Probing active-sterile neutrino transition magnetic moment on coherent elastic solar neutrino-nucleus scattering

Mehmet Demirci; M. Fauzi Mustamin

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 3 cited by

Probing active-sterile neutrino transition magnetic moment on coherent elastic solar neutrino-nucleus scattering

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Using CDEX-10 solar-neutrino coherent-scattering data, this paper sets new 90% C.L.

desk verdict A workmanlike dipole-portal CEνNS analysis applied to CDEX-10 data; the new limits and projections are plausible but a few analysis details are under-specified. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.03140 v1 pith:4UKDAZ5B submitted 2024-12-04 hep-ph

Mehmet Demirci , M. Fauzi Mustamin This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-ph

keywords sterileneutrinotransitionmagneticmomentcoherentelasticneutrino-nucleusscatteringsolarneutrinosdipoleportalCDEX-10electromagneticpropertiesdirectdarkmatterdetection

topics Dark Matter

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper tries to establish that the electromagnetic upscattering of solar neutrinos into sterile neutrinos, mediated by an active-sterile transition magnetic moment, can be probed with coherent elastic neutrino-nucleus scattering, and that existing germanium data already constrain it. Using the CDEX-10 solar-neutrino event rates, it reports a flavor-independent limit $\mu_{\nu\ell4} \lesssim 1.59\times10^{-8}\,\mu_B$ for sterile masses below $0.1$ MeV, with flavor-dependent bounds a few tens of percent weaker. Its projected next-generation and future germanium exposures would tighten those limits by up to about a factor of fifty and reach sterile masses near $10$ MeV, covering parameter space that accelerator, reactor, and dark-matter experiments have left open. A sympathetic reader would care because the result turns a mainstream dark-matter detector observable into a test of neutrino electromagnetic properties beyond the Standard Model.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the sterile neutrino dipole portal, an effective interaction $\mathcal{L}\supset \frac{\mu_{\nu\ell4}}{2}\, \bar{\nu}_{\ell L}\sigma^{\mu\nu} P_R \nu_4 F_{\mu\nu}$ that lets an incoming active neutrino exchange a photon with the target nucleus and upscatter into a sterile neutrino, $\nu_\ell N \to \nu_4 N$. The signal cross-section is the spin-1/2 formula $\frac{d\sigma}{dT_{nr}} \propto Z^2 F^2(|\vec q|^2)\, \big[\frac{1}{T_{nr}}-\frac{1}{E_\nu}-\cdots\big]$, whose $\sim 1/T_{nr}$ term makes low nuclear recoil energies the sensitive region; the paper adds this incoherently to the Standard Model CE$\nu$NS rate. The analysis machinery then folds in the $^8$B and hep solar fluxes from the BS05(OP) standard solar model, neutrino oscillation survival probabilities, a quenching-factor conversion from nuclear recoil to electron-equivalent energy, and a pull $\chi^2$ over the CDEX-10 energy bins. The paper also relies on a kinematic threshold $m_4^2 \le 2m_N T_{nr}\left(\sqrt{2m_N T_{nr}}/E_\nu - 1\right)$ that cuts off sensitivity at high sterile masses.

What would settle it

An independent recalculation of the CDEX-10 binned rates with the published efficiencies and pull $\chi^2$ should reproduce the flavor-independent bound $\mu_{\nu\ell4}\approx 1.59\times10^{-8}\,\mu_B$ at $m_4<0.1$ MeV; a materially different number would show the limit is an artifact of analysis choices. A direct cross-check of Eq. (8) against the two references the paper cites, in particular the sign and coefficient of the $m_4^4$ term, would settle whether a normalization error shifts every derived bound proportionally.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that CDEX-10 solar-neutrino coherent-scattering data place new 90% confidence-level upper limits on the active-sterile neutrino transition magnetic moment as a function of the sterile neutrino mass. In the flavor-independent treatment, the bound is $\mu_{\nu\ell4} \lesssim 1.59\times10^{-8}\,\mu_B$ for $m_4 \lesssim 0.1$ MeV, while the flavor-specific electron, muon, and tau bounds lie in the range $2.1\text{--}2.4\times10^{-8}\,\mu_B$; all limits deteriorate near $m_4\approx 10$ MeV because solar neutrinos no longer carry enough energy to produce the sterile state. The projected scenarios, with 150 kg$\cdot$yr at 1 keV threshold and 1.5 t$\cdot$yr at 1 keV or 0.1 keV thresholds, improve the flavor-independent bound to $8.6\times10^{-10}$, $5.9\times10^{-10}$, and $3.0\times10^{-10}\,\mu_B$, respectively, improvements of roughly 18 to 53 times over the current data. The paper further maintains that these projected sensitivities cover previously unexplored regions of the transition-magnetic-moment versus sterile-mass plane for $m_4$ up to about 10 MeV, with the $^8$B solar flux contributing about an order of magnitude more to the reach than the hep flux.

Load-bearing premise

The whole limit rests on the dipole-portal cross-section of Eq. (8) being the correct, complete description of active-to-sterile upscattering at the keV-scale momentum transfers of solar coherent scattering, with the nuclear spin treatment making no practical difference.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The current CDEX-10 bound on the flavor-independent transition magnetic moment is competitive with limits derived from dedicated dark-matter detectors.
Future germanium exposures of 150 kg$\cdot$yr to 1.5 t$\cdot$yr with recoil thresholds of 1 keV to 0.1 keV improve the current limit by factors of 18 to 53, reaching flavor-independent values near $3\times10^{-10}\,\mu_B$.
The projected sensitivities cover previously unexplored regions of the sterile-mass plane up to about 10 MeV, where solar CE$\nu$NS outperforms stopped-pion, reactor, and accelerator bounds.
Lowering the recoil threshold is especially valuable because the dipole signal grows like $1/T_{nr}$ at low recoil energies; the future-2 scenario's 0.1 keV threshold gives roughly a factor-of-two gain over the 1 keV-threshold scenarios at equal exposure.
The $^8$B solar flux, not hep, dominates the reach by about an order of magnitude, so improved $^8$B flux normalization would sharpen all quoted limits.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Editorial extension: the same low-recoil $1/T_{nr}$ enhancement is shared by other photon-mediated neutrino interactions (millicharge, charge radius, anapole moment), so a joint fit would be needed to avoid misattributing a future excess to the dipole portal alone.
Editorial extension: the projected sensitivities assume a flat background of $0.01$ events keV$^{-1}$ kg$^{-1}$ day$^{-1}$; if that background is not reached, the claimed coverage of previously unexplored masses near 10 MeV would shrink accordingly.
Editorial extension: the dipole portal also predicts radiative decay $\nu_4\to\nu\gamma$; a detector able to tag the decay photon would provide an independent signature of upscattered sterile neutrinos, something this analysis does not attempt.
Editorial extension: the limits assume the sterile neutrino leaves the detector without interacting; for masses near 10 MeV where the production threshold cuts in, an in-detector decay or re-scattering of $\nu_4$ would change the expected event topology and should be checked in future analyses.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: this is a legitimate, if not conceptually new, application of the active-sterile dipole-portal cross-section to solar-neutrino CEνNS data. The genuinely new pieces are the 90% C.L. limits from CDEX-10 (e.g., μνℓ4 ≲ 1.6×10^-8 μB for m4<0.1 MeV) and the three projected sensitivity scenarios for future germanium detectors. That is a useful addition to the growing set of terrestrial bounds on this operator. The underlying physics is standard: the cross-section from Refs [60,66] is used as quoted, the SM baseline is textbook, and the spin-0 vs spin-1/2 treatment is shown to be irrelevant at this momentum transfer (δ ~ 10^-5 to 10^-13). The comparison with existing limits is thorough, and the projections indicate where future germanium detectors could actually bite, especially for m4 in the MeV range.

The soft spots are real but mostly addressable. Equation (20), the low-energy quenching factor, has an ambiguous unit structure: the exponent mixes 15 and 71.03 with Tnr but no units are given, so as printed it is not dimensionless. Since the 'future 2' scenario uses a 0.1 keVnr threshold, this matters for the projection. The χ² in Eq. (22) includes an undefined background B; the pull formalism is standard, but B needs to be specified for reproducibility. The projected uncertainty reductions are described as 'by a factor of 10% and 1%', which could mean 'to 10% and 1% of current' or 'by 10% and 1%'. And the future scenarios assume a 1.5 ton·year exposure while stating the target mass is 50 kg, which implies a 30-year run; that inconsistency should be resolved, presumably by assuming a ton-scale detector. Finally, no code or data tables are included, so an exact numerical check of the limits is not possible from the text alone.

The biggest worry any referee would have is Eq. (8): the cross-section is quoted from Refs [60,66] without derivation. That is defensible, since the m4=0 limit reduces to the known active-neutrino magnetic moment cross-section and two independent references agree. But I would ask the authors to add a derivation in an appendix or at least a numerical benchmark table to anchor the normalization.

Overall, this is a solid pheno paper with a few rough edges. It deserves a serious referee and likely publication after minor-to-moderate revision. I would be happy to see it in the literature and would cite the projected sensitivities when comparing limits.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies the production of sterile neutrinos via an active-sterile transition magnetic moment through coherent elastic neutrino-nucleus scattering (CEνNS) induced by solar neutrinos. Using the CDEX-10 germanium detector data (205.4 kg·day exposure), the authors derive 90% C.L. upper limits on the effective transition magnetic moment μνℓ4 as a function of sterile neutrino mass m4 for flavor-dependent (νe, νμ, ντ) and flavor-independent cases. They also project sensitivities for next-generation and future germanium detectors, claiming that future measurements could cover previously unexplored parameter space up to m4 ~ 10 MeV. The analysis uses the standard SM CEνNS cross-section, the dipole-portal cross-section from Refs. [60,66], solar neutrino fluxes from BS05(OP), and a χ² pull fit to CDEX-10 binned data.

Significance. If the analysis is correct, the paper provides a new use of solar CEνNS data to constrain sterile neutrino dipole portals, complementing limits from reactor, accelerator, and dark-matter experiments. The projected sensitivities for future low-threshold germanium detectors are potentially competitive and could probe mass regions above ~0.5 MeV. However, the current CDEX-10 limits are generally weaker than existing bounds from COHERENT and FLAre, and the novelty is incremental. The paper's strengths are its straightforward implementation of standard formulas and its detailed comparison with many existing constraints; it does not provide external code or a derivation of the central cross-section.

major comments (3)

[Sec. 2.2, Eq. (9)] The kinematic constraint m4^2 ≤ 2m_N T_nr (√(2m_N T_nr)/Eν − 1) is not correct. For a nuclear recoil with momentum √(2m_N T_nr + T_nr^2), the maximum allowed m4^2 is (q − T_nr)(2Eν − T_nr − q), not the printed expression. The printed form can be negative for configurations that are kinematically allowed and does not reduce to the correct threshold m4 ≈ Eν − T_nr. Please derive the condition correctly and clarify whether it is used in setting the recoil integration limits.
[Sec. 3.1, Eq. (20)] The low-energy ionization yield Y(T_nr) = 0.18 [1 − exp((15 − T_nr)/71.03)] returns negative values for the entire stated range 0.015 keV < T_nr < 0.254 keV (e.g., Y(0.1 keV) ≈ −0.04). This is unphysical and would make the Jacobian in Eq. (21) negative. The expression appears to have a sign error in the exponent; please correct it and confirm that the numerical results were obtained with the intended Y(T_nr).
[Sec. 2.2, Eq. (8)] The central dipole-portal cross-section is adopted from Refs. [60,66] without derivation or a quantitative validation. Since all quoted limits and projections are directly proportional to this cross-section, an independent verification should be included, e.g., an appendix with the calculation for a spin-1/2 nucleus or a benchmark reproducing a published limit. This is necessary to rule out sign or mass-term errors in the m4-dependent terms.

minor comments (5)

[Sec. 3.2, Eq. (22)] The background term B is undefined. Please define it and state how its value is obtained from the CDEX-10 data.
[Sec. 3.3] The statement that scenarios 'reduce the uncertainty by a factor of 10% and 1%' is ambiguous; specify the relevant uncertainties (statistical, systematic, background) and the baseline values.
[Eq. (19) and text] The name 'Linhard' should be 'Lindhard' in the quenching factor description.
[Fig. 3 inset] The lines for the minimum neutrino energies are difficult to discern; consider a separate panel or a larger inset.
[Table 1] Specify in the caption that all entries are in units of 10^-9 μB.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the analysis fits an external dipole-portal cross-section to CDEX-10 data to derive exclusion limits, and the few self-citations are contextual rather than load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central chain is: adopt the active-sterile transition magnetic moment Lagrangian (Eq. 5) and differential cross-section (Eq. 8) from external literature (Refs. [60,66]), convolve with solar neutrino fluxes and CDEX-10 exposure, compute event rates, and perform a chi-square fit to CDEX-10 data to place 90% C.L. upper limits. Nothing in this chain fits a parameter to one subset and then 'predicts' a closely related quantity; the transition magnetic moment is the fitted parameter and the limits are exclusions, not predictions forced by the fit. The cross-section itself is an external input, not derived from the data, so any error in its normalization would rescale the limits, but that is an external-input risk, not circularity. The few self-citations (Refs. [15,22,25] by the same authors) appear in the introduction as examples of prior CEνNS analyses and are not used to justify the dipole-portal cross-section or the uniqueness of the analysis method. The projected sensitivities are clearly constructed from assumed exposures, thresholds, and backgrounds, and are labeled as scenarios. Therefore no step reduces by construction to its own inputs, and no load-bearing self-citation chain is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central result depends on the adopted dipole portal cross-section from Refs [60,66], the CDEX-10 data and background from Ref [71], standard solar model fluxes, and a set of quenching factor and projection-scenario parameters chosen by hand. None of these are derived inside the paper; the free parameters are the assumptions that set the projected sensitivities, and the domain assumptions are the physics inputs.

free parameters (6)

Lindhard quenching factor k = 0.162
Chosen to match the measured ionization yield for germanium in Ref [96]; affects conversion of nuclear recoil to electron-equivalent energy.
Low-energy quenching model constants = 0.18, 15 (eV), 71.03 (eV)
Parameters of the high ionization efficiency model for Ge from Ref [97], used for Tnr below 0.254 keV.
Projected scenario exposure = 150 kg·yr next-gen, 1.5 t·yr future 1 and 2
Chosen by hand to represent CDEX-50 and ton-scale Ge detectors; directly sets the projected sensitivities.
Projected energy thresholds = 1 keVnr next-gen and future 1, 0.1 keVnr future 2
Assumed experimental thresholds for future scenarios.
Projected background rate = 0.01 events keV^-1 kg^-1 day^-1
Assumed flat background for future scenarios, based on CDEX-50 goal.
Projected uncertainty reduction factors = 10% next-gen, 1% future
Assumed improvement in experimental uncertainty; not defined precisely in the paper.

assumptions (7)

domain assumption Existence of a sterile neutrino ν4 with a transition magnetic moment μνℓ4 to active neutrinos, described by the effective Lagrangian Eq. (5).
The entire signal is predicated on this BSM interaction, taken from Refs [60,66].
domain assumption The dipole portal cross-section Eq. (8) for νℓ N -> ν4 N is correct and matches Refs [60,66]; subdominant nuclear magnetic dipole scattering is neglected.
Central to the event rate prediction.
domain assumption The SM and BSM contributions add incoherently, with no interference.
Stated in Sec. 2.2; final states are different, so interference is absent.
domain assumption Solar neutrino fluxes from BS05(OP) high-metallicity solar model for 8B and hep are used.
Sec. 3.1; low-energy fluxes are dropped because they are subdominant for the mass range.
domain assumption Neutrino oscillation survival probabilities from NuFit-5.3 with day-night asymmetry describe the flavor content at Earth.
Sec. 3.1, Eqs. (14)-(17).
domain assumption The CDEX-10 published data and its uncertainties, including the background B and efficiency, are adopted as-is.
Eq. (22) uses observed rates and background from Ref [71]; the paper does not re-derive them.
standard math The Klein-Nystrand nuclear form factor with parameters RA=1.23 A^(1/3) fm and ak=0.7 fm describes the nuclear coherence.
Eq. (4), standard parametrization.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Probing active-sterile neutrino transition magnetic moment on coherent elastic solar neutrino-nucleus scattering." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4UKDAZ5B

@misc{pith2026241203140,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Probing active-sterile neutrino transition magnetic moment on coherent elastic solar neutrino-nucleus scattering},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4UKDAZ5B}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.03140}
}

abstract

In the presence of a transition magnetic moment between active and sterile neutrinos, sterile neutrinos could be produced by neutrino beams electromagnetically upscattering on nuclei. We study the active-sterile neutrino transition magnetic moment through this upscattering in the coherent elastic neutrino-nucleus scattering process induced by solar neutrinos. We place new limits on the transition magnetic moment-sterile neutrino mass plane using the latest data from the CDEX-10 experiment. We also provide projected sensitivities for future measurements. We observe that the projected sensitivities could cover some regions of the parameter space which were previously unexplored for the sterile neutrino mass up to $\sim$10 MeV.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

Neutrino electromagnetic properties and sterile dipole portal in light of the first solar CE$\nu$NS data
hep-ph 2024-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

The paper derives the first 90% CL limits on neutrino magnetic moments, millicharges, and the sterile dipole portal from solar 8B CEνNS data in XENONnT and PandaX-4T.
Information-theoretic astrophysical uncertainties in the effective theory of dark matter direct detection
hep-ph 2026-01 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Using an information-theoretic bound on the halo velocity distribution, dark matter direct-detection limits vary from <10x to ~10,000x near threshold depending on the EFT operator, with higher velocity-weighting opera...
Exploring the Standard Model and Beyond from the Evidence of CE$\nu$NS with Reactor Antineutrinos in CONUS+
hep-ph 2025-01 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

Fitting the CONUS+ reactor CEνNS event count yields sin²θW = 0.268 ± 0.047, µν < 5.6×10⁻¹⁰ µB, and NSI bounds similar to COHERENT, all consistent with the Standard Model.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

108 extracted references · 74 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

[1]

D. Z. Freedman, Phys. Rev. D 9, 1389 (1974)

1974
[2]

Akimov et al

D. Akimov et al. (COHERENT Collaboration), Science 357, 1123 (2017)

2017
[3]

Akimov et al

D. Akimov et al. (COHERENT Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 012002, (2021)

2021
[4]

Akimov et al

D. Akimov et al. (COHERENT Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 081801 (2022)

2022
[5]

B. C. Cañas, E. A. Garcés, O. G. Miranda, and A. Parada, Phys. Lett. B 784, 159 (2018)

2018
[6]

Cadeddu and F

M. Cadeddu and F. Dordei, Phys. Rev. D 99, 033010 (2019)

2019
[7]

Harnik, J

R. Harnik, J. Kopp and P. A. N. Machado, JCAP07, 026 (2012)

2012
[8]

Ge and I

S.-F. Ge and I. M. Shoemaker, J. High Energ. Phys. 2018, 66 (2018)

2018

Show all 108 references

[9]

C. Bœhm, D. G. Cerdeño, M. Fairbairn, P. A. N. Machado and A. C. Vincent, Phys. Rev. D 102, 115013 (2020)

2020
[10]

Schwemberger and T

T. Schwemberger and T. T. Yu, Phys. Rev. D 106, 015002 (2022)

2022
[11]

Mishra and L

N. Mishra and L. E. Strigari, Phys. Rev. D 108, 063023 (2023)

2023
[12]

Lindner, W

M. Lindner, W. Rodejohann, X.-J. Xu, J. High Energy Phys. 2017, 97 (2017)

2017
[13]

Liao and D

J. Liao and D. Marfatia, Phys. Lett. B 775, 54 (2017)

2017
[14]

Giunti, Phys

C. Giunti, Phys. Rev. D 101, 035039 (2020)

2020
[15]

M. F. Mustamin and M. Demirci, Braz. J. Phys. 51, 813 (2021)

2021
[16]

S. S. Chatterjee, S. Lavignac, O. G. Miranda, and G. Sanchez Garcia, Phys. Rev. D 107, 055019 (2023)

2023
[17]

J. B. Dent, B. Dutta, S. Liao, J. L. Newstead, L. E. Stri- gari and J. W. Walker, Phys. Rev. D96, 095007 (2017)

2017
[18]

Barranco, A

J. Barranco, A. Bolanos, E. A. Garces, O. G. Miranda and T. I. Rashba, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 27, 1250147 (2012)

2012
[19]

Aristizabal Sierra, V

D. Aristizabal Sierra, V . De Romeri and N. Rojas, Phys. Rev. D 98, 075018 (2018)

2018
[20]

L. J. Flores, N. Nath and E. Peinado, Phys. Rev. D 105, 055010 (2022)

2022
[21]

Farzan, M

Y . Farzan, M. Lindner, W. Rodejohann and X. J. Xu, J. High Energ. Phys 2018, 066 (2018)

2018
[22]

Demirci and M

M. Demirci and M. F. Mustamin, Andromeda Proceed- ings, BSM21 (2021)

2021
[23]

Cadeddu, N

M. Cadeddu, N. Cargioli, F. Dordei, C. Giunti, Y . F. Li, E. Picciau and Y . Y . Zhang, J. High Energ. Phys2021, 116 (2021)

2021
[24]

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, JHEP2022, 109 (2022)

2022
[25]

Demirci and M

M. Demirci and M. F. Mustamin, Phys. Rev. D 109, 015021 (2024). 12

2024
[26]

De Romeri, D

V . De Romeri, D. K. Papoulias and C. A. Ternes, JHEP 05, 165 (2024)

2024
[27]

Herrera, JHEP 05, 288 (2024)

G. Herrera, JHEP 05, 288 (2024)

2024
[28]

Giunti and A

C. Giunti and A. Studenikin, Rev. Mod. Phys. 87, 531 (2015)

2015
[29]

A. I. Studenikin and K. A. Kouzakov, Moscow Univer- sity Physics Bulletin 75, 379–397 (2020)

2020
[30]

Giunti and C

C. Giunti and C. A. Ternes, Phys. Rev. D 108, 095044 (2023)

2023
[31]

Atzori Corona, et al., J

M. Atzori Corona, et al., J. High Energ. Phys 2022, 164 (2022)

2022
[32]

A. N. Khan, Nucl. Phys. B 986, 116064 (2023)

2023
[33]

A. N. Khan, Phys. Lett. B 837, 137650 (2023)

2023
[34]

G. Co’, M. Anguiano and A. M. Lallena, JCAP 04, 044 (2020)

2020
[35]

Coloma, I

P. Coloma, I. Esteban, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia and J. Menendez, JHEP 08, 030 (2020)

2020
[36]

Fukuda et al

Y . Fukuda et al. (Super-Kamiokande Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 1562-1567 (1998)

1998
[37]

Q. R. Ahmad et al. (SNO Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 071301 (2001)

2001
[38]

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

2002
[39]

Pontecorvo, Zh

B. Pontecorvo, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 53, 1717-1725 (1967)

1967
[40]

Kusenko, Phys

A. Kusenko, Phys. Rept. 481, 1-28 (2009)

2009
[41]

Dasgupta and J

B. Dasgupta and J. Kopp, Phys. Rept. 928, 1-63 (2021)

2021
[42]

A. A. Aguilar-Arevalo et al. (MiniBooNE Collabora- tion), Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 181801 (2010)

2010
[43]

C. A. Argüelles , I. Esteban, M. Hostert, K. J. Kelly, J. Kopp, P. A. N. Machado, I. Martinez-Soler and Y . F. Perez-Gonzalez, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 241802 (2022)

2022
[44]

Athanassopoulos et al

C. Athanassopoulos et al. (LSND Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 1774-1777 (1998)

1998
[45]

G. C. McLaughlin, J. M. Fetter, A. B. Balantekin and G. M. Fuller, Phys. Rev. C 59, 2873-2887 (1999)

1999
[46]

Xiong, M

Z. Xiong, M. R. Wu and Y . Z. Qian, The Astrophysical Journal 880, 2 (2019)

2019
[47]

Dodelson and L

S. Dodelson and L. M. Widrow, Sterile-neutrinos as dark matter, Phys. Rev. Lett. 72, 17-20 (1994)

1994
[48]

A. B. Balantekin and N. Vassh, Phys. Rev. D89, 073013 (2014)

2014
[49]

A. N. Khan, JHEP 01, 052 (2023)

2023
[50]

Mirizzi, N

A. Mirizzi, N. Saviano, G. Miele and P. D. Serpico, Phys. Rev. D 86, 053009 (2012)

2012
[51]

Domokos and S

G. Domokos and S. Kovesi-Domokos, Phys. Rev. D 55, 2526-2529 (1997)

1997
[52]

S. N. Gninenko and N. V . Krasnikov, Phys. Lett. B450, 165 (1999)

1999
[53]

Primakoff, Phys

H. Primakoff, Phys. Rev. 81, 899 (1951)

1951
[54]

McKeen, and M

D. McKeen, and M. Pospelov, Phys. Rev. D 82, 113018 (2010)

2010
[55]

