{"id":"ef456fd6-532b-43a4-a653-5950b4c8cc07","arxiv_id":"hep-ph/0401099","paper_version":2,"verdict":"CONDITIONAL","confidence":"MODERATE","novelty_score":6.0,"correctness_risk":"medium","formal_verification":"none","parameter_count":4,"one_line_summary":"Neutrino masses in mass-varying-neutrino (MaVaNs) theories depend on ambient matter density, so short-baseline and long-baseline experiments could be measuring different oscillation parameters.","lead":"In theories where neutrino mass is generated through a dark-sector scalar, the local density of ordinary matter shifts that scalar and therefore shifts the neutrino mass, so oscillation experiments may be measuring different masses in rock and in air. The paper argues this environmental dependence could reconcile the LSND anomaly with the null short-baseline experiments.","discovery_kind":"unclear","skeptic_critique":{"model":"selfhosted/deepseek-v4.1-flash","headline":"The central 'can exhibit different masses' claim survives as a hedged possibility argument, but the only quantitative experimental claim — the LSND fit — is asserted without a shown fit and sets aside the through-going muon bound; the reader's concern is real but targets an example.","rationale":"The reader correctly identifies the LSND/through-going muon tension as the weakest concrete claim, and the paper's own text supports that reading: it says the scenario 'seems at odds with the through-going muons' and proceeds on speculation about O(100 GeV) systematics. But the central claim selected by the record (abstract:s2) is a hedged 'can exhibit different masses' claim, and the LSND reconciliation is explicitly framed as 'an example' in the abstract. So the reader's concern targets a downstream application rather than the load-bearing claim itself. The classifier's 'limitations: none found' is inaccurate: the full text explicitly acknowledges both the Taylor-expansion caveat after Eq. 4 and the through-going muon tension in Section III. Those acknowledgments should be credited, not re-presented as new findings. What remains genuinely unresolved is the absence of any shown fit for the quoted LSND parameters and the absence of a flat-potential computation of the matter shift. The mechanism itself is internally consistent for the stated regime: the radiative-coupling argument is conditional on the dark fermion being much lighter than M_W, and lambda_B ~ 10^-2 is consistent with the fifth-force bounds cited. The paper also makes a correct and useful distinguishing point — scalar-mediated matter effects are energy-independent and equal for neutrinos and antineutrinos, unlike standard MSW — which is independent support for the qualitative program. Given that the central claim is a possibility claim supported by an order-of-magnitude estimate, and that the paper is a Letter-length proposal with appropriately hedged language, the CONDITIONAL verdict is the right one. My concern does not move it: the mechanism is worth pursuing, and the concrete next step is the fit the paper itself sketches in Eq. 6.","tokens_in":9961,"tokens_out":8506,"duration_ms":149634,"concrete_test":"Perform the global fit the paper itself proposes in Eq. 6: separate air and matter parameters (delta m^2_atm:air, delta m^2_atm:rock, sin^2 2theta_atm:air, sin^2 2theta_atm:rock) plus the LSND matter splitting, fitting LSND, KARMEN, Bugey, CHOOZ, KamLAND, K2K, and Super-K atmospheric data including the through-going muon sample. If no consistent region survives when through-going muons are included, the LSND reconciliation fails. Separately, compute the matter shift in the flat-potential MaVaNs regime used in Fardon-Nelson-Weiner and check whether the resulting matter splitting falls in the quoted 0.07-0.26 eV^2 range rather than being unobservably small or excluded.","verdict_should_be":"UNCHANGED","load_bearing_attack":"The paper's quantitative support for observable matter effects is Eq. 4, an order-of-magnitude estimate. The text immediately after Eq. 4 states that the estimate 'assumes the shift in A is sufficiently small to allow for a Taylor expansion of V,' and that 'for a flatter potential, as was used in [14] in order to explain dark energy, the change in the neutrino mass will be much larger, and the A mass will be variable.' So the estimate is derived in a steep-potential regime that the paper itself says is not the dark-energy regime that motivates MaVaNs. The flat-potential case is asserted to give a 'much larger' effect but is never computed, so the paper does not establish that the dark-energy mechanism produces matter effects in the observable range rather than an unobservably small or excluded one. The LSND section then quotes matter parameters (0.07 eV^2 <= Delta m^2 <= 0.26 