1987
DOI: 10.1007/bf01596895
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Total neutrino and antineutrino charged current cross section measurements in 100, 160, and 200 GeV narrow band beams

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
41
0

Year Published

1990
1990
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 73 publications
(43 citation statements)
references
References 22 publications
2
41
0
Order By: Relevance
“…As for the normalisation of the CDHSW data, in [7] they were normalised using the average total cross sections of [43], namely the ratios σ νF e /E ν (σν F e /Eν) were assumed to be independent of the beam energy. This is a strong assumption in view of the fact that a linear rise with the energy is not experimentally excluded [43]. It is therefore important to check the energy dependence 5 .…”
Section: Cdhswmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As for the normalisation of the CDHSW data, in [7] they were normalised using the average total cross sections of [43], namely the ratios σ νF e /E ν (σν F e /Eν) were assumed to be independent of the beam energy. This is a strong assumption in view of the fact that a linear rise with the energy is not experimentally excluded [43]. It is therefore important to check the energy dependence 5 .…”
Section: Cdhswmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The resulting cross sections are consistent to better than 1% in every bin, which verifies that the extracted cross sections are insensitive to the initially assumed simulated fluxes. Figure 6 compares the measured isoscalar-corrected charged-current inclusive ν μ cross section to the MINOS [17], T2K [52][53][54], CCFR [15], Argoneut [55,56] IHEP-JINR [57], NOMAD [10], NuTeV [16], CDHS [58], and IHEP-ITEP [59] measurements. Not shown are the Gargamelle [60] and SciBooNE [6] results, which reported less precise neutrino cross sections within the plotted energy range.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The results of this analysis agree with the NOMAD and MINOS results within uncertainties, but extend to lower energies. Figure 6 also compares the measured isoscalar-corrected charged-currentν μ inclusive cross section to the MINOS [17], IHEP-ITEP [59], and IHEP-JINR [57], CCFR [15], Argoneut [55,56], NuTeV [16], and CDHS [58] measurements. Not shown are the Gargamelle [62] results, which reported less precise neutrino cross sections within the plotted energy range.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The dashed, dotted and dash-dotted lines show the calculated quasi-elastic, single pion and deep inelastic scattering, respectively. The data points are taken from the following experiments: (△) ANL [33], ( ) GGM77 [34], (•) GGM79 (a) [35], (b) [36], ( * ) Serpukhov [37], (♦) ANL82 [11], (⋆) BNL86 [12], ( ) CCFR90 [38], ( ) CDHSW87 [39], (×) IHEP-JINR96 [40], (+) IHEP-ITEP79 [41], ( ) CCFRR84 [42], and ( ) BNL82 [43]. For W < 2 GeV, and production of single π 0 's and no other pions (charged or neutral), we use the resonancemediated Rein-Sehgal model [44].…”
Section: Interaction Typementioning
confidence: 99%