Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 4 cited by

When backgrounds become signals: neutrino interactions in xenon-based dark matter detectors

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Dark matter detectors, whose solar-neutrino events are usually treated as background, can be used as low-energy neutrino observatories that constrain neutrino electromagnetic properties and the tau flavor.

desk verdict A competent update of the CEνNS/νES global fit with the latest xenon data; the headline EM limits are real but their exact placement leans on an EPA atomic-model systematic that is plausible, not yet validated for xenon. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.22178 v3 pith:R5FNIG4O submitted 2025-09-26 hep-ph astro-ph.SRhep-ex

M. Atzori Corona , M. Cadeddu , N. Cargioli , F. Dordei , M. Sestu This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phastro-ph.SRhep-ex
keywords coherentelasticneutrino-nucleusscatteringneutrino-electronsolarneutrinosxenontimeprojectionchambersneutrinomagneticmomentmillichargechargeradiuslightmediators
topics Dark Matter
open problems Dark Matter
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

Dark matter detectors record solar neutrinos as a background, but this paper argues those events can be turned into a neutrino physics program. Analyzing the latest electron-recoil and nuclear-recoil data from three xenon experiments, the authors report limits on neutrino magnetic moment, electric millicharge (a possible tiny electric charge), charge radius, and nonstandard interactions. The strongest results are constraints on the effective solar neutrino magnetic moment and millicharge from electron-recoil data, which the paper describes as among the most stringent from laboratory experiments. The work also updates the tau neutrino charge radius in a global fit, a flavor-dependent quantity that dedicated neutrino experiments cannot easily reach. A sympathetic reader would care because it shows existing dark matter detectors can act as low-energy neutrino observatories without new hardware.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the mapping between measured solar-neutrino recoil spectra and predicted event rates built from flavor-dependent cross sections, solar oscillation probabilities, and nuisance parameters for backgrounds and fluxes. For the millicharge constraint, the load-bearing object is the equivalent photon approximation (EPA), which expresses the neutrino-ionization cross section as proportional to the measured xenon photoelectric cross section divided by the recoil energy times a logarithmic factor. For the magnetic moment, the analogous engine is the $1/T_e$ enhancement in the differential cross section. The fits use a Poissonian likelihood for electron-recoil data and a Gaussian likelihood for nuclear-recoil data.

What would settle it

A measurement of the xenon photoelectric cross section below one kiloelectronvolt, or a first-principles calculation of neutrino-induced ionization of xenon, that disagrees with the EPA prediction by more than the assumed systematic would falsify the millicharge and magnetic-moment limits.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's claim is that solar-neutrino events, normally subtracted as background in dark matter searches, can be analyzed as physics signals. Using nuclear-recoil data on coherent elastic neutrino-nucleus scattering and electron-recoil data on neutrino-electron scattering from XENONnT, PandaX-4T, and LUX-ZEPLIN, it extracts Standard Model parameters and beyond-Standard-Model constraints. The strongest results come from electron-recoil data: the effective solar neutrino magnetic moment is bounded by $\mu_{\nu_s} < 7.8\times 10^{-12}\,\mu_B$ at 90% CL (XENONnT), and the effective solar millicharge lies in $-1.4\times 10^{-13}\,e_0 < q_{\nu_s} < 1.7\times 10^{-13}\,e_0$, which the paper describes as among the most stringent limits from laboratory experiments. Combining all datasets with a global fit for the electron and muon flavors gives $\langle r^2_{\nu_\tau}\rangle = (7.5^{+9.5}_{-11.7})\times 10^{-32}\,\mathrm{cm}^2$ at 1$\sigma$ CL. The paper also reports weak-mixing-angle values from solar neutrino data, $^8$B and $hep$ flux normalizations, and limits on nonstandard interactions and $L_\mu-L_\tau$ light mediators.

Load-bearing premise

The strongest limits assume that the rate at which neutrinos knock electrons out of xenon atoms follows directly from measured photon absorption, with any error covered by a flat 20 percent uncertainty; if the true atomic response is outside that range, the quoted millicharge and magnetic-moment bounds move.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Existing xenon dark matter detectors can serve as low-energy neutrino observatories: their electron-recoil data already rival dedicated laboratory neutrino experiments for neutrino magnetic moment and millicharge.
  • Solar neutrino data extend sensitivity to the tau flavor, allowing constraints on the tau neutrino charge radius that complement electron and muon flavor measurements from reactors and accelerators.
  • The weak-mixing-angle determinations from solar neutrino electron-recoil data probe electroweak physics at the lowest available energy scale.
  • The combined nuclear- and electron-recoil analyses constrain $L_\mu-L_\tau$ light mediators in a mass-coupling region where beam-dump and trident experiments are less sensitive.
  • The upper limit on the $hep$ solar neutrino flux from XENONnT and combined data is within an order of magnitude of the SNO constraint, showing that dark matter detectors can also contribute to solar physics.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: a first-principles calculation of neutrino-induced ionization of xenon would test the EPA scaling and could shift the millicharge and magnetic-moment bounds by more than the quoted 20% systematic.
  • Beyond the paper: applying the same spectral analysis to argon-based detectors would change the nuclear form factors and could help separate atomic modeling effects from new physics.
  • Beyond the paper: a calibration of the sub-kiloelectronvolt xenon photoelectric cross section is a direct, inexpensive check of the strongest limits.
  • Beyond the paper: with larger exposures, the tau charge-radius constraint could approach the Standard Model prediction and make dark matter detectors a genuine tau-flavor neutrino program.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes the latest public electron- and nuclear-recoil data from XENONnT, PandaX-4T, and LUX-ZEPLIN to extract Standard Model and beyond-Standard-Model neutrino observables. The statistical framework is a standard Poissonian likelihood for electron-recoil data and a Gaussian likelihood for nuclear-recoil data, with background and flux nuisance parameters; solar fluxes, oscillation probabilities, and nuclear form factors are taken from external references. The authors report 8B and hep solar flux normalizations from CEνNS data, low-energy determinations of sin^2θW, constraints on the tau neutrino charge radius including an updated global-fit value, effective solar neutrino magnetic-moment limits (e.g., μ_νs < 7.8×10^-12 μ_B from XENONnT at 90% CL), effective solar millicharge intervals (e.g., -1.4 < q_νs < 1.7 × 10^-13 e0 from XENONnT), and constraints on NSI and the L_μ-L_τ light mediator. The central BSM claim is that the electron-recoil data yield some of the strongest laboratory limits on the neutrino millicharge and magnetic moment. Important limitations are disclosed: the P4T combined US2-plus-paired likelihood cannot be reproduced, the EPA atomic-model uncertainty is absorbed into a 20% normalization systematic, and the solar magnetic-moment comparison with flavor-specific limits is described as qualitative.

