Neutrino nucleus Quasi-Elastic and resonant Neutral Current scatterings with Non-Standard Interactions

Mehran Dehpour; Saeed Abbaslu; Sahar Safari; Yasaman Farzan

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Neutrino nucleus Quasi-Elastic and resonant Neutral Current scatterings with Non-Standard Interactions

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that axial neutral-current non-standard interactions can produce >30% deviations in quasi-elastic neutrino-nucleus scattering that are separable from form-factor uncertainties, and that KamLAND atmospheric data may…

desk verdict Solid axial-NSI phenomenology with two genuinely new probes, but the headline '30% excess' criterion and the KamLAND bound are softer than they look. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.13349 v2 pith:PWDLZOIS submitted 2024-12-17 hep-ph nucl-th

Saeed Abbaslu , Mehran Dehpour , Yasaman Farzan , Sahar Safari This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-phnucl-th

keywords non-standardinteractionsneutral-currentscatteringquasi-elasticneutrinoaxialformfactorsstrangefactorneutrino-nucleusKamLANDatmosphericneutrinosresonance

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 asks whether neutral-current non-standard interactions (NSI) of neutrinos with quarks, specifically the poorly constrained axial couplings, can be extracted from quasi-elastic and resonant neutrino-nucleus scattering rather than being buried in nucleon form-factor uncertainties. It argues that the isoscalar axial combination $(\epsilon^{Au}_{\tau\tau}+\epsilon^{Ad}_{\tau\tau})/2$, which can be of order one, dramatically changes the $\nu_\tau + N \to \nu_\tau + N$ cross section, and that an excess above about 30% in the quasi-elastic neutral-current cross section off argon would be a clean signature of such isoscalar axial NSI. It also shows that isovector axial NSI can produce excesses or deficits up to about 30%, and that the $\Delta$ resonance, which only feels isovector currents, can serve as a discriminator. On the extraction side, the paper argues that two existing or near-term probes, KamLAND atmospheric neutrinos used to determine $g_A^s$ and a future precision measurement of the vector strange form factor $F_1^s$, can already bound, or be misled by, these couplings. A sympathetic reader would care because these axial NSI parameters are among the least constrained new-physics couplings and could be probed by data that already exist.

What carries the argument

The central object is the NSI-shifted axial nucleon form factor $\widetilde{F}_A^N$: in the quasi-elastic amplitude the axial current of the proton and neutron is replaced by combinations of the Standard Model axial form factor $F_A$, the strange axial form factor $F_A^s$, and the octet form factor $F_A^{(8)}$, with coefficients set by the axial NSI parameters $\epsilon^{Au}_{\alpha\beta}$, $\epsilon^{Ad}_{\alpha\beta}$, and $\epsilon^{As}_{\alpha\beta}$. This object carries the argument because all quasi-elastic sensitivity to axial NSI is filtered through it, and because proton and neutron contributions to scattering off an almost-isoscalar nucleus like argon cancel for isovector NSI but add for isoscalar NSI, which is why the two cases have different signatures and different form-factor-error sensitivities. The companion machinery is the nuclear-correction factor $\alpha(Q^2,E_\nu)$, defined as the ratio of the nuclear cross section to the free-nucleon cross section and treated as independent of the axial form factors, which lets cross-section shifts computed for free nucleons be carried over to scattering off argon.

What would settle it

A full spectral re-fit of the KamLAND atmospheric neutrino sample used in Ref. [37], with $(\epsilon^{Au}_{\tau\tau}+\epsilon^{Ad}_{\tau\tau})/2$ as a free parameter, settles the claimed O(0.3) bound: if the 95% allowed interval for the NSI combination remains wider than about 0.3 under that fit, the paper's scaling estimate is not a real constraint.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that axial neutral-current NSI leave a recognizable imprint in neutrino-nucleus scattering once form-factor information from lattice QCD, charged-lepton scattering, and $\beta$ decay is used as independent input. In the quasi-elastic channel, every axial NSI coupling enters through redefined axial form factors $\widetilde{F}_A^p$ and $\widetilde{F}_A^n$; the isoscalar combination $\epsilon^{Au}_{\alpha\alpha}+\epsilon^{Ad}_{\alpha\alpha}$ brings in the octet form factor $F_A^{(8)}$, whose lattice value is used as input. The paper finds that for argon an isoscalar axial NSI at the present O(1) bounds produces an excess in the quasi-elastic neutral-current cross section that can exceed 30%, while the allowed isovector axial NSI can at most produce roughly a 30% excess or deficit; hence a >30% excess singles out isoscalar axial NSI. Because the $\Delta$ resonance current is purely isovector, the $\nu+N\to\nu+\Delta$ reaction is blind to isoscalar axial NSI and can break the remaining ambiguity. The paper also claims that the KamLAND atmospheric sample already constrains $\epsilon^{Au}_{\tau\tau}+\epsilon^{Ad}_{\tau\tau}$ at about 0.3, and that a future $\nu_\mu$ quasi-elastic measurement returning $F_1^s\sim 0.01$ would be a sign of vector NSI couplings $\epsilon^{Vu}_{\mu\mu}$ or $\epsilon^{Vd}_{\mu\mu}$ near 0.01 rather than genuine strangeness.

