- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review D

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Impact of different neutrino decoherence formalisms at the future long-baseline experiments

Rudra Majhi1,*, Koushik Pal2,†, Monojit Ghosh3,‡, and Rukmani Mohanta2,§

  • *Contact author: rudra.majhi95@gmail.com
  • †Contact author: palkoushik01@gmail.com
  • ‡Contact author: mghosh@irb.hr
  • §Contact author: rmsp@uohyd.ac.in
PDF

Phys. Rev. D 114, 015034 – Published 22 July, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/n3kf-k24f

Abstract

In this paper, we have studied the impact of two different formalisms of quantum decoherence in determining the sensitivities of the two future long-baseline experiments DUNE and P2SO. In formalism A, we will assume that the decoherence matrix is defined in a matter mass eigenstate basis which is the basis that diagonalizes the Hamiltonian for neutrinos in matter, with a constant matter density. In formalism B, we will define the decoherence matrix in the vacuum mass eigenstate basis and then rotate it to matter mass basis via an unitary transformation. By using different values of the decoherence parameter Γ, we will show how these two formalisms differ at the probability level and then we will demonstrate how the sensitivities can differ at the χ2 level. Our results show that if the values of Γ are small, then these two formalisms yield same probability in vacuum. However, if the values of Γ is large or if there is strong matter effect, then these two formalisms yield very different results.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (53)

