Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Search
2000 character limit reached

Confronting solutions of the Gallium Anomaly with reactor rate data

Published 1 Dec 2023 in hep-ph and hep-ex | (2312.00565v1)

Abstract: Recently, several models have been suggested to reduce the tension between Gallium and reactor antineutrino spectral ratio data which is found in the framework of 3+1 active-sterile neutrino mixing. Among these models, we consider the extensions of 3+1 mixing with a finite wavepacket size, or the decay of the heaviest neutrino $\nu_4$, or the possibility to have a broad $\nu_4$ mass distribution. We consider the reactor antineutrino rate data and we show that these models cannot liminate the tension between Gallium and reactor rate data that is found in the 3+1 neutrino mixing framework. Indeed, we show that the parameter goodness of fit remains small. We consider also a model which explains the Gallium Anomaly with non-standard decoherence in the framework of three-neutrino mixing. We find that it is compatible with the reactor rate data.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (53)
  1. Particle Data Group Collaboration, R. L. Workman et al., “Review of Particle Physics,” PTEP 2022 (2022) 083C01.
  2. P. F. de Salas, D. V. Forero, S. Gariazzo, P. Martinez-Mirave, O. Mena, C. A. Ternes, M. Tortola, and J. W. F. Valle, “2020 Global reassessment of the neutrino oscillation picture,” JHEP 2021 (2020) 071, arXiv:2006.11237 [hep-ph].
  3. I. Esteban, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, M. Maltoni, T. Schwetz, and A. Zhou, “The fate of hints: updated global analysis of three-flavor neutrino oscillations,” JHEP 09 (2020) 178, arXiv:2007.14792 [hep-ph].
  4. F. Capozzi, E. Di Valentino, E. Lisi, A. Marrone, A. Melchiorri, and A. Palazzo, “The unfinished fabric of the three neutrino paradigm,” Phys.Rev.D 104 (7, 2021) 083031, arXiv:2107.00532 [hep-ph].
  5. M. A. Acero et al., “White Paper on Light Sterile Neutrino Searches and Related Phenomenology,” arXiv:2203.07323 [hep-ex].
  6. S. R. Elliott, V. Gavrin, and W. Haxton, “The Gallium Anomaly,” arXiv:2306.03299 [nucl-ex].
  7. C. Zhang, X. Qian, and M. Fallot, “Reactor antineutrino flux and anomaly,” arXiv:2310.13070 [hep-ph].
  8. ALEPH, DELPHI, L3, OPAL, SLD, LEP Electroweak Working Group, SLD Electroweak Group, SLD Heavy Flavour Group Collaboration, S. Schael et al., “Precision electroweak measurements on the Z resonance,” Phys. Rept. 427 (2006) 257, hep-ex/0509008.
  9. GALLEX Collaboration, W. Hampel et al., “Final results of the Cr-51 neutrino source experiments in GALLEX,” Phys. Lett. B420 (1998) 114–126.
  10. F. Kaether, W. Hampel, G. Heusser, J. Kiko, and T. Kirsten, “Reanalysis of the GALLEX solar neutrino flux and source experiments,” Phys. Lett. B685 (2010) 47–54, arXiv:1001.2731 [hep-ex].
  11. SAGE Collaboration, J. N. Abdurashitov et al., “Measurement of the response of a Ga solar neutrino experiment to neutrinos from an Ar-37 source,” Phys. Rev. C73 (2006) 045805, nucl-ex/0512041.
  12. SAGE Collaboration, J. N. Abdurashitov et al., “Measurement of the solar neutrino capture rate with Gallium metal, Part III,” Phys. Rev. C80 (2009) 015807, arXiv:0901.2200 [nucl-ex].
  13. BEST Collaboration, V. V. Barinov et al., “Results from the Baksan Experiment on Sterile Transitions (BEST),” Phys.Rev.Lett. 128 (2022) 232501, arXiv:2109.11482 [nucl-ex].
  14. BEST Collaboration, V. V. Barinov et al., “A Search for Electron Neutrino Transitions to Sterile States in the BEST Experiment,” Phys.Rev.C 105 (2022) 065502, arXiv:2201.07364 [nucl-ex].
  15. C. Giunti, Y. F. Li, C. A. Ternes, O. Tyagi, and Z. Xin, “Gallium Anomaly: Critical View from the Global Picture of νesubscript𝜈𝑒\nu_{e}italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and ν¯esubscript¯𝜈𝑒\bar{\nu}_{e}over¯ start_ARG italic_ν end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e end_POSTSUBSCRIPT Disappearance,” JHEP 10 (9, 2022) 164, arXiv:2209.00916 [hep-ph].
  16. C. A. Argüelles, T. Bertólez-Martínez, and J. Salvado, “Impact of wave packet separation in low-energy sterile neutrino searches,” Phys. Rev. D 107 no. 3, (2023) 036004, arXiv:2201.05108 [hep-ph].
  17. J. M. Hardin, I. Martinez-Soler, A. Diaz, M. Jin, M. W. Kamp, C. A. Arguelles, J. M. Conrad, and M. H. Shaevitz, “New Clues About Light Sterile Neutrinos: Preference for Models with Damping Effects in Global Fits,” JHEP 09 (11, 2023) 058, arXiv:2211.02610 [hep-ph].
  18. H. Banks, K. J. Kelly, M. McCullough, and T. Zhou, “Broad Sterile Neutrinos & the Reactor/Gallium Tension,” arXiv:2311.06352 [hep-ph].
  19. NEOS Collaboration, Y. J. Ko et al., “A sterile neutrino search at NEOS Experiment,” Phys.Rev.Lett. 118 (2017) 121802, arXiv:1610.05134 [hep-ex].
  20. RENO, NEOS Collaboration, Z. Atif et al., “Search for sterile neutrino oscillations using RENO and NEOS data,” Phys. Rev. D 105 no. 11, (2022) L111101, arXiv:2011.00896 [hep-ex].
  21. DANSS Collaboration, I. Alekseev et al., “Search for sterile neutrinos at the DANSS experiment,” Phys.Lett. B787 (2018) 56–63, arXiv:1804.04046 [hep-ex].
  22. M. Danilov, “New Results from the DANSS Experiment,”. Talk presented at ICHEP 2022, 41th International Conference on High Energy Physics, 6-13 July 2022, Bologna, Italy.
  23. PROSPECT Collaboration, J. Ashenfelter et al., “First search for short-baseline neutrino oscillations at HFIR with PROSPECT,” Phys.Rev.Lett. 121 (2018) 251802, arXiv:1806.02784 [hep-ex].
  24. PROSPECT Collaboration, M. Andriamirado et al., “Improved Short-Baseline Neutrino Oscillation Search and Energy Spectrum Measurement with the PROSPECT Experiment at HFIR,” Phys.Rev. D103 (6, 2021) 032001, arXiv:2006.11210 [hep-ex].
  25. STEREO Collaboration, H. Almazan et al., “Sterile neutrino exclusion from the STEREO experiment with 66 days of reactor-on data,” Phys.Rev.Lett. 121 (2018) 161801, arXiv:1806.02096 [hep-ex].
  26. STEREO Collaboration, H. A. Molina et al., “Improved Sterile Neutrino Constraints from the STEREO Experiment with 179 Days of Reactor-On Data,” Phys.Rev. D102 (2020) 052002, arXiv:1912.06582 [hep-ex].
  27. C. Giunti, Y. F. Li, C. A. Ternes, and Z. Xin, “Reactor antineutrino anomaly in light of recent flux model refinements,” Phys.Lett.B 829 (2022) 137054, arXiv:2110.06820 [hep-ph].
  28. P. Huber, “On the determination of anti-neutrino spectra from nuclear reactors,” Phys. Rev. C84 (2011) 024617, arXiv:1106.0687 [hep-ph].
  29. T. A. Mueller et al., “Improved Predictions of Reactor Antineutrino Spectra,” Phys. Rev. C83 (2011) 054615, arXiv:1101.2663 [hep-ex].
  30. G. Mention et al., “The Reactor Antineutrino Anomaly,” Phys. Rev. D83 (2011) 073006, arXiv:1101.2755 [hep-ex].
  31. M. Estienne, M. Fallot, et al., “Updated Summation Model: An Improved Agreement with the Daya Bay Antineutrino Fluxes,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 123 no. 2, (2019) 022502, arXiv:1904.09358 [nucl-ex].
  32. L. Perissé, A. Onillon, X. Mougeot, M. Vivier, T. Lasserre, A. Letourneau, D. Lhuillier, and G. Mention, “A comprehensive revision of the summation method for the prediction of reactor antineutrino fluxes and spectra,” arXiv:2304.14992 [nucl-ex].
  33. V. Kopeikin, M. Skorokhvatov, and O. Titov, “Reevaluating reactor antineutrino spectra with new measurements of the ratio between 235235{}^{235}start_FLOATSUPERSCRIPT 235 end_FLOATSUPERSCRIPTU and 239239{}^{239}start_FLOATSUPERSCRIPT 239 end_FLOATSUPERSCRIPTPu β𝛽\betaitalic_β spectra,” Phys.Rev.D 104 (2021) L071301, arXiv:2103.01684 [nucl-ex].
  34. J. M. Berryman and P. Huber, “Sterile Neutrinos and the Global Reactor Antineutrino Dataset,” JHEP 2101 (2021) 167, arXiv:2005.01756 [hep-ph].
