Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 59 references

Moving a Detector to Probe New Neutrino Interactions: IWCD at Hyper-Kamiokande

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A movable neutrino detector can use the ratio of neutral-current to charged-current quasi-elastic rates at several off-axis positions to separate vector, axial, and charged-current non-standard interactions.

desk verdict A clean proof-of-principle for using IWCD's off-axis motion to separate axial from vector NC NSI; the headline sensitivities are idealized, but the core idea is new and worth refereeing. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.04091 v1 pith:2HQDOSXZ submitted 2026-08-04 hep-ph hep-ex

Thomas Schwemberger , Volodymyr Takhistov This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-ex
keywords neutrinonon-standardinteractionsmovabledetectoroff-axisbeamIWCDneutralcurrentquasi-elasticscatteringchargedinteractionspectroscopyHyper-Kamiokande
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 argues that moving a neutrino detector through a beam with a spatially varying spectrum is itself a probe of how neutrinos interact, not just a way to control systematics. Using the planned movable Intermediate Water Cherenkov Detector of Hyper-Kamiokande, it shows that the ratio of neutral-current to charged-current quasi-elastic event rates at three off-axis angles can separate contributions that look identical at a single position. The target is neutrino non-standard interactions, and the projected 95% CL sensitivities reach $|\varepsilon|\sim 0.05$ to $0.1$ under a 5% correlated normalization benchmark. Axial neutral-current NSI, which are invisible to the usual matter potential in neutrino oscillations, are a particular target. If right, the method makes a single movable detector a spectroscopic tool for interaction structure.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the off-axis spectral scan: the same water Cherenkov detector, moved vertically through a shaft, samples the J-PARC beam at off-axis angles where the neutrino flux peaks at different energies. The observable is the flux-weighted ratio $R_\theta$ of neutral-current quasi-elastic to charged-current quasi-elastic event rates, which cancels the common exposure and leading flux normalization while retaining the energy weighting. The argument then runs on the Llewellyn-Smith cross-section formalism: the vector-axial interference term $B$ in the differential cross section has a different energy and $Q^2$ dependence than the pure vector and axial terms, so NSI coefficients that modify vector and axial form factors produce distinct position-dependent patterns in $R_\theta$. A pulled $\chi^2$ with a single common normalization nuisance isolates the spectral information supplied by detector motion.

What would settle it

Run a full detector-level simulation of the IWCD event selection at 1°, 2.5°, and 4° off-axis and measure the NCQE selection efficiency and background contamination as functions of neutrino energy: if the efficiency is strongly energy dependent or the backgrounds enter the QE-like sample differently at different angles, the assumed position-correlated signal is diluted. Alternatively, an experiment with known NSI couplings at the quoted level that sees no position dependence in $R_\theta$ would refute the method's central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the position dependence of the observable $R_\theta = N^\theta_{\rm NCQE}/N^\theta_{\rm CCQE}$ carries information that a single integrated spectrum cannot, because vector and axial current contributions enter the quasi-elastic cross section with different energy and momentum-transfer dependences. At the three benchmark IWCD positions (1°, 2.5°, 4° off-axis), the same target and detector are exposed to spectra peaking near 1.0, 0.6, and 0.4 GeV, and common normalization uncertainties largely cancel in the ratio. Flavor-diagonal axial and vector NC NSI shift the pattern of $R_\theta$ across positions, while a left-handed CC NSI mostly rescales the overall ratio; off-diagonal NC NSI enter quadratically. Combining three positions with a 5% correlated-normalization nuisance, the paper projects 95% CL sensitivities of $-0.07 \lesssim \varepsilon^{uA}_{\mu\mu} \lesssim 0.06$, $-0.10 \lesssim \varepsilon^{uV}_{\mu\mu} \lesssim 0.12$, and $-0.05 \lesssim \varepsilon^{udL}_{\mu\mu} \lesssim 0.05$.

