Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 108 references

New parameter region in sterile neutrino searches: a scenario to alleviate cosmological neutrino mass bound and its testability at oscillation experiments

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that a scenario with dozens of massless sterile neutrinos can relax the cosmological bound on neutrino masses, and that IceCube's atmospheric-neutrino data are already sensitive enough to test the newly opened parameter…

desk verdict A genuinely new sIO sensitivity estimate for IceCube whose qualitative MSW argument is sound, but the headline reach rests on an unpublished rescaling of the 1-year public analysis. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.16356 v2 pith:GBGOOFI2 submitted 2024-11-25 hep-ph

Toshihiko Ota This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords sterileneutrinoscosmologicalneutrinomassboundFarzan-HannestadmechanismIceCubeatmosphericinvertedorderingMSWresonancesum
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper revisits a 2016 proposal by Farzan and Hannestad in which a fraction of the cosmic neutrino background is replaced by massless fermions, loosening the cosmological upper bound on the sum of neutrino masses. A concrete realization introduces dozens of massless sterile neutrinos interacting through a new light gauge boson; this model remains viable with an active-sterile mixing as large as $\theta_s \sim 0.1$. Because the bound is relaxed, the usually forbidden case where sterile neutrinos are lighter than the active ones — the 'sterile inverted ordering' — becomes open, and the paper computes, for the first time, IceCube's sensitivity to that case. The numerical result is that 10.7 years of IceCube data can already probe mixing $\sin^2 2\theta_{24} \gtrsim 10^{-2}$ at mass-squared difference $\sim 0.2$ eV$^2$, which corresponds to testing the model with 50–70 massless sterile species and average active mass 0.3–0.5 eV. If correct, the scenario gives a concrete, lab-testable target for a possible future conflict between cosmological and laboratory neutrino-mass measurements.

What carries the argument

The central object is the 2-generation MSW-affected disappearance probability for atmospheric muon neutrinos, $P_{\mu\mu} \simeq 1 - 4(\Theta_s \Theta_s^\dagger)_{\mu\mu} \left[\frac{\bar{m}^2}{\bar{m}^2 + a_{\text{NC}}}\right]^2 \sin^2\frac{(\bar{m}^2 + a_{\text{NC}})L}{4E}$, which links the model's effective active-sterile mixing $(\Theta_s \Theta_s^\dagger)_{\mu\mu}$ to the fit parameters $\sin^2 2\theta_{24}$ and $\Delta m^2_{41} = -\bar{m}^2$. The identity that carries the argument is the mapping between the $N_s$-flavoured model and the 2-generation fit: $\sin^2 2\theta_{24} = (\Theta_s \Theta_s^\dagger)_{\mu\mu}$ with flavour-universal mixing $(\Theta_s \Theta_s^\dagger)_{\alpha\beta} = N_s \theta_s^2$, which lets the author interpret IceCube's $\theta_{24}$ sensitivity as a test of the model's $\theta_s$ for a given $N_s$. The MSW matter potential $a_{\text{NC}} = -\sqrt{2} G_F n_n E$ is what selects the neutrino channel for enhancement in the sIO case, which is the reason the sensitivity is better than in the ordinary normal-ordering search.

What would settle it

Release of the IceCube collaboration’s official 10.7-year atmospheric-neutrino analysis in the sterile-inverted-ordering channel would settle the central quantitative claim: if the official bound at $|\Delta m^2_{41}| \sim 0.2$ eV$^2$ is weaker than $\sin^2 2\theta_{24} \sim 10^{-2}$, the rescaled sensitivity curve is unsupported. Alternatively, a confirmed signal in that region would require a cosmologically consistent mechanism such as the Farzan-Hannestad scenario to be viable.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the inverted-ordering sterile neutrino (massless sterile states with $m_{\text{active}}^2 > m_{\text{sterile}}^2 = 0$) — normally ruled out by cosmology because it would imply $\sum m_i \sim 1$–3 eV — becomes viable once the Farzan-Hannestad mechanism is invoked, and that IceCube's atmospheric-neutrino observation can test it. Using a 2-generation fit with parameters $\sin^2 2\theta_{24}$ and $\Delta m^2_{41}$, the author calibrates a simulation against the public 1-year IceCube analysis and scales it to 10.7 years, finding sensitivity to $\sin^2 2\theta_{24} \gtrsim 10^{-2}$ at $|\Delta m^2_{41}| \sim 0.2$ eV$^2$ in the sterile-inverted-ordering case. With the flavour-universal identification $\sin^2 \theta_{24} = (\Theta_s \Theta_s^\dagger)_{\mu\mu} = N_s \theta_s^2$ and $\Delta m^2_{41} = -\bar{m}^2$, this translates to sensitivity to $\theta_s \gtrsim 6$–$7 \times 10^{-3}$ for $N_s = 50$–70 and $\bar{m} \sim 0.3$–0.5 eV, meaning IceCube has already started testing the model. The better sensitivity in the sIO case comes from the MSW resonance occurring in the neutrino (rather than antineutrino) channel, where the detection cross-section is larger.

