Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 93 references

Calorimetric neutrino-energy reconstruction inherits a model-dependent bias of up to 18 MeV from material nonlinearities.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 09:51 UTC pith:U56DJUHW

load-bearing objection A clearly scoped simulation study that isolates a real, underappreciated generator-dependent bias in calorimetric neutrino energy reconstruction; the headline numbers are conditional on one reference model, so treat them as indicative until a reference-model scan is added. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.20419 v1 pith:U56DJUHW submitted 2026-07-22 hep-ex

Interaction-model dependence in calorimetric energy reconstruction methods due to non-linear material effects in modern neutrino detectors

Katharina Lachner , Steven Boyd , Stephen Dolan , Laura Munteanu This is my paper
classification hep-ex
keywords neutrino energy reconstructioncalorimetric reconstructionBirks quenchingcharge recombinationresponse matricesinteraction-model uncertaintyvertex activityforward folding
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper tries to establish that a detector's non-linear response — light quenching in scintillators and charge recombination in liquid argon — makes calorimetric hadronic-energy reconstruction depend on which neutrino-interaction model supplied the calibration. When one reference model is used to build the response matrix and a range of other models are reconstructed with it, mean reconstructed-neutrino-energy biases differ between models by roughly 7–9 MeV in scintillator detectors and 11–18 MeV in argon detectors. This is a separate systematic from the well-studied energy 'lost' to neutrons and pion masses, because the paper compares reconstructed visible hadronic energy to its own true value. The authors also show that an idealised hybrid of tracking plus calorimetry of untracked particles shrinks the argon model spread to about 3.5 MeV, though 28% of argon events still exceed a 0.5% bias at 2.5 GeV. The message is that current calorimetric 'vertex activity' corrections carry an interaction-model uncertainty that oscillation and cross-section analyses must budget for.

Core claim

The central claim is that identical visible charge can correspond to different true hadronic configurations — one 40 MeV proton versus two 23 MeV protons, for example — and that the mapping chosen to resolve this ambiguity is unavoidably interaction-model-dependent. Response matrices built from a reference model therefore embed that model's predictions for particle multiplicities, species, and kinematics. Applying those matrices to events from other models produces mean neutrino-energy bias differences of 7–9 MeV in scintillator and 11–18 MeV in argon, with the largest biases in topologies containing neutrons, reaching tens of MeV. The paper shows pure tracking is worse, since it discards ve

What carries the argument

The central object is the response matrix relating the sum of visible charges from protons, charged pions, and nuclear clusters (ΣQ) to the corresponding average sum of true kinetic energies (ΣT). It is built once from a reference interaction model and applied to other models; the bias is the difference between the reconstructed and true visible hadronic energy. The nonlinearity itself is described by Birks' law for scintillators and the modified Box law for liquid argon, which convert energy loss into quenched light or recombined charge. The mechanism that carries the argument is the ambiguity: a fixed charge deposit can be read as different particle multiplicities, and the reference model

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the response matrix built from one chosen reference model is an appropriate calibrator: all bias numbers are differences relative to that model's mapping, and the paper itself notes that a different reference model would likely change the results; the hybrid numbers additionally assume perfect particle identification, tracking, and energy reconstruction above threshold.

What would settle it

Take one of the study's detector configurations, rebuild the response matrix from a different interaction model, and recompute the spread in mean biases. If the 7–9 MeV and 11–18 MeV spreads change substantially or reverse sign, the quantitative result is reference-model-specific. A data-side check would use a calibration sample with known particle types and energies to measure the response matrix directly and see whether the predicted bias appears.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If the central claim is right, pure calorimetric neutrino-energy reconstruction carries an additional generator-dependent systematic of about 7–9 MeV (scintillator) and 11–18 MeV (argon) in mean bias for the energy ranges studied.
  • Hybrid tracking-plus-calorimetry is the only method that keeps mean biases below 0.5% of neutrino energy at 2.5 GeV for argon detectors, but even then 28% of argon events (and larger fractions at 0.6 GeV) exceed that threshold.
  • The bias is largest in topologies with final-state neutrons and low-energy hadrons, so cross-section measurements of low-energy-transfer events and oscillation measurements at the second maximum need enlarged systematic allocations.
  • Tracking-only reconstruction, which ignores vertex activity, underestimates hadronic energy by tens of MeV and is not a viable replacement.
  • Forward folding with per-particle response matrices, rather than summed-variable matrices, follows the truth-to-observation direction and avoids inverting a model-dependent mapping; the paper proposes publishing detector-level response matrices.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A straightforward test of robustness: repeat the study with a second reference interaction model; if the reported 7–9 MeV and 11–18 MeV spreads move by more than a few MeV, the quantitative claims should be reported as a band over reference choices, not single numbers.
  • The finding implies that detectors with lower tracking thresholds or higher electric fields (weaker recombination) will have smaller material-effect biases, so comparisons of the same physics across detector technologies can be used to validate or bound the effect.
  • Because the ambiguity grows with the fraction of energy in untracked vertex activity, the same mechanism predicts that measurements at low energy transfer will need per-particle forward folding, and that publishing visible-charge distributions near detector level would make model comparisons less biased than publishing reconstructed-energy distributions.
  • The paper's own conservative treatment of heavy nuclear clusters as alpha particles suggests the biases for models predicting cluster liberation are lower bounds; measuring or constraining cluster production would sharpen these estimates.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper quantifies, with a simplified detector-response simulation, the interaction-model-dependent bias introduced into calorimetric hadronic-energy reconstruction by Birks quenching in scintillators and charge recombination in LAr-TPCs. Using charged-current νμ events from ten configurations of GENIE, NEUT, NuWro, and GiBUU, it builds average ΣQ↔ΣT response matrices from a single reference generator (GENIE G18_10a), applies them in pure-calorimetric, topology-specific, tracking-only, and hybrid modes for five experiment/flux/material setups, and reports mean biases and event-level exceedance fractions. It concludes that material effects generate non-negligible model-dependent biases and recommends per-particle forward folding as a mitigation strategy.

Significance. If the quantitative claims hold, the paper identifies a largely separate systematic for calorimetric Eν reconstruction at ND280, NOvA, MINERvA, MicroBooNE, and DUNE: the bias occurs even after the well-known missing-neutron-energy and pion-mass corrections are handled, and it depends on the generator through the multiplicity of vertex activity. The study is valuable for its fully specified simulation (NIST stopping powers, explicit Birks/Box parameters, closed-form response curves), its broad generator set with disclosed FSI choices, and its open code/data. The qualitative conclusion that non-linear material response creates generator-dependent bias is robust. What needs strengthening is the quantitative envelope around the chosen reference model.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section IV B 1 and Section VI] All response matrices (Eqs. 6–9), and therefore every quantitative result including the abstract's 7–9 MeV / 11–18 MeV spreads and the 3.5 MeV hybrid residual, are conditioned on GENIE G18_10a as the reference generator. Since the mapping from ΣQ to ΣT is built from the reference model's conditional multiplicity distribution, a different reference can change not only the offset but also the inter-model spread and ranking; the non-linear illustration in Fig. 2b makes the mechanism concrete. The paper's admission in Section VI that 'a different choice of reference model likely yields different results' is not a substitute for bracketing. I request at least one alternative reference matrix (e.g., GiBUU or NEUT) and a statement of how the headline spreads and the hybrid floor move.
  2. [Section V / Table V and abstract] The 'model spread' quoted in the abstract is not defined or reported as a spread. Table V presents signed mean-bias values (apparently for the model with the largest bias in each configuration), not a max-min or standard deviation over the ten models. Please define the spread metric, give the per-model mean biases at least for the topologies used for the headline, and specify the Eν slice. Without this, the quantitative claims cannot be reproduced or compared with the figures.
  3. [Section IV B 3 / Table V] The hybrid/3.5 MeV result assumes perfect PID and perfect track-energy reconstruction above the Table II thresholds. The paper labels this 'idealised' and notes it in Section VI, so this is not an undisclosed error; however, the abstract and conclusion should state explicitly that this is a lower floor rather than an expected performance, because track mis-identification and energy resolution add bias in the opposite direction.
minor comments (3)
  1. [General] Typos: Section I 'the the is' should read 'the'; Figure 5 caption 'fro' should be 'from'; Section VI 'than than' should be 'than'; Table VI caption 'E u' should be 'Eν'.
  2. [Table V caption] The caption says 'Model spread' but the table contains single signed values. If these are the mean biases for the most extreme model, reword the caption to say so, or present a proper min–max/standard-deviation spread.
  3. [Appendix / Table VI] The notation 'CC0π±N n' appears inconsistent; elsewhere the paper uses 'CC0π-N n' and 'CC1π±-N n'. Please harmonize the notation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the bias spread is a comparison across generators, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that non-linear material effects introduce interaction-model-dependent biases in calorimetric reconstruction. The reconstruction is built by defining response matrices from the reference generator GENIE G18_10a (Section IV B), then applying these matrices to other generators. This is not circular: no parameter is fitted to the target bias values and then reported as a prediction. The bias for each model is computed as E_reco - E_true (Eq. 11), where E_reco is obtained from the reference mapping and E_true is generator-level truth; the spread across generators is the quantity under study, not an input. The paper explicitly discloses the reference-model dependence in Section VI ('a different choice of reference model likely yields different results'), and the hybrid result is stated to assume error-free tracking above threshold, so those are stated limitations rather than hidden reductions. The use of Ref. [10] (with author overlap) supplies generator samples and context, but the material-effects calculation is performed in this paper and does not depend on the truth of a self-citation; no uniqueness theorem or unverified prior claim is invoked as the load-bearing step. The absence of a second reference-model scan is a robustness concern, not a circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 8 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new entities and fits no data. Its load-bearing ingredients are empirical quenching/recombination laws, a chosen reference generator, and explicit idealisations. The free-parameter ledger therefore records the reference-model choice and treats material constants as external inputs.

free parameters (1)
  • Reference generator choice = GENIE G18 10a
    Response matrices of Section IV B are built exclusively from this generator; Section VI admits that a different reference model would likely shift all quantitative results. This is a hand-selected input rather than a fitted number, but it is load-bearing for the quoted bias magnitudes.
axioms (8)
  • domain assumption Birks law (Eq. 1) with c_B = 0.0126/0.0120 cm/MeV describes scintillator quenching for protons, pions, and alphas.
    Section III A / Table I; taken from literature, not fitted here. The non-linear Q(E) relation is the effect under study.
  • domain assumption Modified Box law (Eq. 2) with a_box = 0.93 and b_box = 0.307 cm/MeV describes LAr recombination at fields 0.273/0.5 kV/cm.
    Section III A / Table I; from Acciarri et al. and BNL; underpins all LAr visible-charge maps.
  • domain assumption NIST stopping-power tables plus linear interpolation outside their range give dE/dx for protons, pions, and heavy clusters.
    Section III B, Figure 2; interpolation at low energies can distort Bragg-peak quenching, exactly where the bias originates.
  • domain assumption GENIE G18 10a is adequate as the reference hadronic final-state model for building response matrices.
    Section IV B; all reconstruction maps are conditional on this model's multiplicity and kinematics.
  • ad hoc to paper Heavy nuclear clusters treated as alphas; deuterons treated as protons.
    Section III B; acknowledged as underestimating material effects for cluster-producing models (G18 10c/10d).
  • ad hoc to paper Perfect particle identification, tracking, and energy reconstruction above the thresholds in Table II.
    Section IV B 3, Eqs. 8-9; used for tracking-only and hybrid results; explicitly an idealisation.
  • ad hoc to paper No pion decay in flight; all particles stop in the detector.
    Section III B; reduces pion visible charge relative to reality.
  • domain assumption The spread across the chosen generator set is a lower bound on plausible model variation.
    Section II; generators share ingredients, so their spread is not a formal uncertainty.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 24644 in / 13791 out tokens · 114844 ms · 2026-08-01T09:51:54.438690+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Neutrino oscillation experiments rely on high precision neutrino energy reconstruction. A common reconstruction technique in LAr-TPCs and scintillators is via the calorimetric sum of visible particles created in the interaction. However, non-linearities in the detector response, such as Birks quenching for scintillators and recombination effects for TPCs, lead to ambiguities in the reconstruction of visible hadronic energies. Interaction-model-dependent assumptions are required to resolve these ambiguities, which introduces a bias in reconstruction of neutrino energy. This introduces a systematic uncertainty separate from the well-studied bias due to interaction-model dependent modelling of missing energy caused by, for example, the production of final state neutrons. In this work, we evaluate the interaction-model dependence of the bias caused by these material effects across multiple tunes of the GENIE, NEUT, NuWro, and GiBUU neutrino interaction event generators for cases representative of calorimetric energy reconstruction at the T2K (ND280), NO$\nu$A, MINER$\nu$A, $\mu$BooNE, and DUNE experiments. Using pure calorimetric reconstruction, our results show significant differences in the mean neutrino-energy reconstruction bias between models, at the level of $\sim$7-9\,MeV for scintillator detectors and $\sim$11-18\,MeV for argon-based detectors in the relevant energy range. The latter is shown to be reduced (down to $\sim$3.5\,MeV) when using an idealised hybrid energy reconstruction based on tracking and calorimetry. Overall, we conclude that neutrino-energy reconstruction bias due to material effects may imply non-negligible systematic uncertainties for neutrino oscillation and cross-section measurements, and discuss alternative analysis strategies to mitigate the issue.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.20419 by Katharina Lachner, Laura Munteanu, Stephen Dolan, Steven Boyd.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Interaction cross-sections on Hydrocarbon [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: (a) Integrated visible charge caused by single particles in polystyrene (C [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: Smearing matrices for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Bias distributions for the CC-inclusive-based calorimetric approach, showing results for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Bias distributions for the CC-inclusive-based calorimetric approach, showing results for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Mean bias caused by material effects as a function of the true neutrino energy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Bias distributions for slices of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Comparison of the sum of visible charges from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: Distribution of true [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: Distribution of true [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11: Correspondence between the average sum of kinetic energies of protons, pions, and nuclear clusters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12: Correspondence between the average sum of kinetic energies of protons, pions, and nuclear clusters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13: Correspondence between kinetic energy and visible charges of single protons and pions, as well as for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14: Bias distributions for the CC-inclusive-based calorimetric approach, showing results for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15: Mean bias for the hybrid reconstruction approach, caused only by material effects as a function for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16: Mean bias caused by material effects for slices of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_16.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

93 extracted references · 44 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    requiring only the identification of the primary muon

    CC-inclusive-based calorimetry To avoid dependence on selection performance for ex- clusive final states which require the identification of hadrons, such response matrices are often built forνµCC- inclusive samples, i.e. requiring only the identification of the primary muon. GENIEG18 10ais used as the reference generator in this study to construct such r...

  2. [2]

    We refer to these asexclusivetopolo- gies, and they are often targeted for cross-section mea- surements

    Topology-specific calorimetry Since FSI can alter the multiplicity, kinematics and species of particles emerging from a neutrino interaction within a given channel, events are often classified accord- ing to theirtopologiesbased on the hadron multiplicity in the final state. We refer to these asexclusivetopolo- gies, and they are often targeted for cross-...

  3. [3]

    truth-level

    Tracking- and hybrid approaches Modern detectors such asµBooNE, DUNE, and the upgraded T2K Near Detector ND280 (in particular its 3D-segmented target, the SuperFGD) provide unprece- dented resolution to resolve individual particle tracks. We consider these tracking capabilities in an alternative reconstruction approach that conservatively assumes all part...

    2000

  4. [4]

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

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  5. [5]

    Abiet al.(DUNE Collaboration), Eur

    B. Abiet al.(DUNE Collaboration), Eur. Phys. J. C80, 978 (2020), arXiv:2006.16043 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2020

  6. [6]

    de Blaset al., Physics Briefing Book: Input for the 2026 update of the European Strategy for Particle Physics (2025), arXiv:2511.03883 [hep-ex]

    J. de Blaset al., Physics Briefing Book: Input for the 2026 update of the European Strategy for Particle Physics (2025), arXiv:2511.03883 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2026

  7. [7]

    Abeet al.(T2K Collaboration), Nucl

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

    arXiv 2011

  8. [8]

    D. S. Ayreset al.(NOvA Collaboration),The NOvA Technical Design Report, Tech. Rep. FERMILAB- DESIGN-2007-01 (Fermi National Accelerator Labora- tory, 2007)

    2007

  9. [9]

    Z. Maki, M. Nakagawa, and S. Sakata, Progress of Theoretical Physics28, 870 (1962), https://academic.oup.com/ptp/article- pdf/28/5/870/5258750/28-5-870.pdf

    1962

  10. [10]

    S. M. Bilenky and B. Pontecorvo, Phys. Rept.41, 225 (1978)

    1978

  11. [11]

    Navaset al.(Particle Data Group), Phys

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

    2024

  12. [12]

    Alvarez-Rusoet al.(NuSTEC), Prog

    L. Alvarez-Rusoet al.(NuSTEC), Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.100, 1 (2018), arXiv:1706.03621 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  13. [13]

    Dolan, L

    S. Dolan, L. Pickering, P. Stowell, C. Wilkinson, and C. Wret, Cp-violation or nuclear excitation: Review- ing the role of neutrino interaction model uncertainties on accelerator-based neutrino oscillation measurements (2026), arXiv:2605.28671 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  14. [14]

    Dolan, J

    S. Dolan, J. McKean, and L. Munteanu, Characteris- ing the role of final state interactions on neutrino en- ergy estimation in the dune and hyper-k era (2026), arXiv:2605.28696 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  15. [15]

    Abeet al.(T2K), The Super Fine-Grained Detec- tor for the T2K neutrino oscillation experiment (2026), arXiv:2603.14921 [physics.ins-det]

    S. Abeet al.(T2K), The Super Fine-Grained Detec- tor for the T2K neutrino oscillation experiment (2026), arXiv:2603.14921 [physics.ins-det]

    arXiv 2026

  16. [16]

    Abeet al.(Hyper-Kamiokande), The Hyper- Kamiokande experiment: input to the update of the European Strategy for Particle Physics (2025), arXiv:2506.16641 [hep-ex]

    K. Abeet al.(Hyper-Kamiokande), The Hyper- Kamiokande experiment: input to the update of the European Strategy for Particle Physics (2025), arXiv:2506.16641 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  17. [17]

    Aliagaet al.(MINERvA Collaboration), Nucl

    L. Aliagaet al.(MINERvA Collaboration), Nucl. In- strum. Meth. A743, 130 (2014), arXiv:1305.5199 [physics.ins-det]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  18. [18]

    Acciarriet al.(MicroBooNE Collaboration), JINST 12(02), P02017, arXiv:1612.05824 [physics.ins-det]

    R. Acciarriet al.(MicroBooNE Collaboration), JINST 12(02), P02017, arXiv:1612.05824 [physics.ins-det]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  19. [19]

    Acciarriet al.(SBND), The Short-Baseline Near De- tector at Fermilab: Input to the European Strategy for Particle Physics 2026 Update (2025), arXiv:2504.00245 [hep-ex]

