Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 7 cited by

Probing Standard Model and Beyond with Reactor CE$\nu$NS Data of CONUS+ experiment

T0 review · 2 major / 4 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 Adding neutrino-electron scattering to reactor CEνNS data tightens neutrino millicharge limits by four orders of magnitude.

desk verdict A competent CONUS+ analysis with a load-bearing sign error in the millicharge formula; the headline limit doesn't follow from the paper's own equations. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.12441 v3 pith:NEYRGRJY submitted 2025-01-21 hep-ph hep-ex

Ayan Chattaraj , Anirban Majumdar , Rahul Srivastava This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-ex
keywords coherentelasticneutrino-nucleusscatteringneutrino-electronCONUS+experimentneutrinomillichargemagneticmomentchargeradiuslightmediatorsweakmixingangle
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 reanalyzes the CONUS+ reactor-antineutrino data, which detected coherent elastic neutrino-nucleus scattering (CEνNS) on germanium, and shows that adding the concurrent elastic neutrino-electron scattering (EνES) channel changes what can be concluded from the same exposure. With both channels included, the 90% C.L. bound on the neutrino millicharge tightens from roughly $10^{-8}\,e$ (CEνNS only) to about $10^{-12}\,e$, because the lowest-energy events are dominated by EνES. The same combined analysis yields a low-energy weak mixing angle of $\sin^2\theta_W = 0.247^{+0.050}_{-0.054}$ and competitive limits on the neutrino magnetic moment, charge radius, and light scalar and vector mediators. If these constraints are correct, CONUS+ becomes the most stringent reactor-based probe of neutrino electromagnetic properties and the strongest current source of scalar-mediator limits for $M_\phi > 6$ MeV.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the combined $\chi^2$ function of Eq. (21): predicted CEνNS and EνES event rates per energy bin are compared with the CONUS+ background-subtracted reactor-on excess events, with nuisance parameters $\alpha$ and $\beta$ absorbing correlated systematics such as flux, quenching, threshold, form factor, and detector mass. The EνES rate is computed with a step-function effective electron number $Z_{\rm eff}(T_e)=\sum_j\Theta(T_e-B_j)$ for germanium atomic binding, and the CEνNS rate uses a Lindhard quenching factor with $k=0.162$ and a Helm form factor. Because millicharge and magnetic-moment contributions grow at low recoil energy, and EνES dominates the lowest bins, including this channel is what multiplies the experiment's sensitivity to neutrino electromagnetic properties.

What would settle it

Compute the same limits with a full atomic many-body calculation of the germanium electron-recoil spectrum in place of the step-function $Z_{\rm eff}$, and with a covariance matrix spanning the energy bins; if the 90% C.L. interval for $q_{\nu_e e}$ moves beyond roughly $10^{-12}\,e$, or the lowest two bins no longer match the predicted rise, the claimed millicharge improvement is an artifact of the low-energy model.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the background-subtracted CONUS+ data, when modeled with both CEνNS and EνES, constrains new physics more sharply than a CEνNS-only readout. For the diagonal neutrino millicharge it finds $q_{\nu_e e}\in[-1.8,\,1.9]\times10^{-12}\,e$ at 90% C.L., compared with $[-0.49,\,3.22]\times10^{-8}\,e$ without EνES; the transition millicharges satisfy $|q_{\nu_e\mu}|,\,|q_{\nu_e\tau}|\le1.85\times10^{-12}\,e$. It also reports $\mu^{\rm eff}_{\nu_e}\le1.12\times10^{-10}\,\mu_B$, charge-radius bounds $\langle r^2_{\nu_e e}\rangle\in[-59.76,\,8.33]\times10^{-32}\,\mathrm{cm}^2$, and exclusion contours for light $B-L$ vector and scalar mediators, with the scalar limit being the most stringent available for $M_\phi>6$ MeV. Within the Standard Model, it determines $\sin^2\theta_W = 0.247^{+0.050}_{-0.054}$ at $1\sigma$.

Load-bearing premise

The whole analysis rests on treating the CONUS+ background-subtracted reactor-on excess as an unbiased Gaussian residual spectrum and on modeling sub-keV EνES with a step-function atomic-binding approximation, and since the millicharge signal is concentrated in the lowest-energy bins, errors in either would directly change the headline limits.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Including EνES in future reactor CEνNS analyses is not optional for BSM searches: it improves the millicharge bound by four orders of magnitude and sharpens the magnetic-moment bound by roughly a factor of four.
  • CONUS+ alone now gives the most restrictive experimental limit on light scalar mediators for $M_\phi > 6$ MeV, surpassing existing CEνNS-based limits in that mass range.
  • The low-energy weak mixing angle extracted from reactor CEνNS, $\sin^2\theta_W=0.247^{+0.050}_{-0.054}$, is consistent with Standard Model running and comparable to Dresden-II, though less precise than COHERENT.
  • The resulting neutrino electromagnetic limits are still weaker than solar-neutrino EνES experiments such as XENONnT, LZ, and Borexino, so the new constraints are complementary rather than world-leading in every channel.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the millicharge limit is driven by the lowest-energy bins, the $10^{-12}\,e$ scale should be read as contingent on the step-function atomic-binding model and on the background subtraction being unbiased; a dedicated low-energy electron-recoil calibration of germanium would test it directly.
  • The same combined CEνNS+EνES prescription could be applied to other reactor CEνNS data sets, such as Dresden-II, and to future larger CONUS+ exposure; similar order-of-magnitude gains in millicharge sensitivity may appear there.
  • This analysis suggests that the practical discovery reach of reactor neutrino experiments for neutrino electromagnetic properties is set less by nuclear-recoil statistics than by the cleanliness and modeling of the sub-keV electron-recoil region.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper reanalyzes the CONUS+ reactor antineutrino data, including both CEνNS and EνES signals, to extract constraints on the weak mixing angle, neutrino electromagnetic properties (millicharge, charge radius, magnetic moment), and light vector (B−L) and scalar mediators. The authors report sin^2θ_W = 0.247^{+0.050}_{-0.054}, a combined CEνNS+EνES limit on the effective neutrino magnetic moment of 1.12×10^{-10} μ_B, millicharge limits of order 10^{-12} e (versus 10^{-8} e from CEνNS alone), charge-radius limits comparable to Dresden-II and COHERENT, and a claim that CONUS+ gives the strongest constraint on light scalar mediators for M_ϕ > 6 MeV.

