Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Testing the RG Running of the Leptonic Dirac CP Phase with Reactor Neutrinos

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A reactor near detector can probe the renormalization-group running of the leptonic Dirac CP phase, reaching a projected sensitivity on the beta function of about 10%.

desk verdict A sound application of the zero-distance RG-running effect to JUNO-TAO, but the headline 10% reach depends on fixing the spectral tilt. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.18251 v2 pith:EYYVV3LV submitted 2024-11-27 hep-ph hep-ex

Shao-Feng Ge , Chui-Fan Kong , Pedro Pasquini This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-ex
keywords renormalizationgrouprunningDiracCPphasereactorneutrinoszero-distanceeffectJUNO-TAObetafunctionneutrinooscillationbeyondStandardModel
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

Most neutrino experiments probe the Dirac CP phase δ_D only through accelerator beams; reactor antineutrino disappearance is usually considered blind to it. This paper argues that if δ_D runs with energy scale — as it does in many beyond-Standard-Model scenarios — then reactor experiments can see the running even though they cannot see the phase itself. The key is that neutrinos are produced at a low momentum transfer $Q_p^{2}$ ≈ 1.7 MeV² and detected at a much higher $Q_d^{2}$, so the CP phase at the two vertices differs by Δδ_D. That difference enters the zero-distance survival probability P_ee = 1 − sin²(Δδ_D/2) sin²2θ13. For the upcoming JUNO-TAO detector, the paper projects a sensitivity of βδ ≈ 10%, meaning reactor data could constrain CP-related new physics at energies around a few MeV.

What carries the argument

The central object is the zero-distance oscillation probability P_ee = 1 − sin²(Δδ_D/2) sin²2θ13, which arises because the neutrino mixing matrix at production, U(Q_p²), differs from that at detection, U(Q_d²), so the product U†(Q_p²)U(Q_d²) is not the identity even at zero propagation distance. The running itself is parametrized by the beta function βδ ≡ dδ_D/d ln μ², with the renormalization scale chosen as the momentum transfer |Q²| in the Gell-Mann–Low scheme. For small βδ the survival probability expands to 1 − P_ee ≈ [(1/2) ln|Q_d²/Q_p²| sin 2θ13 βδ]², and the size of the effect is governed by the ratio Q_d²/Q_p², which can be as large as ~200. This machinery turns the traditional blindness of reactor experiments into a direct, phase-independent probe of new physics.

What would settle it

If JUNO-TAO data, analyzed with the spectral tilt as a free nuisance parameter, return a 1σ interval for βδ that includes zero and an upper limit well above the projected 10%, the central claim is falsified; a positron-direction measurement that reconstructs Q_d² would provide an independent cross-check.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the zero-distance survival probability of reactor antineutrinos, P_ee(Q_p²,Q_d²) = 1 − sin²(Δδ_D/2) sin²2θ13, is sensitive to the difference Δδ_D ≡ δ_D(Q_d²) − δ_D(Q_p²) produced by RG running. Because the production momentum transfer in beta decay is near Q_p² ≈ 1.67 MeV² while the inverse-beta-decay detection transfer spans Q_d² ≈ 0.04 to 340 MeV², the logarithmic running factor ln|Q_d²/Q_p²| reaches 4–5, so even a small beta function βδ yields a measurable depletion: to leading order, 1 − P_ee ≈ [(1/2) ln|Q_d²/Q_p²| sin 2θ13 βδ]². The effect is independent of the absolute value of δ_D, so the current large uncertainty on the CP phase does not spoil the measurement. Applying this to the JUNO-TAO near detector with 2.8 tonnes of liquid scintillator and about 1000 IBD events per day, the paper obtains a projected sensitivity of βδ ≈ 10% after 6.5 years, improving with a 13-year run.

