arXiv is now an independent nonprofit! Learn more
License: arXiv.org perpetual non-exclusive license
arXiv:2006.00108v3 [hep-ex] 06 Oct 2020

First Measurement of Differential Charged Current Quasielastic–like νμ\nu_{\mu}–Argon Scattering Cross Sections with the MicroBooNE Detector

P. Abratenko Affiliation: Tufts University, Medford, MA, 02155, USA    M. Alrashed Affiliation: Kansas State University (KSU), Manhattan, KS, 66506, USA    R. An Affiliation: Illinois Institute of Technology (IIT), Chicago, IL 60616, USA    J. Anthony Affiliation: University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB3 0HE, United Kingdom    J. Asaadi Affiliation: University of Texas, Arlington, TX, 76019, USA    A. Ashkenazi Affiliation: Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Cambridge, MA, 02139, USA    S. Balasubramanian Affiliation: Wright Laboratory, Department of Physics, Yale University, New Haven, CT, 06520, USA    B. Baller Affiliation: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (FNAL), Batavia, IL 60510, USA    C. Barnes Affiliation: University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA    G. Barr Affiliation: University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3RH, United Kingdom    V. Basque Affiliation: The University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, United Kingdom    L. Bathe-Peters Affiliation: Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA    O. Benevides Rodrigues Affiliation: Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY, 13244, USA    S. Berkman Affiliation: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (FNAL), Batavia, IL 60510, USA    A. Bhanderi Affiliation: The University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, United Kingdom    A. Bhat Affiliation: Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY, 13244, USA    M. Bishai Affiliation: Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL), Upton, NY, 11973, USA    A. Blake Affiliation: Lancaster University, Lancaster LA1 4YW, United Kingdom    T. Bolton Affiliation: Kansas State University (KSU), Manhattan, KS, 66506, USA    L. Camilleri Affiliation: Columbia University, New York, NY, 10027, USA    D. Caratelli Affiliation: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (FNAL), Batavia, IL 60510, USA    I. Caro Terrazas Affiliation: Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, 80523, USA    R. Castillo Fernandez Affiliation: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (FNAL), Batavia, IL 60510, USA    F. Cavanna Affiliation: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (FNAL), Batavia, IL 60510, USA    G. Cerati Affiliation: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (FNAL), Batavia, IL 60510, USA    Y. Chen Affiliation: Universität Bern, Bern CH-3012, Switzerland    E. Church Affiliation: Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), Richland, WA, 99352, USA    D. Cianci Affiliation: Columbia University, New York, NY, 10027, USA    E. O. Cohen Affiliation: Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel, 69978    J. M. Conrad Affiliation: Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Cambridge, MA, 02139, USA    M. Convery Affiliation: SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, Menlo Park, CA, 94025, USA    L. Cooper-Troendle Affiliation: Wright Laboratory, Department of Physics, Yale University, New Haven, CT, 06520, USA    J. I. Crespo-Anadón Affiliation: Columbia University, New York, NY, 10027, USA    M. Del Tutto Affiliation: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (FNAL), Batavia, IL 60510, USA    D. Devitt Affiliation: Lancaster University, Lancaster LA1 4YW, United Kingdom    R. Diurba Affiliation: University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, 55455, USA    L. Domine Affiliation: SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, Menlo Park, CA, 94025, USA    R. Dorrill Affiliation: Illinois Institute of Technology (IIT), Chicago, IL 60616, USA    K. Duffy Affiliation: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (FNAL), Batavia, IL 60510, USA    S. Dytman Affiliation: University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, 15260, USA    B. Eberly Affiliation: Davidson College, Davidson, NC, 28035, USA    A. Ereditato Affiliation: Universität Bern, Bern CH-3012, Switzerland    L. Escudero Sanchez Affiliation: University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB3 0HE, United Kingdom    J. J. Evans Affiliation: The University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, United Kingdom    G. A. Fiorentini Aguirre Affiliation: South Dakota School of Mines and Technology (SDSMT), Rapid City, SD, 57701, USA    R. S. Fitzpatrick Affiliation: University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA    B. T. Fleming Affiliation: Wright Laboratory, Department of Physics, Yale University, New Haven, CT, 06520, USA    N. Foppiani Affiliation: Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA    D. Franco Affiliation: Wright Laboratory, Department of Physics, Yale University, New Haven, CT, 06520, USA    A. P. Furmanski Affiliation: University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, 55455, USA    D. Garcia-Gamez Affiliation: Universidad de Granada, E-18071, Granada, Spain    S. Gardiner Affiliation: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (FNAL), Batavia, IL 60510, USA    S. Gollapinni Affiliation: University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, 37996, USA Affiliation: Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), Los Alamos, NM, 87545, USA    O. Goodwin Affiliation: The University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, United Kingdom    E. Gramellini Affiliation: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (FNAL), Batavia, IL 60510, USA    P. Green Affiliation: The University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, United Kingdom    H. Greenlee Affiliation: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (FNAL), Batavia, IL 60510, USA    L. Gu Affiliation: Center for Neutrino Physics, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, 24061, USA    W. Gu Affiliation: Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL), Upton, NY, 11973, USA    R. Guenette Affiliation: Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA    P. Guzowski Affiliation: The University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, United Kingdom    E. Hall Affiliation: Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Cambridge, MA, 02139, USA    P. Hamilton Affiliation: Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY, 13244, USA    O. Hen Affiliation: Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Cambridge, MA, 02139, USA    G. A. Horton-Smith Affiliation: Kansas State University (KSU), Manhattan, KS, 66506, USA    A. Hourlier Affiliation: Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Cambridge, MA, 02139, USA    E.-C. Huang Affiliation: Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), Los Alamos, NM, 87545, USA    R. Itay Affiliation: SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, Menlo Park, CA, 94025, USA    C. James Affiliation: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (FNAL), Batavia, IL 60510, USA    J. Jan de Vries Affiliation: University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB3 0HE, United Kingdom    X. Ji Affiliation: Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL), Upton, NY, 11973, USA    L. Jiang Affiliation: Center for Neutrino Physics, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, 24061, USA    J. H. Jo Affiliation: Wright Laboratory, Department of Physics, Yale University, New Haven, CT, 06520, USA    R. A. Johnson Affiliation: University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, 45221, USA    Y.-J. Jwa Affiliation: Columbia University, New York, NY, 10027, USA    N. Kamp Affiliation: Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Cambridge, MA, 02139, USA    G. Karagiorgi Affiliation: Columbia University, New York, NY, 10027, USA    W. Ketchum Affiliation: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (FNAL), Batavia, IL 60510, USA    B. Kirby Affiliation: Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL), Upton, NY, 11973, USA    M. Kirby Affiliation: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (FNAL), Batavia, IL 60510, USA    T. Kobilarcik Affiliation: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (FNAL), Batavia, IL 60510, USA    I. Kreslo Affiliation: Universität Bern, Bern CH-3012, Switzerland    R. LaZur Affiliation: Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, 80523, USA    I. Lepetic Affiliation: Illinois Institute of Technology (IIT), Chicago, IL 60616, USA    K. Li Affiliation: Wright Laboratory, Department of Physics, Yale University, New Haven, CT, 06520, USA    Y. Li Affiliation: Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL), Upton, NY, 11973, USA    B. R. Littlejohn Affiliation: Illinois Institute of Technology (IIT), Chicago, IL 60616, USA    D. Lorca Affiliation: Universität Bern, Bern CH-3012, Switzerland    W. C. Louis Affiliation: Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), Los Alamos, NM, 87545, USA    X. Luo Affiliation: University of California, Santa Barbara, CA, 93106, USA    A. Marchionni Affiliation: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (FNAL), Batavia, IL 60510, USA    S. Marcocci Affiliation: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (FNAL), Batavia, IL 60510, USA    C. Mariani Affiliation: Center for