pith. sign in

arxiv: 2507.00921 · v2 · submitted 2025-07-01 · ✦ hep-ex

Measurement of charged-current muon neutrino-argon interactions without pions in the final state using the MicroBooNE detector

MicroBooNE collaboration: P. Abratenko , D. Andrade Aldana , L. Arellano , J. Asaadi , A. Ashkenazi , S. Balasubramanian , B. Baller , A. Barnard
show 171 more authors
G. Barr D. Barrow J. Barrow V. Basque J. Bateman B. Behera O. Benevides Rodrigues S. Berkman A. Bhat M. Bhattacharya V. Bhelande M. Bishai A. Blake B. Bogart T. Bolton M.B. Brunetti L. Camilleri D. Caratelli F. Cavanna G. Cerati A. Chappell Y. Chen J.M. Conrad M. Convery L. Cooper-Troendle J.I. Crespo-Anadon R. Cross M. Del Tutto S.R. Dennis P. Detje R. Diurba Z. Djurcic K. Duffy S. Dytman B. Eberly P. Englezos A. Ereditato J.J. Evans C. Fang B.T. Fleming W. Foreman D. Franco A.P. Furmanski F. Gao D. Garcia-Gamez S. Gardiner G. Ge S. Gollapinni E. Gramellini P. Green H. Greenlee L. Gu W. Gu R. Guenette P. Guzowski L. Hagaman M. D. Handley O. Hen A. Hergenhan C. Hilgenberg G.A. Horton-Smith A. Hussain B. Irwin M.S. Ismail C. James X. Ji J.H. Jo R.A. Johnson D. Kalra G. Karagiorgi W. Ketchum M. Kirby T. Kobilarcik K. Kumar N. Lane J.-Y. Li Y. Li K. Lin B.R. Littlejohn L. Liu W.C. Louis X. Luo T. Mahmud N. Majeed C. Mariani J. Marshall N. Martinez D.A. Martinez Caicedo S. Martynenko A. Mastbaum I. Mawby N. McConkey L. Mellet J. Mendez J. Micallef T. Mohayai A. Mogan M. Mooney A.F. Moor C.D. Moore L. Mora Lepin M.M. Moudgalya S. Mulleria Babu D. Naples A. Navrer-Agasson N. Nayak M. Nebot-Guinot C. Nguyen J. Nowak N. Oza O. Palamara N. Pallat V. Paolone A. Papadopoulou V. Papavassiliou H. Parkinson S.F. Pate N. Patel Z. Pavlovic E. Piasetzky K. Pletcher I. Pophale X. Qian J.L. Raaf V. Radeka A. Rafique M. Reggiani-Guzzo J. Rodriguez Rondon M. Rosenberg M. Ross-Lonergan I. Safa D.W. Schmitz A. Schukraft W. Seligman M.H. Shaevitz R. Sharankova J. Shi E.L. Snider S. Soldner-Rembold J. Spitz M. Stancari J. St. John T. Strauss A.M. Szelc N. Taniuchi K. Terao C.Thorpe D. Torbunov D. Totani M. Toups A. Trettin Y.-T. Tsai J. Tyler M.A. Uchida T. Usher B. Viren J. Wang M. Weber H. Wei A.J. White S. Wolbers T. Wongjirad K. Wresilo W. Wu E. Yandel T. Yang L.E. Yates H.W. Yu G.P. Zeller J. Zennamo C. Zhang
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-19 06:26 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ex
keywords neutrino cross sectionscharged currentargon nucleusdifferential distributionsmuon momentum and angleevent generatorsquasielastic interactionspionless final states
0
0 comments X

The pith

This measurement of charged-current muon neutrino interactions on argon with no pions in the final state shows good agreement with neutrino event generators in single-differential cross sections, but only a subset of generators describe the

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

The paper measures flux-integrated differential cross sections for these pionless interactions, which are dominated by quasielastic-like processes. Data from a large exposure are used to extract the cross sections as functions of the outgoing muon's momentum and angle. The results are compared to several widely used neutrino event generators. Good agreement is found for the single-differential measurements, while the double-differential ones are described adequately by only some of the generators. This provides a reference that can be used to compare with measurements from other detector technologies.

Core claim

The work reports new flux-integrated differential cross sections for charged-current muon neutrino-argon interactions without final-state pions. These are given in single- and double-differential form with respect to the final-state muon momentum and angle. The data agree well with single-differential predictions from common generators, but only a subset of generators also match the double-differential distributions. The measurement supports comparisons with Cherenkov detector results at the same beam.

What carries the argument

The single- and double-differential cross sections in final-state muon momentum and angle for pionless charged-current muon neutrino interactions on argon, extracted from selected data after efficiency corrections and background subtraction.

Load-bearing premise

The observed event rates can be accurately converted to cross sections using the predicted beam flux, the simulated detector response, and the estimated backgrounds.

What would settle it

A new measurement or reanalysis with significantly different flux or background assumptions producing cross-section values outside the reported error bands would falsify the central results.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.00921 by A. Ashkenazi, A. Barnard, A. Bhat, A. Blake, A. Chappell, A. Ereditato, A.F. Moor, A. Hergenhan, A. Hussain, A.J. White, A. Mastbaum, A. Mogan, A.M. Szelc, A. Navrer-Agasson, A. Papadopoulou, A.P. Furmanski, A. Rafique, A. Schukraft, A. Trettin, B. Baller, B. Behera, B. Bogart, B. Eberly, B. Irwin, B.R. Littlejohn, B.T. Fleming, B. Viren, C.D. Moore, C. Fang, C. Hilgenberg, C. James, C. Mariani, C. Nguyen, C.Thorpe, C. Zhang, D.A. Martinez Caicedo, D. Andrade Aldana, D. Barrow, D. Caratelli, D. Franco, D. Garcia-Gamez, D. Kalra, D. Naples, D. Torbunov, D. Totani, D.W. Schmitz, E. Gramellini, E.L. Snider, E. Piasetzky, E. Yandel, F. Cavanna, F. Gao, G.A. Horton-Smith, G. Barr, G. Cerati, G. Ge, G. Karagiorgi, G.P. Zeller, H. Greenlee, H. Parkinson, H. Wei, H.W. Yu, I. Mawby, I. Pophale, I. Safa, J. Asaadi, J. Barrow, J. Bateman, J.H. Jo, J.I. Crespo-Anadon, J.J. Evans, J.L. Raaf, J. Marshall, J.M. Conrad, J. Mendez, J. Micallef, J. Nowak, J. Rodriguez Rondon, J. Shi, J. Spitz, J. St. John, J. Tyler, J. Wang, J.-Y. Li, J. Zennamo, K. Duffy, K. Kumar, K. Lin, K. Pletcher, K. Terao, K. Wresilo, L. Arellano, L. Camilleri, L. Cooper-Troendle, L.E. Yates, L. Gu, L. Hagaman, L. Liu, L. Mellet, L. Mora Lepin, M.A. Uchida, M.B. Brunetti, M. Bhattacharya, M. Bishai, M. Convery, M. Del Tutto, M. D. Handley, M.H. Shaevitz, MicroBooNE collaboration: P. Abratenko, M. Kirby, M.M. Moudgalya, M. Mooney, M. Nebot-Guinot, M. Reggiani-Guzzo, M. Rosenberg, M. Ross-Lonergan, M.S. Ismail, M. Stancari, M. Toups, M. Weber, N. Lane, N. Majeed, N. Martinez, N. McConkey, N. Nayak, N. Oza, N. Pallat, N. Patel, N. Taniuchi, O. Benevides Rodrigues, O. Hen, O. Palamara, P. Detje, P. Englezos, P. Green, P. Guzowski, R.A. Johnson, R. Cross, R. Diurba, R. Guenette, R. Sharankova, S. Balasubramanian, S. Berkman, S. Dytman, S.F. Pate, S. Gardiner, S. Gollapinni, S. Martynenko, S. Mulleria Babu, S.R. Dennis, S. Soldner-Rembold, S. Wolbers, T. Bolton, T. Kobilarcik, T. Mahmud, T. Mohayai, T. Strauss, T. Usher, T. Wongjirad, T. Yang, V. Basque, V. Bhelande, V. Paolone, V. Papavassiliou, V. Radeka, W.C. Louis, W. Foreman, W. Gu, W. Ketchum, W. Seligman, W. Wu, X. Ji, X. Luo, X. Qian, Y. Chen, Y. Li, Y.-T. Tsai, Z. Djurcic, Z. Pavlovic.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Performance of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Event rates for the CC0 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Selected CC0 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Event rates for the validation sidebands, comparing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Extracted flux-integrated differential cross sections for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Extracted flux-integrated double-differential cross sec [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: IV. ADDITIONAL SMEARING MATRICES The cross sections extracted using the Wiener-SVD un￾folding are in a space of regularized true observables ⃗y. The smearing matrix Ac encodes the transformation from true observables to this regularized space. To perform statistical comparisons of generator predictions to the measured cross sections, the histogram ⃗x of true observ￾ables produced by the generator model mus… view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Migration matrices, showing the distribution of events [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Fractional uncertainties on each bin in the correspondin [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Fractional uncertainties for each bin in the double-diffe [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Wiener-SVD additional smearing matrices [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_4.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We report a new measurement of flux-integrated differential cross sections for charged-current (CC) muon neutrino interactions with argon nuclei that produce no final-state pions ($\nu_\mu\mathrm{CC}0\pi$). These interactions are of particular importance as a topologically defined signal dominated by quasielasticlike interactions. This measurement was performed with the MicroBooNE liquid argon time projection chamber detector located at the Fermilab Booster Neutrino Beam and uses an exposure of $1.3\times10^{21}$ protons on target collected between 2015 and 2020. The results are presented in terms of single- and double-differential cross sections as a function of the final-state muon momentum and angle. The data are compared with widely used neutrino event generators. We find good agreement with the single-differential measurements, while only a subset of generators are also able to adequately describe the data in double-differential distributions. This work facilitates comparison with Cherenkov detector measurements, including those located at the Booster Neutrino Beam.

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 reports a measurement of flux-integrated single- and double-differential cross sections for charged-current muon neutrino interactions on argon with no pions in the final state (ν_μ CC0π) using the MicroBooNE LArTPC. The data correspond to an exposure of 1.3×10^{21} protons on target collected 2015–2020 at the Booster Neutrino Beam. Results are presented as functions of final-state muon momentum and angle and compared to several neutrino event generators; the authors report good agreement in the single-differential distributions while only a subset of generators adequately describe the double-differential data.

Significance. If the extraction is shown to be robust, the measurement supplies valuable differential data on pionless (quasielastic-like) interactions on argon, directly relevant to DUNE and other LArTPC experiments. The topological selection and comparison with Cherenkov-detector results at the same beamline add utility for model validation across detector technologies.

major comments (2)
  1. [Cross-section extraction and unfolding] The double-differential comparison is only interpretable if the unfolded flux-integrated cross sections are free of significant kinematic-dependent bias from the flux prediction, detector response simulation, and background subtraction. These ingredients enter the efficiency correction and unfolding; any mismodeling that varies with muon angle or momentum would preferentially distort the double-differential bins and could produce the reported pattern of generator agreement without reflecting true physics deficiencies. The manuscript should include a dedicated study (e.g., in the systematic-uncertainty or results section) showing the stability of the χ² or agreement metrics under controlled variations of flux normalization and background models.
  2. [Systematic uncertainties] Details on how systematic uncertainties from detector response and background modeling are evaluated and propagated to the double-differential bins are insufficient to assess whether the claim that “only a subset of generators adequately describe the data” is robust. This information is load-bearing for the central comparison result.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract would benefit from a brief statement of the number of selected events and the dominant uncertainty sources to convey the measurement precision.
  2. [Results figures] In the double-differential figures, ensure generator predictions are overlaid with their own uncertainty bands and that bin-by-bin data uncertainties are clearly indicated.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful and constructive review of our manuscript. The comments raise important points about the robustness of the double-differential results and the clarity of the systematic uncertainty treatment. We have addressed both major comments by expanding the manuscript with additional studies and details, as described below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Cross-section extraction and unfolding] The double-differential comparison is only interpretable if the unfolded flux-integrated cross sections are free of significant kinematic-dependent bias from the flux prediction, detector response simulation, and background subtraction. These ingredients enter the efficiency correction and unfolding; any mismodeling that varies with muon angle or momentum would preferentially distort the double-differential bins and could produce the reported pattern of generator agreement without reflecting true physics deficiencies. The manuscript should include a dedicated study (e.g., in the systematic-uncertainty or results section) showing the stability of the χ² or agreement metrics under controlled variations of flux normalization and background models.

    Authors: We agree that a dedicated stability study strengthens the interpretation of the double-differential comparisons. While the original analysis already included extensive validation of the unfolding and efficiency corrections (including closure tests and data-driven checks), we have added a new subsection (Section 7.4) in the revised manuscript. This subsection presents controlled variations of the flux normalization (by ±5% and ±10%) and background model parameters (within their estimated uncertainties), with the χ² agreement metrics recomputed for each generator in the double-differential distributions. The results confirm that the pattern of partial agreement persists across these variations, indicating that the observed differences are not driven by kinematic-dependent biases in the extraction procedure. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Systematic uncertainties] Details on how systematic uncertainties from detector response and background modeling are evaluated and propagated to the double-differential bins are insufficient to assess whether the claim that “only a subset of generators adequately describe the data” is robust. This information is load-bearing for the central comparison result.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the original text provided insufficient explicit detail on the evaluation and propagation steps. Detector response uncertainties were determined through a combination of simulation parameter variations (e.g., for recombination, diffusion, and space charge) validated against control samples, while background modeling uncertainties were constrained using dedicated sideband regions. These were propagated to the unfolded cross sections using a full covariance matrix approach. In the revised manuscript we have substantially expanded Sections 6 (Systematic Uncertainties) and 8 (Results), adding step-by-step descriptions of the procedures, explicit propagation formulas, and new figures that break down the relative uncertainty contributions bin-by-bin in the double-differential distributions. The full covariance matrices are now also provided in the supplementary material. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: direct experimental cross-section extraction from data

full rationale

The paper performs a standard flux-integrated cross-section measurement using observed event rates in the MicroBooNE LArTPC after selection, efficiency correction, background subtraction, and unfolding. These steps are conventional analysis procedures whose outputs are not defined in terms of the reported cross sections themselves. Generator comparisons are external benchmarks and do not enter the extraction. No self-definitional steps, fitted inputs renamed as predictions, or load-bearing self-citations appear in the derivation chain. The result remains independent of the paper's own fitted parameters.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The measurement rests on standard domain assumptions about beam flux modeling and detector simulation that are typical for neutrino experiments but not independently tested within the abstract.

free parameters (1)
  • Neutrino flux normalization
    The result is flux-integrated and therefore depends on the accuracy of the Booster Neutrino Beam flux prediction.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Detector response and reconstruction efficiencies are accurately modeled in simulation
    Required to unfold observed events into cross sections.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 6648 in / 1221 out tokens · 86823 ms · 2026-05-19T06:26:40.337269+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Measurement of muon (anti-)neutrino charged-current quasielastic-like cross section using off-axis NuMI beam at ICARUS

    hep-ex 2026-04 accept novelty 5.0

    ICARUS measures flux-averaged differential CCQE-like cross sections in lepton angle, lepton-proton opening angle, and transverse kinematic imbalance variables, finding agreement with event generator predictions within...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

93 extracted references · 93 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 6 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    A threshold of 0.5 is used to reject any event containing shower-like activity produced directly from the neutrino interaction

    or track-like (closer to 1) reconstructed final state ob- jects based on the spatial distribution of associated clus- tered hits. A threshold of 0.5 is used to reject any event containing shower-like activity produced directly from the neutrino interaction. This suppresses many classes of background events, such as those with final state π 0 mesons. In cont...

    work page

  2. [2]

    universes

    5); track endpoint containment within the PCV; and multiplicity of associated track-like and shower-like sec- ondary particles ( ≤ 10). To validate the BDT model performance, statistical comparisons are performed to assess the agreement of simulation to a subset of the data corresponding to an exposure of 1 . 4 × 1020 POT. These comparisons include the tr...

    work page

  3. [3]

    5 GeV/c. Finally, several statistical uncertainties are considered, accounting for the finite sample sizes of the main neutrino interaction Monte Carlo, the beam-off data used to esti- 10 20 30 40 50 60 310× Events / (GeV/c) /ndf = 9.0/14 p-val = 83%2χ POT: 21 10×MicroBooNE 1.3 Data [Stat] µBooNE Tune [Syst+Stat] Other Out FV NC CCeν νµ CCNπ Signal (CCRES) ...

    work page 2000

  4. [4]

    Apart from a 9% contribution in the lowest momentum bin, the data statistical uncertainties vary from (3–6)% over the momentum range

    5 GeV/c. Apart from a 9% contribution in the lowest momentum bin, the data statistical uncertainties vary from (3–6)% over the momentum range. V. EVENT RA TES The measured event rates in 1D and 2D are shown in Figs. 2 and 3, respectively, comparing the full MicroBooNE BNB dataset to the central value Monte Carlo model (Sec. II) with the complete set of un...

    work page 2000

  5. [5]

    3 × 1021 POT exposure of the MicroBooNE LArTPC experiment in the Fermilab BNB, we have performed a high-statistics measurement of the flux-integrated single and double-differential cross sections in terms of final state muon kinematics for νµ CC0π interactions on ar- gon, i.e., interactions that have no final-state pions but may or may not have final state pro...

    work page 2025

  6. [6]

    G. C. Branco, R. G. Felipe, and F. R. Joaquim, Leptonic CP Violation, Rev. Mod. Phys. 84, 515 (2012)

    work page 2012

  7. [7]

    P. F. De Salas, S. Gariazzo, O. Mena, C. A. Ternes, and M. T´ ortola, Neutrino Mass Ordering from Oscillations and Beyond: 2018 Status and Future Prospects, Front. Astron. Space Sci. 5, 36 (2018)

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    Antonello et al

    R. Acciarri et al. (MicroBooNE, LAr1-ND, ICARUS- W A104 Collaborations), A Proposal for a Three Detector Short-Baseline Neutrino Oscillation Program in the Fer- milab Booster Neutrino Beam, (2015), arXiv:1503.01520 [physics.ins-det]

    work page arXiv 2015

  9. [9]

    P. A. Machado, O. Palamara, and D. W. Schmitz, The Short-Baseline Neutrino Program at Fermilab, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 69, 363 (2019)

    work page 2019

  10. [10]

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

    B. Abi et al. (DUNE Collaboration), Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment (DUNE), Far Detector Technical Design Report, Volume II: DUNE Physics, (2020), arXiv:2002.03005 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2020

  11. [11]

    Abi et al

    B. Abi et al. (DUNE Collaboration), Long-baseline neu- trino oscillation physics potential of the DUNE experi- ment, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 978 (2020)

    work page 2020

  12. [12]

    Abi et al

    B. Abi et al. (DUNE Collaboration), Prospects for be- yond the Standard Model physics searches at the Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment, Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 322 (2021)

    work page 2021

  13. [13]

    Abi et al

    B. Abi et al. (DUNE Collaboration), Supernova neutrino burst detection with the Deep Underground Neutrino Ex- periment, Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 423 (2021)

    work page 2021

  14. [14]

    Abe et al

    K. Abe et al. (T2K Collaboration), The T2K Experi- ment, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 659, 106 (2011)

    work page 2011

  15. [15]

    Abe et al

    K. Abe et al. (T2K Collaboration), Constraint on the matter–antimatter symmetry-violating phase in neutrino oscillations, Nature 580, 339 (2020), [Erratum: Nature 583, E16 (2020)]

    work page 2020

  16. [16]

    Hyper-Kamiokande Design Report

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  17. [17]

    Abe et al

    K. Abe et al. (Hyper-Kamiokande Proto-Collaboration), Physics potential of a long-baseline neutrino oscillation experiment using a J-PARC neutrino beam and Hyper- Kamiokande, PTEP 2015, 053C02 (2015)

    work page 2015

  18. [18]

    Askins et al

    M. Askins et al. (Theia Collaboration), THEIA: an ad- vanced optical neutrino detector, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 416 (2020)

    work page 2020

  19. [19]

    Letter of Intent: The Accelerator Neutrino Neutron Interaction Experiment (ANNIE)

    I. Anghel et al. (ANNIE Collaboration), Letter of Intent: The Accelerator Neutrino Neutron Interaction Experi- ment (ANNIE), (2015), arXiv:1504.01480 [physics.ins- det]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  20. [20]

    A. R. Back et al. (ANNIE Collaboration), Accelera- tor Neutrino Neutron Interaction Experiment (ANNIE): Preliminary Results and Physics Phase Proposal, (2017), arXiv:1707.08222 [physics.ins-det]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  21. [21]

    Abratenkoet al.(MicroBooNE), Phys

    P. Abratenko et al. (MicroBooNE Collaboration), Mea- surement of double-differential cross sections for meson- less charged-current muon neutrino interactions on argon with final-state protons using the MicroBooNE detector, (2024), arXiv:2403.19574 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2024

  22. [22]

    Abratenko et al

    P. Abratenko et al. (MicroBooNE Collaboration), Mea- surement of nuclear effects in neutrino-argon interactions using generalized kinematic imbalance variables with the MicroBooNE detector, Phys. Rev. D 109, 092007 (2024)

    work page 2024

  23. [23]

    Abratenko et al

    P. Abratenko et al. (MicroBooNE Collaboration), Multi- differential cross section measurements of νµ -argon quasi- elastic-like reactions with the MicroBooNE detector, Phys. Rev. D 108, 053002 (2023)

    work page 2023

  24. [24]

    Abratenko et al

    P. Abratenko et al. (MicroBooNE), Measurement of dif- ferential cross sections for νµ -Ar charged-current interac- tions with protons and no pions in the final state with the MicroBooNE detector, Phys. Rev. D 102, 112013 (2020), arXiv:2010.02390 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2020

  25. [25]

    Abratenkoet al.(MicroBooNE), Phys

    P. Abratenko et al. (MicroBooNE), First Double- Differential Measurement of Kinematic Imbalance in Neutrino Interactions with the MicroBooNE Detector, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 101802 (2023), arXiv:2301.03706 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2023

  26. [26]

    W. Tang, X. Li, X. Qian, H. Wei, and C. Zhang, Data Un- folding with Wiener-SVD Method, J. Instrum. 12 (10), P10002

    work page

  27. [27]

    Acciarri et al

    R. Acciarri et al. (MicroBooNE Collaboration), Design and Construction of the MicroBooNE Detector, J. In- strum. 12 (02), P02017

    work page

  28. [28]

    A. A. Aguilar-Arevalo et al. (MiniBooNE Collaboration), The Neutrino Flux Prediction at MiniBooNE, Phys. Rev. D 79, 072002 (2009)

    work page 2009

  29. [29]

    Alvarez-Ruso et al

    L. Alvarez-Ruso et al. (GENIE Collaboration), Recent highlights from GENIE v3, Eur. Phys. J. ST 230, 4449 (2021)

    work page 2021

  30. [30]

    Andreopoulos et al

    C. Andreopoulos et al. , The GENIE Neutrino Monte Carlo Generator, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 614, 87 (2010)

    work page 2010

  31. [31]

    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, The GENIE Neutrino Monte Carlo Generator: Physics and User Manual, (2015), arXiv:1510.05494 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  32. [32]

    Tena-Vidal et al

    J. Tena-Vidal et al. (GENIE Collaboration), Neutrino- nucleon cross-section model tuning in GENIE v3, Phys. Rev. D 104, 072009 (2021)

    work page 2021

  33. [34]

    Nieves, J

    J. Nieves, J. E. Amaro, and M. Valverde, Inclusive quasi-elastic neutrino reactions, Phys. Rev. C 70, 055503 (2004), [Erratum: Phys. Rev. C 72, 019902 (2005)]. 15

    work page 2004

  34. [35]

    Nieves, F

    J. Nieves, F. Sanchez, I. Ruiz Simo, and M. J. Vicente Va- cas, Neutrino Energy Reconstruction and the Shape of the CCQE-like Total Cross Section, Phys. Rev. D 85, 113008 (2012)

    work page 2012

  35. [36]

    R. Gran, J. Nieves, F. Sanchez, and M. J. Vicente Vacas, Neutrino-nucleus quasi-elastic and 2p2h interactions up to 10 GeV, Phys. Rev. D 88, 113007 (2013)

    work page 2013

  36. [37]

    L. A. Copley, G. Karl, and E. Obryk, Electroproduction from nucleons in a relativistic quark model, Phys. Rev. D 4, 2844 (1971)

    work page 1971

  37. [38]

    Berger and L

    C. Berger and L. M. Sehgal, Lepton mass effects in single pion production by neutrinos, Phys. Rev. D 76, 113004 (2007)

    work page 2007

  38. [39]

    K. M. Graczyk and J. T. Sobczyk, Form Factors in the Quark Resonance Model, Phys. Rev. D 77, 053001 (2008), [Erratum: Phys. Rev. D 79, 079903 (2009)]

    work page 2008

  39. [40]

    J. A. Nowak (MiniBooNE Collaboration), Four Momen- tum Transfer Discrepancy in the Charged Current π + Production in the MiniBooNE: Data vs. Theory, AIP Conf. Proc. 1189, 243 (2009)

    work page 2009

  40. [41]

    K. S. Kuzmin, V. V. Lyubushkin, and V. A. Naumov, Lepton polarization in neutrino nucleon interactions, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 19, 2815 (2004)

    work page 2004

  41. [42]

    Rein and L

    D. Rein and L. M. Sehgal, Neutrino Excitation of Baryon Resonances and Single Pion Production, Annals Phys. 133, 79 (1981)

    work page 1981

  42. [43]

    Berger and L

    C. Berger and L. M. Sehgal, PCAC and coherent pion production by low energy neutrinos, Phys. Rev. D 79, 053003 (2009)

    work page 2009

  43. [44]

    Bodek and U

    A. Bodek and U. k. Yang, Modeling neutrino and elec- tron scattering cross-sections in the few GeV region with effective LO PDFs, AIP Conf. Proc. 670, 110 (2003)

    work page 2003

  44. [45]

    Bodek, I

    A. Bodek, I. Park, and U. k. Yang, Improved low Q2 model for neutrino and electron nucleon cross sections in few GeV region, Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl. 139, 113 (2005)

    work page 2005

  45. [46]

    Bodek and U

    A. Bodek and U. k. Yang, NUF ACT09 update to the Bodek-Yang unified model for electron- and neutrino- nu- cleon scattering cross sections, AIP Conf. Proc. 1222, 233 (2010)

    work page 2010

  46. [48]

    Abe et al

    K. Abe et al. (T2K Collaboration), Measurement of double-differential muon neutrino charged-current inter- actions on C 8H8 without pions in the final state using the T2K off-axis beam, Phys. Rev. D 93, 112012 (2016)

    work page 2016

  47. [49]

    Abratenko et al

    P. Abratenko et al. (MicroBooNE Collaboration), New CC0π GENIE model tune for MicroBooNE, Phys. Rev. D 105, 072001 (2022)

    work page 2022

  48. [50]

    Agostinelli et al

    S. Agostinelli et al. (GEANT4 Collaboration), GEANT4 - A Simulation Toolkit, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 506, 250 (2003)

    work page 2003

  49. [51]

    Allison et al

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

    work page 2016

  50. [52]

    E. L. Snider and G. Petrillo, LArSoft: Toolkit for Sim- ulation, Reconstruction and Analysis of Liquid Argon TPC Neutrino Detectors, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 898, 042057 (2017)

    work page 2017

  51. [53]

    Adams et al

    C. Adams et al. (MicroBooNE Collaboration), Ioniza- tion electron signal processing in single phase LArTPCs. Part I. Algorithm Description and quantitative evalua- tion with MicroBooNE simulation, J. Instrum. 13 (07), P07006

    work page

  52. [54]

    Adams et al

    C. Adams et al. (MicroBooNE Collaboration), Ioniza- tion electron signal processing in single phase LArTPCs. Part II. Data/simulation comparison and performance in MicroBooNE, J. Instrum. 13 (07), P07007

    work page

  53. [55]

    Adams et al

    C. Adams et al. (MicroBooNE Collaboration), A method to determine the electric field of liquid argon time projec- tion chambers using a UV laser system and its application in MicroBooNE, J. Instrum. 15 (07), P07010

    work page

  54. [56]

    Abratenko et al

    P. Abratenko et al. (MicroBooNE Collaboration), Mea- surement of space charge effects in the MicroBooNE LArTPC using cosmic muons, J. Instrum. 15 (12), P12037

    work page

  55. [57]

    Adams et al

    C. Adams et al. (MicroBooNE Collaboration), Rejecting cosmic background for exclusive charged current quasi elastic neutrino interaction studies with Liquid Argon TPCs; a case study with the MicroBooNE detector, Eur. Phys. J. C 79, 673 (2019)

    work page 2019

  56. [58]

    Acciarri et al

    R. Acciarri et al. (MicroBooNE Collaboration), The Pan- dora multi-algorithm approach to automated pattern recognition of cosmic-ray muon and neutrino events in the MicroBooNE detector, Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 82 (2018)

    work page 2018

  57. [59]

    Abratenko et al

    P. Abratenko et al. (MicroBooNE Collaboration), De- termination of muon momentum in the MicroBooNE LArTPC using an improved model of multiple Coulomb scattering, J. Instrum. 12 (10), P10010

    work page

  58. [60]

    Abratenko et al

    P. Abratenko et al. (MicroBooNE Collaboration), Calori- metric classification of track-like signatures in liquid ar- gon TPCs using MicroBooNE data, JHEP 12, 153

    work page

  59. [61]

    XGBoost: A Scalable Tree Boosting System

    T. Chen and C. Guestrin, XGBoost: A Scalable Tree Boosting System, (2016), arXiv:1603.02754 [cs.LG]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  60. [62]

    [28, 42, 63, 65, 67–79]

    Supplemental Material, See Supplemental Material at [URL will be inserted by publisher] for details regard- ing the binning, bin migration, and smearing matrices, which includes Refs. [28, 42, 63, 65, 67–79]

    work page

  61. [63]

    Gardiner, Mathematical methods for neutrino cross- section extraction, (2024), arXiv:2401.04065 [hep-ex]

    S. Gardiner, Mathematical methods for neutrino cross- section extraction, (2024), arXiv:2401.04065 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2024

  62. [64]

    Calcutt, C

    J. Calcutt, C. Thorpe, K. Mahn, and L. Fields, Geant4Reweight: a framework for evaluating and prop- agating hadronic interaction uncertainties in Geant4, J. Instrum. 16 (08), P08042

    work page

  63. [65]

    Adams et al

    C. Adams et al. (MicroBooNE Collaboration), Calibra- tion of the charge and energy loss per unit length of the MicroBooNE liquid argon time projection chamber using muons and protons, J. Instrum. 15 (03), P03022

    work page

  64. [66]

    Abratenko et al

    P. Abratenko et al. (MicroBooNE Collaboration), Novel approach for evaluating detector-related uncertainties in a LArTPC using MicroBooNE data, Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 454 (2022)

    work page 2022

  65. [67]

    Abratenko et al

    P. Abratenko et al. (MicroBooNE), Inclusive cross section measurements in final states with and without protons for charged-current ν µ -Ar scattering in MicroBooNE, Phys. Rev. D 110, 013006 (2024)

    work page 2024

  66. [69]

    O. Buss, T. Gaitanos, K. Gallmeister, H. van Hees, M. Kaskulov, O. Lalakulich, A. B. Larionov, T. Leitner, J. Weil, and U. Mosel, Transport-theoretical Description of Nuclear Reactions, Phys. Rept. 512, 1 (2012)

    work page 2012

  67. [70]

    Hayato and L

    Y. Hayato and L. Pickering, The NEUT neutrino inter- action simulation program library, Eur. Phys. J. ST 230, 4469 (2021). 16

    work page 2021

  68. [71]

    Stowell et al

    P. Stowell et al. , NUISANCE: a neutrino cross-section generator tuning and comparison framework, J. Instrum. 12 (01), P01016

    work page

  69. [84]

    C. H. Llewellyn Smith, Neutrino Reactions at Accelerator Energies, Phys. Rept. 3, 261 (1972). Supplemental Material: Measurement of charged-current muon neutrino–arg on interactions without pions in the final state using the MicroBooNE detector This supplemental material contains additional details rega rding the measurement presented in the main text. Thi...

    work page 1972

  70. [85]

    275, 0. 3, 0. 325, 0. 375,

    work page

  71. [86]

    425, 0. 5, 0. 6, 0. 75,

    work page

  72. [87]

    25, 2), (1) cos θµ : ( − 1, − 0

    95, 1. 25, 2), (1) cos θµ : ( − 1, − 0. 775, − 0. 65, − 0. 55, − 0. 45, − 0. 375, − 0. 3, − 0. 2, − 0. 125, − 0. 05,

    work page

  73. [88]

    025, 0. 1, 0. 175, 0. 25, 0. 325,

    work page

  74. [89]

    4, 0. 475, 0. 55, 0. 625, 0. 675,

    work page

  75. [90]

    725, 0. 775, 0. 825, 0. 85, 0. 875,

    work page

  76. [91]

    9, 0. 925, 0. 95, 0. 975, 1). (2) B. Double-differential In the 2D binning, we define slices of pµ as a function of cos θµ , with the bin edges listed in Table I. II. BIN MIGRA TION The migration of events between true and recon- structed bins is represented by the migration (smearing) matrix. Figures 1(a) and 1(b) show the bin migration be- tween true and ...

    work page 2023

  77. [92]

    Hayato and L

    Y. Hayato and L. Pickering, The NEUT neutrino inter- action simulation program library, Eur. Phys. J. ST 230, 4469 (2021)

    work page 2021

  78. [93]

    Golan, J

    T. Golan, J. T. Sobczyk, and J. Zmuda, NuWro: the Wroclaw Monte Carlo Generator of Neutrino Interac- tions, Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl. 229-232, 499 (2012)

    work page 2012

  79. [94]

    Bradford, A

    R. Bradford, A. Bodek, H. S. Budd, and J. Arrington, A New parameterization of the nucleon elastic form-factors, Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl. 159, 127 (2006)

    work page 2006

  80. [95]

    Bodek, S

    A. Bodek, S. Avvakumov, R. Bradford, and H. S. Budd, Vector and Axial Nucleon Form Factors:A Duality Con- strained Parameterization, Eur. Phys. J. C 53, 349 (2008)

    work page 2008

Showing first 80 references.