Pith.

High Energy Physics - Experiment · arXiv:2611.10465 v1 · submitted 7 Nov 2026 · 297 references

NuSTEC Review: Current Experimental and Theoretical Challenges of Neutrino-Nucleus Scattering

A. P. Furmanski, J. G. Morfín, L. Alvarez-Ruso, A. M. Ankowski, A. Ashkenazi, M. Sajjad Athar, S. Dolan, S. Dytman

show 25 more authors

S. Gardiner, R. González-Jiménez, R. J. Hill, M. Hostert, J. Isaacson, N. Jachowicz, M. Kabirnezhad, T. Katori, S. R. Klein, F. Kling, M. Martini, G. D. Megias, B. A. Messerly, K. Niewczas, A. Nikolakopoulos, J. Nowak, J. M. Paley, V. Pandey, A. Papadopoulou, L. Pickering, N. Rocco, J. T. Sobczyk, J. E. Sobczyk, C. Thorpe, C. Wret

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

The paper says

“The precise measurement of neutrino properties is among the highest priorities in fundamental particle physics, involving many experimental and theoretical efforts worldwide.”

more of the abstract

Since the experiments rely on the interactions of neutrinos in the nuclear environment, the planned advances in the scope and precision of these experiments require a commensurate effort in understanding and modeling the hadronic and nuclear physics of these interactions, as incorporated in neutrino event generators. This modeling is essential to every phase of the experimental analyses, and the theoretical uncertainties play an important role in interpreting experimental results. In this Review of current challenges, we summarize the open questions in neutrino-nucleus interactions at GeV-scale energies, and discuss in detail the potential impacts of these unknowns on the measurement of neutrino properties, using the determination of oscillation parameters as a central example. After an Executive Summary and a concise Overview of the issues, we address how the neutrino event generators treat these challenges, how electron-nucleus interactions can help understanding these challenges and the important unanswered questions for each underlying physics process—from quasi-elastic to deep-inelastic scattering. Across every topic, we find that current challenges can be met only through active support and collaboration among specialists in strong interactions and electroweak physics, including theorists and experimentalists from both the nuclear and high-energy physics communities.

from the abstract

Pith says

Machine review · deepseek-v4-flash · 10 Nov 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. A solid, comprehensive community review that updates the decade-old NuSTEC white paper; essential reading for anyone in neutrino-nucleus scattering, but no new results. This line is wrong

4 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 297 references say.

4 minor objections

The paper says, at Figure 3.2

Pith says: minor objection 1 of 4

The figure overlays interaction cross sections from NEUT v5.4.0 on neutrino fluxes. The caption states that the cross sections are from NEUT, but it would be helpful to note explicitly whether the same model tunes are used for both ν_μ and \bar{ν}_μ panels, and whether the 'CC1π' band includes all resonant pion-production modes or only Δ(1232). A brief note in the caption would aid reproducibility.

The paper says, at §2.1

Pith says: minor objection 2 of 4

The list of general challenges near the end of §2.1 (bulleted items) is dense. While cross-references to later sections are given, a small table mapping each bullet to its primary section(s) would improve navigability for readers who wish to jump directly to the detailed discussion of a particular challenge.

show 2 more

The paper says, at §3.4

Pith says: minor objection 3 of 4

The discussion of fake-data studies (paragraph beginning 'The concept of “fake-data studies”...') is clear, but the sentence 'Generally speaking, this is a rather conservative approach since it assumes that each tested model is equally plausible' could be misinterpreted. Consider rephrasing to clarify that the conservatism lies in the assumption that each alternative model is a viable description of nature, not in the statistical procedure itself.

The paper says, at §5.4

Pith says: minor objection 4 of 4

In the paragraph beginning 'The cosmic-ray energy spectrum and nuclear composition', the phrase 'the composition has a significant effect on neutrino production' is correct but vague. Adding a concrete example—e.g., a heavier primary composition shifts the peak of the atmospheric ν_μ flux to higher energies—would strengthen the pedagogical value.

What would settle it

Spot-check the accuracy of the key numerical claims in Table 3.2 (systematic vs. statistical uncertainties for NOvA and T2K) against the original experimental publications (e.g., NOvA [16], T2K [13]). If the quoted numbers are correctly reproduced, the central claim is quantitatively grounded.

from the skeptic's reading

How the review went

4 readings by deepseek-v4-flash · 10 Nov 2026

  1. Reader holds up confidence high
  2. Skeptic agrees 17 s · 50,868 tokens read, 1,612 written
  3. Editor wrote the verdict above 12 s · 51,651 tokens read, 1,061 written
  4. Referee accept: 4 minor 20 s · 51,099 tokens read, 2,237 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 is a thorough review paper from the NuSTEC collaboration, updating the field's state of play roughly a decade after the original white paper. It does not present new data or derivations—that's not its job—but it synthesizes a huge amount of progress and open questions across nuclear models, event generators, flux predictions, and every interaction channel from quasi-elastic to coherent processes. If you work in neutrino-nucleus scattering or rely on these cross sections for oscillation physics, this is the reference you will keep on your shelf (or open on your screen).

The paper does several things well. It is honest about the many acknowledged limitations—factorization breakdown at low Q², the lack of rigorous uncertainty quantification in nuclear models, the incomplete coverage of exclusive final states, the conservative nature of fake-data studies. It provides concrete numbers (e.g., current systematic uncertainties of 3–5% on far-detector event rates vs. 5–10% statistical, and where those numbers come from in T2K and NOvA). The executive summary and priority list are useful. The paper also shows, in detail, how different generators produce different biases in energy estimators, which is instructive.

