The sensitivity of liquid scintillator detectors to CP-violation with atmospheric neutrinos

arxiv: 2507.07598 · v4 · submitted 2025-07-10 · ✦ hep-ex

The sensitivity of liquid scintillator detectors to CP-violation with atmospheric neutrinos

Thilo Birkenfeld , Achim Stahl This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-19 06:01 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ex

keywords neutrino oscillationsCP violationatmospheric neutrinosliquid scintillator detectorsdetector sensitivityPoisson likelihoodzenith angle distributionflavour identification

0 comments p. Extension

The pith

Liquid scintillator detectors of a few kilotons can probe the CP-violating phase in atmospheric neutrino oscillations.

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

The paper examines whether liquid scintillator detectors weighing a few thousand tons can detect the CP-violating phase in neutrino oscillations using atmospheric neutrinos. These detectors are suited to the lower energy part of the atmospheric neutrino spectrum. The authors compute the expected number of events, their energy distribution, and how they vary with direction from different possible detector locations on Earth. They fold in a model of how the detector responds to different neutrino flavours and subtract estimated backgrounds. Sensitivity is then quantified with a statistical analysis based on Poisson probabilities.

Core claim

Liquid scintillator detectors of a few kilotons can probe the low-energy range of the atmospheric neutrino flux. The expected rate, spectrum, and zenith angle distribution are calculated for a typical liquid scintillator detector at different sites. A typical detector response with varying flavour identification capabilities and a background model are included. Sensitivity to the CP-violating phase is estimated using a Poisson likelihood analysis.

What carries the argument

Poisson likelihood analysis incorporating detector response, flavour identification capabilities, and background models applied to atmospheric neutrino events at different zenith angles and energies.

If this is right

The low-energy atmospheric neutrino flux offers access to oscillation parameters in a regime different from high-energy beam experiments.
Detector site location affects the zenith angle distribution and thus the accessible oscillation phases.
Different levels of flavour identification in the detector directly impact the ability to separate neutrino and antineutrino signals.
Background rates must be controlled to maintain sensitivity to small CP-violating effects.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

Atmospheric neutrinos at low energies may help constrain the CP phase independently of beam-based measurements.
The approach relies on precise modeling of backgrounds which could be validated with data from current detectors.
Combining results from multiple detector sites might help resolve degeneracies in the oscillation parameters.

Load-bearing premise

The assumed typical detector response and background model accurately represent the performance of actual liquid scintillator detectors at the considered locations.

What would settle it

An experimental measurement or detailed Monte Carlo simulation revealing that the background contamination or flavour identification efficiency in a few-kiloton liquid scintillator detector deviates substantially from the model used would undermine the projected sensitivity to the CP phase.

read the original abstract

The detection of CP violation in neutrino oscillations is one of the most important goals of the next generation of neutrino experiments. Here we study the detectability of the CP-violating phase in the oscillation of atmospheric neutrinos. Liquid scintillator detectors of a few kilotons can probe the low-energy range of the atmospheric neutrino flux. We calculate the expected rate, spectrum, and zenith angle distribution for a typical liquid scintillator detector for different detector sites. We include a typical detector response with different capabilities for flavour identification and a background model. The sensitivity is estimated using a Poisson likelihood analysis.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

This is a standard sensitivity study for CP reach in atmospheric neutrinos with small liquid scintillator detectors, but the numbers are likely optimistic because flux and cross-section uncertainties are left out.

