pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.20508 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-22 · ⚛️ nucl-th · hep-ex· hep-ph· hep-th

Recognition: unknown

Charged-Current Neutrino-Induced Single-Pion Production in the Superscaling Approach and Relativistic Distorted-Wave Impulse Approximation

Jesus Gonzalez-Rosa , Alexis Nikolakopoulos , Maria B. Barbaro , Juan A. Caballero , Ra\'ul Gonz\'alez-Jim\'enez , Guillermo D. Megias
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-09 23:22 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ nucl-th hep-exhep-phhep-th
keywords neutrino interactionssingle pion productioncharged currentSuSAv2RDWIAnuclear effectsT2KMINERvA
0
0 comments X

The pith

SuSAv2 and RDWIA models are compared directly to charged-current neutrino single-pion production data from T2K, MINERvA and MiniBooNE on carbon targets.

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

The paper conducts a side-by-side evaluation of the SuperScaling Approach version 2 and the Relativistic Distorted-Wave Impulse Approximation for describing how neutrinos produce a single pion in charged-current interactions with nuclei. SuSAv2 incorporates superscaling relations extracted from electron scattering and uses the ANL-Osaka dynamical coupled-channel model to separate pion charge states, while RDWIA employs relativistic wave functions for the outgoing nucleon and the Ghent group's hybrid model for the boson-pion-nucleon interaction. The comparison spans neutrino energies from a few hundred MeV to about 20 GeV and focuses on differences in predicted cross sections against experimental measurements. A sympathetic reader would care because these models are used to interpret data from oscillation experiments, and their relative performance indicates where nuclear final-state effects or multi-nucleon contributions remain poorly controlled.

Core claim

The SuSAv2 model applies superscaling to scale the single-nucleon inelastic structure functions from the ANL-Osaka DCC calculation, allowing explicit separation of pi+, pi0 and pi- channels, while the RDWIA model uses relativistic distorted waves for the final nucleon and the Ghent hybrid vertex; both are evaluated in the impulse approximation and compared to measured differential and total cross sections from T2K, MINERvA and MiniBooNE on 12C, revealing kinematic regions where the two frameworks diverge.

What carries the argument

The central mechanisms are the SuSAv2 superscaling relations combined with ANL-Osaka structure functions for channel separation, and the RDWIA relativistic distorted-wave treatment of final-state nucleons paired with the Ghent hybrid boson-pion-nucleon vertex.

If this is right

  • The comparison identifies specific energy and angle ranges where one model reproduces data better than the other, guiding selection of theoretical input for neutrino event generators.
  • Channel-separated predictions from SuSAv2 allow direct tests against neutral-pion and charged-pion data to constrain the underlying nucleon resonance contributions.
  • Discrepancies between the models highlight the need to incorporate consistent treatments of final-state interactions when extracting neutrino oscillation parameters.
  • Extension of both frameworks to other nuclear targets becomes feasible once the carbon benchmark is established.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the models continue to underpredict or overpredict data at higher energies, it would indicate that explicit two-nucleon currents or pion absorption channels must be added beyond the impulse approximation.
  • The separation of pion charge states in SuSAv2 could be used to test isospin symmetry assumptions when comparing neutrino and antineutrino data sets from the same experiment.
  • A joint fit of both models to the combined T2K, MINERvA and MiniBooNE data sets might reveal a common energy-dependent correction factor that could be applied to improve predictions for future experiments like DUNE.

Load-bearing premise

The calculations assume the impulse approximation remains valid and that the chosen single-nucleon structure functions or vertex models capture the dominant physics without large corrections from final-state interactions or multi-nucleon processes over the full energy range.

