pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.19299 · v1 · pith:TX66N3JHnew · submitted 2026-06-17 · ✦ hep-ex · hep-ph

Probing Long-Lived Particle Production in Muon Decays at the SNS with a Highly Capable Hydrocarbon Detector

M. Andriamirado , A. B. Balantekin , C. D. Bass , O. Benevides Rodrigues , E. P. Bernard , N. S. Bowden , C. D. Bryan , R. Carr
show 38 more authors
T. Classen A. J. Conant N. Craft G. Deichert A. Erickson M. D. Fuller A. Galindo-Uribarri S. Ghosh S. Gokhale C. Grant S. Hans A. B. Hansell T. E. Haugen K. M. Heeger A. Irani J. Koblanski C. E. Lane B. R. Littlejohn A. Lozano Sanchez F. Machado J. Maricic M. P. Mendenhall A. M. Meyer R. Milincic P. E. Mueller H. P. Mumm R. Neilson J. R. Newby D. Norcini N. Patel C. Roca R. Rosero D. Venegas-Vargas J. Wilhelmi M. Yeh X. Zhang M. Hostert S. Urrea
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-26 18:33 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ex hep-ph
keywords long-lived particlesaxion-like particlesheavy neutral leptonsmuon decayshydrocarbon scintillatorSNSdark sector searchescosmic ray rejection
0
0 comments X

The pith

A hydrocarbon scintillator at the SNS could improve sensitivity to 10-100 MeV axion-like particles and heavy neutral leptons by an order of magnitude.

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

The paper investigates the use of a tons-scale hydrocarbon scintillator detector at the Spallation Neutron Source to detect dark sector particles from muon decays at rest. It examines searches for electron-positron pairs produced in the decays of long-lived axion-like particles and heavy neutral leptons with masses between 10 and 100 MeV. Benchmarking cosmic ray backgrounds against data from the PROSPECT detector allows predictions of background rejection for a new deployment. This setup promises order-of-magnitude better sensitivity than existing limits while also enabling neutrino studies.

Core claim

Deploying a highly capable hydrocarbon (HC^2) detector at the SNS allows searches for e+e- final states from long-lived particle decays, achieving order-of-magnitude improvements in sensitivity to axion-like particles and heavy neutral leptons in the 10-100 MeV mass range compared to current global limits, with robust background predictions from PROSPECT data.

What carries the argument

The HC^2 hydrocarbon scintillator detector, which combines large mass with strong cosmic ray background rejection to identify e+e- pairs from long-lived dark particle decays.

If this is right

  • Order-of-magnitude gains in sensitivity to axion-like particles and heavy neutral leptons.
  • Multi-year operation yielding new constraints on dark sector models.
  • Complementary neutrino detection capabilities at the SNS site.
  • Validated background rejection based on existing PROSPECT measurements.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Similar detector concepts could be applied at other high-intensity muon sources to cross-check results.
  • The approach might extend to other decay channels or particle types not covered in the main analysis.
  • Improved limits could indirectly constrain cosmological models involving these particles.

Load-bearing premise

The cosmic ray background signatures measured by PROSPECT at ORNL accurately forecast the rejection performance of an HC^2 detector at the SNS.

