Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Using 1.46 ktonne-years of reactor-antineutrino data, this paper reports a spectral fit to the solar-scale mass-squared difference yielding Δm²₂₁=(7.93^{+0.21}_{-0.24})×10⁻⁵ eV².

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 22:08 UTC pith:6JI33GAW

load-bearing objection A careful, statistically-dominated SNO+ measurement gives a second long-baseline reactor Δm²₂₁ close to KamLAND precision, with a real but non-fatal soft spot in the (α,n) background shape uncertainty. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2511.11856 v3 pith:6JI33GAW submitted 2025-11-14 hep-ex

Measurement of reactor antineutrino oscillations with 1.46 ktonne-years of data at SNO+

M.Abreu , A.Allega , M.R.Anderson , S.Andringa , D.M.Asner , D.J.Auty , A.Bacon , T.Baltazar
show 103 more authors
F.Bar\~ao N.Barros R.Bayes E.W.Beier A.Bialek S.D.Biller E.Caden M.Chen S.Cheng B.Cleveland D.Cookman J.Corning S.DeGraw R.Dehghani J.Deloye M.M.Depatie C.Dima J.Dittmer K.H.Dixon M.S.Esmaeilian E.Falk N.Fatemighomi R.Ford S.Gadamsetty A.Gaur D.Gooding C.Grant J.Grove S.Hall A.L.Hallin D.Hallman M.R.Hebert W.J.Heintzelman R.L.Helmer C.Hewitt B.Hreljac P.Huang R.Hunt-Stokes A.S.In\'acio C.J.Jillings S.Kaluzienski T.Kaptanoglu J.Kladnik J.R.Klein L.L.Kormos B.Krar C.Kraus T.Kroupov\'a C.Lake L.Lebanowski C.Lefebvre V.Lozza M.Luo S.Maguire A.Maio S.Manecki J.Maneira R.D.Martin N.McCauley A.B.McDonald C.Mills G.Milton D.Morris I.Morton-Blake M.Mubasher S.Naugle L.J.Nolan H.M.O'Keeffe G.D.OrebiGann S.Ouyang J.Page S.Pal K.Paleshi W.Parker L.J.Pickard R.C.Pitelka B.Quenallata P.Ravi A.Reichold S.Riccetto J.Rose R.Rosero J.Shen J.Simms P.Skensved M.Smiley R.Tafirout B.Tam J.Tseng E.V\'azquez-J\'auregui C.J.Virtue F.Wang M.Ward J.D.Wilson J.R.Wilson A.Wright S.Yang Z.Ye M.Yeh S.Yu Y.Zhang K.Zuber A.Zummo
This is my paper
classification hep-ex
keywords reactor antineutrino oscillationsΔm²₂₁solar neutrino mass splittinggeoneutrinosinverse beta decayliquid scintillator detector(α,n) backgroundFisher discriminant
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

Using 1.46 ktonne-years of data, this paper extracts the solar-scale neutrino mass-squared difference from the energy spectrum of reactor antineutrinos arriving at three baselines of 240, 350, and 355 km. The unbinned spectral fit yields Δm²₂₁=(7.93^{+0.21}_{-0.24})×10⁻⁵ eV², a precision that approaches the only earlier long-baseline reactor antineutrino measurement. The same dataset detects geoneutrinos at 49^{+13}_{-12} TNU, a 4.1σ signal, thanks to a new event classifier that suppresses the dominant (α,n) background. Combined fits with other neutrino data give a global Δm²₂₁=(7.63±0.17)×10⁻⁵ eV² and sin²θ₁₂=0.310±0.012, and the paper argues this independent reactor measurement sharpens the test of the three-flavor oscillation picture.

