Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Constraints and Sensitivities for Dipole-Portal Heavy Neutral Leptons from ND280 and its Upgrade

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read ND280 data rule out the dipole-HNL fix for MiniBooNE.

desk verdict Read this one: a clean recast of T2K ND280 data that plausibly rules out the dipole-HNL explanation of the MiniBooNE anomaly, but the central exclusion leans on an unvalidated e+e- tagging-efficiency transfer the authors themselves flag. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.15051 v1 pith:YHMC53T2 submitted 2024-12-19 hep-ph physics.ins-det

Ming-Shau Liu , Nicholas Kamp , Carlos A. Argüelles This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phphysics.ins-det
keywords heavyneutralleptonstransitionmagneticmomentdipoleportalMiniBooNEanomalyT2KND280upgradee+e−pairsearchesneutrinoupscattering
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

This paper asks whether the T2K near detector, ND280, can settle the MiniBooNE anomaly by testing the leading beyond-Standard-Model explanation: heavy neutral leptons with a transition magnetic moment, called dipole-portal HNLs. It reuses an existing T2K search for e+e− pairs from mass-mixed HNL decays, recasting it for dipole-portal HNLs produced by neutrino upscattering in the detector and upstream bedrock. The paper claims that ND280 data already set the strongest constraints in the 390–743 MeV mass range and disfavor the MiniBooNE-preferred parameter region at 95% C.L., and that a combined T2K plus T2K-II search with three years of upgraded-detector data would disfavor that region at the 5σ level. If true, this removes one of the few surviving new-physics explanations for the MiniBooNE excess and tightens the case that the anomaly needs a different origin.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the transition magnetic moment operator $d_{\mu N}\,\bar{\nu}_\mu \sigma^{\mu\nu}F_{\mu\nu}N + \text{h.c.}$, which lets a muon neutrino upscatter off a nucleus into a heavy neutral lepton and lets that HNL decay, through an off-shell photon, to an $e^+e^-$ pair. Production is Primakoff-like, $\nu_\mu A \to N A$, with targets inside the detector materials and up to three HNL decay lengths upstream in the bedrock; the decay $N \to \nu_\mu(\gamma^*\to e^+e^-)$ has a branching ratio near 0.7% at $m_N = 100$ MeV. The analysis machinery is a detailed-geometry Monte Carlo that simulates upscattering and decay locations, weights events by physical rates, applies the TPC fiducial volume and event-selection cuts, and then reuses the T2K 2019 search's zero-background Poisson limit. The same machinery is validated by reproducing the earlier mass-mixing constraints before being applied to the dipole case.

What would settle it

Recalculate the ND280 signal rate using an e+e− tagging efficiency measured with dipole-decay kinematics rather than the mass-mixed value: if the true efficiency for the small-opening-angle dipole pairs is materially lower than the T2K 2019 value, the predicted event count in the MiniBooNE-preferred mass window drops and the 95% C.L. disfavor may no longer hold.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the non-observation of isolated $e^+e^-$ pairs in ND280's gaseous time projection chambers constrains dipole-portal HNLs more strongly than all previous experiments in the mass window $m_N \in [390, 743]$ MeV. The paper argues this matters because that window contains the parameter region that, together with a small sterile-neutrino component, had previously been able to reproduce the MiniBooNE excess in Ref. [31]; ND280 data now disfavors that solution at 95% C.L. Under the assumption that no $e^+e^-$ excess appears, the paper projects that the full T2K dataset plus three years of upgraded ND280 running will reach $5\sigma$ exclusion of the MiniBooNE solution and extend world-leading limits to $m_N \in [148, 860]$ MeV. The result arises from two effects: lower-mass HNLs are produced by upscattering in the upstream bedrock and decay inside the TPCs, while higher-mass HNLs are produced inside the detector itself, creating a second sensitivity 'bump' that closes the previously unconstrained MiniBooNE-preferred region.

