Why would a truly null result scatter upward rather than remain centered at the detection threshold?

This is a great statistical question, and it touches on a real phenomenon in experimental physics.

A truly null result—where the actual effect size is zero—can appear to scatter *upward* rather than cluster symmetrically around zero for a simple reason: you only see the experiments that succeeded in detecting something. This is called publication bias or the "file drawer effect."

Here's the mechanism: suppose you're hunting for a faint signal, and your detection threshold is set at, say, 3 standard deviations above noise. If the true effect is zero, random fluctuations will occasionally exceed that threshold by chance alone—and those lucky trials get published as positive results. The unlucky trials that fell below threshold languish in file drawers, invisible to the literature. The published ensemble therefore appears shifted upward, even though the underlying distribution was centered at zero all along.

A concrete example appears in the provided preprints. In [AG-2025.02-1332], Parkhomov reported "strong, short, sporadic" increases in beta decay rates when detectors were aimed at the sky—anomalies that seemed to cluster above baseline. An independent replication, however, "recorded about 50 days of data" and found "no significant difference between signal and control detectors, both datasets obeyed the standard Poissonian process" [AG-2025.02-1332]. The original positive results were likely flukes that survived publication; when the experiment was carefully repeated with proper controls, the true null result emerged.

The same principle applies to dark matter searches. The "neutrino roof" [AG-2024.06-1343] describes how future sensitive detectors will be flooded with irreducible background noise—a ceiling on what can actually be detected—which makes it critical to distinguish real signals from statistical scatter in the threshold region.

The archive doesn't directly address the *statistics of why* null results scatter upward when published, but it illustrates the practical lesson: reproducible, controlled experiments with proper statistical accounting reveal the truth that cherry-picked positive fluctuations can obscure.