Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 44 references

Centre-of-momentum Variables in $\nu_\mu$CC1p1$\pi$

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that a centre-of-momentum angle built from measured proton and pion momenta isolates final-state interactions in neutrino-nucleus scattering, enabling cross-experiment comparison.

desk verdict A genuinely new hadron-only kinematic variable for CC1π1p with real FSI sensitivity, but the paper's central independence claim is contradicted by its own FSI-off residual χ² values—still worth a rigorous referee because the idea is fresh and the work is honest. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.08984 v2 pith:JWWBFIUJ submitted 2025-01-15 hep-ex

Weijun Li This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ex
keywords centre-of-momentumanglefinal-stateinteractionsneutrino-nucleusscatteringsingle-pionproductionCC1π1peventsMonteCarlosimulationcross-experimentcomparison
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper proposes a new kinematic variable, the centre-of-momentum angle $\theta_{\rm COM}$, built from the measured proton and pion momenta in charged-current single-pion single-proton ($\nu_\mu$CC1$\pi$1p) neutrino events. The claim is that $\theta_{\rm COM}$ is shaped almost entirely by final-state interactions (FSI) inside the nucleus, and is nearly insensitive to the nuclear initial state, to resonance-model details, and to the neutrino energy spectrum. Using Monte Carlo simulations on carbon and hydrogen targets, the author shows that different FSI models produce incompatible $\theta_{\rm COM}$ distributions, while changing initial-state models, removal energies, and resonance parameters leaves the shape statistically compatible. The author further shows that on hydrogen, $\theta_{\rm COM}$ distributions from three different neutrino fluxes agree, so a high-purity hydrogen sample would allow direct cross-experiment comparison. The author flags two residual puzzles: $\Delta^{++}$-only carbon events without FSI are not fully compatible with hydrogen, and 5 GeV neutrinos on hydrogen deviate from lower energies.

What carries the argument

The central object is the proton--pion centre-of-momentum frame and the angle $\theta_{\rm COM}$ defined between the pion's COM-frame momentum and the lab-frame direction of $\vec p_{\rm sum} = \vec p_p + \vec p_\pi$. The load-bearing relation is that without FSI the COM frame coincides with the $\Delta^{++}$ rest frame, so $\theta_{\rm COM} = \theta_{\pi\Delta}$; FSI makes the measured hadronic sum differ from the true resonance momentum, and that mismatch is what $\theta_{\rm COM}$ encodes. The companion quantity $E_{\rm COM}$ is the total energy in the same frame, equal to the resonance rest mass when FSI is absent, and is used as a resonance-selection cut.

What would settle it

Generate $\Delta^{++}$-only CC1$\pi$1p events on hydrogen and carbon with FSI switched off using much larger statistics than the 600,000-event samples in this study; if the $\theta_{\rm COM}$ distributions remain incompatible at the level seen here ($\chi^2/{\rm NDF} = 32/8$), or if the 5 GeV hydrogen distribution keeps its $\chi^2/{\rm NDF} = 95/8$ deviation, the claimed independence from initial state and neutrino energy is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

When a neutrino excites a nucleon into a $\Delta^{++}$ resonance, the resonance decays to $\pi^+$ and $p$; in the resonance rest frame the pion decay angle $\theta_{\pi\Delta}$ is an intrinsic property of the resonance. In a nuclear target, FSI changes the measured hadron momenta, so the true resonance frame is not directly accessible. Boosting the measured proton--pion system into its own centre-of-momentum frame using $\vec p_{\rm sum} = \vec p_p + \vec p_\pi$ defines $\theta_{\rm COM}$, the angle between the pion's momentum in that frame and the direction of $\vec p_{\rm sum}$ in the lab. In the absence of FSI, $\vec p_{\rm sum}$ equals the resonance momentum and $\theta_{\rm COM}$ equals $\theta_{\pi\Delta}$; with FSI, the deviation is a direct measure of final-state interactions. Because $\theta_{\pi\Delta}$ is independent of the resonance momentum and of the nuclear initial state, the paper argues $\theta_{\rm COM}$ inherits those independencies, and because it uses only hadronic momenta it is practically free of neutrino-energy reconstruction uncertainties. The companion variable $E_{\rm COM}$, the total energy in the COM frame, equals the resonance mass in the FSI-free limit, so a cut at $E_{\rm COM} < 1330$ MeV selects $\Delta^{++}$-dominated events and suppresses higher-resonance contamination; for high-purity hydrogen selections, $\theta_{\rm COM}$ distributions are statistically compatible across different experimental fluxes.

