Paper detail

Revisiting the 'LSND anomaly' II: critique of the data analysis

This paper, together with a preceding paper, questions the so-called 'LSND anomaly': a 3.8 sigma excess of antielectronneutrino interactions over standard backgrounds, observed by the LSND Collaboration in a beam dump experiment with 800 MeV protons. That excess has been interpreted as evidence for the antimuonneutrino to antielectronneutrino oscillation in the \Deltam2 range from 0.2 eV2 to 2 eV2. Such a \Deltam2 range is incompatible with the widely accepted model of oscillations between three light neutrino species and would require the existence of at least one light 'sterile' neutrino. In a preceding paper, it was concluded that the estimates of standard backgrounds must be significantly increased. In this paper, the LSND Collaboration's estimate of the number of antielectronneutrino interactions followed by neutron capture, and of its error, is questioned. The overall conclusion is that the significance of the 'LSND anomaly' is not larger than 2.3 sigma.

preprint2011arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access22 authors1 topic

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.

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 map preview

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.