Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

The paper argues that the second oscillation maximum at DUNE can extract the intrinsic neutrino CP phase even when nonstandard interactions corrupt the first.

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 11:08 UTC pith:3PQDWMGK

load-bearing objection Useful, credible DUNE second-maximum/NSI sensitivity study; the combined-beam numbers are new, but the 'intrinsic CP extraction' claim is overstated and several internal inconsistencies need fixing before acceptance. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2601.07435 v2 pith:3PQDWMGK submitted 2026-01-12 hep-ph

CP violating signal at DUNE in presence of nonstandard interactions and the role of second oscillation maxima

Rajrupa Banerjee , Jogesh Rout , Sudhanwa Patra , Poonam Mehta This is my paper
classification hep-ph
keywords second oscillation maximumnonstandard interactionsCP violationDirac CP phaseDUNEintrinsic versus extrinsic CPlong-baseline neutrino oscillationsνμ→νe appearance
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper asks whether a long-baseline neutrino experiment can still measure the intrinsic CP-violating phase δ when nonstandard interactions (NSI) contaminate the oscillation signal. Its answer, based on an analytic decomposition of the νμ→νe appearance probability and a full statistical simulation of DUNE, is that the second oscillation maximum is largely protected from this contamination: at the benchmark NSI values, the fake-CP subtraction makes the vacuum, matter-only, and NSI predictions nearly coincide there, restoring a clean sinusoidal dependence on δ. The paper claims that NSI actually enhance CP-violating event rates at the second maximum, and that an optimized combination of the standard 120 GeV beam with an 8 GeV beam aimed at the second maximum pushes DUNE's CP-violation discovery reach beyond 12σ, covering roughly 70% of possible δ values at 5σ. A sympathetic reader would care because CP violation in neutrinos is a leading window onto matter-antimatter asymmetry, and this result suggests a practical way to protect that measurement from a plausible class of new physics.

Core claim

The central claim is that the observable δ(ΔP^CP_μe) = ΔP^CP_μe(δ) − ΔP^CP_μe(δ=0) cleanly removes fake CP contamination at the second oscillation maximum. At DUNE's baseline, the first maximum sits near 2.6 GeV, where matter effects generate a strong cosδ term that masks the intrinsic phase; the second maximum near 0.86 GeV suppresses that term because it enters through (f²+f'²), which is small there. In the benchmark NSI scenario (εeμ=0.05, εeτ=−0.05), the vacuum, standard-matter, and NSI curves for δ(ΔP) nearly overlap at the second maximum, including at δ=0 and ±180°, whereas at the first maximum the NSI curve deviates substantially. The paper further claims that NSI amplify the CP-asymm

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is the analytic decomposition of P_μe into three terms: a matter-only term P0, the standard solar-atmospheric interference P1 ∝ cos(Δ+δ), and an NSI term P2 ∝ |ε|[a f² cos(δ+φ) + b f g cos(Δ+δ+φ)]. Expanding the CP asymmetry separates contributions into sinΔ sinδ (intrinsic and extrinsic, peaks at oscillation maxima), cosΔ cosδ (vanishes at maxima), and a cosδ term ∝ v|ε|(f²+f'²) that is independent of the oscillation maxima and arises only from NSI-modified matter. The second oscillation maximum, at L/E ≈ 1500 km/GeV (E ≈ 0.86 GeV for DUNE), minimizes (f²+f'²), which suppresses the problematic cosδ term; the subtraction observable δ(ΔP) cancels the remaining δ-indepen

Load-bearing premise

The isolation of the intrinsic CP phase rests on the assumption that subtracting ΔP(δ=0) removes enough of the fake CP contribution that the leftover cosδ matter-NSI term is negligible at the second oscillation maximum; the paper shows this holds for its benchmark NSI values, but Eq. (2.15) contains a cosδ term that the subtraction does not eliminate by construction.

What would settle it

Compute δ(ΔP^CP_μe) at the second oscillation maximum using NSI values at the allowed 3σ extremes (e.g., εeμ as negative as −0.18 and εeτ as positive as 0.33) and check whether the NSI curve still coincides with the vacuum curve at δ=0 and ±180°; if a residual offset survives, the claimed isolation is benchmark-dependent. On the experimental side, a measurement of the ν_e appearance spectrum around 0.8 GeV whose δ-dependence has a cos-type (not sin-type) shape would falsify the prediction.

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

If this is right

  • If the central claim is correct, DUNE can discover leptonic CP violation at 5σ for about 70% of possible δ values even when NSI are present, using the optimized combined beam.
  • The second oscillation maximum provides a largely matter-blind window for measuring δ, allowing a cleaner test of intrinsic CP violation than the first maximum.
  • NSI, rather than only spoiling CP sensitivity, can enhance the CP-violating event rate at the second maximum, increasing the discovery reach of the 120 GeV beam from 5σ to above 10σ.
  • The region near δ=±20° becomes a practical target for extracting intrinsic CP even under NSI, because matter and NSI contamination are both minimized there.
  • Dual-beam operation (8 GeV plus 120 GeV) becomes essential once NSI are included, whereas the 120 GeV beam alone is nearly sufficient under standard interactions.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's benchmark NSI values (εeμ=0.05, εeτ=−0.05) are chosen because they maximize CP-asymmetry effects; the claim that the second maximum isolates δ should be stress-tested across the full 3σ NSI ranges, where the residual cosδ term in Eq. (2.15) may not stay negligible.
  • If the isolation holds, the same second-maximum strategy could be exported to other long-baseline configurations with comparable L/E, potentially improving CP measurements at experiments with different baselines or energies.
  • The near-sinusoidal δ-dependence recovered at the second maximum could be used to break the δ↔π−δ degeneracy that typically plagues CP measurements, but the paper does not demonstrate this explicitly.
  • A natural extension is to use the second-maximum event rate itself as a diagnostic for NSI: because the cosδ term is suppressed there, deviations from the standard prediction would more directly indicate new physics.

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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper investigates DUNE's ability to identify CP violation in the presence of neutral-current nonstandard interactions, focusing on the role of the second oscillation maximum. The authors use a first-order perturbative expansion for P_{μe}, introduce the subtracted observable δ(ΔP_{μe}^{CP}) = ΔP_{μe}^{CP}(δ) − ΔP_{μe}^{CP}(δ=0), and argue that at the second oscillation maximum the matter/NSI contamination is sufficiently suppressed to extract the intrinsic CP phase. They then perform GLoBES simulations for the 120 GeV TDR beam, an 8 GeV beam, and a combined configuration, presenting event spectra, CP-violation χ² sensitivities, and fractional coverage of the δ parameter space. For the benchmark NSI values (ε_{eμ}, ε_{eτ}) = (0.05, −0.05), the combined configuration is claimed to exceed 12σ and to cover nearly 70% of δ values at 5σ in the NSI scenario.

