Testing non-standard neutrino properties

Manibrata Sen

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 28 references

Testing non-standard neutrino properties

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Ultralight dark matter scattering off neutrinos can generate an effective neutrino mass that mimics vacuum mass and reconciles cosmological bounds with oscillation data.

desk verdict A clear but very compressed proceedings summary of the author's own work on non-standard neutrinos; no new results, and the ULDM mass-reconciliation argument in Sec. 2 silently requires an unstated DM asymmetry condition. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.04309 v1 pith:TKHEPIA4 submitted 2025-01-08 hep-ph

Manibrata Sen This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-ph

keywords neutrinomassultralightdarkmatterrefractiveeffectivedecayDiracversusMajoranapseudo-Diracneutrinossterilenon-standardinteractions

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 proceedings paper argues that neutrinos, because they interact so weakly, are uniquely sensitive probes of physics beyond the Standard Model, and it reviews four non-standard properties worth testing: a dynamical origin for neutrino mass from ultralight dark matter, non-standard neutrino decay and its ability to distinguish Dirac from Majorana nature, pseudo-Dirac neutrinos with tiny active-sterile mass splittings, and sterile-neutrino dark matter produced through non-standard self-interactions. Its most concrete proposal is that neutrinos could be massless in vacuum yet acquire an effective mass by forward-scattering off a cold background of ultralight dark matter. That effective mass-squared asymptotes to $m^2_\mathrm{asy}$, which can be set equal to the atmospheric or solar mass-squared splitting, so the same model satisfies oscillation data while evading cosmological bounds on the sum of neutrino masses. If correct, this would replace a vacuum Higgs-generated mass with a density-dependent environmental mass and tie neutrino physics directly to the dark-matter sector.

What carries the argument

The central object is the refractive forward-scattering potential, $V = m^2_\mathrm{asy}(y-\epsilon)/(2E_R(y^2-1))$, which neutrinos experience when they scatter on a cold gas of ultralight scalar dark matter through a lighter fermion mediator. From this potential one defines a refractive mass-squared $\tilde m^2 \equiv 2yE_R V$ that asymptotes to $m^2_\mathrm{asy}$ at high neutrino energy, mimicking a vacuum mass-squared splitting, and declines sharply at low energy, which suppresses the effective mass in cosmological settings. A subsequent dispersion-relation and group-velocity analysis is what shows that neutrinos remain effectively massless in the resonant-energy window $E_R \sim (10$–$10^5)\,\mathrm{eV}$, which is the step that lets the model evade the cosmological bound on the sum of neutrino masses.

What would settle it

If a future cosmological dataset determines the sum of neutrino masses at a value that cannot be matched by any choice of $g$ and $m_\phi$ in the allowed region, the claimed reconciliation is wrong. Concretely, measuring $\sum m_\nu$ at a level where the model's low-energy suppression of $\tilde m^2$ is insufficient, while oscillation data still demand $m^2_\mathrm{asy} = \Delta m^2_{\mathrm{atm,sol}}$, would falsify the mechanism; so would a direct search that excludes ultralight scalar dark matter with the required density and coupling over the entire allowed band.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that a background of ultralight dark matter can act as a medium that gives neutrinos an effective mass through coherent forward scattering, even when the vacuum mass is zero. For an interaction of the form $\mathcal{L} \supset g\,\bar{\chi}\,\nu\,\phi + \mathrm{h.c.}$, where $\phi$ is an ultralight scalar of mass $m_\phi$ and $\chi$ a lighter fermion, the induced refractive potential is $V = m^2_\mathrm{asy}(y-\epsilon)/(2E_R(y^2-1))$, with $m^2_\mathrm{asy} \equiv g^2(n_\phi+\bar n_\phi)/m_\phi$, $E_R = m_\phi^2/(2m_\chi)$, and $\epsilon$ the dark-matter asymmetry. The associated effective mass-squared $\tilde m^2$ approaches $m^2_\mathrm{asy}$ for $y = E_\nu/E_R \gg 1$ and drops sharply for $y \ll 1$, so setting $m^2_\mathrm{asy} = \Delta m^2_{\mathrm{atm,sol}}$ reproduces oscillation data while the low-energy decline keeps the contribution to the cosmological sum of neutrino masses within bounds. The paper therefore concludes that the cosmological bound on neutrino masses and terrestrial oscillation data can be reconciled without invoking new physics at the weak scale.

Load-bearing premise

The scenario requires that an ultralight scalar dark-matter component with mass $m_\phi$ and a lighter fermion $\chi$ actually exist with a substantial, near-uniform abundance and a sizeable asymmetry $\epsilon$; without that assumed dark-sector ingredient, the refractive mass and the reconciliation of cosmological and terrestrial neutrino data do not occur.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Neutrino mass becomes a density- and energy-dependent quantity rather than a fixed vacuum parameter, so the same mass eigenstate would behave differently in the early universe, in supernovae, and in terrestrial experiments.
The allowed dark-matter coupling-mass parameter space is bounded from above by IceCube and supernova observations, while oscillation data and the cosmological bound select a band; future measurements can shrink or exclude that band.
A galactic supernova's neutronization burst offers a clean test of neutrino decay, with DUNE's electron-neutrino measurement and Hyper-Kamiokande's antineutrino sensitivity together able to tell a decaying Dirac from a decaying Majorana neutrino.
Pseudo-Dirac neutrinos predict active-sterile oscillations with mass-squared differences down to about $10^{-19}\,\mathrm{eV}^2$, reachable by SN1987A and ultimately by the cosmic neutrino background.
Sterile neutrinos produced with non-standard self-interactions can match the dark-matter relic density at small mixing angles, evading diffuse X-ray bounds and widening the allowed parameter space to a broad band.

Reading between the lines

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

A testable corollary the paper leaves implicit: if neutrino mass is refractive, the cosmic neutrino background today sits in the low-energy, suppressed-mass regime, so experiments aiming to detect relic neutrinos should expect a nearly massless population rather than one carrying the terrestrial mass splittings.
The same forward-scattering construction could be adapted to ultralight vector or axion-like dark matter, in which case the asymmetry parameter $\epsilon$ would change the relative size or sign of the effect for neutrinos versus antineutrinos, giving an experimental handle the scalar-only version lacks.
If the mechanism is right, independent probes of neutrino mass in different environments — cosmology, supernova neutrinos, and laboratory beta decay — would measure different effective masses, so a robust disagreement between those probes would be a smoking-gun signature of environmental mass.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

This is a proceedings summary of a plenary talk, and that's the right frame. There is no new result here: every substantive claim goes back to the author's prior papers, mostly refs [6], [9], [10], [17], [21], [23], [28]. The paper itself says the topic list is the author's personal, non-exhaustive choice. So no one should read it as a research contribution.

What it does well: it is a readable, honest overview. The figures are useful—especially Fig. 2, which sketches the ULDM parameter space, and Fig. 4, which collects pseudo-Dirac sensitivities across experiments. For a talk summary, it covers a reasonable breadth and points the reader to the underlying literature. It is not a lazy write-up; the equations and limits look consistent with the cited sources.

The soft spots are proportional. First, it leans heavily on the author's own work. That is not a flaw when the work is yours, but it makes the review a fairly narrow window into the field. Second—and this is the thing I want you to know—the ULDM section as written is missing a condition that the reconciliation actually needs. Equation (1) gives m_tilde^2 = 2 y E_R V = m_asy^2 y (y - epsilon)/(y^2 - 1). For y << 1, this is approximately m_asy^2 y (epsilon - y). The text says that as y << 1, m_tilde^2 shows a sharp decline, which allows it to escape cosmological bounds. But if epsilon = 0, m_tilde^2 is negative for all y—not a sharp decline, a tachyonic mass-squared. The claimed reconciliation only works for epsilon > y, and the paper never states that condition or explains how a nonzero asymmetry is generated. It is surely in refs [6] and [9], but a reader of this proceeding cannot verify it. That is a load-bearing omission in the summary, though not a fatal one for a review paper.

