Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 60 references

Analysis of NOvA and MicroBooNE charged-current inclusive neutrino measurements within the SuSAv2 framework

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that the SuSAv2 framework, which factorizes neutrino-nucleus scattering into single-nucleon responses and nuclear scaling functions, reproduces the shape and value of NOvA and MicroBooNE charged-current inclusive cross…

desk verdict A careful SuSAv2 comparison with NOvA and MicroBooNE data, but the central attribution of discrepancies to missing inelastic strength is not supported by the paper's own channel decomposition. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.18636 v1 pith:W7HZYQAV submitted 2024-12-23 hep-ph nucl-th

J. Gonzalez-Rosa , G. D. Megias , J. A. Caballero , M. B. Barbaro This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phnucl-th
keywords neutrino-nucleusscatteringcharged-currentinclusivecrosssectionsSuSAv2superscalingmodelquasielasticandinelasticchannelsmesonexchangecurrentsdeepNOvAMicroBooNE
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper claims that the SuSAv2 model, built on superscaling and relativistic mean field theory, can describe the charged-current inclusive neutrino cross sections recently measured by NOvA (carbon-rich target) and MicroBooNE (argon) across neutrino energies from tens of MeV to about 20 GeV. The model splits the cross section into five channels—quasielastic, two-particle two-hole meson-exchange currents, resonances, soft deep inelastic, and true deep inelastic—and the comparison locates a systematic shortfall at very forward angles and high lepton energies, which the authors ascribe to missing strength in the inelastic channels. If the picture is right, the same factorization can be used to improve event generators in the few-GeV regime, and the deficit gives a concrete place to look for missing nuclear or single-nucleon inelastic contributions.

What carries the argument

The central object is the SuSAv2 scaling-function factorization: each reaction channel is written as a single-nucleon response multiplied by a nuclear scaling function $f(\psi)$ extracted from relativistic mean field calculations and electron-scattering data, with the inelastic response integrated over the reduced invariant mass $\mu_X$ using a generalized scaling variable $\psi_X$ and single-nucleon inelastic structure functions. The resonance channel uses the Dynamical Coupled-Channels (DCC) model from the Osaka group, the DIS part uses the Bodek-Ritchie parameterization split into SoftDIS (below $W_X = 2.1$ GeV) and TrueDIS (above), and MEC comes from relativistic Fermi gas calculations. This machinery lets each discrepancy be assigned to a named channel, which is what carries the argument that the deficit is inelastic rather than quasielastic.

What would settle it

Take a high-statistics inclusive electron-argon scattering measurement at $Q^2$ near 1 GeV$^2$/c$^2$ and invariant mass $W$ between 1.4 and 2.1 GeV and compare it with the SuSAv2 inelastic channel sum: if the same forward-angle, high-energy deficit appears, the missing strength lies in the nuclear scaling functions rather than in the neutrino-specific inelastic models.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the SuSAv2 channel decomposition—QE, MEC, RES, SoftDIS, TrueDIS—reproduces the shape and normalization of the recent NOvA and MicroBooNE charged-current inclusive measurements well enough to expose a pattern: underestimation at very forward angles and high lepton energies, which the authors attribute to missing strength in the inelastic channels. For NOvA electron neutrinos the overall agreement is good and the model's $\chi^2$ is below that of NuWro, GiBUU and GENIE; for NOvA muon neutrinos the model underestimates the peak region and overpredicts at high muon energies, with the shape-only $\chi^2$ factor of 3 tracing to the DIS description. For MicroBooNE, the model underpredicts the 2022 total and single-differential cross sections on argon, while the 2024 three-dimensional data agree for neutrino energies below 1.6 GeV and are underpredicted above, where inelastic channels matter most. The authors conclude that the discrepancies point to the inelastic description rather than to the QE or MEC pieces, and that new inelastic ingredients are needed.

