Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 7 minor 51 references

Interplay of CPT-Violating and CPT-Conserving Lorentz Invariance Violation at DUNE

T0 review · 2 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-07-08 · glm-5.2

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

Pith's one-line read Lorentz violation could blind DUNE to CP violation

desk verdict Solid phenomenological study of combined CPT-violating and CPT-conserving LIV at DUNE; the CPV-sensitivity degradation result is benchmark-dependent and somewhat circular, but the analytical and parameter-space work is genuinely useful. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.06513 v1 pith:ARSOA5ZL submitted 2026-07-07 hep-ph hep-th

Priyankush Deka , Arnab Sarker , Moon Moon Devi , Sushant K. Raut This is my paper
classification hep-phhep-th
keywords LorentzinvarianceviolationCPTneutrinooscillationsCPDUNEStandardModelExtensionparameterdegeneracy
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 argues that if both CPT-violating and CPT-conserving Lorentz invariance violation (LIV) are present in nature, their interplay creates parameter degeneracies that would degrade DUNE's ability to discover CP violation from below 5σ to below 3σ over much of the CP phase range. The authors work within the Standard Model Extension (SME) framework, focusing on isotropic LIV coefficients: a_αβ (CPT-violating, energy-independent) and c_αβ (CPT-conserving, energy-dependent). They derive perturbative analytical expressions for the ν_μ→ν_e appearance probability showing that a_αβ and c_αβ enter with opposite signs in the neutrino channel but the same sign in the antineutrino channel, and that off-diagonal LIV phases create sinusoidal correlations with the standard CP phase δ_CP. Through bi-probability analysis and two-dimensional parameter scans, they identify specific degeneracy bands where LIV parameters can mimic standard CP violation or cancel each other's effects entirely. Using a full DUNE simulation with systematic uncertainties, they show that the combinations (a_ee, c_ee), (a_ττ, c_ττ), (a_eμ, c_eμ), and (a_eτ, c_eτ) are most damaging, pushing CPV sensitivity below 3σ across most δ_CP values when both parameters are present at benchmark magnitudes.

What carries the argument

The analysis rests on a perturbative expansion of the effective Hamiltonian in the small parameters s₁₃ ~ O(λ), α ~ O(λ²), a_αβ/V_CC ~ O(λ), and c_αβ·E/V_CC ~ O(λ), yielding closed-form expressions for the LIV corrections to P_μe at first and second order. The Cayley-Hamilton formalism is used to evaluate the three-flavor evolution operator in matter. The degeneracy conditions are derived analytically: for off-diagonal parameters, δ_CP + φ^a_αβ + φ^a_αβ ≈ nπ; for joint (a, c) pairs, the first-order contribution ΔP ≈ K^(1)_αβ (a_αβ − 4Ec_αβ/3) predicts linear degeneracy bands with a specific inclination angle that matches the numerical heatmaps.

What would settle it

If DUNE data shows CPV sensitivity consistent with the standard 3-flavor prediction at 5σ, and simultaneous sidereal-time-dependent analyses find no anisotropic LIV signal, the isotropic LIV parameters would be constrained below the benchmark values used here, and the degeneracy mechanism would be empirically irrelevant at DUNE's sensitivity.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central mechanism is a degeneracy structure: when CPT-violating (a_αβ) and CPT-conserving (c_αβ) LIV coefficients coexist, they produce correlated distortions of the oscillation probability that cannot be disentangled from genuine CP violation at a single long-baseline experiment. The off-diagonal LIV phases (φ^a_αβ, φ^c_αβ) enter the probability through combinations like (δ_CP + φ^a_αβ), creating straight-line degeneracy bands in the (δ_CP, φ) plane with slope −1. Meanwhile, the (a_αβ, c_αβ) pairs produce linear degeneracy bands in their joint parameter space where the two contributions partially cancel, yielding probabilities indistinguishable from the standard-oscillation case. These兩

