Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 31 references

First detection of a tagged neutrino in the NA62 experiment

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The NA62 experiment reports the first tagged neutrino candidate: a neutrino from a $K^+ \to \mu^+\nu_\mu$ decay is caught through a charged-current interaction in a liquid krypton calorimeter, its energy fixed kinematically to 52.09 GeV…

desk verdict First tagged neutrino candidate: a careful single-event proof-of-principle whose main soft spot is the extrapolated accidental background. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.04033 v2 pith:O5FJUJID submitted 2024-12-05 hep-ex

NA62 Collaboration This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ex
keywords neutrinotaggingtaggedcharged-currentinteractionliquidkryptoncalorimeterkinematicenergyreconstructionkaondecayNA62
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper reports the first tagged neutrino candidate from the 2022 data sample of the NA62 experiment. The candidate is a $K^+ \to \mu^+\nu_\mu$ decay whose neutrino is detected through a charged-current interaction in the liquid krypton calorimeter, with the parent kaon and the muon fully reconstructed. If correct, this demonstrates that the neutrino tagging technique is experimentally feasible: a neutrino can be associated with its specific parent decay, and its energy can be obtained from decay kinematics rather than from the interaction final state. The neutrino energy is $E_\nu = 52.09$ GeV with a relative uncertainty of 0.34%, against an expected signal of 0.208 events and an expected background of 0.034 events. The result is a proof-of-principle step toward accelerator-based neutrino experiments that use tagging to control flux, cross-section, and energy-scale systematics.

What carries the argument

The central object is the tagged neutrino candidate: a neutrino event whose parent $K^+ \to \mu^+\nu_\mu$ decay is fully reconstructed, so the neutrino four-momentum is defined at the decay vertex as $P_{K^+} - P_{\mu^+}$ under the kaon and muon mass hypotheses. The argument is carried by the combination of a high-resolution beam spectrometer for the parent kaon, a magnetic spectrometer for the muon, the liquid krypton calorimeter used as an active target for the charged-current interaction, and selection criteria that include a missing-mass cut $|m^2_{\mathrm{miss}}| < 0.006$ GeV$^2/c^4$, a distance cut $d_{\mathrm{LKr}} < 60$ mm between the predicted and reconstructed neutrino impact points, and coplanarity and muon-identification conditions. Kinematic reconstruction is the load-bearing piece: it gives a neutrino energy known to 0.34%, compared with the 10-30% typical of reconstruction from the measured interaction final state.

What would settle it

Measure accidental activity below 60 mm using a control sample of $K^+\to\mu^+\nu_\mu$ decays selected without the neutrino-interaction requirement, counting unrelated liquid-krypton clusters as a function of distance from the predicted neutrino impact point. If the density below 60 mm is inconsistent with the linear extrapolation from the 60-300 mm sideband, the 0.034-event background is underestimated and the single candidate cannot be attributed to a tagged neutrino on the present evidence.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central claim is that a single event observed in the 2022 NA62 data is a genuine $K^+ \to \mu^+\nu_\mu$ decay followed by a charged-current neutrino interaction inside the liquid krypton calorimeter. The neutrino direction and energy are not inferred from the interaction products; they come from the measured $K^+$ and $\mu^+$ four-momenta, so the event is tagged. The squared missing mass is $m^2_{\mathrm{miss}} = -0.00086$ GeV$^2/c^4$, consistent with zero, and the distance between the predicted neutrino impact point and the observed calorimeter signal is $d_{\mathrm{LKr}} = 31.4$ mm. With 0.208 expected signal events and 0.034 expected background events, the probability of observing one event under the signal-plus-background hypothesis is 19%, while the probability under background-only is 3%. The paper concludes that the event is the first tagged neutrino candidate and that it demonstrates the feasibility of the tagging technique.

Load-bearing premise

The result rests on the background estimate, which assumes accidental calorimeter activity is uniform across the front plane so that a linear fit to the $d_{\mathrm{LKr}}$ sideband from 60 to 300 mm can be extrapolated into the signal region below 60 mm; if accidental activity clusters near the predicted neutrino impact point, the true background could exceed the quoted 0.034 events.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The neutrino tagging technique is feasible with existing detectors: a neutrino from a specific kaon decay can be caught and identified in an instrumented calorimeter.
  • Tagged neutrino energies can be determined at sub-percent precision, far better than the 10-30% typical of final-state reconstruction.
  • A dedicated tagged-neutrino experiment could measure total and differential neutrino cross-sections with reduced flux and interaction-model systematics.
  • In long-baseline oscillation experiments, tagged neutrinos would improve energy resolution and reduce backgrounds from non-oscillated neutrinos.
  • The 2023-2024 NA62 data can be used to consolidate the single-candidate result.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct continuation test is to re-run the identical masked selection on the 2023-2024 dataset: if the tagging interpretation is right, roughly 0.2 signal events per year should appear with the same $d_{\mathrm{LKr}}$ and missing-mass signatures, and the sideband shape should remain linear; if the candidate is accidental background, the sidebands should grow proportionally.
  • The main scaling bottleneck for a dedicated tagged-neutrino facility is likely accidental activity rather than neutrino rate, so the uniform-activity assumption will need to be measured directly, for example with a dedicated control trigger, before the technique is used for precision physics.
  • Because the kinematic tag gives 0.34% energy resolution, tagged neutrino interactions could also serve as an in-situ energy-calibration source for large far detectors, independent of hadronic energy reconstruction.
  • The same tagging logic applies to pion decays in flight, which are more abundant than kaon decays and would extend the method beyond kaon parents.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The NA62 collaboration reports the observation of a single candidate event consistent with a K+ -> mu+ nu_mu decay followed by a charged-current nu_mu interaction in the liquid krypton calorimeter. The event is selected from 2022 data using a dedicated trigger line, and the signal region is masked until after the background evaluation. Backgrounds are estimated from data sidebands: 0.030 events from accidental activity (background A) and 0.0039 events from mis-reconstructed decays (background B), giving a total expected background of 0.034 events. The expected signal is 0.208 events. One event passes all criteria, with kinematic neutrino energy 52.09 GeV and missing mass consistent with zero. The paper concludes that this is the first tagged neutrino candidate and demonstrates the feasibility of the neutrino tagging technique.

Significance. If the candidate is genuine, this would be the first tagged neutrino ever observed and an important proof-of-principle for future tagged-neutrino beams. The analysis follows good practice: the signal region was masked before background evaluation, the background estimates are data-driven from sidebands, and the trigger and selection efficiencies are measured on control samples. The paper is appropriately cautious in using the word 'candidate' in most of the text, and it provides the key kinematic properties of the event. The result is significant for the long-term development of neutrino tagging, even though the statistical evidence is limited to a single event.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 3, Background A] The assumed uniformity of accidental activity over the LKr front plane is the linchpin of the dominant background estimate. The dLKr distribution is fitted from 60 to 300 mm with a linear function, and the expected background of 0.030 events in the signal region (dLKr < 60 mm) is obtained by extrapolation. Because the signal region is masked and the sideband contains a limited number of events, the fit cannot distinguish the assumed dN/ddLKr proportional to dLKr shape from a line with a positive intercept or a mildly curved distribution. The quoted systematic uncertainty (0.004) only accounts for the choice of fit range, not the functional form or the uniformity assumption itself. Since the observed event has dLKr = 31.4 mm and the total background probability of 3% is dominated by this estimate, the authors should directly validate the uniformity assumption, for example by measuring the distance from the extrapolated neutrino position to the nearest LKr cluster in a control sample of K+ -> mu+ nu_mu decays that does not use the neutrino interaction selection, and by testing the stability of the background integral under alternative functional forms (e.g., adding a constant or quadratic term). Without such validation, the robustness of the 3% background probability is not established.
  2. [Section 5 and Table 2] The paper states that the neutrino energy reconstructed from kinematics has a relative uncertainty of 0.34%, but it does not describe how this value is derived from the GTK and STRAW momentum resolutions or from any momentum-scale systematic uncertainties. Since the sub-percent energy resolution is a central advertised benefit of the tagging technique, the source of this number should be specified, with a reference or a short derivation, so that the reader can assess whether the claim is justified.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Title and Abstract] The title uses 'First detection of a tagged neutrino' while the abstract and conclusions consistently use 'tagged neutrino candidate'; the wording should be aligned to avoid overstating the statistical significance.
  2. [Section 3] The asymmetric statistical uncertainties on the background estimates are not fully explained; the paper should specify whether they arise from Poisson limits on the fitted yields, from the fit parameter uncertainties, or from the scale-factor uncertainty, and how the quoted central values are obtained.
  3. [Figure 3] The sideband fits shown in Figure 3 contain only a small number of events; the paper should report the number of events used in each fit and the fit quality (e.g., chi2 per degree of freedom) so that the reader can judge the reliability of the extrapolation.
  4. [Section 4] The statistical uncertainty on the expected signal Nsig = 0.208 +/- 0.013 is given as a single number, but the individual contributions from the normalisation sample, P_int, and the efficiency ratio are not broken out; a short breakdown would help identify the dominant source of uncertainty.
  5. [Section 2, Interaction selection] The sentence 'Except for the signals associated with the neutrino candidate and the muon, no in-time LKr signal should be reconstructed' is slightly ambiguous; it would be clearer to state that no other LKr clusters in time with the event are allowed within the geometrical acceptance used for the analysis.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the tagged-neutrino expectation and background estimates are derived from independent normalisation data, external cross-sections, control-sample efficiencies, and sideband fits performed before unblinding, with no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The claimed derivation chain is self-contained. The signal expectation in Section 4 is Nsig = Nnorm * D * Pint * eps_sig/eps_norm, where Nnorm = 2.22 x 10^8 is taken from a downscaled minimum-bias K+ -> mu+ nu_mu normalisation sample, Pint = (5.6 +/- 0.1_syst) x 10^-11 is obtained from GENIE simulations using the external nu_mu charged-current cross-section [27], and eps_MOQX, eps_E5, and eps_L1 are measured on independent control samples (K+ -> pi+ pi+ pi-, K+ -> pi+ pi0, and downscaled no-L1 data). None of these inputs uses the single event observed in the signal region. The background estimates in Section 3 are also non-circular: background A is fit to the dLKr sideband 60-300 mm and integrated into the masked dLKr < 60 mm region, and background B is fit to the m2_miss sideband excluding |m2_miss| < 0.006 GeV2/c4, each scaled by efficiencies measured in sidebands; the text states 'The signal region defined in the following is kept masked until the completion of the background evaluation.' The resulting total background of 0.034 and the 3% probability of observing one background event are Poisson consequences of that independent estimate, not quantities fitted to the observed candidate. The only caveat is that the background-A extrapolation relies on the assumption 'that the accidental activity is uniform over the LKr front plane', which is a modelling fragility rather than a circular step because the fit does not include the signal region and no outcome of the analysis is fed back into the model. The self-citations [12,15] describe the proposed tagged-neutrino technique and are used for motivation and context, not to compute the observed candidate's properties or to exclude alternative interpretations; the candidate's kinematic energy uncertainty follows from the GTK and STRAW momentum resolutions, not from those citations. The analysis is therefore not circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities or free physics parameters. The fitted quantities are background model parameters estimated from sideband data, and the physics assumptions are standard or explicitly stated. The central claim is an experimental observation, not a derivation.

free parameters (2)
  • Background A linear fit parameters (intercept and slope in dLKr) = Not quoted in the text; fitted to the dLKr sideband from 60 to 300 mm
    The data-driven estimate of the accidental background in the signal region is the integral of this fitted linear model. The central claim depends on this extrapolation.
  • Background B exponential fit parameters (normalisation and exponent in m2_miss) = Not quoted in the text; fitted to the m2_miss sideband from -0.015 to 0.03 GeV2/c4
    Used to estimate the contribution from mis-reconstructed K+ decays in the signal region.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The reconstructed neutrino is assumed massless and the decay is assumed to be K+ -> mu+ nu, so the neutrino 4-momentum is P(K+) - P(mu+) with m2_miss near zero.
    Section 2, common selection, neutrino candidate definition. This assumption identifies the invisible particle as the neutrino from the tagged decay.
  • domain assumption Accidental activity is uniformly distributed over the LKr front plane, making the background count proportional to dLKr.
    Section 3, Background A. This is the load-bearing premise for the background estimate.
  • domain assumption The efficiency of the selection criteria removed for background sideband samples is the same in the signal region as in the sidebands.
    Section 3, scaling of fitted background integrals by the efficiency of removed criteria measured in sidebands.
  • domain assumption GENIE with tune G18_10a_02_11b and the external neutrino cross-section describe the neutrino interaction probability in the LKr calorimeter.
    Section 4, expected signal. The signal expectation P_int = (5.6 +/- 0.1) x 10^-11 comes from this simulation and external cross-section.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of First detection of a tagged neutrino in the NA62 experiment." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/O5FJUJID

@misc{pith2026241204033,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: First detection of a tagged neutrino in the NA62 experiment},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/O5FJUJID}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.04033}
}
abstract

The NA62 experiment at the CERN SPS reports the first detection of a tagged neutrino candidate based on the data collected in 2022. The candidate consists of a $K^+ \rightarrow \mu^+ \nu_\mu$ decay where the charged particles are reconstructed and the neutrino is detected through a charged-current interaction in a liquid krypton calorimeter.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.04033 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic side view of the NA62 beamline and detector used in 2022. Information [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Left: distribution of the reconstructed squared missing mass [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Left: dLKr distribution of the selected events in the background A sample, fitted with a linear function. Right: m2 miss distribution of the selected events in the background B sample, fitted with an exponential function. The shaded areas represent the masked signal region. Background A is studied using a sample satisfying the signal selection but inverting the dLKr condition and removing the requirements on φ and o… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Display of the activity recorded in CHOD, LKr, MUV1, MUV2 and MUV3 for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Abi, et al., Long-baseline neutrino oscillation physics potential of the DUNE exper- iment, Eur

    B. Abi, et al., Long-baseline neutrino oscillation physics potential of the DUNE exper- iment, Eur. Phys. J. C 80 (10) (2020) 978. arXiv:2006.16043, doi:10.1140/epjc/ s10052-020-08456-z

    arXiv 2020

  2. [2]

    Abe, et al., Hyper-Kamiokande Design Report, https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv

    K. Abe, et al., Hyper-Kamiokande Design Report, https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv. 1805.04163 (5 2018). arXiv:1805.04163, doi:10.48550/arxiv.1805.04163

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1805.04163 2018

  3. [3]

    ch/record/2721370 (2020)

    2020 Update of the European Strategy for Particle Physics (Brochure), http://cds.cern. ch/record/2721370 (2020). doi:10.17181/CERN.JSC6.W89E

    arXiv 2020

  4. [4]

    Huber, et al., Snowmass Neutrino Frontier Report, https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv

    P. Huber, et al., Snowmass Neutrino Frontier Report, https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv. 2211.08641 (Nov. 2022). doi:10.48550/ARXIV.2211.08641

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2211.08641 2022

  5. [5]

    Huber, et al., On the impact of systematical uncertainties for the CP violation measure- ment in superbeam experiments, JHEP 03 (2008) 021

    P. Huber, et al., On the impact of systematical uncertainties for the CP violation measure- ment in superbeam experiments, JHEP 03 (2008) 021. doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2008/03/ 021. 15

    work page doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2008/03/ 2008

  6. [6]

    Branca, G

    A. Branca, G. Brunetti, A. Longhin, M. Martini, F. Pupilli, F. Terranova, A New Gen- eration of Neutrino Cross Section Experiments: Challenges and Opportunities, Symmetry 13 (9) (2021) 1625. doi:10.3390/sym13091625

    work page doi:10.3390/sym13091625 2021

  7. [7]

    Abed Abud, et al., Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment (DUNE) Near De- tector Conceptual Design Report, Instruments 5 (4) (2021) 31

    A. Abed Abud, et al., Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment (DUNE) Near De- tector Conceptual Design Report, Instruments 5 (4) (2021) 31. doi:10.3390/ instruments5040031

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Pontecorvo, Tagging direct neutrinos: a first step to neutrino tagging, Lett

    B. Pontecorvo, Tagging direct neutrinos: a first step to neutrino tagging, Lett. Nuovo Cim. 25 (1979) 257–259. doi:10.1007/BF02813638

    work page doi:10.1007/bf02813638 1979

Show all 31 references
  1. [9]

    I. P. Nedyalkov, Single spectrometer station for neutrino tagging, http://inis.jinr.ru/ sl/NTBLIB/JINR-E1-84-515.pdf (7 1984). URL http://inis.jinr.ru/sl/NTBLIB/JINR-E1-84-515.pdf

    1984

  2. [10]

    Bohm, Project of a tagged neutrino facility at Serpukhov, in: Physics at Future Accel- erators

    G. Bohm, Project of a tagged neutrino facility at Serpukhov, in: Physics at Future Accel- erators. Proceedings, 10th Warsaw Symposium on Elementary Particle Physics, Kazimierz, Poland, 1987, 1987. URL https://inis.iaea.org/search/21064823

    1987

  3. [11]

    Bernstein, Neutrino physics at Fermilab in the 1990’s, Nuclear Physics B - Proceedings Supplements 31 (1993) 255–261

    R. Bernstein, Neutrino physics at Fermilab in the 1990’s, Nuclear Physics B - Proceedings Supplements 31 (1993) 255–261. doi:10.1016/0920-5632(93)90143-t

    1993 doi

  4. [12]

    Perrin-Terrin, Neutrino tagging: a new tool for accelerator based neutrino experiments, Eur

    M. Perrin-Terrin, Neutrino tagging: a new tool for accelerator based neutrino experiments, Eur. Phys. J. C 82 (5) (2022) 465. doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-022-10397-8

    2022 doi

  5. [13]

    Friedland, S

    A. Friedland, S. W. Li, Understanding the energy resolution of liquid argon neutrino de- tectors, Phys. Rev. D 99 (3) (2019) 036009. arXiv:1811.06159, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD. 99.036009

    2019 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Acerbi, et al., Design and performance of the ENUBET monitored neutrino beam, The European Physical Journal C 83 (10) (Oct

    F. Acerbi, et al., Design and performance of the ENUBET monitored neutrino beam, The European Physical Journal C 83 (10) (Oct. 2023). doi:10.1140/epjc/ s10052-023-12116-3

    2023 doi

  7. [15]

    Baratto-Rold´ an, M

    A. Baratto-Rold´ an, M. Perrin-Terrin, E. Parozzi, M. Jebramcik, N. Charitonidis, Nutag: a proof-of-concept study for a long-baseline neutrino beam, Eur. Phys. J. C 84 (10 2024). doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-024-13324-1

    2024 doi

  8. [16]

    Borgato, et al., Charged-particle timing with 10 ps accuracy using TimeSPOT 3D trench- type silicon pixels, Frontiers in Physics 11 (2023)

    F. Borgato, et al., Charged-particle timing with 10 ps accuracy using TimeSPOT 3D trench- type silicon pixels, Frontiers in Physics 11 (2023). URL https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphy.2023.1117575

    2023

  9. [17]

    Cortina Gil, et al., Measurement of the very rare K+ → π+ν ¯ν decay, JHEP 06 (2021)

    E. Cortina Gil, et al., Measurement of the very rare K+ → π+ν ¯ν decay, JHEP 06 (2021)

    2021

  10. [18]

    Aglieri Rinella, et al., The NA62 GigaTracKer: a low mass high intensity beam 4D tracker with 65 ps time resolution on tracks, JINST 14 (2019) P07010

    G. Aglieri Rinella, et al., The NA62 GigaTracKer: a low mass high intensity beam 4D tracker with 65 ps time resolution on tracks, JINST 14 (2019) P07010. arXiv:1904.12837, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/14/07/P07010

    2019 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Cortina Gil, et al., The Beam and detector of the NA62 experiment at CERN, JINST 12 (05) (2017) P05025

    E. Cortina Gil, et al., The Beam and detector of the NA62 experiment at CERN, JINST 12 (05) (2017) P05025. arXiv:1703.08501, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/12/05/P05025

    2017 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Cortina Gil, et al., Performance of the NA62 trigger system, JHEP 03 (2023) 122

    E. Cortina Gil, et al., Performance of the NA62 trigger system, JHEP 03 (2023) 122. doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2023)122

    2023 doi

  13. [21]

    Allison, et al., Recent developments in Geant4, Nucl

    J. Allison, et al., Recent developments in Geant4, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 835 (2016) 186–

    2016

  14. [22]

    Andreopoulos, et al., The GENIE Neutrino Monte Carlo Generator, Nucl

    C. Andreopoulos, et al., The GENIE Neutrino Monte Carlo Generator, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 614 (2010) 87–104. doi:10.1016/j.nima.2009.12.009

    2010 doi

  15. [23]

    Tena-Vidal, et al., Neutrino-nucleon cross-section model tuning in GENIE v3, Phys

    J. Tena-Vidal, et al., Neutrino-nucleon cross-section model tuning in GENIE v3, Phys. Rev. D 104 (7) (2021) 072009. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.104.072009

    2021 doi

  16. [24]

    Tena-Vidal, et al., Neutrino-nucleus CC0 π cross-section tuning in GENIE v3, Phys

    J. Tena-Vidal, et al., Neutrino-nucleus CC0 π cross-section tuning in GENIE v3, Phys. Rev. D 106 (11) (2022) 112001. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.106.112001

    2022 doi

  17. [25]

    Tena-Vidal, et al., Hadronization model tuning in GENIE v3, Phys

    J. Tena-Vidal, et al., Hadronization model tuning in GENIE v3, Phys. Rev. D 105 (1) (2022) 012009. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.105.012009

    2022 doi

  18. [26]

    Cortina Gil, et al., An investigation of the very rare K+ → π+νν decay, JHEP 11 (2020)

    E. Cortina Gil, et al., An investigation of the very rare K+ → π+νν decay, JHEP 11 (2020)

    2020

  19. [27]

    J. A. Formaggio, G. P. Zeller, From eV to EeV: Neutrino Cross Sections Across Energy Scales, Rev. Mod. Phys. 84 (2012) 1307–1341. doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.84.1307

    2012 doi

  20. [28]

    Adamson, et al., Neutrino and antineutrino inclusive charged-current cross section mea- surements with the minos near detector, Phys

    P. Adamson, et al., Neutrino and antineutrino inclusive charged-current cross section mea- surements with the minos near detector, Phys. Rev. D 81 (2010) 072002.arXiv:0910.2201, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.81.072002. 17

    2010 arXiv

  21. [42]

    arXiv:2007.08218, doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2020)042

    2020 arXiv

  22. [93]

    arXiv:2103.15389, doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2021)093

    2021 arXiv

  23. [225]

    doi:10.1016/j.nima.2016.06.125. 16

    2016 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.