Ultralight dark matter search in a large liquid scintillator detector

Hiroshi Nunokawa; Luis A. Delgadillo; O. G. Miranda

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 83 references

Ultralight dark matter search in a large liquid scintillator detector

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 A 20-kiloton liquid-scintillator reactor detector can set neutrino–ultralight-dark-matter coupling limits that beat current CMB bounds.

desk verdict A competent, incremental JUNO-like sensitivity projection for neutrino-ULDM couplings; the headline limits are plausible, but the unquantified truncation of the averaging expansion is a real soft spot and the CMB-surpassing claim is somewhat overstated. read the letter →

arxiv 2512.18186 v2 pith:SRKCS4VL submitted 2025-12-20 hep-ph hep-ex

Luis A. Delgadillo , O. G. Miranda , Hiroshi Nunokawa This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-phhep-ex

keywords ultralightscalardarkmatterneutrinooscillationsreactorantineutrinosliquidscintillatordetectorYukawacouplingboundsmass-squareddifferencemodulationmassorderingtime-averagedoscillation

topics 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

The paper argues that a large liquid-scintillator detector watching reactor antineutrinos—of the type planned for the JUNO experiment—can serve as a dark-matter probe. If ultralight scalar dark matter couples to neutrinos, it makes the neutrino mass-squared differences oscillate, and when that oscillation is faster than the detector's integration time, the effect survives as a time-averaged smearing of the neutrino oscillation probability. That smearing looks like an extra energy-resolution term, so it can be constrained from the shape of the reactor-neutrino spectrum. Under a simulated 20-kton, 52.5-km detector configuration, the projected 90% CL sensitivities are ηΔ21 ≲ 2.5×10^-2 and ηΔ31 ≲ 0.5×10^-2, which translate into Yukawa couplings around 3×10^-22 and 4×10^-22 at a scalar mass of 10^-21 eV, surpassing CMB-derived limits and complementing DUNE and ESSnuSB projections. The paper also shows that such couplings, if present near these values, would mildly degrade the precision of Δm²31 and the sensitivity to the neutrino mass ordering.

What carries the argument

The averaging identity ⟨sin²[x(1+2η sin(mφt))]⟩ = sin²x + 2x²η² cos(2x) + O(x⁴η⁴), obtained by integrating over one ULDM period τφ. This operation converts a rapidly oscillating modification of the mass-squared differences into a static, energy-dependent smearing of the oscillation probability—and it is why the effect survives time averaging and can be searched for as a distortion in the measured antineutrino spectrum. The analysis also relies on the hierarchy τν ≪ τφ ≪ τexp, which delimits the ULDM mass window of roughly 10^-23 to 10^-11 eV for the 52.5-km baseline and 6.5-year exposure.

What would settle it

Fit the real detector's observed energy spectrum with the same χ² and priors once the data are available: if the data-driven 90% CL interval for ηΔ31 is not bounded above by about 0.5×10^-2 (or for ηΔ21 by about 2.5×10^-2), the paper's projected sensitivity is contradicted. An independent calculation that replaces the fixed Gaussian 3% resolution with a full non-linear liquid-scintillator response model, and that yields limits weaker by more than the quoted uncertainties, would also falsify the quantitative claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central quantitative claim is that a 20-kton liquid-scintillator detector at 52.5 km from a reactor, with 6.5 years of 26.6 GWth exposure, 90% efficiency, 3% energy resolution, and standard background and systematic assumptions, can set 90% CL upper limits of ηΔ21 ≲ 2.5×10^-2 and ηΔ31 ≲ 0.5×10^-2 on the ULDM modulation parameters. These parameters measure the fractional time-averaged smearing of the solar and atmospheric mass-squared splittings induced by a coherently oscillating ultralight scalar field. The paper further shows that the same couplings, if present at the level of the projected sensitivity, would appear as spectral distortion that mimics energy smearing, producing only mil

Load-bearing premise

The quantitative limits hinge on the simulated detector model—specifically, that a 20-kton, 52.5-km liquid-scintillator detector with 3% energy resolution, the assumed reactor flux, backgrounds, and systematic uncertainties, faithfully represents the real experiment; the paper itself notes in Section V.D that a precise assessment requires implementing liquid-scintillator non-linear effects, so these numbers are not final.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A detector of this size and baseline can set 90% CL bounds on neutrino–ULDM couplings that beat current CMB limits in the mass window roughly 10^-23 to 10^-11 eV, without needing new apparatus.
The ULDM signal is a spectral smearing; if present at the projected level, it will look like degraded energy resolution and could bias a standard three-neutrino fit of Δm²31 unless included in the fit.
The neutrino mass-ordering sensitivity in this type of detector would be reduced by Δχ² ≈ 1–2.5 for η values near the projected 1σ reach.
The projected Yukawa limits complement DUNE and ESSnuSB, which probe different baseline and energy regimes.

