Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 2 cited by

Monophotons at Neutrino Experiments from Neutrino Polarizability

T0 review · 2 major / 6 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 The paper argues that monophoton events at neutrino experiments already give the strongest terrestrial bounds on neutrino polarizability, and that near-term detectors will improve them by up to three orders of magnitude.

desk verdict Solid constraints map for neutrino polarizability via monophotons, worth a careful refereeing; the headline NOMAD limit rests on a shaky PAN acceptance assumption that should be stress-tested. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.14881 v1 pith:Q6TROXAJ submitted 2025-06-17 hep-ph hep-ex

Julia Gehrlein , Ian M. Shoemaker , Anil Thapa This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-ex
keywords neutrinopolarizabilitymonophotonneutral-currentsingle-photonaxion-likeparticleMajoronpseudo-scalarmediatorDUNEneardetectorMiniBooNE
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

Neutrinos are electromagnetically inert in the Standard Model, but new physics can give them a polarizability: an effective vertex coupling a neutrino pair to two photons. This paper argues that the cleanest terrestrial probe of that vertex is a neutral-current scattering event with exactly one photon in the final state, and that existing accelerator neutrino detectors have already produced the strongest laboratory limits on the coupling. Re-analysing public photon energy and angular spectra from MiniBooNE, MicroBooNE, T2K, and NOMAD, the paper finds no signal and reports that MiniBooNE dominates at low mediator masses while NOMAD dominates above a few GeV. It projects that SBND, ICARUS, and the DUNE near detector will improve the sensitivity by up to three orders of magnitude, with DUNE reaching muon-neutrino couplings near $10^{-9}\,\mathrm{GeV}^{-1}$. Because the same operator is realized by axion-like particles and Majorons, these limits transfer directly to those models.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is an effective dimension-7 Rayleigh operator, $\mathcal{L} \supset (\alpha/8\pi)(C_7^{ij}/\Lambda^3)(\bar\nu_i P_L \nu_j) F_{\mu\nu} \tilde F^{\mu\nu}$, connecting two neutrinos to the photon's dual field-strength tensor. Exchange of a light pseudo-scalar $\phi$ with couplings $c_\nu$ to neutrinos and $g_{\phi\gamma}$ to photons generates this operator, and integrating out a heavy $\phi$ identifies $c_\nu g_{\phi\gamma}$ with $C_7/\Lambda^3$. The signal is the photon energy spectrum and angular distribution of $\nu N \to \nu N + \gamma$, computed in coherent, incoherent, and deep-inelastic regimes with appropriate nuclear form factors; a $\chi^2$ comparison over photon energy bins gives the current bounds, and Poisson-based event-count limits give the projections.

What would settle it

A measurement of NOMAD's actual single-photon detection efficiency as a function of photon energy and angle in the region $E_\gamma[1-\cos\theta] \le 0.05$, or a re-analysis of its raw neutral-current single-photon events without the constant-8% assumption, would directly settle whether NOMAD's high-mass limit stands. Alternatively, the first SBND or DUNE near-detector single-photon search, at exposures near $6.6\times10^{20}$ and $1.1\times10^{21}$ POT per year, finding no excess, would confirm or exclude the projected reach.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the dimension-7 neutrino polarizability operator $\mathcal{L} \supset (\alpha/8\pi)(C_7^{ij}/\Lambda^3)(\bar\nu_i P_L \nu_j) F_{\mu\nu} \tilde F^{\mu\nu}$ is measurable in $\nu N \to \nu N \gamma$ monophoton scattering, and that this channel currently yields the most stringent terrestrial limits on the couplings. In a simplified realization with a light pseudo-scalar $\phi$ coupling to neutrinos and photons, the observable is the product $c_\nu g_{\phi\gamma}$. For muon neutrinos, MiniBooNE excludes $c^\mu_\nu g_{\phi\gamma} \lesssim 5.6\times10^{-6}\,\mathrm{GeV}^{-1}$ near $m_\phi \simeq 1\,\mathrm{GeV}$ and $1.4\times10^{-7}\,\mathrm{GeV}^{-1}$ at MeV-scale masses, while NOMAD sets the leading bound for $m_\phi \gtrsim 4\,\mathrm{GeV}$. Projecting to liquid-argon detectors, SBND is expected to probe couplings near $10^{-8}\,\mathrm{GeV}^{-1}$, and DUNE's near detector with ten years of running would reach $c^\mu_\nu(g_{\phi\gamma}\times\mathrm{GeV}) \lesssim 5.1\times10^{-9}$. The same model fits the MiniBooNE and MicroBooNE spectra slightly better than background alone but cannot fully explain the reported low-energy excesses.

Load-bearing premise

The leading high-mass bound assumes that every predicted NOMAD photon event passes the experiment's event selection at a flat 8% efficiency; if the true efficiency in the relevant energy-angle range is much lower or energy-dependent, that bound weakens.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • MiniBooNE and NOMAD data now give the strongest terrestrial constraints on neutrino polarizability, stronger than the solar-neutrino-scattering limits from XENONnT in the same parameter region.
  • SBND, with $6.6\times10^{20}$ POT, should probe $c^\mu_\nu g_{\phi\gamma}\sim 10^{-8}\,\mathrm{GeV}^{-1}$, an order-of-magnitude or better improvement over current low-mass limits.
  • The DUNE near detector with one year of exposure improves existing bounds by at least two orders of magnitude across all mediator masses, and ten years of running improve sensitivity by a further factor of about three.
  • Cosmology shuts off mediator masses below roughly 5 MeV, so the experimentally relevant search region is $m_\phi \gtrsim 5\,\mathrm{MeV}$.
  • Electron-neutrino coupling limits are about an order of magnitude weaker than muon-neutrino limits at the same experiments because electron-neutrino fluxes are about two orders of magnitude lower.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: if DUNE reports a monophoton excess, the predicted spectrum's hardness and forward peaking could separate neutrino polarizability from Standard Model nuclear de-excitation backgrounds, which produce a softer, nearly monoenergetic photon.
  • Inference: combining these neutrino-beam bounds with stellar-cooling and supernova limits on the same $c_\nu g_{\phi\gamma}$ product could determine whether a future positive signal points to a pseudo-Goldstone ALP/Majoron realization or to a generic heavy scalar.
  • Inference: the MicroBooNE limit could be re-derived without the one-to-one true-to-reconstructed photon energy mapping to see how much that assumption moves the extracted bound.
  • Inference: the DUNE far detector, where oscillations create tau neutrinos, offers a way to extend the same bound to the tau-neutrino coupling, though at a lower flux than the near detector.
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

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies mono-photon events at neutrino experiments as probes of an effective neutrino-photon operator (neutrino polarizability), realized via a light pseudoscalar phi coupled to neutrinos and photons. The authors compute the νN→νN+γ cross section in coherent, incoherent, and deep-inelastic regimes, fold in published fluxes, exposures, and photon efficiencies, and derive 90% CL constraints on the (m_phi, c_nu g_phi_gamma) parameter space from MiniBooNE, MicroBooNE, T2K, and NOMAD. They also project sensitivities for SBND, ICARUS, and the DUNE LAr near detector. The headline claims are that NOMAD and MiniBooNE currently provide the most stringent terrestrial limits and that SBND and DUNE will improve them by up to three orders of magnitude. The paper further shows that the model cannot fully describe the MiniBooNE or MicroBooNE excesses.

Significance. If the quantitative results hold, this is a useful and timely contribution: it turns existing and upcoming NC1γ searches into a coherent program for neutrino polarizability and provides explicit recast constraints. The appendices are unusually transparent about fluxes, form factors, efficiencies, and the chi-square procedure, and Tables II and III give a convenient compilation. The honest negative conclusion about the MiniBooNE/MicroBooNE excesses is a strength. However, two assumptions—the NOMAD PAN acceptance and the background-free projection method—need to be quantified before the headline numbers can be taken at face value.