Soft spots? The sheer length (14 chapters) can be daunting, but that's almost inevitable for a topic this broad. The recommendations are sensible but broad—no ranking beyond the initial priority list, and no concrete road map for how to achieve the goals. That's not a flaw in a review, but readers hoping for a specific action plan may need supplementary documents. Also, despite the large author list, the paper naturally reflects a consensus view, so dissenting opinions or unresolved tensions between different model approaches are reported rather than adjudicated. That's appropriate for a community review.

Who is this for? Practitioners in the field—experimentalists, theorists, generator developers—and students who want a bird's-eye view of where the challenges lie. It deserves a serious referee and publication as a review. I would cite it and bring it to my reading group.

The strongest objection

The paper is a community review of current challenges in neutrino-nucleus scattering. Its central claim—that mis-modeling of the nucleus could lead to unacceptably large systematic uncertainties or biased measurements in oscillation experiments—is well-supported by the cited experimental and theoretical literature. The paper thoroughly acknowledges the limitations of current models (e.g., factorization breakdown at low Q², see §2.1), the incompleteness of fake-data studies (see §3.4), and the need for further work. No new argument is advanced that would require a specific rebuttal; the review's conclusions are appropriately cautious and graded. Therefore, no load-bearing concern about the central claim could be identified.

The reader's verdict (ACCEPT, high confidence) is appropriate. The reader identified the factorization assumption as the weakest point, which the paper itself acknowledges. The stress-test finds no additional load-bearing concern: the paper's claim is a synthesis of existing results, not a novel assertion. The paper's own limitations and caveats are extensive, and the evidence presented (from multiple experiments and theory comparisons) supports the centrality of nuclear modeling challenges. The concrete test verifies the quantitative support for the claim, but even without it, the qualitative argument is robust. No change to the verdict is needed.

The referee's report

If the assessment in the review is correct, the identified challenges directly impact the interpretation of the next generation of neutrino oscillation experiments, which are among the highest priorities in particle physics. The paper provides a community-agreed roadmap: it identifies specific areas where investment in theory, generators, and dedicated measurements will have the largest payoff in reducing systematic uncertainties. By collating the state of the art across all relevant subfields (nuclear models, generators, FSI, flux, exclusive channels) and explicitly listing unresolved problems, the review serves as a reference document that can shape funding priorities and research directions for the next decade. The significance is therefore high, even though the paper is a review rather than a primary research article.

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

The paper synthesizes the current understanding of neutrino-nucleus scattering and its critical role in upcoming oscillation experiments like DUNE and Hyper-Kamiokande. The authors argue that uncertainties in nuclear models\u2014how neutrinos interact with complex nuclei\u2014are now the dominant source of systematic error, threatening the experiments\u2019 ability to measure CP violation and the neutrino mass ordering. Without significant theoretical and experimental advances, including improved event generators and electron-nucleus scattering data, the full physics potential of these facilities cannot be realized. The review maps the open challenges across all interaction channels and calls for coordinated efforts between nuclear and high-energy physicists.

What carries the argument. The central framework is the factorization of neutrino-nucleus scattering into a hard-scattering step (on one or two nucleons) followed by semi-classical final-state interactions (FSI), which is the basis of all major event generators. Because the incoming neutrino energy is never known event by event, experiments must rely on Monte Carlo simulations that combine this factorized picture with nuclear models (Fermi gas, spectral functions, ab initio, etc.) to connect observed final states to the true neutrino energy. The review stresses that this approximation, while justified at high momentum transfer, breaks down at low $Q^2$, yet it is impossible to determine for any given event whether the approximation holds.

Core claim. The paper establishes that the precision of next-generation neutrino oscillation experiments is fundamentally limited by our imperfect modeling of neutrino-nucleus interactions. It identifies the factorization assumption\u2014splitting the interaction into a hard scatter on one or two nucleons followed by final-state interactions\u2014as a central framework that breaks down at low momentum transfers. The review catalogues the open questions across all energy regimes, from quasi-elastic through deep-inelastic scattering, and demonstrates that the same nuclear effects impact both neutrino energy reconstruction and event selection in ways that cannot be fully mitigated by near detectors alone.

The premise it rests on. The factorization of neutrino-nucleus interactions into a two-step process (hard scatter on one or two nucleons followed by final-state interactions) is assumed throughout the review and in most event generators, but the paper acknowledges this assumption breaks down at low momentum transfers where the exchanged boson's wavelength becomes comparable to inter-nucleon distances (Section 2.1).

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

If nuclear models are not improved, the systematic uncertainties in DUNE and Hyper-Kamiokande will dominate over statistical uncertainties, limiting their sensitivity to CP violation and the mass ordering; the paper quotes current interaction-model uncertainties of 3\u20135% on far-detector event rates versus statistical uncertainties of 1\u20132% for the next generation.

Event generators must integrate more sophisticated nuclear models (e.g., ab initio spectral functions, coupled-cluster calculations) while maintaining computational efficiency; the review identifies the transition between nucleon and parton degrees of freedom as a particularly urgent gap.

Electron-nucleus scattering data become essential to separate the purely vector nuclear response from the axial response that only neutrinos measure; the paper calls for a consistent simulation framework to apply these constraints.

Measurements of exclusive hadronic final states\u2014especially neutrons, low-energy protons, and multi-pion events\u2014are critical to validate and tune FSI models, and the review notes that such data are still sparse.

Near detectors cannot fully remove model dependence because oscillation shifts the neutrino energy spectrum and flavor composition between near and far detectors; the paper quantifies that the peak energy mismatch can be 0.2\u20130.3 GeV for T2K and NOvA.

The review implicitly suggests that current funding structures, which separate nuclear theory from high-energy physics, are inadequate; dedicated joint programs or institutes may be needed to sustain the cross-community collaboration the authors call for.

The emphasis on \u2018fake-data studies\u2019 as a tool to test robustness hints that oscillation analyses may need to adopt ensemble methods that marginalize over a wider range of nuclear models, rather than relying on a single generator tune.