Load-bearing premise

The estimate that KamLAND can already bound $\epsilon^{Au}_{\tau\tau}+\epsilon^{Ad}_{\tau\tau}$ at about 0.3 rests on assuming the published $g_s^A$ uncertainty is purely statistical, scales as $1/\sqrt{N}$ when only about a quarter of the events are $\nu_\tau$, and maps linearly onto the NSI combination; the paper itself labels this an over-simplification.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A quasi-elastic neutral-current cross-section measurement off argon at a long-baseline detector that finds an excess above about 30% over the Standard Model would be evidence for isoscalar axial NSI rather than a form-factor artifact.
An observed deficit in the same channel must stay below about 30% if it is to be explained by axial NSI; a larger deficit requires new physics beyond these couplings.
The $\Delta$ resonance channel can act as a control: isoscalar axial NSI leave it unaffected, so a large quasi-elastic excess with no corresponding shift in the resonance channel selects the isoscalar interpretation.
A future precise $\nu_\mu$ neutral-current quasi-elastic measurement returning $F_1^s \sim 0.01$ would indicate $\epsilon^{Vu}_{\mu\mu}$ and/or $\epsilon^{Vd}_{\mu\mu}$ at the $10^{-2}$ level, close to existing oscillation and coherent-scattering bounds.
A re-analysis of KamLAND atmospheric neutrino data with $E_\nu < 1$ GeV could set a bound $|\epsilon^{Au}_{\tau\tau}+\epsilon^{Ad}_{\tau\tau}| \lesssim 0.3$, stronger than current limits on that combination.

Reading between the lines

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

Editorial extension: the argon cancellation that suppresses sensitivity to $g_s^A$ and $\epsilon^{As}$ relies on $Z \simeq A/2$, so a target with visible neutron excess or a free-proton target should lift the cancellation and give a cleaner probe of the strange-axial and isoscalar-axial combinations than the argon curves alone.
Editorial extension: the claimed KamLAND bound could be checked without new data by re-fitting the published atmospheric sample with $(\epsilon^{Au}_{\tau\tau}+\epsilon^{Ad}_{\tau\tau})/2$ as a free parameter; a full spectral fit would either confirm the 0.3-level bound or reveal that the paper's scaling estimate was optimistic.
Editorial extension: because isoscalar axial NSI produces only an excess while isovector axial NSI can produce either sign, the sign and size of a single high-statistics deviation divides the possible new-physics parameter space into disjoint regions, providing a quick model-discrimination rule for future exposures.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague,

The one thing to know: this is a genuinely useful paper on axial NC NSI, not a dud, but the headline diagnostic '>30% excess implies isoscalar axial NSI' is not as clean as the summary makes it sound. The 2p-2h omission in the GiBUU baseline is the reason.

What's new: the paper works out how axial NSI enters QE and resonance NC scattering, including the isoscalar F_A^(8) form factor, which is usually dropped. The replacement formulas (24)-(27) are consistent with the SM limit and isospin relations, and the analysis showing that isovector axial NSI uncertainties cancel on argon while isoscalar ones do not is a real observation. The reinterpretation of KamLAND's g_s^A extraction as a bound on epsilon_tau tau^Au + epsilon_tau tau^Ad is new, and so is the point that a future F_1^s ~ 0.01 would be a vector-NSI signal. I also credit the public GiBUU modifications in the repo; that's reproducible work.

Soft spots, in order. First, the 30% excess criterion. The SM baseline in Figs. 2 and 3 omits 2p-2h, and the text says so. At argon QE energies, 2p-2h is known to add tens of percent to the rate. A measured excess above that baseline therefore does not uniquely point to isoscalar axial NSI. This is a genuine overreach in the summary; the differential shape and the isovector deficit logic are less affected. Second, the KamLAND bound is a back-of-envelope scaling of ±0.25 uncertainty on g_s^A with 1/sqrt(N) and a 1/4 nu_tau fraction. The authors themselves call it 'of course an over-simplification.' It's an interesting suggestion, not a demonstrated constraint, so the abstract's 'can already constrain' should be read with that in mind. Third, the alpha(Q^2,E_nu) factorization of nuclear effects is tested at the 10% level only; the quoted cross-section bands inherit that systematic.

These are real but mostly acknowledged limitations. The central formalism is sound, the new probes are well motivated, and the paper is honest about most of its cuts. It deserves a serious referee, and a revision that either includes 2p-2h in the baseline or qualifies the 30% claim would substantially strengthen it. For anyone working on NSI phenomenology at DUNE, JUNO, or T2HK, this is worth reading. I'd bring it to the group.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper examines how neutral-current non-standard interactions (NSI) of neutrinos with quarks affect quasi-elastic (QE) and resonant neutrino-nucleus scattering, with emphasis on axial couplings. It rewrites the NC hadronic current in the presence of NSI in terms of shifted nucleon form factors, identifies the isoscalar axial combination (epsilon^Au + epsilon^Ad) that enters through the octet form factor F_8^(A), and uses the GiBUU event generator to compute cross sections for argon targets. It also presents two new probes: reinterpretation of a future measurement of F_1^s ~ 0.01 as vector NSI, and a rough rescaling of the KamLAND g_s^A extraction to bound isoscalar axial NSI. The main quantitative results are the QE cross-section bands for representative NSI values, the conclusion that isoscalar axial NSI produces only excesses while isovector NSI can produce excesses or deficits, and the summary-level criterion that a >30% excess can be interpreted as isoscalar axial NSI.

Significance. If the cross-section results hold, the paper provides a useful framework for interpreting NC QE and resonance measurements in the presence of axial NSI: the form-factor replacement formulas (Eqs. 24-27) correctly reduce to the SM limit, and the identification of the isoscalar combination entering through F_8^(A) is an instructive observation. The use of an external event generator and the public availability of the modified code (github.com/dehpour/NC-NSI-GiBUU) are strengths. However, the two headline new probes are not yet quantitatively supported: the KamLAND bound rests on an explicitly oversimplified statistical scaling, and the 30% excess criterion uses a SM baseline without 2p-2h contributions. The paper is a useful contribution to the discussion but needs revision before the claims can be accepted at face value.

major comments (3)

[Section V and Section VI] The summary states that 'an excess of more than 30% can be interpreted as axial isoscalar NSI' (Section VI), but the SM baseline in Figs. 2 and 3 is computed omitting 2p-2h excitations, as explicitly stated in Section V ('For the illustrative purposes, we omit the contribution from two particles-two holes (2p-2h) excitations'). Since 2p-2h processes are known to contribute at the tens-of-percent level to QE-like NC cross sections in argon at these energies, a measured excess over this baseline could arise from standard-model nuclear physics rather than NSI. The authors should either include 2p-2h in the baseline (they note GiBUU can do so, Ref. [46]) or explicitly quantify its shift on the bands before making the 30% diagnostic claim.
[Section IV.A] The estimate that KamLAND can already constrain |epsilon^Au_tautau + epsilon^Ad_tautau| at the ~0.3 level is obtained by assuming the ±0.25 uncertainty in g_s^A from Ref. [37] is purely statistical, scaling it by 1/sqrt(N) assuming 1/4 of the events are nu_tau, and mapping the result linearly through Eqs. (26)-(27). The paper itself labels this 'of course an over-simplification.' Without a spectral fit and without separating statistical and systematic errors (flux, detector response, nuclear model), this rescaling does not constitute a quantitative bound. The abstract's statement that KamLAND data 'can already constrain' the tau axial NSI is therefore too strong; the authors should either provide a proper analysis or clearly present this as an order-of-magnitude illustration and soften the abstract and summary wording.
[Section V, Eq. (34)] The method for obtaining the QE cross-section bands relies on the factorization dsigma/dQ2|_{GiBUU} = alpha(Q2,E_nu) dsigma/dQ2|_{free} and on the assumption that alpha is independent of the form-factor variations. The only support is the statement that varying tilde F_A 'of order 1' changes alpha by less than 10%. For the isoscalar NSI case with epsilon = ±0.5, the relevant variation of tilde F_A includes the F_8^(A) term and is not obviously covered by the 'order 1' check; moreover, the 10% alpha variation itself is not shown. If alpha depends on the form factors at the level of 10%, the widths of the bands in Figs. 3 and 5 would be underestimated. Please document the alpha extraction more fully and test the independence over the actual range of tilde F_A and tilde F_i used in the figures.

minor comments (5)

[Section IV.A] In the vector NSI discussion, the text refers to 'Eqs. (26, 27)' when giving the combinations 2 epsilon^Vu_mumu + epsilon^Vd_mumu and epsilon^Vu_mumu + 2 epsilon^Vd_mumu; these are the vector form-factor replacements and the correct references are Eqs. (24, 25).
[Section IV.A] The statement 'For E_nu < 1 GeV, the oscillation length of nu_mu -> nu_tau is shorter than 350 km' is not correct over the whole range: with Delta m^2 ~ 2.5e-3 eV^2, L_osc ~ 2.48 E/Delta m^2 km, which gives about 992 km at E = 1 GeV and falls below 350 km only for E < 0.35 GeV. The flavor-composition estimate should be revised accordingly.
[Table I] The entry for g_s^A lists the value as '-0.15 +/- 0.09 Nominal'; the word 'Nominal' appears to be a typo for 'Nominal' or should be replaced by an explanation of the chosen central value and uncertainty band.
[Section V] In the discussion of lepton-flavor-violating NSI, the text says 'epsilon^Au_alpha beta = -epsilon^Au_alpha beta|_{alpha != beta}'; one of the superscripts should be d, i.e., epsilon^Au_alpha beta = -epsilon^Ad_alpha beta.
[Abstract] The abstract contains 'E_nu < GeV' with a missing value; presumably it should read 'E_nu < 1 GeV' as in Section IV.A.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: central claims rely on external lattice QCD, CC-derived form factors, and an external KamLAND measurement; self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are anchored to inputs independent of the NSI parameters under study: lattice QCD values for g_A^(8), M_A^(8), and F_1^s (Refs [19-21,26,31]), beta-decay g_A, the CC-derived axial mass M_A (Ref [29]), BBBA2007 vector form factors (Ref [47]), and the external KamLAND g_s^A extraction (Ref [37]). The NSI-modified form factors in Eqs (24)-(27) are algebraic redefinitions of the standard currents, not fitted quantities. The KamLAND-based bound (Section IV.A) is explicitly an estimate: the authors state "This estimation of the bound is of course an over-simplification" and perform no spectral fit; it uses the external ±0.25 uncertainty from Ref [37] and a statistical scaling, and is not used to fit any parameter that is then called a prediction. The F_1^s ~ 0.01 scenario merely restates the linear relation in Eq (24), interpreting an external future measurement through the NSI Lagrangian; it is a sensitivity statement rather than a fitted prediction. Self-citations [9] and [10] motivate the NSI framework and a benchmark epsilon ~ O(1) value, but the paper's cross-section results and bounds do not presuppose those papers' conclusions; the O(1) isoscalar axial couplings are allowed by external bounds cited from Refs [8,16]. A limitation is explicitly acknowledged: Section V omits 2p-2h excitations for illustrative purposes ("For the illustrative purposes, we omit the contribution from two particles-two holes (2p-2h) excitations"), which bears on the reliability of the '>30% excess' criterion but is a model omission, not a circular step. No step in the derivation chain reduces to its own input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central computations rely on standard low-energy four-Fermi NSI, isospin relations for nucleon form factors, lattice QCD input for F_A^(8), dipole parametrizations, and the GiBUU nuclear model. The most paper-specific additions are the nominal g_s^A, the M_A^s = M_A assumption, and the extracted nuclear correction function alpha. None of these are fitted to the claimed NSI targets; they are pulled from prior data or methods, which limits but does not create circularity.

free parameters (3)

Nuclear correction function alpha(Q^2, E_nu) = function extracted from GiBUU at central form factors
Eq. (34) defines alpha as the ratio of GiBUU to free-nucleon cross sections; it is computed at the central tilde F and then assumed independent of form-factor variations. All uncertainty bands in Figs. 2-7 are built on this extraction.
Strange axial coupling g_s^A = -0.15 +/- 0.09 (nominal)
Table I labels the value "Nominal"; it is a hand-chosen central value spanning conflicting determinations (lattice -0.044 +/- 0.008, KamLAND -0.14 +/- 0.25). The isoscalar axial NSI predictions are sensitive to it.
Axial mass for strange form factor M_A^s = set equal to M_A = 0.999 GeV
Section IV.A states "within the present experimental uncertainties, we can set M_A^s = M_A". If M_A^s differs from M_A, the Q^2 dependence could partially break the degeneracies the paper describes.

assumptions (7)

domain assumption Isospin symmetry relates proton and neutron NC axial and vector form factors, and relates beta-decay g_A to the NC axial form factor at the 1% level.
Used in Section II and Appendix A (Eqs. A4, A5, A10) and in deriving Eqs. (24)-(27).
domain assumption Lattice QCD predictions for g_A^(8) = 0.53 +/- 0.022 and M_A^(8) = 1.154 +/- 0.101 GeV reliably represent the isoscalar axial current matrix element.
Used in Section IV.A and Table I; F_A^(8) appears in NC cross sections only through axial NSI.
domain assumption Dipole parametrization with common or close axial masses (M_A^s = M_A) is adequate for F_A, F_A^s, and F_A^(8) for Q^2 below about 1 GeV^2.
Section IV.A and Eqs. (29)-(31).
ad hoc to paper The nuclear medium correction factor alpha in Eq. (34) is independent of form-factor variations, validated by the authors at less than 10% for order-one variations of tilde F_A.
Introduced by the authors to compute uncertainty bands without re-running GiBUU; it is load-bearing for the "distinct deviations" claim.
ad hoc to paper The contribution of two-particles-two-holes (2p-2h) excitations can be omitted for the illustrative cross-section comparison.
Section V: "for the illustrative purposes, we omit the contribution from two particles-two holes (2p-2h) excitations"; this could shift absolute cross sections.
domain assumption External form-factor inputs (M_A, g_A, M_A^(8), g_A^(8), C_5^A(0), m_Delta^A, BBBA2007) are taken from the cited CC, lattice, and electron-scattering determinations without re-fitting.
Tables I and II and Section V list these inputs and their sources.
standard math The low-energy effective Lagrangian in Eq. (1) with only vector and axial quark NSI captures new physics at the relevant energies.
This is the framework of the paper; it assumes no additional Lorentz structures or light mediators beyond four-Fermi NC NSI.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Neutrino nucleus Quasi-Elastic and resonant Neutral Current scatterings with Non-Standard Interactions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PWDLZOIS

@misc{pith2026241213349,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Neutrino nucleus Quasi-Elastic and resonant Neutral Current scatterings with Non-Standard Interactions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PWDLZOIS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.13349}
}

abstract

As well known, the cross sections of the resonance and Quasi-Elastic (QE) scattering off nucleons depend on quantities known as form factors that describe the nucleon structure. There are alternative approaches to determine the values of these non-perturbative quantities, some of them relying on the Neutral Current (NC) scattering of neutrinos off nucleons. In the presence of NC Non-Standard Interactions (NSI), such derivations must be revisited. The aim of the present paper is to discuss how information on NSI can be extracted by combining alternative approaches for deriving the form factors. We discuss how the KamLAND atmospheric neutrino data with $E_\nu<{\rm GeV}$ (used to determine the axial strange form factor $g_A^s$) can already constrain the axial NSI of $\nu_\tau$ with nucleons. We also argue that if the precision measurement of $\nu_\mu$ NC QE scattering establishes unexpectedly large vector strange form factor ({\it e.g.,} $F_1^s(Q^2)\sim 0.01$), it will be an indication for nonzero NSI coupling with $u$ and $d$ quarks ($\epsilon_{\mu\mu}^{Au/d}\sim 0.01$). We study the QE and resonance scattering cross sections of $\nu_\tau$ and $\nu_e$ off Argon and show that if their axial NSI is of the order of (but of course below) the present bounds, the deviation of QE cross sections from the SM prediction will be sizable and distinct from the uncertainties induced by the form factors.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.13349 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. QE scattering cross section for SM and isovector axial NSI. The green and red bands [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. The same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (4 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. Differential cross sections per nucleon for QE NC scattering off Argon at an energy of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. The same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6. The same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: FIG. 7. Resonance scattering cross section for SM and isovector axial NSI. The green and red [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

