The angular distribution of the reaction $\bar{\nu}_e + p \to e^+ + n$

J. F. Beacom (Caltech); P. Vogel

REVIEW

The angular distribution of the reaction $\bar{\nu}_e + p \to e^+ + n$

P. Vogel, J. F. Beacom (Caltech)

High Energy Physics - Phenomenology · Submitted 1 Apr 1999 · 44 references

Pith's verdict: A solid, useful precision result: the O(1/M) corrections flip the inverse-beta-decay positron asymmetry from backward to forward around 15 MeV, and the derivation holds up.

T0 · AI review

How this review was made: An AI referee (selfhosted/deepseek-v4.1-flash) read the paper on October 29, 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 →

· 12 minor · Ask about this paper · The compiled record · Read the full review →

Challenge this review Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗

Cite ▾

arXiv IDhep-ph/9903554 (version 1)

Pith IDJENP6EHR, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review

CitationJ. F. Beacom (Caltech), P. Vogel. "The angular distribution of the reaction $\bar{\nu}_e + p \to e^+ + n$." arXiv:hep-ph/9903554 (1999). https://pith.science/paper/JENP6EHR

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

The thing to know: this paper computes the O(1/M) corrections to the positron angular distribution in ν̄_e + p → e⁺ + n and finds they are large enough to flip the sign of ⟨cos θ⟩. At M → ∞ the asymmetry is a(0) = (f²−g²)/(f²+3g²) ≈ −0.10, slightly backward; weak magnetism and recoil push it through zero near 15 MeV and slightly forward above. The compact result is Eq. (23), ⟨cos θ⟩ ≈ −0.034 v_e + 2.4 Eν/M. That is a real, quotable number, and it matters for supernova pointing, LSND-style analyses, and background separation. The paper is also honest about its own weak points, which I appreciate: it flags the anomalously large coefficient γ1/α1 ≈ −7 and says outright that additional Δ/M corrections may be needed in Eq. (16). That is the right way to present a truncation you can't prove converges quickly. On the circularity worry: I think the reader's weakest_assumption is overstated. The threshold patch Eq. (16) is O(Δ²) and contributes roughly 0.05% at 60 MeV, so the agreement between the O(1/M) curve and Llewellyn Smith's all-orders formula at 60 MeV is a genuine, patch-independent check of the slope. The circularity is confined to low energy, where Eν/M is small and truncation is safe anyway. The stress-test note has this right. Where I'd push: the outer radiative corrections are assumed to cancel in the ratio of the cos θ-weighted cross section to the total (Sec. II.A), which is plausible but not shown; Fig. 3 rests on Kubodera's unpublished tables, so the deuteron numbers are a qualitative remark, not a result; and the neutron-transport Monte Carlo in Sec. IV is described only by reference to Fermi's principles, with no cross-section inputs or code, so the ⟨x⟩ ≈ 1.7 cm shift is not independently reproducible from the paper. The SN1987A section is a worthwhile sanity check but its 2σ claims are fragile, as the authors themselves concede. None of this touches the central claim. Who should read it: anyone doing low-energy antineutrino detection, and anyone who needs the correct angular correlation rather than the textbook a(0). It deserves a serious referee — the derivation is standard and checkable, and the result is the kind of thing that should be cited rather than rederived.

Referee report

Significance

The result is significant and, if correct, directly useful. The correction is large precisely because the leading-order asymmetry is small, so the sign change is a qualitative, not a percent-level, effect; the analytic formula Eq. (22) is parameter-free given f, g, and f₂ and is falsifiable against the all-orders result and against data. The paper gives explicit credit-worthy cross-checks: the agreement of the O(1/M) curve with the modified Llewellyn Smith formula in Fig. 2, the correction of the author's own earlier cross-section calculation (Ref. [3], which omitted the Jacobian dt/d cos θ), and the identification of an incorrect form-factor treatment in Ref. [4]. The applications are concrete and testable: the LSND expectation of ⟨cos θ⟩ ≈ 0.16 after energy-cut bias, the supernova pointing estimate δ(cos θ) ≈ 0.2, and the neutron-displacement prediction of ⟨x⟩ ≈ 1.5–1.7 cm, which the Gösgen and Chooz experiments subsequently confirmed. The paper also states its limitations candidly, for example that the threshold patch Eq. (16) is obtained by matching and that additional ∆/M corrections may remain.

Minor objections (12)

[§IV, sentence following Eq. (30)] The text states that cos(θn)max → 1 both at threshold and as Eν → ∞, but Eq. (30) gives cos(θn)max = √(2Eν∆ - ∆² + m_e²)/Eν, which tends to zero at high energy (about 0.21 at Eν = 60 MeV), and Fig. 4 shows the curve falling with energy. The high-energy half of that sentence should be corrected; only the threshold limit is unity.
[Abstract and §II.C, Eq. (23)] The abstract quotes isotropy at 'about 15 MeV', but the zero of Eq. (23) with the ∆/M offset included is nearer 13 MeV. Please state the crossing energy obtained from the full Eq. (22) and reconcile it with the value quoted in the abstract, so that the number a reader extracts from the formula matches the headline number.
[§II.C, Eqs. (20)–(21)] The phase-space factor in Eqs. (20) and (21) is written as E_e^(0) E_e^(0), whereas the exact factor in Eq. (10) is E_e p_e. Since Eq. (20) is described as valid near threshold, please state explicitly that Eqs. (18)–(21) drop terms of order m_e²/E_e² and that the exact factor is E_e p_e, with the v_e factor restored only in Eq. (22).
[§II.B, Eq. (16) and surrounding text] The threshold patch Eq. (16) is obtained by direct comparison with the O(1/M) result rather than derived, and the text asserts that it is 'the only other ∆-dependent correction ... at O(1)'. Please label this explicitly as a matching prescription and quantify the residual ∆/M ambiguity, which is currently dismissed as 'evidently small' without a number.
[§II.A, paragraph after Eq. (12)] The statement that the outer radiative corrections 'should largely cancel in the ratio' defining ⟨cos θ⟩ is asserted rather than shown. Please give an estimate of the residual correction to ⟨cos θ⟩, or cite a calculation, since the asymmetry itself is only of order 0.1 and a percent-level residual would be a several-percent correction to it.
[§II.D, Fig. 3 and Eq. (24)] The curves in Fig. 3 rest on Kubodera's numerical tables, cited as a private communication (Ref. [11]), and Eq. (24) is described as an estimate fitted to those results. Please make the underlying differential cross sections available, or state how the coefficients in Eq. (24) were extracted, so that the deuteron comparison can be reproduced independently.
[§IV, neutron-transport Monte Carlo] The Monte Carlo behind Fig. 5 is described only by principles. Please give the elastic-scattering cross sections actually used, the capture-time distributions obtained for doped and undoped scintillator, and the number of histories, so that the quoted ⟨x⟩ ≈ 1.7 cm and the σx values can be reproduced; the statement that the cross sections are nearly energy-independent between 10 keV and 0.1 eV is the key input and deserves a numerical reference.
[§II.C, Eq. (25)] For a distribution of the form 1 + a cos θ the variance of cos θ is 1/3 - a²/9, not 1/3 - a²/32 as printed. Please verify the denominator in the a² term; the numerical estimate 1/√(3N) that follows is correct, so this appears to be a typographical issue only.
[§II.A, Eq. (15)] The factors written as (1 - 1/v_e^(0) cos θ) in Eq. (15) are hard to parse and the cancellation of the 1/v_e^(0) terms against p_e^(0) in the phase-space factor is asserted but not shown. Please rewrite these as (1 - cos θ/v_e^(0)) and add one line demonstrating the cancellation.
[§III.A, SN1987A discussion] The comparison with the IMB data relies on the angular bias correction of Ref. [15], but the size of that correction is not stated. Please quote it, since the claimed 2σ deviations in the mean and variance depend on it.
[Figs. 1 and 2] The caption does not say which curves include the finite electron mass and hence the v_e factor of Eq. (22). Please state this explicitly, since the low-energy 'hook' below 5 MeV is one of the more visible features of the lower panels.
[Throughout] A few typographical corrections are needed: 'supercedes' should be 'supersedes' (end of §II.A), 'G¨ osgen' should be 'Gösgen' (§IV), and 'the neutron and and positron momenta' should read 'the neutron and positron momenta' (§IV).

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

The paper

The paper claims

Weak magnetism and nuclear recoil flip the positron angular distribution in antineutrino-proton capture from slightly backward to slightly forward, crossing zero near 15 MeV.

The reading

The reaction $\bar{\nu}_e + p \to e^+ + n$ is the workhorse channel for detecting reactor and supernova antineutrinos, and its rate is well known. What was not well known is which way the outgoing positron tends to go. At lowest order the answer is a small backward asymmetry, $a^{(0)} = (f^2-g^2)/(f^2+3g^2) \simeq -0.10$, which gives $\langle\cos\theta\rangle \simeq -0.034\,v_e$. The paper shows that this near-cancellation is fragile: once terms of order $1/M$ (nucleon mass) are kept, the weak-magnetism term, proportional to $f+f_2 \simeq 4.7$, and the pure recoil term add constructively and dominate. The result is $\langle\cos\theta\rangle \simeq -0.034\,v_e + 2.4\,E_\nu/M$, so the distribution is isotropic at roughly 15 MeV and forward above that. This matters because the sign of the asymmetry is what experimenters use to separate signal from background and, in principle, to point back at a supernova.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the coefficient $a^{(0)} = (f^2-g^2)/(f^2+3g^2) \simeq -0.10$, the ratio of the Fermi (non-spin-flip) to the combined Fermi-plus-Gamow-Teller strength. Its smallness is what makes the $1/M$ corrections competitive: an accidental cancellation at zeroth order means the weak-magnetism term, which carries the anomalous isovector magnetic moment $f_2 = \mu_p - \mu_n = 3.706$ through the combination $f + f_2$, and the recoil term, which is independent of the couplings, together outweigh the leading asymmetry. The authors package the expansion into the compact forms of Eqs. (20)–(22), where the $\cos\theta$-weighted integral and the total cross section are each written as $\alpha + \beta\,\Delta/M + \gamma\,E_e^{(0)}/M$ and divided analytically. A secondary mechanism is the neutron angular distribution: momentum conservation forces the neutron into the forward hemisphere, with a maximum angle set by $\cos(\theta_n)_{\rm max} = [2E_\nu\Delta - (\Delta^2-m_e^2)]^{1/2}/E_\nu$, and although moderation erases most of the memory of that direction, the centroid of the capture cloud is displaced by about 1.7 cm in a scintillator of density 0.80 g/cm$^3$.

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that the positron angular distribution in $\bar{\nu}_e + p \to e^+ + n$ is not the energy-independent, weakly backward distribution of the infinite-nucleon-mass limit. Working to first order in $1/M$, the authors derive the differential cross section in $\cos\theta$ including the angular dependence of the positron energy, momentum, and velocity, and then divide the $\cos\theta$-weighted integral by the total cross section analytically rather than numerically, since the coefficient $\gamma_1/\alpha_1 \simeq -7$ is large enough that numerical division would contaminate the result with higher-order terms. The resulting formula, $\langle\cos\theta\rangle^{(1)} \simeq -0.034\,v_e + 2.4\,E_\nu/M$, crosses zero near $E_\nu \simeq 15$ MeV and stays positive above. The authors also show that the well-known all-orders formula of Llewellyn Smith, which assumes $\Delta = 0$, fails near threshold, and they repair it with a single $\Delta$-dependent subtraction, $C(q^2)(s-u)^2 \to C(q^2)(s-u)^2 - C(q^2)\,4M^2\Delta^2$, after which it agrees with their first-order result over the energy range of interest. The same logic is applied qualitatively to the charged-current deuteron breakup reactions, where recoil pushes the asymmetry forward in both channels while weak magnetism adds for $\bar{\nu}_e + d$ and subtracts for $\nu_e + d$.

Load-bearing premise

The claim rests on truncating the expansion at first order in $1/M$ being adequate up to about 60 MeV, even though the coefficient multiplying $E_\nu/M$ in the cross section is anomalously large at roughly $-7$; the paper supports this only by agreement with an all-orders formula that it has itself patched using the same first-order input.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The expected positron asymmetry for supernova antineutrinos, weighted over a Fermi-Dirac spectrum, is slightly positive: $\langle\cos\theta\rangle \simeq 0.015$, $0.025$, and $0.034$ for temperatures of 4, 5, and 6 MeV, and about $0.056$ for events above 30 MeV at $T = 5$ MeV, so pointing is best done with the highest-energy positrons.
The SN1987A angular data are in tension with these expectations: the observed means of 0.34 in Kamiokande II and 0.48 in IMB should be near 0 and 0.08, and the IMB variance of 0.11 is about two standard deviations below the expected 1/3, so the two detectors' angular distributions are not consistent with each other at the 2-sigma level.
Searches that assumed the naive backward asymmetry, such as the statistical separation of $\nu_e + {}^{16}{\rm O} \to e^- + {}^{16}{\rm F}$ events from inverse beta decay, or the solar $\bar{\nu}_e$ limit, would need their sensitivities revised, in the first case favorably.
The LSND expectation rises from about 0.08 to 0.16 once the positron energy cut at 36 MeV is accounted for, since forward positrons carry more energy at fixed antineutrino energy, bringing the prediction into agreement with the measured $0.20 \pm 0.13$.
The forward displacement of neutron capture points relative to the positron vertex, roughly 1.5–1.7 cm and already seen at about 10 sigma in the Gössgen experiment, provides a directional handle on reactor antineutrino events that does not require positron Cherenkov angle reconstruction.

Reading between the lines

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

The same energy-cut selection that reconciles LSND with the calculation should be applied to the SN1987A samples before concluding that new physics is needed; a forward-going positron at fixed $E_\nu$ is also a higher-energy positron, and the small event counts make that bias large.
Because the recoil term is coupling-independent while the weak-magnetism term flips sign between $\bar{\nu}_e + d$ and $\nu_e + d$, comparing the two deuteron breakup channels isolates the weak-magnetism contribution from the recoil contribution without needing an independent normalization.
A fixed-energy measurement of $\langle\cos\theta\rangle$ would test the conserved-vector-current prediction $f + f_2 = 4.706$ at a level set by $2(E_\nu/M)/\sqrt{N}$, which for a Galactic supernova in a large water Cherenkov detector could plausibly reach tens of percent, competitive with the beta-spectrum shape measurements that took decades to reach 10 percent.
The neutron-capture centroid shift offers a cross-check on the reconstructed antineutrino direction that is statistically independent of the positron angle, so combining the two could tighten source localization beyond what either alone provides.

Original abstract

The reaction $\bar{\nu}_e + p \to e^+ + n$ is very important for low-energy ($E_\nu \lesssim 60$ MeV) antineutrino experiments. In this paper we calculate the positron angular distribution, which at low energies is slightly backward. We show that weak magnetism and recoil corrections have a large effect on the angular distribution, making it isotropic at about 15 MeV and slightly forward at higher energies. We also show that the behavior of the cross section and the angular distribution can be well-understood analytically for $E_\nu \lesssim 60$ MeV by calculating to ${\cal O}(1/M)$, where $M$ is the nucleon mass. The correct angular distribution is useful for separating $\bar{\nu}_e + p \to e^+ + n$ events from other reactions and detector backgrounds, as well as for possible localization of the source (e.g., a supernova) direction. We comment on how similar corrections appear for the lepton angular distributions in the deuteron breakup reactions $\bar{\nu}_e + d \to e^+ + n + n$ and $\nu_e + d \to e^- + p + p$. Finally, in the reaction $\bar{\nu}_e + p \to e^+ + n$, the angular distribution of the outgoing neutrons is strongly forward-peaked, leading to a measurable separation in positron and neutron detection points, also potentially useful for rejecting backgrounds or locating the source direction.

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, 5,947 input tokens, $0.0003 reported.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.03 · states limitation 0.39 · human participants 0.01 · controlled comparison 0.03 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.93 · compares with prior results 0.15 · 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.

The reaction $\bar{\nu}_e + p \to e^+ + n$ is very important for low-energy ($E_\nu \lesssim 60$ MeV) antineutrino experiments. In this paper we calculate the positron angular distribution, which at low energies is slightly backward. We show that weak magnetism and recoil corrections have a large effect on the angular distribution, making it isotropic at about 15 MeV and slightly forward at higher energies. We also show that the behavior of the cross section and the angular distribution can be well-understood analytically for $E_\nu \lesssim 60$ MeV by calculating to ${\cal O}(1/M)$, where $M$ is the nucleon mass. The correct angular distribution is useful for separating $\bar{\nu}_e + p \to e^+ + n$ events from other reactions and detector backgrounds, as well as for possible localization of the source (e.g., a supernova) direction. We comment on how similar corrections appear for the lepton angular distributions in the deuteron breakup reactions $\bar{\nu}_e + d \to e^+ + n + n$ and $\nu_e + d \to e^- + p + p$. Finally, in the reaction $\bar{\nu}_e + p \to e^+ + n$, the angular distribution of the outgoing neutrons is strongly forward-peaked, leading to a measurable separation in positron and neutron detection points, also potentially useful for rejecting backgrounds or locating the source direction.

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	The reaction $\bar{\nu}_e + p \to e^+ + n$ is very important for low-energy ($E_\nu \lesssim 60$ MeV) antineutrino experiments.	background 1.00	0.08	0.03	asserted 1.00
s1	In this paper we calculate the positron angular distribution, which at low energies is slightly backward.	contribution 0.82	0.95	0.23	asserted 1.00
s2	We show that weak magnetism and recoil corrections have a large effect on the angular distribution, making it isotropic at about 15 MeV and slightly forward at higher energies.	result 1.00	0.94	0.60	asserted 1.00
s3	We also show that the behavior of the cross section and the angular distribution can be well-understood analytically for $E_\nu \lesssim 60$ MeV by calculating to ${\cal O}(1/M)$, where $M$ is the nucleon mass.	method 0.75	0.95	0.15	asserted 0.98
s4	The correct angular distribution is useful for separating $\bar{\nu}_e + p \to e^+ + n$ events from other reactions and detector backgrounds, as well as for possible localization of the source (e.g., a supernova) direction.	interpretation 0.95	0.21	0.08	asserted 0.80
s5	We comment on how similar corrections appear for the lepton angular distributions in the deuteron breakup reactions $\bar{\nu}_e + d \to e^+ + n + n$ and $\nu_e + d \to e^- + p + p$.	contribution 0.64	0.67	0.03	asserted 0.78
s6	Finally, in the reaction $\bar{\nu}_e + p \to e^+ + n$, the angular distribution of the outgoing neutrons is strongly forward-peaked, leading to a measurable separation in positron and neutron detection points, also potentially useful for rejecting backgrounds or locating the source direction.	result 0.94	0.78	0.10	asserted 0.97

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: theoretical result 1.00 · evidence from proof or derivation 0.97.

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. Upper panel: total cross section for ¯ν

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. The same as Fig. 1, but over a larger range of

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. The average lepton cosine for the charged-current

**Figure 5.** FIG. 5. The shift (solid line)

Showing 4 of the paper's 5 figures. See all figures in the PDF ↗ Figures reproduced from arXiv:hep-ph/9903554 by the authors.

References

Works cited (44)

[6]

C. H. Llewellyn Smith, Phys. Rep. 3, 261 (1972)

View on Pith 1972
[3]

P. Vogel, Phys. Rev. D 29, 1918 (1984)

View on Pith 1984
[4]

S. A. Fayans, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 42, 590 (1985)

View on Pith 1985
[1]

C. Athanassopoulos et al., Phys. Rev. C 54, 2685 (1996); C. Athanassopoulos et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 3082 (1996)

View on Pith 1996
[2]

B. Armbruster et al., Phys. Rev. C 57, 3414 (1998); K. Eitel et al., hep-ex/9809007

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1998
[5]

D. Seckel, hep-ph/9305311

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[7]

D.H. Wilkinson, Z. Phys. A 348, 129 (1994); A. Sirlin, in Precision Tests of the Standard Model , edited by P. Lan- gacker (World Scientiﬁc, Singapore, 1995); J.C. Hardy and I.S. Towner, nucl-th/9812036

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1994
[8]

D.H. Wilkinson, Nucl. Phys. A377, 474 (1982); D.H. Wilkinson, Nucl. Instrum. Methods A 404, 305 (1998)

View on Pith 1982
[9]

Y. Declais et al., Phys. Lett. B 338, 383 (1994)

View on Pith 1994
[10]

D. H. Perkins, in Ninth Workshop on Grand Uniﬁca- tion, edited by R. Barloutard (World Scientiﬁc, Singa- pore, 1988)

View on Pith 1988
[11]

K. Kubodera, private communication

View on Pith
[12]

K. Kubodera, S. Nozawa, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 3, 101 (1994)

View on Pith 1994
[13]

A.B. Dobrotsvetov and S.A. Fayans, Phys. At. Nucl. 56, 455 (1993)

View on Pith 1993
[14]

K. Hirata et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 58, 1490 (1987); K.S. Hirata et al., Phys. Rev. D 38, 448 (1988)

View on Pith 1987
[15]

R.M. Bionta et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 58, 1494 (1987); C.B. Bratton et al., Phys. Rev. D 37, 3361 (1988)

View on Pith 1987
[16]

M.I. Krivoruchenko, Z. Phys. C 44, 633 (1989); T. Kon- ishi et al., Phys. Rev. D 47, 5228 (1993)

View on Pith 1989
[17]

J.M. LoSecco, Phys. Rev. D 39, 1013 (1989)

View on Pith 1989
[18]

W.H. Press et al., Numerical Recipes in FORTRAN, 2nd ed. (Cambridge University Press, 1992)

View on Pith 1992
[19]

A. Stuart and J.K. Ord, Kendall’s Advanced Theory of Statistics, Vol. 1, 6th ed. (John Wiley, New York, 1994)

View on Pith 1994
[20]

J.F. Beacom and P. Vogel, Phys. Rev. D 58 (1998) 053010

View on Pith 1998
[21]

J.C. van der Velde, Phys. Rev. D 39, 1492 (1989)

View on Pith 1989
[22]

D. Kielczewska, Phys. Rev. D 41, 2967 (1990)

View on Pith 1990
[23]

M. Nakahata et al., Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A421, 113 (1998); Y. Fukuda et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 1562 (1998); M. Shiozawa et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 3319 (1998); Y. Fukuda et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 1158 (1998)

View on Pith 1998
[24]

J.F. Beacom and P. Vogel, Phys. Rev. D 58 (1998) 093012

View on Pith 1998
[25]

J.F. Beacom and P. Vogel, astro-ph/9811350

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[26]

W.C. Haxton, Phys. Rev. D 36, 2283 (1987)

View on Pith 1987
[27]

Y.-Z. Qian, G.M. Fuller, Phys. Rev. D 49, 1762 (1994)

View on Pith 1994
[28]

H.H. Chen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 55, 1534 (1985); G.T. Ewan et al., Sudbury Neutrino Observatory Proposal , SNO-87- 12 (1987); G. Aardsma, et al., Phys. Lett. B 194, 321 (1987); H.H. Chen, Nucl. Instrum. Methods A 264, 48 (1988); G.T. Ewan, Hyperﬁne Interactions, 103, 199 (1996); M.E. Moorhead, in Neutrino Astrophysics , eds. M. Altmann et al. (Ringberg, Germa...