The absence of a unified nuclear model valid across all kinematic regimes points toward a role for machine-learning emulators that interpolate between first-principles calculations at low momentum transfer and perturbative QCD at high momentum transfer.

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

The precise measurement of neutrino properties is among the highest priorities in fundamental particle physics, involving many experimental and theoretical efforts worldwide. Since the experiments rely on the interactions of neutrinos in the nuclear environment, the planned advances in the scope and precision of these experiments require a commensurate effort in understanding and modeling the hadronic and nuclear physics of these interactions, as incorporated in neutrino event generators. This modeling is essential to every phase of the experimental analyses, and the theoretical uncertainties play an important role in interpreting experimental results. In this Review of current challenges, we summarize the open questions in neutrino-nucleus interactions at GeV-scale energies, and discuss in detail the potential impacts of these unknowns on the measurement of neutrino properties, using the determination of oscillation parameters as a central example. After an Executive Summary and a concise Overview of the issues, we address how the neutrino event generators treat these challenges, how electron-nucleus interactions can help understanding these challenges and the important unanswered questions for each underlying physics process—from quasi-elastic to deep-inelastic scattering. Across every topic, we find that current challenges can be met only through active support and collaboration among specialists in strong interactions and electroweak physics, including theorists and experimentalists from both the nuclear and high-energy physics communities.

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 · 2026-11-10

The authors' main claim, as the classifier picked it out 1.00

“Across every topic, we find that current challenges can be met only through active support and collaboration among specialists in strong interactions and electroweak physics, including theorists and experimentalists from both the nuclear and high-energy physics communities.”

How the main claim is stated: asserted 1.00

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.03 · states limitation 0.11 · human participants 0.04 · controlled comparison 0.02 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.03 · compares with prior results 0.04 · mentions code or data availability 0.02

The abstract, sentence by sentence

This table labels the abstract only (arXiv listing abstract v1). The number is the probability the classifier gave the label.

SentenceRoleThe authors' own workStates the main conclusionStrength
The precise measurement of neutrino properties is among the highest priorities in fundamental particle physics, involving many experimental and theoretical efforts worldwide. background 1.00 0.04 0.04 asserted 1.00
Since the experiments rely on the interactions of neutrinos in the nuclear environment, the planned advances in the scope and precision of these experiments require a commensurate effort in understanding and modeling the hadronic and nuclear physics of these interactions, as incorporated in neutrino event generators. background 0.96 0.04 0.07 asserted 0.99
This modeling is essential to every phase of the experimental analyses, and the theoretical uncertainties play an important role in interpreting experimental results. background 0.99 0.07 0.08 asserted 1.00
In this Review of current challenges, we summarize the open questions in neutrino-nucleus interactions at GeV-scale energies, and discuss in detail the potential impacts of these unknowns on the measurement of neutrino properties, using the determination of oscillation parameters as a central example. contribution 1.00 0.69 0.20 asserted 0.91
After an Executive Summary and a concise Overview of the issues, we address how the neutrino event generators treat these challenges, how electron-nucleus interactions can help understanding these challenges and the important unanswered questions for each underlying physics process---from quasi-elastic to deep-inelastic scattering. contribution 0.83 0.62 0.05 asserted 0.92
Across every topic, we find that current challenges can be met only through active support and collaboration among specialists in strong interactions and electroweak physics, including theorists and experimentalists from both the nuclear and high-energy physics communities. future work 0.81 0.67 0.65 asserted 1.00

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: review 1.00 · evidence from literature 0.92

What was examined, and what was not

Sources read

  • arXiv listing abstract v1

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, 2026-11-10: 1 request, 5,201 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 (18)
Figure 2 of the paper
Figure 2. 1: In neutrino-nucleus scattering a neutrino of energy Eν and flavor l within a beam with energy spectrum ϕl (Eν), strikes a nucleus of atomic number A. In charged (neutral) current interaction the associated charged lepton l (neutrino of same flavor) emerges. Hadrons emerge from the initial interaction vertex as well that include one or more nucleons and, typically, pions (black dashed lines). Final State Interactions (FSI) 9 Final state interactions [FSI] Plan MC in experiment Neutrino interactions Nuclear effects Fermi gas Spectral function Final state interactions Intranuclear…
Figure 3 of the paper
Figure 3. 3: The expected event distributions, calculated as the neutrino flux times the cross section (N = Φσ), for intrinsic (filled) and oscillated (lines) muon (blue) and electron (red) neutrinos at the far detectors of T2K (left) NOvA (center) and DUNE (right). The event distributions are arbitrarily normalized, the oscillation probability is the full three-flavor probability with oscillation parameters from NuFit 5.2 [21], and the cross sections are from NEUT [35]. No detector effects are included, and no selections are applied, apart from using the charged-current total cross section…
Figure 4 of the paper
Figure 4. 4: (Left panel) Averaged experimental fSuSA(ψ ′ ) and fRF G(ψ ′ ) scaling functions versus ψ ′ in the QE region together with a selection of (e, e ′ ) longitudinal scaling data (f ee ′ L,exp) on 12C obtained from [194]. (Right panel) Longitudinal scaling function for (e, e ′ ) data [194] computed within RMF for different q values. In the inner smaller plot a reduced-χ 2 analysis is presented versus q. The minimum χ 2 is around q = 650 MeV/c. and the inelastic channels will soon be available. 4.7. Challenges and open questions While significant progress has been made in und
Figure 5 of the paper
Figure 5. FIG. 5. Cross section ratios as function of E⌫: C /CH, /and /in reading orderThe upper (lower) on CH, C, Fe, and Pb, compared to the RS (red) and BS (blue)
Figure 7 of the paper
Figure 7. 1: Results from the study of ν 40 µ Ar interactions using the DUNE unoscillated flux. The figure shows the topology smearing produced by FSI for three preFSI topologies of interest. Each pane shows the fraction of postFSI topologies produced from a given preFSI topology for the four models in the study
Figure 8 of the paper
Figure 8. 1: The 1e1p0π cross section as a function of the reconstructed energy for CLAS data, compared to multiple predictions, for multiple beam energies on carbon (top) and iron (bottom) targets. While the main peak location and width are quite well predicted, the tails are often wrong by a factor of two (taken from [200]). scattering data provide important information, most measurements focus on carefully-selected kinematics to study effects of interest, and provide limited (or zero) information about the final state hadronic system. Current and proposed measurements are tied closely to…
Figure 9 of the paper
Figure 9. 1: Left: A comparison of various model predictions with a recent T2K cross section measurement of CC0π interactions on a carbon target [382], taken from Ref. [163]. The only model not quantitatively rejected by the T2K measurement at more than three σ is the LFG-RPA model from the Valencia group. Right: A comparison of various model predictions with a recent MINERvA cross section measurement of CC0π interactions on a hydrocarbon target [387], taken from Ref. [82]. The χ 2 shown in the legend show a rejection of all considered models. 9.2.4. Prospects As described, inclusive pionless…
Figure 10 of the paper
Figure 10. 1: Allowed kinematic region for charged-current inelastic neutrino–nucleon scattering in the
Figure 11 of the paper
Figure 11. 3: Differential cross section vs y for νl − 56 F e (top panel) and νl − 208 P b DIS (bottom panel) at the different values of x [551]. Theoretical predictions are shown with the spectral function only (dashed line) and with the full model (solid line) at NNLO. The blue dash-dotted line in the top row is the result from nCTEQnu nPDFs with Q 2 ≥ 1.0 GeV 2 . Solid circles with error bars are the limited experimental data points of NuTeV [561] at this lower energy. and Petti [558]. Aligarh-Valencia group has also studied the nuclear medium effects in charged lepton￾nucleus DIS process,…
Figure 12 of the paper
Figure 12. 4: Location of the LHC Neutrino Detectors. Proton-proton collisions at the ATLAS interaction point create a strongly collimated neutrino beam along the beam axis (red dashed line). This beam axis is accessible in two tunnels, connecting the SPS and LHC rings, about 480 m downstream of ATLAS (black stars). Pictures of the pilot emulsion detector, the FASER experiment as well as the SND@LHC experiment in these locations are shown. The proposed Forward Physics Facility would be located 620 m west of ATLAS. beam collision axis and make use of the LHC neutrino beam. This opportunity was…
Figure 13 of the paper
Figure 13. 3: Cross sections for channel νn → µ −K +Λ. Data points are taken from [767, 768] . The figure taken from [769] 13.3. Single kaon production The MINERvA collaboration measured charged kaon production in the charged current, neutral current, and coherent production modes. The measurement is a combination of cabibbo-suppressed single-kaon production, and associated production
Figure 14 of the paper
Figure 14. 4: Photon energy distributions for coherent photon emission on
Figure 18 of the paper
Figure 18. FIG. 18. The extracted cross section and external g kinematic limits of the parton treatment.

Showing 13 of the paper's 18 figures. Figures are the authors', reproduced from the paper.

References (297)
  1. [1] L. Alvarez-Ruso, et al., NuSTEC White Paper: Status and challenges of neutrino–nucleus scattering, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 100 (2018) 1–68.arXiv:1706.03621,doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2018.01.006 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  2. [2] A. M. Ankowski, O. Benhar, C. Mariani, E. Vagnoni, Effect of the2p2hcross-section uncertainties on an analysis of neutrino oscillations, Phys. Rev. D 93 (11) (2016) 113004.arXiv:1603.01072, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.93.113004 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  3. [3] U. Mosel, Neutrino Interactions with Nucleons and Nuclei: Importance for Long-Baseline Ex- periments, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 66 (2016) 171–195.arXiv:1602.00696,doi:10.1146/ annurev-nucl-102115-044720 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  4. [4] P. Coloma, P. Huber, C.-M. Jen, C. Mariani, Neutrino-nucleus interaction models and their impact on oscillation analyses, Phys. Rev. D 89 (7) (2014) 073015.arXiv:1311.4506,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD. 89.073015 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  5. [5] P. Coloma, P. Huber, Impact of nuclear effects on the extraction of neutrino oscillation parameters, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111 (22) (2013) 221802.arXiv:1307.1243,doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.221802 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  6. [6] S. Bhadra, et al., Letter of Intent to Construct a nuPRISM Detector in the J-PARC Neutrino Beamline (12 2014).arXiv:1412.3086 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  7. [7] B. Pontecorvo, Neutrino experiments and the question of leptonic-charge conservation, Sov. Phys. JETP 26 (1968) 984–988 on Pith
  8. [8] Z. Maki, M. Nakagawa, S. Sakata, Remarks on the unified model of elementary particles, Prog. Theor. Phys. 28 (1962) 870–880.doi:10.1143/PTP.28.870 on Pithdoi:10.1143/ptp.28.870
  9. [9] K. Abe, et al., The T2K Experiment, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 659 (2011) 106–135.arXiv:1106.1238, doi:10.1016/j.nima.2011.06.067 on PitharXiv
  10. [10] D. S. Ayres, et al., NOvA: Proposal to Build a 30 Kiloton Off-Axis Detector to Studyν µ →ν e Oscillations in the NuMI Beamline (3 2004).arXiv:hep-ex/0503053 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  11. [11] D. S. Ayres, et al., The NOvA Technical Design Report (10 2007).doi:10.2172/935497 on Pithdoi:10.2172/935497
  12. [12] K. Abe, et al., Results from the T2K Experiment on Neutrino Mixing Including a New Far Detector µ-like Sample, Phys. Rev. Lett. 135 (26) (2025) 261801.arXiv:2506.05889,doi:10.1103/gh5j-5cwv on PitharXiv
  13. [13] K. Abe, et al., Measurements of neutrino oscillation parameters from the T2K experiment using3.6× 1021 protons on target, Eur. Phys. J. C 83 (9) (2023) 782.arXiv:2303.03222,doi:10.1140/epjc/ s10052-023-11819-x. 176 on PitharXiv
  14. [14] S. Abubakar, et al., Precision Measurement of Neutrino Oscillation Parameters with 10 Years of Data from the NOvA Experiment, Phys. Rev. Lett. 136 (1) (2026) 011802.arXiv:2509.04361,doi:10. 1103/x53y-2b86 on PitharXiv
  15. [15] M. A. Acero, et al., Expanding neutrino oscillation parameter measurements in NOvA using a Bayesian approach, Phys. Rev. D 110 (1) (2024) 012005.arXiv:2311.07835,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110. 012005 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  16. [16] M.A.Acero, etal., ImprovedmeasurementofneutrinooscillationparametersbytheNOvAexperiment, Phys. Rev. D 106 (3) (2022) 032004.arXiv:2108.08219,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.106.032004 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  17. [17] K. Abe, et al., First Joint Oscillation Analysis of Super-Kamiokande Atmospheric and T2K Accel- erator Neutrino Data, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134 (1) (2025) 011801.arXiv:2405.12488,doi:10.1103/ PhysRevLett.134.011801 on PitharXiv
  18. [18] S. Abubakar, et al., Joint neutrino oscillation analysis from the T2K and NOvA experiments, Nature 646 (8086) (2025) 818–824.arXiv:2510.19888,doi:10.1038/s41586-025-09599-3 on PitharXiv
  19. [19] B. Abi, et al., Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment (DUNE), Far Detector Technical Design Report, Volume I Introduction to DUNE, JINST 15 (08) (2020) T08008.arXiv:2002.02967, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/15/08/T08008 on PitharXiv
  20. [20] K. Abe, et al., Hyper-Kamiokande Design Report (5 2018).arXiv:1805.04163 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
show 80 more
  1. [21] I. Esteban, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, M. Maltoni, T. Schwetz, A. Zhou, The fate of hints: updated global analysis of three-flavor neutrino oscillations, JHEP 09 (2020) 178.arXiv:2007.14792,doi: 10.1007/JHEP09(2020)178 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  2. [22] F. An, et al., Neutrino Physics with JUNO, J. Phys. G 43 (3) (2016) 030401.arXiv:1507.05613, doi:10.1088/0954-3899/43/3/030401 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  3. [23] R. Abbasi, et al., Physics potential of the IceCube Upgrade for atmospheric neutrino oscillations, Phys. Rev. D 113 (7) (2026) 072009.arXiv:2509.13066,doi:10.1103/nnjw-jp1n on PitharXiv
  4. [24] B. Abi, et al., Long-baseline neutrino oscillation physics potential of the DUNE experiment, Eur. Phys. J. C 80 (10) (2020) 978.arXiv:2006.16043,doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-08456-z on PitharXiv
  5. [25] K. Abe, et al., Sensitivity of the Hyper-Kamiokande experiment to neutrino oscillation parameters using accelerator neutrinos, Eur. Phys. J. C 86 (2) (2026) 170.arXiv:2505.15019,doi:10.1140/ epjc/s10052-025-14938-9. 177 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  6. [26] J. A. Formaggio, G. P. Zeller, From eV to EeV: Neutrino Cross Sections Across Energy Scales, Rev. Mod. Phys. 84 (2012) 1307–1341.arXiv:1305.7513,doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.84.1307 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  7. [27] L. Alvarez-Ruso, Y. Hayato, J. Nieves, Progress and open questions in the physics of neutrino cross sections at intermediate energies, New J. Phys. 16 (2014) 075015.arXiv:1403.2673,doi:10.1088/ 1367-2630/16/7/075015 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  8. [28] K. Mahn, C. Marshall, C. Wilkinson, Progress in Measurements of 0.1–10 GeV Neutrino–Nucleus Scattering and Anticipated Results from Future Experiments, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 68 (2018) 105–129.arXiv:1803.08848,doi:10.1146/annurev-nucl-101917-020930 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  9. [29] N. Jachowicz, A. Nikolakopoulos, Nuclear medium effects in neutrino- and antineutrino-nucleus scattering, Eur. Phys. J. ST 230 (24) (2021) 4339–4356.arXiv:2110.11321,doi:10.1140/epjs/ s11734-021-00286-8 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  10. [30] M. Sajjad Athar, A. Fatima, S. K. Singh, Neutrinos and their interactions with matter, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 129 (2023) 104019.arXiv:2206.13792,doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2022.104019 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  11. [31] L. A. Ruso, et al., Theoretical tools for neutrino scattering: interplay between lattice QCD, EFTs, nuclear physics, phenomenology, and neutrino event generators, J. Phys. G 52 (4) (2025) 043001. arXiv:2203.09030,doi:10.1088/1361-6471/adae26 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  12. [32] V. Pandey, Neutrino-Nucleus Scattering Cross Sections at Medium Energies (11 2025).arXiv:2511. 05413,doi:10.1016/B978-0-443-26598-3.00111-5 on Pithdoi:10.1016/b978-0-443-26598-3.00111-5
  13. [33] T. Katori, M. Martini, Neutrino–nucleus cross sections for oscillation experiments, J. Phys. G45 (1) (2018) 013001.arXiv:1611.07770,doi:10.1088/1361-6471/aa8bf7 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  14. [34] S. Dolan, L. Pickering, P. Stowell, C. Wilkinson, C. Wret, CP-violation or Nuclear Excitation: Review- ing the Role of Neutrino Interaction Model Uncertainties on Accelerator-Based Neutrino Oscillation Measurements (5 2026).arXiv:2605.28671 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  15. [35] Y. Hayato, L. Pickering, The NEUT neutrino interaction simulation program library, Eur. Phys. J. ST 230 (24) (2021) 4469–4481.arXiv:2106.15809,doi:10.1140/epjs/s11734-021-00287-7 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  16. [36] A. A. Aguilar-Arevalo, et al., The Neutrino Flux Prediction at MiniBooNE, Phys. Rev. D 79 (2009) 072002.arXiv:0806.1449,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.79.072002 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  17. [37] R. Acciarri, et al., A Proposal for a Three Detector Short-Baseline Neutrino Oscillation Program in the Fermilab Booster Neutrino Beam (3 2015).arXiv:1503.01520. 178 on PitharXiv
  18. [38] R. Acciarri, et al., The Short-Baseline Near Detector at Fermilab: Input to the European Strategy for Particle Physics 2026 Update (3 2025).arXiv:2504.00245 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  19. [39] R. Acciarri, et al., Design and Construction of the MicroBooNE Detector, JINST 12 (02) (2017) P02017.arXiv:1612.05824,doi:10.1088/1748-0221/12/02/P02017 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  20. [40] S. Amerio, et al., Design, construction and tests of the ICARUS T600 detector, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 527 (2004) 329–410.doi:10.1016/j.nima.2004.02.044 on Pithdoi:10.1016/j.nima.2004.02.044
  21. [41] P. Abratenko, et al., ICARUS at the Fermilab Short-Baseline Neutrino program: initial operation, Eur. Phys. J. C 83 (6) (2023) 467.arXiv:2301.08634,doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-11610-y on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  22. [42] V. Hewes, et al., Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment (DUNE) Near Detector Conceptual Design Report, Instruments 5 (4) (2021) 31.arXiv:2103.13910,doi:10.3390/instruments5040031 on PitharXiv
  23. [43] M. Day, K. S. McFarland, Differences in Quasi-Elastic Cross-Sections of Muon and Electron Neutrinos, Phys. Rev. D 86 (2012) 053003.arXiv:1206.6745,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.86.053003 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  24. [44] O. Tomalak, Q. Chen, R. J. Hill, K. S. McFarland, QED radiative corrections for accelerator neutrinos, Nature Commun. 13 (1) (2022) 5286.arXiv:2105.07939,doi:10.1038/s41467-022-32974-x on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  25. [45] O. Tomalak, Q. Chen, R. J. Hill, K. S. McFarland, C. Wret, Theory of QED radiative corrections to neutrino scattering at accelerator energies, Phys. Rev. D 106 (9) (2022) 093006.arXiv:2204.11379, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.106.093006 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  26. [46] M. Martini, N. Jachowicz, M. Ericson, V. Pandey, T. Van Cuyck, N. Van Dessel, Electron-neutrino scattering off nuclei from two different theoretical perspectives, Phys. Rev. C94 (1) (2016) 015501. arXiv:1602.00230,doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.94.015501 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  27. [47] A. M. Ankowski, Effect of the charged-lepton’s mass on the quasielastic neutrino cross sections, Phys. Rev. C 96 (3) (2017) 035501.arXiv:1707.01014,doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.96.035501 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  28. [48] A. Nikolakopoulos, N. Jachowicz, N. Van Dessel, K. Niewczas, R. González-Jiménez, J. M. Udías, V. Pandey, Electron versus Muon Neutrino Induced Cross Sections in Charged Current Quasielastic Processes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123 (5) (2019) 052501.arXiv:1901.08050,doi:10.1103/PhysRev... on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  29. [49] R. González-Jiménez, A. Nikolakopoulos, N. Jachowicz, J. M. Udías, Nuclear effects in electron-nucleus and neutrino-nucleus scattering within a relativistic quantum mechanical framework, Phys. Rev. C 100 (4) (2019) 045501.arXiv:1904.10696,doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.100.045501. 179 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  30. [50] T. Dieminger, S. Dolan, D. Sgalaberna, A. Nikolakopoulos, T. Dealtry, S. Bolognesi, L. Pickering, A. Rubbia, Uncertainties on theν µ/νe,¯νµ/¯νe andν e/¯νe cross-section ratio from the modelling of nuclear effects and their impact on neutrino oscillation experiments, Phys. Rev.... on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  31. [51] M. Martini, M. Ericson, G. Chanfray, Phase space of electron- and muon-neutrino and antineutrino scatteringoffnuclei, Phys.Rev.C110(2)(2024)025502.arXiv:2310.06388,doi:10.1103/PhysRevC. 110.025502 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  32. [52] P. N. Shanahan, P. L. Vahle, Physics with NOvA: a half-time review, Eur. Phys. J. ST 230 (24) (2021) 4259–4273.doi:10.1140/epjs/s11734-021-00285-9 on Pithdoi:10.1140/epjs/s11734-021-00285-9
  33. [54] K. Abe, et al., T2K ND280 Upgrade - Technical Design Report (1 2019).arXiv:1901.03750 on PitharXiv
  34. [55] T. Zhu, Long-baseline neutrino oscillation sensitivities with Hyper-Kamiokande and impact of Inter- mediate Water Cherenkov Detector, PoS NOW2022 (2023) 028.doi:10.22323/1.421.0028 on Pithdoi:10.22323/1.421.0028
  35. [56] M. Scott, An Intermediate Water Cherenkov Detector at J-PARC, JPS Conf. Proc. 12 (2016) 010039. arXiv:1603.01251,doi:10.7566/JPSCP.12.010039 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  36. [57] K. Abe, et al., Measurement of neutrino and antineutrino oscillations by the T2K experiment including a new additional sample ofν e interactions at the far detector, Phys. Rev. D 96 (9) (2017) 092006, [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 98, 019902 (2018)].arXiv:1707.01048,doi:10.1103/PhysRev... on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  37. [58] T. Wester, et al., Atmospheric neutrino oscillation analysis with neutron tagging and an expanded fiducial volume in Super-Kamiokande I–V, Phys. Rev. D 109 (7) (2024) 072014.arXiv:2311.05105, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.109.072014 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  38. [59] I. Esteban, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, M. Maltoni, I. Martinez-Soler, J. P. Pinheiro, T. Schwetz, NuFit- 6.0: updated global analysis of three-flavor neutrino oscillations, JHEP 12 (2024) 216.arXiv:2410. 05380,doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2024)216 on Pithdoi:10.1007/jhep12(2024)216
  39. [60] R. Abbasi, et al., Measurement of Atmospheric Neutrino Oscillation Parameters Using Convolutional Neural Networks with 9.3 Years of Data in IceCube DeepCore, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134 (9) (2025) 091801. arXiv:2405.02163,doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.134.091801. 180 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  40. [61] M. Scott, Long-baseline neutrino oscillation sensitivities with Hyper-Kamiokande, PoS ICHEP2020 (2021) 174.doi:10.22323/1.390.0174 on Pithdoi:10.22323/1.390.0174
  41. [62] S. Aiello, et al., Determining the neutrino mass ordering and oscillation parameters with KM3NeT/ORCA, Eur. Phys. J. C 82 (1) (2022) 26.arXiv:2103.09885,doi:10.1140/epjc/ s10052-021-09893-0 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  42. [63] S. Aiello, et al., Measurement of neutrino oscillation parameters with the first six detection units of KM3NeT/ORCA, JHEP 10 (2024) 206, [Addendum: JHEP 10, 041 (2025)].arXiv:2408.07015, doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2024)206 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  43. [64] T. K. Gaisser, M. Honda, Flux of atmospheric neutrinos, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 52 (2002) 153–199. arXiv:hep-ph/0203272,doi:10.1146/annurev.nucl.52.050102.090645 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  44. [65] M. G. Aartsen, et al., Measurement of the Atmosphericνe Spectrum with IceCube, Phys. Rev. D 91 (2015) 122004.arXiv:1504.03753,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.91.122004 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  45. [66] L. Wolfenstein, Neutrino Oscillations in Matter, Phys. Rev. D 17 (1978) 2369–2374.doi:10.1103/ PhysRevD.17.2369 on Pith
  46. [67] S. P. Mikheyev, A. Y. Smirnov, Resonance Amplification of Oscillations in Matter and Spectroscopy of Solar Neutrinos, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 42 (1985) 913–917 on Pith
  47. [68] M. Honda, M. Sajjad Athar, T. Kajita, K. Kasahara, S. Midorikawa, Atmospheric neutrino flux cal- culation using the NRLMSISE-00 atmospheric model, Phys. Rev. D 92 (2) (2015) 023004.arXiv: 1502.03916,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.92.023004 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  48. [69] R. Abbasi, et al., Measurement of atmospheric neutrino mixing with improved IceCube DeepCore calibration and data processing, Phys. Rev. D 108 (1) (2023) 012014.arXiv:2304.12236,doi:10. 1103/PhysRevD.108.012014 on PitharXiv
  49. [70] S. Abbaslu, et al., Reconstruction of atmospheric neutrinos in DUNE’s horizontal-drift far-detector module (1 2026).arXiv:2601.05697 on PitharXiv
  50. [71] Y. Suzuki, The Super-Kamiokande experiment, Eur. Phys. J. C 79 (4) (2019) 298.doi:10.1140/ epjc/s10052-019-6796-2 on Pith
  51. [72] Z. Yang, et al., First attempt of directionality reconstruction for atmospheric neutrinos in a large homogeneous liquid scintillator detector, Phys. Rev. D 109 (5) (2024) 052005.arXiv:2310.06281, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.109.052005. 181 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  52. [73] M. G. Aartsen, et al., Development of an analysis to probe the neutrino mass ordering with atmospheric neutrinos using three years of IceCube DeepCore data, Eur. Phys. J. C 80 (1) (2020) 9.arXiv: 1902.07771,doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-7555-0 on PitharXiv
  53. [74] Z. Li, et al., Measurement of the tau neutrino cross section in atmospheric neutrino oscillations with Super-Kamiokande, Phys. Rev. D 98 (5) (2018) 052006.arXiv:1711.09436,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD. 98.052006 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  54. [75] M. G. Aartsen, et al., Measurement of Atmospheric Tau Neutrino Appearance with IceCube DeepCore, Phys. Rev. D 99 (3) (2019) 032007.arXiv:1901.05366,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.99.032007 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  55. [76] S. A. Meighen-Berger, J. F. Beacom, N. F. Bell, M. J. Dolan, New signal of atmospheric tau neutrino appearance: Sub-GeV neutral-current interactions in JUNO, Phys. Rev. D 109 (9) (2024) 092006. arXiv:2311.01667,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.109.092006 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  56. [77] P. Machado, H. Schulz, J. Turner, Tau neutrinos at dune: New strategies, new opportunities, Phys. Rev. D 102 (2020) 053010.doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.102.053010. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.102.053010 on Pithdoi:10.1103/physrevd.102.053010
  57. [78] A. De Gouvêa, K. J. Kelly, G. V. Stenico, P. Pasquini, Physics with Beam Tau-Neutrino Appearance at DUNE, Phys. Rev. D 100 (1) (2019) 016004.arXiv:1904.07265,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.100. 016004 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  58. [79] R. Mammen Abraham, et al., Tau neutrinos in the next decade: from GeV to EeV, J. Phys. G 49 (11) (2022) 110501.arXiv:2203.05591,doi:10.1088/1361-6471/ac89d2 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  59. [80] M. Elkins, T. Nosek, Systematic Uncertainties in the NOvA Neutrino Oscillation Analysis (Nov. 2020). doi:10.5281/zenodo.4253085. URLhttps://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4253085 on Pithdoi:10.5281/zenodo.4253085
  60. [81] P. Stowell, et al., Tuning the GENIE Pion Production Model with MINERνA Data, Phys. Rev. D 100 (7) (2019) 072005.arXiv:1903.01558,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.100.072005 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  61. [82] M. B. Avanzini, et al., Comparisons and challenges of modern neutrino-scattering experiments, Phys. Rev. D 105 (9) (2022) 092004.arXiv:2112.09194,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.105.092004 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  62. [83] J. D. Walecka, Electron Scattering for Nuclear and Nucleon Structure, Cambridge University Press, 2023.doi:10.1017/9781009290616 on Pithdoi:10.1017/9781009290616
  63. [84] R. B. Wiringa, V. G. J. Stoks, R. Schiavilla, An Accurate nucleon-nucleon potential with charge inde- pendence breaking, Phys. Rev. C 51 (1995) 38–51.arXiv:nucl-th/9408016,doi:10.1103/PhysRevC. 51.38. 182 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  64. [85] R. Machleidt, High-precision, charge-dependent bonn nucleon-nucleon potential, Phys. Rev. C 63 (2001) 024001.doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.63.024001 on Pithdoi:10.1103/physrevc.63.024001
  65. [86] S. Weinberg, Phenomenological Lagrangians, Physica A 96 (1-2) (1979) 327–340.doi:10.1016/ 0378-4371(79)90223-1 on Pith
  66. [87] S. Weinberg, Nuclear forces from chiral Lagrangians, Phys. Lett. B 251 (1990) 288–292.doi:10.1016/ 0370-2693(90)90938-3 on Pith
  67. [88] S. Weinberg, Effective chiral Lagrangians for nucleon - pion interactions and nuclear forces, Nucl. Phys. B 363 (1991) 3–18.doi:10.1016/0550-3213(91)90231-L on Pithdoi:10.1016/0550-3213(91)90231-l
  68. [89] E. Epelbaum, H.-W. Hammer, U.-G. Meißner, Modern theory of nuclear forces, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81 (2009) 1773–1825.doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.81.1773. URLhttp://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/RevModPhys.81.1773 on Pithdoi:10.1103/revmodphys.81.1773
  69. [90] A. Lovato, S. Gandolfi, J. Carlson, S. C. Pieper, R. Schiavilla, Electromagnetic response of 12C: A first-principles calculation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117 (8) (2016) 082501.arXiv:1605.00248,doi:10. 1103/PhysRevLett.117.082501 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  70. [91] D. Simons, N. Steinberg, A. Lovato, Y. Meurice, N. Rocco, M. Wagman, Form-factor dependence of neutrino-nucleus cross sections using microscopic methods, J. Phys. G 52 (6) (2025) 065003.arXiv: 2210.02455,doi:10.1088/1361-6471/adde77 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  71. [92] A. S. Meyer, M. Betancourt, R. Gran, R. J. Hill, Deuterium target data for precision neutrino-nucleus cross sections, Phys. Rev. D 93 (11) (2016) 113015.arXiv:1603.03048,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.93. 113015 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  72. [93] A. Nikolakopoulos, A. Lovato, N. Rocco, Relativistic effects in Green’s function Monte Carlo cal- culations of neutrino-nucleus scattering, Phys. Rev. C 109 (1) (2024) 014623.arXiv:2304.11772, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.109.014623 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  73. [94] G. Hagen, T. Papenbrock, M. Hjorth-Jensen, D. J. Dean, Coupled-cluster computations of atomic nuclei, Rept. Prog. Phys. 77 (9) (2014) 096302.arXiv:1312.7872,doi:10.1088/0034-4885/77/9/ 096302 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  74. [95] B. Acharya, J. E. Sobczyk, S. Bacca, G. Hagen, W. Jiang, O16 Electroweak Response Functions from First Principles, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134 (20) (2025) 202501.arXiv:2410.05962,doi:10.1103/ PhysRevLett.134.202501. 183 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  75. [96] J.E.Sobczyk, B.Acharya, S.Bacca, G.Hagen, Abinitiocomputationofthelongitudinalresponsefunc- tion in40Ca, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127 (7) (2021) 072501.arXiv:2103.06786,doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett. 127.072501 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  76. [97] J. E. Sobczyk, B. Acharya, S. Bacca, G. Hagen, Ca40 transverse response function from coupled-cluster theory, Phys.Rev.C109(2)(2024)025502.arXiv:2310.03109,doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.109.025502 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  77. [98] N. Rocco, C. Barbieri, O. Benhar, A. De Pace, A. Lovato, Neutrino-Nucleus Cross Section within the Extended Factorization Scheme, Phys. Rev. C 99 (2) (2019) 025502.arXiv:1810.07647,doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.99.025502 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  78. [99] O. Benhar, A. Fabrocini, S. Fantoni, I. Sick, Spectral function of finite nuclei and scattering of GeV electrons, Nucl. Phys. A 579 (1994) 493–517.doi:10.1016/0375-9474(94)90920-2 on Pithdoi:10.1016/0375-9474(94)90920-2
  79. [100] O. Benhar, A. Fabrocini, S. Fantoni, The Nucleon Spectral Function in Nuclear Matter, Nucl. Phys. A 505 (1989) 267–299.doi:10.1016/0375-9474(89)90374-6 on Pithdoi:10.1016/0375-9474(89)90374-6
  80. [101] D. Van Neck, A. E. L. Dieperink, E. Moya de Guerra, Spectral function for finite nuclei in the local- density approximation, Phys. Rev. C 51 (1995) 1800–1808.arXiv:nucl-th/9410019,doi:10.1103/ PhysRevC.51.1800 on PithPith's reviewarXiv

The first 100 of 297 references are listed here. All of them are in this paper's citation record.

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