pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.28671 · v1 · pith:6QNLIRNYnew · submitted 2026-05-27 · ✦ hep-ex · hep-ph

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

Stephen Dolan , Luke Pickering , Patrick Stowell , Callum Wilkinson , Clarence Wret This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-29 09:12 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ex hep-ph
keywords neutrino oscillationsneutrino-nucleus interactionssystematic uncertaintiesCP violationaccelerator neutrinosnear detectorsnuclear physicsmass ordering
0
0 comments X

The pith

Uncertainties in neutrino-nucleus interaction models are the dominant systematic challenge for next-generation accelerator neutrino oscillation experiments.

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

This review examines how uncertainties in modeling neutrino interactions with nuclei limit the precision of oscillation parameter measurements at accelerator facilities. These effects arise from complex nuclear physics details that alter predicted event rates and thus the inferred oscillation probabilities. The authors argue that as data volumes grow, controlling these uncertainties becomes essential to reach the sensitivity needed for detecting leptonic CP violation and determining the neutrino mass ordering. They survey prospects for mitigation through theoretical advances and near-detector rate measurements taken before oscillations occur. A sympathetic reader would care because unresolved nuclear uncertainties could prevent experiments from achieving their core physics objectives or revealing new phenomena.

Core claim

Accelerator-based neutrino oscillation experiments have the potential to characterize charge-parity violation in the lepton sector, determine the neutrino mass ordering, and explore physics beyond three-flavour mixing, but this requires increasingly precise control over systematic uncertainties from neutrino-nucleus interaction modeling, which the paper states can be addressed through state-of-the-art theoretical modelling combined with precise near-detector measurements of interaction event rates.

What carries the argument

Neutrino-nucleus interaction model uncertainties, which stem from subtle nuclear physics details and directly affect the event rates used to infer oscillation probabilities.

If this is right

  • Next-generation experiments will require reduced nuclear uncertainties to measure CP violation and mass ordering.
  • Near-detector measurements of interaction rates before oscillations can constrain the models.
  • Theoretical improvements in neutrino-nucleus modeling must advance alongside experimental data collection.
  • Without sufficient reduction, these uncertainties will prevent the experiments from reaching their target precision.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If near-detector constraints prove insufficient, dedicated neutrino scattering experiments may become necessary to isolate nuclear effects.
  • Cross-checks between different accelerator experiments' near detectors could reveal inconsistencies in current interaction models.
  • Better handling of these uncertainties might also improve analyses in non-oscillation neutrino physics programs.

Load-bearing premise

That state-of-the-art theoretical modelling combined with precise near-detector measurements will reduce nuclear-physics uncertainties to an acceptable level for next-generation oscillation analyses.

