Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 89 references

RENE experiment for the sterile neutrino search using reactor neutrinos

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read RENE is a compact reactor-neutrino detector whose 150 mm gamma catcher is designed to reach about 4% energy resolution and, with two years of data, to fully map the sterile-neutrino region left open by the RENO/NEOS joint analysis.

desk verdict A detailed, useful design report for the RENE reactor neutrino detector; the two-year coverage claim is plausible but rests on unvalidated systematics, and the 4% resolution figure is a truncated statistic. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.22376 v1 pith:RXKCED73 submitted 2025-07-30 hep-ex physics.ins-det

Byeongsu Yang , Da Eun Jung , Dong Ho Moon , Eungyu Yun , HyeonWoo Park , Jae Sik Lee , Jisu Park , Ji Young Choi
show 26 more authors
Junkyo Oh Kyung Kwang Joo Ryeong Gyoon Park Sang Yong Kim Sunkyu Lee Insung Yeo Myoung Youl Pac Jee-Seung Jang Eun-Joo Kim Hyunho Hwang Junghwan Goh Wonsang Hwang Jiwon Ryu Jungsic Park Kyu Jung Bae Mingi Choe SeoBeom Hong Jubin Park Myung-Ki Cheoun Hyunsoo Kim Han Il Jang Dojin Kim Jonghee Yoo Seok-Gyeong Yoon Wonjun Lee Intae Yu
This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-exphysics.ins-det
keywords sterileneutrinoreactorantineutrinoinversebetadecaygadolinium-loadedliquidscintillatorgammacatcherenergyresolutionshort-baselineoscillationanomaly
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper describes the RENE experiment, a liquid-scintillator antineutrino detector to be placed about 24 m from a Hanbit reactor, and argues that its design lets two years of data cover the sterile-neutrino region still allowed by the RENO/NEOS joint analysis. The load-bearing design choice is a 150 mm thick gamma catcher surrounding a 270 L gadolinium-loaded target: it recovers annihilation and scattering gamma rays that escape from target-only detectors such as NEOS, raising the energy resolution to roughly 4 percent. With that resolution, Monte Carlo simulation and a RENO-referenced chi-square analysis project that two years of data will fully explore the allowed parameter region around $\Delta m^2_{41} \sim 2\,\mathrm{eV}^2$ with $\sin^2 2\theta_{14} < 0.01$. This matters because that region is what remains after the STEREO and PROSPECT exclusions, and because the projected sensitivity gain comes from energy resolution rather than from a larger target volume.

What carries the argument

The central object is the gamma catcher: an approximately 3000 L layer of unloaded liquid scintillator surrounding the 270 L Gd-LS target that prevents annihilation and Compton gamma rays from leaving the active volume without depositing their energy. The performance prediction is carried by a Monte Carlo detector response function $R(E_{\rm prompt}; E_\nu)$ built from simulated positron events, folded with the reference reactor antineutrino spectrum and the inverse-$\beta$-decay cross section, and then evaluated with a chi-square statistic that uses RENO data as a spectral reference and a NEOS covariance matrix rescaled to RENE's statistics. The mechanism driving the sensitivity projection is thus the conversion of escaping-gamma tails into recovered full-energy deposits.

What would settle it

A calibration run that inserts a tagged gamma source into the target vessel and measures the reconstructed prompt-energy peak width near 5 MeV would test the 4 percent resolution claim; a measured width above 4 percent, or a combined fast-neutron and accidental background above about 1 percent of the roughly 300 IBD events per day, would falsify the two-year full-exploration projection.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that detector geometry, not event statistics, is what decides a short-baseline sterile-neutrino search. By interposing a 150 mm active liquid-scintillator layer between the 270 L Gd-LS target and the photodetectors, RENE suppresses the low-energy tail and the secondary peak in the prompt positron spectrum that appear when gamma rays escape, and reaches an energy resolution of about 4 percent at high prompt energies. The paper presents this as roughly a 20 percent gain in sensitivity near $\Delta m^2_{41} \sim 2\,\mathrm{eV}^2$ relative to a NEOS-like resolution, enough that a RENO/RENE joint analysis can probe $\sin^2 2\theta_{14}$ below 0.01 and, after two years, cover the full parameter space left open by the RENO/NEOS joint study even though RENE detects about five times fewer IBD events per day than NEOS.