major comments (2)
  1. [Appendix C.4; Sec. IV] The NOMAD high-mass limit, which anchors the claim that NOMAD currently sets the most stringent monophoton bound for m_phi above a few GeV, is computed with a constant 8% photon detection efficiency and the explicit assumption that all signal events pass the PAN cut. Because the limit on the coupling product scales as epsilon^{-1/2}, even a PAN acceptance as low as 10% would move the quoted NOMAD bound by only a factor of about three, so the qualitative ranking is more robust than a naive reading of the stress-test concern suggests; nevertheless, the assumption is unvalidated and no PAN efficiency map from Ref. [54] is cited. I request that the authors either implement the PAN efficiency as a function of photon energy and angle or quantify how the NOMAD curve shifts for PAN acceptance values of 100%, 50%, and 10%. As written, the central high-mass bound depends on an unquantified selection efficiency.
  2. [Sec. III; Appendix B, Eq. (B2)] The projected sensitivities for SBND, ICARUS, and DUNE are derived by setting D_i=0 in every bin and requiring that the total predicted signal remain below 2.7 events. This is a background-free projection, but the NC1γ channel has known irreducible backgrounds; MicroBooNE's published search, which the paper itself uses, has 564 expected background events. If similar backgrounds persist at DUNE, SBND, and ICARUS, the projected limits will be substantially weaker than a 2.7-event threshold suggests. Please include expected background estimates for each future detector, or explicitly justify a background-free selection, and show how the projected curves change when D_i is set equal to the expected background plus zero signal rather than to zero.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. II] In the sentence describing the light mediator limit, the relation is written as m_phi^2 ≫ q^2; it should be m_phi^2 ≪ q^2.
  2. [Appendix C.2] The one-to-one mapping between true and reconstructed photon energy for MicroBooNE should be tested against a simple energy-smearing model, since the resulting MicroBooNE bounds currently carry an unquantified systematic from this mapping.
  3. [Appendix C.4] The acronym PAN is not defined in the text; please define it and clarify whether the quoted 8% single-photon efficiency already includes the PAN selection efficiency or is applied before it.
  4. [Fig. 4] The benchmark curves in the middle and right panels of Fig. 4 use m_phi = 1 MeV, which is below the m_phi ≳ 5 MeV cosmological bound quoted in Sec. II and Appendix E; the caption statement that the best-fit parameters respect other existing constraints is therefore inconsistent.
  5. [Appendix B] In Eq. (B2), the term D_i log(D_i/T_i) is singular when D_i=0; please state explicitly that this term is treated as zero in the zero-data limit used for the projections.
  6. [Tables II and III; Appendix C.6] The column headers of Tables II and III are garbled in the present text and should be reformatted, and 'distinguish photos from electrons' in Appendix C.6 should read 'photons'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the analysis fits free BSM couplings to external neutrino data and reports constraints, not fitted predictions.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is a standard limit-setting analysis. The model parameters c_nu, g_phi_gamma, and m_phi are free inputs; the predicted monophoton spectra are computed from FeynRules/MadGraph cross-sections convolved with published fluxes, exposures, and efficiencies (Eq. 4), and the resulting event numbers are compared to external data through a chi-squared statistic (Eq. B1) or a Poisson sensitivity test (Eq. B2). The quantities being constrained are the independent model parameters themselves, so there is no fitted input that is later renamed as a prediction. The MiniBooNE and MicroBooNE best-fit points are explicitly reported as failing to fully explain the observed excesses, which confirms that the model is being tested against the data rather than constructed from it. No load-bearing self-citation chain exists: the most relevant prior work, Ref. [29], has no author overlap with this paper, and the statement that the authors' cross-sections 'generally agree' with Ref. [29] is an independent consistency check, not a cited justification of the central result. The one fragile modeling step, flagged by the authors in Appendix C.4, is the assumption that all NOMAD signal events pass the PAN selection cut along with a constant 8% photon efficiency; this is an explicitly acknowledged experimental-efficiency assumption. It affects the strength of the NOMAD bound and therefore the 'most stringent' claim at high mediator masses, but it is not circular: the efficiency is an external experimental input, not an output derived from the couplings. No equation reduces to its own output by construction, and no known result is merely renamed. The appropriate circularity score is therefore 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central analysis rests on a small number of model parameters and a larger set of detector-response assumptions. The coupling product and mediator mass are the physical targets of the constraints. The constant efficiencies, kinematic regime cuts, and zero-background projections are pragmatic choices that could shift the exclusion curves if refined with full detector simulations.

free parameters (4)
  • c_nu g_phi_gamma (coupling product) = Bounds quoted per experiment, e.g., MiniBooNE c_mu_nu (g_phi_gamma x GeV) less than 3.55e-6 (m_phi/GeV)^2; DUNE 10 yr…
    Model parameter constrained by monophoton event rates; scanned as part of the limit-setting analysis, not an ad hoc fit.
  • m_phi (mediator mass) = Scanned over 10^-8 to 10^5 GeV
    Mass of the pseudoscalar mediator; the exclusion contours are mapped against this parameter.
  • Constant detection efficiencies = 8% for NOMAD, 10% for SBND and ICARUS, flat in energy and angle
    Chosen by hand with limited experimental basis; uncertainty in these values directly shifts the sensitivity curves.
  • Kinematic regime boundaries = q^2 < 0.1 GeV^2 coherent, 0.1 to 1.8 GeV^2 incoherent, > 1.8 GeV^2 DIS
    Sharp transition values selected by the authors; the form-factor treatment changes at these cuts and uncertainties are not propagated.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The dimension-7 operator of Eq. (1) captures the dominant neutrino-photon interaction, and tree-level phi exchange with matching condition Eq. (3) generates it.
    Sec. II; defines the model under study and assumes no other operators contribute to the NC1 gamma signal.
  • domain assumption The scalar phi couples to one neutrino flavor at a time, and the cross section is identical for neutrinos and antineutrinos.
    Sec. II; justifies treating neutrino and antineutrino runs together and constraining c_mu_nu and c_e_nu separately.
  • domain assumption Nuclear structure is described by the Helm form factor for coherent scattering, a dipole form factor for incoherent scattering, and NNPDF23 PDFs for DIS, with sharp q^2 classification.
    Appendix A; the predicted event rates depend on these form factors, whose uncertainties are not propagated.
  • domain assumption The cosmological lower bound m_phi greater than about 5 MeV from BBN and CMB is valid.
    Sec. II and Appendix E; used to deem low-mass benchmark points allowed by cosmology.
  • domain assumption Published neutrino fluxes, photon efficiencies, background models, and observed event counts for each experiment are reliable.
    Appendices B and C; these inputs drive the chi-square analysis and the resulting limits.
  • domain assumption For future projections, backgrounds can be set to zero and a 2.7-event Poisson limit applies.
    Sec. III and Appendix C.6; this is an optimistic choice that does not include systematic uncertainties on flux or efficiency.
invented entities (1)
  • Light pseudoscalar mediator phi independent evidence
    purpose: Generates the neutrino polarizability operator of Eq. (1) via tree-level exchange, coupling to neutrinos (c_nu) and photons (g_phi_gamma).
    Introduced as a simplified realization of the operator; it has external falsifiable handles through XENONnT solar-neutrino scattering, stellar cooling, cosmology, and the monophoton rates predicted here, though no direct experimental observation exists.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Monophotons at Neutrino Experiments from Neutrino Polarizability." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Q6TROXAJ