Significance. If the results withstand scrutiny, they demonstrate that current multi-ton xenon dark matter detectors can serve as competitive low-energy neutrino observatories, in particular for the tau flavor, where reactor and accelerator CEνNS experiments have little or no sensitivity. The updated tau-neutrino charge-radius global fit is a useful cross-check of the flavor structure of the neutrino sector. The manuscript is careful in several respects: it uses public data releases, discloses the non-reproducibility of the P4T combined likelihood, uses external solar fluxes and oscillation probabilities rather than fitting them as free inputs, and compares its results with a broad compilation of existing constraints. The main risk is the millicharge and, to a lesser extent, magnetic-moment rate calculation; because the headline 'strongest laboratory limits' claim depends on an uncertified 20% envelope around an approximate atomic model, the significance of the paper is currently conditional on validating that envelope. The stress-test concern in the reader's report therefore lands: the atomic-physics systematic is not merely a presentation issue but is load-bearing for the central BSM claim.

major comments (3)
  1. [III.B, Eq. (30)] The millicharge limits in Eqs. (31)-(33) are derived from the EPA cross section dσ/dTe = (2α/π) σγ(Te)/Te ln(Eν/mν) q_ν^2, with all atomic-model uncertainty compressed into a single normalization nuisance by inflating σβ from 0.07 to 0.20 in Eq. (8). That 20% is not calibrated for xenon: Ref. [88] is cited for the EPA scheme, not for its uncertainty, and the manuscript itself cites Refs. [26,29-31] showing that atomic-structure effects can modify the low-energy millicharge rate by more than an order of magnitude. Because q_νs scales approximately as (event rate)^(-1/2), a 20% rate error shifts the quoted intervals by about 10% and a factor-of-two error shifts them by about sqrt(2); an energy-dependent mismatch concentrated at the lowest T_e bins, where the pp νES signal peaks, would not be captured by a flat pull. I request a quantitative validation of the EPA error on xenon, for example a comparison with MCRRPA or other atomic calculations across the fitted T_e range, a scan of the limits as σβ and the modeling assumption are varied, and a correspondingly qualified statement in the abstract and conclusions.
  2. [III.B, Eqs. (26)-(28)] The magnetic-moment limits share the atomic-physics sensitivity of Eq. (25) through Z_A^eff, and the authors themselves note, citing Ref. [78], that the comparison between the effective solar parameter and flavor-specific artificial-source limits is qualitative. The conclusion nevertheless states unconditionally that both the magnetic-moment and millicharge ER results lead to some of the most stringent limits from laboratory experiments. This should be reworded to specify that the claim holds within the adopted atomic model and for the effective solar parameter, so that the headline statement tracks the caveat already given in the body of the paper.
  3. [II.C and III.A] The P4T results for sin^2θW and for the tau neutrino charge radius (Eqs. (14) and (20)-(23)) rely on the collaboration's combined US2-plus-paired likelihood, which the authors state cannot be reproduced from public information. This disclosure is commendable, but because the updated tau charge-radius global fit in Eq. (23) is presented as a main result, the non-reproducible component should be identified explicitly for each reported number, and the paper should state how the covariance between the integrated-count and spectral analyses is treated.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] Please fix the typographical errors, e.g., 'Lux-Zeplin' in Sec. II.C, 'yiedls' after Eq. (22), 'addiational' before Eq. (24), and 'interveening' in Sec. III.C.
  2. [II.C, Eq. (8)] σβ is introduced as a 7% flux uncertainty, but it is later inflated to 20% in Sec. III.B to absorb EPA systematics; the redefinition should be flagged at the point of first use to avoid confusion.
  3. [III.B, Eq. (30)] The logarithmic factor ln(Eν/mν) diverges as mν → 0, so the paper should quantify the dependence of the millicharge bounds on the assumed mν = 1 eV, including the fact that a smaller mass would increase the rate and hence strengthen the limits.
  4. [II.C] A release of the binned likelihoods and yield-conversion routines, or at least a table summarizing the binning and efficiencies used for XnT, P4T, and LZ, would make the spectral analyses independently checkable; the current reliance on collaboration releases and private conversions is a reproducibility bottleneck.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: all reported limits and fit parameters are outputs of chi-square fits to public data, and no fitted quantity is reused as a definitional input.

full rationale

The paper is a direct data-analysis and phenomenology study. Every claimed result — sin^2 theta_W, neutrino charge radii, magnetic moment, millicharge, NSI, and L_mu-L_tau mediator limits — is obtained by fitting Eqs. (8) and (9) to public electron-recoil and nuclear-recoil data from XENONnT, PandaX-4T, and LZ. The theoretical inputs (SM CEνNS and νES cross sections, solar fluxes, oscillation probabilities, PDG parameters, effective electron numbers, and the measured xenon photoelectric cross section) are external references or public data and are not defined in terms of the fitted quantities. The millicharge limit uses the equivalent-photon-approximation expression in Eq. (30); the charge q_nu is the free parameter being constrained, and the enlarged 20% systematic on the flux nuisance is an explicit modeling uncertainty, not a fitted input renamed as a prediction. Similarly, the magnetic-moment limit uses Eq. (25) and the charge-radius analysis uses Eq. (18); in each case the parameter of interest appears as the unknown in the likelihood, so no self-definitional loop is present. The paper contains numerous self-citations (e.g., Refs. [8,12,25,28,47,48,89,90]), but they are cited for earlier radiative-correction calculations, prior global fits, and earlier CEνNS combinations that are based on different datasets. The updated tau charge-radius result in Eq. (23) combines the present data with prior electron- and muon-flavor constraints from Ref. [12]; this is a statistical combination of previously obtained external numbers, not an assumption of the result being derived. No uniqueness argument is imported from the authors' prior work, and the EPA scheme is explicitly labelled as an approximation whose uncertainty the authors try to absorb rather than presenting it as an exact first-principles consequence. All of the robustness concerns raised by the skeptic — especially the sensitivity of the millicharge bound to the EPA atomic-response uncertainty — are legitimate modeling and systematic-error concerns, but they do not make the derivation circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's central outputs are constraints, not derivations of new constants. It imports standard cross sections, solar fluxes, nuclear form factors, atomic response functions, and collaboration background models, and it invents no new entities. The only hand-chosen inputs are the 20% EPA systematic and the 1 eV neutrino mass used in the millicharge cross section.

free parameters (4)
  • EPA systematic uncertainty inflation = σβ = 0.2 for millicharge fits
    In Sec. III.B, the paper enlarges the flux and background nuisance from 7% to 20% to account for additional uncertainties on the EPA approach. The value is an educated guess and directly widens the quoted millicharge limits.
  • Assumed neutrino mass in EPA millicharge cross section = mν = 1 eV
    Set conservatively to 1 eV in Eq. (30). The EPA cross section depends logarithmically on mν, so this input affects the millicharge limits.
  • Per-dataset background nuisance parameters α_i = profiled, with σ_α = 0.038 (LZ), 0.018 (XnT), 0.027 (P4T)
    Overall background normalizations in the ER chi-square of Eq. (8). Their priors come from collaboration estimates, and their posterior values shift the νES constraints.
  • Flux normalization nuisances β and η = profiled, σ = 7% for pp, 7Be, and 8B
    Used in Eqs. (8) and (9) to absorb solar flux uncertainties. The 7% value is applied conservatively even though the pp flux uncertainty is only 0.6%.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption SM CEνNS and νES cross sections with radiative corrections (Eqs. 1-5) from Refs. [7, 24, 8-11]
    The paper computes event rates using these standard cross sections and couplings; it does not derive them from first principles. Any BSM reinterpretation inherits these radiative-correction schemes.
  • domain assumption Solar neutrino fluxes and oscillation probabilities (Eq. 6) from Refs. [35, 41], with P_2ν ≈ 0.55
    The flux normalization and the ν_e survival probability set the absolute rate of νES and CEνNS events. The GS98 solar model is assumed when fitting sin²θ_W.
  • domain assumption Helm nuclear form factor and Xe proton/neutron radii from Refs. [17-22]
    Used in Eq. (2) for CEνNS. For solar 8B neutrinos the form factors are near unity, but the analysis relies on these external nuclear inputs for the remaining corrections.
  • domain assumption Atomic ionization factor Z_A^eff and, for millicharge, the EPA cross section with photoelectric σγ(Te) for Xe (Eq. 30) and mν = 1 eV
    The sub-keV νES rates and the millicharge enhancement are computed from these external atomic models. The EPA uncertainty is only partially covered by the inflated 20% systematic.
  • domain assumption Background models, efficiencies, and energy scales from XENONnT, PandaX-4T, and LZ public releases
    The fitted N_bkg^i values and the S1/S2-to-recoil-energy conversion are taken from collaboration publications. The paper states that the P4T paired-data joint likelihood cannot be reproduced.
  • standard math Poisson and Gaussian likelihood forms (Eqs. 8-9) with the given nuisance structure
    Standard least-squares and likelihood methods. The Gaussian treatment of NR bins with small counts is a conventional approximation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of When backgrounds become signals: neutrino interactions in xenon-based dark matter detectors." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/R5FNIG4O

@misc{pith2026250922178,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: When backgrounds become signals: neutrino interactions in xenon-based dark matter detectors},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/R5FNIG4O}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.22178}
}
abstract

Direct detection dark matter experiments have proven to be compelling probes for studying low-energy neutrino interactions with both nuclei and atomic electrons, offering complementary information to accelerator and reactor-based neutrino experiments. Recently, the XENONnT and PandaX-4T collaborations reported the first evidence of coherent elastic neutrino-nucleus scattering from $^8\mathrm{B}$ solar neutrinos. Thanks to their excellent background rejection capabilities and distinctive signal signatures, dual-phase time projection chambers are also sensitive to $pp$ solar neutrinos via their elastic scattering off atomic electrons in the target material. Although this signal is subdominant within the Standard Model, it becomes significantly enhanced in many beyond the Standard Model scenarios, offering a unique opportunity to probe new physics in the low-energy regime. In this work, we analyze the latest electron recoil and nuclear recoil data from XENONnT, PandaX-4T, and LUX-ZEPLIN to probe Standard Model and Beyond the Standard Model physics. While the precision of current neutrino measurements from such detectors remains lower than that achieved by dedicated neutrino experiments, their sensitivity to the tau neutrino component of solar neutrinos helps complete the overall picture, especially when investigating flavor-dependent new physics effects.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.22178 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (b), we show the result on the τ flavor from our analysis of solar CEνNS together with the result of the joint analysis of all the available data. By exploiting the precision on the µ and e flavors set by the other datasets, we can significantly improve the constraints on the τ flavor, finding a good agreement between data and theory, numerically corresponding to Data/SM (ντ ) < 2.5 at 1σ CL. Moreover, the current p… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Left: Solar neutrino flux normalization measurements at 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Left: Measurements of the weak mixing angle at low energy from solar neutrino data, both through ER and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Summary of existing limits at 90% CL on the neutrino magnetic moment (left) and neutrino millicharge [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Left: Constraints on flavor-preserving NSI at 90% CL from CE [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

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

  1. Invisible decay of solar neutrinos at dark matter experiments

    hep-ph 2026-07 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    Combining XENONnT, PandaX-4T, and LZ data gives the first CEνNS-based limit on invisible solar-neutrino decay, and a future xenon detector could beat dedicated solar experiments by 1 to 2 orders of magnitude.

  2. $\texttt{SNuDD}$: Solar Neutrinos for Direct Detection

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    SNuDD computes solar-neutrino recoil spectra with non-standard interactions and derives NSI limits from xenon direct-detection data that are competitive with dedicated neutrino experiments.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

106 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers

  1. [88]

    Chen, H.-C

    J.-W. Chen, H.-C. Chi, H.-B. Li, C. P. Liu, L. Singh, H. T. Wong, C.-L. Wu, and C.-P. Wu, Constraints on millicharged neutrinos via analysis of data from atomic ionizations with germanium detectors at sub-keV sensitivities, Phys. Rev. D90, 011301 (2014), arXiv:1405.7168 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2014

  2. [78]

    C. A. Ternes and M. T´ ortola, Neutrino magnetic moments: effective versus fundamental parameters, Nucl. Phys. B1019, 117107 (2025), arXiv:2505.02633 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  3. [1]

    Aprile et al

    E. Aprile et al. (XENON), The XENONnT dark matter experiment, Eur. Phys. J. C84, 784 (2024), arXiv:2402.10446 [physics.ins-det]

    arXiv 2024

  4. [2]

    Zhang et al

    H. Zhang et al. (PandaX), Dark matter direct search sensitivity of the PandaX-4T experiment, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron.62, 31011 (2019), arXiv:1806.02229 [physics.ins-det]

    arXiv 2019

  5. [3]

    D. S. Akerib et al. (LZ), The LUX-ZEPLIN (LZ) Experiment, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A953, 163047 (2020), arXiv:1910.09124 [physics.ins-det]

    arXiv 2020

  6. [4]

    Acerbi et al

    F. Acerbi et al. (DarkSide-20k), DarkSide-20k sensitivity to light dark matter particles, Commun. Phys.7, 422 (2024), arXiv:2407.05813 [hep-ex]. 12

    arXiv 2024

  7. [5]

    C. E. Aalseth et al. (DarkSide-20k), DarkSide-20k: A 20 tonne two-phase LAr TPC for direct dark matter detection at LNGS, Eur. Phys. J. Plus133, 131 (2018), arXiv:1707.08145 [physics.ins-det]

    arXiv 2018

  8. [6]

    Baudis, Dual-phase xenon time projection chambers for rare-event searches, Phil

    L. Baudis, Dual-phase xenon time projection chambers for rare-event searches, Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond. A 382, 20230083 (2023), arXiv:2311.05320 [physics.ins-det]

    arXiv 2023

Show all 106 references
  1. [7]

    Cadeddu, F

    M. Cadeddu, F. Dordei, and C. Giunti, A view of coherent elastic neutrino-nucleus scattering, EPL143, 34001 (2023), arXiv:2307.08842 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  2. [8]

    Atzori Corona, M

    M. Atzori Corona, M. Cadeddu, N. Cargioli, F. Dordei, and C. Giunti, Momentum dependent flavor radiative corrections to the coherent elastic neutrino-nucleus scattering for the neutrino charge-radius determination, JHEP05, 271, arXiv:2402.16709 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  3. [9]

    Atzori Corona, M

    M. Atzori Corona, M. Cadeddu, N. Cargioli, F. Dordei, C. Giunti, and G. Masia, Nuclear neutron radius and weak mixing angle measurements from latest COHERENT CsI and atomic parity violation Cs data, Eur. Phys. J. C83, 683 (2023), arXiv:2303.09360 [nucl-ex]

    2023 arXiv

  4. [10]

    Erler and S

    J. Erler and S. Su, The Weak Neutral Current, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.71, 119 (2013), arXiv:1303.5522 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  5. [11]

    S. e. a. Navas (Particle Data Group Collaboration), Review of particle physics, Phys. Rev. D110, 030001 (2024)

    2024

  6. [12]

    Atzori Corona, M

    M. Atzori Corona, M. Cadeddu, N. Cargioli, F. Dordei, C. Giunti, and C. A. Ternes, The Standard Model tested with neutrinos (2025), arXiv:2504.05272 [hep-ph]

    2025

  7. [13]

    Cadeddu, C

    M. Cadeddu, C. Giunti, K. A. Kouzakov, Y.-F. Li, Y.-Y. Zhang, and A. I. Studenikin, Neutrino Charge Radii From Coherent Elastic Neutrino-nucleus Scattering, Phys. Rev. D98, 113010 (2018), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 101, 059902 (2020)], arXiv:1810.05606 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  8. [14]

    Bernabeu, J

    J. Bernabeu, J. Papavassiliou, and J. Vidal, The Neutrino charge radius is a physical observable, Nucl. Phys. B680, 450 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0210055

    2004 arXiv

  9. [15]

    Bernabeu, J

    J. Bernabeu, J. Papavassiliou, and J. Vidal, On the observability of the neutrino charge radius, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 101802 (2002), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 89, 229902 (2002)], arXiv:hep-ph/0206015

    2002 arXiv

  10. [16]

    Berglund and M

    M. Berglund and M. E. Wieser, Isotopic compositions of the elements 2009 (iupac technical report), Pure and Applied Chemistry83, 397 (2011)

    2011

  11. [17]

    R. H. Helm, Inelastic and Elastic Scattering of 187-Mev Electrons from Selected Even-Even Nuclei, Phys. Rev. 104, 1466 (1956)

    1956

  12. [18]

    Fricke, C

    G. Fricke, C. Bernhardt, K. Heilig, L. A. Schaller, L. Schellenberg, E. B. Shera, and C. W. de Jager, Nuclear Ground State Charge Radii from Electromagnetic Interactions, Atom. Data Nucl. Data Tabl.60, 177 (1995)

    1995

  13. [19]

    Angeli and K

    I. Angeli and K. P. Marinova, Table of experimental nuclear ground state charge radii: An update, Atom. Data Nucl. Data Tabl.99, 69 (2013)

    2013

  14. [20]

    Fricke and K

    G. Fricke and K. Heilig, Nuclear charge radii 32ge germanium: Datasheet from landolt-bornstein - group i elementary particles, nuclei and atoms, volume 20 (2004), copyright 2004 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

    2004

  15. [21]

    Hoferichter, J

    M. Hoferichter, J. Men´ endez, and A. Schwenk, Coherent elastic neutrino-nucleus scattering: EFT analysis and nuclear responses, Phys. Rev. D102, 074018 (2020), arXiv:2007.08529 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  16. [22]

    Cadeddu, F

    M. Cadeddu, F. Dordei, C. Giunti, Y. F. Li, E. Picciau, and Y. Y. Zhang, Physics results from the first COHERENT observation of coherent elastic neutrino-nucleus scattering in argon and their combination with cesium-iodide data, Phys. Rev. D102, 015030 (2020), arXiv:2005.01645...

    2020 arXiv

  17. [23]

    Coloma, I

    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, JHEP05, 037, arXiv:2202.10829 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  18. [24]

    Giunti and A

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

    2015 arXiv

  19. [25]

    Atzori Corona, M

    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, JHEP09, 164, arXiv:2205.09484 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  20. [26]

    Chen, H.-C

    J.-W. Chen, H.-C. Chi, C.-P. Liu, and C.-P. Wu, Low-energy electronic recoil in xenon detectors by solar neutrinos, Physics Letters B774, 656 (2017)

    2017

  21. [27]

    K. A. Kouzakov and A. I. Studenikin, Theory of neutrino-atom collisions: the history, present status and BSM physics, Adv. High Energy Phys.2014, 569409 (2014), arXiv:1406.4999 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  22. [28]

    Atzori Corona, W

    M. Atzori Corona, W. M. Bonivento, M. Cadeddu, N. Cargioli, and F. Dordei, New constraint on neutrino magnetic moment and neutrino millicharge from LUX-ZEPLIN dark matter search results, Phys. Rev. D107, 053001 (2023), arXiv:2207.05036 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  23. [29]

    K. N. Huang and W. R. Johnson, Multiconfiguration relativistic random-phase approximation. theory, Phys. Rev. A25, 634 (1982)

    1982

  24. [30]

    Huang, Relativistic many-body theory of atomic transitions

    K.-N. Huang, Relativistic many-body theory of atomic transitions. the relativistic equation-of-motion approach, Phys. Rev. A26, 734 (1982). 13

    1982

  25. [31]

    Chen, H.-C

    J.-W. Chen, H.-C. Chi, K.-N. Huang, C. P. Liu, H.-T. Shiao, L. Singh, H. T. Wong, C.-L. Wu, and C.-P. Wu, Atomic ionization of germanium by neutrinos from an ab initio approach, Phys. Lett. B731, 159 (2014), arXiv:1311.5294 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  26. [32]

    Chen, H.-C

    J.-W. Chen, H.-C. Chi, K.-N. Huang, H.-B. Li, C. P. Liu, L. Singh, H. T. Wong, C.-L. Wu, and C.-P. Wu, Constraining neutrino electromagnetic properties by germanium detectors, Phys. Rev. D91, 013005 (2015), arXiv:1411.0574 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  27. [33]

    Hsieh, L

    C.-C. Hsieh, L. Singh, C.-P. Wu, J.-W. Chen, H.-C. Chi, C. P. Liu, M. K. Pandey, and H. T. Wong, Discovery potential of multiton xenon detectors in neutrino electromagnetic properties, Phys. Rev. D100, 073001 (2019), arXiv:1903.06085 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  28. [34]

    Agostini et al

    M. Agostini et al. (Borexino), Limiting neutrino magnetic moments with Borexino Phase-II solar neutrino data, Phys. Rev. D96, 091103 (2017), arXiv:1707.09355 [hep-ex]

    2017 arXiv

  29. [35]

    P. A. Zyla et al. (Particle Data Group), Review of Particle Physics, PTEP2020 and 2021 update, 083C01 (2020)

    2020

  30. [36]

    Aprile et al

    E. Aprile et al. (XENON), First Indication of Solar B8 Neutrinos via Coherent Elastic Neutrino-Nucleus Scat- tering with XENONnT, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 191002 (2024), arXiv:2408.02877 [nucl-ex]

    2024

  31. [38]

    Bo et al

    Z. Bo et al. (PandaX), First Indication of Solar B8 Neutrinos through Coherent Elastic Neutrino-Nucleus Scattering in PandaX-4T, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 191001 (2024), arXiv:2407.10892 [hep-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  32. [39]

