Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 64 references

A nine-algorithm reanalysis of 22 years of Super-Kamiokande data finds the historical ~39-day solar-neutrino periodicity is a transient, low-statistics feature and limits any 11-year solar-cycle modulation to under 0.2% of the mean flux.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

A nine-algorithm re-analysis of 22 years of Super-Kamiokande 8B data shows the ~38.8-day early-era periodicity is a transient, low-statistics feature and caps any 11-year flux modulation at 0.2%.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-03 challenge →

load-bearing objection A useful multi-method re-analysis of SK solar neutrino periodicities that confirms the SK null result, but its headline 'eight-of-nine algorithms agree' is one MCMC fit wearing eight masks—worth a referee, not a pass. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.27979 v2 pith:YMHLSKAY submitted 2026-07-30 astro-ph.HE hep-ph

Comparative Periodogram Analysis of 22 Years of Super-Kamiokande Solar $^{8}\mathrm{B}$ Neutrino Data: Classical, Phase-Based, and Information Theoretic Methods

Liangliang Ren , Ze-Lin Zhang , Bing Xu , Tian-Cheng Huang , Ran Wang , Jia-Xin Dong , Yan-Ping Wang This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE hep-ph
keywords solar neutrinosSuper-Kamiokande8B fluxperiodogram analysisBayes factorLomb-Scargletime-series variabilitysolar cycle
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

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 tries to establish that the solar 8B neutrino flux recorded by Super-Kamiokande from 1996 to 2018 contains no persistent periodic modulation beyond the well-understood annual orbital effect. Comparing nine independent periodogram algorithms on hierarchically segmented data, it finds that the historically debated ~38.8-day signal is present only in the early, low-statistics SK-I era and disappears in the high-statistics SK-IV phase, where the Bayes factor decisively favors a null model. A ~24.3-day signal in post-2001 raw flux is likewise decisively rejected and vanishes after Earth–Sun distance correction, marking it as a seasonal systematic. The analysis also places a stringent upper limit of <0.2% of the mean flux on any 11-year solar-cycle modulation, consistent with standard solar model expectations. The larger methodological claim is that frequentist significance alone is insufficient for sub-percent flux modulations, and Bayesian model comparison should serve as the ultimate arbiter.

Core claim

The central discovery, on the paper's own terms, is that Bayesian model comparison resolves the tension left by frequentist periodogram peaks. The Generalized Lomb-Scargle method, which properly handles heteroscedastic uncertainties, finds formally significant peaks (FAP < 0.001) at ~38.8 days in the pre-2001/SK-I data and at ~24.3 days in post-2001 raw flux. But the logarithmic Bayes factor (ln B) computed from a time-binned sinusoidal model against a constant-plus-linear-drift null model shows only weak evidence for the 38.8-day signal (ln B ≈ 0.40 in modified flux) and decisive rejection of the 24.3-day signal (ln B ≈ -7.29). In the highest-statistics SK-IV data, the 38.8-day signal is en

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the combination of (i) hierarchical temporal segmentation of the 22-year dataset into pre/post-2001 and SK-I–IV phases, and (ii) Bayesian model comparison via the logarithmic Bayes factor ln B, computed with a time-binned sinusoidal model with asymmetric Gaussian likelihood against a null model of constant plus linear drift, using the BIC approximation. The nine periodogram algorithms — classical Lomb-Scargle, Generalized Lomb-Scargle, Box-Fitting Least Squares, Lafler–Kinman String Length, Phase Dispersion Minimization, Multi-Harmonic Analysis of Variance, and three information-theoretic quadratic mutual information variants — anchor their candidate frequencies

Load-bearing premise

The claim that eight of nine algorithms independently confirm the 38.8-day signal assumes those Bayesian fits are independent; because every fit is anchored to the same GLS/LS peak and uses the same MCMC chain configuration, the apparent cross-method consensus could instead be a single replicated calculation.

What would settle it

Recompute the Bayes factor for the 38.8-day signal in the pre-2001 data using each method's own independently selected peak frequency and a full nested-sampling evidence integral instead of the BIC approximation; if the ln B values no longer cluster near 0.40 and some drop below zero, the claimed cross-method consensus and the weak-evidence interpretation would be refuted.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • The ~38.8-day periodicity reported in early SK-I analyses should not be treated as evidence for solar core rotation, resonant spin-flavor precession, or other astrophysical mechanisms; the expanded dataset reduces it to weak, transient evidence.
  • The absence of an 11-year solar-cycle modulation at amplitudes above 0.2% of the mean flux corroborates standard solar model predictions of very small core temperature variations over the solar cycle.
  • Any future periodicity claim in solar neutrino data should be reported with both frequentist false-alarm probabilities and Bayesian model-comparison evidence, because a highly significant FAP can still yield decisive Bayes-factor rejection.
  • Short-period candidates confined to single detector phases (e.g., ~20.7 days in SK-II, ~203 days in SK-III) are best interpreted as instrumental or seasonal artifacts unless they persist across independent detector configurations.
  • The method hierarchy established here provides a benchmark: GLS is the most sensitive single method for this dataset, while QME and the information-theoretic variants are unreliable in this low-SNR regime.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the dataset were extended through Hyper-Kamiokande's first years, the same segmentation-plus-Bayes-factor pipeline could push the solar-cycle amplitude limit below 0.2% and resolve whether the 38.8-day signal ever reappears at higher statistics.
  • A cross-correlation between SK-IV modified flux and contemporaneous solar activity indices (e.g., sunspot number, 10.7 cm radio flux) could test whether any sub-percent modulation tracks the magnetic cycle rather than a fixed period, a possibility the paper's fixed-sinusoid model does not explicitly fit.
  • The paper's reliance on BIC-approximated Bayes factors could be strengthened by nested-sampling evidence calculations; the fact that eight of nine methods return identical ln B values suggests the consensus is driven by a single MCMC fit anchored to the same peak, so the claimed cross-method independence should be verified with method-specific peak selection.
  • Adopting the same multi-method framework on the public Super-Kamiokande data with alternative noise models (e.g., red noise or correlated systematics) would test whether the SK-IV null result is robust to the assumed white-noise likelihood.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper applies nine periodogram algorithms (LS, GLS, BLS, LKSL, PDM1, MHAOV, QME, QMICS, QMIEU) to the 22-year Super-Kamiokande solar 8B neutrino dataset (1996–2018), using a hierarchical temporal segmentation (full, pre/post-2001, SK-I–IV) and a Bayesian MCMC sinusoidal fit with a BIC-approximated Bayes factor. It reports that GLS is the most sensitive method; a ~38.8-day periodicity in pre-2001/SK-I data receives weak Bayesian support but disappears in SK-IV; a ~24.3-day signal in post-2001 raw flux is decisively rejected by Bayes factors; and no 11-year solar-cycle modulation is found above ~0.2% of the mean flux. The paper argues that Bayesian model comparison should be the 'ultimate arbiter' for low-SNR periodicity searches and presents the multi-method agreement as a key validation.

Significance. If the technical claims were fully supported, the paper would be a useful independent reanalysis of an important null result: the SK collaboration's conclusion that no persistent periodic modulation of the 8B flux is established is confirmed with a different methodology, and the stringent 11-year amplitude limit is valuable for solar-interior and neutrino-physics models. The release of the analysis code is a concrete strength. However, the paper's most distinctive methodological claim—that eight independent algorithms agree on a weak Bayesian detection—is undermined by the apparent replication of a single MCMC fit across method labels. The negative physical conclusions (SK-IV null, seasonal origin of 24.3-day and 20.7-day signals) are likely salvageable, but the consensus-based argument needs to be redone or explicitly demoted.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.1, Table 3] The claimed 'consensus across eight algorithms' is not an independent cross-validation. Section 4.1 states that 'for each segment and candidate period (taken from the GLS/LS peak), we run emcee'—one MCMC run per segment, not per algorithm. Table 3 confirms this: for pre-2001 modified flux, LS_Standard, GLS, BLS, LKSL, PDM1, MHAOV, QMICS, and QMIEU all report identical lnB=0.40, BIC=408.4, and chi2=379.0, even though the rows list different P_best values (e.g., LKSL 0.0784 yr vs GLS 0.1059 yr) and different best-fit amplitudes. Identical fit statistics with different model parameters are internally inconsistent unless the statistics were copied from a single fit. Therefore the abstract and §4.3 statements that 'eight out of nine algorithms' provide weak evidence cannot be interpreted as agreement among independent methods. This is load-bearing for the methodological message of the paper.
  2. [Tables 1–2 vs Figures 11–17] The same LS_Standard periodograms are reported with contradictory significance. Table 1 lists FAP=0.99 for LS_Standard in every segment, while Figures 11–17 label the same LS_Standard peaks as 'p=0.000' (e.g., Figure 11, 'Standard Lomb-Scargle, Raw, p=0.000'). Either the FAP calculation or the figure annotation is wrong. Since the paper's contrast between LS and GLS significance is a central quantitative claim, this contradiction must be resolved and the affected numbers corrected throughout.
  3. [§3.6, Eq. (3.27)] The reported Bayes factors are conditional on a period found in the same data and are not full model comparisons over the search space. The prior on frequency is f ~ U(0.6 f_init, 1.4 f_init), where f_init is the periodogram peak from the same segment, and Eq. (3.27) uses the BIC approximation with k=5 without accounting for the selection of frequency among the many independent frequencies scanned. The reported lnB is therefore not a global evidence ratio; it is a posterior odds at a pre-selected peak. For the positive 38.8-day claim (lnB≈0.40) this makes the evidence even weaker once the look-elsewhere penalty is included. For the strong negative claims (e.g., SK-IV lnB≈−5.85) the conclusion may survive, but the evidence values should be recomputed or explicitly described as conditional tests.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and §4.3] The abstract says 'seven algorithms provide weak evidence', whereas §4.3 and §4.4 state 'eight out of nine algorithms'. The count should be made consistent after the methods are genuinely distinguished.
  2. [§4.3, Table 3] The 'Method' column in Table 3 is misleading. Rows labeled LS_Standard, GLS, BLS, etc. appear to imply method-specific Bayesian fits, but §4.1 indicates a single MCMC chain per segment. The table should either report truly method-specific fits or explicitly state that the same MCMC output is copied for all methods with only the P_best column taken from each method's periodogram.
  3. [Eq. (3.22)–(3.23)] This is called an 'Asymmetric Profile Likelihood' but it is a piecewise Gaussian likelihood with sigma chosen by the sign of the residual. The terminology is misleading; please rename to something like 'asymmetric-error Gaussian likelihood'.
  4. [§5.2] The 0.2% 11-year upper limit is derived from the RMS scatter of SK-IV modified flux, but RMS scatter includes all variability sources, not just the 11-year Fourier component. Please provide a quantitative derivation (e.g., a least-squares or Lomb-Scargle amplitude limit at the solar-cycle frequency) so the limit is reproducible.
  5. [Figures 11–17] The figure labels use 'p=0.000', while the text uses 'FAP<0.001'. Use a consistent notation, and avoid p-values that appear to be exactly zero.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged

The 'eight-of-nine algorithms' Bayes-factor consensus is one GLS-anchored MCMC fit duplicated in Table 3; the Bayesian prior is also centered on the same-data periodogram peak.

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [§4.1, §4.3, Appendix Table 3]
    "Bayesian MCMC:For each segment and candidate period (taken from the GLS/LS peak), we run emceewith 128 walkers, 30000 steps (burn-in 200). ... the logarithmic Bayes factor (ln B) computed by eight out of the nine algorithms (LS, GLS, BLS, LKSL, PDM1, MHAOV, QMICS, and QMIEU) consistently yields values of 0.11 and 0.40, respectively."

    Section 4.1 specifies a single MCMC run per segment, anchored to the GLS/LS peak. Appendix Table 3 then reports identical lnB, BIC, and chi2 under every method label for the same segment and flux (e.g., pre-2001 modified: lnB=0.40, BIC=408.4, chi2=379.0 for LS/GLS/BLS/LKSL/PDM1/MHAOV/QMICS/QMIEU), even though LKSL's own periodogram peak is 0.0784 yr, far from the GLS 0.1059 yr peak. Thus the 'eight out of nine algorithms' agreement is not independent cross-validation: the same GLS-anchored fit is replicated in each row, so the agreement is guaranteed by construction. Calling this consensus independent evidence reduces the claim to a single fit.

  2. self definitional [§3.6]
    "Uniform priors are applied within data-driven bounds: A, B∼ U(−5σF ,5σ F ),f∼ U(0.6f init,1.4f init),c∼ U( ¯F±3σ F ), ands∼ U(−10 −3,10 −3), where f init is the candidate frequency from the periodogram peak."

    The Bayesian model-comparison evidence for a periodogram peak is defined with the frequency prior centered on that same peak (f_init from the same data). The reported lnB therefore validates a sinusoid in a narrow window around the already-detected peak rather than independently testing whether that peak exists; the claimed 'ultimate arbiter' is partially preconditioned on the frequentist detection it is supposed to adjudicate. This does not force the null-model rejections in SK-IV, but it weakens the independent content of the positive Bayesian evidence for the 38.8-day signal.

full rationale

The paper's main negative physical statements—absence of the 38.8-day signal in SK-IV, decisive Bayesian rejection of the 24.3-day seasonal candidate, and the <0.2% upper limit on solar-cycle modulation—rest on the external SK-IV/GLS/periodogram data and do not reduce to any fitted parameter. Those conclusions are not circular. The paper's most distinctive positive evidence, however, is the claimed consensus of eight methods on lnB=0.11/0.40 for the pre-2001/SK-I 38.8-day signal; that consensus is a single GLS-anchored MCMC run entered under eight method labels in Table 3, so the agreement is true by construction. The Bayesian prior centered on the same-data periodogram peak further reduces the independence of the positive evidence. No load-bearing self-citation chain is present. Score 6 reflects partial circularity: one central evidential claim reduces to a replicated fit, while the external null results remain independent.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The analysis imports the Pasumarti-Desai/SK dataset, standard periodogram machinery (Astropy, P4J), and the SK time-binned likelihood, then adds hand-chosen configuration parameters (BLS dip 10 d, bootstrap block 30 d, h_phi=1, MCMC priors). No new physical entities are postulated. The two self-confirmation channels — data-informed frequency priors and a single MCMC fit replicated as per-method ln B — are the main circularity load; everything else rests on standard statistics and external data.

free parameters (6)
  • BLS dip duration q = 10 days (fixed)
    §4.1 fixes the fractional dip duration so the dip is 10 days; the BLS null result is conditional on this morphology choice.
  • Block-bootstrap block length = 30 days (six 5-day bins)
    §4.1, chosen 'to preserve temporal correlations in the noise'; FAPs for all non-LS/GLS methods depend on this choice.
  • QMI phase kernel bandwidth h_phi = 1.0
    §3.4 'empirically optimal for phase variables'; drives the flat/degenerate QMI periodograms.
  • MCMC frequency prior range = f ~ U(0.6 f_init, 1.4 f_init)
    §3.6; the prior on frequency is centered on the periodogram peak found in the same data, so the Bayes factor is computed under a data-informed prior.
  • Null-model linear drift term s = s ~ U(-1e-3, 1e-3) day^-1
    §3.6; the 'null model' is constant + free linear drift; over only two 11-yr cycles this drift can absorb low-frequency power, directly affecting the 0.2% limit.
  • Amplitude prior width = A, B ~ U(-5 sigma_F, 5 sigma_F)
    §3.6; broad but a chosen bound that shapes the posterior and the reported BIC/chi2.
axioms (6)
  • standard math Baluev analytical FAP approximation is valid for LS/GLS on this irregular, heteroscedastic series
    §3.5; used to compute the headline FAP<0.001 values.
  • domain assumption The SK binned asymmetric-Gaussian likelihood (Eq. 3.22–3.23) is the correct generative model
    §3.6, adopted from Ref. [26] without re-derivation.
  • domain assumption Symmetrization sigma = (sigma- + sigma+)/2 preserves the effective information content
    §2.3, 'explicitly adopted from Pasumarti & Desai'.
  • domain assumption The Pasumarti-Desai 5-day binned flux series faithfully represents the SK 22-year data
    §2.2; the paper re-uses their released dataset and does not re-extract from SK raw data.
  • domain assumption Earth-Sun distance correction (Eq. 2.1) fully removes the annual modulation without injecting spectral power
    §2.3; all conclusions about 'modified flux' rely on this.
  • standard math BIC approximation gives reliable log Bayes factors at these sample sizes
    §3.6 Eq. 3.27; known to be crude for small N and narrow priors.

reviewed 2026-08-03 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Comparative Periodogram Analysis of 22 Years of Super-Kamiokande Solar $^{8}\mathrm{B}$ Neutrino Data: Classical, Phase-Based, and Information Theoretic Methods." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YMHLSKAY

@misc{pith2026260727979,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Comparative Periodogram Analysis of 22 Years of Super-Kamiokande Solar $^8\mathrmB$ Neutrino Data: Classical, Phase-Based, and Information Theoretic Methods},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YMHLSKAY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.27979}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
abstract

Solar $^8\mathrm{B}$ neutrinos offer a unique probe of solar interior dynamics and neutrino electromagnetic properties. We present a systematic, multi-method periodogram analysis of the 22-year Super-Kamiokande solar neutrino dataset (1996--2018), comparing nine algorithms. Through hierarchical temporal segmentation, we disentangle astrophysical signals from detector systematics. The Generalized Lomb-Scargle (GLS) method provides the most statistically robust detections by correctly handling heteroscedastic uncertainties, whereas classical Lomb-Scargle systematically underestimates significance. The Lafler--Kinman method generally fails, whereas independent algorithms like MHAOV and PDM1 recover consistent periodicities, providing vital cross-validation. In pre-2001 and SK-I data, seven algorithms provide \textit{weak evidence} ($\ln B > 0$) for a $\sim 38.8$ d periodicity. However, this signal is entirely absent in the highest-statistics SK-IV modified flux data, where the Bayes factor decisively favors the null model ($\ln B \ll -5$), indicating it is a transient feature of the early low-statistics era. Conversely, a $\sim 24.3$ d signal in post-2001 raw flux is decisively rejected by the Bayesian framework and vanishes in modified flux, confirming its seasonal systematic origin. Furthermore, no evidence is found for an $\sim 11$-year solar cycle modulation, yielding a stringent amplitude upper limit of $<0.2\%$ of the mean flux. By highlighting the stark contrast between frequentist significance and Bayesian model selection ($\ln B$) in low signal-to-noise regimes, we establish a rigorous, multi-metric best-practice framework for periodicity searches. This work provides a direct methodological blueprint for next-generation observatories like Hyper-Kamiokande and JUNO.

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 44 linked inside Pith

  1. [2]

    Adelberger et al.,Solar fusion cross sections II: the pp chain and CNO cycles,Rev

    E.G. Adelberger et al.,Solar fusion cross sections II: the pp chain and CNO cycles,Rev. Mod. Phys.83(2011) 195 [1004.2318]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  2. [3]

    Suliga, S

    A.M. Suliga, S. Shalgar and G.M. Fuller,A closer look at the pp-chain reaction in the Sun: constraining the coupling of light mediators to protons, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.2021 (2021) 042 [2012.11620]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  3. [4]

    Bahcall and M.H

    J.N. Bahcall and M.H. Pinsonneault,Solar models with helium and heavy element diffusion, Rev. Mod. Phys.67(1995) 781 [hep-ph/9505425]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  4. [5]

    Bahcall, P.I

    J.N. Bahcall, P.I. Krastev and A.Y. Smirnov,Where do we stand with solar neutrino oscillations?,Phys. Rev. D58(1998) 096016 [hep-ph/9807216]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  5. [6]

    Bahcall, A.M

    J.N. Bahcall, A.M. Serenelli and S. Basu,New solar opacities, abundances, helioseismology, and neutrino fluxes,Astrophys. J. Lett.621(2005) L85 [astro-ph/0412440]. [7]Super-Kamiokandecollaboration,Measurements of the solar neutrino flux from Super-Kamiokande’s first 300 days,Phys. Rev. Lett.81(1998) 1158 [hep-ex/9805021]. [8]Borexinocollaboration,Measurem...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  6. [10]

    Akhmedov,Resonant Amplification of Neutrino Spin Rotation in Matter and the Solar Neutrino Problem,Phys

    E.K. Akhmedov,Resonant Amplification of Neutrino Spin Rotation in Matter and the Solar Neutrino Problem,Phys. Lett. B213(1988) 64

    1988

  7. [11]

    Lim and W.J

    C.-S. Lim and W.J. Marciano,Resonant Spin - Flavor Precession of Solar and Supernova Neutrinos,Phys. Rev. D37(1988) 1368

    1988

  8. [12]

    C.S. Lim, M. Mori, Y. Oyama and A. Suzuki,Correlation between solar neutrino flux and solar magnetic activity for Majorana neutrinos,Physics Letters B243(1990) 389

    1990

  9. [13]

    Ando and K

    S. Ando and K. Sato,Three-generation study of neutrino spin-flavor conversion in supernovae and implication for the neutrino magnetic moment, Phys. Rev. D67(2003) 023004 [hep-ph/0211053]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  10. [14]

    Joshi and S.R

    S. Joshi and S.R. Jain,Neutrino spin-flavor oscillations in solar environment,Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics20(2020) 123 [1906.09475]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  11. [15]

    Delepine and A

    D. Delepine and A. Yebra,Distinguishing Dirac and Majorana neutrinos: Resonant spin-flavor precession of GeV-scale astrophysical transients,Phys. Rev. D114(2026) 015012

    2026

  12. [16]

    Delepine and A

    D. Delepine and A. Yebra,Solar Flares as a Probe of Neutrino Nature: Distinguishing Dirac and Majorana via Resonant Spin-Flavor Precession,arXiv e-prints(2026) arXiv:2602.05149 [2602.05149]

    arXiv 2026

  13. [17]

    Aharmim, S.N

    B. Aharmim, S.N. Ahmed, A.E. Anthony, N. Barros, E.W. Beier, A. Bellerive et al.,Searches for High-frequency Variations in the8B Solar Neutrino Flux at the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory, ApJ710(2010) 540 [0910.2433]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  14. [18]

    Baldwin, L.J

    M.P. Baldwin, L.J. Gray, T.J. Dunkerton, K. Hamilton, P.H. Haynes, W.J. Randel et al.,The quasi-biennial oscillation,Reviews of Geophysics39(2001) 179. – 37 –

    2001

  15. [19]

    Simoniello, K

    R. Simoniello, K. Jain, S.C. Tripathy, S. Turck-Chieze, C. Baldner, W. Finsterle et al.,The quasi-biennial periodicity as a window on the solar magnetic dynamo configuration,Astrophys. J.765(2013) 100 [1210.6796]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  16. [20]

    Sturrock,Neutrino-Flux Variability, Nuclear-Decay Variability, and Their Apparent Relationship,Space Sci

    P.A. Sturrock,Neutrino-Flux Variability, Nuclear-Decay Variability, and Their Apparent Relationship,Space Sci. Rev.218(2022) 23 [2203.05069]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  17. [21]

    Vasil, D

    G.M. Vasil, D. Lecoanet, K. Augustson, K.J. Burns, J.S. Oishi, B.P. Brown et al.,The solar dynamo begins near the surface, Nature629(2024) 769 [2404.07740]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  18. [22]

    Hatta, Y

    Y. Hatta, Y. Nakano, S. Sugama, M. Kunitomo, H. Ito and T. Sekii,Solar Neutrino Flux Fluctuations Caused by Solar Gravity Modes,arXiv e-prints(2026) arXiv:2604.06535 [2604.06535]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  19. [23]

