Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 44 references

Probing neutrino mass ordering with supernova neutrinos at NO$\nu$A including the effect of sterile neutrinos

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A single galactic supernova at about 5 kpc could let the NOvA experiment determine the neutrino mass ordering at 5σ, and its neutral-current events alone could reveal whether sterile neutrinos exist.

desk verdict A clean, transparent supernova mass-ordering forecast for NOvA, but the 5 sigma/5 kpc claim depends on idealized detector response and the NC sterile claim is not statistically quantified. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.05213 v3 pith:PW4OIXXZ submitted 2024-12-06 hep-ph

Papia Panda , Rukmani Mohanta This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords neutrinomassorderingsupernovaneutrinosNOvAsterileneutralcurrenteventsMSWeffectinversebetadecayenergysmearing
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 argues that if a core-collapse supernova exploded about 5 kpc from Earth while NOvA is taking data, the neutrino burst alone could determine whether neutrino masses are normally or inversely ordered at the 5-sigma level, using inverse beta decay or all channels combined. It further argues that the neutral-current event rate in NOvA's carbon scintillator can by itself reveal whether a sterile neutrino exists: when active neutrinos oscillate into a sterile state, the NC count drops detectably relative to the three-active-flavor case. These conclusions are derived from time-integrated fluences, adiabatic MSW survival probabilities, and a 10 MeV reconstructed-energy threshold adopted because lower-energy events cannot be reliably separated from background. Why this matters is that both questions, mass ordering and sterile neutrinos, are open, and a single nearby supernova could answer them with an experiment already running.

What carries the argument

The argument rests on two pieces. First, the MSW survival probabilities $p$ and $\bar{p}$ for electron (anti)neutrinos crossing the supernova envelope, which under adiabatic conditions take different values for normal and inverted ordering, making the flavor content of the arriving fluence ordering-dependent. Second, the neutral-current event rate on $^{12}$C, summed over all six neutrino types; because sterile neutrinos do not scatter via NC, any conversion of active to sterile flavors lowers this count, providing the active-versus-sterile diagnostic. The sensitivity is computed with a Poisson log-likelihood over 200 energy bins between 0.5 and 100 MeV, with a 10 MeV threshold, using a standard supernova-event simulation package with an electron-capture supernova model.

What would settle it

Run the same Poisson-likelihood calculation with a full background simulation of the NOvA far detector at the 10 MeV threshold; if the resulting expected event counts in any channel shift by more than the quoted NO-vs-IO differences, the claimed 5-sigma reach at 5 kpc would not survive. Alternatively, if a galactic supernova closer than 5 kpc is observed by NOvA and the ordering significance falls below 5-sigma, the central claim is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the NOvA far detector, a 14-kton surface liquid-scintillator detector, can use a galactic supernova to distinguish normal from inverted mass ordering at 5σ for a supernova at about 5 kpc, and that the neutral-current channel alone can differentiate between the presence and absence of sterile neutrinos. In the active-active framework, the ordering sensitivity comes almost entirely from charged-current interactions on carbon, while the IBD channel shows only a small NO-IO event difference (107,404 vs 111,099 events at 1 kpc). In the active-sterile framework, the total NC event count drops from 11,845 (three-flavor) to 11,475 (normal ordering) or 11,100 (inverted ordering) at 1 kpc; that deficit is the sterile-neutrino signature. The paper also shows that systematic uncertainties, especially normalization errors, and energy smearing degrade the ordering sensitivity, and that the NC channel is blind to ordering in the three-flavor case but not in the three-plus-one-sterile case.

