MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

MicroBooNE and the <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mrow><mml:mi>ν</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mi>e</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math> Interpretation of the MiniBooNE Low-Energy Excess

2022· article· lv· W4200634628 on OpenAlexafffund
C. Argüelles, Ivan Esteban, Matheus Hostert, Kevin J. Kelly, Joachim Kopp, P. Machado, Ivan Martínez-Soler, Yuber F. Perez-Gonzalez

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review Letters · 2022
Typearticle
Languagelv
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysics and Cosmic Phenomena
Canadian institutionsPerimeter Institute
FundersH2020 Marie Skłodowska-Curie ActionsScience and Technology Facilities CouncilOntario Ministry of Research, Innovation and ScienceGovernment of CanadaInnovation, Science and Economic Development CanadaHarvard UniversityOhio State UniversityHorizon 2020 Framework ProgrammeAlfred P. Sloan FoundationU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A new generation of neutrino experiments is testing the 4.7σ anomalous excess of electronlike events observed in MiniBooNE. This is of huge importance for particle physics, astrophysics, and cosmology, not only because of the potential discovery of physics beyond the standard model, but also because the lessons we will learn about neutrino-nucleus interactions will be crucial for the worldwide neutrino program. MicroBooNE has recently released results that appear to disfavor several explanations of the MiniBooNE anomaly. Here, we show quantitatively that MicroBooNE results, while a promising start, unquestionably do not probe the full parameter space of sterile neutrino models hinted at by MiniBooNE and other data, nor do they probe the ν_{e} interpretation of the MiniBooNE excess in a model-independent way.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.919
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2370.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.218 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations55
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review LettersSame topicAstrophysics and Cosmic PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207