pith. sign in

arxiv: 2512.20294 · v3 · pith:PSWEPF45new · submitted 2025-12-23 · ✦ hep-ex

Ionization-based search for magnetic monopoles using the NOvA Far Detector

The NOvA Collaboration This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-21 15:51 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ex
keywords magnetic monopolescosmic ray fluxionization searchNOvA detectorflux upper limitshighly ionizing particlesparticle physicsmonopole mass
0
0 comments X

The pith

No magnetic monopoles appeared in seven years of NOvA Far Detector data, producing the tightest flux limits yet for heavy and light monopoles across wide speed ranges.

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

The paper presents results from a dedicated search for highly ionizing magnetic monopoles in the cosmic ray flux, using the large surface-level NOvA Far Detector in Minnesota. Data collected over 2713 days showed no candidate events. This null result translates into new upper limits on monopole flux that improve on earlier bounds for several combinations of mass and velocity. A reader would care because magnetic monopoles are stable particles whose existence is predicted by many grand-unified theories; their non-observation directly constrains the relic density left over from the early universe. The detector's size and minimal shielding give it unique reach for both downward and upward-going monopoles.

Core claim

The search found no evidence for magnetic monopoles. For monopoles heavier than 10^13 GeV that can reach the detector from above or below the Earth, the 90% confidence level flux upper limit is 2 times 10 to the minus 16 per square centimeter per second per steradian for speeds between 0.005 and 0.8 times the speed of light. For lighter monopoles above 10^8 GeV that arrive from above, the corresponding limit is 8 times 10 to the minus 16 in the same speed interval.

What carries the argument

Ionization signals produced in the 14-kiloton segmented plastic scintillator detector, interpreted through energy-loss models that predict the light yield and track topology for monopoles of given speed and mass.

If this is right

  • The cosmic flux of heavy magnetic monopoles above 10^13 GeV is below 2 times 10 to the minus 16 cm^{-2} s^{-1} sr^{-1} for velocities 0.005 to 0.8 c.
  • The cosmic flux of lighter monopoles above 10^8 GeV is below 8 times 10 to the minus 16 cm^{-2} s^{-1} sr^{-1} for the same velocities when arriving from above.
  • Any theoretical model predicting higher monopole densities in these mass and speed windows is now more strongly disfavored.
  • Future monopole searches at surface detectors can use the same ionization signature to target previously inaccessible regions of parameter space.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • These limits reduce the allowed parameter space for grand-unified theories that produce monopoles during early-universe phase transitions.
  • Surface-based detectors with large area may now be the most efficient way to set limits on very heavy monopoles that penetrate the Earth.
  • If the ionization model holds, similar null results at other shallow detectors would further tighten bounds without requiring underground facilities.
  • The absence of signal suggests either monopoles are rarer than many models predict or they have electromagnetic properties outside the range considered here.

Load-bearing premise

The assumed energy-loss and ionization model for monopoles in the NOvA scintillator and surrounding material correctly predicts the detectable signal efficiency across the quoted beta and mass ranges.

What would settle it

Observation of one or more events with ionization density and trajectory matching the monopole prediction but incompatible with all known cosmic-ray backgrounds would invalidate the no-signal result and the derived flux limits.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.20294 by The NOvA Collaboration.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Schematic diagram of the NOvA detectors. For each [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Solid angle coverage as a function of monopole speed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Trigger and overall efficiency as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Distributions of off-track width (top) and width dif [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The drop in overall efficiency at low β is primarily due to the mean ADC requirement for the signal. The dominant background in this analysis arises from the abundant atmospheric muons produced by cosmic￾ray interactions. These are suppressed using event char￾acteristics, as muon tracks are much less ionizing than the bright monopole signature. In addition, atmospheric muons often produce secondary showers… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Flux limit as a function of monopole speed ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Distribution of width difference vs. mean ADC. Sim [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Flux limit vs. monopole speed ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We report a search for highly-ionizing magnetic monopoles in the cosmic-ray flux using a 2,713-day dataset collected during 2015--2025 with the NOvA Far Detector, a 14-kiloton segmented detector located on the Earth's surface in Minnesota, United States. The search is sensitive to monopoles across a wide range of speeds, $7 \times 10^{-4} < \beta < 0.995$, and is sensitive to masses as low as $2 \times 10^5~\mathrm{GeV}$ for the fastest monopoles. No signal was observed. With the detector's large surface area and minimal overburden, we achieve the strongest flux limits reported to date in several regions of speed and mass. For heavy monopoles with masses above $10^{13}$ GeV that are able to reach the detector from above or -- crossing the Earth -- from below, we find a flux limit $\phi_{90\%} < 2 \times 10^{-16}\, \mathrm{ cm^{-2} s^{-1} sr^{-1}}$ (90\% C.L.) for monopoles with $0.005 < \beta < 0.8$. Across the same range of speeds, we report a limit ${\phi_{90\%}} < 8 \times 10^{-16}\, \mathrm{ cm^{-2} s^{-1} sr^{-1}}$ for light monopoles with masses above $10^8$ GeV that can reach the detector from above.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

1 major / 0 minor

Summary. The paper reports a search for highly-ionizing magnetic monopoles in the cosmic-ray flux using a 2713-day dataset from the 14 kt NOvA Far Detector. No signal is observed across 7e-4 < beta < 0.995, yielding 90% CL flux upper limits of 2 x 10^{-16} cm^{-2} s^{-1} sr^{-1} for heavy monopoles (m > 10^{13} GeV, 0.005 < beta < 0.8) that can arrive from above or below the Earth, and 8 x 10^{-16} cm^{-2} s^{-1} sr^{-1} for lighter monopoles (m > 10^8 GeV) from above only. The limits are presented as the strongest in several regions of the mass-speed parameter space.

Significance. If the underlying ionization and acceptance model is accurate, the result would strengthen existing constraints on monopole fluxes by exploiting the detector's large surface area and minimal overburden, enabling sensitivity to both downward and upward-going particles over a broad beta range. This constitutes a useful experimental contribution to monopole searches.

major comments (1)
  1. The energy-loss and ionization model for monopoles in the scintillator and surrounding Earth material is used to compute signal efficiency across the quoted beta and mass ranges. The abstract and sensitivity statements provide no quantitative uncertainty or cross-check on this model in the low-beta regime (7 x 10^{-4} < beta < 0.005), which directly determines whether sufficient hits above threshold are produced while traversing the detector or the full Earth diameter; any systematic bias here would alter the derived flux limits.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful review and constructive comments on our manuscript. We address the single major comment below and describe the revisions we will implement.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The energy-loss and ionization model for monopoles in the scintillator and surrounding Earth material is used to compute signal efficiency across the quoted beta and mass ranges. The abstract and sensitivity statements provide no quantitative uncertainty or cross-check on this model in the low-beta regime (7 x 10^{-4} < beta < 0.005), which directly determines whether sufficient hits above threshold are produced while traversing the detector or the full Earth diameter; any systematic bias here would alter the derived flux limits.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit quantitative assessment of uncertainties in the ionization and energy-loss model would strengthen the presentation, particularly for the low-beta regime where the model determines whether monopoles produce sufficient hits to be detected after traversing the detector or the Earth. The calculations in the manuscript follow the standard modified Bethe-Bloch formalism for magnetic monopoles, with detector response modeled via Monte Carlo simulation of the NOvA geometry and scintillator properties. We will add a dedicated subsection to the methods section that (i) summarizes the model assumptions and input parameters, (ii) presents cross-checks against alternative stopping-power calculations and variations in material composition, and (iii) quantifies the resulting systematic uncertainty on signal efficiency (estimated at the 15-25% level) and its propagation into the flux limits. We will also revise the abstract and sensitivity statements to note the inclusion of this uncertainty. These changes will be incorporated in the next version of the manuscript. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: experimental null-result limits from data counts and external model

full rationale

The paper reports a direct experimental search for monopoles in cosmic rays using the NOvA Far Detector. No signal is observed in 2713 days of data, and flux upper limits are computed from the observed event counts (zero candidates) combined with an acceptance/efficiency that folds in an assumed dE/dx ionization model for monopoles. This model is an external theoretical input, not derived from or fitted to the present dataset in a self-referential loop. No equations in the paper reduce a claimed prediction or limit back to the paper's own fitted parameters or self-citations by construction. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks (detector response, background rates, and standard monopole energy-loss calculations), warranting a score of 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard assumptions about monopole ionization and detector response that are not detailed in the abstract; no free parameters or invented entities are explicitly introduced in the provided text.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Magnetic monopoles produce a distinctive, highly ionizing signature in the NOvA liquid scintillator that can be distinguished from background.
    This assumption defines the signal region and acceptance used to convert non-observation into a flux limit.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5804 in / 1373 out tokens · 60049 ms · 2026-05-21T15:51:33.226880+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 57 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    At least 20 hits in each view, with a reconstructed length of at least 5 m

    work page

  2. [2]

    Entry and exit points within 50 cm of the detector surface

    work page

  3. [3]

    Reconstructed velocity below the speed of light, and time difference between first and last hits of at least 350 ns

    work page

  4. [4]

    More stringent cuts are applied in the final event selec- tion to retain most monopole signal events while reject- ing background tracks that pass the preselection

    TrackdE/dxof at least 2.5×10 −3 GeV/cm, and mean ADC of at least 850. More stringent cuts are applied in the final event selec- tion to retain most monopole signal events while reject- ing background tracks that pass the preselection. Given their large mass and momentum, monopoles are not ex- pected to undergo significant multiple scattering, result- ing ...

    work page

  5. [5]

    Off-track width≤6 cm 2

    work page

  6. [6]

    Mean ADC serves as the final discriminating vari- able for identifying monopole signals in the data

    Width difference≤30 cm 2. Mean ADC serves as the final discriminating vari- able for identifying monopole signals in the data. Since monopoles deposit significantly more energy in the detec- tor than cosmic rays, they are expected to exhibit higher mean ADC values. Figure 5 shows the distribution of mean ADC, with all other cuts applied except for the one...

    work page 2000

  7. [7]

    Mean ADC≥2500 forβ reco ≥0.03

    work page

  8. [8]

    This work

    Mean ADC≥2000 forβ reco <0.03. Two effects degrade the selection efficiency at high monopole speeds. First, as the monopole speed increases, the spectrum of secondary electrons, known as delta rays, begins to include those that travel several centimeters, crossing into adjacent detector cells. These delta rays 8 can make the monopole track appear wider. T...

    work page 2000

  9. [9]

    P. A. M. Dirac, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A133, 60 (1931)

    work page 1931

  10. [10]

    Polchinski, Int

    J. Polchinski, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A19, 145 (2004)

    work page 2004

  11. [11]

    Navas (Particle Data Group), Phys

    S. Navas (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D110, 030001 (2024)

    work page 2024

  12. [12]

    ’t Hooft, Nucl

    G. ’t Hooft, Nucl. Phys. B79, 276 (1974)

    work page 1974

  13. [13]

    A. M. Polyakov, JETP Lett.20, 194 (1974)

    work page 1974

  14. [14]

    T. W. Kephart and Q. Shafi, Phys. Lett. B520, 313 (2001)

    work page 2001

  15. [15]

    Y. M. Cho and D. Maison, Phys. Lett. B391, 360 (1997)

    work page 1997

  16. [16]

    Gould and A

    O. Gould and A. Rajantie, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 241601 (2017)

    work page 2017

  17. [17]

    P. Q. Hung, Nucl. Phys. B962, 115278 (2021)

    work page 2021

  18. [18]

    Mass of the Electroweak Monopole

    Y. M. Cho, K. Kimm, and J. H. Yoon, “Mass of the electroweak monopole,” (2014), arXiv:1212.3885 [hep- ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  19. [19]

    Y. B. Zeldovich and M. Y. Khlopov, Phys. Lett. B79, 239 (1978)

    work page 1978

  20. [20]

    J. P. Preskill, Phys. Rev. Lett.43, 1365 (1979)

    work page 1979

  21. [21]

    M. S. Turner, E. N. Parker, and T. J. Bogdan, Phys. Rev. D26, 1296 (1982)

    work page 1982

  22. [22]

    Cabrera, M

    B. Cabrera, M. Taber, R. Gardner, and J. Bourg, Phys. Rev. Lett.51, 1933 (1983)

    work page 1933

  23. [23]

    Cabrera, Phys

    B. Cabrera, Phys. Rev. Lett.48, 1378 (1982)

    work page 1982

  24. [24]

    V. A. Rubakov, JETP Lett.33, 644 (1981)

    work page 1981

  25. [25]

    V. A. Rubakov and M. S. Serebryakov, Nucl. Phys. B 218, 240 (1983)

    work page 1983

  26. [26]

    C. G. Callan, Nucl. Phys. B212, 391 (1983)

    work page 1983

  27. [27]

    Uenoet al.(Super–Kamiokande Collaboration), As- tropart

    K. Uenoet al.(Super–Kamiokande Collaboration), As- tropart. Phys.36, 131 (2012)

    work page 2012

  28. [28]

    Balestraet al., Eur

    S. Balestraet al., Eur. Phys. J. C55, 57 (2008)

    work page 2008

  29. [29]

    Ambrosioet al.(MACRO Collaboration), Eur

    M. Ambrosioet al.(MACRO Collaboration), Eur. Phys. J. C25, 511 (2002)

    work page 2002

  30. [30]

    M. G. Aartsenet al.(IceCube Collaboration), Eur. Phys. J. C76, 133 (2016)

    work page 2016

  31. [31]

    Abbasiet al.(IceCube Collaboration), Phys

    R. Abbasiet al.(IceCube Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 051101 (2022)

    work page 2022

  32. [32]

    Albertet al.(ANTARES Collaboration), J

    A. Albertet al.(ANTARES Collaboration), J. High En- ergy Astrophys. (JHEAp)34, 1 (2022)

    work page 2022

  33. [33]

    Albertet al.(ANTARES Collaboration), (2025), arXiv:2505.23929 [hep-ex]

    A. Albertet al.(ANTARES Collaboration), (2025), arXiv:2505.23929 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2025

  34. [34]

    P. H. Eberhard, R. R. Ross, L. W. Alvarez, and R. D. Watt, Phys. Rev. D4, 3260 (1971)

    work page 1971

  35. [35]

    L. W. Alvarez, P. H. Eberhard, R. R. Ross, and R. D. Watt, Science167, 701 (1970)

    work page 1970

  36. [36]

    Acharyaet al.(MoEDAL collaboration), J

    B. Acharyaet al.(MoEDAL collaboration), J. High En- ergy Phys.2016, 67 (2016)

    work page 2016

  37. [37]

    Acharyaet al.(MoEDAL Collaboration), Phys

    B. Acharyaet al.(MoEDAL Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 021802 (2019)

    work page 2019

  38. [38]

    Acharyaet al., Phys

    B. Acharyaet al., Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 071803 (2024)

    work page 2024

  39. [39]

    Iguro, R

    S. Iguro, R. Plestid, and V. Takhistov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 201101 (2022)

    work page 2022

  40. [40]

    The NOvA Technical Design Report,

    D. S. Ayreset al.(NOvA Collaboration), “The NOvA Technical Design Report,” FERMILAB-DESIGN-2007- 01 (2007)

    work page 2007

  41. [41]

    J. J. Grudzinski, R. L. Talaga, A. Pla-Dalmau, J. E. Fagan, C. Grozis, K. Kephart, and R. Fischer (NOvA), J. Vinyl Additive Tech.22, 368 (2016)

    work page 2016

  42. [42]

    Liquid scintillator production for the NOvA experiment

    S. Mufsonet al., Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A799, 1 (2015), arXiv:1504.04035 [physics.ins-det]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  43. [43]

    Aurisano, C

    A. Aurisano, C. Backhouse, R. Hatcher, N. Mayer, J. Musser, R. Patterson, R. Schroeter, and A. Sousa, J. Phys. Conf. Ser.664, 072002 (2015)

    work page 2015

  44. [44]

    Agostinelliet al., Nucl

    S. Agostinelliet al., Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A506, 250 (2003). 12

    work page 2003

  45. [45]

    S. P. Ahlen and K. Kinoshita, Phys. Rev. D26, 2347 (1982)

    work page 1982

  46. [46]

    S. P. Ahlen, Phys. Rev. D17, 229 (1978)

    work page 1978

  47. [47]

    M. A. Aceroet al.(NOvA Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 103, 012007 (2021)

    work page 2021

  48. [48]

    Coherent visible radiation of fast electrons passing through matter,

    I. Frank and I. Tamm, “Coherent visible radiation of fast electrons passing through matter,” inSelected Pa- pers, edited by B. M. Bolotovskii, V. Y. Frenkel, and R. Peierls (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidel- berg, 1991) pp. 29–35

    work page 1991

  49. [49]

    Derkaoui, G

    J. Derkaoui, G. Giacomelli, T. Lari, A. Margiotta, M. Ouchrif, L. Patrizii, V. Popa, and V. Togo, Astropart. Phys.9, 173 (1998)

    work page 1998

  50. [50]

    Normanet al., J

    A. Normanet al., J. Phys. Conf. Ser.664, 082041 (2015)

    work page 2015

  51. [51]

    Ahlenet al.(MACRO Collaboration), Phys

    S. Ahlenet al.(MACRO Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 72, 608 (1994)

    work page 1994

  52. [52]

    Witten, Phys

    E. Witten, Phys. Rev. D30, 272 (1984)

    work page 1984

  53. [53]

    J. D. Bjorken and L. D. McLerran, Phys. Rev. D20, 2353 (1979)

    work page 1979

  54. [54]

    Chodos, R

    A. Chodos, R. L. Jaffe, K. Johnson, C. B. Thorn, and V. F. Weisskopf, Phys. Rev. D9, 3471 (1974)

    work page 1974

  55. [55]

    Arkani–Hamed, S

    N. Arkani–Hamed, S. Dimopoulos, and G. Dvali, Phys. Lett. B429, 263–272 (1998)

    work page 1998

  56. [56]

    P. C. Argyres, S. Dimopoulos, and J. March-Russell, Phys. Lett. B441, 96–104 (1998)

    work page 1998

  57. [57]

    Emparan, G

    R. Emparan, G. T. Horowitz, and R. C. Myers, Phys. Rev. Lett.85, 499–502 (2000)

    work page 2000