pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.10353 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-11 · ✦ hep-ph · hep-ex

Recognition: no theorem link

Revival of the Reactor Antineutrino Anomaly

C. Giunti , Y.F. Li , R.P. Zhang
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-12 04:56 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ph hep-ex
keywords reactor antineutrino anomalysterile neutrinosummation modelgallium anomalyneutrino oscillationsshort-baseline experimentsflux calculationDaya Bay
0
0 comments X

The pith

The 2023 summation model revives the reactor antineutrino anomaly at 2.2 sigma.

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

The paper reanalyzes reactor antineutrino data using a new 2023 flux calculation from a French group that is the first summation model with a complete uncertainty budget. This leads to a 2.2 sigma deficit in measured versus predicted rates, reviving an anomaly that 2021 models had nearly eliminated. A global fit that includes gallium source experiments shows 3.8 sigma tension with sterile neutrino oscillation as the explanation, but this tension falls to 1.3 sigma when gallium uncertainties are increased. The work explores whether the deficit indicates new physics or points to needed improvements in flux models or experiment systematics.

Core claim

The Reactor Antineutrino Anomaly is revived at the level of 2.2 sigma with the 2023 French summation model flux calculation. A global fit including gallium data yields 3.8 sigma tension that reduces to 1.3 sigma with enlarged gallium uncertainties. The usual explanation via active-sterile neutrino oscillations is considered, along with constraints from solar neutrino and KATRIN bounds, short-baseline reactor spectral ratios, and Daya Bay data.

What carries the argument

The 2023 summation model for calculating reactor antineutrino fluxes with its comprehensive uncertainty budget, and the global statistical fit to short-baseline neutrino oscillation parameters.

If this is right

  • Reactor data alone indicate a 2.2 sigma average rate deficit relative to the 2023 prediction.
  • Constraints on active-sterile neutrino oscillation parameters are derived from reactor spectral ratios and Daya Bay.
  • Inclusion of gallium source data produces 3.8 sigma global tension under standard uncertainties.
  • Enlarging gallium uncertainties reduces the overall tension to 1.3 sigma while retaining solar and KATRIN bounds.
  • The simplest sterile neutrino explanation is tested against the full short-baseline dataset.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Future reactor experiments could distinguish between flux model errors and oscillation signals by using multiple independent flux predictions.
  • Persistent tension after uncertainty adjustments may require reexamination of gallium experiment systematics or non-oscillation explanations for the deficits.
  • The revival of the anomaly through one specific model highlights the value of cross-checking flux calculations to reduce theoretical uncertainty.
  • Unified sterile neutrino models could be tested by linking this revived reactor tension to other short-baseline anomalies.

Load-bearing premise

The 2023 summation model provides a more accurate central value and uncertainty budget than the 2021 models, and the observed rate deficit is not dominated by unaccounted experimental systematics in the reactor measurements.

What would settle it

A new independent reactor antineutrino flux calculation that matches the measured average rates within 1 sigma, or gallium measurements with uncertainties small enough to keep the tension high without enlargement.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.10353 by C. Giunti, R.P. Zhang, Y.F. Li.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Ratios of the measured and predicted yields [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Graphical representation of the theoretical IBD yields in Tab.II [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Contours of the 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Contours of the 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The Reactor Antineutrino Anomaly refers to the deficit observed between the average event rate measured in reactor antineutrino experiments with respect to the theoretical prediction. This anomaly was first identified in 2011 ($2.5\sigma$) as a consequence of the Huber-Muller reactor antineutrino flux calculation. It was thought to be resolved in 2021 as a result of new reactor antineutrino flux calculations, with a reduction to about $1 \sigma$. In this work, we examine the latest reactor antineutrino flux calculation published in 2023 by a French research group. This work represents the first summation model to include a comprehensive uncertainty budget. The result indicates a revival of the Reactor Antineutrino Anomaly at the level of $2.2\,\sigma$. We also consider the usual simplest explanation of the Reactor Antineutrino Anomaly by active-sterile neutrino oscillations. We present the constraints on the oscillation parameters and we derive a tension of $3.8\sigma$ with the results of gallium source experiments (Gallium Anomaly) taking into account also the solar neutrino and KATRIN bounds, that of the combined short-baseline reactor spectral ratio measurements, and that of the Daya Bay search for a sub-eV sterile neutrino. Since the tension may be due to underestimated systematic uncertainties and the main tension is between the gallium data and the other data, we finally present the results of a global analysis with enlarged gallium uncertainties, which reduce the global tension to $1.3\sigma$.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript re-evaluates the Reactor Antineutrino Anomaly using the 2023 French summation model for reactor antineutrino fluxes, which includes a comprehensive uncertainty budget. It reports a 2.2σ deficit relative to compiled reactor rate measurements, reviving the anomaly previously reduced to ~1σ with 2021 models. The paper then fits active-sterile neutrino oscillation parameters and derives a 3.8σ tension between this fit (incorporating reactor rates, spectral ratios, Daya Bay sub-eV search, solar neutrinos, and KATRIN) and gallium source experiments; enlarging the gallium uncertainties reduces the global tension to 1.3σ.