Also, the paper does not engage with any criticisms of the cosmological mass tension or with alternative resolutions; it simply asserts the scenario works. For a proceedings, that is acceptable.

Who gets value from this? Someone who wants a quick entry point to Sen's line of work on ULDM-neutrino coupling and related non-standard neutrino topics, or a citable version of the talk. I would not cite it in my own work; I would cite the original papers. I probably would not assign it for a reading group either—I'd send people to refs [6] and [9] directly.

Recommendation for peer review: if this crossed my desk, I would not send it to full referee review for a research journal. As a proceedings contribution, it is fine with light editorial checking, but it does not need a serious referee.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper is a proceedings summary of a plenary talk at NOW2024. It surveys non-standard neutrino properties: the possibility that a refractive potential from forward scattering on ultralight dark matter generates an effective neutrino mass (Sec. 2), non-standard neutrino decay and its use to distinguish Dirac vs Majorana nature (Sec. 3), pseudo-Dirac neutrinos and constraints on tiny active-sterile mass splittings (Sec. 4), sterile-neutrino dark matter with self-interactions (Sec. 5), and non-standard interactions including neutrino-dark-matter interactions (Sec. 6). The central claim is that setting m_asy^2 equal to the atmospheric/solar mass-squared difference can reconcile the cosmological bound on the sum of neutrino masses with terrestrial oscillation data, because the effective mass is suppressed at low energies (Sec. 2, Fig. 2).

Significance. If the reconciliation in Sec. 2 holds, it offers a concrete way to relax the apparent tension between the cosmological bound on the sum of neutrino masses and the mass splittings required by oscillation experiments, and it illustrates how neutrino-DM couplings can be probed across energy scales. The paper's main value is as a concise review: it gathers constraints from oscillations, cosmology, supernovae, IceCube, and dark-matter searches, and it explicitly points to the original derivations in refs. [5,6,9]. The manuscript provides no new derivations of its own, which is appropriate for a proceedings, but the presentation of the key ULDM formula and its implications is incomplete in ways detailed below.

major comments (3)

[Sec. 2, Eq. (1)] For y << 1, Eq. (1) gives m_tilde^2 = 2 y E_R V = m_asy^2 y(y - epsilon)/(y^2 - 1) ~ m_asy^2 y (epsilon - y). If epsilon = 0, this is negative, so the effective mass-squared is tachyonic rather than merely suppressed. The subsequent statement that 'm_tilde^2 shows a sharp decline' and that the cosmological bound on the sum of neutrino masses can therefore be satisfied implicitly requires epsilon > y, a condition that is never stated or justified in Sec. 2. Please state this positivity condition explicitly, or explain how a negative m_tilde^2 is handled in the dispersion-relation analysis, before presenting the reconciliation as established.
[Sec. 2] The mapping between the energy-dependent refractive mass m_tilde^2 and the cosmological bound on the sum of neutrino masses is not spelled out. The paper asserts that 'neutrinos remain effectively massless for E_R = (10 - 10^5) eV [9]', but it does not explain how m_tilde^2, which depends on the neutrino energy E_nu and on the DM density at the relevant redshift, is converted into a statement about the cosmological sum of masses. Since this conversion is the load-bearing step of the reconciliation, the paper should either summarize the dispersion-relation analysis of ref. [9] or state explicitly that the conclusion relies entirely on that reference.
[Sec. 2] The identification 'm_asy^2 = Delta m^2_atm,sol' conflates a single model parameter with two different mass-squared splittings, and it does not explain how the absolute neutrino masses that enter the cosmological bound are obtained. Please specify whether m_asy^2 is flavor-universal, which splitting is meant for each mass eigenstate, and how the absolute mass scale is fixed; otherwise the allowed parameter space in Fig. 2 is not well defined.

minor comments (5)

[Abstract and Sec. 2] The text contains numerous missing spaces between words, e.g., 'Neutrinosprovideacompellingavenue' and 'Asaresult,itiscrucialtoprobenon-standardproperties'; please ensure the final typeset version is correct.
[Sec. 2] The range 'E_R = (10 - 10^5) eV' is ambiguous; it could mean 10^{-5} to 10^5 eV or 10 to 10^5 eV. Please clarify.
[Sec. 2] The sentence 'It presents all the properties identical to the neutrino vacuum mass-squared' should read 'It presents all the properties identical to those of the neutrino vacuum mass-squared'.
[Sec. 5, Fig. 5 caption] The caption 'The region between the red shaded space is allowed' is unclear; please state explicitly which parameter region is excluded and which is allowed.
[Sec. 5] 'faces strong bound from phase-space considerations' should be 'faces a strong bound from phase-space considerations'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper is a proceedings summary, and the Eq. (1) matching to Delta m^2 is an explicit parameter identification rather than a prediction derived from the model.

full rationale

This manuscript is a plenary-talk proceedings, not an original derivation. The only quantitative construction is in Sec. 2, where a refractive potential V = (m_asy^2/(2 E_R)) (y - epsilon)/(y^2 - 1) is taken from refs. [5,6], and m_tilde^2 is defined as 2 y E_R V. The paper then states that in the y >> 1 limit m_tilde^2 asymptotes to m_asy^2 and that 'one can set m_asy^2 = Delta m^2_atm,sol'. This is a fit of a model parameter to measured neutrino mass-squared differences, not a prediction of those differences; the text explicitly says the parameter space can satisfy oscillation data for proper choices, and Fig. 2 marks the lines as satisfying m_asy^2 = Delta m^2. No fitted quantity is renamed as a prediction. The self-citations, including [6] and [9], are the original papers containing the scenario and its dispersion-relation analysis; the proceedings does not invoke them as an external theorem to forbid alternatives, and no uniqueness claim is imported from the author's prior work. The skeptical concern that m_tilde^2 becomes negative for y << 1 when epsilon = 0 is a model-consistency condition (epsilon must exceed y for a positive refractive mass-squared), not a circularity: it affects the robustness of the scenario but does not make the claimed result equivalent to its input by construction. Because there is no derivation chain in this paper that reduces to its inputs, no circular step is identified.

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

The ULDM mass mechanism, which anchors the review's central scenario, rests on the postulated existence of phi and chi, a specific interaction Lagrangian, and the refractive potential formula; none of these are derived in the paper, and the only constraints cited are model-dependent. The other sections similarly depend on assumed new particles (neutrinophilic scalar, sterile neutrinos) and the correctness of cited analyses, most of which involve the author.

free parameters (4)

m_phi (ULDM scalar mass)
Free parameter of the ULDM model in Sec. 2, Eq. 1; scanned in the g-m_phi plane to satisfy oscillation and cosmological bounds. No value fixed by the review.
m_chi (mediator fermion mass)
Mass of the light fermion chi in the interaction L ⊃ g \bar{chi} nu phi + h.c. (Sec. 2); must be chosen such that E_R = m_phi^2/(2 m_chi) lies in the viable range (10-105 eV) per ref [9].
g (coupling)
Coupling strength in Sec. 2, Eq. 1; enters m^2_asy = g^2(n_phi + \bar{n}_phi)/m_phi and is varied to match Delta m^2_atm,sol.
epsilon (DM asymmetry)
Asymmetry parameter in the refractive potential, Eq. 1; affects the shape of the effective mass at low y but is not fitted or constrained in the review.

assumptions (4)

ad hoc to paper Ultralight dark matter exists as a cold, uniformly distributed scalar field phi with the specified coupling to neutrinos.
The central scenario in Sec. 2 postulates this field; it is not derived from the Standard Model or data, and no independent evidence is presented in this review.
domain assumption The forward-scattering refractive potential formula V = (m^2_asy / (2 E_R)) * (y - epsilon)/(y^2 - 1) correctly describes the effective mass.
Taken from refs [5,6] and used in Sec. 2 to define the effective mass; the review does not re-derive it.
domain assumption Standard neutrino oscillation framework and standard cosmology (including the DESI bound on the sum of neutrino masses) apply to the ULDM mass scenario.
Sec. 2 sets m^2_asy = Delta m^2_atm,sol and invokes the cosmological bound on sum of neutrino masses; this assumes the standard oscillation and cosmological descriptions.
domain assumption The neutronisation burst phase of a core-collapse supernova produces an almost pure nu_e flux.
Used in Sec. 3 to argue that the nu_e fraction at Earth is |U_e3|^2 (normal ordering) and that DUNE can constrain tau/m; based on refs [10,13].

invented entities (3)

Ultralight dark matter scalar phi
purpose: Generates an effective neutrino mass via forward scattering in the early universe and today (Sec. 2)
Postulated as a cold background field with mass m_phi; the review provides only model-dependent constraints from oscillation and cosmology, no independent detection evidence.
Light fermion chi
purpose: Mediates the neutrino-ULDM interaction through L ⊃ g \bar{chi} nu phi + h.c. (Sec. 2)
Introduced to enable the s- and u-channel scattering that produces the refractive potential; no independent evidence is given.
Neutrinophilic scalar phi (Sec. 5)
purpose: Mediates non-standard self-interactions of active neutrinos to produce sterile neutrino dark matter without X-ray constraints
Postulated in Sec. 5 with interaction lambda phi nu^c_L nu_L; constraints are mentioned but no independent evidence for its existence.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Testing non-standard neutrino properties." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TKHEPIA4

@misc{pith2026250104309,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Testing non-standard neutrino properties},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TKHEPIA4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.04309}
}

read the original abstract

Neutrinos provide a compelling avenue to explore physics beyond the Standard Model. This proceeding is a brief summary of a plenary talk given at the 12th Neutrino Oscillation Workshop (NOW2024). We present a discussion on various topics on neutrino non-standard properties, such as the origin of neutrino mass, their decay modes, interaction mechanisms, and a potential connection to dark matter. Constraints and observational results from cosmology, astrophysics, and laboratory experiments are reviewed to illustrate the interplay between neutrino physics and broader questions about the universe.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.04309 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** New physics can enter the neutrino sector through any of the above possible directions. As a result, it is crucial to probe non-standard properties of neutrinos, theoretically and experimentally, to gain insights into extensions of the SM. This holds the clue to some of the most important questions that plague particle physics today. New physics can enter the neutrino sector (i) through their mass, (ii) through t… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Allowed region. The solid black/orange lines satisfy 𝑚 2 asy = Δ𝑚 2 atm,sol. The shaded regions are ruled out from oscillation experiments and cosmological bounds on Í 𝑚𝜈. The region above the lines marked as “IceCube” and “SN” is ruled out [7]. The refractive mass 𝑚˜ can be defined through this potential as 𝑚˜ 2 ≡ 2𝑦𝐸𝑅𝑉 and therefore is proportional to the DM density. In the limit 𝑦 ≫ 1, note that 𝑚˜ goes asympto… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** A summary of different constraints on (𝜏/𝑚) for neutrino decay, taken from [11]. Note that different sources probe the decay of different mass eigenstates. A future galactic core-collapse SN can be used to set competitive constraints on the neutrino lifetime [10–12]. The first 25-30 ms of the neutrino burst from a SN constitutes the deleptonisation or the neutronisation burst phase [13]. This phase is characterise… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: A list of different experiments sensitive to different 𝛿𝑚2 𝐴𝑆 as a function of the neutrino energy 𝐸𝜈 and baseline 𝐿 [21]. Another intriguing scenario is when lepton number is violated softly in the SM. For neutrinos to be pseudoDirac, the Majorana mass must be smalle…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages

[6]

Sen and A

M. Sen and A. Y. Smirnov, JCAP 01 (2024), 040 doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2024/01/040 [arXiv:2306.15718 [hep-ph]]

arXiv 2024
[9]

Sen and A

M. Sen and A. Y. Smirnov, [arXiv:2407.02462 [hep-ph]]

arXiv
[10]

de Gouvêa, I

A. de Gouvêa, I. Martinez-Soler and M. Sen, Phys. Rev. D 101 (2020) no.4, 043013 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.101.043013 [arXiv:1910.01127 [hep-ph]]

arXiv 2020
[17]

Martinez-Soler, Y

I. Martinez-Soler, Y. F. Perez-Gonzalez and M. Sen, Phys. Rev. D105 (2022) no.9, 095019 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.105.095019 [arXiv:2105.12736 [hep-ph]]. 7 Testing nonstandard neutrino properties Manibrata Sen

arXiv 2022
[21]

Y. F. Perez-Gonzalez and M. Sen, Phys. Rev. D 109 (2024) no.2, 023022 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.109.023022 [arXiv:2308.05147 [hep-ph]]

arXiv 2024
[23]

De Gouvêa, M

A. De Gouvêa, M. Sen, W. Tangarife and Y. Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett.124(2020) no.8, 081802 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.124.081802 [arXiv:1910.04901 [hep-ph]]

arXiv 2020
[28]

A. Das, T. Herbermann, M. Sen and V. Takhistov, JCAP07 (2024), 045 doi:10.1088/1475- 7516/2024/07/045 [arXiv:2403.15367 [hep-ph]]. 8

arXiv 2024
[1]

Navas et al

S. Navas et al. [Particle Data Group], Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024) no.3, 030001 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.030001

doi:10.1103/physrevd.110.030001 2024

Show all 28 references

[2]

Minkowski, Phys

P. Minkowski, Phys. Lett. B67(1977), 421-428 doi:10.1016/0370-2693(77)90435-X

1977 doi
[3]

R. N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanovic, Phys. Rev. Lett. 44 (1980), 912 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.44.912

1980 doi
[4]

K. Y. Choi, E. J. Chun and J. Kim, Phys. Dark Univ. 30 (2020), 100606 doi:10.1016/j.dark.2020.100606 [arXiv:1909.10478 [hep-ph]]

2020
[5]

A. Y. Smirnov and V. B. Valera, JHEP 09 (2021), 177 doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2021)177 [arXiv:2106.13829 [hep-ph]]

2021 arXiv
[7]

K. Y. Choi, J. Kim and C. Rott, Phys. Rev. D 99 (2019) no.8, 083018 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.99.083018 [arXiv:1903.03302 [astro-ph.CO]]

2019 arXiv
[8]

A. G. Adameet al. [DESI], [arXiv:2404.03002 [astro-ph.CO]]

arXiv
[11]

Iváñez-Ballesteros and M

P. Iváñez-Ballesteros and M. C. Volpe, Phys. Lett. B 847 (2023), 138252 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2023.138252 [arXiv:2307.03549 [hep-ph]]

2023
[12]

Sen, Universe 10 (2024) no.6, 238 doi:10.3390/universe10060238 [arXiv:2405.20432 [hep-ph]]

M. Sen, Universe 10 (2024) no.6, 238 doi:10.3390/universe10060238 [arXiv:2405.20432 [hep-ph]]

2024 arXiv
[13]

H. T. Janka, K. Langanke, A. Marek, G. Martinez-Pinedo and B. Mueller, Phys. Rept.442 (2007), 38-74 doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2007.02.002 [arXiv:astro-ph/0612072 [astro-ph]]

2007 arXiv
[14]

A. B. Balantekin, A. de Gouvêa and B. Kayser, Phys. Lett. B 789 (2019), 488-495 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2018.11.068 [arXiv:1808.10518 [hep-ph]]

2019 arXiv
[15]

Funcke, G

L. Funcke, G. Raffelt and E. Vitagliano, Phys. Rev. D 101 (2020) no.1, 015025 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.101.015025 [arXiv:1905.01264 [hep-ph]]

2020 arXiv
[16]

Kobayashi and C

M. Kobayashi and C. S. Lim, Phys. Rev. D 64 (2001), 013003 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.64.013003 [arXiv:hep-ph/0012266 [hep-ph]]

2001 arXiv
[18]

de Gouvea, W

A. de Gouvea, W. C. Huang and J. Jenkins, Phys. Rev. D 80 (2009), 073007 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.80.073007 [arXiv:0906.1611 [hep-ph]]

2009 arXiv
[19]

92 (2004), 011101 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.92.011101 [arXiv:hep-ph/0307151 [hep-ph]]

J.F.Beacom,N.F.Bell,D.Hooper,J.G.Learned,S.PakvasaandT.J.Weiler,Phys.Rev.Lett. 92 (2004), 011101 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.92.011101 [arXiv:hep-ph/0307151 [hep-ph]]

2004 arXiv
[20]

A.DeGouvêa, I.Martinez-Soler,Y.F.Perez-GonzalezandM.Sen, Phys.Rev.D 102(2020), 123012 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.102.123012 [arXiv:2007.13748 [hep-ph]]

2020 arXiv
[22]

Dodelson and L

S. Dodelson and L. M. Widrow, Phys. Rev. Lett. 72 (1994), 17-20 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.72.17 [arXiv:hep-ph/9303287 [hep-ph]]

1994 arXiv
[24]

K. N. Abazajian, Phys. Rept. 711-712 (2017), 1-28 doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2017.10.003 [arXiv:1705.01837 [hep-ph]]

2017 arXiv
[25]

123(2019)no.19, 191102 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.191102 [arXiv:1905.02727 [astro-ph.CO]]

N.Blinov,K.J.Kelly,G.Z.KrnjaicandS.D.McDermott,Phys.Rev.Lett. 123(2019)no.19, 191102 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.191102 [arXiv:1905.02727 [astro-ph.CO]]

2019 arXiv
[26]

J. M. Berryman, N. Blinov, V. Brdar, T. Brinckmann, M. Bustamante, F. Y. Cyr-Racine, A. Das, A. de Gouvêa, P. B. Denton and P. S. B. Dev,et al. Phys. Dark Univ.42 (2023), 101267 doi:10.1016/j.dark.2023.101267 [arXiv:2203.01955 [hep-ph]]

2023
[27]

P. S. Bhupal Dev, K. S. Babu, P. B. Denton, P. A. N. Machado, C. A. Argüelles, J. L. Barrow, S. S. Chatterjee, M. C. Chen, A. de Gouvêa and B. Dutta,et al. SciPost Phys. Proc.2 (2019), 001 doi:10.21468/SciPostPhysProc.2.001 [arXiv:1907.00991 [hep-ph]]

2019 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [6]

Sen and A

M. Sen and A. Y. Smirnov, JCAP 01 (2024), 040 doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2024/01/040 [arXiv:2306.15718 [hep-ph]]

arXiv 2024

[2] [9]

Sen and A

M. Sen and A. Y. Smirnov, [arXiv:2407.02462 [hep-ph]]

arXiv

[3] [10]

de Gouvêa, I

A. de Gouvêa, I. Martinez-Soler and M. Sen, Phys. Rev. D 101 (2020) no.4, 043013 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.101.043013 [arXiv:1910.01127 [hep-ph]]

arXiv 2020

[4] [17]

Martinez-Soler, Y

I. Martinez-Soler, Y. F. Perez-Gonzalez and M. Sen, Phys. Rev. D105 (2022) no.9, 095019 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.105.095019 [arXiv:2105.12736 [hep-ph]]. 7 Testing nonstandard neutrino properties Manibrata Sen

arXiv 2022

[5] [21]

Y. F. Perez-Gonzalez and M. Sen, Phys. Rev. D 109 (2024) no.2, 023022 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.109.023022 [arXiv:2308.05147 [hep-ph]]

arXiv 2024

[6] [23]

De Gouvêa, M

A. De Gouvêa, M. Sen, W. Tangarife and Y. Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett.124(2020) no.8, 081802 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.124.081802 [arXiv:1910.04901 [hep-ph]]

arXiv 2020

[7] [28]

A. Das, T. Herbermann, M. Sen and V. Takhistov, JCAP07 (2024), 045 doi:10.1088/1475- 7516/2024/07/045 [arXiv:2403.15367 [hep-ph]]. 8

arXiv 2024

[8] [1]

Navas et al

S. Navas et al. [Particle Data Group], Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024) no.3, 030001 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.030001

doi:10.1103/physrevd.110.030001 2024