Paper detail

Statistical significance of the sterile-neutrino hypothesis in the context of reactor and gallium data

We evaluate the statistical significance of the 3+1 sterile-neutrino hypothesis using $ν_e$ and $\barν_e$ disappearance data from reactor, solar and gallium radioactive source experiments. Concerning the latter, we investigate the implications of the recent BEST results. For reactor data we focus on relative measurements independent of flux predictions. For the problem at hand, the usual $χ^2$-approximation to hypothesis testing based on Wilks' theorem has been shown in the literature to be inaccurate. We therefore present results based on Monte Carlo simulations, and find that this typically reduces the significance by roughly $1\,σ$ with respect to the naïve expectation. We find no significant indication in favor of sterile-neutrino oscillations from reactor data. On the other hand, gallium data (dominated by the BEST result) show more than $5\,σ$ of evidence supporting the sterile-neutrino hypothesis, favoring oscillation parameters in agreement with constraints from reactor data. This explanation is, however, in significant tension ($\sim 3\,σ$) with solar neutrino experiments. In order to assess the robustness of the signal for gallium experiments we present a discussion of the impact of cross-section uncertainties on the results.

preprint2022arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access5 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.