Citation: S. Navas et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D 110, 030001 (2024)

Neutrino Properties
NEUTRINO PROPERTIES
Revised July 2023 by P. Vogel (Caltech) and A. Piepke (University of Alabama).
The Neutrino Properties Listings concern measurements ofvarious properties of neutrinos. Nearly all of the measurements,
so far only limits, actually concern superpositions of the mass
eigenstates νi , which are in turn related to the weak eigenstates
νℓ , via the neutrino mixing matrix
X
Uℓi |νi i .
|νℓ i =i

In the analogous case of quark mixing via the CKM matrix,
the smallness of the off-diagonal terms (small mixing angles)
permits a “dominant eigenstate” approximation. However, theresults of neutrino oscillation searches show that the mixing
matrix contains two large mixing angles and a third angle thatis not exceedingly small. We cannot therefore associate any
particular state |νi i with any particular lepton label e, µ or τ .
Nevertheless, note that in the standard labeling the |ν1 i has
the largest |νe i component (∼ 2/3), |ν2 i contains ∼ 1/3 of the|νe i component and |ν3 i contains only a small ∼ 2.5% |νe icomponent.
Neutrinos are produced in weak decays with a definite lepton flavor, and are typically detected by the charged current
weak interaction again associated with a specific lepton flavor. Hence, the listings for the neutrino mass that follow are
separated into the three associated charged lepton categories.
Other properties (mean lifetime, magnetic moment, charge andhttps://pdg.lbl.gov

Page 1Created: 5/31/2024 10:16

Citation: S. Navas et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D 110, 030001 (2024)

charge radius) are no longer separated this way. If needed, theassociated lepton flavor is reported in the footnotes.
Measured quantities (mass-squared, magnetic moments,
mean lifetimes, etc.) all depend upon the mixing parameters|Uℓi |2 , but to some extent also on experimental conditions (e.g.,
on energy resolution). Many of these observables, in particularmass-squared, cannot distinguish between Dirac and Majorana
neutrinos and are unaffected by CP phases.
Direct neutrino mass measurements are usually based on
the analysis of the kinematics of charged particles (leptons,
pions) emitted together with neutrinos (flavor states) in various
weak decays. The most sensitive neutrino mass measurement
to date, involving electron type antineutrinos, is based on2(ef f )fitting the shape of the beta spectrum. The quantity mνe=P
2 2i |Uei | mνi is determined or constrained, where the sum isover all mass eigenvalues mνi that are too close q
together to2(ef f )fmνeis
be resolved experimentally. (The quantity mef
νe ≡often denoted hmβ i in the literature.) If the energy resolution
is better than ∆m2ij ≡ m2νi − m2νj , the corresponding heaviermνi and mixing parameter could be determined by fitting theresulting spectral anomaly (step or kink).

The dependence of mνe on the mass of the lightest neutrino
is shown in Fig. 14.11 of the Neutrino Masses, Mixing, andOscillations review. In the case of inverted ordering there is apf(∆m232 ) ∼minimum possible value of mef,
approximately
νef
50 meV. If mef
νe is found to be larger than this value, it is
impossible, based on this information only, to decide whichfordering is realized in nature. On the other hand, if the mef
νeis less than ∼50 meV, only the normal mass ordering is possible.

https://pdg.lbl.gov

Page 2Created: 5/31/2024 10:16

Citation: S. Navas et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D 110, 030001 (2024)2(ef f )A limit on mνeimplies an upper limit on the minimum
value m2min of m2νi , independent of the mixing parameters Uei :2(ef f )2(ef f )m2min ≤ mνe. However, if and when the value of mνeisdetermined then its combination with the results derived fromneutrino oscillations that give us the values of the neutrino
mass-squared differences ∆m2ij ≡ m2i − m2j , including eventuallyalso their signs, and the mixing parameters |Uei |2 , the individualP2(ef f )neutrino mass squares m2νj = mνe− i |Uei |2 ∆m2ij can be
determined.
So far solar, reactor, atmospheric and accelerator neutrino
oscillation experiments can be consistently described using
three active neutrino flavors, i.e. two mass splittings and three
mixing angles. However, several experiments with radioactive
sources, reactors, and accelerators imply the possible existenceof one or more non-interacting, i.e. sterile, neutrino species
that might be observable since they couple, albeit weakly, tothe flavor neutrinos |νl i. In that case, the neutrino mixing
matrix would be n × n unitary matrix with n > 3.
Combined three neutrino analyses determine the squared
mass differences and all three mixing angles to within reasonable2(ef f )accuracy. For given |∆m2ij | a limit on mνefrom beta decay
defines an upper limit on the maximum value mmax of mνi :2(ef f ) P+ i<j |∆m2ij |. The analysis of the low energy
m2max ≤ mνebeta decay of tritium, combined with the oscillation results, thus
limits all active neutrino masses. Traditionally, experimental
neutrino mass limits obtained from pion decay π + → µ+ + νµor the shape of the spectrum of decay products of the τ lepton
did not distinguish between flavor and mass eigenstates. These
results are reported as limits of the µ and τ based neutrino
mass. After the determination of the |∆m2ij |’s and the mixing

https://pdg.lbl.gov

Page 3Created: 5/31/2024 10:16

Citation: S. Navas et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D 110, 030001 (2024)

angles θij , the corresponding neutrino mass limits are no longer
competitive with those derived from low energy beta decays.
The spread of arrival times of the neutrinos from SN1987A,
coupled with the measured neutrino energies, provided
a timeq2(ef f )of-flight limit on a quantity similar to hmβ i ≡ mνe. Thisstatement, clothed in various degrees of sophistication, hasbeen the basis for a very large number of papers. The resulting
limits, however, are no longer comparable with the limits fromtritium beta decay.

Constraint, or eventually a value, of the sum of the neutrino
masses mtot can be determined from the analysis of the cosmic
microwave background anisotropy, combined with the galaxy
redshift surveys and other data. These limits are reported ina separate table ( Sum of Neutrino Masses, mtot ). Obviously,
mtot represents an upper limit for all mi values. Note thatmany reported mtot limits are considerably more stringent
fthan the listed mef
νe limits. Discussion concerning the model
dependence of the mtot limit is continuing.
ν MASS (electron based)P2(eff)
2Those limits given below are for the square root of m
≡
i Uei
νe
m 2 . Limits that come from the kinematics of 3 H β − ν decay are theνi2(eff)
square roots of the limits for m. Obtained from the measurements
νereported in the Listings for “ν Mass Squared,” below.
VALUE (eV)

< 0.8

CL%

90

DOCUMENT ID

1 AKER

22

TECN

COMMENTSPEC

3 H β decay• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •
<155
< 1.1
< 2.05< 5.8< 2.3< 21.7https://pdg.lbl.gov

90
90
95
95
95
90

2 ESFAHANI
3 AKER
4 ASEEV
5 PAGLIAROLI
6 KRAUS
7 ARNABOLDI

Page 4

23
19
11
10
05
03A

CRES
SPEC
SPEC
ASTR
SPEC
BOLO

3 H β decay
3 H β decay
3 H β decay
SN1987A
3 H β decay
187 Re β decay

Created: 5/31/2024 10:16

Citation: S. Navas et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D 110, 030001 (2024)

< 5.7
< 2.5
< 2.8
< 4.35< 12.4
< 92
15

95
95
95
95
95
95
+ 32
− 15

8 LOREDO
02
9 LOBASHEV
99
10 WEINHEIMER 99
11 BELESEV
95
12 CHING
95
13 HIDDEMANN 95

ASTR
SPEC
SPEC
SPEC
SPEC
SPEC

HIDDEMANN 95

SPEC

SN1987A
3 H β decay
3 H β decay
3 H β decay
3 H β decay
3 H β decay
3 H β decay< 19.695
KERNAN
95 ASTR SN 1987A
14 STOEFFL< 7.0
95
95 SPEC 3 H β decay
15 WEINHEIMER 93 SPEC 3 H β decay< 7.2
95
16 HOLZSCHUH 92B SPEC 3 H β decay< 11.795
17< 13.195
KAWAKAMI 91 SPEC 3 H β decay
18
< 9.3
95
ROBERTSON 91 SPEC 3 H β decay< 14
95
AVIGNONE90 ASTR SN 1987A< 16
SPERGEL
88 ASTR SN 1987A
19 BORIS17
to 40
87 SPEC 3 H β decay
1 AKER 22 derive an upper limit on the kinematical neutrino mass using Tritium β-decay
and the KATRIN spectrometer. The constraint is based on combining the first two
science runs. Supersedes AKER 19.
2 ESFAHANI 23 report the first continuous-spectrum measurement of 3 H β decay, using
cyclotron radiation emission spectroscopy (CRES) and a small demonstration detector.
The energy resolution at the endpoint is demonstrated using 83m Kr and a kinematicalneutrino mass limit derived from the spectral shape. A frequentist analysis obtained alimit of <152 eV.
3 AKER 19 report a neutrino mass limit, derived from the first month of data collected by
the KATRIN tritium endpoint experiment. The analysis of the electron kinematics showsno evidence for neutrino mass. The quoted result is based on a frequentist analysis of
the data following the method described in LOKHOV 15. Using the method of Feldman
and Cousins, the derived upper limit is < 0.8 eV at 90% C.L. Superseded by AKER 22.
4 ASEEV 11 report the analysis of the entire beta endpoint data, taken with the Troitsk
integrating electrostatic spectrometer between 1997 and 2002 (some of the earlier runs
were rejected), using a windowless gaseous tritium source. The fitted value of m ν , basedon the method of Feldman and Cousins, is obtained from the upper limit of the fit form 2 . Previous analysis problems were resolved by careful monitoring of the tritium gas
νcolumn density. Supersedes LOBASHEV 99 and BELESEV 95.
5 PAGLIAROLI 10 is critical of the likelihood method used by LOREDO 02.
6 KRAUS 05 is a continuation of the work reported in WEINHEIMER 99. This result represents the final analysis of data taken from 1997 to 2001. Various sources of systematic
uncertainties have been identified and quantified. The background has been reduced
compared to the initial running period. A spectral anomaly at the endpoint, reported in
LOBASHEV 99, was not observed.
7 ARNABOLDI 03A etal. report kinematical neutrino mass limit using β-decay of 187 Re.
Bolometric AgReO4 micro-calorimeters are used. Mass bound is substantially weaker
than those derived from tritium β-decays but has different systematic uncertainties.
8 LOREDO 02 updates LOREDO 89.
9 LOBASHEV 99 report a new measurement which continues the work reported in BELESEV 95. This limit depends on phenomenological fit parameters used to derive their best
fit to m 2 , making unambiguous interpretation difficult. See the footnote under “ν Massν
Squared.”https://pdg.lbl.gov

Page 5Created: 5/31/2024 10:16

Citation: S. Navas et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D 110, 030001 (2024)

10 WEINHEIMER 99 presents two analyses which exclude the spectral anomaly and resultin an acceptable m 2 . We report the most conservative limit, but the other is nearly theνsame. See the footnote under “ν Mass Squared.”
11 BELESEV 95 (Moscow) use an integral electrostatic spectrometer with adiabatic magnetic collimation and a gaseous tritium sources. A fit to a normal Kurie plot above
18300–18350 eV (to avoid a low-energy anomaly) plus a monochromatic line 7–15 eV
below the endpoint yields m 2 = − 4.1 ± 10.9 eV2 , leading to this Bayesian limit.
ν
12 CHING 95 quotes results previously given by SUN 93; no experimental details are given.
A possible explanation for consistently negative values of m 2 is given.
ν
13 HIDDEMANN 95 (Munich) experiment uses atomic tritium embedded in a metal-dioxide
lattice. Bayesian limit calculated from the weighted mean m 2 = 221 ± 4244 eV2 fromν
the two runs listed below.
14 STOEFFL 95 (LLNL) result is the Bayesian limit obtained from the m 2 errors givenν
below but with m 2 set equal to 0. The anomalous endpoint accumulation leads to aνvalue of m 2 which is negative by more than 5 standard deviations.
ν
15 WEINHEIMER 93 (Mainz) is a measurement of the endpoint of the tritium β spectrum
using an electrostatic spectrometer with a magnetic guiding field. The source is moleculartritium frozen onto an aluminum substrate.
16 HOLZSCHUH 92B (Zurich) result is obtained from the measurement m 2 = − 24± 48± 61ν(1σ errors), in eV2 , using the PDG prescription for conversion to a limit in m ν .
17 KAWAKAMI 91 (Tokyo) experiment uses tritium-labeled arachidic acid. This result is theBayesian limit obtained from the m 2 limit with the errors combined in quadrature. Thisν
was also done in ROBERTSON 91, although the authors report a different procedure.
18 ROBERTSON 91 (LANL) experiment uses gaseous molecular tritium. The result is instrong disagreement with the earlier claims by the ITEP group [LUBIMOV 80, BORIS 87(+ BORIS 88 erratum)] that m ν lies between 17 and 40 eV. However, the probability ofa positive m2 is only 3% if statistical and systematic error are combined in quadrature.
19 See also comment in BORIS 87B and erratum in BORIS 88.