Load-bearing premise

The factorization is assumed to hold across the entire energy spectrum, from quasielastic to deep inelastic scattering, and for argon as well as carbon; if the scaling function extracted from quasielastic electron-carbon data does not transfer to argon or to high-energy inelastic kinematics, the five-channel decomposition loses its basis.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the SuSAv2 channel decomposition is right, event generators that adopt it will inherit a concrete high-energy shortfall: forward-angle, high-lepton-energy inclusive events will be underpredicted until the inelastic single-nucleon structure functions are augmented.
  • The NOvA electron-neutrino agreement implies the factorization works over a broad energy range on a mixed carbon/chlorine target, supporting its use in near-detector oscillation analyses.
  • The MicroBooNE pattern implies that below 1.6 GeV the QE-dominated model is adequate on argon, so future argon measurements should focus on the inelastic threshold region to find the missing strength.
  • The shape-only $\chi^2$ factor of 3 for NOvA muon neutrinos, if confirmed, means the normalization can be tuned by 2p2h adjustments but the angular shape requires changes in the DIS treatment.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's attribution of the MicroBooNE deficit to inelastic channels is not fully tested by its own comparison, because at average energies below 1 GeV the QE channel dominates; a CC0π measurement on argon at the same flux would isolate whether the QE scaling function itself transfers to argon.
  • One way to sharpen the missing-inelastic-strength claim would be to repeat the comparison with electron scattering on argon: the same forward-angle deficit in $(e,e')$ data would point to the nuclear scaling functions rather than neutrino-specific structure functions.
  • The negative cross-section bins produced by the MicroBooNE smearing matrix mean part of the apparent discrepancy could be an unfolding artifact; a forward-folded comparison without the regularization would test this.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper confronts the SuSAv2 model, supplemented by RFG-based 2p2h-MEC, DCC resonances, and Bodek-Ritchie-based soft/true DIS contributions, with published CC-inclusive neutrino scattering data from NOvA (electron and muon neutrino double-differential cross sections on a mixed carbon-rich target) and MicroBooNE (muon neutrino total, single-differential, and double-differential cross sections on argon). The central positive claim is that the model reproduces the shape and magnitude of most measured distributions, with a residual underestimation at very forward angles and high lepton energies that the authors attribute to missing strength in the inelastic channels. The paper also reports chi-square values, including a shape-only factor for NOvA muon neutrinos, and discusses the use of a smearing matrix for the MicroBooNE comparison.

