Pith.

High Energy Physics - Experiment · arXiv:2608.21120 v1 · submitted 21 Aug 2026 · 30 references

New Limits on n → n′ Transformation from HFIR Cold Neutron Beam

James M. Rogers, Leah J. Broussard, Christopher B. Crawford, Lisa DeBeer-Schmitt, Matthew J. Frost, Francisco M. Gonzalez, Carolyn O. Haviland, Lawrence Heilbronn

show 11 more authors

Erik B. Iverson, Yuri Kamyshkov, Mubasshir Khan, Andrew Mullins, David Milstead, Linus B. Persson, Cary Rock, Valentina Santoro, Alexander Saunders, Shaun Vavra, Nathan D. Whittington

PDF · arXiv · The abstract, sentence by sentence · Cite

The paper says

“Hypothetical neutron n to sterile neutron n′ transformations would violate baryon number ℬ and point to the nature of Dark Matter.”

more of the abstract

We performed a new search for n → n′ using an intense cold neutron beam from the High Flux Isotope Reactor at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. We used a theoretical model that describes the transformation n → n′ with two parameters: a small mass difference Δm between the interaction states n and n′ and a mixing vacuum angle θ0. A thin absorbing cadmium wafer was used in the center of the superconducting 6.6 T magnet which provided a large gradient for the non-adiabatic n → n′ transition. No signal was observed above background in the 3He neutron detector 20 meters downstream of the magnet. This result gives an order of magnitude improvement in the lower limit for the probability 2θ02 of the n → n′ transformation in vacuum in the range of Δm between 0.1 neV and 1000 neV.

from the abstract

Pith says

Machine review · deepseek-v4-flash · 27 Aug 2026 · what was read was not recorded · not checked by a person

It can be wrong. Challenge this review or reply to it.

Holds up, with conditions. A solid null result with a fixable but real internal inconsistency: the abstract claims Δm coverage down to 0.1 neV while every figure and the Discussion say 10 neV. This line is wrong

3 major objections · 6 minor

How often objections from reviews like this one are right: not yet measured

Are you an author? What you can do.

Not checked: figures, code, what the 30 references say.

The paper says, at Abstract and Discussion of Results

The review did not quote this passage.

Pith says: Objection 1 of 3 · major

The abstract states: 'This result gives an order of magnitude improvement in the lower limit for the probability 2θ0^2 ... in the range of Δm between 0.1 neV and 1000 neV.' The body supports only the range 10–1000 neV: the Discussion says 'The limits here are shown in the range Δm from 10 to 1000 neV,' Fig. 8 is labeled 'from 10 neV to 1000 neV,' and Fig. 9 is labeled 'range Δm from 10 to 1000 neV.'

more of objection 1

No calculation, table, or figure in the manuscript covers 0.1–10 neV. The abstract therefore overstates the coverage of the new limit by two orders of magnitude. Please either extend the probability grid and limit evaluation down to 0.1 neV or revise the abstract (and the 'order of magnitude' claim) to state the actually covered range of 10–1000 neV.

The paper says, at Beam Intensity Measurement and Discussion of Results

The review did not quote this passage.

Pith says: Objection 2 of 3 · major

The final exclusion curves in Fig. 9 do not include the systematic uncertainties from the McStas beam-transport corrections or from the magnetic-field profile. The quoted correction factors (aperture reduction 0.187±0.011 and sapphire transmission 0.81±0.05) enter the normalization, and the field profile is described only as 'interpolated from the known field profile' with no stated uncertainty.

more of objection 2

If the wavelength spectrum or the field profile shifts the Landau-Zener resonances, the position and strength of the exclusion region in (Δm, 2θ0^2) could change. Please propagate these uncertainties into the final limit or give a quantitative argument that their effect is negligible relative to the statistical uncertainty.

The paper says, at Discussion of Results

The review did not quote this passage.

Pith says: Objection 3 of 3 · major

The sentence 'Exclusion limits from the different datasets were overlaid to produce the final exclusion limit' is ambiguous regarding the statistical coverage of the final curve. If the final curve is the envelope of several 95% CL upper limits (from B=0, 2.4 T, 3.6 T, 4.8 T in 2024 and 2.5 T, 5.0 T in 2021), the global confidence level of the envelope is not necessarily 95%.

more of objection 3

Please state whether the selection among field settings for each Δm is made a priori from the expected sensitivity, and if not, perform a combined fit or a trials-corrected limit so that the reported '95% CL' applies to the final exclusion region.

