Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 85 references

Neutrino Constraints on Scalar-Tensor Gravity

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Neutrino data exclude a previously untested region of the Symmetron scalar-tensor model.

desk verdict Solid, moderately novel neutrino-frame derivation that yields a genuine Symmetron exclusion; the stress-test's main objection is a misfire, but the deferred IceCube analysis and the paper's own thin-shell caveat are the real soft points. read the letter →

arxiv 2512.13798 v2 pith:RJOCWJ6Q submitted 2025-12-15 hep-ph astro-ph.COgr-qc

Arturo de Giorgi , Ivan Martinez Soler , Sergio Sevillano Muñoz This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phastro-ph.COgr-qc PACS 04.50.Kd14.60.Pq
keywords scalar-tensorgravityneutrinooscillationsmass-varyingneutrinossymmetronchameleonsupernovatimedelayatmosphericscreeningmechanisms
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

Scalar–tensor theories of gravity predict that a background scalar field shifts Standard Model masses with the local density. Because neutrinos can cross dense matter and travel galactic distances, they are uniquely placed to feel this effect. This paper derives how a density-dependent rescaling A(φ) changes neutrino oscillation phases and time-of-flight, then uses atmospheric-neutrino oscillation data and the 1987 supernova neutrino burst to set new limits. It finds that Earth-crossing oscillations exclude a region of the Symmetron model around M_s ≈ 10^4 GeV, while current supernova timing is weaker but a future nearby supernova could reach inside the theory's valid region. If correct, neutrino observatories become a new, complementary probe of screened modified gravity.

What carries the argument

The central object is the coupling/conformal factor A(φ) that rescales all Jordan-frame masses, expressed in an effective parametrization A(φ)=1+α_n[(ρ/ρ0)^n − 1]. The load-bearing identity is that both the neutrino oscillation phase ∫A(r)^2 H(r) dr and the supernova time delay ∫A(r)^2 dr are integrals of the square of this factor along the trajectory, together with the frame-invariant conserved quantity K_ST = g00 p0. This uniform A(r)^2 scaling is what lets two different observables — flavour oscillations in Earth and arrival-time delays from a supernova — constrain the same parameter combinations, and why adiabatic propagation in the Sun or a supernova shows no effect while non-adiabatic

What would settle it

Solve the full Klein–Gordon equation for the Symmetron profile inside the Earth at the excluded parameters (M_s~10^4 GeV, μ~meV). If the field does not track the local density and the thin-shell condition fails, the A(r)^2 rescaling disappears and the excluded region evaporates; if the profile confirms the tracking assumption, the exclusion stands.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the same background scalar field that mediates screened fifth forces also rescales particle masses by A(φ), and that neutrinos — because they pass through dense media and travel astrophysical distances — can observe the resulting spacetime variations. In the Jordan frame, the neutrino oscillation phase acquires an overall factor A(r)^2, rescaling the effective oscillation length but leaving mixing angles intact under adiabatic propagation; the supernova time delay is likewise multiplied by the path integral of A(r)^2. The authors show, from atmospheric-neutrino oscillation data with the effective parametrization A(φ)=1+α_n[(ρ/ρ0)^n − 1], that there is no pre

Load-bearing premise

The constraints assume the scalar field instantly follows the local matter density (A(φ)=A(ρ(r))), so they hold only when the scalar forms a thin shell around Earth and its core; a full treatment would solve the Klein–Gordon equation for the field profile.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Atmospheric neutrino oscillation experiments can place leading constraints on quadratic scalar-field couplings (Symmetron) that laboratory fifth-force searches cannot easily reach.
  • A future Galactic supernova could lower the bound on the effective mass rescaling A_∞ to ~0.06 eV, reaching inside the theory's EFT-valid region.
  • The same A(r)^2 scaling applies to any dense medium; longer-baseline or high-statistics neutrino measurements through the Earth's core should sharpen the excluded region.
  • The parametrization covers any screening model with a density-power-law A(φ); constraints can be mapped to steeper potentials such as φ^{2n}.
  • Neutrino time delays become a probe of the integrated dark-matter density along the line of sight, not just of the theory's coupling.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same mass-rescaling mechanism would affect cosmic-ray propagation or dark-matter annihilation signals in dense regions; neutrino telescopes might therefore be used to map density profiles of dark-matter halos.
  • If a future measurement of the atmospheric L/E spectrum finds the first oscillation minimum shifted exactly as predicted by the A(r)^2 factor, it would confirm the density-tracking assumption; conversely, a null result would weaken the claimed exclusion.
  • The argument that the seismically inferred density is the Jordan-frame one hinges on the bulk modulus scaling as the fourth power of the electron mass; a different scaling would alter the calibration of ρ0 and shift the excluded region.
  • The constraints depend on the dark-matter halo model; if the Milky Way's halo is clumpy rather than smooth, the time-delay bound could strengthen considerably.
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 derives new constraints on scalar–tensor (ST) theories from neutrino physics. It argues that a spatial background scalar field φ, through a conformal factor A(φ), makes neutrino masses and matter potentials position-dependent. The central observables are the flavour-oscillation phase for atmospheric neutrinos crossing the Earth (Eqs. (7)/(58)) and the supernova time delay (Eq. (11)). Using an effective power-law parametrisation A(ρ) (Eq. (6)) and IceCube DeepCore data, the authors exclude part of the Symmetron parameter space around M_s ~ 10^4 GeV (Fig. 2), while SN1987A time delays give subdominant bounds. The Supplemental Material derives the conserved quantity K_ST and the phase in a frame-invariant way.

