pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.26013 · v2 · pith:DYCJSLPQnew · submitted 2026-04-28 · ✦ hep-ph · astro-ph.HE

Time-of-Flight Constraints on Neutrino Millicharge from Supernova Neutrinos in Galactic Magnetic Fields

Pedro Dedin Neto , AmirFarzan Esmaeili , Guilherme A. Nogueira , Pedro Cunha de Holanda , Ernesto Kemp This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-20 23:36 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ph astro-ph.HE
keywords neutrino millichargesupernova neutrinostime-of-flightgalactic magnetic fieldsSN1987Aneutrino massneutrino propagationelectromagnetic interactions
0
0 comments X

The pith

Supernova time-of-flight data can be reinterpreted as neutrino millicharge bounds down to the 10^{-19} e level.

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

The paper shows that a millicharged neutrino deflected by Galactic magnetic fields experiences a geometric time delay that scales with energy exactly as the delay from a nonzero neutrino mass. This shared E^{-2} dependence lets the authors translate existing and future supernova neutrino arrival-time limits directly into constraints on the neutrino millicharge. They replace the simple uniform-field estimate with a line-of-sight magnetic delay kernel that incorporates the actual structure of the Galactic field. A sympathetic reader would care because the method extracts new fundamental information from well-observed or soon-to-be-observed events without requiring new particle-physics experiments.

Core claim

A millicharged neutrino propagating through magnetic fields experiences a small Lorentz-force deflection, which induces a geometric time delay. In the ultra-relativistic regime relevant for supernova neutrinos, this delay scales as q_ν² E_ν^{-2} and thus shares the same leading energy dependence as the standard time-of-flight delay induced by neutrino mass. Motivated by this similarity, the authors propose a framework to reinterpret supernova time-of-flight limits on neutrino mass as constraints on neutrino millicharge. Both effects are expressed through a common E_ν^{-2} dispersion coefficient, and the millicharge-induced contribution is computed with a line-of-sight-dependent magneticdelay

What carries the argument

The line-of-sight-dependent magnetic delay kernel that calculates the geometric time delay from Lorentz-force deflections and shares the E^{-2} scaling with mass-induced delays, allowing direct translation of time-of-flight limits.

If this is right

  • SN1987A data translate into millicharge bounds near 10^{-17} e.
  • Next-generation Galactic supernova observations reach the low 10^{-19} e regime.
  • Optimistic detector sensitivity and sightline combinations approach 10^{-20} e.
  • The new bounds can be compared directly with other literature limits on neutrino millicharge.
  • Nonzero neutrino mass must be accounted for when interpreting the millicharge constraints.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same translation could be applied to neutrinos from other distant sources that traverse magnetized regions.
  • Improved Galactic magnetic field maps would immediately tighten the derived millicharge limits.
  • Combined timing and flavor data from a single supernova burst might help separate mass and millicharge contributions.
  • The approach underscores the value of accurate propagation modeling for extracting neutrino electromagnetic properties.

Load-bearing premise

The millicharge-induced geometric time delay can be expressed with the same E^{-2} dispersion coefficient as the mass delay and computed accurately with the magnetic kernel without dominant interference from other propagation effects or magnetic field uncertainties.

What would settle it

Arrival-time data from a future Galactic supernova that, when analyzed with the line-of-sight magnetic kernel, yields a millicharge value larger than the paper's projected bound would directly contradict the claimed constraints.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.26013 by AmirFarzan Esmaeili, Ernesto Kemp, Guilherme A. Nogueira, Pedro Cunha de Holanda, Pedro Dedin Neto.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. (a) Galactic plane map of the regular JF12 magnetic field model in Galactocentric coordinates, with the selected lines view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Decomposition of the magnetic kernel building view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Comparison of neutrino-millicharge bounds from dif view at source ↗
read the original abstract