Magill, R

G. Magill, R. Plestid, M. Pospelov and Y . D. Tsai, Phys. Rev. D 98, 115015 (2018)

2018
[56]

Blanco, D

C. Blanco, D. Hooper, and P. Machado, Phys. Rev. D 101, 075051 (2020)

2020
[57]

Schwetz, A

T. Schwetz, A. Zhoua and Jing-Yu Zhua, J. High Energ. Phys 2021, 200 (2021)

2021
[58]

S. N. Gninenko, Phys. Rev. D 83, 015015 (2011)

2011
[59]

De Romeri, O

V . De Romeri, O. G. Miranda, D. K. Papoulias, G. Sanchez Garcia, M. Tórtola and J. W. F. Valle, J. High Energ. Phys. 2023, 035 (2023)

2023
[60]

P. D. Bolton, F. F. Deppisch, K. Fridell, J. Harz, C. Hati, and S. Kulkarni, Phys. Rev. D 106, 035036 (2022)

2022
[61]

Ismail, S

A. Ismail, S. Jana and R. Mammen Abraham, Phys. Rev. D 105, 055008 (2022)

2022
[62]

Coloma, P

P. Coloma, P. A. N. Machado, I. Martinez-Soler and I. M. Shoemaker, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 201804 (2017)

2017
[63]

Plestid, Phys

R. Plestid, Phys. Rev. D 104, 075027 (2021)

2021
[64]

Atkinson, P

M. Atkinson, P. Coloma, I. Martinez-Soler, N. Rocco, and I. M. Shoemaker, J. High Energ. Phys. 2022, 174 (2022)

2022
[65]

O. G. Miranda, D. K. Papoulias, O. Sanders, M. Tor- tola and J. W. F. Valle, J. High Energ. Phys 2021, 191 (2021)

2021
[66]

Li, and S

Y .-F. Li, and S. Y . Xia, Phys. Rev. D 106, 095022 (2022)

2022
[67]

Brdar, A

V . Brdar, A. Greljo, J. Kopp and T. Opferkuch, JCAP 01, 039 (2021)

2021
[68]

G. y. Huang, S. Jana, M. Lindner and W. Rodejohann, Phys. Lett. B 840, 137842 (2023)

2023
[69]

Antusch, E

S. Antusch, E. Cazzato and O. Fischer, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 32, 1750078 (2017)

2017
[70]

A. B. Balantekin, G. M. Fuller, A. Ray and A. M. Suliga, Phys. Rev. D 108, 123011 (2023)

2023
[71]

X. P. Geng et al. (CDEX Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 107, 112002 (2023)

2023
[72]

Jiang et al

H. Jiang et al. (CDEX Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 241301 (2018)

2018
[73]

Aprile et al

E. Aprile et al. (XENON Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 102, 072004 (2020)

2020
[74]

Abi et al

B. Abi et al. (DUNE Collaboration), FERMILAB- PUB-20-025-ND, FERMILAB-DESIGN-2020-02, arXiv:2002.03005 [hep-ex]

2020
[75]

Arpesella et al

C. Arpesella et al. (Borexino Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B 658, 101-108 (2008)

2008
[76]

Deniz et al

M. Deniz et al. (TEXONO Collaboration, Phys. Rev. D 81, 072001 (2010)

2010
[77]

Colaresi, J

J. Colaresi, J. I. Collar, T. W. Hossbach, C. M. Lewis and K. M. Yocum, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 211802 (2022)

2022
[78]

Rothe et al

J. Rothe et al. (NUCLEUS Collaboration), J. Low Temp. Phys. 199, 433-440 (2019)

2019
[79]

Bergsma et al

F. Bergsma et al. (CHARM Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B 128, 361 (1983). 13

1983
[80]

Schwienhorst et al

R. Schwienhorst et al. (DONUT Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B 513, 23-29 (2001)

2001
[81]

Altegoer et al

J. Altegoer et al. (NOMAD Collaboration), Nucl. In- strum. Meth. A 404, 96-128 (1998)

1998
[82]

Decamp et al

D. Decamp et al. (ALEPH Collaboration), Phys. Rept. 216, 253-340 (1992)

1992
[83]

M. G. Aartsen et al. (IceCube Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 93, 022001 (2016)

2016
[84]

Akimov et al

D. Akimov et al. (COHERENT Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 102, 052007 (2020)

2020
[85]

Batell, J

B. Batell, J. L. Feng and S. Trojanowski, Phys. Rev. D 103, 075023 (2021)

2021
[86]

Alekhin, et al

S. Alekhin, et al. Rept. Prog. Phys. 79, 124201 (2016)

2016
[87]

Aalbers et al

J. Aalbers et al. (DARWIN Collaboration), JCAP 11, 017 (2016)

2016
[88]

R. L. Workman et al. (Particle Data Group), Review of Particle Physics, Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys.2022, 083C01 (2022)

2022
[89]

S. R. Klein and J. Nystrand, Phys. Rev. C 60, 014903 (1999)

1999
[90]

V ogel and J

P. V ogel and J. Engel, Phys. Rev. D39, 3378 (1989)

1989
[91]

J. N. Bahcall and A. M. Serenelli, Astrophys. J 626, 530 (2005)

2005
[92]

J. N. Bahcall, A. M. Serenelli and S. Basu, Astrophys. J. Lett. 621, L85-L88 (2005)

2005
[93]

Maltoni and A

M. Maltoni and A. Y . Smirnov, Eur. Phys. J. A 52, 87 (2016)

2016
[94]

Esteban, M

I. Esteban, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, M. Maltoni, T. Schwetz, and A. Zhou, J. High Energ. Phys 2020, 178 (2020)

2020
[95]

Lindhard, V

J. Lindhard, V . Nielsen, M. Scharff, and P. V . Thomsen, Kgl. Danske Videnskab., Selskab. Mat. Fys. Medd. 33, 1, (1963)

1963
[96]

Bonhomme, et al., Eur

A. Bonhomme, et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 815 (2022)

2022
[97]

Essig, M

R. Essig, M. Sholapurkar and T. T. Yu, Phys. Rev. D97, 095029 (2018)

2018
[98]

J. I. Collar, A. R. L. Kavner and C. M. Lewis, Phys. Rev. D 103 122003, (2021)

2021
[99]

G. L. Fogli, E. Lisi, A. Marrone, D. Montanino and A. Palazzo, Phys. Rev. D 66, 053010 (2002)

2002
[100]

Zhang et al

H. Zhang et al. (PandaX Collaboration), Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 62, 31011 (2019)

2019
[101]

Bo et al

Z. Bo et al. (PandaX Collaboration), arXiv:2407.10892 [hep-ex]

arXiv
[102]

Aprile et al

E. Aprile et al. (XENON Collaboration), JCAP 11, 031 (2020)

2020
[103]

Aprile et al

E. Aprile et al. (XENON Collaboration), arXiv:2408.02877 [nucl-ex]
[104]

Armengaud et al

E. Armengaud et al. (EDELWEISS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 106, 062004 (2022)

2022
[105]

Agnese et al

R. Agnese et al. (SuperCDMS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 95, 082002 (2017)

2017
[106]

Barak et al

L. Barak et al. (SENSEI Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 171802, (2020)

2020
[107]

X. P. Geng, et al. (CDEX Collaboration), JCAP 2024, 009, (2024)

2024
[108]

K. J. Kang et al. (CDEX Collaboration), Front. Phys. (Beijing) 8 412-437, (2013)

2013

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

D. Z. Freedman, Phys. Rev. D 9, 1389 (1974)

1974

[2] [2]

Akimov et al

D. Akimov et al. (COHERENT Collaboration), Science 357, 1123 (2017)

2017

[3] [3]

Akimov et al

D. Akimov et al. (COHERENT Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 012002, (2021)

2021

[4] [4]

Akimov et al

D. Akimov et al. (COHERENT Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 081801 (2022)

2022

[5] [5]

B. C. Cañas, E. A. Garcés, O. G. Miranda, and A. Parada, Phys. Lett. B 784, 159 (2018)

2018

[6] [6]

Cadeddu and F

M. Cadeddu and F. Dordei, Phys. Rev. D 99, 033010 (2019)

2019

[7] [7]

Harnik, J

R. Harnik, J. Kopp and P. A. N. Machado, JCAP07, 026 (2012)

2012

[8] [8]

Ge and I

S.-F. Ge and I. M. Shoemaker, J. High Energ. Phys. 2018, 66 (2018)

2018