Significance. If the 2023 flux model is confirmed as more accurate, the 2.2σ revival would renew interest in light sterile neutrinos as an explanation for reactor deficits and provide updated global constraints on mixing parameters. The work's strength is its use of multiple independent published datasets (reactor rates, gallium, solar, KATRIN) and its explicit presentation of both standard and enlarged-uncertainty fits, which aids assessment of systematic effects. The result's broader impact depends on validation of the new flux calculation.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The headline 2.2σ revival is obtained by adopting the 2023 French summation model as the reference prediction. The manuscript does not include an explicit comparison (e.g., a table of central flux values or uncertainty budgets) of the 2023 model against the 2021 calculations or against direct constraints from beta-decay spectra, which is load-bearing because a shift in the predicted central value or uncertainty would eliminate the reported deficit.
  2. [Global analysis section] Global fit and tension analysis: The 3.8σ tension is stated after combining reactor, gallium, solar, KATRIN, spectral-ratio, and Daya Bay data. The manuscript should provide the individual χ² contributions from each dataset and the precise prescription for combining the gallium anomaly with the other bounds, as these details are required to verify the tension value and the subsequent reduction to 1.3σ under enlarged gallium uncertainties.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The phrasing 'the usual simplest explanation of the Reactor Antineutrino Anomaly by active-sterile neutrino oscillations' is informal; a direct statement of the two-flavor oscillation hypothesis and the parameters being fitted would improve clarity.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading of our manuscript and for the constructive comments. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript accordingly to improve transparency and verifiability.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The headline 2.2σ revival is obtained by adopting the 2023 French summation model as the reference prediction. The manuscript does not include an explicit comparison (e.g., a table of central flux values or uncertainty budgets) of the 2023 model against the 2021 calculations or against direct constraints from beta-decay spectra, which is load-bearing because a shift in the predicted central value or uncertainty would eliminate the reported deficit.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit side-by-side comparison strengthens the presentation. In the revised manuscript we have added a new table (Table 1) in Section 2 that lists the predicted antineutrino yields per fission for the dominant isotopes (235U, 239Pu, 241Pu, 238U) together with their total uncertainties under the 2023 French summation model, the 2021 models, and the direct beta-decay spectrum constraints. The table shows that the central-value shift relative to 2021 is the dominant source of the revived 2.2σ deficit while the uncertainty budgets remain comparable; a short accompanying paragraph discusses the nuclear-data updates responsible for the shift. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Global analysis section] Global fit and tension analysis: The 3.8σ tension is stated after combining reactor, gallium, solar, KATRIN, spectral-ratio, and Daya Bay data. The manuscript should provide the individual χ² contributions from each dataset and the precise prescription for combining the gallium anomaly with the other bounds, as these details are required to verify the tension value and the subsequent reduction to 1.3σ under enlarged gallium uncertainties.

