Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 54 references

Hunting for T-violation and Majoranality of Neutrinos in Muon Decays

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read One measured spin component of muon-decay positrons could reveal both T-violation and Majorana neutrinos, with a projected tenfold sensitivity gain over the previous experiment.

desk verdict Solid experimental proposal with a real physics case, but the central factor-of-ten sensitivity claim rests on an unvalidated conversion from simulated longitudinal to transverse analyzing power. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.01630 v1 pith:X4S6XCEP submitted 2019-08-05 hep-ex hep-ph

Takeshi Fukuyama , Sohtaro Kanda , Daisuke Nomura , Koichiro Shimomura This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-exhep-ph
keywords T-violationmuondecayMajorananeutrinopositrontransversepolarizationannihilation-in-flightpolarimeterV+Ainteractiontime-reversalsymmetryleptogenesis
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

This paper argues that a single experimental observable—the component $P_{T2}$ of the positron spin transverse to the decay plane in polarized muon decay—can serve as a discovery channel for both time-reversal violation and the Majorana nature of neutrinos. Working in a framework where the usual left-handed weak current is supplemented by a right-handed V+A current, the authors use the T-odd term in the muon decay rate to show that this component is non-zero only if neutrinos are Majorana particles; the Standard Model contribution is suppressed to about $10^{-13}$ of the decay width. They then design a positron polarimeter based on annihilation-in-flight on a magnetized iron foil and simulate its performance for the high-intensity pulsed muon beam at J-PARC. The numerical study projects a factor-of-ten improvement in sensitivity to $P_{T2}$ relative to the most recent precursor experiment within one year of measurement, bringing the search into a regime where a positive signal would speak directly to the origin of the baryon asymmetry through leptogenesis.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the T-odd coefficient $T(e)$ in the muon decay rate, with the explicit form $T(e) \simeq -\epsilon_M\lambda h_I(m_\mu - m_e^2/m_\mu)$, where $\epsilon_M$ flags Majorana versus Dirac neutrinos and $h_I$ is the imaginary part of products of left- and right-handed neutrino mixing matrices—a generalized Jarlskog invariant in the lepton sector. On the experimental side, the carrier is the azimuthal modulation $\cos(2\varphi-\varphi_1-\varphi_2)$ of the annihilation-in-flight asymmetry of decay positrons on a magnetized foil; the out-of-plane component $P_{T2}$ isolates the T-odd term. The projected sensitivity is obtained from a Monte Carlo simulation of the polarimeter in which the simulated longitudinal asymmetry is converted to a transverse asymmetry using the analytic ratio $B_T(\theta^*)\cos(2\varphi-\varphi_1-\varphi_2)/B_L(\theta^*)$ for annihilation-in-flight.

What would settle it

Run a Monte Carlo simulation of annihilation-in-flight with explicitly transversely polarized positrons, including photon conversion, multiple scattering, and energy thresholds, and compare the resulting azimuthal asymmetry with the value obtained by the paper's longitudinal-to-transverse conversion; a discrepancy larger than the projected one-year statistical errors would refute the sensitivity estimate.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the T-odd term $\zeta_\mu \cdot (\mathbf{q}_e \times \boldsymbol{\zeta}_e)\,T(e)/E$ in the muon decay width is a clean, effectively background-free probe of new physics. Under the assumed (V−A) ⊕ (V+A) interaction, $T(e) \simeq -\epsilon_M\, \lambda\, h_I (m_\mu - m_e^2/m_\mu)$, where $\epsilon_M=1$ for Majorana and $\epsilon_M=0$ for Dirac neutrinos, and $h_I = \sum_{j,k}\operatorname{Im} C'_{jk}$ with $C'_{jk}=U^*_{ej}V_{ek}V^*_{\mu j}U_{\mu k}$ is a generalized Jarlskog invariant built from left- and right-handed neutrino mixing matrices. Because the two interfering diagrams (L,L,R,R) and (R,R,L,L) describe the same process only when neutrinos are their own antiparticles, the term vanishes for Dirac neutrinos; no analogous contamination appears from Standard Model radiative corrections. Experimentally, the $P_{T2}$ component of the decay positron's transverse polarization is read off from the azimuthal modulation $\cos(2\varphi-\varphi_1-\varphi_2)$ of the annihilation-in-flight asymmetry on a magnetized foil. The paper therefore concludes that a statistically significant non-zero $P_{T2}$ would simultaneously establish T-violation and Majoranality in this framework, and that the proposed J-PARC polarimeter could reach $P_{T2}$ sensitivity about ten times better than the previous experiment.

