Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

A next-generation germanium detector sitting 20 meters from a nuclear reactor could measure departures from lepton-mixing unitarity down to about 0.5 percent, reaching the TeV-scale mass range predicted by low-scale seesaw models.

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

2026-08-03 17:31 UTC pith:RZ34S7KU

load-bearing objection A competent, clearly-presented sensitivity study for future Ge CEνNS reactors that gives useful design guidance but whose headline 0.005/2.5 TeV reach depends on an unproven factor-10 improvement in the reactor flux uncertainty. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2512.09027 v2 pith:RZ34S7KU submitted 2025-12-09 hep-ph hep-ex

Testing lepton non-unitarity with the next generation of Germanium-based CEνNS reactor experiments

Salvador Centelles Chuli\'a , Manfred Lindner , Thomas Rink This is my paper
classification hep-ph hep-ex
keywords lepton non-unitarityCEνNScoherent elastic neutrino-nucleus scatteringgermanium detectorsreactor antineutrinoslight sterile neutrinoseesaw mechanismelastic neutrino-electron scattering
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.

The paper argues that a scaled-up germanium detector array placed 20 meters from a 3.5 GW reactor—the same technology that recently recorded the first reactor CEνNS signal—would be sensitive enough to see the tiny departures from 3×3 lepton-mixing unitarity that low-scale seesaw models predict. If such departures exist at the level of roughly half a percent in the parameters 1−α11² and 1−α22², the experiment would reveal them at 90% confidence, and under the low-scale seesaw assumption that translates to probing new fermion masses up to ~2.5 TeV. In the alternative light-sterile regime, the same setup would exclude active-sterile mixing angles sin²2θ14 above about 2×10⁻² for mass splittings between 0.1 and 10 eV². The authors identify the reactor antineutrino flux uncertainty, not backgrounds or quenching, as the limiting systematic; a tenfold reduction in flux uncertainty improves projected limits by roughly 60%.

Core claim

The central result is that coherent elastic neutrino-nucleus scattering (CEνNS) and elastic neutrino-electron scattering receive a common, potentially sizable correction from lepton non-unitarity. In the seesaw limit, where the extra singlet fermions are too heavy to be produced, the event-rate ratio relative to the Standard Model simplifies to 2α11² − α22², which can be larger or smaller than one because the non-unitarity suppression at the vertices competes with the redefinition of the Fermi constant. This single prefactor carries the entire signal. In the light-sterile limit, both processes are modulated by the same survival probability 1 − sin²2θ14 sin²(LΔm²41/4Eν). A likelihood analysis

What carries the argument

The central objects are the non-unitary mixing matrix N, written as a triangular matrix times the unitary PMNS matrix U with diagonal αii and off-diagonal αij parameters, and two limiting regimes: the seesaw limit, where only the 3×3 active block matters and the observable is the ratio NNU/NSM ≈ 2α11² − α22² (identical for CEνNS and elastic neutrino-electron scattering), and the light-sterile limit, where the full 3×4 mixing matrix enters and both processes share the survival probability 1 − sin²2θ14 sin²(LΔm²41/4Eν). The equality of the two prefactors is what makes the reactor setup sensitive: a single measured spectral shape constrains both unitarity and sterile parameters.

Load-bearing premise

The projections assume a flat detector background of 10 counts/keV/kg/day below 1 keV and 0.5 counts/keV/kg/day above, 100% detection efficiency down to threshold, and a reactor antineutrino spectrum whose only uncertainty is a 3% normalization; if the real background is not flat or shows spectral features at that level, or if the flux has shape uncertainties of comparable size, the quoted limits in Tables I–III would degrade.

What would settle it

Run the proposed experiment (or a careful background measurement at the existing germanium reactor site) and check whether the background below 1 keV is actually flat at ≤10 counts/keV/kg/day and whether the reactor antineutrino spectrum's shape is known to a few percent. A measured background with non-flat spectral features—or an unfolded flux whose bins carry correlated shape errors comparable to the 3% normalization—would directly invalidate the projected 0.005/0.006 limits. Alternatively, a null result at the projected sensitivity from 500 kg·yr would put the low-scale seesaw interpretatio

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

If this is right

  • At the intermediate 'soon' configuration (125 eV threshold, 50 kg·yr), the experiment alone already improves current oscillation-based bounds on 1−α11² by roughly a factor 2.5, and combined with oscillation data it pushes the inferred low-scale seesaw mediator scale above ~1.1 TeV for α11 and ~760 GeV for α22.
  • If systematics are improved tenfold on flux and background and twofold on quenching, the 'future' configuration reaches 1−α11² ≈ 0.005 and 1−α22² ≈ 0.006 at 90% C.L., corresponding to mediator masses up to ~2.5 TeV.
  • In the light-sterile regime, the setup is not systematics-limited: doubling exposure or lowering threshold continues to sharpen the reach, down to sin²2θ14 ≲ 2×10⁻² for Δm²14 in [0.1, 10] eV².
  • The reactor antineutrino flux normalization is the dominant systematic; improving it by a factor 10 gives a ~63% improvement in the seesaw limit and ~54% in the sterile case, while background and quenching improvements matter much less.
  • A 500 kg·yr experiment at 150 eV threshold has sensitivity almost identical to a 50 kg·yr experiment at 100 eV, so detector-development choices can be made on engineering rather than physics grounds.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The analysis treats the reactor flux as a single 3% normalization pull with a fixed spectral shape; real spectral-shape uncertainties (e.g., from fission-fraction evolution or IBD spectrum unfolding) could degrade the projected α limits more than the quoted normalization-only pulls suggest, and would presumably also affect the sterile-limit reach near the 2×10⁻² exclusion.
  • Because the same prefactor 2α11² − α22² appears in CEνNS and elastic neutrino-electron scattering, an experiment that separates the two channels (e.g., via different energy windows, as done here) could use their ratio to cancel the flux normalization and isolate the unitarity parameters more cleanly than the single-process fit.
  • A multi-distance configuration of identical germanium detectors, rather than a single 20 m site, would cancel the common flux systematic and sharpen the sterile-neutrino mass-squared reconstruction, since the oscillation phase LΔm²/4Eν depends on baseline.
  • The TeV-scale interpretation rests on the low-scale seesaw assumption with O(1) Yukawa couplings; if the new singlet fermions couple more weakly, the same α limits would point to heavier states, so the mass reach should be read as an illustrative scale rather than a hard bound.

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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes how lepton non-unitarity arising from additional gauge-singlet fermions modifies coherent elastic neutrino-nucleus scattering (CEvNS) and elastic neutrino-electron scattering (EvES), and projects the sensitivity of an upscaled CONUS+-style germanium reactor experiment. In the heavy (seesaw) limit, the modification is an energy-independent rescaling of the total rate, approximately 2*alpha11^2 - alpha22^2; in the light-sterile limit, it is the standard short-baseline disappearance probability 1 - sin^2(2*theta14)*sin^2(L*Delta_m^2/4E). Using a likelihood with simultaneous ON/OFF reactor data, pull terms for flux normalization, quenching, background, and external oscillation constraints, the authors derive 90% C.L. projections, including 1-alpha11^2 ~ 0.005 and sin^2(2*theta14) ~ 2e-2 for an optimized 'future' configuration, and identify reactor flux normalization as the dominant systematic.

Significance. If the projections are robust, this is a valuable physics case for next-generation germanium CEvNS detectors: TeV-scale seesaw mediators are otherwise difficult to probe at low energies, and the CEvNS channel is flavor-universal, complementing CC-based oscillation searches. The theoretical derivation at O(epsilon^2) is transparent and internally consistent, and the authors correctly label the mass-scale translation as illustrative rather than a strict limit. The paper usefully isolates which experimental systematics dominate, which is directly actionable for experimental design.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III, Eq. (35), Tables I-II] The headline sensitivity (1-alpha11^2 ~ 0.005; 2.5 TeV in Table III) is obtained in the 'optimized' configuration with a factor-10 reduction of the reactor flux normalization pull to 0.3%. The manuscript states that this improvement 'could arise from combining all other existing and upcoming reactor experiments' but provides no concrete method or reference demonstrating that a 0.3% uncertainty is achievable for the specific 3.5 GW PWR at 20 m. Thermal power, fission fractions, and spectrum shape are reactor-specific; other reactor experiments do not directly calibrate this core. Since the seesaw signal is an energy-independent rescaling of the total rate, the projected reach is essentially a rate measurement, making this assumption load-bearing. With the reference 3% flux, the limit degrades to ~0.023 (Table I), corresponding to ~1.1 TeV. Please either provide a realistic error budget fo
  2. [Section III, Eq. (35), Fig. 8] The likelihood includes only a single Gaussian pull on the flux normalization; reactor antineutrino spectral-shape uncertainties and energy-dependent background shapes are not included. The non-unitarity signal is flat in recoil energy, so any shape systematic that shifts the integrated rate in the 0.1-1 keV CEvNS ROI will directly degrade the limit. A covariance-matrix treatment such as the Daya Bay spectrum covariance, or a quantitative argument for why shape uncertainties are negligible, should be added. The assumed flat backgrounds (10 cnts/keV/kg/d below 1 keV, 0.5 above) and 100% detection efficiency are also idealized; the paper should either justify these from CONUS+ background decomposition or show how non-flat backgrounds affect the projections.
  3. [Section IV.B, Fig. 9] The light-sterile projections are internally consistent, but the authors themselves note that the parameter space probed is 'mostly excluded by existing short-baseline experiments.' The claim of complementarity rests on flavor-universality of CEvNS; however, the reactor source is purely electron-antineutrinos and the signal is normalized to the Standard Model prediction. Please clarify the precise sense in which the projected sterile-neutrino limits are complementary, rather than merely weaker, to existing disappearance searches.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (5)] The third row of the N matrix appears as (alpha31, alpha31, alpha33); the second entry should be alpha32 to match Eq. (6) and the standard parametrization.
  2. [Fig. 9 caption] The caption lists thresholds as '(150, 100, 50) eV' but the text and other figures consistently use (150, 125, 100) eV.
  3. [Table III caption] The caption refers to 'current/realistic/optimistic' configurations while the rows use 'now/soon/future'; harmonize the terminology.
  4. [Section IV.A] The text says limits are extracted from a chi^2 with two degrees of freedom; for the individual one-parameter profiles shown in Figs. 5 and 10, a one-degree-of-freedom Delta_chi^2 is more standard. If the two-degree-of-freedom choice was intentional (conservative), it should be stated explicitly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; the sensitivity projections are self-contained likelihood analyses with externally imported oscillation constraints.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. The central observable ratios, (NNU/NSM)_CEνNS ≈ 2α11² − α22² (Eq. 17) and the light-sterile ratio (Eq. 26), are obtained by explicit perturbative expansion of the non-unitarity formalism, with α and sterile parameters entering as free parameters to be constrained by the projected data rather than as quantities defined by the same data being predicted. The oscillation constraints from Ref. [80] are imported as external, independent two-dimensional pull terms, and the paper explicitly quotes the external 90% C.L. limits used. The translation from a limit on (1−αii²) to a mediator mass scale in Eq. (9) is explicitly labeled by the authors as illustrative and not a strict experimental constraint ('Eq. 9 should not be interpreted as a strict experimental constraint on M'), so it is not presented as a derived prediction. The assumed flat backgrounds, 100% efficiency, and 3% flux normalization are modeling inputs for an imaginary future experiment; their fragility is a robustness concern, not a circularity. No load-bearing self-citation, fitted input renamed as prediction, or definitional identity between input and output could be identified in the manuscript.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

9 free parameters · 8 axioms · 0 invented entities

The core derivation uses only the standard non-unitary mixing parametrization and the GF redefinition. The paper-specific assumptions are experimental: flat backgrounds, 100% efficiency, normalization-only flux pull, and chosen threshold/exposure grids. The α and sterile parameters are the targets of the sensitivity, not fitted constants; the mass-scale translation is explicitly illustrative. No new particles or mediators are introduced.

free parameters (9)
  • α11
    Model parameter scanned in the seesaw sensitivity; the 90% C.L. output limits on 1−α11² range from ~0.005 (optimized, 500 kg·yr) to ~0.039 (reference, 5 kg·yr).
  • α22
    Model parameter scanned in the seesaw sensitivity; the 90% C.L. output limits on 1−α22² range from ~0.006 to ~0.086 depending on setup.
  • sin²2θ14
    Light-sterile mixing parameter scanned in the sterile-neutrino sensitivity projections.
  • Δm²14
    Mass-squared splitting scanned over the range ~10⁻¹ to 10 eV² in the light-sterile projections.
  • Flat background rate below 1 keV = 10 cnts/keV/kg/d
    Chosen background assumption for the CEνNS ROI; sensitivity numbers depend on it.
  • Flat background rate above 1 keV = 0.5 cnts/keV/kg/d
    Chosen background floor for the EνeS region; varied by a factor 10 in the optimized scenario.
  • Reactor flux normalization uncertainty ΔΦ = 3% (reference); factor-10 improvement studied
    Single Gaussian pull on flux normalization; identified as the dominant systematic.
  • Quenching k parameter = 0.162 ± 0.004
    Input from Germanium quenching measurements; 1% uncertainty used in the likelihood, with factor-2 improvement studied.
  • Threshold/exposure grid = (150,125,100) eV; (5,50,500) kg·yr
    Chosen experimental scenarios; all sensitivity statements are conditional on these choices.
axioms (8)
  • standard math The full 3×(3+m) neutrino mixing matrix is unitary, so KK† = I₃ₓ₃ (Eq. 2).
    Used to derive P=K†K and the probability prefactors in Eqs. (16)–(21).
  • domain assumption In the seesaw limit, NN† ≈ 1 − O(ε²) and off-diagonal αij ≈ O(ε⁴) (Eqs. 7–8).
    Taken from non-unitary mixing literature (Ref. [3]); truncating at O(ε²) produces the key ratio 2α11²−α22².
  • domain assumption ε ∼ mD/M and mD = Yv with O(1) Yukawa coefficients for translating α limits into mediator mass M (Eq. 9).
    Explicitly illustrative; the authors warn it is not a strict experimental constraint.
  • domain assumption At reactor baselines standard active oscillations are negligible; only ΔE4it is visible (Section II B).
    Yields the simplified survival probability P ≈ 1 − sin²2θ14 sin²(LΔm²41/4Eν).
  • domain assumption Germanium detector response: Helm form factor, Lindhard quenching with k = 0.162, Gaussian resolution with Fano factor (Section III).
    Converts nuclear recoil spectra to ionization spectra; assumed valid down to 100–150 eV.
  • domain assumption Reactor antineutrino spectrum from Daya Bay unfolded IBD data plus summation model below threshold (Section III).
    The analysis uses this spectrum; only its normalization uncertainty is treated as a pull.
  • ad hoc to paper Backgrounds are flat at 10 cnts/keV/kg/d below 1 keV and 0.5 above; detection efficiency is 100% in the ROI.
    Projection assumptions not derived from a full detector simulation; all sensitivity numbers depend on them.
  • ad hoc to paper Systematics enter as independent Gaussian pulls with reactor ON/OFF fitted simultaneously and tOFF = 0.1·tON (Eq. 35).
    Methodological choice in the sensitivity estimate; may underestimate correlated uncertainties.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 21917 in / 18946 out tokens · 193812 ms · 2026-08-03T17:31:44.578758+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Coherent elastic neutrino-nucleus scattering (CE$\nu$NS) has been experimentally confirmed using neutrinos from pion decay at rest, solar neutrinos and reactor antineutrinos. Future CE$\nu$NS experiments will foreseeable lead to precision measurements which will be a powerful tool to search for new physics beyond the Standard Model. In this work, we investigate possible deviations from unitarity in the $3\times3$ leptonic mixing matrix that controls the propagation of active neutrinos. Such deviations may originate from the mixing with additional gauge singlet fermions and depending on their mass scale and mixing, the resulting phenomenology can differ substantially. We explore two well-motivated regimes: the \textit{seesaw limit}, where the new fermions are heavy and kinematically inaccessible, leading to effective deviations from unitarity in the active sector; and the \textit{light sterile limit}, where they are light enough to be produced and participate in neutrino propagation and scattering processes. We show how these scenarios modify both CE$\nu$NS and elastic neutrino--electron scattering (E$\nu e$S), and we present the corresponding sensitivity projections for a future CE$\nu$NS reactor experiment obtained by upscaling the CONUS+ experiment, which reported the first observation of reactor CE$\nu$NS. We identify the leading experimental systematics relevant for such an upscaling and demonstrate the resulting capability to probe TeV-scale new physics. Our results highlight the strong potential of CE$\nu$NS to test the structure of the lepton sector and to search for physics beyond the Standard Model.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.09027 by Manfred Lindner, Salvador Centelles Chuli\'a, Thomas Rink.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Feynman diagram of CE [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Feynman diagrams for E [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: Left: Prefactor (2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Left: Oscillation probability of Eqs. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: ∆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: ∆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Allowed regions of the alpha parameters for three threshold values and three exposures for our detector. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: ∆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: Experimental sensitivity (exclusion potential) of light sterile neutrino searches of our reference setup [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: Detailed ∆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13: Sensitivity of CE [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14: Exclusion potential of CE [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_14.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Sub-keV energy calibration of CONUS+ via 71Ge M-shell neutron activation

    hep-ex 2026-04 conditional novelty 7.0

    Neutron activation resolves the 71Ge M-shell X-ray line at 158.7 eVee in a CONUS+ germanium detector, reducing CEvNS signal prediction uncertainty below 4%.

  2. Searches for heavy neutral lepton decays at spallation neutron sources

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0

    Current and future COHERENT detectors at the SNS can set competitive limits on HNL–neutrino mixings through pion/muon DAR production and in-detector e+e− decays, with muon mixing offering the strongest near-term reach.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

103 extracted references · 74 linked inside Pith · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Nobel Lecture: Discovery of atmospheric neutrino oscillations,

    T. Kajita, “Nobel Lecture: Discovery of atmospheric neutrino oscillations,” Rev.Mod.Phys. 88 (2016) 030501

    2016

  2. [2]

    Nobel Lecture: The Sudbury Neutrino Observatory: Observation of flavor change for solar neutrinos,

    A. B. McDonald, “Nobel Lecture: The Sudbury Neutrino Observatory: Observation of flavor change for solar neutrinos,” Rev.Mod.Phys. 88 (2016) 030502

    2016

  3. [3]

    On the description of nonunitary neutrino mixing,

    F. Escrihuela et al. , “On the description of nonunitary neutrino mixing,” Phys.Rev. D92 (2015) 053009, arXiv:1503.08879 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  4. [4]

    oscillations

    in the light sterile limit - are fit together with two background normalization parameters b<1 keV and b>1 keV, while a 3% and 1% uncertainties were assumes for the reactor antineutrino flux ∆Φ and quenching given by the Lindhard model ∆k, respectively. In addition, we allow the Weinberg angle sin 2 θW to vary within current uncertainties at low energy si...

    1900

  5. [5]

    A framework for testing leptonic unitarity by neutrino oscillation experiments,

    C. S. Fong, H. Minakata, and H. Nunokawa, “A framework for testing leptonic unitarity by neutrino oscillation experiments,” JHEP 02 (2017) 114, arXiv:1609.08623 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  6. [6]

    Measuring the leptonic CP phase in neutrino oscillations with nonunitary mixing,

    S.-F. Ge, P. Pasquini, M. Tortola, and J. W. F. Valle, “Measuring the leptonic CP phase in neutrino oscillations with nonunitary mixing,” Phys.Rev. D95 (2017) 033005, arXiv:1605.01670 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  7. [7]

    Neutrino oscillations and the seesaw origin of neutrino mass,

    O. Miranda and J. W. F. Valle, “Neutrino oscillations and the seesaw origin of neutrino mass,” Nucl.Phys. B908 (2016) 436–455, arXiv:1602.00864 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  8. [8]

    Nevertheless, our work clearly underlines the strong potential of future CE νNS experiments for future tests of the lepton sector and searches of physics beyond the standard model

    Of course, more refined studies from our experimental colleagues are needed to fully consider all potential uncertainties underlying a specific experimental setup. Nevertheless, our work clearly underlines the strong potential of future CE νNS experiments for future tests of the lepton sector and searches of physics beyond the standard model. ACKNOWLEDGEM...

    doi:10.13039/501100011033 2021

  9. [9]

    Probing CP violation with non-unitary mixing in long-baseline neutrino oscillation experiments: DUNE as a case study,

    F. J. Escrihuela, D. V. Forero, O. G. Miranda, M. T´ ortola, and J. W. F. Valle, “Probing CP violation with non-unitary mixing in long-baseline neutrino oscillation experiments: DUNE as a case study,” New J. Phys. 19 no. 9, (2017) 093005, arXiv:1612.07377 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  10. [10]

    Searching for non-unitary neutrino oscillations in the present T2K and NO νA data,

    L. S. Miranda, P. Pasquini, U. Rahaman, and S. Razzaque, “Searching for non-unitary neutrino oscillations in the present T2K and NO νA data,” Eur. Phys. J. C 81 no. 5, (2021) 444, arXiv:1911.09398 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  11. [11]

    Future CEvNS experiments as probes of lepton unitarity and light-sterile neutrinos,

    O. G. Miranda, D. K. Papoulias, O. Sanders, M. T´ ortola, and J. W. F. Valle, “Future CEvNS experiments as probes of lepton unitarity and light-sterile neutrinos,” Phys. Rev. D 102 (2020) 113014, arXiv:2008.02759 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  12. [12]

    Measuring tau neutrino appearance probability via unitarity,

    I. Martinez-Soler and H. Minakata, “Measuring tau neutrino appearance probability via unitarity,” Phys. Rev. D 104 no. 9, (2021) 093006, arXiv:2109.06933 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  13. [13]

    New ambiguity in probing CP violation in neutrino oscillations,

    O. G. Miranda, M. Tortola, and J. W. F. Valle, “New ambiguity in probing CP violation in neutrino oscillations,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 117 no. 6, (2016) 061804, arXiv:1604.05690 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  14. [14]

    Non-unitary evolution of neutrinos in matter and the leptonic unitarity test,

    C. S. Fong, H. Minakata, and H. Nunokawa, “Non-unitary evolution of neutrinos in matter and the leptonic unitarity test,” JHEP 02 (2019) 015, arXiv:1712.02798 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  15. [15]

    Effect of non-unitary mixing on the mass hierarchy and CP violation determination at the Protvino to Orca experiment,

    D. Kaur, N. R. K. Chowdhury, and U. Rahaman, “Effect of non-unitary mixing on the mass hierarchy and CP violation determination at the Protvino to Orca experiment,” arXiv:2110.02917 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  16. [16]

    Non-unitary leptonic flavor mixing and CP violation in neutrino-antineutrino oscillations,

    Y. Wang and S. Zhou, “Non-unitary leptonic flavor mixing and CP violation in neutrino-antineutrino oscillations,” Phys. Lett. B 824 (2022) 136797, arXiv:2109.13622 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  17. [17]

    Nonunitarity of the lepton mixing matrix at the European Spallation Source,

    S. S. Chatterjee, O. G. Miranda, M. T´ ortola, and J. W. F. Valle, “Nonunitarity of the lepton mixing matrix at the European Spallation Source,” Phys. Rev. D 106 no. 7, (2022) 075016, arXiv:2111.08673 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  18. [18]

    Non-Unitary Neutrino Mixing in the NO νA Near Detector Data,

    U. Rahaman and S. Razzaque, “Non-Unitary Neutrino Mixing in the NO νA Near Detector Data,” Universe 8 no. 4, (2022) 238, arXiv:2108.11783 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  19. [19]

    Probing nonunitary neutrino mixing via long-baseline neutrino oscillation experiments based at J-PARC,

    C. Soumya, “Probing nonunitary neutrino mixing via long-baseline neutrino oscillation experiments based at J-PARC,” Phys. Rev. D 105 no. 1, (2022) 015012, arXiv:2104.04315 [hep-ph]. 20

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  20. [20]

    Constraining non-unitary neutrino mixing using matter effects in atmospheric neutrinos at INO-ICAL,

    S. Sahoo, S. Das, A. Kumar, and S. K. Agarwalla, “Constraining non-unitary neutrino mixing using matter effects in atmospheric neutrinos at INO-ICAL,” JHEP 09 (2024) 184, arXiv:2309.16942 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  21. [21]

    Testing the nonunitarity of the leptonic mixing matrix at F ASERv and F ASERv2,

    J. M. Celestino-Ram ´ ırez, F. J. Escrihuela, L. J. Flores, and O. G. Miranda, “Testing the nonunitarity of the leptonic mixing matrix at F ASERv and F ASERv2,”Phys. Rev. D 109 no. 1, (2024) L011705, arXiv:2309.00116 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  22. [22]

    (17) and (23)

    present in Eqs. (17) and (23). Depending on the parameter configuration, the expected CE νNS / E νeS signal can be smaller or larger than the SM expectation indicated by the black line. Right: Exemplary CE νNS spectra for the given alpha combinations, which are chosen to receive a bisection and doubling of the events. A flux of ϕ ∼ 1.5 · 1013/cm2/s is ass...

  23. [23]

    Non-unitary three-neutrino mixing in the early Universe,

    S. Gariazzo, P. Mart ´ ınez-Mirav´ e, O. Mena, S. Pastor, and M. T´ ortola, “Non-unitary three-neutrino mixing in the early Universe,” JCAP 03 (2023) 046, arXiv:2211.10522 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  24. [24]

    Revisiting leptonic nonunitarity,

    D. Aloni and A. Dery, “Revisiting leptonic nonunitarity,” Phys. Rev. D 109 no. 5, (2024) 055006, arXiv:2211.09638 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  25. [25]

    Precision measurements and tau neutrino physics in a future accelerator neutrino experiment,

    J. Tang, S. Vihonen, and Y. Xu, “Precision measurements and tau neutrino physics in a future accelerator neutrino experiment,” Commun. Theor. Phys. 74 no. 3, (2022) 035201, arXiv:2108.11107 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  26. [26]

    Physics Opportunities for the Fermilab Booster Replacement,

    J. Arrington et al. , “Physics Opportunities for the Fermilab Booster Replacement,” arXiv:2203.03925 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  27. [27]

    Low-energy probes of sterile neutrino transition magnetic moments,

    O. G. Miranda, D. K. Papoulias, O. Sanders, M. T´ ortola, and J. W. F. Valle, “Low-energy probes of sterile neutrino transition magnetic moments,” JHEP 12 (2021) 191, arXiv:2109.09545 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  28. [28]

    T violation in nonstandard neutrino oscillation scenarios,

    T. Schwetz and A. Segarra, “T violation in nonstandard neutrino oscillation scenarios,” Phys. Rev. D 105 no. 5, (2022) 055001, arXiv:2112.08801 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  29. [29]

    Model-Independent Test of T Violation in Neutrino Oscillations,

    T. Schwetz and A. Segarra, “Model-Independent Test of T Violation in Neutrino Oscillations,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 128 no. 9, (2022) 091801, arXiv:2106.16099 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  30. [30]

    Observation of Coherent Elastic Neutrino-Nucleus Scattering,

    COHERENT Collaboration, D. Akimov et al. , “Observation of Coherent Elastic Neutrino-Nucleus Scattering,” Science 357 no. 6356, (2017) 1123–1126, arXiv:1708.01294 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  31. [31]

    COHERENT Collaboration data release from the first observation of coherent elastic neutrino-nucleus scattering,

    COHERENT Collaboration, D. Akimov et al. , “COHERENT Collaboration data release from the first observation of coherent elastic neutrino-nucleus scattering,” arXiv:1804.09459 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  32. [32]

    Improved sensitivities of ESS νSB from a two-detector fit,

    F. Capozzi, C. Giunti, and C. A. Ternes, “Improved sensitivities of ESS νSB from a two-detector fit,” JHEP 04 (2023) 130, arXiv:2302.07154 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  33. [33]

    Search for hidden neutrinos at the European Spallation Source: the SHiNESS experiment,

    SHiNESS Collaboration, S. R. Soleti, P. Coloma, J. J. G´ omez Cadenas, and A. Cabrera, “Search for hidden neutrinos at the European Spallation Source: the SHiNESS experiment,” JHEP 03 (2024) 148, arXiv:2311.18509 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  34. [34]

    Coherent Neutrino Nucleus Scattering as a Probe of the Weak Neutral Current,

    D. Z. Freedman, “Coherent Neutrino Nucleus Scattering as a Probe of the Weak Neutral Current,” Phys. Rev. D 9 (1974) 1389–1392

    1974

  35. [35]

    Direct observation of coherent elastic antineutrino–nucleus scattering,

    N. Ackermann et al. , “Direct observation of coherent elastic antineutrino–nucleus scattering,” Nature 643 no. 8074, (2025) 1229–1233, arXiv:2501.05206 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  36. [36]

    Probing new physics with coherent neutrino scattering off nuclei,

    J. Barranco, O. G. Miranda, and T. I. Rashba, “Probing new physics with coherent neutrino scattering off nuclei,” JHEP 12 (2005) 021, arXiv:hep-ph/0508299

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  37. [37]

    First Measurement of Coherent Elastic Neutrino-Nucleus Scattering on Argon,

    COHERENT Collaboration, D. Akimov et al. , “First Measurement of Coherent Elastic Neutrino-Nucleus Scattering on Argon,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 126 no. 1, (2021) 012002, arXiv:2003.10630 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  38. [38]

    First detection of coherent elastic neutrino-nucleus scattering on germanium,

    COHERENT Collaboration, S. Adamski et al., “First detection of coherent elastic neutrino-nucleus scattering on germanium,” arXiv:2406.13806 [hep-ex]

    arXiv

  39. [39]

    First Indication of Solar B8 Neutrinos via Coherent Elastic Neutrino-Nucleus Scattering with XENONnT,

    XENON Collaboration, E. Aprile et al. , “First Indication of Solar B8 Neutrinos via Coherent Elastic Neutrino-Nucleus Scattering with XENONnT,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 133 no. 19, (2024) 191002, arXiv:2408.02877 [nucl-ex]

    arXiv 2024

  40. [40]

    Resonant Oscillations of Massless Neutrinos in Matter,

    J. W. F. Valle, “Resonant Oscillations of Massless Neutrinos in Matter,” Phys.Lett.B 199 (1987) 432–436

    1987

  41. [41]

    Thus, we obtain for CEνNS Nlight NSM CEνNS = 1 − sin2 2θ14 sin2 L∆m2 41 4Eν . (26) 9 Similarly, for EνeS we compute the neutral, charged and interference prefactors being PN C= (Ke −iEtK †Ke iEtK †)ee ≈ 1 − sin2 2θ14 sin2 L∆m2 41 4Eν , (27) PCC = Keie−iEitK ∗ eiKejK ∗ ejK ∗ ekeiEktKek = Ke −iEtK † ee 2 , (28) Pint = Keie−iEitK ∗ kiKkj K ∗ eleiEltKelK ∗ ej...

  42. [42]

    Neutrino Masses in SU(2) x U(1) Theories,

    J. Schechter and J. W. F. Valle, “Neutrino Masses in SU(2) x U(1) Theories,” Phys.Rev.D 22 (1980) 2227. 21

    1980

  43. [43]

    Neutrino Decay and Spontaneous Violation of Lepton Number,

    J. Schechter and J. W. F. Valle, “Neutrino Decay and Spontaneous Violation of Lepton Number,” Phys.Rev.D 25 (1982) 774

    1982

  44. [44]

    2020 global reassessment of the neutrino oscillation picture,

    P. F. de Salas, D. V. Forero, S. Gariazzo, P. Mart ´ ınez-Mirav´ e, O. Mena, C. A. Ternes, M. T´ ortola, and J. W. F. Valle, “2020 global reassessment of the neutrino oscillation picture,” JHEP 02 (2021) 071, arXiv:2006.11237 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  45. [45]

    Left-right symmetry breaking in NJL approach,

    E. K. Akhmedov et al. , “Left-right symmetry breaking in NJL approach,” Phys.Lett.B 368 (1996) 270–280, arXiv:hep-ph/9507275 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  46. [46]

    Resonant conversion of massless neutrinos in supernovae,

    H. Nunokawa et al. , “Resonant conversion of massless neutrinos in supernovae,” Phys.Rev. D54 (1996) 4356–4363

    1996

  47. [47]

    Pulsar velocities without neutrino mass,

    D. Grasso, H. Nunokawa, and J. W. F. Valle, “Pulsar velocities without neutrino mass,” Phys.Rev.Lett. 81 (1998) 2412–2415

    1998

  48. [48]

    Neutrino Mass and Baryon Number Nonconservation in Superstring Models,

    R. N. Mohapatra and J. W. F. Valle, “Neutrino Mass and Baryon Number Nonconservation in Superstring Models,” Phys. Rev. D 34 (1986) 1642

    1986

  49. [49]

    Fast Decaying Neutrinos and Observable Flavor Violation in a New Class of Majoron Models,

    M. Gonzalez-Garcia and J. W. F. Valle, “Fast Decaying Neutrinos and Observable Flavor Violation in a New Class of Majoron Models,” Phys.Lett. B216 (1989) 360–366

    1989

  50. [50]

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

    CONUS Collaboration, H. Bonet et al. , “Novel constraints on neutrino physics beyond the standard model from the CONUS experiment,” JHEP 05 (2022) 085, arXiv:2110.02174 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  51. [51]

    Dynamical left-right symmetry breaking,

    E. K. Akhmedov et al. , “Dynamical left-right symmetry breaking,” Phys.Rev.D 53 (1996) 2752–2780, arXiv:hep-ph/9509255 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  52. [52]

    Novel supersymmetric SO(10) seesaw mechanism,

    M. Malinsky, J. C. Romao, and J. W. F. Valle, “Novel supersymmetric SO(10) seesaw mechanism,” Phys.Rev.Lett. 95 (2005) 161801, arXiv:hep-ph/0506296 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  53. [53]

    Constraints on elastic neutrino nucleus scattering in the fully coherent regime from the CONUS experiment,

    CONUS Collaboration, H. Bonet et al. , “Constraints on elastic neutrino nucleus scattering in the fully coherent regime from the CONUS experiment,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 126 no. 4, (2021) 041804, arXiv:2011.00210 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  54. [54]

    Full background decomposition of the CONUS experiment,

    H. Bonet et al. , “Full background decomposition of the CONUS experiment,” Eur. Phys. J. C 83 no. 3, (2023) 195, arXiv:2112.09585 [physics.ins-det]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  55. [55]

    New constraints on coherent elastic neutrino–nucleus scattering by the νGeN experiment*,

    (νGeN), Collaboration, V. Belov et al. , “New constraints on coherent elastic neutrino–nucleus scattering by the νGeN experiment*,” Chin. Phys. C 49 no. 5, (2025) 053004, arXiv:2502.18502 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  56. [56]

    First results of the νGeN experiment on coherent elastic neutrino-nucleus scattering,

    νGeN Collaboration, I. Alekseev et al., “First results of the νGeN experiment on coherent elastic neutrino-nucleus scattering,” Phys. Rev. D 106 no. 5, (2022) L051101, arXiv:2205.04305 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  57. [57]

    Final CONUS Results on Coherent Elastic Neutrino-Nucleus Scattering at the Brokdorf Reactor,

    (CONUS Collaboration)*, CONUS Collaboration, N. Ackermann et al. , “Final CONUS Results on Coherent Elastic Neutrino-Nucleus Scattering at the Brokdorf Reactor,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 133 no. 25, (2024) 251802, arXiv:2401.07684 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  58. [58]

    New Limits on the Coherent Neutrino-Nucleus Elastic Scattering Cross Section at the Kuo-Sheng Reactor-Neutrino Laboratory,

    TEXONO Collaboration, S. Karmakar et al. , “New Limits on the Coherent Neutrino-Nucleus Elastic Scattering Cross Section at the Kuo-Sheng Reactor-Neutrino Laboratory,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 134 no. 12, (2025) 121802, arXiv:2411.18812 [nucl-ex]

    arXiv 2025

  59. [59]

    RECODE program for reactor neutrino CEvNS detection with PPC Germanium detector,

    L. T. Yang, Y. F. Liang, and Q. Yue, “RECODE program for reactor neutrino CEvNS detection with PPC Germanium detector,” PoS T AUP2023(2024) 296

    2024

  60. [60]

    First constraints on the coherent elastic scattering of reactor antineutrinos off xenon nuclei,

    RED-100 Collaboration, D. Y. Akimov et al. , “First constraints on the coherent elastic scattering of reactor antineutrinos off xenon nuclei,” Phys. Rev. D 111 no. 7, (2025) 072012, arXiv:2411.18641 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  61. [61]

    CONUS+ Experiment,

    CONUS+ Collaboration, N. Ackermann et al. , “CONUS+ Experiment,” Eur. Phys. J. C 84 no. 12, (2024) 1265, arXiv:2407.11912 [hep-ex]. [Erratum: Eur.Phys.J.C 85, 19 (2025)]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  62. [62]

    Search for coherent elastic neutrino-nucleus scattering at a nuclear reactor with CONNIE 2019 data,

    CONNIE Collaboration, A. Aguilar-Arevalo et al. , “Search for coherent elastic neutrino-nucleus scattering at a nuclear reactor with CONNIE 2019 data,” JHEP 05 (2022) 017, arXiv:2110.13033 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  63. [63]

    Exploring coherent elastic neutrino-nucleus scattering using reactor electron antineutrinos in the NEON experiment,

    NEON Collaboration, J. J. Choi et al. , “Exploring coherent elastic neutrino-nucleus scattering using reactor electron antineutrinos in the NEON experiment,” Eur. Phys. J. C 83 no. 3, (2023) 226, arXiv:2204.06318 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  64. [64]

    Exploring CE νNS with NUCLEUS at the Chooz nuclear power plant,

    NUCLEUS Collaboration, G. Angloher et al. , “Exploring CE νNS with NUCLEUS at the Chooz nuclear power plant,” Eur. Phys. J. C 79 no. 12, (2019) 1018, arXiv:1905.10258 [physics.ins-det]. 22

    arXiv 2019

  65. [65]

    First Indication of Solar B8 Neutrinos through Coherent Elastic Neutrino-Nucleus Scattering in PandaX-4T,

    PandaX Collaboration, Z. Bo et al. , “First Indication of Solar B8 Neutrinos through Coherent Elastic Neutrino-Nucleus Scattering in PandaX-4T,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 133 no. 19, (2024) 191001, arXiv:2407.10892 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  66. [66]

    Reactor neutrino liquid xenon coherent elastic scattering experiment,

    RELICS Collaboration, C. Cai et al. , “Reactor neutrino liquid xenon coherent elastic scattering experiment,” Phys. Rev. D 110 no. 7, (2024) 072011, arXiv:2405.05554 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  67. [67]

    Ricochet Progress and Status,

    Ricochet Collaboration, C. Augier et al. , “Ricochet Progress and Status,” J. Low Temp. Phys. 212 (2023) 127–137, arXiv:2111.06745 [physics.ins-det]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  68. [68]

    Coherent Elastic Neutrino-Nucleus Scattering at the European Spallation Source,

    D. Baxter et al. , “Coherent Elastic Neutrino-Nucleus Scattering at the European Spallation Source,” JHEP 02 (2020) 123, arXiv:1911.00762 [physics.ins-det]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  69. [69]

    GanESS: detecting coherent elastic neutrino-nucleus scattering with noble gases,

    GanESS experiment Collaboration, A. Sim´ on, “GanESS: detecting coherent elastic neutrino-nucleus scattering with noble gases,” JINST 19 no. 04, (2024) C04041

    2024

  70. [70]

    COHERENT analysis of neutrino generalized interactions,

    D. Aristizabal Sierra, V. De Romeri, and N. Rojas, “COHERENT analysis of neutrino generalized interactions,” Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) 075018, arXiv:1806.07424 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  71. [71]

    COHERENT Enlightenment of the Neutrino Dark Side,

    P. Coloma, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, M. Maltoni, and T. Schwetz, “COHERENT Enlightenment of the Neutrino Dark Side,” Phys. Rev. D 96 no. 11, (2017) 115007, arXiv:1708.02899 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  72. [72]

    COHERENT constraints to conventional and exotic neutrino physics,

    D. K. Papoulias and T. S. Kosmas, “COHERENT constraints to conventional and exotic neutrino physics,” Phys. Rev. D 97 no. 3, (2018) 033003, arXiv:1711.09773 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  73. [73]

    COHERENT constraints on nonstandard neutrino interactions,

    J. Liao and D. Marfatia, “COHERENT constraints on nonstandard neutrino interactions,” Phys. Lett. B 775 (2017) 54–57, arXiv:1708.04255 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  74. [74]

    Coherent elastic neutrino nucleus scattering as a probe of a Z’ through kinetic and mass mixing effects,

    M. Abdullah, J. B. Dent, B. Dutta, G. L. Kane, S. Liao, and L. E. Strigari, “Coherent elastic neutrino nucleus scattering as a probe of a Z’ through kinetic and mass mixing effects,” Phys. Rev. D 98 no. 1, (2018) 015005, arXiv:1803.01224 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  75. [75]

    Joint analysis of reactor and accelerator CEνNS data on germanium: implications for the standard model and nuclear physics,

    M. Atzori Corona, M. Cadeddu, N. Cargioli, G. Co’, F. Dordei, and C. Giunti, “Joint analysis of reactor and accelerator CEνNS data on germanium: implications for the standard model and nuclear physics,” Phys. Lett. B 869 (2025) 139856, arXiv:2506.13555 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  76. [76]

    New physics from COHERENT data with an improved quenching factor,

    A. N. Khan and W. Rodejohann, “New physics from COHERENT data with an improved quenching factor,” Phys. Rev. D 100 no. 11, (2019) 113003, arXiv:1907.12444 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  77. [77]

    Physics results from the first COHERENT observation of coherent elastic neutrino-nucleus scattering in argon and their combination with cesium-iodide data,

    M. Cadeddu, F. Dordei, C. Giunti, Y. F. Li, E. Picciau, and Y. Y. Zhang, “Physics results from the first COHERENT observation of coherent elastic neutrino-nucleus scattering in argon and their combination with cesium-iodide data,” Phys. Rev. D 102 no. 1, (2020) 015030, arXiv:2005.01645 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  78. [78]

    Implications of the first detection of coherent elastic neutrino-nucleus scattering (CEvNS) with Liquid Argon,

    O. G. Miranda, D. K. Papoulias, G. Sanchez Garcia, O. Sanders, M. T´ ortola, and J. W. F. Valle, “Implications of the first detection of coherent elastic neutrino-nucleus scattering (CEvNS) with Liquid Argon,” JHEP 05 (2020) 130, arXiv:2003.12050 [hep-ph]. [Erratum: JHEP 01, 067 (2021)]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  79. [79]

    Coherent elastic neutrino-nucleus scattering: Terrestrial and astrophysical applications,

    M. Abdullah et al. , “Coherent elastic neutrino-nucleus scattering: Terrestrial and astrophysical applications,” arXiv:2203.07361 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  80. [80]

    Nonunitary neutrino mixing in short and long-baseline experiments,

    D. V. Forero, C. Giunti, C. A. Ternes, and M. Tortola, “Nonunitary neutrino mixing in short and long-baseline experiments,” Phys. Rev. D 104 no. 7, (2021) 075030, arXiv:2103.01998 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

Showing first 80 references.