Model-independent determination of the axial mass parameter in quasielastic antineutrino-nucleon scattering
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding the charged current quasielestic (CCQE) neutrino-nucleus interaction is important for precision studies of neutrino oscillations. The theoretical description of the interaction depends on the combination of a nuclear model with the knowledge of form factors. While the former has received considerable attention, the latter, in particular, the axial form factor, is implemented using the historical dipole model. Instead, we use a model-independent approach, presented in a previous study, to analyze the muon-antineutrino CCQE mineral oil data published by the MiniBooNE collaboration. We combine the cross section for scattering of antineutrinos off protons in carbon and hydrogen, using the same axial form factor for both. The extracted value of the axial mass parameter ${m}_{A}=0.8{4}_{\ensuremath{-}0.04}^{+0.12}\ifmmode\pm\else\textpm\fi{}0.11\text{ }\text{ }\mathrm{GeV}$ is in very good agreement with the model-independent value extracted from MiniBooNE's neutrino data. Going beyond a one-parameter description of the axial form factor, we extract values of the axial form factor in the range of ${Q}^{2}=0.1\dots{}1.0\text{ }\text{ }{\mathrm{GeV}}^{2}$, finding a very good agreement with the analogous extraction from the neutrino data. We discuss the implications of these results.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".