Impact of improved energy resolution on DUNE sensitivity in presence of a light sterile neutrino

Jogesh Rout; Poonam Mehta; Sabila Parveen

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 77 references

Impact of improved energy resolution on DUNE sensitivity in presence of a light sterile neutrino

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Better energy resolution raises DUNE's sensitivity to CP violation, mass hierarchy, and the θ23 octant, with the largest gain in the 3+1 sterile-neutrino scenario: the share of δ13 values reaching 5σ rises from 22% to 34%.

desk verdict Competent, incremental sensitivity study whose headline gains hinge on an unvalidated best-case energy resolution applied asymmetrically to signals but not backgrounds. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.10767 v1 pith:OF7KVZL5 submitted 2025-06-12 hep-ph

Sabila Parveen , Jogesh Rout , Poonam Mehta This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-ph

keywords neutrinooscillationsDUNEsterile3+1scenarioenergyresolutionCPviolationmasshierarchytheta23octant

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 asks whether a sharper measurement of neutrino energy in DUNE's liquid-argon detector can recover sensitivity that an extra light sterile neutrino would otherwise take away, and it argues that it can. The authors compare the detector resolution assumed in the DUNE Technical Design Report with a 'best reconstruction' energy-resolution curve in both the standard three-neutrino case and the 3+1 case with one sterile neutrino. Across all three standard unknowns—the Dirac CP phase $\delta_{13}$, the mass hierarchy, and the octant of $\theta_{23}$—the improved resolution raises DUNE's sensitivity for a fixed exposure of 624 kt·MW·yr. The most concrete numbers are for CP-violation discovery: the fraction of $\delta_{13}$ values reaching 5$\sigma$ rises from 48% to 50% in the 3+0 case and from 22% to 34% in the 3+1 case.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Gaussian energy-resolution function $R(E,E_r)=e^{-(E-E_r)^2/2\sigma^2}/(\sigma\sqrt{2\pi})$ with $\sigma(E)/\mathrm{GeV} = \alpha\,(E/\mathrm{GeV}) + \beta\sqrt{E/\mathrm{GeV}} + \gamma$, applied to convert true neutrino energy into reconstructed energy. For the 'best reconstruction' scenario the fit parameters are taken from a detailed study of liquid-argon energy reconstruction and are used for both appearance and disappearance channels in neutrino and antineutrino modes; the TDR baseline uses the standard resolution instead. The comparison is made through $\chi^2$ tests that marginalize over oscillation parameters and test CP-conserving values for CP violation, normal versus inverted hierarchy, and lower versus upper octant of $\theta_{23}$.

What would settle it

Take DUNE-style liquid-argon data or a full detector simulation with real reconstruction—calibration sources, stopping muons, or kinematic peaks—and compare the measured $\sigma(E)/E$ with the best-reconstruction curve of Eq. (9). If the realized resolution is worse than that curve in the 2–3 GeV region where DUNE's oscillation peak sits, the reported CP-violation fractions (e.g., 22%→34% at 5$\sigma$ in the 3+1 case) would not be reached.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

With better energy reconstruction, DUNE's reach for the three standard unknowns improves in both physics scenarios despite the presence of a subdominant sterile effect that generally degrades sensitivities. Specifically, under the best-reconstruction smearing of Eqs. (8)–(9), the 3$\sigma$ CP-violation discovery fraction rises from 71% to 73% of $\delta_{13}$ values in (3+0) and from 62% to 67% in (3+1), while the 5$\sigma$ fraction rises from 48% to 50% in (3+0) and from 22% to 34% in (3+1) (Table 3). The same resolution improvement sharpens the sensitivity to the neutrino mass hierarchy and to the octant of $\theta_{23}$, with the largest gains appearing near the first oscillation maximum, and it helps separate standard three-neutrino effects from sterile-sector effects.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the 'best reconstruction' Gaussian energy smearing with parameters from the detailed liquid-argon study is a realistic, simultaneously achievable description of DUNE's resolution for both appearance and disappearance channels in neutrino and antineutrino modes; if the real detector resolves worse than this, the reported sensitivity gains over the TDR baseline are optimistic.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

In the (3+1) sterile scenario, the fraction of $\delta_{13}$ values for which DUNE reaches 5$\sigma$ CP-violation discovery grows from 22% under TDR resolution to 34% under best reconstruction; at 3$\sigma$ it grows from 62% to 67%.
In the (3+0) standard scenario, the same 5$\sigma$ fraction grows from 48% to 50% and the 3$\sigma$ fraction from 71% to 73%.
Mass-hierarchy and $\theta_{23}$-octant sensitivities improve with best reconstruction in both scenarios, with the improvement most visible near the first oscillation peak where the flux peaks around 2–3 GeV.
Better energy resolution also helps disentangle degeneracies between standard three-neutrino effects and sterile-neutrino effects, a goal the paper states explicitly.