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes the isotropic limit—only time-like (rotationally invariant) LIV components—throughout, and the CPV sensitivity degradation is quantified for specific benchmark magnitudes (a'=1, c'=0.1) that represent plausible but not measured values; smaller LIV values would produce milder suppression.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the benchmark LIV magnitudes used here (a'~1, c'~0.1) are realized in nature, DUNE would need complementary experiments or analysis strategies to separate LIV-induced CP violation from genuine leptonic CP violation.
  • The correlation δ_CP + φ^a_αβ ≈ const implies that multi-baseline or multi-energy experiments could break the degeneracy, since the LIV energy dependence differs from the standard δ_CP dependence.
  • The SI-LIV cancellation bands in (a_αβ, c_αβ) space mean that null results from DUNE would not by themselves rule out LIV; they could indicate a cancellation between CPT-violating and CPT-conserving coefficients.
  • DUNE's projected bounds on a_eμ and a_eτ would improve upon current Super-Kamiokande limits, but the joint (a, c) analysis shows that single-parameter bounds underestimate the true allowed region.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The isotropic limit adopted throughout discards spatial SME components; DUNE's fixed beam direction and sidereal-time structure could in principle access anisotropic coefficients that would provide independent information to break the degeneracies identified here.
  • The severity of CPV sensitivity loss scales with the benchmark LIV magnitudes; if actual LIV values are below the projected DUNE bounds, the degradation would be milder than the below-3σ result reported.
  • A combined analysis of DUNE with atmospheric neutrino experiments (which have different baselines, energies, and matter profiles) could help disentangle the a_αβ–c_αβ–δ_CP degeneracy, since the three parameters have distinct dependences on baseline and energy.
  • The structural similarity between LIV coefficients and non-standard interactions (NSI) in the Hamiltonian suggests that a combined LIV+NSI analysis would face even more severe degeneracy problems, potentially requiring data from experiments with very different systematic profiles.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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

2 major / 7 minor

Summary. This manuscript studies the interplay between CPT-violating ($a_{αβ}$) and CPT-conserving ($c_{αβ}$) isotropic Lorentz invariance violation (LIV) parameters in the context of neutrino oscillations at DUNE. The authors derive perturbative analytic expressions for the $ν_μ → ν_e$ appearance probability in the presence of each LIV component (§3), perform a GLoBES-based simulation using official DUNE CDR inputs (§4), and systematically explore the impact of LIV on oscillation probabilities, bi-probability trajectories, and parameter-space degeneracies (§5). The central phenomenological result (§6.2) is that the simultaneous presence of $a_{αβ}$ and $c_{αβ}$ introduces degeneracies that can reduce DUNE's CP violation sensitivity below 3σ over a substantial fraction of $δ_{CP}$ values, with the combinations $(a_{ee}, c_{ee})$, $(a_{ττ}, c_{ττ})$, $(a_{eμ}, c_{eμ})$, and $(a_{eτ}, c_{eτ})$ being most impactful. Projected 95% CL bounds on LIV parameters from DUNE are also derived and compared with existing experimental constraints (Table 3).

Significance. The simultaneous treatment of CPT-violating and CPT-conserving LIV coefficients is a genuinely underexplored direction; most prior studies treat one class at a time. The analytic derivation in §3 (Eqs. 3.7–3.8) provides transparent insight into the parameter dependences and is a strength, as is the systematic parameter-scan methodology in §5.4 that identifies degeneracy bands and derives their analytic conditions (Eqs. 5.13, 5.14). The projected DUNE bounds in Table 3, derived from a two-parameter analysis, offer a useful benchmark for comparison with single-parameter experimental limits. The CPV sensitivity degradation result is relevant for the interpretation of DUNE's precision program.