Load-bearing premise

The two-year full-exploration projection assumes that RENE's systematic uncertainties are captured by rescaling the NEOS covariance matrix to lower statistics, and that fast-neutron and accidental backgrounds stay below 1 percent of the roughly 300 daily IBD events; neither is yet backed by measured background data, a full detector calibration, or a prototype test of the 4 percent energy resolution.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the 4 percent resolution is realized, RENE will resolve oscillation-driven spectral distortions near $\Delta m^2_{41} \sim 2\,\mathrm{eV}^2$ that a NEOS-like detector would smear out.
  • Two years of data would cover the whole region allowed by the RENO/NEOS joint analysis; a null result would close that loophole, while a positive result would corroborate the sterile-neutrino interpretation.
  • Because the analysis uses RENO as a relative spectral reference, reactor flux normalization uncertainties largely cancel, making the search a shape measurement rather than an absolute rate measurement.
  • The same improved prompt spectrum sharpens the measured reactor antineutrino spectrum and can inform the discussion of the origin of the 5 MeV excess.
  • The projected sensitivity is driven mainly by energy resolution rather than statistics, so a smaller, better-contained detector can outperform a larger target-only detector at the same site.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Beyond the paper, the gamma-catcher concept could be transplanted to other short-baseline detectors; the simulation setup used here could optimize the catcher-thickness versus target-mass trade for different baselines or oscillation regions.
  • Beyond the paper, a natural next step would be to replace the rescaled NEOS covariance with a covariance measured from RENE's own calibration data, which would make the sensitivity projection fully self-contained.
  • Beyond the paper, if the two-year run does not reach the projected coverage, the likely cause would be an unmeasured systematic such as background level or energy-scale offset rather than a shortage of IBD statistics, because the stated sensitivity is resolution-limited.
  • Beyond the paper, the design principle of spending active volume on gamma containment rather than target mass could inform other sterile-neutrino searches, including those using compact radioactive sources.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents a technical design and Monte Carlo study for the RENE experiment, a compact Gd-loaded liquid scintillator detector planned for the tendon gallery of the Hanbit reactor. The detector comprises a 270 L Gd-LS target surrounded by a ~3000 L gamma catcher and two 20-inch PMTs. The paper reports detector construction details, DAQ and slow-control systems, bench tests of PMTs and veto panels, and a sensitivity projection for sterile neutrino oscillations around Delta m^2_41 ~ 2 eV^2 following the RENO/NEOS joint analysis method. The central claim is that a ~4% energy resolution and two years of data will allow a full exploration of the parameter space covered by the RENO/NEOS joint study.

