Updated fit to three neutrino mixing: exploring the accelerator-reactor complementarity

By I. Esteban, M. Gonzalez-Garcia, M. Maltoni, I. Martinez-Soler, T. Schwetz. Journal of High Energy Physics, 2016

623 citations recorded by the source corpus.

We perform a combined fit to global neutrino oscillation data available as of fall 2016 in the scenario of three-neutrino oscillations and present updated allowed ranges of the six oscillation parameters. We discuss the differences arising between the consistent combination of the data samples from accelerator and reactor experiments compared to partial combinations. We quantify the confidence in the determination of the less precisely known parameters θ23, δCP, and the neutrino mass ordering by performing a Monte Carlo study of the long baseline accelerator and reactor data. We find that the sensitivity to the mass ordering and the θ23 octant is below 1σ. Maximal θ23 mixing is allowed at slightly more than 90% CL. The best fit for the CP violating phase is around 270°, CP conservation is allowed at slightly above 1σ, and values of δCP ≃ 90° are disfavored at around 99% CL for normal ordering and higher CL for inverted ordering.

Subfields: Nuclear and High Energy Physics

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/a4f40a0cc0e0d82e776d384da87441b9d701ed96

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Nuclear and High Energy Physics

Citations in the corpus

Neutrino Oscillations and Non-standard Interactions (2017, methodology): “[41, 62].”
DarkSUSY 6: an advanced tool to compute dark matter properties numerically (2018, methodology): “For neutrino oscillations we use the normal ordering best fit points of [128, 129].”
Charged Lepton Flavour Violation: An Experimental and Theoretical Introduction (2017, background): “Considering the uncertainties in the neutrino parameters [97], the resulting numerical value is BR(μ → eγ) = 10−55 ÷ 10−54, about forty orders of magnitudes smaller than the sensitivity of present-day experiments! To summarise, CLFV is indeed induced by adding neutrino mass terms to the SM Lagrangia”
Reconsidering the one leptoquark solution: flavor anomalies and neutrino mass (2017, methodology): “We use the best-fit values from the NuFIT collaboration for the neutrino mixing angles and mass-squared differences [124, 125]:”
The fate of hints: updated global analysis of three-flavor neutrino oscillations (2020, neutral): “he status of the tension between solar and KamLAND results is presented in Sec.3. Section4contains a selection of the combined results of this global t, NuFIT 5.0, which updates our previous analyses [1,2,17,18]. In particular we present the ranges of allowed values for the oscillation parameters an”
From the Trees to the Forest: A Review of Radiative Neutrino Mass Models (2017, background): “A recent global fit [20] obtains the following 3σ ranges for the mixing angle and ∆m2 parameters:”
The Simons Observatory: science goals and forecasts (2018, background): “…of data would enable a 3.5σ detection of Σmν = 0.06 eV (the minimal summed mass allowed in the case of normal mass hierarchy; Capozzi et al. 2017; Esteban et al. 2017; de Salas et al. 2018) and a 5.9σ detection of Σmν = 0.1 eV (the minimal summed mass in the case of inverted mass hierarchy).”
Lepton Number Violation: Seesaw Models and Their Collider Tests (2017, methodology): “4◦ [68, 72], the smallest entry of the PMNS matrix.”
Updated results on neutrino mass and mass hierarchy from cosmology with Planck 2018 likelihoods (2019, neutral): “See [10–15] for results from other global analyses.”