Significance. The question is timely and directly relevant to DUNE's primary physics goal. The paper has useful ingredients: the GLoBES-based simulation, the dual-beam strategy accessing both oscillation maxima, and the analytic expansion separating SI and NSI contributions. It also connects to an existing literature on disentangling intrinsic and extrinsic CP violation. However, two load-bearing assumptions are not currently established: (i) that Eq. (2.16) removes the NSI cosδ term at the second maximum, and (ii) that the quoted sensitivities represent the generic 'presence of NSI' rather than a single favorable benchmark point. Because these assumptions underpin the central claim, the paper needs substantial revision before the advertised conclusions can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.4, Eqs. (2.15)–(2.16), Fig. 5] The subtraction δ(ΔP^{CP}_{μe}) = ΔP^{CP}_{μe}(δ) − ΔP^{CP}_{μe}(0) removes only terms independent of δ. The NSI contribution in Eq. (2.15) contains the term 8 s13 s23 v|ε| a (f² + f′²) cosδ, which does not vanish at the oscillation maxima. After subtraction, this term becomes 8 s13 s23 v|ε| a (f² + f′²)(cosδ − 1), which is nonzero at δ = ±π unless the effective coefficient a is zero. The near-overlap of the vacuum, SI, and NSI curves at δ = ±180° in Fig. 5 is therefore a numerical accident of the chosen benchmark. For (ε_{eμ}, ε_{eτ}) = (0.05, −0.05) and θ23 ≈ 48.5°, the weighted combination of s23² and s23c23 nearly cancels; for other 3σ-allowed values in Table 1, e.g. (−0.18, +0.33), the residual is not small relative to the intrinsic signal. The statement in §2.4 that the second maximum extracts the intrinsic CP phase 'without significant interference from matter or NSI effects' is n
  2. [§5.1, Fig. 11, Table 1] The quoted CP-violation significances — 120 GeV above 10σ, the combined configuration beyond 12σ, and ~70% coverage at 5σ — are computed with ε_{eμ} and ε_{eτ} fixed at the benchmark values and with marginalization only over standard oscillation parameters. This contradicts the statement in §2 (near Fig. 1) that for the CP-violation sensitivity analysis these NSI parameters are 'systematically varied within their respective 3σ bounds.' Since the benchmark was selected in part because it produces large ΔP^{CP}_{μe}, the reported numbers are conditional on a favorable point, not robustness statements about NSI. The paper should either marginalize over the allowed NSI ranges or clearly present the results as benchmark-specific estimates, with the coverage/significance claims correspondingly qualified.
  3. [§5.1, Eq. (5.1)] As written, Eq. (5.1) defines χ² = min_{δtest} Σ [N^{true}(δtrue) − N^{true}(δtrue=0,π)]² / N^{true}(δtrue), which has no dependence on δtest in the summed term and uses the true counts in the denominator. A reader cannot reproduce the quoted 5σ/10σ/12σ values from this definition. The statistic should involve the predicted counts for the test hypothesis (with δtest), a proper treatment of systematic uncertainties, and a clear definition of the Δχ² used for the CP-violation hypothesis test. Since the statistical claims are central, this needs to be corrected and the implementation clarified.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§6 and Table 2] The conclusion states that in the SI case about 1478 ν_e events are observed at δ = −90° and that this number is reduced to 496 in the ν mode in the NSI case. The tables and event spectra show the opposite behavior: for the combined beam, SI δ = −90° gives 2243 events and NSI gives 2744 events; even the 120 GeV values are 1498 and 1832, respectively. This sentence should be corrected.
  2. [§3 and Appendix A] The constant Earth matter density is given as 2.484 g/cm³ in Section 3 and as 2.848 g/cm³ in Appendix A. These should be reconciled, as the numerical results depend on the matter profile.
  3. [Fig. 11 caption] The caption appears to swap left and right panels: it says 'SI (right panel)' and 'NSI (left panel)', then repeats the same ordering for the fractional sensitivity. Please check the labels against the actual panel contents.
  4. [Table 1] The table contains an editorial placeholder ('put ϵ ee in table too') and the ε_ee row is blank. The table should be completed and cleaned.
  5. [Throughout] There are numerous typos and inconsistent labels: 'oscilltion maxima', 'untwining', 'T able 1', and possibly swapped 'red/blue' descriptions between Figs. 4 and 5. A careful proofreading pass is needed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the paper is a self-contained GLoBES simulation study whose inputs (NuFIT v6.0 oscillation parameters, NSI global-fit values, DUNE TDR configurations) are external; the disentangling caveats are correctness/robustness issues, not definitional reductions.

full rationale

The derivation chain starts from a standard perturbative expansion for P_mue in the presence of NSI, Eqs. (2.4)-(2.5), attributed to literature [31,35,55], with NSI benchmark values from the global-fit Table 1 (from [67]). All numerical outputs are produced by GLoBES with a PREM matter-density profile and DUNE TDR beam/detector specifications, so the event rates and chi-squared sensitivities are not fitted to the paper's own conclusions. The disentangling observable in Eq. (2.16), delta(DeltaP^CP_mue)=DeltaP^CP_mue(delta)-DeltaP^CP_mue(delta=0), is a linear rearrangement of the same probability function, but the paper does not use it as an independent data constraint or derive the second-maximum conclusion from the definition alone. The residual NSI cos(delta) term visible in Eq. (2.14) is explicitly acknowledged in Sec. 2.4: "However, in the presence of NSI, due to the presence of the matter dependence term (f^2+f'^2), associated with cos(delta), interference from fetching the absolute intrinsic delta." The Conclusion further limits the extraction claim to the vicinity of delta=+/-20 degrees, so the paper does not assert a definitionally exact cancellation. The benchmark-dependence concern is a robustness/correctness gap rather than circularity: Fig. 5's near-convergence at delta=+/-180 degrees is shown only for the benchmark (eps_e_mu=0.05, eps_e_tau=-0.05), and Sec. 5.1 says "we adopt eps_e_mu=0.05 and eps_e_tau=-0.05 as benchmark NSI values" instead of varying them over the 3-sigma range despite the Sec. 2.1 claim that they are "systematically varied." That inconsistency is a missing-support issue, not an equation reducing to its input. Self-citations to the authors' prior work (e.g., [25,40,43,52,53]) provide context and earlier methods, but the load-bearing computation is independently simulated with GLoBES and the NSI inputs come from an external global fit, so no self-citation chain forces the result. No circular step meets the quote-and-specific-reduction bar.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particles or forces. The free parameters are the benchmark NSI couplings, which are externally motivated by global fits but selected by the authors' own oscillograms, and the optimized runtime split. The load-bearing axioms are the standard oscillation framework, the assumed NSI form, the first-order perturbative expansion, the normal-ordering restriction, and the δ = 0 subtraction ansatz—the last being the most fragile because it is only approximately valid for the chosen benchmark values.

free parameters (3)
  • εeμ (benchmark NSI parameter) = 0.05
    Chosen, per Sec. 2.1, from the paper's own Fig. 1 as the region of large ΔP^CP enhancement; coincides with the central value of the global NSI fit in Table 1.
  • εeτ (benchmark NSI parameter) = -0.05
    Same selection logic as εeμ; global-fit central value, selected to probe 'significant CP violating effects' in Fig. 1.
  • Beam runtime split for combined configuration = 120 GeV: 5 yr ν + 1 yr ν̄; 8 GeV: 1 yr ν
    Optimized, per Sec. 4, to maximize CP-violation sensitivity while keeping the total runtime at 7 years; replaces the equal 3.5+3.5 yr split and is not varied in the sensitivity scan.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Standard three-flavor PMNS oscillation framework with MSW matter effects
    Used throughout; the paper's 'SI' scenario and the baseline for comparison with NSI.
  • domain assumption NSI is vector-type neutral-current with only real εee, εeμ, εeτ couplings; no CC NSI; no complex phases
    Stated in Sec. 2; CC NSI are dropped due to tight bounds, and phases are set to zero. This limits the generality of the disentangling claim.
  • domain assumption First-order perturbative expansion in α = Δm²₂₁/Δm²₃₁ and s₁₃ is valid at both oscillation maxima
    Invoked in Sec. 2.1; standard in the literature, but its accuracy at the low-energy second maximum (E ≈ 0.86 GeV) is assumed rather than tested against the exact GLoBES result.
  • domain assumption Normal mass ordering only; inverted ordering deferred
    Sec. 2.1 explicitly restricts the analysis to NO, so all quantitative conclusions do not apply to the inverted ordering.
  • ad hoc to paper The subtracted observable δ(ΔP^CP_μe)(δ) removes fake CP effects
    Sec. 2.4, Eq. (2.16). Not generally true: Eq. (2.15) contains a matter/NSI cosδ term that is δ-dependent and not subtracted, so the observable isolates intrinsic CP only approximately and only for NSI values where that term is small.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 5479 in / 5689 out tokens · 323630 ms · 2026-08-03T11:08:12.217955+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Neutrino oscillation among the three active neutrino flavors is well established and supported by experiments at diverse length scales and energy scales. It may be noted that five of the neutrino oscillation parameters in the three-flavor paradigm, namely the three mixing angles ($\theta_{12}$, $\theta_{13}$, $\theta_{23}$) and the two mass-squared differences ($\Delta m^{2}_{21}$, $\Delta m^{2}_{31}$) are measured to a reasonable degree of precision. The three unknowns that are expected to be deciphered in the near future are the Dirac CP phase, $\delta$, the neutrino mass ordering, and the octant of $\theta_{23}$. The next generation of long baseline experiments, such as the Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment (DUNE), aims to resolve these unanswered questions. In the present work, by considering DUNE as an example, we assess the ability of long baseline experiments to extricate the intrinsic contribution from observables related to CP violation in scenarios with Standard Interaction (SI) and beyond. Additionally, we analyze the role of the second oscillation maximum in addressing the above mentioned questions. By carrying out event level and statistical analyses, we assess the potential of DUNE to probe CP violation effects both within and beyond the standard paradigm.

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. Towards Measuring the CP-Violating Phase with Atmospheric Neutrinos

    hep-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    A new up-down flux ratio for sub-GeV atmospheric neutrinos enables Hyper-Kamiokande to measure the CP-violating phase with sensitivity surpassing T2HK near delta_CP of 90 and 270 degrees.

