Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

A neutrino data analysis of extra-dimensional theories with massive bulk fields

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read No signatures of extra-dimensional sterile neutrinos appear in a joint fit to MINOS/MINOS+, KamLAND, and Daya Bay; the resulting upper bound on the compactification radius R depends sharply on bulk mass and Yukawa assumptions.

desk verdict A genuinely useful constraints paper, but the headline positive-cR bounds are sitting in a strong-coupling regime the authors never check. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.04274 v1 pith:W5AHXJJT submitted 2025-08-06 hep-ph hep-ex

Philipp Eller , Manuel Ettengruber , Alan Zander This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-ex
keywords largeextradimensionssterileneutrinosKaluza–KleintowerbulkDiracmassneutrinooscillationsdarkdimensioncompactificationradiusexclusionlimits
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper asks whether a single large extra dimension containing right-handed neutrinos with bulk Dirac masses can survive contact with neutrino oscillation data. It jointly fits MINOS/MINOS+, KamLAND, and Daya Bay and finds no deviation from three-flavor mixing, so the data place upper limits on the compactification radius R. The limits depend strongly on two model parameters: the dimensionless bulk mass $c_iR$ and the brane Yukawa coupling $\lambda_i$. Positive $c_iR$ or $\lambda_i \gtrsim 10^{-3}$ force large active\textendash sterile mixing and push the excluded region out toward the gravity bound, while negative $c_iR$ or $\lambda_i \lesssim 10^{-4}$ leave R essentially unconstrained by oscillations. Because the same framework covers ADD-like extra dimensions and the ``dark dimension'' candidate motivated by the cosmological constant, the bounds matter for both.

What carries the argument

The engine of the calculation is a generation-diagonal mass matrix (Eq. 2.11) that couples one active neutrino to a tower of Kaluza\textendash Klein sterile states with masses $m_{i,n}=\sqrt{(n/R)^2+c_i^2}$ and brane couplings $Y_i^n = \lambda_i (M_f/M_{\rm Pl}) \sqrt{2n^2/(n^2+c_i^2R^2)}$; the zero-mode coupling $Y_i^0$ carries the exponential $c_iR$ dependence that drives the strongest bounds. The analysis machinery is a profile likelihood over these masses and couplings with three binned datasets, using $\Delta\chi^2 = -2\log(L_{\rm BSM}/L_{\rm SM})$ and Wilks' theorem to convert the test statistic into exclusion contours.

What would settle it

Take the same three datasets and rerun the profile likelihood with the n=0 Kaluza\textendash Klein state included (mass $c_i$ and coupling $Y_i^0$) at benchmark points such as $c_iR=1$, $m_{\rm lightest}=10^{-3}$ eV; if the 90% upper limit on $R$ moves by more than the width of the plotted contour, the omission in Eq. (2.11) is shaping the result.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that current long- and short-baseline oscillation data contain no trace of the Kaluza\textendash Klein sterile-neutrino tower predicted by these models, and that the null result translates into a quantitative map of allowed compactification radii. In the ADD+ scenario and in the Dark Dimension scenario, the same 5D mass matrix (Eq. 2.11) with bulk masses $c_i$ couples one active neutrino per generation to KK modes of mass $\sqrt{(n/R)^2+c_i^2}$. To reproduce the observed solar and atmospheric splittings, positive $c_iR$ requires dimensionless Yukawa couplings $\lambda_i$ that grow exponentially with $c_iR$, so the active neutrino is necessarily strongly mixed wit

