Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 64 references

Measurement of the $\bar \nu_\mu-$Hydrogen Charged-Current Quasi-Elastic Cross Section using the NOvA Near Detector

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Muon antineutrinos scattering on free protons in the NOvA near detector give a total charged-current quasi-elastic cross section of $0.538 \pm 0.009 \pm 0.010 \pm 0.055 \times 10^{-38}$ cm$^2$ at 1.9 GeV, the most precise measurement of…

desk verdict First genuinely precise total cross section for antineutrino-hydrogen CCQE; a solid measurement whose main soft spot is the untested transfer of the 30% control-region background correction. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.12293 v1 pith:K43P6K3H submitted 2026-08-12 hep-ex hep-ph

The NOvA Collaboration This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-exhep-ph
keywords antineutrinocharged-currentquasi-elasticscatteringhydrogentargetcrosssectionNOvAneardetectorNuMIbeamneutrondetectioncontrolregiondatacorrectionsneutrinofluxuncertainty
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper reports the most precise measurement to date of the total rate for muon antineutrinos scattering off free protons to produce a muon and a neutron, at a flux-averaged energy of 1.9 GeV. Using 35,509 signal events identified after background subtraction in the hydrogen-rich material of the NOvA near detector, the collaboration extracts a cross section of $0.538 \pm 0.009 \pm 0.010 \pm 0.055 \times 10^{-38}$ cm$^2$. Because the target is a single free proton, the result is a nuclear-model-free benchmark for antineutrino-nucleus calculations. Its 2.5% combined statistical and non-flux systematic uncertainty is more than four times smaller than the flux uncertainty, which is why the paper argues the measurement can be used to constrain the absolute muon-antineutrino flux in future analyses.

What carries the argument

The analysis is carried by a signal-region/control-region design built on two boosted-decision-tree discriminants. HitID encodes topological information about hit patterns and energy deposits near the vertex and around the neutron candidate, while KineID encodes global event kinematics derived from the assumed two-body final state, including transverse momentum balance and the opening angle between the muon and the neutron. Control regions with background compositions similar to the signal region are used to measure in data the efficiencies of the sequential cuts, and correction factors $\kappa = \varepsilon_{Data}^{CR}/\varepsilon_{MC}^{CR}$ are applied to the simulated background efficiencies in Eq. (4). These correction factors are anticorrelated with Monte Carlo variations, so that systematic shifts of up to about 60% in the simulation are compensated and the background systematic uncertainty is reduced by roughly an order of magnitude.

What would settle it

Move the signal-region boundaries in the HitID-KineID plane and check that the extracted cross section stays constant within quoted uncertainties; a significant drift would indicate that the control-region corrections do not transfer, and the background composition difference between the regions could be tested directly against an independent high-statistics simulation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the NOvA near detector has observed $\bar\nu_\mu$-hydrogen charged-current quasi-elastic scattering, $\bar\nu_\mu \mathrm{H} \to \mu^+ n$, in a $1.2 \times 10^{21}$ proton-on-target exposure and measured its total cross section with the highest statistics and best precision achieved for this process. After background subtraction, 35,509 signal events remain, and the flux-averaged cross section at 1.9 GeV is $\sigma(\bar\nu_\mu \mathrm{H} \to \mu^+ n) = 0.538 \pm 0.009 \pm 0.010 \pm 0.055 \times 10^{-38}$ cm$^2$, where the uncertainties are statistical, non-flux systematic, and flux, respectively. The combined statistical and non-flux systematic uncertainty of 2.5% is more than four times smaller than the 10.2% integrated-flux uncertainty, so the measurement is limited by knowledge of the beam rather than by the extraction of the signal.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that each control region has a background composition similar enough to the signal region that efficiency corrections measured there apply to the signal background; if the compositions differ, the corrections (notably $k_{\rm HitID} = 1.30$ for contained events) would bias the subtracted background and shift the cross section.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The new cross-section value replaces a 13-event bubble-chamber measurement as the reference point for $\bar\nu_\mu$-hydrogen charged-current quasi-elastic scattering near 2 GeV.
  • The 2.5% combined statistical and non-flux systematic precision makes the measurement a usable absolute-flux constraint for future neutrino oscillation analyses, as the paper expressly states.
  • The demonstrated stability of the data corrections against large Monte Carlo variations supports applying the same control-region technique to other channels and to detectors with composite targets.
  • Comparison of the measured value with generator predictions based on the Llewellyn-Smith model with a $z$-expansion axial form factor tests the modeling of the free-nucleon axial current at this energy.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct extension would be to apply the same selection to neutrino-beam-mode data and extract the $\nu_\mu$ hydrogen cross section; the ratio of the two measurements would test the $q^2$ dependence of the axial form factor in a way that largely cancels flux uncertainty.
  • If the control-region similarity assumption holds, a larger exposure could push the non-flux uncertainty below 2%, making the hydrogen cross section one of the sharpest handles on the neutrino energy scale in long-baseline detectors.
  • The result implicitly sharpens nuclear-model constraints: any generator that matches this free-proton point while mismodeling events on carbon and chlorine is forced to attribute the difference to nuclear effects, separating free-nucleon from in-medium physics.
  • A natural cross-check is to move the signal-region boundaries in the HitID-KineID plane and confirm the extracted cross section is stable; a drift would indicate the background corrections do not transfer from control to signal regions.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper reports a measurement of the total cross section for the exclusive charged-current quasi-elastic process antineutrino-muon on hydrogen, \bar\nu_\mu H -> \mu^+ n, using the NOvA near detector with a 1.2x10^21 proton-on-target exposure. Events are selected in two mutually exclusive samples (contained and uncontained muons) using two BDT discriminants, HitID and KineID, with a blinded signal region and control regions used to derive data-driven corrections to simulated backgrounds. After background subtraction, the combined sample yields 35,509 signal events, and the cross section is extracted from a simple counting formula. The final flux-averaged result is 0.538 +/- 0.009 (stat) +/- 0.010 (syst) +/- 0.055 (flux) x 10^-38 cm^2 at an average energy of 1.9 GeV, claimed as the most precise measurement of this process to date.