Load-bearing premise

The event counts and the 5 kpc, 5-sigma claim assume that after a 10 MeV reconstructed-energy cut the NOvA far detector can meaningfully separate the signal channels from cosmic-ray background, with background-rejection efficiencies taken from a prior study rather than simulated here.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If a supernova at about 5 kpc occurs during NOvA operation, the combined-channel analysis can determine the neutrino mass ordering at $5\sigma$ from a single burst.
  • The IBD channel alone gives nearly the same $5\sigma$ reach as all channels combined, because it dominates the statistics.
  • A measured NC event rate below the three-flavor prediction is a sterile-neutrino signal; in the three-flavor case NC rates are identical for both orderings, making NC ordering-blind, whereas in the active-sterile framework NC gains a nonzero ordering sensitivity.
  • Adding a sterile neutrino reverses which mass ordering produces the higher $\nu_e$ fluence and enhances mass-ordering sensitivity in the $\nu_e$-$^{12}$C and $\nu_e$-$e$ channels.
  • Systematic uncertainties at the few-percent level and energy smearing both reduce the ordering sensitivity, with normalization errors more damaging than energy-calibration errors.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If NOvA's background rejection cannot actually achieve the assumed 10 MeV threshold performance, the event counts scale down and the distance needed for $5\sigma$ becomes smaller than 5 kpc, so the quoted 5 kpc is an optimistic bound.
  • The NC diagnostic could be sharpened by using the ratio of NC to IBD events rather than absolute NC counts, a ratio that is less sensitive to supernova distance and total luminosity; the paper does not present this ratio test.
  • The same method transfers to other surface liquid-scintillator detectors and to future larger detectors, where the NC ordering sensitivity that is small at NOvA could become significant.
  • A dedicated neutronization-burst analysis, which the paper sets aside because of NOvA timing constraints, would likely carry more ordering information than the time-integrated fluence used here.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper uses SNOwGLoBES to compute supernova neutrino event rates at the NOvA far detector in both the three-neutrino (3nu) and 3+1 active-sterile frameworks. It adopts the Garching electron-capture supernova model, MSW adiabatic flavor evolution, four charged-current channels, and a neutral-current channel, and imposes a 10 MeV reconstructed-energy threshold. Sensitivity to the neutrino mass ordering is evaluated with a Poisson log-likelihood as a function of supernova distance, with additional studies of normalization and energy-calibration systematics and of energy smearing. The central claims are that NOvA can distinguish normal from inverted mass ordering at 5 sigma for a supernova at 5 kpc using the IBD channel or all channels combined, and that the NC channel alone can differentiate the presence from the absence of sterile neutrinos.

Significance. If the central forecasts were robust, the paper would be valuable: a single galactic supernova could determine the neutrino mass ordering with an existing detector, and the NC event rate could serve as a sterile-neutrino diagnostic. The paper also contains useful quantitative comparisons of systematics and smearing effects, and the event rates in Appendix A and the explicit parameter choices are a strength for reproducibility. However, the main claims rest on idealized detector assumptions and on an unquantified sterile-neutrino signal. As it stands, the manuscript is a useful but incomplete sensitivity forecast rather than an established demonstration of experimental capability.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. III, Eq. (9), Fig. 4] The 5 sigma/5 kpc mass-ordering claim presumes that all events above the 10 MeV reconstructed-energy threshold are signal. The paper states in Sec. III that the NOvA far detector has a ~150 kHz cosmic-ray background and acknowledges that realistic background modeling is future work, yet Eq. (9) contains only signal counts. The IBD NO/IO difference is only about 3.4% at 1 kpc (Table A1: 107404 vs 111099), so a residual background or an efficiency loss of a few percent can substantially dilute the sensitivity. The 10 MeV threshold alone, without the hit-clustering and near-detector rejection techniques of Ref. [21], is not obviously conservative. The abstract and Sec. VI A claims should be rephrased as idealized upper-limit forecasts, or a background model and detection efficiencies should be added.
  2. [Abstract, Sec. V C, Table A1] The claim that observation of the NC channel alone can differentiate the presence from the absence of sterile neutrinos is not quantified. Table A1 gives total NC events at 1 kpc as 11845 for the 3-nu case, and 11475 (NO) or 11100 (IO) for the 3+1 case, but no Delta-chi-squared or significance is computed for this discrimination, and no distance or background treatment is supplied. The differences are only a few percent of the total count, and the identification efficiency for NC events on 12C at these energies is not modeled. A supportable sterile-neutrino claim requires a significance calculation, a distance at which the claim holds, and a scan over the sterile parameters.
  3. [Table II, Sec. II B] The sterile-neutrino parameters theta_14 = 5 degrees and Delta-m^2_41 = 1 eV^2 are adopted without a reference or uncertainty. The cited global fit [30] is a three-neutrino analysis and does not determine these parameters. Every active-sterile event rate in the paper, including the NC diagnostic, depends on these two values. The authors should either cite direct constraints (for example from short-baseline oscillation fits) or scan over the allowed parameter region before making the abstract claim about sterile-neutrino discrimination.
  4. [Sec. VI C, Fig. 8] The energy-smearing model used in the main sensitivity results is never specified. The reader cannot tell what energy resolution was assumed in Fig. 4 or how the 5 kpc claim degrades with resolution. Please state the detector resolution function (or the SNOwGLoBES configuration) used in all figures that include smearing.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. IV] The word 'prominant' should be 'prominent'.
  2. [Sec. VI A] The phrase '5 sigma confidence level if the supernova occurs at a distance of 5 kpc' should be phrased as 'for a supernova at a distance of 5 kpc', since the confidence level belongs to the inference rather than to the distance.
  3. [Sec. VII] The statement that the NC channel is used 'for the first time' to distinguish active and sterile neutrinos should be supported by a comparison with existing literature or removed.
  4. [Table II] The sign of Delta-m^2_41 is not specified; the text should state whether the sterile mass eigenstate is heavier.
  5. [Sec. III] The detected-energy range is given as 0.5-100 MeV with 200 bins, but all analyses impose a 10 MeV threshold; clarify whether bins below 10 MeV are excluded from the chi-squared sum or assigned zero expectation.
  6. [Fig. 1 caption] The caption says 'lower panel' where 'lower row' is meant; please make the wording consistent with the two-row layout.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the mass-ordering and sterile-neutrino sensitivities are forward-simulated outputs from external flux, mixing, and detector inputs, not fitted targets or self-citation-derived conclusions.

full rationale

The paper is a forward simulation, not a fit. It takes the Garching electron-capture supernova fluence (Ref. [29]), standard MSW survival probabilities (Tables I and III) with NuFit 2020 oscillation parameters (Table II, Ref. [30]), computes event rates with SNOwGLoBES for the IBD, 12C CC, elastic-scattering, and NC channels, and evaluates mass-ordering discrimination via the Poisson log-likelihood of Eq. (9), with one spectrum treated as true and the other as test. The 5-sigma-at-5-kpc result is the output of this chi-square calculation, not an input that is then re-derived. The sterile-neutrino NC claim is conditional on the assumed sterile parameters theta14 = 5 deg and Delta-m2_41 = 1 eV2, together with the assumption of no initial sterile flux; this is model dependence in a sensitivity forecast, not circularity, because the event-rate difference is computed rather than fitted. The only self-citation (Ref. [23], by two of the present authors) appears in the introduction as contextual mention of related DUNE/T2HK/JUNO studies and is not load-bearing. The 10 MeV threshold is imported from the external thesis Ref. [21], and Sec. III explicitly acknowledges that realistic background modeling is deferred to future work; this limits the robustness of the quantitative claims but is not a circular step. No prediction in the paper reduces by construction to an input, and no load-bearing premise is justified solely by a self-citation chain.

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

The central forecast depends on literature-supplied inputs (mixing parameters, flux model, detector response) and two chosen sterile benchmark parameters. No new physical entities are introduced. The main unstated cost is the assumed detectability of events above 10 MeV and the chosen sterile parameter values.

free parameters (3)
  • theta_14 (sterile mixing angle) = 5 degrees
    Chosen benchmark value from Table II; all active-sterile event rate differences, including the NC discrimination claim, scale with this input and it is not constrained within this paper.
  • Delta-m2_41 (sterile mass-squared splitting) = 1 eV^2
    Chosen benchmark value from Table II; sets the active-sterile oscillation scale but is not fitted or varied in the analysis.
  • Reconstructed-energy threshold = 10 MeV
    Imposed on all event rates to mimic background rejection per Ref. [21]; the 5 kpc, 5 sigma claim depends on retaining events above this threshold and no threshold scan is shown.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Adiabatic MSW propagation with PH = PL = PS = 0
    Invoked in Sec. II A and II B following Ref. [26]; neglects collective oscillations and non-adiabatic level crossings, which are acknowledged as uncertain.
  • domain assumption No initial sterile neutrino flux at the supernova core
    Footnote 1 in Sec. II B assumes F0_nu_s = F0_nu_bar_s = 0 for ms of order 1 eV; this is needed for all active-sterile predictions including the NC channel difference.
  • domain assumption Garching electron-capture supernova model represents the fluence
    Sec. II A says the Garching model [29] is used; no variation over supernova models or luminosities is shown, yet event counts and the 5 sigma distance depend on the fluence.
  • domain assumption NOvA far detector can identify channels and reject cosmic background above 10 MeV
    Sec. III and V adopt the 10 MeV threshold from Ref. [21] while stating that realistic background modeling is future work; the predicted event rates and sensitivities assume this premise.
  • standard math Poisson log-likelihood chi-square formula (Eq. 9) is the correct statistic
    Standard likelihood ratio for binned counts; used to convert event-rate differences into sensitivity in sigma.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Probing neutrino mass ordering with supernova neutrinos at NO$\nu$A including the effect of sterile neutrinos." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PW4OIXXZ

@misc{pith2026241205213,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Probing neutrino mass ordering with supernova neutrinos at NO$\nu$A including the effect of sterile neutrinos},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PW4OIXXZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.05213}
}
abstract

In this work, we explore the possibility of probing the mass ordering sensitivity as a function of supernova distance in the context of the ongoing neutrino experiment NO$\nu$A. We provide a detailed study of the active-active and active-sterile mixing frameworks, illustrating how supernova neutrinos can be used to realize the existence of sterile neutrinos. Interestingly, we infer that observation of the NC channel alone can differentiate between the presence and absence of sterile neutrinos. Our results indicate that the primary channel of NO$\nu$A can distinguish normal mass ordering from inverted mass ordering at $5 \sigma$ confidence level for a supernova explosion occurring at a distance of 5 kpc. Additionally, we examine the impact of systematic uncertainties on mass ordering sensitivity, showing that higher levels of systematics lead to a reduction in sensitivity. Similarly, the inclusion of energy smearing significantly diminishes ordering sensitivity.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.05213 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Fluence (integrated flux over time) as a function of neutrino energy ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Cross section for different channels of NO [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Event rate in active-active and active-sterile frameworks for five different channels [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Mass ordering sensitivity ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Mass ordering sensitivity as a function of supernova distance (in kpc) for all four [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Mass ordering sensitivity as a function of systematic uncertainty (in percentage) at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Event rate for active-active framework as a function of neutrino energy (MeV) for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Mass ordering sensitivity as a function of supernova distance (in kpc) with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

  1. [21]

    J. A. Vasel, NOvA as a Supernova Observatory, Ph.D. thesis, Indiana U. (2021). 25

    work page 2021

  2. [30]

    Esteban, M

    I. Esteban, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, M. Maltoni, T. Schwetz, and A. Zhou, JHEP 09, 178 (2020), arXiv:2007.14792 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2020

  3. [1]

