Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Probing the 3+1 neutrino model in the SHiP experiment

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read SHiP with a second, far detector can probe sterile neutrino mixing down to $|U_{\alpha 4}|^2 \sim 10^{-2}$ and beat present muon- and tau-flavor limits by factors of 7-10.

desk verdict A careful SHiP sensitivity projection for 3+1 sterile neutrinos; the dual-baseline gain is real but depends on fully correlated systematics, which the authors acknowledge but do not quantify. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.12785 v1 pith:7SEU3UXZ submitted 2025-05-19 hep-ph hep-ex

Ki-Young Choi , Yu Seon Jeong , Sung Hyun Kim , Yeong Gyun Kim , Kang Young Lee , Kyong Sei Lee , Byung Do Park , Jong Yoon Sohn
show 2 more authors
Seong Moon Yoo Chun Sil Yoon
This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-ex
keywords 3+1sterileneutrinomodelSHiPexperimentcharged-currentdeepinelasticscatteringFeldman-Cousinsmethodparametricbootstrapdual-baselinesensitivitytauappearanceshort-baselineoscillations
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper quantifies what the SHiP fixed-target neutrino experiment could learn about the 3+1 sterile neutrino model, the minimal extension of the Standard Model that accommodates short-baseline anomalies. Using the charged-current deep inelastic scattering event spectrum, the paper finds that the planned near detector alone can probe mixing parameters $|U_{\alpha 4}|^2 \gtrsim 0.1$ near $\Delta m_{41}^2 \sim 10^3\ \mathrm{eV}^2$. The main claim is that adding a second, identical detector at 120 m, so that the two baselines see different oscillation phases while sharing the same systematic uncertainties, improves sensitivity by a factor of 2 to 10 depending on flavor and systematics, and makes the sensitivity nearly independent of the flux normalization uncertainty in non-averaged regions. If the estimate is right, SHiP with a far detector reaches $|U_{\alpha 4}|^2 \sim 10^{-2}$ for electron and muon flavors and exceeds current muon- and tau-flavor limits by about a factor of 10 and 7, respectively, near $\Delta m_{41}^2 \sim 10^3\ \mathrm{eV}^2$. This matters because the $\Delta m^2 \sim 10^3\ \mathrm{eV}^2$ region, and especially tau-flavor mixing, is only weakly constrained by existing experiments.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the dual-baseline comparison between two copies of the same scattering detector: NSND at 27 m and FSND at 120 m, whose signal and background are computed with the same set of flux nuisance parameters $\phi_\beta$ and $\phi_{\beta,i}$, with the far detector's events scaled by the single ratio $R_{F/N}$. Oscillation probabilities depend on $L/E_\nu$, while systematic shifts rescale the spectrum as a whole, so comparing the two baselines separates the oscillation pattern from normalization uncertainty; this is what makes the sensitivity $\sigma_{\rm norm}$-independent where oscillations are not averaged. The statistical engine is the Feldman-Cousins method with a parametric bootstrap: a profile-likelihood-ratio test statistic is calibrated by repeated sampling of Poisson-distributed event counts and auxiliary-measurement point estimates of the nuisance parameters, yielding 90% CL confidence regions on the $(\Delta m_{41}^2, |U_{\alpha 4}|^2)$ and $(|U_{\alpha 4}|^2, |U_{\beta 4}|^2)$ planes.

