Generalized Lindblad master equation for neutrino evolution

Alexander Studenikin; Konstantin Stankevich; Maksim Vyalkov

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 36 references

Generalized Lindblad master equation for neutrino evolution

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 generalized Lindblad master equation derived from open-systems QFT ties neutrino decoherence to decay and absorption and yields a direct decay-width limit.

desk verdict The generalized master equation (27) is a real addition to the neutrino-decoherence toolbox, but a reversed projector in the scalar-decay section sinks the lifetime bound as stated. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.19303 v1 pith:UK5OEZQO submitted 2024-11-28 hep-ph

Konstantin Stankevich , Alexander Studenikin , Maksim Vyalkov This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-ph

keywords neutrinoquantumdecoherenceLindbladmasterequationdecaymasslessparticleabsorptionopensystemslifetimeboundKamLAND

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

The paper develops a quantum field theory of open systems for neutrinos and derives a generalized Lindblad master equation that governs the density matrix of a neutrino propagating through a bath of massless particles. The new element is that the evolution explicitly includes transitions between neutrino stationary states with different momenta, caused by the neutrino decaying into a lighter state plus a massless particle and by the reverse absorption process. The dissipative operators and rates are not put in by hand; they are obtained from the interaction Hamiltonian, the bath correlation function, and the Markovian and rotating-wave approximations. As an application, the authors specialize to visible Dirac neutrino decay into a scalar particle in the degenerate mass hierarchy, use the KamLAND decoherence bound to constrain the decay width, and obtain $\tau_2/m_2 > 1.83 \times 10^{-10}~\mathrm{s/eV}$. If the derivation is right, reactor and accelerator decoherence searches become a direct probe of neutrino decay dynamics.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the open-quantum-systems expansion of the evolution operator to second order in the coupling, combined with the rotating-wave (secular) approximation and the Markovian limit. The central technical identity is (26), $(2\pi)^3\delta^{(3)}(\mathbf p)\int_0^\infty d\tau\, e^{-iE_p\tau}=\tfrac12(2\pi)^4\delta^{(4)}(p)-i(2\pi)^3\delta^{(3)}(\mathbf p)\,\mathcal P(1/E_p)$, whose real part produces the energy-conserving delta functions in the decay and absorption widths and whose imaginary part is discarded as a coherent Hamiltonian correction. The rotating-wave approximation is implemented by inserting Kronecker deltas $\delta_{nn'}$ and momentum delta functions by hand in Eq. (24). The derived widths $\Gamma^{d}_{ip}$, $\Gamma^{a}_{ip}$ and transition widths $\Gamma^{d}_{jq\to ip}$, $\Gamma^{a}_{jq\to ip}$ then supply the explicit dissipative operators and parameters in Eq. (27). In the scalar-decay application, the degenerate-limit decay width $\Gamma^{S}_{if} = (g^2_{if}/\pi)(m^2_i-m^2_f)/|\mathbf p|$ parametrizes the Lindblad operators and the dissipative matrix.

What would settle it

Compute the discarded principal-value term in Eq. (26) for the two-flavour scalar-decay case and compare its magnitude with the oscillation frequency $\Delta m^2/(2E)$; if the correction is comparable for reactor energies, Eq. (27) is not the complete evolution. Alternatively, a reactor measurement of the decoherence parameter $\Gamma_{21}(E)$ whose energy dependence deviates from the assumed $\Gamma_{21}(E)\propto E^{-1}$ scaling would invalidate the derived lifetime bound.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that neutrinos undergoing decay into a lighter mass state and a massless particle, and the inverse absorption process, evolve according to the generalized Lindblad master equation (27), which is derived from first principles rather than assumed. The equation has the Lindblad structure with an anti-commutator damping term built from the decay width $\Gamma^d_{ip}$ and absorption width $\Gamma^a_{ip}$, plus a feeding term that transfers population from state $|jq\rangle$ to state $|ip\rangle$ with different momenta, integrated over the phase space of the massless particle. The dissipative operators are the projectors $\Pi_{ij}=|i\rangle\langle j|$, and the rates are explicitly given by the on-shell matrix elements of the neutrino current contracted with the bath polarization tensor and the Bose-Einstein factors $1+N(\omega)$ and $N(\omega)$. For the scalar-decay case in the degenerate limit, the equation reduces to the standard Lindblad form with three dissipative operators and a dissipative matrix $D^{(3)}_{kl}$ that is not diagonal, and the element $\Gamma_{21}$ is related to the decay width $\Gamma^S_{21}$, yielding the lifetime constraint (41).

Load-bearing premise

The derivation assumes that the imaginary principal-value part of the time integral, which would shift the coherent oscillation Hamiltonian, is negligible, and that the rotating-wave approximation holds for transitions between states of different momenta.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Neutrino quantum decoherence no longer needs to be parametrized ad hoc: decay and absorption widths fix the Lindblad dissipative operators and rates.
Because transitions between different momenta are included, the master equation applies to decays in neutrino fluxes from reactors, accelerators, and supernovae where momentum changes matter.
The KamLAND constraint on $\Gamma_{21}$ translates into $\tau_2/m_2 > 1.83\times10^{-10}$ s/eV for visible Dirac scalar decay in the degenerate hierarchy, a direct oscillation-data limit on the decay width.
The explicitly derived dissipative matrix $D^{(3)}_{kl}$ contains off-diagonal structure, so future analyses should use it rather than the commonly assumed diagonal decoherence parameters.

Reading between the lines

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

If the same derivation is repeated for Majorana neutrinos, the absorption terms and spin structure would differ, likely yielding a different lifetime bound; the paper's method provides the template for that calculation.
The discarded imaginary principal-value term may produce a momentum-dependent correction to the neutrino Hamiltonian; testing its size could either confirm the Lindblad truncation or reveal a new coherent decoherence effect.
The framework suggests a general recipe: any neutrino two-body process with a massless final or initial particle in a thermal bath generates a Lindblad-type dissipative sector whose rates are computable from on-shell amplitudes, connecting decoherence searches to decay searches across channels.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The general framework is the reason to read this. Eq. (27), with the decay/absorption widths (28)-(31), is a genuine extension of the usual Lindblad treatment: it allows transitions between neutrino states of different momenta, and it derives the dissipative operators from a QFT open-systems setup rather than postulating them. The reduction to the standard Lindblad form in the degenerate limit is sensible, and the comparison with Moss et al. is useful. That part deserves a serious referee.

The problems are concentrated in Section III, and they are load-bearing. In Eq. (34), the gain term is written as Π21 ρ Π12. With the paper's own convention Π_ab=|a⟩⟨b|, this takes population from ν1 and puts it into ν2. That is the absorption process, not the decay ν2→ν1. Together with the loss term −(Γ21/2){Π22,ρ}, the trace of ρ is not conserved, contradicting the paper's claim that ∫d|p| Trρ is constant. Eq. (37) later uses L1=Π12, which would give the correct gain Π12 ρ Π21; so the paper contradicts itself. As written, the dissipative matrices (39)/(40) and the bound (41) do not follow from Eq. (27). This looks fixable by swapping the projector order in (33)/(34), but it has to be fixed before any phenomenological claim can stand. Separately, the D matrix in (39) does not conserve trace even for the L1=Π12 choice, so the Bloch-sphere expansion needs a careful re-check.

The derivation of the general equation also has soft spots. The rotating-wave approximation in Eq. (24) inserts Kronecker deltas by hand, without a derivation for momentum-changing transitions. The Markovian limit is stated rather than justified, and the principal-value term in (26) is dropped with no estimate of its effect on the coherent Hamiltonian. These are not fatal to the framework, but they need to be quantified before Eq. (27) can be called complete.

The lifetime bound, even if repaired, is a weak reinterpretation of an existing KamLAND constraint on Γ21: 1.83×10⁻¹⁰ s/eV is orders of magnitude weaker than the visible-decay bounds they quote themselves (6.7×10⁻⁴ s/eV for Majorana). Calling it a 'first direct constraint' overstates matters.

