Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 67 references

First Search for Neutral Current Coherent Single-Photon Production in MicroBooNE

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read MicroBooNE reports the world's first search for neutrino-induced neutral-current coherent single-photon production on argon, finding no excess and setting a 90% confidence upper limit of σ < 1.49×10⁻⁴¹ cm², about 24 times the…

desk verdict First limit on NC coherent 1γ: a careful, well-executed search whose quoted systematic is partly dependent on a 2γ1p constraint that deserves a robustness check before the number is relied on. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.06091 v2 pith:EGRJANIE submitted 2025-02-10 hep-ex

MicroBooNE Collaboration: P. Abratenko , D. Andrade Aldana , L. Arellano , J. Asaadi , A. Ashkenazi , S. Balasubramanian , B. Baller , A. Barnard
show 171 more authors
G. Barr D. Barrow J. Barrow V. Basque J. Bateman O. Benevides Rodrigues S. Berkman A. Bhat M. Bhattacharya M. Bishai A. Blake B. Bogart T. Bolton M.B. Brunetti L. Camilleri D. Caratelli F. Cavanna G. Cerati A. Chappell Y. Chen J.M. Conrad M. Convery L. Cooper-Troendle J.I. Crespo-Anadon R. Cross M. Del Tutto S.R. Dennis P. Detje R. Diurba Z. Djurcic K. Duffy S. Dytman B. Eberly P. Englezos A. Ereditato J.J. Evans C. Fang B.T. Fleming W. Foreman D. Franco A.P. Furmanski F. Gao D. Garcia-Gamez S. Gardiner G. Ge S. Gollapinni E. Gramellini P. Green H. Greenlee L. Gu W. Gu R. Guenette P. Guzowski L. Hagaman M. D. Handley O. Hen C. Hilgenberg G.A. Horton-Smith A. Hussain B. Irwin M.S. Ismail C. James X. Ji J.H. Jo R.A. Johnson Y.J. Jwa D. Kalra G. Karagiorgi W. Ketchum M. Kirby T. Kobilarcik N. Lane J.-Y. Li Y. Li K. Lin B.R. Littlejohn L. Liu W.C. Louis X. Luo T. Mahmud C. Mariani D. Marsden J. Marshall N. Martinez D.A. Martinez Caicedo S. Martynenko A. Mastbaum I. Mawby N. McConkey L. Mellet J. Mendez J. Micallef K. Mistry T. Mohayai A. Mogan M. Mooney A.F. Moor C.D. Moore L. Mora Lepin M.M. Moudgalya S. Mulleria Babu D. Naples A. Navrer-Agasson N. Nayak M. Nebot-Guinot C. Nguyen J. Nowak N. Oza O. Palamara N. Pallat V. Paolone A. Papadopoulou V. Papavassiliou H. Parkinson S.F. Pate N. Patel Z. Pavlovic E. Piasetzky K. Pletcher I. Pophale X. Qian J.L. Raaf V. Radeka A. Rafique M. Reggiani-Guzzo J. Rodriguez Rondon M. Rosenberg M. Ross-Lonergan I. Safa D.W. Schmitz A. Schukraft W. Seligman M.H. Shaevitz R. Sharankova J. Shi E.L. Snider M. Soderberg S. Soldner-Rembold J. Spitz M. Stancari J. St. John T. Strauss A.M. Szelc N. Taniuchi K. Terao C.Thorpe D. Torbunov D. Totani M. Toups A. Trettin Y.-T. Tsai J. Tyler M.A. Uchida T. Usher B. Viren J. Wang M. Weber H. Wei A.J. White S. Wolbers T. Wongjirad M. Wospakrik K. Wresilo W. Wu E. Yandel T. Yang L.E. Yates H.W. Yu G.P. Zeller J. Zennamo C. Zhang
This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ex
keywords neutralcurrentcoherentsingle-photonproductionMicroBooNEliquidargontimeprojectionchamberneutrinocross-sectionlimitBoosterBeamboosteddecisiontreesNCpion-zerobackgroundprotonstubveto
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