Reading between the lines

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

The paper leaves implicit that better energy resolution than 3% would sharpen the ηΔ31 reach more than the ηΔ21 reach, because the atmospheric term's oscillation phase x = Δm² L/(4E) grows with the larger splitting; a dedicated experiment could exploit that asymmetry.
The quoted Yukawa numbers assume ULDM is 10% of dark matter; if ULDM is the full dark-matter density, the same η limits translate to couplings roughly three times smaller, and if it is a smaller subcomponent, the bounds weaken accordingly.
The same time-averaged modulation formalism could be applied to other long-baseline neutrino sources or to atmospheric neutrinos at this detector, a direction the paper mentions but does not develop numerically.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Dear colleague,

You can read this as a standard, careful sensitivity study: a JUNO-like detector, ULDM-induced time-averaged oscillation distortions, and projected 90% limits on ηΔ21 and ηΔ31. The formalism is not new — it comes from Krnjaic/Machado/Necib and Losada et al., plus the authors’ own earlier work — but the paper adds a full GLoBES simulation, updated detector assumptions, and a look at correlations with oscillation parameters and mass-ordering sensitivity. That is a legitimate extension, and the detector simulation is described in enough detail that the numbers are checkable in principle. Credit is due for being explicit about the caveat on liquid-scintillator non-linearities and for framing the results as projections, not claims on data.

The main soft spot is Eq. (6). The time-averaged probability is expanded to second order in η, and the truncation error is never quantified. The stress-test math holds up: at the ηΔ31 limit, low-energy bins have x ≈ 90 and 2xη ≈ 0.9, so the first omitted term is about 20% of the retained η² signal. The same issue barely affects ηΔ21. Since the omitted term is a smooth function of energy, it can bias the spectral shape and shift the 90% limit by maybe 10% — not enough to overturn the result, but enough that the stated limits and the “surpassing CMB” line in Fig. 3 are overstated as written. The fix is trivial: use the exact Bessel-function average, or at least bound the next term. A referee should ask for that.

A few smaller things. The comparison with the earlier JUNO projection in Ref. [10] is not quantitative — the paper says a preliminary assessment was done there but never says how much better this simulation is. No code or data are released, so the simulation is not independently reproducible without reimplementing it. The mass-ordering degradation (Δχ² ≈ 2.5) is mild, and the authors themselves label it qualitative.

Overall: the central claim — that JUNO can reach ηΔ31 ≲ 5×10⁻³ and ηΔ21 ≲ 2.5×10⁻² — is plausible and worth taking seriously. The paper is not a breakthrough, but it is a solid projection that deserves a serious referee. I would send it to review, with the request that the averaging expansion be checked and the CMB comparison be rephrased.

Best, [Your name]

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies ULDM coupled to neutrinos through a Yukawa interaction that modulates neutrino mass-squared differences. In the regime where the ULDM oscillation period is much shorter than the detector exposure, the authors use a time-averaged expansion (Eq. 6) to obtain spectral distortions parameterized by ηΔ21 and ηΔ31. Using a GLoBES simulation of a JUNO-like liquid scintillator detector (20 kton, 52.5 km, 6.5 years × 26.6 GWth, 90% efficiency), they derive projected 90% CL sensitivities ηΔ21 ≲ 2.5×10^-2 and ηΔ31 ≲ 0.5×10^-2, translate these into bounds on neutrino-ULDM Yukawa couplings, and study correlations with Δm^2, effects on oscillation parameter determination, and mass-ordering sensitivity. The paper concludes that a large liquid scintillator detector can set limits surpassing current CMB-derived bounds and complement DUNE and ESSnuSB projections.

Significance. The paper is a useful and timely projection study for a major upcoming experiment. It uses standard tools (GLoBES, Huber-Mueller fluxes, pull-based χ^2) and clearly documents the assumed detector parameters, systematics, and priors. The qualitative conclusions — that ULDM effects can mimic energy smearing, that ηΔ31 has a mild impact on mass-ordering sensitivity, and that a JUNO-like detector is competitive in this channel — are of interest to the neutrino and dark matter communities. However, the quantitative headline limits are not yet secure because of an unquantified truncation error in the signal model and an inconsistency in the density-dependent scaling of the Yukawa bounds. If these are corrected, the paper would be a solid contribution.

major comments (3)

[Eq. (6), Section V.A] The signal model in Eq. (6) truncates the time-averaged probability at O(x^4 η^4). For the quoted ηΔ31 90% limit (0.5×10^-2), the lowest-energy bins near 1.8 MeV have x ≈ 94, so 2xη ≈ 0.94 and the first omitted term, −2x^4η^4 cos2x, has magnitude ≈0.1, i.e. roughly 20–25% of the retained 2x^2η^2 term in those bins. Because Δχ^2 is quadratic in the signal, a shape error of this size can shift the projected limit by a comparable amount. The exact time average is 1/2 − 1/2 cos(2x) J0(4xη); the paper should either use this expression or quantify the truncation error and demonstrate that the 90% limits are robust. This is load-bearing for the ηΔjk limits and for the comparison to CMB constraints in Fig. 3.
[Eq. (12), Section V.A, Fig. 3] The density bookkeeping is inconsistent. Eq. (5) depends on the local ULDM density, but Section V.A defines ρφ = 0.1ρDM ≃ 10^-12 eV^4 with ρDM,⊙ ≃ 10^5 ρDM, so the local ULDM density would be ρφ,⊙ ≈ 0.1ρDM,⊙ ≈ 10^-7 eV^4, not 10^-12 eV^4. Eq. (12) contains a factor ρφ/(0.1ρDM,⊙), which evaluates to 10^-5 under these definitions, yet the numerical prefactors 3×10^-22 and 4×10^-22 are correct only if ρφ,⊙ = 0.1ρDM,⊙ (factor 1). Moreover, from Eq. (5), for fixed η the scaling is y ∝ 1/√ρφ,⊙, not y ∝ ρφ as printed. This discrepancy propagates directly into Fig. 3 and into the headline statement that the projected JUNO bounds 'surpass' CMB constraints. The correct local density and scaling should be clarified and used consistently.
[Section V.D and Conclusions] Section V.D states that a precise quantitative assessment requires a detailed implementation of liquid-scintillator non-linear effects, yet the abstract and conclusions present the 90% CL limits and the comparison with CMB constraints without this caveat. The same simplified detector model underlies the central limits in Section V.A. The authors should either implement the non-linear response or explicitly state in the abstract and conclusions that the reported limits are preliminary projections based on an idealized detector model.

minor comments (4)

[Section VI] Typo: 'liquid scintillator non-nonlinearities' should be 'non-linearities'.
[Eq. (12)] The notation '[eV^4]' inside the denominator ratio is unusual and can be misread as a dimensional factor. Use dimensionless ratios throughout, e.g. ρφ/(0.1ρDM,⊙) with the appropriate normalization.
[Section V.A, Eq. (11)] The sentence 'for a scalar field modulation period τφ ≈ 1 year' does not reproduce the lower bound 3.0×10^-23 eV in Eq. (11); with τφ = 1 year one obtains mφ ≈ 1.3×10^-22 eV. Please clarify whether Eq. (11) results from the requirement τφ ≪ τexp or from an explicit τφ ≈ 1 year example.
[Fig. 5] The legends in Fig. 5 repeat 'SM+ηΔ21=2x10^-2' several times; the figure would be easier to read with a single legend entry per curve.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the sensitivity projection is an independent GLoBES simulation; self-citations are methodological, not load-bearing.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The modulated mass-squared difference (Eq. 4) and the η definition (Eq. 5) simply parameterize the ULDM coupling; Eq. (6) is the time-averaged expansion taken from the external Ref. [16], not from the authors' own work. The 90% CL limits in Sec. V.A (ηΔ21 ≲ 2.5×10^-2 and ηΔ31 ≲ 0.5×10^-2) are obtained by generating standard-3ν mock data with GLoBES and testing a signal-plus-η hypothesis; the Δχ² statistic is a standard least-squares construction. The only self-citations are [18] for the χ² functional form and the η definition, and [10] for a previously noted preliminary assessment; neither introduces a fitted input that is then renamed as a prediction, and there is no uniqueness theorem or ansatz imported from the authors' prior work that forces the result. The Yukawa bounds in Eq. (12) are an explicit algebraic rescaling of Eq. (5), not a new prediction that reduces to its input. The paper's own caveat that 'a precise quantitative assessment will require a detailed implementation of liquid scintillator non-linear effects (LSNL)' weakens precision but is not circularity; the same applies to the unquantified truncation of the Bessel average in Eq. (6), which is a numerical-accuracy concern rather than a self-referential loop.

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

The quantitative claims rest on the imported ULDM-neutrino coupling model (Eqs. 1-5) and on a set of benchmark values and detector/systematic assumptions. The most consequential choices are the benchmark local density fraction (10% of DM) and mass (10^-21 eV) used to translate η limits into Yukawa bounds, and the detector response parameters that set the sensitivity.

free parameters (6)

benchmark scalar mass m_phi (for y limits) = 1e-21 eV
Chosen by hand in Section V.A to convert η limits to Yukawa coupling bounds; quoted y values scale linearly with m_phi.
benchmark ULDM density fraction rho_phi/rho_DM = 0.1
Assumed in Section V.A and Fig. 3 caption; quoted y bounds scale as 1/sqrt(rho_phi). The paper notes lighter ULDM cannot constitute all DM.
signal normalization uncertainty = 5%
From Ref. [78], used in chi-square; affects sensitivity limits.
background normalization uncertainty = 20%
From Ref. [78], used in chi-square.
energy calibration uncertainty = 3%
From Ref. [78], used in chi-square.
energy resolution coefficient beta = 0.03 (sigma_R = 0.03 sqrt(E/MeV) MeV)
Assumed detector energy resolution, Section III; controls spectral smearing and sensitivity.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption Classical oscillating ULDM background (Eq. 1) with V ≈ m_phi^2 phi^2 and local amplitude phi_0 = sqrt(2 rho_phi)/m_phi.
Imported from refs [26,27]; the oscillation and amplitude are not derived in this paper.
domain assumption Neutrino masses are linearly perturbed by the ULDM field: m_hat = m + y phi (Eq. 3).
From refs [10,16]; the Yukawa coupling model is assumed.
domain assumption The time-averaged oscillation probability is given by the expansion in Eq. (6), valid for small eta and with averaging over the scalar period.
Eq. (6) is taken from refs [16,18]; the paper does not quantify its truncation error for large x*eta.
domain assumption The standard three-neutrino oscillation parameters and their uncertainties from de Salas et al. [79] are correct and used as priors.
Table I and Eq. (10).
domain assumption The GLoBES simulation with the described detector configuration and background/systematic assumptions accurately represents a JUNO-like detector.
Section III; the authors acknowledge LSNL are not included.
domain assumption The regime tau_nu << tau_phi << tau_exp is applicable for the mass range considered.
Section V; for m_phi near the upper end of the range, tau_phi approaches tau_nu.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Ultralight dark matter search in a large liquid scintillator detector." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SRKCS4VL

@misc{pith2026251218186,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Ultralight dark matter search in a large liquid scintillator detector},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SRKCS4VL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2512.18186}
}

abstract

The nature of dark matter remains one of the most profound mysteries in modern physics. In this work, we investigate the phenomenological implications of ultralight scalar dark matter (ULDM) coupled to neutrinos. We focus on a large homogeneous liquid scintillator detector, analyzing the regime where ULDM oscillations lead to time-averaged distortions in neutrino oscillation probabilities. We derive sensitivity limits on the modulation parameters $\eta_{\Delta_{21}}$ and $\eta_{\Delta_{31}}$, which quantify ULDM-induced smearing effect in oscillations driven by solar ($\Delta m^2_{21}$) and atmospheric ($\Delta m^2_{31}$) mass-squared differences. We further demonstrate that ULDM interactions could produce a mild impact on both the determinations of the neutrino oscillation parameters and the neutrino mass ordering sensitivity. These results showcase the benefits of a large liquid scintillator detector as a powerful probe of neutrino-ULDM interactions via neutrino oscillations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.18186 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Projected ∆χ 2 sensitivity to the ultralight scalar field parameters η∆21 (left panel) and η∆31 (right panel) from mass-squared modulations at the JUNO-like configuration. See the text for a detailed explanation. In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Limits and sensitivity regions in the yˆ − mϕ plane. The black dashed line represents the excluded limits from the CMB measurements on the total sum of the neutrino masses [80]. In the brown-shaded region, ultralight scalar dark matter lighter than mϕ ∼ 10−21 eV is in tension with Lyman-α forest observations [6]. Furthermore, solid lines indicate the expected sensitivities for the neutrino–ultralight dark matter s… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (3 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Correlations among the ultralight scalar field parameters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Impact of ultralight scalar field parameters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: The corresponding ∆χ 2 profile as a function of the fitted ∆m2 31 value. The solid brown and gray curves correspond to cases where the fit assumes the normal (right) and inverted (wrong) mass ordering, respectively, under standard oscillations. The input scenario assum…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

83 extracted references · 66 linked inside Pith

[10]

Krnjaic, P

G. Krnjaic, P. A. N. Machado, and L. Necib, Phys. Rev. D 97, 075017 (2018), arXiv:1705.06740 [hep-ph]. 17

arXiv 2018
[1]

Sahni and L.-M

V. Sahni and L.-M. Wang, Phys. Rev. D62, 103517 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/9910097

arXiv 2000
[2]

W. Hu, R. Barkana, and A. Gruzinov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 1158 (2000), arXiv:astro- ph/0003365

arXiv 2000
[3]

is negli- gible, theη∆31 parameter moderately impacts the atmospheric parameters (sin2θ13, ∆m2 31), reducing the precision of their measurements at the aforementioned detector configuration. D. Impact of η∆jk on the mass ordering determination In this subsection, we investigate the effects of the ultralight scalar field on neutrino mass ordering determina...
[4]

L. Hui, J. P. Ostriker, S. Tremaine, and E. Witten, Phys. Rev. D 95, 043541 (2017), arXiv:1610.08297 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv 2017
[5]

Arbey and F

A. Arbey and F. Mahmoudi, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.119, 103865 (2021), arXiv:2104.11488 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2021
[6]

Matos, F

T. Matos, F. S. Guzman, and L. A. Urena-Lopez, Class. Quant. Grav. 17, 1707 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/9908152

arXiv 2000
[7]

Barranco, O

J. Barranco, O. G. Miranda, C. A. Moura, T. I. Rashba, and F. Rossi-Torres, JCAP10, 007 (2011), arXiv:1012.2476 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv 2011

Show all 83 references

[8]

M. M. Reynoso and O. A. Sampayo, Astropart. Phys.82, 10 (2016), arXiv:1605.09671 [hep- ph]

2016 arXiv
[9]

Berlin, Phys

A. Berlin, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 231801 (2016), arXiv:1608.01307 [hep-ph]

2016 arXiv
[11]

Capozzi, I

F. Capozzi, I. M. Shoemaker, and L. Vecchi, JCAP07, 004 (2018), arXiv:1804.05117 [hep-ph]

2018 arXiv
[12]

Brdar, J

V. Brdar, J. Kopp, J. Liu, P. Prass, and X.-P. Wang, Phys. Rev. D 97, 043001 (2018), arXiv:1705.09455 [hep-ph]

2018 arXiv
[13]

Farzan and S

Y. Farzan and S. Palomares-Ruiz, Phys. Rev. D99, 051702 (2019), arXiv:1810.00892 [hep-ph]

2019 arXiv
[14]

A. Dev, P. A. N. Machado, and P. Martínez-Miravé, JHEP01, 094 (2021), arXiv:2007.03590 [hep-ph]

2021 arXiv
[15]

J. Liao, D. Marfatia, and K. Whisnant, JHEP04, 136 (2018), arXiv:1803.01773 [hep-ph]

2018 arXiv
[16]

Losada, Y

M. Losada, Y. Nir, G. Perez, and Y. Shpilman, JHEP 04, 030 (2022), arXiv:2107.10865 [hep-ph]

2022 arXiv
[17]

Huang, M

G.-y. Huang, M. Lindner, P. Martínez-Miravé, and M. Sen, Phys. Rev. D106, 033004 (2022), arXiv:2205.08431 [hep-ph]

2022 arXiv
[18]

Huang and N

G.-y. Huang and N. Nath, JCAP05, 034 (2022), arXiv:2111.08732 [hep-ph]

2022 arXiv
[19]

Sen and A

M. Sen and A. Y. Smirnov, JCAP01, 040 (2024), arXiv:2306.15718 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[20]

H.-X. Lin, J. Tang, and S. Vihonen, (2023), arXiv:2312.11704 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[21]

and atmospheric (∆m2
[22]

Cordero, L

R. Cordero, L. A. Delgadillo, and O. G. Miranda, Phys. Rev. D 107, 075023 (2023), arXiv:2207.11308 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[23]

Lambiase, T

G. Lambiase, T. K. Poddar, and L. Visinelli, Phys. Rev. D 112, 016010 (2025), arXiv:2503.02940 [hep-ph]

2025 arXiv
[24]

L. Gráf, S. Jana, O. Scholer, and N. Volmer, Phys. Lett. B 859, 139111 (2024), arXiv:2312.15016 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[25]

Martínez-Miravé, Y

P. Martínez-Miravé, Y. F. Perez-Gonzalez, and M. Sen, Phys. Rev. D110, 055005 (2024), arXiv:2406.01682 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[26]

Suárez, V

A. Suárez, V. H. Robles, and T. Matos, Astrophys. Space Sci. Proc. 38, 107 (2014), arXiv:1302.0903 [astro-ph.CO]

2014 arXiv
[27]

Ge, C.-F

S.-F. Ge, C.-F. Kong, and A. Y. Smirnov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 121802 (2024), arXiv:2404.17352 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[28]

Cheek, L

A. Cheek, L. Visinelli, and H.-Y. Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 031801 (2025), arXiv:2503.08439 [hep-ph]

2025 arXiv
[29]

Cicoli, V

M. Cicoli, V. Guidetti, N. Righi, and A. Westphal, JHEP05, 107 (2022), arXiv:2110.02964 [hep-th]. 18

2022 arXiv
[30]

E. G. M. Ferreira, Astron. Astrophys. Rev.29, 7 (2021), arXiv:2005.03254 [astro-ph.CO]

2021 arXiv
[31]

mass- squared differences. We further demonstrate that ULDM interactions could produce a mild impact on both the determinations of the neutrino oscillation parameters and the neutrino mass ordering sensitivity. These results showcase the benefits of a large liquid scintillator...

2025 arXiv
[32]

Arvanitaki, S

A. Arvanitaki, S. Dimopoulos, S. Dubovsky, N. Kaloper, and J. March-Russell, Phys. Rev. D 81, 123530 (2010), arXiv:0905.4720 [hep-th]

2010 arXiv
[33]

Arvanitaki, J

A. Arvanitaki, J. Huang, and K. Van Tilburg, Phys. Rev. D 91, 015015 (2015), arXiv:1405.2925 [hep-ph]

2015 arXiv
[34]

Smarra et al., Phys

C. Smarra et al., Phys. Rev. D110, 043033 (2024), arXiv:2405.01633 [astro-ph.HE]

2024 arXiv
[35]

Arvanitaki, S

A. Arvanitaki, S. Dimopoulos, and K. Van Tilburg, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 031102 (2016), arXiv:1508.01798 [hep-ph]

2016 arXiv
[36]

Arvanitaki, P

A. Arvanitaki, P. W. Graham, J. M. Hogan, S. Rajendran, and K. Van Tilburg, Phys. Rev. D 97, 075020 (2018), arXiv:1606.04541 [hep-ph]

2018 arXiv
[37]

W. M. Campbell, B. T. McAllister, M. Goryachev, E. N. Ivanov, and M. E. Tobar, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 071301 (2021), arXiv:2010.08107 [hep-ex]

2021 arXiv
[38]

Wang et al

J. Wang et al. (JUNO), JHEP06, 062 (2022), arXiv:2112.14450 [hep-ex]

2022
[39]

E. Lisi, A. Marrone, and D. Montanino, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 1166 (2000), arXiv:hep- ph/0002053

2000
[40]

A. M. Gago, E. M. Santos, W. J. C. Teves, and R. Zukanovich Funchal, Phys. Rev. D63, 073001 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0009222

2001 arXiv
[41]

Coloma, J

P. Coloma, J. Lopez-Pavon, I. Martinez-Soler, and H. Nunokawa, Eur. Phys. J. C78, 614 (2018), arXiv:1803.04438 [hep-ph]

2018 arXiv
[42]

M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia and M. Maltoni, Phys. Lett. B663, 405 (2008), arXiv:0802.3699 [hep- ph]

2008 arXiv
[43]

Abrahão, H

T. Abrahão, H. Minakata, H. Nunokawa, and A. A. Quiroga, JHEP 11, 001 (2015), arXiv:1506.02314 [hep-ph]

2015 arXiv
[44]

An et al

F. An et al. (JUNO), J. Phys. G43, 030401 (2016), arXiv:1507.05613 [physics.ins-det]

2016 arXiv
[45]

Abusleme et al

A. Abusleme et al. (JUNO), Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.123, 103927 (2022), arXiv:2104.02565 [hep-ex]

2022
[46]

L. Zhan, Y. Wang, J. Cao, and L. Wen, Phys. Rev. D79, 073007 (2009), arXiv:0901.2976 [hep-ex]

2009 arXiv
[47]

