Status of Non-Standard Neutrino Interactions: Reports On Progress in Physics

Reports on Progress in Physics
REVIEW ARTICLE Related content

- Physics at a future Neutrino Factory and
Status of non-standard neutrino interactions super-beam facility
A Bandyopadhyay, S Choubey, R Gandhi
et al.
To cite this article: Tommy Ohlsson 2013 Rep. Prog. Phys. 76 044201
- Theory of neutrinos: a white paper
R N Mohapatra, S Antusch, K S Babu et
al.
- Neutrino physics with JUNO

View the article online for updates and enhancements. Fengpeng An, Guangpeng An, Qi An et al.
Recent citations
- The Short-Baseline Neutrino Program at
Fermilab
Pedro A.N. Machado et al
- Neutrino Physics with Dark Matter

Detectors
Bhaskar Dutta and Louis E. Strigari
- Non-standard neutrino interactions and

low energy experiments
Wolfgang Altmannshofer et al
This content was downloaded from IP address 14.139.207.98 on 22/10/2019 at 06:33

IOP PUBLISHING REPORTS ON PROGRESS IN PHYSICS
Rep. Prog. Phys. 76 (2013) 044201 (21pp) doi:10.1088/0034-4885/76/4/044201
Status of non-standard neutrino

interactions
Tommy Ohlsson
Department of Theoretical Physics, School of Engineering Sciences, KTH Royal Institute of Technology,
AlbaNova University Center, Roslagstullsbacken 21, 106 91 Stockholm, Sweden
E-mail: tohlsson@kth.se
Received 25 September 2012, in final form 29 January 2013

Published 12 March 2013
Online at stacks.iop.org/RoPP/76/044201
Abstract
The phenomenon of neutrino oscillations has been established as the leading mechanism
behind neutrino flavor transitions, providing solid experimental evidence that neutrinos are
massive and lepton flavors are mixed. Here we review sub-leading effects in neutrino flavor
transitions known as non-standard neutrino interactions (NSIs), which is currently the most
explored description for effects beyond the standard paradigm of neutrino oscillations. In
particular, we report on the phenomenology of NSIs and their experimental and
phenomenological bounds as well as an outlook for future sensitivity and discovery reach.
(Some figures may appear in colour only in the online journal)
Contents
1. Introduction 1 5. Phenomenology of NSIs for different types of
2. Neutrino flavor transitions with NSIs 2 experiments 9
2.1. Neutrino oscillations 2 5.1. Atmospheric neutrino experiments 9
2.2. Other scenarios for neutrino flavor transitions 3 5.2. Accelerator neutrino experiments 11
2.3. NSI Hamitonian effects of neutrino oscillations 4 5.3. Reactor neutrino experiments 12
3. NSIs with three neutrino flavors 4 5.4. Neutrino Factory 12
3.1. Production and detection NSIs and the 5.5. NSI effects on solar and supernova neutrino
oscillations 13
zero-distance effect 4
6. Phenomenological bounds on NSIs 13
3.2. Matter NSIs 5
6.1. Direct bounds on matter NSIs 13
3.3. Mappings with matter NSIs 6 6.2. Direct bounds on production and detection NSIs 14
3.4. Approximate formulae for two neutrino flavors 6.3. Bounds on NSIs in neutrino cross-sections 14
with matter NSIs 6 6.4. Bounds on NSIs using accelerators 16
4. Theoretical models for NSIs 7 7. Outlook for NSIs 17
4.1. Gauge symmetry invariance 8 8. Summary and conclusions 17
4.2. A seesaw model—the triplet seesaw model 8 Acknowledgments 17
4.3. The Zee–Babu model 8 References 18
1. Introduction KamLAND, K2K, MINOS and MiniBooNE) on the various

neutrino parameters. Certainly, these solid results have pinned
Since the results of the Super-Kamiokande experiment in Japan down the values on the different parameters to an incredible
in 1998 [1], the phenomenon of neutrino oscillations has precision given that neutrinos are very elusive particles and
been established as the leading mechanism behind neutrino the corresponding experiments are extraordinarily complex
flavor transitions. This result was followed by a first boom (see [2]). Nevertheless, it is a fact that the present Standard
of results from several international collaborations (e.g. SNO, Model (SM) of particle physics is not the whole story
0034-4885/13/044201+21$88.00 1 © 2013 IOP Publishing Ltd Printed in the UK & the USA
Rep. Prog. Phys. 76 (2013) 044201 T Ohlsson
and needs to be revised in order to accommodate massive First, we present standard neutrino oscillations, and then,
and mixed neutrinos, which leads to physics beyond the we consider other scenarios for neutrino flavor transitions
SM. With the upcoming results from the running or future including NSIs. At the end of the section, we discuss the so-
neutrino experiments (e.g. Daya Bay, Double Chooz, ICARUS, called NSI Hamiltonian effects of neutrino oscillations. Then,
IceCube, KATRIN, NOνA, OPERA, RENO, T2K)1 , there will in section 3, we describe NSIs with three neutrino flavors,
be a second boom of results, and we will hopefully be able to since there are at least three flavors in nature. In particular, we
determine the missing neutrino parameters such as the sign consider production, propagation and detection NSIs including
of the large mass-squared difference for neutrinos (important the so-called zero-distance effect. In addition, we present
for the neutrino mass hierarchy), the leptonic CP-violating mappings for NSIs and approximate formulae for two neutrino
phase (important for the matter–antimatter asymmetry in flavors that can be useful in some settings. Next, in section 4,
the Universe), and the absolute neutrino mass scale (using we study different theoretical models for NSIs including, e.g., a
the KATRIN experiment), but also the next-to-leading order seesaw model. In section 5, we investigate the phenomenology
effects in neutrino flavor transitions. of NSIs for different types of neutrinos such as atmospheric,
In future neutrino experiments (and in particular for a accelerator, reactor, solar and supernova neutrinos, whereas
neutrino factory, β-beams, or superbeams), ‘new physics’ in section 6, we review phenomenological bounds on NSIs.
beyond the SM may appear in the form of unknown In addition, in section 7, we give an outlook and examine
couplings involving neutrinos, which are usually referred experimental sensitivities and the future discovery reach of
to as non-standard neutrino interactions (NSIs). Compared NSIs. In section 8, we present a summary and state our
with standard neutrino oscillations, NSIs could contribute to conclusions.
the oscillation probabilities and neutrino event rates as sub-
leading effects, and may bring in very distinctive phenomena. 2. Neutrino flavor transitions with NSIs
Running and future neutrino experiments will provide us with
more precision measurements on neutrino flavor transitions, In this section, we present the basic ingredients for
and therefore, the window of searching for NSIs is open. neutrino oscillations (based on the two facts that neutrinos
In principle, NSIs could exist in the neutrino production, are massive and lepton flavors are mixed), which is the
propagation and detection processes, and the search for NSIs is leptonic mixing matrix, a Schrödinger-like equation for the
complementary to the direct search for new physics conducted evolution of the neutrinos, and the values of the fundamental
at the LHC. The main motivation to study NSIs is that if they neutrino oscillation parameters, i.e. the neutrino mass-squared
exist we ought to know their effects on physics. Models of differences and the leptonic mixing parameters. Then, we
physics that predict NSIs include, for example, various seesaw discuss some historic alternative scenarios for neutrino flavor
models, R-parity violating supersymmetric models, left-right transitions. Finally, we study NSI Hamiltonian effects of
symmetric models, GUTs, and extra dimensions, i.e. basically neutrino oscillations.
all modern models for physics beyond the SM could give rise to
NSIs. For some specific models, see section 4 and references 2.1. Neutrino oscillations
therein.
The concept of NSIs has been introduced in order In fact, there is now strong evidence that neutrinos are massive
to accommodate for sub-leading effects in neutrino flavor and lepton flavors are mixed. In the SM, neutrinos are massless
transitions. Previously, alternative scenarios for neutrino particles, and therefore, the SM must be extended by adding
flavor transitions such as neutrino decoherence, neutrino decay neutrino masses. The lepton flavor mixing is usually defined
and NSIs have been studied (see below for references), but through the leptonic mixing matrix U that can be written as
now, such alternatives are only allowed to provide sub- [6–9]
leading effects to neutrino oscillations. In the literature,       
νe ν1 Ue1 Ue2 Ue3 ν1
there exist several theoretical and phenomenological studies νµ  = U ν2  = Uµ1 Uµ2 Uµ3  ν2  , (1)
of NSIs for atmospheric, accelerator, reactor, solar and ντ ν3 Uτ 1 Uτ 2 Uτ 3 ν3
supernova neutrinos (see especially the references given in
section 5). In addition, some experimental collaborations which relates the weak interaction eigenstates and the mass
have obtained bounds on NSIs (see [4, 5]). The different eigenstates through the leptonic mixing parameters θ12 , θ13 ,
types of experiments that are relevant to NSIs include, e.g., θ23 , δ (the Dirac CP-violating phase), as well as ρ and σ
neutrino oscillations experiments, experiments on lepton flavor (the Majorana CP-violating phases). In the so-called standard
violating processes, experiments on neutrino cross-sections, parameterization, U is given by [10]
and data from experiments at accelerators (such as the LEP   
1 0 0 c13 0 s13 e−iδ
collider, the Tevatron and the LHC). U = 0 c23 s23   0 1 0 
This review is organized as follows. In section 2, we 0 −s23 c23 −s13 e iδ
0 c13
introduce the concept of neutrino flavor transitions with NSIs.    iρ 
c12 s12 0 e 0 0
1 Note that no experiments on neutrinoless double beta decay have been
× −s12 c12 0  0 eiσ 0 , (2)
included in the list of examples. For a recent review on the physics of 0 0 1 0 0 1
neutrinoless double beta decay, see, e.g., [3], and especially, section 5 for
non-standard interactions in connection with neutrinoless double beta decay. where cij ≡ cos(θij ) and sij ≡ sin(θij ).
2
The time evolution of the neutrino vector of state ν = Table 1. Present values of the fundamental neutrino oscillation
T parameters obtained in a global fit analysis using all available
νe νµ ντ describing neutrino oscillations is given by a
neutrino oscillation data [14]. See also [15, 16] for two other
Schrödinger-like equation with a Hamiltonian H , namely (see,
analyses.
e.g., [11] for a detailed review)
Parameter Best-fit value 3σ range
dν 1
i = MM † + diag(A, 0, 0) ν ≡ H ν, (3) m221 (10−5 eV2 ) 7.50 ± 0.185 7.00–8.09
dt 2E |m231 | (10−3 eV2 ) +0.069
2.47−0.067 2.27–2.69
sin2 (θ12 ) 0.30 ± 0.013 0.27–0.34
where E is the neutrino energy, M = U diag(m √ 1 , m2 , m3 ) U
T
sin2 (θ13 ) 0.023 ± 0.0023 0.016–0.030
is the neutrino mass matrix, and A = 2 2EGF Ne is the sin2 (θ23 ) +0.037
0.41−0.025 0.34–0.67
effective matter potential induced by ordinary charged-current
weak interactions with electrons [12, 13]. Here, m1 , m2 and
m3 are the definite masses of the neutrino mass eigenstates, the sign of the large mass-squared difference m231 ?2 Is there
GF = (1.166 3787 ± 0.000 0006) × 10−5 GeV−2 is the Fermi leptonic CP violation? Do sterile neutrinos exist? However,
coupling constant [10], and Ne is the electron density of recently, one has also been concerned with the following two
matter along the neutrino trajectory. Quantum mechanically, questions in the literature. Are there NSIs? Is there non-
the transition probability amplitudes are given as overlaps unitarity in leptonic mixing? The intention of this review is to
of different neutrino states, and finally, neutrino oscillation bring some insight into these last two questions (with emphasis
probabilities are defined as squared absolute values of the on the first question).
transition probability amplitudes. Thus, flavor transitions Since 1998, the Super-Kamiokande, SNO and KamLAND
occur during the evolution of neutrinos. For example, in a experiments have provided strong evidence for neutrino flavor
two-flavor illustration (in vacuum) with electron and muon transitions and that the theory of neutrino oscillations is the
neutrinos, a neutrino state can be in a pure electron neutrino leading description [1, 17, 18]. In various neutrino oscillation
state at one time, whereas it can be in a pure muon neutrino experiments, precision measurements for some of the neutrino
state at another time. In this case, the well-known two-flavor parameters, i.e. m221 , |m231 |, θ12 , θ13 and θ23 , have
neutrino oscillation probability formulae are given by (see, been obtained, whereas other parameters are still completely
e.g., [11]) unknown such as sign(m231 ) and δ, as well as the Majorana

CP-violating phases and the absolute neutrino mass scale.
m2 L
P (νe → νµ ; L) = sin2 (2θ ) sin2 , (4) Running and future neutrino oscillation experiments might
4E have sensitivities to measure sign(m231 ) and possibly δ, while
neutrinoless double beta decay experiments could determine
P (νe → νe ) = 1 − P (νe → νµ ) = 1 − P (νµ → νe ) if neutrinos are Dirac or Majorana particles (as well as the
= P (νµ → νµ ), (5) Majorana CP-violating phases) and the KATRIN experiment
will probe the absolute neutrino mass scale using β-decay.
where L is the (propagation) path length of the neutrinos, θ is
New physics, such as NSIs, might be present and complicate
the two-flavor mixing angle (corresponding to the amplitude
the experiments that want to answer the fundamental questions
of the oscillations), and m2 is the mass-squared difference
about neutrinos. Thus, we should investigate NSIs in order to
(corresponding to the frequency of the oscillations) between
obtain knowledge on their possible effects.
the masses of the two neutrino mass eigenstates. In addition, in
the case of three neutrino flavors in vacuum, we have the more
cumbersome formula for the neutrino transition probability 2.2. Other scenarios for neutrino flavor transitions
Other mechanisms could be responsible for flavor transitions
∗ ∗
P (να → νβ ; L) = δαβ − 4 Re(Uαi Uβi Uαj Uβj )
on a sub-leading level (see, e.g., [19]). Therefore, we
i>j
will phenomenologically study new physics effects due to
m2ij L NSIs. In the past, descriptions for transitions of neutrinos
∗ ∗
× sin2 +2 Im(Uαi Uβi Uαj Uβj )
4E based on neutrino decoherence and neutrino decay have been
i>j
extensively investigated in the literature [20–62]. However,
m2ij L now, such descriptions are ruled out by available neutrino
× sin , (6)
2E data as the leading-order mechanism behind neutrino flavor
transitions [32, 63–66], but these descriptions could still
where α, β = e, µ, τ . In fact, it even turns out that equation (6) provide sub-leading effects. In what follows, we will not
holds for arbitrary neutrino flavors. consider neutrino decoherence and neutrino decay, but instead
Using global fits to data from neutrino oscillation focus on NSIs, which are interactions between neutrinos and
experiments, the values given in table 1 have been obtained matter fermions (i.e. u, d and e) that additionally affect neutrino
for the fundamental neutrino oscillation parameters [14]. Note oscillations, as a sub-leading mechanism for neutrino flavor
that these values have been found without taking sub-leading transitions.
effects such as NSIs into account. Open questions that still 2 Note that the sign of the large mass-squared difference will determine the
exist about neutrinos are: are neutrinos Dirac or Majorana character of the neutrino mass spectrum, i.e. if the spectrum follows normal
particles? What is the absolute neutrino mass scale? What is or inverted neutrino mass hierarchy.
3
2.3. NSI Hamitonian effects of neutrino oscillations conserving/violating effects, i.e. effects that affect particular
flavor or mass eigenstates.
In general, NSIs can be considered to be effective additional
Furthermore, non-standard Hamiltonian effects (such
contributions to the standard vacuum Hamiltonian H0 that as NSIs) will lead to resonance conditions [67], which
describes the neutrino evolution (see, e.g., [67] for details)3 . are modified versions of the famous Mikheyev–Smirnov–
Thus, any Hermitian non-standard Hamiltonian effect H will Wolfenstein (MSW) effect [12, 13, 79]. See, e.g., section 3.4.
alter the original Hamiltonian into an effective Hamiltonian:
Heff = H0 + H . (7) 3. NSIs with three neutrino flavors
For example, neutrino oscillations in matter with 1 < n The phenomenological consequences of NSIs have been
3 flavors, which is the canonical example of NSIs, are investigated in great detail in the literature. The widely studied
described by operators responsible for NSIs can be written as [12, 80–82]
1 1 √ ff C
H = Hmatter = diag(A, 0, . . . , 0) − √ GF Nn 1n LNSI = −2 2GF εαβ να γ µ P L νβ f γ µ P C f , (9)
2E 2
√ ff C
= 2GF diag(Ne − 2 Nn , − 2 Nn , . . . , − 2 Nn ),
1 1 1
(8) where εαβ are NSI parameters, α, β = e, µ, τ , f, f =
where the quantity A was defined in connection to equation (3), e, u, d and C = L, R. If f = f , the NSIs are charged-current
Nn is the nucleon number density, and 1n is the n × n like, whereas if f = f , the NSIs are neutral-current like and
fC ff C
unit matrix. Note the opposite signs of the charged-current the NSI parameters are defined as εαβ ≡ εαβ . Note that
weak interaction contribution (proportional to Ne ) and the the operators (9) are non-renormalizable and they are also not
neutral-current weak interaction contribution (proportional gauge invariant. Thus, using the NSI operators in equation (9),
to Nn ). In the case of neutrino oscillations in matter, the which lead to a so-called dimension-6 operator after heavy
effective Hamiltonian Heff = H0 + Hmatter is basically the degrees of freedom
√ are integrated out, and the well-known
same Hamiltonian as the one defined in equation (3), since relation GF / 2 gW 2
/(8m2W ),4 we find that the effective
the neutral-current weak interaction contribution appears in NSI parameters are (see, e.g., [83–85] for discussions)
all diagonal elements of the second term in Hmatter , which m2W
means that this term will only affect the phase of the time ε∝ , (10)
m2X
evolution, and therefore has no effect on neutrino oscillations.
Just as the presence of matter affects the effective neutrino where mW = (80.385±0.015) GeV ∼ 0.1 TeV is the W boson
parameters, the effective neutrino parameters will be affected mass and mX is the mass scale at which the NSIs are generated
by any non-standard Hamiltonian effect. For example, in the [10]. Note that the characteristic proportionality relation (10)
case of the so-called matter NSIs—a generalization of neutrino is at least valid for energies below the new physics scale mX ,
oscillations in matter, the corresponding effective Hamiltonian where the NSI operators are effective. If the new physics scale,
will be presented and discussed in section 3.2. i.e. the NSI scale, is of the order of 1(10) TeV, then one obtains
In general, the non-standard Hamiltonian effects can alter effective NSI parameters of the order of εαβ ∼ 10−2 (10−4 ).
both the oscillation frequency and the oscillation amplitude and In principle, NSIs can affect both (i) production and
they can be classified as ‘flavor effects’ or ‘mass effects’ [67]. detection processes and (ii) propagation in matter, and (iii) one
A non-standard Hamiltonian effect can be defined in either can have combinations of both effects. In the following, we
flavor or mass basis, and be parametrized by the so-called will first study production and detection NSIs, including the so-
generators that span the effective Hamiltonian Heff in the basis called zero-distance effect, and then matter NSIs. In addition,
under consideration. If n = 2, the generators are the three Pauli we will present mappings with NSIs and discuss approximate
matrices, whereas if n = 3, the generators are instead the eight formulae for two neutrino flavors.
Gell–Mann matrices. For example, NSIs and flavor-changing
neutral currents [12, 76] are normally defined in flavor basis, 3.1. Production and detection NSIs and the zero-distance
whereas the concept of mass-varying neutrinos [77, 78] is effect
defined in mass basis. In principle, there is no mathematical
difference between flavor and mass effects if one allows for In general, production and detection processes, which are
the most general form in each basis. However, one can define based on charged-current interaction processes, can be affected
a non-standard Hamiltonian effect as a ‘pure’ flavor or mass by charged-current like NSIs. For a realistic neutrino
effect if the corresponding Hamiltonian H can be written as oscillation experiment, the neutrino states produced in a source
H = cρi or H = cτi (i fixed), where c is a real number and observed at a detector can be written as superpositions of
and ρi ’s and τi ’s are the generators in flavor basis and mass pure orthonormal flavor eigenstates [80, 83, 86, 87]:

bases, respectively. Thus, pure effects are restricted to be of |ναs
= |να
+ s
εαβ |νβ
= (1 + ε s )U |νm
, (11)
very specific types, where the actual forms are very simple in β=e,µ,τ
either flavor or mass basis, and correspond to pure flavor/mass
νβd | = νβ | + d
εαβ να | = νm |U † [1 + (εd )† ], (12)
3 It should be noted that the idea of NSIs was first presented in the seminal α=e,µ,τ
work by Wolfenstein [12]. Other important work on NSIs can be found in
[13, 68–75]. 4 The quantity gW is the coupling constant of the weak interaction.
4
where the superscripts ‘s’ and ‘d’ denote the source and the 3.2. Matter NSIs
detector, respectively, and |νm
is a neutrino mass eigenstate.
In addition, the production and detection NSI parameters, i.e. In order to describe neutrino propagation in matter with NSIs
s d ff C (assuming no effect of production and detection NSIs, which
εαβ and εαβ , are defined through NSI parameters εαβ , where
were discussed in section 3.1), the simple effective matter
f = f . Note that the states |ναs
and νβd | are not orthonormal potential in equation (3) needs to be extended. Similar
states due to the NSIs and that the matrices ε s and ε d are not to standard matter effects, NSIs can affect the neutrino
necessarily the same matrix, since different physical processes propagation by coherent forward scattering in Earth matter.
take place at the source and the detector, which means that The Earth matter effects are more or less involved depending
these matrices are arbitrary and non-unitary in general. If on the specific terrestrial neutrino oscillation experiment. In
the production and detection processes are exactly the same other words, the Hamiltonian in equation (3) is replaced by
process with the same participating fermions (e.g. β-decay and an effective Hamiltonian, which governs the propagation of
†
inverse β-decay), then the same matrix enters as ε s = εd , or neutrino flavor states in matter with NSIs, namely [12, 68–70]
s ∗ d ∗
on the form of matrix elements, εαβ s
= εαβ
d
= (εβα ) = (εβα ) 1
[84]. For example, in the case of so-called non-unitarity effects Ĥ = U diag(m21 , m22 , m23 )U † + diag(A, 0, 0) + Aε m ,
2E
(which can be considered as a type of NSIs, see, e.g., [88]) in
(17)
the minimal unitarity violation model [89–94], it holds that
†
ε s = ε d . Thus, it is important to keep in mind that these where the matrix εm contains the (effective) matter NSI
matrices are experiment- and process-dependent quantities. parameters εαβ (α, β = e, µ, τ ), which are defined as
In the case of production and detection NSIs, the neutrino fC Nf
transition probabilities are given by (see equation (6) for the εαβ ≡ εαβ (18)
case without production and detection NSIs) [87, 95] f,C
Ne
2

m2 L fC
with the parameters εαβ being entries of the Hermitian matrix
P (να → νβ ; L) =
s d d s
1 + ε γβ 1 + ε αδ Uδi Uγ i e ∗ −i 2E
i
ε f C and giving the strengths of the NSIs and the quantity Nf
γ ,δ,i
being the number density of a fermion of type f . Unlike ε s and
j∗
j∗ m2ij L εd , ε m = (εαβ ) is a Hermitian matrix describing NSIs in matter,
= Jαβi
Jαβ − 4 Re(Jαβi
Jαβ ) sin2
i,j i>j
4E where the superscript ‘m’ is used to distinguish matter NSIs
from production and detection NSIs. Thus, for three neutrino
j∗ m2ij L flavors, we obtain
+2 Im(Jαβ i
Jαβ ) sin , (13)     
2E
i>j ν 0 0 0
d  e 1  
where i νµ = U 0 m221 0  U†
dt ν 2E 0 0 m231
∗ τ
Jαβ
i
= Uαi Uβi + s
εαγ Uγ∗i Uβi + d
εγβ ∗
Uαi Uγ i    
γ γ
1 + εee εeµ εeτ νe
+A  εeµ ∗
εµµ εµτ  νµ  . (19)
+ s
εαγ d
εδβ Uγ∗i Uδi . (14) ∗
εeτ ∗
εµτ ετ τ ντ
γ ,δ
The ‘1’ in the 1-1–element of the effective matter potential
In fact, animportant feature of equation (13) is that the first
j∗ in equation (19) describes the weak interaction of electron
term, i.e. i,j Jαβi
Jαβ , is generally different from zero or one.
neutrinos with left-handed electrons through the exchange of
In particular, evaluating equation (13) at L = 0, we obtain
W bosons, i.e. the standard matter interactions, whereas the
j∗ NSI parameters εαβ in the effective matter potential describe
P (ναs → νβd ; L = 0) = Jαβ
i
Jαβ , (15)
the matter NSIs. See figure 1 for schematic pictures of
i,j
standard and non-standard matter effects. Now, the effective
which means that a neutrino flavor transition would already Hamiltonian Ĥ in equation (17), which is Hermitian, can be
happen at the source before the oscillation process has taken diagonalized using a unitary transformation, and one finds
place. This is known as the zero-distance effect [96]. It could
1
be measured with a near detector close to the source. In the Ĥ = Ũ diag(m̃21 , m̃22 , m̃23 )Ũ † , (20)
case that εs = εd = 0, i.e. without production and detection 2E
NSIs, the first term reduces to where m̃2i (i = 1, 2, 3) denote the effective mass-squared
j∗
eigenvalues of neutrinos and Ũ is the effective leptonic mixing
∗ ∗
Jαβi
Jαβ = Uαi Uβi Uαj Uβj = δαβ , (16)
i,j i,j
matrix in matter. Of course, all the quantities m̃2i and Ũ will
in general be dependent on the effective matter potential A as
which is the first term in equation (6). Note that equation (13) well as some of the various matter NSI parameters εαβ . Explicit
is also usable to describe neutrino oscillations with a non- expressions for these quantities can be found in [97].
unitary mixing matrix, e.g. in the minimal unitarity violation In the case of matter NSIs, for a constant matter density
model [89]. profile (which is close to reality for most long-baseline neutrino
5
were derived, which are given by

m̃21 m231 Â + αs12
2
+ Âεee , (25)

m̃22 m231 αc12 2
− Âs23
2
εµµ − ετ τ

∗
−Âs23 c23 εµτ + εµτ + Âεµµ , (26)

Figure 1. Schematic pictures of standard matter effects (left picture) m̃23 m231 1 + Âετ τ + Âs23
2
εµµ − ετ τ

and matter NSIs (right picture).
∗
+Âs23 c23 εµτ + εµτ , (27)
oscillation experiments), the neutrino transition probabilities
as well as model-independent mappings for the effective
are given by
mixing matrix elements with NSIs, which are given by
3 2 αs12 c12
Ũe2 + c23 εeµ − s23 εeτ , (28)
m̃2i L
∗ −i 2E
P (να → νβ ; L) = Ũαi Ũβi e , (21) Â

i=1
s13 e−iδ Â(s23 εeµ + c23 εeτ )
where L is the baseline length. Comparing equation (21) with Ũe3 + , (29)
1 − Â 1 − Â
the formula for neutrino transition probabilities in vacuum
2 ∗
(i.e. equation (6)), one arrives at the conclusion that there Ũµ2 c23 + Âs23
2
c23 ετ τ − εµµ + Âs23 s23 εµτ − c23 εµτ ,
is no difference between the form of the neutrino transition (30)
probabilities in matter with NSIs and in vacuum if one replaces
the effective parameters m̃2i and Ũ in equation (21) by the Ũµ3 s23 + Â c23 εµτ + s23 c23
2
εµµ − ετ τ
vacuum parameters m2i and U . The mappings between the ∗

−s23 c23 εµτ + εµτ ,
2
(31)
effective parameters and the vacuum ones are sufficient to study
new physics effects entering future long-baseline neutrino where Â ≡ A/m231 . In equation (28), there is an unphysical
oscillation experiments (see section 2.2). The important point divergence for Â → 0, whereas in equation (29), there
is the diagonalization of the effective Hamiltonian Ĥ and is a resonance at Â = 1, which are both well-known
the derivation of the explicit expressions for the effective consequences of non-degenerate perturbation theory. Thus,
parameters. Now, using equation (21), we can express the degenerate perturbation theory needs to be used around these
neutrino oscillation probabilities in matter with NSIs (for a two singularities. Note that equations (25)–(31) are first-
realistic experiment) as follows [97]: order series expansions in the small parameters α, s13 and εαβ ,
i.e. linear in these parameters, but valid to all orders in all
m̃2ij L
∗ 2
P (να → να ; L) = 1 − 4 |Ũαi Ũαj | sin 2
, other parameters. Furthermore, note that only equation (29)
i>j
4E is explicitly linearly dependent on s13 , only equations (25),
(22) (26) and (28) are explicitly linearly dependent on α, and
all equations are at least linearly dependent on one of the
∗ ∗
P (να → νβ ; L) = −4 Re Ũαi Ũβi Ũαj Ũβj εαβ ’s. We observe from the explicit mappings (25)–(31)
i>j that the effective parameters can be totally different from the
fundamental parameters, because of the dependence on Â and
m̃2ij L m̃2ij L
× sin 2
− 8J sin , (23) the NSI parameters εαβ . In addition, in figure 2, neutrino
4E i>j
4E oscillation probabilities including the effects of NSIs for the
electron neutrino–muon neutrino channel are plotted. It is
where (α, β) run over (e, µ), (µ, τ ) and (τ, e) and the quantity
found that the approximate mappings agree with the exact
J is defined through the relation
numerical results to an extremely good precision. However,
J 2 = |Ũαi |2 |Ũβj |2 |Ũαj |2 |Ũβi |2 note that a singularity exists around 10 GeV, which corresponds
1 to the resonance at Â ∼ 1 and is due to the breakdown of non-
− 1 + |Ũαi |2 |Ũβj |2 + |Ũαj |2 |Ũβi |2 degenerate perturbation theory that has been adopted to derive
4
2 the model-independent mappings. Thus, the approximate
−|Ũαi |2 − |Ũβj |2 − |Ũαj |2 − |Ũβi |2 . (24) model-independent mapping (29) is not valid around 10 GeV.
3.3. Mappings with matter NSIs 3.4. Approximate formulae for two neutrino flavors with
matter NSIs
In [97], using first-order non-degenerate perturbation theory in
the mass hierarchy parameter α ≡ m221 /m231 , the smallest The three-flavor neutrino evolution given in equation (19)
leptonic mixing angle s13 ≡ sin θ13 , and all the matter NSI is rather complicated and cumbersome. Hence, in order
parameters εαβ , model-independent mappings for the effective to illuminate neutrino oscillations with matter NSIs, we
masses with NSIs during propagation processes, i.e. in matter, investigate the oscillations using two flavors, e.g. νe and ντ .
6
Figure 2. Neutrino oscillation probabilities for the νe → νµ channel as functions of the neutrino energy E. We have set δ = π/2 and
εeτ = 0.01, and all other matter NSI parameters are zero. Solid (black) curves are exact numerical results, dashed (red) curves are the
approximative results, and dotted (blue) curves are results without NSIs. This figure has been reproduced with permission from [97].
In this case, we have the much simpler two-flavor neutrino of the MSW effect, i.e. equations (34) and (35). See discussion
evolution equation in section 2.3. For further discussion on approximate formulae

for two neutrino flavors with NSIs, see [99].
d νe 1 0 0
i = U U†
dL ντ 2E 0 m2

4. Theoretical models for NSIs
1 + εee εeτ νe
+A , (32)
εeτ ετ τ ντ
In order to realize NSIs in a more fundamental framework with
where L is the neutrino propagation length that has replaced some underlying high-energy physics theory, it is generally
time in equation (19). Using equation (32), one can derive the desirable that it respects and encompasses the SM gauge group
two-flavor neutrino oscillation probability (see equation (4)) SU(3) × SU(2) × U(1). Note that the theoretical models

presented in this section only represent a small selection, there
m̃2 L exists many other models in the literature. In a toy model,
P (νe → ντ ; L) = sin2 2θ̃ sin2 , (33)
2E including the SM and one heavy SU(2) singlet scalar field S
with hypercharge −1, we can have the following interaction
where θ̃ and m̃2 are the effective neutrino oscillation Lagrangian [100]
parameters when taking into account matter NSIs. These
parameters are related to the vacuum neutrino oscillation LSint = −λαβ Lcα iσ2 Lβ S + h.c., (38)
parameters θ and m2 and given by (see, e.g., [98])
2 2 where the quantities λαβ (α, β = e, µ, τ ) are elements of the
m̃2 = m2 cos(2θ ) − A (1 + εee − ετ τ ) asymmetric coupling matrix λ, Lα is a doublet lepton field, and
2 σ2 is the second Pauli matrix. Now, integrating out the heavy
+ m2 sin(2θ ) + 2Aεeτ , (34)
field S generates an anti-symmetric dimension-6 operator at
m2 sin(2θ ) + 2Aεeτ tree level [101], i.e.
sin 2θ̃ = . (35)
m̃2 d=6,as
λαβ λ∗δγ
LNSI =4 c α PL ν β ν̄γ PR cδ , (39)
In the limit εee , εeτ , ετ τ → 0, i.e. when NSIs vanish, m2S
equations (34) and (35) reduce to
2 2 2 where mS is the mass of the heavy field S, while PL and PR
m̃20 = m2 cos(2θ ) − A + m2 sin(2θ ) , (36) are left- and right-handed projection operators, respectively.
m2 sin(2θ ) Note that this is the only gauge-invariant dimension-6 operator,
sin 2θ̃0 = , (37) which does not give rise to charged-lepton NSIs.5
m̃20 5 Charged-lepton NSIs are non-standard interactions originating from
which are the formulae for the ordiary MSW effect [12, 13, 79]. processes that involve charged leptons (e.g. lepton flavor violating decays
± ∓ ∓
Thus, NSIs give rise to modified (and more general) versions ∓
α → β γ δ ). See figures 3 and 5.
7
Table 2. Constraints on various NSI parameters from → ,

one-loop → γ , and µ+ e− → µ− e+ processes. Copyright (2009)
by The American Physical Society.
Decay Constraint on Bound
− − + −
µ →e e e |εee
eµ
| 3.5 × 10−7
τ − → e− e+ e− |εee
eτ
| 1.6 × 10−4
τ − → µ − µ+ µ − |εµµ
µτ
| 1.5 × 10−4
τ − → e − µ+ e − |εeµ
eτ
| 1.2 × 10−4
τ − → µ− e + µ− |εµe
µτ
| 1.3 × 10−4
τ − → e − µ+ µ− |εµµ
eτ
| 1.2 × 10−4
τ − → e − e + µ− |ε
eτ
µe | 9.9 × 10−5
µ− → e − γ | α εαα
eµ
| 1.4 × 10−4
τ − → e− γ | α εαα
eτ
| 3.2 × 10−2
τ − → µ− γ | α εααµτ
| 2.5 × 10−2
Figure 3. Tree-level diagrams with exchange of a heavy Higgs µ+ e − → µ − e + |εµe
µe
| 3.0 × 10−3
triplet in the triplet seesaw model. This figure has been reproduced
with permission from [103]. Copyright (2009) by The American
Physical Society. field (at tree level), we obtain the relations between the NSI
parameters and the elements of the light neutrino mass matrix
4.1. Gauge symmetry invariance as [103]
At high-energy scales, where NSIs originate, there exists ρσ m2
εαβ = − √ 2 (mν )σβ m†ν αρ , (40)
SU(2)×U(1) gauge symmetry invariance. In general, theories 4
8 2GF v λφ
beyond the SM must respect gauge symmetry invariance,
which implies strict constraints on possible models for NSIs where v 174 GeV is the vacuum expectation value of the
(see, e.g., [102]). Therefore, if there is a dimension-6 operator SM Higgs field7 , m is the mass of the Higgs triplet field and
of the form λφ is associated with the trilinear Higgs coupling. It holds that
the absolute neutrino mass scale is proportional to λφ v 2 /m2 ,
1 ρ

¯γ γρ PL δ , which means that (mν )αβ ∼ λφ v 2 /m2 . Thus, inserting the
ν̄ α γ P L ν β
2 proportionality of the elements of the light neutrino√mass
ee
then this operator will lead to NSI parameters such as εeµ (= matrix into equation (40) and using the relation GF / 2
2
eeL gW /(8m2W ), we find that
εeµ ). However, the above form for a dimension-6 operator
must be a part of the more general form ρσ m2 λφ v 2 λφ v 2 m2W
εαβ ∝ · · = , (41)
m2 m2 m2
2
1 gW
m2W
· v 2 λ2φ
2
L̄α γ ρ Lβ L̄γ γρ Lδ ,

which has the characteristic dependence given in equation (10).
which involves four charged-lepton operators. Thus, we have Now, using experimental constraints from lepton flavor
severe constraints from experiments on processes such as violating processes (rare lepton decays and muonium–
µ → 3e,6 i.e. antimuonium conversion) [10, 104], we find upper bounds on
BR(µ → 3e) < 10−12 , the NSI parameters, which are presented in table 2. From
µe
this table, we can observe that the NSI parameter εµe has the
which leads to the following upper bound on the above chosen weakest upper bound.
NSI parameter In addition, for m = 1 TeV, using the constraints on
ee
εeµ < 10−6 . lepton flavor violating processes, and varying m1 , we plot the
upper bounds on some of the NSI parameters in the triplet
Note that the above discussion is only valid for dimension-6 seesaw model. The results are shown in figure 4. For a
operators, and can be extended to operators with dimension hierarchical mass spectrum (i.e. m1 < 0.05 eV), all the NSI
equal to 8 or larger, but this will not be performed here. effects are suppressed, whereas for a nearly degenerate mass
spectrum (i.e. m1 > 0.1 eV), two NSI parameters can be
eµ
4.2. A seesaw model—the triplet seesaw model sizable, which are εeµ and εeem
≡ εee
ee
.
In a type-II seesaw model (also known as the triplet seesaw

4.3. The Zee–Babu model
model), the tree-level diagrams with exchange of a heavy Higgs
triplet are given in figure 3. Integrating out the heavy triplet In the Zee–Babu model [105–107], we have the Lagrangian
6 In general, both lepton flavor violating process (such as µ → 3e) and L = LSM + fαβ LTLα Ciσ2 LLβ h+ + gαβ eαc eβ k ++
allowed regions for fundamental neutrino parameters (such as neutrino mass- −µh− h− k ++ + h.c. + VH , (42)
squared differences and leptonic mixing angles) set constraints on NSIs, but
normally lepton flavor violating processes put stronger bounds on the NSIs than 7 The√vacuum expectation value of the SM Higgs field is normally defined as
the fundamental neutrino parameters. See, e.g., the discussions in sections 4.2 v = ( 2GF )−1/2√ 246 GeV. Thus, the two values 174 GeV and 246 GeV
and 4.3. differ by a factor 2.
8
and muonium–antimuonium conversion) [110], the allowed

m
regions of the matter NSI parameters εµµ and ετmτ in the Zee–
Babu model are plotted for heavy scalar masses of 10 TeV (left
plot) and 1 TeV (right plot). In fact, since the leptonic mixing
angles are free parameters with constraints (taken from [109]),
their allowed regions can change when the values of the NSI
parameters become non-zero. In the case of inverted neutrino
m
mass hierarchy, the matter NSI parameters εµµ and ετmτ could
−4 −3
be in the range 10 –10 , whereas in the case of normal
neutrino mass hierarchy, they are normally at least one order
m
of magnitude smaller [108]. Note that the size of εµµ and ετmτ
m
may be too small to be observable, whereas εµτ could be within
the reach of a future neutrino factory. In addition, for inverted
neutrino mass hierarchy and heavy scalar masses of 1 TeV, it
s
turns out that εµτ is predicted to also be in the range 10−4 –
Figure 4. Upper bounds on various NSI parameters in the triplet
−3
seesaw model. Note that the matter NSI parameters are defined as 10 , which is probably in the reach for a near tau-detector at
m
εαβ ≡ εαβ
ee
. This figure has been reproduced with permission a future neutrino factory [108].
from [103]. Copyright (2009) by The American Physical Society.
5. Phenomenology of NSIs for different types of