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes that T2K's reported efficiency for tagging e+e− pairs from mass-mixed HNL decays applies unchanged to dipole-portal HNL decays, even though the two processes produce different opening-angle distributions; the paper explicitly defers the dedicated evaluation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Existing ND280 data exclude the leading surviving particle-physics explanation for the MiniBooNE excess, assuming the recast is fair.
  • A dedicated search inside the T2K collaboration can confirm or refute the exclusion using official efficiencies and backgrounds.
  • Three years of upgraded ND280 running would turn the current 95% C.L. disfavor into a 5$\sigma$ exclusion of the MiniBooNE solution.
  • World-leading limits on the dipole coupling $d_{\mu N}$ extend over a wider mass range with the upgrade, covering masses not yet probed by prior experiments.
  • The TPC $e^+e^-$ channel is more than ten times stronger than the FGD and SuperFGD single-photon channels, so TPC searches remain the best route for testing these HNLs.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the central claim holds, the burden shifts to non-HNL explanations for MiniBooNE, such as photon-like backgrounds, since the sole surviving oscillation-plus-decay reconciliation is closed.
  • A natural extension is to apply the same recast to future short-baseline neutrino detectors with lower energy thresholds, which would probe the low-mass end of the dipole-portal parameter space more deeply.
  • The size of the efficiency caveat matters: if the true tagging efficiency for dipole decays is materially lower than the mass-mixed value, the exclusion weakens roughly in proportion, so the collaboration's dedicated search will determine whether the 95% C.L. disfavor survives.
  • The methodological move of recasting an existing dilepton search with new production and decay kinematics applies to other dark-sector and sterile-neutrino models, making TPC-based near detectors multi-purpose new-physics probes.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This manuscript recasts the T2K ND280 2019 search for mass-mixed heavy neutral leptons (HNLs) decaying to e+e- pairs into a constraint on dipole-portal HNLs with a transition magnetic moment coupling d_muN. Using the SIREN simulation package with a detailed model of ND280 and its upgrade, the authors simulate Primakoff upscattering of neutrinos in the detector and upstream bedrock, followed by HNL decay to e+e- pairs inside the gaseous TPCs. They report world-leading 95% C.L. constraints on d_muN in the mass range 390-743 MeV, which they state disfavor the dipole-portal HNL solution to the MiniBooNE anomaly from Ref. [31]. They also project that a full T2K plus T2K-II analysis would disfavor that solution at the 5 sigma level. The central claim is that existing ND280 data exclude dipole-portal HNLs as the explanation of the MiniBooNE excess.

Significance. If the central claim survives scrutiny, this is an important result: it would remove a prominent beyond-the-Standard-Model explanation of the MiniBooNE anomaly and demonstrate that near-detector data can be profitably recast for dipole-portal HNL searches. The paper has several genuine strengths: the simulation pipeline is validated in Appendix A against the earlier Ref. [41] constraint, the use of a zero-background Poisson likelihood is conservative in the reported under-fluctuation regime, and the analysis is anchored to externally published data and a previously published preferred region rather than to a fitted value recycled as a prediction. However, the load-bearing point is the assumption that the e+e- tagging efficiency from the mass-mixed HNL search applies unchanged to dipole-portal decays, a point the authors themselves flag as unquantified and defer to future work. Because this efficiency directly converts simulated production rates into predicted event counts, the stress-test concern about this transfer does land on the paper as written.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section IV and Fig. 4] The central claim of a 95% disfavor of the MiniBooNE solution rests on treating the e+e- tagging efficiency from the mass-mixed HNL search in Ref. [39] as identical to the efficiency for dipole-portal HNL decays. The manuscript explicitly notes that this efficiency depends on the opening angle between the e+e- pair, which is different for dipole-portal decays, and states that a detailed evaluation is left for a future study. This is a load-bearing limitation rather than a minor one, because the predicted event count is converted directly into the Poisson 95% C.L. exclusion shown in Fig. 4. At the MiniBooNE-favored benchmark around d_muN = 3.87e-7, the predicted signal is close to the roughly three-event zero-background threshold; if the true dipole-specific efficiency is materially lower than the mass-mixed value, the red exclusion curve would move upward and could cease to exclude the Ref. [31] region. The authors should either supply a dedicated efficiency evaluation or demonstrate robustness by rescaling the efficiency by a factor f with, for example, f = 1.0, 0.5, and 0.25, and showing how the T2K 2019 constraint and the projected 5 sigma sensitivity shift.
  2. [Appendix A and Section IV] The validation against Ref. [41] reproduces constraints for mass-mixed HNLs with dipole-mediated decays to e+e- pairs, but this comparison does not validate the two dipole-specific ingredients of the current analysis: Primakoff upscattering of neutrinos off detector and bedrock nuclei, and the gamma* -> e+e- decay kinematics with its opening-angle distribution. Supplemental Fig. 1 validates the geometric and fiducial-volume aspects of the pipeline, not the dipole production rate or the decay angular distribution. The manuscript should state this scope limitation explicitly and, where possible, quantify the agreement of the Primakoff production rate against an analytic estimate, for example by comparing the simulated median decay distances with the analytic curves in Fig. 3 over the full parameter grid.
  3. [Section V] The statement that flux and cross-section systematic uncertainties are about 5% and do not significantly affect the result is plausible but is given without a quantitative derivation. Because the Poisson limit is steep near the threshold of about three events, a 5% uncertainty on the signal rate is unlikely to change the qualitative conclusion, but the authors should either cite a specific flux and cross-section uncertainty estimate for the ND280 beam or state explicitly that this is a simplifying assumption to be revisited by the experimental collaboration.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section IV] The sentence describing the total rate of 'single photons from HNL decays' is confusing, since the analysis actually selects e+e- pairs after down-weighting by the branching ratio BR(N -> nu_mu gamma* -> nu_mu e+e-); please rephrase to refer to e+e- pair events.
  2. [Section VI] The phrase 'parting words of wisdom from this study' is informal for a journal report; consider replacing it with a more neutral formulation such as 'final remarks'.
  3. [Fig. 4] The legend entries for the MiniBooNE cos and MiniBooNE EQE preferred regions are visually similar; using distinct hatching or line styles would improve readability.
  4. [Appendix A] The validation in Supplemental Fig. 1 does not specify the statistical procedure used for the 'T2K + T2KII (SIREN)' sensitivity curve; please state explicitly that it is an Asimov sensitivity at 90% C.L. with the same zero-background assumption.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central constraint is anchored to external T2K data, and the main unvalidated assumption is an efficiency transfer that is a limitation, not a recycled input.

full rationale

The derivation chain is: the external T2K 2019 search [39] observed zero e+e- pairs; the SIREN simulation computes dipole-portal HNL production and decay rates; the predicted signal is compared via a Poisson likelihood. No parameter is fitted to the data being constrained, and no fitted quantity is renamed as a prediction. The MiniBooNE-favored region quoted from Ref. [31] is from the authors' prior work, but it serves only as the comparison target, not as an input that forces the exclusion; the excluded region is determined by the external T2K data. Similarly, the decay kinematics and branching ratio taken from Ref. [41] and the DarkNews cross sections are physics inputs from prior published work, and the Appendix A validation reproduces a prior published constraint rather than defining the new result. The efficiency for tagging e+e- pairs is assumed equal to T2K's mass-mixed efficiency even though the opening-angle distribution differs, and the paper explicitly defers a dedicated evaluation; this is a genuine unquantified systematic that could weaken or erase the claimed exclusion, but it is not circular because the efficiency is an external experimental input, not a parameter fitted to the same ND280 data used to test the model. Overall, the central claim is a genuine prediction against independent data, so the circularity score is low.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central result rests on the dipole-portal model from prior literature (Ref [31]) and on several simulation choices: Primakoff upscattering cross sections from DarkNews, a zero-background Poisson likelihood, and an efficiency transfer from the T2K mass-mixed search. The scanned model parameters mN and dmuN are not fitted in this paper; they form the constraint plane.