Load-bearing premise

The bounds are computed from a mass matrix that omits the n=0 Kaluza\textendash Klein mode, the lightest state of the bulk neutrino tower, and treats the lightest neutrino mass as an external input scanned in the fit; if that state mixes with the active neutrinos, or if the lightest mass is set by the model rather than chosen by hand, the excluded radii could shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For positive bulk masses, the excluded compactification radii reach the short-range-gravity frontier, so the dark dimension's $0.1\textendash 10\,\mu$m window is only open for negative $c_iR$ or small $\lambda_i$.
  • The $cR=0$ ADD benchmark reproduces the published bounds from [27], so the same pipeline can be extended to updated neutrino datasets.
  • In the Dark Dimension scenario, $\lambda_i \gtrsim 10^{-3}$ yields bounds at least as strong as standard ADD, while $\lambda_i \lesssim 10^{-4}$ leaves only the gravity limit ($R \lesssim 30\,\mu$m).
  • Normal and inverted mass orderings give different exclusions below $m_{\rm lightest} \sim 0.1$ eV; above that scale the ordering distinction disappears.
  • With both $c_i$ and $\lambda_i$ free, the model reproduces all three datasets, meaning the plotted contours are bounds on conditional parameter space, not on the model as a whole.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Not stated in the paper but implied by the fully general fit: any model that scans both $c_iR$ and $\lambda_i$ can evade every plotted oscillation bound.
  • Not stated in the paper: the exponential growth of the required Yukawa coupling with positive $c_iR$ carries a naturalness cost\textemdash a positive-bulk-mass dark dimension would need finely tuned fundamental couplings to remain invisible.
  • A natural next step the paper does not take: fold in short-baseline appearance data, the channel that originally motivated bulk masses, to probe the negative-$c_iR$ region that disappearance data cannot constrain.
  • A robustness check the paper does not perform: recompute the contours with the $n=0$ Kaluza\textendash Klein mode in the mass matrix; if the limits shift appreciably, the truncation in Eq. (2.11) is the operative assumption.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper performs a frequentist profile-likelihood analysis of neutrino oscillation data from MINOS/MINOS+, KamLAND, and Daya Bay to constrain a class of extra-dimensional models with one large compactified dimension and bulk Dirac masses for right-handed neutrinos (ADD+ and Dark Dimension scenarios). The model predicts a tower of sterile KK modes that mix with active neutrinos. The authors validate their pipeline against published SM results and against the reference oscillograms of Carena et al., then scan the compactification radius R, the lightest neutrino mass, and either the bulk-mass parameters c_i or Yukawa couplings λ_i, obtaining 90% and 99% exclusion limits on R. They find no BSM signal. Positive c_iR produce strong bounds because matching the observed solar and atmospheric splittings forces exponentially large λ_i; negative c_iR or small λ_i leave the radius weakly constrained.

Significance. If the derivation and statistical procedure are sound, the paper is a useful phenomenological map of allowed (R, c_i, λ_i) space for two well-motivated higher-dimensional neutrino-mass frameworks. Its strengths include an open-source analysis pipeline, validation against published SM results and against the reference oscillograms of Carena et al., and a clear separation of the ADD+ and DD interpretations of Mf. The paper also identifies which regions of parameter space remain open for future experiments. However, the strongest exclusion statements are weakened by two unaddressed issues: the fitted Yukawa couplings in the positive-c_iR region may be non-perturbative, and the effective mass matrix omits the n=0 KK mode while scanning mlightest as an external parameter. The scope of the datasets also falls short of the 'global' label used in the abstract.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 5, Eq. (2.9)] The paper's strongest claim — that large positive c_iR lead to strong bounds on R — rests on the statement that the λ_i required to reproduce Δm^2_21 and Δm^2_31 grow exponentially with c_iR (Sec. 5, Fig. 3). This follows from Eq. (2.9): Y0 = λ_i (Mf/MPl) sqrt(2π c_iR/(e^{2π c_iR}-1)). For positive c_iR, the zero-mode coupling is exponentially suppressed, so λ_i must scale roughly as (m_light/v)(MPl/Mf) e^{π c_iR}. For ADD+ with Mf=10 TeV and mlightest=10^-3 eV, even c_iR=1 already implies λ_i ~ O(10), above the 4π perturbativity limit; for larger c_iR or larger mlightest, λ_i becomes orders of magnitude larger. The paper never reports the fitted λ_i values and never imposes a perturbativity or unitarity bound. Consequently, the strong positive-c_iR exclusion contours may be predictions of a strongly coupled regime and should not be presented as robust EFT constraints. The small-λ and ne
  2. [Eq. (2.11), Sec. 4] The mass matrix in Eq. (2.11) as written has no diagonal entry for the n=0 KK mode: the sterile diagonal starts at m1, m2, ..., and the first row contains vY0 with no corresponding mass row. Since Eq. (2.9) for Y0 plays a key role in the exponential-growth argument, the treatment of the zero mode is not a detail. In addition, mlightest is scanned as an external profiled parameter (Sec. 4), whereas the model itself predicts the light mass from the same λ_i and c_i. If the zero-mode contribution is non-negligible, or if mlightest is not freely adjustable independently of the Yukawa couplings, the oscillation probabilities and therefore the R exclusions could shift. The authors should state the basis used in Eq. (2.11), justify the omission (or correction) of the n=0 state, and discuss the status of mlightest as an external versus derived parameter.
  3. [Abstract, Sec. 4] The manuscript repeatedly calls the analysis 'global' (abstract, Sec. 4), but the datasets are MINOS/MINOS+, KamLAND, and Daya Bay only. These probes cover νμ and ν̄e disappearance channels relevant for θ23, θ13, θ12, Δm^2_31, Δm^2_21, but they do not include atmospheric neutrino data (Super-K, IceCube/DeepCore) or accelerator appearance data (T2K, NOvA), which are pertinent to sterile-KK mixing and have been used in previous LED analyses such as Ref. [27]. The comparison of the c=0 benchmark with [27] is therefore not an apples-to-apples validation of 'global' coverage. Either expand the dataset or adjust the 'global' terminology to 'combined analysis of MINOS/MINOS+, KamLAND, and Daya Bay'.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 5] Notation is inconsistent between 'cR' (Fig. 3 caption) and 'ciR' in the text. Also, 'For mlightest ≳ 0.1, eV' contains a misplaced comma; it should read '0.1 eV'.
  2. [Sec. 4] In Eq. (4.2), specify that LSM and LBSM are the profile likelihoods maximized over the common nuisance parameters, and state the number of degrees of freedom used for the Δχ²-to-CL conversion. This is important for reproducibility.
  3. [Sec. 3] The 'NKK = 10' truncation is mentioned in the Figure 1 caption; it would be helpful to state in Sec. 4 how many KK modes are used in the final fit and whether the results are stable when the truncation is increased.
  4. [Sec. 4] The statement that the fully general fit (both c_i and λ_i free) always accommodates the data implies that the bounds in Figs. 3 and 4 are conditional on fixing one of these parameter sets. This caveat should be made more prominent in the abstract and conclusions.
  5. [References] The arXiv number and submission date appear inside the text body after the abstract; this should be removed in the journal version. The code repository link should include a version/commit for reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the R-exclusion limits are an independent data fit, not a re-description of fitted inputs.

