Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 7 cited by

Exploring the Standard Model and Beyond from the Evidence of CE$\nu$NS with Reactor Antineutrinos in CONUS+

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read From 395 coherent-scattering events in reactor antineutrinos, the CONUS+ data yield sin²θW = 0.268 ± 0.047, consistent with the Standard Model, plus new limits on the neutrino magnetic moment and non-standard interactions.

desk verdict A quick, transparent rate-only re-analysis of the new CONUS+ event count; the sin2thetaW and magnetic-moment parts are reasonable cross-checks, but the two-parameter NSI contour is mathematically flat and should be a 1D limit. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.10355 v2 pith:JIVYS6ZX submitted 2025-01-17 hep-ph

M. Alpízar-Venegas , L. J. Flores , Eduardo Peinado , E. Vázquez-Jáuregui This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords CEvNSreactorantineutrinosweakmixingangleneutrinomagneticmomentnon-standardinteractionsgermaniumdetectorsCONUS+StandardModeltest
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

This paper claims that the CONUS+ collaboration's recently reported observation of coherent elastic neutrino-nucleus scattering (CEνNS) with reactor antineutrinos — 395 ± 106 events in 327 kg·days of germanium exposure — is enough to measure the weak mixing angle at low energy and to set competitive limits on new physics. Fitting the event count with a χ² that includes one systematic nuisance parameter gives $\sin^2\theta_W = 0.268 \pm 0.047$, a 90% C.L. bound $\mu_\nu \leq 5.6\times 10^{-10}\,\mu_B$ on the neutrino magnetic moment, and 95% C.L. constraints on non-standard neutrino-quark interactions that are comparable to the COHERENT experiment's. A sympathetic reader should care because this turns a single count of neutrino-induced nuclear recoils into a cross-check of the Standard Model's electroweak sector at momentum transfers far below those of electron-scattering experiments. If the result holds, reactor CEνNS becomes a practical new tool for precision electroweak tests and searches for beyond-Standard-Model neutrino physics.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the coherent elastic neutrino-nucleus scattering cross section together with a one-parameter χ² fit. The Standard Model cross section $d\sigma/dT$ is proportional to $Q_w^2$, where $Q_w = Z g_V^p F_Z(q^2) + N g_V^n F_N(q^2)$, and the weak mixing angle enters through $g_V^p = 1/2 - 2\sin^2\theta_W$. The magnetic moment adds an incoherent electromagnetic term proportional to $\mu_\nu^2 (1/T - 1/E_\nu + T/4E_\nu^2)$, and NSI shift the neutral-current couplings through the parameters $\varepsilon_{ee}^{dV}$ and $\varepsilon_{ee}^{uV}$. The χ² in Eq. (2) compares the measured count to the prediction and is minimized over a single Gaussian nuisance parameter α whose width carries the dominant 21.8% systematic uncertainty plus smaller contributions from threshold, quenching, flux, cross-section, mass, and trigger efficiency. This one-parameter fitting scheme is what converts a single number, 395 events, into all three physics results.

What would settle it

Re-fit the CONUS+ data binning the 21.8% systematic uncertainty into energy-correlated components (threshold, quenching, flux, cross-section, mass, trigger) instead of a single Gaussian α; if the best-fit $\sin^2\theta_W$ moves by more than its quoted ±0.047, or the 90% C.L. magnetic-moment bound changes by more than a factor of two, then the single-nuisance assumption is bearing the result. Alternatively, a future reactor CEνNS measurement with a different target material and comparable exposure should reproduce $\sin^2\theta_W \approx 0.268$ within about 0.05; a significant shift would indicate the method or the systematic model is wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery the paper argues for is that a total event count, not a full spectrum, from a kg-scale germanium detector near a nuclear reactor can already extract electroweak information. Using Eq. (2), the measured 395 events are compared with the Standard Model prediction built from the reactor antineutrino flux, the individual detector trigger efficiencies, and the quenching factor k = 0.162 ± 0.004. The fit returns $\sin^2\theta_W = 0.268 \pm 0.047$, consistent with the Standard Model running of the weak mixing angle, and the same count sets $\mu_\nu \leq 5.6\times 10^{-10}\,\mu_B$ at 90% C.L. and NSI bounds similar to COHERENT. The paper reads this as the first reactor-antineutrino CEνNS measurement of the weak mixing angle with a significance above 3σ, and as evidence that the Standard Model describes neutrino-nucleus coherent scattering at these low energies.

Load-bearing premise

The whole fit hangs on representing the dominant 21.8% systematic uncertainty (likelihood fit, fit method, background model, non-linearity) as one Gaussian nuisance parameter α with a fixed width; if that uncertainty is non-Gaussian, energy-correlated, or correlated with the parameters being fitted, the quoted $\sin^2\theta_W$ uncertainty and the magnetic-moment and NSI limits are not reliable.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Reactor CEνNS with a few kilograms of germanium at sub-keV thresholds can constrain electroweak parameters at the ~0.05 level, competitive with spallation-source measurements.
  • The measured $\sin^2\theta_W = 0.268 \pm 0.047$ is consistent with Standard Model running, so no new physics is required in the neutrino-quark neutral current at these momentum transfers.
  • The magnetic-moment bound, while weaker than electron-scattering limits, strengthens the case that nuclear-scattering experiments provide an independent route to the same beyond-Standard-Model observable.
  • NSI constraints on $\varepsilon_{ee}^{dV}$ and $\varepsilon_{ee}^{uV}$ comparable to COHERENT mean reactor and pion-decay CEνNS sources can cross-check each other despite very different neutrino spectra.
  • If the 21.8% systematic can be reduced and more exposure accumulated, the same count-based analysis will sharpen all three results without requiring new experimental techniques.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the analysis fits the total count rather than a spectrum, it cannot by itself separate the magnetic-moment, NSI, and $\sin^2\theta_W$ contributions; a combined fit might show degeneracies that the separate fits miss.
  • The single-Gaussian treatment of the 21.8% systematic likely sets the precision floor; a binned spectral fit using the same data could break correlations between the systematic and the physics parameters, but would require the collaboration's per-bin likelihood.
  • If reactor CEνNS experiments adopt this analysis, the next natural target is measuring $\sin^2\theta_W$ at even lower momentum transfer with multiple target nuclei, where a deviation from Standard Model running would be a clean new-physics signal.
  • The same χ² machinery could be applied to future CONUS+ data with the full four-detector exposure; the paper's count-only method implies that without even using spectral shape, each additional kg·day translates directly into tighter limits.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript reanalyzes the recently reported CONUS+ reactor CEνNS signal, using the published total event count (395 ± 106 events) in a rate-only χ2 fit with one Gaussian nuisance parameter that aggregates all systematic uncertainties. From this single-bin fit the authors extract sin²θW = 0.268 ± 0.047, set a 90% C.L. limit μν < 5.6 × 10^-10 μB, and present 95% C.L. contours for the NSI couplings ε_e^dV and ε_e^uV, arguing that the latter are similar to the combined COHERENT constraints.

Significance. The paper is a useful and clearly written cross-check of the CONUS+ result and provides a low-energy electroweak determination that is complementary to other CEνNS measurements. Its strengths are the explicit χ2 framework, the use of the published exposure and efficiency information, and the comparison with existing measurements of the weak mixing angle and neutrino magnetic moment. If the systematic treatment is valid, the sin²θW and μν results are plausible and merit publication. The BSM portion is not yet at the same standard: the two-dimensional NSI contour is unsupported by a single-bin fit, and the dominant systematic is borrowed from the very experimental analysis being re-fitted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Non-standard Interactions (Eq. (4), Fig. 3)] A single-bin fit to the total CONUS+ rate cannot constrain ε_e^dV and ε_e^uV separately. The CEνNS rate depends on these parameters only through the linear combination L = (2Z+N)ε_u^V + (Z+2N)ε_d^V inside the weak charge, so the χ2 in Eq. (2) is exactly flat along the orthogonal direction. The 95% C.L. region in Fig. 3 therefore cannot be a closed ellipse; it is an unbounded strip. The claim of 'similar sensitivity to the combination of COHERENT results' is misleading because the COHERENT combination uses CsI, LAr, and Ge targets, which breaks this degeneracy. The authors should replace the two-dimensional contour with a one-dimensional constraint on L and explicitly state that ε_u^V and ε_d^V are not individually constrained by CONUS+ alone; they should also state whether sin²θW is fixed or profiled in these fits.
  2. [Experiment and Analysis Description (Eq. (2))] The dominant 21.8% systematic uncertainty, described as accounting for the likelihood fit, fit method, background model, and non-linearity implementation, is taken from the CONUS+ collaboration's own signal extraction. Treating it as an independent Gaussian pull in a re-fit of the same measurement is not obviously valid and may double-count the same information. Since this term dominates the error budget, the authors should justify the single-Gaussian approximation from first principles or demonstrate that the quoted sin²θW uncertainty and the μν limit are stable when this term is modeled as an energy-correlated shape uncertainty or is dropped.
  3. [Abstract versus Experiment and Analysis Description] The exposure is quoted as 347 kg·days in the abstract and 327 kg·days in the main text. Because the predicted event rate scales linearly with exposure, this discrepancy directly affects all quoted results. The authors must identify the correct value, recalculate the predicted spectrum and all fitted quantities if necessary, and ensure the abstract and main text agree.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract and main text refer to 'The CONUS collaboration reports 395 ± 106 events', but the experiment discussed is CONUS+; please use the correct collaboration name consistently.
  2. [Experiment and Analysis Description] The flux is typeset as '1.5 × 1013antiν/(cm2s)'; correct the spacing and write the unit as cm⁻² s⁻¹.
  3. [The Weak Mixing Angle] The result sin²θW = 0.268 ± 0.047 should state that the uncertainty is 1σ and specify how it is derived from Eq. (2).
  4. [Non-standard Interactions and Fig. 3 caption] The caption calls the contour 'Predicted 95% C.L. sensitivity', while the text describes a limit set by the analysis; clarify whether the curve is observed or expected.
  5. [The Neutrino Magnetic Moment and Fig. 2 caption] The labels 'DM (8B)' and 'DM (e−recoil)' are not defined in the caption; identify the experiments and give the corresponding references.
  6. [Conclusions] The phrase 'constraints on the NSI parameters ε_e^dV − ε_e^uV' is ambiguous because the figure axes are the two couplings individually, not their difference; rephrase.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the physics results are external-data fits to explicit Standard-Model/BSM cross sections; the only self-citation is non-load-bearing, and the dominant systematic is an input uncertainty borrowed from CONUS+, not a predicted quantity.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain begins with external CONUS+ measurements (395±106 events; reactor flux, efficiencies, quenching factor, and the 21.8% systematic all taken from [1,17,20]) and uses Eq. (2) to fit sin²θW, μν, ε_uV and ε_dV through explicit cross-section formulae (Eqs. (1) and (3)). None of the fitted parameters is defined in terms of the fitted values, and no fitted parameter is used to construct Nmeas or σ_α. The 21.8% systematic is borrowed from the CONUS+ collaboration's own signal analysis, which is a shared-input concern rather than a definitional circularity: it is an input uncertainty, not a claimed prediction. The only self-citation, [5] (Alfonso-Pita, Flores, Peinado, Vázquez-Jáuregui) for sterile-neutrino searches, appears in the introduction and is not load-bearing for the extracted results. The single-bin NSI degeneracy (the two vector NSI parameters enter only through one weak-charge combination, so the 95% C.L. set is an unbounded strip, not a closed ellipse) is a mathematical identifiability/correctness defect in the claimed two-dimensional sensitivity, not a circularity; it does not identify the output with the input, it shows that one of the outputs is underdetermined by the single measured count. Thus there are no circular steps to quote under the strict definition; the score reflects the one minor non-load-bearing self-citation and the heavy reliance on CONUS+-provided systematics, not derivation-by-construction.