free parameters (2)
  • mN (HNL mass) = scan range, not fitted here
    Model parameter scanned to map exclusion contours; central to the MiniBooNE-preferred region inherited from Ref [31].
  • dmuN (muon-neutrino transition magnetic moment coupling) = scan range, not fitted here
    The second model parameter scanned; the paper constrains its allowed values against ND280 data.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The dipole-portal HNL is described by a dimension-five transition magnetic moment with dominant coupling to muon neutrinos.
    Section II; this defines the model being constrained, inherited from Ref [31].
  • domain assumption Primakoff upscattering of neutrinos on nuclei in detector and upstream bedrock is the dominant HNL production mechanism.
    Section IV; the SIREN and DarkNews cross sections determine all signal rates.
  • domain assumption The TPC signal region is background-free, so zero observed e+e- events can be interpreted via a Poisson likelihood.
    Section V; the paper states this is conservative given the under-fluctuation in ND280 data.
  • ad hoc to paper The e+e- tagging efficiency for dipole-portal decays equals that for mass-mixed decays from Ref [39].
    Section IV; explicitly flagged by the authors and deferred to a future study.
  • ad hoc to paper Flux and cross-section systematic uncertainties are about 5% and do not alter the constraints.
    Section V; the authors leave a full systematic treatment to the experimental collaboration.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Constraints and Sensitivities for Dipole-Portal Heavy Neutral Leptons from ND280 and its Upgrade." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YHMC53T2

@misc{pith2026241215051,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Constraints and Sensitivities for Dipole-Portal Heavy Neutral Leptons from ND280 and its Upgrade},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YHMC53T2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.15051}
}
abstract

We report new constraints and sensitivities to heavy neutral leptons (HNLs) with transition magnetic moments, also known as dipole-portal HNLs. This is accomplished using data from the T2K ND280 near detector in addition to the projected three-year dataset of the upgraded ND280 detector. Dipole-portal HNLs have been extensively studied in the literature and offer a potential explanation for the $4.8\sigma$ MiniBooNE anomaly. To perform our analysis, we simulate HNL decays to $e^+e^-$ pairs in the gaseous time projection chambers of the ND280 detector and its upgrade. Recasting an ND280 search for mass-mixed HNLs, we find that ND280 data places world-leading constraints on dipole-portal HNLs in the 390-743\,{\rm MeV} mass range, disfavoring the region of parameter space favored by the MiniBooNE anomaly. The addition of three years of ND280 upgrade data will be able to disfavor the MiniBooNE solution at the $5 \sigma$ confidence level and extend the world-leading constraints to dipole-portal HNLs in the 148-860\,{\rm MeV} mass range. Our analysis suggests that ND280 data excludes dipole-portal HNLs as a solution to the MiniBooNE excess, motivating a dedicated search within the T2K collaboration and potentially highlighting the need for alternative explanations for the MiniBooNE anomaly.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.15051 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Probing conventional and new physics at the ESS with coherent elastic neutrino-nucleus scattering

    hep-ph 2025-01 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Projected ESS CEνNS measurements would improve current constraints on the weak mixing angle, nuclear neutron radii, and several new physics scenarios by large factors, and would lead in some unexplored mass ranges.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [41]

    C. A. Arg¨ uelles, N. Foppiani, and M. Hostert, Phys. Rev. D 105, 095006 (2022), arXiv:2109.03831 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2022

  2. [31]

    N. W. Kamp, M. Hostert, A. Schneider, S. Vergani, C. A. Arg¨ uelles, J. M. Conrad, M. H. Shaevitz, and M. A. Uchida, Phys. Rev. D 107, 055009 (2023), arXiv:2206.07100 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2023

  3. [39]

    Abe et al

    K. Abe et al. (T2K), Phys. Rev. D 100, 052006 (2019), arXiv:1902.07598 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2019

  4. [1]

    Schechter and J

    J. Schechter and J. W. F. Valle, Phys. Rev. D 22, 2227 (1980)

    1980

  5. [2]

    Yanagida, Conf

    T. Yanagida, Conf. Proc. C 7902131, 95 (1979)

    1979

  6. [3]

    R. N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanovic, Phys. Rev. Lett. 44, 912 (1980)

    1980

  7. [4]

    Gell-Mann, P

    M. Gell-Mann, P. Ramond, and R. Slansky, Conf. Proc. C 790927, 315 (1979), arXiv:1306.4669 [hep-th]

    arXiv 1979

  8. [5]

    Minkowski, Phys

    P. Minkowski, Phys. Lett. B 67, 421 (1977)

    1977

Show all 66 references
  1. [6]

    Asaka and M

    T. Asaka and M. Shaposhnikov, Phys. Lett. B 620, 17 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0505013

    2005 arXiv

  2. [7]

    Asaka, S

    T. Asaka, S. Blanchet, and M. Shaposhnikov, Phys. Lett. B 631, 151 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0503065

    2005 arXiv

  3. [8]

    Bozorgnia, J

    N. Bozorgnia, J. Bramante, J. M. Cline, D. Curtin, D. McKeen, D. E. Morrissey, A. Ritz, S. Viel, A. C. Vincent, and Y. Zhang, (2024), 10.1139/cjp-2024-0128, arXiv:2410.23454 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  4. [9]

    Fukugita and T

    M. Fukugita and T. Yanagida, Phys. Lett. B 174, 45 (1986)

    1986

  5. [10]

    Davidson, E

    S. Davidson, E. Nardi, and Y. Nir, Phys. Rept. 466, 105 (2008), arXiv:0802.2962 [hep-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  6. [11]

    A. M. Abdullahi et al. , J. Phys. G 50, 020501 (2023), arXiv:2203.08039 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  7. [12]

    Aguilar et al

    A. Aguilar et al. (LSND), Phys. Rev. D 64, 112007 (2001), arXiv:hep-ex/0104049

    2001 arXiv

  8. [13]

    A. A. Aguilar-Arevalo et al. (MiniBooNE), Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 221801 (2018), arXiv:1805.12028 [hep-ex]

    2018 arXiv

  9. [14]

    Y. Ema, Z. Liu, K.-F. Lyu, and M. Pospelov, JHEP 08, 169 (2023), arXiv:2306.07315 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  10. [15]

    Mertens et al

    S. Mertens et al. (KATRIN), J. Phys. G 46, 065203 (2019), arXiv:1810.06711 [physics.ins-det]

    2019 arXiv

  11. [16]

    Hofmann and C

    F. Hofmann and C. Wegg, Astron. Astrophys. 625, L7 (2019), arXiv:1905.00916 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  12. [17]

    D. A. Bryman and R. Shrock, Phys. Rev. D 100, 073011 (2019), arXiv:1909.11198 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  13. [18]

    D. A. Bryman and R. Shrock, Phys. Rev. D 100, 053006 (2019), arXiv:1904.06787 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  14. [19]

    Abada, C

    A. Abada, C. Biggio, F. Bonnet, M. B. Gavela, and T. Hambye, JHEP 12, 061 (2007), arXiv:0707.4058 [hep- ph]

    2007 arXiv

  15. [20]

    Y. Cai, T. Han, T. Li, and R. Ruiz, Front. in Phys. 6, 40 (2018), arXiv:1711.02180 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  16. [21]

    F. F. Deppisch, P. S. Bhupal Dev, and A. Pilaftsis, New J. Phys. 17, 075019 (2015), arXiv:1502.06541 [hep-ph]. 7

    2015 arXiv

  17. [22]