Reading between the lines

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

Because the best-reconstruction curve is applied uniformly to both channels, the quoted gains—especially the 22%→34% CP-violation jump—should be read as what DUNE could achieve if the resolution model holds; a channel-dependent or worse resolution would shrink them.
The pattern suggests a general rule: better energy reconstruction most benefits the observables that are already compressed by new-physics degeneracies, so the same comparison could be repeated for other BSM effects to rank which unknowns gain most from detector improvements.
Since the improvement concentrates near DUNE's first oscillation peak at 2–3 GeV, a detector upgrade that selectively improves low-energy reconstruction would likely buy more sensitivity per unit of resolution than one that improves all energies equally.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: this is a competent but incremental sensitivity study. It applies the Friedland-Li "best reconstruction" energy resolution to DUNE's 3+1 sterile neutrino sensitivity, where the same idea was already applied to NSI in ref. [43]. That combination is new, and the numbers are useful for people planning DUNE analyses, but the headline gains rest on an optimistic detector assumption that the paper doesn't test.

What's good: the GLoBES setup is standard and mostly well specified (flux, bins, systematics, marginalization). The analytic probability expressions in Sec. 2 and Appendix A are clearly marked as illustrative and are not load-bearing; the results come from full numerical propagation. The paper also presents event rates and sensitivity curves for both (3+0) and (3+1), so the reader can see where the improvement comes from. Table 3 summarizes the key numbers cleanly. Citation practice looks fine: they build on their own earlier work and on [43] without hiding the lineage.

The main soft spot is exactly what the stress-test note flags: the improved resolution is applied to the νμ→νe and νμ→νμ signal channels, while all background migration matrices are kept at TDR values. That is an inconsistent comparison. A detector with better energy resolution would also reconstruct backgrounds better, and a consistent treatment might shrink the gains, especially the (3+1) 5σ fraction going from 22% to 34%. I also don't see a degradation scan; the paper jumps from TDR to Friedland-Li "best" without showing how much of the gain survives intermediate resolutions. A meaningful robustness check would vary α, β, γ between the two extremes and re-smear backgrounds consistently.

There's also a small overclaim in the conclusion: "disentangling parameter degeneracies" is mentioned, but the analysis doesn't actually study degeneracy disentangling; it studies CPV, MH, and octant sensitivities. Minor text slips include the second sentence of Sec. 6 repeating "(3+0)" where Table 3 makes clear it should be "(3+1)", plus typos like "competetive" and "loose their energy." These are minor.

Who it's for: DUNE phenomenologists and people working on sterile neutrino sensitivity projections. It deserves a serious referee; it is not a desk reject. The issues are fixable and the core result—better resolution helps, and helps more in the sterile case—is plausible and supported by the numerics as long as the resolution assumption is stated as an optimistic benchmark.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper studies how replacing the DUNE TDR energy-resolution function with the "best reconstruction" Gaussian smearing of Eq. (8)-(9) affects DUNE's sensitivity to CP violation, mass-hierarchy determination, and the octant of theta_23, in both the standard (3+0) framework and a (3+1) framework with one light sterile neutrino. The numerical analysis uses GLoBES with the DUNE TDR low-energy beam, a fixed 624 kt*MW*yr exposure, PREM matter density, and the channel-specific systematic uncertainties of Table 2. The authors compare the TDR resolution with the Friedland-Li "best reconstruction" parameters and report that the improved resolution raises the fraction of delta_13 values for which DUNE reaches 5-sigma CPV discovery from 48% to 50% in (3+0) and from 22% to 34% in (3+1), with qualitative gains for mass hierarchy and octant sensitivities. The analytic expressions in Sec. 2 and Appendix A are presented as illustrative context, while the sensitivity results are obtained from numerical propagation.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper's central claim is that a realistic improvement in LArTPC energy reconstruction would directly enhance DUNE's physics reach, and that the effect is especially pronounced in the presence of a light sterile neutrino, partially compensating for the sensitivity degradation induced by the sterile sector. The numerical setup is largely standard and reproducible: GLoBES with the official TDR fluxes and detector configuration, explicit binning, and channel-specific systematic uncertainties; the improved-resolution parameters are taken from an external published detector simulation rather than fitted to the reported sensitivities, so there is no obvious circularity in the sensitivity analysis. The main quantitative claims are falsifiable once DUNE measures its true energy resolution. The paper is less novel on the analytic side, since the probability formulas are quoted from prior work, but the numerical study of improved resolution in the (3+1) scenario is a useful and timely contribution.

major comments (3)

[Sec. 3.3] The improved resolution is applied only to the two signal channels (nu_mu -> nu_e and nu_mu -> nu_mu), while the migration matrices for NC, nu_e contamination, misidentified muons, and nu_mu -> nu_tau backgrounds are kept at their TDR values, as stated in Sec. 3.3. A detector with better energy reconstruction would also reconstruct these backgrounds better, so this asymmetric treatment can bias the comparison in favor of the improved scenario. The authors should either apply the improved smearing consistently to the background events as well, or demonstrate quantitatively (for example, by showing that the conclusions are insensitive to a plausible re-smearing of the backgrounds) that this choice does not affect the reported gains in Figs. 7-10 and Table 3.
[Sec. 3.3, Eqs. (8)-(9)] The same Gaussian resolution parameters are used for both the appearance channel (electromagnetic showers) and the disappearance channel (muon tracks). These channels have different reconstruction systematics, and the cited Friedland-Li study does not clearly justify a single parametrization for both. The authors should justify this simplification or use separate resolution functions for the two channels; otherwise the (3+1) CPV improvement from 22% to 34% (Table 3) is not robust to a more realistic, channel-dependent resolution model.
[Sec. 3.3 and Fig. 4] The central claim rests on a single point estimate of the "best reconstruction" parameters (alpha, beta, gamma), with no scan or intermediate scenario between the TDR and the optimistic Friedland-Li parameters. Because the reported gains, especially the 12 percentage-point increase in the (3+1) 5-sigma CPV fraction, may be nonlinear in the resolution parameters, a degradation scan (or at least one intermediate resolution scenario) is needed to show that the enhancement is not an artifact of the particular parameter set chosen. This is a robustness requirement for the quantitative headline claim rather than a doubt about the numerical implementation itself.

minor comments (5)

[Sec. 6, text after Fig. 8] The sentence "However, for the (3 + 0) case, we have ~22% (62%) and ~34% (67%) values of delta_13" should refer to the (3 + 1) case, as is clear from the comparison with Table 3 and the surrounding discussion.
[Sec. 1, octant definition] The text says "theta_23 > pi/4 is the higher octant (LO)"; the abbreviation should be HO, since LO is already used for the lower octant.
[Eq. (5b)] There appears to be a mismatched bracket in the term "cos(2Delta - delta_13]" and the notation "sin 4 theta_23" is ambiguous; please check the formula for typographical errors and define all angular functions explicitly.
[Fig. 4 caption and Sec. 3.3] The caption attributes the best-reconstruction curve to [43], while the text attributes the fit parameters to [64]; please align the citations so that the original source of the resolution parameters is unambiguous.
[Figs. 9-10] The mass-hierarchy and octant results are presented only through figures and qualitative statements; adding a numerical summary, such as the minimal sqrt(Delta chi^2) values or the fraction of parameter space exceeding 3-sigma and 5-sigma, would make the central claim more precise and easier to compare with future work.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the sensitivity comparison is a GLoBES propagation of external inputs; self-citations are contextual and non-load-bearing.

full rationale

The central claim—that the 'best reconstruction' energy resolution of Eqs. (8)–(9) yields improved DUNE sensitivities relative to the TDR resolution in both the (3+0) and (3+1) cases—is not circular. The analytic probability differences in Secs. 2.3–2.4 and Appendix A are quoted from external references ([50], [53]) and are explicitly framed as interpretive aids: Sec. 5 states that 'the results are primarily obtained through numerical computations using the GLoBES software,' and indeed the sensitivities (Figs. 7–10, Table 3) are GLoBES outputs computed from the TDR configuration of [22, 23] with the migration matrices of [23] and the resolution function of Eqs. (8)–(9), whose fit parameters (alpha, beta, gamma) are taken from the external detector-simulation work [64] via [43]. These parameters are inputs, not quantities fitted to the sensitivities reported here, so no fitted input is renamed as a prediction; the improvement (e.g., 48% to 50% in (3+0), 22% to 34% in (3+1) for 5-sigma CPV in Table 3) is a genuine simulation result and not a self-definitional identity. The self-citations ([40], [41], [69], [70]) appear only as prior-work context, as a limiting-case consistency check ('we recover the corresponding probability differences in (3+0) case [40, 53]'), and alongside the standard Pearson chi-squared definition also referenced to [71]; none of them carries the load of the central result, and the resolution ansatz is imported from external authors, not from the present authors' prior work. The main caveat is a modeling-realism concern rather than a circularity: the improved resolution is applied to signal channels while the NC, misidentified-muon, and nu_mu-to-nu_tau background migration matrices are kept at TDR values (Sec. 3.3), so the reported gains depend on an optimistic, possibly asymmetric detector-performance assumption; that affects whether the predicted enhancement will materialize for the real detector, but it does not make the derivation equivalent to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central result depends only on externally supplied inputs: the energy resolution parameters from [64] and the oscillation parameters from global fits. No new particles, forces, or parameters are introduced. The only numbers tuned for this specific study are the resolution parameters, which are borrowed rather than fitted here.

free parameters (2)

Energy resolution parameters (alpha, beta, gamma), neutrino mode = alpha=0.045, beta=0.001, gamma=0.048
Taken from Friedland-Li (2019) best reconstruction scenario [64]; these control the Gaussian width in Eq. (9) and directly drive all reported sensitivity improvements.
Energy resolution parameters (alpha, beta, gamma), antineutrino mode = alpha=0.026, beta=0.001, gamma=0.085
Same source as above; used for antineutrino events.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The Gaussian energy resolution model R(E,Er) in Eq. (8) with sigma(E) in Eq. (9) adequately represents DUNE's detector response for both TDR and best reconstruction cases.
Introduced in Sec. 3.3; all sensitivity numbers depend on this smearing model.
domain assumption The (3+1) Hamiltonian in Eq. (3) with the Klop-Palazzo parametrization [50] and true parameters from Table 1 captures the sterile neutrino scenario.
Used in Sec. 2.2; the sterile sector inputs come from global fits [52] and are not validated in this paper.
domain assumption Pearson's chi-square without simulated statistical fluctuations (Sec. 5) is the appropriate sensitivity metric.
The analysis follows refs. [68-70]; no Monte Carlo fluctuations are included, so the reported sigma values are Asimov-like sensitivities.
standard math The standard PMNS oscillation framework and matter density profile (PREM) are correct for the (3+0) case.
Standard neutrino oscillation formalism in Sec. 2.1; not proven in this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Impact of improved energy resolution on DUNE sensitivity in presence of a light sterile neutrino." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OF7KVZL5

@misc{pith2026250610767,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Impact of improved energy resolution on DUNE sensitivity in presence of a light sterile neutrino},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OF7KVZL5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.10767}
}

abstract

The Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment (DUNE) primarily aims to measure the yet unknown parameters of the standard three neutrino framework, i.e., the determination of Dirac CP phase ($\delta_{13}$), neutrino mass hierarchy (MH) and octant of $\theta_{23}$. In the present work, we consider the standard three neutrino paradigm (referred to as the $(3+0)$ case) and beyond with an additional light sterile neutrino (referred to as the $(3+1)$ case). We consider two configurations : standard energy resolution as in DUNE Technical Design Report (TDR) and improved energy resolution and study the impact of energy resolution in the $(3+0)$ and $(3+1)$ cases. In general, inclusion of subdominant new physics effects spoils the sensitivities. However, improved energy resolution leads to enhancement in sensitivities to the three unknowns in both $(3+0)$ and $(3+1)$ cases.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

77 extracted references · 71 canonical work pages

[43]

Sabya Sachi Chatterjee, P. S. Bhupal Dev, and Pedro A. N. Machado. Impact of improved energy resolution on DUNE sensitivity to neutrino non-standard interactions.JHEP, 08:163, 2021

work page 2021
[1]

Kajita and A

T. Kajita and A. B. McDonald. For the discovery of neutrino oscillations, which shows that neutrinos have mass. The Nobel Prize in Physics 2015.https://www.nobelprize.org/ prizes/physics/2015/summary/

work page 2015
[2]

P. F. de Salas, D. V. Forero, S. Gariazzo, P. Mart ´ ınez-Mirav´ e, O. Mena, C. A. Ternes, M. T´ ortola, and J. W. F. Valle. 2020 global reassessment of the neutrino oscillation picture. JHEP, 02:071, 2021

work page 2020
[3]

Unfinished fabric of the three neutrino paradigm.Phys

Francesco Capozzi, Eleonora Di Valentino, Eligio Lisi, Antonio Marrone, Alessandro Mel- chiorri, and Antonio Palazzo. Unfinished fabric of the three neutrino paradigm.Phys. Rev. D, 104(8):083031, 2021

work page 2021
[4]

Ivan Esteban, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, Michele Maltoni, Ivan Martinez-Soler, Jo˜ ao Paulo Pinheiro, and Thomas Schwetz. NuFit-6.0: Updated global analysis of three-flavor neutrino oscillations. 10 2024

work page 2024
[5]

Leptogenesis.Phys

Sacha Davidson, Enrico Nardi, and Yosef Nir. Leptogenesis.Phys. Rept., 466:105–177, 2008

work page 2008
[6]

Lasserre

Carlo Giunti and T. Lasserre. eV-scale Sterile Neutrinos.Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci., 69:163– 190, 2019

work page 2019
[7]

Sterile Neutrinos.Phys

Basudeb Dasgupta and Joachim Kopp. Sterile Neutrinos.Phys. Rept., 928:1–63, 2021

work page 2021

Show all 77 references

[8]

Athanassopoulos et al

C. Athanassopoulos et al. Evidence for anti-muon-neutrino —>anti-electron-neutrino oscil- lations from the LSND experiment at LAMPF.Phys. Rev. Lett., 77:3082–3085, 1996

1996
[9]

A. A. Aguilar-Arevalo et al. Updated MiniBooNE neutrino oscillation results with increased data and new background studies.Phys. Rev. D, 103(5):052002, 2021