@misc{pith2026250614881,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Monophotons at Neutrino Experiments from Neutrino Polarizability},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Q6TROXAJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.14881}
}
read the original abstract

Nontrivial electromagnetic properties of neutrinos are an avenue to physics beyond the Standard Model. To this end, we investigate the power of monophoton signals at neutrino experiments to probe a higher-dimensional operator connecting neutrinos to SM photons dubbed, neutrino polarizability. A simplified scenario giving rise to this operator involves a new pseudo-scalar that couples to both neutrinos and photons, with clear implications for axion-like particle (ALP) and Majoron physics. By analyzing the photon energy spectrum and angular distributions, we find that NOMAD and MiniBooNE currently set the most stringent limits, while SBND and the DUNE near detector will soon provide significantly improved constraints.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.14881 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Tree-level Feynman diagram of neutrino scattering [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Exclusion region and future sensitivity from different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Photon energy spectrum from the MiniBooNE [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The photon energy and angular distribution spectrum for the MiniBooNE anti-neutrino run (left, middle) and the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Enhanced active-sterile neutrino polarizability at the intensity frontier

    hep-ph 2025-12 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    A new neutrino-photon interaction involving a sterile neutrino is constrained at NOMAD and MiniBooNE, and a light-mediator realization can fit the MiniBooNE excess.

  2. Searching for neutrino polarizability at DUNE

    hep-ph 2025-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    DUNE's near detector could probe new parameter space for enhanced neutrino polarizability in light-scalar models, mainly through single-forward-shower events from coherent argon scattering.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

108 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [29]

    Bansal, G

    S. Bansal, G. Paz, A. Petrov, M. Tammaro, and J. Zu- pan, JHEP 05, 142 (2023), arXiv:2210.05706 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2023

  2. [54]

    C. T. Kullenberg et al. (NOMAD), Phys. Lett. B 706, 268 (2012), arXiv:1111.3713 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2012

  3. [1]

    Abi et al

    B. Abi et al. (DUNE), (2020), arXiv:2002.03005 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2020

  4. [2]

    Abe et al

    K. Abe et al. (Hyper-Kamiokande), (2018), arXiv:1805.04163 [physics.ins-det]

    arXiv 2018

  5. [3]

    Abe et al

    K. Abe et al. (Hyper-Kamiokande), (2025), arXiv:2505.15019 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2025

  6. [4]

    An et al

    F. An et al. (JUNO), J. Phys. G 43, 030401 (2016), arXiv:1507.05613 [physics.ins-det]

    arXiv 2016

  7. [5]

    Ishihara (IceCube), PoS ICRC2019, 1031 (2021), arXiv:1908.09441 [astro-ph.HE]

    A. Ishihara (IceCube), PoS ICRC2019, 1031 (2021), arXiv:1908.09441 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2021

  8. [6]

    Adrian-Martinez et al

    S. Adrian-Martinez et al. (KM3Net), J. Phys. G 43, 084001 (2016), arXiv:1601.07459 [astro-ph.IM]

    arXiv 2016

Show all 108 references
  1. [7]

    P. B. Denton, M. Friend, M. D. Messier, H. A. Tanaka, S. B¨ oser, J. a. A. B. Coelho, M. Perrin-Terrin, and T. Stuttard, (2022), arXiv:2212.00809 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  2. [8]

    P. A. Machado, O. Palamara, and D. W. Schmitz, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 69, 363 (2019), arXiv:1903.04608 [hep-ex]

    2019 arXiv

  3. [9]

    Hewes et al

    V. Hewes et al. (DUNE), Instruments 5, 31 (2021), arXiv:2103.13910 [physics.ins-det]

    2021

  4. [10]

    Pauli letter collection: letter to Lise Meitner,

    W. Pauli, “Pauli letter collection: letter to Lise Meitner,” Typed copy

  5. [11]

    Giunti and A

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

    2015 arXiv

  6. [12]

    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

  7. [13]

    R. Foot, G. C. Joshi, H. Lew, and R. R. Volkas, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 5, 95 (1990), [Erratum: Mod.Phys.Lett.A 5, 2085 (1990)]

    1990

  8. [14]

    K. S. Babu and R. N. Mohapatra, Phys. Rev. Lett. 63, 938 (1989)

    1989

  9. [15]

    Barbiellini and G

    G. Barbiellini and G. Cocconi, Nature 329, 21 (1987)

    1987

  10. [16]

    A. N. Khan, Nucl. Phys. B 986, 116064 (2023), arXiv:2201.10578 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  11. [17]

    S. Jana, M. Klasen, and V. P. K, (2025), arXiv:2504.20044 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  12. [18]

    B. W. Lee and R. E. Shrock, Phys. Rev. D 16, 1444 (1977)

    1977

  13. [19]

    S. T. Petcov, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 25, 340 (1977), [Erratum: Sov.J.Nucl.Phys. 25, 698 (1977), Erratum: Yad.Fiz. 25, 1336 (1977)]

    1977

  14. [20]

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

    1982

  15. [21]

    Fujikawa and R

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

    1980

  16. [22]

    Brdar, A

    V. Brdar, A. Greljo, J. Kopp, and T. Opferkuch, JCAP 01, 039 (2021), arXiv:2007.15563 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  17. [23]

    R. E. Shrock, Nucl. Phys. B 206, 359 (1982)

    1982

  18. [24]

    Dvornikov and A

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

    2004 arXiv

  19. [25]

    Magill, R

    G. Magill, R. Plestid, M. Pospelov, and Y.-D. Tsai, Phys. Rev. D 98, 115015 (2018), arXiv:1803.03262 [hep- ph]

    2018 arXiv

  20. [26]

    Bernabeu, L

    J. Bernabeu, L. G. Cabral-Rosetti, J. Papavassiliou, and J. Vidal, Phys. Rev. D 62, 113012 (2000), arXiv:hep- ph/0008114

    2000

  21. [27]

    Bernabeu, J

    J. Bernabeu, J. Papavassiliou, and J. Vidal, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 101802 (2002), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 89, 229902 (2002)], arXiv:hep-ph/0206015

    2002 arXiv

  22. [28]

    Bernabeu, J

    J. Bernabeu, J. Papavassiliou, and J. Vidal, Nucl. Phys. B 680, 450 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0210055

    2004 arXiv

  23. [30]

    G. B. Gelmini and M. Roncadelli, Phys. Lett. B 99, 411 (1981)

    1981

  24. [31]

    Chikashige, R

    Y. Chikashige, R. N. Mohapatra, and R. D. Peccei, Phys. Lett. B 98, 265 (1981)

    1981

  25. [32]

    Schechter and J

    J. Schechter and J. W. F. Valle, Phys. Rev. D 25, 774 (1982)

    1982

  26. [33]

    R. D. Peccei and H. R. Quinn, Phys. Rev. Lett. 38, 1440 (1977)

    1977

  27. [34]

    R. D. Peccei and H. R. Quinn, Phys. Rev. D 16, 1791 (1977)

    1977

  28. [35]

    Weinberg, Phys

    S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 40, 223 (1978)

    1978

  29. [36]

    Wilczek, Phys

    F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. Lett. 40, 279 (1978)

    1978

  30. [37]

    Arkani-Hamed and Y

    N. Arkani-Hamed and Y. Grossman, Phys. Lett. B 459, 179 (1999), arXiv:hep-ph/9806223

    1999 arXiv

  31. [38]

    K. R. Dienes, E. Dudas, and T. Gherghetta, Phys. Rev. D 62, 105023 (2000), arXiv:hep-ph/9912455

    2000 arXiv

  32. [39]

    Chang, S

    S. Chang, S. Tazawa, and M. Yamaguchi, Phys. Rev. D 61, 084005 (2000), arXiv:hep-ph/9908515

    2000 arXiv

  33. [40]