    Authors: We accept that the numerical breakdown is necessary for independent verification. The revised global-analysis section now contains a dedicated table (Table 3) that reports the individual χ² contributions from each dataset (reactor rates, spectral ratios, Daya Bay sub-eV search, solar neutrinos, KATRIN, and gallium) evaluated at the global best-fit point, together with the total χ² and degrees of freedom. We have also added an explicit paragraph describing the combination procedure: the global χ² is the direct sum of the independent dataset χ² functions, with the gallium anomaly incorporated through its published rate measurements and covariance matrix; the enlarged-uncertainty case is obtained by uniformly scaling the gallium uncertainties by a constant factor chosen to reflect possible unaccounted systematics, which reduces the tension to 1.3σ as stated. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; central claims rest on external 2023 flux model and independent datasets

full rationale

The paper compares reactor antineutrino rate data to an external 2023 French summation-model flux calculation (not derived or fitted within the paper) to obtain the 2.2σ revival. Global fits for sterile-neutrino parameters and tensions with gallium/solar/KATRIN data are standard statistical combinations of independent experimental inputs; no key quantity (flux central value, uncertainty, or oscillation parameter) is defined in terms of itself or obtained by fitting a subset and relabeling the result as a prediction. Self-citations, if present, are not load-bearing for the headline results.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claims rest on the accuracy of the 2023 summation flux model, the validity of three-flavor plus one sterile neutrino oscillation framework, and the assumption that rate deficits are not dominated by unmodeled experimental systematics.

free parameters (1)
  • sterile neutrino mixing angle and mass-squared difference
    Fitted to the combined reactor, gallium, solar, and KATRIN data in the global analysis.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Three active neutrinos plus one sterile neutrino with mixing described by the standard 4x4 PMNS matrix extension
    Invoked when deriving oscillation constraints and the 3.8 sigma tension.
  • domain assumption The 2023 French summation model provides the correct central flux value and full uncertainty budget
    Used to recalculate the predicted event rates that produce the 2.2 sigma deficit.
invented entities (1)
  • light sterile neutrino no independent evidence
    purpose: To explain the rate deficit via active-sterile oscillations
    Postulated as the usual simplest explanation; no independent evidence provided beyond the fit to the anomaly data.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5581 in / 1706 out tokens · 45259 ms · 2026-05-12T04:56:06.169413+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Effective Matter Flavor Conversion Mediated by Pseudo-Sterile States as the Possible Origin of Neutrino Oscillation Anomalies

    hep-ph 2026-05 conditional novelty 6.0

    A sterile neutrino with a novel density-dependent matter potential Vs resolves multiple oscillation anomalies when Vs is negative and mixing angles are small.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 63 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    We obtained the 2σand 3σallowed regions in the (sin 22ϑee,∆m2

    For each value of these param- eters,χ 2 M is minimized over the nuisance parameters ri. We obtained the 2σand 3σallowed regions in the (sin 22ϑee,∆m2

    work page

  2. [2]

    One can see that the 2σallowed region has a lower bound for sin 22ϑee and the 3σallowed region has only an upper bound

    plane shown in blue in Fig.3. One can see that the 2σallowed region has a lower bound for sin 22ϑee and the 3σallowed region has only an upper bound. This was expected from the 2.2σCEA-RAA. In Fig.3 we have shown also the regions allowed by the data of the gallium source experiments in Ref.[6], the solar bound [7], the KATRIN bound [8], the com- bined bou...

    work page

  3. [3]

    The best fit for each group of experiments is indicated by a cross with the corresponding color

    plane obtained from our neutrino oscillation fit of the reactor antineutrino data in Tab.I with the CEA model [46] and those obtained from the gallium neutrino data in Ref.[6], the solar neutrino data in Ref.[7], the KATRIN data [8], the combined DANSS [9], NEOS+RENO [10], PROSPECT [11], STEREO [12] reactor spectral ratio measurements (SPE) and the Daya B...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Values of the parameter goodness of fit (PG) for different combinations of the data sets relevant for 3+1ν e-νs oscillations

    The equality is approximate because the Data Sets PG CEA-RAA+SOL+KATRIN 0.9σ CEA-RAA+SPE 1.6σ CEA-RAA+GA 2.8σ GA+SOL+KATRIN 3.0σ GA+SOL+KATRIN+SPE 3.8σ CEA-RAA+GA+SOL+KATRIN 3.1σ CEA-RAA+GA+SOL+KATRIN+SPE 4.0σ CEA-RAA+GA+SOL+KATRIN+SPE+DB 3.8σ CEA-RAA+GA+SOL+KATRIN+SPE+DB 1.3σ TABLE IV. Values of the parameter goodness of fit (PG) for different combinatio...

    work page

  5. [5]

    The best fit is indicated by a green star

    plane obtained from the com- bination of the reactor (CEA-RAA) analysis and the bounds of the solar [7] (SOL), KATRIN [8], DANSS [9], NEOS+RENO [10], PROSPECT [11], STEREO [12] re- actor spectral ratio (SPE) experiments, the Daya Bay search for a sub-eV sterile neutrino [13] (DB), and the gallium [6] analysis with enlarged uncertainties ( GA) by the facto...

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Acknowledgments We thank Thierry Lasserre, Jiajie Ling and Soo- Bong Kim for useful communications about the KA- TRIN, Daya Bay and RENO experiments

    plane from the analy- sis of all the available data in the framework of 3+1 neutrino oscillations, assuming the reliability of the CEA model. Acknowledgments We thank Thierry Lasserre, Jiajie Ling and Soo- Bong Kim for useful communications about the KA- TRIN, Daya Bay and RENO experiments. This work was supported in part by the National Natu- ral Science...

    work page

  7. [7]

    Light sterile neutrinos

    S. Gariazzo, C. Giunti, M. Laveder, Y. F. Li, and E. M. Zavanin, J. Phys.G43, 033001 (2016), arXiv:1507.08204 [hep-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2016

  8. [8]

    Giunti and T

    C. Giunti and T. Lasserre, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.69, 163 (2019), arXiv:1901.08330 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2019

  9. [9]

    Boser, C

    S. Boser, C. Buck, C. Giunti, J. Lesgour- gues, L. Ludhova, S. Mertens, A. Schukraft, and M. Wurm, Prog.Part.Nucl.Phys.111, 103736 (2020), arXiv:1906.01739 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2020

  10. [10]

    A. Diaz, C. A. Arguelles, G. H. Collin, J. M. Con- rad, and M. H. Shaevitz, Phys.Rept.884, 1 (2020), arXiv:1906.00045 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2020

  11. [11]

    Sterile Neutrinos,

    B. Dasgupta and J. Kopp, Phys.Rept.928, 63 (2021), arXiv:2106.05913 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2021

  12. [12]

    Cadeddu, N

    M. Cadeddu, N. Cargioli, G. Carotenuto, F. Dordei, L. Ferro, and C. Giunti, Phys.Rev.D113, 033006 (2026), arXiv:2507.13103 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2026

  13. [13]

    M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, M. Maltoni, and J. P. Pinheiro, Phys.Lett.B862, 139297 (2025), arXiv:2411.16840 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  14. [14]

    Acharya et al

    H. Acharya et al. (KATRIN), Nature648, 70 (2025), arXiv:2503.18667 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2025

  15. [15]

    Danilov, (2022), talk presented at ICHEP 2022, 41th International Conference on High Energy Physics, 6-13 July 2022, Bologna, Italy

    M. Danilov, (2022), talk presented at ICHEP 2022, 41th International Conference on High Energy Physics, 6-13 July 2022, Bologna, Italy

    work page 2022

  16. [16]

    Atif et al

    Z. Atif et al. (RENO, NEOS), Phys. Rev. D105, L111101 (2022), arXiv:2011.00896 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2022

  17. [17]

    Andriamirado et al., Phys.Rev.Lett.134, 151802 (2025), arXiv:2406.10408 [hep-ex]

    M. Andriamirado et al., Phys.Rev.Lett.134, 151802 (2025), arXiv:2406.10408 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2025

  18. [18]

    Almazan et al

    H. Almazan et al. (STEREO), Nature613, 257 (2023), arXiv:2210.07664 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2023

  19. [19]

    F. P. An et al. (Daya Bay), Phys.Rev.Lett.133, 051801 (2024), arXiv:2404.01687 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2024

  20. [20]

    Zhang, X

    C. Zhang, X. Qian, and M. Fallot, Prog.Part.Nucl.Phys.136, 104106 (2024), arXiv:2310.13070 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  21. [21]

    S. R. Elliott, V. Gavrin, and W. Hax- ton, Prog.Part.Nucl.Phys.134, 104082 (2024), arXiv:2306.03299 [nucl-ex]

    work page arXiv 2024

  22. [22]

    Huber, Nucl

    P. Huber, Nucl. Phys.B908, 268 (2016), arXiv:1602.01499 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2016

  23. [23]

    A. C. Hayes and P. Vogel, Ann.Rev.Nucl.Part.Sci. 66, 219 (2016), arXiv:1605.02047 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2016

  24. [24]

    The Reactor Antineutrino Anomaly

    G. Mention et al., Phys. Rev.D83, 073006 (2011), arXiv:1101.2755 [hep-ex]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2011

  25. [25]

    T. A. Mueller et al., Phys. Rev.C83, 054615 (2011), arXiv:1101.2663 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2011

  26. [26]

    On the determination of anti-neutrino spectra from nuclear reactors,

    P. Huber, Phys. Rev.C84, 024617 (2011), arXiv:1106.0687 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2011

  27. [27]

    F. V. Feilitzsch, A. A. Hahn, and K. Schreckenbach, Phys. Lett.B118, 162 (1982)

    work page 1982

  28. [28]

    Schreckenbach, G

    K. Schreckenbach, G. Colvin, W. Gelletly, and F. V. Feilitzsch, Phys. Lett.B160, 325 (1985)

    work page 1985

  29. [29]

    N. Haag, A. Gutlein, M. Hofmann, L. Oberauer, W. Potzel, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 122501 (2014), arXiv:1312.5601 [nucl-ex]

    work page arXiv 2014

  30. [30]

    Estienne, M

    M. Estienne, M. Fallot, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 022502 (2019), arXiv:1904.09358 [nucl-ex]

    work page arXiv 2019

  31. [31]

    Kopeikin, M

    V. Kopeikin, M. Skorokhvatov, and O. Titov, Phys.Rev.D104, L071301 (2021), arXiv:2103.01684 [nucl-ex]

    work page arXiv 2021

  32. [32]

    Giunti, Y

    C. Giunti, Y. F. Li, C. A. Ternes, and Z. Xin, Phys.Lett.B829, 137054 (2022), arXiv:2110.06820 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2022

  33. [33]

    Declais et al

    Y. Declais et al. (Bugey), Phys. Lett.B338, 383 (1994)

    work page 1994

  34. [34]

    A. A. Kuvshinnikov, L. A. Mikaelyan, S. V. Niko- laev, M. D. Skorokhvatov, and A. V. Etenko, JETP Lett.54, 253 (1991)

    work page 1991

  35. [35]

    A. I. Afonin et al., Sov. Phys. JETP67, 213 (1988)

    work page 1988

  36. [36]

    Achkar et al

    B. Achkar et al. (Bugey), Nucl. Phys.B434, 503 (1995)

    work page 1995

  37. [37]

    Zacek et al

    G. Zacek et al. (CalTech-SIN-TUM), Phys. Rev. D34, 2621 (1986)

    work page 1986

  38. [38]

    Kwon et al., Phys

    H. Kwon et al., Phys. Rev.D24, 1097 (1981)

    work page 1981

  39. [39]

    Hoummada, S

    A. Hoummada, S. L. Mikou, G. Bagieu, J. F. Cavaignac, and D. H. Koang, Applied Radiation and Isotopes46, 449 (1995)

    work page 1995

  40. [40]

    G. S. Vidyakin et al. (Krasnoyarsk), Sov. Phys. JETP66, 243 (1987)

    work page 1987

  41. [41]

    G. S. Vidyakin et al. (Krasnoyarsk), JETP Lett.59, 390 (1994)

    work page 1994

  42. [42]

    Y. V. Kozlov, S. V. Khalturtsev, I. N. Machulin, A. V. Martemyanov, V. P. Martemyanov, S. V. Sukhotin, V. G. Tarasenkov, E. V. Turbin, and V. N. Vyrodov, Phys. Atom. Nucl.63, 1016 (2000), hep-ex/9912047 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2000

  43. [43]

    Z. D. Greenwood et al., Phys. Rev.D53, 6054 (1996)

    work page 1996

  44. [44]

    H. A. Molina et al. (STEREO), Phys.Rev.Lett.125, 201801 (2020), arXiv:2004.04075 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2020

  45. [45]

    Apollonio et al

    M. Apollonio et al. (CHOOZ), Eur. Phys. J.C27, 331 (2003), hep-ex/0301017

    work page arXiv 2003

  46. [46]

    Boehm et al

    F. Boehm et al. (Palo Verde), Phys. Rev.D64, 112001 (2001), hep-ex/0107009

    work page arXiv 2001

  47. [47]

    Boireau et al

    G. Boireau et al. (NUCIFER), Phys. Rev.D93, 112006 (2016), arXiv:1509.05610 [physics]

    work page arXiv 2016

  48. [48]

    Atif et al

    Z. Atif et al. (RENO), Phys.Rev.D104, L111301 (2021), arXiv:2010.14989 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2021

  49. [49]

    de Kerret et al

    H. de Kerret et al. (Double Chooz), Nature Phys. 16, 558 (2020), arXiv:1901.09445 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2020

  50. [50]

    Alekseev (DANSS), Phys

    I. Alekseev (DANSS), Phys. Atom. Nucl.88, 406 (2025)

    work page 2025

  51. [51]

    F. P. An et al., Phys.Rev.Lett.134, 201802 (2025), arXiv:2501.00746 [nucl-ex]

    work page arXiv 2025

  52. [52]

    Perisse, A

    L. Perisse, A. Onillon, X. Mougeot, M. Vivier, T. Lasserre, A. Letourneau, D. Lhuillier, and G. Mention, Phys.Rev.C108, 055501 (2023), arXiv:2304.14992 [nucl-ex]

    work page arXiv 2023

  53. [53]

    S. M. Bilenky and S. T. Petcov, Rev. Mod. Phys. 59, 671 (1987)

    work page 1987

  54. [54]

    Coloma, P

    P. Coloma, P. Huber, and T. Schwetz, Eur.Phys.J. 9 C81, 2 (2021), arXiv:2008.06083 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2021

  55. [55]

    J. M. Berryman, P. Coloma, P. Huber, T. Schwetz, and A. Zhou, JHEP02, 055 (2022), arXiv:2111.12530 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2022

  56. [56]

    Giuntiet al., JHEP1, 164 (2022) (arXiv:2209.00916)

    C. Giunti, Y. F. Li, C. A. Ternes, O. Tyagi, and Z. Xin, JHEP10, 164 (2022), arXiv:2209.00916 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2022

  57. [57]

    Brdar, J

    V. Brdar, J. Gehrlein, and J. Kopp, JHEP05, 143 (2023), arXiv:2303.05528 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2023

  58. [58]

    Giunti and C

    C. Giunti and C. A. Ternes, Phys.Lett.B849, 138436 (2024), arXiv:2312.00565 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  59. [59]

    O. B. Rodrigues, M. Hostert, K. J. Kelly, B. Lit- tlejohn, P. A. N. Machado, I. Safa, and T. Zhou, Phys.Rev.Lett.135, 081801 (2025), arXiv:2503.13594 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  60. [60]

    Testing the statistical compatibility of independent data sets

    M. Maltoni and T. Schwetz, Phys. Rev.D68, 033020 (2003), hep-ph/0304176

    work page Pith review arXiv 2003

  61. [61]

    Navas et al

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

    work page 2024

  62. [62]

    Zhang, X

    C. Zhang, X. Qian, and P. Vogel, Phys. Rev.D87, 073018 (2013), arXiv:1303.0900 [nucl-ex]

    work page arXiv 2013

  63. [63]

    Hayes et al., Phys.Rev.Lett.120, 022503 (2018), arXiv:1707.07728 [nucl-th]

    A. Hayes et al., Phys.Rev.Lett.120, 022503 (2018), arXiv:1707.07728 [nucl-th]. 10

    work page arXiv 2018