    Turck-Chièze and S

    S. Turck-Chièze and S. Couvidat,Solar neutrinos, helioseismology and the solar internal dynamics,Reports on Progress in Physics74(2011) 086901 [1009.0852]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  20. [24]

    Zavatarelli, on behalf of theBOREXINO Collaboration, M

    S. Zavatarelli, on behalf of theBOREXINO Collaboration, M. Agostini, K. Altenmüller, S. Appel, V. Atroshchenko et al.,The study of solar neutrinos and of non-standard neutrino interactions with borexino,Journal of Physics: Conference Series1468(2020) 012192

    2020

  21. [25]

    K. Abe, Y. Hayato, T. Iida, M. Ikeda, C. Ishihara, K. Iyogi et al.,Solar neutrino results in Super-Kamiokande-III, Phys. Rev. D83(2011) 052010 [1010.0118]. [26]Super-Kamiokandecollaboration,Search for Periodic Time Variations of the Solar B8 Neutrino Flux between 1996 and 2018 in Super-Kamiokande,Phys. Rev. Lett.132(2024) 241803 [2311.01159]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  22. [27]

    Kumaran, L

    S. Kumaran, L. Ludhova, Ö. Penek and G. Settanta,Borexino Results on Neutrinos from the Sun and Earth,Universe7(2021) 231 [2105.13858]. [28]BOREXINOcollaboration,Independent determination of the Earth’s orbital parameters with solar neutrinos in Borexino,Astropart. Phys.145(2023) 102778 [2204.07029]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  23. [29]

    Basilico, G

    D. Basilico, G. Bellini, J. Benziger, R. Biondi, B. Caccianiga, F. Calaprice et al.,Final results of Borexino on CNO solar neutrinos, Phys. Rev. D108(2023) 102005 [2307.14636]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  24. [30]

    W. Ma, A. Abdukerim, C. Cheng, Z. Bo, W. Chen, X. Chen et al.,Search for Solar B 8 Neutrinos in the PandaX-4T Experiment Using Neutrino-Nucleus Coherent Scattering, Phys. Rev. Lett.130(2023) 021802 [2207.04883]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  25. [31]

    Z. Bo, W. Chen, X. Chen, Y. Chen, Z. Cheng, X. Cui et al.,First Indication of Solar B8 Neutrinos through Coherent Elastic Neutrino-Nucleus Scattering in PandaX-4T, Phys. Rev. Lett.133(2024) 191001 [2407.10892]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  26. [32]

    De Romeri, D.K

    V. De Romeri, D.K. Papoulias, G. Sanchez Garcia, C.A. Ternes and M. Tórtola,Neutrino electromagnetic properties and sterile dipole portal in light of the first solar CEνNS data, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.2025(2025) 080 [2412.14991]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  27. [33]

    De Romeri, A

    V. De Romeri, A. Majumdar, D.K. Papoulias and R. Srivastava,New light mediators and the neutrino fog: Implications from XENONnT nuclear recoil data, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys. 2026(2026) 093 [2512.08853]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  28. [34]

    Zhuang, L.E

    Y. Zhuang, L.E. Strigari, L. Jin and S. Sinha,Prospects for measuring the time variation of astrophysical neutrino sources at dark matter detectors, Phys. Rev. D110(2024) 043037 [2402.18454]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  29. [35]

    Lomb,Least-Squares Frequency Analysis of Unequally Spaced Data, Ap&SS39(1976) 447

    N.R. Lomb,Least-Squares Frequency Analysis of Unequally Spaced Data, Ap&SS39(1976) 447

    1976

  30. [36]

    Scargle,Studies in astronomical time series analysis

    J.D. Scargle,Studies in astronomical time series analysis. II. Statistical aspects of spectral analysis of unevenly spaced data., ApJ263(1982) 835. [37]Super-Kamiokandecollaboration,Solar neutrino measurements in super-Kamiokande-I, Phys. Rev. D73(2006) 112001 [hep-ex/0508053]. – 38 – [38]Super-Kamiokandecollaboration,Solar neutrino measurements in Super-...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1982

  31. [41]

    Haubold and A.M

    H.J. Haubold and A.M. Mathai,Does SuperKamiokande Observe Levy Flights of Solar Neutrinos?,arXiv e-prints(2024) arXiv:2405.11057 [2405.11057]

    arXiv 2024

  32. [42]

    Aharmim, S.N

    B. Aharmim, S.N. Ahmed, A.E. Anthony, E.W. Beier, A. Bellerive, M. Bergevin et al.,Search for periodicities in the8B solar neutrino flux measured by the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory, Phys. Rev. D72(2005) 052010 [hep-ex/0507079]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  33. [43]

    Pasumarti and S

    V. Pasumarti and S. Desai,Generalized Lomb–Scargle analysis of 22 years of super-Kamiokande solar 8B neutrino data,Eur. Phys. J. C84(2024) 487 [2402.11258]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  34. [44]

    Zechmeister and M

    M. Zechmeister and M. Kürster,The generalised Lomb-Scargle periodogram. A new formalism for the floating-mean and Keplerian periodograms, A&A496(2009) 577 [0901.2573]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  35. [45]

    Kovács, S

    G. Kovács, S. Zucker and T. Mazeh,A box-fitting algorithm in the search for periodic transits, A&A391(2002) 369 [astro-ph/0206099]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  36. [46]

    L. Ren, C. Li, B. Ma, S. Cheng, S.-J. Huang, B. Tang et al.,A Systematic Search for Short-period Close White Dwarf Binary Candidates Based on Gaia EDR3 Catalog and Zwicky Transient Facility Data, ApJS264(2023) 39 [2302.02802]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  37. [47]

    Clarke,String/Rope length methods using the Lafler-Kinman statistic, A&A386(2002) 763

    D. Clarke,String/Rope length methods using the Lafler-Kinman statistic, A&A386(2002) 763

    2002

  38. [48]

    Stellingwerf,Period determination using phase dispersion minimization., ApJ224(1978) 953

    R.F. Stellingwerf,Period determination using phase dispersion minimization., ApJ224(1978) 953

    1978

  39. [49]

    Schwarzenberg-Czerny,Fast and Statistically Optimal Period Search in Uneven Sampled Observations, ApJ460(1996) L107

    A. Schwarzenberg-Czerny,Fast and Statistically Optimal Period Search in Uneven Sampled Observations, ApJ460(1996) L107

    1996

  40. [50]

    Mondrik, J.P

    N. Mondrik, J.P. Long and J.L. Marshall,A Multiband Generalization of the Multiharmonic Analysis of Variance Period Estimation Algorithm and the Effect of Inter-band Observing Cadence on Period Recovery Rate, ApJ811(2015) L34 [1508.04772]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  41. [51]

    Graham, A.J

    M.J. Graham, A.J. Drake, S.G. Djorgovski, A.A. Mahabal, C. Donalek, V. Duan et al.,A comparison of period finding algorithms, MNRAS434(2013) 3423 [1307.2209]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  42. [52]

    Huijse, P.A

    P. Huijse, P.A. Estevez, P. Protopapas, J.C. Principe and P. Zegers,Computational Intelligence Challenges and Applications on Large-Scale Astronomical Time Series Databases,IEEE Computational Intelligence Magazine9(2014) 27 [1509.07823]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  43. [53]

    Huijse, P.A

    P. Huijse, P.A. Estévez, F. Förster, S.F. Daniel, A.J. Connolly, P. Protopapas et al.,Robust Period Estimation Using Mutual Information for Multiband Light Curves in the Synoptic Survey Era, ApJS236(2018) 12 [1709.03541]. [54]Hyper-Kamiokandecollaboration,Hyper-Kamiokande Design Report,1805.04163

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  44. [55]

    B. Abi, R. Acciarri, M.A. Acero, G. Adamov, D. Adams, M. Adinolfi et al.,Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment (DUNE), Far Detector Technical Design Report, Volume II: DUNE Physics,arXiv e-prints(2020) arXiv:2002.03005 [2002.03005]

    arXiv 2020

  45. [56]

    Abusleme, T

    A. Abusleme, T. Adam, S. Ahmad, R. Ahmed, S. Aiello, M. Akram et al.,Sub-percent precision measurement of neutrino oscillation parameters with JUNO,Chinese Physics C46(2022) 123001 [2204.13249]. [57]Matthias Raphael Stock, JUNOcollaboration,Status and prospects of the JUNO experiment,SciPost Phys. Proc.17(2025) 020 [2405.07321]. – 39 –

    arXiv 2022

  46. [58]

    Walter,The Super-Kamiokande Experiment,World Scientific Publishing Co

    C.W. Walter,The Super-Kamiokande Experiment,World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd. (2008) 19 [0802.1041]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  47. [59]

    Leroy,Fast calculation of the Lomb-Scargle periodogram using nonequispaced fast Fourier transforms, A&A545(2012) A50

    B. Leroy,Fast calculation of the Lomb-Scargle periodogram using nonequispaced fast Fourier transforms, A&A545(2012) A50

    2012

  48. [60]

    VanderPlas and Ž

    J.T. VanderPlas and Ž. Ivezić,Periodograms for Multiband Astronomical Time Series, ApJ 812(2015) 18 [1502.01344]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  49. [61]

    VanderPlas,Understanding the Lomb-Scargle Periodogram, ApJS236(2018) 16 [1703.09824]

    J.T. VanderPlas,Understanding the Lomb-Scargle Periodogram, ApJS236(2018) 16 [1703.09824]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  50. [62]

    Hartman and G.Á

    J.D. Hartman and G.Á. Bakos,VARTOOLS: A program for analyzing astronomical time-series data,Astronomy and Computing17(2016) 1 [1605.06811]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  51. [63]

    Baluev,Assessing the statistical significance of periodogram peaks, MNRAS385(2008) 1279 [0711.0330]

    R.V. Baluev,Assessing the statistical significance of periodogram peaks, MNRAS385(2008) 1279 [0711.0330]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  52. [64]

    Baluev,Detecting non-sinusoidal periodicities in observational data using multiharmonic periodograms, MNRAS395(2009) 1541 [0811.0907]

    R.V. Baluev,Detecting non-sinusoidal periodicities in observational data using multiharmonic periodograms, MNRAS395(2009) 1541 [0811.0907]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  53. [65]

    Foreman-Mackey, D.W

    D. Foreman-Mackey, D.W. Hogg, D. Lang and J. Goodman,emcee: The MCMC Hammer, PASP125(2013) 306 [1202.3665]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  54. [66]

    Andrae, T

    R. Andrae, T. Schulze-Hartung and P. Melchior,Dos and don’ts of reduced chi-squared,arXiv e-prints(2010) arXiv:1012.3754 [1012.3754]. [67]Bayesian information criteria, inInformation Criteria and Statistical Modeling, (New York, NY), pp. 211–237, Springer New York (2008), DOI

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  55. [68]

    Speagle,DYNESTY: a dynamic nested sampling package for estimating Bayesian posteriors and evidences, MNRAS493(2020) 3132 [1904.02180]

    J.S. Speagle,DYNESTY: a dynamic nested sampling package for estimating Bayesian posteriors and evidences, MNRAS493(2020) 3132 [1904.02180]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  56. [69]

    Faulkenberry,Computing Bayes factors to measure evidence from experiments: An extension of the BIC approximation,arXiv e-prints(2018) arXiv:1803.00360 [1803.00360]

    T.J. Faulkenberry,Computing Bayes factors to measure evidence from experiments: An extension of the BIC approximation,arXiv e-prints(2018) arXiv:1803.00360 [1803.00360]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  57. [70]

    Jeffreys,Theory of Probability,Oxford University Press Oxford(1961)

    H. Jeffreys,Theory of Probability,Oxford University Press Oxford(1961)

    1961

  58. [71]

    Alfradique, R

    V. Alfradique, R. da Mata, J.C. Rodríguez-Ramírez and C.R. Bom,Multi-wavelength analysis of the progenitor of GRB 230307A via Bayesian model comparison,arXiv e-prints(2025) arXiv:2510.14879 [2510.14879]

    arXiv 2025

  59. [72]

    Robitaille, E.J

    Astropy Collaboration, T.P. Robitaille, E.J. Tollerud, P. Greenfield, M. Droettboom and E.e.a. Bray,Astropy: A community Python package for astronomy, A&A558(2013) A33 [1307.6212]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  60. [73]

    Price-Whelan, P.L

    Astropy Collaboration, A.M. Price-Whelan, P.L. Lim and N.e.a. Earl,The Astropy Project: Sustaining and Growing a Community-oriented Open-source Project and the Latest Major Release (v5.0) of the Core Package, ApJ935(2022) 167 [2206.14220]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  61. [74]

    Price-Whelan, B.M

    Astropy Collaboration, A.M. Price-Whelan, B.M. Sipőcz, H.M. Günther, P.L. Lim and S.M.e.a. Crawford,The Astropy Project: Building an Open-science Project and Status of the v2.0 Core Package, AJ156(2018) 123 [1801.02634]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  62. [75]

    Harris, K.J

    C.R. Harris, K.J. Millman, S.J. van der Walt, R. Gommers, P. Virtanen and D.C. et al.,Array programming with NumPy,Nature585(2020) 357

    2020

  63. [76]

    Virtanen, R

    P. Virtanen, R. Gommers, T.E. Oliphant, M. Haberland, T. Reddy and D.e.a. Cournapeau, SciPy 1.0: Fundamental Algorithms for Scientific Computing in Python,Nature Methods17 (2020) 261

    2020

  64. [77]

    Hunter,Matplotlib: A 2d graphics environment,Computing in Science & Engineering9 (2007) 90

    J.D. Hunter,Matplotlib: A 2d graphics environment,Computing in Science & Engineering9 (2007) 90. – 40 – -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 lnB (Bayes Factor) Full_22yr - LS Full_22yr - GLS Full_22yr - BLS Full_22yr - LKSL Full_22yr - PDM1 Full_22yr - MHAOV Full_22yr - QME Full_22yr - QMICS Full_22yr - QMIEU Pre_July2001 - LS Pre_July2001 - GLS Pre_July2001 - BLS Pre_Ju...

    2007

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 3, 2026.