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

The analysis rests on inputs borrowed from the experimental literature: the SM CEνNS cross section, the Huber-Muller reactor spectrum with a fixed flux, the Lindhard quenching factor, and a single Gaussian nuisance parameter that absorbs all systematics. The physics parameters being constrained (sin²θW, µν, NSI couplings) are fitted to the published total event count, so they are not derived from first principles but extracted from the data.

free parameters (4)
  • sin²θW = 0.268 ± 0.047
    Fitted via Eq. (2); the central electroweak parameter, extracted from the total event count.
  • neutrino magnetic moment µν = limit: 5.6 × 10⁻¹⁰ µB at 90% C.L.
    Constrained by adding the magnetic-moment cross section (Eq. 3) to the SM rate and re-fitting.
  • NSI couplings ε^dV_ee and ε^uV_ee = allowed region in Fig. 3 at 95% C.L.
    Both couplings are constrained simultaneously from the same rate fit; the paper reports bounds similar to COHERENT.
  • nuisance parameter α = marginalized over in Eq. (2)
    Absorbs all systematic uncertainties including the dominant 21.8% likelihood-fit term; the pull is effectively fitted to the data.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption SM CEνNS differential cross section, Eq. (1), with weak charge Q_w = Z g_V^p F_Z + N g_V^n F_N
    The predicted event rate is built from this cross section; its validity at the few-MeV momentum transfer of reactor antineutrinos is a standard physics assumption.
  • domain assumption Reactor antineutrino flux follows the Huber-Muller spectrum normalized to 1.5 × 10¹³ ν̄/(cm² s) from ref [1].
    Used to compute Nth; both the spectrum shape and normalization are taken from the experimental paper without independent verification.
  • domain assumption Lindhard quenching factor k = 0.162 ± 0.004 converts nuclear recoil energy to ionization energy.
    The observed event rate depends on this semi-empirical factor; the paper notes no deviation was seen in CONUS or CONUS+ data.
  • ad hoc to paper All systematic uncertainties, including the 21.8% likelihood-fit/background-model contribution, are represented as one Gaussian nuisance parameter α in Eq. (2).
    This is the paper's statistical model; it is not derived from first principles and may not capture non-Gaussian or energy-correlated effects.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Exploring the Standard Model and Beyond from the Evidence of CE$\nu$NS with Reactor Antineutrinos in CONUS+." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JIVYS6ZX

@misc{pith2026250110355,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Exploring the Standard Model and Beyond from the Evidence of CE$\nu$NS with Reactor Antineutrinos in CONUS+},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JIVYS6ZX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.10355}
}
abstract

The observation of the Coherent Elastic Neutrino-Nucleus Scattering (CE$\nu$NS) process using reactor antineutrinos offers a unique opportunity to probe the Standard Model and explore Beyond the Standard Model scenarios. This study reports on the latest results from the CONUS+ experiment conducted at the Leibstadt nuclear power plant (KKL), Switzerland. The CONUS collaboration reports $395 \pm 106$ events detected from reactor antineutrinos with an exposure of 347 kg$\cdot$days, utilizing high-purity germanium detectors operated at sub-keV thresholds. A $\chi^2$-based statistical analysis was performed on these results, incorporating systematic uncertainties. This analysis was used to extract the weak mixing angle, establish a limit on the neutrino magnetic moment, and impose constraints on neutrino non-standard interactions using reactor antineutrinos. The results confirm the potential of CE$\nu$NS experiments in the study of fundamental neutrino properties and probing new physics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.10355 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: 90% C.L. limits for the neutrino magnetic mo [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Predicted 95% C.L. sensitivity obtained from the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 7 Pith papers