  2. Towards Measuring the CP-Violating Phase with Atmospheric Neutrinos

    hep-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Proposes a new up-down flux ratio for sub-GeV atmospheric neutrinos to measure δ_CP, potentially exceeding T2HK sensitivity near 90° and 270° at Hyper-Kamiokande.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 53 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Pontecorvo,Inverse Beta Processes and Nonconservation of Lepton Charge,Sov

    B. Pontecorvo,Inverse Beta Processes and Nonconservation of Lepton Charge,Sov. Phys. JETP7(1958) 172–173

    1958

  2. [2]

    Pontecorvo,Mesonium and Antimesonium,Sov

    B. Pontecorvo,Mesonium and Antimesonium,Sov. Phys. JETP6(1958) 429–431

    1958

  3. [3]

    Pontecorvo,Neutrino Experiments and the Problem of Conservation of Leptonic Charge, Zh

    B. Pontecorvo,Neutrino Experiments and the Problem of Conservation of Leptonic Charge, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.53(1967) 1717–1725

    1967

  4. [4]

    Gribov and B

    V. Gribov and B. Pontecorvo,Neutrino astronomy and lepton charge,Phys. Lett. B28 (1969) 493

    1969

  5. [5]

    Z. Maki, M. Nakagawa, and S. Sakata,Remarks on the unified model of elementary particles, Prog. Theor. Phys.28(1962) 870–880

    1962

  6. [6]

    For the discovery of neutrino oscillations, which shows that neutrinos have mass

    T. Kajita and A. B. McDonald, “For the discovery of neutrino oscillations, which shows that neutrinos have mass.” The Nobel Prize in Physics 2015.https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/2015/summary/. 25

    2015

  7. [7]

    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, JHEP02(2021) 071, [arXiv:2006.11237]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  8. [8]

    Capozzi, W

    F. Capozzi, W. Giar` e, E. Lisi, A. Marrone, A. Melchiorri, and A. Palazzo,Neutrino masses and mixing: Entering the era of subpercent precision,Phys. Rev. D111(2025), no. 9 093006, [arXiv:2503.07752]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  9. [9]

    Esteban, M

    I. Esteban, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, M. Maltoni, I. Martinez-Soler, J. P. Pinheiro, and T. Schwetz,NuFit-6.0: updated global analysis of three-flavor neutrino oscillations,JHEP12 (2024) 216, [arXiv:2410.05380]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  10. [10]

    Farzan and M

    Y. Farzan and M. Tortola,Neutrino oscillations and Non-Standard Interactions,Front. in Phys.6(2018) 10, [arXiv:1710.09360]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  11. [11]

    Dasgupta and J

    B. Dasgupta and J. Kopp,Sterile Neutrinos,Phys. Rept.928(2021) 1–63, [arXiv:2106.05913]. [12]DUNECollaboration, B. Abi et al.,Prospects for beyond the Standard Model physics searches at the Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment,Eur. Phys. J. C81(2021), no. 4 322, [arXiv:2008.12769]. [13]Particle Data GroupCollaboration, S. Navas et al.,Review of particle p...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  12. [14]

    Fukugita and T

    M. Fukugita and T. Yanagida,Baryogenesis Without Grand Unification,Phys. Lett. B174 (1986) 45–47

    1986

  13. [15]

    Davidson, E

    S. Davidson, E. Nardi, and Y. Nir,Leptogenesis,Phys. Rept.466(2008) 105–177, [arXiv:0802.2962]. [16]DUNECollaboration, R. Acciarri et al.,Long-Baseline Neutrino Facility (LBNF) and Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment (DUNE): Conceptual Design Report, Volume 2: The Physics Program for DUNE at LBNF,arXiv:1512.06148. [17]DUNECollaboration, B. Abi et al.,Lon...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  14. [22]

    A. V. Akindinov et al.,Letter of Interest for a Neutrino Beam from Protvino to KM3NeT/ORCA,Eur. Phys. J. C79(2019), no. 9 758, [arXiv:1902.06083]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  15. [23]

    Bishai, M

    M. Bishai, M. Diwan, S. Kettell, J. Stewart, B. Viren, E. Worcester, R. Tschirhart, and L. Whitehead,Precision Neutrino Oscillation Measurements using Simultaneous High-Power, Low-Energy Project-X Beams, inSnowmass 2013: Snowmass on the Mississippi, 7, 2013.arXiv:1307.0807. 26

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  16. [24]

    Bass et al.,Baseline Optimization for the Measurement of CP Violation, Mass Hierarchy, andθ 23 Octant in a Long-Baseline Neutrino Oscillation Experiment,Phys

    M. Bass et al.,Baseline Optimization for the Measurement of CP Violation, Mass Hierarchy, andθ 23 Octant in a Long-Baseline Neutrino Oscillation Experiment,Phys. Rev. D91 (2015), no. 5 052015, [arXiv:1311.0212]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  17. [25]

    J. Rout, S. Shafaq, M. Bishai, and P. Mehta,Physics prospects with the second oscillation maximum at the Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment,Phys. Rev. D103(2021), no. 11 116003, [arXiv:2012.08269]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  18. [26]

    Wolfenstein,Neutrino Oscillations in Matter,Phys

    L. Wolfenstein,Neutrino Oscillations in Matter,Phys. Rev. D17(1978) 2369–2374

    1978

  19. [27]

    Grossman,Nonstandard neutrino interactions and neutrino oscillation experiments,Phys

    Y. Grossman,Nonstandard neutrino interactions and neutrino oscillation experiments,Phys. Lett. B359(1995) 141–147, [hep-ph/9507344]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  20. [28]

    Fornengo, M

    N. Fornengo, M. Maltoni, R. Tomas, and J. W. F. Valle,Probing neutrino nonstandard interactions with atmospheric neutrino data,Phys. Rev. D65(2002) 013010, [hep-ph/0108043]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  21. [29]

    Blennow, T

    M. Blennow, T. Ohlsson, and W. Winter,Non-standard Hamiltonian effects on neutrino oscillations,Eur. Phys. J. C49(2007) 1023–1039, [hep-ph/0508175]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  22. [30]

    Antusch, J

    S. Antusch, J. P. Baumann, and E. Fernandez-Martinez,Non-Standard Neutrino Interactions with Matter from Physics Beyond the Standard Model,Nucl. Phys. B810(2009) 369–388, [arXiv:0807.1003]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  23. [31]

    Meloni, T

    D. Meloni, T. Ohlsson, and H. Zhang,Exact and Approximate Formulas for Neutrino Mixing and Oscillations with Non-Standard Interactions,JHEP04(2009) 033, [arXiv:0901.1784]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  24. [32]

    A. M. Gago, H. Minakata, H. Nunokawa, S. Uchinami, and R. Zukanovich Funchal,Resolving CP Violation by Standard and Nonstandard Interactions and Parameter Degeneracy in Neutrino Oscillations,JHEP01(2010) 049, [arXiv:0904.3360]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  25. [33]

    Adhikari, S

    R. Adhikari, S. Chakraborty, A. Dasgupta, and S. Roy,Non-standard interaction in neutrino oscillations and recent Daya Bay, T2K experiments,Phys. Rev. D86(2012) 073010, [arXiv:1201.3047]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  26. [34]

    S. K. Agarwalla, F. Lombardi, and T. Takeuchi,Constraining Non-Standard Interactions of the Neutrino with Borexino,JHEP12(2012) 079, [arXiv:1207.3492]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  27. [35]

    Chatterjee, P

    A. Chatterjee, P. Mehta, D. Choudhury, and R. Gandhi,Testing nonstandard neutrino matter interactions in atmospheric neutrino propagation,Phys. Rev. D93(2016), no. 9 093017, [arXiv:1409.8472]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  28. [36]

    Choubey and T

    S. Choubey and T. Ohlsson,Bounds on Non-Standard Neutrino Interactions Using PINGU, Phys. Lett. B739(2014) 357–364, [arXiv:1410.0410]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  29. [37]

    S. K. Agarwalla, P. Bagchi, D. V. Forero, and M. T´ ortola,Probing Non-Standard Interactions at Daya Bay,JHEP07(2015) 060, [arXiv:1412.1064]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  30. [38]

    Ohlsson, H

    T. Ohlsson, H. Zhang, and S. Zhou,Nonstandard interaction effects on neutrino parameters at medium-baseline reactor antineutrino experiments,Phys. Lett. B728(2014) 148–155, [arXiv:1310.5917]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  31. [39]

    Choubey, A

    S. Choubey, A. Ghosh, T. Ohlsson, and D. Tiwari,Neutrino Physics with Non-Standard Interactions at INO,JHEP12(2015) 126, [arXiv:1507.02211]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  32. [40]

    Masud, A

    M. Masud, A. Chatterjee, and P. Mehta,Probing CP violation signal at DUNE in presence of non-standard neutrino interactions,J. Phys. G43(2016), no. 9 095005, [arXiv:1510.08261]. 27

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  33. [41]

    de Gouvˆ ea and K

    A. de Gouvˆ ea and K. J. Kelly,Non-standard neutrino interactions at DUNE,Nucl. Phys. B 908(2016) 318–335, [arXiv:1511.05562]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  34. [42]

    Coloma,Non-Standard Interactions in propagation at the Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment,JHEP03(2016) 016, [arXiv:1511.06357]

    P. Coloma,Non-Standard Interactions in propagation at the Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment,JHEP03(2016) 016, [arXiv:1511.06357]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  35. [43]