    Agrawal et al

    P. Agrawal et al. , Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 1015 (2021), arXiv:2102.12143 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  18. [23]

    A. A. Aguilar-Arevalo et al. (MiniBooNE), Phys. Rev. D 103, 052002 (2021), arXiv:2006.16883 [hep-ex]

    2021 arXiv

  19. [24]

    S. N. Gninenko, Phys. Rev. D 83, 015015 (2011), arXiv:1009.5536 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  20. [25]

    S. N. Gninenko, Phys. Rev. D 83, 093010 (2011), arXiv:1101.4004 [hep-ex]

    2011 arXiv

  21. [26]

    S. N. Gninenko, Phys. Rev. D 85, 051702 (2012), arXiv:1107.0279 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  22. [27]

    S. N. Gninenko, Phys. Lett. B 710, 86 (2012), arXiv:1201.5194 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  23. [28]

    Magill, R

    G. Magill, R. Plestid, M. Pospelov, and Y.-D. Tsai, Phys. Rev. D 98, 115015 (2018), arXiv:1803.03262 [hep- ph]

    2018 arXiv

  24. [29]

    Radionov, Phys

    A. Radionov, Phys. Rev. D 88, 015016 (2013), arXiv:1303.4587 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  25. [30]

    Alvarez-Ruso and E

    L. Alvarez-Ruso and E. Saul-Sala, Eur. Phys. J. ST 230, 4373 (2021), arXiv:2111.02504 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  26. [32]

    Vergani, N

    S. Vergani, N. W. Kamp, A. Diaz, C. A. Arg¨ uelles, J. M. Conrad, M. H. Shaevitz, and M. A. Uchida, Phys. Rev. D 104, 095005 (2021), arXiv:2105.06470 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  27. [33]

    Lux (T2K), J

    T. Lux (T2K), J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 65, 012018 (2007)

    2007

  28. [34]

    Lindner (T2K), in 34th International Conference on High Energy Physics (2008) arXiv:0810.2220 [hep-ex]

    T. Lindner (T2K), in 34th International Conference on High Energy Physics (2008) arXiv:0810.2220 [hep-ex]

    2008 arXiv

  29. [35]

    Ferrero (T2K), AIP Conf

    A. Ferrero (T2K), AIP Conf. Proc. 1189, 77 (2009)

    2009

  30. [36]

    Lindner (T2K), J

    T. Lindner (T2K), J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 136, 042035 (2008)

    2008

  31. [37]

    Abe et al

    K. Abe et al. (T2K), (2019), arXiv:1901.03750 [physics.ins-det]

    2019

  32. [38]

    Roth (T2K), PoS T AUP2023, 220 (2024)

    S. Roth (T2K), PoS T AUP2023, 220 (2024)

    2024

  33. [40]

    Abe et al

    K. Abe et al. , (2016), arXiv:1609.04111 [hep-ex]

    2016 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Schneider, N

    A. Schneider, N. W. Kamp, and A. Y. Wen, (2024), arXiv:2406.01745 [hep-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Fern´ andez-Mart ´ ınez, X

    E. Fern´ andez-Mart ´ ınez, X. Marcano, and D. Naredo- Tuero, JHEP 03, 057 (2023), arXiv:2209.04461 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Blondel, M

    A. Blondel, M. Yokoyama, and M. Zito (T2K), The T2K- ND280 upgrade proposal , Tech. Rep. (CERN, Geneva,

  37. [45]

    Dolan, V

    S. Dolan, V. Nguyen, A. Blanchet, S. Bolognesi, M. Buizza Avanzini, J. Chakrani, A. Ershova, C. Giganti, Y. Kudenko, M. Lamoureux, A. Letourneau, M. Mar- tini, C. McGrew, L. Munteanu, B. Popov, D. Sgalaberna, S. Suvorov, and X. Zhao, Physical Review D 105 (2022), 10.1103/physr...

