GLOBAL ANALYSIS OF NEUTRINO OSCILLATIONS

GLOBAL ANALYSIS OF νOSCILLATIONS Concha Gonzalez-Garcia ( ICREA-University of Barcelona & YITP-Stony Brook ) XXI Workshop on Neutrino Telescopes OUTLINE Status/Implications of the 3νglobal description Explorations/Implications beyond 3ν’s Concha Gonzalez-Garcia The νevidence of BSM •In the SM only νL,α,α=e, µ, τ: Gauge Invariance ⇒Lepton Flavour αconserved ⇒Total Lepton # Conserved ⇔νstrictly massless •We have observed with high (or good) precision: ∗Atmospheric νµ&¯νµdisappear likely to ντ(SK,MINOS, ICECUBE, KM3NeT) ∗Accel. νµ&¯νµdisappear at L∼300/800 Km (K2K, T2K, MINOS, NOνA) ∗Some accel νµ&¯νµappear as νe&¯νeat L∼300/800 Km ( T2K, MINOS,NOνA) ∗Solar νeconvert to νµ/ντ(Cl, Ga, SK, SNO, Borexino) ∗Reactor νedisappear at L∼200 Km (KamLAND) ∗Reactor νedisappear at L∼1Km (D-Chooz, Daya Bay, Reno) ⇒Lepton Flavours are violated ⇒There is Physics Beyond SM Concha Gonzalez-Garcia The νevidence of BSM •In the SM only νL,α,α=e, µ, τ: Gauge Invariance ⇒Lepton Flavour αconserved ⇒Total Lepton # Conserved ⇔νstrictly massless •We have observed with high (or good) precision: ∗Atmospheric νµ&¯νµdisappear likely to ντ(SK,MINOS, ICECUBE, KM3NeT) ∗Accel. νµ&¯νµdisappear at L∼300/800 Km (K2K, T2K, MINOS, NOνA) ∗Some accel νµ&¯νµappear as νe&¯νeat L∼300/800 Km ( T2K, MINOS,NOνA) ∗Solar νeconvert to νµ/ντ(Cl, Ga, SK, SNO, Borexino) ∗Reactor νedisappear at L∼200 Km (KamLAND) ∗Reactor νedisappear at L∼1Km (D-Chooz, Daya Bay, Reno) ⇒Lepton Flavours are violated ⇒There is Physics Beyond SM •The important question: What BSM? •The starting path: Precise determination of the low energy parametrization Concha Gonzalez-Garcia The New Minimal Standard Model •Minimal Extension to allow for LFV ⇒give Mass to the Neutrino ∗With SM fields: Use νc Lis right-handed L−LSM =−1 2MννLνC L+h.c. ⇒   Lis violated ⇒Majorana ν=νc SU(2)Lis violated ⇒Effective LE ∗Introduce νR L−LSM =−MDνLνR−1 2MRνRνC R+h.c. Concha Gonzalez-Garcia The New Minimal Standard Model •Minimal Extension to allow for LFV ⇒give Mass to the Neutrino ∗With SM fields: Use νc Lis right-handed L−LSM =−1 2MννLνC L+h.c. ⇒   Lis violated ⇒Majorana ν=νc SU(2)Lis violated ⇒Effective LE ∗Introduce νRAND impose Lconservation L−LSM =−MDνLνR−1 2MRνRνC R+h.c. ×⇒Dirac ν6=νc: Concha Gonzalez-Garcia The New Minimal Standard Model •Minimal Extension to allow for LFV ⇒give Mass to the Neutrino ∗With SM fields: Use νc Lis right-handed L−LSM =−1 2MννLνC L+h.c. ⇒   Lis violated ⇒Majorana ν=νc SU(2)Lis violated ⇒Effective LE ∗Introduce νRAND impose Lconservation L−LSM =−MDνLνR−1 2MRνRνC R+h.c. ×⇒Dirac ν6=νc: •Either way ⇒Charged current interactions of massive leptons are not diagonal g √2W+ µX ij Uij LEP ℓiγµL νj+Uij CKM UiγµL Dj+h.c. For N= 3 + sν′s:ULEP=3×NULEPU† LEP =I3×3U† LEPULEP 6=IN×N •Either way ⇒Lepton flavours not conserved in νpropagation Concha Gonzalez-Garcia The New Minimal Standard Model: νflavour oscillations •In vacuum: Pαβ =δαβ−4 n X j6=i Re[U⋆ αiUβiUαjU⋆ βj]sin2∆ij 2+2 X j6=i Im[U⋆ αiUβiUαjU⋆ βj]sin (∆ij) ∆ij =(m2 i−m2 j)L 4E⇒No information on νmass scale nor Majorana/Dirac •When osc between 2-νdominates: Pα6=β=sin2(2θ)sin2∆m2L 4E ⇒No information on Mass Ordering (≡sign(∆m2)) nor octant of θnor CPV Concha Gonzalez-Garcia The New Minimal Standard Model: νflavour oscillations •In vacuum: Pαβ =δαβ−4 n X j6=i Re[U⋆ αiUβiUαjU⋆ βj]sin2∆ij 2+2 X j6=i Im[U⋆ αiUβiUαjU⋆ βj]sin (∆ij) ∆ij =(m2 i−m2 j)L 4E⇒No information on νmass scale nor Majorana/Dirac •When osc between 2-νdominates: Pα6=β=sin2(2θ)sin2∆m2L 4E ⇒No information on Mass Ordering (≡sign(∆m2)) nor octant of θnor CPV •If νcross matter regions (Sun, Earth...) it interacts coherently Different flavours have different interactions ⇒Effective potential in νevolution: Ve6=Vµ,τ ⇒∆Vνe=−∆V¯νe=√2GFNe ⇒Modification of mixing angle and oscillation wavelength (MSW) ⇒For solar ν′s: Dependence on θoctant ⇒In LBL terrestrial experiment: Dependence on sign of ∆m2and θoctant Concha Gonzalez-Garcia 3νFlavour Parameters •For for 3 ν’s :3 Mixing angles +1 Dirac Phase +2 Majorana Phases ULEP =     1 0 0 0c23 s23 0−s23 c23         c13 0s13eiδcp 0 1 0 −s13e−iδcp 0c13         c21 s12 0 −s12 c12 0 0 0 1         eiη10 0 0eiη20 0 0 1     •Convention: 0≤θij ≤90◦0≤δ≤360◦⇒2 Orderings NORMAL INVERTED m 1 m 2 m 3 m 3 m 1 m 2 ∆ m 2 21 > 0 ∆ m 2 21 > 0 ∆ m 2 3 ℓ ∆m2 21 >0by convention ∆m2 3ℓ=   ∆m2 31 >0for NO ∆m2 32 <0for IO Experiment Dominant Important Additional Solar Experiments θ12 ∆m2 21 θ13 Reactor LBL (KamLAND) ∆m2 21 θ12 θ13 Reactor MBL (Daya Bay, Reno, D-Chooz) θ13,∆m2 3ℓ Atmospheric Experiments (SK,IC) θ23 ∆m2 3ℓθ13 ,δcp Acc LBL νµDisapp (Minos,T2K,NOvA) ∆m2 3ℓ.θ23 Acc LBL νeApp (Minos,T2K,NOvA) δcp θ13 θ23, ,∆m2 3ℓ × Concha Gonzalez-Garcia Should we trust the global fits by phenomenologists? Collaborations start performing (partial) combined analysis, e.g.: Joint NOvA + T2K analysis of 2020 data became available in 2024 [20] Mass Ordering and CPV •Dominant information in νevs νeappearance in LBL: Each T2K and NOνA favour NO but tension in value of δCP in NO ⇒IO best fit in LBL combination ⇒b.f. δCP ∼290◦, CPC disfavoured at &3.5σ •Additional information from νµin LBL vs νedisapperance in MBL Reactors: ∆m2 µµ ≃∆m2 3l+c2 12∆m2 21 NO s2 12∆m2 21 IO +. . . ∆m2 ee ≃∆m2 3l+s2 12∆m2 21 NO c2 12∆m2 21 IO Nunokawa,Parke,Zukanovich hep-ph/0503283 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3 3.2 ∆m2 32 [10-3 eV2] ∆m2 31 NOvA T2K MINOS IceCube SuperK 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 sin2θ23 -3.2 -3 -2.8 -2.6 -2.4 -2.2 -2 Reno DayaBay Dbl-Chooz 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 sin2θ13 [2σ] NuFIT 6.0 (2024) ⇒Slightly better agreement in NO ⇒LBL+Reac: NO and IO equally good Concha Gonzalez-Garcia Mass Ordering and CPV •Dominant information in νevs νeappearance in LBL: Each T2K and NOνA favour NO but tension in value of δCP in NO ⇒IO best fit in LBL combination ⇒b.f. δCP ∼290◦, CPC disfavoured at &3.5σ •Additional information from νµin LBL vs νedisapperance in MBL Reactors: Slightly better agreement in NO ⇒LBL+Reac: NO and IO equally good ⇒CPC OK 0 90 180 270 360 δCP 0 5 10 15 ∆χ2 NO, IO (IC19 w/o SK-atm) NuFIT 6.0 (2024) Concha Gonzalez-Garcia Mass Ordering and CPV •Dominant information in νevs νeappearance in LBL: Each T2K and NOνA favour NO but tension in value of δCP in NO ⇒IO best fit in LBL combination ⇒b.f. δCP ∼290◦, CPC disfavoured at &3.5σ •Additional information from νµin LBL vs νedisapperance in MBL Reactors: Slightly better agreement in NO ⇒LBL+Reac: NO and IO equally good ⇒CPC OK •Additional information from SK-ATM: SK I-V χ2table added: ∆χ2 IO−NO,with SK−atm ≃6 ⇒NO ⇒CPC 0 90 180 270 360 δCP 0 5 10 15 ∆χ2 NO, IO (IC19 w/o SK-atm) NO, IO (IC24 with SK-atm) NuFIT 6.0 (2024) Concha Gonzalez-Garcia Mass Ordering and CPV •Dominant information in νevs νeappearance in LBL: Each T2K and NOνA favour NO but tension in value of δCP in NO ⇒IO best fit in LBL combination ⇒b.f. δCP ∼290◦, CPC disfavoured at &3.5σ •Additional information from νµin LBL vs νedisapperance in MBL Reactors: Slightly better agreement in NO ⇒LBL+Reac: NO and IO equally good ⇒CPC OK •Additional information from SK-ATM: SK I-V χ2table added: ∆χ2 IO−NO,with SK−atm ≃6 ⇒NO ⇒CPC 0 90 180 270 360 δCP 0 5 10 15 ∆χ2 NO, IO (IC19 w/o SK-atm) NO, IO (IC24 with SK-atm) NuFIT 6.0 (2024) But SK-atm beyond expectation and not fully compatible with either ordering? SK Coll. arXiv:2311.05105 Concha Gonzalez-Garcia Mass Ordering and CPV •Dominant information in νevs νeappearance in LBL: Each T2K and NOνA favour NO but tension in value of δCP in NO ⇒IO best fit in LBL combination ⇒b.f. δCP ∼290◦, CPC disfavoured at &3.5σ •Additional information from νµin LBL vs νedisapperance in MBL Reactors: Slightly better agreement in NO ⇒LBL+Reac: NO and IO equally good ⇒CPC OK •Additional information from SK-ATM: SK I-V χ2table added: ∆χ2 IO−NO,with SK−atm ≃6 ⇒NO ⇒CPC 0 90 180 270 360 δCP 0 5 10 15 ∆χ2 NO, IO (IC19 w/o SK-atm) NO, IO (IC24 with SK-atm) NuFIT 6.0 (2024) My Conclusion: MO, θ23 Octant, CPV depend on subdominant 3ν-effects ⇒definitive answer will require new experiments: –T2K and NOνAwill run till ∼2027 –JUNO taking data ⇒Ordering (alone or comb with ν-telescopes) –Hyper-K and DUNE expected within a decade ⇒Ordering, δCP &θ23 Talks by Frank,King,Machado,Blot,Valder,Rivera,Sisti,Perrin-Terin,Martinez-Soler,Cerrone,Zhang Concha Gonzalez-Garcia Spin-off: Testing How the Sun Shines with ν′s Fitting together oscillations and normalization of ν-producing reactions: fi=Φi ΦSSM i MCGG, Maltoni, Pinheiro, Serenelli 2311.16226 ⇒Constraint on solar energy produced by nuclear reactions Present limit on CNO: LCNO L⊙<(0.75 ±0.3) % (3σ) Test of Lum Constraint: L⊙(ν−inferred) L⊙= 1.04 ±0.06 Concha Gonzalez-Garcia Spin-off: Testing How the Sun Shines with ν′s SSM independently determined fluxes can be used to improve SSM’s MCGG, Maltoni, Pinheiro, Serenelli 2311.16226 Concha Gonzalez-Garcia Mass Scale & Dirac vs Majorana in 3ν-mixing βdecay: Dirac or Majorana m2 νe=Xm2 j|Uej |2=   NO : m2 ℓ+ ∆m2 21c2 13s2 12 + ∆m2 31s2 13 IO : m2 ℓ+ ∆m2 21c2 13s2 12 −∆m2 31c2 13 Cosmology: Dirac or Majorana Xmi=   NO : pm2 ℓ+p∆m2 21 +m2 ℓ+p∆m2 31 +m2 ℓ IO pm2 ℓ+p−∆m2 31 −∆m2 21 −m2 ℓ+p−∆m2 31 −m2 ℓ ν-less β-βdecay: ⇔Majorana mee =|XU2 ej mj|=f(mℓ,order,maj phases) •In 3ν-mixing the expectations for these probes are correlated: Fogli etal hep-ph:0408045 10-3 10-2 10-1 100 mlight [eV] 10-2 10-1 100 mνe [eV] NO IO Excluded KATRIN 10-3 10-2 10-1 100 mlight [eV] 10-1 100 Σmi [eV] NO IO 10-3 10-2 10-1 100 mlight [eV] 10-4 10-3 10-2 10-1 100 mee [eV] NO IO 10-1 100 Σmi [eV] 10-2 10-1 100 mνe [eV] NO IO 10-1 100 Σmi [eV] 10-4 10-3 10-2 10-1 100 mee [eV] NO IO 10-2 10-1 100 mνe [eV] 10-4 10-3 10-2 10-1 100 mee [eV] NO IO NuFIT 6.0 (2024) Combination global Osc+KATRIN In NO at 95% CL: 0.0085 eV ≤mνe≤0.4 eV 0.058 eV ≤Pmν≤1.2 eV 0≤mee ≤0.41 eV In IO at 95% CL: 0.048 eV ≤mνe≤0.4 eV 0.098 eV ≤Pmν≤1.2 eV 0.015 eV ≤mee ≤0.41 eV Talks by Pavan, Gastaldo, Rossi, Di. Valentino; Fu, Goria, Gusev, Petro, Palmeiro,Volta Ferrari-Baruso, Pofi Concha Gonzalez-Garcia Confirmed Low Energy Picture •3νscenario: –Robust determination of θ12,θ13,∆m2 21,|∆m2 3ℓ| –Mass ordering, θ23 Octant, CPV depend on subdominant 3ν-effects ⇒interplay of LBL/reactor/ATM results. Not statistically significant yet ⇒definitive answer will require new experiments –Correlated information on neutrino mass-scale probes ⇒MO –Independent determination of solar νfluxes ⇒relevant for SSM •More Information on BSM? –No new states in νosc experiments –New states in νosc experiments NSI in ν-OSC (and CEνNs): Global Analysis With most general couplings to up, down and/or e: LMA-D allowed by oscillations Adding CEνNs (Mmed &50 MeV) ⇒LMA-D only above 2σ Important bounds on the NSI’s ⇒Maximum effect at future LBL experiments ε⊕ αβ =εe αβ +2 + Y⊕ nεu αβ +1 + 2Y⊕ nεd αβ Coloma, MCGG, Maltoni, Pinheiro, Urrea 2305.07698 Concha Gonzalez-Garcia From NSI to SMEFT In SMEFT NC-NSI for νℓand ℓas well as CC-NSI are related. Are ν-osc bounds still be relevant? Recent efforts on consistently embebdding NSI contraints in SMEFT framework show the relevance of the constraints from oscillations Coloma etal 2411.00090 Concha Gonzalez-Garcia From NSI to U(1)′models with (ultra)light mediators Coloma, MCGG, Maltoni ArXiv:2009.14220 •Effective Lagrangian LNC NSI =−2√2GFεfP αβ (¯ναγµLνβ)( ¯ fγµf), •If understood as: ⇒ q2→0 ν ν f f εf αβ =δαβ q′ fq′ ν 1 √2GF g′2 M2 Z′ ⇒adapt the OSC+NSI fit BUT performed in subspace of flavour diagonal NSI From NSI to light mediator models For MZ′&O(MeV) ⇒Contact Interaction in Hmat:εf αα =qναqf1 √GF g′2 M2 Z′ Coloma, MCGG, Maltoni ArXiv:2009.14220 Concha Gonzalez-Garcia From NSI to ultralight mediator models For ultralight (M′.O(eV)) mediator ⇒Contact Interaction to Long Range Force Coloma, MCGG, Maltoni ArXiv:2009.14220 Concha Gonzalez-Garcia Beyond 3ν’s: Light Sterile Neutrinos •Several observations which can be interpreted as Oscillations with ∆m2∼eV2 LSND &MiniBooNe νµ→νe Reactor Anomaly Huber, 1106.068,Mention etal ,1101.2755 2011 reactor flux calculation: RReac =data predict = 0.936+0.024 −0.023 at L.100 m Explained as ¯νedisappearance Gallium Anomaly Acero etal, 0711.4222;Giunti, Laveder,1006.3244 νe+71Ga →71Ge + e− Explained as νedisappearance Confirmed by BEST (4σ) 2201.07364 Beyond 3ν’s: Light Sterile Neutrinos •Several observations which can be interpreted as Oscillations with ∆m2∼eV2 LSND &MiniBooNe νµ→νe Strong tension with νdisapp Dentler etal, 1803.10661 MicroBooNE 2412.14407: No Confirmation (99% CL) Talk by F.Gao Reactor Anomaly Huber, 1106.068,Mention etal ,1101.2755 2011 reactor flux calculation: RReac =data predict = 0.936+0.024 −0.023 at L.100 m Explained as ¯νedisappearance Gallium Anomaly Acero etal, 0711.4222;Giunti, Laveder,1006.3244 νe+71Ga →71Ge + e− Explained as νedisappearance Confirmed by BEST (4σ) 2201.07364 Beyond 3ν’s: Light Sterile Neutrinos •Several observations which can be interpreted as Oscillations with ∆m2∼eV2 LSND &MiniBooNe νµ→νe Strong tension with νdisapp Dentler etal, 1803.10661 MicroBooNE 2412.14407: No Confirmation (99% CL) Talk by F.Gao Purely sterile oscillation robustly disfavoured Reactor Anomaly Huber, 1106.068,Mention etal ,1101.2755 2011 reactor flux calculation: RReac =data predict = 0.936+0.024 −0.023 at L.100 m Explained as ¯νedisappearance Gallium Anomaly Acero etal, 0711.4222;Giunti, Laveder,1006.3244 νe+71Ga →71Ge + e− Explained as νedisappearance Confirmed by BEST (4σ) 2201.07364 Beyond 3ν’s: Light Sterile Neutrinos •Several observations which can be interpreted as Oscillations with ∆m2∼eV2 LSND &MiniBooNe νµ→νe Strong