Precision measurements on $\delta_\text{CP}$ in MOMENT

Jian Tang; Sampsa Vihonen; Tse-Chun Wang

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 45 references

Precision measurements on $\delta_\text{CP}$ in MOMENT

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 This paper forecasts that the proposed MOMENT muon-decay experiment can measure $\delta_\text{CP}$ to 15° or better at 1σ for about three-quarters of the currently allowed values, and to 12° or better when combined with DUNE and T2HK.

desk verdict A solid, transparent MOMENT simulation paper whose headline combination claim isn't actually plotted and whose DUNE input has a running-time inconsistency; both fixable, worth peer review. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.01548 v2 pith:JBUKE3LU submitted 2019-09-04 hep-ph

Jian Tang , Sampsa Vihonen , Tse-Chun Wang This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-ph

keywords neutrinooscillationsDiracCPphasedelta_CPprecisionMOMENTmuon-decaybeamlong-baselineexperimentsviolationsecondoscillationmaximum

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

The paper forecasts how precisely the proposed MOMENT facility—a 15 MW muon-decay neutrino beam aimed at a 500 kiloton gadolinium-doped water Cherenkov detector 150 km away—could measure $\delta_\text{CP}$, the neutrino mixing phase that, if nonzero, signals CP violation in the lepton sector. It claims that MOMENT alone would determine $\delta_\text{CP}$ to 15° or better at 1σ confidence for approximately three-quarters of the values still allowed by current data, and that combining MOMENT with the planned superbeam experiments DUNE and T2HK would reach 12° or better for every allowed value, in either neutrino mass ordering. This matters because a roughly 10°–15° measurement is the regime where different flavour-symmetry models of neutrino mixing become distinguishable, and where the size of leptonic CP violation is established rather than merely indicated.

What carries the argument

The argument runs on the $\delta_\text{CP}$-dependent interference term in the appearance probability, $P_{\nu_e\to\nu_\mu} \approx P_1 + P_{3/2}$, where $P_{3/2} = 8J_r [\epsilon/(r_A(1-r_A))] \cos(\delta_\text{CP} - \Delta L/2) \sin(r_A\Delta L/2) \sin((1-r_A)\Delta L/2)$, with $J_r$ the reduced Jarlskog invariant, $\epsilon = \Delta m^2_{21}/\Delta m^2_{31}$, and $r_A$ the ratio of the matter potential to $\Delta m^2_{31}/2E$. This term is the only place $\delta_\text{CP}$ enters, and it is largest when $\Delta L/2$ sits at an odd multiple of $\pi/2$; MOMENT's 150 km setup and roughly 100 MeV flux place it at the second maximum, making the phase dependence approximate $\sin\delta_\text{CP}$. The muon-decay source supplies eight channels ($\nu_e\to\nu_\mu$ and $\bar\nu_\mu\to\bar\nu_e$ in $\mu^+$ mode, their conjugates in $\mu^-$ mode, plus disappearance channels), so the experiment constrains $\delta_\text{CP}$ from several spectra at once. A $\chi^2$ with signal/background nuisance parameters and Gaussian priors on the known oscillation parameters converts the simulated event rates into the quoted 1σ uncertainties.

What would settle it

Commission MOMENT and measure its actual reconstruction efficiencies, background rates, and atmospheric-neutrino suppression during a beam-off run: the paper's Appendix B predicts that efficiencies of 20% or a suppression factor of $2.2\times10^{-2}$ shift $\Delta\delta_\text{CP}$ by more than 10° at $\delta_\text{CP}=90°/270°$, which would invalidate the combined 11.8° precision claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

MOMENT's central advantage is that a muon-decay beam delivers neutrinos and antineutrinos in eight simultaneous oscillation channels, with low beam-related backgrounds, and its 150 km baseline places the bulk of its roughly 100 MeV flux at the second oscillation maximum, where the CP-dependent term in the appearance probability is maximized. Under the assumed detector performance, the paper finds MOMENT alone reaches a 1σ uncertainty of about 10.0° for the current best-fit $\delta_\text{CP}$ in normal ordering (14.3° in inverted ordering), and 15.6° at the benchmark CP-violating value $\delta_\text{CP}=270°$. After ten years of running, MOMENT alone gives 15° or better precision for roughly three-quarters of the currently allowed $\delta_\text{CP}$ values, while the combination MOMENT+DUNE+T2HK yields 11.8° or better regardless of mass ordering or true $\delta_\text{CP}$; replacing T2HK with T2HKK improves that to 10.7°. The conclusion is that a medium-baseline muon-decay facility can bring $\delta_\text{CP}$ precision below a 12° target.

Load-bearing premise

The headline numbers hold only if MOMENT's 500 kt detector achieves the assumed 40% electron-like and 50% muon-like reconstruction efficiencies, the 0.3% wrong-charge and 0.25% neutral-current background rates, and the $2.2\times10^{-3}$ atmospheric-neutrino suppression factor; the paper's Appendix B shows that worse performance shifts $\Delta\delta_\text{CP}$ by more than 10° at the benchmark CP-violating values.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

MOMENT alone is forecast to measure $\delta_\text{CP}$ at 1σ with about 10.0° uncertainty at the current best-fit value in normal mass ordering, and with 15° or better precision for roughly three-quarters of the currently allowed values.
Combining simulated MOMENT, DUNE, and T2HK data gives 11.8° or better 1σ precision for every allowed $\delta_\text{CP}$ value, independent of the mass ordering; swapping T2HK for T2HKK gives 10.7°.
At $\delta_\text{CP}=0°$ and 180° the precision is systematics-limited (about 8–9° in the default setup), while at 90° and 270° it is statistics-limited, so the experiment should be designed to maximize event rate near the second maximum.
The 150 km second-maximum configuration beats the 50 km first-maximum configuration for every $\delta_\text{CP}$ value, even though the closer detector would collect about nine times more events.
Running MOMENT entirely in $\mu^+$ mode is mildly preferred at $\delta_\text{CP}=270°$, improving the standalone 1σ precision from 15.6° to 12.8°; symmetric $\mu^+/\mu^-$ running is preferred near the CP-conserving values.

Reading between the lines

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

The paper's own Appendix B makes detector performance the gatekeeper: dropping reconstruction efficiencies to 20% or raising the atmospheric-background suppression factor to $2.2\times10^{-2}$ shifts $\Delta\delta_\text{CP}$ by more than 10° at $\delta_\text{CP}=90°/270°$, which is enough to push the combined 11.8° headline above 12°; a detector-characterization run that verifies the assumed effic
The beam-polarity result suggests an operational lever the paper does not optimize: once early data narrow the true $\delta_\text{CP}$, the $\mu^+/\mu^-$ time split could be re-tuned, since pure $\mu^+$ running clearly helps at $\delta_\text{CP}\approx 270°$ while symmetric running is better near CP-conserving values.
The complementarity between a second-maximum muon-decay beam and first-maximum superbeams is probably generic, so a similar medium-baseline low-energy facility elsewhere should add comparable $\delta_\text{CP}$ information to DUNE and T2HK or T2HKK.
A testable extrapolation of the paper's own statement that four times more statistics makes MOMENT alone reach about 10° is that upgrading beam power or detector mass would substitute for relying on DUNE and T2HK.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Good paper to know about if you're tracking MOMENT or future CP-precision forecasts. It's a straightforward GLoBES simulation study, honestly done and clearly written. The genuinely new parts are the optimization scans: beam polarity, baseline length (first vs second oscillation maximum), and systematic error dependence for delta_CP precision in MOMENT, plus the combination study with DUNE/T2HK/T2HKK. The methodology is standard and the input table is detailed. Credit where due: the authors are transparent about their detector assumptions and include an appendix showing how the MOMENT-only results shift if efficiencies drop to 20% or atmospheric background suppression is worse. That is good practice for a proposed-experiment study.

The soft spots are real but not fatal. First, there is an internal inconsistency: Table 1 lists DUNE running time as 5+5 years while Appendix A.4 says 3.5+3.5 years, with the same 1.47e21 POT. Which one was actually simulated? This changes the DUNE comparison and the combination results. Needs a clear correction. Second, the abstract's headline claim—that combining MOMENT, DUNE, and T2HK reaches 12 degrees or better—is not shown in any figure. Fig 7's triple curve is DUNE+MOMENT+T2HKK (the 'LBLs+MOMENT' line). The Section 5 bullet gives 11.8 degrees for the T2HK triple, but there's no scan to verify it. Third, the central numeric claims rest on unvalidated detector performance (40% e-like efficiency, f=2.2e-3 background suppression, etc.). The authors flag this in Appendix B, but they don't propagate those variations to the combined DUNE+T2HK result, so the robustness of the 12 degree claim to those assumptions is unknown. This is a limitation rather than a defect, but it means the headline should be read as conditional on the assumed detector performance.

None of this breaks the paper. The core simulation logic is sound, the literature is engaged properly, and the conclusions are drawn cautiously within the text. It's a useful planning document for the neutrino community, especially for MOMENT proponents and for anyone comparing future experiment combinations. With the DUNE input fixed and the T2HK-triple result either plotted or explicitly labeled as an estimate, it would be publishable in a reasonable journal.

I'd send it to review, not desk-reject it. The errors are presentation-level and correctable, and the simulation work deserves referee time.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript uses GLoBES simulations of the proposed MOMENT muon-decay neutrino facility, together with T2K, NOvA, DUNE, T2HK and T2HKK, to forecast the 1σ precision with which the Dirac CP phase δCP can be measured. It studies the effect of running time, signal-normalization systematics, beam polarity split, and baseline length (first versus second oscillation maximum). The headline results are that MOMENT alone can measure δCP to 15° or better for roughly 76–79% of the currently allowed values, and that combining MOMENT with DUNE and T2HK yields 12° or better at 1σ (11.8° according to the summary), with 10.7° if T2HKK replaces T2HK. Appendix B quantifies the effect of detector-efficiency and atmospheric-neutrino-background assumptions on the MOMENT-only results.

Significance. If the forecast is correct, MOMENT would be a competitive facility for δCP precision and a useful complement to the superbeam program. The 10–12° precision range is directly relevant for discriminating flavor-symmetry models and for the broader program of leptonic CP violation. The paper's strengths include the use of the standard GLoBES package, a detailed table of simulation inputs, and an explicit appendix testing detector-efficiency and background assumptions, which makes the MOMENT-only sensitivity curves internally plausible. However, the central combined claim is not fully documented in the manuscript as written, and the load-bearing detector assumptions are varied only for MOMENT alone, not for the combined scenarios.

major comments (3)

[§5 and Abstract] The statement that MOMENT+DUNE+T2HK reaches 11.8° or 12° or better at 1σ regardless of mass ordering and δCP is not supported by any figure or table. Figure 7 and the text in §4.3 show binary combinations (MOMENT+DUNE, MOMENT+T2HK, MOMENT+T2HKK) and a single triple 'LBLs+MOMENT' that is explicitly DUNE+MOMENT+T2HKK (see Fig. 7 caption); no DUNE+MOMENT+T2HK triple curve or numerical value is presented. Since this is the abstract's central quantitative claim, the missing simulation output must be shown, or the claim must be revised to match what is actually presented.
[Appendix B and §3 (Eq. 3.1)] The detector assumptions in §3 (40% electron-like and 50% muon-like reconstruction efficiencies, 0.3% wrong-charge acceptance, 0.25% neutral-current background, and f = 2.2×10−3 in Eq. 3.1) are load-bearing. Appendix B shows that lowering efficiencies to 20% changes ΔδCP by more than 10° at δCP = 90°/270°, and that raising the suppression factor to 2.2×10−2 produces large positive deviations, up to the 30° scale shown in Fig. 8c. These variants are applied to the MOMENT-only analysis; they are not propagated to the combined DUNE+T2HK+MOMENT or DUNE+T2HKK+MOMENT analyses that support the 11.8°–12° headline. The paper should either report the combined sensitivities under these variants or qualify the headline as contingent on the baseline detector assumptions.
[Table 1 and Appendix A.4] The DUNE simulation input is internally inconsistent: Table 1 lists running times of 5+5 years, while Appendix A.4 states that the exposure of 1.47×10^21 POT is reached after 3.5+3.5 years. This discrepancy changes the DUNE statistics and therefore affects both the comparison with MOMENT and the combined fits. The correct simulation configuration must be stated unambiguously and used consistently throughout.

minor comments (4)

[Section 3 (Eq. 3.3)] The sentence introducing the priors says 'where σsg and σsg are the errors associated with the nuisance parameters ζsg and ζbg'; the second symbol should be σbg.
[Fig. 8 caption] The caption lists cases (c) and (d) both as a suppression factor of 2.2×10−2, although panels (c) and (d) use 2.2×10−2 and 2.2×10−1, respectively; the caption should be corrected.
[Section 1 and Section 4.3] The fraction of currently allowed δCP values for which MOMENT alone achieves ΔδCP ≤ 15° is quoted as 'approximately 76%' in the Introduction and as '79%' in §4.3; these numbers should be reconciled or explicitly explained.
[Fig. 1 caption] The caption contains the typo 'conﬁgurtion' and should read 'configuration'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the ΔδCP forecasts are forward-simulation outputs with externally fixed inputs; self-citations are setup reuse, not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central quantities (Δχ2 and ΔδCP) are generated by a GLoBES forward simulation, not by inverting a fitted formula. The oscillation parameters in Table 2 are taken from the external NuFIT 4.1 global fit; the detector parameters (efficiencies, backgrounds, suppression factor f=2.2e-3) are stated as assumptions in Section 3 and Table 1. The Poisson likelihood and pulls in Eqs. (3.2)-(3.3) are then minimized over test values, and ΔδCP is defined in Eq. (3.4) as the half-width of the Δχ2=1 interval. Nothing in this chain is defined in terms of the headline 12° or 11.8° claims. Section 2's analytical P3/2∝sinδCP discussion is used only for qualitative motivation (e.g., why systematics matter near 0° and 180°), not as the source of the numerical sensitivities. The sensitivity forecasts for MOMENT, DUNE, T2HK, etc. are independent forward predictions with no fitted parameter inserted to force the stated precision. The self-citations to Refs. [17,20,21] are to the MOMENT proposal and to earlier simulation-setup/flux work by overlapping authors; those papers did not define or fit the ΔδCP values claimed here, so the citation is reuse of setup rather than load-bearing support. Appendix B's variation of efficiencies and background shows the assumptions are consequential, but sensitivity to input assumptions is a validation/correctness issue, not circular reasoning. The absence of an explicit DUNE+T2HK+MOMENT curve in Fig. 7 and the DUNE running-time inconsistency (Table 1 vs. Appendix A.4) are reproducibility concerns, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central forecast rests on standard oscillation physics plus a series of assumed MOMENT facility parameters. None of the free parameters is fitted to the paper's target precision; they are inputs adopted from prior literature or chosen by hand. The most fragile entries are the detector efficiencies and atmospheric background suppression factor, whose variation in Appendix B changes delta_CP by more than 10 degrees.

free parameters (5)

Signal normalization systematic uncertainties sigma_sg = 2.5% (e-like), 5% (mu-like)
Assumed, not fitted. Chosen in Section 3 after Eq. (3.3); Fig. 4 shows delta_CP at 0 and 180 degrees depends strongly on this assumed value.
Background normalization systematic uncertainty sigma_bg = 5% for both e-like and mu-like channels
Assumed, not fitted. Chosen in Section 3; Appendix B notes varying it up to 15% changes delta_CP by less than 1 degree, so it is a low-impact assumption.
Detector reconstruction efficiencies = 40% e-like, 50% mu-like
Assumed, not fitted. Adopted from Ref. [20] in Section 3; Appendix B shows changing these shifts delta_CP by several degrees across its allowed range.
Atmospheric neutrino background suppression factor f = 2.2e-3
Assumed, not fitted. Defined in Eq. (3.1); Appendix B shows degrading f to 2.2e-2 or 2.2e-1 can increase delta_CP by more than 10 degrees for delta_CP around 90 and 270 degrees.
True values and priors for oscillation parameters = NuFIT 4.1 values in Table 2, e.g. delta_CP=221 degrees (NO) and 282 degrees (IO)
External global-fit inputs, not fitted here; they set the true values and prior widths used to compute chi-squared and hence all quoted precisions.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption Three-flavor neutrino oscillations with matter effects in the PMNS framework are the correct description.
Section 1 and Section 2; the entire simulation and interpretation rest on the standard three-neutrino formalism.
domain assumption The perturbative expansion in epsilon=Delta m21^2/Delta m31^2 with sin^2 theta13 of order epsilon (Eqs. 2.1-2.3) is valid for MOMENT energies and baselines.
Section 2; used only for analytic motivation, while GLoBES computes exact oscillation probabilities, so this is not load-bearing for the final numbers.
domain assumption Matter effects along the baseline can be treated with a constant, small electron density r_A.
Section 2 after Eq. (2.3): 'matter potentials are small in medium-baseline experiments like MOMENT'.
domain assumption The MOMENT neutrino flux from the accelerator working group Monte Carlo is a faithful representation of the future beam.
Section 3; flux peaking near 200 MeV determines the event rates and oscillation-maximum coverage.
ad hoc to paper The atmospheric neutrino background can be suppressed by a factor f=2.2e-3.
Eq. (3.1) and Section 3; this is a speculative assumption for an unbuilt experiment and is load-bearing, as Appendix B demonstrates.
ad hoc to paper The neutrino mass ordering and theta23 octant are assumed known when computing Delta chi-squared.
Section 3, end: 'assuming the neutrino mass ordering and theta23 octant be known'; this excludes a source of uncertainty and makes the quoted precision optimistic.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Precision measurements on $\delta_\text{CP}$ in MOMENT." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JBUKE3LU

