Paper detail

Requirements on common solutions to the LSND and MiniBooNE excesses: a post-MicroBooNE study

The strong statistical significance of an observed electron-like event excess in the MiniBooNE (MB) experiment, along with an earlier similar excess seen in the Liquid Scintillator Neutrino Detector (LSND), when interpreted in conjunction with recent MicroBooNE results may have brought us to the cusp of new physics discoveries. This has led to many attempts to understand these observations, both for each experiment individually and in conjunction, via physics beyond the Standard Model (SM). We provide an overview of the current situation, and discuss three major categories under which the many proposals for new physics fall. The possibility that the same new, non-oscillation physics explains both anomalies leads to new restrictions and requirements. An important class of such common solutions, which we focus on in this work, consists of a heavy ${\cal O}$(MeV$-$sub-GeV) sterile neutral fermion produced in the detectors, (via up-scattering of the incoming muon neutrinos), and subsequently decaying to photons or $e^+e^-$ pairs which mimic the observed signals. Such solutions are subject to strong demands from a) cross section requirements which would yield a sufficient number of total events in both LSND and MB, b) requirements imposed by the measured energy and angular distributions in both experiments and finally, c) consistency and compatibility of the new physics model and its particle content with other bounds from a diverse swathe of particle physics experiments. We find that these criteria often pull proposed solutions in different directions, and stringently limit the viable set of proposals which could resolve both anomalies. Our conclusions are relevant for both the general search for new physics and for the ongoing observations and analyses of the MicroBooNE experiment.

preprint2022arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.