ν MASS SQUARED (electron based)
Given troubling systematics which result in improbably negative estimaP
2(eff)
2 m 2 , in many experiments, we use only
tors of m
≡
i Uei
νe
νi
KRAUS 05, LOBASHEV 99, and AKER 22 for our average.
VALUE (eV2 )

−
−

0.08±
0.1 ±
0.67±
0.6 ±

DOCUMENT ID

0.30 OUR AVERAGE
1 AKER
0.3
2 ASEEV
2.53
3
2.2 ± 2.1
KRAUS

22
11
05

TECN

COMMENT

SPEC
SPEC
SPEC

3 H β decay
3 H β decay
3 H β decay• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •
−

1.0 +
−

− 1.9 ±
− 3.7 ±
− 22 ±

0.9
1.1
3.4 ± 2.2
5.3 ± 2.1
4.8

https://pdg.lbl.gov

4 AKER

19SPEC

3 H β decay

5 LOBASHEV
99
6 WEINHEIMER 99
7 BELESEV
95

SPEC
SPEC
SPEC

3 H β decay
3 H β decay
3 H β decay

Page 6Created: 5/31/2024 10:16

Citation: S. Navas et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D 110, 030001 (2024)

8 HIDDEMANN 95 SPEC 3 H β decay
129 ± 6010
8 HIDDEMANN 95 SPEC 3 H β decay
313 ± 5994
9 STOEFFL− 130 ± 20 ± 15
95 SPEC 3 H β decay
10− 31 ± 75 ± 48
SUN
93 SPEC 3 H β decay
11− 39 ± 34 ± 15
WEINHEIMER 93 SPEC 3 H β decay
12 HOLZSCHUH 92B SPEC 3 H β decay− 24 ± 48 ± 61
13 KAWAKAMI 91 SPEC 3 H β decay− 65 ± 85 ± 65
14 ROBERTSON 91 SPEC 3 H β decay− 147 ± 68 ± 41
1 AKER 22 report results from the analysis of the Tritium β spectrum using the combined
data set collected by the KATRIN experiment in the first two science runs. Supersedes
AKER 19.
2 ASEEV 11 report the analysis of the entire beta endpoint data, taken with the Troitsk integrating electrostatic spectrometer between 1997 and 2002, using a windowless gaseous
tritium source. The analysis does not use the two additional fit parameters (see LOBASHEV 99) for a step-like structure near the endpoint. Using only the runs where thetritium gas column density was carefully monitored the need for such parameters waseliminated. Supersedes LOBASHEV 99 and BELESEV 95.
3 KRAUS 05 is a continuation of the work reported in WEINHEIMER 99. This result
represents the final analysis of data taken from 1997 to 2001. Problems with significantly negative squared neutrino masses, observed in some earlier experiments, havebeen resolved in this work.
4 AKER 19 use the first month of data collected by the KATRIN experiment to determine
m 2 . The result is consistent with a neutrino mass of zero and is used to place a limitν
on m ν . Superseded by AKER 22.
5 LOBASHEV 99 report a new measurement which continues the work reported in BELESEV 95. The data were corrected for electron trapping effects in the source, eliminating
the dependence of the fitted neutrino mass on the fit interval. The analysis assuming
a pure beta spectrum yields significantly negative fitted m 2 ≈ −(20–10) eV2 . Thisν
problem is attributed to a discrete spectral anomaly of about 6 × 10−11 intensity witha time-dependent energy of 5–15 eV below the endpoint. The data analysis accounts
for this anomaly by introducing two extra phenomenological fit parameters resulting ina best fit of m 2 =− 1.9 ± 3.4 ± 2.2 eV2 which is used to derive a neutrino mass limit.
νHowever, the introduction of phenomenological fit parameters which are correlated withthe derived m 2
ν limit makes unambiguous interpretation of this result difficult.
6 WEINHEIMER 99 is a continuation of the work reported in WEINHEIMER 93 . Usinga lower temperature of the frozen tritium source eliminated the dewetting of the T2
film, which introduced a dependence of the fitted neutrino mass on the fit interval in
the earlier work. An indication for a spectral anomaly reported in LOBASHEV 99 has
been seen, but its time dependence does not agree with LOBASHEV 99. Two analyses,
which exclude the spectral anomaly either by choice of the analysis interval or by using aparticular data set which does not exhibit the anomaly, result in acceptable m 2 fits andνare used to derive the neutrino mass limit published by the authors. We list the mostconservative of the two.
7 BELESEV 95 (Moscow) use an integral electrostatic spectrometer with adiabatic magnetic collimation and a gaseous tritium sources. This value comes from a fit to a normal
Kurie plot above 18300–18350 eV (to avoid a low-energy anomaly), including the effects
of an apparent peak 7–15 eV below the endpoint.
8 HIDDEMANN 95 (Munich) experiment uses atomic tritium embedded in a metal-dioxide
lattice. They quote measurements from two data sets.
9 STOEFFL 95 (LLNL) uses a gaseous source of molecular tritium. An anomalous pileupof events at the endpoint leads to the negative value for m 2 . The authors acknowledgeν

https://pdg.lbl.gov

Page 7Created: 5/31/2024 10:16

Citation: S. Navas et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D 110, 030001 (2024)

that “the negative value for the best fit of m 2 has no physical meaning” and discussν
possible explanations for this effect.
10 SUN 93 uses a tritiated hydrocarbon source. See also CHING 95.
11 WEINHEIMER 93 (Mainz) is a measurement of the endpoint of the tritium β spectrum
using an electrostatic spectrometer with a magnetic guiding field. The source is moleculartritium frozen onto an aluminum substrate.
12 HOLZSCHUH 92B (Zurich) source is a monolayer of tritiated hydrocarbon.
13 KAWAKAMI 91 (Tokyo) experiment uses tritium-labeled arachidic acid.
14 ROBERTSON 91 (LANL) experiment uses gaseous molecular tritium. The result is instrong disagreement with the earlier claims by the ITEP group [LUBIMOV 80, BORIS 87(+ BORIS 88 erratum)] that m ν lies between 17 and 40 eV. However, the probability ofa positive m 2 is only 3% if statistical and systematic error are combined in quadrature.
νν MASS (electron based)
These are measurement of m ν (in contrast to m ν , given above). The
masses can be different for a Dirac neutrino in the absence of CPT invariance. The possible distinction between ν and ν properties is usuallyignored elsewhere in these Listings.
VALUE (eV)

<460
<225

CL%

68
95

DOCUMENT IDTECNYASUMISPRINGERCNTR 163 Ho decay
CNTR 163 Ho decay

94
87

COMMENTν MASS (muon based)P2(eff)
2 2
Limits given below are for the square root of m≡i Uµi m νi .
νµIn some of the COSM papers listed below, the authors did not distinguishbetween weak and mass eigenstates.
OUR EVALUATION is based on OUR AVERAGE for the π ± mass and the
ASSAMAGAN 96 value for the muon momentum for the π + decay at rest.
The limit is calculated using the unified classical analysis of FELDMAN 98
for a Gaussian distribution near a physical boundary. WARNING: since2(eff)
mis calculated from the differences of large numbers, it and theνµcorresponding limits are extraordinarily sensitive to small changes in thepion mass, the decay muon momentum, and their errors. For example,
the limits obtained using JECKELMANN 94, LENZ 98, and the weighted
averages are 0.15, 0.29, and 0.19 MeV, respectively.
VALUE (MeV)

CL%

DOCUMENT ID

TECN<0.19 (CL = 90%) OUR EVALUATION
1 ASSAMAGAN 96
<0.17
90

COMMENTm 2 = − 0.016 ± 0.023ν• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •
<0.15
<0.48

https://pdg.lbl.gov

2 DOLGOV
3 ENQVIST

Page 8

95
93

SPEC

COSM Nucleosynthesis
COSM Nucleosynthesis

Created: 5/31/2024 10:16

Citation: S. Navas et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D 110, 030001 (2024)

<0.3
<0.42
<0.50
<0.65

90
90

4 FULLER
4 LAM
5 ANDERHUB
CLARK

91
91
82
74

COSM Nucleosynthesis
COSM Nucleosynthesis
SPEC m 2 = − 0.14 ± 0.20
ν
ASPK Kµ3 decay

1 ASSAMAGAN 96 measurement of p++
µ from π → µ ν at rest combined with JECKELMANN 94 Solution B pion mass yields m 2 = − 0.016 ± 0.023 with correspondingνBayesian limit listed above. If Solution A is used, m 2 = − 0.143 ± 0.024 MeV2 . Reνplaces ASSAMAGAN 94.

2 DOLGOV 95 removes earlier assumptions (DOLGOV 93) about thermal equilibrium below
TQCD for wrong-helicity Dirac neutrinos (ENQVIST 93, FULLER 91) to set more stringent limits.
3 ENQVIST 93 bases limit on the fact that thermalized wrong-helicity Dirac neutrinos
would speed up expansion of early universe, thus reducing the primordial abundance.
FULLER 91 exploits the same mechanism but in the older calculation obtains a larger
production rate for these states, and hence a lower limit. Neutrino lifetime assumed to
exceed nucleosynthesis time, ∼ 1 s.
4 Assumes neutrino lifetime >1 s. For Dirac neutrinos only. See also ENQVIST 93.
5 ANDERHUB 82 kinematics is insensitive to the pion mass.

ν MASS (tau based)
2(eff)The limits given below are the square roots of limits for m
≡
ντ
P
2 2
i Uτ i m νi .
In some of the ASTR and COSM papers listed below, the authors did not
distinguish between weak and mass eigenstates.
VALUE (MeV)< 18.2

CL%EVTS

DOCUMENT ID

1 BARATE

95

TECN

98F ALEPCOMMENT

1991–1995 LEP runs

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •< 28< 27.6< 30< 60< 0.37 or >22
< 68

95
95
95
95

< 29.9<149<1 or >25
< 71

95

< 24
< 0.19< 3< 0.4 or > 30

95

473

95

95

https://pdg.lbl.gov

25

2 ATHANAS00
3 ACKERSTAFF 98T
4 AMMAR98
5 ANASTASSOV 97
6 FIELDS
97
7 SWAIN
97

CLEO E ee
cm = 10.6 GeVOPAL 1990–1995 LEP runs
CLEO E ee
cm = 10.6 GeV
CLEO E ee
cm = 10.6 GeV
COSM Nucleosynthesis
THEO m τ , ττ , τ partial
widths
8 ALEXANDER 96M OPAL 1990–1994 LEP runs
9 BOTTINO
96 THEO π, µ, τ leptonic decays
10 HANNESTAD 96C COSM Nucleosynthesis
11 SOBIE
96 THEO m τ , ττ , B(τ − →e − ν e ντ )12 BUSKULIC
95H ALEP 1991–1993 LEP runs
13 DOLGOV
95 COSM Nucleosynthesis
14 SIGL
95 ASTR SN 1987A
15 DODELSON 94 COSM Nucleosynthesis

Page 9Created: 5/31/2024 10:16

Citation: S. Navas et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D 110, 030001 (2024)< 0.1 or > 50
155–225< 32.6< 0.3 or > 35
< 0.74< 31< 0.3< 0.5 or > 25
< 0.42

95

113

95

19

16 KAWASAKI
17 PERES
18 CINABRO
19 DOLGOV
20 ENQVIST
21 ALBRECHT
22 FULLER
23 KOLB
22 LAM

94 COSM Nucleosynthesis
94 THEO π,K ,µ,τ weak decays
93 CLEO E ee
cm ≈ 10.6 GeV
93 COSM Nucleosynthesis
93 COSM Nucleosynthesis
92M ARG
E ee
cm = 9.4–10.6 GeV
91 COSM Nucleosynthesis
91 COSM Nucleosynthesis
91 COSM Nucleosynthesis

1 BARATE 98F result based on kinematics of 2939 τ − → 2π − π + ν and 52 τ − →τ
3π − 2π + (π 0 ) ντ decays. If possible 2.5% excited a1 decay is included in 3-prong sample
analysis, limit increases to 19.2 MeV.
2 ATHANAS 00 bound comes from analysis of τ − → π − π + π − π 0 ν decays.
τ
3 ACKERSTAFF 98T use τ → 5π ± ν decays to obtain a limit of 43.2 MeV (95%CL).
τThey combine this with ALEXANDER 96M value using τ → 3h± ντ decays to obtain
quoted limit.
4 AMMAR 98 limit comes from analysis of τ − → 3π − 2π + ν and τ − → 2π − π + 2π 0 νττdecay modes.
5 ANASTASSOV 97 derive limit by comparing their m measurement (which depends onτm ν ) to BAI 96 m τ threshold measurement.
τ

6 FIELDS 97 limit for a Dirac neutrino. For a Majorana neutrino the mass region < 0.93
or >31 MeV is excluded. These bounds assume Nν <4 from nucleosynthesis; a wider
excluded region occurs with a smaller Nν upper limit.
7 SWAIN 97 derive their limit from the Standard Model relationships between the tau mass,
lifetime, branching fractions for τ − → e − ν e ντ , τ − → µ− ν µ ντ , τ − → π − ντ , andτ − → K − ντ , and the muon mass and lifetime by assuming lepton universality and using
world average values. Limit is reduced to 48 MeV when the CLEO τ mass measurement(BALEST 93) is included; see CLEO’s more recent m ν limit (ANASTASSOV 97).
τConsideration of mixing with a fourth generation heavy neutrino yields sin2 θL < 0.016(95%CL).
8 ALEXANDER 96M bound comes from analyses of τ − → 3π − 2π + ν and τ − →τ
h− h− h+ ντ decays.
9 BOTTINO 96 assumes three generations of neutrinos with mixing, finds consistency withmassless neutrinos with no mixing based on 1995 data for masses, lifetimes, and leptonic
partial widths.
10 HANNESTAD 96C limit is on the mass of a Majorana neutrino. This bound assumesNν < 4 from nucleosynthesis. A wider excluded region occurs with a smaller Nν upper limit. This paper is the corrected version of HANNESTAD 96; see the erratum:
HANNESTAD 96B.
11 SOBIE 96 derive their limit from the Standard Model relationship between the tau mass,
lifetime, and leptonic branching fraction, and the muon mass and lifetime, by assuming
lepton universality and using world average values.
12 BUSKULIC 95H bound comes from a two-dimensional fit of the visible energy and invariant mass distribution of τ → 5π ( π 0 ) ντ decays. Replaced by BARATE 98F.
13 DOLGOV 95 removes earlier assumptions (DOLGOV 93) about thermal equilibrium below
TQCD for wrong-helicity Dirac neutrinos (ENQVIST 93, FULLER 91) to set more stringent limits. DOLGOV 96 argues that a possible window near 20 MeV is excluded.

https://pdg.lbl.gov

Page 10Created: 5/31/2024 10:16

Citation: S. Navas et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D 110, 030001 (2024)

14 SIGL 95 exclude massive Dirac or Majorana neutrinos with lifetimes between 10−3 and108 seconds if the decay products are predominantly γ or e + e − .

