Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Neutral Current Neutrino-Nucleus Scattering. Theory

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The review concludes that nuclear effects, not a larger axial mass, explain neutrino-nucleus data, and that multi-nucleon and two-body current contributions must be included explicitly.

desk verdict Useful, balanced NC QE scattering review, but the 'impossible axial mass' conclusion is more conditional than the abstract/conclusions suggest once you factor in the NuWro np-nh fit and MiniBooNE's reconstructed-Q2 caveats. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.08603 v1 pith:D655WG7T submitted 2019-08-22 hep-ph nucl-exnucl-th

Carlotta Giusti , Martin V. Ivanov This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phnucl-exnucl-th
keywords neutrino-nucleusscatteringneutralcurrentquasielasticaxialmassstrangeformfactorstwo-bodycurrentsfinal-stateinteractionsnucleareffects
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This review synthesizes the theory of neutral-current quasielastic neutrino-nucleus scattering in the hundreds-of-MeV to few-GeV range, the regime relevant for next-generation long-baseline experiments. It argues that nuclear effects, not the nucleon's axial form factor, are the leading systematic uncertainty, and it identifies a central tension: models built on the impulse approximation with one-nucleon knockout underpredict both charged-current and neutral-current elastic cross sections unless the axial mass $M_A$ is artificially raised. The review's key conclusion is that no single value of $M_A$ can describe charged-current and neutral-current data within the same one-body model, so multi-nucleon excitations and two-body meson-exchange currents must be included explicitly. It also shows that ratios of cross sections, especially proton-to-neutron and neutrino-to-antineutrino ratios, suppress nuclear-model uncertainties and are the practical route to the strange axial form factor. If this picture is right, future oscillation analyses cannot rely on tuning $M_A$; they need consistent reaction models covering all contributing channels.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the contraction of the leptonic tensor with a hadronic tensor $W^{\mu\nu}$, built from the single-nucleon weak current whose axial form factor is a dipole in $Q^2$ with mass $M_A$ and whose isoscalar component can carry strange form factors. Around this current, the review compares competing descriptions of the nucleus: relativistic impulse approximation with plane or distorted waves, spectral functions with short-range correlations, the superscaling approach built from electron-scattering data, RPA treatments with np-nh excitations, and Green's-function formulations of final-state interactions. The load-bearing observables are flux-averaged cross sections and, above all, ratios (proton-to-neutron, neutrino-to-antineutrino, NC-to-CC) that cancel nuclear-model uncertainties.

What would settle it

A single high-statistics experiment measuring CCQE and NCE on the same nucleus with a well understood flux, analyzed with one model that includes two-body currents and the world-average $M_A$, would settle it: success would confirm the review's diagnosis, and failure would show the missing physics is elsewhere.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The review's central claim is that the apparent discrepancy between the axial mass extracted from deuterium data ($M_A\simeq 1.03$ GeV) and the larger values needed to fit carbon-target data is not a property of the nucleon but a symptom of missing nuclear physics. One-nucleon knockout models, even with sophisticated final-state interactions, underestimate the measured neutral-current elastic cross sections; models that add collective RPA correlations, multi-nucleon (np-nh) excitations, and two-body meson-exchange currents can describe the same data with the standard axial mass. The review further claims that charged-current and neutral-current data cannot both be fit with a single $M_A$ inside one-body models, and that cross-section ratios are the observables that best isolate the strange axial form factor of the nucleon.

Load-bearing premise

The conclusions assume that the selected numerical examples and data comparisons, many from the authors' prior work, are representative of the broader literature and are folded with correct flux normalizations and detector efficiencies; if the neutral-current sample or the model inputs are not representative, the claimed axial-mass discrepancy could be an artifact.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Oscillation analyses must treat the 'quasielastic' sample as a mix of one-nucleon and multi-nucleon events; otherwise the reconstructed neutrino energy is biased.
  • Adding the same two-body current to both CCQE and NCE predictions should remove the need for separate effective axial masses, making the two channels consistent.
  • Cross-section ratios such as $R(p/n)$ and the $\nu$-$\bar\nu$ asymmetry become primary tools for strange form factors because nuclear effects largely cancel.
  • Models that pass the electron-scattering test are necessary but not sufficient; neutrino data impose additional constraints from the axial channel.
  • New detectors with better final-state resolution will constrain hadronic observables and flux, reducing the model dependence highlighted here.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the axial-mass discrepancy is caused by missing two-body currents, then effective $M_A$ values extracted from CCQE and NCE should converge once the same 2p-2h model is used; this convergence is a quantitative test that future combined fits can perform.
  • The review's RGF results suggest final-state inelasticity can mimic two-body current strength; a model that tracks explicit final-state channels could separate the two and remove a possible double-counting.
  • For argon targets, building the spectral function from a dedicated $(e,e'p)$ measurement would test whether short-range correlations in argon differ enough from carbon to change NC neutrino event rates in next-generation detectors.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. Giusti and Ivanov review the theoretical description of neutral-current (NC) quasielastic neutrino-nucleus scattering in the kinematic regime of accelerator neutrino experiments. They present the general NC/CC formalism and the single-nucleon weak current (Section 2), then survey the main model families: relativistic impulse approximation and optical-potential approaches, spectral-function models, superscaling (SuSA), RPA and np-nh treatments, and meson-exchange currents (Section 3). They discuss the strange nucleon form factors and proposed ratios/asymmetries for extracting them (Section 4), and compare model predictions with BNL E734 and MiniBooNE neutral-current elastic data, paying attention to flux averaging and to the difference between true and reconstructed Q2 (Section 5). The concluding remarks emphasize that one-body IA models without multi-nucleon channels underpredict data unless an enhanced axial mass is used, that no single axial mass describes both CCQE and NCE data within such models, and that consistent treatment of multi-nucleon and two-body current contributions is needed for DUNE and Hyper-K.

Significance. The manuscript is a comprehensive and generally balanced topical review. Its strengths are the systematic organization of a large and technically diverse literature, the explicit caveats attached to model families (notably the warning that the RGF treatment is designed for inclusive observables and may include channels absent in semi-inclusive NCE measurements), the reproducible presentation of the flux-averaging equations, and the extensive reference list. It does not present new derivations or machine-checked results; its conclusions are literature-based judgments, but that is appropriate for the review format. If the axial-mass conclusion is qualified as proposed below, the review will serve as a useful reference for both specialists and non-specialists and as a basis for systematic studies in DUNE and Hyper-K.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 6, concluding remarks (fourth bullet)] The concluding statement that 'it is generally impossible to describe, within the same model, both CCQE and NCE data using the same value of MA' is stronger than the evidence assembled in Section 5.2 and should be qualified. The comparisons underlying this conclusion are not uniform in the measured observable: Eq. (32) introduces per-channel efficiency functions C_i for the CH2 cross section, Eq. (34) defines the reconstructed variable Q2_QE = 2mT with T the sum of all final-state nucleon kinetic energies, and the figures mix true and reconstructed quantities (e.g., Fig. 24 shows true Q2 in the left panel and reconstructed energy in the right panel), with detector smearing applied only in some calculations (Refs. [67], [227]). In addition, the NuWro analysis in Fig. 32, which includes np-nh contributions and detector response, yields MA = 1.10^{+0.13}_{-0.15} GeV, consistent with the deuterium world average; this is a same-model counterexample if the claim is not restricted to IA one-nucleon-knockout models. I recommend rewriting the bullet to say explicitly that the impossibility claim applies to one-body-current IA models without multi-nucleon/background channels, and to acknowledge that a model-independent no-go conclusion is not established because no single analysis treats all models with identical unfolding and efficiency corrections.
  2. [Section 5.2, Eq. (32) and Figs. 20-28] The comparison figures would be much easier to interpret if each panel explicitly stated whether the plotted quantity is true Q2, reconstructed Q2_QE = 2mT (Eq. (34)), or nucleon kinetic energy T, and whether efficiency corrections and migration matrices were applied. The current text mixes these definitions: Fig. 20 uses Eq. (32) with efficiency functions C_i, Fig. 22 uses Q2_QE, Fig. 24 shows true energy (left) and reconstructed energy (right), and Fig. 28 compares several models without a unified folding prescription. As a result, the reader cannot determine how much of the spread between model and data is due to physics rather than to the treatment of detector response. A short summary table or an explicit sentence per figure would materially strengthen the evidentiary basis of the Section 6 conclusions.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 5.2, Eq. (32)] Equation (32) as printed contains a duplicated term: the carbon-neutron contribution 3/7 C_{nu n,C} dsigma_{nu n,C}/dQ2 appears twice, and the bound-proton contribution is absent. The intended decomposition for CH2 should contain one 3/7 term for carbon protons and one 3/7 term for carbon neutrons.
  2. [Section 2.5, text before Eq. (20)] The sentence listing the strange form factors reads 'F s 1 , F s 1 , and G s A'; the second entry should be F s 2 (the strange vector magnetic form factor).
  3. [Section 3.3, p. 14] The phrase 'An example in shown in figure 4' contains a typo; 'in' should be 'is'.
  4. [Section 3.6, p. 26] The phrase 'nuclei wih A > 4' contains a typo; 'wih' should be 'with'.
  5. [Section 5.2, Fig. 28 caption] The caption's error-bar sentence 'in the nu(nu) case' should read 'in the nu(bar nu) case'; the same typo appears in the text describing the antineutrino panel.
  6. [Section 5.2, p. 46] The word 'understimanted' should be 'underestimated'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper is a review that reports external model-data comparisons rather than deriving predictions from fitted inputs.

full rationale

This is a topical review, not a derivation paper. The formalism in Section 2 is standard and is used only to define cross sections and observables; no output quantity is defined in terms of a quantity it is supposed to predict. The survey in Sections 3 and 4 presents model comparisons and sensitivity studies, with the numerical examples taken from the cited literature. Fitted parameters such as M_A and g_s^A are reported from external analyses of external data sets (BNL E734, MiniBooNE, and NuWro), and those fits are not renamed as predictions of this paper. The central concluding claim that a single axial mass cannot describe both CCQE and NCE data is supported by cited comparisons with MiniBooNE data from Refs. [68, 69] and by the NuWro analysis of Ref. [227], which are independent of the present authors' own calculations. Although the authors cite their own previous work for some illustrative model results (e.g., RGF and RDWIA comparisons in Refs. [109, 110, 222]), those self-citations are not load-bearing: the conclusions do not reduce to an unverified assertion from the authors' prior papers, and the underlying comparisons are checkable against public MiniBooNE data. No equation in this paper exhibits a reduction of a predicted quantity to a fitted input, and no uniqueness or ansatz is imported solely through self-citation. Therefore the paper is self-contained as a review and has no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

This review relies on the standard model of weak interactions and on the validity of the one-boson exchange and impulse approximations, as well as on the reliability of the experimental data sets used for comparison. It does not introduce new free parameters; the parameters discussed (axial mass, strange couplings) are inputs from the cited literature. No new entities are postulated.

free parameters (3)
  • Axial mass MA = 1.03 GeV (world average), 1.35 GeV (MiniBooNE fit), various in comparisons
    The review discusses results with different values of MA, and the value strongly affects the cross sections and the conclusions about missing nuclear effects. These values are inputs from the cited literature, not fitted by this paper.
  • Strange axial coupling gs_A (or Delta s) = 0, +/-0.15, ranges from COMPASS/HERMES
    The review evaluates sensitivity of ratios to Delta s and uses values from different experiments. These are experimental inputs reported in the cited literature.
  • Strange vector form factors rho_s and mu_s = 0 or specific values like mu_s=-0.5, rho_s=+2
    Used in numerical examples in Section 4.2 to illustrate sensitivities. These values come from model assumptions in the cited papers.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption One-boson exchange approximation (OBEA) with a single Z0 boson is valid for neutral-current neutrino-nucleus scattering.
    Used throughout Section 2 to factorize the cross section into leptonic and hadronic tensors.
  • domain assumption The impulse approximation, where the neutrino interacts with a single nucleon and the residual nucleus acts as a spectator, is valid in the quasielastic region.
    Basis for most models in Section 3, especially the spectral function and RDWIA approaches.
  • domain assumption The weak neutral current of the nucleon is described by vector and axial form factors with dipole parametrizations for the Q2 dependence.
    Used in Section 2.5 to define the single-nucleon current, including strange form factors.
  • standard math Standard Model values for the Weinberg angle and Fermi constant are correct.
    Used in the expression for the NC coupling and cross sections in Section 2.
  • domain assumption The experimental data sets (MiniBooNE, BNL E734) are correctly normalized and their reported uncertainties are reliable.
    Conclusions about model success in Section 5 depend on the reliability of these data.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Neutral Current Neutrino-Nucleus Scattering. Theory." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/D655WG7T

@misc{pith2026190808603,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Neutral Current Neutrino-Nucleus Scattering. Theory},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/D655WG7T}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.08603}
}
read the original abstract