Significance. If the results are correct, the paper makes a striking and useful point: including the subdominant EνES channel in a reactor CEνNS analysis can dramatically sharpen neutrino electromagnetic property limits, especially the millicharge, and can set competitive bounds on light mediators. The analysis uses the public CONUS+ data release, a transparent χ^2 framework with nuisance parameters from the collaboration's quoted systematics, and comparisons with a broad set of existing constraints. The central quantitative claim, however, depends on an equation that as printed is dimensionally inconsistent, so the numerical results are not traceable until that is fixed. The paper also lacks a robustness check of the low-energy EνES atomic-binding model that drives the improved limits.

major comments (2)
  1. [II.B, Eq. (7b)] The definition of Q_ℓℓ′ = √(2πα_EM/G_F) (⟨r²_νℓℓ′⟩/3 − 2/q² · q_νℓℓ′/e) is dimensionally inconsistent. Since √(2πα_EM/G_F) has mass dimension +1 and the bracket has mass dimension −2, Q_ℓℓ′ has mass dimension −1 and cannot be added to the dimensionless couplings g_V and g_A in the same equation. The correct dimensionless shift for the millicharge contribution is proportional to α_EM/(G_F q²) × (q_ν/e), e.g., Q ≈ (4√2π α_EM)/(G_F q²) (q_ν/e), with a separate q²-independent term for the charge radius. Numerically, at T_e = 160 eV and q_ν/e = 10^{-12}, the printed Q ≈ −0.77, whereas the standard dimensionless Q ≈ 68. With the printed Q, the EνES millicharge signal in the lowest recoil bin is of order 10^{-2} events, far too small to move the CEνNS-only limit of order 10^{-8} e to the claimed 10^{-12} e. The authors must correct Eq. (7b) and the definition of Q, provide the proper derivation, and state explicitly which normalization was used to obtain the numerical limits in Tables II and III.
  2. [III, Eq. (20) and Fig. 1] The claimed improvement in the millicharge and magnetic-moment limits is driven by the lowest-energy bins (160–320 eVee), where the EνES signal is modeled with a step-function approximation for the effective electron number, Z_eff(T_e) = Σ_j Θ(T_e − B_j), with binding energies from X-ray data. This is a simplified treatment, and the analysis also integrates down to T_e^min = 2.96 eVee before detector smearing. The authors should test the robustness of their results by comparing the step-function model with a more detailed ionization model for germanium, or by varying the Z_eff prescription and demonstrating that the improved limits are stable. Without such a check, the quantitative four-orders-of-magnitude improvement over the CEνNS-only limit is not fully substantiated.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and I] The abstract and introduction state that the detector thresholds are T_th = 160 eVee for C3, 170 eVee for C5, and 180 eVee for C2, but the event simulation in Fig. 1 uses a single effective detector with a 160 eVee threshold; the authors should clarify how the different thresholds are combined in the statistical analysis.
  2. [IV, Table II] The CEνNS-only millicharge limits are given only in the text as {[-0.49, 3.22], ≤1.9, ≤1.9}×10^{-8} e; they should also appear in Table II for completeness and to make the improvement explicit.
  3. [II.B, around Eq. (5)] The effective magnetic moment in Eq. (5) is written for neutrino scattering, but the experiment detects antineutrinos; the authors should specify whether the same expression applies to antineutrinos and whether the CP-conjugate form affects the definition.
  4. [V] The conclusions repeat the claim that CONUS+ provides the most stringent scalar-mediator limit for M_ϕ > 6 MeV, but the text does not provide the exact numerical values of the exclusions or the comparison data sources in Fig. 7; adding a short table with the key benchmark points would improve reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the paper's constraints follow from fitting external CONUS+ data with independently published cross-section formulas; self-citations serve as benchmark comparisons and do not carry the derivation.

full rationale

The paper is a data-analysis study in which theoretical event spectra are built from standard-model and BSM cross sections (Eqs. 1–16) and compared with the background-subtracted reactor-on data release of CONUS+ through a Gaussian chi-square (Eq. 21). The central results—the weak-mixing-angle determination, neutrino millicharge, charge radius, magnetic moment, and light-mediator limits—are obtained by varying parameters inside these cross sections and marginalizing nuisance parameters. None of the target parameters is fixed using the same data and then reported as a prediction; the EνES contribution is added coherently to CEνNS using the same external data and published cross-section formulas (Refs. 23, 24, 41, 42, 44), so the claimed improvement in millicharge limits is a derived outcome rather than an input. Self-citations appear (e.g., Refs. 38, 40, 55, 64), but they are used for benchmark comparisons, standard nuclear-structure statements, and comparison limits; they do not supply the load-bearing derivation, and the cited facts are independently verifiable. The possible dimensional inconsistency in Q_ℓℓ′ noted by a reader is a correctness concern about Eq. (7b), not a circularity: it does not make any fitted parameter equal to the predicted quantity. Therefore no circular step can be exhibited, and the score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 10 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles or forces are introduced; the paper constrains existing BSM scenarios. The free parameters listed are the targets of the fit; the nuisance parameters and the physics parameters are all fitted to the same dataset. The axioms are standard assumptions inherited from published SM and detector physics.

free parameters (10)
  • sin^2(theta_W) = 0.247 (+0.050, -0.054) at 1 sigma
    Weak mixing angle fitted to CONUS+ data.
  • mu_eff_nu_e = <= 1.12e-10 mu_B at 90% C.L.
    Effective neutrino magnetic moment fitted to combined CEνNS+EνES data.
  • q_nu_ee = [-1.8, 1.9] x 10^-12 e at 90% C.L.
    Neutrino millicharge diagonal component fitted to combined data.
  • |q_nu_e_mu|, |q_nu_e_tau| = <= 1.85 x 10^-12 e at 90% C.L.
    Transition millicharges fitted; equal by symmetry.
  • <r^2_nu_ee> = [-59.76, 8.33] x 10^-32 cm^2 at 90% C.L.
    Neutrino charge radius diagonal component fitted.
  • |<r^2_nu_e_mu>|, |<r^2_nu_e_tau>| = <= 34.06 x 10^-32 cm^2 at 90% C.L.
    Transition charge radii fitted; equal by symmetry.
  • g_B-L (Z' coupling) = Excluded contours in (M_Z', g_B-L) plane
    Vector mediator coupling scanned and constrained.
  • g_phi (scalar coupling) = Excluded contours in (M_phi, g_phi) plane
    Scalar mediator coupling scanned and constrained.
  • alpha = marginalized
    Nuisance parameter for CEνNS systematics (16.89%).
  • beta = marginalized
    Nuisance parameter for EνES systematics (14.89%).
assumptions (7)
  • standard math SM CEνNS and EνES cross sections (Eqs. 1-4) are correct
    Assumed as the null hypothesis for the fits.
  • domain assumption Helm nuclear form factor with parameters from Ref. [8]
    Used in all CEνNS predictions; choice of form factor affects the recoil spectrum.
  • domain assumption Lindhard quenching factor with k=0.162 from the CONUS+ collaboration
    Converts nuclear recoil energy to ionization energy; a 7.3% uncertainty is folded into the nuisance parameter but the model form is assumed.
  • domain assumption Huber-Mueller reactor antineutrino spectrum above 2 MeV and a separate low-energy spectrum below 2 MeV
    The flux normalization and shape drive all event rate predictions.
  • domain assumption Gaussian chi-square likelihood with independent bins and two nuisance parameters
    The analysis treats background-subtracted residuals as Gaussian and ignores bin-to-bin correlations.
  • domain assumption Spin-dependent pseudoscalar, axial, and tensor interactions are negligible for Ge detectors
    Based on the small abundance of 73Ge; limits on P, A, T are not attempted.
  • domain assumption The step-function Zeff model for atomic binding in germanium
    Used in the EνES rate calculation and directly affects the low-energy sensitivity to millicharge.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Probing Standard Model and Beyond with Reactor CE$\nu$NS Data of CONUS+ experiment." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NEYRGRJY

@misc{pith2026250112441,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Probing Standard Model and Beyond with Reactor CE$\nu$NS Data of CONUS+ experiment},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NEYRGRJY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.12441}
}
abstract

We explore the potential of reactor antineutrino-induced Coherent Elastic Neutrino-Nucleus Scattering (CE$\nu$NS) data from the CONUS+ experiment to investigate both the Standard Model (SM) and Beyond Standard Model (BSM) scenarios. Alongside CE$\nu$NS, Elastic Neutrino-Electron Scattering (E$\nu$ES) events are also included in our analysis, enabling more stringent constraints on new physics. Within the SM, we examine the weak mixing angle as a precision test of the electroweak sector. For BSM scenarios, we constrain the parameter space of light mediators arising from neutrino generalized interactions (NGI), while also setting limits on the electromagnetic properties of neutrinos, including their charge radius, millicharge, and magnetic moment.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.12441 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Simulated signals (colored histograms) and background-subtracted reactor-on data (black [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: ∆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Comparison of the weak mixing angle results from CONUS+ with other experimental [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: ∆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Marginalized ∆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Marginalized ∆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Exclusion limits at 90% C.L. in the ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 7 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Prospect of the NUCLEUS Experiment at Chooz for Coherent Elastic Neutrino-Nucleus Scattering and New Physics Searches

    hep-ex 2026-03 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Assuming the low-energy background can be eliminated, a 7-gram NUCLEUS detector at Chooz is projected to see coherent neutrino-nucleus scattering at 4.7σ in one year and to set competitive bounds on new neutrino interactions.

  2. Testing light and heavy vector mediators with solar CE$\nu$NS measurements

    hep-ph 2026-02 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Combined solar CEνNS data from XENONnT, PandaX-4T, and LZ yield competitive constraints on vector NSI and light mediators and a weak mixing angle measurement at low momentum transfer.

  3. Probing Light Dark Particles in Neutrino Scattering Experiments

    hep-ph 2026-02 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A dark fermion produced in neutrino scattering could be probed at DUNE's near detector up to cutoff scales near 1 TeV, beyond CHARM II and LEP, while current COHERENT/CONUS+ limits stay below LHC bounds.

  4. Testing lepton non-unitarity with the next generation of Germanium-based CE$\nu$NS reactor experiments

    hep-ph 2025-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A future 100-kg Germanium reactor CEνNS experiment could constrain lepton non-unitarity to 1−α11² ≈ 0.005 and, under low-scale seesaw assumptions, probe new-physics scales up to ~2.5 TeV.

  5. New light mediators and the neutrino fog: Implications from XENONnT nuclear recoil data

    hep-ph 2025-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Light-mediator couplings are constrained more strongly when they attach to dark matter than to neutrinos, and the neutrinofog in xenon detectors is shifted and deformed under both scenarios.

  6. Reactor antineutrinos CE$\nu$NS on germanium: CONUS+ and TEXONO as a new gateway to SM and BSM physics

    hep-ph 2025-01 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    CONUS+ and TEXONO reactor CEνNS data are consistent with the Standard Model and yield the most stringent limit on the electron neutrino millicharge through neutrino-electron scattering.

  7. Searching for generalized neutrino interactions in direct detection experiments with E{\nu}ES

    hep-ph 2025-10 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Direct-detection xenon experiments yield new 90% C.L. constraints on vector, axial, scalar, and tensor generalized neutrino interactions, generally weaker than existing global bounds.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

99 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages · cited by 7 Pith papers

  1. [58]

    Exploring the standard model and beyond from the evidence of CE νNS with reactor antineutrinos in CONUS+,

    M. Alp ´ ızar-Venegas, L. J. Flores, E. Peinado, and E. V´ azquez-J´ auregui, “Exploring the standard model and beyond from the evidence of CE νNS with reactor antineutrinos in CONUS+,” Phys. Rev. D 111 no. 5, (2025) 053001, arXiv:2501.10355 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  2. [1]

    Coherent Neutrino Nucleus Scattering as a Probe of the Weak Neutral Current,

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

    1974

  3. [2]

    Observation of Coherent Elastic Neutrino-Nucleus Scattering,

    COHERENT Collaboration, D. Akimov et al., “Observation of Coherent Elastic Neutrino-Nucleus Scattering,” Science 357 no. 6356, (2017) 1123–1126, arXiv:1708.01294 [nucl-ex]

    arXiv 2017

  4. [3]

    First Measurement of Coherent Elastic Neutrino-Nucleus Scattering on Argon,

    COHERENT Collaboration, D. Akimov et al., “First Measurement of Coherent Elastic Neutrino-Nucleus Scattering on Argon,” Phys. Rev. Lett.126 no. 1, (2021) 012002, arXiv:2003.10630 [nucl-ex]

    arXiv 2021

  5. [4]

    First detection of coherent elastic neutrino-nucleus scattering on germanium,

    COHERENT Collaboration, S. Adamski et al., “First detection of coherent elastic neutrino-nucleus scattering on germanium,” arXiv:2406.13806 [hep-ex]

    arXiv

  6. [5]

    Measurement of Coherent Elastic Neutrino-Nucleus Scattering from Reactor Antineutrinos,

    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 no. 21, (2022) 211802, arXiv:2202.09672 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2022

  7. [6]

    First observation of reactor antineutrinos by coherent scattering,

    CONUS+ Collaboration, N. Ackermann et al., “First observation of reactor antineutrinos by coherent scattering,” arXiv:2501.05206 [hep-ex]

    arXiv

  8. [7]

    Principles and Applications of a Neutral Current Detector for Neutrino Physics and Astronomy,

    A. Drukier and L. Stodolsky, “Principles and Applications of a Neutral Current Detector for Neutrino Physics and Astronomy,” Phys. Rev. D30 (1984) 2295

    1984

Show all 99 references
  1. [8]

    Inelastic and elastic scattering of 187-mev electrons from selected even-even nuclei,

    R. H. Helm, “Inelastic and elastic scattering of 187-mev electrons from selected even-even nuclei,” Phys. Rev.104 (Dec, 1956) 1466–1475

    1956

  2. [9]

    Review of Particle Physics,

    Particle Data GroupCollaboration, R. L. Workman et al., “Review of Particle Physics,” PTEP 2022 (2022) 083C01

    2022

  3. [10]

    Electroweak Precision Tests of the Standard Model after the Discovery of the Higgs Boson,

    J. Erler and M. Schott, “Electroweak Precision Tests of the Standard Model after the Discovery of the Higgs Boson,” Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.106 (2019) 68–119, arXiv:1902.05142 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Physics implications of a combined analysis of COHERENT CsI and LAr data,

    V. De Romeri, O. G. Miranda, D. K. Papoulias, G. Sanchez Garcia, M. T´ ortola, and J. W. F. Valle, “Physics implications of a combined analysis of COHERENT CsI and LAr data,” JHEP 04 (2023) 035, arXiv:2211.11905 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Charged and Neutral Current Interference in νee Scattering,

    B. Kayser, E. Fischbach, S. P. Rosen, and H. Spivack, “Charged and Neutral Current Interference in νee Scattering,” Phys. Rev. D20 (1979) 87. 15

    1979

  6. [13]

    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 no. 3, (2016) 030502

    2016

  7. [14]

    Nobel Lecture: Discovery of atmospheric neutrino oscillations,

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

    2016

  8. [15]

    Mesonium and anti-mesonium,

    B. Pontecorvo, “Mesonium and anti-mesonium,” Sov. Phys. JETP6 (1957) 429

    1957

  9. [16]

    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) 870–880

    1962

  10. [17]

    Majorana Neutrinos and Magnetic Fields,

    J. Schechter and J. W. F. Valle, “Majorana Neutrinos and Magnetic Fields,” Phys. Rev. D24 (1981) 1883–1889. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 25, 283 (1982)]

    1981

  11. [18]

    Electromagnetic Properties of Majorana Neutrinos,

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

    1982

  12. [19]

    Majorana Neutrinos and their Electromagnetic Properties,

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

    1982

  13. [20]

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

    R. E. Shrock, “Electromagnetic Properties and Decays of Dirac and Majorana Neutrinos in a General Class of Gauge Theories,” Nucl. Phys. B206 (1982) 359–379

    1982

  14. [21]

    Neutrino Electromagnetic Form-Factors,

    P. Vogel and J. Engel, “Neutrino Electromagnetic Form-Factors,” Phys. Rev. D39 (1989) 3378

    1989

  15. [22]

    All electromagnetic form-factors,

    M. Nowakowski, E. A. Paschos, and J. M. Rodriguez, “All electromagnetic form-factors,” Eur. J. Phys. 26 (2005) 545–560, arXiv:physics/0402058

    2005 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Neutrino electromagnetic interactions: a window to new physics,

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

    2015 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Neutrino Electromagnetic Properties,

    C. Giunti, K. Kouzakov, Y.-F. Li, and A. Studenikin, “Neutrino Electromagnetic Properties,” arXiv:2411.03122 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  18. [25]

    Effects of neutrino oscillations and neutrino magnetic moments on elastic neutrino - electron scattering,