read the letter

The main takeaway is that a few-kiloton liquid scintillator detector could pick up some sensitivity to the CP phase from atmospheric neutrinos at low energies, but the quoted performance is probably too strong once the usual systematics are included. They calculate expected rates, energy spectra, and zenith-angle distributions for a typical liquid scintillator at different sites, fold in a detector response with partial flavor identification, add a background model, and then run a Poisson likelihood to estimate the reach on delta_CP. The numerical results for this specific detector class and these sites are new, even if the underlying oscillation and likelihood methods are standard. The low-energy focus is useful because liquid scintillator has some practical advantages there compared with water Cherenkov detectors, and the site comparisons give concrete numbers that people can use when thinking about detector placement. The background model and response assumptions are laid out clearly enough to follow. The soft spot is the handling of uncertainties. Atmospheric neutrino flux carries 15-25% normalization and spectral errors at these energies, and cross sections add comparable uncertainty. The abstract describes a Poisson likelihood on modeled rates and backgrounds without mentioning nuisance parameters for flux or cross sections. If those are fixed rather than marginalized, the delta-chi-squared for CP violation comes out larger than it would in a more complete analysis. Comparable atmospheric neutrino studies usually see the sensitivity drop by one to two sigma once those terms are added. Nothing in the available description suggests they did that marginalization, so the concern looks real. This paper is aimed at experimentalists working on small or multi-purpose detectors and at people building the science case for complementary channels to long-baseline beams. A serious referee should see it. The calculations are transparent and the approach is honest; the main job for review would be to check whether the systematics can be added without killing the result and whether the background model holds up under scrutiny. I would send it to peer review rather than desk-reject.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a sensitivity study for CP violation in atmospheric neutrino oscillations using liquid scintillator detectors of a few kilotons. It computes expected event rates, energy spectra, and zenith-angle distributions for different detector sites, incorporates a model of detector response with varying flavor identification capabilities, and includes a background model. Sensitivity to the CP-violating phase is estimated via a Poisson likelihood analysis.

Significance. If substantiated, the results would offer a useful exploration of liquid scintillator technology as a complementary probe of low-energy atmospheric neutrinos for CP studies, with site-specific calculations adding practical context. The forward-modeling approach with explicit detector response modeling is a strength for assessing feasibility.

major comments (1)

The Poisson likelihood analysis (described in the abstract and detailed in the sensitivity estimation section) treats signal and background rates as known up to Poisson statistics without nuisance parameters for atmospheric neutrino flux normalization or cross-section uncertainties. These uncertainties are typically 15-25% at low energies; fixing them inflates the projected Δχ² for δ_CP. This is load-bearing for the central sensitivity claim, as marginalization over such systematics commonly reduces quoted significance by 1-2σ in comparable atmospheric neutrino analyses.

minor comments (2)

Clarify in the detector response section how flavor identification efficiencies are parameterized for different sites and whether they are derived from simulation or data.
The background model is referenced but would benefit from an explicit table or equation listing the dominant components and their energy/zenith dependence for reproducibility.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and the constructive comment on our manuscript. We address the point raised below and outline the changes we will make in a revised version.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: The Poisson likelihood analysis (described in the abstract and detailed in the sensitivity estimation section) treats signal and background rates as known up to Poisson statistics without nuisance parameters for atmospheric neutrino flux normalization or cross-section uncertainties. These uncertainties are typically 15-25% at low energies; fixing them inflates the projected Δχ² for δ_CP. This is load-bearing for the central sensitivity claim, as marginalization over such systematics commonly reduces quoted significance by 1-2σ in comparable atmospheric neutrino analyses.

Authors: We agree that the absence of nuisance parameters for flux normalization and cross-section uncertainties means the quoted sensitivities represent an optimistic statistical limit. The current analysis intentionally isolates the statistical power of the rate, spectrum, and zenith-angle information under the assumption of perfectly known rates, which is a common first step in exploratory sensitivity studies. However, we recognize that a full treatment with marginalization over 15–25% uncertainties would be more realistic and would likely reduce the projected Δχ². In the revised manuscript we will (i) explicitly state that the presented results are statistical-only, (ii) add a brief discussion of the expected impact of these systematics, and (iii) include a supplementary analysis in which the dominant normalization uncertainties are treated as nuisance parameters with Gaussian constraints. This will allow readers to see both the ideal and the more conservative sensitivities. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in forward-modeling sensitivity study