  35. Y. Farzan and T. Schwetz, “A decoherence explanation of the gallium neutrino anomaly,” arXiv:2306.09422 [hep-ph].
  36. E. Akhmedov and A. Y. Smirnov, “Damping of neutrino oscillations, decoherence and the lengths of neutrino wave packets,” JHEP 11 (2022) 082, arXiv:2208.03736 [hep-ph].
  37. A. de Gouvea, V. de Romeri, and C. A. Ternes, “Probing neutrino quantum decoherence at reactor experiments,” JHEP 08 (2020) 018, arXiv:2005.03022 [hep-ph].
  38. A. de Gouvêa, V. De Romeri, and C. A. Ternes, “Combined analysis of neutrino decoherence at reactor experiments,” JHEP 06 (2021) 042, arXiv:2104.05806 [hep-ph].
  39. J. N. Bahcall, “Gallium solar neutrino experiments: Absorption cross-sections, neutrino spectra, and predicted event rates,” Phys. Rev. C 56 (1997) 3391–3409, arXiv:hep-ph/9710491.
  40. M. Maltoni and T. Schwetz, “Testing the statistical compatibility of independent data sets,” Phys. Rev. D 68 (2003) 033020, arXiv:hep-ph/0304176.
  41. H. Banks, K. J. Kelly, and M. McCullough, “How broad is a neutrino?,” JHEP 02 (2023) 136, arXiv:2209.11270 [hep-ph].
  42. E. Lisi, A. Marrone, and D. Montanino, “Probing possible decoherence effects in atmospheric neutrino oscillations,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 85 (2000) 1166–1169, hep-ph/0002053.
  43. G. L. Fogli et al., “Probing non-standard decoherence effects with solar and KamLAND neutrinos,” Phys. Rev. D76 (2007) 033006, arXiv:0704.2568.
  44. P. Coloma, J. Lopez-Pavon, I. Martinez-Soler, and H. Nunokawa, “Decoherence in neutrino propagation through matter, and bounds from IceCube/DeepCore,” Eur.Phys.J. C78 (2018) 614, arXiv:1803.04438 [hep-ph].
  45. M. M. Guzzo, P. C. de Holanda, and R. L. N. Oliveira, “Quantum Dissipation in a Neutrino System Propagating in Vacuum and in Matter,” Nucl. Phys. B 908 (2016) 408–422, arXiv:1408.0823 [hep-ph].
  46. J. C. Carrasco, F. N. Diaz, and A. M. Gago, “Probing CPT breaking induced by quantum decoherence at DUNE,” Phys.Rev. D99 (2019) 075022, arXiv:1811.04982 [hep-ph].
  47. A. L. G. Gomes, R. A. Gomes, and O. L. G. Peres, “Quantum decoherence and relaxation in neutrinos using long-baseline data,” JHEP 10 (2023) 035, arXiv:2001.09250 [hep-ph].
  48. T. Stuttard and M. Jensen, “Neutrino decoherence from quantum gravitational stochastic perturbations,” Phys.Rev. D102 (2020) 115003, arXiv:2007.00068 [hep-ph].
  49. V. De Romeri, C. Giunti, T. Stuttard, and C. A. Ternes, “Neutrino oscillation bounds on quantum decoherence,” JHEP 09 (2023) 097, arXiv:2306.14699 [hep-ph].
  50. D. V. Forero, C. Giunti, C. A. Ternes, and O. Tyagi, “Large extra dimensions and neutrino experiments,” Phys. Rev. D 106 no. 3, (2022) 035027, arXiv:2207.02790 [hep-ph].
  51. C. Giunti, Y. F. Li, C. A. Ternes, and Z. Xin, “Inspection of the detection cross section dependence of the Gallium Anomaly,” Phys. Lett. B 842 (2023) 137983, arXiv:2212.09722 [hep-ph].
  52. V. Brdar, J. Gehrlein, and J. Kopp, “Towards resolving the gallium anomaly,” JHEP 05 (2023) 143, arXiv:2303.05528 [hep-ph].
  53. J. I. Collar and S. G. Yoon, “New measurements of Ge71 decay: Impact on the gallium anomaly,” Phys. Rev. C 108 no. 2, (2023) L021602, arXiv:2307.05353 [nucl-ex].
Citations (3)
View on Semantic Scholar

Summary

No one has generated a summary of this paper yet.

Sign Up to Summarize

Paper to Video (Beta)

No one has generated a video about this paper yet.

Sign Up to Generate All Videos Subscribe on YouTube

Whiteboard

No one has generated a whiteboard explanation for this paper yet.

Sign Up to Generate

Open Problems

We haven't generated a list of open problems mentioned in this paper yet.

Generate Now

Continue Learning

We haven't generated follow-up questions for this paper yet.

Generate Now

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.

Sign Up