Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 1 minor 2 cited by

Plausible variations in final state interaction models create uncertainties on neutrino energy estimation proxies at or above the few-MeV precision required for DUNE and Hyper-K oscillation sensitivities.

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

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

T0 review · grok-4.3

2026-06-29 09:09 UTC pith:ITNEI34H

load-bearing objection The paper shows FSI variations in current generators shift DUNE and Hyper-K energy proxies by amounts at or above the few-MeV target, with each experiment hit by different model pieces. the 1 major comments →

arxiv 2605.28696 v1 pith:ITNEI34H submitted 2026-05-27 hep-ex hep-ph

Characterising the role of final state interactions on neutrino energy estimation in the DUNE and Hyper-K era

Stephen Dolan , Jake McKean , Laura Munteanu This is my paper
classification hep-ex hep-ph
keywords final state interactionsneutrino energy reconstructionDUNEHyper-Kamiokandeneutrino oscillationsintranuclear cascaderelativistic mean field
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper uses neutrino event generators to test how final state interactions affect the kinematic energy estimator at Hyper-K and the calorimetric estimator at DUNE. It finds that changes in the modeling of these interactions produce spreads in reconstructed energy that reach or surpass the control level needed to meet the experiments' projected sensitivities. A reader would care because energy reconstruction is central to extracting oscillation parameters from the data. The study also shows the two detectors respond to different pieces of the FSI modeling: pion absorption and non-classical nuclear effects matter more for Hyper-K, while the division of hadronic energy into visible and invisible parts matters more for DUNE.

Core claim

Using state-of-the-art neutrino interaction event generators, we find that plausible variations of the FSI model introduce uncertainties on the neutrino energy estimation proxies that are at or above the precision on the energy scale control required for Hyper-K and DUNE projected neutrino oscillation sensitivities. Neutrino energy estimation at Hyper-K is most impacted by pion absorption and nuclear effects beyond the semi-classical paradigm, whilst the DUNE energy estimation is more affected by the modelling of how hadronic energy is shared between sources of visible and invisible energy in the detector.

What carries the argument

Final state interactions (FSI) modeled through semi-classical intranuclear cascades and a microscopic relativistic mean field treatment, applied to kinematic and calorimetric neutrino energy estimators.

Load-bearing premise

The specific variations explored in the intranuclear cascade and relativistic mean field treatments adequately span the range of plausible FSI modeling uncertainties relevant to the DUNE and Hyper-K detectors.

What would settle it

A near-detector data set in which the spread of reconstructed neutrino energies across the tested FSI model variations falls clearly below the few-MeV threshold required by the oscillation analyses.

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

If this is right

  • Robust near-detector constraints on neutrino interactions will require careful FSI modeling.
  • Hyper-K and DUNE each probe distinct aspects of the same FSI models.
  • Neutrino oscillation analyses must account for these FSI-driven energy uncertainties to reach projected precision.
  • Key experimental and theoretical developments are needed to bring FSI modeling uncertainties under control.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Dedicated near-detector measurements focused on pion absorption and hadronic energy partitioning could tighten the FSI uncertainties.
  • If the spread remains large after such measurements, oscillation fits may need to treat FSI parameters as nuisance parameters with data-driven priors.
  • Similar FSI-driven biases could appear in other long-baseline experiments that rely on the same interaction generators.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper uses state-of-the-art neutrino event generators to quantify the effect of final-state interaction (FSI) modeling choices on kinematic (Hyper-K) and calorimetric (DUNE) neutrino energy estimators. It reports that plausible variations within intranuclear-cascade and relativistic-mean-field treatments produce uncertainties on these estimators that reach or exceed the few-MeV scale required for the projected oscillation sensitivities of both experiments, with Hyper-K most sensitive to pion absorption and nuclear effects beyond the semi-classical picture and DUNE most sensitive to the partitioning of hadronic energy into visible and invisible components.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the result identifies FSI modeling as a leading systematic that must be controlled to realize the precision goals of DUNE and Hyper-K, and it supplies experiment-specific guidance on which aspects of FSI most affect each detector technology. The use of multiple generators and the explicit comparison of kinematic versus calorimetric reconstruction constitute concrete strengths that can inform near-detector constraint strategies.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract and section on FSI model variations] The load-bearing claim that the explored INC parameter variations and RMF treatment 'adequately span the range of plausible FSI modeling uncertainties' (Abstract and the section presenting the generator variations) is not demonstrated by direct comparison to independent microscopic approaches (e.g., quantum molecular dynamics) or to data-driven constraints from pion-nucleus and nucleon-nucleus scattering data. Without such external validation, the quoted uncertainty bands on the energy proxies may not bound the full modeling uncertainty relevant to DUNE and Hyper-K.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states that the two experiments are 'sensitive to different aspects of the FSI models' but does not quantify the relative size of the pion-absorption versus visible/invisible-energy contributions; a short table or figure summarizing the dominant drivers for each experiment would improve clarity.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thoughtful review and for highlighting an important point regarding the scope of our FSI uncertainty estimate. We address the major comment below and propose a targeted revision to the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and section on FSI model variations] The load-bearing claim that the explored INC parameter variations and RMF treatment 'adequately span the range of plausible FSI modeling uncertainties' (Abstract and the section presenting the generator variations) is not demonstrated by direct comparison to independent microscopic approaches (e.g., quantum molecular dynamics) or to data-driven constraints from pion-nucleus and nucleon-nucleus scattering data. Without such external validation, the quoted uncertainty bands on the energy proxies may not bound the full modeling uncertainty relevant to DUNE and Hyper-K.

    Authors: We agree that the original wording in the abstract and the FSI variations section overstates the completeness of the explored range. Our study restricts itself to parameter variations and model choices within the intranuclear-cascade implementations of GENIE, NEUT and NuWro together with the RMF treatment available in NuWro; these are the frameworks currently employed by the DUNE and Hyper-K collaborations. We did not perform additional comparisons to quantum molecular dynamics or direct re-fits to pion-nucleus data within this work. To correct the claim, we will revise the abstract and the relevant section to state that the variations represent plausible choices within standard generator frameworks rather than an exhaustive bound on all possible FSI modeling uncertainties. This change will be implemented in the resubmitted version. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; analysis relies on external generators

full rationale

The paper performs a simulation study using external state-of-the-art neutrino event generators (e.g., INC and RMF treatments) to vary FSI models and quantify effects on kinematic and calorimetric energy estimators. No equations or results reduce by construction to the paper's own fitted parameters or definitions. No load-bearing self-citations or ansatzes imported from prior author work are present in the provided text. The central claim follows directly from running the generators with different FSI configurations, which are independent inputs. This is a standard non-circular simulation-based assessment.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Assessment limited to abstract; FSI modeling rests on multiple nuclear physics assumptions whose details and variation ranges are not specified here.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption State-of-the-art neutrino event generators provide a representative sampling of plausible FSI model variations when both semi-classical INC and microscopic RMF treatments are considered.
    Invoked to support the claim that the explored variations bound the relevant uncertainties.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5819 in / 1226 out tokens · 37242 ms · 2026-06-29T09:09:19.724179+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment (DUNE) and Hyper-Kamiokande (Hyper-K) will measure neutrino oscillation parameters with an unprecedented precision that requires neutrino energy estimation to be controlled at the few-MeV level. A central challenge in achieving this is the modelling of the reinteractions of hadrons produced in neutrino-nucleus scatters with the residual nuclear medium, or final-state interactions (FSI). In this work we use state-of-the-art neutrino interaction event generators to review the impact of FSI modelling on the kinematic and calorimetric neutrino energy estimators used by Hyper-K and DUNE respectively, considering both the semi-classical intranuclear cascades (INCs) that dominate current simulations and a microscopic treatment based on a relativistic mean field calculation. We find that plausible variations of the FSI model introduce uncertainties on the neutrino energy estimation proxies that are at or above the precision on the energy scale control required for Hyper-K and DUNE projected neutrino oscillation sensitivities, highlighting the importance of careful FSI modelling to allow robust near detector constraints. We further demonstrate that the two experiments are sensitive to different aspects of the FSI models. Neutrino energy estimation at Hyper-K is most impacted by pion absorption and nuclear effects beyond the semi-classical paradigm, whilst the DUNE energy estimation is more affected by the modelling of how hadronic energy is shared between sources of visible and invisible energy in the detector. We discuss the implications of these findings for neutrino oscillation analyses and outline some of the key experimental and theoretical developments needed to bring FSI modelling uncertainties under control.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.28696 by Jake McKean, Laura Munteanu, Stephen Dolan.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The neutrino and antineutrino CC inclusive cross section on water and argon targets [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The NuWro simulated rate of CC0π νµ or νe interactions on water at the Hyper-K FD using the oscillated Hyper-K flux (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The NuWro simulated rate of CC inclusive [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The NuWro simulated neutrino energy estimation bias (using [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The NuWro simulated neutrino energy estimation bias (using [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The NuWro simulated neutrino energy estimation bias (using [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The NuWro simulated neutrino energy estimation bias (using [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The NuWro simulated distribution of the ratio between the sum of final-state neutron [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The NuWro simulated neutrino energy estimation bias shape (using [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The NuWro simulated neutrino energy estimation bias shape (using [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The NEUT simulated neutrino energy estimation bias (using [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The relative neutrino energy estimation bias, ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: The same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: The NEUT simulated rate of CCQE νµ or νe interactions on water using the oscillated Hyper-K flux (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: The NuWro simulated rate of CC0π ν¯µ or ¯νe interactions on water at the Hyper-K FD using the oscillated Hyper-K flux (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_16.png] view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: The NuWro simulated rate of CC inclusive ¯ν [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_17.png] view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: The ratio of NuWro simulated rate of CC0 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_18.png] view at source ↗
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: The ratio of NuWro simulated rate of CC inclusive [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_19.png] view at source ↗
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: The same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_20.png] view at source ↗
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: The same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_21.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Explicitly on-shell currents in relativistic mean field models

    nucl-th 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0

    The 'off-shell ambiguity' in relativistic mean-field one-body currents is spurious when currents are defined via free-nucleon operators; the correct mapping (Eq. 26) is parametrization-independent and requires time-li...

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

    hep-ex 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    Calorimetric neutrino energy reconstruction carries an interaction-model-dependent bias of ~7-18 MeV from Birks quenching and charge recombination, reducible to ~3.5 MeV with idealised hybrid tracking.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

88 extracted references · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment (DUNE), Far Detector Technical Design Report, Volume II: DUNE Physics

    Babak Abi et al. Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment (DUNE), Far Detector Technical Design Report, Volume II: DUNE Physics. 2 2020

    2020

  2. [2]

    Abi et al

    B. Abi et al. Long-baseline neutrino oscillation physics potential of the dune experiment.Eur. Phys. J., C80:978, 6 2020

    2020

  3. [3]

    Abe et al

    K. Abe et al. Hyper-Kamiokande Design Report. 5 2018

    2018

  4. [4]

    Abe et al

    K. Abe et al. Sensitivity of the Hyper-Kamiokande experiment to neutrino oscillation parameters using acceleration neutrinos. 5 2025

    2025

  5. [5]

    Abe et al

    K. Abe et al. The T2K Experiment.Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A, 659:106–135, 2011. 29 IOP PublishingJournalvv(yyyy) aaaaaa Authoret al

    2011

  6. [6]

    D. S. Ayres et al. The NOvA Technical Design Report.FERMILAB-DESIGN-2007-01, 10 2007

    2007

  7. [7]

    Remarks on the Unified Model of Elementary Particles.Progress of Theoretical Physics, 28(5):870–880, 11 1962

    Ziro Maki, Masami Nakagawa, and Shoichi Sakata. Remarks on the Unified Model of Elementary Particles.Progress of Theoretical Physics, 28(5):870–880, 11 1962

    1962

  8. [8]

    Bilenky and B

    Samoil M. Bilenky and B. Pontecorvo. Lepton Mixing and Neutrino Oscillations.Phys. Rept., 41:225–261, 1978

    1978

  9. [9]

    Navas et al

    S. Navas et al. Review of particle physics.Phys. Rev. D, 110(3):030001, 2024

    2024

  10. [10]

    Physics Briefing Book: Input for the 2026 update of the European Strategy for Particle Physics

    Jorge de Blas et al. Physics Briefing Book: Input for the 2026 update of the European Strategy for Particle Physics. 11 2025

    2026

  11. [11]

