Reuse & Permissions

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

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Letter
  • Open Access

BEST impact on sterile neutrino hypothesis

Vladislav Barinov1,2,* and Dmitry Gorbunov1,3,†

  • 1Institute for Nuclear Research of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow 117312, Russia
  • 2Physics Department, Moscow State University, Vorobievy Gory, Moscow 119991, Russia
  • 3Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology, Dolgoprudny 141700, Russia

  • *barinov.vvl@gmail.com
  • †gorby@ms2.inr.ac.ru

Phys. Rev. D 105, L051703 – Published 14 March, 2022

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.105.L051703

Abstract

Recently, the Baksan Experiment on Sterile Transitions (BEST) has presented results [1] confirming the gallium anomaly—a lack of electron neutrinos νe at calibrations of SAGE [2,3] and GALLEX [4]—at the statistical significance exceeding 5σ. This result is consistent with explanation of the gallium anomaly as electron neutrino oscillations into a sterile neutrino, νs. Within this explanation, the BEST experiment itself provides the strongest evidence for the sterile neutrino among all the previous anomalous results in the neutrino sector. We combine the results of gallium experiments with searches for sterile neutrinos in reactor antineutrino experiments (assuming CPT conservation in the 3+1 neutrino sector). While the “gallium” best-fit point in the model parameter space (sterile neutrino mass squared mνs2≈1.25  eV2, sterile-electron neutrino mixing sin22θ≈0.34) is excluded by these searches, a part of the BEST-favored 2σ region with mνs2>5  eV2 is consistent with all of them. Remarkably, the regions advertised by anomalous results of the NEUTRINO-4 experiment [5] overlap with those of the BEST experiment: the best-fit point of the joint analysis is sin22θ≈0.38, mνs2≈7.3  eV2, and the favored region will be explored by the KATRIN experiment [6]. The sterile neutrino explanation of the BEST results would suggest not only the extension of the Standard Model of particle physics but also either serious modifications of the Standard Cosmological Model and Solar Model, or a specific modification of the sterile sector needed to suppress the sterile neutrino production in the early Universe and in the Sun.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (34)

  1. V. V. Barinov et al., arXiv:2109.11482.
  2. J. N. Abdurashitov et al. (SAGE Collaboration), Phys. Rev. C 59, 2246 (1999).
  3. J. N. Abdurashitov et al., Phys. Rev. C 73, 045805 (2006).
  4. F. Kaether, W. Hampel, G. Heusser, J. Kiko, and T. Kirsten, Phys. Lett. B 685, 47 (2010).
  5. A. P. Serebrov et al. (NEUTRINO-4 Collaboration), Pis’ma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 109, 209 (2019).
  6. M. Aker et al. (KATRIN Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 091803 (2021).
  7. I. Esteban, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, M. Maltoni, T. Schwetz, and A. Zhou, J. High Energy Phys. 09 (2020) 178.
  8. C. Athanassopoulos et al. (LSND Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 3082 (1996).
  9. T. A. Mueller et al., Phys. Rev. C 83, 054615 (2011).
  10. P. Huber, Phys. Rev. C 84, 024617 (2011); 85, 029901(E) (2012).
  11. A. A. Aguilar-Arevalo et al. (MiniBooNE Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 221801 (2018).
  12. M. G. Aartsen et al. (IceCube Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 141801 (2020).
  13. J. Kopp, P. A. N. Machado, M. Maltoni, and T. Schwetz, J. High Energy Phys. 05 (2013) 050.
  14. M. Dentler, A. Hernández-Cabezudo, J. Kopp, P. A. N. Machado, M. Maltoni, I. Martinez-Soler, and T. Schwetz, J. High Energy Phys. 08 (2018) 010.
  15. C. Giunti and T. Lasserre, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 69, 163 (2019).
  16. K. N. Abazajian et al., arXiv:1204.5379.
  17. S. Böser, C. Buck, C. Giunti, J. Lesgourgues, L. Ludhova, S. Mertens, A. Schukraft, and M. Wurm, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 111, 103736 (2020).
  18. O. Sramek, W. F. McDonough, E. S. Kite, V. Lekic, S. Dye, and S. Zhong, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 361, 356 (2013).
  19. E. G. Adelberger et al., Rev. Mod. Phys. 83, 195 (2011).
  20. N. Aghanim et al. (Planck Collaboration), Astron. Astrophys. 641, A6 (2020); 652, C4(E) (2021).
  21. Y. I. Izotov and T. X. Thuan, Astrophys. J. 710, L67 (2010).
  22. E. Komatsu et al. (WMAP Collaboration), Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. 192, 18 (2011).
  23. S. Hannestad, R. S. Hansen, and T. Tram, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 031802 (2014).
  24. B. Dasgupta and J. Kopp, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 031803 (2014).
  25. X. Chu, B. Dasgupta, and J. Kopp, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 10 (2015) 011.
  26. M.-M. Zhao, D.-Z. He, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 96, 043520 (2017).
  27. M. Archidiacono, S. Gariazzo, C. Giunti, S. Hannestad, and T. Tram, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 12 (2020) 029.
  28. M. Laveder, Nucl. Phys. B, Proc. Suppl. 168, 344 (2007).
  29. A. P. Serebrov et al., Phys. Rev. D 104, 032003 (2021).
  30. M. Danilov, Proc. Sci. ICHEP2020 (2021) 121.
  31. I. Alekseev et al. (DANSS Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B 787, 56 (2018).
  32. H. Almazán et al. (STEREO Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 102, 052002 (2020).
  33. M. Andriamirado et al. (PROSPECT Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 103, 032001 (2021).
  34. C. Giunti, Y. F. Li, C. A. Ternes, and Y. Y. Zhang, Phys. Lett. B 816, 136214 (2021).

Outline

Information

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation