Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 6 minor 65 references

Enlightening dark moments of neutrino with superradiance

T0 review · 1 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Spinning primordial black holes can convert dark-photon clouds into neutrino beams whose rate is set by the dark anapole and magnetic moments of neutrinos, and the resulting diffuse background would cap the dark-matter fraction of…

desk verdict A genuinely new combination of neutrino dark moments with quenched superradiance, but the central operator-mapping step is asserted not derived; the numbers rest on an unproven bridge. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.07142 v1 pith:FREHDBTA submitted 2026-08-07 hep-ph astro-ph.HEgr-qc

Indra Kumar Banerjee , Ujjal Kumar Dey , Anna John This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phastro-ph.HEgr-qc
keywords neutrinoelectromagneticmomentsdarkanapolemomentmagneticquenchedsuperradianceprimordialblackholesphotonSchwingerpairproductiondiffusebackground
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 spinning primordial black holes can serve as laboratories for the dark electromagnetic moments of neutrinos. A superradiant cloud of dark photons is 'quenched' when it converts field energy into neutrino-antineutrino pairs, and the conversion rate is controlled by the neutrino's dark anapole and magnetic moments. The authors insert the effective coupling $g_\nu = m_{A'}^2 a' + m_{A'} \mu'$ into the known Schwinger pair-production formulas for a vector cloud, and then use current XENONnT moment bounds to derive upper limits on the primordial black hole abundance $f_{\rm PBH}$ through the requirement $\Delta N_{\rm eff}\le 0.3$. They also find benchmark cases in which a single nearby primordial black hole would yield one or more ultra-high-energy neutrinos, with energies that overlap the reported KM3-230213A event. If the mechanism works, neutrino telescopes and next-generation cosmic microwave background measurements become complementary probes of both neutrino moments and primordial black hole abundance.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the effective coupling $g_\nu = m_{A'}^2 a' + m_{A'} \mu'$ built from the dark anapole moment $a'$ and the dark magnetic moment $\mu'$. Substituting this single number into the fermion-factory formulas of Ref. [39] -- the Schwinger rate $\Gamma_f = g_f^2 E_{A'}^2/(48\pi)$, the critical field value $\Psi_0^c$, and the fermion energy and flux relations -- converts a superradiant dark-photon cloud into a neutrino source whose brightness is set by neutrino moments. The argument then feeds this coupling into the cloud mass evolution equation, isolates the balanced phase where fermion production offsets superradiant growth, and runs the resulting neutrino flux through a redshift integral to obtain $\Delta N_{\rm eff}$ as a function of $f_{\rm PBH}$.

What would settle it

A null measurement of extra relativistic degrees of freedom at the projected sensitivity of next-generation CMB experiments, combined with the current XENONnT moment limits, would rule out all $f_{\rm PBH}$ values above the paper's curves unless the Schwinger-rate substitution fails; a direct quantum-field-theory calculation of pair creation for the derivative and Pauli operators would settle which is the case.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that quenched superradiance of a dark-photon cloud around a spinning primordial black hole turns neutrino electromagnetic moments into an observable flux. The dark anapole operator of Eq. (2.4) and the dark magnetic operator of Eq. (2.5) combine into a single effective neutrino-dark-photon coupling $g_\nu = m_{A'}^2 a' + m_{A'} \mu'$, which controls Schwinger pair production of $\nu_e \bar{\nu}_e$ in the cloud's electric field. Because the balanced-phase duration and the emitted neutrino energy and flux all depend on $g_\nu$, laboratory bounds on neutrino moments become flux predictions for isolated black holes and, when integrated over a primordial black hole population, upper bounds on $f_{\rm PBH}$ via $\Delta N_{\rm eff}$. The authors show that the dark magnetic moment dominates the effective coupling at low dark photon mass and the dark anapole dominates at high mass, and that several benchmark sources with $M_{\rm PBH}\sim 10^{-14}$ to $10^{-19}\,M_\odot$ produce neutrino energies between roughly 221 and 360 PeV, overlapping the KM3-230213A event.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes that the derivative (anapole) and Pauli (magnetic) moment operators produce neutrino pairs at exactly the same Schwinger rate as a minimal vector coupling, with the dimensionless number $g_\nu = m_{A'}^2 a' + m_{A'}\mu'$ inserted in place of the gauge coupling; it also assumes the XENONnT bounds translate to dark moments via $a'=a/\epsilon$, $\mu'=\mu/\epsilon$ with the kinetic mixing $\epsilon$ unspecified.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For benchmark parameters satisfying all current constraints, a single primordial black hole can produce 1 to 25 detectable neutrino events in a square-kilometer detector, so an event rate at this level would constitute evidence for dark moments of the size assumed.
  • The same effective coupling implies that existing XENONnT bounds on neutrino moments translate into upper limits on $f_{\rm PBH}$; lowering the moments lowers the allowed abundance, because a smaller coupling demands a larger cloud field and hence fewer black holes to stay within $\Delta N_{\rm eff}$.
  • The character of the coupling flips with dark photon mass: the dark magnetic moment dominates below about keV-scale masses and the dark anapole dominates above it, so the flux and abundance bounds in the two regimes are sensitive to different moments.
  • If next-generation CMB experiments tighten the $\Delta N_{\rm eff}$ constraint by roughly an order of magnitude, the derived $f_{\rm PBH}$ upper limits strengthen by a comparable factor, as the authors point out.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: because the paper maps laboratory moments to dark moments through $a'=a/\epsilon$ and $\mu'=\mu/\epsilon$ while leaving the kinetic mixing $\epsilon$ free, any measured flux or $f_{\rm PBH}$ bound actually constrains the product $\epsilon\,g_\nu$; the same observation could be read as a bound on $\epsilon$ once a dark-sector model is fixed.
  • Inference: the same substitution should work for any light fermion coupled to the vector through a moment-type operator, so the machinery could probe dark fermion moments as naturally as neutrino moments, with the number of flavors $N_f$ in the quenching dynamics as the main adjustment.
  • Inference: a direct quantum-field-theory calculation of Schwinger pair production for the derivative (anapole) and Pauli (magnetic) operators would test the paper's central substitution; if the rate differs from the minimal-vector formula, all benchmark fluxes and abundance bounds would rescale by a calculable factor.
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.

Referee Report

1 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes that quenched superradiance of massive dark photon clouds around spinning primordial black holes can act as a probe of neutrino electromagnetic moments. The authors start from effective anapole and magnetic moment operators for the neutrino-dark photon interaction (Eqs. 2.4-2.5), combine them into a single effective coupling g_nu = m_A'^2 a' + m_A' mu' (Eq. 3.10), and then apply the fermion-factory formulas of Ref. [39] for Schwinger pair production, fermion energy, and flux (Eqs. 3.4, 3.8, 3.9). Using XENONnT bounds on standard neutrino anapole and magnetic moments, translated to dark moments through a' = a/epsilon and mu' = mu/epsilon, they compute benchmark point-source fluxes (Table 1, Fig. 3) and derive upper bounds on the primordial black hole abundance f_PBH from Delta N_eff constraints (Figs. 4-5). The central claim is that quenched superradiance is a novel probe of dark neutrino moments and that moment bounds imply cosmological bounds on f_PBH.

Significance. If the central mapping from the moment operators to the Schwinger pair-production rate were established, this would be a genuinely novel astrophysical probe: it would connect laboratory bounds on neutrino moments to superradiance phenomenology and would yield falsifiable predictions for UHE neutrino fluxes and f_PBH. The paper also makes a concrete and testable prediction that some benchmark configurations produce neutrino energies around 220-360 PeV, which is interesting in light of KM3-230213A. However, the significance is conditional on the correctness of the unproven substitution of g_nu into formulas derived for a minimal vector coupling, and on the treatment of the kinetic mixing parameter epsilon. The manuscript does not provide a derivation of the pair-production rate or the produced-particle energy for the axial-vector and Pauli-dipole operators, so the quantitative results are not yet established.

major comments (1)
  1. [Sec. 4.1] The benchmark points in Table 1 are presented as giving N_events >= 1 for a 1 km^2 detector, and the paper compares selected benchmarks to the KM3-230213A event. However, no statistical analysis or background estimate is given, and the detector exposure is only treated through a single effective area. The statement that BPs 3, 4, and 7 produce energies similar to KM3-230213A is suggestive, but the paper does not claim a quantitative fit; I would ask the authors to clearly mark these as order-of-magnitude illustrations, since the text in Sec. 4.1 and Fig. 3 could otherwise be read as a more direct comparison to observed events.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. 2, Eq. (2.4)] In the anapole Lagrangian, the index structure \bar\nu_j \gamma^\mu \gamma_5 \nu_i \partial^\nu F'_{\mu\nu} is written with a single contracted index on the derivative and the field strength; please check the placement of the Lorentz indices for clarity.
  2. [Sec. 3.1 and Fig. 2] Fig. 2 labels the vertical axis as g_V while the text uses g_nu; please unify the notation.
  3. [Fig. 5] The axis labels in Fig. 5 contain unicode substitution artifacts (\uni00000014 etc.) and must be regenerated in a readable form.
  4. [Throughout] There are several typographical errors, including 'anaploe', 'bosnic', 'superrradiant', and 'pramordial'; a careful proofread is needed.
  5. [Sec. 3.2, Eq. (3.15)] The prefactor in Eq. (3.15) is quoted without derivation; a short derivation or a reference to the corresponding equation in Ref. [61] would help the reader verify the normalization.
  6. [Sec. 5] The summary states that the work 'introduced quenched superradiance as a novel probe of electromagnetic moments of neutrinos'; while the idea is interesting, the sentence should be softened to reflect that the viability depends on the derivation called for in the major comments.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the f_PBH bounds are a forward-model inversion, not a fit, and the self-citations supply machinery rather than forcing the conclusion.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are (i) neutrino fluxes from quenched superradiance of dark-photon clouds coupled to neutrino moments, and (ii) upper bounds on f_PBH obtained by requiring ΔN_eff ≤ 0.3 through Eqs. (3.14)-(3.15). Neither claim is produced by fitting a parameter to the quantity being predicted. The point-source flux is computed by inserting g_ν = m_A'^2 a' + m_A' μ' (Eq. 3.10) into the fermion-factory formulas of Ref. [39]; this is a model assumption about how the moment operators map to a vector-like coupling, not a circular re-use of the output. The DQSνB formalism is attributed to the authors' own Ref. [61], which is a self-citation, but the relevant equations (3.13)-(3.15) are stated in the present paper and are standard cosmological redshifted-flux expressions. The external inputs are the XENONnT moment bounds and the Planck ΔN_eff constraint; these are not outputs of this calculation. The f_PBH bounds are derived by inverting the ΔN_eff relation, so the result is not statistically forced by construction. The main risks are the unproven operator-to-coupling mapping in Eq. (3.10) and the unspecified kinetic-mixing parameter in a' = a/ε and μ' = μ/ε; these are correctness or model-dependence concerns, not circularity. Accordingly, no circular step is identified, though the mild reliance on the authors' own earlier quenched-superradiance machinery [40, 61] is a self-citation that does not make the derivation circular.

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

The central claim rests on several imported results and hand-picked constants. The most important are the critical field and flux formulas from Ref. [39], the diffuse background formalism from Ref. [61] by the same authors, the conversion of moment operators into a dimensionless coupling g_nu, and the translation of XENONnT bounds through kinetic mixing with no explicit epsilon. These are not derived or numerically checked in this paper. No new particles or mediators are introduced; the dark photon and neutrino moment operators are taken from previous literature.

free parameters (7)
  • kinetic mixing epsilon = unspecified (implicitly epsilon=1 if Table 1 columns are standard moments)
    Controls a'=a/epsilon and mu'=mu/epsilon; all g_nu, fluxes, and f_PBH bounds depend on it.
  • gravitational fine structure constant alpha_g = 0.3
    Fixed by hand throughout; sets the mA' MBH relation in Eq. (3.11) and enters the critical field Eq. (3.7).
  • initial PBH spin a_* = 0.9
    Assumed for all point-source and diffuse calculations; affects the superradiance condition and the balanced phase duration.
  • benchmark anapole moment a = 2.32e-11 to 3.75e-6 GeV^-2 (Table 1)
    Chosen within the XENONnT bound to produce Nevents >= 1.
  • benchmark magnetic moment mu = 7.6e-16 to 2.5e-10 GeV^-1 (Table 1)
    Chosen within the XENONnT bound to produce Nevents >= 1.
  • benchmark PBH distance d = 15 kpc to 10^4 kpc (Table 1)
    Chosen per benchmark to yield a measurable flux; not observationally required.
  • number of fermion flavors N_f = 1
    Only electron neutrinos are considered; affects the critical field value in Eq. (3.7).
assumptions (6)
  • ad hoc to paper Schwinger pair production rate Gamma_f = g_f^2 E_A'^2 / (48 pi) (Eq. 3.4) is valid for the effective anapole and magnetic moment operators (2.4)-(2.5) with g_f set to g_nu.
    The paper imports a minimal-coupling formula and applies it to derivative and Pauli operators without a derivation showing the equivalence.
  • domain assumption The critical field value and fermion energy and flux formulas (Eqs. 3.7-3.9) from Ref. [39] transfer unchanged to neutrino production in this model.
    These formulas were derived for generic fermions coupled to a vector cloud; the paper does not re-derive them for neutrinos or moment operators.
  • ad hoc to paper XENONnT bounds on standard neutrino anapole and magnetic moments translate to dark moments through a'=a/epsilon and mu'=mu/epsilon with no loop matching factors.
    The mapping is stated after Eq. (3.10) but epsilon is never specified or bounded in the numerical results.
  • domain assumption The three-phase superradiant evolution and diffuse background formalism of Refs. [39] and [61] describe the PBH population, including z_upper, z_lower, and tau_balanced.
    The paper imports time-scales and redshift limits from its own previous work [61] and Ref. [39] without reproducing them.
  • domain assumption All PBHs have initial spin a_*=0.9 and a monochromatic mass spectrum.
    Stated in Sec. 4; the results are conditional on this population assumption.
  • domain assumption The relation mA' MBH ~ 10^-20 follows from fixing alpha_g=0.3 and maps dark photon mass to PBH mass.
    Eq. (3.11) sets the mass map; deviations in alpha_g shift all benchmark black hole masses.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Enlightening dark moments of neutrino with superradiance." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FREHDBTA

@misc{pith2026260807142,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Enlightening dark moments of neutrino with superradiance},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FREHDBTA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.07142}
}
read the original abstract

Neutrinos can acquire electromagnetic moments either within the Standard Model through higher order radiative corrections or within the domain of new physics. In this study we focus on probing these beyond the standard model neutrino moments through quenched superradiance of black holes where fermionic pairs can be produced from the superradiant bosonic cloud. We consider the production of dark photons from black hole superradiance and quenching occurs through the production of neutrino-antineutrino pairs from the dark photons. The efficiency of the pair production depends on the effective coupling between the dark photons and neutrinos, i.e., the dark electromagnetic moments. We also discuss bounds on primordial black hole abundance from neutrino background arising from this quenched superradiance mechanism.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [61]