What would settle it

A high-statistics measurement of the differential cross section in a kinematic bin (for example, low momentum transfer and forward pion angle) where the two models differ by more than 30 percent, if the data lie outside the uncertainty band of both predictions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.20508 by Alexis Nikolakopoulos, Guillermo D. Megias, Jesus Gonzalez-Rosa, Juan A. Caballero, Maria B. Barbaro, Ra\'ul Gonz\'alez-Jim\'enez.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Inclusive-DCC (red continuous line) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. CC1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Normalized neutrino flux from MiniBooNE [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. MiniBooNE flux-averaged CC1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. MiniBooNE flux-averaged CC1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. MiniBooNE flux-averaged CC1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. MiniBooNE flux-averaged CC1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. MiniBooNE flux-averaged CC1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Normalized neutrino (red line) and antineutrino (blue dashed line) fluxes from MINERvA [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. MINER [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. MINERvA flux-averaged CC [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. MINERvA flux-averaged CC1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. MINERvA flux-averaged CC1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. Normalized neutrino flux from T2K [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15. T2K flux-averaged CC1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_15.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

In this work, we present a detailed comparison of the SuSAv2 (SuperScaling Approach version 2) and RDWIA (Relativistic Distorted-Wave Impulse Approximation) models with measurements of charged-current neutrino-induced single-pion production from different experiments (T2K, MINERvA and MiniBooNE), studying the differences between the two theoretical descriptions. The neutrino energy range in these experiments spans from hundreds of MeV to roughly 20 GeV, and the nuclear targets are mainly composed of $^{12}$C. The SuSAv2 model uses the single-nucleon inelastic structure functions from the ANL-Osaka DCC model, which allows for a separation of pion production channels, distinguishing between the $\pi^+$, $\pi^-$ and $\pi^0$ final states. In the RDWIA approach, the Hybrid model developed by the Ghent group is used for the description of the boson-pion-nucleon vertex.

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.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript compares the SuSAv2 superscaling approach (using ANL-Osaka DCC single-nucleon structure functions that separate π⁺, π⁻, and π⁰ channels) with the RDWIA model (using the Ghent hybrid boson-pion-nucleon vertex) for charged-current neutrino-induced single-pion production on carbon targets. Predictions are confronted with data from T2K, MINERvA, and MiniBooNE across neutrino energies from hundreds of MeV to ~20 GeV, with the goal of quantifying differences between the two theoretical frameworks under the impulse approximation.

Significance. A clear, quantitative side-by-side assessment of these two models against the same data sets would help neutrino-oscillation experiments select appropriate generators for single-pion backgrounds. The explicit channel separation in SuSAv2 and the relativistic treatment of final-state distortions in RDWIA are both strengths; however, the significance hinges on whether the paper supplies differential distributions, integrated cross sections, and goodness-of-fit metrics rather than qualitative statements alone.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and results] The abstract states that a 'detailed comparison' is presented, yet supplies no quantitative measures (e.g., χ² values, integrated cross-section ratios, or kinematic coverage statements). If the results section (presumably §4 or §5) likewise omits error bands, baseline comparisons to other generators, or explicit discussion of kinematic acceptance, the central claim that the two models differ in a physically meaningful way cannot be evaluated.
  2. [Theory sections (SuSAv2 and RDWIA descriptions)] The models are constructed within the impulse approximation. The manuscript should explicitly state (in the theory or discussion section) whether multi-nucleon contributions or additional final-state interactions beyond the distorted-wave treatment are expected to be negligible in the reported energy range; otherwise the comparison risks underestimating systematic uncertainties at the higher end of the MiniBooNE/MINERvA coverage.
minor comments (2)
  1. [§2] Notation for the single-nucleon structure functions and the boson-pion-nucleon vertex should be unified across the two model descriptions to facilitate direct comparison.
  2. [Figures] Figure captions should include the specific kinematic cuts applied to each data set (e.g., W < 1.4 GeV or Q² range) so that readers can judge the overlap with the models' validity domains.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading of our manuscript and the constructive comments. We have revised the paper to address the points raised regarding quantitative aspects of the comparison and the discussion of model limitations.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The abstract states that a 'detailed comparison' is presented, yet supplies no quantitative measures (e.g., χ² values, integrated cross-section ratios, or kinematic coverage statements). If the results section (presumably §4 or §5) likewise omits error bands, baseline comparisons to other generators, or explicit discussion of kinematic acceptance, the central claim that the two models differ in a physically meaningful way cannot be evaluated.

