Benchmarking State-of-the-Art Theory and Empirical Models of Pionless Neutrino-Argon Scattering in GENIE

Liang Liu; Steven Dytman; Steven Gardiner

REVIEW 1 major objections 1 minor 1 cited by

Benchmarking State-of-the-Art Theory and Empirical Models of Pionless Neutrino-Argon Scattering in GENIE

T0 review · 1 major / 1 minor · reviewed 2026-05-19 · grok-4.3

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

Pith's one-line read GENIE's model interchange capability allows direct benchmarking of sophisticated theoretical components against empirical alternatives for pionless neutrino-argon scattering using MicroBooNE data.

desk verdict This is a practical GENIE benchmarking exercise on MicroBooNE pionless data that highlights model swaps but leaves consistency of interchanges unverified. read the letter →

arxiv 2605.14196 v2 pith:B2RSFVDB submitted 2026-05-13 hep-ph

Liang Liu , Steven Gardiner , Steven Dytman This is my paper

classification hep-ph

keywords neutrino-argonscatteringpionlessinteractionsGENIEeventgeneratorMicroBooNEdataquasielasticfinal-statenuclearmodelscharged-current

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

This paper tests a range of neutrino interaction models inside the GENIE event generator against recent MicroBooNE measurements of pionless charged-current interactions on argon. The code allows easy interchange of components such as nucleon form factor parameterizations, quasielastic cross-section calculations, nuclear ground state treatments, and hadronic final-state interactions. By comparing the performance of theoretically advanced models with more empirically driven ones, the work provides guidance for improving simulations needed by upcoming neutrino experiments. A sympathetic reader would care because accurate modeling of these interactions is essential for interpreting data from liquid argon detectors.

What carries the argument

GENIE's software capability to interchange model components including nucleon form factors, quasielastic calculations, nuclear ground state, and final-state interactions, which carries the benchmarking argument by enabling isolated tests against data.

What would settle it

A new measurement of pionless charged-current cross sections or muon kinematic distributions on argon that deviates systematically from all tested GENIE model combinations in ways not explained by current uncertainties would challenge the benchmarking conclusions.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that by leveraging GENIE's ability to interchange individual model components, direct comparisons with MicroBooNE data on pionless charged-current neutrino-argon scattering reveal the relative performance of state-of-the-art theoretical models versus empirical alternatives in reproducing observed event distributions.

Load-bearing premise

Interchanging individual model components within GENIE produces physically consistent simulations without introducing unaccounted-for correlations or inconsistencies between the swapped pieces.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Upcoming neutrino experiments using argon targets can select or refine GENIE configurations based on which model combinations better match MicroBooNE data.
Theoretical models showing larger deviations from data may require adjustments to nuclear physics inputs such as ground state or final-state interaction treatments.
Empirical model alternatives can serve as reliable baselines where advanced theoretical components exhibit poorer agreement with observations.

Reading between the lines

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

The benchmarking approach could be applied to other neutrino energies or target materials to check if performance differences persist across regimes.
Unaccounted correlations between interchanged components might limit how confidently individual model strengths can be isolated in future studies.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The key takeaway is that this paper uses GENIE to benchmark different model combinations for pionless neutrino scattering on argon against MicroBooNE data, but the modularity might hide consistency problems that affect the conclusions. What is new here is the application of GENIE's interchangeable components to the most recent MicroBooNE pionless charged-current measurements. The authors swap things like nucleon form factor parameterizations, quasielastic cross-section calculations, nuclear ground state treatments, and hadronic final-state interactions. They then compare how these setups perform against the data. The paper does a solid job of exploiting the software's flexibility to run these contrasts. It brings out where the more theoretically sophisticated models hold up or lag behind empirical alternatives in a real experimental context. This kind of exercise is practical and can inform tuning decisions for neutrino event generators. The main concern is whether the swapped configurations remain physically consistent. When you change the nuclear ground state, for example, it needs to supply the right inputs for the chosen final-state interaction model. Without explicit checks on four-momentum conservation or matching nuclear densities across the full simulation chain, differences in data agreement could be artifacts of the swap rather than genuine model quality. The abstract does not detail any such validation steps, so I would want to see that addressed in the full text. This paper is for people working on neutrino-nucleus interaction modeling and for experimental collaborations like DUNE that rely on accurate simulations. A reader interested in practical improvements to argon-based detectors would get value from the comparisons. It deserves a serious referee because the subject is timely and the approach is straightforward, even with the open questions around consistency. I recommend sending it to peer review.

