arxiv: 2603.19467 · v1 · submitted 2026-03-19 · ✦ hep-ph

Recognition: no theorem link

Solar Neutrino Probes of Light New Physics: Updated Limits from LUX-ZEPLIN Experiment

Mehmet Demirci , M. Fauzi Mustamin

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 08:00 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ph

keywords solar neutrinoslight mediatorsneutrino-electron scatteringLUX-ZEPLINnew physicsU(1)' extensionselectron recoils

0 comments

The pith

LUX-ZEPLIN sets improved limits on light mediator models using solar neutrino scattering.

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

The paper establishes updated constraints on light new physics by analyzing solar neutrino-electron scattering in the LUX-ZEPLIN experiment's low-energy electron recoil data. It considers universal light mediator models with scalar, vector, and tensor interactions as well as anomaly-free leptophilic U(1)' extensions. Precise solar neutrino flux predictions are used to modify the scattering cross section and fit to the observed events. This yields novel bounds on the coupling versus mass parameter space. Sympathetic readers would care as these limits test previously unexplored regions for new particles that could couple to neutrinos and electrons.

Core claim

Incorporating contributions from scalar, vector, and tensor light mediator interactions consistent with Lorentz invariance and from vector mediators in anomaly-free leptophilic U(1)' gauge extensions with symmetries Le-Lμ, Le-Lτ, Lμ-Lτ, and Le+2Lμ+2Lτ into the neutrino-electron scattering cross-section, and analyzing the latest LZ ER datasets with the most precise solar neutrino flux predictions, we report novel constraints on the coupling-mass parameter space that demonstrate significantly improved limits in previously unconstrained regions.

What carries the argument

The neutrino-electron scattering cross-section modified by contributions from light mediators, applied to solar neutrino fluxes and compared to LZ electron recoil observations.

If this is right

New upper limits are derived for the coupling strengths of light scalar, vector, and tensor mediators as a function of their mass.
Constraints are obtained for the parameter space of specific leptophilic U(1)' models associated with lepton flavor symmetries.
LZ bounds are shown to be competitive or stronger than those from laboratory experiments, cosmology, and astrophysics in certain regimes.
These results indicate that direct detection experiments can effectively probe light new physics through solar neutrino interactions.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

Such constraints may limit the viability of light mediator models proposed to address neutrino-related puzzles.
Similar analyses could be extended to other direct detection experiments or future runs of LZ for even stronger bounds.
Connections to astrophysical neutrino sources might offer additional tests of these interaction models.
Model builders could use these limits to guide the construction of viable extensions beyond the standard model.

Load-bearing premise

The limits depend on the assumption that solar neutrino flux predictions are precise and that the electron recoil events arise from neutrino scattering without substantial unmodeled backgrounds or systematics.

What would settle it

Detection of a low-energy electron recoil rate in LZ that significantly deviates from the expected rate including the new physics contributions would falsify the reported constraints.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.19467 by Mehmet Demirci, M. Fauzi Mustamin.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: FIG. 2. Electron recoil energy distributions for light mediator models and LZ data (black points with error bars) in the (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: FIG. 3. The 90% C.L. upper limits on the mass-coupling plane of the universal light scalar mediator from the LZ WS2022 and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. The 90% C.L. upper limits on the mass-coupling plane of the universal light vector mediator from the LZ WS2022 and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. The 90% C.L. upper limits on the mass-coupling plane of the universal light tensor mediator from the LZ WS2022 and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6. The 90% C.L. upper limits on the mass-coupling plane of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: FIG. 7. The 90% C.L. upper limits on the mass-coupling plane of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: FIG. 8. The 90% C.L. upper limits on the mass-coupling plane of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: FIG. 9. The 90% C.L. upper limits on the mass-coupling plane of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

The recent low-energy electron recoil (ER) results reported by the LUX-ZEPLIN (LZ) experiment have established the most stringent constraints to date on new physics scenarios, specifically for solar axion-like particles with keV-scale masses and mirror dark matter. Motivated by this enhanced sensitivity and the resulting restrictive limits, our present work focuses on probing light mediator models via elastic neutrino-electron scattering induced by solar neutrinos. We specifically consider two broad classes of new physics scenarios: (i) universal light mediator models consistent with Lorentz invariance, including scalar, vector, and tensor interactions, and (ii) anomaly-free leptophilic $U(1)'$ gauge extensions featuring a new vector mediator associated with the $L_e-L_\mu$, $L_e-L_\tau$, $L_\mu-L_\tau$, and $L_e+2L_\mu+2L_\tau$ symmetries. By incorporating contributions from these interactions into the neutrino-electron scattering cross-section and utilizing the most precise solar neutrino flux predictions, we analyze the latest LZ ER datasets. We report novel constraints on the coupling-mass parameter space for these models. Furthermore, we contextualize our findings by comparing them with established bounds from various laboratory, cosmological, and astrophysical sources. Our analysis demonstrates that LZ data provide significantly improved limits in previously unconstrained regions of the parameter space.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

LZ data tightens some light-mediator bounds but the gains rest on fixed solar fluxes without clear marginalization.

read the letter

This paper applies the newest LZ low-energy electron-recoil dataset to elastic solar neutrino scattering and extracts updated exclusion regions for scalar, vector, tensor mediators plus a handful of anomaly-free leptophilic U(1)' models. The calculation folds the new interactions into the differential cross section, adopts the most precise solar flux predictions, and maps the resulting limits onto the coupling-mass plane while overlaying existing laboratory, cosmological, and astrophysical bounds. That last step is the part that actually helps readers: it shows concretely where LZ now cuts into previously open parameter space for these specific models. The work is a competent, incremental update rather than a methodological leap, but it does deliver numbers that were not in the cited literature before. The central limitation is the handling of solar flux uncertainties. The text quotes the best-available fluxes but gives no indication that their normalizations or spectral shapes are varied inside the likelihood; if the 8B or hep uncertainties are held fixed, the exclusion contours can move by O(1) factors once those errors are propagated. Background modeling for the ER spectrum is also described only at a high level, so it is difficult to judge how sub-dominant contributions are controlled. If the full manuscript shows explicit checks on these points, the results strengthen; otherwise the headline claim of “significantly improved limits in previously unconstrained regions” needs qualification. This is the sort of targeted constraint paper that neutrino BSM phenomenologists will want to consult for the latest numbers. It is grounded enough in real data to deserve referee time, even if the referees will need to verify the uncertainty treatment. I would send it to review.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript analyzes elastic solar neutrino-electron scattering in the LUX-ZEPLIN (LZ) experiment to derive updated limits on light mediator models. It incorporates scalar, vector, and tensor interactions (universal Lorentz-invariant class) plus anomaly-free leptophilic U(1)' vector mediators (Le-Lμ, Le-Lτ, Lμ-Lτ, Le+2Lμ+2Lτ) into the differential cross section, employs the most precise solar neutrino flux predictions, and fits the latest LZ low-energy electron-recoil data to extract novel constraints on the mediator mass-coupling plane, claiming significantly improved bounds in previously unconstrained regions relative to laboratory, cosmological, and astrophysical limits.

Significance. If the central results hold after addressing uncertainty propagation, the work supplies timely, complementary constraints on light new physics using solar neutrinos as a probe. The explicit comparison of LZ-derived contours with existing bounds from other sources strengthens the paper's utility for model-building and future experimental planning in the sub-GeV mediator regime.

major comments (2)

[Analysis and Results] The headline claim of significantly improved limits rests on fixed solar neutrino flux normalizations (8B, hep, etc.) without marginalization over their uncertainties. Because the expected event rate scales linearly with flux, an unpropagated O(10-20%) flux uncertainty can shift the exclusion contours by O(1) factors in the coupling-mass plane; this is load-bearing for the “previously unconstrained regions” assertion (see Analysis and Results sections).
[Data Analysis] Background modeling and systematic uncertainties for the ER spectrum are not detailed. The attribution of all observed events to neutrino scattering plus modeled backgrounds is central to the limit extraction; without explicit treatment of sub-dominant ER backgrounds or their uncertainties, the robustness of the new constraints cannot be assessed (see Data Analysis section).

minor comments (2)

[Abstract] The abstract states that “most precise” fluxes are used but does not specify whether any flux-related nuisance parameters are floated; a one-sentence clarification would improve readability.
[Model Definitions] Notation for the new-physics couplings (e.g., g_φ, g_V) should be defined once in the text before the first use in equations to avoid ambiguity for readers.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thorough review and valuable comments on our manuscript. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript accordingly to enhance the robustness of our analysis.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Analysis and Results] The headline claim of significantly improved limits rests on fixed solar neutrino flux normalizations (8B, hep, etc.) without marginalization over their uncertainties. Because the expected event rate scales linearly with flux, an unpropagated O(10-20%) flux uncertainty can shift the exclusion contours by O(1) factors in the coupling-mass plane; this is load-bearing for the “previously unconstrained regions” assertion (see Analysis and Results sections).

Authors: We agree that propagating the solar neutrino flux uncertainties is important for a complete assessment of the limits. In the original analysis, we used the central values from the most precise predictions available. However, to strengthen the results, we have now included a marginalization over the flux normalizations as nuisance parameters in the likelihood fit, using their reported uncertainties (e.g., ~2% for 8B, larger for hep but with smaller contribution). The revised contours remain significantly improved in the relevant regions, though slightly more conservative. We have updated the Analysis and Results sections to describe this procedure and present the updated figures. revision: yes
Referee: [Data Analysis] Background modeling and systematic uncertainties for the ER spectrum are not detailed. The attribution of all observed events to neutrino scattering plus modeled backgrounds is central to the limit extraction; without explicit treatment of sub-dominant ER backgrounds or their uncertainties, the robustness of the new constraints cannot be assessed (see Data Analysis section).

Authors: We appreciate this point. The LZ data analysis relies on the background model published by the LZ collaboration, which includes detailed modeling of ER backgrounds such as those from 214Pb, 85Kr, and other sources. In the revised manuscript, we have expanded the Data Analysis section to provide a more explicit description of these backgrounds, their contributions to the low-energy spectrum, and how their systematic uncertainties are incorporated into the limit-setting procedure. This includes referencing the relevant LZ papers and adding a brief discussion on the impact of these uncertainties on our new physics limits. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: limits derived from independent SSM fluxes and LZ data

full rationale

The paper computes modified neutrino-electron scattering rates by adding new-physics contributions to the SM cross section, folds them with external standard solar model flux predictions, and compares the resulting event spectrum to the published LZ ER dataset to extract coupling-mass limits. The solar fluxes are taken from independent SSM calculations; the LZ spectrum is independent experimental data. No parameter is fitted to the LZ data and then re-labeled as a prediction, no self-citation supplies a uniqueness theorem or ansatz that the present work relies upon, and no known empirical pattern is merely renamed. The derivation chain therefore remains self-contained against external inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard particle-physics cross-section formulas and solar-model flux predictions rather than new free parameters or invented entities introduced by the paper.

axioms (2)

standard math Standard Model neutrino-electron scattering cross section is known and accurate
Baseline used before adding new-physics contributions.
domain assumption Solar neutrino fluxes are accurately predicted by standard solar models
Incorporated directly into the rate calculation as stated in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5544 in / 1173 out tokens · 45353 ms · 2026-05-15T08:00:18.522947+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

92 extracted references · 92 canonical work pages

[1]

Such an interaction introduces an additional scalar current in EνES processes

Universal scalar We begin by examining a light scalar mediatorϕthat couples in a universal manner to all charged leptons and neutrino flavors in the SM. Such an interaction introduces an additional scalar current in EνES processes. The cor- responding interaction Lagrangian is expressed as [17] Lϕ ⊃ −ϕ ge ϕ¯ee+gνℓ ϕ ¯νℓRνℓL +h.c. ,(2.8) where the scalar c...

work page
[2]

Universal vector We next examine a light vector mediator, denoted by Z ′, which couples in a universal manner to SM electrons and neutrinos. The associated interaction Lagrangian takes the form LZ′ ⊃Z ′ µ Qe Z′ge Z′¯eγµe+Q νℓ Z′gνℓ Z′ ¯νℓLγµνℓL ,(2.10) where the vector coupling constantsg e Z′ andg νℓ Z′ are for electron and neutrino, respectively. The ve...

work page
[3]

The distinction between these two models becomes apparent in CEνNS processes, in which quark charges contribute and differ by an overall factor of 1/3 [42, 43]

With this choice, the resulting cross section closely resembles that of the well-studiedU(1) B−L model, where the corresponding charges satisfyQ e Z′ =Q νℓ Z′ =−1. The distinction between these two models becomes apparent in CEνNS processes, in which quark charges contribute and differ by an overall factor of 1/3 [42, 43]. However, for EνES, where only le...

work page
[4]

The cor- responding interaction Lagrangian can be written as [44] LT ⊃ ge T¯eσµνe−g νl T ¯νℓRσµννℓL Tµν,(2.12) whereσ µν =i(γ µγν −γ νγµ)/2

Universal tensor We next examine a light tensor mediator T that cou- ples universally to SM electrons and neutrinos. The cor- responding interaction Lagrangian can be written as [44] LT ⊃ ge T¯eσµνe−g νl T ¯νℓRσµννℓL Tµν,(2.12) whereσ µν =i(γ µγν −γ νγµ)/2. Here,g e T andg νℓ T de- note the tensor couplings to electrons and neutrinos of flavorℓ, respectiv...

work page
[5]

Lepton flavor-dependentU(1) ′ models:L e −L µ, Le −L τ ,L µ −L τ , andL e + 2Lµ + 2Lτ The class ofU(1) ′ extensions considered here is purely leptonic in nature. These models constitute some of the simplest realizations of a new vector mediatorZ ′, as gauge anomaly cancellation can be achieved without in- troducing fermions beyond those already present in...

work page
[6]

The survival and transition proba- bilities depend on the mixing anglesϑ 12,ϑ 13, andϑ 23

cos(2ϑ12) + sin2 ϑ13 sin2 ϑ m 13, (3.7) where the superscriptmdenotes quantities modified by solar matter effects. The survival and transition proba- bilities depend on the mixing anglesϑ 12,ϑ 13, andϑ 23. In our analysis, we incorporate the day–night asym- metry arising from Earth matter effects when evaluating these probabilities. For numerical inputs, ...

work page
[7]

Davis, Jr., D

R. Davis, Jr., D. S. Harmer and K. C. Hoffman, Phys. Rev. Lett.20, 1205-1209 (1968)

work page 1968
[8]

Anselmannet al.(GALLEX Collaboration), Phys

P. Anselmannet al.(GALLEX Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B285, 376-389 (1992)

work page 1992
[9]

B. T. Cleveland, T. Daily, R. Davis Jr., J. R. Distel, K. Lande, C. K. Lee, P. S. Wildenhain and J. Ullman, Astrophys. J.496, 505-526 (1998)

work page 1998
[10]

J. N. Abdurashitovet al.(SAGE Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett.83, 4686-4689 (1999)

work page 1999
[11]

Q. R. Ahmadet al.(SNO Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett.89, 011301 (2002)

work page 2002
[12]

S. N. Ahmedet al.(SNO Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 181301 (2004)

work page 2004
[13]

Aharmimet al.(SNO Collaboration), Phys

B. Aharmimet al.(SNO Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 111301 (2008)

work page 2008
[14]

K. S. Hirataet al.(Kamiokande-II Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett.63, 16 (1989)

work page 1989
[15]

Fukudaet al.(Super-Kamiokande Collaboration), Phys

S. Fukudaet al.(Super-Kamiokande Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett.86, 5651-5655 (2001). 13

work page 2001
[16]

Arpesellaet al.(Borexino Collaboration), Phys

C. Arpesellaet al.(Borexino Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B658, 101-108 (2008)

work page 2008
[17]

Belliniet al.(Borexino Collaboration), Phys

G. Belliniet al.(Borexino Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 82, 033006 (2010)

work page 2010
[18]

’t Hooft, Phys

G. ’t Hooft, Phys. Lett. B37, 195-196 (1971)

work page 1971
[19]

J. N. Bahcall, M. Kamionkowski and A. Sirlin, Phys. Rev. D51, 6146-6158 (1995)

work page 1995
[20]

Drukier and L

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

work page 1984
[21]

M. W. Goodman and E. Witten, Phys. Rev. D31, 3059 (1985)

work page 1985
[22]

A. K. Drukier, K. Freese and D. N. Spergel, Phys. Rev. D33, 3495-3508 (1986)

work page 1986
[23]

D. G. Cerde˜ no, M. Fairbairn, T. Jubb, P. A. N. Machado, A. C. Vincent and C. Bœhm, J. High Energ. Phys.2016, 118 (2016) [erratum: J. High Energ. Phys.2016, 48 (2016)]

work page 2016
[24]

Schwemberger and T

T. Schwemberger and T. T. Yu, Phys. Rev. D106, 015002 (2022)

work page 2022
[25]

Aprileet al.(XENON Collaboration), JCAP11, 031 (2020)

E. Aprileet al.(XENON Collaboration), JCAP11, 031 (2020)

work page 2020
[26]

Aprileet al.(XENON Collaboration), Phys

E. Aprileet al.(XENON Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 161805 (2022)

work page 2022
[27]

Caoet al.(PandaX Collaboration), Sci

X. Caoet al.(PandaX Collaboration), Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron.57, 1476-1494 (2014)

work page 2014
[28]

Cuiet al.(PandaX-II Collaboration), Phys

X. Cuiet al.(PandaX-II Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 181302 (2017)

work page 2017
[29]

Zenget al.(PandaX Collaboration), Phys

X. Zenget al.(PandaX Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 041001 (2025)

work page 2025
[30]

D. S. Akeribet al.(LUX-ZEPLIN Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 161301 (2016)

work page 2016
[31]

D. S. Akeribet al.(LUX-ZEPLIN Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D101, 052002 (2020)

work page 2020
[32]

Aalberset al.(LUX-ZEPLIN Collaboration), Phys

J. Aalberset al.(LUX-ZEPLIN Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 041002 (2023)

work page 2023
[33]

Aalberset al.(LUX-ZEPLIN Collaboration), Phys

J. Aalberset al.(LUX-ZEPLIN Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 011802 (2025)

work page 2025
[34]

D. S. Akeribet al.(LUX-ZEPLIN Collaboration), [arXiv:2511.17350 [hep-ex]]

work page arXiv
[35]

Pesudoet al.(DarkSide-20k Collaboration), J

V. Pesudoet al.(DarkSide-20k Collaboration), J. Phys.: Conf. Ser.2156, 012043 (2021)

work page 2021
[36]

Aalberset al.(DARWIN Collaboration), Eur

J. Aalberset al.(DARWIN Collaboration), Eur. Phys. J. C80, 1133 (2020)

work page 2020
[37]

Aalberset al., J

J. Aalberset al., J. Phys. G50, 013001 (2023)

work page 2023
[38]

Cirelli, E

M. Cirelli, E. Del Nobile and P. Panci, JCAP10, 019 (2013)

work page 2013
[39]

Abdallah, H

J. Abdallah, H. Araujo, A. Arbey, A. Ashkenazi, A. Belyaev, J. Berger, C. Boehm, A. Boveia, A. Bren- nan and J. Brooke, Phys. Dark Univ.9-10, 8-23 (2015)

work page 2015
[40]

R. N. Mohapatra and R. E. Marshak, Phys. Rev. Lett. 44, 1316-1319 (1980) [erratum: Phys. Rev. Lett.44, 1643 (1980)]

work page 1980
[41]

X. G. He, G. C. Joshi, H. Lew and R. R. Volkas, Phys. Rev. D44, 2118-2132 (1991)

work page 1991
[42]

Navaset al.(Particle Data Group), Phys

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

work page 2024
[43]

Erler and S

J. Erler and S. Su, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.71, 119 (2013)

work page 2013
[44]

Atzori Corona, M

M. Atzori Corona, M. Cadeddu, N. Cargioli, F. Dordei and C. Giunti, Phys. Rev. D112, 015007 (2025)

work page 2025
[45]

J. A. Formaggio and G. P. Zeller, Rev. Mod. Phys.84, 1307-1341 (2012)

work page 2012
[46]

B. C. Allanach, J. Davighi and S. Melville, J. High Energ. Phys.2019, 82 (2019) [erratum: J. High Energ. Phys. 2019, 64 (2019)]

work page 2019
[47]

Ballett, M

P. Ballett, M. Hostert, S. Pascoli, Y. F. Perez-Gonzalez, Z. Tabrizi, and R. Z. Funchal, Phys. Rev. D100, 055012 (2019)

work page 2019
[48]

De Romeri, O

V. De Romeri, O. G. Miranda, D. K. Papoulias, G. Sanchez Garcia, M. T´ ortola and J. W. F. Valle, J. High Energ. Phys.2023, 35 (2023)

work page 2023
[49]

Demirci and M

M. Demirci and M. F. Mustamin, Phys. Rev. D109, 015021 (2024)

work page 2024
[50]

Barranco, A

J. Barranco, A. Bolanos, E. A. Garces, O. G. Miranda and T. I. Rashba, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A27, 1250147 (2012)

work page 2012
[51]

Atzori Corona, M

M. Atzori Corona, M. Cadeddu, N. Cargioli, F. Dordei, C. Giunti, Y. F. Li, E. Picciau, C. A. Ternes and Y. Y. Zhang, J. High Energ. Phys.2022, 109 (2022)

work page 2022
[52]

Coloma, M

P. Coloma, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, M. Maltoni, J. P. Pinheiro and S. Urrea, J. High Energ. Phys.2022, 138 (2022)

work page 2022
[53]

Gninenko and D

S. Gninenko and D. Gorbunov, Phys. Lett. B823, 136739 (2021)

work page 2021
[54]

Demirci and M

M. Demirci and M. F. Mustamin, Phys. Rev. D111, no.5, 055032 (2025)

work page 2025
[55]

De Romeri, D

V. De Romeri, D. K. Papoulias and C. A. Ternes, J. High Energ. Phys.2024, 165 (2024)

work page 2024
[56]

Bauer, P

M. Bauer, P. Foldenauer and J. Jaeckel, J. High Energ. Phys.2018, 94 (2018)

work page 2018
[57]

Altmannshofer, S

W. Altmannshofer, S. Gori, J. Mart´ ın-Albo, A. Sousa, and M. Wallbank, Phys. Rev. D100, 115029 (2019)

work page 2019
[58]

J. W. Chen, H. C. Chi, C. P. Liu and C. P. Wu, Phys. Lett. B774, 656-661 (2017)

work page 2017
[59]

Thompsonet al., X-ray data booklet (2009)

A. Thompsonet al., X-ray data booklet (2009)

work page 2009
[60]

K. A. Kouzakov and A. I. Studenikin, Phys. Rev. D 95, 055013 (2017) [erratum: Phys. Rev. D96, 099904 (2017)]

work page 2017
[61]

C. C. Hsieh, L. Singh, C. P. Wu, J. W. Chen, H. C. Chi, C. P. Liu, M. K. Pandey and H. T. Wong, Phys. Rev. D 100, 073001 (2019)

work page 2019
[62]

Maltoni and A

M. Maltoni and A. Y. Smirnov, Eur. Phys. J. A52no.4, 87 (2016)

work page 2016
[63]

Esteban, M

I. Esteban, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, M. Maltoni, I. Martinez-Soler, J. P. Pinheiro and T. Schwetz, J. High Energ. Phys12, 216 (2024)

work page 2024
[64]

Pereiraet al.[LZ], JINST18(2023), C04007

G. Pereiraet al.[LZ], JINST18(2023), C04007

work page 2023
[65]

Baker and R

S. Baker and R. D. Cousins, Nucl. Instrum. Meth.221, 437-442 (1984)

work page 1984
[66]

G. L. Fogli, E. Lisi, A. Marrone, D. Montanino and A. Palazzo, Phys. Rev. D66, 053010 (2002)

work page 2002
[67]

Baxter, I

D. Baxter, I. M. Bloch, E. Bodnia, X. Chen, J. Con- rad, P. Di Gangi, J. E. Y. Dobson, D. Durnford, S. J. Haselschwardt and A. Kaboth,et al.Eur. Phys. J. C81, 907 (2021)

work page 2021
[68]

J. N. Bahcall, Neutrino Astrophysics, Cambridge Univer- sity Press (1989), ISBN: 9780521379755

work page 1989
[69]

Vinyoles, A

N. Vinyoles, A. M. Serenelli, F. L. Villante, S. Basu, J. Bergstr¨ om, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, M. Maltoni, C. Pe˜ na-Garay and N. Song, Astrophys. J.835, 202 (2017)

work page 2017
[70]

Lindner, Y

M. Lindner, Y. Mambrini, T. B. de Melo and F. S. Queiroz, Phys. Lett. B811, 135972 (2020)

work page 2020
[71]

Bilmis, I

S. Bilmis, I. Turan, T. M. Aliev, M. Deniz, L. Singh and H. T. Wong, Phys. Rev. D92, 033009 (2015)

work page 2015
[72]

Coloma, I

P. Coloma, I. Esteban, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, L. Lariz- goitia, F. Monrabal and S. Palomares-Ruiz, J. High En- erg. Phys.2022, 37 (2022). 14

work page 2022
[73]

Aguilar-Arevaloet al.(CONNIE Collaboration), J

A. Aguilar-Arevaloet al.(CONNIE Collaboration), J. High Energ. Phys.2020, 54 (2020)

work page 2020
[74]

Bonetet al.(CONUS Collaboration), J

H. Bonetet al.(CONUS Collaboration), J. High Energ. Phys.2022, 85 (2022)

work page 2022
[75]

Chattaraj, A

A. Chattaraj, A. Majumdar and R. Srivastava, Probing Standard Model and Beyond with Reactor CEνNS Data of CONUS+ experiment, arXiv:2501.12441 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv
[76]

Melas, D

P. Melas, D. K. Papoulias and N. Saoulidou, J. High Energ. Phys.2023, 190 (2023)

work page 2023
[77]

S. K. A., A. Majumdar, D. K. Papoulias, H. Prajapati and R. Srivastava, Phys. Lett. B839, 137742 (2023)

work page 2023
[78]

Y. M. Andreevet al.(NA64 Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 161801 (2022)

work page 2022
[79]

Merkelet al.(A1 Collaboration), Phys

H. Merkelet al.(A1 Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 251802 (2011)

work page 2011
[80]

Abelevet al.(ALICE Collaboration), Phys

B. Abelevet al.(ALICE Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B 720, 52-62 (2013)

work page 2013

Showing first 80 references.