    2022 doi

  38. [46]

    Allan et al

    D. Allan et al. (T2K UK), JINST 8, P10019 (2013), arXiv:1308.3445 [physics.ins-det]

    2013 arXiv

  39. [47]

    P. A. Amaudruz et al. (T2K ND280 FGD), Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 696, 1 (2012), arXiv:1204.3666 [physics.ins-det]

    2012 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Assylbekov et al

    S. Assylbekov et al. , Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 686, 48 (2012), arXiv:1111.5030 [physics.ins-det]

    2012 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Kudenko (T2K), Moscow Univ

    Y. Kudenko (T2K), Moscow Univ. Phys. Bull. 77, 375 (2022)

    2022

  42. [50]

    Atti´ eet al

    D. Atti´ eet al. , Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 1025, 166109 (2022), arXiv:2106.12634 [physics.ins-det]

    2022 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Feltre, Phys

    M. Feltre, Phys. Sci. Forum 8, 47 (2023)

    2023

  44. [52]

    Atti´ e (T2K/ND280 upgrade), Nucl

    D. Atti´ e (T2K/ND280 upgrade), Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 1047, 167582 (2023)

    2023

  45. [53]

    Korzenev et al

    A. Korzenev et al. , JINST 17, P01016 (2022), arXiv:2109.03078 [physics.ins-det]

    2022 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Abbasi et al

    R. Abbasi et al. (IceCube), Comput. Phys. Commun. 266, 108018 (2021), arXiv:2012.10449 [physics.comp-ph]

    2021

  47. [55]

    A. M. Abdullahi, J. Hoefken Zink, M. Hostert, D. Mas- saro, and S. Pascoli, Comput. Phys. Commun. 297, 109075 (2024), arXiv:2207.04137 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Abe et al

    K. Abe et al. (T2K), Phys. Rev. D 87, 012001 (2013), [Addendum: Phys.Rev.D 87, 019902 (2013)], arXiv:1211.0469 [hep-ex]

    2013 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Abgrall et al

    N. Abgrall et al. (NA61/SHINE), Eur. Phys. J. C 79, 100 (2019), arXiv:1808.04927 [hep-ex]

    2019 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Lamoureux, Recherche de neutrinos lourds avec l’exp´ erience T2K, Ph.D

    M. Lamoureux, Recherche de neutrinos lourds avec l’exp´ erience T2K, Ph.D. thesis, Saclay (2018)

    2018

  51. [59]

    Plestid, Phys

    R. Plestid, Phys. Rev. D 104, 075027 (2021), arXiv:2010.04193 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  52. [60]

    R. A. Gustafson, R. Plestid, and I. M. Shoemaker, Phys. Rev. D 106, 095037 (2022), arXiv:2205.02234 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Coloma, P

    P. Coloma, P. A. N. Machado, I. Martinez-Soler, and I. M. Shoemaker, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 201804 (2017), arXiv:1707.08573 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  54. [62]

    S. N. Gninenko and N. V. Krasnikov, Phys. Lett. B 450, 165 (1999), arXiv:hep-ph/9808370

    1999 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Abe et al

    K. Abe et al. (T2K), J. Phys. G 46, 08LT01 (2019), arXiv:1902.03848 [hep-ex]

    2019 arXiv

  56. [64]

    M. A. Acero et al. , J. Phys. G 51, 120501 (2024), arXiv:2203.07323 [hep-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  57. [65]

    R. E. Shrock, Phys. Lett. B 96, 159 (1980). Supplemental Material– S1 Supplemental Material Appendix A: Methodology V alidation 30 40 60 100 200 300 HNL Mass m [MeV] 10 12 10 11 10 10 10 9 10 8 10 7 10 6 -HNL Mixing |U |2 [GeV 2] PS191 MicroBooNE T2K (AFH 2019) T2K (SIREN) T2K...

    1980

  58. [2018]

    this proposal is the follow-up of the Expression of Interest EOI-15 submitted to SPSC in January 2017

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.