Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 67 references

Physics of parameter correlations around the solar-scale enhancement in neutrino theory with unitarity violation

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that the correlation between the Standard Model CP phase δ and the complex α parameters encoding unitarity violation in neutrino oscillations is physical, not a convention artifact, because it reappears in the SOL…

desk verdict A genuinely new analytic result — the δ–α correlation survives in the SOL convention at solar-scale enhancement — but the 'physical reality' claim is proven only at first order, and the paper's own exact numerics at α = 0.1 show unexplained patterns. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.04855 v2 pith:MUSDXOFY submitted 2019-08-13 hep-ph

Ivan Martinez-Soler , Hisakazu Minakata This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph PACS 14.60.Pq
keywords neutrinooscillationsunitarityviolationnon-unitarymixingmatrixCPphasecorrelationsolarresonanceperturbationtheoryalphaparametersmattereffects
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 sets out to settle whether the phase correlation between the Standard Model CP phase δ and the complex α parameters that encode unitarity violation in neutrino oscillations is physically real or merely an artifact of the mixing-matrix convention. Working in the SOL convention of the MNS matrix, where $e^{{±iδ}}$ is attached to the solar angle s12, the authors build a first-order perturbative framework around solar-scale enhanced oscillations, extending their earlier solar-resonance perturbation theory to non-unitary mixing. They find that in the solar region δ and the α parameters are correlated after all, but through $e^{{±iδ}}$ multiplying composite blobs of α parameters rather than through simple chiral combinations. Because the correlation survives in the one convention where it had previously appeared absent, the paper concludes that no mixing-matrix convention wipes it out, so the correlation is physical. Numerically, the paper also finds that non-unitary effects tend to cancel between the unitary-evolution part and the genuine non-unitary part of the oscillation probability.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the solar-resonance perturbation theory extended to non-unitarity. It starts from the flavor-basis Hamiltonian with non-unitary mixing matrix N = (1 − \tilde{α})U_SOL, transforms through tilde and hat bases to diagonalize the zeroth-order νSM Hamiltonian in matter, and treats both the matter-dressed effective parameter A_exp ≈ c13 s13 a/Δm²31 ~ $10^{{-3}}$ and the α parameters as small expansion parameters. The load-bearing objects are the F and K matrices, which repackage the α parameters, and the Φ matrix elements built from K and the diagonalized evolution phases; the correlated combinations K_{12}$e^{{-iδ}}$ and K_{23}$e^{{iδ}}$ emerge from Φ and carry the δ-(blob of α) correlation. The framework also produces a dynamical symmetry under φ → φ + π/2 that serves as a consistency check.

What would settle it

Evaluate the exact all-orders appearance probability P(νμ→νe) in the SOL convention with αμe = 0.1 at E = 200 MeV and baselines 3000 km and 12000 km, as in the paper's figures, and check whether the δ dependence of ΔPμe survives when the second-order UV Hamiltonian and realistic varying matter density are included; if the δ dependence vanishes in that exact evaluation, the first-order correlation would be shown to be an artifact.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In the solar-scale enhanced oscillation region, the νSM CP phase δ correlates with the unitarity-violating α parameters even in the SOL convention of UMNS, where $e^{{±iδ}}$ multiplies s12. The correlation is not of the 'chiral' form seen in the atmospheric region under the PDG convention ([$e^{{-iδ}}$\bar{α}_{μe}, $e^{{-iδ}}$\bar{α}_{τe}, \bar{α}_{τμ}]); instead the first-order amplitudes contain K_{12}$e^{{-iδ}}$ and K_{23}$e^{{iδ}}$, where K_{12} and K_{23} are blobs built from the SOL-convention α parameters. Since no UMNS phase convention makes the correlation vanish in both the atmospheric and solar regions at once, the paper concludes that the δ-α correlation is physical rather than a convention artifact. The paper also reports that the exact numerical phase-correlation patterns in the solar region include vertical and circular contours that the first-order analytic framework does not capture, a gap it explicitly acknowledges.

Load-bearing premise

The analytic derivation of the correlation is first order in the small parameters α and A_exp and assumes constant matter density; the paper's exact numerical checks use α = 0.1, a value the paper acknowledges is outside the perturbative regime, and show φ-δ patterns the first-order formula cannot reproduce.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A unitarity-violation fit that uses solar-scale enhanced oscillations must treat the Standard Model phase δ and the α parameters as correlated, because the correlation persists in the SOL convention.
  • The non-unitary contribution to P(νμ→νe) splits into a unitary-evolution part and a genuine non-unitary part that tend to cancel; a measurement of the appearance probability alone can therefore hide non-unitarity, so the departure-from-unitarity sum rule P(νμ→νe)+P(νμ→νμ)+P(νμ→ντ)≠1 becomes the more direct diagnostic.
  • Different α parameters also cancel against each other in the full ΔPμe, so bounds obtained by turning on one α at a time may be artificially strong compared with a global marginalization over all α parameters.
  • The form of the correlation changes from the atmospheric region to the solar region: only in the solar region does the e^{±iδ}-blob combination appear, so constraints and degeneracies derived for long-baseline experiments cannot be assumed to hold for low-energy atmospheric data.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the δ-blob correlation survives exact all-orders computation, low-energy atmospheric neutrino detectors near the solar resonance could serve as independent probes of the CP phases of non-unitarity, complementing long-baseline experiments that probe the atmospheric region.
  • The vertical and circular φ-δ contours in the exact solar-region plots may be a second-order-in-α effect; computing the second-order UV correction would be a direct test of whether the first-order blob structure is the full story.
  • Since NSI parameters cluster into collective variables in a different pattern, a joint analysis of solar- and atmospheric-region appearance data could in principle separate non-unitarity from non-standard interactions by looking for these different correlation fingerprints.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper extends the authors' previous 'helio-UV' perturbation theory to the solar-resonance region for three-neutrino evolution with a non-unitary mixing matrix in the SOL convention of UMNS, in which e^{±iδ} is attached to s12. It derives first-order expressions for the νμ→νe oscillation probability, decomposing the non-unitary correction into a unitary evolution part and a genuine non-unitary part. The central physics claim is that a δ−α parameter correlation does exist in the SOL convention at solar-scale enhanced oscillations, taking the form of e^{±iδ} correlated with 'blobs' of α parameters (K12 and K23), rather than the chiral combinations α̃_βγ e^{±iδ} found in the atmospheric region in the PDG convention. The authors conclude that no UMNS convention removes the correlation in both the atmospheric and solar regions, and hence that the δ−α correlation is physical rather than a convention artifact. Sections 7.2–7.4 add exact numerical studies of the UV contribution ΔPμe, showing cancellations between the EV and UV parts and among different α parameters, and presenting φβγ−δ correlation plots in the solar and atmospheric regions.

Significance. If the central claim is correct, the paper resolves a genuine open question from the companion work [38]: whether the δ−α phase correlation is a phase-convention artifact. It also provides a new analytic tool, the UV-extended solar-resonance perturbation theory, which is likely to be useful for future low-energy atmospheric-neutrino unitarity tests. The manuscript is technically careful: the first-order derivation is presented with full appendices, the ϕ→ϕ+π/2 dynamical symmetry is used as a nontrivial consistency check, and exact numerical integration is used to cross-check qualitative features. The authors also deserve credit for explicitly disclosing where their analytic framework fails, notably the vertical and circular φ−δ patterns in the solar region that are stated in Sec. 7.4 to be 'not understood, regrettably, by our analytic framework.' These strengths make the paper a serious contribution even though the physical-reality conclusion needs additional support at the quantitative level.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 7.4] The physical-reality conclusion in Sec. 6.3 rests on the first-order perturbative formula, but the exact numerical phase-correlation plots that directly probe the solar region are made with αβγ = 0.1, which footnote 20 and the surrounding discussion admit is outside the perturbative regime. The observed vertical and circular φ−δ patterns are explicitly stated in Sec. 7.4 to be 'not understood' by the analytic framework, and the figures are computed in the PDG convention, not the SOL convention in which the central claim of Sec. 6.2 is formulated. The paper should either (i) show that the first-order e±iδ−K12/K23 correlation reproduces the exact numerical ΔPμe for α values within the existing bounds (e.g., the values used in Fig. 1), or (ii) explicitly qualify the claim that the correlation is physical as a first-order statement and discuss how higher-order corrections could modify the δ-dependence.
  2. [Sec. 6.2] The statement that the δ−(blob of α) correlation 'prevails to higher order in perturbation theory in the unitary evolution part' is demonstrated only for the Φ-matrix elements that enter the tilde-basis S-matrix elements. The physical flavor-basis probability (5.1) is built from S_flavor = (1−α)S_prop(1−α)†, whose modulus squared contains the non-unitary projectors and interference between S(0), S(1)_EV, and the αS(0)S(0)α† terms. Showing that Φ contains the correlation does not, by itself, show that the probability to higher order preserves exactly the same e±iδ-blob form; the authors should either prove this for the probability or soften the higher-order claim.
  3. [Sec. 6.3 / Sec. 7.4] The conclusion that 'there is no UMNS convention in which the phase correlation is absent both at around the atmospheric- and the solar-scale enhanced oscillations' is proven only within the first-order perturbative framework. Since the exact solar-region numerics display features not reproduced by this framework, the universal conclusion over all conventions would be on firmer ground if the authors demonstrated, for at least one representative realistic α value, that the exact probability in the SOL convention contains a δ-dependent correlation of the predicted sign and approximate magnitude.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (5.6)] There is a typographical error in Eq. (5.6): the terms 'P_EV|OD1' and 'P_EV|OD2' are printed without the intervening plus sign, making the decomposition hard to read.
  2. [Sec. 6.3] In the sentence beginning 'One may wonder why the features of the correlation between α and the α parameters are so different...', the first 'α' should presumably be 'δ'; please correct the wording.
  3. [Section 7] The figure captions for Figs. 3–5 do not state that the computations use the PDG convention, even though Sec. 7 states this at the start of the section; adding the convention to the captions would prevent confusion for readers who jump directly to the figures.
  4. [Sec. 4.2] The target-sensitivity discussion would benefit from a one-sentence reminder that the first-order UV expression is being used for the '10^{-2}' accuracy estimate, since the 10^{-4} target is also mentioned and the second-order α² terms are discussed in the same paragraph.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Solar-region δ-α correlation is independently derived, but the 'physical reality' verdict imports the SOL-uniqueness premise from the authors' companion paper.

