Canonical constraints on leptonic<mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi>P</mml:mi></mml:math>violation using ultrahigh energy cosmic ray neutrino fluxes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is shown that one can in principle constrain the $CP$-violating parameter $\ensuremath{\delta}$ from measurements of four independent $|{V}_{ij}{|}^{2}$'s, or three $|{V}_{ij}{|}^{2}$'s and a ratio of two of them, in the leptonic sector. To quantify our approach, using unitarity, we derive simple expressions in terms of four independent $|{V}_{ij}{|}^{2}$'s for $\mathrm{cos}\ensuremath{\delta}$, and an expression for ${sin}^{2}\ensuremath{\delta}$ from ${J}^{2}$. Thus, depending on the values for $|{V}_{ij}|$ and their accuracy, we can set meaningful limits on $|\ensuremath{\delta}|$. To illustrate numerically, if $|{V}_{\ensuremath{\mu}1}{|}^{2}$ is close to 0.1 with a 10% precision, and if $|{V}_{e3}{|}^{2}$ is larger than 0.005 and for values of $|{V}_{e2}{|}^{2}$ and $|{V}_{\ensuremath{\mu}3}{|}^{2}$ that stay within $\ifmmode\pm\else\textpm\fi{}0.1$ of the current experimental data leads to a bound: $\ensuremath{\pi}/2\ensuremath{\le}|\ensuremath{\delta}|\ensuremath{\le}\ensuremath{\pi}$. Alternatively, a certain combination of parameters with values of $|{V}_{e3}{|}^{2}$ larger than 0.01 leads to a closed bound of $73\ensuremath{\le}|\ensuremath{\delta}|\ensuremath{\le}103$. In general, we find that it is better to use $|{V}_{\ensuremath{\mu}1}{|}^{2}$ or $|{V}_{\ensuremath{\tau}1}{|}^{2}$ as the fourth independent $|{V}_{ij}{|}^{2}$ and that, over most of the parameter space, $\ensuremath{\delta}$ is least sensitive to $|{V}_{e3}{|}^{2}$. With just three independent measurements (solar, atmospheric, and reactor), it is impossible to set limits on the $CP$ phase. In this respect, we study the use of ultrahigh energy cosmic ray neutrino fluxes as the additional fourth information. We find that within the SM, neutrino fluxes of all three flavors will be very similar but that pushing current neutrino data to their extreme values still allowed, ratios of cosmic neutrino fluxes can differ by up to 20%; such large discrepancies could imply negligibly small $CP$ violation. We also study a nonradiative neutrino decay model and find that the neutrino fluxes can differ by a factor of up to 3 within this model and that an accuracy of 10% on the neutrino fluxes is sufficient to set interesting limits on $\ensuremath{\delta}$.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".