Load-bearing premise

The projected 10% sensitivity assumes the energy-dependent tilt of the antineutrino spectrum is known or constrained to about 1%; if the real detector's tilt uncertainty is larger, the RG-induced distortion cannot be separated from a simple spectral tilt.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Reactor experiments can constrain the RG running of the Dirac CP phase without ever measuring the absolute phase δ_D, a task previously reserved for accelerator long-baseline experiments.
  • A 6.5-year JUNO-TAO run projects a sensitivity of βδ ≈ 10%; extending to 13 years improves the reach.
  • The sensitivity is limited mainly by the 1% spectral-tilt uncertainty of the IBD signal, not by the reactor backgrounds, because the backgrounds concentrate at low energies where the RG effect is small.
  • If the final-state positron direction could be reconstructed, the full Q_d² distribution would further boost the sensitivity beyond the energy-only analysis.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: The same zero-distance mechanism could be applied to other short-baseline reactor detectors (e.g., with existing data), turning historical reactor spectra into constraints on βδ without any new accelerator.
  • Inference: If βδ is nonzero at the 10% level, the effective CP phase measured at high-energy long-baseline experiments would differ from that at low energies, creating a testable inconsistency between reactor and accelerator determinations.
  • Inference: A nonzero βδ would mimic a small energy-dependent non-unitary mixing; combining reactor disappearance with appearance channels could distinguish RG running from other non-unitarity sources.
  • Inference: The method could be extended to constrain the RG running of the neutrino mixing angles themselves, which would show up as a similar zero-distance distortion of P_ee.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper proposes probing the renormalization-group (RG) running of the leptonic Dirac CP phase delta_D using the zero-distance survival probability of reactor antineutrinos, P_ee = 1 - sin^2(Delta delta_D/2) sin^2(2 theta_13) (Eq. 3). The different momentum transfers at the neutrino production (Q_p^2 ~ 1.7 MeV^2) and detection (Q_d^2 up to ~340 MeV^2) vertices cause a mismatch between the PMNS matrices, producing a small deviation from unity in P_ee at near detectors. The authors apply this to JUNO-TAO, simulate the IBD spectrum with GLoBES, include backgrounds and nuisance parameters, and obtain a projected sensitivity to the RG beta function beta_delta of around 10%. The core formula is correct, and the cross-section treatment is standard, but the quantitative sensitivity claim is strongly tied to the treatment of spectral shape uncertainties.

Significance. If the result holds, this would open a new way to probe CP-related new physics at very low momentum transfer using reactor neutrinos, complementing long-baseline experiments that measure the absolute CP phase. The paper correctly derives Eq. (3) for the case where only the CP phase runs, and the IBD cross-section parametrization in Eqs. (7)-(9) is standard. The analysis is transparent in its use of GLoBES, backgrounds, and pull parameters, and the qualitative idea of exploiting the Q^2_p versus Q^2_d mismatch is novel and well motivated. However, the headline sensitivity is not robust because it depends on a simplified and favorable treatment of the spectral tilt uncertainty; the paper itself shows a substantial degradation when that tilt is floated.

major comments (3)
  1. [Projected Sensitivity at JUNO-TAO (Fig. 4) and Conclusion] The stated sensitivity of 'around 10%' corresponds to the solid curves in Fig. 4, which fix the IBD spectral tilt parameter b_R to zero and exclude backgrounds. The blue dashed curves (signal only, b_R free with a 1% prior) show a substantially worse sensitivity, and the purple dotted curves (signal plus backgrounds, all tilt parameters free) represent the more realistic scenario. The paper does not quote the numerical reach for these realistic curves, so the headline claim is not supported by the analysis as presented. Please either report the realistic sensitivity as the main result or provide a quantitative justification for why the 1% tilt prior is achievable and why the 10% figure is robust.
  2. [Projected Sensitivity at JUNO-TAO (Eqs. (13)-(14))] The spectrum shape uncertainty is modeled as a single linear tilt (b_R) with a 1% Gaussian prior, but reactor antineutrino spectral uncertainties are correlated across energy bins and can have non-linear energy dependence. Since the RG-induced signal grows with E_nu (Fig. 2), a correlated shape error concentrated at high energies could be more degenerate with beta_delta than the linear tilt. The paper does not test this possibility; please add a sensitivity study using a realistic covariance matrix for the reactor flux and detector response, or at least a scan over tilt priors and non-linear shape parameters, to demonstrate that the claimed reach is not an artifact of the simplified parameterization.
  3. [RG Running and Zero-Distance Effect (Eq. (2))] The assumption that beta_delta is constant over the Q^2 range and that the mixing angles do not run is asserted but not quantitatively connected to the sensitivity analysis. If the beta function or the mixing angles vary over the range 1-340 MeV^2, the mapping from the observable to beta_delta changes. This is acceptable for an upper-bound estimate, but the conclusion should state clearly that the '10% sensitivity' is to the constant-beta_delta parametrization, not to a general scale-dependent running, so that readers do not over-interpret the result.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Introduction] The word 'runninng' should be corrected to 'running'.
  2. [RG Running and Zero-Distance Effect (Eq. (3))] The zero-distance limit is used without an explicit quantitative check that standard oscillations at L=44 m and L=217 m are negligible compared to the RG effect; a short estimate of the standard-oscillation contribution would strengthen the justification.
  3. [Mismatched Momentum Transfers] The sentence 'To be conservative, we fix the value of Q_p^2 to (m_n - m_p)^2' could be clarified to note that this choice minimizes the log ratio and hence gives a smaller (conservative) signal, which is why it is called conservative.
  4. [Fig. 4 caption] The caption would be easier to follow if it explicitly stated that the solid curves set b_R=0, the blue dashed curves leave b_R free with its prior, and the purple dotted curves include backgrounds and all tilt parameters; the text explains this but the caption alone is not self-contained.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central zero-distance formula is imported from independent prior work and the sensitivity is a projection under the null hypothesis, not a fit.

full rationale

The paper's central observable, P_ee = 1 - sin^2(Delta_delta_D/2) sin^2(2 theta_13) (Eq. (3)), is presented as the zero-distance limit of the amplitude expression A_beta_alpha = sum_i U_beta_i(Q_d^2) e^{-i L m_i^2/(2 E_nu)} U*_alpha_i(Q_p^2), quoted from Refs. [37,40]. Although Ref. [40] shares authors with the present paper, Ref. [37] is an independent source and the expression is a standard amplitude construction, not a self-citation-only uniqueness theorem or ansatz. The RG evolution ansatz delta_D(Q^2) = delta_D(Q_0^2) + beta_delta ln|Q^2/Q_0^2| (Eq. (2)) is stated as an assumption, with beta_delta defined in Eq. (1); the paper does not claim to derive beta_delta from data. The chi^2 projection (Eqs. (13)-(14)) uses a no-oscillation true spectrum and a test spectrum containing beta_delta; this is a sensitivity forecast under the null hypothesis, not a fit of the same function to its own output. The admitted degeneracy between the RG distortion and a linear IBD tilt ('the spectrum tilt uncertainty is very similar to the RG running effect... and consequently becomes a key factor') is an experimental systematic limitation that makes the headline 10% reach conditional, but it is not circularity because the tilt parameter is an external nuisance, not a re-expression of beta_delta. No step reduces, by construction or by self-citation, to its own inputs; hence the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a phenomenological parametrization of RG running (constant βδ), a benchmark choice for the new-physics threshold Q_0^2, and several experimental assumptions about TAO performance and background systematics. No new particles or forces are introduced. The main free parameters are the reference scale and the systematic tilt prior; both directly shape the quoted sensitivity.

free parameters (4)
  • beta_delta (βδ)
    The target parameter of the sensitivity projection. The true value is fixed to zero and the test value is scanned; it is the quantity to be constrained, not an input fitted to data.
  • Q0_squared = 1 MeV^2
    Reference scale below which running is switched off, chosen by hand to satisfy the BBN constraint. The predicted log factor and hence the sensitivity depends on this benchmark.
  • Qp_squared = (m_n - m_p)^2 ≈ 1.67 MeV^2
    Production momentum transfer fixed to its kinematic maximum instead of integrating over the beta decay distribution. This conservative choice reduces the RG effect compared with lower Q_p^2 values.
  • sigma_bR = 1%
    Prior width for the IBD signal spectral tilt, extracted from [52]. The final sensitivity is strongly controlled by this assumed systematic.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption A BSM scenario exists in which the Dirac CP phase runs with renormalization scale, with beta function βδ.
    The entire observable relies on this running; the SM contribution is negligible. This is the physics the paper aims to probe, not derived from a specific model.
  • ad hoc to paper βδ is constant over the relevant Q^2 range, with higher-order terms in Eq. (2) negligible.
    The paper adopts the simplified BP1 model of [37,39] to illustrate the feature; no full BSM calculation is performed.
  • domain assumption Neutrino mixing angles are held at their measured values and do not run significantly.
    The paper argues the RG effect on angles is <10% and so negligible relative to experimental uncertainty, but this is an order-of-magnitude estimate, not a derivation.
  • domain assumption The zero-distance limit applies at L = 44 m, so standard vacuum oscillation phases are neglected.
    Equation (3) omits the standard L/E oscillation, which is small at TAO but not exactly zero; this baseline effect is not included in the simulation.
  • domain assumption Q_p^2 can be fixed to its maximum (m_n - m_p)^2, ignoring the beta-decay Q_p^2 distribution.
    The paper fixes this value for simplicity and conservatism; a full treatment would integrate over the beta spectrum and slightly increase the predicted effect.
  • domain assumption Background spectra and their systematic uncertainties are correctly described by [52].
    The accidental, fast neutron, and 9Li/8He backgrounds and their assigned normalization/tilt errors are taken from the JUNO report; the validity of the projection depends on these inputs.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Testing the RG Running of the Leptonic Dirac CP Phase with Reactor Neutrinos." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EYYVV3LV

@misc{pith2026241118251,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Testing the RG Running of the Leptonic Dirac CP Phase with Reactor Neutrinos},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EYYVV3LV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.18251}
}
abstract

We propose the possibility of using the near detector at reactor neutrino experiments to probe the renormalization group (RG) running effect on the leptonic Dirac CP phase $\delta_D$. Although the reactor neutrino oscillation cannot directly measure $\delta_D$, it can probe the deviation $\Delta \delta \equiv \delta_D(Q^2_d) - \delta_D(Q^2_p)$ caused by the RG running. Being a key element, the mismatched momentum transfers at neutrino production ($Q^2_p$) and detection ($Q^2_d$) processes can differ by two orders. We illustrate this concept with the upcoming Taishan Antineutrino Observatory (TAO, also known as JUNO-TAO) experiment and obtain the projected sensitivity to the CP RG running beta function $\beta_\delta$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.18251 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: The detection differential cross section [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: The energy spectra for IBD (red), accidental (dashed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. , the sensitivity becomes only slightly worse when the backgrounds and their spectrum uncertainties, in￾cluding both normalization and tilt, are switched on. This is because the RG running effect grows with the neutrino energy Eν but the backgrounds mainly appears in the low-energy region as demonstrated in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Disentangle RG Running Parameters with Medium-Baseline Reactor Experiments

    hep-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 5.5 of 10

    RG running beta functions of mixing parameters alter the fast oscillation mode at JUNO and can reduce mass ordering sensitivity, but measurements from the TAO near detector can restore it by constraining the running p...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Mat- ter and Antimatter in the Universe ,

    L. Canetti, M. Drewes and M. Shaposhnikov, “ Mat- ter and Antimatter in the Universe ,” New J. Phys. 14, 095012 (2012) [arXiv:1204.4186 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2012

  2. [2]

    Why is there more matter than an- timatter? Calculational methods for leptogenesis and electroweak baryogenesis,

    B. Garbrecht, “ Why is there more matter than an- timatter? Calculational methods for leptogenesis and electroweak baryogenesis,” Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 110 (2020), 103727 [arXiv:1812.02651 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2020

  3. [3]

    (2) The reference scale corresponding to new physics is de- noted by Q2

    + βδ ln Q2 Q2 0 + . . . (2) The reference scale corresponding to new physics is de- noted by Q2

    work page

  4. [4]

    (2) only apply for |Q2| > |Q2 0| and reduces to a constant value for |Q2| < |Q2 0|

    Then the above evolution of δD in Eq. (2) only apply for |Q2| > |Q2 0| and reduces to a constant value for |Q2| < |Q2 0|. The higher-order terms are typ- ically unimportant for the momentum transfers in the O(1 − 100) MeV2 scale. For reactor neutrino experiments, the interactions for the neutrino production and detection processes are dif- ferent. More pr...

    work page

  5. [5]

    Leptogenesis,

    S. Davidson, E. Nardi and Y. Nir, “ Leptogenesis,” Phys. Rept. 466, 105-177 (2008) [arXiv:0802.2962 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2008

  6. [6]

    An introduction to leptogenesis and neutrino properties,

    P. Di Bari, “An introduction to leptogenesis and neutrino properties,” Contemp. Phys. 53, no.4, 315-338 (2012) [arXiv:1206.3168 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2012

  7. [7]

    Baryogenesis Without Grand Unification,

    M. Fukugita and T. Yanagida, “ Baryogenesis Without Grand Unification,” Phys. Lett. B 174, 45-47 (1986)

    work page 1986

  8. [8]

    Lepto- genesis as the origin of matter ,

    W. Buchmuller, R. D. Peccei and T. Yanagida, “ Lepto- genesis as the origin of matter ,” Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 55, 311-355 (2005) [arXiv:hep-ph/0502169 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2005

Show all 65 references
  1. [9]

    Lep- tonic CP Violation,

    G. C. Branco, R. G. Felipe and F. R. Joaquim, “ Lep- tonic CP Violation,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 84, 515-565 (2012) [arXiv:1111.5332 [hep-ph]]

    2012 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Neutrino Masses, Mixing, and Oscillations

    M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia and M. Yokoyam, “ Neutrino Masses, Mixing, and Oscillations ”, (Chapter 14) of R. L. Workman et al. [Particle Data Group], “ Review of Particle Physics ,” PTEP 2022, 083C01 (2022)

    2022

  3. [11]

    The minimal scenario of leptogenesis ,

    S. Blanchet and P. Di Bari, “ The minimal scenario of leptogenesis ,” New J. Phys. 14, 125012 (2012) [arXiv:1211.0512 [hep-ph]]

    2012 arXiv

  4. [12]

    The minimal seesaw and leptogenesis models,

    Z. z. Xing and Z. h. Zhao, “ The minimal seesaw and leptogenesis models,” Rept. Prog. Phys. 84 (2021) no.6, 066201 [arXiv:2008.12090 [hep-ph]]

    2021 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Improved measurement of neutrino oscillation parameters by the NOvA ex- periment,

    M. A. Acero et al. [NOvA], “ Improved measurement of neutrino oscillation parameters by the NOvA ex- periment,” Phys. Rev. D 106, no.3, 032004 (2022) [arXiv:2108.08219 [hep-ex]]

    2022 arXiv

  6. [14]

    New NOvA Results with 10 Years of Data ,

    J. Wolcott [NOvA], “ New NOvA Results with 10 Years of Data ,” Neutrino 2024, June 16-22, 2024

    2024

  7. [15]

    The next-generation T2HK

    seems quite promising. The next-generation T2HK

  8. [16]

    and DUNE [17] will try to confirm a nonzero δD with more than 5 σ sensitivity. Their combination with low-energy neutrinos from muon decay at rest, such as TNT2K [18] and µTHEIA [19], can further narrow the CP phase uncertainty [20, 21] and exclude multiple the- oretical uncer...

    2025 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Measurements of neutrino oscilla- tion parameters from the T2K experiment using 3.6×1021 protons on target ,

    K. Abe et al. [T2K], “Measurements of neutrino oscilla- tion parameters from the T2K experiment using 3.6×1021 protons on target ,” Eur. Phys. J. C 83, no.9, 782 (2023) [arXiv:2303.03222 [hep-ex]]. 7

    2023

  10. [18]

    T2K recent results and plans ,

    C. Giganti [T2K], “ T2K recent results and plans ,” Neu- trino 2024, June 16-22, 2024

    2024

  11. [19]

    Results from the T2K+NOvA Joint Analysis ,

    E. Atkin [T2K and NOvA], “ Results from the T2K+NOvA Joint Analysis ,” Seminar at KEK, Febru- ary 16, 2024; Z. Vallari [NOvA and T2K], “ NOvA-T2K Joint Analysis Results ,” Joint Experimental-Theoretical Physics Seminar, Fermilab, February 16, 2024

    2024

  12. [20]

    Hyper-Kamiokande Design Report,

    K. Abe et al. [Hyper-Kamiokande], “Hyper-Kamiokande Design Report,” [arXiv:1805.04163 [physics.ins-det]]

    arXiv

  13. [21]

    Long-Baseline Neutrino Facility (LBNF) and Deep Underground Neutrino Ex- periment (DUNE): Conceptual Design Report, Vol- ume 2: The Physics Program for DUNE at LBNF ,

    R. Acciarri et al. [DUNE], “ Long-Baseline Neutrino Facility (LBNF) and Deep Underground Neutrino Ex- periment (DUNE): Conceptual Design Report, Vol- ume 2: The Physics Program for DUNE at LBNF ,” [arXiv:1512.06148 [physics.ins-det]]

  14. [22]

    The leptonic CP phase from T2(H)K and µ+ decay at rest ,

    J. Evslin, S. F. Ge and K. Hagiwara, “ The leptonic CP phase from T2(H)K and µ+ decay at rest ,” JHEP 02, 137 (2016) [arXiv:1506.05023 [hep-ph]]

    2016 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Improving CP measurement with THEIA and muon decay at rest ,

    S. F. Ge, C. F. Kong and P. Pasquini, “ Improving CP measurement with THEIA and muon decay at rest ,” Eur. Phys. J. C 82, no.6, 572 (2022) [arXiv:2202.05038 [hep- ph]]

    2022 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Measuring the Leptonic Dirac CP Phase with TNT2K ,

    S. F. Ge, “ Measuring the Leptonic Dirac CP Phase with TNT2K ,” presented at NuPhys 2016 in London [arXiv:1704.08518 [hep-ph]]

    2016 arXiv

  17. [25]

    The Leptonic CP Measurement and New Physics Alternatives ,

    S. F. Ge, “ The Leptonic CP Measurement and New Physics Alternatives ,” PoS NuF act2019, 108 (2020); S. F. Ge, “ New Physics with Scalar and Dark Non- Standard Interactions in Neutrino Oscillation ,” J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 1468, no.1, 012125 (2020)

    2020

  18. [26]

    Measuring the leptonic CP phase in neutrino oscilla- tions with nonunitary mixing ,

    S. F. Ge, P. Pasquini, M. Tortola and J. W. F. Valle, “Measuring the leptonic CP phase in neutrino oscilla- tions with nonunitary mixing ,” Phys. Rev. D 95, no.3, 033005 (2017) [arXiv:1605.01670 [hep-ph]]

    2017 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Non-standard interactions and the CP phase measurements in neutrino oscillations at low energies,

    S. F. Ge and A. Y. Smirnov, “ Non-standard interactions and the CP phase measurements in neutrino oscillations at low energies,” JHEP 10, 138 (2016) [arXiv:1607.08513 [hep-ph]]

    2016 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Indirect unitarity vi- olation entangled with matter effects in reactor antineu- trino oscillations ,

    Y. F. Li, Z. z. Xing and J. y. Zhu, “ Indirect unitarity vi- olation entangled with matter effects in reactor antineu- trino oscillations ,” Phys. Lett. B 782, 578-588 (2018) [arXiv:1802.04964 [hep-ph]]

    2018 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Scalar Nonstandard Inter- actions in Neutrino Oscillation ,

    S. F. Ge and S. J. Parke, “ Scalar Nonstandard Inter- actions in Neutrino Oscillation ,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, no.21, 211801 (2019) [arXiv:1812.08376 [hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Apparent CPT Violation in Neutrino Oscillation from Dark Non-Standard Inter- actions,

    S. F. Ge and H. Murayama, “ Apparent CPT Violation in Neutrino Oscillation from Dark Non-Standard Inter- actions,” [arXiv:1904.02518 [hep-ph]]

    1904 arXiv

  23. [31]

    General RG equations for physical neutrino parameters and their phenomenological implications ,

    J. A. Casas, J. R. Espinosa, A. Ibarra and I. Navarro, “General RG equations for physical neutrino parameters and their phenomenological implications ,” Nucl. Phys. B 573, 652-684 (2000) [arXiv:hep-ph/9910420 [hep-ph]]

    2000 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Run- ning neutrino masses, mixings and CP phases: Analytical results and phenomenological consequences,

    S. Antusch, J. Kersten, M. Lindner and M. Ratz, “ Run- ning neutrino masses, mixings and CP phases: Analytical results and phenomenological consequences,” Nucl. Phys. B 674, 401-433 (2003) [arXiv:hep-ph/0305273 [hep-ph]]

    2003 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Running neutrino mass parameters in see-saw scenarios ,

    S. Antusch, J. Kersten, M. Lindner, M. Ratz and M. A. Schmidt, “ Running neutrino mass parameters in see-saw scenarios ,” JHEP 03 (2005), 024 [arXiv:hep- ph/0501272 [hep-ph]]

    2005

  26. [34]

    Renormalization group evolution of neutrino masses and mixing in seesaw models: A Review ,

    S. Ray, “ Renormalization group evolution of neutrino masses and mixing in seesaw models: A Review ,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 25, 4339-4384 (2010) [arXiv:1005.1938 [hep-ph]]

    2010 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Distinguishable RGE running effects between Dirac neutrinos and Majorana neutri- nos with vanishing Majorana CP-violating phases,

    Z. z. Xing and H. Zhang, “ Distinguishable RGE running effects between Dirac neutrinos and Majorana neutri- nos with vanishing Majorana CP-violating phases,” Com- mun. Theor. Phys.48 (2007), 525 [arXiv:hep-ph/0601106 [hep-ph]]

    2007 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Impacts of the observed θ13 on the running behaviors of Dirac and Majorana neutrino mixing angles and CP-violating phases ,

    S. Luo and Z. z. Xing, “ Impacts of the observed θ13 on the running behaviors of Dirac and Majorana neutrino mixing angles and CP-violating phases ,” Phys. Rev. D 86 (2012), 073003 [arXiv:1203.3118 [hep-ph]]

    2012 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Radiative corrections to the leptonic Dirac CP -violating phase ,

    T. Ohlsson, H. Zhang and S. Zhou, “Radiative corrections to the leptonic Dirac CP -violating phase ,” Phys. Rev. D 87 (2013) no.1, 013012 [arXiv:1211.3153 [hep-ph]]

    2013 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Renormalization group run- ning of neutrino parameters,

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

    2014 arXiv

  31. [39]

    The µ − τ re- flection symmetry of Dirac neutrinos and its breaking effect via quantum corrections ,

    Z. z. Xing, D. Zhang and J. y. Zhu, “ The µ − τ re- flection symmetry of Dirac neutrinos and its breaking effect via quantum corrections ,” JHEP 11, 135 (2017) [arXiv:1708.09144 [hep-ph]]