    Di Lella, A

    L. Di Lella, A. Pilaftsis, G. Raffelt, and K. Zioutas, Phys. Rev. D 62, 125011 (2000), arXiv:hep-ph/0006327

    2000 arXiv

  34. [41]

    Davidson and K

    A. Davidson and K. C. Wali, Phys. Rev. Lett. 48, 11 (1982)

    1982

  35. [42]

    Wilczek, Phys

    F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. Lett. 49, 1549 (1982)

    1982

  36. [43]

    Y. Ema, K. Hamaguchi, T. Moroi, and K. Nakayama, JHEP 01, 096 (2017), arXiv:1612.05492 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  37. [44]

    Calibbi, F

    L. Calibbi, F. Goertz, D. Redigolo, R. Ziegler, and J. Zu- pan, Phys. Rev. D 95, 095009 (2017), arXiv:1612.08040 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  38. [45]

    L. F. Abbott and P. Sikivie, Phys. Lett. B 120, 133 (1983)

    1983

  39. [46]

    Dine and W

    M. Dine and W. Fischler, Phys. Lett. B 120, 137 (1983)

    1983

  40. [47]

    Preskill, M

    J. Preskill, M. B. Wise, and F. Wilczek, Phys. Lett. B 120, 127 (1983)

    1983

  41. [48]

    Cicoli, in 9th Patras Workshop on Axions, WIMPs and WISPs (2013) pp

    M. Cicoli, in 9th Patras Workshop on Axions, WIMPs and WISPs (2013) pp. 235–242, arXiv:1309.6988 [hep- th]

    2013 arXiv

  42. [49]

    Dutta, A

    B. Dutta, A. Karthikeyan, D. Kim, A. Thompson, and R. G. Van de Water, (2025), arXiv:2504.08071 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  43. [50]

    E. Wang, L. Alvarez-Ruso, and J. Nieves, Phys. Rev. C 89, 015503 (2014), arXiv:1311.2151 [nucl-th]

    2014 arXiv

  44. [51]

    E. Wang, L. Alvarez-Ruso, Y. Hayato, K. Mahn, and J. Nieves, Phys. Rev. D 92, 053005 (2015), arXiv:1507.02446 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  45. [52]

    Acciarri et al

    R. Acciarri et al. (MicroBooNE, LAr1-ND, ICARUS- WA104), (2015), arXiv:1503.01520 [physics.ins-det]

    2015

  46. [53]

    Abratenko et al

    P. Abratenko et al. (MicroBooNE), (2025), arXiv:2502.06064 [hep-ex]

    2025 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Abe et al

    K. Abe et al. (T2K), J. Phys. G 46, 08LT01 (2019), arXiv:1902.03848 [hep-ex]

    2019 arXiv

  48. [56]

    A. M. Abdullahi, J. Hoefken Zink, M. Hostert, D. Mas- saro, and S. Pascoli, Phys. Rev. D 111, 035028 (2025), 7 arXiv:2308.02543 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Bauer, M

    M. Bauer, M. Neubert, S. Renner, M. Schnubel, and A. Thamm, JHEP 04, 063 (2021), arXiv:2012.12272 [hep- ph]

    2021 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Chala, G

    M. Chala, G. Guedes, M. Ramos, and J. Santiago, Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 181 (2021), arXiv:2012.09017 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Bonilla, I

    J. Bonilla, I. Brivio, M. B. Gavela, and V. Sanz, JHEP 11, 168 (2021), arXiv:2107.11392 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Heeck and H

    J. Heeck and H. H. Patel, Phys. Rev. D 100, 095015 (2019), arXiv:1909.02029 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Bonilla, B

    J. Bonilla, B. Gavela, and J. Machado-Rodr´ ıguez, Phys. Rev. D 109, 055023 (2024), arXiv:2309.15910 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Sabti, J

    N. Sabti, J. Alvey, M. Escudero, M. Fairbairn, and D. Blas, JCAP 08, A01 (2021), arXiv:2107.11232 [hep- ph]

    2021 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Aprile et al

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

    2022 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Agostini et al

    M. Agostini et al. (Borexino), Phys. Rev. D 96, 091103 (2017), arXiv:1707.09355 [hep-ex]

    2017 arXiv

  57. [65]

    A. A. Aguilar-Arevalo et al. (MiniBooNE), Phys. Rev. D 103, 052002 (2021), arXiv:2006.16883 [hep-ex]

    2021 arXiv

  58. [66]

    A. A. Aguilar-Arevalo et al. (MiniBooNE), Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 221801 (2018), arXiv:1805.12028 [hep-ex]

    2018 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Acciarri et al

    R. Acciarri et al. (SBND), (2025), arXiv:2504.00245 [hep-ex]

    2025 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Abratenko et al

    P. Abratenko et al. (ICARUS), Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 467 (2023), arXiv:2301.08634 [hep-ex]

    2023 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Alwall, M

    J. Alwall, M. Herquet, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer, and T. Stelzer, JHEP 06, 128 (2011), arXiv:1106.0522 [hep- ph]

    2011 arXiv

  62. [70]

    N. D. Christensen and C. Duhr, Comput. Phys. Com- mun. 180, 1614 (2009), arXiv:0806.4194 [hep-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Alwall, R

    J. Alwall, R. Frederix, S. Frixione, V. Hirschi, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer, H. S. Shao, T. Stelzer, P. Torrielli, and M. Zaro, JHEP 07, 079 (2014), arXiv:1405.0301 [hep- ph]

    2014 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Bonesini (SBND, MicroBooNe, Icarus), PoS Nu- F act2021, 009 (2022), arXiv:2203.05814 [hep-ex]

    M. Bonesini (SBND, MicroBooNe, Icarus), PoS Nu- F act2021, 009 (2022), arXiv:2203.05814 [hep-ex]

    2022 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Di Noto (ICARUS), PoS ICHEP2024, 181 (2025)

    L. Di Noto (ICARUS), PoS ICHEP2024, 181 (2025)

    2025

  66. [74]

    D¨ obrich, J

    B. D¨ obrich, J. Jaeckel, F. Kahlhoefer, A. Ring- wald, and K. Schmidt-Hoberg, JHEP 02, 018 (2016), arXiv:1512.03069 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  67. [75]

    J. D. Lewin and P. F. Smith, Astropart. Phys. 6, 87 (1996)

    1996

  68. [76]

    D. E. Kharzeev, Phys. Rev. D 104, 054015 (2021), arXiv:2102.00110 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  69. [77]

    A. A. Aguilar-Arevalo et al. (MiniBooNE), Phys. Rev. D 79, 072002 (2009), arXiv:0806.1449 [hep-ex]

    2009 arXiv

  70. [78]

    A. A. Aguilar-Arevalo et al. (MiniBooNE) (2012) arXiv:1207.4809 [hep-ex]

    2012 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Booster Neutrino Beam flux prediction for MicroBooNE

  72. [80]

    (2022), 10.2172/2406203

    2022 doi

  73. [81]

    Abe et al

    K. Abe et al. (T2K), Phys. Rev. D 87, 012001 (2013), [Addendum: Phys.Rev.D 87, 019902 (2013)], arXiv:1211.0469 [hep-ex]

    2013 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Astier et al

    P. Astier et al. (NOMAD), Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 515, 800 (2003), arXiv:hep-ex/0306022

    2003 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Nowak, SBND and Short-Baseline Neutrino Program

    J. Nowak, SBND and Short-Baseline Neutrino Program

  76. [84]

    The NuMI Neutrino Flux Prediction at ICARUS

  77. [85]

    Aghanim et al

    N. Aghanim et al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys. 641, A6 (2020), [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)], arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  78. [86]

    Escudero and S

    M. Escudero and S. J. Witte, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 294 (2020), arXiv:1909.04044 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  79. [87]

    P. F. Depta, M. Hufnagel, and K. Schmidt-Hoberg, JCAP 05, 009 (2020), arXiv:2002.08370 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  80. [88]

    Lancaster, F.-Y

    L. Lancaster, F.-Y. Cyr-Racine, L. Knox, and Z. Pan, JCAP 07, 033 (2017), arXiv:1704.06657 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  81. [89]

    Escudero, JCAP 02, 007 (2019), arXiv:1812.05605 [hep-ph]

    M. Escudero, JCAP 02, 007 (2019), arXiv:1812.05605 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  82. [90]

    P. D. Serpico and G. G. Raffelt, Phys. Rev. D 70, 043526 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0403417

    2004 arXiv

  83. [91]

    Sabti, J

    N. Sabti, J. Alvey, M. Escudero, M. Fairbairn, and D. Blas, JCAP 01, 004 (2020), arXiv:1910.01649 [hep- ph]

    2020 arXiv

  84. [92]

    G. G. Raffelt and D. S. P. Dearborn, Phys. Rev. D 37, 549 (1988)

    1988

  85. [93]

    M. Haft, G. Raffelt, and A. Weiss, Astrophys. J. 425, 222 (1994), [Erratum: Astrophys.J. 438, 1017 (1995)], arXiv:astro-ph/9309014

    1994 arXiv

  86. [94]

    Lucente, P

    G. Lucente, P. Carenza, T. Fischer, M. Giannotti, and A. Mirizzi, JCAP 12, 008 (2020), arXiv:2008.04918 [hep- ph]

    2020

  87. [95]