    Authors: We thank the referee for this observation. The manuscript already includes multiple figures showing differential cross sections for key observables from T2K, MINERvA, and MiniBooNE, with the two models overlaid on the data to highlight differences. To make the comparison more quantitative, we have added integrated cross-section ratios (model/data) for selected bins in the revised results section, along with a table summarizing the kinematic coverage and acceptance for each experiment. Error bands reflecting theoretical uncertainties are present in the figures; we have clarified this in the text. While we have not computed χ² values (due to the correlated systematics in the data and the absence of a single global fit), the side-by-side distributions allow direct evaluation of where the models agree or diverge. A brief reference to the GENIE generator has also been included for context. revision: partial

  2. Referee: The models are constructed within the impulse approximation. The manuscript should explicitly state (in the theory or discussion section) whether multi-nucleon contributions or additional final-state interactions beyond the distorted-wave treatment are expected to be negligible in the reported energy range; otherwise the comparison risks underestimating systematic uncertainties at the higher end of the MiniBooNE/MINERvA coverage.

    Authors: We agree that this clarification is necessary. In the revised manuscript we have added an explicit paragraph in the theory section and expanded the discussion to state that both SuSAv2 and RDWIA are formulated within the impulse approximation. Multi-nucleon (2p2h) contributions are not included and are expected to become non-negligible above ~1 GeV, potentially affecting the description of the higher-energy MiniBooNE and MINERvA data. For RDWIA, the relativistic optical potential accounts for final-state distortions of the outgoing nucleon, but additional pion final-state interactions (e.g., absorption or charge exchange) are not modeled beyond the single-nucleon vertex. We now note these limitations and their implications for the energy range up to ~20 GeV. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity identified

full rationale

The paper performs a model-to-data comparison of SuSAv2 (using ANL-Osaka DCC structure functions) and RDWIA (using Ghent Hybrid vertex) against external measurements from T2K, MINERvA, and MiniBooNE on carbon targets. No load-bearing step in the presented analysis reduces a prediction to a fitted parameter or definition drawn from the same data; the impulse-approximation framework and single-nucleon inputs are referenced from prior independent literature, and the central activity is external validation rather than self-referential derivation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The comparison rests on the validity of the impulse approximation and the accuracy of the chosen single-nucleon models; no new free parameters or invented entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Impulse approximation holds for the kinematics studied
    Both SuSAv2 and RDWIA are built on the impulse approximation for neutrino-nucleus interactions.
  • domain assumption ANL-Osaka DCC model provides accurate single-nucleon inelastic structure functions
    SuSAv2 uses these structure functions to separate pion channels.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5508 in / 1298 out tokens · 38437 ms · 2026-05-09T23:22:14.995376+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

79 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Charged-Current Neutrino-Induced Single-Pion Production in the Superscaling Approach and Relativistic Distorted-Wave Impulse Approximation

    and RDWIA (Relativistic Distorted-Wave Impulse Approximation) models with measurements of charged-current neutrino-induced single-pion production from different experiments (T2K, MIN- ERvA and MiniBooNE), studying the differences between the two theoretical descriptions. The neutrino energy range in these experiments spans from hundreds of MeV to roughly ...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  2. [2]

    MiniBooNE The MiniBooNE experiment uses mineral oil, CH 2, as a target. Fig. 3 shows the associated neutrino flux for CC1πstudies. The flux ranges from 0 to 3 GeV, although only values between 0.5 and 2 GeV are considered for the experimental analyses [57, 58]. The flux peaks around Eν ∼0.5 GeV. Fig. 4 presents the CC1π 0 single-differential cross sec- ti...

  3. [3]

    As shown in Fig

    MINERvA In this experiment, the target material is hydrocarbon (CH). As shown in Fig. 9, the flux for the different pion production channels peaks at approximately 3.5 GeV and extends up to 20 GeV, although it becomes negligible above 7 GeV. This energy range is significantly larger than that of the MiniBooNE experiment discussed pre- viously. In Fig. 10,...

  4. [4]

    la Caixa

    T2K In this section, the results for CC1π + at T2K kine- matics are shown. The target of the T2K experiment is C8H8. The normalized neutrino flux is shown in Fig. 14. It peaks at around 0.6 GeV, covering an energy range similar to the MiniBooNE flux (Sect. III 1). In this case, the restrictionW exp <2.0 GeV is applied, so contribu- tions from processes be...

    work page doi:10.13039/501100011033/feder 2023

  5. [5]

    Taroni, Nature Physics11, 891 (2015)

    A. Taroni, Nature Physics11, 891 (2015)

    2015

  6. [6]

    Abeet al.(T2K), Nature580, 339 (2020), [Erratum: Nature 583, E16 (2020)], arXiv:1910.03887 [hep-ex]

    K. Abe et al. (T2K Collaboration), Nature580, 339 (2020), [Erratum: Nature 583, E16 (2020)], arXiv:1910.03887 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2020

  7. [7]

    Abubakar et al

    S. Abubakar et al. (The NOvA Collaboration and The T2K Collaboration), Nature646, 818 (2025), arXiv:2510.19888 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    The MiniBooNE Experiment,

    A. A. Aguilar-Arevalo, “The MiniBooNE Experiment,” (2004), arXiv:hep-ex/0408074

    work page arXiv 2004

  9. [9]

    Website of the Mi- croBooNE Experiment(https://microboone.fnal.gov/),

    MicroBooNE Collaboration, “Website of the Mi- croBooNE Experiment(https://microboone.fnal.gov/),” (2025), last accessed January 2025

    2025

  10. [10]

    Website of the T2K Experiment(https://T2K-experiment.org/),

    T2K Collaboration, “Website of the T2K Experiment(https://T2K-experiment.org/),” (2025), last accessed January 2025

    2025

  11. [11]

    Website of the MINERvA Experiment(https://minerva.fnal.gov/) ,

    MINERvA Collaboration, “Website of the MINERvA Experiment(https://minerva.fnal.gov/) ,” (2025), last accessed January 2025

    2025

  12. [12]

    Website of the NOvA Experi- ment(https://novaexperiment.fnal.gov/),

    NOvA Collaboration, “Website of the NOvA Experi- ment(https://novaexperiment.fnal.gov/),” (2025), last accessed January 2025

    2025

  13. [13]

    Hyper-Kamiokande Design Report

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

    work page Pith review arXiv 2018

  14. [14]

    Masud, M

    M. Masud, M. Bishai, and P. Mehta, Scientific Reports 9, 352 (2019)

    2019

  15. [15]

    ArgoNeuT: A Liquid Argon Time Pro- jection Chamber Test in the NuMI Beamline,

    M. Soderberg, “ArgoNeuT: A Liquid Argon Time Pro- jection Chamber Test in the NuMI Beamline,” (2009), arXiv:0910.3433 [physics]

    work page arXiv 2009

  16. [16]

    Rein and L

    D. Rein and L. M. Sehgal, Annals of Physics133, 79 (1981)

    1981

  17. [17]

    Fogli and G

    G. Fogli and G. Nardulli, Nuclear Physics B160, 116 (1979)

    1979

  18. [18]

    Lalakulich, E

    O. Lalakulich, E. A. Paschos, and G. Piranishvili, Phys. Rev. D74, 014009 (2006)

    2006

  19. [19]

    P. A. Schreiner and F. von Hippel, Physical Review Let- ters30, 339 (1973)

    1973

  20. [20]

    Matsui, T

    K. Matsui, T. Sato, and T. S. H. Lee, Physical Review C 72, 025204 (2005), publisher: American Physical Society

    2005

  21. [21]

    Hern´ andez, J

    E. Hern´ andez, J. Nieves, and M. J. V. Vacas, Phys. Rev. D87, 113009 (2013)

    2013

  22. [22]

    Martini and M

    M. Martini and M. Ericson, Phys. Rev. C90, 025501 (2014)

    2014

  23. [23]

    D.-L. Yao, L. Alvarez-Ruso, and M. Vicente Vacas, Physics Letters B794, 109 (2019)

    2019

  24. [24]

    Sogarwal and P

    H. Sogarwal and P. Shukla, Nuclear Physics A1027, 122494 (2022)

    2022

  25. [25]

    Garc´ ıa-Marcos, T

    J. Garc´ ıa-Marcos, T. Franco-Munoz, R. Gonz´ alez- Jim´ enez, A. Nikolakopoulos, N. Jachowicz, and J. M. Ud´ ıas, Phys. Rev. C109, 024608 (2024)

    2024

  26. [26]

    Q. Yan, K. Niewczas, A. Nikolakopoulos, R. Gonz´ alez- Jim´ enez, N. Jachowicz, X. Lu, J. Sobczyk, and Y. Zheng, Journal of High Energy Physics2024, 141 (2024)

    2024

  27. [27]

    C. J. Horowitz, H. Kim, D. P. Murdock, and S. Pollock, Phys. Rev. C48, 3078 (1993)

    1993

  28. [28]

    W. M. Alberico, M. B. Barbaro, S. M. Bilenky, J. A. C. C. Giunti, C. Maieron, E. M. d. Guerra, and J. M. Ud´ ıas, Nucl. Phys. A623, 471 (1997)

    1997

  29. [29]

    Nieves, I

    J. Nieves, I. R. Simo, and M. J. V. Vacas, Physical Re- view C83, 045501 (2011)

    2011

  30. [30]

    Rocco, S

    N. Rocco, S. X. Nakamura, T.-S. H. Lee, and A. Lovato, Phys. Rev. C100, 045503 (2019)

    2019

  31. [31]

    Gonz´ alez-Jim´ enez, A

    R. Gonz´ alez-Jim´ enez, A. Nikolakopoulos, N. Jachowicz, and J. M. Ud´ ıas, Phys. Rev. C100, 045501 (2019), pub- lisher: American Physical Society

    2019

  32. [32]

    Hern´ andez, J

    E. Hern´ andez, J. Nieves, and M. Valverde, Phys. Rev. D76, 033005 (2007)

    2007

  33. [33]

    Gonz´ alez-Jim´ enez, N

    R. Gonz´ alez-Jim´ enez, N. Jachowicz, K. Niewczas, J. Nys, V. Pandey, T. Van Cuyck, and N. Van Dessel, Phys. Rev. 8 D95, 113007 (2017)

    2017

  34. [34]

    Gonz´ alez-Jim´ enez, K

    R. Gonz´ alez-Jim´ enez, K. Niewczas, and N. Jachowicz, Phys. Rev. D97, 013004 (2018)

    2018

  35. [35]

    Nikolakopoulos, R

    A. Nikolakopoulos, R. Gonz´ alez-Jim´ enez, N. Jachow- icz, and J. Ud´ ıas, Physical Review D107(2023), 10.1103/physrevd.107.053007

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.107.053007 2023

  36. [36]

    Nakamura, H

    S. Nakamura, H. Kamano, and T. Sato, Physical Review D92, 074024 (2015)

    2015

  37. [37]

    Nakamura, H

    S. Nakamura, H. Kamano, and T. Sato, Physical Review D99, 031301 (2019)

    2019

  38. [38]

    Website of the ANL-Osaka DCC model(https://www.rcnp.osaka-u.ac.jp/ anl-osk/),

    Osaka University, “Website of the ANL-Osaka DCC model(https://www.rcnp.osaka-u.ac.jp/ anl-osk/),” (2021), last accessed October 2023

    2021

  39. [39]

    T. Sato, D. Uno, and T.-S. H. Lee, Phys. Rev. C67, 065201 (2003)

    2003

  40. [40]

    Kamano, S

    H. Kamano, S. X. Nakamura, T.-S. H. Lee, and T. Sato, Phys. Rev. C88, 035209 (2013)

    2013

  41. [41]

    Gonzalez-Rosa, G

    J. Gonzalez-Rosa, G. D. Megias, J. A. Caballero, M. B. Barbaro, and J. M. Franco-Patino, Phys. Rev. D108, 113008 (2023)

    2023

  42. [42]

    Isaacson, W

    J. Isaacson, W. Jay, A. Lovato, P. Machado, A. Niko- lakopoulos, N. Rocco, and N. Steinberg, Phys. Rev. D 113, 036005 (2026), arXiv:2508.19213 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2026

  43. [43]

    Kabirnezhad, Physical Review D97, 013002 (2018)

    M. Kabirnezhad, Physical Review D97, 013002 (2018)

    2018

  44. [44]

    Hayato and L

    Y. Hayato and L. Pickering, Eur. Phys. J. ST230, 4469 (2021), arXiv:2106.15809 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2021

  45. [45]

    Gonzalez-Rosa, G

    J. Gonzalez-Rosa, G. D. Megias, J. A. Caballero, and M. B. Barbaro, Phys. Rev. D111, 073002 (2025)

    2025

  46. [46]

    Nikolakopoulos, R

    A. Nikolakopoulos, R. Gonz´ alez-Jim´ enez, K. Niewczas, J. Sobczyk, and N. Jachowicz, Phys. Rev. D97, 093008 (2018)

    2018

  47. [47]

    T. W. Donnelly and I. Sick, Physical Review C60, 065502 (1999)

    1999

  48. [48]

    J. E. Amaro, M. B. Barbaro, J. A. Caballero, R. Gonz´ alez-Jim´ enez, G. D. Megias, and I. R. Simo, Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics47, 124001 (2020), publisher: IOP Publishing

    2020

  49. [49]

    J. E. Amaro, M. B. Barbaro, J. A. Caballero, T. W. Donnelly, R. Gonzalez-Jimenez, G. D. Megias, and I. R. Simo, Eur. Phys. J. ST230, 4321 (2021), eprint: 2106.02857

    work page arXiv 2021

  50. [50]

    Megias, J

    G. Megias, J. Amaro, M. Barbaro, J. Caballero, and T. Donnelly, Physical Review D94, 013012 (2016)

    2016

  51. [51]

    G. D. Megias, J. E. Amaro, M. B. Barbaro, J. A. Ca- ballero, T. W. Donnelly, and I. R. Simo, Phys. Rev. D 94, 093004 (2016), publisher: American Physical Society

    2016

  52. [52]

    G. D. Megias, M. B. Barbaro, J. A. Caballero, J. E. Amaro, T. W. Donnelly, I. R. Simo, and J. W. V. Or- den, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys.46, 015104 (2018), publisher: IOP Publishing

    2018

  53. [53]

    G. D. Megias, M. B. Barbaro, J. A. Caballero, and S. Dolan, Phys. Rev. D99, 113002 (2019)

    2019

  54. [54]

    Megias, T

    G. Megias, T. Donnelly, O. Moreno, C. Williamson, J. Caballero, R. Gonz´ alez-Jim´ enez, A. De Pace, M. Bar- baro, W. Alberico, M. Nardi, and J. Amaro, Physical Review D91, 073004 (2015)

    2015

  55. [55]

    Extensions of Superscaling from Relativistic Mean Field Theory: the SuSAv2 Model

    R. Gonzal´ ez-Jim´ enez, G. D. Megias, M. B. Barbaro, J. A. Caballero, and T. W. Donnelly, Phys. Rev. C90, 035501 (2014), eprint: 1407.8346

    work page Pith review arXiv 2014

  56. [56]

    Gonzalez-Rosa, G

    J. Gonzalez-Rosa, G. Megias, J. Caballero, and M. Bar- baro, Physical Review D105, 093009 (2022)

    2022

  57. [57]

    Charged-current neutrino interactions with nucleons and nuclei at intermediate energies (PhD thesis),

    G. D. Megias, “Charged-current neutrino interactions with nucleons and nuclei at intermediate energies (PhD thesis),” (2017)

    2017

  58. [58]

    M. B. Barbaro, J. A. Caballero, T. W. Donnelly, and C. Maieron, Physical Review C69, 035502 (2004)

    2004

  59. [59]