full rationale

The paper fits λ_i or c_iR to reproduce the observed SM mass splittings (Section 3, Eqs. 2.9-2.11), then derives constraints on the compactification radius R from the shape and normalization of neutrino oscillation spectra via a profile likelihood (Eqs. 4.1-4.2). This is a benchmark normalization, not a circular reduction: the fitted parameters are inputs, while the central claim is a bound on R, which is not defined in terms of those fits. No equation reduces to itself by construction. The self-citations in Section 4 ('validated through its use in earlier studies [33,34]') are not load-bearing; the paper independently validates its simulation pipeline against published standard oscillation results for each dataset and compares to external constraints (KATRIN, gravity tests), so the self-citation does not raise the circularity score. The omission of the n=0 KK mode in Eq. (2.11) and the lack of a perturbativity check for large λ_i at positive c_iR (Section 5) are model-validity or correctness risks, not circularity, and therefore do not affect this verdict.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model adds no new entities beyond the existing KK tower and bulk mass terms. The central claim depends on the assumed mass matrix structure, the benchmark choices for λi, ci, Mf, and the standard oscillation parameters.

free parameters (5)
  • λi (dimensionless Yukawa couplings) = Not fixed; fitted in some scenarios, set to benchmarks in others
    In the fixed-ci scenario, λi are fitted to reproduce Δm²21 and Δm²31; in the fixed-λ scenario they are set to benchmark values (roughly 1e-4 to 1e-2).
  • ci (bulk Dirac masses) = Not fixed; fitted in some scenarios, set to benchmarks in others
    In the fixed-λ scenario, ci are fitted to reproduce the SM mass splittings; in the fixed-ci scenario they are set to benchmark values (ciR from -10 to 10).
  • mlightest (lightest neutrino mass) = Scanned over a range including 0.001 eV and above
    Profiled in the likelihood; affects oscillation probabilities through the absolute mass scale.
  • Mf (fundamental scale, ADD+) = 10 TeV (benchmark for ADD+); derived from R for DD via Eq. (2.2)
    Chosen by hand for ADD+; the DD value is an input from the dark dimension framework.
  • Standard Model oscillation parameters (θ12, θ13, θ23, δCP, Δm²21, Δm²31) = Profiled to best-fit values
    Marginalized in the global fit; their uncertainties propagate into the R bounds.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The 5D action with bulk Dirac masses and brane-localized Yukawa interactions (Eq. 2.3) is the correct effective theory for ADD+ and DD sterile neutrinos.
    The entire analysis rests on this model; the paper cites prior work but does not derive it from a more fundamental theory.
  • standard math The KK wavefunctions and masses (Eqs. 2.5-2.8) follow from solving the 5D Dirac equation under the stated boundary conditions.
    Standard quantum field theory in extra dimensions; accepted result used as input.
  • domain assumption The neutrino mass matrix in Eq. (2.11), with the n=0 mode omitted and mlightest added externally, represents the physical spectrum.
    The paper does not justify the absence of the zero mode or the origin of mlightest; if this matrix is wrong, the oscillation probabilities change.
  • standard math Wilks' theorem applies to the profile likelihood ratio in Eq. (4.2), so that Δχ2 can be converted to confidence levels.
    Relies on the asymptotic chi-square distribution of the test statistic; known to be approximate in some bounded parameter regions.
  • domain assumption Each experiment's published data and systematic uncertainties are correctly encoded in the binned likelihoods.
    The accuracy of the bounds depends on this; the paper validates against the SM best fit but does not release the implementation.
  • domain assumption The dark dimension relation Mf = 1.055 × 10^9 GeV (μm/2πR)^1/3 (Eq. 2.2) is an input from the dark dimension framework.
    This fixes the DD model scaling and is used in computing the limits for that scenario.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A neutrino data analysis of extra-dimensional theories with massive bulk fields." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/W5AHXJJT

@misc{pith2026250804274,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A neutrino data analysis of extra-dimensional theories with massive bulk fields},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/W5AHXJJT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.04274}
}
read the original abstract

We present a global neutrino oscillation analysis of models with a single large extra dimension in which right-handed neutrinos possess bulk Dirac masses. Two scenarios are considered: Large Extra Dimensions with bulk masses and the Dark Dimension framework, both predicting a tower of sterile Kaluza-Klein states that mix with active neutrinos. Using data from MINOS/MINOS+, KamLAND, and Daya Bay, we perform a joint likelihood analysis. No signatures of these theories were found. Therefore, we constrain the compactification radius under different bulk mass and Yukawa coupling assumptions. Large positive bulk masses or sizable Yukawas lead to strong bounds, while small couplings or negative bulk masses remain less constrained.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.04274 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Oscillation probabilities for the three considered experiments, MINOS/MINOS+ (left), KamLAND (center), [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparison of the SM bestfit (blue) vs. the bestfit of an example point in our model parameter space [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Exclusion limits at 90% CL (dashed) and 99% CL (solid) on the compactification radius [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Exclusion limits at 90% CL (dashed) and 99% CL (solid) on the compactification radius [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Searching for the $N$-naturalness tower of neutrinos

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Neutrino data rule out the Majorana realization of N-naturalness with up to 10^4 sectors and fine-tuning r ≥ 0.1, including the no-fine-tuning GUT benchmark.

  2. Dark Dimension Right-handed Neutrinos Confronted with Long-Baseline Oscillation Experiments

    hep-ph 2026-01 unverdicted novelty 4.0 of 10

    T2K and NOvA data exclude dark-dimension neutrino models with bulk mass |c| < ~0.1 eV for a 10 µm extra dimension.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [27]

    Large extra dimensions and neutrino experiments

    DV Forero, C Giunti, CA Ternes, and O Tyagi. Large extra dimensions and neutrino experiments. Physical Review D, 106(3):035027, 2022. 11 A neutrino data analysis of extra-dimensional theories with massive bulk fields A PREPRINT

    work page 2022

  2. [1]

    Nima Arkani-Hamed, Savas Dimopoulos, and G. R. Dvali. The Hierarchy problem and new dimensions at a millimeter. Phys. Lett. B, 429:263–272, 1998

    1998

  3. [2]

    A Large mass hierarchy from a small extra dimension

    Lisa Randall and Raman Sundrum. A Large mass hierarchy from a small extra dimension. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 83:3370–3373, 1999

    work page 1999

  4. [3]

    Nima Arkani-Hamed, Savas Dimopoulos, and G. R. Dvali. Phenomenology, astrophysics and cosmology of theories with submillimeter dimensions and TeV scale quantum gravity. Phys. Rev. D, 59:086004, 1999

    work page 1999

  5. [4]

    Dark dimension gravitons as dark matter

    Eduardo Gonzalo, Miguel Montero, Georges Obied, and Cumrun Vafa. Dark dimension gravitons as dark matter. JHEP, 11:109, 2023

    work page 2023

  6. [5]

