Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 1 cited by

Solar Model Independent Constraints on the Sterile Neutrino Interpretation of the Gallium Anomaly

T0 review · 2 major / 3 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 shows that a 3+1 sterile neutrino interpretation of the gallium anomaly is incompatible with solar and KamLAND data at the 3σ level or higher for all standard flux assumptions, and that the most permissive model-independent…

desk verdict Solid SSM-independent 3+1 analysis of the gallium anomaly: the tension stays ≳3σ under standard assumptions, best case ~2.2σ, and sub-2σ requires a >10% luminosity violation; the fixed external source likelihood is the main caveat, and it is modest. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.16840 v2 pith:MXJSYH33 submitted 2024-11-25 hep-ph hep-ex

M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia , Michele Maltoni , João Paulo Pinheiro This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-ex
keywords sterileneutrinogalliumanomalysolarneutrinosKamLAND3+1mixingparametergoodnessoffitstandardmodelBESTexperiment
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 asks whether the gallium anomaly—the roughly 20% deficit in the rate of neutrino captures on $^{71}$Ga from radioactive $^{51}$Cr and $^{37}$Ar sources in GALLEX, SAGE, and BEST—can be explained by an eV-scale sterile neutrino that also participates in solar neutrino oscillations. It performs global fits of solar neutrino and KamLAND data in a 3+1 mixing framework (three standard neutrino states plus one mostly sterile state), and quantifies the compatibility of the mixing angle $\theta_{14}$ required by the source experiments with that allowed by solar and reactor data, under different assumptions on solar fluxes, reactor flux normalization, and the gallium capture rate normalization. The central result is that, for all standard solar model variants and for the model-independent solar flux analysis, the compatibility between gallium source experiments and solar+KamLAND data occurs only at the $3\sigma$ level or higher. In the most permissive variant—free solar fluxes with the luminosity constraint, free gallium normalization $f_{\rm Ga}$, and reactor fluxes normalized by Daya Bay spectra—the tension improves but only to about $2.2\sigma$. Sub-$2\sigma$ compatibility would require the neutrino-inferred solar luminosity to exceed the directly measured value by more than 10%, in conflict with its 0.34% measurement precision.

What carries the argument

The central object is the 3+1 neutrino mixing matrix $U = V_{34}V_{24}V_{14}V_{23}V_{13}V_{12}$ with $\theta_{24} = \theta_{34} = 0$, so that the gallium source survival probability reduces to $P_{ee}^{\rm source} = 1 - \sin^2(2\theta_{14})\sin^2(\Delta m^2_{41}L/4E)$, and the solar and KamLAND probabilities depend on the same angle $\theta_{14}$ after the eV$^2$ oscillations are averaged. The argument is carried by the parameter goodness-of-fit (PG) statistic $\chi^2_{\rm PG} = \chi^2_{\rm min,glob} - \sum_i \chi^2_{\rm min,i}$ of Eq. (5), which with one degree of freedom (only $\theta_{14}$ is in common) quantifies the tension between the gallium source and solar+KamLAND data sets. The analysis is built on two levers: SSM-constrained fits using B23 solar models with four abundance choices, and model-independent fits where the eight solar fluxes are free parameters subject to the luminosity constraint $\chi^2_{\rm LC} = [(L_\odot(\nu\text{-inferred})/L_\odot - 1)/0.0034]^2$, together with the KamLAND-RFC/RFF variants and the free gallium normalization parameter $f_{\rm Ga}$.

What would settle it

A direct test would be to repeat the global fit after replacing the fixed gallium source likelihood with one that includes correlated systematic uncertainties between the source experiments and the solar gallium detectors (common cross-section and efficiency errors), and check whether the compatibility statistic drops below $2\sigma$ while $f_{\rm Ga}=1$ and the luminosity constraint are kept at face value.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that the mixing angle $\sin^2\theta_{14}$ needed to explain the gallium source experiments—of order 0.1–0.2—is excluded by the combined solar+KamLAND data at the $3\sigma$ level or worse, and that this conclusion holds for every one of the four standard solar compositions considered (MB-phot, GS98, AAG21, and AGSS09-met), for both the 'reactor flux constrained' and 'reactor flux free' KamLAND analyses, and whether or not the solar gallium normalization $f_{\rm Ga}$ is floated. Relaxing the standard solar model constraint on the eight solar fluxes, subject only to the luminosity constraint $L_\odot(\nu\text{-inferred}) = \sum_i \alpha_i \Phi_i$ with its 0.34% prior, loosens the bound only slightly; the most permissive full combination leaves a ~$2.2\sigma$ incompatibility. If the luminosity constraint is dropped, compatibility below $2\sigma$ is formally achievable only when the neutrino-inferred solar luminosity deviates by more than 10% from the directly measured solar luminosity, implying that more than 10% of the Sun's fusion energy would have to be invisible to direct radiation measurements.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the gallium source likelihood function, taken as a fixed external input to the fit, correctly encodes all uncertainties of the source experiments; if it misses an error shared with the solar gallium detectors, the reported tension could shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • An eV-scale sterile neutrino with the sizable mixing needed to explain the gallium anomaly is excluded by solar+KamLAND data at more than $3\sigma$ under every standard solar model considered.
  • Freeing the solar flux normalizations, the gallium rate normalization, and the reactor flux normalization simultaneously does not rescue the sterile interpretation: the tension remains at about $2.2\sigma$ in the most permissive case.
  • Explaining the anomaly with a sterile neutrino would require the neutrino-inferred solar luminosity to exceed the directly measured radiated luminosity by more than 10%, meaning more than a tenth of the Sun's fusion energy would have to escape into non-radiated channels.
  • The solar data themselves disfavour an energy-independent rescaling of the gallium capture cross section as the explanation, since the fitted normalization $f_{\rm Ga}$ is consistent with 1 within about 7%.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same numbers translate into a new bound on any exotic mechanism that drains energy from the Sun's core: such a mechanism would need to carry away more than 10% of the Sun's fusion energy to make the gallium source experiments compatible with solar+KamLAND data, far beyond what stellar-evolution constraints currently allow.
  • The comparison of reactor-flux-constrained and reactor-flux-free fits identifies the absolute reactor flux normalization as the most powerful lever on $\theta_{14}$; a future reactor experiment with a near detector could sharpen the bound and effectively close the sterile window.
  • The methodology—a parameter goodness-of-fit test with a single common parameter—is directly transferable to other short-baseline anomalies, such as the reactor antineutrino anomaly, to assess sterile interpretations in a transparent way.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper performs a 3+1 sterile neutrino analysis of current solar neutrino data and KamLAND reactor data, using both standard solar model flux predictions and a solar-model-independent approach in which the solar fluxes are determined by the fit. It compares the resulting constraints on sin^2(theta14) with the gallium source experiments by means of a parameter goodness-of-fit test, using an external Delta-chi^2 function for the gallium source experiments taken from Ref. [9]. The main results are that compatibility between the gallium source experiments and solar+KamLAND data is at the 3-sigma level or higher for all standard flux assumptions, that the most permissive model-independent variant with free gallium normalization and free reactor normalization reaches only about 2.2 sigma, and that sub-2-sigma compatibility would require the neutrino-inferred solar luminosity to deviate by more than 10% from its directly measured value.

Significance. This is a useful and carefully executed study. Its main value is the systematic quantification of how the sterile-neutrino interpretation of the gallium anomaly depends on assumptions about solar fluxes, the gallium capture rate normalization, and reactor flux normalization. The inclusion of four different standard solar models, the genuinely model-independent flux analysis, the two KamLAND treatments, and the explicit fGa variants is a strength. The luminosity-deviation argument in Section 3.3 is a concrete and falsifiable consequence of the analysis. If the reported compatibility levels survive the robustness checks requested below, the paper considerably strengthens the case against the sterile-neutrino interpretation of the gallium anomaly.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 3.1, Eq. (5)] The parameter goodness-of-fit statistic in Eq. (5) is only valid if the two chi^2 terms are independent. In the fGa=1 analyses, the solar gallium rates included in the solar fit and the gallium source rates entering through the external Delta-chi^2 from Ref. [9] share the same 71Ga capture cross-section normalization, whose uncertainty is estimated at the 10-15% level in Refs. [7,10,11]. The manuscript uses the source likelihood as a fixed external input and does not introduce a common cross-section or efficiency pull, so correlated systematics are not propagated into chi^2_PG. Because the headline result is a set of sharp sigma values, the authors should either include the gallium source data in the same fit with a shared normalization parameter, or demonstrate quantitatively that the allowed cross-section variations shift the reported compatibility levels by less than the quoted precision.
  2. [Section 3.3] The conclusion that sub-2-sigma compatibility with the gallium source data requires a more than 10% deviation of the neutrino-inferred solar luminosity is obtained by combining the solar+KamLAND and gallium-source chi^2 terms, and therefore inherits the additivity assumption of the first comment. In addition, the scan in Fig. 3 fixes fGa=1 because of the degeneracy with Phi_pp; the paper should state explicitly whether the >10% number is conditional on the nominal gallium cross-section normalization and, if possible, provide a conservative band under the cross-section reevaluations of Refs. [10,11]. Without this, the abstract and summary statement that sub-2-sigma compatibility 'unavoidably requires' the large luminosity deviation is stronger than the present calculation supports.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.2 and Table 1] The text says that for fGa=1 the compatibility is 'at a level greater than or approximately 3 sigma', but Table 1 reports 2.9 sigma for the SSM-independent fit with KamLAND-RFF; please rephrase to reflect the rounded value.
  2. [Table 1] The p-value column is labelled 'p-value (x10^-3)', which is easy to misread; consider quoting p directly or clarifying the column header.
  3. [Figure 2] The caption refers to 'full red regions' and 'void black contours', but in a grayscale version these are hard to distinguish; explicit labels or hatching would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Gallium-source compatibility test compares an external source likelihood from Ref. [9] with independent solar+KamLAND fits.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is a compatibility statement, not a prediction reduced to a fitted input. The Δχ²_Ga-source(θ14) function is taken from the BEST collaboration's combined fit (Ref. [9]) and used only as the Gallium-source term in the parameter goodness-of-fit statistic of Eq. (5); the solar and KamLAND terms are computed in this paper from the data sets listed in Sec. 2. The two terms share only θ14, and no parameter of the solar+KamLAND fit is set to the source best-fit. The model-independent variant (Sec. 3.2) restates the assumptions (flux positivity, pp-chain termination, pep/pp ratio, CNO rescaling, luminosity prior) rather than importing a prior result wholesale, and the fGa-free case explicitly removes solar gallium information, which is the conservative direction. The luminosity-deviation conclusion (Sec. 3.3) is a scan over a dropped prior and is derived, not assumed. The only self-citations (Refs. [13,27,46,53]) are methodological or contextual; the numerical results are new fits. The paper itself notes that correlated cross-section/efficiency systematics between solar and source gallium experiments have been studied elsewhere; ignoring such correlations is a statistical limitation of the PG independence assumption, not a definitional reduction of a prediction to an input. Hence no circular step.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities; the sterile neutrino nu4 is the hypothesis under test. It fits several nuisance parameters (flux normalizations, fGa, reactor normalization) and relies on standard solar model inputs and the external gallium-source likelihood from Ref. 9. The main assumptions are the 3+1 framework, adiabatic solar propagation, fixed theta24/theta34/theta13, and the luminosity constraint.

free parameters (7)
  • sin^2(theta14) = upper bound ~0.01 (not stated explicitly)
    Central mixing angle constrained by solar+KamLAND data and required by the gallium anomaly; the main parameter under test.
  • Delta m^2_21 = ~7.5e-5 eV^2 (standard value)
    Solar and KamLAND oscillation parameter fitted in the global analysis.
  • sin^2(theta12) = ~0.3 (standard value)
    Solar mixing angle fitted in the global analysis.
  • fGa = favoured close to 1 with ~7% uncertainty
    Normalization of the solar gallium capture rate, free in some fits; statistically equivalent to removing solar gallium data.
  • Solar flux normalizations Phi_pp, Phi_7Be, Phi_pep, Phi_8B, Phi_hep, Phi_13N, Phi_15O, Phi_17F = best-fit values not given in the excerpt
    Fitted in the SSM-independent analysis subject to positivity, chain constraints, and the luminosity prior.
  • Common CNO flux rescaling = not given in the excerpt
    A common rescaling of the three CNO fluxes relative to SSM predictions, assumed for simplicity after verification that results are insensitive to CNO details.
  • Reactor flux normalization (KamLAND-RFF) = free
    In the reactor-flux-free KamLAND analysis, the overall reactor antineutrino flux normalization is left free.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Existence of a mostly sterile eV-scale neutrino nu4 with mixing angle theta14 (3+1 framework)
    The sterile neutrino hypothesis is the scenario under test, not established physics; introduced in Section 2.
  • domain assumption Adiabatic evolution of solar neutrinos in the Sun and matter effects in the Sun and Earth
    Used to compute solar neutrino oscillation probabilities; stated in Section 2.
  • domain assumption theta24 = theta34 = 0 and theta13 fixed to the 3-nu best-fit value
    Justified by prior atmospheric and long-baseline bounds; stated in Section 2.
  • domain assumption Standard Solar Model flux predictions for the constrained variants (MB-phot, GS98, AAG21, AGSS09)
    Inputs from Refs. 23-26 used in the SSM-constrained analyses; Section 3.1.
  • domain assumption Luminosity constraint equation (8)-(9) relating neutrino fluxes to the observed solar luminosity with coefficients alpha_i
    Imposed in the SSM-independent analysis; based on prior work (Refs. 54-57), with L_sun measured to 0.34% precision.
  • domain assumption External gallium-source likelihood Delta chi-squared(theta14) from Ref. 9
    Used as the gallium source experiment contribution without reanalysis; Section 3.1 and Fig. 1.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Solar Model Independent Constraints on the Sterile Neutrino Interpretation of the Gallium Anomaly." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MXJSYH33

@misc{pith2026241116840,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Solar Model Independent Constraints on the Sterile Neutrino Interpretation of the Gallium Anomaly},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MXJSYH33}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.16840}
}
abstract

We perform a global analysis of most up-to-date solar neutrino data and KamLAND reactor antineutrino data in the framework of the 3+1 sterile neutrino mixing scenario (invoked to explain the results of the Gallium source experiments) with the aim of quantifying the dependence of the (in)compatibility of the required mixing with assumptions on the initial fluxes. The analysis of solar data is performed in two alternative ways: using the flux predicted by the latest standard solar models, and in a model independent approach where the solar fluxes are also determined by the fit. The dependence on the normalization of the capture rate in the solar Gallium experiments is also quantified. Similarly, in the KamLAND analysis we consider both the case where the reactor flux normalization is assumed to be known a priori, as well as a normalization free case which relies solely on available neutrino data. Using a parameter goodness of fit test, we find that in most cases the compatibility between Gallium and solar+KamLAND data only occur at the $3\sigma$ level or higher. We also discuss the implications of enforcing better compatibility by tweaking the mechanism for the energy production in the Sun.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.16840 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. One-dimensional projection of the global [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Two-dimensional projection of the global [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Left: dependence of the 1σ, 2σ, 3σ ranges of sin2 θ14 from the analysis of solar+KamLAND without imposing the constraint in Eq. (9) on the resulting neutrino-inferred solar luminosity. Fill (void) regions correspond to solar+KamLAND-RFC (solar+KamLAND-RFF) analysis. The horizontal grey regions illustrate the 1σ, 2σ, 3σ ranges required to explain the Gallium source results. Right: value of ∆χ 2 from the joint analysi… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. A possible solution to the gallium anomaly moving beyond the leptonic wave function factorization

    hep-ph 2025-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A non-factorized amplitude treatment with a fitted sign-changing nuclear transition density reduces the predicted νe-71Ga capture rate by ~20%, absorbing the gallium anomaly without new physics.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [9]

    V . V . Barinov, et al., Search for electron-neutrino transitions to sterile states in the BEST experiment, Phys. Rev. C 105 (6) (2022) 065502. arXiv:2201.07364, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.105.065502

    arXiv 2022

  2. [1]

    Giunti, M

    C. Giunti, M. Laveder, Short-Baseline Active-Sterile Neutrino Oscilla- tions?, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 22 (2007) 2499–2509. arXiv:hep-ph/ 0610352, doi:10.1142/S0217732307025455

    work page doi:10.1142/s0217732307025455 2007

  3. [2]

    Laveder, Unbound neutrino roadmaps, Nucl

    M. Laveder, Unbound neutrino roadmaps, Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl. 168 (2007) 344–346. doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysbps.2007.02.037

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysbps.2007.02.037 2007

  4. [3]

    Hampel, et al., Final results of the Cr-51 neutrino source experi- ments in GALLEX, Phys

    W. Hampel, et al., Final results of the Cr-51 neutrino source experi- ments in GALLEX, Phys. Lett. B 420 (1998) 114–126. doi:10.1016/ S0370-2693(97)01562-1

    work page 1998

  5. [4]

    Kaether, W

    F. Kaether, W. Hampel, G. Heusser, J. Kiko, T. Kirsten, Reanalysis of the GALLEX solar neutrino flux and source experiments, Phys. Lett. B685 (2010) 47–54. arXiv:1001.2731, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2010. 01.030

    arXiv 2010

  6. [5]

    J. N. Abdurashitov, et al., Measurement of the response of the Russian- American gallium experiment to neutrinos from a Cr-51 source, Phys. Rev. C 59 (1999) 2246–2263. arXiv:hep-ph/9803418, doi:10. 1103/PhysRevC.59.2246

    arXiv 1999

  7. [6]

    J. N. Abdurashitov, et al., Measurement of the response of a Ga solar neutrino experiment to neutrinos from an Ar-37 source, Phys. Rev. C 73 (2006) 045805. arXiv:nucl-ex/0512041, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC. 73.045805

    arXiv 2006

  8. [7]

    J. N. Bahcall, Gallium solar neutrino experiments: Absorption cross- sections, neutrino spectra, and predicted event rates, Phys. Rev. C 56 (1997) 3391–3409. arXiv:hep-ph/9710491, doi:10.1103/ PhysRevC.56.3391

    arXiv 1997

Show all 58 references
  1. [8]

    V . V . Barinov, et al., Results from the Baksan Experiment on Sterile Transitions (BEST), Phys. Rev. Lett. 128 (23) (2022) 232501. arXiv: 2109.11482, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.128.232501

    2022 arXiv

  2. [10]

    S. R. Elliott, V . N. Gavrin, W. C. Haxton, T. V . Ibragimova, E. J. Rule, Gallium neutrino absorption cross section and its uncertainty, Phys. Rev. C 108 (3) (2023) 035502. arXiv:2303.13623, doi:10.1103/ PhysRevC.108.035502

    2023 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Giunti, Y

    C. Giunti, Y . F. Li, C. A. Ternes, Z. Xin, Inspection of the detec- tion cross section dependence of the Gallium Anomaly, Phys. Lett. B 842 (2023) 137983. arXiv:2212.09722, doi:10.1016/j.physletb. 2023.137983

    2023 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Navas, et al., Review of particle physics, Phys

    S. Navas, et al., Review of particle physics, Phys. Rev. D 110 (3) (2024) 030001. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.030001

    2024 doi

  5. [13]

    Esteban, M

    I. Esteban, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, M. Maltoni, I. Martinez-Soler, J. a. P. Pinheiro, T. Schwetz, NuFit-6.0: Updated global analysis of three-flavor neutrino oscillations (10 2024). arXiv:2410.05380

    2024 arXiv

  6. [14]

    J. M. Berryman, P. Coloma, P. Huber, T. Schwetz, A. Zhou, Statistical significance of the sterile-neutrino hypothesis in the context of reactor and gallium data, JHEP 02 (2022) 055. arXiv:2111.12530, doi:10. 1007/JHEP02(2022)055

    2022 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Goldhagen, M

    K. Goldhagen, M. Maltoni, S. E. Reichard, T. Schwetz, Testing sterile neutrino mixing with present and future solar neutrino data, Eur. Phys. J. C 82 (2) (2022) 116. arXiv:2109.14898, doi:10.1140/epjc/ s10052-022-10052-2

    2022 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Giunti, Y

    C. Giunti, Y . F. Li, C. A. Ternes, O. Tyagi, Z. Xin, Gallium Anomaly: critical view from the global picture ofνe andνe disappearance, JHEP 10 (2022) 164. arXiv:2209.00916, doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2022)164

    2022 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Brdar, J

    V . Brdar, J. Gehrlein, J. Kopp, Towards resolving the gallium anomaly, JHEP 05 (2023) 143. arXiv:2303.05528, doi:10.1007/ JHEP05(2023)143

    2023 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Farzan, T

    Y . Farzan, T. Schwetz, A decoherence explanation of the gallium neutrino anomaly, SciPost Phys. 15 (4) (2023) 172. arXiv:2306.09422, doi: 10.21468/SciPostPhys.15.4.172

    2023 arXiv

  11. [19]

    C. A. Argüelles, T. Bertólez-Martínez, J. Salvado, Impact of wave packet separation in low-energy sterile neutrino searches, Phys. Rev. D 107 (3) (2023) 036004. arXiv:2201.05108, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.107. 036004

    2023 arXiv

  12. [20]

    J. M. Hardin, I. Martinez-Soler, A. Diaz, M. Jin, N. W. Kamp, C. A. Argüelles, J. M. Conrad, M. H. Shaevitz, New Clues about light sterile neutrinos: preference for models with damping effects in global fits, JHEP 09 (2023) 058. arXiv:2211.02610, doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2023) 058. ...

    2023 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Banks, K

    H. Banks, K. J. Kelly, M. McCullough, T. Zhou, Broad sterile neutrinos & the reactor/gallium tension, JHEP 04 (2024) 096. arXiv:2311.06352, doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2024)096

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Giunti, C

    C. Giunti, C. A. Ternes, Confronting solutions of the Gallium Anomaly with reactor rate data, Phys. Lett. B 849 (2024) 138436. arXiv:2312. 00565, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2023.138436

    2024

  15. [23]

    Vinyoles, A

    N. Vinyoles, A. M. Serenelli, F. L. Villante, S. Basu, J. Bergström, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, M. Maltoni, C. Peña Garay, N. Song, A new Generation of Standard Solar Models, Astrophys. J. 835 (2) (2017) 202. arXiv: 1611.09867, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/202

    2017 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Grevesse, A

    N. Grevesse, A. J. Sauval, Standard Solar Composition, Space Sci. Rev. 85 (1998) 161–174. doi:10.1023/A:1005161325181

    1998 doi

  17. [25]

    Asplund, N

    M. Asplund, N. Grevesse, A. J. Sauval, P. Scott, The Chemical Compo- sition of the Sun, ARA&A 47 (1) (2009) 481–522. arXiv:0909.0948, doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145222

    2009 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Magg, et al., Observational constraints on the origin of the elements - IV

    E. Magg, et al., Observational constraints on the origin of the elements - IV . Standard composition of the Sun, Astron. Astrophys. 661 (2023) A140. arXiv:2203.02255, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142971

    2023 arXiv

  19. [27]

    M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, M. Maltoni, J. a. P. Pinheiro, A. M. Serenelli, Sta- tus of direct determination of solar neutrino fluxes after Borexino, JHEP 02 (2024) 064. arXiv:2311.16226, doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2024) 064

    2024 arXiv

  20. [28]

    B. T. Cleveland, et al., Measurement of the solar electron neutrino flux with the Homestake chlorine detector, Astrophys. J. 496 (1998) 505–526. doi:10.1086/305343

    1998 doi

  21. [29]

    J. N. Abdurashitov, et al., Measurement of the solar neutrino capture rate with gallium metal. III: Results for the 2002–2007 data-taking period, Phys. Rev. C80 (2009) 015807. arXiv:0901.2200, doi:10.1103/ PhysRevC.80.015807

    2009 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Hosaka, et al., Solar neutrino measurements in Super-Kamiokande- I, Phys

    J. Hosaka, et al., Solar neutrino measurements in Super-Kamiokande- I, Phys. Rev. D73 (2006) 112001. arXiv:hep-ex/0508053, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.73.112001

    2006 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Cravens, et al., Solar neutrino measurements in Super-Kamiokande- II, Phys

    J. Cravens, et al., Solar neutrino measurements in Super-Kamiokande- II, Phys. Rev. D78 (2008) 032002. arXiv:0803.4312, doi:10.1103/ PhysRevD.78.032002

    2008 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Abe, et al., Solar neutrino results in Super-Kamiokande-III, Phys

    K. Abe, et al., Solar neutrino results in Super-Kamiokande-III, Phys. Rev. D83 (2011) 052010. arXiv:1010.0118, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD. 83.052010

    2011 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Abe, et al., Solar neutrino measurements using the full data period of Super-Kamiokande-IV, Phys

    K. Abe, et al., Solar neutrino measurements using the full data period of Super-Kamiokande-IV, Phys. Rev. D 109 (9) (2024) 092001. arXiv: 2312.12907, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.109.092001

    2024

  26. [34]

    Aharmim, et al., Measurement of the nu /e and total B-8 solar neutrino fluxes with the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory phase I data set, Phys

    B. Aharmim, et al., Measurement of the nu /e and total B-8 solar neutrino fluxes with the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory phase I data set, Phys. Rev. C75 (2007) 045502. arXiv:nucl-ex/0610020, doi:10.1103/ PhysRevC.75.045502

    2007 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Aharmim, et al., Electron energy spectra, fluxes, and day-night asym- metries of B-8 solar neutrinos from the 391-day salt phase SNO data set, Phys

    B. Aharmim, et al., Electron energy spectra, fluxes, and day-night asym- metries of B-8 solar neutrinos from the 391-day salt phase SNO data set, Phys. Rev. C72 (2005) 055502. arXiv:nucl-ex/0502021, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.72.055502

    2005 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Aharmim, et al., An Independent Measurement of the Total Active 8B Solar Neutrino Flux Using an Array of 3He Proportional Counters at the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory, Phys

    B. Aharmim, et al., An Independent Measurement of the Total Active 8B Solar Neutrino Flux Using an Array of 3He Proportional Counters at the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101 (2008) 111301. arXiv:0806.0989, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.101.111301

    2008 arXiv

  29. [37]

    M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, M. Maltoni, Determination of matter potential from global analysis of neutrino oscillation data, JHEP 09 (2013) 152. arXiv:1307.3092, doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2013)152

    2013 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Aharmim, et al., Combined Analysis of all Three Phases of Solar Neutrino Data from the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory (2011)

    B. Aharmim, et al., Combined Analysis of all Three Phases of Solar Neutrino Data from the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory (2011). arXiv: 1109.0763

    2011 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Bellini, et al., Precision measurement of the 7Be solar neutrino inter- action rate in Borexino, Phys

    G. Bellini, et al., Precision measurement of the 7Be solar neutrino inter- action rate in Borexino, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107 (2011) 141302. arXiv: 1104.1816, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.107.141302

    2011 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Agostini, et al., First Simultaneous Precision Spectroscopy of pp, 7Be, and pep Solar Neutrinos with Borexino Phase-II, Phys

    M. Agostini, et al., First Simultaneous Precision Spectroscopy of pp, 7Be, and pep Solar Neutrinos with Borexino Phase-II, Phys. Rev. D 100 (8) (2019) 082004. arXiv:1707.09279, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.100. 082004

    2019 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Appel, et al., Improved Measurement of Solar Neutrinos from the Carbon-Nitrogen-Oxygen Cycle by Borexino and Its Implications for the Standard Solar Model, Phys

    S. Appel, et al., Improved Measurement of Solar Neutrinos from the Carbon-Nitrogen-Oxygen Cycle by Borexino and Its Implications for the Standard Solar Model, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129 (25) (2022) 252701. arXiv:2205.15975, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.129.252701

    2022 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Basilico, et al., Final results of Borexino on CNO solar neutrinos (7 2023)

    D. Basilico, et al., Final results of Borexino on CNO solar neutrinos (7 2023). arXiv:2307.14636

    2023 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Coloma, M

    P. Coloma, M. Gonzalez-Garcia, M. Maltoni, J. a. P. Pinheiro, S. Urrea, Constraining new physics with Borexino Phase-II spectral data, JHEP 07 8 (2022) 138, [Erratum: JHEP 11, 138 (2022)].arXiv:2204.03011, doi: 10.1007/JHEP07(2022)138

    2022 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Gando, et al., Reactor On-O ff Antineutrino Measurement with Kam- LAND, Phys

    A. Gando, et al., Reactor On-O ff Antineutrino Measurement with Kam- LAND, Phys. Rev. D88 (3) (2013) 033001. arXiv:1303.4667, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.88.033001

    2013 arXiv

  37. [45]

    F. P. An, et al., Antineutrino energy spectrum unfolding based on the Daya Bay measurement and its applications, Chin. Phys. C 45 (7) (2021) 073001. arXiv:2102.04614, doi:10.1088/1674-1137/abfc38

    2021

  38. [46]

    J. Kopp, P. A. N. Machado, M. Maltoni, T. Schwetz, Sterile Neutrino Oscillations: The Global Picture, JHEP 05 (2013) 050. arXiv:1303. 3011, doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2013)050

    2013 doi

  39. [47]

    Dentler, A

    M. Dentler, A. Hernández-Cabezudo, J. Kopp, P. A. N. Machado, M. Mal- toni, I. Martinez-Soler, T. Schwetz, Updated Global Analysis of Neu- trino Oscillations in the Presence of eV-Scale Sterile Neutrinos, JHEP 08 (2018) 010. arXiv:1803.10661, doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2018)010

    2018 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Asplund, A

    M. Asplund, A. M. Amarsi, N. Grevesse, The chemical make-up of the Sun: A 2020 vision, arXiv e-prints (2021) arXiv:2105.01661 arXiv: 2105.01661

    2021 arXiv

  41. [49]

    W. C. Haxton, Cross-section uncertainties in the gallium neutrino source experiments, Phys. Lett. B 431 (1998) 110–118. arXiv:nucl-th/ 9804011, doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(98)00581-4

    1998 doi

  42. [50]

    Frekers, et al., Precision evaluation of the 71Ga solar neutrino cap- ture rate from the (3He,t) charge-exchange reaction , Phys

    D. Frekers, et al., Precision evaluation of the 71Ga solar neutrino cap- ture rate from the (3He,t) charge-exchange reaction , Phys. Rev. C 91 (3) (2015) 034608, [Erratum: Phys.Rev.C 100, 049901 (2019)]. doi:10. 1103/PhysRevC.91.034608

    2015

  43. [51]

    Kostensalo, J

    J. Kostensalo, J. Suhonen, C. Giunti, P. C. Srivastava, The gallium anomaly revisited, Phys. Lett. B 795 (2019) 542–547. arXiv:1906. 10980, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2019.06.057

    2019 doi

  44. [52]

    S. V . Semenov, Cross Section of Neutrino Absorption by the Gallium-71 Nucleus, Phys. Atom. Nucl. 83 (11) (2020) 1549–1552. doi:10.1134/ S1063778820100221

    2020

  45. [53]

    Maltoni, T

    M. Maltoni, T. Schwetz, Testing the statistical compatibility of inde- pendent data sets, Phys. Rev. D 68 (2003) 033020. arXiv:hep-ph/ 0304176, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.68.033020

    2003 doi

  46. [54]

    J. N. Bahcall, P. I. Krastev, How well do we (and will we) know solar neutrino fluxes and oscillation parameters?, Phys. Rev. D53 (1996) 4211–

    1996

  47. [55]

    J. N. Bahcall, The Luminosity constraint on solar neutrino fluxes, Phys. Rev. C65 (2002) 025801. arXiv:hep-ph/0108148, doi:10.1103/ PhysRevC.65.025801

    2002 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Spiro, D

    M. Spiro, D. Vignaud, Solar Model Independent Neutrino Oscillation Signals in the Forthcoming Solar Neutrino Experiments?, Phys. Lett. B242 (1990) 279–284, [,609(1990)]. doi:10.1016/0370-2693(90) 91471-M

    1990 doi

  49. [57]

    Vescovi, C

    D. Vescovi, C. Mascaretti, F. Vissani, L. Piersanti, O. Straniero, The luminosity constraint in the era of precision solar physics, Journal of Physics G Nuclear Physics 48 (1) (2021) 015201. arXiv:2009.05676, doi:10.1088/1361-6471/abb784. 9

    2021 arXiv

  50. [4225]

    arXiv:hep-ph/9512378, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.53.4211

    arXiv

Pith tools

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