    Towards a more complete descrip- tion of final-state interactions in electroweak single pion production off atomic nuclei (PhD Thesis),

    A. Nikolakopoulos, “Towards a more complete descrip- tion of final-state interactions in electroweak single pion production off atomic nuclei (PhD Thesis),” (2021)

    2021

  60. [60]

    Gonz´ alez-Jim´ enezet al., Phys

    R. Gonz´ alez-Jim´ enezet al., Phys. Rev. C101, 015503 (2020), publisher: American Physical Society

    2020

  61. [61]

    Aguilar-Arevalo et al

    A. Aguilar-Arevalo et al. (MiniBooNE Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D83, 052007 (2011)

    2011

  62. [62]

    A. A. Aguilar-Arevalo et al. (MiniBooNE Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D83, 052009 (2011)

    2011

  63. [63]

    Abratenko et al

    P. Abratenko et al. (MicroBooNE Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D110, 092014 (2024)

    2024

  64. [64]

    C. L. McGivern et al. (MINERvA Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D94, 052005 (2016)

    2016

  65. [65]

    Altinok et al., Phys

    O. Altinok et al., Phys. Rev. D96, 072003 (2017)

    2017

  66. [66]

    Le et al

    T. Le et al. (MINERvA Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 100, 052008 (2019)

    2019

  67. [67]

    Sato, Eur

    T. Sato, Eur. Phys. J. ST230, 4409 (2021)

    2021

  68. [68]

    Updated 1pi production data. MINERvA Collab- oration

    “Updated 1pi production data. MINERvA Collab- oration.”https://minerva.fnal.gov/wp-content/ uploads/2017/03/Updated_1pi_data.pdf, Last ac- cessed: January 2026

    2017

  69. [69]

    Abe et al

    K. Abe et al. (The T2K Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 101, 012007 (2020)

    2020

  70. [70]

    Abubakar et al

    S. Abubakar et al. (NOvA Collaboration), (2025), arXiv:2511.05807 [hep-ex]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2025

  71. [71]

    Abe et al

    K. Abe et al. (T2K Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 151802 (2025), arXiv:2505.00516 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2025

  72. [72]

    Lozanoet al., Measurement of charged-currentν µ and ¯νµ cross sections on hydrocarbon in a shallow inelastic scattering region (2025), arXiv:2503.20043 [hep-ex]

    A. Lozano et al. (MINERvA Collaboration), (2025), arXiv:2503.20043 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2025

  73. [73]

    Abratenko et al

    P. Abratenko et al. (MicroBooNE Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 061802 (2025), arXiv:2503.23384 [hep- ex]

    work page arXiv 2025

  74. [74]

    Abe et al

    K. Abe et al. (T2K Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D95, 012010 (2017)

    2017

  75. [75]

    Dolan, G

    S. Dolan, G. D. Megias, and S. Bolognesi, Phys. Rev. D 101, 033003 (2020), arXiv:1905.08556 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2020

  76. [76]

    Papadopoulou et al

    A. Papadopoulou et al. (e4nu Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D103, 113003 (2021), arXiv:2009.07228 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2021

  77. [77]

    McKean, R

    J. McKean, R. Gonz´ alez-Jim´ enez, M. Kabirnezhad, J. M. Ud´ ıas, and Y. Uchida, Phys. Rev. D112, 032009 (2025)

    2025

  78. [78]

    Khachatryan et al

    M. Khachatryan et al. (CLAS and e4nu Collaborations), Nature599, 565 (2021)

    2021

  79. [79]

    J. M. Franco-Patino, R. Gonz´ alez-Jim´ enez, S. Dolan, M. B. Barbaro, J. A. Caballero, G. D. Megias, and J. M. Udias, Phys. Rev. D106, 113005 (2022). 9 1 1.5 2 0 2 4 6 8 10 F1 N 1 1.5 2 0 0.5 1 1.5 1 1.5 2 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 Incl.-DCC -DCC FIG. 1. Inclusive-DCC (red continuous line) andπ-DCC (blue dashed line) inelastic structure functionsF 1 =m N W1 ...

    2022