Pith.

High Energy Physics - Phenomenology · arXiv:2608.17676 v2 · submitted 18 Aug 2026 · 36 references

Precise Measurement of δ at LBL Experiments Using Only The Neutrino Sector

Emilio Ciuffoli

PDF · arXiv · The abstract, sentence by sentence · Cite

The paper says

“Currently, the CP-violating phase δ is the least precisely known among the neutrino mixing parameters. In the coming years, accelerator neutrino experiments such as DUNE and Hyper-K will measure δ, significantly increasing the precision.”

more of the abstract

Such a measurement is usually performed by comparing the oscillation probabilities in the neutrino and antineutrino sectors, thereby directly observing the CP violation. This approach, however, has some downsides: in particular, it is more challenging to obtain good statistics in the antineutrino sector, leading to increased statistical errors. In principle, however, it is possible to determine δ by looking only at the neutrino sector, studying the energy dependence of the oscillation probability. We investigate this possibility in detail; we find that, if this approach is used, the main issue would be the degeneracies with other mixing parameters, which affect the sensitivity to δ. Those parameters, however, have already been measured with great precision, which will increase even more in the next few years; if those constraints are taken into account by introducing Gaussian penalty terms in the χ2, it is possible to achieve better results focusing only on the neutrino sector, rather than using the standard approach. Those degeneracies could also be broken by exploring a wider range of L/E: this can be achieved, for instance, by increasing the neutrino energy. In this way, the total beam intensity could also increase due to the relativistic boost (however, the conversion efficiency could decrease, affecting the total luminosity). We find that if the relativistic boost increases the number of events in the high-energy configuration, the best performance would be achieved in such a set-up; otherwise, the optimal approach would be to focus only on the neutrino mode without changing the beam energy.

from the abstract

Pith says

Machine review · deepseek-v4-flash · 27 Aug 2026 · what was read was not recorded · not checked by a person

It can be wrong. Challenge this review or reply to it.

Holds up, with conditions. Reproducible GLoBES study shows neutrino-only DUNE can modestly beat the standard ν/ν̄ comparison for δ, but the high-energy boost gain rests on an internally inconsistent constant flux rescaling. This line is wrong

3 major objections · 5 minor

How often objections from reviews like this one are right: not yet measured

Are you an author? What you can do.

Not checked: figures, code, what the 36 references say.

The paper says, at Sec. 4 and Eq. (7)

The review did not quote this passage.

Pith says: Objection 1 of 3 · major

The constant boost factor (E_peak+ΔE)^2/E_peak^2 used for the "w/ RB" scenarios is not the factor implied by Eq. (7). For an on-axis detector and a rigid shift E→E+ΔE of the parent-pion spectrum, each bin at energy E' should receive the old flux from E=E'−ΔE multiplied by (E'/(E'−ΔE))^2, which is energy-dependent (about 4 at E'=2 GeV and about 1.6 at E'=5 GeV for ΔE=1 GeV) rather than the constant value of about 1.96 adopted in the paper.

more of objection 1

This reweighting changes the relative importance of low-energy bins near the second oscillation maximum versus high-energy bins with different backgrounds, so the computed δ sensitivity can shift substantially. Since the 1GeV-NB row in Table 3 shows no average gain beyond the only-neutrino configuration, the additional 18.5% improvement attributed to the relativistic boost rests entirely on this inconsistent factor. Please replace the constant factor with the per-bin factor (or a properly folded flux prediction) and recompute the high-energy results, or remove the RB scenario from the quantitative claims.

The paper says, at Sec. 5, Figs. 9-12, and Table 3

The review did not quote this passage.

Pith says: Objection 2 of 3 · major

The main sensitivity calculation uses a Gaussian penalty on θ23 with σ=0.9° around θ23=43.3°, which disfavors the wrong octant (approximately 46.7°) by about 14 units in χ². The paper's own discussion, however, states that the current global-fit preference for the lower octant has Δχ²~1 and that including a non-Gaussian θ23 prior based on global fits would not significantly change the octant-degeneracy scenario.

more of objection 2

These statements are in tension: with the Gaussian penalty actually used in Eq. (15), the secondary minima seen in Figs. 9-12 for δ0=0° and 270° are effectively removed, whereas with a realistic nearly-flat octant prior they persist and can degrade the only-neutrino sensitivity. Because the central claim that the only-neutrino configuration outperforms the standard configuration depends on this prior, please repeat the analysis with a non-Gaussian or bimodal θ23 prior derived from the actual NuFit profile and show how the Table 3 improvements change.

The paper says, at Eq. (17) and Table 3

The review did not quote this passage.

Pith says: Objection 3 of 3 · major

The sensitivity metric σ=(σ_++σ_−)/2 defined via Δχ²(δ0±σ±)=1 is a local quantity and does not capture the bimodal structure that the paper itself identifies in Figs. 9-12. The headline improvements of 1.6–3.2 degrees (9–20%) are averages of this local σ over 36 values of δ0, so they can overstate the actual precision if a secondary minimum lies just outside the local 1σ region or if the Δχ² profile is strongly non-parabolic.

more of objection 3

I request a complementary global metric—for example, the total length of the Δχ²≤1 interval or the fraction of true δ0 values for which the 1σ region defined with the actual priors contains δ0—to verify that the only-neutrino advantage is not an artifact of the local Gaussian approximation.

5 minor objections

The paper says, at Sec. 4

Pith says: minor objection 1 of 5

In the description of the only-neutrino configuration, "RCH" should be "RHC".

The paper says, at Fig. 2

Pith says: minor objection 2 of 5

Both panels appear to be captioned "Neutrino Spectra-Disappearance"; the left panel should be labeled as the appearance channel.

show 3 more

The paper says, at Sec. 1

Pith says: minor objection 3 of 5

The phrase "the number of events observed in the antineutrino sector is be considerably lower" contains a grammatical error ("is be").

The paper says, at Sec. 5

Pith says: minor objection 4 of 5

"This choice justify also the use of Gaussian priors" should read "This choice also justifies the use of Gaussian priors".

The paper says, at Sec. 5 and Table 2

Pith says: minor objection 5 of 5

The future "JUNO+HK+DUNE" priors include long-baseline appearance data that are themselves sensitive to δ; since the simulated DUNE data are also sensitive to δ, these priors are not fully independent external constraints. A brief caveat to this effect would help the reader interpret the corresponding rows of Table 3.

What would settle it

Recompute the high-energy (Delta E = 1 GeV) spectra from the same DUNE AEDL files by shifting each energy bin and applying the bin-dependent boost factor (E'/(E' - Delta E))^2, where E' is the new energy, then run the identical GLoBES chi-square analysis. Compare the resulting average sigma and the percentage of delta values beating the standard configuration against the paper's Table 3 rows for 1GeV-RB. If the average improvement falls to the only-neutrino level (~9%) or changes sign, the constant-boost-factor approximation is the load-bearing assumption.

from the skeptic's reading

How the review went

4 readings by deepseek-v4-flash · 27 Aug 2026

  1. Reader holds up, with conditions confidence moderate
  2. Skeptic agrees 2 min 27 s · 15,725 tokens read, 16,083 written
  3. Editor wrote the verdict above 33 s · 16,558 tokens read, 3,865 written
  4. Referee major revision: 3 major objections, 5 minor 1 min 54 s · 15,969 tokens read, 11,800 written

Not run on this paper: the simulated authors' defence.

Pith did not check this review's objections against the paper.

The review in full

The review in brief, machine-written

This paper asks whether a DUNE-like experiment can measure δ better by running only in neutrino mode and using spectral information plus external priors, rather than the standard ν/ν̄ comparison. The "only neutrino" answer is a modest yes: under NuFit6.1 priors, average σ on δ improves by ~9% and beats the standard setup for ~78% of true δ values. That result is built on unmodified public DUNE AEDL files and a standard GLoBES χ², so it is reproducible and honestly presented.

The high-energy scenario is the weak part. The paper models a beam energy upgrade by rigidly shifting the FHC spectra by ΔE=1 GeV and rescaling the flux by a global factor (E_peak+ΔE)²/E_peak² ≈ 1.96, citing Eq. (7). But Eq. (7) — dN/dΩ ∝ Eν²/Ē_ν² — actually implies an energy-dependent reweighting: each shifted bin should get a factor (E'/(E'−ΔE))², which is ~4 at 2 GeV and ~1.6 at 5 GeV, not a constant. The paper's constant factor is internally inconsistent with its own kinematic formula, and since the no-boost high-energy case (1GeV-NB) shows no advantage over the plain "only neutrino" configuration (same 9.2% gain, wins only 47% of δ), the entire extra benefit of the boost scenario is supplied by that approximation. This is not a subtle beam-simulation issue; it follows directly from the paper's own derivation. The author does flag the need for detailed beam studies, which is fair, but the internal inconsistency should be fixed before the headline numbers are taken at face value.

Other soft spots: the σ metric (average of positive and negative 1σ errors) is not fully Gaussian, and the Gaussian prior on θ23 is imperfect given the octant degeneracy. The paper acknowledges both and explicitly studies the octant-induced secondary minima (Figs. 9-12), so these are caveats rather than hidden flaws.