    R. Acciarriet al.(SBND), The Short-Baseline Near De- tector at Fermilab: Input to the European Strategy for Particle Physics 2026 Update (2025), arXiv:2504.00245 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  20. [20]

    Abratenkoet al.(ICARUS), Eur

    P. Abratenkoet al.(ICARUS), Eur. Phys. J. C83, 467 (2023), arXiv:2301.08634 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  21. [21]

    Abiet al., Deep underground neutrino experiment (dune), far detector technical design report, volume ii: Dune physics (2020), arXiv:2002.03005 [hep-ex]

    B. Abiet al., Deep underground neutrino experiment (dune), far detector technical design report, volume ii: Dune physics (2020), arXiv:2002.03005 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2020

  22. [22]

    Adamsonet al., Physical review letters118, 151802 (2017)

    P. Adamsonet al., Physical review letters118, 151802 (2017)

    2017

  23. [23]

    Ascencio and others., Physical Review D106(2022)

    M. Ascencio and others., Physical Review D106(2022)

    2022

  24. [24]

    Ruterbories, M

    D. Ruterbories, M. collaboration,et al., Physical Review Letters129, 021803 (2022)

    2022

  25. [25]

    Abratenkoet al., Physical Review D109, 092007 (2024)

    P. Abratenkoet al., Physical Review D109, 092007 (2024)

    2024

  26. [26]

    Adamsonet al., Nucl

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  27. [27]

    Esteban, M

    I. Esteban, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, M. Maltoni, T. Schwetz, and A. Zhou, JHEP09(21), 178, arXiv:2007.14792 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  28. [28]

    Esteban, M

    I. Esteban, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, A. Hernandez- Cabezudo, M. Maltoni, and T. Schwetz, Nufit 5.2 (2022) (2022)

    2022

  29. [29]

    Abeet al.(T2K), Phys

    K. Abeet al.(T2K), Phys. Rev. D87, 012001 (2013), [Addendum: Phys.Rev.D 87, 019902 (2013)], arXiv:1211.0469 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  30. [30]

    Abratenkoet al.(MicroBooNE), Phys

    P. Abratenkoet al.(MicroBooNE), Phys. Lett. B870, 139939 (2025), arXiv:2307.06413 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2025

  31. [31]

    A. A. Aguilar-Arevaloet al.(MiniBooNE), Phys. Rev. D 79, 072002 (2009), arXiv:0806.1449 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  32. [32]

    Andreopouloset al., Nucl

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  33. [33]

    Andreopouloset al., arXiv preprint arXiv:1510.05494 (2015), arXiv:1510.05494 [hep-ph]

    C. Andreopouloset al., arXiv preprint arXiv:1510.05494 (2015), arXiv:1510.05494 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  34. [34]

    Alvarez-Rusoet al., Eur

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  35. [35]

    O. Buss, T. Gaitanos, K. Gallmeister, H. van Hees, M. Kaskulov, O. Lalakulich, A. Larionov, T. Leitner, J. Weil, and U. Mosel, Physics Reports512, 1 (2012), transport-theoretical Description of Nuclear Reactions

    2012

  36. [36]

    Golan, J

    T. Golan, J. Sobczyk, and J. ˙Zmuda, Nuclear Physics B - Proceedings Supplements229-232, 499 (2012), neutrino 2010

    2012

  37. [37]

    Golan, C

    T. Golan, C. Juszczak, and J. T. Sobczyk, Physical Re- view C—Nuclear Physics86, 015505 (2012)

    2012

  38. [38]

    Niewczas and J

    K. Niewczas and J. T. Sobczyk, Physical Review C100, 015505 (2019)

    2019

  39. [39]

    Hayato, Nuclear Physics B - Proceedings Supplements 112, 171 (2002)

    Y. Hayato, Nuclear Physics B - Proceedings Supplements 112, 171 (2002)

    2002

  40. [40]

    Hayato, Acta Physica Polonica B40(2009)

    Y. Hayato, Acta Physica Polonica B40(2009)

    2009

  41. [41]

    Hayato and L

    Y. Hayato and L. Pickering, The European Physical Journal Special Topics230, 4469 (2021)

    2021

  42. [42]

    Stowellet al., JINST12(01), P01016, arXiv:1612.07393 [hep-ex]

    P. Stowellet al., JINST12(01), P01016, arXiv:1612.07393 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  43. [43]

    M. B. Avanziniet al., Phys. Rev. D105, 092004 (2022), arXiv:2112.09194 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  44. [44]

    Heikkinen, N

    A. Heikkinen, N. Stepanov, and J. P. Wellisch, eConf C0303241, MOMT008 (2003), arXiv:nucl-th/0306008

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  45. [45]

    J. B. Birks, Proceedings of the Physical Society. Section A64, 874 (1951). 14

    1951

  46. [46]

    Acciarriet al., Journal of Instrumentation8(08), P08005

    R. Acciarriet al., Journal of Instrumentation8(08), P08005

  47. [47]

    M. J. Berger, M. Inokuti, H. H. Andersen, H. Bichsel, D. Powers, S. M. Seltzer, D. Thwaites, and D. E. Watt, Reports of the International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements , 76 (1993)

    1993

  48. [48]

    M. J. Berger, J. S. Coursey, and M. A. Zucker, ESTAR, PSTAR, and ASTAR: Computer programs for calculat- ing stopping-power and range tables for electrons, pro- tons, and helium ions (version 1.21),http://physics. nist.gov/Star(1999), accessed 2026-06-15

    1999

  49. [49]

    This can be inferred from the charge dependence of the Bethe-Bloch equation [8]

  50. [50]

    B. D. Leverington, M. Anelli, P. Campana, and R. Rosellini, A 1 mm scintillating fibre tracker readout by a multi-anode photomultiplier (2011), arXiv:1106.5649v2 [physics.ins-det]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  51. [51]

    P. D. Group, Atomic and nuclear properties of polystyrene (2024), last Accessed: 12 March 2025

    2024

  52. [52]

    Acero, P

    M. Acero, P. Adamson, G. Agam, L. Aliaga, T. Alion, V. Allakhverdian, S. Altakarli, N. Anfimov, A. An- toshkin, L. Asquith,et al., Physical Review D107, 112008 (2023)

    2023

  53. [53]

    Mufson, B

    S. Mufson, B. Baugh, C. Bower, T. Coan, J. Cooper, L. Corwin, J. Karty, P. Mason, M. Messier, A. Pla- Dalmau, and M. Proudfoot, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment 799, 1 (2015)

    2015

  54. [54]

    Brookhaven National Laboratory, Notes on particle passage – liquid argon (lar),https://lar.bnl.gov/ properties/pass.html(2025), last Accessed: 8 Decem- ber 2025

    2025

  55. [55]

    Acciarri, C

    R. Acciarri, C. Adams, R. An, J. Anthony, J. Asaadi, M. Auger, L. Bagby, S. Balasubramanian, B. Baller, C. Barnes,et al., Journal of Instrumentation12(08), P08003

  56. [56]

    Abiet al., Deep underground neutrino experi- ment (dune), far detector technical design report, vol- ume iv: Far detector single-phase technology (2020), arXiv:2002.03010 [hep-ex]

    B. Abiet al., Deep underground neutrino experi- ment (dune), far detector technical design report, vol- ume iv: Far detector single-phase technology (2020), arXiv:2002.03010 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2020

  57. [57]

    Wilkinson, S

    C. Wilkinson, S. J. Dolan, L. Pickering, and C. Wret, The European Physical Journal C82, 1 (2022)

    2022

  58. [58]

    Abeet al., T2k nd280 upgrade – technical de- sign report (2020), arXiv:1901.03750, arXiv:1901.03750 [physics.ins-det]

    K. Abeet al., T2k nd280 upgrade – technical de- sign report (2020), arXiv:1901.03750, arXiv:1901.03750 [physics.ins-det]

    arXiv 2020

  59. [59]

    Abratenkoet al., Physical Review D102, 112013 (2020)

    P. Abratenkoet al., Physical Review D102, 112013 (2020)

    2020

  60. [60]

    R. Acciarriet al., The pandora multi-algorithm approach to automated pattern recognition of cosmic-ray muon and neutrino events in the microboone detector (2017), arXiv:1708.03135 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  61. [61]

    Heweset al.(DUNE), Instruments5, 31 (2021), arXiv:2103.13910 [physics.ins-det]

    V. Heweset al.(DUNE), Instruments5, 31 (2021), arXiv:2103.13910 [physics.ins-det]

    arXiv 2021

  62. [62]

    Blau and H

    M. Blau and H. Wambacher, Nature140, 585 (1937)

    1937

  63. [63]

    Fukudaet al., PTEP2017, 063C02 (2017), arXiv:1703.03659 [hep-ex]

    T. Fukudaet al., PTEP2017, 063C02 (2017), arXiv:1703.03659 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  64. [64]

    Koch, Journal of Instrumentation14(09), P09013

    L. Koch, Journal of Instrumentation14(09), P09013

  65. [65]

    Gardiner, Mathematical methods for neutrino cross- section extraction (2024), arXiv:2401.04065 [hep-ex]

    S. Gardiner, Mathematical methods for neutrino cross- section extraction (2024), arXiv:2401.04065 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  66. [66]

    A. A. Aguilar-Arevaloet al.(MiniBooNE), Phys. Rev. D 82, 092005 (2010), arXiv:1007.4730 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  67. [67]

    Abratenkoet al.(MicroBooNE), Phys

    P. Abratenkoet al.(MicroBooNE), Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 131801 (2019), arXiv:1905.09694 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  68. [68]

    Abratenkoet al.(MicroBooNE), Phys

    P. Abratenkoet al.(MicroBooNE), Phys. Rev. D102, 112013 (2020), arXiv:2010.02390 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  69. [69]

    Dytmanet al., Phys

    S. Dytmanet al., Phys. Rev. D104, 053006 (2021), arXiv:2103.07535 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  70. [70]

    L. L. Salcedo, E. Oset, M. J. Vicente-Vacas, and C. Garcia-Recio, Nuclear Physics A484, 557 (1988)

    1988

  71. [71]

    Oset and L

    E. Oset and L. L. Salcedo, Nucl. Phys. A468, 631 (1987)

    1987

  72. [72]

    D. H. Wright and M. H. Kelsey, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Acceler- ators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equip- ment804, 175 (2015)

    2015

  73. [73]

    Cugnon, A

    J. Cugnon, A. Boudard, J. David, S. Leray, and D. Man- cusi, The European Physical Journal Plus131, 1 (2016)

    2016

  74. [74]

    Mancusi, A

    D. Mancusi, A. Boudard, J. Carbonell, J. Cugnon, J. David, and S. Leray, Physical Review C91, 034602 (2015)

    2015

  75. [75]

    Nieves, I

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  76. [76]

    Berger and L

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  77. [77]

    Bodek and U

    A. Bodek and U. K. Yang, AIP Conf. Proc.670, 110 (2003), arXiv:hep-ex/0301036

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  78. [78]

    T. Yang, C. Andreopoulos, H. Gallagher, K. Hoff- mann, and P. Kehayias, Eur. Phys. J. C63, 1 (2009), arXiv:0904.4043 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  79. [79]

    Dolan, G

    S. Dolan, G. D. Megias, and S. Bolognesi, Phys. Rev. D 101, 033003 (2020), arXiv:1905.08556 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  80. [80]

    Jachowicz, K

    N. Jachowicz, K. Heyde, J. Ryckebusch, and S. Rom- bouts, Phys. Rev. C65, 025501 (2002)

    2002

Showing first 80 references.