Significance. If the reported performance is realized, RENE would be a relatively low-cost experiment capable of probing sterile neutrino mixing below sin^2(2theta_14) ~ 0.01 in the region suggested by the RENO/NEOS joint analysis. The paper's main value is as a detailed technical report: it documents the detector geometry, PMT characterization, veto panel tests, magnetic shielding measurements, and long-term Gd concentration stability, and these bench results are described in enough detail to be plausible. However, the physics claim is a projection, not a measurement, and it rests on several unvalidated assumptions about energy resolution, backgrounds, and systematic uncertainties. The paper would be strengthened by clearly separating measured detector properties from MC-derived expectations.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 5.2, Fig. 46, Eq. (6)] The quoted energy resolution is computed after explicitly excluding events below ~0.7 MeV from each prompt-energy spectrum. The standard deviation in Eq. (6) is therefore a truncated statistic, not the variance of the physical detector response. The sensitivity calculation in Sec. 5.4 folds the full response R(E_prompt; E_nu) from Eq. (4) into the expected spectrum via Eq. (10), and the text does not state whether the same 0.7 MeV cut is applied in that folding. If the cut is not applied, the 4% resolution value is not the resolution entering the oscillation fit, and the claimed ~20% sensitivity gain over a NEOS-like resolution is not established. If the cut is applied, the low-energy boundary must be propagated through Eq. (11). Please report an untruncated resolution, show the sensitivity with and without the 0.7 MeV cut, and note that no calibration-source measurement of the NPE-to-energy conversion is presented to validate the MC resolution.
  2. [Sec. 5.4, Eq. (11)] The covariance matrix V_RENE is obtained by rescaling the NEOS covariance matrix to RENE's expected statistics. This assumes that the NEOS systematic budget (energy scale, detector response, background normalization) applies to RENE and that all terms scale with the sample size in the same way. No RENE-specific systematic model is given, and no closure test with simulated pseudo-data is shown. Because the projected sensitivity contours in Fig. 48 are dominated by this covariance, the 'full exploration' claim is contingent on an assumption that the paper does not justify. Please provide an explicit RENE covariance constructed from its own geometry, target composition, and measured PMT response, or validate the rescaling with an ensemble of Monte Carlo experiments.
  3. [Sec. 5.3] The detection efficiency epsilon is fixed by matching the expected IBD rate to the NEOS observed rate and then applied to RENE with a volume-ratio scaling. This transfers NEOS's absolute efficiency without accounting for differences in target composition, Gd concentration, gamma-catcher acceptance, trigger threshold, and IBD selection efficiency. Because the expected rate of ~300 events/day enters the statistical component of Eq. (11), an incorrect efficiency directly changes the projected sensitivity. Please provide an efficiency budget from the RENE simulation and validate the volume-ratio scaling, or treat epsilon as a free parameter in the sensitivity fit.
  4. [Sec. 2.4 and Sec. 6.2] The requirement that fast neutron and accidental backgrounds remain below 1% of the IBD rate is stated as a design target, but no on-site background measurement or simulation of these backgrounds is presented. RENE is an above-ground detector, so this assumption is not trivial. Since Sec. 6.2 itself notes that the experiment's sensitivity will depend on the evaluated systematic uncertainties and background levels, the two-year 'full exploration' conclusion should be conditioned on demonstrating this background level, for example by presenting a background model and expected rates from the tendon gallery.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and Sec. 1.1] The sentence containing 'Delta m^2_41 ~ 2 eV^2. which overlap' has a punctuation error; 'which' should continue the sentence.
  2. [Sec. 2.1] 'Steal Use Stainless (SUS)' should be 'Steel Use Stainless', and 'the gamma-catcher chamber,which is filled' contains a spacing error.
  3. [Sec. 2.4] The citation appears as '[66 ?, 67]' with a stray question mark; please correct the reference.
  4. [Sec. 3, Table 4] 'DAQ system speculations' should be 'DAQ system specifications', and the dynamic range entry '2 rmVpp' contains a LaTeX typo.
  5. [Sec. 4] The text states that the level sensor accuracy is less than 0.1 degrees C; this appears to be a temperature accuracy and should be corrected.
  6. [Sec. 5.2, Fig. 46] The right-panel axis label appears corrupted ('p'); please ensure the figure is rendered correctly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the RENE sensitivity projection is MC-based and uses NEOS data only as an external calibration and covariance input.

full rationale

The central sensitivity claim does not reduce to its inputs by construction. The energy resolution of about 4% is obtained from a GLG4SIM Monte Carlo response (Sec. 5.2, Eq. 4 and Eq. 6), and the sensitivity curves of Sec. 5.4 are computed with a chi-square statistic (Eq. 11) under the sterile-neutrino hypothesis; nowhere is the sterile signal fitted into the response function or the resolution. The detection efficiency is calibrated by matching the expected IBD rate to the measured NEOS rate (Sec. 5.3), but this is a normalization calibration and does not determine the shape of the oscillation sensitivity. The RENE covariance matrix is rescaled from the NEOS covariance matrix of the published RENO/NEOS joint analysis [58], which is an external experimental input rather than an assumption of the sterile signal being sought. Although the RENE collaboration overlaps with RENO/NEOS, that overlap does not make the cited measurement circular, because the cited result is a measured data set with stated uncertainties, not a self-imported theorem or an ansatz. The main weaknesses of the paper are unvalidated assumptions about systematic uncertainties, background rates, and the effect of the 0.7 MeV resolution cut; those are correctness risks and not circularity. Consequently, no circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The sensitivity calculation imports reactor flux, fission fractions, IBD cross section, and NEOS detector response from prior literature. It adds a hand-chosen gamma catcher thickness, a fitted detection efficiency, and a rescaled NEOS covariance. No new particle or force is introduced; the sterile neutrino is the target hypothesis, not an entity invented here.

free parameters (3)
  • Detection efficiency (epsilon) = not quoted; matched to NEOS 1976 events/day
    Eq. 7 is tuned to the NEOS observed rate and then scaled to RENE by volume ratio; this sets the projected 300 events/day rate.
  • Gamma catcher thickness = 150 mm
    Chosen after MC comparison of 0, 150, and 300 mm thicknesses; affects both energy resolution and target volume.
  • Low-energy resolution cutoff = ~0.7 MeV
    Events below this prompt energy are excluded when computing the energy resolution (Eq. 6), which influences the quoted ~4% resolution.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption 3+1 sterile neutrino survival probability P = |1 - sin²2θ14 sin²(Δm²41 L/4E)|
    Standard model extension used for sensitivity; not derived in this paper (Eq. 2).
  • domain assumption Huber-Mueller antineutrino spectra and NEOS fission fractions describe the Hanbit reactor flux
    Imported from Refs. [45,46,56] to build the expected spectrum (Eq. 8).
  • domain assumption GLG4SIM simulation faithfully models light collection and detector response
    The response function R(Eprompt;Eν) and the 4% resolution come from this unvalidated simulation (Sec. 5.1 and 5.2).
  • ad hoc to paper RENE covariance is a rescaling of the NEOS covariance matrix
    Sec. 5.4 states V_RENE is derived by rescaling the NEOS matrix; no independent systematic estimate is provided.
  • domain assumption Fast neutron and accidental backgrounds can be held below 1% of the IBD rate
    Design requirement stated in Sec. 2.4 without an onsite background measurement or simulation result.
  • ad hoc to paper NEOS detection efficiency transfers to RENE by volume ratio
    Used in Sec. 5.3 to set the absolute event rate after matching the NEOS observed rate.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of RENE experiment for the sterile neutrino search using reactor neutrinos." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RXKCED73

@misc{pith2026250722376,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: RENE experiment for the sterile neutrino search using reactor neutrinos},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RXKCED73}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.22376}
}
abstract

