Observation of Energy and Baseline Dependent Reactor Antineutrino Disappearancein the RENO Experiment

J. H. Choi,3 W. Choi,9 Y. Choi,11 H. I. Jang,10 J. S. Jang,4 E. J. Jeon,6, 8 K. K. Joo,1 B. R. Kim,1 H. S. Kim,8 J. Y.

Kim,1 S. B. Kim,9 S. Y. Kim,9 W. Kim,7 Y. D. Kim,6, 8 Y. Ko,2 D. H. Lee,9 I. T. Lim,1 M. Y. Pac,3 I. G. Park,5 J. S.

Park,9 R. G. Park,1 H. Seo,9 S. H. Seo,9 Y. G. Seon,7 C. D. Shin,1 K. Siyeon,2 J. H. Yang,11 I. S. Yeo,1 and I. Yu11

(The RENO Collaboration)1Institute for Universe and Elementary Particles,

Chonnam National University, Gwangju 61186, Korea2Department of Physics, Chung Ang University, Seoul 06974, Korea3Department of Radiology, Dongshin University, Naju 58245, Korea

4GIST College, Gwangju Institute of Science and Technology, Gwangju 61005, Korea5Department of Physics, Gyeongsang National University, Jinju 52828, Korea

6Institute for Basic Science, Daejeon 34047, Korea7Department of Physics, Kyungpook National University, Daegu 41566, Korea

8Department of Physics and Astronomy, Sejong University, Seoul 05006, Korea9Department of Physics and Astronomy, Seoul National University, Seoul 08826, Korea

10Department of Fire Safety, Seoyeong University, Gwangju 61268, Korea11Department of Physics, Sungkyunkwan University, Suwon 16419, Korea

The RENO experiment has analyzed about 500 live days of data to observe an energy dependentdisappearance of reactor νe by comparison of their prompt signal spectra measured in two identicalnear and far detectors. In the period between August 2011 and January 2013, the far (near) detectorobserved 31541 (290775) electron antineutrino candidate events with a background fraction of 4.9%(2.8%). The measured prompt spectra show an excess of reactor νe around 5 MeV relative to theprediction from a most commonly used model. A clear energy and baseline dependent disappearanceof reactor νe is observed in the deficit of the observed number of νe. Based on the measuredfar-to-near ratio of prompt spectra, we obtain sin2 2θ13 = 0.082 ± 0.009(stat.) ± 0.006(syst.) and|∆m2

ee| = [2.62+0.21−0.23(stat.)+0.12

−0.13(syst.)]× 10−3 eV2.

PACS numbers: 14.60.Pq, 29.40.Mc, 28.50.Hw, 13.15.+g

The reactor νe disappearance has been firmly observedto determine the smallest neutrino mixing angle θ13 [1–3].All of the three mixing angles in the Pontecorvo-Maki-Nakagawa-Sakata matrix [4, 5] have been measured toprovide a comprehensive picture of neutrino transforma-tion. The successful measurement of a rather large θ13

value opens the possibility of searching for CP violationin the leptonic sector and determining the neutrino massordering. Appearance of νe from an accelerator νµ beamis also observed by the T2K experiment [6].

Using the νe survival probability P [7], reactor ex-periments with a baseline distance of ∼1 km can deter-mine the mixing angle θ13 and an effective squared-mass-difference ∆m2

ee ≡ cos2 θ12∆m231 + sin2 θ12∆m2

32 [8].

1− P = sin2 2θ13(cos2 θ12 sin2 ∆31 + sin2 θ12 sin2 ∆32)

+ cos4 θ13 sin2 2θ12 sin2 ∆21

≈ sin2 2θ13 sin2 ∆ee + cos4 θ13 sin2 2θ12 sin2 ∆21, (1)

where ∆ij ≡ 1.267∆m2ijL/E, E is the νe energy in MeV,

and L is the distance between the reactor and detectorin meters.

The first measurement of θ13 by RENO was basedon the rate-only analysis of deficit found in ∼220 livedays of data [1]. The oscillation frequency |∆m2

ee| in themeasurement was approximated by the measured value

|∆m231| assuming the normal ordering in the νµ disap-

pearance [9]. In this Letter, we present a more pre-cisely measured value of θ13 and our first determinationof |∆m2

ee|, based on the rate, spectral and baseline infor-mation (rate+spectrum analysis) of reactor νe disappear-ance using ∼500 live days of data. Similar measurementresults were recently reported by the Daya Bay experi-ment [10].

The RENO uses identical near and far νe detectors lo-cated at 294 m and 1383 m, respectively, from the centerof six reactor cores of the Hanbit (known as Yonggwang)Nulcear Power Plant. The far (near) detector is undera 450 m (120 m) of water equivalent overburden. Sixpressurized water reactors, each with maximum thermaloutput of 2.8 GWth, are situated in a linear array span-ning 1.3 km with equal spacings.

The reactor νe is detected through the inverse betadecay (IBD) interaction, νe + p→ e+ + n, with free pro-tons in hydrocarbon liquid scintillator (LS) with 0.1%Gadolinium (Gd) as a target. The coincidence of aprompt positron signal and a ∼28 µs delayed signal fromneutron capture by Gd (n-Gd) provides the distinctiveIBD signature against backgrounds. The prompt sig-nal releases energy of 1.02 MeV as two γ-rays from thepositron annihilation in addition to the positron kineticenergy. The delayed signal produces several γ-rays with

arX

iv:1

511.

0584

9v2

[he

p-ex

] 2

3 N

ov 2

015

2

the total energy of∼8 MeV. The RENO LS is made of lin-ear alkyl benzene (LAB) with fluors. A Gd-carboxylatecomplex was developed for the best Gd loading efficiencyinto LS and its long term stability.

Each RENO detector consists of a main inner detector(ID) and an outer veto detector (OD). The ID is con-tained in a cylindrical stainless steel vessel that housestwo nested cylindrical acrylic vessels [12]. The innermostacrylic vessel holds 16 tons of Gd-doped LS as a neutrinotarget, and is surrounded by a γ-catcher region with a 60cm thick layer of undoped LS inside an outer acrylic ves-sel. Outside the γ-catcher is a 70 cm thick buffer regionfilled with mineral oil. Light signals emitted from par-ticles are detected by 354 low background 10-inch pho-tomultiplier tubes (PMTs) [13] that are mounted on theinner wall of the stainless steel container. The 1.5 mthick OD region is filled with highly purified water, andequipped with 67 10-inch PMTs mounted on the wall ofthe concrete OD vessel.

Event triggers are based on the number of hit PMTswith signals above a ∼0.3 photoelectron (p.e.) thresh-old (NHIT). An event passes trigger selection and isrecorded if the ID NHIT is larger than 90, correspondingto 0.5−0.6 MeV and well below the 1.02 MeV minimumenergy of an IBD positron signal. The event energy isdetermined from the total charge (Qtot) in p.e. that iscollected by the PMTs and corrected for gain and chargecollection variations using the neutron capture peak en-ergies.

An accurate energy measurement is essential for ex-tracting |∆m2

ee| from the spectral distortion of IBDprompt events that is developed by neutrino oscillation.An absolute energy scale is determined by visible energies(Evis) of γ-rays coming from radioactive sources of 137Cs,68Ge, 60Co, 252Cf, and 209Po-Be, and from IBD delayedsignals of neutron capture on Gd. A charge-to-energyconversion function is generated from the peak energiesof these γ-ray sources. The true energy (Etrue) releasedby a positron is estimated by the observed Qtot corre-sponding to 1.02 MeV of two γ-rays from the positronannihilation plus the positron kinetic energy. The mea-sured Evis is not linearly proportional to Etrue, especiallyat low energies. A non-linear response of the scintillat-ing energy is obtained from the several calibration sam-ples and well explained by a best-fit parametrization ofEvis/Etrue = a+b/[1−exp(−cEtrue+d)] as shown in Fig.1 (a). The parameters of a, b, c, and d are determinedby a fit.

Difference in the visible energies of γ-ray and positronis studied using a GEANT4 Monte Carlo simulation(MC). A non-linear response for IBD prompt energy (Ep)is estimated from those for γ-ray and electron throughMC. The MC includes measured optical properties of LSand quenching effect of γ-ray at low energies [11]. Theenergy scale uncertainty of each detector is estimated asbetter than 1% in IBD prompt energies. The energy scale

Corresponding IBD Prompt Energy (MeV)0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

(p.

e./M

eV)

true

/ E

vis

E

200

220

240

260

Cs137

(a)

FarGe68

n-H

Co60

n-Cn-Gd

Electron Energy (MeV)0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Eve

ntes

/ 0.

25 M

eV

1000

2000

3000Near DataFar Data

N) 12B+12 Prediction (

(b)

FIG. 1. (a) Non-linear response of scintillating energy ob-tained from the visible energies of γ-rays coming from severalradioactive sources and IBD delayed signals. The curve isthe best fit to the data points. Note that the n-C sample isobtained from the 209Po-Be source. (b) Comparison of mea-sured and simulated energy spectra of electron from β-decayof unstable isotope 12B, with minute contribution from 12N,produced by cosmic muons.

difference of the near and far detectors is found to be lessthan 0.15% for Ep = 1−8 MeV. Figure 1 (b) shows an ex-cellent agreement between data and MC in the electronenergy spectrum of β-decays from radioactive isotopes12B and 12N that are produced by cosmic-muon interac-tions.

Event selection criteria are applied to obtain clean IBDcandidates with a delayed signal of neutron capture byGd. The details are given in Ref. [1] and added or modi-fied as follows: (i) extended timing veto criteria to rejectevents associated with muon if they are within a 700 ms(500 ms, 200 ms) window following a cosmic muon ofEµ > 1.5 GeV (1.2−1.5 GeV, 1.0−1.2 GeV) for the fardetector and a similar set of criteria for the near detec-tor; (ii) relaxed Qmax/Qtot requirement from 0.03 to 0.07to minimize possible signal loss at low energies whereQmax is the maximum charge of any single ID PMTs;(iii) ∆R < 2.5 m for additional reduction of acciden-tal backgrounds, where ∆R is the distance between theprompt and delayed signals; (iv) detailed PMT hit tim-ing and charge requirements to eliminate events comingfrom flashing PMTs effectively; (v) multiplicity require-ments for rejecting coincidence pairs if there are otherpairs within 500 µs interval, or if any ID triggers otherthan those associated with the delayed signal candidateoccurring within 200 µs of its prompt signal candidate.The total signal loss due to all the timing veto criteria is14.7% (27.3%) for the far (near) detector.

Applying the IBD selection criteria yields 31541(290775) candidate events with Ep between 1.2 and

3

8.0 MeV for a live time of 489.93 (458.49) days in the far(near) detector, in the period between August 2011 andJanuary 2013. IBD events with Ep < 1.2 MeV are notused for this analysis because they include a prompt sig-nal occurring in the target acrylic vessel that loses mostof its kinetic energy and produces scintillation lights inLS corresponding to the positron annihilation energy of1.02 MeV. In the final data samples, the remaining back-grounds are either uncorrelated or correlated IBD candi-dates. An accidental background comes from an uncor-related pair of prompt- and delayed-like events. Corre-lated backgrounds are fast neutrons from outside of ID,stopping muon followers, β-n emitters from cosmic muoninduced 9Li/8He isotopes, and 252Cf contamination. Thetotal background fraction is 4.9±0.3% in the far detector,and 2.8± 0.1% in the near detector.

TABLE I. Observed IBD and estimated background rates at1.2 < Ep < 8.0 MeV given in per day.

Detector Near FarIBD rate 616.67± 1.44 61.24± 0.42Accidental rate 6.89± 0.09 0.97± 0.039Li/8He rate 8.36± 0.82 1.54± 0.23Fast neutron rate 2.28± 0.04 0.48± 0.02252Cf contamination rate − 0.14± 0.03

Systematic uncertainties have been significantly re-duced since the first measurement presented in Ref. [1].Improved energy calibration resulted in an accurate es-timation of the energy scale difference between the nearand far detectors. Decrease of systematic uncertaintiesalso comes from background reduction and more preciseestimation of background rates. For example, the mostdominant background uncertainty of 9Li/8He is reducedfrom 29% (48%) to 15% (10%) in the far (near) detector.

The remaining accidental background in the final sam-ple is estimated by measuring random spatial associa-tions of prompt- and delayed-like events. The energyspectrum of 9Li/8He background is measured using asample of events with a delayed coincidence of 500 ms(400 ms) between an energetic muon of Eµ > 1.5 GeV(>1.6 GeV) and the following IBD-like pair for the far(near) detector. The 9Li/8He background rate in the fi-nal sample is obtained from the measured rate in thebackground dominant region of Ep > 8 MeV. The fastneutron background rate in the IBD candidates is esti-mated by extrapolating from the background dominantenergy region, assuming a flat spectrum of the back-ground. The background uncertainty includes a possibledeviation from the flat spectrum in the IBD signal regionfor fast neutron candidates.

A tiny amount of 252Cf was accidentally introducedinto both detectors during detector calibration in Octo-ber 2012. Most of multiple neutron events coming from

the 252Cf contamination are eliminated by stringent mul-tiplicity requirements.

The total background rates are estimated to be 17.54±0.83 and 3.14 ± 0.21 events per day for near and far de-tectors, respectively. The observed IBD and backgroundrates are summarized in Table I. Since the rates andshapes of all the backgrounds are measured from con-trol data samples, their uncertainties are expected to befurther reduced with more data.

The expected rate and spectrum of reactor νe are cal-culated based on thermal power, fission fraction, energyreleased per fission, νe yield per fission, fission spectra,and IBD cross sections [15–21]. The calculation includesboth the rate and spectral changes corresponding to thevarying thermal powers and fission fractions of each re-actor during data-taking.

The systematic uncertainties in the reactor νe detec-tion are found in Ref. [1]. The energy dependent system-atic uncertainties, coming from background shape ambi-guities and the energy scale difference between the nearand far detectors, are evaluated and included for thisanalysis.

We observe a clear deficit of reactor νe in the fardetector. Using the deficit information only, a rate-only analysis obtains sin2 2θ13 = 0.087 ± 0.009(stat.) ±0.007(syst.), where the world average value of |∆m2

ee| isused [14].

Figure 2 shows a spectral comparison of the observedIBD prompt signals after background subtraction to theprediction [19, 20]. A clear spectral difference is observedin the region centered at 5 MeV. The MC predicted dis-tributions are normalized by a fit to data that are awayfrom the excess range, 3.6 < Ep < 6.6 MeV. The excessof events constitutes 3% of the total observed reactorνe rate in both detectors. Furthermore, the excess isobserved to be proportional to the reactor power. Thisobservation suggests needs for reevaluation and modifica-tion of the current reactor νe model [19, 20]. Accordingto a recent study, the excess may be explained by theβ-decays of several isotopes such as 96Y and 92Rb in thefission processes [22].

Because of the unexpected structure around 5 MeV,the oscillation amplitude and frequency are determinedfrom a fit to the measured far-to-near ratio of IBDprompt spectra. The relative measurement using iden-tical near and far detectors makes the method insensi-tive to the correlated uncertainties of expected reactorνe flux and spectrum as well as detection efficiency. Todetermine the oscillation parameters, a χ2 is constructedusing the spectral ratio measurement and is minimized[23]:

χ2 =

Nbins∑i=1

(OF/Ni − TF/Ni )2

UF/Ni

+∑

d=N,F

(bd

σdbkg

)2

4

Prompt Energy [MeV]1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Eve

nts

/ 0.2

MeV

5000

10000

15000DataMC

Near(a)

Prompt Energy (MeV)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8(D

ata

- M

C)

/ MC

0.1−0

0.1

0.2 Prompt Energy (MeV)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Eve

nts

/ 0.2

MeV

500

1000

1500 DataMC

Far(b)

Prompt Energy (MeV)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8(D

ata

- M

C)

/ MC

0.1−0

0.1

0.2

FIG. 2. Spectral comparison of observed and expected IBDprompt events in the (a) near and (b) far detectors. Theexpected distributions are obtained using rate and spectralanalysis results discussed later. A shape difference is clearlyseen at 5 MeV. The observed excess is correlated with thereactor power, and corresponds to 3% of the total observedreactor νe flux. A spectral deviation from the expectation islarger than the uncertainty of an expected spectrum (shadedband).

