- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine
Access Provided by Xinjiang University

Physical Review D

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access
  • Access by Xinjiang University

Neutrino oscillations: The ILL experiment revisited

B. K. Cogswell

D. J. Ernst and K. T. L. Ufheil

J. T. Gaglione

J. M. Malave

  • School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Manchester, Manchester M139PL, United Kingdom

  • Department of Physics and Astronomy, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee 37235, USA

  • Math and Natural Science Division, Nashville State Community College, Nashville, Tennessee 37209, USA

  • Department of Physics and Astronomy, Baldwin Wallace University, Berea, Ohio 44017, USA

PDF

Phys. Rev. D 99, 053003 – Published 12 March, 2019Erratum Phys. Rev. D 111, 039902 (2025)

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.99.053003

Abstract

The ILL experiment, one of the “reactor anomaly” experiments, is reexamined. The ILL’s baseline of 8.78 m is the shortest of the reactor anomaly short baseline experiments, and it is the experiment that finds the largest fraction of the electron antineutrinos disappearing—about 20%. Previous analyses, if they do not ignore the ILL experiment, use functional forms for chisquare which are either totally new and unjustified, are the magnitude chisquare (also termed a “rate analysis”), or utilize a spectral form for chisquare which double counts the systematic error. We do an analysis which utilizes the standard, conventional form for chisquare as well as a derived functional form for a spectral chisquare. We find that when analyzed with a conventional chisquare that includes spectral information or with a spectral chisquare that is independent of the magnitude of the flux, the ILL experiment finds a substantial distortion in the neutrino spectra as compared to conventional no-oscillation spectra. Interpreting this in terms of a fourth neutrino, rather than an error in some aspect of the analysis such as the energy calibration, the results are a set of specific values for possible mass-squared differences of the fourth neutrino, and where the minimum chisquare difference values are significantly enhanced over previous analyses. For the Huber flux and the conventional chisquare, the two most preferred values are mass-squared differences of 0.90 and 2.36  eV2 preferred at Δχmin2 values of −12.1 and −13.0 (3.5 and 3.6σ), respectively. For the Daya Bay flux and conventional chisquare we find 0.95 and 2.36  eV2 preferred at Δχmin2 of −10.5 and −11.7 (3.2 and 3.4σ), respectively. For the spectral chisquare and either flux these values are 0.95 and 2.36  eV2 preferred at Δχmin2 of −8.22 and −9.45 (2.9 and 3.1σ), respectively. These are to be compared to −4.4 (2.1σ) found in the original reactor anomaly analysis for all of the experiments except the ILL experiment.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Erratum

Erratum: Neutrino oscillations: The ILL experiment revisited [Phys. Rev. D 99, 053003 (2019)]

B. K. Cogswell, D. J. Ernst, K. T. L. Ufheil, J. T. Gaglione, and J. M. Malave
Phys. Rev. D 111, 039902 (2025)

Article Text

References (39)