2021
[10]

Abratenko et al

P. Abratenko et al. First Constraints on Light Sterile Neutrino Oscillations from Combined Appearance and Disappearance Searches with the MicroBooNE Detector.Phys. Rev. Lett., 130(1):011801, 2023

2023
[11]

A. A. Aguilar-Arevalo et al. MiniBooNE and MicroBooNE Combined Fit to a 3+1 Sterile Neutrino Scenario.Phys. Rev. Lett., 129(20):201801, 2022

2022
[12]

J. N. Abdurashitov et al. Measurement of the solar neutrino capture rate with gallium metal. III: Results for the 2002–2007 data-taking period.Phys. Rev. C, 80:015807, 2009

2002
[13]

Kaether, W

F. Kaether, W. Hampel, G. Heusser, J. Kiko, and T. Kirsten. Reanalysis of the GALLEX solar neutrino flux and source experiments.Phys. Lett. B, 685:47–54, 2010

2010
[14]

V. V. Barinov et al. Results from the Baksan Experiment on Sterile Transitions (BEST). Phys. Rev. Lett., 128(23):232501, 2022

2022
[15]

On the determination of anti-neutrino spectra from nuclear reactors.Phys

Patrick Huber. On the determination of anti-neutrino spectra from nuclear reactors.Phys. Rev. C, 84:024617, 2011. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.C 85, 029901 (2012)]

2012
[16]

Mention, M

G. Mention, M. Fechner, Th. Lasserre, Th. A. Mueller, D. Lhuillier, M. Cribier, and A. Le- tourneau. The Reactor Antineutrino Anomaly.Phys. Rev. D, 83:073006, 2011

2011
[17]

A. P. Serebrov et al. Search for sterile neutrinos with the Neutrino-4 experiment and mea- surement results.Phys. Rev. D, 104(3):032003, 2021. 18

2021
[18]

The Short-Baseline Neutrino Program at Fermilab.Ann

Pedro AN Machado, Ornella Palamara, and David W Schmitz. The Short-Baseline Neutrino Program at Fermilab.Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci., 69:363–387, 2019

2019
[19]

Abratenko et al

P. Abratenko et al. Scintillation light in SBND: simulation, reconstruction, and expected performance of the photon detection system.Eur. Phys. J. C, 84(10):1046, 2024

2024
[20]

Torretta

D. Torretta. Status and perspectives of the ICARUS experiment at the Fermilab Short Baseline Neutrino program.JINST, 19(04):C04061, 2024

2024
[21]

Abe et al

K. Abe et al. Hyper-Kamiokande Design Report.arXiv:1805.04163

arXiv
[22]

Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment (DUNE), Far Detector Technical Design Report, Volume II: DUNE Physics

Babak Abi et al. Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment (DUNE), Far Detector Technical Design Report, Volume II: DUNE Physics. 2 2020

2020
[23]

Abi et al

B. Abi et al. Experiment Simulation Configurations Approximating DUNE TDR. arXiv:2103.04797
[24]

A. V. Akindinov et al. Letter of Interest for a Neutrino Beam from Protvino to KM3NeT/ORCA.Eur. Phys. J. C, 79(9):758, 2019

2019
[25]

Adrian-Martinez et al

S. Adrian-Martinez et al. Letter of intent for KM3NeT 2.0.J. Phys. G, 43(8):084001, 2016

2016
[26]

Accelerator, reactor, solar and atmospheric neutrino oscillation: Beyond three generations.Phys

Srubabati Goswami. Accelerator, reactor, solar and atmospheric neutrino oscillation: Beyond three generations.Phys. Rev. D, 55:2931–2949, 1997

1997
[27]

The impact of sterile neutrinos on CP measurements at long baselines.JHEP, 11:039, 2015

Raj Gandhi, Boris Kayser, Mehedi Masud, and Suprabh Prakash. The impact of sterile neutrinos on CP measurements at long baselines.JHEP, 11:039, 2015

2015
[28]

Unitarity and the three flavor neutrino mixing matrix.Phys

Stephen Parke and Mark Ross-Lonergan. Unitarity and the three flavor neutrino mixing matrix.Phys. Rev. D, 93(11):113009, 2016

2016
[29]

Ca- pabilities of long-baseline experiments in the presence of a sterile neutrino.JHEP, 11:122, 2016

Debajyoti Dutta, Raj Gandhi, Boris Kayser, Mehedi Masud, and Suprabh Prakash. Ca- pabilities of long-baseline experiments in the presence of a sterile neutrino.JHEP, 11:122, 2016

2016
[30]

What measurements of neutrino neutral current events can reveal.JHEP, 11:202, 2017

Raj Gandhi, Boris Kayser, Suprabh Prakash, and Samiran Roy. What measurements of neutrino neutral current events can reveal.JHEP, 11:202, 2017