    Masud and P

    M. Masud and P. Mehta,Nonstandard interactions spoiling the CP violation sensitivity at DUNE and other long baseline experiments,Phys. Rev. D94(2016) 013014, [arXiv:1603.01380]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  36. [44]

    Masud and P

    M. Masud and P. Mehta,Nonstandard interactions and resolving the ordering of neutrino masses at DUNE and other long baseline experiments,Phys. Rev. D94(2016), no. 5 053007, [arXiv:1606.05662]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  37. [45]

    Ge and A

    S.-F. Ge and A. Y. Smirnov,Non-standard interactions and the CP phase measurements in neutrino oscillations at low energies,JHEP10(2016) 138, [arXiv:1607.08513]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  38. [46]

    Blennow, S

    M. Blennow, S. Choubey, T. Ohlsson, D. Pramanik, and S. K. Raut,A combined study of source, detector and matter non-standard neutrino interactions at DUNE,JHEP08(2016) 090, [arXiv:1606.08851]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  39. [47]

    K. N. Deepthi, S. Goswami, and N. Nath,Can nonstandard interactions jeopardize the hierarchy sensitivity of DUNE?,Phys. Rev. D96(2017), no. 7 075023, [arXiv:1612.00784]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  40. [48]

    Fukasawa, M

    S. Fukasawa, M. Ghosh, and O. Yasuda,Sensitivity of the T2HKK experiment to nonstandard interactions,Phys. Rev. D95(2017), no. 5 055005, [arXiv:1611.06141]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  41. [49]

    J. Liao, D. Marfatia, and K. Whisnant,Nonstandard neutrino interactions at DUNE, T2HK and T2HKK,JHEP01(2017) 071, [arXiv:1612.01443]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  42. [50]

    S. K. Agarwalla, S. S. Chatterjee, and A. Palazzo,Degeneracy betweenθ 23 octant and neutrino non-standard interactions at DUNE,Phys. Lett. B762(2016) 64–71, [arXiv:1607.01745]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  43. [51]

    S. K. Agarwalla, S. S. Chatterjee, A. Dasgupta, and A. Palazzo,Discovery Potential of T2K and NOvA in the Presence of a Light Sterile Neutrino,JHEP02(2016) 111, [arXiv:1601.05995]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  44. [52]

    J. Rout, M. Masud, and P. Mehta,Can we probe intrinsic CP and T violations and nonunitarity at long baseline accelerator experiments?,Phys. Rev. D95(2017), no. 7 075035, [arXiv:1702.02163]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  45. [53]

    Masud, M

    M. Masud, M. Bishai, and P. Mehta,Extricating New Physics Scenarios at DUNE with Higher Energy Beams,Sci. Rep.9(2019), no. 1 352, [arXiv:1704.08650]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  46. [54]

    Medhi, D

    A. Medhi, D. Dutta, and M. M. Devi,Exploring the effects of scalar non standard interactions on the CP violation sensitivity at DUNE,JHEP06(2022) 129, [arXiv:2111.12943]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  47. [55]

    S. S. Chatterjee, P. S. B. Dev, and P. A. N. Machado,Impact of improved energy resolution on DUNE sensitivity to neutrino non-standard interactions,JHEP08(2021) 163, [arXiv:2106.04597]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  48. [56]

    Brahma and A

    B. Brahma and A. Giri,Exploring non standard interactions effects in T2HK and DUNE, Eur. Phys. J. C82(2022), no. 12 1145

    2022

  49. [57]

    Majhi, D

    R. Majhi, D. K. Singha, M. Ghosh, and R. Mohanta,Distinguishing nonstandard interaction 28 and Lorentz invariance violation at the Protvino to super-ORCA experiment,Phys. Rev. D 107(2023), no. 7 075036, [arXiv:2212.07244]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  50. [58]

    Sarker, A

    A. Sarker, A. Medhi, D. Bezboruah, M. M. Devi, and D. Dutta,Impact of scalar NSI on the neutrino mass ordering sensitivity at DUNE, HK and KNO,JHEP06(2024) 128, [arXiv:2309.12249]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  51. [59]

    Sarker, D

    A. Sarker, D. Bezboruah, A. Medhi, and M. M. Devi,Sensitivity of DUNE in the presence of off-diagonal scalar NSI parameters,Phys. Rev. D112(2025), no. 3 035042, [arXiv:2406.15307]

    arXiv 2025

  52. [60]