The treatment of nuclear effects in neutrino-nucleus interactions is one of the main sources of systematic uncertainty for the analysis and interpretation of data of neutrino oscillation experiments. Neutrinos interact with nuclei via charged or neutral currents and both cases must be studied to obtain a complete information. We give an overview of the theoretical work that has been done to describe nuclear effects in neutral-current neutrin onucleus scattering in the kinematic region ranging between beam energies of a few hundreds MeV to a few GeV, which is typical of most ongoing and future accelerator-based neutrino experiments, and where quasielastic scattering is the main interaction mechanism. We review the current status and challenges of the theoretical models, the role and relevance of the contributions of different nuclear effects, and the present status of the comparison between the numerical predictions of the models as well as the available experimental data. We discuss also the sensitivity to the strange form factors of the nucleon and the methods and observables that can allow one to obtain evidence for a possible strange quark contribution from measurements of neutrino and antineutrino-nucleus scattering.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.08603 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Kinematics for the quasielastic ν(ν¯)-nucleus scattering process. As for the leptonic tensor, the hadronic tensor can be decomposed into two pieces, which are symmetric and antisymmetric under the exchange of the indices µ ↔ ν. The explicit expression of the hadronic tensor depends on the specific process under consideration. For a particular process, its most general covariant form can be constructed from basic sym… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Cross sections calculated in the RFG, RPWIA, and SF models for neutron [(a) and (c)] and proton [(b) and (d)] knockout from 16O induced by NC QE interaction of neutrino [(a) and (b)] and antineutrino [(c) and (d)]. Taken from Ref. [73]. SF of 40Ar, a nucleus for which no (e, e 0p) data is available till now. A new measurement of the coincidence 40Ar(e, e 0 p) cross section at Jefferson Lab [87] will provide the expe… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Differential cross sections of the CC and NC QE ν (ν¯) scattering on 12C as a function of outgoing nucleon kinetic energy TN. Solid and dashed lines are the results in RDWIA and RPWIA, respectively, for an incident neutrino. Dot-dashed and dotted lines are the results in RDWIA and RPWIA, respectively, for an incident antineutrino. Taken from Ref. [93]. over the phase space of the final lepton and of the outgoing nuc… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (32 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: NC 12C(ν,ν 0 ) (left panels) and 56Fe(ν,ν 0 ) (right panels) cross sections as a function of the kinetic energy of the outgoing nucleon TN at different incoming neutrino energies (Eν in the figure) calculated in RPWIA (solid lines), RDWIA (dot-dashed lines), and RMSGA …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Differential cross sections of the NC elastic neutrino scattering on 12C as a function of the kinetic energy of the emitted proton [panels (a), (c), and (e)] or neutron [panels (b), (d), and (f)] at different neutrino energies calculated in RPWIA (thin solid lines), RM…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Differential cross section for NC neutrino scattering on 40Ar at Eν = 500 MeV for proton (left panel) and neutron (right panel) knockout. The solid (dashed) lines denote the result of the GiBUU model [118] with (without) FSI. The dash-dotted (dotted) lines denote the r…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Cross sections calculated with the SuSA, RMF, SF, and RGF models for neutron [(a) and (c)] and proton [(b) and (d)] knockout from 16O induced by NC QE interaction of neutrino [(a) and (b)] and antineutrino [(c) and (d)]. The RGF results obtained with two different phen…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: figure 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: NCQE differential cross section for ν and ν¯ scattering from 12C at 1 GeV, for proton knockout at θp = 20◦ (a,c) and 60◦ (b,d), obtained using the CDFM scaling function with c1 = 0.60 (dash-dotted lines) and c1 = 0.75 (dashed lines). The RFG results are given by the do…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The scaling function f(ψ) of 12C obtained using the HO and NO, with (HO+FSI and NO+FSI) and without (HO and NO) FSI, RFG, and SuSA approaches, compared with the longitudinal experimental superscaling function [133]. Taken from Ref. [80]. of the data than the RFG model.…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: NC differential cross section of νµ (upper panels) and ν¯µ (lower panels) scattering on 12C, for an incident νµ and ν¯µ energy of 1 GeV and a scattering angle of 30◦ (left panels) and 70◦ (right panels), as a function of the energy transfer ω. The blue (red) lines giv…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: NC differential cross section for ν (black curves) and ν¯ (red curves) scattering on 12C at q = 570 MeV obtained with GFMC methods with one-body current (1b) and with the sum one-body and two-body currents (12b) as functions of ω and for different values of the scatte…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: NCE antineutrino cross section at Eν¯ = 500 MeV as a function of the emitted proton [panel (a)] or neutron [panel (b)] kinetic energy. Calculations are performed in the RPWIA. Solid lines are the results with ∆s = 0.0, dashed lines with ∆s = −0.15, and dotted lines wi…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Ratio of neutrino-to-antineutrino NC cross sections, R(ν/ν¯) in equation (26), on 12C as a function of TN. Dashed lines are the results with no strangeness contribution, solid lines with g s A = −0.10, dot-dashed lines with g s A = −0.10 and µ s = −0.50, dotted lines …
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Ratio of proton-to-neutron NC cross sections, R(p/n) in equation (27), (left panels) and of NC-to-CC cross sections, R(NC/CC) in equation (28), (right panels) for QE ν scattering off 12C as a function of the kinetic energy of the outgoing nucleon. Dashed lines are the…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: The asymmetry, Ap in equation (29), as a function of TN calculated for ν and ν¯ scattering on 12C at the incident energies of 500 MeV and 1 GeV. The results obtained with different models are compared: RSM (solid lines), RDWIA (dot-dashed lines), RFG (dashed lines in …
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Ratio of proton-to-neutron NC cross sections, R(p/n) in equation (27), for NC scattering on 40Ar at Eν = 150 MeV (left panel) and Eν = 500 MeV (right panel) as a function of TN. Calculations are performed in the LFG-RPA model of Nieves et al. [114] with (solid histogr…
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Ratio of proton-to-neutron cross sections R(p/n) for NC neutrino [panels (a), (c), and (e)] and antineutrino [panels (b), (d), and (f)] scattering on 12C and for different incident energies as a function of TN. Results of different descriptions of FSI are compared: RP…
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p037_18.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: The predicted νµ (νµ ) fluxes at the BNL [208], MiniBooNE [209], T2K[210], and MINERνA [211] detectors and corresponding mean energies. of ω and q corresponding not only to the QE region, but also to other regions, where different reaction mechanisms can be important.…
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: NCE flux averaged Q 2 -distribution for different values of the axial mass (left panel) and for different values of ∆s (right panel). The solid lines correspond to the distribution defined by equation (32), while the dashed lines show the results obtained for a pure c…
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: Left panel: differential cross section dσ NC/dQ2 for NCE ν and ν¯ scattering in the BNL E734 experiment [201, 212]. The error bars do not include the normalization uncertainty of 11.2% (10.4%) in the ν (ν¯) case. Right panel: differential cross section dσ NC/dQ2 for N…
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: Left panel: Flux-averaged dσ/dQ2 QE cross section for neutrino scattering on CH2 as a function of Q 2 QE . Right panel: NCE/CCQE cross section ratio as a function of Q 2 QE . Calculations are performed with the RDWIA [67]. The MiniBooNE data are from [207]. Taken from…
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: (MiniBooNE (ν p → ν p)/(νN → νN) ratio as a function of Trec. The predictions for MA = 1.28 GeV and ∆s = 0.0, 0.4, and −0.4 are shown. The MiniBooNE data are from [207]. Taken from Ref. [67]. B of Ref. [221]. The comparison of the RDWIA calculations with the MiniBooNE…
Figure 24
Figure 24. Figure 24: NCE flux-averaged cross section computed within the RMF (solid blue lines) and SuSA (dashed red lines) models, compared with MiniBooNE data [207] as a function of true energy (left panel) and of the reconstructed energy (right panel), for different values of MA. Taken…
Figure 25
Figure 25. Figure 25: Ratio (ν p → ν p)/(νN → νN) computed within the RMF and SuSA models. Shadowed areas represent the 1-σ region allowed for g (s) A (see text). The ratio computed with the best value of g (s) A is presented, as well as those obtained with the standard axial mass and no s…
Figure 26
Figure 26. Figure 26: Left panel: NCE flux-averaged (νN → νN) cross section as a function of Q 2 , calculated with the RGF-EDAD1 (solid line) and RGF-EDAI (dashed line). The dotted and dot-dashed lines are rROP and RDWIA results, calculated with the EDAI potential, respectively. Taken from…
Figure 27
Figure 27. Figure 27: Left panel: NCE flux-averaged (ν¯N → ν¯N) cross section as a function of Q 2 . Right panel: Ratio of the ν¯ to ν NCE scattering cross section with total error. The data are from [213]. Taken from Ref. [222]. panel of figure 27 in comparison with the experimental ratio…
Figure 28
Figure 28. Figure 28: NCE neutrino [panel (a), νN → νN] and antineutrino [panel (b), νN → νN] flux-averaged differential cross section computed using the RFG, HO+FSI, NO+FSI, SuSA scaling functions, RGF and RMF models and compared with the MiniBooNE data [207, 213]. The results have been o…
Figure 29
Figure 29. Figure 29: RFG, HO+FSI, NO+FSI, SUSA, RGF, and RMF predictions, after the folding procedure, compared with the histograms of the numerator (top-left panel) and denominator (bottom-left panel) entering the ratio between ν scattering from proton and nucleon (proton plus neutron). …
Figure 30
Figure 30. Figure 30: Flux-averaged differential cross sections dσ/dQ2 per nucleon. The solid curve is obtained with the RPWIA (No FSI), the dotted curve with the RDWIA and the EDAD1 ROP (Opt), the dashed curve with only the real part of the ROP (Real), and the short-dotted curve with the …
Figure 31
Figure 31. Figure 31: Neutral-current quasi-elastic flux-averaged differential cross section for neutrino scattering on CH2 calculated in the RPWIA and RDWIA of Ref. [226] and compared with the MiniBooNE data [207]. Taken from Ref. [226]. ∼ 20−30%, which is consistent with other similar ca…
Figure 32
Figure 32. Figure 32: 1σ error contour for (MA, g s A ) parameters obtained from χ 2 [see equation (17), Ref. [227]], but only for the total reconstructed kinetic energy of the final state nucleons. Dots denote χ 2 minima. Taken from Ref. [227] [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p051_32.png]
Figure 33
Figure 33. Figure 33: Left panel: The distribution of the total reconstructed kinetic energy of the final state nucleons, broken down to individual contributions from elastic scattering on carbon, np-nh, elastic scattering on hydrogen, irreducible background, and other backgrounds. The NuW…
Figure 34
Figure 34. Figure 34: MiniBooNE flux-averaged NCE Q 2 distribution per nucleon. (Dashed curve) Pure quasielastic (1p-1h); (solid curve) with the inclusion of np-nh component; (dot-dashed line) bare distribution. The experimental MiniBooNE points are taken from Ref. [207]. Taken from Ref. […

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Radiative corrections in neutral-current (anti)neutrino elastic scattering at $\text{GeV}$ energies I: Nucleon targets

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Radiative corrections to neutral-current (anti)neutrino-nucleon elastic scattering are computed within low-energy EFT and reach a few percent, comparable to the strange-quark effects they must be disentangled from.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

227 extracted references · 66 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [67]

    A. V . Butkevich and D. Perevalov, Phys. Rev. C84, 015501 (2011)

    2011

  2. [227]

    Golan, K

    T. Golan, K. M. Graczyk, C. Juszczak, and J. T. Sobczyk, Phys. Rev. C 88, 024612 (2013)

    work page 2013

  3. [1]

    Fukudaet al

    Y . Fukudaet al. (Super-Kamiokande Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 1562 (1998)

    1998

  4. [2]

    Q. R. Ahmad et al. (SNO Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 071301 (2001)

    2001

  5. [3]

    Eguchi et al

    K. Eguchi et al. (KamLAND Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 021802 (2003)

    2003

  6. [4]

    Kajita and A

    T. Kajita and A. B. McDonald, The Nobel Prize in Physics 2015

    2015

  7. [5]

    Acciarri et al

    R. Acciarri et al. (DUNE), (2016), arXiv:1601.05471 [physics.ins-det] . REFERENCES 55

    arXiv 2016

  8. [6]

    Abi et al

    B. Abi et al. (DUNE), (2018), arXiv:1807.10334 [physics.ins-det]

    arXiv 2018

Show all 227 references
  1. [7]

    Abe et al

    K. Abe et al. (Hyper-Kamiokande Proto-Collaboration), PTEP 2015, 053C02 (2015), arXiv:1502.05199 [hep-ex]

    2015 arXiv

  2. [8]

    S. L. Glashow, A. Salam, and S. Weinberg, The Nobel Prize in Physics 1979

    1979

  3. [9]

    Hasert et al., Physics Letters B 46, 138 (1973)

    F. Hasert et al., Physics Letters B 46, 138 (1973)

    1973

  4. [10]

    Gallagher, G

    H. Gallagher, G. Garvey, and G. P. Zeller, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 61, 355 (2011)

    2011

  5. [11]

    J. G. Morfin, J. Nieves, and J. T. Sobczyk, Adv. High Energy Phys. 2012, 934597 (2012), arXiv:1209.6586 [hep-ex]

    2012 arXiv

  6. [12]

    Alvarez-Ruso, Y

    L. Alvarez-Ruso, Y . Hayato, and J. Nieves, New J. Phys. 16, 075015 (2014), arXiv:1403.2673 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  7. [13]

    G. T. Garvey, D. A. Harris, H. A. Tanaka, R. Tayloe, and G. P. Zeller, Phys. Rept.580, 1 (2015), arXiv:1412.4294 [hep-ex]

    2015 arXiv

  8. [14]

    Mosel, Ann

    U. Mosel, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 66, 171 (2016), arXiv:1602.00696 [nucl-th]

    2016 arXiv

  9. [15]

    Katori and M

    T. Katori and M. Martini, J. Phys. G45, 013001 (2018)

    2018

  10. [16]

    Benhar, P

    O. Benhar, P. Huber, C. Mariani, and D. Meloni, Phys. Rept. 700, 1 (2017)

    2017

  11. [17]

    Alvarez-Ruso et al., Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics 100, 1 (2018)

    L. Alvarez-Ruso et al., Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics 100, 1 (2018)

    2018

  12. [18]

    Tayloe, J

    R. Tayloe, J. Phys. G (2019)

    2019

  13. [19]

    Bolognesi, J

    S. Bolognesi, J. Phys. G (2019)

    2019

  14. [20]

    Nieves, E

    J. Nieves, E. Hernandez, M. J. Vicente Vacas, L. Alvarez-Ruso, and J. T. Sobczyk, J. Phys. G (2019)

    2019

  15. [21]

    Donnelly, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics 13, 183 (1985)

    T. Donnelly, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics 13, 183 (1985)

    1985

  16. [22]

    S. Boffi, C. Giusti, and F. D. Pacati, Phys. Rept. 226, 1 (1993)

    1993

  17. [23]

    S. Boffi, C. Giusti, F. D. Pacati, and M. Radici, Electromagnetic Response of Atomic Nuclei, Oxford Studies in Nuclear Physics, V ol. 20 (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1996)

    1996

  18. [24]

    Walecka, in Muon Physics, edited by V

    J. Walecka, in Muon Physics, edited by V . W. Hughes and C. Wu (Academic Press,

  19. [25]

    Meucci, C

    A. Meucci, C. Giusti, and F. D. Pacati, Nuclear Physics A 739, 277 (2004)

    2004

  20. [26]

    Meucci, C

    A. Meucci, C. Giusti, and F. D. Pacati, Nucl. Phys. A744, 307 (2004)

    2004

  21. [27]

    Van Der Ventel and J

    B. Van Der Ventel and J. Piekarewicz, Phys. Rev. C 69, 035501 (2004)

    2004

  22. [28]

    Benhar, D

    O. Benhar, D. Day, and I. Sick, Rev. Mod. Phys. 80, 189 (2008)

    2008

  23. [29]

    T. W. Donnelly, Adv. Nucl. Phys. 22, 37 (1996)

    1996

  24. [30]

    M. C. Mart ´ınez, P. Lava, N. Jachowicz, J. Ryckebusch, K. Vantournhout, and J. M. Ud´ıas, Phys. Rev. C73, 024607 (2006)

    2006

  25. [31]

    A. V . Butkevich and S. A. Kulagin, Phys. Rev. C76, 045502 (2007)

    2007

  26. [32]

    Gonz ´alez-Jim´enez, J

    R. Gonz ´alez-Jim´enez, J. A. Caballero, and T. W. Donnelly, Phys. Rept. 524, 1 (2013)

    2013

  27. [33]

    W. M. Alberico, S. M. Bilenky, and C. Maieron, Phys. Rept. 358, 227 (2002)

    2002

  28. [34]

    M. J. Musolf and T. W. Donnelly, Nucl. Phys.A546, 509 (1992), [Erratum: Nucl. Phys. A550, 564 (1992)]

    1992

  29. [35]

    Patrignani et al

    C. Patrignani et al. (Particle Data Group), Chin. Phys. C40, 100001 (2016)

    2016

  30. [36]

    J. Liu, R. D. McKeown, and M. J. Ramsey-Musolf, Phys. Rev. C 76, 025202 (2007)

    2007

  31. [37]

    D. H. Beck and R. D. McKeown, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science 51, 189 (2001). REFERENCES 56

    2001

  32. [38]

    M. J. Musolf, T. W. Donnelly, J. Dubach, S. J. Pollock, S. Kowalski, and E. J. Beise, Phys. Rept. 239, 1 (1994)

    1994

  33. [39]

    Bernard, L

    V . Bernard, L. Elouadrhiri, and U.-G. Meissner, J. Phys. G28, R1 (2002)

    2002

  34. [40]

    Aguilar-Arevalo et al

    A. Aguilar-Arevalo et al. (MiniBooNE Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 81, 092005 (2010)

    2010

  35. [41]

    A. S. Meyer, M. Betancourt, R. Gran, and R. J. Hill, Phys. Rev. D 93, 113015 (2016)

    2016

  36. [42]

    J. E. Amaro and E. Ruiz Arriola, Phys. Rev. D 93, 053002 (2016)

    2016

  37. [43]

    K. A. Olive et al. (Particle Data Group), Chin. Phys. C38, 090001 (2014)

    2014

  38. [44]

    A. S. Meyer, R. J. Hill, A. S. Kronfeld, R. Li, and J. N. Simone, Proceedings, 34th International Symposium on Lattice Field Theory (Lattice 2016): Southampton, UK, July 24-30, 2016, PoS LA TTICE2016, 179 (2016)

    2016

  39. [45]

    Alexandrou, M

    C. Alexandrou, M. Constantinou, K. Hadjiyiannakou, K. Jansen, C. Kallidonis, G. Koutsou, and A. Vaquero Avil´es-Casco, Phys. Rev. D 97, 094504 (2018)

    2018

  40. [46]

    A. W. Thomas and W. Weise, The Structure of the Nucleon (Wiley, Germany, 2001)

    2001

  41. [47]

    R. A. Smith and E. J. Moniz, Nucl. Phys. B43, 605 (1972), [Erratum: Nucl. Phys.B101, 547 (1975)]

    1972

  42. [48]

    W. M. Alberico, A. Molinari, T. W. Donnelly, E. L. Kronenberg, and J. W. Van Orden, Phys. Rev. C 38, 1801 (1988)

    1988

  43. [49]

    C. J. Horowitz, H. Kim, D. P. Murdock, and S. Pollock, Phys. Rev. C 48, 3078 (1993)

    1993

  44. [50]

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

    1997

  45. [51]

    B. D. Serot and J. D. Walecka, Adv. Nucl. Phys. 16, 1 (1986)

    1986

  46. [52]

    P. G. Reinhard, Rep. Prog. Phys. 52, 439 (1989)

    1989

  47. [53]

    Ring, Prog

    P. Ring, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 37, 193 (1996)

    1996

  48. [54]

    G. A. Lalazissis, J. K ¨onig, and P. Ring, Phys. Rev. C 55, 540 (1997)

    1997

  49. [55]

    B. D. Serot and J. D. Walecka, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E6, 515 (1997)

    1997

  50. [56]

    E. D. Cooper, S. Hama, and B. C. Clark, Phys. Rev. C 80, 034605 (2009)

    2009

  51. [57]

    E. D. Cooper, S. Hama, B. C. Clark, and R. L. Mercer, Phys. Rev. C 47, 297 (1993)

    1993

  52. [58]

    J. M. Ud ´ıas, P. Sarriguren, E. Moya de Guerra, and J. A. Caballero, Phys. Rev. C 53, R1488 (1996)

    1996

  53. [59]

    J. M. Ud ´ıas, P. Sarriguren, E. Moya de Guerra, E. Garrido, and J. A. Caballero, Phys. Rev. C 48, 2731 (1993)

    1993

  54. [60]

    Gao et al

    J. Gao et al. (The Jefferson Lab Hall A Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett.84, 3265 (2000)

    2000

  55. [61]

    Meucci, C

    A. Meucci, C. Giusti, and F. D. Pacati, Phys. Rev. C 64, 014604 (2001)

    2001

  56. [62]

    W. M. Alberico, M. B. Barbaro, S. M. Bilenky, J. A. Caballero, C. Giunti, C. Maieron, E. Moya de Guerra, and J. M. Ud ´ıas, Phys. Lett.B438, 9 (1998)

    1998

  57. [63]

    Maieron, M

    C. Maieron, M. C. Martinez, J. A. Caballero, and J. M. Ud´ıas, Phys. Rev. C68, 048501 (2003)

    2003

  58. [64]

    Meucci, C

    A. Meucci, C. Giusti, and F. D. Pacati, Nucl. Phys. A773, 250 (2006)

    2006

  59. [65]

    K. S. Kim, B. G. Yu, M. K. Cheoun, T. K. Choi, and M. T. Chung, J. Phys. G34, 2643 (2007)

    2007

  60. [66]

    K. S. Kim, M.-K. Cheoun, and B. G. Yu, Phys. Rev. C 77, 054604 (2008). REFERENCES 57

    2008

  61. [68]

    Benhar, P

    O. Benhar, P. Coletti, and D. Meloni, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 132301 (2010)

    2010

  62. [69]

    Benhar and G

    O. Benhar and G. Veneziano, Phys. Lett. B702, 433 (2011)

    2011

  63. [70]

    A. M. Ankowski and J. T. Sobczyk, Phys. Rev. C 74, 054316 (2006)

    2006

  64. [71]

    A. M. Ankowski, Phys. Rev. C 86, 024616 (2012)

    2012

  65. [72]

    A. M. Ankowski and O. Benhar, Phys. Rev. D 88, 093004 (2013)

    2013

  66. [73]

    A. M. Ankowski, M. B. Barbaro, O. Benhar, J. A. Caballero, C. Giusti, R. Gonz ´alez- Jim´enez, G. D. Megias, and A. Meucci, Phys. Rev. C 92, 025501 (2015)

    2015

  67. [74]

    Benhar and A

    O. Benhar and A. Lovato, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E24, 1530006 (2015)

    2015

  68. [75]

    Rocco, A

    N. Rocco, A. Lovato, and O. Benhar, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 192501 (2016)

    2016

  69. [76]

    Benhar, Proceedings, 10th International Workshop on Neutrino-Nucleus Interac- tions in the Few GeV Region (NuInt15): Osaka, Japan, November 16-21, 2015 , JPS Conf

    O. Benhar, Proceedings, 10th International Workshop on Neutrino-Nucleus Interac- tions in the Few GeV Region (NuInt15): Osaka, Japan, November 16-21, 2015 , JPS Conf. Proc. 12, 010001 (2016)

    2016

  70. [77]

    Vagnoni, O

    E. Vagnoni, O. Benhar, and D. Meloni, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 142502 (2017)

    2017

  71. [78]

    Rocco, C

    N. Rocco, C. Barbieri, O. Benhar, A. De Pace, and A. Lovato, Phys. Rev. C99, 025502 (2019)

    2019

  72. [79]

    A. N. Antonov, M. V . Ivanov, J. A. Caballero, M. B. Barbaro, J. M. Udias, E. Moya de Guerra, and T. W. Donnelly, Phys. Rev. C 83, 045504 (2011)

    2011

  73. [80]

    M. V . Ivanov, A. N. Antonov, J. A. Caballero, G. D. Megias, M. B. Barbaro, E. Moya de Guerra, and J. M. Ud ´ıas, Phys. Rev. C89, 014607 (2014)

    2014

  74. [81]

    M. V . Ivanov, A. N. Antonov, M. B. Barbaro, C. Giusti, A. Meucci, J. A. Caballero, R. Gonz´alez-Jim´enez, E. Moya de Guerra, and J. M. Ud ´ıas, Phys. Rev. C91, 034607 (2015)

    2015

  75. [82]

    M. V . Ivanov, A. N. Antonov, G. D. Megias, J. A. Caballero, M. B. Barbaro, J. E. Amaro, I. Ruiz Simo, T. W. Donnelly, and J. M. Ud ´ıas, Phys. Rev. C 99, 014610 (2019)

    2019

  76. [83]

    Benhar, N

    O. Benhar, N. Farina, H. Nakamura, M. Sakuda, and R. Seki, Phys. Rev. D 72, 053005 (2005)

    2005

  77. [84]

    Benhar, A

    O. Benhar, A. Fabrocini, and S. Fantoni, Phys. Rev. C 41, R24 (1990)

    1990

  78. [85]

    Benhar, A

    O. Benhar, A. Fabrocini, S. Fantoni, and I. Sick, Nuclear Physics A 579, 493 (1994)

    1994

  79. [86]

    Antonello et al

    M. Antonello et al. (MicroBooNE, LAr1-ND, ICARUS-W A104), (2015), arXiv:1503.01520 [physics.ins-det]

    2015

  80. [87]

    Benhar et al., (2014), arXiv:1406.4080 [nucl-ex]

    O. Benhar et al., (2014), arXiv:1406.4080 [nucl-ex]

    2014 arXiv

  81. [88]

    W. H. Dickhoff and C. Barbieri, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 52, 377 (2004)

    2004

  82. [89]

    Barbieri and A

    C. Barbieri and A. Carbone, Lect. Notes Phys. 936, 571 (2017)

    2017

  83. [90]

    G. Co’, C. Bleve, I. De Mitri, and D. Martello, Proceedings, 1st International Workshop on Neutrino-nucleus interactions in the few GeV region (NuInt 01): Tsukuba, Japan, December 13-16, 2001, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 112, 210 (2002)

    2002

  84. [91]

    Benhar, A

    O. Benhar, A. Fabrocini, S. Fantoni, G. A. Miller, V . R. Pandharipande, and I. Sick, Phys. Rev. C 44, 2328 (1991)

    1991

  85. [92]

    A. M. Ankowski, O. Benhar, and M. Sakuda, Phys. Rev. D 91, 033005 (2015). REFERENCES 58

    2015

  86. [93]

    Giusti, A

    C. Giusti, A. Meucci, F. D. Pacati, J. A. Caballero, and J. M. Udias, Proceedings, 6th International Workshop on Neutrino-nucleus interactions in the few GeV region (NUINT 09): Sitges, Spain, May 18-22, 2009, AIP Conf. Proc. 1189, 107 (2009)

    2009

  87. [94]

    Ryckebusch, D

    J. Ryckebusch, D. Debruyne, P. Lava, S. Janssen, B. Van Overmeire, and T. Van Cauteren, Nuclear Physics A728, 226 (2003)

    2003

  88. [95]

    Horikawa, F

    Y . Horikawa, F. Lenz, and N. C. Mukhopadhyay, Phys. Rev. C 22, 1680 (1980)

    1980

  89. [96]

    J. A. Caballero, Phys. Rev. C 74, 015502 (2006)

    2006

  90. [97]

    J. A. Caballero, J. E. Amaro, M. B. Barbaro, T. W. Donnelly, C. Maieron, and J. M. Udias, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 252502 (2005)

    2005

  91. [98]

    Capuzzi, C

    F. Capuzzi, C. Giusti, and F. D. Pacati, Nuclear Physics A 524, 681 (1991)

    1991

  92. [99]

    Capuzzi, C

    F. Capuzzi, C. Giusti, F. D. Pacati, and D. N. Kadrev, Annals of Physics (N.Y .) 317, 492 (2005)

    2005

  93. [100]

    Meucci, F

    A. Meucci, F. Capuzzi, C. Giusti, and F. D. Pacati, Phys. Rev. C 67, 054601 (2003)

    2003

  94. [101]

    Meucci, C

    A. Meucci, C. Giusti, and F. D. Pacati, Nucl. Phys. A756, 359 (2005)

    2005

  95. [102]

    Meucci, J

    A. Meucci, J. A. Caballero, C. Giusti, F. D. Pacati, and J. M. Ud ´ıas, Phys. Rev. C80, 024605 (2009)

    2009

  96. [103]

    Meucci, M

    A. Meucci, M. V orabbi, C. Giusti, F. D. Pacati, and P. Finelli, Phys. Rev. C87, 054620 (2013)

    2013

  97. [104]

    Meucci, M

    A. Meucci, M. B. Barbaro, J. A. Caballero, C. Giusti, and J. M. Ud´ıas, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 172501 (2011)

    2011

  98. [105]

    Meucci, J

    A. Meucci, J. A. Caballero, C. Giusti, and J. M. Ud ´ıas, Phys. Rev. C 83, 064614 (2011)

    2011

  99. [106]

    Meucci and C

    A. Meucci and C. Giusti, Phys. Rev. D 85, 093002 (2012)

    2012

  100. [107]

    Meucci, C

    A. Meucci, C. Giusti, and M. V orabbi, Phys. Rev. D 88, 013006 (2013)

    2013

  101. [108]

    Meucci and C

    A. Meucci and C. Giusti, Phys. Rev. D 89, 117301 (2014)

    2014

  102. [109]

    Meucci, C

    A. Meucci, C. Giusti, and F. D. Pacati, Phys. Rev. D 84, 113003 (2011)

    2011

  103. [110]

    Gonz ´alez-Jim´enez, J

    R. Gonz ´alez-Jim´enez, J. A. Caballero, A. Meucci, C. Giusti, M. B. Barbaro, M. V . Ivanov, and J. M. Ud´ıas, Phys. Rev. C88, 025502 (2013)

    2013

  104. [112]

    M. V . Ivanov, J. R. Vignote, R. `Alvarez-Rodr´ıguez, A. Meucci, C. Giusti, and J. M. Ud´ıas, Phys. Rev. C94, 014608 (2016)

    2016

  105. [113]

    Nieves, J

    J. Nieves, J. E. Amaro, and M. Valverde, Phys. Rev. C 70, 055503 (2004), [Erratum: Phys. Rev.C72,019902(2005)]

    2004

  106. [114]

    Nieves, M

    J. Nieves, M. Valverde, and M. J. Vicente Vacas, Phys. Rev. C 73, 025504 (2006)

    2006

  107. [115]

    Nieves, F

    J. Nieves, F. S ´anchez, I. R. Simo, and M. J. V . Vacas, Phys. Rev. D85, 113008 (2012)

    2012

  108. [116]

    R. Gran, J. Nieves, F. Sanchez, and M. J. V . Vacas, Phys. Rev. D88, 113007 (2013)

    2013

  109. [117]

    Leitner, L

    T. Leitner, L. Alvarez-Ruso, and U. Mosel, Phys. Rev. C 73, 065502 (2006)

    2006

  110. [118]

    Leitner, L

    T. Leitner, L. Alvarez-Ruso, and U. Mosel, Phys. Rev. C 74, 065502 (2006)

    2006

  111. [119]

    Leitner, O

    T. Leitner, O. Buss, L. Alvarez-Ruso, and U. Mosel, Phys. Rev. C 79, 034601 (2009)

    2009

  112. [120]

    O. Buss, T. Gaitanos, K. Gallmeister, H. van Hees, M. Kaskulov, O. Lalakulich, A. B. Larionov, T. Leitner, J. Weil, and U. Mosel, Phys. Rept. 512, 1 (2012)

    2012

  113. [121]

    Gallmeister, U

    K. Gallmeister, U. Mosel, and J. Weil, Phys. Rev. C 94, 035502 (2016). REFERENCES 59

    2016

  114. [122]

    T. W. Donnelly and I. Sick, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 3212 (1999)

    1999

  115. [123]

    T. W. Donnelly and I. Sick, Phys. Rev. C 60, 065502 (1999)

    1999

  116. [124]

    Maieron, T

    C. Maieron, T. W. Donnelly, and I. Sick, Phys. Rev. C 65, 025502 (2002)

    2002

  117. [125]

    Gonz ´alez-Jim´enez, M

    R. Gonz ´alez-Jim´enez, M. Ivanov, M. Barbaro, J. Caballero, and J. Udias, Physics Letters B 718, 1471 (2013)

    2013

  118. [126]

    M. C. Mart ´ınez, J. A. Caballero, T. W. Donnelly, and J. M. Ud´ıas, Phys. Rev. Lett.100, 052502 (2008)

    2008

  119. [127]

    M. C. Mart ´ınez, J. A. Caballero, T. W. Donnelly, and J. M. Ud ´ıas, Phys. Rev. C 77, 064604 (2008)

    2008

  120. [128]

    J. E. Amaro, M. B. Barbaro, J. A. Caballero, and T. W. Donnelly, Phys. Rev. C 73, 035503 (2006)

    2006

  121. [129]

    J. E. Amaro, M. B. Barbaro, J. A. Caballero, and T. W. Donnelly, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 242501 (2007)

    2007

  122. [130]

    J. E. Amaro, M. B. Barbaro, J. A. Caballero, T. W. Donnelly, and J. M. Udias, Phys. Rev. C 75, 034613 (2007)

    2007

  123. [131]

    G. D. Megias, M. V . Ivanov, R. Gonz ´alez-Jim´enez, M. B. Barbaro, J. A. Caballero, T. W. Donnelly, and J. M. Ud´ıas, Phys. Rev. D89, 093002 (2014)

    2014

  124. [132]

    Gonz ´alez-Jim´enez, G

    R. Gonz ´alez-Jim´enez, G. D. Megias, M. B. Barbaro, J. A. Caballero, and T. W. Donnelly, Phys. Rev. C90, 035501 (2014)

    2014

  125. [133]

    J. E. Amaro et al., Phys. Rev. C 71, 015501 (2005)

    2005

  126. [134]

    Caballero, J

    J. Caballero, J. Amaro, M. Barbaro, T. Donnelly, and J. Ud ´ıas, Physics Letters B653, 366 (2007)

    2007

  127. [135]

    J. M. Finn, R. W. Lourie, and B. H. Cottman, Phys. Rev. C 29, 2230 (1984)

    1984

  128. [136]

    Ivanov, R

    M. Ivanov, R. Gonz ´alez-Jim´enez, J. Caballero, M. Barbaro, T. Donnelly, and J. Ud´ıas, Physics Letters B 727, 265 (2013)

    2013

  129. [137]

    G. D. Megias, J. E. Amaro, M. B. Barbaro, J. A. Caballero, and T. W. Donnelly, Phys. Rev. D 94, 013012 (2016)

    2016

  130. [138]

    M. B. Barbaro, J. A. Caballero, A. De Pace, T. W. Donnelly, R. Gonz´alez-Jim´enez, and G. D. Megias, Phys. Rev. C99, 042501 (2019)

    2019

  131. [139]

    G. D. Megias, T. W. Donnelly, O. Moreno, C. F. Williamson, J. A. Caballero, R. Gonz ´alez-Jim´enez, A. De Pace, M. B. Barbaro, W. M. Alberico, M. Nardi, and J. E. Amaro, Phys. Rev. D 91, 073004 (2015)

    2015

  132. [140]

    G. D. Megias, M. B. Barbaro, J. A. Caballero, J. E. Amaro, T. W. Donnelly, I. R. Simo, and J. W. V . Orden, Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics 46, 015104 (2018)

    2018

  133. [141]

    G. D. Megias, J. E. Amaro, M. B. Barbaro, J. A. Caballero, T. W. Donnelly, and I. R. Simo, Phys. Rev. D 94, 093004 (2016)

    2016

  134. [142]

    Ruiz Simo, J

    I. Ruiz Simo, J. E. Amaro, M. B. Barbaro, A. De Pace, J. A. Caballero, and T. W. Donnelly, J. Phys. G44, 065105 (2017), arXiv:1604.08423 [nucl-th]

    2017 arXiv

  135. [143]

    J. W. Van Orden and T. W. Donnelly, Annals Phys.131, 451 (1981)

    1981

  136. [144]

    De Pace, M

    A. De Pace, M. Nardi, W. M. Alberico, T. W. Donnelly, and A. Molinari, Nucl. Phys. A726, 303 (2003)

    2003

  137. [145]

    J. E. Amaro, C. Maieron, M. B. Barbaro, J. A. Caballero, and T. W. Donnelly, Phys. Rev. C 82, 044601 (2010). REFERENCES 60

    2010

  138. [146]

    A. N. Antonov, M. V . Ivanov, M. B. Barbaro, J. A. Caballero, E. Moya de Guerra, and M. K. Gaidarov, Phys. Rev. C75, 064617 (2007)

    2007

  139. [147]

    A. N. Antonov, P. E. Hodgson, and I. Z. Petkov, Nucleon Momentum and Density Distributions in Nuclei (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1988)

    1988

  140. [148]

    A. N. Antonov, P. E. Hodgson, and I. Z. Petkov, Nucleon Correlations in Nuclei (Springer-Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg-New York, 1993)

    1993

  141. [149]

    A. N. Antonov, M. K. Gaidarov, D. N. Kadrev, M. V . Ivanov, E. Moya de Guerra, and J. M. Udias, Phys. Rev. C 69, 044321 (2004)

    2004

  142. [150]

    A. N. Antonov, M. K. Gaidarov, M. V . Ivanov, D. N. Kadrev, E. Moya de Guerra, P. Sarriguren, and J. M. Udias, Phys. Rev. C 71, 014317 (2005)

    2005

  143. [151]

    A. N. Antonov, M. V . Ivanov, M. K. Gaidarov, E. Moya de Guerra, P. Sarriguren, and J. M. Udias, Phys. Rev. C 73, 047302 (2006)

    2006

  144. [152]

    A. N. Antonov, M. V . Ivanov, M. K. Gaidarov, E. Moya de Guerra, J. A. Caballero, M. B. Barbaro, J. M. Udias, and P. Sarriguren, Phys. Rev. C 74, 054603 (2006)

    2006

  145. [153]

    A. N. Antonov, M. V . Ivanov, M. K. Gaidarov, and E. Moya de Guerra, Phys. Rev. C 75, 034319 (2007)

    2007

  146. [154]

    M. V . Ivanov, M. B. Barbaro, J. A. Caballero, A. N. Antonov, E. Moya de Guerra, and M. K. Gaidarov, Phys. Rev. C77, 034612 (2008)

    2008

  147. [155]

    A. N. Antonov, M. V . Ivanov, M. B. Barbaro, J. A. Caballero, and E. Moya de Guerra, Phys. Rev. C 79, 044602 (2009)

    2009

  148. [156]

    J. A. Caballero, M. B. Barbaro, A. N. Antonov, M. V . Ivanov, and T. W. Donnelly, Phys. Rev. C 81, 055502 (2010)

    2010

  149. [157]

    L ¨owdin, Phys

    P.-O. L ¨owdin, Phys. Rev. 97, 1474 (1955)

    1955

  150. [158]

    M. V . Stoitsov, A. N. Antonov, and S. S. Dimitrova, Phys. Rev. C48, 74 (1993)

    1993

  151. [159]

    R. C. Carrasco and E. Oset, Nucl. Phys. A536, 445 (1992)

    1992

  152. [160]

    A. Gil, J. Nieves, and E. Oset, Nucl. Phys. A627, 599 (1997)

    1997

  153. [161]

    A. Gil, J. Nieves, and E. Oset, Nucl. Phys. A627, 543 (1997)

    1997

  154. [162]

    Martini, M

    M. Martini, M. Ericson, G. Chanfray, and J. Marteau, Phys. Rev. C 80, 065501 (2009)

    2009

  155. [163]

    Martini, M

    M. Martini, M. Ericson, G. Chanfray, and J. Marteau, Phys. Rev. C 81, 045502 (2010), 1002.4538

    2010 arXiv

  156. [164]

    Martini, M

    M. Martini, M. Ericson, and G. Chanfray, Phys. Rev. C 84, 055502 (2011)

    2011

  157. [165]

    W. M. Alberico, M. Ericson, and A. Molinari, Annals Phys. 154, 356 (1984)

    1984

  158. [166]

    Oset and L

    E. Oset and L. L. Salcedo, Nucl. Phys. A468, 631 (1987)

    1987

  159. [167]

    Botrugno and G

    A. Botrugno and G. Co’, Nucl. Phys. A761, 200 (2005)

    2005

  160. [168]

    Jachowicz, S

    N. Jachowicz, S. Rombouts, K. Heyde, and J. Ryckebusch, Phys. Rev. C 59, 3246 (1999)

    1999

  161. [169]

    Jachowicz, K

    N. Jachowicz, K. Heyde, J. Ryckebusch, and S. Rombouts, Phys. Rev. C 65, 025501 (2002)

    2002

  162. [170]

    Pandey, N

    V . Pandey, N. Jachowicz, J. Ryckebusch, T. Van Cuyck, and W. Cosyn, Phys. Rev. C 89, 024601 (2014)

    2014

  163. [171]

    Pandey, N

    V . Pandey, N. Jachowicz, T. Van Cuyck, J. Ryckebusch, and M. Martini, Phys. Rev. C 92, 024606 (2015). REFERENCES 61

    2015

  164. [172]

    Nikolakopoulos, M

    A. Nikolakopoulos, M. Martini, M. Ericson, N. Van Dessel, R. Gonz´alez-Jim´enez, and N. Jachowicz, Phys. Rev. C 98, 054603 (2018)

    2018

  165. [173]

    Co’ and S

    G. Co’ and S. Krewald, Nuclear Physics A 433, 392 (1985)

    1985

  166. [174]

    De Haro, S

    R. De Haro, S. Krewald, and J. Speth, Nuclear Physics A 388, 265 (1982)

    1982

  167. [175]

    Ryckebusch, K

    J. Ryckebusch, K. Heyde, D. V . Neck, and M. Waroquier, Nuclear Physics A503, 694 (1989)

    1989

  168. [176]

    Ryckebusch, M

    J. Ryckebusch, M. Waroquier, K. Heyde, J. Moreau, and D. Ryckbosch, Nuclear Physics A 476, 237 (1988)

    1988

  169. [177]

    Martini, N

    M. Martini, N. Jachowicz, M. Ericson, V . Pandey, T. Van Cuyck, and N. Van Dessel, Phys. Rev. C 94, 015501 (2016)

    2016

  170. [178]

    A. V . Butkevich and S. V . Luchuk, Phys. Rev.C97, 045502 (2018)

    2018

  171. [179]

    Umino, J

    Y . Umino, J. M. Udias, and P. J. Mulders, Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 4993 (1995)

    1995

  172. [180]

    Umino and J

    Y . Umino and J. M. Udias, Phys. Rev. C52, 3399 (1995)

    1995

  173. [181]

    Chemtob and M

    M. Chemtob and M. Rho, Nuclear Physics A 163, 1 (1971)

    1971

  174. [182]

    Van Cuyck, N

    T. Van Cuyck, N. Jachowicz, R. Gonz´alez-Jim´enez, J. Ryckebusch, and N. Van Dessel, Phys. Rev. C 95, 054611 (2017)

    2017

  175. [183]

    Benhar, A

    O. Benhar, A. Lovato, and N. Rocco, Phys. Rev. C 92, 024602 (2015)

    2015

  176. [184]

    Hernandez, J

    E. Hernandez, J. Nieves, and M. Valverde, Phys. Rev. D76, 033005 (2007)

    2007

  177. [185]

    R. B. Wiringa, V . G. J. Stoks, and R. Schiavilla, Phys. Rev. C 51, 38 (1995)

    1995

  178. [186]

    S. C. Pieper, V . R. Pandharipande, R. B. Wiringa, and J. Carlson, Phys. Rev. C 64, 014001 (2001)

    2001

  179. [187]

    Ekstr ¨om, G

    A. Ekstr ¨om, G. R. Jansen, K. A. Wendt, G. Hagen, T. Papenbrock, B. D. Carlsson, C. Forss´en, M. Hjorth-Jensen, P. Navr´atil, and W. Nazarewicz, Phys. Rev. C91, 051301 (2015)

    2015

  180. [188]

    Lovato, S

    A. Lovato, S. Gandolfi, J. Carlson, E. Lusk, S. C. Pieper, and R. Schiavilla, Phys. Rev. C 97, 022502 (2018)

    2018

  181. [189]

    S. C. Pieper and R. B. Wiringa, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science 51, 53 (2001)

    2001

  182. [190]

    Lovato, S

    A. Lovato, S. Gandolfi, J. Carlson, S. C. Pieper, and R. Schiavilla, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 082501 (2016)

    2016

  183. [191]

    Lovato, S

    A. Lovato, S. Gandolfi, J. Carlson, S. C. Pieper, and R. Schiavilla, Phys. Rev. C 91, 062501 (2015)

    2015

  184. [192]

    Lovato, S

    A. Lovato, S. Gandolfi, J. Carlson, S. C. Pieper, and R. Schiavilla, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 182502 (2014)

    2014

  185. [193]

    Shimizu and A

    K. Shimizu and A. Faessler, Nucl. Phys. A333, 495 (1980)

    1980

  186. [194]

    I. R. Simo, C. Albertus, J. E. Amaro, M. B. Barbaro, J. A. Caballero, and T. W. Donnelly, Phys. Rev. D90, 033012 (2014)

    2014

  187. [195]

    Ashman et al

    J. Ashman et al. (European Muon Collaboration), Nucl. Phys. B B328, 1 (1989)

    1989

  188. [196]

    Van Der Ventel and J

    B. Van Der Ventel and J. Piekarewicz, Phys. Rev. C 73, 025501 (2006)

    2006

  189. [197]

    Cheoun and K

    M.-K. Cheoun and K. S. Kim, Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics 35, 065107 (2008)

    2008

  190. [198]

    M. B. Barbaro, A. De Pace, T. W. Donnelly, A. Molinari, and M. J. Musolf, Phys. Rev. C 54, 1954 (1996). REFERENCES 62

    1996

  191. [199]

    Jachowicz, P

    N. Jachowicz, P. Vancraeyveld, P. Lava, C. Praet, and J. Ryckebusch, Phys. Rev. C76, 055501 (2007)

    2007

  192. [200]

    S. F. Pate, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 082002 (2004)

    2004

  193. [201]

    L. A. Ahrens et al., Phys. Rev. D 35, 785 (1987)

    1987

  194. [202]

    G. T. Garvey, W. C. Louis, and D. H. White, Phys. Rev. C 48, 761 (1993)

    1993

  195. [203]

    Alexakhinet al., Physics Letters B 647, 8 (2007)

    V . Alexakhinet al., Physics Letters B 647, 8 (2007)

    2007

  196. [204]

    Airapetian et al

    A. Airapetian et al. (HERMES Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 75, 012007 (2007)

    2007

  197. [205]

    W. M. Alberico, S. M. Bilenky, C. Giunti, and C. Maieron, Z. Phys. C70, 463 (1996)

    1996

  198. [206]

    Garvey, E

    G. Garvey, E. Kolbe, K. Langanke, and S. Krewald, Phys. Rev. C 48, 1919 (1993)

    1993

  199. [207]

    A. A. Aguilar-Arevalo et al. (MiniBooNE Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 82, 092005 (2010)

    2010

  200. [208]

    L. A. Ahrens et al., Phys. Rev. D 34, 75 (1986)

    1986

  201. [209]

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

    2009

  202. [210]

    Abe et al

    K. Abe et al. (T2K Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 87, 012001 (2013)

    2013

  203. [211]

    Aliaga et al

    L. Aliaga et al. (MINERνA Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 94, 092005 (2016)

    2016

  204. [212]

    Abe et al., Phys

    K. Abe et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 56, 1107 (1986)

    1986

  205. [213]

    A. A. Aguilar-Arevalo et al. (MiniBooNE Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 91, 012004 (2015)

    2015

  206. [214]

    Alberico, M

    W. Alberico, M. Barbaro, S. Bilenky, J. Caballero, C. Giunti, C. Maieron, E. Moya de Guerra, and J. Udas, Nuclear Physics A 651, 277 (1999)

    1999

  207. [215]

    Bugel et al

    L. Bugel et al. (FINeSSE), (2004), arXiv:hep-ex/0402007 [hep-ex]

    2004 arXiv

  208. [216]

    Casper, Nuclear Physics B - Proceedings Supplements 112, 161 (2002)

    D. Casper, Nuclear Physics B - Proceedings Supplements 112, 161 (2002)

    2002

  209. [217]

    Takei, Measurement of Neutrino-Nucleon Neutral-Current Elastic Scattering Cross- section at SciBooNE, Ph.D

    H. Takei, Measurement of Neutrino-Nucleon Neutral-Current Elastic Scattering Cross- section at SciBooNE, Ph.D. thesis, Tokyo Institute of Technology (2009)

    2009

  210. [218]

    Lyubushkinet al

    V . Lyubushkinet al. (NOMAD Collaboration), Eur. Phys. J. C 63, 355 (2009)

    2009

  211. [219]

    A. A. Aguilar-Arevalo et al. (MiniBooNE Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett.100, 032301 (2008)

    2008

  212. [220]

    Miniboone neutral current elastic data release for ref. [207],

    “Miniboone neutral current elastic data release for ref. [207],” (2010), https:// www-boone.fnal.gov/for_physicists/data_release/ncel/

    2010

  213. [221]

    Perevalov, Neutrino-nucleus neutral current elastic interactions measurement in MiniBooNE, Ph.D

    D. Perevalov, Neutrino-nucleus neutral current elastic interactions measurement in MiniBooNE, Ph.D. thesis, The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama (2009)

    2009

  214. [222]

    Meucci and C

    A. Meucci and C. Giusti, Phys. Rev. D 89, 057302 (2014)

    2014

  215. [223]

    Leitner and U

    T. Leitner and U. Mosel, Phys. Rev. C 81, 064614 (2010)

    2010

  216. [224]

    K. S. Kim, M.-K. Cheoun, and W. Y . So, Phys. Rev. C 88, 044615 (2013)

    2013

  217. [225]

    Horowitz and B

    C. Horowitz and B. D. Serot, Nuclear Physics A 368, 503 (1981)

    1981

  218. [226]

    Hedayatipoor, J

    M. Hedayatipoor, J. Finlay, S. Massoudi, C. Nokes, and M. de Montigny, Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics 45, 025201 (2017)

    2017

  219. [228]

    Bodek, H

    A. Bodek, H. S. Budd, and M. E. Christy, The European Physical Journal C 71, 1726 (2011)

    2011

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.