full rationale

The paper performs a standard prospective sensitivity analysis: it computes expected event rates, spectra, and zenith distributions from standard atmospheric neutrino flux, oscillation parameters, and a modeled detector response, then applies a Poisson likelihood to quantify reach for delta_CP. No step reduces the reported sensitivity to a quantity fitted from the same simulated data, nor does any central claim rest on a self-citation chain or self-definitional ansatz. The derivation is self-contained forward modeling against external benchmarks (oscillation formulas, flux models, detector response parametrizations) and does not exhibit any of the enumerated circular patterns.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Only the abstract is available, so the ledger is necessarily incomplete. The analysis rests on standard neutrino oscillation physics and assumed detector performance parameters whose numerical values are not stated here.

axioms (1)

domain assumption Standard three-flavor neutrino oscillation parameters and the atmospheric neutrino flux model are taken as known inputs.
The calculation of expected rates and oscillations requires these inputs; they are not derived in the paper.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5618 in / 1363 out tokens · 48463 ms · 2026-05-19T06:01:41.797745+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/RealityFromDistinction.lean reality_from_one_distinction unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

The sensitivity is estimated using a Poisson likelihood analysis... We assume a common uncertainty of 20% for N_F and treat N_F as a nuisance parameter.
IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

We use the model of Honda et al. to estimate the unoscillated fluxes... calculated numerically using nuCraft... cross sections from the GENIE v3.4 model

What do these tags mean?

matches: The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports: The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends: The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses: The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts: The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear: Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages · 4 internal anchors

[1]

Pontecorvo,Neutrino Experiments and the Problem of Conservation of Leptonic Charge,Zh

B. Pontecorvo,Neutrino Experiments and the Problem of Conservation of Leptonic Charge,Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.53(1967) 1717

work page 1967
[2]

Z. Maki, M. Nakagawa and S. Sakata,Remarks on the Unified Model of Elementary Particles,Prog. Theor. Phys.28 (1962) 870 [https://academic.oup.com/ptp/article-pdf/28/5/870/5258750/28-5-870.pdf]

work page 1962
[3]

Fukugita and T

M. Fukugita and T. Yanagida,Baryogenesis Without Grand Unification,Phys. Lett. B174 (1986) 45

work page 1986
[4]

Buchmüller and M

W. Buchmüller and M. Plümacher,Baryon asymmetry and neutrino mixing, Phys. Lett. B389(1996) 73

work page 1996
[5]

Buchmüller, P

W. Buchmüller, P. Di Bari and M. Plümacher,Leptogenesis for pedestrians,Ann. Phys.315(2005) 305

work page 2005
[6]

Buchmüller, R

W. Buchmüller, R. Peccei and T. Yanagida,Leptogenesis as the origin of matter,Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.55(2005) 311

work page 2005
[7]

Pilaftsis,CP violation and baryogenesis due to heavy majorana neutrinos, Phys

A. Pilaftsis,CP violation and baryogenesis due to heavy majorana neutrinos, Phys. Rev. D56(1997) 5431

work page 1997
[8]

Pascoli, S.T

S. Pascoli, S.T. Petcov and A. Riotto,Connecting low energy leptonic𝑐 𝑝violation to leptogenesis, Phys. Rev. D75(2007) 083511

work page 2007
[9]

Hagedorn, R.N

C. Hagedorn, R.N. Mohapatra, E. Molinaro, C.C. Nishi and S.T. Petcov,Cp violation in the lepton sector and implications for leptogenesis, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A33 (2018) 1842006 [https://doi.org/10.1142/S0217751X1842006X]

work page doi:10.1142/s0217751x1842006x 2018
[10]

Branco, R

G.C. Branco, R. González Felipe and F.R. Joaquim,Leptonic 𝑐 𝑝violation,Rev. Mod. Phys.84(2012) 515

work page 2012
[11]

T2Kcollaboration, Measurements of neutrino oscillation parameters from the T2K experiment using 3.6 × 1021 protons on target,Eur. Phys. J. C83(2023) 782 [2303.03222]

work page arXiv 2023
[12]

NOvAcollaboration, Improved measurement of neutrino oscillation parameters by the NOvA experiment,Phys. Rev. D106 (2022) 032004 [2108.08219]

work page arXiv 2022
[13]

Super-Kamiokandecollaboration, Atmospheric neutrino oscillation analysis with external constraints in Super-Kamiokande I-IV,Phys. Rev. D97(2018) 072001 [1710.09126]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018
[14]

2020 Global reassessment of the neutrino oscillation picture

P.F. de Salas, D.V. Forero, S. Gariazzo, P. Martínez-Miravé, O. Mena, C.A. Ternes et al.,2020 global reassessment of the neutrino oscillation picture,JHEP 02(2021) 071 [2006.11237]

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2020
[15]

The fate of hints: updated global analysis of three-ﬂavor neutrino oscillations,

I. Esteban, M.C. Gonzalez-Garcia, M. Maltoni, T. Schwetz and A. Zhou,The fate of hints: updated global analysis of three-flavor neutrino oscillations,JHEP 09(2020) 178 [2007.14792]

work page arXiv 2020
[16]

Nufit 5.3 (2024)

I. Esteban, M.C. Gonzalez-Garcia, M. Maltoni, T. Schwetz and A. Zhou, “Nufit 5.3 (2024).” www.nu-fit.org, 2024

work page 2024
[17]

JUNOcollaboration,JUNO sensitivity to low energy atmospheric neutrino spectra,Eur. Phys. J. C81 (2021) 10 [2103.09908]

work page arXiv 2021
[18]

Ivanova, A.S

A.D. Ivanova, A.S. Sheshukov and O.B. Samoylov,Preliminary Estimation of the Atmospheric Neutrinos Detection Efficiency in NOvA,Phys. Part. Nucl. Lett.21(2024) 631

work page 2024
[19]

Honda, M.S

M. Honda, M.S. Athar, T. Kajita, K. Kasahara and S. Midorikawa,Atmospheric neutrino flux calculation using the nrlmsise-00 atmospheric model, Phys. Rev. D92 (2015) 023004. – 14 –

work page 2015
[20]

Honda, T

M. Honda, T. Kajita, K. Kasahara and S. Midorikawa,Improvement of low energy atmospheric neutrino flux calculation using the jam nuclear interaction model,Phys. Rev. D83(2011) 123001

work page 2011
[21]

Honda, T

M. Honda, T. Kajita, K. Kasahara, S. Midorikawa and T. Sanuki,Calculation of atmospheric neutrino flux using the interaction model calibrated with atmospheric muon data,Phys. Rev. D75(2007) 043006

work page 2007
[22]

Honda, T

M. Honda, T. Kajita, K. Kasahara and S. Midorikawa,New calculation of the atmospheric neutrino flux in a three-dimensional scheme,Phys. Rev. D70(2004) 043008

work page 2004
[23]

JUNOcollaboration, JUNO physics and detector, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.123(2022) 103927 [2104.02565]

work page arXiv 2022
[24]

JUNOcollaboration, Neutrino Physics with JUNO, J. Phys. G43(2016) 030401 [1507.05613]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016
[25]

Wolfenstein,Neutrino Oscillations in Matter,Phys

L. Wolfenstein,Neutrino Oscillations in Matter,Phys. Rev. D17(1978) 2369

work page 1978
[26]

Mikheyev and A.Y

S.P. Mikheyev and A.Y. Smirnov,Resonance Amplification of Oscillations in Matter and Spectroscopy of Solar Neutrinos,Sov. J. Nucl. Phys.42(1985) 913

work page 1985
[27]

Mikheyev and A.Y

S.P. Mikheyev and A.Y. Smirnov,Resonant amplification of𝜈 oscillations in matter and solar-neutrino spectroscopy,Il Nuovo Cimento C9 (1986) 17

work page 1986
[28]

Barger, K

V.D. Barger, K. Whisnant, S. Pakvasa and R.J.N. Phillips,Matter Effects on Three-Neutrino Oscillations,Phys. Rev. D22(1980) 2718

work page 1980
[29]

Hkkm2014 flux table one year average

M. Honda, “Hkkm2014 flux table one year average.” http://www-rccn.icrr.u-tokyo.ac.jp/mhonda/public/nflx2014/index.html, 2014

work page 2014
[30]

Wallraff and C

M. Wallraff and C. Wiebusch,Calculation of oscillation probabilities of atmospheric neutrinos using nucraft,Comput. Phys. Commun.197(2015) 185

work page 2015
[31]

Dziewonski and D.L

A.M. Dziewonski and D.L. Anderson,Preliminary reference earth model, Phys. Earth Planet. Inter. 25 (1981) 297

work page 1981
[32]

GENIE Collaborationcollaboration, Neutrino-nucleon cross-section model tuning in genie v3, Phys. Rev. D104 (2021) 072009

work page 2021
[33]

Duncan, A.J

F. Duncan, A.J. Noble and D. Sinclair,The construction and anticipated science of SNOLAB,Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.60(2010) 163

work page 2010
[34]

Duyang, Hongyue, Li, Teng, Liu, Jiaxi, Liu, Zhen, Luo, Wuming, Ma, Wing Yan et al.,A multi-purpose reconstruction method based on machine learning for atmospheric neutrinos at juno, EPJ Web of Conf.295(2024) 03002

work page 2024
[35]

Super-Kamiokandecollaboration, Study of the atmospheric neutrino flux in the multi-GeV energy range,Phys. Lett. B436 (1998) 33 [hep-ex/9805006]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998
[36]

Wilks,The Large-Sample Distribution of the Likelihood Ratio for Testing Composite Hypotheses, Annals Math

S.S. Wilks,The Large-Sample Distribution of the Likelihood Ratio for Testing Composite Hypotheses, Annals Math. Statist.9 (1938) 60

work page 1938
[37]

Laboratori nazionali del gran sasso

“Laboratori nazionali del gran sasso.”https://www.lngs.infn.it/en, 2025

work page 2025
[38]

Kamioka observatory

“Kamioka observatory.”https://www-sk.icrr.u-tokyo.ac.jp/en/, 2025. – 15 –

work page 2025

[1] [1]

Pontecorvo,Neutrino Experiments and the Problem of Conservation of Leptonic Charge,Zh

B. Pontecorvo,Neutrino Experiments and the Problem of Conservation of Leptonic Charge,Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.53(1967) 1717

work page 1967

[2] [2]

Z. Maki, M. Nakagawa and S. Sakata,Remarks on the Unified Model of Elementary Particles,Prog. Theor. Phys.28 (1962) 870 [https://academic.oup.com/ptp/article-pdf/28/5/870/5258750/28-5-870.pdf]

work page 1962

[3] [3]

Fukugita and T

M. Fukugita and T. Yanagida,Baryogenesis Without Grand Unification,Phys. Lett. B174 (1986) 45

work page 1986

[4] [4]

Buchmüller and M

W. Buchmüller and M. Plümacher,Baryon asymmetry and neutrino mixing, Phys. Lett. B389(1996) 73

work page 1996

[5] [5]

Buchmüller, P

W. Buchmüller, P. Di Bari and M. Plümacher,Leptogenesis for pedestrians,Ann. Phys.315(2005) 305

work page 2005

[6] [6]

Buchmüller, R

W. Buchmüller, R. Peccei and T. Yanagida,Leptogenesis as the origin of matter,Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.55(2005) 311

work page 2005

[7] [7]

Pilaftsis,CP violation and baryogenesis due to heavy majorana neutrinos, Phys

A. Pilaftsis,CP violation and baryogenesis due to heavy majorana neutrinos, Phys. Rev. D56(1997) 5431

work page 1997

[8] [8]

Pascoli, S.T

S. Pascoli, S.T. Petcov and A. Riotto,Connecting low energy leptonic𝑐 𝑝violation to leptogenesis, Phys. Rev. D75(2007) 083511

work page 2007

[9] [9]

Hagedorn, R.N

C. Hagedorn, R.N. Mohapatra, E. Molinaro, C.C. Nishi and S.T. Petcov,Cp violation in the lepton sector and implications for leptogenesis, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A33 (2018) 1842006 [https://doi.org/10.1142/S0217751X1842006X]

work page doi:10.1142/s0217751x1842006x 2018

[10] [10]

Branco, R

G.C. Branco, R. González Felipe and F.R. Joaquim,Leptonic 𝑐 𝑝violation,Rev. Mod. Phys.84(2012) 515

work page 2012

[11] [11]

T2Kcollaboration, Measurements of neutrino oscillation parameters from the T2K experiment using 3.6 × 1021 protons on target,Eur. Phys. J. C83(2023) 782 [2303.03222]

work page arXiv 2023

[12] [12]

NOvAcollaboration, Improved measurement of neutrino oscillation parameters by the NOvA experiment,Phys. Rev. D106 (2022) 032004 [2108.08219]

work page arXiv 2022

[13] [13]

Super-Kamiokandecollaboration, Atmospheric neutrino oscillation analysis with external constraints in Super-Kamiokande I-IV,Phys. Rev. D97(2018) 072001 [1710.09126]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

[14] [14]

2020 Global reassessment of the neutrino oscillation picture

P.F. de Salas, D.V. Forero, S. Gariazzo, P. Martínez-Miravé, O. Mena, C.A. Ternes et al.,2020 global reassessment of the neutrino oscillation picture,JHEP 02(2021) 071 [2006.11237]

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2020

[15] [15]

The fate of hints: updated global analysis of three-ﬂavor neutrino oscillations,

I. Esteban, M.C. Gonzalez-Garcia, M. Maltoni, T. Schwetz and A. Zhou,The fate of hints: updated global analysis of three-flavor neutrino oscillations,JHEP 09(2020) 178 [2007.14792]

work page arXiv 2020

[16] [16]

Nufit 5.3 (2024)

I. Esteban, M.C. Gonzalez-Garcia, M. Maltoni, T. Schwetz and A. Zhou, “Nufit 5.3 (2024).” www.nu-fit.org, 2024

work page 2024

[17] [17]

JUNOcollaboration,JUNO sensitivity to low energy atmospheric neutrino spectra,Eur. Phys. J. C81 (2021) 10 [2103.09908]

work page arXiv 2021

[18] [18]

Ivanova, A.S

A.D. Ivanova, A.S. Sheshukov and O.B. Samoylov,Preliminary Estimation of the Atmospheric Neutrinos Detection Efficiency in NOvA,Phys. Part. Nucl. Lett.21(2024) 631

work page 2024

[19] [19]

Honda, M.S

M. Honda, M.S. Athar, T. Kajita, K. Kasahara and S. Midorikawa,Atmospheric neutrino flux calculation using the nrlmsise-00 atmospheric model, Phys. Rev. D92 (2015) 023004. – 14 –

work page 2015

[20] [20]

Honda, T

M. Honda, T. Kajita, K. Kasahara and S. Midorikawa,Improvement of low energy atmospheric neutrino flux calculation using the jam nuclear interaction model,Phys. Rev. D83(2011) 123001

work page 2011

[21] [21]

Honda, T

M. Honda, T. Kajita, K. Kasahara, S. Midorikawa and T. Sanuki,Calculation of atmospheric neutrino flux using the interaction model calibrated with atmospheric muon data,Phys. Rev. D75(2007) 043006

work page 2007

[22] [22]

Honda, T

M. Honda, T. Kajita, K. Kasahara and S. Midorikawa,New calculation of the atmospheric neutrino flux in a three-dimensional scheme,Phys. Rev. D70(2004) 043008

work page 2004

[23] [23]

JUNOcollaboration, JUNO physics and detector, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.123(2022) 103927 [2104.02565]

work page arXiv 2022

[24] [24]

JUNOcollaboration, Neutrino Physics with JUNO, J. Phys. G43(2016) 030401 [1507.05613]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

[25] [25]

Wolfenstein,Neutrino Oscillations in Matter,Phys

L. Wolfenstein,Neutrino Oscillations in Matter,Phys. Rev. D17(1978) 2369

work page 1978

[26] [26]

Mikheyev and A.Y

S.P. Mikheyev and A.Y. Smirnov,Resonance Amplification of Oscillations in Matter and Spectroscopy of Solar Neutrinos,Sov. J. Nucl. Phys.42(1985) 913

work page 1985

[27] [27]

Mikheyev and A.Y

S.P. Mikheyev and A.Y. Smirnov,Resonant amplification of𝜈 oscillations in matter and solar-neutrino spectroscopy,Il Nuovo Cimento C9 (1986) 17

work page 1986

[28] [28]

Barger, K

V.D. Barger, K. Whisnant, S. Pakvasa and R.J.N. Phillips,Matter Effects on Three-Neutrino Oscillations,Phys. Rev. D22(1980) 2718

work page 1980

[29] [29]

Hkkm2014 flux table one year average

M. Honda, “Hkkm2014 flux table one year average.” http://www-rccn.icrr.u-tokyo.ac.jp/mhonda/public/nflx2014/index.html, 2014

work page 2014

[30] [30]

Wallraff and C

M. Wallraff and C. Wiebusch,Calculation of oscillation probabilities of atmospheric neutrinos using nucraft,Comput. Phys. Commun.197(2015) 185

work page 2015

[31] [31]

Dziewonski and D.L

A.M. Dziewonski and D.L. Anderson,Preliminary reference earth model, Phys. Earth Planet. Inter. 25 (1981) 297

work page 1981

[32] [32]

GENIE Collaborationcollaboration, Neutrino-nucleon cross-section model tuning in genie v3, Phys. Rev. D104 (2021) 072009

work page 2021

[33] [33]

Duncan, A.J

F. Duncan, A.J. Noble and D. Sinclair,The construction and anticipated science of SNOLAB,Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.60(2010) 163

work page 2010

[34] [34]

Duyang, Hongyue, Li, Teng, Liu, Jiaxi, Liu, Zhen, Luo, Wuming, Ma, Wing Yan et al.,A multi-purpose reconstruction method based on machine learning for atmospheric neutrinos at juno, EPJ Web of Conf.295(2024) 03002

work page 2024

[35] [35]

Super-Kamiokandecollaboration, Study of the atmospheric neutrino flux in the multi-GeV energy range,Phys. Lett. B436 (1998) 33 [hep-ex/9805006]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

[36] [36]

Wilks,The Large-Sample Distribution of the Likelihood Ratio for Testing Composite Hypotheses, Annals Math

S.S. Wilks,The Large-Sample Distribution of the Likelihood Ratio for Testing Composite Hypotheses, Annals Math. Statist.9 (1938) 60

work page 1938

[37] [37]

Laboratori nazionali del gran sasso

“Laboratori nazionali del gran sasso.”https://www.lngs.infn.it/en, 2025

work page 2025

[38] [38]

Kamioka observatory

“Kamioka observatory.”https://www-sk.icrr.u-tokyo.ac.jp/en/, 2025. – 15 –

work page 2025