    2017 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Correlation of normal neutrino mass ordering with upper octant of θ23 and third quadrant of δ via RGE-induced µ-τ symme- try breaking ,

    G. y. Huang, Z. z. Xing and J. y. Zhu, “ Correlation of normal neutrino mass ordering with upper octant of θ23 and third quadrant of δ via RGE-induced µ-τ symme- try breaking ,” Chin. Phys. C 42, no.12, 123108 (2018) [arXiv:1806.06640 [hep-ph]]

    2018 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Energy-dependent neutrino mixing parameters at oscillation experiments ,

    K. S. Babu, V. Brdar, A. de Gouvˆ ea and P. A. N. Machado, “ Energy-dependent neutrino mixing parameters at oscillation experiments ,” Phys. Rev. D 105, no.11, 115014 (2022) [arXiv:2108.11961 [hep-ph]]

    2022 arXiv

  34. [42]

    SUSY Renormalization Group Effects in Ultra High Energy Neutrinos,

    M. Bustamante, A. M. Gago and J. Jones Perez, “ SUSY Renormalization Group Effects in Ultra High Energy Neutrinos,” JHEP 05, 133 (2011) [arXiv:1012.2728 [hep- ph]]

    2011 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Addressing the short-baseline neutrino anomalies with energy-dependent mixing pa- rameters,

    K. S. Babu, V. Brdar, A. de Gouvˆ ea and P. A. N. Machado, “ Addressing the short-baseline neutrino anomalies with energy-dependent mixing pa- rameters,” Phys. Rev. D 107, no.1, 015017 (2023) [arXiv:2209.00031 [hep-ph]]

    2023 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Neutrino CP measurement in the presence of RG running with mis- matched momentum transfers ,

    S. F. Ge, C. F. Kong and P. Pasquini, “ Neutrino CP measurement in the presence of RG running with mis- matched momentum transfers ,” Phys. Rev. D 110, no.1, 1 (2024) [arXiv:2310.04077 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  37. [45]

    TAO Conceptual Design Report: A Precision Measurement of the Reactor An- tineutrino Spectrum with Sub-percent Energy Resolu- tion,

    A. Abusleme et al. [JUNO], “ TAO Conceptual Design Report: A Precision Measurement of the Reactor An- tineutrino Spectrum with Sub-percent Energy Resolu- tion,” [arXiv:2005.08745 [physics.ins-det]]

    2005

  38. [46]

    Quantum electrodynamics at small distances ,

    M. Gell-Mann and F. E. Low, “Quantum electrodynamics at small distances ,” Phys. Rev. 95, 1300-1312 (1954)

    1954

  39. [47]

    The Renor- malization Scale-Setting Problem in QCD ,

    X. G. Wu, S. J. Brodsky and M. Mojaza, “ The Renor- malization Scale-Setting Problem in QCD ,” Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 72, 44-98 (2013) [arXiv:1302.0599 [hep-ph]]

    2013 arXiv

  40. [48]

    2020 global reassessment of the neutrino oscillation picture ,

    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, “ 2020 global reassessment of the neutrino oscillation picture ,” JHEP 02 (2021), 071 [arXiv:2006.11237 [hep-ph]]. See tables in the Valencia neutrino g...

    2021 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Unfinished fabric of the three neutrino paradigm ,

    F. Capozzi, E. Di Valentino, E. Lisi, A. Marrone, A. Mel- chiorri and A. Palazzo, “ Unfinished fabric of the three neutrino paradigm ,” Phys. Rev. D 104, no.8, 083031 8 (2021) [arXiv:2107.00532 [hep-ph]]

    2021 arXiv

  42. [50]

    NuFit- 6.0: updated global analysis of three-flavor neutrino os- cillations,

    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 os- cillations,” JHEP 12, 216 (2024) [arXiv:2410.05380 [hep- ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Terrestrial matter effects on reactor antineutrino oscillations at JUNO or RENO-50: how small is small? ,

    Y. F. Li, Y. Wang and Z. z. Xing, “ Terrestrial matter effects on reactor antineutrino oscillations at JUNO or RENO-50: how small is small? ,” Chin. Phys. C 40, no.9, 091001 (2016) [arXiv:1605.00900 [hep-ph]]

    2016 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Fundamentals of Neutrino Physics and Astrophysics ,

    C. Giunti and C. W. Kim, “ Fundamentals of Neutrino Physics and Astrophysics ,” 2007

    2007

  45. [53]

    Bounds on neutrino-scalar nonstandard interactions from big bang nucleosynthesis ,

