FERMILAB-PUB-20-522-T-V

Luminous solar neutrinos II: Mass-mixing portals

Ryan Plestid1, 2, ∗ 1Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Kentucky Lexington, KY 40506, USA 2Theoretical Physics Department, Fermilab, Batavia, IL 60510,USA ‡ Solar neutrinos can be efficiently upscattered to MeV scale heavy neutral leptons (HNLs) within the Earth’s mantle. HNLs can then decay to electron-positron pairs leading to energy deposition inside large-volume detectors. In this paper we consider mass-portal upscattering of solar neutrinos to HNLs of mass 20 MeV ≥ mN ≥ 2me. The large volume of the Earth compensates for the long + − decay-length of the HNLs leading to observable rates of N → ναe e in large volume detectors. We find that searches for mantle-upscattered HNLs can set novel limits on mixing with third generation leptons, |UτN | for masses in the MeV regime; sensitivity to mixing with first- and second-generation leptons is not competitive with existing search strategies.

I. INTRODUCTION

Heavy neutral leptons (HNLs) are amongst the best motivated extensions of the Standard Model (SM) and their phenomenology has been studied extensively for masses in the MeV to the few-GeV regime [1–14]. They have motivated dedicated detector technologies and are an ever-present driver of the physics case for fixed target facilities with high intensity beams [15–18]. The low- (a) (b) est dimensional operator that mediates couplings to SM neutrinos is the so-called neutrino- or mass-mixing-portal FIG. 1. Scatterings inside the volume of the earth that pro- + − [19]. This leads flavor eigenstates, νa, to contain an ad- duce an HNL which subsequently decays to e e inside a mixture of HNLs, N, alongside the standard mass eigen- large volume detector (grey cylinder). Fig. (a) corresponds t0 day-time (mostly backwards scattering) and Fig. (b) cor- states, νi, responds to night-time (mostly forward scattering). 3 X νa = UaN N + Uaiνi . (1) i=1 ultimately only extends the “volume” to O(100 m). In this paper we point out that for low masses (where de- Constraints on UαN in the literature stem mostly from cay lengths are thousands of kilometers or more), this Intensity Frontier experiments [20], and are notably lack- problem can be circumvented by taking advantage of up- ing at low masses1 where the decay length, λ, of the HNL scattering of solar neutrinos within the Earth’s interior as becomes very long. This is easy to understand since, in depicted in Fig. 1. Similar ideas have been discussed in minimal HNL models with no additional degrees of free- [22] where the Borexino collaboration searched for HNLs dom, the decay-rate of an HNL scales roughly as the that decay in flight after being produced in the Sun (a muon-decay-like formula characteristic length scale of 108 km), and in [1] where 2 5 mesons decaying in the upper atmosphere can produce GF mN X 2 Γ ∼ × |UaN | . (2) 192π3 HNLs that decay inside terrestrial detectors detectors (a a∈{e,µ,τ}

arXiv:2010.09523v2 [hep-ph] 27 Apr 2021 characteristic length scale of 10 km). In a related paper [23], we study a neutrino dipole por- m λ Thus, for small N , the decay length, , is enormous tal [24, 25] and show that the Earth’s mantle can serve and any HNLs that are produced near a given experi- as a powerful resource when λ becomes very large ame- `/λ ment have a very small probability (of order with liorating the naive O(10 m)/λ suppression expected for a ` ∼ 1−10 m the length of the detector) of decaying within Borexino scale detector, and replacing it with the much the volume of the detector. This can be circumvented more favourable O(5000 km)/λ for λ  R⊕. This is a with specialty built facilities such as SHiP [16], FASER useful observation when coupled with the solar neutrino [17, 21], ANUBIS [18], or MATHUSLA [15], however this flux which contains sizeable νe, νµ and ντ components. Just like the neutrino dipole portal studied in [23], up- scattering of solar neutrinos via a mass-mixing portal is 2 ∗ [email protected] a coherent process (scaling as Qw with Qw the weak nu- 1 Bounds related to BBN rely on additional assumptions. Bounds clear charge) in the Eν . 20 MeV regime allowing for from SN1987a rely on modelling of neutrino flavor composition further enhancement from the medium-heavy nuclei in in a supernovae. the Earth’s mantle. As we will show in this paper, the 2