6 minor objections

The paper says, at References

Pith says: minor objection 1 of 6

Reference [19] is cited for both the McStas ray-tracing package and the NIST activation/scattering calculator; McStas has its own published documentation and should have a separate reference.

The paper says, at Abstract

Pith says: minor objection 2 of 6

The phrase 'lower limit for the probability 2θ0^2' is the wrong direction: an exclusion gives an upper limit on the vacuum mixing probability; please rephrase.

show 4 more

The paper says, at Detector Counts and Results

Pith says: minor objection 3 of 6

For the B=0 analysis, the statement that the average of 33 measurements was 24.4 counts per hour 'with a conservative error estimate of ±49.2 taken from the root mean squared error' is not a standard error on the mean. Please clarify how the RMS was used; if the counts are consistent with a constant, the error on the mean is much smaller, and if they are not, a time-dependent model should be used.

The paper says, at Detector Counts and Results

Pith says: minor objection 4 of 6

Table I is introduced with 'Feldman-Cousins 95% CL limis'; 'limis' should be 'limits'.

The paper says, at Discussion of Results

Pith says: minor objection 5 of 6

The claim of 'excellent agreement' between the Schrödinger-based calculation and the Liouville-von Neumann density-matrix evolution is not quantified; a comparison plot or maximum deviation would allow the reader to assess the approximation.

The paper says, at Discussion of Results

Pith says: minor objection 6 of 6

Fig. 9 is described in the text as having 2θ0^2 on the vertical axis, but the caption and surrounding text also refer to oscillation time τ; please label the axes explicitly in the figure to avoid confusion.

What would settle it

Inspect the Δm grid used in the analytical diagonalization calculations described in the Discussion (the grid that produces Fig. 8 and the exclusion curve in Fig. 9). If the grid's lower bound is 10 neV, the abstract's 0.1 neV range is unsupported. Regenerate the limit curve or figure with an x-axis from 0.1 neV to 1000 neV to confirm whether any limit exists below 10 neV; if the curve cannot be produced or does not improve upon previous bounds there, the abstract must be corrected to 10–1000 neV.

from the skeptic's reading

How the review went

4 readings by deepseek-v4-flash · 27 Aug 2026

  1. Reader holds up, with conditions confidence moderate
  2. Skeptic partly agrees 1 min 2 s · 11,887 tokens read, 7,284 written
  3. Editor wrote the verdict above 21 s · 12,664 tokens read, 2,232 written
  4. Referee major revision: 3 major objections, 6 minor 1 min 15 s · 12,078 tokens read, 9,200 written

Not run on this paper: the simulated authors' defence.

Pith did not check this review's objections against the paper.

The review in full

The review in brief, machine-written

The thing to know: this is a genuine null result, not a publicity stunt. They ran a regeneration search at HFIR with a cadmium absorber inside a 6.6 T magnet, saw no signal, and set 95% CL limits on n→n' mixing that improve on their SNS limits by about an order of magnitude in the 10–1000 neV Δm window. The two independent runs (2021, 2024) are consistent with zero effect, and the statistical treatment (Feldman-Cousins, Monte Carlo background sampling) is standard and careful.

What's actually new is the data, not the method. The regeneration idea and the Hamiltonian treatment come from their earlier SNS papers. The HFIR beam is more intense, so the improvement is a straightforward application—but that's still a legitimate experimental contribution. The intensity calibration is where they did extra work: two independent monitor methods, dead-time corrections, McStas for aperture reduction, and a gold-foil check in 2021. That part looks solid.

The soft spots are real but not fatal. The most glaring is the abstract/caption mismatch: the abstract claims limits for Δm between 0.1 and 1000 neV, but every figure and the Discussion state the range as 10 to 1000 neV. The probability maps start at 10 neV. So the abstract's stated lower bound is unsupported by anything in the paper. The stress-test note is correct on this point. If the actual grid begins at 10 neV, the claim is simply wrong as written. That needs to be fixed in revision.

Two other things worth noting. First, the systematic uncertainties from the McStas model and the magnet field profile are not propagated into the final exclusion map; they're folded into normalization and then dropped. That's probably minor given a null result, but it should be stated. Second, no raw data or code are provided, so the limits can't be independently recomputed. For an experimental paper that's a less serious omission, but it would help.

The sterile-n' assumption—no mirror magnetic field or optical potential—is stated explicitly after Eq. (1), so they're not hiding it. It's a model assumption, not a flaw in the measurement.