  1. uniqueness imported from authors [Section 6.3, 'Nature of the δ−α parameter correlation: Are they real?']
    "The result in ref. [38] shows that the SOL convention of UMNS is the unique case in the atmospheric-scale enhanced oscillation in which the δ - α parameter correlation is absent. Then, the first itemized statement above indicates that there is no UMNS convention in which the phase correlation is absent both at around the atmospheric- and the solar-scale enhanced oscillations. Then, we can now conclude that the δ−α parameter correlations seen in this and the previous paper [38] are all physical."

    The paper's central conclusion that the δ-α correlation is physical rests on the premise that SOL is the unique UMNS convention with no atmospheric-region correlation. That premise is taken from the authors' companion paper [38] and is not re-derived or independently verified here. While the solar-region SOL-convention calculation in Secs. 5-6 is a genuine new derivation, the inference to 'all physical' would not go through without the self-cited uniqueness result; the final verdict is thus load-bearing on the authors' own prior claim rather than being forced by the present calculation alone.

full rationale

The core derivation is not circular: the perturbative framework is constructed from the externally specified non-unitary Hamiltonian and the α parametrization [23], and the probability formulas (Sec. 5, App. D) are obtained by explicit calculation, not by assuming the correlation. No parameter is fitted and then renamed as a prediction. The exact numerical studies (Sec. 7.4) honestly state that the solar-region vertical/circular φ-δ patterns are 'not understood' by the analytic framework; this is a limitation on confirmation, not circularity. The one concern is the physical-reality conclusion in Sec. 6.3, which depends on the SOL-uniqueness claim imported from the authors' previous paper [38]. That is a load-bearing self-citation, but the central existence claim still has independent analytical content, so the appropriate score is moderate, not high.

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

The central derivation uses standard quantum mechanics and the established α parametrization of non-unitary mixing. The paper introduces no new free parameters or new entities. The α values used in numerical figures are external constraints from Blennow et al. [26], not fitted here. The main load-bearing assumptions are the smallness of α (first-order truncation) and uniform matter density.

assumptions (5)
  • standard math The three-neutrino evolution is governed by the Schrödinger equation with a Hermitian Hamiltonian in the vacuum mass basis, including the Wolfenstein matter potential.
    Sec. 4.1, eqs. (4.1)-(4.4). This is the standard framework for neutrino oscillations in matter.
  • domain assumption Non-unitary mixing is parametrized as N = (1 - α̃) U_SOL with α̃ ≪ 1 and the α̃ matrix of the lower-triangular form.
    Sec. 4.1, eq. (4.7), following the α parametrization of Escrihuela et al. [23]. The smallness of α̃ is an assumption used for the perturbative expansion.
  • domain assumption The matter density is constant over the baseline.
    Sec. 4.1 states the uniform matter density approximation; Sec. 7.2 uses ρ = 3.2 g/cm^3 over the entire baseline for all numerical figures.
  • domain assumption The perturbation series is truncated at first order in α and in the effective small parameter A_exp.
    Sec. 4.2 and Sec. 4.8 justify the first-order truncation by the smallness of A_exp and α; all explicit probability formulas are first order.
  • domain assumption The solar-scale enhanced oscillation region satisfies Δm2_21 L/(4E) ~ O(1) and a/Δm2_21 ~ O(1), making the solar-resonance expansion valid.
    Sec. 4.2, eqs. (4.10)-(4.11). This defines the region of validity of the framework and the choice of E and L in the numerical figures.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Physics of parameter correlations around the solar-scale enhancement in neutrino theory with unitarity violation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MUSDXOFY

@misc{pith2026190804855,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Physics of parameter correlations around the solar-scale enhancement in neutrino theory with unitarity violation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MUSDXOFY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.04855}
}
abstract

We discuss physics of the three neutrino flavor transformation with non-unitary mixing matrix, with particular attention to the correlation between the $\nu$SM- and the $\alpha$ parameters which represent effect of unitarity violating (UV) new physics. Toward the goal, a new perturbative framework is created to illuminate the effect of non-unitarity in region of the solar-scale enhanced oscillations. We refute the skepticism about the physical reality of the $\nu$SM CP $\delta$ - $\alpha$ parameter phase correlation by analysis with the SOL convention of $U_{\text{\tiny MNS}}$ in which $e^{ \pm i \delta}$ is attached to $s_{12}$. Then, a comparative study between the solar- and atmospheric-scale oscillation regions allowed by the framework reveals a dynamical $\delta-$(blobs of the $\alpha$ parameters) correlation in the solar oscillation region, in sharp contrast to the ``chiral'' type phase correlation $[e^{- i \delta } \bar{\alpha}_{\mu e}, e^{ - i \delta} \bar{\alpha}_{\tau e}, \bar{\alpha}_{\tau \mu}]$ in the PDG convention seen in the atmospheric oscillation region. An explicit perturbative calculation to first order in the $\nu_{\mu} \rightarrow \nu_{e}$ channel allows us to decompose the UV related part of the probability into the unitary evolution part and the genuine non-unitary part. We observe that the effect of non-unitarity tends to cancel between these two parts, as well as between the different $\alpha_{\beta \gamma}$ parameters.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages

  1. [38]

    Standard versus Non-Standard CP Phases in Neutrino Oscillation in Matter with Non-Unitarity,

    I. Martinez-Soler and H. Minakata, “Standard versus Non-Standard CP Phases in Neutrino Oscillation in Matter with Non-Unitarity,” arXiv:1806.10152 [hep-ph], PTEP in press

    arXiv

  2. [1]

    Nobel Lecture: Discovery of atmospheric neutrino oscillations,

    T. Kajita, “Nobel Lecture: Discovery of atmospheric neutrino oscillations,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 88 (2016) no.3, 030501. doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.88.030501

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.88.030501 2016

  3. [2]

    Nobel Lecture: The Sudbury Neutrino Observatory: Observation of flavor change for solar neutrinos,

    A. B. McDonald, “Nobel Lecture: The Sudbury Neutrino Observatory: Observation of flavor change for solar neutrinos,” Rev. Mod. Phys.88 (2016) no.3, 030502. doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.88.030502

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.88.030502 2016

  4. [3]

    Remarks on the unified model of elementary particles,

    Z. Maki, M. Nakagawa and S. Sakata, “Remarks on the unified model of elementary particles,” Prog. Theor. Phys.28 (1962) 870. doi:10.1143/PTP.28.870

    doi:10.1143/ptp.28.870 1962

  5. [4]

    Hyper-Kamiokande Design Report,

    K. Abe et al. [Hyper-Kamiokande Collaboration], “Hyper-Kamiokande Design Report,” arXiv:1805.04163 [physics.ins-det]

    arXiv

  6. [5]

    Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment (DUNE), Far Detector Technical Design Report, Volume II DUNE Physics,

    B. Abi et al. [DUNE Collaboration], “Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment (DUNE), Far Detector Technical Design Report, Volume II DUNE Physics,” arXiv:2002.03005 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2002

  7. [6]

    CP Violation in the Renormalizable Theory of Weak Interaction,

    M. Kobayashi and T. Maskawa, “CP Violation in the Renormalizable Theory of Weak Interaction,” Prog. Theor. Phys.49 (1973) 652. doi:10.1143/PTP.49.652

    doi:10.1143/ptp.49.652 1973

  8. [7]

    Evidence for the2π Decay of the K 0 2 Meson,

    J. H. Christenson, J. W. Cronin, V. L. Fitch and R. Turlay, “Evidence for the2π Decay of the K 0 2 Meson,” Phys. Rev. Lett.13 (1964) 138. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.13.138

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.13.138 1964

Show all 67 references
  1. [8]

    Neutrino Oscillations in Matter,

    L. Wolfenstein, “Neutrino Oscillations in Matter,” Phys. Rev. D17 (1978) 2369. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.17.2369

    1978 doi

  2. [9]

    Resonance Amplification of Oscillations in Matter and Spectroscopy of Solar Neutrinos,

    S. P. Mikheyev and A. Y. Smirnov, “Resonance Amplification of Oscillations in Matter and Spectroscopy of Solar Neutrinos,” Sov. J. Nucl. Phys.42 (1985) 913 [Yad. Fiz.42 (1985) 1441]

    1985

  3. [10]

    Atmospheric neutrino oscillation analysis with external constraints in Super-Kamiokande I-IV,

    K. Abe et al. [Super-Kamiokande Collaboration], “Atmospheric neutrino oscillation analysis with external constraints in Super-Kamiokande I-IV,” Phys. Rev. D97 (2018) no.7, 072001 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.97.072001 [arXiv:1710.09126 [hep-ex]]

    2018 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Constraint on the Matter-Antimatter Symmetry-Violating Phase in Neutrino Oscillations,

    K. Abe et al. [T2K Collaboration], “Constraint on the Matter-Antimatter Symmetry-Violating Phase in Neutrino Oscillations,” Nature580 (2020) 339 doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2177-0 [arXiv:1910.03887 [hep-ex]]

    2020 arXiv

  5. [12]

    First Measurement of Neutrino Oscillation Parameters using Neutrinos and Antineutrinos by NOvA,

    M. A. Aceroet al. [NOvA Collaboration], “First Measurement of Neutrino Oscillation Parameters using Neutrinos and Antineutrinos by NOvA,” Phys. Rev. Lett.123 (2019) no.15, 151803 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.151803 [arXiv:1906.04907 [hep-ex]]

    2019 arXiv

  6. [13]

    A very intense neutrino super beam experiment for leptonic CP violation discovery based on the European spallation source linac,

    E. Baussan et al. [ESSnuSB Collaboration], “A very intense neutrino super beam experiment for leptonic CP violation discovery based on the European spallation source linac,” Nucl. Phys. B 885 (2014) 127 doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2014.05.016 [arXiv:1309.7022 [hep-ex]]

    2014 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Neutrino Physics with JUNO,

    F. An et al. [JUNO Collaboration], “Neutrino Physics with JUNO,” J. Phys. G43 (2016) no.3, 030401 doi:10.1088/0954-3899/43/3/030401 [arXiv:1507.05613 [physics.ins-det]]

    2016 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Resolving eight-fold neutrino parameter degeneracy by two identical detectors with different baselines,

    T. Kajita, H. Minakata, S. Nakayama and H. Nunokawa, “Resolving eight-fold neutrino parameter degeneracy by two identical detectors with different baselines,” Phys. Rev. D75 (2007) 013006 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.75.013006 [hep-ph/0609286]

    2007 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Physics potentials with the second Hyper-Kamiokande detector in Korea,

    K. Abe et al. [Hyper-Kamiokande proto- Collaboration], “Physics potentials with the second Hyper-Kamiokande detector in Korea,” PTEP2018 (2018) no.6, 063C01 doi:10.1093/ptep/pty044 [arXiv:1611.06118 [hep-ex]]. – 39 –

    2018 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Physics Potential of the ICAL detector at the India-based Neutrino Observatory (INO),

    S. Ahmed et al. [ICAL Collaboration], “Physics Potential of the ICAL detector at the India-based Neutrino Observatory (INO),” Pramana88 (2017) no.5, 79 doi:10.1007/s12043-017-1373-4 [arXiv:1505.07380 [physics.ins-det]]

    2017 arXiv

  11. [18]

    PINGU: A Vision for Neutrino and Particle Physics at the South Pole,

    M. G. Aartsenet al. [IceCube Collaboration], “PINGU: A Vision for Neutrino and Particle Physics at the South Pole,” J. Phys. G44 (2017) no.5, 054006 doi:10.1088/1361-6471/44/5/054006 [arXiv:1607.02671 [hep-ex]]

    2017 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Intrinsic limits on resolutions in muon- and electron-neutrino charged-current events in the KM3NeT/ORCA detector,

    S. Adrian-Martinez et al., “Intrinsic limits on resolutions in muon- and electron-neutrino charged-current events in the KM3NeT/ORCA detector,” JHEP1705 (2017) 008 doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2017)008 [arXiv:1612.05621 [physics.ins-det]]

    2017 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Where Are We With Light Sterile Neutrinos?,

    A. Diaz, C. A. Argüelles, G. H. Collin, J. M. Conrad and M. H. Shaevitz, “Where Are We With Light Sterile Neutrinos?,” arXiv:1906.00045 [hep-ex]

    1906 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Leptonic unitarity triangle and CP violation,

    Y. Farzan and A. Y. Smirnov, “Leptonic unitarity triangle and CP violation,” Phys. Rev. D 65 (2002) 113001 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.65.113001 [hep-ph/0201105]

    2002 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Unitarity of the Leptonic Mixing Matrix,

    S. Antusch, C. Biggio, E. Fernandez-Martinez, M. B. Gavela and J. Lopez-Pavon, “Unitarity of the Leptonic Mixing Matrix,” JHEP0610 (2006) 084 doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2006/10/084 [hep-ph/0607020]

    2006 arXiv

  16. [23]

    On the description of non-unitary neutrino mixing,

    F. J. Escrihuela, D. V. Forero, O. G. Miranda, M. Tortola and J. W. F. Valle, “On the description of non-unitary neutrino mixing,” Phys. Rev. D92 (2015) no.5, 053009 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.92.053009 [arXiv:1503.08879 [hep-ph]]

    2015 arXiv

  17. [24]

    A framework for testing leptonic unitarity by neutrino oscillation experiments,

    C. S. Fong, H. Minakata and H. Nunokawa, “A framework for testing leptonic unitarity by neutrino oscillation experiments,” JHEP1702 (2017) 114 doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2017)114 [arXiv:1609.08623 [hep-ph]]