p 2 2 presence of a substantial ντ flux allows us to set new where PN = Eν − mN . For mN  Eν this gives constraints on mass-mixing portals connected to third  2  generation leptons. dσ mN ∝ 1 + 1 − 2 cos θ. (6) There are, however, important differences between the d cos θ 2Eν phenomenology of mass-mixing and dipole-portal upscat- tering. Some differences are cosmetic, for instance the Upscattering favors forward scattering, but only by a fac- charge of the nucleus Z being replaced by the weak charge tor of roughly two. To simplify the analysis of upscatter- ing within the earth we will approximate the differential Qw, while others require a re-working of some of the for- mulae derived in [23]. For instance, the upscattering is upscattering cross section by 2 now strongly energy dependent, scaling as Eν , and the dσ 1 = σ . (7) decays are three-body. Most important, however, is that dΩ 4π the scattering is no longer preferentially forward, being roughly isotropic in the lab frame. This is because the This approximation underestimates the night-time rate nuclei upon which the neutrinos scatter can be treated (roughly by a factor of 50%) and overestimates the day- as being infinitely heavy, and the HNL that is produced time rate (roughly by a factor of 50%) such that the can recoil in almost any direction. This eliminates most full-day average is unaffected to a first approximation. of the day-night asymmetry and seasonal signal modula- The full cross section can be found by integrating tion discussed in [23], and demands an integration over dσ/dt between the maximum and minimum momentum the Earth’s volume rather than the line of sight along the transfers zenith direction. q 2 2 2 2 2 The rest of this paper is dedicated to exploring the nec- Qmin = (Pν − PN ) = (Eν − Eν − mN ) (8) essary modifications to the formalism developed in [23] 2 2 2 2 2 Qmax = Pν + PN = 2Eν − mN . (9) to account for these differences. In Section II we derive the flux of HNLs produced via mass-portal upscattering and clearly in the Eν  mN limit this give the result 1 2 2 of solar neutrinos and discuss the different fluxes in the Qmin = 2 mN /Eν and Qmax ≈ 2Eν . We then find case of mono-flavor mixing (e.g. Ue4 = Uµ4 = 0 with s Uτ4 6= 0). In Section III we discuss decay properties of |U |2G2 Q2 E2  m2  m2 + − aN F w ν N N N e e σa = 3 − 1 − . (10) and the resultant rate inside a detector after π E2 E2 accounting for scattering throughout the volume of the ν ν Earth. In Section IV we set limits on mixing matrix el- For a benchmark weak nuclear charge of Qw = 1 we then ements using Borexino’s search for decaying HNLs from have the Sun [22]. Finally, in Section V we summarize our  2  2  results and comment on possible future improved sensi- −44 2 |UaN | Eν σa = 4.7 · 10 cm tivity at future large-scale detectors. 10−2 10 MeV (11) 3 − m2 /E2 1 − m2 /E2 1/2 × N ν N ν II. MASS-PORTAL UPSCATTERING 2.91 0.91

The flux of HNLs, ΦN , emerging from an infinitesimal For νA → NA scattering, the momentum transfer to box of volume d3x, (shown in Fig. 2) with target density the nucleus is limited by 2Eν . For solar neutrino energies this means that nucleus can be reliably approximated as an infinitely massive object. Within this approximation �� =���� � ��-� EN = Eν by energy conservation and the matrix element �� =�� � U for up-scattering is given, for a single mixing angle aN , �� =��� � by ��-�

2 2 2 2 2 2 2
|M| = 8MA|UaN | GF Qw 4Eν − mN + t . (3) ��-� 2 2 Using dσ/dt = |M| /(16πλ(s, MA, mν ) with mν = 0 ���� ����� ] [ ��������� ���� and λ(a, b, c) the Kallen function, we have ��-�

2 2 2 2 2 dσ |U | G Q E  m t  � � � �� = aN F w ν 1 − N + . 2 2 (4) �� =�ν [���] dt 2π 4Eν 4Eν

At this point we can trade t for the scattering angle of FIG. 2. Shape of N flux folded against R⊕/λ for various choices of mN c.f. Fig. 4. The flux of scattered N is given by the HNL in the lab frame using ΦN ∝ Φν × σν→N and this is then multiplied by 1/λ(EN ).

2 2 2
Here we have taken Φν = Φντ as an example. t = −|~q| = − Eν + PN − 2PN Eν cos θ , (5) 3 nA, a distance R away from the detector, is then given III. DECAYS TO ELECTRONS & POSITRONS by The decay of HNLs is extremely well studied in the literature [6–11]. For 2me . mN . 100 MeV the tree- (n × d3x) × σ × Φ × e−R/λ A a νa level decay modes that are available to an HNL are N → dΦN = . (12) + − 4πR2 3ν and N → νe e . Below the threshold for electron- positron production, the only visible decay mode is the loop-mediated N → νγ, but this is very small in minimal where EN = Eν in the MA → ∞ limit and the exponen- HNL models and we do not consider it here. tial factor accounts for HNL decay. For flavor dependent For UeN 6= 0 both charged- and neutral-currents can couplings oscillation effects must be included in the solar mediate the decay and these two contributions interfere neutrino spectrum. We incorporate these effects assum- with one another. For UµN 6= 0 or UτN 6= 0 only the ing fully adiabatic flavor conversion [26] using survival neutral current participates. In both cases the partial probabilities from [27, 28]. width is given by [11]

G2 m5  h p i Γ(N → ν e+e−) = F N · |U |2 · C (1 − 14x2 − 2x4 − 12x6) 1 − 4x2 + 12x4(x4 − 1)L(x) a 192π3 aN 1 (13) h i 2 2 4 p 2 4 2 4 + 4C2 x (2 + 10x − 12x ) 1 − 4x + 6x (1 − 2x + 2x )L(x) ,

where x = me/mN , and The decay length of N is then given by

s 2 EN m 1 √ λ = 1 − N 2 2 2 1 − 3x − (1 − x ) 1 − 4x2  mN Eν ΓN L(x) = log √ . (14) x2(1 + 1 − 4x2)  10−2 3 MeV 6 6 (17) ≈ 3.1 · 10 R⊕ 2 |UaN | mN  r 2 2 EN 1 − mN /EN The coefficients C1 and C2 are given in terms of the Wein- × 10 MeV 0.91 berg angle as where the approximation holds in the x → 0 limit of Eq. (13). We have assumed that a 6= e such that we take   1 2 4 the upper signs in Eqs. (15) and (16). Clearly for any C1 = 1 ± 4 sin θW + 8 sin θW (15) 4 reasonable parameter choices relevant for solar neutrino   upscattering we are in the limit where λ  R⊕. 1 2 2 C2 = sin θW 2 sin θW ± 1 , (16) Once the flux of N’s has been calculated the re- 2 sultant spectral shape of positrons and electrons from + − N → νae e could be obtained from a first principles calculation. A proper treatment of the resultant signal with the upper signs (+) corresponding to a = µ and in a detector is relatively involved since the signature a = τ, and the lower (-) signs corresponding to a = e. will depend on the energy of the electron, the energy of the positron, the opening angle between them and detec- + − The probability of an HNL decaying to e e in some tor details. The energy spectrum itself will depend on + − distance `  λ is given by BR(e e )`/λ. In the limit whether the HNL is Dirac or Majorana [13], and on the when λ  R⊕ the decay length will always appear as mass-dependent polarization inherited from the HNL’s BR/λ = λe+e− which is the decay length one would find nascent production in a neutrino upscattering event (see + − if only the e e decay pathway were considered. Since, e.g. [6–8]). We leave these details to future work and for minimal models of HNLs without an augmented dark focus our attention on a rate only analysis. sector, the condition λ  R⊕ is always satisfied, we ig- The rate of deposition of e+e− pairs inside a detector nore invisible decay modes hereafter and use λ and λe+e− from an infinitesimal volume element, d3x, a distance R interchangeably. For non-minimal scenarios that lead to from the detector is given by λ . R⊕ (as in e.g. [29–32] and as is discussed briefly in 3 Z 3 Appendix C) one must include the invisible decay modes d R d ΦN = dE (1 − e−`/λ) e−R/λ . (18) explicitly. dx3 N dx3 4

The flux per-unit volume is given in Eq. (12). We will tiplying by the detector’s cross sectional area, A⊥, and always have `  λ such that 1 − e−`/λ → `/λ. Mul- integrating over x we have

Z 18.8 MeV Z  −R/λ  3 1 e R + − = V dE d x n (x) Φ (E = E )σ (E ) e e det N A 2 νa ν N a N (19) mN ⊕ 4πR λ

V = A ` Φ e+e− with det ⊥ and the solar neutrino flux νa eval- • The directionality of the pair will not have a uated at Eν = EN . We have implicitly assumed that strong correlation with the position of the Sun.

Φν (Eν ) is independent of the position, x, within the mantle, which is a good approximation for solar neutri- • The signal will modulate by an O(1) factor between nos. day and night because Eq. (6) prefers forward scat- tering by an O(1) amount. In the minimal models of HNLs that we focus on here, the decay length is always much much greater than the • The e+e− pair will be coincident in time. radius of the Earth. Taking the density inside the Earth • Spectral shape information can be used to suppress to be constant, nA(x) = nA, the volume integral in backgrounds. This requires an understanding of Eq. (19) simplifies to the HNL polarization and its Dirac vs Majoran na- ture. Z R⊕ R + − = [V n ] dE Φ σ . Such an analysis lies well beyond the scope of this work e e det A N νa a (20) mN 2λ and we focus here, instead, on a simple rate-only esti- mate. We focus on the time averaged rate (justifying our treatment of the scattering as isotropic) taken over a full The decay length, λ, neutrino flux, and upscattering cross year using data from Borexino to set constraints. section are all functions of Eν = EN . + − We use the collaboration’s search for N → e e ν from Equation (21) has been derived assuming a constant HNLs produced in the Sun that decay in flight. Just like density profile throughout the entirety of the Earth, how- in the decay in flight search, for our upscattering sce- ever, as we discuss in Appendix A it can be easily modi- nario the e+e− events from N decay will be uniformly fied to account for the added flux coming from the high distributed throughout the volume of the detector and density core of the Earth. Including the Earth’s core en- we therefore expect the signal yield to be negligibly af- hances the flux of HNLs arriving at the detector by a fected by the collaboration’s cuts on their data in both factor of 2.44 (see Eq. (A7) and discussion thereafter). cases. We therefore consider the observed event rate af- We therefore have ter cuts have been imposed, focusing on the total number of events in 446 days of live time as presented in Fig. 4 Z 2 R⊕ σa of [22]. We see that the collaboration measured roughly R + − = 2.44[VdetnAQ ]mantle dEN Φ . e e w 2λ νa 2 75 events from 4.8 MeV to 12.8 MeV and that the ex- mN Q w pected solar neutrino background from 8B neutrinos was (21) roughly 65 events. The collaboration expected no other This is the main equation we will make use of in setting 11 23 −3 backgrounds but allowed for Be decays as a potential limits. We take Qw = 12.2 and nA = 0.95 · 10 cm . source of contamination. In setting their limits on |UeN | the collaboration allowed the number of 11Be events and the 8B spectrum to float. In the same figure the expected flux from HNLs produced in the Sun that decay in flight 2 −6 IV. NEW CONSTRAINTS ON MASS-MIXING is shown for |UeN | = 8 × 10 . The shown rate corre- sponds to roughly 15 total events which the collaboration later (comfortably) excludes on the basis of a statistical The spectrum of e+e− pairs will lie between roughly a treatment (see Fig. 5 & 6 of the same paper). We there- few MeV and the maximum energy allowed by the solar fore take 15 events in 446 days of runtime with a 100 neutrino flux, roughly 18.8 MeV. A comprehensive treat- tonne fiducial volume as a benchmark rate for limit set- ment would include the anisotropy of the upscattering, ting purposes. the full spectral shape of the e+ and e−, and the corre- To build some intuition about the size of the rates that lations between e+ and e− pairs. This would lead to the we are considering, it is convenient to re-express Eq. (21) following phenomenological signatures in terms of benchmark parameters 5

  2 6 4  Z 18.8 MeV  2 2   Φ (E )  −1 VdetnA Qw mN |UaN | 3 − mN /EN EN νa N Re+e− = 0.17 yr 31 −4 dEN 8 2 −1 , (22) 10 12 3 MeV 10 mN 2.91 10 MeV 10 cm s

� which is valid in the x → 0 limit where x = me/mN .

In setting our limits we include the full x dependence ���� → of Eq. (13) as a prefactor multiplying Eq. (22). This UeN =UμN=0 suppresses the decay close to the e+e− threshold, and BBN becomes an O(1) prefactor for mN 2 MeV. & �

The rates are very small and for allowed values of mix- ���� τ � →

ing with first- and second-generation leptons, they yield | � signals that are entirely unobservable. Mixing with third ���� �����

generation leptons, i.e. UeN = UµN = 0 and UτN 6= 0, is almost completely devoid of existing constraints at low �������� �� ������ �� ��� ���� → HNL masses. The only notable constraint comes from mN 10 ���� the CHARM collaboration [33], and below . MeV � � �� there are no constraints at all. The solar neutrino flux �� [���] contains a sizeable ντ component, and so we find that up- scattered solar neutrinos can provide novel constraints on FIG. 3. Parameter space that would lead to greater than 15 (and possibly lead to future discoveries of) mass-mixing expected events in the Borexino 100 tonne fiducial volume in with third generation leptons. We show our results in 446 days of run time. Constraints from the CHARM collab- Fig. 3. oration [33] are shown as a solid line. Constraints from BBN Given that solar neutrino upscattering naturally [34] are shown as a dotted line, with the region being pointed probes parameter space with very long decay lifetimes, to by the black arrows being excluded. One sees that solar it is interesting to ask whether the parameter space of neutrino upscattering complements bounds from cosmology interest is compatible with cosmological bounds. Sur- and the CHARM collaboration. prisingly, because the mixing angle that Borexino is able to probe are relatively sizeable, lifetimes are sufficiently short such that Borexino is able to provide novel con- V. CONCLUSIONS straints on parameter space that is untouched by either existing data from accelerator experiments or analyses of The volume of the Earth can serve as a powerful re- big bang nucleosynthesis (BBN). To see this explicitly we source for upscattering astrophysical particles that, if have included the bounds derived in Fig. 10 of [34] for they are long lived but unstable, can leave visible im- comparison in Fig. 3. prints in large volume detectors. In this work we have shown that even in regimes where signal rates are low (be- cause of prohibitively long decay lengths) new insights on well motivated BSM models can be gleaned. The pres- ence of (otherwise hard to come by) tau-neutrinos makes even the modest signal yields from ντ → N a valuable tool in the study of HNL physics. The reason that the signal yields turned out to be so small is primarily due to the fact that at low energies HNLs have enormously long decay lengths, six orders of magnitude larger than the radius of the Earth. These dis- tances are comparable to the distance between the Earth and the Sun, and this fact is what allowed Borexino to obtain strong constraints on νe −N mixing [22]. Because the neutrinos participating in nuclear reactions inside the sun are electron flavor eigenstates, no such constraints could be placed on ντ − N mixing by considering decay in flight decays of HNLs produced in the Sun. In contrast we make use the oscillated flux arriving at earth which has νe, νµ and ντ components. Much larger signal yields can be easily imagined in models with an interacting dark sector. For example, if the N couples to some Z0, then N → Z0ν followed by Z0 → e+e− could yield a decay length λ0 that is compa- 6 rable to or smaller than the size of the Earth. In such Molecule. n[1022 cm−3]ΣN 2 n × ΣN 2[1024 cm−3] scenarios, there is no R⊕/λ suppression and the signal 2 4 would scale as |UaN | rather than |UaN | ; the rate would SiO2 1.81 324 5.85 6 also cease to carry a steep mN dependence on the mass MgO 2.33 208 4.85 of the HNL. Investigations into, and motivations of, such FeO 0.28 964 2.66 non-minimal scenarios are beyond the scope of this work, CaO 0.14 464 0.64 however these basic qualitative ideas should be kept in mind for the interested phenomenologist. Cr2O3 0.01 1760 0.16 Searching for signals of new physics emanating out of NiO 0.01 1025 0.08 the Earth’s mantle is a relatively unexplored idea. A lit- erature exists on luminous dark matter [35–38] and this Eff. Avg. 0.951 150.8 1.43 paper’s companion [23] discusses neutrino dipole portals. Fe 12.05 900 100 We have so far, however, constrained ourselves only to the solar neutrino flux. Higher energy components of O 3.91 64 2.48 the astrophysical neutrino flux may be relevant in higher Eff. Avg. 13.9 795.2 111 mass regions of the HNL parameter space where light- meson constraints, such as those stemming from π → eν, TABLE I. Above double-rule: Mantle composition calculated become inapplicable [20]. A broadening physics case for using Table 3. of [39] and a density of ρ = 4 g/cm3. Elements such signals of “luminous” physics emanating from the in- 19 −3 with ni ≤ 7 · 10 cm are omitted. Below double-rule: Core terior of the Earth further motivates dedicated searches composition assuming the core is 90% iron and 10% oxygen at large volume detectors, and a comprehensive experi- with a density of ρ = 13.5g/cm3. In all cases the neutron mental search strategy. number is calculated using each element’s most commonly occurring isotope.

VI. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS as having a uniform density of 13 g/cm3 and a composi- tion that is 90% 56Fe by mass and 10% 16O by mass. I would like to thank Joachim Kopp, Vedran Br- For the mantle we take a density of ρ = 4 g/cm3. dar, Kevin Kelly, Pedro Machado, Gordan Krnjaic, and The elemental composition of the Earth’s mantle is given Volodymyr Takhistov for helpful discussions. I would es- in Table 3. of [39]. We use the DMM column, which pecially like to thank Matheus Hostert for pointing out gives the mass percentage by molecular compound and Ref. [22] to me during the Snowmass Mini Workshop on the numerical values are summarized in Table I. We are Neutrino Theory and and Patrick Fox for helpful feed- ultimately interested in back on early versions of this manuscript. I would like to thank the Fermilab theory group for their hospitality 2 X hX 2 i nAQw = ni Qw (A1) i and welcoming research atmosphere. My visit at Fermi- i lab was supported with funds from the Intensity Fron- 2 tier Fellowship. This work was supported by the U.S. where the bracketed sum is adding up Qw within the Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of High atoms of each molecular compound. The quantity Qw Energy Physics, under Award Number DE-SC0019095. is the charge of the weak charge of the nucleus. We This manuscript has been authored by Fermi Research neglect the proton contribution due to its small charge 2 Alliance, LLC under Contract No. DE-AC02-07CH11359 1 − 4 sin θw ≈ 0. We therefore approximate Qw ≈ N. with the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, The number densities can be re-expressed in terms of Office of High Energy Physics. the mantle density via ρ ni = fm (A2) m Appendix A: Effective composition of the Earth i

where fm is the mass fraction given in Table 3. of [39] 2 In [23] the flux of solar neutrinos only encounters the (Bulk DMM). We can define Qw via core of the Earth at certain times of the year. In con- trast, a mass-mixing portal’s isotropic upscattering and hN 2i Q := , (A3) very long decay lengths ensures that the Earth’s core al- w hNi ways contributes to the upscattering. Unlike in [23], we therefore include the core of the Earth in our discussion. which is a density independent definition. The effective As a simple model of the Earth’s composition we as- number density is then defined as sume the core to be composed of a uniform density sphere P P 2 ni N of radius Rcore = 0.5R⊕, and the rest of its volume to i i nA = 2 . (A4) composed of uniform density mantle. We treat the core Qw 7

The same basic formulae apply also to the core. sub-dominant to the pp and hence not visible. We treat To incorporate the core and mantle together we can the. pep and 7Be lines as Gaussians with a width of 10 consider the following integrals keV.

Z 1 −R/λ 2 3 λ e I1 = [nAQw]core d x 2 (A5) Appendix C: Shorter decay lengths core 4πR Z 1 e−R/λ 2 3 λ In non-minimal models (see e.g. [29–32]) of HNLs I2 = [nAQw]mantle d x 2 (A6) mantle 4πR where there are substantial branching ratios to short- lived Z0s (for example), which then decay primarily into 2 + − This then defines an effective value of nAQw via e e pairs, the decay length may be comparable to, or shorter than, the radius of the Earth. In this case a 2 I1 + I2 proper accounting for the integral Eq. (19) is needed. In [nAQ ]eff = (A7) w 1 R 3 e−R/λ these cases, for a surface level detector we find λ ⊕ d x 4πR2 Z 1 −R/λ    e λ 2R⊕ We find that for the composition model in Table I that d3x λ = e−2R⊕/λ − 1 − , 2 2 2 ⊕ 4πR 4R⊕ λ [nAQw]eff = 2.44[nAQw]mantle and we include this en- hancement from the core in our results. (C1) with R = |xdet − x|. For λ  R⊕ we find that the in- tegral is independent of λ because the small probability of decaying inside the detector is compensated for by a Appendix B: Solar Neutrino Flux larger number of upscattering targets lying within one de- cay length of the detector. In these scenarios, the proper For completeness we describe our input solar neutrino decay length must be used and the branching factor ac- flux. This is most easily summarized in visual form in counted for since the assumptions outlined in footnote 2 Fig. 4. The 7Be line at 384 keV has been included but is are broken.