View on Pith 1985
[29]

G. Fiorentini, M. Moretti, and F. L. Villante, Phys. Let t. B 413, 378 (1997)

View on Pith 1997
[30]

W.C. Louis, private communication

View on Pith
[31]

J. D. Jackson, S. B. Treiman, and H. W. Wyld, Phys. Rev. 106, 517 (1957)

View on Pith 1957
[32]

Chr. Stratowa, R. Dobrozemsky, and P. Weinzierl, Phys. Rev. D 18, 3970 (1978)

View on Pith 1978
[33]

M. Gell-Mann, Phys. Rev. 111, 362 (1958)

View on Pith 1958
[34]

V.L. Telegdi, Comments Nucl. Part. Phys. 8, 171 (1979)

View on Pith 1979
[35]

B. Holstein, Weak Interactions in Nuclei (Princeton Uni- versity Press, Princeton, 1989)

View on Pith 1989
[36]

E. Fermi et al., Nuclear Physics, 2nd ed. (University of Chicago, Chicago, Ill., 1950); see also E. Segr` e, Nuclei and Particles, 2nd ed. (Benjamin-Cummings, Reading, Mass., 1977)

View on Pith 1950
[37]

D.J. Hughes and J.A. Harvey, Neutron Cross Sections (Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, N.Y., 1955); V. McLane, C.L. Dunford, and P.F. Rose, Neutron Cross Sections, Vol. 2 , (Academic Press, New York, 1988)

View on Pith 1955
[38]

C. Bemporad, Neutrino ’98 Conference (June 1998)

View on Pith 1998
[39]

G. Zacek et al., Phys. Rev. D 34, 2621 (1986)

View on Pith 1986
[40]

G. Zacek, Dr. thesis, Technical University of Munich, 1984

View on Pith 1984
[41]

J.-P. Cussonneau, Dr. thesis, Universit´ e de Paris XI ( Or- say), 1992

View on Pith 1992
[42]

Y. Declais et al., Nucl. Phys. B434, 503 (1995)

View on Pith 1995
[43]

M. Apollonio et al., Phys. Lett. B 420 397 (1998)

View on Pith 1998
[44]

F. Boehm, private communication. 10

View on Pith

Forward citations

Cited by 33 Pith papers

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

Exact time-correlated coincidence modeling with reset boundaries
hep-ex 2026-08 accept novelty 7.0 of 10

A matrix-analytic derivation gives closed-form ordered coincidence rates, including the accidental prompt-delayed background, under Poisson reset boundaries and event dead time.
Self-Calibration of the Neutrino-Argon Cross Section with Solar Neutrinos
hep-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

Solar neutrinos enable self-calibration of the ν_e + 40Ar cross section to ≲2% in 9-15 MeV via known 8B flux, survival probability, and distinctive Fermi/Gamow-Teller angular distributions.
Comprehensive geoneutrino analysis with Borexino
hep-ex 2019-09 accept novelty 7.0 of 10

Borexino measures a 47.0 TNU geoneutrino signal from U and Th, detects mantle geoneutrinos at 99% C.L., and bounds Earth's radiogenic heat at 38.2 TW.
Testing the statistical compatibility of data sets with a common prior
hep-ph 2026-10 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

Two new test statistics for data set compatibility under a common prior are derived, both following generalized chi-squared distributions.
Beyond $\Delta m^2$: Absolute Mass Sensitivity in Neutrino Oscillations
hep-ph 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

The NLO oscillation phase includes a term proportional to (m_i^4 - m_j^4)/E^3, making oscillation experiments sensitive in principle to the absolute neutrino mass scale, with JUNO projected to bound the lightest mass ...

Show 28 more citing papers

Dark matter scattering with pre-supernova neutrinos
hep-ph 2026-07 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

Attenuation of pre-supernova electron antineutrinos by local dark matter yields upper limits on the reduced DM–ν cross section of order 10^{-21} cm^{2}/GeV at detectors such as JUNO, Super-K and KamLAND.
Lessons from the first JUNO results
hep-ph 2026-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

JUNO's initial results combined with global data give a 2.2-2.3 sigma preference for normal neutrino mass ordering.
Supernova Simulations Confront SN 1987A Neutrinos
astro-ph.HE 2023-08 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

Modern one-dimensional supernova models with convection, muons and correlation-reduced opacities fit the first seconds of the SN 1987A neutrino signal but cool too quickly to account for the late Kamiokande-II and BUS...
DUNE as the Next-Generation Solar Neutrino Experiment
hep-ph 2018-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

With 100 kton-years and a 5 MeV threshold, DUNE could measure solar neutrino mixing to a few percent, the 8B flux to 2.5%, and detect hep neutrinos, while testing solar-versus-reactor consistency.
Non-standard neutrino interactions in reactor and superbeam experiments
hep-ph 2007-08 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

Approximate analytic formulas plus GLoBES simulations show that non-standard neutrino interactions can bias or fake theta-13 measurements in reactor and superbeam experiments, and that combining the two can reveal the effect.
A Conserved Vector Current test using low energy beta-beams
hep-ph 2006-03 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

A sensitivity study shows that a low-energy beta-beam plus a water Cherenkov detector could measure the weak magnetism form factor in anti-neutrino proton capture with roughly 5-9% precision, offering a new test of th...
Disentangle RG Running Parameters with Medium-Baseline Reactor Experiments
hep-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 5.5 of 10

RG running beta functions of mixing parameters alter the fast oscillation mode at JUNO and can reduce mass ordering sensitivity, but measurements from the TAO near detector can restore it by constraining the running p...
Boosted Dark Matter Directionality in Large Liquid Scintillator Detectors
hep-ph 2026-10 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A 100 kiloton-year liquid scintillator exposure can improve boosted-dark-matter sensitivity via neutron knockout, but neutron directionality adds only a few percent improvement.
Impact of Neutrino Flavour Conversion on the Diffuse Neutrino Background from Neutrino-dominated Accretion Flows
astro-ph.HE 2026-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Neutrino flavour conversion strongly suppresses the diffuse neutrino background from neutrino-dominated accretion flows if the neutrino mass ordering is inverted, leaving a detectable signal only in the normal ordering.
Testing the RG Running of the Leptonic Dirac CP Phase with Reactor Neutrinos
hep-ph 2024-11 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

The JUNO-TAO reactor experiment could constrain the renormalization-group running beta function of the Dirac CP phase to about βδ ≈ 0.1, if spectrum-shape systematics are controlled.
Reactor antineutrino anomaly in light of recent flux model refinements
hep-ph 2021-10 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

With updated reactor flux models and a pull-term fit that avoids Peelle's puzzle, the reactor antineutrino anomaly falls from about 2.5 to 2.9 sigma to 1.1 to 1.5 sigma, and reactor data bound sterile mixing below the...
Global analysis of three-flavour neutrino oscillations: synergies and tensions in the determination of theta_23, delta_CP, and the mass ordering
hep-ph 2018-11 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Combining neutrino oscillation data through fall 2018 yields a preference for normal mass ordering, a second-octant theta_23, and delta_CP near 215 degrees, with CP conservation allowed at Delta chi2 about 1.5.
Hyper-Kamiokande Design Report
physics.ins-det 2018-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

The report specifies the design of a 258-kiloton water Cherenkov detector and projects its sensitivity to leptonic CP violation, proton decay, and supernova neutrinos.
On the Minimum Dark Matter Mass Testable by Neutrinos from the Sun
hep-ph 2013-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

For dark matter lighter than roughly 2.5 to 2.7 GeV, evaporation balances capture in the Sun, so the solar neutrino flux becomes independent of the dark matter nucleon scattering cross section and no bound on that cro...
A novel way of constraining WIMPs annihilations in the Sun: MeV neutrinos
hep-ph 2012-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

MeV neutrinos from stopped pion and muon decays in the Sun let Super-Kamiokande data constrain WIMP-nucleon scattering for annihilation channels that produce no high-energy neutrinos.
On the determination of anti-neutrino spectra from nuclear reactors
hep-ph 2011-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

An independent inversion of the ILL reactor beta spectra confirms a 2 to 3 percent upward shift in antineutrino flux and identifies weak magnetism in rare fission products as a theory uncertainty large enough to erase it.
The Diffuse Supernova Neutrino Background is detectable in Super-Kamiokande
astro-ph 2008-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Cross-checked cosmic star formation history implies the diffuse supernova neutrino background is within a factor of 2 to 4 of the 2003 Super-Kamiokande limit, and a gadolinium-enhanced detector would see 1.2 to 5.6 ev...
A Precision Measurement of the Neutrino Mixing Angle theta_13 using Reactor Antineutrinos at Daya Bay
hep-ex 2007-01 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Daya Bay proposes a multi-detector reactor antineutrino experiment projected to reach a sin^2(2theta_13) sensitivity of 0.01, an order of magnitude beyond the then-current Chooz limit.
Impact of the equation of state on core collapse supernovae I: the low-$T/|W|$ instability
astro-ph.HE 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 4.0 of 10

Simulations show the low-T/|W| instability develops robustly across five nuclear EOS in a rapidly rotating 35 M⊙ progenitor, with dominant GW frequency correlating to PNS compactness and stiffness.
Constraints on Light Sterile Neutrinos and Scalar Non-Standard Interactions Using the First Reactor Antineutrino Oscillation Results at JUNO
hep-ph 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 4.0 of 10

JUNO's initial 59-day dataset constrains sterile neutrino mass splittings between 10^{-5} and 10^{-2} eV² down to sin²2θ₁₄ ~ O(10^{-1}) and scalar NSI |η_ee| below O(10^{-2}).
Sterile Neutrinos or Flux Uncertainties? - Status of the Reactor Anti-Neutrino Anomaly
hep-ph 2017-09 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

Global electron (anti)neutrino disappearance data still allow eV-scale sterile neutrinos, with a preference of about 3 sigma (flux-fixed) or 2 sigma (flux-free) over no oscillations.
Measurement of electron antineutrino oscillation based on 1230 days of operation of the Daya Bay experiment
hep-ex 2016-10 accept novelty 4.0 of 10

Combining 2.5 million reactor antineutrino interactions over 1230 days, Daya Bay measures sin^2 2theta_13 = 0.0841 +/- 0.0033 and |Delta m^2_ee| = (2.50 +/- 0.08) x 10^-3 eV^2, with the far-to-near rate ratio at 0.949.
Neutrino Physics with JUNO
physics.ins-det 2015-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

Simulation-based projections indicate that a 20-kiloton liquid scintillator detector at 53 km from two reactor complexes can determine the neutrino mass ordering at 3 to 4 sigma in six years and measure three oscillat...
Global status of neutrino oscillation parameters after Neutrino-2012
hep-ph 2012-05 accept novelty 4.0 of 10

A global fit to 2012 neutrino data fixes sin-squared theta-13 at about 0.025 and excludes theta-13 = 0 at 10.2 sigma, while the atmospheric angle theta-23 shows only a marginal preference for non-maximal mixing.
The next-generation liquid-scintillator neutrino observatory LENA
astro-ph.IM 2011-04 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

LENA, a proposed 50 kt liquid-scintillator detector, would deliver a broad low-energy neutrino program and roughly tenfold better proton-decay reach, according to this design study.
Neutrino monitoring of explosions for excluding fission yield
physics.soc-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 3.0 of 10

Calculations indicate ton- to tens-of-kiloton inverse-beta-decay detectors can set useful fission-yield limits for chemical explosions up to 100 km at the Nevada National Security Site but are unsuitable for longer ra...
Supernova Neutrinos: Production, Oscillations and Detection
astro-ph.HE 2015-07 accept novelty 3.0 of 10

A structured review of supernova neutrino emission, flavor conversion and detection prospects, including new one-dimensional proto-neutron-star cooling simulations that treat convection with a mixing-length closure.
Supernova Neutrino Detection
astro-ph.IM 2012-05 accept novelty 2.0 of 10

A survey of the detector technologies, interaction channels and expected event yields that would let physicists measure the neutrino burst from the next nearby core-collapse supernova.

How later papers used it

128 later papers cite it

Evidence: substantial. 117 of the citing papers share no author with it, and 49 of those carry a confident label from Pith's citation classifier.

Pith read 17 of the 183 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

8 later papers by other authors are listed below: 4 used its method or tool and 4 used its data or values. 1 more paper by the same authors is listed: 1 used its method or tool.

Uses its method or tool 5 of 24 papers with this label · 1 by the same authors

Based its IBD modeling in PG4 on the Vogel and Beacom model of this paper.

Reactor Antineutrino Directionality Measurement with the PROSPECT-I Detector (2024) · 1.00 · paraphrased: the licence does not allow quoting
Defined the kinematics of the IBD positron and neutron according to this paper and another work.

Sensitivity of an antineutrino monitor for remote nuclear reactor discovery (2022) · 0.85 · paraphrased: the licence does not allow quoting
We therefore validate the GAN using the standard reconstruction formula [ref] : [equation]

Conditional Wasserstein GAN for Simulating Neutrino Event Summaries using Incident Energy of Electron Neutrinos (2026) · Inverse Beta Decay (IBD): Energy Reconstruction · 0.96
* Eq. $[ref]$ is used to sample the cosine of the scatterring positron angle [ref] .

NuSD: A Geant4 based simulation framework for segmented anti-neutrino detectors (2022) · Primary particles · 0.98

By the same authors

where $dσ_IBD/dE_+$ is the differential cross section for the inverse beta decay [ref] and $f(⟨E_ν⟩,α)$ is defined in Eq. ([ref]).

Old Data, New Forensics: The First Second of SN 1987A Neutrino Emission (2023) (same authors) · Detected positron energy spectrum · 0.90

Uses its data or values 4 of 28 papers with this label

Took the inverse beta decay cross section for electron antineutrinos for folding with the mu-DAR neutrino spectrum from this paper.

Neutrino interactions at COMET (2022) · 0.98 · paraphrased: the licence does not allow quoting
Used inverse beta decay cross sections from this paper.

Antineutrino monitoring of spent nuclear fuel (2016) · 0.96 · paraphrased: the licence does not allow quoting
Used the inverse beta-decay cross section from this paper.

Probing neutrino quantum decoherence at reactor experiments (2020) · 0.97 · paraphrased: the licence does not allow quoting
Used the cross section from this paper to compute neutrino event rates and energy spectra from IBD.

Reactor neutrino applications and coherent elastic neutrino nucleus scattering (2020) · 0.93 · paraphrased: the licence does not allow quoting

How the literature uses it

85 arXiv papers cite this in 120 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 citing it · 72 sentences without a confident label

Contests it 1 paper

By comparison, the electromagnetic energy spectrum reported in Refs. [ref] turns negative in the region of positron energies allowed only in the radiative process and, therefore, should not be applied in this region for precision analyses.

Theory of inverse beta decay for reactor antineutrinos · Positron, electromagnetic, and neutron energies · contest 0.93

Uses its method or tool 10 papers

As done in Ref. [ref] , we include interactions of $ν̅_e$ off free protons, using the IBD differential cross section [ref] , and we consider a relativistic Fermi gas model [ref] to include $ν_e$ and $ν̅_e$ interactions off oxygen nuclei.

Current and future neutrino limits on the abundance of primordial black holes · Updated constraints with Super-Kamiokande data · 1.00
For the inverse beta-decay reaction we use the full cross section [ref] and for the interactions off bound nucleons, we consider a relativistic Fermi gas model [ref] with a Fermi surface momentum of 225 MeV and a binding energy of 27 MeV.

A novel way of constraining WIMPs annihilations in the Sun: MeV neutrinos · Analysis · 0.90
The reactor fluxes are parameterized as in Ref. [ref] and the inverse beta-decay cross section is taken from Ref. [ref] .

Neutrino oscillation bounds on quantum decoherence · Reactor experiments: KamLAND, Daya Bay and RENO · 0.82

Uses its data or values 24 papers

The inverse beta decay cross section for electron anti-neutrinos for folding with the $μ$-DAR neutrino spectrum is taken from reference [ref] .

Neutrino interactions at COMET · Calculation of positron event rate at COMET · 0.98
We use the antineutrino spectrum given by the blue dashed curve in <ref> (10 years after discharge) and the inverse beta decay cross sections from [ref] .

Antineutrino monitoring of spent nuclear fuel · Dry cask storage facilities · 0.96
We use reactor fluxes as parameterized in Ref. [ref] and the inverse beta-decay cross section from Ref. [ref] .

Probing neutrino quantum decoherence at reactor experiments · Current Constraints from RENO and Daya Bay · 0.97

Compares with it 2 papers

We compare our results to the conventional parameterization of IBD cross sections from Ref. [ref] , and prior approaches to radiative corrections from Refs. [ref] and from Refs. [ref] .

Radiative corrections to inverse beta decay: a precision analysis for reactor neutrinos · Results and discussion · 1.00
Our cross sections are above the results in Ref. [ref] , but remain below the values obtained using parameterizations of QED, QCD, and electroweak corrections in Refs. [ref] as well as results of Refs. [ref] .

Theory of inverse beta decay for reactor antineutrinos · Total cross section: Energy dependence and uncertainties · 1.00

Cites it as background 6 papers

The most accurate estimates available today were described about 20 years ago by Beacom and Vogel [ref] and by Strumia and Vissani [ref] .

An accurate evaluation of electron (anti-)neutrino scattering on nucleons · Introduction · 0.85
Radiative corrections and various contributions to IBD cross sections have been evaluated over several decades in Refs. [ref] .

Radiative corrections to inverse beta decay: a precision analysis for reactor neutrinos · Introduction · 1.00
Recoil and weak magnetism corrections were revisited in the context of supernova neutrinos in Refs. [ref] .

Theory of inverse beta decay for reactor antineutrinos · Introduction · 0.90

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] [6]

C. H. Llewellyn Smith, Phys. Rep. 3, 261 (1972)

View on Pith 1972

[2] [3]

P. Vogel, Phys. Rev. D 29, 1918 (1984)

View on Pith 1984

[3] [4]

S. A. Fayans, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 42, 590 (1985)

View on Pith 1985

[4] [1]

C. Athanassopoulos et al., Phys. Rev. C 54, 2685 (1996); C. Athanassopoulos et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 3082 (1996)

View on Pith 1996

[5] [2]

B. Armbruster et al., Phys. Rev. C 57, 3414 (1998); K. Eitel et al., hep-ex/9809007

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1998

[6] [5]

D. Seckel, hep-ph/9305311

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[7] [7]

D.H. Wilkinson, Z. Phys. A 348, 129 (1994); A. Sirlin, in Precision Tests of the Standard Model , edited by P. Lan- gacker (World Scientiﬁc, Singapore, 1995); J.C. Hardy and I.S. Towner, nucl-th/9812036

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1994

[8] [8]

D.H. Wilkinson, Nucl. Phys. A377, 474 (1982); D.H. Wilkinson, Nucl. Instrum. Methods A 404, 305 (1998)

View on Pith 1982

[9] [9]

Y. Declais et al., Phys. Lett. B 338, 383 (1994)

View on Pith 1994

[10] [10]

D. H. Perkins, in Ninth Workshop on Grand Uniﬁca- tion, edited by R. Barloutard (World Scientiﬁc, Singa- pore, 1988)

View on Pith 1988

[11] [11]

K. Kubodera, private communication

View on Pith

[12] [12]

K. Kubodera, S. Nozawa, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 3, 101 (1994)

View on Pith 1994

[13] [13]

A.B. Dobrotsvetov and S.A. Fayans, Phys. At. Nucl. 56, 455 (1993)

View on Pith 1993

[14] [14]

K. Hirata et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 58, 1490 (1987); K.S. Hirata et al., Phys. Rev. D 38, 448 (1988)

View on Pith 1987

[15] [15]

R.M. Bionta et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 58, 1494 (1987); C.B. Bratton et al., Phys. Rev. D 37, 3361 (1988)

View on Pith 1987

[16] [16]

M.I. Krivoruchenko, Z. Phys. C 44, 633 (1989); T. Kon- ishi et al., Phys. Rev. D 47, 5228 (1993)

View on Pith 1989

[17] [17]

J.M. LoSecco, Phys. Rev. D 39, 1013 (1989)

View on Pith 1989

[18] [18]

W.H. Press et al., Numerical Recipes in FORTRAN, 2nd ed. (Cambridge University Press, 1992)

View on Pith 1992

[19] [19]

A. Stuart and J.K. Ord, Kendall’s Advanced Theory of Statistics, Vol. 1, 6th ed. (John Wiley, New York, 1994)

View on Pith 1994

[20] [20]

J.F. Beacom and P. Vogel, Phys. Rev. D 58 (1998) 053010

View on Pith 1998

[21] [21]

J.C. van der Velde, Phys. Rev. D 39, 1492 (1989)

View on Pith 1989

[22] [22]

D. Kielczewska, Phys. Rev. D 41, 2967 (1990)

View on Pith 1990

[23] [23]

M. Nakahata et al., Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A421, 113 (1998); Y. Fukuda et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 1562 (1998); M. Shiozawa et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 3319 (1998); Y. Fukuda et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 1158 (1998)

View on Pith 1998

[24] [24]

J.F. Beacom and P. Vogel, Phys. Rev. D 58 (1998) 093012

View on Pith 1998

[25] [25]

J.F. Beacom and P. Vogel, astro-ph/9811350

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[26] [26]

W.C. Haxton, Phys. Rev. D 36, 2283 (1987)

View on Pith 1987

[27] [27]

Y.-Z. Qian, G.M. Fuller, Phys. Rev. D 49, 1762 (1994)

View on Pith 1994

[28] [28]

H.H. Chen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 55, 1534 (1985); G.T. Ewan et al., Sudbury Neutrino Observatory Proposal , SNO-87- 12 (1987); G. Aardsma, et al., Phys. Lett. B 194, 321 (1987); H.H. Chen, Nucl. Instrum. Methods A 264, 48 (1988); G.T. Ewan, Hyperﬁne Interactions, 103, 199 (1996); M.E. Moorhead, in Neutrino Astrophysics , eds. M. Altmann et al. (Ringberg, Germa...

View on Pith 1985

[29] [29]

G. Fiorentini, M. Moretti, and F. L. Villante, Phys. Let t. B 413, 378 (1997)

View on Pith 1997

[30] [30]

W.C. Louis, private communication

View on Pith

[31] [31]

J. D. Jackson, S. B. Treiman, and H. W. Wyld, Phys. Rev. 106, 517 (1957)

View on Pith 1957

[32] [32]

Chr. Stratowa, R. Dobrozemsky, and P. Weinzierl, Phys. Rev. D 18, 3970 (1978)

View on Pith 1978

[33] [33]

M. Gell-Mann, Phys. Rev. 111, 362 (1958)

View on Pith 1958

[34] [34]

V.L. Telegdi, Comments Nucl. Part. Phys. 8, 171 (1979)

View on Pith 1979

[35] [35]

B. Holstein, Weak Interactions in Nuclei (Princeton Uni- versity Press, Princeton, 1989)

View on Pith 1989

[36] [36]

E. Fermi et al., Nuclear Physics, 2nd ed. (University of Chicago, Chicago, Ill., 1950); see also E. Segr` e, Nuclei and Particles, 2nd ed. (Benjamin-Cummings, Reading, Mass., 1977)

View on Pith 1950

[37] [37]

D.J. Hughes and J.A. Harvey, Neutron Cross Sections (Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, N.Y., 1955); V. McLane, C.L. Dunford, and P.F. Rose, Neutron Cross Sections, Vol. 2 , (Academic Press, New York, 1988)

View on Pith 1955

[38] [38]

C. Bemporad, Neutrino ’98 Conference (June 1998)

View on Pith 1998

[39] [39]

G. Zacek et al., Phys. Rev. D 34, 2621 (1986)

View on Pith 1986

[40] [40]

G. Zacek, Dr. thesis, Technical University of Munich, 1984

View on Pith 1984

[41] [41]

J.-P. Cussonneau, Dr. thesis, Universit´ e de Paris XI ( Or- say), 1992

View on Pith 1992

[42] [42]

Y. Declais et al., Nucl. Phys. B434, 503 (1995)

View on Pith 1995

[43] [43]

M. Apollonio et al., Phys. Lett. B 420 397 (1998)

View on Pith 1998

[44] [44]

F. Boehm, private communication. 10

View on Pith