A millicharged neutrino propagating through magnetic fields experiences a small Lorentz-force deflection, which induces a geometric time delay. In the ultra-relativistic regime relevant for supernova neutrinos, this delay scales as $q_\nu^2 E_\nu^{-2}$, where $q_\nu$ and $E_\nu$ denote the neutrino millicharge and energy, respectively, and thus shares the same leading energy dependence as the standard time-of-flight delay induced by neutrino mass. Motivated by this similarity, we propose a framework to reinterpret supernova time-of-flight limits on neutrino mass as constraints on neutrino millicharge. We express both effects in terms of a common $E_\nu^{-2}$ dispersion coefficient and compute the millicharge-induced contribution using a line-of-sight-dependent magnetic delay kernel, extending the original SN1987A uniform-field estimate. Applying this translation to existing SN1987A limits and to projected sensitivities for future Galactic core-collapse supernova observations, we obtain bounds ranging from the $\sim 10^{-17}\, e$ level for SN1987A to the low-$10^{-19}\, e$ regime for next-generation Galactic bursts, with optimistic combinations of detector sensitivity and Galactic sightline approaching $\sim 10^{-20}\, e$. We compare these results with other bounds in the literature and discuss how nonzero neutrino mass affects the interpretation.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes reinterpreting supernova neutrino time-of-flight limits on neutrino mass as constraints on neutrino millicharge. It observes that the geometric delay from Lorentz-force deflection in magnetic fields scales as q_ν² E_ν^{-2} in the ultra-relativistic limit, sharing the leading energy dependence with the mass-induced delay. The authors introduce a line-of-sight-dependent magnetic delay kernel that extends the uniform-field approximation used for SN1987A, apply the translation to existing SN1987A limits and projected sensitivities for future Galactic core-collapse supernovae, and report millicharge bounds ranging from ∼10^{-17} e to the low-10^{-19} e regime (with optimistic sightlines reaching ∼10^{-20} e). The work also discusses the effect of nonzero neutrino mass on the interpretation.

Significance. If the central mapping holds, the paper supplies a practical framework for converting existing and forthcoming supernova timing data into competitive millicharge limits that improve upon current laboratory bounds by several orders of magnitude. The explicit construction of a LOS-dependent kernel represents a technical advance over prior uniform-field estimates, and the discussion of the interplay with neutrino mass provides a useful caveat for future analyses. The approach is falsifiable with next-generation detectors and Galactic sightline selection.

major comments (1)
  1. [Magnetic delay kernel] Magnetic delay kernel (description following the uniform-field extension): the kernel is constructed for a smooth, line-of-sight-integrated field and yields a coherent deflection scaling. The Galactic magnetic field, however, includes a turbulent component with coherence lengths ∼10–100 pc over a ∼10 kpc path. In the random-walk regime the excess path length scales as q² B_rms² l_coh L² / E² rather than the L³ scaling implicit in the smooth kernel; this changes the effective E_ν^{-2} coefficient by a factor that depends on the uncertain turbulence spectrum and therefore renders the quoted numerical bounds (∼10^{-17} e to ∼10^{-20} e) sensitive to B-field modeling choices not quantified in the manuscript.
minor comments (2)
  1. The abstract states that the millicharge delay 'shares the same leading energy dependence' as the mass delay; an explicit side-by-side definition of the common dispersion coefficient (including any overall prefactors) would make the translation step fully transparent.
  2. For the optimistic ∼10^{-20} e projection, specify which Galactic sightline models or detector configurations are assumed so that readers can assess the realism of the combination.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thorough review and valuable feedback on our manuscript. We address the major comment concerning the magnetic delay kernel and the turbulent component of the Galactic magnetic field below. We have made revisions to the manuscript to incorporate a discussion of this issue.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Magnetic delay kernel (description following the uniform-field extension): the kernel is constructed for a smooth, line-of-sight-integrated field and yields a coherent deflection scaling. The Galactic magnetic field, however, includes a turbulent component with coherence lengths ∼10–100 pc over a ∼10 kpc path. In the random-walk regime the excess path length scales as q² B_rms² l_coh L² / E² rather than the L³ scaling implicit in the smooth kernel; this changes the effective E_ν^{-2} coefficient by a factor that depends on the uncertain turbulence spectrum and therefore renders the quoted numerical bounds (∼10^{-17} e to ∼10^{-20} e) sensitive to B-field modeling choices not quantified in the manuscript.

