulias, G. Sanchez Garcia, C. A. Ternes, and M. T´ ortola, JCAP05, 080 (2025), arXiv:2412.14991 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Wolfenstein, Phys

    L. Wolfenstein, Phys. Rev. D17, 2369 (1978)

    1978

  58. [66]

    S. P. Mikheyev and A. Y. Smirnov, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys.42, 913 (1985)

    1985

  59. [67]

    Aalberset al.(XLZD), Eur

    J. Aalberset al.(XLZD), Eur. Phys. J. C85, 1192 (2025), arXiv:2410.17137 [hep-ex]

    2025

  60. [68]

    Essig, M

    R. Essig, M. Sholapurkar, and T.-T. Yu, Phys. Rev. D97, 095029 (2018), arXiv:1801.10159 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Aalberset al.(DARWIN), Eur

    J. Aalberset al.(DARWIN), Eur. Phys. J. C80, 1133 (2020), arXiv:2006.03114 [physics.ins-det]

    2020 arXiv

  62. [70]

    de Gouvˆ ea, E

    A. de Gouvˆ ea, E. McGinness, I. Martinez-Soler, and Y. F. Perez-Gonzalez, Phys. Rev. D106, 096017 (2022), arXiv:2111.02421 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Mishra and L

    N. Mishra and L. E. Strigari, Phys. Rev. D108, 063023 (2023), arXiv:2305.17827 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Giunti and C

    C. Giunti and C. A. Ternes, Phys. Rev. D108, 095044 (2023), arXiv:2309.17380 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  65. [73]

    De Romeri, D

    V. De Romeri, D. K. Papoulias, and C. A. Ternes, JHEP05, 165 (2024), arXiv:2402.05506 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  66. [74]

    J. M. Celestino-Ram´ ırez, F. J. Escrihuela, L. J. Flores, O. G. Miranda, and R. S´ anchez-V´ elez, JHEP 05, 071 (2026), arXiv:2510.17027 [hep-ph]

    2026 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Atzori Corona, M

    M. Atzori Corona, M. Cadeddu, N. Cargioli, F. Dordei, C. Giunti, and C. A. Ternes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 231803 (2025), arXiv:2504.05272 [hep-ph]

    2025

  68. [76]

    Harnik, J

    R. Harnik, J. Kopp, and P. A. N. Machado, JCAP07, 026 (2012), arXiv:1202.6073 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  69. [77]

    D. G. Cerde˜ no, M. Fairbairn, T. Jubb, P. A. N. Machado, A. C. Vincent, and C. Bœhm, JHEP05, 118 (2016), [Erratum: JHEP 09, 048 (2016)], arXiv:1604.01025 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Dutta, S

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

    2017 arXiv

  71. [79]

    G. B. Gelmini, V. Takhistov, and S. J. Witte, Phys. Rev. D99, 093009 (2019), arXiv:1812.05550 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Aristizabal Sierra, R

    D. Aristizabal Sierra, R. Branada, O. G. Miranda, and G. Sanchez Garcia, JHEP12, 178 (2020), arXiv:2008.05080 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  73. [81]

    D. W. P. d. Amaral, D. G. Cerdeno, P. Foldenauer, and E. Reid, JHEP12, 155 (2020), arXiv:2006.11225 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Dutta, R

    B. Dutta, R. F. Lang, S. Liao, S. Sinha, L. Strigari, and A. Thompson, JHEP09, 106 (2020), arXiv:2002.03066 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  75. [83]

    A. M. Suliga and I. Tamborra, Phys. Rev. D103, 083002 (2021), arXiv:2010.14545 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  76. [84]

    D. W. P. Amaral, D. G. Cerdeno, A. Cheek, and P. Foldenauer, Eur. Phys. J. C81, 861 (2021), arXiv:2104.03297 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  77. [85]

    Aalberset al., J

    J. Aalberset al., J. Phys. G50, 013001 (2023), arXiv:2203.02309 [physics.ins-det]

    2023

  78. [86]

    Alonso-Gonz´ alez, D

    D. Alonso-Gonz´ alez, D. W. P. Amaral, A. Bariego-Quintana, D. Cerde˜ no, and M. de los Rios, JHEP 12, 096 (2023), arXiv:2307.05176 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  79. [87]

