Improved Measurement of the Evolution of the Reactor Antineutrino Flux and Spectrum at Daya Bay
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reactor neutrino experiments play a crucial role in advancing our knowledge of neutrinos. In this Letter, the evolution of the flux and spectrum as a function of the reactor isotopic content is reported in terms of the inverse-beta-decay yield at Daya Bay with 1958 days of data and improved systematic uncertainties. These measurements are compared with two signature model predictions: the Huber-Mueller model based on the conversion method and the SM2018 model based on the summation method. The measured average flux and spectrum, as well as the flux evolution with the ^{239}Pu isotopic fraction, are inconsistent with the predictions of the Huber-Mueller model. In contrast, the SM2018 model is shown to agree with the average flux and its evolution but fails to describe the energy spectrum. Altering the predicted inverse-beta-decay spectrum from ^{239}Pu fission does not improve the agreement with the measurement for either model. The models can be brought into better agreement with the measurements if either the predicted spectrum due to ^{235}U fission is changed or the predicted ^{235}U, ^{238}U, ^{239}Pu, and ^{241}Pu spectra are changed in equal measure.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".