15 DODELSON 94 calculate constraints on ν mass and lifetime from nucleosynthesis forτ
4 generic decay modes. Limits depend strongly on decay mode. Quoted limit is valid forall decay modes of Majorana neutrinos with lifetime greater than about 300 s. For Diracneutrinos limits change to < 0.3 or > 33.
16 KAWASAKI 94 excluded region is for Majorana neutrino with lifetime >1000 s. Other
limits are given as a function of ντ lifetime for decays of the type ντ → νµ φ where φis a Nambu-Goldstone boson.
17 PERES 94 used PDG 92 values for parameters to obtain a value consistent with mixing.
Reexamination by BOTTINO 96 which included radiative corrections and 1995 PDG
parameters resulted in two allowed regions, m3 < 70 MeV and 140 MeV m3 < 149
MeV.
18 CINABRO 93 bound comes from analysis of τ − → 3π − 2π + ν and τ − →τ
2π − π + 2π 0 ντ decay modes.
19 DOLGOV 93 assumes neutrino lifetime >100 s. For Majorana neutrinos, the low mass
limit is 0.5 MeV. KAWANO 92 points out that these bounds can be overcome for a Diracneutrino if it possesses a magnetic moment. See also DOLGOV 96.
20 ENQVIST 93 bases limit on the fact that thermalized wrong-helicity Dirac neutrinos
would speed up expansion of early universe, thus reducing the primordial abundance.
FULLER 91 exploits the same mechanism but in the older calculation obtains a larger
production rate for these states, and hence a lower limit. Neutrino lifetime assumed to
exceed nucleosynthesis time, ∼ 1 s.
21 ALBRECHT 92M reports measurement of a slightly lower τ mass, which has the effectof reducing the ντ mass reported in ALBRECHT 88B. Bound is from analysis of τ − →3π − 2π + ντ mode.
22 Assumes neutrino lifetime >1 s. For Dirac neutrinos. See also ENQVIST 93.
23 KOLB 91 exclusion region is for Dirac neutrino with lifetime >1 s; other limits are given.

Revised August 2023 by K.A. Olive (University of Minnesota).
Neutrinos decouple from thermal equilibrium in the early
universe at temperatures O(1) MeV. The limits on low mass
< 1 MeV) neutrinos apply to m(mν ∼tot given byXmν .
mtot =
ν

Stable neutrinos in this mass range decouple from the thermalbath while still relativistic and make a contribution to the totalenergy density of the Universe which is given byρν = mtot nν ≃ mtot (3/11)(3.045/3)3/4nγ ,https://pdg.lbl.gov

Page 11Created: 5/31/2024 10:16

Citation: S. Navas et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D 110, 030001 (2024)

where the factor 3/11 is the ratio of (light) neutrinos tophotons and the factor (3.045/3)3/4 corrects for the fact thatthe effective number of neutrinos in the standard model is 3.045
when taking into account e+ e− annihilation during neutrino
decoupling. Writing Ων = ρν /ρc , where ρc is the critical energy
density of the Universe, and using nγ = 410.7 cm−3 , we haveΩν h2 ≃ mtot /(93 eV) .
While an upper limit to the matter density of Ωm h2 < 0.12
would constrain mtot < 11 eV, much stronger constraints are
obtained from the observations of the CMB, combined withlensing and baryon acoustic oscillations data. These combine togive an upper limit of around 0.12 eV, and may, in the near
future, be able to provide a lower bound on the sum of theneutrino masses. The current lower bound of mtot > 0.06 eV
implies a lower limit of Ων h2 > 6 × 10−4 . See our review on”Neutrinos in Cosmology” for more details.
SUM OF THE NEUTRINO MASSES, m tot
This is a sum of the neutrino masses, m tot , as defined in the above note,of effectively stable neutrinos, i.e. those with mean lifetimes on cosmological scales. When necessary, we have generalized the results reported
so they apply to m tot . For other limits, see SZALAY 76, VYSOTSKY 77,
BERNSTEIN 81, FREESE 84, SCHRAMM 84, and COWSIK 85. For more
information see a note on ”Neutrinos in Cosmology” in this Review.
VALUE (eV)CL%

DOCUMENT ID

TECNCOMMENT• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •95

1 BRIEDEN

0.116

95

2 KUMAR< 0.14< 0.13< 0.12< 0.09< 0.16< 0.06–0.14< 0.12< 0.15

95
95
95
95
95
95
95
95

<
<

0.082

https://pdg.lbl.gov

22

22
3 TANSERI
22
4 ABBOTT
21A
5 ALAM21
6 DI-VALENT... 21
7 GARNY
21
8 STOCKER
21
9 AGHANIM
20
10 CHOUDHURY 20

Page 12COSM BOSS, eBOSS, and CMB
COMS BOSS and CMB
COSM BOSS and CMB
COSM DES and Planck
COSM
COSM
COSM
COSM Normal mass ordering
COSM
COSM Normal mass hierarchy

Created: 5/31/2024 10:16

Citation: S. Navas et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D 110, 030001 (2024)

<
<
<
<
<

<
<
<
<
<

0.16
0.11
0.26
0.18
0.152

95
95
95
95
95

11 IVANOV
20
12 PALANQUE-... 20
13 LOUREIRO
19
14 UPADHYE
19
15 CHOUDHURY 18

COSM Planck and BOSSCOSM Lyman alpha and CMB
COSM
COSM BOSS and CMB
COSM+ 0.061
0.064 −
0.005

95

16 SIMPSON

COSM

17
17 YECHE
17
18 DIVALENTINO 16
19 HUANG
16
20 ROSSI
15
21 ADE
14
22 BATTYE
1423 BEUTLER
14

0.14
95
COSM BOSS and XQ-100
0.0926
90
COSM
0.18
95
COSM Normal mass hierarchy
0.14
95
COSM
0.23
95
COSM Planck
0.320 ± 0.081
COSM
0.35 ± 0.10
COSM BOSS+ 0.0924 COSTANZI
0.22 −
14 COSM
0.10
25
0.32 ± 0.11
HOU
14 COSM
26 LEISTEDT< 0.2695
14 COSM
27 RIEMER-SOR...14 COSM
< 0.1895
28< 0.24
68
MORESCO12 COSM
29 XIA< 0.2995
12 COSM
30 SAITO< 0.8195
11 COSM SDSS31
< 0.4495
HANNESTAD 10 COSM
32 SEKIGUCHI< 0.6
95
10 COSM
33 THOMAS< 0.2895
10 COSM
34 ICHIKI< 1.1
09 COSM35< 1.3
95
KOMATSU
09 COSM WMAP
36 TERENO< 1.2
09 COSM
37 VIKHLININ< 0.3309 COSM38< 0.28BERNARDIS 08 COSM
39 FOGLI< 0.17–2.3
07 COSM40< 0.4295
KRISTIANSEN 07 COSM
41 ZUNCKEL< 0.63–2.2
07 COSM42< 0.2495
CIRELLI
06 COSM43 HANNESTAD 06 COSM
< 0.6295
44 SANCHEZ< 1.2
06 COSM
42 SELJAK< 0.1795
06 COSM
45 ICHIKAWA< 2.0
95
05 COSM46< 0.75BARGER
04 COSM47 CROTTY< 1.0
04 COSM48< 0.7
SPERGEL
03 COSM WMAP
49 LEWIS< 0.9
02 COSM
50
< 4.2
WANG
02 COSM CMB
51 FUKUGITA< 2.7
00 COSM52 CROFT< 5.5
99 ASTR Ly α power spec
<180
SZALAY
74 COSM<132
COWSIK
72 COSM<280
MARX
72 COSM<400
GERSHTEIN 66 COSM
1 BRIEDEN 22 combines redshift-space distortions and the shape of the matter power
spectrum from BOSS and eBOSS data together with Planck CMB data. Absent the
CMB data, the limit is 0.40 eV.

https://pdg.lbl.gov

Page 13Created: 5/31/2024 10:16

Citation: S. Navas et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D 110, 030001 (2024)

2 KUMAR 22 combine the reconstructed galaxy power spectrum from BOSS data with
Planck CMB data.
3 TANSERI 22 combines BOSS galaxy clustering data with measurements of CMB data.
Updates VAGNOZZI 17.
4 ABBOTT 21A combines Dark Energy Survey (DES) year 3 results with Planck CMBlensing measurements.
5 ALAM 21 limit on the sum of neutrino masses by the eBOSS collaboration is based on
galaxy, quasar, and Lyman-α 3D clustering data combined with Planck temperature andpolarization CMB and supernovae data.
6 DI-VALENTINO 21 combines CMB temperature and polarization, SNIa luminosity distances and baryon acoustic oscillations data.
7 GARNY 21 employs a model for the Lyman-α flux power spectrum to set a limit using
BOSS data. When combined with Planck CMB temperature and polarization data, a
95% CL range 0.10–0.13 eV is found.
8 STOCKER 21 use terrestrial and cosmological experiments to set a 95% CL range on
the sum of neutrino masses of 0.058–0.139 eV for normal ordering and 0.098–0.174 eV
for inverse ordering. They also set an upper limit of 0.037 eV (NO) and 0.042 eV (IO)
for the lightest neutrino mass.
9 AGHANIM 20 limit on the sum of neutrino masses from Planck data combined with lensing and baryon acoustic oscillations (BAO). Without BAO, the limit relaxes to <0.24 eV.
Several other limits are quoted based on different combinations of data.
10 CHOUDHURY 20 combines 2018 Planck CMB temperature and polarization data plus
lensing, together with baryon acoustic oscillation data from BOSS, MGS, and 6dFGS.
Assumes ΛCDM model. The upper limit is 0.17 eV for the inverted hierarchy, and 0.12
eV for degenerate neutrinos. Limits are also derived for extended cosmological models.
11 IVANOV 20 combines 2018 Planck CMB data with baryon acoustic oscillation data from
BOSS. This study is based on a full-shape likelhood for the redshift-space galaxy power
spectrum of the BOSS data.
12 PALANQUE-DELABROUILLE 20 combine Lyman alpha and Planck temperature andpolarization data. Limit improves to 0.09 eV when CMB lensing and baryon acoustic
oscillation data are included.
13 LOUREIRO 19 combines data from large scale structure, cosmic microwave background,type Ia supernovae and big bang nucleosynthesis using physically motivated neutrinomass models.
14 UPADHYE 19 uses the shape of the BOSS redshift-space galaxy power spectrum in
combination with the CMB, and supernovae data. Limit weakens to < 0.54 eV if thedark energy equation of state is allowed to vary.
15 CHOUDHURY 18 combines 2015 Planck CMB temperature data, information from theoptical depth to reionization from Planck 2016 intermediate results together with baryon
acoustic oscillation data from BOSS, MGS, and 6dFGS as well as supernovae Type Ia
data from the Pantheon Sample. The limit is strengthened to 0.118 eV when high-l CMB
polarization data is also included.
16 SIMPSON 17 uses a combination of laboratory and cosmological measurements to determine the light neutrino masses and argue that there is strong evidence for the normal
mass ordering.
17 Constrains the total mass of neutrinos using the Lyman-alpha forest power spectrum withBOSS (mid-resolution), XQ-100 (high-resolution) and CMB. Without the CMB data, thelimit relaxes to 0.8 eV. Supersedes PALANQUE-DELABROUILLE 15A.
18 Constrains the total mass of neutrinos from Planck CMB data combined with baryon
acoustic oscillation and Planck cluster data.

https://pdg.lbl.gov

Page 14Created: 5/31/2024 10:16

Citation: S. Navas et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D 110, 030001 (2024)

19 Constrains the total mass of neutrinos from BAO data from SDSS-III/BOSS combinedwith CMB data from Planck. Limit quoted for normal mass hierarchy. The limit for the
inverted mass hierarchy is 0.20 eV and for the degenerate mass hierarchy it is 0.15 eV.
20 ROSSI 15 sets limits on the sum of neutrino masses using BOSS Lyman alpha forest
data combined with Planck CMB data and baryon acoustic oscillations.
21 Constrains the total mass of neutrinos from Planck CMB data along with WMAP polarization, high L, and BAO data.
22 Finite neutrino mass fit to resolve discrepancy between CMB and lensing measurements.
23 Fit to the total mass of neutrinos from BOSS data along with WMAP CMB data anddata from other BAO constraints and weak lensing.
24 Fit to the total mass of neutrinos from Planck CMB data along with BAO.
25 Fit based on the SPT-SZ survey combined with CMB, BAO, and H data.
0
26 Constraints the total mass of neutrinos (marginalizing over the effective number of neutrino species) from CMB, CMB lensing, BAO, and galaxy clustering data.
27 Constrains the total mass of neutrinos from Planck CMB data combined with baryon
acoustic oscillation data from BOSS, 6dFGS, SDSS, WiggleZ data on the galaxy power
spectrum, and HST data on the Hubble parameter. The limit is increased to 0.25 eV if
a lower bound to the sum of neutrino masses of 0.04 eV is assumed.
28 Constrains the total mass of neutrinos from observational Hubble parameter data withseven-year WMAP data and the most recent estimate of H0 .
29 Constrains the total mass of neutrinos from the CFHTLS combined with seven-year
WMAP data and a prior on the Hubble parameter. Limit is relaxed to 0.41 eV whensmall scales affected by non-linearities are removed.
30 Constrains the total mass of neutrinos from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey and the five-year
WMAP data.
31 Constrains the total mass of neutrinos from the 7-year WMAP data including SDSS
and HST data. Limit relaxes to 1.19 eV when CMB data is used alone. Supersedes
HANNESTAD 06.
32 Constrains the total mass of neutrinos from a combination of CMB data, a recent measurement of H0 (SHOES), and baryon acoustic oscillation data from SDSS.
33 Constrains the total mass of neutrinos from SDSS MegaZ LRG DR7 galaxy clustering
data combined with CMB, HST, supernovae and baryon acoustic oscillation data. Limit
relaxes to 0.47 eV when the equation of state parameter, w 6= 1.
34 Constrains the total mass of neutrinos from weak lensing measurements when combinedwith CMB. Limit improves to 0.54 eV when supernovae and baryon acoustic oscillation
observations are included. Assumes ΛCDM model.
35 Constrains the total mass of neutrinos from five-year WMAP data. Limit improves to 0.67
eV when supernovae and baryon acoustic oscillation observations are included. Limits
quoted assume the ΛCDM model. Supersedes SPERGEL 07.
36 Constrains the total mass of neutrinos from weak lensing measurements when combinedwith CMB. Limit improves to 0.03 < Σm ν < 0.54 eV when supernovae and baryon
acoustic oscillation observations are included. The slight preference for massive neutrinos
at the two-sigma level disappears when systematic errors are taken into account. Assumes
ΛCDM model.
37 Constrains the total mass of neutrinos from recent Chandra X-ray observations of galaxy
clusters when combined with CMB, supernovae, and baryon acoustic oscillation measurements. Assumes flat universe and constant dark-energy equation of state, w.
38 Constraints the total mass of neutrinos from recent CMB and SOSS LRG power spectrum
data along with bias mass relations from SDSS, DEEP2, and Lyman-Break Galaxies. It
assumes ΛCDM model. Limit degrades to 0.59 eV in a more general wCDM model.