experiments
In this section, we will discuss the phenomenology of NSIs for

atmospheric, accelerator and reactor neutrino experiments as
well as for neutrino factory setups and astrophysical settings
such as solar and supernova neutrinos. As we will see, only
two experimental collaborations have used their neutrino data
Figure 5. Tree-level diagrams for the exchange of heavy scalars in
to analyze NSIs, which are the Super-Kamiokande and MINOS
the Zee–Babu model. This figure is an updated and corrected
version of one of the figures from [108]. collaborations.
where fαβ and gαβ are anti-symmetric and symmetric Yukawa 5.1. Atmospheric neutrino experiments
couplings, respectively, and h+ and k ++ are heavy charged
scalars that could be observed at the LHC and which lead to a Neutrino oscillations with matter NSIs that are important
two-loop diagram that generates small neutrino masses. The for atmospheric neutrinos have been previously studied in
tree-level diagrams that are responsible for (a) non-standard the literature. For example, there are phenomenological
interactions of four charged leptons and (b) NSIs (neutrinos) studies that investigate the possibility to probe NSIs with
are presented in figure 5. Using these diagrams, both types of atmospheric neutrino data only [111–113] and in combination
non-standard lepton interactions are obtained after integrating with other neutrino data [75, 114–118], whereas there exist
out the heavy scalars, which induces three relevant (and also more theoretical investigations [99, 119]. However, most
m
potentially sizable) matter NSI parameters (εµτ m
, εµµ , and ετmτ ) importantly, there is an experimental study on matter NSIs
s
and one production NSI parameter (εµτ , which is important with atmospheric neutrino data from the Super-Kamiokande
for the νµ → ντ channel at a future neutrino factory, see also collaboration [4]. In principle, atmospheric neutrinos are very
section 5.4) that are given by sensitive to matter NSIs, since they travel over long distances
∗ ∗
inside the Earth before being detected [117].
feβ feα 4feβ feα m2W m2W
m
εαβ = εαβ
ee
=√ 2
∝ , (43) In order to analyze atmospheric neutrino data in the
2GF m2h gW m2h m2h simplest way, we consider a two-flavor neutrino oscillation
fµe feτ∗ 4fµe feτ∗ m2W m2W approximation with matter NSIs in the νµ –ντ sector
s
εµτ = ετeµe = √ 2
∝ , (44) (see section 3.4), since νµ ↔ ντ oscillations are important
2GF m2h gW m2h m2h
for atmospheric neutrinos. In this case, the first row and
where we observe that the NSI parameters in the Zee– first column in equation (19) are canceled, which effectively
Babu model also have the characteristic dependence given in means that the NSI parameters that couple to νe are set to
equation (10), which means that they naively are in the range zero, i.e. εeα = 0, where α = e, µ, τ . In addition, the
10−4 –10−2 if the scale of the heavy scalar masses is of the parameters m221 , θ12 and θ13 are not important, leading to
order of (1–10) TeV. a two-flavor approximation that only includes the parameters
In figure 6, using best-fit values of the neutrino mass- m2 ≡ m231 , θ ≡ θ23 , εµµ , εµτ = ετ µ 8 , and ετ τ . In this
squared differences (while taking the leptonic mixing angles to
be independent parameters) [109] and experimental constraints 8 Note that the assumption that the off-diagonal NSI parameters are real is
on lepton flavor violating processes (such as rare lepton decays not generic.
9
m
Figure 6. Allowed region of NSI parameters εµµ and ετmτ at 1σ , 2σ and 3σ confidence level (C.L.) in the Zee–Babu model. The following
values have been used for the heavy scalar masses: mh = mk = µ = 10 TeV for the left plot and mh = mk = µ = 1 TeV for the right plot.
This figure has been reproduced with permission from [108].
approximation, which has been named the two-flavor hybrid

model, the two-flavor neutrino evolution equation reads

d νµ 1 0 0
i = U U†
dL ντ 2E 0 m2

1 + εµµ εµτ νµ
+A . (45)
εµτ ετ τ ντ
Using equation (45), defining ε ≡ εµτ and ε ≡ ετ τ − εµµ ,
and assuming that neutrinos have NSIs with d-quarks only
[72, 111], we obtain the two-flavor νµ survival probability
[4, 112]
P (νµ → νµ ; L) = 1 − P (νµ → ντ ; L) = 1
2
2 m L
− sin (2) sin
2
R , (46)
4E
where the quantities and R are given by
1
sin2 (2) = 2 sin2 (2θ ) + R02 sin2 (2ξ )
R
+2R0 sin(2θ ) sin(2ξ ) , (47)

R = 1 + R02 + 2R0 [cos(2θ ) cos(2ξ ) + sin(2θ ) sin(2ξ )] Figure 7. Allowed parameter regions for sin2 (2θ23 ) and m232 using
the two-flavor hybrid model (solid curves) and standard two-flavor
(48) neutrino oscillations (dashed curves). The undisplayed parameters ε
with the two auxiliary parameters and ε have been integrated out. This figure has been adopted
from [4]. Copyright (2011) by The American Physical Society.

√ 4E ε 2
R0 = 2GF Ne |ε|2 + , (49) and the allowed parameter regions for sin2 (2θ23 ) and m231
m 2 4 m232 with and without NSIs are shown in figure 7.9 In

1 2ε principle, there are no significant differences between the

ξ = arctan . (50) allowed parameters regions with NSIs and the ones without
2 ε
NSIs.10 In general, the introduction of NSIs enlarges the
Now, using the two-flavor hybrid model together with
9 It should be noted that the Super-Kamiokande (SK) collaboration uses a
atmospheric neutrino data from the Super-Kamiokande I SK
different convention for the NSI parameters, i.e. εαβ ≡ 13 εαβ , due to the usage
(1996–2001) and II (2003–2005) experiments, the Super-
of the fermion number density Nf ≡ Nd 3Ne [4, 72, 111] instead of the
Kamiokande collaboration has obtained the following results electron number density Ne in equations (45) and (49), which means that the
at 90% confidence level (C.L.) [4] upper bounds in [4] have to be multiplied by a factor of 3.
10 Although there are no significant differences, the inclusion of NSIs in the
|εµτ | < 0.033 and |ετ τ − εµµ | < 0.147 analysis changes slightly the allowed parameter regions for the leptonic mixing
angle and the neutrino mass-squared difference.
10
parameter space and enhances possible entanglements between First, in the case of the MINOS experiment, the important
the fundamental neutrino parameters and the NSI parameters, NSI parameters are εeτ and ετ τ (see equation (19)) and the
but since the difference between the two minimum χ 2 -function interesting transition probability is the νµ survival probability
values (with and without NSIs) is small in the analysis of the (or equivalently the νµ disappearance probability), which to
Super-Kamiokande collaboration, no significant contribution leading order is given by [121]
from NSIs to ordinary two-flavor neutrino oscillations is found 2
[4]. Of course, this analysis can be extended to a similar 2 m̃31

P (νµ → νµ ; L) 1 − sin (2θ̃23 ) sin
2
L , (51)
analysis with a three-flavor hybrid model also taking into 4E
account the NSI parameters εee and εeτ , which, however,
leads to no significant changes for the allowed values of the where three-flavor effects due to m221 and θ13 have been
parameter regions compared with the two-flavor hybrid model. neglected, and the effective parameters are
It should be noted that the atmospheric neutrino data have no
m̃231 = m231 ξ, (52)
possibility to constrain the NSI parameter εee [115] and the
other NSI parameter εeτ is related to both εee and ετ τ via the sin2 (2θ23 )
expression ετ τ ∼ |εeτ |2 /(1 + εee )2 [4, 113, 115], which leads sin2 (2θ̃23 ) = (53)
ξ2
to an energy-independent parabola in the NSI parameter space
spanned by εeτ and ετ τ for a fixed value of εee and values of NSI with
2
parameters on this parabola cannot be ruled out. The reason ξ= Âετ τ + cos(2θ23 ) + sin2 (2θ23 ). (54)
why atmospheric neutrinos cannot constrain εee is that if εeτ
is equal to zero, then the matter eigenstates are equivalent to Note that in equations (52)–(54) we have used the NSI
the vacuum eigenstates [4]. Therefore, the matter eigenvalues parameter εeτ as a perturbation and the formulae should
are independent of εee and the three-flavor model reduces to hold if |εeτ |2 A2 L2 /(4E 2 ) 1 or, in the case of the
two-flavor νµ ↔ ντ oscillations in matter and NSIs including MINOS experiment, if |εeτ | 5.8 [121]. In addition, note
ετ τ only (see equation (51)–(54)). In conclusion, the Super- that equations (51)–(54) are two-flavor neutrino oscillation
Kamiokande collaboration has found no evidence for matter formulae, which have been derived assuming m221 = 0 and
NSIs in its atmospheric neutrino data. θ13 = 0. Therefore, using equations (25)–(31), which are
three-flavor approximate mappings for small parameters α,
5.2. Accelerator neutrino experiments s13 , and εαβ , it is not directly possible to use them to derive
equations (52)–(54). Instead the results will be three-flavor
Studies of previous, present and future setups of accelerator approximations corresponding to the two-flavor formulae
neutrino oscillation experiments including matter NSIs have given in equations (52)–(54). Furthermore, it is possible to
been thoroughly investigated in the literature, especially setups show the effective three-flavor mixing matrix element Ũe3 is
with long-baselines belong to these studies. Such studies given by
include searches for matter NSIs with the K2K experiment Ũe3 Ue3 + Âεeτ cos(θ23 ), (55)
[115], the MINOS experiment [98, 117, 119–122], the MINOS
and T2K experiments [123], and the OPERA experiment [124– which means that there could be a degeneracy between the
126], as well as sensitivity analyses of the NOνA experiment mixing angle θ13 and the NSI parameter εeτ [121]. Now,
[127] and the T2K and T2KK experiments [128–130]. The since the mixing angle θ13 has been measured [134–137], the
prospects for detecting NSIs at the MiniBooNE experiment, MINOS experiment can put a limit on |εeτ | [121]. In fact,
which has a shorter baseline, has also been investigated using data from the MINOS and T2K experiments, the bound
[131, 132]. There are also studies that are more general in |εeτ | 1.3 at 90% C.L. has been set [123]. In addition
character [34, 118, 133]. In addition, the MINOS experiment to the above discussion for the MINOS experiment, it has
has recently presented the results of a search for matter NSI recently been argued in the literature that it should also be
possible to study the NSI parameter εµτ using the MINOS
in the form of a poster at the ‘Neutrino 2012’ conference in
experiment [117, 119, 122]. In this case (assuming θ23 = 45◦ ),
Kyoto, Japan [5].
the νµ survival probability becomes [119]
Using three-flavor neutrino oscillations with matter NSIs
for accelerator neutrinos, we will present the important

2 m31
2
A
NSI parameters and flavor transition probabilities for two P (νµ → νµ ; L) 1 − sin − εµτ L . (56)
4E 2E
experiments, which are (i) the MINOS experiment with
baseline length L 735 km (from Fermilab in Illinois, USA Note that the amplitude of the second term is equal to 1,
to Soudan mine in Minnesota, USA) and neutrino energy E since θ23 = 45◦ (maximal mixing) has been assumed, see
in the interval (1–6) GeV and (ii) the OPERA experiment [119] for details. Now, using a model based on the νµ
with baseline length L 732 km (from CERN in Geneva, survival probability in equation (56) together with data from the
Switzerland to LNGS in Gran Sasso, Italy) and average MINOS experiment, the MINOS collaboration has obtained
neutrino energy E 17 GeV. Note that the baseline lengths the following result for the matter NSI parameter εµτ at 90%
of the two experiments are nearly the same, but there is a C.L. [5]
difference in the neutrino energy, which is about one order − 0.200 < εµτ < 0.070,
of magnitude.
11
Figure 8. Mappings among θ̃13 , θ13 and NSI parameters εαβ . In the left plot, the gray-shaded areas correspond to the indicated upper bounds
on θ̃13 , whereas in the right plot, the gray-shaded areas represent |ε| < 0.05 (light gray), |ε| < 0.01 (middle gray) and |ε| < 0.001 (dark
gray), respectively. This figure has been reproduced with permission from [95].
which means that MINOS has found no evidence for matter than the recently measured values of the mixing angle θ13 and
NSIs in its neutrino data, at least not a non-zero value for the (ii) inspite of a very small θ13 , a sizable effective mixing angle
matter NSI parameter εµτ . can be achieved due to mimicking effects [95]. In principle,
Second, in the case of the OPERA experiment, the this means that the measured value for the mixing angle θ13 ≈
important NSI parameter is εµτ (see equation (19)) due to the 9◦ by the Daya Bay, Double Chooz and RENO experiments
relatively short baseline length and the interesting transition [134–137] could be a combination of the fundamental value
probability is the appearance probability for oscillations of νµ for θ13 (which should be smaller than the effective measured
into ντ , which is given by [126] value) and effects of NSI parameters.
2 Third, in [138], NSIs at the Daya Bay experiment were
2 m231 ∗ A

P (νµ → ντ ; L) = c13 sin(2θ23 ) + εµτ L2 studied. The authors of this work show that, under certain
4E 2E conditions, only three years of running of the Daya Bay
+O(L3 ), (57) experiment might be sufficient to provide a hint on production
where it has been assumed that the small mass-squared and detection NSIs. Thus, in future analyses of data from
difference m221 = 0. Thus, there exists a degeneracy between the Daya Bay experiment, it will be important to disentangle
the fundamental neutrino oscillation parameters and the NSI effects of NSI parameters on the mixing angle θ13 as well as the
parameter εµτ . Note that it has been shown that the OPERA large neutrino mass-squared difference m231 . In figure 9, the
experiment is not very sensitive to the NSI parameters εeτ effects of NSIs on θ13 and m232 m231 are shown for Daya
and ετ τ [125]. Bay after three years of running. We observe that production
and detection NSIs give rise to a larger value of the effective
leptonic mixing angle θ̃13 and a smaller value of the effective
5.3. Reactor neutrino experiments
large mass-square difference m̃232 . For example, turning on
To my knowledge, NSIs in reactor neutrino experiments the NSI parameters |ε| ≡ |εeα s
| = |εαe
d
| = 0.02 (α = µ, τ ), the
have only been discussed in [84, 95, 138]. Below, we will 2
value of sin (2θ̃13 ) is shifted from 0.1 to 0.105, whereas the
summarize these three works. value of m̃232 is changed from 2.45 × 10−3 to 2.2 × 10−3 eV2 .
First, in [84], a combined study on the performance of
reactor and superbeam neutrino experiments in the presence 5.4. Neutrino Factory
of NSIs is presented. In fact, in this work, the authors argue
that reactor and superbeam data can be used to establish the Due to the large sensitivity at a future neutrino factory for
presence of NSIs. small parameters such as NSI parameters, there exist a vast
Second, in [95], NSIs at reactor neutrino experiments only amount of investigations for different neutrino factory setups in
were studied. In figure 8, mappings among the effective mixing connection to NSIs [67, 82, 87, 101, 103, 108, 114, 139–146].
angle θ̃13 , the fundamental mixing angle θ13 , and the NSI In this section, we will present most of these investigations
parameters εαβ are plotted. Without loss of generality, it is and what their general conclusions for NSIs at a future
assumed that |ε| ≡ |εeµ | = |εeτ |. neutrino factory are. Several investigations have discussed the
Such plots could be important for the analyses of, sensitivity and discovery reach of a neutrino factory in probing
for example, the Daya Bay, Double Chooz and RENO NSIs [114, 139–142, 146]. For example, it has been suggested
experiments. It was found that (i) θ13 < 14◦ , which is larger that (i) a 100 GeV neutrino factory could probe flavor-changing
than the former CHOOZ bound that is about 10◦ and also larger neutrino interactions of the order of |ε| 10−4 at 99%
12
whereas production NSIs from the Zee–Babu model might

be at an observable level in the νe → ντ and/or νµ → ντ
channels. Finally, it has been pointed out that NSIs and
non-unitarity might phenomenologically lead to very similar
effects for a neutrino factory, although for completely different
reasons [87].
5.5. NSI effects on solar and supernova neutrino oscillations

In addition to studies on NSIs with atmospheric and man-made
sources of neutrinos, there exist some investigations of NSI
effects on solar and supernova neutrino oscillations [73, 147–
159]. First, we focus on NSIs with solar neutrinos, and then,
we discuss NSIs with supernova neutrinos.
In the case of solar neutrinos, an analysis of data from
the Super-Kamiokande and SNO experiments was performed
to investigate the sensitivity of NSIs [147]. Furthermore, it
has been suggested that the Borexino experiment can provide
signatures for NSIs [147], and its data can also be used to place
constraints on NSIs [154]. The LENA proposal has also been
illustrated as a probe for NSIs [153]. In addition, non-universal
Figure 9. Effects of NSIs on θ13 and m232 for the Daya Bay
experiment after three years of running. The symbol ‘×’ denotes the flavor-conserving couplings with electrons, flavor-changing
assumed ‘true’ values of the standard neutrino oscillations interactions, and NSIs in general can affect the phenomenology
parameters, whereas the symbol ‘+’ denotes the situation with of solar neutrinos [73, 148–152].
production and detection NSIs included (|ε| = 0.02). The three In the case of supernova neutrinos, a three-flavor analysis
curves show the χ 2 levels around the best-fit point ‘+’, respectively,
where χ 2 = 20 (thick, inner curve), χ 2 = 40 (middle curve) and for the possibility of probing NSIs, using neutrinos from a
χ 2 = 60 (thin, outer curve). The gray-shaded areas depict the ‘pull’ galactic supernova that propagate in the supernova envelope,
by the large mass-squared difference m̃232 departing from its ‘true’ has been performed [155]. Furthermore, the interplay between
value, where the dark/light boundary encloses collective effects and NSIs for supernova neutrinos has been
m̃232 = (2.45 ± 0.09) × 10−3 eV2 and the light/white boundary investigated [156–158]. Finally, a study on NSIs similar to
encloses m̃232 = (2.45 ± 0.18) × 10−3 eV2 . This figure has been
reproduced with permission from [138].
[151] for solar neutrinos has been presented for supernova
neutrinos by the same authors [159].
In addition to NSIs with solar and supernova neutrinos,
C.L. [114], (ii) there is an entanglement between the mixing
other studies on NSIs with astrophysics have been carried out.
angle θ13 and NSI parameters11 , which would be solved in the
For example, in [160], the authors investigate production and
best way using the appearance channel νe → νµ [139, 140],
detection NSIs of high-energy neutrinos at neutrino telescopes,
(iii) there are degeneracies between CP violation and NSI
using neutrino flux ratios.
parameters [145, 146], (iv) a neutrino factory has excellent
prospects in detecting NSIs originating from new physics at
the TeV scale [141], and (v) off-diagonal NSI parameters could 6. Phenomenological bounds on NSIs
be tested down to the order of 10−3 , whereas diagonal NSI
parameter combinations such as εee − ετ τ and εµµ − ετ τ could As discussed above, there are basically two neutrino
only be tested down to 10−1 and 10−2 , respectively [146]. experiments that have put direct bounds on NSI parameters—
Furthermore, there are studies on the optimization of a neutrino the Super-Kamiokande and MINOS experiments (see
factory with respect to NSI parameters, especially for εµτ and sections 5.1 and 5.2). However, there also exist some
ετ τ [143], as well as the impact of near detectors (with ντ phenomenological works that have used different sets of data to
detection) at a neutrino factory on NSIs [144]. In addition, it find direct bounds on NSI parameters. Below, we will present
has been pointed out that the generation of matter NSIs might direct bounds on both (i) matter NSIs and (ii) production and
give rise to production and detection NSIs at a neutrino factory detection NSIs from such works. In addition, we will discuss
[101]. On the more theoretical side, some investigations bounds on NSIs in neutrino cross-sections as well as bounds
of NSIs stemming from different models have been carried on NSIs using accelerators.
out. For example, NSIs from a triplet seesaw model [103]
or the Zee–Babu model [108] have been investigated. At a
6.1. Direct bounds on matter NSIs
neutrino factory, NSIs from the triplet seesaw model could lead
to quite significant signals of lepton flavor violating decays, In a work by Davidson et al [82], bounds on matter NSI
11 This could be excluded due to the non-zero and quite large value for
parameters using experiments with neutrinos and charged
the mixing angle θ13 found by the Daya Bay, Double Chooz and RENO leptons (which are the LSND [161], CHARM [162], CHARM
collaborations [134–137]. II [163], and NuTeV [164] experiments as well as data from
13
LEP II [81]) have been derived for the realistic scenario with  
|εee
ud
| < 0.041 |εeµ
ud
| < 0.025 |εeτ
ud
| < 0.041
three flavors [82, 142, 165]  −6 
  |εud | < 1.8 · 10 |εµµ
ud
| < 0.078 |εµτ
ud
| < 0.013
−0.9 < εee < 0.75 |εeµ | 3.8 × 10−4 |εeτ | 0.25  µe ,
 −0.05 < εµµ < 0.08 |εµτ | 0.25.
 0.026 
 0.087 0.013 
|ετ τ | 0.4 |ετude | < |ετ µ | <
ud
|ετ τ | < 0.13
ud
0.12 0.018
We observe that the bounds range from 10−4 to 1 for the where, whenever two values are presented, the upper value
different matter NSI parameters. Note that the bounds refers to left-handed NSI parameters (i.e. εαβudL
) and the lower
presented in this analysis are obtained using loop effects. udR
one to right-handed NSI parameters (i.e. εαβ ), otherwise the
However, it turns out that bounds coming from loop effects
value refers to both left- and right-handed NSI parameters (i.e.
(i.e. one-loop level contributions to the four-charged-lepton µeC
εαβ or εαβudC
, where C = L, R). All these bounds are basically
interactions at tree level) are generally not applicable, since
such bounds will be model dependent [166]. Thus, in order to of the order of 10−2 .
obtain non-ambiguous bounds, a gauge-invariant realization
of the NSIs must be used. Therefore, in [166], Biggio et al 6.3. Bounds on NSIs in neutrino cross-sections
performed a new analysis. The result of this analysis is that the
In this section, NSIs in neutrino cross-sections will be
model-independent bound for the NSI parameter εeµ increases
investigated in detail. Neutrino NSIs with either electrons
by a factor of 103 . It should be noted that one-loop effects
or first generation quarks can be constrained by low-energy
on NSIs have also been studied in [167]. Now, in [168],
scattering data. In general, one finds that bounds are
using bounds on NSI parameters from [82, 149, 169, 170], but
fC stringent for muon neutrino interactions, loose for electron
disregarding the loop bound on the parameter εeµ , bounds on neutrino interactions, and in principle, do not exist for tau
the effective matter NSI parameters have been estimated by neutrino interactions. Note that in the present overview of
Biggio, Blennow and Fernández-Martı́nez. Approximately, the upper bounds on the NSI parameters, the results from
the bounds on the εαβ ’s given in equation (18) are found to be Biggio, Blennow and Fernández-Martı́nez [168] have not been

2 2 2 included.
⊕
εαβ eC uC
εαβ + 3εαβ + 3εαβ dC
, (58) The best measurement on electron neutrino–electron
C scattering comes from the LSND experiment that found the

2 2 2 cross-section of this process to be [161]

εαβ eC
εαβ uC
+ 2εαβ dC
+ εαβ , (59) G 2 me E ν
C σ (νe e → νe) = 1.17 ± 0.13 (stat.) ± 0.12 (syst.) F
π
⊕
where εαβ are the bounds for neutral Earth-like matter (with an G2F me Eν
= (1.17 ± 0.17) , (60)
equal number of proton and neutrons) and εαβ are the bounds π
for neutral solar-like matter (consisting mostly of protons and where me is the electron mass and Eν is the neutrino energy,
electrons). Thus, the model-independent bounds on the matter which should be compared with the SM cross-section [161]

NSI parameters are given by 2G2F me Eν 2 1 e 2
  σ (νe e → νe)|SM = 1 + gLe + gR
|εee | < 4.2 |εeµ | < 0.33 |εeτ | < 3.0 π 3

2
 |εµµ | < 0.068 |εµτ | < 0.33 (Earth), 1 16 4 G F me Eν
= 1 + 4 sin2 θW + sin θW
|ετ τ | < 21 2 3 π
 
|εee | < 2.5 |εeµ | < 0.21 |εeτ | < 1.7 2
G me Eν
 |εµµ | < 0.046 |εµτ | < 0.21 (solar), 1.1048 F , (61)
π
|ετ τ | < 9.0 where we have used the SM couplings of Z bosons and
electrons gLe = − 21 + sin2 θW −0.2688 and gRe = sin2 θW
which, except for the matter NSI parameters εµµ and εµτ in
neutral solar-like matter, are larger than the very stringent 0.2312 with sin2 θW = 0.23116 ± 0.00012 being the weak-
bounds found by Davidson et al [82], and ranging between mixing angle (or the Weinberg angle) [10]. However, including
10−2 and 10, i.e. they are one or two orders of magnitude electroweak radiative corrections12 , we obtain gLe −0.2718
larger than the previous bounds. and gRe 0.2326, which means that equation (61) changes to
σ (νe e → νe)|SM 1.0967G2F me Eν /π [82]. Including NSIs,
the expression for this cross-section becomes [82, 172]
6.2. Direct bounds on production and detection NSIs 
2G2F me Eν 
Finally, in [168], the authors have also derived model- σ (νe e → νe) = eL 2
(1 + gLe + εee )
independent bounds on production and detection NSIs. The π
most stringent bounds for charged-current-like NSI parameters 
for terrestrial experiments are the following 1 1
eR 2 
+ |εαe | + (gRe + εee
eL 2 eR 2
) + |εαe | . (62)
 µe µe µe  3 3
|εee | < 0.025 |εeµ | < 0.030 |εeτ | < 0.030 α=e α=e
|εµeµe
| < 0.025 |εµµµe
| < 0.030 |εµτ µe
| < 0.030 , 12 For an outline how the radiative corrections for electron neutrino–electron
µe
|ετ e | < 0.025 |ετ µ | < 0.030 |ετµeτ | < 0.030
µe
scattering can be computed, see appendix A in [171].
14
Then, we turn our attention to electron neutrino–quark

scattering. The CHARM collaboration [162] has measured
the ratio between cross-sections and found
σ (νe N → νX) + σ (ν̄e N → ν̄X)
Re = = (g̃Le )2 + (g̃Re )2
σ (νe N → eX) + σ (ν̄e N → ēX)
= 0.406 ± 0.140. (63)
Including NSIs, the quantities g̃Le and g̃Re can be expressed as

(g̃Le )2 = (gLu + εee
uL 2
) + |εαe | + (gLd + εee
uL 2 dL 2
) + |εαe | ,
dL 2
α=e α=e
(64)