Core claim

The paper establishes that a spectral analysis of inverse-beta-decay events, selected by their prompt-positron and delayed-neutron-capture coincidence, can resolve the oscillation dip imposed by Δm²₂₁ on reactor antineutrinos traveling 240–355 km. The best fit to the two unconstrained oscillation parameters is Δm²₂₁=(7.93^{+0.21}_{-0.24})×10⁻⁵ eV² and sin²θ₁₂=0.505±0.134; constraining the mixing angle to the global value returns Δm²₂₁=(7.90^{+0.26}_{-0.31})×10⁻⁵ eV². The measurement is compatible with the global fit at 1.4σ. A separate fit that applies the (α,n) classifier reduces the dominant background by a factor of ~4–5 and yields a geoneutrino rate of 49^{+13}_{-12} TNU, a 4.1σ detectio

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the reactor antineutrino survival probability P_ee, which produces an energy-dependent deficit dominated by sin²(Δm²₂₁ L/4E). The signal is detected via inverse beta decay: a prompt positron plus a delayed 2.2-MeV neutron-capture gamma, selected by a likelihood ratio on time, distance, and delayed energy. To handle the dominant background, the paper introduces a Fisher discriminant event classifier built from time-of-flight-corrected PMT hit times and radial position; it separates multiple-proton-scattering (α,n) signals from IBD positrons below 3.5 MeV, rejecting roughly 82–92% of the (α,n) events while retaining about 90% of geoneutrino and 60% of reactor IBDs. An

Load-bearing premise

The simulated energy shape of the dominant (α,n) multiple-proton-scattering background is taken to be correct up to a floating normalization; if its true spectrum has an energy-dependent shape error in the 1–4 MeV region, the fitted Δm²₂₁ could shift outside the quoted uncertainty.

What would settle it

Compare the reconstructed energy spectrum of neutron recoils from a deployed AmBe source in the SNO+ detector with the simulation used for the (α,n) background; any energy-correlated discrepancy exceeding the assigned systematic would invalidate the central value. Alternatively, a future long-baseline reactor experiment with different backgrounds and better energy resolution could independently verify Δm²₂₁ at comparable precision.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • A second experiment now measures Δm²₂₁ with long-baseline reactor antineutrinos, providing an independent test of the value obtained by the first.
  • Combining the SNO+ spectral data with solar and other reactor results shifts the global Δm²₂₁ from (7.53±0.18) to (7.63±0.17)×10⁻⁵ eV², a moderate upward movement.
  • The geoneutrino measurement at 49 TNU with ~26% uncertainty is the third such detection and can be combined with other sites to constrain continental crust contributions and mantle heat production.
  • Further data and improved knowledge of the (α,n) classifier's systematic uncertainty are expected to reduce the statistical and systematic errors on both Δm²₂₁ and the geoneutrino rate.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the upward-shifted Δm²₂₁ persists as statistics accumulate, the 1.6σ discrepancy with solar neutrino fits could harden into a real tension, pointing either to underestimated reactor flux shape uncertainties or to new physics in the neutrino sector.
  • The (α,n) classifier is transferable in concept to other organic-scintillator neutrino detectors, where the same multiple-proton-scatter background limits the low-energy region; applying it elsewhere would provide a cross-check of this background model.
  • A dedicated AmBe-source measurement spanning the full prompt-energy range (0.9–4 MeV) would directly test the assumed (α,n) spectral shape; if the shape deviates, both the quoted Δm²₂₁ and the geoneutrino rate are impacted.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The SNO+ Collaboration reports a spectral analysis of reactor antineutrinos using 1.46 ktonne-years of data collected from May 2022 through July 2025. An unbinned extended-likelihood fit to the prompt-energy spectrum yields Δm²₂₁ = (7.93^{+0.21}_{-0.24})×10⁻⁵ eV² and sin²θ₁₂ = 0.505±0.134, with a geoneutrino signal of 49^{+13}_{-12} TNU (4.1σ) obtained after applying a new (α,n) event classifier. Combining the SNO+ data with PDG 2025 global constraints, the authors report updated world averages Δm²₂₁ = (7.63±0.17)×10⁻⁵ eV² and sin²θ₁₂ = 0.310±0.012. The paper includes two independent fitters, a comprehensive set of detector/flux/background systematics, and a first AmBe-based calibration of the (α,n) classifier.

Significance. If the result holds, SNO+ becomes the second experiment to measure reactor antineutrino oscillations at solar-scale baselines, with a precision approaching KamLAND's. The distinct baseline distribution (240, 350, and 355 km) provides an independent cross-check of the KamLAND measurement and a complementary probe of the solar mass-splitting parameter. The paper is also notable for the first application of an (α,n) pulse-shape classifier in a large liquid-scintillator detector, which improves the geoneutrino measurement. Strengths include the use of two independent fitters with consistent results, explicit propagation of detector, reactor-flux, and background systematics, and a calibration deployment (AmBe) used to quantify classifier-related uncertainties. The main weaknesses are the absence of an energy-correlated shape uncertainty for the dominant (α,n) background in the spectral fit and a potential double-counting of SNO+ data in the PDG-based global combination; both are addressable.

major comments (3)
  1. [(α,n) Background / Spectral Analysis and Results] The dominant background below ~3.5 MeV is the multiple-proton-scattering continuum from (α,n). In the fit description, only scalar 'scalings to the cross section and branching ratios' are floated for the (α,n) channels; no energy-correlated shape nuisance is included. Because Δm²₂₁ is extracted from the oscillatory spectral distortion across the full 0.9–8 MeV range, an energy-dependent error in the simulated (α,n) spectrum (e.g., a slope or resonance-like wiggle from the ¹³C(α,n) cross section) could bias Δm²₂₁ by an amount comparable to the quoted statistical uncertainty of ≈0.2×10⁻⁵ eV². The AmBe source has a different neutron spectrum (⁹Be(α,n)¹²C), so it does not directly validate the ¹³C(α,n) spectral shape. The third fit in Table III, which suppresses the (α,n) background, gives Δm²₂₁ = (7.56±0.17)×10⁻⁵ eV², a ~0.4×10⁻⁵ shift relative to the unconstrained fit, indicating some sens
  2. [Spectral Analysis and Results / Summary] The global combination constrains the SNO+ fit with Gaussian constraints to the PDG 2025 values (Ref. [16]) and reports updated world averages Δm²₂₁ = (7.63±0.17)×10⁻⁵ eV² and sin²θ₁₂ = 0.310±0.012. However, the current SNO+ dataset includes the previously published SNO+ dataset (Ref. [2]) and is five times larger. If the PDG 2025 update already incorporates that earlier SNO+ result, then this combination double-counts SNO+ data, and the claimed impact ('a moderate increase... from (7.53±0.18) to (7.63±0.17)') is not a clean measure of the new data's constraining power. Please state explicitly whether the PDG constraints exclude the earlier SNO+ measurement; if they do not, recompute the combined fit using external constraints that do not contain SNO+ data, or provide a proper covariance-level combination.
  3. [Calibrations / Spectral Analysis and Results, Table III] The 4.1σ geoneutrino significance and the 49 TNU central value (Summary and Table III) rely on the classifier fit, where the dataset I classifier systematic is assumed to have the same energy dependence and magnitude as dataset II, with no direct AmBe deployment for dataset I. This assumption is acknowledged, but no cross-check is shown. Since the classifier cut substantially changes the background decomposition (Table II: (α,n) p-scatters drop from 63 to 22 counts), the geoneutrino error budget depends sensitively on this assumed systematic. Please perform a sensitivity test in which the dataset I classifier uncertainty is taken as fully correlated with dataset II (or a more conservative common uncertainty), and confirm that the 4.1σ significance is stable.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Calibrations] The text refers to a 'Fischer discriminant'; the standard spelling is 'Fisher discriminant'.
  2. [General] The notation 'β's' and 'α's' is awkward; use 'β particles'/'α particles' or 'β decays' for clarity.
  3. [Figure 3] The contour labels '1, 2, 3' in the figure are not defined in the caption; please state that they correspond to confidence levels (e.g., 1σ, 2σ, 3σ).
  4. [References] Ref. [16] is cited as 'Phys. Rev. D110, 030001 (2024), and 2025 update.' If a specific 2025 PDG update reference exists, it should be cited directly; the current form is ambiguous about the exact update date and content.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Central Δm²21 measurement is an independent direct likelihood fit; only a minor self-citation/data-overlap affects the secondary global combination.

specific steps
  1. self citation load bearing [Introduction and 'Spectral Analysis and Results' (global combination paragraph)]
    "The results reported in this Letter are obtained from data collected from May 2022 through July 2025, including those used in a previous analysis [2]. ... The impact of SNO+ data on the global measurement of the oscillation parameters is obtained by repeating the fit with both oscillation parameters constrained to the PDG 2025 global values [16], using Gaussian constraints."