What would settle it

Demonstration that residual neutrino-nucleus interaction uncertainties still dominate the error budget in a next-generation oscillation analysis after applying current best models and near-detector constraints.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.28671 by Callum Wilkinson, Clarence Wret, Luke Pickering, Patrick Stowell, Stephen Dolan.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: A schematic of an LBL neutrino oscillation experiment. The probability for a muon neutrino to oscillate to a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The shape of the predicted muon neutrino [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The DUNE and T2K/Hyper-K unoscillated, νµ → νµ survival, and νµ → νe appearance fluxes, shown as a function of neutrino energy [15, 26]. Each flux is normalised so that the maximum corresponds to 1. inferred from the rate of neutrino interactions observed in the detector. Eq. 1 provides a simplified general expression for the rate of neutrino interactions in neutrino oscillation experiments, neglecting bac… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The evolution of the muon neutrino and antineutrino [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Nuclear spectral functions predicted by three [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The νµ – 40Ar interaction cross section as a function of neutrino energy, divided by the neutrino energy, for various channels as predicted by the GENIE event generator in the 10a configuration. The shape of the neutrino fluxes for currently running and planned LBL neutrino oscillation and neutrino interaction experiments are overlaid. aforementioned neutrino interaction channels over a wide range of neutr… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The evolution of the cross section for various CC [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The differential νµ – 40Ar CCINC cross section as a function of the hadronic invariant mass integrated over the DUNE neutrino-enhanced ND flux, broken down by interaction channel for the GENIE 10a and NuWro 25 event generator configurations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The differential cross section as a function of the energy transfer, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The differential muon-neutrino cross section as a function of the ratio between the visible hadronic energy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The cross section for neutrino–water interactions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Comparison of the differential cross section as a function of reconstructed neutrino energy at the ND and FD [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Comparison of the shapes of the relative and absolute bias in the reconstructed neutrino energy proxy with respect [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Comparison of the shape of the relative and absolute bias in the reconstructed neutrino energy proxy with respect [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Comparison of the shape of the absolute bias in the reconstructed neutrino energy proxy with respect to the true [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Neutrino energy reconstruction bias for νµ – H2O CC0π plus a representative CCNπ ± background in which the final-state charged pions are below a given kinetic energy (K.E.) threshold, for a variety of thresholds. Interactions are simulated with the oscillated Hyper-K/T2K FD flux and the NEUT 580 event generator configuration. 3.3.6. Radiative photons As discussed in Sec. 2, radiative corrections of the tr… view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: The T2K measurement of the νµCC0π double￾differential cross section on C8H8 as a function of outgoing muon kinematics [303] is shown overlaid with predictions from the GENIE CRPA model, broken down by interaction channel. π-abs refers to contributions involving pion￾absorption FSI. Each row has a common y-axis limit, but they vary across rows. The χ 2 value given in the legend indicates the level of agree… view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Comparisons of event generator configurations to measurements of the transverse momentum imbalance in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_18.png] view at source ↗
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: The hadronic mass spectrum for νµ – 40Ar CCINC events in the DUNE ND and SBND, assuming the struck nucleon is at rest. As the SBND flux is not currently public, the SciBooNE flux was used [432] as a very close approximation. Each figure is broken down by the pion content in the final state. state have a larger proportion of contributions from the ∆(1232) resonance than the CC1π 01p final state. Such measu… view at source ↗
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: CC1π ± [281] (left) and CCNπ ± [447] (right) measurements made by MINERvA on a C8H8 target compared to current generator models. Dashed lines show the contributions that come primarily from the Delta resonance (W < 1.3 GeV). The χ 2 values are shown in the legend. The CCNπ + measurement includes all pions in an event, not just the highest momentum pion. The χ 2 shown in the legend indicate the level of ag… view at source ↗
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: MINERvA’s measurements of the differential [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p036_21.png] view at source ↗
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: A measurement of the CCNπ 0Mp (N > 0,M > 0) (left) cross section from MINERvA on C8H8 [293] and the CC1π +Np (N > 0) cross section from T2K on C8H8 [290] (right) as a function of reconstructed initial state nucleon momentum, dσ/d pN, compared to current generator models. Dashed lines show the contributions that come from non￾CCRPP processes, for example multi-pion and DIS interactions. The χ 2 shown in th… view at source ↗
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: Predictions of a single |q3| slice (0.4 < q3 GeV/c < 0.5) of MINERvA’s νµ –C8H8 CCINC low￾recoil measurement shown for different generators (top) and the same slice broken down into interaction channels for NuWro 25, showing the different regions that CC-QE, CC￾2p2h, and CC-other interactions occupy. The χ 2 shown in the legend indicate the level of agreement between the models and measurements and are ca… view at source ↗
Figure 24
Figure 24. Figure 24: A comparison of the CCINC (CC0π) cross section as a function of E true ν for νµ – 40Ar and ν¯µ – 40Ar (νµ – 16O and ν¯µ – 16O) interactions, for a variety of neutrino generators [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p042_24.png] view at source ↗
Figure 25
Figure 25. Figure 25: The FD/ND flux-averaged cross section ratio as a function of the outgoing muon angle for DUNE [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p043_25.png] view at source ↗
Figure 26
Figure 26. Figure 26: A comparison of the reconstructed neutrino energy spectra and absolute neutrino energy bias for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p044_26.png] view at source ↗
Figure 27
Figure 27. Figure 27: A comparison of the reconstructed neutrino energy spectra and absolute neutrino energy bias for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p045_27.png] view at source ↗
Figure 28
Figure 28. Figure 28: The fraction of events in reconstructed transverse [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p046_28.png] view at source ↗
Figure 29
Figure 29. Figure 29: A comparison of the shape of the cross section as a function of the outgoing lepton angle with respect to the () [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p048_29.png] view at source ↗
Figure 30
Figure 30. Figure 30: A comparison of the single ν (–) e/ν (–) µ and double (ν¯e/ν¯µ )/(νe/νµ ) flavour ratios as a function of E true ν for CC0π interactions on H2O and CCINC interactions on 40Ar, for a variety of neutrino generators [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p049_30.png] view at source ↗
Figure 31
Figure 31. Figure 31: A comparison of the ν¯e/νe and ν¯µ /νµ cross-section ratio as a function of E true ν for CC0π interactions on H2O and CCINC interactions on 40Ar, for a variety of neutrino generators. pions for Hyper-K/T2K and one considering wrong-sign neutrinos [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p050_31.png] view at source ↗
Figure 32
Figure 32. Figure 32: A comparison of the flux-averaged cross sections as a function of the invariant hadronic mass, assuming the struck nucleon is at rest, for CCINC νµ – 40Ar interactions with the DUNE neutrino-enhanced and antineutrino-enhanced flux at the FD, shown for a variety of neutrino generators. from the decay products of a π +; for Super-K this is > 70% [505]. Conversely, π − are typically captured on nuclei before… view at source ↗
Figure 33
Figure 33. Figure 33: A comparison of the muon neutrino and antineutrino cross section (per nucleon) ratios as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p052_33.png] view at source ↗
Figure 34
Figure 34. Figure 34: The ratio in the neutrino energy reconstruction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p053_34.png] view at source ↗
Figure 35
Figure 35. Figure 35: The estimated relative wrong-sign neutrino con [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p053_35.png] view at source ↗
Figure 36
Figure 36. Figure 36: The sensitivity to exclude CP conservation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p054_36.png] view at source ↗
Figure 37
Figure 37. Figure 37: The impact of systematic uncertainties reported by the NOvA experiment on extracted neutrino oscillation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p055_37.png] view at source ↗
Figure 38
Figure 38. Figure 38: The absolute bias DUNE finds on the fitted value [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p055_38.png] view at source ↗
Figure 39
Figure 39. Figure 39: Comparison of a simulated muon neutrino reconstructed energy spectra at the DUNE FD using different FSI models, to variations of ∆m 2 32. The reconstructed energy spectra under different FSI models are shown as histograms and variations of ∆m 2 32 ±0.4% are shown with shaded red (+) and blue (-) bands centred on the base model (hA2018). The uncertainty bars are indicative of the DUNE experiment’s statisti… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Accelerator-based neutrino oscillation experiments have the potential to revolutionise our understanding of fundamental physics, offering an opportunity to characterise charge-parity violation in the lepton sector; to determine the neutrino mass ordering; and to explore the possibility of physics beyond three-flavour neutrino mixing. However, as more data is collected, the current and next-generation of experiments will require increasingly precise control over the systematic uncertainties within their analyses. It is well known that some of the most challenging uncertainties to overcome stem from our uncertain modelling of neutrino--nucleus interactions, which also affect the event rates used to infer the oscillation probability. The sources of these uncertainties are often related to subtle details of the pertinent nuclear physics which are extremely difficult to control with sufficient precision. Confronting such uncertainties requires both state-of-the-art theoretical modelling and precise measurements of neutrino interaction event rates at experiment's near detectors, before oscillations occur. In this work, we review the role of neutrino interaction systematic uncertainties in current and future measurements of neutrino oscillation as well as the experimental and theoretical prospects for reducing them to an acceptable level for the next generation of experiments.

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

0 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript is a review paper examining the role of neutrino-nucleus interaction model uncertainties in accelerator-based neutrino oscillation experiments. It covers how these uncertainties, arising from nuclear physics details, affect event rates and the extraction of oscillation probabilities; the challenges they pose for measurements of CP violation, mass ordering, and beyond-three-flavour mixing; and the mitigation strategy of combining state-of-the-art theoretical modeling with precise near-detector constraints before oscillations occur. The paper reviews the status for current and next-generation experiments and assesses prospects for reducing the uncertainties to acceptable levels.

Significance. If the review provides an accurate synthesis of the literature, it offers a timely consolidation of a well-recognized systematic that will dominate error budgets as statistics increase in experiments such as T2K, NOvA, DUNE, and Hyper-Kamiokande. The paper correctly restates the field consensus that nuclear modeling uncertainties are among the most difficult to control and that near-detector data plus theory are the primary tools for reduction. No novel derivations, machine-checked proofs, or falsifiable predictions are presented, as expected for a review.

minor comments (2)
  1. [Title] Title: The phrasing 'CP-violation or Nuclear Excitation' frames the topic as a binary choice, but the abstract and content review how nuclear effects contribute to systematic uncertainties in CP-violation searches rather than presenting them as mutually exclusive interpretations; a more precise title would improve clarity.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract, paragraph 3: The claim that near-detector measurements combined with theory 'will be sufficient to reduce the nuclear-physics uncertainties to an acceptable level' is presented without quantitative benchmarks (e.g., target uncertainty levels for DUNE CP sensitivity); adding explicit target precisions or references to specific sensitivity studies would strengthen the review.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their positive assessment of the manuscript as a timely review synthesizing the literature on neutrino-nucleus interaction uncertainties in oscillation experiments. We note the recommendation for minor revision; however, no specific major comments were provided in the report.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: review paper with no derivations or predictions

full rationale

This is a literature review paper with no internal equations, derivations, or quantitative predictions. The abstract and provided text restate established consensus on neutrino-nucleus interaction uncertainties and the standard near-detector strategy without offering any new model, fit, or claim that reduces to its own inputs by construction. No self-citation load-bearing steps, fitted inputs called predictions, or ansatzes are present. The weakest assumption is explicitly the subject of the review rather than an unexamined premise.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

This is a review paper; it introduces no new free parameters, axioms, or invented entities. All content is drawn from prior literature on neutrino-nucleus interactions.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5740 in / 1104 out tokens · 20354 ms · 2026-06-29T09:12:10.076048+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

286 extracted references · 264 canonical work pages · 85 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Coplowe et al

    D. Coplowe et al. Probing nuclear effects with neutrino- induced charged-current neutral pion production.Phys. Rev. D, 102(7):072007, 2020.arXiv:2002.05812,doi:10.1103/ PhysRevD.102.072007

    work page arXiv 2020

  2. [2]

    Abratenko et al

    P. Abratenko et al. Measurement of nuclear effects in neutrino- argon interactions using generalized kinematic imbalance variables with the MicroBooNE detector.Phys. Rev. D, 109(9):092007, 2024.arXiv:2310.06082,doi:10.1103/ PhysRevD.109.092007

    work page arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    Abratenko et al

    P. Abratenko et al. Multidifferential cross section measurements ofν µ-argon quasielasticlike reactions with the MicroBooNE detector.Phys. Rev. D, 108(5):053002, 2023.arXiv:2301. 03700,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.108.053002

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.108.053002 2023

  4. [5]

    Measurement of muon (anti-)neutrino charged-current quasielastic-like cross section using off-axis NuMI beam at ICARUS

    F. Abd Alrahman et al. Measurement of muon (anti-)neutrino charged-current quasielastic-like cross section using off-axis NuMI beam at ICARUS. 4 2026.arXiv:2604.24925

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  5. [6]

    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(5):051302, 2015.arXiv:1507.00967,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.92. 051302

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.92 2015

  6. [7]

    S. Dolan. Exploring Nuclear Effects in Neutrino-Nucleus Interactions Using Measurements of Transverse Kinematic Imbalance from T2K and MINERvA. 10 2018.arXiv:1810. 06043

    2018

  7. [8]

    Benchmarking neutrino interaction models via a comparative analysis of kine- matic imbalance measurements from the T2K, MicroBooNE and MINERvA experiments

    Wissal Filali, Laura Munteanu, and Stephen Dolan. Benchmarking neutrino interaction models via a comparative analysis of kine- matic imbalance measurements from the T2K, MicroBooNE and MINERvA experiments. 7 2024.arXiv:2407.10962

    work page arXiv 2024

  8. [9]

    Abe et al

    K. Abe et al. Measurements of ν µ and ν µ +ν µ charged-current cross-sections without detected pions or protons on water and hydrocarbon at a mean anti-neutrino energy of 0.86 GeV.PTEP, 2021(4):043C01, 2021.arXiv:2004.13989,doi:10.1093/ ptep/ptab014

    work page arXiv 2021

  9. [12]

    Measurement of Partonic Nuclear Effects in Deep-Inelastic Neutrino Scattering using MINERvA

    J. Mousseau et al. Measurement of Partonic Nuclear Effects in Deep-Inelastic Neutrino Scattering using MINERvA.Phys. Rev. D, 93(7):071101, 2016.arXiv:1601.06313,doi:10.1103/ PhysRevD.93.071101

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  10. [14]

    M. A. Ramírez et al. Neutrino-Induced Coherentπ+ Production in C, CH, Fe, and Pb at⟨Eν⟩∼6 GeV.Phys. Rev. Lett., 131(5):051801, 2023.arXiv:2210.01285,doi:10.1103/ PhysRevLett.131.051801

    work page arXiv 2023

  11. [15]

    Kleykamp et al

    J. Kleykamp et al. Simultaneous Measurement ofν µQuasielas- ticlike Cross Sections on CH, C, H2O, Fe, and Pb as a Func- tion of Muon Kinematics at MINERvA.Phys. Rev. Lett., 130(16):161801, 2023.arXiv:2301.02272,doi:10.1103/ PhysRevLett.130.161801

    work page arXiv 2023

  12. [16]

    Kleykamp et al

    J. Kleykamp et al. Measurement of the A dependence of theν µ charged-current quasielasticlike cross section as a function of muon and proton kinematics at⟨Eν⟩∼6 GeV.Phys. Rev. D, 112(5):052005, 2025.arXiv:2503.15047,doi:10.1103/ h9vz-x4xf

    work page arXiv 2025

  13. [17]

    C. E. Patrick et al. Measurement of the Muon Antineutrino Double- Differential Cross Section for Quasielastic-like Scattering on Hydrocarbon atE ν ∼3.5GeV.Phys. Rev. D, 97(5):052002, 2018.arXiv:1801.01197,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.97. 052002

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.97 2018

  14. [18]

    Filkins et al

    A. Filkins et al. Double-differential inclusive charged-currentν µ cross sections on hydrocarbon in MINERvA at⟨Eν ⟩ ∼3.5 GeV. Phys. Rev. D, 101(11):112007, 2020.arXiv:2002.12496, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.101.112007

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.101.112007 2020

  15. [19]

    Measurement of Quasielastic-Like Neutrino Scattering at $\left< E_\nu \right> \sim 3.5$~ GeV on a Hydrocarbon Target

    D. Ruterbories et al. Measurement of Quasielastic-Like Neutrino Scattering at⟨E ν ⟩ ∼3.5 GeV on a Hydrocarbon Target.Phys. Rev. D, 99(1):012004, 2019.arXiv:1811.02774,doi:10. 1103/PhysRevD.99.012004

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  16. [20]

    Bashyal et al

    A. Bashyal et al. High-Statistics Measurement of Antineutrino Quasielastic-like scattering atE ν ∼6~GeV on a Hydrocarbon Target.Phys. Rev. D, 108(3):032018, 2023.arXiv:2211. 10402,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.108.032018

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.108.032018 2023

  17. [21]

    M. V . Ascencio et al. Measurement of inclusive charged- currentν µscattering on hydrocarbon at⟨Eν⟩∼6 GeV with low three-momentum transfer.Phys. Rev. D, 106(3):032001, 2022.arXiv:2110.13372,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.106. 032001

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.106 2022

  18. [22]

    Abe et al

    S. Abe et al. Improving neutrino-nuclei interaction models: Recommendations and case studies on Peelle’s Pertinent Puzzle. Phys. Rev. D, 113(1):012011, 2026.arXiv:2509.17945,doi: 10.1103/615w-kjk2

    work page doi:10.1103/615w-kjk2 2026

  19. [23]

    Komiske, Eric M

    Anders Andreassen, Patrick T. Komiske, Eric M. Metodiev, Benjamin Nachman, and Jesse Thaler. OmniFold: A Method to Simultaneously Unfold All Observables.Phys. Rev. Lett., 124(18):182001, 2020.arXiv:1911.09107,doi:10.1103/ PhysRevLett.124.182001

    work page arXiv 2020

  20. [24]

    L. Koch. A response-matrix-centred approach to presenting cross- section measurements.JINST, 14(09):P09013–P09013, 2019. doi:10.1088/1748-0221/14/09/p09013

    work page doi:10.1088/1748-0221/14/09/p09013 2019

  21. [25]

    Treatment of flux shape uncertainties in unfolded, flux-averaged neutrino cross-section measurements.Phys

    Lukas Koch and Stephen Dolan. Treatment of flux shape uncertainties in unfolded, flux-averaged neutrino cross-section measurements.Phys. Rev. D, 102:113012, 2020.arXiv:2009. 00552,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.102.113012

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.102.113012 2020

  22. [27]

    Post-hoc regularisation of unfolded cross-section measurements.JINST, 17(10):P10021, 2022.arXiv:2207

    Lukas Koch. Post-hoc regularisation of unfolded cross-section measurements.JINST, 17(10):P10021, 2022.arXiv:2207. 02125,doi:10.1088/1748-0221/17/10/P10021

    work page doi:10.1088/1748-0221/17/10/p10021 2022

  23. [28]

    Hypothesis tests and model parameter estimation on datasets with missing correlation information.Phys

    Lukas Koch. Hypothesis tests and model parameter estimation on datasets with missing correlation information.Phys. Rev. D, 111(3):033002, 2025.arXiv:2410.22333,doi:10.1103/ PhysRevD.111.033002

    work page arXiv 2025

  24. [29]

    Mathematical methods for neutrino cross-section extraction

    Steven Gardiner. Mathematical methods for neutrino cross-section extraction. 1 2024.arXiv:2401.04065

    work page arXiv 2024

  25. [30]

    W. Tang, X. Li, X. Qian, H. Wei, and C. Zhang. Data Unfolding with Wiener-SVD Method.JINST, 12(10):P10002, 2017.arXiv:1705.03568,doi:10.1088/1748-0221/12/ 10/P10002

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1088/1748-0221/12/ 2017

  26. [31]

    Huang, Andrew Cudd, Masaki Kawaue, Tatsuya Kikawa, Benjamin Nachman, Vinicius Mikuni, and Callum Wilkinson

    Roger G. Huang, Andrew Cudd, Masaki Kawaue, Tatsuya Kikawa, Benjamin Nachman, Vinicius Mikuni, and Callum Wilkinson. Machine learning assisted unfolding for neutrino cross-section measurements with the OmniFold technique.Phys. Rev. D, 112(1):012008, 2025.arXiv:2504.06857,doi:10.1103/ sp1f-n9k2

    work page arXiv 2025

  27. [32]

    Licciardi and B

    M. Licciardi and B. Quilain. A data-driven convergence criterion for iterative unfolding of smeared spectra. 1 2021.arXiv: 2101.01096

    work page arXiv 2021

  28. [33]

    Mosel and K

    U. Mosel and K. Gallmeister. Muon-neutrino-induced charged current pion production on nuclei.Phys. Rev. C, 96(1):015503,

  29. [34]

    [Addendum: Phys.Rev.C 99, 035502 (2019)].arXiv: 1708.04528,doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.96.015503

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevc.96.015503 2019

  30. [35]

    On Recent Weak Single Pion Production Data

    Jan T. Sobczyk and Jakub ˙Zmuda. Investigation of recent weak single-pion production data.Phys. Rev. C, 91(4):045501, 2015. arXiv:1410.7788,doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.91.045501

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevc.91.045501 2015

  31. [36]

    Marshall

    Jean Wolfs and Chris M. Marshall. Event generator tuning as a robustness test.Phys. Rev. D, 112(9):092018, 2025.arXiv: 2509.22526,doi:10.1103/9dxd-871x

    work page doi:10.1103/9dxd-871x 2025

  32. [37]

    D’Agostini

    G. D’Agostini. On the use of the covariance matrix to fit correlated data.Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrome- ters, Detectors and Associated Equipment, 346(1):306– 311, 1994. URL:https://www.sciencedirect. com/science/article/pii/0168900294907196, doi:10.1016/0168-9002(94)90719-6

    work page doi:10.1016/0168-9002(94)90719-6 1994

  33. [38]

