1: \documentclass[12pt,a4paper]{article}
2: %\renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{2} % double spacing
3: %\usepackage{showkeys}
4: \usepackage{fullpage}
5: \usepackage[centertags]{amsmath}
6: \allowdisplaybreaks[4]
7: \usepackage{amsfonts}
8: \usepackage{amssymb}
9: \usepackage{bm}
10: \usepackage[dvips]{graphicx}
11: \usepackage{url}
12: \usepackage[dvips,hyperindex]{hyperref}
13: \begin{document}
14:
15: \begin{flushright}
16: \begin{tabular}{r}
17: \texttt{arXiv:0707.4593}
18: \\
19: \textsf{Phys. Rev. D 77, 093002 (2008)}
20: \end{tabular}
21: \end{flushright}
22: \vspace{1cm}
23: \begin{center}
24: \large\bfseries
25: $\bm{\nu_{e}}$ disappearance in MiniBooNE
26: \\[0.5cm]
27: \normalsize\normalfont
28: Carlo Giunti
29: \\
30: \small\itshape
31: INFN, Sezione di Torino,
32: \\
33: \small\itshape
34: Via P. Giuria 1, I--10125 Torino, Italy
35: \\[0.5cm]
36: \normalsize\normalfont
37: and
38: \\[0.5cm]
39: \normalsize\normalfont
40: Marco Laveder
41: %\email{Marco Laveder <marco.laveder@pd.infn.it>}
42: \\
43: \small\itshape
44: Dipartimento di Fisica ``G. Galilei'', Universit\`a di Padova,
45: \\
46: \small\itshape
47: and
48: \\
49: \small\itshape
50: INFN, Sezione di Padova,
51: \\
52: \small\itshape
53: Via F. Marzolo 8, I--35131 Padova, Italy
54: \end{center}
55: \begin{abstract}
56: The anomalous excess of low-energy $\nu_{e}$ events
57: measured in the MiniBooNE experiment is explained through
58: a renormalization of the absolute neutrino flux
59: and
60: a simultaneous disappearance of the $\nu_{e}$'s in the beam,
61: which is compatible with that indicated by the results of
62: Gallium radioactive source experiments.
63: We present the results of the fit of MiniBooNE data
64: ($ P_{\nu_{e}\to\nu_{e}} = 0.64 {}^{+0.08}_{-0.07} $)
65: and
66: the combined fit of MiniBooNE data and the
67: $\nu_{e}$ disappearance measured in the Gallium radioactive source experiments,
68: which gives $ P_{\nu_{e}\to\nu_{e}} = 0.82 \pm 0.04 $.
69: We show that our interpretation of the data is also compatible with an old
70: indication
71: in favor of $\nu_{e}$ disappearance found from the analysis of
72: the results of beam-dump experiments,
73: leading to $ P_{\nu_{e}\to\nu_{e}} = 0.80 {}^{+0.03}_{-0.04} $.
74: \end{abstract}
75:
76: \newpage
77:
78: The MiniBooNE collaboration recently presented
79: \cite{0704.1500,Tayloe-LP07}
80: the first results of a search for $\nu_{\mu}\to\nu_{e}$ oscillations
81: motivated by the interpretation in terms of
82: $\bar\nu_{\mu}\to\bar\nu_{e}$
83: oscillations of the $\bar\nu_{e}$ excess observed in the LSND experiment
84: \cite{hep-ex/0104049}
85: (for reviews of the theory and phenomenology of neutrino oscillations see
86: Refs.~\cite{Bilenky:1978nj,Bilenky:1987ty,hep-ph/9812360,hep-ph/0202058,hep-ph/0310238,hep-ph/0405172,hep-ph/0506083,hep-ph/0606054,Giunti-Kim-2007}).
87: The MiniBooNE data do not show any excess of quasi-elastic charged-current
88: $\nu_{e}$ events with respect to the calculated background in the expected signal region,
89: where the reconstructed neutrino energy $ E_{\nu}^{\text{QE}} $ is larger than
90: $ 475 \, \text{MeV} $.
91: However,
92: the MiniBooNE data show an anomaly in the low-energy region
93: $ 200 \, \text{MeV} < E_{\nu}^{\text{QE}} < 475 \, \text{MeV} $,
94: where the $\nu_{e}$ events are significantly larger than the calculated background
95: (see Fig.~\ref{hst-mb}).
96:
97: In this short note we discuss the possibility to explain the MiniBooNE data
98: through a $\nu_{e}$ disappearance which may be compatible with that indicated
99: by the results of the Gallium radioactive source experiments
100: GALLEX
101: \cite{Anselmann:1995ar,Hampel:1998fc}
102: and SAGE
103: \cite{Abdurashitov:1996dp,hep-ph/9803418,nucl-ex/0512041}.
104: In these experiments, the GALLEX and SAGE
105: solar neutrino detectors have been tested by placing
106: inside the detectors
107: intense artificial ${}^{51}\text{Cr}$ and ${}^{37}\text{Ar}$ sources of electron neutrinos.
108: The radioactive nuclei
109: ${}^{51}\text{Cr}$ and ${}^{37}\text{Ar}$
110: decay through electron capture,
111: emitting $\nu_{e}$'s with energies
112: $ E_{\nu}({}^{51}\text{Cr}) \simeq 0.7 \, \text{MeV} $
113: and
114: $ E_{\nu}({}^{37}\text{Ar}) = 0.8 \, \text{MeV} $.
115: These neutrinos were detected through the reaction
116: $ \nu_{e} + {}^{71}\text{Ga} \to {}^{71}\text{Ge} + e^{-} $,
117: which has the low neutrino energy threshold
118: $ E_{\nu}^{\text{th}}({}^{71}\text{Ga}) = 0.233 \, \text{MeV} $
119: \cite{Kuzmin-Ga-65}.
120: The weighted average value of the ratio $R$ of measured and predicted ${}^{71}\text{Ge}$
121: production rates is
122: \cite{nucl-ex/0512041}
123: \begin{equation}
124: R
125: =
126: 0.88 \pm 0.05
127: \,.
128: \label{s001}
129: \end{equation}
130: Since $R$ is smaller than unity by more than $2\sigma$,
131: it can be interpreted\footnote{
132: Another possible cause of $R<1$
133: is an overestimate of the theoretical
134: cross section of the Gallium detection process \cite{nucl-ex/0512041}.
135: }
136: as an indication of the disappearance of electron neutrinos
137: due to neutrino oscillations
138: \cite{Laveder:2007zz,hep-ph/0610352}.
139: Assuming an oscillation length
140: $ L_{\text{osc}} = 4 \pi E_{\nu} / |\Delta{m}^{2}| $
141: smaller than about 10 cm,
142: we obtain a relatively large squared-mass difference:
143: \begin{equation}
144: \Delta{m}^{2} \gtrsim 20 \, \text{eV}^{2}
145: \,.
146: \label{dm2}
147: \end{equation}
148:
149: Considering now the MiniBooNE experiment,
150: the oscillation length corresponding to such a large $\Delta{m}^{2}$
151: is smaller than the
152: source-detector distance ($ 541 \, \text{m} $)
153: for neutrino energies smaller than about $ 5 \, \text{GeV} $.
154: Hence,
155: the bin-averaged survival probability of electron neutrinos $P_{\nu_{e}\to\nu_{e}}$
156: is practically constant in all the MiniBooNE energy bins,
157: whose ranges are listed in the second column of Tab.~\ref{data}.
158:
159: The MiniBooNE data,
160: including the anomalous low-energy bins,
161: may be the result of a $\nu_{e}$ disappearance if the
162: true background is different from the calculated one by
163: a factor $f$ which takes into account the large uncertainties
164: in the calculation of the absolute normalization of
165: neutrino fluxes from accelerators (see Ref.\cite{physics/0609129}).
166: In order to understand how
167: $\nu_{e}$ disappearance may solve the low-energy MiniBooNE anomaly,
168: let us first notice that
169: the events which are classified as background in the MiniBooNE data analysis
170: are in part induced by the $\nu_{e}$'s in the beam and in part
171: are misidentified $\nu_{\mu}$-induced events.
172: The number of $\nu_{e}$-induced events ($N_{\nu_{e}}^{\text{calc}}$)
173: is larger than the number of misidentified $\nu_{\mu}$-induced events ($N_{\nu_{\mu}}^{\text{calc}}$)
174: in the high-energy bins
175: and smaller in the low-energy bins
176: (see Fig.~\ref{hst-mb}).
177: If the measured excess of events in the low-energy bins
178: is due to a larger absolute neutrino flux,
179: the lack of an excess in the high-energy bins can be explained by
180: $\nu_{e}$ disappearance,
181: which suppresses the event rate in the high-energy bins more than in
182: the low-energy bins.
183:
184: This is illustrated in Fig.~\ref{hst-gl}.
185: The dash-dotted histogram shows that
186: the three anomalous low-energy bins with
187: $ 200 \, \text{MeV} < E_{\nu}^{\text{QE}} < 475 \, \text{MeV} $
188: can be fitted by an increase of the calculated number of expected events
189: by a factor of about 1.33,
190: which is given by the ratio
191: $
192: ( \sum_{j=1}^{3} N^{\text{meas}}_{j} )
193: /
194: ( \sum_{j=1}^{3} N^{\text{calc}}_{j} )
195: $,
196: using the data in Tab.~\ref{data}.
197: However,
198: in this case the expected number of events in the other bins is too large.
199: If, instead, the expected number of $\nu_{e}$-induced events is simultaneously
200: suppressed by $\nu_{e}$ disappearance,
201: it can be kept small,
202: as one can see by confronting the dashed histograms in Figs.~\ref{hst-mb} and \ref{hst-gl},
203: which depict $ N_{\nu_{e}}^{\text{calc}} $ and $ f P_{\nu_{e}\to\nu_{e}} N_{\nu_{e}}^{\text{calc}} $,
204: respectively.
205: Then,
206: the high-energy bins can be fitted mainly through the
207: dominant small number of $\nu_{e}$-induced events.
208: On the other hand,
209: the excess in the three low-energy bins
210: is mainly due to the increase of the dominant
211: misidentified $\nu_{\mu}$-induced events
212: (confront the dotted histograms in Figs.~\ref{hst-mb} and \ref{hst-gl},
213: depicting $ N_{\nu_{\mu}}^{\text{calc}} $ and $ f N_{\nu_{\mu}}^{\text{calc}} $,
214: respectively).
215:
216: The background calculated by the MiniBooNE collaboration
217: has been normalized to the measured number of charged-current quasi-elastic
218: $\nu_{\mu}$ events.
219: However, since there is an uncertainty of about 26\% \cite{Louis-Conrad-07-04-11},
220: a renormalization of the neutrino flux of a factor of about 1.3
221: cannot be excluded.
222:
223: \begin{table}[t]
224: \begin{center}
225: \begin{tabular}{cccccc}
226: $j$
227: &
228: Energy Range [MeV]
229: &
230: $N_{\nu_{e},j}^{\text{calc}}$
231: &
232: $N_{\nu_{\mu},j}^{\text{calc}}$
233: &
234: $N^{\text{calc}}_{j}$
235: &
236: $N^{\text{meas}}_{j}$
237: \\
238: \hline
239: 1 & $ 200 - 300 $ & 26 & 258 & 284 & 375 \\
240: 2 & $ 300 - 375 $ & 30 & 117 & 147 & 199 \\
241: 3 & $ 375 - 475 $ & 37 & 90 & 127 & 170 \\
242: 4 & $ 475 - 550 $ & 32 & 39 & 71 & 83 \\
243: 5 & $ 550 - 675 $ & 49 & 33 & 82 & 90 \\
244: 6 & $ 675 - 800 $ & 41 & 21 & 62 & 64 \\
245: 7 & $ 800 - 950 $ & 41 & 20 & 61 & 59 \\
246: 8 & $ 950 - 1100 $ & 38 & 12 & 50 & 50 \\
247: 9 & $ 1100 - 1300 $ & 38 & 7 & 45 & 45 \\
248: 10 & $ 1300 - 1500 $ & 27 & 6 & 33 & 36 \\
249: 11 & $ 1500 - 3000 $ & 54 & 12 & 66 & 67 \\
250: \hline
251: \end{tabular}
252: \caption{ \label{data}
253: MiniBooNE data extracted from Fig.~2 of Ref.~\cite{0704.1500} and the Table in page~28 of Ref.~\cite{Tayloe-LP07}
254: (see Fig.~\ref{hst-mb}).
255: The six columns give:
256: 1) bin number;
257: 2) reconstructed neutrino energy range;
258: 3) number of expected $\nu_{e}$-induced events (dashed histogram in Fig.~\ref{hst-mb});
259: 4) number of expected misidentified $\nu_{\mu}$-induced events (dotted histogram in Fig.~\ref{hst-mb});
260: 5) total number of expected events (solid histogram in Fig.~\ref{hst-mb});
261: 6) measured number of events (points in Fig.~\ref{hst-mb}).
262: }
263: \end{center}
264: \end{table}
265:
266: Under our hypothesis,
267: the theoretical number of events in the MiniBooNE $j\text{th}$ energy bin is given by
268: \begin{equation}
269: N^{\text{the}}_{j}
270: =
271: f \left(
272: P_{\nu_{e}\to\nu_{e}} N_{\nu_{e},j}^{\text{calc}} + N_{\nu_{\mu},j}^{\text{calc}}
273: \right)
274: \,,
275: \label{001}
276: \end{equation}
277: where $N_{\nu_{e},j}^{\text{calc}}$ and $N_{\nu_{\mu},j}^{\text{calc}}$
278: are, respectively,
279: the calculated number of expected $\nu_{e}$-induced and misidentified $\nu_{\mu}$-induced events
280: in the third and fourth columns of Tab.~\ref{data}
281: (corresponding to the dashed and dotted histograms in Fig.~\ref{hst-mb}).
282:
283: We tested the $\nu_{e}$-disappearance hypothesis with the Pearson's chi-square
284: \begin{equation}
285: \chi^2_{\text{MB}}
286: =
287: \sum_{j=1}^{11}
288: \frac{ \left( N^{\text{the}}_{j} - N^{\text{meas}}_{j} \right)^2 }{ N^{\text{the}}_{j} }
289: \,,
290: \label{002}
291: \end{equation}
292: where
293: $N^{\text{meas}}_{j}$
294: are the detected events in the eleven MiniBooNE energy bins,
295: which are listed in the sixth column in Tab.~\ref{data}
296: (corresponding to the points in Figs.~\ref{hst-mb} and \ref{hst-gl}).
297: We found
298: \begin{equation}
299: \chi^2_{\text{MB},\text{min}} = 2.31
300: \,,
301: \label{003}
302: \end{equation}
303: with a goodness of fit of 98.6\% (9 degrees of freedom),
304: for
305: \begin{equation}
306: f = 1.41
307: \qquad
308: \text{and}
309: \qquad
310: P_{\nu_{e}\to\nu_{e}} = 0.64
311: \,.
312: \label{004}
313: \end{equation}
314: The solid histogram in Fig.~\ref{hst-gl} shows that these values of $f$ and $P_{\nu_{e}\to\nu_{e}}$
315: give an excellent fit of the data.