  1. F. Capozzi, E. Lisi, A. Marrone, and A. Palazzo, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 102, 48 (2018).
  2. F. Benatti and R. Floreanini, J. High Energy Phys. 02 (2000) 032.
  3. G. L. Fogli, E. Lisi, A. Marrone, D. Montanino, and A. Palazzo, Phys. Rev. D 76, 033006 (2007).
  4. T. Ohlsson, Phys. Lett. B 502, 159 (2001).
  5. M. Blennow, T. Ohlsson, and W. Winter, J. High Energy Phys. 06 (2005) 049.
  6. M. Blennow, T. Ohlsson, and W. Winter, Eur. Phys. J. C 49, 1023 (2007).
  7. E. Lisi, A. Marrone, and D. Montanino, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 1166 (2000).
  8. S. B. Giddings and A. Strominger, Nucl. Phys. B307, 854 (1988).
  9. G. Amelino-Camelia, J. R. Ellis, N. E. Mavromatos, and D. V. Nanopoulos, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 12, 607 (1997).
  10. L. J. Garay, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 14, 4079 (1999).
  11. J. R. Ellis, J. S. Hagelin, D. V. Nanopoulos, and M. Srednicki, Nucl. Phys. B241, 381 (1984).
  12. A. Domi, T. Eberl, M. J. Fahn, K. Giesel, L. Hennig, U. Katz, R. Kemper, and M. Kobler, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 11 (2024) 006.
  13. E. K. Akhmedov and J. Kopp, J. High Energy Phys. 04 (2010) 008; 10 (2013) 052(E).
  14. T. Stuttard and M. Jensen, Phys. Rev. D 102, 115003 (2020).
  15. E. Akhmedov and A. Y. Smirnov, J. High Energy Phys. 11 (2022) 082.
  16. G. Lindblad, Commun. Math. Phys. 48, 119 (1976).
  17. J. A. Wheeler, Phys. Rev. 97, 511 (1955).
  18. S. Aiello et al. (KM3NeT Collaboration), J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 03 (2025) 039.
  19. V. De Romeri, C. Giunti, T. Stuttard, and C. A. Ternes, J. High Energy Phys. 09 (2023) 097.
  20. P. Coloma, J. Lopez-Pavon, I. Martinez-Soler, and H. Nunokawa, Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 614 (2018).
  21. M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, F. Halzen, and M. Maltoni, Phys. Rev. D 71, 093010 (2005).
  22. R. Abbasi et al.(ICECUBE, IceCube Collaborations), Nat. Phys. 20, 913 (2024).
  23. B. K. Acharya, I. K. Banerjee, and U. K. Dey, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 12 (2025) 015.
  24. A. L. G. Gomes, R. A. Gomes, and O. L. G. Peres, J. High Energy Phys. 10 (2023) 035.
  25. G. Barenboim, A. M. Calatayud-Cadenillas, A. M. Gago, and C. A. Ternes, Phys. Lett. B 852, 138626 (2024).
  26. J. Aguilar et al. (ESSnuSB Collaboration), J. High Energy Phys. 08 (2024) 063.
  27. C. Bera and K. N. Deepthi, Phys. Rev. D 110, 035035 (2024).
  28. J. C. Carrasco, F. N. Díaz, and A. M. Gago, Phys. Rev. D 99, 075022 (2019).
  29. G. Balieiro Gomes, D. V. Forero, M. M. Guzzo, P. C. De Holanda, and R. L. N. Oliveira, Phys. Rev. D 100, 055023 (2019).
  30. J. A. B. Coelho, W. A. Mann, and S. S. Bashar, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 221801 (2017).
  31. R. L. N. Oliveira, Eur. Phys. J. C 76, 417 (2016).
  32. J. A. B. Coelho and W. A. Mann, Phys. Rev. D 96, 093009 (2017).
  33. A. de Gouvea, V. de Romeri, and C. A. Ternes, J. High Energy Phys. 08 (2020) 018.
  34. A. de Gouvêa, V. De Romeri, and C. A. Ternes, J. High Energy Phys. 06 (2021) 042.
  35. R. Krueger and T. Schwetz, Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 578 (2023).
  36. M. V. dos Santos, P. C. de Holanda, P. Dedin Neto, and E. Kemp, Phys. Rev. D 108, 103032 (2023).
  37. C. A. Ternes, G. Pagliaroli, and F. L. Villante, Phys. Rev. D 112, 063058 (2025).
  38. J. Carpio, E. Massoni, and A. M. Gago, Phys. Rev. D 97, 115017 (2018).
  39. V. Gorini, A. Kossakowski, and E. C. G. Sudarshan, J. Math. Phys. (N.Y.) 17, 821 (1976).
  40. R. L. N. Oliveira and M. M. Guzzo, Eur. Phys. J. C 73, 2434 (2013).
  41. G. Balieiro Gomes, M. M. Guzzo, P. C. de Holanda, and R. L. N. Oliveira, Phys. Rev. D 95, 113005 (2017).
  42. A. M. Gago, E. M. Santos, W. J. C. Teves, and R. Zukanovich Funchal, arXiv:hep-ph/0208166.
  43. J. A. Carpio, E. Massoni, and A. M. Gago, Phys. Rev. D 100, 015035 (2019).
  44. A. V. Akindinov et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 79, 758 (2019).
  45. D. K. Singha, M. Ghosh, R. Majhi, and R. Mohanta, Phys. Rev. D 107, 075039 (2023).
  46. R. Majhi, D. K. Singha, M. Ghosh, and R. Mohanta, Phys. Rev. D 107, 075036 (2023).
  47. B. Abi et al. (DUNE Collaboration), arXiv:2103.04797.
  48. B. Abi et al. (DUNE Collaboration), Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 978 (2020).
  49. P. Huber, M. Lindner, and W. Winter, Comput. Phys. Commun. 167, 195 (2005).
  50. P. Huber, J. Kopp, M. Lindner, M. Rolinec, and W. Winter, Comput. Phys. Commun. 177, 432 (2007).
  51. G. L. Fogli, E. Lisi, A. Marrone, D. Montanino, and A. Palazzo, Phys. Rev. D 66, 053010 (2002).
  52. P. Huber, M. Lindner, and W. Winter, Nucl. Phys. B645, 3 (2002).
  53. I. Esteban, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, M. Maltoni, I. Martinez-Soler, J. P. Pinheiro, and T. Schwetz, J. High Energy Phys. 12 (2024) 216.

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. D 114, 015034– Published 22 July, 2026
  • Received 5 May 2026
  • Accepted 23 June 2026
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI. Funded by SCOAP3.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation