- 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
  • Letter
  • Open Access

Uncertainties on the ν(−)e/ν(−)μ and νe/ν¯e cross-section ratio from the modeling of nuclear effects at 0.2 to 1.2 GeV neutrino energies and their impact on neutrino oscillation experiments

T. Dieminger1,*, S. Dolan2,†, D. Sgalaberna1,‡, A. Nikolakopoulos3, T. Dealtry4, S. Bolognesi5, L. Pickering6, and A. Rubbia1

  • 1ETH Zurich, Institute for Particle physics and Astrophysics, CH-8093 Zurich, Switzerland
  • 2European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), 1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland
  • 3Theoretical Physics Department, Fermilab, Batavia, Illinois 60510, USA
  • 4Lancaster University, Physics Department, Lancaster LA1 4YB, United Kingdom
  • 5IRFU, CEA, Université Paris-Saclay, F-91191 Gif-sur-Yvette, France
  • 6Royal Holloway University of London, Department of Physics, Egham, Surrey TW20 0EX, United Kingdom

  • *tilld@ethz.ch
  • †Stephen.Joseph.Dolan@cern.ch
  • ‡davide.sgalaberna@cern.ch
PDF

Phys. Rev. D 108, L031301 – Published 14 August, 2023

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.108.L031301

Abstract

The potential for mismodeling of νμ/νe, ν¯μ/ν¯e, and νe/ν¯e cross-section ratios due to nuclear effects is quantified by considering model spread within the full kinematic phase space for charged-current quasielastic interactions. Its impact is then propagated to simulated experimental configurations based on the Hyper-K and ESSνSB experiments. Although significant discrepancies between theoretical models is confirmed, it is found that these largely lie in regions of phase space that contribute only a very small portion of the flux-integrated cross sections. Overall, a systematic uncertainty on the oscillated flux-averaged νe/ν¯e cross-section ratio is found to be ∼2 and ∼4% for Hyper-K and ESSνSB, respectively.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

Supplemental Material

References (42)

  1. T2K Collaboration, Nature (London) 580, 339 (2020); T2K Collaboration583, E16 (2020).
  2. K. Abe et al. (T2K Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 103, 112008 (2021).
  3. M. A. Acero et al. (NOvA Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 151803 (2019).
  4. M. A. Acero et al. (NOvA Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 106, 032004 (2022).
  5. K. Abe et al. (T2K, J-PARC Neutrino Facility Group), arXiv:1908.05141.
  6. K. Abe et al. (Hyper-Kamiokande Collaboration), arXiv:1805.04163.
  7. R. Acciarri et al. (DUNE Collaboration), arXiv:1512.06148.
  8. A. Alekou et al., Eur. Phys. J. Spec. Top. 231, 3779 (2022).
  9. L. Alvarez-Ruso et al., Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 100, 1 (2018).
  10. M. Scott, Proc. Sci. ICHEP2020 (2021), 174.
  11. A. Abed Abud et al. (DUNE Collaboration), Instruments 5, 31 (2021).
  12. M. Martini, N. Jachowicz, M. Ericson, V. Pandey, T. Van Cuyck, and N. Van Dessel, Phys. Rev. C 94, 015501 (2016).
  13. A. M. Ankowski, Phys. Rev. C 96, 035501 (2017).
  14. A. Nikolakopoulos, V. Pandey, J. Spitz, and N. Jachowicz, Phys. Rev. C 103, 064603 (2021).
  15. A. Nikolakopoulos, N. Jachowicz, N. Van Dessel, K. Niewczas, R. González-Jiménez, J. M. Udías, and V. Pandey, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 052501 (2019).
  16. M. Day and K. S. McFarland, Phys. Rev. D 86, 053003 (2012).
  17. K. Abe et al. (T2K Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 161802 (2020).
  18. O. Tomalak, Q. Chen, R. J. Hill, and K. S. McFarland, Nat. Commun. 13, 5286 (2022).
  19. O. Tomalak, Q. Chen, R. J. Hill, K. S. McFarland, and C. Wret, Phys. Rev. D 106, 093006 (2022).
  20. Y. Hayato and L. Pickering, Eur. Phys. J. Spec. Top. 230, 4469 (2021).
  21. J. Nieves, I. Ruiz Simo, and M. J. Vicente Vacas, Phys. Rev. C 83, 045501 (2011).
  22. B. Bourguille, J. Nieves, and F. Sánchez, J. High Energy Phys. 04 (2021) 004.
  23. O. Benhar, A. Fabrocini, S. Fantoni, and I. Sick, Nucl. Phys. A579, 493 (1994).
  24. P. Stowell et al., J. Instrum. 12, P01016 (2017).
  25. See Supplemental Material at http://link.aps.org/supplemental/10.1103/PhysRevD.108.L031301 for (i) a detailed analysis of statistical uncertainties associated with the neut event generation; (ii) details concerning the simulation of the T2K/Hyper-K and ESSνSB experimental configurations; (iii) further details regarding the change in the cross-section ratios of interest under the synthetic model tweaks, including the consideration of HF-CRPA differences on a carbon and oxygen target; and (iv) a data file containing the histograms used in the analysis.
  26. R. Gonzaléz-Jiménez, G. D. Megias, M. B. Barbaro, J. A. Caballero, and T. W. Donnelly, Phys. Rev. C 90, 035501 (2014).
  27. N. Jachowicz, K. Heyde, J. Ryckebusch, and S. Rombouts, Phys. Rev. C 65, 025501 (2002).
  28. V. Pandey, N. Jachowicz, T. Van Cuyck, J. Ryckebusch, and M. Martini, Phys. Rev. C 92, 024606 (2015).
  29. S. Dolan, A. Nikolakopoulos, O. Page, S. Gardiner, N. Jachowicz, and V. Pandey, Phys. Rev. D 106, 073001 (2022).
  30. S. Dolan, G. D. Megias, and S. Bolognesi, Phys. Rev. D 101, 033003 (2020).
  31. C. Andreopoulos et al., Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A 614, 87 (2010).
  32. A. Nikolakopoulos, R. González-Jiménez, N. Jachowicz, K. Niewczas, F. Sánchez, and J. M. Udías, Phys. Rev. C 105, 054603 (2022).
  33. M. B. Avanzini et al., Phys. Rev. D 105, 092004 (2022).
  34. G. D. Megias, J. E. Amaro, M. B. Barbaro, J. A. Caballero, and T. W. Donnelly, Phys. Rev. D 94, 013012 (2016).
  35. G. D. Megias, J. E. Amaro, M. B. Barbaro, J. A. Caballero, T. W. Donnelly, and I. Ruiz Simo, Phys. Rev. D 94, 093004 (2016).
  36. N. Jachowicz and A. Nikolakopoulos, Eur. Phys. J. Spec. Top. 230, 4339 (2021).
  37. A. M. Ankowski, O. Benhar, and M. Sakuda, Phys. Rev. D 91, 033005 (2015).
  38. K. Abe et al. (T2K Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 101, 112004 (2020).
  39. A. Papadopoulou et al. (Electrons for Neutrinos Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 103, 113003 (2021).
  40. M. Khachatryan et al. (CLAS, e4v Collaborations), Nature (London) 599, 565 (2021).
  41. K. Abe et al. (T2K Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 101, 112001 (2020).
  42. F. Rademakers, R. Brun, P. Canal et al., root—An object-oriented data analysis framework. root-project/root: v6.10/04 (2017).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. D 108, L031301– Published 14 August, 2023
  • Received 5 April 2023
  • Accepted 23 June 2023
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