Paper detail

The minimal 3+2 neutrino model versus oscillation anomalies

We study the constraints imposed by neutrino oscillation experiments on the minimal extension of the Standard Model that can explain neutrino masses, which requires the addition of just two singlet Weyl fermions. The most general renormalizable couplings of this model imply generically four massive neutrino mass eigenstates while one remains massless: it is therefore a minimal 3+2 model. The possibility to account for the confirmed solar, atmospheric and long-baseline oscillations, together with the LSND/MiniBooNE and reactor anomalies is addressed. We find that the minimal model can fit oscillation data including the anomalies better than the standard $3ν$ model and similarly to the 3+2 phenomenological models, even though the number of free parameters is much smaller than in the latter. Accounting for the anomalies in the minimal model favours a normal hierarchy of the light states and requires a large reactor angle, in agreement with recent measurements. Our analysis of the model employs a new parametrization of seesaw models that extends the Casas-Ibarra one to regimes where higher order corrections in the light-heavy mixings are significant.

preprint2012arXivOpen 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.