tension with νdisapp Dentler etal, 1803.10661 MicroBooNE 2412.14407: No Confirmation (99% CL) Talk by F.Gao Purely sterile oscillation robustly disfavoured Reactor Anomaly Huber, 1106.068,Mention etal ,1101.2755 2011 reactor flux calculation: RReac =data predict = 0.936+0.024 −0.023 at L.100 m Explained as ¯νedisappearance 2022 with updated inputs (235U) 10% 235U flux reduction Daya-Bay 2501.00746 Gallium Anomaly Acero etal, 0711.4222;Giunti, Laveder,1006.3244 νe+71Ga →71Ge + e− Explained as νedisappearance Confirmed by BEST (4σ) 2201.07364 Beyond 3ν’s: Light Sterile Neutrinos •Several observations which can be interpreted as Oscillations with ∆m2∼eV2 LSND &MiniBooNe νµ→νe Strong tension with νdisapp Dentler etal, 1803.10661 MicroBooNE 2412.14407: No Confirmation (99% CL) Talk by F.Gao Purely sterile oscillation robustly disfavoured Reactor Anomaly Huber, 1106.068,Mention etal ,1101.2755 2011 reactor flux calculation: RReac =data predict = 0.936+0.024 −0.023 at L.100 m Explained as ¯νedisappearance 2022 with updated inputs (235U) Berryman Huber, 2005.01756 Kipeikin etal, 2103.01486 Giunti etal, 2110.06820 Deficit .1σ RESOLVED Gallium Anomaly Acero etal, 0711.4222;Giunti, Laveder,1006.3244 νe+71Ga →71Ge + e− Explained as νedisappearance Confirmed by BEST (4σ) 2201.07364 s♥ ✷ ✁❏ ❡❡ ❉ ♠ ✹ ✂ ✄ ❬ ☎ ✆ ✄ ❪ ●✝✞✞✟✠✡ ☛ ☞✝✌✍✌✌✠ ✍✎ ✝✞✏ ✭♣ ✱✑ ✮ ✭ ✸ ❍ ✍✱ ✸ ❍ ✮ ❙✒✞✝✓ ❑✔❚✕✖✗ ✘✙ ✶✚ ✲✛ ✶ ✶ ✶✚ ✶✚ ✜ •Last decade: after including θ13 ≃9◦the comparison of KamLAND vs Solar ★ ★ 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 sin2θ12 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 ∆m2 21 [10−5 eV2] θ13 = 8.5° 246 8 10 ∆m2 21 [10−5 eV2] 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 ∆χ2 Solar (GS98) KamLAND NuFIT 2.1 (2016) θ12 better than 1σagreement But ∼2σtension on ∆m2 12 •Tension arising from: Smaller-than-expected MSW low-E turn-up in SK/SNO spectrum at global b.f. 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.6 1 1.4 2 3 4 6 10 14 Eν 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 < Pee > pp Borexino (7Be) Borexino (pep) Super-K SNO Borexino (8B) Best fit (SOLAR only) Best fit (SOLAR + KamLAND) “too large” of Day/Night at SK AD/N,SK4−2055 = [−3.1±1.6(stat.)±1.4(sys.)]% ⇒“hint” of NP in propagation: NSI? •AFTER NU2020: With SK4 2970 days data Slightly more pronounced low-E turn-up Smaller of Day/Night at AD/N,SK4−2055 = [−3.1±1.6(stat.)±1.4(sys.)]% AD/N,SK4−2970 = [−2.1±1.1]% •In NuFIT 6.0 ❍ ❍ ✵✁ ✵✁✂ ✵✄ ✵ ✄✂ ✵ ☎ s✆✝ ✷ q ✶✷ ✵ ✁ ☎ ✻ ✽ ✞✵ ✞✁ ✞☎ ❉ ♠ ✟ ✟ ✠ ✥ ✡ ☛ ✲ ✺ ☞ ✌ ✟ ❪ ✍✎✏ ✑ ✒ ✓✔ ✕ ✖✗✖✘✘✘ ✁ ☎ ✻✽✞✵ ✙✚ ✷ ✷✶ ✛✜✢ ✣✤ ✦✧ ✷ ★ ✵ ✁ ☎ ✻ ✽ ✞ ✵ ✞✁ ❉ ✩ ✟ ▼✪✫✫✬ ✭✮✯ ✰✮✱ ✳ ✴✯✬ ✸✹ ▼✪✫✫✬ ❆❆✼✫✾ ✹❑✬ ✿ ❆✱✰ ✸✱❙❀ ✹ ✿❁ ✸✱❙❀ ◆❂❃❄❅ ❇❈❊ ❋●❊●■❏ ⇒Agreement of ∆m2 21 between solar and KamLAND at ∼1σ