It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
This article reports global fits of short-baseline neutrino data to oscillation models involving light sterile neutrinos. In the commonly-used 3+1 plane wave model, there is a well-known 4.9σ tension between data sets sensitive to appearance versus disappearance of neutrinos. We find that models that damp the oscillation prediction for the reactor data sets, especially at low energy, substantially improve the fits and reduce the tension. We consider two such scenarios. The first scenario introduces the quantum mechanical wavepacket effect that accounts for the source size in reactor experiments into the 3+1 model. We find that inclusion of the wavepacket effect greatly improves the overall fit compared to a three-neutrino model by ∆χ2/dof = 61.1/4 (7.1σ improvement) with best-fit ∆m2 = 1.4 eV2 and wavepacket length of 67 fm. The internal tension is reduced to 3.4σ. If reactor-data only is fit, then the wavepacket preferred length is 91 fm (> 20 fm at 99% CL). The second model introduces oscillations involving sterile flavor and allows the decay of the heaviest, mostly sterile mass state, ν4. This model introduces a damping term similar to the wavepacket effect, but across all experiments. Compared to a three-neutrino fit, this has a ∆χ2/dof = 60.6/4 (7σ improvement) with preferred ∆m2 = 1.4 eV2 and decay Γ = 0.35 eV. The internal tension is reduced to 3.7σ.
For many years, the reactor event rates have been observed to have structure that deviates from prediction. Community discussion has focused on an excess compared to prediction observed at 5 MeV; however, other deviations are apparent. This structure has L dependence that is well-fit by the damped models. Before assuming this points to new physics, we urge closer examination of systematic effects that could lead to this L dependence.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details



1 Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Department of Physics, Cambridge, USA (GRID:grid.116068.8) (ISNI:0000 0001 2341 2786)
2 Harvard University, Department of Physics, Cambridge, USA (GRID:grid.38142.3c) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 754X)
3 Columbia University, Department of Physics, New York, USA (GRID:grid.21729.3f) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 8729)