2018
DOI: 10.1016/j.physrep.2018.08.003
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparisons and challenges of modern neutrino scattering experiments (TENSIONS2016 report)

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
15
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 25 publications
(15 citation statements)
references
References 100 publications
(209 reference statements)
0
15
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In recent years MiniBooNE [9], MINERνA [10][11][12] and T2K [13] reported absolute CC1π þ cross sections, respectively in mineral oil, plastic scintillator and water, as a function of the relevant kinematic variables. These results show a significant disagreement, both in shape and in normalization [14,15]. The difficulty of getting simultaneous agreement between all available low-energy cross section data limits their effectiveness to constrain the uncertainty on cross section models and the corresponding systematic errors in neutrino oscillation experiments.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In recent years MiniBooNE [9], MINERνA [10][11][12] and T2K [13] reported absolute CC1π þ cross sections, respectively in mineral oil, plastic scintillator and water, as a function of the relevant kinematic variables. These results show a significant disagreement, both in shape and in normalization [14,15]. The difficulty of getting simultaneous agreement between all available low-energy cross section data limits their effectiveness to constrain the uncertainty on cross section models and the corresponding systematic errors in neutrino oscillation experiments.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Using the same benchmark parameters as were used to generate the MB results, as well as all pertinent information on fluxes, efficiencies, POT etc from [53,[183][184][185][186], we find a very small excess (1-2 events, from the DIF flux only), compared to the much larger observed excess reported by LSND [53]. We note that our calculations do not include effects arising from final state interactions or other considerations like nuclear screening or multiple scattering inside the nucleus, which could play a role at the LSND energies [187]. The KARMEN experiment similarly employed a mineral oil detection medium, but was less than a third of the size of LSND.…”
Section: Results For Miniboone and Implications For Lsnd And Karmenmentioning
confidence: 57%
“…In the absence of a generally adopted and reliable model for neutrino-nucleus interactions which would be available in a wide energy range, different authors use different phenomenological models tuned to different energy ranges and detector targets. As a result, the values of the fundamental phenomenological parameters for neutrino-nucleon interactions, extracted from the experiments, strongly depend on the interaction model used in analyses, and on average energies of neutrino and antineutrino beams (see, e.g., recent reviews [40,41] and references therein). This in turn leads to uncertainties in extrapolations of the cross section models from one target material to another.…”
Section: Science With the Near Detectormentioning
confidence: 99%