Significance. If correct, the bounds would provide a genuinely new probe of scalar–tensor theories: neutrinos traverse dense regions (Earth) and long baselines (supernova), complementing laboratory and solar-system tests. The derivation of the oscillation phase from K_ST and the frame-invariance argument in the Supplemental Material are physically coherent and a clear strength. The paper also performs a real data analysis (IceCube DeepCore) rather than a purely illustrative estimate, and the SN1987A time-delay bound is straightforwardly falsifiable. However, the central exclusion regions depend on an approximation that the paper itself flags, and the Symmetron mapping contains an internal inconsistency. These issues must be resolved before the bounds can be considered established.

major comments (3)
  1. [SYMMETRON AND CHAMELEON, after Eq. (15)] The paper states that A(φ) was assumed to follow the local density exactly, and that the constraints apply when the scalar forms a thin shell around Earth and its core (10^-10 < m_φ/eV < 10^3). This is internally inconsistent. In the thin-shell regime the field is pinned to its density-dependent minimum in the interior and varies only in a thin surface layer, so A(r) is piecewise approximately constant along an atmospheric neutrino trajectory, not the smooth density-following function used in Eq. (6) and the phase integral Eq. (58). For the Symmetron, A_s=1 for ρ>ρ_crit and A_s≈1+const for ρ<ρ_crit (Eq. (14)), so the density-dependent distortion shown in Fig. 4 and the resulting IceCube exclusions in Figs. 1–2 do not follow from the stated validity regime. A full Klein–Gordon profile calculation is needed to support the quoted bounds.
  2. [Eqs. (6) and (15)] The Symmetron is matched by setting α_{s,0}=μ^2/(2λM_s^2) with index n=0. However, the effective parametrization Eq. (6) is A≈1+α_n[(ρ/ρ0)^n − (ρ0/ρ0)^n]; for n=0 the bracket vanishes identically, so the density-dependent term is zero. The Symmetron conformal factor in the unscreened regime (Eq. (14)) is linear in ρ, A_s≈1+μ^2(1−ρ/ρ_crit)/(2λM_s^2), which should be matched with n=1 after normalizing at Earth’s surface. As written, the mapping cannot generate the claimed Symmetron exclusion region in Fig. 2(a). Please clarify or correct the index.
  3. [Section 'ANALYSIS', Eq. (9)] The derivation of the effective density accessible via seismic measurements relies on the estimate B∝m_e^4. The authors themselves note that no general analytical formula for B exists. Since the matter potential V_CC and the oscillation phase depend on the inferred density, a different scaling of B with m_e would alter the constraints. The sensitivity of the IceCube bound to this assumption should be quantified, or the derivation should be made more rigorous.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Main text vs Supplemental Material] The main text states 'We analysed eight years of IceCube DeepCore data [79]', while the Supplemental Material and Fig. 5 refer to 9.3 years of data and Ref. [93]. The dataset used for the main bound should be specified consistently.
  2. [Eq. (6)] The notation ρ0(x)/g/cm^3 is confusing. Clarify that densities are in units of g/cm^3 and that ρ0 is the Earth-surface density, a constant.
  3. [Eqs. (28) and (39)] Several equations contain garbled symbols (e.g., '⌟roo⟪...') in the typeset version; these should be cleaned up.
  4. [Introduction] The word 'unicum' is non-standard; consider 'unique' or 'singular'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the neutrino observables are derived from geodesic motion and the conserved quantity K_ST, then compared with external data; the main caveat is the local-density approximation, which is a validity limit, not a circular step.