    Bezboruah, D

    D. Bezboruah, D. S. Chattopadhyay, A. Medhi, A. Sarker, and M. M. Devi,Neutrino oscillations in presence of diagonal elements of scalar NSI: an analytic approach,JHEP12 (2025) 222, [arXiv:2410.05250]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  53. [61]

    Medhi, A

    A. Medhi, A. Sarker, and M. M. Devi,Scalar NSI: a unique tool for constraining absolute neutrino masses via neutrino oscillations,Eur. Phys. J. C85(2025), no. 4 380, [arXiv:2307.05348]. [62]Super-KamiokandeCollaboration, G. Mitsuka et al.,Study of Non-Standard Neutrino Interactions with Atmospheric Neutrino Data in Super-Kamiokande I and II,Phys. Rev. D 8...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  54. [64]

    Biggio, M

    C. Biggio, M. Blennow, and E. Fernandez-Martinez,General bounds on non-standard neutrino interactions,JHEP08(2009) 090, [arXiv:0907.0097]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  55. [65]

    Biggio, M

    C. Biggio, M. Blennow, and E. Fernandez-Martinez,Loop bounds on non-standard neutrino interactions,JHEP03(2009) 139, [arXiv:0902.0607]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  56. [66]

    F. J. Escrihuela, M. Tortola, J. W. F. Valle, and O. G. Miranda,Global constraints on muon-neutrino non-standard interactions,Phys. Rev. D83(2011) 093002, [arXiv:1103.1366]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  57. [67]

    Coloma, M

    P. Coloma, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, M. Maltoni, J. P. Pinheiro, and S. Urrea,Global constraints on non-standard neutrino interactions with quarks and electrons,JHEP08 (2023) 032, [arXiv:2305.07698]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  58. [68]

    Parveen, K

    S. Parveen, K. Sharma, S. Patra, and P. Mehta,Signals of eV-scale sterile neutrino at long baseline neutrino experiments,Eur. Phys. J. C85(2025), no. 2 181, [arXiv:2305.16824]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  59. [69]

    Parveen, M

    S. Parveen, M. Masud, M. Bishai, and P. Mehta,Sterile sector impacting the correlations and degeneracies among mixing parameters at the Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment, JHEP01(2025) 139, [arXiv:2409.17878]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  60. [70]

    J. Rout, M. Masud, and P. Mehta,Impact of New Physics on CP-Asymmetries at Long Baselines,Springer Proc. Phys.203(2018) 795–797

    2018

  61. [71]

    Coloma, I

    P. Coloma, I. Esteban, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, and M. Maltoni,Improved global fit to Non-Standard neutrino Interactions using COHERENT energy and timing data,JHEP02 (2020) 023, [arXiv:1911.09109]. [Addendum: JHEP 12, 071 (2020)]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  62. [72]

    Kikuchi, H

    T. Kikuchi, H. Minakata, and S. Uchinami,Perturbation Theory of Neutrino Oscillation with Nonstandard Neutrino Interactions,JHEP03(2009) 114, [arXiv:0809.3312]. 29

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  63. [73]

    Huber, M

    P. Huber, M. Lindner, and W. Winter,Simulation of long-baseline neutrino oscillation experiments with GLoBES (General Long Baseline Experiment Simulator),Comput. Phys. Commun.167(2005) 195, [hep-ph/0407333]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  64. [74]

    Huber, J

    P. Huber, J. Kopp, M. Lindner, M. Rolinec, and W. Winter,New features in the simulation of neutrino oscillation experiments with GLoBES 3.0: General Long Baseline Experiment Simulator,Comput. Phys. Commun.177(2007) 432–438, [hep-ph/0701187]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  65. [75]

    A. M. Dziewonski and D. L. Anderson,Preliminary reference earth model,Phys. Earth Planet. Interiors25(1981) 297–356. [76]DUNECollaboration, B. Abi et al.,Experiment Simulation Configurations Approximating DUNE TDR,arXiv:2103.04797

    arXiv 1981

  66. [77]

    Kopp,Sterile neutrinos and non-standard neutrino interactions in globes,MPI-HD Technical Report(2019)

    J. Kopp,Sterile neutrinos and non-standard neutrino interactions in globes,MPI-HD Technical Report(2019)

    2019

  67. [78]

    F. D. Stacey,Physics of the Earth. Wiley, 2nd ed., 1977

    1977

  68. [79]

    A. M. Dziewonski and D. L. Anderson,Preliminary reference earth model,Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors25(June, 1981) 297–356. 30

    1981