https://pdg.lbl.gov

Page 15

Created: 5/31/2024 10:16

Citation: S. Navas et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D 110, 030001 (2024)

39 Constrains the total mass of neutrinos from neutrino oscillation experiments and cosmological data. The most conservative limit uses only WMAP three-year data, while themost stringent limit includes CMB, large-scale structure, supernova, and Lyman-alphadata.
40 Constrains the total mass of neutrinos from recent CMB, large scale structure, SN1a, andbaryon acoustic oscillation data. The limit relaxes to 1.75 when WMAP data alone is usedwith no prior. Paper shows results with several combinations of data sets. Supersedes
KRISTIANSEN 06.
41 Constrains the total mass of neutrinos from the CMB and the large scale structure data.
The most conservative limit is obtained when generic initial conditions are allowed.
42 Constrains the total mass of neutrinos from recent CMB, large scale structure, Lymanalpha forest, and SN1a data.
43 Constrains the total mass of neutrinos from recent CMB and large scale structure data.
See also GOOBAR 06. Superseded by HANNESTAD 10.
44 Constrains the total mass of neutrinos from the CMB and the final 2dF Galaxy Redshift
Survey.
45 Constrains the total mass of neutrinos from the CMB experiments alone, assuming ΛCDM
Universe. FUKUGITA 06 show that this result is unchanged by the 3-year WMAP data.
46 Constrains the total mass of neutrinos from the power spectrum of fluctuations derived
from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey and the 2dF galaxy redshift survey, WMAP and 27
other CMB experiments and measurements by the HST Key project.
47 Constrains the total mass of neutrinos from the power spectrum of fluctuations derived
from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, the 2dF galaxy redshift survey, WMAP and ACBAR.
The limit is strengthened to 0.6 eV when measurements by the HST Key project andsupernovae data are included.
48 Constrains the fractional contribution of neutrinos to the total matter density in the
Universe from WMAP data combined with other CMB measurements, the 2dfGRS data,and Lyman α data. The limit does not noticeably change if the Lyman α data are notused.
49 LEWIS 02 constrains the total mass of neutrinos from the power spectrum of fluctuations
derived from the CMB, HST Key project, 2dF galaxy redshift survey, supernovae type Ia,
and BBN.
50 WANG 02 constrains the total mass of neutrinos from the power spectrum of fluctuations
derived from the CMB and other cosmological data sets such as galaxy clustering andthe Lyman α forest.
51 FUKUGITA 00 is a limit on neutrino masses from structure formation. The constraint isbased on the clustering scale σ8 and the COBE normalization and leads to a conservative
limit of 0.9 eV assuming 3 nearly degenerate neutrinos. The quoted limit is on the sumof the light neutrino masses.
52 CROFT 99 result based on the power spectrum of the Ly α forest. If Ω
matter < 0.5,
the limit is improved to m ν < 2.4 (Ωmatter /0.17–1) eV.

Limits on MASSES of Light Stable Right-Handed ν(with necessarily suppressed interaction strengths)
VALUE (eV)

DOCUMENT ID

TECNCOMMENT• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •<100–200<200–2000

1 OLIVE
1 OLIVE

82
82

COSM Dirac ν
COSM Majorana ν

1 Depending on interaction strength G where G <G .
R
RFhttps://pdg.lbl.gov

Page 16Created: 5/31/2024 10:16

Citation: S. Navas et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D 110, 030001 (2024)

Limits on MASSES of Heavy Stable Right-Handed ν(with necessarily suppressed interaction strengths)
VALUE (GeV)

DOCUMENT ID

TECNCOMMENT• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •1 OLIVE
1 OLIVE

> 10
>100

82
82

COSM GR /GF <0.1
COSM GR /GF <0.01

1 These results apply to heavy Majorana neutrinos and are summarized by the equation:m ν >1.2 GeV (GF GR ). The bound saturates, and if GR is too small no mass range
is allowed.

ν CHARGEe = electron charge is the unit of values listed below.
VALUE (e)<4× 10−35

CL%95

DOCUMENT ID

1 CAPRINI

TECN

05

COMMENTCOSM charge neutral universe• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •<2.24 × 10−13<1.5 × 10−13<3.3 × 10−12<5.4 × 10−12
1.7–2.3 × 10−12<3
× 10−8<2.1 × 10−12<1.5 × 10−12<3.7 × 10−12<2
× 10−14<6
× 10−14<4
× 10−4<3
× 10−4<2
× 10−15<1
× 10−1390

2 AALBERS

90

3 ATZORI-COR...23

FIT

90
90
68
95
90
90
90

4 BONET
22A
5 ABE
20E
6 KHAN20
7 DELLA-VALLE 16
8 CHEN
14A
9 STUDENIKIN 14
10 GNINENKO
07
11 RAFFELT
99
12 RAFFELT
99
13 BABU
94
14 DAVIDSON
91
15 BARBIELLINI 87
16 BERNSTEIN 63

CONU nuclear reactor
XMAS solar neutrinos
spectral fit of XENON1TLASR magnetic dichroism
TEXO nuclear reactor
nuclear reactor
RVUE nuclear reactor
ASTR red giant luminosity
ASTR solar cooling
RVUE BEBC beam dump
RVUE SLAC e − beam dump
ASTR SN 1987A
ASTR solar energy losses

23A LZ

Solar ν spectrum
solar neutrinos

1 CAPRINI 05 limit derived from the lack of a charge asymmetry in the universe. Limit
assumes that charge asymmetries between particles are not anti-correlated.
2 AALBERS 23A utilize the first 60 days of data collected by the LZ dark matter search
to place a limit on the electric charge of solar neutrinos. Low energy electron-recoil
events are utilized. This LZ-collaboration analysis supersedes that of the external authors in ATZORI-CORONA 23 because of a more complete treatment of experimentuncertainties.
3 ATZORI-CORONA 23 use LUX-ZEPLIN dark matter search data published by AALBERS 23 to place a limit on neutrino millicharge.
4 BONET 22A use data collected by four low-threshold Ge detectors, placed 17.1 m fromone of the cores of the nuclear reactors at Brokdorf to derive this limit. A spectral
analysis is performed on reactor on and off data.
5 ABE 20E obtains this result by assuming that the low-energy excess events in the XMASS
detector are produced by neutrino millicharge which is common for all three neutrino
flavors.
6 KHAN 20 performed a constrained spectral fit analysis of the excess observed in theelectron recoil energy spectrum by the XENON1T experiment. This range of neutrino

https://pdg.lbl.gov

Page 17Created: 5/31/2024 10:16

Citation: S. Navas et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D 110, 030001 (2024)

millicharge values is one of the possible interpretations of these excess events. For theindividual flavor constraints at 90% C.L. see the original reference.
7 DELLA-VALLE 16 obtain a limit on the charge of neutrinos valid for masses of less than
10 meV. For heavier neutrinos the limit increases as a power of mass, reaching 10−6 e
for m = 100 meV.
8 CHEN 14A use the Multi-Configuration RRPA method to analyze reactor ν scatteringeon Ge atoms with 300 eV recoil energy threshold to obtain this limit.
9 STUDENIKIN 14 uses the limit on µ from BEDA 13 and the 2.8 keV threshold of theνelectron recoil energy to obtain this limit.
10 GNINENKO 07 use limit on ν magnetic moment from LI 03B to derive this result. Theelimit is considerably weaker than the limits on the charge of νe and ν e from various
astrophysics considerations.
11 This RAFFELT 99 limit applies to all neutrino flavors which are light enough (<5 keV)
to be emitted from globular-cluster red giants.
12 This RAFFELT 99 limit is derived from the helioseismological limit on a new energy-loss
channel of the Sun, and applies to all neutrino flavors which are light enough (<1 keV)
to be emitted from the sun.
13 BABU 94 use COOPER-SARKAR 92 limit on ν magnetic moment to derive quoted
result. It applies to ντ .
14 DAVIDSON 91 use data from early SLAC electron beam dump experiment to derivecharge limit as a function of neutrino mass. It applies to ντ .
15 Exact BARBIELLINI 87 limit depends on assumptions about the intergalactic or galacticmagnetic fields and about the direct distance and time through the field. It applies to νe .
16 The limit applies to all flavors.

ν (MEAN LIFE) / MASShPiUℓ j 2 Γj m j − 1 , where the sum is over mass eigenstates
Measureswhich cannot be resolved experimentally. Some of the limits constrain theradiative decay and are based on the limit of the corresponding photon
flux. Other apply to the decay of a heavier neutrino into the lighter one
and a Majoron or other invisible particle. Many of these limits apply toany ν within the indicated mass range.
Limits on the radiative decay are either directly based on the limits of thecorresponding photon flux, or are derived from the limits on the neutrino
magnetic moments. In the later case the transition rate for νi → νj + γ
is constrained by Γij = τ1 =(m2i −m2j )3µ2 where µij is the neutrinoij
m3itransition moment in the mass eigenstates basis. Typically, the limits onlifetime based on the magnetic moments are many orders of magnitude
more restrictive than limits based on the nonobservation of photons.
ij

VALUE (s/eV)> 15.4
>
7
> 300

× 109

https://pdg.lbl.gov

CL%

DOCUMENT ID

90

1 KRAKAUER

91

90

2 RAFFELT
3 REINES

85
74

Page 18TECNCOMMENTCNTR νµ , ν µ at LAMPF
ASTR
CNTR ν eCreated: 5/31/2024 10:16

Citation: S. Navas et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D 110, 030001 (2024)• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •
× 105

>

1.2

90

>

8.08 × 10−590>

1.92 × 10−390

6–26 × 109

95> 105 − 1010

95

>

90

0.11

>
>

0.004
4.4 × 10−5
& 100

90
90
95

>
0.067
>
1.1 × 10−3>
8.7 × 10−5
≥ 4200>
2.8 × 10−5

90
90
99
90
99

>
2.8 × 1015
none 10−12 − 5 × 104< 10−12 or > 5 × 104
>
>
>
>

6.4
1.1
6.3
1.7

>
>
>
>
>
>

8.3
22
38
59
30
20

>
>
>

0.11
2
× 1021
1.0 × 10−2
1.7 × 10−2

>
<
>

3
2.2

90
× 1015× 1015× 1015× 1014× 10−11× 10−3https://pdg.lbl.gov

68
68
68
68
68
90
90
90
90

4 IVANEZ-BAL... 23

ASTR SN1987A, nonradiativedecay
5 AHARMIM
19 SNOν2 invisible nonradiativedecay
6 AHARMIM
19 FITν2 invisible nonradiative
decay
7 ESCUDERO
19 COSM Invisible decay m ν ≥0.05 eV
8 CECCHINI
11 ASTR ν2 → ν1 radiative decay
9 MIRIZZI
07 CMB radiative decay
10 MIRIZZI
07 CIBradiative decay
11 WONG
07 CNTR Reactor ν e
12 XIN
05 CNTR Reactor νe
13 XIN
05 CNTR Reactor νe
14 AHARMIM
04 SNO
quasidegen. ν masses
14 AHARMIM
04 SNOhierarchical ν masses
15 CECCHINI
04 ASTR Radiative decay for ν
mass > 0.01 eV
16 EGUCHI
04 KLND quasidegen. ν masses
16 EGUCHI
04 KLND hierarchical ν masses
17 BANDYOPA... 03 FIT
nonradiative decay
18 DERBIN
02B CNTR Solar p p and Be ν
19 JOSHIPURA 02B FIT
nonradiative decay
20 DOLGOV
99 COSM
21 BILLER
98 ASTR m ν = 0.05–1 eV
22,23 BLUDMAN
92 ASTR m ν < 50 eV
24 DODELSON 92 ASTR m =1–300 keVν
24 DODELSON 92 ASTR m =1–300 keVν
25 GRANEK
91 COSM Decaying L0
26 KRAKAUER
91 CNTR νe at LAMPF
27 WALKER
90 ASTR m ν = 0.03 – ∼ 2 MeV
23,28 CHUPP
89 ASTR m ν < 20 eV
23 KOLB
89 ASTR m ν < 20 eV
29 RAFFELT
89 RVUE ν (Dirac, Majorana)
30 RAFFELT
89B ASTR
31 VONFEILIT... 88 ASTR
32 OBERAUER
87
ν R (Dirac)
32 OBERAUER
87
ν (Majorana)
32 OBERAUER
ν L (Dirac)
87
KETOV
86 CNTR ν (Dirac)
KETOV
86 CNTR ν (Majorana)
33 BINETRUY
84 COSM m ν ∼ 1 MeV
34 FRANK
81 CNTR ν ν LAMPF
35 STECKER
80 ASTR m ν = 10–100 eV
34 BLIETSCHAU 78 HLBC ν , CERN GGMµ
34 BLIETSCHAU 78 HLBC ν , CERN GGMµ
36 FALK
78 ASTR m ν <10 MeV
34 BARNES
77 DBCν, ANL 12-ft
37 COWSIK
77 ASTR

Page 19

Created: 5/31/2024 10:16

Citation: S. Navas et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D 110, 030001 (2024)

>
>

3.
1.3

× 10−3× 10−290
90

34 BELLOTTI
34 BELLOTTI

76
76

HLBC ν, CERN GGM
HLBC ν, CERN GGM

1 KRAKAUER 91 quotes the limit τ /m2a
ν1 > (0.75a + 21.65a + 26.3) s/eV, where
is a parameter describing the asymmetry in the neutrino decay defined as dNγ dcosθ
= (1/2)(1 + a cosθ) The parameter a = 0 for a Majorana neutrino, but can vary from− 1 to 1 for a Dirac neutrino. The bound given by the authors is the most conservative(which applies for a = − 1).