Load-bearing premise

The projections assume that neutral-current quasi-elastic events can be selected with an energy-independent 80% efficiency and that all residual uncertainties on the neutral-current to charged-current event-rate ratio can be absorbed into a single normalization shift that is the same at every position, so the quoted ranges stand only if both of those hold.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At three off-axis positions with a 5% correlated normalization uncertainty, the projected 95% CL sensitivities are $-0.07\lesssim\varepsilon^{uA}_{\mu\mu}\lesssim0.06$ for axial NC NSI, $-0.10\lesssim\varepsilon^{uV}_{\mu\mu}\lesssim0.12$ for vector NC NSI, and $-0.05\lesssim\varepsilon^{udL}_{\mu\mu}\lesssim0.05$ for left-handed CC NSI.
  • Combining two or three positions removes the vector–axial degeneracy that a single integrated ratio leaves open.
  • Axial NC NSI become accessible by direct scattering even though they do not affect the ordinary matter potential in neutrino propagation.
  • The same strategy applies to any new interaction whose energy or $Q^2$ dependence differs from the Standard Model background, provided the beam spectrum changes with position.
  • For light-mediator NSI, the gain from detector motion is limited by the low-$Q^2$ acceptance; with the benchmark $Q^2_{\rm PB}$ cutoff, the sensitivity is mostly an overall-rate effect.

Reading between the lines

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

  • As an editorial extension: the same ratio-of-rates design could be turned on other energy-dependent physics, such as neutrino magnetic moments or sub-GeV dark matter scattering, though the paper does not analyze those cases.
  • A realistic detector-level simulation is the natural next step; the quoted ranges hold only if the NCQE efficiency stays flat and the dominant systematics are truly position-correlated, which the paper flags as benchmarks rather than final performance.
  • The method should transfer to other movable near-detector concepts: any off-axis beam with a strong spectral gradient plus a detector that keeps the same target and apparatus at multiple positions can implement the same $R_\theta$ spectroscopy.
  • Because left-handed CC NSI only rescale the SM cross section, movable-detector programs that want maximal spectral leverage should prioritize neutral-current observables, where the energy shape itself changes.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper proposes that a movable neutrino detector, specifically the Intermediate Water Cherenkov Detector (IWCD) in the J-PARC off-axis beam, can serve as a spectroscopic probe of new neutrino interactions by measuring the same interaction channels under several different incident energy spectra. The authors consider neutral-current and charged-current non-standard interactions (NSI) as a benchmark, using the ratio of NC quasi-elastic (NCQE) to CC quasi-elastic (CCQE) event rates at off-axis angles of 1, 2.5, and 4 degrees. They compute event rates from Llewellyn-Smith cross sections with phenomenological nuclear and detection prescriptions, and derive projected 95% CL sensitivities using two chi-square treatments: position-uncorrelated systematics and a pulled chi-square with a single position-independent normalization nuisance. The headline results are sensitivities of approximately -0.07 < epsilon^uA_mumu < 0.06 for axial NC NSI, -0.10 < epsilon^uV_mumu < 0.12 for vector NC NSI, and -0.05 < epsilon^udL_mumu < 0.05 for CC NSI under a 5% correlated normalization benchmark.