@misc{pith2026190901548,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Precision measurements on $\delta_\textCP$ in MOMENT},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JBUKE3LU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.01548}
}

abstract

As it is very promising to expect a discovery of CP violation in the leptonic sector, the precision measurement of the Dirac CP phase $\delta_\text{CP}$ is going to be one of the key interests in the future neutrino oscillation experiments. In this work, we examine the physics reach of the proposed medium baseline muon decay experiment MOMENT. In order to identify potential bottlenecks and opportunities to improve CP precision in MOMENT, we investigate the effect of statistical error, systematic uncertainties, fraction of the muon beam polarity, and adjusting the baseline length to match the first or second oscillation maximum on the precision measurement of $\delta_\text{CP}$. We also simulate superbeam experiments T2K, NO$\nu$A, T2HK, DUNE and T2HKK in comparison and complementary to MOMENT. To reach the precision of $\delta_\text{CP}$ at 12$^\circ$ or better at 1$\sigma$ confidence level, we find it sufficient to combine the data of MOMENT, DUNE and T2HK.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

[1]

Kajita and Y

T. Kajita and Y. Totsuka,Observation of atmospheric neutrinos, Rev. Mod. Phys.73 (2001) 85

work page 2001
[2]

SNO collaboration, Measurement of the rate ofνe +d→p +p +e− interactions produced by 8B solar neutrinos at the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory, Phys. Rev. Lett.87 (2001) 071301 [nucl-ex/0106015]

arXiv 2001
[3]

Pontecorvo,Mesonium and anti-mesonium, Sov

B. Pontecorvo,Mesonium and anti-mesonium, Sov. Phys. JETP 6 (1957) 429

work page 1957
[4]

Z. Maki, M. Nakagawa, Y. Ohnuki and S. Sakata,A uniﬁed model for elementary particles, Prog. Theor. Phys.23 (1960) 1174

work page 1960
[5]

Kobayashi and T

M. Kobayashi and T. Maskawa,CP Violation in the Renormalizable Theory of Weak Interaction, Prog. Theor. Phys.49 (1973) 652

1973
[6]

NuFIT 4.1 (2019)

“NuFIT 4.1 (2019).”http://www.nu-fit.org/

work page 2019
[7]

Esteban, M

I. Esteban, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, A. Hernandez-Cabezudo, M. Maltoni and T. Schwetz, Global analysis of three-ﬂavour neutrino oscillations: synergies and tensions in the determination ofθ23,δCP, and the mass ordering, JHEP 01 (2019) 106 [1811.05487]

arXiv 2019
[8]

P. F. De Salas, S. Gariazzo, O. Mena, C. A. Ternes and M. Tortola,Neutrino Mass Ordering from Oscillations and Beyond: 2018 Status and Future Prospects, Front. Astron. Space Sci.5 (2018) 36 [1806.11051]

arXiv 2018

Show all 45 references

[9]

Capozzi, E

F. Capozzi, E. Lisi, A. Marrone and A. Palazzo,Current unknowns in the three neutrino framework, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.102 (2018) 48 [arXiv:1804.09678]

2018 arXiv
[10]

S. F. King,Models of Neutrino Mass, Mixing and CP Violation, J. Phys. G42 (2015) 123001 [1510.02091]

2015 arXiv
[11]

S. T. Petcov and A. V. Titov,Assessing the Viability ofA4, S4 and A5 Flavour Symmetries for Description of Neutrino Mixing, Phys. Rev. D97 (2018) 115045 [1804.00182]

2018 arXiv
[12]

Ballett, S

P. Ballett, S. F. King, S. Pascoli, N. W. Prouse and T. Wang,Sensitivities and synergies of DUNE and T2HK, Phys. Rev. D96 (2017) 033003 [1612.07275]

2017 arXiv
[13]

Ghosh and T

M. Ghosh and T. Ohlsson,A comparative study between ESSnuSB and T2HK in determining the leptonic CP phase, 1906.05779

1906 arXiv
[14]

Coloma, A

P. Coloma, A. Donini, E. Fernandez-Martinez and P. Hernandez,Precision on leptonic mixing parameters at future neutrino oscillation experiments, JHEP 06 (2012) 073 [1203.5651]

2012 arXiv
[15]

Winter,Understanding CP phase dependent measurements at neutrino superbeams in terms of bi-rate graphs, Phys

W. Winter,Understanding CP phase dependent measurements at neutrino superbeams in terms of bi-rate graphs, Phys. Rev. D70 (2004) 033006 [hep-ph/0310307]

2004 arXiv
[16]

M. V. Smirnov, Z. J. Hu, S. J. Li and J. J. Ling,The possibility of leptonic CP-violation measurement with JUNO, Nucl. Phys. B931 (2018) 437 [1802.03677]

2018 arXiv
[17]

Cao et al.,Muon-decay medium-baseline neutrino beam facility, Phys

J. Cao et al.,Muon-decay medium-baseline neutrino beam facility, Phys. Rev. ST Accel. Beams 17 (2014) 090101 [1401.8125]

2014 arXiv
[18]

Blennow, P

M. Blennow, P. Coloma and E. Fernández-Martinez,The MOMENT to search for CP violation, JHEP 03 (2016) 197 [1511.02859]

2016 arXiv
[19]

Bakhti and Y

P. Bakhti and Y. Farzan,CP-Violation and Non-Standard Interactions at the MOMENT, JHEP 07 (2016) 109 [1602.07099]. – 22 –

2016 arXiv
[20]

Tang and Y

J. Tang and Y. Zhang,Study of nonstandard charged-current interactions at the MOMENT experiment, Phys. Rev. D97 (2018) 035018 [1705.09500]

2018 arXiv
[21]

Tang, T.-C

J. Tang, T.-C. Wang and Y. Zhang,Invisible neutrino decays at the MOMENT experiment, JHEP 04 (2019) 004 [1811.05623]

2019 arXiv
[22]

T2K collaboration, The T2K Experiment, Nucl. Instrum. Meth.A659 (2011) 106 [arXiv:1106.1238]

2011
[23]

NOvA collaboration, The NOvA Technical Design Report, FERMILAB-DESIGN-2007-01 (2007)

2007
[24]

Hyper-Kamiokande Proto-Collaboration collaboration, Physics potential of a long-baseline neutrino oscillation experiment using a J-PARC neutrino beam and Hyper-Kamiokande, PTEP 2015 (2015) 053C02 [arXiv:1502.05199]

2015 arXiv
[25]

DUNE collaboration, Long-Baseline Neutrino Facility (LBNF) and Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment (DUNE), arXiv:1512.06148
[26]

Hyper-Kamiokande collaboration, Physics potentials with the second Hyper-Kamiokande detector in Korea, PTEP 2018 (2018) 063C01 [1611.06118]

2018 arXiv
[27]

Asano and H

K. Asano and H. Minakata,Large-Theta(13) Perturbation Theory of Neutrino Oscillation for Long-Baseline Experiments, JHEP 06 (2011) 022 [1103.4387]

2011 arXiv
[28]

Huber, M

P. Huber, M. Lindner and W. Winter,Simulation of long-baseline neutrino oscillation experiments with GLoBES (General Long Baseline Experiment Simulator), Comput. Phys. Commun. 167 (2005) 195 [hep-ph/0407333]

2005 arXiv
[29]

Huber, J

P. Huber, J. Kopp, M. Lindner, M. Rolinec and W. Winter,New features in the simulation of neutrino oscillation experiments with GLoBES 3.0: General Long Baseline Experiment Simulator, Comput. Phys. Commun.177 (2007) 432 [hep-ph/0701187]

2007 arXiv
[30]

MEMPHYS collaboration, Study of the performance of a large scale water-Cherenkov detector (MEMPHYS), JCAP 1301 (2013) 024 [1206.6665]

2013 arXiv
[31]

J. F. Beacom and M. R. Vagins,GADZOOKS! Anti-neutrino spectroscopy with large water Cherenkov detectors, Phys. Rev. Lett.93 (2004) 171101 [hep-ph/0309300]

2004 arXiv
[32]

Campagne, M

J.-E. Campagne, M. Maltoni, M. Mezzetto and T. Schwetz,Physics potential of the CERN-MEMPHYS neutrino oscillation project, JHEP 04 (2007) 003 [hep-ph/0603172]

2007 arXiv
[33]

Fernandez-Martinez,The gamma = 100 beta-Beam revisited, Nucl

E. Fernandez-Martinez,The gamma = 100 beta-Beam revisited, Nucl. Phys. B833 (2010) 96 [0912.3804]

2010 arXiv
[34]

E. A. Paschos and J. Y. Yu,Neutrino interactions in oscillation experiments, Phys. Rev. D65 (2002) 033002 [hep-ph/0107261]

2002 arXiv
[35]

Huber, M

P. Huber, M. Lindner and W. Winter,Superbeams versus neutrino factories, Nucl. Phys. B645 (2002) 3 [hep-ph/0204352]

2002 arXiv
[36]

Itow et al.,The jhf-kamioka neutrino project, hep-ex/0106019

Y. Itow et al.,The jhf-kamioka neutrino project, hep-ex/0106019

arXiv
[37]

Ishitsuka, T

M. Ishitsuka, T. Kajita, H. Minakata and H. Nunokawa,Resolving neutrino mass hierarchy and cp degeneracy by two identical detectors with diﬀerent baselines, Phys. Rev. D72 (2005) 033003 [hep-ph/0504026]

2005 arXiv
[38]

NOvA collaboration, Nova proposal to build a 30-kiloton oﬀ-axis detector to study neutrino oscillations in the fermilab numi beamline, hep-ex/0503053. – 23 –

arXiv
[39]

NOvA collaboration, Study of physics sensitivity ofνµ disappearance in a totally active version of nova detector, Off-Axis-Note-SIM-30
[40]

GLoBES (2018)

“GLoBES (2018).”https://www.mpi-hd.mpg.de/personalhomes/globes/

2018
[41]

DUNE collaboration, Experiment Simulation Conﬁgurations Used in DUNE CDR, arXiv:1606.09550

arXiv
[42]

Hyper-Kamiokande collaboration, Hyper-Kamiokande Design Report,
[43]

DUNE collaboration, Long-Baseline Neutrino Facility (LBNF) and Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment (DUNE), 1601.05471
[44]

DUNE collaboration, Long-Baseline Neutrino Facility (LBNF) and Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment (DUNE), 1601.05823

arXiv
[45]

DUNE collaboration, Long-Baseline Neutrino Facility (LBNF) and Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment (DUNE), 1601.02984. – 24 –

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Kajita and Y

T. Kajita and Y. Totsuka,Observation of atmospheric neutrinos, Rev. Mod. Phys.73 (2001) 85

work page 2001

[2] [2]

SNO collaboration, Measurement of the rate ofνe +d→p +p +e− interactions produced by 8B solar neutrinos at the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory, Phys. Rev. Lett.87 (2001) 071301 [nucl-ex/0106015]

arXiv 2001

[3] [3]

Pontecorvo,Mesonium and anti-mesonium, Sov

B. Pontecorvo,Mesonium and anti-mesonium, Sov. Phys. JETP 6 (1957) 429

work page 1957

[4] [4]

Z. Maki, M. Nakagawa, Y. Ohnuki and S. Sakata,A uniﬁed model for elementary particles, Prog. Theor. Phys.23 (1960) 1174

work page 1960

[5] [5]

Kobayashi and T

M. Kobayashi and T. Maskawa,CP Violation in the Renormalizable Theory of Weak Interaction, Prog. Theor. Phys.49 (1973) 652

1973

[6] [6]

NuFIT 4.1 (2019)

“NuFIT 4.1 (2019).”http://www.nu-fit.org/

work page 2019

[7] [7]

Esteban, M

I. Esteban, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, A. Hernandez-Cabezudo, M. Maltoni and T. Schwetz, Global analysis of three-ﬂavour neutrino oscillations: synergies and tensions in the determination ofθ23,δCP, and the mass ordering, JHEP 01 (2019) 106 [1811.05487]

arXiv 2019

[8] [8]

P. F. De Salas, S. Gariazzo, O. Mena, C. A. Ternes and M. Tortola,Neutrino Mass Ordering from Oscillations and Beyond: 2018 Status and Future Prospects, Front. Astron. Space Sci.5 (2018) 36 [1806.11051]

arXiv 2018