    2017 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Non-unitary evolution of neutrinos in matter and the leptonic unitarity test,

    C. S. Fong, H. Minakata and H. Nunokawa, “Non-unitary evolution of neutrinos in matter and the leptonic unitarity test,” JHEP1902 (2019) 015 doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2019)015 [arXiv:1712.02798 [hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Non-Unitarity, sterile neutrinos, and Non-Standard neutrino Interactions,

    M. Blennow, P. Coloma, E. Fernandez-Martinez, J. Hernandez-Garcia and J. Lopez-Pavon, “Non-Unitarity, sterile neutrinos, and Non-Standard neutrino Interactions,” JHEP1704 (2017) 153 doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2017)153 [arXiv:1609.08637 [hep-ph]]

    2017 arXiv

  20. [27]

    CP-violation from non-unitary leptonic mixing,

    E. Fernandez-Martinez, M. B. Gavela, J. Lopez-Pavon and O. Yasuda, “CP-violation from non-unitary leptonic mixing,” Phys. Lett. B649 (2007) 427 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2007.03.069 [hep-ph/0703098]

    2007 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Testing non-unitarity of neutrino mixing matrices at neutrino factories,

    S. Goswami and T. Ota, “Testing non-unitarity of neutrino mixing matrices at neutrino factories,” Phys. Rev. D78 (2008) 033012 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.78.033012 [arXiv:0802.1434 [hep-ph]]

    2008 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Probing non-unitary mixing and CP-violation at a Neutrino Factory,

    S. Antusch, M. Blennow, E. Fernandez-Martinez and J. Lopez-Pavon, “Probing non-unitary mixing and CP-violation at a Neutrino Factory,” Phys. Rev. D80 (2009) 033002 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.80.033002 [arXiv:0903.3986 [hep-ph]]

    2009 arXiv

  23. [30]

    Non-unitary Leptonic Mixing and Leptogenesis,

    S. Antusch, S. Blanchet, M. Blennow and E. Fernandez-Martinez, “Non-unitary Leptonic Mixing and Leptogenesis,” JHEP1001 (2010) 017 doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2010)017 [arXiv:0910.5957 [hep-ph]]

    2010 arXiv

  24. [31]

    Non-unitarity of the leptonic mixing matrix: Present bounds and future sensitivities,

    S. Antusch and O. Fischer, “Non-unitarity of the leptonic mixing matrix: Present bounds and future sensitivities,” JHEP1410 (2014) 094 doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2014)094 [arXiv:1407.6607 [hep-ph]]. – 40 –

    2014 arXiv

  25. [32]

    Measuring the leptonic CP phase in neutrino oscillations with nonunitary mixing,

    S. F. Ge, P. Pasquini, M. Tortola and J. W. F. Valle, “Measuring the leptonic CP phase in neutrino oscillations with nonunitary mixing,” Phys. Rev. D95 (2017) no.3, 033005 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.95.033005 [arXiv:1605.01670 [hep-ph]]

    2017 arXiv

  26. [33]

    Global constraints on heavy neutrino mixing,

    E. Fernandez-Martinez, J. Hernandez-Garcia and J. Lopez-Pavon, “Global constraints on heavy neutrino mixing,” JHEP1608 (2016) 033 doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2016)033 [arXiv:1605.08774 [hep-ph]]

    2016 arXiv

  27. [34]

    Probing CP violation with T2K, NOνA and DUNE in the presence of non-unitarity,

    D. Dutta and P. Ghoshal, “Probing CP violation with T2K, NOνA and DUNE in the presence of non-unitarity,” JHEP1609 (2016) 110 doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2016)110 [arXiv:1607.02500 [hep-ph]]

    2016 arXiv

  28. [35]

    Probing CP violation with non-unitary mixing in long-baseline neutrino oscillation experiments: DUNE as a case study,

    F. J. Escrihuela, D. V. Forero, O. G. Miranda, M. Tórtola and J. W. F. Valle, “Probing CP violation with non-unitary mixing in long-baseline neutrino oscillation experiments: DUNE as a case study,” New J. Phys.19 (2017) no.9, 093005 doi:10.1088/1367-2630/aa79ec [arXiv:1612.073...

    2017 arXiv

  29. [36]

    Unitarity and the three flavor neutrino mixing matrix,

    S. Parke and M. Ross-Lonergan, “Unitarity and the three flavor neutrino mixing matrix,” Phys. Rev. D93 (2016) no.11, 113009 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.93.113009 [arXiv:1508.05095 [hep-ph]]

    2016 arXiv

  30. [37]

    Exact formulas and simple CP dependence of neutrino oscillation probabilities in matter with constant density,

    K. Kimura, A. Takamura and H. Yokomakura, “Exact formulas and simple CP dependence of neutrino oscillation probabilities in matter with constant density,” Phys. Rev. D66 (2002) 073005 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.66.073005 [hep-ph/0205295]

    2002 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Simple and Compact Expressions for Neutrino Oscillation Probabilities in Matter,

    H. Minakata and S. J. Parke, “Simple and Compact Expressions for Neutrino Oscillation Probabilities in Matter,” JHEP1601 (2016) 180 doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2016)180 [arXiv:1505.01826 [hep-ph]]

    2016 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Review of Particle Physics,

    M. Tanabashi et al. [Particle Data Group], “Review of Particle Physics,” Phys. Rev. D98 (2018) no.3, 030001. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.98.030001

    2018 doi

  33. [41]

    Perturbing neutrino oscillations around the solar resonance,

    I. Martinez-Soler and H. Minakata, “Perturbing neutrino oscillations around the solar resonance,” PTEP2019 (2019) no.7, 073B07 (28 pages) [arXiv:1904.07853 [hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Using Low Energy Atmospheric Neutrinos for Precision Measurement of the Mixing Parameters,

    H. Minakata, I. Martinez-Soler and K. Okumura, “Using Low Energy Atmospheric Neutrinos for Precision Measurement of the Mixing Parameters,” arXiv:1911.10057 [hep-ph]

    1911 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Atmospheric neutrinos: LMA oscillations, U(e3) induced interference and CP violation,

    O. L. G. Peres and A. Y. Smirnov, “Atmospheric neutrinos: LMA oscillations, U(e3) induced interference and CP violation,” Nucl. Phys. B680 (2004) 479 doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2003.12.017 [hep-ph/0309312]

    2004 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Oscillations of very low energy atmospheric neutrinos,

    O. L. G. Peres and A. Y. Smirnov, “Oscillations of very low energy atmospheric neutrinos,” Phys. Rev. D79 (2009) 113002 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.79.113002 [arXiv:0903.5323 [hep-ph]]

    2009 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Neutrino oscillograms of the Earth: Effects of 1-2 mixing and CP-violation,

    E. K. Akhmedov, M. Maltoni and A. Y. Smirnov, “Neutrino oscillograms of the Earth: Effects of 1-2 mixing and CP-violation,” JHEP0806, 072 (2008) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2008/06/072 [arXiv:0804.1466 [hep-ph]]

    2008 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Super-PINGU for measurement of the leptonic CP-phase with atmospheric neutrinos,

    S. Razzaque and A. Y. Smirnov, “Super-PINGU for measurement of the leptonic CP-phase with atmospheric neutrinos,” JHEP1505 (2015) 139 doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2015)139 [arXiv:1406.1407 [hep-ph]]

    2015 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Atmospheric neutrino spectrum reconstruction – 41 – with JUNO,

    G. Settanta et al. [JUNO Collaboration], “Atmospheric neutrino spectrum reconstruction – 41 – with JUNO,” arXiv:1910.11172 [hep-ex]

    1910 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Sub-GeV Atmospheric Neutrinos and CP-Violation in DUNE,

    K. J. Kelly, P. A. Machado, I. Martinez Soler, S. J. Parke and Y. F. Perez Gonzalez, “Sub-GeV Atmospheric Neutrinos and CP-Violation in DUNE,” Phys. Rev. Lett.123 (2019) no.8, 081801 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.081801 [arXiv:1904.02751 [hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Physics potential of a long-baseline neutrino oscillation experiment using a J-PARC neutrino beam and Hyper-Kamiokande,

    K. Abe et al. [Hyper-Kamiokande Proto- Collaboration], “Physics potential of a long-baseline neutrino oscillation experiment using a J-PARC neutrino beam and Hyper-Kamiokande,” PTEP 2015 (2015) 053C02 doi:10.1093/ptep/ptv061 [arXiv:1502.05199 [hep-ex]]

    2015 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Status of non-standard neutrino interactions,

    T. Ohlsson, “Status of non-standard neutrino interactions,” Rept. Prog. Phys.76 (2013) 044201 doi:10.1088/0034-4885/76/4/044201 [arXiv:1209.2710 [hep-ph]]

    2013 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Non standard neutrino interactions: current status and future prospects,

    O. G. Miranda and H. Nunokawa, “Non standard neutrino interactions: current status and future prospects,” New J. Phys.17 (2015) no.9, 095002 doi:10.1088/1367-2630/17/9/095002 [arXiv:1505.06254 [hep-ph]]

    2015 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Neutrino oscillations and Non-Standard Interactions,

    Y. Farzan and M. Tortola, “Neutrino oscillations and Non-Standard Interactions,” Front. in Phys. 6 (2018) 10 doi:10.3389/fphy.2018.00010 [arXiv:1710.09360 [hep-ph]]

    2018

  45. [53]

    Atmospheric neutrinos as probes of neutrino-matter interactions,

    A. Friedland, C. Lunardini and M. Maltoni, “Atmospheric neutrinos as probes of neutrino-matter interactions,” Phys. Rev. D70 (2004) 111301 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.70.111301 [hep-ph/0408264]