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

  1. Searches for Light Dark Matter and Evidence of Coherent Elastic Neutrino-Nucleus Scattering of Solar Neutrinos with the LUX-ZEPLIN (LZ) Experiment

    hep-ex 2025-12 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    LZ's new 5.7-tonne-year search reports a 4.5σ hint of solar 8B neutrino CEνNS and world-leading dark matter limits down to 5 GeV/c².

  2. Prospect of the NUCLEUS Experiment at Chooz for Coherent Elastic Neutrino-Nucleus Scattering and New Physics Searches

    hep-ex 2026-03 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Assuming the low-energy background can be eliminated, a 7-gram NUCLEUS detector at Chooz is projected to see coherent neutrino-nucleus scattering at 4.7σ in one year and to set competitive bounds on new neutrino interactions.

  3. Elastic neutrino-electron scattering perspectives at nuclear reactors

    hep-ph 2026-02 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Projections show CLOUD and TAO could improve low-energy weak mixing angle measurements to 8-11% via elastic neutrino-electron scattering, with competitive magnetic moment and NSI limits.

  4. Testing lepton non-unitarity with the next generation of Germanium-based CE$\nu$NS reactor experiments

    hep-ph 2025-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A future 100-kg Germanium reactor CEνNS experiment could constrain lepton non-unitarity to 1−α11² ≈ 0.005 and, under low-scale seesaw assumptions, probe new-physics scales up to ~2.5 TeV.

  5. Reactor antineutrinos CE$\nu$NS on germanium: CONUS+ and TEXONO as a new gateway to SM and BSM physics

    hep-ph 2025-01 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    CONUS+ and TEXONO reactor CEνNS data are consistent with the Standard Model and yield the most stringent limit on the electron neutrino millicharge through neutrino-electron scattering.

  6. Probing Standard Model and Beyond with Reactor CE$\nu$NS Data of CONUS+ experiment

    hep-ph 2025-01 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Using CONUS+ reactor data, the authors constrain the weak mixing angle, neutrino electromagnetic properties, and light scalar and vector mediators, finding their most notable limit on neutrino millicharge when electro...

  7. Searching for generalized neutrino interactions in direct detection experiments with E{\nu}ES

    hep-ph 2025-10 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Direct-detection xenon experiments yield new 90% C.L. constraints on vector, axial, scalar, and tensor generalized neutrino interactions, generally weaker than existing global bounds.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages · cited by 7 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Ackermannet al., (2025), arXiv:2501.05206 [hep-ex]

    N. Ackermannet al., (2025), arXiv:2501.05206 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2025

  2. [2]

    Akimov et al

    D. Akimov et al. (COHERENT), Science 357, 1123 (2017), arXiv:1708.01294 [nucl-ex]

    arXiv 2017

  3. [3]

    Akimovet al

    D. Akimovet al. (COHERENT), Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 012002 (2021), arXiv:2003.10630 [nucl-ex]

    arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    Adamski et al

    S. Adamski et al. (COHERENT), (2024), arXiv:2406.13806 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    New Physics searches in a low threshold scintillating argon bubble chamber measuring coherent elastic neutrino-nucleus scattering in reactors

    E. Alfonso-Pita, L. J. Flores, E. Peinado, and E. Vázquez-Jáuregui, Phys. Rev. D105, 113005 (2022), arXiv:2203.05982 [hep-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2022

  6. [6]

    Bo et al

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

    arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Aprileet al

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

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Majumdar, D

    A. Majumdar, D. K. Papoulias, R. Srivastava, and J. W. F. Valle, Phys. Rev. D 106, 093010 (2022), arXiv:2208.13262 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2022

Show all 61 references
  1. [9]

    T. N. Maity and C. Boehm, (2024), arXiv:2409.04385 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Demirci and M

    M. Demirci and M. F. Mustamin, Eur. Phys. J. C85, 1 (2025), arXiv:2412.03140 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  3. [11]

    De Romeri, D

    V. De Romeri, D. K. Papoulias, G. Sanchez Garcia, C. A. Ternes, and M. Tórtola, (2024), arXiv:2412.14991 [hep- ph]

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Aristizabal Sierra, V

    D. Aristizabal Sierra, V. De Romeri, and D. K. Papou- lias, JHEP 09, 076 (2022), arXiv:2203.02414 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Aristizabal Sierra, N

    D. Aristizabal Sierra, N. Mishra, and L. Strigari, (2024), arXiv:2409.02003 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Li, C.-Q

    G. Li, C.-Q. Song, F.-J. Tang, and J.-H. Yu, (2024), arXiv:2409.04703 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  7. [15]

    De Romeri, D

    V. De Romeri, D. K. Papoulias, and C. A. Ternes, (2024), arXiv:2411.11749 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Blanco-Mas, P

    P. Blanco-Mas, P. Coloma, G. Herrera, P. Huber, J. Kopp, I. M. Shoemaker, and Z. Tabrizi, (2024), arXiv:2411.14206 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Ackermann et al

    N. Ackermann et al. (CONUS+), Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 1265 (2024), [Erratum: Eur.Phys.J.C 85, 19 (2025)], arXiv:2407.11912 [hep-ex]. 5

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Ackermann et al

    N. Ackermann et al. ((CONUS Collaboration)*, CONUS), Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 251802 (2024), arXiv:2401.07684 [hep-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Sanchez Garcia et al

    E. Sanchez Garcia et al. (CONUS), (2024), arXiv:2412.13707 [physics.ins-det]

    2024 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Bonhomme et al., Eur

    A. Bonhomme et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 815 (2022), arXiv:2202.03754 [physics.ins-det]

    2022 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Erler and R

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

    2018 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Navaset al

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

    2024

  15. [23]

    Antypas et al., Nature Phys

    D. Antypas et al., Nature Phys. 15, 120 (2019), arXiv:1804.05747

    2019 arXiv

  16. [24]

    P. L. Anthonyet al. (SLAC E158), Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 081601 (2005), arXiv:hep-ex/0504049

    2005 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Androić et al

    D. Androić et al. (Qweak), Nature 557, 207 (2018), arXiv:1905.08283 [nucl-ex]

    2018 arXiv

  18. [26]

    C. Y. Prescottet al., Phys. Lett. B84, 524 (1979)

    1979

  19. [27]

    De Romeri, O

    V. De Romeri, O. G. Miranda, D. K. Papoulias, G. Sanchez Garcia, M. Tórtola, and J. W. F. Valle, JHEP 04, 035 (2023), arXiv:2211.11905 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Kayser and R

    B. Kayser and R. E. Shrock, Phys. Lett. B 112, 137 (1982)

    1982

  21. [29]

    Vogel and J

    P. Vogel and J. Engel, Phys. Rev. D39, 3378 (1989)

    1989

  22. [30]

    Giunti and A

    C. Giunti and A. Studenikin, Rev. Mod. Phys.87, 531 (2015), arXiv:1403.6344 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Fujikawa and R

    K. Fujikawa and R. Shrock, Phys. Rev. Lett. 45, 963 (1980)

    1980

  24. [32]

    P. B. Pal and L. Wolfenstein, Phys. Rev. D 25, 766 (1982)

    1982

  25. [33]

    R. E. Shrock, Nucl. Phys. B206, 359 (1982)

    1982

  26. [34]

    Dvornikov and A

    M. Dvornikov and A. Studenikin, Phys. Rev. D 69, 073001 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0305206

    2004 arXiv

  27. [35]

    M. S. Dvornikov and A. I. Studenikin, J. Exp. Theor. Phys. 99, 254 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0411085

    2004 arXiv

  28. [36]

    S. M. Barr, E. M. Freire, and A. Zee, Phys. Rev. Lett. 65, 2626 (1990)

    1990

  29. [37]

    K. S. Babu and R. N. Mohapatra, Phys. Rev. D42, 3778 (1990)

    1990

  30. [38]

    B. K. Pal, Phys. Rev. D44, 2261 (1991)

    1991

  31. [39]

    O. M. Boyarkin and G. G. Boyarkina, Phys. Rev. D90, 025001 (2014)

    2014

  32. [40]

    Giunti, K

    C. Giunti, K. Kouzakov, Y.-F. Li, and A. Stu- denikin, (2024), 10.1146/annurev-nucl-102122-023242, arXiv:2411.03122 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  33. [41]

    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, 206 (1992)

    1992

  34. [42]

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

    1993

  35. [43]

    Daraktchievaet al

    Z. Daraktchievaet al. (MUNU), Phys. Lett. B615, 153 (2005), arXiv:hep-ex/0502037

    2005 arXiv

  36. [44]

    H. T. Wonget al. (TEXONO), Phys. Rev. D75, 012001 (2007), arXiv:hep-ex/0605006

    2007 arXiv

  37. [45]

    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, 350150 (2012)

    2012

  38. [46]

    Bonetetal

    H. Bonetetal. (CONUS), Eur. Phys. J. C82, 813 (2022), arXiv:2201.12257 [hep-ex]

    2022 arXiv

  39. [47]

    R. C. Allenet al., Phys. Rev. D47, 11 (1993)

    1993

  40. [48]

    L. A. Ahrenset al., Phys. Rev. D41, 3297 (1990)

    1990

  41. [49]

    L. B. Auerbachet al. (LSND), Phys. Rev. D63, 112001 (2001), arXiv:hep-ex/0101039

    2001 arXiv

  42. [50]

    A. M. Cooper-Sarkar, S. Sarkar, J. Guy, W. Venus, P. O. Hulth, and K. Hultqvist, Phys. Lett. B280, 153 (1992)

    1992

  43. [51]

    Schwienhorstet al

    R. Schwienhorstet al. (DONUT), Phys. Lett. B513, 23 (2001), arXiv:hep-ex/0102026

    2001 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Coloma, I

    P. Coloma, I. Esteban, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, L. Lariz- goitia, F. Monrabal, and S. Palomares-Ruiz, JHEP05, 037 (2022), arXiv:2202.10829 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Atzori Corona, M

    M. Atzori Corona, M. Cadeddu, N. Cargioli, F. Dordei, C. Giunti, Y. F. Li, C. A. Ternes, and Y. Y. Zhang, JHEP 09, 164 (2022), arXiv:2205.09484 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  46. [54]

    H.GrotchandR.W.Robinett,Z.Phys.C 39,553(1988)

    1988

  47. [55]

    Tanimoto, I

    N. Tanimoto, I. Nakano, and M. Sakuda, Phys. Lett. B 478, 1 (2000), arXiv:hep-ph/0002170

    2000 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Giunti and C

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

    2023 arXiv

  49. [57]

    D. W. Liuet al. (Super-Kamiokande), Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 021802 (2004), arXiv:hep-ex/0402015

    2004 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Agostiniet al

    M. Agostiniet al. (Borexino), Phys. Rev. D96, 091103 (2017), arXiv:1707.09355

    2017 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Buck, PoSICHEP2024, 164 (2025)

    C. Buck, PoSICHEP2024, 164 (2025)

    2025

  52. [60]

    O. G. Miranda and H. Nunokawa, New J. Phys. 17, 095002 (2015), arXiv:1505.06254 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  53. [61]

    J. Liao, D. Marfatia, and J. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D110, 055040 (2024), arXiv:2408.06255 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.