full rationale

I walked the derivation chain. The oscillation phase (Eqs. 7 and 58) is derived from the conserved quantity K_ST (Eq. 30) and the geodesic equations, and the supernova time delay (Eq. 11) follows from the same conserved quantity. The effective parameter alpha_n is fitted to external IceCube DeepCore data, and the resulting bound is then recast onto Symmetron and Chameleon parameters via Eqs. (13)-(15). There is no step where the target bound is assumed as an input: the oscillation phase is not set equal to the fitted contour, and the time-delay exclusion (Eq. 12) merely compares the derived mass shift to the independently measured sensitivity M_lim. The self-citations ([46], [47]) concern standard conformal-frame mass rescaling and are not load-bearing for the new constraints. The paper explicitly flags its main limitation: 'Note that we assumed A(phi) to follow the local density exactly, whereas a full scalar-tensor treatment requires solving the Klein-Gordon equation for the field profile.' This is a validity/correctness caveat about the thin-shell regime, not a circularity, because the observable expressions do not reduce to the fitted quantity by construction. The work is self-contained against external benchmarks (PREM, IceCube, SN1987A, KATRIN), so the circularity score remains low.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim depends on three real assumptions: the local-density approximation for A, the m_e^4 scaling of bulk modulus, and the choice of density profile (PREM for Earth, homogeneous average for SN1987A). The effective parameters (α_n, n) are the quantities being constrained, not fixed inputs. No new entities are introduced. This is a modest axiom budget for a pheno bounds paper, but the local-density approximation is the weakest element because the paper explicitly restricts its validity to thin-shell configurations.

free parameters (2)
  • α_n (effective conformal coupling amplitude) = constrained (excluded regions in Fig. 2)
    Introduced in Eq. (6) as the coefficient of the density-dependent expansion A(φ) ≈ 1 + α_n (ρ/ρ0)^n. The bounds are quoted on this parameter, so it is the variable being constrained, not a fixed free input. Its mapping to Symmetron α_s = μ²/(2λ M_s²) and Chameleon α_c = (n Λ^{4+n}/M_c^n)^{1/(n+1)} (Eq. 15) is the bridge to model parameters.
  • index n in the effective parametrization = constrained; n set to −0.5 for the illustrative ST curves
    Eq. (6) defines the density-power index n as model-dependent. The figures use n = −0.5 as a representative value rather than scanning the full n range; the claimed bounds are therefore shown for a specific choice of n.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The scalar field profile is approximated as A(φ) = A(ρ(x)) following the local density exactly, without solving the Klein–Gordon equation.
    Stated explicitly in the Chameleon/Symmetron section: 'we assumed A(φ) to follow the local density exactly, whereas a full scalar-tensor treatment requires solving the Klein–Gordon equation for the field profile.' This is the main modeling assumption used to produce the excluded regions.
  • domain assumption The bulk modulus of terrestrial material scales as B ∝ m_e^4 (Eq. 9).
    The authors explicitly call this an estimation: 'an estimation of its scaling with microscopic parameters can be obtained using the following argument'. The conclusion ρ_eff = ρ_E A^{-4} = ρ_J (Eq. 10) depends on this scaling.
  • domain assumption PREM density is used as the dark-matter density driving the background scalar field.
    The paper sets ρ0 = 2.6 g/cm^3 from the PREM outermost layer and uses PREM densities for the Earth trajectory. This assumes the scalar couples to baryonic matter density as a proxy for the full matter density that sources A(φ).
  • domain assumption The supernova line-of-sight density is the average matter density (baryons + dark matter), modeled as a homogeneous fluid.
    Footnote 88: 'In our analysis, we model dark matter as a homogeneous fluid.' The authors note that compact-object dark matter would change the constraints significantly, so the SN1987A bound depends on this choice.
invented entities (1)
  • No fundamentally new entity is postulated.
    purpose: The paper works with existing scalar–tensor fields (Symmetron, Chameleon) and their effective parametrization.
    No new particle, force, or conserved quantity is introduced beyond the standard scalar-tensor framework. The paper invents no new entity, only a new observable probe.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Neutrino Constraints on Scalar-Tensor Gravity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RJOCWJ6Q

@misc{pith2026251213798,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Neutrino Constraints on Scalar-Tensor Gravity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RJOCWJ6Q}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2512.13798}
}
read the original abstract

In this work, we derive novel constraints on scalar-tensor theories from neutrino physics. Spatial variations of the background scalar field effectively generate density and position-dependent Standard Model masses, including neutrinos. Neutrinos are a unicum in the SM due to their ability both to propagate over galactic distances and to traverse dense media such as Earth. This makes them an ideal probe of the background scalar field, which can in turn alter flavour oscillations and supernova time delays. As we enter the era of precision neutrino physics, we are compelled to explore such a scenario. We derive expressions for the relevant observables and obtain new bounds on a broad class of scalar-tensor models. We finally map the bounds to popular screening mechanisms models, such as the Symmetron and Chameleon.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.13798 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Summary of the region excluded in this work [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Constraints at 95% C.L. on the parameters of the Symmetron and of the Chameleon. EFT limits are [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Earth density profile. In this figure, we com [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Muon survival probability (P(νµ → νµ)). We calculate the probability that muon neutrinos survive after crossing the Earth, for both the standard scenario (right) and the ST case with parameters n = −0.5 and α = 0.5 (left). 101 102 103 L/E [Km/GeV] 0 200 400 600 800 100…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Event distribution. We present data corresponding to 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

85 extracted references · 66 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Fujii and K

    Y. Fujii and K. ichi Maeda,The scalar-tensor theory of gravitation, Classical and Quantum Gravity20(oct,

  2. [2]

    Clifton, P

    T. Clifton, P. G. Ferreira, A. Padilla, and C. Skordis, Modified Gravity and Cosmology, Phys. Rept.513 (2012) 1–189, [arXiv:1106.2476]

    arXiv 2012

  3. [3]

    Herranen, T

    M. Herranen, T. Markkanen, S. Nurmi, and A. Rajantie,Spacetime curvature and the Higgs stability during inflation, Phys. Rev. Lett.113(2014), no. 21 211102, [arXiv:1407.3141]

    arXiv 2014

  4. [4]

    Markkanen, S

    T. Markkanen, S. Nurmi, A. Rajantie, and S. Stopyra, The 1-loop effective potential for the Standard Model in curved spacetime, JHEP06(2018) 040, [arXiv:1804.02020]

    arXiv 2018

  5. [5]

    C. F. Steinwachs and A. Y. Kamenshchik,One-loop divergences for gravity non-minimally coupled to a multiplet of scalar fields: calculation in the Jordan frame. I. The main results, Phys. Rev. D84(2011) 024026, [arXiv:1101.5047]

    arXiv 2011

  6. [6]

    Cicoli, J

    M. Cicoli, J. P. Conlon, A. Maharana, S. Parameswaran, F. Quevedo, and I. Zavala,String Cosmology: from the Early Universe to Today,arXiv:2303.04819

    arXiv

  7. [7]

    Smith, P

    A. Smith, P. Brax, C. van de Bruck, C. P. Burgess, and A.-C. Davis,Screened axio-dilaton cosmology: novel forms of early dark energy, Eur. Phys. J. C85(2025), no. 9 1062, [arXiv:2505.05450]

    arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    Sakstein and M

    J. Sakstein and M. Trodden,Early Dark Energy from Massive Neutrinos as a Natural Resolution of the Hubble Tension, Phys. Rev. Lett.124(2020), no. 16 161301, [arXiv:1911.11760]

    arXiv 2020

Show all 85 references
  1. [9]

    Di Valentino, O

    E. Di Valentino, O. Mena, S. Pan, L. Visinelli, W. Yang, A. Melchiorri, D. F. Mota, A. G. Riess, and J. Silk,In the realm of the Hubble tension—a review of solutions, Class. Quant. Grav.38(2021), no. 15 153001, [arXiv:2103.01183]

    2021 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Khoury, M.-X

    J. Khoury, M.-X. Lin, and M. Trodden,Apparent w<-1 and a Lower S8 from Dark Axion and Dark Baryons Interactions, Phys. Rev. Lett.135(2025), no. 18 181001, [arXiv:2503.16415]

    2025

  3. [11]

    S´ anchez L´ opez, A

    S. S´ anchez L´ opez, A. Karam, and D. K. Hazra, Non-Minimally Coupled Quintessence in Light of DESI, arXiv:2510.14941

  4. [12]

    Ballardini, M

    M. Ballardini, M. Braglia, F. Finelli, D. Paoletti, A. A. Starobinsky, and C. Umilt` a,Scalar-tensor theories of gravity, neutrino physics, and theH 0 tension, JCAP10 (2020) 044, [arXiv:2004.14349]

    2020 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Smith, E

    A. Smith, E. ¨Oz¨ ulker, E. Di Valentino, and C. van de Bruck,Dynamical Dark Energy Meets Varying Electron Mass: Implications for Phantom Crossing and the Hubble Constant,arXiv:2510.21931

  6. [14]

    Brans and R

    C. Brans and R. H. Dicke,Mach’s principle and a relativistic theory of gravitation, Phys. Rev.124(1961) 925–935

    1961

  7. [15]

    Avilez and C

    A. Avilez and C. Skordis,Cosmological constraints on Brans-Dicke theory, Phys. Rev. Lett.113(2014), no. 1 011101, [arXiv:1303.4330]

    2014 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Damour and G

    T. Damour and G. Esposito-Farese,Tensor multiscalar theories of gravitation, Class. Quant. Grav.9(1992) 2093–2176

    1992

  9. [17]

    Cardoso, I

    V. Cardoso, I. P. Carucci, P. Pani, and T. P. Sotiriou, Matter around Kerr black holes in scalar-tensor theories: scalarization and superradiant instability, Phys. Rev. D88(2013) 044056, [arXiv:1305.6936]

    2013 arXiv

  10. [18]

    D. D. Doneva, F. M. Ramazano˘ glu, H. O. Silva, T. P. Sotiriou, and S. S. Yazadjiev,Scalarization, 2022

    2022

  11. [19]

    Fischer, C

    H. Fischer, C. K¨ ading, and M. Pitschmann,Screened Scalar Fields in the Laboratory and the Solar System, Universe10(2024) 297, [arXiv:2405.14638]

    2024 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Baeßler, B

    S. Baeßler, B. R. Heckel, E. G. Adelberger, J. H. Gundlach, U. Schmidt, and H. E. Swanson,Improved test of the equivalence principle for gravitational self-energy, Phys. Rev. Lett.83(Nov, 1999) 3585–3588

    1999

  13. [21]

    P. Brax, C. Burrage, A.-C. Davis, D. Seery, and A. Weltman,Collider constraints on interactions of dark energy with the standard model, Journal of High Energy Physics2009(sep, 2009) 128–128

    2009

  14. [22]

    S. M. Merkowitz,Tests of Gravity Using Lunar Laser Ranging, Living Rev. Rel.13(2010) 7

    2010

  15. [23]

    Burrage, C

    C. Burrage, C. K¨ ading, P. Millington, and J. Min´ aˇ r, Open quantum dynamics induced by light scalar fields, Phys. Rev. D100(2019), no. 7 076003, [arXiv:1812.08760]

    2019 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Brax, A.-C

    P. Brax, A.-C. Davis, and B. Elder,Screened scalar fields in hydrogen and muonium, Phys. Rev. D107 (2023), no. 4 044008, [arXiv:2207.11633]

    2023 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Sevillano Mu˜ noz, E

    S. Sevillano Mu˜ noz, E. J. Copeland, P. Millington, and M. Spannowsky,FeynMG: A FeynRules extension for scalar-tensor theories of gravity, Comput. Phys. Commun.296(2024) 109035, [arXiv:2211.14300]

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Argyropoulos, C

    S. Argyropoulos, C. Burrage, and C. Englert, Environmentally aware displaced vertices, arXiv:2304.08118

    arXiv

  19. [27]

    K¨ ading, M

    C. K¨ ading, M. Pitschmann, and C. Voith, Dilaton-induced open quantum dynamics, Eur. Phys. J. C83(2023), no. 8 767, [arXiv:2306.10896]

    2023 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Upadhye,Symmetron dark energy in laboratory experiments, Phys

    A. Upadhye,Symmetron dark energy in laboratory experiments, Phys. Rev. Lett.110(2013), no. 3 031301, [arXiv:1210.7804]

    2013 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Jaffe, P

    M. Jaffe, P. Haslinger, V. Xu, P. Hamilton, A. Upadhye, B. Elder, J. Khoury, and H. M¨ uller,Author Correction: Testing sub-gravitational forces on atoms from a miniature in-vacuum source mass [doi: 10.1038/nphys4189], Nature Phys.13(2017) 938, [arXiv:1612.05171]

    2017 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Elder, V

    B. Elder, V. Vardanyan, Y. Akrami, P. Brax, A.-C. Davis, and R. S. Decca,Classical symmetron force in Casimir experiments, Phys. Rev. D101(2020), no. 6 064065, [arXiv:1912.10015]

    2020 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Brax, A.-C

    P. Brax, A.-C. Davis, and B. Elder,(g−2) µ and screened modified gravity, Phys. Rev. D106(Aug,

  24. [32]

    Burrage, E

    C. Burrage, E. J. Copeland, and E. A. Hinds,Probing Dark Energy with Atom Interferometry, JCAP03 (2015) 042, [arXiv:1408.1409]

    2015 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Elder, J

    B. Elder, J. Khoury, P. Haslinger, M. Jaffe, H. M¨ uller, and P. Hamilton,Chameleon Dark Energy and Atom 7 Interferometry, Phys. Rev. D94(2016), no. 4 044051, [arXiv:1603.06587]

    2016 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Burrage, A

    C. Burrage, A. Kuribayashi-Coleman, J. Stevenson, and B. Thrussell,Constraining symmetron fields with atom interferometry, JCAP12(2016) 041, [arXiv:1609.09275]

    2016 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Brax and G

    P. Brax and G. Pignol,Strongly Coupled Chameleons and the Neutronic Quantum Bouncer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107(2011) 111301, [arXiv:1105.3420]

    2011 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Brax, A.-C

    P. Brax, A.-C. Davis, B. Elder, and L. K. Wong, Constraining screened fifth forces with the electron magnetic moment, Phys. Rev. D97(2018), no. 8 084050, [arXiv:1802.05545]

    2018 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Upadhye,Dark energy fifth forces in torsion pendulum experiments, Phys

    A. Upadhye,Dark energy fifth forces in torsion pendulum experiments, Phys. Rev. D86(2012) 102003, [arXiv:1209.0211]

    2012 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Burrage and J

    C. Burrage and J. Sakstein,Tests of Chameleon Gravity, Living Rev. Rel.21(2018), no. 1 1, [arXiv:1709.09071]

    2018 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Bertotti, L

    B. Bertotti, L. Iess, and P. Tortora,A test of general relativity using radio links with the Cassini spacecraft, Nature425(2003) 374–376

    2003

  32. [40]

    J. G. Williams, S. G. Turyshev, and D. H. Boggs,Lunar laser ranging tests of the equivalence principle with the earth and moon, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D18(2009) 1129–1175, [gr-qc/0507083]

    2009 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Khoury and A

    J. Khoury and A. Weltman,Chameleon cosmology, Phys. Rev. D69(2004) 044026, [astro-ph/0309411]

    2004 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Burrage and J

    C. Burrage and J. Sakstein,A Compendium of Chameleon Constraints, JCAP11(2016) 045, [arXiv:1609.01192]

    2016 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Hinterbichler and J

    K. Hinterbichler and J. Khoury,Symmetron Fields: Screening Long-Range Forces Through Local Symmetry Restoration, Phys. Rev. Lett.104(2010) 231301, [arXiv:1001.4525]

    2010 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Hinterbichler, J

    K. Hinterbichler, J. Khoury, A. Levy, and A. Matas, Symmetron Cosmology, Phys. Rev. D84(2011) 103521, [arXiv:1107.2112]

    2011 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Burrage, E

    C. Burrage, E. J. Copeland, P. Millington, and M. Spannowsky,Fifth forces, Higgs portals and broken scale invariance, JCAP11(2018) 036, [arXiv:1804.07180]

    2018 arXiv

  38. [46]

    E. J. Copeland, P. Millington, and S. S. Mu˜ noz,Fifth forces and broken scale symmetries in the Jordan frame, JCAP02(2022), no. 02 016, [arXiv:2111.06357]

    2022 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Sevillano Mu˜ noz,A particle’s perspective on screening mechanisms, JCAP12(2024) 052, [arXiv:2407.08779]

    S. Sevillano Mu˜ noz,A particle’s perspective on screening mechanisms, JCAP12(2024) 052, [arXiv:2407.08779]

    2024 arXiv

  40. [48]

    A. W. Brookfield, C. van de Bruck, D. F. Mota, and D. Tocchini-Valentini,Cosmology of mass-varying neutrinos driven by quintessence: theory and observations, Phys. Rev. D73(2006) 083515, [astro-ph/0512367]. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 76, 049901 (2007)]

    2006 arXiv

  41. [49]

    E. J. Copeland, M. Sami, and S. Tsujikawa,Dynamics of dark energy, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D15(2006) 1753–1936, [hep-th/0603057]

    2006 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Lesgourgues and S

    J. Lesgourgues and S. Pastor,Massive neutrinos and cosmology, Phys. Rept.429(2006) 307–379, [astro-ph/0603494]

    2006 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Burrage, B

    C. Burrage, B. Elder, Y. G. del Castillo, and J. Jaeckel, Time-dependent density of quadratically coupled dark matter around ordinary matter objects, Phys. Rev. D 111(2025), no. 10 103526, [arXiv:2410.23350]

    2025 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Esteban, M

    I. Esteban, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, M. Maltoni, I. Martinez-Soler, J. P. Pinheiro, and T. Schwetz, NuFit-6.0: updated global analysis of three-flavor neutrino oscillations, JHEP12(2024) 216, [arXiv:2410.05380]

    2024 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Capozzi, E

    F. Capozzi, E. Lisi, F. Marcone, A. Marrone, and A. Palazzo,Updated bounds on the (1,2) neutrino oscillation parameters after first JUNO results, arXiv:2511.21650. [54]DUNECollaboration, B. Abiet. al.,Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment (DUNE), Far Detector Technical Design R...

    2002

  46. [59]

    G. T. Zatsepin,On the possibility of determining the upper limit of the neutrino mass by means of the flight time, Pisma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.8(1968) 333–334

    1968

  47. [60]

    T. J. Loredo and D. Q. Lamb,Bayesian analysis of neutrinos observed from supernova SN-1987A, Phys. Rev. D65(2002) 063002, [astro-ph/0107260]

    2002 arXiv

  48. [61]

    Pagliaroli, F

    G. Pagliaroli, F. Rossi-Torres, and F. Vissani,Neutrino mass bound in the standard scenario for supernova electronic antineutrino emission, Astropart. Phys.33 (2010) 287–291, [arXiv:1002.3349]

    2010 arXiv

  49. [62]

    Ge, C.-F

    S.-F. Ge, C.-F. Kong, and A. Y. Smirnov,Testing the Origins of Neutrino Mass with Supernova-Neutrino Time Delay, Phys. Rev. Lett.133(2024), no. 12 121802, [arXiv:2404.17352]

    2024 arXiv

  50. [63]

    Nardi and J

    E. Nardi and J. I. Zuluaga,Exploring the sub-eV neutrino mass range with supernova neutrinos, Phys. Rev. D69(2004) 103002, [astro-ph/0306384]

    2004 arXiv

  51. [64]

    Nardi and J

    E. Nardi and J. I. Zuluaga,Constraints on neutrino masses from a galactic supernova neutrino signal at present and future detectors, Nucl. Phys. B731(2005) 140–163, [hep-ph/0412104]

    2005 arXiv

  52. [65]

    J.-S. Lu, J. Cao, Y.-F. Li, and S. Zhou,Constraining Absolute Neutrino Masses via Detection of Galactic Supernova Neutrinos at JUNO, JCAP05(2015) 044, [arXiv:1412.7418]

    2015 arXiv

  53. [66]

    R. S. L. Hansen, M. Lindner, and O. Scholer,Timing the neutrino signal of a Galactic supernova, Phys. Rev. D101(2020), no. 12 123018, [arXiv:1904.11461]

    2020 arXiv

  54. [67]

    Pompa, F

    F. Pompa, F. Capozzi, O. Mena, and M. Sorel,Absolute νMass Measurement with the DUNE Experiment, Phys. Rev. Lett.129(2022), no. 12 121802, [arXiv:2203.00024]

    2022 arXiv

  55. [68]

    Pompa and O

    F. Pompa and O. Mena,How long do neutrinos live and how much do they weigh?, Eur. Phys. J. C84(2024), no. 2 134, [arXiv:2310.05474]

    2024 arXiv

  56. [69]

    G. A. Parker and M. Wurm,Constraining the absolute neutrino mass with black hole-forming supernovae and scintillation detectors, Phys. Rev. D109(2024), no. 8 083041, [arXiv:2311.10682]

    2024 arXiv

  57. [70]

    P. B. Denton and Y. Kini,Individual neutrino masses from a supernova, Phys. Rev. D111(2025), no. 10 8 103006, [arXiv:2411.13634]

    2025 arXiv

  58. [71]

    Garcia-Bellido, J

    J. Garcia-Bellido, J. Rubio, M. Shaposhnikov, and D. Zenhausern,Higgs-Dilaton Cosmology: From the Early to the Late Universe, Phys. Rev. D84(2011) 123504, [arXiv:1107.2163]

    2011 arXiv

  59. [72]

    P. G. Ferreira, C. T. Hill, and G. G. Ross,No fifth force in a scale invariant universe, Phys. Rev. D95(2017), no. 6 064038, [arXiv:1612.03157]

    2017 arXiv

  60. [73]

    A. M. Dziewonski and D. L. Anderson,Preliminary reference earth model, Phys. Earth Planet. Interiors25 (1981) 297–356

    1981

  61. [74]

    We also considered alternative values forρ 0, such as the density of water, and found similar allowed regions for A(φ)

  62. [75]

    Piriz, M

    D. Piriz, M. Roy, and J. Wudka,Neutrino oscillations in strong gravitational fields, Phys. Rev. D54(1996) 1587–1599, [hep-ph/9604403]

    1996 arXiv

  63. [76]

    C. Y. Cardall and G. M. Fuller,Neutrino oscillations in curved space-time: An Heuristic treatment, Phys. Rev. D55(1997) 7960–7966, [hep-ph/9610494]

    1997 arXiv

  64. [77]

    Fornengo, C

    N. Fornengo, C. Giunti, C. W. Kim, and J. Song, Gravitational effects on the neutrino oscillation, Phys. Rev. D56(1997) 1895–1902, [hep-ph/9611231]

    1997 arXiv

  65. [78]

    Kittel,Introduction to Solid State Physics

    C. Kittel,Introduction to Solid State Physics. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ, 8th ed., 2005. [79](IceCube Collaboration)*, IceCubeCollaboration, R. Abbasiet. al.,Measurement of atmospheric neutrino mixing with improved IceCube DeepCore calibration and data processing, Phys. R...

    2005

  66. [80]

    S. P. Mikheyev and A. Y. Smirnov,Resonance Amplification of Oscillations in Matter and Spectroscopy of Solar Neutrinos, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys.42 (1985) 913–917

    1985

  67. [81]

    A. S. Dighe and A. Y. Smirnov,Identifying the neutrino mass spectrum from the neutrino burst from a supernova, Phys. Rev. D62(2000) 033007, [hep-ph/9907423]

    2000 arXiv

  68. [82]

    de Gouvˆ ea, I

    A. de Gouvˆ ea, I. Martinez-Soler, Y. F. Perez-Gonzalez, and M. Sen,Diffuse supernova neutrino background as a probe of late-time neutrino mass generation, Phys. Rev. D106(2022), no. 10 103026, [arXiv:2205.01102]

    2022 arXiv

  69. [83]

    Mohseni Sadjadi and H

    H. Mohseni Sadjadi and H. Y. Ahmadabadi,Damped Neutrino Oscillations in a Conformal Coupling Model, Phys. Rev. D103(2021), no. 6 065012, [arXiv:2012.03633]

    2021 arXiv

  70. [84]

    H. Y. Ahmadabadi and H. Mohseni Sadjadi,Screening models and neutrino oscillations, Phys. Dark Univ.37 (2022) 101067, [arXiv:2111.03054]

    2022 arXiv

  71. [85]

    Yazdani Ahmadabadi and H

    H. Yazdani Ahmadabadi and H. Mohseni Sadjadi, Chameleon-neutrino conformal coupling and MSW-mediated solar neutrino deficit, Phys. Lett. B850 (2024) 138493, [arXiv:2201.02927]

    2024 arXiv

  72. [86]

    Kuhlen, A

    M. Kuhlen, A. Pillepich, J. Guedes, and P. Madau,The Distribution of Dark Matter in the Milky Way’s Disk, Astrophys. J.784(2014) 161, [arXiv:1308.1703]

    2014 arXiv

  73. [87]

    R. B. Tullyet. al.,Cosmicflows-2: The Data, Astron. J. 146(2013) 86, [arXiv:1307.7213]

    2013 arXiv

  74. [88]

    In our analysis, we model dark matter as a homogeneous fluid

    These results depend sensitively on the distribution of dark matter around galaxies. In our analysis, we model dark matter as a homogeneous fluid. If, instead, dark matter were composed of compact objects, the constraints could become significantly stronger because most of the...

  75. [89]

    Burrage, B

    C. Burrage, B. March, and A. P. Naik,Accurate computation of the screening of scalar fifth forces in galaxies, JCAP04(2024) 004, [arXiv:2310.19955]

    2024 arXiv

  76. [90]

    March, C

    B. March, C. Burrage, and A. P. Naik,Galactic Compton wavelengths in f(R) screening theories, JCAP 12(2024) 027, [arXiv:2409.10623]. [91]KA TRINCollaboration, M. Akeret. al.,Direct neutrino-mass measurement based on 259 days of KATRIN data, Science388(2025), no. 6743 adq9592, ...

    2024 arXiv

  77. [92]

    Stodolsky,Matter and Light Wave Interferometry in Gravitational Fields, Gen

    L. Stodolsky,Matter and Light Wave Interferometry in Gravitational Fields, Gen. Rel. Grav.11(1979) 391–405. [93](IceCube Collaboration)∥, IceCubeCollaboration, R. Abbasiet. al.,Measurement of Atmospheric Neutrino Oscillation Parameters Using Convolutional Neural Networks with ...

    1979 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.