    A. A. Aguilar-Arevalo et al. (MiniBooNE), Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 221801 (2018), arXiv:1805.12028 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2018

  4. [2]

    A. A. Aguilar-Arevalo et al.(MiniBooNE), Phys. Rev. D 103, 052002 (2021), arXiv:2006.16883 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2021

  5. [3]

    Aguilar et al

    A. Aguilar et al. (LSND), Phys. Rev. D 64, 112007 (2001), arXiv:hep-ex/0104049

    arXiv 2001

  6. [4]

    M. G. Aartsen et al. (IceCube), Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 071801 (2016), arXiv:1605.01990 [hep- ex]

    arXiv 2016

  7. [5]

    M. M. Saez, M. E. Mosquera, and O. Civitarese, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 31, 2250023 (2022), arXiv:2109.06244 [hep-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2022

  8. [6]

    Impact of sterile neutrinos on the early time flux from a galactic supernova

    A. Esmaili, O. L. G. Peres, and P. D. Serpico, Phys. Rev. D90, 033013 (2014), arXiv:1402.1453 [hep-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2014

Show all 44 references
  1. [7]

    Boyarsky, O

    A. Boyarsky, O. Ruchayskiy, and M. Shaposhnikov, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 59, 191 (2009), arXiv:0901.0011 [hep-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  2. [8]

    Tamborra, G

    I. Tamborra, G. G. Raffelt, L. Hudepohl, and H.-T. Janka, JCAP 01, 013 (2012), arXiv:1110.2104 [astro-ph.SR]

    2012 arXiv

  3. [9]

    M.-R. Wu, T. Fischer, L. Huther, G. Mart ´ ınez-Pinedo, and Y.-Z. Qian, Phys. Rev. D 89, 061303 (2014), arXiv:1305.2382 [astro-ph.HE]

    2014 arXiv

  4. [10]

    G. H. Collin, C. A. Arg¨ uelles, J. M. Conrad, and M. H. Shaevitz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 221801 (2016), arXiv:1607.00011 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  5. [11]

    A. V. Yudin, D. K. Nadyozhin, V. V. Khruschov, and S. V. Fomichev, Astron. Lett. 42, 800 (2016), arXiv:1701.04713 [astro-ph.HE]

    2016 arXiv

  6. [12]

    Franarin, J

    T. Franarin, J. H. Davis, and M. Fairbairn, JCAP 09, 002 (2018), arXiv:1712.03836 [astro- ph.HE]

    2018 arXiv

  7. [13]

    Qian, Sci

    Y. Qian, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 61, 049501 (2018), arXiv:1801.09554 [astro-ph.HE]

    2018 arXiv

  8. [14]

    M. M. Saez, O. Civitarese, and M. E. Mosquera, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 27, 1850116 (2018), arXiv:1808.03249 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  9. [15]

    J. Tang, T. Wang, and M.-R. Wu, JCAP 10, 038 (2020), arXiv:2005.09168 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  10. [16]

    M. M. Saez, K. J. Fushimi, M. E. Mosquera, and O. Civitarese, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 30, 2150028 (2021), arXiv:2105.03202 [nucl-th]

    2021 arXiv

  11. [17]

    K. J. Fushimi, M. M. Saez, M. E. Mosquera, and O. Civitarese, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 30, 2150107 (2021), arXiv:2202.03887 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  12. [18]

    Fetter, G

    J. Fetter, G. C. McLaughlin, A. B. Balantekin, and G. M. Fuller, Astropart. Phys. 18, 433 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0205029

    2003 arXiv

  13. [19]

    Tamborra, J

    I. Tamborra, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 375, 042038 (2012)

    2012

  14. [20]

    M. A. Acero et al. (NOvA), JCAP 10, 014 (2020), arXiv:2005.07155 [physics.ins-det]

    2020 arXiv

  15. [22]