Overall, the "only neutrino" claim is solid and worth taking seriously. The high-energy boost claim needs revision, either by using the energy-dependent factor from Eq. (7) or by clearly presenting it as a toy model with no quantitative meaning. I'd send this to peer review; a good referee can separate the reproducible core from the speculative beam-upgrade scenario.

The strongest objection

The headline improvement for the high-energy configuration with relativistic boost (Delta E = 1 GeV, about 18.5% average gain in Table 3) rests on two coupled approximations introduced in Sec. 4: a rigid shift E -> E + Delta E and a constant flux rescaling (E_peak + Delta E)^2/E_peak^2. The constant factor is not what the paper's own kinematic derivation predicts. In Sec. 2, Eq. (7) gives the on-axis flux per solid angle as proportional to E_nu^2/E_tilde_nu^2 for a monoenergetic parent. When the parent pion spectrum is shifted, each neutrino energy bin E' receives the old flux from E' - Delta E multiplied by (E'/(E' - Delta E))^2, which is energy-dependent (about 4 at 2 GeV and 1.6 at 5 GeV for Delta E = 1 GeV), whereas the paper uses a constant ~1.96. This reweighting changes the relative weight of low-energy bins near the second oscillation maximum versus high-energy bins with different backgrounds, so the fitted sensitivity to delta can move substantially. Because the no-boost high-energy case (1GeV-NB) in Table 3 yields the same 9.2% gain as the pure only-neutrino case and wins for only 47% of delta values, the entire additional benefit of the boost scenario is supplied by this approximate factor. The author acknowledges that detailed beam simulations are needed, but the inconsistency between Eq. (7) and the constant factor is internal and checkable without a beam simulation.

The paper's core 'only neutrino' claim is honestly presented and supported by the unmodified AEDL spectra; the 9% average gain, while modest, survives without the speculative beam upgrade. The reader's verdict of CONDITIONAL is appropriate. The most load-bearing part of the central claim is the larger 18-20% improvement, which depends on the high-energy configuration with a constant relativistic-boost factor. I agree with the reader's weakest_assumption and sharpen it: the constant factor is internally inconsistent with the energy-dependent Jacobian implied by Eq. (7), so the high-energy advantage could vanish under a more faithful reweighting. This does not change the overall verdict because the paper already flags the need for detailed beam studies, but it confirms that the strongest quantitative claim should not be read as a robust prediction. The octant-degeneracy issue is a real secondary caveat, but it is explicitly documented and affects only a subset of delta values.

The referee's report

The question addressed is well posed and practically relevant: if the only-neutrino result is robust, it would imply that antineutrino running is not needed for a precise δ measurement, with direct implications for exposure allocation at DUNE, Hyper-K, and similar facilities. The central only-neutrino calculation uses unmodified public DUNE AEDL files and the standard GLoBES chi-square, so it is reproducible and internally consistent under the stated assumptions. The systematic comparison across NuFit versions and projected future uncertainties is a useful feature, as is the explicit identification of the θ23 octant degeneracy as the main obstacle. However, the quantitative high-energy claims currently rest on a boost factor that is inconsistent with the paper's own kinematic derivation, and the headline improvements rely on a local Gaussian sensitivity metric and on a Gaussian θ23 prior that is stronger than the paper's own description of the current octant constraint. These issues need to be resolved before the numerical conclusions can be considered reliable.

Pith's reading of the paper (a machine's summary, not the authors')

The paper argues that the standard method for measuring the CP-violating phase δ, which compares neutrino and antineutrino oscillation probabilities, is not necessarily the best use of a long-baseline experiment. Its central proposal is that, if external measurements of the other mixing parameters are imposed as Gaussian penalty terms in the χ² fit, then running only in neutrino mode yields a more precise δ than the standard comparison: the expected uncertainty drops by roughly 1.6 to 3.2 degrees, or 9 to 20 percent, depending on configuration and priors. It further suggests that shifting the neutrino spectrum to higher energy, so the experiment samples a wider L/E range, can improve sensitivity even more if the beam intensity benefits from the relativistic boost; without that boost, the unmodified neutrino-only mode is the better option. This matters because antineutrino running is statistically costly, and if the claim holds, future experiments can reallocate that exposure to the neutrino channel.