What would settle it

Data from a prototype HC^2 detector at SNS showing cosmic ray rejection rates substantially worse than those extrapolated from PROSPECT, leading to no sensitivity improvement.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.19299 by A. B. Balantekin, A. B. Hansell, A. Erickson, A. Galindo-Uribarri, A. Irani, A. J. Conant, A. Lozano Sanchez, A. M. Meyer, B. R. Littlejohn, C. D. Bass, C. D. Bryan, C. E. Lane, C. Grant, C. Roca, D. Norcini, D. Venegas-Vargas, E. P. Bernard, F. Machado, G. Deichert, H. P. Mumm, J. Koblanski, J. Maricic, J. R. Newby, J. Wilhelmi, K. M. Heeger, M. Andriamirado, M. D. Fuller, M. Hostert, M. P. Mendenhall, M. Yeh, N. Craft, N. Patel, N. S. Bowden, O. Benevides Rodrigues, P. E. Mueller, R. Carr, R. Milincic, R. Neilson, R. Rosero, S. Ghosh, S. Gokhale, S. Hans, S. Urrea, T. Classen, T. E. Haugen, X. Zhang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Expected flux of HNLs (left panel) and ALPs (right panel) produced in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Normalized [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. An illustration of the ordering of beam (orange) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Overhead view of the SNS instrument floor show [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Top: reconstructed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Examples illustrating topology and fiducialization [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: also shows the cluster multiplicity and recon￾structed segment Srec,c for selected events. These plots indicate a preference for smaller cluster size within the signal sample with a fairly even distribution of signal counts across the functioning fiducial segments. The same set of selection and veto cuts were also applied to simulated PROSPECT cosmic µ ± and n datasets. Livetime-normalized results from the… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Reconstructed cluster energy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: and Table II indicate which HC2 design at￾tributes are crucial for cosmic background reduction in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Reconstructed energy spectrum before (blue) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Signal vs cosmogenic background event rates in the HC [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. 90% C.L. statistics-only sensitivity curves of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. 90% C.L. statistics-only sensitivity curves for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_13.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The Spallation Neutron Source (SNS) at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) is a prolific muon producer, making it an ideal location for studying dark sector particles produced in muon decays at rest. In this paper, we explore sub-GeV dark particle detection possibilities in a tons-scale, highly capable hydrocarbon scintillator ($HC^2$) detector at the SNS. We consider a search for $e^+e^-$ final states produced by decays of long-lived, $O(10-100)$ MeV axion-like particles and heavy neutral leptons. The $HC^2$ technology space, exemplified by the PROSPECT and Mobile Antineutrino Demonstrator detectors, offers strong rejection capabilities for the cosmic ray backgrounds that would normally dominate this search. By benchmarking on-surface cosmic ray signatures with data from PROSPECT at ORNL, we generate robust predictions for a multi-year SNS deployment of a range of $HC^2$ detector implementations. Results indicate the potential for order-of-magnitude improvements in sensitivity to axion-like particles and heavy neutral leptons in the 10-100 MeV mass regime compared to current global limits. We also comment on the neutrino detection possibilities of a $HC^2$ deployment at the SNS.

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.

Referee Report

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper proposes deploying a tons-scale highly capable hydrocarbon scintillator (HC²) detector at the SNS to search for e⁺e⁻ final states from decays of long-lived O(10-100) MeV axion-like particles and heavy neutral leptons produced in muon decays at rest. It benchmarks on-surface cosmic-ray backgrounds using PROSPECT data taken at ORNL to project background rejection for a multi-year SNS run, claiming order-of-magnitude improvements in sensitivity relative to current global limits in the stated mass range, and briefly comments on neutrino detection prospects.

Significance. If the projected background suppression and sensitivity gains hold after site-specific validation, the work would open a new production channel for sub-GeV dark-sector searches at a high-intensity pulsed muon source and could meaningfully extend existing limits on ALPs and HNLs.

major comments (1)
  1. [Benchmarking and background model (referenced in abstract)] The central sensitivity projections rest on extrapolating cosmic-ray background rejection from PROSPECT data at the HFIR reactor site to an SNS deployment. The manuscript must demonstrate, with quantitative modeling, that differences in prompt neutron/gamma fluxes, shielding geometry, and the pulsed versus steady-state environment do not introduce unaccounted backgrounds in the 10-100 MeV e⁺e⁻ signal region; without this, the order-of-magnitude improvement claim is not yet load-bearing.
minor comments (1)
  1. Clarify the exact detector mass and run duration assumptions used for the sensitivity curves, as these appear among the free parameters.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful review and constructive feedback. The major comment on background extrapolation is addressed point-by-point below. We agree that additional quantitative detail is warranted and will revise the manuscript accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Benchmarking and background model (referenced in abstract)] The central sensitivity projections rest on extrapolating cosmic-ray background rejection from PROSPECT data at the HFIR reactor site to an SNS deployment. The manuscript must demonstrate, with quantitative modeling, that differences in prompt neutron/gamma fluxes, shielding geometry, and the pulsed versus steady-state environment do not introduce unaccounted backgrounds in the 10-100 MeV e⁺e⁻ signal region; without this, the order-of-magnitude improvement claim is not yet load-bearing.

    Authors: We thank the referee for this important observation. The manuscript benchmarks cosmic-ray backgrounds using PROSPECT data taken at ORNL, which shares the same geographic location and thus similar cosmic-ray flux as the SNS. The dominant backgrounds in the 10-100 MeV e⁺e⁻ region for an on-surface detector are indeed cosmic-ray induced, and the HC² detector's pulse-shape discrimination and timing capabilities are characterized directly from that data. The pulsed SNS beam provides an additional handle not available at the steady-state HFIR reactor: the muon production is prompt, allowing the long-lived particle decays (with ~2.2 μs muon lifetime) to be selected in a delayed window after the beam pulse, suppressing continuous cosmic backgrounds further. Prompt beam-related neutron/gamma fluxes at SNS are absent at HFIR; however, these can be mitigated by the same timing cuts and by the detector's ability to reject prompt activity. We acknowledge that the current text does not include explicit quantitative modeling (e.g., Monte Carlo estimates or flux comparisons drawn from published SNS and HFIR radiation surveys) of how these site differences affect the final background rate in the signal region. We will add such modeling, including rate estimates and the impact on sensitivity, to the revised manuscript. This will make the order-of-magnitude improvement claim more robust. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; sensitivity projections use independent PROSPECT data for extrapolation

full rationale

The paper derives its order-of-magnitude sensitivity claims for ALPs and HNLs by benchmarking cosmic-ray rejection on existing PROSPECT detector data collected at the ORNL HFIR site and then modeling performance for a new HC^2 deployment at the SNS. This constitutes an external data-driven extrapolation rather than any self-definitional loop, fitted subset renamed as prediction, or load-bearing self-citation of an unverified theorem. No equations or claims reduce by construction to the paper's own inputs; the central result remains dependent on real, independently collected experimental signatures outside the present analysis.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The proposal depends on assumptions about detector performance extrapolated from prior work and standard expectations for particle production; no new entities postulated.

free parameters (2)
  • detector mass = tons-scale
    Assumed scale for generating sensitivity projections in the abstract
  • run duration = multi-year
    Used to estimate integrated exposure for the search
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Muon decay at rest at the SNS produces long-lived particles in the dark sector with couplings that allow e+e- decays
    Underlying assumption for the search strategy described
  • domain assumption PROSPECT data provides a reliable benchmark for cosmic ray backgrounds at the SNS location
    Central to generating the predictions mentioned in the abstract

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 6012 in / 1345 out tokens · 50062 ms · 2026-06-26T18:33:32.717968+00:00 · methodology

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

143 extracted references · 34 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Armengaudet al.(EDELWEISS), Phys

    E. Armengaudet al.(EDELWEISS), Phys. Lett. B702, 329 (2011), arXiv:1103.4070 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  2. [2]

    Agneseet al.(CDMS), Phys

    R. Agneseet al.(CDMS), Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 251301 (2013), arXiv:1304.4279 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  3. [3]

    Agneset al.(DarkSide), Phys

    P. Agneset al.(DarkSide), Phys. Lett. B743, 456 (2015), arXiv:1410.0653 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  4. [4]

    P. A. Amaudruzet al.(DEAP-3600), Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 071801 (2018), arXiv:1707.08042 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  5. [5]

    Aprileet al.(XENON), Phys

    E. Aprileet al.(XENON), Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 111302 (2018), arXiv:1805.12562 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  6. [6]

    Amoleet al.(PICO), Phys

    C. Amoleet al.(PICO), Phys. Rev. D100, 022001 (2019), arXiv:1902.04031 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  7. [7]

    Aalberset al.(LZ), Phys

    J. Aalberset al.(LZ), Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 041002 (2023), arXiv:2207.03764 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    Menget al.(PandaX-4T), Phys

    Y. Menget al.(PandaX-4T), Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 261802 (2021), arXiv:2107.13438 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2021

  9. [9]

    Adhikariet al.(COSINE-100), Phys

    G. Adhikariet al.(COSINE-100), Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 031302 (2019), arXiv:1903.10098 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  10. [10]

    B. T. McAllister, G. Flower, J. Kruger, E. N. Ivanov, M. Goryachev, J. Bourhill, and M. E. Tobar (ORGAN), Phys. Dark Univ.18, 67 (2017), arXiv:1706.00209 [physics.ins-det]

    arXiv 2017

  11. [11]

    Duet al.(ADMX), Phys

    N. Duet al.(ADMX), Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 151301 (2018), arXiv:1804.05750 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  12. [12]

    K. M. Backeset al.(HAYSTAC), Nature590, 238 (2021), arXiv:2008.01853 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2021

  13. [13]

    Jeong, S

    J. Jeong, S. Youn, S. Bae, J. Kim, T. Seong, J. E. Kim, and Y. K. Semertzidis, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 221302 (2020), arXiv:2008.10141 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2020

  14. [14]

    Kwonet al.(CAPP), Phys

    O. Kwonet al.(CAPP), Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 191802 (2021), arXiv:2012.10764 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2021

  15. [15]

    Hoshinoet al.(GigaBREAD), Phys

    G. Hoshinoet al.(GigaBREAD), Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 171002 (2025), arXiv:2501.17119 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2025

  16. [16]

    C. V. Cappiello and J. F. Beacom, Phys. Rev. D 100, 103011 (2019), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 104, 069901 (2021)], arXiv:1906.11283 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2019

  17. [17]

    Berger, Y

    J. Berger, Y. Cui, M. Graham, L. Necib, G. Petrillo, D. Stocks, Y.-T. Tsai, and Y. Zhao, Phys. Rev. D103, 095012 (2021), arXiv:1912.05558 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2021

  18. [18]

    Andriamiradoet al.(PROSPECT), Phys

    M. Andriamiradoet al.(PROSPECT), Phys. Rev. D 104, 012009 (2021), arXiv:2104.11219 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2021

  19. [19]

    Abeet al.(Super-Kamiokande), Phys

    K. Abeet al.(Super-Kamiokande), Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 031802 (2023), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 131, 159903 (2023)], arXiv:2209.14968 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2023

  20. [20]

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

    arXiv 2022

  21. [21]

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

    arXiv 2022

  22. [22]

    Abeet al.(T2K), Phys

    K. Abeet al.(T2K), Phys. Rev. D100, 052006 (2019), arXiv:1902.07598 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2019

  23. [23]

    P. A. Machado, O. Palamara, and D. W. Schmitz, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.69, 363 (2019), arXiv:1903.04608 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2019

  24. [24]

    Abratenkoet al.(MicroBooNE), Phys

    P. Abratenkoet al.(MicroBooNE), Phys. Rev. D106, 092006 (2022), arXiv:2207.03840 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2022

  25. [25]

    Abratenkoet al.(MicroBooNE), Phys

    P. Abratenkoet al.(MicroBooNE), Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 041801 (2024), arXiv:2310.07660 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2024

  26. [26]

    F. A. Alrahmanet al.(ICARUS), Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 151801 (2025), arXiv:2411.02727 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2025

  27. [27]

    Akimovet al.(COHERENT), Phys

    D. Akimovet al.(COHERENT), Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 051803 (2023), arXiv:2110.11453 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2023

  28. [28]

    A. A. Aguilar-Arevaloet al.(MiniBooNE), Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 221803 (2017), arXiv:1702.02688 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  29. [29]

    Acciarriet al.(ArgoNeuT), Phys.Rev.Lett.124, 131801 (2020), arXiv:1911.07996 [hep-ex]

    R. Acciarriet al.(ArgoNeuT), Phys.Rev.Lett.124, 131801 (2020), arXiv:1911.07996 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2020

  30. [30]

    Acciarriet al.(ArgoNeuT), Phys.Rev.Lett.130, 221802 (2023), arXiv:2207.08448 [hep-ex]

    R. Acciarriet al.(ArgoNeuT), Phys.Rev.Lett.130, 221802 (2023), arXiv:2207.08448 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2023

  31. [31]

    Abubakaret al.(NOvA), (2025), arXiv:2507.10754 [hep-ex]

    S. Abubakaret al.(NOvA), (2025), arXiv:2507.10754 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2025

  32. [32]

    P. S. Barbeau, Y. Efremenko, and K. Scholberg, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.73, 41 (2023), arXiv:2111.07033 [hep-ex]. 19

    arXiv 2023

  33. [33]

    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

  34. [34]

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

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

    arXiv 2021

  35. [35]

    Adamskiet al.(COHERENT), Phys

    S. Adamskiet al.(COHERENT), Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 231801 (2025), arXiv:2406.13806 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2025

  36. [36]

    Hostert and S

    M. Hostert and S. Urrea, (2025), arXiv:2509.14085 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  37. [37]

    Ajimuraet al.(JSNS2), Nucl

    S. Ajimuraet al.(JSNS2), Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 1014, 165742 (2021), arXiv:2104.13169 [physics.ins- det]

    arXiv 2021

  38. [38]

    Aguilaret al.(LSND), Phys

    A. Aguilaret al.(LSND), Phys. Rev. D64, 112007 (2001), arXiv:hep-ex/0104049

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  39. [39]

    Athanassopouloset al.(LSND), Phys

    C. Athanassopouloset al.(LSND), Phys. Rev. C55, 2078 (1997), arXiv:nucl-ex/9705001

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2078

  40. [40]

    L. B. Auerbachet al.(LSND), Phys. Rev. C64, 065501 (2001), arXiv:hep-ex/0105068

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  41. [41]

    Dodoet al.(JSNS2), Phys

    T. Dodoet al.(JSNS2), Phys. Rev. D112, 032012 (2025), arXiv:2412.18509 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2025

  42. [42]

    Marzecet al.(JSNS2), Phys

    E. Marzecet al.(JSNS2), Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 081801 (2025), arXiv:2409.01383 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2025

  43. [43]

    Roecker, A

    C. Roecker, A. Bernstein, N. S. Bowden, B. Cabrera- Palmer, S. Dazeley, M. Gerling, P. Marleau, M. D. Sweany, and K. Vetter, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A826, 21 (2016)

    2016

  44. [44]

    Akimovet al.(COHERENT), JINST17(03), P03021, arXiv:2112.02768 [physics.ins-det]

    D. Akimovet al.(COHERENT), JINST17(03), P03021, arXiv:2112.02768 [physics.ins-det]

    arXiv

  45. [45]

    Athanassopouloset al.(LSND), Nucl

    C. Athanassopouloset al.(LSND), Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A388, 149 (1997), arXiv:nucl-ex/9605002

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  46. [46]

    Drexlinet al., Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrom- eters, Detectors and Associated Equipment289, 490 (1990)

    G. Drexlinet al., Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrom- eters, Detectors and Associated Equipment289, 490 (1990)

    1990

  47. [47]

    Ashenfelteret al.(PROSPECT), Nucl

    J. Ashenfelteret al.(PROSPECT), Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A922, 287 (2019), arXiv:1808.00097 [physics.ins- det]

    arXiv 2019

  48. [48]

    Ashenfelteret al.(PROSPECT), Phys

    J. Ashenfelteret al.(PROSPECT), Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 251802 (2018), arXiv:1806.02784 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  49. [49]

    Andriamiradoet al.(PROSPECT), Phys

    M. Andriamiradoet al.(PROSPECT), Phys. Rev. D 103, 032001 (2021), arXiv:2006.11210 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2021

  50. [50]

    Andriamiradoet al.(PROSPECT, (PROSPECT Collaboration)*), Phys

    M. Andriamiradoet al.(PROSPECT, (PROSPECT Collaboration)*), Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 151802 (2025), arXiv:2406.10408 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2025

  51. [51]

    Ashenfelteret al.(PROSPECT), Phys

    J. Ashenfelteret al.(PROSPECT), Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 251801 (2019), arXiv:1812.10877 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  52. [52]

    Andriamiradoet al.(PROSPECT), Phys

    M. Andriamiradoet al.(PROSPECT), Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 021802 (2023), arXiv:2212.10669 [nucl-ex]

    arXiv 2023

  53. [53]

    Haghighat, P

    A. Haghighat, P. Huber, S. Li, J. M. Link, C. Mariani, J. Park, and T. Subedi, Phys. Rev. Applied13, 034028 (2020), arXiv:1812.02163 [physics.ins-det]

    arXiv 2020

  54. [54]

    Benevides Rodrigueset al.(Mobile Antineutrino Demonstrator Project), Phys

    O. Benevides Rodrigueset al.(Mobile Antineutrino Demonstrator Project), Phys. Rev. Applied24, 054023 (2025), arXiv:2505.05696 [physics.ins-det]

    arXiv 2025

  55. [55]

    Andersonet al., JINST18(02), P02009, arXiv:2211.11969 [physics.ins-det]

    T. Andersonet al., JINST18(02), P02009, arXiv:2211.11969 [physics.ins-det]

    arXiv

  56. [56]

    Minkowski, Phys

    P. Minkowski, Phys. Lett. B67, 421 (1977)

    1977

  57. [57]

    R. N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanovic, Phys. Rev. Lett. 44, 912 (1980)

    1980

  58. [58]

    Gell-Mann, P

    M. Gell-Mann, P. Ramond, and R. Slansky, Conf. Proc. C790927, 315 (1979), arXiv:1306.4669 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1979

  59. [59]

    Yanagida, Conf

    T. Yanagida, Conf. Proc. C7902131, 95 (1979)

    1979

  60. [60]

    Lazarides, Q

    G. Lazarides, Q. Shafi, and C. Wetterich, Nucl. Phys. B 181, 287 (1981)

    1981

  61. [61]

    R. N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanovic, Phys. Rev. D23, 165 (1981)

    1981

  62. [62]

    Schechter and J

    J. Schechter and J. W. F. Valle, Phys. Rev. D22, 2227 (1980)

    1980

  63. [63]

    T. P. Cheng and L.-F. Li, Phys. Rev. D22, 2860 (1980)

    1980

  64. [64]

    R. Foot, H. Lew, X. G. He, and G. C. Joshi, Z. Phys. C 44, 441 (1989)

    1989

  65. [65]

    R. N. Mohapatra and J. W. F. Valle, Phys. Rev. D34, 1642 (1986)

    1986

  66. [66]

    M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia and J. W. F. Valle, Phys. Lett. B216, 360 (1989)

    1989

  67. [67]

    Wyler and L

    D. Wyler and L. Wolfenstein, Nucl. Phys. B218, 205 (1983)

    1983

  68. [68]

    E. K. Akhmedov, M. Lindner, E. Schnapka, and J. W. F. Valle, Phys. Lett. B368, 270 (1996), arXiv:hep- ph/9507275

    arXiv 1996

  69. [69]

    E. K. Akhmedov, M. Lindner, E. Schnapka, and J. W. F. Valle, Phys. Rev. D53, 2752 (1996), arXiv:hep- ph/9509255

    arXiv 1996

  70. [70]

    Barry, W

    J. Barry, W. Rodejohann, and H. Zhang, JHEP07, 091, arXiv:1105.3911 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  71. [71]

    Zhang, Phys

    H. Zhang, Phys. Lett. B714, 262 (2012), arXiv:1110.6838 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  72. [72]

    Y. Ema, Z. Liu, K.-F. Lyu, and M. Pospelov, JHEP08, 169, arXiv:2306.07315 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  73. [73]

    Coloma, E

    P. Coloma, E. Fern´ andez-Mart´ ınez, M. Gonz´ alez-L´ opez, J. Hern´ andez-Garc´ ıa, and Z. Pavlovic, Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 78 (2021), arXiv:2007.03701 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2021

  74. [74]

    R. D. Peccei and H. R. Quinn, Phys. Rev. Lett.38, 1440 (1977)

    1977

  75. [75]

    R. D. Peccei and H. R. Quinn, Phys. Rev. D16, 1791 (1977)

    1977

  76. [76]

    Wilczek, Phys

    F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. Lett.40, 279 (1978)

    1978

  77. [77]

    Weinberg, Phys

    S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett.40, 223 (1978)

    1978

  78. [78]

    Plumet al., in9th International Particle Accelerator Conference(2018)

    M. Plumet al., in9th International Particle Accelerator Conference(2018)

    2018

  79. [79]

    Akimovet al.(COHERENT), Phys

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

    arXiv 2022

  80. [80]

    Grant and B

    C. Grant and B. Littlejohn, PoSICHEP2016, 483 (2016), arXiv:1510.08431 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

Showing first 80 references.