(g̃Re )2 = (gRu + εee
uR 2
) + |εαe | + (gRd + εee
uR 2 dR 2
) + |εαe | .
dR 2
α=e α=e
(65)
Using the CHARM data, we obtain 90% C.L. bounds on the
NSI parameters (only one NSI parameter at a time) [82]
Figure 10. Bounds on flavor-conserving NSIs of νe e scattering from −1 < εee

uL
< 0.3, −0.3 < εee
dL
< 0.3,
the LSND experiment. The area between the two ellipses is the −0.4 < uR
εee < 0.7, −0.6 < εee
dR
< 0.5
allowed 90% C.L. region. This figure has been reproduced with
permission from [82]. for flavor-conserving NSIs and
Using the LSND data and the NSI cross-section for electron |ετqC
e | < 0.5, q = u, d and C = L, R
neutrino–electron scattering, we obtain 90% C.L. bounds on
the NSI parameters (note that only one NSI parameter at a time for flavor-changing NSIs. Again, considering all four NSI
is considered) [82] parameters simultaneously, a 90% C.L. region is obtained
uL 2 dL 2
− 0.07 < εee
eL
< 0.11, −1 < εee
eR
< 0.5 0.176 < (0.3493 + εee ) + (−0.4269 + εee )
uR 2 dR 2
+ (−0.1551 + εee ) + (0.0775 + εee ) < 0.636,
for flavor-conserving diagonal NSI parameters and
which describes two four-dimensional ellipsoids. In this case,
|ετeLe | < 0.4, |ετeRe | < 0.7 note that the allowed 90% C.L. region for the NSI parameters
uL dL uR dR
εee , εee , εee and εee is the four-dimensional space between
for flavor-changing NSI parameters. Considering both left- the two ellipsoids.
and right-handed diagonal NSIs, i.e. two NSI parameters Next, for muon neutrino–electron scattering, the CHARM
simultaneously, a 90% C.L. region between two ellipses is II collaboration [163] has measured gVe = −0.035±0.017 and
obtained gAe = −0.503 ± 0.017, which translate into gLe = −0.269 ±
0.017 and gRe = 0.234 ± 0.017. Using these values, one can
eL 2 1 eR 2
0.445 < (0.7282 + εee ) + (0.2326 + εee ) < 0.725, compute 90% C.L. bounds on the NSI parameters (only one
3 NSI parameter at a time) [82]
which is shown in figure 10. In an updated phenomenological
analysis [172] of data on electron neutrino–electron scattering − 0.025 < εµµ
eL
< 0.03, −0.027 < εµµ
eR
< 0.03
including NSIs, more restrictive allowed 90% C.L. bounds on
the NSI parameters εeeeL eR
and εee have been found (considering for flavor diagonal NSIs and
both parameters simultaneously)
|ετeCµ | < 0.1, C = L, R
− 0.02 < eL
εee < 0.09, −0.11 < eR
εee < 0.05.
for flavor-changing NSIs. Furthermore, the NuTeV
µ
However, note that the bounds on the two NSI parameters collaboration [164] has measured (g̃L )2 = 0.3005 ± 0.0014
µ 2
eL
εee eR
and εee in [82] were derived considering only one NSI and (g̃R ) = 0.0310 ± 0.0011 that appear in ratios of
parameter at a time, whereas the corresponding bounds in cross-sections for neutrino–nucleon (muon neutrino–quark)
[172] were found considering both parameters simultaneously. scattering processes. Using these values, we obtain (only one
Therefore, the two sets of bounds are not directly comparable. NSI parameter at a time) [82]
In fact, it might be more reasonable to compare the bounds
− 0.009 < εµµ
uL
< −0.003, dL
0.002 < εµµ < 0.008,
in [172] with the region between the two ellipses presented in
figure 10. − 0.008 < εµµ
uR
< 0.003, −0.008 < εµµ
dR
< 0.015
15
Figure 11. Bounds on flavor-conserving NSIs of νµ q scattering from the NuTeV experiment. This figure has been reproduced with
permission from [82].
for flavor diagonal NSIs and 6.4. Bounds on NSIs using accelerators
An interesting alternative option to neutrino experiments is
µ | < 0.05,
|ετqR q = u, d
to use data from accelerators to study NSIs, and especially,
bounds on NSIs. Examples of accelerators that can be used
for flavor-changing NSIs. Similarly, the 90% C.L. regions
are the LEP collider (1989–2000), the Tevatron (1987–2011)
using two NSI parameters simultaneously are presented in
and the LHC (2009–present). Basically, this option would
figure 11.
mean a potential interplay between neutrino experiments and
Finally, we investigate NSIs for the e+ e− → ν ν̄γ cross- accelerators, and the topical importance of the LHC should, of
section at LEP II. The 90% C.L. bounds on flavor diagonal course, be used in connection to neutrino physics.
NSIs are given by [81] First, in [179, 180], the authors have explored the
alternative option to study NSIs by bringing into play collider
− 0.6 < ετeLτ < 0.4, −0.4 < ετeRτ < 0.6, data. In fact, searching for so-called dimension-6 contact
interactions in the channels e+ e− → e+ e− , µ+ µ− , τ + τ − , q̄q
whereas for flavor-changing NSIs (where q = u, d, s, c, b), the data from LEP II provide bounds
on these interactions [181, 182], which in turn can be used
|εαβ
eC
| < 0.4, C = L, R, α = τ, β = e, µ. to set bounds on NSIs of the order of ε (10−2 –10−3 ) at
√
s ∼ 200 GeV. Furthermore, if NSIs are contact interactions
Also, for the NSI parameters ετeLτ and ετeRτ , there exists an at LHC energies, such contact interactions would induce q q̄ →
update [172] of the 90% C.L. bounds W + W − +α −
β and the LHC should have a sensitivity reach for
√
NSIs of the order of ε 3 × 10−3 at s = 14 TeV and with
− 0.51 < ετeLτ < 0.34, −0.35 < ετeRτ < 0.50. 100 fb−1 of data. Second, assuming the NSIs remain contact
at LHC energies and using monojet plus missing transverse-
In conclusion, using neutrino cross-section measurements energy data for the processes q q̄ → να νβ j (where j = g, q, q̄)
for the determination of upper bounds on NSIs, the only non- qC qC
to probe NSIs, bounds on the NSI parameters εee , ετ τ , and
uL dL qC
zero parameters obtained are εµµ and εµµ . Therefore, for ετ e (q = u, d and C = L, R) have √ been derived [183], which
future analyses, new data on neutrino cross-sections would are of the order of ε (0.1–1) at s = 7 TeV, using 1 fb−1
be valuable. In fact, there exist several experiments that will data from the ATLAS experiment [184] at the LHC. Note that
provide improved measurements on neutrino cross-sections in the ATLAS data are already superior to the data from the CDF
the future. For example, the ArgoNeuT [173], MINERνA experiment at the Tevatron. In addition, using 4.98 fb−1 data
[174], MiniBooNE/SciBooNE [175], MINOS [176] and T2K from the CMS experiment [185] at the LHC, bounds on NSI
[177] experiments have already delivered data. In addition, parameters induced by q q̄ → W + W − +α − β are also found to
√
there is an interesting proposed future experiment called be of the order of ε (0.1–1) at s = 7 TeV [183].
nuSTORM [178], which could perform precision neutrino With the advent of the new data from the LHC (2009–
cross-section measurements that will be important for future 2012), it would be interesting to search for signals of NSIs in
long-baseline neutrino oscillation experiments. these data. So far, no evidence for physics beyond the SM have
16
been observed at the LHC. Therefore, I urge the ATLAS and analyses of the Super-Kamiokande (|εµτ | < 0.033, |ετ τ −
CMS collaborations at the LHC as well as phenomenologists to εµµ | < 0.147) and MINOS (−0.200 < εµτ < 0.070)
investigate NSIs as signals for new physics. In particular, using collaborations, which both mean that no evidence for matter
the results of the phenomenological analyses [179, 180, 183], NSIs has been found. Moreover, we have indicated the
the processes (i) pp → j να νβ (where j = g, q, q̄) and (ii) sensitivities of NSIs for accelerators, a future neutrino factory,
pp → W + W − +α − β look promising to search for NSIs at
and the reactor neutrino experiment Daya Bay. For example,
the LHC. mimicking effects induced by NSIs could play a very important
role in reactor neutrino experiments, especially for the mixing
angle θ13 . In fact, the fundamental value for θ13 could be
7. Outlook for NSIs
smaller than the measured value due to an interplay with NSIs.
I am sure that more investigations on NSIs will be conducted Finally, we have presented phenomenological upper bounds
in the future, both theoretical and experimental ones. In on NSIs. In the case of matter NSIs, former results gave
addition, I believe that a future neutrino factory13 would be bounds ranging from 10−4 to 1, whereas latter results yielded
the most plausible experiment to find signatures of NSIs (see bounds between 10−2 and 10. In the case of production and
the detailed discussion in section 5.4), but perhaps also the detection NSIs for terrestrial experiments, there are bounds of
LHC will shed some light (see section 6.4). The power of a the order from 10−6 to 0.1. In addition, we have given bounds
neutrino factory is that it may have a sensitivity and discovery for NSIs using data from neutrino cross-section measurements.
reach for the NSI parameters. Concerning existing and running In fact, low-energy neutrino scattering experiments measuring
neutrino cross-sections can be used to set bounds on NSI
neutrino oscillation experiments, the discussed experiments in
parameters. In conclusion, we have shortly discussed an
section 5 probably belong to the ones that could obtain hints on
outlook for the future sensitivity and discovery reach of NSIs,
NSIs. To repeat, such experiments are the Super-Kamiokande,
which could be responsible for neutrino flavor transitions on a
MINOS, T2K, and the reactor neutrino experiments. However,
sub-leading level. In particular, the LHC, a future neutrino
it is rather unlikely that they will be sensitive to NSIs, and
factory, and long-baseline experiments could open a new
they certainly lack any discovery reach. Considering future
window toward determining the possible NSIs.
conventional neutrino experiments, a near detector (that can
measure taus) placed close to ordinary man-made neutrino
Acknowledgments
sources would be a feasible setup to observe production and
detection NSIs. Future long-baseline experiments should The author would like to thank Mattias Blennow and He Zhang
possibly be designed to be able to probe NSIs. Finally, for useful discussions and comments. This work was supported
an interesting new option is to perform neutrino oscillation by the Swedish Research Council (Vetenskapsrådet), contract
experiments with the ESS that is planned to be built in Sweden, no 621-2011-3985 (T.O.).
and such experiments might have sensitivities to NSIs, but
need to be investigated in detail. In order to summarize this Appendix. Abbreviations
outlook, the most promising experiments to search for NSIs
are (i) a future neutrino factory, (ii) the LHC and (iii) various
long-baseline experiments. General abbreviations
CERN European Organization for Nuclear
Research, Geneva, Switzerland (see
8. Summary and conclusions
section 5.2)
In summary of this review, we have discussed NSIs as sub- C.L. confidence level
leading effects to the standard paradigm for neutrino flavor CP charge parity
transitions based on the phenomenon of neutrino oscillations. ESS European Spallation Source, Lund, Sweden
In particular, we have presented both (i) production and (see section 7)
detection NSIs including the so-called zero-distance effect Fermilab Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory,
as well as (ii) matter NSIs. In the case of matter NSIs, Batavia, Illinois, USA (see section 5.2)
we have given approximate analytical model-independent GUT Grand Unified Theory
mappings between effective neutrino masses and leptonic LEP Large Electron-Positron collider @ CERN
mixing angles and the fundamental neutrino mass-squared (see section 6.4)
differences and leptonic mixing parameters. In addition, we LHC Large Hadron Collider @ CERN (see
have studied approximate two-flavor formulae for neutrino section 1)
flavor transitions. Furthermore, we have presented some LNGS Laboratori Nazionali del Gran Sasso, Gran
different theoretical models for NSIs such as a seesaw model Sasso, Italy (see section 6.4)
and the Zee–Babu model, and investigated the phenomenology MSW Mikheyev–Smirnov–Wolfenstein
of NSIs in general. In particular, we have displayed the NSI non-standard neutrino interaction
experimental results of upper bounds on NSIs from the SM Standard Model
13 Note that an interesting and important question is if a neutrino factory is Experiments
going to be built or not, given a non-zero and quite large value for the mixing ATLAS A Toroidal LHC ApparatuS (see
angle θ13 . section 6.4)
17
Borexino The name Borexino is an Italian [10] Beringer J et al (Particle Data Group) 2012 Phys. Rev. D
diminutive of BOREX (Boron solar 86 010001
[11] Bilenky S M and Petcov S T 1987 Rev. Mod. Phys. 59 671
neutrino experiment) (see [12] Wolfenstein L 1978 Phys. Rev. D 17 2369
section 5.5) [13] Mikheyev S P and Smirnov A Y 1985 Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 42
CHARM CERN–Hamburg–Amsterdam– 913
Rome–Moscow (see section 6.3) [14] Gonzalez-Garcia M C, Maltoni M, Salvado J and Schwetz T
ICARUS Imaging Cosmic And Rare 2012 J. High Energy Phys. JHEP1212(2012)123
(arXiv:1209.3023 [hep-ph])
Underground Signals (see section 1)
[15] Forero D V, Tórtola M and Valle J W F 2012 Phys. Rev. D
K2K KEK (High Energy Accelerator 86 073012 (arXiv:1205.4018 [hep-ph])
Research Organization) to Kamioka [16] Fogli G L, Lisi E, Marrone A, Montanino D, Palazzo A and
(see section 1) Rotunno A M 2012 Phys. Rev. D 86 013012
KamLAND Kamioka Liquid scintillator (arXiv:1205.5254 [hep-ph])
AntiNeutrino Detector [17] Ahmad Q R et al (SNO Collaboration) 2001 Phys. Rev. Lett.
87 071301 (arXiv:nucl-ex/0106015)
(see section 1) [18] Eguchi K et al (KamLAND Collaboration) 2003 Phys. Rev.
KATRIN KArlsruhe TRItium Neutrino (see Lett. 90 021802 (arXiv:hep-ex/0212021)
section 1) [19] Blennow M, Ohlsson T and Winter W 2005 J. High Energy
LENA Low Energy Neutrino Astronomy Phys. JHEP 0506(2005)049 (arXiv:hep-ph/0502147)
(see section 5.5) [20] Grossman Y and Worah M P 1998 arXiv:hep-ph/9807511
[21] Lisi E, Marrone A and Montanino D 2000 Phys. Rev. Lett.
LSND Liquid Scintillator Neutrino Detector 85 1166 (arXiv:hep-ph/0002053)
(see section 6.3) [22] Adler S L 2000 Phys. Rev. D 62 117901
MiniBooNE Mini Booster Neutrino Experiment (arXiv:hep-ph/0005220)
(see section 1) [23] Gago A M, Santos E M, Teves W J C and
MINOS Main Injector Neutrino Oscillation Zukanovich Funchal R 2001 Phys. Rev. D 63 073001
(arXiv:hep-ph/0009222)
Search (see section 1)
[24] Gago A M, Santos E M, Teves W J C and R
NOνA NuMI Off-Axis νe Appearance (see Zukanovich Funchal 2001 Phys. Rev. D 63 113013
section 1) (arXiv:hep-ph/0010092)
NuTeV Neutrinos at the Tevatron (see [25] Ohlsson T 2001 Phys. Lett. B 502 159
section 6.3) (arXiv:hep-ph/0012272)
OPERA Oscillations Project with [26] Gago A M, Santos E M, Teves W J C and
Zukanovich Funchal R 2002 (arXiv:hep-ph/0208166)
Emulsion-tRacking Apparatus (see [27] Fogli G L, Lisi E, Marrone A and Montanino D 2003 Phys.
section 1) Rev. D 67 093006 (arXiv:hep-ph/0303064)
RENO Reactor Experiment for Neutrino [28] Barenboim G and Mavromatos N E 2005 J. High Energy
Oscillations (see section 1) Phys. JHEP 0501(2005)034 (arXiv:hep-ph/0404014)
SNO Sudbury Neutrino Observatory [29] Morgan D, Winstanley E, Brunner J and Thompson L F 2006
Astropart. Phys. 25 311 (arXiv:astro-ph/0412618)
(see section 1) [30] Anchordoqui L A, Goldberg H, Gonzalez-Garcia M C,
Super-Kamiokande Super-Kamioka Neutrino Detection Halzen F, D Hooper, Sarkar S and Weiler T J 2005 Phys.
Experiment (see section 1) Rev. D 72 065019 (arXiv:hep-ph/0506168)
T2K Tokai to Kamioka (see section 1) [31] Barenboim G, Mavromatos N E, Sarkar S and
Waldron-Lauda A 2006 Nucl. Phys. B 758 90
(arXiv:hep-ph/0603028)
[32] Fogli G L, Lisi E, Marrone A, Montanino D and Palazzo A
References 2007 Phys. Rev. D 76 033006 (arXiv:0704.2568 [hep-ph])
[33] Alexandre J, Farakos K, Mavromatos N E and
[1] Fukuda Y et al (Super-Kamiokande Collaboration) 1998 Pasipoularides P 2008 Phys. Rev. D 77 105001
Phys. Rev. Lett. 81 1562 (arXiv:hep-ex/9807003) (arXiv:0712.1779 [hep-ph])
[2] Ohlsson T 2012 Nature 485 309 [34] Cipriano Ribeiro N, Nunokawa H, Kajita T, Nakayama S,
[3] Rodejohann W 2011 Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 20 1833 Ko P and Minakata H 2008 Phys. Rev. D 77 073007
(arXiv:1106.1334 [hep-ph]) (arXiv:0712.4314 [hep-ph])
[4] Mitsuka G et al (Super-Kamiokande Collaboration) 2011 [35] Mavromatos N E, Meregaglia A, Rubbia A, Sakharov A S
Phys. Rev. D 84 113008 (arXiv:1109.1889 [hep-ex]) and Sarkar S 2008 Phys. Rev. D 77 053014
[5] Coelho J A B (MINOS Collaboration) 2012 Search for (arXiv:0801.0872 [hep-ph])
effects of exotic models in MINOS Poster Presented at the [36] Farzan Y, Schwetz T and Smirnov A Y 2008 J. High Energy
25th Int. Conf. on Neutrino Physics and Astrophysics Phys. JHEP 0807(2008)067 (arXiv:0805.2098 [hep-ph])
(Neutrino 2012) (Kyoto, Japan, 3–9 June 2012) [37] Bahcall J N, Cabibbo N and Yahil A 1972 Phys. Rev. Lett.
[6] Pontecorvo B 1957 Sov. Phys.—JETP 6 429 28 316
Pontecorvo B 1957 Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 33 549 [38] Barger V, Keung W Y and Pakvasa S 1982 Phys. Rev. D
[7] Pontecorvo B 1958 Sov. Phys.—JETP 7 172 25 907
Pontecorvo B 1958 Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 34 247 [39] Valle J W F 1983 Phys. Lett. B 131 87
[8] Maki Z, Nakagawa M and Sakata S 1962 Prog. Theor. Phys. [40] Barger V, Learned J G, Pakvasa S and Weiler T J 1999 Phys.
28 870 Rev. Lett. 82 2640 (arXiv:astro-ph/9810121)
[9] Pontecorvo B 1968 Sov. Phys.—JETP 26 984 [41] Choubey S and Goswami S 2000 Astropart. Phys. 14 67
Pontecorvo B 1967 Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 53 1717 (arXiv:hep-ph/9904257)
18
[42] Barger V, Learned J G, Lipari P, Lusignoli M, Pakvasa S and [75] Guzzo M M, de Holanda P C, Maltoni M, Nunokawa H,
Weiler T J 1999 Phys. Lett. B 462 109 Tórtola M and Valle J W F 2002 Nucl. Phys. B 629 479
(arXiv:hep-ph/9907421) (arXiv:hep-ph/0112310)
[43] Fogli G L, Lisi E, Marrone A and Scioscia G 1999 Phys. Rev. [76] Krastev P I and Bahcall J N 1997 arXiv:hep-ph/9703267
D 59 117303 (arXiv:hep-ph/9902267) [77] Gu P, Wang X and Zhang X 2003 Phys. Rev. D 68 087301
[44] Pakvasa S 2000 AIP Conf. Proc. 542 99 (arXiv:hep-ph/0307148)
(arXiv:hep-ph/0004077) [78] Fardon R, Nelson A E and Weiner N 2004 J. Cosmol.
[45] Choubey S, Goswami S and Majumdar D 2000 Phys. Lett. B Astropart. Phys. JCAP 0410(2004)005
484 73 (arXiv:hep-ph/0004193) (arXiv:astro-ph/0309800)
[46] Bandyopadhyay A, Choubey S and Goswami S 2001 Phys. [79] Mikheyev S P and Smirnov A Y 1986 Nuovo Cimento. C 9 17
Rev. D 63 113019 (arXiv:hep-ph/0101273) [80] Grossman Y 1995 Phys. Lett. B 359 141
[47] Lindner M, Ohlsson T and Winter W 2001 Nucl. Phys. B (arXiv:hep-ph/9507344)
607 326 (arXiv:hep-ph/0103170) [81] Berezhiani Z and Rossi A 2002 Phys. Lett. B 535 207
[48] Lindner M, Ohlsson T and Winter W 2002 Nucl. Phys. B (arXiv:hep-ph/0111137)
622 429 (arXiv:astro-ph/0105309) [82] Davidson S, Peña-Garay C, Rius N and Santamaria A 2003
[49] Joshipura A S, Massó E and Mohanty S 2002 Phys. Rev. D J. High Energy Phys. JHEP0303(2003)011
66 113008 (arXiv:hep-ph/0203181) (arXiv:hep-ph/0302093)
[50] Beacom J F and Bell N F 2002 Phys. Rev. D 65 113009 [83] Gonzalez-Garcia M C, Grossman Y, Gusso A and Nir Y 2001
(arXiv:hep-ph/0204111) Phys. Rev. D 64 096006 (arXiv:hep-ph/0105159)
[51] Bandyopadhyay A, Choubey S and Goswami S 2003 Phys. [84] Kopp J, Lindner M, Ota T and Sato J 2008 Phys. Rev. D
Lett. B 555 33 (arXiv:hep-ph/0204173) 77 013007 (arXiv:0708.0152 [hep-ph])
[52] Beacom J F, Bell N F, Hooper D, Pakvasa S and Weiler T J [85] Minakata H 2008 arXiv:0805.2435 [hep-ph]
2003 Phys. Rev. Lett. 90 181301 (arXiv:hep-ph/0211305) [86] Bilenky S M and Giunti C 1993 Phys. Lett. B 300 137
[53] Indumathi D 2002 arXiv:hep-ph/0212038 (arXiv:hep-ph/9211269)
[54] Ando S 2003 Phys. Lett. B 570 11 (arXiv:hep-ph/0307169) [87] Meloni D, Ohlsson T, Winter W and Zhang H 2010 J. High
[55] Fogli G L, Lisi E, Mirizzi A and Montanino D 2004 Phys. Energy Phys. JHEP 1004(2010)041 (arXiv:0912.2735
Rev. D 70 013001 (arXiv:hep-ph/0401227) [hep-ph])
[56] Ando S 2004 Phys. Rev. D 70 033004 [88] Xing Z-z 2008 Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 23 4255
(arXiv:hep-ph/0405200) (arXiv:0810.1421 [hep-ph])
[57] Palomares-Ruiz S, Pascoli S and Schwetz T 2005 J. High [89] Antusch S, Biggio C, Fernández-Martı́nez E, Gavela M B
Energy Phys. JHEP 0509(2005)048 and López-Pavón J 2006 J. High Energy Phys. JHEP
(arXiv:hep-ph/0505216) 0610(2006)084 (arXiv:hep-ph/0607020)
[58] Meloni D and Ohlsson T 2007 Phys. Rev. D 75 125017 [90] Fernández-Martı́nez E, Gavela M B, López-Pavón J and
(arXiv:hep-ph/0612279) Yasuda O 2007 Phys. Lett. B 649 427
[59] Gonzalez-Garcia M C and Maltoni M 2008 Phys. Lett. B (arXiv:hep-ph/0703098)
663 405 (arXiv:0802.3699 [hep-ph]) [91] Goswami S and Ota T 2008 Phys. Rev. D 78 033012
[60] Maltoni M and Winter W 2008 J. High Energy (arXiv:0802.1434 [hep-ph])
Phys. JHEP 0807(2008)064 (arXiv:0803.2050 [92] Xing Z-z and Zhou S 2008 Phys. Lett. B 666 166
[hep-ph]) (arXiv:0804.3512 [hep-ph])
[61] Mehta P and Winter W 2011 J. Cosmol. Astropart. [93] Luo S 2008 Phys. Rev. D 78 016006 (arXiv:0804.4897
Phys. JCAP 1103(2011)041 (arXiv:1101.2673 [hep-ph])
[hep-ph]) [94] Altarelli G and Meloni D 2009 Nucl. Phys. B 809 158
[62] Baerwald P, Bustamante M and Winter W 2012 J. Cosmol. (arXiv:0809.1041 [hep-ph])
Astropart. Phys. JCAP 1210(2012)020 [95] Ohlsson T and Zhang H 2009 Phys. Lett. B 671 99
(arXiv:1208.4600 [astro-ph.CO]) (arXiv:0809.4835 [hep-ph])
[63] Ashie Y et al (Super-Kamiokande Collaboration) 2004 Phys. [96] Langacker P and London D 1988 Phys. Rev. D 38 907
Rev. Lett. 93 101801 (arXiv:hep-ex/0404034) [97] Meloni D, Ohlsson T, and Zhang H 2009 J. High Energy
[64] Araki T et al (KamLAND Collaboration) 2005 Phys. Rev. Phys. JHEP0904(2009)033 (arXiv:0901.1784 [hep-ph])
Lett. 94 081801 (arXiv:hep-ex/0406035) [98] Kitazawa N, Sugiyama H and Yasuda O 2006
[65] Adamson P et al (MINOS Collaboration) 2008 Phys. Rev. arXiv:hep-ph/0606013
Lett. 101 131802 (arXiv:0806.2237 [hep-ex]) [99] Blennow M and Ohlsson T 2008 Phys. Rev. D 78 093002
[66] Adamson P et al (MINOS Collaboration) 2011 Phys. Rev. (arXiv:0805.2301 [hep-ph])
Lett. 106 181801 (arXiv:1103.0340 [hep-ex]) [100] Bilenky M and Santamaria A 1994 Nucl. Phys. B 420 47
[67] Blennow M, Ohlsson T and Winter W 2007 Eur. Phys. J. C (arXiv:hep-ph/9310302)
49 1023 (arXiv:hep-ph/0508175) [101] Antusch S, Baumann J P and Fernández-Martı́nez E 2009
[68] Valle J W F 1987 Phys. Lett. B 199 432 Nucl. Phys. B 810 369 (arXiv:0807.1003 [hep-ph])
[69] Guzzo M M, Masiero A and Petcov S T 1991 Phys. Lett. B [102] Gavela M B, Hernandez D, Ota T and Winter W 2009 Phys.
260 154 Rev. D 79 013007 (arXiv:0809.3451 [hep-ph])
[70] Roulet E 1991 Phys. Rev. D 44 935 [103] Malinský M, Ohlsson T and Zhang H 2009 Phys. Rev. D
[71] Brooijmans G 1998 arXiv:hep-ph/9808498 79 011301(R) (arXiv:0811.3346 [hep-ph])
[72] Gonzalez-Garcia M C, Guzzo M M, Krastev P I, [104] Willmann L et al 1999 Phys. Rev. Lett. 82 49
Nunokawa H, Peres O L G, Pleitez V, Valle J W F and (arXiv:hep-ex/9807011)
Zukanovich Funchal R 1999 Phys. Rev. Lett. 82 3202 [105] Zee A 1985 Phys. Lett. B 161 141
(arXiv:hep-ph/9809531) [106] Zee A 1986 Nucl. Phys. B 264 99
[73] Bergmann S, Guzzo M M, de Holanda P C, Krastev P I and [107] Babu K S 1988 Phys. Lett. B 203 132
Nunokawa H 2000 Phys. Rev. D 62 073001 [108] Ohlsson T, Schwetz T, and Zhang H 2009 Phys. Lett. B
(arXiv:hep-ph/0004049) 681 269 (arXiv:0909.0455 [hep-ph])
[74] Guzzo M M, Nunokawa H, de Holanda P C and Peres O L G [109] Schwetz T, Tórtola M A and Valle J W F 2008 New J. Phys.
2001 Phys. Rev. D 64 097301 (arXiv:hep-ph/0012089) 10 113011 (arXiv:0808.2016 [hep-ph])
19
[110] Nebot M, Oliver J F, Palao D and Santamaria A 2008 Phys. [142] Cipriano Ribeiro N, Minakata H, Nunokawa H, Uchinami S
Rev. D 77 093013 (arXiv:0711.0483 [hep-ph]) and Zukanovich Funchal R 2007 J. High Energy Phys.
[111] Fornengo N, Maltoni M, Tomàs Bayo R and Valle J W F JHEP 0712(2007)002 (arXiv:0709.1980 [hep-ph])
2001 Phys. Rev. D 65 013010 (arXiv:hep-ph/0108043) [143] Kopp J, Ota T and Winter W 2008 Phys. Rev. D 78 053007
[112] Gonzalez-Garcia M C and Maltoni M 2004 Phys. Rev. D (arXiv:0804.2261 [hep-ph])
70 033010 (arXiv:hep-ph/0404085) [144] Tang J and Winter W 2009 Phys. Rev. D 80 053001
[113] Friedland A, Lunardini C and Maltoni M 2004 Phys. Rev. D (arXiv:0903.3039 [hep-ph])
70 111301 (arXiv:hep-ph/0408264) [145] Gago A M, Minakata H, Nunokawa H, Uchinami S and
[114] Huber P and Valle J W F 2001 Phys. Lett. B 523 151 Zukanovich Funchal R 2010 J. High Energy Phys. JHEP
(arXiv:hep-ph/0108193) 1001(2010)049 (arXiv:0904.3360 [hep-ph])
[115] Friedland A and Lunardini C 2005 Phys. Rev. D 72 053009 [146] Coloma P, Donini A, López-Pavón J and Minakata H 2011
(arXiv:hep-ph/0506143) J. High Energy Phys. JHEP 1108(2011)036
[116] Gonzalez-Garcia M C, Maltoni M and Salvado J 2011 (arXiv:1105.5936 [hep-ph])
J. High Energy Phys. JHEP 1105(2011)075 [147] Berezhiani Z, Raghavan R S and Rossi A 2002 Nucl. Phys. B
(arXiv:1103.4365 [hep-ph]) 638 62 (arXiv:hep-ph/0111138)
[117] Kopp J, Machado P A N and Parke S J 2010 Phys. Rev. D [148] Guzzo M M, de Holanda P C and Peres O L G 2004 Phys.
82 113002 (arXiv:1009.0014 [hep-ph]) Lett. B 591 1 (arXiv:hep-ph/0403134)
[118] Escrihuela F J, Tórtola M, Valle J W F and Miranda O G [149] Bolaños A, Miranda O G, Palazzo A, Tórtola M A and
2011 Phys. Rev. D 83 093002 (arXiv:1103.1366 Valle J W F 2009 Phys. Rev. D 79 113012
[hep-ph]) (arXiv:0812.4417 [hep-ph])
[119] Mann W A, Cherdack D, Musial W and Kafka T [150] Palazzo A and Valle J W F 2009 Phys. Rev. D 80 091301
2010 Phys. Rev. D 82 113010 (arXiv:1006.5720 (arXiv:0909.1535 [hep-ph])
[hep-ph]) [151] Das C R and Pulido J 2011 Phys. Rev. D 83 053009
[120] Friedland A and Lunardini C 2006 Phys. Rev. D 74 033012 (arXiv:1007.2167 [hep-ph])
(arXiv:hep-ph/0606101) [152] Palazzo A 2011 Phys. Rev. D 83 101701 (arXiv:1101.3875
[121] Blennow M, Ohlsson T and Skrotzki J 2008 Phys. Lett. B [hep-ph])
660 522 (arXiv:0702059 [hep-ph]) [153] Garcés E A, Miranda O G, Tórtola M A and Valle J W F
[122] Isvan Z (MINOS Collaboration) 2011 arXiv:1110.1900 2012 Phys. Rev. D 85 073006 (arXiv:1112.3633
[hep-ex] [hep-ph])
[123] Coelho J A B, Kafka T, Mann W A, Schneps J and Altinok O [154] Agarwalla S K, Lombardi F and Takeuchi T 2012
2012 Phys. Rev. D 86 113015 (arXiv:1209.3757 [hep-ph]) arXiv:1207.3492 [hep-ph]
[124] Ota T and Sato J 2002 Phys. Lett. B 545 367 [155] Esteban-Pretel A, Tomàs R and Valle J W F 2007 Phys. Rev.
(arXiv:hep-ph/0202145) D 76 053001 (arXiv:0704.0032 [hep-ph])
[125] Esteban-Pretel A, Valle J W F and Huber P 2008 Phys. Lett. [156] Blennow M, Mirizzi A and Serpico P D 2008 Phys. Rev. D
B 668 197 (arXiv:0803.1790 [hep-ph]) 78 113004 (arXiv:0810.2297 [hep-ph])
[126] Blennow M, Meloni D, Ohlsson T, Terranova F and [157] Esteban-Pretel A, Tomàs R and Valle J W F 2010 Phys. Rev.
Westerberg M 2008 Eur. Phys. J. C 56 529 D 81 063003 (arXiv:0909.2196 [hep-ph])
(arXiv:0804.2744 [hep-ph]) [158] Dasgupta B, Raffelt G G and Tamborra I 2010 Phys. Rev. D
[127] Friedland A and Shoemaker I M 2012 arXiv:1207.6642 81 073004 (arXiv:1001.5396 [hep-ph])
[hep-ph] [159] Das C R and Pulido J 2012 J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 375 042040
[128] Oki H and Yasuda O 2010 Phys. Rev. D 82 073009 (arXiv:1111.6939 [hep-ph])
(arXiv:1003.5554 [hep-ph]) [160] Blennow M and Meloni D 2009 Phys. Rev. D 80 065009
[129] Yasuda O 2011 Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 217 220 (arXiv:0901.2110 [hep-ph])
(arXiv:1011.6440 [hep-ph]) [161] Auerbach L B et al (LSND Collaboration) 2001 Phys. Rev. D
[130] Adhikari R, Chakraborty S, Dasgupta A and Roy S 2012 63 112001 (arXiv:hep-ex/0101039)
Phys. Rev. D 86 073010 (arXiv:1201.3047 [hep-ph]) [162] Dorenbosch J et al (CHARM Collaboration) 1986 Phys. Lett.
[131] Johnson L M, Seton Williams R, Spencer L F and B 180 303
DeWilde B J 2006 arXiv:hep-ph/0610011 [163] Vilain P et al (CHARM II Collaboration) 1994 Phys. Lett. B
[132] Akhmedov E and Schwetz T 2010 J. High Energy Phys. 335 246
JHEP 1010(2010)115 (arXiv:1007.4171 [hep-ph]) [164] Zeller G P et al (NuTeV Collaboration) 2002 Phys. Rev. Lett.
[133] Ota T, Sato J and Yamashita N-a 2002 Phys. Rev. D 88 091802 (arXiv:hep-ex/0110059)
65 093015 (arXiv:hep-ph/0112329) [165] Abdallah J et al (DELPHI Collaboration) 2005 Eur. Phys. J.
[134] An F P et al (Daya Bay Collaboration) 2012 Phys. Rev. Lett. C 38 395 (arXiv:hep-ex/0406019)
108 171803 (arXiv:1203.1669 [hep-ex]) [166] Biggio C, Blennow M and Fernandez-Martinez E 2009
[135] Abe Y et al (Double Chooz Collaboration) 2012 Phys. Rev. J. High Energy Phys. JHEP0903(2009)139
Lett. 108 131801 (arXiv:1112.6353 [hep-ex]) (arXiv:0902.0607 [hep-ph])
[136] Abe Y et al (Double Chooz Collaboration) 2012 Phys. Rev. D [167] Bellazzini B, Grossman Y, Nachshon I and Paradisi P 2011
86 052008 (arXiv:1207.6632 [hep-ex]) J. High Energy Phys. JHEP 1106(2011)104
[137] Ahn J K et al (RENO collaboration) 2012 Phys. Rev. Lett. (arXiv:1012.3759 [hep-ph])
108 191802 (arXiv:1204.0626 [hep-ex]) [168] Biggio C, Blennow M and Fernández-Martı́nez E 2009
[138] Leitner R, Malinský M, Roskovec B and Zhang H 2011 J. J. High Energy Phys. JHEP0908(2009)090
High Energy Phys. JHEP 1112(2011)001 arXiv:0907.0097 [hep-ph]
(arXiv:1105.5580 [hep-ph]) [169] Barranco J, Miranda O G, Moura C A, and Valle J W F 2006
[139] Huber P, Schwetz T, and Valle J W F 2002 Phys. Rev. Lett. Phys. Rev. D 73 113001 (arXiv:hep-ph/0512195)
88 101804 (arXiv:hep-ph/0111224) [170] Barranco J, Miranda O G, Moura C A and Valle J W F
[140] Huber P, Schwetz T and Valle J W F 2002 Phys. Rev. D 2008 Phys. Rev. D 77 093014 (arXiv:0711.0698
66 013006 (arXiv:hep-ph/0202048) [hep-ph])
[141] Kopp J, Lindner M and Ota T 2007 Phys. Rev. D 76 013001 [171] Bahcall J N, Kamionkowski M and Sirlin A 1995 Phys. Rev.
(arXiv:hep-ph/0702269) D 51 6146 (arXiv:astro-ph/9502003)
20
[172] Forero D V and Guzzo M M 2011 Phys. Rev. D 84 013002 [179] Davidson S and Sanz V 2011 Phys. Rev. D 84 113011
[173] Spitz J (ArgoNeuT Collaboration) 2011 J. Phys. Conf. Ser. (arXiv:1108.5320 [hep-ph])
312 072017 (arXiv:1009.2515 [hep-ex]) [180] Davidson S and Sanz V 2011 arXiv:1110.1558 [hep-ph]
[174] McFarland K S (MINERνA Collaboration) 2006 Nucl. Phys. [181] Schael S et al (ALEPH Collaboration) 2007 Eur. Phys. J. C
Proc. Suppl. 159 107 (arXiv:physics/0605088) 49 411 (arXiv:hep-ex/0609051)
[175] Cheng G et al (MiniBooNE Collaboration, SciBooNE [182] Abbiendi G et al (OPAL Collaboration) 2004 Eur. Phys. J. C
Collaboration) 2012 Phys. Rev. D 86 052009 33 173 (arXiv:hep-ex/0309053)
(arXiv:1208.0322 [hep-ex]) [183] Friedland A, Graesser M L, Shoemaker I M and
[176] Adamson P et al (MINOS Collaboration) 2010 Phys. Rev. D Vecchi L 2012 Phys. Lett. B 714 267 (arXiv:1111.5331
81 072002 (arXiv:0910.2201 [hep-ex]) [hep-ph])
[177] Abe K et al (T2K Collaboration) 2011 Nucl. Instrum. [184] Aad G et al (ATLAS Collaboration) 2011 Phys. Lett. B
Methods A 659 106 (arXiv:1106.1238 [physics]) 705 294 (arXiv:1106.5327 [hep-ex])
[178] Kyberd P et al (nuSTORM Collaboration) 2012 [185] Chatrchyan S et al (CMS Collaboration) 2012 J. High Energy
arXiv:1206.0294 [hep-ex] Phys. JHEP 1206(2012)169 (arXiv:1204.5341 [hep-ex])
21