Bottom line: the general equation is worth refereeing; Section III needs major revision. I would not cite the lifetime bound, but I would cite Eq. (27) once it is cleaned up.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops a QFT-based open-systems framework to derive a generalized Lindblad master equation for neutrinos interacting with a bath of massless particles. The central equation (27) includes dissipative loss and gain terms that describe neutrino decay into a lighter state plus a massless particle, and the inverse absorption process, with transitions between different neutrino momenta. The authors then specialize this equation to the case of Dirac neutrino decay into a lighter neutrino and a scalar particle in the degenerate mass hierarchy, obtaining dissipative matrices (39) and (40). Using the KamLAND constraint on the decoherence parameter Gamma21 from Ref. [9], they derive a constraint on the neutrino lifetime ratio tau_2/m_2 > 1.83e-10 s/eV for visible Dirac scalar decay.

Significance. If correct, the derivation of Eq. (27) would provide a novel and physically useful bridge between neutrino decay and quantum decoherence, going beyond the common Lindblad treatments that ignore momentum-changing transitions. The paper also explicitly derives the dissipative operators and parameters from a microphysical Hamiltonian, which is a strength. However, the phenomenological application is compromised by an internal inconsistency in the scalar-decay reduction: the gain term in Eqs. (33) and (34) is written with the projector ordering reversed relative to the decay direction stated in Eq. (27). This error propagates into the dissipative matrices and the lifetime bound (41), so the headline constraint does not follow from the derived master equation as it stands.

major comments (3)

[Section III, Eqs. (33) and (34)] The gain term for the decay of a heavier state i into a lighter state f is written with the projector ordering reversed. With the convention Pi_ab = |a><b| stated after Eq. (27), the decay i->f should have the gain term Pi_{fi} rho Pi_{if} = |f><i| rho |i><f|, which transfers population from the heavier state i to the lighter state f. As written, Eq. (33) contains Pi_{if} rho Pi_{fi}, which transfers population from the lighter state f to the heavier state i, i.e., the absorption process. This is confirmed by Eq. (34), where the gain term g^2_12 ... Pi_21 rho Pi_12 populates state 2 from state 1, while the loss term depletes only state 2; consequently rho_11 has no loss term and the trace of the dissipative part is not zero. This directly contradicts the paper's own statement that the total number of neutrinos of all momenta is conserved (paragraph after Eq. (35)). The error is internal, because Eq. (37) lists L1 = Pi_12 with rate Gamma^S_21, which is the correct decay operator and would produce the gain term Pi_12 rho Pi_21, not Pi_21 rho Pi_12. As a result, the dissipative matrices (39) and (40) and the lifetime constraint (41) are not consequences of Eq. (27).
[Section II, Eq. (24)] The rotating-wave approximation is implemented by inserting Kronecker delta symbols 'by hand' into Eq. (22) to obtain Eq. (24). No derivation or validity criterion is given for these deltas, which enforce diagonality conditions such as delta_{nn'} delta_{ij} (2pi)^3 delta^(4)(q-q'). Since the final master equation (27) is intended to describe transitions between different momenta, the secular approximation for the momentum-dependent phase factors needs a quantitative justification, especially because the decaying/absorbing processes involve energy differences that may not be small. Without such a derivation, the precise form of the gain terms in Eq. (27) is not established.
[Section II, paragraph after Eq. (26)] The principal-value part of the time integral in Eq. (26) is dropped with the justification that it contributes only to the coherent Hamiltonian and is 'not the focus of this paper.' This term is a systematic, energy-dependent correction to the oscillation Hamiltonian (a Lamb-shift-type term), and its magnitude is never estimated. Since Eq. (27) is presented as the complete evolution equation, the omission should be justified either by an explicit estimate of its effect on the observables of interest (such as the survival probabilities used for the KamLAND constraint) or by absorbing it into a redefined Hamiltonian with a clear statement. As it stands, the derivation of the dissipative part is incomplete.

minor comments (4)