    Mack, Sarah Schon, Ningqiang Song, and Aaron C

    Avi Friedlander, Katherine J. Mack, Sarah Schon, Ningqiang Song, and Aaron C. Vincent. Primordial black hole dark matter in the context of extra dimensions. Phys. Rev. D, 105(10):103508, 2022

    work page 2022

  7. [6]

    Anchordoqui, Ignatios Antoniadis, and Dieter Lust

    Luis A. Anchordoqui, Ignatios Antoniadis, and Dieter Lust. Dark dimension, the swampland, and the dark matter fraction composed of primordial black holes. Phys. Rev. D, 106(8):086001, 2022

    work page 2022

  8. [7]

    Micro Black Hole Dark Matter

    Manuel Ettengruber and Florian Kuhnel. Micro Black Hole Dark Matter. 6 2025

    work page 2025

Show all 39 references
  1. [8]

    The dark dimension and the Swampland

    Miguel Montero, Cumrun Vafa, and Irene Valenzuela. The dark dimension and the Swampland. JHEP, 02:022, 2023

    2023

  2. [9]

    Joel Scherk and John H. Schwarz. Dual Models for Nonhadrons. Nucl. Phys. B, 81:118–144, 1974

    1974

  3. [10]

    Ignatios Antoniadis, Nima Arkani-Hamed, Savas Dimopoulos, and G. R. Dvali. New dimensions at a millimeter to a Fermi and superstrings at a TeV. Phys. Lett. B, 436:257–263, 1998

    1998

  4. [11]

    Nima Arkani-Hamed, Savas Dimopoulos, G. R. Dvali, and John March-Russell. Neutrino masses from large extra dimensions. Phys. Rev. D, 65:024032, 2001

    2001

  5. [12]

    Anchordoqui, Ignatios Antoniadis, and Dieter Lust

    Luis A. Anchordoqui, Ignatios Antoniadis, and Dieter Lust. Aspects of the dark dimension in cosmology. Phys. Rev. D, 107(8):083530, 2023

    2023

  6. [13]

    Black Holes and Large N Species Solution to the Hierarchy Problem

    Gia Dvali. Black Holes and Large N Species Solution to the Hierarchy Problem. F ortsch. Phys., 58:528–536, 2010

    2010

  7. [14]

    Black Hole Bound on the Number of Species and Quantum Gravity at LHC

    Gia Dvali and Michele Redi. Black Hole Bound on the Number of Species and Quantum Gravity at LHC. Phys. Rev. D, 77:045027, 2008

    2008

  8. [15]

    G. R. Dvali and Alexei Yu. Smirnov. Probing large extra dimensions with neutrinos. Nucl. Phys. B , 563:63–81, 1999

    1999

  9. [16]

    Neutrino physics in TeV scale gravity theories

    Manuel Ettengruber. Neutrino physics in TeV scale gravity theories. Phys. Rev. D, 106(5):055028, 2022

    2022

  10. [17]

    Neutrino Masses and Phenomenology in Nnaturalness

    Manuel Ettengruber. Neutrino Masses and Phenomenology in Nnaturalness. 2 2025

    2025

  11. [18]

    Andre Lukas, Pierre Ramond, Andrea Romanino, and Graham G. Ross. Solar neutrino oscillation from large extra dimensions. Phys. Lett. B, 495:136–146, 2000

    2000

  12. [19]

    Remarks on models with singlet neutrino in large extra dimensions

    Kaustubh Agashe and Guo-Hong Wu. Remarks on models with singlet neutrino in large extra dimensions. Phys. Lett. B, 498:230–236, 2001

    2001

  13. [20]

    Diego and M

    D. Diego and M. Quiros. Dirac Versus Majorana Neutrino Masses From a TeV Interval. Nucl. Phys. B, 805:148– 167, 2008

    2008

  14. [21]

    Machado, Pedro A

    Marcela Carena, Ying-Ying Li, Camila S. Machado, Pedro A. N. Machado, and Carlos E. M. Wagner. Neutrinos in Large Extra Dimensions and Short-Baseline νe Appearance. Phys. Rev. D, 96(9):095014, 2017

    2017

  15. [22]

    The String landscape and the swampland

    Cumrun Vafa. The String landscape and the swampland. 9 2005

    2005

  16. [23]

    On the Geometry of the String Landscape and the Swampland

    Hirosi Ooguri and Cumrun Vafa. On the Geometry of the String Landscape and the Swampland. Nucl. Phys. B, 766:21–33, 2007

    2007

  17. [24]

    Emergent strings, duality and weak coupling limits for two-form fields

    Seung-Joo Lee, Wolfgang Lerche, and Timo Weigand. Emergent strings, duality and weak coupling limits for two-form fields. JHEP, 02:096, 2022

    2022

  18. [25]

    AdS and the Swampland

    Dieter L ¨ust, Eran Palti, and Cumrun Vafa. AdS and the Swampland. Phys. Lett. B, 797:134867, 2019

    2019

  19. [26]

    Emergent strings from infinite distance limits

    Seung-Joo Lee, Wolfgang Lerche, and Timo Weigand. Emergent strings from infinite distance limits. JHEP, 02:190, 2022

    2022

  20. [28]

    Testing for large extra dimensions with neutrino oscillations

    PAN Machado, H Nunokawa, and R Zukanovich Funchal. Testing for large extra dimensions with neutrino oscillations. Physical Review D—Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology, 84(1):013003, 2011

    2011

  21. [29]

    Anchordoqui, Ignatios Antoniadis, and Jules Cunat

    Luis A. Anchordoqui, Ignatios Antoniadis, and Jules Cunat. Dark dimension and the standard model landscape. Phys. Rev. D, 109(1):016028, 2024

    2024

  22. [30]

    Two Micron-Size Dark Dimensions

    Luis Anchordoqui, Ignatios Antoniadis, and Dieter Lust. Two Micron-Size Dark Dimensions. 1 2025

    2025

  23. [31]

    TASI lectures on electroweak symmetry breaking from extra dimensions

    Csaba Csaki, Jay Hubisz, and Patrick Meade. TASI lectures on electroweak symmetry breaking from extra dimensions. In Theoretical Advanced Study Institute in Elementary Particle Physics: Physics in D ≧ 4, pages 703–776, 10 2005

    2005

  24. [32]

    TASI 2011: Four Lectures on TeV Scale Extra Dimensions

    Eduardo Ponton. TASI 2011: Four Lectures on TeV Scale Extra Dimensions. In Theoretical Advanced Study Institute in Elementary Particle Physics: The Dark Secrets of the Terascale , pages 283–374, 2013

    2011

  25. [33]

    Testing the number of neutrino species with a global fit of neutrino data

    Manuel Ettengruber, Alan Zander, and Philipp Eller. Testing the number of neutrino species with a global fit of neutrino data. Physical Review D, 109(9):095016, 2024

    2024

  26. [34]

    Constraints on non- unitary neutrino mixing in light of atmospheric and reactor neutrino data

    Tetiana Kozynets, Philipp Eller, Alan Zander, Manuel Ettengruber, and D Jason Koskinen. Constraints on non- unitary neutrino mixing in light of atmospheric and reactor neutrino data. Journal of High Energy Physics , 2025(5):1–47, 2025

    2025

  27. [35]

    Search for sterile neutrinos in minos and minos+ using a two-detector fit.Physical review letters, 122(9):091803, 2019

    P Adamson, I Anghel, A Aurisano, G Barr, M Bishai, A Blake, GJ Bock, D Bogert, SV Cao, TJ Carroll, et al. Search for sterile neutrinos in minos and minos+ using a two-detector fit.Physical review letters, 122(9):091803, 2019

    2019

  28. [36]

    Constraints on θ 13 from a three-flavor oscillation analysis of reactor antineutrinos at kamland

    A Gando, Y Gando, K Ichimura, H Ikeda, K Inoue, Y Kibe, Y Kishimoto, M Koga, Y Minekawa, T Mitsui, et al. Constraints on θ 13 from a three-flavor oscillation analysis of reactor antineutrinos at kamland. Physical Review D—Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology, 83(5):05...

    2011

  29. [37]

    Precision measurement of reactor antineutrino oscillation at kilometer-scale baselines by daya bay

    FP An, WD Bai, AB Balantekin, M Bishai, S Blyth, GF Cao, J Cao, JF Chang, Y Chang, HS Chen, et al. Precision measurement of reactor antineutrino oscillation at kilometer-scale baselines by daya bay. Physical review letters, 130(16):161802, 2023

    2023

  30. [38]

    Direct neutrino-mass measurement based on 259 days of katrin data

    KATRIN Collaboration. Direct neutrino-mass measurement based on 259 days of katrin data. Science, 388(6743):180–185, 2025

    2025

  31. [39]

    J. G. Lee, E. G. Adelberger, T. S. Cook, S. M. Fleischer, and B. R. Heckel. New Test of the Gravitational 1/r2 Law at Separations down to 52 µm. Phys. Rev. Lett., 124(10):101101, 2020. 12

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.