Moving a Detector to Probe New Neutrino Interactions: IWCD at Hyper-Kamiokande
hep-ph 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Using the movable IWCD near detector at Hyper-Kamiokande, the NCQE-to-CCQE event ratio sampled at three off-axis angles can constrain axial and vector neutrino non-standard interactions at the 0.05 to 0.12 level, brea...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[46]

Effects of nuclear re-interactions in quasi-elastic neutrino-nucleus scattering

C. Bleve, G. Co, I. De Mitri, P. Bernardini, G. Mancarella, D. Martello, and A. Surdo, Astropart. Phys. 16, 145 (2001), arXiv:nucl-th/0012015

work page Pith review arXiv 2001
[37]

M. J. Musolf, T. W. Donnelly, J. Dubach, S. J. Pollock, S. Kowalski, and E. J. Beise, Phys. Rept. 239, 1 (1994), arXiv:nucl-th/9307022

work page Pith review arXiv 1994
[1]

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

work page 1973
[2]

Wolfenstein, Phys

L. Wolfenstein, Phys. Rev. D 17, 2369 (1978)

1978
[3]

Roulet, Phys

E. Roulet, Phys. Rev. D 44, R935 (1991)

work page 1991
[4]

Barranco, O

J. Barranco, O. G. Miranda, and T. I. Rashba, JHEP 12, 021 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0508299

arXiv 2005
[5]

Esteban, M

I. Esteban, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, M. Maltoni, I. Martinez-Soler, and J. Salvado, JHEP 08, 180 (2018), [Addendum: JHEP 12, 152 (2020)], arXiv:1805.04530 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2018
[6]

Davidson, C

S. Davidson, C. Pena-Garay, N. Rius, and A. Santamaria, JHEP 03, 011 (2003), arXiv:hep- ph/0302093

arXiv 2003

Show all 55 references

[7]

F. J. Escrihuela, O. G. Miranda, M. A. Tortola, and J. W. F. Valle, Phys. Rev. D 80, 105009 (2009), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 80, 129908 (2009)], arXiv:0907.2630 [hep-ph]

2009 arXiv
[8]

Coloma, M

P. Coloma, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, M. Maltoni, J. a. P. Pinheiro, and S. Urrea, JHEP 08, 032 (2023), arXiv:2305.07698 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[9]

Abbaslu, M

S. Abbaslu, M. Dehpour, Y. Farzan, and S. Safari, JHEP 04, 038 (2024), arXiv:2312.12420 [hep-ph]. 30

2024 arXiv
[10]

Abbaslu and Y

S. Abbaslu and Y. Farzan, (2024), arXiv:2407.13834 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[11]

D. K. Papoulias and T. S. Kosmas, Adv. High Energy Phys. 2016, 1490860 (2016), arXiv:1611.05069 [hep-ph]

2016 arXiv
[12]

D. K. Papoulias and T. S. Kosmas, Phys. Lett. B 728, 482 (2014), arXiv:1312.2460 [nucl-th]

2014 arXiv
[13]

D. K. Papoulias and T. S. Kosmas, Adv. High Energy Phys. 2015, 763648 (2015), arXiv:1502.02928 [nucl-th]

2015 arXiv
[14]

D. K. Papoulias and T. S. Kosmas, Phys. Lett. B 747, 454 (2015), arXiv:1506.05406 [hep-ph]

2015 arXiv
[15]

Rafi Alam, L

Ilma, M. Rafi Alam, L. Alvarez-Ruso, M. B. Galan, I. Ruiz Simo, and S. K. Singh, (2024), arXiv:2412.04818 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[16]

Gehrlein, P

J. Gehrlein, P. A. N. Machado, and J. a. P. Pinheiro, (2024), arXiv:2412.08712 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[17]

Cirelli, E

M. Cirelli, E. Del Nobile, and P. Panci, JCAP 10, 019 (2013), arXiv:1307.5955 [hep-ph]

2013 arXiv
[18]

Belanger, F

G. Belanger, F. Boudjema, A. Pukhov, and A. Semenov, Comput. Phys. Commun. 185, 960 (2014), arXiv:1305.0237 [hep-ph]

2014 arXiv
[19]

Alexandrou, S

C. Alexandrou, S. Bacchio, M. Constantinou, J. Finkenrath, K. Hadjiyiannakou, K. Jansen, G. Koutsou, and A. Vaquero Aviles-Casco, Phys. Rev. D 100, 014509 (2019), arXiv:1812.10311 [hep-lat]

2019 arXiv
[20]

Alexandrou, S

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

2021 arXiv
[21]

Alexandrou, SciPost Phys

C. Alexandrou, SciPost Phys. Proc. 6, 006 (2022)

2022
[22]

Azizi and H

K. Azizi and H. Sundu, Phys. Rev. D 91, 093012 (2015), arXiv:1501.07691 [hep-ph]

2015 arXiv
[23]

number of ensembles

≃ 1, we expect about 1/4 of the atmospheric neutrinos studied in Ref. [37] to be ντ . In the absence of NSI, Ref. [37] derives F s A with an accuracy of ±0.25. Assuming that all the uncertainty was of statistical origin, with 1/4 of the data the uncertainty would be ±0.5. From...

2023
[24]

J. C. Bernauer et al. (A1), Phys. Rev. C 90, 015206 (2014), arXiv:1307.6227 [nucl-ex]

2014 arXiv
[25]

Punjabi, C

V. Punjabi, C. F. Perdrisat, M. K. Jones, E. J. Brash, and C. E. Carlson, Eur. Phys. J. A 51, 79 (2015), arXiv:1503.01452 [nucl-ex]

2015 arXiv
[26]

S. F. Pate, V. Papavassiliou, J. P. Schaub, D. P. Trujillo, M. V. Ivanov, M. B. Barbaro, and C. Giusti, Phys. Rev. D 109, 093001 (2024), arXiv:2402.10854 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[27]

Alexandrou, S

C. Alexandrou, S. Bacchio, M. Constantinou, J. Finkenrath, K. Hadjiyiannakou, K. Jansen, and G. Koutsou, Phys. Rev. D 101, 031501 (2020), arXiv:1909.10744 [hep-lat]

2020 arXiv
[28]

J. Liu, R. D. McKeown, and M. J. Ramsey-Musolf, Phys. Rev. C 76, 025202 (2007), arXiv:0706.0226 [nucl-ex]

2007 arXiv
[29]

M¨ arkischet al., Phys

B. M¨ arkischet al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 242501 (2019), arXiv:1812.04666 [nucl-ex]. 31

2019 arXiv
[30]

K. S. Kuzmin, V. V. Lyubushkin, and V. A. Naumov, Eur. Phys. J. C 54, 517 (2008), arXiv:0712.4384 [hep-ph]

2008 arXiv
[31]

Bradford, A

R. Bradford, A. Bodek, H. S. Budd, and J. Arrington, Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl. 159, 127 (2006), arXiv:hep-ex/0602017

2006 arXiv
[32]

Alexandrou, S

C. Alexandrou, S. Bacchio, M. Constantinou, J. Finkenrath, K. Hadjiyiannakou, K. Jansen, G. Koutsou, and A. Vaquero Aviles-Casco, Phys. Rev. D 102, 054517 (2020), arXiv:1909.00485 [hep-lat]

2020 arXiv
[33]

V. Y. Alexakhin et al. (COMPASS), Phys. Lett. B 647, 8 (2007), arXiv:hep-ex/0609038

2007 arXiv
[34]

Airapetian et al

A. Airapetian et al. (HERMES), Phys. Rev. D 75, 012007 (2007), arXiv:hep-ex/0609039

2007 arXiv
[35]

Ashman et al

J. Ashman et al. (European Muon), Nucl. Phys. B 328, 1 (1989)

1989
[36]

W. M. Alberico, S. M. Bilenky, and C. Maieron, Phys. Rept. 358, 227 (2002), arXiv:hep- ph/0102269

2002
[38]

Abe et al

S. Abe et al. (KamLAND), Phys. Rev. D 107, 072006 (2023), arXiv:2211.13911 [hep-ex]

2023 arXiv
[39]

S. D. Bass and A. W. Thomas, Phys. Lett. B 684, 216 (2010), arXiv:0912.1765 [hep-ph]

2010 arXiv
[40]

Leitner, L

T. Leitner, L. Alvarez-Ruso, and U. Mosel, Phys. Rev. C 74, 065502 (2006), arXiv:nucl- th/0606058

2006
[41]

Leitner, O

T. Leitner, O. Buss, L. Alvarez-Ruso, and U. Mosel, Phys. Rev. C 79, 034601 (2009), arXiv:0812.0587 [nucl-th]

2009 arXiv
[42]

Lalakulich and E

O. Lalakulich and E. A. Paschos, Phys. Rev. D 71, 074003 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0501109

2005 arXiv
[43]

O. Buss, T. Gaitanos, K. Gallmeister, H. van Hees, M. Kaskulov, O. Lalakulich, A. B. Lari- onov, T. Leitner, J. Weil, and U. Mosel, Phys. Rept. 512, 1 (2012), arXiv:1106.1344 [hep-ph]

2012 arXiv
[44]

Delorme and M

J. Delorme and M. Ericson, Phys. Lett. B 156, 263 (1985)

1985
[45]

Marteau, Eur

J. Marteau, Eur. Phys. J. A 5, 183 (1999), arXiv:hep-ph/9902210

1999 arXiv
[47]

Lalakulich, K

O. Lalakulich, K. Gallmeister, and U. Mosel, Phys. Rev. C 86, 014614 (2012), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.C 90, 029902 (2014)], arXiv:1203.2935 [nucl-th]

2012 arXiv
[48]

Bodek, S

A. Bodek, S. Avvakumov, R. Bradford, and H. S. Budd, Eur. Phys. J. C 53, 349 (2008), arXiv:0708.1946 [hep-ex]. 32

2008 arXiv
[49]

N. J. Baker, A. M. Cnops, P. L. Connolly, S. A. Kahn, H. G. Kirk, M. J. Murtagh, R. B. Palmer, N. P. Samios, and M. Tanaka, Phys. Rev. D 23, 2499 (1981)

1981
[50]

Amsler et al

C. Amsler et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Lett. B 667, 1 (2008)

2008
[51]

L. A. Soplin, R. Castillo Fernandez, J. Gustafson, D. Quinn, and S. Yadav, (2023), arXiv:2311.14286 [hep-ex]

2023 arXiv
[52]

E. A. Paschos, J.-Y. Yu, and M. Sakuda, Phys. Rev. D 69, 014013 (2004), arXiv:hep- ph/0308130

2004
[53]

Lalakulich, E

O. Lalakulich, E. A. Paschos, and G. Piranishvili, Phys. Rev. D 74, 014009 (2006), arXiv:hep- ph/0602210

2006
[54]

K. M. Graczyk, D. Kielczewska, P. Przewlocki, and J. T. Sobczyk, Phys. Rev. D 80, 093001 (2009), arXiv:0908.2175 [hep-ph]

2009 arXiv
[55]

Navas et al

S. Navas et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D 110, 030001 (2024). 33

2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [46]

Effects of nuclear re-interactions in quasi-elastic neutrino-nucleus scattering

C. Bleve, G. Co, I. De Mitri, P. Bernardini, G. Mancarella, D. Martello, and A. Surdo, Astropart. Phys. 16, 145 (2001), arXiv:nucl-th/0012015

work page Pith review arXiv 2001

[2] [37]

M. J. Musolf, T. W. Donnelly, J. Dubach, S. J. Pollock, S. Kowalski, and E. J. Beise, Phys. Rept. 239, 1 (1994), arXiv:nucl-th/9307022

work page Pith review arXiv 1994

[3] [1]

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

work page 1973

[4] [2]

Wolfenstein, Phys

L. Wolfenstein, Phys. Rev. D 17, 2369 (1978)

1978

[5] [3]

Roulet, Phys

E. Roulet, Phys. Rev. D 44, R935 (1991)

work page 1991

[6] [4]

Barranco, O

J. Barranco, O. G. Miranda, and T. I. Rashba, JHEP 12, 021 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0508299

arXiv 2005

[7] [5]

Esteban, M

I. Esteban, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, M. Maltoni, I. Martinez-Soler, and J. Salvado, JHEP 08, 180 (2018), [Addendum: JHEP 12, 152 (2020)], arXiv:1805.04530 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2018

[8] [6]

Davidson, C

S. Davidson, C. Pena-Garay, N. Rius, and A. Santamaria, JHEP 03, 011 (2003), arXiv:hep- ph/0302093

arXiv 2003