Referee Report

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper benchmarks state-of-the-art theoretical and empirical models for pionless charged-current neutrino-argon scattering by using GENIE's modularity to interchange components including nucleon form factor parameterizations, quasielastic cross-section calculations, nuclear ground-state treatments, and final-state interaction models, then comparing the resulting predictions against MicroBooNE pionless CC data.

Significance. If the interchanged configurations remain internally consistent, the work provides a useful systematic evaluation of how sophisticated theoretical components perform relative to empirical alternatives within a standard neutrino event generator. This directly supports model selection for upcoming experiments and leverages GENIE's software architecture as a strength for isolating component effects.

major comments (1)

The central claim requires that swapping model components (e.g., nuclear ground state with a chosen FSI treatment) produces physically consistent event samples. The manuscript does not appear to verify basic consistency conditions such as four-momentum conservation across the full event or compatibility between the spectral function supplied by the nuclear model and the assumptions of the FSI cascade. Any mismatch would produce artifacts misattributed to model quality rather than the interchange itself.

minor comments (1)

The description of quantitative comparison methods (goodness-of-fit metrics, data selection cuts, and uncertainty treatment) should be expanded with explicit formulas or references to standard GENIE analysis tools to allow readers to reproduce the robustness assessment.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thorough review and valuable feedback on our manuscript. We address the major comment point by point below, providing clarifications and indicating revisions where appropriate.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: The central claim requires that swapping model components (e.g., nuclear ground state with a chosen FSI treatment) produces physically consistent event samples. The manuscript does not appear to verify basic consistency conditions such as four-momentum conservation across the full event or compatibility between the spectral function supplied by the nuclear model and the assumptions of the FSI cascade. Any mismatch would produce artifacts misattributed to model quality rather than the interchange itself.

Authors: We agree with the referee that ensuring physical consistency when interchanging model components is crucial for the validity of our comparisons. GENIE's design incorporates mechanisms to maintain four-momentum conservation throughout the event generation, as the primary interaction and FSI are handled sequentially with appropriate kinematics adjustments. Regarding compatibility between the nuclear ground state model (such as the spectral function) and the FSI cascade, the models selected in our study are standard combinations within GENIE that have been validated by the collaboration for internal consistency. However, to make this explicit and address the referee's concern directly, we have revised the manuscript to include a dedicated subsection on consistency verification. This includes reporting on checks for four-momentum conservation in generated events and compatibility assessments for the chosen configurations. We believe this addition will reassure readers that the observed differences are attributable to the model components themselves. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: direct comparisons to external MicroBooNE data

full rationale

The paper benchmarks interchangeable GENIE model components (form factors, quasielastic calculations, nuclear ground states, FSI) by generating predictions and comparing them to independent MicroBooNE pionless CC data. No derivation chain, fitted parameter, or self-citation is used to produce the reported performance metrics; results are obtained from external experimental benchmarks. The analysis is therefore self-contained against outside data and exhibits none of the enumerated circularity patterns.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 1 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central comparisons rest on the validity of the MicroBooNE measurements and on the assumption that GENIE's modular structure preserves physical consistency when components are exchanged. No new free parameters are introduced by the benchmarking itself.

assumptions (1)

domain assumption MicroBooNE pionless charged-current data provide a reliable benchmark for argon neutrino interactions
All model performance claims depend on the accuracy and representativeness of the experimental dataset.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Benchmarking State-of-the-Art Theory and Empirical Models of Pionless Neutrino-Argon Scattering in GENIE." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/B2RSFVDB

@misc{pith2026260514196,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Benchmarking State-of-the-Art Theory and Empirical Models of Pionless Neutrino-Argon Scattering in GENIE},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/B2RSFVDB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2605.14196}
}

read the original abstract

Upcoming experiments need improved simulations of neutrino scattering. This work uses the popular GENIE event generator to test a variety of neutrino interaction models against recent MicroBooNE measurements of pionless charged-current interactions. The GENIE code can easily interchange model components, including nucleon form factor parameterizations, quasielastic cross-section calculations, treatments of the nuclear ground state and hadronic final-state interactions. Leveraging this software capability in comparisons with MicroBooNE data, the performance of some of GENIE's most theoretically sophisticated model components is evaluated and contrasted with more empirically-driven alternatives.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.14196 by the authors.

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

GENIE code can easily interchange model components, including nucleon form factor parameterizations, quasielastic cross-section calculations, treatments of the nuclear ground state and hadronic final-state interactions.
IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/RealityFromDistinction.lean reality_from_one_distinction unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

The more empirical FSI and the LQCD axial form factor give the best results in most cases.

What do these tags mean?

matches: The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports: The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends: The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses: The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts: The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear: Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

Flux-integrated inclusive and pionless cross sections for charged-current neutrino scattering off ${}^{40}\text{Ar}$ at energies available in the MicroBooNE experiment
hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

The RDWIA+MEC approach describes MicroBooNE's measured inclusive and pionless neutrino-argon cross sections within experimental uncertainties.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 54 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

Alvarez-Rusoet al.(NuSTEC), Prog

L. Alvarez-Rusoet al.(NuSTEC), Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.100, 1 (2018)

work page 2018
[2]

Abiet al.(DUNE), JINST15(08), T08008, arXiv:2002.02967 [physics.ins-det]

B. Abiet al.(DUNE), JINST15(08), T08008, arXiv:2002.02967 [physics.ins-det]

work page arXiv 2002
[3]

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

B. Abiet al.(DUNE), Deep Underground Neutrino Ex- periment (DUNE), Far Detector Technical Design Re- port, Volume II: DUNE Physics (2020), arXiv:2002.03005 [hep-ex]

work page arXiv 2020
[4]

Hyper-Kamiokande Design Report

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

work page Pith review arXiv 2018
[5]

Abuslemeet al.(JUNO), Prog

A. Abuslemeet al.(JUNO), Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.123, 103927 (2022), arXiv:2104.02565 [hep-ex]

work page arXiv 2022
[6]

Asaadi, D.A

R. Acciarriet al.(MicroBooNE), JINST12(02), P02017, arXiv:1612.05824 [physics.ins-det]

work page arXiv
[7]

R. Acciarriet al.(MicroBooNE, LAr1-ND, ICARUS- WA104), A Proposal for a Three Detector Short-Baseline Neutrino Oscillation Program in the Fermilab Booster Neutrino Beam (2015), arXiv:1503.01520 [physics.ins- det]

work page arXiv 2015
[8]

D. S. Ayreset al.(NOvA), The NOvA Technical Design Report (2007)

work page 2007

Show all 54 references

[9]

Abeet al.(T2K), Nucl

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

2011
[10]

Andreopoulos, C

C. Andreopoulos, C. Barry, S. Dytman, H. Gallagher, T. Golan, R. Hatcher, G. Perdue, and J. Yarba, The GENIE Neutrino Monte Carlo Generator: Physics and User Manual (2015), arXiv:1510.05494 [hep-ph]

2015 arXiv
[11]

Andreopouloset al., Nucl

C. Andreopouloset al., Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A614, 87 (2010), arXiv:0905.2517 [hep-ph]

2010 arXiv
[12]

Alvarez-Rusoet al.(GENIE), Eur

L. Alvarez-Rusoet al.(GENIE), Eur. Phys. J. ST230, 4449 (2021), arXiv:2106.09381 [hep-ph]

2021
[16]

Filali, L

W. Filali, L. Munteanu, and S. Dolan, Phys. Rev. D111, 032009 (2025), arXiv:2407.10962 [hep-ex]

2025
[17]

Hayato and L

Y. Hayato and L. Pickering, Eur. Phys. J. ST230, 4469 (2021), arXiv:2106.15809 [hep-ph]

2021
[18]

Golan, J

T. Golan, J. T. Sobczyk, and J. Zmuda, Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl.229-232, 499 (2012)

2012
[19]

X. G. Lu, D. Coplowe, R. Shah, G. Barr, D. Wark, and A. Weber, Phys. Rev. D92, 051302 (2015), arXiv:1507.00967 [hep-ex]

2015 arXiv
[20]

Nikolakopoulos, A

A. Nikolakopoulos, A. Ershova, R. Gonz´ alez-Jim´ enez, J. Isaacson, A. M. Kelly, K. Niewczas, N. Rocco, and F. S´ anchez, Phys. Rev. C110, 054611 (2024), arXiv:2406.09244 [nucl-th]

2024
[21]

Isaacson, W

J. Isaacson, W. I. Jay, A. Lovato, P. A. N. Machado, and N. Rocco, Phys. Rev. D107, 033007 (2023), arXiv:2205.06378 [hep-ph]

2023
[22]

This configuration is available in code versions from v3.4.0 up to the current v3.6.2 re- 6 lease

AR23 is an abbreviation of the full GENIE model set specifier AR23 20i 00 000. This configuration is available in code versions from v3.4.0 up to the current v3.6.2 re- 6 lease
[25]

A. S. Meyer, M. Betancourt, R. Gran, and R. J. Hill, Phys. Rev. D93, 113015 (2016), arXiv:1603.03048 [hep- ph]

2016 arXiv
[26]

Benhar, A

O. Benhar, A. Fabrocini, and S. Fantoni, Nucl. Phys. A 505, 267 (1989)

1989
[27]

Benhar, A

O. Benhar, A. Fabrocini, S. Fantoni, and I. Sick, Nucl. Phys. A579, 493 (1994)

1994
[28]

Berger and L

C. Berger and L. M. Sehgal, Phys. Rev. D76, 113004 (2007), arXiv:0709.4378 [hep-ph]

2007 arXiv
[29]

Bodek and U

A. Bodek and U. K. Yang, AIP Conf. Proc.792, 257 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0508007

2005 arXiv
[30]

S. A. Dytman and A. S. Meyer, AIP Conf. Proc.1405, 213 (2011)

2011
[31]

Betancourt, S

M. Betancourt, S. Gardiner, N. Rocco, and N. Stein- berg, Phys. Rev. D108, 113009 (2023), arXiv:2308.15524 [nucl-th]

2023
[32]

E. J. Moniz, I. Sick, R. R. Whitney, J. R. Ficenec, R. D. Kephart, and W. P. Trower, Phys. Rev. Lett.26, 445 (1971)

1971
[33]

Jianget al.(Jefferson Lab Hall A), Phys

L. Jianget al.(Jefferson Lab Hall A), Phys. Rev. D105, 112002 (2022), arXiv:2203.01748 [nucl-ex]

2022
[34]

Jianget al.(Jefferson Lab Hall A), Phys

L. Jianget al.(Jefferson Lab Hall A), Phys. Rev. D107, 012005 (2023), arXiv:2209.14108 [nucl-ex]

2023
[35]

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

2026
[36]

G. D. Megias, M. B. Barbaro, J. A. Caballero, and S. Dolan, Phys. Rev. D99, 113002 (2019), arXiv:1807.10532 [nucl-th]

2019 arXiv
[37]

Cugnon, A

J. Cugnon, A. Boudard, J. C. David, S. Leray, and D. Mancusi, Eur. Phys. J. Plus131, 169 (2016)

2016
[38]

Mancusi, A

D. Mancusi, A. Boudard, J. Carbonell, J. Cugnon, J.-C. David, and S. Leray, Phys. Rev. C91, 034602 (2015), arXiv:1411.4562 [nucl-th]

2015 arXiv
[39]

Ershovaet al., Phys

A. Ershovaet al., Phys. Rev. D108, 112008 (2023), arXiv:2309.05410 [hep-ph]

2023
[41]

Abeet al.(T2K), Phys

K. Abeet al.(T2K), Phys. Rev. D93, 112012 (2016), arXiv:1602.03652 [hep-ex]

2016 arXiv
[42]

Supplemental material is provided at
[44]

Martini, M

M. Martini, M. Ericson, G. Chanfray, and J. Marteau, Phys. Rev. C81, 045502 (2010), arXiv:1002.4538 [hep- ph]

2010 arXiv
[45]

Dytmanet al.(CLAS), Proton Transparency and Neutrino Physics: New Methods and Modeling (2025), arXiv:2508.01905 [hep-ex]

S. Dytmanet al.(CLAS), Proton Transparency and Neutrino Physics: New Methods and Modeling (2025), arXiv:2508.01905 [hep-ex]

2025
[46]

Tena-Vidalet al.(GENIE), Phys

J. Tena-Vidalet al.(GENIE), Phys. Rev. D106, 112001 (2022), arXiv:2206.11050 [hep-ph]

2022
[47]

J. M. Nieves, I. Ruiz Simo, and M. J. Vicente Vacas, Phys. Rev. C83, 045501 (2011), arXiv:1102.2777 [hep- ph]

2011 arXiv
[48]

Gonz´ alez-Jim´ enez, G

R. Gonz´ alez-Jim´ enez, G. D. Megias, M. B. Barbaro, J. A. Caballero, and T. W. Donnelly, Phys. Rev. C90, 035501 (2014), arXiv:1407.8346 [nucl-th]

2014 arXiv
[49]

A. S. Meyeret al.(MINERvA), The Nucleon Ax- ial Form Factor from Elementary Target Data (2025), arXiv:2512.14097 [hep-ex]

2025
[50]

S. G. Mashnik, A. J. Sierk, K. K. Gudima, and M. I. Baznat, J. Phys. Conf. Ser.41, 340 (2006), arXiv:nucl- th/0510070

2006
[51]

Ershovaet al., Phys

A. Ershovaet al., Phys. Rev. D106, 032009 (2022), arXiv:2202.10402 [hep-ph]. Supplemental Materials for Benchmarking State-of-the-Art Theory and Empirical Models of Pionless Neutrino-Argon Scattering in GENIE CORRECTION TO GENIE IMPLEMENT A TION OF THE NIEVES QE MODEL The Niev...

2022
[52]

Nieves, J

J. Nieves, J. E. Amaro, and M. Valverde, Phys. Rev. C70, 055503 (2004), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.C 72, 019902 (2005)], arXiv:nucl-th/0408005

2004 arXiv
[53]

Abratenkoet al.(MicroBooNE), Phys

P. Abratenkoet al.(MicroBooNE), Phys. Rev. D105, 072001 (2022), arXiv:2110.14028 [hep-ex]

2022
[54]

Dolan, G

S. Dolan, G. D. Megias, and S. Bolognesi, Phys. Rev. D101, 033003 (2020), arXiv:1905.08556 [hep-ex]

2020
[55]

R. Gran, J. Nieves, F. Sanchez, and M. J. Vicente Vacas, Phys. Rev. D88, 113007 (2013), arXiv:1307.8105 [hep-ph]

2013 arXiv
[56]

Russo, M

L. Russo, M. Martini, S. Dolan, L. Munteanu, B. Popov, and C. Giganti, Phys. Rev. D113, 012006 (2026), arXiv:2508.13939 [hep-ex]

2026
[57]

Katori, AIP Conf

T. Katori, AIP Conf. Proc.1663, 030001 (2015), arXiv:1304.6014 [nucl-th]

2015 arXiv
[58]

Nikolakopoulos, S

A. Nikolakopoulos, S. Gardiner, A. Papadopoulou, S. Dolan, and R. Gonz´ alez-Jim´ enez, Phys. Sci. Forum8, 10 (2023), arXiv:2302.12182 [nucl-th]

2023
[59]

Abratenkoet al.(MicroBooNE), Phys

P. Abratenkoet al.(MicroBooNE), Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 101802 (2023), arXiv:2301.03706 [hep-ex]. 5

2023
[60]

Abratenkoet al.(MicroBooNE), Phys

P. Abratenkoet al.(MicroBooNE), Phys. Rev. D108, 053002 (2023), arXiv:2301.03700 [hep-ex]

2023
[61]

Abratenkoet al.(MicroBooNE), Phys

P. Abratenkoet al.(MicroBooNE), Phys. Rev. D112, 112004 (2025), arXiv:2403.19574 [hep-ex]

2025

Pith tools

Reviewed May 19, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Alvarez-Rusoet al.(NuSTEC), Prog

L. Alvarez-Rusoet al.(NuSTEC), Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.100, 1 (2018)

work page 2018

[2] [2]

Abiet al.(DUNE), JINST15(08), T08008, arXiv:2002.02967 [physics.ins-det]

B. Abiet al.(DUNE), JINST15(08), T08008, arXiv:2002.02967 [physics.ins-det]

work page arXiv 2002

[3] [3]

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

B. Abiet al.(DUNE), Deep Underground Neutrino Ex- periment (DUNE), Far Detector Technical Design Re- port, Volume II: DUNE Physics (2020), arXiv:2002.03005 [hep-ex]

work page arXiv 2020

[4] [4]

Hyper-Kamiokande Design Report

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

work page Pith review arXiv 2018

[5] [5]

Abuslemeet al.(JUNO), Prog

A. Abuslemeet al.(JUNO), Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.123, 103927 (2022), arXiv:2104.02565 [hep-ex]

work page arXiv 2022

[6] [6]

Asaadi, D.A

R. Acciarriet al.(MicroBooNE), JINST12(02), P02017, arXiv:1612.05824 [physics.ins-det]

work page arXiv

[7] [7]

R. Acciarriet al.(MicroBooNE, LAr1-ND, ICARUS- WA104), A Proposal for a Three Detector Short-Baseline Neutrino Oscillation Program in the Fermilab Booster Neutrino Beam (2015), arXiv:1503.01520 [physics.ins- det]

work page arXiv 2015

[8] [8]

D. S. Ayreset al.(NOvA), The NOvA Technical Design Report (2007)

work page 2007