Significance. If the projected sensitivities hold, the concept of detector motion as an interaction-spectroscopy tool would be genuinely new and useful: it would provide a direct-scattering handle on axial NSI combinations that do not contribute to the ordinary matter potential, complementing oscillation and high-energy scattering constraints. The paper is careful and internally consistent in its cross-section formalism, and the qualitative spectral argument is well illustrated in Figs. 2 and 4. The authors are also transparent in labeling their efficiency and systematic treatments as benchmarks rather than final detector-level predictions. The main value is the demonstration of a method; the quantitative reach is presented as an idealized projection and should be read as such.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. V, Eq. (35), Figs. 5-6] The headline 95% CL intervals are derived from a pulled chi-square in which all residual systematics are absorbed into a single position-independent normalization nuisance f, and the text after Eq. (35) explicitly calls this an idealized benchmark. Since the multi-position gain in Figs. 5 and 6 comes precisely from the relative variation of R^theta across 1, 2.5, and 4 degrees, any residual systematic that varies with off-axis angle—flux spectral-shape and hadron-production uncertainties (Sec. II.A), energy- and angle-dependent NCQE selection (Sec. II.B), or position-dependent backgrounds—can mimic or dilute the signal. The manuscript does not quantify how much of the quoted sensitivity survives such position-dependent systematics, and because the stated ranges are the paper's quantitative claim, this is a load-bearing gap.
  2. [Sec. II.B, Eq. (4), Fig. 4] The assumption of an energy-independent 80% NCQE detection efficiency, motivated by T2K [31] in footnote 1, is used for all positions and all energies. NCQE detection relies on de-excitation and secondary gammas whose yield depends on nuclear excitation, final-state interactions, and nucleon momentum, so the efficiency is expected to be energy-dependent; this can distort the position dependence of R^theta that the analysis exploits. The authors acknowledge in footnote 1 that this is not a strict IWCD performance indication, but the numerical projections still use it without a dedicated robustness test; the robustness check in Sec. V varies only M_A and Q^2_PB, not the efficiency or its energy dependence.
  3. [Sec. III.B, Eq. (20), App. B] The hard Pauli cutoff Q^2_PB = 0.05 GeV^2 is applied identically to CCQE and NCQE even though the two channels have very different detection physics: CCQE requires an above-Cherenkov muon, while NCQE is tagged by de-excitation gammas with no direct Q^2 information. The light-mediator sensitivity in App. B is governed by this cutoff (Fig. 9), and a realistic continuous nuclear suppression could allow sub-cutoff events and alter the projected reach. The text labels this a phenomenological benchmark rather than an exact threshold, but the numerical conclusions inherit this unquantified uncertainty.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Sec. II.A] The flux normalization procedure matches CCQE true event yields to Tab. III of Ref. [25] over angular intervals of 1-2, 2-3, and 3-4 degrees; the text should state whether this matching introduces an additional angle-dependent uncertainty into Eq. (2) beyond the 5% and 10% benchmarks, since the matching is itself derived from MC predictions.
  2. [Fig. 4 caption] The caption's phrase 'The left panels indicate flavor-diagonal axial (top) and vector (bottom)' would be clearer if it specified the panel locations as upper-left, lower-left, upper-right, and lower-right, because the figure is arranged as a 2x2 grid.
  3. [Eq. (35)] After minimizing over f, the text could usefully state the best-fit value of f and its interpretation; currently the sentence 'we minimize over fthat represents...' also contains a spacing typo.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the NSI sensitivity projections are self-contained parameter scans of Llewellyn-Smith cross sections convolved with external flux inputs.

full rationale

This projection paper is self-contained with respect to its central claim. The NSI-modified NCQE/CCQE ratio is computed by inserting NSI-shifted nucleon form factors (Eqs. 28 and 30) into the Llewellyn-Smith cross-section (Eq. 5) and convolving with external J-PARC flux shapes from Refs. [25,29]; the sensitivity curves in Figs. 5 and 6 are parameter scans of these calculated rate predictions against the SM expectation, not fits to measured data. The single position-independent nuisance f in Eq. (35) is explicitly labeled an idealized benchmark and is an assumed systematic model, not a quantity derived from the target NSI parameters. Flux normalization matching to Tab. III of Ref. [25] cancels in the ratio R of Eq. (3), so it cannot force the position-dependent signal. Self-citations Refs. [22,23] appear only in a list of alternative target-combination strategies and support no load-bearing premise. No circular step is identifiable.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central projection depends on four hand-chosen benchmark parameters and a set of domain assumptions about nuclear response, NCQE detection, flux modeling, and systematic correlations. None of these are fitted to NSI data, so circularity is low, but the quantitative ranges are benchmark-dependent.

free parameters (4)
  • Q2_PB Pauli blocking cutoff = 0.05 GeV^2 (0.225 GeV squared)
    Phenomenological hard cutoff replacing a continuous nuclear response; sets the low-Q2 acceptance for both CCQE and NCQE. The light-mediator sensitivity is strongly affected by this choice (Fig. 9), and only one alternative value is tested.
  • NCQE detection efficiency eta_NCQE = 0.8 (energy independent)
    Benchmark assumed from the T2K accelerator-beam NCQE analysis; the paper states this is not a strict IWCD performance indication and that exact efficiencies require dedicated analysis.
  • delta_R_sys correlated normalization uncertainty = 5% and 10%
    Benchmark fractional uncertainty on the NCQE/CCQE ratio, used in the pulled chi-square; the quoted sensitivity ranges such as -0.07 to 0.06 for axial NC NSI depend directly on this choice.
  • angle-dependent flux normalization = matched to expected true CCQE event counts in Tab. III of Ref. [25]
    Used to convert arbitrary-normalization flux spectra from Ref. [29] into event rates; affects statistical uncertainties via event counts, and is a manual calibration step.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Llewellyn-Smith cross-section formalism with dipole/Galster form factors and parameters g_A=1.2754, M_A=1.236 GeV
    Used in Eqs. (5)-(14) as the baseline interaction model; the absolute NCQE cross-section is noted to be larger than NEUT predictions.
  • domain assumption Oxygen treated as an incoherent sum of free nucleons with a hard Pauli cutoff Q2_PB=0.05 GeV^2
    Eqs. (15)-(20) replace the full nuclear response with this simplified treatment; the paper calls it a phenomenological benchmark.
  • domain assumption NCQE events can be detected with an energy-independent 80% efficiency via de-excitation and secondary gammas
    Adopted from the T2K analysis (Ref. [31]); footnote 1 states this is not a strict IWCD performance indication.
  • domain assumption The flux spectra of Ref. [29] and the normalization matching to Tab. III of Ref. [25] represent the T2HK beam at 1, 2.5, and 4 degrees, and only the nu_mu component contributes
    Secs. II.A-II.B retain only the dominant nu_mu component and use external flux tables stored in arbitrary normalization.
  • ad hoc to paper Residual uncertainties on R can be represented by a single position-independent fractional normalization nuisance f
    Eq. (35) is described as an idealized benchmark to isolate the information supplied by detector motion; position-dependent uncertainties are not modeled.
  • domain assumption NSI coefficients are real and scanned one at a time, with selected two-parameter vector-axial planes
    Sec. IV restricts the parameter space; complex phases or simultaneous multiple couplings could change allowed regions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Moving a Detector to Probe New Neutrino Interactions: IWCD at Hyper-Kamiokande." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2HQDOSXZ

@misc{pith2026260804091,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Moving a Detector to Probe New Neutrino Interactions: IWCD at Hyper-Kamiokande},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2HQDOSXZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.04091}
}
abstract

Moving a detector through a beam with a spatially varying energy spectrum exposes the same target and apparatus to distinct incident spectra, enabling interaction spectroscopy. While movable neutrino detectors were put forth primarily to control systematic uncertainties, we show that detector motion enables probing the structure of fundamental interactions. We demonstrate this with the Intermediate Water Cherenkov Detector (IWCD), the movable detector of Hyper-Kamiokande in the J-PARC off-axis beam, considering neutrino non-standard interactions (NSI) as a benchmark. Exploiting ratios of neutral current to charged current event rates reduces common normalization uncertainties, while measurements at multiple off-axis positions can break degeneracies that persist for a single incident spectrum. Combining three off-axis positions and adopting a $5\%$ correlated normalization uncertainty benchmark, we project $95\%$ CL sensitivities to axial neutral current NSI of $-0.07 \lesssim \varepsilon^{uA}_{\mu\mu} \lesssim 0.06$ and vector NSI of $-0.10 \lesssim \varepsilon^{uV}_{\mu\mu} \lesssim 0.12$, as well as for charged current NSI of $-0.05 \lesssim \varepsilon^{udL}_{\mu\mu} \lesssim 0.05$. Axial NSI, which do not contribute to the ordinary matter potential, are complementary to neutrino oscillation and high energy scattering measurements. More broadly, detector motion provides a new way to distinguish interactions with different energy dependence.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.04091 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. CCQE and NCQE cross-sections for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Ratio of the NCQE and CCQE cross-sections per oxy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Illustrative CCQE and NCQE event spectra at the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. NCQE to CCQE event rate ratios [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Single parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Sensitivity projection regions in the vector-axial NC NSI parameter space obtained with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. (Left) NCQE to CCQE event rate ratio for representative light vector mediator NSI benchmarks. The same [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Sensitivity projections at 95% confidence level on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

  1. [31]

    Measurement of the neutrino-oxygen neutral-current quasielastic cross section using atmospheric neutrinos in the SK-Gd experiment

    S. Sakaiet al.(Super-Kamiokande), Phys. Rev. D109, L011101 (2024), arXiv:2311.03842 [hep-ex]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  2. [1]

    Farzan and M

    Y. Farzan and M. Tortola, Front. in Phys.6, 10 (2018), arXiv:1710.09360 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2018

  3. [2]

    K. S. Babu, A. Friedland, P. A. N. Machado, and I. Mo- cioiu, JHEP12, 096 (2017), arXiv:1705.01822 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2017

  4. [3]

    Heeck, M

    J. Heeck, M. Lindner, W. Rodejohann, and S. Vogl, SciPost Phys.6, 038 (2019), arXiv:1812.04067 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2019

  5. [4]

    Dorsner, S

    I. Dorsner, S. Fajfer, A. Greljo, J. F. Kamenik, and N. Košnik, Phys. Rept.641, 1 (2016), arXiv:1603.04993 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2016

  6. [5]

    K. S. Babu, P. S. B. Dev, S. Jana, and A. Thapa, JHEP 03, 006 (2020), arXiv:1907.09498 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2020

  7. [6]

    Wolfenstein, Phys

    L. Wolfenstein, Phys. Rev. D17, 2369 (1978)

    1978

  8. [7]

    Roulet, Phys

    E. Roulet, Phys. Rev. D44, R935 (1991)

    1991

Show all 59 references
  1. [8]

    Grossman, Phys

    Y. Grossman, Phys. Lett. B359, 141 (1995), arXiv:hep- ph/9507344

    1995

  2. [9]

    Ohlsson, Rept

    T. Ohlsson, Rept. Prog. Phys.76, 044201 (2013), arXiv:1209.2710 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Neutrino Non-Standard Interac- tions: A Status Report,

    P. S. Bhupal Devet al., “Neutrino Non-Standard Interac- tions: A Status Report,” (2019), arXiv:1907.00991 [hep- ph]

    2019 arXiv

  4. [11]

    F. J. Hasertet al.(Gargamelle Neutrino), Phys. Lett. B 46, 138 (1973)

    1973

  5. [12]

    G. P. Zelleret al.(NuTeV), Phys. Rev. Lett.88, 091802 (2002), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 90, 239902 (2003)], arXiv:hep-ex/0110059

    2002 arXiv

  6. [13]

    and NOνA [14], as well as the forthcoming Hyper- Kamiokande [15] and DUNE [16] experiments enable pre- cision measurements of oscillation parameters with in- tensebeamsandhighstatisticsdetectors. Interpretations of long-baseline data have considered NSI scenarios in which diff...

    2026 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Abeet al.(T2K), Nucl

    K. Abeet al.(T2K), Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A659, 106 (2011), arXiv:1106.1238 [physics.ins-det]

    2011

  8. [15]

    D. S. Ayreset al.(NOvA), (2007), 10.2172/935497

    2007 doi

  9. [16]

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

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

    2018 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Abiet al.(DUNE), JINST15, T08008 (2020), arXiv:2002.02967 [physics.ins-det]

    B. Abiet al.(DUNE), JINST15, T08008 (2020), arXiv:2002.02967 [physics.ins-det]

    2020

  11. [18]

    S. S. Chatterjee and A. Palazzo, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 051802 (2021), arXiv:2008.04161 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  12. [19]

    P. B. Denton, J. Gehrlein, and R. Pestes, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 051801 (2021), arXiv:2008.01110 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  13. [20]

    S. S. Chatterjee and A. Palazzo, Phys. Rev. D110, 113002 (2024), arXiv:2409.10599 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Coloma, P

    P. Coloma, P. B. Denton, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, M. Maltoni, and T. Schwetz, JHEP04, 116 (2017), arXiv:1701.04828 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Coloma, I

    P. Coloma, I. Esteban, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, L. Lariz- goitia, F. Monrabal, and S. Palomares-Ruiz, JHEP05, 037 (2022), arXiv:2202.10829 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Schwemberger, V

    T. Schwemberger, V. Takhistov, and T.-T. Yu, JCAP 11, 068 (2024), arXiv:2307.15736 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  17. [24]

    A. R. Beatty, A. M. Suliga, and V. Takhistov, Phys. Rev. D114, L021301 (2026), arXiv:2509.07856 [hep-ph]

    2026 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Abbaslu, M

    S. Abbaslu, M. Dehpour, Y. Farzan, and S. Safari, JHEP 06, 041 (2025), arXiv:2412.13349 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Letter of Intent to Con- struct a nuPRISM Detector in the J-PARC Neutrino Beamline,

    S. Bhadraet al.(nuPRISM), “Letter of Intent to Con- struct a nuPRISM Detector in the J-PARC Neutrino Beamline,” (2014), arXiv:1412.3086 [physics.ins-det]

    2014 arXiv

  20. [27]

    De Romeri, K

    V. De Romeri, K. J. Kelly, and P. A. N. Machado, Phys. Rev. D100, 095010 (2019), arXiv:1903.10505 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Hernández-García, J

    J. Hernández-García, J. López-Pavón, and S. Urrea, (2026), arXiv:2604.20951 [hep-ph]

    2026 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Abeet al.(T2K), Phys

    K. Abeet al.(T2K), Phys. Rev. D87, 012001 17 (2013), [Addendum: Phys.Rev.D 87, 019902 (2013)], arXiv:1211.0469 [hep-ex]

    2013 arXiv

  23. [30]

    Improving Hyper- Kamiokande sensitivity to CP violation with high pre- cision near detector electron neutrino cross-section mea- surements,

    C. Naseby (Hyper-Kamiokande), “Improving Hyper- Kamiokande sensitivity to CP violation with high pre- cision near detector electron neutrino cross-section mea- surements,” (2021)

    2021

  24. [32]

    Abeet al.(T2K), Phys

    K. Abeet al.(T2K), Phys. Rev. D100, 112009 (2019), arXiv:1910.09439 [hep-ex]

    2019 arXiv

  25. [33]

    A. M. Ankowski, O. Benhar, T. Mori, R. Yamaguchi, and M. Sakuda, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 052505 (2012), arXiv:1110.0679 [nucl-th]

    2012 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Abeet al.(T2K), Phys

    K. Abeet al.(T2K), Phys. Rev. D112, 032003 (2025), arXiv:2505.22547 [hep-ex]

    2025

  27. [35]

    C. H. Llewellyn Smith, Phys. Rept.3, 261 (1972)

    1972

  28. [36]

    J. A. Formaggio and G. P. Zeller, Rev. Mod. Phys.84, 1307 (2012), arXiv:1305.7513 [hep-ex]

    2012 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Navaset al.(Particle Data Group), Phys

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

    2024

  30. [38]

    The Nucleon Axial Form Factor from Av- eraging Lattice QCD Results,

    A. S. Meyer, “The Nucleon Axial Form Factor from Av- eraging Lattice QCD Results,” (2026), arXiv:2601.02676 [hep-lat]

    2026

  31. [39]

    Galster, H

    S. Galster, H. Klein, J. Moritz, K. H. Schmidt, D. We- gener, and J. Bleckwenn, Nucl. Phys. B32, 221 (1971)

    1971

  32. [40]

    N. J. Baker, P. L. Connolly, S. A. Kahn, H. G. Kirk, M. J. Murtagh, R. B. Palmer, N. P. Samios, and M. Tanaka, Phys. Rev. D24, 2779 (1981)

    1981

  33. [41]

    Rafi Alam, L

    Ilma, M. Rafi Alam, L. Alvarez-Ruso, M. B. Galan, I. Ruiz Simo, and S. K. Singh, Phys. Rev. D112, 013002 (2025), arXiv:2412.04818 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Pate, AIP Conf

    S. Pate, AIP Conf. Proc.915, 391 (2007), arXiv:hep- ex/0611053

    2007

  35. [43]

    W. M. Alberico, M. B. Barbaro, S. M. Bilenky, J. A. Ca- ballero, C. Giunti, C. Maieron, E. Moya de Guerra, and J. M. Udias, Nucl. Phys. A651, 277 (1999), arXiv:hep- ph/9812388

    1999

  36. [44]

    K. A. Aniolet al.(HAPPEX), Phys. Rev. C69, 065501 (2004), arXiv:nucl-ex/0402004

    2004 arXiv

  37. [45]

    P. E. Shanahan, R. Horsley, Y. Nakamura, D. Pleiter, P.E.L.Rakow, G.Schierholz, H.Stüben, A.W.Thomas, R. D. Young, and J. M. Zanotti, Phys. Rev. Lett.114, 091802 (2015), arXiv:1403.6537 [hep-lat]

    2015 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Smith and E

    R. Smith and E. Moniz, Nuclear Physics B43, 605 (1972)

    1972

  39. [47]

    Hayato, Acta Phys

    Y. Hayato, Acta Phys. Polon. B40, 2477 (2009)

    2009

  40. [48]

    Esteban, M

    I. Esteban, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, M. Maltoni, I. Martinez-Soler, and J. Salvado, JHEP08, 180 (2018), [Addendum: JHEP 12, 152 (2020)], arXiv:1805.04530 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Esteban, M

    I. Esteban, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, M. Maltoni, T. Schwetz, and A. Zhou, JHEP09, 178 (2020), arXiv:2007.14792 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Blennow, S

    M. Blennow, S. Choubey, T. Ohlsson, D. Pramanik, and S. K. Raut, JHEP08, 090 (2016), arXiv:1606.08851 [hep- ph]

    2016 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Biggio, M

    C. Biggio, M. Blennow, and E. Fernandez-Martinez, JHEP08, 090 (2009), arXiv:0907.0097 [hep-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Alexandrou, S

    C. Alexandrou, S. Bacchio, M. Constantinou, K. Had- jiyiannakou, K. Jansen, and G. Koutsou, Phys. Rev. D 104, 074503 (2021), arXiv:2106.13468 [hep-lat]

    2021 arXiv

  45. [53]

    A. M. Baldiniet al.(MEG), Eur. Phys. J. C76, 434 (2016), arXiv:1605.05081 [hep-ex]

    2016 arXiv

  46. [54]

    M. B. Gavela, D. Hernandez, T. Ota, and W. Winter, Phys. Rev. D79, 013007 (2009), arXiv:0809.3451 [hep- ph]

    2009 arXiv

  47. [55]

    J. V. Allabyet al.(CHARM), Z. Phys. C36, 611 (1987)

    1987

  48. [56]

    Ismail, R

    A. Ismail, R. Mammen Abraham, and F. Kling, Phys. Rev. D103, 056014 (2021), arXiv:2012.10500 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Kling, T

    F. Kling, T. Mäkelä, and J. McFayden, Phys. Rev. D 113, 013004 (2026), arXiv:2507.00262 [hep-ph]

    2026

  50. [58]

    Atzori Corona, M

    M. Atzori Corona, M. Cadeddu, N. Cargioli, F. Dordei, C. Giunti, Y. F. Li, E. Picciau, C. A. Ternes, and Y. Y. Zhang, JHEP05, 109 (2022), arXiv:2202.11002 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  51. [59]

    De Romeri, O

    V. De Romeri, O. G. Miranda, D. K. Papoulias, G. Sanchez Garcia, M. Tórtola, and J. W. F. Valle, JHEP04, 035 (2023), arXiv:2211.11905 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.