    Zeng et al

    X. Zeng et al. (PandaX), Exploring New Physics with PandaX-4T Low Energy Electronic Recoil Data, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 041001 (2025), arXiv:2408.07641 [hep-ex]

    2025 arXiv

  33. [40]

    Aalbers et al

    J. Aalbers et al. (LZ), Dark Matter Search Results from 4.2 Tonne-Years of Exposure of the LUX-ZEPLIN (LZ) Experiment, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 011802 (2025), arXiv:2410.17036 [hep-ex]

    2025 arXiv

  34. [41]

    Vitagliano, I

    E. Vitagliano, I. Tamborra, and G. Raffelt, Grand Unified Neutrino Spectrum at Earth: Sources and Spectral Components, Rev. Mod. Phys.92, 45006 (2020), arXiv:1910.11878 [astro-ph.HE]

    2020 arXiv

  35. [42]

    Baker and R

    S. Baker and R. D. Cousins, Clarification of the Use of Chi Square and Likelihood Functions in Fits to His- tograms, Nucl. Instrum. Meth.221, 437 (1984)

    1984

  36. [43]

    Serenelli, Alive and well: a short review about standard solar models, Eur

    A. Serenelli, Alive and well: a short review about standard solar models, Eur. Phys. J. A52, 78 (2016), arXiv:1601.07179 [astro-ph.SR]

    2016 arXiv

  37. [44]

    Agostini et al

    M. Agostini et al. (Borexino), Improved measurement of 8B solar neutrinos with 1.5ktyof Borexino exposure, Phys. Rev. D101, 062001 (2020), arXiv:1709.00756 [hep-ex]

    2020 arXiv

  38. [45]

    De Romeri, D

    V. De Romeri, D. K. Papoulias, and C. A. Ternes, Bounds on new neutrino interactions from the first CEνNS data at direct detection experiments, JCAP05, 012, arXiv:2411.11749 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  39. [46]

    De Romeri, D

    V. De Romeri, D. K. Papoulias, G. Sanchez Garcia, C. A. Ternes, and M. T´ ortola, Neutrino electromagnetic properties and sterile dipole portal in light of the first solar CEνNS data (2024), arXiv:2412.14991 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  40. [47]

    Atzori Corona, M

    M. Atzori Corona, M. Cadeddu, N. Cargioli, G. Co’, F. Dordei, and C. Giunti, Joint analysis of reactor and accelerator CEνNS data on germanium: implications for the Standard Model and nuclear physics (2025), arXiv:2506.13555 [hep-ph]

    2025

  41. [48]

    Atzori Corona, M

    M. Atzori Corona, M. Cadeddu, N. Cargioli, F. Dordei, and C. Giunti, Reactor antineutrinos CEνNS on germanium: CONUS+ and TEXONO as a new gateway to SM and BSM physics, Phys. Rev. D112, 015007 (2025), arXiv:2501.18550 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  42. [49]

    Aharmim et al

    B. Aharmim et al. (SNO), A Search for Neutrinos from the Solar hep Reaction and the Diffuse Supernova Neutrino Background with the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory, Astrophys. J.653, 1545 (2006), arXiv:hep- ex/0607010

    2006

  43. [50]

    Safronova, D

    M. Safronova, D. Budker, D. DeMille, D. F. J. Kimball, A. Derevianko, and C. W. Clark, Search for new physics with atoms and molecules, Reviews of Modern Physics90, 10.1103/revmodphys.90.025008 (2018)

    2018 doi

  44. [51]

    Cadeddu, N

    M. Cadeddu, N. Cargioli, F. Dordei, C. Giunti, and E. Picciau, Muon and electron g-2 and proton and cesium weak charges implications on dark Zd models, Phys. Rev. D104, 011701 (2021), arXiv:2104.03280 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  45. [52]

    M. A. Corona, M. Cadeddu, N. Cargioli, P. Finelli, and M. Vorabbi, Incorporating the weak mixing angle dependence to reconcile the neutron skin measurement on Pb208 by PREX-II, Phys. Rev. C105, 055503 (2022), arXiv:2112.09717 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  46. [53]

    Cadeddu, N

    M. Cadeddu, N. Cargioli, J. Erler, M. Gorchtein, J. Piekarewicz, X. Roca-Maza, and H. Spiesberger, Simul- taneous extraction of the weak radius and the weak mixing angle from parity-violating electron scattering on C12, Phys. Rev. C110, 035501 (2024), arXiv:2407.09743 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  47. [54]

    C. S. W. et al, Measurement of parity nonconservation and an anapole moment in cesium, Science275, 1759 (1997), https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.275.5307.1759

    1997

  48. [55]

    V. A. Dzuba, J. C. Berengut, V. V. Flambaum, and B. Roberts, Revisiting parity non-conservation in cesium, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 203003 (2012), arXiv:1207.5864 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  49. [56]

    Androic et al

    D. Androic et al. (Qweak), Precision measurement of the weak charge of the proton, Nature557, 207 (2018). 14

    2018

  50. [57]

    P. L. Anthony et al. (SLAC E158), Precision measurement of the weak mixing angle in Moller scattering, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 081601 (2005), hep-ex/0504049 [hep-ex]

    2005 arXiv

  51. [58]

    T. N. Maity and C. Boehm, First measurement of the weak mixing angle in direct detection experiments (2024), arXiv:2409.04385 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  52. [59]

    Giunti and C

    C. Giunti and C. A. Ternes, Testing neutrino electromagnetic properties at current and future dark matter experiments, Phys. Rev. D108, 095044 (2023), arXiv:2309.17380 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  53. [60]