This paper summarizes the details of the Reactor Experiment for Neutrinos and Exotics (RENE) experiment. It covers the detector construction, Monte Carlo (MC) simulation study, and physics expectations. The primary goal of the RENE project is to investigate the sterile neutrino oscillation at $\Delta{m}^{2}_{41}\sim 2\,{\rm{eV}^{2}}$. which overlap with the allowed region predicted by the Reactor Antineutrino Anomaly (RAA). On the other hand, the STEREO and PROSPECT experiments have excluded certain regions of the parameter space with 95 \% confidence level (C.L.), while the joint study conducted by RENO and NEOS suggests possible indications of sterile neutrinos at $\Delta{m}^{2}_{41}\sim2.4\,{\rm{eV}^{2}}$ and $\sim{1.7}{\,\rm{eV}^{2}}$ with sin$^{2}\theta_{41} < 0.01$. Accordingly, a more meticulous investigation of these remaining regions continues to be a scientifically valuable endeavor. This paper reports the technical details of the detector and physics objectives.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.22376 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Exclusion limits and allowed regions for sterile neutrino oscillations. The black [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Prompt energy spectra corresponding to the neutrino energy of 4, 5, 6, and 7 MeV [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Prompt energy distributions for NEOS-sized detectors with various [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (46 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: A schematic representation of a Hanbit reactor building (left) and the geographical [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Conceptual illustration of the RENE detector. Details such as passive shielding, and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Feynman diagram (left) and corresponding illustration (right) [65] of electron antineu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Top-view layout of the experimental site. The RENE detector will be installed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Schematic representation of the RENE detector shown from a side (left) view and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Isometric view of the RENE detector system. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Isometric depiction of the acrylic target chamber (left) and the target chamber [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The lower end of the bellows is fastened to the flange at the central top of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Isometric view of the γ-catcher chamber and the reflector cones (top). Fully assem￾bled γ-catcher chamber (bottom). signals (1 MeV < E < 8 MeV for the positrons and 6 MeV < E < 10 MeV for the neutrons) must remain below 1% of the IBD event rate [31]. The accidental co…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Blueprint of reflector cone and fully assembled reflector cone. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Front view of a reflector cone made from Teflon (left) and back view of reflector [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Surrounding support structure of the VETO system (left) and isometric view of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Detailed geometry of the veto panel Type A (top) and Type B (bottom). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Manufacturing PMT mounter for A and B type. 3-D printer (left). Type A supporter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Long-term mounting test of the Type B PMT mounter. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_18.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Manufacturing process of veto panels. confirming that it could continue to support the PMT effectively over a long-term period [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_19.png]
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Charge distribution obtained using a light-emitting diode (LED, left) and gain [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_20.png]
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: Coincidence test of the experimental setup (top). Charge distributions of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_21.png]
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: 20-inch PMT installed on the side surface with an aluminum holder frame (left). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_22.png]
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: Setup for assessing PMT characteristics. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_23.png]
Figure 24
Figure 24. Figure 24: Example waveforms of PMT A (left) and B (right). The horizontal bars indicate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_24.png]
Figure 25
Figure 25. Figure 25: Charge distributions of PMT A (left) and B (right). The yellow line marks the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_25.png]
Figure 26
Figure 26. Figure 26: Mean values of the SPE charge distributions as a function of HV for PMT A (left) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_26.png]
Figure 27
Figure 27. Figure 27: Various directions of cable outlet for 20-inch [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_27.png]
Figure 28
Figure 28. Figure 28: Measured time response. The red line represents the time response of PMT A, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_28.png]
Figure 29
Figure 29. Figure 29: Time distributions of PMT A (left) and PMT B (right). The black lines indicate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_29.png]
Figure 30
Figure 30. Figure 30: Two-dimensional histogram of time versus the charge for PMT A (left) and PMT [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_30.png]
Figure 31
Figure 31. Figure 31: Magnetic field measuring devices: TFM1186 (left), TM4300B (middle). Measure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_31.png]
Figure 32
Figure 32. Figure 32: Magnitude of the magnetic field in the normal direction to the ground (left) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_32.png]
Figure 33
Figure 33. Figure 33: Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) titration method. Before adding Gd to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_33.png]
Figure 34
Figure 34. Figure 34: The produced 0.6 % of Gd-LAB solution. RENE is designed as an above-ground experiment, where fast neutron background levels are expected to be one or two orders of magnitude higher than those in typical underground experiments. Effective pulse shape discrimination (PS…
Figure 35
Figure 35. Figure 35: Long-term measurement of Gd concentration in the Gd-LAB solution, conducted [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_35.png]
Figure 36
Figure 36. Figure 36: Electronics of the DAQ system. The FADC (NKFADC500) digitizes signal waveforms from the 20-inch PMTs at a sampling rate of 500 MHz per channel. This high sampling rate is essential for performing pulse shape 30/47 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_36.png]
Figure 37
Figure 37. Figure 37: DAQ workflow of RENE. The DAQ workflow is illustrated in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_37.png]
Figure 38
Figure 38. Figure 38: Data processing sequence [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_38.png]
Figure 39
Figure 39. Figure 39: DAQ setup (left) and run controller (right). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_39.png]
Figure 40
Figure 40. Figure 40: RTD and US sensors attached to the lid of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p035_40.png]
Figure 41
Figure 41. Figure 41: US sensor for monitoring the LS level (left) and RTD sensor for measuring the LS [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p035_41.png]
Figure 42
Figure 42. Figure 42: Radon sensor (left) and radon monitoring display (right). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p035_42.png]
Figure 43
Figure 43. Figure 43: HV supply system for the RENE detector. Maintaining the amplification ratio of dynode-type PMTs within the target range requires precise adjustment of the supply voltage. The difference between the voltage of the HV supply device and the actual voltage applied to the …
Figure 44
Figure 44. Figure 44: HV GUI system 37/47 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p037_44.png]
Figure 45
Figure 45. Figure 45: Schematic view of the RENE detector modeled using the GLG4SIM MC simulation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p039_45.png]
Figure 46
Figure 46. Figure 46: Simulated prompt energy spectra for four neutrino energies (left) and energy reso [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p040_46.png]
Figure 47
Figure 47. Figure 47: Theoretical energy spectrum of reactor antineutrinos weighted by the IBD cross [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p041_47.png]
Figure 48
Figure 48. Figure 48: Sensitivity of parameter space derived from the Reactor Antineutrino Anomaly [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p044_48.png]
Figure 49
Figure 49. Figure 49: Timeline of RENE experiment. 6.2. Conclusion The RENE experiment, with a baseline distance of approximately 24 m, is designed to search for sterile neutrinos. This study presents a detailed technical overview of the RENE detector. The incorporation of a γ-catcher cham…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

89 extracted references · 77 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Weinberg, Phys

    S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 43, 1566-1570 (1979)

    1979

  2. [2]

    Navas et al

    S. Navas et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D 110, 030001 (2024)

    2024

  3. [3]

    KamLAND Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 021802 (2003)

    2003

  4. [4]

    KamLAND Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 081801 (2005)

    2005

  5. [5]

    KamLAND Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 119904 (2008)

    2008

  6. [6]

    KamLAND Collaboration, Phys. Rev. D 88 no.3, 033001 (2013)

    2013

  7. [7]

    Davis et al

    R. Davis et al. Phys. Rev. Lett. 20, 1205-1209 (1968)

    1968

  8. [8]

    Cleveland et al., Astrophys

    B.T. Cleveland et al., Astrophys. J. 496, 505 (1998)

    1998

Show all 89 references
  1. [9]

    Kamiokande Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 1683-1686 (1996)

    1996

  2. [10]

    Super-Kamiokande Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 4279 (1998)

    1998

  3. [11]

    Super-Kamiokande Collaboration, Phys. Rev. D 94 no.5, 052010 (2016)

    2016

  4. [12]

    SNO Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87 071301 (2001)

    2001

  5. [13]

    SNO Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89 011301 (2002)

    2002

  6. [14]

    SNO Collaboration, Phys. Rev. C 88 025501 (2013)

    2013

  7. [15]

    T2K Collaboration, Phys. Rev. D 74, 072003 (2006)

    2006

  8. [16]

    MINOS Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 191801 (2014)

    2014

  9. [17]

    MINOS Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125 no.13, 131802 (2020)

    2020

  10. [18]

    T2K Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 041801 (2011)

    2011

  11. [19]

    T2K Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 061802 (2014)

    2014

  12. [20]

    T2K Collaboration, Eur. Phys. J. C 83 no.9, 782 (2023)

    2023

  13. [21]

    NOvA Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123 no.15, 151803 (2019)

    2019

  14. [22]

    NOvA Collaboration, Phys. Rev. D 106 no.3, 032004 (2022)

    2022

  15. [23]

    RENO Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121 no.20, 201801 (2018)

    2018

  16. [24]

    Daya Bay Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130 no.16, 161802 (2023)

    2023

  17. [25]

    Super-Kamiokande Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 1562-1567 (1998)

    1998

  18. [26]

    Super-Kaminokande Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 101801 (2004)

    2004

  19. [27]

    Super-Kamiokande Collaboration, Phys. Rev. D 97 no.7, 072001 (2018)

    2018

  20. [28]

    IceCube Collaboration, Phys. Rev. D 108 no.1, 012014 (2023)

    2023

  21. [29]

    Double Chooz Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 131801 (2012)

    2012

  22. [30]

    Daya Bay Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 171803 (2012)

    2012

  23. [31]

    RENO Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108 (2012), 191802 (2012)

    2012

  24. [32]

    LSND Collaboration, Phys. Rev. D 64, 112007 (2001)

    2001

  25. [33]

    MINIBooNE Collaboration, Phys. Rev. D 110, 161801 (2013)

    2013

  26. [34]

    MiniBooNE Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 221801 (2018)

    2018

  27. [35]

    GALLEX collaboration Phys. Lett. B 685, 47 (2010)

    2010

  28. [36]

    GALLEX collaboration, Phys. Lett. B 420, 114 (1998)

    1998

  29. [37]

    SAGE collaboration, Phys. Rev. C 59, 2246 (1999)

    1999

  30. [38]

    SAGE collaboration, Phys. Rev. C 73, 045805 (2006)

    2006

  31. [39]

    BEST Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 232501 (2022)

    2022

  32. [40]

    ILL Collaboration, Phys. Rev. D 24, 1907 (1981)

    1981

  33. [41]

    Declais et al., Nucl

    Y. Declais et al., Nucl. Phys. B 434, 503 (1995)

    1995

  34. [42]

    Declais et al., Phys

    Y. Declais et al., Phys. Lett. B 338, 383 (1994)

    1994

  35. [43]

    Giunti, Phys

    C. Giunti, Phys. Lett. B 764, 764 (2016)

    2016

  36. [44]

    et al., Phys

    Mention G. et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 073006 (2011)

    2011

  37. [45]

    Th. A. Mueller et al., Phys. Rev. C 83, 054615 (2011)

    2011

  38. [46]

    Huber, Phys

    P. Huber, Phys. Rev. C 85, 029901 (2012)

    2012

  39. [47]

    Hayes et al., Phys

    A.C. Hayes et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 202501 (2014)

    2014

  40. [48]

    Fang and B.A

    D.-L. Fang and B.A. Brown., Phys. Rev. C 91, 025503 (2015)

    2015

  41. [49]

    Hayes and P

    A.C. Hayes and P. Vogel., Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 66, 219 (2016)

    2016

  42. [50]

    Kopp et al., JHEP 05, 050 (2013)

    J. Kopp et al., JHEP 05, 050 (2013)

    2013

  43. [51]

    B¨ oseret al., Prog

    S. B¨ oseret al., Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 111 (2020), 103736

    2020

  44. [52]

    Goswami, Phys

    S. Goswami, Phys. Rev. D 55 2931-2949 (1997)

    1997

  45. [53]

    Okada and O

    N. Okada and O. Yasuda, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 12 3669-3694 (1997) 46/47

    1997

  46. [54]

    S. M. Bilenky et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 1 247-253 (1998)

    1998

  47. [55]

    S. M. Bilenky et al..Phys. Rev. D 60 073007 (1999)

    1999

  48. [56]

    NEOS Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 121802 (2017)

    2017

  49. [57]

    RENO Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 191801 (2020)

    2020

  50. [58]

    RENO and NEOS Collaboration, Phys. Rev. D 105, L111101 (2022)

    2022

  51. [59]

    STEREO Collaboration, Nature 613 257-261 (2023)

    2023

  52. [60]

    PROSPECT Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134 151802 (2025)

    2025

  53. [61]

    Agostinelli and the others, Nucl

    S. Agostinelli and the others, Nucl. Instr. Meth. 506, 250 (2003)

    2003

  54. [62]

    NEOS Collaboration, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2156, 012139 (2021)

    2021

  55. [63]

    RENO Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 232501 (2019)

    2019

  56. [64]

    Ltd, https://www.khnp.co.kr/main/index.do

    Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power Co. Ltd, https://www.khnp.co.kr/main/index.do

  57. [65]

    Xin Qian and Jen-Chieh Peng., Rept.Prog. Phys. 82, 036201 (2019)

    2019

  58. [66]

    J P McCaffrey et al., Medical Physics 39, 4537 (2012)

    2012

  59. [67]

    Balasundar et al., Ann

    S. Balasundar et al., Ann. Nucl. Energy 153, 10001 (2021)

    2021

  60. [68]

    EJEN technology, https://eljentechnology.com/products/plastic-scintillators

  61. [69]

    Hamamatsu, https://www.hamamatsu.com

  62. [70]

    Zhao, et al., Nucl.Sci.Tech

    R. Zhao, et al., Nucl.Sci.Tech. 34, 12 (2023)

    2023

  63. [71]

    Haser, et al., J

    J. Haser, et al., J. Instrum. 8, P04029 (2013)

    2013

  64. [72]

    Campbell, Rev

    L. Campbell, Rev. Sci. Inst. 63, 5794 (1992)

    1992

  65. [73]

    Ma et al., Nucl

    K. Ma et al., Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 629, 93 (2011)

    2011

  66. [74]

    Akchurin and H

    N. Akchurin and H. Kim, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 574, 121 (2007)

    2007

  67. [75]

    Coates, J

    P. Coates, J. Phys. Appl. Phys. 6, 1862 (1973)

    1973

  68. [76]

    JUNO Collaboration, arXiv:1508.07166 (2015)

    2015 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Zhang et al., J

    H. Zhang et al., J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 1468, 012197 (2020)

    2020

  70. [78]

    Tomoyuki Tanaka et al., Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys. 2024, 043D02 (2020)

    2020

  71. [79]

    RENO Collaboration, arXiv:1003.1391 (2010)

    2010 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Ardellier et al., hep-ex/0606025

    F. Ardellier et al., hep-ex/0606025. (2006)

    2006 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Apollonio et al., Eur

    M. Apollonio et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 27, 331 (2003)

    2003

  74. [82]

    J. S. Park et al., Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 707, 45 (2013)

    2013

  75. [83]

    CAEN, http://www.caen.it

  76. [84]

    ROOT toolkit, http://www.root.ch

  77. [85]

    National Instruments, http://www.ni.com

  78. [86]

    Radon FTLab, http://radonftlab.com/radon-sensor-product/radon-sensor/rs9a-radon-sensor/

  79. [87]

    MariaDB, https://mariadb.org/

  80. [88]

    GLG4sim simulation package, https://www.phys.ksu.edu/personal/gahs/GLG4sim/

  81. [89]

    Vogel, and J

    P. Vogel, and J. F. Beacom, Phys. Rev. D 60, 053003 (1999). 47/47

    1999

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.