Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Electron-beam energy reconstruction for neutrino oscillation measurements

This article has been updated

Abstract

Neutrinos exist in one of three types or ‘flavours’—electron, muon and tau neutrinos—and oscillate from one flavour to another when propagating through space. This phenomena is one of the few that cannot be described using the standard model of particle physics (reviewed in ref. 1), and so its experimental study can provide new insight into the nature of our Universe (reviewed in ref. 2). Neutrinos oscillate as a function of their propagation distance (L) divided by their energy (E). Therefore, experiments extract oscillation parameters by measuring their energy distribution at different locations. As accelerator-based oscillation experiments cannot directly measure E, the interpretation of these experiments relies heavily on phenomenological models of neutrino–nucleus interactions to infer E. Here we exploit the similarity of electron–nucleus and neutrino–nucleus interactions, and use electron scattering data with known beam energies to test energy reconstruction methods and interaction models. We find that even in simple interactions where no pions are detected, only a small fraction of events reconstruct to the correct incident energy. More importantly, widely used interaction models reproduce the reconstructed energy distribution only qualitatively and the quality of the reproduction varies strongly with beam energy. This shows both the need and the pathway to improve current models to meet the requirements of next-generation, high-precision experiments such as Hyper-Kamiokande (Japan)3 and DUNE (USA)4.

This is a preview of subscription content

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Neutrino oscillations and energy spectra measurements.
Fig. 2: Quasi-elastic reconstructed energy.
Fig. 3: Calorimetric reconstructed energy.
Fig. 4: Reconstructed energies and perpendicular momenta.

Data availability

The raw data from this experiment are archived in the Jefferson Lab’s mass storage silo under the CLAS E2 run-period dataset. Access to these data can be facilitated by contacting either the corresponding authors or the Jefferson Lab computing centre at helpdesk@jlab.org.

Change history

  • 25 November 2021

    The linking to some of the Source Data files was originally incorrect and has now been amended.

References

  1. 1.

    Particle Data Group. Review of particle physics. Phys. Rev. D 98, 030001 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Mohapatra, R. N. et al. Theory of neutrinos: a white paper. Rep. Prog. Phys. 70, 1757–1867 (2007).

    ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Hyper-Kamiokande Proto-Collaboration. Hyper-Kamiokande design report. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1805.04163 (2018).

  4. 4.

    DUNE Collaboration. The DUNE Far Detector interim design report. Volume 1: physics, technology and strategies. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1807.10334 (2018).

  5. 5.

    Gonzalez-Garcia, M. C. & Nir, Y. Neutrino masses and mixing: evidence and implications. Rev. Mod. Phys. 75, 345–402 (2003).

    ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Fukugita, M. & Yanagida, T. Baryogenesis without grand unification. Phys. Lett. B 174, 45–47 (1986).

    ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    The T2K Collaboration. Constraint on the matter–antimatter symmetry-violating phase in neutrino oscillations. Nature 580, 339–344 (2020).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    T2K Collaboration. Search for CP violation in neutrino and antineutrino oscillations by the T2K Experiment with 2.2 × 1021 protons on target. Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 171802 (2018).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Alvarez-Ruso, L. et al. NuSTEC White Paper: status and challenges of neutrino nucleus scattering. Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 100, 1–68 (2018).

    ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    NOνA Collaboration. New constraints on oscillation parameters from νe appearance and νμ disappearance in the NOνA experiment. Phys. Rev. D 98, 032012 (2018).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Ankowski, A. et al. Missing energy and the measurement of the CP-violating phase in neutrino oscillations. Phys. Rev. D 92, 091301 (2015).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Rocco, N. Ab initio calculations of lepton–nucleus scattering. Front. Phys. 8, 00116 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Dolan, S., Megias, G. D. & Bolognesi, S. Implementation of the SuSAv2-meson exchange current 1p1h and 2p2h models in GENIE and analysis of nuclear effects in T2K measurements. Phys. Rev. D 101, 033003 (2020).

    ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Rocco, N., Lovato, A. & Benhar, O. Unified description of electron–nucleus scattering within the spectral function formalism. Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 192501 (2016).

    ADS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    MINERνA Collaboration. Neutrino flux predictions for the NuMI beam. Phys. Rev. D 94, 092005 (2016).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Maan, K. K. on behalf of the NOνA Collaboration. Constraints on the neutrino flux in NOνA using the near-detector data. In Proc. Sci. 38th Intl Conf. High Energy Physics (ICHEP2016) Vol. 282 931 (Sissa, 2016).

  17. 17.

    T2K Collaboration. T2K near detector constraints for oscillation results. In 18th Intl Workshop on Neutrino Factories and Future Neutrino Facilities Search 2 (2017); https://arxiv.org/abs/1701.02559

  18. 18.

    Ankowski, A. & Friedland, A. Assessing the accuracy of the GENIE event generator with electron-scattering data. Phys. Rev. D 102, 053001 (2020).

    ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Papadopolou, A. et al. Inclusive electron scattering and the GENIE neutrino event generator. Phys. Rev. D 103, 113003 (2021).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Mecking, B. A. et al. The CEBAF large acceptance spectrometer (CLAS). Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 503, 513–553 (2003).

    ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    MINERνA Collaboration. Direct measurement of nuclear dependence of charged current quasielastic-like neutrino interactions using MINERνA Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 082001 (2017).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Aliaga, L. et al. Design, calibration, and performance of the MINERνA detector. Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 743 130–159 (2014).

    ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Acciarri, R. et al. Design and construction of the MicroBooNE detector. J. Instrum. 12, P02017 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    The ICARUS-WA104 Collaboration, The LAr1-ND Collaboration, The MicroBooNE Collaboration & additional Fermilab contributors. A proposal for a three detector short-baseline neutrino oscillation program in the Fermilab Booster Neutrino Beam. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1503.01520

  25. 25.

    The DUNE Collaboration. Long-Baseline Neutrino Facility (LBNF) and Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment (DUNE) conceptual design report. Volume 2: The physics program for DUNE at LBNF. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1512.06148 (2016).

  26. 26.

    Katori, T. & Martini, M. Neutrino–nucleus cross sections for oscillation experiments. J. Phys. G 45, 013001 (2018).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Andreopoulos, C. et al. The GENIE neutrino Monte Carlo generator. Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 614, 87–104 (2010).

    ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    MicroBooNE Collaboration. First measurement of inclusive muon neutrino charged current differential cross sections on argon at Eν ~ 0.8 GeV with the MicroBooNE detector. Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 131801 (2019).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Lu, X.-G. et al. Measurement of nuclear effects in neutrino interactions with minimal dependence on neutrino energy. Phys. Rev. C 94, 015503 (2016).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    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).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    MINERνA Collaboration. Measurement of final-state correlations in neutrino muon–proton mesonless production on hydrocarbon at Eν = 3 GeV. Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 022504 (2018).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Freund, M. Analytic approximations for three neutrino oscillation parameters and probabilities in matter. Phys. Rev. D 64, 053003 (2001).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Cervera, A. et al. Golden measurements at a neutrino factory. Nucl. Phys. B 579, 17–55 (2000).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Cervera, A. et al. Erratum to: “Golden measurements at a neutrino factory”: [Nucl. Phys. B 579 (2000) 17]. Nucl. Phys. B 593, 731–732 (2001).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Osipenko, M. et al. Measurement of the nucleon structure function F2 in the nuclear medium and evaluation of its moments. Nucl. Phys. A 845, 1–32 (2010).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    CLAS Collaboration. Measurement of two- and three-nucleon short-range correlation probabilities in nuclei. Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 082501 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    CLAS Collaboration. Survey of ALT asymmetries in semi-exclusive electron scattering on 4He and 12C. Nucl. Phys. A 748, 357–373 (2005).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    CLAS Collaboration. Proton source size measurements in the eA → e′ppX reaction. Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 192301 (2004).

    Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    CLAS Collaboration. Two-nucleon momentum distributions measured in 3He(e, epp)n. Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 052303 (2004).

    Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    CLAS Collaboration. Observation of nuclear scaling in the A(e, e′) reaction at xB > 1. Phys. Rev. C 68, 014313 (2003).

    Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Hen, O. et al. Momentum sharing in imbalanced Fermi systems. Science 346, 614–617 (2014).

    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Sealock, R. M. et al. Electroexcitation of the Δ(1232) in nuclei. Phys. Rev. Lett. 62, 1350–1353 (1989).

    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Gonzaléz-Jiménez, R. et al. Extensions of superscaling from relativistic mean field theory: the SuSAv2 model. Phys. Rev. C 90, 035501 (2014).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Megias, G. D. et al. Inclusive electron scattering within the SuSAv2 meson-exchange current approach. Phys. Rev. D 94, 013012 (2016).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    De Pace, A., Nardi, M., Alberico, W. M., Donnelly, T.W. & Molinaria, A. The 2p–2h electromagnetic response in the quasielastic peak and beyond. Nucl. Phys. A 726, 303–326 (2003).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Katori, T. Meson exchange current (MEC) models in neutrino interaction generators. In NuINT12: 8th Intl Workshop On Neutrino–Nucleus Interactions in the Few-GeV Region (eds. Da Motta, H. et al.) https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4919465 (AIP, 2015).

  47. 47.

    GENIE Collaboration. Neutrino–nucleon cross-section model tuning in GENIE v3. Phys. Rev. D 104, 072009 (2021).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Berger, Ch. & Sehgal, L. M. Lepton mass effects in single pion production by neutrinos. Phys. Rev. D 76, 113004 (2007).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Feynman, R. P., Kislinger, M. & Ravndal, F. Current matrix elements from a relativistic quark model. Phys. Rev. D 3, 2706 (1971).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Bodek, A. & Yang, U. K. Higher twist, ξw scaling, and effective LO PDFs for lepton scattering in the few GeV region. J. Phys. G 29, 1899–1905 (2003).

    ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Yang, T., Andreopoulos, C., Gallagher, H., Hofmann, K. & Kehayias, P. A hadronization model for few-GeV neutrino interactions. Eur. Phys. J. C 63, 1–10 (2009).

    ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Sjostrand, T., Mrenna, S. & Skands, P. Z. PYTHIA 6.4 physics and manual. J. High Energy Phys. 2006, 026 (2006).

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Andreopoulos, C. et al. The GENIE neutrino Monte Carlo generator: physics and user manual. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1510.05494 (2015).

  54. 54.

    Dytman, S. A. & Meyer, A. S. Final state interactions in GENIE. AIP Conf. Proc. 1405, 213 (2011).

    ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Merenyi, R. et al. Determination of pion intranuclear rescattering rates in νμ–Ne versus νμ–D interactions for the atmospheric ν flux. Phys. Rev. D 45, 743–751 (1992).

    ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Mashnik, S. G., Sierk, A. J., Gudima, K. K. & Baznat, M. I. CEM03 and LAQGSM03—new modeling tools for nuclear applications. Phys. Conf. Ser. 41, https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/41/1/037 (2006).

  57. 57.

    Mo, L. W. & Tsai, Y.-S. Radiative corrections to elastic and inelastic ep and μp scattering. Rev. Mod. Phys. 41, 205–235 (1969).

    ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    The T2K Collaboration. Measurement of the muon neutrino charged-current single π+ production on hydrocarbon using the T2K off-axis near detector ND280. Phys. Rev. D 101, 012007 (2020).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  59. 59.

    The T2K Collaboration. Exclusive π0p electroproduction off protons in the resonance region at photon virtualities 0.4 GeV2 ≤ Q2 ≤ 1 GeV2. Phys. Rev. C 101, 015208 (2020).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  60. 60.

    Osipenko, M. A Kinematically Complete Measurement of the Proton Structure Function F2 in the Resonance Region and Evaluation of its Moments. PhD thesis, Moscow State Univ. (2002); https://www.jlab.org/Hall-B/general/thesis/Osipenko_thesis.ps.gz

  61. 61.

    The T2K Collaboration. Improved constraints on neutrino mixing from the T2K experiment with 3.13 × 1021 protons on target. Phys. Rev. D 103, 112008 (2021).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  62. 62.

    DUNE Collaboration. Long-baseline neutrino oscillation physics potential of the DUNE experiment. Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 978 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge the efforts of the staff of the Accelerator and Physics Divisions at Jefferson Lab that made this experiment possible. We thank L. Pickering for useful discussions. The analysis presented here was carried out as part of the Jefferson Lab Hall B Data-Mining project supported by the US Department of Energy (DOE). The research was supported also by DOE, the US National Science Foundation, the Israel Science Foundation, the Chilean Comisión Nacional de Investigación Científica y Tecnológica, the French Centre national de la recherche scientifique and Commissariat à l'Energie Atomique et aux Energies Alternatives, the French–American Cultural Exchange, the Italian Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, the National Research Foundation of Korea, and the UK Science and Technology Facilities Council. P. Coloma acknowledges support from project PROMETEO/2019/083. This project has been supported by the European Union Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement no. 674896 (Elusives, H2020-MSCA-ITN- 2015-674896). G.D.M. acknowledges support from the Spanish Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad and ERDF (European Regional Development Fund) under contract FIS2017-88410-P, by the University of Tokyo ICRRs Inter-University Research Program FY2020 & 2021, refs no. A07 and A06; by the Junta de Andalucia (grant no. FQM160); and by the European Union Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement no. 839481. This document was prepared by the e4ν Collaboration using the resources of the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (Fermilab), a US Department of Energy, Office of Science, HEP User Facility. Fermilab is managed by Fermi Research Alliance, LLC (FRA), acting under contract no. DE-AC02-07CH11359. Jefferson Science Associates operates the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility for the DOE, Office of Science, Office of Nuclear Physics under contract DE-AC05-06OR23177. The raw data from this experiment are archived in Jefferson Lab’s mass storage silo.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Consortia

Contributions

The CEBAF Large Acceptance Spectrometer was designed and constructed by the CLAS Collaboration and Jefferson Lab. Data acquisition, processing and calibration, Monte Carlo simulations of the detector and data analyses were performed by a large number of CLAS Collaboration members, who also discussed and approved the scientific results. The analysis presented here was performed by M. Khachatryan, A.P., A.A., A. Hrnjic and A.N. with guidance from A.A., F.H., O.H., E. Piasetzky and L.B.W., and was reviewed by the CLAS Collaboration. S. Dytman., M. Betancourt and K.M. provided expertise on neutrino scattering. S. Dytman, G.M., S. Dolan and S.G. helped develop e-GENIE. P. Coloma performed a simulation of the DUNE sensitivity to the oscillation parameters, and determined the impact of our results on the fit.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. Ashkenazi.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Peer review information Nature thanks Tingjun Yang and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Peer reviewer reports are available.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Extended data figures and tables

Extended Data Fig. 1 Energy distributions of different νμ beams.

Left, Before oscillation at the near detector; and right, after oscillation at the far detector61,62. The vertical lines show the three electron beam energies of this measurement. The NOνA far-detector beam flux is calculated using the near-detector flux and the neutrino oscillation parameters from the Particle Data Group. arb., arbitrary units.

Extended Data Fig. 2 Peak energy reconstruction fraction and width.

Left, The ratio of e-GENIE to data for the fraction of the weighted cross-section that reconstructs to the correct incident energy, plotted versus incident energy; and right, the e-GENIE–data weighted cross-section ratio for events that reconstruct to the correct incident energy, plotted versus incident energy. The triangles and dashed lines indicate the G2018/data ratios and the squares and solid lines indicate the SuSAv2/data ratios. SuSAv2 is not intended to model nuclei lighter than 12C. Yellow shows the carbon, blue shows helium and green shows iron. Error bars show the 68% (1σ) confidence limits for the statistical and point-to-point systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. Error bars are not shown when they are smaller than the size of the data point. Normalization uncertainties of 3% not shown.

Source data.

Extended Data Fig. 3 Particle multiplicities and include cross-section extraction.

Left, The proton (black) and charged pion (blue) multiplicities for data (points), SuSAv2 (solid histogram) and G2018 (dashed histogram) for 2.257-GeV carbon. Right, Comparison between the inclusive C(e, e′) cross-sections measured at 37.5° for data (points) and SuSAv2 (lines) for the 0.961- and 1.299-GeV SLAC data42 and our 1.159-GeV CLAS data. Error bars show the 68% (1σ) confidence limits for the statistical and point-to-point systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. Error bars are not shown when they are smaller than the size of the data point. Normalization uncertainties of 3% not shown.

Source data.

Extended Data Fig. 4 Energy feed-down cross-sections.

ad, (Erec – Etrue)/Etrue for data (points) and SuSAv2 (lines) for 1.159 GeV (red triangles and dotted lines), 2.257 GeV (green squares and solid lines) and 4.453 GeV (blue dots and solid lines) for C Ecal (a), C EQE (b), Fe Ecal (c), and Fe EQE (d). The plots are area-normalized and each bin has been scaled by the bin width. Error bars show the 68% (1σ) confidence limits for the statistical and point-to-point systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. Error bars are not shown when they are smaller than the size of the data point. Normalization uncertainties of 3% not shown.

Source data.

Extended Data Fig. 5 Transverse missing-momentum-dependent differential cross-section.

The cross-section plotted versus transverse missing momentum PT for data (black points), SuSAv2 (black solid curve) and G2018 (black dotted curve). Different panels show results for different beam energy and target nucleus combinations: ac, Carbon target at 1.159 GeV (a), 2.257 GeV (b) and 4.453 GeV (c). d, e, Iron target at 2.257 GeV (d) and 4.453 GeV (e). The 4.453-GeV yields have been scaled by four to have the same vertical scale. Coloured lines show the contributions of different processes to the SuSAv2 GENIE simulation: QE (blue), MEC (red), RES (green) and DIS (orange). Error bars show the 68% (1σ) confidence limits for the statistical and point-to-point systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. Error bars are not shown when they are smaller than the size of the data point. Normalization uncertainties of 3% not shown.

Source data.

Extended Data Fig. 6 δαT-dependent differential cross-section.

aj, The cross-section plotted versus δαT (ae) and versus δϕT (fj) for data (black points), SuSAv2 (black solid curve) and G2018 (black dotted curve). Different panels show results for different beam energy and target nucleus combinations: ac, Carbon target at 1.159 GeV (a), 2.257 GeV (b) and 4.453 GeV (c). d, e, Iron target at 2.257 GeV (d) and 4.453 GeV (e). The 4.453-GeV yields have been scaled by two to have the same vertical scale. Coloured lines show the contributions of different processes to the SuSAv2 GENIE simulation: QE (blue), MEC (red), RES (green) and DIS (orange). Error bars show the 68% (1σ) confidence limits for the statistical and point-to-point systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. Error bars are not shown when they are smaller than the size of the data point. Normalization uncertainties of 3% not shown.

Source data.

Extended Data Fig. 7 The effect of undetected pion subtraction.

The number of weighted events as a function of reconstructed energy EQE for 4.453-GeV Fe(e, e′) events for: left, events with a detected π± or photon (blue), events with one (red) or two (light brown) undetected π± or photons; and right, all (e, eX) events with detected or undetected π± or photon (blue), (e, e′) events with no detected π± or photon (red), and (e, e′) events after subtraction for undetected π± or photon (light brown). The uncertainties are statistical only and are shown at the 1σ or 68% confidence level. Error bars are not shown when they are smaller than the size of the data point.

Source data.

Extended Data Fig. 8 Acceptance and radiation corrections.

ac, Acceptance correction factors; df, acceptance correction factor uncertainties; and gi, electron radiation correction factors plotted versus Ecal for the three incident beam energies. Results for carbon are shown in black, helium in green and iron in magenta. The left column (a, d, g) shows the 1.159-GeV results, the middle column (b, e, h) shows the 2.257-GeV results and the right column (c, f, i) shows the 4.453-GeV results.

Extended Data Fig. 9 CLAS detector and its calibration performance.

a, Cutaway drawing of CLAS showing the sector structure and the different detectors. Yellow, toroidal magnet; blue, drift chambers; magenta, Cherenkov counter; red, scintillation counters (time of flight); green, electromagnetic calorimeter. The beam enters from the upper left and the target is in the center of CLAS. CLAS detector image reproduced with permission of the CLAS Collaboration. b, The 2.257-GeV 3He(e, epp)X missing mass for data (solid histogram) and simulation (dashed histogram). c, The H(e, eπ+)X missing mass for data (black) and fit to data (red).

Extended Data Table 1 (e, ep)1p0π events reconstructed to the correct beam energy

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Khachatryan, M., Papadopoulou, A., Ashkenazi, A. et al. Electron-beam energy reconstruction for neutrino oscillation measurements. Nature 599, 565–570 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-04046-5

Download citation

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing