Electron- and neutrino-nucleus scattering in the impulse approximation regime

Hiroki Nakamura; Makoto Sakuda; Nicola Farina; Omar Benhar; Ryoichi Seki

REVIEW

Electron- and neutrino-nucleus scattering in the impulse approximation regime

Omar Benhar, Nicola Farina, Hiroki Nakamura, Makoto Sakuda, Ryoichi Seki

High Energy Physics - Phenomenology · Submitted 13 Jun 2005 · 63 references

Pith's verdict: The quasielastic result is solid and worth citing; the neutrino extension is real but thinner than the framing implies, and the Δ-region attribution is asserted rather than shown.

T0 · AI review

How this review was made: An AI referee (selfhosted/deepseek-v4.1-flash) read the paper on November 11, 2026 and answered a fixed list of questions about it. T0 is the starting level every paper gets. The levels describe how deeply Pith has checked the paper, never the authors.

T0 AI review An AI read the paper and answered a fixed list of questions.
T1 Audit Automatic checks that the references and files the paper relies on exist and match.
T2 Compute The paper's code or calculations re-run with the same results.
T3 Formal statement The claims written out in a formal math language a computer can read.
T4 Proof Those claims proved, and the proof checked by computer.

How Pith checks papers →

· 5 major objections · 8 minor · Ask about this paper · The compiled record · Read the full review →

Challenge this review Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗

Cite ▾

arXiv IDhep-ph/0506116 (version 1)

Pith IDKTR362ZH, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review

CitationHiroki Nakamura, Makoto Sakuda, Nicola Farina, Omar Benhar, Ryoichi Seki. "Electron- and neutrino-nucleus scattering in the impulse approximation regime." arXiv:hep-ph/0506116 (2005). https://pith.science/paper/KTR362ZH

Cite this reviewBibTeX for Pith's review of this paper

Claim paper

Why Pith says this

Highlight any text to comment on it.

Editor's note

read the letter

Bottom line: the quasielastic comparison is the part that holds up, and it is genuinely useful — the Fermi gas model, which the oscillation experiments were leaning on, overshoots the 16O(e,e') peak by 25% at 880 MeV and 50% at 700 MeV, while the spectral-function calculation with correlated Glauber FSI lands within about 10% across four beam energies with no adjustable parameters. That is a checkable, parameter-free result and it is the reason to read the paper. The charged-current neutrino extension is new relative to Refs. 14 and 16, but it is presented at two or three kinematics and never confronted with neutrino data, so it is a template rather than a validation. The abstract's framing (s1) is fair on the electron side and aspirational on the neutrino side. Credit where due: the machinery is standard and the inputs are external, so the (e,e') comparison is a real test, not a fit. The IA curve is plotted alongside the full calculation in Figs. 5-8, so the reader can see exactly how much work the FSI folding is doing. On the stress-test concern about the CGA width: it partly lands. Transparency (Fig. 4) pins the normalization of f_q(ν), not its width, and the width is what shapes the peak at 700 MeV. But the same NN amplitude reproduces transparency across C, Fe and Au over a range of Q², which is not trivial, and the four-energy scan is a consistency check on the shape. Worth one sentence of caveat in the paper, not a rejection. The softer spots are the ones the authors already flag: the Δ-region underestimate is blamed on structure functions (Fig. 9 shows the integration regions overlap almost completely, so the blame is plausible but undemonstrated), the Pauli-blocking prescription in Eq. (40) is called crude by the authors and is load-bearing for the low-Q² claim in Fig. 14 — which is precisely the claim that speaks to the K2K low-Q² deficit — and two inputs (Pieper's Monte Carlo configurations, O'Neill's NN amplitude parametrization) are private communications. None of these touches the quasielastic result. Who should read it: anyone building a neutrino-nucleus generator or fitting oscillation systematics off oxygen. Send it out; the referees should push on the Δ region and on documenting the private inputs, but the core claim deserves to stand.

Referee report

Significance

If the central claim holds, the paper is a useful and timely contribution: it offers a parameter-free, NN-data-constrained alternative to the Fermi gas model that is used in the analysis of K2K, MiniBooNE and the then-planned T2K/NuMI oscillation measurements, and it makes a falsifiable statement (the FG overestimate at 700-880 MeV) that can be checked against existing data. The explicit demonstration that the discrepancy with FG is largest precisely where neutrino experiments have flux is directly relevant to oscillation systematics. The calculation is constrained by two-nucleon scattering data and (e,e'p) spectroscopic information rather than by fitted quenching factors, which is a genuine methodological strength, and the extension to weak currents is a natural and worthwhile step. The paper is candid about the regions where it fails (the Delta-production region) and about the crudeness of the Pauli-blocking treatment, which is to its credit.

Major objections (5)

[Section V and Section III, Figs. 5-8] The conclusion states that the measured 16O(e,e') cross sections are reproduced 'with an accuracy better than 10%' over 700-1200 MeV, but Section III quantifies only the Fermi gas discrepancy (about 25% at 880 MeV and 50% at 700 MeV) and never states the NMBT residual at the peak for each beam energy. Since the 700 MeV point is where the FSI folding does the most work and where the claim is most demanding, the reader cannot verify the 10% figure from the text. Please add a small table giving (data - theory)/theory at the quasielastic peak for each of the four energies, for both the full calculation and the IA-only curve, so that the headline accuracy statement is traceable to numbers rather than to a visual comparison.
[Section II.D, Eq. (32) and Fig. 4] The CGA folding function f_q(nu) is the ingredient that brings the IA curve down to the data at 700 MeV, but its overall normalization is the only thing checked against experiment: Fig. 4 validates the total transparency T_A, i.e. the integral of the folding function, not its width, which is set by the imaginary part of the NN amplitude and by the correlation-suppressed pair distribution. The peak height and shape depend on that width. Please show f_q(nu) explicitly at 700 and 1200 MeV and give a sensitivity estimate, for example by varying the treatment of the real part of the NN amplitude or the correlation suppression in Eq. (29), so that the reader can judge how much of the 10% agreement is prediction rather than an unvalidated line shape. I note also that the transparency data used for this validation are cited to Ref. [48], listed as submitted rather than published; the authors should confirm the final published version or state clearly that the comparison rests on preliminary data.
[Section II.B, Eqs. (15)-(16)] The replacement q -> ~q with ~nu = nu - E + m - sqrt(p^2+m^2) is a modeling choice that every cross section in the paper inherits, and it is not compared with the alternative off-shell prescriptions standard in this literature (for example the cc1/cc2-type choices in the (e,e') literature). The four beam energies provide some empirical validation, but they do not isolate this prescription from the spectral function and the folding function. Please add at least a qualitative estimate of the sensitivity of the quasielastic peak to the choice of ~nu, or a comparison with one alternative prescription, and state explicitly in the text that the agreement at the peak tests the combination of spectral function, off-shell extrapolation and FSI rather than the spectral function alone.
[Section IV, Eq. (40) and Fig. 14] The Pauli-blocking prescription P(p,E) -> P(p,E) theta(|p+q| - pF) is acknowledged to be crude, but it is the sole basis for the paper's most physically prominent neutrino statement, namely that Pauli blocking together with FSI 'may explain the deficit of the measured cross section at low Q2' seen by K2K. Because the modified quantity in Eq. (40) is not a property of the target alone and depends explicitly on q, its quantitative reliability at Q2 < 0.2 GeV2 is untested. Please show the sensitivity of Fig. 14 to the choice of pF in Eq. (41) (for instance the local value versus the 209 MeV average versus the 225 MeV FG value), and soften the conclusion accordingly if the spread is comparable to the claimed effect.
[Section III and Section V, Fig. 10] The underestimate of the data above the pion production threshold is attributed in Section V 'mainly' to uncertainties in the nucleon structure functions, but Fig. 10 shows that the spread among the three structure-function fits is only about 15% at the Delta peak, and the text does not quantify the actual deficit of the calculation with respect to the data in that region. If the deficit is larger than the model spread, the attribution is not established. Please state the size of the discrepancy at the Delta peak for at least one beam energy and, if it exceeds the spread shown in Fig. 10, present the structure-function explanation as a hypothesis to be tested by the forthcoming JLab E04-001 data rather than as the established cause.

Minor objections (8)

[Title and throughout] The manuscript contains an unusually large number of typographical errors that should be corrected before publication, among them 'appproximation' in the title, 'scettering' (Section I), 'indipendently' (Section II.B), 'exaclty' (Section III), 'measurment' (Section II.C), 'stronlgy' and 'ampliutde' and 'appreaciable' (Section II.D), 'previuos' (Section III), 'scattetring' (Section V), and 'spectral function ef Eq. (40)' in the caption of Fig. 14.
[Fig. 11 caption versus Section III text] The caption of Fig. 11 states a scattering angle of 32 degrees while the text of Section III states theta = 30 degrees for the same 12C comparison at 4 GeV. Please reconcile the two.
[Section IV and Fig. 13] The process is written as 16O(nu_e, e) in the text of Section IV, whereas the physically relevant channel and the notation elsewhere in the paper are muon-type; the caption of Fig. 13 also labels the ordinate dsigma/dOmega_e dnu while the surrounding discussion refers to the energy transfer nu. Please make the channel and the notation consistent with Fig. 15 and with Eq. (37).
[Eqs. (33)-(35)] In the second term of Eq. (33) the four-vector appearing in the projector should presumably be ~q^mu rather than q^mu, to be consistent with the definition of ~q in Eqs. (15)-(16); the same comment applies to the argument of the delta function in Eqs. (34)-(35), where the sign convention should be checked against Eq. (16). Please verify these expressions and state the convention explicitly.
[Section II.C, Eq. (21)] The broadening function F_n(E - E_n) is introduced without specifying the functional form or width actually used in the LDA construction. A short sentence stating what is assumed (for example a Lorentzian of given width, or the Saclay values) would make the spectral function reproducible.
[Section II.C and Fig. 3] Several different Fermi momenta appear in the paper (221 MeV in Fig. 3, 225 MeV for the FG comparisons, 209 MeV from Eq. (41) for oxygen). A sentence in Section II.C clarifying which value is used where, and why they differ, would prevent confusion.
[Fig. 2] The three-dimensional rendering of the LDA spectral function is difficult to read quantitatively. A set of constant-E slices or a contour plot in the (p,E) plane would convey the correlation between large p and large E more effectively, and would make the statement that about 50% of the strength at |p| = 320 MeV lies at E > 80 MeV directly visible.
[Abstract] The abstract's second sentence runs two independent clauses together without punctuation ('...realistic nuclear spectral functions.Comparison between...'), and 'MiniBOONE' should be spelled 'MiniBooNE'. A light editorial pass on the abstract is warranted.

How Pith checks papers → · Full audit of this paper →

The paper

The paper claims

The impulse-approximation nuclear many-body calculation reproduces inclusive electron scattering off oxygen at 700–1200 MeV where the Fermi gas model overshoots the quasielastic peak by up to 50 percent.

The reading

Neutrino oscillation experiments infer the incoming neutrino energy from the muon produced in a neutrino-nucleus collision, so their oscillation results are only as good as the nuclear model used to turn a measured muon into a reconstructed energy. The standard tool for that job is the Fermi gas model: nucleons filling a momentum sphere up to a fixed Fermi momentum, with a fixed average removal energy. This paper argues that picture is quantitatively wrong in the 0.5–3 GeV range that K2K and MiniBooNE actually cover, and that the missing physics is nuclear dynamics — short-range nucleon-nucleon correlations and final-state rescattering. The authors compute inclusive cross sections for electrons and neutrinos on oxygen with a realistic spectral function and a Glauber-style treatment of final-state interactions, with no adjustable parameters, and compare to measured $^{16}$O$(e,e')$ cross sections at 700, 880, 1080 and 1200 MeV. The calculation tracks the quasielastic peak to better than about 10 percent, while the Fermi gas model overestimates it by roughly 25 percent at 880 MeV and 50 percent at 700 MeV. If the authors are right, the nuclear response used in oscillation analyses needs to be rebuilt around correlation physics rather than a filled Fermi sphere.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the nuclear spectral function $P(p,E)$, which replaces the Fermi gas model's sharp momentum cutoff and single removal energy with a two-dimensional distribution. It has two pieces: a mean-field part built from single-particle shell-model wave functions whose normalization is fixed by measured spectroscopic factors, and a correlation part, about 20 percent of the total strength, that lives at momenta well above the Fermi momentum and removal energies well above the Fermi energy. The two are strongly linked — roughly half the strength at $|p|=320$ MeV sits above $E=80$ MeV. The second piece of machinery is the correlated Glauber approximation, which converts the eikonal propagator of the struck nucleon through the spectator medium into a folding function that shifts and redistributes the impulse-approximation cross section. Its strength is set by the nuclear transparency and by the width of the folding function; correlations quench the rescattering because the repulsive core keeps two nucleons apart. The third ingredient is an off-shell prescription: inside the elementary nucleon tensor the four-momentum transfer $q$ is replaced by $q$ shifted by the removal energy, so that the struck nucleon scatters as if free with a reduced energy transfer.

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a parameter-free many-body treatment of the nuclear response describes inclusive lepton-nucleus scattering off $^{16}$O at beam energies of 700–1200 MeV and 32 degrees, and that the Fermi gas model does not. The treatment works inside the impulse approximation: at large enough momentum transfer the probe sees individual nucleons, and the nuclear cross section becomes an incoherent sum of elementary lepton-nucleon cross sections weighted by a spectral function $P(p,E)$ that gives the probability of finding a nucleon with momentum $p$ and removal energy $E$. The spectral function is built from measured $(e,e'p)$ shell-model strength plus a correlation component taken from nuclear-matter calculations and folded in with a local density approximation. Final-state interactions are added by folding the quasielastic part of the impulse-approximation result with a function derived from an eikonal propagator for the struck nucleon. Against the data of Ref. [55], the full calculation lands within about 10 percent at the top of the quasielastic peak at all four beam energies, while the Fermi gas model with $p_F=225$ MeV and $E=25$ MeV overestimates the peak by about 25 percent at 880 MeV and 50 percent at 700 MeV. The authors also note that both approaches underestimate the data above the pion production threshold, which they attribute to the modelling of the nucleon structure functions rather than to the nuclear response.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes that a bound nucleon struck at large momentum transfer scatters as if it were free, with the four-momentum transfer shifted by its removal energy, and that this off-shell prescription — not derived from first principles — is what makes the agreement with the oxygen data meaningful.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Neutrino oscillation analyses that reconstruct the incoming neutrino energy through a Fermi gas model inherit a peak-height error of tens of percent at beam energies near 0.7–0.9 GeV, which propagates into the extracted oscillation parameters.
Including correlations in the spectral function shifts the scattered-muon energy distribution: the Fermi gas model gives a larger high-energy peak contribution, an effect the authors say should appear in forward-angle cross sections.
Pauli blocking, applied as a momentum-transfer-dependent cutoff on the spectral function, is negligible at the quasielastic peak for $Q^2>0.2$ GeV$^2$ but becomes large below that, and together with final-state interactions it may account for the deficit of events seen at low $Q^2$ relative to Monte Carlo predictions.
The remaining disagreement above the pion production threshold points at the description of nucleon structure functions in the resonance region rather than at the nuclear response, a question the authors expect upcoming Jefferson Lab electron-nucleus data in the resonance region to settle.
Because the scheme is fixed by nucleon-nucleon scattering data and electron scattering data and has no free parameters, it can be transplanted to other target nuclei through the local density approximation.

Reading between the lines

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

The same machinery could be run in reverse: if the spectral function is right, a measured ratio of forward-angle to wide-angle muon yields becomes a handle on the correlation strength in the target, independent of oscillation physics.
The paper's off-shell prescription is the one place where the calculation is not fixed by data, so a useful stress test would be to vary that prescription and see whether the 10 percent agreement at the quasielastic peak survives; if it does not, part of the claimed agreement is a test of the prescription rather than of the spectral function.
The authors treat the inelastic channel as smooth and largely unaffected by final-state interactions, checking only one kinematic point at 880 MeV; extending that check across the 0.5–3 GeV range would tell whether the resonance-region discrepancy is really a structure-function problem.
Since the Fermi gas model is used as the baseline in essentially all published oscillation fits in this energy range, a natural follow-on is a re-fit of those datasets with the spectral-function response to see how much the best-fit parameters move.

Original abstract

A quantitative understanding of the weak nuclear response is a prerequisite for the analyses of neutrino experiments such as K2K and MiniBOONE, which measure energy and angle of the muons produced in neutrino-nucleus interactions in the energy range $0.5-3$ GeV and reconstruct the incident neutrino energy to determine neutrino oscillations. In this paper we discuss theoretical calculations of electron- and neutrino-nucleus scattering, carried out within the impulse approximation scheme using realistic nuclear spectral functions.Comparison between electron scattering data and the calculated inclusive cross section off oxygen, at beam energies ranging between 700 and 1200 MeV, show that the Fermi gas model, widely used in the analysis of neutrino oscillation experiments,fails to provide a satisfactory description of the measured cross sections,and inclusion of nuclear dynamics is needed.

The compiled record

The paper's own sentences, arranged, kept beside the review and separate from it. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

Compiled by classifier-1.13-20260917 via OpenRouter, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-09-23: 1 request, 2,512 input tokens, $0.0001 reported.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.03 · states limitation 0.13 · human participants 0.02 · controlled comparison 0.30 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.30 · compares with prior results 0.93 · mentions code or data availability 0.02.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v1. Results and the main claim are underlined; show every role.

A quantitative understanding of the weak nuclear response is a prerequisite for the analyses of neutrino experiments such as K2K and MiniBOONE, which measure energy and angle of the muons produced in neutrino-nucleus interactions in the energy range $0.5-3$ GeV and reconstruct the incident neutrino energy to determine neutrino oscillations. In this paper we discuss theoretical calculations of electron- and neutrino-nucleus scattering, carried out within the impulse approximation scheme using realistic nuclear spectral functions.Comparison between electron scattering data and the calculated inclusive cross section off oxygen, at beam energies ranging between 700 and 1200 MeV, show that the Fermi gas model, widely used in the analysis of neutrino oscillation experiments,fails to provide a satisfactory description of the measured cross sections,and inclusion of nuclear dynamics is needed.

background contribution method result interpretation main claim

What the classifier reports for each sentence. The number is the probability it gave the label.
#	sentence	role	the authors' own work	states the main conclusion	strength
s0	A quantitative understanding of the weak nuclear response is a prerequisite for the analyses of neutrino experiments such as K2K and MiniBOONE, which measure energy and angle of the muons produced in neutrino-nucleus interactions in the energy range $0.5-3$ GeV and reconstruct the incident neutrino energy to determine neutrino oscillations.	background 1.00	0.05	0.04	asserted 1.00
s1	In this paper we discuss theoretical calculations of electron- and neutrino-nucleus scattering, carried out within the impulse approximation scheme using realistic nuclear spectral functions.Comparison between electron scattering data and the calculated inclusive cross section off oxygen, at beam energies ranging between 700 and 1200 MeV, show that the Fermi gas model, widely used in the analysis of neutrino oscillation experiments,fails to provide a satisfactory description of the measured cross sections,and inclusion of nuclear dynamics is needed.	contribution 0.58	0.91	0.78	asserted 1.00

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: theoretical result 0.59 · evidence from simulation or computation 0.83.

What was examined, and what was not

sources read

arXiv listing abstract v1

not examined

full text
figures and tables
references and citing sentences
relations to other papers

levels run

P abstract

not run

S sections
T body sentences
C citations
R cross-paper relations

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. Every number in the measurements table is the authors', checked by code. Record as JSON

Figures

**Figure 1.** FIG. 1: (Color online) Pictorial representation of the IA

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2: (Color online) Three-dimensional plot (left panel)

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3: (Color online) Momentum distribution of nucleons

**Figure 5.** FIG. 5: (Color online) Cross section of the process

**Figure 6.** FIG. 6: (Color online) Same as in Fig. 5, but for beam energy

**Figure 7.** FIG. 7: (Color online) Same as in Fig. 5, but for beam energy

**Figure 8.** FIG. 8: (Color online) Same as in Fig. 5, but for beam energy

**Figure 11.** FIG. 11: (Color online) Cross section of the process

**Figure 12.** FIG. 12: (Color online) IA cross section of the process

**Figure 13.** FIG. 13: (Color online) Differential cross section

**Figure 14.** FIG. 14: (Color online) Differential cross section

Showing 12 of the paper's 14 figures. See all figures in the PDF ↗ Figures reproduced from arXiv:hep-ph/0506116 by the authors.

References

Works cited (63)

[48]

R.J. Glauber, Lectures in Theoretical Physics, Eds. W.E. Brittin et al. (Interscience, New York, 1959)

View on Pith 1959
[1]

Y. Fukuda et al (SK Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 1562 (1998)

View on Pith 1998
[2]

S. Fukuda et al (SK Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B539, 179 (2002); 12 Q.R. Ahmad et al (SNO Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 011301 (2002); 89, 011302 (2002)

View on Pith 2002
[3]

K. Eguchi et al (KamLAND Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 021802 (2003)

View on Pith 2003
[4]

Y. Ashie et al (SK Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 101801 (2004)

View on Pith 2004
[5]

M.H. Ahn et al (K2K Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 041801 (2003)

View on Pith 2003
[6]

E. Aliu et al (K2K Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 081802 (2005)

View on Pith 2005
[7]

Y. Itow et al , hep-ex/0106019

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[8]

M. Messier, talk at Neutrino 2004, Paris, June 2004

View on Pith 2004
[9]

O. Benhar, Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.) 139, 15 (2005)

View on Pith 2005
[10]

R.A. Smith and E.J. Moniz, Nucl. Phys. B43, 605 (1972)

View on Pith 1972
[11]

T. Ishida, Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl., 112, 132 (2002)

View on Pith 2002
[12]

and references therein) to the case of neutrino- induced reactions. We focus on the energy range 0 .7−1.2 GeV and analyze inclusive scattering of both electrons and neutrinos oﬀ oxygen, the main target nucleus in SK, K2K and other experiments. The quasi-elastic and quasi- free ∆ production cross sections obtained from the FG model [10, 13] are compared to...

View on Pith
[13]

V.R. Pandharipande, Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.), 112, 51 (2002)

View on Pith 2002
[14]

H. Nakamura and R. Seki, Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.) 112, 197 (2002)

View on Pith 2002
[15]

O. Benhar et al , Phys. Rev. C 44, 2328 (1991)

View on Pith 1991
[16]

O. Benhar and V.R. Pandharipande, Phys. Rev. C 47, 2218 (1993)

View on Pith 1993
[17]

O. Benhar, A. Fabrocini, S. Fantoni and I. Sick, Nucl. Phys. A579, 493 (1994)

View on Pith 1994
[18]

H. Nakamura, R. Seki, and M. Sakuda, Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.) 139, 201 (2005)

View on Pith 2005
[19]

O. Benhar and N. Farina, Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.) 139, 230 (2005)

View on Pith 2005
[20]

C. Itzykson and J.B. Zuber, Quantum Field Theory (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1980)

View on Pith 1980
[21]

J. Carlson and R.Schiavilla, Rev. Mod. Phys. 70, 743 (1998)

View on Pith 1998
[22]

As we will consider a target having N = Z = A /2, the spectral functions describing proton and neutron removal will be assumed to be the same

View on Pith
[23]

R.B. Wiringa, V.G.J. Stoks, R. Schiavilla, Phys. Rev. C 51, 38 (1995)

View on Pith 1995
[24]

B.S. Pudliner, V.R. Pandharipande, J. Carlson, S.C. Pieper, R.B. Wiringa, Phys. Rev. C 56, 1720 (1995)

View on Pith 1995
[25]

S.C. Pieper and R.B. Wiringa, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 51, 53 (2001)

View on Pith 2001
[26]

A. Akmal and V. R. Pandharipande, Phys. Rev. C 56, 2261 (1997)

View on Pith 1997
[27]

M. Baldo, G. Giansiracusa, U. Lombardo, H.Q. Song, Phys. Lett. B473, 1 (2000)

View on Pith 2000
[28]

A.E.L. Dieperink, T. de Forest and I. Sick, Phys. Lett. B63, 261 (1976)

View on Pith 1976
[29]

C. Cioﬁ degli Atti, E. Pace and G. Salm` e, Phys. Rev. C 21, 805 (1980)

View on Pith 1980
[30]

H. Meier-Hajduk, Ch. Hadjuk and P.U. Sauer, Nucl. Phys. A395, 332 (1983)

View on Pith 1983
[31]

C. Cioﬁ degli Atti, S. Liuti and S. Simula, Phys. Rev. C 41, R2474 (1990)

View on Pith 1990
[32]

H. Morita and T. Suzuki, Prog. Theor. Phys. 86, 671 (1991)

View on Pith 1991
[33]

O. Benhar, A. Fabrocini and S. Fantoni, Nucl. Phys. A505, 267 (1989)

View on Pith 1989
[34]

A. Ramos, A. Polls and W.H. Dickhoﬀ, Nucl. Phys. A503, 1 (1989)

View on Pith 1989
[35]

W.J.W. Geurts, K. Allaart, W.H. Dickhoﬀ and H. M¨ uther, Phys. Rev. C53, 2207 (1996)

View on Pith 1996
[36]

A. Polls, M. Radici, S. Boﬃ, W. H. Dickhoﬀ and H. M¨ uther, Phys. Rev. C55, 810 (1997)

View on Pith 1997
[37]

Modern Topics in Electron Scattering , Eds. B. Frois and I. Sick (World Scientiﬁc, Singapore, 1991)

View on Pith 1991
[38]

S. Turck-Chi` eze, Lecture Notes in Physics, 137, 251 (1981)

View on Pith 1981
[39]

O. Benhar, V.R. Pandharipande and S.C. Pieper, Rev. Mod. Phys. 65, 817 (1993)

View on Pith 1993
[40]

D. Rohe et al , Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 182501 (2004)

View on Pith 2004
[41]

S.C. Pieper, private communication

View on Pith
[42]

S.C. Pieper, R.B. Wiringa and V.R. Pandharipande, Phys. Rev. C 46, 1741 (1992)

View on Pith 1992
[43]

G. Garino et al , Phys. Rev. C 45, 78 (1992)

View on Pith 1992
[44]

T.G. O’Neill et al , Phys. Lett. B351, 87 (1995)

View on Pith 1995
[45]

D. Abbott et al , Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 5072 (1998)

View on Pith 1998
[46]

K. Garrow et al , Phys. Rev. C 66, 044613 (2002)

View on Pith 2002
[47]

Y. Horikawa, F. Lenz and N.C. Mukhopadhyay, Phys. Rev. C 22, 1680 (1980)

View on Pith 1980
[49]

D. Rohe et al. , nucl-ex/0506007. Submitted for publica- tion in Phys. Rev. C

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[50]

G. H¨ ohleret al. , Nucl. Phys. B114, 505 (1976)

View on Pith 1976
[51]

E.J. Brash, A. Kozlov, Sh. Li, and G.M. Huber, Phys. Rev. C 65, 051001(R) (2002)

View on Pith 2002
[52]

M.K. Jones et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 1398 (2000)

View on Pith 2000
[53]

A. Bodek and J.L. Ritchie, Phys. Rev. D 23, 1070 (1981)

View on Pith 1981
[54]

T.G. O’Neill, private communication

View on Pith
[55]

V.R. Pandharipande and S.C. Pieper, Phys. Rev. C 45, 791 (1992)

View on Pith 1992
[56]

M. Anghinolﬁ et al. , Nucl. Phys. A602, 405 (1996)

View on Pith 1996
[57]

http://hallcweb.jlab.org/resdata/, and C.E. Keppel , Ph.D. thesis (The American University, 1995)

View on Pith 1995
[58]

http://www.jlab.org/ ∼christy/cs ﬁts/cs ﬁts.html

View on Pith
[59]

J. Arrington et al , Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 2056 (1999)

View on Pith 1999
[60]

J.D. Walecka, Theoretical Nuclear and Subnuclear Physics (Oxford University Press, 1995)

View on Pith 1995
[61]

C.E. Keppel, private communication

View on Pith
[62]

A. Fabrocini, Phys. Rev. C 55, 338 (1997)

View on Pith 1997
[63]

J. Nieves, J.E. Amaro, M. Valverde and E. Oset, nucl-th/0503023. To appear in the Proceedings of the RCCN Workshop on ”Sub-Dominant Oscillation Eﬀects in Atmospheric Neutrino Experiment”

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

Forward citations

Cited by 7 Pith papers

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

Detecting light dark matter with prompt-delayed events in neutrino experiments
hep-ph 2025-04 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

The prompt-delayed knockout-neutron channel in KamLAND yields a sub-GeV dark matter-nucleon cross-section limit roughly one order of magnitude stronger than elastic nuclear recoil limits.
A unified approach for nucleon knock-out, coherent and incoherent pion production in neutrino interactions with nuclei
nucl-th 2009-10 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Treating quasielastic, multi-nucleon, coherent and incoherent pion production in one RPA response framework shows that two-nucleon knock-out can account for the excess quasielastic-like cross section reported by MiniBooNE.
Nucleon Axial Radius and Muonic Hydrogen - A New Analysis and Review
hep-ph 2017-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Muonic hydrogen capture plus neutrino-scattering constraints give a nucleon axial radius of 0.46(16) fm^2 and confirm the chiral prediction for the induced pseudoscalar coupling at the 8% level.
Monte Carlo study of KDAR $\nu_{\mu}$ charged-current scattering on carbon
hep-ph 2025-08 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

For 235.5 MeV KDAR muon-neutrino charged-current scattering on carbon, NuWro reproduces JSNS² missing-energy data better than GENIE or GiBUU, but all generators miss part of the data.
Nuclear cross sections in $^{16}\text{O}$ for $\beta$ beam neutrinos at intermediate energies
nucl-th 2006-03 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

The paper presents flux-averaged quasielastic, Delta-resonance inelastic, and neutral-pion production cross sections for beta-beam neutrinos and anti-neutrinos on 16O at intermediate energies.

Show 2 more citing papers

Theoretical tools for neutrino scattering: interplay between lattice QCD, EFTs, nuclear physics, phenomenology, and neutrino event generators
hep-ph 2022-03 accept novelty 2.0 of 10

A community roadmap arguing that few-percent neutrino-nucleus cross-section predictions require coordinated lattice QCD, nuclear effective field theory, phenomenological transition-region models, and event-generator d...
Progress and open questions in the physics of neutrino cross sections
hep-ph 2014-03 conditional novelty 2.0 of 10

Neutrino-nucleus cross section theory and data at few-GeV energies are surveyed, with two-nucleon (2p2h) excitations identified as the missing ingredient behind the MiniBooNE quasielastic excess.

How later papers used it

69 later papers cite it

Evidence: substantial. 65 of the citing papers share no author with it, and 21 of those carry a confident label from Pith's citation classifier.

Pith read 17 of the 101 citing sentences, choosing only those whose citation markers point at this paper alone, and wrote the paraphrases from them. The summary, the counts, the evidence level, the links and the quotes come from code; the summary counts the papers listed below. A later paper is listed under a label when Pith's citation classifier gives one of its sentences that label at probability 0.8 or more (0.95 for support), Pith's reading finds that the citing paper itself did it, and a second check confirms the paraphrase against the sentence. This section lists uses only. It does not list criticism or disagreement, so their absence here says nothing about how the paper has been received. Papers that share an author with this one are listed apart, under "By the same authors". A quote is the citing authors' own sentence, shown when their paper's licence is CC BY, CC BY-SA or CC0. JSON

7 later papers by other authors are listed below: 6 used its method or tool and 1 used its data or values.

Uses its method or tool 6 of 18 papers with this label

The elastic contribution is evaluated from the nuclear charge form factor obtained from the dSCGF charge distribution, while the QE contribution is treated in the impulse approximation [ref] , with the removal energy and momentum of the struck nucleon distributed according to the dSCGF spectral function [ref] .

First-Principles Nuclear Modeling for Light Dark Matter Experiments at the Intensity Frontier (2026) · Introduction · 0.98
In this paper, we modify the GENIE nucleon decay generator in terms of the Spectral Function (SF) nuclear model [ref] to account for the nuclear effects, and then use the TALYS code [ref] to implement the de-excitation processes of the residual nucleus.

Implementation of residual nucleus de-excitations associated with proton decays in $^{12} {\rm C}$ based on the GENIE generator and TALYS code (2021) · Introduction · 1.00
Following this paper, cast the final expression of the hadronic tensor in a form involving an integral over momentum and energy of the spectral function.

Impact of nuclear effects in the measurement of neutrino oscillation parameters (2011) · 0.93 · paraphrased: the licence does not allow quoting
Described incoherent dark matter absorption using the impulse approximation, with only a single nucleon participating in the process.

Incoherent Fermionic Dark Matter Absorption with Nucleon Fermi Motion (2024) · 0.90 · paraphrased: the licence does not allow quoting
The results presented in this article are obtained within the spectral function (SF) approach [ref] (without and with FSI).

Global Extraction of the $\rm^{12}C$ Nuclear Electromagnetic Response Functions (${\cal R}_L$ and ${\cal R}_T$) and Comparisons to Nuclear Theory and Neutrino/Electron Monte Carlo Generators (2024) · The Monte Carlo Generator · 0.93
We account for the effect of Pauli blocking by the action of the step function, as in Ref. [ref] , with the average Fermi momentum $p_F=220$ MeV.

JLab spectral functions of argon in NuWro and their implications for MicroBooNE (2023) · JLab spectral functions · 1.00

Uses its data or values 1 of 4 papers with this label

Showed the spectral function for oxygen-16 from this paper as an example in a figure.

Lectures on lepton-nucleus quasielastic scattering with relativistic models (2026) · 0.98 · paraphrased: the licence does not allow quoting

How the literature uses it

43 arXiv papers cite this in 61 sentences

Each citing sentence is taken from the citing paper's LaTeX source and typed by Pith's classifier. A label appears at probability 0.8 or more (0.95 for support), a contest at 0.7 or more; the quoted words are the citing authors'. How each label was checked · JSON

Papers whose main result relates to this one's

Found among the papers closest to this one by title and main claim. Pith's classifier compared each pair's main results and a second model family confirmed the relation; checked against two further families, shown conflicts agreed 118 times in 120 and shown same results 218 times in 239. The quoted sentence is the other paper's main claim.

States the same result 1 paper

Comparison between electron scattering data and the calculated inclusive cross sections off oxygen shows that the Fermi gas model fails to provide a satisfactory description of the measured cross sections, and inclusion of nuclear dynamics is needed.

Lepton-nucleus scattering in the impulse approximation regime · 0.97

Papers citing it · 33 sentences without a confident label

Uses its method or tool 11 papers

The NCQE cross section on oxygen in NEUT is simulated by an oxygen spectral function model [ref] with the BBBA05 vector form factor [ref] and the dipole parametrization of the axial form factor [ref] , taking into consideration the Pauli blocking effect at $p_F=225$ MeV$/c$.

Measurement of neutrino-oxygen neutral-current quasi-elastic cross section using atmospheric neutrinos at Super-Kamiokande · Neutrino interactions · 0.99
The elastic contribution is evaluated from the nuclear charge form factor obtained from the dSCGF charge distribution, while the QE contribution is treated in the impulse approximation [ref] , with the removal energy and momentum of the struck nucleon distributed according to the dSCGF spectral function [ref] .

First-Principles Nuclear Modeling for Light Dark Matter Experiments at the Intensity Frontier · Introduction · 0.98
The NCQE cross section on oxygen is simulated using a spectral function model [ref] with the BBBA05 form factor parameterization [ref] , which is then reweighted as a function of neutrino energy to match the recent theoretical calculations from [ref] .

Measurement of the neutrino-oxygen neutral-current interaction cross section by observing nuclear deexcitation $\gamma$ rays · Event simulation · 0.93

Compares with it 2 papers

The imaginary part of the Lindhard function calculated using the SFs of Ref. [ref] also nicely agrees with that deduced within the scheme of Refs. [ref] when FSI effects are taken into account.

In medium dispersion relation effects in nuclear inclusive reactions at intermediate and low energies · Comparison with other approaches · 0.98
However, the population simulated when uses this prescription is much lower than is determined by [ref] for example.

Measurement of inclusive charged-current $\nu_{\numu}$ scattering on hydrocarbon at {<Enu>} 6 GeV with low three-momentum transfer · QE events from high momentum nucleons · 0.83

Cites it as background 12 papers

Although some older studies are based on the Fermi gas of non-interacting nucleons [ref] , recently different groups have developed more sophisticated descriptions that incorporate the relativistic mean field theory [ref] , Random Phase Approximation calculations [ref] or spectral functions [ref] .

The SuSAv2 model for inelastic neutrino-nucleus scattering · Introduction · 0.96
Among these are various extensions of the standard (global) RFG model, such as local Fermi gas (LFG) model [ref] , local density approximation (LDA) [ref] , and spectral function (SF) approach [ref] ; relativistic mean field and relativistic Green's function models [ref] ; charged meson-exchange currents (MEC), intermediate $Δ$ isobar or multi-nucleon excitations [ref] , short-range and long-range correlations (SRC and LRC) within random phase approximation (RPA) [ref] ; quantum-kinetic transport equations (implemented in the code) [ref] ; parametrization of the observed enhancement in the transverse electron quasielastic response function (presumably because of MEC) [ref] ; a variety of so-called superscaling models, e.g.,

Running axial mass of the nucleon as a phenomenological tool for calculating QE neutrino-nucleus cross sections · Introduction · 0.91
There are a number of non-Fermi-gas approaches [ref] .

Measurement of the muon anti-neutrino double-differential cross section for quasi-elastic scattering on hydrocarbon at~$E_\nu \sim 3.5$ GeV · Scattering from Nuclei · 0.96

Discussion

Disagree with the review, or know something it missed? Leave a comment, highlight any passage above to comment on it, or challenge this review formally.

[1] [48]

R.J. Glauber, Lectures in Theoretical Physics, Eds. W.E. Brittin et al. (Interscience, New York, 1959)

View on Pith 1959

[2] [1]

Y. Fukuda et al (SK Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 1562 (1998)

View on Pith 1998

[3] [2]

S. Fukuda et al (SK Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B539, 179 (2002); 12 Q.R. Ahmad et al (SNO Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 011301 (2002); 89, 011302 (2002)

View on Pith 2002

[4] [3]

K. Eguchi et al (KamLAND Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 021802 (2003)

View on Pith 2003

[5] [4]

Y. Ashie et al (SK Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 101801 (2004)

View on Pith 2004

[6] [5]

M.H. Ahn et al (K2K Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 041801 (2003)

View on Pith 2003

[7] [6]

E. Aliu et al (K2K Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 081802 (2005)

View on Pith 2005

[8] [7]

Y. Itow et al , hep-ex/0106019

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[9] [8]

M. Messier, talk at Neutrino 2004, Paris, June 2004

View on Pith 2004

[10] [9]

O. Benhar, Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.) 139, 15 (2005)

View on Pith 2005

[11] [10]

R.A. Smith and E.J. Moniz, Nucl. Phys. B43, 605 (1972)

View on Pith 1972

[12] [11]

T. Ishida, Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl., 112, 132 (2002)

View on Pith 2002

[13] [12]

and references therein) to the case of neutrino- induced reactions. We focus on the energy range 0 .7−1.2 GeV and analyze inclusive scattering of both electrons and neutrinos oﬀ oxygen, the main target nucleus in SK, K2K and other experiments. The quasi-elastic and quasi- free ∆ production cross sections obtained from the FG model [10, 13] are compared to...

View on Pith

[14] [13]

V.R. Pandharipande, Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.), 112, 51 (2002)

View on Pith 2002

[15] [14]

H. Nakamura and R. Seki, Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.) 112, 197 (2002)

View on Pith 2002

[16] [15]

O. Benhar et al , Phys. Rev. C 44, 2328 (1991)

View on Pith 1991

[17] [16]

O. Benhar and V.R. Pandharipande, Phys. Rev. C 47, 2218 (1993)

View on Pith 1993

[18] [17]

O. Benhar, A. Fabrocini, S. Fantoni and I. Sick, Nucl. Phys. A579, 493 (1994)

View on Pith 1994

[19] [18]

H. Nakamura, R. Seki, and M. Sakuda, Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.) 139, 201 (2005)

View on Pith 2005

[20] [19]

O. Benhar and N. Farina, Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.) 139, 230 (2005)

View on Pith 2005

[21] [20]

C. Itzykson and J.B. Zuber, Quantum Field Theory (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1980)

View on Pith 1980

[22] [21]

J. Carlson and R.Schiavilla, Rev. Mod. Phys. 70, 743 (1998)

View on Pith 1998

[23] [22]

As we will consider a target having N = Z = A /2, the spectral functions describing proton and neutron removal will be assumed to be the same

View on Pith

[24] [23]

R.B. Wiringa, V.G.J. Stoks, R. Schiavilla, Phys. Rev. C 51, 38 (1995)

View on Pith 1995

[25] [24]

B.S. Pudliner, V.R. Pandharipande, J. Carlson, S.C. Pieper, R.B. Wiringa, Phys. Rev. C 56, 1720 (1995)

View on Pith 1995

[26] [25]

S.C. Pieper and R.B. Wiringa, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 51, 53 (2001)

View on Pith 2001

[27] [26]

A. Akmal and V. R. Pandharipande, Phys. Rev. C 56, 2261 (1997)

View on Pith 1997

[28] [27]

M. Baldo, G. Giansiracusa, U. Lombardo, H.Q. Song, Phys. Lett. B473, 1 (2000)

View on Pith 2000

[29] [28]

A.E.L. Dieperink, T. de Forest and I. Sick, Phys. Lett. B63, 261 (1976)

View on Pith 1976

[30] [29]

C. Cioﬁ degli Atti, E. Pace and G. Salm` e, Phys. Rev. C 21, 805 (1980)

View on Pith 1980

[31] [30]

H. Meier-Hajduk, Ch. Hadjuk and P.U. Sauer, Nucl. Phys. A395, 332 (1983)

View on Pith 1983

[32] [31]

C. Cioﬁ degli Atti, S. Liuti and S. Simula, Phys. Rev. C 41, R2474 (1990)

View on Pith 1990

[33] [32]

H. Morita and T. Suzuki, Prog. Theor. Phys. 86, 671 (1991)

View on Pith 1991

[34] [33]

O. Benhar, A. Fabrocini and S. Fantoni, Nucl. Phys. A505, 267 (1989)

View on Pith 1989

[35] [34]

A. Ramos, A. Polls and W.H. Dickhoﬀ, Nucl. Phys. A503, 1 (1989)

View on Pith 1989

[36] [35]

W.J.W. Geurts, K. Allaart, W.H. Dickhoﬀ and H. M¨ uther, Phys. Rev. C53, 2207 (1996)

View on Pith 1996

[37] [36]

A. Polls, M. Radici, S. Boﬃ, W. H. Dickhoﬀ and H. M¨ uther, Phys. Rev. C55, 810 (1997)

View on Pith 1997

[38] [37]

Modern Topics in Electron Scattering , Eds. B. Frois and I. Sick (World Scientiﬁc, Singapore, 1991)

View on Pith 1991

[39] [38]

S. Turck-Chi` eze, Lecture Notes in Physics, 137, 251 (1981)

View on Pith 1981

[40] [39]

O. Benhar, V.R. Pandharipande and S.C. Pieper, Rev. Mod. Phys. 65, 817 (1993)

View on Pith 1993

[41] [40]

D. Rohe et al , Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 182501 (2004)

View on Pith 2004

[42] [41]

S.C. Pieper, private communication

View on Pith

[43] [42]

S.C. Pieper, R.B. Wiringa and V.R. Pandharipande, Phys. Rev. C 46, 1741 (1992)

View on Pith 1992

[44] [43]

G. Garino et al , Phys. Rev. C 45, 78 (1992)

View on Pith 1992

[45] [44]

T.G. O’Neill et al , Phys. Lett. B351, 87 (1995)

View on Pith 1995

[46] [45]

D. Abbott et al , Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 5072 (1998)

View on Pith 1998

[47] [46]

K. Garrow et al , Phys. Rev. C 66, 044613 (2002)

View on Pith 2002

[48] [47]

Y. Horikawa, F. Lenz and N.C. Mukhopadhyay, Phys. Rev. C 22, 1680 (1980)

View on Pith 1980

[49] [49]

D. Rohe et al. , nucl-ex/0506007. Submitted for publica- tion in Phys. Rev. C

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[50] [50]

G. H¨ ohleret al. , Nucl. Phys. B114, 505 (1976)

View on Pith 1976

[51] [51]

E.J. Brash, A. Kozlov, Sh. Li, and G.M. Huber, Phys. Rev. C 65, 051001(R) (2002)

View on Pith 2002

[52] [52]

M.K. Jones et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 1398 (2000)

View on Pith 2000

[53] [53]

A. Bodek and J.L. Ritchie, Phys. Rev. D 23, 1070 (1981)

View on Pith 1981

[54] [54]

T.G. O’Neill, private communication

View on Pith

[55] [55]

V.R. Pandharipande and S.C. Pieper, Phys. Rev. C 45, 791 (1992)

View on Pith 1992

[56] [56]

M. Anghinolﬁ et al. , Nucl. Phys. A602, 405 (1996)

View on Pith 1996

[57] [57]

http://hallcweb.jlab.org/resdata/, and C.E. Keppel , Ph.D. thesis (The American University, 1995)

View on Pith 1995

[58] [58]

http://www.jlab.org/ ∼christy/cs ﬁts/cs ﬁts.html

View on Pith

[59] [59]

J. Arrington et al , Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 2056 (1999)

View on Pith 1999

[60] [60]

J.D. Walecka, Theoretical Nuclear and Subnuclear Physics (Oxford University Press, 1995)

View on Pith 1995

[61] [61]

C.E. Keppel, private communication

View on Pith

[62] [62]

A. Fabrocini, Phys. Rev. C 55, 338 (1997)

View on Pith 1997

[63] [63]

J. Nieves, J.E. Amaro, M. Valverde and E. Oset, nucl-th/0503023. To appear in the Proceedings of the RCCN Workshop on ”Sub-Dominant Oscillation Eﬀects in Atmospheric Neutrino Experiment”

View on Pith Pith review arXiv