Y.-F. Li, J. Cao, Y. Wang, and L. Zhan, Phys. Rev. D88, 013008 (2013), arXiv:1303.6733 [hep-ex]

2013 arXiv
[48]

S. M. Bilenky, F. Capozzi, and S. T. Petcov, Phys. Lett. B 772, 179 (2017), [Erratum: Phys.Lett.B 809, 135765 (2020)], arXiv:1701.06328 [hep-ph]

2017 arXiv
[49]

D. V. Forero, S. J. Parke, C. A. Ternes, and R. Z. Funchal, Phys. Rev. D104, 113004 (2021), arXiv:2107.12410 [hep-ph]. 19

2021 arXiv
[50]

S. J. Parke and R. Zukanovich-Funchal, Phys. Rev. D111, 013008 (2025), arXiv:2404.08733 [hep-ph]

2025 arXiv
[51]

Abusleme et al

A. Abusleme et al. (JUNO), Chin. Phys. C49, 033104 (2025), arXiv:2405.18008 [hep-ex]

2025
[52]

Abusleme et al

A. Abusleme et al. (JUNO), Chin. Phys. C46, 123001 (2022), arXiv:2204.13249 [hep-ex]

2022
[53]

Abusleme et al

A. Abusleme et al. (JUNO), (2025), arXiv:2511.14590 [hep-ex]

2025
[54]

Abusleme et al

A. Abusleme et al. (JUNO), (2025), arXiv:2511.14593 [hep-ex]

2025
[55]

Abusleme et al

A. Abusleme et al. (JUNO), JCAP10, 022 (2023), arXiv:2303.03910 [hep-ex]

2023
[56]

Han, Y.-F

R. Han, Y.-F. Li, L. Zhan, W. F. McDonough, J. Cao, and L. Ludhova, Chin. Phys. C40, 033003 (2016), arXiv:1510.01523 [physics.ins-det]

2016 arXiv
[57]

Abusleme et al

A. Abusleme et al. (JUNO), Eur. Phys. J. C81, 10 (2021), arXiv:2103.09908 [hep-ex]

2021
[58]

Liu et al., Phys

J. Liu et al., Phys. Rev. D112, 012018 (2025), arXiv:2503.21353 [hep-ex]

2025 arXiv
[59]

Birkenfeld and A

T. Birkenfeld and A. Stahl, (2025), arXiv:2507.07598 [hep-ex]

2025 arXiv
[60]

Abusleme et al

A. Abusleme et al. (JUNO), JCAP10, 033 (2022), arXiv:2205.08830 [hep-ex]

2022
[61]

Abusleme et al

A. Abusleme et al. (JUNO), Chin. Phys. C47, 113002 (2023), arXiv:2212.08502 [hep-ex]

2023
[62]

Abusleme et al

A. Abusleme et al. (JUNO), Eur. Phys. J. C85, 5 (2025), arXiv:2405.17792 [hep-ex]

2025
[63]

Abusleme et al

A. Abusleme et al. (JUNO), JCAP09, 001 (2023), arXiv:2306.09567 [hep-ex]

2023
[64]

Li and Y.-L

Y.-F. Li and Y.-L. Zhou, Nucl. Phys. B888, 137 (2014), arXiv:1408.6301 [hep-ph]

2014 arXiv
[65]

J. Liao, D. Marfatia, and K. Whisnant, Phys. Lett. B 771, 247 (2017), arXiv:1704.04711 [hep-ph]

2017 arXiv
[66]

Martínez-Miravé, S

P. Martínez-Miravé, S. M. Sedgwick, and M. Tórtola, Phys. Rev. D 105, 035004 (2022), arXiv:2111.03031 [hep-ph]

2022 arXiv
[67]

Li and Z.-h

Y.-F. Li and Z.-h. Zhao, Phys. Rev. D90, 113014 (2014), arXiv:1409.6970 [hep-ph]

2014 arXiv
[68]

Barenboim, P

G. Barenboim, P. Martínez-Miravé, C. A. Ternes, and M. Tórtola, Phys. Rev. D108, 035039 (2023), arXiv:2305.06384 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[69]

Losada, Y

M. Losada, Y. Nir, G. Perez, I. Savoray, and Y. Shpilman, JHEP 03, 032 (2023), arXiv:2205.09769 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[70]

Losada, Y

M. Losada, Y. Nir, G. Perez, I. Savoray, and Y. Shpilman, Phys. Rev. D108, 055004 (2023), arXiv:2302.00005 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[71]

Wang, D.-M

S. Wang, D.-M. Xia, X. Zhang, S. Zhou, and Z. Chang, Phys. Rev. D103, 043010 (2021), arXiv:2010.16053 [hep-ph]

2021 arXiv
[72]

Huber, H

P. Huber, H. Minakata, D. Minic, R. Pestes, and T. Takeuchi, Phys. Rev. D105, 115013 20 (2022), arXiv:2105.14061 [hep-ph]

2022 arXiv
[73]

V. S. Basto-Gonzalez, D. V. Forero, C. Giunti, A. A. Quiroga, and C. A. Ternes, Phys. Rev. D 105, 075023 (2022), arXiv:2112.00379 [hep-ph]

2022 arXiv
[74]

de Gouvêa, V

A. de Gouvêa, V. De Romeri, and C. A. Ternes, JHEP06, 042 (2021), arXiv:2104.05806 [hep-ph]

2021 arXiv
[75]

Lucente, N

G. Lucente, N. Nath, F. Capozzi, M. Giannotti, and A. Mirizzi, Phys. Rev. D106, 123007 (2022), arXiv:2209.11780 [hep-ph]

2022 arXiv
[76]

Huber, M

P. Huber, M. Lindner, and W. Winter, Comput. Phys. Commun.167, 195 (2005), arXiv:hep- ph/0407333

2005
[77]

Huber, J

P. Huber, J. Kopp, M. Lindner, M. Rolinec, and W. Winter, Comput. Phys. Commun.177, 432 (2007), arXiv:hep-ph/0701187

2007 arXiv
[78]

Huber, Phys

P. Huber, Phys. Rev. C 84, 024617 (2011), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.C 85, 029901 (2012)], arXiv:1106.0687 [hep-ph]

2011 arXiv
[79]

T. A. Muelleret al., Phys. Rev. C83, 054615 (2011), arXiv:1101.2663 [hep-ex]

2011 arXiv
[80]

Huber, M

P. Huber, M. Lindner, and W. Winter, Nucl. Phys. B645, 3 (2002), arXiv:hep-ph/0204352

2002 arXiv
[81]

Y. P. Porto-Silva, S. Prakash, O. L. G. Peres, H. Nunokawa, and H. Minakata, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 999 (2020), arXiv:2002.12134 [hep-ph]

2020 arXiv
[82]

P. F. de Salas, D. V. Forero, S. Gariazzo, P. Martínez-Miravé, O. Mena, C. A. Ternes, M. Tór- tola, and J. W. F. Valle, JHEP02, 071 (2021), arXiv:2006.11237 [hep-ph]

2021 arXiv
[83]

Aghanim et al

N. Aghanim et al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys.641, A6 (2020), [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)], arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

2020 arXiv

Pith tools

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

[1] [10]

Krnjaic, P

G. Krnjaic, P. A. N. Machado, and L. Necib, Phys. Rev. D 97, 075017 (2018), arXiv:1705.06740 [hep-ph]. 17

arXiv 2018

[2] [1]

Sahni and L.-M

V. Sahni and L.-M. Wang, Phys. Rev. D62, 103517 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/9910097

arXiv 2000

[3] [2]

W. Hu, R. Barkana, and A. Gruzinov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 1158 (2000), arXiv:astro- ph/0003365

arXiv 2000

[4] [3]

is negli- gible, theη∆31 parameter moderately impacts the atmospheric parameters (sin2θ13, ∆m2 31), reducing the precision of their measurements at the aforementioned detector configuration. D. Impact of η∆jk on the mass ordering determination In this subsection, we investigate the effects of the ultralight scalar field on neutrino mass ordering determina...

[5] [4]

L. Hui, J. P. Ostriker, S. Tremaine, and E. Witten, Phys. Rev. D 95, 043541 (2017), arXiv:1610.08297 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv 2017

[6] [5]

Arbey and F

A. Arbey and F. Mahmoudi, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.119, 103865 (2021), arXiv:2104.11488 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2021

[7] [6]

Matos, F

T. Matos, F. S. Guzman, and L. A. Urena-Lopez, Class. Quant. Grav. 17, 1707 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/9908152

arXiv 2000

[8] [7]

Barranco, O

J. Barranco, O. G. Miranda, C. A. Moura, T. I. Rashba, and F. Rossi-Torres, JCAP10, 007 (2011), arXiv:1012.2476 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv 2011