MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408024425 · doi:10.1103/physrevd.111.035028

Panorama of new-physics explanations to the MiniBooNE excess

2025· article· en· W4408024425 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Asli M. Abdullahi, Jaime Hoefken Zink, Matheus Hostert, Daniele Massaro, Silvia Pascoli

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. D/Physical review. D. · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicNeutrino Physics Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersH2020 Marie Skłodowska-Curie ActionsHorizon 2020 Framework ProgrammeMinistry of Colleges and UniversitiesInstitut Périmètre de physique théoriqueEuropean CommissionNarodowe Centrum NaukiNarodowym Centrum NaukiGovernment of Canada
KeywordsPanoramaMiniBooNEPhysicsPsychologyTheoretical physicsComputer scienceParticle physicsArtificial intelligenceNeutrino

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The MiniBooNE low-energy excess stands as an unexplained anomaly in short-baseline neutrino oscillation experiments. It has been shown that it can be explained in the context of dark sector models. Here, we provide an overview of the possible new-physics solutions based on electron, photon, and dilepton final states. We systematically discuss the various production mechanisms for dark particles in neutrino-nucleus scattering. Our main result is a comprehensive fit to the MiniBooNE energy spectrum in the parameter space of dark neutrino models, where short-lived heavy neutral leptons are produced in neutrino interactions and decay to <a:math xmlns:a="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"> <a:msup> <a:mi>e</a:mi> <a:mo>+</a:mo> </a:msup> <a:msup> <a:mi>e</a:mi> <a:mo>−</a:mo> </a:msup> </a:math> pairs inside the detector. For the first time, other experiments will be able to directly confirm or rule out dark neutrino interpretations of the MiniBooNE low-energy excess.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.424
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.484
Teacher spread0.449 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations6
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. D/Physical review. D.Same topicNeutrino Physics ResearchFrench-language works237,207