    The role of final-state interaction modeling in neutrino energy reconstruction and oscillation measurements

    Yinrui Liu, Laura Munteanu, and Stephen Dolan. The role of final-state interaction modeling in neutrino energy reconstruction and oscillation measurements. 11 2025

    2025

  12. [12]

    Ankowski, Omar Benhar, and Makoto Sakuda

    Artur M. Ankowski, Omar Benhar, and Makoto Sakuda. Improving the accuracy of neutrino energy reconstruction in charged-current quasielastic scattering off nuclear targets.Phys. Rev. D, 91(3):033005, 2015

    2015

  13. [13]

    Ankowski, Pilar Coloma, Patrick Huber, Camillo Mariani, and Erica Vagnoni

    Artur M. Ankowski, Pilar Coloma, Patrick Huber, Camillo Mariani, and Erica Vagnoni. Missing energy and the measurement of the CP-violating phase in neutrino oscillations.Phys. Rev. D, 92(9):091301, 2015

    2015

  14. [14]

    Understanding the energy resolution of liquid argon neutrino detectors.Phys

    Alexander Friedland and Shirley Weishi Li. Understanding the energy resolution of liquid argon neutrino detectors.Phys. Rev. D, 99(3):036009, 2019

    2019

  15. [15]

    Srishti Nagu, Jaydip Singh, Jyotsna Singh, and R. B. Singh. Impact of Cross-Sectional Uncertainties on DUNE Sensitivity due to Nuclear Effects.Nucl. Phys. B, 951:114888, 2020

    2020

  16. [16]

    Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment (DUNE) Near Detector Conceptual Design Report.Instruments, 5(4):31, 2021

    Adam Abed Abud et al. Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment (DUNE) Near Detector Conceptual Design Report.Instruments, 5(4):31, 2021

    2021

  17. [17]

    Coyle, Shirley Weishi Li, and Pedro A

    Nina M. Coyle, Shirley Weishi Li, and Pedro A. N. Machado. Neutrino-nucleus cross section impacts on neutrino oscillation measurements.Phys. Rev. D, 111(9):093010, 2025

    2025

  18. [18]

    Tomasz Golan, Cezary Juszczak, and Jan T. Sobczyk. Final State Interactions Effects in Neutrino-Nucleus Interactions.Phys. Rev. C, 86:015505, 2012

    2012

  19. [19]

    Golan, Jan Sobczyk, and J

    T. Golan, Jan Sobczyk, and J. ˙Zmuda. Nuwro: the wroc law monte carlo generator of neutrino interactions.Nuclear Physics B Proceedings Supplements, 229-232:499–499, 08 2012

    2012

  20. [20]

    Sobczyk, Rwik Dharmapal Banerjee, J

    Hemant Prasad, Jan T. Sobczyk, Rwik Dharmapal Banerjee, J. Luis Bonilla, Krzysztof M. Graczyk, Beata E. Kowal, and Artur M. Ankowski. Fine-tuning final state interactions model in nuwro monte carlo event generator, 2025

    2025

  21. [21]

    Andreopoulos et al

    C. Andreopoulos et al. The GENIE Neutrino Monte Carlo Generator.Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A, 614:87–104, 2010

    2010

  22. [22]

    The GENIE Neutrino Monte Carlo Generator: Physics and User Manual

    Costas Andreopoulos, Christopher Barry, Steve Dytman, Hugh Gallagher, Tomasz Golan, Robert Hatcher, Gabriel Perdue, and Julia Yarba. The GENIE Neutrino Monte Carlo Generator: Physics and User Manual. 10 2015

    2015

  23. [23]

    Y. Hayato. NEUT.Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl., 112:171–176, 2002

    2002

  24. [24]

    A neutrino interaction simulation program library NEUT.Acta Phys

    Yoshinari Hayato. A neutrino interaction simulation program library NEUT.Acta Phys. Polon. B, 40:2477–2489, 2009

    2009

  25. [25]

    The NEUT neutrino interaction simulation program library.Eur

    Yoshinari Hayato and Luke Pickering. The NEUT neutrino interaction simulation program library.Eur. Phys. J. ST, 230(24):4469–4481, 2021

    2021

  26. [26]

    Alvarez-Ruso et al

    L. Alvarez-Ruso et al. NuSTEC White Paper: Status and challenges of neutrino–nucleus scattering.Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys., 100:1–68, 2018

    2018

  27. [27]

    J. A. Formaggio and G. P. Zeller. From eV to EeV: Neutrino Cross Sections Across Energy Scales.Rev. Mod. Phys., 84:1307–1341, 2012. 30 IOP PublishingJournalvv(yyyy) aaaaaa Authoret al

    2012

  28. [28]

    Lozano et al

    A. Lozano et al. Measurement of charged-currentν µ and ¯νµ cross sections on hydrocarbon in a shallow inelastic scattering region. 3 2025

    2025

  29. [29]

    Comparison of validation methods of simulations for final state interactions in hadron production experiments.Phys

    Steven Dytman et al. Comparison of validation methods of simulations for final state interactions in hadron production experiments.Phys. Rev. D, 104(5):053006, 2021

    2021

  30. [30]

    L. L. Salcedo, E. Oset, M. J. Vicente-Vacas, and C. Garcia-Recio. Computer Simulation of Inclusive Pion Nuclear Reactions.Nucl. Phys. A, 484:557–592, 1988

    1988

  31. [31]

    Wright and M.H

    D.H. Wright and M.H. Kelsey. The geant4 bertini cascade.Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment, 804:175 – 188, 2015

    2015

  32. [32]

    McKean, R

    J. McKean, R. Gonz´ alez-Jim´ enez, M. Kabirnezhad, J. M. Ud´ ıas, and Y. Uchida. Implementation of a relativistic distorted wave impulse approximation model into the NEUT event generator. 2 2025

    2025

  33. [33]

    Nuclear effects in electron-nucleus and neutrino-nucleus scattering within a relativistic quantum mechanical framework.Physical Review C, 100(4):045501, 2019

    Ra´ ul Gonz´ alez-Jim´ enez, Alexis Nikolakopoulos, Natalie Jachowicz, and JM Ud´ ıas. Nuclear effects in electron-nucleus and neutrino-nucleus scattering within a relativistic quantum mechanical framework.Physical Review C, 100(4):045501, 2019

    2019

  34. [34]

    Improving the description of proton-induced one-nucleon removal in intranuclear-cascade models.Phys

    Davide Mancusi, Alain Boudard, Jaume Carbonell, Joseph Cugnon, Jean-Christophe David, and Sylvie Leray. Improving the description of proton-induced one-nucleon removal in intranuclear-cascade models.Phys. Rev. C, 91(3):034602, 2015

    2015

  35. [35]

    New potentialities of the Li` ege intranuclear cascade model for reactions induced by nucleons and light charged particles.Phys

    Alain Boudard, Joseph Cugnon, Jean-Christophe David, Sylvie Leray, and Davide Mancusi. New potentialities of the Li` ege intranuclear cascade model for reactions induced by nucleons and light charged particles.Phys. Rev. C, 87(1):014606, 2013

    2013

  36. [36]

    Valentina Ricciardi, and Karl-Heinz Schmidt

    Aleksandra Kelic, M. Valentina Ricciardi, and Karl-Heinz Schmidt. ABLA07 - towards a complete description of the decay channels of a nuclear system from spontaneous fission to multifragmentation. InJoint ICTP-IAEA Advanced Workshop on Model Codes for Spallation Reactions, 6 2009

    2009

  37. [37]

    Buss et al

    O. Buss et al. Transport-theoretical Description of Nuclear Reactions.Phys. Rept., 512:1–124, 2012

    2012

  38. [38]

    Jay, Alessandro Lovato, Pedro A

    Joshua Isaacson, William I. Jay, Alessandro Lovato, Pedro A. N. Machado, and Noemi Rocco. Introducing a novel event generator for electron-nucleus and neutrino-nucleus scattering.Phys. Rev. D, 107(3):033007, 2023

    2023

  39. [39]

    Benchmarking intranuclear cascade models for neutrino scattering with relativistic optical potentials.Phys

    Alexis Nikolakopoulos, Ra´ ul Gonz´ alez-Jim´ enez, Natalie Jachowicz, Kajetan Niewczas, Federico S´ anchez, and Jos´ e Manuel Ud´ ıas. Benchmarking intranuclear cascade models for neutrino scattering with relativistic optical potentials.Phys. Rev. C, 105(5):054603, 2022. [40]https://home.fnal.gov/ ~ljf26/DUNEFluxes/OptimizedEngineeredNov2017_offaxis/. Ac...

    2022

  40. [40]

    Abe et al

    K. Abe et al. The t2k neutrino flux prediction.Phys. Rev., D87:012001, 2013

    2013

  41. [41]

    J. Coelho. Probosc. [Online; accessed 28 May 2026]

    2026

  42. [42]

    Review of Particle Physics (2025 update): Neutrino Masses, Mixing, and Oscillations.https://pdg.lbl.gov/2025/web/viewer.html?file=../reviews/ rpp2025-rev-neutrino-mixing.pdf, 2025

    Particle Data Group. Review of Particle Physics (2025 update): Neutrino Masses, Mixing, and Oscillations.https://pdg.lbl.gov/2025/web/viewer.html?file=../reviews/ rpp2025-rev-neutrino-mixing.pdf, 2025. Review last revised 1 December 2025; accessed 21 May 2026

    2025

  43. [43]

    Ivan Esteban, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, Michele Maltoni, Ivan Martinez-Soler, Jo˜ ao Paulo Pinheiro, and Thomas Schwetz. NuFit-6.0: updated global analysis of three-flavor neutrino oscillations.JHEP, 12:216, 2024

    2024

  44. [44]

    Stowell et al

    P. Stowell et al. NUISANCE: a neutrino cross-section generator tuning and comparison framework.JINST, 12(01):P01016, 2017

    2017

  45. [45]

    Spectral function of finite nuclei and scattering of gev electrons.Nuclear Physics A, 579(3-4):493–517, 1994

    Omar Benhar, A Fabrocini, S Fantoni, and I Sick. Spectral function of finite nuclei and scattering of gev electrons.Nuclear Physics A, 579(3-4):493–517, 1994. 31 IOP PublishingJournalvv(yyyy) aaaaaa Authoret al

    1994

  46. [46]

    Jiang et al

    L. Jiang et al. Determination of the argon spectral function from (e, e ′ p) data.Phys. Rev. D, 105:112002, Jun 2022

    2022

  47. [47]

    Ankowski, Krzysztof M

    Rwik Dharmapal Banerjee, Artur M. Ankowski, Krzysztof M. Graczyk, Beata E. Kowal, Hemant Prasad, and Jan T. Sobczyk. Jlab spectral functions of argon in nuwro and their implications for microboone.Physical Review D, 109(7), April 2024

    2024

  48. [48]

    Ankowski, Rwik Dharmapal Banerjee, Jan T

    Artur M. Ankowski, Rwik Dharmapal Banerjee, Jan T. Sobczyk, Jos´ e L. Bonilla, Krzysztof M. Graczyk, Beata E. Kowal, and Hemant Prasad. Spectral function approach in NuWro: modeling of multinucleon final states in quasielastic scattering. 8 2025

    2025

  49. [49]

    J. E. Sobczyk, J. Nieves, and F. S´ anchez. Exclusive-final-state hadron observables from neutrino-nucleus multinucleon knockout.Phys. Rev. C, 102:024601, Aug 2020

    2020

  50. [50]

    Sobczyk, Artur M

    Hemant Prasad, Jan T. Sobczyk, Artur M. Ankowski, J. Luis Bonilla, Rwik Dharmapal Banerjee, Krzysztof M. Graczyk, and Beata E. Kowal. New multinucleon knockout model in the nuwro monte carlo generator.Phys. Rev. D, 111:036032, Feb 2025

    2025

  51. [51]

    The Ghent Hybrid model in NuWro: a new neutrino single-pion production model in the GeV regime.JHEP, 12:141, 2024

    Qiyu Yan, Kajetan Niewczas, Alexis Nikolakopoulos, Ra´ ul Gonz´ alez-Jim´ enez, Natalie Jachowicz, Xianguo Lu, Jan Sobczyk, and Yangheng Zheng. The Ghent Hybrid model in NuWro: a new neutrino single-pion production model in the GeV regime.JHEP, 12:141, 2024

    2024

  52. [52]

    Gl¨ uck, E

    M. Gl¨ uck, E. Reya, and A. Vogt. Dynamical parton distributions revisited.Eur. Phys. J. C, 5:461–470, 1998

    1998

  53. [53]

    Bodek and U

    A. Bodek and U. K. Yang. Modeling deep inelastic cross-sections in the few GeV region.Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl., 112:70–76, 2002

    2002

  54. [54]

    Torbjorn Sjostrand, Stephen Mrenna, and Peter Z. Skands. PYTHIA 6.4 Physics and Manual. JHEP, 05:026, 2006

    2006

  55. [55]

    Practicum: analyzing generator output, April 2024

    Clarence Wret. Practicum: analyzing generator output, April 2024

    2024

  56. [56]

    CP-violation or Nuclear Excitation: Reviewing the Role of Neutrino Interaction Model Uncertainties on Accelerator-Based Neutrino Oscillation Measurements

    Stephen Dolan, Luke Pickering, Pickering Stowell, Callum Wilkinson, and Clarence Wret. CP-violation or Nuclear Excitation: Reviewing the Role of Neutrino Interaction Model Uncertainties on Accelerator-Based Neutrino Oscillation Measurements. In Preparation

  57. [57]

    Neutrino-nucleon cross-section model tuning in GENIE v3.Phys

    J´ ulia Tena-Vidal et al. Neutrino-nucleon cross-section model tuning in GENIE v3.Phys. Rev. D, 104(7):072009, 2021

    2021

  58. [58]

    Nieves, I

    J. Nieves, I. Ruiz Simo, and M. J. Vicente Vacas. Inclusive Charged–Current Neutrino–Nucleus Reactions.Phys. Rev., C83:045501, 2011

    2011

  59. [59]

    Neutrino-nucleus quasi-elastic and 2p2h interactions up to 10 gev.Physical Review D, 88(11):113007, 2013

    Richard Gran, J Nieves, F Sanchez, and MJ Vicente Vacas. Neutrino-nucleus quasi-elastic and 2p2h interactions up to 10 gev.Physical Review D, 88(11):113007, 2013

    2013

  60. [60]

    GENIE implementation of IFIC Valencia model for QE-like 2p2h neutrino-nucleus cross section

    Jackie Schwehr, Dan Cherdack, and Rik Gran. GENIE implementation of IFIC Valencia model for QE-like 2p2h neutrino-nucleus cross section. 1 2016

    2016

  61. [61]

    Berger and L

    Ch. Berger and L. M. Sehgal. Lepton mass effects in single pion production by neutrinos. Phys. Rev. D, 76:113004, 2007

    2007

  62. [62]

    Berger and L

    Ch. Berger and L. M. Sehgal. Erratum: Lepton mass effects in single pion production by neutrinos [phys. rev. d 76, 113004 (2007)].Phys. Rev. D, 77:059901, Mar 2008

    2007

  63. [63]

    High-energy-physics event generation with pythia 5.7 and jetset 7.4

    Torbjorn Sjostrand. High-energy-physics event generation with pythia 5.7 and jetset 7.4. Computer Physics Communications, 82(1):74 – 89, 1994

    1994

  64. [64]

    T. Yang, C. Andreopoulos, H. Gallagher, K. Hoffmann, and P. Kehayias. A Hadronization Model for Few-GeV Neutrino Interactions.Eur. Phys. J. C, 63:1–10, 2009

    2009

  65. [65]

    Hadronization model tuning in genie v3.Phys

    J´ ulia Tena-Vidal et al. Hadronization model tuning in genie v3.Phys. Rev. D, 105(1):012009, 2022

    2022

  66. [66]

    Bertini intranuclear cascade implementation in GEANT4.eConf, C0303241:MOMT008, 2003

    Aatos Heikkinen, Nikita Stepanov, and Johannes Peter Wellisch. Bertini intranuclear cascade implementation in GEANT4.eConf, C0303241:MOMT008, 2003. 32 IOP PublishingJournalvv(yyyy) aaaaaa Authoret al

    2003

  67. [67]

    Non-physics aspects of the integration of incl++ and geant4 into genie fsi

    Robert Hatcher. Non-physics aspects of the integration of incl++ and geant4 into genie fsi. https://genie-docdb.pp.rl.ac.uk/DocDB/0001/000174/001/inclxx_and_g4.pdf, November 2019. Accessed: 2026-02-17

    2019

  68. [68]

    Study of final-state interactions of protons in neutrino-nucleus scattering with incl and nuwro cascade models.Physical Review D, 106(3):032009, 2022

    Anna Ershova, Sara Bolognesi, Alain Letourneau, J-C David, Stephen Dolan, Jason Hirtz, Kajetan Niewczas, Jan T Sobczyk, Adrien Blanchet, M Buizza Avanzini, et al. Study of final-state interactions of protons in neutrino-nucleus scattering with incl and nuwro cascade models.Physical Review D, 106(3):032009, 2022

    2022

  69. [69]

    Gonz´ alez-Jim´ enez, M

    R. Gonz´ alez-Jim´ enez, M. B. Barbaro, J. A. Caballero, T. W. Donnelly, N. Jachowicz, G. D. Megias, K. Niewczas, A. Nikolakopoulos, and J. M. Ud´ ıas. Constraints in modeling the quasielastic response in inclusive lepton-nucleus scattering.Physical Review C, 101(1), January 2020

    2020

  70. [70]

    Gonz´ alez-Jim´ enez, M

    R. Gonz´ alez-Jim´ enez, M. B. Barbaro, J. A. Caballero, T. W. Donnelly, N. Jachowicz, G. D. Megias, K. Niewczas, A. Nikolakopoulos, J. W. Van Orden, and J. M. Ud´ ıas. Neutrino energy reconstruction from semi-inclusive samples.Phys. Rev. C, 105:025502, Feb 2022

    2022

  71. [71]

    Gonz´ alez-Jim´ enez, M

    R. Gonz´ alez-Jim´ enez, M. B. Barbaro, J. A. Caballero, T. W. Donnelly, N. Jachowicz, G. D. Megias, K. Niewczas, A. Nikolakopoulos, and J. M. Ud´ ıas. Constraints in modeling the quasielastic response in inclusive lepton-nucleus scattering.Phys. Rev. C, 101(1):015503, 2020

    2020

  72. [72]

    Abe et al

    K. Abe et al. Improved constraints on neutrino mixing from the T2K experiment with 3.13×10 21 protons on target.Phys. Rev. D, 103(11):112008, 2021

    2021

  73. [73]

    P. A. Rodrigues et al. Identification of nuclear effects in neutrino-carbon interactions at low three-momentum transfer.Phys. Rev. Lett., 116:071802, 2016. [Addendum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 121, 209902 (2018)]

    2016

  74. [74]

    A substandard candle: the low-νmethod at few-GeV neutrino energies.Eur

    Callum Wilkinson, Stephen Dolan, Luke Pickering, and Clarence Wret. A substandard candle: the low-νmethod at few-GeV neutrino energies.Eur. Phys. J. C, 82(9):808, 2022

    2022

  75. [75]

    Dutta et al

    D. Dutta et al. A Study of the quasielastic (e,e-prime p) reaction on C-12, Fe-56 and Au-97. Phys. Rev. C, 68:064603, 2003

    2003

  76. [76]

    E. S. Pinzon Guerra et al. Using world chargedπ ±−nucleus scattering data to constrain an intranuclear cascade model.Phys. Rev. D, 99(5):052007, 2019

    2019

  77. [77]

    Abe et al

    K. Abe et al. Measurements of neutrino oscillation parameters from the T2K experiment using 3.6×10 21 protons on target.Eur. Phys. J. C, 83(9):782, 2023

    2023

  78. [78]

    Dytman et al

    S. Dytman et al. Proton Transparency and Neutrino Physics: New Methods and Modeling. 8 2025

    2025

  79. [79]

    Kajetan Niewczas and Jan T. Sobczyk. Nuclear Transparency in Monte Carlo Neutrino Event Generators.Phys. Rev. C, 100(1):015505, 2019

    2019

  80. [80]

    Measurement of theπ–Ar total hadronic cross section at the LArIAT experiment.Phys

    Elena Gramellini et al. Measurement of theπ–Ar total hadronic cross section at the LArIAT experiment.Phys. Rev. D, 106(5):052009, 2022

    2022

Showing first 80 references.