[Section III, first paragraph] There is a typo in the sentence 'experimentrs wigth neutrino fluxes' that should read 'experiments with neutrino fluxes.'
[Section II, paragraph before Eq. (6)] The statement that 'there is no superposition between states with different momentum' (Eq. (6)) is in tension with the later development of transitions between different momenta; the authors should clarify that Eq. (6) is an initial or approximate condition for the reduced density matrix, not a restriction on the dynamics.
[Section II, Eqs. (22) and (24)] The notation for the time limits of the integrals is inconsistent: Eq. (22) writes the second time integral as ∫_{t1}^{t0} d4x2, while Eq. (24) writes ∫_{t}^{t0} d4x2 in some places and ∫_{t1}^{t0} in others. This makes it difficult to follow the Markovian-limit argument.
[Section III, Eq. (36)] The replacement of the integral over |q| by the decay width Gamma^S_if uses the degenerate limit, but the integration limits depend on (m_i/m_f)^2, which is not exactly 1; the accuracy of approximating rho(|q|,t) by rho(|p|,t) over this interval should be stated with a quantitative estimate.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the master equation and the KamLAND lifetime bound are derived from a stated Hamiltonian and an external experimental limit, with no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The derivation is self-contained in the relevant sense. Equation (27) is obtained from the explicit interaction Hamiltonian (10), the equilibrium bath correlation function (20), and the Born-Markov and rotating-wave approximations, with the dissipative rates (28)-(31) computed from QFT matrix elements; none of these quantities is defined in terms of the KamLAND bound or of a fitted decoherence parameter. The scalar-decay specialization introduces the external decay width Gamma_S_if from Ref. [30] and approximates the momentum integral in Eq. (36) by that width; this is a model approximation, not a circular reduction, because Gamma_S_if has an independent definition. The identification gamma_1 = Gamma_S_21 used to compare with Ref. [9] is a physical mapping between the derived dissipative matrix and the phenomenological decoherence parameter, and the final bound (41) is a rearrangement of the external experimental limit Gamma_21(E0) < 1.8e-24 GeV, not a quantity fitted to the same data. The paper's self-citations (Refs. [14-16,24]) provide context and the radiative-decay predecessor but are not load-bearing for Eq. (27) or (41). Stated limitations, such as the omission of the principal-value term in Eq. (26) and the hand-inserted Kronecker deltas in Eq. (24), are approximations bearing on correctness, not circularity. No step reduces by construction to its own input.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The derivation rests on standard open-quantum-system axioms (weak coupling, Markovian, secular) and one explicitly ad hoc omission, the principal-value part of eq. (26). No free parameters are fitted and no new entities are introduced; the scalar interaction is a previously studied model.

assumptions (7)

domain assumption The full system is initially in a product state: the neutrino and the bath of massless particles are weakly coupled (eq. 8).
Standard Born approximation in open quantum systems; required for the trace and the perturbative expansion in eq. (13).
domain assumption The neutrino density matrix has no momentum coherence: nondiagonal momentum elements are zero (eq. 6).
States the assumption explicitly; if violated, the master equation would need extra terms coupling different momenta.
domain assumption The bath is in thermal equilibrium and its correlator is the free-field Wightman function (eqs. 17-20).
The environment is characterized by temperature T and a Planckian distribution; medium modifications are neglected.
domain assumption Rotating-wave (secular) approximation is applied by inserting Kronecker deltas that enforce energy conservation in the sums (eq. 24).
The secular approximation is standard, but its application to the momentum-transfer case is asserted rather than derived.
domain assumption Markovian approximation: the lower limit of the time integral is sent to t0 going to minus infinity (paragraph after eq. 25).
Assumes a short bath correlation time compared to the neutrino evolution timescale.
ad hoc to paper The imaginary principal-value part of the integral (26) is omitted because it only contributes to the coherent Hamiltonian evolution (paragraph after eq. 26).
The magnitude is never estimated; this is a systematic correction that is dropped without quantitative justification.
domain assumption In Section III, a degenerate mass hierarchy (m_i approximately equal to m_j) is assumed, so spin flip is suppressed and only three left-handed neutrino states are retained, and the neutrino is ultrarelativistic so the propagation angle drops out.
These assumptions reduce eq. (27) to eq. (33) and are stated before the lifetime bound is derived.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Generalized Lindblad master equation for neutrino evolution." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UK5OEZQO

@misc{pith2026241119303,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Generalized Lindblad master equation for neutrino evolution},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UK5OEZQO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.19303}
}

abstract

A new theoretical framework, based on the quantum field theory of open systems applied to neutrinos, has been developed. This framework aims to describe the neutrino evolution in external environment, taking into account the effect of neutrino quantum decoherence. We have applied this approach to investigate a novel mechanism for neutrino quantum decoherence, which arises due to the neutrino decay into a lighter neutrino state and a massless particle, as well as the inverse process of absorption of a massless particle by a neutrino. We derived the new generalized Lindblad master equation for the neutrino evolution that accounts for neutrino transitions between states with different momenta. We also demonstrate that studying of neutrino quantum decoherence through this master equation provides a unique possibility to determine or limit the neutrino decay width. On this basis we obtained the constraint on neutrino lifetime $\frac{\tau_2}{m_2} > 1.83 \times 10^{-10} \frac{s}{eV}$ (for the case of the Dirac neutrino scalar decay and neutrino degenerate hierarchy).

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

[9]

De Romeri, C

V. De Romeri, C. Giunti, T. Stuttard, and C. A. Ternes, Neutrino oscillation bounds on quantum decoherence, JHEP 09, 097, arXiv:2306.14699 [hep-ph]

arXiv
[1]

Giunti and A

C. Giunti and A. Studenikin, Neutrino elec- tromagnetic interactions: a window to new physics, Rev. Mod. Phys. 87, 531 (2015), arXiv:1403.6344 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2015
[2]

Lindblad, On the Generators of Quantum Dynamical Semigroups, Commun

G. Lindblad, On the Generators of Quantum Dynamical Semigroups, Commun. Math. Phys. 48, 119 (1976). 7

work page 1976
[3]

Gorini, A

V. Gorini, A. Kossakowski, and E. C. G. Sudarshan, Completely Positive Dynamical Semigroups of N Level Systems, J. Math. Phys. 17, 821 (1976)

1976
[4]

Balieiro Gomes, M

G. Balieiro Gomes, M. M. Guzzo, P. C. de Holanda, and R. L. N. Oliveira, Parameter Limits for Neutrino Oscillation with Decoherence in KamLAND, Phys. Rev. D 95, 113005 (2017), arXiv:1603.04126 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2017
[5]

R. L. N. Oliveira, Dissipative Eﬀect in Long Baseline Neutrino Experiments, Eur. Phys. J. C 76, 417 (2016), arXiv:1603.08065 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2016
[6]

J. A. B. Coelho and W. A. Mann, Decoherence, mat- ter eﬀect, and neutrino hierarchy signature in long baseline experiments, Phys. Rev. D 96, 093009 (2017), arXiv:1708.05495 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2017
[7]

de Gouvˆ ea, V

A. de Gouvˆ ea, V. De Romeri, and C. A. Ternes, Com- bined analysis of neutrino decoherence at reactor exper- iments, JHEP 06, 042, arXiv:2104.05806 [hep-ph]

arXiv

Show all 36 references

[8]

de Gouvea, V

A. de Gouvea, V. de Romeri, and C. A. Ternes, Probing neutrino quantum decoherence at reactor experiments, JHEP 08, 018, arXiv:2005.03022 [hep-ph]

2005 arXiv
[10]

P. C. de Holanda, Solar Neutrino Limits on Decoherence, JCAP 03, 012, arXiv:1909.09504 [hep-ph]

1909 arXiv
[11]

G. L. Fogli, E. Lisi, A. Marrone, D. Mon- tanino, and A. Palazzo, Probing non-standard decoherence eﬀects with solar and KamLAND neutrinos, Phys. Rev. D 76, 033006 (2007), arXiv:0704.2568 [hep-ph]

2007 arXiv
[12]

Coloma, J

P. Coloma, J. Lopez-Pavon, I. Martinez-Soler, and H. Nunokawa, Decoherence in Neutrino Propa- gation Through Matter, and Bounds from Ice- Cube/DeepCore, Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 614 (2018), arXiv:1803.04438 [hep-ph]

2018 arXiv
[13]

Farzan and T

Y. Farzan and T. Schwetz, A decoher- ence explanation of the gallium neu- trino anomaly, SciPost Phys. 15, 172 (2023), arXiv:2306.09422 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[14]

Purtova, K

A. Purtova, K. Stankevich, and A. Studenikin, Eﬀect of Quantum Decoherence on Collective Neutrino Oscil- lations, JETP Lett. 118, 83 (2023)

2023
[15]

Stankevich and A

K. Stankevich and A. Studenikin, Quan- tum Decoherence of Neutrino Mass States, Phys. Part. Nucl. Lett. 20, 1332 (2023), arXiv:2301.13522 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[16]

Stankevich and A

K. Stankevich and A. Studenikin, Collective neu- trino oscillations accounting for neutrino quan- tum decoherence, PoS ICHEP2020, 216 (2021), arXiv:2102.05138 [hep-ph]

2021 arXiv
[17]

M. V. dos Santos, P. C. de Holanda, P. Dedin Neto, and E. Kemp, Eﬀects of quan- tum decoherence in a future supernova neu- trino detection, Phys. Rev. D 108, 103032 (2023), arXiv:2306.17591 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[18]

C. P. Burgess and D. Michaud, Neutrino propaga- tion in a ﬂuctuating sun, Annals Phys. 256, 1 (1997), arXiv:hep-ph/9606295

1997 arXiv
[19]

Benatti and R

F. Benatti and R. Floreanini, Dissipative neu- trino oscillations in randomly ﬂuctuating matter, Phys. Rev. D 71, 013003 (2005)

2005
[20]

F. N. Loreti and A. B. Balantekin, Neutrino oscillation s in noisy media, Phys. Rev. D 50, 4762 (1994)

1994
[21]

Dvornikov, Interaction of supernova neu- trinos with stochastic gravitational waves, Phys

M. Dvornikov, Interaction of supernova neu- trinos with stochastic gravitational waves, Phys. Rev. D 104, 043018 (2021)

2021
[22]

J. F. Nieves and S. Sahu, Neutrino deco- herence in an electron and nucleon back- ground, Phys. Rev. D 102, 056007 (2020), arXiv:2002.08315 [hep-ph]

2020 arXiv
[23]

J. F. Nieves and S. Sahu, Neutrino de- coherence in a fermion and scalar back- ground, Phys. Rev. D 100, 115049 (2019), arXiv:1909.11271 [hep-ph]

2019 arXiv
[24]

Stankevich and A

K. Stankevich and A. Studenikin, Neutrino quantum decoherence engendered by neutrino radiative decay, Phys. Rev. D 101, 056004 (2020)

2020
[25]

Breuer and F

H.-P. Breuer and F. Petruccione, The Theory of Open Quantum Systems (Oxford Univer- sity Press, 2007)

2007
[26]

C. A. Brasil, F. F. Fanchini, and R. d. J. Napolitano, A simple derivation of the lindblad equation, Revista Brasileira de Ensino de F ´ ısica 35, 01 (2013)

2013
[27]

A. I. Ternov and P. A. Eminov, Neutrino ra- diative decay in external ﬁeld and medium, Phys. Part. Nucl. 45, 397 (2014)

2014
[28]

A. I. Ternov and P. A. Eminov, Decay of a massive neutrino in magnetized electron gas, Phys. Rev. D 87, 113001 (2013)

2013
[29]

Grigoriev, A

A. Grigoriev, A. Lokhov, A. Studenikin, and A. Ter- nov, Spin light of neutrino in astrophysical environments, JCAP 11, 024, arXiv:1705.07481 [hep-ph]

arXiv
[30]

Funcke, G

L. Funcke, G. Raﬀelt, and E. Vitagliano, Dis- tinguishing Dirac and Majorana neutrinos by their decays via Nambu-Goldstone bosons in the gravitational-anomaly model of neu- trino masses, Phys. Rev. D 101, 015025 (2020), arXiv:1905.01264 [hep-ph]

2020 arXiv
[31]

J. F. Nieves and P. B. Pal, Angular mo- mentum non-conserving decays in isotropic media, Eur. Phys. J. C 63, 331 (2009), arXiv:0907.3000 [hep-ph]

2009 arXiv
[32]

Sigl and G

G. Sigl and G. Raﬀelt, General kinetic description of re la- tivistic mixed neutrinos, Nucl. Phys. B 406, 423 (1993)

1993
[33]

O. G. Kharlanov and P. I. Shustov, Eﬀects of nonstandard neutrino self-interactions and mag- netic moment on collective Majorana neutrino oscillations, Phys. Rev. D 103, 095004 (2021), arXiv:2010.05329 [hep-ph]

2021 arXiv
[34]

Z. Moss, M. H. Moulai, C. A. Arg¨ uelles, and J. M. Conrad, Exploring a nonmini- mal sterile neutrino model involving decay at IceCube, Phys. Rev. D 97, 055017 (2018), arXiv:1711.05921 [hep-ph]

2018 arXiv
[35]

Lindner, T

M. Lindner, T. Ohlsson, and W. Winter, A Combined treatment of neutrino decay and neutrino oscillations, Nucl. Phys. B 607, 326 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0103170

2001 arXiv
[36]

A. M. Gago, R. A. Gomes, A. L. G. Gomes, J. Jones- Perez, and O. L. G. Peres, Visible neutrino decay in the light of appearance and disappearance long baseline ex- periments, JHEP 11, 022, arXiv:1705.03074 [hep-ph]. 8

arXiv

Pith tools

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

[1] [9]

De Romeri, C

V. De Romeri, C. Giunti, T. Stuttard, and C. A. Ternes, Neutrino oscillation bounds on quantum decoherence, JHEP 09, 097, arXiv:2306.14699 [hep-ph]

arXiv

[2] [1]

Giunti and A

C. Giunti and A. Studenikin, Neutrino elec- tromagnetic interactions: a window to new physics, Rev. Mod. Phys. 87, 531 (2015), arXiv:1403.6344 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2015

[3] [2]

Lindblad, On the Generators of Quantum Dynamical Semigroups, Commun

G. Lindblad, On the Generators of Quantum Dynamical Semigroups, Commun. Math. Phys. 48, 119 (1976). 7

work page 1976

[4] [3]

Gorini, A

V. Gorini, A. Kossakowski, and E. C. G. Sudarshan, Completely Positive Dynamical Semigroups of N Level Systems, J. Math. Phys. 17, 821 (1976)

1976

[5] [4]

Balieiro Gomes, M

G. Balieiro Gomes, M. M. Guzzo, P. C. de Holanda, and R. L. N. Oliveira, Parameter Limits for Neutrino Oscillation with Decoherence in KamLAND, Phys. Rev. D 95, 113005 (2017), arXiv:1603.04126 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2017

[6] [5]

R. L. N. Oliveira, Dissipative Eﬀect in Long Baseline Neutrino Experiments, Eur. Phys. J. C 76, 417 (2016), arXiv:1603.08065 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2016

[7] [6]

J. A. B. Coelho and W. A. Mann, Decoherence, mat- ter eﬀect, and neutrino hierarchy signature in long baseline experiments, Phys. Rev. D 96, 093009 (2017), arXiv:1708.05495 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2017

[8] [7]

de Gouvˆ ea, V

A. de Gouvˆ ea, V. De Romeri, and C. A. Ternes, Com- bined analysis of neutrino decoherence at reactor exper- iments, JHEP 06, 042, arXiv:2104.05806 [hep-ph]

arXiv