Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 97 references

Argon CEvNS detectors at stopped-pion sources could rival low-energy weak-mixing-angle measurements and improve neutrino magnetic-moment limits by an order of magnitude.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-04 09:42 UTC pith:NKGOVVCX

load-bearing objection Useful four-experiment CEvNS projections, but the charge-radius table contradicts the paper's own chi-square, so the quoted sensitivities need a rerun with a stated statistical procedure. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2510.14015 v2 pith:NKGOVVCX submitted 2025-10-15 hep-ph hep-ex

Prospects for Exploring Non-Standard Neutrino Properties with Argon-Based CEvNS Experiments

Sam Carey , Vishvas Pandey This is my paper
classification hep-ph hep-ex
keywords coherent elastic neutrino-nucleus scatteringargon detectorsweak mixing angleneutrino magnetic momentneutrino charge radiusnon-standard neutrino interactionsstopped-pion sourceselectroweak precision testing
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper argues that argon-based coherent elastic neutrino-nucleus scattering (CEvNS) detectors at stopped-pion sources can serve as multipurpose precision probes of the weak interaction. Simulated three-year exposures show that a large argon detector could determine the weak mixing angle at low momentum transfer with precision competitive with or better than today's low-energy measurements, while the same recoil spectra would tighten neutrino magnetic-moment limits by nearly an order of magnitude and set new bounds on neutrino charge radius and non-standard quark interactions. A sympathetic reader should care because one experimental platform would simultaneously test the Standard Model's predicted running of the weak mixing angle and search for new neutrino properties that are otherwise hard to reach at the MeV scale.

Core claim

The paper argues that argon-based coherent elastic neutrino-nucleus scattering (CEvNS) detectors at stopped-pion sources can serve as precision electroweak instruments. Using simulated three-year exposures for existing and proposed argon detectors, it shows that a roughly 100-ton detector could determine the weak mixing angle at momentum transfers far below the electroweak scale with precision competitive with or better than current low-energy determinations, providing a clean test of the predicted running of the weak mixing angle. It further projects 90% confidence-level sensitivities to the neutrino magnetic moment around 10^-10 Bohr magnetons — improved by nearly an order of magnitude ove

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the CEvNS differential cross section, with its weak nuclear charge Q_W = (1−4 sin²θW)Z − N and a nuclear form factor, plus the incoherent electromagnetic correction that scales as 1/T and therefore dominates the lowest recoil-energy bins. The paper's chi-square analysis uses one global normalization pull to convert simulated event totals into projected intervals, and the recoil-energy shape — not just the total rate — is what separates magnetic-moment, charge-radius, and non-standard-interaction signals from the Standard Model.

Load-bearing premise

The projections rely on one global normalization pull (σ_η = 10%, or 5% with a proposed flux monitor) capturing all systematics, and on the background being zero (Eq. 7); if the true background floor or unmodeled systematics exceed that, the quoted limits shrink roughly proportionally.

What would settle it

Measure the low-recoil background of a ton-scale argon detector at a stopped-pion site: if the rate below about 5 keVee is not negligible compared to the Standard Model CEvNS rate, the projected order-of-magnitude magnetic-moment and NSI sensitivities, which live in those lowest bins, fail.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • A roughly 100-ton argon detector at a stopped-pion source could determine sin²θW at low Q² with precision competitive with or better than today's low-energy measurements, testing the Standard Model's running of the weak mixing angle.
  • Projected 90% confidence-level limits on the neutrino magnetic moment improve on current CEvNS bounds by nearly an order of magnitude, approaching constraints from neutrino-electron scattering.
  • Projected charge-radius sensitivity reaches 10^-32 cm², comparable to or better than existing laboratory limits.
  • Flavor-diagonal and flavor-changing non-standard neutrino interactions with up and down quarks are constrained to the few-percent level for large argon detectors, competitive with existing global limits.
  • Because the same recoil spectrum carries all these signals, a single experiment could cross-check the weak mixing angle against electromagnetic and NSI interpretations of the same data.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the proposed in-situ flux monitor is not built, the 5% systematic scenario should be read as an aspiration; the 10% numbers are the conservative projections.
  • The magnetic-moment and NSI signals are concentrated in the lowest recoil bins, so the actual reach of any argon detector is set by its threshold and background rate, not its mass alone; a future detector could deliberately push sensitivity below roughly 5 keVee to exploit this.
  • The assumed 'no background' simplification means the quoted intervals are upper bounds on precision; folding in a real background spectrum could degrade the limits by factors of order unity, though time-correlated analysis at pulsed stopped-pion sources may subtract much of it.
  • A comparison of the same detector at two baselines could separate flux normalization from new-physics spectral distortions, offering an internal cross-check not discussed in the paper.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents projected sensitivities for liquid-argon CEvNS detectors at stopped-pion sources — CENNS-10, CENNS-750 at ORNL, CCM at LANL, and the proposed PIP2-BD at F2D2 — to the weak mixing angle, neutrino magnetic moment and charge radius, and vector NSI parameters. The analysis uses the SM CEvNS cross section (Eq. 1), several nuclear form-factor models, detector parameters from Table II, and a total-count chi-square with a global normalization pull (Eq. 7), explicitly assuming no background. The central claims are that PIP2-BD with 5% systematics can determine sin^2 theta_W with precision competitive with current low-energy determinations, improve CEvNS magnetic-moment bounds by nearly an order of magnitude, reach O(10^-32) cm^2 charge-radius sensitivity, and constrain NSI parameters comparably to CHARM. The paper is a forward-projection study: no data are fitted, and all outputs are derived from SM predictions and assumed detector configurations.

Significance. If the numerical projections are correct, the paper would be a useful survey of the physics reach of argon-based CEvNS at current and proposed stopped-pion facilities, with a valuable comparison of nuclear form-factor uncertainties. The paper is clearly written, the detector parameters are realistic and referenced, and the form-factor sensitivity is quantified in Table I. However, the statistical framework as stated is not sufficient to reproduce the quoted tables, and the analysis does not exploit the spectral information that is emphasized in the physics motivation. The central quantitative claims therefore rest on an unstated or incorrect statistical procedure, which must be resolved before the projections can be used.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. IV, Eq. (7)] Eq. (7) is a rate-only chi-square: N_SM and N_Signal are total counts, not binned spectra. Because the normalization pull is separate and the first term is normalized by N_SM, for large N_SM the signal fraction is absorbed by the pull and Delta_chi^2 approaches delta^2/sigma_eta^2, independent of exposure. This explains why CENNS-10 (24 kg) and PIP2-BD (100 t) give nearly identical intervals in Tables III-VIII. Consequently, the claimed advantage of the larger detectors is not realized by the stated procedure, and the spectral distortions for magnetic moment, charge radius, and NSI — which the text emphasizes — are not used. The authors must either present a binned likelihood that uses the recoil spectra computed in Eqs. (5)-(6) or clearly state that all results are rate-only normalization-penalty projections.
  2. [Tables V-VII and Eq. (7)] The two disjoint 90% intervals in Tables V, VI, and VII are not reproducible from Eq. (7) with the SM as the Asimov data. For example, the universal charge-radius band <r^2> ~ -12.8e-32 cm^2 gives, via Eq. (12), sin^2 theta_W ~ 0.07 and Q_W ~ -9 for 40Ar, i.e., a total CEvNS rate of ~18% of the SM rate. Inserting this into Eq. (7) with sigma_eta = 10% gives Delta_chi^2 ~ 2e3, not 2.71, for every exposure considered. The second intervals in Tables V-VII therefore cannot follow from the stated statistical procedure. They appear to come from an unstated convention, possibly a shape-only or free-normalization likelihood. This affects not only the charge-radius table but also the sin^2 theta_W, magnetic-moment, and NSI projections, since all use the same framework. The true statistical procedure must be stated and the projections rerun.
  3. [Sec. IV, Eq. (7); Figs. 4-8] The analysis is explicitly background-free, but the new-physics signals to which the paper claims sensitivity — magnetic moment, charge radius, NSI — are concentrated in the lowest recoil bins (Fig. 4). At the shallow stopped-pion sites considered, beam-related neutrons and other backgrounds are not negligible, as evidenced by the COHERENT LAr measurement and CCM operations. Since Eq. (7) uses only total counts, the background-free assumption is especially optimistic: any low-recoil background floor directly degrades the limits roughly linearly. The authors should include a background model or a quantitative statement of the background floor required to achieve each projected limit, particularly for the 5% systematic scenarios.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Title/Abstract and Introduction] The facility name is inconsistent: the abstract and Sec. IV call it 'Facility for Dark Matter Discovery (F2D2)', while the Introduction says 'Facility for Dark Sector Discovery'. Please unify.
  2. [Eq. (14)] The quantities g_V^n and g_V^p are used but never defined. Define them in terms of sin^2 theta_W.
  3. [Tables V-VII] Caption wording 'Estimated two possible range' is grammatically awkward; should be 'two possible ranges' or 'estimated 90% intervals'.
  4. [Sec. IV.B.1, Fig. 5] The label 'µνe, µνµ' should be typeset as mu_{nu_e}, mu_{nu_mu}; also 'reaches improves' on page 9 is a typo.
  5. [Sec. IV.B.2, Eq. (12)] The unit analysis for <r^2> in Eq. (12) should be made explicit: the numerical coefficient depends on the conversion between cm^2 and GeV^-2. Adding this would help readers reproduce Table V.
  6. [Sec. III] Table II lists POT in s^-1, but Sec. IV.A states 'three years with each year accounting for approximately 5000 hours'. The exposure convention should be stated once and used consistently for all detectors.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: all results are forward projections from the SM cross section, literature form factors, assumed systematics, and external benchmarks.

full rationale

The paper derives sensitivities by convolving the SM CEvNS cross section (Eq. 1) with stopped-pion fluxes and detector parameters, then evaluates a standard pull χ² (Eq. 7) under explicitly stated systematic assumptions. No observed data are used; the weak-mixing-angle, magnetic-moment, charge-radius, and NSI results are parameter forecasts, not fits, so they cannot be equivalent to their inputs by construction. The assumed ση = 10%/5% systematics and the 'no background' condition set the scale of the projected constraints, which is an input-sensitivity limitation rather than circularity. Self-citations by one of the authors (e.g., refs. [30,31]) only supply alternative form-factor models and review context; they are compared alongside external models and do not carry the central argument. The negative charge-radius bands in Table V appear inconsistent with the quoted χ² given the variance term N_SM in Eq. 7, but that is a potential numerical/statistical error, not a circular derivation of an output from an input. No step in the paper reduces a prediction to a fitted parameter or to a self-citation chain. Hence the circularity score is 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper adds no invented entities and fits no data. Its quantitative reach is set by hand-assigned systematic uncertainties (10%/5%), imported detector parameters, and several load-bearing modeling choices: no background model, a CENNS10-like response applied to all detectors, a single normalization pull, and the Eq. 12 charge-radius-as-sin²θW-shift. The reader 'pays' for the SM cross section, the Helm baseline, and the flux prescription upstream.

free parameters (3)
  • global normalization systematic σ_η = 10% baseline; 5% optimistic
    Hand-set single pull parameter (Eq. 7) meant to cover flux, quenching, efficiency, and form-factor systematics. All quoted sensitivities scale with this number: the sin²θW intervals match (1/r−1)²/σ_η² = 2.71 exactly. The 5% value presumes an unbuilt in-situ flux monitor.
  • argon quenching factor coefficients = Q_F = 0.246 + 0.00078 keV⁻¹·T
    Imported from COHERENT argon calibrations; treated as exact in the recoil-to-electron-equivalent migration (Eq. 5–6) with no error propagated, despite quenching uncertainty being a leading argon CEvNS systematic.
  • detector energy resolution coefficient = σ_I = 0.58 keV √(T_I/keV)
    A single CENNS10-like resolution model is applied to all four detectors ('Assuming a detector like CENNS10 for all flux sources', Sec. IV), so the stated CCM 10 keV and PIP2-BD keV-scale thresholds are not actually used; this sets the low-energy binning where the EM and NSI signals live.
axioms (7)
  • standard math SM CEvNS cross section, Eq. 1, with tree-level Q_W, Eq. 2
    Standard-model result from the literature (Freedman 1974; Drukier-Stodolsky) used as the signal baseline; not derived in the paper.
  • domain assumption Helm form factor baseline, Eq. 3, with r0 = 0.52 fm, s = 0.9 fm
    A specific nuclear model choice; alternative form factors (Klein-Nystrand, NNLO, RMF, EFT-SM) vary the total yield by <3% (Table I) and enter only through the single systematic pull.
  • domain assumption Stopped-pion (π-DAR) neutrino flux spectra
    Fluxes follow the COHERENT prescription ([12]); the analytic Michel-spectrum and ν_μ-line forms are not given in the paper — only the POT rates and geometry (Table II). Required to reproduce the event rates.
  • ad hoc to paper No backgrounds in the statistical analysis
    Eq. 7 is applied with 'N_SM ... assuming no background'. Stopped-pion beam-neutron and steady-state backgrounds are not modeled, yet the μ_ν and NSI signals concentrate in the lowest, most background-prone recoil bins (Fig. 4).
  • domain assumption Neutrino magnetic moment cross section adds incoherently, Eq. 9, with F_ch = F_Weak
    Standard EM cross section from the literature; assumes the nuclear charge form factor equals the weak Helm form factor used for the SM term.
  • domain assumption Charge radius enters solely as a shift of sin²θW, Eq. 12
    Vogel-Engel / Degrassi-Sirlin-Marciano result. This makes ⟨r²⟩_ν nearly degenerate with sin²θW in a rate-based analysis, a degeneracy the paper does not fit jointly.
  • standard math NSI-modified weak charge, Eq. 14, vector NC only
    Standard effective-operator result (Barranco et al. 2005, quoted in the text); axial and charged-current NSIs neglected with justification.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 20162 in / 46599 out tokens · 400015 ms · 2026-08-04T09:42:32.343599+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Coherent elastic neutrino-nucleus scattering (CEvNS) provides a powerful framework for testing the Standard Model (SM) and searching for new physics at low energies. In this work, we examine the prospects for argon-based CEvNS experiments at stopped-pion sources to perform precision measurements of weak interactions and probe non-standard neutrino properties. Our study focused on the CENNS-10 and CENNS-750 detectors at the Spallation Neutron Source at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, the Coherent Captain Mills (CCM) detector at Los Alamos National Laboratory, and the proposed PIP2-BD detector at Fermilabs Facility for Dark Matter Discovery (F2D2). Using realistic neutrino fluxes and detector configurations corresponding to these facilities, we evaluate event rates and sensitivities to a range of observables. Within the SM, argon-based CEvNS detectors enable precision tests of electroweak parameters, including the weak mixing angle, at momentum transfers well below the electroweak scale. We also investigate the sensitivity of these experiments to neutrino electromagnetic properties, such as the magnetic moment and effective charge radius, as well as to possible non-standard neutrino interactions with quarks. Together, these studies highlight the potential of argon-based CEvNS experiments as a clean and versatile platform for precision exploration of non-standard neutrino properties.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.14015 by Sam Carey, Vishvas Pandey.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Total CEvNS cross section for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. CEvNS event rate per day as a function of the nuclear recoil energy (left) and expected reconstructed event rate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. (Left) Sensitivity on sin [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. CEvNS event rate per day (for PIP2-BD at F2D2) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Sensitivity (∆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. (Left) Sensitivity (∆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Sensitivity (∆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Sensitivity (∆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Sensitivity (∆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. 90% CL allowed regions for flavor-conserving NSI parameters: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. 90% CL allowed regions for flavor diagonal NSI parameters: (left) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Sensitivity (∆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_12.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

97 extracted references · 77 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    8) have the same chiral structure

    Neutrino Magnetic Moment For a Dirac neutrino, with the inclusion of a right- handed counterpart in the SM, the mass term and the magnetic moment operator (first term in Eq. 8) have the same chiral structure. This results in the magnetic moment being proportional to the Dirac mass term (m ν) with the value given in terms of Bohr Magneton (µ B) as [81], µν...

  2. [2]

    The effective charge radius modifies the neutral-current coupling of neutrinos to quarks and elec- trons and thus provides another sensitive probe of new physics

    Neutrino Charge Radius In addition to the magnetic moment, massive neutri- nos may also possess an effective charge radius,⟨r 2⟩ν, which encapsulates loop-induced effects to the neutrino- photon vertex. The effective charge radius modifies the neutral-current coupling of neutrinos to quarks and elec- trons and thus provides another sensitive probe of new ...

  3. [3]

    J. A. Formaggio and G. P. Zeller, Rev. Mod. Phys.84, 1307 (2012), arXiv:1305.7513 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  4. [4]

    K. G. Balasi, K. Langanke, and G. Mart ´ ınez-Pinedo, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.85, 33 (2015), arXiv:1503.08095 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  5. [5]

    D. Z. Freedman, Phys. Rev. D9, 1389 (1974)

    1974

  6. [6]

    Drukier and L

    A. Drukier and L. Stodolsky, Phys. Rev. D30, 2295 (1984)

    1984

  7. [7]

    Scholberg, Phys

    K. Scholberg, Phys. Rev. D73, 033005 (2006), arXiv:hep- ex/0511042

    arXiv 2006

  8. [8]

    Akimovet al.(COHERENT), Science357, 1123 (2017), arXiv:1708.01294 [nucl-ex]

    D. Akimovet al.(COHERENT), Science357, 1123 (2017), arXiv:1708.01294 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  9. [9]

    A. A. Aguilar-Arevaloet al.(CCM), Phys. Rev. D106, 012001 (2022), arXiv:2105.14020 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  10. [10]

    Colaresi, J

    J. Colaresi, J. I. Collar, T. W. Hossbach, A. R. L. Kavner, C. M. Lewis, A. E. Robinson, and K. M. Yocum, Phys. Rev. D104, 072003 (2021), arXiv:2108.02880 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  11. [11]

    Akimovet al.(COHERENT), Phys

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  12. [12]

    Ackermannet al., Nature643, 1229 (2025), arXiv:2501.05206 [hep-ex]

    N. Ackermannet al., Nature643, 1229 (2025), arXiv:2501.05206 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  13. [13]

    Adamskiet al.(COHERENT), Phys

    S. Adamskiet al.(COHERENT), Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 231801 (2025)

    2025

  14. [14]

    Akimovet al.(COHERENT), Phys

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  15. [15]

    D. K. Papoulias and T. S. Kosmas, Phys. Rev. D97, 033003 (2018), arXiv:1711.09773 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  16. [16]

    B. C. Ca˜ nas, E. A. Garc´ es, O. G. Miranda, and A. Parada, Phys. Lett. B784, 159 (2018), arXiv:1806.01310 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  17. [17]

    Cadeddu, F

    M. Cadeddu, F. Dordei, C. Giunti, Y. F. Li, and Y. Y. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D101, 033004 (2020), arXiv:1908.06045 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  18. [18]

    O. G. Miranda, D. K. Papoulias, G. Sanchez Gar- cia, O. Sanders, M. T´ ortola, and J. W. F. Valle, JHEP05, 130 (2020), [Erratum: JHEP 01, 067 (2021)], arXiv:2003.12050 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  19. [19]

    Cadeddu, F

    M. Cadeddu, F. Dordei, C. Giunti, Y. F. Li, E. Pic- ciau, and Y. Y. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D102, 015030 (2020), arXiv:2005.01645 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  20. [20]

    Cadeddu, N

    M. Cadeddu, N. Cargioli, F. Dordei, C. Giunti, Y. F. Li, E. Picciau, C. A. Ternes, and Y. Y. Zhang, Phys. Rev. C104, 065502 (2021), arXiv:2102.06153 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  21. [21]

    Aristizabal Sierra, V

    D. Aristizabal Sierra, V. De Romeri, and D. K. Papou- lias, JHEP09, 076 (2022), arXiv:2203.02414 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  22. [22]

    Atzori Corona, M

    M. Atzori Corona, M. Cadeddu, N. Cargioli, F. Dordei, C. Giunti, Y. F. Li, C. A. Ternes, and Y. Y. Zhang, JHEP09, 164 (2022), arXiv:2205.09484 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  23. [23]

    Atzori Corona, M

    M. Atzori Corona, M. Cadeddu, N. Cargioli, F. Dordei, C. Giunti, and G. Masia, Eur. Phys. J. C83, 683 (2023), arXiv:2303.09360 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  24. [24]

    Atzori Corona, M

    M. Atzori Corona, M. Cadeddu, N. Cargioli, F. Dordei, and C. Giunti, Phys. Rev. D110, 033005 (2024), arXiv:2405.09416 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  25. [25]

    Lindner, T

    M. Lindner, T. Rink, and M. Sen, JHEP08, 171 (2024), arXiv:2401.13025 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  26. [26]

    Cadeddu, C

    M. Cadeddu, C. Giunti, Y. F. Li, and Y. Y. Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 072501 (2018), arXiv:1710.02730 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  27. [27]

    Cadeddu and F

    M. Cadeddu and F. Dordei, Phys. Rev. D99, 033010 (2019), arXiv:1808.10202 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  28. [28]

    D. K. Papoulias, T. S. Kosmas, R. Sahu, V. K. B. Kota, and M. Hota, Phys. Lett. B800, 135133 (2020), arXiv:1903.03722 [hep-ph]. 14

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  29. [29]

    Aristizabal Sierra, J

    D. Aristizabal Sierra, J. Liao, and D. Marfatia, JHEP 06, 141 (2019), arXiv:1902.07398 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  30. [30]

    Coloma, I

    P. Coloma, I. Esteban, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, and J. Menendez, JHEP08, 030 (2020), arXiv:2006.08624 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  31. [31]

    R. R. Rossi, G. Sanchez Garcia, and M. T´ ortola, Phys. Rev. D109, 095044 (2024), arXiv:2311.17168 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  32. [32]

    Van Dessel, V

    N. Van Dessel, V. Pandey, H. Ray, and N. Jachowicz, Universe9, 207 (2023), arXiv:2007.03658 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  33. [33]

    Pandey, Prog

    V. Pandey, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.134, 104078 (2024), arXiv:2309.07840 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  34. [34]

    Tomalak, P

    O. Tomalak, P. Machado, V. Pandey, and R. Plestid, JHEP02, 097 (2021), arXiv:2011.05960 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  35. [35]

    Barranco, O

    J. Barranco, O. G. Miranda, and T. I. Rashba, JHEP 12, 021 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0508299

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  36. [36]

    Lindner, W

    M. Lindner, W. Rodejohann, and X.-J. Xu, JHEP03, 097 (2017), arXiv:1612.04150 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  37. [37]

    Coloma, M

    P. Coloma, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, M. Maltoni, and T. Schwetz, Phys. Rev. D96, 115007 (2017), arXiv:1708.02899 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  38. [38]

    Liao and D

    J. Liao and D. Marfatia, Phys. Lett. B775, 54 (2017), arXiv:1708.04255 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  39. [39]

    Aristizabal Sierra, N

    D. Aristizabal Sierra, N. Rojas, and M. H. G. Tytgat, JHEP03, 197 (2018), arXiv:1712.09667 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  40. [40]

    Altmannshofer, M

    W. Altmannshofer, M. Tammaro, and J. Zupan, JHEP 09, 083 (2019), [Erratum: JHEP 11, 113 (2021)], arXiv:1812.02778 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  41. [41]

    Aristizabal Sierra, V

    D. Aristizabal Sierra, V. De Romeri, and N. Rojas, Phys. Rev. D98, 075018 (2018), arXiv:1806.07424 [hep-ph]. [40]Neutrino Non-Standard Interactions: A Status Report, Vol. 2 (2019) arXiv:1907.00991 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  42. [42]

    Aristizabal Sierra, N

    D. Aristizabal Sierra, N. Mishra, and L. Strigari, Phys. Rev. D111, 055007 (2025), arXiv:2409.02003 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  43. [43]

    Billard, L

    J. Billard, L. Strigari, and E. Figueroa-Feliciano, Phys. Rev. D89, 023524 (2014), arXiv:1307.5458 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  44. [44]

    J. B. Dent, B. Dutta, S. Liao, J. L. Newstead, L. E. Strigari, and J. W. Walker, Phys. Rev. D96, 095007 (2017), arXiv:1612.06350 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  45. [45]

    Ge and I

    S.-F. Ge and I. M. Shoemaker, JHEP11, 066 (2018), arXiv:1710.10889 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  46. [46]

    Bauer, P

    M. Bauer, P. Foldenauer, and J. Jaeckel, JHEP07, 094 (2018), arXiv:1803.05466 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  47. [47]

    Abdullah, J

    M. Abdullah, J. B. Dent, B. Dutta, G. L. Kane, S. Liao, and L. E. Strigari, Phys. Rev. D98, 015005 (2018), arXiv:1803.01224 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  48. [48]

    Billard, J

    J. Billard, J. Johnston, and B. J. Kavanagh, JCAP11, 016 (2018), arXiv:1805.01798 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  49. [49]

    Aristizabal Sierra, B

    D. Aristizabal Sierra, B. Dutta, S. Liao, and L. E. Stri- gari, JHEP12, 124 (2019), arXiv:1910.12437 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  50. [50]

    J. A. Formaggio, E. Figueroa-Feliciano, and A. J. An- derson, Phys. Rev. D85, 013009 (2012), arXiv:1107.3512 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  51. [51]

    A. J. Anderson, J. M. Conrad, E. Figueroa-Feliciano, C. Ignarra, G. Karagiorgi, K. Scholberg, M. H. Shae- vitz, and J. Spitz, Phys. Rev. D86, 013004 (2012), arXiv:1201.3805 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  52. [52]

    Dutta, Y

    B. Dutta, Y. Gao, R. Mahapatra, N. Mirabolfathi, L. E. Strigari, and J. W. Walker, Phys. Rev. D94, 093002 (2016), arXiv:1511.02834 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  53. [53]

    T. S. Kosmas, D. K. Papoulias, M. Tortola, and J. W. F. Valle, Phys. Rev. D96, 063013 (2017), arXiv:1703.00054 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  54. [54]

    T. S. Kosmas, O. G. Miranda, D. K. Papoulias, M. Tor- tola, and J. W. F. Valle, Phys. Rev. D92, 013011 (2015), arXiv:1505.03202 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  55. [55]

    T. S. Kosmas, O. G. Miranda, D. K. Papoulias, M. Tor- tola, and J. W. F. Valle, Phys. Lett. B750, 459 (2015), arXiv:1506.08377 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  56. [56]

    Cadeddu, C

    M. Cadeddu, C. Giunti, K. A. Kouzakov, Y.-F. Li, Y.-Y. Zhang, and A. I. Studenikin, Phys. Rev. D 98, 113010 (2018), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 101, 059902 (2020)], arXiv:1810.05606 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  57. [57]

    O. G. Miranda, D. K. Papoulias, M. T´ ortola, and J. W. F. Valle, JHEP07, 103 (2019), arXiv:1905.03750 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  58. [58]

    Acciarriet al.(MicroBooNE, LAr1-ND, ICARUS- W A104), (2015), arXiv:1503.01520 [physics.ins-det]

    R. Acciarriet al.(MicroBooNE, LAr1-ND, ICARUS- W A104), (2015), arXiv:1503.01520 [physics.ins-det]

    arXiv 2015

  59. [59]

    Acciarriet al.(DUNE), (2015), arXiv:1512.06148 [physics.ins-det]

    R. Acciarriet al.(DUNE), (2015), arXiv:1512.06148 [physics.ins-det]

    arXiv 2015

  60. [60]

    A. A. Aguilar-Arevaloet al., (2023), arXiv:2311.09915 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  61. [61]

    Navaset al.(Particle Data Group), Phys

    S. Navaset al.(Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D110, 030001 (2024)

    2024

  62. [62]

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

    1956

  63. [63]

    S. R. Klein and J. Nystrand, Phys. Rev. C60, 014903 (1999), arXiv:hep-ph/9902259 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  64. [64]

    J. Yang, J. A. Hernandez, and J. Piekarewicz, Phys. Rev. C100, 054301 (2019), arXiv:1908.10939 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  65. [65]

    C. G. Payne, S. Bacca, G. Hagen, W. Jiang, and T. Papenbrock, Phys. Rev. C100, 061304 (2019), arXiv:1908.09739 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  66. [66]

    Hoferichter, J

    M. Hoferichter, J. Men´ endez, and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev. D102, 074018 (2020), arXiv:2007.08529 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  67. [67]

    G. Duda, A. Kemper, and P. Gondolo, JCAP04, 012 (2007), arXiv:hep-ph/0608035

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  68. [68]

    Akimovet al.(COHERENT), inSnowmass 2021 (2022) arXiv:2204.04575 [hep-ex]

    D. Akimovet al.(COHERENT), inSnowmass 2021 (2022) arXiv:2204.04575 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  69. [69]

    P. S. Barbeau, Y. Efremenko, and K. Scholberg, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.73, 41 (2023), arXiv:2111.07033 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  70. [70]

    Akimovet al.(COHERENT), Phys

    D. Akimovet al.(COHERENT), Phys. Rev. D106, 032003 (2022), arXiv:2109.11049 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  71. [71]

    Asaadiet al., inSnowmass 2021(2022) arXiv:2209.02883 [hep-ex]

    J. Asaadiet al., inSnowmass 2021(2022) arXiv:2209.02883 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  72. [72]

    A. A. Aguilar-Arevaloet al.(CCM), Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 021801 (2022), arXiv:2109.14146 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  73. [73]

    A. A. Aguilar-Arevaloet al.(CCM), Phys. Rev. D107, 095036 (2023), arXiv:2112.09979 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  74. [74]

    Toupset al., inSnowmass 2021(2022) arXiv:2203.08079 [hep-ex]

    M. Toupset al., inSnowmass 2021(2022) arXiv:2203.08079 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  75. [75]

    Coloma, I

    P. Coloma, I. Esteban, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, L. Lariz- goitia, F. Monrabal, and S. Palomares-Ruiz, JHEP05, 037 (2022), arXiv:2202.10829 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  76. [76]

    Akimovet al.(COHERENT), JINST16, P08048 (2021), arXiv:2104.09605 [physics.ins-det]

    D. Akimovet al.(COHERENT), JINST16, P08048 (2021), arXiv:2104.09605 [physics.ins-det]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  77. [77]

    De Romeri, O

    V. De Romeri, O. G. Miranda, D. K. Papoulias, G. Sanchez Garcia, M. T´ ortola, and J. W. F. Valle, JHEP04, 035 (2023), arXiv:2211.11905 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  78. [78]

    De Romeri, D

    V. De Romeri, D. K. Papoulias, and C. A. Ternes, JCAP 05, 012 (2025), arXiv:2411.11749 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  79. [79]

    Giunti and A

    C. Giunti and A. Studenikin, Rev. Mod. Phys.87, 531 (2015), arXiv:1403.6344 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  80. [80]

    Bansal, G

    S. Bansal, G. Paz, A. Petrov, M. Tammaro, and J. Zu- pan, JHEP05, 142 (2023), arXiv:2210.05706 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

Showing first 80 references.