Bibliographic record
Abstract
Neutrino oscillations are conventionally accounted for using a three-flavor massive model. This agrees with most experimental data, but fails to accommodate some notable results. A possible explanation is Lorentz violation, which could affect oscillatory behavior. Previous models have used Lorentz violation to describe oscillations with and without neutrino mass. These models have been developed for oscillations in a vacuum or a uniform medium, such as the Earth. However, variable media, such as the Sun, have not been considered. Solar-neutrino oscillations are studied using a massive model with perturbative Lorentz violation and an approximate model for the composition of the Sun. The adiabatic approximation is used to eliminate high-frequency oscillations and hence obtain analytic expressions for the average probability of detecting each flavor. Lorentz violation is incorporated into the adiabatic results, and changes in energy and directional dependence are considered. Results are more compact than previous work, and are found to be very accurate when compared to exact numerical calculations. The analysis is first carried out for two neutrino flavors and then generalized to include three. Fits to time-dependent experimental data from the solar-neutrino experiments Super-Kamiokande and the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory are demonstrated, providing approximate values for several combinations of Lorentz-violating coefficients. Most of these results are consistent with zero, but some are not. There is no obvious explanation for this behavior, but it is likely due to uncorrected effects from the eccentricity of Earth's orbit or some other periodic effect.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".