2017
[31]

T. S. Kosmas, D. K. Papoulias, M. Tortola, and J. W. F. Valle. Probing light sterile neutrino signatures at reactor and Spallation Neutron Source neutrino experiments.Phys. Rev. D, 96(6):063013, 2017

2017
[32]

Imprints of a light Sterile Neutrino at DUNE, T2HK and T2HKK.Phys

Sandhya Choubey, Debajyoti Dutta, and Dipyaman Pramanik. Imprints of a light Sterile Neutrino at DUNE, T2HK and T2HKK.Phys. Rev. D, 96(5):056026, 2017

2017
[33]

Signatures of a Light Sterile Neutrino in T2HK.JHEP, 04:091, 2018

Sanjib Kumar Agarwalla, Sabya Sachi Chatterjee, and Antonio Palazzo. Signatures of a Light Sterile Neutrino in T2HK.JHEP, 04:091, 2018

2018
[34]

Prospects of light sterile neutrino searches in long-baseline neutrino oscillations.JHEP, 06:094, 2020

Yakefu Reyimuaji and Chun Liu. Prospects of light sterile neutrino searches in long-baseline neutrino oscillations.JHEP, 06:094, 2020

2020
[35]

Matter effect in presence of a sterile neutrino and resolution of the octant degeneracy using a liquid argon detector.Phys

Animesh Chatterjee, Srubabati Goswami, and Supriya Pan. Matter effect in presence of a sterile neutrino and resolution of the octant degeneracy using a liquid argon detector.Phys. Rev. D, 108(9):095050, 2023. 19

2023
[36]

Study of light sterile neutrino at the long-baseline experiment options at KM3NeT.Phys

Dinesh Kumar Singha, Monojit Ghosh, Rudra Majhi, and Rukmani Mohanta. Study of light sterile neutrino at the long-baseline experiment options at KM3NeT.Phys. Rev. D, 107(7):075039, 2023

2023
[37]

Chattopadhyay, Moon Moon Devi, Amol Dighe, Debajyoti Dutta, Dipyaman Pra- manik, and Sushant K

Dibya S. Chattopadhyay, Moon Moon Devi, Amol Dighe, Debajyoti Dutta, Dipyaman Pra- manik, and Sushant K. Raut. Sterile neutrinos: propagation in matter and sensitivity to sterile mass ordering.JHEP, 02:044, 2023

2023
[38]

Soumya, and Rukmani Mohanta

Rudra Majhi, C. Soumya, and Rukmani Mohanta. Light sterile neutrinos and their implica- tions on currently running long-baseline and neutrinoless double beta decay experiments.J. Phys. G, 47(9):095002, 2020

2020
[39]

Exploring the new physics phases in 3+1 scenario in neutrino oscillation experiments.JHEP, 09:162, 2021

Nishat Fiza, Mehedi Masud, and Manimala Mitra. Exploring the new physics phases in 3+1 scenario in neutrino oscillation experiments.JHEP, 09:162, 2021

2021
[40]

Signals of eV-scale sterile neutrino at long baseline neutrino experiments.Eur

Sabila Parveen, Kiran Sharma, Sudhanwa Patra, and Poonam Mehta. Signals of eV-scale sterile neutrino at long baseline neutrino experiments.Eur. Phys. J. C, 85(2):181, 2025

2025
[41]

Sterile sector impacting the correlations and degeneracies among mixing parameters at the Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment.JHEP, 01:139, 2025

Sabila Parveen, Mehedi Masud, Mary Bishai, and Poonam Mehta. Sterile sector impacting the correlations and degeneracies among mixing parameters at the Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment.JHEP, 01:139, 2025

2025
[42]

Neutrino oscillations at DUNE with improved energy reconstruction.JHEP, 09:030, 2016

Valentina De Romeri, Enrique Fernandez-Martinez, and Michel Sorel. Neutrino oscillations at DUNE with improved energy reconstruction.JHEP, 09:030, 2016

2016
[44]

Pontecorvo

B. Pontecorvo. Inverse beta processes and nonconservation of lepton charge.Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz., 34:247, 1957

1957
[45]

Pontecorvo

B. Pontecorvo. Mesonium and anti-mesonium.Sov. Phys. JETP, 6:429, 1957

1957
[46]

Remarks on the unified model of elemen- tary particles.Prog

Ziro Maki, Masami Nakagawa, and Shoichi Sakata. Remarks on the unified model of elemen- tary particles.Prog. Theor. Phys., 28:870–880, 1962

1962
[47]

Gribov and B

V.N. Gribov and B. Pontecorvo. Neutrino astronomy and lepton charge.Phys. Lett. B, 28:493, 1969

1969
[48]

Navas et al

S. Navas et al. Review of particle physics.Phys. Rev. D, 110(3):030001, 2024

2024
[49]

Joachim Kopp, Pedro A. N. Machado, Michele Maltoni, and Thomas Schwetz. Sterile Neutrino Oscillations: The Global Picture.JHEP, 05:050, 2013

2013
[50]

Klop and A

N. Klop and A. Palazzo. Imprints of CP violation induced by sterile neutrinos in T2K data. Phys. Rev. D, 91(7):073017, 2015

2015
[51]

Abi et al

B. Abi et al. Prospects for beyond the Standard Model physics searches at the Deep Under- ground Neutrino Experiment.Eur. Phys. J. C, 81(4):322, 2021

2021
[52]

Mona Dentler, ´Alvaro Hern´ andez-Cabezudo, Joachim Kopp, Pedro A. N. Machado, Michele Maltoni, Ivan Martinez-Soler, and Thomas Schwetz. Updated Global Analysis of Neutrino Oscillations in the Presence of eV-Scale Sterile Neutrinos.JHEP, 08:010, 2018. 20

2018
[53]

Akhmedov, Robert Johansson, Manfred Lindner, Tommy Ohlsson, and Thomas Schwetz

Evgeny K. Akhmedov, Robert Johansson, Manfred Lindner, Tommy Ohlsson, and Thomas Schwetz. Series expansions for three flavor neutrino oscillation probabilities in matter.JHEP, 04:078, 2004

2004
[54]

Lindner, and W

Patrick Huber, M. Lindner, and W. Winter. Simulation of long-baseline neutrino oscillation experiments with GLoBES (General Long Baseline Experiment Simulator).Comput. Phys. Commun., 167:195, 2005

2005
[55]

New features in the simulation of neutrino oscillation experiments with GLoBES 3.0: General Long Baseline Experiment Simulator.Comput

Patrick Huber, Joachim Kopp, Manfred Lindner, Mark Rolinec, and Walter Winter. New features in the simulation of neutrino oscillation experiments with GLoBES 3.0: General Long Baseline Experiment Simulator.Comput. Phys. Commun., 177:432–438, 2007

2007
[56]

A. M. Dziewonski and D. L. Anderson. Preliminary reference earth model.Phys. Earth Planet. Interiors, 25:297–356, 1981

1981
[57]

Agostinelli et al

S. Agostinelli et al. GEANT4: A Simulation toolkit.Nucl. Instrum. Meth., A506:250–303, 2003

2003
[58]

Geant4 developments and applications.IEEE Trans

John Allison et al. Geant4 developments and applications.IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., 53:270, 2006

2006
[59]

Uma Sankar

Raj Gandhi, Pomita Ghoshal, Srubabati Goswami, Poonam Mehta, and S. Uma Sankar. Large matter effects in nu(mu) —>nu(tau) oscillations.Phys. Rev. Lett., 94:051801, 2005

2005
[60]

Uma Sankar

Raj Gandhi, Pomita Ghoshal, Srubabati Goswami, Poonam Mehta, and S. Uma Sankar. Earth matter effects at very long baselines and the neutrino mass hierarchy.Phys. Rev. D, 73:053001, 2006

2006
[61]

Kelly and Stephen J

Kevin J. Kelly and Stephen J. Parke. Matter Density Profile Shape Effects at DUNE.Phys. Rev. D, 98(1):015025, 2018

2018
[62]

Moura, and Jaehoon Yu

Animesh Chatterjee, Felipe Kamiya, Celio A. Moura, and Jaehoon Yu. Impact of Matter Density Profile Shape on Non-Standard Interactions at DUNE.arXiv:1809.09313

arXiv
[63]

Abi et al

B. Abi et al. Deep underground neutrino experiment (dune), far detector technical design report, volume i: Introduction to dune.JINST, 15:T08008, 2020

2020
[64]

Understanding the energy resolution of liquid argon neutrino detectors.Phys

Alexander Friedland and Shirley Weishi Li. Understanding the energy resolution of liquid argon neutrino detectors.Phys. Rev. D, 99(3):036009, 2019

2019
[65]

Bass et al

M. Bass et al. Baseline Optimization for the Measurement of CP Violation, Mass Hierar- chy, andθ 23 Octant in a Long-Baseline Neutrino Oscillation Experiment.Phys. Rev. D, 91(5):052015, 2015

2015
[66]

Nonstandard interactions and resolving the ordering of neutrino masses at DUNE and other long baseline experiments.Phys

Mehedi Masud and Poonam Mehta. Nonstandard interactions and resolving the ordering of neutrino masses at DUNE and other long baseline experiments.Phys. Rev. D, 94(5):053007, 2016

2016
[67]

Messier.Evidence for neutrino mass from observations of atmospheric neutrinos with Super-Kamiokande

Mark D. Messier.Evidence for neutrino mass from observations of atmospheric neutrinos with Super-Kamiokande. PhD thesis, Boston U., 1999

1999
[68]