    W. Grimus and P. Stockinger, “Effects of neutrino oscillations and neutrino magnetic moments on elastic neutrino - electron scattering,” Phys. Rev. D57 (1998) 1762–1768, arXiv:hep-ph/9708279

    1998 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Neutrino magnetic and electric dipole moments: From measurements to parameter space,

    D. Aristizabal Sierra, O. G. Miranda, D. K. Papoulias, and G. S. Garcia, “Neutrino magnetic and electric dipole moments: From measurements to parameter space,” Phys. Rev. D105 no. 3, (2022) 035027, arXiv:2112.12817 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  20. [27]

    The Processes µ → e + γ, µ→ e + e, ν′ → ν + γ in the Weinberg-Salam Model with Neutrino Mixing,

    S. T. Petcov, “The Processes µ → e + γ, µ→ e + e, ν′ → ν + γ in the Weinberg-Salam Model with Neutrino Mixing,” Sov. J. Nucl. Phys.25 (1977) 340. [Erratum: Sov.J.Nucl.Phys. 25, 698 (1977), Erratum: Yad.Fiz. 25, 1336 (1977)]

    1977

  21. [28]

    Exotic Decays of the Muon and Heavy Leptons in Gauge Theories,

    W. J. Marciano and A. I. Sanda, “Exotic Decays of the Muon and Heavy Leptons in Gauge Theories,” Phys. Lett. B67 (1977) 303–305

    1977

  22. [29]

    Natural Suppression of Symmetry Violation in Gauge Theories: Muon - Lepton and Electron Lepton Number Nonconservation,

    B. W. Lee and R. E. Shrock, “Natural Suppression of Symmetry Violation in Gauge Theories: Muon - Lepton and Electron Lepton Number Nonconservation,” Phys. Rev. D16 (1977) 1444

    1977

  23. [30]

    The Magnetic Moment of a Massive Neutrino and Neutrino Spin Rotation,

    K. Fujikawa and R. Shrock, “The Magnetic Moment of a Massive Neutrino and Neutrino Spin Rotation,” Phys. Rev. Lett.45 (1980) 963

    1980

  24. [31]

    Radiative Decays of Massive Neutrinos,

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

    1982

  25. [32]

    Electric charge and magnetic moment of massive neutrino,

    M. Dvornikov and A. Studenikin, “Electric charge and magnetic moment of massive neutrino,” Phys. Rev. D69 (2004) 073001, arXiv:hep-ph/0305206

    2004 arXiv

  26. [33]

    Electromagnetic form-factors of a massive neutrino,

    M. S. Dvornikov and A. I. Studenikin, “Electromagnetic form-factors of a massive neutrino,” J. Exp. Theor. Phys.99 (2004) 254–269, arXiv:hep-ph/0411085

    2004 arXiv

  27. [34]

    Model for Large Transition Magnetic Moment of the νe,

    K. S. Babu and R. N. Mohapatra, “Model for Large Transition Magnetic Moment of the νe,” Phys. Rev. Lett.63 (1989) 228

    1989

  28. [35]

    Coherent Neutrino-Nucleus Scattering and new Neutrino Interactions,

    M. Lindner, W. Rodejohann, and X.-J. Xu, “Coherent Neutrino-Nucleus Scattering and new Neutrino Interactions,” JHEP 03 (2017) 097, arXiv:1612.04150 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  29. [36]

    COHERENT analysis of neutrino generalized interactions,

    D. Aristizabal Sierra, V. De Romeri, and N. Rojas, “COHERENT analysis of neutrino generalized interactions,” Phys. Rev. D98 (2018) 075018, arXiv:1806.07424 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  30. [37]

    CE νNS as a probe of flavored generalized neutrino interactions,

    L. J. Flores, N. Nath, and E. Peinado, “CE νNS as a probe of flavored generalized neutrino interactions,” Phys. Rev. D105 no. 5, (2022) 055010, arXiv:2112.05103 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  31. [38]

    Probing conventional and new physics at the ESS with coherent elastic neutrino-nucleus scattering,

    A. Chattaraj, A. Majumdar, D. K. Papoulias, and R. Srivastava, “Probing conventional and new physics at the ESS with coherent elastic neutrino-nucleus scattering,” arXiv:2501.12443 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  32. [39]

    Probing light vector mediators with coherent scattering at future facilities,

    E. Bertuzzo, G. Grilli di Cortona, and L. M. D. Ramos, “Probing light vector mediators with coherent scattering at future facilities,” JHEP 06 (2022) 075, arXiv:2112.04020 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  33. [40]

    Constraining low scale Dark Hypercharge symmetry at spallation, reactor and Dark Matter direct detection experiments,

    A. Majumdar, D. K. Papoulias, H. Prajapati, and R. Srivastava, “Constraining low scale Dark Hypercharge symmetry at spallation, reactor and Dark Matter direct detection experiments,” arXiv:2411.04197 [hep-ph]. 16

    arXiv

  34. [41]

    Neutrino-electron scattering: general constraints on Z ′ and dark photon models,

    M. Lindner, F. S. Queiroz, W. Rodejohann, and X.-J. Xu, “Neutrino-electron scattering: general constraints on Z ′ and dark photon models,” JHEP 05 (2018) 098, arXiv:1803.00060 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  35. [42]

    Probing neutrino coupling to a light scalar with coherent neutrino scattering,

    Y. Farzan, M. Lindner, W. Rodejohann, and X.-J. Xu, “Probing neutrino coupling to a light scalar with coherent neutrino scattering,” JHEP 05 (2018) 066, arXiv:1802.05171 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  36. [43]

    The Theory of Direct Dark Matter Detection: A Guide to Computations,

    E. Del Nobile, “The Theory of Direct Dark Matter Detection: A Guide to Computations,” Lecture Notes in Physics1 (5, 2022) XVI, 250, arXiv:2104.12785 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  37. [44]

    Searching for BSM neutrino interactions in dark matter detectors,

    J. M. Link and X.-J. Xu, “Searching for BSM neutrino interactions in dark matter detectors,” JHEP 08 (2019) 004, arXiv:1903.09891 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  38. [45]

    Isotopic compositions of the elements 2009 (iupac technical report),

    M. Berglund and M. E. Wieser, “Isotopic compositions of the elements 2009 (iupac technical report),” Pure and Applied Chemistry83 no. 2, (2011) 397–410

    2011

  39. [46]

    Range concepts and heavy ion searches,

    J. Lindhard, M. Scharff, and H. Schiott, “Range concepts and heavy ion searches,” Mat. Fys. Medd . Dan. Vid. Selsk.33 (1963)

    1963

  40. [47]

    Direct measurement of the ionization quenching factor of nuclear recoils in germanium in the keV energy range,

    A. Bonhomme et al., “Direct measurement of the ionization quenching factor of nuclear recoils in germanium in the keV energy range,” Eur. Phys. J. C82 no. 9, (2022) 815, arXiv:2202.03754 [physics.ins-det]

    2022 arXiv

  41. [48]

    CONUS+ Experiment,

    CONUS+ Collaboration, N. Ackermann et al., “CONUS+ Experiment,” Eur. Phys. J. C84 no. 12, (2024) 1265, arXiv:2407.11912 [hep-ex]. [Erratum: Eur.Phys.J.C 85, 19 (2025)]

    2024 arXiv

  42. [49]

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

    P. Huber, “On the determination of anti-neutrino spectra from nuclear reactors,” Phys. Rev. C84 (2011) 024617, arXiv:1106.0687 [hep-ph]. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.C 85, 029901 (2012)]

    2011 arXiv

  43. [50]

    Improved Predictions of Reactor Antineutrino Spectra,

    T. A. Mueller et al., “Improved Predictions of Reactor Antineutrino Spectra,” Phys. Rev. C83 (2011) 054615, arXiv:1101.2663 [hep-ex]

    2011 arXiv

  44. [51]

    A Search of Neutrino Magnetic Moments with a High-Purity Germanium Detector at the Kuo-Sheng Nuclear Power Station,

    TEXONO Collaboration, H. T. Wong et al., “A Search of Neutrino Magnetic Moments with a High-Purity Germanium Detector at the Kuo-Sheng Nuclear Power Station,” Phys. Rev. D75 (2007) 012001, arXiv:hep-ex/0605006

    2007 arXiv

  45. [52]

    Low-energy electronic recoil in xenon detectors by solar neutrinos,

    J.-W. Chen, H.-C. Chi, C. P. Liu, and C.-P. Wu, “Low-energy electronic recoil in xenon detectors by solar neutrinos,” Phys. Lett. B774 (2017) 656–661, arXiv:1610.04177 [hep-ex]

    2017 arXiv

  46. [53]

    A. C. Thompson, D. Vaughan, M. A. Cox, et al., X-Ray Data Booklet, 2009. https://xdb.lbl.gov/

    2009

  47. [54]

    A Proposal for a different chi square function for Poisson distributions,

    F. M. L. Almeida, Jr., M. Barbi, and M. A. B. do Vale, “A Proposal for a different chi square function for Poisson distributions,” Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A449 (2000) 383–395, arXiv:hep-ex/9911042

    2000 arXiv

  48. [55]

    Physics implications of recent Dresden-II reactor data,

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

    2022 arXiv

  49. [56]

    Bounds on new neutrino interactions from the first CEνNS data at direct detection experiments,

    V. De Romeri, D. K. Papoulias, and C. A. Ternes, “Bounds on new neutrino interactions from the first CEνNS data at direct detection experiments,” arXiv:2411.11749 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  50. [57]

    Review of particle physics,

    Particle Data GroupCollaboration, S. Navas et al., “Review of particle physics,” Phys. Rev. D110 no. 3, (2024) 030001

    2024

  51. [59]

    First upper limits on neutrino electromagnetic properties from the CONUS experiment,

    CONUS Collaboration, H. Bonet et al., “First upper limits on neutrino electromagnetic properties from the CONUS experiment,” Eur. Phys. J. C82 no. 9, (2022) 813, arXiv:2201.12257 [hep-ex]

    2022 arXiv

  52. [60]

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

    M. Atzori Corona, M. Cadeddu, N. Cargioli, F. Dordei, C. Giunti, Y. F. Li, C. A. Ternes, and Y. Y. Zhang, “Impact of the Dresden-II and COHERENT neutrino scattering data on neutrino electromagnetic properties and electroweak physics,” JHEP 09 (2022) 164, arXiv:2205.09484 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Limiting neutrino magnetic moments with Borexino Phase-II solar neutrino data,

    Borexino Collaboration, M. Agostini et al., “Limiting neutrino magnetic moments with Borexino Phase-II solar neutrino data,” Phys. Rev. D96 no. 9, (2017) 091103, arXiv:1707.09355 [hep-ex]

    2017 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Constraining new physics with Borexino Phase-II spectral data,

    P. Coloma, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, M. Maltoni, J. a. P. Pinheiro, and S. Urrea, “Constraining new physics with Borexino Phase-II spectral data,” JHEP 07 (2022) 138, arXiv:2204.03011 [hep-ph]. [Erratum: JHEP 11, 138 (2022)]

    2022 arXiv

  55. [63]

    The results of search for the neutrino magnetic moment in GEMMA experiment,

    A. G. Beda, V. B. Brudanin, V. G. Egorov, D. V. Medvedev, V. S. Pogosov, M. V. Shirchenko, and A. S. Starostin, “The results of search for the neutrino magnetic moment in GEMMA experiment,” Adv. High Energy Phys.2012 (2012) 350150

    2012

  56. [64]

    Implications of first LZ and XENONnT results: A comparative study of neutrino properties and light mediators,