Load-bearing premise

The sensitivity projection assumes that the polarimeter's response to transverse positron polarization can be obtained by multiplying its simulated longitudinal asymmetry by an analytic angular ratio, rather than by simulating the spin-dependent annihilation process directly; if real detector effects distort the angular pattern differently for the two polarization directions, the factor-of-ten projection would not hold.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A statistically significant non-zero $P_{T2}$ would simultaneously establish time-reversal violation and Majorana neutrinos, and would point to right-handed currents at high energy.
  • One year of data with the proposed polarimeter should reach sensitivity near $8\times10^{-4}$ for $P_{T2}$, a factor of ten better than the precursor experiment's $8\times10^{-3}$.
  • Four days of data would already match the precursor's statistical precision if the two transverse components are comparable in size.
  • The Standard Model background from radiative corrections is roughly $10^{-13}$ of the decay width, so a signal at the projected sensitivity would be essentially background-free.
  • The same apparatus can measure Bhabha scattering and annihilation-in-flight simultaneously under the pulsed beam, which helps control systematics and also measures longitudinal polarization.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: a null result at the $10^{-3}$ level would not rule out the mechanism; it would push the required right-handed gauge-boson mass or mixing parameters higher, so the experiment is best read as a parameter-space probe rather than a yes/no test.
  • Beyond the paper: the same $P_{T2}$ technique could be extended to other polarized leptonic decays if high-intensity polarized sources become available, where the mass-dependent ratios and V+A couplings would differ.
  • Beyond the paper: because the sensitivity estimate relies on an analytic longitudinal-to-transverse conversion, an independent calibration using a beam of positrons with known transverse polarization would materially strengthen the projected reach.
  • Beyond the paper: a positive signal would complement neutrinoless double beta decay, since $0\nu\beta\beta$ constrains Majorana masses through nuclear matrix elements while this muon-decay observable probes the same Majoranality through a purely leptonic T-odd interference.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript proposes a new experiment to search for time-reversal violation in muon decay by measuring the transverse positron polarization component PT2, using the high-intensity pulsed muon beam at J-PARC MLF and a segmented annihilation-in-flight/Bhabha polarimeter. The theoretical part adapts the V+A ⊕ V−A effective Lagrangian of Doi et al., states that the T-odd term in Eq. (14) is nonvanishing only for Majorana neutrinos within that framework, and estimates the Standard-Model background as O(10^-13). The experimental part describes the polarimeter, reports GEANT4 simulations of longitudinal asymmetries, converts these to transverse asymmetries using the analytic ratios of Eqs. (29) and (33), optimizes target thickness and energy thresholds, and projects a factor-of-ten sensitivity improvement over the PSI precursor after one year of measurement.

Significance. If the projected sensitivity and the model interpretation are correct, the proposal offers a comparatively clean observable connecting muon decay to V+A interactions and neutrino Majoranality, using an existing high-intensity facility. The manuscript is concrete: it gives beam intensity, target geometry, energy thresholds, a figure of merit, and a quantitative comparison with a real precursor experiment. The FOM formalism and the use of pulsed-beam timing to suppress accidental backgrounds are sensible. However, the numerical projection is only as strong as the procedure used to obtain the transverse analyzing power, and that procedure is currently an analytic rescaling of a longitudinal simulation rather than a direct simulation of the observable being measured; the event-selection description is also incomplete.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section V.C.2, Eqs. (29) and (33)] The central sensitivity projection is obtained by taking the GEANT4 longitudinal asymmetry and multiplying it by the analytic ratio AT/BT over AL/BL, but GEANT4 contains no spin-dependent annihilation and the longitudinal asymmetry carries no azimuthal information. This conversion assumes that photon conversion, multiple scattering in the 3 mm iron foil, energy thresholds (E1 > 2 MeV, E2 > 2 MeV, E1+E2 > 15 MeV), and calorimeter segmentation suppress the cos(2φ−φ1−φ2) transverse term and the φ-independent longitudinal term in exactly the same way. Because the ratio is angle- and energy-dependent and the simulated acceptance is θlab = 13±8 degrees, whereas the maximum of the conversion factor occurs at much smaller lab angles, the inferred transverse analyzing power could be biased. Figures 9 through 11 and the factor-of-ten improvement claim all rely on this converted asymmetry, so the central numerical claim is not established without a direct spin-dependent simulation or a calibration test with an independently known transverse polarization.
  2. [Section II and Summary] The statement that a nonzero PT2 indicates Majoranality is valid only within the V+A ⊕ V−A model. The manuscript itself acknowledges in Section II that general S, P, V, A, T effective couplings can produce a T-odd term even for Dirac neutrinos. Since the proposed polarimeter measures only PT2 and cannot determine the Lorentz structure of the underlying interaction, the abstract and summary overreach when they present a measurement of PT2 as providing definitive information on Majoranality. The claims should be explicitly phrased as model-dependent: a nonzero PT2 would be evidence for T violation, and within the V+A framework it would point to Majorana neutrinos.
  3. [Section V.C.3] The text promises that details of event selection will be described in the next subsection, but V.C.3 provides only optimized thresholds and an acceptance window. The absolute event rate entering Eq. (37), and therefore the required measurement time in Fig. 11, depends on how photon-pair events are separated from accidental coincidences, beam-related backgrounds, and overlapping pulses at the assumed 1e8 muons/s rate. In addition, the sensitivity curves in Fig. 11 appear to be statistical only, while the PSI precursor's total uncertainty in Eqs. (35) and (36) includes a systematic error of 3.4e-3. Without an estimate of the dominant systematics of the proposed apparatus, the claimed factor-of-ten improvement relative to the precursor is not fully supported.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section IV.C] State explicitly that Eqs. (27)–(29) are leading-order, high-energy-limit formulas for free electrons, and specify the θ* range over which they are applied in the simulation.
  2. [Figure 8 caption] The caption should state clearly that the filled 'transverse asymmetry' points are obtained from the longitudinal simulation via the analytic conversion factor of Eq. (33), rather than by a direct spin-dependent simulation.
  3. [Section III, Eq. (23)] The estimate of the Standard-Model background should define all symbols, in particular g and the renormalization scale for αs, and should state that the result is an order-of-magnitude estimate; as written the numerical prefactor is difficult to reproduce.
  4. [Section V.C.3, Eq. (40)] The expression for σ diverges as φ1 approaches 90 degrees; specify the range of φ1 for which the formula is used and clarify the treatment of the φ1 = 90 degree case.
  5. [Figure 11] Indicate whether the abscissa is live time or wall-clock time, and state how the 25 Hz double-pulse structure and the equal division between positive and negative target-polarization configurations enter the rate calculation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the T(e) formula and AIF asymmetry ratio are external inputs, and the GEANT4-based sensitivity projection fits no parameter to the claimed result.

full rationale

The paper's central theoretical input, the T-odd term T(e) of Eq. (14), is taken directly from Doi et al. [1] and used as a starting point rather than derived from the experimental projection; borrowing an external formula is reliance, not circularity. The experimental sensitivity claim is based on a GEANT4 simulation with no free parameters fitted to the target quantity PT2. In Section V.C.2, the transverse asymmetry is obtained by multiplying the simulated longitudinal asymmetry by the analytic ratio of Eqs. (29) and (33), which comes from external leading-order QED cross sections. This is a modeling approximation whose validity can be questioned, but it is not a circular reduction: the predicted sensitivity does not feed back into the input asymmetry, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The only self-citation, Ref. [19] by the first author, is a general SO(10) GUT reference and is not load-bearing for the factor-of-ten sensitivity estimate. Therefore no step in the paper's derivation chain reduces by construction to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No fundamentally new particles or forces are introduced; the heavy right-handed neutrinos and W_R boson are pre-existing model constructs. The analysis instead assumes a specific BSM framework and a simplified simulation method, with the listed free parameters controlling the sensitivity projection.

free parameters (3)
  • Target polarization P_e = 0.072 (assumed)
    The sensitivity projection assumes a magnetized iron foil polarization of 7.2%, the same as the PSI precursor; the figure of merit scales as the square of this value, so the factor-of-ten claim depends on it.
  • Muon beam intensity = 1e8 muons/s (assumed)
    The claim that ten days correspond to 3.3e9 simulated muons and that one year yields a factor-of-ten improvement relies on this facility parameter from Ref. [43].
  • Optimized target thickness and energy thresholds = 3 mm foil, E1 > 2 MeV, E2 > 2 MeV, E1+E2 > 15 MeV
    These values are chosen by maximizing the simulated figure of merit in Section V.C.3 and are used in the sensitivity projection in Figure 11.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The effective Hamiltonian Eq. (3) with left- and right-handed currents and mixing parameters lambda and kappa is the appropriate BSM framework.
    Motivated by left-right symmetric models and SO(10) GUTs, but the existence of V+A currents is assumed rather than established.
  • domain assumption The T-odd term T(e) in Eq. (14), taken from Doi et al. [1], is the full T-violating contribution and vanishes for Dirac neutrinos.
    The paper borrows this result without re-derivation; the experimental interpretation rests on its correctness.
  • domain assumption The nuSM background to the T-odd correlation is approximately delta = 1e-13 as given in Eq. (23).
    This estimate uses the CKM Jarlskog parameter and neglects gluon effects; if the background were larger, the background-free claim would fail.
  • domain assumption GEANT4 simulation with the described geometry accurately reproduces the detector response and longitudinal asymmetry, and the analytic conversion factors of Eqs. (29) and (33) yield the transverse asymmetry.
    No direct simulation of spin-dependent transverse effects is performed; the entire sensitivity estimate relies on this conversion.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Hunting for T-violation and Majoranality of Neutrinos in Muon Decays." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/X4S6XCEP

@misc{pith2026190801630,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Hunting for T-violation and Majoranality of Neutrinos in Muon Decays},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/X4S6XCEP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.01630}
}
read the original abstract

We propose a new experiment to search for a time-reversal (T) symmetry breaking process in muon decay and the Majoranality of the neutrinos. In the presence of V+A interactions, the Majoranality appears as a T-violating term in the muon decay width as shown by Doi et al, while in the Standard Model such a T-violating term is negligibly small. The presences of V+A interactions and the corresponding heavy right-handed Majorana neutrinos give us an important clue to solve two major issues in particle physics, the deficit of baryon asymmetry in the universe and the Majoranality of neutrinos. In the experiment, the polarization of positrons from muon decays is measured using a polarimeter consisting of a magnetized foil and a segmented calorimeter. According to our result of numerical calculation, a factor of ten improvement in sensitivity to the T-violating process is expected by a year of measurement at J-PARC Materials and Life Science Experimental Facility, compared to the most recent precursor experiment.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.01630 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Tree level diagrams for muon decays. In the dia [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The EDM diagram of the lepton [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (a) Tree level diagram of muon decays. (b) An exam [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Schematic of Bhabha scattering: (a) description of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Experimental schematic of the decay positron po [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Simulated asymmetries with Bhabha scattering and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Calculated target thickness dependence of the FOM. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Simulated transverse asymmetry as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Expected sensitivity to the transverse polariza [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    For a case of an experiment with pulsed beam, no muon trigger counter is required because arrival of the muon beam is synchronized to the accelerator repetition

    Pulsed muon beam In contrast to the continuous beam at PSI, the pulsed muon beam at J-PARC has a periodic timing structure by nature. For a case of an experiment with pulsed beam, no muon trigger counter is required because arrival of the muon beam is synchronized to the accelerator repetition. The repetition cycle is 25 Hz and the beam has double pulse s...

    work page

  2. [2]

    positive

    Decay positron polarimeter The polarimeter is designed for both the Bhabha and AIF measurements. Figure 6 depicts a schematic of the polarimeter. A thin plate of beryllium is placed for a muon-stopping target. Magnetized iron foils are em- ployed as a spin-analyzing target. Between the muon- stopping target and the spin-analyzing target, a lead col- limat...

    work page

  3. [3]

    For the case of Bhabha scattering, the signal events are selected by a pair of charged particle tracks, which is detected by the silicon 8 FIG

    Angular distributions The number of signal events per incident muon to the stopping target is calculated. For the case of Bhabha scattering, the signal events are selected by a pair of charged particle tracks, which is detected by the silicon 8 FIG. 7. Simulated angular distributions of Bhabha scatter- ing and AIF: (top) scattering/emission angle ( θ); (b...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Figure 8 shows typi- cal simulated asymmetries as functions of the scatter- ing/emission angle θ

    Angular asymmetries Spin-analyzing power of the polarimeter is numerically evaluated for polarized positrons. Figure 8 shows typi- cal simulated asymmetries as functions of the scatter- ing/emission angle θ. The polarization of positrons from FIG. 8. Simulated asymmetries with Bhabha scattering and AIF: (top) the result of Bhabha polarimeter case; (bottom...

    work page

  5. [5]

    positive

    Sensitivity to the T -violating effect In order to maximize the sensitivity for the transverse polarization, essential parameters in the experiment and analysis are optimized considering the FOM F = (N+ −N−)2 N+ +N− , (37) where N+ and N− are the numbers of observed events with “positive” and “negative” configurations in the tar- get polarization, respectiv...

    work page

  6. [6]

    M. Doi, T. Kotani, H. Nishiura, K. Okuda, and E. Taka- sugi, Progress of Theoretical Physics 67, 281 (1982)

    work page 1982

  7. [7]

    T. D. Lee and C. N. Yang, Phys. Rev. 87, 410 (1952)

    1952

  8. [8]

    C. S. Wu, E. Ambler, R. W. Hayward, D. D. Hoppes, and R. P. Hudson, Phys. Rev. 105, 1413 (1957)

    work page 1957

Show all 54 references
  1. [9]

    J. D. Jackson, S. B. Treiman, and H. W. Wyld, Phys. Rev. 106, 517 (1957)

    1957

  2. [10]

    J. H. Christenson, J. W. Cronin, V. L. Fitch, and R. Turlay, Phys. Rev. Lett. 13, 138 (1964)

    1964

  3. [11]

    Abe et al

    K. Abe et al. (Belle Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 091802 (2001)

    2001

  4. [12]

    Aubert et al

    K. Aubert et al. (BABAR Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 091801 (2001)

    2001

  5. [13]

    Kobayashi and T

    M. Kobayashi and T. Maskawa, Progress of Theoretical Physics 49, 652 (1973)

    1973

  6. [14]

    Cabibbo, Phys

    N. Cabibbo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 10, 531 (1963)

    1963

  7. [15]

    Z. Maki, M. Nakagawa, and S. Sakata, Progress of Theoretical Physics 28, 870 (1962)

    1962

  8. [16]

    Pontecorvo, Sov

    B. Pontecorvo, Sov. Phys. JETP 7, 172 (1958)

    1958

  9. [17]

    Minkowski, Physics Letters B 67, 421 (1977)

    P. Minkowski, Physics Letters B 67, 421 (1977)

    1977

  10. [18]

    Yanagida, Conf

    T. Yanagida, Conf. Proc. C7902131, 95 (1979)

    1979

  11. [19]

    Gell-Mann, P

    M. Gell-Mann, P. Ramond, and R. Slansky, Conf. Proc. C790927, 315 (1979)

    1979

  12. [20]

    S. L. Glashow, Cargese Summer Institute: Quarks and Leptons Cargese, France, July 9-29, 1979 , NATO Sci. Ser. B 61, 687 (1980)

    1980

  13. [21]

    R. N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanovi´ c, Phys. Rev. Lett. 44, 912 (1980)

    1980

  14. [22]

    Fukugita and T

    M. Fukugita and T. Yanagida, Physics Letters B 174, 45 (1986)

    1986

  15. [23]

    Kuzmin, V

    V. Kuzmin, V. Rubakov, and M. Shaposhnikov, Physics Letters B 155, 36 (1985)

    1985

  16. [24]

    Fukuyama, Int

    T. Fukuyama, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 28, 1330008 (2013)

    2013

  17. [25]

    The symmetry breaking to naive SU(5) ⊗ U(1)X leads to too fast proton decay

  18. [26]

    J. C. Pati and A. Salam, Phys. Rev. D 10, 275 (1974)

    1974

  19. [27]

    Beall, M

    G. Beall, M. Bander, and A. Soni, Phys. Rev. Lett. 48, 848 (1982)

    1982

  20. [28]

    V. B. Berestetskii, E. M. Lifshitz, and L. P. Pitaevskii , Relativistic Quantum Theory (Pergamon Press, 1971)

    1971

  21. [29]

    M. Doi, T. Kotani, H. Nishiura, K. Okuda, and E. Taka- sugi, Science Reports, Colleage of General Education, Os- aka University 30, 119 (1981)

    1981

  22. [30]

    Jarlskog, Phys

    C. Jarlskog, Phys. Rev. Lett. 55, 1039 (1985)

    1985

  23. [31]

    Mandal, M

    S. Mandal, M. Mitra, and N. Sinha, Phys. Rev. D 96, 035023 (2017)

    2017

  24. [32]

    Patrignani and P

    C. Patrignani and P. D. Group, Chinese Physics C 40, 100001 (2016)

    2016

  25. [33]

    Michel, Proc

    L. Michel, Proc. Phys. Soc. A 63, 514 (1950)

    1950

  26. [34]

    Bernreuther and M

    W. Bernreuther and M. Suzuki, Rev. Mod. Phys. 63, 313 (1991)

    1991

  27. [35]

    G. W. Bennett et al. (Muon g-2 Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 73, 072003 (2006)

    2006

  28. [36]

    Grange et al

    J. Grange et al. , arXiv:1501.06858 (2015)

    2015 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Abe et al

    M. Abe et al. , PTEP 2019, 053C02 (2019)

    2019

  30. [38]

    [49], it can be shown that no CP violation occurs if we neglect the gluon in Fig

    By using the same technique used in Ref. [49], it can be shown that no CP violation occurs if we neglect the gluon in Fig. 3 (b)

  31. [39]

    Swartz, SLAC Publication 4656 (1988)

    M. Swartz, SLAC Publication 4656 (1988)

    1988

  32. [40]

    Agostinelli et al., Nucl

    S. Agostinelli et al., Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 506, 250 (2003)

    2003

  33. [41]

    Allison et al

    J. Allison et al. , IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. 53, 270 (2006)

    2006

  34. [42]

    Allison et al., Nucl

    J. Allison et al., Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 835, 186 (2016)

    2016

  35. [43]

    L. A. Page, Phys. Rev. 106, 394 (1957)

    1957

  36. [44]

    W. H. McMaster, Rev. Mod. Phys. 33, 8 (1961)

    1961

  37. [45]

    Fetscher, The European Physical Journal C 52, 1 (2007)

    W. Fetscher, The European Physical Journal C 52, 1 (2007)

    2007

  38. [46]

    Danneberg et al., Phys

    N. Danneberg et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 021802 (2005)

    2005

  39. [47]

    Prieels et al

    R. Prieels et al. , Phys. Rev. D 90, 112003 (2014)

    2014

  40. [48]

    Kawamura et al

    N. Kawamura et al. , PTEP 2018, 113G01 (2018)

    2018

  41. [49]

    Corriveau et al

    F. Corriveau et al. , Phys. Rev. D 24, 2004 (1981)

    1981

  42. [50]

    Carne et al

    A. Carne et al. , Hyperfine Interact , 17 (1984)

    1984

  43. [51]

    S. M. Bilenky, Physics of Particles and Nuclei 41, 690 (2010)

    2010

  44. [52]

    M. Doi, T. Kotani, and E. Takasugi, Progress of Theoretical Physics Supplement 83, 1 (1985)

    1985

  45. [53]

    Gando et al

    A. Gando et al. (KamLAND-Zen Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 082503 (2016)

    2016

  46. [54]

    E. P. Shabalin, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 28, 75 (1978), [Yad. Fiz.28,151(1978)]

    1978

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.