Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Dirt/Detector/Dump: Complementary BSM production at Short-Baseline Neutrino Facilities

T0 review · 2 major / 4 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 This paper claims that the iron dump at the end of the Booster Neutrino Beam is a significant, previously overlooked source of dipole-portal heavy neutral leptons, and that its signals can be distinguished from those produced in dirt or…

desk verdict The dump-production channel for HNLs at SBN is a new and useful idea, but the Helm form factor uses the wrong mass and likely inflates the rates; the paper needs a correction before its sensitivity numbers are trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.09840 v2 pith:UQEPGK4Y submitted 2025-01-16 hep-ph hep-ex

Bhaskar Dutta , Debopam Goswami , Aparajitha Karthikeyan , Kevin J. Kelly This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-ex
keywords heavyneutralleptonsdipoleportalneutrinoupscatteringPrimakoffscatteringbeamdumpshort-baselineprogramMiniBooNElow-energyexcesslightscalarmediator
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper argues that searches for new heavy neutral leptons at short-baseline neutrino facilities have been missing a major production site: the iron beam dump far upstream of the detectors. Neutrinos upscattering in the dump's high-Z iron can produce dipole-coupled heavy neutral leptons that later decay inside SBND, MicroBooNE, MiniBooNE, or ICARUS, and at the closest detector, SBND, this dump contribution is comparable in reach to production in the detector itself or in the dirt. The paper further claims that dump-, dirt-, and detector-born signals have distinguishable energy, angular, and timing distributions, so a dedicated analysis could separate them and improve signal-to-background discrimination. If correct, existing and planned short-baseline experiments probe a larger region of the dipole-portal parameter space than previously estimated, including the region relevant to the MiniBooNE low-energy excess.

What carries the argument

The engine of the calculation is the effective dipole-portal operator L ⊃ dµ(νL σλρ Fλρ N) + h.c., which gives sub-GeV heavy neutral leptons N a transition magnetic moment. Neutrinos upscatter off target nuclei through photon exchange (Primakoff scattering), with a cross section proportional to $Z^{2}$ |F(ER)|^2 and a strong preference for small nuclear recoil, so the high-Z iron dump is an efficient converter. The dpHNL then decays as N → νγ with rest-frame width Γ = $dµ^{2}$ $m_N^{3}$/(4π), and the lab-frame survival-and-decay probability P = $e^{{−d/λN}}$(1 − $e^{{−L/λN}}$) controls which production sites are visible at each detector. The novel step is to convolve the neutrino flux at each of the three locations—dump, dirt, and detector—through this production-and-decay chain, and to use the resulting differences in photon energy, angle, and arrival time as discriminating observables.

What would settle it

A search in SBND for delayed, forward, high-energy single-photon events arriving after the beam spill—the signature the paper predicts for dump-born dpHNLs—with no such events observed would falsify the claimed dump contribution at the benchmark couplings.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that neutrino upscattering in the BNB iron dump—situated at the end of the decay pipe, upstream of the dirt and the detectors—is a significant and previously neglected source of sub-GeV dipole-portal heavy neutral leptons (dpHNLs). Because Primakoff upscattering is coherent and scales as $Z^{2}$, the iron dump is an efficient converter of beam neutrinos into dpHNLs, and because the dump is far upstream, the dpHNLs that survive to a detector are highly boosted and forward-directed. The paper shows that including dump production enhances sensitivity especially at the 110 m SBND detector, and that events from dump, dirt, and detector production populate distinct regions of photon energy, photon angle, and arrival time: detector events are soft and early, dump events are hard, forward, and delayed, with dirt events in between. These features allow the production sites to be separated and offer handles for background rejection. The same three-site decomposition is applied to HNLs coupled through a light scalar mediator, with the visible signal carried by electron-positron pairs instead of photons.

