- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review D

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Improving neutrino-nuclei interaction models: Recommendations and case studies on Peelle’s Pertinent Puzzle

S. Abe17, L. Aliaga-Soplin16, J. Barrow9, L. Bathe-Peters10, B. Bogart7, L. Cooper-Troendle11,*, R. Diurba1, S. Dytman11, S. Gardiner4 et al.

L. Hagaman3, M. S. Ismail11, J. Isaacson4,8, J. Kim12, L. Liu4, J. McKean5, N. Nayak2, A. Papadopoulou6, L. Pickering14, X. Qian2, K. Skwarczyński13, J. Tena Vidal15, and J. Wolfs12

  • *Contact author: lcoopert@proton.me
PDF

Phys. Rev. D 113, 012011 – Published 20 January, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/615w-kjk2

Abstract

Improving the modeling of neutrino-nuclei interactions using data-driven methods is crucial for high-precision neutrino oscillation experiments. This paper investigates Peelle’s Pertinent Puzzle (PPP) in the context of neutrino measurements, a longstanding challenge to fitting theoretical models to experimental data. Inconsistencies in data-model comparisons hinder efforts to enhance the accuracy and reliability of model predictions. We analyze various sources contributing to these inconsistencies and propose strategies to address them, supported by practical case studies. We advocate for incorporating model fitting exercises as a standard practice in cross section publications to enhance the robustness of results. We use a common analysis framework to explore PPP-related challenges with MicroBooNE and T2K data in an unified manner. Our findings offer valuable insights for improving the accuracy and reliability of neutrino-nuclei interaction models, particularly by systematically tuning models using data.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (55)

