Arxiv:2104.00005V1 [Hep-Ph] 31 Mar 2021 Modern Experiments (I.E., Those Conducted After 2011) All Rely on a Comparison of Measured Event Rate Spec- 3

N3AS-21-004

Future Searches for Light Sterile Neutrinos at Nuclear Reactors

Jeffrey M. Berryman,1, 2, ∗ Luis A. Delgadillo,3, † and Patrick Huber3, ‡ 1Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40506, USA 2Department of Physics, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA 3Center for Neutrino Physics, Department of Physics, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24061, USA We study the optimization of a green-field, two-baseline reactor experiment with respect to the sensitivity for electron antineutrino disappearance in search of a light sterile neutrino. We consider both commercial and research reactors and identify as key factors the distance of closest approach and detector energy resolution. We find that a total of 5 tons of detectors deployed at a commercial reactor with a closest approach of 25 m can probe the mixing angle sin2 2θ down to ∼ 5 × 10−3 around ∆m2 ∼ 1 eV2. The same detector mass deployed at a research reactor can be sensitive up to ∆m2 ∼ 20 − 30 eV2 assuming a closest approach of 3 m and excellent energy resolution, such as that projected for the Taishan Antineutrino Observatory (TAO). We also find that lithium doping of the reactor could be effective in increasing the sensitivity for higher ∆m2 values.

I. INTRODUCTION the 5 MeV bump is entirely unresolved but is likely not due to new physics [17]. The experiments we will dis- Neutrino physics as an experimental science started cuss here will contribute data on neutrino fluxes, but with the discovery of Cowan and Reines using neutrinos this is not a focus of our work. Instead, we ask what from a reactor in 1956 [1]. Since then, reactor measure- the best possible reactor neutrino experiment would look ments have been a mainstay in the quest to understand like to either find a light sterile neutrino or to exclude neutrino properties. KamLAND [2], Double Chooz [3], a sizable mixing. We also focus exclusively on electron Daya Bay [4] and RENO [5] have played central roles in (anti)neutrinos and their potential mixing with a sterile establishing the oscillation of the three active neutrino neutrino. This choice is motivated, to some degree, by flavors. In the near future, the JUNO experiment will the fact that all data on νe → νe andν ¯e → ν¯e at this point provide the best measurement of the so-called solar pa- are mutually consistent. The same cannot be said of the 2 νµ → νe and νµ → νe data sets; additionally, the global rameters θ12 and ∆m21 as well as determine the mass ordering [6]. In the run-up to the 2011/2012 measure- disappearance data are known to be inconsistent with the global appearance data when interpreted in the con- ment of θ13, the question of how to predict the reactor antineutrino spectrum received renewed attention [7,8] text of a truly sterile fourth neutrino [11, 14, 18, 19]. On and the surprising result was an upward correction to top of all of this, an eV-scale sterile neutrino of the sort the predicted inverse beta decay (IBD) event rate by ap- indicated by terrestrial oscillation anomalies is severely proximately 6%. This, in turn, gave rise to the so-called constrained by cosmological observations [20–23]. Our reactor antineutrino anomaly (RAA) [9], which would be hope is that a careful study of neutrino disappearance at reactors will facilitate future analyses of the global neu- naturally explained if theν ¯e mixed with an additional species of neutrino with a mixing angle sin2 2θ ' 0.1 and trino data set. 2 ∆m2 ≥ 1 eV2. For a review of the status of the field at The reason nuclear reactors are the electron neutrino that time, see Ref. [10]. Enormous experimental progress source of choice is threefold: has been made since then and we refer the reader to the 1. They are free, in the sense that they are constructed global fitting literature for details, see, e.g., Ref. [11–13]; for purposes other than neutrino physics. for a more experiment-centered review, see Ref. [14]. As far as reactor neutrino experiments are concerned, 2. They are very bright, with experimentally accessi- ble fluxes of up to 1013 cm−2 s−1. arXiv:2104.00005v1 [hep-ph] 31 Mar 2021 modern experiments (i.e., those conducted after 2011) all rely on a comparison of measured event rate spec- 3. They produce antineutrinos which can be cleanly tra at different baselines and are thus independent of detected via IBD, which both provides a flavor tag flux predictions. Nonetheless, reactor flux predictions and has a large3 cross section of approximately 6 × have been subject to intense study (for a summary, see 10−43 cm2 per fission. Refs. [12, 15]). Moreover, the rate anomaly has not, as yet, been resolved, though it may be less significant than originally suggested.1 The spectral anomaly known as sistent solution to the RAA by shifting the ratio of 239Pu to 235U in the integrated beta spectrum. In this case, beta and neutrino data would be in good agreement with both summation and con- version calculations of the reactor flux. ∗ jeff[email protected] 2 This paper deals only with electron flavor neutrinos and/or an- † [email protected] tineutrinos and we rely on context to disambiguate these two ‡ [email protected] cases. 1 Recent work [16], if confirmed, would provide a simple and con- 3 relative to other weak-interaction processes. 2

Other sources of electron neutrinos which have been allowed baseline partially offsets the lower absolute rate considered for sterile neutrino searches include radioac- of antineutrino production. We consider for each of these tive sources [24, 25], beta-beams [26], kaon beams [27], scenarios in turn. beam-driven beta-decay sources [28] and stored muon beams [29]. None of these other electron neutrino sources shares all of the advantages of nuclear reactors — in par- II.1. Methodology ticular they all would be quite costly and require detectors much larger than what will be considered here. We consider pseudo-experiments in which the spec- On the other hand, some of these approaches like beam- trum of reactor antineutrinos is observed at two base- driven beta-decay sources and stored muon beams would lines. We treat the detector as point-like, but the reactor yield far better sensitivities than possible at a reactor. core has finite physical extent; we treat the latter as a But the question remains: what sensitivities are a pos- perfect sphere. Because of this, we cannot use the os- sible with a reactor source? This is the subject of the cillation probability in Eq. (II.1) as is — we must flux- present study. average Pee over the production region. The effect of this is to average out high-frequency oscillations: if the oscil- II. GREEN-FIELD STUDIES lation wavelength is comparable to or smaller than the size of the production region, then the experiment will have muted sensitivity to the associated value of ∆m2. For the neutrino energies available at nuclear reactors Details on this procedure and the resulting average sur- and for the baselines that we will consider (less than vival probability are given in AppendixA. 100 m), oscillations among the three neutrinos of the The analysis window is taken to be E ⊂ [2.0, 8.0] Standard Model (SM) are negligible. Therefore, if a ster- prompt MeV; we generally assume a bin size of 250 keV, but ile neutrino4 exists and participates in oscillations, then occasionally consider finer spacing. We assume a con- any oscillations observed over these distances would be stant, nonzero background in each energy bin, ignoring attributable to the new state. We may describe these os- any systematic uncertainty on this background and as- cillations in the two-flavor limit, writing the ν survival e suming that the near and far baselines experience the probability as same background rate per unit exposure. We consider 2 two energy response models as limiting cases of the de- 2 2 ∆m L Pee = 1 − sin 2θ sin . (II.1) tector resolution. The first is the response model of 4E ν the PROSPECT experiment, which the collaboration Here, L is the baseline over which the neutrinos propa- has provided in the Supplemental Material to Ref. [30]. 2 The response may be roughly described as a Gaussian gate and Eν is their energy. The parameter ∆m is the p difference in the squares of the masses of two neutrino with width ∼ 7%/ E/ [MeV], though it includes a non- mass eigenstates; sin2 2θ is the mixing angle describing Gaussian tail down to low energies. On the other end the amplitude of the oscillations. Probing sterile neutri- of the spectrum is the upcoming Taishan Antineutrino 2 2 Observatory (TAO) experiment [31], for which the reso- nos amounts to determining sin 2θ and ∆m . p The overarching purpose of this study is to determine lution will be of the order ∼ 1%/ E [MeV]. We assume the optimal configuration(s) for a two-baseline reactor that the TAO detector response is perfectly Gaussian. neutrino experiment with realistic operational assump- For a given experimental configuration, specified by tions. We categorize these by the class of reactor at the near and far baselines (Lnear and Lfar, respectively), which they are conducted — at either a commercial or a we form the following χ2 function: research reactor facility. The salient difference between 2 Nbins N N 2 2 ! these is that the former is much larger (R ∼ 2 m) than X M − φiP sin 2θ, ∆m , {ηj} χ2 = i i the latter (R ∼ 20 cm); commercial cores are also more σN powerful and produce a larger flux of antineutrinos. How- i i 2 ever, the layout of the facilities at which these are housed Nbins F F 2 2 ! X Mi − φiPi sin 2θ, ∆m , {ηj} prevents an experiment from operating within a certain + σF distance of the core, typically of the order 10-25 m. Re- i i search cores, though less powerful, are less constrained in Nsys 2 X ηj this regard: one can operate an experiment as close as 3- + (II.2) σ 6 m from the core. The increase in flux from the shorter j j

The components of this expression are as follows: 4 We will use the term “sterile” neutrino to refer to a generic fourth N F neutrino that participates in oscillations but not in weak inter- • The Mi and Mi represent the numbers of pseu- actions. This state may have interactions beyond those of the dodata IBD counts in energy bin i in the near and SM, but if these do not aﬀect oscillations, then there is no need far detectors, respectively. These pseudodata are to distinguish it from a truly sterile neutrino. generated without oscillations. 3

N F • The Pi and Pi are the predicted numbers of for sterile neutrino oscillations do not satisfy Wilks’ the- events in energy bin i for oscillation parameters orem: simple ∆χ2 statistics do not provide the proper 2 2 2 2 {sin 2θ, ∆m } and nuisance parameters {ηj}, coverage in the sin 2θ–∆m parameter space, so con- which we discuss more below. verting ∆χ2 values to conﬁdence levels using Gaussian

N F statistics is formally incorrect (see, e.g., Refs. [33, 34]). • The σi and σi are the statistical uncertainties Consequently, we will avoid rigorously assigning confi- associated with the predictions. We account for dence levels. That said, statistical methods that aim to the nonzero background in forming σN and σF ; we i i address these deficiencies (e.g., the CLs method [35] and write Feldman-Cousins method [36]) are computationally in- q tensive; performing these at scale is beyond the scope N,F N,F N,F σi = Pi + 2B , (II.3) of this work. Therefore, we report our sensitivities as contour(s) along which ∆χ2 = 11.83 — for 2 degrees of where BN (BF ) is the number of background events freedom, this would correspond to 3σ if Wilks’ theorem per energy bin in the near (far) detector.5 applied. In most cases, the true significance will be less than this. • The φi are nuisance parameters for the flux in each energy bin. Our analysis is flux free in that we do not introduce a prior on these nuisance parameters; while we use the Huber-Mueller (HM) flux II.2. Research Reactor Optimization model [7,8] to generate our pseudodata, our analysis is not sensitive to this choice. These uncon- We begin with research reactors. Because of their strained nuisance parameters reduce the number of smaller size and because they are not attached to the degrees of freedom in the fit, leading to lower val- heat-extraction apparatus of a commercial core, one ues of the χ2 and, ultimately, less statistical signifi- could operate an experiment with much shorter baselines cance. However, sensitivities derived in this fashion at a research core. For instance, the MINER experiment are more robust than those that rely on a given flux [37] can to operate within 1-3 m of a low-power (1 MWth) model. We may analytically minimize the χ2 with reactor. However, it is more typical of the current gen- respect to these nuisance parameters to obtain eration of short-baseline experiments to operate in the range 6-10 m. We consider baselines as close as 3 m and M N P N M F P F as far as 50 m from a core whose radius is taken to be i i + i i N 2 F 2 20 cm and whose power is set to 100 MW . The total (σi ) (σi ) th φi = 2 2 . (II.4) exposure is fixed at one year, which we assume corre- P N P F i i sponds to 90 days of reactor-on time. Moreover, because N + F σi σi research reactors use high-enriched uranium fuel, the flux of antineutrinos is entirely attributable 235U fission. • Lastly, the {ηj} are the nuisance parameters de- The downside of operating so close to the core is back- scribing our systematic uncertainties, which are as- grounds. On one hand, operating close to the core sumed to be consistent with the systematics de- subjects the detector to reactor-correlated neutron and scribed by the STEREO collaboration [32]: gamma backgrounds. On the other, the detector is nec- essarily close to the surface subjecting the detector to – A 1.2% uncorrelated normalization uncer- cosmogenic backgrounds. It is possible to mitigate either tainty. source of background, but this presents a fundamental – A 1.0% uncorrelated energy scale uncertainty. challenge to the operation of such an experiment. We – A 0.3% correlated energy scale uncertainty. will assume that a background rate of 250 events per ton- day of reactor-on time spread uniformly over the analysis We expect this to characterize the capabilities of region at both detector sites. This is broadly consistent next-generation reactor experiments. We ignore with the background rate achieved at PROSPECT [30]. the possibility of (uncorrelated) systematic uncer- In Figs. 1a and 1b, we show representative sensitivi- tainties in the measured spectral shape in our initial ties to oscillations with ∆m2 = 5 eV2 for a PROSPECT- studies; we discuss this further in Sec. II.5. like and TAO-like detector response, respectively. The 2 2 We only consider simple ∆χ2 statistics here. In recent color conveys the sensitivity (∆χ = 11.83) to sin 2θ years, it has been repeatedly emphasized that searches for each pair of near and far baselines; white space indicates baseline pairs for which there is no sensitivity. The central conclusion is that getting as close as possible to the reactor core is the key factor in improving the 5 The factor of 2 in Eq. (II.3) arises because the counts are sensitivity. Note that even in the case of a detector with background-subtracted. The expected number of raw events in TAO-like energy resolution, the sensitivity barely reaches N,F N,F 2 −2 each bin is Pi + B ; subtracting the background increases sin 2θ ∼ 10 for the closest conceivable baseline of 3 m. the statistical error by another factor of BN,F . Constructing an experiment this close to a core will be 4

(a) (b)

FIG. 1: The sensitivity (∆χ2 = 11.83) of a hypothetical two-baseline research reactor experiment to oscillations with 2 2 ∆m = 5 eV as a function of its near and far baselines, Lnear and Lfar. Panel (a) shows results for PROSPECT-like response, while panel (b) shows results for TAO-like response. challenging; a less difficult case is a near baseline of ∼ 6 commercial core in a tendon gallery at the Hanbit Nu- m. In this case, the optimal sensitivity worsens slightly clear Power Plant. We consider baselines between 10-100 to sin2 2θ ∼ 3 × 10−2. m in our simulations. The impact of this lack of closeness on sterile neutrino searches is twofold. Firstly, because shorter baselines allow for searches for larger oscillation II.3. Commercial Reactor Optimization frequencies, the sensitivity of commercial reactor experiments to larger values of ∆m2 will be muted. Also, the larger core size also causes high-frequency oscillations to Commercial reactors can be several orders of magni- average out. Secondly, because the experiment is further tude more powerful than research reactors, meaning that from the core, the backgrounds are less severe: reactor- one does not need to operate an experiment at as short correlated neutron and gamma backgrounds are substan- a baseline to have an appreciable event rate. This is for- tially attenuated and higher overburdens can be achieved tunate, since one cannot conduct an experiment at such to reduce cosmogenic backgrounds. We assume a back- close baselines, given the complicated layout of commer- ground rate of 90 events per ton-day of reactor-on time, cial reactor plants. We take the radius of the core to be roughly corresponding to the background rate measured 2.0 m, the core power to be 4.5 GWth and the exposure at NEOS [39]. to be one year, which we assume corresponds to 365 days of reactor-on time. Moreover, the fuel at commercial reactors is typically low-enriched uranium, meaning the antineutrino flux is a nontrivial combination of the fluxes In Figs. 2a and 2b, we show sensitivities to oscillations from the four main fissile isotopes (235U, 238U, 239Pu, with ∆m2 = 1 eV2. The color scale is the same as in 241Pu). We take the following values for the effective Figs. 1a and 1b; the sensitivity is improved for commer- isotopic fission fractions: cial reactors over research reactors, owing to the much larger event rate. As before, the key factor in determining 235U, 238U, 239Pu, 241Pu = {0.56, 0.07, 0.31, 0.06} . the sensitivity is allowing for as short a baseline as achievable, subject to the constraints of the facility. The best The closest baseline that any experiment has attained sensitivity shown for the TAO-like response corresponds at a commercial reactor is ∼ 10 m at DANSS experiment to sin2 2θ ∼ 3×10−3, but even restricting the baselines to [38], the result of the specific construction of the Kalinin be no less than 25 m or using the PROSPECT response Nuclear Power Plant. A more typical scenario is akin to model (or both) yields a maximum sensitivity better than the NEOS experiment [39], which sits ∼ 24 m from a sin2 2θ ∼ 10−2 for this value of ∆m2. 5

(a) (b)

FIG. 2: The sensitivity (∆χ2 = 11.83) of a hypothetical two-baseline commercial reactor experiment to oscillations with 2 2 ∆m = 1 eV as a function of its near and far baselines, Lnear and Lfar. Panel (a) shows results for PROSPECT-like response, while panel (b) shows results for TAO-like response.

II.4. Comparisons closer to the core for probing high-frequency oscillations — a transition occurs around ∆m2 ∼ 0.5 eV2 (∼ 2 eV2) for commercial (research) reactors where the advantage We aggregate our results for both the commercial and of higher statistics and shorter baselines dissipates. research reactor cases in Fig.3. The figure shows the To contextualize these sensitivities, we also show the baseline-optimized sensitivity (∆χ2 = 11.83) to sin2 2θ 2 projected final 95% C.L. sensitivity of the ongoing KA- particular to a given ∆m . We note that there is no TRIN tritium-decay experiment [41] in dashed gray. achievable configuration that maximizes the sensitivity at While a research core would be the preferred method up every such value. The purple curves correspond to com- to ∆m2 ∼ 30 eV2 if one could realize ultra short base- mercial reactors, whereas green curves are for research lines, KATRIN is ostensibly the preferred technique for reactors. The lighter shade of either color exploits the searches above ∆m2 ∼ 15 eV2 for more realistic config- full range of baselines, i.e., that a detector can be placed urations. However, there is an important caveat in in- as close as possible to a given type of core (10 m for terpreting the KATRIN sensitivity: this depends on the commercial, 3 m for research). The darker shade, in con- 2 prior on the effective neutrino mass-squared, mν , that trast, truncates the nearest baseline at what we believe one extracts from the experiment. If one insists that is a more realistic distance (25 m for commercial, 6 m for 2 mν ≥ 0 – a sensible physical criterion – then one derives research). The shading indicates the effect of the detec- the sensitivity shown in the figure. However, one may tor resolution, ranging between the PROSPECT (lower) reasonably insist on a different prior on this quantity, and TAO (upper) responses. given that historical tritium-decay experiments have of- For a fixed exposure, the sensitivity of a commercial ten found negative best-fit values of this parameter; see 2 reactor experiment exceeds that of a research reactor ex- Ref. [42] and references therein. If one were to allow mν periment by some O(1 − 10) factor, a consequence of the to take any value – positive or negative – to avoid a biased increased statistics at commercial experiments. However measurement, then the resulting sensitivity changes; this these experiments are most sensitive to oscillations with is depicted in Fig. 3 of Ref. [41] for the exclusion based different values of ∆m2, a consequence of the different on current data. We are unaware of any study of this core sizes and permissible baselines. If one were optimiz- effect on the ultimate sensitivity of KATRIN and do not 2 2 ing a sterile neutrino search for ∆m . 2 − 3 eV , then attempt one here, but this suggests that the constraint one would ultimately elect to operate the experiment at a may not be robust below ∆m2 ∼ 30 eV2. If this is the commercial reactor; conversely, for larger values of ∆m2, case, then research reactor experiments may be the best one would choose a research reactor. This figure con- path forward to exploring this portion of the parameter cretely demonstrates the benefit of putting the detector space. 6

FIG. 3: The baseline-optimized sensitivity (∆χ2 = 11.83) to sin2 2θ as a function of ∆m2. The purple (green) curves are for a commercial (research) reactor. The lighter band of either color represents the sensitivity with optimistic assumptions about the possible closest baseline; the darker bands represent more realistic assumptions. The weakest (strongest) sensitivity of each color corresponds to a PROSPECT-like (TAO-like) energy resolution. Also shown is the 95% C.L. sensitivity from KATRIN (dashed gray), as well as the 3σ-preferred regions from Neutrino-4 [40] (red) and from the global analysis of Ref. [12] (blue).

The last two components of Fig.3 are the regions of smaller bin sizes afford sensitivity to higher oscillation parameter space preferred by analyses of separate exist- frequencies, assuming the energy resolution is adequate ing data sets. The first is the 3σ-preferred region from to resolve these. The sensitivity increases slightly for an analysis of the Neutrino-4 experiment [40], shown high ∆m2 for the TAO-like response because of this lat- in red shading. The second is the 3σ-preferred6 region ter consideration; the sensitivity slightly decreases for a from a recent global analysis of Bugey-3, DANSS, Daya PROSPECT-like response because of the worsening sta- Bay, Double Chooz, NEOS and RENO from Ref. [12], tistical uncertainties. On balance, these changes are not shown in blue shading. These are the regions that next- markedly different from Fig.3. We have also investigated generation reactor experiments will target — indeed, the the effect of 30-keV bins on analyses with our TAO-like presence of closed 3σ contours in existing analyses is what response and find no appreciable gain in sensitivity. inspires the next generation of experiments in the first place. Our results suggest that the optimal strategy to probe these regions would be to build a commercial reactor experiment to probe below ∆m2 ∼ 2 eV2 and a re- II.5. Exposure and Systematics Limitation search reactor experiment to probe above this, and that they should both be as close as can be achieved to their One can ask how the sensitivities shown in Fig.3 can respective cores. be improved by either operating the experiment for a We have considered the effect of bin size on Fig.3. longer period of time or by constructing a more mas- Specifically, we have looked at bins of width 100 keV for sive detector. To study this, we must include an effect both a PROSPECT-like and TAO-like response model at that we have ignored to this point. While our flux-free both a commercial and research reactor facility. On one analysis does not introduce any prior uncertainties on hand, smaller bin sizes result in fewer events in each bin, the flux, one should account for systematic uncertain- leading to poorer statistical uncertainties; on the other, ties on the measured spectral shape, in addition to the systematics that we have already included. We assume that this systematic is uncorrelated between energy bins and that next-generation experiments can achieve shape 6 What this reference calls “3σ” should more appropriately be uncertainties as low as 0.5%, consistent with the value called the “∆χ2 = 11.83” exclusion. claimed by TAO [31]. This is introduced to our χ2 in 7

III. STERILE NEUTRINO SENSITIVITY AT TAO

The Taishan Antineutrino Observatory (TAO) is a future experiment whose main purpose is to produce a model-independent reference spectrum for the physics program at JUNO [6]. It is planned to start taking data in 2022 and is expected to achieve an unprecedented experimental resolution of the order ∼ 1.0%/pE [MeV]. Though it is a single-volume detector, its fiducial volume may be virtually segmented, allowing for a multiple- baseline measurement of the sort outlined in the previous section. The segmentation is possible due to improve- ments in the coverage and efficiency of the photo sensors, as well as the precise timing resolution; see, e.g., Sec. 8.5 2 2 FIG. 4: The sensitivity (∆χ = 11.83) to sin 2θ as a of Ref. [31]. This is a novel capability that has not been function of exposure for a research reactor experiment with employed by existing searches for sterile neutrino. We L = 6 m and L = 9 m. Cyan (magenta) curves near far have previously considered two detectors located at ar- correspond to ∆m2 = 1 eV2 (∆m2 = 5 eV2). Dashed curves correspond to vanishing shape systematic uncertainty; solid bitrary baselines; here, on the other hand, we consider curves take this to be 0.5%. The vertical, gray line indicates a fixed (core-to-detector) baseline position of 30 m and our benchmark 5 ton-years exposure. compare the spectra measured in each of its virtual segments. We will virtually segment the detector into either two or four equal-volume segments; the displacements between the barycenters and the center of the detector are (±3/8 R) and (± 0.170 R, ± 0.580 R), respectively, Eq. (II.2) via the replacement R = 65 cm being the radius of the fiducial volume at 2 2 TAO. While virtual segmentation is an impressive capa- N,F N,F N,F 2 σi → σi + (Pi σsh) , (II.5) bility of this detector, the fixed geometry is a nontrivial restriction on a multiple-baseline measurement. where σ represents the shape systematic. sh We assume a total of 5 ton-year exposure at a commer- To demonstrate the interplay between the exposure cial core with a 2.0 m radius and a power of 4.5 GWth, in and a finite shape systematic, we consider a pseudoex- broad agreement with the TAO conceptual design report periment at a research reactor with a near baseline of 6 (CDR) [31]. The fuel fractions of the core are assumed to m and a far baseline of 9 m, roughly corresponding to the be the same as our green-field studies Sec.II. Moreover, a near and far baselines at PROSPECT, that employs the total of 60 bins between 2.0 to 8.0 MeV in prompt energy TAO response model. In Fig.4, we show the sensitivity are considered. Background events are spread uniformly to sin2 2θ for fixed values of ∆m2 – 1 eV2 in cyan and over the energy bins, assuming a total of 90 events per 5 eV2 in magenta – as a function of exposure. The ver- ton-day, consistent with those at NEOS [39]; we do not tical, gray line corresponds to the 5 ton-years exposure consider shape uncertainties on the background. System- used in our previous analyses. The dashed curves corre- atic uncertainties in this experiment are assumed to be spond to vanishing shape uncertainty. For these, as the consistent with those at STEREO [32]. Furthermore, a exposure is increased, the sensitivity improves without 0.5% bin-to-bin uncorrelated shape uncertainty is taken bound: the increase in statistics leads to an increasingly into account. precise determination of the event rate at each position For our experimental configuration, we form the fol- and in each energy bin, resulting in sensitivity that scales lowing χ2 function: as ∼ (exposure)−1/2. In contrast, the solid curves show 2 the sensitivity including a 0.5% shape uncertainty. As Nbin Nseg 2 2 ! X X Mi,j − φiPi,j sin 2θ, ∆m , {η`} the number of raw counts is increased, the fractional sta- χ2 = σ tistical uncertainty eventually becomes eclipsed by the i j i,j shape uncertainty – the experiment becomes systemat- Nsys 2 X η` ics limited. Past this point, the sensitivity saturates at + . (III.1) σ` some finite value. Inspection of Fig.4 reveals that for our ` nominal 5 ton-year exposure, the experiment is already transitioning from being statistically limited to being sys- This expression closely resembles Eq. II.2, the salient dif- tematically limited. Consequently, increasing the expo- ference being that we now index the Nseg (= 2, 4) seg- sure beyond this value results in a negligible increase in ments with j. We account for the nonzero background sensitivity to sin2 2θ. and shape uncertainty in a similar fashion as Eq. II.3 by 8 defining σi,j as

2 2 σi,j = Pi,j(1 + σsh × Pi,j) + 2Bi,j, (III.2) were σsh is the bin-to-bin shape uncertainty and Bi,j is the (uniform) background in each energy bin i of segment j. The φi ﬂux nuisance parameters in each energy bin. As before, we analytically minimize the χ2 with respect to these nuisance parameters to obtain

P Mi,jPi,j j (σ )2 φ = i,j , (III.3) i 2 P Pi,j j σi,j where j runs over the detector segments. Lastly, the {η`} are the nuisance parameters describing our systematic uncertainties. In Ref. [31], the HM flux model [7,8] is used to obtain the antineutrino energy spectrum with an introduction of a 5% bin-to-bin uncorrelated shape uncertainty on the flux. While we, too, use the HM fluxes, our analysis is FIG. 5: The sensitivity (∆χ2 = 11.83) to a sterile neutrino not sensitive to this choice; by using the φi, our analy- at TAO. Cyan curves correspond to our analysis with four sis employs a data-to-data spectral comparison, as com- (solid) or two (dashed) virtual segments. The dot-dashed, pared to a data-to-model one. This removes any model magenta curve corresponds to the 99.7% CLs sensitivity dependence on our analysis, but reduces the number of presented in Ref. [31]. Also shown are the 95% C.L. degrees of freedom in the fit, leading to lower values of sensitivity from KATRIN (dashed gray), as well as the the χ2 and, ultimately, less inferred statistical signifi- 3σ-preferred regions from Neutrino-4 [40] (red shading) and cance. Therefore, we expect the sensitivities obtained from Ref. [12] (blue shading). in this study to be less aggressive but more robust. An- other important difference between our analysis and that of Ref. [31] is the assessment of the backgrounds: the collaboration publishes a combined rate of accidental, fast neutron and 9Li/8He decay backgrounds of ∼ 450 the CDR analysis is sensitive to changes in the antineu- events per ton-day, a more conservative figure than that trino spectrum induced over the ∼ 30 m baseline between assumed in our study. We have consciously elected to the core and the detector, affording sensitivity to lower be more optimistic, given that the 90 events per ton- values of ∆m2. In contrast, by comparing data to data, day we consider has been achieved at NEOS [39]. We our analysis is sensitive only to changes induced over the also remind the reader that we only communicate sen- ∼ 1 m length scale spanned by the detector. Therefore, sitivities as contours of constant ∆χ2, whereas Ref. [31] sensitivity to longer-wavelength oscillations is inevitably provides the results of Gaussian CLs analysis. This is muted, and the barycenter of the sensitivity curve shifts not, strictly speaking, an apples-to-apples comparison of to higher values of ∆m2. Furthermore, the addition of sensitivities; however, the gross features of the analyses more segments improves the overall sensitivity; the gains, are distinct enough that one can still draw important however, are modest. On one hand, increasing the num- qualitative conclusions. ber of segments increases the number of degrees of free- We show our results in Fig.5. The dashed and solid dom in the fit. On the other, this also increases the (sta- cyan curves show the sensitivity (∆χ2 = 11.83) to sterile tistical) uncertainty of the contents of any given energy neutrinos for our analyses with two and four segments, re- bin. The former evidently outweighs the latter, though spectively. The dot-dashed, magenta curve corresponds only marginally. to the 99.7% CLs sensitivity from the TAO CDR [31]. We also show the 95% C.L. sensitivity from KATRIN On balance, the sensitivity to sterile neutrinos pre- in dashed gray, as well as the 3σ-preferred regions from sented in this study is less optimistic than the TAO CDR, Neutrino-4 [40] and from Ref. [12], in red and blue shad- but this is a consequence of having fundamentally differ- ing contours, respectively. ent search strategies. Flux model independence is central In the region ∆m2 ≤ 1 eV2, our analysis is substan- to our analysis, as it was in the previous section. We be- tially less sensitive than that of the CDR. This is a conse- lieve this is conceptually more robust, though we have quence of the (in)dependence on the flux model in these made some assumptions that are more optimistic than analyses. By comparing directly to the HM flux model, those presented in the CDR. 9

the IBD cross section grows roughly quadratically in energy, the events associated with 8Li β decay are dispro- portionately skewed to higher energies than those from fission. This results in a larger integrated flux-weighted cross section per decay; fewer antineutrinos are emitted per decay, but they are much more inclined to interact with the detector. However, while the per-decay rate of 8Li events exceeds that of 235U, it is unlikely that the absolute rate of 8Li decay in an experiment could be ar- ranged to be as large as the rate of 235U fission. More broadly, there are a number of challenges in implementing 8Li decays at nuclear reactors: • Inserting 8Li into a commercial core is essentially out of the question. This would require a signif- FIG. 6: The flux-weighted cross section per decay for IBD icant interruption of operation of a core used to detection of antineutrinos from 235U fission (cyan) and from generate electricity and, consequently, income for 8Li β decay (magenta). the operator.

• Research reactor cores, in contrast, are constructed IV. LITHIUM-8 DOPING OF RESEARCH such that one may insert a sample of some material REACTORS into the core to absorb some excess neutrons without disrupting the core. However, if one wanted to achieve lithium decay rates equal to the fission rate, As we have seen in the previous sections, the sensi- then one would essentially need to absorb every ex- tivity to oscillations with ∆m2 2 eV2 is significantly & cess neutron over the operation of the experiment. improved if the near baseline is minimized as much as Apart from reactor physics constraints, this would possible, due to (1) the increased event rate, and (2) monopolize the facility, that is, no neutrons would high-frequency oscillations not averaging out. However, be available for any other user. the physical layout of the facility severely constrains the possible location of a detector. Notice that because os- • Lastly, while natural lithium is dominantly (∼ 2 cillations depend on the quantity ∆m L/E, the effect of 92.4%) 7Li, the thermal neutron capture cross sec- reducing the baseline can be emulated by increasing the tion for 6Li is roughly three orders of magnitude energies of the interacting antineutrinos. However, the larger than that of 7Li. Therefore, one would need energy spectrum of the antineutrinos emitted in fission high-purity 7Li – around 99.9% – to ensure that 7 is, of course, immutable. In order to reach higher ener- the majority of neutrons will ultimately produce gies, then, one would need to consider a separate source 8Li; to ensure that 90% of neutrons capture on 7Li, of antineutrinos. this increases to nearly 99.99% purity. Scaling from We consider precisely such a source, in the form of previous results on Li-loading of HFIR [44] a 10% antineutrinos produced via the decays of 8Li, produced fraction of neutrinos may be possible in this case. by neutron capture on 7Li. The main advantage is that Note, that high purity 7Li is available in large quan- the endpoint energy of these decays is ∼ 13 MeV; this tities and considered as coolant in molten salt re- provides the high energies desired to extend the sensitiv- actors. ity of a sterile neutrino search to higher ∆m2. A similar proposal exists in the form of IsoDAR [28, 43], but In light of these restrictions, we expect that it may be implementing a 8Li source at a nuclear reactor has the possible to achieve a rate of one 8Li decay for every five advantage that no new facilities are required to produce to ten fission events at a research core. the neutrons that ultimately drive the source. If one can We employ a pseudoexperiment with Lnear = 6 m and load the reactor core with enough 7Li, then the excess Lfar = 9 m. The total exposure of the experiment is neutrons produced in the core can, in principle, be used fixed to be 5 ton-years, apportioned between the two de- to generate these β decays. tectors according to their inverse-squared baseline, and In Fig.6, we show the flux-weighted IBD cross section we continue to assume that one year at a research reac- per 8Li decay against the same per 235U fission. Because tor corresponds to three months of reactor-on time with an average power of 100 MWth. The rate of background events is still assumed to be 250 events per ton-day in the region 2.0-8.0 MeV prompt energy, i.e., 41.7 counts per 7 This is not strictly speaking true: the spectrum changes slightly ton-day per MeV; we assume that this rate extends out to as the composition of the reactor’s fuel evolves. Here, we are 13 MeV. We further assume a TAO-like energy resolution referring to the impossibility of manipulating a given β decay and employ 100-keV bins between 2.0 and 12.0 MeV in into yielding more energetic neutrinos. prompt energy to take full advantage of this resolution. 10

FIG. 8: The evolution of the sensitivity (∆χ2 = 11.83) as a function of exposure for our lithium-enhanced research reactor pseudoexperiment. Cyan and orange curves assume only 235U is present for ∆m2 = 1 eV2 and 30 eV2, respectively; magenta and red curves introduce lithium with f8Li = 0.1. Dashed curves ignore shape systematics and solid curves assume a 0.5% shape uncertainty. The vertical gray FIG. 7: The sensitivity (∆χ2 = 11.83) of a lithium-loaded line indicates a 5 ton-year exposure. research reactor to a sterile neutrino. The sensitivity without 8Li is shown in cyan while the magenta curves assume varying numbers of lithium decays per fission, f8Li: 1.0 (solid), 0.2 (dashed) and 0.1 (dotted). We also show the However, for reasons laid out above, there are a num- 95% C.L. sensitivity from KATRIN (dashed gray), as well as ber of impediments to achieving f8Li = 1. It would be the 3σ-preferred regions from Neutrino-4 [40] (red shading) more realistic to expect f8Li in the range 0.1 − 0.2, in and Ref. [12] (blue shading). which case the dashed and dotted magenta lines should guide our interpretation of Fig.7. The gains in sensitivity are more modest in this case. To compensate or this, one The systematics budget is the same as in previous studies could envision increasing the exposure of the experiment. and we ignore any bin-uncorrelated shape uncertainties. In Fig.8, we show how the sensitivity evolves with the The results are shown in Fig.7. The cyan curve exposure. Cyan and orange curves correspond to the sen- 235 shows the sensitivity (∆χ2 = 11.83) in the absence of sitivities for normal reactor conditions (i.e., pure U) 2 2 2 any added lithium. We note that this curve is slightly for ∆m = 1 eV and 30 eV , respectively, whereas the 2 2 magenta and red curves correspond to lithium loading more sensitive to oscillations with ∆m & 20 eV than the configuration-optimized sensitivity in Fig.3 suggests, with f8Li = 0.1. Dashed curves assume negligible shape owing to the smaller bin size used here. Aside from the systematics, whereas the solid curves introduce a 0.5% region around ∆m2 ∼ 3−4 eV2, this sensitivity is not too shape uncertainty. Our calculations with negligible shape far from the optimal sensitivity for a 5 ton-year exposure; uncertainty for a 5 ton-year exposure are in rough agree- we expect this to be representative of the capabilities of ment with the sensitivities in the systematics-dominated a multiple-baseline experiment with baselines of this or- limit. Moreover, the uranium-only and lithium-loaded der. The magenta curves introduce varying numbers of curves asymptote to their ultimate sensitivities in lock- 8 235 step. From Fig.8, it is clear that increasing the expo- Li decays per U fission, which we denote f8Li: solid sure for pure uranium does not recover the sensitivity to corresponds to f8Li = 1, dashed to f8Li = 0.2 and dot- higher ∆m2 obtained from adding even a small amount ted to f8Li = 0.1. We also show the projected sensitivity from KATRIN (dashed gray) and the 3σ-preferred re- of lithium. Simply put, the increase in statistics between gions from Neutrino-4 (red shading) and from Ref. [12] 2.0 and 8.0 MeV prompt energy is not enough to compen- (blue shading). The benefit of including lithium decays is sate for the total absence of events between 8.0 and 12.0 MeV. Given the choice between increasing the exposure clear: for f8Li = 1, the sensitivity improves by as much as 2 2 of the experiment and increasing the lithium loading of an order of magnitude, particularly above ∆m & 5 eV . In light of the aforementioned issues in the interpretation the reactor, the latter is more effective in increasing the 2 2 ultimate sensitivity. of the KATRIN constraint in the region ∆m . 30 eV , reactor experiments may be the only means by which to In summary, our analysis suggests that loading a re- robustly probe a sterile neutrino in this region of param- search core with highly enriched lithium is, from a physics eter space — and a highly lithium-loaded reactor may perspective, an attractive possibility for enhancing the even exceed the sensitivity of KATRIN above this value. sensitivity of a reactor antineutrino experiment to a ster- 11 ile neutrino, especially for moderately large values of sin2 2θ < 10−2 are possible even with reasonable sys- ∆m2. That said, there are several practical hurdles that tematics assumptions, pushing towards sin2 2θ < 10−3 make any realization of such a concept technically de- however seems challenging. TAO has very good sensitiv- manding. ity but does not compare to a purpose-built experiment because of its relatively large distance to the reactor. Therefore, there is a strong case for a dedicated, short- V. CONCLUSIONS baseline, commercial-reactor experiment with good energy resolution which currently does not exist. To cover In this paper, we have studied the green-field site op- the full range of mass-squared splittings, it is essential to timization of short-baseline reactor experiments for their use both research and commercial reactors. sensitivity to neutrino oscillations, i.e., to νe disappear- ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ance. The key to a sensitive experiment is the comparison of neutrino spectra measured at different base- The work of JMB is supported by NSF Grant PHY- lines, which renders the results independent from reactor 1630782 and by Heising-Simons Foundation Grant 2017- neutrino flux predictions. We perform the optimization 228. The work of LD and PH is supported by DOE by placing detectors at two baseline simultaneously and Office of Science grant DE-SC00018327. PH would like by finding the combination of baselines which provides to acknowledge useful discussions with A. Conant. the best overall sensitivity. In all cases studied, we find that a two-baseline measurement is always more sensitive than a single-baseline experiment, for a fixed com- mon exposure. We also find that the optimized differ- Appendix A: Averaging Oscillations Over Production Region ence of baselines is O(1) m and thus can, in principle, be accommodated within a single detector with position resolution, which we specifically illustrate with TAO. We If the geometry of an experiment is such that the extent look at two types of facilities: commercial reactors, with of the core or detector (or both) is not small compared to large, high power cores and a closest approach of 10- the distance between them, or if the wavelength associ- 25 m; and research reactors with compact, low power ated with a particular oscillation is smaller than either of cores and a closest approach of 3-6 m. Experiments at these, then the expression for the oscillation probability commercial reactors clearly outperform research reactor in Eq. (II.1) must be flux-averaged over the production for ∆m2 < 1−2 eV2 under a variety of scenarios, whereas and detection regions. In this case, the proper oscillation for larger ∆m2 > 2 eV2 experiments at research reactors probability is formally given by do better. For all cases, getting as close as possible with P the best possible energy resolution is valuable. These R d3~xd3~y ee |~y − ~x|2 results are summarized in Fig.3. hP i = , (A.1) ee 1 We have also investigated how the sensitivity scales R d3~xd3~y with exposure and find that is saturates at around 10 |~y − ~x|2 ton-years even for systematics as small as 0.5%. We further extend the analysis by looking at 7Li doping of a where ~x and ~y are the integration variables over the vol- reactor to create higher energy neutrinos. This results in umes of the core and detector, respectively, and the factor 2 2 1 enhanced sensitivity to large values of ∆m (∼ 30 eV ) of |~y−~x|2 in either integral accounts for the inverse-square even for a modest, and potentially realistic, lithium frac- dependence of the flux. For the pseudoexperiments we tion, of the order 10%. consider, the detector is assumed point-like; the integral Reactor neutrino experiments can offer a very good over d3~y results in a trivial replacement ~y → L~ , the dis- sensitivity to oscillations from ∆m2 = 0.1 − 30 eV2 with placement between the center of the core and the detec- ton-scale experiments, where two or more baselines may tor. Moreover, we approximate the core to be a sphere be realized in the same detector. Sensitivities below of radius R. Therefore, we may rewrite Eq. (A.1) as

2 2 p 2 2 R dr d cos φ r sin q L + r + 2rL cos φ 2 2 2 L + r + 2rL cos φ 2 hPeei = 1 − sin 2θ × 2 ≡ 1 − sin 2θ × F (q), (A.2) R dr d cos φ r L2 + r2 + 2rL cos φ

2 where we have employed Eq. (II.1) and abbreviated q ≡ ∆m . The function F (q) may be evaluated analytically: 4Eν 1 n F (q) = + 4qR sin(2qL) cos(2qR) − 4qL sin(2qR) cos(2qL) − 2 sin(2qL) sin(2qR) 2 12

h io n L + R o−1 + 4q2(L2 − R2) Ci2q(L + R) − Ci2q(L − R) × 16q2RL − 8q2(L2 − R2) ln , (A.3) L − R where Ci(x) is the cosine integral function, deﬁned as

Z ∞ cos(t) Ci(x) = − dt . (A.4) x t

One can verify from Eq. (A.3) that F (q) → sin2(qL) as R → 0.

[1] C. L. Cowan, F. Reines, F. B. Harrison, H. W. Kruse, [16] V. Kopeikin, M. Skorokhvatov, and O. Titov, “Reeval- and A. D. McGuire, “Detection of the free neutrino: A uating reactor antineutrino spectra with new measure- Confirmation,” Science 124, 103 (1956). ments of the ratio between 235U and 239Pu β spectra,” [2] K. Eguchi et al. (KamLAND), “First results from (2021), 2103.01684. KamLAND: Evidence for reactor anti-neutrino disap- [17] J. M. Berryman, V. Brdar, and P. Huber, “Particle pearance,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 021802 (2003), hep- physics origin of the 5 MeV bump in the reactor an- ex/0212021. tineutrino spectrum?,” Phys. Rev. D99, 055045 (2019), [3] Y. Abe et al. (Double Chooz), “Indication of Reactorν ¯e 1803.08506. Disappearance in the Double Chooz Experiment,” Phys. [18] M. H. Moulai, C. A. Argüelles,G. H. Collin, J. M. Con- Rev. Lett. 108, 131801 (2012), 1112.6353. rad, A. Diaz, and M. H. Shaevitz, “Combining Ster- [4] F. P. An et al. (Daya Bay), “Observation of electron- ile Neutrino Fits to Short Baseline Data with IceCube antineutrino disappearance at Daya Bay,” Phys. Rev. Data,” Phys. Rev. D 101, 055020 (2020), 1910.13456. Lett. 108, 171803 (2012), 1203.1669. [19] P. Adamson et al. (MINOS+, Daya Bay), “Improved [5] J. K. Ahn et al. (RENO), “Observation of Reactor Elec- Constraints on Sterile Neutrino Mixing from Disappear- tron Antineutrino Disappearance in the RENO Experi- ance Searches in the MINOS, MINOS+, Daya Bay, and ment,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 191802 (2012), 1204.0626. Bugey-3 Experiments,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 071801 [6] F. An et al. (JUNO), “Neutrino Physics with JUNO,” J. (2020), 2002.00301. Phys. G 43, 030401 (2016), 1507.05613. [20] J. M. Berryman, “Constraining Sterile Neutrino Cos- [7] Th. A. Mueller et al., “Improved Predictions of Reactor mology with Terrestrial Oscillation Experiments,” Phys. Antineutrino Spectra,” Phys. Rev. C83, 054615 (2011), Rev. D 100, 023540 (2019), 1905.03254. 1101.2663. [21] S. Gariazzo, P. F. de Salas, and S. Pastor, “Thermalisa- [8] P. Huber, “On the determination of anti-neutrino spectra tion of sterile neutrinos in the early Universe in the 3+1 from nuclear reactors,” Phys. Rev. C84, 024617 (2011), scheme with full mixing matrix,” JCAP 07, 014 (2019), [Erratum: Phys. Rev. C85, 029901 (2012)], 1106.0687. 1905.11290. [9] G. Mention, M. Fechner, Th. Lasserre, Th. A. Mueller, [22] S. Hagstotz, P. F. de Salas, S. Gariazzo, M. Gerbino, D. Lhuillier, M. Cribier, and A. Letourneau, “The Re- M. Lattanzi, S. Vagnozzi, K. Freese, and S. Pastor, actor Antineutrino Anomaly,” Phys. Rev. D83, 073006 “Bounds on light sterile neutrino mass and mixing from (2011), 1101.2755. cosmology and laboratory searches,” (2020), 2003.02289. [10] K. N. Abazajian et al., “Light Sterile Neutrinos: A White [23] M. Adams, F. Bezrukov, J. Elvin-Poole, J. J. Evans, Paper,” (2012), 1204.5379. P. Guzowski, B. O. Fearraigh, and S. Söldner-Rembold, [11] M. Dentler, A. Hernández-Cabezudo, J. Kopp, P. A. N. “Direct comparison of sterile neutrino constraints from Machado, M. Maltoni, I. Martinez-Soler, and T. Schwetz, cosmological data, νe disappearance data and νµ → νe “Updated Global Analysis of Neutrino Oscillations in the appearance data in a 3 + 1 model,” Eur. Phys. J. C 80, Presence of eV-Scale Sterile Neutrinos,” JHEP 08, 010 758 (2020), 2002.07762. (2018), 1803.10661. [24] C. Grieb, J. Link, and R. S. Raghavan, “Probing active to [12] J. M. Berryman and P. Huber, “Sterile Neutrinos and the sterile neutrino oscillations in the LENS detector,” Phys. Global Reactor Antineutrino Dataset,” JHEP 01, 167 Rev. D 75, 093006 (2007), hep-ph/0611178. (2021), 2005.01756. [25] G. Bellini et al. (Borexino), “SOX: Short distance neu- [13] C. Giunti, “Statistical Significance of Reactor Antineu- trino Oscillations with BoreXino,” JHEP 08, 038 (2013), trino Active-Sterile Oscillations,” Phys. Rev. D 101, 1304.7721. 095025 (2020), 2004.07577. [26] S. K. Agarwalla, P. Huber, and J. M. Link, “Constraining [14] S. Böser,C. Buck, C. Giunti, J. Lesgourgues, L. Ludhova, sterile neutrinos with a low energy beta-beam,” JHEP S. Mertens, A. Schukraft, and M. Wurm, “Status of Light 01, 071 (2010), 0907.3145. Sterile Neutrino Searches,” Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 111, [27] L. Delgadillo and P. Huber, “Sterile neutrino searches at 103736 (2020), 1906.01739. tagged kaon beams,” Phys. Rev. D 103, 035018 (2021), [15] J. M. Berryman and P. Huber, “Reevaluating Reac- 2010.10268. tor Antineutrino Anomalies with Updated Flux Predic- [28] J. M. Conrad, M. H. Shaevitz, I. Shimizu, J. Spitz, tions,” Phys. Rev. D 101, 015008 (2020), 1909.09267. M. Toups, and L. Winslow, “Precisionν ¯e-electron scat- 13

tering measurements with IsoDAR to search for new Rev. D57, 3873 (1998), physics/9711021. physics,” Phys. Rev. D 89, 072010 (2014), 1307.5081. [37] G. Agnolet et al. (MINER), “Background Studies for [29] D. Adey et al. (nuSTORM), “Light sterile neutrino sen- the MINER Coherent Neutrino Scattering Reactor Ex- sitivity at the nuSTORM facility,” Phys. Rev. D 89, periment,” Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 853, 53 (2017), 071301 (2014), 1402.5250. 1609.02066. [30] M. Andriamirado et al. (PROSPECT), “Improved short- [38] M. Danilov (DANSS), “Recent results of the DANSS baseline neutrino oscillation search and energy spec- experiment,” PoS EPS-HEP2019, 401 (2020), trum measurement with the PROSPECT experiment at 1911.10140. HFIR,” Phys. Rev. D 103, 032001 (2021), 2006.11210. [39] Y. J. Ko et al. (NEOS Collaboration), “Sterile neu- [31] A. Abusleme et al. (JUNO), “TAO Conceptual Design trino search at the neos experiment,” Phys. Rev. Lett. Report: A Precision Measurement of the Reactor An- 118, 121802 (2017), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/ tineutrino Spectrum with Sub-percent Energy Resolu- 10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.121802. tion,” (2020), 2005.08745. [40] A. P. Serebrov, “Present status of Neutrino-4 ex- [32] H. Almazánet al. (STEREO), “Improved sterile neutrino periment search for sterile neutrino,”, URL https: constraints from the STEREO experiment with 179 days //indico.cern.ch/event/833568/contributions/ of reactor-on data,” Phys. Rev. D 102, 052002 (2020), 3655173/attachments/1957823/3252790/2-12_China_ 1912.06582. Serebrov_Neutrino-4.pdf. [33] M. Agostini and B. Neumair, “Statistical Methods Ap- [41] M. Aker et al. (KATRIN), “Bound on 3+1 Active-Sterile plied to the Search of Sterile Neutrinos,” Eur. Phys. J. C Neutrino Mixing from the First Four-Week Science Run 80, 750 (2020), 1906.11854. of KATRIN,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 091803 (2021), [34] P. Coloma, P. Huber, and T. Schwetz, “Statistical inter- 2011.05087. pretation of sterile neutrino oscillation searches at reac- [42] J. A. Formaggio, A. L. C. de Gouvêa, and R. G. H. tors,” Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 2 (2021), 2008.06083. Robertson, “Direct Measurements of Neutrino Mass,” [35] X. Qian, A. Tan, J. J. Ling, Y. Nakajima, and C. Zhang, (2021), 2102.00594. “The Gaussian CLs method for searches of new physics,” [43] J. R. Alonso and K. Nakamura (IsoDAR), “Iso- Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 827, 63 (2016), 1407.5052. DAR@KamLAND: A Conceptual Design Report for the [36] G. J. Feldman and R. D. Cousins, “A Unified approach Conventional Facilities,” (2017), 1710.09325. to the classical statistical analysis of small signals,” Phys. [44] A. Conant, Ph.D. thesis, Georgia Tech (2018).