    J. Venzor, A. P´ erez-Lorenzana and J. De-Santiago, “Bounds on neutrino-scalar nonstandard interactions from big bang nucleosynthesis ,” Phys. Rev. D 103, no.4, 043534 (2021) [arXiv:2009.08104 [hep-ph]]

    2021 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Angular distribution of neu- tron inverse beta decay, ¯νe + p → e+ + n,

    P. Vogel and J. F. Beacom, “Angular distribution of neu- tron inverse beta decay, ¯νe + p → e+ + n,” Phys. Rev. D 60, 053003 (1999) [arXiv:hep-ph/9903554 [hep-ph]]

    1999 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Improv- ing the Energy Resolution of the Reactor Antineu- trino Energy Reconstruction with Positron Direction ,

    L. Wei, L. Zhan, J. Cao and W. Wang, “ Improv- ing the Energy Resolution of the Reactor Antineu- trino Energy Reconstruction with Positron Direction ,” [arXiv:2005.05034 [physics.ins-det]]

    2005 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Potential to Identify the Neutrino Mass Ordering with Reactor Antineutrinos in JUNO,

    A. Abusleme et al. [JUNO], “ Potential to Identify the Neutrino Mass Ordering with Reactor Antineutrinos in JUNO,” [arXiv:2405.18008 [hep-ex]]

  49. [57]

    Improved Measurement of the Reactor Antineutrino Flux and Spectrum at Daya Bay ,

    F. P. An et al. [Daya Bay], “Improved Measurement of the Reactor Antineutrino Flux and Spectrum at Daya Bay ,” Chin. Phys. C 41, no.1, 013002 (2017) [arXiv:1607.05378 [hep-ex]]

    2017 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Improved Predictions of Reactor Antineutrino Spectra,

    T. A. Mueller, D. Lhuillier, M. Fallot, A. Letourneau, S. Cormon, M. Fechner, L. Giot, T. Lasserre, J. Martino and G. Mention, et al. “Improved Predictions of Reactor Antineutrino Spectra,” Phys. Rev. C 83, 054615 (2011) [arXiv:1101.2663 [hep-ex]]

    2011 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Simulation of long-baseline neutrino oscillation experiments with GLoBES (General Long Baseline Experiment Simu- lator),

    P. Huber, M. Lindner and W. Winter, “ Simulation of long-baseline neutrino oscillation experiments with GLoBES (General Long Baseline Experiment Simu- lator),” Comput. Phys. Commun. 167, 195 (2005) [arXiv:hep-ph/0407333 [hep-ph]]

    2005 arXiv

  52. [60]

    New features in the simulation of neutrino oscilla- tion experiments with GLoBES 3.0: General Long Base- line Experiment Simulator ,

    P. Huber, J. Kopp, M. Lindner, M. Rolinec and W. Win- ter, “New features in the simulation of neutrino oscilla- tion experiments with GLoBES 3.0: General Long Base- line Experiment Simulator ,” Comput. Phys. Commun. 177, 432-438 (2007) [arXiv:hep-ph/0701187 [hep-ph]]

    2007 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Short-baseline oscil- lation scenarios at JUNO and TAO ,

    V. S. Basto-Gonzalez, D. V. Forero, C. Giunti, A. A. Quiroga and C. A. Ternes, “ Short-baseline oscil- lation scenarios at JUNO and TAO ,” Phys. Rev. D 105, no.7, 075023 (2022) [arXiv:2112.00379 [hep-ph]]

    2022 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Precision Measurement of Reactor Antineutrino Oscillation at Kilometer-Scale Baselines by Daya Bay ,

    F. P. An et al. [Daya Bay], “ Precision Measurement of Reactor Antineutrino Oscillation at Kilometer-Scale Baselines by Daya Bay ,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, no.16, 161802 (2023) [arXiv:2211.14988 [hep-ex]]

    2023

  55. [63]

    Recent Results from RENO ,

    C. Shin [Reno], “ Recent Results from RENO ,” PoS ICHEP2020, 177 (2021)

    2021

  56. [64]

    Precision Neutrino Mixing Angle Measurement with the Double Chooz Experiment and Latest Results ,

    P. Soldin [Double Chooz], “ Precision Neutrino Mixing Angle Measurement with the Double Chooz Experiment and Latest Results ,” PoS T AUP2023, 228 (2024)

    2024

  57. [65]

    Kinemat- ics

    D. Miller, D. R. Tovey, and J. D. Jackson, “ Kinemat- ics”, (Chapter 49) of R. L. Workman et al. [Particle Data Group], “Review of Particle Physics,” PTEP 2022, 083C01 (2022)

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.