Significance. If the comparison is taken at face value, the paper provides a useful, wide-energy-range validation of the SuSAv2 framework on two different nuclear targets, including argon, and it produces a channel-by-channel decomposition that can inform neutrino event generators. A genuine strength is that no parameter is fitted to the NOvA or MicroBooNE data under comparison, so the exercise is a forward prediction rather than a fit. The use of published experimental data, the transparent listing of the reaction channels in Table I, and the explicit handling of the MicroBooNE smearing matrix are also assets. However, the quantitative support for the paper's main interpretive claim is weakened by the absence of theoretical uncertainty bands, the lack of statistical details (degrees of freedom, covariance definition), and several places where the channel attribution is either internally inconsistent or contradicted by the displayed decomposition.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section III B and Section IV] The attribution of the MicroBooNE underestimation to missing inelastic strength is internally inconsistent. In Section III B the text says that in all panels of Fig. 3 a similar underestimation 'can be ascribed to some missing strength in the inelastic channels,' yet the same section and the conclusions state that at the MicroBooNE flux peak (around 0.8 GeV) the quasielastic channel dominates and that 'the possible lack of strength presented by our model in the inelastic channel is not expected to explain these discrepancies.' Since the underpredicted total and single-differential cross sections in Fig. 3 are dominated by QE at these kinematics, the paper must either remove this attribution for the MicroBooNE data of Ref. [56] or provide a quantitative channel-level decomposition, after smearing, showing that inelastic contributions are actually substantial in the discrepant kinematic region.
  2. [Section III A (NOvA)] The central claim that the observed underestimation can be ascribed to missing inelastic strength is partly contradicted by the NOvA muon-neutrino results. In the discussion of Fig. 2 the paper states that at high muon kinetic energies the model overpredicts the data 'mostly due to the deep inelastic scattering contribution,' which is the opposite sign of a missing inelastic contribution. Moreover, for the NOvA electron-neutrino forward-angle bins the text reports that the DIS contributions fall below 15% and that QE and RES are each about 35% of the total, so the residual underprediction there is not obviously dominated by inelastic channels. The conclusion should be rephrased to specify, for each data set and kinematic region, which channel is over- or underpredicted and with what sign; a single blanket attribution to inelastic strength is not supported.
  3. [Section III (Figs. 1-9)] The quantitative support for 'reproduce well' is not auditable as presented. The manuscript quotes chi-square values (e.g., 14.4 in Fig. 1, 3.0 for the NOvA nu-mu shape factor, 740.1 and 289.5 for MicroBooNE) without stating the number of data points, the degrees of freedom, or the precise covariance matrix used. No theoretical uncertainty bands are shown on any prediction, so differences between the model and data cannot be separated from model uncertainty. To support the paper's comparative claims, the authors should provide, for each fit, the number of points, the chi-square per degree of freedom, and a clear description of how the covariance matrices and the smearing regularization bias enter the calculation.
  4. [Section II, Eq. (3)] The superscaling factorization is assumed to hold across the entire energy spectrum, 'from quasielastic to deep inelastic scattering,' and is then applied to argon targets at NOvA and MicroBooNE kinematics. Since the SuSAv2 scaling function fSuSAv2 is extracted from electron-scattering data, largely on lighter nuclei and in the quasielastic region, the transfer to argon and to DIS kinematics is a substantial extrapolation. The paper should either provide validation for this extrapolation (for example, a comparison with inclusive electron-argon scattering data or a sensitivity study varying fSuSAv2) or explicitly list it as a limitation that weakens the conclusion about missing inelastic strength.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figures 1 and 2] The axis labels should be made consistent and explicit: Fig. 1 uses E_e while the text discusses electron energy, and Fig. 2 uses E_mu with the text referring to muon kinetic energy; the authors should state whether the plotted quantity is kinetic or total energy.
  2. [Fig. 3] In the middle and right panels, the horizontal-axis labels (E_mu and omega) should be defined in the caption, since the text interchangeably refers to 'muon energy' and 'transferred energy.'
  3. [Fig. 2 legend] The notation 'chi2_shape = chi2 * Fshape, where Fshape is the only-shape factor' is unclear; Fshape should be defined in the text, and the value 3.0 should be explained as a multiplicative factor or as a separate shape-only chi-square.
  4. [Section III B] The sentence noting that the underestimation 'is not observed in a previous work [38]' is ambiguous because the following sentences discuss the difference between MicroBooNE data sets [3] and [56]; the relation between these two measurements should be clarified.
  5. [Table I] The entry for SoftDIS ('SuSAv2 inelastic - SuSAv2-DCC') should be expanded to state that both terms are evaluated with the same kinematic limits and the same single-nucleon structure functions, so the difference isolates the non-resonant contribution cleanly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: no parameter is fitted to the NOvA or MicroBooNE data under comparison, and the self-citations point to validations against external data.

full rationale

The paper's central activity is a comparison of the SuSAv2 model with CC-inclusive NOvA and MicroBooNE data, and no parameter of the model is fitted to those data. The model inputs are scaling functions extracted from inclusive electron scattering, RMF potentials fitted to nuclear-matter saturation properties, DCC resonance structure functions fitted to ANL data, and Bodek-Ritchie inelastic structure functions fitted to electron scattering data. These are all external to the datasets being predicted, so the comparison is not circular by construction. The channel decomposition (QE, MEC, RES, SoftDIS, TrueDIS) is a definitional bookkeeping device, not a prediction that reduces to its own input. The paper explicitly states that the superscaling factorization is 'assumed to hold across the entire energy spectrum,' which is an open assumption rather than a smuggled ansatz. Self-citations such as [38] are used to report prior validation against T2K, MINERvA, and electron-scattering data, which are independent benchmarks; they are not used to forbid alternatives or to import a uniqueness theorem. The interpretive statements ascribing discrepancies to 'missing strength in the inelastic channels' are not derived predictions, and the paper itself concedes for MicroBooNE that such missing inelastic strength is 'not expected to explain these discrepancies.' Thus no specific circular reduction can be exhibited with quoted equations or fitted parameters, and the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new entities and fits no parameters to the NOvA or MicroBooNE data. However, the comparison depends on a chain of prior fits and domain assumptions: RMF potentials, scaling functions, k_F values, separation energy, DCC resonance parameters, and Bodek-Ritchie structure functions, plus the smearing matrix supplied by MicroBooNE. The strengths of those inputs are not re-derived here.

free parameters (6)
  • RMF scalar and vector potential strengths = Not quoted in this paper; from nuclear matter saturation fits
    Set the QE scaling functions in SuSAv2; the comparison inherits them from prior work.
  • Fermi momentum k_F for each target = Not quoted in this paper
    Defines the scaling variable and response normalization for carbon, chlorine, titanium, oxygen, and argon.
  • Separation energy E_s = Not quoted in this paper
    Appears in W_X^max = m_N + omega - E_s for TrueDIS; affects the DIS cross-section normalization.
  • SuSAv2 scaling functions f(psi) = Extracted from QE (e,e') data and RMF/RPWIA calculations
    Used for QE and inelastic responses; extrapolated beyond the original QE electron-scattering regime.
  • Bodek-Ritchie structure function parameters = From Bodek-Ritchie fits to electron scattering
    Single-nucleon inelastic structure functions for DIS; chosen for consistency with prior work.
  • DCC resonance model parameters = Fitted to ANL pion-production data
    Provide the RES channel in SuSAv2-DCC and define SoftDIS by subtraction.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Superscaling factorization holds for all channels and kinematics
    Section II states: 'This factorization is assumed to hold across the entire energy spectrum, covering various nuclear processes, from quasielastic to deep inelastic scattering.'
  • domain assumption RMF Dirac-Hartree potentials describe bound and scattered nucleon states
    Section II invokes RMF with parameters fitted to saturation properties; the QE scaling functions are built from these solutions.
  • domain assumption RFG-based 2p2h MEC calculation is valid for carbon and argon
    Table I and Section II use RFG-based 2p2h from Refs. [24,25] without target-specific tuning.
  • domain assumption MicroBooNE smearing matrix correctly transforms theoretical cross sections
    Section III B requires applying the experimental smearing matrix to the final theoretical result to account for regularization and bias.
  • domain assumption DCC model validity domain W_X <= 2.1 GeV and Q^2 <= 3 GeV
    Section II limits the resonance model to this range and uses it to define SoftDIS by subtraction.
  • domain assumption Bodek-Ritchie parameterizations are reliable in the DIS kinematics used
    Section II states the choice is for consistency with previous work because PDFs are poor at low Q^2 and Bosted-Christy is not suitable at high omega.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Analysis of NOvA and MicroBooNE charged-current inclusive neutrino measurements within the SuSAv2 framework." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/W7HZYQAV

@misc{pith2026241218636,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Analysis of NOvA and MicroBooNE charged-current inclusive neutrino measurements within the SuSAv2 framework},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/W7HZYQAV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.18636}
}
read the original abstract

In this work we compare the SuSAv2 model, based on the superscaling phenomenon and the relativistic mean field theory, with charged-current inclusive neutrino cross sections from the NOvA and MicroBooNE experiments, whose targets are composed primarily by 12 C and 40 Ar, respectively. The neutrino energy in these experiments covers a kinematic range from tens of MeV to roughly 20 GeV. Thus, we consider the different reaction mechanisms that contribute significantly to these kinematics, namely quasielastic, two-particle two-hole meson exchange currents, resonances and deep inelastic scattering contributions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.18636 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. NOvA CC inclusive flux-averaged double-differential cross section per target nucleon in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. NOvA CC inclusive flux-averaged double-differential cross section per target nucleon in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (Left) MicroBooNE CC inclusive total cross section on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. MicroBooNE CC inclusive flux-averaged differential cross section on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. MicroBooNE CC inclusive flux-averaged differential cross section on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. MicroBooNE CC inclusive flux-averaged differential cross section on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. MicroBooNE CC inclusive flux-averaged differential cross section on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. MicroBooNE CC inclusive flux-averaged differential cross section on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. MicroBooNE CC inclusive flux-average differential cross section on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages

  1. [56]

    Abratenko et al

    P. Abratenko et al. (MicroBooNE Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 151801 (2022)

    2022

  2. [1]

    Alvarez-Ruso and others, Prog

    L. Alvarez-Ruso and others, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 100, 1 (2018), eprint: 1706.03621

    arXiv 2018

  3. [2]

    MiniBooNE Collaboration, Aguilar-Arevalo, and others, Physical Review D 81, 092005 (2010), publisher: American Physical Society

    work page 2010

  4. [3]

    Abratenko, and others, Physical Review Letters 123, 131801 (2019)

    MicroBooNE Collaboration, P. Abratenko, and others, Physical Review Letters 123, 131801 (2019)

    work page 2019

  5. [4]

    Abe, and others, Physical Review D 98, 012004 (2018), publisher: American Physical Society

    T2K Collaboration, K. Abe, and others, Physical Review D 98, 012004 (2018), publisher: American Physical Society

    work page 2018

  6. [5]

    Filkins, and others, Physical Review D 101, 112007 (2020), publisher: American Physical Society

    MINERvA Collaboration, A. Filkins, and others, Physical Review D 101, 112007 (2020), publisher: American Physical Society. 19

    work page 2020

  7. [6]

    NOvA Collaboration, M. A. Acero, and others, Physical Review Letters 130, 051802 (2023), arXiv:2206.10585 [hep-ex]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

  8. [7]

    Acciarri et al

    R. Acciarri et al. (DUNE Collaboration), (2015), arXiv:1512.06148 [physics.ins-det]

    arXiv 2015

Show all 60 references
  1. [8]

    Hyper-Kamiokande Design Report,

    Hyper-Kamiokande Proto-Collaboration, K. Abe, and others, “Hyper-Kamiokande Design Report,” (2018), arXiv:1805.04163 [astro-ph, physics:hep-ex, physics:physics]

    2018 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Alvarez-Ruso et al

    L. Alvarez-Ruso et al. (GENIE Collaboration), Eur. Phys. J. ST 230, 4449 (2021), arXiv:2106.09381 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Juszczak, J

    C. Juszczak, J. A. Nowak, and J. T. Sobczyk, Nuclear Physics B - Proceedings Supple- ments 159, 211 (2006), proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Neutrino-Nucleus Interactions in the Few-GeV Region

    2006

  4. [11]

    Hayato, Acta Phys

    Y. Hayato, Acta Phys. Polon. B 40, 2477 (2009)

    2009

  5. [12]

    Isaacson, W

    J. Isaacson, W. I. Jay, A. Lovato, P. A. N. Machado, and N. Rocco, Phys. Rev. D 107, 033007 (2023)

    2023

  6. [13]

    Gardiner, Computer Physics Communications 269, 108123 (2021)

    S. Gardiner, Computer Physics Communications 269, 108123 (2021)

    2021

  7. [14]

    Monte carlo simulation development and implementation of the gibuu model for neutrino experiments,

    L. A. Soplin, R. C. Fernandez, J. Gustafson, D. Quinn, and S. Yadav, “Monte carlo simulation development and implementation of the gibuu model for neutrino experiments,” (2024), arXiv:2311.14286 [hep-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  8. [15]

    J. M. Franco-Patino, J. Gonzalez-Rosa, J. A. Caballero, and M. B. Barbaro, Phys. Rev. C 102, 064626 (2020)

    2020

  9. [16]

    J. M. Franco-Patino, S. Dolan, R. Gonz´ alez-Jim´ enez, M. B. Barbaro, J. A. Caballero, and G. D. Megias, Phys. Rev. D 109, 013004 (2024)

    2024

  10. [17]

    J. M. Franco-Patino, R. Gonz´ alez-Jim´ enez, S. Dolan, M. B. Barbaro, J. A. Caballero, G. D. Megias, and J. M. Udias, Phys. Rev. D 106, 113005 (2022)

    2022

  11. [18]

    G. D. Megias, J. E. Amaro, M. B. Barbaro, J. A. Caballero, T. W. Donnelly, and I. R. Simo, Phys. Rev. D 94, 093004 (2016), publisher: American Physical Society

    2016

  12. [19]

    Gonzal´ ez-Jim´ enez, G

    R. Gonzal´ ez-Jim´ enez, G. D. Megias, M. B. Barbaro, J. A. Caballero, and T. W. Donnelly, Phys. Rev. C 90, 035501 (2014), eprint: 1407.8346

    2014 arXiv

  13. [20]

    G. D. Megias, J. E. Amaro, M. B. Barbaro, J. A. Caballero, and T. W. Donnelly, Phys. Rev. D 94, 013012 (2016), arXiv:1603.08396 [nucl-th]

    2016 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Gonzalez-Rosa, G

    J. Gonzalez-Rosa, G. Megias, J. Caballero, and M. Barbaro, Physical Review D 105, 093009 (2022). 20

    2022

  15. [22]

    Papadopoulou, A

    A. Papadopoulou, A. Ashkenazi, S. Gardiner, M. Betancourt, S. Dytman, L. B. Weinstein, E. Piasetzky, F. Hauenstein, M. Khachatryan, S. Dolan, G. D. Megias, and O. Hen ( e4ν Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 103, 113003 (2021)

    2021

  16. [23]

    Dolan, G

    S. Dolan, G. D. Megias, and S. Bolognesi, Phys. Rev. D 101, 033003 (2020)

    2020

  17. [24]

    I. R. Simo, J. E. Amaro, M. B. Barbaro, A. D. Pace, J. A. Caballero, and T. W. Donnelly, Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics 44, 065105 (2017)

    2017

  18. [25]

    Amaro, M

    J. Amaro, M. Barbaro, J. Caballero, T. Donnelly, and C. Williamson, Physics Letters B 696, 151 (2011)

    2011

  19. [26]

    M. A. Acero and et al. (NOvA Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 051802 (2023)

    2023

  20. [27]

    Website of the nova experiment,

    NOvA Collaboration, “Website of the nova experiment,” (2024), last accessed November 2024

    2024

  21. [28]

    Website of the microboone experiment,

    MicroBooNE Collaboration, “Website of the microboone experiment,” (2024), last accessed November 2024

    2024

  22. [29]

    G. D. Megias, Charged-current neutrino interactions with nucleons and nuclei at intermediate energies, Ph.D. thesis, University of Seville (2017)

    2017

  23. [30]

    Ring, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics 37, 193 (1996)

    P. Ring, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics 37, 193 (1996)

    1996

  24. [31]

    Gonz´ alez-Jim´ enez, A

    R. Gonz´ alez-Jim´ enez, A. Nikolakopoulos, N. Jachowicz, and J. M. Ud ´ ıas, Phys. Rev. C100, 045501 (2019), publisher: American Physical Society

    2019

  25. [32]

    T. W. Donnelly and I. Sick, Physical Review Letters 82, 3212 (1999), publisher: American Physical Society

    1999

  26. [33]

    J. E. Amaro, M. B. Barbaro, J. A. Caballero, T. W. Donnelly, A. Molinari, and I. Sick, Physical Review C 71, 015501 (2005)

    2005

  27. [34]

    J. E. Amaro, M. B. Barbaro, J. A. Caballero, R. Gonz´ alez-Jim´ enez, G. D. Megias, and I. R. Simo, Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics 47, 124001 (2020), publisher: IOP Publishing

    2020

  28. [35]

    J. E. Amaro, M. B. Barbaro, J. A. Caballero, T. W. Donnelly, R. Gonz´ alez-Jim´ enez, G. D. Megias, and I. Ruiz Simo, The European Physical Journal Special Topics 230, 4321 (2021)

    2021

  29. [36]

    G. D. Megias, M. B. Barbaro, J. A. Caballero, J. E. Amaro, T. W. Donnelly, I. R. Simo, and J. W. V. Orden, Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics 46, 015104 (2018), publisher: IOP Publishing

    2018

  30. [37]

    G. D. Megias, M. B. Barbaro, J. A. Caballero, and S. Dolan, Physical Review D 99, 113002 21 (2019), publisher: American Physical Society

    2019

  31. [38]

    Gonzalez-Rosa, G

    J. Gonzalez-Rosa, G. D. Megias, J. A. Caballero, M. B. Barbaro, and J. M. Franco-Patino, Phys. Rev. D 108, 113008 (2023)

    2023

  32. [39]

    Nakamura, H

    S. Nakamura, H. Kamano, and T. Sato, Physical Review D 92, 074024 (2015), publisher: American Physical Society

    2015

  33. [40]

    S. X. Nakamura, H. Kamano, and T. Sato, Phys. Rev. D 99, 031301 (2019), arXiv:1812.00144 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  34. [41]

    Website of the ANL-Osaka DCC model,

    Osaka University, “Website of the ANL-Osaka DCC model,” (2021), last accessed October 2023

    2021

  35. [42]

    Kabirnezhad, Phys

    M. Kabirnezhad, Phys. Rev. D 97, 013002 (2018), arXiv:1711.02403 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  36. [43]

    Kabirnezhad, Phys

    M. Kabirnezhad, Phys. Rev. C 107, 025502 (2023), arXiv:2203.15594 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  37. [44]

    Gonz´ alez-Jim´ enez, K

    R. Gonz´ alez-Jim´ enez, K. Niewczas, and N. Jachowicz, Physical Review D97, 013004 (2018), publisher: American Physical Society

    2018

  38. [45]

    Garc ´ ıa-Marcos, T

    J. Garc ´ ıa-Marcos, T. Franco-Munoz, R. Gonz´ alez-Jim´ enez, A. Nikolakopoulos, N. Jachowicz, and J. M. Ud ´ ıas, Phys. Rev. C109, 024608 (2024)

    2024

  39. [46]

    C. G. Callan and D. J. Gross, Physical Review Letters 22, 156 (1969), publisher: American Physical Society

    1969

  40. [47]

    A. G. Tooran, A. Khorramian, and H. Abdolmaleki, Physical Review C 99, 035207 (2019), publisher: American Physical Society

    2019

  41. [48]

    Stein, W

    S. Stein, W. B. Atwood, E. D. Bloom, R. L. A. Cottrell, H. DeStaebler, C. L. Jordan, H. G. Piel, C. Y. Prescott, R. Siemann, and R. E. Taylor, Physical Review D 12, 1884 (1975), publisher: American Physical Society

    1975

  42. [49]

    Gl¨ uck, E

    M. Gl¨ uck, E. Reya, and A. Vogt, The European Physical Journal C - Particles and Fields 5, 461 (1998)

    1998

  43. [50]

    Bodek and U.-k

    A. Bodek and U.-k. Yang, (2010), arXiv:1011.6592 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  44. [51]

    Bodek and J

    A. Bodek and J. L. Ritchie, Physical Review D 23, 1070 (1981), publisher: American Physical Society

    1981

  45. [52]

    Bodek and J

    A. Bodek and J. L. Ritchie, Physical Review D 24, 1400 (1981), publisher: American Physical Society

    1981

  46. [53]

    Bodek, M

    A. Bodek, M. Breidenbach, D. L. Dubin, J. E. Elias, J. I. Friedman, H. W. Kendall, J. S. Poucher, E. M. Riordan, M. R. Sogard, D. H. Coward, and D. J. Sherden, Physical Review 22 D 20, 1471 (1979), publisher: American Physical Society

    1979

  47. [54]

    Liang et al

    Y. Liang et al. (Jefferson Lab Hall C E94-110 Collaboration), Phys. Rev. C 105, 065205 (2022), arXiv:nucl-ex/0410027

    2022 arXiv

  48. [55]

    P. E. Bosted and M. E. Christy, Physical Review C 77, 065206 (2008), publisher: American Physical Society

    2008

  49. [57]

    Measurement of three-dimensional inclu- sive muon-neutrino charged-current cross sections on argon with the microboone detector,

    P. Abratenko et al. (MicroBooNE Collaboration), “Measurement of three-dimensional inclu- sive muon-neutrino charged-current cross sections on argon with the microboone detector,” (2024), arXiv:2307.06413 [hep-ex]

    2024

  50. [58]

    M. A. Acero et al. (NOvA Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 107, 052011 (2023)

    2023

  51. [59]

    Khachatryan et al

    M. Khachatryan et al. (CLAS Collaboration, e4 ν Collaboration), Nature 599, 565 (2021)

    2021

  52. [60]

    Gonzalez-Rosa, S

    J. Gonzalez-Rosa, S. Gardiner, J. A. Caballero, G. D. Megias, et al., In preparation (2025). 23

    2025

Pith tools

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