Significance. This measurement is scientifically valuable: it provides the highest-statistics sample of (anti)neutrino-hydrogen interactions measured to date and a nuclear-model-free cross-section benchmark at 1.9 GeV, complementing the existing BNL and MINERvA measurements. The authors have blinded the signal region, repeated the full analysis for each systematic variation, and provided a data release, all of which strengthen reproducibility. The main limitation in the current manuscript is the unquantified transfer of data-driven correction factors from control regions to the signal region; because the signal purity is modest (41% contained, 36% uncontained), the precision of the final result rests on this assumption.

major comments (3)
  1. [Data Corrections; Eq. (4); Table II] The assumption that the control-region corrections transfer to the signal region is not quantitatively validated. For the contained sample, k_HitID = 1.30 and backgrounds outnumber signal by 27,839 to 15,103; a 2% error in the transferred correction factor would shift the subtracted background by about 3.7% of the signal, which is comparable to the 10.2% flux uncertainty and far larger than the quoted 1.2% background systematic. The fake-data tests in Fig. 3 and Fig. S6 generate both control and signal regions from the same simulation, so they verify compensation of model variations but cannot detect a data-MC mismatch in the relative background composition between the regions. Please add a quantitative similarity metric (e.g., a composition-weighted closure test), vary the control-region definitions, or assign an explicit systematic uncertainty to the transfer.
  2. [Event Selection; Eqs. (1)-(3)] The momentum reconstruction for the uncontained sample is not described. The text quotes a 3.5% range-based momentum resolution only for tracks stopping in the detector, while uncontained muons exit the detector; nevertheless the uncontained sample provides 20,670 of the 35,509 signal events and KineID and the calculated neutron kinematics depend on the muon momentum p_mu. Please specify how the muon momentum and its resolution are obtained for exiting tracks, including any use of the downstream muon detector, and how the associated uncertainties enter Table II.
  3. [Data Corrections; Eq. (5)] The k_HitID and k_KineID corrections are applied only to background efficiencies, while the signal efficiency epsilon_QEH in Eq. (5) is taken from Monte Carlo without a data-driven correction. Because epsilon_QEH is only 3.6% (contained) and 4.8% (uncontained), a small data-MC difference in the BDT response for signal events propagates directly into the measured cross section. The quoted QEH modeling uncertainty and the fake-data tests do not directly constrain this data-MC difference; please provide a validation of the signal efficiency using a signal-enriched sideband or add an explicit systematic uncertainty.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Supplemental Material] In the supplemental text, the reference to 'Figure S6' for the efficiency and purity plots appears to be a typo; the corresponding caption is FIG. S5, while FIG. S6 shows the correlation plot.
  2. [References] Reference [62], cited for the best linear unbiased estimator, is unusual (D. S. Huang, Regression and econometric methods, Wiley, 1930) and should be replaced with a standard citation for BLUE or Gauss-Markov estimation.
  3. [Event Selection] The acronyms CCQE and QEH are both used throughout; please define QEH at first use and consistently distinguish it from charged-current quasi-elastic interactions on nuclear targets.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the cross section is defined from observed event counts, background estimates, efficiency, flux, and target mass, none of which is the target result by construction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained against external benchmarks. Equation (5), sigma_QEH = (N_Data - N_Bkg)/(epsilon_QEH * Phi * N_H), defines the measured cross section directly from data counts in the signal region, a background estimate obtained from data control regions, a simulated signal efficiency, the integrated flux, and the number of hydrogen atoms in the fiducial volume. The target result is not an input to this equation: the GENIE/Llewellyn-Smith model enters only through the signal efficiency and background shape, and the BNL measurement [12] is used only for comparison. The data-driven corrections k_nc, k_HitID, and k_KineID are ratios of data-to-MC efficiencies measured in control regions and are then applied to MC background predictions; this is a standard data-side background normalization, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The possible imperfection of transferring these corrections from control regions to the signal region, noted in the Event Selection section ('the corresponding background compositions to be similar'), is a systematic-uncertainty concern, not a circularity, because the central number is not defined by that transfer. The citation of the selection technique [9] by overlapping authors is method reuse: the cited work provides a previously published event-selection idea, but the cross-section extraction does not reduce to that citation. No uniqueness claim, ansatz smuggling, or renaming of a known result was found. Therefore the paper warrants a circularity score of 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The measurement rests on a standard detector simulation, a data-driven background transfer assumption, and an external flux prediction. The only numbers fitted to data are the three correction factors k_nc, k_HitID, and k_KineID, plus inherited GENIE reweight parameters from [45]. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • k_nc neutron detection correction = 0.90 (contained), 0.93 (uncontained)
    Ratio of data to MC at the neutron-candidate level after subtracting about 7% QEH content; applied to both signal and background to correct neutron detection efficiency and interaction rate.
  • k_HitID topological correction = 1.30 (contained), 1.11 (uncontained)
    Data/MC ratio of background efficiency for the HitID cut, measured in the HitID control region; applied to backgrounds only.
  • k_KineID kinematic correction = 0.87 (contained), 1.01 (uncontained)
    Data/MC ratio of background efficiency for the KineID cut, measured in the KineID control region; applied to backgrounds only.
  • GENIE MEC and FSI reweight parameters = central values from NOvA inclusive CC tune [45]
    The GENIE prediction is reweighted to match inclusive CC data in neutrino-beam mode, then used unchanged for antineutrino-beam data; these weights affect background composition and signal efficiency.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The QEH signal and its selection efficiency are described by GENIE v3.0.6 with the Llewellyn-Smith model and z-expansion axial form factor.
    Used for signal efficiency, background templates, and BDT training; a mis-modeled signal shape would shift the extracted cross section. The quoted QEH modeling systematic (0.8-1.3%) covers parameter variations but not an overall wrong signal model.
  • domain assumption Background compositions in the control regions match those in the signal region, so the k_cut corrections transfer.
    The Event Selection section requires similar compositions; this transfer is the basis for the data-driven background subtraction. A composition mismatch directly biases N_Bkg in Eq. (5).
  • domain assumption The NuMI flux prediction from Geant4 plus PPFX gives an unbiased absolute antineutrino flux with a 10.2% uncertainty.
    The cross section is divided by the integrated flux in Eq. (5); the flux uncertainty is the largest term in the result and dominates the total uncertainty.
  • domain assumption The reconstructed muon momentum and angle are unbiased within the quoted scales of 1.2% and 2.5 mrad.
    Eqs. (1)-(3) derive the neutron kinematics from the muon; any remaining bias propagates into neutron selection and efficiency.
  • domain assumption The target proton is at rest, so Eqs. (1)-(3) define the correct neutron line-of-flight.
    This is the defining signature of hydrogen QEH; nuclear-bound protons would not satisfy these equations, and those events are treated as background.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Measurement of the $\bar \nu_\mu-$Hydrogen Charged-Current Quasi-Elastic Cross Section using the NOvA Near Detector." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/K43P6K3H

@misc{pith2026260812293,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Measurement of the $\bar \nu_\mu-$Hydrogen Charged-Current Quasi-Elastic Cross Section using the NOvA Near Detector},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/K43P6K3H}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.12293}
}
abstract

We report a measurement of the total cross section for muon antineutrino charged-current quasi-elastic scattering on hydrogen, $\bar \nu_\mu {\rm H} \to \mu^+ n$, in the NOvA near detector using a $1.2\times10^{21}$ proton-on-target exposure in the NuMI beam. A selection based on topological and kinematic constraints yields 35,509 signal events in the hydrogen-rich ($10.8\%$) detector, providing the highest statistics of (anti)neutrino--hydrogen interactions measured to date. Backgrounds from (anti)neutrino interactions on heavier nuclei are constrained using dedicated data control samples, significantly reducing the related systematic uncertainties. We obtain a value $\sigma (\bar \nu_\mu {\rm H} \to \mu^+ n) = 0.538 \pm 0.009 ({\rm stat}) \pm 0.010 ({\rm syst}) \pm0.055 ({\rm flux}) \times 10^{-38}$ cm$^2$ for the total cross section at an average energy of 1.9 GeV, the most precise total cross-section measurement of this process to date. The combined statistical and non-flux systematic uncertainty is more than four times smaller than the flux uncertainty, allowing a future use of this measurement to constrain the absolute $\bar \nu_\mu$ flux.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.12293 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Example of selected QEH candidate from NOvA data. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Definition of the signal region (SR) and control re [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Variations in the background predictions for con [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Flux-averaged total cross section for the exclusive [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

  1. [9]

    Duyang, B

    H. Duyang, B. Guo, S. R. Mishra, and R. Petti, Eur. Phys. J. Plus139, 1014 (2024), arXiv:1809.08752 [hep- ph]

    arXiv 2024

  2. [1]

    Abubakaret al.(T2K, NOvA), Nature646, 818 (2025), arXiv:2510.19888 [hep-ex]

    S. Abubakaret al.(T2K, NOvA), Nature646, 818 (2025), arXiv:2510.19888 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2025

  3. [2]

    Abubakaret al.(NOvA), Phys

    S. Abubakaret al.(NOvA), Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 011802 (2026), arXiv:2509.04361 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2026

  4. [3]

    Abeet al.(T2K), Eur

    K. Abeet al.(T2K), Eur. Phys. J. C83, 782 (2023), arXiv:2303.03222 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2023

  5. [4]

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

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

    arXiv 2020

  6. [5]

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

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

    arXiv 2018

  7. [6]

    Probing Free Nucleons with (Anti)neutrinos

    R. Petti, Phys. Lett. B834, 137469 (2022), arXiv:2205.10396 [hep-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2022

  8. [7]

    Duyang, B

    H. Duyang, B. Guo, S. R. Mishra, and R. Petti, Phys. Lett.B795, 424 (2019), arXiv:1902.09480 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2019

Show all 64 references
  1. [8]

    Petti, R

    R. Petti, R. J. Hill, and O. Tomalak, Phys. Rev. D109, L051301 (2024), arXiv:2309.02509 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Navaset al.(Particle Data Group), Phys

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

    2024

  3. [11]

    Lyubushkinet al.(NOMAD), Eur

    V. Lyubushkinet al.(NOMAD), Eur. Phys. J. C63, 355 (2009), arXiv:0812.4543 [hep-ex]

    2009 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Fanourakis, L

    G. Fanourakis, L. K. Resvanis, G. Grammatikakis, P. Tsilimigras, A. Vayaki, U. Camerini, W. F. Fry, R. J. Loveless, J. H. Mapp, and D. D. Reeder, Phys. Rev. D 21, 562 (1980)

    1980

  5. [13]

    Caiet al.(MINERvA), Nature614, 48 (2023)

    T. Caiet al.(MINERvA), Nature614, 48 (2023)

    2023

  6. [14]

    Adamsonet al., Nucl

    P. Adamsonet al., Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A806, 279 (2016), arXiv:1507.06690 [physics.acc-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Mufsonet al., Nucl

    S. Mufsonet al., Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A799, 1 (2015)

    2015

  8. [16]

    Agostinelliet al., Nucl

    S. Agostinelliet al., Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A506, 250 (2003)

    2003

  9. [17]

    Aliagaet al.(MINERvA), Phys

    L. Aliagaet al.(MINERvA), Phys. Rev. D94, 092005 (2016), [Addendum: Phys. Rev. D95039903 (2017)], arXiv:1607.00704 [hep-ex]

    2016 arXiv

  10. [18]

    J. M. Paleyet al.(MIPP), Phys. Rev. D90, 032001 (2014), arXiv:1404.5882 [hep-ex]

    2014 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Altet al.(NA49), Eur

    C. Altet al.(NA49), Eur. Phys. J. C49, 897 (2007), arXiv:hep-ex/0606028

    2007 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Abgrallet al.(NA61/SHINE), Phys

    N. Abgrallet al.(NA61/SHINE), Phys. Rev. C84, 034604 (2011), arXiv:1102.0983 [hep-ex]

    2011 arXiv

  13. [21]

    D. S. Bartonet al., Phys. Rev. D27, 2580 (1983)

    1983

  14. [22]

    S. M. Seun,Measurement ofπ−Kratios from the NuMI target, Ph.D. thesis, Harvard U. (2007)

    2007

  15. [23]

    G. M. Tinti,Sterile neutrino oscillations in MINOS and hadron production in pC collisions, Ph.D. thesis, Univer- sity of Oxford (2010)

    2010

  16. [24]

    A. V. Lebedev,Ratio of pion kaon production in proton carbon interactions, Ph.D. thesis, Harvard U. (2007)

    2007

  17. [25]

    Baataret al.(NA49), Eur

    B. Baataret al.(NA49), Eur. Phys. J. C73, 2364 (2013), arXiv:1207.6520 [hep-ex]

    2013 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Skubicet al., Phys

    P. Skubicet al., Phys. Rev. D18, 3115 (1978)

    1978

  19. [27]

    S. P. Denisov, S. V. Donskov, Y. P. Gorin, R. N. Kras- nokutsky, A. I. Petrukhin, Y. D. Prokoshkin, and D. A. Stoyanova, Nucl. Phys. B61, 62 (1973)

    1973

  20. [28]

    A. S. Carrollet al., Phys. Lett. B80, 319 (1979)

    1979

  21. [29]

    Abeet al.(T2K), Phys

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

    2013 arXiv

  22. [30]

    T. K. Gaisser, G. B. Yodh, V. D. Barger, and F. Halzen, in14th International Cosmic Ray Conference(1975)

    1975

  23. [31]

    J. W. Cronin, R. Cool, and A. Abashian, Phys. Rev. 107, 1121 (1957)

    1957

  24. [32]

    J. V. Allabyet al.(IHEP-CERN), Phys. Lett. B30, 500 (1969)

    1969

  25. [33]

    M. J. Longo and B. J. Moyer, Phys. Rev.125, 701 (1962)

    1962

  26. [34]

    B. M. Bobchenkoet al., Sov. J. Nucl. Phys.30, 805 (1979)

    1979

  27. [35]

    V. B. Fedorov, Y. G. Grishuk, M. V. Kosov, G. A. Leksin, N. A. Pivnyuk, S. V. Shevchenko, V. L. Stolin, A. V. Vlasov, and L. S. Vorobev, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys.27, 222 (1978)

    1978

  28. [36]

    R. J. Abrams, R. L. Cool, G. Giacomelli, T. F. Kycia, B. A. Leontic, K. K. Li, and D. N. Michael, Phys. Rev. D1, 1917 (1970)

    1970

  29. [37]

    Tena-Vidalet al.(GENIE), Phys

    J. Tena-Vidalet al.(GENIE), Phys. Rev. D104, 072009 (2021), arXiv:2104.09179 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  30. [38]

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

    1972

  31. [39]

    A. S. Meyeret al., Phys. Rev. D93, 113015 (2016), arXiv:1603.03048 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Nieves, I

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

    2011 arXiv

  33. [41]

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

    2013 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Berger and L

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

    2007 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Bodek and U

    A. Bodek and U. K. Yang, Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl. 112, 70 (2002), arXiv:hep-ex/0203009

    2002 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Andreopoulos, C

    C. Andreopoulos, C. Barry, S. Dytman, H. Gallagher, T. Golan, R. Hatcher, G. Perdue, and J. Yarba, (2015), arXiv:1510.05494 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  37. [45]

    M. A. Aceroet al.(NOvA, R. Group), Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 1119 (2020), arXiv:2006.08727 [hep-ex]

    2020

  38. [46]

    M. A. Aceroet al.(NOvA), Phys. Rev. D111, 052009 (2025), arXiv:2410.05526 [hep-ex]

    2025 arXiv

  39. [47]

    B. W. Allardyceet al., Nucl. Phys. A209, 1 (1973)

    1973

  40. [48]

    Saunders, S

    A. Saunders, S. Hoeibraten, J. J. Kraushaar, B. J. Kriss, 8 R. J. Peterson, R. A. Ristinen, J. T. Brack, G. Hofman, E. F. Gibson, and C. L. Morris, Phys. Rev. C53, 1745 (1996)

    1996

  41. [49]

    Meirav, E

    O. Meirav, E. Friedman, R. R. Johnson, R. Olszewski, and P. Weber, Phys. Rev. C40, 843 (1989)

    1989

  42. [50]

    S. M. Levensonet al., Phys. Rev. C28, 326 (1983)

    1983

  43. [51]

    Ashery, I

    D. Ashery, I. Navon, G. Azuelos, H. K. Walter, H. J. Pfeiffer, and F. W. Schleputz, Phys. Rev. C23, 2173 (1981)

    1981

  44. [52]

    Asheryet al., Phys

    D. Asheryet al., Phys. Rev. C30, 946 (1984)

    1984

  45. [53]

    E. S. Pinzon Guerraet al.(DUET), Phys. Rev. C95, 045203 (2017), arXiv:1611.05612 [hep-ex]

    2017 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Aurisano, C

    A. Aurisano, C. Backhouse, R. Hatcher, N. Mayer, J. Musser, R. Patterson, R. Schroeter, and A. Sousa (NOvA),Proceedings, 21st International Conference on Computing in High Energy and Nuclear Physics (CHEP 2015): Okinawa, Japan, April 13-17, 2015, J. Phys. Conf. Ser.664, 072002 (2015)

    2015

  47. [55]

    Bairdet al.,Proceedings, 21st International Confer- ence on Computing in High Energy and Nuclear Physics (CHEP 2015): Okinawa, Japan, April 13-17, 2015, J

    M. Bairdet al.,Proceedings, 21st International Confer- ence on Computing in High Energy and Nuclear Physics (CHEP 2015): Okinawa, Japan, April 13-17, 2015, J. Phys. Conf. Ser.664, 072035 (2015)

    2015

  48. [56]

    M. A. Aceroet al.(NOvA), Phys. Rev. D107, 052011 (2023), arXiv:2109.12220 [hep-ex]

    2023 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Hoecker, P

    A. Hoecker, P. Speckmayer, J. Stelzer, J. Therhaag, E. von Toerne, and H. Voss, PoSACA T, 040 (2007), arXiv:physics/0703039

    2007 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Astieret al.(NOMAD), Nucl

    P. Astieret al.(NOMAD), Nucl. Phys. B611, 3 (2001), arXiv:hep-ex/0106102

    2001 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Eurisol design study,

    B. Roeder, “Eurisol design study,” Report No. 10-25- 2008-006

    2008

  52. [60]

    Kohleyet al., Nucl

    Z. Kohleyet al., Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A682, 59 (2012)

    2012

  53. [61]

    Strait, S

    M. Strait, S. Bending, K. Kephart, and P. Lukens (NOvA), (2019), arXiv:1902.02805 [physics.ins-det]

    2019 arXiv

  54. [62]

    D. S. Huang,Regression and econometric methods(Wi- ley, New York, 1930)

    1930

  55. [63]

    Talukdar, Ph.D

    N. Talukdar, Ph.D. thesis, University of South Carolina, USA (2026)

    2026

  56. [64]

    NOvA Data Release Webpage,

    M. Aceroet al.(NOvA), “NOvA Data Release Webpage,”https://novaexperiment.fnal.gov/ data-releases/. S1 SUPPLEMENT AL MA TERIAL FOR THE MEASUREMENT OF THE¯ν µ−HYDROGEN CHARGED-CURRENT QUASI-ELASTIC CROSS SECTION USING THE NOV A NEAR DETECTOR This supplemental material provides a...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.