pith. sign in

arxiv: 2511.03964 · v3 · submitted 2025-11-06 · ✦ hep-ex

The role of final-state interaction modeling in neutrino energy reconstruction and oscillation measurements

Yinrui Liu , Laura Munteanu , Stephen Dolan This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-18 00:32 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ex
keywords final-state interactionsneutrino energy reconstructionoscillation measurementsDUNEsystematic uncertaintieslong-baseline experimentsneutrino interactions
0
0 comments X p. Extension

The pith

Variations in final-state interaction modeling can distort reconstructed neutrino energies enough to mimic oscillation parameter shifts at DUNE.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper demonstrates that realistic differences in how final-state interactions are modeled in neutrino event simulations can change the reconstructed neutrino energy spectrum by amounts that match or exceed the effects expected from changes in oscillation parameters at the precision of next-generation experiments. Using the DUNE neutrino flux and baseline as an example, these distortions can imitate shifts in the mass splitting Δm²₃₂ or the CP-violating phase δ_CP. This creates a potential degeneracy that could affect the accuracy of oscillation measurements. The analysis concludes that improved theoretical models and dedicated new measurements are required to characterize final-state interactions and enable reliable near-detector constraints.

Core claim

Without additional theoretical and experimental efforts, realistic variations in final-state-interaction (FSI) modeling may alter reconstructed neutrino-energy spectra at next-generation long-baseline experiments by amounts comparable to, or larger than, variations induced by oscillation-parameter shifts at their projected precision. Using the DUNE flux and baseline as a case study, these FSI-driven distortions can mimic the effects of changes in the oscillation parameters Δm²₃₂ or δ_CP, producing a potential degeneracy.

What carries the argument

Final-state interaction (FSI) modeling in neutrino event generators, which governs outgoing particle kinematics and thereby maps true neutrino energy to the reconstructed energy from observed final-state particles.

Load-bearing premise

The specific FSI modeling variations explored are representative of the true theoretical uncertainty range and the simulation framework accurately propagates these variations into reconstructed energy spectra without unaccounted biases.

What would settle it

A high-statistics comparison of reconstructed neutrino energy spectra at a DUNE near detector against predictions from multiple FSI models that would show whether the distortions are smaller than, equal to, or larger than the spectral shifts from projected changes in Δm²₃₂ or δ_CP.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.03964 by Laura Munteanu, Stephen Dolan, Yinrui Liu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The simulated distribution of neutrino energy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Comparison of the simulated νµ reconstructed energy spectra and an oscillated DUNE experiment flux using different FSI models, to variations of ∆m2 32. This is simulated for neutrino (top) and antineutrino (bot￾tom) beam modes. In each sub-figure, reconstructed energy spectra under different FSI models are shown as histograms and ±0.4% ∆m2 32 variations are shown with shaded blue (+) and red (-) bands cent… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Comparison of the simulated νe reconstructed energy spectra and an oscillated DUNE experiment flux using different FSI models, to variations of ∆m2 32. This is simulated for neutrino (top) and antineutrino (bottom) beam modes. The left and right correspond to δCP = 0 and δCP − π/2, respectively. Other figure elements follow the same conventions as described in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of the simulated νµ reconstructed energy spectra and an oscillated DUNE experiment flux using different FSI models, to ±1.3% variations of sin2 θ23. This is simulated for neutrino (top) and antineutrino (bottom) beam modes. Other figure elements follow the same conventions as described in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present a quantitative demonstration that, without additional theoretical and experimental efforts, realistic variations in final-state-interaction (FSI) modeling may alter reconstructed neutrino-energy spectra at next-generation long-baseline experiments by amounts comparable to, or larger than, variations induced by oscillation-parameter shifts at their projected precision. Using the DUNE flux and baseline as a case study, we show that these FSI-driven distortions can mimic the effects of changes in the oscillation parameters $\Delta m^2_{32}$ or $\delta_{\rm CP}$, producing a potential degeneracy. Our analysis thereby underscores the urgent need for an improved characterisation of FSI to enable robust constraints from near detectors through the development of theory-driven uncertainty parameterisations benchmarked with dedicated new measurements.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript claims that without additional theoretical and experimental efforts, realistic variations in final-state-interaction (FSI) modeling may alter reconstructed neutrino-energy spectra at next-generation long-baseline experiments by amounts comparable to, or larger than, variations induced by oscillation-parameter shifts at their projected precision. Using the DUNE flux and baseline as a case study, these FSI-driven distortions can mimic the effects of changes in the oscillation parameters Δm²₃₂ or δ_CP, producing a potential degeneracy. The analysis underscores the urgent need for an improved characterisation of FSI to enable robust constraints from near detectors through the development of theory-driven uncertainty parameterisations benchmarked with dedicated new measurements.

Significance. If the central result holds after addressing the concerns below, the work would be significant in identifying a potentially important systematic uncertainty for precision neutrino oscillation measurements at facilities such as DUNE. By providing a concrete demonstration of possible degeneracies between FSI modeling choices and key oscillation parameters, the paper would motivate targeted theoretical and experimental efforts to improve FSI constraints, which could directly impact the robustness of future long-baseline analyses.

major comments (2)
  1. [Simulation and Analysis Methods] The manuscript does not benchmark the selected FSI modeling variations (different tunes, parameter shifts, or model switches) against observed discrepancies in MINERvA or T2K final-state observables. This is load-bearing for the central claim because the reported size of the reconstructed-energy distortions, and thus their comparability to Δm²₃₂ or δ_CP shifts, depends on the variations lying inside the range allowed by current theory and experiment.
  2. [Results] The analysis does not propagate the FSI variations through a full near-detector constraint chain. Without this step, it remains unclear whether the demonstrated degeneracy with oscillation parameters would survive the standard near-detector constraints that are expected to be applied at DUNE.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract would benefit from including at least one quantitative estimate of the reported spectral distortion magnitude to give readers immediate context for the claimed effect size.
  2. [Figures] Figure captions and axis labels should explicitly state the specific FSI model variants shown in each panel to improve clarity for readers unfamiliar with the generator tunes.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful and constructive review. The comments highlight important aspects of validating the FSI variations and assessing the impact of near-detector constraints. We address each major comment below and indicate the revisions we will make to the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Simulation and Analysis Methods] The manuscript does not benchmark the selected FSI modeling variations (different tunes, parameter shifts, or model switches) against observed discrepancies in MINERvA or T2K final-state observables. This is load-bearing for the central claim because the reported size of the reconstructed-energy distortions, and thus their comparability to Δm²₃₂ or δ_CP shifts, depends on the variations lying inside the range allowed by current theory and experiment.

    Authors: We agree that direct benchmarking against MINERvA and T2K final-state observables is necessary to confirm that the chosen FSI variations remain within the range permitted by existing data. In the revised manuscript we will add a dedicated subsection to the methods that compares the selected tunes, parameter shifts, and model switches to published MINERvA and T2K measurements of proton and pion multiplicities, transverse momentum distributions, and nuclear de-excitation signatures. This addition will explicitly link the magnitude of the reported energy-spectrum distortions to the size of discrepancies already observed in current experiments. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results] The analysis does not propagate the FSI variations through a full near-detector constraint chain. Without this step, it remains unclear whether the demonstrated degeneracy with oscillation parameters would survive the standard near-detector constraints that are expected to be applied at DUNE.

    Authors: We recognize that a complete near-detector constraint analysis would be required to determine whether the FSI-induced degeneracy persists after standard ND fits. Implementing the full DUNE near-detector simulation and oscillation-parameter fitting chain lies beyond the scope of the present work, which focuses on isolating the potential size of the effect prior to constraints. In the revised manuscript we will expand the discussion to include a qualitative assessment, based on published ND constraint studies, of how much of the FSI variation might be absorbed by near-detector data and what residual uncertainty would remain for the far-detector spectrum. We will also outline the additional steps needed for a quantitative propagation in future analyses. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: direct simulation comparison of FSI variations to oscillation effects

full rationale

The paper conducts a simulation-based sensitivity study by applying varied FSI models from standard event generators to DUNE flux and baseline, then directly comparing the resulting shifts in reconstructed neutrino energy spectra against the size of shifts induced by changes in oscillation parameters such as Δm²₃₂ and δ_CP. No load-bearing step reduces by construction to a fitted parameter, self-citation chain, or ansatz imported from the authors' prior work; the central demonstration relies on explicit propagation through external simulation frameworks without fitting to the target oscillation observables or redefining quantities in terms of themselves. The analysis is therefore self-contained as a computational illustration of potential degeneracy.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the domain assumption that current neutrino event generators provide a sufficient basis for exploring realistic FSI variations and that the DUNE flux and baseline are representative of next-generation long-baseline setups.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Standard neutrino interaction models in event generators capture the relevant final-state interaction physics for the purpose of this uncertainty study.
    Invoked when the paper varies FSI modeling within these frameworks to produce the reported spectral distortions.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5419 in / 1231 out tokens · 57495 ms · 2026-05-18T00:32:52.562005+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages · 16 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    a shift in the energy spectrum)

    As indicated in the bottom panel in each sub-figure, the shifts induced by FSI variations are com- parable in size to the simulated variations of ∆m 2 32, and reproduce characteristic features of oscillation parameter variations near the first oscillation maximum (i.e. a shift in the energy spectrum). Additional figures comparing the FSI effects with corr...

    work page

  2. [2]

    This is simulated for neutrino (top) and antineutrino (bot- tom) beam modes. In each sub-figure, reconstructed energy spectra under different FSI models are shown as histograms and±0.4% ∆m 2 32 variations are shown with shaded blue (+) and red (-) bands centered on the hA2018 baseline. The error bars are broadly indicative of the DUNE experiment’s statist...

    work page

  3. [3]

    In Figure 2, the size of the FSI model spread around the measured first oscillation maximum is larger than that of a 0.4% shift in ∆m 2

    work page

  4. [4]

    This high- lights the risk of a degeneracy between FSI effects and variations of ∆m 2 32 in the data of far detectors for LBL experiments. It is worth noting that for both the neutrino and antineutrinos cases, the most significant differences with respect to the baseline hA2018 model are exhibited by the sophisticated G4BC and INCL models. In the case of ...

    work page

  5. [5]

    The left and right correspond toδ CP = 0 andδ CP −π/2, respectively

    This is simulated for neutrino (top) and antineutrino (bottom) beam modes. The left and right correspond toδ CP = 0 andδ CP −π/2, respectively. Other figure elements follow the same conventions as described in Figure 2, except that only the 1-σuncertainty band is shown in the lower panels. 34]). We note that regardless of the choice of observables, their ...

    work page

  6. [6]

    Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment (DUNE), Far Detector Technical Design Report, Volume II: DUNE Physics,

    B. Abiet al.(DUNE), (2020), arXiv:2002.03005 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2020

  7. [7]

    Hyper-Kamiokande Design Report

    K. Abeet al.(Hyper-Kamiokande), (2018), arXiv:1805.04163 [physics.ins-det]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  8. [8]

    Abeet al.(Hyper-Kamiokande), (2025), arXiv:2505.15019 [hep-ex]

    K. Abeet al.(Hyper-Kamiokande), (2025), arXiv:2505.15019 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2025

  9. [9]

    Acciarriet al.(DUNE), (2015), arXiv:1512.06148 [physics.ins-det]

    R. Acciarriet al.(DUNE), (2015), arXiv:1512.06148 [physics.ins-det]

    work page arXiv 2015

  10. [10]

    NuSTEC White Paper: Status and Challenges of Neutrino-Nucleus Scattering

    L. Alvarez-Rusoet al.(NuSTEC), Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.100, 1 (2018), arXiv:1706.03621 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  11. [11]

    Dytmanet al., Phys

    S. Dytmanet al., Phys. Rev. D104, 053006 (2021), arXiv:2103.07535 [hep-ph]. [7]https://home.fnal.gov/ ~ljf26/DUNEFluxes/ OptimizedEngineeredNov2017_offaxis/, accessed: 7 2019-08-07

    work page arXiv 2021

  12. [12]

    Abiet al.(DUNE), Eur

    B. Abiet al.(DUNE), Eur. Phys. J.C80, 978 (2020), arXiv:2006.16043 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2020

  13. [13]

    The GENIE Neutrino Monte Carlo Generator: Physics and User Manual

    C. Andreopoulos, C. Barry, S. Dytman, H. Gallagher, T. Golan, R. Hatcher, G. Perdue, and J. Yarba, (2015), arXiv:1510.05494 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  14. [14]

    The GENIE Neutrino Monte Carlo Generator

    C. Andreopouloset al., Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A614, 87 (2010), arXiv:0905.2517 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  15. [15]

    V. D. Barger, K. Whisnant, S. Pakvasa, and R. J. N. Phillips, Phys. Rev. D22, 2718 (1980). [12]https://github.com/rogerwendell/Prob3plusplus, accessed: 2025-18-07

    work page 1980

  16. [16]

    Navaset al.(Particle Data Group), Phys

    S. Navaset al.(Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D110, 030001 (2024)

    work page 2024

  17. [17]

    Tena-Vidalet al.(GENIE), Phys

    J. Tena-Vidalet al.(GENIE), Phys. Rev. D104, 072009 (2021), arXiv:2104.09179 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2021

  18. [18]

    Inclusive Charged--Current Neutrino--Nucleus Reactions

    J. Nieves, I. Ruiz Simo, and M. J. Vicente Vacas, Phys. Rev.C83, 045501 (2011), arXiv:1102.2777 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  19. [19]

    R. Gran, J. Nieves, F. Sanchez, and M. V. Vacas, Phys- ical Review D88, 113007 (2013)

    work page 2013

  20. [20]

    GENIE implementation of IFIC Valencia model for QE-like 2p2h neutrino-nucleus cross section

    J. Schwehr, D. Cherdack, and R. Gran, (2016), arXiv:1601.02038 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  21. [21]

    Lepton Mass Effects in Single Pion Production by Neutrinos

    C. Berger and L. M. Sehgal, Phys. Rev. D76, 113004 (2007), arXiv:0709.4378 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  22. [22]

    Berger and L

    C. Berger and L. M. Sehgal, Phys. Rev. D77, 059901 (2008)

    work page 2008

  23. [23]

    Dynamical Parton Distributions Revisited

    M. Gl¨ uck, E. Reya, and A. Vogt, Eur. Phys. J. C5, 461 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9806404

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  24. [24]

    Modeling Deep Inelastic Cross Sections in the Few GeV Region

    A. Bodek and U. K. Yang, Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl. 112, 70 (2002), arXiv:hep-ex/0203009

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  25. [25]

    Sjostrand, Computer Physics Communications82, 74 (1994)

    T. Sjostrand, Computer Physics Communications82, 74 (1994)

    work page 1994

  26. [26]

    PYTHIA 6.4 Physics and Manual

    T. Sjostrand, S. Mrenna, and P. Z. Skands, JHEP05, 026 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0603175

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  27. [27]

    T. Yang, C. Andreopoulos, H. Gallagher, K. Hoff- mann, and P. Kehayias, Eur. Phys. J. C63, 1 (2009), arXiv:0904.4043 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  28. [28]

    Tena-Vidalet al.(GENIE), Phys

    J. Tena-Vidalet al.(GENIE), Phys. Rev. D105, 012009 (2022), arXiv:2106.05884 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2022

  29. [29]

    New potentialities of the Li\`ege intranuclear cascade (INCL) model for reactions induced by nucleons and light charged particles

    A. Boudard, J. Cugnon, J.-C. David, S. Leray, and D. Mancusi, Phys. Rev. C87, 014606 (2013), arXiv:1210.3498 [nucl-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  30. [30]

    Bertini intra-nuclear cascade implementation in Geant4

    A. Heikkinen, N. Stepanov, and J. P. Wellisch, eConf C0303241, MOMT008 (2003), arXiv:nucl-th/0306008

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  31. [31]

    Ershova, S

    A. Ershova, S. Bolognesi, A. Letourneau, J.-C. David, S. Dolan, J. Hirtz, K. Niewczas, J. T. Sobczyk, A. Blanchet, M. B. Avanzini,et al., Physical Review D 106, 032009 (2022)

    work page 2022

  32. [32]

    Wilkinson, S

    C. Wilkinson, S. Dolan, L. Pickering, and C. Wret, Eur. Phys. J. C82, 808 (2022), arXiv:2203.11821 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2022

  33. [33]

    Abed Abudet al.(DUNE), Instruments5, 31 (2021), arXiv:2103.13910 [physics.ins-det]

    A. Abed Abudet al.(DUNE), Instruments5, 31 (2021), arXiv:2103.13910 [physics.ins-det]

    work page arXiv 2021

  34. [34]

    X. G. Lu, L. Pickering, S. Dolan, G. Barr, D. Coplowe, Y. Uchida, D. Wark, M. O. Wascko, A. Weber, and T. Yuan, Phys. Rev. C94, 015503 (2016), arXiv:1512.05748 [nucl-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  35. [35]

    X. G. Lu, D. Coplowe, R. Shah, G. Barr, D. Wark, and A. Weber, Phys. Rev. D92, 051302 (2015), arXiv:1507.00967 [hep-ex]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  36. [36]

    A. P. Furmanski and J. T. Sobczyk, Phys. Rev. C95, 065501 (2017), arXiv:1609.03530 [hep-ex]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  37. [37]

    Abratenkoet al.(MicroBooNE), Phys

    P. Abratenkoet al.(MicroBooNE), Phys. Rev. D109, 092007 (2024), arXiv:2310.06082 [nucl-ex]

    work page arXiv 2024

  38. [38]

    Abed Abudet al.(DUNE), JINST19, P12005 (2024), arXiv:2408.12725 [physics.ins-det]

    A. Abed Abudet al.(DUNE), JINST19, P12005 (2024), arXiv:2408.12725 [physics.ins-det]

    work page arXiv 2024

  39. [39]

    Acciarriet al.(LArIAT), JINST15, P04026 (2020), arXiv:1911.10379 [physics.ins-det]

    R. Acciarriet al.(LArIAT), JINST15, P04026 (2020), arXiv:1911.10379 [physics.ins-det]

    work page arXiv 2020

  40. [40]

    Abiet al.(DUNE), (2017), arXiv:1706.07081 [physics.ins-det]

    B. Abiet al.(DUNE), (2017), arXiv:1706.07081 [physics.ins-det]

    work page arXiv 2017

  41. [41]

    Abiet al.(DUNE), JINST15, P12004 (2020), arXiv:2007.06722 [physics.ins-det]

    B. Abiet al.(DUNE), JINST15, P12004 (2020), arXiv:2007.06722 [physics.ins-det]

    work page arXiv 2020

  42. [42]

    Gramelliniet al.(LArIAT), Phys

    E. Gramelliniet al.(LArIAT), Phys. Rev. D106, 052009 (2022), arXiv:2108.00040 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2022

  43. [43]

    Abed Abudet al.(DUNE), Phys

    A. Abed Abudet al.(DUNE), Phys. Rev. D110, 092011 (2024), arXiv:2408.00582 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2024

  44. [44]

    Hojeij (HADES), PoSF AIRness2022, 023 (2023)

    F. Hojeij (HADES), PoSF AIRness2022, 023 (2023)

    work page 2023

  45. [45]

    Ramstein (HADES), EPJ Web Conf.291, 04004 (2024)

    B. Ramstein (HADES), EPJ Web Conf.291, 04004 (2024)

    work page 2024

  46. [46]

    Acciarriet al.(MicroBooNE), JINST12, P02017 (2017), arXiv:1612.05824 [physics.ins-det]

    R. Acciarriet al.(MicroBooNE), JINST12, P02017 (2017), arXiv:1612.05824 [physics.ins-det]

    work page arXiv 2017

  47. [47]

    P. A. Machado, O. Palamara, and D. W. Schmitz, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.69, 363 (2019), arXiv:1903.04608 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2019

  48. [48]

    Amerioet al.(ICARUS), Nucl

    S. Amerioet al.(ICARUS), Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A527, 329 (2004)

    work page 2004

  49. [49]

    Abbasluet al.(DUNE), (2025), arXiv:2509.07012 [physics.ins-det]

    S. Abbasluet al.(DUNE), (2025), arXiv:2509.07012 [physics.ins-det]

    work page arXiv 2025

  50. [50]

    A. M. Ankowskiet al., J. Phys. G50, 120501 (2023), arXiv:2203.06853 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2023

  51. [51]

    Dytmanet al.(CLAS), (2025), arXiv:2508.01905 [hep- ex]

    S. Dytmanet al.(CLAS), (2025), arXiv:2508.01905 [hep- ex]

    work page arXiv 2025

  52. [52]

    Acerbiet al., (2025), arXiv:2503.21589 [hep-ex]

    F. Acerbiet al., (2025), arXiv:2503.21589 [hep-ex]. SUPPLEMENT AL MA TERIAL In addition to the studies presented in the main text, we have tested the effect of FSI modeling on the mea- surement of the sin 2 θ23 parameter. This is illustrated in Figure 4, where comparisons of FSI model variations with ±1.3% variations of sin 2 θ23 (chosen to be indicative ...

    work page arXiv 2025