Updated T2K measurements of muon neutrino and antineutrino disappearance using <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn>3.6</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mrow><mml:mn>10</mml:mn></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mn>21</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:mrow></mml:math> protons on target
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Muon neutrino and antineutrino disappearance probabilities are identical in the standard three-flavor neutrino oscillation framework, but $CPT$ violation and nonstandard interactions can violate this symmetry. In this work we report the measurements of ${\mathrm{sin}}^{2}{\ensuremath{\theta}}_{23}$ and $\mathrm{\ensuremath{\Delta}}{m}_{32}^{2}$ independently for neutrinos and antineutrinos. The aforementioned symmetry violation would manifest as an inconsistency in the neutrino and antineutrino oscillation parameters. The analysis discussed here uses a total of $1.97\ifmmode\times\else\texttimes\fi{}{10}^{21}$ and $1.63\ifmmode\times\else\texttimes\fi{}{10}^{21}$ protons on target taken with a neutrino and antineutrino beam respectively, and benefits from improved flux and cross section models, new near-detector samples and more than double the data reducing the overall uncertainty of the result. No significant deviation is observed, consistent with the standard neutrino oscillation picture.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.003 |
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".