    Authors: The referee correctly identifies that our magnetic delay kernel assumes a smooth, line-of-sight integrated field, leading to a coherent deflection with L^3 scaling. The presence of a turbulent component with coherence lengths of 10-100 pc over 10 kpc paths would indeed place the deflection in a random-walk regime, resulting in an excess path length scaling as q² B_rms² l_coh L² / E². This alters the effective coefficient in the E_ν^{-2} term and introduces dependence on the turbulence spectrum, which was not quantified in the original submission. In response, we have revised the manuscript to include an explicit discussion of the turbulent contribution. We estimate that the random-walk delay is typically smaller than the coherent one for standard Galactic field parameters but can become comparable depending on the sightline and B_rms. We now present the bounds with an additional uncertainty factor associated with B-field modeling and discuss how future work could refine this using detailed turbulence simulations. This is a partial revision, as we have not performed a full re-calculation incorporating a specific turbulence model but have qualified the results accordingly. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation is self-contained

full rationale

The paper derives the shared E_ν^{-2} scaling for millicharge geometric delay from Lorentz deflection and equates it to the mass delay via a common dispersion coefficient. It then computes a line-of-sight magnetic delay kernel as an explicit extension of the uniform-field case and applies the resulting mapping to independently established external SN1987A time-of-flight limits. No equation reduces to its input by construction, no parameter is fitted then relabeled as a prediction, and no load-bearing premise rests on a self-citation chain. The numerical bounds are translations of prior external constraints rather than new fitted outputs. Magnetic-field modeling details affect correctness but do not create circularity in the derivation chain.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the ultra-relativistic scaling of the magnetic delay and on the accuracy of Galactic magnetic field models used to build the line-of-sight kernel; no new free parameters are explicitly introduced in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption In the ultra-relativistic regime the millicharge-induced delay scales as q_ν² E_ν^{-2}.
    This scaling is invoked to establish the shared E^{-2} dependence with the mass delay.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5797 in / 1368 out tokens · 56882 ms · 2026-05-20T23:36:08.786117+00:00 · methodology

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages · 16 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    For each sampled parameter set, we recompute the corresponding contribution to the effec- tive field strengthB2 eff(L, ℓ, b), and hence to the regular part of the time delay kernel

    Regular component To estimate the uncertainty on the regular field con- tribution to the kernel, we sample the JF12 regular field parameters around their published best fit values using independent Gaussian draws with widths given by the quoted1σerrors. For each sampled parameter set, we recompute the corresponding contribution to the effec- tive field st...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Stochastic components For the stochastic components, the time delay kernel depends on a transverse field variance together with a correlation length along the line-of-sight given by Eq. A30. In practice, this integral is evaluated numerically from the transverse correlation function estimated along the line-of-sight. For the turbulent field, we use theCRP...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Quantization of electric charge from anomaly constraints and a majo- rana neutrino,

    K. S. Babu and Rabindra N. Mohapatra, “Quantization of electric charge from anomaly constraints and a majo- rana neutrino,” Phys. Rev. D41, 271–277 (1990)

    work page 1990

  4. [4]

    Electric Charge Quantization

    Robert Foot, H. Lew, and R. R. Volkas, “Electric charge quantization,” J. Phys. G19, 361–372 (1993), [Erratum: J.Phys.G 19, 1067 (1993)], arXiv:hep-ph/9209259

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1993

  5. [5]

    Charge Quantization in the Standard Model and Some of its Extensions,

    R. Foot, G. C. Joshi, H. Lew, and R. R. Volkas, “Charge Quantization in the Standard Model and Some of its Extensions,” Modern Physics Letters A5, 2721–2731 (1990)

    work page 1990

  6. [6]

    SimplestZ ′ model,

    Xiao-Gang He, G. C. Joshi, H. Lew, and R. R. Volkas, “SimplestZ ′ model,” Phys.Rev.D44,2118–2132(1991)

    work page 1991

  7. [7]

    Evidence for oscillation of atmospheric neutrinos

    Y. Fukudaet al.(Super-Kamiokande), “Evidence for os- cillation of atmospheric neutrinos,” Phys. Rev. Lett.81, 1562–1567 (1998), arXiv:hep-ex/9807003

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  8. [8]

    Direct Evidence for Neutrino Flavor Transformation from Neutral-Current Interactions in the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory

    Q. R. Ahmadet al.(SNO), “Direct evidence for neutrino flavor transformation from neutral current interactions in the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 011301 (2002), arXiv:nucl-ex/0204008

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  9. [9]

    First results from Kam- LAND: Evidence for reactor anti-neutrino disappear- ance,

    K. Eguchiet al.(KamLAND), “First results from Kam- LAND: Evidence for reactor anti-neutrino disappear- ance,” Phys. Rev. Lett.90, 021802 (2003), arXiv:hep- ex/0212021

    work page arXiv 2003

  10. [10]

    Neutrino electromagnetic interactions: a window to new physics

    Carlo Giunti and Alexander Studenikin, “Neutrino elec- tromagneticinteractions: awindowtonewphysics,” Rev. Mod. Phys.87, 531 (2015), arXiv:1403.6344 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  11. [11]

    How Charged Can Neutrinos Be?

    Sudip Jana, Michael Klasen, and Vishnu P. K, “How Charged Can Neutrinos Be?” (2025), arXiv:2504.20044 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  12. [12]

    Electromagnetic properties and de- cays of Dirac and Majorana neutrinos in a general class of gauge theories,

    Robert E. Shrock, “Electromagnetic properties and de- cays of Dirac and Majorana neutrinos in a general class of gauge theories,” Nuclear Physics B206, 359–379 (1982)

    work page 1982

  13. [13]

    Elec- tromagnetic properties of neutrinos,

    C. Broggini, C. Giunti, and A. Studenikin, “Elec- tromagnetic properties of neutrinos,” Advances in High Energy Physics2012, 459526 (2012), https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1155/2012/459526

    work page doi:10.1155/2012/459526 2012

  14. [14]

    Neutrino Electromagnetic Prop- erties,

    Carlo Giunti, Konstantin Kouzakov, Yu-Feng Li, and Alexander Studenikin, “Neutrino Electromagnetic Prop- erties,” Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.75, 1–33 (2025), arXiv:2411.03122 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  15. [15]

    Two U(1)’s and Epsilon Charge Shifts,

    Bob Holdom, “Two U(1)’s and Epsilon Charge Shifts,” Phys. Lett. B166, 196–198 (1986)

    work page 1986

  16. [16]

    Limits on neutrino electromagnetic prop- erties: An update,

    G. G. Raffelt, “Limits on neutrino electromagnetic prop- erties: An update,” Phys. Rept.320, 319–327 (1999)

    work page 1999

  17. [17]

    Updated bounds on milli-charged particles,

    Sacha Davidson, Steen Hannestad, and Georg Raffelt, “Updated bounds on milli-charged particles,” Journal of High Energy Physics2000, 003 (2000), arXiv:hep- ph/0001179 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2000

  18. [18]

    Constraints on millicharged neutrinos via analysis of data from atomic ionizations with germanium detectors at sub-keV sensitivities

    Jiunn-Wei Chen, Hsin-Chang Chi, Hau-Bin Li, C. P. Liu, Lakhwinder Singh, Henry T. Wong, Chih-Liang Wu, and Chih-Pan Wu, “Constraints on millicharged neutri- nos via analysis of data from atomic ionizations with ger- manium detectors at sub-keV sensitivities,” Phys. Rev. D 90, 011301 (2014), arXiv:1405.7168 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  19. [19]

    New constraint on neutrino magnetic moment and neutrino millicharge from LUX- ZEPLIN dark matter search results,

    M. Atzori Corona, W. M. Bonivento, M. Cadeddu, N. Cargioli, and F. Dordei, “New constraint on neutrino magnetic moment and neutrino millicharge from LUX- ZEPLIN dark matter search results,” Phys. Rev. D107, 053001 (2023), arXiv:2207.05036 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2023

  20. [20]

    Light new physics and neutrino electro- magnetic interactions in XENONnT,

    Amir N. Khan, “Light new physics and neutrino electro- magnetic interactions in XENONnT,” Phys. Lett. B837, 137650 (2023), arXiv:2208.02144 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2023

  21. [21]

    New bounds on neutrino electric millicharge from GEMMA experiment on neutrino magnetic moment

    Victor B. Brudanin, Dmitry V. Medvedev, Alexander S. Starostin, and Alexander I. Studenikin, “New bounds on neutrino electric millicharge from GEMMA experiment on neutrino magnetic moment,” Nucl. Part. Phys. Proc. 273-275, 2605–2608 (2016), arXiv:1411.2279 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  22. [22]

    Neutrino charge constraints from scattering to the weak gravity conjecture to neutron stars,

    Arindam Das, Diptimoy Ghosh, Carlo Giunti, and Arun Thalapillil, “Neutrino charge constraints from scattering to the weak gravity conjecture to neutron stars,” Phys. Rev. D102, 115009 (2020), arXiv:2005.12304 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2020

  23. [23]

    On the possibility of determining the upper limit of the neutrino mass by means of the flight time,

    G. T. Zatsepin, “On the possibility of determining the upper limit of the neutrino mass by means of the flight time,” Pisma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.8, 333–334 (1968)

    work page 1968

  24. [24]

    Supernova SN 1987a: 18 Months Later,

    David N. Schramm, “Supernova SN 1987a: 18 Months Later,” inDPF ’88: 1988 Meeting of the Division of Par- ticles & Fields of the APS(1989) pp. 599–622

    work page 1988

  25. [25]

    Bayesian analysis of neutrinos observed from supernova SN 1987A

    Thomas J. Loredo and Don Q. Lamb, “Bayesian analysis of neutrinos observed from supernova SN-1987A,” Phys. Rev. D65, 063002 (2002), arXiv:astro-ph/0107260

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  26. [26]

    Neutrino mass bound in the standard scenario for supernova electronic antineutrino emission

    G. Pagliaroli, F. Rossi-Torres, and F. Vissani, “Neu- trino mass bound in the standard scenario for supernova electronic antineutrino emission,” Astropart. Phys.33, 287–291 (2010), arXiv:1002.3349 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  27. [27]

    Black Hole Formation in Core-Collapse Supernovae and Time-of-Flight Measurements of the Neutrino Masses

    John F. Beacom, R. N. Boyd, and A. Mezzacappa, “Black Hole Formation in Core Collapse Supernovae and Time-of-Flight Measurements of the Neutrino Masses,” Phys.Rev.D63,073011(2001),arXiv:astro-ph/0010398

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  28. [28]

    Constraints on neutrino masses from a Galactic supernova neutrino signal at present and future detectors

    Enrico Nardi and Jorge I. Zuluaga, “Constraints on neu- trino masses from a galactic supernova neutrino signal at present and future detectors,” Nucl. Phys. B731, 140– 163 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0412104. 13

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  29. [29]

    Pompa, F

    Federica Pompa, Francesco Capozzi, Olga Mena, and Michel Sorel, “AbsoluteνMass Measurement with the DUNE Experiment,” Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 121802 (2022), arXiv:2203.00024 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2022

  30. [30]

    Constraining the absolute neutrino mass with black hole-forming super- novae and scintillation detectors,

    George A. Parker and Michael Wurm, “Constraining the absolute neutrino mass with black hole-forming super- novae and scintillation detectors,” Phys. Rev. D109, 083041 (2024), arXiv:2311.10682 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2024

  31. [31]

    Individual neutrino masses from a supernova,

    Peter B. Denton and Yves Kini, “Individual neutrino masses from a supernova,” Phys. Rev. D111, 103006 (2025), arXiv:2411.13634 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  32. [32]

    Prospective Constraints on Neutrino Masses from a Core-Collapse Supernova

    John Ellis, Hans-Thomas Janka, Nikolaos E. Mavro- matos, Alexander S. Sakharov, and Edward K. G. Sark- isyan, “Prospective Constraints on Neutrino Masses from a Core-Collapse Supernova,” Phys. Rev. D85, 105028 (2012), arXiv:1202.0248 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  33. [33]

    Electric Charge of the Neutrinos from SN1987A,

    G. Barbiellini and G. Cocconi, “Electric Charge of the Neutrinos from SN1987A,” Nature329, 21–22 (1987)

    work page 1987

  34. [34]

    A New Model of the Galactic Magnetic Field

    Ronnie Jansson and Glennys R. Farrar, “A New Model of the Galactic Magnetic Field,” Astrophys. J.757, 14 (2012), arXiv:1204.3662 [astro-ph.GA]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  35. [35]

    New limits on extragalactic magnetic fields from rotation measures

    M. S. Pshirkov, P. G. Tinyakov, and F. R. Urban, “New limits on extragalactic magnetic fields from ro- tation measures,” Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 191302 (2016), arXiv:1504.06546 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  36. [36]

    Understanding and visualizing the statistical analysis of SN1987A neutrino data,

    Marcos V. dos Santos and Pedro Cunha de Holanda, “Understanding and visualizing the statistical analysis of SN1987A neutrino data,” Eur. Phys. J. C82, 145 (2022), arXiv:2108.06448 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2022

  37. [37]

    Tests of relativity from SN1987A,

    Michael J. Longo, “Tests of relativity from SN1987A,” Phys. Rev. D36, 3276–3277 (1987)

    work page 1987

  38. [38]

    A novel analytical model of the magnetic field configuration in the Galactic Center,

    Mehmet Guenduez, Julia Becker Tjus, Katia Ferrière, and Ralf-Jürgen Dettmar, “A novel analytical model of the magnetic field configuration in the Galactic Center,” Astron. Astrophys.644, A71 (2020), arXiv:1906.05211 [astro-ph.GA]

    work page arXiv 2020

  39. [39]

    Search for millicharged particles in reactor neutrino experiments: a probe of the PVLAS anomaly

    S. N. Gninenko, N. V. Krasnikov, and A. Rubbia, “Search for millicharged particles in reactor neutrino ex- periments: A Probe of the PVLAS anomaly,” Phys. Rev. D75, 075014 (2007), arXiv:hep-ph/0612203

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  40. [40]

    New bounds on neutrino electric millicharge from limits on neutrino magnetic moment

    Alexander Studenikin, “New bounds on neutrino electric millicharge from limits on neutrino magnetic moment,” EPL107, 21001 (2014), [Erratum: EPL 107, 39901 (2014), Erratum: Europhys.Lett. 107, 39901 (2014)], arXiv:1302.1168 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  41. [41]

    Impact of the Dresden-II and COHERENT neutrino scattering data on neutrino electromagnetic proper- ties and electroweak physics,

    M. Atzori Corona, M. Cadeddu, N. Cargioli, F. Dordei, C. Giunti, Y. F. Li, C. A. Ternes, and Y. Y. Zhang, “Impact of the Dresden-II and COHERENT neutrino scattering data on neutrino electromagnetic proper- ties and electroweak physics,” JHEP09, 164 (2022), arXiv:2205.09484 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2022

  42. [42]

    Im- plications of first LZ and XENONnT results: A compar- ative study of neutrino properties and light mediators,

    ShivaSankar K. A., Anirban Majumdar, Dimitrios K. Pa- poulias, Hemant Prajapati, and Rahul Srivastava, “Im- plications of first LZ and XENONnT results: A compar- ative study of neutrino properties and light mediators,” Phys.Lett.B839,137742(2023),arXiv:2208.06415[hep- ph]

    work page arXiv 2023

  43. [43]

    Electromagnetic Properties of the neutrino,

    Jeremy Bernstein, Malvin Ruderman, and Gerald Fein- berg, “Electromagnetic Properties of the neutrino,” Phys. Rev.132, 1227–1233 (1963)

    work page 1963

  44. [44]

    Laboratory constraint on the electric charge of the neutron and the neutrino,

    Savely G. Karshenboim, “Laboratory constraint on the electric charge of the neutron and the neutrino,” Eur. Phys. J. D79, 28 (2025), arXiv:2406.19129 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  45. [45]

    Millicharged neutrino with anomalous magnetic moment in rotating magnetized matter

    Alexander I. Studenikin and Ilya Tokarev, “Millicharged neutrino with anomalous magnetic moment in rotating magnetized matter,” Nucl. Phys. B884, 396–407 (2014), arXiv:1209.3245 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  46. [46]

    New bounds on light millicharged particles from the tip of the red-giant branch,

    Audrey Fung, Saniya Heeba, Qinrui Liu, Varun Muralid- haran, Katelin Schutz, and Aaron C. Vincent, “New bounds on light millicharged particles from the tip of the red-giant branch,” Phys. Rev. D109, 083011 (2024), arXiv:2309.06465 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  47. [47]

    CRPropa 3.2: a pub- lic framework for high-energy astroparticle simulations,

    S. Aerdkeret al.(CRPropa), “CRPropa 3.2: a pub- lic framework for high-energy astroparticle simulations,” PoSICRC2023, 1471 (2023), arXiv:2308.09532 [astro- ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2023