    S. K. A., A. Majumdar, D. K. Papoulias, H. Prajapati, and R. Srivastava, “Implications of first LZ and XENONnT results: A comparative study of neutrino properties and light mediators,” Phys. Lett. B 839 (2023) 137742, arXiv:2208.06415 [hep-ph]. 17

    2023 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Neutrino millicharge and other electromagnetic interactions with COHERENT-2021 data,

    A. N. Khan, “Neutrino millicharge and other electromagnetic interactions with COHERENT-2021 data,” Nucl. Phys. B986 (2023) 116064, arXiv:2201.10578 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Measurement of Nu(e)-bar -Electron Scattering Cross-Section with a CsI(Tl) Scintillating Crystal Array at the Kuo-Sheng Nuclear Power Reactor,

    TEXONO Collaboration, M. Deniz et al., “Measurement of Nu(e)-bar -Electron Scattering Cross-Section with a CsI(Tl) Scintillating Crystal Array at the Kuo-Sheng Nuclear Power Reactor,” Phys. Rev. D81 (2010) 072001, arXiv:0911.1597 [hep-ex]

    2010 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Measurement of electron - neutrino - electron elastic scattering,

    LSND Collaboration, L. B. Auerbach et al., “Measurement of electron - neutrino - electron elastic scattering,” Phys. Rev. D63 (2001) 112001, arXiv:hep-ex/0101039

    2001 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Probing light mediators and (g − 2)µ through detection of coherent elastic neutrino nucleus scattering at COHERENT,

    M. Atzori Corona, M. Cadeddu, N. Cargioli, F. Dordei, C. Giunti, Y. F. Li, E. Picciau, C. A. Ternes, and Y. Y. Zhang, “Probing light mediators and (g − 2)µ through detection of coherent elastic neutrino nucleus scattering at COHERENT,” JHEP 05 (2022) 109, arXiv:2202.11002 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Novel constraints on neutrino physics beyond the standard model from the CONUS experiment,

    CONUS Collaboration, H. Bonet et al., “Novel constraints on neutrino physics beyond the standard model from the CONUS experiment,” JHEP 05 (2022) 085, arXiv:2110.02174 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Clarity through the Neutrino Fog: Constraining New Forces in Dark Matter Detectors,

    P. Blanco-Mas, P. Coloma, G. Herrera, P. Huber, J. Kopp, I. M. Shoemaker, and Z. Tabrizi, “Clarity through the Neutrino Fog: Constraining New Forces in Dark Matter Detectors,” arXiv:2411.14206 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  63. [71]

    Bounds on new physics with data of the Dresden-II reactor experiment and COHERENT,

    P. Coloma, I. Esteban, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, L. Larizgoitia, F. Monrabal, and S. Palomares-Ruiz, “Bounds on new physics with data of the Dresden-II reactor experiment and COHERENT,” JHEP 05 (2022) 037, arXiv:2202.10829 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Constraints on additional Z bosons derived from neutrino - electron scattering measurements,

    CHARM-II Collaboration, P. Vilain et al., “Constraints on additional Z bosons derived from neutrino - electron scattering measurements,” Phys. Lett. B332 (1994) 465–470

    1994

  65. [73]

    Constraints on Dark Photon from Neutrino-Electron Scattering Experiments,

    S. Bilmis, I. Turan, T. M. Aliev, M. Deniz, L. Singh, and H. T. Wong, “Constraints on Dark Photon from Neutrino-Electron Scattering Experiments,” Phys. Rev. D92 no. 3, (2015) 033009, arXiv:1502.07763 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Light vector mediators at direct detection experiments,

    V. De Romeri, D. K. Papoulias, and C. A. Ternes, “Light vector mediators at direct detection experiments,” JHEP 05 (2024) 165, arXiv:2402.05506 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Search for Axion Like Particle Production in 400-GeV Proton - Copper Interactions,

    CHARM Collaboration, F. Bergsma et al., “Search for Axion Like Particle Production in 400-GeV Proton - Copper Interactions,” Phys. Lett. B157 (1985) 458–462

    1985

  68. [76]

    Constraints on sub-GeV hidden sector gauge bosons from a search for heavy neutrino decays,

    S. N. Gninenko, “Constraints on sub-GeV hidden sector gauge bosons from a search for heavy neutrino decays,” Phys. Lett. B713 (2012) 244–248, arXiv:1204.3583 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Search for invisible decays of sub-GeV dark photons in missing-energy events at the CERN SPS,

    NA64 Collaboration, D. Banerjee et al., “Search for invisible decays of sub-GeV dark photons in missing-energy events at the CERN SPS,” Phys. Rev. Lett.118 no. 1, (2017) 011802, arXiv:1610.02988 [hep-ex]

    2017 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Improved limits on a hypothetical X(16.7) boson and a dark photon decaying into e+e− pairs,

    NA64 Collaboration, D. Banerjee et al., “Improved limits on a hypothetical X(16.7) boson and a dark photon decaying into e+e− pairs,” Phys. Rev. D101 no. 7, (2020) 071101, arXiv:1912.11389 [hep-ex]

    2020 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Search for Light Dark Matter with NA64 at CERN,

    NA64 Collaboration, Y. M. Andreev et al., “Search for Light Dark Matter with NA64 at CERN,” Phys. Rev. Lett.131 no. 16, (2023) 161801, arXiv:2307.02404 [hep-ex]

    2023 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Search for heavy neutrinos mixing with tau neutrinos,

    NOMAD Collaboration, P. Astier et al., “Search for heavy neutrinos mixing with tau neutrinos,” Phys. Lett. B506 (2001) 27–38, arXiv:hep-ex/0101041

    2001 arXiv

  73. [81]

    A Search for Short Lived Axions in an Electron Beam Dump Experiment,

    E. M. Riordan et al., “A Search for Short Lived Axions in an Electron Beam Dump Experiment,” Phys. Rev. Lett.59 (1987) 755

    1987

  74. [82]

    New Fixed-Target Experiments to Search for Dark Gauge Forces,

    J. D. Bjorken, R. Essig, P. Schuster, and N. Toro, “New Fixed-Target Experiments to Search for Dark Gauge Forces,” Phys. Rev. D80 (2009) 075018, arXiv:0906.0580 [hep-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Search for Neutral Metastable Penetrating Particles Produced in the SLAC Beam Dump,

    J. D. Bjorken, S. Ecklund, W. R. Nelson, A. Abashian, C. Church, B. Lu, L. W. Mo, T. A. Nunamaker, and P. Rassmann, “Search for Neutral Metastable Penetrating Particles Produced in the SLAC Beam Dump,” Phys. Rev. D38 (1988) 3375

    1988

  76. [84]

    New Limits on Hidden Photons from Past Electron Beam Dumps,

    S. Andreas, C. Niebuhr, and A. Ringwald, “New Limits on Hidden Photons from Past Electron Beam Dumps,” Phys. Rev. D86 (2012) 095019, arXiv:1209.6083 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  77. [85]

    A Search for Shortlived Particles Produced in an Electron Beam Dump,

    A. Bross, M. Crisler, S. H. Pordes, J. Volk, S. Errede, and J. Wrbanek, “A Search for Shortlived Particles Produced in an Electron Beam Dump,” Phys. Rev. Lett.67 (1991) 2942–2945

    1991

  78. [86]

    Search for Neutral Particles in Electron Beam Dump Experiment,

    A. Konaka et al., “Search for Neutral Particles in Electron Beam Dump Experiment,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 57 (1986) 659

    1986

  79. [87]

    New Exclusion Limits for Dark Gauge Forces from Beam-Dump Data,

    J. Blumlein and J. Brunner, “New Exclusion Limits for Dark Gauge Forces from Beam-Dump Data,” Phys. Lett. B701 (2011) 155–159, arXiv:1104.2747 [hep-ex]. 18

    2011 arXiv

  80. [88]

    New Exclusion Limits on Dark Gauge Forces from Proton Bremsstrahlung in Beam-Dump Data,

    J. Bl ¨umlein and J. Brunner, “New Exclusion Limits on Dark Gauge Forces from Proton Bremsstrahlung in Beam-Dump Data,” Phys. Lett. B731 (2014) 320–326, arXiv:1311.3870 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  81. [89]

    Search for a New Gauge Boson in Electron-Nucleus Fixed-Target Scattering by the APEX Experiment,

    APEX Collaboration, S. Abrahamyan et al., “Search for a New Gauge Boson in Electron-Nucleus Fixed-Target Scattering by the APEX Experiment,” Phys. Rev. Lett.107 (2011) 191804, arXiv:1108.2750 [hep-ex]

    2011 arXiv

  82. [90]

    Search for a Dark Photon in e+e− Collisions at BaBar,

    BaBar Collaboration, J. P. Lees et al., “Search for a Dark Photon in e+e− Collisions at BaBar,” Phys. Rev. Lett.113 no. 20, (2014) 201801, arXiv:1406.2980 [hep-ex]

    2014 arXiv

  83. [91]

    Search for Invisible Decays of a Dark Photon Produced in e+e− Collisions at BaBar,

    BaBar Collaboration, J. P. Lees et al., “Search for Invisible Decays of a Dark Photon Produced in e+e− Collisions at BaBar,” Phys. Rev. Lett.119 no. 13, (2017) 131804, arXiv:1702.03327 [hep-ex]

    2017 arXiv

  84. [92]

    Search for A′ → µ+µ− Decays,

    LHCb Collaboration, R. Aaij et al., “Search for A′ → µ+µ− Decays,” Phys. Rev. Lett.124 no. 4, (2020) 041801, arXiv:1910.06926 [hep-ex]

    2020

  85. [93]

    Serendipity in dark photon searches,

    P. Ilten, Y. Soreq, M. Williams, and W. Xue, “Serendipity in dark photon searches,” JHEP 06 (2018) 004, arXiv:1801.04847 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  86. [94]

    Axial vectors in DarkCast,

    C. Baruch, P. Ilten, Y. Soreq, and M. Williams, “Axial vectors in DarkCast,” JHEP 11 (2022) 124, arXiv:2206.08563 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  87. [95]

    Cosmological implications of gauged U(1) B−L on ∆N ef fin the CMB and BBN,

    H. Esseili and G. D. Kribs, “Cosmological implications of gauged U(1) B−L on ∆N ef fin the CMB and BBN,” JCAP 05 (2024) 110, arXiv:2308.07955 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  88. [96]

    N ef fconstraints on light mediators coupled to neutrinos: the dilution-resistant effect,

    S.-P. Li and X.-J. Xu, “N ef fconstraints on light mediators coupled to neutrinos: the dilution-resistant effect,” JHEP 10 (2023) 012, arXiv:2307.13967 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  89. [97]

    Neff at CMB challenges U(1)X light gauge boson scenarios,

    D. K. Ghosh, P. Ghosh, S. Jeesun, and R. Srivastava, “Neff at CMB challenges U(1)X light gauge boson scenarios,” Phys. Rev. D110 no. 7, (2024) 075032, arXiv:2404.10077 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  90. [98]

    Constraining the Self-Interacting Neutrino Interpretation of the Hubble Tension,

    N. Blinov, K. J. Kelly, G. Z. Krnjaic, and S. D. McDermott, “Constraining the Self-Interacting Neutrino Interpretation of the Hubble Tension,” Phys. Rev. Lett.123 no. 19, (2019) 191102, arXiv:1905.02727 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  91. [99]

    Astrophysical constraints on nonstandard coherent neutrino-nucleus scattering,

    A. M. Suliga and I. Tamborra, “Astrophysical constraints on nonstandard coherent neutrino-nucleus scattering,” Phys. Rev. D103 no. 8, (2021) 083002, arXiv:2010.14545 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

Pith tools

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