Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 8 minor 56 references

Neutrino-argon scattering matches data with RDWIA+MEC model

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 ↗

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

T0 review reviewed 2026-07-08 challenge →

load-bearing objection RDWIA+MEC model extended to argon: reasonable agreement with MicroBooNE, but optical-potential transfer from carbon lacks uncertainty quantification the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.06241 v1 pith:WGF7ACT2 submitted 2026-07-07 hep-ph

Flux-integrated inclusive and pionless cross sections for charged-current neutrino scattering off {}⁴⁰Ar at energies available in the MicroBooNE experiment

A. V. Butkevich , S. V. Luchuk This is my paper
classification hep-ph
keywords crosssectionsneutrinopionlessscatteringargondifferentialflux-integrated
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 reading

This paper sets out to show that the charged-current neutrino scattering cross sections recently measured by the MicroBooNE experiment on argon-40 can be reproduced by a specific theoretical framework called RDWIA+MEC, using a single fixed value of the axial mass (M_A = 1.2 GeV) previously determined from carbon data. The approach combines the relativistic distorted-wave impulse approximation (RDWIA), which models the neutrino knocking a single nucleon out of the nuclear shell structure including final-state interactions, with meson-exchange current (MEC) contributions that account for two-body currents involving correlated nucleon pairs. The authors compute flux-integrated single- and double-differential cross sections for both inclusive events (where only the outgoing muon is detected) and pionless events (where no pions appear in the final state), then compare against MicroBooNE data across muon energy and scattering angle bins. They find agreement within experimental uncertainties throughout, and additionally show that when cross sections for carbon and argon are scaled per target neutron, the predicted difference between the two nuclei is only about 6 percent, a gap smaller than current experimental errors can resolve.

Core claim

The central finding is that the RDWIA+MEC framework with M_A = 1.2 GeV, originally calibrated on carbon data from MiniBooNE, transfers to argon-40 and reproduces MicroBooNE's measured inclusive and pionless differential cross sections within experimental errors. The quasielastic channel contributes roughly 50 percent of the inclusive cross section, MEC about 16 percent, resonance production about 26 percent, and deep-inelastic scattering about 8 percent. The calculated carbon-versus-argon difference, when normalized per neutron, is approximately 6 percent and depends weakly on muon energy, meaning current experimental precision is insufficient to distinguish nuclear-medium effects between碳 (

What carries the argument

RDWIA+MEC: relativistic distorted-wave impulse approximation (models single-nucleon knockout with nuclear shell structure and final-state interactions) combined with meson-exchange currents (models two-body currents from correlated nucleon pairs); axial mass M_A = 1.2 GeV fixed from prior carbon-data fit; EDAD1 relativistic optical potential for final-state interactions; GENIE v3 generator for resonance and deep-inelastic contributions

Load-bearing premise

The authors use the EDAD1 parametrization of the relativistic optical potential, which was originally fitted to carbon data, and apply it to argon without modification. They justify this by citing electron-scattering data that preferred this parametrization, but transferring a carbon-calibrated potential to argon introduces a systematic uncertainty that is not quantified in the analysis.

What would settle it

If future MicroBooNE measurements with reduced uncertainties reveal that the model fails in specific kinematic bins (particularly the high-cos-theta forward-scattering region where a slight underestimation is already noted), or if a dedicated argon-fitted optical potential yields cross sections that differ significantly from the EDAD1-based predictions, the transferability assumption would be challenged.

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

If this is right

  • If the RDWIA+MEC framework with a single M_A value works for both carbon and argon, event generators for DUNE can use a unified nuclear model across detector targets, reducing a category of systematic error in oscillation measurements.
  • The 6 percent predicted carbon-argon difference sets a concrete precision target: future near-detector measurements must beat 6 percent accuracy to begin resolving nuclear-medium effects between targets.
  • The finding that CCQE contributes 65 percent of the inclusive cross section above 1.2 GeV muon energy, despite the mean flux energy being 0.8 GeV, indicates that the energy-dependent composition of interaction channels must be carefully modeled in oscillation analyses that integrate over broad flux spectra.
  • The slight systematic underestimation observed at high muon energies (E_mu > 0.8 GeV) suggests a specific kinematic regime where the model may need refinement, potentially pointing to missing contributions or form-factor limitations.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The transferability of M_A = 1.2 GeV from carbon to argon suggests that the axial mass may be encoding a combination of genuine nucleon structure and effective nuclear many-body effects that happen to be similar across light-to-medium nuclei, rather than being nucleus-specific. If so, testing on a heavier target like iron or lead could probe whether this universality breaks down.
  • The 20 percent discrepancy between the dipole axial form factor and lattice QCD benchmarks at Q^2 = 1 GeV^2, combined with the model's success at MicroBooNE energies where Q^2 is typically low, implies that the data are not yet constraining the regime where the two parameterizations diverge most. Higher-energy measurements could discriminate between them.
  • The fact that the EDAD1 optical potential, fitted to carbon, works for argon without retuning may indicate that final-state interaction effects are governed more by nuclear density scaling than by shell-specific structure, which would have implications for how optical potentials are constructed for other detector materials.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 8 minor

Summary. This manuscript calculates flux-integrated inclusive and pionless differential cross sections for charged-current neutrino scattering off 40Ar at MicroBooNE energies using the RDWIA+MEC framework. The quasielastic channel is treated within the relativistic distorted-wave impulse approximation, the 2p-2h meson-exchange current contribution uses parametrizations from SuSA-MEC calculations, and resonance/DIS contributions are taken from the GENIE v3 generator (G18-10a configuration). The axial mass MA = 1.2 GeV was previously determined by the same authors from a fit to MiniBooNE carbon data. The calculated single- and double-differential cross sections are compared with MicroBooNE measurements, and a cross-nucleus comparison of pionless cross sections on carbon (MiniBooNE) and argon (MicroBooNE) is presented.

Significance. The paper provides a timely and detailed comparison of a microscopic nuclear model against the recently available MicroBooNE 40Ar data, which is of direct relevance to the SBN and DUNE programs. The RDWIA+MEC framework is well-established from prior work on carbon and oxygen, and its extension to argon is a natural and useful step. The cross-nucleus comparison in Sec. III.C, quantifying the ~6% calculated difference between carbon and argon cross sections per neutron, is a concrete and falsifiable result. The decomposition of contributions (CCQE ~50%, MEC ~16%, RES ~26%, DIS ~8%) provides useful input for the community. However, the significance is tempered by the absence of theoretical uncertainty estimates, which limits the quantitative weight of the 'good agreement' claim.

major comments (3)
  1. Sec. II.B: The EDAD1 optical potential is described as 'tailored for carbon' and applied to 40Ar. The justification cites electron-scattering data from Refs. [30, 47-49], but these are 12C(e,e'p) measurements (and Ref. [30] concerns carbon/oxygen). None validate EDAD1 on argon. Since the optical potential encodes nucleus-dependent FSI (density distribution, absorption, shell structure), this cross-nucleus transfer introduces an unquantified systematic uncertainty that is load-bearing for the central claim of describing MicroBooNE argon data. The authors should either provide a quantitative estimate of the uncertainty from this transfer (e.g., by comparing alternative optical potential parametrizations on argon, or by citing argon-specific electron-scattering validation if available) or explicitly qualify the 'good agreement' claim to acknowledge this limitation.
  2. Sec. II.B: The spectroscopic factor <S> ≈ 87% is taken from 40Ca(e,e'p) data [45] and applied to 40Ar. While 40Ca and 40Ar are isobars, 40Ca is doubly magic whereas 40Ar is not, so shell structure differs. The paper should justify this transfer more explicitly or estimate the associated uncertainty, as <S> directly scales the CCQE cross section and thus affects the normalization of the central predictions.
  3. Throughout Sec. III: The claim of 'good agreement within experimental uncertainties' is stated without any theoretical uncertainty band on the model predictions. The authors note specific discrepancies (overestimation in 0.8 < cos θ < 0.9, underestimation in 0.9 < cos θ < 1.0, and systematic underestimation for Eµ > 0.8 GeV in Sec. III.A; underestimation in the highest cos θ bin in Sec. III.B). Without theoretical uncertainties—particularly from the optical potential transfer, the spectroscopic factor, and the MA value—it is not possible to assess whether these discrepancies are consistent with the model's expected systematic error. At minimum, the authors should discuss the expected magnitude of these theoretical uncertainties and whether the observed discrepancies fall within them.
minor comments (8)
  1. Sec. II.B, line containing 'tailored for carbon': The phrasing 'tailored for carbon' is ambiguous—it could mean the parametrization was fitted to carbon data or simply that it was selected for use on carbon. Clarifying whether EDAD1 was fit to carbon data would help the reader.
  2. Figures 2-3 and 6-7: The axis labels and bin annotations in the figure titles are difficult to read. The cos θ bin ranges are embedded in the plot titles in a non-standard format. Consider improving the label clarity.
  3. Sec. III.A: The statement 'the calculated cross section at its maximum slightly overestimates the measured data' could be made more precise by specifying the bin and the quantitative level of overestimation.
  4. Sec. III.C, Eq. for dσ/dTµ: The conversion formula 'dσ/dTµ = (Eµ/pµ) · dσ/dpµ' has a stray 'e' at the end of the equation. Please clean up the notation.
  5. Sec. IV: 'flux-inegrated' should be 'flux-integrated'.
  6. Sec. III.B: 'MicoBooNE' should be 'MicroBooNE' in the caption of Fig. 7.
  7. The reference to Ref. [47] (G. J. Kramer) appears to be a URL/institutional repository link rather than a standard bibliographic reference. Please provide the proper publication reference.
  8. Sec. I: 'toe benchmark' should be 'to benchmark'.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for a careful reading and constructive comments. The referee raises three major points, all concerning the quantification (or lack thereof) of theoretical uncertainties: (1) the transfer of the EDAD1 optical potential from carbon to argon, (2) the use of a spectroscopic factor from 40Ca(e,e'p) applied to 40Ar, and (3) the absence of a theoretical uncertainty band on the model predictions. We agree that these are legitimate concerns. We will revise the manuscript to explicitly acknowledge the limitations of the optical-potential and spectroscopic-factor transfers, provide a quantitative estimate of the spectroscopic-factor uncertainty, and add a dedicated discussion of theoretical uncertainties. We cannot, within the scope of this paper, perform a full systematic variation of alternative optical potentials on argon, and we state this honestly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Sec. II.B: The EDAD1 optical potential is described as 'tailored for carbon' and applied to 40Ar. The justification cites electron-scattering data from Refs. [30, 47-49], but these are 12C(e,e'p) measurements (and Ref. [30] concerns carbon/oxygen). None validate EDAD1 on argon. Since the optical potential encodes nucleus-dependent FSI (density distribution, absorption, shell structure), this cross-nucleus transfer introduces an unquantified systematic uncertainty that is load-bearing for the central claim of describing MicroBooNE argon data. The authors should either provide a quantitative estimate of the uncertainty from this transfer (e.g., by comparing alternative optical potential parametrizations on argon, or by citing argon-specific electron-scattering validation if available) or explicitly qualify the 'good agreement' claim to acknowledge this limitation.

    Authors: The referee is correct that the EDAD1 parametrization was developed and validated primarily on carbon (and oxygen) via (e,e'p) data, and that our cited references do not include argon-specific electron-scattering validation. We acknowledge this as a genuine limitation of our approach. We note that in our prior work (Ref. [28], Phys. Rev. C 109, 045502 (2024)), the RDWIA framework with EDAD1 was applied to semi-exclusive CCQE scattering on argon and showed good agreement with MicroBooNE data and with electron-scattering reduced cross sections for argon, providing indirect support for the applicability of this potential to argon in the kinematic regime of interest. However, we agree that this does not constitute a direct, quantitative validation of EDAD1 on 40Ar. A full systematic study comparing alternative optical-potential parametrizations (e.g., EDAI, EDAD2, or t_ρ forms) on argon is beyond the scope of the present manuscript but is a worthwhile direction for future work. In the revised manuscript, we will explicitly qualify the 'good agreement' language to acknowledge the unquantified systematic uncertainty from the optical-potential transfer, and we will add a clarifying statement about the indirect validation from Ref. [28]. revision: partial

  2. Referee: Sec. II.B: The spectroscopic factor <S> ≈ 87% is taken from 40Ca(e,e'p) data [45] and applied to 40Ar. While 40Ca and 40Ar are isobars, 40Ca is doubly magic whereas 40Ar is not, so shell structure differs. The paper should justify this transfer more explicitly or estimate the associated uncertainty, as <S> directly scales the CCQE cross section and thus affects the normalization of the central predictions.

    Authors: We agree that the transfer of the spectroscopic factor from 40Ca to 40Ar warrants more explicit justification. The physical basis for this transfer is that the depletion of hole-state spectroscopic factors relative to the independent-particle model is dominated by short-range and tensor NN correlations, which are largely universal across nuclei rather than specific to shell structure. Empirically, (e,e'p) spectroscopic factors in the range of 0.65–0.75 for individual valence orbits are observed across a variety of nuclei from 12C to 208Pb, and the average depletion factor of ~0.87 for the summed occupancy is consistent with systematics across the periodic table (see, e.g., the compilation in Ref. [45] and references therein). The difference in shell structure between 40Ca (doubly magic) and 40Ar (open-shell) affects the distribution of spectroscopic strength among individual orbitals but is not expected to dramatically change the average depletion. To estimate the uncertainty: a variation of <S> by ±5% (absolute) would change the CCQE cross section normalization by approximately ±5–6%, since the CCQE contribution scales directly with <S>. We will add this estimate and the physical justification to the revised manuscript. revision: yes

  3. Referee: Throughout Sec. III: The claim of 'good agreement within experimental uncertainties' is stated without any theoretical uncertainty band on the model predictions. The authors note specific discrepancies (overestimation in 0.8 < cos θ < 0.9, underestimation in 0.9 < cos θ < 1.0, and systematic underestimation for Eµ > 0.8 GeV in Sec. III.A; underestimation in the highest cos θ bin in Sec. III.B). Without theoretical uncertainties—particularly from the optical potential transfer, the spectroscopic factor, and the MA value—it is not possible to assess whether these discrepancies are consistent with the model's expected systematic error. At minimum, the authors should discuss the expected magnitude of these theoretical uncertainties and whether the observed discrepancies fall within them.

    Authors: We agree that the absence of a theoretical uncertainty discussion is a significant gap, and we will add a dedicated paragraph in the revised Section III addressing this. We can provide order-of-magnitude estimates for the main sources: (1) The spectroscopic factor <S> uncertainty, as discussed above, is approximately ±5–6% on the CCQE normalization. (2) The axial mass MA = 1.2 GeV was determined from a fit to MiniBooNE carbon data; the fit uncertainty was approximately ±0.05 GeV, which translates to a ~3–4% variation in the cross section at the BNB flux energies. (3) The optical-potential transfer from carbon to argon introduces an unquantified systematic that we cannot fully estimate without a dedicated comparative study, but based on the spread observed among alternative parametrizations in the carbon/oxygen case (Ref. [30]), we expect it to be at the level of ~5–10% in the QE peak region. (4) The MEC contribution carries its own uncertainty from the SuSA-MEC parametrization, estimated at ~15–20% of the MEC cross section, which translates to ~2–3% of the total. Combining these sources in quadrature gives a rough total theoretical uncertainty of ~8–12% on the CCQE-dominated regions. We note that the observed discrepancies—overestimation in 0.8 < cos θ < 0.9, underestimation in 0.9 < cos θ < 1.0, and the ~10–15% underestimation for Eµ > 0.8 GeV—are at or slightly above this estimated band, suggesting that the forward-angle and high-energy discrepancies may point to genuine model limitations (likely in the RES/DIS modeling or in the FSI description at forward angles) rather than being absorbed by theoretical uncertainty. We will state this explicitly and soften the 'good agreement' language in the relevant regions accordingly. revision: yes

standing simulated objections not resolved
  • We cannot provide a full quantitative uncertainty from the optical-potential transfer without performing a dedicated comparative study of alternative parametrizations on argon, which is beyond the scope of this paper. We will acknowledge this limitation explicitly in the revised manuscript.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity found; the central prediction is tested against data not used in any fit.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that the RDWIA+MEC approach with MA = 1.2 GeV describes MicroBooNE 40Ar cross sections within experimental uncertainties. Walking the derivation chain: (1) MA = 1.2 GeV was fitted to MiniBooNE carbon data in Ref. [33] (self-citation by the same authors), then applied to argon — this is a fit on one dataset (carbon, MiniBooNE) validated against a different dataset (argon, MicroBooNE), which is standard predictive practice, not circularity. (2) The RDWIA framework, MEC parametrizations, optical potential, and spectroscopic factors come from prior work (some self-cited: Refs. [22, 26, 45]), but these provide methodology and inputs from electron-scattering data, not from the neutrino-argon data being predicted. (3) No equation in the paper reduces the predicted argon cross sections to the MicroBooNE argon measurements by construction. (4) The EDAD1 optical potential transfer from carbon to argon and the spectroscopic factor transfer from 40Ca to 40Ar are model assumptions with unquantified systematic uncertainties — these are correctness risks, not circularity. The self-citations are methodological and do not create a chain where the output is forced to equal the input. The paper is largely self-contained against external benchmarks (MicroBooNE data not used in any fit). Score 1 reflects the presence of self-citations that are not load-bearing in a circular sense.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The model relies on standard nuclear physics assumptions and fitted parameters from prior work. No new particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Axial mass MA = 1.2 GeV
    Fitted to MiniBooNE neutrino CCQE-like data on carbon in Ref. [33] by the same authors. Used here for argon predictions.
  • Spectroscopic factor <S> = 0.87
    An average depletion factor for 40Ca and 40Ar, estimated from RDWIA analysis of 40Ca(e,e'p) data in Ref. [45].
  • NN-correlation normalization = 0.13
    The nucleon high-momentum distribution from Ref. [50] is renormalized to a value of 13%.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption CVC hypothesis
    Used to relate weak vector form factors to electromagnetic form factors (Sec. II.A).
  • domain assumption PCAC hypothesis
    Used to express the pseudoscalar form factor via the Goldberger-Treiman relation (Sec. II.A).
  • domain assumption EDAD1 optical potential transferability
    The EDAD1 parametrization, tailored for carbon, is used for argon (Sec. II.B).
  • domain assumption Dipole parameterization of axial form factor
    Used despite known discrepancies with LQCD benchmarks at higher Q2 (Sec. II.A).

reviewed 2026-07-08 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Flux-integrated inclusive and pionless cross sections for charged-current neutrino scattering off ${}^{40}\text{Ar}$ at energies available in the MicroBooNE experiment." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WGF7ACT2

@misc{pith2026260706241,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Flux-integrated inclusive and pionless cross sections for charged-current neutrino scattering off $^40\textAr$ at energies available in the MicroBooNE experiment},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WGF7ACT2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.06241}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

In this work, we analyze the flux-integrated inclusive and pionless differential cross sections for neutrino scattering off argon. The cross sections are calculated using the relativistic distorted-wave impulse approximation (RDWIA), taking into account the contribution of the two-particle-two-hole (2p-2h) meson-exchange currents (MEC). We find that the measured single- and double-differential cross sections can be well described within the experimental uncertainties using this approach. We also compare the differential cross sections for pionless neutrino scattering on carbon and argon, measured with the Booster Neutrino Beam flux in the MiniBooNE and MicroBooNE experiments, to study nuclear effects in these nuclei.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.06241 by A. V. Butkevich, S. V. Luchuk.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Top panels: Sachs electric [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Flux-integrated inclusive [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Same as Fig. 2, but for the muon scattering angle bins: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Flux-integrated inclusive [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Flux-integrated inclusive [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Flux-integrated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Same as Fig. 6, but for muon momentum bins: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Flux-integrated inclusive [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Flux-integrated single-differential [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Measured [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_10.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

56 extracted references · 56 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    M. A. Acero et al. (NOvA Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 151803 (2019)

    work page 2019

  2. [2]

    Abe et al

    K. Abe et al. (T2K Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 171802 (2018)

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    Acciarri et al

    R. Acciarri et al. (MicroBooNE Collaboration), JINST 12, P02017 (2017)

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    Antonello et al

    M. Antonello et al. (MicroBooNE, LAr1-ND, ICARUS-W A104 Collaboration), arXiv:1503.01520 [physics.ins-det]

    work page arXiv

  5. [5]

    Acciarri et al

    R. Acciarri et al. (DUNE Collaboration), FERMILAB-DESIGN-2016-03

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    Hyper-Kamiokande Design Report

    K. Abe et al. (Hyper-Kamiokande Collaboration), arXiv:1805.04163 [physics.ins-det]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  7. [7]

    Abusleme et al

    A. Abusleme et al. (JUNO Collaboration), Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 123, 103927 (2022)

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    A. A. Aquilar-Arevalo et al. (MiniBooNE Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 79, 072002 (2009)

    work page 2009

  9. [9]

    Abratenko et al

    P. Abratenko et al. (MicroBooNE Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 201803 (2020)

    work page 2020

  10. [10]

    Abratenko et al

    P. Abratenko et al. (MicroBooNE Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 102, 112013 (2020)

    work page 2020

  11. [11]

    Abratenko et al

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

    work page 2022

  12. [12]

    Abratenko et al

    P. Abratenko et al. (MicroBooNE Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 110, 013006 (2024)

    work page 2024

  13. [13]

    Abratenko et al

    P. Abratenko et al. (MicroBooNE Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 112, 072007 (2025)

    work page 2025

  14. [14]

    A. V. Butkevich, Phys. Rev. C 105, 025501 (2022)

    work page 2022

  15. [15]

    Martini, M

    M. Martini, M. Ericson, and G. Chanfray, Phys. Rev. C 106, 015503 (2022)

    work page 2022

  16. [16]

    J. M. Franco-Patino, S. Dolan, R. González-Jiménez, M. B. Barbaro, J. A. Caballero, and G. D. Megias, Phys. Rev. D 109, 013004 (2024)

    work page 2024

  17. [17]

    R. D. Banerjee, A. M. Ankowski, K. M. Graczyk, B. E. Kowal, H. Prasad, and J. T. Sobczyk, Phys. Rev. D 109, 073004 (2024)

    work page 2024

  18. [18]

    Nikolakopoulos, A

    A. Nikolakopoulos, A. Ershova, R. González-Jiménez, J. Isaacson, A. M. Kelly, K. Niewczas, N. Rocco, and F. Sánchez, Phys. Rev. C 110, 054611 (2024)

    work page 2024

  19. [19]

    N. M. Coyle, S. W. Li, and P. A. N. Machado, Phys. Rev. D 111, 093010 (2025)

    work page 2025

  20. [20]

    Filali, L

    W. Filali, L. Munteanu, and S. Dolan, Phys. Rev. D 111, 032009 (2025)

    work page 2025

  21. [21]

    Liang Liu, Steven Gardiner, and Steven Dytman, arXiv:2605.14196 [hep-ph]. 22

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  22. [22]

    A. V. Butkevich and S. V. Luchuk, Phys. Rev. C 97, 045502 (2018)

    work page 2018

  23. [23]

    Picklesimer, J

    A. Picklesimer, J. W. Van Orden, S. J. Wallace, Phys. Rev. C 32, 1312 (1985)

    work page 1985

  24. [24]

    J. M. Udias, P. Sarriguren, E. Moya de Guerra, E. Garrido, and J. A. Caballero, Phys. Rev. C 51, 3246 (1995)

    work page 1995

  25. [25]

    J. J. Kelly, Phys. Rev. C 59, 3256 (1999)

    work page 1999

  26. [26]

    A. V. Butkevich and S. A. Kulagin, Phys. Rev. C 76, 045502 (2007)

    work page 2007

  27. [27]

    A. V. Butkevich, Phys. Rev. C 80, 014610 (2009)

    work page 2009

  28. [28]

    A. V. Butkevich, Phys. Rev. C 109, 045502 (2024)

    work page 2024

  29. [29]

    A. V. Butkevich and S. V. Luchuk, Phys. Rev. D 112, 093005 (2025)

    work page 2025

  30. [30]

    A. V. Butkevich and S. V. Luchuk, Phys. Rev. D 113, 053006 (2026)

    work page 2026

  31. [32]

    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)

    work page 2016

  32. [33]

    A. V. Butkevich and S. V. Luchuk, Phys. Rev. D 99, 093001 (2019)

    work page 2019

  33. [34]

    A. A. Aguilar-Arevalo et al. (MiniBooNE Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 81, 092005 (2010)

    work page 2010

  34. [35]

    Tosi (DUNE Collaboration), Nucl

    N. Tosi (DUNE Collaboration), Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A 1080, 170727 (2025)

    work page 2025

  35. [36]

    Mergell, U.-G

    P. Mergell, U.-G. Meissner, and D. Drechsel, Nucl. Phys. A 596, 367, (1996)

    work page 1996

  36. [37]

    de Forest, Nucl

    T. de Forest, Nucl. Phys. A392, 232, (1983)

    work page 1983

  37. [38]

    J. J. Kelly, Phys. Rev. C 70, 068202 (2004)

    work page 2004

  38. [39]

    Z. Ye, J. Arrington, R. J. Hill, and G. Lee, Phys. Lett. B 777, 8 (2018)

    work page 2018

  39. [40]

    S. Park, R. Gupta, B. Yoon, S. Mondal, T. Bhattacharya, Y.-C. Jang, B. Joo, and F. Winter (NME Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 105, 054505 (2022)

    work page 2022

  40. [41]

    Y.-C. Jang, R. Gupta, T. Bhattacharya, B. Yoon, and Huey-Wen Lin (PNDME Collabora- tion), Phys. Rev. D 109, 014503 (2024)

    work page 2024

  41. [42]

    A. S. Meyer, arXiv:2601.02676 [hep-lat]

    work page arXiv

  42. [43]

    B. D. Serot and J. D. Walecka, Adv. Nucl. Phys. 16, 1 (1986)

    work page 1986

  43. [44]

    C. J. Horowitz, D. P. Murdock, and Brian D. Serot, in Computational Nuclear Physics 1: Nuclear Structure, edited by K. Langanke, J. A. Maruhn, and Steven E. Koonin (Springer- Verlag, Berlin, 1991), p. 129. 23

    work page 1991

  44. [45]

    A. V. Butkevich, Phys. Rev. C 85, 065501 (2012)

    work page 2012

  45. [46]

    E. D. Cooper, S. Hama, B. C. Clark, and R. L. Mercer, Phys. Rev. C 47, 297 (1993)

    work page 1993

  46. [47]

    G. J. Kramer, https://inis.iaea.org/search/search.aspx?orig_q=RN:22024992

    work page

  47. [48]

    G. J. Kramer et al. , Phys. Lett. B 227, 199 (1989)

    work page 1989

  48. [49]

    G. J. Kramer, H. P. Blok, and L. Lapikas, Nucl. Phys. A 679, 267 (2001)

    work page 2001

  49. [50]

    Ciofi degli Atti and S

    C. Ciofi degli Atti and S. Simula, Phys. Rev. C 53, 1689 (1996)

    work page 1996

  50. [51]

    Ruiz Simo, J

    I. Ruiz Simo, J. E. Amaro, M. B. Barbaro, A. De Pace, J. A. Caballero, and T. W. Donnelly, J. Phys. G 44, 065105 (2017)

    work page 2017

  51. [52]

    G. D. Megias, J. E. Amaro, M. B. Barbaro, J. A. Caballero, and T. W. Donnelly, Phys. Rev. D 94, 013012 (2016)

    work page 2016

  52. [53]

    G. D. Megias, J. E. Amaro, M. B. Barbaro, J. A. Caballero, and T. W. Donnelly, Phys. Rev. D 94, 093004 (2016)

    work page 2016

  53. [54]

    Tena-Vidal et al

    J. Tena-Vidal et al. (GENIE Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 106, 112001 (2022)

    work page 2022

  54. [55]

    Berger and L

    C. Berger and L. M. Sehgal, Phys. Rev. D 76, 113004 (2007)

    work page 2007

  55. [56]

    Bodek and U

    A. Bodek and U. K. Yang, AIP Conf. Proc. 792, 257 (2005)

    work page 2005

  56. [57]

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

    work page 2011

This paper was first reviewed by glm-5.2 on July 8, 2026.