2 RAFFELT 85 limit on the radiative decay is from solar x- and γ-ray fluxes. Limit depends
on ν flux from p p, now established from GALLEX and SAGE to be > 0.5 of expectation.
3 REINES 74 looked for ν of nonzero mass decaying radiatively to a neutral of lesser mass
+ γ. Used liquid scintillator detector near fission reactor. Finds lab lifetime 6 × 107 s
or more. Above value of (mean life)/mass assumes average effective neutrino energy of
0.2 MeV. To obtain the limit 6 × 107 s REINES 74 assumed that the full ν e reactor flux
could be responsible for yielding decays with photon energies in the interval 0.1 MeV –0.5 MeV. This represents some overestimate so their lower limit is an over-estimate of
the lab lifetime (VOGEL 84). If so, OBERAUER 87 may be comparable or better.
4 IVANEZ-BALLESTEROS 23 reports a limit on the lifetime-to-mass ratio of the mass
eigenstates ν1 and ν2 for inverted mass ordering. No limit was obtained in the case of
normal mass ordering.
5 AHARMIM 19 quotes the limit τ /m
ν2 for invisible nonradiative decay of ν2 . Theyobtained this result by analyzing the entire SNO dataset, allowing for the decay of ν2which would cause an energy-dependent distortion of the survival probability of electrontype solar neutrinos.
6 AHARMIM 19 quotes the limit τ /m for invisible nonradiative decay of ν . They ob2
ν2tained this result by combining the τ /m ν measurements from SNO and other solar neu2
trino experiments (Super-Kamiokande, KamLAND, and Borexino 8 B results; Borexino
and KamLAND 7 Be results; the combined gallium interaction rate from GNO, GALLEX,
and SAGE; and the chlorine interaction rate from Homestake). The quoted limit at 99%
CL is > 1.04 × 10−3 .
7 ESCUDERO 19 sets limits on invisible neutrino decays using Planck 2018 data of τ
> 1.3–0.3 × 109 s at 95% C.L. Values in the range τ = 2–16 × 109 s are preferred at
95% C.L. when Planck polarization data is included. Limits scale as (m ν /0.05 eV)3 .
8 CECCHINI 11 search for radiative decays of solar neutrinos into visible photons during
the 2006 total solar eclipse. The range of (mean life)/mass values corresponds to a rangeof ν1 masses between 10−4 and 0.1 eV.
9 MIRIZZI 07 determine a limit on the neutrino radiative decay from analysis of the maximum allowed distortion of the CMB spectrum as measured by the COBE/FIRAS. For the
decay ν2 → ν1 the lifetime limit is . 4 × 1020 s for m min . 0.14 eV. For transition
with the ∆m31 mass difference the lifetime limit is ∼ 2 × 1019 s for m min . 0.14
eV and ∼ 5 × 1020 s for m min & 0.14 eV.
10 MIRIZZI 07 determine a limit on the neutrino radiative decay from analysis of the cosmic
infrared background (CIB) using the Spitzer Observatory data. For transition with the∆m31 mass difference they obtain the lifetime limit ∼ 1020 s for m min . 0.14 eV.
11 WONG 07 use their limit on the neutrino magnetic moment together with the assumed
experimental value of ∆m2 ∼ 2 × 10−3 eV2 to obtain τ13 /m3 > 3.2 × 1027 s/eV3 for13
1
the radiative decay in the case of the inverted mass hierarchy. Similarly to RAFFELT 89
this limit can be violated if electric and magnetic moments are equal to each other.
Analogous, but numerically somewhat different limits are obtained for τ23 and τ21 .

https://pdg.lbl.gov

Page 20

Created: 5/31/2024 10:16

Citation: S. Navas et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D 110, 030001 (2024)

12 XIN 05 search for the γ from radiative decay of ν produced by the electron capture one51 Cr. No events were seen and the limit on τ /m was derived. This is a weaker limitνon the decay of νe than KRAKAUER 91.
13 XIN 05 use their limit on the neutrino magnetic moment of ν together with the assumedeexperimental value of ∆m 2 ∼ 2×10−3 eV2 to obtain τ13 /m3 > 1×1023 s/eV3 for
1,3
1
the radiative decay in the case of the inverted mass hierarchy. Similarly to RAFFELT 89
this limit can be violated if electric and magnetic moments are equal to each other.
Analogous, but numerically somewhat different limits are obtained for τ23 and τ21 .
Again, this limit is specific for νe .
14 AHARMIM 04 obtained these results from the solar ν flux limit set by the SNO meae
surement assuming ν2 decay through nonradiative process ν2 → ν 1 X , where X is a
Majoron or other invisible particle. Limits are given for the cases of quasidegenerate andhierarchical neutrino masses.
15 CECCHINI 04 obtained this bound through the observations performed on the occasionof the 21 June 2001 total solar eclipse, looking for visible photons from radiative decaysof solar neutrinos. Limit is a τ /m ν in ν2 → ν1 γ. Limit ranges from ∼ 100 to2
107 s/eV for 0.01 < m ν < 0.1 eV.
1

16 EGUCHI 04 obtained these results from the solar ν flux limit set by the KamLAND
emeasurement assuming ν2 decay through nonradiative process ν2 → ν 1 X , where X isa Majoron or other invisible particle. Limits are given for the cases of quasidegenerate
and hierarchical neutrino masses.
17 The ratio of the lifetime over the mass derived by BANDYOPADHYAY 03 is for ν . They
2
obtained this result using the following solar-neutrino data: total rates measured in Cl
and Ga experiments, the Super-Kamiokande’s zenith-angle spectra, and SNO’s day andnight spectra. They assumed that ν1 is the lowest mass, stable or nearly stable neutrino
state and ν2 decays through nonradiative Majoron emission process, ν2 → ν 1 + J, or
through nonradiative process with all the final state particles being sterile. The best fit
is obtained in the region of the LMA solution.
18 DERBIN 02B (also BACK 03B) obtained this bound for the radiative decay from theresults of background measurements with Counting Test Facility (the prototype of the
Borexino detector). The laboratory gamma spectrum is given as dNγ /d cosθ= (1/2) (1 +αcosθ) with α=0 for a Majorana neutrino, and α varying to − 1 to 1 for a Dirac neutrino.
The listed bound is for the case of α=0. The most conservative bound 1.5 × 103 s eV− 1
is obtained for the case of α=− 1.
19 The ratio of the lifetime over the mass derived by JOSHIPURA 02B is for ν . They
2
obtained this result from the total rates measured in all solar neutrino experiments.
They assumed that ν1 is the lowest mass, stable or nearly stable neutrino state and ν2
decays through nonradiative process like Majoron emission decay, ν2 → ν ′ + J where1
ν ′ state is sterile. The exact limit depends on the specific solution of the solar neutrino
1
problem. The quoted limit is for the LMA solution.
20 DOLGOV 99 places limits in the (Majorana) τ -associated ν mass-lifetime plane based on
nucleosynthesis. Results would be considerably modified if neutrino oscillations exist.
21 BILLER 98 use the observed TeV γ-ray spectra to set limits on the mean life of any
radiatively decaying neutrino between 0.05 and 1 eV. Curve shows τν /Bγ > 0.15×1021 s
at 0.05 eV, > 1.2 × 1021 s at 0.17 eV, > 3 × 1021 s at 1 eV, where Bγ is the branchingratio to photons.
22 BLUDMAN 92 sets additional limits by this method for higher mass ranges. Cosmologicallimits are also obtained.
23 Limit on the radiative decay based on nonobservation of γ’s in coincidence with ν’s fromSN 1987A.

https://pdg.lbl.gov

Page 21

Created: 5/31/2024 10:16

Citation: S. Navas et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D 110, 030001 (2024)

24 DODELSON 92 range is for wrong-helicity keV mass Dirac ν’s from the core of neutronstar in SN 1987A decaying to ν’s that would have interacted in KAM2 or IMB detectors.
25 GRANEK 91 considers heavy neutrino decays to γ ν and 3ν , where m
LLνL <100 keV.
Lifetime is calculated as a function of heavy neutrino mass, branching ratio into γ νL ,and m ν .
L
26 KRAKAUER 91 quotes the limit for ν , τ /m > (0.3a2 + 9.8a + 15.9) s/eV, whereeν
a is a parameter describing the asymmetry in the radiative neutrino decay defined asdNγ dcosθ = (1/2)(1 + a cosθ) a = 0 for a Majorana neutrino, but can vary from − 1
to 1 for a Dirac neutrino. The bound given by the authors is the most conservative(which applies for a = − 1).
27 WALKER 90 uses SN 1987A γ flux limits after 289 days.
28 CHUPP 89 should be multiplied by a branching ratio (about 1) and a detection efficiency(about 1/4), and pertains to radiative decay of any neutrino to a lighter or sterile neutrino.
29 RAFFELT 89 uses KYULDJIEV 84 to obtain τ m3 > 3 × 1018 s eV3 (based on ν e −ecross sections). The bound for the radiative decay is not valid if electric and magnetictransition moments are equal for Dirac neutrinos.
30 RAFFELT 89B analyze stellar evolution and exclude the region 3 × 1012 < τ m3
< 3 × 1021 s eV3 .
31 Model-dependent theoretical analysis of SN 1987A neutrinos. Quoted limit is forihP
2 Γ m − 1 , where ℓ = µ, τ . Limit is 3.3 × 1014 s/eV for ℓ = e.
U
j ℓj
j j
32 OBERAUER 87 looks for photons and e + e − pairs from radiative decays of reactor
neutrinos.
33 BINETRUY 84 finds τ < 108 s for neutrinos in a radiation-dominated universe.
34 These experiments look for ν → ν γ or ν → ν γ.
kjkj
35 STECKER 80 limit based on UV background; result given is τ > 4×1022 s at m =20 eV.
ν
36 FALK 78 finds lifetime constraints based on supernova energetics.
37 COWSIK 77 considers variety of scenarios. For neutrinos produced in the big bang,present limits on optical photon flux require τ > 1023 s for m ν ∼ 1 eV. See also
COWSIK 79 and GOLDMAN 79.

ν MAGNETIC MOMENTThe coupling of neutrinos to an electromagnetic field is a characterized
by a 3×3 matrix λ of the magnetic (µ) and electric (d) dipole moments(λ = µ - id). For Majorana neutrinos the matrix λ is antisymmetricand only transition moments are allowed, while for Dirac neutrinos λ isa general 3×3 matrix. In the standard electroweak theory extended√ toinclude neutrino masses (see FUJIKAWA 80) µν = 3eGF m ν /(8π 2 2) =3.2 × 10−19 (m ν /eV)µB , i.e. it is unobservably small given the known
small neutrino masses. In more general models there is no longer a proportionality between neutrino mass and its magnetic moment, even though
only massive neutrinos have nonvanishing magnetic moments without finetuning.
Laboratory bounds on λ are obtained via elastic ν-e scattering, where thescattered neutrino is not observed. The combinations of matrix elementsof λ that are constrained by various experiments depend on the initial
neutrino flavor and on its propagation between source and detector (e.g.,https://pdg.lbl.gov

Page 22

Created: 5/31/2024 10:16

Citation: S. Navas et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D 110, 030001 (2024)

solar νe and reactor ν e do not constrain the same combinations). The
listings below therefore identify the initial neutrino flavor.
Other limits, e.g. from various stellar cooling processes, apply to all neutrino flavors. Analogous flavor independent, but weaker, limits are obtained from the analysis of e + e − → ν ν γ collider experiments.
VALUE (10−10 µB )CL%

DOCUMENT ID

<
<
<

0.064
0.29
6.8

90
90
90

1 APRILE
2 BEDA
3 AUERBACH

<

0.136

90

5 AALBERS

<

0.11

90

<

0.75

90

TECN

COMMENT

22B XENT Solar ν spectrum
13 CNTR Reactor ν e
01 LSND νe e, νµ e scattering
4< 390090
SCHWIENHO...01 DONU ντ e − → ντ e −• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<
2.8
<
1.8
0.14–0.29<
0.012
0.2–0.4
<
0.28
<
0.022
<
0.1
<
0.05
<
0.045
<
0.32
<
2.2
< 0.011–0.027
<
0.54
<
0.58
<
0.74
<
0.9
< 130
<
37
<
3.6
<
1.1

90
90
90
95
68
90
90
95
95
95
90
90

<
5.5
<
1.0
<
1.3
<
2
<80000< 0.01–0.04
<
1.5
<
0.03
<
4
<44000<33000

90
90
90
90
90

90
90
90
90
90
95
90
90

90

90
90

https://pdg.lbl.gov

23A LZ
Solar ν spectrum
6 ATZORI-COR...23 FIT
Solar ν spectrum
7 BONET
22A CONU Reactor ν e
8 COLOMA
22 CNTR Reactor ν e
9 ABE
20E XMAS Solar ν spectrum
10 APRILE
20 XE1T Solar ν spectrum
11 CAPOZZI
20 ASTR Tip of the Red-Giant Branch
12 KHAN20
Spectral fit of XENON1T
13 AGOSTINI
17A BORX Solar ν spectrum
14 ARCEO-DIAZ 15 ASTR Red giants
15 CORSICO
14 ASTR
16 MILLER-BER... 14B ASTR
17 VIAUX
13A ASTR Globular cluster M518 BEDA
10 CNTR Reactor ν e
19 DENIZ
10 TEXO Reactor ν e
20 KUZNETSOV 09 ASTR ν → ν in SN1987A
L
R
21 ARPESELLA 08A BORX Solar ν spectrum
22 BEDA
07 CNTR Reactor ν e
23 WONG
07 CNTR Reactor ν e
24 DARAKTCH... 05
Reactor ν e
25 XIN
05 CNTR Reactor νe
26 GRIFOLS
04 FIT
Solar 8 B ν (SNO NC)
27 LIU
04 SKAM Solar ν spectrum
28 LIU
04 SKAM Solar ν spectrum (LMA region)
29 BACK03B CNTR Solar p p and Be ν
30 DARAKTCH... 03
Reactor ν e
31 LI
03B CNTR Reactor ν e
32 GRIMUS
02 FIT
solar + reactor (Majorana ν)
33 TANIMOTO 00 RVUE e + e − → ν ν γ
34 AYALA
99 ASTR νL → νR in SN 1987A
35 BEACOM
99 SKAM Solar ν spectrum
36 RAFFELT
99 ASTR Red giant luminosity
37 RAFFELT
99 ASTR Solar cooling
ABREU
97J DLPH e + e − → ν ν γ at LEP
38 ACCIARRI
97Q L3e + e − → ν ν γ at LEP

Page 23

Created: 5/31/2024 10:16

Citation: S. Navas et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D 110, 030001 (2024)

<

0.62

<27000<309590<55000<1.9< 5400<2.4<56000
< 100

90
95
90
90
90
95

<

8.5

90

<
<

10.8
7.4

90
90

<
<

0.02
0.1

<40000
≤
.3
<
0.11
<
0.0006< 0.1–0.2
<
0.85
<
0.6
<

90

81

39 ELMFORS

97

AHRENS
45 KRAKAUER
45 KRAKAUER

90

COSM Depolarization in early universe plasma
40 ESCRIBANO 97 RVUE Γ(Z → ν ν) at LEP
VILAIN
95B CHM2 νµ e → νµ e
GOULD
94 RVUE e + e − → ν ν γ at LEP
41 DERBIN
93 CNTR Reactor ν e → ν e
42 COOPER-...
92 BEBC ντ e − → ντ e −43 VIDYAKIN
92 CNTR Reactor ν e → ν e
DESHPANDE 91 RVUE e + e − → ν ν γ
44 DORENBOS... 91 CHRM ν e → ν e
µ
µ
90
90

46 RAFFELT
47 RAFFELT
48 FUKUGITA
49 GROTCH
47 RAFFELT
47 FUKUGITA
50 NUSSINOV

90
89B
88
88
88B
87
87
MORGAN
81
BEG
78
51 SUTHERLAND 76
52 KIM

74

CNTR νµ e → νµ e
CNTR LAMPF ν e → ν e
CNTR LAMPF (νµ , ν µ ) e elast.

ASTR Red giant luminosity
ASTR Cooling helium stars
COSM Primordial magn. fields
RVUE e + e − → ν ν γ
ASTR He burning stars
ASTR Cooling helium stars
ASTR Cosmic EM backgrounds
COSM 4 He abundance
ASTR Stellar plasmons
ASTR Red giants + degeneratedwarfsRVUE ν µ e → ν µ e
ASTR Solar cooling
CNTR Reactor ν<1
BERNSTEIN 63
<
14
COWAN
57
1 APRILE 22B use data collected with the XENONnT dark matter detector to place a limit
on an enhanced magnetic moment of solar neutrinos. Supersedes APRILE 20.
2 BEDA 13 report ν e − scattering results, using the Kalinin Nuclear Power Plant and aeshielded Ge detector. The recoil electron spectrum is analyzed between 2.5 and 55 keV.
Supersedes BEDA 07. Supersedes BEDA 10. This is the most stringent limit on themagnetic moment of reactor ν e .
3 AUERBACH 01 limit is based on the LSND ν and ν electron scattering measurements.
eµThe limit is slightly more stringent than KRAKAUER 90.
4 SCHWIENHORST 01 quote an experimental sensitivity of 4.9 × 10−7 .
5 AALBERS 23A utilize the first 60 days of data collected by the LZ dark matter search
to place a limit on the magnetic moment of solar neutrinos. Low energy electronrecoil events are utilized. This LZ-collaboration analysis supersedes that of the external
authors in ATZORI-CORONA 23 because of a more complete treatment of experimentuncertainties.
6 ATZORI-CORONA 23 use LUX-ZEPLIN dark matter search data published by AALBERS 23 to place a limit on an enhanced magnetic moment of solar neutrinos.
7 BONET 22A use data collected by four low-threshold Ge detectors, placed 17.1 m fromone of the cores of the nuclear reactors at Brokdorf to derive this limit. A spectral
analysis is performed on reactor on and off data.

https://pdg.lbl.gov

Page 24

Created: 5/31/2024 10:16

Citation: S. Navas et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D 110, 030001 (2024)

8 COLOMA 22 present a re-analysis of data taken by the COHERENT and Dresden-II
experiments. The combination of both experiments is used to place a limit on themagnetic moment of electron-type neutrinos. The presented value is one-sided limit asrecommended by the authors; the two-sided limit is < 3.2 × 10−10 µB at 90% C.L.
Results based on Fef and YBe quenching models are reported in the paper. The authors
are not part of either collaboration.
9 ABE 20E observed an excess of low-energy events in the XMASS detector, which could
be interpreted as a signal produced by a neutrino magnetic moment with this magnitude.
10 APRILE 20 observed an excess of low-energy events in the XENON1T detector, which
could be interpreted as a signal produced by a neutrino magnetic moment with thismagnitude.
11 CAPOZZI 20 obtains a limit on the neutrino dipole moment from the brightness of the
tip of the red-giant branch in ω Centauri. A similar limit of µν < 1.5 × 10−12 µB is
obtained in NGC 4258.
12 KHAN 20 performed a constrained spectral fit analysis of the excess observed in theelectron recoil energy spectrum by the XENON1T experiment. This range of the µB
values is one of the possible interpretations of these excess events. For the individual
flavor constraints at 90% C.L. see the original reference.
13 AGOSTINI 17A obtained this limit using the shape of the recoil electron energy spectrum
from the Borexino Phase-II 1291.5 live days of solar neutrino data and the constraints
on the sum of the solar neutrino fluxes from the radiochemical gallium experiments
SAGE, Gallex, and GNO. Without radiochemical constraints, the 90% C.L. limit of <4.0 × 10−11 µB is obtained.
14 ARCEO-DIAZ 15 constrains the neutrino magnetic moment from observation of the tipof the red giant branch in the globular cluster ω-Centauri.
15 CORSICO 14 constrains the neutrino magnetic moment from observations of white drarf
pulsations.
16 MILLER-BERTOLAMI 14B constrains the neutrino magnetic moment from observationsof the white dwarf luminosity function of the Galactic disk.
17 VIAUX 13A constrains the neutrino magnetic moment from observations of the globularcluster M5.
18 BEDA 10 report ν e − scattering results, using the Kalinin Nuclear Power Plant and aeshielded Ge detector. The recoil electron spectrum is analyzed between 2.9 and 45 keV.
Supersedes BEDA 07. Superseded by BEDA 13.
19 DENIZ 10 observe reactor ν e scattering with recoil kinetic energies 3–8 MeV usingeCsI(Tl) detectors. The observed rate and spectral shape are consistent with the Standard
Model prediction, leading to the reported constraint on ν e magnetic moment.
20 KUZNETSOV 09 obtain a limit on the flavor averaged magnetic moment of Dirac neutrinos from the time averaged neutrino signal of SN1987A. Improves and supersedes theanalysis of BARBIERI 88 and AYALA 99.
21 ARPESELLA 08A obtained this limit using the shape of the recoil electron energy spectrum from the Borexino 192 live days of solar neutrino data.
22 BEDA 07 performed search for electromagnetic ν -e scattering at Kalininskaya nuclearereactor. A Ge detector with active and passive shield was used and the electron recoil
spectrum between 3.0 and 61.3 keV analyzed. Superseded by BEDA 10.
23 WONG 07 performed search for non-standard ν -e scattering at the Kuo-Sheng nuclearereactor. Ge detector equipped with active anti-Compton shield is used. Most stringent
laboratory limit on magnetic moment of reactor ν e . Supersedes LI 03B.
24 DARAKTCHIEVA 05 present the final analysis of the search for non-standard ν -e scate
tering component at Bugey nuclear reactor. Full kinematical event reconstruction ofboth the kinetic energy above 700 keV and scattering angle of the recoil electron, by

https://pdg.lbl.gov

Page 25

Created: 5/31/2024 10:16

Citation: S. Navas et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D 110, 030001 (2024)

use of TPC. Most stringent laboratory limit on magnetic moment. Supersedes DARAKTCHIEVA 03.
25 XIN 05 evaluated the ν flux at the Kuo-Sheng nuclear reactor and searched for none
standard νe -e scattering. Ge detector equipped with active anti-Compton shield wasused. This laboratory limit on magnetic moment is considerably less stringent than thelimits for reactor ν e , but is specific to νe .
26 GRIFOLS 04 obtained this bound using the SNO data of the solar 8 B neutrino flux
measured with deuteron breakup. This bound applies to µeff = (µ2 + µ2 + µ2 )1/2 .
21
22
23
27 LIU 04 obtained this limit using the shape of the recoil electron energy spectrum from theSuper-Kamiokande-I 1496 days of solar neutrino data. Neutrinos are assumed to have
only diagonal magnetic moments, µν1 = µν2 . This limit corresponds to the oscillation
parameters in the vacuum oscillation region.
28 LIU 04 obtained this limit using the shape of the recoil electron energy spectrum fromthe Super-Kamiokande-I 1496 live-day solar neutrino data, by limiting the oscillation parameter region in the LMA region allowed by solar neutrino experiments plus KamLAND.
µν1 = µν2 is assumed. In the LMA region, the same limit would be obtained even if
neutrinos have off-diagonal magnetic moments.
29 BACK 03B obtained this bound from the results of background measurements withCounting Test Facility (the prototype of the Borexino detector). Standard Solar Modelflux was assumed. This µν can be different from the reactor µν in certain oscillation
scenarios (see BEACOM 99).
30 DARAKTCHIEVA 03 searched for non-standard ν -e scattering component at Bugeyenuclear reactor. Full kinematical event reconstruction by use of TPC. Superseded by
DARAKTCHIEVA 05.
31 LI 03B used Ge detector in active shield near nuclear reactor to test for nonstandard ν -eescattering.
32 GRIMUS 02 obtain stringent bounds on all Majorana neutrino transition moments froma simultaneous fit of LMA-MSW oscillation parameters and transition moments to global
solar neutrino data + reactor data. Using only solar neutrino data, a 90% CL bound of
6.3 × 10−10 µB is obtained.
33 TANIMOTO 00 combined e + e − → ν ν γ data from VENUS, TOPAZ, and AMY.
34 AYALA 99 improves the limit of BARBIERI 88.

35 BEACOM 99 obtain the limit using the shape, but not the absolute magnitude whichis affected by oscillations, of the solar neutrino spectrum obtained by Superkamiokande(825 days). This µν can be different from the reactor µν in certain oscillation scenarios.
36 RAFFELT 99 is an update of RAFFELT 90. This limit applies to all neutrino flavors
which are light enough (< 5 keV) to be emitted from globular-cluster red giants. This
limit pertains equally to electric dipole moments and magnetic transition moments, andit applies to both Dirac and Majorana neutrinos.
37 RAFFELT 99 is essentially an update of BERNSTEIN 63, but is derived from the helioseismological limit on a new energy-loss channel of the Sun. This limit applies to allneutrino flavors which are light enough (<1 keV) to be emitted from the Sun. This limit
pertains equally to electric dipole and magnetic transition moments, and it applies toboth Dirac and Majorana neutrinos.
38 ACCIARRI 97Q result applies to both direct and transition magnetic moments and for
q2 =0.
39 ELMFORS 97 calculate the rate of depolarization in a plasma for neutrinos with a magnetic moment and use the constraints from a big-bang nucleosynthesis on additional
degrees of freedom.
40 Applies to absolute value of magnetic moment.

https://pdg.lbl.gov

Page 26

Created: 5/31/2024 10:16

Citation: S. Navas et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D 110, 030001 (2024)

41 DERBIN 93 determine the cross section for 0.6–2.0 MeV electron energy as (1.28 ±0.63) × σweak . However, the (reactor on – reactor off)/(reactor off) is only ∼ 1/100.
42 COOPER-SARKAR 92 assume f /f = 2 and D , D production cross section =s
Ds πs
2.6 µb to calculate ν flux.
43 VIDYAKIN 92 limit is from a e ν elastic scattering experiment. No experimental detailse
are given except for the cross section from which this limit is derived. Signal/noise was
1/10. The limit uses sin2 θW = 0.23 as input.
44 DORENBOSCH 91 corrects an incorrect statement in DORENBOSCH 89 that the νmagnetic moment is < 1 × 10−9 at the 95%CL. DORENBOSCH 89 measures both νµ eand ν e elastic scattering and assume µ(ν) = µ(ν).
45 KRAKAUER 90 experiment fully reported in ALLEN 93.
46 RAFFELT 90 limit applies for a diagonal magnetic moment of a Dirac neutrino, or for atransition magnetic moment of a Majorana neutrino. In the latter case, the same analysis
gives < 1.4 × 10−12 . Limit at 95%CL obtained from δMc .
47 Significant dependence on details of stellar models.
48 FUKUGITA 88 find magnetic dipole moments of any two neutrino species are boundedby µ < 10−16 [10−9 G/B0 ] where B0 is the present-day intergalactic field strength.
49 GROTCH 88 combined data from MAC, ASP, CELLO, and Mark J.
50 For m = 8–200 eV. NUSSINOV 87 examines transition magnetic moments for ν →νµνe and obtain < 3 × 10−15 for m ν > 16 eV and < 6 × 10−14 for m ν > 4 eV.
51 We obtain above limit from SUTHERLAND 76 using their limit f < 1/3.
52 KIM 74 is a theoretical analysis of νµ reaction data.

NEUTRINO CHARGE RADIUS SQUARED
We report limits on the so-called neutrino charge radius squared. While
the straight-forward definition of a neutrino charge radius has been provento be gauge-dependent and, hence, unphysical (LEE 77C), there have been
recent attempts to define a physically observable neutrino charge radius(BERNABEU 00, BERNABEU 02). The issue is still controversial (FUJIKAWA 03, BERNABEU 03). A more general interpretation of the experimental results is that they are limits on certain nonstandard contributions
to neutrino scattering.
VALUE (10−32 cm2 )CL%

DOCUMENT ID

TECN− 2.1 to 3.390

1 DENIZ− 27.5 to 390

2 CADEDDU

18

90

3 HIRSCH03− 8.2 to 9.9− 2.97 to 4.14
− 0.6 to 0.6

90
90
90

4 HIRSCH
5 AUERBACHTEXO Reactor ν e e• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •− 0.53 to 0.68<<

0.9 ± 2.7
2.3
7.3

https://pdg.lbl.gov

95
90

VILAINALLEN
MOURAO
6 VIDYAKIN

Page 27

10

COMMENTνµ coherent scat. on CsI

νµ e scat.
03
anomalous e + e − → ν ν γ
01 LSND νe e → νe e
95B CHM2 νµ e elastic scat.
93
92
92

CNTR LAMPF ν e → ν e
ASTR HOME/KAM2 ν rates
CNTR Reactor ν e → ν eCreated: 5/31/2024 10:16

Citation: S. Navas et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D 110, 030001 (2024)

1.1 ± 2.3
− 1.1 ± 1.0

ALLEN
7 AHRENS

91
90

7 DORENBOS... 89− 0.3 ± 1.5

8 GRIFOLS

CNTR Repl. by ALLEN 93
CNTR νµ e elastic scat.
CHRM νµ e elastic scat.

89B ASTR SN 1987A

1 DENIZ 10 observe reactor ν e scattering with recoil kinetic energies 3–8 MeV usingeCsI(Tl) detectors. The observed rate and spectral shape are consistent with the Standard
Model prediction, leading to the reported constraint on ν e charge radius.
2 CADEDDU 18 use the data of the COHERENT experiment, AKIMOV 18. The limit isr2 for νµ obtained from the time-dependent data. Weaker limits were obtained forνcharge radii of νe and for transition charge radii. The published value was divided by 2
to conform to the convention of this table.
3 Based on analysis of CCFR 98 results. Limit is on r2 + r2 . The CHARM II andV
A
E734 at BNL results are reanalyzed, and weaker bounds on the charge radius squared
than previously published are obtained. The NuTeV result is discussed; when tentatively
interpreted as νµ charge radius it implies r2 + r2 = (4.20 ± 1.64) × 10 −33 cm2 .
V
A
4 Results of LEP-2 are interpreted as limits on the axial-vector charge radius squared ofa Majorana ντ . Slightly weaker limits for both vector and axial-vector charge radiussquared are obtained for the Dirac case, and somewhat weaker limits are obtained fromthe analysis of lower energy data (LEP-1.5 and TRISTAN).
5 AUERBACH 01 measure ν e elastic scattering with LSND detector. The cross sectioneagrees with the Standard Model expectation, including the charge and neutral current
interference. The 90% CL applies to the range shown.
6 VIDYAKIN 92 limit is from a e ν elastic scattering experiment. No experimental details
are given except for the cross section from which this limit is derived. Signal/noise was
1/10. The limit uses sin2 θW = 0.23 as input.
7 Result is obtained from reanalysis given in ALLEN 91, followed by our reduction to obtain1 σ errors.
8 GRIFOLS 89B sets a limit of r2 < 0.2 × 10−32 cm2 for right-handed neutrinos.

REFERENCES FOR Neutrino Properties
AALBERS23
AALBERS23A
ATZORI-COR... 23
ESFAHANI
23
IVANEZ-BAL... 23AKER
22APRILE
22B
BONET
22A
BRIEDEN
22
COLOMA
22KUMAR
22TANSERI
22
ABBOTT
21A
ALAM
21
DI-VALENT... 21GARNY21STOCKER
21
ABE
20E
AGHANIM
20
APRILE
20
CAPOZZI
20
CHOUDHURY 20
IVANOV
20KHAN
20PALANQUE-... 20

PRL 131 041002
PR D108 072006
PR D107 053001
PRL 131 102502
PL B847 138252
NATP 18 160
PRL 129 161805
EPJ C82 813
JCAP 2208 024
JHEP 2205 037
JCAP 2209 060
JHEAP 36 1
PR D105 023520
PR D103 083533
PR D104 083504
JCAP 2103 049
PR D103 123508
PL B809 135741
AA 641 A6
PR D102 072004
PR D102 083007
JCAP 2007 037
PR D101 083504
PL B809 135782
JCAP 2004 038

https://pdg.lbl.gov

J. Aalbers et al.
(LZ Collab.)
J. Aalbers et al.
(LZ Collab.)
M. Atzori Corona et al.
(CAGL, CAGLI)
A.A. Esfahani et al.
(Project 8 Collab.)
P. Ivanez-Ballesteros, M.C. Volpe(CNRS, UPCIT)
M. Aker et al.
(KATRIN Collab.)
E. Aprile et al.
(XENONnT Collab.)
H. Bonet et al.
(CONUS Collab.)
S. Brieden, Hector Gil-Marin, Licia VerdeP. Coloma et al.
(IFT, OSU, STON, ICREA+)
S. Kumar, R. Nunes, P.Yadav
I. Tanseri et al.
T.C.M. Abbott et al.
(DES Collab.)
S. Alam et al.
(eBOSS Collab.)
E. Di Valentino, S. Gariazzo, O. Mena
(DURH+)
M. Garny et al.
P. Stocker et al.
(GAMBIT Collab.)
K. Abe et al.
(XMASS Collab.)
N. Aghanim et al.
(Planck Collab.)
E. Aprile et al.
(XENON Collab.)
F. Capozzi, G. Raffelt(MPIM)
S.R. Choudhury, S. Hannestad(IITB, AARH)
M.M. Ivanov, M. SImonovic, M. Zaldarriaga(NYU,+)
A.N. Khan(MPIK)
N. Palanque-Delabrouille et al.
(SACL+)

Page 28

Created: 5/31/2024 10:16

Citation: S. Navas et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D 110, 030001 (2024)

AHARMIM
19
AKER
19
Also
ESCUDERO
19
LOUREIRO
19
UPADHYE
19
AKIMOV
18
CADEDDU
18
Also
CHOUDHURY 18
AGOSTINI
17ASIMPSON
17
VAGNOZZI
17
YECHE
17
DELLA-VALLE 16
DIVALENTINO 16
HUANG
16
ARCEO-DIAZ 15LOKHOV
15
PALANQUE-... 15A
ROSSI
15
ADE
14
BATTYE
14
BEUTLER
14CHEN
14A
CORSICO14
COSTANZI14HOU
14LEISTEDT14MILLER-BER... 14B
RIEMER-SOR... 14
STUDENIKIN 14
BEDA
13
VIAUX
13A
MORESCO
12
XIA
12
ASEEV
11
CECCHINI
11
SAITO
11
BEDA
10
DENIZ
10
HANNESTAD 10PAGLIAROLI10
SEKIGUCHI
10THOMAS
10ICHIKI09
KOMATSU09
KUZNETSOV 09
TERENO09
VIKHLININ
09
ARPESELLA
08A
BERNARDIS
08
BEDA
07
FOGLI
GNINENKOKRISTIANSENMIRIZZISPERGELWONG
ZUNCKELCIRELLIFUKUGITAGOOBARHANNESTADKRISTIANSENSANCHEZSELJAKCAPRINIDARAKTCH...

07
07
07
07
07
07
07
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
05
05

PR D99 032013
B. Aharmim et al.
(SNO Collab.)
PRL 123 221802
M. Aker et al.
(KATRIN Collab.)PR D104 012005
M. Aker et al.
(KATRIN Collab.)PR D100 103531
M. Escudero, M. Fairbairn(LOKC)
PRL 123 081301
A. Loureiro et al.
JCAP 1905 041
A. Upadhye(WISC)
arXiv:1804.09459
D. Akimov et al.
(COHERENT Collab.)
PR D98 113010
M. Cadeddu et al.
PR D101 059902 (errat.) M. Cadeddu et al.
JCAP 1809 017
S.R. Choudhury, S. Choubey
PR D96 091103
M. Agostini et al.
(Borexino Collab.)
JCAP 1706 029
F. Simpson et al.
(BARC)PR D96 123503
S. Vagnozzi et al.
JCAP 1706 047
C. Yeche et al.
EPJ C76 24
F. Della Valle et al.
(PVLAS Collab.)
PR D93 083527
E. Di Valentino et al.
EPJ C76 489
Q.-G. Huang, K. Wang, S. WangASP 70 1
S. Arceo-Diaz et al.
PPN 46 347
A.V. Lokhov, F.V. Tkachov
Translated from FECAY 46 3.
JCAP 1511 011
N. Palanque-Delabrouille et al.
PR D92 063505
G. Rossi et al.
AA 571 A16
P.A.R. Ade et al.
(Planck Collab.)
PRL 112 051303
R.A. Battye, A. Moss
(MCHS, NOTT)MNRAS 444 3501
F. Beutler et al.
(BOSS Collab.)
PR D90 011301
J.-W. Chen et al.
(TEXONO Collab.)
JCAP 1408 054
A.H. Corsico
JCAP 1410 081
M. Costanzi et al.
(TRST, TRSTI)APJ 782 74
Z. Hou et al.
PRL 113 041301
B. Leistedt, H.V. Peiris, L. VerdeAA 562 A123
M.M. Miller Bertolami(MPIG, LAPL)PR D89 103505
S. Riemer-Sorensen, D. Parkinson, T.M. Davis
EPL 107 21001
A.I. Studenikin
PPNL 10 139
A.G. Beda et al.
(GEMMA Collab.)
PRL 111 231301
N. Viaux et al.
JCAP 1207 053
M. Moresco et al.
JCAP 1206 010
J.-Q. Xia et al.
PR D84 112003
V.N. Aseev et al.
ASP 34 486
S. Cecchini et al.
PR D83 043529
S. Saito, M. Takada, A. Taruya
PPNL 7 406
A.G. Beda et al.
(GEMMA Collab.)
PR D81 072001
M. Deniz et al.
(TEXONO Collab.)
JCAP 1008 001
S. Hannestad et al.
ASP 33 287
G. Pagliaroli, F. Rossi-Torres, E. Vissani(INFN+)
JCAP 1003 015
T. Sekiguchi et al.
PRL 105 031301
S.A. Thomas, F.B. Abdalla, O. Lahav(LOUC)
PR D79 023520
K. Ichiki, M. Takada, T. Takahashi
APJS 180 330
E. Komatsu et al.
IJMP A24 5977
A.V. Kuznetsov, N.V. Mikheev, A.A. Okrugin(YARO)
AA 500 657
I. Tereno et al.
APJ 692 1060
A. Vikhlinin et al.
PRL 101 091302
C. Arpesella et al.
(Borexino Collab.)
PR D78 083535
F. De Bernardis et al.
PAN 70 1873
A.G. Beda et al.
Translated from YAF 70 1925.
PR D75 053001
G.L. Fogli et al.
PR D75 075014
S.N. Gninenko, N.V. Krasnikov, A. Rubbia
PR D75 083510
J. Kristiansen, O. Elgaroy, H. Dahle
PR D76 053007
A. Mirizzi, D. Montanino, P.D. Serpico
APJS 170 377
D.N. Spergel et al.
PR D75 012001
H.T. Wong et al.
(TEXONO Collab.)
JCAP 0708 004
C. Zunckel, P. Ferreira
JCAP 0612 013
M. Cirelli et al.
PR D74 027302
M. Fukugita et al.
JCAP 0606 019
A. Goobar et al.
JCAP 0611 016
S. Hannestad, G. Raffelt
PR D74 123005
J. Kristiansen, O. Elgaroy, H. Eriksen
MNRAS 366 189
A.G. Sanchez et al.
JCAP 0610 014
U. Seljak, A. Slosar, P. McDonald
JCAP 0502 006
C. Caprini, P.G. Ferreira(GEVA, OXFTP)PL B615 153
Z. Daraktchieva et al.
(MUNU Collab.)https://pdg.lbl.gov

Page 29

Created: 5/31/2024 10:16

Citation: S. Navas et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D 110, 030001 (2024)

ICHIKAWAKRAUS
XIN
AHARMIMBARGER
CECCHINI
CROTTYEGUCHIGRIFOLS
LIU
ARNABOLDIBACK
BANDYOPA...
BERNABEUDARAKTCH...
FUJIKAWAHIRSCHLI
SPERGELBERNABEU
Also
DERBIN

05
05
05
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
03A
03B
03
03
03
03
03
03B
03
02

PR D71 043001
K. Ichikawa, M. Fukugita, M. Kawasaki(ICRR)EPJ C40 447
Ch. Kraus et al.
PR D72 012006
B. Xin et al.
(TEXONO Collab.)
PR D70 093014
B. Aharmim et al.
(SNO Collab.)
PL B595 55
V. Barger, D. Marfatia, A. Tregre
ASP 21 183
S. Cecchini et al.
(BGNA+)PR D69 123007
P. Crotty, J. Lesgourgues, S. Pastor
PRL 92 071301
K. Eguchi et al.
(KamLAND Collab.)
PL B587 184
J.A. Grifols, E. Masso, S. Mohanty(BARC, AHMED)PRL 93 021802
D.W. Liu et al.
(Super-Kamiokande Collab.)
PRL 91 161802
C. Arnaboldi et al.
PL B563 35
H.O. Back et al.
(Borexino Collab.)
PL B555 33
A. Bandyopadhyay, S. Choubey, S. Goswami(SAHA+)
hep-ph/0303202
J. Bernabeu, J. Papavassiliou, J. Vidal
PL B564 190
Z. Daraktchieva et al.
(MUNU Collab.)
hep-ph/0303188
K. Fujikawa, R. Shrock
PR D67 033005
M. Hirsch, E. Nardi, D. Restrepo
PRL 90 131802
H.B. Li et al.
(TEXONO Collab.)
APJS 148 175
D.N. Spergel et al.
PRL 89 101802
J. Bernabeu, J. Papavassiliou, J. Vidal
PRL 89 229902 (errat.) J. Bernabeu, J. Papavassiliou, J. Vidal
02B JETPL 76 409
A.V. Derbin, O.Ju. Smirnov
Translated from ZETFP 76 483.
GRIMUS
02
NP B648 376
W. Grimus et al.
JOSHIPURA
02B PR D66 113008
A.S. Joshipura, E. Masso, S. Mohanty
LEWIS
02
PR D66 103511
A. Lewis, S. Bridle
LOREDO02
PR D65 063002
T.J. Loredo, D.Q. Lamb
WANG
02
PR D65 123001
X. Wang, M. Tegmark, M. Zaldarriaga
AUERBACH
01
PR D63 112001
L.B. Auerbach et al.
(LSND Collab.)
SCHWIENHO... 01
PL B513 23
R. Schwienhorst et al.
(DONUT Collab.)
ATHANAS00
PR D61 052002
M. Athanas et al.
(CLEO Collab.)
BERNABEU
00
PR D62 113012
J. Bernabeu et al.
FUKUGITA00
PRL 84 1082
M. Fukugita, G.C. Liu, N. Sugiyama
TANIMOTO00
PL B478 1
N. Tanimoto et al.
AYALA99
PR D59 111901
A. Ayala, J.C. D’Olivo, M. Torres
BEACOM99
PRL 83 5222
J.F. Beacom, P. Vogel
CROFT99
PRL 83 1092
R.A.C. Croft, W. Hu, R. DaveDOLGOV99
NP B548 385
A.D. Dolgov et al.
LOBASHEV99
PL B460 227
V.M. Lobashev et al.
RAFFELT99
PRPL 320 319
G.G. Raffelt
WEINHEIMER 99
PL B460 219
Ch. Weinheimer et al.
ACKERSTAFF 98T EPJ C5 229
K. Ackerstaff et al.
(OPAL Collab.)
AMMAR
98
PL B431 209
R. Ammar et al.
(CLEO Collab.)
BARATE98F EPJ C2 395
R. Barate et al.
(ALEPH Collab.)
BILLER98
PRL 80 2992
S.D. Biller et al.
(WHIPPLE Collab.)
FELDMAN98
PR D57 3873
G.J. Feldman, R.D. Cousins
LENZ
98
PL B416 50
S. Lenz et al.
ABREU
97J ZPHY C74 577
P. Abreu et al.
(DELPHI Collab.)
ACCIARRI
97Q PL B412 201
M. Acciarri et al.
(L3 Collab.)
ANASTASSOV 97
PR D55 2559
A. Anastassov et al.
(CLEO Collab.)Also
PR D58 119903 (errat.) A. Anastassov et al.
(CLEO Collab.)
ELMFORS97
NP B503 3
P. Elmfors et al.
ESCRIBANO97
PL B395 369
R. Escribano, E. Masso(BARC, PARIT)
FIELDS97
ASP 6 169
B.D. Fields, K. Kainulainen, K.A. Olive(NDAM+)SWAIN
97
PR D55 1
J. Swain, L. Taylor(NEAS)ALEXANDER 96M ZPHY C72 231
G. Alexander et al.
(OPAL Collab.)
ASSAMAGAN 96
PR D53 6065
K.A. Assamagan et al.
(PSI, ZURI, VILL+)
BAI96
PR D53 20
J.Z. Bai et al.
(BES Collab.)
BOTTINO96
PR D53 6361
A. Bottino et al.
DOLGOV96
PL B383 193
A.D. Dolgov, S. Pastor, J.W.F. Valle(IFIC, VALE)
HANNESTAD 96
PRL 76 2848
S. Hannestad, J. Madsen(AARH)HANNESTAD 96B PRL 77 5148 (errat.)
S. Hannestad, J. Madsen(AARH)HANNESTAD 96C PR D54 7894
S. Hannestad, J. Madsen(AARH)SOBIE
96
ZPHY C70 383
R.J. Sobie, R.K. Keeler, I. Lawson(VICT)BELESEV95
PL B350 263
A.I. Belesev et al.
(INRM, KIAE)BUSKULIC
95H PL B349 585
D. Buskulic et al.
(ALEPH Collab.)
CHING
95
IJMP A10 2841
C.R. Ching et al.
(CST, BEIJT, CIAE)DOLGOV95
PR D51 4129
A.D. Dolgov, K. Kainulainen, I.Z. Rothstein(MICH+)HIDDEMANN 95
JP G21 639
K.H. Hiddemann, H. Daniel, O. Schwentker(TUM)
KERNAN95
NP B437 243
P.J. Kernan, L.M. Krauss(CASE)SIGL95
PR D51 1499
G. Sigl, M.S. Turner(FNAL, EFI)

https://pdg.lbl.gov

Page 30

Created: 5/31/2024 10:16

Citation: S. Navas et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D 110, 030001 (2024)

STOEFFL95
VILAIN
95B
ASSAMAGAN 94
BABU
94
DODELSON
94
GOULD
94
JECKELMANN 94
KAWASAKI
94
PERES
94
YASUMI
94
ALLEN
93
BALEST
93
CINABRO93
DERBIN93

PRL 75 3237
W. Stoeffl, D.J. Decman(LLNL)PL B345 115
P. Vilain et al.
(CHARM II Collab.)
PL B335 231
K.A. Assamagan et al.
(PSI, ZURI, VILL+)PL B321 140
K.S. Babu, T.M. Gould, I.Z. Rothstein(BART+)
PR D49 5068
S. Dodelson, G. Gyuk, M.S. Turner(FNAL, CHIC+)PL B333 545
T.M. Gould, I.Z. Rothstein(JHU, MICH)
PL B335 326
B. Jeckelmann, P.F.A. Goudsmit, H.J. Leisi (WABRN+)
NP B419 105
M. Kawasaki et al.
(OSU)
PR D50 513
O.L.G. Peres, V. Pleitez, R. Zukanovich Funchal
PL B334 229
S. Yasumi et al.
(KEK, TSUK, KYOT+)PR D47 11
R.C. Allen et al.
(UCI, LANL, ANL+)PR D47 3671
R. Balest et al.
(CLEO Collab.)
PRL 70 3700
D. Cinabro et al.
(CLEO Collab.)
JETPL 57 768
A.V. Derbin et al.
(PNPI)
Translated from ZETFP 57 755.
DOLGOV93
PRL 71 476
A.D. Dolgov, I.Z. Rothstein(MICH)ENQVIST93
PL B301 376
K. Enqvist, H. Uibo
(NORD)SUN93
CJNP 15 261
H.C. Sun et al.
(CIAE, CST, BEIJT)WEINHEIMER 93
PL B300 210
C. Weinheimer et al.
(MAINZ)ALBRECHT
92M PL B292 221
H. Albrecht et al.
(ARGUS Collab.)
BLUDMAN92
PR D45 4720
S.A. Bludman(CFPA)
COOPER-...
92
PL B280 153
A.M. Cooper-Sarkar et al.
(BEBC WA66 Collab.)
DODELSON92
PRL 68 2572
S. Dodelson, J.A. Frieman, M.S. Turner(FNAL+)HOLZSCHUH 92B PL B287 381
E. Holzschuh, M. Fritschi, W. Kundig(ZURI)KAWANO92
PL B275 487
L.H. Kawano et al.
(CIT, UCSD, LLL+)
MOURAO92
PL B285 364
A.M. Mourao, J. Pulido, J.P. Ralston(LISB, LISBT+)
PDG
92
PR D45 S1
K. Hikasa et al.
(KEK, LBL, BOST+)VIDYAKIN
92
JETPL 55 206
G.S. Vidyakin et al.
(KIAE)
Translated from ZETFP 55 212.
ALLEN
91
PR D43 1
R.C. Allen et al.
(UCI, LANL, UMD)DAVIDSON91
PR D43 2314
S. Davidson, B.A. Campbell, D. Bailey(ALBE+)
DESHPANDE 91
PR D43 943
N.G. Deshpande, K.V.L. Sarma(OREG, TATA)DORENBOS... 91
ZPHY C51 142 (errat.) J. Dorenbosch et al.
(CHARM Collab.)
FULLER91
PR D43 3136
G.M. Fuller, R.A. Malaney(UCSD)GRANEK
91
IJMP A6 2387
H. Granek, B.H.J. McKellar(MELB)KAWAKAMI91
PL B256 105
H. Kawakami et al.
(INUS, TOHOK, TINT+)
KOLB
91
PRL 67 533
E.W. Kolb et al.
(FNAL, CHIC)KRAKAUER91
PR D44 6
D.A. Krakauer et al.
(LAMPF E225 Collab.)
LAM
91
PR D44 3345
W.P. Lam, K.W. Ng(AST)
ROBERTSON 91
PRL 67 957
R.G.H. Robertson et al.
(LASL, LLL)
AHRENS90
PR D41 3297
L.A. Ahrens et al.
(BNL, BROW, HIRO+)AVIGNONE90
PR D41 682
F.T. Avignone, J.I. Collar(SCUC)KRAKAUER90
PL B252 177
D.A. Krakauer et al.
(LAMPF E225 Collab.)
RAFFELT90
PRL 64 2856
G.G. Raffelt(MPIM)WALKER90
PR D41 689
T.P. Walker(HARV)CHUPP
89
PRL 62 505
E.L. Chupp, W.T. Vestrand, C. Reppin(UNH, MPIM)
DORENBOS... 89
ZPHY C41 567
J. Dorenbosch et al.
(CHARM Collab.)
GRIFOLS
89B PR D40 3819
J.A. Grifols, E. Masso(BARC)KOLB
89
PRL 62 509
E.W. Kolb, M.S. Turner(CHIC, FNAL)LOREDO89
ANYAS 571 601
T.J. Loredo, D.Q. Lamb
(CHIC)RAFFELT89
PR D39 2066
G.G. Raffelt(PRIN, UCB)RAFFELT89B APJ 336 61
G. Raffelt, D. Dearborn, J. Silk
(UCB, LLL)
ALBRECHT
88B PL B202 149
H. Albrecht et al.
(ARGUS Collab.)
BARBIERI88
PRL 61 27
R. Barbieri, R.N. Mohapatra(PISA, UMD)
BORIS
88
PRL 61 245 (errat.)
S.D. Boris et al.
(ITEP, ASCI)FUKUGITA88
PRL 60 879
M. Fukugita et al.
(KYOTU, MPIM, UCB)GROTCH88
ZPHY C39 553
H. Grotch, R.W. Robinett(PSU)
RAFFELT88B PR D37 549
G.G. Raffelt, D.S.P. Dearborn(UCB, LLL)
SPERGEL88
PL B200 366
D.N. Spergel, J.N. Bahcall(IAS)
VONFEILIT... 88
PL B200 580
F. von Feilitzsch, L. Oberauer(TUM)
BARBIELLINI 87
NAT 329 21
G. Barbiellini, G. Cocconi(CERN)BORIS
87
PRL 58 2019
S.D. Boris et al.
(ITEP, ASCI)Also
PRL 61 245 (errat.)
S.D. Boris et al.
(ITEP, ASCI)BORIS87B JETPL 45 333
S.D. Boris et al.
(ITEP)
Translated from ZETFP 45 267.
FUKUGITA87
PR D36 3817
M. Fukugita, S. Yazaki(KYOTU, TOKY)NUSSINOV87
PR D36 2278
S. Nussinov, Y. Rephaeli(TELA)OBERAUER87
PL B198 113
L.F. Oberauer, F. von Feilitzsch, R.L. Mossbauer
SPRINGER87
PR A35 679
P.T. Springer et al.
(LLNL)

https://pdg.lbl.gov

Page 31

Created: 5/31/2024 10:16

Citation: S. Navas et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D 110, 030001 (2024)

KETOV

86

COWSIK
RAFFELT
BINETRUY
FREESEKYULDJIEVSCHRAMM
VOGEL
ANDERHUB
OLIVE
BERNSTEINFRANKMORGANFUJIKAWA
LUBIMOVSTECKERCOWSIKGOLDMANBEG
BLIETSCHAUFALKBARNESCOWSIKLEE
VYSOTSKY

85
85
84
84
84
84
84
82
82
81
81
81
80
80
80
79
79
78
78
78
77
77
77C
77

BELLOTTI
76
SUTHERLAND 76
SZALAY
76
CLARK
74
KIM
74
REINES74
SZALAY74
COWSIK
72
MARX
72
GERSHTEIN66
BERNSTEIN
COWAN

63
57

JETPL 44 146
S.N. Ketov et al.
(KIAE)
Translated from ZETFP 44 114.
PL 151B 62
R. Cowsik(TATA)
PR D31 3002
G.G. Raffelt(MPIM)PL 134B 174
P. Binetruy, G. Girardi, P. Salati(LAPP)NP B233 167
K. Freese, D.N. Schramm(CHIC, FNAL)NP B243 387
A.V. Kyuldjiev(SOFI)PL 141B 337
D.N. Schramm, G. Steigman(FNAL, BART)PR D30 1505
P. VogelPL 114B 76
H.B. Anderhub et al.
(ETH, SIN)
PR D25 213
K.A. Olive, M.S. Turner(CHIC, UCSB)
PL 101B 39
J. Bernstein, G. Feinberg(STEV, COLU)
PR D24 2001
J.S. Frank et al.
(LASL, YALE, MIT+)
PL 102B 247
J.A. Morgan(SUSS)
PRL 45 963
K. Fujikawa, R. Shrock(STON)PL 94B 266
V.A. Lyubimov et al.
(ITEP)
PRL 45 1460
F.W. Stecker(NASA)
PR D19 2219
R. Cowsik(TATA)
PR D19 2215
T. Goldman, G.J. Stephenson(LASL)
PR D17 1395
M.A.B. Beg, W.J. Marciano, M. Ruderman(ROCK+)NP B133 205
J. Blietschau et al.
(Gargamelle Collab.)
PL 79B 511
S.W. Falk, D.N. Schramm(CHIC)
PRL 38 1049
V.E. Barnes et al.
(PURD, ANL)PRL 39 784
R. Cowsik(MPIM, TATA)PR D16 1444
B.W. Lee, R.E. Shrock(STON)JETPL 26 188
M.I. Vysotsky, A.D. Dolgov, Y.B. Zeldovich(ITEP)
Translated from ZETFP 26 200.
LNC 17 553
E. Bellotti et al.
(MILA)
PR D13 2700
P. Sutherland et al.
(PENN, COLU, NYU)
AA 49 437
A.S. Szalay, G. Marx(EOTV)PR D9 533
A.R. Clark et al.
(LBL)
PR D9 3050
J.E. Kim, V.S. Mathur, S. Okubo(ROCH)
PRL 32 180
F. Reines, H.W. Sobel, H.S. Gurr
(UCI)
APAH 35 8
A.S. Szalay, G. Marx(EOTV)
PRL 29 669
R. Cowsik, J. McClelland(UCB)
Nu Conf. Budapest
G. Marx, A.S. Szalay(EOTV)JETPL 4 120
S.S. Gershtein, Y.B. Zeldovich(KIAM)
Translated from ZETFP 4 189.
PR 132 1227
J. Bernstein, M. Ruderman, G. Feinberg(NYU+)PR 107 528
C.L. Cowan, F. Reines(LANL)

https://pdg.lbl.gov

Page 32

Created: 5/31/2024 10:16