pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.07091 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-08 · ✦ hep-ex

Measurement of Inclusive Charged-Current bar{ν}_(μ) Scattering on C, CH, Fe, and Pb at langle E_{bar{ν}}rangle sim 6 GeV with MINERvA

A. Klustov\'a , S. Akhter , Z. Ahmad Dar , M. Sajjad Athar , G. Caceres , H. da Motta , J. Felix , P. K. Gaur
show 30 more authors
R. Gran E. Granados D. A. Harris A. L. Hart J. Kleykamp M. Kordosky D. Last A. Lozano S. Manly W. A. Mann K. S. McFarland M. Mehmood O. Moreno J. G. Morf\'in V. Paolone G. N. Perdue C. Pernas M. A. Ram\'irez N. Roy D. Ruterbories H. Schellman C. J. Solano Salinas D. S. Correia A. Srivastava V. S. Syrotenko N. H. Vaughan A. V. Waldron M. O. Wascko B. Yaeggy L. Zazueta
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 17:27 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ex
keywords neutrino cross sectionsantineutrino scatteringnuclear effectstransverse momentuminclusive charged-currentheavy nucleiMINERvA
0
0 comments X

The pith

Antineutrino cross sections on carbon, hydrocarbon, iron and lead disagree with models in their transverse momentum dependence.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper reports measurements of inclusive charged-current antineutrino cross sections on carbon, hydrocarbon, iron and lead targets, presented as functions of antimuon transverse momentum at an average beam energy near 6 GeV. These data cover the full range of interaction modes from resonance production through deep-inelastic scattering. Ratios of the cross sections on the heavier nuclei to the hydrocarbon cross section are extracted with smaller uncertainties than the absolute values. The measured p_T distributions differ markedly from predictions of several standard neutrino interaction models, with the largest mismatches appearing at low p_T for iron and lead. This pattern indicates that nuclear effects are not yet modeled correctly for these targets.

Core claim

The measurement shows that current neutrino interaction models do not reproduce the observed p_T dependence of inclusive charged-current antineutrino cross sections on iron and lead. The disagreements are largest at low transverse momentum but extend over the entire measured range, demonstrating that nuclear effects remain missing or mis-modeled even in the transition region between resonance production and deep-inelastic scattering.

What carries the argument

Cross section ratios to hydrocarbon as functions of antimuon transverse momentum p_T, which isolate nuclear dependence while reducing flux and detector normalization uncertainties.

If this is right

  • Neutrino interaction generators require additional nuclear corrections to describe data on heavy nuclei across the full p_T spectrum.
  • The discrepancies affect both the resonance-to-DIS transition and the deep-inelastic regime.
  • Absolute cross sections carry 5-10 percent total uncertainty while ratios to hydrocarbon are known to 2-5 percent.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • These data can be used to test specific implementations of final-state interactions or nucleon binding in heavy nuclei.
  • Oscillation experiments that employ iron or lead targets may inherit biases from the same modeling shortcomings.
  • Repeating the measurement at different mean beam energies would help separate energy-dependent nuclear effects from interaction-mode effects.

Load-bearing premise

The measurement assumes that beam flux, detector response, and background subtraction are modeled correctly within the stated 5-10 percent uncertainties on absolute cross sections and 2-5 percent on ratios.

What would settle it

A model that includes the nuclear effects missing from current simulations and reproduces the measured low-p_T cross section ratios on lead and iron to within the quoted uncertainties would falsify the claim that those effects are absent.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.07091 by A. Klustov\'a, A. L. Hart, A. Lozano, A. Srivastava, A. V. Waldron, B. Yaeggy, C. J. Solano Salinas, C. Pernas, D. A. Harris, D. Last, D. Ruterbories, D. S. Correia, E. Granados, G. Caceres, G. N. Perdue, H. da Motta, H. Schellman, J. Felix, J. G. Morf\'in, J. Kleykamp, K. S. McFarland, L. Zazueta, M. A. Ram\'irez, M. Kordosky, M. Mehmood, M. O. Wascko, M. Sajjad Athar, N. H. Vaughan, N. Roy, O. Moreno, P. K. Gaur, R. Gran, S. Akhter, S. Manly, V. Paolone, V. S. Syrotenko, W. A. Mann, Z. Ahmad Dar.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Ratio of data and alternative generator [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: C/CH, Fe/CH, and Pb/CH cross-section ratios as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We report MINERvA's first measurement of inclusive charged-current $\bar{\nu}_\mu$ cross sections on carbon, hydrocarbon, iron, and lead, and their ratios to the cross section on hydrocarbon, as functions of the antimuon transverse momentum, $p_{\mathrm{T}}$. Using a wide-band $\bar{\nu}_\mu$ beam with mean energy $\sim 6~\text{GeV}$, these measurements probe all interaction modes, including the transition from resonance production to deep-inelastic scattering. The total uncertainties are typically $5-10\%$ for the absolute cross sections and $2-5\%$ for the ratios. Comparisons with multiple neutrino interaction models reveal significant discrepancies in the $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ dependence, particularly for heavier nuclei. The disagreements are most pronounced at low $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ but extend across the full $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ range, indicating missing or mis-modelled nuclear effects.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper reports MINERvA measurements of inclusive charged-current antineutrino-muon cross sections on carbon, hydrocarbon, iron, and lead targets at mean energy ~6 GeV. Cross sections and ratios to the hydrocarbon target are presented versus antimuon transverse momentum p_T. The analysis spans resonance to deep-inelastic regimes. Total uncertainties are given as 5-10% (absolute) and 2-5% (ratios). Model comparisons show discrepancies in p_T dependence, strongest at low p_T for heavier nuclei, interpreted as evidence for missing or mis-modeled nuclear effects.

Significance. If the p_T-dependent uncertainties are shown to be correctly controlled, the multi-target data set supplies a valuable constraint on nuclear effects in few-GeV neutrino scattering. Such measurements directly inform oscillation experiments that rely on accurate modeling of carbon, iron, and lead targets. The observed model-data tension at low p_T provides a concrete benchmark for improving nuclear transport and final-state interaction treatments.

major comments (1)
  1. The central interpretation—that discrepancies indicate missing nuclear effects—rests on the claim that p_T shape uncertainties are fully captured by the quoted totals and are uncorrelated across targets in the ratios. The manuscript states overall uncertainties of 5-10% (absolute) and 2-5% (ratios) but does not provide explicit propagation or covariance matrices for p_T-dependent contributions (muon reconstruction efficiency varying with target density, low-p_T pion absorption, or acceptance corrections). Without this, residual experimental systematics cannot be ruled out as the source of the reported low-p_T tension for Fe and Pb.
minor comments (2)
  1. Figure captions and text should explicitly state the binning and unfolding procedure used for the p_T distributions to allow direct comparison with external models.
  2. The abstract and results section would benefit from a quantitative metric (e.g., per-bin pulls or integrated chi-squared) when describing the model disagreements rather than qualitative statements of 'significant discrepancies'.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful and constructive review of our manuscript. We appreciate the positive assessment of the measurement's significance for constraining nuclear effects in neutrino scattering. We address the major comment below and will incorporate the requested clarifications in a revised version.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The central interpretation—that discrepancies indicate missing nuclear effects—rests on the claim that p_T shape uncertainties are fully captured by the quoted totals and are uncorrelated across targets in the ratios. The manuscript states overall uncertainties of 5-10% (absolute) and 2-5% (ratios) but does not provide explicit propagation or covariance matrices for p_T-dependent contributions (muon reconstruction efficiency varying with target density, low-p_T pion absorption, or acceptance corrections). Without this, residual experimental systematics cannot be ruled out as the source of the reported low-p_T tension for Fe and Pb.

    Authors: We thank the referee for raising this important point on the treatment of p_T-dependent uncertainties. The quoted totals (5-10% absolute, 2-5% for ratios) are obtained from a full propagation that includes target-dependent muon reconstruction efficiencies, acceptance corrections, and low-p_T pion absorption effects, evaluated via both Monte Carlo and data-driven constraints. Many of these contributions are highly correlated across targets and largely cancel in the ratios, which is why the ratio uncertainties are smaller. We acknowledge, however, that the manuscript does not include an explicit p_T-binned breakdown or covariance matrices for these terms. To address the concern directly, we will add a new appendix that provides the uncertainty components versus p_T for each target, the full covariance matrices for the ratios, and a quantitative demonstration that the residual experimental systematics cannot account for the observed low-p_T discrepancies in Fe and Pb. This addition will make the uncertainty evaluation fully transparent and reinforce the interpretation that the tensions arise from nuclear effects. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: direct experimental measurement with no derivation chain

full rationale

This is a pure experimental measurement paper reporting inclusive charged-current antineutrino cross sections and ratios on multiple nuclear targets as functions of p_T. The central results are extracted from data with quoted total uncertainties (5-10% absolute, 2-5% ratios); there are no first-principles derivations, fitted parameters renamed as predictions, self-definitional equations, or load-bearing self-citations that reduce the claimed results to the inputs by construction. Model comparisons are external and do not form part of any internal derivation. The paper is self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

This is an experimental measurement paper. The central claim rests on detector calibration, flux estimation, and event selection procedures rather than theoretical free parameters or axioms.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5707 in / 1039 out tokens · 54010 ms · 2026-05-10T17:27:46.250964+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. CP-violation or Nuclear Excitation: Reviewing the Role of Neutrino Interaction Model Uncertainties on Accelerator-Based Neutrino Oscillation Measurements

    hep-ex 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 2.0

    Neutrino interaction model uncertainties from nuclear physics details remain a dominant systematic in oscillation analyses and will require improved modeling plus near-detector constraints to reach the precision goals...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 64 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Alvarez-Rusoet al., Prog

    L. Alvarez-Rusoet al., Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.100, 1–68 (2018)

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    Abeet al.(The T2K Collaboration), Phys

    K. Abeet al.(The T2K Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 108, 072011 (2023)

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Abubakaret al.(The NOvA Collaboration), Phys

    S. Abubakaret al.(The NOvA Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 011802 (2026)

    work page 2026

  4. [4]

    Long-Baseline Neutrino Facility (LBNF) and Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment (DUNE): Conceptual Design Report, Volume 2: The Physics Program for DUNE at LBNF,

    R. Acciarriet al.(The DUNE Collaboration), arXiv preprint (2015), arXiv:1512.06148 [physics.ins-det]

    work page arXiv 2015

  5. [5]

    Letter of Intent: The Hyper-Kamiokande Experiment --- Detector Design and Physics Potential ---

    K. Abeet al.(The Hyper-K Collaboration), arXiv preprint (2011), arXiv:1109.3262 [hep-ex]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2011

  6. [6]

    J. A. Formaggio and G. P. Zeller, Rev. Mod. Phys.84, 1307 (2012)

    work page 2012

  7. [7]

    gov/(2026)

    The MINERνA Collaboration,https://minerva.fnal. gov/(2026)

    work page 2026

  8. [8]

    Aliagaet al.(The MINERνA Collaboration), Nucl

    L. Aliagaet al.(The MINERνA Collaboration), Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A743, 130 (2014)

    work page 2014

  9. [9]

    B. G. Ticeet al.(The MINERvA Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 231801 (2014)

    work page 2014

  10. [10]

    Adamsonet al., Nucl

    P. Adamsonet al., Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A 806, 279–306 (2016)

    work page 2016

  11. [11]

    Michaelet al.(The MINOS Collaboration), Nucl

    D. Michaelet al.(The MINOS Collaboration), Nucl. In- strum. Methods Phys. Res. A596, 190–228 (2008)

    work page 2008

  12. [12]

    Agostinelliet al., Nucl

    S. Agostinelliet al., Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A506, 250 (2003)

    work page 2003

  13. [13]

    Aliagaet al.(The MINERνA Collaboration), Phys

    L. Aliagaet al.(The MINERνA Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D94, 092005 (2016)

    work page 2016

  14. [14]

    Altet al.(The NA Collaboration), Eur

    C. Altet al.(The NA Collaboration), Eur. Phys. J. C. 49, 897 (2007)

    work page 2007

  15. [15]

    J. M. Paleyet al.(The MIPP Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D90, 032001 (2014)

    work page 2014

  16. [16]

    Zazuetaet al.(The MINERνA Collaboration), Phys

    L. Zazuetaet al.(The MINERνA Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D107, 012001 (2023)

    work page 2023

  17. [17]

    Valenciaet al.(The MINERνA Collaboration), Phys

    E. Valenciaet al.(The MINERνA Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D100, 092001 (2019)

    work page 2019

  18. [18]

    Ruterborieset al.(The MINERνA Collaboration), Phys

    D. Ruterborieset al.(The MINERνA Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D104, 092010 (2021)

    work page 2021

  19. [19]

    Fine,Measurement of the Medium Energy NuMI Flux Using the Low-νand High-νMethods at MINERvA, Ph.D

    R. Fine,Measurement of the Medium Energy NuMI Flux Using the Low-νand High-νMethods at MINERvA, Ph.D. thesis, Rochester U. (2020)

    work page 2020

  20. [20]

    Srivastava,Energy Dependence Analysis of Neutrino- Nucleus Interactions in Scintillator for MINERvA, Mas- ter’s thesis, Minnesota U

    A. Srivastava,Energy Dependence Analysis of Neutrino- Nucleus Interactions in Scintillator for MINERvA, Mas- ter’s thesis, Minnesota U. (2023)

    work page 2023

  21. [21]

    Andreopouloset al., Nucl

    C. Andreopouloset al., Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A614, 87 (2010)

    work page 2010

  22. [22]

    Bercellieet al.(The MINERνA Collaboration), Phys

    A. Bercellieet al.(The MINERνA Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 011801 (2023)

    work page 2023

  23. [23]

    Smith and E

    R. Smith and E. Moniz, Nucl. Phys. B.43, 605 (1972)

    work page 1972

  24. [24]

    Bodek and J

    A. Bodek and J. L. Ritchie, Phys. Rev. D24, 1400 (1981)

    work page 1981

  25. [25]

    Llewellyn Smith, Phys

    C. Llewellyn Smith, Phys. Rep.3, 261 (1972)

    work page 1972

  26. [26]

    Nieves, I

    J. Nieves, I. R. Simo, and M. J. V. Vacas, Phys. Rev. C 83, 045501 (2011)

    work page 2011

  27. [27]

    R. Gran, J. Nieves, F. Sanchez, and M. J. V. Vacas, Phys. Rev. D88, 113007 (2013)

    work page 2013

  28. [28]

    Rein and L

    D. Rein and L. M. Sehgal, Ann. Phys.133, 79 (1981)

    work page 1981

  29. [29]

    Rein and L

    D. Rein and L. M. Sehgal, Nucl. Phys. B223, 29 (1983)

    work page 1983

  30. [30]

    Rein and L

    D. Rein and L. Sehgal, Phys. Lett. B657, 207 (2007)

    work page 2007

  31. [31]

    Bodek and U

    A. Bodek and U. K. Yang, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. 29, 1899 (2003)

    work page 2003

  32. [32]

    Bodek, I

    A. Bodek, I. Park, and U. ki Yang, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl.139, 113 (2005)

    work page 2005

  33. [33]

    T. Yang, C. Andreopoulos, H. Gallagher, K. Hofmann, and P. Kehayias, Eur. Phys. J. C63, 1–10 (2009)

    work page 2009

  34. [34]

    Z. Koba, H. Nielsen, and P. Olesen, Nucl. Phys. B40, 317 (1972)

    work page 1972

  35. [35]

    Sj¨ ostrandet al., Comput

    T. Sj¨ ostrandet al., Comput. Phys. Commun.135, 238–259 (2001)

    work page 2001

  36. [36]

    Dytman, Acta Phys

    S. Dytman, Acta Phys. Pol. B40(2009)

    work page 2009

  37. [37]

    Nieves, J

    J. Nieves, J. E. Amaro, and M. Valverde, Phys. Rev. C 70, 055503 (2004)

    work page 2004

  38. [38]

    Model uncertainties for Valencia RPA effect for MINERvA

    R. Gran, “Model uncertainties for Valencia RPA effect for MINERvA,” (2017), arXiv:1705.02932 [hep-ex]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2017

  39. [39]

    P. A. Rodrigueset al.(The MINERνA Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 071802 (2016)

    work page 2016

  40. [40]

    Granet al.(The MINERνA Collaboration), Phys

    R. Granet al.(The MINERνA Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 221805 (2018)

    work page 2018

  41. [41]

    Rodrigues, C

    P. Rodrigues, C. Wilkinson, and K. McFarland, Eur. Phys. J. C.76, 474 (2016)

    work page 2016

  42. [42]

    M. A. Ram´ ırezet al.(The MINERνA Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 051801 (2023)

    work page 2023

  43. [43]

    B. Z. Kopeliovich, I. Schmidt, and M. Siddikov, Phys. Rev. D85, 073003 (2012)

    work page 2012

  44. [44]

    Kaidalov, Phys

    A. Kaidalov, Phys. Lett. B116, 459 (1982)

    work page 1982

  45. [45]

    Aliagaet al.(The MINERνA Collaboration), Nucl

    L. Aliagaet al.(The MINERνA Collaboration), Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A789, 28 (2015)

    work page 2015

  46. [46]

    Elkinset al.(The MINERνA Collaboration), Phys

    M. Elkinset al.(The MINERνA Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D100, 052002 (2019)

    work page 2019

  47. [47]

    Akbaret al.(The MINERνA Collaboration), JINST 17, T08013 (2022)

    F. Akbaret al.(The MINERνA Collaboration), JINST 17, T08013 (2022)

    work page 2022

  48. [48]

    D’Agostini, Nucl

    G. D’Agostini, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A362, 487 (1995)

    work page 1995

  49. [49]

    Lozanoet al., Measurement of charged-currentν µ and ¯νµ cross sections on hydrocarbon in a shallow inelastic scattering region (2025), arXiv:2503.20043 [hep-ex]

    A. Lozanoet al.(The MINERvνA Collaboration), “Mea- surement of charged-currentν µ and ¯νµ cross sections on hydrocarbon in a shallow inelastic scattering region,” (2025), arXiv:2503.20043 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2025

  50. [50]

    Fine et al

    R. Fine, B. Messerly, K. S. McFarland,et al.(The MINERνA Collaboration), “Data Preservation at MIN- 7 ERvA,” (2022), arXiv:2009.04548 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2022

  51. [51]

    NUISANCE: a neutrino cross-section generator tuning and comparison framework

    P. Stowellet al., JINST12, P01016 (2017), arXiv:1612.07393 [hep-ex]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2017

  52. [52]

    Hayato, L

    Y. Hayato, L. Pickering, C. Wret,et al., Eur. Phys. J. Spec. Top.230, 4469 (2021)

    work page 2021

  53. [53]

    Bashyal and others

    A. Bashyal and others. (The MINERνA Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D108, 032018 (2023)

    work page 2023

  54. [54]

    Caiet al.(The MINERvνA Collaboration), Nature 614, 48 (2023)

    T. Caiet al.(The MINERvνA Collaboration), Nature 614, 48 (2023)

    work page 2023

  55. [55]

    K. M. Graczyk and J. T. Sobczyk, Phys. Rev. D77, 053001 (2008)

    work page 2008

  56. [56]

    Kleykampet al.(The MINERνA Collaboration), Phys

    J. Kleykampet al.(The MINERνA Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 161801 (2023)

    work page 2023

  57. [57]

    Betancourtet al., Phys

    M. Betancourtet al., Phys. Rep.773-774, 1 (2018)

    work page 2018

  58. [58]

    M. B. Avanziniet al., Phys. Rev. D105, 092004 (2022)

    work page 2022

  59. [59]

    Meson Exchange Current (MEC) Models in Neutrino Interaction Generators

    T. Katori, AIP Conference Proceedings1663, 030001 (2015), arXiv:1304.6014 [nucl-th]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2015

  60. [60]

    Berger and L

    C. Berger and L. M. Sehgal, Phys. Rev. D76, 113004 (2007)

    work page 2007

  61. [61]

    Berger and L

    C. Berger and L. M. Sehgal, Phys. Rev. D79, 053003 (2009)

    work page 2009

  62. [62]

    Tena-Vidal, Andreopoulos,et al.(The GENIE Collab- oration), Phys

    J. Tena-Vidal, Andreopoulos,et al.(The GENIE Collab- oration), Phys. Rev. D104, 072009 (2021)

    work page 2021

  63. [63]

    Benhar, A

    O. Benhar, A. Fabrocini, S. Fantoni, and I. Sick, Nucl. Phys. A579, 493 (1994)

    work page 1994

  64. [64]

    Juszczak, J

    C. Juszczak, J. A. Nowak, and J. T. Sobczyk, Nucl. Phys. B, Proc. Suppl.159, 211 (2006), arXiv:hep- ph/0512365 [hep-ph]. 8 SUPPLEMENT AL MA TERIAL TABLE Supp. I: Upstream (US) and downstream (DS) per-material normalisation scale factors and their statistical and systematic uncertainties. Material Region Scale factor Stat. unc. Syst. unc. C US 1.029 0.005 ...

    work page arXiv 2006