Load-bearing premise

The quantitative sensitivity estimate assumes that scaling the public 1-year IceCube event rates to 10.7 years reproduces the official analysis, with the same data selection, backgrounds, and systematics, even though the 10.7-year data are not public and the curve rests on a private communication.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the sensitivity estimate is right, current IceCube data already constrain or exclude the flavour-universal model for $N_s \sim 50$–70 with $\theta_s \gtrsim 10^{-2}$ and $\bar{m} \sim 0.3$–0.5 eV.
  • A null result in this sIO search would push the model toward either smaller mixing or a larger number of sterile species, with $N_s \gtrsim 90$–150 needed if the tighter DESI-based cosmological bound is adopted.
  • A positive signal would motivate a reconsideration of the cosmological neutrino-mass bound within extended cosmologies such as the Farzan-Hannestad scenario.
  • The sIO search region overlaps with the KATRIN beta-decay bound, which already excludes the opened parameter region for $N_s \gtrsim 70$, so combining lab and cosmological probes can cross-check the model.
  • The same MSW-in-the-neutrino-channel logic applies to future atmospheric-neutrino searches, potentially extending the reach beyond IceCube's current configuration.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the official IceCube 10.7-year analysis is released, the sIO sensitivity curve can be checked directly; this would also calibrate the author's rescaling procedure for future searches for lighter sterile states.
  • The flavour-universal assumption is a strong simplification; the same phenomenological approach could map flavour-dependent mixings onto the 2-generation fit, potentially opening or closing specific flavour channels.
  • A detection of an sIO signal would not by itself identify the Farzan-Hannestad mechanism; corroborating evidence from cosmological probes, such as a modified effective number of relativistic species, would be needed to distinguish it from other light-sterile scenarios.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper revisits the Farzan–Hannestad mechanism, in which massless sterile neutrinos interacting through a new U(1)_Z' gauge boson replace a fraction of the cosmic neutrino background, thereby alleviating the cosmological bound on the sum of neutrino masses. It combines the model's allowed parameter region with a non-unitarity bound and a two-generation mapping to estimate the sensitivity of IceCube atmospheric neutrino observations to a massless sterile neutrino in the sterile-inverted-ordering (sIO) case. The central numerical result is that the 10.7-year IceCube data should be sensitive to sin^2 2theta_24 >~ 10^{-2} at |Delta m^2_41| ~ 0.2 eV^2, which would test the scenario with N_s ~ 50-70 massless sterile neutrinos and flavour-universal mixing theta_s >~ 6-7 x 10^{-3}.