eV^2, 0.02 <~ sin^2 2theta <~ 0.12) without showing a fit, and explicitly sets aside the Super-K through-going muon bound ('seems at odds with the through-going muons') on speculation about systematics or unknown high-energy production. Both are acknowledged limitations; what remains unresolved is the absence of any actual fit or flat-potential computation. The central claim ('can exhibit different masses') is a hedged possibility claim that Eq. 4 supports for some parameter choice, so it is not falsified — but 'dramatically' is parameter-dependent and not shown to be generic.","agreement_with_reader":"partial"},"referee_report":{"model":"selfhosted/deepseek-v4.1-flash","summary":"This Letter extends the mass-varying-neutrino (MaVaNs) framework of Fardon, Nelson and Weiner [14] by arguing that Planck-suppressed couplings of the dark scalar A to baryons shift the expectation value of A inside matter, so that the neutrino mass in rock, air, and the Sun differs from its vacuum value. Section II sets up the dark sector (a scalar A and fermions n, with m_nu(A) = m_D^2/m_n(A)), writes the effective potential of Eq. (2), adds the baryon coupling of Eq. (3), and estimates the resulting mass shift in Eq. (4) as Delta m_nu ~ 1 eV for benchmark couplings lambda_nu ~ 0.1, lambda_B ~ 0.01, m_A ~ 10^-6 eV. Section III asks whether air/rock differences in the oscillation parameters can reconcile the LSND appearance signal with KamLAND, K2K, and the solar and atmospheric data, quoting matter parameters 0.07 eV^2 <~ Delta m^2 <~ 0.26 eV^2 and 0.02 <~ sin^2 2theta <~ 0.12, while explicitly setting aside the Super-Kamiokande through-going muon bound. No new data, fit, or numerical computation is presented; the paper is an argument-driven Letter.","tokens_in":10416,"tokens_out":5503,"duration_ms":100394,"significance":"The idea that the dark sector responsible for cosmic acceleration could leave an imprint on neutrino oscillations is well motivated and, if correct, would make short-baseline oscillation experiments a probe of dark energy. The paper's most valuable contribution is the statement in Section II that a scalar-induced matter effect is energy independent and equal for neutrinos and antineutrinos (absent CP violation), which cleanly distinguishes it from standard MSW and from vector-mediated non-standard interactions; this is a genuine falsifiable signature. The concrete proposal in Eq. (6) to fit separate air and rock values of delta m^2_atm and sin^2 2theta_atm is a useful, testable program. The paper is appropriately hedged in tone, but its two quantitative claims (the size of the matter shift and the LSND reconciliation) are not backed by a computation or a fit, which limits how far the significance can currently be pushed.","major_comments":[{"comment":"The estimate in Eq. (4) is explicitly a Taylor expansion of V about the present-epoch value of A, valid only when the shift in A is small. The text then states that for a flatter potential, 'as was used in [14] in order to explain dark energy, the change in the neutrino mass will be much larger, and the A mass will be variable.' The dark-energy regime that motivates the entire framework is therefore precisely the regime in which Eq. (4) does not apply, and no alternative estimate is supplied for it. The abstract's claim that neutrinos 'dramatically' affect oscillations (abstract:s2) rests on this uncomputed case. The authors should either provide at least an order-of-magnitude treatment for a flat V_0(A), or state explicitly the range of m_A and potential curvature over which the matter shift is observable, and where it becomes unobservably small or excluded.","section":"Section II, Eq. (4) and the paragraph immediately following","authors_acknowledge":null,"authors_acknowledge_p":null},{"comment":"The quoted 1 eV shift requires lambda_B ~ 10^-2 and m_A ~ 10^-6 eV simultaneously, which sits exactly at the boundary of the fifth-force bounds cited in refs. [20-22] (lambda <~ 10^-2 for m_A >~ 10^-11 eV from inverse-square tests, and for m_A >~ 10^-8 eV from equivalence-principle tests). The 1 eV figure is thus the largest value permitted by the quoted constraints, not a typical one; for lambda_B an order of magnitude smaller the shift falls to roughly 10 meV and the oscillation consequences shrink accordingly. The paper should say this explicitly and indicate what fraction of the (lambda_nu, lambda_B, m_A) parameter space yields matter effects large enough to be seen in existing or planned experiments.","section":"Section II, Eq. (4) benchmark parameters","authors_acknowledge":null,"authors_acknowledge_p":null},{"comment":"The ranges 0.07 eV^2 <~ Delta m^2 <~ 0.26 eV^2 and 0.02 <~ sin^2 2theta <~ 0.12 are quoted as fitting 'all of