Cosmogenic fluxes under the effect of active-sterile secret interactions

Damiano Fiorillo, Gennaro Miele, Stefano Morisi Dipartimento di Fisica ”Ettore Pancini”, Universit`adegli studi di Napoli Federico II, Complesso Univ. Monte S. Angelo, I-80126 Napoli, Italy and INFN - Sezione di Napoli, Complesso Univ. Monte S. Angelo, I-80126 Napoli, Italy

Ninetta Saviano INFN - Sezione di Napoli, Complesso Univ. Monte S. Angelo, I-80126 Napoli, Italy (Dated: May 13, 2020) Ultra High Energy cosmogenic may represent a unique opportunity to unveil possible new physics interactions once restricted to the neutrino sector only. In the present paper we study the observable effects of a secret active-sterile interactions, mediated by a pseudoscalar, on the expected flux of cosmogenic neutrinos. The results show that for masses of sterile neutrinos and pseudoscalars of hundreds MeV, necessary to evade cosmological, astrophysical and elementary particle constraints, the presence of such new interactions can significantly change the energy spectrum of cosmogenic neutrinos at Earth in the energy range from PeV to ZeV. Interestingly, the distortion of the spectrum results to be detectable at apparatus like GRAND or ARIANNA if the mediator mass is around 250 MeV and the UHECRs are dominated by the proton component. Larger mediator masses or a chemical composition of UHECRs dominated by heavier nuclei would require much larger cosmic rays apparatus which might be available in future. Keywords: Ultra High Energy neutrinos, cosmogenic neutrinos, secret interactions

I. INTRODUCTION GRAND [34], ARIANNA [35], ARA [36] and JEM-EUSO [37]. Unfortunately, a possible additional difficulty lies in The neutrino sector still represents a partially un- the fact that cosmogenic neutrino fluxes have a strong de- known territory. Fundamental questions like the nature pendence on the chemical composition of cosmic rays, as of neutrinos (Dirac or Majorana) or the possible con- shown for instance in [38]. This is particularly important nection of their small masses with physics Beyond the since recent results suggest that the chemical composi- Standard Model (BSM) can represent possible windows tion is actually mixed, containing significant amounts of on new physics. In the last decade increasing attention heavier nuclei rather than simply protons [39], and unfor- has been devoted to high energy astrophysical neutrinos, tunately for heavier nuclei one expects a suppression in after the observation of the first events at the IceCube the neutrino production. For this reason, in this work we detector [1]. These astrophysical fluxes are of extreme have analyzed two benchmark scenarios for the chemical relevance for the neutrino sector since they provide a composition of the UHECRs, namely the cases in which powerful tool of investigation for Beyond Standard Model the dominant component is either protons or Helium nu- physics, such as sterile neutrinos, Lorentz violations and clei. non standard model interactions. In this context, cosmo- In view of the above considerations a future detection genic neutrinos, that are mainly expected to have ener- of cosmogenic neutrinos would allow us to infer crucial gies up to 1012 GeV, could represent a unique opportu- astrophysical informations concerning UHECRs chem- nity. ical composition, interactions and origin. However, at Cosmogenic neutrinos are produced by the photo- the same time the shape of the cosmogenic neutrino hadronic interactions of Ultra High Energy Cosmic rays spectrum, that could be strongly distorted by the (UHECRs), whose precise chemical composition and ori- presence of new physics, could unveil the presence of gin is still unknown, with the Cosmic Microwave Back- these new interactions at least in the neutrino sector. ground (CMB) [2]. The same process is also responsible In particular, any kind of BSM interactions involving for a depletion in the flux of UHECRs, which is known in active neutrinos ν could modify the expected spectrum literature as the GZK cutoff [3, 4]. For this reason cos- and rate of cosmogenic neutrinos at Earth. Examples of arXiv:2002.10125v2 [hep-ph] 12 May 2020 mogenic neutrinos are also known as GZK-neutrinos and such new couplings discussed in literature are: they have been extensely studied in a number of works, i) Non Standard Interactions (NSI) for active neutrinos see for instance [5–30]. νν → ff [40–51], where f denotes quarks or charged The desirable observation of high-energy cosmogenic leptons; neutrinos would be particularly relevant in order to de- ii)Secret interactions (SI) mediated by some new boson termine the origin of UHECRs. Several cosmic rays appa- (scalar or vector), and just restricted to the active ratus, like HiRes [31] and the Pierre Auger Observatory neutrino sector νν → νν [24, 52–61]; (PAO) [32, 33] for example, have already tried to per- iii)Secret interactions just restricted to the sterile form such a measurement, and others are planned to do neutrino sector νsνs → νsνs for different sterile neutrino it in future with much better chances, like for instance mass scales, [62–74]. 2 iv) Secret interactions involving active and sterile The quantity F [z0,E(1 + z0)] depends of course on neutrinos simultaneously νν → νsνs[75, 76] the proton spectrum, which is itself the solution of a Boltzmann equation (see [38]), which takes into account In this paper we consider a scheme of SI similar to the proton energy losses due to Bethe-Heitler processes the point iv, wherein the new interaction, mediated by a and their depletion due to pγ processes. This calcula- new pseudoscalar boson, intervene both active and sterile tion has been performed for example in [38], which pro- neutrinos. While [75] explores the effects of this interac- vides the neutrino spectrum expected at Earth. It is tion on primordial nucleosynthesis, and [76] studies the important to notice that they assume a cosmic ray spec- effects of the interaction on neutrinos in the IceCube en- trum purely made of protons and emitted by sources ergy range of interest, we have analyzed the effects of whose density follows the star formation evolution. In this interaction on cosmogenic neutrino fluxes to ques- other words, the proton luminosity can be written as tion their observability. We will assume throughout that Lp(z, E) = H(z)Qp(E), where Qp(E) is the proton in- both the active and the sterile neutrinos are Majorana jection spectrum from the single sources and H(z) is the particles: this is also the reason why we have to choose Star Forming rate [77] a pseudoscalar mediator. In fact the scalar contraction  3.4 νν¯ s is antihermitean and therefore not admissible as a (1 + z) z ≤ 1;  −0.3 possible interaction operator: therefore the only possi- H(z) = N1(1 + z) 1 < z ≤ 4; (3) ble contraction isνγ ¯ 5νs. To preserve parity, we take the  −3.5 N1N4(1 + z) z > 4, mediator to be a pseudoscalar. In particular we study the distortion implied by such new coupling on the ex- 3.7 3.2 where N1 = 2 and N4 = 5 . The proton luminosity pected cosmogenic neutrino flux estimating the possibil- Lp(z, E) works as an input to the Boltzmann equation ity to measure this effect in apparatus like GRAND [34]. which provides the function F [z0,E(1 + z0)] in Eq. (2). For the sake of simplicity we will assume just one sterile Since Ref. [38] only furnishes the final neutrino spec- neutrino (hereafter denoted by νs) coupling with the ac- trum at Earth, and does not provide the proton spectrum tive sector via this new interaction. Moreover, with the Qp(E) at each redshift, in principle one would not be aim to catch the main implications of such scenario on able to reproduce the function F [z0,E(1 + z0)] in Eq. (2). cosmogenic neutrino flux we consider an active neutrino However, at sufficiently high energies the mean free path only (hereafter denoted by ν), hence focussing on a more for pγ interaction becomes so small that neutrinos can simple 1 + 1 framework. However it would be straight- be assumed to be produced exactly at the same place in forward to extend our analysis to three active neutrinos which the emission of the protons occurs. If we make even though we do not expect that the main results, here the further hypothesis that at each redshift the injection obtained, would be drastically changed in a more realistic spectrum of the protons has exactly the same form, with 3 + 1 framework. The interaction term then becomes a redshifted energy, the function F [z0,E(1 + z0)] takes on the form LSI = λ νγ5νsϕ , (1) F [z0,E(1 + z0)] = ρ(z0)f[E(1 + z0)] , (4) where λ is a dimensionless free coupling. where ρ(z0) is proportional to the Star Forming Rate given in Eq. (3). II. COSMOGENIC NEUTRINO FLUX AT After this simplification, there is a unique function EARTH WITHOUT SECRET INTERACTIONS f[E(1 + z0)] which reproduces the spectrum obtained by [38]. While the effects of these simplifications may be As described above, cosmogenic neutrinos are pro- relevant at lower energies, they should be almost irrele- duced by the scattering of high energy protons from the vant in the high energy part of the cosmogenic spectrum, cosmic rays with the CMB photons. The cosmogenic where the hypothesis of a small mean free path is natu- neutrino flux φν , expected to be isotropic, can be pa- ral. In particular, the mean free path for pγ interactions rameterized in the form is typically of the order of 50 Mpc, which is small com- pared to the cosmological distances. dφ Z dz0 ν 0 0 The inversion of Eq. (2) under the ansatz of Eq. (4) is = 0 F [z ,E(1 + z )] , (2) dEdΩ H(z ) in principle possible in an exact way through the use of a Mellin transform. In fact, the equation takes the form where F [z0,E(1 + z0)] is the number of neutrinos pro- Z 0 duced per unit time per unit energy interval per unit solid dφν dz 0 0 0 = ρ(z )f[E(1 + z )]. (5) angle per unit volume at redshift z and with comoving dEdΩ H(z0) energy E(1 + z0). We use as a reference the spectrum proposed in [38], which constitutes a lower bound for the However, due to the differential properties of the func- cosmogenic neutrino spectrum. This is a conservative hy- tions involved, this method is very hard to apply, because pothesis, since a higher flux would make easier to detect of the very fast oscillations of the Mellin transform. It the effects of the interaction. is however possible to obtain a very good approximation 3 by observing that the integral kernel connecting f(E) to the observed spectrum, which is ρ(z)/H(z), is a peaked function around z ' 1. Thus, under the assumption that f[E(1 + z)] depends on the redshift more slowly than ρ(z)/H(z), we may take it out of the integral evaluating it at redshift z = 1, finding

dφ 1 f(2E) = ν . (6) dEdΩ R dz0 0 H(z0) ρ(z )

We have numerically checked that this approximation gives good results by comparing the expected spectrum at Earth computed with Eq. (6) with the input spectrum.

III. CROSS SECTIONS

With the inclusion of secret interactions given in Figure 1. Feynman diagrams for the scattering of two active Eq. (1), the cosmogenic neutrino spectra at Earth could neutrinos through the secret interaction. change, depending on the free parameters of the new in- teraction, namely the coupling λ, the masses Mϕ of the scalar ϕ and of the sterile neutrino ms. In the following, we provide the cross sections for the processes considered in this work. In the computation of the cross sections we should in principle consider initial and final states in the form of mass eigenstates. However, in the hypothesis that the active-sterile mixing angle θas is sufficiently small θas  1, the effects coming from taking this into account will be small corrections only, proportional at least to the 2 square of the mixing angle θas. The cross sections are therefore computed without any correction coming from mixing angles. Therefore the initial and final states may be taken directly as mass eigenstates. At tree level the new processes introduced by our new interaction are the four particle collisions ν +ν → νs +νs, ν + νs → ν + νs and νs + νs → ν + ν. Among these, the processes relevant for the experimental signatures we are looking for are the first two, shown in Fig.s 1 and 2 . In fact, since the Cosmic Neutrino Background (CNB) only involves active neutrinos, all collisions must involve at least one active neutrino in their initial state. As we will discuss in Section V, we will choose a range of param- eters for which a sterile component in the CNB results to be negligible. The reason is that we wll choose ster- ile neutrinos so massive that their distribution becomes Boltzmann suppressed before the Big Bang Nucleosyn- thesis. The process ν + νs → ν + νs is still relevant, even though the cosmogenic neutrinos are active in flavor, be- Figure 2. Feynman diagrams for the scattering of an active cause a sterile neutrino originated from mixing or from and a sterile neutrino through the secret interaction. a previous collision of an active neutrino with the back- ground might still in principle produce a relevant active flux.

Considering the process ν + ν → νs + νs , the squared amplitude written in terms of the Mandelstam invariants s = (p + l)2, t = (p − k)2 and u = (p − q)2 (see Figure 1) 4 is with  2 2 2 2 2 4 [t − (m − ms) ] [u − (m − ms) ] (m2 + 2mE)2 − m4 2m2E2 |Maa→ss| = λ + t = m2 +m2 − s s ± (13) (t − M 2)2 + Γ2M 2 (u − M 2)2 + Γ2M 2 1,2 s 2 2 ϕ ϕ ϕ ϕ 2(ms + 2mE) 2mE + ms 2[(t − M 2)(u − M 2) + Γ2M 2] ϕ ϕ ϕ and again the energy of the incident sterile neutrino is E − 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 [(t − Mϕ) + Γ Mϕ][(u − Mϕ) + Γ Mϕ] and J is defined as  2 2 2 2 2 2 (t − m − ms) (u − m − ms) r × + m4 + m4 + s2 − 2sm2 − 2sm2 4 4 J = s s . (14) 2 s2  − + s(m2 + m2 − m m ) − 2m2m2 (7) 4 s s s The differential cross section for the production of an active neutrino of energy E is then where m is the mass of the active neutrino ν of CNB, Γ 2  2  is the decay rate of the scalar mediator given below, and dσas→as 1 2mE = θ − E2 × (15) Mϕ is its mass. We remind that the squared amplitude 2 dE2 32πEJ 2mE + ms depends on two Mandelstam invariants only, since the ×|M|2[m2 + m2 + 2mE, m2 + m2 − 2m(E − E )] . third is connected to the others by the relation s+t+u = s s 2 2 2 2(m +ms). The total cross section for the ν+ν → νs+νs The differential cross section for the production of a ster- interaction is then given by ile neutrino of energy E1 is: 1 Z t2 2 dσas→as 1 2  σaa→ss = |Maa→ss| (s, t)dt (8) = θ (E − E )(2mEE − m (E − E ) × 64πI2 1 1 s 1 t1 dE1 32πEJ 2 2 2 2 2 where ×|M| [m + ms + 2mE, m + ms − 2mE1] . (16) s √ r s Concerning the scalar mediator, its decay rate is given t = m2 + m2 − ± s − m2 , (9) 1,2 s 2 4 s by

2 p 2 2p 2 2 2 and λ ξ(mms + ξ + m ξ + ms + ξ ) Γ = θ(Mϕ−m−ms) r p 2 2 p 2 2 2m4 + s2 − 4sm2 2πMϕ( ξ + m + k + ms) I = . (10) (17) 2 where The differential cross section for the production of a ster- q 4 2 2 4 2 2 2 2 4 ile neutrino with energy Es in the process ν +ν → νs +νs m − 2m Mϕ + Mϕ − 2m ms − 2Mϕms + ms is ξ = 2Mϕ dσ |M |2[2pm, m2 + m2 − 2m(E − E )] (18) aa→ss = aa→ss s s × dEs 32πEI A point to emphasize is the fact that, for ms ≥ Mϕ, the  2mE2   m2  decay rate of the scalar mediator vanishes, since there is × θ E − s θ E − s . (11) no decay channel kinematically allowed. This means that 2mE − m2 s 2m s s the resonances in the cross sections become unregulated. Here E is the energy of the incident cosmogenic active While this is not a problem for the s-resonance, which neutrino. can never be reached in the physical space of parameters of the collision, the t- and u-resonance exhibit instead a Let us discuss now the second process ν + νs → ν + νs. singular behavior. This behavior needs to be regulated Again, the initial momentum of the background neutrino taking into account the finite transverse amplitude of the is l, the momentum of the incident sterile neutrino is p, scattering beams, in a way analogous to [78]. In order the momentum of the final sterile and active neutrinos to avoid this difficulty, we have restricted to the case are respectively k1 and k2 as shown in Fig. (2). Notice Mϕ > ms. that in this case, since the two final particles are distin- guishable, the choice of how to define the Mandelstam parameters is not equivalent: we choose the convention IV. PROPAGATION: TRANSPORT EQUATION 2 2 that t = (p − k2) = (l − k1) . With this choice, the 2 squared amplitude |Mas→as| is identical to Eq. (7) with The effect of the secret interaction on the neutrino flux the s and the u parameters exchanged in the correspond- produced through the pγ interactions is described by a ing equation. The total cross section for the process is Boltzmann equation. The relevant physical processes are the collisions of a cosmogenic neutrino with a neutrino 1 Z t2 σ = |M |2(m2 + 2mE, t)dt from the CNB, and two different effects are in principle as→as 64πJ 2 aa→ss s t1 possible: on the one hand, the collision of an astrophys- (12) ical neutrino produces a depletion in the flux, described 5 by an absorption term; on the other hand, after the col- numerically. However, some physical considerations al- lision two new daughter sterile neutrinos are produced. low us to obtain the most interesting results with a sim- If the incident neutrinos are highly relativistic, as we are plified approach. If there is no mixing from oscillations assuming, the collisions will be strongly forward, with between the active and the sterile neutrinos, then we have collinear emission of the daughter neutrinos, and we can no interest in the sterile flux at Earth, which could not be assume that in principle they will replenish the original detected in any case. In the equation for the active flux, flux. Nonetheless, we will see that, even though they are the term describing the replenishment of the flux by the produced with the correct angle, their energies will be process νs + ν → νs + ν is weighted by the differential too low to be relevant to our work. The interplay be- cross section for production of an active neutrino. We tween these two processes is described by the transport will now describe the order of magnitude of this term. If equation which we show below. l is the order of magnitude of the distance traveled by the A subtle point which has to be taken into account is neutrino, which can be taken to be 1026 m, the correction the effect of oscillations. In principle, we should write a to the active flux is of order: differential evolution equation for each of the components Z 0 0 dσsa 0 of the density matrix in flavor space. However, at the ex- ∆Φa(E) ∼ nl dE Φs(E ) (E → E) (20) tremely high energies of interest to us, the De Broglie dE wavelength of the neutrinos, which characterizes the dis- The sterile flux is generated by the active flux itself, and tances over which neutrino oscillates, is much smaller can be estimated in the same way, obtaining: than the characteristic distance of propagation, which Z Z is the mean free path for the interaction. With this con- 2 2 0 00 00 sideration, we are assured that between two successive ∆Φa(E) ∼ n l dE dE Φa(E ) × collision the oscillations have averaged out. This means dσas dσsa that, even though neutrinos are produced as eigenstates × (E00 → E0) (E0 → E) (21) dE0 dE of flavor, during their propagation their density matrix averages to a form which is diagonal in the space of the The mean value of the energy E00, due to the kinematic mass eigenstates. For this reason, we have studied the threshold for the interaction of active neutrinos set at 2 9 propagation equation for the fluxes of neutrinos in the 2ms/m, which is at least of order 10 GeV, turns out to mass eigenstates. be very large, at least of order 1010 GeV. In other words Let Φa(z, E) be the flux of active neutrinos per unit an active neutrino can be produced through regeneration energy interval per unit solid angle at a redshift z,Φs the by a sterile neutrino, which has to be produced itself by analogous flux of sterile neutrino: we will collectively de- an active neutrino. The latter has to have an energy 10 note them by Φl where Φl ≡ dφl/dE dΩ. The transport at least as high as 10 GeV. Due to the rapid decrease set of equations is: with energy of the input flux, this correction turns out   to be much smaller than the original flux. Further, we ∂Φl ∂Φl E have numerically solved the equation for some benchmark H(z) + = n(z)σl(E)Φl(E) + ∂z ∂E 1 + z cases, finding in fact that for decreasing fluxes, as in our Z X dσml case, the correction for regeneration is irrelevant, while −n(z) dE0 (E0 → E)Φ (E0) + dE m it could be relevant in case of increasing fluxes. m=a,s Therefore, we can neglect the regeneration term in the −ρ(z)f(E)δla with l = a, s (19) equation for the active neutrinos, which becomes: Here σ is the total cross section for collision of a neutrino ∂Φ ∂Φ E  l H(z) a + a = n(z)σ (E)Φ (E) + of type l = a, s with a neutrino from the CNB, where ∂z ∂E 1 + z a a σ ≡ σ of Eq. (8) and σ ≡ σ of Eq. (12) (we a aa→ss s as→as −ρ(z)f(E) (22) are assuming a single active flavor for the latter, since the CNB is composed only of active neutrinos). This equation contains only an absorption term, and ad- dσml 0 Moreover in Eq. (19) the quantity dE (E → E) denotes mits now an analytical solution for the flux at Earth: the partial cross section of Eq.s (15) and (16) for the pro- Z +∞ duction of an l-th neutrino with energy E after the colli- dz 0 Φa(E) = ρ(z)f [E(1 + z)] × sion of an m-th neutrino of energy E with the CNB one. 0 H(z) The quantity n denotes the number density of CNB neu-  Z z dz0  3 0 0 trinos, which we have taken to be n(z) = n0(1 + z) with × exp − 0 n(z )σa [E(1 + z )] (23) −3 0 H(z ) n0 = 116cm . The function f(E) is the number of neu- trinos emitted per unit energy interval per unit time per The validity of this approximation has been verified by unit solid angle, which has been described above. ρ(z) explicitly finding the numerical solution to the full sys- is the density of sources which has been taken to evolve tem (19) for some benchmark values of the sterile mass with the Star Formation Rate. and the mediator mass between 250 MeV and 1 GeV, Equation (19) is a system of two partial differential and comparing it to (23). We found a perfect agreement coupled equations, which should in principle be solved between the two. 6

V. CONSTRAINTS angle. This interaction is relevant only until the point at 2 which H ∼ T /MPl, where H is the Hubble parameter and M is the Planck mass. Equating these we find The model we are assuming is in principle subject to Pl that for λ = 1, M = 250 MeV and θ ≤ 10−4 the active- a number of constraints from cosmology, astrophysics φ active interaction is irrelevant at the moment of the BBN. and laboratory experiments. We did not perform a detailed study of the unconstrained region spanned by Cosmic Microwave Background bounds the parameters λ, m ,M, since this would be beyond s At the time of formation of the Cosmic Microwave the scope of this work. We focused on a particular region Background, the sterile and scalar particles have long which turns out not to be affected by these constraints. disappeared. The active neutrinos can interact through the four point reactions νν → νν. As mentioned Laboratory bounds above, this interaction should have already run out of Mesons decays, in particular Kaon decays, can be quite equilibrium before the BBN, to avoid changes in the restrictive for models with secret interactions, since the distribution functions of the neutrinos, so it is even less latter can introduce new decay channels. For secret relevant at the time of the formation of the CMB. interactions among active neutrinos severe constraints come from meson decays in the (λ, M) plane, as shown Astrophysical bounds for instance in [79] and [80], where it is roughly found Another constraint might in principle come from the that the region up to M & 250 MeV is insensitive to the analysis of neutrino fluxes from supernovae. In fact, since exclusions. For our model one should in principle make neutrinos in the core of supernovae have energies of order a similar analysis, since through the secret interaction of tenth or hundredth of MeV, they are sufficiently ener- the kaon can decay into K → µνsϕ or K → µνsνsν. If, getic to produce sterile neutrinos which could escape the however, we restrict to the range of masses ms ≥ 250 supernova, giving rise to an energy loss with observable MeV and M ≥ 250 MeV, these reactions are kinemat- consequences. However, due to the interactions we are in- ically forbidden, justifying the absence of constraints troducing, even though sterile neutrinos can in principle from these decays. be produced, they are not able to escape the supernova, trapped by the secret interaction with the active neutri- nos inside the core. In order to verify this statement, we Big Bang Nucleosyntesis bounds have computed the order of magnitude of the mean free It is interesting to note that with the choice M, ms & 250 path of a sterile neutrino inside the core. We have ob- MeV, the whole sector of the active and sterile neutrino tained, for example, for a benchmark mass of 250 MeV and the scalar mediator remains in equilibrium at for the sterile neutrino, 300 MeV for the scalar media- temperatures even lower than the BBN. For example, if tor and 1 for the coupling, a mean free path of 10−11 m, λ = 1, the interactions are relevant down to temperatures clearly much smaller than the characteristic distances of of 100 eV. Of course, after around 1 MeV, the active a supernova. neutrino decouples from the Standard Model plasma, so In view of the above considerations we restrict in the below this temperature we cannot speak of thermal equi- following our analysis to the case of massive sterile neu- librium, but the interactions between active and sterile trinos, with ms of few hundreds MeV and a mass of the neutrinos and scalar mediator remain effective. Because pseudoscalar mediator Mϕ ≥ ms. of this, the sterile neutrino and the scalar mediator are Boltzmann suppressed at temperatures below essentially T ∼ 100 MeV, since at these temperatures the reactions VI. RESULTS AND DETECTION CHANCES of production of sterile neutrinos are kinematically suppressed. Therefore at the BBN temperatures, around Among the most relevant experiments that have per- 1 MeV, the newly introduced particles have disappeared formed a detection campaign for cosmogenic neutrinos, and they do not count as radiative degrees of freedom, and the future apparatus that will undertake such mea- without in fact influencing the nucleosynthesis. We also surements, we have taken into account, as representatives point out that, as shown in [81], there is another possible of different classes, the sensitivities of PAO, GRAND and imprint that our interaction might leave on the BBN, ARIANNA for comparison. due to the presence of an active-active interaction which The main goal of PAO, located in Argentina and tak- may distort the Fermi distribution of active neutrinos. ing data since 2004, was the measurement of extensive However, the active-active interaction can only hap- air showers produced by secondary particles in the in- pen either through mixing or through next-to-leading teraction of UHECRs with the atmosphere. The Pierre order interactions, since our model Lagrangian only Auger Observatory consists of two different experimen- contains an active-sterile vertex. Assuming next-to- tal set up performing two independent measurements of leading order interactions are sufficiently suppressed, the shower: a Fluorescence Detector (FD) and a Surface the rate for active-active interactions through mixing is Detector (SD). The FD detects the Nitrogen fluorescence 3 λ4θ4T 2 nσv ∼ T 4 , where θ is the active-sterile mixing Mφ emission produced during the development of the shower 7 in the atmosphere by means of 24 large telescopes placed at four observation sites located atop small elevations on the perimeter of the SD array. It is sensitive to UHECRs with energy above (1018 eV) . On the other side, the SD apparatus consists of an array of water-Cherenkov detec- tors that are located on a large area of about 3000 km2 arranged in a hexagonal pattern. Although the primary goal of PAO was to study UHE- CRs, it has been shown in [82] that it can also study cosmogenic neutrinos. Indeed neutrinos arriving at large zenith angle (horizontal with respect to the detector) pro- duce at the sea level extensive air showers with small ra- dius of curvature [82], in contrast with other showers from large zenith angles. The electromagnetic component of ordinary air showers at large zenith angles from hadronic cosmic rays is attenuated by the atmosphere before ar- riving at the sea level. Deeply penetrating particles like neutrinos come instead unattenuated [83]. Recent up- grades of the PAO sensitivity can be found in [84] and an integrated sensitivity to cosmogenic neutrino fluxes is found of about 4 · 10−9 GeV cm−2 s−1 sr−1. Such a sen- sitivity will be improved by the Giant Radio Array for Neutrino Detection (GRAND) [34], that will be located in various favorable mountainous places in the world and is planned to take data in 2025 and should reach, after 10 years of data, an integrated sensitivity to cosmogenic neutrino fluxes of 1 · 10−10 GeV cm−2 s−1 sr−1, thus im- proving of a factor of ten the current PAO sensitivity. GRAND will detect the radio emission coming from large particle showers, namely extensive air showers, like PAO. In the first detection stage, GRAND10k will use an array of 10.000 radio antennas deployed over an area of 10.000 Figure 3. Effects on the cosmogenic spectrum expected in the case of: top panel) proton cosmic rays, bottom panel) km2 GRAND10k. A second stage for grand is planned, helium cosmic rays. The continuous green curve is the GRAND200k with 200.000 receivers, which could take cosmogenic spectrum expected in the absence of secret in- data starting from 2030. teractions, the dashed, dotdashed and dotted lines are the A further class of experiments are the Askaryan radio spectrum for secret interactions with ms = 250 MeV and experiments, like ARIANNA [85]. The ARIANNA exper- Mϕ = 300, 500, 1000 MeV respectively. The sensitivity of the iment, located in the South Pole, aims to detect the radio GRAND experiment, the 90% C.L. of PAO, the integrated signals of cosmogenic neutrinos. The ARIANNA concept sensitivity of GRAND after 10 years of data and the sensitiv- is based on installing high-gain log periodic dipole an- ity of the ARIANNA experiment are also shown. tennas close to the surface monitoring the underlying ice for the radio signals following a neutrino interaction and based on the Askaryan effect. In Figure 3 we provide the expected cosmogenic spec- after 3 years of data taking would be able to distinguish tra both in the absence of secret interactions and in their the presence of the secret interaction, even for masses as presence, for some benchmark values of the scalar me- large as 500 MeV, at least in the case of purely protonic diator masses. These spectra have been obtained under UHECRs. In fact, while in the absence of the secret in- the assumption of a purely protonic UHECRs flux (top teraction the cosmogenic flux should be detected up to panel) and purely helium cosmic rays (bottom panel). energies of ∼ 1010 GeV, being above the sensitivity of the The coupling has been fixed to λ = 1, while the sterile experiment, the interaction causes its absorption, making mass is taken to be 250 MeV. The dashed, dotdashed the flux undetectable already at energies of ∼ 109 GeV. and dotted curve respectively correspond to a mass of This conclusion depends very strongly, however, on our the scalar mediator of 300 MeV, 500 MeV and 1 GeV. In choice for the coupling. In fact, since the cross section, agreement with the expectations, larger masses for the appearing in the exponent of the absorption coefficient, mediator correspond to weaker absorption. grows as the fourth power of the coupling, already a The sensitivities of the GRAND, the PAO and the AR- choice of λ ∼ 0.1 renders the absorption effect completely IANNA [86] experiments are shown as well. It appears negligible. A milder dependence is the one expected on that already the GRAND and the ARIANNA experiment the sterile neutrino masses. Raising this mass causes an 8 increase in the threshold energy for the production. In torted. In this scenario, in order to evade the con- 2 fact, the latter is Eth ' ms/m, which is the energy at straints coming from cosmology, astrophysics and par- which we expect the absorption effect to begin. ticle physics, we need to take quite a large mass for the All of our conclusions are of course based on the as- sterile neutrinos of the order of few hundreds MeV. Ob- sumption of a purely protonic UHECRs flux. Recent servable effects are then seen in the cosmogenic neutrino data [39] suggest a mixed chemical composition, tending fluxes of ultrahigh energy, produced through the GZK towards Helium and Nitrogen as the dominant compo- interaction. In fact, these extremely energetic neutrinos nents. It is therefore of interest to determine how our can, during their path to Earth, collide with neutrinos results change for a different chemical composition. In from the Cosmic Neutrino Background, producing a flux the case of Helium dominated cosmic rays, the spectrum of sterile neutrinos and depleting the flux of active ones. without interaction is already lower than the GRAND We showed that this results in an absorption of the cos- sensitivity at 3 years, while it is slightly higher than the mogenic neutrino fluxes and then in a peculiar distor- integrated sensitivity after 10 years of data taking. tion of the expected flux. We also showed that, in the For Nitrogen dominated cosmic rays, the spectrum, case of GZK neutrinos coming from cosmic rays dom- with or without secret interaction, is not amenable to inated by protons, the effects of these absorptions are detection at GRAND, being even below the integrated sufficiently important to be revealed by a forthcoming sensitivity at 10 years. Since our partial informations experiment like GRAND or ARIANNA. In the case of about the chemical composition of UHECRs suggest a different chemical compositions of the cosmic rays, the mixed composition, it is reasonable to expect a cosmo- neutrino flux is generally lower even without absorption genic spectrum somewhere in between the extreme cases and the possibility of cosmogenic neutrino detection with analyzed. the GRAND experiment is only marginal. In this case, Nonetheless, even in the pessimistic case of extremely the cosmogenic neutrino detection would demand for the low cosmogenic neutrino fluxes due to heavy ion domi- future a much larger generation of cosmic rays appara- nance of UHECRs, the same effect might be relevant for tus. Even in such a more pessimistic case, the effect we neutrinos from astrophysical sources. In fact, neutrinos have investigated can still be relevant for neutrino fluxes from blazars can reach energies as high as 1010 GeV [87], from astrophysical sources. whereas the position of the resonant absorption is around ∼ 108 GeV. Acknowledgments: we thanks Elisa Bernardini, Alessandro Mirizzi and Kohta Murase for useful discus- VII. CONCLUSIONS sion. This work was partially supported by the research grant number 2017W4HA7S “NAT-NET: Neutrino and In this paper we have investigated the experimentally Astroparticle Theory Network” under the program PRIN observable effects coming from a simple form of active- 2017 funded by the Italian Ministero dell’Universit`ae sterile secret interactions in neutrino sector, mediated by della Ricerca (MUR). The authors acknowledge partial a pseudoscalar, at air shower experiments like GRAND support by the research project TAsP (Theoretical As- and PAO. Due to the presence of such interactions, the troparticle Physics) funded by the Instituto Nazionale di flux of cosmogenic neutrinos results to be strongly dis- Fisica Nucleare (INFN).

[1] M. G. Aartsen et al. Evidence for High-Energy Ex- [7] Ralph Engel, David Seckel, and Todor Stanev. Neutri- traterrestrial Neutrinos at the IceCube Detector. Science, nos from propagation of ultrahigh-energy protons. Phys. 342:1242856, 2013. Rev., D64:093010, 2001. [2] V. S. Berezinsky and G. T. Zatsepin. Cosmic rays at [8] Alexander Kusenko and Thomas J. Weiler. Neutrino ultrahigh-energies (neutrino?). Phys. Lett., 28B:423–424, cross-sections at high-energies and the future observa- 1969. tions of ultrahigh-energy cosmic rays. Phys. Rev. Lett., [3] Kenneth Greisen. End to the cosmic ray spectrum? Phys. 88:161101, 2002. Rev. Lett., 16:748–750, 1966. [9] Luis Anchordoqui, Thomas Cantzon Paul, Stephen Reu- [4] G. T. Zatsepin and V. A. Kuzmin. Upper limit of the croft, and John Swain. Ultrahigh-energy cosmic rays: spectrum of cosmic rays. JETP Lett., 4:78–80, 1966. The State of the art before the Auger Observatory. Int. [Pisma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.4,114(1966)]. J. Mod. Phys., A18:2229–2366, 2003. [5] Veniamin Berezinsky, Pasquale Blasi, and Alexander [10] Z. Fodor, S. D. Katz, and A. Ringwald. Relic neu- Vilenkin. Ultrahigh-energy gamma-rays as signature of trino masses and the highest energy cosmic rays. JHEP, topological defects. Phys. Rev., D58:103515, 1998. 06:046, 2002. [6] M. Nagano and Alan A. Watson. Observations and im- [11] Oleg E. Kalashev, Vadim A. Kuzmin, Dmitry V. plications of the ultrahigh-energy cosmic rays. Rev. Mod. Semikoz, and Gunter Sigl. Ultrahigh-energy neutrino Phys., 72:689–732, 2000. fluxes and their constraints. Phys. Rev., D66:063004, 9

2002. [31] R. U. Abbasi et al. First observation of the [12] Dmitry V. Semikoz and Gunter Sigl. Ultrahigh-energy Greisen-Zatsepin-Kuzmin suppression. Phys. Rev. Lett., neutrino fluxes: New constraints and implications. 100:101101, 2008. JCAP, 0404:003, 2004. [32] J. Abraham et al. Properties and performance of the [13] Z. Fodor, S. D. Katz, A. Ringwald, and H. Tu. Bounds prototype instrument for the Pierre Auger Observatory. on the cosmogenic neutrino flux. JCAP, 0311:015, 2003. Nucl. Instrum. Meth., A523:50–95, 2004. [14] Maximo Ave, N. Busca, Angela V. Olinto, Alan A. Wat- [33] J. Abraham et al. Observation of the suppression of the son, and T. Yamamoto. Cosmogenic neutrinos from flux of cosmic rays above 4 × 1019eV. Phys. Rev. Lett., ultra-high energy nuclei. Astropart. Phys., 23:19–29, 101:061101, 2008. 2005. [34] Jaime Alvarez Muniz et al. The Giant Radio Array for [15] David Seckel and Todor Stanev. Neutrinos: The Key to Neutrino Detection (GRAND): Science and Design. Sci. UHE cosmic rays. Phys. Rev. Lett., 95:141101, 2005. China Phys. Mech. Astron., 63(1):219501, 2020. [16] Daniel De Marco, Todor Stanev, and F. W. Stecker. Cos- [35] A. Anker et al., A search for cosmogenic neutrinos mogenic neutrinos from cosmic ray interactions with ex- with the ARIANNA test bed using 4.5 years of data tragalactic infrared photons. Phys. Rev., D73:043003, arXiv:1909.00840 [astro-ph.IM]. 2006. [36] P. Allison et al. [ARA Collaboration], Performance of [17] Denis Allard, M. Ave, N. Busca, M. A. Malkan, A. V. two stations and first results in Olinto, E. Parizot, F. W. Stecker, and T. Yamamoto. the search for ultrahigh energy neutrinos Phys. Rev. D Cosmogenic Neutrinos from the propagation of Ultrahigh 93, no. 8, 082003 (2016) Energy Nuclei. JCAP, 0609:005, 2006. [37] J. H. Adams et al. An evaluation of the exposure in nadir [18] Julia K. Becker. High-energy neutrinos in the context of observation of the JEM-EUSO mission. Astropart. Phys., multimessenger physics. Phys. Rept., 458:173–246, 2008. 44:76–90, 2013. [19] Luis A. Anchordoqui, Haim Goldberg, Dan Hooper, [38] Markus Ahlers and Francis Halzen. Minimal Cosmogenic Subir Sarkar, and Andrew M. Taylor. Predictions for the Neutrinos. Phys. Rev., D86:083010, 2012. Cosmogenic Neutrino Flux in Light of New Data from [39] Antonella Castellina. Highlights from the Pierre Auger the Pierre Auger Observatory. Phys. Rev., D76:123008, Observatory (ICRC2019). PoS, ICRC2019:004, 2020. 2007. [40] S. Davidson, C. Pena-Garay, N. Rius, and A. Santamaria. [20] V. Berezinsky, A. Gazizov, M. Kachelriess, and Present and future bounds on nonstandard neutrino in- S. Ostapchenko. Restricting UHECRs and cosmogenic teractions. JHEP, 03:011, 2003. neutrinos with Fermi-LAT. Phys. Lett., B695:13–18, [41] Stefan Antusch, Jochen P. Baumann, and Enrique 2011. Fernandez-Martinez. Non-Standard Neutrino Interac- [21] M. Ahlers, L. A. Anchordoqui, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, tions with Matter from Physics Beyond the Standard F. Halzen, and S. Sarkar. GZK Neutrinos after the Fermi- Model. Nucl. Phys., B810:369–388, 2009. LAT Diffuse Photon Flux Measurement. Astropart. [42] O. G. Miranda, M. A. Tortola, and J. W. F. Valle. Are Phys., 34:106–115, 2010. solar neutrino oscillations robust? JHEP, 10:008, 2006. [22] U. F. Katz and Ch. Spiering. High-Energy Neutrino As- [43] N. Fornengo, M. Maltoni, R. Tomas, and J. W. F. Valle. trophysics: Status and Perspectives. Prog. Part. Nucl. Probing neutrino nonstandard interactions with atmo- Phys., 67:651–704, 2012. spheric neutrino data. Phys. Rev., D65:013010, 2002. [23] Graciela B. Gelmini, Oleg Kalashev, and Dmitri V. [44] Patrick Huber and J. W. F. Valle. Nonstandard interac- Semikoz. Gamma-Ray Constraints on Maximum Cos- tions: Atmospheric versus experiments. mogenic Neutrino Fluxes and UHECR Source Evolution Phys. Lett., B523:151–160, 2001. Models. JCAP, 1201:044, 2012. [45] J. Barranco, O. G. Miranda, C. A. Moura, and J. W. F. [24] Kenny C. Y. Ng and John F. Beacom. Cosmic Valle. Constraining non-standard interactions in nu(e) e neutrino cascades from secret neutrino interactions. or anti-nu(e) e scattering. Phys. Rev., D73:113001, 2006. Phys. Rev., D90(6):065035, 2014. [Erratum: Phys. [46] Y. Farzan and M. Tortola. Neutrino oscillations and Non- Rev.D90,no.8,089904(2014)]. Standard Interactions. Front.in Phys., 6:10, 2018. [25] Kohta Murase. On the Origin of High-Energy Cosmic [47] N. C. Ribeiro, H. Minakata, H. Nunokawa, S. Uchinami, Neutrinos. AIP Conf. Proc., 1666(1):040006, 2015. and R. Zukanovich-Funchal. Probing Non-Standard [26] Jonas Heinze, Denise Boncioli, Mauricio Bustamante, Neutrino Interactions with Neutrino Factories. JHEP, and Walter Winter. Cosmogenic Neutrinos Challenge 12:002, 2007. the Cosmic Ray Proton Dip Model. Astrophys. J., [48] Pilar Coloma. Non-Standard Interactions in propagation 825(2):122, 2016. at the Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment. JHEP, [27] R. Aloisio, D. Boncioli, A di Matteo, A. F. Grillo, S. Pe- 03:016, 2016. trera, and F. Salamida. Cosmogenic neutrinos and ultra- [49] Andre de Gouvea and Kevin J. Kelly. Non-standard Neu- high energy cosmic ray models. JCAP, 1510(10):006, trino Interactions at DUNE. Nucl. Phys., B908:318–335, 2015. 2016. [28] Francis Halzen. High-energy neutrino astrophysics. Na- [50] D. V. Forero, S. Morisi, M. Tortola, and J. W. F. Valle. ture Phys., 13(3):232–238, 2016. Lepton flavor violation and non-unitary lepton mixing in [29] John F. Cherry and Ian M. Shoemaker. Sterile neutrino low-scale type-I seesaw. JHEP, 09:142, 2011. origin for the upward directed cosmic ray showers de- [51] Gianpiero Mangano, Gennaro Miele, Sergio Pastor, tected by ANITA. Phys. Rev., D99(6):063016, 2019. Teguayco Pinto, Ofelia Pisanti, and Pasquale D. Serpico. [30] Edoardo Vitagliano, Irene Tamborra, and Georg Raffelt. Effects of non-standard neutrino-electron interactions on Grand Unified Neutrino Spectrum at Earth. 2019. relic neutrino decoupling. Nucl. Phys., B756:100–116, 2006. 10

[52] Kunihto Ioka and Kohta Murase. IceCube PeV?EeV IceCube. 2016. neutrinos and secret interactions of neutrinos. PTEP, [71] Francesco Forastieri, Massimiliano Lattanzi, Gianpiero 2014(6):061E01, 2014. Mangano, Alessandro Mirizzi, Paolo Natoli, and Ninetta [53] P. Bakhti, Y. Farzan, and M. Rajaee. Secret interactions Saviano. Cosmic microwave background constraints of neutrinos with light gauge boson at the DUNE near on secret interactions among sterile neutrinos. JCAP, detector. Phys. Rev., D99(5):055019, 2019. 1707(07):038, 2017. [54] Edward W. Kolb and Michael S. Turner. Supernova SN [72] Xiaoyong Chu, Basudeb Dasgupta, Mona Dentler, 1987a and the Secret Interactions of Neutrinos. Phys. Joachim Kopp, and Ninetta Saviano. Sterile neutrinos Rev., D36:2895, 1987. with secret interactions?cosmological discord? JCAP, [55] Maria Archidiacono and Steen Hannestad. Updated 1811(11):049, 2018. constraints on non-standard neutrino interactions from [73] Yu Seon Jeong, Sergio Palomares-Ruiz, Mary Hall Reno, Planck. JCAP, 1407:046, 2014. and Ina Sarcevic. Probing secret interactions of eV- [56] Ranjan Laha, Basudeb Dasgupta, and John F. Bea- scale sterile neutrinos with the diffuse supernova neutrino com. Constraints on New Neutrino Interactions via Light background. JCAP, 1806:019, 2018. Abelian Vector Bosons. Phys. Rev., D89(9):093025, 2014. [74] Andre De Gouvea, Manibrata Sen, Walter Tangarife, and [57] Francesco Forastieri, Massimiliano Lattanzi, and Paolo Yue Zhang. The Dodelson-Widrow Mechanism In the Natoli. Cosmological constraints on neutrino self- Presence of Self-Interacting Neutrinos. 2019. interactions with a light mediator. Phys. Rev., [75] K. S. Babu and I. Z. Rothstein. Relaxing nucleosynthesis D100(10):103526, 2019. bounds on sterile-neutrinos. Phys. Lett., B275:112–118, [58] Mauricio Bustamante, Charlotte Amalie Rosenstroem, 1992. Shashank Shalgar, and Irene Tamborra. Bounds on se- [76] Ian M. Shoemaker and Kohta Murase. Probing BSM cret neutrino interactions from high-energy astrophysical Neutrino Physics with Flavor and Spectral Distortions: neutrinos. 2020. Prospects for Future High-Energy Neutrino Telescopes. [59] Kfir Blum, Anson Hook, and Kohta Murase. High en- Phys. Rev., D93(8):085004, 2016. ergy neutrino telescopes as a probe of the neutrino mass [77] Andrew M. Hopkins and John F. Beacom. On the nor- mechanism. 2014. malisation of the cosmic star formation history. Astro- [60] Kohta Murase and Ian M. Shoemaker. Neutrino Echoes phys. J., 651:142–154, 2006. from Multimessenger Transient Sources. Phys. Rev. Lett., [78] K. Melnikov and V. G. Serbo. Processes with the T chan- 123(24):241102, 2019. nel singularity in the physical region: Finite beam sizes [61] K. S. Babu, Garv Chauhan, and P. S. Bhupal Dev. make cross-sections finite. Nucl. Phys., B483:67–82, 1997. Neutrino Non-Standard Interactions via Light Scalars in [Erratum: Nucl. Phys.B662,no.1-2,409(2003)]. Earth, Sun, Supernovae and Early Universe. 2019. [79] Jeffrey M. Berryman, Andre De Gouvea, Kevin J. Kelly, [62] Steen Hannestad, Rasmus Sloth Hansen, and Thomas and Yue Zhang. Lepton-Number-Charged Scalars and Tram. How Self-Interactions can Reconcile Sterile Neu- Neutrino Beamstrahlung. Phys. Rev., D97(7):075030, trinos with Cosmology. Phys. Rev. Lett., 112(3):031802, 2018. 2014. [80] Andr´ede Gouvˆea, P. S. Bhupal Dev, Bhaskar Dutta, [63] Basudeb Dasgupta and Joachim Kopp. Cosmologically Tathagata Ghosh, Tao Han, and Yongchao Zhang. Lep- Safe eV-Scale Sterile Neutrinos and Improved Dark Mat- tonic Scalars at the LHC. 2019. ter Structure. Phys. Rev. Lett., 112(3):031803, 2014. [81] E. Grohs, George M. Fuller, and Manibrata Sen. Conse- [64] Maria Archidiacono, Steen Hannestad, Rasmus Sloth quences of neutrino self interactions for weak decoupling Hansen, and Thomas Tram. Cosmology with self- and big bang nucleosynthesis. 2020. interacting sterile neutrinos and dark matter - A pseu- [82] V. S. Berezinsky and A. Yu. Smirnov. Cosmic neutrinos doscalar model. Phys. Rev., D91(6):065021, 2015. of ultra-high energies and detection possibility. Astro- [65] Ninetta Saviano, Ofelia Pisanti, Gianpiero Mangano, and phys. Space Sci., 32:461–482, 1975. Alessandro Mirizzi. Unveiling secret interactions among [83] K. S. Capelle, J. W. Cronin, G. Parente, and E. Zas. sterile neutrinos with big-bang nucleosynthesis. Phys. On the detection of ultrahigh-energy neutrinos with the Rev., D90(11):113009, 2014. Auger Observatory. Astropart. Phys., 8:321–328, 1998. [66] Alessandro Mirizzi, Gianpiero Mangano, Ofelia Pisanti, [84] Alexander Aab et al. Probing the origin of ultra- and Ninetta Saviano. Collisional production of sterile high-energy cosmic rays with neutrinos in the EeV en- neutrinos via secret interactions and cosmological impli- ergy range using the Pierre Auger Observatory. JCAP, cations. Phys. Rev., D91(2):025019, 2015. 1910(10):022, 2019. [67] John F. Cherry, Alexander Friedland, and Ian M. Shoe- [85] A. Nelles [ARIANNA Collaboration], ARIANNA: Cur- maker. Neutrino Portal Dark Matter: From Dwarf rent developments and understanding the ice for neutrino Galaxies to IceCube. 2014. detection EPJ Web Conf. 216, 01008 (2019) [68] Xiaoyong Chu, Basudeb Dasgupta, and Joachim Kopp. [86] S. W. Barwick, Progress in the Development of Radio- Sterile neutrinos with secret interactions?lasting friend- Cherenkov Neutrino Detectors PoS ICRC 2015, 027 ship with cosmology. JCAP, 1510(10):011, 2015. (2016). [69] Maria Archidiacono, Stefano Gariazzo, Carlo Giunti, [87] Kohta Murase, Yoshiyuki Inoue, and Charles D. Dermer. Steen Hannestad, Rasmus Hansen, Marco Laveder, and Diffuse Neutrino Intensity from the Inner Jets of Active Thomas Tram. Pseudoscalar?sterile neutrino interac- Galactic Nuclei: Impacts of External Photon Fields and tions: reconciling the cosmos with neutrino oscillations. the Blazar Sequence. Phys. Rev., D90(2):023007, 2014. JCAP, 1608:067, 2016. [70] John F. Cherry, Alexander Friedland, and Ian M. Shoe- maker. Short-baseline neutrino oscillations, Planck, and