Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 31 references

Study of the beyond standard model interaction using Coherent Elastic Neutrino-Nucleus Scattering process

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A proposed 10 kg reactor-neutrino detector could constrain most non-standard neutrino interaction parameters as tightly as today's leading experiments.

desk verdict Competent ICNSE sensitivity projection undone in its two-target claim by an admitted omission of germanium quenching; sapphire-only results stand. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.14443 v2 pith:LDDFQYWT submitted 2025-06-17 hep-ph hep-exnucl-exnucl-th

S. P. Behera , S. Panda , D. K. Mishra This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-exnucl-exnucl-th
keywords coherentelasticneutrino-nucleusscatteringreactorantineutrinosnon-standardneutrinointeractionsgeneralizedICNSEsapphiredetectorhigh-puritygermaniumtensor
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

The paper projects the sensitivity of the proposed Indian Coherent Neutrino-nucleus Scattering Experiment (ICNSE): a 10 kg array of sapphire (Al$_2$O$_3$) and high-purity germanium crystals exposed to reactor electron antineutrinos for one year. Its central claim is that this detector could constrain the vector non-standard-interaction (NSI) parameters $\varepsilon_{ee}$ and $\varepsilon_{e\tau}$ at 90% confidence with a reach comparable to today's most sensitive CE$\nu$NS experiments, and that combining two target materials with different neutron-to-proton ratios breaks the degeneracies a single target leaves. That is of interest because coherent elastic neutrino-nucleus scattering is a clean low-energy window on neutrino-quark interactions beyond the Standard Model, and a reactor provides a pure electron-antineutrino probe. The same sensitivity treatment is extended to generalized scalar, vector, and tensor neutrino interactions.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the NSI-modified weak nuclear charge squared, $\left(Q_V^{\mathrm{NSI}}\right)^2$ of Eqs. (2.4)--(2.5), which replaces the standard-model charge in the differential CE$\nu$NS cross section. Its linear dependence on $\varepsilon_{ee}^{uV}$, $\varepsilon_{ee}^{dV}$, $\varepsilon_{e\tau}^{uV}$, and $\varepsilon_{e\tau}^{dV}$, weighted by proton number $Z$ and neutron number $N$, is what creates the characteristic degenerate bands in the allowed-region plots. The ratio $(A+N)/(A+Z)$ fixes each band's slope, so combining two crystals with different slopes is the mechanism that breaks the degeneracy. The statistical engine is the pull-parameter $\chi^2$ of Eq. (3.2), with an overall 5.5% normalization and response systematic plus a 5% background systematic, evaluated in a single recoil-energy bin.

What would settle it

Take the same 10 kg sapphire and germanium array, place it 4-10 m from a reactor core, measure the actual background spectrum and rate, repeat the paper's single-bin pull-parameter $\chi^2$ with the measured signal-to-background ratio, and include the germanium quenching factor; if the resulting 90% CL contour in the $\varepsilon_{ee}^{uV}$--$\varepsilon_{ee}^{dV}$ plane does not fall within the paper's projected region, the central claim is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The core result is a sensitivity forecast, not a measurement. The paper shows that a rate-only, single-energy-bin $\chi^2$ analysis of CE$\nu$NS events from reactor antineutrinos could exclude most of the currently allowed vector NSI parameter space, with the projected reach concentrated in the $\varepsilon_{ee}^{uV}$--$\varepsilon_{ee}^{dV}$ and $\varepsilon_{e\tau}^{uV}$--$\varepsilon_{e\tau}^{dV}$ planes. The argument runs through the NSI-modified weak nuclear charge: the standard-model charge $g_V^p Z + g_V^n N$ is replaced by a combination containing the four NSI parameters, and each single-target measurement yields a linear allowed band whose slope is fixed by the target's $(A+N)/(A+Z)$ ratio. Because sapphire and germanium have different values of that ratio, superimposing their 90% confidence bands cuts the degeneracy to a small overlap region; the paper finds this combined reach comparable to that of the COHERENT, CONUS+, and Dresden-II experiments. It also reports that the reach is nearly independent of reactor core configuration and power, so the same detector could be deployed at several reactor sites.

Load-bearing premise

The projection stands on the assumption that a 10 kg cryogenic detector at a real reactor site can hold recoil thresholds of 100 eV (sapphire) and 150 eV (germanium) with backgrounds no worse than the assumed flat-plus-1/T shapes at a signal-to-background ratio near one; if any of those conditions fails, the claimed NSI constraints weaken.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the projection holds, a 10 kg sapphire detector with a 100 eV threshold would constrain the vector NSI parameters at 90% CL with a reach comparable to COHERENT, CONUS+, and Dresden-II.
  • Combining 5 kg of sapphire with 5 kg of germanium would shrink the allowed regions for both non-universal and flavor-changing NSI pairs, breaking degeneracies that neither target alone can remove.
  • Because the sensitivity is nearly independent of which reactor supplies the antineutrinos, the same detector configuration could be moved between research and power reactor sites with little loss of reach.
  • Backgrounds and systematics set the floor: at a signal-to-background ratio of 1:10 the 90% CL contours widen substantially, and raising the systematic uncertainty from 5% to 10% weakens the limits more than a comparable change in background normalization.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: because the analysis is rate-only with a single energy bin, the same dataset probably carries additional information in the recoil spectrum shape; a binned spectral likelihood is a natural extension the paper does not pursue.
  • Beyond the paper: the paper omits the germanium quenching factor and its uncertainty; including it would likely weaken the Ge-only reach and shift the combined Al2O3+Ge contours toward the sapphire-only ones, so the quoted degeneracy-breaking advantage is likely an upper bound.
  • Beyond the paper: the neutron-to-proton complementarity argument is generic; pairing sapphire with other low-threshold targets, such as silicon or argon, would test the same degeneracy-breaking mechanism at other reactor sites.
  • Beyond the paper: the near-independence of reactor core configuration suggests the same movable 10 kg detector could be used to compare site-specific backgrounds, turning the projected sensitivity into a systematic-error measurement as well.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a projected sensitivity study of the proposed Indian Coherent Neutrino-nucleus Scattering Experiment (ICNSE) to beyond-standard-model neutrino interactions. It assumes 10 kg of sapphire or germanium target mass, one year of exposure, recoil thresholds of 100 eV (sapphire) and 150 eV (germanium), 80% detection efficiency, 90% fiducial volume, and 70% duty cycle, with reactor antineutrinos from Apsara-U, Dhruva, PFBR, and VVER. A rate-only chi-square under the SM-as-null hypothesis is used to obtain 90% CL projected contours for vector NSI parameters, scalar/vector/tensor generalized interactions, and a two-target combination of Al2O3 and Ge intended to break parameter degeneracies. The projected contours are compared with published constraints from COHERENT, CONUS+, Dresden-II, XENON1T, and CHARM, and the authors conclude that a 10 kg detector operated at a reactor would be competitive with these experiments and would narrow most of the relevant NSI parameter space.

Significance. If the assumed thresholds, backgrounds, and systematics are realized, the projected constraints would be competitive with current CEνNS limits and would strengthen the physics case for ICNSE. The central formalism is standard and mostly internally consistent: Eq. (2.5) gives the expected NSI weak charge, and Eq. (3.2) implements a conventional pull-based chi-square. The explicit study of signal-to-background and systematic variations in Sec. 4.4 is a useful feature, and the paper correctly presents the work as a forward simulation rather than as a measurement. However, the manuscript ships no code or data tables, the event-rate equations have at least one normalization ambiguity, and the headline two-target degeneracy-breaking claim is computed for a germanium arm whose quenching is explicitly not included. The significance of the results is therefore real but contingent; the paper needs targeted revisions before the main claims are fully supported.

major comments (2)
  1. [§4.1 and §5 (Figs. 3, 6, 8)] The text states, in §4.1, that 'Ge detector sensitivity reduces due to quenching factor and the uncertainty associated with it. Unless otherwise mentioned, in the present study we have not considered both effects while extracting the Ge detector sensitivity.' The combined Al2O3+Ge contours in Figs. 3, 6, and 8, and the Summary's claim that the combination 'can break the degeneracies,' are nevertheless extracted without any quenching correction. If the germanium detector is an ionization HPGe, the 150 eV threshold quoted in Sec. 3 is an electron-equivalent energy; with a quenching factor of order 0.15–0.25 near 1 keV, the effective nuclear-recoil threshold becomes several hundred eV to about 1 keV, removing a large fraction of the low-energy Ge events and changing the relative statistical weight of the two targets in the combined chi-square. The degeneracy-breaking shown in Figs. 3, 6, and 8 relies on the different (A+N)/(A+Z) slopes; a degraded Ge arm would pull the combined allowed regions toward the Al2O3-only ones and weaken the headline two-target advantage. If the intended detector is instead a cryogenic phonon device with unit quenching, the paper must say so explicitly and justify a 150 eV phonon threshold for a 10 kg array.
  2. [§3.1 (Eqs. 3.1–3.3) and §4.4] The sensitivity projections rest on a single recoil-energy bin, so all spectral information is discarded, and the flat and 1/T backgrounds are introduced as known rates with a fixed signal-to-background ratio. The paper should either include a multi-bin analysis or state explicitly and quantitatively that the single-bin choice is conservative, and it should provide the actual background event rates assumed in each detector so that the S:B=1 contours in Figs. 3, 6, and 8 can be reproduced. As written, the comparison of these projected contours with published limits that use spectral information is not apples-to-apples.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§3.1 and Fig. 2] Please specify the detector-core distance used for each reactor in Fig. 2 and state whether the same distance or a renormalized flux is used; without this, the claim that sensitivity is almost independent of reactor power cannot be checked.
  2. [Eq. (4.1)] As written, Eq. (4.1) equates N_th with the linear NSI weak charge; the number of events should be proportional to the square of that charge, with flux, efficiency, fiducial-volume, and duty-cycle factors included. Please correct the equation or relabel the displayed quantity as Q_NSI.
  3. [Eq. (3.2)] Please clarify how N_bkg enters the numerator of the chi-square and whether the pull parameter xi scales the signal only or the signal plus background; this is not clear from the current notation N_th(xi).
  4. [Notation and figure captions] The notation for NSI couplings is inconsistent across text, captions, and axis labels, with variants such as epsilon_uV, epsilon_u^V, and epsilon_uV appearing in different places; please unify. The caption of Fig. 8 also calls the epsilon_dV_ee-epsilon_dV_taue plane 'non-universal NSI parameters,' which is misleading for a flavor-changing plane.
  5. [Sec. 2.3 and Sec. 4.5] The definition of C_q^X in Sec. 2.3, written as C_q^X = sqrt(C_nu_X * C_q^X), is ambiguous and appears to use the same symbol on both sides; please define the quark-level and nucleus-level couplings with distinct notation and state the normalization of Q_V and Q_S explicitly.
  6. [Reproducibility] No code or event-rate tables are provided; in a sensitivity study of this kind, a short table of assumed background rates and total event numbers for the nominal setup would substantially improve reproducibility and allow readers to verify the quoted contours.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: ICNSE NSI sensitivities are forward projections from assumed SM signal and standard NSI cross-section formulas; self-cited flux/detector machinery is independent support, and the admitted Ge quenching omission is a robustness limitation, not a circular step.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are sensitivity projections, not measurements. The chi-square construction (Eq. 3.2) compares mock SM event counts (N_ex) with SM-plus-NSI event counts (N_th) computed from the cross-section formulas in Sec. 2, combined with assumed detector parameters (10 kg, 100/150 eV thresholds, 80% efficiency, 90% fiducial volume, 70% duty cycle, S:B=1). No parameter is fitted to data and then renamed a prediction; the allowed regions in Figs. 2-13 are direct inversions of the analytic NSI charge relations (Eqs. 2.4-2.5, 4.1), so the contours follow the model by construction rather than being imported from a fit. The self-citations (Refs [24,25]) supply reactor flux parameterizations and detector-response/event-rate machinery. These are prior forward calculations with stated assumptions; they are not uniqueness theorems, do not forbid alternatives, and do not themselves contain the NSI constraints claimed here, so they do not make the derivation circular under the stated criteria. The strongest caveat in the text is Sec. 4.1's admission that germanium quenching is not applied: 'Ge detector sensitivity reduces due to quenching factor and the uncertainty associated with it. Unless otherwise mentioned, in the present study we have not considered both effects while extracting the Ge detector sensitivity.' This is a genuine robustness and correctness limitation for the combined Ge+Al2O3 degeneracy-breaking claim: if the Ge arm's effective nuclear-recoil threshold is higher than assumed, the combined contours weaken and the two-target advantage shrinks. But it is an omitted correction, not a self-referential or definitional reduction, and the paper flags it rather than concealing it. The paper also compares its projected contours against external data sets (COHERENT, CONUS+, Dresden-II), which keeps the central claim anchored outside its own inputs. Finding: no significant circularity.