Probing CP violation signal at DUNE in presence of non-standard neutrino interactions.J

Mehedi Masud, Animesh Chatterjee, and Poonam Mehta. Probing CP violation signal at DUNE in presence of non-standard neutrino interactions.J. Phys. G, 43(9):095005, 2016. 21

2016
[69]

Physics prospects with the second oscillation maximum at the Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment.Phys

Jogesh Rout, Sheeba Shafaq, Mary Bishai, and Poonam Mehta. Physics prospects with the second oscillation maximum at the Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment.Phys. Rev. D, 103(11):116003, 2021

2021
[70]

Impact of high energy beam tunes on the sensitivities to the standard unknowns at DUNE.Phys

Jogesh Rout, Samiran Roy, Mehedi Masud, Mary Bishai, and Poonam Mehta. Impact of high energy beam tunes on the sensitivities to the standard unknowns at DUNE.Phys. Rev. D, 102:116018, 2020

2020
[71]

X. Qian, A. Tan, W. Wang, J. J. Ling, R. D. McKeown, and C. Zhang. Statistical Evaluation of Experimental Determinations of Neutrino Mass Hierarchy.Phys. Rev., D86:113011, 2012

2012
[72]

Acciarri et al

R. Acciarri et al. Long-Baseline Neutrino Facility (LBNF) and Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment (DUNE): Conceptual Design Report, Volume 2: The Physics Program for DUNE at LBNF. 12 2015

2015
[73]

Andr´ e de Gouvˆ ea and Kevin J. Kelly. Non-standard neutrino interactions at DUNE.Nucl. Phys. B, 908:318–335, 2016

2016
[74]

Non-Standard Interactions in propagation at the Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment.JHEP, 03:016, 2016

Pilar Coloma. Non-Standard Interactions in propagation at the Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment.JHEP, 03:016, 2016

2016
[75]

Octant ofθ 23 in danger with a light sterile neutrino.Phys

Sanjib Kumar Agarwalla, Sabya Sachi Chatterjee, and Antonio Palazzo. Octant ofθ 23 in danger with a light sterile neutrino.Phys. Rev. Lett., 118(3):031804, 2017

2017
[76]

Neutrino Mass Ordering Obscured by Nonstandard Interactions.Phys

Francesco Capozzi, Sabya Sachi Chatterjee, and Antonio Palazzo. Neutrino Mass Ordering Obscured by Nonstandard Interactions.Phys. Rev. Lett., 124(11):111801, 2020

2020
[77]

Nonstandard Neutrino Interactions as a Solution to theN OνAand T2K Discrepancy.Phys

Sabya Sachi Chatterjee and Antonio Palazzo. Nonstandard Neutrino Interactions as a Solution to theN OνAand T2K Discrepancy.Phys. Rev. Lett., 126(5):051802, 2021. 22

2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [43]

Sabya Sachi Chatterjee, P. S. Bhupal Dev, and Pedro A. N. Machado. Impact of improved energy resolution on DUNE sensitivity to neutrino non-standard interactions.JHEP, 08:163, 2021

work page 2021

[2] [1]

Kajita and A

T. Kajita and A. B. McDonald. For the discovery of neutrino oscillations, which shows that neutrinos have mass. The Nobel Prize in Physics 2015.https://www.nobelprize.org/ prizes/physics/2015/summary/

work page 2015

[3] [2]

P. F. de Salas, D. V. Forero, S. Gariazzo, P. Mart ´ ınez-Mirav´ e, O. Mena, C. A. Ternes, M. T´ ortola, and J. W. F. Valle. 2020 global reassessment of the neutrino oscillation picture. JHEP, 02:071, 2021

work page 2020

[4] [3]

Unfinished fabric of the three neutrino paradigm.Phys

Francesco Capozzi, Eleonora Di Valentino, Eligio Lisi, Antonio Marrone, Alessandro Mel- chiorri, and Antonio Palazzo. Unfinished fabric of the three neutrino paradigm.Phys. Rev. D, 104(8):083031, 2021

work page 2021

[5] [4]

Ivan Esteban, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, Michele Maltoni, Ivan Martinez-Soler, Jo˜ ao Paulo Pinheiro, and Thomas Schwetz. NuFit-6.0: Updated global analysis of three-flavor neutrino oscillations. 10 2024

work page 2024

[6] [5]

Leptogenesis.Phys

Sacha Davidson, Enrico Nardi, and Yosef Nir. Leptogenesis.Phys. Rept., 466:105–177, 2008

work page 2008

[7] [6]

Lasserre

Carlo Giunti and T. Lasserre. eV-scale Sterile Neutrinos.Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci., 69:163– 190, 2019

work page 2019

[8] [7]

Sterile Neutrinos.Phys

Basudeb Dasgupta and Joachim Kopp. Sterile Neutrinos.Phys. Rept., 928:1–63, 2021

work page 2021