Bottom line: this is a solid experimental result with a fixable but embarrassing abstract error. It deserves peer review. I'd send it, but the referee should require the abstract to match the actual Δm coverage.

The strongest objection

The abstract's central claim is an "order of magnitude improvement in the lower limit for the probability 2θ0^2 ... in the range of Δm between 0.1 neV and 1000 neV." No other part of the manuscript supports the 0.1 neV lower bound. The Discussion states "The limits here are shown in the range Δm from 10 to 1000 neV"; Fig. 8 caption says "regions from 10 neV to 1000 neV"; Fig. 9 caption says "range Δm from 10 to 1000 neV." The probability maps in Fig. 8 also show axes starting at 10 neV. If the calculation grid and limit curves actually begin at 10 neV, then the abstract overstates the coverage by two orders of magnitude and the headline improvement cannot be verified for 0.1–10 neV. This is an internal inconsistency directly tied to the central claim, not a theoretical disagreement. It matters because the abstract is what a reader uses to assess the result's scope and significance. Even if the underlying data are sound, the claim as stated is not supported by the presented analysis.

The reader's CONDITIONAL verdict is reasonable, but the most load-bearing concern is not the model's sterility assumption (which is explicitly stated and defines the model under test) or the lack of raw data/code (a reproducibility limitation) but the internal mismatch in the claimed Δm range. The abstract says 0.1–1000 neV, while the Discussion and Figs. 8–9 consistently say 10–1000 neV. This is a concrete, checkable inconsistency that directly affects the central claim's stated scope. The n' sterility assumption narrows the applicability of the result but does not create an internal flaw within the stated model. The missing raw data and code prevent independent recomputation but do not invalidate the experimental logic. Provided the range statement is corrected or the low-mass region is shown to be covered, the null result and the limits for 10–1000 neV appear credible. Therefore the verdict remains conditional rather than changing to accept, reject, or unverified.

The referee's report

If the reported limits are correct, this is a new and competitive experimental constraint on baryon-number-violating n-n' oscillations in the non-degenerate mass-splitting regime. The analysis has several concrete strengths: it uses the standard Feldman-Cousins procedure, includes two independent runs with different background conditions, uses a Monte Carlo background sampling based on the fit covariance matrix, and cross-checks the beam intensity with two monitor methods plus gold-foil activation. The paper also provides detailed dead-time corrections and explicitly states the model assumption that the mirror neutron is sterile in the apparatus. The main issue is that the abstract's claimed Δm coverage is not supported by the analysis presented in the body of the paper, and a few statistical and systematic questions need to be resolved before the central claim can be fully endorsed.

Pith's reading of the paper (a machine's summary, not the authors')

This paper reports a search for the transformation of an ordinary neutron into a sterile 'mirror neutron' (n→n') and back, a process that would violate baryon number and could connect ordinary matter to dark matter. The experiment used an intense cold neutron beam at the High Flux Isotope Reactor, passing it through a 6.6 T superconducting magnet with a thin cadmium absorber at its center, and looked for regenerated neutrons in a 3He detector 20 meters downstream. No signal was observed above background. The authors therefore set new 95% confidence upper limits on the n→n'→n regeneration probability, improving the constraint on the mixing parameter $2θ_0^{2}$ by about an order of magnitude across the mass-splitting range 0.1–1000 neV.

What carries the argument. The mechanism is beam regeneration under a two-state quantum model in which the neutron and mirror neutron are mixed by a vacuum angle θ_0 and differ by a small mass Δm. The apparatus uses a 6.6 T split-pair superconducting magnet whose field profile creates the non-adiabatic (Landau–Zener) conditions for n→n' conversion; the cadmium wafer at the magnet center absorbs ordinary neutrons to a level below $10^{-20}$ while allowing the sterile n' to pass, and the second half of the magnet converts n' back to detectable neutrons. The event rates are interpreted through an analytical diagonalization of the non-Hermitian two-state Hamiltonian for piecewise constant fields, averaged over the beam spectrum and spin states.

Core claim. The central result is the absence of a regeneration signal: in both the 2021 and 2024 runs, the counts in the region of interest after subtracting backgrounds are statistically consistent with zero at every magnetic field setting tested (0, 2.4, 3.6, 4.8, 2.5, and 5.0 T). From these null measurements the paper derives 95% confidence upper limits on the probability per neutron of n→n'→n regeneration, with the best limits near $10^{-11}$. These limits translate into constraints on the vacuum mixing angle θ_0 as a function of the mass splitting Δm, giving an order-of-magnitude improvement over previous SNS results across Δm between 0.1 and 1000 neV.

The premise it rests on. The interpretation assumes the mirror neutron is completely sterile in the apparatus—no optical potential, no absorption, no mirror magnetic field—so it passes through the cadmium absorber and magnet as if they were transparent and then converts back to an ordinary neutron.

If the paper is right (Pith's inferences, not the authors')

The excluded parameter space for (Δm, θ_0) is extended by roughly an order of magnitude in 2θ_0^2 across 0.1–1000 neV, tightening the constraints on mirror-matter models of dark matter.

The B=0 measurements set independent limits on vacuum n–n' oscillations, covering the region where the transformation becomes adiabatic at Δm > 400 neV.

The null result further rules out the mirror-neutron explanation of the neutron lifetime anomaly already disfavored by the SNS experiments.

Future regeneration searches at higher intensity will need longer beam time and substantially lower detector background to go beyond this sensitivity.

A dedicated run with absorbers of different materials or thicknesses could test the sterile assumption directly: if the regenerated-neutron rate changes with absorber material in a way not predicted by the n' model, the limits would need revision.

The same beam-regeneration technique could be applied to other baryon-number-violating conversions, such as n → hidden-sector states with different couplings, provided the background can be controlled.

The order-of-magnitude gain relative to SNS appears to track the 400-fold higher beam intensity only partially, suggesting that background activation in the detector, not beam intensity, is now the limiting resource.

Check this review

Pith stored no record of this review's passes and took no fingerprint of it. Reviews made by code from 13 Nov 2026 on carry both.

How often reviews like this one are right

Reviews like this one: written by deepseek-v4-flash, where what was read was not recorded.

How often objections from reviews like this one are right: not yet measured

Every value above, in the review's public record (JSON)

Reviews by people

This review was written by a machine. No person has reviewed this paper on Pith yet. A scientist listed on Pith can review it for a fee, and their review is published here whatever it concludes.

Request a human review

How Pith checks papers · The full audit of this paper

The paper

Abstract

Hypothetical neutron n to sterile neutron n′ transformations would violate baryon number ℬ and point to the nature of Dark Matter. We performed a new search for n → n′ using an intense cold neutron beam from the High Flux Isotope Reactor at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. We used a theoretical model that describes the transformation n → n′ with two parameters: a small mass difference Δm between the interaction states n and n′ and a mixing vacuum angle θ0. A thin absorbing cadmium wafer was used in the center of the superconducting 6.6 T magnet which provided a large gradient for the non-adiabatic n → n′ transition. No signal was observed above background in the 3He neutron detector 20 meters downstream of the magnet. This result gives an order of magnitude improvement in the lower limit for the probability 2θ02 of the n → n′ transformation in vacuum in the range of Δm between 0.1 neV and 1000 neV.

The paper's own sentences, arranged, kept beside the review and separate from it. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

abstract compiled · 2026-09-23

The authors' main claim, as the classifier picked it out 1.00

“This result gives an order of magnitude improvement in the lower limit for the probability $2\theta_0^2$ of the $n \rightarrow n'$ transformation in vacuum in the range of $\Delta{m}$ between $0.1$ neV and $1000$ neV.”

How the main claim is stated: asserted 1.00

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.06 · states limitation 0.32 · human participants 0.02 · controlled comparison 0.21 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.65 · compares with prior results 0.77 · mentions code or data availability 0.02

The abstract, sentence by sentence

This table labels the abstract only (arXiv listing abstract v1). The number is the probability the classifier gave the label.

SentenceRoleThe authors' own workStates the main conclusionStrength
Hypothetical neutron $n$ to sterile neutron $n'$ transformations would violate baryon number $\mathcal{B}$ and point to the nature of Dark Matter. background 1.00 0.04 0.04 hedged possibility 0.43
We performed a new search for $n \rightarrow n'$ using an intense cold neutron beam from the High Flux Isotope Reactor at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. contribution 0.60 0.97 0.03 asserted 0.99
We used a theoretical model that describes the transformation $n \rightarrow n'$ with two parameters: a small mass difference $\Delta{m}$ between the interaction states $n$ and $n'$ and a mixing vacuum angle $\theta_0$. method 1.00 0.51 0.03 asserted 0.99
A thin absorbing cadmium wafer was used in the center of the superconducting 6.6 T magnet which provided a large gradient for the non-adiabatic $n \rightarrow n'$ transition. method 1.00 0.90 0.02 asserted 0.99
No signal was observed above background in the $^{3}\text{He}$ neutron detector 20 meters downstream of the magnet. result 1.00 0.96 0.18 asserted 1.00
This result gives an order of magnitude improvement in the lower limit for the probability $2\theta_0^2$ of the $n \rightarrow n'$ transformation in vacuum in the range of $\Delta{m}$ between $0.1$ neV and $1000$ neV. result 0.80 0.94 0.91 asserted 1.00

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: empirical study 1.00 · evidence from observation or experiment 1.00

What was examined, and what was not

Sources read

  • arXiv listing abstract v1

Not examined

  • full text
  • figures and tables
  • references and citing sentences
  • relations to other papers

Levels run

  • P abstract

Not run

  • S sections
  • T body sentences
  • C citations
  • R cross-paper relations

How the labels were made

Compiled by classifier-1.13.0 via TypeSafe API, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-09-23: 1 request, 5,139 input tokens.

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. This record as JSON

Figures (10)
Figure 1 of the paper
Figure 1. FIG. 1. borrowed from paper [9]. Blue dot-dashed line shows
Figure 2 of the paper
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Background count rate in ROI (black line) and mea
Figure 3 of the paper
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Distribution of time intervals between signals from
Figure 4 of the paper
Figure 4. FIG. 4. Average counted intensity of GP-SANS ORDELA
Figure 5 of the paper
Figure 5. FIG. 5. Footprint of the divergent beam on the GP-SANS
Figure 6 of the paper
Figure 6. The central narrow peak in the background dis
Figure 7 of the paper
Figure 7. FIG. 7. Regeneration effect for measurements with different
Figure 8 of the paper
Figure 8. FIG. 8. Calculated regeneration probability (
Figure 9 of the paper
Figure 9. FIG. 9. Comparison of the probability limits of two SNS [8, 9]
Figure 10 of the paper
Figure 10. FIG. 10. Summary of most recent

Figures are the authors', reproduced from the paper.

References (30)
  1. [1] K. K. Boddy, M. Lisanti, S. D. McDermott, N. L. Rodd, C. Weniger, Y. Ali-Ha¨ ımoud, M. Buschmann, I. Cholis, D. Croon, A. L. Erickcek,et al., Journal of High Energy Astrophysics35, 112 (2022), arXiv:2203.06380 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  2. [2] N. Bozorgnia, J. Bramante, J. M. Cline, D. Curtin, D. McKeen, D. E. Morrissey, A. Ritz, S. Viel, A. C. Vincent, and Y. Zhang, “Dark matter candidates and searches,” (2024), arXiv:2410.23454 [hep-ph] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  3. [3] L. B. Okun’, Physics-Uspekhi50, 380–389 (2007) on Pith
  4. [4] Z. Berezhiani, D. Comelli, and F. L. Villante, Physics Letters B503, 362–375 (2001) on Pith
  5. [5] R. N. Mohapatra and N. Okada, Phys. Rev. D111, 123510 (2025), arXiv:2502.14981 [hep-ph] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  6. [6] Z. Berezhiani and L. Bento, Physical Review Letters96 (2006), 10.1103/physrevlett.96.081801 on Pithdoi:10.1103/physrevlett.96.081801
  7. [7] Z. Berezhiani, The European Physical Journal C79 (2019), 10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-6995-x on Pithdoi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-6995-x
  8. [8] L. J. Broussard, J. L. Barrow, L. DeBeer-Schmitt, T. Dennis, M. R. Fitzsimmons, M. J. Frost, C. E. Gilbert, F. M. Gonzalez, L. Heilbronn, E. B. Iverson, et al., Physical Review Letters128(2022), 10.1103/phys- revlett.128.212503, arXiv:2111.05543 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  9. [9] F. M. Gonzalez, C. Rock, L. J. Broussard, L. DeBeer- Schmitt, M. J. Frost, L. Heilbronn, E. B. Iverson, Y. Kamyshkov, M. Kline, D. Milstead,et al., Phys. Rev. D110, 072022 (2024), arXiv:2402.15981 [hep-ex] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  10. [10] Y. Kamyshkov, J. Ternullo, L. Varriano, and Z. Berezhi- ani, Symmetry14, 230 (2022), arXiv:2111.01791 [hep- ph] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  11. [11] K. D. Berry, K. M. Bailey, J. Beal, Y. Diawara, L. Funk, J. Steve Hicks, A. Jones, K. C. Littrell, S. Pingali, P. Summers, V. S. Urban, D. H. Vandergriff, N. H. John- son, and B. J. Bradley, Nuclear Instruments and Meth- ods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spec- t... on Pith
  12. [12] F. X. Gallmeier and I. Remec, ORNL/TM-2018/820 (2018), https://doi.org/10.2172/1474623 on Pithdoi:10.2172/1474623
  13. [13] J. M. Rogers, M. J. Frost, and L. M. Debeer- Schmitt, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A1069, 169965 (2024), arXiv:2404.08890 [physics.ins-det] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  14. [14] S. Stort, “5 tesla split-pair superconducting magnet sys- tem,” (2017) on Pith
  15. [15] L. Landau, Physikalische Zeitschrift der Sowjetunion2, 46 (1932) on Pith
  16. [16] C. Zener, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A137, 696 (1932) on Pith
  17. [17] ORDELA Inc., “Neutron beam monitors,” (2025) on Pith
  18. [18] EPICS Controls, “Experimental physics and industrial control system, open source software,” (2025) on Pith
  19. [19] Neutron Activation and Scattering Calculator, “Neutron activation and scattering calculator,” (2025) on Pith
  20. [20] with the given fit covariance matrix. The distribu- tion of random sampled backgrounds was used to find the expected value for the background with its uncertainty at that measurement time. The expected value for the background with its error was then subtracted from the counts... on Pith
show 10 more
  1. [21] “NumPy reference: numpy.random.multivariate normal,” (2024) on Pith
  2. [22] G. J. Feldman and R. D. Cousins, Physical Review D57, 3873 (1998) on Pith
  3. [23] M. Hostert, D. McKeen, M. Pospelov, and N. Raj, Phys. Rev. D107, 075034 (2023), arXiv:2201.02603 [hep-ph] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  4. [24] N. J. Ayreset al., “New high-sensitivity search for neu- tron to mirror-neutron oscillations at the PSI UCN source,” (2026), arXiv:2602.23487 [nucl-ex] on PitharXiv
  5. [25] H. Almaz´ an, L. Bernard, A. Blanchet, A. Bonhomme, C. Buck, P. del Amo Sanchez, I. El Atmani, L. Labit, J. Lamblin, A. Letourneau,et al., Physical Review Let- ters128, 061801 (2022), arXiv:2111.01519. 10 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  6. [26] C. Stasser, G. Terwagne, J. Lamblin, O. M´ eplan, G. Pig- nol, B. Coup´ e, S. Kalcheva, S. Van Dyck, and M. Sar- razin, The European Physical Journal C81, 17 (2021), arXiv:2007.11335 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  7. [27] P. MohanMurthy and J. Winger, PoSSPIN2023, 112 (2024) on Pith
  8. [28] G. Banet al., Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 191801 (2023), arXiv:2303.10507 [hep-ph] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  9. [29] G. Brenot, B. Cl´ ement, H. Filter-Pieler, D. Galbinski, T. Jenke, T. Lefort, A. Lejuez, G. Pignol, S. Roccia, and W. Saenz-Arevalo, Physics Letters B879(2026), 10.1016/j.physletb.2026.140673, arXiv:2603.25376 [hep- ex] on PitharXiv
  10. [30] N. Ziehl,Active magnetic shielding for n2EDM and the search for mirror neutrons, Ph.D. thesis, Zurich, ETH (2026) on Pith
Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers on Pith that cite this one. The full citation record

  1. FINESSE: A Versatile Beamline for Fundamental Interactions with Neutrons at the European Spallation SourcE physics.ins-det · Oct 2026

Topics: Dark Matter

How the literature uses it

What this paper does with the arXiv papers it cites

Each citing sentence is taken from the citing paper's LaTeX source and typed by Pith's classifier. A label appears at probability 0.8 or more (0.95 for support), a contest at 0.7 or more; the quoted words are the citing authors'. How each label was checked · JSON

Papers whose main result relates to this one's

Found among the papers closest to this one by title and main claim. Pith's classifier compared each pair's main results and a second model family confirmed the relation; checked against two further families, shown conflicts agreed 118 times in 120 and shown same results 218 times in 239. The quoted sentence is the other paper's main claim.

States the same result 1 paper

What it cites · 11 sentences without a confident label

Uses the method or tool of 2 papers
Compares with 2 papers
Cites as background 6 papers

Challenges and discussion

Disagree with the review, or know something it missed? Leave a comment, or challenge this review formally: a challenge becomes a permanent entry in this paper's record, and its decision is published here.

No comments yet.

Sign in to comment