    D. W. P. Amaral, D. Cerdeno, A. Cheek, and P. Foldenauer, JHEP07, 071 (2023), arXiv:2302.12846 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  80. [88]

    Magget al., Astron

    E. Magget al., Astron. Astrophys.661, A140 (2022), arXiv:2203.02255 [astro-ph.SR]

    2022 arXiv

  81. [89]

    Standard solar models b23 / sf-iii,

    Y. Herrera and A. Serenelli, “Standard solar models b23 / sf-iii,” (2023)

    2023

  82. [90]

    P. F. de Salas, D. V. Forero, S. Gariazzo, P. Mart´ ınez-Mirav´ e, O. Mena, C. A. Ternes, M. T´ ortola, and J. W. F. Valle, JHEP02, 071 (2021), arXiv:2006.11237 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  83. [91]

    Abuslemeet al.(JUNO), Nature654, 343 (2026), arXiv:2511.14593 [hep-ex]

    A. Abuslemeet al.(JUNO), Nature654, 343 (2026), arXiv:2511.14593 [hep-ex]

    2026

  84. [92]

    Esteban, M

    I. Esteban, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, M. Maltoni, I. Martinez-Soler, J. P. Pinheiro, and T. Schwetz, JHEP12, 216 (2024), arXiv:2410.05380 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  85. [93]

    Capozzi, W

    F. Capozzi, W. Giar` e, E. Lisi, A. Marrone, A. Melchiorri, and A. Palazzo, Phys. Rev. D111, 093006 (2025), arXiv:2503.07752 [hep-ph]. 17

    2025 arXiv

  86. [94]

    Barranco, O

    J. Barranco, O. G. Miranda, and T. I. Rashba, JHEP12, 021 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0508299

    2005 arXiv

  87. [95]

    Cadeddu, F

    M. Cadeddu, F. Dordei, C. Giunti, Y. F. Li, E. Picciau, and Y. Y. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D102, 015030 (2020), arXiv:2005.01645 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  88. [96]

    Navaset al.(Particle Data Group), Phys

    S. Navaset al.(Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D110, 030001 (2024)

    2024

  89. [97]

    Klein and J

    S. Klein and J. Nystrand, Phys. Rev. C60, 014903 (1999), arXiv:hep-ph/9902259

    1999 arXiv

  90. [98]

    Chen, H.-C

    J.-W. Chen, H.-C. Chi, C. P. Liu, and C.-P. Wu, Phys. Lett. B774, 656 (2017), arXiv:1610.04177 [hep-ex]

    2017 arXiv

  91. [99]

    CEvNS Data Release,

    XENONnT Collaboration, “CEvNS Data Release,”https://github.com/XENONnT/cevns_data_ release()

  92. [100]

    A high-Performance Program simuLatEs and fiTs REsponse of xEnon,

    XENONnT Collaboration, “A high-Performance Program simuLatEs and fiTs REsponse of xEnon,” hhttps://github.com/XENONnT/appletree()

  93. [101]

    Aprileet al.(XENON), Phys

    E. Aprileet al.(XENON), Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 161805 (2022), arXiv:2207.11330 [hep-ex]

    2022 arXiv

  94. [102]

    Chenet al.(PandaX), (2026), arXiv:2607.02405 [hep-ex]

    P. Chenet al.(PandaX), (2026), arXiv:2607.02405 [hep-ex]

    2026 arXiv

  95. [103]

    Escudero and M

    M. Escudero and M. Fairbairn, Phys. Rev. D100, 103531 (2019), arXiv:1907.05425 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  96. [104]

    Barenboim, J

    G. Barenboim, J. Z. Chen, S. Hannestad, I. M. Oldengott, T. Tram, and Y. Y. Y. Wong, JCAP03, 087 (2021), arXiv:2011.01502 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  97. [105]

    Franco Abell´ an, Z

    G. Franco Abell´ an, Z. Chacko, A. Dev, P. Du, V. Poulin, and Y. Tsai, JHEP08, 076 (2022), arXiv:2112.13862 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  98. [106]

    J. N. Bahcall, A. M. Serenelli, and S. Basu, Astrophys. J. Suppl.165, 400 (2006), arXiv:astro- ph/0511337

    2006

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.