    Abratenko et al

    P. Abratenko et al. First Measurement of Energy-Dependent Inclusive Muon Neutrino Charged-Current Cross Sections on Argon with the MicroBooNE Detector.Phys. Rev. Lett., CP-violation or Nuclear Excitation? 75 128(15):151801, 2022.arXiv:2110.14023,doi:10.1103/ PhysRevLett.128.151801

    work page arXiv 2022

  34. [39]

    Abratenko et al

    P. Abratenko et al. Measurement of double-differential cross sec- tions for mesonless charged-current muon neutrino interactions on argon with final-state protons using the MicroBooNE detec- tor. 3 2024.arXiv:2403.19574

    work page arXiv 2024

  35. [40]

    Fine et al

    R. Fine et al. Data Preservation at MINERvA. 9 2020.arXiv: 2009.04548

    work page arXiv 2020

  36. [41]

    Minerva experiment open data release, 10 2025

    MINERvA Collaboration. Minerva experiment open data release, 10 2025. URL:https://www.osti.gov/biblio/3022562, doi:10.15484/3022562

    work page doi:10.15484/3022562 2025

  37. [42]

    J. E. Amaro, M. B. Barbaro, J. A. Caballero, R. González-Jiménez, G. D. Megias, and I. Ruiz Simo. Electron- versus neutrino- nucleus scattering.J. Phys. G, 47(12):124001, 2020.arXiv: 1912.10612,doi:10.1088/1361-6471/abb128

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6471/abb128 2020

  38. [43]

    A. M. Ankowski et al. Electron scattering and neutrino physics. J. Phys. G, 50(12):120501, 2023.arXiv:2203.06853,doi: 10.1088/1361-6471/acef42

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6471/acef42 2023

  39. [44]

    Mo and Yung-Su Tsai

    Luke W. Mo and Yung-Su Tsai. Radiative Corrections to Elastic and Inelastic e p and mu p Scattering.Rev. Mod. Phys., 41:205– 235, 1969.doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.41.205

    work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.41.205 1969

  40. [45]

    Radiative corrections: from medium to high energy experiments.Eur

    Andrei Afanasev et al. Radiative corrections: from medium to high energy experiments.Eur. Phys. J. A, 60(4):91, 2024.arXiv: 2306.14578,doi:10.1140/epja/s10050-024-01281-y

    work page doi:10.1140/epja/s10050-024-01281-y 2024

  41. [46]

    K. S. Egiyan et al. Measurement of 2- and 3-nucleon short range correlation probabilities in nuclei.Phys. Rev. Lett., 96:082501, 2006.arXiv:nucl-ex/0508026,doi:10.1103/ PhysRevLett.96.082501

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  42. [47]

    Momentum sharing in imbalanced Fermi systems

    O. Hen et al. Momentum sharing in imbalanced Fermi systems. Science, 346:614–617, 2014.arXiv:1412.0138,doi:10. 1126/science.1256785

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  43. [48]

    Dytman et al

    S. Dytman et al. Proton Transparency and Neutrino Physics: New Methods and Modeling. 8 2025.arXiv:2508.01905

    work page arXiv 2025

  44. [49]

    Neutrino event generators: foundation, status and future.J

    Ulrich Mosel. Neutrino event generators: foundation, status and future.J. Phys. G, 46(11):113001, 2019.arXiv:1904.11506, doi:10.1088/1361-6471/ab3830

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6471/ab3830 2019

  45. [50]

    Papadopoulou et al

    A. Papadopoulou et al. Inclusive Electron Scattering And The GENIE Neutrino Event Generator.Phys. Rev. D, 103:113003, 2021.arXiv:2009.07228,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.103. 113003

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.103 2021

  46. [51]

    Implementation and investigation of electron-nucleus scattering in the neut neutrino event generator.Phys

    Seisho Abe. Implementation and investigation of electron-nucleus scattering in the neut neutrino event generator.Phys. Rev. D, 111(3):033006, 2025.arXiv:2412.07466,doi:10.1103/ PhysRevD.111.033006

    work page arXiv 2025

  47. [52]

    Ankowski and Alexander Friedland

    Artur M. Ankowski and Alexander Friedland. Assessing the accuracy of the GENIE event generator with electron-scattering data.Phys. Rev. D, 102(5):053001, 2020.arXiv:2006.11944, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.102.053001

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.102.053001 2020

  48. [53]

    Neutrino Interactions with Nuclei

    T. Leitner, O. Buss, U. Mosel, and L. Alvarez-Ruso. Neutrino Interactions with Nuclei.AIP Conf. Proc., 967(1):192–196, 2007.arXiv:0709.0244,doi:10.1063/1.2834476

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1063/1.2834476 2007

  49. [54]

    Neutrino scattering with nuclei - Theory of low energy nuclear effects and its applications

    Tina Leitner, Oliver Buss, Ulrich Mosel, and Luis Alvarez- Ruso. Neutrino scattering with nuclei: Theory of low energy nuclear effects and its applications.PoS, NUFACT08:009, 2008. arXiv:0809.3986,doi:10.22323/1.074.0009

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.22323/1.074.0009 2008

  50. [55]

    Hadronic transport approach to neutrino nucleus scattering: the Giessen BUU model and its validation

    T. Leitner, O. Buss, and U. Mosel. Hadronic transport approach to neutrino nucleus scattering: The Giessen BUU model and its validation.Acta Phys. Polon. B, 40:2585–2592, 2009.arXiv: 0905.1644

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  51. [56]

    GiBUU and Shallow Inelastic Scattering

    O. Lalakulich and U. Mosel. GiBUU and Shallow Inelastic Scattering.AIP Conf. Proc., 1663(1):040004, 2015.arXiv: 1303.6677,doi:10.1063/1.4919474

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1063/1.4919474 2015

  52. [57]

    Neutrino Interactions and Long-Baseline Experiments

    Ulrich Mosel. Neutrino Interactions and Long-Baseline Exper- iments.PoS, ICHEP2016:504, 2016.arXiv:1611.00373, doi:10.22323/1.282.0504

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.22323/1.282.0504 2016

  53. [58]

    Muon-neutrino-induced charged current cross section without pions: Theoretical analysis

    U. Mosel and K. Gallmeister. Muon-neutrino-induced charged current cross section without pions: Theoretical analysis.Phys. Rev. C, 97(4):045501, 2018.arXiv:1712.07134,doi:10. 1103/PhysRevC.97.045501

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  54. [59]

    Kabirnezhad

    M. Kabirnezhad. Single pion production in electron-nucleon interactions.Phys. Rev. D, 102(5):053009, 2020.arXiv: 2006.13765,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.102.053009

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.102.053009 2020

  55. [60]

    Review of two-photon exchange in electron scattering

    J. Arrington, P. G. Blunden, and W. Melnitchouk. Review of two-photon exchange in electron scattering.Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys., 66:782–833, 2011.arXiv:1105.0951,doi:10.1016/ j.ppnp.2011.07.003

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  56. [61]

    Hill, and Gabriel Lee

    Zhihong Ye, John Arrington, Richard J. Hill, and Gabriel Lee. Proton and Neutron Electromagnetic Form Factors and Uncertainties.Phys. Lett. B, 777:8–15, 2018.arXiv:1707. 09063,doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2017.11.023

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2017.11.023 2018

  57. [62]

    V . D. Burkert et al. The CLAS12 Spectrometer at Jefferson Laboratory.Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A, 959:163419, 2020.doi: 10.1016/j.nima.2020.163419

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nima.2020.163419 2020

  58. [63]

    Arrington et al

    J. Arrington et al. Physics with CEBAF at 12 GeV and future opportunities.Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys., 127:103985, 2022. arXiv:2112.00060,doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2022.103985

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2022.103985 2022

  59. [64]

    B. A. Mecking et al. The CEBAF Large Acceptance Spectrometer (CLAS).Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A, 503:513–553, 2003.doi: 10.1016/S0168-9002(03)01001-5

    work page doi:10.1016/s0168-9002(03)01001-5 2003

  60. [65]

    Korover et al

    I. Korover et al. Observation of large missing-momentum (e,e’p) cross-section scaling and the onset of correlated-pair dominance in nuclei.Phys. Rev. C, 107(6):L061301, 2023.arXiv:2209. 01492,doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.107.L061301

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.107.l061301 2023

  61. [66]

    Khachatryan et al

    M. Khachatryan et al. Electron-beam energy reconstruction for neutrino oscillation measurements.Nature, 599(7886):565– 570, 2021.doi:10.1038/s41586-021-04046-5

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-021-04046-5 2021

  62. [67]

    Duer et al

    M. Duer et al. Measurement of Nuclear Transparency Ratios for Protons and Neutrons.Phys. Lett. B, 797:134792, 2019. arXiv:1811.01823,doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2019.07. 039

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2019.07 2019

  63. [68]

    Single pion production and pion propagation in achilles.Phys

    Joshua Isaacson, William Jay, Alessandro Lovato, Pedro Machado, Alexis Nikolakopoulos, Noemi Rocco, and Noah Steinberg. Single pion production and pion propagation in achilles.Phys. Rev. D, 113(3):036005, 2026.arXiv:2508.19213,doi:10. 1103/13bh-22lm

    work page arXiv 2026

  64. [69]

    Measurement of absorption and charge exchange of $\pi^+$ on carbon

    K. Ieki et al. Measurement of absorption and charge exchange ofπ + on carbon.Phys. Rev. C, 92:035205, 2015.arXiv: 1506.07783,doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.92.035205

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevc.92.035205 2015

  65. [70]

    E. S. Pinzon Guerra et al. Measurement ofσ ABS andσ CX ofπ + on carbon by the Dual Use Experiment at TRIUMF (DUET). Phys. Rev. C, 95(4):045203, 2017.arXiv:1611.05612,doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.95.045203

