Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 42 references

Measurement of reactor antineutrino oscillation amplitude and frequency using 3800 days of complete data sample of the RENO experiment

T0 review · 3 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 With 3,800 live days of data, RENO's final analysis fixes sin^2(2theta13)=0.0920 and |Delta m^2_ee|=(2.57+/-0.12)x10^-3 eV^2.

desk verdict The final RENO 3800-day result is a solid, mature measurement: no surprises, modest precision gain, and one legitimate robustness request about the 5 MeV excess that the paper should address before publication. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.18711 v1 pith:MRVHY32S submitted 2024-12-25 hep-ex

(RENO Collaboration) S. Jeon , H. I. Kim , J. H. Choi , H. I. Jang , J. S. Jang , K. K. Joo , D. E. Jung , J. G. Kim
show 22 more authors
J. H. Kim J. Y. Kim S. B. Kim S. Y. Kim W. Kim E. Kwon D. H. Lee H. G. Lee W. J. Lee I. T. Lim D. H. Moon M. Y. Pac J. S. Park R. G. Park H. Seo J.W. Seo C. D. Shin B. S. Yang J. Yoo S. G. Yoon I. S. Yeo I. Yu
This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ex
keywords reactorantineutrinoneutrinooscillationtheta13inversebetadecayfar-to-nearratiomass-squareddifferenceRENOexperiment
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 final oscillation measurement from the RENO reactor neutrino experiment, using the complete 3,800-day data sample collected before the detectors were switched off. The central claim is that the full dataset determines the neutrino mixing angle $\sin^{2}2\theta_{13}=0.0920$ with a total precision of 6.4% and the effective mass-squared difference $|\Delta m^{2}_{ee}|=(2.57\pm0.12)\times10^{-3}~\mathrm{eV}^{2}$ with 4.5% precision. This matters because $\theta_{13}$ is the smallest neutrino mixing angle and a key input for future searches for CP violation in long-baseline experiments. The analysis reaches the statistical precision the experiment was designed for, and the improvement comes from a 40% increase in statistics plus a reduced reactor-flux uncertainty.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing observable is the spectral ratio of far-detector to near-detector inverse-$\beta$-decay candidates, binned in prompt energy. Because the two detectors are nearly identical, all correlated uncertainties, including detection efficiency, reactor flux normalization, and energy-scale correlations, cancel in this ratio, leaving only uncorrelated uncertainties plus background-rate and pull parameters. A $\chi^{2}$ function with pull terms for reactor flux, detection efficiency, energy scale, and backgrounds is minimized over the oscillation parameters, and the 9Li/8He cosmogenic background spectrum is updated with a merged near-plus-far sample to reduce shape errors.

What would settle it

Re-fit the far-detector spectrum alone, without using the near detector as a normalization, modeling the reactor flux and detector response absolutely; if the resulting $\sin^{2}2\theta_{13}$ or $|\Delta m^{2}_{ee}|$ differs from the ratio-based result by more than the combined quoted uncertainty, the cancellation assumption is falsified. Alternatively, an analysis that removes the 9Li/8He background constraint or replaces the merged background spectrum with independently measured near and far spectra would reveal whether the background treatment biases the fitted parameters.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using 1,211,995 inverse-$\beta$-decay candidates in the near detector and 144,667 in the far detector, the collaboration observes a clear energy- and baseline-dependent disappearance of reactor antineutrinos. A fit to the far-to-near ratio of prompt spectra yields $\sin^{2}2\theta_{13}=0.0920^{+0.0044}_{-0.0042}(\mathrm{stat.})^{+0.0041}_{-0.0041}(\mathrm{syst.})$ and $|\Delta m^{2}_{ee}|=\left[2.57^{+0.10}_{-0.11}(\mathrm{stat.})^{+0.05}_{-0.05}(\mathrm{syst.})\right]\times10^{-3}~\mathrm{eV}^{2}$. This is the experiment's final word on neutrino oscillation amplitude and frequency, improving precision from 7.5% to 6.4% on the mixing angle and from 5.2% to 4.5% on the mass splitting compared with the 2,200-day result. The paper also reports that the statistical error has reached the experiment's design goal, so additional running would barely improve the measurement.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes the near and far detectors behave identically within the quoted uncorrelated uncertainties, so every correlated detector, reactor, and efficiency effect cancels in the far-to-near ratio; if a difference between the detectors is missed, both fitted oscillation parameters would shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If correct, $\theta_{13}$ is known to 6.4% total precision and $|\Delta m^{2}_{ee}|$ to 4.5%, making the reactor measurement the most precise determination of the smallest mixing angle.
  • The reduced reactor-flux uncertainty, from 0.9% to 0.04–0.05% uncorrelated, means future reactor experiments can rely on the far-to-near technique to suppress flux systematics.
  • The persistent spectral excess near 5 MeV, correlated with reactor thermal power, indicates that current reactor antineutrino spectrum models need revision.
  • Statistical precision is saturated; any further improvement in $\sin^{2}2\theta_{13}$ and $|\Delta m^{2}_{ee}|$ from this experiment would require better control of detector energy scale and background systematics.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Going beyond the paper: a comparison of this result with the other leading reactor experiment's $\theta_{13}$ measurement would test the consistency of the three-flavor oscillation framework at the few-percent level, since the two experiments use different baselines, detector technologies, and reactor cores.
  • Going beyond the paper: if the far-to-near cancellation is as complete as claimed, the same 3,800-day dataset could be re-analyzed with an absolute-rate fit to extract the reactor antineutrino flux normalization, providing a cross-check of the reactor flux anomaly.
  • Going beyond the paper: the energy-scale uncertainty dominates the $|\Delta m^{2}_{ee}|$ error, so a future analysis using a precisely calibrated monoenergetic source or a different neutron-capture channel could reduce the dominant systematic and sharpen the mass-splitting measurement.
  • Going beyond the paper: the 5 MeV excess, if due to a reactor spectrum model defect, may affect the oscillation fit at low energies; testing the fit with the 5 MeV region masked would quantify its influence.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript reports the final RENO measurement of reactor antineutrino oscillation parameters using the complete data sample of 3800 days, with 1,211,995 (144,667) IBD candidates in the near (far) detector. The far-to-near spectral ratio is fit with a pull-parameter chi-square that accounts for background, reactor flux, efficiency, and energy-scale systematics. The best-fit values are sin^2(2theta_13) = 0.0920 (+0.0044/-0.0042 stat.) (+0.0041/-0.0041 syst.) and |Delta m^2_ee| = (2.57 (+0.10/-0.11 stat.) (+0.05/-0.05 syst.)) x 10^-3 eV^2, with chi^2/NDF = 64.0/66. The paper also reports improved estimates of backgrounds, a reduced reactor-flux uncertainty, and a merged 9Li/8He spectrum from both detectors. The main caveat is the acknowledged 5 MeV spectral excess, which is shown in Fig. 7 but not stress-tested in the central fit.

Significance. If the result is robust, this is a valuable final measurement from RENO, improving the precision of sin^2(2theta_13) and |Delta m^2_ee| beyond the previous 2200-day result and reaching the experiment's statistical goal. The paper benefits from the full 3800-day dataset, explicit background estimates, a far-to-near ratio analysis that cancels many correlated systematic uncertainties, and a toy-MC treatment of reactor correlations. The central values are consistent with previous RENO results and with the global reactor picture. However, because the central fit includes the spectral region where the reactor antineutrino model is explicitly shown to disagree with data, the claimed systematic uncertainties do not yet include a model-validity term for that discrepancy. The manuscript would be strengthened by a robustness test excluding the 3.6-6.6 MeV region or by an additional nuisance parameter.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section XI, Eq. (2); Fig. 7; Table VII] The chi-square fit of Eq. (2) uses the full 1.2-8.0 MeV range, while Fig. 7 demonstrates a large unmodeled spectral deviation near 5 MeV in both detectors. Because the near and far detectors weight the six reactors very differently (Reactor 3 is 32.4% near vs 15.3% far; Reactors 5+6 are 21.9% near vs 39.3% far, Table VII), any reactor-mix-dependent component of the 5 MeV excess will not automatically cancel in the far-to-near ratio. The paper reports no fit excluding 3.6-6.6 MeV and no nuisance parameter for the bump. I request a stability test with the 3.6-6.6 MeV region removed, or an explicit additional systematic term; without this, the quoted uncertainties omit the model-validity question in the very region where the model is known to fail.
  2. [Section VIII, Fig. 4] The 9Li/8He background is the largest background rate uncertainty, and the analysis merges the near and far detector spectra into a single shape, assuming identical detector responses. The correlated shape uncertainties then cancel in the far-to-near ratio by construction. The paper should show the far-only background fit or quantify how a detector-dependent energy-scale difference in the merged spectrum changes the extrapolation from the 7-12 MeV normalization region to 1.2-8 MeV. Otherwise the cancellation of the 9Li/8He shape uncertainty is an assumption rather than a demonstrated behavior.
  3. [Section XI, Eq. (2)] The definition of T_i^{F/N} in Eq. (2) references the reactor antineutrino model, but Fig. 8 and Fig. 10 construct the no-oscillation expectation from the measured near-detector spectrum. The text should state explicitly whether the model-based prediction or the near-spectrum-based prediction is used in the chi-square fit; if both are used in different places, the difference in their treatment of the 5 MeV excess should be quantified.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Table VI] The abstract and Section XII refer to '3800 live days', but Table VI reports 3307.25 live days for the near detector and 3737.85 for the far detector. Please clarify which quantity the '3800 live days' label refers to and whether it is the far-detector live time or the total elapsed time.
  2. [Section XI, closing paragraph] The text states that the precision of sin^2(2theta_13) improves from 7.5% to 6.5%, while the abstract and Table XI state 6.4%. These numbers should be made consistent.
  3. [Fig. 7] The shaded band is described as the 'uncertainty of the expected spectrum' but the text does not specify which sources of uncertainty are included. Please define the band (e.g., reactor flux, energy scale, backgrounds, or a combination) so that the reader can judge the significance of the 5 MeV deviation.
  4. [Section XI] The number of energy bins used in the fit, the bin width, and the exact treatment of the two data-taking periods before and after the 252Cf contamination should be given explicitly alongside Eq. (2).
  5. [Fig. 10] The text says that, because of the 5 MeV excess, the expected L_eff/E_nu distribution is taken from the measured near-detector spectrum instead of the IBD Monte Carlo spectrum. It should be clarified that this choice is used for the display of the survival probability, not for the central chi-square fit of Eq. (2).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the oscillation parameters are fitted outputs from an externally based reactor-model prediction, and the self-citations are methodological rather than load-bearing.

full rationale

The RENO analysis derives sin^2(2theta13) and |Delta m^2_ee| from the chi-square fit of Eq. (2), comparing the background-subtracted far-to-near IBD ratio to an expected ratio built from the externally published Huber-Mueller reactor flux models [26,27], the IBD cross section [18], measured detector response, and calibration-derived energy scale. The fitted parameters are outputs, not assumed inputs; the pull terms for reactor flux, efficiency, energy scale, and backgrounds are nuisance parameters constrained by independently estimated uncertainties (Tables IV-IX). The paper's use of the measured near-detector spectrum as a data-driven no-oscillation reference in the survival-probability plot (Figs. 8 and 10) is explicitly a visualization choice intended to incorporate the 5 MeV excess ('Due to the observed excess near 5 MeV, the expected Leff/E_nu is taken from the measured spectrum in the near detector rather than the IBD Monte Carlo spectrum'); it is not the mechanism by which theta13 and Delta m^2_ee are extracted. The acknowledged 5 MeV model-data discrepancy (Fig. 7 and Section XI) is a systematic-robustness concern, not a circular definition, since no region-excluded stability test is reported but the best-fit parameters remain outputs of a model-based fit. Citations to prior RENO papers [1,15] are for detector calibration, DAQ, and background-spectrum methodology, and the 9Li/8He spectrum is re-measured with 3800 live days in this work, so the self-citations are not load-bearing. No step of the derivation reduces to its own input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the three-flavor oscillation framework, external reactor flux and IBD cross-section models, the identical near/far detector assumption, and measured background spectra. The two oscillation parameters are fit outputs, not assumptions; the nuisance pulls are constrained by stated systematic uncertainties. No invented entities appear.

free parameters (3)
  • sin^2(2theta13) = 0.0920 (+0.0044/-0.0042 stat., +0.0041/-0.0041 syst.)
    Central fitted parameter in Eq. (2), determined from the energy-dependent far-to-near IBD ratio; it is a measurement output, not an input assumption.
  • |Delta m^2_ee| = 2.57 (+0.10/-0.11 stat., +0.05/-0.05 syst.) x 10^-3 eV^2
    Central fitted parameter in Eq. (2), determined from the oscillation frequency in the far-to-near ratio; measurement output.
  • Nuisance pull parameters b_d, f_r, epsilon, eta = Not reported individually; constrained by systematic uncertainties in Table IX
    Eq. (2) pull terms for background rates, reactor flux, detection efficiency, and energy scale; they are free in the fit but penalized by externally estimated errors, so they are not ad hoc.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Three-flavor neutrino oscillation with PMNS matrix and survival probability P_ee = 1 - sin^2(2theta13) sin^2(Delta_ee) - cos^4(theta13) sin^2(2theta12) sin^2(Delta_21).
    Introduction, Eq. (1). The analysis fits parameters within this framework rather than testing the framework itself; a wrong framework would change the meaning of the fit.
  • domain assumption Reactor antineutrino reference spectra from the Mueller/Huber models are accurate enough for the no-oscillation prediction outside the 5 MeV region.
    Section IX uses these models to compute expected spectra; the 5 MeV excess is acknowledged as a discrepancy and is bypassed by using the near-detector spectrum for the L/E survival plot, so the assumption is partially weakened.
  • domain assumption Near and far detector responses are identical within quoted uncorrelated uncertainties, so correlated systematics cancel in the far-to-near ratio.
    Section VII: 'Because of two nearly identical near and far detectors and a far-to-near ratio analysis, accurate and absolute detection efficiency is not necessary...' This cancellation is the backbone of the analysis.
  • domain assumption IBD cross section, target proton number, and detection efficiencies are known from external measurements or prior detector studies.
    Section VII and Table IV; absolute normalization drops out of the ratio, reducing but not eliminating dependence on these inputs.
  • domain assumption Background spectra from enriched samples are representative of the true backgrounds and can be extrapolated from background-dominant energy regions into the signal region.
    Section VIII: accidental, fast neutron, 252Cf, and 9Li/8He rates are estimated by fitting in high-energy or high-Delta-R regions and extrapolating to 1.2-8.0 MeV.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Measurement of reactor antineutrino oscillation amplitude and frequency using 3800 days of complete data sample of the RENO experiment." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MRVHY32S

@misc{pith2026241218711,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Measurement of reactor antineutrino oscillation amplitude and frequency using 3800 days of complete data sample of the RENO experiment},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MRVHY32S}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.18711}
}
abstract

We report an updated neutrino mixing angle of $\theta_{13}$ obtained from a complete data sample of the RENO experiment. The experiment has measured the amplitude and frequency of reactor anti-electron-neutrinos ($\bar{\nu}_{e}$) oscillations at the Hanbit nuclear power plant, Younggwang, Korea, since August 2011. As of March 2023, the data acquisition was completed after a total of 3800 live days of detector operation. The observed candidates via inverse beta decay (IBD) are 1,211,995 (144,667) in the near (far) detector. Based on an observed energy-dependent reactor neutrino disappearance, neutrino oscillation parameters of $\theta_{13}$ and $\lvert\Delta m_{ee}^2\rvert$ are precisely determined as $\sin^{2}2\theta_{13}=0.0920_{-0.0042}^{+0.0044}(\text{stat.})_{-0.0041}^{+0.0041}(\text{syst.})$ and $\lvert\Delta m_{ee}^2\rvert=\left[2.57_{-0.11}^{+0.10}(\text{stat.})_{-0.05}^{+0.05}(\text{syst.})\right]\times10^{-3}~\text{eV}^{2}$. Compared to the previous RENO results published in Ref.~\cite{PhysRevLett.121.201801}, the precision is improved from 7.5\% to 6.4\% for $\sin^{2}2\theta_{13}$ and from 5.2\% to 4.5\% for $\lvert\Delta m_{ee}^2\rvert$. The statistical error of the measurement has reached our goal and is hardly improved with additional data-taking.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.18711 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Spatial correlation (∆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Prompt energy spectrum of the IBD candidate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4: Measured [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Estimation of the remaining cosmogenic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Observed spectrum of IBD candidates and re [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Comparison of a spectral shape between the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: Allowed regions of 68.3%, 95.5%, and 99.7% [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: Measured reactor ¯ν [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11: Precision improvement of the measured [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Bak et al

    G. Bak et al. (RENO Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 201801 (2018)

    2018

  2. [2]

    Pontecorvo, Zh

    B. Pontecorvo, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 34, 247 (1957)

    1957

  3. [3]

    Maki et al

    Z. Maki et al. , Progress of Theoretical Physics 28, 870 (1962), https://academic.oup.com/ptp/article- pdf/28/5/870/5258750/28-5-870.pdf. 13

    work page 1962

  4. [4]

    J. K. Ahn et al.(RENO Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 191802 (2012)

    work page 2012

  5. [5]

    F. P. An et al. (Daya Bay Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 171803 (2012)

    work page 2012

  6. [6]

    Abe et al

    Y. Abe et al. (Double Chooz Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 131801 (2012)

    work page 2012

  7. [7]

    F. P. An et al. (Daya Bay Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 161802 (2023)

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Abe et al

    K. Abe et al. (Hyper-Kamiokande Proto-Collaboration), (2018), arXiv:1805.04163 [physics.ins-det]

    arXiv 2018

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    Abi et al

    B. Abi et al. (DUNE Collaboration), Journal of Instru- mentation 15 (08), T08008

  2. [10]

    J. H. Choi et al.(RENO Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 211801 (2016)

    2016

  3. [11]

    Petcov et al., Physics Letters B 533, 94 (2002)

    S. Petcov et al., Physics Letters B 533, 94 (2002)

    2002

  4. [12]

    Nunokawa et al., Phys

    H. Nunokawa et al., Phys. Rev. D 72, 013009 (2005)

    2005

  5. [13]

    Yamada et al., IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science 57, 428 (2010)

    S. Yamada et al., IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science 57, 428 (2010)

    2010

  6. [14]

    J. K. Ahn et al. (RENO Collaboration), (2010), arXiv:1003.1391 [hep-ex]

    2010 arXiv

  7. [15]

    S. H. Seo et al.(RENO Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 98, 012002 (2018)

    2018

  8. [16]

    H. S. Kim, New Physics: Sae Mulli 62, 631 (2012)

    2012

  9. [17]

    H. S. Kim et al. (RENO Collaboration), Journal of In- strumentation 18 (07), P07020

  10. [18]

    Vogel et al., Phys

    P. Vogel et al., Phys. Rev. D 60, 053003 (1999)

    1999

  11. [19]

    Park et al

    J. Park et al. (RENO Collaboration), Nuclear Instru- ments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment 707, 45 (2013)

    2013

  12. [20]

    WCAP-10965-P-A(P)

    ANC: A Westinghouse Advanced Nodal Computing Code (1986), westinghouse Report No. WCAP-10965-P-A(P)

    1986

  13. [21]

    Y. V. Klimov et al., Atomic Energy 76, 123 (1994)

    1994

  14. [22]

    V. I. Kopeikin et al., Physics of Atomic Nuclei 67, 1892 (2004)

    2004

  15. [23]

    Djurcic et al., Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Par- ticle Physics 36, 045002 (2009)

    Z. Djurcic et al., Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Par- ticle Physics 36, 045002 (2009)

    2009

  16. [24]

    X. B. Ma et al., Modern Physics Letters A 31, 1650120 (2016), https://doi.org/10.1142/S0217732316501200

    2016 doi

  17. [25]

    Ma et al., Nuclear Physics A 958, 211 (2017)

    X. Ma et al., Nuclear Physics A 958, 211 (2017)

    2017

  18. [26]

    T. A. Mueller et al., Phys. Rev. C 83, 054615 (2011)

    2011

  19. [27]

    Huber, Phys

    P. Huber, Phys. Rev. C 84, 024617 (2011)

    2011

  20. [28]

    Abe et al

    Y. Abe et al. (Double Chooz Collaboration), Journal of High Energy Physics 2014 (2014)

    2014

  21. [29]

    C. D. Shin et al.(RENO Collaboration), Journal of High Energy Physics 2020, 29 (2020)

    2020

  22. [30]

    Park et al

    K. Park et al. (RENO Collaboration), Nuclear Instru- ments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment 686, 91 (2012)

    2012

  23. [31]

    Ma et al.(RENO Collaboration), Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Acceler- ators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equip- ment 629, 93 (2011)

    K. Ma et al.(RENO Collaboration), Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Acceler- ators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equip- ment 629, 93 (2011)

    2011

  24. [32]

    Choi et al

    J. Choi et al. (RENO Collaboration), Nuclear Instru- ments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment 810, 100 (2016)

    2016

  25. [33]

    G. A. Horton-Smith, Generic liquid scintillator geant4 simulation (2007)

    2007

  26. [34]

    H. G. Lee et al. (RENO Collaboration), Measurement of cosmogenic 9Li and 8He production rates at reno, Phys. Rev. D 106, 012005 (2022)

    2022

  27. [35]

    S. F. E. Tournu et al., Improving Pressurized Water Re- actor Performance Through Instrumentation: Applica- tion Case of Reducing Uncertainties on Thermal Power, EPRI (2001)

    2001

  28. [36]

    Navas et al

    S. Navas et al. (Particle Data Group Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 110, 030001 (2024)

    2024

  29. [37]

    F. P. An et al. (Daya Bay Collaboration), (2024), arXiv:2406.01007 [hep-ex]

    2024

  30. [38]

    Bezerra et al.(Double Chooz Collaboration), New re- sults from the double chooz experiment, in The XXIX International Conference on Neutrino Physics and As- trophysics (2020)

    T. Bezerra et al.(Double Chooz Collaboration), New re- sults from the double chooz experiment, in The XXIX International Conference on Neutrino Physics and As- trophysics (2020)

    2020

  31. [39]

    Abe, K. et al. (T2K Collaboration), Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 782 (2023)

    2023

  32. [40]

    M. A. Acero et al. (NOvA collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 110, 012005 (2024)

    2024

  33. [41]

    K et al.(NOvA and T2K collaborations), Results from the nova-t2k joint analysis, in XXXI International Con- ference on Neutrino Physics and Astrophysics(2024)

    S. K et al.(NOvA and T2K collaborations), Results from the nova-t2k joint analysis, in XXXI International Con- ference on Neutrino Physics and Astrophysics(2024)

    2024

  34. [42]

    Adamson et al

    P. Adamson et al. (MINOS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 131802 (2020)

    2020

Pith tools

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