- 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

Event generator tuning as a robustness test

Jean Wolfs* and Chris M. Marshall†

  • *Contact author: jwolfs@ur.rochester.edu
  • †Contact author: chris.marshall@rochester.edu
PDF

Phys. Rev. D 112, 092018 – Published 26 November, 2025

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/9dxd-871x

Abstract

Neutrino oscillation experiments use Monte Carlo event generators to predict neutrino-nucleus interactions. Cross section uncertainties are typically implemented by varying the parameters of the model(s) used in the generator. We study the performance of two commonly used model configurations of the genie generator (G18_10a_02_11a and AR23_0i_00_000) and their uncertainties by tuning parameters to cross section data, and then comparing the resulting tuned prediction to a suite of other measurements from T2K, MicroBooNE, and MINERvA. This reveals whether the model can simultaneously describe several datasets, as well as whether the uncertainties are adequately robust. We find that G18 and especially AR23 are reasonable in predicting lower-energy measurements from T2K and MicroBooNE, but unable to describe MINERvA data, and discuss the implications for short-baseline oscillation searches. We attempt to replicate a tuning procedure developed by MicroBooNE using several different measurements, and find substantially different results depending on which measurement is used, and that the MicroBooNE tune does not agree with other measurements. We conclude that the SBN experiment should not tune its generator to external data.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (53)

  1. Y. Fukuda et al. (Super-Kamiokande Collaboration), Evidence for oscillation of atmospheric neutrinos, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 1562 (1998).
  2. Q. R. Ahmad et al. (SNO Collaboration), Direct evidence for neutrino flavor transformation from neutral-current interactions in the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 011301 (2002).
  3. S. Navas et al. (Particle Data Group), Review of particle physics, Phys. Rev. D 110, 030001 (2024).
  4. S. Agostinelli et al., geant4—A simulation toolkit, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A 506, 250 (2003).
  5. A. A. Aguilar-Arevalo et al. (MiniBooNE Collaboration), Neutrino flux prediction at MiniBooNE, Phys. Rev. D 79, 072002 (2009).
  6. C. Andreopoulos et al., The genie neutrino Monte Carlo generator, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A 614, 87 (2010).
  7. N. M. Coyle, S. W. Li, and P. A. N. Machado, Neutrino-nucleus cross section impacts on neutrino oscillation measurements, Phys. Rev. D 111, 093010 (2025).
  8. Y. Hayato, A neutrino interaction simulation program library neut, Acta Phys. Pol. B 40, 2477 (2009).
  9. L. Alvarez-Ruso, L. S. Geng, S. Hirenzaki, and M. J. V. Vacas, Charged current neutrino-induced coherent pion production, Phys. Rev. C 75, 055501 (2007).
  10. 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).
  11. H. Prasad et al., Developments in nuwro Monte Carlo generator, arXiv:2501.11470.
  12. A. Aguilar et al. (LSND Collaboration), Evidence for neutrino oscillations from the observation of ν¯e appearance in a ν¯μ beam, Phys. Rev. D 64, 112007 (2001).
  13. J. N. Abdurashitov et al. (The SAGE Collaboration), Measurement of the response of a gallium metal solar neutrino experiment to neutrinos from a Cr51 source, Phys. Rev. C 59, 2246 (1999).
  14. J. N. Abdurashitov et al., Measurement of the response of a Ga solar neutrino experiment to neutrinos from a Ar37 source, Phys. Rev. C 73, 045805 (2006).
  15. S. Schael et al. (ALEPH, DELPHI, L3, OPAL, SLD Collaborations, LEP Electroweak Working Group, SLD Electroweak Group, and SLD Heavy Flavour Group), Precision electroweak measurements on the Z resonance, Phys. Rep. 427, 257 (2006).
  16. M. H. Ahn et al. (K2K Collaboration), Measurement of neutrino oscillation by the K2K experiment, Phys. Rev. D 74, 072003 (2006).
  17. A. Aguilar-Arevalo et al., The MiniBooNE detector, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A 599, 2846 (2009).
  18. D. Michael et al., The magnetized steel and scintillator calorimeters of the MINOS experiment, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A 596, 190228 (2008).
  19. K. Abe et al. (T2K Collaboration), The T2K experiment, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A 659, 106 (2011).
  20. P. Adamson et al., Constraints on oscillation parameters from νe appearance and νμ disappearance in NOvA, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 231801 (2017).
  21. R. Acciarri et al., Design and construction of the MicroBooNE detector, J. Instrum. 12, P02017 (2017).
  22. P. A. Machado, O. Palamara, and D. W. Schmitz, The short-baseline neutrino program at Fermilab, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 69, 363 (2019).
  23. K. Abe et al. (Hyper-Kamiokande Proto-Collaboration), Hyper-Kamiokande design report, arXiv:1805.04163.
  24. B. Abi et al., Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment (DUNE), Far detector technical design report, volume I: Introduction to DUNE, J. Instrum. 15, T08008 (2020).
  25. P. Abratenko et al. (MicroBooNE Collaboration), Search for an excess of electron neutrino interactions in MicroBooNE using multiple final-state topologies, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 241801 (2022).
  26. P. Abratenko et al., Search for an anomalous excess of inclusive charged-current νe interactions in the MicroBooNE experiment using wire-cell reconstruction, Phys. Rev. D 105, 112005 (2022).
  27. MicroBooNE Collaboration, Search for an anomalous excess of charged-current νe interactions without pions in the final state with the MicroBooNE experiment, Phys. Rev. D 105, 112004 (2022).
  28. P. Abratenko et al., Search for an anomalous excess of charged-current quasielastic νe interactions with the MicroBooNE experiment using deep-learning-based reconstruction, Phys. Rev. D 105, 112003 (2022).
  29. P. Abratenko et al., Search for neutrino-induced neutral-current Δ radiative decay in MicroBooNE and a first test of the MiniBooNE low energy excess under a single-photon hypothesis, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 111801 (2022).
  30. R. Acciarri et al. (ICARUS-WA104, LAr1-ND, and MicroBooNE Collaborations), A proposal for a three detector short-baseline neutrino oscillation program in the Fermilab Booster Neutrino Beam (2015).
  31. K. Abe et al., Measurements of neutrino oscillation parameters from the T2K experiment using 3.6×1021 protons on target, Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 782 (2023).
  32. T. Nosek (NOvA Collaboration), Systematic uncertainties of the NOvA neutrino oscillation analysis, Proc. Sci. ICHEP2020 (2021) 210.
  33. J. Tena-Vidal et al., Neutrino-nucleon cross-section model tuning in genie v3, Phys. Rev. D 104, 072009 (2021).
  34. P. Abratenko et al., New CC0π genie model tune for MicroBooNE, Phys. Rev. D 105, 072001 (2022).
  35. K. Abe et al. (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).
  36. J. Nieves, J. E. Amaro, and M. Valverde, Inclusive quasielastic charged-current neutrino-nucleus reactions, Phys. Rev. C 70, 055503 (2004).
  37. J. Nieves, J. E. Amaro, and M. Valverde, Erratum: Inclusive quasielastic charged-current neutrino-nucleus reactions [Phys. Rev. C 70, 055503 (2004)], Phys. Rev. C 72, 019902 (2005).
  38. A. S. Meyer, M. Betancourt, R. Gran, and R. J. Hill, Deuterium target data for precision neutrino-nucleus cross sections, Phys. Rev. D 93, 113015 (2016).
  39. J. Nieves, I. R. Simo, and M. J. V. Vacas, Inclusive charged-current neutrino-nucleus reactions, Phys. Rev. C 83, 045501 (2011).
  40. S. Dolan, G. D. Megias, and S. Bolognesi, Implementation of the SuSAv2-meson exchange current 1p1h and 2p2h models in cu and analysis of nuclear effects in T2K measurements, Phys. Rev. D 101, 033003 (2020).
  41. O. Benhar, A. Fabrocini, S. Fantoni, and I. Sick, Spectral function of finite nuclei and scattering of GeV electrons, Nucl. Phys. A579, 493 (1994).
  42. 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).
  43. P. Abratenko et al. (MicroBooNE Collaboration), Multidifferential cross section measurements of νμ-argon quasielasticlike reactions with the MicroBooNE detector, Phys. Rev. D 108, 053002 (2023).
  44. A. A. Aguilar-Arevalo et al. (MiniBooNE Collaboration), First measurement of the muon neutrino charged current quasielastic double differential cross section, Phys. Rev. D 81, 092005 (2010).
  45. O. Palamara (ArgoNeuT Collaboration), Exclusive muon neutrino charged current pion-less topologies. ArgoNeuT results and future prospects in LAr TPC detectors, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. Conf. Proc. 12, 010017 (2016).
  46. D. Ruterbories et al. (MINERνA Collaboration), Measurement of quasielastic-like neutrino scattering at Eν∼3.5  GeV on a hydrocarbon target, Phys. Rev. D 99, 012004 (2019).
  47. G. D’Agostini, A multidimensional unfolding method based on Bayes’ theorem, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A 362, 487 (1995).
  48. R. Gran, J. Nieves, F. Sanchez, and M. J. Vicente Vacas, Neutrino-nucleus quasi-elastic and 2p2h interactions up to 10 GeV, Phys. Rev. D 88, 113007 (2013).
  49. T. Katori, Meson Exchange Current (MEC) models in neutrino interaction generators, AIP Conf. Proc. 1663, 030001 (2015).
  50. P. Stowell et al., nuisance: A neutrino cross-section generator tuning and comparison framework, J. Instrum. 12, P01016 (2017).
  51. F. James and M. Roos, minuit—A system for function minimization and analysis of the parameter errors and correlations, Comput. Phys. Commun. 10, 343 (1975).
  52. K. M. Hanson, T. Kawano, and P. Talou, Probabilistic interpretation of Peelle’s pertinent puzzle and its resolution, AIP Conf. Proc. 769, 304 (2005).
  53. M. A. Acero et al. (NOvA Collaboration and R. Group), Adjusting neutrino interaction models and evaluating uncertainties using NOvA near detector data, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 1119 (2020).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. D 112, 092018– Published 26 November, 2025
  • Received 29 September 2025
  • Accepted 10 November 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