Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Searching for MeV-mass neutrinophilic Dark Matter with Large Scale Dark Matter Detectors

T0 review · 2 major / 5 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 Planned xenon dark matter detectors could match Super-Kamiokande's reach for MeV-scale dark matter annihilating to the third neutrino mass eigenstate.

desk verdict Useful scenario paper on DM->nu3 detection via CEvNS; the DARWIN projection is not new and the printed test statistic needs fixing before the curves can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.19836 v2 pith:UPFGN7FW submitted 2024-11-29 hep-ph astro-ph.HEhep-ex

Anna M. Suliga (New York University) , George M. Fuller (University of California San Diego) This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phastro-ph.HEhep-ex
keywords neutrinophilicdarkmatterMeVthirdneutrinomasseigenstatecoherentelasticneutrino-nucleusscatteringCEvNSdirectdetectorstelescopesGalacticannihilation
topics Dark Matter
open problems Dark Matter
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

MeV-scale dark matter that annihilates only into neutrinos is one of the least constrained dark matter scenarios, because the final-state particles barely interact. This paper considers the flavor-hidden version of that scenario: dark matter of mass 10–100 MeV annihilating exclusively to the third neutrino mass eigenstate, whose electron-flavor fraction is only about $|U_{e3}|^2 \approx 2\%$. In that case the electron-neutrino flux is suppressed enough that conventional neutrino telescopes lose up to two orders of magnitude in sensitivity. The paper shows that large xenon-based dark matter detectors, which see neutrinos through flavor-blind coherent elastic neutrino-nucleus scattering, can recover much of that lost sensitivity, and that a planned detector like DARWIN would be competitive with Super-Kamiokande and overlap the projected reach of JUNO and Hyper-Kamiokande. A signal seen in both detector types would be a strong indication that dark matter annihilates to neutrino mass states rather than to charged particles.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is coherent elastic neutrino-nucleus scattering (CEvNS): a neutrino scatters off the whole xenon nucleus, producing a nuclear recoil with a cross section enhanced by the square of the weak charge, roughly the neutron number squared. Because CEvNS is flavor-blind, it registers the muon- and tau-dominated $\nu_3$ flux that electron-flavor-sensitive detectors miss. The companion identity is the small electron-flavor content of the third mass eigenstate, $|U_{e3}|^2 \simeq 0.02$, which keeps the electron-neutrino flux low in this scenario and is the reason the authors divide the recast neutrino-telescope limits by this factor. The calculation combines the delta-function Galactic flux at $E_\nu=m_\chi$, the CEvNS differential cross section with a standard nuclear form factor, and a 1 keV-binned likelihood that marginalizes over solar and atmospheric neutrino normalization uncertainties.

What would settle it

A 200 tonne-year DARWIN-like exposure with a 1 keV nuclear-recoil threshold that finds no excess above solar and atmospheric neutrino backgrounds in the relevant recoil-energy bins, while JUNO or Hyper-Kamiokande measures an electron-neutrino flux from the Galactic center larger than the level predicted from $|U_{e3}|^2 \simeq 0.02$, would exclude exclusive annihilation to the third mass eigenstate.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Restricting the annihilation channel to $\chi\chi\to\nu_3\bar\nu_3$, the authors compute the 90% confidence sensitivity of xenon dark matter detectors to the resulting Galactic neutrino flux, modeled as a monochromatic line at $E_\nu = m_\chi$ with the canonical halo $J$-factor $J_{\rm av}=5$. They recast the best existing limits, Super-Kamiokande plus projected JUNO and Hyper-Kamiokande sensitivities, by multiplying by $1/3$ and dividing by $|U_{e3}|^2$ to account for the small electron-flavor content of the third mass eigenstate. They find that XENON1T is not competitive, but a DARWIN-like detector, with either 40 tonne-years of exposure using XENON1T's efficiency and energy window or 200 tonne-years with 100% efficiency down to a 1 keV nuclear-recoil threshold, can probe annihilation cross sections in the $10^{-25}$–$10^{-24}~\mathrm{cm^3\,s^{-1}}$ range for masses around 25–100 MeV. That makes dark matter detectors competitive with the current Super-Kamiokande limits and places a non-excluded, discoverable region of parameter space within reach of both DARWIN-type CEvNS detectors and future neutrino telescopes. The paper's central claim is that planned large-scale dark matter detectors become neutrino telescopes for this specific flavor-hidden annihilation channel, and that coincident signals across direct-detection and neutrino experiments would indicate dark matter annihilation to neutrino mass eigenstates.

Load-bearing premise

The argument stands on the assumption that dark matter annihilates exclusively to the third neutrino mass eigenstate, whose electron-flavor content is only about 2%; if annihilation instead produced democratic flavor ratios or flavor states, neutrino oscillations would create a large electron-neutrino component and conventional detectors would regain sensitivity, changing the projected discovery region.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • DARWIN-like exposures of 40–200 tonne-years can probe annihilation cross sections down to roughly $10^{-25}~\mathrm{cm^3\,s^{-1}}$ in the 25–100 MeV mass range, matching current Super-Kamiokande limits.
  • The projected sensitivity regions of DARWIN and of JUNO and Hyper-Kamiokande overlap, so the same model could be confirmed by two independent detector types.
  • A coincident signal in a CEvNS detector and a flavor-sensitive neutrino telescope would strongly indicate annihilation to neutrino mass states rather than to charged particles.
  • Solar neutrino backgrounds set a practical floor: dark matter masses below about 15 MeV are difficult to reach because solar-neutrino recoils dominate below roughly 3 keV.
  • A non-observation by XENON1T does not constrain this channel as strongly as Super-Kamiokande, but the larger planned exposures change that conclusion.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the paper notes that the extragalactic diffuse neutrino flux from annihilation could be comparable to the Galactic contribution, real DARWIN sensitivity might be somewhat better than the Galactic-only limits shown here.
  • The same CEvNS-based strategy should apply to any low-energy source of non-electron-flavor neutrinos, such as supernova neutrinos or decaying heavy neutrinos, making large dark matter detectors general-purpose neutrino observatories beyond the dark matter search.
  • A null result in DARWIN combined with an electron-neutrino excess in JUNO or Hyper-Kamiokande would not exclude all neutrinophilic dark matter, but it would rule out the exclusive-$\nu_3$ branch and push models toward democratic or electron-flavor annihilation channels.
  • The recasting assumes vacuum oscillations with decoherence and negligible matter effects; a sharp measurement of the neutrino mass ordering and of the $\theta_{23}$ octant would refine the predicted electron-flavor leakage and sharpen or weaken the reach estimate.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper studies indirect detection of MeV-scale dark matter that annihilates exclusively to the third neutrino mass eigenstate, nu_3, whose electron-flavor content is only |U_e3|^2 ~ 0.02. Because conventional neutrino detectors are most sensitive to electron neutrinos, the expected signal in those detectors is strongly suppressed; the paper argues that large-scale xenon dark matter detectors, via coherent elastic neutrino-nucleus scattering, can probe this channel. Using a monochromatic Galactic neutrino flux with Jav = 5, the standard CE-NS cross section, and solar and atmospheric neutrino backgrounds, the authors compute expected 90% C.L. sensitivities for XENON1T and two DARWIN-like exposures and compare them with recast Super-K, Hyper-K, and JUNO limits. They conclude that DARWIN can be competitive with the current Super-K limits and that its projected sensitivity overlaps with JUNO and Hyper-K discovery regions for dark matter masses in the tens of MeV.

Significance. If the quantitative results survive a corrected statistical treatment, the paper makes a useful and falsifiable point: flavor-blind CE-NS detectors can probe neutrinophilic dark matter scenarios that are nearly invisible to electron-neutrino-based telescopes. The flux and rate formulas in Secs. II and III A are standard and transparent, the J-factor choice matches the previous SK/HK/JUNO analyses used for comparison, and the authors explicitly state several caveats, including the neglect of the extragalactic contribution and of the diffuse supernova neutrino background. The predicted overlap between DARWIN and JUNO/HK is a concrete experimental target. However, the central DARWIN sensitivity curves in Fig. 1 rest on a printed test statistic that is not a valid Poisson likelihood ratio and on an incorrect number of degrees of freedom, so the headline competitive-with-SK claim is not yet quantitatively established by the manuscript as written.

major comments (2)
  1. [III B, Eq. (5)] Equation (5) is not a valid Poisson log-likelihood-ratio statistic. For background-only Asimov data n_i = N^i_sol + N^i_atm and model expectation mu_i = N^i_sig + (1+x) N^i_sol + (1+y) N^i_atm, the Poisson profile likelihood ratio is -2 ln lambda = 2 sum_i [mu_i - n_i + n_i ln(n_i/mu_i)] + (x/sigma_sol)^2 + (y/sigma_atm)^2. As printed, Eq. (5) has prefactor N^i_sig + x N^i_sol + y N^i_atm + N^i_obs, which equals 2 N^i_sig + (1+2x) N^i_sol + (1+2y) N^i_atm, and uses log[(N^i_atm+N^i_sol)/N^i_obs]; this matches neither the correct Poisson term nor any standard limiting form. Because the DARWIN sensitivity curves in Fig. 1 are generated from Eq. (5), the central claim that DARWIN is competitive with Super-K is not quantitatively supported by the printed analysis. The statement that the limits are consistent with Ref. [84] is helpful, but it does not validate Eq. (5) as written.
  2. [III B, text after Eq. (5)] The stated 90% C.L. threshold is incorrect. After minimizing over the nuisance parameters x and y, the parameter of interest is <sigma v> alone, so under Wilks' theorem the appropriate one-dimensional profile-likelihood threshold is Delta chi^2 = 2.71, not the two-degree-of-freedom value Delta chi^2 = 4.61 used in the text. Using 4.61 weakens the derived cross-section limit by approximately sqrt(4.61/2.71) ~ 1.3. The DARWIN curves in Fig. 1 should be regenerated with the correct one-dimensional threshold.
minor comments (5)
  1. [III B, Fig. 1] The XENON1T red region is computed as a zero-background Poisson sensitivity (lambda ~ 2.3 events), not from the actual XENON1T event sample; please label it as an expected sensitivity or provide an observed limit, otherwise it may be read as an existing exclusion.
  2. [I, recasting paragraph] The recast of the SK/HK/JUNO limits assumes that the sensitivity of those detectors is dominated by the electron-neutrino component; please state this explicitly, since the factors 1/3 / |U_e3|^2 and 0.55 / |U_e3|^2 are otherwise not self-evident.
  3. [I and IV] DUNE is mentioned in the abstract and conclusions as a potential coincident detector, but no DUNE sensitivity calculation appears in the paper; either add the estimate or soften the claim.
  4. [II, Eq. (2)] The Heaviside function Theta(E_max^r - E_r) is redundant because the differential cross section in Eq. (3) already vanishes above E_max^r; this is harmless but should be noted or removed.
  5. [Throughout] Please fix the inconsistent 'DAR WIN'/'DARWIN' spacing and the typographical errors 'scenrio' in the Introduction and 'DARIWN' in Sec. III B.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No material circularity: the DARWIN sensitivity calculation is a self-contained application of standard flux, CEνNS, and recast-limit formulas to externally fixed inputs; no fitted quantity is renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. The neutrino flux (Eq. 1) is a standard angular-averaged J-factor formula with canonical inputs (Jav=5, R*=8.5 kpc, rho*=0.3 GeV/cm^3), the CEνNS event rate (Eq. 2) uses the textbook differential cross section and Helm form factor, and the DARWIN sensitivity curves are obtained from a Poisson test statistic with nuisance pulls over published solar and atmospheric neutrino backgrounds. The only inputs that shape the central claim are the externally chosen scenario (DM annihilates exclusively to ν3, with |Ue3|^2 ~ 2% from PDG mixing angles) and the recast SK/JUNO/HK limits, which are scaled by the same physically motivated 1/3 and 1/|Ue3|^2 factors; this is a consistent recast, not a fit to the plotted DARWIN curve. The comparison with Super-K is a comparison of independently computed curves, and the quoted consistency with Ref. [84] is an external benchmark, not an author-loaded uniqueness argument. The only self-citation is Ref. [103] (one author's DSNB review) for the negligible DSNB contribution, which is corroborated by Refs. [104,105] and is not load-bearing. Potential concerns about Eq. (5) being an invalid Poisson likelihood or using a two-d.o.f. threshold are statistical correctness issues, not circular reductions: the DARWIN limit is not defined in terms of the SK limit, nor is any target quantity fitted as an input. Accordingly the circularity burden is minimal.

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

The sensitivity estimate rests on halo parameters, the exclusive neutrino-3 annihilation assumption, flavor decoherence, the CE-NS cross section, and background composition. These are adopted from prior literature or stated as model inputs rather than derived here; none are fitted to data in this paper.

free parameters (4)
  • Jav (average J-factor) = 5
    Canonical angular-averaged halo factor from Ref. [16]; chosen by hand and scales all sensitivity limits linearly, with no uncertainty propagated.
  • R_star (distance to Galactic Center) = 8.5 kpc
    Input from Ref. [16] used in Eq. (1); chosen value affects the absolute flux normalization.
  • rho_star (local DM density at solar circle) = 0.3 GeV/cm^3
    Input used in Eq. (1); chosen value affects the absolute flux normalization.
  • Background normalization uncertainties = sigma_atm = 25%, sigma_sol = 10%
    Chosen one-sigma pull widths in Eq. (5); they soften the DARWIN limits but are not derived from data in this paper.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Dark matter annihilates exclusively to the neutrino-3 mass eigenstate.
    Motivated by majoron and scotogenic models in Refs. [49-58], but not derived here. This assumption drives the low electron-flavor content of the signal.
  • domain assumption Neutrino mass eigenstates decohere and only vacuum oscillations matter; Earth matter effects are negligible.
    Used to convert the neutrino-3 flux into flavor components for comparing with Super-Kamiokande, Hyper-Kamiokande, and JUNO; stated in the Introduction with Ref. [63].
  • domain assumption Standard CE-NS cross section with Helm form factor is valid for xenon at recoil energies down to 1 keV.
    Used in Eqs. (3)-(4); established by COHERENT but extrapolated to lower energies and larger targets.
  • domain assumption Solar and atmospheric neutrinos are the only relevant irreducible backgrounds; the diffuse supernova neutrino background is negligible.
    Stated in Sec. III A; DSNB neglected because expected to be much smaller.
  • standard math Wilks' theorem applies to the sensitivity test statistic.
    Invoked in Sec. III B for DARWIN limits; however, Eq. (5) as printed does not define a valid chi-square statistic.
  • domain assumption Recasting factors for Super-Kamiokande, Hyper-Kamiokande, and JUNO limits (1/3 and |Ue3|^-2) correctly translate all-flavor annihilation limits to neutrino-3-only limits.
    Assumed in the Introduction and Fig. 1; no explicit derivation of the oscillation-averaged conversion factors is given.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Searching for MeV-mass neutrinophilic Dark Matter with Large Scale Dark Matter Detectors." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UPFGN7FW

@misc{pith2026241119836,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Searching for MeV-mass neutrinophilic Dark Matter with Large Scale Dark Matter Detectors},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UPFGN7FW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.19836}
}
read the original abstract

The indirect detection of dark matter (DM) through its annihilation products is one of the primary strategies for DM detection. One of the least constrained classes of models is neutrinophilic DM, because the annihilation products, weakly interacting neutrinos, are challenging to observe. Here, we consider a scenario where MeV-mass DM exclusively annihilates to the third neutrino mass eigenstate, which is predominantly of tau and muon flavor. In such a scenario, the potential detection rate of the neutrinos originating from the DM annihilation in our Galaxy in the conventional detectors would be suppressed by up to approximately two orders of magnitude. This is because the best sensitivity of such detectors for neutrinos with energies below approximately 100 MeV is for electron neutrino flavor. In this work, we highlight the potential of large-scale DM detectors in uncovering such signals in the tens of MeV range of DM masses. In addition, we discuss how coincident signals in direct detection DM experiments and upcoming neutrino detectors such as DUNE, Hyper-Kamiokande, and JUNO could provide new perspectives on the DM problem.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.19836 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The 90% C.L. sensitivity limits on the DM parti [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. shows the ideal nuclear recoil event rates for the fluxes of ν3 created by the DM annihilation for ⟨σv⟩ = 10−22 cm3 s −1 and mχ = 15 MeV (solid light pink line), mχ = 25 MeV (solid pink line), and mχ = 50 MeV (solid dark pink line) together with the sources of irreducible backgrounds, i.e., solar neu￾trinos [95, 96] (dashed gray line) and atmospheric neu￾trinos [97, 98] (dash-dotted gray line). The large flux of sol… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. The Highest-Energy Neutrino Event Constrains Dark Matter-Neutrino Interactions

    hep-ph 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    KM3-230213A limits dark matter-neutrino scattering to below about 1e-22 cm^2/GeV at 220 PeV, but most simple dark matter models are excluded by unitarity above MeV masses.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

108 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [84]

    McKeen and N

    D. McKeen and N. Raj, Phys. Rev. D 99, 103003 (2019), arXiv:1812.05102 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2019

  2. [1]

    V. C. Rubin, J. Ford, W. K., and N. Thonnard, Astro- phys. J. 238, 471 (1980)

    1980

  3. [2]

    Trimble, ”Ann

    V. Trimble, ”Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.” 25, 425 (1987)

    1987

  4. [3]

    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]

    arXiv 2020

  5. [4]

    Bertone, D

    G. Bertone, D. Hooper, and J. Silk, Phys. Rept. 405, 279 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0404175

    arXiv 2005

  6. [5]

    T. R. Slatyer, in Theoretical Advanced Study Institute in Elementary Particle Physics: Anticipating the Next Discoveries in Particle Physics (2018) pp. 297–353, arXiv:1710.05137 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2018

  7. [6]

    Essig, E

    R. Essig, E. Kuflik, S. D. McDermott, T. Volansky, and K. M. Zurek, JHEP 11, 193 (2013), arXiv:1309.4091 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2013

  8. [7]

    T. R. Slatyer, Phys. Rev. D 93, 023527 (2016), arXiv:1506.03811 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2016

Show all 108 references
  1. [8]

    R. K. Leane, T. R. Slatyer, J. F. Beacom, and K. C. Y. Ng, Phys. Rev. D 98, 023016 (2018), arXiv:1805.10305 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Dutta, A

    K. Dutta, A. Ghosh, A. Kar, and B. Mukhopadhyaya, JCAP 08, 071 (2023), arXiv:2212.09795 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  3. [10]

    K. K. Boddy et al. , JHEAp 35, 112 (2022), arXiv:2203.06380 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Baryakhtar et al

    M. Baryakhtar et al. , in Snowmass 2021 (2022) arXiv:2203.07984 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Cooley et al

    J. Cooley et al. , (2022), arXiv:2209.07426 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Aalbers et al

    J. Aalbers et al. , J. Phys. G 50, 013001 (2023), arXiv:2203.02309 [physics.ins-det]

    2023

  7. [14]

    Steigman, B

    G. Steigman, B. Dasgupta, and J. F. Beacom, Phys. Rev. D 86, 023506 (2012), arXiv:1204.3622 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  8. [15]

    J. F. Beacom, N. F. Bell, and G. D. Mack, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 231301 (2007), arXiv:astro-ph/0608090

    2007 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Yuksel, S

    H. Yuksel, S. Horiuchi, J. F. Beacom, and S. Ando, Phys. Rev. D 76, 123506 (2007), arXiv:0707.0196 [astro- ph]

    2007 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Palomares-Ruiz and S

    S. Palomares-Ruiz and S. Pascoli, Phys. Rev. D 77, 025025 (2008), arXiv:0710.5420 [astro-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Gando et al

    A. Gando et al. (KamLAND), Astrophys. J. 745, 193 (2012), arXiv:1105.3516 [astro-ph.HE]

    2012 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Kappl and M

    R. Kappl and M. W. Winkler, Nucl. Phys. B 850, 505 (2011), arXiv:1104.0679 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Frankiewicz (Super-Kamiokande), in Meeting of the APS Division of Particles and Fields (2015) arXiv:1510.07999 [hep-ex]

    K. Frankiewicz (Super-Kamiokande), in Meeting of the APS Division of Particles and Fields (2015) arXiv:1510.07999 [hep-ex]

    2015 arXiv

  14. [21]

    M. G. Aartsen et al. (IceCube), Eur. Phys. J. C 75, 492 (2015), arXiv:1505.07259 [astro-ph.HE]

    2015 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Albert et al

    A. Albert et al. , Phys. Lett. B 769, 249 (2017), [Erratum: Phys.Lett.B 796, 253–255 (2019)], arXiv:1612.04595 [astro-ph.HE]

    2017 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Frankiewicz (Super-Kamiokande), J

    K. Frankiewicz (Super-Kamiokande), J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 888, 012210 (2017)

    2017

  17. [24]

    Hiroshima, R

    N. Hiroshima, R. Kitano, K. Kohri, and K. Murase, Phys. Rev. D 97, 023006 (2018), arXiv:1705.04419 [hep- ph]

    2018 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Olivares-Del Campo, C

    A. Olivares-Del Campo, C. Bœhm, S. Palomares-Ruiz, and S. Pascoli, Phys. Rev. D 97, 075039 (2018), arXiv:1711.05283 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Klop and S

    N. Klop and S. Ando, Phys. Rev. D 98, 103004 (2018), arXiv:1809.00671 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  20. [27]

    C. A. Arg¨ uelles, A. Diaz, A. Kheirandish, A. Olivares- Del-Campo, I. Safa, and A. C. Vincent, Rev. Mod. Phys. 93, 035007 (2021), arXiv:1912.09486 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  21. [28]

    N. F. Bell, M. J. Dolan, and S. Robles, JCAP 09, 019 (2020), arXiv:2005.01950 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Ferrer, G

    F. Ferrer, G. Herrera, and A. Ibarra, JCAP 05, 057 (2023), arXiv:2209.06339 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  23. [30]

    J. M. Cline, S. Gao, F. Guo, Z. Lin, S. Liu, M. Puel, P. Todd, and T. Xiao, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 091402 (2023), arXiv:2209.02713 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  24. [31]

    Fujiwara and G

    M. Fujiwara and G. Herrera, Phys. Lett. B 851, 138573 (2024), arXiv:2312.11670 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  25. [32]

    McKeen, D

    D. McKeen, D. E. Morrissey, M. Pospelov, H. Ra- mani, and A. Ray, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 011005 (2023), arXiv:2303.03416 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  26. [33]

    S. Das, J. A. Carpio, and K. Murase, (2024), arXiv:2405.06382 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  27. [34]

    P. A. R. Ade et al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys. 594, A13 (2016), arXiv:1502.01589 [astro-ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

  28. [35]

    Murase and J

    K. Murase and J. F. Beacom, JCAP 10, 043 (2012), arXiv:1206.2595 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  29. [36]

    Olivares-Del Campo, S

    A. Olivares-Del Campo, S. Palomares-Ruiz, and S. Pas- coli, in 53rd Rencontres de Moriond on Electroweak Interactions and Unified Theories (2018) pp. 441–444, arXiv:1805.09830 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  30. [37]

    Abe et al

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

    2018 arXiv

  31. [38]

    Okawa and Y

    S. Okawa and Y. Omura, JHEP 02, 231 (2021), arXiv:2011.04788 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  32. [39]

    Pospelov and A

    M. Pospelov and A. Ray, JCAP 01, 029 (2024), arXiv:2309.10032 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  33. [40]

    Boehm, M

    C. Boehm, M. J. Dolan, and C. McCabe, JCAP 08, 041 (2013), arXiv:1303.6270 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  34. [41]

    K. M. Nollett and G. Steigman, Phys. Rev. D89, 083508 (2014), arXiv:1312.5725 [astro-ph.CO]

    2014 arXiv

  35. [42]

    K. M. Nollett and G. Steigman, Phys. Rev. D91, 083505 (2015), arXiv:1411.6005 [astro-ph.CO]

    2015 arXiv

  36. [43]

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

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

    2019 arXiv

  37. [44]

    Sabti, J

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

    2020 arXiv

  38. [45]

    I. R. Wang and X.-J. Xu, JCAP 05, 050 (2024), arXiv:2312.17151 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  39. [46]

    Chu and J

    X. Chu and J. Pradler, Phys. Rev. D 109, 103510 (2024), arXiv:2310.06611 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  40. [47]

    X. Chu, J. Hisano, A. Ibarra, J.-L. Kuo, and J. Pradler, Phys. Rev. D 108, 015029 (2023), arXiv:2303.13643 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  41. [48]

    Abusleme et al

    A. Abusleme et al. (JUNO), JCAP 09, 001 (2023), arXiv:2306.09567 [hep-ex]. 6

    2023

  42. [49]

    Boehm, Y

    C. Boehm, Y. Farzan, T. Hambye, S. Palomares- Ruiz, and S. Pascoli, Phys. Rev. D 77, 043516 (2008), arXiv:hep-ph/0612228

    2008 arXiv

  43. [50]

    Pospelov, A

    M. Pospelov, A. Ritz, and M. B. Voloshin, Phys. Lett. B 662, 53 (2008), arXiv:0711.4866 [hep-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  44. [51]

    Bertoni, S

    B. Bertoni, S. Ipek, D. McKeen, and A. E. Nelson, JHEP 04, 170 (2015), arXiv:1412.3113 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  45. [52]

    Garcia-Cely and J

    C. Garcia-Cely and J. Heeck, JHEP 05, 102 (2017), arXiv:1701.07209 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  46. [53]

    Batell, T

    B. Batell, T. Han, D. McKeen, and B. Shams Es Haghi, Phys. Rev. D 97, 075016 (2018), arXiv:1709.07001 [hep- ph]

    2018 arXiv

  47. [54]

    Herms, S

    J. Herms, S. Jana, V. P. K., and S. Saad, Phys. Lett. B 845, 138167 (2023), arXiv:2307.15760 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  48. [55]

    X.-J. Xu, S. Zhou, and J. Zhu, JCAP 04, 012 (2024), arXiv:2310.16346 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  49. [56]

    Akita and M

    K. Akita and M. Niibo, JHEP 07, 132 (2023), arXiv:2304.04430 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  50. [57]

    S. Jana, M. Klasen, V. P. K., and L. P. Wiggering, JCAP 02, 011 (2025), arXiv:2406.18641 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  51. [58]

    K. M. C´ ardenas, G. Mohlabeng, and A. C. Vincent, (2024), arXiv:2411.03470 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  52. [59]

    A. G. Adame et al. (DESI), JCAP 02, 021 (2025), arXiv:2404.03002 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  53. [60]

    Navas et al

    S. Navas et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D 110, 030001 (2024)

    2024

  54. [61]

    Pontecorvo, Zh

    B. Pontecorvo, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 34, 247 (1957)

    1957

  55. [62]

    Z. Maki, M. Nakagawa, and S. Sakata, Prog. Theor. Phys. 28, 870 (1962)

    1962

  56. [63]

    A. S. Dighe and A. Y. Smirnov, Phys. Rev. D62, 033007 (2000), arXiv:hep-ph/9907423

    2000 arXiv

  57. [64]

    D. Z. Freedman, Phys. Rev. D 9, 1389 (1974)

    1974

  58. [65]

    Akimov et al

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

    2017 arXiv

  59. [66]

    Armengaud et al

    E. Armengaud et al. (EDEL WEISS), Phys. Lett. B702, 329 (2011), arXiv:1103.4070 [astro-ph.CO]

    2011 arXiv

  60. [67]

    Angloher, M

    G. Angloher, M. Bauer, I. Bavykina, A. Bento, C. Bucci, C. Ciemniak, G. Deuter, F. von Feilitzsch, D. Hauff, P. Huff, C. Isaila, J. Jochum, M. Kiefer, M. Kimmerle, J. C. Lanfranchi, F. Petricca, S. Pfister, W. Potzel, F. Pr¨ obst, F. Reindl, S. Roth, K. Rottler, C. Sailer, K. ...

    2012 arXiv

  61. [68]

    H. B. Li et al. (TEXONO), Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 261301 (2013), arXiv:1303.0925 [hep-ex]

    2013 arXiv

  62. [69]

    P. A. Amaudruz et al. (DEAP-3600), Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 071801 (2018), arXiv:1707.08042 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  63. [70]

    Agnes et al

    P. Agnes et al. (DarkSide), Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 081307 (2018), arXiv:1802.06994 [astro-ph.HE]

    2018 arXiv

  64. [71]

    Agnese et al

    R. Agnese et al. (SuperCDMS), Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 051301 (2018), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 122, 069901 (2019)], arXiv:1804.10697 [hep-ex]

    2018 arXiv

  65. [72]

    D. S. Akerib et al. (LUX), Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 131301 (2019), arXiv:1811.11241 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  66. [73]

    Aprile et al

    E. Aprile et al. (XENON), Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 111302 (2018), arXiv:1805.12562 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  67. [74]

    Meng et al

    Y. Meng et al. (PandaX-4T), Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 261802 (2021), arXiv:2107.13438 [hep-ex]

    2021 arXiv

  68. [75]

    Vergados and H

    J. Vergados and H. Ejiri, Nucl. Phys. B 804, 144 (2008), arXiv:0805.2583 [hep-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  69. [76]

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

    2009 arXiv

  70. [77]

    Billard, L

    J. Billard, L. Strigari, and E. Figueroa-Feliciano, Phys. Rev. D 89, 023524 (2014), arXiv:1307.5458 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  71. [78]

    Baudis, A

    L. Baudis, A. Ferella, A. Kish, A. Manalaysay, T. Mar- rodan Undagoitia, and M. Schumann, JCAP 01, 044 (2014), arXiv:1309.7024 [physics.ins-det]

    2014 arXiv

  72. [79]

    Ruppin, J

    F. Ruppin, J. Billard, E. Figueroa-Feliciano, and L. Strigari, Phys. Rev. D 90, 083510 (2014), arXiv:1408.3581 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  73. [80]

    C. A. J. O’Hare, Phys. Rev. D 94, 063527 (2016), arXiv:1604.03858 [astro-ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

  74. [81]

    C. Bœhm, D. Cerde˜ no, P. Machado, A. Olivares- Del Campo, E. Perdomo, and E. Reid, JCAP 01, 043 (2019), arXiv:1809.06385 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  75. [82]

    Aprile et al

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

    2024

  76. [83]

    Bo et al

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

    2024 arXiv

  77. [85]

    J. F. Cherry, M. T. Frandsen, and I. M. Shoemaker, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 231303 (2015), arXiv:1501.03166 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  78. [86]

    A. Das, T. Herbermann, M. Sen, and V. Takhistov, JCAP 07, 045 (2024), arXiv:2403.15367 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  79. [87]

    D. K. Ghosh, T. Gupta, M. Heikinheimo, K. Huitu, and S. Jeesun, (2024), arXiv:2411.11973 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  80. [88]

    Aprile et al

    E. Aprile et al. (XENON), Eur. Phys. J. C 77, 881 (2017), arXiv:1708.07051 [astro-ph.IM]

    2017 arXiv

  81. [89]

    Aprile et al

    E. Aprile et al. (XENON), JCAP 11, 031 (2020), arXiv:2007.08796 [physics.ins-det]

    2020 arXiv

  82. [90]

    D. S. Akerib et al. (LZ), Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 953, 163047 (2020), arXiv:1910.09124 [physics.ins-det]

    2020 arXiv

  83. [91]

    Aalbers et al

    J. Aalbers et al. (DAR WIN), JCAP 11, 017 (2016), arXiv:1606.07001 [astro-ph.IM]

    2016 arXiv

  84. [92]

    Akita, G

    K. Akita, G. Lambiase, M. Niibo, and M. Yamaguchi, JCAP 10, 097 (2022), arXiv:2206.06755 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  85. [93]

    R. L. Workman et al. (Particle Data Group), PTEP 2022, 083C01 (2022)

    2022

  86. [94]

    R. H. Helm, Phys. Rev. 104, 1466 (1956)

    1956

  87. [95]

    Vinyoles, A

    N. Vinyoles, A. M. Serenelli, F. L. Villante, S. Basu, J. Bergstr¨ om, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, M. Maltoni, C. Pe˜ na Garay, and N. Song, Astrophys. J. 835, 202 (2017), arXiv:1611.09867 [astro-ph.SR]

    2017 arXiv

  88. [96]

    Vitagliano, I

    E. Vitagliano, I. Tamborra, and G. Raffelt, Rev. Mod. Phys. 92, 45006 (2020), arXiv:1910.11878 [astro- ph.HE]

    2020 arXiv

  89. [97]

    Battistoni, A

    G. Battistoni, A. Ferrari, T. Montaruli, and P. R. Sala, Astropart. Phys. 19, 269 (2003), [Erra- tum: Astropart.Phys. 19, 291–294 (2003)], arXiv:hep- ph/0207035

    2003

  90. [98]

    J. L. Newstead, R. F. Lang, and L. E. Strigari, Phys. Rev. D 104, 115022 (2021), arXiv:2002.08566 [astro- ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  91. [99]

    Ando and K

    S. Ando and K. Sato, New J. Phys. 6, 170 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0410061

    2004 arXiv

  92. [100]

    Lunardini, Astropart

    C. Lunardini, Astropart. Phys. 79, 49 (2016), arXiv:1007.3252 [astro-ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

  93. [101]

    J. F. Beacom, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 60, 439 (2010), arXiv:1004.3311 [astro-ph.HE]

    2010 arXiv

  94. [102]

    S. Ando, N. Ekanger, S. Horiuchi, and Y. Koshio (2023) arXiv:2306.16076 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023

  95. [103]

    Diffuse Supernova Neutrino Back- ground,

    A. M. Suliga, “Diffuse Supernova Neutrino Back- ground,” in Handbook of Nuclear Physics , edited by 7 I. Tanihata, H. Toki, and T. Kajino (2022) pp. 1–18, arXiv:2207.09632 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022

  96. [104]

    A. M. Suliga, J. F. Beacom, and I. Tamborra, Phys. Rev. D 105, 043008 (2022), arXiv:2112.09168 [astro- ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  97. [105]

    Zhuang, L

    Y. Zhuang, L. E. Strigari, L. Jin, and S. Sinha, Phys. Rev. D 110, 043037 (2024), arXiv:2402.18454 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  98. [106]

    S. S. Wilks, Annals Math. Statist. 9, 60 (1938)

    1938

  99. [107]

    N. F. Bell, M. J. Dolan, and S. Robles, JCAP 11, 060 (2022), arXiv:2205.14123 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  100. [108]

    M. R. Buckley, A. Mastbaum, and G. Mohlabeng, Phys. Rev. D 107, 092006 (2023), arXiv:2210.04920 [hep-ex]

    2023 arXiv

Pith tools

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