arxiv: v4 [hep-ex] 23 Mar 2011

Transcription

1 The Reactor Antineutrino Anomaly arxiv:0.7v [hep-ex] 3 Mar 0 G. Mention, M. Fechner, Th. Lasserre,,, Th. A. Mueller, 3 D. Lhuillier, 3 M. Cribier,, and A. Letourneau 3 CEA, Iru, SPP, Centre de Saclay, F-99 Gi-sur-Yvette, France Astroparticule et Cosmologie APC, 0 rue Alice Domon et Léonie Duquet, 70 Paris cedex 3, France 3 CEA, Iru, SPhN, Centre de Saclay, F-99 Gi-sur-Yvette, France (Dated: March, 0 Recently, new reactor antineutrino spectra have been provided or 3 U, 39 Pu, Pu, and 3 U, increasing the mean lux by about 3 percent. To a good approximation, this reevaluation applies to all reactor neutrino experiments. The synthesis o published experiments at reactor-detector distances < 00 m leads to a ratio o observed event rate to predicted rate o 0.97±0.0. With our new lux evaluation, this ratio shits to 0.93±0.03, leading to a deviation rom unity at 9.% C.L. which we call the reactor antineutrino anomaly. The compatibility o our results with the existence o a ourth non-standard neutrino state driving neutrino oscillations at short distances is discussed. The combined analysis o reactor data, gallium solar neutrino calibration experiments, and MiniBooNEν data disavors the no-oscillation hypothesis at 99.% C.L. The oscillation parameters are such that m new >. ev (9% and sin (θ new = 0. ± 0.0 (9%. Constraints on the θ 3 neutrino mixing angle are revised. I. INTRODUCTION Neutrino oscillation experiments over the last twenty years have established a picture o neutrino mixing and masses that explains the results o solar, atmospheric and reactor neutrino experiments []. These experiments are consistent with the mixing o ν e, ν µ and ν τ with three mass eigenstates, ν, ν and ν 3. In particular, the mass dierences are required to be m ev and m / m Reactor experiments have played an important role in the establishment o this pattern. In experiments at distances < 00 m rom the reactor core, at ILL-Grenoble, Goesgen, Rovno, Krasnoyarsk, Savannah River and Bugey [ 9, ], the measured rate o ν e was ound to be in reasonable agreement with that predicted rom the reactor antineutrino spectra, though slightly lower than expected, with the measured/expected ratio at 0.97±0.0 (including recent revisions o the neutron mean lietime. This opened the way to longer baseline experiments measuring the ν e survival probability P ee at various distances. Including the three known active neutrinos, P ee can be written in irst approximation as P ν ee (L = sin (θ i sin (.7 m i [ev ]L[m] E νe [MeV], ( where m i = m and θ i θ i the baseline exceeds a ew tens o kilometers, and m i = m 3 and θ i = θ 3 i it does not exceed a ew kilometers []. The CHOOZ experiment was located km away rom two.3gwreactors[3], anddidnotreportanyneutrino oscillation in the parameter region m 3 > 0 3 ev. In addition CHOOZ data provides the world s best constraintontheθ 3 mixinganglevalue, atsin (θ 3 < 0. Corresponding author: thierry.lasserre@cea.r (90% C.L. or m ev. Forthcoming kilometer baseline experiments with multiple detectors are underway to provide a clean measurement o the last undetermined neutrino mixing angle θ 3 [ ]. The KamLAND experiment detected electron antineutrinos rom surrounding reactors located at an average distance o 0 km, thus probing the m 0 ev region. KamLAND successully reported a strong oscillation signal in agreement with solar neutrino data [7]. A three-lavor oscillation treatment shows that KamLAND also has a weak sensitivity to the θ 3 mixing angle, as P ee cos θ 3 Pee ν, leading to the anti-correlation o sin θ 3 and sin θ. Recent global its including solar neutrino and reactor oscillation data indicated a preerence or non-zero θ 3 at about.σ [, 9]. In preparation or the Double Chooz reactor experiment, we have re-evaluated the speciic reactor antineutrino lux (ν/ission, improving the electron to antineutrino data conversion [0]. The method relies on detailed knowledge o the decays o thousands o ission products, while the previous conversion procedure used a phenomenological model based on 30 eective beta branches. Both methods are constrained by the well-measured ILL spectrum o ission induced electrons that accompanies the antineutrinos [ ]. The new calculation results in a small increase in the lux o 3.%. Although this increase has no signiicant eect on KamLAND s solar parameter results, when combined with the previously reported small deicits at nearer distances, it results in a larger average deicit o.7%, at 0.93 ± We call it the reactor antineutrino anomaly, signiicant at the level o 9.% C.L. This deicit is consistent with being independent rom the distance to the reactor core at distances meters, the distance o the Bugey-3 experiment []. I this deicit is due to neutrino mixing, it could be explained by an energy-independent suppression o the ν e lux at distances meters. This requires a neutrino with a m new ev. The mixing amplitude with the

2 ν e must be sin (θ new 0.. The required m new is signiicantly larger than those required by solar and atmospheric experiments. This suggests, i the neutrino mixing hypothesis is the correct explanation, the existence o a ourth neutrino, beyond the standard model. We would like to stress here that other explanations are also possible, such as a correlated artiact in the experiments, or an erroneous prediction o the antineutrino lux rom nuclear reactor cores. We begin by discussing the use o new antineutrino spectra and provide a revised value o the predicted cross section per ission, in Section II. We then revisit the short baseline oscillation results (< 00 m and CHOOZ in Section III, revealing a reactor antineutrino anomaly, which is discussed in Section IV. The compatibility o our results with the existence o a ourth non-standard neutrino state is discussed in Section V. The CHOOZ and KamLAND sensitivities to the θ 3 mixing angle are revisited in Sections VIA and VIB. Their combination is discussed in Section VI C. Two experimental programs or testing the anomaly are discussed in Section VII. We conclude in Section VIII. II. NEW PREDICTED CROSS SECTION PER FISSION Fissionreactorsreleaseabout 0 0 ν e GW s, which mainly come rom the beta decays o the ission products o 3 U, 3 U, 39 Pu, and Pu. The emitted antineutrino spectrum is then given by: S tot (E ν = k k S k (E ν, ( where k reers to the contribution o the main issile nuclei to the total number o issions o the k th branch, and S k to their corresponding neutrino spectrum per ission. For the last years the ν e spectra have been estimated rom measurements o the total electron spectra associated with the beta decays o all ission products o 3 U, 39 Pu, and Pu. Thin target oils o these isotopes were irradiated with thermal neutrons at the ILL reactor [ ]. The measured spectra then had to be converted rom electron to antineutrino spectra invoking a set o 30 eective beta-branches, adjusted to reproduce the total electron spectrum [39]. Recently we revisited the conversion procedure with a novel mixed-approach combining the accurate reerence o the ILL electron spectra with the physical distribution o beta branches o all ission products provided by the nuclear databases [0]. This new approach provided a better handle on the systematic errors o the conversion. Although it did not reduce the inal error budget, it led to a systematic shit o about 3% in the normalization o 3 U, 39 Pu, and Pu antineutrino luxes, respectively. This normalization shit has been attributed to two main systematic eects in the original conversion o the ILL electron data. At low energy (E ν < MeV the implementation o Coulomb and weak magnetism corrections to the Fermi theory in the new approach turned out to deviate rom the eective linear correction (0. (E ν MeV in % used in the previous work. At high energy (E ν > MeV, the converted antineutrino spectra become very sensitive to the knowledge o the charge Z o the nuclei contributing to the total spectrum. In the previous approach, only the mean dependence o Z versus the end-point o the eective betabranches had been used while in the new conversion we had access to the complete distribution, nucleus by nucleus. These two eects could be numerically studied and conirmed on various independent sets o beta-branches. Because 3 Unuclei undergoission with ast neutrons, the associated electron spectrum could not be measured in the thermal neutron lux o the ILL reactor. Thereore the ab initio summation o the ν e rom all possible beta decays o ission products was perormed to predict the neutrino spectrum []. In Re. [0] we provided a new prediction with an estimated relative uncertainty o the order o % in the - MeV range. This uncertainty o ab initio calculations is still too large to be generalized to all isotopes but it is suiciently accurate in the case o 3 U, which contributes to less than 0% o the total ission rate or all reactors considered in this work. An ongoing measurement at the FRM II reactor in Garching will soon provide experimental constraints []. When predicting the antineutrino spectrum o a reactor S tot (E ν, a weighted sum o the our antineutrino spectra S k (E ν is computed according to the considered uel composition, which can be dierent in each experiment. The object o this article is to analyze the impact o the above-mentioned 3 percent shit on past, present, and uture experiments. Generally reactor neutrino oscillation experiments search or the reaction: ν e +p e + +n, (3 where an electron antineutrino interacts with a ree proton in a detector, oten illed with scintillator. The reaction cross section can be precisely computed with the V-A theory o weak interaction [9]: σ V A (E e = κp e E e (+δ rec +δ wm +δ rad, ( p e and E e being the momentum and energy o the positron, and the δ being the energy dependent recoil (δ rec, weak magnetism (δ wm, and radiative (δ rad corrections. On the onehand, the preactorκcanbe written κ = G F cos θ C (+ R π inner(+3λ, ( where G F is the Fermi constant, θ C the Cabibbo angle, R inner = 0.0 the inner radiative corrections taken rom Re. [], and λ =.9 the orm actor ratio o the axial to vector coupling constant. Parameters are taken by deault to their latest PDG average values []. Using this parameterization Re. [30] obtained a reerence value

3 3 o κ = cm, using λ =.70 close to the average value o the year 999 [3]. This value must now be updated to.9[], leadingto κ = cm. On the other hand, Eq. can be normalized to the β-decay o the ree neutrons and κ can be written as: κ = π m e R τ n, ( τ n being the neutron mean lietime, and R =.7( the phase-space actor or beta-decay o the ree neutron taken rom Re. [7], including outer radiative corrections. Over the last years the neutron mean lietime has evolved, rom 9 s (value used in the ILL experiment [] to its current PDG average value o.7 s []. Based on this parameterization the current preactor κ is cm. This is our deault value in this publication. For the computation o the dierential cross section we used [9]. Our results agree within 0.% with the results published in Re. [30] that supersede those o Re. [39]. It is worth mentioning that there is an ongoing controversy about the world average neutron lietime, with Re. [3] inding τ n = 7 s, and making the world average suspect. A lower value has also been ound by the MAMBO- group [3]. The new world average should then evolve and settle to.(. s in 0 (Re. [3] and private communication rom K. Schreckenbach. We note here that the average value o λ may depend on neutron lietime measurements. However other experiments studying angular correlations between the neutron spin and the emitted electron provide independent measurements o λ. Recently Re. [3] inds.790 and Re. [33] avors λ =.70(9. A value o λ =.7 would be consistent with the latest neutron lie time measurements, to be averaged to τ n =. s [3]. Thus the latest values o λ and τ n point to a reevaluation o the preactor κ to cm. With this change, the cross section would increase by 0.% compared to the calculations in this work. The outgoing positron and incoming antineutrino energies are related by E ν = E e + + E e(e e + M + ( m e, (7 M where = M n M p [9, 39]. The prediction o the cross section per ission is deined as: σ pred = 0 S tot (E ν σ V A (E ν de ν = k k σ pred,k, ( where S tot is the model dependent reactor neutrino spectrum or a given average uel composition ( k and σ V A is the theoretical cross section o reaction (3. The σ pred,k are the predicted cross sections or each issile isotope. Experiments at baselines below 00 m reported either the ratios o the measured to predicted cross section per ission, or the ratios (R o the observed event rate to the predicted rate. Accounting or new reactor antineutrino spectra [0] the normalization o predicted antineutrino rates, σ pred,k, is shited by +.%, +3.%, +3.7%, +9.% or k= 3 U, 39 Pu, Pu, and 3 U respectively (see Table I. In the case o 3 U the completeness o nuclear databases over the years largely explains the +9.% shit rom the reerence computations []. The new predicted cross section or any uel composition can be computed rom Eq. (. By deault our new computation takes into account the so-called o-equilibrium correction o the antineutrino luxes (increase in luxes caused by the decay o long-lived ission products. III. IMPACT ON PAST EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS In the eighties and nineties, experiments were perormed at a ew tens o meters rom nuclear reactor cores at ILL, Goesgen, Rovno, Krasnoyarsk, Bugey(so called 3 and and Savannah River [ 9, ]. Following these pioneering results middle- and long-baseline experiments were perormed at CHOOZ [3] and KamLAND [7] in the late nineties and ater. In this section we revised each ratio o observed event rate to predicted rate. The observed event rates and their associated errors are unchanged. The predicted rates are reevaluated separately in each experimental case. A. The Bugey- integral measurement The Bugey- experiment [3] perormed the most precise measurement o the inverse beta decay cross section, obtaining σ Bugey =.7±0.0 in units o 0 3 cm /ission. This experimental result was compared to the predicted cross section per ission, σ pred,old. Using Re. [3] inputs, and the ormer converted neutrino spectra rom [, 0, ] (except or the 3 U neutrino spectrum taken rom [0], we get σ pred,old = cm /ission, in good agreement with Bugey- s estimation (see Table I. We used the average uel composition o Re. [3], 3 U=3.%, 39 Pu=3.%, Pu =.% and U 3 =7.%, in ractions o issions per isotope. We note here that the published Bugey- cross section calculation does not account or the contribution o long-lived ission products (oequilibrium eects. The reerence electron spectra used or the determination o S tot were acquired ater an irradiationtimeintheillreactorluxolessthan.dayor all isotopes. But in the Bugey experiments at a commercial PWR the irradiation time scale was typically about one year. S tot should thus be corrected or the accumulation o long-lived ission products in the low energy part o the spectrum. We had to turn o these eects in our computation to recover the σ pred,old value. Including these eects in our calculations would lead to a +.0%

4 old [3] new σ pred, 3 U.39±.9%.±.% σ pred, 39 Pu.9±.%.3±.% σ pred, 3 U 9.±0% 0.0±.% σ pred, Pu.73±.%.97±.% σ pred σ Bugey σ Bugey.±.7%.0±.7%.7±.% [3] /σ pred 0.97±.%±.7% 0.93±.%±.7% TABLE I. Individual cross sections per ission per issile isotope, σ pred,k. The slight dierences in the ratios are caused by dierences in o-equilibrium eects. Results o the comparison o σ Bugey at Bugey- in units o 0 3 cm /ission with the ormer and present prediction, σ pred, are shown. discrepancy. An over or under-estimation o the irradiation time by 00 days would lead to a systematic error on the o-equilibrium correction below 0.%. Computing the ratio o observed versus expected events R Bugey =σ Bugey /σ pred, Bugey- concluded that there was good agreement with the V-A theory o weak interactions, and that the neutrino lux emitted by PWR reactors is suiciently understood to be computed using the parameters o [, 0, ]. Applying the new reactor antineutrino spectra we obtain a new value o the cross section per ission o σ pred,new =.0 ± 0.3 in units o 0 3 cm /ission. We thus revised the ratio R Bugey =0.93±0.03(stat+syst±0.0(S tot, which is now.0 standard deviations rom the expectation without neutrino oscillations. This creates a tension between the measurement at Bugey- and the new predicted cross section per ission. In the next sections we will see that the other reactor neutrino experimental results conirm this anomaly. B. The ILL neutrino experiment In the early eighties the ILL experiment measured the antineutrino induced positron spectrum at a distance o.7 m rom the core o the Laue-Langevin ission reactor. Its uel is highly enriched uranium (93% 3 U, simpliying the computation o the predicted antineutrino spectrum rate and shape. In Re. [] the ILL experiment reported a ratio o measured to predicted event rates o R ILL,0 =0.9±0.03(stat±0.(syst+S tot. In 99 this result was revised by part o the ILL collaboration [3]. The 90 reactor electron spectrum or 3 U o Re. [] was re-measured in 9 [] by the same authors as []. The neutron mean lietime was corrected rom 9 s to 9 s, increasing the predicted cross section by %. Moreover in 990 it was announced that the operating power o the ILL reactor had been incorrectly reported at the time o the neutrino experiment, by +9.%. This reanalysis led to R ILL,9 =0.3±0.09(stat±0.073(syst+S tot, excluding the no-oscillation case at σ. According to the new spectra o Re. [0] the antineutrino rate is increased by 3.% (see Table II. A slight neutron mean lietime correction leads to an additional +0.37% shit. The new ratio is thus R ILL,new =0.0±0.0(stat±0.07(syst+S tot, signiicantly deviating rom its expected value. C. Bugey-3, Goesgen, Krasnoyarsk, Rovno, SRP Wenowstudy theimpactothenewantineutrinospectra on experiments at Bugey (called Bugey-3, Goesgen, Rovno, and Krasnoyarsk [ 9], which measured the reactor antineutrino rate at short distances, between m and 9 m, but less accurately than Bugey- [3]. Accounting or new reactor antineutrino spectra [0] the Bugey-3 [] ratios o observed versus expected events between and MeV decrease by 3.7%. However, we have to apply a urther correction to account or oequilibrium eects. Assuming 300 days o irradiation this leads to an additional increase by +.0%. The Bugey-3 ratios become: 0.9±0.00(stat±0.0(syst+S tot at m, 0.9±0.0(stat±0.0(syst+S tot at 0 m and 0.7±0.(stat±0.0(syst+S tot at 9 m. Note that uncertainties on S tot are included in the errors quoted by the Bugey-3 collaboration. A similar analysis is perormed with the Goesgen [] results. The new Goesgen ratios shit to 0.9±0.07(stat±0.00(syst+S tot at 3 m, 0.99±0.09(stat±0.0(syst+S tot at m and 0.9±0.033(stat±0.0(syst+S tot at m. In the eighties a series o experiments were perormed at the Rovno nuclear power station in the Soviet Union. In 9 the collaboration published measurements at m and m rom the reactor core []. Five measurements were perormed with two dierent detectors: an integral detector to measure the absolute cross section per ission o inverse β-decay (labeled I and I, and a scintillator spectrometer to measure both the absolute and dierential cross section per ission (labeled S, S, and 3S. The neutron lietime was taken to be 9. s. We accounted or the average uel composition or each run which was published in []. As an indication, the average uel composition over the ive measurements is 3 U=9.%, 39 Pu=.3%, Pu=.% and U 3 =7.%.The ive results o the observed over predicted event ratios are reported in table II. At m the average ratio is shited rom R Rovno,m,new =0.99±0.00(stat+syst+S tot to R Rovno,m,new =0.9±0.07(stat+syst+S tot. In 99 the Rovno integral experiment [7] published a cross section per ission o σ Rovno9 =. ± 0.7 in units o 0 3 cm /ission, m away rom a nuclear core with an average uel composition o 3 U=.%, 39 Pu=7.%, Pu=3.% and U 3 =7.%. They

5 predicted the cross section σ pred,old,rovno9 =.9 ± 0. in units o 0 3 cm /ission, and thus obtained the ratio R Rovno9,old =0.9±0.037(stat+syst+S tot. We recomputed the cross section per ission according to the new antineutrino spectra and ound σ pred,new,rovno9 =.3±0.7. The new ratio is thus revised to R Rovno9,new =0.90±0.03(stat+syst+S tot. We note that the correction o the neutron mean lietime contributes.% to the shit o the ratio. In 9 a neutrino experiment operated at the Krasnoyarsk reactors [], which have an almost pure 3 U uel composition leading to an antineutrino spectrum within % o pure 3 U, and operate over 0 day cycles. They measured the cross section per ission at two distances, σ Krasno,33m =.9±0.3 at 33 m and σ Krasno,9m =.30±. at 9 m, in units o 0 3 cm /ission. They compared it to the predicted cross section o. ± cm /ission, based on the Re. [] 3 U measurement instead o Re. []. Correcting the neutron mean lietime and using the new antineutrino spectra we obtain a predicted cross section o. 0 3 cm /ission, assuming a pure 3 U spectrum. This leads to the ratios R Krasno,33m =0.93±0.0(stat+syst+S tot and R Krasno,9m =0.93±0.9(stat+syst+S tot, at 33 m and 9 m, respectively. In 99 two other measurements were perormed 7 m rom the Krasnoyarsk reactors [9]. They measured σ Krasno,7m =.±0. at 7 m, and compared it to their predicted cross section o.33 ± cm /ission, based on Re. [] and in agreement with our reevaluation using previous reerence antineutrino spectra. Using the new values o Re. [0] we revise the ratio R Krasno,7m =0.97±0.07(stat+syst+S tot. From the neutrino pioneering experiments led by F. Reinesand C.Cowan[0] tothe nineties, aseriesoreactor antineutrino measurements were perormed at the Savannah River Plant (SRP, a U.S production acility or tritium and plutonium. For neutrino energies between and MeV the spectrum dierence between SRP and a similar core with pure 3 U uel was estimated to be less than 0.%. We make use o the latest results published in Re. []. Measurements were reported at two dierent baselines, mandm. ThenewSRPratiosarereevaluated to 0.93±0.00(stat±0.033(syst+S tot and.09±0.00(stat±0.0377(syst+s tot, respectively. D. CHOOZ and Palo Verde σ Bugey Based on the good agreement between σ pred,old and obtained at Bugey- [3], the CHOOZ experiment [3] decided to use the total crosssection per ission measured at Bugey-, correcting a posteriori or the dierent averaged uel composition according to: σ Chooz = σ Bugey + k ( Chooz k Bugey k σ pred,old,k, (9 where k Chooz and Bugey k are the contributions o the k th isotope to the total amount o issions at the CHOOZ and Bugey- experiments [37]. This explicitly means that the expected number o events was computed using σ Bugey rather than σ pred,old, thus absorbing a -.3% dierence on the overall normalization (see Table I. This also has the eect o reducing the error on the neutrino detection rate rom.7% to.% (including the uncertainty on the ission contributions k. Accounting or an uncertainty on o-equilibrium eects, CHOOZ quoted a inal neutrino spectrum error o.9%. As shown above, the new values rom Re. [0] lead to an increase o σ pred,new =.0 σ pred,old. With this sizeable discrepancy between measured and computed cross sections, the CHOOZ experiment cannot rely anymore on the eective cross section per ission measured at Bugey-, assuming no-oscillation at baselines o less than a ew tens o meters. We thus revise the ratio to R Chooz =0.9±0.07(stat±0.03(syst+S tot (see Table II, where the 3.3% systematic error now includes the.7% uncertainty on σ pred,new (See Appendix A. A crude analysis o the impact o Re. [0] on Palo Verde data [] leads to the modiication o the average ratio o detected versus expected ν e by roughly 3.%, leading to R PaloVerde = 0.97±0.03(stat±0.0(syst+S tot. We also note that Palo Verde s uncertainty would increase rom.3% in Re. [] to.% according to our prescription. IV. THE REACTOR ANTINEUTRINO ANOMALY A. Rate inormation Up to now we independently studied the results o the main reactor neutrino experiments using a new value o the cross section per ission, σ pred,new. The ratios o observed event rates to predicted event rates, R = N obs /N pred, are summarized in Table II. We observe a general systematic shit more or less signiicantly below unity. These reevaluations unveil a new reactor antineutrino anomaly, clearly illustrated in Figure, but still to be explained. In order to quantiy the statistical signiicance o the anomaly we can compute the weighted average o the ratios o expected over predicted rates, or all short baseline reactor neutrino experiments(including their possible correlations. We consider the ollowing experimental rate inormation: Bugey- and Rovno9, the three Bugey-3 experiments, the three Goesgen experiments and the ILL experiment, the three Krasnoyarsk experiments, the two

6 # result Det. type τ n (s 3 U 39 Pu 3 U Pu old new err(% corr(% L(m Bugey- 3 He+H O ROVNO9 3 He+H O Bugey-3-I Li-LS Bugey-3-II Li-LS Bugey-3-III Li-LS Goesgen-I 3 He+LS Goesgen-II 3 He+LS Goesgen-II 3 He+LS ILL 3 He+LS Krasn. I 3 He+PE Krasn. II 3 He+PE Krasn. III 3 He+PE SRP I Gd-LS SRP II Gd-LS ROVNO-I He+PE ROVNO-I He+PE ROVNO-S Gd-LS ROVNO-S Gd-LS ROVNO-3S Gd-LS TABLE II. N obs /N pred ratios based on old and new spectra. O-equilibrium corrections have been applied when justiied. The err column is the total error published by the collaborations including the error on S tot, the corr column is the part o the error correlated among multiple-baseline experiments, or experiments using the same detector. This table is used to construct the covariance matrix used in Eq. 0. Savannah River results (SRP, and the ive Rovno experiments. R is the corresponding vector o 9 ratios o observed to predicted event rates. We assume a.0% systematic uncertainty ully correlated among all 9 ratios. This choice is motivated by the common normalization uncertainty o the corresponding beta-spectra measured in [ ]. We considered the ratios and relative errors gathered in Table II. In order to account or the potential experimental correlations, we ully correlated the experimental errors o Bugey- and Rovno9, o the three Goesgen and the ILL experiments, the three Krasnoyarsk experiments, the ive Rovno experiments, and the two SRP results. We also ully correlated the Rovno (I and I results with Rovno9, and we added an arbitrary 0% correlation between the Rovno (I and I and the Bugey- measurement. We motivated these latest correlations by the use o similar or identical integral detectors. We stress here that in this publication we only used the error budget published by the collaborations, without any change. We then obtain the covariance matrix W o the ratios. In Figure we show the corresponding correlation matrix with labels detailed in Table II. All the above-mentioned experiments published ratios o measured to expected event rates. While the rates themselves can be considered to ollow Gaussian distributions, the ratio o two Gaussian variables does not. This may lead to overestimating the statistical signiicance o the deviation o the ratios rom unity, as was pointed out by James in response to a paper by Reines et al. []. In order to check our results, we perormed FIG.. Correlation matrix o 9 measurements o reactor neutrino experiments operating at short baselines. Experiment labels are given in Table II. simple Monte-Carlo simulations: each experiment s observed and expected rates were simulated within their quoted errors, including the correlations between exper

7 7 iments shown in the covariance matrix W. We then calculated the best-it average ratio r best or each simple Monte-Carlo experiment by minimizing the χ unction with respect to r: ( r T R ( W r R, (0 and obtained the distribution o r best (we note µ its mean in the ollowing paragraph. We ound that it is almost Gaussian, but with slightly longer tails, which we decided to take into account in our calculations (in contours that appear later in this article we enlarged the error bars. I we only consider experiments with baselines < 00 m to get rid o a possible (θ 3, m 3 driven oscillation eect at Palo Verde or CHOOZ, with the old antineutrino spectra the mean ratio is µ=0.97±0.0, and the raction o simple Monte- Carlo experiments with r is 7.% ( 0.9 σ rom expectation. With the new antineutrino spectra, we obtain µ=0.93±0.03, and the raction o simple Monte- Carlo experiments with r is.3%, corresponding to a. σ eect (while a simple calculation assuming normality would lead to.σ. Clearly the new spectra induce a statistically signiicant deviation rom the expectation. In the ollowing we deine an experimental cross section σ ano = 0.93 σ pred,new 0 3 cm /ission. With the new antineutrino spectra, we observe that or the data sample the minimum χ is χ min,data = 9.. The raction o simple Monte-Carlo experiments with χ min < χ min,data is %, showing that the distribution o experimental ratios in R around the mean value is representative given the correlations. We will now discuss the possible explanations o this deviation rom unity: an erroneous prediction o the antineutrino lux rom the reactors, or a correlated artiact in the experiments, or a real physical eect i both previous cases are excluded. Due to the importance o the antineutrino rate increase we suggest that independent nuclear physics groups should perorm similar computations. We also consider that new measurements o the electron spectra o irradiated issile isotopes would help clariying the anomaly. All cross sections o reactions used or the absolute and relative normalizations o the ILL electron spectra have been checked and ound in agreement with the published values within error bars. A more complete discussion on the evaluation o the normalization o reactor antineutrino spectra based on the ab initio method will be published later in []. Assuming the correctness o σ pred,new the anomaly could be explained by a common bias in all reactor neutrino experiments. The measurements used one o two techniques, scintillator counters and integral detectors. The Bugey-3 experiment [] used 3 identical detection modules, each o 00 liters, illed with Li-loaded liquid scintillator. Bugey-3 recorded 0,000 neutrino interactions. The Bugey- experiment [3] used the Rovno9 [7] integral type detector, but increasing the antineutrino rate by a actor o three. A similar detector was used or two integral measurements Rovno I and I [7]. In such detectors, based on 3 He-illed counters, the total number o antineutrino interactions is measured by detecting only the neutrons rom reaction Eq. 3. The Goesgen experiment [] used a detector nearly identical to the one used or the ILL neutrino experiment [], but with the additional eature o position sensitivity. More than 0,000 neutrino events were recorded at the three detector locations. The detector contained liquid scintillator surrounded by 3 He-illed wire chambers or neutron detection. Both the positron and the neutron rom reaction Eq. 3 were detected. Krasnoyarsk [, 9] used an integral detector with a scintillation section. The Savannah River experiments considered in this article used a scintillator counter []. Neutrons were tagged either by their capture in metalloaded scintillator, or in proportional counters, thus leading to two distinct systematics. As ar as the neutron detection eiciency calibration is concerned, we note that dierent types o radioactive sources emitting MeV or sub-mev neutrons were used (Am-Be, C, Sb-Pu, Pu- Be. It should be mentioned that the Krasnoyarsk, ILL, and SRP experiments operated with nuclear uel such that the dierence between the real antineutrino spectrum and that o pure 3 U was less than.%. They reported similar deicits to those observed at other reactors operating with a mixed uel o 3 U, 39 Pu, Pu and 3 U. Hence the anomaly cannot be associated with a single issile isotope. All the elements discussed above argue against a trivial bias in the experiments, but a detailed analysis o the most sensitive o them, involving experts, would certainly improve the quantiication o the anomaly. As discussed in Section II, in a near uture the reactor rate anomaly signiicance might evolve due to the reevaluationothe crosssectionpreactorκto cm. The averaged ratio would shit to 0.93±0.03, leading to a deviation rom unity at 99.% C.L. The third kind o possible explanation o the anomaly based on a real physical eect will be detailed in Section V. B. Shape inormation In this Section we re-analyze the Bugey-3 and ILL shape inormation, based on the published data [, ]. We will use this inormation or our combined analysis described in the next section.. Bugey-3 Basedonthe analysisothe shape otheir energyspectra at dierent source-detector distances [, ], the Goesgen and Bugey-3 measurements exclude oscillations such

8 that 0.0 < m < ev or sin (θ > 0.0. ForurtheranalysisweusedBugey-3 s0m/mratio data rom [] as it provides the best limit. We ollowed the steps outlined in [], building the ollowing χ unction: χ = N= i= ( (+ar i th R i obs σ i ( a +, ( σ a where Robs i are our simulated data or Bugey rom our tuned simulation and Rth i are our Monte-Carlo expectation in each bin. The σ i are the errors reported by the Bugey-3 collaboration, and a is a systematic parameter accounting or the σ a = % uncertainty on the relative normalization at 0 m and m. Figure o [] shows the 90% C.L. exclusion contour rom a raster scan analysis with this estimator. As can be seen in Figure, we adequately reproduce Bugey-3 s results. (ev m new Raster scan % sin (θ new We reanalyzed the data o Re. [3] in order to include the ILL shape-only inormation in our analysis o the reactor antineutrino anomaly. We built the ollowing shape-only estimator N= χ ILL,shape = i= ( (+ar i th Robs i ( where Robs i are the measured ratios in each energy bin, and Rth i are our Monte-Carlo expectation in each bin. a isaree parameterin the it, which rendersthis estimator completely insensitive to any normalization inormation. It is thereore only sensitive to the shape o the distribution. σ i is the total error in each bin: we added in quadraturethestatisticalerrorandasystematicerroro%. It was diicult to extract the magnitude o this shape-only systematic error rom published inormation. We combined our χ ILL,shape estimator with the rate-only estimator,andveriiedthatwiththisvalueothesystematic, we could reproduce the ILL contours o both papers: when using R ILL,0 we reproduced the contour in Figure o Re. [], and when using R ILL,9 we reproduced that o Re. [3] which excludes the no-oscillation hypothesis at σ. A systematic error o % is consistent with Figure 3 o Re. []. It is also a conservative treatment o the shape-only inormation: with such an error the data are compatible with the no-oscillation hypothesis at σ. Figure 3 shows the data points rom [3], along with our best it rom the shape-only estimator ( m.3 ev, sin (θ 0., and the no-oscillation line or comparison. σ i FIG.. 90% C.L. exclusion domains obtained in the m - sin (θ plane rom a raster scan o Bugey-3 s data. Our result (continuous line is in good agreement with the original result rom [] (dashed line, excluding oscillations such that 0.0 < m < ev or sin (θ > 0.0. We already note here that in Section V, when combining Bugey-3 s shape inormation with other results, we use the estimator rom equation, but we perorm a standard global scan (i.e. the minimization is perormed over the entire m,sin (θ plane. We only perorm a raster scan here to show our agreement with the collaboration s original analysis. Measured/Expected count rate Best it No Osc Energy (MeV. ILL As alreadynoted in Re. [3] the data rom ILL showed a spectral deormation compatible with an oscillation pattern in their measured over predicted events ratio. It should be mentioned that the parameters best itting the data reported by the authors o Re. [3] were m =. ev and sin (θ = 0.3. FIG. 3. Ratio o measured to expected positron energy spectra o the ILL neutrino experiment (data points extracted rom [3]. We show the best it line with oscillations, along with the no-oscillation line, rom our shape-only it. The short error bars are statistical and the longer ones include the % systematic error described in the text.

9 9 V. THE FOURTH NEUTRINO HYPOTHESIS In this section we discuss the compatibility o the reactor antineutrino anomaly with the existence o a ourth non-standard neutrino, corresponding in the lavor basis to the existence o a sterile neutrino ν s (see [] and reerences therein. The motivation is the explanation o the antineutrino deicit by an oscillation o electron neutrinos into a new neutrino state with a large m new value. For simplicity we restrict our analysis to the 3+ ourneutrino scheme in which there is a group o three active neutrino masses separated rom an isolated neutrino mass, such that m new 0 ev. The latter would be responsible or very short baseline reactor neutrino oscillations. For energies above the inverse beta decay threshold and baselines below km, we adopt the approximated oscillation ormula rom Re. []: ( m P ee = cos θ new sin (θ 3 sin 3 L E νe ( m sin (θ new sin new L. (3 E νe In our analyses the well known solar driven oscillation eects are negligible. The contribution o the atmospheric driven oscillation is negligible at distances < 00 m. It is worth noting that we are not sensitive to any sterile neutrino mass hierarchy in the mass range considered. The ILL experiment may have seen a hint o oscillation in their measured positron energy spectrum (see Section IIIB, but Bugey-3 s results do not point to any signiicant spectral distortion more than m away rom the antineutrino source. Hence, in a irst approximation, hypothetical oscillations could be seen as an energy-independent suppression o the ν e rate by a actor o sin (θ new,r, thus leading to m new,r ev and accounting or Bugey-3 and Goesgen shape analyses [, ]. Considering the weighted averaged o all reactor experiments we get an estimate o the mixing angle, sin (θ new,r 0.. Let us now it the sterile neutrino hypothesis to the data (baselines below km by minimizing the leastsquares unction ( P ee T R ( W P ee R, ( assuming sin (θ 3 = 0. Figure provides the results o the it in the sin (θ new m new plane, including the reactor experiment rate inormation as well as the 0 m/ m Bugey-3 spectral shape constraint presented in Figure. The latter leads to stringent oscillation constraints or m new,r ev, since no spectral distortion was observed in the ratio 0 m/ m. The it to the data indicates that m new,r > 0. ev (9% and sin (θ new,r 0.. Note that i we include a non-zero value o sin (θ 3, as large as the 90% C.L. CHOOZ (ev m new χ do χ contours do χ proile sin (θ new % 9.00 % % do χ proile 0 χ FIG.. Allowed regions in the sin (θ new m new plane obtained rom the it o the reactor neutrino data, without ILL-shape inormation, but with the stringent oscillation constraint o Bugey-3 based on the 0 m/ m ratios to the 3+ neutrino hypothesis, with sin (θ 3 = 0. The best-it point is indicated by a star. bound [3], the contours presented in Figure are only marginally aected. Ignoring the reactor anomaly leads to an ambiguous interpretation o the - km baseline experiment results constraining θ 3. As an example we compare the ollowing two hypotheses: the 3 neutrino mixing scenario with sin (θ 3 = 0.0 or instance and the 3+ neutrino mixing scenario, taking sin (θ 3 = 0, sin (θ new,r = 0. and m new,r > ev (best values o the combined it shown on Figure. Figure displays the data together with the two hypotheses. The red line represents the three active neutrino hypothesis, considering reactor neutrino rates until the CHOOZ baseline. The p-value o the 3 neutrino mixing hypothesis described above is 7% (.9/ degrees o reedom. The blue line illustrates the 3+ neutrino mixing scenario with a large m new,r =. ev, leading to a p-value o % (9./ degrees o reedom. We note a tension between the data and the three active neutrino lavor hypothesis, again illustrating the anomaly. Clear preerence is given to the 3+ neutrino hypothesis since χ 7. A similar computation with the ormer reerence spectra would leadtoap-valueo3%inbothcases. Thisillustratesthe impact o our reanalysis with the new antineutrino spectra, updated neutron mean lietime, and o-equilibrium eects. At this stage it is tempting to consider the previously noted anomalies aecting other short baseline electron neutrino experiments Gallex, Sage and MiniBooNE, reviewed in Re. []. Our goal is to quantiy the compatibility with those anomalies. We irst reanalyzed the Gallex and Sage calibration runs with Cr and 37 Ar radioactive sources emit-

10 0. N OBS /(N EXP pred,new ILL Bugey 3 Bugey ROVNO9 SRP I SRP II ROVNO S Krasnoyarsk I Goesgen I Bugey 3 Goesgen II Krasnoyarsk III Goesgen III Krasnoyarsk II Bugey 3 PaloVerde CHOOZ ROVNO S ROVNO 3S ROVNO I ROVNO I Distance to Reactor (m FIG.. Illustration o the short baseline reactor antineutrino anomaly. The experimental results are compared to the prediction without oscillation, taking into account the new antineutrino spectra, the corrections o the neutron mean lietime, and the o-equilibrium eects. Published experimental errors and antineutrino spectra errors are added in quadrature. The mean averaged ratio including possible correlations is 0.93 ± The red line shows a possible 3 active neutrino mixing solution, with sin (θ 3 = 0.0. The blue line displays a solution including a new neutrino mass state, such as m new,r ev and sin (θ new,r = 0. (or illustration purpose only. ting MeV electron neutrinos. [7], ollowing the methodology developed in Re. [, ]. However we decided to include possible correlations between these our measurements in this present work. Details are given in Appendix B. This has the eect o being slightly more conservative, with the no-oscillation hypothesis disavored at 97.7% C.L., instead o 9% C.L. in Re. []. Gallex and Sage observed an average deicit o R G = 0.±0.0(σ. Considering the hypothesis o ν e disappearance caused by short baseline oscillations we used Eq. (3, neglecting the m 3 driven oscillations because o the very short baselines o order meter. Fitting the data leads to m new,g > 0.3 ev (9% and sin (θ new,g 0.. Combining the reactor antineutrino anomaly with the gallium anomaly gives a good it to the data and disavors the no-oscillation hypothesis at 99.7% C.L. Allowed regions in the sin (θ new m new plane are displayed in Figure (let. The associated best-it parameters are m new,r&g >. ev (9% and sin (θ new,r&g 0.. We then reanalyzed the MiniBooNE electron neutrino excess assuming the very short baseline neutrino oscillation explanation o Re. []. Details o our reproduction o the latter analysis are provided in Appendix B. The best it values are m new,mb =.9 ev and sin (θ new,mb 0., but are not signiicant at 9% C.L. The no-oscillation hypothesis is only disavored at the level o 7.% C.L., less signiicant than the reactor and gallium anomalies. Combining the reactor antineutrino anomaly with our MiniBooNE re- Experiment(s sin (θ new m new (ev C.L. (% Reactors (no ILL-S,R > Gallium (G > 0.0 > MiniBooNE (M 7. ILL-S. R + G > R + M >. 97. R + ILL-S > All >. 99. TABLE III. Best it parameter intervals or limits at 9% C.L. or sin (θ new and m new parameters, and signiicance o the sterile neutrino oscillation hypothesis in %, or dierent combinations o the reactor experimental rates only (R, the ILL-energy spectrum inormation (ILL-S, the gallium experiments (G, and MiniBooNE-ν (M re-analysis o Re. []. We quantiy the dierence between the sin (θ new constraints obtained rom the reactor and gallium results. Following prescription o Re. [77], the parameter goodness-o-it is 7.0%, indicating reasonable agreement between the neutrino and antineutrino data sets (see Appendix B. analysis leads to a good it with the sterile neutrino hypothesis and disavors the absence o oscillations at 9.% C.L., dominated by the reactor experiments data. Allowed regions in the sin (θ new m new plane are displayed in Figure (right. The associated bestit parameters are m new,r&mb > 0. ev (9% and sin (θ new,r&mb 0..

11 χ 0 0 do χ contours do χ proile % 9.00 % % χ 0 0 do χ contours do χ proile % 9.00 % % m new (ev do χ proile m new (ev do χ proile sin (θ new 0 χ sin (θ new 0 χ FIG.. Allowed regions in the sin (θ new m new plane obtained rom the it o the reactor neutrino data to the 3+ neutrino hypothesis, with sin (θ 3 = 0. The let panel is the combination o the reactors and the gallium experiment calibration results with Cr and 37 Ar radioactive sources. The right panel is the combination o the reactors and our reanalysis o the MiniBooNE data ollowing the method o Re. []. In both cases the ILL energy spectrum inormation is not included. Our ILL re-analysis, including only the energy spectrum shape, leads to the allowed regions in the sin (θ new m new plane presented in Figure 7. We notice a hint o neutrino oscillations such that m new,ill shape > ev and sin (θ new,ill shape 0., in agreement with our ourth neutrino hypothesis, but still compatible with the absence o oscillations at the σ level. Figure 3 is our reproduction o the illustration 3 o Re. []; we superimposed the oscillation pattern that would be induced by neutrino oscillations at our best it (combined analysis. The ILL positron spectrum is thus in agreement with the oscillation parameters ound independently in our re-analyses, mainly based on rate inormation. Because o the dierences in the systematic eects in the rate and shape analyses, this coincidence is in avor o a true physical eect rather than an experimental anomaly. As a cross check we perormed a Monte-Carlo simulation o the ILL and Bugey-3 experiments, including the inite spatial extension o the nuclear reactors and the ILL and Bugey-3 detectors. We ound that the small dimensions o the ILL nuclear core lead to small corrections o the oscillation pattern imprinted on the positron spectrum. However the large extension o the Bugey nuclear core is suicient to wash out most o the oscillation pattern at m. This explains the absence o shape distortion in the Bugey-3 experiment. Table III summarizes all the results o our its o reactor, gallium, and MiniBooNE-ν data to the sterile neutrino oscillation hypothesis. We observe that all the data sets taken separately are very consistent with one another, pointing to very similar oscillation parameters. We thus perormed a global it to all available data. The no-oscillation hypothesis is disavored at 99.% C.L. The signiicance is dominated by the (ev m new do χ contours % 9.00 % % sin (θ new FIG. 7. Allowed regions in the sin (θ new m new plane obtained rom a it o the ILL energy spectrum shape only. The best it value reported by the authors o Re. [3] is very close toour bestit, at m new ev, butitis worth noting its poor statistical signiicance, compatible with the absence o oscillations at the σ level. The best-it point is indicated by a star. gallium and reactor data. Allowed regions in the sin (θ new m new plane are displayed in Figure, together with the marginal χ proiles or m new and sin (θ new. The combined it leads to the ollowing constraints on oscillation parameters: m new >. ev (9% C.L. and sin (θ new = 0. ± 0.0 (9% C.L.. An embryo o possible consequences o this result will be discussed in Section VIII.

12 χ 0 0 do χ contours do χ proile % 9.00 % % (ev m new do χ proile sin (θ new 0 χ FIG.. Allowed regions in the sin (θ new m new plane rom the combination o reactor neutrino experiments, Gallex and Sage calibration sources experiments, MiniBooNE reanalysis o Re. [], and the ILL-energy spectrum distortion. The data are well itted by the 3+ neutrino hypothesis, while the no-oscillation hypothesis is disavored at 99.% C.L. The marginal χ proiles or m new and sin (θ new ( do lead to the constraints, m new >. ev (9% C.L. and sin (θ new = 0.±0.0 (9% C.L.. VI. REVISION OF THE CONSTRAINTS ON θ 3 In this section we discuss the impact o our revision o the results o short baseline (< 00 m reactor experiments on the constraints on the θ 3 mixing angle rom CHOOZ [3], KamLAND [7], and their combination. The results depend on the choice o the cross section per ission used to normalize the predicted antineutrino rate, as well as on the neutrino oscillation scheme used in the analysis, i.e. whether to include a non-standard neutrino or not. Assuming the correctness o the neutrino experiments (detected rate, we show that constraints on θ 3 could be derived by using σ pred,ano and the three-active neutrino scenario. A. CHOOZ We irst reproduced CHOOZ s background-subtracted results and Monte-Carlo using Re. [3]. We used the converted neutrino spectra rom ILL electron data [, 0, ], using the parameterization rom Re. [7], and the V-A cross section rom [9, 39], normalized to the Bugey- value as was done in Re. [3]. Long-lived ission product contributions were also taken into account (at 300daysoirradiation. As in Re. [3], weaccounted or a σ α =.7% systematic error on the overall normalization and a.% error on the energy scale, along with a bin-to-bin uncorrelated uncertainty describing the uncertainty o the neutrino spectrum. Using the original ILL neutrino converted spectra, with the σ Bugey crosssection we could roughly reproduce the exclusion limit rom Re. [3] (black dashed line on Figure 9 to acceptable precision (gray line on Figure 9 in the relevant m 3 range, although we could not ully imitate every step in the published analysis. In particular we did not use the same statistical treatment, using only a global scan while the CHOOZ collaboration used the Feldman- Cousins uniied approach to extract the conidence interval. Let us now revisit the CHOOZ results using the new antineutrino spectra in the three active neutrino ramework. We perorm the same analysis as beore, but computing the expected number o events based on σ pred,new and its error. σ α was thus increased to 3.3% to account or this eect. This leads to a new exclusion limit, sin (θ 3 < 0. ( do at 90% C.L. or m 3 =.0 3 ev. The corresponding exclusion contour is displayed as the blue line on Figure 9. In this approach we make use o σ pred,new and attribute the slight deicit o ν e at CHOOZ to a θ 3 driven oscillation, such that sin (θ 3 = However this result only

13 3 holds within the three active neutrino mixing ramework, under the hypothesis o no-oscillation at very short baselines. But in Section IV we pointed out an anomaly aecting the short baseline reactor neutrino experiment results. In the scenario discussed above with a new neutrino ( m new, θ new we generate oscillations driven by a large m new m 3. In this case CHOOZ measured a combination o the oscillation driven by ( m new,θ new and( m 3,θ 3. Acomprehensive3+neutrinoanalysis would thus be mandatory to constrain θ 3 using the new normalization based on σ pred,new, but we will see next that another approach may be used. (ev m do χ contours CHOOZ simulation New spectra (σ pred New spectra (σ ano CHOOZ ( sin (θ 3 FIG. 9. Our simulation (gray line roughly reproduces the published CHOOZ exclusion limit [3] represented by the black dashed line. We obtain the blue contour by normalizing the expected no-oscillation antineutrino rate to σ pred,new and analyzing the data using the three active neutrino oscillations scheme. We then normalize the expected antineutrino event rate to σ ano to account or possible neutrino oscillations at very short baselines, leading to the green contour. This provides our new constraint on sin (θ 3, accounting or the reactor antineutrino anomaly. As a matter o act the CHOOZ experiment used σ Bugey instead o σ pred,new. The collaboration justiied makinguse oσ Bugey because o the good agreement with σ pred,old. Withourrevisionoσ pred this justiication does not hold anymore in the 3 neutrino oscillation ramework. But it turns out that i we assume non-standard neutrino oscillations in the large m new 0. ev regime (no spectral distortion, the normalization o CHOOZ using σ Bugey σ ano leads to an estimator o sin (θ 3 which eliminates a possible degeneracy with sin (θ new. CHOOZ s strategy was indeed to absorb possible errors in rate predictions, but this methodology holds as well or constraining θ 3 on top o an additional, short baseline, averaged oscillation. Thus a pragmatic approach or constraining θ 3 rom CHOOZ data is the use o the weighted average o the measuredcrosssectionsoallexperiments< 00m, σ ano. This leads to a new exclusion limit, sin (θ 3 < 0.0 ( do at 90% C.L. or m 3 =.0 3 ev, slightly lower than CHOOZ s published value [3]. B. KamLAND In this section we reevaluate the KamLAND constraint on θ 3 in light o the reactor antineutrino anomaly. Unlike in the original CHOOZ analysis rom [3], the KamLAND ν e energy spectrum is calculated using based on Re. [, 0]. But the spectral uncertainty is evaluated rom Re. [3], including o-equilibrium eects. In this case the propagation o the Bugey- error on σ pred only has a marginalimpact since it is not among the dominant systematics. We irst reproduced KamLAND s results and Monte- Carlo to a very good accuracy exploiting Re. [7] as well as publicly available inormation []. We used the parameterization o Re. [7] or S tot, and included o-equilibrium corrections according to Re. [0]. Special care was taken to include all published backgrounds, known antineutrino sources, especially Korean power reactors, and geoneutrinos. We tuned our simulation to reproduce KamLAND s Monte-Carlo with and without neutrino oscillations (adjusting each eective power o the Japanese power plants. In both cases our simulation agrees with that o KamLAND to better than % in the.-. MeV range. Conidence levels in the (tan θ,sin θ 3 plane were obtained by minimizing the generic χ unction: σ pred,old χ = i ( Yi N i (α,β +β T W β ( Y i where the Y i are our simulated data tuned to Kam- LAND s Monte-Carlo [7]. The ree parameters are α (θ, θ 3, m andgeo-ν rate, andthe nuisanceparameters, β, which are the systematics quoted in Re. [7]. The N i (α,β are our simulation model or all the ree parameters. The W matrix contains all the systematic uncertainties quoted in Re. [7]. Figure 0 demonstrates that we could reproduce the best it and the conidence contours o KamLAND [7] with good accuracy. With the original reactor neutrino spectra S tot, we obtain a good agreement with KamLAND s published results [7]. Changing the reerence spectra S tot according to Re. [0], the best it values and uncertainties on tan θ and m are unaected in a three active neutrino, oscillations ramework, but the sin (θ 3 central value is shited upwards to sin (θ 3 = , consistent with zero at.σ. The new 90% C.L. limit on sin (θ 3 would thereore increase to 0. ( do, marginalizing over the other it parameters. However, as in the case o CHOOZ discussed above, these results do not take into account the reactor antineutrino anomaly at short baselines. In the 3+ neu-

14 sin θ do χ contours Old spectra New spectra (σ pred New spectra (σ ano KamLAND (00 Solar σ pred,new Re-analysis Best it +σ σ σ ano 90% C.L. Best it+σ σ 90% C.L. KamLAND < < 0.3 CHOOZ < < 0.0 Combined < < 0. TABLE IV. Best-it values or sin (θ 3 and σ errors, considering two possible normalizations with σ pred,new or σ ano. Limits are given or a do parameter estimation tan θ FIG. 0. Our simulation (gray line, gray disk reproduces the published 9% C.L. KamLAND inclusion contour [7] represented by the black dashed line (black circle. We obtain the blue contour (star by normalizing the expected no-oscillation antineutrinoratetoσ pred,new and analyzing the data using the three active neutrino oscillations scheme. We then normalize the expected antineutrino event rate using σ ano to account or possible neutrino oscillations at very short baselines, leading to the green contour (diamond. This provides our new constraints in the tan θ -sin θ 3 plane, accounting or the reactor antineutrino anomaly. We note that the slight tension between the sin θ 3 best-it values o solar (red square and reactor data is reduced in our scenario. trino oscillation ramework, the whole eect induced by the normalization shit is absorbed by the new oscillation at very short baselines, driven by m new. Normalizing KamLAND s data to σ ano leads to an estimator revising the constraint on θ 3 using the three-active neutrino oscillation ramework, such that sin (θ 3 < 0.3 ( do at 90% C.L. or m 3 =.0 3 ev. C. Combining CHOOZ and KamLAND In sections VIA and VIB we separately revisited the CHOOZ and KamLAND results. Here, we irst voluntarily ignore the reactor antineutrino anomaly at short baselines. We thus normalize both CHOOZ and Kam- LAND with σ pred,new. Combining these two results leads toabest-it valueosin (θ 3 = , barelyconsistent with a null value o θ 3. The let panel o Figure shows the χ proiles or CHOOZ (green, KamLAND (blue, and or their combination (red, as a unction o sin (θ 3, marginalizing over the other parameters. In this scenario the revised limit is sin (θ 3 < 0.3 at 90% C.L. ( do, or the estimation o θ 3 only, or m 3 =.0 3 ev. These results are consistent with analyses o various data sets indicating a hint or a nonzero θ 3 [, 9]. This is explained by the increase o the predicted event rate at CHOOZ and KamLAND, which is attributed to θ 3 only, in the three neutrino oscillations ramework. But the previous estimation does not take into account the reactor antineutrino anomaly. Let us now consider that both CHOOZ and KamLAND are normalized with σ ano, in order to constrain θ 3 using a three active neutrino oscillation ramework. The right panel o Figure shows the χ proiles or CHOOZ (green, KamLAND (blue, and or their combination (red, computed as beore. In this scenario the best it is at sin (θ 3 = This lower best it value is due to the act that we predict ewer antineutrinos at CHOOZ and KamLAND, some o them having already oscillated into non-standard neutrinos. This leads to our revised constraint, sin (θ 3 < 0. at 90% C.L. ( do or m 3 =.0 3 ev. Results are summarized in Table IV. We conclude that the hint or a non zero value o θ 3, irst presented in Re. [], vanishes i one normalizes CHOOZ s and KamLAND s predicted antineutrino rates to σ ano. Furthermore we notice that the slight tension aecting the sin θ 3 best-it values o solar and reactor data [9] is reduced in our scenario involving a nonstandard neutrino such that m new m 3. A ull analysis o the data based on non-standard neutrino oscillation models would lead to more accurate results, beyond the scope o this article. D. Daya Bay, Double Chooz, and RENO Three new reactor neutrino oscillation experiments, Daya Bay [], Double Chooz [], and RENO [] will soon be coming online to signiicantly improve our knowledge o reactor antineutrino rates at various baselines. Among these experiments Double Chooz is the only one to operate a irst phase without a near detector. The evidence or a reactor antineutrino anomaly triggers the discussion o the choice o the cross section per ission to be used or constraining θ 3, σ pred,new or σ ano, as well as its associated uncertainty. Straightorwardly using σ pred,new in the three neutrino oscillation ramework to interpret a hypothetical antineu-

15 7 99 % C.L % C.L. KamLAND CHOOZ Global χ 9 % C.L. χ 9 % C.L % C.L % C.L. KamLAND CHOOZ Global sin (θ sin (θ 3 FIG.. Dependence o χ on sin (θ 3 or CHOOZ (green, KamLAND (blue, and their combination (red. Comparing the data with the excess in expected event rate predicted using σ pred,new leads to an increase o the best-it value o sin (θ 3, in the three active neutrino oscillations ramework (let. The normalization o the expected event rate with σ ano allows to absorb the reactor antineutrino anomaly observed at very short baseline, leading to our revised constraints on sin (θ 3. trino deicit at Double Chooz could lead to an overestimation o θ 3, which could ake a discovery. But i the sterile neutrino oscillation hypothesis discussed in this paper is proven, the use o σ pred,new would be possible in active+sterile neutrino oscillation rameworks. In that case the.7% error budget o the antineutrino spectra should be used. Assuming that the average experimental results o reactor neutrino are correct, using σ ano has the advantage to absorb either a antineutrino lux miscalculation, or a physical neutrino deicit at very short baselines, leading to a conservative constraint on θ 3. The error budget could then be taken as the weighted standard deviation o the short baseline experiments,.0%. This choice is however not relevant or experiments running with a multi-detector coniguration, since they absorb part o the uncertainty o the reactor antineutrino luxes, depending on the setup. Even in the hypothetical case o antineutrino oscillation at very short baselines the sensitivities o Daya Bay, Double Chooz, and RENO should be marginally aected because o the large allowed values o m new. However this statement should be checked based on detailed simulations. In the non-standard neutrino hypothesis the discovery o a shape distortion in the positron energy spectrum o the ardetectorsmaybedeterminant in disentanglingθ 3 rom θ new. VII. TESTING THE ANOMALY The presence o sterile neutrinos would leave its imprint on the signal at both the near and ar detectors o orthcoming reactor neutrino experiments. Taking results rom multi-detectors and allowing or the possibility o sterile mixing angles, one can probe both θ 3 and the sterile mixing angle θ new at Daya Bay, Double Chooz, and RENO [0]. Positron spectrum energy distortions should be deeply investigated at near detectors, as quoted in []. In any case, measurements o the expected over predicted event rates at the near detectors will allow the probing o the reactor antineutrino anomaly, providing high statistics and high precision measurements at a ew hundreds meters rom the antineutrino sources. The antineutrino anomaly would be best tested by perorming blind analyses or all near detector data. Further measurements at very short baselines below 00 meters would be useul to conirm the MeV electron antineutrino deicit. Currently no undamental research program is underway to search or new oscillation physics at reactors. However there is a worldwide program at short baselines or the purpose o nuclear non-prolieration, using antineutrinos as new IAEA saeguards tools [3]. In this context the Nucier experiment, located 7 meters away rom the Osiris research reactor core in Saclay, will start its operation in 0 []. Nucier will thus have the possibility to test the anomaly. A rate-only analysis with a precision o a ew percent may not be enough to provide a decisive improvement o the understanding o the anomaly. But a shape analysis may provide enough inormation, depending o the energy resolution. A. At reactors We note here that the antineutrino non-prolieration program will not be aected by the antineutrino anomaly since relative antineutrino rates with respect to known thermal powers could be used to calibrate the experiments.

16 B. MegaCurie radioactive sources As mentioned above, radiochemical gallium experiments (Gallex and Sage tested their experimental procedure by exposing their gallium target to MegaCurie neutrino sources using Cr or 37 Ar [7]. The production and handling o such devices is thus well under control. Re. [] proposed to use a Cr source inside two concentric gallium tanks, whereas Re. [] proposed to use a Cr or 90 Sr source next to the Borexino detector. In liquid scintillating detectors Cr or 37 Ar ν e s are detected through neutrino-electron elastic scattering while 90 Sr ν e s are detected through inverse beta decay. With the m new valuesbestittingthesterileneutrinohypothesis, the deployment o a radioactive source at the center o an ultra-low background neutrino detector, such as Borexino, KamLAND, and SNO+, would allow both the testing o the ν e deicit and the search or an oscillation pattern as unction o the detector radius. These neutrino sources emit quasi-mono-energetic neutrino lines o sub-mev energies leading to a clear oscillation pattern at the range o a meter. In addition a 37 Ar source emits only γ-rays through second order processes and is thereore easy to handle ater its irradiation inside a breeder nuclear reactor. As an example, i a source omci were inserted in the middle o a large detector like SNO+, it would provide a ew hundred thousand interactions in the detector, o which a ew ten thousands would deposit more than 00 kev. A < cm accurate vertex reconstruction could allow to draw a simple and clear igure o the number o neutrino interactions as a unction o radius, directly testing the sterile neutrino oscillation pattern or m new < ev. VIII. CONCLUSIONS AND OUTLOOK The impact o the new spectra o reactor antineutrino is extensively studied in this article. The increase o the expected antineutrino rate by about 3.% combined with revised values o the antineutrino cross section signiicantly decreased the normalized ratio o observed to expected event rates in all previous reactor experiments perormed over the last 30 years at distances below 00 m [ 9, 3, ]. The average ratio is 0.93±0.03, leading to the reactor antineutrino anomaly. This deicit couldstillbeduetosomeunknowninthereactorphysics, but we also analyze these revised results in terms o a suppression o the ν e rate at short distance as could be expected rom a sterile neutrino, beyond the standard model, with a large m new m 3. We note that hints o such results were already present at the ILL neutrino experiment in 9 [3]. We also considered that other neutrino experiments, MiniBooNE [9] and the gallium neutrino sources experiments [7], observe ν e deicits at a similar L/E. These anomalies were comprehensively studied in Re. []. It is important to note that these anomalies exist and are comparable in both the neutrino and the antineutrino sectors. Furthermore it turns out that each experiment itted separately leads to similar values o sin (θ new and similar lower bounds or m new, but without a strong signiicance. Hence, we combined in a global it these results with our re-evaluation o the reactor experimental results, taking into account the existing correlations. This leads to a solution or a new neutrino oscillation, such that m new >. ev (9% C.L. and sin (θ new = 0.±0.0 (9% C.L., disavoring the nooscillation case at 99.% C.L. This hypothesis should be checked against systematical eects, either in the prediction o the reactor antineutrino spectra or in the experimental results. We then revised the constraints on the θ 3 mixing angle obtained with the three active neutrino oscillation ramework by CHOOZ [3] and KamLAND [7]. We show that a ν e deicit measured at any antineutrino experiment with a baseline greater than km could be misinterpreted as a hint or a non-zero value o θ 3. Accounting or a possible m new -driven sterile neutrino oscillation, we revise the constraint on the third mixing angle, such that sin (θ 3 < 0.. Note that the Kam- LAND best it o the solar neutrino parameters are unchanged. However, the combination o KamLAND and CHOOZ leads to a best it value o sin (θ 3 = , in good agreement with the best it value extracted rom the combined analysis o solar neutrino data. This relaxes the tension between reactor and solar data recently reviewed in Re. [9]. I the existence o a ourth neutrino turns out to be veriied we note that a 7% reduction o the total lux o solar neutrinos must be taken into account when conronting with the experimental results. In particular the total neutrino ν lux measured by SNO [], at.±0. 0 cm.s, is now in better agreement with the prediction o the (reduced high-z Sun Standard Model model, at.±0.9 0 cm.s, and disavors the (reduced low-z one (.09±0.9 0 cm.s. We note that the high-z model is also in good agreement with the data rom helioseismology, contrarily to the low-z model [9]. Assuming a hypothetical new neutrino ν new heavier than the three active neutrinos we can briely quantiy its contribution to the eective masses searched or in β-decay and neutrino-less ββ-decay experiments, as perormed in Re. []. The Tritium β-decay experiments have reported m β ev (9% [7]. A ourth neutrino with a mass in the ev range should contribute more than the active neutrinos, which are expected to have subev masses, to the signal searched or in direct detection beta decay experiments. We ind that the contribution o the ourth neutrino state itting the data analyzed in this article would contribute to m β or more than 0. ev (9% C.L.. This is within the sensitivity range o the orthcoming KATRIN experiment [70]. Assuming Majorana neutrinos, the contribution o the ourth state would be such that m ββ 0.0 ev (9% C.L., which is above

17 7 the contribution o the three active neutrinos and thus disavors possible cancellations with the three other active lavors [, 7]. This contribution is o interest or the orthcoming experiments [7]. Furthermore we would like to stress that the existence o a ourth neutrino is slightly avored by some recent cosmological data. The eective number o neutrino species itted by WMAP and BAO observations[73] is N e =.3±0.7. An analysis o WMAP combined with the Atacama Cosmology Telescope data [7] leads to N e =.3±.3, and an independent analysis o the WMAP 7 years data [7] provides N e =±. Finally a recent analysis based on non-standard big bang nucleosynthesis [7] leads to N e =3.7±0.7. But the compatibility o the sterile neutrino hypothesis exposed in thispaper( m new >.ev, sin (θ new = 0.±0.0 at 9% C.L. with cosmological models and data should be assessed, especially its contribution to the nonbaryonic dark matter o the Universe, which may be non negligible. Finally, a clear experimental proo o the presence o this ourth non-standard neutrino becomes mandatory. This can be given by the imprint on the energy spectrum in a very short baseline reactor neutrino experiment or by a new neutrino source experiment in a detector with energy and spatial resolution. However as they point out the correlation matrices obtained rom the it are rather unstable, most coeicients being strongly correlated or anti-correlated to each other. We ound that this made error propagation very diicult. As an exercise, we perormed the ollowing simple Monte-Carlo simulation: using the original correlation matrix on the converted ILL spectra, we simulated a series o ILL converted spectra, and itted each o them using the exponential-polynomial model rom[7]. We then evaluated the itted polynomials in each energy bin, yielding itted Monte-Carlo neutrino spectra. We then computed the bin-to-bin correlation matrix o these Monte- Carlo spectra. An example o the result is shown in Figure 3, along with the original correlation matrix in Figure. Clearly the polynomial it induces long-range correlations and anti-correlations between spectrum bins, and washes out the original correlations. We concluded that while we could rely on the polynomial it or the mean values o the spectra (since the it residuals are acceptably small, we could not use the resulting correlation matrices or error propagation IX. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We would like to thank M. Fallot, J. Gaiot, L. Giot, J. Martino, A. Porta, V. Rulhmann-Kleider, J.-L. Sida, and F. Yermia or their careul reading o this manuscript. We are grateul to H. de Kerret, J. Rich, B. Mansoulié and S. Schoenert or discussions and suggestions. We thank J. Beacom and P. Vogel or ruitul exchange concerning the precise evaluation o the V-A inverse beta decay cross section Appendix A: Error propagation in reactor experiment analyses One o the main diiculties in these calculations is the propagation o the errors on the ILL data rom [ ] to the inal result, i.e. the cross-section per ission or each o the isotopes. From our previous work in [0] we propagated the error on the ILL data and the conversion procedure to the resulting neutrino spectra. However the binning and the energy range are then those o the ILL data (0 kev bins rom to MeV or 3 U. These data are then itted to an exponentialpolynomial model, see or example [7]. This allows to use arbitrarily ine binning, which is necessary or the correct convolution with the inverse beta cross-section and also the oscillation probability. In [7] the authors outline a method to propagate the errors and correlations on the polynomial coeicients to the physical observable. FIG.. Bin-to-bin correlation matrix( bins, - MeV o converted neutrino spectrum rom 3 U, including the ILL experimental errors and conversion eects rom [0]. We thereore choose to propagate the original correlation matrix on our inal binning by interpolating linearly between each bin o the original covariance matrix, and then computing the resulting correlation matrix. For bins which were not present in the original energy range, we take a constant error o 0%, ully correlated bin-to-bin in order to obtain a conservative upper bound on the error. This allows us to use any binning over any energy range. O course the resulting matrix still has rank over the - MeV range, but since we do not need its inverse this does not limit our ability to use it or error propagation. An example o the resulting matrix can be ound in Figure or 3 U. Finally, as a cross-check o this method, we computed the error on the cross-section per ission or each isotope,

18 This work ILL spectra Isotope 000 bins,.-0 MeV bins, - MeV σ pred, 3 U.±.%.±.3% σ pred, 39 Pu.3±.%.33±.% σ pred, Pu.97±.%.0±.% TABLE V. Comparison between cross-sections per ission obtained rom itted spectra (central column, and rom a direct convolution o the converted ILL spectra (right column. The error bars are exact in the case o the direct convolution, while they are approximate or the itted spectrum, obtained rom interpolation o the original matrices. FIG. 3. Bin-to-bin correlation matrix ( bins, - MeV o itted neutrino spectrum rom 3 U, ollowing the toy Monte-Carlo procedure outlined in the text. While the structure o Figure is still present it has been signiicantly washed out and anti-correlation areas have appeared FIG.. Bin-to-bin correlation matrix ( bins,.7-0 MeV o the itted neutrino spectrum rom 3 U, obtained ater linear interpolation o the original matrix, and extrapolating to a ully correlated 0% error outside the original binning. Clearly the experimental correlations rom the ILL measurements are kept with this technique spectrum, and allow us to use the binning o our choice without aecting the errors. For 3 U, since the spectrum is obtained rom ab initio calculations, each bin is given an error ranging rom 0% at low energy to 0% at high energy. However, i these errors are uncorrelated, the uncertainty on the overall neutrino rate and hence the cross-section per ission or 3 U is artiicially low. To avoid this, we consider that there is a ully correlated 0% error on bins rom to. MeV, another ully correlated % error on the block rom. to.7 MeV and another 0% ully correlated error on the last bins o the spectrum. With this conservative prescription our error on the 3 U cross-section per ission is.%. Finally we derive the total error, σ Stot, on the antineutrino rate, or a given core composition. We account or the uncertainties on the cross section per ission per isotope, and the uncertainties on the averaged raction o issionperisotopes. Asanexamplewecanconsiderthecase obugey-. Theuel compositionisgiveninre. [3]. The new values o the cross sections per ission per isotope as well as their uncertainties are given in Table I. The k coeicients are taken as correlated, ollowing a typical uel evolutioncurve, andsuchthat k k=±0.%toaccount or the error on the thermal power o the nuclear core. In a irst case we consider a 0% relative uncertainty on the uel composition. We obtain a inal error on the expected number o events o.7%. Reducing the error on the uel composition to 3.% results in a inal error o.%. using our new error propagation method with interpolated ILL and conversion correlation matrices (column o table I, reproduced in table V below, and directly olding the converted ILL spectra with the inverse beta decay cross-section. Clearly, the results are extremely close. The eect o the error on the extrapolated part o the spectrum is ound to be negligible. We also veriied that the resulting error bars do not signiicantly depend on the chosen binning. These calculations validate the use o the exponential-polynomial it along with the interpolation technique or error propagation on the inal Appendix B: Gallex/Sage, and MiniBooNE reanalysis In this appendix we briely provide details on our reanalysis o published data rom Gallex Cr source data [, 3], SAGE Cr [0] and 37 Ar source data [], and MiniBooNE neutrino data [9]. The Gallex collaboration perormed two measurements with two Cr sources in [], obtaining the ratio o the measured and expected event rates. These data were recently reanalyzed [3], providing updated values o the