Status of Non-Standard Neutrino Interactions: Reports On Progress in Physics

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Status of Non-Standard Neutrino Interactions: Reports On Progress in Physics

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Reports on Progress in Physics

REVIEW ARTICLE Related content

- Neutrino physics with JUNO

- Neutrino Physics with Dark Matter

- Non-standard neutrino interactions and

This content was downloaded from IP address 14.139.207.98 on 22/10/2019 at 06:33

Status of non-standard neutrino

Received 25 September 2012, in final form 29 January 2013

1. Introduction KamLAND, K2K, MINOS and MiniBooNE) on the various

Heff = H0 + H  . (7) 3. NSIs with three neutrino flavors

were derived, which are given by

Table 2. Constraints on various NSI parameters from  → ,

In a type-II seesaw model (also known as the triplet seesaw

and muonium–antimuonium conversion) [110], the allowed

5. Phenomenology of NSIs for different types of

In this section, we will discuss the phenomenology of NSIs for

approximation, which has been named the two-flavor hybrid

1 2ε principle, there are no significant differences between the

[4]. Of course, this analysis can be extended to a similar 2 m̃31

whereas production NSIs from the Zee–Babu model might

5.5. NSI effects on solar and supernova neutrino oscillations

Then, we turn our attention to electron neutrino–quark

Figure 10. Bounds on flavor-conserving NSIs of νe e scattering from −1 < εee

You might also like

Heff = H0 + H . (7) 3. NSIs with three neutrino flavors

Table 2. Constraints on various NSI parameters from → ,

[4]. Of course, this analysis can be extended to a similar 2 m̃31