    M. A. Acero et al. (NOvA), Phys. Rev. D 104, 063024 (2021), arXiv:2106.06035 [hep-ex]

    2021 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Panda, M

    P. Panda, M. Ghosh, and R. Mohanta, JCAP 10, 033 (2023), arXiv:2304.13303 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  17. [24]

    R. Gaba, M. Mukherjee, and V. Bhatnagar, (2024), arXiv:2411.07716 [hep-ph]

    2024

  18. [25]

    Mirizzi, I

    A. Mirizzi, I. Tamborra, H.-T. Janka, N. Saviano, K. Scholberg, R. Bollig, L. Hudepohl, and S. Chakraborty, Riv. Nuovo Cim. 39, 1 (2016), arXiv:1508.00785 [astro-ph.HE]

    2016 arXiv

  19. [26]

    A. S. Dighe and A. Y. Smirnov, Phys. Rev. D 62, 033007 (2000), arXiv:hep-ph/9907423

    2000 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Wolfenstein, Phys

    L. Wolfenstein, Phys. Rev. D 17, 2369 (1978)

    1978

  21. [28]

    S. P. Mikheev and A. Y. Smirnov, Sov. Phys. Usp. 30, 759 (1987)

    1987

  22. [29]

    Hudepohl, B

    L. Hudepohl, B. Muller, H. T. Janka, A. Marek, and G. G. Raffelt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 251101 (2010), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 105, 249901 (2010)], arXiv:0912.0260 [astro-ph.SR]

    2010 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Chakraborty, R

    S. Chakraborty, R. Hansen, I. Izaguirre, and G. Raffelt, Nucl. Phys. B 908, 366 (2016), arXiv:1602.02766 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Horiuchi and J

    S. Horiuchi and J. P. Kneller, J. Phys. G 45, 043002 (2018), arXiv:1709.01515 [astro-ph.HE]

    2018 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Tamborra and S

    I. Tamborra and S. Shalgar, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 71, 165 (2021), arXiv:2011.01948 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  26. [34]

    D. S. Ayres et al. (NOvA), (2007), 10.2172/935497

    2007 doi

  27. [35]

    Adamson et al

    P. Adamson et al. (NOvA), Phys. Rev. D 93, 051104 (2016), arXiv:1601.05037 [hep-ex]

    2016 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Adamson et al

    P. Adamson et al. (NOvA), Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 151802 (2017), arXiv:1701.05891 [hep-ex]

    2017 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Adamson et al

    P. Adamson et al. (NOvA), Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 231801 (2017), arXiv:1703.03328 [hep-ex]

    2017 arXiv

  30. [38]

    M. A. Acero et al. (NOvA), Phys. Rev. D 98, 032012 (2018), arXiv:1806.00096 [hep-ex]

    2018 arXiv

  31. [39]

    M. A. Acero et al. (NOvA), Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 151803 (2019), arXiv:1906.04907 [hep-ex]

    2019 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Mufson et al., Nucl

    S. Mufson et al., Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 799, 1 (2015), arXiv:1504.04035 [physics.ins-det]

    2015 arXiv

  33. [41]

    SNOWGLoBES: SuperNova Observatories with GLoBES,

    K. Scholberg, “SNOWGLoBES: SuperNova Observatories with GLoBES,” http://www.phy. duke.edu/~schol/snowglobes (2012), accessed: 2025-05-22

    2012

  34. [42]

    Huber, M

    P. Huber, M. Lindner, and W. Winter, Comput. Phys. Commun. 167, 195 (2005), arXiv:hep- ph/0407333

    2005

  35. [43]

    Huber, J

    P. Huber, J. Kopp, M. Lindner, M. Rolinec, and W. Winter, Comput. Phys. Commun. 177, 432 (2007), arXiv:hep-ph/0701187

    2007 arXiv

  36. [44]

    M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia and M. Maltoni, Phys. Rev. D 70, 033010 (2004), arXiv:hep- ph/0404085. 26

    2004

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.