Significance. If the quantitative sensitivity claim survives scrutiny, the paper identifies a genuinely new and testable parameter region: sterile neutrinos lighter than the active ones, which are usually excluded by cosmology, become allowed in the Farzan–Hannestad framework. The qualitative MSW argument that the sIO signal is enhanced in the neutrino channel and therefore statistically more efficient than the standard sNO search is sound and clearly presented. The paper also makes its approximation scheme explicit in Eq. (18) and gives a transparent interpretation of the two-generation parameters in terms of the model's N_s and theta_s. The main weakness is that the specific reach numbers rest on a scaling of the public one-year IceCube analysis to 10.7 years, with no public 10.7-year data, no uncertainty bands, and a citation to a private communication. The conceptual framework is valuable, but the headline 'already started testing' claim is not independently verifiable from the manuscript as written.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. III B, Fig. 1] The 10.7-year sensitivity curves, which carry the paper's central quantitative claim, are produced by scaling the public one-year IceCube analysis to 10.7 years and by citing Ref. [107], a private communication. The text states that the latest IceCube data used in Refs. [77,78] are not public, and no systematic-uncertainty band is attached to the blue curves. Because the statements 'IceCube shows a good sensitivity' and 'IceCube has already started testing the model' depend directly on these curves, the analysis needs either a public, reproducible derivation of the 10.7-year sensitivity or an explicit downgrade of the claim to a projected estimate pending public data.
  2. [Sec. III B, calibration step] The calibration against the official IceCube simulation bands is performed for the sNO case, for which the MSW resonance occurs in the antineutrino channel. The sIO signal instead has the resonance in the neutrino channel, so the event rates and the selection response to neutrino versus antineutrino events are not validated by the one-year sNO simulation bands. Consequently, the sIO sensitivity curves carry an additional source of uncertainty that is not covered by the stated calibration procedure, and this uncertainty directly affects the quoted reach at |Delta m^2_41| ~ 0.2 eV^2.
  3. [Eqs. (18)-(19)] The mapping sin^2 2theta_24 = (Theta_s Theta_s^dagger)_mu mu and Delta m^2_41 = -mbar^2 is explicitly derived in the high-energy, small-mixing, degenerate-active-mass limit. This is a reasonable approximation for the IceCube analysis, but the paper does not assess how the reach changes when the approximation degrades, for example at the lower-energy end of the sample or for non-degenerate active masses. Since the sensitivity curves are used to draw the quantitative conclusion, a validity check or an estimate of the resulting systematic shift should be shown for the quoted parameter region.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. III B] The phrase 'the latest 10.7-year atmospheric neutrino data [107]' is misleading because Ref. [107] is a private communication and not a public data release; the text should distinguish between IceCube's public data, the author's simulation, and the private communication.
  2. [Reference [107]] The reference entry 'M. Maltoni (2024)' should be labelled as a private communication, following standard practice, so that its non-public status is immediately clear.
  3. [Fig. 1, right panel] The grey-shaded cosmological regions are said to correspond to different numbers N_s of massless sterile generations, but the curve labels in the figure do not indicate which N_s values are used; adding a legend or explicit text would improve readability.
  4. [Eq. (18)] The symbol mbar^2 is used for the squared average active-neutrino mass, but mbar as an averaged mass is introduced only later in the text; a short definition before Eq. (18) would avoid confusion with the mass-square difference.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the IceCube sensitivity curves are benchmark-calibrated projections, and the imported cosmological and model bounds are external inputs, not outputs of this paper.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The cosmological alleviation factor in Eq. (1) is imported from Farzan & Hannestad [52] and re-estimated in [60], and the viable model parameter window (M_Z' ~ keV, g_Z' ~ 1e-5-1e-4, 1e-4 < theta_s < 1e-1) is imported from Escudero-Schwetz-Terol-Calvo [51] with its Addendum; these are external inputs, not results derived in this paper. The oscillation interpretation uses the approximate mapping in Eqs. (18)-(19) from the two-generation effective parameters to (Theta_s Theta_s^dagger)_mu mu and m^2; this is a stated small-mixing, high-energy approximation, not a definition that presupposes the IceCube result. The IceCube sensitivity curves are produced by reproducing the public one-year exclusion curve of [74], checking simulated event rates against the official one-year simulation band from the IceCube collaboration, and then scaling by livetime to 10.7 years; calibrating against an external benchmark is the opposite of fitting the target claim and then calling it a prediction. The paper explicitly discloses that the 10.7-year data are not public and that the final numerical fit is from a private communication (Ref. [107], M. Maltoni, 2024), which weakens reproducibility but does not make the central claim equivalent to its inputs by construction. No self-citation is load-bearing, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's central claim depends on the FH mechanism's parameter space from Refs. [51,52] and on a set of benchmark model parameters (Ns, theta_s, m_bar, gZ', MZ') chosen by hand. It introduces no new fields; it uses the massless sterile neutrinos and Z' boson from the cited model. The flavour-universal mixing assumption is explicit and load-bearing for the 2-generation reinterpretation.

free parameters (5)
  • Ns (number of massless sterile generations) = 50-70 for Planck bound; 90-150 for DESI bound
    The number of sterile species determines how much the cosmological bound is relaxed via Eq. (1) and sets the conversion from the IceCube mixing bound to the universal mixing theta_s.
  • theta_s (universal active-sterile mixing) = 10^-2 in the benchmark plot; allowed range 10^-4 to 10^-1
    The flavour-universal mixing is the parameter that IceCube is claimed to constrain; the benchmark value is chosen by hand to sit in the allowed region from Ref. [51].
  • m_bar (average active neutrino mass) = 0.3-0.5 eV (sIO sensitivity region)
    For degenerate active neutrinos, m_bar^2 = -Delta m^2_41; the claimed IceCube reach is for |Delta m^2_41| ~ 0.1-0.2 eV^2, implying m_bar ~ 0.3-0.5 eV.
  • gZ' (U(1)_Z' gauge coupling) = 10^-5 to 10^-4
    Imported from Ref. [51] as the range that activates the FH mechanism while evading cosmological constraints; not fitted in this paper but used for the viable-region statement.
  • MZ' (new gauge boson mass) = ~ keV
    Required to activate the replacement of active neutrinos by massless sterile neutrinos between BBN and structure formation; taken from Ref. [51].
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption FH bound-alleviation formula Eq. (1): Sum_i m_i|real = ((1+Ns/3)/(11/7+Ns/3)^(1/4)) Sum_i m_i|cosmo
    The paper imports this relation from Refs. [52,60] to argue the sIO region is allowed; it does not derive or test the formula.
  • domain assumption Allowed mixing window 10^-4 <~ theta_s <~ 10^-1 from BBN, structure formation, and thermal-potential suppression in Ref. [51] Addendum
    The claim that IceCube can test the model depends on this imported viability window; the left panel of Fig. 1 is a summary of Ref. [51], not a new calculation.
  • ad hoc to paper Flavour-universal active-sterile mixing (Theta_s)_{alpha i} = theta_s for all flavours alpha and sterile indices i
    Explicitly flagged in the paper as an assumption, not a requirement; it is what allows the reduction to a 2-generation fit with sin^2 theta24 = Ns theta_s^2.
  • domain assumption Seesaw hierarchy Lambda << m_D << M_R with M_R at the GUT scale, so Theta_R is negligible and sterile neutrinos are massless after diagonalization
    Used to justify the simplified mixing matrix and the single mass-squared difference m_bar^2 in the oscillation formula; inherited from Refs. [51,54].

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of New parameter region in sterile neutrino searches: a scenario to alleviate cosmological neutrino mass bound and its testability at oscillation experiments." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GBGOOFI2

@misc{pith2026241116356,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: New parameter region in sterile neutrino searches: a scenario to alleviate cosmological neutrino mass bound and its testability at oscillation experiments},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GBGOOFI2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.16356}
}
abstract

Recent high-precision cosmological data tighten the bound to neutrino masses and start rising a tension to the results of lab-experiment measurements, which may hint new physics in the role of neutrinos during the structure formation in the universe. A scenario with massless sterile neutrinos was proposed to alleviate the cosmological bound and recover the concordance in the measurements of neutrino masses. We revisit the scenario and discuss its testability at oscillation experiments. We find that the scenario is viable with a large active-sterile mixing that is testable at oscillation experiments. We present a numerical estimation of the sensitivity reach of the IceCube atmospheric neutrino observation to a sterile neutrino with a mass lighter than active neutrinos for the first time. IceCube shows a good sensitivity to the active-sterile mixing at the mass-square difference with a size of $\sim 0.1$ eV$^{2}$ in the case of the \textit{inverted-mass-ordering sterile neutrino}, which is forbidden under the assumption of the standard cosmology but is allowed thanks to the alleviation of the cosmological bound in this scenario.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.16356 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: [Left] Cosmological bounds and the requirement from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

108 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages

  1. [107]

    Abi et al

    B. Abi et al. (DUNE) (2020), 2002.03005

    arXiv 2020

  2. [1]

    2 eV2, which is the primary region for the IceCube search and is not excluded by KATRIN, Ns ≃ 90 − 150 is required

    1−0. 2 eV2, which is the primary region for the IceCube search and is not excluded by KATRIN, Ns ≃ 90 − 150 is required. IV. SUMMAR Y AND DISCUSSIONS We revisited the model proposed in [51], which is a re- alization of the Farzan-Hannestad (FH) mechanism [52] that alleviates the cosmological bound to the sum of the neutrino masses and recovers the concord...

  3. [2]

    Aker et al

    M. Aker et al. (Katrin) (2024), 2406.13516

    arXiv 2024

  4. [3]

    Aker et al

    M. Aker et al. (KATRIN), J. Phys. G 49, 100501 (2022), 2203.08059

    arXiv 2022

  5. [4]

    A. A. Esfahani et al. (Project 8), in Snowmass 2021 (2022), 2203.07349

    arXiv 2022

  6. [5]

    D. S. Parno, A. W. P. Poon, and V. Singh (2023), 2310.06207

    arXiv 2023

  7. [6]

    J. A. Formaggio, A. L. C. de Gouvêa, and R. G. H. Robertson, Phys. Rept. 914, 1 (2021), 2102.00594

    arXiv 2021

  8. [7]

    Abe et al

    S. Abe et al. (KamLAND-Zen), Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 051801 (2023), 2203.02139

    arXiv 2023

Show all 108 references
  1. [8]

    I. J. Arnquist et al. (Majorana), Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 062501 (2023), 2207.07638

    2023 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Azzolini et al

    O. Azzolini et al. (CUPID), Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 111801 (2022), 2206.05130

    2022 arXiv

  3. [10]

    D. Q. Adams et al. (CUORE), Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 222501 (2022), 2205.03132

    2022 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Agostini et al

    M. Agostini et al. (GERDA), Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 252502 (2020), 2009.06079

    2020 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Anton et al

    G. Anton et al. (EXO-200), Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 161802 (2019), 1906.02723

    2019 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Pompa, T

    F. Pompa, T. Schwetz, and J.-Y. Zhu, JHEP 06, 104 (2023), 2303.10562

    2023 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Agostini, G

    M. Agostini, G. Benato, J. A. Detwiler, J. Menéndez, and F. Vissani, Rev. Mod. Phys. 95, 025002 (2023), 2202.01787

    2023 arXiv

  8. [15]

    M. J. Dolinski, A. W. P. Poon, and W. Rodejohann, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 69, 219 (2019), 1902.04097

    2019 arXiv

  9. [16]

    P. F. de Salas, D. V. Forero, S. Gariazzo, P. Martínez- Miravé, O. Mena, C. A. Ternes, M. Tórtola, and J. W. F. Valle, JHEP 02, 071 (2021), 2006.11237

    2021 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Capozzi, E

    F. Capozzi, E. Di Valentino, E. Lisi, A. Marrone, A. Melchiorri, and A. Palazzo, Phys. Rev. D 104, 083031 (2021), 2107.00532

    2021 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Esteban, M

    I. Esteban, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, M. Maltoni, I. Martinez-Soler, J. a. P. Pinheiro, and T. Schwetz (2024), 2410.05380

    2024 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Acciarri et al

    R. Acciarri et al. (DUNE) (2015), 1512.06148

    2015

  13. [20]

    Abe et al

    K. Abe et al. (Hyper-Kamiokande) (2018), 1805.04163

    2018 arXiv

  14. [21]

    M. R. Stock (JUNO), in 17th International Workshop on Tau Lepton Physics (2024), 2405.07321

    2024 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Aghanim et al

    N. Aghanim et al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys. 641, A6 (2020), [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)], 1807.06209

    2020 arXiv

  16. [23]

    A. G. Adame et al. (DESI) (2024), 2404.03002

    2024 arXiv

  17. [24]

    A. G. Adame et al. (DESI) (2024), 2411.12022

    2024 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Aghamousa et al

    A. Aghamousa et al. (DESI) (2016), 1611.00036

    2016 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Amendola et al., Living Rev

    L. Amendola et al., Living Rev. Rel. 21, 2 (2018), 9 1606.00180

    2018 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Ivezić et al

    Ž. Ivezić et al. (LSST), Astrophys. J. 873, 111 (2019), 0805.2366

    2019 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Carbone, L

    C. Carbone, L. Verde, Y. Wang, and A. Cimatti, JCAP 03, 030 (2011), 1012.2868

    2011 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Hamann, S

    J. Hamann, S. Hannestad, and Y. Y. Y. Wong, JCAP 11, 052 (2012), 1209.1043

    2012 arXiv

  23. [30]

    Font-Ribera, P

    A. Font-Ribera, P. McDonald, N. Mostek, B. A. Reid, H.-J. Seo, and A. Slosar, JCAP 05, 023 (2014), 1308.4164

    2014 arXiv

  24. [31]

    Basse, O

    T. Basse, O. E. Bjaelde, J. Hamann, S. Hannestad, and Y. Y. Y. Wong, JCAP 05, 021 (2014), 1304.2321

    2014 arXiv

  25. [32]

    Brinckmann, D

    T. Brinckmann, D. C. Hooper, M. Archidiacono, J. Les- gourgues, and T. Sprenger, JCAP 01, 059 (2019), 1808.05955

    2019 arXiv

  26. [33]

    Chudaykin and M

    A. Chudaykin and M. M. Ivanov, JCAP 11, 034 (2019), 1907.06666

    2019 arXiv

  27. [34]

    C. A. Ternes, EPJ Web Conf. 290, 10001 (2023)

    2023

  28. [35]

    M. A. Acero et al. (2022), 2203.07323

    2022 arXiv

  29. [36]

    Gerbino et al., Phys

    M. Gerbino et al., Phys. Dark Univ. 42, 101333 (2023), 2203.07377

    2023 arXiv

  30. [37]

    Gariazzo, O

    S. Gariazzo, O. Mena, and T. Schwetz, Phys. Dark Univ. 40, 101226 (2023), 2302.14159

    2023 arXiv

  31. [38]

    Alam et al

    S. Alam et al. (eBOSS), Phys. Rev. D 103, 083533 (2021), 2007.08991

    2021 arXiv

  32. [39]

    Craig, D

    N. Craig, D. Green, J. Meyers, and S. Rajendran, JHEP 09, 097 (2024), 2405.00836

    2024 arXiv

  33. [40]

    Green and J

    D. Green and J. Meyers (2024), 2407.07878

    2024 arXiv

  34. [41]

    Naredo-Tuero, M

    D. Naredo-Tuero, M. Escudero, E. Fernández-Martínez, X. Marcano, and V. Poulin (2024), 2407.13831

    2024 arXiv

  35. [42]

    Jiang, W

    J.-Q. Jiang, W. Giarè, S. Gariazzo, M. G. Dainotti, E. Di Valentino, O. Mena, D. Pedrotti, S. S. da Costa, and S. Vagnozzi (2024), 2407.18047

    2024 arXiv

  36. [43]

    Elbers, C

    W. Elbers, C. S. Frenk, A. Jenkins, B. Li, and S. Pascoli (2024), 2407.10965

    2024 arXiv

  37. [44]

    J. a. Rebouças, D. H. F. de Souza, K. Zhong, V. Mi- randa, and R. Rosenfeld (2024), 2408.14628

    2024 arXiv

  38. [45]

    Roy Choudhury and T

    S. Roy Choudhury and T. Okumura (2024), 2409.13022

    2024 arXiv

  39. [46]

    Loverde and Z

    M. Loverde and Z. J. Weiner (2024), 2410.00090

    2024 arXiv

  40. [47]

    Di Valentino and A

    E. Di Valentino and A. Melchiorri, Astrophys. J. Lett. 931, L18 (2022), 2112.02993

    2022 arXiv

  41. [48]

    Bertólez-Martínez, I

    T. Bertólez-Martínez, I. Esteban, R. Hajjar, O. Mena, and J. Salvado (2024), 2411.14524

    2024 arXiv

  42. [49]

    Abdalla et al., JHEAp 34, 49 (2022), 2203.06142

    E. Abdalla et al., JHEAp 34, 49 (2022), 2203.06142

    2022 arXiv

  43. [50]

    Di Valentino, O

    E. Di Valentino, O. Mena, S. Pan, L. Visinelli, W. Yang, A. Melchiorri, D. F. Mota, A. G. Riess, and J. Silk, Class. Quant. Grav. 38, 153001 (2021), 2103.01183

    2021 arXiv

  44. [51]

    Di Valentino et al., Astropart

    E. Di Valentino et al., Astropart. Phys. 131, 102604 (2021), 2008.11285

    2021 arXiv

  45. [52]

    Escudero, T

    M. Escudero, T. Schwetz, and J. Terol-Calvo, JHEP 02, 142 (2023), [Addendum: JHEP 06, 119 (2024)], 2211.01729

    2023 arXiv

  46. [53]

    Farzan and S

    Y. Farzan and S. Hannestad, JCAP 02, 058 (2016), 1510.02201

    2016 arXiv

  47. [54]

    I. M. Oldengott, G. Barenboim, S. Kahlen, J. Salvado, and D. J. Schwarz, JCAP 04, 049 (2019), 1901.04352

    2019 arXiv

  48. [55]

    Escudero, J

    M. Escudero, J. Lopez-Pavon, N. Rius, and S. Sandner, JHEP 12, 119 (2020), 2007.04994

    2020 arXiv

  49. [56]

    Sen and A

    M. Sen and A. Y. Smirnov (2024), 2407.02462

    2024 arXiv

  50. [57]

    Follin, L

    B. Follin, L. Knox, M. Millea, and Z. Pan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 091301 (2015), 1503.07863

    2015 arXiv

  51. [58]

    Baumann, D

    D. Baumann, D. Green, J. Meyers, and B. Wallisch, JCAP 01, 007 (2016), 1508.06342

    2016 arXiv

  52. [59]

    Baumann, F

    D. Baumann, F. Beutler, R. Flauger, D. Green, A. Slosar, M. Vargas-Magaña, B. Wallisch, and C. Yèche, Nature Phys. 15, 465 (2019), 1803.10741

    2019 arXiv

  53. [60]

    Taule, M

    P. Taule, M. Escudero, and M. Garny, Phys. Rev. D 106, 063539 (2022), 2207.04062

    2022 arXiv

  54. [61]

    Benso, T

    C. Benso, T. Schwetz, and D. Vatsyayan (2024), 2410.23926

    2024 arXiv

  55. [62]

    Dasgupta and J

    B. Dasgupta and J. Kopp, Phys. Rept. 928, 1 (2021), 2106.05913

    2021 arXiv

  56. [63]

    H. A. Weldon, Phys. Rev. D 26, 2789 (1982)

    1982

  57. [64]

    Dasgupta and J

    B. Dasgupta and J. Kopp, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 031803 (2014), 1310.6337

    2014 arXiv

  58. [65]

    X. Chu, B. Dasgupta, and J. Kopp, JCAP 10, 011 (2015), 1505.02795

    2015 arXiv

  59. [66]

    Dentler, A

    M. Dentler, A. Hernández-Cabezudo, J. Kopp, P. A. N. Machado, M. Maltoni, I. Martinez-Soler, and T. Schwetz, JHEP 08, 010 (2018), 1803.10661

    2018 arXiv

  60. [67]

    Nunokawa, O

    H. Nunokawa, O. L. G. Peres, and R. Zukanovich Fun- chal, Phys. Lett. B 562, 279 (2003), hep-ph/0302039

    2003 arXiv

  61. [68]

    Choubey, JHEP 12, 014 (2007), 0709.1937

    S. Choubey, JHEP 12, 014 (2007), 0709.1937

    2007 arXiv

  62. [69]

    Razzaque and A

    S. Razzaque and A. Y. Smirnov, JHEP 07, 084 (2011), 1104.1390

    2011 arXiv

  63. [70]

    Barger, Y

    V. Barger, Y. Gao, and D. Marfatia, Phys. Rev. D 85, 011302 (2012), 1109.5748

    2012 arXiv

  64. [71]

    Razzaque and A

    S. Razzaque and A. Y. Smirnov, Phys. Rev. D 85, 093010 (2012), 1203.5406

    2012 arXiv

  65. [72]

    Esmaili, F

    A. Esmaili, F. Halzen, and O. L. G. Peres, JCAP 11, 041 (2012), 1206.6903

    2012 arXiv

  66. [73]

    Esmaili and A

    A. Esmaili and A. Y. Smirnov, JHEP 06, 026 (2013), 1304.1042

    2013 arXiv

  67. [74]

    J. Kopp, P. A. N. Machado, M. Maltoni, and T. Schwetz, JHEP 05, 050 (2013), 1303.3011

    2013 arXiv

  68. [75]

    M. G. Aartsen et al. (IceCube), Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 071801 (2016), 1605.01990

    2016 arXiv

  69. [76]

    M. G. Aartsen et al. (IceCube), Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 141801 (2020), 2005.12942

    2020

  70. [77]

    M. G. Aartsen et al. (IceCube), Phys. Rev. D 102, 052009 (2020), 2005.12943

    2020

  71. [78]

    Abbasi et al

    R. Abbasi et al. (IceCube) (2024), 2405.08070

    2024

  72. [79]

    Abbasi et al

    R. Abbasi et al. (IceCube) (2024), 2405.08077

    2024

  73. [80]

    Holdom, Phys

    B. Holdom, Phys. Lett. B 166, 196 (1986)

    1986

  74. [81]

    E. J. Chun, A. S. Joshipura, and A. Y. Smirnov, Phys. Lett. B 357, 608 (1995), hep-ph/9505275

    1995 arXiv

  75. [82]

    Grimus and L

    W. Grimus and L. Lavoura, JHEP 11, 042 (2000), hep- ph/0008179

    2000

  76. [83]

    Barry, W

    J. Barry, W. Rodejohann, and H. Zhang, JHEP 07, 091 (2011), 1105.3911

    2011 arXiv

  77. [84]

    Zhang, Phys

    H. Zhang, Phys. Lett. B 714, 262 (2012), 1110.6838

    2012 arXiv

  78. [85]

    Heeck and H

    J. Heeck and H. Zhang, JHEP 05, 164 (2013), 1211.0538

    2013 arXiv

  79. [86]

    Blennow and E

    M. Blennow and E. Fernandez-Martinez, Phys. Lett. B 704, 223 (2011), 1107.3992

    2011 arXiv

  80. [87]

    Ballett, M

    P. Ballett, M. Hostert, and S. Pascoli, Phys. Rev. D 99, 091701 (2019), 1903.07590

    2019 arXiv

  81. [88]

    P. C. de Holanda and A. Y. Smirnov, Phys. Rev. D 83, 113011 (2011), 1012.5627

    2011 arXiv

  82. [89]

    Bakhti and Y

    P. Bakhti and Y. Farzan, JHEP 10, 200 (2013), 1308.2823

    2013 arXiv

  83. [90]

    Thakore, M

    T. Thakore, M. M. Devi, S. Kumar Agarwalla, and A. Dighe, JHEP 08, 022 (2018), 1804.09613

    2018 arXiv

  84. [91]

    de Gouvêa, G

    A. de Gouvêa, G. Jusino Sánchez, and K. J. Kelly, Phys. Rev. D 106, 055025 (2022), 2204.09130

    2022 arXiv

  85. [92]

    Z. Chen, J. Liao, J. Ling, and B. Yue, JHEP 09, 004 (2022), 2205.07574

    2022 arXiv

  86. [93]

    D. S. Chattopadhyay, M. M. Devi, A. Dighe, D. Dutta, 10 D. Pramanik, and S. K. Raut, JHEP 02, 044 (2023), 2211.03473

    2023 arXiv

  87. [94]

    Chatterjee, S

    A. Chatterjee, S. Goswami, and S. Pan, Nucl. Phys. B 996, 116370 (2023), 2307.12885

    2023 arXiv

  88. [95]

    Goswami, D

    S. Goswami, D. Pachhar, and S. Pan, Phys. Rev. D 110, 015028 (2024), 2405.04176

    2024 arXiv

  89. [96]

    Antusch, C

    S. Antusch, C. Biggio, E. Fernandez-Martinez, M. B. Gavela, and J. Lopez-Pavon, JHEP 10, 084 (2006), hep- ph/0607020

    2006

  90. [97]

    Antusch and O

    S. Antusch and O. Fischer, JHEP 10, 094 (2014), 1407.6607

    2014 arXiv

  91. [98]

    Parke and M

    S. Parke and M. Ross-Lonergan, Phys. Rev. D 93, 113009 (2016), 1508.05095

    2016 arXiv

  92. [99]

    Antusch and O

    S. Antusch and O. Fischer, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 31, 1644006 (2016), 1604.00208

    2016 arXiv

  93. [100]

    Fernandez-Martinez, J

    E. Fernandez-Martinez, J. Hernandez-Garcia, and J. Lopez-Pavon, JHEP 08, 033 (2016), 1605.08774

    2016 arXiv

  94. [101]

    Blennow, P

    M. Blennow, P. Coloma, E. Fernandez-Martinez, J. Hernandez-Garcia, and J. Lopez-Pavon, JHEP 04, 153 (2017), 1609.08637

    2017 arXiv

  95. [102]

    D. V. Forero, C. Giunti, C. A. Ternes, and M. Tortola, Phys. Rev. D 104, 075030 (2021), 2103.01998

    2021 arXiv

  96. [103]

    Blennow, E

    M. Blennow, E. Fernández-Martínez, J. Hernández- García, J. López-Pavón, X. Marcano, and D. Naredo- Tuero, JHEP 08, 030 (2023), 2306.01040

    2023 arXiv

  97. [104]

    C. A. Argüelles et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 15 (2023), 2203.10811

    2023 arXiv

  98. [105]

    Adamson et al

    P. Adamson et al. (MINOS+), Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 091803 (2019), 1710.06488

    2019 arXiv

  99. [106]

    P. A. Machado, O. Palamara, and D. W. Schmitz, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 69, 363 (2019), 1903.04608

    2019 arXiv

  100. [108]

    Navas et al

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

    2024

Pith tools

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