    Banerjee, U.K

    I.K. Banerjee, U.K. Dey and A. John,Bounds on Exotic Couplings from a New ν-Background,2511.13673

    work page arXiv

  2. [39]

    Y. Chen, X. Xue and V. Cardoso,Black holes as fermion factories,JCAP02(2025) 035 [2308.00741]

    arXiv 2025

  3. [1]

    Nieves,Electromagnetic Properties of Majorana Neutrinos,Phys

    J.F. Nieves,Electromagnetic Properties of Majorana Neutrinos,Phys. Rev. D26(1982) 3152

    work page 1982

  4. [2]

    Dolgov and Y.B

    A.D. Dolgov and Y.B. Zeldovich,Cosmology and Elementary Particles,Rev. Mod. Phys.53 (1981) 1

    work page 1981

  5. [3]

    Kayser,Majorana Neutrinos and their Electromagnetic Properties,Phys

    B. Kayser,Majorana Neutrinos and their Electromagnetic Properties,Phys. Rev. D26 (1982) 1662

    work page 1982

  6. [4]

    Bilenky and S.T

    S.M. Bilenky and S.T. Petcov,Massive Neutrinos and Neutrino Oscillations,Rev. Mod. Phys.59(1987) 671

    work page 1987

  7. [5]

    Raffelt,Astrophysical methods to constrain axions and other novel particle phenomena, Physics Reports198(1990) 1

    G.G. Raffelt,Astrophysical methods to constrain axions and other novel particle phenomena, Physics Reports198(1990) 1

    work page 1990

  8. [6]

    Pulido,The Solar neutrino problem and the neutrino magnetic moment,Phys

    J. Pulido,The Solar neutrino problem and the neutrino magnetic moment,Phys. Rept.211 (1992) 167

    work page 1992

Show all 65 references
  1. [7]

    Salati,The Laboratory and astrophysical constraints on the neutrino charge radius, Astropart

    P. Salati,The Laboratory and astrophysical constraints on the neutrino charge radius, Astropart. Phys.2(1994) 269

    1994

  2. [8]

    Raffelt,Limits on neutrino electromagnetic properties: An update,Phys

    G.G. Raffelt,Limits on neutrino electromagnetic properties: An update,Phys. Rept.320 (1999) 319

    1999

  3. [9]

    Raffelt,Particle physics from stars,Ann

    G.G. Raffelt,Particle physics from stars,Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.49(1999) 163 [hep-ph/9903472]

    1999 arXiv

  4. [10]

    Raffelt,Astrophysics probes of particle physics,Phys

    G.G. Raffelt,Astrophysics probes of particle physics,Phys. Rept.333(2000) 593

    2000

  5. [11]

    Dolgov,Neutrinos in cosmology,Phys

    A.D. Dolgov,Neutrinos in cosmology,Phys. Rept.370(2002) 333 [hep-ph/0202122]

    2002 arXiv

  6. [12]

    Nowakowski, E.A

    M. Nowakowski, E.A. Paschos and J.M. Rodriguez,All electromagnetic form-factors,Eur. J. Phys.26(2005) 545 [physics/0402058]

    2005 arXiv

  7. [13]

    Wong and H.-B

    H.T. Wong and H.-B. Li,Neutrino magnetic moments,Mod. Phys. Lett. A20(2005) 1103

    2005

  8. [14]

    Giunti and A

    C. Giunti and A. Studenikin,Neutrino electromagnetic properties,Phys. Atom. Nucl.72 (2009) 2089 [0812.3646]

    2009 arXiv

  9. [15]

    Studenikin,Neutrino magnetic moment: A Window to new physics,Nucl

    A. Studenikin,Neutrino magnetic moment: A Window to new physics,Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl.188(2009) 220 [0812.4716]. – 13 –

    2009 arXiv

  10. [16]

    Broggini, C

    C. Broggini, C. Giunti and A. Studenikin,Electromagnetic Properties of Neutrinos,Adv. High Energy Phys.2012(2012) 459526 [1207.3980]

    2012 arXiv

  11. [17]

    Giunti and A

    C. Giunti and A. Studenikin,Neutrino electromagnetic interactions: a window to new physics,Rev. Mod. Phys.87(2015) 531 [1403.6344]

    2015 arXiv

  12. [18]

    Akhmedov,Majorana neutrinos and other Majorana particles:Theory and experiment, 1412.3320

    E. Akhmedov,Majorana neutrinos and other Majorana particles:Theory and experiment, 1412.3320

    arXiv

  13. [19]

    Georgi, P.H

    H. Georgi, P.H. Ginsparg and S.L. Glashow,Photon Oscillations and the Cosmic Background Radiation,Nature306(1983) 765

    1983

  14. [20]

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

    B. Holdom,Two U(1)’s and Epsilon Charge Shifts,Phys. Lett. B166(1986) 196

    1986

  15. [21]

    Raggi and V

    M. Raggi and V. Kozhuharov,Results and perspectives in dark photon physics,Riv. Nuovo Cim.38(2015) 449

    2015

  16. [22]

    Deliyergiyev,Recent Progress in Search for Dark Sector Signatures,Open Phys.14(2016) 281 [1510.06927]

    M. Deliyergiyev,Recent Progress in Search for Dark Sector Signatures,Open Phys.14(2016) 281 [1510.06927]

    2016 arXiv

  17. [23]

    Curciarello,Review on Dark Photon,EPJ Web Conf.118(2016) 01008

    F. Curciarello,Review on Dark Photon,EPJ Web Conf.118(2016) 01008

    2016

  18. [24]

    Fabbrichesi, E

    M. Fabbrichesi, E. Gabrielli and G. Lanfranchi,The Dark Photon,2005.01515

    2005 arXiv

  19. [25]

    Caputo and R

    A. Caputo and R. Essig,The Dark Photon: a 2026 Perspective,2603.08430

    2026 arXiv

  20. [26]

    Pospelov, A

    M. Pospelov, A. Ritz and M.B. Voloshin,Secluded WIMP Dark Matter,Phys. Lett. B662 (2008) 53 [0711.4866]

    2008 arXiv

  21. [27]

    Redondo and M

    J. Redondo and M. Postma,Massive hidden photons as lukewarm dark matter,JCAP02 (2009) 005 [0811.0326]

    2009 arXiv

  22. [28]

    Nelson and J

    A.E. Nelson and J. Scholtz,Dark Light, Dark Matter and the Misalignment Mechanism, Phys. Rev. D84(2011) 103501 [1105.2812]

    2011 arXiv

  23. [29]

    Vogel and J

    H. Vogel and J. Redondo,Dark Radiation constraints on minicharged particles in models with a hidden photon,JCAP02(2014) 029 [1311.2600]

    2014 arXiv

  24. [30]

    Ennadifi,Massive Dark Photons as Hot Dark Matter,Acta Phys

    S.E. Ennadifi,Massive Dark Photons as Hot Dark Matter,Acta Phys. Polon. B53(2022) A2.1 [2211.11663]

    2022 arXiv

  25. [31]

    Berlin, J.A

    A. Berlin, J.A. Dror, X. Gan and J.T. Ruderman,Millicharged relics reveal massless dark photons,JHEP05(2023) 046 [2211.05139]

    2023 arXiv

  26. [32]

    Cardoso, P

    V. Cardoso, P. Pani and T.-T. Yu,Superradiance in rotating stars and pulsar-timing constraints on dark photons,Phys. Rev. D95(2017) 124056 [1704.06151]

    2017 arXiv

  27. [33]

    Day and J.I

    F.V. Day and J.I. McDonald,Axion superradiance in rotating neutron stars,JCAP10 (2019) 051 [1904.08341]

    2019 arXiv

  28. [34]

    Bekenstein,Extraction of energy and charge from a black hole,Phys

    J.D. Bekenstein,Extraction of energy and charge from a black hole,Phys. Rev. D7(1973) 949

    1973

  29. [35]

    Bekenstein and M

    J.D. Bekenstein and M. Schiffer,The Many faces of superradiance,Phys. Rev. D58(1998) 064014 [gr-qc/9803033]

    1998 arXiv

  30. [36]

    Detweiler,KLEIN-GORDON EQUATION AND ROTATING BLACK HOLES,Phys

    S.L. Detweiler,KLEIN-GORDON EQUATION AND ROTATING BLACK HOLES,Phys. Rev. D22(1980) 2323

    1980

  31. [37]

    Cardoso and S

    V. Cardoso and S. Yoshida,Superradiant instabilities of rotating black branes and strings, JHEP07(2005) 009 [hep-th/0502206]. – 14 –

    2005 arXiv

  32. [38]

    Dolan,Instability of the massive Klein-Gordon field on the Kerr spacetime,Phys

    S.R. Dolan,Instability of the massive Klein-Gordon field on the Kerr spacetime,Phys. Rev. D76(2007) 084001 [0705.2880]

    2007 arXiv

  33. [40]

    Banerjee, S

    I.K. Banerjee, S. Bonthu and U.K. Dey,Multi-messenger Approach to Ultra-light Scalars, 2406.13756

    arXiv

  34. [41]

    Cisneros,Effect of neutrino magnetic moment on solar neutrino observations,Astrophys

    A. Cisneros,Effect of neutrino magnetic moment on solar neutrino observations,Astrophys. Space Sci.10(1971) 87

    1971

  35. [42]

    Lim and W.J

    C.-S. Lim and W.J. Marciano,Resonant Spin - Flavor Precession of Solar and Supernova Neutrinos,Phys. Rev. D37(1988) 1368

    1988

  36. [43]

    Pulido,Role of the spin flip flavor mechanism in the solar neutrino deficit,Phys

    J. Pulido,Role of the spin flip flavor mechanism in the solar neutrino deficit,Phys. Lett. B 251(1990) 305

    1990

  37. [44]

    Akhmedov and J

    E.K. Akhmedov and J. Pulido,SNO and the neutrino magnetic moment solution of the solar neutrino problem,Phys. Lett. B485(2000) 178 [hep-ph/0005173]

    2000 arXiv

  38. [45]

    Schechter and J.W.F

    J. Schechter and J.W.F. Valle,Majorana Neutrinos and Magnetic Fields,Phys. Rev. D24 (1981) 1883

    1981

  39. [46]

    Pal and L

    P.B. Pal and L. Wolfenstein,Radiative Decays of Massive Neutrinos,Phys. Rev. D25(1982) 766

    1982

  40. [47]

    Shrock,Electromagnetic Properties and Decays of Dirac and Majorana Neutrinos in a General Class of Gauge Theories,Nucl

    R.E. Shrock,Electromagnetic Properties and Decays of Dirac and Majorana Neutrinos in a General Class of Gauge Theories,Nucl. Phys. B206(1982) 359

    1982

  41. [48]

    Kayser,CPT, CP, and C Phases and Their Effects in Majorana Particle Processes,Phys

    B. Kayser,CPT, CP, and C Phases and Their Effects in Majorana Particle Processes,Phys. Rev. D30(1984) 1023

    1984

  42. [49]

    Herrera and I.M

    G. Herrera and I.M. Shoemaker,Dark Neutrino Moments From Light Loops,2406.08663

    arXiv

  43. [50]

    X. Chu, J. Pradler and L. Semmelrock,Light dark states with electromagnetic form factors, Phys. Rev. D99(2019) 015040 [1811.04095]

    2019 arXiv

  44. [51]

    Giunti and T

    C. Giunti and T. Lasserre,eV-scale Sterile Neutrinos,Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.69(2019) 163 [1901.08330]

    2019 arXiv

  45. [52]

    Ibarra, M

    A. Ibarra, M. Reichard and R. Nagai,Anapole moment of Majorana fermions and implications for direct detection of neutralino dark matter,JHEP01(2023) 086 [2207.01014]

    2023 arXiv

  46. [53]

    Brito, V

    R. Brito, V. Cardoso and P. Pani,Superradiance: New Frontiers in Black Hole Physics,Lect. Notes Phys.906(2015) pp.1 [1501.06570]

    2015 arXiv

  47. [54]

    Baryakhtar, R

    M. Baryakhtar, R. Lasenby and M. Teo,Black Hole Superradiance Signatures of Ultralight Vectors,Phys. Rev. D96(2017) 035019 [1704.05081]

    2017 arXiv

  48. [55]

    Siemonsen, C

    N. Siemonsen, C. Mondino, D. Egana-Ugrinovic, J. Huang, M. Baryakhtar and W.E. East, Dark photon superradiance: Electrodynamics and multimessenger signals,Phys. Rev. D107 (2023) 075025 [2212.09772]

    2023 arXiv

  49. [56]

    Brito, V

    R. Brito, V. Cardoso and P. Pani,Black holes as particle detectors: evolution of superradiant instabilities,Class. Quant. Grav.32(2015) 134001 [1411.0686]

    2015 arXiv

  50. [57]

    Y. Chen, X. Xue, R. Brito and V. Cardoso,Photon Ring Astrometry for Superradiant Clouds,Phys. Rev. Lett.130(2023) 111401 [2211.03794]. – 15 –

    2023 arXiv

  51. [58]

    Schwinger,On gauge invariance and vacuum polarization,Phys

    J.S. Schwinger,On gauge invariance and vacuum polarization,Phys. Rev.82(1951) 664

    1951

  52. [59]

    R. Laha, P. Lu and V. Takhistov,Gas heating from spinning and non-spinning evaporating primordial black holes,Phys. Lett. B820(2021) 136459 [2009.11837]. [60]XENONcollaboration,Search for New Physics in Electronic Recoil Data from XENONnT, Phys. Rev. Lett.129(2022) 161805 [2207.11330]

    2021 arXiv

  53. [62]

    Y.-X. Lin, P. Sarmah and M. Spinrath,Neutrino superradiance constraint on asteroid-mass PBH Dark Matter and beyond,2607.12485. [63]Planckcollaboration,Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters,Astron. Astrophys. 641(2020) A6 [1807.06209]

    2020 arXiv

  54. [64]

    Mangano, G

    G. Mangano, G. Miele, S. Pastor, T. Pinto, O. Pisanti and P.D. Serpico,Relic neutrino decoupling including flavor oscillations,Nucl. Phys. B729(2005) 221 [hep-ph/0506164]

    2005 arXiv

  55. [65]

    Cielo, M

    M. Cielo, M. Escudero, G. Mangano and O. Pisanti,Neff in the Standard Model at NLO is 3.043,Phys. Rev. D108(2023) L121301 [2306.05460]. [66]IceCube-Gen2collaboration,IceCube-Gen2: the window to the extreme Universe,J. Phys. G48(2021) 060501 [2008.04323]. [67]RNO-Gcollaboration...

    2023 arXiv

  56. [70]

    Vitagliano, I

    E. Vitagliano, I. Tamborra and G. Raffelt,Grand Unified Neutrino Spectrum at Earth: Sources and Spectral Components,Rev. Mod. Phys.92(2020) 45006 [1910.11878]. [71]KM3NeTcollaboration,Observation of an ultra-high-energy cosmic neutrino with KM3NeT, Nature638(2025) 376. [72]Ice...

    2020 arXiv

  57. [75]

    B. Carr, K. Kohri, Y. Sendouda and J. Yokoyama,Constraints on primordial black holes, Rept. Prog. Phys.84(2021) 116902 [2002.12778]. – 16 –

    2021 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.