Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Searching for neutrino polarizability at DUNE

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper projects how DUNE's near detector could probe neutrino polarizability, using coherent neutrino-argon scattering with an emitted hard photon as the most sensitive channel, with 90% CL bounds down to 1.0e-4 GeV^-3 for a 50 MeV medi

desk verdict A careful, honest DUNE-ND sensitivity study whose central 1EM reach rests on an unvalidated 3-degree forward-shower threshold that the authors themselves flag. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.16724 v1 pith:BOIX4TGB submitted 2025-08-22 hep-ph

Sam Carey , Pedro Machado , Gil Paz , Alexey A. Petrov , Alexandre Sousa , Michele Tammaro , Jure Zupan This is my paper
classification hep-ph
keywords neutrinopolarizabilityDUNEneardetectorcoherentneutrino-nucleusscatteringelectromagneticshowerslightscalarmediatormonophotonsignatureproperties
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 DUNE near detector can see the effects of an anomalously large neutrino polarizability, a property whereby a neutrino interacts directly with photons, generated by a light scalar particle coupled to both neutrinos and photons. It identifies two clean signatures: a single electromagnetic shower from coherent scattering off an argon nucleus, and two separated showers from scattering off an electron, both with no hadronic activity. After simulating signal and Standard Model backgrounds with realistic detector thresholds, it projects that the single-shower channel is the stronger one, reaching a 90% CL bound of about 1.0e-4 GeV^-3 on the neutrino polarizability for a 50 MeV mediator after one year. This would explore mediator masses from 10 MeV to 1 GeV in regions not yet excluded by current terrestrial and astrophysical bounds.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the scalar-mediator Lagrangian L_int = -(g_gamma/4) phi F_munu Ftilde^munu + (1/2) c_nu phi nubar^c P_L nu + h.c., which after integrating out phi gives the CP-odd neutrino polarizability alpha_tilde_nu = c_nu g_gamma / (4 m_phi^2). The signal process is 2 -> 3 scattering, nu + target -> nu + gamma + target, with the photon radiated from the virtual scalar line. The 1EM channel uses coherent nu + argon scattering with its Z^2 enhancement and Helm nuclear form factor; the 2EM channel uses nu + electron scattering. Event rates come from convolving MadGraph-generated matrix elements with DUNE-ND fluxes, reweighting simulated events for different m_phi values, and gene

What would settle it

Run a detailed DUNE-ND detector simulation to measure the minimum reconstructable angle of an isolated electromagnetic shower. If the beam-angle threshold proves to be 9 degrees rather than 3 degrees, the projected 90% CL bound degrades from about 1.0e-4 to 3.8e-4 GeV^-3; if it is 3 degrees or better, the quoted reach stands. A second direct check is to measure the (theta_beam, E_EM) background spectrum in the first year and compare it with the assumed Standard Model prediction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that DUNE's near detector can turn the search for enhanced neutrino polarizability into a laboratory measurement with two complementary signatures. In the model considered, a light pseudoscalar phi coupled to photons and neutrinos generates a dimension-7 polarizability operator; tree-level phi exchange during neutrino scattering produces a hard photon in the final state. Scattering on an argon nucleus produces one forward electromagnetic shower (1EM); scattering on an electron produces two separated showers (2EM). After simulating signals and Standard Model backgrounds with DUNE-ND thresholds and binned Asimov chi-square statistics, the authors find that the 1EM

Load-bearing premise

The projected reach assumes the liquid argon detector can reconstruct the direction of a single electromagnetic shower to within 3 degrees of the beam axis; the authors note that the results should be viewed with this caveat until detailed detector simulations exist.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • DUNE-ND could set the first laboratory bounds on enhanced neutrino polarizability in the 10 MeV to 1 GeV mediator-mass range.
  • The single-forward-photon 1EM search is projected to be more than ten times stronger than the 2EM search for the same mediator mass.
  • The search is systematics-dominated: reducing background systematics from 10% to 3% improves the 1EM bound by roughly a factor of two.
  • The 2EM channel degrades sharply if the shower-separation threshold is larger than 3 degrees, while the 1EM channel degrades only mildly up to 9 degrees.
  • Adding electron-photon discrimination in liquid argon, which the paper does not assume, would likely improve the reach further.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The 1EM signature is effectively a neutrino-beam monophoton search, so the same analysis machinery could constrain any neutrino-photon effective interaction with a hard-photon final state, not only scalar-induced polarizability.
  • The 3-degree beam-angle threshold is the largest experimental unknown; if real DUNE-ND resolution lands between 3 and 9 degrees, the baseline bound degrades from about 1.0e-4 to roughly 3.8e-4 GeV^-3, still competitive with existing limits.
  • Nuclear form-factor spread of 10-20% in the signal normalization is small relative to the projected reach, suggesting that first-principles argon structure calculations will be sufficient for this measurement.
  • Because the 1EM rate scales as Z^2, a higher-Z or lower-threshold near detector could improve sensitivity, provided forward electromagnetic-shower reconstruction matches liquid argon performance.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. This paper studies the sensitivity of the DUNE near detector to neutrino polarizability generated by a light pseudoscalar mediator φ that couples to neutrinos and photons. Two signal topologies are considered: two electromagnetic showers (2EM) from ν-e scattering with hard-photon emission, and one electromagnetic shower (1EM) from coherent ν-Ar scattering with hard-photon emission. The authors compute analytic differential cross sections, implement the signal in MadGraph and the neutrino-argon backgrounds in NuWro, apply detector thresholds and a χ²-based Asimov analysis, and derive 90% CL projected bounds on the polarizability α̃_ν. The main numerical result is the 1EM bound α̃_ν ≤ (1.0, 0.56, 0.17)×10⁻⁴ GeV⁻³ for m_φ = 50 MeV in Cases I, II, and Statistics-only (Eq. 5.7), and the claim that DUNE-ND can probe parameter space in the m_φ range 10 MeV–1 GeV not excluded by MiniBooNE, XENONnT, or BaBar. The paper explicitly flags its detector assumptions as a caveat pending realistic estimates of shower-angle reconstruction.

Significance. If the projected reach survives a more realistic treatment of detector angular resolution, this is the first dedicated DUNE-ND sensitivity study for enhanced neutrino polarizability and would provide a useful new terrestrial probe of light scalar mediators. The paper has clear strengths: the model-to-operator matching is taken from prior work and is parameter-free at tree level; the signal cross sections are given explicitly; the signal and backgrounds are simulated with standard tools rather than estimated only by order of magnitude; both 1EM and 2EM backgrounds are considered; and the authors state their detector threshold assumptions and their limitations. The form-factor spread is studied in an appendix. The main weakness is that the headline 1EM reach rests on an unvalidated 3° forward-shower-angle threshold that sits at the signal peak; the mass-dependent impact of this assumption is not quantified.

major comments (2)
  1. [§5, Eqs. (5.1)–(5.2); App. A] The projected 1EM bound and the statement that DUNE-ND can probe significant parameter space for the first time in the 10 MeV–1 GeV range rest on θ_beam^th = 3°. The coherent signal is suppressed at θ_beam → 0 by the sin²θ_beam factor in Eq. (3.8), so the assumed threshold sits at the signal peak. The paper reports degradation factors of 2.2 and 3.8 at m_φ = 50 MeV for θ_beam^th = 6° and 9°, but does not show how the exclusion lines in Fig. 6 move as a function of m_φ. If the effective DUNE-ND forward-shower-angle resolution is coarser, the 1EM curve can rise above the MiniBooNE/XENONnT exclusions over a substantial part of the claimed mass range. The caveat after Eq. (5.9) is appropriate, but the mass-dependent consequences need to be quantified before the first-time-reach claim is sustainable. Please provide θ_beam^th = 6° and 9° versions of Fig. 6, or a table of the newly excluded par
  2. [§5, Eqs. (5.1)–(5.2); App. A] The χ² construction treats the signal rate N_S as known; only the background uncertainty σ_B,tot enters Eq. (5.2). However, Appendix A shows that the choice of nuclear form factor changes the predicted coherent-argon signal rate by 10–20% (normalization spread in Fig. 8). Since the paper notes that the search is systematics-dominated, a 10–20% signal normalization uncertainty should shift the projected limits by a comparable relative amount. This uncertainty should either be included in the χ² construction or its absorption into the background δ_syst should be justified. This is a quantitative issue, not a conceptual one, but it is needed for the comparisons in Fig. 6 to be robust.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Eq. (4.2)] The benchmark value is printed as α̃_ν = 10⁻⁴ GeV⁻¹, but the polarizability has dimensions GeV⁻³. The correct GeV⁻³ value follows from c_ν g_γ = 10⁻⁶ GeV⁻¹ and m_φ = 50 MeV.
  2. [§2] “Note that the g_γ coupling in (2.1) has dimensions GeV⁻¹” should refer to Eq. (2.2), not Eq. (2.1).
  3. [§5] The text says the Statistics-only case is dot-dashed, while the caption and the preceding sentence describe solid, dashed, and dotted lines. Please make the line-style nomenclature consistent.
  4. [Fig. 10] The caption labels the horizontal axis as θ_eγ for the 1EM signature. The 1EM analysis uses θ_beam; please correct the axis label.
  5. [§6] “the 1EM signal events peak more toward small opening angles between the outgoing electron and the incoming beam direction” should read “outgoing photon,” since the 1EM topology is a single electromagnetic shower from a photon.
  6. [§5] “in all case taking m_φ = 50 MeV” is a grammatical slip; should be “in all cases.”

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the DUNE reach is a first-principles sensitivity projection; self-citations to the authors' prior model paper are non-load-bearing because the matching is re-derived in-text, and the 3-degree angular-threshold caveat is an unvalidated assumption, not a fitted input.

full rationale

The paper is a sensitivity projection, not a fit-to-data claim. The central result (1EM and 2EM reaches, Eqs. 5.6-5.7, Fig. 6) follows the transparent chain: tree-level scalar Lagrangian (Eq. 2.2) -> differential cross sections (Eqs. 3.3-3.8) -> MadGraph/NuWro event generation -> convolution with DUNE fluxes (Ref. [14], external) -> a chi^2 bin-by-bin comparison of signal to SM backgrounds. The 90% CL limits are the standard chi^2=2.7 Asimov sensitivity values; alpha_tilde_nu is a scanned Lagrangian parameter, not an input fitted to the projected events. No fitted quantity is relabeled a prediction: the benchmark in Eq. (4.2) is merely chosen to lie near the reach, and the m_phi rescaling uses the known propagator factor (Q_phi^2+m_phi^2)^2/(Q_phi^2+m_phi'^2)^2, a physics reweighting, not a fit. Self-citations to Ref. [2] (Bansal, Paz, Petrov, Tammaro, Zupan; four of the present authors) supply the operator conventions and the 'enhanced polarizability' mechanism, but the present paper re-derives the matching (Eqs. 2.2 -> 2.3) in full, so the citation is not load-bearing. The MiniBooNE/XENONnT exclusions used for comparison are externally falsifiable inputs from public experiments. The most assumption-sensitive element is the theta_beam^th=3-degree forward-shower threshold; however, the paper explicitly flags it: 'our results should be viewed with this caveat in mind, until realistic estimates of the theta_beam^th threshold based on detailed simulations of the DUNE-ND detector performance become available,' and quantifies degradation at 6 and 9 degrees. An unvalidated, clearly-labeled detector assumption with quantified impact is a robustness/correctness risk, not circularity: alpha_tilde_nu is not defined in terms of the threshold, the threshold is not fitted, and the assumption is not presented as a prediction. Similarly, the 'for the first time' statement depends on the assumed reach, but the comparison is transparent and its inputs are documented. Overall, the derivation is self-contained against external benchmarks; the modest score reflects only the presence of minor, non-load-bearing self-citation.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new entities; the scalar mediator phi is taken from Ref. [2]. The central claim rests on the model assumption, the validity of the tree-level matching, the nuclear form factor, and the assumed detector performance. The last category contains the hand-chosen thresholds and systematics that most directly control the quoted reach.

free parameters (3)
  • theta_th^e_gamma (2EM angular separation threshold) = 3 degrees (varied to 6, 9, 12 degrees)
    Hand-chosen detector resolution assumption. The 2EM reach degrades from alpha_nu <= 18e-4 to 670e-4 GeV^-3 as the threshold increases from 3 to 12 degrees (Section 5).
  • theta_th^beam (1EM forward angle threshold) = 3 degrees
    Assumed angular resolution for isolated forward EM showers. The 1EM reach degrades from 1.0e-4 to 3.8e-4 GeV^-3 when the threshold is increased to 9 degrees. The authors flag that this needs validation with a DUNE detector simulation (Section 5).
  • delta_syst (background systematic uncertainty) = 10% (Case I), 3% (Case II), 0% (Stat only)
    Chosen representative scenarios; the search is systematics-dominated, as the paper notes, so this choice directly affects the quoted bounds.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption A light (pseudo)scalar phi with couplings to photons and neutrinos as in Eq. (2.2) generates the enhanced polarizability operator (2.1) with alpha_nu = c_nu g_gamma / (4 m_phi^2).
    Imported from Ref. [2]; the paper does not derive this model but takes it as the working hypothesis for the DUNE reach.
  • domain assumption Neutrinos are Majorana and the CP-violating polarizability operator (1/2) alpha_nu (nu^c PL nu) F tilde-F is the dominant coupling; results apply up to O(1) to the CP-conserving case (Section 2).
    Assumed to simplify the analysis; the DUNE signatures are similar for the other operator.
  • domain assumption The tree-level 2->3 processes of Eq. (3.1) dominate over one-loop induced scattering Eq. (3.2) (Section 3).
    Justified by NDA estimates: Z^2 e^2 is small compared to 16 pi^2 for argon.
  • domain assumption The Helm form factor, Eq. (3.10), with R1 = 3.89 fm and s = 0.9 fm, describes the argon nuclear charge distribution.
    Standard choice; Appendix A shows a 10-20% normalization spread across alternative form factors.
  • domain assumption Detector thresholds: E_th = 30 MeV for EM showers, 100 MeV for hadrons, 1 degree (5 degrees) angular resolution, and 3 degrees opening angle for two showers (Section 4.1).
    Taken from DUNE CDR/TDR and assumed; the paper notes results are not sensitive to energy resolution but are sensitive to angular assumptions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Searching for neutrino polarizability at DUNE." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BOIX4TGB

@misc{pith2026250816724,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Searching for neutrino polarizability at DUNE},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BOIX4TGB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.16724}
}
read the original abstract

We perform an initial study of DUNE's sensitivity to enhanced neutrino polarizability within models of light scalar mediators. We identify two possible signatures of polarizability due to neutrino scattering on electrons and due to coherent scattering on argon nuclei. These result in either one or two separated electromagnetic showers, respectively, with no associated hadronic activity. For each signature we compute the signal rates and the relevant backgrounds, obtaining the projected reach of the DUNE near detector. We then compare this with the current astrophysical and terrestrial bounds on light scalar models coupling to neutrinos and/or photons.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Enhanced active-sterile neutrino polarizability at the intensity frontier

    hep-ph 2025-12 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    A new neutrino-photon interaction involving a sterile neutrino is constrained at NOMAD and MiniBooNE, and a light-mediator realization can fit the MiniBooNE excess.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Giunti, K

    C. Giunti, K. Kouzakov, Y.-F. Li and A. Studenikin, Neutrino electromagnetic properties, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science (2025) . – 19 –

    work page 2025

  2. [2]

    Enhanced neutrino polarizability

    S. Bansal, G. Paz, A. Petrov, M. Tammaro and J. Zupan, Enhanced neutrino polarizability, JHEP 05 (2023) 142, [ 2210.05706]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

  3. [3]

    Agostini et al., Comprehensive measurement of pp-chain solar neutrinos , Nature 562 (2018) 505–510

    BOREXINO collaboration, M. Agostini et al., Comprehensive measurement of pp-chain solar neutrinos , Nature 562 (2018) 505–510

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    Aprile et al., Excess electronic recoil events in XENON1T , Phys

    XENON collaboration, E. Aprile et al., Excess electronic recoil events in XENON1T , Phys. Rev. D 102 (2020) 072004, [ 2006.09721]

    arXiv 2020

  5. [5]

    Giunti and A

    C. Giunti and A. Studenikin, Neutrino electromagnetic interactions: a window to new physics, Rev. Mod. Phys. 87 (2015) 531, [ 1403.6344]

    arXiv 2015

  6. [6]

    M. B. Voloshin, On Compatibility of Small Mass with Large Magnetic Moment of Neutrino , Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 48 (1988) 512

    work page 1988

  7. [7]

    K. S. Babu and R. N. Mohapatra, Model for Large Transition Magnetic Moment of the νe, Phys. Rev. Lett. 63 (1989) 228

    work page 1989

  8. [8]

    K. S. Babu, S. Jana and M. Lindner, Large Neutrino Magnetic Moments in the Light of Recent Experiments, JHEP 10 (2020) 040, [ 2007.04291]

    arXiv 2020

Show all 36 references
  1. [9]

    K. S. Babu and R. N. Mohapatra, Large transition magnetic moment of the neutrino from horizontal symmetry , Phys. Rev. D 42 (1990) 3778–3793

    1990

  2. [10]

    Leurer and N

    M. Leurer and N. Marcus, A Model for a Large Neutrino Magnetic Transition Moment and Naturally Small Mass , Phys. Lett. B 237 (1990) 81–87

    1990

  3. [11]

    Altmannshofer, M

    W. Altmannshofer, M. Tammaro and J. Zupan, Non-standard neutrino interactions and low energy experiments, JHEP 09 (2019) 083, [ 1812.02778]

    2019 arXiv

  4. [12]

    H. K. Dreiner, H. E. Haber and S. P. Martin, Two-component spinor techniques and Feynman rules for quantum field theory and supersymmetry , Phys. Rept. 494 (2010) 1–196, [0812.1594]

    2010 arXiv

  5. [13]

    G. Duda, A. Kemper and P. Gondolo, Model Independent Form Factors for Spin Independent Neutralino-Nucleon Scattering from Elastic Electron Scattering Data , JCAP 04 (2007) 012, [hep-ph/0608035]

    2007 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Abi et al., Experiment Simulation Configurations Approximating DUNE TDR , 2103.04797

    DUNE collaboration, B. Abi et al., Experiment Simulation Configurations Approximating DUNE TDR , 2103.04797

  7. [15]

    Abi et al., Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment (DUNE), Far Detector Technical Design Report, Volume II: DUNE Physics , 2002.03005

    DUNE collaboration, B. Abi et al., Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment (DUNE), Far Detector Technical Design Report, Volume II: DUNE Physics , 2002.03005

    2002

  8. [16]

    Alion et al., Experiment Simulation Configurations Used in DUNE CDR, 1606.09550

    DUNE collaboration, T. Alion et al., Experiment Simulation Configurations Used in DUNE CDR, 1606.09550

    arXiv

  9. [17]

    Abratenko et al., Inclusive Search for Anomalous Single-Photon Production in MicroBooNE , 2502.06064

    MicroBooNE collaboration, P. Abratenko et al., Inclusive Search for Anomalous Single-Photon Production in MicroBooNE , 2502.06064

    arXiv

  10. [18]

    MiniBooNE collaboration, A. A. Aguilar-Arevalo et al., Significant Excess of ElectronLike Events in the MiniBooNE Short-Baseline Neutrino Experiment , Phys. Rev. Lett. 121 (2018) 221801, [1805.12028]

    2018 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Alwall, R

    J. Alwall, R. Frederix, S. Frixione, V. Hirschi, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer et al., The automated computation of tree-level and next-to-leading order differential cross sections, and their matching to parton shower simulations , JHEP 07 (2014) 079, [ 1405.0301]

    2014 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Golan, J

    T. Golan, J. T. Sobczyk and J. Zmuda, NuWro: the Wroclaw Monte Carlo Generator of Neutrino Interactions, Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl. 229-232 (2012) 499–499. – 20 –

    2012

  13. [21]

    Conducting beyond the standard model searches in the microboone detector with machine learning

    V. Bhelande, “Conducting beyond the standard model searches in the microboone detector with machine learning.” https://indico.fnal.gov/event/68479/contributions/319827/, Fermilab New Perspectives, 2025

    2025

  14. [22]

    Aprile et al., Search for New Physics in Electronic Recoil Data from XENONnT, Phys

    XENON collaboration, E. Aprile et al., Search for New Physics in Electronic Recoil Data from XENONnT, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129 (2022) 161805, [ 2207.11330]

    2022 arXiv

  15. [23]

    BaBar collaboration, J. P. Lees et al., Search for Invisible Decays of a Dark Photon Produced in e+e− Collisions at BaBar , Phys. Rev. Lett. 119 (2017) 131804, [ 1702.03327]

    2017 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Blinov, K

    N. Blinov, K. J. Kelly, G. Z. Krnjaic and S. D. McDermott, Constraining the Self-Interacting Neutrino Interpretation of the Hubble Tension , Phys. Rev. Lett. 123 (2019) 191102, [1905.02727]

    2019 arXiv

  17. [25]

    A. P. Lessa and O. L. G. Peres, Revising limits on neutrino-Majoron couplings , Phys. Rev. D 75 (2007) 094001, [ hep-ph/0701068]

    2007 arXiv

  18. [26]

    P. S. Pasquini and O. L. G. Peres, Bounds on Neutrino-Scalar Yukawa Coupling , Phys. Rev. D 93 (2016) 053007, [ 1511.01811]

    2016 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Lucente, P

    G. Lucente, P. Carenza, T. Fischer, M. Giannotti and A. Mirizzi, Heavy axion-like particles and core-collapse supernovae: constraints and impact on the explosion mechanism , Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2020 (Dec, 2020) 008–008

    2020

  20. [28]

    Caputo, G

    A. Caputo, G. Raffelt and E. Vitagliano, Radiative transfer in stars by feebly interacting bosons, JCAP 08 (2022) 045, [ 2204.11862]

    2022 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Caputo, G

    A. Caputo, G. Raffelt and E. Vitagliano, Muonic boson limits: Supernova redux , Phys. Rev. D 105 (2022) 035022, [ 2109.03244]

    2022 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Gehrlein, I

    J. Gehrlein, I. M. Shoemaker and A. Thapa, Monophotons at Neutrino Experiments from Neutrino Polarizability , 2506.14881

    arXiv

  23. [31]

    Dutta, A

    B. Dutta, A. Karthikeyan, D. Kim, A. Thompson and R. G. Van de Water, Photon Excess from Dark Matter and Neutrino Scattering at MiniBooNE and MicroBooNE , 2504.08071

    arXiv

  24. [32]

    R. H. Helm, Inelastic and Elastic Scattering of 187-Mev Electrons from Selected Even-Even Nuclei, Phys.Rev. 104 (1956) 1466–1475

    1956

  25. [33]

    S. R. Klein and J. Nystrand, Exclusive vector meson production in relativistic heavy ion collisions, Phys. Rev. C 60 (1999) 014903, [ hep-ph/9902259]

    1999 arXiv

  26. [34]

    J. Yang, J. A. Hernandez and J. Piekarewicz, Electroweak probes of ground state densities , Phys. Rev. C 100 (2019) 054301, [ 1908.10939]

    2019 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Van Dessel, V

    N. Van Dessel, V. Pandey, H. Ray and N. Jachowicz, Cross Sections for Coherent Elastic and Inelastic Neutrino-Nucleus Scattering , Universe 9 (2023) 207, [ 2007.03658]

    2023 arXiv

  28. [36]

    C. G. Payne, S. Bacca, G. Hagen, W. Jiang and T. Papenbrock, Coherent elastic neutrino-nucleus scattering on 40Ar from first principles , Phys. Rev. C 100 (2019) 061304, [1908.09739]. – 21 –

    2019 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.