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

The central claim rests on assumed detector performance (thresholds, efficiency, S:B ratio), on external flux and nuclear inputs, and on the NSI/NGI effective operator framework. No new particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (7)
  • Sapphire recoil energy threshold = 100 eV
    Assumed in Sec 3 event rate calculation; Ref [22] achieved 54 eV for a 100 g detector, scaling to 10 kg is not demonstrated.
  • Germanium recoil energy threshold = 150 eV
    Assumed in Sec 3; Sec 1 states HPGe thresholds are typically a few hundred eV, so this is optimistic.
  • Detection efficiency = 80%
    Flat efficiency independent of recoil energy assumed in Sec 3.
  • Fiducial volume fraction and reactor duty cycle = 90% and 70%
    Assumed in Sec 3 to compute yearly exposure.
  • Signal-to-background ratio = 1.0
    Used for main results (Sec 4.4 and Figs 3, 4, 6, 8, 9); background shapes are taken from Refs [14,23], not from an ICNSE site measurement.
  • Overall systematic uncertainty (sigma_xi) = 5.5%
    Chosen in Sec 3.1 as combination of 5% normalization, 1% nonlinearity, and 1% calibration.
  • NGI vector model parameter phi = 1
    Set to unity in Sec 2.3 after Eq 2.9; depends on the model choice.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The standard model CEνNS cross section (Eq 2.1) with weak charge (Eq 2.2) is the correct null hypothesis.
    All sensitivity projections treat SM CEνNS as the expected signal (Sec 2.1).
  • domain assumption New physics is parameterized by vector-type NSI (Eq 2.3) and scalar/vector/tensor NGI (Eq 2.6) effective operators with heavy mediators.
    This defines the parameter space; other BSM scenarios are not considered (Secs 2.2 and 2.3).
  • domain assumption The nuclear form factor F(q) is approximately 1 for the recoil energies considered.
    Invoked in Sec 2.1 for reactor neutrino energies below 10 MeV.
  • domain assumption Reactor antineutrino spectra from Refs [37,38,39] describe the four Indian reactors.
    Flux parameterization is taken from the literature and not validated against reactor-specific measurements (Sec 3.1).
  • domain assumption Quark-mass coefficients f_Tq and tensor charges delta_q are taken from the literature without propagated uncertainties.
    External nuclear inputs used in the NGI scalar and tensor cross sections (Sec 2.3).
  • domain assumption Backgrounds are modeled by flat plus 1/T shapes normalized to a signal-to-background ratio of 1.
    Background shapes come from Refs [14,23]; no site-specific measurement is available (Secs 1 and 4.4).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Study of the beyond standard model interaction using Coherent Elastic Neutrino-Nucleus Scattering process." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LDDFQYWT

@misc{pith2026250614443,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Study of the beyond standard model interaction using Coherent Elastic Neutrino-Nucleus Scattering process},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LDDFQYWT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.14443}
}
read the original abstract

We have conducted an extensive study that highlights the potential of the Indian Coherent Neutrino-nucleus Scattering Experiment (ICNSE) detector in constraining neutrino-quark interactions that go beyond the standard model. By utilizing reactors with varied core configurations and power outputs as sources for electron antineutrinos, and operating with a target mass of 10 kg over a year, our findings reveal that the ICNSE detector is remarkably effective in narrowing down the vast majority of the Non-standard Interaction (NSI) parameter space. Moreover, incorporating results from two distinct detectors, like sapphire and high-purity germanium, markedly enhances sensitivity by reducing the degeneracies between some pairs of NSI parameters to a smaller region.This research highlights its role in enabling future developments and investigations.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    D. Z. Freedman,Coherent Neutrino Nucleus Scattering as a Probe of the Weak Neutral Current,Phys. Rev. D9(1974) 1389–1392

    work page 1974

  2. [2]

    Aristizabal Sierra, J

    D. Aristizabal Sierra, J. Liao, and D. Marfatia,Impact of form factor uncertainties on interpretations of coherent elastic neutrino-nucleus scattering data,JHEP06(2019) 141, [arXiv:1902.07398]. [3]COHERENTCollaboration, D. Akimov et al.,Observation of Coherent Elastic Neutrino-Nucleus Scattering,Science357(2017), no. 6356 1123–1126, [arXiv:1708.01294]. [4...

    arXiv 2019

  3. [7]

    D. K. Papoulias and T. S. Kosmas,COHERENT constraints to conventional and exotic neutrino physics,Phys. Rev. D97(2018), no. 3 033003, [arXiv:1711.09773]

    arXiv 2018

  4. [8]

    T. S. Kosmas, O. G. Miranda, D. K. Papoulias, M. Tortola, and J. W. F. Valle,Probing neutrino magnetic moments at the Spallation Neutron Source facility,Phys. Rev. D92 (2015), no. 1 013011, [arXiv:1505.03202]

    arXiv 2015

  5. [9]

    B. C. Cañas, E. A. Garcés, O. G. Miranda, and A. Parada,The reactor antineutrino anomaly and low energy threshold neutrino experiments,Phys. Lett. B776(2018) 451–456, [arXiv:1708.09518]

    arXiv 2018

  6. [10]

    Atzori Corona, M

    M. Atzori Corona, M. Cadeddu, N. Cargioli, F. Dordei, C. Giunti, and G. Masia,Nuclear neutron radius and weak mixing angle measurements from latest COHERENT CsI and atomic parity violation Cs data,Eur. Phys. J. C83(2023), no. 7 683, [arXiv:2303.09360]. – 18 –

    arXiv 2023

  7. [11]

    Atzori Corona, M

    M. Atzori Corona, M. Cadeddu, N. Cargioli, F. Dordei, and C. Giunti,Reactor antineutrinos CEνNS on germanium: CONUS+ and TEXONO as a new gateway to SM and BSM physics, arXiv:2501.18550

    arXiv

  8. [12]

    Biassoni and C

    M. Biassoni and C. Martinez,Study of supernovaν-nucleus coherent scattering interactions, Astropart. Phys.36(2012) 151–155, [arXiv:1110.3536]

    arXiv 2012

Show all 31 references
  1. [13]

    Brdar, M

    V. Brdar, M. Lindner, and X.-J. Xu,Neutrino astronomy with supernova neutrinos,JCAP 04(2018) 025, [arXiv:1802.02577]

    2018 arXiv

  2. [14]

    Bowen and P

    M. Bowen and P. Huber,Reactor neutrino applications and coherent elastic neutrino nucleus scattering,Phys. Rev. D102(2020), no. 5 053008, [arXiv:2005.10907]

    2020 arXiv

  3. [15]

    Colaresi, J

    J. Colaresi, J. I. Collar, T. W. Hossbach, C. M. Lewis, and K. M. Yocum,Measurement of Coherent Elastic Neutrino-Nucleus Scattering from Reactor Antineutrinos,Phys. Rev. Lett. 129(2022), no. 21 211802, [arXiv:2202.09672]. [16]CONUS+Collaboration, N. Ackermann et al.,CONUS+ Exp...

    2022 arXiv

  4. [18]

    Ackermann et al.,Direct observation of coherent elastic antineutrino–nucleus scattering, Nature643(2025), no

    N. Ackermann et al.,Direct observation of coherent elastic antineutrino–nucleus scattering, Nature643(2025), no. 8074 1229–1233, [arXiv:2501.05206]. [19]PandaXCollaboration, Z. Bo et al.,First Indication of Solar B8 Neutrinos through Coherent Elastic Neutrino-Nucleus Scatterin...

    2025 arXiv

  5. [22]

    Verma et al.,Low-threshold sapphire detector for rare event searches,Nucl

    S. Verma et al.,Low-threshold sapphire detector for rare event searches,Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A1046(2023) 167634, [arXiv:2203.15903]

    2023 arXiv

  6. [23]

    Strauss et al.,Theν-cleus experiment: A gram-scale fiducial-volume cryogenic detector for the first detection of coherent neutrino-nucleus scattering,Eur

    R. Strauss et al.,Theν-cleus experiment: A gram-scale fiducial-volume cryogenic detector for the first detection of coherent neutrino-nucleus scattering,Eur. Phys. J. C77(2017) 506, [arXiv:1704.04320]

    2017 arXiv

  7. [24]

    S. P. Behera, D. K. Mishra, P. K. Netrakanti, R. Sehgal, K. Kumar, R. Dey, and V. Jha, Sterile neutrino searches with reactor antineutrinos using coherent neutrino-nucleus scattering experiments,Phys. Rev. D108(2023), no. 11 113002, [arXiv:2304.00912]

    2023 arXiv

  8. [25]

    S. P. Behera,Sensitivity study of a sapphire detector using coherent elastic neutrino-nucleus scattering processes,Phys. Rev. D111(2025), no. 5 053007, [arXiv:2502.09972]

    2025 arXiv

  9. [26]

    Scholberg,Prospects for measuring coherent neutrino-nucleus elastic scattering at a stopped-pion neutrino source,Phys

    K. Scholberg,Prospects for measuring coherent neutrino-nucleus elastic scattering at a stopped-pion neutrino source,Phys. Rev. D73(2006) 033005

    2006

  10. [27]

    De Romeri, D

    V. De Romeri, D. K. Papoulias, and G. Sanchez Garcia,Implications of the first CONUS+ measurement of coherent elastic neutrino-nucleus scattering,Phys. Rev. D111(2025), no. 7 075025, [arXiv:2501.17843]. – 19 – [28]Particle Data GroupCollaboration, S. Navas et al.,Review of par...

    2025 arXiv

  11. [29]

    Hoferichter, J

    M. Hoferichter, J. Menéndez, and A. Schwenk,Coherent elastic neutrino-nucleus scattering: EFT analysis and nuclear responses,Phys. Rev. D102(2020), no. 7 074018, [arXiv:2007.08529]. [30]TEXONOCollaboration, S. Karadağ et al.,Constraints on new physics with light mediators and ...

    2020 arXiv

  12. [31]

    P. M. Candela, V. De Romeri, P. Melas, D. K. Papoulias, and N. Saoulidou,Up-scattering production of a sterile fermion at DUNE: complementarity with spallation source and direct detection experiments,JHEP10(2024) 032, [arXiv:2404.12476]

    2024 arXiv

  13. [32]

    Hoferichter, J

    M. Hoferichter, J. Menéndez, and F. Noël,Improved Limits on Lepton-Flavor-Violating Decays of Light Pseudoscalars via Spin-Dependentµ→e Conversion in Nuclei,Phys. Rev. Lett.130(2023), no. 13 131902, [arXiv:2204.06005]

    2023 arXiv

  14. [33]

    Singh, P

    T. Singh, P. Pandey, T. Mazumdar, K. Singh, and V. Raina,Physics design of 2mw upgraded apsara research reactor,Annals of Nuclear Energy60(2013) 141–156

    2013

  15. [34]

    Agarwal, C

    S. Agarwal, C. Karhadkar, A. Zope, and K. Singh,Dhruva: Main design features, operational experience and utilization,Nuclear Engineering and Design236(2006), no. 7 747–757. India’s Reactors: Past, Present, Future

    2006

  16. [35]

    Chetal, V

    S. Chetal, V. Balasubramaniyan, P. Chellapandi, P. Mohanakrishnan, P. Puthiyavinayagam, C. Pillai, S. Raghupathy, T. Shanmugham, and C. S. Pillai,The design of the prototype fast breeder reactor,Nuclear Engineering and Design236(2006), no. 7 852–860. India’s Reactors: Past, Pr...

    2006

  17. [36]

    Agrawal, A

    S. Agrawal, A. Chauhan, and A. Mishra,The vvers at kudankulam,Nuclear Engineering and Design236(2006), no. 7 812–835. India’s Reactors: Past, Present, Future

    2006

  18. [37]

    Huber,On the determination of anti-neutrino spectra from nuclear reactors,Phys

    P. Huber,On the determination of anti-neutrino spectra from nuclear reactors,Phys. Rev. C 84(2011) 024617, [arXiv:1106.0687]. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.C 85, 029901 (2012)]

    2011 arXiv

  19. [38]

    T. A. Mueller et al.,Improved Predictions of Reactor Antineutrino Spectra,Phys. Rev. C83 (2011) 054615, [arXiv:1101.2663]. [39]TEXONOCollaboration, H. T. Wong et al.,A Search of Neutrino Magnetic Moments with a High-Purity Germanium Detector at the Kuo-Sheng Nuclear Power Stat...

    2011 arXiv

  20. [40]

    Lindner, W

    M. Lindner, W. Rodejohann, and X.-J. Xu,Coherent Neutrino-Nucleus Scattering and new Neutrino Interactions,JHEP03(2017) 097, [arXiv:1612.04150]

    2017 arXiv

  21. [41]

    Barranco, O

    J. Barranco, O. G. Miranda, and T. I. Rashba,Probing new physics with coherent neutrino scattering off nuclei,JHEP12(2005) 021, [hep-ph/0508299]. [42]XENONCollaboration, E. Aprile et al.,Search for Coherent Elastic Scattering of Solar8B Neutrinos in the XENON1T Dark Matter Exp...

    2005 arXiv

  22. [46]

    Liao and D

    J. Liao and D. Marfatia,COHERENT constraints on nonstandard neutrino interactions, Phys. Lett. B775(2017) 54–57, [arXiv:1708.04255]

    2017 arXiv

  23. [47]

    Majumdar, D

    A. Majumdar, D. K. Papoulias, R. Srivastava, and J. W. F. Valle,Physics implications of recent Dresden-II reactor data,Phys. Rev. D106(2022), no. 9 093010, [arXiv:2208.13262]. – 21 –

    2022 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.