major comments (2)
  1. §6.2, Fig. 10: The central claim — that combined $a_{αβ}$ and $c_{αβ}$ reduce DUNE's CPV sensitivity below 3σ over a substantial $δ_{CP}$ fraction — is established only for the single benchmark $(a'_{αβ}=1, c'_{αβ}=0.1)$, i.e., LIV magnitudes set at DUNE's own projected 95% CL bounds (§6.1, Table 3). The CPV analysis marginalizes over LIV parameters within ranges $a'_{αα}∈[-5,5]$, $c'_{αα}∈[-0.5,0.5]$ (diagonal) and $a'_{αβ}∈[0,5]$, $c'_{αβ}∈[0,0.5]$ (off-diagonal), which are 5× the benchmark values, but the true values are fixed at the benchmark. The severity of sensitivity suppression is monotonic in LIV magnitude, so the headline result essentially says: 'if LIV saturates DUNE's projected bounds, CPV sensitivity degrades.' This is true but somewhat circular — the projected bounds themselves come from assuming no CPV complication, and if LIV is at those bounds, of course sensitivity de
  2. §6.2, Fig. 10: The central claim — that combined $a_{αβ}$ and $c_{αβ}$ reduce DUNE's CPV sensitivity below 3σ over a substantial $δ_{CP}$ fraction — is established only for the single benchmark $(a'_{αβ}=1, c'_{αβ}=0.1)$, i.e., LIV magnitudes set at DUNE's own projected 95% CL bounds (§6.1, Table 3). The CPV analysis marginalizes over LIV parameters within ranges $a'_{αα}∈[-5,5]$, $c'_{αα}∈[-0.5,0.5]$ (diagonal) and $a'_{αβ}∈[0,5]$, $c'_{αβ}∈[0,0.5]$ (off-diagonal), which are 5× the benchmark values, but the true values are fixed at the benchmark. The severity of sensitivity suppression is monotonic in LIV magnitude, so the headline result essentially says: 'if LIV saturates DUNE's projected bounds, CPV sensitivity degrades.' This is true but somewhat circular — the projected bounds themselves come from assuming no CPV complication, and if LIV is at those bounds, of course sensitivity de
minor comments (7)
  1. §5.4, Eq. 5.9: The predicted inclination angle of ≈71.57° is compared to the observed ≈76° in Fig. 7. The discrepancy is non-negligible (~6%). The authors attribute this to higher-order terms but do not quantify the contribution. A brief comment on the source of this discrepancy would strengthen the analytic-numerical comparison.
  2. Table 3: The DUNE bounds for diagonal parameters are quoted as asymmetric intervals (e.g., $a'_{ee} ∈ [-3.08, 7.82]$), while off-diagonal bounds are quoted as upper limits (e.g., $<0.95$). It would help to clarify whether the off-diagonal bounds are on $|a'_{αβ}|$ or on the real/imaginary parts separately, given that the phases are marginalized over.
  3. §2, Eq. 2.7: The factor $-4/(3E)$ accompanying $c_{αβ}$ is stated to arise from the isotropic assumption. A brief reference to the specific SME convention or derivation (beyond [74]) would help readers verify this normalization.
  4. Figures 1, 5–8: The axis labels and legends are small and difficult to read. In particular, the primed notation ($a'_{αβ}$, $c'_{αβ}$) in legends is sometimes rendered without the prime, creating ambiguity about whether unscaled or scaled quantities are shown.
  5. §6.1: The statement that DUNE provides stronger constraints than existing bounds only for $a_{eμ}$ and $a_{eτ}$ should note that this comparison is between a two-parameter projected bound and single-parameter existing limits (as acknowledged in the Table 3 caption). The text could be more explicit about this caveat.
  6. §3, Eq. 3.7: The second-order term involves $a_{αβ} c_{αβ} cos(ϕ^a_{αβ} - ϕ^c_{αβ})$. For diagonal elements, this reduces to $-8E a_{αα} c_{αα}/3$, but the text does not explicitly state that $ϕ^a_{αα} = ϕ^c_{αα} = 0$ for diagonal elements (since they are real). This should be clarified.
  7. References [35] and [27] cite arXiv numbers with future dates (2505.15019, 2511.14593); these should be verified for correctness.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for a careful reading and for identifying a genuine methodological concern regarding the relationship between our projected LIV bounds (§6.1) and the CPV sensitivity analysis (§6.2). The referee correctly notes that the benchmark LIV values used in §6.2 are set at DUNE's own projected 95% CL bounds from §6.1, and that the §6.1 bounds themselves are derived under the assumption of zero true LIV. We agree that this creates a degree of circularity in the headline result and that the manuscript should be revised to address this. Below we respond point by point.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: §6.2, Fig. 10: The central claim — that combined a_αβ and c_αβ reduce DUNE's CPV sensitivity below 3σ over a substantial δ_CP fraction — is established only for the single benchmark (a'_{αβ}=1, c'_{αβ}=0.1), i.e., LIV magnitudes set at DUNE's own projected 95% CL bounds (§6.1, Table 3). The CPV analysis marginalizes over LIV parameters within ranges 5× the benchmark values, but the true values are fixed at the benchmark. The severity of sensitivity suppression is monotonic in LIV magnitude, so the headline result essentially says: 'if LIV saturates DUNE's projected bounds, CPV sensitivity degrades.' This is true but somewhat circular — the projected bounds themselves come from assuming no CPV complication, and if LIV is at those bounds, of course sensitivity degrades.

    Authors: The referee raises a valid and important point. We acknowledge that there is a degree of circularity in choosing the benchmark LIV magnitudes at DUNE's own projected 95% CL bounds, since those bounds are derived under the assumption of zero true LIV (and with standard marginalization over δ_CP, θ_23, and Δm²₃₁). We agree that the manuscript should be revised to address this concern more transparently. We will make the following changes: (1) We will add an explicit discussion in §6.2 acknowledging the logical relationship between the §6.1 bounds and the §6.2 benchmark, and clarify that the two analyses answer distinct questions: §6.1 asks 'what bounds can DUNE set on LIV if LIV is absent?', while §6.2 asks 'if LIV is present at a given magnitude, how does it affect CPV discovery?'. (2) We will add CPV sensitivity results for sub-benchmark LIV magnitudes — specifically at 0.1×, 0.5×, and 1× the projected bounds — to demonstrate how the sensitivity degradation scales with LIV magnitude and to show that significant effects persist even at sub-benchmark values for the most impactful parameter combinations (a_ee, a_ττ, a_eμ, a_eτ). This will address the referee's concern that the result is trivially driven by the choice of benchmark. (3) We will soften the language in the abstract and conclusion to make clear that the 3σ degradation is established for LIV at the projected bound level, and that the degradation is milder for smaller LIV magnitudes. We note, however, that the analysis is not entirely circular in the way the referee suggests: the marginalization ranges in the CPV analysis (5× the benchmark) are substantially wider than the benchmark itself, so the fit explores LIV values well below and above the true value. The degradation of CPV sensitivity arises not merely 'of revision: no

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity found; derivation is self-contained with minor non-load-bearing self-citations.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is largely self-contained and does not exhibit circularity. The theoretical framework (§2) uses the externally-defined SME [41-43, 70-71] and constructs the standard effective Hamiltonian (eqs. 2.5-2.7). The analytical probability expressions (§3, eq. 3.7) are derived via the Cayley-Hamilton theorem, attributed to the external reference [81] (Akhmedov et al.), using a standard perturbative expansion in s13, α, and LIV parameters. The K^(1) and K^(2) coefficients (eqs. 3.8, Appendix A) are computed from first principles, not imported from prior work. The linear correlation in the (a_αβ, c_αβ) plane (eq. 5.9) follows directly from the first-order term of eq. 3.7 — a genuine derivation, not a renaming. The degeneracy conditions (eqs. 5.13-5.14) are derived from the analytical expressions and confirmed numerically. The DUNE configuration comes from collaboration documents [88], and oscillation parameters from NuFit-6.0 [89]. The self-citations [54, 78, 84] appear in literature-review contexts or as methodological references and are not load-bearing for the central claims: [54] is cited among many LIV phenomenology studies in the introduction; [78] supports the NSI-LIV structural correspondence (eq. 2.10), which the paper explicitly states is not physically equivalent and does not use to derive any result; [84] is cited among several perturbative-approach references [79-84]. The benchmark values (a'αβ=1, c'αβ=0.1) are set at DUNE's projected 95% CL bounds from §6.1, which creates a legitimate robustness concern (severity of CPV suppression scales with LIV magnitude), but this is not circularity: the projected bounds come from a null-LIV hypothesis, while the CPV sensitivity assumes LIV exists at those values — these are distinct hypotheses, and the degradation of CPV sensitivity does not follow by definition from the bound-setting analysis. The central result — that combined a_αβ and c_αβ introduce degeneracies reducing CPV sensitivity below 3σ — is a genuine physical finding derived from the Hamiltonian through analytical and numerical computation, not equivalent to its inputs by construction. Score 1 reflects the presence of minor self-citations that are not load-bearing for the central claims.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles, forces, or entities are postulated. The SME coefficients a_αβ and c_αβ are established parameters in the existing literature [41-43, 70-71].

free parameters (6)
  • a_αβ (diagonal) = O(10^-22 GeV)
    Benchmark magnitudes for CPT-violating diagonal LIV coefficients, chosen based on existing experimental bounds [47, 49, 52]
  • a_αβ (off-diagonal) = O(10^-23 GeV)
    Benchmark magnitudes for CPT-violating off-diagonal LIV coefficients, set one order below diagonal values
  • c_αβ (diagonal) = O(10^-23)
    Benchmark magnitudes for CPT-conserving diagonal LIV coefficients
  • c_αβ (off-diagonal) = O(10^-24)
    Benchmark magnitudes for CPT-conserving off-diagonal LIV coefficients
  • ϕ^a_αβ, ϕ^c_αβ = -90° (benchmark), marginalized [-180°,180°)
    LIV phases for off-diagonal elements; fixed at -90° for probability-level plots, marginalized for sensitivity studies
  • Benchmark (a'αβ, c'αβ) for CPV study = (1, 0.1)
    Adopted in §6.1 based on projected DUNE bounds from the constraint analysis
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Isotropic limit: only time-like SME components (μ=ν=0) are non-zero
    Invoked in eq. 2.4; discards all spatial anisotropic LIV components. Standard in the literature but a simplification.
  • domain assumption Minimal SME: only renormalizable operators (mass dimension ≤4) contribute
    Stated in §2; higher-dimension operators suppressed at DUNE energies. Standard assumption.
  • domain assumption Perturbative expansion valid: s13, α, a_αβ/V_CC, c_αβ·E/V_CC all O(λ) with λ~0.2
    Invoked in §3 to justify truncating the probability expansion at second order. Valid for DUNE energies and benchmark LIV magnitudes.
  • domain assumption Normal mass ordering is the true ordering
    Stated in §4 and §6.2; affects all sensitivity results. Inverted ordering would modify the matter resonance and thus the LIV interplay.
  • standard math Standard oscillation parameters from NuFit-6.0 [89] are the true values
    Table 1; used as input for all simulations. Standard practice in phenomenological studies.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Interplay of CPT-Violating and CPT-Conserving Lorentz Invariance Violation at DUNE." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ARSOA5ZL

@misc{pith2026260706513,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Interplay of CPT-Violating and CPT-Conserving Lorentz Invariance Violation at DUNE},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ARSOA5ZL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.06513}
}
abstract

We present a study of Lorentz invariance violation (LIV) in neutrino oscillations, with primary emphasis on the interplay between CPT-violating and CPT-conserving Standard Model Extension (SME) coefficients. We find that $a_{ee}$ and $a_{\tau\tau}$ dominate among the diagonal LIV coefficients, whereas $a_{e\mu}$ and $a_{e\tau}$ provide the most significant off-diagonal contributions. In contrast, the corresponding $c_{\alpha\beta}$ coefficients have comparatively sub-leading effects. Taking DUNE as a representative long-baseline experiment, we show that the sensitivity to CP violation is modified by LIV in a parameter-specific manner. We find correlations between off-diagonal LIV parameters, and non-trivial dependence on the new phases. In absence of LIV, DUNE is expected to establish CP violation at $5\sigma$ for a limited fraction of $\delta_{CP}$ values. We find that the presence of $a_{ee}$, $a_{\tau\tau}$, $a_{e\mu}$ and $a_{e\tau}$ weakens the CP discovery potential, reducing the achievable significance to below $3\sigma$ over a substantial fraction of $\delta_{\rm CP}$. The independent impact of $c_{\alpha\beta}$ terms also results in suppression, but in combination with $a_{\alpha\beta}$, they introduce degeneracies, complicating the extraction of $\delta_{CP}$. This generally results in a deterioration of CP violation sensitivities below $5\sigma$. These findings emphasize the importance of incorporating LIV effects in precision oscillation studies at upcoming long-baseline experiments.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Phenomenology with Massive Neutrinos

    M.C. Gonzalez-Garcia and M. Maltoni,Phenomenology with Massive Neutrinos,Phys. Rept. 460(2008) 1 [0704.1800]. [2]Super-Kamiokandecollaboration,Evidence for oscillation of atmospheric neutrinos,Phys. Rev. Lett.81(1998) 1562 [hep-ex/9807003]. [3]SNOcollaboration,Measurement of the rate ofν e +d→p+p+e − interactions produced by 8B solar neutrinos at the Sudb...

    work page Pith review arXiv 2008

  2. [2]

    On the measurement of leptonic CP violation

    J. Burguet-Castell, M.B. Gavela, J.J. Gomez-Cadenas, P. Hernandez and O. Mena,On the Measurement of leptonic CP violation,Nucl. Phys. B608(2001) 301 [hep-ph/0103258]. [13]BOREXINOcollaboration,Neutrinos from the primary proton–proton fusion process in the Sun,Nature512(2014) 383. [14]SNOcollaboration,Combined Analysis of all Three Phases of Solar Neutrino...

    work page Pith review arXiv 2001

  3. [3]

    On the tension between the latest \nova and T2K data

    U. Rahaman and S.K. Raut,On the tension between the latest NOνA and T2K data,Eur. Phys. J. C82(2022) 910 [2112.13186]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2022

  4. [4]

    Kostelecky and S

    V.A. Kostelecky and S. Samuel,Spontaneous Breaking of Lorentz Symmetry in String Theory,Phys. Rev. D39(1989) 683

    work page 1989

  5. [5]

    Kostelecky and S

    V.A. Kostelecky and S. Samuel,Phenomenological Gravitational Constraints on Strings and Higher Dimensional Theories,Phys. Rev. Lett.63(1989) 224

    work page 1989

  6. [6]

    Kostelecky and R

    V.A. Kostelecky and R. Potting,CPT and strings,Nucl. Phys. B359(1991) 545

    work page 1991

  7. [7]

    CPT Violation Implies Violation of Lorentz Invariance

    O.W. Greenberg,CPT violation implies violation of Lorentz invariance,Phys. Rev. Lett.89 (2002) 231602 [hep-ph/0201258]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2002

  8. [8]

    Lorentz-Violating Extension of the Standard Model

    D. Colladay and V.A. Kostelecky,Lorentz violating extension of the standard model,Phys. Rev. D58(1998) 116002 [hep-ph/9809521]

    work page Pith review arXiv 1998

Show all 51 references
  1. [9]

    Colladay and V.A

    D. Colladay and V.A. Kostelecky,CPT violation and the standard model,Phys. Rev. D55 (1997) 6760 [hep-ph/9703464]

    1997 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Kostelecky,Gravity, Lorentz violation, and the standard model,Phys

    V.A. Kostelecky,Gravity, Lorentz violation, and the standard model,Phys. Rev. D69(2004) 105009 [hep-th/0312310]. [44]MINOScollaboration,A Search for Lorentz Invariance and CPT Violation with the MINOS Far Detector,Phys. Rev. Lett.105(2010) 151601 [1007.2791]. [45]MINOScollabor...

    2004 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Agarwalla, S

    S.K. Agarwalla, S. Das, S. Sahoo and P. Swain,Constraining Lorentz invariance violation with next-generation long-baseline experiments,JHEP07(2023) 216 [2302.12005]

    2023 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Sarker, A

    A. Sarker, A. Medhi and M.M. Devi,Investigating the effects of Lorentz Invariance Violation on the CP-sensitivities of the Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment,Eur. Phys. J. C83 (2023) 592 [2302.10456]

    2023 arXiv

  5. [13]

    S. Pan, K. Chakraborty and S. Goswami,Sensitivity to CP discovery in the presence of Lorentz invariance-violating potential at T2HK/T2HKK,Eur. Phys. J. C84(2024) 354 [2308.07566]

    2024 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Majhi, S

    R. Majhi, S. Chembra and R. Mohanta,Exploring the effect of Lorentz invariance violation with the currently running long-baseline experiments,Eur. Phys. J. C80(2020) 364 [1907.09145]

    2020 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Fiza, N.R

    N. Fiza, N.R. Khan Chowdhury and M. Masud,Investigating Lorentz Invariance Violation with the long baseline experiment P2O,JHEP01(2023) 076 [2206.14018]

    2023 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Rahaman,Looking for Lorentz invariance violation (LIV) in the latest long baseline accelerator neutrino oscillation data,Eur

    U. Rahaman,Looking for Lorentz invariance violation (LIV) in the latest long baseline accelerator neutrino oscillation data,Eur. Phys. J. C81(2021) 792 [2103.04576]

    2021 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Delgadillo, O.G

    L.A. Delgadillo, O.G. Miranda, G. Moreno-Granados and C.A. Moura,Constraining the isotropic CPT-odd coefficients of the standard model extension by a combined DUNE and ESSnuSB analysis,Phys. Rev. D111(2025) 095027 [2409.03716]

    2025 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Mishra, S

    S. Mishra, S. Shukla, L. Singh and V. Singh,Search for Lorentz violations through the sidereal effect at the NOνA experiment,Phys. Rev. D109(2024) 075042 [2309.01756]

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Barenboim, M

    G. Barenboim, M. Masud, C.A. Ternes and M. T´ ortola,Exploring the intrinsic Lorentz-violating parameters at DUNE,Phys. Lett. B788(2019) 308 [1805.11094]

    2019 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Giarnetti, S

    A. Giarnetti, S. Marciano and D. Meloni,Exploring New Physics with Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment High-Energy Flux: The Case of Lorentz Invariance Violation, Large Extra Dimensions and Long-Range Forces,Universe10(2024) 357 [2407.17247]

    2024 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Cordero, L.A

    R. Cordero, L.A. Delgadillo, O.G. Miranda and C.A. Moura,Neutrino Lorentz invariance – 32 – violation from the CPT-even SME coefficients through a tensor interaction with cosmological scalar fields,Eur. Phys. J. C85(2025) 6 [2407.18513]

    2025

  14. [22]

    Araya-Santander, C

    T. Araya-Santander, C. Bonilla and S. Pan,JUNO’s Impact on the Neutrino Mass Ordering from Lorentz Invariance Violation,2512.11285

    arXiv

  15. [23]

    Hilding-Nørkjær, J

    S. Hilding-Nørkjær, J. Ioannou-Nikolaides, D.J. Koskinen and T. Stuttard,Interplay of Lorentz Invariance Violation and Earth’s Matter Potential in High-Energy Neutrinos, 2602.08076

  16. [24]

    Brdar and S.R

    V. Brdar and S.R. Mir,Ultra-High-Energy Tau Neutrinos as Probes of Lorentz Invariance, 2604.19880

    arXiv

  17. [25]

    Majhi, D.K

    R. Majhi, D.K. Singha, M. Ghosh and R. Mohanta,Distinguishing nonstandard interaction and Lorentz invariance violation at the Protvino to super-ORCA experiment,Phys. Rev. D 107(2023) 075036 [2212.07244]

    2023 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Sahoo, A

    S. Sahoo, A. Kumar, S.K. Agarwalla and A. Dighe,Discriminating between Lorentz violation and non-standard interactions using core-passing atmospheric neutrinos at INO-ICAL,Phys. Lett. B841(2023) 137949 [2205.05134]

    2023 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Raikwal, S

    D. Raikwal, S. Choubey and M. Ghosh,Comprehensive study of Lorentz invariance violation in atmospheric and long-baseline experiments,Phys. Rev. D107(2023) 115032 [2303.10892]

    2023 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Kostelecky and M

    V.A. Kostelecky and M. Mewes,Lorentz and CPT violation in neutrinos,Phys. Rev. D69 (2004) 016005 [hep-ph/0309025]

    2004 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Kostelecky and M

    A. Kostelecky and M. Mewes,Neutrinos with Lorentz-violating operators of arbitrary dimension,Phys. Rev. D85(2012) 096005 [1112.6395]. [72]MINOScollaboration,Testing Lorentz Invariance and CPT Conservation with NuMI Neutrinos in the MINOS Near Detector,Phys. Rev. Lett.101(2008)...

    2012 arXiv

  22. [30]

    H. Bora, D. Dutta and A. Medhi,Constraining and Resolving Lorentz-Violating New Physics at ESSnuSB Using Complementarity with DUNE,2512.06953

  23. [31]

    Sahoo, A

    S. Sahoo, A. Kumar and S.K. Agarwalla,Probing Lorentz Invariance Violation with atmospheric neutrinos at INO-ICAL,JHEP03(2022) 050 [2110.13207]

    2022 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Miranda and H

    O.G. Miranda and H. Nunokawa,Non standard neutrino interactions: current status and future prospects,New J. Phys.17(2015) 095002 [1505.06254]

    2015 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Farzan and M

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

    2018 arXiv

  26. [34]

    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 [2111.12943]

    2022 arXiv

  27. [35]

    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) 035042 [2406.15307]

    2025

  28. [36]

    Cervera, A

    A. Cervera, A. Donini, M.B. Gavela, J.J. Gomez Cadenas, P. Hernandez, O. Mena et al., Golden measurements at a neutrino factory,Nucl. Phys. B579(2000) 17 [hep-ph/0002108]

    2000 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Freund,Analytic approximations for three neutrino oscillation parameters and probabilities in matter,Phys

    M. Freund,Analytic approximations for three neutrino oscillation parameters and probabilities in matter,Phys. Rev. D64(2001) 053003 [hep-ph/0103300]. – 33 –

    2001 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Akhmedov, R

    E.K. Akhmedov, R. Johansson, M. Lindner, T. Ohlsson and T. Schwetz,Series expansions for three flavor neutrino oscillation probabilities in matter,JHEP04(2004) 078 [hep-ph/0402175]

    2004 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Denton, H

    P.B. Denton, H. Minakata and S.J. Parke,Compact Perturbative Expressions For Neutrino Oscillations in Matter,JHEP06(2016) 051 [1604.08167]

    2016 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Chattopadhyay, K

    D.S. Chattopadhyay, K. Chakraborty, A. Dighe and S. Goswami,Analytic treatment of 3-flavor neutrino oscillation and decay in matter,JHEP01(2023) 051 [2204.05803]

    2023 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Bezboruah, D.S

    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 [2410.05250]

    2025 arXiv

  34. [42]

    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]

    2005 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Kopp,Efficient numerical diagonalization of hermitian 3 x 3 matrices,Int

    J. Kopp,Efficient numerical diagonalization of hermitian 3 x 3 matrices,Int. J. Mod. Phys. C19(2008) 523 [physics/0610206]

    2008 arXiv

  36. [44]

    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 [hep-ph/0701187]. [88]DUNEcollaboration,Experiment Simulati...

    2007 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Esteban, M.C

    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 [2410.05380]

    2024 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Gonzalez-Garcia and M

    M.C. Gonzalez-Garcia and M. Maltoni,Atmospheric neutrino oscillations and new physics, Phys. Rev. D70(2004) 033010 [hep-ph/0404085]

    2004 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Fogli, E

    G.L. Fogli, E. Lisi, A. Marrone, D. Montanino and A. Palazzo,Getting the most from the statistical analysis of solar neutrino oscillations,Phys. Rev. D66(2002) 053010 [hep-ph/0206162]

    2002 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Fogli, E

    G.L. Fogli, E. Lisi, A. Marrone and D. Montanino,Status of atmospheric nu(mu) —> nu(tau) oscillations and decoherence after the first K2K spectral data,Phys. Rev. D67 (2003) 093006 [hep-ph/0303064]

    2003 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Minakata and H

    H. Minakata and H. Nunokawa,Exploring neutrino mixing with low-energy superbeams, JHEP10(2001) 001 [hep-ph/0108085]

    2001 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Hyde,Biprobability approach to CP phase degeneracy from non-standard neutrino interactions,Nucl

    J.M. Hyde,Biprobability approach to CP phase degeneracy from non-standard neutrino interactions,Nucl. Phys. B949(2019) 114804 [1806.09221]

    2019 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Minakata and H

    H. Minakata and H. Nunokawa,CP violation versus matter effect in long baseline neutrino oscillation experiments,Phys. Rev. D57(1998) 4403 [hep-ph/9705208]. – 34 –

    1998 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed July 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.