316: The increase of the expected number of
317: misidentified $\nu_{\mu}$-induced events
318: ($ f N_{\nu_{\mu}}^{\text{calc}} $)
319: allows us to fit the three anomalous low-energy bins.
320: The expected number of events in the other bins is similar to that in Fig.~\ref{hst-mb},
321: since the increase of the expected number of
322: misidentified $\nu_{\mu}$-induced events is compensated
323: by a small decrease of the expected dominant contribution of $\nu_{e}$-induced events
324: ($ f P_{\nu_{e}\to\nu_{e}} = 0.90 $).
325:
326: The allowed regions in the
327: $P_{\nu_{e}\to\nu_{e}}$--$f$
328: plane for different confidence levels are shown in Fig.~\ref{cnt}.
329: One can see that there is an indication that there is indeed a
330: disappearance of electron neutrinos which is even larger than that
331: observed in the Gallium source experiments
332: (see Eq.~(\ref{s001})).
333:
334: \begin{table}[t]
335: \begin{center}
336: \begin{tabular}{lccc}
337: \null \hfill C.L. \hfill \null
338: &
339: MB
340: &
341: MB+Ga
342: &
343: MB+Ga+BD
344: \\
345: \hline
346: Best Fit & $0.64$ & $0.82$ & $0.80$ \\
347: 68.27\% ($1\sigma$) & $0.57 - 0.72$ & $0.78 - 0.86$ & $0.76 - 0.83$ \\
348: 90.00\% & $0.53 - 0.77$ & $0.75 - 0.89$ & $0.74 - 0.86$ \\
349: 95.45\% ($2\sigma$) & $0.51 - 0.80$ & $0.73 - 0.91$ & $0.73 - 0.87$ \\
350: 99.00\% & $0.48 - 0.86$ & $0.71 - 0.93$ & $0.71 - 0.89$ \\
351: 99.73\% ($3\sigma$) & $0.45 - 0.90$ & $0.69 - 0.95$ & $0.69 - 0.90$ \\
352: \hline
353: \end{tabular}
354: \caption{ \label{ranges-pee}
355: Best-fit values and allowed ranges of
356: $P_{\nu_{e}\to\nu_{e}}$
357: from the fit of MiniBooNE data (MB),
358: from the combined fit of MiniBooNE data and
359: the result in Eq.~(\ref{s001}) of Gallium radioactive source experiments
360: (MB+Ga)
361: and
362: from the combined fit of MiniBooNE data,
363: the result of Gallium radioactive source experiments
364: and the beam-dump indication in Eq.~(\ref{111}) of $\nu_{e}$ disappearance
365: (MB+Ga+BD).
366: }
367: \end{center}
368: \end{table}
369:
370: Figure~\ref{cnt}
371: shows also the marginal $\Delta\chi^2$'s
372: for
373: $P_{\nu_{e}\to\nu_{e}}$
374: and
375: $f$
376: ($ \Delta\chi^2 \equiv \chi^2 - \chi^2_{\text{min}} $).
377: The allowed ranges of $P_{\nu_{e}\to\nu_{e}}$
378: with different confidence levels are listed in Tab.~\ref{ranges-pee}.
379:
380: Since there is an overlap of the allowed ranges of $P_{\nu_{e}\to\nu_{e}}$
381: and $R$ in Eq.~(\ref{s001})
382: at the level of less than $2\sigma$,
383: we calculated the combined fit with the chi-squared
384: \begin{equation}
385: \chi^2_{\text{MB+Ga}}
386: =
387: \chi^2_{\text{MB}}
388: +
389: \left( \frac{ P_{\nu_{e}\to\nu_{e}} - 0.88 }{ 0.05 } \right)^2
390: \,.
391: \label{012}
392: \end{equation}
393: We obtained
394: \begin{equation}
395: \chi^2_{\text{MB+Ga},\text{min}} = 8.48
396: \,,
397: \label{013}
398: \end{equation}
399: with a goodness of fit of 58.2\% (10 degrees of freedom),
400: for
401: \begin{equation}
402: f = 1.30
403: \qquad
404: \text{and}
405: \qquad
406: P_{\nu_{e}\to\nu_{e}} = 0.82
407: \,.
408: \label{014}
409: \end{equation}
410: Figure~\ref{mbga} shows
411: the allowed regions in the
412: $P_{\nu_{e}\to\nu_{e}}$--$f$
413: plane for different confidence levels
414: and
415: the marginal $\Delta\chi^2$'s
416: for
417: $P_{\nu_{e}\to\nu_{e}}$
418: and
419: $f$.
420: The allowed ranges of $P_{\nu_{e}\to\nu_{e}}$
421: with different confidence levels are listed in Tab.~\ref{ranges-pee}.
422: Since the goodness of fit is acceptable,
423: the combined fit of the MiniBooNE and Gallium results provide precious information
424: on the value of $P_{\nu_{e}\to\nu_{e}}$
425: under our hypothesis for the explanation of the
426: MiniBooNE anomaly.
427: The effect of the Gallium result is to shift
428: the allowed regions in the
429: $P_{\nu_{e}\to\nu_{e}}$--$f$
430: plane towards
431: larger values of $P_{\nu_{e}\to\nu_{e}}$
432: and
433: smaller values of $f$
434: with respect to those obtained from the fit of the MiniBooNE data alone.
435:
436: We finally consider also the old indication
437: in favor of $\nu_{e}$ disappearance found from the analysis of
438: the results of beam-dump experiments \cite{Conforto:1990sp}:
439: $ \sin^2 2\vartheta = 0.48 \pm 0.10 \pm 0.05 $
440: for the large squared-mass difference
441: \begin{equation}
442: \Delta{m}^{2}_{\text{BD}} = 377 \pm 27 \pm 7 \, \text{eV}^{2}
443: \,,
444: \label{dm2BD}
445: \end{equation}
446: which is compatible with the inequality in Eq.~(\ref{dm2}).
447: In this case,
448: the average $\nu_{e}$ survival probability is
449: \begin{equation}
450: P_{\nu_{e}\to\nu_{e}}^{\text{BD}}
451: =
452: 0.76 \pm 0.06
453: \,.
454: \label{111}
455: \end{equation}
456: Notice that such a large disappearance of $\nu_{e}$
457: for $ \Delta{m}^{2} \sim 400 \, \text{eV}^{2} $
458: must be due to
459: transitions into sterile neutrinos,
460: since
461: $\nu_{e}\to\nu_{\mu}$ transitions are restricted by the results of the
462: CCFR \cite{Naples:1998va},
463: KARMEN \cite{Armbruster:2002mp}
464: and
465: NOMAD \cite{hep-ex/0306037}
466: experiments
467: (besides MiniBooNE itself \cite{0704.1500,Tayloe-LP07})
468: and
469: $\nu_{e}\to\nu_{\tau}$ transitions are limited by the results of the
470: CHORUS \cite{Eskut:2000de}
471: and
472: NOMAD \cite{Astier:2001yj}
473: experiments.
474:
475: We calculated the combined fit with
476: the MiniBooNE data and
477: the result of Gallium radioactive source experiments in Eq.~(\ref{s001})
478: through the chi-squared
479: \begin{equation}
480: \chi^2_{\text{MB+Ga+BD}}
481: =
482: \chi^2_{\text{MB+Ga}}
483: +
484: \left( \frac{ P_{\nu_{e}\to\nu_{e}} - 0.76 }{ 0.06 } \right)^2
485: \,.
486: \label{022}
487: \end{equation}
488: We obtained
489: \begin{equation}
490: \chi^2_{\text{MB+Ga+BD},\text{min}} = 9.11
491: \,,
492: \label{023}
493: \end{equation}
494: with a goodness of fit of 61.2\% (11 degrees of freedom),
495: for
496: \begin{equation}
497: f = 1.31
498: \qquad
499: \text{and}
500: \qquad
501: P_{\nu_{e}\to\nu_{e}} = 0.80
502: \,.
503: \label{024}
504: \end{equation}
505: The allowed regions in the
506: $P_{\nu_{e}\to\nu_{e}}$--$f$
507: plane for different confidence levels
508: and
509: the marginal $\Delta\chi^2$'s
510: for
511: $P_{\nu_{e}\to\nu_{e}}$
512: and
513: $f$
514: are shown in Fig.~\ref{mbgabd}.
515: The allowed ranges of $P_{\nu_{e}\to\nu_{e}}$
516: with different confidence levels are listed in Tab.~\ref{ranges-pee}.
517: One can see that the allowed regions are shifted towards
518: slightly lower values of $P_{\nu_{e}\to\nu_{e}}$
519: with respect to those obtained from the fit of the MiniBooNE data and
520: the result of Gallium radioactive source experiments.
521:
522: Notice that we assume that
523: the large $\Delta{m}^{2}$ in Eq.~(\ref{dm2})
524: does not generate
525: significant $ \nu_{\mu} \leftrightarrows \nu_{e} $ transitions
526: and
527: significant disappearance of $\nu_{\mu}$'s.
528: Therefore,
529: our hypothesis cannot reconcile the LSND and MiniBooNE data.
530: Possibilities to reconcile the LSND and MiniBooNE data
531: through
532: 3+1 four-neutrino mixing \cite{hep-ph/0610352},
533: 3+2 four-neutrino mixing \cite{0705.0107,0706.1462,0711.2018},
534: neutrino decay \cite{hep-ph/0505216,0707.2285},
535: extra-dimensions \cite{hep-ph/0504096},
536: mass-varying neutrinos \cite{0710.2985},
537: a new light gauge boson \cite{0711.1363},
538: and
539: Lorentz-violation \cite{hep-ph/0602237,hep-ph/0606154}
540: have been discussed in the literature.
541:
542: In our explanation of the low-energy MiniBooNE anomaly,
543: the disappearance of $\nu_{e}$ quantified by $P_{\nu_{e}\to\nu_{e}}$
544: is into $\nu_{\tau}$ and/or one or more sterile neutrinos.
545: This is compatible with the observation of solar and reactor neutrino oscillations due to the squared-mass difference
546: $ \Delta{m}^{2}_{\text{SOL}} = ( 7.59 \pm 0.21 ) \times 10^{-5} \, \text{eV}^{2} $
547: \cite{0801.4589}
548: and the observation of atmospheric and accelerator neutrino oscillations due to the squared-mass difference
549: $ \Delta{m}^{2}_{\text{ATM}} = ( 2.74 {}^{+0.44}_{-0.26} \times 10^{-3} ) \times 10^{-3} \, \text{eV}^{2} $
550: \cite{Kordosky:2007gu}
551: if there are at least four massive neutrinos
552: (see Refs.~\cite{hep-ph/9812360,hep-ph/0202058,hep-ph/0606054,Giunti-Kim-2007}).
553: Considering the simplest case of 3+1 four-neutrino mixing with one sterile neutrino $\nu_{s}$,
554: the heavy neutrino $\nu_{4}$ with mass
555: \begin{equation}
556: m_{4} \simeq \sqrt{\Delta{m}^{2}} \gtrsim 4 \, \text{eV}
557: \label{m4}
558: \end{equation}
559: must have a very small mixing with $\nu_{\mu}$.
560: If the atmospheric neutrino oscillations occur in the
561: $\nu_{\mu}\to\nu_{\tau}$ channel,
562: as indicated by Super-Kamiokande data
563: \cite{hep-ex/0607059},
564: the heavy neutrino $\nu_{4}$ is mainly mixed with $\nu_{e}$ and $\nu_{s}$.
565: In this case,
566: the MiniBooNE $P_{\nu_{e}\to\nu_{e}}$ is due to
567: $\nu_{e}\to\nu_{s}$ transitions.
568:
569: A short-baseline disappearance of electron neutrinos due to $\nu_{e}\to\nu_{s}$ transitions
570: affects the interpretation of the measurements of the electron neutrino flux
571: in all experiments with an initial $\nu_{e}$ beam.
572: At present,
573: solar and atmospheric neutrino experiments
574: have initial $\nu_{e}$ beams.
575: However, the solar neutrino data and our knowledge of the initial flux are not
576: sufficient to exclude an energy-independent disappearance of $\nu_{e}$'s into sterile states
577: at a level of about 20\%
578: \cite{hep-ph/0406294}.
579: Actually,
580: a comparison of the SNO Neutral-Current (NC) data
581: with the Standard Solar Model (SSM) prediction favors
582: $\nu_{e}\to\nu_{s}$ transitions
583: \cite{hep-ph/0610352}.
584: In the case of atmospheric neutrinos,
585: the estimated uncertainty on the initial $\nu_{e}$ flux is about 30\%
586: (see Ref.~\cite{Giunti-Kim-2007}).
587: This is too large to constrain the energy-independent $\nu_{e}\to\nu_{s}$ transitions
588: which explain the MiniBooNE and Gallium source experiment anomalies.
589:
590: In the 3+1 four-neutrino mixing scheme discussed above with the heavy neutrino mass in Eq.~(\ref{m4})
591: (see Refs.~\cite{hep-ph/9812360,hep-ph/0202058,hep-ph/0606054,Giunti-Kim-2007}),
592: the average survival probability of electron neutrinos in the MiniBooNE experiment
593: is given by
594: \begin{equation}
595: P_{\nu_{e}\to\nu_{e}}
596: =
597: 1 - \frac{1}{2} \, \sin^2 2 \vartheta
598: \,,
599: \label{pee}
600: \end{equation}
601: with the effective mixing angle $\vartheta$ related to the element $U_{e4}$ of the mixing matrix by
602: \begin{equation}
603: \sin^2 2 \vartheta
604: =
605: 4 \, |U_{e4}|^2 \left( 1 - |U_{e4}|^2 \right)
606: \,.
607: \label{s2t}
608: \end{equation}
609: Considering the results of the fit of MiniBooNE and Gallium data in Tab.~\ref{ranges-pee},
610: we have
611: \begin{equation}
612: 2.6 \times 10^{-2} \lesssim |U_{e4}|^2 \lesssim 0.19
613: \qquad
614: (3\sigma)
615: \,.
616: \label{ue4}
617: \end{equation}
618: Since the effective neutrino mass in tritium $\beta$-decay experiments
619: is given by \cite{Shrock:1980vy,McKellar:1980cn,Kobzarev:1980nk}
620: \begin{equation}
621: m_{\beta}^{2} = \sum_{k=1}^{4} |U_{ek}|^{2} \, m_{k}^{2}
622: \,,
623: \label{mbeta}
624: \end{equation}
625: from Eqs.~(\ref{m4}) and (\ref{ue4})
626: we have
627: \begin{equation}
628: m_{\beta} \geq |U_{e4}| \, m_{4} \gtrsim 0.7 \, \text{eV}
629: \,.
630: \label{mb}
631: \end{equation}
632: This lower bound is close to the Mainz \cite{hep-ex/0412056}
633: and Troitzk \cite{Lobashev:1999tp}
634: upper limit,
635: $
636: m_{\beta}^{(\text{exp})}
637: <
638: 2.3 \, \text{eV}
639: \quad
640: (95\% \, \text{CL})
641: $,
642: and can be tested in the future KATRIN experiment \cite{hep-ex/0309007},
643: which will reach a sensitivity of about $0.2 \, \text{eV}$.
644: From Eqs.~(\ref{ue4}), (\ref{mb}) and the experimental upper limit on $m_{\beta}$
645: it is possible to constrain from above the value of $m_{4}$.
646: In order to obtain a robust upper bound we calculated the Bayesian
647: $3\sigma$ upper limit on $m_{\beta}$ from
648: $ (m_{\beta}^{(\text{exp})})^2 = -0.6 \pm 2.2 \pm 2.1 $
649: measured in the Mainz experiment \cite{hep-ex/0412056}:
650: \begin{equation}
651: m_{\beta}^{(\text{exp})}
652: <
653: 2.9 \, \text{eV}
654: \qquad
655: (3\sigma)
656: \,.
657: \label{mbexp}
658: \end{equation}
659: From Eqs.~(\ref{ue4}), (\ref{mb}) and (\ref{mbexp}) we finally obtain
660: $ m_{4} \lesssim 18 \, \text{eV} $.
661: Hence, we have the following allowed ranges
662: for $m_{4}$ and $\Delta{m}^{2}$:
663: \begin{eqnarray}
664: &
665: 4 \, \text{eV}
666: \lesssim
667: m_{4}
668: \lesssim
669: 18 \, \text{eV}
670: &
671: \,,
672: \label{m4-range}
673: \\
674: &
675: 20 \, \text{eV}^{2}
676: \lesssim
677: \Delta{m}^{2}
678: \lesssim
679: 330 \, \text{eV}^{2}
680: &
681: \,.
682: \label{dm2-range}
683: \end{eqnarray}
684: Notice that the upper bound for $\Delta{m}^{2}$ in Eq.~(\ref{dm2-range})
685: is marginally compatible with the beam-dump value of $\Delta{m}^{2}$
686: in Eq.~(\ref{dm2BD}).
687:
688: If massive neutrinos are Majorana particles
689: the amplitude of neutrinoless double-$\beta$ decay is proportional to the effective Majorana mass
690: \begin{equation}
691: m_{2\beta}
692: =
693: \left|
694: \sum_{k=1}^{4}
695: U_{ek}^2 \, m_{k}
696: \right|
697: \,.
698: \label{d03}
699: \end{equation}
700: From Eqs.~(\ref{ue4}) and (\ref{m4-range}) we obtain
701: \begin{equation}
702: 0.1 \, \text{eV}
703: \lesssim
704: |U_{e4}|^2 \, m_{4}
705: \lesssim
706: 3.4 \, \text{eV}
707: \,.
708: \label{d04}
709: \end{equation}
710: If the contributions to $m_{2\beta}$ of the other neutrino masses is much smaller,
711: $ m_{2\beta} \simeq |U_{e4}|^2 \, m_{4} $
712: is constrained in
713: the range (\ref{d04}),
714: which is compatible with the most stringent bounds
715: obtained in the Heidelberg-Moscow \cite{Klapdor-Kleingrothaus:2001yx} and IGEX \cite{Aalseth:2002rf} experiments
716: ($ m_{2\beta} \lesssim 0.3 - 1.0 \, \text{eV} $; see Ref.~\cite{Giunti-Kim-2007}),
717: with the recent CUORICINO measurement \cite{0802.3439}
718: ($ m_{2\beta} \lesssim 0.19 - 0.68 \, \text{eV} $)
719: and with the alleged\footnote{
720: This measurement is controversial
721: \cite{hep-ph/0201291,hep-ex/0202018,hep-ex/0309016}.
722: The issue can only be settled by future experiments
723: (see Ref.~\cite{hep-ph/0405078}).
724: }
725: observation of $^{76}\text{Ge}$ neutrinoless double-$\beta$ decay
726: due to
727: $ m_{2\beta} \simeq 0.2 - 0.6 \, \text{eV} $
728: \cite{hep-ph/0201231,hep-ph/0404088}.
729:
730: If the lepton sector is symmetric under CPT transformations,
731: the survival probability of neutrinos and antineutrinos are equal.
732: In this case,
733: a short-baseline survival probability of electron neutrinos
734: smaller than about 0.95
735: may appear to be in contradiction with the limits obtained in reactor neutrino oscillation experiments
736: (see the review in Ref.~\cite{hep-ph/0107277}),
737: which did not observe any disappearance of electron antineutrinos with an average energy of about 4 MeV
738: at distances between about 10 and 1000 m from the reactor source.
739: Let us notice, however,
740: that the oscillation length of reactor neutrinos implied by
741: the squared-mass difference in Eq.~(\ref{dm2}) is
742: shorter than about $40 \, \text{cm}$.
743: Hence,
744: in reactor neutrino experiments the oscillations are seen as an averaged energy-independent suppression
745: of the electron antineutrino flux,
746: which could be revealed only with a precise calculation
747: of the absolute electron antineutrino flux produced in a reactor.
748: This calculation is rather difficult,
749: because of the large number
750: (about $10^{3}$)
751: of possible fragments produced in the fission of
752: the four isotopes
753: $^{235}\text{U}$,
754: $^{238}\text{U}$,
755: $^{239}\text{Pu}$, and
756: $^{241}\text{Pu}$,
757: which generate the reactor power.
758: Since the branching ratio and energy spectrum of some of these
759: fissions have not been measured,
760: they must be estimated with nuclear models.
761: Therefore,
762: it is possible that
763: the uncertainties of the calculation of
764: the absolute electron antineutrino flux produced in a reactor have been underestimated.
765: In this case,
766: a short-baseline $\bar\nu_{e}$ disappearance
767: compatible with the ranges in Tab.~\ref{ranges-pee}
768: may be not excluded by the results of
769: reactor neutrino oscillation experiments.
770:
771: The impact of $\nu_{e}\to\nu_{s}$ transitions generated by
772: a $\Delta{m}^{2}$ in the range in Eq.~(\ref{dm2-range})
773: on the phenomenology of
774: ultra high energy neutrinos \cite{0706.0399},
775: very high energy atmospheric neutrinos \cite{0709.1937},
776: supernova physics \cite{hep-ph/0703092,0708.3337}
777: and
778: the early Universe \cite{0711.2450}
779: requires detailed study.
780:
781: The low-energy MiniBooNE anomaly and our explanation could be tested
782: in the near future in the proposed MicroBooNE experiment \cite{MicroBooNE-2007}.
783: Other future experiments which could check
784: the short-baseline disappearance of electron neutrinos and antineutrinos
785: with high accuracy are:
786: Beta-Beam experiments \cite{Zucchelli:2002sa}
787: with a pure $\nu_{e}$ or $\bar\nu_{e}$ beam from nuclear decay
788: (see the reviews in Refs.~\cite{physics/0411123,hep-ph/0605033});
789: Neutrino Factory experiments
790: with a beam composed of
791: $\nu_{e}$ and $\bar\nu_{\mu}$,
792: from $\mu^{+}$ decay,
793: or
794: $\bar\nu_{e}$ and $\nu_{\mu}$,
795: from $\mu^{-}$ decay
796: (see the review in Ref.~\cite{hep-ph/0210192,physics/0411123});
797: experiments with a $\bar\nu_{e}$ beam
798: produced in recoiless nuclear decay
799: and detected in recoiless nuclear antineutrino capture
800: \cite{hep-ph/0601079};
801: the LENS detector
802: \cite{Raghavan:1997ad,LENS-2002}
803: with an artificial Megacurie $\nu_{e}$ source
804: \cite{Grieb:2006mp}.
805:
806: In conclusion,
807: we have presented a possible explanation of the
808: anomalous excess of low-energy $\nu_{e}$ events
809: measured in the MiniBooNE experiment \cite{0704.1500,Tayloe-LP07}.
810: This excess may be due to a real flux of neutrinos
811: in the MiniBooNE beam which is larger than the calculated one.
812: We have shown that in this case all the neutrino energy spectrum
813: measured in the MiniBooNE experiment can be fitted through
814: a disappearance of the $\nu_{e}$'s in the beam
815: which is compatible with that indicated by the results of
816: Gallium radioactive source experiments \cite{nucl-ex/0512041}
817: and that indicated by
818: the results of beam-dump experiments \cite{Conforto:1990sp}.
819:
820: \section*{Acknowledgments}
821:
822: C. Giunti would like to thank the Department of Theoretical Physics of the University of Torino
823: for hospitality and support.
824:
825: \raggedright
826:
827: %\bibliographystyle{h-elsevier3}%{physrev3}%{myplainnat} %\addcontentsline{toc}{section}{\refname}
828: %\input{bibtex/bib.tex}
829:
830: \begin{thebibliography}{10}
831:
832: \bibitem{0704.1500}
833: MiniBooNE, A. Aguilar-Arevalo et~al.,
834: \newblock Phys. Rev. Lett. 98 (2007) 231801,
835: \href{http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.1500}{\url{arXiv:0704.1500}}.
836:
837: \bibitem{Tayloe-LP07}
838: MiniBooNE, R. Tayloe,
839: \newblock (2007),
840: \newblock Lepton-Photon 2007, 12-18 August 2007, Daegu, Korea. URL:
841: \href{{http://chep.knu.ac.kr/lp07/htm/S4/S04_12.pdf}}{\url{{http://chep.knu.ac.kr/lp07/htm/S4/S04_12.pdf}}}.
842:
843: \bibitem{hep-ex/0104049}
844: LSND, A. Aguilar et~al.,
845: \newblock Phys. Rev. D64 (2001) 112007,
846: \href{http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ex/0104049}{\url{arXiv:hep-ex/0104049}}.
847:
848: \bibitem{Bilenky:1978nj}
849: S.M. Bilenky and B. Pontecorvo,
850: \newblock Phys. Rep. 41 (1978) 225.
851:
852: \bibitem{Bilenky:1987ty}
853: S.M. Bilenky and S.T. Petcov,
854: \newblock Rev. Mod. Phys. 59 (1987) 671.
855:
856: \bibitem{hep-ph/9812360}
857: S.M. Bilenky, C. Giunti and W. Grimus,
858: \newblock Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 43 (1999) 1,
859: \href{http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9812360}{\url{arXiv:hep-ph/9812360}}.
860:
861: \bibitem{hep-ph/0202058}
862: M. Gonzalez-Garcia and Y. Nir,
863: \newblock Rev. Mod. Phys. 75 (2003) 345,
864: \href{http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0202058}{\url{arXiv:hep-ph/0202058}}.
865:
866: \bibitem{hep-ph/0310238}
867: C. Giunti and M. Laveder,
868: \newblock (2003),
869: \href{http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0310238}{\url{arXiv:hep-ph/0310238}},
870: \newblock In ``Developments in Quantum Physics -- 2004'', p. 197-254, edited by
871: F. Columbus and V. Krasnoholovets, Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
872:
873: \bibitem{hep-ph/0405172}
874: M. Maltoni et~al.,
875: \newblock New J. Phys. 6 (2004) 122,
876: \href{http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0405172}{\url{arXiv:hep-ph/0405172}}.
877:
878: \bibitem{hep-ph/0506083}
879: G.L. Fogli et~al.,
880: \newblock Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 57 (2006) 742,
881: \href{http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0506083}{\url{arXiv:hep-ph/0506083}}.
882:
883: \bibitem{hep-ph/0606054}
884: A. Strumia and F. Vissani,
885: \newblock (2006),
886: \href{http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0606054}{\url{arXiv:hep-ph/0606054}}.
887:
888: \bibitem{Giunti-Kim-2007}
889: C. Giunti and C.W. Kim,
890: \newblock {{Fundamentals of Neutrino Physics and Astrophysics}} (Oxford
891: University Press, 2007).
892:
893: \bibitem{Anselmann:1995ar}
894: GALLEX, P. Anselmann et~al.,
895: \newblock Phys. Lett. B342 (1995) 440.
896:
897: \bibitem{Hampel:1998fc}
898: GALLEX, W. Hampel et~al.,
899: \newblock Phys. Lett. B420 (1998) 114.
900:
901: \bibitem{Abdurashitov:1996dp}
902: SAGE, J.N. Abdurashitov et~al.,
903: \newblock Phys. Rev. Lett. 77 (1996) 4708.
904:
905: \bibitem{hep-ph/9803418}
906: SAGE, J.N. Abdurashitov et~al.,
907: \newblock Phys. Rev. C59 (1999) 2246,
908: \href{http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9803418}{\url{arXiv:hep-ph/9803418}}.
909:
910: \bibitem{nucl-ex/0512041}
911: SAGE, J.N. Abdurashitov et~al.,
912: \newblock Phys. Rev. C73 (2006) 045805,
913: \href{http://arxiv.org/abs/nucl-ex/0512041}{\url{arXiv:nucl-ex/0512041}}.
914:
915: \bibitem{Kuzmin-Ga-65}
916: V.A. Kuzmin,
917: \newblock Sov. Phys. JETP 22 (1966) 1051.
918:
919: \bibitem{Laveder:2007zz}
920: M. Laveder,
921: \newblock Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 168 (2007) 344,
922: \newblock NOW 2006.
923:
924: \bibitem{hep-ph/0610352}
925: C. Giunti and M. Laveder,
926: \newblock Mod. Phys. Lett. A22 (2007) 2499,
927: \href{http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0610352}{\url{arXiv:hep-ph/0610352}}.
928:
929: \bibitem{physics/0609129}
930: S.E. Kopp,
931: \newblock Phys. Rept. 439 (2007) 101,
932: \href{http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0609129}{\url{arXiv:physics/0609129}},
933: \newblock NuFact Summer School.
934:
935: \bibitem{Louis-Conrad-07-04-11}
936: MiniBooNE, W. Louis and J. Conrad,
937: \newblock (2007),
938: \newblock 11 April 2007. URL:
939: \href{{http://www-boone.fnal.gov/publicpages/First_Results.pdf}}{\url{{http://www-boone.fnal.gov/publicpages/First_Results.pdf}}}.
940:
941: \bibitem{Conforto:1990sp}
942: G. Conforto,
943: \newblock Nuovo Cim. A103 (1990) 751.
944:
945: \bibitem{Naples:1998va}
946: CCFR/NuTeV, D. Naples et~al.,
947: \newblock Phys. Rev. D59 (1998) 031101,
948: \href{http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ex/9809023}{\url{arXiv:hep-ex/9809023}}.
949:
950: \bibitem{Armbruster:2002mp}
951: KARMEN, B. Armbruster et~al.,
952: \newblock Phys. Rev. D65 (2002) 112001,
953: \href{http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ex/0203021}{\url{arXiv:hep-ex/0203021}}.
954:
955: \bibitem{hep-ex/0306037}
956: NOMAD, P. Astier et~al.,
957: \newblock Phys. Lett. B570 (2003) 19,
958: \href{http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ex/0306037}{\url{arXiv:hep-ex/0306037}}.
959:
960: \bibitem{Eskut:2000de}
961: CHORUS, E. Eskut et~al.,
962: \newblock Phys. Lett. B497 (2001) 8.
963:
964: \bibitem{Astier:2001yj}
965: NOMAD, P. Astier et~al.,
966: \newblock Nucl. Phys. B611 (2001) 3,
967: \href{http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ex/0106102}{\url{arXiv:hep-ex/0106102}}.
968:
969: \bibitem{0705.0107}
970: M. Maltoni and T. Schwetz,
971: \newblock Phys. Rev. D76 (2007) 093005,
972: \href{http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.0107}{\url{arXiv:0705.0107}}.
973:
974: \bibitem{0706.1462}
975: S. Goswami and W. Rodejohann,
976: \newblock JHEP 10 (2007) 073,
977: \href{http://arxiv.org/abs/0706.1462}{\url{arXiv:0706.1462}}.
978:
979: \bibitem{0711.2018}
980: M. Maltoni,
981: \newblock (2007), \href{http://arxiv.org/abs/0711.2018}{\url{arXiv:0711.2018}},
982: \newblock The 2007 Europhysics Conference on High Energy Physics, Manchester,
983: England, July 19-25, 2007.
984:
985: \bibitem{hep-ph/0505216}
986: S. Palomares-Ruiz, S. Pascoli and T. Schwetz,
987: \newblock JHEP 0509 (2005) 048,
988: \href{http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0505216}{\url{arXiv:hep-ph/0505216}}.
989:
990: \bibitem{0707.2285}
991: X.Q. Li, Y. Liu and Z.T. Wei,
992: \newblock (2007), \href{http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.2285}{\url{arXiv:0707.2285}}.
993:
994: \bibitem{hep-ph/0504096}
995: H. Pas, S. Pakvasa and T.J. Weiler,
996: \newblock Phys. Rev. D72 (2005) 095017,
997: \href{http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0504096}{\url{arXiv:hep-ph/0504096}}.
998:
999: \bibitem{0710.2985}
1000: T. Schwetz,
1001: \newblock JHEP 02 (2007) 011,
1002: \href{http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.2985}{\url{arXiv:0710.2985}}.
1003:
1004: \bibitem{0711.1363}
1005: A.E. Nelson and J. Walsh,
1006: \newblock Phys. Rev. D77 (2008) 033001,
1007: \href{http://arxiv.org/abs/0711.1363}{\url{arXiv:0711.1363}}.
1008:
1009: \bibitem{hep-ph/0602237}
1010: A. de~Gouvea and Y. Grossman,
1011: \newblock Phys. Rev. D74 (2006) 093008,
1012: \href{http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0602237}{\url{arXiv:hep-ph/0602237}}.
1013:
1014: \bibitem{hep-ph/0606154}
1015: T. Katori, A. Kostelecky and R. Tayloe,
1016: \newblock Phys. Rev. D74 (2006) 105009,
1017: \href{http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0606154}{\url{arXiv:hep-ph/0606154}}.
1018:
1019: \bibitem{0801.4589}
1020: KamLAND, S. Abe et~al.,
1021: \newblock (2008), \href{http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.4589}{\url{arXiv:0801.4589}}.
1022:
1023: \bibitem{Kordosky:2007gu}
1024: MINOS, P. Adamson et~al.,
1025: \newblock (2007), \href{http://arxiv.org/abs/0711.0769}{\url{arXiv:0711.0769}}.
1026:
1027: \bibitem{hep-ex/0607059}
1028: Super-Kamiokande, K. Abe et~al.,
1029: \newblock Phys. Rev. Lett. 97 (2006) 171801,
1030: \href{http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ex/0607059}{\url{arXiv:hep-ex/0607059}}.
1031:
1032: \bibitem{hep-ph/0406294}
1033: J.N. Bahcall, M.C. Gonzalez-Garcia and C. Pena-Garay,
1034: \newblock JHEP 08 (2004) 016,
1035: \href{http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0406294}{\url{arXiv:hep-ph/0406294}}.
1036:
1037: \bibitem{Shrock:1980vy}
1038: R.E. Shrock,
1039: \newblock Phys. Lett. B96 (1980) 159.
1040:
1041: \bibitem{McKellar:1980cn}
1042: B.H.J. McKellar,
1043: \newblock Phys. Lett. B97 (1980) 93.
1044:
1045: \bibitem{Kobzarev:1980nk}
1046: I.Y. Kobzarev et~al.,
1047: \newblock Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 32 (1980) 823.
1048:
1049: \bibitem{hep-ex/0412056}
1050: C. Kraus et~al.,
1051: \newblock Eur. Phys. J. 40 (2005) 447,
1052: \href{http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ex/0412056}{\url{arXiv:hep-ex/0412056}}.
1053:
1054: \bibitem{Lobashev:1999tp}
1055: V.M. Lobashev et~al.,
1056: \newblock Phys. Lett. B460 (1999) 227.
1057:
1058: \bibitem{hep-ex/0309007}
1059: KATRIN, L. Bornschein et~al.,
1060: \newblock eConf C030626 (2003) FRAP14,
1061: \href{http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ex/0309007}{\url{arXiv:hep-ex/0309007}},
1062: \newblock XIII Physics in Collision Conference(PIC03), Zeuthen, Germany, June
1063: 2003.
1064:
1065: \bibitem{Klapdor-Kleingrothaus:2001yx}
1066: H.V. Klapdor-Kleingrothaus et~al.,
1067: \newblock Eur. Phys. J. A12 (2001) 147.
1068:
1069: \bibitem{Aalseth:2002rf}
1070: IGEX, C.E. Aalseth et~al.,
1071: \newblock Phys. Rev. D65 (2002) 092007,
1072: \href{http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ex/0202026}{\url{arXiv:hep-ex/0202026}}.
1073:
1074: \bibitem{0802.3439}
1075: CUORICINO, C. Arnaboldi et~al.,
1076: \newblock (2008), \href{http://arxiv.org/abs/0802.3439}{\url{arXiv:0802.3439}}.
1077:
1078: \bibitem{hep-ph/0201291}
1079: F. Feruglio, A. Strumia and F. Vissani,
1080: \newblock Nucl. Phys. B637 (2002) 345,
1081: \href{http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0201291}{\url{arXiv:hep-ph/0201291}}.
1082:
1083: \bibitem{hep-ex/0202018}
1084: C.E. Aalseth et~al.,
1085: \newblock Mod. Phys. Lett. A17 (2002) 1475,
1086: \href{http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ex/0202018}{\url{arXiv:hep-ex/0202018}}.
1087:
1088: \bibitem{hep-ex/0309016}
1089: A. Bakalyarov et~al.,
1090: \newblock Phys. Part. Nucl. Lett. 2 (2005) 77,
1091: \href{http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ex/0309016}{\url{arXiv:hep-ex/0309016}}.
1092:
1093: \bibitem{hep-ph/0405078}
1094: S.R. Elliott and J. Engel,
1095: \newblock J. Phys. G30 (2004) R183,
1096: \href{http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0405078}{\url{arXiv:hep-ph/0405078}}.
1097:
1098: \bibitem{hep-ph/0201231}
1099: H.V. Klapdor-Kleingrothaus et~al.,
1100: \newblock Mod. Phys. Lett. A16 (2001) 2409,
1101: \href{http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0201231}{\url{arXiv:hep-ph/0201231}}.
1102:
1103: \bibitem{hep-ph/0404088}
1104: H. Klapdor-Kleingrothaus et~al.,
1105: \newblock Phys. Lett. B586 (2004) 198,
1106: \href{http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0404088}{\url{arXiv:hep-ph/0404088}}.
1107:
1108: \bibitem{hep-ph/0107277}
1109: C. Bemporad, G. Gratta and P. Vogel,
1110: \newblock Rev. Mod. Phys. 74 (2002) 297,
1111: \href{http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0107277}{\url{arXiv:hep-ph/0107277}}.
1112:
1113: \bibitem{0706.0399}
1114: R.L. Awasthi and S. Choubey,
1115: \newblock Phys. Rev. D76 (2007) 113002,
1116: \href{http://arxiv.org/abs/0706.0399}{\url{arXiv:0706.0399}}.
1117:
1118: \bibitem{0709.1937}
1119: S. Choubey,
1120: \newblock JHEP 12 (2007) 014,
1121: \href{http://arxiv.org/abs/0709.1937}{\url{arXiv:0709.1937}}.
1122:
1123: \bibitem{hep-ph/0703092}
1124: S. Choubey, N.P. Harries and G.G. Ross,
1125: \newblock Phys. Rev. D76 (2007) 073013,
1126: \href{http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0703092}{\url{arXiv:hep-ph/0703092}}.
1127:
1128: \bibitem{0708.3337}
1129: P. Keranen et~al.,
1130: \newblock Phys. Rev. D76 (2007) 125026,
1131: \href{http://arxiv.org/abs/0708.3337}{\url{arXiv:0708.3337}}.
1132:
1133: \bibitem{0711.2450}
1134: O. Civitarese and M.E. Mosquera,
1135: \newblock Phys. Rev. C77 (2007) 045806,
1136: \href{http://arxiv.org/abs/0711.2450}{\url{arXiv:0711.2450}}.
1137:
1138: \bibitem{MicroBooNE-2007}
1139: MicroBooNE, H. Chen et~al.,
1140: \newblock (2007),
1141: \newblock URL:
1142: \href{{http://www-microboone.fnal.gov/Documents/MicroBooNE_10152007.pdf}}{\url{{http://www-microboone.fnal.gov/Documents/MicroBooNE_10152007.pdf}}}.
1143:
1144: \bibitem{Zucchelli:2002sa}
1145: P. Zucchelli,
1146: \newblock Phys. Lett. B532 (2002) 166.
1147:
1148: \bibitem{physics/0411123}
1149: Neutrino Factory/Muon Collider, C. Albright et~al.,
1150: \newblock (2004),
1151: \href{http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0411123}{\url{arXiv:physics/0411123}}.
1152:
1153: \bibitem{hep-ph/0605033}
1154: C. Volpe,
1155: \newblock J. Phys. G34 (2007) R1,
1156: \href{http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0605033}{\url{arXiv:hep-ph/0605033}}.
1157:
1158: \bibitem{hep-ph/0210192}
1159: M. Apollonio et~al.,
1160: \newblock (2002),
1161: \href{http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0210192}{\url{arXiv:hep-ph/0210192}}.
1162:
1163: \bibitem{hep-ph/0601079}
1164: R.S. Raghavan,
1165: \newblock (2006),
1166: \href{http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0601079}{\url{arXiv:hep-ph/0601079}}.
1167:
1168: \bibitem{Raghavan:1997ad}
1169: R.S. Raghavan,
1170: \newblock Phys. Rev. Lett. 78 (1997) 3618.
1171:
1172: \bibitem{LENS-2002}
1173: R.S. Raghavan et~al.,
1174: \newblock (2002),
1175: \newblock URL:
1176: \href{{http://lens.in2p3.fr/lens-rep-02.pdf}}{\url{{http://lens.in2p3.fr/lens-rep-02.pdf}}}.
1177:
1178: \bibitem{Grieb:2006mp}
1179: C. Grieb, J. Link and R.S. Raghavan,
1180: \newblock Phys. Rev. D75 (2007) 093006,
1181: \href{http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0611178}{\url{arXiv:hep-ph/0611178}}.
1182:
1183: \end{thebibliography}
1184:
1185: \begin{figure}[p]
1186: \begin{center}
1187: \includegraphics*[bb=137 255 462 590, width=\textwidth]{fig/hst-mb.eps}
1188: \caption{ \label{hst-mb}
1189: Reproduction of Fig.~2 of Ref.~\cite{0704.1500},
1190: with the additional low-energy bin at $ 200 - 300 \, \text{MeV} $
1191: reported in the Table in page~28 of Ref.~\cite{Tayloe-LP07}.
1192: The points show the number of $\nu_{e}$ events measured in the
1193: MiniBooNE experiment, with their statistical error bars.
1194: The dashed, dotted and solid histograms show,
1195: respectively,
1196: the calculated number of expected
1197: $\nu_{e}$-induced,
1198: misidentified $\nu_{\mu}$-induced
1199: and
1200: total events.
1201: }
1202: \end{center}
1203: \end{figure}
1204:
1205: \begin{figure}[p]
1206: \begin{center}
1207: \includegraphics*[bb=137 255 462 590, width=\textwidth]{fig/hst-gl.eps}
1208: \caption{ \label{hst-gl}
1209: Theoretically expected number of events compared with
1210: the MiniBooNE data,
1211: represented by the points with their statistical error bars
1212: (same as in Fig.~\ref{hst-mb}).
1213: The values of $f$ and $P_{\nu_{e}\to\nu_{e}}$
1214: are those in Eq.~(\ref{004}),
1215: corresponding to the best fit of the MiniBooNE data.
1216: }
1217: \end{center}
1218: \end{figure}
1219:
1220: \begin{figure}[p]
1221: \begin{center}
1222: \includegraphics*[bb=23 144 572 704, width=\textwidth]{fig/chi2_mb-all.eps}
1223: \caption{ \label{cnt}
1224: Allowed regions in the
1225: $P_{\nu_{e}\to\nu_{e}}$--$f$
1226: plane
1227: and
1228: marginal $\Delta\chi^2$'s
1229: for
1230: $P_{\nu_{e}\to\nu_{e}}$ and $f$
1231: obtained from the fit of the MiniBooNE data.
1232: The interrupted lines correspond to the confidence levels in the legend.
1233: }
1234: \end{center}
1235: \end{figure}
1236:
1237: \begin{figure}[p]
1238: \begin{center}
1239: \includegraphics*[bb=23 144 572 704, width=\textwidth]{fig/chi2_mb_ga-all.eps}
1240: \caption{ \label{mbga}
1241: Allowed regions in the
1242: $P_{\nu_{e}\to\nu_{e}}$--$f$
1243: plane
1244: and
1245: marginal $\Delta\chi^2$'s
1246: for
1247: $P_{\nu_{e}\to\nu_{e}}$ and $f$
1248: obtained from the combined fit of the MiniBooNE data and
1249: the result of Gallium radioactive source experiments in Eq.~(\ref{s001}).
1250: The interrupted lines correspond to the confidence levels in the legend.
1251: }
1252: \end{center}
1253: \end{figure}
1254:
1255: \begin{figure}[p]
1256: \begin{center}
1257: \includegraphics*[bb=23 144 572 704, width=\textwidth]{fig/chi2_mb_ga_bd-all.eps}
1258: \caption{ \label{mbgabd}
1259: Allowed regions in the
1260: $P_{\nu_{e}\to\nu_{e}}$--$f$
1261: plane
1262: and
1263: marginal $\Delta\chi^2$'s
1264: for
1265: $P_{\nu_{e}\to\nu_{e}}$ and $f$
1266: obtained from the combined fit of the MiniBooNE data,
1267: the result of Gallium radioactive source experiments in Eq.~(\ref{s001})
1268: and the beam-dump indication of $\nu_{e}$ disappearance in Eq.~(\ref{111}).
1269: The interrupted lines correspond to the confidence levels in the legend.
1270: }
1271: \end{center}
1272: \end{figure}
1273:
1274: \end{document}
1275: