Combined sensitivity to the neutrino mass ordering with JUNO, the IceCube Upgrade, and PINGU
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ordering of the neutrino mass eigenstates is one of the fundamental open questions in neutrino physics. While current-generation neutrino oscillation experiments are able to produce moderate indications on this ordering, upcoming experiments of the next generation aim to provide conclusive evidence. In this paper we study the combined performance of the two future multi-purpose neutrino oscillation experiments JUNO and the IceCube Upgrade, which employ two very distinct and complementary routes toward the neutrino mass ordering. The approach pursued by the 20 kt medium-baseline reactor neutrino experiment JUNO consists of a careful investigation of the energy spectrum of oscillated ${\overline{\ensuremath{\nu}}}_{e}$ produced by ten nuclear reactor cores. The IceCube Upgrade, on the other hand, which consists of seven additional densely instrumented strings deployed in the center of IceCube DeepCore, will observe large numbers of atmospheric neutrinos that have undergone oscillations affected by Earth matter. In a joint fit with both approaches, tension occurs between their preferred mass-squared differences $\mathrm{\ensuremath{\Delta}}{m}_{31}^{2}={m}_{3}^{2}\ensuremath{-}{m}_{1}^{2}$ within the wrong mass ordering. In the case of JUNO and the IceCube Upgrade, this allows to exclude the wrong ordering at $>5\ensuremath{\sigma}$ on a timescale of 3--7 years---even under circumstances that are unfavorable to the experiments' individual sensitivities. For PINGU, a 26-string detector array designed as a potential low-energy extension to IceCube, the inverted ordering could be excluded within 1.5 years (3 years for the normal ordering) in a joint analysis.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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".