What carries the argument. The argument is carried by a χ² construction that adds Gaussian penalty terms for every mixing parameter, the matter density, and flux normalizations, so external precision enters directly into the fit; the paper uses an Asimov dataset so the quoted σδ is the expected uncertainty rather than a fluctuation. For the high-energy scenario, the neutrino-mode spectra are rigidly shifted by ΔE, with the optimal value found to be 1 GeV, without changing their shape, and the flux is optionally rescaled by (E_peak+ΔE)^2/$E_peak^{2}$, a factor derived from on-axis two-body pion decay kinematics. This shift lets the experiment sample a different L/E region, which is what breaks the δ–Δm²31 degeneracy that dominates the neutrino-only fit. The analysis of the appearance probability also explains why the θ13 and θ23 priors matter most: the δ-dependent term is proportional to sin2θ13 and sin2θ23, and the θ23 octant degeneracy creates secondary minima for δ0 = 0° and 270° when no θ23 penalty is applied.

Core claim. The central claim, stated on the paper's own terms, is that degeneracies with the other mixing parameters, not statistics, are the main obstacle when δ is extracted from neutrino-mode data alone, and that those degeneracies can be tamed by external constraints. Concretely, with the uncertainties of current global fits used as Gaussian priors, the neutrino-only configuration outperforms the standard neutrino-plus-antineutrino configuration for most true values of δ, with an average gain in σδ of about 1.6 degrees, or about 9 percent. With the same priors and a higher-energy beam boosted by the relativistic factor (E_peak+ΔE)^2/$E_peak^{2}$, the average gain reaches about 3.2 degrees, or about 18.5 percent. The paper stresses that the high-energy numbers depend on an approximate description of a retuned beam, whereas the neutrino-only result uses unmodified detector spectra and is therefore more robust.

The premise it rests on. The load-bearing premise is that external measurements of the other mixing parameters, especially θ23, can be folded into the fit as Gaussian penalty terms, even though the θ23 octant degeneracy produces secondary minima at δ0 = 0° and 270° that a single Gaussian prior may not fully represent.

If the paper is right (Pith's inferences, not the authors')

For an on-axis long-baseline experiment with current external constraints, spending the full runtime in neutrino mode lowers the average δ uncertainty by about 1.6 degrees, or 9 percent, compared with the standard neutrino-plus-antineutrino scheme.

If a higher-energy beam can be realized with the assumed shape-preserving shift and the relativistic boost, the best configuration shifts the spectrum by ΔE = 1 GeV, improving the average σδ by about 3.2 degrees, or 18.5 percent, and by as much as 3.4 degrees for some true values of δ.

The improvement would grow as external measurements improve: with projected reactor and accelerator precision the neutrino-only gain persists, and with exact knowledge of the other parameters it reaches about 3.8 degrees.

The neutrino-only configuration is more consistently better than the standard one across all δ values, while the high-energy configuration offers larger but less uniform gains.

Beyond the paper: a full hadro-production simulation of the retuned horn configuration could replace the rigid spectrum-shift assumption; if the real spectrum changes shape or the flux gain falls short of (E_peak+ΔE)^2/E_peak^2, the high-energy advantage would shrink while the neutrino-only conclusion would remain.

Beyond the paper: future data that resolve the θ23 octant at high significance, expected at the 3σ level from next-generation experiments, would remove the secondary minima at δ0 = 0° and 270°, likely making the neutrino-only strategy more robust than the Gaussian-prior treatment alone suggests.

Beyond the paper: the on-axis geometry is essential to the argument because it provides a broad spectrum and access to the second oscillation maximum; off-axis detectors should not be assumed to inherit the same gains without a dedicated simulation.

Beyond the paper: a practical experiment could treat the neutrino-only configuration as a conservative benchmark and the high-energy configuration as an upper bound; the true sensitivity of a retuned beam would lie between the two once backgrounds, contamination, and conversion efficiency are modeled.

Check this review

Pith stored no record of this review's passes and took no fingerprint of it. Reviews made by code from 13 Nov 2026 on carry both.

How often reviews like this one are right

Reviews like this one: written by deepseek-v4-flash, where what was read was not recorded.

How often objections from reviews like this one are right: not yet measured

Every value above, in the review's public record (JSON)

Reviews by people

This review was written by a machine. No person has reviewed this paper on Pith yet. A scientist listed on Pith can review it for a fee, and their review is published here whatever it concludes.

Request a human review

How Pith checks papers · The full audit of this paper

The paper

Abstract

Currently, the CP-violating phase δ is the least precisely known among the neutrino mixing parameters. In the coming years, accelerator neutrino experiments such as DUNE and Hyper-K will measure δ, significantly increasing the precision. Such a measurement is usually performed by comparing the oscillation probabilities in the neutrino and antineutrino sectors, thereby directly observing the CP violation. This approach, however, has some downsides: in particular, it is more challenging to obtain good statistics in the antineutrino sector, leading to increased statistical errors. In principle, however, it is possible to determine δ by looking only at the neutrino sector, studying the energy dependence of the oscillation probability. We investigate this possibility in detail; we find that, if this approach is used, the main issue would be the degeneracies with other mixing parameters, which affect the sensitivity to δ. Those parameters, however, have already been measured with great precision, which will increase even more in the next few years; if those constraints are taken into account by introducing Gaussian penalty terms in the χ2, it is possible to achieve better results focusing only on the neutrino sector, rather than using the standard approach. Those degeneracies could also be broken by exploring a wider range of L/E: this can be achieved, for instance, by increasing the neutrino energy. In this way, the total beam intensity could also increase due to the relativistic boost (however, the conversion efficiency could decrease, affecting the total luminosity). We find that if the relativistic boost increases the number of events in the high-energy configuration, the best performance would be achieved in such a set-up; otherwise, the optimal approach would be to focus only on the neutrino mode without changing the beam energy.

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

abstract compiled · 2026-09-23

The authors' main claim, as the classifier picked it out 0.60

“Those parameters, however, have already been measured with great precision, which will increase even more in the next few years; if those constraints are taken into account by introducing Gaussian penalty terms in the $\chi^2$, it is possible to achieve better results focusing only on the neutrino sector, rather than using the standard approach.”

How the main claim is stated: hedged possibility 0.73

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.04 · states limitation 0.79 · human participants 0.02 · controlled comparison 0.34 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.06 · compares with prior results 0.84 · mentions code or data availability 0.02

The abstract, sentence by sentence

This table labels the abstract only (arXiv listing abstract v2). The number is the probability the classifier gave the label.

SentenceRoleThe authors' own workStates the main conclusionStrength
Currently, the CP-violating phase $\delta$ is the least precisely known among the neutrino mixing parameters. background 0.85 0.04 0.02 asserted 1.00
In the coming years, accelerator neutrino experiments such as DUNE and Hyper-K will measure $\delta$, significantly increasing the precision. background 0.99 0.04 0.02 asserted 0.84
Such a measurement is usually performed by comparing the oscillation probabilities in the neutrino and antineutrino sectors, thereby directly observing the CP violation. background 0.94 0.04 0.02 asserted 0.99
This approach, however, has some downsides: in particular, it is more challenging to obtain good statistics in the antineutrino sector, leading to increased statistical errors. background 0.81 0.08 0.02 asserted 0.96
In principle, however, it is possible to determine $\delta$ by looking only at the neutrino sector, studying the energy dependence of the oscillation probability. contribution 0.36 0.07 0.07 hedged possibility 0.96
We investigate this possibility in detail; we find that, if this approach is used, the main issue would be the degeneracies with other mixing parameters, which affect the sensitivity to $\delta$. result 0.78 0.94 0.12 asserted 1.00
Those parameters, however, have already been measured with great precision, which will increase even more in the next few years; if those constraints are taken into account by introducing Gaussian penalty terms in the $\chi^2$, it is possible to achieve better results focusing only on the neutrino sector, rather than using the standard approach. result 0.81 0.77 0.72 hedged possibility 0.73
Those degeneracies could also be broken by exploring a wider range of $L/E$: this can be achieved, for instance, by increasing the neutrino energy. method 0.88 0.18 0.04 hedged possibility 0.99
In this way, the total beam intensity could also increase due to the relativistic boost (however, the conversion efficiency could decrease, affecting the total luminosity). method 0.53 0.14 0.03 hedged possibility 0.94
We find that if the relativistic boost increases the number of events in the high-energy configuration, the best performance would be achieved in such a set-up; otherwise, the optimal approach would be to focus only on the neutrino mode without changing the beam energy. result 0.97 0.94 0.71 asserted 0.97

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: simulation study 0.61 · evidence from simulation or computation 0.89

What was examined, and what was not

Sources read

  • arXiv listing abstract v2

Not examined

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

Levels run

  • P abstract

Not run

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

How the labels were made

Compiled by classifier-1.13.0 via TypeSafe API, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-09-23: 1 request, 7,798 input tokens.

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. This record as JSON

Figures (12)
Figure 1 of the paper
Figure 1. Neutrino energy Eν as a function of pion energy Eπ, for θ = 0 (detector on-axis) or θ = 2.5 ◦ (same off-axis angle as Hyper-K) where Nν is the total number of π decayed, and dΩ the infinitesimal solid angle ˜ in the pion rest frame. Let us assume that the pion beam is monoenergetic (the generalization to a non-trivial energy distribution is quite straightforward): in the laboratory rest frame, we have dNν dΩ = dNν dΩ˜ dCos(˜θ) dCos(θ) = Nπ 4π E2 ν E˜2 ν . (7) This means that the relativistic boost changes the neutrino flux at a certain angle by a factor E2 ν /E˜2 ν . We should point…
Figure 2 of the paper
Figure 2. Expected number of signal and background events in the appearance
Figure 3 of the paper
Figure 3. Sensitivity to δ, expressed as the standard deviation σ on the deter￾mination of its value (in degrees), considering different experimental configu￾rations. The black curve corresponds to the standard configuration, while the others correspond to the “high-energy” one, with different values of ∆E (ex￾pressed in GeV). ∆E = 0 corresponds to the “only neutrino” configuration. In the left panel, the relativistic boost is taken into account, while in the right panel the total flux normalization is left unchanged. value used in Ref. [22]; and for the other pull parameters, such as the…
Figure 5 of the paper
Figure 5. Left (right) panel: sensitivity to δ using the standard (“only neu￾trino”) set-up. Different curves correspond to different versions of NuFit used. For comparison, we also included the results obtained considering the future JUNO+DUNE+Hyper-K results, as well as the case where all the mixing pa￾rameters are not minimized over (i.e. infinite precision). 1.0 (2012) 2.0 (2014) 3.0 (2016) 4.0 (2018) 5.0 (2020) 6.1 (2024) JUNO+HK+DUNE Fixed 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 δ (deg) 5 10 15 20 σ (deg) Priors From Different NuFit Versions - 1 GeV Configuration 1.0 (2012) 2.0 (2014) 3.0 (2016) 4.0…
Figure 7 of the paper
Figure 7. Sensitivity to δ changing the uncertainty on ∆m2 21 (left panel), θ12 (central panel) and θ23 (right panel), using the “only neutrino” configuration. neutrino sector and taking into account the current or future constraints on the other mixing parameters, the average sensitivity to δ would increase, with an improvement of the order of 1.5◦−3 ◦ (10-20% better) in most of the cases (with ∆E = 1 GeV, w/ RB and assuming infinite precision, the improvement would be 3.8◦ ). The maximum difference with the standard configurations is around 2.4◦ -2.6◦ for the “only neutrino” configuration…
Figure 9 of the paper
Figure 9. ∆χ 2 (δ, θ23) assuming δ0 = 0◦ and using the standard (top-left panel), only neutrino (top-right) or high energy (bottom-left) configuration. For the latter, we used ∆E = 1GeV and took into account the relativistic boost. No penalty term for θ23 were considered. Bottom-right panel: minθ23 (∆χ 2 ). 16

Showing 6 of the paper's 12 figures. Figures are the authors', reproduced from the paper.

References (36)
  1. [1] F. Anet al.[JUNO], J. Phys. G43(2016) no.3, 030401 doi:10.1088/0954- 3899/43/3/030401 [arXiv:1507.05613 [physics.ins-det]] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  2. [2] A. Abuslemeet al.[JUNO], Chin. Phys. C46, no.12, 123001 (2022) doi:10.1088/1674-1137/ac8bc9 [arXiv:2204.13249 [hep-ex]] on PitharXiv
  3. [3] K. Abeet al.[Hyper-Kamiokande], [arXiv:1805.04163 [physics.ins-det]] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  4. [4] R. Acciarriet al.[DUNE], [arXiv:1601.05471 [physics.ins-det]] on PitharXiv
  5. [5] R. Acciarriet al.[DUNE], [arXiv:1512.06148 [physics.ins-det]] on PitharXiv
  6. [6] J. Straitet al.[DUNE], [arXiv:1601.05823 [physics.ins-det]] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  7. [7] R. Acciarriet al.[DUNE], [arXiv:1601.02984 [physics.ins-det]] on PitharXiv
  8. [8] K. Abeet al.[T2K], Eur. Phys. J. C83(2023) no.9, 782 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-11819-x [arXiv:2303.03222 [hep-ex]] on PitharXiv
  9. [9] S. Abubakaret al.[NOvA], Phys. Rev. Lett.136(2026) no.1, 011802 doi:10.1103/x53y-2b86 [arXiv:2509.04361 [hep-ex]] on PitharXiv
  10. [10] I. Esteban, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, M. Maltoni, I. Martinez-Soler, J. P. Pin- heiro and T. Schwetz, JHEP12(2024), 216 doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2024)216 [arXiv:2410.05380 [hep-ph]]. and NuFIT 6.1 (2025), www.nu-fit.org on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  11. [11] K. Abeet al.[Hyper-Kamiokande], Eur. Phys. J. C86(2026) no.2, 170 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-025-14938-9 [arXiv:2505.15019 [hep-ex]] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  12. [12] S. Abbasluet al.[DUNE], [arXiv:2608.04059 [hep-ex]]. 21 on PitharXiv
  13. [13] S. K. Agarwalla, R. Kundu and M. Singh, JHEP10(2024), 243 doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2024)243 [arXiv:2408.12735 [hep-ph]] on PitharXiv
  14. [14] F. An, D. Bai, H. Cai, S. Chen, X. Chen, H. Duyang, L. Gao, S. F. Ge, S. Ge and J. He,et al.Chin. Phys. Lett.42(2025) no.11, 110102 doi:10.1088/0256-307X/42/11/110102 [arXiv:2504.21050 [hep-ph]] on PitharXiv
  15. [15] J. Alonso, F. T. Avignone, W. A. Barletta, R. Barlow, H. T. Baumgartner, A. Bernstein, E. Blucher, L. Bugel, L. Calabretta and L. Camilleri,et al. [arXiv:1006.0260 [physics.ins-det]] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  16. [16] M. Wurmet al.[LENA], Astropart. Phys.35(2012), 685-732 doi:10.1016/j.astropartphys.2012.02.011 [arXiv:1104.5620 [astro-ph.IM]] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  17. [17] C. Aberle, A. Adelmann, J. Alonso, W. A. Barletta, R. Barlow, L. Bar- toszek, A. Bungau, A. Calanna, D. Campo and L. Calabretta,et al. [arXiv:1307.2949 [physics.acc-ph]] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  18. [18] E. Ciuffoli, J. Evslin and X. Zhang, JHEP12(2014), 051 doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2014)051 [arXiv:1401.3977 [hep-ph]] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  19. [19] E. Ciuffoli, J. Evslin and F. Zhao, JHEP01(2016), 004 doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2016)004 [arXiv:1509.03494 [hep-ph]] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  20. [20] P. Huber, M. Lindner and W. Winter, Comput. Phys. Commun.167 (2005), 195 doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2005.01.003 [arXiv:hep-ph/0407333 [hep-ph]] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
show 16 more
  1. [21] P. Huber, J. Kopp, M. Lindner, M. Rolinec and W. Winter, Comput. Phys. Commun.177(2007), 432-438 doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2007.05.004 [arXiv:hep- ph/0701187 [hep-ph]] on PitharXiv
  2. [22] B. Abiet al.[DUNE], [arXiv:2103.04797 [hep-ex]] on PitharXiv
  3. [23] C. Giunti and C. W. Kim, Fundamentals of Neutrino Physics and Astro- physics (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 2007) Chapter 7.3 on Pith
  4. [24] P. Adamson, K. Anderson, M. Andrews, R. Andrews, I. Anghel, D. Augus- tine, A. Aurisano, S. Avvakumov, D. S. Ayres and B. Baller,et al.Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A806(2016), 279-306 doi:10.1016/j.nima.2015.08.063 [arXiv:1507.06690 [physics.acc-ph]] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  5. [25] M. Masud, M. Bishai and P. Mehta, Sci. Rep.9(2019) no.1, 352 doi:10.1038/s41598-018-36790-6 [arXiv:1704.08650 [hep-ph]] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  6. [26] S. Parveen, K. Sharma, S. Patra and P. Mehta, Eur. Phys. J. C85 (2025) no.2, 181 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-025-13834-6 [arXiv:2305.16824 [hep-ph]] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  7. [27] P. Ballett, S. F. King, S. Pascoli, N. W. Prouse and T. Wang, Phys. Rev. D96(2017) no.3, 033003 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.96.033003 [arXiv:1612.07275 [hep-ph]]. 22 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  8. [28] J. Arafune, M. Koike and J. Sato, Phys. Rev. D56(1997), 3093-3099 [er- ratum: Phys. Rev. D60(1999), 119905] doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.60.119905 [arXiv:hep-ph/9703351 [hep-ph]] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  9. [29] H. W. Zaglauer and K. H. Schwarzer, Z. Phys. C40(1988), 273 doi:10.1007/BF01555889 on Pithdoi:10.1007/bf01555889
  10. [30] Y. Wang, “JUNO Experiment”, talk given at Neutrino2026, Jun 21-26, 2026, University of California, Irvine, USA on Pith
  11. [31] G. Cowan, K. Cranmer, E. Gross and O. Vitells, Eur. Phys. J. C71(2011), 1554 [erratum: Eur. Phys. J. C73(2013), 2501] doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052- 011-1554-0 [arXiv:1007.1727 [physics.data-an]] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  12. [32] M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, M. Maltoni, J. Salvado and T. Schwetz, JHEP12 (2012), 123 doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2012)123 [arXiv:1209.3023 [hep-ph]] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  13. [33] M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, M. Maltoni and T. Schwetz, JHEP11(2014), 052 doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2014)052 [arXiv:1409.5439 [hep-ph]] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  14. [34] I. Esteban, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, M. Maltoni, I. Martinez-Soler and T. Schwetz, JHEP01(2017), 087 doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2017)087 [arXiv:1611.01514 [hep-ph]] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  15. [35] I. Esteban, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, A. Hernandez-Cabezudo, M. Mal- toni and T. Schwetz, JHEP01(2019), 106 doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2019)106 [arXiv:1811.05487 [hep-ph]] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  16. [36] I. Esteban, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, M. Maltoni, T. Schwetz and A. Zhou, JHEP09(2020), 178 doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2020)178 [arXiv:2007.14792 [hep-ph]]. 23 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
How the literature uses it

What this paper does with the arXiv papers it cites

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

What it cites · 29 sentences without a confident label

Uses the method or tool of 5 papers
  • The formula used to compute $χ^2$ is [ref] : [equation] where $χ^2(O_r^i,T_r^i)$ is the standard Poisson $χ^2$, $O_r^i(T_r^i)$ indicates the expected (fitted) number of events, and $r$ ($i$) is the rule (bin) number.

    New features in the simulation of neutrino oscillation experiments with GLoBES 3.0 · Sensitivity · 0.99

  • For our purposes, it is sufficient to consider the expression for $P_μ→e$ obtained in [ref] in the lowest-order approximation, assuming $Δ_21≪1$, $aL/E≪1$, where [equation] Given these assumptions, we have[We have changed the notation to be consistent with the one used in our paper] [equation] Eq. ([ref]) gives us the oscillation probability for neutrinos; the one for antineutrinos can be obtained by changing the sign of $δ$ and $a$.

    CP Violation and Matter Effect in Long Baseline Neutrino Oscillation Experiments · Theoretical Overview · 0.80

  • For this purpose, we use GLoBES simulations [ref] , using the AEDL files for the DUNE detector, provided in Ref. [ref] .

    2103.04797 · Introduction · 1.00

Uses data or values from 7 papers
  • In our simulations, the expected spectrum was computed using the values of the mixing parameters (except $δ$) reported in NuFit6.1 [ref] , which we present in Tab [ref], along with the uncertainty for each parameter, defined as half of the dimension of the 1-$σ$ region.

    NuFit-6.0: Updated global analysis of three-flavor neutrino oscillations · Simulations Set-up · 1.00

  • For the mixing parameters, $σ_α_j$ is equal to the uncertainty on $α_j$ reported in Tab. [ref], for the matter density, we assume an error of 2%, the same value used in Ref. [ref] ; and for the other pull parameters, such as the total flux normalization, we use the uncertainties reported in the AEDL files.

    2103.04797 · Sensitivity · 0.83

  • To study the effect of uncertainties on the other mixing parameters, we compute the expected sensitivity to $δ$ using the uncertainties reported in previous versions of NuFit, ranging from 1.0 (June 2012) to 5.0 (July 2020), see Refs. [ref] .

    The fate of hints: updated global analysis of three-flavor neutrino oscillations · Sensitivity · 0.93

Cites as support 3 papers
  • The neutrino mass ordering is assumed to be normal, since both global fits [ref] and, more recently, the first results from JUNO [ref] indicate a preference for this scenario.

    NuFit-6.0: Updated global analysis of three-flavor neutrino oscillations · Simulations Set-up · 0.97

  • Indeed, in the next few years, JUNO will significantly improve the precision on $θ_12$, $Δm_21^2$, and $Δm_31^2$ [ref] ; moreover, the combined results of Hyper-K and DUNE will improve the precision on $θ_23$ as well [ref] .

    2204.13249 · Sensitivity · 0.96

  • Indeed, in the next few years, JUNO will significantly improve the precision on $θ_12$, $Δm_21^2$, and $Δm_31^2$ [ref] ; moreover, the combined results of Hyper-K and DUNE will improve the precision on $θ_23$ as well [ref] .

    2408.12735 · Sensitivity · 0.96

Cites as background 6 papers

Challenges and discussion

Disagree with the review, or know something it missed? Leave a comment, or challenge this review formally: a challenge becomes a permanent entry in this paper's record, and its decision is published here.

No comments yet.

Sign in to comment