    D. F. G. Fiorillo, G. G. Raffelt, and E. Vitagliano, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 021001 (2023), arXiv:2209.11773 [hep- ph]

    2023 arXiv

  88. [96]

    Blinov, K

    N. Blinov, K. J. Kelly, G. Z. Krnjaic, and S. D. McDermott, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 191102 (2019), arXiv:1905.02727 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  89. [97]

    K. Blum, Y. Nir, and M. Shavit, Phys. Lett. B 785, 354 (2018), arXiv:1802.08019 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  90. [98]

    M. J. Dolan, T. Ferber, C. Hearty, F. Kahlhoefer, and K. Schmidt-Hoberg, JHEP 12, 094 (2017), [Erratum: JHEP 03, 190 (2021)], arXiv:1709.00009 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  91. [99]

    Abudin´ en et al

    F. Abudin´ en et al. (Belle-II), Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 161806 (2020), arXiv:2007.13071 [hep-ex]. Appendix A: Details on F orm factors In the coherent regime, neutrinos scatter coherently off the entire nucleus since the momentum transfer is smaller than the momentum scale asso...

    2020 arXiv

  92. [100]

    It cannot distinguish an electron neutrino signature from a photon detection

    MiniBooNE MiniBooNE was a short baseline experiment that uses a pure mineral-oil (CH 2) detector, which acts as both a target and a scintillator. It cannot distinguish an electron neutrino signature from a photon detection. The typical momentum transfer q2 ∼ −2 GeV 2, and the ...

  93. [101]

    The neutrino flux is dominated by the Booster Neutrino Beam (BNB) and taken from Ref

    MicroBooNE MicroBooNE utilizes a liquid-argon time projection chamber (LArTPC) to search for single-photon signals. The neutrino flux is dominated by the Booster Neutrino Beam (BNB) and taken from Ref. [79]. The detector has an active mass of 85 metric tons of liquid argon and...

  94. [102]

    This analysis is based on a neutrino-mode exposure of 5.738× 1020 POT

    T2K The T2K near detector (ND280) has performed a ded- icated search for neutral-current single-photon (NC1 γ) events [55] with the fiducial volume containing Np = 5.54×1029 target nucleons [55]. This analysis is based on a neutrino-mode exposure of 5.738× 1020 POT. We use Ref...

  95. [103]

    The incoming neutrino flux [82] has an energy range of Eν = 5− 100 GeV with a total exposure of 5 .1× 1019 9 POT

    NOMAD The NOMAD experiment performed a search for single-photon events using a drift-chamber target with a fiducial mass of 2.7 tons, composed of carbon (64%), oxygen (22%), nitrogen (6%), and hydrogen (5%), cor- responding to an effective atomic mass A = 12.8 [54]. The incomi...

  96. [104]

    We use the flux from Ref

    SBND/ICARUS SBND is located at 110 m and ICARUS is located at 600 m from the target and both use the same Booster Neutrino Beam (BNB) flux as MicroBooNE. We use the flux from Ref. [83] for SBND. To get the BNB flux pre- diction at ICARUS we rescaled by factor of (110 /600)2. I...

  97. [105]

    We focus on the liquid-argon near detector (LAr ND) located 574 m from the target

    DUNE DUNE will have excellent energy reconstruction and the ability to distinguish photos from electrons. We focus on the liquid-argon near detector (LAr ND) located 574 m from the target. It will have a 67 ton fiducial mass that corresponds to roughlyNp = 1.01×1030 protons. W...

  98. [106]

    First, the decay of ϕ into light relativistic particles, i.e., photons or neutrinos, after photon- neutrino decoupling shifts the effective number of neutrino species,Neff

    Cosmological constraints: Cosmological obser- vations impose one of the most stringent bounds on the parameter space for neutrino polarizabil- ity. First, the decay of ϕ into light relativistic particles, i.e., photons or neutrinos, after photon- neutrino decoupling shifts the...

  99. [107]

    The relevant ϕ production mechanisms are the Primakoff con- version (γ → ϕ), photon coalescence ( γγ → ϕ), and neutrino coalescence ( νν → ϕ)

    Stellar cooling: If the light scalar ϕ is produced in the stellar interior it can lead to excessive stel- lar cooling rates, which depends on the ϕ produc- tion rates as well as its decay length. The relevant ϕ production mechanisms are the Primakoff con- version (γ → ϕ), phot...

  100. [108]

    Note that this constraint depend on the neutrino flavor

    Other terrestrial constraints: There are vari- ous other constraints which we list below without giving specific details: The three body decay M±→ ℓ± ανβϕ can lead to strong constraint on the couplingcν ifmϕ <m M− mℓα [96]. Note that this constraint depend on the neutrino flav...

Pith tools

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