Load-bearing premise

The argument rests on the assumption that the pion decay angle in the resonance rest frame does not depend on how the resonance was produced, on the neutrino energy, or on the nuclear initial state; if production and decay are correlated, or if the nuclear medium alters the decay, then $\theta_{\rm COM}$ changes cannot be attributed to FSI alone.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • $\theta_{\rm COM}$ measurements can constrain FSI models in CC1$\pi$1p events without retuning when initial-state models change, because the variable is insensitive to IS modelling.
  • A cut on $E_{\rm COM}$ near the $\Delta^{++}$ mass protects $\theta_{\rm COM}$ against resonance-model uncertainties even for higher-energy beams, by selecting $\Delta^{++}$-dominated events.
  • On hydrogen targets, $\theta_{\rm COM}$ distributions from different experimental fluxes agree, so a high-purity neutrino--hydrogen selection enables direct cross-experiment comparison.
  • Comparing $\theta_{\rm COM}$ with and without the $E_{\rm COM}$ cut can reveal the onset of higher resonances and, with suitable models, correlations among resonance production modes.
  • Because $\theta_{\rm COM}$ reconstruction uses only proton and pion momenta, its measurement is decoupled from neutrino-energy reconstruction and thus from flux-related systematic uncertainties.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the central claim holds, $E_{\rm COM}$ far from the resonance mass flags FSI-distorted events, so an $E_{\rm COM}$ cut could serve as a model-independent way to select near-detector events with minimal FSI and improve hydrogen-sample purity; the paper reports preliminary support for this but leaves it for future work.
  • The same variable could be used to compare neutrino and antineutrino data directly, since the COM frame is built only from hadrons and does not require the incoming neutrino energy; the paper does not explore this.
  • The residual discrepancies the paper reports ($\Delta^{++}$-only carbon FSI-off vs hydrogen, and 5 GeV neutrinos on hydrogen) suggest a small production--decay correlation or nuclear binding effect; if real, it would need a correction term, but it is concentrated at energies that contribute little to current oscillation beams.
  • A natural testable extension is to reanalyse published kinematic-imbalance data in the COM frame; because those data span different targets and fluxes, the exercise would provide an immediate check of the cross-experiment compatibility claim.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper proposes a new pair of observables for νμ CC1π1p events: the centre-of-momentum angle θCOM and total energy ECOM, reconstructed purely from the final-state proton and pion momenta. The central idea is that in the absence of FSI the COM frame coincides with the Δ++ rest frame, so θCOM equals the resonance decay angle θπΔ; the paper asserts that θπΔ is independent of the resonance momentum, the neutrino energy, and the nuclear initial state, and therefore that deviations of θCOM from θπΔ isolate FSI. Using GENIE simulations across six tunes, the T2K and MINERvA fluxes, mono-energetic beams, and hydrogen and carbon targets, the paper reports strong FSI sensitivity (χ2/NDF = 29/8 to 746/8 for FSI model changes and for FSI on/off), modest IS sensitivity for specific IS variants, and compatibility of hydrogen-target θCOM shapes across three fluxes (χ2/NDF = 9/8 and 10/8). Several residuals — the FSI-off ν-C versus ν-H difference (32/8) and the Eν = 5 GeV hydrogen anomaly (95/8) — are identified explicitly by the author as puzzles for future work.

Significance. The proposal is attractive and timely: θCOM requires no neutrino-energy reconstruction, the cross-experiment hydrogen comparison in Fig. 11 is a concrete falsifiable prediction, and the MC survey is unusually broad, including a null control (Fig. 3b) and explicit acknowledgement of the anomalies that limit the claims. Credit should also go to the absence of any fitting to the θCOM distributions, so the FSI-sensitivity result is not circular; the G24-c tune of Ref. [17] is used as one independent model variant among several, which is appropriate. If the independence claims are recalibrated to the level the evidence actually supports — comparative robustness against the tested GENIE IS, RES, and flux variations, with the FSI-off residual carried as a systematic — the paper is a useful methodological contribution. The current wording in the abstract and Sec. II overstates the independence, and the paper's own FSI-off and mono-energetic tests contradict that wording at high statistical significance.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. II; Figs. 2b-2c] The paper's conceptual foundation is the Sec. II statement that θπΔ is independent of the resonance's momentum, neutrino energy, and IS, so that θCOM deviates from θπΔ only through FSI. This premise is directly tested by the paper's own FSI-off comparison: with FSI disabled, the four-momentum sum of the final-state proton and pion equals pΔ, so the COM frame coincides with the Δ++ rest frame and θCOM = θπΔ event-by-event. Fig. 2c then shows that the ν-C FSI-off Δ++-only distribution differs from ν-H with χ2/NDF = 32/8, which for eight degrees of freedom corresponds to p ≈ 1e-4; the accompanying text calls this 'almost statistically compatible,' which understates the discrepancy. The residual implies either that θπΔ in GENIE depends on the nuclear initial state (contradicting the premise) or that the CC1π1p selection on carbon biases the sampled decay angle through proton or pion momentum thresholds; the manuscript resolves neither, and it explicitly defers the cause to future studies. Because the FSI-isolation argument follows entirely from this premise, the author should quantify this residual as an initial-state systematic and test the threshold/selection explanation with truth-level comparisons in which identical momentum thresholds are applied to hydrogen and carbon.
  2. [Sec. III; Fig. 9b] The claimed independence of θCOM from neutrino energy is contradicted by Fig. 9b: for a hydrogen target, with no FSI and no IS, the Δ++-only θCOM distribution at Eν = 5.0 GeV differs from that at Eν = 0.5 GeV with χ2/NDF = 95/8 (p ≪ 1e-4). The explanation offered in Sec. III — that more energetic Δ++ resonances enhance the influence of their kinematics on the decay — retracts the Sec. II claim that θπΔ is independent of the resonance's momentum and neutrino energy, and the paper defers a full explanation as 'beyond the scope of this work.' The further assertion that such neutrinos contribute only 'marginally to actual cross-section measurements' is not quantified, which is consequential because the MINERvA LE flux peaks near 3.5 GeV and has a non-negligible high-energy tail. Since the ECOM < 1330 MeV cut used elsewhere (Figs. 7d, 8b, 11) is not applied in Fig. 9, the author should show whether this cut removes the 5-GeV deviation and should give flux-weighted estimates of the effect for the T2K and MINERvA fluxes.
  3. [Figs. 2-12 (chi2/NDF reporting)] The paper's comparative conclusions rest on χ2/NDF values computed with statistical uncertainties only on 600,000-event MC samples, so the absolute scale of these values is arbitrary; the qualitative labels attached to them are then applied inconsistently. χ2/NDF = 32/8 is called 'almost statistically compatible' (Fig. 2c), while χ2/NDF = 29/8 is described as a 'considerable difference' (Fig. 5b); χ2/NDF = 20/8 is 'relatively compatible' (Fig. 10b) and 15/8 is 'statistically compatible' (Fig. 7d), yet the first two pairs have nearly identical p-values. A stated criterion, such as a p-value threshold or an effect-size metric, and a consistent vocabulary are needed before the robustness and sensitivity claims can be evaluated quantitatively.
  4. [Sec. III; Figs. 3-4] The IS-robustness claim in the abstract is supported by evidence that is more limited than the wording suggests. The direct IS-model comparison in Fig. 3a gives χ2/NDF = 18/8 for θCOM, while the conceptually IS-sensitive Adler angle shows an even smaller change (12/8, Fig. 3b); the author explicitly notes that this could challenge the claimed IS insensitivity. The removal-energy stress test in Fig. 4 separates the two variables clearly at the physical 40 MeV value (6/8 for θCOM versus 109/8 for θAdt), but the clearer separations at 90 and 180 MeV are obtained at removal energies that the author describes as unphysical or far beyond realistic values. The IS conclusion should therefore be stated as robustness against the specific IS variants tested in GENIE, with the FSI-off ν-C/ν-H residual of Figs. 2b-2c carried as part of the IS systematic, rather than as the general independence asserted in Sec. II.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] Several typographical and editorial errors remain: 'utilitiy' in Sec. II; 'hen such a sample' at the opening of Sec. V; 'ECOM < 1330 GeV' should read MeV in Sec. II; 'configuations' in the caption of Fig. 12; an unresolved 'Ref. [ ? ]' in the W-derivation sentence of Sec. III; and a cross-reference in the ECOM-cut discussion that says 'Fig. 7c' where the text appears to mean Fig. 7d.
  2. [Sec. III; Fig. 9a] The text says the χ2/NDF values in Fig. 9a are 'on the order of 100/8,' but the listed values range from 75/8 to 1247/8; the summary should state the actual values.
  3. [Sec. III; Ref. [44]] The statement that 'MINERvA has already conducted a ν-H selection' cites Ref. [44], which reports a pion-less antineutrino-proton measurement; the feasibility claim for a CC1π1p hydrogen selection should be qualified so that it does not imply that the same topology was already measured on hydrogen.
  4. [Sec. III; Figs. 2, 9-10] The truth-level CC1π1p selection is not fully specified (proton and pion momentum thresholds, pion charge sign, acceptance); these details matter for interpreting the FSI-off comparisons in Fig. 2 and the mono-energetic comparisons in Figs. 9-10, where threshold effects could mimic IS or Eν dependence.
  5. [Sec. III; Fig. 11] Fig. 11 demonstrates flux independence using a single generator (G24-0); the conclusion that θCOM distributions can be directly compared across different experiments would be strengthened by a cross-generator control on hydrogen, since the claim is ultimately about comparing data rather than simulations.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: θCOM and ECOM are constructed variables, not fitted outputs; the GENIE model variants used for comparison, including the author's G24-c tune, are independent simulation choices constrained by external TKI data.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. θCOM is defined by boosting the measured proton-pion system into its COM frame, and no parameter is fitted to any θCOM distribution. The statement that θCOM equals θπΔ when FSI is off is a kinematic identity following from psum = pΔ in the absence of FSI; the paper uses this identity to motivate the variable, not to derive the robustness claims. The claimed IS-robustness and FSI-sensitivity are tested by direct Monte Carlo comparisons across IS models, removal energies, RES models, and GENIE tunes. The one self-citation, Ref. [17] for the G24-c tune, is not load-bearing: G24-c differs from G24-0 only by an hA FSI tuning that was constrained by external T2K TKI data [25], so the Fig. 5b comparison is an independent sensitivity test rather than a fit to the θCOM prediction. The paper's own residual incompatibilities (Fig. 2c, χ²/NDF = 32/8 for FSI-off carbon versus hydrogen; Fig. 9b, χ²/NDF = 95/8 for 5 GeV on hydrogen) do indicate that the assumed independence of θπΔ from initial state and neutrino energy is not fully satisfied in GENIE and is a load-bearing assumption for the central FSI-isolation claim. However, this is an assumption-correctness gap, not circularity: the independence is asserted as a resonance rest-frame property and then tested, not derived by assuming the conclusion. The paper contains no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction and no self-citation chain that forbids alternative models, so no circular step rises to the threshold for a nonzero score.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no fitted parameters and no new physical entities. The COM variables are observables constructed from existing kinematic quantities. The central claim rests on four domain assumptions about GENIE's modeling, the resonance decay angle's independence, event-topology completeness, and the representativeness of the hA/hN FSI models.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption GENIE v3 event generator faithfully models neutrino-nucleus interactions, including initial-state and FSI, for comparing kinematic variables.
    All results in Sec. III are derived from GENIE samples; there is no comparison to experimental data in this paper.
  • domain assumption The pion decay angle in the resonance rest frame, θ_πΔ, is independent of neutrino energy and of the nuclear initial state.
    Stated in Sec. II; this is what makes θ_COM deviations interpretable as FSI. The paper's Fig. 9 shows this independence is violated at Eν = 5 GeV even for Δ++-only events.
  • domain assumption In the CC1π1p selection, the measured proton and pion are the only final-state hadrons, so their momentum sum fully defines the hadronic system.
    The COM boost uses ⃗p_π + ⃗p_p; any undetected particles or additional nucleons would bias the COM frame. The paper uses true information, so this holds in simulation but not automatically in reconstruction.
  • domain assumption The GENIE FSI models hA and hN bracket realistic final-state interaction behavior, so the difference in θ_COM between them indicates real FSI sensitivity.
    The FSI sensitivity claim in Figs. 5 and 12 rests on comparing two generator models. If actual FSI is outside this range, the sensitivity is unquantified.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Centre-of-momentum Variables in $\nu_\mu$CC1p1$\pi$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JWWBFIUJ

@misc{pith2026250108984,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Centre-of-momentum Variables in $\nu_\mu$CC1p1$\pi$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JWWBFIUJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.08984}
}
abstract

This study introduces a novel set of variables, namely the centre-of-momentum variables, $\theta_{\textrm{COM}}$ and $E_{\textrm{COM}}$, designed to isolate final-state interactions (FSI) from other aspects of neutrino-nucleus interactions. Through detailed simulation studies, this work demonstrates the ability of these variables to distinguish FSI contributions with minimal dependence on the nuclear initial state and, practically, on the neutrino flux, highlighting their potential for advancing FSI modelling. With high-purity neutrino-hydrogen interaction selections, $\theta_{\textrm{COM}}$ offers the first opportunity for a direct cross-comparison among different neutrino cross-section experiments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.08984 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Schematic illustration of the COM angle. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Cross-section normalized (2a) and area [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Area normalized distributions for different IS [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Area normalized comparisons for different FSI [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Area normalized comparisons of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: Area normalized comparisons for different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: Area normalized comparisons for different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11: Area normalized comparisons for different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_12.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages

  1. [17]

    Li et al

    W. Li et al. (GENIE), First combined tuning on trans- verse kinematic imbalance data with and without pion production constraints, Phys. Rev. D110, 072016 (2024), arXiv:2404.08510 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2024

  2. [1]

    Abe et al

    K. Abe et al. (Hyper-Kamiokande), Hyper-Kamiokande Design Report, (2018), arXiv:1805.04163 [physics.ins- det]

    arXiv 2018

  3. [2]

    Acciarri et al

    R. Acciarri et al. (DUNE), Long-Baseline Neutrino Fa- cility (LBNF) and Deep Underground Neutrino Exper- iment (DUNE): Conceptual Design Report, Volume 2: The Physics Program for DUNE at LBNF, (2015), arXiv:1512.06148 [physics.ins-det]

    arXiv 2015

  4. [3]

    Strait et al

    J. Strait et al. (DUNE), Long-Baseline Neutrino Facil- ity (LBNF) and Deep Underground Neutrino Experi- ment (DUNE): Conceptual Design Report, Volume 3: Long-Baseline Neutrino Facility for DUNE June 24, 2015, (2016), arXiv:1601.05823 [physics.ins-det]

    arXiv 2016

  5. [4]

    R. Acciarri et al.(DUNE), Long-Baseline Neutrino Facil- ity (LBNF) and Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment (DUNE): Conceptual Design Report, Volume 1: The LBNF and DUNE Projects, (2016), arXiv:1601.05471 [physics.ins-det]

    arXiv 2016

  6. [5]

    Acciarri et al

    R. Acciarri et al. (DUNE), Long-Baseline Neutrino Fa- cility (LBNF) and Deep Underground Neutrino Experi- ment (DUNE): Conceptual Design Report, Volume 4 The DUNE Detectors at LBNF, (2016), arXiv:1601.02984 [physics.ins-det]

    work page arXiv 2016

  7. [6]

    Hewes et al

    V. Hewes et al. (DUNE), Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment (DUNE) Near Detector Conceptual De- sign Report, Instruments 5, 31 (2021), arXiv:2103.13910 [physics.ins-det]

    arXiv 2021

  8. [7]

    Alvarez-Ruso et al

    L. Alvarez-Ruso et al. (NuSTEC), NuSTEC White Paper: Status and challenges of neutrino–nucleus scattering, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 100, 1 (2018), arXiv:1706.03621 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2018

Show all 44 references
  1. [8]

    Abe et al

    K. Abe et al. (T2K), The T2K Experiment, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 659, 106 (2011), arXiv:1106.1238 [physics.ins-det]

    2011

  2. [9]

    Abe et al

    K. Abe et al. (T2K), T2K ND280 Upgrade - Technical Design Report, (2019), arXiv:1901.03750 [physics.ins- det]

    2019

  3. [10]

    Acciarri et al

    R. Acciarri et al. (MicroBooNE, LAr1-ND, ICARUS- W A104), A Proposal for a Three Detector Short-Baseline Neutrino Oscillation Program in the Fermilab Booster Neutrino Beam, (2015), arXiv:1503.01520 [physics.ins- det]

    2015

  4. [11]

    Tena-Vidal et al

    J. Tena-Vidal et al. (GENIE), Neutrino-nucleon cross- section model tuning in GENIE v3, Phys. Rev. D 104, 072009 (2021), arXiv:2104.09179 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Tena-Vidal et al.(GENIE), Hadronization model tun- ing in genie v3, Phys

    J. Tena-Vidal et al.(GENIE), Hadronization model tun- ing in genie v3, Phys. Rev. D 105, 012009 (2022), arXiv:2106.05884 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Tena-Vidal et al

    J. Tena-Vidal et al. (GENIE), Neutrino-nucleus CC0 π cross-section tuning in GENIE v3, Phys. Rev. D 106, 112001 (2022), arXiv:2206.11050 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  7. [14]

    X.-G. Lu, D. Coplowe, R. Shah, G. Barr, D. Wark, and A. Weber, Reconstruction of Energy Spectra of Neutrino Beams Independent of Nuclear Effects, Phys. Rev. D 92, 051302 (2015), arXiv:1507.00967 [hep-ex]

    2015 arXiv

  8. [15]

    X.-G. Lu, L. Pickering, S. Dolan, G. Barr, D. Coplowe, Y. Uchida, D. Wark, M. O. Wascko, A. Weber, and T. Yuan, Measurement of nuclear effects in neutrino in- teractions with minimal dependence on neutrino energy, Phys. Rev. C94, 015503 (2016), arXiv:1512.05748 [nucl- th]

    2016 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Abratenko et al

    P. Abratenko et al. (MicroBooNE), Measurement of nu- clear effects in neutrino-argon interactions using gen- eralized kinematic imbalance variables with the Micro- BooNE detector, Phys. Rev. D 109, 092007 (2024), arXiv:2310.06082 [nucl-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Baudis, S

    N. Baudis, S. Dolan, D. Sgalaberna, S. Bolognesi, L. Munteanu, and T. Dieminger, Longitudinal kinematic imbalances in neutrino and antineutrino interactions for improved measurements of neutrino energy and the ax- ial vector form factor, Phys. Rev. D 110, 032019 (2024), arXiv:...

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Rein, Angular Distribution in Neutrino Induced Single Pion Production Processes, Z

    D. Rein, Angular Distribution in Neutrino Induced Single Pion Production Processes, Z. Phys. C 35, 43 (1987)

    1987

  12. [20]

    Kabirnezhad, Single pion production in neutrino- nucleon Interactions, Phys

    M. Kabirnezhad, Single pion production in neutrino- nucleon Interactions, Phys. Rev. D 97, 013002 (2018), arXiv:1711.02403 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Kabirnezhad, Single pion production in electron- nucleon interactions, Phys

    M. Kabirnezhad, Single pion production in electron- nucleon interactions, Phys. Rev. D 102, 053009 (2020), arXiv:2006.13765 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Kabirnezhad, Single-pion production in electron- proton interactions, Phys

    M. Kabirnezhad, Single-pion production in electron- proton interactions, Phys. Rev. C 107, 025502 (2023), arXiv:2203.15594 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  15. [23]

    S´ anchez, Possibility of measuring Adler angles in charged current single pion neutrino-nucleus interactions, Phys

    F. S´ anchez, Possibility of measuring Adler angles in charged current single pion neutrino-nucleus interactions, Phys. Rev. D 93, 093015 (2016), arXiv:1511.00501 [hep- ex]

    2016 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Abe et al.(T2K), Measurement of the muon neutrino charged-current single π+ production on hydrocarbon us- ing the T2K off-axis near detector ND280, Phys

    K. Abe et al.(T2K), Measurement of the muon neutrino charged-current single π+ production on hydrocarbon us- ing the T2K off-axis near detector ND280, Phys. Rev. D 101, 012007 (2020), arXiv:1909.03936 [hep-ex]. 12

    2020 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Abe et al

    K. Abe et al. (T2K), First T2K measurement of transverse kinematic imbalance in the muon-neutrino charged-current single-π+ production channel containing at least one proton, Phys. Rev. D 103, 112009 (2021), arXiv:2102.03346 [hep-ex]

    2021 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Abratenko et al

    P. Abratenko et al. ((MicroBooNE Collaboration)*, Mi- croBooNE), Measurement of the differential cross section for neutral pion production in charged-current muon neu- trino interactions on argon with the MicroBooNE detec- tor, Phys. Rev. D 110, 092014 (2024), arXiv:2404.09949...

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    M. A. Acero et al.(NOvA), Measurement of νµ charged- current inclusive π0 production in the NOvA near detec- tor, Phys. Rev. D 107, 112008 (2023), arXiv:2306.04028 [hep-ex]

    2023 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Bercellie et al

    A. Bercellie et al. (MINERvA), Simultaneous Measure- ment of Muon Neutrino νµ Charged-Current Single π+ Production in CH, C, H2O, Fe, and Pb Targets in MINERvA, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 011801 (2023), arXiv:2209.07852 [hep-ex]

    2023 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Andreopoulos et al., The GENIE Neutrino Monte Carlo Generator, Nucl

    C. Andreopoulos et al., The GENIE Neutrino Monte Carlo Generator, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 614, 87 (2010), arXiv:0905.2517 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Alvarez-Ruso et al

    L. Alvarez-Ruso et al. (GENIE), Recent highlights from GENIE v3, Eur. Phys. J. ST 230, 4449 (2021), arXiv:2106.09381 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Abe et al

    K. Abe et al. (T2K, J-PARC Neutrino Facility Group), J-PARC Neutrino Beamline Upgrade Technical Design Report, (2019), arXiv:1908.05141 [physics.ins-det]

    2019

  24. [32]

    Munteanu, (2022), nuInt, Seoul, KOREA, [Conference presentation]

    L. Munteanu, (2022), nuInt, Seoul, KOREA, [Conference presentation]

    2022

  25. [33]

    Munteanu, Genie generator (2023), commit SHA:64135ac

    L. Munteanu, Genie generator (2023), commit SHA:64135ac

    2023

  26. [34]

    C. H. Llewellyn Smith, Neutrino Reactions at Accelerator Energies, Phys. Rept. 3, 261 (1972)

    1972

  27. [35]

    Nieves, J

    J. Nieves, J. E. Amaro, and M. Valverde, Inclu- sive quasi-elastic neutrino reactions, Phys. Rev. C 70, 055503 (2004), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.C 72, 019902 (2005)], arXiv:nucl-th/0408005

    2004 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Katori, Teppei, Meson exchange current (MEC) models in neutrino interaction generators, AIP Conference Proceedings 1663, 030001 (2015), eprint: https://pubs.aip.org/aip/acp/article- pdf/doi/10.1063/1.4919465/13101054/030001 1 online.pdf

    2015 doi

  29. [37]

    Nieves, I

    J. Nieves, I. Ruiz Simo, and M. J. Vicente Vacas, In- clusive Charged–Current Neutrino–Nucleus Reactions, Phys. Rev. C 83, 045501 (2011), arXiv:1102.2777 [hep- ph]

    2011 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Gonzal´ ez-Jim´ enez, G

    R. Gonzal´ ez-Jim´ enez, G. D. Megias, M. B. Barbaro, J. A. Caballero, and T. W. Donnelly, Extensions of Superscal- ing from Relativistic Mean Field Theory: the SuSAv2 Model, Phys. Rev. C 90, 035501 (2014), arXiv:1407.8346 [nucl-th]

    2014 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Rein and L

    D. Rein and L. M. Sehgal, Neutrino Excitation of Baryon Resonances and Single Pion Production, Annals Phys. 133, 79 (1981)

    1981

  32. [40]

    Berger and L

    C. Berger and L. M. Sehgal, Lepton mass effects in single pion production by neutrinos, Phys. Rev. D 76, 113004 (2007), arXiv:0709.4378 [hep-ph]

    2007 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Andreopoulos, C

    C. Andreopoulos, C. Barry, S. Dytman, H. Gallagher, T. Golan, R. Hatcher, G. Perdue, and J. Yarba, The GENIE Neutrino Monte Carlo Generator: Physics and User Manual, (2015), arXiv:1510.05494 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Filali, L

    W. Filali, L. Munteanu, and S. Dolan, Benchmarking neutrino interaction models via a comparative analysis of kinematic imbalance measurements from the T2K, Mi- croBooNE, and MINERvA experiments, Phys. Rev. D 111, 032009 (2025), arXiv:2407.10962 [hep-ex]

    2025

  35. [43]

    There is no hydrogen in the target for MicroBooNE, but such a simulation is possible and plotted for reference only

  36. [44]

    Cai et al.(MINERvA), Measurement of the axial vec- tor form factor from antineutrino–proton scattering, Na- ture 614, 48 (2023)

    T. Cai et al.(MINERvA), Measurement of the axial vec- tor form factor from antineutrino–proton scattering, Na- ture 614, 48 (2023)

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.