Load-bearing premise

The comparison rests on the assumption that the simplified flux model, tuned to the published flux only at the detector by one energy-independent factor, also gives the correct neutrino flux at the iron dump and in the dirt; if the real flux there differs substantially, the dump and dirt signal rates and the balance among the three production sites would shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • SBND's sensitivity to dipole-portal HNLs is enhanced by including dump production, particularly for masses near and below 100 MeV, where dirt and dump contributions are complementary to detector production.
  • Dump-born signals arrive later than the neutrino-beam spill, so a timing cut can substantially reduce the assumed background while preserving most dump-originated signal events.
  • The high-energy, forward-peaked photons from dump and dirt production sit in a kinematic region that is sparsely populated by the dominant NC π0 background, giving additional handles for signal-background separation.
  • The same decomposition carries over to light-scalar-mediated HNLs, whose visible e+e− pair signals show the same ordering in energy and angle across the three production sites.
  • Combined use of all four detectors can test the parameter region invoked to explain the MiniBooNE low-energy excess.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the nanosecond-level timing resolution quoted for SBND holds, dump-born signals could be isolated in an almost background-free out-of-time window; the paper does not quantify this, but the timing spectra make it a direct consequence.
  • The same dump/dirt/detector decomposition should apply to other coherent neutrino-upscattering models, such as dark-photon or axion-like portals, since only the mediator mass and final-state decay change the kinematics.
  • A dedicated measurement of the neutrino flux inside or immediately after the dump—rather than only at the detector—would be the cleanest test of the paper's flux model, because the single energy-independent normalization is validated only at the detector position.
  • The event-by-event kinematic separation suggests that SBND data could be used to localize where along the beamline an anomalous signal was produced, which would be a new diagnostic for the MiniBooNE excess if a signal appears.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. This paper studies two beyond-the-Standard-Model scenarios—dipole-portal heavy neutral leptons (dpHNLs) and light-scalar-mediated HNLs—produced by neutrino upscattering in the Booster Neutrino Beam. The authors include, for the first time, upscattering in the iron beam dump as a production site, alongside the more commonly considered dirt and detector production. They construct neutrino fluxes for the dump, dirt, and detector locations, compute Primakoff and scalar-mediated upscattering rates and decay probabilities, and derive 90% CL sensitivity projections for SBND, MicroBooNE, MiniBooNE, and ICARUS. They also characterize energy, angular, and timing distributions of the decay products and argue that production-site-specific kinematics can improve signal-background separation. The central quantitative claim is that dump production is comparable to dirt and detector production at SBND and that the three sites are complementary.

Significance. If the computed rates are correct, the paper makes a useful contribution by enlarging the search volume for neutrino-up-scattering-produced BSM states to the beam dump, exploiting the high-Z iron target, and by proposing concrete kinematic discriminants. The paper is transparent about its approximations: it labels the SBND/ICARUS background estimates as rough, disclaims any official SBN result, and cross-checks its simulated flux against the published SBND flux, with a reported factor-of-1.3 coupling-level effect. These are real strengths. However, the quantitative sensitivity curves currently rest on an internal inconsistency in the nuclear form factor and on a flux model that is validated only at the detector position. Both issues directly affect the central dump-production claim, so the numerical results need revision before the paper can be relied upon.

major comments (2)
  1. [Eq. (3) and Appendix B] Equation (3) evaluates the Helm nuclear form factor at kappa = sqrt(E_R^2 + 2 m_N E_R), where m_N is the HNL mass. Since E_R is the recoil energy of the target nucleus, the three-momentum transferred to the nucleus is |q| = sqrt(E_R^2 + 2 m_T E_R), with m_T the target mass, consistent with Eq. (2)'s kinematic definitions and with Appendix B. Using m_N in place of m_T underestimates kappa by roughly sqrt(m_T/m_N) ~ 10-20 in the E_R range that dominates the 1/E_R integral, inflating F(E_R) and hence the production cross section. It also removes the target-mass dependence from the form factor, biasing the relative weights of the iron dump, silicon/oxygen dirt, and argon detector. The sensitivity contours in Figs. 7, 8, and 16 and the relative-production statements in Section VII should be recomputed with kappa = sqrt(E_R^2 + 2 m_T E_R). This is an internal inconsistency, not merely an unvalidated modeling choice.
  2. [Appendix A and Figs. 10-12] The simplified flux model used for dump and dirt production is validated only at the detector position: the simulated flux is normalized by an energy-independent factor of 1/4.5 to match the published SBND flux, and the sensitivity check in Fig. 12 is performed for detector production only. The hard horn cuts (meson energy above 750 MeV, angle between 0.03 and 0.2 rad, no transverse momentum after the horn, no meson decays inside the horn) can affect the flux at the dump and in the dirt differently than at the detector. Because the central novelty is the claim that dump production enhances sensitivity at SBND, the paper should either validate the dump/dirt fluxes against a full GEANT4 beam simulation or show that the sensitivity curves in Figs. 7 and 8 are robust to plausible location-dependent flux variations. At present this is a load-bearing gap.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section IV C and Fig. 5 caption] The text defines t = 0 as the time at which mesons are produced at the BNB target, while the Fig. 5 caption defines t = 0 as the moment when the charged mesons cross the end of the magnetic horn; these definitions differ and should be reconciled.
  2. [Section VI, Eq. (12)] The chi-squared statistic s^2/(s+b) is a simplified estimator; the authors should state whether they intend a Poisson likelihood or a Gaussian approximation, since the low-signal, low-background regime can make the difference.
  3. [Fig. 6 caption] The caption states that (y_n^{h1})_{22} = d '(without units)', but d is the dipole coupling with units of GeV^-1; the intended numerical value of the Yukawa coupling should be given explicitly.
  4. [Section IV A] The 'sudden spikes' attributed to low statistics in Fig. 6 should be marked or binned more coarsely in the figure itself, since the reader cannot otherwise distinguish physical features from statistical noise.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the flux normalization is a transparent input calibration, benchmark parameters come from external fits, and the self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained at the level required for a circularity finding. The dpHNL production cross section in Eq. (2) is computed from the effective Lagrangian in Eq. (1) and cross-checked against Refs. [14,19]; it is not fitted to the signal rates reported here. The MiniBooNE benchmark points in Eq. (11) are taken from external fits in Ref. [25], and the existing-constraint curves are taken from external analyses, not from this paper's outputs. The LSM cross section in Eq. (C5) is re-derived in Appendix C and matched to Ref. [34]; although one author overlaps, the citation is to a separate published calculation and is not used to define the present paper's central claim. The only calibration-like step is the global 1/4.5 factor in Appendix A, applied so the simulated BNB flux matches the published SBND flux at the detector. This factor is an input normalization, not a predicted quantity, and the paper tests the sensitivity of its conclusions to the flux choice in Fig. 12, finding at most a factor of roughly 1.3 in coupling. The dump/dirt/detector comparison is not equivalent to this normalization by construction: different source locations enter through different geometric distances, target compositions, and decay-probability factors. The apparent Helm form-factor issue in Eq. (3) (kappa is written with m_N rather than the target mass, which would be the correct momentum-transfer scale) is a physics-correctness or typographical concern, not a circularity: it changes the computed rates but does not make any output equal to an input. No quoted reduction of a prediction to a fit or to a self-citation chain was found.

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

The sensitivity projections rest on the dipole operator as an effective theory, the Helm form-factor cross section, a simplified flux simulation with a global normalization to the published SBND flux, and background rates extrapolated from MicroBooNE. The heavy neutral lepton and light scalar are pre-existing model states, so no new entities are invented here.

free parameters (4)
  • Neutrino flux normalization weight = 1/4.5
    Applied to the simulated post-horn neutrino flux so that the total flux matches the published SBND flux (Appendix A). This global normalization directly scales the dump and dirt signal rates.
  • SBND background rate = 9000 events
    Extrapolated from the MicroBooNE single-photon background by scaling with neutrino flux, detector mass, and POT (Sec III, Table I). Used in the chi-square sensitivity estimate.
  • ICARUS background rate = 840 events
    Same extrapolation procedure as SBND (Sec III, Table I); used for the ICARUS sensitivity contour.
  • Meson selection cuts for horn reproduction = E > 750 MeV; 0.03 < theta < 0.2 rad
    Chosen by hand in Appendix A to reproduce the effect of the magnetic horn on the meson flux; these cuts shape the simulated neutrino flux at the dump and dirt.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The dipole-portal effective operator (Eq. 1) is valid at the O(GeV) energy scales of the SBN experiments, despite requiring a UV completion.
    Stated in Sec II A: the Lagrangian lacks gauge invariance, so a UV completion is needed, but it is treated as a valid effective theory at these scales.
  • domain assumption The Primakoff upscattering cross section (Eq. 2) and the Helm nuclear form factor (Eq. 3) describe neutrino-nucleus scattering to heavy neutral leptons.
    Used for all production-site rate calculations; the paper notes agreement with Refs [14,19].
  • domain assumption The flux simulation in Appendix A, which applies hard meson cuts, assumes pT = 0 after the horn and no decays inside the horn, and then applies a global 1/4.5 normalization, reproduces the neutrino flux at the dump and dirt.
    The flux is validated only at the detector position (Fig. 12), not independently at the dump or along the dirt path.
  • domain assumption The background rates for SBND and ICARUS can be estimated by scaling the MicroBooNE single-photon background according to flux, mass, and POT differences.
    Sec III: the authors state this is a rough estimate and that detector-specific effects are not accounted for.
  • domain assumption Detection efficiency for the N -> nu gamma and N -> nu h1, h1 -> e+e- signatures is 100%, with no energy or angular acceptance cuts.
    Sec II A: 'we consider 100% efficiency'; the paper does not model reconstruction or selection efficiencies.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dirt/Detector/Dump: Complementary BSM production at Short-Baseline Neutrino Facilities." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UQEPGK4Y

@misc{pith2026250109840,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dirt/Detector/Dump: Complementary BSM production at Short-Baseline Neutrino Facilities},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UQEPGK4Y}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.09840}
}
abstract

Short-baseline neutrino (SBN) facilities are optimal for new-physics searches, including the possible production of new particles in and along the neutrino beamline. One such class of models considers states that are created by neutrino upscattering that then decay in the neutrino detector -- in the past, such upscattering has often been considered to occur in the detector itself (with a prompt decay) or in the dirt upstream of the detector. In this work, we highlight the importance of the beam dumps, situated even further upstream, for such searches. The Fermilab Booster Neutrino Beam, with its iron dump, provides one such possibility. We focus on sub-GeV heavy neutral leptons (HNLs) with a transition magnetic moment, which allows this upscattering to take advantage of the high-$Z$ iron. We observe that, in addition to increased sensitivity to this model at SBND, MicroBooNE, and ICARUS, there exist distinct features in the signal events' kinematical properties when coming from production in the dump, dirt, and detector which can allow for enhanced signal-to-background separation. We highlight the complementarity of this approach to study parameter space relevant for the MiniBooNE low-energy excess, as well as in models in which the HNLs couple to a light scalar particle.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.09840 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Feynman Diagrams of (left): Primakoff scattering of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Schematic Diagram of the SBN Experimental Program (not to scale). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Energy spectra of outgoing photons produced by the decay of dpHNLs in the SBND detector. Each colored [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (16 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Angular spectra of outgoing photons produced by the decay of dpHNLs in the SBND detector. Each colored [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Timing spectra of dpHNLs reaching the front face of the SBND detector for the dump and dirt lines, and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Energy and Angular Spectra of the outgoing photons ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Potential (at 90% CL) for dipole-portal HNL discovery in SBND (solid lines) and MiniBooNE (dashed lines) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Similar to Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: The comparison between the published flux at the detector and the flux created for this work. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11: Figure comparing the flux used in this analysis at three different locations – the SBND detector (red, from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12: Sensitivity comparison of the dipole-portal heavy neutral lepton scenario considering production of dpHNL [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13: Feynman diagram for (Top Left): Upscattering interaction mediated via light scalar [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14: Energy and Angular Spectra of the outgoing photons produced from decaying of the dpHNLs in the SBND [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15: The 90% Confidence Interval total contribution lines for SBND are shown for background levels of 100 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16: Sensitivity for individual production points of dpHNL in MicroBooNE and ICARUS. All the plots show 90% [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: FIG. 17: Energy spectra of outgoing photons produced by the decay of dpHNLs in the ICARUS detector. Each [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: FIG. 18: Angular spectra of outgoing photons produced by the decay of dpHNLs in the ICARUS detector. Each colored [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_18.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: FIG. 19: Timing spectra of dpHNLs reaching the front face of the ICARUS detector for the dump and dirt lines, and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_19.png]

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. Muon Bremsstrahlung as a New Probe of Dark Sector at Neutrino Experiments

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Muon bremsstrahlung from the focused muon beam at neutrino facilities can produce heavy neutral leptons up to ~1 GeV, opening new search territory for SBND and DUNE Near Detector.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

81 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    1a, commonly referred to as Primakoff scattering [36])

    Production of dpHNLs In accelerator-neutrino beam environments, the most efficient 1 production of dpHNLs comes from neutrino up- scattering when the SM neutrinos interact with a target nucleus (see Fig. 1a, commonly referred to as Primakoff scattering [36]). This scattering process, as it is mediated by the SM photon, prefers low-momentum-transfer scatte...

  2. [2]

    1b) with 100% branching ratio

    Decay & Detection of dpHNLs Through the same interaction with which they are produced, dpHNLs are unstable and can decay into a SM neutrino and a photon (see Fig. 1b) with 100% branching ratio. If such a decay occurs within a neutrino detector and the photon energy is sufficiently high, it will be identifiable as an event. We will discuss signal identific...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Dump: production in the 4 × 4 × 4.21 m3 iron dump

    work page

  4. [4]

    Dirt: production in the dirt upstream of the given detector

    work page

  5. [6]

    dpHNL Model Referring to the Feynman diagram in Fig. 1a, the invariant matrix element of the Primakoff scattering process is given by the following expression: |M| = dZe 1 (p2 − p4)2 ! ¯u(p3, mN ) 1 + γ5 2 ! (( /p2 − /p4)γν − γν( /p2 − /p4))u(p1, 0) ! ¯u(p4, mT )γνu(p2, mT ) ! (C1) Squaring this matrix element, evaluating the traces in terms of Mandelstam...

    work page

  6. [7]

    [34], this model is one of the simplest extensions of the scalar and fermionic sectors of the SM

    LSM Model As described in Ref. [34], this model is one of the simplest extensions of the scalar and fermionic sectors of the SM. In this model, the 2 Higgs doublet model with its complex scalar singlet extension is included, and the fermionic sector is extended with the addition of three right-handed sterile neutrinos to explain the neutrino masses via th...

    work page

  7. [8]

    Davis, Jr., D

    R. Davis, Jr., D. S. Harmer, and K. C. Hoffman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 20, 1205 (1968). 19 10 2 10 1 100 mN [GeV] 10 8 10 7 10 6 10 5 d [GeV 1] Borexino SN1987A CHARM-II NOMADLSND SUPERK EQE 3 CL Region cos 3 CL Region Not an Official SBN Result SBND Bkg = 100 SBND Bkg = 1000 SBND Bkg = 10000 MiniBooNE Excess FIG. 15: The 90% Confidence Interval total contribut...

    work page 1968

  8. [9]

    A. I. Abazov et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 67, 3332 (1991)

    work page 1991

Show all 81 references
  1. [10]

    Anselmann et al

    P. Anselmann et al. (GALLEX), Phys. Lett. B 285, 376 (1992)

    1992

  2. [11]

    Fukuda et al

    Y. Fukuda et al. (Kamiokande), Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 1683 (1996)

    1996

  3. [12]

    Fukuda et al

    Y. Fukuda et al. (Super-Kamiokande), Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 1562 (1998), arXiv:hep-ex/9807003

    1998 arXiv

  4. [13]

    Q. R. Ahmad et al. (SNO), Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 011301 (2002), arXiv:nucl-ex/0204008

    2002 arXiv

  5. [14]

    R. N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanovic, Phys. Rev. Lett. 44, 912 (1980)

    1980

  6. [15]

    Schechter and J

    J. Schechter and J. W. F. Valle, Phys. Rev. D 22, 2227 (1980)

    1980

  7. [16]

    A. M. Abdullahi et al. , J. Phys. G 50, 020501 (2023), arXiv:2203.08039 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  8. [17]

    R. E. Shrock, Nucl. Phys. B 206, 359 (1982)

    1982

  9. [18]

    Magill, R

    G. Magill, R. Plestid, M. Pospelov, and Y.-D. Tsai, Phys. Rev. D 98, 115015 (2018), arXiv:1803.03262 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  10. [19]

    Ovchynnikov and J.-Y

    M. Ovchynnikov and J.-Y. Zhu, JHEP 07, 039 (2023), arXiv:2301.08592 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  11. [20]

    Barducci, W

    D. Barducci, W. Liu, A. Titov, Z. S. Wang, and Y. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 108, 115009 (2023), arXiv:2308.16608 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  12. [21]

    I. M. Shoemaker and J. Wyenberg, Phys. Rev. D 99, 075010 (2019), arXiv:1811.12435 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  13. [22]

    Dasgupta and J

    B. Dasgupta and J. Kopp, Phys. Rept. 928, 1 (2021), arXiv:2106.05913 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  14. [23]

    Masip, P

    M. Masip, P. Masjuan, and D. Meloni, JHEP 01, 106 (2013), arXiv:1210.1519 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  15. [24]

    Ismail, S

    A. Ismail, S. Jana, and R. M. Abraham, Phys. Rev. D 105, 055008 (2022), arXiv:2109.05032 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  16. [25]

    I. M. Shoemaker, Y.-D. Tsai, and J. Wyenberg, Phys. Rev. D 104, 115026 (2021), arXiv:2007.05513 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  17. [26]

    Brdar, A

    V. Brdar, A. Greljo, J. Kopp, and T. Opferkuch, JCAP 01, 039 (2021), arXiv:2007.15563 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  18. [27]

    Coloma, P

    P. Coloma, P. A. N. Machado, I. Martinez-Soler, and I. M. Shoemaker, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 201804 (2017), arXiv:1707.08573 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  19. [28]

    Batell et al

    B. Batell et al. , in Snowmass 2021 (2022) arXiv:2207.06898 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  20. [29]

    Huang, S

    G.-y. Huang, S. Jana, M. Lindner, and W. Rodejohann, Phys. Lett. B 840, 137842 (2023), arXiv:2204.10347 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  21. [30]

    A. A. Aguilar-Arevalo et al. (MiniBooNE), Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 221801 (2018), arXiv:1805.12028 [hep-ex]

    2018 arXiv

  22. [31]

    A. A. Aguilar-Arevalo et al. (MiniBooNE), Phys. Rev. D 103, 052002 (2021), arXiv:2006.16883 [hep-ex]

    2021 arXiv

  23. [32]

    N. W. Kamp, M. Hostert, A. Schneider, S. Vergani, C. A. Arg¨ uelles, J. M. Conrad, M. H. Shaevitz, and M. A. Uchida, Phys. Rev. D 107, 055009 (2023), arXiv:2206.07100 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  24. [33]

    Acciarri et al

    R. Acciarri et al. (MicroBooNE, LAr1-ND, ICARUS-W A104), Preprint (2015), arXiv:1503.01520 [physics.ins-det]. 20 10 2 10 1 100 mN [GeV] 10 8 10 7 10 6 10 5 d [GeV 1] Borexino SN1987A CHARM-II NOMADLSND SUPERK EQE 3 CL Region cos 3 CL Region Not an Official SBN Result MicroBooN...

    2015

  25. [34]

    P. A. Machado, O. Palamara, and D. W. Schmitz, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 69, 363 (2019), arXiv:1903.04608 [hep-ex]

    2019 arXiv

  26. [35]

    Acciarri et al

    R. Acciarri et al. (MicroBooNE), JINST 12, P02017 (2017), arXiv:1612.05824 [physics.ins-det]

    2017 arXiv

  27. [36]

    A. A. Aguilar-Arevalo et al. (MiniBooNE), Phys. Rev. D 79, 072002 (2009), arXiv:0806.1449 [hep-ex]

    2009 arXiv

  28. [37]

    A. A. Aguilar-Arevalo et al. (MiniBooNE), Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 599, 28 (2009), arXiv:0806.4201 [hep-ex]

    2009 arXiv

  29. [38]

    Amerio et al

    S. Amerio et al. (ICARUS), Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 527, 329 (2004)

    2004

  30. [39]

    R. E. Shrock, Phys. Rev. Lett. 40, 1688 (1978)

    1978

  31. [40]

    Vergani, N

    S. Vergani, N. W. Kamp, A. Diaz, C. A. Arg¨ uelles, J. M. Conrad, M. H. Shaevitz, and M. A. Uchida, Phys. Rev. D 104, 095005 (2021), arXiv:2105.06470 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  32. [41]

    Dutta, S

    B. Dutta, S. Ghosh, and T. Li, Phys. Rev. D 102, 055017 (2020), arXiv:2006.01319 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  33. [42]

    T. Falk, A. Ferstl, and K. A. Olive, Astropart. Phys. 13, 301 (2000), arXiv:hep-ph/9908311

    2000 arXiv

  34. [43]

    Primakoff, Phys

    H. Primakoff, Phys. Rev. 81, 899 (1951). 22

    1951

  35. [44]

    Tsai, Phys

    Y.-S. Tsai, Phys. Rev. D 34, 1326 (1986)

    1986

  36. [45]

    R. H. Helm, Phys. Rev. 104, 1466 (1956)

    1956

  37. [46]

    Engel, Phys

    J. Engel, Phys. Lett. B 264, 114 (1991)

    1991

  38. [47]

    Brdar, W

    V. Brdar, W. Rodejohann, and X.-J. Xu, JHEP 12, 024 (2018), arXiv:1810.03626 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  39. [48]

    A. J. Mogan, Measuring Electron Diffusion and Constraining the Neutral Current π0 Background for Single-Photon Events in MicroBooNE, Ph.D. thesis, Tennessee U. (2021)

    2021

  40. [49]

    Abratenko et al

    P. Abratenko et al. (ICARUS), Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 467 (2023), arXiv:2301.08634 [hep-ex]

    2023 arXiv

  41. [50]

    M. D. Tutto, in APS April Meeting 2021, Volume 66, Number 5 (American Physical Society, Online, 2021) presentation at APS April Meeting 2021

    2021

  42. [51]

    Dorenbosch et al

    J. Dorenbosch et al. (CHARM), Z. Phys. C 41, 567 (1989), [Erratum: Z.Phys.C 51, 142 (1991)]

    1989

  43. [52]

    Vilain et al

    P. Vilain et al. (CHARM-II), Phys. Lett. B 335, 246 (1994)

    1994

  44. [53]

    L. B. Auerbach et al. (LSND), Phys. Rev. D 63, 112001 (2001), arXiv:hep-ex/0101039

    2001 arXiv

  45. [54]

    Bellini et al

    G. Bellini et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 141302 (2011), arXiv:1104.1816 [hep-ex]

    2011 arXiv

  46. [55]

    Fukuda et al

    S. Fukuda et al. (Super-Kamiokande), Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 5651 (2001), arXiv:hep-ex/0103032

    2001 arXiv

  47. [56]

    Altegoer et al

    J. Altegoer et al. (NOMAD), Phys. Lett. B 428, 197 (1998), arXiv:hep-ex/9804003

    1998 arXiv

  48. [57]

    Altegoer et al

    J. Altegoer et al. (NOMAD), Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 404, 96 (1998)

    1998

  49. [58]

    Vannucci, Adv

    F. Vannucci, Adv. High Energy Phys. 2014, 129694 (2014)

    2014

  50. [59]

    J. H. Chang, R. Essig, and S. D. McDermott, JHEP 01, 107 (2017), arXiv:1611.03864 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  51. [60]

    Hirata et al

    K. Hirata et al. (Kamiokande-II), Phys. Rev. Lett. 58, 1490 (1987)

    1987

  52. [61]

    Fischer, S

    T. Fischer, S. Chakraborty, M. Giannotti, A. Mirizzi, A. Payez, and A. Ringwald, Phys. Rev. D 94, 085012 (2016), arXiv:1605.08780 [astro-ph.HE]

    2016 arXiv

  53. [62]

    H. K. Dreiner, J.-F. Fortin, C. Hanhart, and L. Ubaldi, Phys. Rev. D 89, 105015 (2014), arXiv:1310.3826 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  54. [63]

    H. K. Dreiner, C. Hanhart, U. Langenfeld, and D. R. Phillips, Phys. Rev. D 68, 055004 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0304289

    2003 arXiv

  55. [64]

    S. N. Gninenko, Phys. Lett. B 710, 86 (2012), arXiv:1201.5194 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  56. [65]

    Plows and X

    K.-J. Plows and X. Lu, Phys. Rev. D 107, 055003 (2023), arXiv:2211.10210 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  57. [66]

    Plestid, Phys

    R. Plestid, Phys. Rev. D 104, 075027 (2021), arXiv:2010.04193 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  58. [67]

    Li, Y.-F

    Y.-Y. Li, Y.-F. Li, and S.-Y. Xia, Preprint (2024), arXiv:2406.07477 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  59. [68]

    R. A. Gustafson, R. Plestid, and I. M. Shoemaker, Phys. Rev. D 106, 095037 (2022), arXiv:2205.02234 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  60. [69]

    Abratenko et al

    P. Abratenko et al. (SBND), Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 1046 (2024), arXiv:2406.07514 [physics.ins-det]

    2024 arXiv

  61. [70]

    Searches for beyond standard model physics in the sbnd neutrino experiment,

    J. I. Crespo-Anad´ on (SBND Collaboration), “Searches for beyond standard model physics in the sbnd neutrino experiment,” (2023)

    2023

  62. [71]

    Searches for beyond standard model physics in the sbnd experiment,

    X. Luo (SBND Collaboration), “Searches for beyond standard model physics in the sbnd experiment,” (2024)

    2024

  63. [72]

    Allison et al

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

    2016

  64. [73]

    Agostinelli et al

    S. Agostinelli et al. (GEANT4), Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 506, 250 (2003)

    2003

  65. [74]

    Allison et al

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

    2006

  66. [75]

    Dutta, D

    B. Dutta, D. Kim, A. Thompson, R. T. Thornton, and R. G. Van de Water, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 111803 (2022), arXiv:2110.11944 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  67. [76]

    Mertig, M

    R. Mertig, M. Bohm, and A. Denner, Comput. Phys. Commun. 64, 345 (1991)

    1991

  68. [77]

    Shtabovenko, R

    V. Shtabovenko, R. Mertig, and F. Orellana, Comput. Phys. Commun. 207, 432 (2016), arXiv:1601.01167 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  69. [78]

    Junnarkar and A

    P. Junnarkar and A. Walker-Loud, Phys. Rev. D 87, 114510 (2013), arXiv:1301.1114 [hep-lat]

    2013 arXiv

  70. [79]

    Hoferichter, J

    M. Hoferichter, J. Ruiz de Elvira, B. Kubis, and U.-G. Meißner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 092301 (2015), arXiv:1506.04142 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  71. [80]

    Crivellin, M

    A. Crivellin, M. Hoferichter, and M. Procura, Phys. Rev. D 89, 054021 (2014), arXiv:1312.4951 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  72. [81]

    J. M. Alarcon, L. S. Geng, J. Martin Camalich, and J. A. Oller, Phys. Lett. B 730, 342 (2014), arXiv:1209.2870 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  73. [82]

    J. M. Alarcon, J. Martin Camalich, and J. A. Oller, Phys. Rev. D 85, 051503 (2012), arXiv:1110.3797 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

Pith tools

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