    The PDG 2025 global values [16] used as Gaussian constraints may already incorporate the SNO+ measurement from Ref. [2], which is a subset of the dataset fitted here. The combined global values (Δm²21 = 7.63 ± 0.17 × 10⁻⁵ eV²) then use the same events twice, once through the external constraint and once through the likelihood fit. This is a minor self-citation/data-overlap issue in the secondary combination, not in the standalone unconstrained spectral fit of Δm²21, which is independent of the target result.

full rationale

The central result — Δm²21 = (7.93⁺⁰·²¹₋₀·₂₄) × 10⁻⁵ eV² — comes from an unbinned extended-likelihood fit to the observed prompt-energy spectrum, with reactor IBD, geoneutrino, (α,n), α-p, and atmospheric backgrounds. Reactor spectra are imported from external measurements (Daya Bay/PROSPECT, Huber, Mueller), background normalizations are floated, and detector systematics are calibrated from data. No target oscillation parameter is used as an input, and no fitted quantity is renamed as a prediction. Self-citations to prior SNO+ work are used for detector characterization, the α-p model, and the (α,n) classifier; these concern background systematics and are not the load-bearing derivation of the oscillation measurement. The only nontrivial self-reference is the global combination, where the PDG 2025 constraint may contain the previous SNO+ dataset that is also part of the current sample; this affects the combined values but not the standalone SNO+ measurement. Under the review rules this is a minor self-citation/data-overlap, not a circular derivation, so the score is low.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

The measurement rests on external reactor flux models, geoneutrino flux models, and background simulations. The fitted nuisance parameters (background normalizations, U/Th ratio) are standard in experimental fits. The most fragile inputs are the simulated spectral shapes of the (α,n) and α-p backgrounds and the extrapolation of the classifier calibration from dataset II to dataset I.

free parameters (6)
  • (α,n) multiple-p-scatter normalization scale = 22±6 counts (with classifier cut); 63±19 without
    Fitted in the likelihood; rescales the expected dominant background to match data.
  • (α,n) other-channel normalization scale = 7±4 counts
    Fitted for the 16O de-excitation and 4.4-MeV γ channels.
  • α-p background normalization scale = 3±6 counts
    Fitted; large 83% systematic from tail construction.
  • Atmospheric neutrino normalization scale = 5±2 counts
    Fitted with 68% systematic from GENIE/Bartol.
  • Geoneutrino U/Th ratio = 3.29^{+1.42}_{-1.48}
    Fitted with a Gaussian constraint 3.8±1.3 from the crust-mantle model.
  • Classifier selection thresholds (per dataset) = not quoted
    Chosen by optimizing signal/background on simulations; applied only in the third fit.
axioms (7)
  • standard math Three-flavor neutrino oscillation survival probability formula (Eq. in 'Neutrino Oscillation' section)
    The analysis assumes the standard PMNS framework for P_ee, including matter effects.
  • domain assumption Reactor antineutrino spectra from Daya Bay/PROSPECT/Huber/Mueller apply to CANDU PHWRs with adjusted fission fractions
    The flux prediction relies on external spectra; shape uncertainties are claimed negligible, but this is an external input.
  • domain assumption Constant electron number density 8.13×10^23 cm^-3 for matter effects
    Used in Ref. [15]; the crust density is approximated as constant, affecting Δm²₂₁ by O(1%).
  • domain assumption Geoneutrino flux model with 20 TW radiogenic heat and U/Th ratio 3.8±1.3
    Used to predict the expected geoneutrino signal and constrain the U/Th ratio in the fit.
  • domain assumption (α,n) branching ratios: 89% multiple p-scatter, 2% 4.4-MeV γ, 9% 16O*, with 30% and 100% uncertainties
    Taken from simulation; the fit scales these channels but does not alter their spectral shapes.
  • domain assumption The α-p delayed spectrum shape derived from 215Po during high-background periods is representative of the 214Po tail in normal periods
    The paper states 'further studies are underway'; this model carries an 83% systematic uncertainty.
  • domain assumption IBD selection efficiency and classifier behavior measured with 214Bi-214Po and AmBe sources are representative of signal and background events across the fiducial volume
    Used to assign a 2.9% efficiency uncertainty and the classifier systematics; dataset I relies on dataset II's AmBe data by assumption.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 11827 in / 15414 out tokens · 133937 ms · 2026-08-03T22:08:24.026490+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Measurement of reactor antineutrino oscillations with 1.46 ktonne-years of data at SNO+." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6JI33GAW

@misc{pith2026251111856,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Measurement of reactor antineutrino oscillations with 1.46 ktonne-years of data at SNO+},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6JI33GAW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2511.11856}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

The SNO+ Collaboration reports new results on reactor antineutrino oscillations using data acquired from May 2022 through July 2025. The spectral analysis of a flux dominated by nuclear reactors at 240, 350, and 355 kilometers yields the mass-squared difference $\Delta m^2_{21}=(7.93^{+0.21}_{-0.24})\times 10^{-5}$ eV$^2$. This result is compatible with and approaches the precision of the only other long-baseline reactor antineutrino measurement, by KamLAND. Combining these measurements, along with those from solar neutrino experiments, the global values of the neutrino mixing parameters become: $\Delta m^2_{21}$ = $(7.63\pm0.17)\times 10^{-5}$ eV$^2$ and $\sin^2{\theta_{12}}=0.310\pm0.012$. The analysis of geoneutrinos at SNO+ is also improved, with a measured signal of 49$^{+13}_{-12}$ TNU.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.11856 by A.Allega, A.Bacon, A.Bialek, A.B.McDonald, A.Gaur, A.L.Hallin, A.Maio, A.Reichold, A.S.In\'acio, A.Wright, A.Zummo, B.Cleveland, B.Hreljac, B.Krar, B.Quenallata, B.Tam, C.Dima, C.Grant, C.Hewitt, C.J.Jillings, C.J.Virtue, C.Kraus, C.Lake, C.Lefebvre, C.Mills, D.Cookman, D.Gooding, D.Hallman, D.J.Auty, D.M.Asner, D.Morris, E.Caden, E.Falk, E.V\'azquez-J\'auregui, E.W.Beier, F.Bar\~ao, F.Wang, G.D.OrebiGann, G.Milton, H.M.O'Keeffe, I.Morton-Blake, J.Corning, J.Deloye, J.Dittmer, J.D.Wilson, J.Grove, J.Kladnik, J.Maneira, J.Page, J.R.Klein, J.Rose, J.R.Wilson, J.Shen, J.Simms, J.Tseng, K.H.Dixon, K.Paleshi, K.Zuber, L.J.Nolan, L.J.Pickard, L.Lebanowski, L.L.Kormos, M.Abreu, M.Chen, M.Luo, M.M.Depatie, M.Mubasher, M.R.Anderson, M.R.Hebert, M.S.Esmaeilian, M.Smiley, M.Ward, M.Yeh, N.Barros, N.Fatemighomi, N.McCauley, P.Huang, P.Ravi, P.Skensved, R.Bayes, R.C.Pitelka, R.Dehghani, R.D.Martin, R.Ford, R.Hunt-Stokes, R.L.Helmer, R.Rosero, R.Tafirout, S.Andringa, S.Cheng, S.D.Biller, S.DeGraw, S.Gadamsetty, S.Hall, S.Kaluzienski, S.Maguire, S.Manecki, S.Naugle, S.Ouyang, S.Pal, S.Riccetto, S.Yang, S.Yu, T.Baltazar, T.Kaptanoglu, T.Kroupov\'a, V.Lozza, W.J.Heintzelman, W.Parker, Y.Zhang, Z.Ye.

Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Distributions of the ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. The Eos detector: a demonstrator of hybrid optical detection technology

    physics.ins-det 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    Eos, a 4-ton hybrid optical detector at Berkeley, has been built and is taking calibration data to demonstrate simultaneous Cherenkov and scintillation detection for future neutrino detectors.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

25 extracted references · 12 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Gando et al

    A. Gando et al. (KamLAND), Phys. Rev. D88, 033001 (2013), 1303.4667

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  2. [2]

    Abreu et al

    M. Abreu et al. (SNO+), Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 121801 (2025), 2505.04469

    arXiv 2025

  3. [3]

    Abe et al

    K. Abe et al. (Super-Kamiokande), Phys. Rev. D109, 092001 (2024), 2312.12907

    arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    Allega et al

    A. Allega et al. (SNO+), Eur. Phys. J. C85, 17 (2025), [Erratum: Eur.Phys.J.C 85, 296 (2025)], 2405.19700

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    Albanese et al

    V. Albanese et al. (SNO+), JINST16, P08059 (2021), 2104.11687

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  6. [6]

    M. R. Anderson et al. (SNO+), JINST16, P05009 (2021), 2011.12924

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  7. [7]

    See supplemental information. [8]Generator Output and Capability monthly reports database 2025, Generator Output and Capability (The Independent Electricity System Operator, Toronto, On- tario, Canada, 2025), URLhttps://www.ieso.ca/ Power-Data/Data-Directory. [9]Power reactor status reports 2025, Power reactor status reports (United States Nuclear Regula-...

    2025

  8. [10]

    Operating Experience with Nuclear Power Stations in Member States (International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, 2025), URLhttps://www.iaea.org/ publications/15484/

    2025

  9. [11]

    Adey et al

    D. Adey et al. (Daya Bay), Phys. Rev. D100, 052004 (2019), 1808.10836

    arXiv 2019

  10. [12]

    F. P. An et al. (Daya Bay, PROSPECT), Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 081801 (2022), 2106.12251

    arXiv 2022

  11. [13]

    Huber, Phys

    P. Huber, Phys. Rev. C84, 024617 (2011), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.C 85, 029901 (2012)], 1106.0687

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  12. [14]

    T. A. Mueller et al., Phys. Rev. C83, 054615 (2011), 1101.2663

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  13. [15]

    Page, Comput

    J. Page, Comput. Phys. Commun.300, 109200 (2024), 2309.06900

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  14. [16]

    Navas et al

    S. Navas et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D110, 8 030001 (2024), and 2025 update

    2024

  15. [17]

    Strati, S

    V. Strati, S. A. Wipperfurth, M. Baldoncini, W. F. McDonough, and F. Mantovani, Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst.18, 4326 (2017), 1712.04676

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  16. [18]

    S. A. Wipperfurth, O. ˇSr´ amek, and W. F. McDonough, Geophys. Res. Solid Earth125(2019), 1907.12184

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  17. [19]

    S. A. Wipperfurth, M. Guo, O. ˇSr´ amek, and W. F. Mc- Donough, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett.498(2018)

    2018

  18. [20]

    Andreopoulos et al., Nucl

    C. Andreopoulos et al., Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A614, 87 (2010), 0905.2517

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  19. [21]

    [16], the expected rate of reactor IBDs is around 100 per year in the full A V volume

    Using the measured oscillation parameters in Ref. [16], the expected rate of reactor IBDs is around 100 per year in the full A V volume. Geoneutrinos— The natural 238U and 232Th in the Earth’s crust and mantle each undergo a series of beta decays that produce νe’s with energies up to 3.3 MeV. Dedicated geological measurements have been made to obtain a mo...

    2025

  20. [22]

    G. D. Barr, T. K. Gaisser, P. Lipari, S. Robbins, and T. Stanev, Phys. Rev. D70, 023006 (2004), astro- ph/0403630

    arXiv 2004

  21. [23]

    Battistoni, A

    G. Battistoni, A. Ferrari, T. Montaruli, and P. R. Sala, Astropart. Phys.23, 526 (2005)

    2005

  22. [24]

    Wallraff and C

    M. Wallraff and C. Wiebusch, Comput. Phys. Commun. 197, 185 (2015), 1409.1387

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  23. [25]

    Abe et al

    S. Abe et al. (KamLAND), Geophys. Res. Lett.49 (2022), 2205.14934

    arXiv 2022

  24. [26]

    Agostini et al

    M. Agostini et al. (Borexino), Phys. Rev. D101, 012009 (2020), 1909.02257

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  25. [32]

    The smaller difference, ∆m2 21, has been measured using electron antineutrinos from commercial nuclear reactors at long baselines [1, 2], and electron neutrinos from the Sun [3]

    These pa- rameters have been measured to have consistent val- ues using rates and spectral features from various neu- trino and antineutrino sources. The smaller difference, ∆m2 21, has been measured using electron antineutrinos from commercial nuclear reactors at long baselines [1, 2], and electron neutrinos from the Sun [3]. SNO+ is the second experimen...

    2022