    2004 arXiv

  46. [54]

    A Test of tau neutrino interactions with atmospheric neutrinos and K2K,

    A. Friedland and C. Lunardini, “A Test of tau neutrino interactions with atmospheric neutrinos and K2K,” Phys. Rev. D72 (2005) 053009 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.72.053009 [hep-ph/0506143]

    2005 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Perturbation Theory of Neutrino Oscillation with Nonstandard Neutrino Interactions,

    T. Kikuchi, H. Minakata and S. Uchinami, “Perturbation Theory of Neutrino Oscillation with Nonstandard Neutrino Interactions,” JHEP0903 (2009) 114 doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2009/03/114 [arXiv:0809.3312 [hep-ph]]

    2009 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Golden measurements at a neutrino factory,

    A. Cervera, A. Donini, M. B. Gavela, J. J. Gomez Cadenas, P. Hernandez, O. Mena and S. Rigolin, “Golden measurements at a neutrino factory,” Nucl. Phys. B579 (2000) 17 Erratum: [Nucl. Phys. B593 (2001) 731] doi:10.1016/S0550-3213(00)00606-4, 10.1016/S0550-3213(00)00221-2 [hep-...

    2000 arXiv

  49. [57]

    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 doi:10.1016/S0550-3213(01)00248-6 [hep-ph/0103258]

    2001 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Breaking eight fold degeneracies in neutrino CP violation, mixing, and mass hierarchy,

    V. Barger, D. Marfatia and K. Whisnant, “Breaking eight fold degeneracies in neutrino CP violation, mixing, and mass hierarchy,” Phys. Rev. D65 (2002) 073023 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.65.073023 [hep-ph/0112119]

    2002 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Parameter Degeneracies in Neutrino Oscillation Measurement of Leptonic CP and T Violation,

    H. Minakata, H. Nunokawa and S. J. Parke, “Parameter Degeneracies in Neutrino Oscillation Measurement of Leptonic CP and T Violation,” Phys. Rev. D66 (2002) 093012 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.66.093012 [hep-ph/0208163]

    2002 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Confusing nonstandard neutrino interactions with oscillations at a neutrino factory,

    P. Huber, T. Schwetz and J. W. F. Valle, “Confusing nonstandard neutrino interactions with oscillations at a neutrino factory,” Phys. Rev. D66 (2002) 013006 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.66.013006 [hep-ph/0202048]

    2002 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Measurement of the Electron Antineutrino Oscillation with 1958 Days of Operation at Daya Bay,

    D. Adey et al. [Daya Bay Collaboration], “Measurement of the Electron Antineutrino Oscillation with 1958 Days of Operation at Daya Bay,” Phys. Rev. Lett.121 (2018) no.24, 241805 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.241805 [arXiv:1809.02261 [hep-ex]]. – 42 –

    2018 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Large-Theta(13) Perturbation Theory of Neutrino Oscillation,

    H. Minakata, “Large-Theta(13) Perturbation Theory of Neutrino Oscillation,” Acta Phys. Polon. B 40 (2009) 3023 [arXiv:0910.5545 [hep-ph]]

    2009 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Large-Theta(13) Perturbation Theory of Neutrino Oscillation for Long-Baseline Experiments,

    K. Asano and H. Minakata, “Large-Theta(13) Perturbation Theory of Neutrino Oscillation for Long-Baseline Experiments,” JHEP1106 (2011) 022 doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2011)022 [arXiv:1103.4387 [hep-ph]]

    2011 arXiv

  56. [64]

    New CP violation in neutrino oscillations,

    M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, Y. Grossman, A. Gusso and Y. Nir, “New CP violation in neutrino oscillations,” Phys. Rev. D64 (2001) 096006 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.64.096006 [hep-ph/0105159]

    2001 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Commutator of the Quark Mass Matrices in the Standard Electroweak Model and a Measure of Maximal CP Violation,

    C. Jarlskog, “Commutator of the Quark Mass Matrices in the Standard Electroweak Model and a Measure of Maximal CP Violation,” Phys. Rev. Lett.55 (1985) 1039. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.55.1039

    1985 doi

  58. [66]

    Compact Perturbative Expressions For Neutrino Oscillations in Matter,

    P. B. Denton, H. Minakata and S. J. Parke, “Compact Perturbative Expressions For Neutrino Oscillations in Matter,” JHEP1606 (2016) 051 doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2016)051 [arXiv:1604.08167 [hep-ph]]

    2016 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Resolving neutrino mass hierarchy and CP degeneracy by two identical detectors with different baselines,

    M. Ishitsuka, T. Kajita, H. Minakata and H. Nunokawa, “Resolving neutrino mass hierarchy and CP degeneracy by two identical detectors with different baselines,” Phys. Rev. D72 (2005) 033003 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.72.033003 [hep-ph/0504026]. – 43 –

    2005 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.