+

6∑r=1

(fr

σrflux

)2

+

(ε

σeff

)2

+

(e

σscale

)2

, (2)

where OF/Ni is the observed far-to-near ratio of IBD can-

didates in the i-th Ep bin after background subtraction,

TF/Ni = T

F/Ni (bd, fr, ε, e; θ13, |∆m2

ee|) is the expected far-

to-near ratio of IBD events, and UF/Ni is the statistical

uncertainty of OF/Ni . The expected ratio T

F/Ni is cal-

culated using the reactor νe spectrum model and theIBD cross section and folding the νe survival probabil-ity and the detector effects. The systematic uncertaintysources are embedded by pull parameters (bd, fr, ε, ande) with associated systematic uncertainties (σdbkg, σ

rflux,

σeff , and σscale ). The uncorrelated reactor-flux uncer-tainty σrflux is 0.9%, the uncorrelated detection uncer-tainty σeff is 0.2%, the uncorrelated energy scale uncer-tainty σscale is 0.15%, and the background uncertaintyσdbkg is 4.7% and 6.7% for near and far, respectively. The

χ2 is minimized with respect to the pull parameters andthe oscillation parameters.

The best-fit values obtained from the rate and spectralanalysis are sin2 2θ13 = 0.082±0.009(stat.)±0.006(syst.)and |∆m2

ee| = [2.62+0.21−0.23(stat.)+0.12

−0.13(syst.)] × 10−3 eV2

with χ2/NDF = 58.9/66. The dominant systematic un-certainties are those of the energy scale difference andthe backgrounds. The measured value of |∆m2

ee| corre-sponds to |∆m2

31| = (2.64+0.24−0.26)×10−3 eV2 ((2.60+0.24

−0.26)×10−3 eV2) for the normal (inverted) neutrino mass order-ing, using measured oscillation parameters of sin2 2θ12 =0.846 ± 0.021 and ∆m2

21 = (7.53 ± 0.18) × 10−5 eV2

[14]. The spectral-only analysis with a free normal-

ization yields sin2 2θ13 = 0.066+0.042−0.046 and |∆m2

ee| =

(2.62+0.38−0.41)× 10−3 eV2 with χ2/NDF = 58.8/67.

Figure 3 shows the background-subtracted, observedspectrum at far detector compared to the one expectedfor no oscillation and the one expected for oscillation atthe far detector. The expected spectra are obtained byweighting the spectrum at near detector with the oscil-lation or no oscillation assumptions using the measuredvalues of θ13 and |∆m2

ee|. The observed spectrum shows aclear energy-dependent disappearance of reactor νe con-sistent with neutrino oscillations. Figure 4 shows 68.3,95.5, and 99.7% C.L. allowed regions for the neutrino os-cillation parameters |∆m2

ee| and sin2 2θ13. The resultsfrom other reactor experiments [10, 24] are compared inthe figure.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Eve

nts

/ 0.2

MeV

500

1000

1500

2000

Far DataPrediction (best fit)Prediction (no oscillation)

Prompt Energy (MeV)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Dat

a / P

redi

ctio

n

0.8

0.9

1

1.1

FIG. 3. Top: comparison of the observed IBD prompt spec-trum in the far detector with the no-oscillation prediction ob-tained from the measurement in the near detector. The pre-diction from the best-fit results to oscillation is also shown.Bottom: ratio of reactor νe events measured in the far de-tector to the no-oscillation prediction (points) and ratio fromMC with best-fit results folded in (shaded band). Errors arestatistical uncertainties only.

Figure 5 shows the measured survival probability of re-actor νe as a function of an effective baseline Leff over νeenergy Eν , in a good agreement with the prediction thatis obtained from the observed distribution in the neardetector, for the best-fit oscillation values. This resultdemonstrates clear Leff/Eν-dependent disappearance ofreactor νe, consistent with the periodic feature of neu-trino oscillation. Note that Leff is the reactor-detectordistance weighted by the multiple reactor fluxes, and Eνis converted from the IBD prompt energy. The mea-sured survival probability is obtained by the ratio of theobserved IBD counts to the expected counts assuming nooscillation in each bin of Leff/Eν .

5

FIG. 4. Allowed regions of 68.3, 95.5, and 99.7% C.L. in the|∆m2

ee| vs. sin2 2θ13 plane. The best-fit values are given bythe black dot. The ∆χ2 distributions for sin2 2θ13 (top) and|∆m2

ee| (right) are also shown with an 1σ band. The rate-only result for sin2 2θ13 is shown by the cross. The resultsfrom Daya Bay [10] and Double Chooz [24] are also shown forcomparison.

(km/MeV)ν/EeffL0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

) eν → eν

P(

0.9

0.95

1

Far DataNear DataPrediction

FIG. 5. Measured reactor νe survival probability as a func-tion of Leff/Eν . The curve is a predicted survival probability,obtained from the observed probability in the near detector,for the best-fit values of |∆m2

ee| and sin2 2θ13. The Leff/Eνvalue of each data point is given by the average of the countsin each bin.

In summary, RENO has observed clear energy-dependent disappearance of reactor νe using two iden-tical detectors, and obtains sin2 2θ13 = 0.082±0.010 and|∆m2

ee| = (2.62+0.24−0.26)× 10−3 eV2 based on the measured

periodic disappearance expected from neutrino oscilla-tions. Several improvements in energy calibration andbackground estimation have been made to reduce the sys-tematic error of sin2 2θ13 from 0.019 [1] to 0.006. Withthe 500 day data sample together, RENO has produceda precise measurement of the mixing angle θ13. It wouldprovide an important information on determination of

the leptonic CP phase if combined with a result of anaccelerator neutrino beam experiment [6].

The RENO experiment is supported by the NationalResearch Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant No. 2009-0083526 funded by the Korea Ministry of Science, ICT& Future Planning. Some of us have been supported by afund from the BK21 of NRF. We gratefully acknowledgethe cooperation of the Hanbit Nuclear Power Site andthe Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power Co., Ltd. (KHNP).We thank KISTI for providing computing and networkresources through GSDC, and all the technical and ad-ministrative people who greatly helped in making thisexperiment possible.

[1] J. K. Ahn et al. (RENO Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 191802 (2012).

[2] F. P. An et al. (Daya Bay Collaboration), Phys. Rev.Lett. 108, 171803 (2012).

[3] Y. Abe et al. (Double Chooz Collaboration), Phys. Rev.Lett. 108, 131801 (2012).

[4] B. Pontecorvo, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 34, 247 (1957) [Sov.Phys. JETP 7, 172 (1958)].

[5] Z. Maki, M. Nakagawa, and S. Sakata, Prog. Theor. Phys.28, 870 (1962).

[6] K. Abe et al. (T2K Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 88,032002 (2013); K. Abe et al. (T2K Collaboration), Phys.Rev. Lett. 112, 061802 (2014).

[7] S. T. Petcov and M. Piai, Phys. Lett. B 533, 94 (2002).[8] H. Nunokawa, S. Parke, and R. Zukanovich Funchal,

Phys. Rev. D 72, 013009 (2005).[9] P. Adamson et al. (MINOS Collaboration), Phys. Rev.

Lett. 106, 181801 (2011).[10] F. P. An et al. (Daya Bay Collaboration), Phys. Rev.

Lett. 112, 061801 (2014); F. P. An et al. (Daya Bay Col-laboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 111802 (2015).

[11] J. S. Park et al. (RENO Collaboration), Nucl. Instrum.Meth. A 707, 45 (2013).

[12] K. S. Park et al. (RENO Collaboration), Nucl. Instrum.Meth. A 686, 91 (2012).

[13] K. J. Ma et al. (RENO Collaboration), Nucl. Instrum.Meth. A 629, 93 (2011).

[14] K. A. Olive et al. (Particle Data Group), Chin. Phys. C38, 090001 (2014).

[15] P. Vogel, G. K. Schenter, F. M. Mann, and R. E. Schen-ter, Phys. Rev. C 24, 1543 (1981).

[16] F. von Feilitzsch, and K. Schreckenbach, Phys. Lett.B118, 162 (1982); W. G. K. Schreckenbach, G. Colvin,and F. von Feilitzsch, Phys. Lett. B160, 325 (1985).

[17] A. A. Hahn et al., Phys. Lett. B218, 365 (1989).[18] Y. Declais et al., Phys. Lett. B338, 383 (1994).[19] Th. A. Mueller et al., Phys. Rev. C 83, 054615 (2011).[20] P. Huber, Phys. Rev. C 84, 024617 (2011); 85, 029901(E)

(2012).[21] V. Kopeikin et al., Phys. Atom. Nucl. 67, 1892 (2004).[22] D. A. Dwyer and T. J. Langford, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114,

012502 (2015).[23] K. Anderson et al., White Paper Report (2004),

arXiv:hep-ex/0402041.[24] Y. Abe et al. (Double Chooz Collaboration), arXiv:hep-

6

ex/1406.7763 (2014).