  1. P. F. de Salas, D. V. Forero, C. A. Ternes, M. Tortola, and J. W. F. Valle, Phys. Lett. B 782, 633 (2018).
  2. I. Esteban, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, M. Maltoni, I. Martinez-Soler, and T. Schwetz, J. High Energy Phys. 01 (2017) 087.
  3. F. Capozzi, E. Lisi, A. Marrone, D. Montanino, and A. Palazzo, Nucl. Phys. B 908, 218 (2016).
  4. A. A. Aguilar-Arevalo et al., Phys. Rev. D 64, 112007 (2001).
  5. A. A. Aguilar-Arevalo et al. (MiniBoone Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 231801 (2007); 105, 181801 (2010).
  6. A. A. Aguilar et al. (MiniBooNE Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 221801 (2018).
  7. C. Giunti and M. Laveder, Phys. Rev. C 83, 065504 (2011).
  8. Th. A. Mueller, D. Lhuillier, M. Fallot, A. Letourneau, S. Cormon, M. Fechner, L. Giot, T. Lasserre, J. Martino, G. Mention, A. Porta, and F. Yermia, Phys. Rev. C 83, 054615 (2011).
  9. G. Mention, M. Fechner, Th. Lasserre, Th. A. Mueller, D. Lhuillier, M. Cribier, and A. Letourneau, Phys. Rev. D 83, 073006 (2011).
  10. G. Boireau et al. (Nucifer Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 93, 112006 (2016).
  11. Y. J. Ko et al. (NEOS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 121802 (2017).
  12. A. P. Serenbrov et al. (Neutrino-4 Collaboration), Phys. Part. Nucl. 49, 701 (2018).
  13. J. Alekseev et al. (DANSS Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B 787, 56 (2018).
  14. J. Ashenfelter et al. (PROSPECT Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 251802 (2018).
  15. S. Gariazzo, C. Giunti, M. Laveder, and Y. F. Li, Phys. Lett. B 782, 13 (2018).
  16. H. Kwon, F. Boehm, A. A. Hahn, H. E. Henrikson, J.-L. Vuilleumier, J.-F. Cavaignac, D. H. Koang, B. Vignon, F. v. Feilitzsch, and R. L. Mössbauer, Phys. Rev. D 24, 1097 (1981).
  17. A. Hoummada and S. Lazark Mikou, Appl. Radiat. Isot. 46, 449 (1995).
  18. J. Kopp, P. A. N. Machado, M. Malatoni, and T. Schwetz, J. High Energy Phys. 05 (2013) 050.
  19. M. Dentler, A. Hernádez-Cabezudo, J. Kopp, M. Maltoni, and T. Schwetz, J. High Energy Phys. 11 (2017) 099.
  20. M. Dentler, A. Hernández-Cabezudo, J. Kopp, P. Machado, M. Maltoni, I. Martinez-Soler, and T. Schwetz, J. High Energy Phys. 08 (2018) 010.
  21. B. Achkar et al., Nucl. Phys. B434, 503 (1995).
  22. G. H. Collin, C. A. Arguelles, J. M. Conrad, and M. H. Shaevitz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 221801 (2016); Nucl. Phys. B908, 354 (2016).
  23. S. Gariazzo, C. Giunti, M. Laveder, and Y. F. Li, J. High Energy Phys. 06 (2017) 135.
  24. F. P. An et al. (Daya Bay Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 95, 072006 (2017).
  25. H. Seo (RENO Collaboration), Conference on High Energy Physics (Venice, Italy, 2017).
  26. T. Abrahão et al. (Double CHOOZ Collaboration), J. Instrum. 13, P01031 (2018).
  27. H. R. Burroughs, B. K. Cogswell, J. Escamilla-Roa, D. C. Latimer, and D. J. Ernst, Phys. Rev. C 85, 068501 (2012).
  28. J. Bergstrom, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, M. Maltoni, and T. Schwetz, J. High Energy Phys. 09 (2015) 200.
  29. P. Huber, Phys. Rev. C 84, 024617 (2011).
  30. F. P. An et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 251801 (2017).
  31. A. C. Hayes, J. L. Friar, G. T. Garvey, G. Jungman, and G. Jonkmans, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 202501 (2014).
  32. A. C. Hayes, J. L. Friar, G. T. Garvey, D. Ibeling, G. Jungman, T. Kawano, and R. W. Mills, Phys. Rev. D 92, 033015 (2015).
  33. P. Huber, Nucl. Phys. B908, 268 (2016).
  34. A. A. Sonzogni, E. A. McCutchan, T. D. Johnson, and P. Dimitriou, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 132502 (2016).
  35. A. G. Hayes and P. Vogel, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 66, 219 (2016).
  36. F. P. An et al., Chin. Phys. 41, 013002 (2017).
  37. P. Huber, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 042502 (2017).
  38. A. C. Hayes, G. Jungman, E. A. McCutchan, A. A. Sonzogni, G. T. Garvey, and X. B. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 022503 (2018).
  39. J. M. Conrad and M. H. Shaevitz, Adv. Ser. Dir. High Energy Phys. 28, 391 (2018).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. D 99, 053003– Published 12 March, 2019
  • Received 21 February 2018
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI. Funded by SCOAP3.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation