I'm surprised Sabine did not bring her usual drama and controversy to this one and talk about the fact that there is, shall we say, "extreme tension" between the results from LSND/MiniBooNE and those of other experiments. https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.11... The 4th figure is the money shot.
Unpaywalled https://escholarship.org/content/qt496002sb/qt496002sb.pdf I don't have the background to interpret these figures, and based on a quick search for MiniBooNE mentions in the paper, the authors don't seem to say that MiniBooNE is an outlier relative to all the other experiments. Where does the paper talk about the tension? EDIT: based on the comments below, it sounds like the tension is between appearance-b…
"The results explicitly show the strong tension between null results from disappearance searches and appearance-based indications for the existence of light sterile neutrinos." p7
So yes they are saying there is tension between disappearance and appearance experiments, which is which?
"In this analysis, the measurement of muon (anti)neutrino disappearance by the MINOS experiment is combined with electron antineutrino disappearance measurements from the Daya Bay and Bugey-3 [16] experiments using the signal confi- dence level (CLs) method [17, 18]. The combined results are analyzed in light of the muon (anti)neutrino to electron (anti)neutrino appearance indications from the LSND [8] and MiniBooNE [9] experiments." p3
So yes they are saying there is tension between MiniBooNE results and MINOS, Bugey-3. I've no insight into the results either but GP's characterization of this paper was accurate.