Neutrino Physics, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, 24061, USA    D. Marsden Affiliation: The University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, United Kingdom    J. Marshall Affiliation: University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, United Kingdom    J. Martin-Albo Affiliation: Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA    D. A. Martinez Caicedo Affiliation: South Dakota School of Mines and Technology (SDSMT), Rapid City, SD, 57701, USA    K. Mason Affiliation: Tufts University, Medford, MA, 02155, USA    A. Mastbaum Affiliation: Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA    N. McConkey Affiliation: The University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, United Kingdom    V. Meddage Affiliation: Kansas State University (KSU), Manhattan, KS, 66506, USA    T. Mettler Affiliation: Universität Bern, Bern CH-3012, Switzerland    K. Miller Affiliation: University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, 60637, USA    J. Mills Affiliation: Tufts University, Medford, MA, 02155, USA    K. Mistry Affiliation: The University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, United Kingdom    A. Mogan Affiliation: University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, 37996, USA    T. Mohayai Affiliation: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (FNAL), Batavia, IL 60510, USA    J. Moon Affiliation: Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Cambridge, MA, 02139, USA    M. Mooney Affiliation: Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, 80523, USA    A. F. Moor Affiliation: University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB3 0HE, United Kingdom    C. D. Moore Affiliation: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (FNAL), Batavia, IL 60510, USA    J. Mousseau Affiliation: University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA    M. Murphy Affiliation: Center for Neutrino Physics, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, 24061, USA    D. Naples Affiliation: University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, 15260, USA    A. Navrer-Agasson Affiliation: The University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, United Kingdom    R. K. Neely Affiliation: Kansas State University (KSU), Manhattan, KS, 66506, USA    P. Nienaber Affiliation: Saint Mary’s University of Minnesota, Winona, MN, 55987, USA    J. Nowak Affiliation: Lancaster University, Lancaster LA1 4YW, United Kingdom    O. Palamara Affiliation: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (FNAL), Batavia, IL 60510, USA    V. Paolone Affiliation: University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, 15260, USA    A. Papadopoulou Affiliation: Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Cambridge, MA, 02139, USA    V. Papavassiliou Affiliation: New Mexico State University (NMSU), Las Cruces, NM, 88003, USA    S. F. Pate Affiliation: New Mexico State University (NMSU), Las Cruces, NM, 88003, USA    A. Paudel Affiliation: Kansas State University (KSU), Manhattan, KS, 66506, USA    Z. Pavlovic Affiliation: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (FNAL), Batavia, IL 60510, USA    E. Piasetzky Affiliation: Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel, 69978    I. D. Ponce-Pinto Affiliation: Columbia University, New York, NY, 10027, USA    D. Porzio Affiliation: The University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, United Kingdom    S. Prince Affiliation: Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA    X. Qian Affiliation: Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL), Upton, NY, 11973, USA    J. L. Raaf Affiliation: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (FNAL), Batavia, IL 60510, USA    V. Radeka Affiliation: Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL), Upton, NY, 11973, USA    A. Rafique Affiliation: Kansas State University (KSU), Manhattan, KS, 66506, USA    M. Reggiani-Guzzo Affiliation: The University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, United Kingdom    L. Ren Affiliation: New Mexico State University (NMSU), Las Cruces, NM, 88003, USA    L. Rochester Affiliation: SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, Menlo Park, CA, 94025, USA    J. Rodriguez Rondon Affiliation: South Dakota School of Mines and Technology (SDSMT), Rapid City, SD, 57701, USA    H. E. Rogers Affiliation: St. Catherine University, Saint Paul, MN 55105, USA    M. Rosenberg Affiliation: University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, 15260, USA    M. Ross-Lonergan Affiliation: Columbia University, New York, NY, 10027, USA    B. Russell Affiliation: Wright Laboratory, Department of Physics, Yale University, New Haven, CT, 06520, USA    G. Scanavini Affiliation: Wright Laboratory, Department of Physics, Yale University, New Haven, CT, 06520, USA    D. W. Schmitz Affiliation: University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, 60637, USA    A. Schukraft Affiliation: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (FNAL), Batavia, IL 60510, USA    M. H. Shaevitz Affiliation: Columbia University, New York, NY, 10027, USA    R. Sharankova Affiliation: Tufts University, Medford, MA, 02155, USA    J. Sinclair Affiliation: Universität Bern, Bern CH-3012, Switzerland    A. Smith Affiliation: University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB3 0HE, United Kingdom    E. L. Snider Affiliation: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (FNAL), Batavia, IL 60510, USA    M. Soderberg Affiliation: Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY, 13244, USA    S. Söldner-Rembold Affiliation: The University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, United Kingdom    S. R. Soleti Affiliation: University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3RH, United Kingdom Affiliation: Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA    P. Spentzouris Affiliation: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (FNAL), Batavia, IL 60510, USA    J. Spitz Affiliation: University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA    M. Stancari Affiliation: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (FNAL), Batavia, IL 60510, USA    J. St. John Affiliation: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (FNAL), Batavia, IL 60510, USA    T. Strauss Affiliation: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (FNAL), Batavia, IL 60510, USA    K. Sutton Affiliation: Columbia University, New York, NY, 10027, USA    S. Sword-Fehlberg Affiliation: New Mexico State University (NMSU), Las Cruces, NM, 88003, USA    A. M. Szelc Affiliation: The University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, United Kingdom    N. Tagg Affiliation: Otterbein University, Westerville, OH, 43081, USA    W. Tang Affiliation: University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, 37996, USA    K. Terao Affiliation: SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, Menlo Park, CA, 94025, USA    R. T. Thornton Affiliation: Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), Los Alamos, NM, 87545, USA    C. Thorpe Affiliation: Lancaster University, Lancaster LA1 4YW, United Kingdom    M. Toups Affiliation: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (FNAL), Batavia, IL 60510, USA    Y.-T. Tsai Affiliation: SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, Menlo Park, CA, 94025, USA    S. Tufanli Affiliation: Wright Laboratory, Department of Physics, Yale University, New Haven, CT, 06520, USA    M. A. Uchida Affiliation: University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB3 0HE, United Kingdom    T. Usher Affiliation: SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, Menlo Park, CA, 94025, USA    W. Van De Pontseele Affiliation: University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3RH, United Kingdom Affiliation: Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA    R. G. Van de Water Affiliation: Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), Los Alamos, NM, 87545, USA    B. Viren Affiliation: Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL), Upton, NY, 11973, USA    M. Weber Affiliation: Universität Bern, Bern CH-3012, Switzerland    H. Wei Affiliation: Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL), Upton, NY, 11973, USA    Z. Williams Affiliation: University of Texas, Arlington, TX, 76019, USA    S. Wolbers Affiliation: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (FNAL), Batavia, IL 60510, USA    T. Wongjirad Affiliation: Tufts University, Medford, MA, 02155, USA    M. Wospakrik Affiliation: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (FNAL), Batavia, IL 60510, USA    W. Wu Affiliation: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (FNAL), Batavia, IL 60510, USA    T. Yang Affiliation: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (FNAL), Batavia, IL 60510, USA    G. Yarbrough Affiliation: University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, 37996, USA    L. E. Yates Affiliation: Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Cambridge, MA, 02139, USA    G. P. Zeller Affiliation: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (FNAL), Batavia, IL 60510, USA    J. Zennamo Affiliation: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (FNAL), Batavia, IL 60510, USA    C. Zhang Affiliation: Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL), Upton, NY, 11973, USA    The MicroBooNE Collaboration Thanks: microboone_info@fnal.gov Affiliation: 
August 24, 2026
Abstract

We report on the first measurement of flux-integrated single differential cross sections for charged-current (CC) muon neutrino (νμ\nu_{\mu}) scattering on argon with a muon and a proton in the final state, 40Ar  (νμ,μp)X(\nu_{\mu},\mu p)X. The measurement was carried out using the Booster Neutrino Beam at Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory and the MicroBooNE liquid argon time projection chamber detector with an exposure of 4.59×10194.59\times 10^{19} protons on target. Events are selected to enhance the contribution of CC quasielastic (CCQE) interactions. The data are reported in terms of a total cross section as well as single differential cross sections in final state muon and proton kinematics. We measure the integrated per-nucleus CCQE–like cross section (i.e. for interactions leading to a muon, one proton and no pions above detection threshold) of (4.93±0.76stat±1.29sys)×1038cm2(4.93\pm 0.76_{\text{stat}}\pm 1.29_{\text{sys}})\times 10^{-38}\textrm{cm}^{2}, in good agreement with theoretical calculations. The single differential cross sections are also in overall good agreement with theoretical predictions, except at very forward muon scattering angles that correspond to low momentum-transfer events.

Measurements of neutrino oscillation serve as a valuable tool for extracting neutrino mixing angles, mass-squared differences, and the CP violating phase, as well as for searching for new physics beyond the standard model in the electroweak sector [1, 2].

Neutrinos oscillate as a function of their propagation distance divided by their energy. In accelerator-based oscillation experiments, the neutrino propagation distance is well defined. However, as these experiments do not use mono-energetic neutrino beams  [3, 4, 5], the accuracy to which they can extract neutrino oscillation parameters depends on their ability to determine the individual energy of the detected neutrinos. This requires detailed understanding of the fundamental interactions of neutrinos with atomic nuclei that comprise neutrino detectors.

Understanding the interaction of neutrinos with argon nuclei is of particular importance as a growing number of neutrino oscillation experiments employ liquid argon time projector chamber (LArTPC) neutrino detectors. These include the Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment (DUNE) [6, 7, 8, 9], which aims to measure the neutrino CP-violating phase and mass hierarchy, and the Short Baseline Neutrino (SBN) program [10], that is searching for physics beyond the Pontecorvo–Maki–Nakagaw–Sakata (PMNS) matrix model of neutrino mixing.

Experimentally, the energy of interacting neutrinos is determined from the measured momenta of particles that are emitted following the neutrino interaction in the detector. Many accelerator-based oscillation studies focus on measurements of charged-current (CC) neutrino-nucleon quasielastic (QE) scattering interactions [11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20], where the neutrino removes a single intact nucleon from the nucleus without producing any additional particles. This choice is guided by the fact that CCQE reactions can be reasonably well approximated as two-body interactions, and their experimental signature of a correlated muon-proton pair is relatively straightforward to measure. Therefore, precise measurements of CCQE processes are expected to allow precise reconstruction of neutrino energies with discovery-level accuracy [21].

A working definition for identifying CCQE interactions in experimental measurements requires the identification of a neutrino interaction vertex with an outgoing lepton, exactly one outgoing proton, and no additional particles; We refer to these herein as “CCQE–like” events. This definition can include contributions from non–CCQE interactions that lead to the production of additional particles that are absent from the final state due to nuclear effects such as pion absorption or have momenta that are below the experimental detection threshold.

Existing data on neutrino CCQE–like interactions come from experiments using various energies and target nuclei [22]. These primarily include measurements of CCQE–like muon neutrino (νμ\nu_{\mu}) cross sections for interactions where a muon and no pions were detected, with [17, 18, 19, 20] and without [11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16] requiring the additional detection of a proton in the final state. While most relevant for LArTPC based oscillation experiments, no measurements of CCQE–like cross sections on 40Ar   with the detection of a proton in the final state exist.

This letter presents the first measurement of exclusive CCQE–like neutrino-argon interaction cross-sections, measured using the MicroBooNE liquid argon time projection chamber (LArTPC). Our data serve as the first study of exclusive CCQE–like differential cross sections on 40Ar  as well as a benchmark for theoretical models of νμ\nu_{\mu}-40Ar  interactions, which are key for performing a precise extraction of oscillation parameters by future LArTPC oscillation experiments.

We focus on a specific subset of CCQE–like interactions, denoted here as CC1p0π\pi, where the contribution of CCQE interactions is enhanced [23]. These include charged-current νμ\nu_{\mu}-40Ar scattering events with a detected muon and exactly one proton, with momenta greater than 100 MeV/cc and 300 MeV/cc, respectively. The measured muon-proton pairs are required to be co-planar with small missing transverse momentum and minimal residual activity near the interaction vertex that is not associated with the measured muon or proton. For these CC1p0π\pi events we measure the flux–integrated νμ\nu_{\mu}-40Ar  total and differential cross sections in muon and proton momentum and angle, and as a function of the calorimetric measured energy and the reconstructed momentum transfer.

The measurement uses data from the MicroBooNE LArTPC detector [24], which is the first of a series of LArTPCs to be used for precision oscillation measurements [10, 25, 6, 7, 8, 9]. The MicroBooNE detector has an active mass of 85 tons and is located along the Booster Neutrino Beam (BNB) at Fermilab, 463 m downstream from the target. The BNB energy spectrum extends to 2 GeV and peaks around 0.7 GeV [3].

A neutrino is detected by its interaction with an argon nucleus in the LArTPC. The secondary charged particles produced in the interaction travel through the liquid argon, leaving a trail of ionization electrons that drift horizontally and transverse to the neutrino beam direction in an electric field of 273 V/cm, to a system of three anode wire planes located 2.5 m from the cathode plane. The Pandora tracking package [26] is used to form individual particle tracks from the measured ionization signals. Particle momenta are determined from the measured track length for protons and multiple Coulomb scattering pattern for muons [27].

The analysis presented here is performed on data collected from the BNB beam, with an exposure of 4.59×10194.59\times 10^{19} protons on target (POT). At nominal running conditions, one neutrino interaction is expected in approximately 500 BNB beam spills. A trigger based on scintillation light detected by 32 photomultiplier tubes (PMTs) increases the fraction of recorded spills with a neutrino interaction to 10%\approx 10\%. Application of additional software selection further rejects background events, mostly from cosmic muons, to provide a sample that contains a neutrino interaction in 15%\approx 15\% of selected spills [28, 29]. CCQE-like event selection, further cosmic rejection and neutrino-induced background rejection are described in Ref. [23]. Muon-proton pair candidates are identified by requiring two tracks with a common vertex and an energy deposition profile consistent with a proton and a muon [30]. Further cuts on the track pair opening angle (|Δθμ,p90|<55|\Delta\theta_{\mu,p}-90^{\circ}|<55^{\circ}) and the muon and proton track lengths (lμ>lpl_{\mu}>l_{p}) reduce the cosmic background rate to less than 1%1\% [23].

The selected CC1p0π\pi event definition includes events with any number of protons with momenta below 300 MeV/cc, neutrons at any momenta, and charged pions with momentum lower than 70 MeV/cc. The minimal proton momentum requirement of 300 MeV/cc is guided by its stopping range in LAr and corresponds to five wire pitches in the TPC, to ensure an efficient particle identification.

To avoid contributions from cosmic tracks, our CC1p0π\pi selection considers only pairs of tracks with a fully-contained proton candidate and a fully or partially contained muon candidate in the fiducial volume of the MicroBooNE detector. The fiducial volume is defined by 3 <x<\textless\,x\,\textless 253 cm, -110 <y<\textless\,y\,\textless 110 cm, and 5 <z<\textless\,z\,\textless 1031 cm. The xx axis points along the negative drift direction with 00 cm placed at the anode plane, yy points vertically upward with 00 cm at the center of the detector, and zz points along the direction of the beam, with 00 cm at the upstream edge of the detector. Tracks are fully contained if both the start point and end point are within this volume and partially contained if only the start point is within this volume.

We limit our analysis to a phase space region where the detector response to our signal is well understood and its effective detection efficiency is higher than 2.5%. This corresponds to 0.1<pμ<1.50.1<p_{\mu}<1.5 GeV/cc, 0.3<pp<1.00.3<p_{p}<1.0 GeV/cc, 0.65<cosθμ<0.95-0.65<\cos\theta_{\mu}<0.95, and cosθp>0.15\cos\theta_{p}>0.15. Additional kinematical selections are used to enhance the contribution of CCQE interactions in our CC1p0π\pi sample. These include requiring that the measured muon-proton pairs be coplanar (|Δϕμ,p180|<35|\Delta\phi_{\mu,p}-180^{\circ}|<35^{\circ}) relative to the beam axis, have small missing transverse momentum relative to the beam direction (pT=|pTμ+pTp|<350p_{T}=|\vec{p}^{\,\mu}_{T}+\vec{p}^{\,p}_{T}|<350 MeV/cc), and have a small energy deposition around the interaction vertex that is not associated with the muon or proton tracks.

After the application of the event selection requirement, we retain 410 CC1p0π\pi candidate events. We estimate that our CC1p0π\pi CCQE–like event selection purity equals \approx 84% [23], with 81% of the measured events originating from an underlying CCQE interaction as defined by the GENIE event generator. The efficiency for detecting CC1p0π\pi CCQE–like events, out of all generated CC1p0π\pi with an interaction vertex within our fiducial volume, was estimated using our Monte Carlo (MC) simulation and equals \approx 20% [23]. We note that this efficiency includes acceptance effects, as the typical LArTPC efficiency for reconstructing a contained high-momentum proton or muon track is grater than 90%\sim 90\% [26].

We report single differential cross sections in measured proton and muon kinematics. The differential cross section is given by:

dσdXn=NnonNnoffBnϵnΦνNtargetΔnp,\frac{\mathrm{d}\sigma}{\mathrm{d}X_{n}}=\frac{N^{\textrm{on}}_{n}-N^{\textrm{off}}_{n}-B_{n}}{\epsilon_{n}\cdot\Phi_{\nu}\cdot N_{\textrm{target}}\cdot\Delta^{p}_{n}}, (1)

where, X=pμ,cosθμ,ϕμ,pp,cosθp,ϕpX=p_{\mu},\cos\theta_{\mu},\phi_{\mu},p_{p},\cos\theta_{p},\phi_{p} stands for the kinematical variable that the cross section is differential in and nn marks the cross-section bin. In each bin nn, NnonN_{n}^{\textrm{on}} is the number of measured events when the beam is on, NnoffN_{n}^{\textrm{off}} is the number of measured events when the beam is off (i.e., cosmic-induced background events), BnB_{n} is the beam-related background (estimated from MC simulation), NtargetN_{\textrm{target}} is the number of scattering nuclei, Φν\Phi_{\nu} is the integrated incoming neutrino flux, Δnμ\Delta^{\mu}_{n} and Δnp\Delta^{p}_{n} are the differential bin widths, and ϵn\epsilon_{n} is the effective particle detection efficiency.

As the detection efficiency is a multidimensional function of the interaction vertex and the particle momentum and direction, the data were binned in three-dimensional momentum, in-plane, and out-of-place angle bins with the effective detection efficiency calculated for each such bin separately and integrated over the interaction vertex in the detector. The efficiency was extracted based on simulation and is defined as the ratio of the number of reconstructed CC1p0π\pi events to the number of true generated CC1p0π\pi events (with a vertex inside our fiducial volume) in bin n. This procedure accounts for bin migration effects such that cross-sections are obtained as a function of real (as oppose to experimentally reconstructed) kinematical variables. The results presented herein include the bin migration corrections, which generally have a small impact on the nominal cross-section values as compared with the total cross-section uncertainties (see supplementary materials). The proton and muon efficiencies were extracted independently of each other (rather than from a full six–fold binning), such that when the cross-section is differential in muon kinematics the proton kinematics is integrated over and vise-versa. This is done due to the limited data and simulation statistics and is justified since the proton and muon efficiencies are largely independent in the region of interest. The effect of residual correlations is accounted for in the systematic uncertainties. We further note that the missing transverse momentum requirement increases the sensitivity of our efficiency corrections to the meson exchange current (MEC) and final state interaction (FSI) models used in our simulations. We accounted for the model sensitivity in our systematic studies detailed below.

Table 1: Integrated cross section values and χ2\chi^{2} values for the agreement between the measured cross sections and various event generators. Results are listed for the full measured phase space and for a limited one of cos(θμ)<0.8\cos(\theta_{\mu})<0.8.
Integrated Cross Section [1038[10^{-38}cm]2{}^{2}]
(Differential Cross Section χ2\chi^{2}/d.o.f)
0.65<cos(θμ)<0.95-0.65<\cos(\theta_{\mu})<0.95 0.65<cos(θμ)<0.8-0.65<\cos(\theta_{\mu})<0.8
Data CC1p0π1p0\pi Integrated 4.93 ±\pm 1.55 4.05 ±\pm 1.40
Generators      GENIE Nominal 6.18 (63.2/28) 4.04 (30.1/27)
GENIE v3.0.6 5.45 (34.6/28) 3.66 (21.4/27)
NuWro 19.02.1 6.67 (76.7/28) 4.39 (29.9/27)
NEUT v5.4.0 6.64 (78.5/28) 4.39 (32.2/27)
GiBUU 2019 7.00 (82.2./28) 4.78 (40.0/27)

Figure 1: The flux integrated single differential CC1p0π\pi cross sections as a function of the cosine of the measured muon scattering angle. Inner and outer error bars show the statistical and total (statistical and systematic) uncertainty at the 1σ\sigma, or 68%, confidence level. Colored lines show the results of theoretical absolute cross section calculations using different event generators (without passing through a detector simulation). The blue band shows the extracted cross section obtained from analyzing MC events propagated through our full detector simulation. The width of the band denotes the simulation statistical uncertainty.
Figure 2: As Fig. 1, but for the differential cross sections as a function of measured muon momentum (left) and measured proton scattering angle (middle) and momentum (right). Cross sections are shown for the full measured phase-space (top) and for events with cos(θμ)<0.8(\theta_{\mu})<0.8 (bottom).

The extracted cross sections are expected to be independent of the azimuthal angle ϕ\phi. However, the simple model used to simulate the effect of induced charge on neighboring TPC wires leads to a low reconstruction efficiency of tracks perpendicular to the wire planes (ϕ0\phi\approx 0 and ϕ±π\phi\approx\pm\pi) that created an artificial ϕ\phi dependence to the cross section. We correct for this effect using an iterative procedure. We first reweight events with a muon track falling in the ϕ0\phi\approx 0 bin and |sinθ|>0.3|\sin\theta|>0.3 to the weighted average of the cross sections in all other bins of ϕμ\phi_{\mu} where |sinθ|>0.3|\sin\theta|>0.3. Due to the coplanarity requirement, this reweighting affects the distribution of ϕp±π\phi_{p}\approx\pm\pi. We repeat the process starting from a proton track with ϕp0\phi_{p}\approx 0 until the cross section change is less than 0.01%\%, typically after 5 iterations.

The integrated measured CC1p0π\pi cross section is summarized in Table 1. The statistical uncertainty of our measurement is 15.9%. The systematic uncertainty sums to 26.2% and includes contributions from the neutrino flux prediction and POT estimation (18.7%), detector response modeling (18.4%), imperfect proton and muon efficiency decoupling (5.7%), and neutrino interaction cross section modeling (7.1%).

The neutrino flux is predicted using the flux simulation of the MiniBooNE Collaboration that used the same beam line [13]. We account for the small distance between MiniBooNE and MicroBooNE. Neutrino cross section modeling uncertainties were estimated using the GENIE framework of event reweighting [31, 32] with its standard reweighting parameters. For both cross section and flux systematics, we use a multisim technique [33], which consists of generating many MC replicas, each one called a “universe”, where model parameters are varied within their uncertainties. Each universe represents a different reweighting. The simultaneous reweighting of all model parameters allows the correct treatment of their correlations.

A different model is followed for detector model systematic uncertainties, that are dominated by individual detector parameters. Unisim samples [33] are generated, where one detector parameter is varied each time by 1σ1\sigma. We then examine the impact of each parameter variation on the extracted cross sections, by obtaining the differences with respect to the central value on a bin–by–bin basis. We note that the detection efficiency used for the cross section extraction is re-evaluated for each variation separately, including bin migration corrections. This procedure therefore accounts for the systematic uncertainty in these corrections due to both the cross-section and detector response modeling. One exception to this process is the systematic uncertainty due to induced charge effects mentioned above that include the data-driven correction and are thus estimated separately (see supplementary materials). We then define the total detector 1σ1\sigma systematic uncertainty by summing in quadrature the effect of each individual variation.

A dedicated MC simulation was used to estimate possible background from events in which a neutrino interacts outside the MicroBooNE cryostat but produce particles that enter the TPC and pass the event selection cuts [16]. No such events were found in that study, which is also supported by our observation that the z-vertex distributions for the measured events follows a uniform distribution (see supplementary materials).

The MC simulation used to estimate the backgrounds and effective efficiency contains real cosmic data overlayed onto a neutrino interaction simulation that uses GENIE [31, 32] to simulate both the signal events and the beam backgrounds. See Ref. [23] for details. For the simulated portion, the particle propagation is based on GEANT4 [34], while the simulation of the MicroBooNE detector is performed in the LArSoft framework [35, 36]. The beam–related background subtracted from the CC1p0π\pi events is simulated.

Fig. 1 shows the flux integrated single differential CC1p0π\pi cross section as a function of the cosine of the measured muon scattering angle. The data are compared to several theoretical calculations and to our GENIE-based MC prediction. The latter is the result of analyzing a sample of MC events produced using our “nominal” GENIE model and propagated through the full detector simulation in the same way as data.

This model (GENIE v2.12.2) [31, 32] treats the nucleus as a the Bodek-Ritchie Fermi Gas, used the Llewellyn-Smith CCQE scattering prescription [37], and the empirical MEC model [38], Rein-Sehgal resonance (RES) and coherent scattering (COH) model [39], a data driven FSI model denoted as “hA” [40].

In addition, theoretical predictions by several other event generators are shown at the cross-section level (i.e with no detector simulations) [41]. These include GENIE v2.12.2 and v3.0.6 [31, 32], NuWro 19.02.1 [42], and NEUT v5.4.0 [43] (see supplementary materials). The agreement between the “nominal” GENIE calculation (v2.12.2) and the MC prediction constitutes a closure test for our analysis. The other generators all improve on GENIE v2.12.2 by using updated nuclear interaction models, among which is the use of a Local Fermi Gas model [44] and Random Phase Approximation correction [45]. GENIE v3.0.6 also includes Coulomb corrections for the outgoing muon [46]. The theoretical models implemented in these event generators include free parameters that are typically fit to data, with different generators using different data sets. We also consider the GiBUU 2019 [47] event generator which fundamentally differs from the others due to its use of a transport equation approach.

As can be seen in Fig. 1, all models are in overall good agreement with our data, except for the highest cosθμ\cos\theta_{\mu} bin, where the measured cross section is significantly lower than the theoretical predictions. This discrepancy cannot be explained by the systematic uncertainties and is therefore indicative of an issue with the theoretical models. Specifically, high cosθμ\cos\theta_{\mu} correspond to low momentum transfer events which were previously observed to not be well reproduced by theory in inclusive reactions [16, 15] and is now also seen in exclusive reactions. We note that the high cosθμ\cos\theta_{\mu} bin has large beam-related background (BnB_{n} in Eq. 1), that is estimated using the GENIE v2.12.2 based MC simulation (see supplementary materials).

As the differential cross sections in proton kinematics and muon momentum include contributions from all muon scattering angles, their agreement with the theoretical calculation is affected by this disagreement. Fig. 2 shows this comparison between the relevant cross sections in the full available phase-space (top) and in the case where events with cosθμ\cos\theta_{\mu} >0.8>0.8 are excluded (bottom). Removing this part of the phase-space significantly improves the agreement between data and theory.

Table 1 also lists the χ2\chi^{2} for the agreement of the different models with the data for differential cross sections for the full available phase-space and for cosθμ\cos\theta_{\mu} <0.8<0.8. Systematic uncertainties and correlations were accounted for using covariance matrices. The χ2\chi^{2} values reported in the table are the simple sum of those χ2\chi^{2} values obtained for each distribution separately. As can be seen GENIE v3.0.6 is the only model that reaches a χ2\chi^{2}/d.o.f. close to unity for the full phase-space. It is also the closest model to the data at the highest cosθμ\cos\theta_{\mu} bin. For all other models, the χ2\chi^{2}/d.o.f. in the cosθμ\cos\theta_{\mu} <0.8<0.8 sample is reduced by a factor of 2\sim 2 as compared to the full phase-space sample. GENIE v3.0.6 shows a smaller reduction in this case, and GiBUU 2019 obtains a consistently higher χ2\chi^{2}/d.o.f. for both the full and limited phase-space samples.

The improved agreement with the data observed for GENIE v3.0.6, especially for the full phase-space sample, is intriguing. Specifically, GENIE v3.0.6 and NEUT v5.4.0 are quite similar, using the same nuclear, QE, and MEC models, which are the most significant processes in our energy range. They do differ in the coulomb corrections that only GENIE v3.0.6 has, their free parameter tuning process, and the implementation of RPA correction, that are known to be important at low momentum transfer [45]. Our data indicates that these seemingly small differences can have a highly significant impact, as seen in table 1.

Figure 3: The flux integrated single differential CC1p0π\pi cross sections as a function of QCCQE2=(EνcalEμ)2(pνpμ)2Q^{2}_{CCQE}=(E^{cal}_{\nu}-E_{\mu})^{2}-(\vec{p}_{\nu}-\vec{p}_{\mu})^{2} and Eνcal=Eμ+Tp+BEE_{\nu}^{cal}=E_{\mu}+T_{p}+BE, where BE=40BE=40 MeV and pν=(0,0,Eνcal)\vec{p}_{\nu}=(0,0,E^{cal}_{\nu}). Inner and outer error bars show the statistical and total (statistical and systematic) uncertainty at the 1σ\sigma, or 68%, confidence level. Colored lines show the results of theoretical absolute cross section calculations using different event generators (without passing through a detector simulation). The blue band shows the extracted cross section obtained from analyzing MC events passed through our full detector simulation.

Lastly, Fig. 3 shows the flux-integrated single differential cross sections as a function of calorimetric measured energy and reconstructed momentum transfer, with and without events with cosθμ\cos\theta_{\mu} >0.8>0.8. The former is defined as Eνcal=Eμ+Tp+BEE_{\nu}^{cal}=E_{\mu}+T_{p}+BE, and the latter as QCCQE2=(pνpμ)2(EνcalEμ)2Q^{2}_{CCQE}=(\vec{p}_{\nu}-\vec{p}_{\mu})^{2}-(E^{cal}_{\nu}-E_{\mu})^{2}, where Eμ is the muon energy, Tp is the proton kinetic energy, BE = 40 MeV is the effective nucleon binding energy for 40Ar  , and pν=(0,0,Eνcal)\vec{p}_{\nu}=(0,0,E^{cal}_{\nu}) is the reconstructed interacting neutrino momentum. EνcalE_{\nu}^{cal} is often used as a proxy for the reconstructed neutrino energy.

Overall, good agreement is observed between data and calculations for these complex variables, even for the full event sample without the cosθμ\cos\theta_{\mu} <0.8<0.8 requirement.

In summary, we report the first measurement of νμ\nu_{\mu} CCQE–like differential cross sections on 40Ar   for event topologies with a single muon and a single proton detected in the final state. The data are in good agreement with GENIE predictions, except at small muon scattering angles that correspond to low momentum-transfer reactions. This measurement confirms and constrains calculations essential for the extraction of oscillation parameters and highlights kinematic regimes where improvement of theoretical models is required. The benchmarking of exclusive CC1p0π\pi cross sections on 40Ar  presented here suggests that measurements of CC1p0π\pi interactions are a suitable choice for use in precision neutrino oscillation analyses, especially after theoretical models are reconciled with the small scattering angle data.

Acknowledgements.
This document was prepared by the MicroBooNE collaboration using the resources of the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (Fermilab), a U.S. 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. MicroBooNE is supported by the following: the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Offices of High Energy Physics and Nuclear Physics; the U.S. National Science Foundation; the Swiss National Science Foundation; the Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC), part of the United Kingdom Research and Innovation; and The Royal Society (United Kingdom). Additional support for the laser calibration system and cosmic ray tagger was provided by the Albert Einstein Center for Fundamental Physics, Bern, Switzerland. The work presented in this manuscript was supported in part by the Azrieli Foundation, Israel Science Foundation, Visiting Scholars Award Program of the Universities Research Association, and the Zuckerman STEM Leadership Program.

.

References

  • [1] M. Tanabashi et al. (Particle Data Group), “Review of particle physics,” Phys. Rev. D 98, 030001 (2018).
  • [2] K. Abe et al. (T2K), “Constraint on the matter–antimatter symmetry-violating phase in neutrino oscillations,” Nature 580, 339 (2020).
  • [3] A.A. Aguilar-Arevalo et al. (MiniBooNE), “The Neutrino Flux prediction at MiniBooNE,” Phys. Rev. D 79, 072002 (2009), arXiv:0806.1449 [hep-ex] .
  • [4] L. Aliaga et al. (MINERvA Collaboration), “Neutrino Flux Predictions for the NuMI Beam,” 10.1103/PhysRevD.94.092005.
  • [5] K. Abe et al. (T2K Collaboration), “T2K neutrino flux prediction,” 10.1103/PhysRevD.87.012001.
  • [6] Babak Abi et al. (DUNE), “Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment (DUNE), Far Detector Technical Design Report, Volume I Introduction to DUNE,” (2020a), arXiv:2002.02967 [physics.ins-det] .
  • [7] Babak Abi et al. (DUNE), “Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment (DUNE), Far Detector Technical Design Report, Volume II DUNE Physics,” (2020b), arXiv:2002.03005 [hep-ex] .
  • [8] Babak Abi et al. (DUNE), “Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment (DUNE), Far Detector Technical Design Report, Volume III DUNE Far Detector Technical Coordination,” (2020c), arXiv:2002.03008 [physics.ins-det] .
  • [9] Babak Abi et al. (DUNE), “Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment (DUNE), Far Detector Technical Design Report, Volume IV Far Detector Single-phase Technology,” (2020d), arXiv:2002.03010 [physics.ins-det] .
  • [10] M. Antonello et al. (MicroBooNE, LAr1-ND, ICARUS-WA104 Collaborations), “A Proposal for a Three Detector Short-Baseline Neutrino Oscillation Program in the Fermilab Booster Neutrino Beam,” (2015), arXiv:1503.01520 [physics.ins-det] .
  • [11] C. Anderson et al. (ArgoNeuT Collaboration), “First Measurements of Inclusive Muon Neutrino Charged Current Differential Cross Sections on Argon,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 161802 (2012).
  • [12] Y. Nakajima et al. (SciBooNE Collaboration), “Measurement of Inclusive Charged Current Interactions on Carbon in a Few-GeV Neutrino Beam,” Phys. Rev. D 83, 012005 (2011).
  • [13] A.A. Aguilar-Arevalo et al. (MiniBooNE Collaboration), “First measurement of the muon antineutrino double-differential charged-current quasielastic cross section,” Phys. Rev. D 88, 032001 (2013).
  • [14] K. Abe et al. (T2K Collaboration), “Measurement of the νμ\nu_{\mu} charged-current quasielastic cross section on carbon with the ND280 detector at T2K,” Phys. Rev. D 92, 112003 (2015).
  • [15] M.F. Carneiro et al. (MINERvA Collaboration), “High-Statistics Measurement of Neutrino Quasielastic-Like Scattering at EνE_{\nu}\sim 6 GeV on a Hydrocarbon Target,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 121801 (2020).
  • [16] P. Abratenko et al. (MicroBooNE Collaboration), “First Measurement of Inclusive Muon Neutrino Charged Current Differential Cross Sections on Argon at EνE_{\nu}\sim0.8 GeV with the MicroBooNE Detector,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 131801 (2019).
  • [17] G.A. Fiorentini et al. (MINERvA Collaboration), “Measurement of Muon Neutrino Quasielastic Scattering on a Hydrocarbon Target at Eν3.5E_{\nu}\sim 3.5 GeV,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 022502 (2013).
  • [18] M. Betancourt et al. (MINERvA Collaboration), “Direct Measurement of Nuclear Dependence of Charged Current Quasielasticlike Neutrino Interactions Using MINERν\nuA,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 082001 (2017).
  • [19] T. Walton et al. (MINERvA Collaboration), “Measurement of muon plus proton final states in νμ\nu_{\mu} interactions on hydrocarbon at Eν=\langle E_{\nu}\rangle= 4.2 GeV,” Phys. Rev. D 91, 071301 (2015).
  • [20] K. Abe et al. (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).
  • [21] U. Mosel et al., “Energy reconstruction in the Long-Baseline Neutrino Experiment,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 151802 (2014).
  • [22] J.A. Formaggio and G.P. Zeller, “From eV to EeV: Neutrino Cross Sections Across Energy Scales,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 84, 1307–1341 (2012).
  • [23] C. Adams et al. (MicroBooNE Collaboration), “Rejecting cosmic background for exclusive charged current quasi elastic neutrino interaction studies with Liquid Argon TPCs; a case study with the MicroBooNE detector,” Eur. Phys. J. C 79, 673 (2019).
  • [24] R. Acciarri et al. (MicroBooNE Collaboration), “Design and Construction of the MicroBooNE Detector,” J. Instrum. 12, P02017 (2017).
  • [25] F. Tortorici, V. Bellini, and C.M. Sutera (ICARUS), “Upgrade of the ICARUS T600 Time Projection Chamber,” J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 1056, 012057 (2018).
  • [26] R. Acciarri et al. (MicroBooNE Collaboration), “The Pandora multi-algorithm approach to automated pattern recognition of cosmic-ray muon and neutrino events in the MicroBooNE detector,” Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 82 (2018).
  • [27] P. Abratenko et al. (MicroBooNE Collaboration), “Determination of muon momentum in the MicroBooNE LArTPC using an improved model of multiple Coulomb scattering,” J. Instrum. 12, P10010 (2017).
  • [28] D. Kaleko et al., “PMT Triggering and Readout for the MicroBooNE Experiment,” J. Instrum. 8, C09009 (2013).
  • [29] C. Adams et al. (MicroBooNE Collaboration), “Ionization electron signal processing in single phase LArTPCs. Part II. Data/simulation comparison and performance in MicroBooNE,” J. Instrum. 13, P07007 (2018).
  • [30] C. Adams et al. (MicroBooNE Collaboration), “Calibration of the charge and energy loss per unit length of the MicroBooNE liquid argon time projection chamber using muons and protons,” J. Instrum. 15, P03022 (2020).
  • [31] C. Andreopoulos et al., Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A , 87–104.
  • [32] C. Andreopoulos et al., “The GENIE Neutrino Monte Carlo Generator: Physics and User Manual,” (2015), arXiv:1510.05494 [hep-ph] .
  • [33] B.P. Roe, “Statistical errors in Monte Carlo estimates of systematic errors,” Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 570, 159–164 (2007).
  • [34] S. Agostinelli et al. (GEANT4 Collaboration), Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 506 (2003).
  • [35] R. Pordes and E. Snider, “The Liquid Argon Software Toolkit (LArSoft): Goals, Status and Plan,” PoS ICHEP2016, 182 (2016).
  • [36] E. Snider and G. Petrillo, “LArSoft: Toolkit for Simulation, Reconstruction and Analysis of Liquid Argon TPC Neutrino Detectors,” J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 898, 042057 (2017).
  • [37] C.H. Llewellyn Smith, “Neutrino Reactions at Accelerator Energies,” Phys. Rept. 3, 261–379 (1972).
  • [38] T. Katori, “Meson Exchange Current (MEC) Models in Neutrino Interaction Generators,” AIP Conf. Proc. 1663, 030001 (2015).
  • [39] D. Rein and L. Sehgal, “Neutrino Excitation of Baryon Resonances and Single Pion Production,” Annals Phys. 133, 79–153 (1981).
  • [40] S.G. Mashnik et al., “CEM03 and LAQGSM03: New modeling tools for nuclear applications,” J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 41, 340–351 (2006).
  • [41] P. Stowell, C. Wret, C. Wilkinson, L. Pickering, S. Cartwright, Y. Hayato, K. Mahn, K.S. McFarland, J. Sobczyk, R. Terri, L. Thompson, M.O. Wascko, and Y. Uchida, “NUISANCE: a neutrino cross-section generator tuning and comparison framework,” Journal of Instrumentation 12, P01016–P01016 (2017).
  • [42] T. Golan et al., “NuWro: the Wroclaw Monte Carlo Generator of Neutrino Interactions,” Nucl.Phys.Proc.Suppl. 499, 229–232 (2012).
  • [43] Y. Hayato, “A neutrino interaction simulation program library NEUT,” Acta Phys. Polon. B40, 2477 (2009).
  • [44] R.C. Carrasco and E. Oset, “Interaction of Real Photons With Nuclei From 100-MeV to 500-MeV,” Nucl. Phys. A 536, 445–508 (1992).
  • [45] J. Nieves, J. E. Amaro, and M. Valverde, “Inclusive quasielastic charged-current neutrino-nucleus reactions,” Phys. Rev. C 70, 055503 (2004).
  • [46] Jonathan Engel, “Approximate treatment of lepton distortion in charged current neutrino scattering from nuclei,” Phys. Rev. C 57, 2004–2009 (1998), arXiv:nucl-th/9711045 .
  • [47] U. Mosel, “Neutrino event generators: foundation, status and future,” Phys. Rev. G (2019a), 10.1088/1361-6471/ab3830, arXiv:1361-6471 [hep-ex] .
  • [48] See Supplemental Material for tabulated values of cross section, smearing and covariance matrices at https://arxiv.org/src/2006.00108v2/anc, which includes Refs [49-61].
  • [49] D. Heck, J. Knapp, J.N. Capdevielle, G. Schatz, and T. Thouw, “CORSIKA: A Monte Carlo code to simulate extensive air showers,” (1998).
  • [50] J. Nieves, F. Sanchez, I. Ruiz Simo, and M.J. Vicente Vacas, “Neutrino Energy Reconstruction and the Shape of the CCQE-like Total Cross Section,” Phys. Rev. D 85, 113008 (2012).
  • [51] J. Schwehr, D. Cherdack, and R. Gran, “GENIE implementation of IFIC Valencia model for QE-like 2p2h neutrino-nucleus cross section,” (2016), arXiv:1601.02038 [hep-ph] .
  • [52] J. A. Nowak (MiniBooNE Collaboration), “Four Momentum Transfer Discrepancy in the Charged Current π+\pi^{+} Production in the MiniBooNE: Data vs. Theory,” AIP Conf. Proc. 1189, 243–248 (2009).
  • [53] K. Kuzmin et al., “Lepton polarization in neutrino nucleon interactions,” Phys. Part. Nucl. 35, S133–S138 (2004).
  • [54] Ch. Berger and L.M. Sehgal, “Lepton mass effects in single pion production by neutrinos,” Phys. Rev. D 76, 113004 (2007).
  • [55] K. M. Graczyk and J. T. Sobczyk, “Form Factors in the Quark Resonance Model,” Phys. Rev. D 77, 053001 (2008), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 79, 079903 (2009)].
  • [56] C. Berger and L. Sehgal, “PCAC and coherent pion production by low energy neutrinos,” Phys. Rev. D 79, 053003 (2009).
  • [57] D. Ashery, I. Navon, G. Azuelos, H.K. Walter, H.J. Pfeiffer, and F.W. Schleputz, “True Absorption and Scattering of Pions on Nuclei,” Phys. Rev. C 23, 2173–2185 (1981).
  • [58] A. Bodek et al., “Neutrino Quasielastic Scattering on Nuclear Targets: Parametrizing Transverse Enhancement (Meson Exchange Currents),” Eur. Phys. J. C 71, 1726 (2011).
  • [59] Tina Leitner, L. Alvarez-Ruso, and U. Mosel, “Charged current neutrino nucleus interactions at intermediate energies,” Phys. Rev. C 73, 065502 (2006), arXiv:nucl-th/0601103 .
  • [60] Ulrich Mosel, “Neutrino event generators: foundation, status and future,” J. Phys. G 46, 113001 (2019b), arXiv:1904.11506 [hep-ex] .
  • [61] Torbjorn Sjostrand, Stephen Mrenna, and Peter Z. Skands, “PYTHIA 6.4 Physics and Manual,” JHEP 05, 026 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0603175 .

48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 55, 59, 60, 61