[1] Carlos Argüelles, Pilar Coloma, Pilar Hernández, and ph]. Víctor Muñoz, “Searches for Atmospheric Long-Lived [10] Marco Drewes, “The Phenomenology of Right Handed Particles,” JHEP 02, 190 (2020), arXiv:1910.12839 [hep- Neutrinos,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 22, 1330019 (2013), ph]. arXiv:1303.6912 [hep-ph]. [2] D. Liventsev et al. (Belle), “Search for heavy neutrinos [11] Kyrylo Bondarenko, Alexey Boyarsky, Dmitry Gor- at Belle,” Phys. Rev. D 87, 071102 (2013), [Erratum: bunov, and Oleg Ruchayskiy, “Phenomenology of GeV- Phys.Rev.D 95, 099903 (2017)], arXiv:1301.1105 [hep-ex]. scale Heavy Neutral Leptons,” JHEP 11, 032 (2018), [3] Takehiko Asaka and Mikhail Shaposhnikov, “The νMSM, arXiv:1805.08567 [hep-ph]. dark matter and baryon asymmetry of the universe,” [12] Alexey Boyarsky, Oleg Ruchayskiy, and Mikhail Sha- Phys. Lett. B 620, 17–26 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0505013. poshnikov, “The Role of sterile neutrinos in cosmology [4] Takehiko Asaka, Steve Blanchet, and Mikhail Sha- and astrophysics,” Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 59, 191– poshnikov, “The nuMSM, dark matter and neutrino 214 (2009), arXiv:0901.0011 [hep-ph]. masses,” Phys. Lett. B 631, 151–156 (2005), arXiv:hep- ph/0503065. [5] Anupama Atre, Tao Han, Silvia Pascoli, and Bin Zhang, �� “The Search for Heavy Majorana Neutrinos,” JHEP 05, ] �� 030 (2009), arXiv:0901.3589 [hep-ph]. - �

[6] Loretta M. Johnson, Douglas W. McKay, and Tim ��� ��� - �

Bolton, “Extending sensitivity for low mass neutral heavy � - � lepton searches,” Phys. Rev. D 56, 2970–2981 (1997), ��� arXiv:hep-ph/9703333.

[7] Jean-Michel Levy (T2K), “Rates and differential distri- ��� butions in heavy neutral leptons production and decays,”

(2018), arXiv:1805.06419 [hep-ph]. ����

[8] Joseph A. Formaggio, Janet M. Conrad, Michael Shae- [ �� ���� � �� ����

vitz, Artur Vaitaitis, and Robert Drucker, “Helicity ef- �� fects in neutral heavy lepton decays,” Phys. Rev. D 57, ��� ��� � � �� 7037–7040 (1998). �ν [���] [9] Dmitry Gorbunov and Mikhail Shaposhnikov, “How to find neutral leptons of the νMSM?” JHEP 10, 015 (2007), FIG. 4. Solar neutrino flux. Shapes are taken from [40] and [Erratum: JHEP 11, 101 (2013)], arXiv:0705.1729 [hep- normalizations from Tab. 2 of [37] (AGSS09 [41]). 8

[13] Jeffrey M. Berryman, Andre de Gouvea, Patrick J [27] Roni Harnik, Joachim Kopp, and Pedro A.N. Machado, Fox, Boris Jules Kayser, Kevin James Kelly, and Jen- “Exploring nu Signals in Dark Matter Detectors,” JCAP nifer Lynne Raaf, “Searches for Decays of New Particles 07, 026 (2012), arXiv:1202.6073 [hep-ph]. in the DUNE Multi-Purpose Near Detector,” JHEP 02, [28] Vedran Brdar, Private communication. 174 (2020), arXiv:1912.07622 [hep-ph]. [29] Peter Ballett, Matheus Hostert, and Silvia Pascoli, [14] Peter Ballett, Tommaso Boschi, and Silvia Pas- “Dark Neutrinos and a Three Portal Connection to the coli, “Heavy Neutral Leptons from low-scale seesaws Standard Model,” Phys. Rev. D 101, 115025 (2020), at the DUNE Near Detector,” JHEP 03, 111 (2020), arXiv:1903.07589 [hep-ph]. arXiv:1905.00284 [hep-ph]. [30] Enrico Bertuzzo, Sudip Jana, Pedro A.N. Machado, [15] David Curtin et al., “Long-Lived Particles at the Energy and Renata Zukanovich Funchal, “Dark Neutrino Portal Frontier: The MATHUSLA Physics Case,” Rept. Prog. to Explain MiniBooNE excess,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, Phys. 82, 116201 (2019), arXiv:1806.07396 [hep-ph]. 241801 (2018), arXiv:1807.09877 [hep-ph]. [16] C. Ahdida et al. (SHiP), “Sensitivity of the SHiP exper- [31] Valentina De Romeri, Kevin J. Kelly, and Pe- iment to Heavy Neutral Leptons,” JHEP 04, 077 (2019), dro A.N. Machado, “DUNE-PRISM Sensitivity to Light arXiv:1811.00930 [hep-ph]. Dark Matter,” Phys. Rev. D 100, 095010 (2019), [17] Felix Kling and Sebastian Trojanowski, “Heavy Neutral arXiv:1903.10505 [hep-ph]. Leptons at FASER,” Phys. Rev. D 97, 095016 (2018), [32] Carlos A. Arguelles, Matheus Hostert, Pedro A.N. arXiv:1801.08947 [hep-ph]. Machado, Silvia Pascoli, et al., “Opportunities and signa- [18] Martin Hirsch and Zeren Simon Wang, “Heavy neutral tures of non-minimal heavy neutral leptons,” Snowmass leptons at ANUBIS,” Phys. Rev. D 101, 055034 (2020), LOI NF2:15, available at https://www.snowmass21.org/ arXiv:2001.04750 [hep-ph]. neutrino/sterile/start#submitted_loi. [19] Brian Batell, Maxim Pospelov, and Adam Ritz, “Explor- [33] J. Orloff, Alexandre N. Rozanov, and C. Santoni, “Limits ing Portals to a Hidden Sector Through Fixed Targets,” on the mixing of tau neutrino to heavy neutrinos,” Phys. Phys. Rev. D 80, 095024 (2009), arXiv:0906.5614 [hep- Lett. B 550, 8–15 (2002), arXiv:hep-ph/0208075. ph]. [34] Nashwan Sabti, Andrii Magalich, and Anastasiia Fil- [20] André de Gouvêa and Andrew Kobach, “Global Con- imonova, “An Extended Analysis of Heavy Neutral Lep- straints on a Heavy Neutrino,” Phys. Rev. D 93, 033005 tons during Big Bang Nucleosynthesis,” JCAP 11, 056 (2016), arXiv:1511.00683 [hep-ph]. (2020), arXiv:2006.07387 [hep-ph]. [21] Jonathan L. Feng, Iftah Galon, Felix Kling, and Sebas- [35] Brian Feldstein, Peter W. Graham, and Surjeet Rajen- tian Trojanowski, “ForwArd Search ExpeRiment at the dran, “Luminous Dark Matter,” Phys. Rev. D 82, 075019 LHC,” Phys. Rev. D 97, 035001 (2018), arXiv:1708.09389 (2010), arXiv:1008.1988 [hep-ph]. [hep-ph]. [36] Maxim Pospelov, Neal Weiner, and Itay Yavin, “Dark [22] G. Bellini et al. (Borexino), “New limits on heavy ster- matter detection in two easy steps,” Phys. Rev. D 89, ile neutrino mixing in B8 decay obtained with the 055008 (2014), arXiv:1312.1363 [hep-ph]. Borexino detector,” Phys. Rev. D 88, 072010 (2013), [37] Aldo M. Serenelli, W. C. Haxton, and Carlos Pena- arXiv:1311.5347 [hep-ex]. Garay, “Solar models with accretion. I. Application to the [23] Ryan Plestid, “Luminous solar neutrinos I: Dipole por- solar abundance problem,” Astrophys. J. 743, 24 (2011), tals,” (2020), arXiv:2010.04193 [hep-ph]. arXiv:1104.1639 [astro-ph.SR]. [24] Gabriel Magill, Ryan Plestid, Maxim Pospelov, and [38] Joshua Eby, Patrick J. Fox, Roni Harnik, and Gra- Yu-Dai Tsai, “Dipole Portal to Heavy Neutral Leptons,” ham D. Kribs, “Luminous Signals of Inelastic Dark Phys. Rev. D 98, 115015 (2018), arXiv:1803.03262 [hep- Matter in Large Detectors,” JHEP 09, 115 (2019), ph]. arXiv:1904.09994 [hep-ph]. [25] Vedran Brdar, Admir Greljo, Joachim Kopp, and Toby [39] Rhea K. Workman and Stanley R. Hart, “Major and Opferkuch, “The Neutrino Magnetic Moment Portal: trace element composition of the depleted morb mantle Cosmology, Astrophysics, and Direct Detection,” (2020), (dmm),” Earth and Planetary Science Letters 231, 53 – arXiv:2007.15563 [hep-ph]. 72 (2005). [26] Evgeny K. Akhmedov, M.A. Tortola, and J.W.F. Valle, [40] J. Bahcall, “Software and data for solar neutrino re- “A Simple analytic three flavor description of the day search,” Available at http://www.sns.ias.edu/~jnb/ night effect in the solar neutrino flux,” JHEP 05, 057 SNdata/sndata.html (2020/09/05). (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0404083. [41] Martin Asplund, Nicolas Grevesse, A. Jacques Sauval, and Pat Scott, “The chemical composition of the Sun,” Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 47, 481–522 (2009), arXiv:0909.0948 [astro-ph.SR].