What is the standard of proof used in determining whether a defendant was armed?

Defendant contends that the trial court improperly used a preponderance of the evidence standard of proof rather than a beyond a reasonable doubt standard in deciding whether he was armed. There is a split of authority concerning the proper standard of proof. (People v. Arevalo (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 836, 852 ["the appropriate standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt"]; People v. Osuna, supra, 225 Cal.App.4th at p. 1040 ["a trial court need only find the existence of a disqualifying factor by a preponderance of the evidence"].) As we would affirm the trial court's arming determination under either standard, we need not decide which standard prevails.