the results outside of the throughgoing muons,' but no fit, chi-squared, or comparison to the LSND, KARMEN, and Bugey data sets is shown, and the through-going muon bound, which the paper itself says 'seems at odds' with the scenario, is set aside on the speculation of systematics in O(100 GeV) neutrinos or an unknown high-energy production process. Since this is the paper's only quantitative confrontation with data, either a fit should be shown or the claim should be downgraded in the abstract and conclusions to an explicitly speculative remark. As written, the abstract's 'may simultaneously account for the LSND anomaly, KamLAND, K2K and studies of solar and atmospheric neutrinos' outruns what Section III establishes.","section":"Section III, paragraph beginning 'These results would suggest'","authors_acknowledge":null,"authors_acknowledge_p":null},{"comment":"The analysis assumes that the A field instantaneously tracks the local baryon density in rock, air, and the Sun. For the flat potentials relevant to dark energy, m_A can be well below 10^-6 eV, and the relaxation length 1/m_A becomes macroscopic (about 0.2 mm at 10^-6 eV, and far larger for lighter A). The manuscript does not check that A can equilibrate on the relevant laboratory or solar length scales, nor whether the response is retarded for neutrinos crossing a sharp density boundary. This is a concrete correctness risk for the central claim that neutrinos 'exhibit different masses in matter and in vacuum,' and it should be addressed with an explicit criterion on m_A relative to the experimental length scales.","section":"Section II, effective potential and equilibration of A","authors_acknowledge":null,"authors_acknowledge_p":null}],"minor_comments":[{"comment":"The inequality symbol in Eq. (5) renders as the garbled string 'greaterorsimilar'; it should be typeset as the intended relation.","section":"Section III, Eq. (5)","authors_acknowledge":null,"authors_acknowledge_p":null},{"comment":"There are typographical inconsistencies to fix: 'atmosperhic' should read 'atmospheric', and 'throughgoing' and 'through-going' are used interchangeably in the same paragraph.","section":"Section III","authors_acknowledge":null,"authors_acknowledge_p":null},{"comment":"It would help to state explicitly that the cosmic neutrino background term n_nu m_nu(A) is negligible for terrestrial experiments, so that Eq. (3) alone determines the value of A in matter; as written, the reader must infer this.","section":"Section II, Eq. (2)","authors_acknowledge":null,"authors_acknowledge_p":null},{"comment":"The assertion that radiatively generated couplings of A to quarks and charged leptons are negligible 'if (and only if) the scalar-neutrino interaction arises solely due to neutrino mixing with a dark fermion which is much lighter than the W boson' is load-bearing, since it is what allows the Planck-suppressed operators to dominate the matter coupling. One more sentence of justification, or a reference, would strengthen it.","section":"Section II, radiative couplings","authors_acknowledge":null,"authors_acknowledge_p":null},{"comment":"The proposed four-parameter fit (delta m^2_atm:air, delta m^2_atm:rock, sin^2 2theta_atm:air, sin^2 2theta_atm:rock) is a good concrete proposal; it would strengthen the Letter to say which existing data set, for example the Super-K multi-GeV zenith distribution together with K2K, could constrain it and at what sensitivity.","section":"Section III, Eq. (6)","authors_acknowledge":null,"authors_acknowledge_p":null},{"comment":"The statement that scalar-induced matter effects are energy independent and equal for neutrinos and antineutrinos, absent CP violation, is the cleanest falsifiable prediction in the paper and deserves to be highlighted in the abstract and conclusions rather than buried in the text.","section":"Section II, distinguishing signature","authors_acknowledge":null,"authors_acknowledge_p":null},{"comment":"The Letter should state more sharply which results are new here (the matter-dependent masses and their oscillation consequences) versus carried over from the companion paper [14], so that the novelty of the present work is unambiguous.","section":"Introduction and ref. [14]","authors_acknowledge":null,"authors_acknowledge_p":null}],"recommendation":"major_revision"},"author_rebuttal":null,"desk_editor":{"model":"selfhosted/deepseek-v4.1-flash","letter":"The thing worth your time here is Section II, not Section III. The authors take their earlier MaVaNs Lagrangian and point out that Planck-suppressed couplings of the dark scalar A to baryons (λ_B m_i/M_Pl) shift ⟨A⟩ inside matter, so the neutrino mass in rock differs from the mass in air. That is a real, distinct step beyond the cosmic-neutrino-background dependence of ref. [14], and it is the reason this Letter is cited at all. The observation that a scalar contribution is energy-independent and equal for neutrinos and antineutrinos — so it is separable from MSW and from vector non-standard interactions — is a clean, useful diagnostic, and the coupling ranges they quote are consistent with fifth-force and equivalence-principle bounds. Credit where due: the mechanism is well posed and the experimental signature is stated sharply enough to be tested. The proposal to fit atmospheric and K2K data with separate air and rock parameters is the right next experiment-facing move, and it is still worth doing twenty years later. Now the soft spots. Eq. 4 is a Taylor expansion about the present-epoch ⟨A⟩, and the text right after it concedes that for the flat potential actually needed to explain dark energy the shift is 'much larger' and m_A becomes variable. So the one quantitative estimate is computed in a regime the paper says is not the dark-energy regime; the flat-potential case is asserted, never calculated. That is the load-bearing gap, and it is more serious than the LSND business. The LSND section is explicitly an example, and the abstract says so, so I would not hang the paper on it — but the quoted ranges 0.07 eV² ≲ Δm² ≲ 0.26 eV² and 0.02 ≲ sin²2θ ≲ 0.12 come with no fit shown, and the through-going muon bound is set aside on a guess about systematics that the authors themselves call uncomfortable. Fine as motivation, not as evidence. Who should read it: anyone working on non-standard matter effects or dark-sector–neutrino coupling, and short-baseline experimentalists deciding what to look for. It deserves referees — the mechanism is sound and the caveats are honest, but a referee should press hard on the flat-potential computation before letting the 'dramatically' stand.","headline":"A genuine new mechanism — matter-dependent neutrino mass from Planck-suppressed dark-scalar couplings — wrapped around an LSND fit that is asserted rather than shown.","tokens_in":10967,"tokens_out":1137,"duration_ms":20137},"pith_extraction":{"msc":[],"pacs":["14.60.Pq","95.36.+x","13.15.+g"],"model":"selfhosted/deepseek-v4.1-flash","headline":"The paper argues that in theories where neutrino masses vary with a dark scalar field, the local density of ordinary matter shifts that field and therefore shifts the neutrino mass, so oscillation experiments would measure different mass-sq","keywords":["mass varying neutrinos","dark energy","neutrino oscillations","matter effects","LSND anomaly","sterile neutrinos","short baseline experiments","scalar dark sector"],"falsifier":"Run a short-baseline disappearance measurement at fixed $L/E$ through air and through dense rock at the LSND mass scale, and compare with the existing split between Bugey (mostly air) and Palo Verde or CHOOZ (partly earth); if the fitted $Delta m^2$ and mixing angle agree in both media, the environment-dependent mass explanation fails.","tokens_in":11291,"feed_emoji":"🌌","tokens_out":4086,"duration_ms":75362,"temperature":0.7,"pith_summary":"This paper asks whether neutrino masses could depend on where the neutrino is, not through the familiar weak-force matter effect but through a new light scalar tied to the dark sector that is invoked to explain cosmic acceleration. In the mass-varying-neutrino picture the neutrino mass is set by the expectation value of a light scalar $A$, and if $A$ couples even feebly to ordinary matter then its value inside rock or a star differs from its value in air or in vacuum. The authors estimate the resulting shift as $|Delta m_nu| ~ 1 eV (lambda_nu/0.1)(lambda_B/0.01)(rho_B/rho_bar_B)(10^-6 eV/m_A)^2$, which is big enough to change oscillation lengths between laboratories. They then show that with one set of mass parameters in matter and another in air, LSND could be accommodated alongside KamLAND, K2K, and the solar and atmospheric data without leaning entirely on a fourth sterile state. The payoff, if true, is that ordinary oscillation experiments become probes of whatever sector produces dark energy.","feed_headline":"Neutrino mass may differ in rock, air, and space","feed_subtitle":"A dark-sector scalar tied to cosmic acceleration could make oscillation lengths depend on local density.","key_machinery":"The load-bearing object is the effective potential $bar{V} = lambda_B rho_B A/M_{Pl} + V(A)$, minimized in the presence of matter, together with the seesaw relation $m_nu(A) = m_D^2/m_n(A)$ that transmits the displacement of $A$ into the neutrino mass. The mechanism turns a cosmological scalar into a local environment sensor: the same very flat potential that lets $A$ track the cosmic neutrino density also lets a comparatively small baryon density move it, because the potential's curvature $m_A^2 = V''(A)$ can be tiny. That is what converts an oscillation experiment into a dark-sector measurement, and it is why the authors call for fitting separate air and rock mass splittings and mixing angles, $delta m^2_{atm:air}$, $delta m^2_{atm:rock}$, $sin^2 2theta_{atm:air}$, $sin^2 2theta_{atm:rock}$.","core_discovery":"The central claim is that in mass-varying-neutrino theories the neutrino mass is an environmental quantity: a dark scalar $A$ gives $m_nu(A) = m_D^2/m_n(A)$, and Planck-suppressed couplings of $A$ to baryons, written as $lambda_i m_i/M_{Pl}$, add a term $lambda_B rho_B A/M_{Pl}$ to the effective potential. Minimizing that potential in a dense medium displaces $A$ and hence the neutrino mass, with the estimate of Eq. 4 allowing shifts of order an eV for $lambda_nu ~ 0.1$, $lambda_B ~ 10^{-2}$, and $m_A ~ 10^{-6}$ eV. Because the shift is a scalar effect it is energy independent and equal for neutrinos and antineutrinos, which distinguishes it from standard MSW and from vector interactions. The authors then use this freedom to fit short-baseline data: taking matter parameters $0.07 eV^2 <= Delta m^2 <= 0.26 eV^2$ and $0.02 <~ sin^2 2theta <~ 0.12$ for the heaviest state, they argue LSND can coexist with KamLAND, K2K, and the solar and atmospheric results, while Bugey constrains only the air values. The authors themselves note that this fit appears to conflict with the Super-Kamiokande through-going muon bound near $10^{-2}$ eV$^2$, and they attribute the tension to possible systematics in the very high energy neutrinos or to unknown high-energy production.","pith_inferences":["If the mechanism holds, the near-degeneracy of the three known neutrinos inferred from global fits is partly an artifact of the media the neutrinos crossed, not a statement about the vacuum mass matrix.","A modest reactor or short-baseline experiment that compares propagation through a low-density path and a dense shield at fixed $L/E$ would test the idea without needing to discover a dark particle first.","Because the scalar couples to baryon density, the same effect should operate in supernovae and neutron stars, where it could alter neutrino-driven dynamics and shift the existing cooling bounds on new light states.","A scalar mass near $10^{-6}$ eV with $lambda_B ~ 10^{-2}$ sits close to the reach of inverse-square-law and equivalence-principle tests, so tabletop gravity experiments and neutrino oscillation experiments constrain the same corner of parameter space."],"forward_implications":["Short-baseline experiments become dark-sector probes: an oscillation signal whose fitted mass splitting and mixing differ between an air path and a rock path would be the signature, and a null result at the same $L/E$ in both media would constrain the scalar couplings.","Atmospheric and K2K data should be analyzed with separate air and matter parameters, since the quoted $delta m^2_{atm} ~ 2 x 10^{-3}$ eV$^2$ could be an in-matter value rather than a fundamental quantity.","Solar neutrino survival probabilities can shift, because the sun's density is many orders of magnitude above terrestrial values and the scalar expectation value there need not match its value in earth or in vacuum.","Absolute mass measurements are reinterpreted: neutrinoless double beta decay and tritium endpoint experiments probe the mass inside a dense detector, which in these theories need not equal the mass relevant to cosmology.","The matter effect here is energy independent and identical for neutrinos and antineutrinos absent CP violation, which separates it experimentally from standard MSW and from new vector interactions."],"supporting_citations":[{"why":"Supplies the original mass-varying-neutrino proposal, the $A$-dependent neutrino mass, and the dark-energy motivation that the whole argument builds on.","marker":"[14]"},{"why":"Establishes the standard forward-scattering matter effect on neutrino propagation, the baseline against which the new scalar matter effect is defined.","marker":"[1]"},{"why":"Provides the MSW resonant-conversion framework used to contrast ordinary matter effects with the energy-independent scalar shift.","marker":"[2]"},{"why":"Supplies the inverse-square-law bounds $lambda_{n,p} <~ 10^{-2}$ for $m_A > 10^{-11}$ eV that keep the baryon couplings in the allowed range.","marker":"[20]"},{"why":"Supplies the equivalence-principle constraints on scalar couplings to baryons for $m_A > 10^{-8}$ eV.","marker":"[21]"},{"why":"Supplies the Super-Kamiokande through-going muon bound near $10^{-2}$ eV$^2$, the constraint the LSND reconciliation has to set aside.","marker":"[38]"},{"why":"Supplies the 3+2 sterile-neutrino fit, the conventional alternative that the environment-dependent scenario is meant to improve on.","marker":"[34]"},{"why":"Supplies the global-fit evidence that four-neutrino sterile scenarios describe the data poorly, motivating a different explanation of LSND.","marker":"[33]"}],"fun_headline_variants":["Dark scalar could shift neutrino mass with local density","Neutrino oscillations may probe dark energy through mass shifts","Mass-varying neutrinos could fit LSND, KamLAND, K2K at once","Density-dependent neutrino mass is energy-independent, unlike MSW","LSND fit conflicts with Super-K through-going muon bound, authors note"],"cache_read_input_tokens":0,"weakest_assumption_plain":"The argument needs a scalar light enough and coupled to baryons strongly enough, roughly $m_A ~ 10^{-6}$ eV with $lambda_B ~ 10^{-2}$, that ordinary matter density actually displaces its expectation value and shifts the neutrino mass by an observable amount.","fun_headline_variants_meta":{"raw":{"variants":["Dark scalar could shift neutrino mass with local density","Neutrino oscillations may probe dark energy through mass shifts","Mass-varying neutrinos could fit LSND, KamLAND, K2K at once","Density-dependent neutrino mass is energy-independent, unlike MSW","LSND fit conflicts with Super-K through-going muon bound, authors note"]},"model":"selfhosted/deepseek-v4.1-flash","effort":"low","attempts":1,"cost_usd":0.0,"raw_usage":{"total_tokens":1345,"prompt_tokens":999,"completion_tokens":346,"prompt_tokens_details":null,"completion_tokens_details":{"reasoning_tokens":269}},"tokens_in":999,"tokens_out":346,"duration_ms":6609,"image_pages":[],"temperature":1.0,"reasoning_budget":50,"reasoning_tokens":269,"transport_provider":"selfhosted","cache_read_input_tokens":0,"cache_creation_input_tokens":0},"cache_creation_input_tokens":0},"created_at":"2026-11-13T08:54:17.706575+00:00","model_set":{"reader":"selfhosted/deepseek-v4.1-flash"},"pipeline_version":"pith-pipeline@v1.5.0-archive-selfhost","input_kind":null,"input_chars":null,"input_total_chars":null,"passes_missing":null,"published_standing":null,"published_confidence":null,"objection_audit":null,"run_record":null,"basis":{"kind":"not_recorded","source":null,"chars_given":null,"chars_total":null},"receipt":null,"falsifier":"Run a short-baseline disappearance measurement at fixed $L/E$ through air and through dense rock at the LSND mass scale, and compare with the existing split between Bugey (mostly air) and Palo Verde or CHOOZ (partly earth); if the fitted $Delta m^2$ and mixing angle agree in both media, the environment-dependent mass explanation fails.","supporting_citations":[{"cited_title":null,"cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"Supplies the original mass-varying-neutrino proposal, the $A$-dependent neutrino mass, and the dark-energy motivation that the whole argument builds on."},{"cited_title":"Phys. Rev. D17, 2369","cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"Establishes the standard forward-scattering matter effect on neutrino propagation, the baseline against which the new scalar matter effect is defined."},{"cited_title":"Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 42, 913","cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"Provides the MSW resonant-conversion framework used to contrast ordinary matter effects with the energy-independent scalar shift."},{"cited_title":"Tests of the Gravitational Inverse-Square Law","cited_arxiv_id":"hep-ph/0307284","evidence_quote":"Supplies the inverse-square-law bounds $lambda_{n,p} <~ 10^{-2}$ for $m_A > 10^{-11}$ eV that keep the baryon couplings in the allowed range."},{"cited_title":null,"cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"Supplies the equivalence-principle constraints on scalar couplings to baryons for $m_A > 10^{-8}$ eV."},{"cited_title":"Neutrino-induced upward stopping muons in Super-Kamiokande","cited_arxiv_id":"hep-ex/9908049","evidence_quote":"Supplies the Super-Kamiokande through-going muon bound near $10^{-2}$ eV$^2$, the constraint the LSND reconciliation has to set aside."},{"cited_title":null,"cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"Supplies the 3+2 sterile-neutrino fit, the conventional alternative that the environment-dependent scenario is meant to improve on."},{"cited_title":"Status of neutrino oscillations II: How to reconcile the LSND result?","cited_arxiv_id":"hep-ph/0311217","evidence_quote":"Supplies the global-fit evidence that four-neutrino sterile scenarios describe the data poorly, motivating a different explanation of LSND."}],"lane_accuracy":{"status":"not yet measured","lane":{"model":"selfhosted/deepseek-v4.1-flash","input_kind":null},"url":"https://pith.science/accuracy"},"review_version":1}