Neutrinos can scatter coherently off an entire argon nucleus and emit one forward photon, leaving no other visible activity at the vertex; this Standard-Model process had never been directly searched for. MicroBooNE, using 6.87×10²⁰ protons on target from the Booster Neutrino Beam, selects lone forward electromagnetic showers and observes 34 candidate events against a constrained background of 29.0, so there is no significant excess. The paper reports the world's first limit on this process: a flux-averaged cross section below 1.49×10⁻⁴¹ cm² on argon at 90% confidence, equivalent to less than 24 times the predicted Standard-Model rate. A best-fit signal scaling of x = 6.2 times the prediction is consistent with no signal. If the result is right, neutrino-induced coherent single-photon production cannot be a dominant single-photon background at these energies, and it tightens the window for photon-based explanations of the MiniBooNE low-energy excess.

What carries the argument

The analysis is carried by two devices. First, a proton-stub veto (PSV) boosted decision tree that clusters low-energy ionization deposits ('blips') near the back-projection of the reconstructed shower and flags proton stubs missed by track reconstruction; cutting on its maximum score over planes 0 and 2 removes about half of the dominant NC non-coherent π⁰ background while preserving 39% of the signal. Second, a conditional constraint: the two high-statistics NC π⁰ selections, 2γ1p and 2γ0p, are fitted simultaneously with the single-photon selection, rescaling the predicted background and its systematic uncertainties; this lowers the background prediction from 34.0 to 29.0 events and cuts the systematic uncertainty by about 25%. The signal-model simulation is implemented in the updated version of the event generator used for the prediction of Ref. [13].

What would settle it

Repeat the fit without the 2γ1p control sample: if the 90% confidence upper limit on the signal scaling factor x moves by more than the quoted systematic uncertainty, the scaling assumption between the single-photon signal region and the two-shower control samples is the load-bearing element. Alternatively, measure the NC π⁰ rate in the 2γ1p sample (573 events observed versus 744 predicted) as a function of reconstructed π⁰ momentum; a momentum-dependent deficit would contradict the single-bin rescaling used in the constraint and would require recomputing the limit.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper reports the first experimental search for neutrino-induced neutral-current coherent single-photon (NC coherent 1γ) production, in which a neutrino scatters elastically off the whole argon nucleus (ν + Ar → ν + Ar + γ) and the outgoing photon is strongly forward. The selection isolates single, forward, photon-like electromagnetic showers with no reconstructed tracks and no visible vertex activity, using a cascade of boosted decision trees including a new proton-stub veto that exploits MeV-scale charge deposits. With 6.87×10²⁰ protons on target, 34 events are observed in the coherent-rich sample versus a constrained prediction of 29.0 ± 5.2 (syst) ± 5.4 (stat) background events; the best-fit signal scaling is x = 6.2 times the Standard-Model prediction of Ref. [13], consistent with no signal. The 90% confidence upper limit is x < 24.0, corresponding to a flux-averaged cross section σ < 1.49×10⁻⁴¹ cm² on argon at ⟨Eν⟩ ≈ 0.8 GeV.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the NC π⁰ background in the single-photon signal region scales with the rate seen in the two-shower control samples, so that the mild data deficit in the 2γ1p sample (573 observed vs 744 predicted) reflects a genuine overall rate reduction rather than a topology-specific modeling error; if that scaling fails, the constrained background of 29.0 events and the resulting limit could shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the limit is correct, neutrino-induced coherent single-photon production on argon below 1 GeV has a rate below 1.49×10⁻⁴¹ cm², so it cannot be a dominant single-photon background in current and near-term oscillation experiments.
  • The limit bounds models that would produce coherent single photons at rates much above the Standard-Model prediction, and it adds another null constraint to photon-based explanations of the MiniBooNE low-energy excess.
  • The selections, including the proton-stub veto, are transferable to future liquid-argon detectors such as SBND, where roughly 20 times more exposure could bring sensitivity close to the predicted Standard-Model rate.
  • The 2γ-constrained NC π⁰ background model, with its ~25% systematic reduction, provides a reusable template for rare-signal searches in liquid-argon time projection chamber data.
  • The first high-level use of MeV-scale blip reconstruction demonstrated here opens a path for improved low-energy particle identification in future detectors.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the observed mild deficit in the 2γ1p sample (573 events observed vs 744 predicted) reflects an overestimate of NC π⁰ production rather than a statistical or topology-specific effect, the constrained background in the signal region (29.0 events) would be an overestimate; a dedicated NC π⁰ cross-section measurement would determine whether the limit should be recomputed with a lower background.
  • The best-fit scale x = 6.2, though not significant, sits in the parameter region where the frequentist confidence-level curve and the asymptotic approximation begin to differ; if more events accumulate, this is where a small true signal would first appear.
  • The fact that the PSV veto removes roughly 70% of sub-50 MeV protons while only about 15% of true signal events are accidentally vetoed suggests that future detectors with better low-energy thresholds could tighten the coherent-rich selection and push the limit closer to the Standard-Model prediction.
  • One could test the scaling premise directly by measuring the NC π⁰ rate in the 2γ1p and 2γ0p samples as a function of reconstructed π⁰ momentum; if the deficit is momentum-dependent, the single-bin constraint used here may be too aggressive.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports the first experimental search for neutral-current coherent single-photon production (NC coherent 1γ) on argon, using MicroBooNE data with 6.87e20 protons on target. A blinded selection requiring one reconstructed shower and no tracks (1γ0p) is combined with two auxiliary NC π0 samples (2γ1p and 2γ0p) in a simultaneous fit. With the two-photon constraint, the expected background in the coherent-rich signal region is 29.0±5.2(syst)±5.4(stats) events, and 34 data events are observed. A Feldman-Cousins fit yields a 90% C.L. upper limit of x<24.0 on the signal normalization relative to the Standard Model prediction of Ref. [13], corresponding to a flux-averaged cross-section limit σ<1.49e-41 cm².

Significance. If the result stands, it is the world's first limit on a Standard Model process that has never been directly searched for, constraining coherent neutrino-nucleus scattering models and providing a benchmark for future LArTPC searches such as SBND. The analysis introduces a novel use of MeV-scale charge deposits (the proton-stub veto) that could have broad applicability in LArTPC physics. The blind analysis, sideband validation, full treatment of flux, cross-section, detector and MC-statistical systematics, and the use of Feldman-Cousins intervals are all strengths that give confidence in the quoted limit.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. VII B] The conditional constraint from the 2γ1p and 2γ0p samples reduces the predicted NC π0 background in the coherent-rich signal region from 34.0±8.4(syst) to 29.0±5.2(syst), a ~25% reduction in systematic uncertainty. However, the 2γ1p sample shows a 23% data deficit (573 observed vs 744 predicted) while the 2γ0p sample shows only a 6% deficit (811 vs 862). Since the signal region is 0p-like (the PSV cut at 0.2 rejects proton stubs), it is not obvious that a topology with a reconstructed proton (2γ1p) should constrain the 0p signal-region background. Please provide a robustness check that repeats the simultaneous fit without the 2γ1p sample (or treats it as a separate, unconstrained channel) and reports the resulting background prediction and 90% C.L. limit on x. If the limit changes significantly, discuss the implications; if it is stable, state this explicitly. This is load-bearing because the quoted x<24.0 depends on the systematic reduction from the 2γ constraint.
  2. [Sec. VII B] The limit on x is converted to a cross-section limit σ<1.49e-41 cm² using the predicted signal efficiency from a standalone GENIE v3.2 simulation. The text states that the GENIE cross-section uncertainty for the signal process is not included. Since the efficiency entering the cross-section limit inherits model dependence (e.g., nuclear form factors, generator version differences), the authors should estimate the associated uncertainty on the efficiency and either include it in the limit or quantify that it is negligible. Without this, the quoted cross-section limit may be somewhat underestimated.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. IV C] There is a typo in the sentence following the description of the BDT score optimization: "the number of background eventshe possible selection cut values" should read "the number of background events. The possible selection cut values".
  2. [Sec. VI] The systematic uncertainty band is not shown in Fig. 13. Adding it would help the reader judge whether the 23% deficit in the 2γ1p sample is consistent with the quoted systematic uncertainties.
  3. [Sec. II B] The absence of argon deexcitation photon emission in GENIE is noted, but the potential effect of such MeV-scale photons on the PSV veto efficiency for the signal is not discussed. A brief statement on why this is negligible (e.g., energy threshold or topology) would strengthen the analysis.
  4. [Table II] The constrained total prediction is given in Table II, but the per-category constrained predictions are not. Showing the constrained breakdown would clarify which background categories are most affected by the 2γ constraint.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the limit follows from a blinded single-bin fit of a signal-strength parameter x to observed events, with the dominant NC pi0 background constrained by independent 2gamma control samples and the signal model taken from an external calculation (Ref. [13]).

full rationale

The paper's claimed limit is not equivalent to any fitted input. The signal strength x is extracted by fitting the observed coherent-rich selection (34 events) against the constrained MC prediction (29.0), with best-fit x = 6.20 and a Feldman-Cousins 90% bound at x = 24.0, corresponding to sigma < 1.49e-41 cm^2. The background constraint uses two external 2gamma samples (2gamma1p: 573 observed vs 744 predicted; 2gamma0p: 811 vs 862) via a conditional constraint; this is a data-driven auxiliary measurement, not a re-use of the signal-region outcome. The theory normalization is external (E. Wang, L. Alvarez-Ruso, J. Nieves, Phys. Rev. C 89, 015503 (2014)), not a self-citation. Although the paper cites prior MicroBooNE analyses for BDT design, pi0 selections, and the conditional-constraint method, none of these citations is load-bearing in the sense of forcing the quoted limit; they are methodological references whose validity is checked by the sideband comparisons and goodness-of-fit tests. The acknowledged limitations, such as GENIE not modeling deexcitation photons (Sec. II B) and the +/-100% normalization uncertainty assigned to NC and CC coherent pi production, are systematic caveats and do not make the derivation self-referential. The assumption that the 2gamma1p sample scales to the 0p-like signal region is a physics-modeling risk rather than a circular step, because the signal strength x is determined by the observed counts in the signal region, not by the constraint's central value. Therefore the derivation is self-contained and no circularity is identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central limit rests on standard neutrino interaction models, the GENIE generator, a theory signal model, and a set of hand-optimized selection thresholds. No new physical entities are introduced. The most fragile inputs are the NC pi0 background scaling and the unmodeled argon deexcitation photons.

free parameters (9)
  • PSV BDT score cut = 0.2
    Applied to the maximum PSV score on planes 0 and 2; chosen to maximize signal significance with systematics and the 2gamma constraint. This cut determines which events enter the coherent-rich subset and thus the observed 34 events.
  • Cosmic BDT cut = 0.990
    Event-level selection threshold optimized on MC significance; affects cosmic background rejection.
  • CC nu_e BDT cut = 0.885
    Event-level threshold rejecting intrinsic electron-neutrino backgrounds.
  • CC nu_mu BDT cut = 0.992
    Event-level threshold rejecting muon-neutrino backgrounds.
  • NC 1pi0 BDT cut = 0.891
    Event-level threshold rejecting neutral-current single-pion backgrounds; part of the four-dimensional degenerate optimization.
  • DBSCAN clustering parameters (SSV and PSV) = SSV: eps=4 cm, NminPts=8; PSV: eps=1 cm, NminPts=1
    Cluster distance scales and minimum hits for second-shower and proton candidate clusters; set by hand from handscan observations.
  • Hit noise threshold = 25 charge integral units
    Hits below this threshold are ignored during cluster formation, affecting sensitivity to small proton stubs.
  • Shower energy scale correction = approximately 1.2 (20% increase)
    Applied to reconstructed shower energies to align the simulated pi0 mass peak with the measured value, following Ref. [49].
  • Preselection cuts = E_shower > 50 MeV; fiducial > 2 cm
    Standard preselection to remove Michel electrons and partially contained showers; chosen by hand.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption NC coherent 1gamma signal process follows the Wang-Alvarez-Ruso-Nieves model
    Signal rate and kinematics are taken from this SM calculation (Ref. [13]) implemented in GENIE v3.2 NCGammaFix; selection efficiency and the reference cross section for the limit depend on this model.
  • domain assumption GENIE v3.0.6 G18_10a_02_11a with customized T2K tuned CC model and Berger-Sehgal coherent/resonant pion models accurately predicts NC backgrounds
    All background categories (NC 1pi0, NC Delta radiative, BNB Other) are generated with this configuration; the background prediction and the 2gamma constraint inherit its model assumptions (Sec. IIB).
  • ad hoc to paper Argon nuclear deexcitation photon emission is negligible or absent in the signal region
    The paper notes GENIE only simulates deexcitation photons for oxygen, not argon (Sec. IIB); if argon deexcitation photons populate the single-shower sample, the background model is incomplete. This is an unquantified assumption specific to this analysis.
  • domain assumption BNB neutrino flux prediction from MiniBooNE, adjusted to MicroBooNE, is correct
    Flux normalization and shape come from Ref. [31]; flux systematic covers 2% normalization plus hadron production uncertainties, but the central value is taken from this external simulation.
  • domain assumption Pandora reconstruction and LArSoft detector simulation faithfully reproduce the detector response
    The analysis relies on these tools for all efficiencies and background predictions; detector systematics are evaluated with data-driven variations but the reconstruction framework itself is trusted.
  • standard math Feldman-Cousins confidence intervals with finite pseudo-experiments provide correct coverage
    Statistical inference uses the FC method; the paper notes slight fluctuations in the CL curve due to finite pseudo-experiments, which is a standard accepted technique.
  • domain assumption The conditional constraint from the 2gamma1p and 2gamma0p samples applies to the single-photon signal region
    The method of Ref. [60] assumes the systematic uncertainties and background components are shared between control and signal regions; if the 2gamma deficit is topology-specific, the constraint would bias the background estimate (Sec. VI).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of First Search for Neutral Current Coherent Single-Photon Production in MicroBooNE." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EGRJANIE

@misc{pith2026250206091,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: First Search for Neutral Current Coherent Single-Photon Production in MicroBooNE},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EGRJANIE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.06091}
}
abstract

This article presents the first search for neutrino-induced neutral current coherent single-photon production (NC coherent 1$\gamma$). The search makes use of data from the MicroBooNE 85-tonne active volume liquid argon time projection chamber detector, situated in the Fermilab Booster Neutrino Beam (BNB), with an average neutrino energy of $\langle E_{\nu}\rangle \sim 0.8$ GeV. A targeted selection of candidate neutrino interactions with a single photon-like electromagnetic shower in the final state and no visible vertex activity was developed to search for the NC coherent 1$\gamma$ process, along with two auxiliary selections used to constrain the dominant background from NC$\pi^0$ production. With an integrated exposure of $6.87 \times 10^{20}$ protons on target delivered by the BNB, we set the world's first limit for this rare process, corresponding to an upper limit on the flux-averaged cross section of $\sigma<1.49 \times 10^{-41}\text{cm}^2$ at 90\% C.L.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.06091 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: The area-normalized 2D distribution of the true [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Predicted background distributions and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: The BDT classifier scores for (a) the Cosmic BDT; (b) CC [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: The rejection efficiency of the PSV BDT as a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: Distributions of the single-photon selection in: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: Efficiencies at various stages of the selection [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_10.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12: Overall systematic uncertainty for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13: Distributions of the 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14: Distributions of the sideband sample in: (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15: Comparison of observed data and MC CV [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16: Distributions of (a) reconstructed shower [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: FIG. 17: The confidence level for the NC coherent 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_17.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages

  1. [13]

    A. A. Aguilar-Arevalo et al. (MiniBooNE Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 103, 052002 (2021)

    work page 2021

  2. [1]

    hit clustering

    Hit Clustering Each reconstructed hit consists of a calibrated charge integral and associated wire and timing information. Nearby neighboring hits are grouped together on a plane- by-plane basis; this is referred to as “hit clustering”. Hits with lower than 25 charge integral units are con- sidered “noise” hits and ignored during clustering forma- tion. T...

    work page

  3. [2]

    IV C, targets the second shower from π0 decay in the detector, which has an expected topology of a sparse cascade of hits near the primary reconstructed shower

    Second Shower Veto BDT The SSV BDT, as mentioned in Sec. IV C, targets the second shower from π0 decay in the detector, which has an expected topology of a sparse cascade of hits near the primary reconstructed shower. Thus, the candidate clus- ters for the second shower are formed with NminPts = 8 and ϵ = 4 cm. Undesirable clusters can result from elec- t...

    work page 2000

  4. [3]

    maximum PSV score on planes 0 and 2

    Proton Stub Veto BDT Besides the SSV score, another handle is leveraged to aid in the rejection of background: small traces of pro- tons. Pandora can consistently perform particle identi- fication on proton tracks starting at around 40 MeV of kinetic energy, however, hand scanning of NC ∆ radiative decay events shows visible true low momentum proton- like...

    work page 2000

  5. [4]

    Abratenko et al

    P. Abratenko et al. (MicroBooNE Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 104, 052002 (2021)

    work page 2021

  6. [5]

    multisim

    finite MC statistics. 13 Category Preselection Eff. [%] Single-Photon Eff. [%] Coherent-Rich Subset Eff. [%] NC Coherent 1 γ 98.59 45.85 39.09% NC ∆ → N γ(0p) 98.30 19.18 9.99 NC ∆ → N γ(1+p) 97.13 7.99 2.49 NC 1 π0 Coherent 96.91 8.38 6.83 NC 1 π0 Non-Coherent 96.39 4.75 2.50 CC νµ1π0 90.21 3.07 2.24 BNB Other 82.17 0.30 0.25 CC νe/νe Intrinsic 94.59 0.6...

    work page

  7. [6]

    R. L. Workman et al. (Particle Data Group), PTEP 2022, 083C01 (2022)

    2022

  8. [7]

    Abratenko et al

    P. Abratenko et al. (MicroBooNE Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 106, L051102 (2022). 19

    work page 2022

Show all 67 references
  1. [9]

    Abratenko et al

    P. Abratenko et al. (MicroBooNE Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 105, L051102 (2022)

    2022

  2. [10]

    Abratenko et al

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

    2020

  3. [11]

    Abratenko et al

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

    2020

  4. [12]

    Abratenko et al

    P. Abratenko et al. (MicroBooNE Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 131801 (2019)

    2019

  5. [14]

    Abratenko et al

    P. Abratenko et al. (MicroBooNE Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 011801 (2023), arXiv:2210.10216 [hep- ex]

    2023 arXiv

  6. [15]

    P. A. Machado, O. Palamara, and D. W. Schmitz, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 69, 363 (2019), https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-nucl-101917-020949

    2019 doi

  7. [16]

    Abud Abed et al

    A. Abud Abed et al. (DUNE), Phys. Rev. D 105, 072006 (2022), arXiv:2109.01304 [hep-ex]

    2022

  8. [17]

    E. Wang, L. Alvarez-Ruso, and J. Nieves, Phys. Rev. C 89, 015503 (2014)

    2014

  9. [18]

    E. Wang, L. Alvarez-Ruso, and J. Nieves, Phys. Lett. B 740, 16 (2015), arXiv:1407.6060 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  10. [19]

    Abratenko et al

    P. Abratenko et al. (MicroBooNE Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 111801 (2022)

    2022

  11. [20]

    S. N. Gninenko, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 241802 (2009), arXiv:0902.3802 [hep-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  12. [21]

    Fischer, A

    O. Fischer, A. Hern´ andez-Cabezudo, and T. Schwetz, Phys. Rev. D 101, 075045 (2020), arXiv:1909.09561 [hep- ph]

    2020 arXiv

  13. [22]

    Bertuzzo, S

    E. Bertuzzo, S. Jana, P. A. N. Machado, and R. Zukanovich Funchal, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 241801 (2018), arXiv:1807.09877 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  14. [23]

    Ballett, S

    P. Ballett, S. Pascoli, and M. Ross-Lonergan, Phys. Rev. D 99, 071701 (2019), arXiv:1808.02915 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  15. [24]

    Adams et al

    C. Adams et al. (LArTPC), in Snowmass 2013: Snowmass on the Mississippi (2013) arXiv:1309.7987 [physics.ins-det]

    2013 arXiv

  16. [25]

    En- hanced Search for Neutral Current ∆ Radiative Single- Photon Production in MicroBooNE,

    P. Abratenko et al. (MicroBooNE Collaboration), “En- hanced Search for Neutral Current ∆ Radiative Single- Photon Production in MicroBooNE,” (2025), https: //microboone.fnal.gov/nc-delta-2025/

    2025

  17. [26]

    Inclu- sive Search for Anomalous Single-Photon Production in MicroBooNE,

    P. Abratenko et al. (MicroBooNE Collaboration), “Inclu- sive Search for Anomalous Single-Photon Production in MicroBooNE,” (2025), https://microboone.fnal.gov/ inclusive-single-photon-2025/

    2025

  18. [27]

    D. R. Nygren, 1974 PEP summer study, eConfC740805, 58 (1974)

    1974

  19. [28]

    Rubbia, CERN-EP/77-08 (1977)

    C. Rubbia, CERN-EP/77-08 (1977)

    1977

  20. [29]

    Acciarri et al

    R. Acciarri et al. (ArgoNeuT Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 99, 012002 (2019)

    2019

  21. [30]

    Andringa et al

    S. Andringa et al. , J. Phys. G 50, 033001 (2023)

    2023

  22. [31]

    Castiglioni, W

    W. Castiglioni, W. Foreman, I. Lepetic, B. R. Little- john, M. Malaker, and A. Mastbaum, Phys. Rev. D 102, 092010 (2020), arXiv:2006.14675 [physics.ins-det]

    2020 arXiv

  23. [32]

    Abratenko et al

    P. Abratenko et al. (MicroBooNE Collaboration), JINST 17, P11022 (2022), arXiv:2203.10147 [physics.ins-det]

    2022 arXiv

  24. [33]

    Abratenko et al

    P. Abratenko et al. (MicroBooNE), Phys. Rev. D .109, 052007 (2024), arXiv:2307.03102 [hep-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  25. [34]

    Acciarri et al

    R. Acciarri et al. (MicroBooNE Collaboration), JINST 12, P02017 (2017), arXiv:1612.05824 [physics.ins-det]

    2017 arXiv

  26. [35]

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

    2009

  27. [36]

    Andreopoulos et al

    C. Andreopoulos et al. , Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 614, 87 (2010)

    2010

  28. [37]

    Abratenko et al

    P. Abratenko et al. (MicroBooNE Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 105, 072001 (2022)

    2022

  29. [38]

    Abe et al

    K. Abe et al. (T2K Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 93, 112012 (2016)

    2016

  30. [39]

    Berger and L

    C. Berger and L. M. Sehgal, Phys. Rev. D 79, 053003 (2009)

    2009

  31. [40]

    Bodek, S

    A. Bodek, S. Avvakumov, R. Bradford, and H. S. Budd, Eur. Phys. J. C 53, 349 (2008), arXiv:0708.1946 [hep-ex]

    2008 arXiv

  32. [41]

    Merenyi, W

    R. Merenyi, W. A. Mann, T. Kafka, W. Leeson, B. Saitta, J. Schneps, M. Derrick, and B. Musgrave, Phys. Rev. D 45, 743 (1992)

    1992

  33. [42]

    Snider and G

    E. Snider and G. Petrillo, Journal of Physics: Conference Series 898, 042057 (2017)

    2017

  34. [43]

    Agostinelli et al., Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment 506, 250 (2003)

    S. Agostinelli et al., Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment 506, 250 (2003)

    2003

  35. [44]

    Adams et al

    C. Adams et al. (MicroBooNE Collaboration), JINST 13, P07006 (2018), arXiv:1802.08709 [physics.ins-det]

    2018 arXiv

  36. [45]

    Adams et al

    C. Adams et al. (MicroBooNE Collaboration), JINST 13, P07007 (2018), arXiv:1804.02583 [physics.ins-det]

    2018 arXiv

  37. [46]

    Jaskolski and M

    M. Jaskolski and M. Wojcik, J. Phys. Chem. A 115, 4317 (2011), pMID: 21473614, https://doi.org/10.1021/jp201149w

    2011 doi

  38. [47]

    Adams et al

    C. Adams et al. (MicroBooNE Collaboration), JINST 15, P03022 (2020), arXiv:1907.11736 [physics.ins-det]

    2020 arXiv

  39. [48]

    Adams et al

    C. Adams et al. (MicroBooNE Collaboration), JINST 15, P07010 (2020), arXiv:1910.01430 [physics.ins-det]

    2020 arXiv

  40. [49]

    Adams et al

    C. Adams et al. (MicroBooNE Collaboration), JINST 16, P04004 (2021), arXiv:2012.14324 [physics.ins-det]

    2021 arXiv

  41. [50]

    Acciarri et al

    R. Acciarri et al. (MicroBooNE Collaboration), Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 82 (2018), arXiv:1708.03135 [hep-ex]

    2018 arXiv

  42. [51]

    Fr¨ uhwirth, Nucl

    R. Fr¨ uhwirth, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A262, 444 (1987)

    1987

  43. [52]

    Acciarri et al

    R. Acciarri et al. (MicroBooNE), JINST 12, P09014 (2017), arXiv:1704.02927 [physics.ins-det]

    2017 arXiv

  44. [53]

    Abratenko et al

    P. Abratenko et al. (MicroBooNE Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 107, 012004 (2023)

    2023

  45. [54]

    Alvarez-Ruso et al., Eur

    L. Alvarez-Ruso et al., Eur. Phys. J. ST230, 4449 (2021)

    2021

  46. [55]

    Abratenko et al

    P. Abratenko et al. (MicroBooNE), Phys. Rev. Applied 15, 064071 (2021), arXiv:2101.05076 [physics.ins-det]

    2021 arXiv

  47. [56]

    Chen and C

    T. Chen and C. Guestrin, in Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining , KDD ’16 (ACM, 2016)

    2016

  48. [57]

    Ester, H

    M. Ester, H. P. Kriegel, J. Sander, and X. Xiaowei, Data Min. Knowl. Discov , 169–194 (1996)

    1996

  49. [58]

    D. H. Wright and M. H. Kelsey, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 804, 175 (2015)

    2015

  50. [59]

    Calcutt, C

    J. Calcutt, C. Thorpe, K. Mahn, and L. Fields, JINST 16, P08042 (2021)

    2021

  51. [60]

    Abratenko et al

    P. Abratenko et al. , Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 454 (2022)

    2022

  52. [61]

    Abratenko et al

    P. Abratenko et al. (MicroBooNE Collaboration), JINST 15, P12037 (2020), arXiv:2008.09765 [physics.ins-det]

    2020 arXiv

  53. [62]

    Acciarri et al

    R. Acciarri et al. (ArgoNeuT), JINST 8, P08005 (2013), arXiv:1306.1712 [physics.ins-det]

    2013 arXiv

  54. [63]

    Abratenko et al

    P. Abratenko et al. (MicroBooNE Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 105, 112005 (2022)

    2022

  55. [64]

    Abratenko et al

    P. Abratenko et al. (MicroBooNE Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 105, 112004 (2022)

    2022

  56. [65]

    Abratenko et al

    P. Abratenko et al. (MicroBooNE Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 105, 112003 (2022)

    2022

  57. [66]

    Abratenko et al

    P. Abratenko et al. (MicroBooNE Collaboration), Phys. 20 Rev. Lett. 128, 241801 (2022)

    2022

  58. [67]

    X. Ji, W. Gu, X. Qian, H. Wei, and C. Zhang, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 961, 163677 (2020)

    2020

  59. [68]

    G. J. Feldman and R. D. Cousins, Phys. Rev. D 57, 3873 (1998), arXiv:physics/9711021

    1998 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.