What would settle it

A concrete way to settle the central claim is to repeat the sensitivity calculation with separate, only partially correlated nuisance parameters for NSND and FSND; if the $R_{F/N}=100\%$ contour at $\Delta m_{41}^2 = 10^3\ \mathrm{eV}^2$ no longer reaches $|U_{\alpha 4}|^2\sim 10^{-2}$ or becomes dependent on $\sigma_{\rm norm}$, the cancellation mechanism underlying the improvement is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper claims that SHiP can test the 3+1 sterile-neutrino model through charged-current deep inelastic scattering spectra, and that a second detector at 120 m turns an otherwise uncompetitive search into one that exceeds present limits. With only the near detector at 27 m, the expected 90% CL sensitivity reaches $|U_{\alpha 4}|^2 \gtrsim 0.1$ near $\Delta m_{41}^2 \sim 10^3\ \mathrm{eV}^2$, improving by roughly a factor of two when the normalized flux uncertainty drops from 20% to 10%. Adding the far detector with signal scaled to 10% of the near detector's improves sensitivity by about a factor of 10 for electron and muon flavors and by 2-3 for tau flavor near that mass splitting, and scaling to 100% adds another factor of about 2.3. In regions where oscillations are not averaged, the dual-baseline sensitivity becomes independent of $\sigma_{\rm norm}$, and in two-flavor mixing scenarios the kinks caused by appearance-disappearance cancellation disappear. If the observed events match the three-flavor expectation, the estimated contours extend to $|U_{\alpha 4}|^2 \sim 10^{-2}$ for electron and muon flavors, exceeding the current muon-flavor constraint by about a factor of 10 and the tau-flavor constraint by about a factor of 7 near $\Delta m_{41}^2 \sim 10^3\ \mathrm{eV}^2$.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the near and far detectors share one common set of systematic nuisance parameters, so that all relevant uncertainties, most importantly the neutrino flux normalization, are fully correlated between the two baselines and cancel in the comparison; if the detectors' systematics are actually independent or only partially correlated, the advertised factor-of-2-to-10 improvement and the $\sigma_{\rm norm}$ independence weaken.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • With only the near detector, SHiP can probe $|U_{\alpha 4}|^2 \gtrsim 0.1$ near $\Delta m_{41}^2 \sim 10^3\ \mathrm{eV}^2$, and cutting the normalized flux uncertainty from 20% to 10% roughly doubles that reach.
  • Adding the far detector improves sensitivity by about a factor of 10 for electron and muon flavors and by 2-3 for tau flavor near $\Delta m_{41}^2 \sim 10^3\ \mathrm{eV}^2$, while raising $R_{F/N}$ from 10% to 100% adds another factor of about 2.3.
  • In non-averaged oscillation regions, the dual-baseline sensitivity is independent of $\sigma_{\rm norm}$, so the contours are unchanged whether the normalization uncertainty is 10% or 20%.
  • In two-flavor mixing scenarios, the appearance-disappearance cancellation that produces kinks and discontinuities in single-baseline sensitivity curves disappears when both baselines are combined.
  • At $R_{F/N}=100\%$, the expected 90% CL sensitivity exceeds the current muon-flavor limit by roughly a factor of 10 and the tau-flavor limit by roughly a factor of 7 near $\Delta m_{41}^2 \sim 10^3\ \mathrm{eV}^2$.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A testable extension beyond this paper: recompute the dual-baseline sensitivities with partially correlated nuisance parameters between NSND and FSND, for example one common flux pull plus independent detector-efficiency pulls, to map how quickly the improvement degrades as the correlation falls below 100%.
  • An implication the authors leave implicit is that the same near/far cancellation logic could be applied to other short-baseline neutrino programs with two detector positions, where normalization uncertainty rather than statistics dominates the sensitivity.
  • The disappearance of the kinks suggests that in two-flavor 3+1 scenarios, appearance and disappearance can conspire to mimic the standard three-flavor spectrum at a single baseline; the dual baseline is what exposes that degeneracy.
  • The absolute reach quoted here assumes energy-independent detection efficiencies and a Gaussian energy resolution of $\sigma = 0.2\,E_\nu$; refining the detector response would shift the numerical factors, though the direction of the dual-baseline benefit would likely survive.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper estimates the sensitivity of the SHiP experiment to the 3+1 sterile neutrino model using charged-current deep inelastic scattering event spectra. The authors adopt a Feldman-Cousins construction with a parametric bootstrap to handle nuisance parameters, and they compare two configurations: the proposed Near SND (NSND) at 27 m and a hypothetical Far SND (FSND) at 120 m. The main results are that the NSND-only configuration can probe |U_alpha4|^2 ~ 0.1 near Delta m^2_41 ~ 10^3 eV^2, and that adding FSND improves the sensitivity by factors of 2-10 depending on flavor and systematic uncertainty, while making the sensitivity independent of the normalization uncertainty in non-averaged oscillation regions. The paper also discusses two-flavor mixing scenarios, where a cancellation between appearance and disappearance creates kinks in the NSND-only sensitivity curves, which disappear in the dual-baseline approach.

Significance. If the central projection holds, the paper would be a valuable extension of the SHiP physics case: it provides a concrete statistical framework, uses a standard profile-likelihood Feldman-Cousins method with nuisance parameters, and identifies a specific dual-baseline configuration that could substantially improve sterile-neutrino sensitivity near Delta m^2_41 ~ 10^3 eV^2. The comparison with existing constraints from MINOS, NOvA, IceCube-DeepCore, tritium beta decay, and other experiments is useful. However, the headline factor-2-to-10 improvements and the claimed independence from the normalization uncertainty rest on an idealized assumption about systematic uncertainties between the two detectors. The paper itself acknowledges this limitation but does not quantify how much of the advertised sensitivity would survive under more realistic, partially correlated systematics. The analysis is otherwise clearly presented, and the statistical construction is standard and reproducible in principle.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 3.2, Eq. (3.7) and subsequent text] The FSND signal and background are computed with the same nuisance parameters phi_beta and phi_beta,i as the NSND, scaled only by R_F/N. This is equivalent to assuming perfectly correlated systematic uncertainties between the two detectors. The claimed results in Section 4.1 that the dual-baseline sensitivity is 'independent of sigma_norm if neutrino oscillation is not averaged' and that FSND improves the sensitivity by factors of 2-10 are direct consequences of this full correlation, because common-mode normalization uncertainties cancel in the ratio of the two detectors. The paper acknowledges in Section 3.2 that 'uncertainties due to the properties of detectors reduce the correlation between NSND and FSND, which may contribute to a reduction in the sensitivity compared to our estimation,' but it does not assess the magnitude of this reduction. I ask the authors to quantify the impact by introducing a correlation coefficient or an uncorrelated normalization uncertainty for FSND, and to show how the contours in Fig. 3 degrade as the correlation is reduced. Without such a study, the advertised reach is an idealized upper bound rather than a robust projection.
  2. [Section 3.2, Eqs. (3.9)-(3.10)] The tau-neutrino channel, which is central to the claimed factor-of-7 improvement over existing constraints near Delta m^2_41 ~ 10^3 eV^2, relies on three imported inputs: the detection efficiency epsilon_tau = 10%, the energy-independent signal-to-background ratio R_s/b = 2, and the assumption that the tau background is dominated by muon-neutrino CC events with charm production. The efficiency and R_s/b values are chosen on the basis of OPERA results and a PhD thesis analysis, but no dedicated SHiP simulation is used, and the sensitivity of the results to these choices is not explored. Since the tau channel is where the paper claims the most striking improvement over past experiments, the authors should provide a brief scan over plausible values of epsilon_tau and R_s/b (e.g., 5-20% and 1-4, respectively) to show that the factor-of-7 claim is not an artifact of optimistic assumptions. This would also clarify whether the energy dependence of the efficiency and the background can affect the conclusions.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 4.1] The sentence 'the sensitivity is only dependent on sigma_norm' should read 'the sensitivity depends only on sigma_norm.'
  2. [Section 5] In the concluding paragraph, 'kinks and disappearance' should be 'kinks and discontinuities,' and 'prober' should be 'probe.'
  3. [Section 3.2 and Figure 2] The text uses both 'gray' and 'grey' inconsistently; please standardize.
  4. [Section 4.1] The statement that 'Wilks' theorem with two degrees of freedom is satisfied on the non-averaged regions of electron and tau flavor mixing cases, while for muon flavor mixing cases, the number of effective degrees of freedom is approximately 4' is unexplained and does not appear to be used in the analysis; either justify it with a reference or remove it.
  5. [Section 3.2] Eq. (3.7) does not explicitly state whether anti-neutrino contributions are included in N_beta. The SHiP beam contains both neutrinos and antineutrinos, and the imported event numbers from Ref. [63] presumably include both; please clarify this in the text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the sensitivity estimates are self-contained projections from an explicit shared-nuisance ansatz, with the detector-correlation caveat acknowledged in the text.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained and does not reduce to its inputs by construction. The 3+1 mixing parameters are scanned model parameters, and the 'data' are the mean expectations under the three-flavor hypothesis with zero nuisance parameters, so no fitted parameter is later recycled as a prediction. Signal and background event counts are built from Eq. (3.7) and Eq. (3.10) using externally supplied inputs: SHiP event numbers from Ref. [63], OPERA efficiencies and purities from Ref. [32], the tau-channel signal-to-background ratio from Ref. [77], and flux uncertainty targets from Refs. [75, 76]. The central FSND result follows from an explicitly stated assumption in Section 3.2: 'we assume that the signal and the background of neutrino CC DIS events at FSND follow the same formula as those at NSND, using the same nuisance parameters, while the signal and the background at FSND are multiplied by the overall ratio R_F/N.' The sigma_norm independence of the dual-baseline sensitivity is a derived consequence of this common-nuisance ansatz, not a hidden definition of the conclusion. The paper explicitly flags the limitation of this assumption: 'In reality, uncertainties due to the properties of detectors reduce the correlation between NSND and FSND, which may contribute to a reduction in the sensitivity compared to our estimation.' This is a modelling caveat, not circularity. Self-citations to Ref. [64] introduce the NSND/FSND configuration and the dual-baseline idea, but the sensitivities are computed in this paper from the stated formulas and external data; no load-bearing claim is justified solely by the authors' prior work. No circular step can be exhibited, so the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

All modeling inputs that the central sensitivity curves depend on are listed. No parameters are fitted to data in this paper; the model parameters are scanned. The key hand-chosen or imported inputs are the normalized systematic uncertainty (10% or 20%), the FSND scaling R_F/N (0%, 10%, 100%), detection efficiencies from OPERA and Ref. [77], the tau background ratio R_s/b = 2, energy resolution, and binning. The most fragile assumption is that NSND and FSND share identical nuisance parameters; the paper flags this as an idealization. No new physical entities are introduced; FSND is a proposed detector component, not a new particle or force.

free parameters (6)
  • sigma_norm (normalized systematic uncertainty) = 10% and 20%
    Chosen by hand as scenarios. Current tau neutrino flux uncertainty is about 40% (Ref. [75]); DsTau could improve it to about 10% (Ref. [76]). All sensitivity numbers depend strongly on this parameter.
  • R_F/N (FSND to NSND event rate scaling) = 0%, 10%, 100%
    Chosen to represent NSND-only, conservative, and full far-detector configurations. Assumes FSND signal and background scale by the same factor relative to NSND.
  • Detection efficiencies epsilon_e, epsilon_mu, epsilon_tau = 30%, 40%, 10%
    Imported from OPERA (Ref. [32]) for electron and muon channels and from Ref. [77] for tau, assumed energy-independent. The central sensitivity scales inversely with the efficiency.
  • Tau channel signal-to-background ratio R_s/b = 2
    Chosen by hand as an energy-independent value for the tau CC DIS channel; not derived from a full simulation of SHiP.
  • Energy resolution sigma = 0.2 E_nu
    Gaussian energy smearing with sigma = 0.2 E_nu following Ref. [74]; affects bin migration and the smearing of oscillation patterns.
  • Energy binning = 7 bins, 10 GeV start, factor 1.5 steps
    Chosen for the analysis; sensitivity curves can depend on binning when oscillations are fast, and this choice is not optimized or validated against alternate binning.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Short-baseline approximation: only the fourth mass eigenstate contributes to oscillations; lighter mass eigenstates are degenerate and neglected.
    Used to reduce the 3+1 model to two parameters, Delta m^2_41 and |U_alpha4|^2, via Eq. (2.4) and Eq. (2.5). Standard for eV-scale short-baseline sterile searches.
  • domain assumption The 3+1 model with exactly one sterile flavor is the framework under test.
    The paper assumes this extension of the Standard Model motivated by LSND, MiniBooNE, reactor, and gallium anomalies; it does not derive or justify the model itself.
  • standard math Profiled Feldman-Cousins with parametric bootstrap constructs valid confidence regions.
    The method is taken from the statistics literature (Refs. [66-73]); the paper does not validate coverage properties with dedicated Monte Carlo studies for this specific problem.
  • domain assumption Imported SHiP CC DIS event numbers from Ref. [63] are accurate for the three-flavor hypothesis.
    Eq. (3.7) uses d^2N_beta/dE_nu dL from the SHiP proposal [63]; the paper does not independently derive or cross-check these fluxes.
  • domain assumption OPERA detection efficiencies and purities apply to the SHiP SND.
    Efficiencies in Eq. (3.9) are taken from OPERA [32] and Ref. [77]; SHiP's detector is similar in concept but not identical, and the paper assumes no energy dependence.
  • ad hoc to paper NSND and FSND share identical nuisance parameters (fully correlated systematics).
    Section 3.2 assumes the same phi_beta and phi_beta,i for both detectors. The paper explicitly notes this is an idealization and that decorrelation would reduce sensitivity. This is the weakest load-bearing assumption for the FSND benefit.
  • domain assumption The differential event rate is constant along the detector length; flux scales purely by baseline geometry.
    Imported from the SHiP analysis [63] and used in Eq. (3.7); ignores longitudinal variation of the neutrino flux over the 2.6 m detector length.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Probing the 3+1 neutrino model in the SHiP experiment." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7SEU3UXZ

@misc{pith2026250512785,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Probing the 3+1 neutrino model in the SHiP experiment},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7SEU3UXZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.12785}
}
abstract

In this study, as an extension of our previous work, we estimate the sensitivity of the Search for Hidden Particles (SHiP) experiment to the 3+1 model using the charged-current deep inelastic scattering event spectrum. We employ the Feldman-Cousins method with a parametric bootstrap to account for nuisance parameters and systematic uncertainties. In the previous study, we proposed a dual baseline approach by suggesting Far SND (FSND) at 120 m with Near SND (NSND) at 27 m. We employ the same approach in this study. The NSND-only configuration can probe mixing parameters of $|U_{\alpha4}|^2 \gtrsim 0.1$ near $\Delta m_{41}^2 \sim 10^3\,\mathrm{eV}^2$, with a reduction of normalized systematic uncertainties from 20\% to 10\% improving sensitivity by roughly a factor of two. Moreover, the inclusion of FSND significantly enhances the sensitivity by a factor of 2 to 10 depending on the flavor and the systematic uncertainty. In two-flavor mixing scenarios, a cancellation between neutrino appearance and disappearance generates kinks in the sensitivity curves, that are vanished in the dual-baseline approach.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. New Physics Opportunities at Neutrino Facilities: BSM Physics at Accelerator, Atmospheric, and Reactor Neutrino Experiments

    hep-ph 2025-06 unverdicted novelty 1.0 of 10

    A workshop-based review maps beyond-Standard-Model discovery opportunities at accelerator, reactor, atmospheric, and cosmic neutrino facilities, with emphasis on East Asian programs.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [18]

    Mention, M

    G. Mention, M. Fechner, T. Lasserre, T.A. Mueller, D. Lhuillier, M. Cribier et al.,The Reactor Antineutrino Anomaly,Phys. Rev. D83(2011) 073006 [1101.2755]

    arXiv 2011

  2. [19]

    Elliott, V

    S.R. Elliott, V. Gavrin and W. Haxton,The gallium anomaly,Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.134 (2024) 104082 [2306.03299]

    arXiv 2024

  3. [20]

    Minkowski,µ→eγat a Rate of One Out of10 9 Muon Decays?,Phys

    P. Minkowski,µ→eγat a Rate of One Out of10 9 Muon Decays?,Phys. Lett. B67(1977) 421

    1977

  4. [21]

    Ramond,The Family Group in Grand Unified Theories, inInternational Symposium on Fundamentals of Quantum Theory and Quantum Field Theory, 2, 1979 [hep-ph/9809459]

    P. Ramond,The Family Group in Grand Unified Theories, inInternational Symposium on Fundamentals of Quantum Theory and Quantum Field Theory, 2, 1979 [hep-ph/9809459]

    arXiv 1979

  5. [22]

    Gell-Mann, P

    M. Gell-Mann, P. Ramond and R. Slansky,Complex Spinors and Unified Theories,Conf. Proc. C790927(1979) 315 [1306.4669]

    arXiv 1979

  6. [23]

    Yanagida,Horizontal gauge symmetry and masses of neutrinos,Conf

    T. Yanagida,Horizontal gauge symmetry and masses of neutrinos,Conf. Proc. C7902131 (1979) 95

    1979

  7. [24]

    Mohapatra and G

    R.N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanovic,Neutrino Mass and Spontaneous Parity Nonconservation,Phys. Rev. Lett.44(1980) 912

    1980

  8. [25]

    Boyarsky, M

    A. Boyarsky, M. Drewes, T. Lasserre, S. Mertens and O. Ruchayskiy,Sterile neutrino Dark Matter,Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.104(2019) 1 [1807.07938]

    arXiv 2019

Show all 32 references
  1. [26]

    Asaka and M

    T. Asaka and M. Shaposhnikov,TheνMSM, dark matter and baryon asymmetry of the universe,Phys. Lett. B620(2005) 17 [hep-ph/0505013]

    2005 arXiv

  2. [27]

    Acero et al.,White Paper on Light Sterile Neutrino Searches and Related Phenomenology,2203.07323

    M.A. Acero et al.,White Paper on Light Sterile Neutrino Searches and Related Phenomenology,2203.07323. [28]Super-Kamiokandecollaboration,Limits on sterile neutrino mixing using atmospheric neutrinos in Super-Kamiokande,Phys. Rev. D91(2015) 052019 [1410.2008]. [29]NOvAcollabora...

    2015 arXiv

  3. [36]

    Hoummada, S

    A. Hoummada, S. Lazrak Mikou, M. Avenier, G. Bagieu, J. Cavaignac and D. Holm Koang, Neutrino oscillations i.l.l. experiment reanalysis,Applied Radiation and Isotopes46(1995) 449. – 16 – [37]PROSPECTcollaboration,First search for short-baseline neutrino oscillations at HFIR wi...

    1995 arXiv

  4. [42]

    Kraus, A

    C. Kraus, A. Singer, K. Valerius and C. Weinheimer,Limit on sterile neutrino contribution from the Mainz Neutrino Mass Experiment,Eur. Phys. J. C73(2013) 2323 [1210.4194]

    2013 arXiv

  5. [43]

    Belesev, A.I

    A.I. Belesev, A.I. Berlev, E.V. Geraskin, A.A. Golubev, N.A. Likhovid, A.A. Nozik et al.,An upper limit on additional neutrino mass eigenstate in 2 to 100 eV region from ’Troitsk nu-mass’ data,JETP Lett.97(2013) 67 [1211.7193]

    2013 arXiv

  6. [44]

    Belesev, A.I

    A.I. Belesev, A.I. Berlev, E.V. Geraskin, A.A. Golubev, N.A. Likhovid, A.A. Nozik et al., The search for an additional neutrino mass eigenstate in the 2 to 100 eV region from Troitsk nu-mass data: a detailed analysis,J. Phys. G41(2014) 015001 [1307.5687]

    2014 arXiv

  7. [45]

    Abdurashitov et al.,First measeurements in search for keV-sterile neutrino in tritium beta-decay by Troitsk nu-mass experiment,Pisma Zh

    J.N. Abdurashitov et al.,First measeurements in search for keV-sterile neutrino in tritium beta-decay by Troitsk nu-mass experiment,Pisma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.105(2017) 723 [1703.10779]. [46]KATRINcollaboration,Improved eV-scale sterile-neutrino constraints from the second KATR...

    2017 arXiv

  8. [48]

    Dydak, G

    F. Dydak, G. Feldman, C. Guyot, J. Merlo, H.-J. Meyer, J. Rothberg et al.,A search forν µ oscillations in theδm 2 range0.3−90 eV 2,Physics Letters B134(1984) 281

    1984

  9. [49]

    Stockdale, A

    I.E. Stockdale, A. Bodek, F. Borcherding, N. Giokaris, K. Lang, D. Garfinkle et al.,Limits on muon-neutrino oscillations in the mass range30<δm 2 <1000 eV 2/c4,Phys. Rev. Lett. 52(1984) 1384. [50]CCFR/NuTeVcollaboration,A High statistics search for neutrino(e) (anti-neutrino(e...

    1984 arXiv

  10. [58]

    W. Bai, M. Diwan, M.V. Garzelli, Y.S. Jeong and M.H. Reno,Far-forward neutrinos at the Large Hadron Collider,JHEP06(2020) 032 [2002.03012]. [59]F ASERcollaboration,Detecting and Studying High-Energy Collider Neutrinos with FASER at the LHC,Eur. Phys. J. C80(2020) 61 [1908.0231...

    2020 arXiv

  11. [61]

    Alekhin et al.,A facility to Search for Hidden Particles at the CERN SPS: the SHiP physics case,Rept

    S. Alekhin et al.,A facility to Search for Hidden Particles at the CERN SPS: the SHiP physics case,Rept. Prog. Phys.79(2016) 124201 [1504.04855]. [62]SHiPcollaboration,SHiP Experiment - Progress Report, Tech. Rep. CERN-SPSC-2019-010, SPSC-SR-248, CERN, Geneva (2019). [63]SHiPc...

    2016 arXiv

  12. [64]

    Choi, S.H

    K.-Y. Choi, S.H. Kim, Y.G. Kim, K.Y. Lee, K.S. Lee, B.D. Park et al.,Probing the mixing between sterile and tau neutrinos in the SHiP experiment,JHEP06(2024) 166 [2403.04191]

    2024 arXiv

  13. [65]

    Harari and M

    H. Harari and M. Leurer,Recommending a standard choice of cabibbo angles and km phases for any number of generations,Physics Letters B181(1986) 123

    1986

  14. [66]

    Feldman and R.D

    G.J. Feldman and R.D. Cousins,A Unified approach to the classical statistical analysis of small signals,Phys. Rev. D57(1998) 3873 [physics/9711021]

    1998 arXiv

  15. [67]

    L. Demortier,The parametric bootstrap and particle physics, inProgress on Statistical Issues in Searches: A Conference Involving Statistical Issues in Astrophysics, Particle Physics and Photon Science, (SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory), June 4–6, 2012, https://hep-physics...

    2012

  16. [68]

    Stuart, K

    A. Stuart, K. Ord and S. Arnold,Kendall’s Advanced Theory of Statistics, Volume 2A: Classical Inference and the Linear Model, Arnold, London, 6th ed. (1999)

    1999

  17. [69]

    Cousins,Lectures on Statistics in Theory: Prelude to Statistics in Practice,1807.05996

    R.D. Cousins,Lectures on Statistics in Theory: Prelude to Statistics in Practice,1807.05996

    arXiv

  18. [70]

    Berger and D.D.B

    R.L. Berger and D.D.B. and,P values maximized over a confidence set for the nuisance parameter,Journal of the American Statistical Association89(1994) 1012 [https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1994.10476836]

    1994

  19. [71]

    Cousins and V.L

    R.D. Cousins and V.L. Highland,Incorporating systematic uncertainties into an upper limit, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment320(1992) 331. – 18 –

    1992

  20. [72]

    Cranmer,Practical Statistics for the LHC, in2011 European School of High-Energy Physics, pp

    K. Cranmer,Practical Statistics for the LHC, in2011 European School of High-Energy Physics, pp. 267–308, 2014, DOI [1503.07622]. [73]NOvAcollaboration,The Profiled Feldman-Cousins technique for confidence interval construction in the presence of nuisance parameters,2207.14353

    2014 arXiv

  21. [74]

    Buonaura,Study ofν τ Properties with the SHiP Experiment, Ph.D

    A. Buonaura,Study ofν τ Properties with the SHiP Experiment, Ph.D. thesis, University of Naples, 2017

    2017

  22. [75]

    Bai and M.H

    W. Bai and M.H. Reno,Prompt neutrinos and intrinsic charm at SHiP,JHEP02(2019) 077 [1807.02746]. [76]DsTaucollaboration,DsTau: Study of tau neutrino production with 400 GeV protons from the CERN-SPS,JHEP01(2020) 033 [1906.03487]

    2019 arXiv

  23. [77]

    Iuliano,Event reconstruction and data analysis techniques for the SHiP experiment, Ph.D

    A. Iuliano,Event reconstruction and data analysis techniques for the SHiP experiment, Ph.D. thesis, Universit` a degli Studi di Napoli Federico II, 2021

    2021

  24. [78]

    Feickert and B

    M. Feickert and B. Nachman,A Living Review of Machine Learning for Particle Physics, 2102.02770. [79]NOvAcollaboration,Dual-Baseline Search for Active-to-Sterile Neutrino Oscillations in NOvA,Phys. Rev. Lett.134(2025) 081804 [2409.04553]. – 19 –

    2025 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.