Neutrino energy reconstruction problems and neutrino oscillations

G. Chanfray; M. Ericson; M. Martini

REVIEW

Neutrino energy reconstruction problems and neutrino oscillations

M. Martini, M. Ericson, G. Chanfray

High Energy Physics - Phenomenology · Submitted 21 Feb 2012 · 19 references

Pith's verdict: The mechanism is right and the formalism is clean, but the MiniBooNE reshaping magnitude rests on a muon-flux stand-in the authors themselves flag as provisional.

T0 · AI review

How this review was made: An AI referee (selfhosted/deepseek-v4.1-flash) read the paper on November 10, 2026 and answered a fixed list of questions about it. T0 is the starting level every paper gets. The levels describe how deeply Pith has checked the paper, never the authors.

T0 AI review An AI read the paper and answered a fixed list of questions.
T1 Audit Automatic checks that the references and files the paper relies on exist and match.
T2 Compute The paper's code or calculations re-run with the same results.
T3 Formal statement The claims written out in a formal math language a computer can read.
T4 Proof Those claims proved, and the proof checked by computer.

How Pith checks papers →

· 3 major objections · 8 minor · Ask about this paper · The compiled record · Read the full review →

Challenge this review Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗

Cite ▾

arXiv ID1202.4745 (version 2)

Pith IDAT3V3H5K, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review

CitationG. Chanfray, M. Ericson, M. Martini. "Neutrino energy reconstruction problems and neutrino oscillations." arXiv:1202.4745 (2012). https://pith.science/paper/AT3V3H5K

Cite this reviewBibTeX for Pith's review of this paper

Claim paper

Why Pith says this

Highlight any text to comment on it.

Editor's note

read the letter

Worth your time if you work on oscillation fits, but read Fig. 11 as a demonstration of a mechanism, not a number you can drop into a fit. What is new here is the smearing kernel F(Eν, Ēν) of Eq. (6): a probability distribution over true neutrino energy at fixed reconstructed energy, built from a nuclear response model that includes the multinucleon (np-nh) component. Benhar and Meloni did the spectral function, Leitner and Mosel did pion absorption; this is a different and cleaner framing. The hyperbola argument in the introduction is a good way to see why the quasielastic reconstruction formula becomes a biased estimator once np-nh events contaminate a Cherenkov sample. Eqs. (4) through (9) are correct, area conservation included, and the response model has independent support from the authors' earlier reproduction of the MiniBooNE double-differential data. The soft spots, in order of weight. First, the MiniBooNE kernel is weighted by the unoscillated muon-neutrino flux. Section III says so plainly and defers the oscillation-weighted flux to future work. That matters more than the paper lets on: for L = 541 m and Δm² around 1 eV², the oscillated electron-neutrino flux is suppressed exactly in the 0.7–1.2 GeV region where the np-nh tail lives, so the upward shift in Fig. 11 could shrink. The authors assert robustness; they do not show it. They do apply the oscillated weighting for T2K in Eq. (3), so the two applications are not on the same footing. Second, no error band is propagated onto Figs. 11 and 13, and the three-point sampling of F within each bin is coarse quadrature whose error is unestimated. Third, the T2K consistency test is six events against a normalized curve; the authors call it a consistency check, which is the honest word, but do not let anyone quote it as confirmation. One correction to the reader's report: the classifier found no stated limitations, and that is wrong. The paper says the MiniBooNE conclusion is only tentative pending a better flux evaluation. They know where the weakness is. Bottom line: the qualitative point, that reconstructed energy is biased upward at low Ēν once np-nh is included, is solid and citable. The specific reshaping magnitude is provisional. Send it to referees.

Referee report

Significance

The question is important and the formalism is clean: Eqs. (4), (6) and (8) define a well-posed, area-conserving transformation (Eq. 9) between reconstructed- and true-energy event distributions, and the paper is explicit that the mean of F is not a substitute for the distribution itself. The response model used for the kernel was previously tested against MiniBooNE double-differential d²σ data, and §III.A makes a genuine, if indirect, attempt to connect the relevant ω range (0.4–0.5 GeV) to the measured angular distributions of Fig. 12; I found that self-consistency argument adequate rather than circular. The T2K narrowing is in principle a falsifiable shape prediction. If the reshaping survives a properly weighted electron-neutrino flux and is shown to be larger than the experimental and model uncertainties, it would be a material input to the sterile-neutrino and short-baseline discussion.

Major objections (3)

[§III, Fig. 11] The MiniBooNE smearing kernel is weighted by the unoscillated muon-neutrino flux, whereas the T2K kernel uses the oscillation-weighted electron-neutrino flux of Eq. (3). The paper acknowledges this ('For MiniBooNE we make for the moment the assumption that the energy distribution is the same as the initial muon one') and asserts that the suppression of the low-energy peak is 'a robust prediction', but no calculation supports the assertion. This is load-bearing: F is proportional to Φ(Eν) inside the integral of Eq. (6), and the manuscript's own discussion at the end of §II.A and the Table I entries (546 MeV versus 335 MeV at Ēν = 300 MeV) show that the np-nh tail contribution is strongly flux-dependent. Since the physically appropriate weight is Φνe ∝ sin²(1.27 Δm² L/E) Φνμ, which for L = 541 m and Δm² ~ 1 eV² suppresses the 0.7–1.2 GeV region relative to 0.3–0.5 GeV, the size and possibly the visibility of the upward shift in Fig. 11 could change. The machinery of Eq. (3) already exists in the paper; please repeat the MiniBooNE convolution with an oscillation-weighted νe flux (stating the assumed Δm² and sin²2θ) and show the resulting curve alongside the present one, or at minimum give a quantitative bound on how much the low-energy suppression can change.
[§III.A, Fig. 11] No uncertainty is propagated onto the smeared curves of Fig. 11. The MiniBooNE excess has large bin-to-bin errors and negative bins after background subtraction, and the np-nh normalization itself is model-dependent — the paper notes that Nieves et al. obtain a smaller multinucleon contribution together with a ~10% renormalization of the data. The headline statement that the low-energy peak is suppressed is only meaningful if the suppression exceeds these errors. Please show the smeared distribution with an error band obtained by propagating the experimental errors and by varying the np-nh normalization over a defensible range, so the reader can judge whether the effect is significant. Relatedly, the use of a discrete three-point sum over each reconstructed-energy bin (which the authors note 'explains the spikes of our curves') is a crude approximation to the integral of Eq. (8); a continuous interpolation of g(Ēν) would remove an artifact that sits directly on the headline figure.
[§III.B, Fig. 13] The T2K conclusion rests on six events distributed in 250 MeV bins, and the theoretical curve is normalized to the same total number of events, so the comparison is shape-only with essentially no discriminating power. The statement that 'in spite of the small number of events it appears that the narrowing goes well in the direction of the theoretical prediction' is not supported at this statistics. Either soften this to an explicitly qualitative remark, or provide a quantitative test — for example a toy-Monte-Carlo distribution of a shape statistic under the no-smearing hypothesis, showing where the six observed events fall. As written, the abstract's claim [abstract:s7] that the T2K reshaping 'translates into a narrowing of the energy distribution' is a property of the kernel, which is fine, but the implied agreement with data is not established.

Minor objections (8)

[Table I] The table reports mean true energies that the text itself declares unusable ('it would be meaningless to replace in the analysis of experimental data the reconstructed energy by the average one'). At Ēν = 300 MeV the mean of 546 MeV is dominated by the np-nh tail and is not representative of the bulk of the distribution. Consider replacing or supplementing the means with medians and 68% intervals, which would convey the same information without inviting misuse.
[§III.A] The statement that the smeared distribution 'is closer to the LSND solutions shown in Ref. [11]' is qualitative. Either quantify the comparison (e.g. a χ² against the LSND-allowed region) or soften the wording to indicate that the direction of the shift is compatible.
[§II.A] For backward angles the paper attributes the softening to form-factor suppression rather than to np-nh, noting that np-nh 'is difficult to evaluate reliably at these momenta'. It would help to state explicitly the momentum-transfer range over which the np-nh response has been validated against data, so the reader knows which parts of Figs. 3–5 and 7–10 rest on tested input.
[§III, opening paragraph] The claim that electron and muon reconstruction is 'practically identical' for the same lepton energy and angle would be more convincing with a number — the difference in reconstructed energy at, say, Ee = Eμ = 0.5 GeV and cos θ = 0.5.
[Eq. (1)] In the version under review the fraction in Eq. (1) is not typeset (it reads as 'Eμ − mμ²/(2M)1 − (Eμ − Pμ cos θ)/M'); please check the typesetting against the intended expression, which I verified is consistent with Eq. (5).
[§II.A] The double citation 'Ref. [14] [19]' should be merged, and Ref. [19] is a note rather than a numbered reference in the usual sense; please regularize.
[Fig. 1 caption] The caption refers to 'the two corresponding continuous lines' delimiting the shaded region without saying which curves these are; please identify them explicitly (the Fermi-gas response boundaries at the given Tμ and cos θ).
[§II.A, detector composition] The calculations are performed for carbon and applied to MiniBooNE, whose mineral oil contains free protons as well as ¹²C. A sentence on the size of the free-proton contribution, or a justification for neglecting it, would close an obvious question.

How Pith checks papers → · Full audit of this paper →

The paper

The paper claims

The neutrino energy assigned to a quasielastic event is not the neutrino's actual energy, and the multinucleon piece of the nuclear response is the main reason why.

The reading

Neutrino oscillation experiments infer the neutrino energy from the charged lepton alone, assuming the event was a clean quasielastic scatter off a nucleon at rest. This paper argues that this reconstruction is systematically wrong, and that the dominant culprit is the multinucleon (two-particle–two-hole) component of the nuclear response, which Cherenkov detectors cannot distinguish from a genuine quasielastic event. The authors replace the single reconstructed number with a probability distribution $F(E_ν, Ē_ν)$ giving the chance that an event labelled with reconstructed energy $Ē_ν$ actually came from a neutrino of energy $E_ν$, computed from a nuclear response model that reproduces the MiniBooNE double-differential cross section data. At low reconstructed energy the distribution grows a high-energy tail, so the mean true energy can sit well above the reconstructed value — for a 300 MeV label with the MiniBooNE flux the mean comes out near 546 MeV. Convolving published electron-excess histograms with this distribution suppresses the low-energy MiniBooNE peak and moves events upward, while for T2K at Super-Kamiokande the same reshaping narrows the distribution.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the smearing function of Eq. (6), $F(E_ν, Ē_ν) = cΦ(E_ν)/∫dE_νΦ(E_ν) ∫ dE_μ [d^2σ/dω dcos θ]_{ω=E_ν-E_μ, cos θ = cos θ(E_μ,Ē_ν)}$, normalized so that $∫dE_ν F(E_ν,Ē_ν) = 1$. Its defining ingredient is Eq. (5), $Ē_ν P_μ cos θ + M(Ē_ν - E_μ) - Ē_ν E_μ + m_μ^2/2 = 0$, which, for a given reconstructed energy, fixes the muon angle that must accompany each muon energy; integrating the double-differential cross section along that curve collects every kinematic path that would have been labelled with the same reconstructed energy. The cross section itself splits into a one-particle–one-hole part treated in RPA and a multinucleon (np-nh) part taken from the authors' earlier work; the np-nh piece is what puts strength at large $ω$ and therefore creates the high-energy tail. The flux factor $Φ(E_ν)$ inside the integral is not a detail: it weights which true energies are likely, so a rising flux amplifies the tail and a falling one suppresses it.

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the standard quasielastic energy-reconstruction formula is not a small correction but a distortion with a definite direction, and that the multinucleon component of the neutrino–nucleus cross section drives it. The argument is geometric: for fixed lepton energy and angle, the relation $q^2 - ω^2 = 4(E_μ+ω)E_μ sin^2(θ/2) - m_μ^2 + 2(E_μ+ω)(E_μ-p_μ)cos θ$ traces a hyperbola in the $(ω,q)$ plane, and a pure Fermi gas with a sharp quasielastic line fixes a single intersection, hence a single neutrino energy. Once the response spreads over the whole plane — through Fermi motion, RPA correlations, Pauli blocking, and above all through events that eject two or more nucleons — a whole range of $ω$, and therefore of $E_ν = E_μ + ω$, becomes possible for one set of lepton observables. The authors compute the resulting distribution and find it asymmetric in a way that depends on kinematics: hardened at forward angles and low reconstructed energy by the multinucleon tail, softened at large angles by form-factor suppression at high momentum transfer. Applied to data, the transformation conserves total event number and reshapes the MiniBooNE electron excess toward higher energy, which the authors say may affect the oscillation interpretation, while for the six T2K electron candidates at Super-Kamiokande the narrowing lands close to their theoretical prediction $σ_{QE+np-nh}(E_{ν_e})Φ^{SK T2K}(E_{ν_e})$.

Load-bearing premise

For the MiniBooNE application the authors assume the electron-neutrino energy distribution equals the muon-neutrino one, an approximation they state explicitly and defer to a future oscillation model, even though the flux factor inside the smearing integral controls both the size and the direction of the reported hardening.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Reconstructed-energy histograms from Cherenkov detectors are not true-energy histograms, and the conversion is computable from a response model rather than being a small systematic error.
For MiniBooNE, the low-energy electron excess is suppressed and shifted upward once the smearing is applied, which the authors note brings the distribution closer to the LSND-favoured region than the raw histogram.
For T2K at Super-Kamiokande, the reshaping narrows the electron-neutrino energy distribution, and the narrowed shape agrees better with the theoretical prediction than the raw reconstructed histogram does.
The transformation is reversible: a theoretical true-energy spectrum can be smeared forward into reconstructed energy and compared directly with data.
Because the effect concentrates events where the flux is large, its size and even its direction depend on the neutrino energy spectrum of the beam in question.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The argument implies that any oscillation fit which treats reconstructed energy as true energy is fitting a distorted variable, so a joint re-fit with the smearing folded into the detector model would be the natural next test — and could move sterile-neutrino parameter space in either direction.
The size of the effect scales with the np-nh normalization, which is contested: a smaller multinucleon contribution of the kind obtained with an overall cross-section renormalization would soften the MiniBooNE hardening without eliminating it, so the prediction is graded rather than binary.
Detectors that can separate multinucleon events from single-nucleon ones — tracking or scintillator detectors with proton visibility — would provide a direct handle on the tail that Cherenkov detectors hide, and could calibrate the smearing independently of oscillation fits.
The same machinery applies to antineutrino running, where the excess has also been reported; if the reshaping behaves differently there, that difference becomes a diagnostic rather than a nuisance.

Original abstract

We discuss the accuracy of the usual procedure for neutrino energy reconstruction which is based on the quasielastic kinematics. Our results are described in terms of a probability distribution for a real neutrino energy value. Several factors are responsible of the deviations from the reconstructed value. The main one is the multinucleon component of the neutrino interaction which in the case of Cherenkov detectors enters as a quasielastic cross section, increasing the mean neutrino energy which can differ appreciably from the reconstructed value. As an application we derive, for excess electron events attributed to the conversion of muon neutrinos, the true neutrino energy distribution based on the experimental one which is given in terms of the reconstructed value. The result is a reshaping effect. For MiniBooNE the low energy peak is suppressed and shifted at higher energies, which may influence the interpretation in terms of oscillation. For T2K at the Super Kamiokande far detector the reshaping translates into a narrowing of the energy distribution.

The compiled record

The paper's own sentences, arranged, kept beside the review and separate from it. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

Compiled by classifier-1.13-20260917 via OpenRouter, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-09-23: 1 request, 6,172 input tokens, $0.0003 reported.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.03 · states limitation 0.22 · human participants 0.02 · controlled comparison 0.09 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.09 · compares with prior results 0.51 · mentions code or data availability 0.02.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v2. Results and the main claim are underlined; show every role.

We discuss the accuracy of the usual procedure for neutrino energy reconstruction which is based on the quasielastic kinematics. Our results are described in terms of a probability distribution for a real neutrino energy value. Several factors are responsible of the deviations from the reconstructed value. The main one is the multinucleon component of the neutrino interaction which in the case of Cherenkov detectors enters as a quasielastic cross section, increasing the mean neutrino energy which can differ appreciably from the reconstructed value. As an application we derive, for excess electron events attributed to the conversion of muon neutrinos, the true neutrino energy distribution based on the experimental one which is given in terms of the reconstructed value. The result is a reshaping effect. For MiniBooNE the low energy peak is suppressed and shifted at higher energies, which may influence the interpretation in terms of oscillation. For T2K at the Super Kamiokande far detector the reshaping translates into a narrowing of the energy distribution.

background contribution method result interpretation main claim

What the classifier reports for each sentence. The number is the probability it gave the label.
#	sentence	role	the authors' own work	states the main conclusion	strength
s0	We discuss the accuracy of the usual procedure for neutrino energy reconstruction which is based on the quasielastic kinematics.	contribution 0.52	0.25	0.04	unclear 0.68
s1	Our results are described in terms of a probability distribution for a real neutrino energy value.	method 0.67	0.84	0.07	asserted 0.97
s2	Several factors are responsible of the deviations from the reconstructed value.	background 0.46	0.30	0.05	asserted 1.00
s3	The main one is the multinucleon component of the neutrino interaction which in the case of Cherenkov detectors enters as a quasielastic cross section, increasing the mean neutrino energy which can differ appreciably from the reconstructed value.	result 0.74	0.51	0.44	asserted 0.99
s4	As an application we derive, for excess electron events attributed to the conversion of muon neutrinos, the true neutrino energy distribution based on the experimental one which is given in terms of the reconstructed value.	contribution 0.69	0.93	0.10	asserted 1.00
s5	The result is a reshaping effect.	result 0.95	0.82	0.13	asserted 1.00
s6	For MiniBooNE the low energy peak is suppressed and shifted at higher energies, which may influence the interpretation in terms of oscillation.	interpretation 0.53	0.84	0.22	hedged possibility 0.81
s7	For T2K at the Super Kamiokande far detector the reshaping translates into a narrowing of the energy distribution.	result 0.98	0.84	0.11	asserted 1.00

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: theoretical result 0.89 · evidence from proof or derivation 0.53.

What was examined, and what was not

sources read

arXiv listing abstract v2

not examined

full text
figures and tables
references and citing sentences
relations to other papers

levels run

P abstract

not run

S sections
T body sentences
C citations
R cross-paper relations

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. Every number in the measurements table is the authors', checked by code. Record as JSON

Figures

**Figure 1.** FIG. 1: (Color online) The neutrino hyperbolas defined by Eq.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2: (Color online) MiniBooNE and T2K normalized fluxes. T

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3: (Color online) Probability distributions for

**Figure 4.** FIG. 4: (Color online) Probability distributions for

**Figure 5.** FIG. 5: (Color online) Probability distributions for

**Figure 6.** FIG. 6: (Color online) Cosine of the muon angle solution of th

**Figure 7.** FIG. 7: (Color online) Probability distribution before nor

**Figure 8.** FIG. 8: (Color online) Probability distributions for sever

**Figure 9.** FIG. 9: (Color online) Probability distributions for sever

**Figure 10.** FIG. 10: (Color online) Normalized probability distributi

**Figure 11.** FIG. 11: (Color online) Three different treatments of experim

**Figure 12.** FIG. 12: (Color online) MiniBooNE flux-averaged charged cur

**Figure 13.** FIG. 13: (Color online) The experimental T2K data [13] on ele

Figures reproduced from arXiv:1202.4745 by the authors.

References

Works cited (19)

[1]

M. Martini, M. Ericson, G. Chanfray, J. Marteau, Phys. Re v. C80, 065501 (2009)

View on Pith 2009
[2]

M. Martini, M. Ericson, G. Chanfray, J. Marteau, Phys. Re v. C81, 045502 (2010)

View on Pith 2010
[3]

M. Martini, M. Ericson and G. Chanfray, Phys. Rev. C 84, 055502 (2011)

View on Pith 2011
[4]

J. Nieves, I. Ruiz Simo and M. J. Vicente Vacas, Phys. Rev. C 83, 045501 (2011)

View on Pith 2011
[5]

J. Nieves, I. R. Simo and M. J. V. Vacas, Phys. Lett. B 707, 72 (2012)

View on Pith 2012
[6]

J. Delorme, M. Ericson, Phys. Lett. B156, 263 (1985)

View on Pith 1985
[7]

O. Benhar and D. Meloni, Phys. Rev. D 80, 073003 (2009)

View on Pith 2009
[8]

T. Leitner and U. Mosel, Phys. Rev. C 81, 064614 (2010)

View on Pith 2010
[9]

A. A. Aguilar-Arevalo et al. [MiniBooNE Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D 81, 092005 (2010)

View on Pith 2010
[10]

A. A. Aguilar-Arevalo et al. [The MiniBooNE Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 231801 (2007)

View on Pith 2007
[11]

A. A. Aguilar-Arevalo et al. [MiniBooNE Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 101802 (2009)

View on Pith 2009
[12]

K. Abe et al. [T2K Collaboration], arXiv:1201.1386 [hep-ex]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[13]

K. Abe et al. [T2K Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 041801 (2011)

View on Pith 2011
[14]

W. M. Alberico, M. Ericson, A. Molinari, Annals Phys. 154, 356 (1984)

View on Pith 1984
[15]

M. Martini, arXiv:1110.5895 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[16]

A. Aguilar-Arevalo et al. [LSND Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D 64, 112007 (2001)

View on Pith 2001
[17]

A. A. Aguilar-Arevalo et al. [The MiniBooNE Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 181801 (2010) [arXiv:1007.1150 [hep-ex]]. 24

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010
[18]

Z. Djurcic [MiniBooNE Collaboration], arXiv:1201.15 19 [hep-ex]

View on Pith
[19]

A comparison between the electron scattering data on ca rbon and our model can be found in Ref. [15]. The agreement is satisfactory. 25

View on Pith

Forward citations

Cited by 18 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

Dark Neutrino Portal to Explain MiniBooNE excess
hep-ph 2018-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

A dark neutrino that up-scatters off carbon and decays to a dark gauge boson, whose electron-positron pairs mimic single electrons, fits the MiniBooNE low-energy excess at 5.2 sigma over background.
Phenomenology of strangeness-changing two-body currents in antineutrino scattering
nucl-th 2026-10 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

The ratio of strange two-body to quasi-elastic hyperon production in antineutrino-carbon scattering is determined to be 0.14-0.22 depending on energy, with important implications for hyperon tagging and energy reconst...
Machine-learning-based neutrino-event generation constrained by experimental measurements
hep-ph 2026-10 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

A generative adversarial network and a cross-section neural network are jointly fine-tuned to experimental cross sections, enabling transfer across different neutrino fluxes and observables.
Sterile Neutrino Oscillations: The Global Picture
hep-ph 2013-03 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

Combining all oscillation data, the LSND and MiniBooNE appearance hints are incompatible with disappearance null results at the 10^-4 level in 3+1, improving only to 0.2% in a 1+3+1 spectrum.
First Measurement of the Muon Anti-Neutrino Double-Differential Charged Current Quasi-Elastic Cross Section
hep-ex 2013-01 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

The first muon antineutrino charged-current quasi-elastic double-differential cross section on mineral oil is measured, and it exceeds and differs in shape from the relativistic Fermi gas prediction with canonical axial mass.

Show 13 more citing papers

Explaining $(g-2)_{\mu,e}$, the KOTO anomaly and the MiniBooNE excess in an extended Higgs model with sterile neutrinos
hep-ph 2020-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A single extended Higgs model with a 140 MeV flavor-changing scalar and sterile neutrinos can be tuned to fit the muon and electron g-2, the KOTO kaon excess, and the MiniBooNE excess, each with its own coupling.
Hyper-Kamiokande Design Report
physics.ins-det 2018-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

The report specifies the design of a 258-kiloton water Cherenkov detector and projects its sensitivity to leptonic CP violation, proton decay, and supernova neutrinos.
Measurements of neutrino oscillation in appearance and disappearance channels by the T2K experiment with 6.6E20 protons on target
hep-ex 2015-02 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

Combining muon-neutrino disappearance and electron-neutrino appearance over 6.6e20 protons on target, T2K measures sin^2(theta23) and |Delta m^2|, excludes part of the delta_CP range at 90% CL, and weakly prefers the ...
Precise Measurement of the Neutrino Mixing Parameter \theta_{23} from Muon Neutrino Disappearance in an Off-axis Beam
hep-ex 2014-03 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

T2K reports sin^2(theta_23) = 0.514 +0.055/-0.056 (normal hierarchy) and Delta m^2_32 = (2.51 +/- 0.10) x 10^-3 eV^2/c^4, the most precise such measurement at the time of publication.
A Combined $\nu_\mu \to \nu_e$ and $\bar\nu_\mu \to \bar\nu_e$ Oscillation Analysis of the MiniBooNE Excesses
hep-ex 2012-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Combining neutrino and antineutrino appearance data, MiniBooNE sees a 240.3 +/- 62.9 event excess (3.8 sigma) consistent with two-neutrino oscillations at Delta m^2 = 0.037 eV^2 and maximal mixing, in the same region as LSND.
Sterile Neutrino Fits to Short Baseline Neutrino Oscillation Measurements
hep-ex 2012-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Fitting all short-baseline neutrino data to a (3+3) sterile neutrino model raises inter-dataset compatibility from 0.043% in (3+1) to 90%, though the MiniBooNE appearance excess remains unexplained.
Updated Global 3+1 Analysis of Short-BaseLine Neutrino Oscillations
hep-ph 2017-03 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

Adding NEOS, MINOS, and IceCube data to a 3+1 sterile-neutrino fit narrows the allowed mixing parameters to three small Δm2 islands and makes the appearance-disappearance tension tolerable only after dropping MiniBooN...
Pragmatic View of Short-Baseline Neutrino Oscillations
hep-ph 2013-08 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

Global fits to short-baseline neutrino data show that one extra sterile neutrino at the eV scale is sufficient, and that the evidence against no oscillations falls from 6 sigma to 2 sigma once LSND is removed.
Sterile Neutrinos: Cosmology vs Short-BaseLine Experiments
astro-ph.CO 2013-02 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

Cosmological and short-baseline oscillation data can both accommodate a sterile neutrino near 1 eV if that state is only partially thermalized in the early universe.
Neutrino Non-Standard Interactions: A Status Report
hep-ph 2019-07 accept novelty 3.0 of 10

The report compiles the 2019 status of neutrino non-standard interactions across model building, oscillation and scattering constraints, and future experimental sensitivity, without presenting a new result of its own.
Light sterile neutrinos
hep-ph 2015-07 conditional novelty 3.0 of 10

A review of eV-scale sterile neutrinos argues that reactor, Gallium, and LSND anomalies can be fit by 3+1 short-baseline oscillations, while acknowledging appearance-disappearance and cosmological tensions.
NuSTEC White Paper: Status and Challenges of Neutrino-Nucleus Scattering
hep-ph 2017-06 conditional novelty 2.0 of 10

The paper is a status report and prioritized to-do list for modeling neutrino-nucleus scattering, arguing that oscillation experiments cannot reach their precision goals without coordinated theory, generator, and elec...
Neutrino-Nucleus Cross Sections for Oscillation Experiments
hep-ph 2016-11 conditional novelty 2.0 of 10

Two-nucleon (2p-2h) excitations, not a larger axial mass, reconcile quasielastic-like neutrino-carbon data with theory, while single pion production remains an open conflict between MiniBooNE and MINERvA.

How the literature uses it

44 arXiv papers cite this in 64 sentences

Each citing sentence is taken from the citing paper's LaTeX source and typed by Pith's classifier. A label appears at probability 0.8 or more (0.95 for support), a contest at 0.7 or more; the quoted words are the citing authors'. How each label was checked · JSON

Papers citing it · 54 sentences without a confident label

Uses its method or tool 2 papers

* We consider the group of multinucleon interaction events for which we calculate a new neutrino reconstructed energy using the theoretical correlation between the true neutrino energy $E_ν$ and the reconstructed neutrino energy $E_ν^rec$ calculated in Refs. [ref] .

Assessing the role of nuclear effects in the interpretation of the MiniBooNE low-energy anomaly · Method · 0.96
One can get the reconstructed neutrino energy using the energy and angular distribution of the mediator coming from the sterile neutrino decay [ref] .

Explaining $(g-2)_{\mu,e}$, the KOTO anomaly and the MiniBooNE excess in an extended Higgs model with sterile neutrinos · Miniboone excess · 0.80

Compares with it 2 papers

Both of these results agree with the recent analyses by Martini et al. [ref] and with the very recent results of Nieves et al. [ref] .

Many-Body Interactions of Neutrinos with Nuclei - Observables · Energy reconstruction · 0.85
Both of these results agree with a recent analysis by Martini et al. [ref] .

Neutrino-Long-Baseline Experiments and Nuclear Physics · Many-body interactions · 0.94

Cites it as support 2 papers

Errors in the energy reconstruction due to event-misidentification cause not just a shift of the energy axis, but instead distort the whole event distribution [ref] .

Neutrino Interactions and Long Baseline Physics · Reaction mechanisms and oscillation signal · 0.99
Once they are sizable, the effect on the $E_ν$ determination is significant [ref] .

Progress and open questions in the physics of neutrino cross sections · Multinucleon mechanisms and neutrino energy reconstruction · 0.99

Cites it as background 4 papers

A second complication arises due to the presence of multinucleon events in which the incoming neutrino interacts with, e.g, two nucleons (so-called 2p2h) [ref] .

Sensitivity of octant of $\theta_{23}$, CP violation and mass hierarchy in NO$\nu$A with multinucleon and detector effects · Introduction · 0.84
This subject is still a work in progress with the most relevant work to date from Martini et al. [ref] , Nieves et al. [ref] , Lalukulich, et al. [ref] , and Shen et al. [ref] .

Recent Advances and Open Questions in Neutrino-induced Quasi-elastic Scattering and Single Photon Production · Establishing the Incident Neutrino Energy · 0.97
There are the works of Martini et al. [ref] , the ones of Nieves et al. [ref] and the ones of Amaro et al. [ref] .

Neutrino-Nucleus Cross Sections for Oscillation Experiments · np-nh excitations: theory vs experimental $dσ$ · 0.89

What it cites · 4 sentences without a confident label

Uses data or values from 1 paper

For the second case we consider the T2K flux [ref] at the near detector (ND), $Φ_T2K^ND(ν_μ)$, which is somewhat more narrow.

First Muon-Neutrino Disappearance Study with an Off-Axis Beam · Introduction · 1.00

Discussion

Disagree with the review, or know something it missed? Leave a comment, highlight any passage above to comment on it, or challenge this review formally.

[1] [1]

M. Martini, M. Ericson, G. Chanfray, J. Marteau, Phys. Re v. C80, 065501 (2009)

View on Pith 2009

[2] [2]

M. Martini, M. Ericson, G. Chanfray, J. Marteau, Phys. Re v. C81, 045502 (2010)

View on Pith 2010

[3] [3]

M. Martini, M. Ericson and G. Chanfray, Phys. Rev. C 84, 055502 (2011)

View on Pith 2011

[4] [4]

J. Nieves, I. Ruiz Simo and M. J. Vicente Vacas, Phys. Rev. C 83, 045501 (2011)

View on Pith 2011

[5] [5]

J. Nieves, I. R. Simo and M. J. V. Vacas, Phys. Lett. B 707, 72 (2012)

View on Pith 2012

[6] [6]

J. Delorme, M. Ericson, Phys. Lett. B156, 263 (1985)

View on Pith 1985

[7] [7]

O. Benhar and D. Meloni, Phys. Rev. D 80, 073003 (2009)

View on Pith 2009

[8] [8]

T. Leitner and U. Mosel, Phys. Rev. C 81, 064614 (2010)

View on Pith 2010

[9] [9]

A. A. Aguilar-Arevalo et al. [MiniBooNE Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D 81, 092005 (2010)

View on Pith 2010

[10] [10]

A. A. Aguilar-Arevalo et al. [The MiniBooNE Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 231801 (2007)

View on Pith 2007

[11] [11]

A. A. Aguilar-Arevalo et al. [MiniBooNE Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 101802 (2009)

View on Pith 2009

[12] [12]

K. Abe et al. [T2K Collaboration], arXiv:1201.1386 [hep-ex]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[13] [13]

K. Abe et al. [T2K Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 041801 (2011)

View on Pith 2011

[14] [14]

W. M. Alberico, M. Ericson, A. Molinari, Annals Phys. 154, 356 (1984)

View on Pith 1984

[15] [15]

M. Martini, arXiv:1110.5895 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[16] [16]

A. Aguilar-Arevalo et al. [LSND Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D 64, 112007 (2001)

View on Pith 2001

[17] [17]

A. A. Aguilar-Arevalo et al. [The MiniBooNE Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 181801 (2010) [arXiv:1007.1150 [hep-ex]]. 24

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010

[18] [18]

Z. Djurcic [MiniBooNE Collaboration], arXiv:1201.15 19 [hep-ex]

View on Pith

[19] [19]

A comparison between the electron scattering data on ca rbon and our model can be found in Ref. [15]. The agreement is satisfactory. 25

View on Pith