Paper detail

Statistical Evaluation of Experimental Determinations of Neutrino Mass Hierarchy

Statistical methods of presenting experimental results in constraining the neutrino mass hierarchy (MH) are discussed. Two problems are considered and are related to each other: how to report the findings for observed experimental data, and how to evaluate the ability of a future experiment to determine the neutrino mass hierarchy, namely, sensitivity of the experiment. For the first problem where experimental data have already been observed, the classical statistical analysis involves constructing confidence intervals for the parameter Δm^2_{32}. These intervals are deduced from the parent distribution of the estimation of Δm^2_{32} based on experimental data. Due to existing experimental constraints on |Δm^2_{32}|, the estimation of Δm^2_{32} is better approximated by a Bernoulli distribution (a Binomial distribution with 1 trial) rather than a Gaussian distribution. Therefore, the Feldman-Cousins approach needs to be used instead of the Gaussian approximation in constructing confidence intervals. Furthermore, as a result of the definition of confidence intervals, even if it is correctly constructed, its confidence level does not directly reflect how much one hypothesis of the MH is supported by the data rather than the other hypothesis. We thus describe a Bayesian approach that quantifies the evidence provided by the observed experimental data through the (posterior) probability that either one hypothesis of MH is true. This Bayesian presentation of observed experimental results is then used to develop several metrics to assess the sensitivity of future experiments. Illustrations are made using a simple example with a confined parameter space, which approximates the MH determination problem with experimental constraints on the |Δm^2_{32}|.

preprint2012arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access6 authors3 topics

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 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.