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevc.95.045203 2017

  66. [71]

    B. W. Allardyce et al. Pion reaction cross-sections and nuclear sizes.Nucl. Phys. A, 209:1–51, 1973.doi:10.1016/ 0375-9474(73)90049-3

    1973

  67. [72]

    F. G. Binon, P. Duteil, J. P. Garron, J. Gorres, L. Hugon, J. P. Peigneux, C. Schmit, M. Spighel, and J. P. Stroot. Scattering of negative pions on carbon.Nucl. Phys. B, 17:168–188, 1970. doi:10.1016/0550-3213(70)90408-6

    work page doi:10.1016/0550-3213(70)90408-6 1970

  68. [73]

    C. H. Quentin Ingram, P. A. M. Gram, J. Jansen, R. E. Mischke, J. Zichy, J. Bolger, E. T. Boschitz, G. Probstle, and J. Arvieux. MEASUREMENT OF QUASIELASTIC SCATTERING OF PIONS FROM O-16 AT ENERGIES AROUND THE DELTA (1232) RESONANCE.Phys. Rev. C, 27:1578–1601, 1983. doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.27.1578

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.27.1578 1983

  69. [74]

    M. K. Jones et al. Pion absorption above the Delta (1232) resonance.Phys. Rev. C, 48:2800–2817, 1993.doi:10.1103/ PhysRevC.48.2800

    1993

  70. [75]

    Ashery, I

    D. Ashery, I. Navon, G. Azuelos, H. K. Walter, H. J. Pfeiffer, and F. W. Schleputz. True Absorption and Scattering of Pions on Nuclei.Phys. Rev. C, 23:2173–2185, 1981.doi:10.1103/ PhysRevC.23.2173

    1981

  71. [76]

    Nakai, T

    K. Nakai, T. Kobayashi, T. Numao, T. A. Shibata, J. Chiba, and K. Masutani. MEASUREMENTS OF CROSS-SECTIONS FOR PION ABSORPTION BY NUCLEI.Phys. Rev. Lett., 44:1446–1449, 1980.doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.44. 1446

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.44 1980

  72. [77]

    Bellotti, D

    E. Bellotti, D. Cavalli, and C. Matteuzzi. Positive-pion absorption by c nuclei at 130 mev.Nuovo Cim. A, 18:75–93, 1973.doi: 10.1007/BF02820838. CP-violation or Nuclear Excitation? 76

    work page doi:10.1007/bf02820838 1973

  73. [78]

    Navon, D

    I. Navon, D. Ashery, J. Alster, G. Azuelos, B. M. Barnett, W. Gyles, R. R. Johnson, D. R. Gill, and T. G. Masterson. True Absorption and Scattering of 50-MeV Pions.Phys. Rev. C, 28:2548, 1983. doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.28.2548

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.28.2548 1983

  74. [79]

    J. W. Cronin, R. Cool, and A. Abashian. Cross Sections of Nuclei for High-Energy Pions.Phys. Rev., 107:1121–1130, 1957. doi:10.1103/PhysRev.107.1121

    work page doi:10.1103/physrev.107.1121 1957

  75. [80]

    Colin Wilkin, C. R. Cox, J. J. Domingo, K. Gabathuler, E. Pedroni, J. Rohlin, P. Schwaller, and N. W. Tanner. A comparison of pi+ and pi- total cross-sections of light nuclei near the 3-3 resonance.Nucl. Phys. B, 62:61–85, 1973.doi:10.1016/ 0550-3213(73)90242-3

    1973

  76. [81]

    A. S. Clough et al. Pion-Nucleus Total Cross-Sections from 88- MeV to 860-MeV.Nucl. Phys. B, 76:15–28, 1974.doi: 10.1016/0550-3213(74)90134-5

    work page doi:10.1016/0550-3213(74)90134-5 1974

  77. [82]

    A. S. Carroll, I. H. Chiang, C. B. Dover, T. F. Kycia, K. K. Li, P. O. Mazur, D. N. Michael, P. M. Mockett, D. C. Rahm, and R. Rubinstein. Pion-Nucleus Total Cross-Sections in the (3,3) Resonance Region.Phys. Rev. C, 14:635–638, 1976.doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.14.635

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.14.635 1976

  78. [83]

    Androic et al

    D. Androic et al. Multinucleon emission following the pion absorption in N, Ar and Xe.Fizika B, 10:279–284, 2001

    2001

  79. [84]

    Kotli ´nski et al

    B. Kotli ´nski et al. Pion absorption reactions on N, Ar and Xe.Eur. Phys. J. A, 9:537–552, 2000.doi:10.1007/s100500070010

    work page doi:10.1007/s100500070010 2000

  80. [85]

    Rowntree et al

    D. Rowntree et al. pi+ absorption on N and Ar.Phys. Rev. C, 60:054610, 1999.doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.60.054610

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.60.054610 1999

Showing first 80 references.