  1. K. Abe et al. (T2K Collaboration), Measurements of neutrino oscillation parameters from the T2K experiment using 3.6×1021 protons on target, Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 782 (2023).
  2. M. A. Acero et al. (NOvA Collaboration), Expanding neutrino oscillation parameter measurements in NOvA using a Bayesian approach, Phys. Rev. D 110, 012005 (2024).
  3. B. Abi et al. (DUNE Collaboration), Long-baseline neutrino oscillation physics potential of the DUNE experiment, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 978 (2020).
  4. K. Abe et al. (Hyper-Kamiokande Collaboration), Hyper-Kamiokande Design Report, arXiv:1805.04163.
  5. K. Abe et al. (T2K Collaboration), Constraint on the matter-antimatter symmetry-violating phase in neutrino oscillations, Nature (London) 580, 339 (2020).
  6. X. Qian and P. Vogel, Neutrino mass hierarchy, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 83, 1 (2015).
  7. K. N. Abazajian et al., Light sterile neutrinos: A white paper, arXiv:1204.5379.
  8. F. Di Lodovico, R. B. Patterson, M. Shiozawa, and E. Worcester, Experimental considerations in long-baseline neutrino oscillation measurements, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 73, 69 (2023).
  9. R. L. Workman et al. (Particle Data Group), Review of particle physics, Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys. 2022, 083C01 (2022).
  10. J. A. Formaggio and G. P. Zeller, From eV to EeV: Neutrino cross sections across energy scales, Rev. Mod. Phys. 84, 1307 (2012).
  11. U. Mosel, Neutrino interactions with nucleons and nuclei: Importance for long-baseline experiments, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 66, 171 (2016).
  12. F. Gross et al., 50 years of quantum chromodynamics, Eur. Phys. J. C 83 (2023).
  13. L. Alvarez-Ruso et al. (GENIE Collaboration), Recent highlights from GENIE v3, Eur. Phys. J. Special Topics 230, 4449 (2021).
  14. Y. Hayato and L. Pickering, The NEUT neutrino interaction simulation program library, Eur. Phys. J. Special Topics 230, 4469 (2021).
  15. T. Golan, J. T. Sobczyk, and J. Zmuda, NuWro: The Wroclaw Monte Carlo generator of neutrino interactions, Nucl. Phys. B, Proc. Suppl. 229–232, 499 (2012).
  16. O. Buss, T. Gaitanos, K. Gallmeister, H. van Hees, M. Kaskulov, O. Lalakulich, A. B. Larionov, T. Leitner, J. Weil, and U. Mosel, Transport-theoretical description of nuclear reactions, Phys. Rep. 512, 1 (2012).
  17. J. Isaacson, W. I. Jay, A. Lovato, P. A. N. Machado, and N. Rocco, Introducing a novel event generator for electron-nucleus and neutrino-nucleus scattering, Phys. Rev. D 107, 033007 (2023).
  18. H. Gallagher, Event generator tuning in the resonance region for the minos experiment, Nucl. Phys. B, Proc. Suppl. 159, 229 (2006).
  19. M. A. Acero et al. (NOvA, R. Group Collaborations), Adjusting neutrino interaction models and evaluating uncertainties using NOvA near detector data, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 1119 (2020).
  20. P. Stowell et al. (MINERvA Collaboration), Tuning the GENIE pion production model with MINERνA data, Phys. Rev. D 100, 072005 (2019).
  21. P. Abratenko et al. (MicroBooNE Collaboration), New CC0π GENIE model tune for MicroBooNE, Phys. Rev. D 105, 072001 (2022).
  22. R. Frühwirth, D. Neudecker, and H. Leeb, Peelle’s pertinent puzzle and its solution, EPJ Web Conf. 27, 00008 (2012).
  23. G. Mention, M. Fechner, T. Lasserre, T. A. Mueller, D. Lhuillier, M. Cribier, and A. Letourneau, The reactor antineutrino anomaly, Phys. Rev. D 83, 073006 (2011).
  24. C. Zhang, X. Qian, and M. Fallot, Reactor antineutrino flux and anomaly, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 136, 104106 (2024).
  25. C. Zhang, X. Qian, and P. Vogel, Reactor antineutrino anomaly with known θ13, Phys. Rev. D 87, 073018 (2013).
  26. C. Giunti, Y. Li, C. Ternes, and Z. Xin, Reactor antineutrino anomaly in light of recent flux model refinements, Phys. Lett. B 829, 137054 (2022).
  27. J. Chakrani et al., Parametrized uncertainties in the spectral function model of neutrino charged-current quasielastic interactions for oscillation analyses, Phys. Rev. D 109, 072006 (2024).
  28. G. D’Agostini, On the use of the covariance matrix to fit correlated data, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A 346, 306 (1994).
  29. R. Radev and S. Dolan, Flow matching mitigates gaussian error approximations in neutrino cross-section measurements, Presented at International Workshop on Neutrino Cross Sections for Astrophysics and Oscillations (NuSTEC, Milan, 2024).
  30. P. Abratenko et al. (MicroBooNE Collaboration), Data-driven model validation for neutrino-nucleus cross section measurements, Phys. Rev. D 111, 092010 (2025).
  31. P. Abratenko et al. (MicroBooNE Collaboration), First measurement of energy-dependent inclusive muon neutrino charged-current cross sections on Argon with the MicroBooNE detector, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 151801 (2022).
  32. P. Abratenko et al. (MicroBooNE Collaboration), Measurement of three-dimensional inclusive muon-neutrino charged-current cross sections on argon with the MicroBooNE detector, Phys. Lett. B 870, 139939 (2025).
  33. P. Abratenko et al. (MicroBooNE Collaboration), Inclusive cross section measurements in final states with and without protons for charged-current νμ-Ar scattering in MicroBooNE, Phys. Rev. D 110, 013006 (2024).
  34. W. Tang, X. Li, X. Qian, H. Wei, and C. Zhang, Data unfolding with Wiener-SVD method, J. Instrum. 12, P10002 (2017).
  35. S. Gardiner, Mathematical methods for neutrino cross-section extraction, arXiv:2401.04065.
  36. L. Koch and S. Dolan, Treatment of flux shape uncertainties in unfolded, flux-averaged neutrino cross-section measurements, Phys. Rev. D 102, 113012 (2020).
  37. K. Abe et al. (The T2K Collaboration), Characterization of nuclear effects in muon-neutrino scattering on hydrocarbon with a measurement of final-state kinematics and correlations in charged-current pionless interactions at T2K, Phys. Rev. D 98, 032003 (2018).
  38. C. E. Rasmussen and C. K. I. Williams, Gaussian Processes for Machine Learning (The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2006).
  39. F. James and M. Winkler, MINUIT User’s Guide (2004), https://inspirehep.net/literature/1258345.
  40. L. Cooper-Troendle, Conditional constraint fitting (2025), https://github.com/London2/Conditional_Constraint_Fitting.
  41. E. Gross and O. Vitells, Trial factors for the look elsewhere effect in high energy physics, Eur. Phys. J. C 70, 525 (2010).
  42. Z. Sidák, Rectangular confidence regions for the means of multivariate normal distributions, J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 62, 626 (1967).
  43. F. N. David and N. L. Johnson, The probability integral transformation when parameters are estimated from the sample, Biometrika 35, 182 (1948).
  44. G. D’Agostini, A Multidimensional unfolding method based on Bayes’ theorem, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A 362, 487 (1995).
  45. P. Abratenko et al. (MicroBooNE Collaboration), First simultaneous measurement of differential muon-neutrino charged-current cross sections on argon for final states with and without protons using MicroBooNE data, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 041801 (2024).
  46. P. Stowell et al., NUISANCE: A neutrino cross-section generator tuning and comparison framework, J. Instrum. 12, P01016 (2016).
  47. T2K Collaboration (T2K Collaboration), Measurement of double-differential muon neutrino charged-current interactions on C8H8 without pions in the final state using the T2K off-axis beam, Phys. Rev. D 93, 112012 (2016).
  48. K. Abe et al. (T2K Collaboration), Simultaneous measurement of the muon neutrino charged-current cross section on oxygen and carbon without pions in the final state at T2K, Phys. Rev. D 101, 112004 (2020).
  49. O. Benhar, A. Fabrocini, S. Fantoni, and I. Sick, Spectral function of finite nuclei and scattering of GeV electrons, Nucl. Phys. A579, 493 (1994).
  50. A. M. Ankowski, O. Benhar, and M. Sakuda, Improving the accuracy of neutrino energy reconstruction in charged-current quasielastic scattering off nuclear targets, Phys. Rev. D 91, 033005 (2015).
  51. A. M. Ankowski and J. T. Sobczyk, Construction of spectral functions for medium-mass nuclei, Phys. Rev. C 77, 044311 (2008).
  52. K. M. Graczyk and J. T. Sobczyk, Form factors in the quark resonance model, Phys. Rev. D 77, 053001 (2008); 79, 079903(E) (2009).
  53. J. Nieves, I. Ruiz Simo, and M. J. Vicente Vacas, Inclusive charged–current neutrino–nucleus reactions, Phys. Rev. C 83, 045501 (2011).
  54. K. Abe et al. (T2K Collaboration), T2K neutrino flux prediction, Phys. Rev. D 87, 012001 (2013).
  55. https://indico.fnal.gov/event/64511/.

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. D 113, 012011– Published 20 January, 2026
  • Received 24 September 2025
  • Accepted 18 December 2025
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI. Funded by SCOAP3.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation