Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 49 references

Sensitivity study of a sapphire detector using Coherent Elastic Neutrino-Nucleus Scattering process

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A 10 kg sapphire detector at Indian reactors could measure the weak mixing angle to ~7–9%, reach neutrino magnetic moments near 4×10⁻¹¹ μ_B, and exclude most of COHERENT's scalar- and vector-mediator parameter space.

desk verdict A workmanlike sensitivity projection for a proposed sapphire CEνNS detector at four Indian reactor sites; the abstract overstates the mediator result, and the load-bearing background assumption needs a much louder caveat. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.09972 v3 pith:4DYFM7KK submitted 2025-02-14 hep-ph hep-exnucl-exnucl-th

S. P. Behera This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-exnucl-exnucl-th MSC 81V15
keywords coherentelasticneutrino-nucleusscatteringsapphirecryogenicdetectorreactorantineutrinosneutrinomagneticmomentweakmixinganglelightscalarandvectormediatorsICNSEsub-keVnuclearrecoil
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 is a sensitivity study for the proposed Indian Coherent Neutrino-nucleus Scattering Experiment (ICNSE), which would place a 10 kg sapphire cryogenic detector near reactor cores and read out nuclear recoils from coherent elastic neutrino-nucleus scattering with a 100 eV threshold. Using a one-year exposure and four different Indian reactors as antineutrino sources, the paper works out how well this detector could measure the weak mixing angle at low momentum transfer, constrain the neutrino magnetic moment, and restrict new scalar and vector mediators that couple neutrinos to quarks. Its central finding is that the detector could measure $\sin^2\theta_W$ to roughly 7–9% uncertainty, reach magnetic-moment sensitivities around $4\times10^{-11}$–$5\times10^{-11}\,\mu_B$ at the more powerful reactors, and exclude most of the scalar- and vector-mediator parameter space that COHERENT has excluded, with stronger constraints on the mediator masses. The point of the exercise is that a compact, kilogram-scale detector at a reactor could deliver competitive beyond-Standard-Model sensitivity that is complementary to accelerator-based CEνNS experiments.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the CEνNS differential cross section on sapphire, $d\sigma/dT = (G_F^2/8\pi)\,Q_W^2\,M\,(2 - T M/E_\nu^2)\,|f(q)|^2$ with $Q_W = Z(4\sin^2\theta_W - 1) + N$, evaluated at momentum transfers where the form factor is essentially unity. Each new-physics effect enters as a distinctive distortion of the recoil-energy spectrum: a $1/T$ rise for a neutrino magnetic moment, a $q^{-4}\sim T^{-2}$ growth for light scalar mediators, an altered weak charge for vector mediators, and a normalization shift for $\sin^2\theta_W$. The analysis machinery is a pull-parameter $\chi^2$ that compares simulated Standard Model events with simulated new-physics events under 5% systematic uncertainties and background shapes ($1/T$ and flat) taken from the reactor-neutrino literature, folding in detector response, efficiency, fiducial volume, and duty cycle; four reactors with different thermal powers and standoff distances supply the antineutrino fluxes.

What would settle it

Build a sapphire detector with the proposed multilayer shielding at the Apsara-U site, measure the background spectrum in the 0.1–1 keV nuclear-recoil window, and compute the actual signal-to-background ratio at the 100 eV threshold; if it falls below 1, the projected limits on the neutrino magnetic moment and light-mediator couplings at low mass will not be reached at the claimed level.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the ICNSE sapphire detector, assuming a 100 eV recoil threshold, a 10 kg target, one year of data, and a signal-to-background ratio of 1–2, can measure the weak mixing angle with a 90% C.L. uncertainty of 8.59% at the Apsara-U reactor down to 7.12% at the VVER reactor; set a 90% C.L. neutrino magnetic moment limit around $1.66\times10^{-10}\,\mu_B$ at Apsara-U and roughly $4.3\times10^{-11}$–$5.4\times10^{-11}\,\mu_B$ at Dhruva, PFBR, and VVER in the no-background case; and exclude large portions of the $g_\phi$–$m_\phi$ and $g_{Z'}$–$m_{Z'}$ planes, including most of the region excluded by COHERENT. The abstract states this last result as stronger constraints on the scalar and vector mediator masses.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the detector can run with a signal-to-background ratio of at least 1 at recoil energies near the 100 eV threshold; this is assumed from modeled $1/T$ and flat background shapes rather than measured rates, and the paper's own results show that worse backgrounds would substantially degrade the magnetic-moment and mediator sensitivities.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At the 3 MW Apsara-U reactor, one year of data would measure the weak mixing angle to about 8.6% at 90% C.L.; at the 3000 MW VVER reactor the same measurement improves to about 7.1%.
  • Without background, the magnetic-moment sensitivity reaches about 1.7×10⁻¹⁰ μ_B at Apsara-U and 4.3–5.4×10⁻¹¹ μ_B at the higher-power reactors, competitive with the best existing reactor limits.
  • Including backgrounds with signal-to-background ratios of 2 and 1 degrades the magnetic-moment sensitivity by roughly 26–53%, so the real reach depends on the unmeasured sub-keV background.
  • The detector would exclude most of the scalar- and vector-mediator parameter space excluded by COHERENT, and the paper concludes its constraints on the mediator masses are stronger.
  • Moving the same detector from Apsara-U to Dhruva, PFBR, or VVER increases event rates and narrows the weak-mixing-angle uncertainty, even at larger standoff distances.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the actual background at 100 eV is worse than S/B = 1, the paper's own numbers imply the magnetic-moment and light-mediator reach would shrink by more than half, making background suppression the decisive engineering challenge.
  • The same recoil-spectrum shapes could separate signal from background in a multi-target cryogenic array, since the spectral distortion of a magnetic moment or light mediator differs across target nuclei.
  • A low-energy weak-mixing-angle measurement near 7% would sit in a region where several new-physics scenarios predict deviations from Standard Model running, so combining ICNSE with accelerator CEνNS data could sharpen that comparison.
  • The Apsara-U core's movability, noted in the paper as an advantage, offers a testable way to measure and subtract reactor-correlated backgrounds by comparing data at different standoff distances.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents a phenomenological sensitivity study for a proposed 10 kg sapphire cryogenic detector (ICNSE) operating at Indian reactor sites (Apsara-U, Dhruva, PFBR, and VVER) and searching for coherent elastic neutrino-nucleus scattering (CEvNS) from reactor antineutrinos. Using a one-year exposure, an assumed 100 eV recoil threshold, signal-to-background ratios of 1 and 2, and a chi-square analysis with a 5% systematic uncertainty, the author projects sensitivities to the neutrino magnetic moment, the weak mixing angle, and the coupling-mass plane of light scalar and vector mediators. The paper finds that the detector could reach magnetic-moment sensitivities around 4-5e-11 Bohr magnetons at higher-power reactors, measure sin^2(theta_W) to about 7-9%, and exclude parts of the scalar and vector mediator parameter space overlapping with current COHERENT bounds. The abstract, however, states that the detector can put 'stronger constraints' on mediator masses, which is stronger than what the body of the paper claims.

Significance. The study is a useful and reasonably careful projection for a proposed low-threshold CEvNS experiment. Its strengths are that it uses standard, published cross-section formulae for CEvNS and new-physics contributions, considers several realistic reactor cores with different thermal powers and distances, and explicitly shows how sensitivity degrades as the signal-to-background ratio is reduced. Because the sensitivity curves are computed from published cross-section formulae rather than fitted to data, the BSM projections are not circular in construction. If the assumed 100 eV threshold and S/B of at least 1 are actually achieved at the proposed sites, the projected sensitivities to the neutrino magnetic moment and weak mixing angle would be competitive, and the mediator constraints would be comparable to or partly exceed existing limits. The main weakness is that the central claim depends on assumed background levels that are not measured or simulated for the actual sites, and the abstract overstates the mediator result relative to the body.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and Sec. VII C] The abstract claims that the ICNSE detector 'can put a stronger constraints on the scalar and vector mediators masses,' but the body (Sec. VII C, Figs. 6 and 7) only states that the detector 'can exclude most of the parameter space as excluded by the COHERENT group.' Excluding 'most of the parameter space excluded by COHERENT' is not the same as placing stronger constraints than COHERENT, and no quantitative comparison (e.g., excluded area, or coupling limit at a fixed mass) is provided to support the stronger-constraint wording. Please either revise the abstract to match the actual result or add a quantitative comparison that substantiates the stronger-constraint claim.
  2. [Sec. VI and Sec. VII C] The assumed signal-to-background ratios of S/B = 1 and 2, with 1/T and flat background shapes taken from Ref. [43], are not validated for the Apsara-U or Dhruva sites; no measurement or Monte Carlo simulation of the actual sub-keV background is presented. The paper itself cites Ref. [20] for sharply rising sub-keV backgrounds in rare-event detectors and states in Sec. VII C that backgrounds degrade sensitivity most for mediator masses below about 10 MeV, which is the same low-mass region where the claimed advantage over COHERENT lives. If the actual S/B at 100 eV is below 1, the exclusion contours in Figs. 6 and 7 would shrink substantially. Please either provide a site-specific background estimate or explicitly state that the mediator constraints are conditional on S/B >= 1 being achieved; the abstract and summary should carry the same caveat.
  3. [Eq. (8) and Table III] The systematic treatment is not fully specified, which impedes reproducibility. In Eq. (8), the theoretical event count appears with a pull dependence as 'N_th_n(xi)', while N_th_n is introduced as the SM-predicted event count; please clarify whether the nuisance parameter rescales the signal normalization, the background, or both, and explain how the 5% systematic uncertainty in Table III is mapped to the pull sigma_xi. Without this clarification the reader cannot reproduce the chi-square curves in Figs. 4-7.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 6] The caption appears truncated: 'The detector sensitivity to the scalar mediator at 90group' should read 'at 90% C.L.' and should also mention the comparison curves from CONNIE, CONUS, and COHERENT, as done in Fig. 7.
  2. [Abstract] There is a grammar error in the abstract: 'a stronger constraints' should be 'stronger constraints'.
  3. [Sec. IV A, Eq. (2)] The magnetic-moment cross-section formula in Eq. (2) writes f(q)^2 without specifying the momentum-transfer argument; for consistency with Eq. (4), please state that q is evaluated as q = sqrt(2 M T).
  4. [Sec. VII A and Sec. VII B] Minor wording issues: 'Sensitive to the magnetic moment' and 'Sensitive to the weak mixing angle' should be 'Sensitivity to ...', and 'Additionaly, it has been bound that' should be 'Additionally, it has been found that'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the sensitivity projections are computed from standard, parameter-free cross-section formulae and externally cited reactor-flux models; the only notable caveat is the assumed background ratio, which is a limitation rather than a circular step.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The CEνNS rate uses standard differential cross sections: Eq. (1) (Vogel-Engel/Freedman), Eq. (2) for the magnetic moment, and Eqs. (4)-(6) for scalar and vector mediators (Cerdeño et al., Farzan et al., Billard et al.). Reactor antineutrino fluxes use the Huber-Mueller parametrization and TEXONO low-energy spectra. Expected counts come from Eq. (7), and the χ2 in Eq. (8) is the standard pull statistic from Lindner et al. (Ref. [42]), with statistical errors including background from Eq. (9). No parameter is fitted to a subset of data and then used to predict the same data; instead, pseudo-data are generated assuming the SM and compared with BSM-modified rates (or vice versa), so the derived limits on μν, sin^2 θW, gφ, and gZ' are ordinary projected sensitivities, not fits renamed as predictions. The methodological self-citation to Ref. [16] supplies the Monte Carlo event generation and detector-response prescription, but that paper is a published, external simulation study and does not inject the present target results as inputs; hence no equation reduces to another by construction. The abstract's 'stronger constraints' claim does depend on the assumed S/B = 1-2 backgrounds and unmeasured sub-keV backgrounds (the paper itself cites Ref. [20] on rising low-energy backgrounds and notes in Sec. VII C that backgrounds degrade low-mass mediator sensitivity most), but that is an assumption about the experimental environment and a correctness or risk issue, not a circularity in the derivation.

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

The central claim rests on standard cross-section formulae, assumed reactor spectra, assumed background levels, and detector performance parameters. The only novel inputs are the specific reactor sites and the sapphire target, but the results are sensitive to the assumed background S/B ratio and the 100 eV threshold. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • Detection energy threshold = 100 eV
    Chosen based on sapphire detector performance in Ref [17] (achieved 54 eV threshold), rounded to 100 eV; directly affects the event rate and sensitivity to magnetic moment and light mediators.
  • Signal-to-background ratio = 1.0 and 2.0
    Assumed; no site-specific background measurement is provided. The paper's own results show sensitivity depends strongly on this ratio, with reductions of 26-53% when background is added.
  • Systematic uncertainty sigma_f = 5%
    Assumed normalization and background uncertainty; the paper also tests 10% for comparison.
  • Detector efficiency, fiducial volume, duty cycle = 80%, 90%, 70%
    Assumed experimental parameters used for event rate estimates in Sec. V.
  • Detector mass = 10 kg
    Assumed target mass for the sensitivity projections; the event rate scales linearly with mass.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math SM CEνNS cross section (Eq. 1) with f(q) ~ 1 for low momentum transfer
    Standard result from Freedman; the low momentum transfer approximation is valid for Eν < 50 MeV, so f(q) is set to 1.
  • domain assumption Reactor antineutrino spectrum: Huber-Mueller for E > 2 MeV and TEXONO/Vogel-Engel for E < 2 MeV
    Spectrum parameterization from Refs [39,40,33]; the low-energy part has significant uncertainty and directly affects the sub-keV recoil signal.
  • domain assumption Scalar and vector mediator models with no interference with the SM Z exchange
    Simplified new physics models from Refs [36-38]; the no-interference assumption is stated in Sec. IV B and is standard for these benchmark models but is not an SM fact.
  • domain assumption Background spectrum consists of 1/T and flat components with S/B = 1 or 2
    Taken from Ref [43]; no site-specific measurement is provided, and the sensitivity results depend strongly on this assumption.
  • domain assumption Detector response (resolution, efficiency) and event generation as implemented in Ref [16]
    The paper delegates these to the author's previous PRD paper; the current paper is not fully self-contained.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Sensitivity study of a sapphire detector using Coherent Elastic Neutrino-Nucleus Scattering process." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4DYFM7KK

@misc{pith2026250209972,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Sensitivity study of a sapphire detector using Coherent Elastic Neutrino-Nucleus Scattering process},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4DYFM7KK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.09972}
}
read the original abstract

The Indian Coherent Neutrino-nucleus Scattering Experiment(ICNSE) has been proposed at Bhabha Atomic Research Centre in India to measure the coherent elastic neutrino-nucleus scattering process using electron antineutrinos produced from reactors. Phenomenological studies are performed to find out the sensitivity of a sapphire detector for various fundamental physics parameters at an exposure of one year. Reactors of different core compositions, sizes, and thermal powers have been considered as sources of electron antineutrinos. The potential of the ICNSE to measure the weak mixing angle at a low energy regime has been extracted. Furthermore, the detector's capability has been investigated for examining the electromagnetic properties of neutrinos, including their magnetic moment. Additionally, an exploration has been conducted on the detector's sensitivity in restricting new interactions between neutrinos and electrons or nuclei, thereby constraining the parameter space related to light mediators. It is found that the ICNSE detector can put a stronger constraints on the scalar and vector mediators masses.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.09972 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Schematic representation of the ICNSE experimental setup [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Recoil event rate per day as a function of nuclear energy at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Recoil event rate as a function of nuclear energy due to exchange of scalar(left panel) and vector(right panel) mediators of different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Comparison of the ICNSE detector sensitivity to the neutrino magnetic moment considering with and without background. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Sensitivity of the detector to the weak mixing angle considering Apsara-U, Dhruva, PFBR, and VVER reactors as antineutrinos [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. The detector sensitivity to the scalar mediator at 90group. Results from the CONNIE [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. The detector sensitivity to the vector mediator at 90 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

  1. [43]

    Bowen and P

    M. Bowen and P. Huber, Phys. Rev. D 102, 053008 (2020), arXiv:2005.10907 [physics.ins-det]

    arXiv 2020

  2. [20]

    Adari et al

    P. Adari et al. , SciPost Phys. Proc. 9, 001 (2022), arXiv:2202.05097 [astro-ph.IM]

    arXiv 2022

  3. [1]

    D. Z. Freedman, Phys. Rev. D 9, 1389 (1974)

    work page 1974

  4. [2]

    Novel constraints on neutrino physics beyond the standard model from the CONUS experiment

    H. Bonet et al. (CONUS), JHEP 05, 085 (2022), arXiv:2110.02174 [hep-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2022

  5. [3]

    Akimov et al

    D. Akimov et al. (COHERENT), Science 357, 1123 (2017), arXiv:1708.01294 [nucl-ex]

    arXiv 2017

  6. [4]

    Akimov et al

    D. Akimov et al. (COHERENT), Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 012002 (2021), arXiv:2003.10630 [nucl-ex]

    arXiv 2021

  7. [5]

    Akimov et al

    D. Akimov et al. (COHERENT), Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 081801 (2022), arXiv:2110.07730 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2022

  8. [6]

    Adamski et al

    S. Adamski et al. (COHERENT), (2024), arXiv:2406.13806 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2024

Show all 49 references
  1. [7]

    D. K. Papoulias and T. S. Kosmas, Phys. Rev. D 97, 033003 (2018), arXiv:1711.09773 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  2. [8]

    T. S. Kosmas, O. G. Miranda, D. K. Papoulias, M. Tor- tola, and J. W. F. Valle, Phys. Rev. D 92, 013011 (2015), arXiv:1505.03202 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  3. [9]

    B. C. Ca ˜nas, E. A. Garc´es, O. G. Miranda, and A. Parada, Phys. Lett. B 776, 451 (2018), arXiv:1708.09518 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  4. [10]

    Biassoni and C

    M. Biassoni and C. Martinez, Astropart. Phys. 36, 151 (2012), arXiv:1110.3536 [astro-ph.HE]

    2012 arXiv

  5. [11]

    Brdar, M

    V . Brdar, M. Lindner, and X.-J. Xu, JCAP 04, 025 (2018), arXiv:1802.02577 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  6. [12]

    Vilain et al

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

    1994

  7. [13]

    Erler and M

    J. Erler and M. J. Ramsey-Musolf, Phys. Rev. D 72, 073003 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0409169

    2005 arXiv

  8. [14]

    B. C. Canas, E. A. Garces, O. G. Miranda, M. Tortola, and J. W. F. Valle, Phys. Lett. B761, 450 (2016), arXiv:1608.02671 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  9. [15]

    Giunti, Phys

    C. Giunti, Phys. Rev. D 101, 035039 (2020), arXiv:1909.00466 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  10. [16]

    S. P. Behera, D. K. Mishra, P. K. Netrakanti, R. Sehgal, K. Ku- mar, R. Dey, and V . Jha, Phys. Rev. D 108, 113002 (2023), arXiv:2304.00912 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  11. [17]

    Verma et al., Nucl

    S. Verma et al., Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 1046, 167634 (2023), arXiv:2203.15903 [physics.ins-det]

    2023 arXiv

  12. [18]

    Strauss et al

    R. Strauss et al. , Eur. Phys. J. C 77, 506 (2017), arXiv:1704.04320 [physics.ins-det]

    2017 arXiv

  13. [19]

    Agnolet et al

    G. Agnolet et al. (MINER), Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 853, 53 (2017), arXiv:1609.02066 [physics.ins-det]

    2017 arXiv

  14. [21]

    D. a. Mulmule, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 911, 104 (2018), arXiv:1806.04421 [physics.ins-det]

    2018 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Jastram, H

    A. Jastram, H. R. Harris, R. Mahapatra, J. Phillips, M. Platt, K. Prasad, J. Sander, and S. Upadhyayula, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 772, 14 (2015), [Erratum: Nucl.Instrum.Meth.A 820, 172– 172 (2016)], arXiv:1408.0295 [physics.ins-det]

    2015 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Heikinheimo, S

    M. Heikinheimo, S. Sassi, K. Nordlund, K. Tuominen, and N. Mirabolfathi, Phys. Rev. D 106, 083009 (2022), arXiv:2112.14495 [hep-ph]. 11

    2022 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Fernandez Moroni, J

    G. Fernandez Moroni, J. Estrada, E. E. Paolini, G. Cancelo, J. Tiffenberg, and J. Molina, Phys. Rev. D 91, 072001 (2015), arXiv:1405.5761 [physics.ins-det]

    2015 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Singh, P

    T. Singh, P. Pandey, T. Mazumdar, K. Singh, and V . Raina, Annals of Nuclear Energy 60, 141 (2013)

    2013

  19. [26]

    Agarwal, C

    S. Agarwal, C. Karhadkar, A. Zope, and K. Singh, Nuclear En- gineering and Design 236, 747 (2006), india’s Reactors: Past, Present, Future

    2006

  20. [27]

    Chetal, V

    S. Chetal, V . Balasubramaniyan, P. Chellapandi, P. Mohanakr- ishnan, P. Puthiyavinayagam, C. Pillai, S. Raghupathy, T. Shan- mugham, and C. S. Pillai, Nuclear Engineering and Design 236, 852 (2006), india’s Reactors: Past, Present, Future

    2006

  21. [28]

    Agrawal, A

    S. Agrawal, A. Chauhan, and A. Mishra, Nuclear Engineering and Design 236, 812 (2006), india’s Reactors: Past, Present, Future

    2006

  22. [29]

    S. Y . Lee, Phys. Rev. D6, 1701 (1972)

    1972

  23. [30]

    D. W. Liu et al. (Super-Kamiokande), Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 021802 (2004), arXiv:hep-ex/0402015

    2004 arXiv

  24. [31]

    Agostini et al

    M. Agostini et al. (Borexino), Phys. Rev. D 96, 091103 (2017), arXiv:1707.09355 [hep-ex]

    2017 arXiv

  25. [32]

    A. G. Beda, V . B. Brudanin, V . G. Egorov, D. V . Medvedev, V . S. Pogosov, E. A. Shevchik, M. V . Shirchenko, A. S. Starostin, and I. V . Zhitnikov, Phys. Part. Nucl. Lett. 10, 139 (2013)

    2013

  26. [33]

    H. T. Wong et al. (TEXONO), Phys. Rev. D75, 012001 (2007), arXiv:hep-ex/0605006

    2007 arXiv

  27. [34]

    L. B. Auerbach et al. (LSND), Phys. Rev. D63, 112001 (2001), arXiv:hep-ex/0101039

    2001 arXiv

  28. [35]

    R. C. Allen, H. H. Chen, P. J. Doe, R. Hausammann, W. P. Lee, X. Q. Lu, H. J. Mahler, M. E. Potter, K. C. Wang, T. J. Bowles, R. L. Burman, R. D. Carlini, D. R. F. Cochran, J. S. Frank, E. Piasetzky, V . D. Sandberg, D. A. Krakauer, and R. L. Talaga, Phys. Rev. D47, 11 (1993)

    1993

  29. [36]

    D. G. Cerde ˜no, M. Fairbairn, T. Jubb, P. A. N. Machado, A. C. Vincent, and C. Bœhm, JHEP 05, 118 (2016), [Erratum: JHEP 09, 048 (2016)], arXiv:1604.01025 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  30. [37]

    Farzan, M

    Y . Farzan, M. Lindner, W. Rodejohann, and X.-J. Xu, JHEP05, 066 (2018), arXiv:1802.05171 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  31. [38]

    Billard, J

    J. Billard, J. Johnston, and B. J. Kavanagh, JCAP 11, 016 (2018), arXiv:1805.01798 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  32. [39]

    Huber, Phys

    P. Huber, Phys. Rev. C 84, 024617 (2011), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.C 85, 029901 (2012)], arXiv:1106.0687 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  33. [40]

    T. A. Mueller et al. , Phys. Rev. C 83, 054615 (2011), arXiv:1101.2663 [hep-ex]

    2011 arXiv

  34. [41]

    V ogel and J

    P. V ogel and J. Engel, Phys. Rev. D39, 3378 (1989)

    1989

  35. [42]

    Lindner, W

    M. Lindner, W. Rodejohann, and X.-J. Xu, JHEP 03, 097 (2017), arXiv:1612.04150 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Androi ´c et al

    D. Androi ´c et al. (Qweak), Nature 557, 207 (2018), arXiv:1905.08283 [nucl-ex]

    2018 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Patrignani et al

    C. Patrignani et al. (Particle Data Group), Chin. Phys. C 40, 100001 (2016)

    2016

  38. [46]

    Becker et al

    D. Becker et al. , Eur. Phys. J. A 54, 208 (2018), arXiv:1802.04759 [nucl-ex]

    2018 arXiv

  39. [47]

    P. A. Souder, Int. J. Mod. Phys. Conf. Ser. 40, 1660077 (2016)

    2016

  40. [48]

    Benesch et al

    J. Benesch et al. (MOLLER), (2014), arXiv:1411.4088 [nucl- ex]

    2014 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Aguilar-Arevalo et al

    A. Aguilar-Arevalo et al. (CONNIE), JHEP 04, 054 (2020), arXiv:1910.04951 [hep-ex]

    2020 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.