    Giunti, K

    C. Giunti, K. Kouzakov, Y.-F. Li, and A. Studenikin, Neutrino Electromagnetic Properties (2024), arXiv:2411.03122 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  54. [61]

    Bernabeu, L

    J. Bernabeu, L. G. Cabral-Rosetti, J. Papavassiliou, and J. Vidal, On the charge radius of the neutrino, Phys. Rev. D62, 113012 (2000), arXiv:hep-ph/0008114

    2000 arXiv

  55. [62]

    K. A. Kouzakov and A. I. Studenikin, Electromagnetic properties of massive neutrinos in low-energy elas- tic neutrino-electron scattering, Phys. Rev. D95, 055013 (2017), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 96, 099904 (2017)], arXiv:1703.00401 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  56. [63]

    Akimov et al., Measurement of the Coherent Elastic Neutrino-Nucleus Scattering Cross Section on CsI by COHERENT (2021), arXiv:2110.07730 [hep-ex]

    D. Akimov et al., Measurement of the Coherent Elastic Neutrino-Nucleus Scattering Cross Section on CsI by COHERENT (2021), arXiv:2110.07730 [hep-ex]

    2021 arXiv

  57. [64]

    Akimov et al

    D. Akimov et al. (COHERENT), First Measurement of Coherent Elastic Neutrino-Nucleus Scattering on Argon, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 012002 (2021), arXiv:2003.10630 [nucl-ex]

    2021 arXiv

  58. [65]

    Akimov et al

    D. Akimov et al. (COHERENT), COHERENT Collaboration data release from the first detection of coherent elastic neutrino-nucleus scattering on argon (2020), arXiv:2006.12659 [nucl-ex]

    2020 arXiv

  59. [66]

    Ackermann et al., First observation of reactor antineutrinos by coherent scattering (2025), arXiv:2501.05206 [hep-ex]

    N. Ackermann et al., First observation of reactor antineutrinos by coherent scattering (2025), arXiv:2501.05206 [hep-ex]

    2025 arXiv

  60. [67]

    Karmakar et al

    S. Karmakar et al. (TEXONO), New Limits on the Coherent Neutrino-Nucleus Elastic Scattering Cross Section at the Kuo-Sheng Reactor-Neutrino Laboratory, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 121802 (2025), arXiv:2411.18812 [nucl- ex]

    2025

  61. [68]

    Belov et al

    V. Belov et al. (nuGeN), New constraints on coherent elastic neutrino-nucleus scattering by the nuGeN exper- iment (2025), arXiv:2502.18502 [hep-ex]

    2025 arXiv

  62. [69]

    Deniz et al

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

    2010 arXiv

  63. [70]

    L. B. Auerbach et al. (LSND), Measurement of electron - neutrino - electron elastic scattering, Phys. Rev. D 63, 112001 (2001), arXiv:hep-ex/0101039

    2001 arXiv

  64. [71]

    R. C. Allen, H. H. Chen, P. J. Doe, R. Hausammann, W. P. Lee, X. Q. Lu, H. J. Mahler, M. E. Potter, K. C. Wang, T. J. Bowles, R. L. Burman, R. D. Carlini, D. R. F. Cochran, J. S. Frank, E. Piasetzky, V. D. Sandberg, D. A. Krakauer, and R. L. Talaga, Study of electron-neutrino—...

    1993

  65. [72]

    Ahrens, S

    L. Ahrens, S. Aronson, P. Connolly, B. Gibbard, M. Murtagh, et al., Determination of electroweak parameters from the elastic scattering of muon-neutrinos and anti-neutrinos on electrons, Phys. Rev.D41, 3297 (1990)

    1990

  66. [73]

    Vilain et al

    P. Vilain et al. (CHARM-II), Measurement of differential cross-sections for muon-neutrino electron scattering, Phys. Lett. B302, 351 (1993)

    1993

  67. [74]

    Vilain et al

    P. Vilain et al. (CHARM-II), Precision measurement of electroweak parameters from the scattering of muon- neutrinos on electrons, Phys. Lett. B335, 246 (1994)

    1994

  68. [75]

    Vilain et al

    P. Vilain et al. (CHARM-II), Experimental study of electromagnetic properties of the muon-neutrino in neutrino - electron scattering, Phys. Lett. B345, 115 (1995)

    1995

  69. [76]

    K. S. McFarland et al. (CCFR, E744, E770), A Precision measurement of electroweak parameters in neutrino - nucleon scattering, Eur. Phys. J. C1, 509 (1998), arXiv:hep-ex/9701010

    1998 arXiv

  70. [77]

    Giunti, K

    C. Giunti, K. A. Kouzakov, Y.-F. Li, A. V. Lokhov, A. I. Studenikin, et al., Electromagnetic neutrinos in terrestrial experiments and astrophysics, Annalen Phys.528, 198 (2016), arXiv:1506.05387 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  71. [79]

    A. Beda, V. Brudanin, V. Egorov, D. Medvedev, V. Pogosov, et al., The results of search for the neutrino magnetic moment in GEMMA experiment, Adv.High Energy Phys.2012, 350150 (2012)

    2012

  72. [80]

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

    2007 arXiv

  73. [81]

    D. W. Liu et al. (Super-Kamiokande), Limits on the neutrino magnetic moment using 1496 days of Super- Kamiokande-I solar neutrino data, Phys. Rev. Lett.93, 021802 (2004), arXiv:hep-ex/0402015

    2004 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Daraktchieva et al

    Z. Daraktchieva et al. (MUNU), Final results on the neutrino magnetic moment from the MUNU experiment, Phys. Lett. B615, 153 (2005), arXiv:hep-ex/0502037

    2005 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Abe et al

    K. Abe et al. (XMASS), Search for exotic neutrino-electron interactions using solar neutrinos in XMASS-I, Phys. Lett. B809, 135741 (2020), arXiv:2005.11891 [hep-ex]. 15

    2020 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Navas et al

    S. Navas et al. (Particle Data Group), Review of particle physics, Phys. Rev. D110, 030001 (2024)

    2024

  77. [85]

    Bonet et al

    H. Bonet et al. (CONUS), First upper limits on neutrino electromagnetic properties from the CONUS experi- ment, Eur. Phys. J. C82, 813 (2022), arXiv:2201.12257 [hep-ex]

    2022 arXiv

  78. [86]

    Aprile et al

    E. Aprile et al. ((XENON Collaboration), XENON), Search for New Physics in Electronic Recoil Data from XENONnT, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 161805 (2022), arXiv:2207.11330 [hep-ex]

    2022 arXiv

  79. [87]

    Henke, E

    B. Henke, E. Gullikson, and J. Davis, X-ray interactions: Photoabsorption, scattering, transmission, and re- flection at e = 50-30,000 ev, z = 1-92, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables54, 181 (1993)

    1993

  80. [89]

    Cadeddu, N

    M. Cadeddu, N. Cargioli, F. Dordei, C. Giunti, Y. F. Li, E. Picciau, and Y. Y. Zhang, Constraints on light vector mediators through coherent elastic neutrino nucleus scattering data from COHERENT, JHEP01, 116, arXiv:2008.05022 [hep-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  81. [90]

    Atzori Corona, M

    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, JHEP05, 109, arXiv:2202.11002 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  82. [91]

    Giunti, General COHERENT constraints on neutrino nonstandard interactions, Phys

    C. Giunti, General COHERENT constraints on neutrino nonstandard interactions, Phys. Rev. D101, 035039 (2020), arXiv:1909.00466 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  83. [92]

    A. M. Suliga and I. Tamborra, Astrophysical constraints on nonstandard coherent neutrino-nucleus scattering, Phys. Rev. D103, 083002 (2021), arXiv:2010.14545 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  84. [93]

    A. R. Beatty, A. M. Suliga, and V. Takhistov, Oscillation-Independent Probes of Neutrino Non-Standard Interactions from Supernovae (2025), arXiv:2509.07856 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  85. [94]

    Atzori Corona, M

    M. Atzori Corona, M. Cadeddu, N. Cargioli, F. Dordei, C. Giunti, and R. Pavarani, Toward precision physics tests with future COHERENT detectors (2025), arXiv:2509.04205 [physics.ins-det]

    2025

  86. [95]

    J. P. Lees et al. (BaBar), Search for a muonic dark force at BABAR, Phys. Rev. D94, 011102 (2016), arXiv:1606.03501 [hep-ex]

    2016 arXiv

  87. [96]

    S. R. Mishra et al. (CCFR), Neutrino tridents and W Z interference, Phys. Rev. Lett.66, 3117 (1991)

    1991

  88. [97]

    Altmannshofer, S

    W. Altmannshofer, S. Gori, M. Pospelov, and I. Yavin, Neutrino Trident Production: A Powerful Probe of New Physics with Neutrino Beams, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 091801 (2014), arXiv:1406.2332 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  89. [98]

    D. P. Aguillard et al. (Muon g-2), Measurement of the Positive Muon Anomalous Magnetic Moment to 127 ppb (2025), arXiv:2506.03069 [hep-ex]

    2025

  90. [99]

    Aliberti et al., The anomalous magnetic moment of the muon in the Standard Model: an update (2025), arXiv:2505.21476 [hep-ph]

    R. Aliberti et al., The anomalous magnetic moment of the muon in the Standard Model: an update (2025), arXiv:2505.21476 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  91. [100]

    De Romeri, D

    V. De Romeri, D. K. Papoulias, and C. A. Ternes, Light vector mediators at direct detection experiments, JHEP05, 165, arXiv:2402.05506 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  92. [101]

    Demirci and M

    M. Demirci and M. F. Mustamin, Probing light mediators with recent PandaX-4T low-energy electron recoil data, Phys. Rev. D111, 055032 (2025), arXiv:2502.20026 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  93. [102]

    D. K. Ghosh, P. Ghosh, S. Jeesun, and R. Srivastava, Neff at CMB challenges U(1)X light gauge boson scenarios, Phys. Rev. D110, 075032 (2024), arXiv:2404.10077 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  94. [103]

    Banerjee, B

    H. Banerjee, B. Dutta, and S. Roy, Probing Lµ-Lτmodels with CEνNS: A new look at the combined COHER- ENT CsI and Ar data, Phys. Rev. D104, 015015 (2021), arXiv:2103.10196 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  95. [104]

    Altmannshofer, S

    W. Altmannshofer, S. Gori, J. Mart´ ın-Albo, A. Sousa, and M. Wallbank, Neutrino Tridents at DUNE, Phys. Rev. D100, 115029 (2019), arXiv:1902.06765 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  96. [105]

    Bertuzzo, G

    E. Bertuzzo, G. Grilli di Cortona, and L. M. D. Ramos, Probing light vector mediators with coherent scattering at future facilities, JHEP06, 075, arXiv:2112.04020 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  97. [106]

    Aoyama et al., The anomalous magnetic moment of the muon in the Standard Model, Phys

    T. Aoyama et al., The anomalous magnetic moment of the muon in the Standard Model, Phys. Rept.887, 1 (2020), arXiv:2006.04822 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  98. [107]

    S. J. Brodsky and E. De Rafael, SUGGESTED BOSON - LEPTON PAIR COUPLINGS AND THE ANOMA- LOUS MAGNETIC MOMENT OF THE MUON, Phys. Rev.168, 1620 (1968). 16

    1968

Pith tools

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