-
arX
iv:1
407.
8346
v1 [
nucl
-th]
31
Jul 2
014
Extensions of Superscaling from Relativistic
Mean Field Theory: the SuSAv2 Model
R. González-Jiménez,1 G.D. Megias,1 M.B. Barbaro,2 J.A.
Caballero,1 and T.W. Donnelly3
1Departamento de F́ısica Atómica, Molecular y Nuclear,
Universidad de Sevilla, 41080 Sevilla, Spain2Dipartimento di
Fisica,
Università di Torino and INFN,
Sezione di Torino, 10125 Torino, Italy3Center for Theoretical
Physics,
Laboratory for Nuclear Science and Department of Physics,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139, USA
(Dated: September 25, 2018)
We present a systematic analysis of the quasielastic scaling
functions computed within theRelativistic Mean Field (RMF) Theory
and we propose an extension of the SuperScaling Approach(SuSA)
model based on these results. The main aim of this work is to
develop a realistic and accuratephenomenological model (SuSAv2),
which incorporates the different RMF effects in the longitudinaland
transverse nuclear responses, as well as in the isovector and
isoscalar channels. This provides acomplete set of reference
scaling functions to describe in a consistent way both (e, e′)
processes andthe neutrino/antineutrino-nucleus reactions in the
quasielastic region. A comparison of the modelpredictions with
electron and neutrino scattering data is presented.
PACS numbers: 24.10.Jv, 25.30.Fj, 25.30.Pt
Contents
I. Introduction 1
II. RMF scaling behavior 3A. Shape of the scaling functions 4B.
Height and position of the peak of the
scaling function 5C. Sum rules 7
III. Extension of the SuperScaling
Approach: the SuSAv2 model 7
IV. Comparison with electron scattering
data 10
V. Comparison with neutrino and
antineutrino data 12
VI. Conclusions 14
A. Definition of the scaling functions 151. Electromagnetic
scaling functions 152. Charge-changing neutrino and
antineutrino scaling functions 16
B. Parameterization of the reference
scaling functions 16
C. Pauli Blocking in SuSA and SuSAv2 17
References 18
I. INTRODUCTION
Scaling is a phenomenon observed in severalareas of Physics [1].
It occurs when a particleinteracts with a Many-body system in such
a waythat energy ω and momentum q are transferredonly to individual
constituents of the complexsystem. In the particular case of
quasielastic (QE)scattering of electrons from nuclei, in most of
themodels based on the Impulse Approximation (IA),the inclusive (e,
e′) cross section can be writtenapproximately as a single-nucleon
cross sectiontimes a specific function of (q, ω). Scaling
occurswhen, in the limit of high momentum transfers,that specific
function scales, becoming dependenton only a single quantity,
namely, the scalingvariable ψ. This quantity, whose definition
isdiscussed later, is in turn a function of q and ω:ψ = ψ(q, ω).
The function that results once thesingle-nucleon cross section has
been divided outis called the scaling function f = f(q, ψ). In
otherwords, to the extent that at high q this functiondepends on ψ,
but not on q, one says that ψ-scalingoccurs.
The study of the scaling function can shedlight on the dynamics
of the nuclear system.Indeed, within some specific approaches,
thescaling function is related to the momentumdistribution of the
nucleons in the nucleus (or,more generally, with the spectral
function) [2, 3].
When studying (e, e′) processes it is useful tointroduce the
following concepts:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1407.8346v1
-
2
• Scaling of first kind: This is what isdiscussed above: it is
satisfied when thescaling function does not explicitly dependon the
transferred momentum, but only onψ including its implicit
dependence on q andω.
• Scaling of second kind: It is observedwhen the scaling
function is independent ofthe nuclear species.
• Scaling of zeroth kind: It occurs when thescaling functions
linked to the different chan-nels that make up the cross section,
longitu-dinal (L) and transverse (T), are equal. Forexample, when
considering inclusive electronscattering, zeroth-kind scaling means
thatthe electromagnetic (EM) scaling functionssatisfy f = fL = fT ,
where f represents thetotal EM scaling function and fL,T are theEM
longitudinal and transverse ones.
• Superscaling : Finally, when scaling ofboth the first and
second kinds occurssimultaneously one has superscaling [4, 5].
The Relativistic Fermi gas (RFG) model, inspite of its
simplicity, provides a completely rel-ativistic description of the
QE process and allowsfor fully analytical expressions [5, 6].
Additionally,the RFG model satisfies exactly all of the kindsof
scaling introduced above. Following the formal-ism of the [4, 5,
7], in this work we use the RFGcross sections to build the EM
scaling functions(fL,T ). The general procedure used to define
scal-ing functions consists in constructing the inclusivecross
section, or response functions, within a par-ticular model (or
data) and then dividing themby the corresponding single-nucleon
quantity com-puted within the RFG model. The explicit expres-sions
for the RFG single-nucleon cross section andresponse functions are
given in Appendix A.In previous work [4, 5, 7–9] a large body of
(e, e′)
cross section data were analyzed within this scalingformalism.
The results show that first-kind scalingworks reasonably well in
the region ω < ωQEP(ωQEP being the transferred energy
correspondingto the quasielastic peak), while second-kind scalingis
excellent in the same region of ω. In contrast,when ω > ωQEP
both first- and second-kindscaling are seen to be violated.In [5,
7] scaling was studied by analyzing exper-
imental data for the individual EM longitudinal(RL) and
transverse (RT ) responses. Those stud-ies concluded that fL
superscales approximatelythroughout the region of the quasielastic
peak,while fT only superscales in the region ω < ωQEP ,and
clearly does not for ω > ωQEP . The scaling
violation in the transverse response at high ω oc-curs because
in that range of the spectrum othernon-QE processes such as meson
production andresonance excitation, at high excitation
energiesgoing over into deep inelastic scattering, and exci-tation
of np-nh states induced by meson-exchangecurrents are known to be
of importance for a cor-rect interpretation of the scattering
process.
Exploiting the superscaling property exhibitedby the
longitudinal data, in [7] the “experimen-
tal longitudinal scaling function”, namely, fee′
L,exp,extracted from the analysis of the longitudinal re-sponse
for several nuclear species and kinemati-cal situations, was
presented. However, due to thenon-QE contributions discussed above,
the extrac-tion of an experimental transverse scaling
function,fee
′
T,exp, has not been systematically performed todate.
Nevertheless, in spite of the difficulty of ana-lyzing the
transverse scaling function, preliminarystudies [10], based on the
modeling of the QE lon-gitudinal response and contributions from
non-QEchannels, have provided some evidence that thescaling of
zeroth kind is not fully satisfied by data.In particular, these
studies find fee
′
T,exp > fee′
L,exp, apoint that will be discussed in more detail later.
The SuperScaling Approach (SuSA) is based onthe scaling
properties of the longitudinal responseextracted from (e, e′) data
to predict ChargeChanging (CC) QE neutrino- and
antineutrino-nucleus cross sections [11], namely (νl, l
−) and(ν̄l, l
+). Thus, SuSA is based on the hypothesisthat the neutrino cross
section scales as does theelectron scattering cross section. This
feature isobserved in most of the models based on IA (see,for
instance, [12–14]). SuSA uses the experimental
scaling function fee′
L,exp as a universal scalingfunction and then builds the
different nuclearresponses by multiplying it by the
correspondingsingle-nucleon responses. However, notice thatthe
extraction of fee
′
L,exp entails the analysis of
the longitudinal (e, e′) (isoscalar + isovector)nuclear
response. In contrast, CC neutrino-nucleusreactions involve only
isovector couplings and aremainly dominated by purely transverse
responses(TV V + TAA and T
′
V A, the indices V and Areferring to the vector and axial
components of theweak hadronic current). Thus, one could
questionthe validity of the SuperScaling Approach. Thisissue was
studied in [15] by analyzing the scalingfunctions of the
Relativistic Mean Field (RMF)model (see below). There, it was found
that,contrary to what one might expect, the (e, e′)longitudinal
scaling function agrees with the total(νl, l
−) one (which is mainly transverse) muchbetter than does the
transverse scaling functionfrom (e, e′). This result is explained
by thedifferent roles played by the isovector and isoscalar
-
3
nucleon form factors in each process (see [15] fordetails).
Within the RMF model the bound and scat-tered nucleon wave
functions are solutions of theDirac-Hartree equation in the
presence of energy-independent real scalar (attractive) and vector
(re-pulsive) potentials. Since the same relativisticpotential is
used to describe the initial and fi-nal nucleon states, the model
is shown to pre-serve the continuity equation (this is strictly
truefor the CC2 current operator); hence the resultsare almost
independent of the particular gauge se-lected [13, 14]. The RMF
approach has achievedsignificant success in describing QE electron
scat-tering data. On the one hand, its validity has beenwidely
proven through comparisons with QE (e, e′)data (see [13, 16] and
Sect. IV). In this connec-tion, an important result is that the
model repro-duces surprisingly well the magnitude and shapeof
fee
′
L,exp, i.e., it yields an asymmetric longitudinalscaling
function, with more strength in the high-ω tail, and with a maximum
value (∼0.6) veryclose to the experimental one. On the other
hand,the model predicts fee
′
T > fee′
L . This violation ofzeroth-kind scaling was analyzed in [15],
whereit was shown that the origin of such an effect liesin the
distortion of the lower components of theoutgoing nucleon Dirac
wave function by the final-state interactions (FSI).
However, the RMF model also presents somedrawbacks. First, it
predicts a strong dependenceof the scaling function on the
transferred momen-tum q, an occurrence that is hardly
acceptablegiven the above phenomenological discussion.
Forincreasing values of q the RMF model presents: i)a strong shift
of the scaling functions to higher ωvalues, ii) too much
enhancement of the area underthe tail of the functions, and iii)
correspondinglytoo severe a decrease in the maximum of the scal-ing
functions. All of these features will be studiedin detail in Sect.
II. Second, getting results withthe RMF model is computationally
very expensive,especially when the model is employed to
predictneutrino cross sections where one has to fold in theflux
distribution of the incident neutrino or one hasto compute totally
integrated cross sections. Hencein what follows, after correcting
for the too strongq-dependence of the RMF model, we shall
imple-ment the main features of the model in a new ver-sion of the
SuSA approach, called “SuSA version2”, or “SuSAv2”, that makes it
possible to obtainnumerical predictions to compare with data
usingfast codes, yet retaining some of the basic physicsof the
RMF.
In summary, the main goal of this work isto extend the SuSA
model, incorporating inits formalism information from the RMF
model.
So we build the new model in such a waythat it reproduces the
experimental longitudinalscaling function, produces fee
′
T > fee′
L , takes intoaccount the differences in the
isoscalar/isovectorscaling functions and avoids the problems of
theRMF model in the region of medium and highmomentum transfer.The
structure of this work is as follows: In
Sect. II we present and discuss the features ofthe various
scaling functions in the RMF model.In Sect. III we define the
SuSAv2 model. InSects. IV and V we present the SuSAv2 resultsfor QE
electron and neutrino scattering reactions,respectively, and
compared them with selectedexperimental data. In Sect. VI we draw
ourmain conclusions. Some details on the definitionsof scaling
functions and on the implementationof Pauli blocking in the SuSAv2
approach arepresented in the Appendices.
II. RMF SCALING BEHAVIOR
In this section we present a systematic anal-ysis of the scaling
functions computed with theRelativistic Mean Field (RMF) and the
Relativis-tic Plane Wave Impulse Approximation (RPWIA).Both models
are based on the relativistic impulseapproximation (RIA) and
provide a completely rel-ativistic description of the scattering
process. Thebound state Dirac-spinors are the same in bothmodels
and correspond to the solutions of theDirac equation with scalar
and vector potentials.The two models differ in the treatment of the
finalstate: the RPWIA describes the outgoing nucleonas a
relativistic plane wave while the RMF modelaccounts for the FSI
between the outgoing nucleonand the residual nucleus using the same
mean fieldas used for the bound nucleon.In this work we analyze the
scaling functions
involved in the (e, e′), (ν, µ−) and (ν̄, µ+) reactionsas
functions of q. Because there exists a greatnumber of (e, e′) and
(νl, l) experimental data for12C, in this work we have chosen it as
referencetarget nucleus.We first split all different response
functions
by isolating the isoscalar (T = 0) and isovector(T = 1)
contributions in electron scattering, andthe Vector and Axial
contributions for neutrinoand antineutrino induced reactions: VV
(vector-vector), AA (axial-axial), VA (vector-axial). Thisstrategy
will allow us to extract clear informationon how the FSI affect the
different sectors ofthe nuclear current. Furthermore, it will
makeit easier to explore the relationships between thedifferent
responses linked to (e, e′), (ν, µ−) and(ν̄, µ+) reactions.
-
4
The (e, e′) inclusive cross section, double differ-ential with
respect to the electron scattering an-gle Ωe and the transferred
energy ω, is defined interms of two response functions
corresponding tothe longitudinal, RL, and transverse, RT ,
channels(L and T refer to the direction of the transferredmomentum,
q). It reads
d2σ
dΩedω= σMott (vLRL + vTRT ) , (1)
where σMott is the Mott cross section and the v’sare kinematical
factors that involve leptonic vari-ables (see [8] for explicit
expressions). Assumingcharge symmetry, these two channels can be
de-composed as a sum of the isoscalar (T = 0) andisovector (T = 1)
contributions. In terms of thescaling functions (see [5]) the
nuclear responsesare:
Ree′
L,T (q, ω) =1
kF
[
fT=1,ee′
L,T (ψ′)GT=1L,T (q, ω)
+ fT=0,ee′
L,T (ψ′)GT=0L,T (q, ω)
]
. (2)
Similarly, the charge-changing muon-neutrino(antineutrino) cross
section is [11]:
d2σ
dΩµdεµ= σ0
(
V̂LRV VL + V̂CCR
AACC + 2V̂CLR
AACL
+ V̂LLRAALL + V̂TRT + χV̂T ′RT ′
)
, (3)
where Ωµ and ǫµ are the scattering angle andenergy of the
outgoing muon, χ = + for neutrino-induced reactions and χ = − for
antineutrinoones, σ0 is the equivalent to the Mott crosssection in
CC neutrino reactions and the V̂ ’s areleptonic kinematical factors
(see [11, 12] for explicitexpressions). In this case, the responses
are:
RV V,ν(ν̄)L (q, ω) =
1
kFfV V,ν(ν̄)L (ψ
′)GV VL (q, ω) (4)
RAA,ν(ν̄)CC (q, ω) =
1
kFfAA,ν(ν̄)CC (ψ
′)GAACC(q, ω) (5)
RAA,ν(ν̄)CL (q, ω) =
1
kFfAA,ν(ν̄)CL (ψ
′)GAACL(q, ω) (6)
RAA,ν(ν̄)LL (q, ω) =
1
kFfAA,ν(ν̄)LL (ψ
′)GAALL (q, ω) (7)
Rν(ν̄)T (q, ω) =
1
kF
[
fV V,ν(ν̄)T (ψ
′)GV VT (q, ω)
+ fAA,ν(ν̄)T (ψ
′)GAAT (q, ω)]
(8)
Rν(ν̄)T ′ (q, ω) =
1
kFfV A,ν(ν̄)T ′ (ψ
′)GV AT ′ (q, ω). (9)
The Gs in Eq. (2) and Eqs. (4–9) are the single-nucleon
responses from RFG that are defined in
Appendix A. The f ’s are the scaling functionswhich — if scaling
is fulfilled — only depend onthe scaling variable ψ′, also defined
in Appendix A.The scaling variable ψ′ depends on q, ω and onthe
energy shift, Eshift, which is introduced toreproduce the position
of the experimental QEpeak (see Appendix A).In the following we
examine three basic features
of the scaling functions in the RPWIA and RMFmodels: shape,
position and height of the peak,and the integrals of the scaling
functions overψ′ [17].
A. Shape of the scaling functions
The goal here is to study the shape of all scalingfunctions. In
Fig. 1 (Fig. 2), for different values ofq, we present the
transverse (longitudinal) RMFscaling functions normalized to the
maximumvalue corresponding to a reference function, in this
case fV V,νT , and relocated so that the maximumis at ψ′ = 0. As
already mentioned, the scalingvariable ψ′ depends on q, ω and
Eshift. Thus, foreach scaling function, Eshift is taken so that
themaximum is located at ψ′ = 0. The results withinthe RPWIA model
are presented in Fig. 3.
-1 0 1 2 30
0.2
0.4
0.6
-1 0 1 2 30
0.2
0.4
0.6
fT
vv - ν
fT’
VA - ν
fT
AA - ν
fT
vv - aν
fT’
VA aν
fT
AA - aν
fT
(T=1) - e
-1 0 1 2 3ψ’
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
-1 0 1 2 3ψ’
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
q = 500 MeV/c q = 800 MeV/c
q = 1100 MeV/c q = 1400 MeV/c
FIG. 1: Transverse RMF scaling functions normalizedto the
maximum value corresponding to an arbitraryreference function and
relocated at ψ′ = 0 (see textfor details). The convention used to
label the differentcurves is as follows: “e” for electron-induced
reactionsand “ν” (“aν”) for neutrino- (antineutrino-)
inducedreactions.
We do not present results of fAACC , fAACL , f
AALL for
neutrino and antineutrino scattering, and fT=0T forelectron
scattering because they are very sensitiveto small effects due to
cancellations and/or to thesmallness of the denominator (G
function) whichappears in the definition of the scaling
function(see Appendix A). The first three are seen to be
-
5
-1 0 1 2 30
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
-1 0 1 2 30
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
fL
vv - ν
fL
vv - aν
fL
T=1 - e
fL
T=0 - e
-1 0 1 2 3ψ’
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
-1 0 1 2 3ψ’
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
q = 500 MeV/c q = 800 MeV/c
q = 1100 MeV/c q = 1400 MeV/c
FIG. 2: As in Fig. 1, but now for the longitudinal RMFscaling
functions.
-1 0 1 2 30
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
-1 0 1 2 30
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
fL
vv - ν
fT
vv - ν
fT’
VA - ν
fT
AA - ν
fL
vv - aν
fT
vv - aν
fT’
VA - aν
fT
AA - aν
fL
T=1 - e
fT
T=1 - e
fL
T=0 - e
-1 0 1 2 3ψ’
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
-1 0 1 2 3ψ’
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
q = 500 MeV/c q = 800 MeV/c
q = 1100 MeV/c q = 1400 MeV/c
FIG. 3: As in Fig. 1, but in this case the resultscorrespond to
RPWIA. Transverse and longitudinalsets are presented together.
insignificant for neutrino reactions, whereas thefourth does not
enter in that case and is known tobe a minor correction in the QE
regime for electronscattering.Results obtained within RPWIA show
that
all scaling functions have the same shape (seeFig. 3). This
comment also applies to models basedon nonrelativistic and
semirelativistic descriptions(see [12, 18]).Within the RMF model,
all transverse scaling
functions approximately collapse in a single one.On the
contrary, the longitudinal responses aregrouped in two sets: one
corresponding to thepure electron isovector and neutrino
(antineutrino)
VV-responses, i.e., fT=1,ee′
L and fV V,ν(ν̄)L , and the
other to the isoscalar contribution for electrons,
namely, fT=0,ee′
L . This result emerges for all q-values and tends to be rather
general. It isalso noticeable that the tail is higher and
moreextended for the transverse responses, whereas forthe
longitudinal ones it tends to go down faster.
It is worth observing that in all cases the RMFscaling functions
display a much more pronouncedasymmetric shape than the RPWIA ones,
an effectrelated to the specific treatment of final
stateinteractions.
B. Height and position of the peak of the
scaling function
In the top (bottom) panel in Fig. 4 the peak-height of the
transverse (longitudinal) set of scalingfunctions is presented as
function of q. The resultscorrespond to RMF and RPWIA
predictions.We observe that the peak-heights of the
scalingfunctions within RPWIA are almost q-independent(and very
close to RFG value of 3/4), while theRMF ones present a mild
q-dependence in thetransverse set and a somewhat stronger one
forthe longitudinal set. It is well known that FSItend to decrease
the peak-height of the responsesputting the strength in the tails,
especially athigh energy loss. This is particularly true forthe RMF
approach [13, 19] and models basedon the Relativistic Green
Function (RGF) [16,20]. Similar effects have also been
observedwithin semirelativistic approaches [12, 18].
Morespecifically, in Fig. 4, we see that the discrepanciesbetween
the RMF and RPWIA peak-height resultsaverage to ∼25% in the
transverse set. Onthe other hand, those discrepancies are
morestrongly q-dependent in the longitudinal sector,reaching ∼30%
(∼70%) in the lower (higher) q-region for the longitudinal
isovector responses(blue lines). Finally, the difference betweenthe
isoscalar longitudinal (e, e′) scaling functionproduced by RMF and
RPWIA (magenta dashed-dotted lines) is somewhat smaller: ∼20%
(∼30%)for lower (higher) q.In Fig. 5 we study the position of the
peak of the
transverse and longitudinal sets. To this scope wedisplay the
energy shift, Eshift, needed to placethe peak of the scaling
function at ψ′ = 0 as afunction of q. In the top panel of Fig. 5 we
see thatfor the RPWIA transverse scaling function, Eshiftis almost
q-independent, while the correspondingRMF shift increases almost
linearly with themomentum transfer. This q-linear dependenceof
Eshift was already observed and discussedwithin the framework of a
semirelativistic modelbased on the use of the
Dirac-equation-basedpotential [18]. Approximately the same
behavioris observed for the longitudinal set (bottom panelin Fig.
5), although in this case the RPWIAresults are softly linearly
dependent on q. It isalso worth mentioning that the three
transversescaling functions linked to the same neutrino or
-
6
400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600q (MeV/c)
0.6
0.65
0.7
0.75
0.8
peak
hei
ght
fT’
VA - ν
fT
vv - ν
fT
AA - ν
fT’
VA - aν
fT
vv - aν
fT
AA - aν
fT
T=1 - e
RPWIA
RMF
400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600q (MeV/c)
0.45
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
0.7
0.75
peak
hei
ght
fL
vv - ν
fL
vv - aν
fL
T=1 - e
fL
T=0 - e
RPWIA
RMF
FIG. 4: (Top panel) Peak height of the transverse setof scaling
functions as a function of the transferredmomentum q. The upper set
of lines corresponds tothe prediction within RPWIA (thin lines),
while thelower set of lines has been obtained with the RMFmodel.
(Bottom panel) As for the top panel, but nowfor the longitudinal
set of scaling functions.
antineutrino process, fV VT , fAAT and f
V AT ′ , collapse
in a single line for RMF as for RPWIA.
From the analysis of Figs. 4 and 5 one may
conclude that fT=1,ee′
L presents the same behav-
ior (height and position) as fV V,ν(ν̄)L (blue lines).
The differences between these three curves are ap-proximately
constant and arise from the differencesin the bound states involved
in the reaction: pro-ton+neutron in (e, e′), neutron in (ν, µ−) and
pro-ton in (ν̄, µ+). The Coulomb-FSI, namely, theelectromagnetic
interaction between the struck nu-cleon and the residual nucleus,
which plays a rolewhen the outgoing nucleon is a proton, could
alsointroduce a difference; however, we find that itseffects are
negligible and that the differences be-
tween, for instance, fV V,νL and fV V,ν̄L in RPWIA
(where no Coulomb-FSI are involved) are almostthe same as in RMF
(see Figs. 4 and 5).
As mentioned in the Introduction, the strongq-dependence of the
RMF peak position, which
400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600q (MeV/c)
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Esh
ift (
MeV
)
fT’
VA - ν
fT
vv - ν
fT
AA - ν
fT’
VA - aν
fT
vv - aν
fT
AA - aν
fT
T=1 - e
RMF
RPWIA
400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600q (MeV/c)
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Esh
ift (
MeV
)
fL
vv - ν
fL
vv - aν
fL
T=1 - e
fL
T=0 - e
RMF
RPWIA
FIG. 5: (Top panel) Shift energy, Eshift, needed inorder to have
the corresponding scaling function peaklocated at ψ′ = 0, as
function of q. Results for thetransverse set of scaling functions.
(Bottom panel) Asfor the top panel, but now for the longitudinal
set ofscaling functions.
keeps growing with the momentum transfer, isa shortcoming of the
model, whose validity isquestionable at very high q. Indeed for
high q theoutgoing nucleon carries a large kinetic energy sothe
effects of FSI should be suppressed for suchkinematics. In fact, it
would be desirable that theRMF results tend to approach the RPWIA
onesfor increasing momentum transfer, i.e., the scalingfunctions
should become more symmetric, and asaturation of the peak-height
reduction and of theenergy shift should be observed. That trend
isconsistent with the scaling arguments [4, 7, 13],i.e., the
experimental evidence of a universalscaling function for increasing
q. This is one ofthe motivations to use an alternative model if
oneaims to reproduce the experimental (e, e′) data atmedium-to-high
momentum transfers.
A possible alternative for the behavior of thepeak height, peak
position and shape of the scalingfunctions would be to implement
the RMF modelat low to intermediate-q and the RPWIA one forhigher
q-values.
-
7
C. Sum rules
In Fig. 6, the values of the integrals over ψ′ ofthe different
scaling functions within RMF modelare presented versus q. These are
given by
Si(q) =
∫
∞
−∞
fi(ψ, q) dψ . (10)
The integration limits, denoted by (−∞,+∞), ex-tend in reality
to the range allowed by the kine-matics. The above integral in the
case of the lon-gitudinal (e, e′) scaling function was shown to
coin-cide, apart from some minor discrepancies ascribedto the
particular single-nucleon expressions consid-ered and the influence
of the nuclear scale intro-duced, with the results obtained using
the stan-dard expression for the Coulomb Sum Rule (see[17] for
details). Hence in what follows we denotethe functions Si(q) simply
as sum rules.We see that all integrals of the transverse set
are above unity and increase almost linearly with
q. On the contrary, the integrals of fV V,ν(ν̄)L
and fT=1,ee′
L (blue lines) are below unity anddecrease with q up to q = 1100
MeV/c. Fromq = 900 MeV/c they begin to be stable aroundthe value
0.7. Then, from q = 1200 MeV/c tohigher q-values the integrals
start growing again.However, notice that in that q-region the
resultof the integrals is very sensitive to the behaviorof the tail
of these particular scaling functions(see Fig. 2). Finally, the
values of the integral
of the longitudinal isoscalar function, fT=0,ee′
L , isapproximately constant and close to unity. Thebehavior of
the integrals of the two longitudinalscaling functions for (e, e′)
is consistent with theanalysis of the Coulomb sum rule for these
twomodels (see [17]).
400 600 800 1000 1200 1400q (MeV/c)
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
1.1
1.2
1.3
inte
gral
fL
VV - ν
fL
VV - aν
fL
(T=1) - e
fT
VV - ν
fT
VV - aν
fT
T=1 - e
fT’
VA - ν
fT’
VA - aν
fT
AA - ν
fT
AA - aν
fL
T=0 - e
FIG. 6: Integrals of RMF scaling functions as functionsof q.
Although not shown here, we have also studied
the integrals within RPWIA. In general, oneobserves that they
are almost q-independent in allcases: ∼1 for the longitudinal set
and ∼1.05 forthe transverse set.
III. EXTENSION OF THE
SUPERSCALING APPROACH: THE
SUSAV2 MODEL
In this section we build the SuSAv2 model as acombination of the
original SuSA model and someof the physical ingredients contained
in the RMFand RPWIA models.
On the one hand, as we have shown in the previ-ous sections, the
RMF model has a q-dependencethat is too strong. On the other hand,
the SuSAmodel does not account for the difference be-tween the
longitudinal and transverse (e, e′) scal-ing functions. Similarly,
SuSA does not accountfor possible differences in the scaling
functionlinked to isospin effects (isovector, isoscalar,
isovec-tor+isoscalar) or to the character of the current(JV JV :
vector-vector, JV JA: axial-vector, JAJA:axial-axial).
Thus, we aim to improve the SuSA model byintroducing into it
specific information from theRMF approach. The goal is to get a new
versionof SuSA, SuSAv2. The model is based on thefollowing four
assumptions:
1. fee′
L superscales, i.e, it is independent ofthe momentum transfer
(scaling of firstkind) and of the nuclear species (scaling of
second kind). It has been proven that fee′
L
superscales for a range of q relatively low(300 < q < 570
MeV/c), see [4]. As in theoriginal SuSA model, here we assume
thatsuperscaling is fulfilled by Nature.
2. fee′
T superscales. It has been shown that
fee′
T approximately superscales in the regionψ < 0 for a wide
range of q (400 < q <4000 MeV/c), see [7]. However we
assumethat once the contributions from non-QEprocesses are removed
(MEC, ∆-resonance,DIS, etc.) the superscaling behaviour couldbe
extended to the whole range of ψ.
3. The RMF model reproduces quite well therelationships between
all scaling functions inthe whole range of q. This assumption is
sup-ported by the fact that RMF model is able toreproduce the
experimental scaling function,fee
′
L,exp, and the fact that it naturally yields
the inequality fee′
T > fee′
L .
-
8
4. At very high q the effects of FSI disappearand all scaling
functions must approach theRPWIA results.
Contrary to what is assumed in the SuSAmodel, where only fee
′
L,exp is used as referencescaling function to build all nuclear
responses,within SuSAv2 we use three RMF-based referencescaling
functions (which will be indicated with the
symbol f̃): one for the transverse set, one forthe longitudinal
isovector set and another one todescribe the longitudinal isoscalar
scaling functionin electron scattering. This is consistent withthe
study of the shape of the scaling functionsdiscussed in the
previous section, where threedifferent sets of scaling functions
emerged.We employ the experimental scaling function
fee′
L,exp as guide in our choices for the reference ones.In Fig. 7
we display the RMF longitudinal scalingfunction, fL, for several
representative values of q.Notice that the functions have been
relocated byintroducing an energy shift (see later) so that
themaximum is at ψ′ = 0. It appears that scalingof first kind is
not perfect and some q-dependenceis observed. Although all the
curves are roughlycompatible with the experimental error bars,
thescaling function that produces the best fit to thedata
corresponds to q ≈ 650 MeV/c. This is theresult of a χ2-fit to the
25 experimental data offee
′
L,exp, as illustrated in the inner plot in Fig. 7.
-1 0 1 2 3ψ’
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
f L (
RM
F m
odel
)
q=550 MeV/cq=650 MeV/cq=800 MeV/cq=1100 MeV/cq=1400 MeV/c
500 600 700 800q (MeV/c)
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
χ2/d
of
FIG. 7: Longitudinal scaling function for (e, e′)computed within
RMF. The scaling functions havebeen shifted to place the maximum at
ψ′ = 0. In theinner smaller plot the reduced-χ2, defined as χ2/25
=1
25
∑25
i=1[(fee
′
L,exp,i − fRMFL,i )/σ
expL,i ]
2 where σexpL,i are theerrors of the experimental data, is
presented versus q.The minimum χ2 is around q = 650 MeV/c. Data
fromRef. [9].
According to this result, we identify the ref-
erence scaling functions with fT=1,ee′
L , fT=0,ee′
L
and fT=1,ee′
T evaluated within the RMF model at
q = 650 MeV/c and relocated so that the maxi-mum is at ψ′ = 0
(we will account for the energyshift later):
f̃T ≡ fT=1,ee′
T |RMFq=650 (11)f̃L,T=1 ≡ fT=1,ee
′
L |RMFq=650 (12)f̃L,T=0 ≡ fT=0,ee
′
L |RMFq=650 . (13)
Thus, by construction, the (e, e′) longitudinal scal-ing
function built within SuSAv2 is fL|SuSAv2 =fL|RMFq=650 ≈ fee
′
L,exp. In order to work with thesereference scaling functions we
need analytical ex-pressions for them. To that end, we have useda
skewed-Gumbel function which depends on fourparameters. The
expressions that parametrize thereference scaling functions are
presented in Ap-pendix B.The next step before building the
responses (see
Eqs. (2-9)) is to define the rest of scaling functionsstarting
from the reference ones. According to thethird assumption for the
construction of SuSAv2,we define:
fV V,ν(ν̄)L (q) = µ
V V,ν(ν̄)L (q)f̃L,T=1 (14)
fV V,ν(ν̄)T (q) = µ
V V,ν(ν̄)T (q)f̃T (15)
fAA,ν(ν̄)T (q) = µ
AA,ν(ν̄)T (q)f̃T (16)
fV A,ν(ν̄)T ′ (q) = µ
V A,ν(ν̄)T (q)f̃T , (17)
where we have introduced the ratios µ defined as:
µV V,ν(ν̄)T (q) ≡ f
V V,ν(ν̄)T (q)/f
T=1,ee′
T (q) (18)
µAA,ν(ν̄)T (q) ≡ f
AA,ν(ν̄)T (q)/f
T=1,ee′
T (q) (19)
µV A,ν(ν̄)T ′ (q) ≡ f
ν(ν̄)T ′ (q)/f
T=1,ee′
T (q) , (20)
for the transverse set and
µV V,ν(ν̄)L (q) ≡ f
V V,ν(ν̄)L (q)/f
T=1,ee′
L (q) , (21)
for the longitudinal one.From the results of these ratios,
presented
in Fig. 8, it emerges that one can assume
µV V,ν(ν̄)T (q) ≈ 1, with an error of the order of ∼1%.
The same assumption could be made for µν(ν̄)T ′ (q)
and µAA,ν(ν̄)T (q) but in this case the error averages
to ∼3% and ∼7%, respectively. Regarding the lon-gitudinal
isovector set, although not shown, one
gets µV V,ν(ν̄)L ≈ 1 with an error of the order ∼1%.
Therefore it is a good approximation to set allof the µ-ratios
equal to unity in Eqs. (14,15,16,17).In summary, within SuSAv2 we
will assume:
fV V,ν(ν̄)T = f
AA,ν(ν̄)T = f
V A,ν(ν̄)T ′ = f̃T and
fV V,ν(ν̄)L = f̃L. Notice that since f
T=0,ee′
T and
fAA,ν(ν̄)CC,CL,LL are not defined (see Sect. II A) we will
-
9
400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600q (MeV/c)
0.85
0.9
0.95
1
ratio
s
µT’
VA - ν
µT
vv - ν
µT
AA - ν
µT’
VA - aν
µT
vv - aν
µT
AA - aν
FIG. 8: Ratios of transverse scaling functions.
also assume fT=0,ee′
T = f̃L,T=1 and fAA,ν(ν̄)CC,CL,LL =
f̃L,T=1.Finally, in order to implement the assumption
number 4 of the model, namely the disappearanceof FSI at high q,
we build the SuSAv2 L andT scaling functions as linear combinations
ofthe RMF-based and RPWIA reference scalingfunctions:
FT=0,1L ≡ cos2 χ(q)f̃T=0,1L + sin2 χ(q)f̃RPWIALFT ≡ cos2 χ(q)f̃T
+ sin2 χ(q)f̃RPWIAT ,
(22)
where χ(q) is a q-dependent angle given by
χ(q) ≡ π2(1 − [1 + exp ((q − q0)/w0)]−1) (23)
with q0=800 MeV/c and w0=200 MeV. The
reference RPWIA scaling functions, f̃RPWIAK , areevaluated at
q=1100 MeV/c, while the reference
RMF scaling functions, f̃K , are evaluated at q=650MeV/c (see
discussion in Sect. II). The explicit
parametrization of f̃RPWIAK is given in AppendixB. With this
procedure we get a description ofthe responses based on RMF
behavior at lower-qwhile for higher momentum transfers it mimics
theRPWIA trend. The transition between RMF andRPWIA behaviors
occurs at intermediate q-values,namely, ∼ q0, in a region of width
∼ w0.The response functions (see Eqs. (2) and (4–9))
are simply built as:
Ree′
L (q, ω) =1
kF
[
FL,T=1(ψ′)GT=1L (q, ω)
+ FL,T=0(ψ′)GT=0L (q, ω)]
(24)
Ree′
T (q, ω) =1
kFFT (ψ′)
[
GT=1T (q, ω)
+ GT=0T (q, ω)]
(25)
RV V,ν(ν̄)L (q, ω) =
1
kFFL,T=1(ψ′)GV VL (q, ω) (26)
RAA,ν(ν̄)CC (q, ω) =
1
kFFL,T=1(ψ′)GAACC(q, ω) (27)
RAA,ν(ν̄)CL (q, ω) =
1
kFFL,T=1(ψ′)GAACL(q, ω) (28)
RAA,ν(ν̄)LL (q, ω) =
1
kFFL,T=1(ψ′)GAALL (q, ω) (29)
Rν(ν̄)T (q, ω) =
1
kFFT (ψ′)
[
GV VT (q, ω)
+ GAAT (q, ω)]
(30)
Rν(ν̄)T ′ (q, ω) =
1
kFFT (ψ′)GV AT ′ (q, ω). (31)
Furthermore, in order to reproduce the peak po-sition of RMF and
RPWIA scaling functions, dis-cussed in Sect. II B, within SuSAv2 we
consider aq-dependent energy shift, namely, Eshift(q). Thisquantity
modifies the scaling variable ψ(q, ω) −→ψ′(q, ω, Eshift) as
described in Appendix A. In par-ticular, we build this function
Eshift(q) from theresults of the RMF and RPWIA models presentedin
Fig. 5. Thus, Eshift(q) for the reference RMF
scaling function f̃T [ψ′(Eshift)] is the parametriza-
tion of the brown dot-dot-dashed line in the toppanel of Fig. 5.
The same procedure is used toparametrize Eshift(q) corresponding to
the f̃L,T=1and f̃L,T=0, but in this case using, as an average,the
blue dot-dot-dashed line from the bottom panelof Fig. 5. Moreover,
for the RPWIA case we usefor the longitudinal and transverse
responses thecorresponding RPWIA Eshift(q) curves shown inFig.
5.Notice that for q . 300− 350 MeV/c it is diffi-
cult to extract the peak position of the RMF scal-ing function
from the data so we have set a min-imum shift energy, Eshift = 10
MeV. This choiceof Eshift(q) depending on the particular
q-domainregion considered is solely based on the behavior ofthe
experimental cross sections and their compar-ison with our
theoretical predictions (see resultsin next sections). In the past
we have considereda fixed value of Eshift (different for each
nucleus)to be included within the SuSA model in order tofit the
position of the QE peak for some specificq-intermediate values.
Here we extend the analy-sis to very different kinematics covering
from lowto much higher q-values. On the other hand, theRMF model
leads the cross section to be shifted tohigher values of the
transferred energy. This shiftbecomes increasing larger for higher
q-values asa consequence of the strong, energy-independent,highly
repulsive potentials involved in the RMFmodel. Comparison with data
(see the results inthe next sections) shows that the shift
produced
-
10
by RMF is too large. Moreover, at very highq-values, one expects
FSI effects to be less im-portant and lead to results that are more
similarto those obtained within the RPWIA approach.This is the case
when FSI are described throughenergy-dependent optical potentials.
Therefore, asalready mentioned, our choice for the
functionaldependence of Eshift(q) is motivated as a compro-mise
between the predictions of our models and thecomparisons with
data.
IV. COMPARISON WITH ELECTRON
SCATTERING DATA
In this section we present a systematic compar-ison of total
inclusive 12C(e, e′) experimental crosssections and the predictions
for the QE processwithin RMF, SuSA and SuSAv2 models. As
men-tioned, data correspond to the total inclusive crosssection
which includes contributions from severalchannels, mainly: QE
scattering, inelastic scatter-ing, many-nucleon emission, etc. The
models pre-sented in this work aim to describe only the QEprocess.
Therefore, one expects that the models donot reproduce the total
inclusive experimental datacorresponding to kinematical situations
in whichnon-QE contributions play some role. Thus, themain interest
of the systematic analysis presentedin this section is the
comparison between SuSAv2predictions and those from the SuSA and
RMFmodels. Full analyses of the inclusive (e, e′) crosssection
(including descriptions of QE and non-QEcontributions) have been
presented with some suc-cess in the past [10, 11, 21]. We plan to
completethe description of the inclusive process within thecontext
of SuSAv2 model, as was made in [10, 11]within SuSA, in a near
future.In Figs. 9-11 we present the comparison of the
(e, e′) experimental data and models. Due to thelarge amount of
available data on 12C(e, e′) atdifferent kinematics (see [22, 23])
in these threefigures we only show some representative
examples.Each figure is labeled by the incident electronenergy, εi
(in MeV), the scattering angle, θe, andthe transferred momentum
corresponding to thecenter of the quasielastic peak, q (in
MeV/c).Pauli Blocking has been included in the SuSA andSuSAv2
models following the procedure describedin [24, 25]. In Appendix C
we present a comparisonof the models (SuSA and SuSAv2) and data
whenPB is or is not included. The panels in Figs. 9-11 are
organized according to the value of thetransferred momentum (at the
center of the QEpeak) in three sets: low-q (from q = 238 to q =
333MeV/c) in Fig. 9, medium-q (from q = 401 toq = 792 MeV/c) in
Fig. 10 and, high-q (from
q = 917 to q = 3457 MeV/c) in Fig. 11. Theonly phenomenological
parameters entering in thecalculation are the Fermi momentum kF and
theenergy shift Eshift. For these we use kF = 228MeV/c (see [7]) in
both SuSA and SuSAv2 models.A constant energy shift of 20 MeV is
employed inSuSA [7] while a q-dependent function, the onedescribed
in Sect. III, is used for Eshift in theSuSAv2 model.
0 0.05 0.1 0.150
50000
100000
150000
200000
dσ/d
Ω/d
ω (
nb/s
r/G
eV)
εi=400, θ
e=36º, q~239
0 0.05 0.10
20000
40000
60000ε
i=280, θ
e=60º, q~260
0 0.1 0.2ω (GeV)
0
50000
100000
150000dσ
/dΩ
/dω
(nb
/sr/
GeV
)ε
i=480, θ
e=36º, q~285
0 0.1 0.2ω (GeV)
0
10000
20000
εi=361, θ
e=60º, q~333
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
FIG. 9: Comparison of inclusive 12C(e, e′) crosssections and
predictions of the RMF (red), SuSA(green-dashed) and SuSAv2 (brown)
models (see textfor details). Set of panels corresponding to
low-qvalues. Data taken from [22].
We begin commenting on the low-q panelspresented in Fig. 9. The
main contributionsto the cross section from non-QE processes suchas
inelastic processes contributions (∆-resonance)and MEC, are very
small, even negligible, inthis low-q region. In spite of that, when
thetransferred energy is small (ω . 50−60MeV) otherprocesses such
as collective effects contribute to thecross section making
questionable the treatmentof the scattering process in terms of
IA-basedmodels. This could explain, in part, the
generaldisagreement between models and data in that ωregion in (a),
(b) and (c) panels.
Some clarifications are called for regarding theRMF results in
Fig. 9, where sharp resonancesappear at very low ω values. These
correspondto 1p1h excitations with the phase shift of a
givenpartial wave going through 90 degrees. With morecomplicated
many-body descriptions these sharpfeatures are smeared out.
In summary, in order to test the goodness of the
-
11
0 0.1 0.20
5000
10000
dσ/d
Ω/d
ω (
nb/s
r/G
eV)
εi=440, θ
e=60º, q~401
0.2 0.4 0.60
2000
4000
6000
εi=961, θ
e=37.5º, q~585
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8ω (GeV)
0
10000
20000
30000
dσ/d
Ω/d
ω (
nb/s
r/G
eV)
εi=2500, θ
e=15º, q~660
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8ω (GeV)
0
500
1000
1500
2000ε
i=1299, θ
e=37.5º, q~792
(e) (f)
(g) (h)
FIG. 10: Continuation of Fig. 9. Set of panelscorresponding to
medium-q values.
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
200
400
600
800
1000
dσ/d
Ω/d
ω (
nb/s
r/G
eV)
εi=1501, θ
e=37.5º, q~917
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.80
200
400
600ε
i=3595, θ
e=20º, q~1316
1 1.5ω (GeV)
0
2
4
6
8
10
dσ/d
Ω/d
ω (
nb/s
r/G
eV)
εi=4045, θ
e=30º, q~2247
2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3ω (GeV)
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
εi=4045, θ
e=55º, q~3457
(i) (j)
(k) (l)
FIG. 11: Continuation of Fig. 9. Set of panelscorresponding to
high-q values.
models in the kinematical situation of Fig. 9, oneshould focus
on the study of the tails of the crosssections where large enough
ω-values (ω & 50− 60MeV) are involved. There, one observes
thatSuSA predictions are clearly over-shifted to highω-values while
RMF and SuSAv2 models fit thedata reasonably well. In addition, as
expected,SuSA results are systematically below SuSAv2 andRMF ones
at the QEP.
We now discuss the results for medium-q values
presented in Fig. 10. First of all, one shouldmention that for
the kinematics of this figure, inaddition to the QE process, non-QE
contributionsare essential to describe the experimental
crosssections. For instance, in panels (f), (g) and (h) the∆-peak
appears clearly defined at ω values abovethe QE peak. In panel (e)
one sees that in theregion around the center of the QE-peak, the
RMFprediction is above the SuSAv2 one, being closerto the
experimental data. This is consistent withthe behavior of the RMF
scaling function studiedin Sect. II (see Fig. 4), namely, the
peak-height ofthe RMF scaling functions increases for
decreasingq-values.If the main non-QE contributions are not
included in the modeling it is hard to concludewhich model is
better to reproduce the purelyQE cross section. However, it seems
reasonableto conclude that SuSAv2 improves the agreementwith data
compared to SuSA. For instance, in thesituation of panel (e), it
would be needed that non-QE processes would contribute more than
20% tothe total cross section in order to SuSA fits theheight of
the data around the center of the QE-peak. A 20% fraction of the
cross section linked to∆-resonance and MEC contributions is
probablytoo much for that kinematics. Similar commentsand
conclusions apply to the results in panel (d)of Fig. 9.For q-values
close to 650 MeV/c (panels (f)
and (g)) RMF and SuSAv2 produce very similarresults because of
the way in which SuSAv2 hasbeen defined (see Sect. III). For higher
q-values,q & 792 MeV/c ((h) panel), SuSAv2 and RMFpredictions
begin to depart from each other. Inparticular, RMF results tend to
shift the peak tohigher ω values and to place more strength in
thetail while SuSAv2 cross sections tend to be moresymmetrical due
to the increasing dominance ofthe RPWIA scaling behavior (see Sect.
III).This difference is more evident for higher q-
values, as observed in panels (j)-(l) of Fig. 11. Itis important
to point out that for the kinematicspresented in Fig. 11 the non-QE
contributions arenot only important but they become dominant inthe
cross sections. This is the case presented inpanels (k) and (l)
where the QE-peak is not evenvisible in the data.We could summarize
the main conclusions from
the present comparison of models and data asfollows:
• Regarding the enhancement of the transverseresponse, RT , in
SuSAv2 compared withSuSA: in the absence of modeling of
non-QEcontributions, the most clear indications thatsupport the
SuSAv2 assumptions arise fromthe comparison with data at
kinematical sit-
-
12
uations in which non-QE effects are supposedto be small (panels
(e) and (d) in Figs. 9 and10, respectively).
• Regarding the energy shift study: withinthe SuSA model we have
used a constantenergy shift of 20 MeV/c. On the one hand,from the
comparison with the low-q set ofexperimental data, Fig. 9, one
concludesthat 20 MeV is a too large shift. On theother hand, the
comparison with the high-q set of data, Fig. 11, suggests that
20MeV is probably too small. Then, one isled to conclude that a
constant energy shiftis not the best option to reproduce (e,
e′)data. These results support the idea ofintroducing a q-dependent
energy shift suchas we made in the SuSAv2 model. Thetheoretical
justification of this assumptionwas already discussed in Sect.
III.
V. COMPARISON WITH NEUTRINO
AND ANTINEUTRINO DATA
In recent years a significant amount of charge-changing
quasielastic (CCQE) neutrino and an-tineutrino cross section data
have been presentedin the literature. In this section, as in the
previ-ous one for the (e, e′) process, we compare the re-sults of
SuSAv2 model with some selected samplesfrom different experiments:
MiniBooNE [26, 27],Minerνa [28, 29] and NOMAD [30]. The
SuSApredictions are also presented as reference.MiniBooNE has
measured CCQE cross sections
that are higher than most predictions based onIA. The excess, at
relatively low energy (〈Eν〉 ∼0.7 GeV), observed in MiniBooNE cross
sectionshas been interpreted as evidence that non-QEprocesses may
play an important role at thatkinematics [31–33]. It is important
to point outthat in the experimental context of
MiniBooNE,“quasielastic” events are defined as those fromprocesses
or channels containing no mesons inthe final state. Thus, in
principle, in additionto the purely QE process, which in this
workrefers exclusively to processes induced by one-body currents
(IA), meson exchange current effects(induced by two-body or
many-body currents)should also be taken into account for a
properinterpretation of data.In Fig. 12 and Fig. 13 the double
differential
(ν, µ−) and (ν̄, µ+) cross sections measured bythe MiniBooNE
Collaboration are compared withSuSAv2 (solid-blue line) and SuSA
(dashed-redline) predictions. The top and bottom panelscorrespond
to a muon scattering angle of ∼63o
and ∼32o, respectively. As observed, the SuSAv2cross section is
significantly larger than SuSA one,although it still falls below
the MiniBooNE data.Thus, there is still room for MEC contributions.
In[34] the RMF model is compared with the same setof data as shown
in Figs. 12 and 13. In general, oneobserves that RMF and SuSAv2
models producealmost identical results (as happened in (e, e′)
forintermediate q-values).
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1Tµ (GeV)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
d2σ/
dcos
θ µ/d
T µ (
10-3
9 cm
2 /G
eV)
MiniBooNESuSASuSAv2
0.4 < cosθ < 0.5
νµ - 12
C
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2Tµ (GeV)
0
5
10
15
20
25
d2σ/
dcos
θ µ/d
T µ (
10-3
9 cm
2 /G
eV) 0.8 < cosθ < 0.9
FIG. 12: MiniBooNE double differential (ν, µ−) crosssection data
[26] are compared with SuSA (dashed-redline) and SuSAv2 (solid-blue
line) predictions. In thetop panel the scattering angle of the muon
is 0.4 <cos θ < 0.5, while in bottom panel 0.8 < cos θ
< 0.9.
In the NOMAD experiment the incident neu-trino (antineutrino)
beam energy is much larger,with a flux extending from Eν= 3 to 100
GeV.In this case, one finds that data are in reason-able agreement
with predictions from IA mod-els [35, 36]. Notice that the large
error bars of thesedata do not allow for further definitive
conclusions.In Fig. 14 we present the CCQE total cross sectionfor
neutrino (top panel) and antineutrino (bottompanel) reactions.
Experimental data from NO-MAD and MiniBooNE are compared with
SuSAand SuSAv2. SuSAv2 improves the agreementwith the NOMAD data,
being, in general, closerto the center of the bins. The extension
of theRMF model to very high energies requires at first
-
13
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8Tµ (GeV)
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
d2σ/
dcos
θ µ/d
T µ (
10-3
9 cm
2 /G
eV)
MiniBooNESuSASuSAv2
0.4 < cosθ < 0.5
νµ - 12
C
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2Tµ (GeV)
0
2
4
6
8
10
d2σ/
dcos
θ µ/d
T µ (
10-3
9 cm
2 /G
eV) 0.8 < cosθ < 0.9
FIG. 13: As in Fig. 12, but now for the antineutrino-induced
reaction, (ν̄, µ+). Data taken from [27].
complicated and very long time-consuming calcu-lations. In this
sense, the advantage of SuSAv2 isthat it can be easily and rapidly
extended up tovery high neutrino energies. Although not shownhere,
preliminary results evaluated with the RMFmodel at NOMAD kinematics
[37] are proved tobe very similar to the SuSAv2 ones.
In the MINERνA experiment the neutrino en-ergy flux extends from
1.5 to 10 GeV and is peakedat Eν ∼ 3 GeV, i.e., in between
MiniBooNE andNOMAD energy ranges. Therefore, its analysiscan
provide useful information on the role playedby meson-exchange
currents in the nuclear dynam-ics. In recent work [25] it was found
that, contraryto the comparison with the MiniBooNE data, thetwo IA
models analyzed (RMF and SuSA) providea good description of the
MINERνA data withoutthe need of significant contributions from
MEC.In Fig. 15 we present the single-differential crosssection
(dσ/dQ2QE), measured by MINERνA, asa function of the reconstructed
four-momentumtransfer squared, Q2QE (see [28, 29] for explicit
def-
inition of Q2QE). The SuSA and SuSAv2 resultsare compared with
MINERνA data. In spite ofthe enhancement with respect to SuSA,
SuSAv2 isnot only consistent, but it also improves the agree-
0.1 1 10 100Eν (GeV)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
σ ν (
10-3
9 cm
2 )
MiniBooNENOMADSuSASuSAv2
0.1 1 10 100Eν (GeV)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
σ ν (
10-3
9 cm
2 )
FIG. 14: (Top panel) CCQE (ν, µ−) cross sectionper nucleon is
presented as a function of the incidentneutrino energy, Eν . Data
from MiniBooNE [26]and NOMAD [30] are compared with SuSA
(dashed-red line) and SuSAv2 (solid-blue line) predictions.(Bottom
panel) As in top panel, but now for theantineutrino-induced
reaction, 12C(ν̄, µ+).
ment with MINERνA data. In fact, RMF andSuSAv2 models produce
very close results (RMFpredictions are presented in [25]). Thus,
contraryto the MiniBooNE situation, the comparison ofMINERνA data
and IA based models, in particu-lar, RMF and SuSAv2, leaves little
room for MECcontributions.
A further general comment on the previous re-sults is in order:
the difference between SuSA andSuSAv2 is larger for neutrino than
for antineutrinoresults. This occurs because of the
cancellationoccurring between RT (positive) and RT ′ (nega-tive)
responses in antineutrino cross sections. No-tice that the
transverse responses are substantiallyenhanced in SuSAv2 compared
with SuSA.
In summary we find that SuSAv2 comparedwith the SuSA model
improves the comparisonwith neutrino and antineutrino data.
Additionally,SuSAv2 (as SuSA) can easily make predictionsat
kinematics (very high energies) in which othermore
microscopic-based models, as RMF, requireadditional assumptions and
demanding, time-consuming calculations.
-
14
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
Q2
QE (GeV
2)
0
5
10
15
dσ/d
Q2 Q
E (1
0-39
cm2 /
GeV
2 /ne
utro
n)
SuSASuSAv2Minerva
νµ - 12
C
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
Q2
QE (GeV
2)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
dσ/d
Q2 Q
E (1
0-39
cm2 /
GeV
2 /pr
oton
)
νµ - CH
FIG. 15: CCQE neutrino (upper panel) and antineu-trino (lower
panel) MINERνA data are compare withSuSA (dashed-red line) and
SuSAv2 (solid-blue line)predictions. Data taken from [28, 29].
VI. CONCLUSIONS
The SuSA model, based on the scaling behaviorexhibited by (e,
e′) data in the longitudinal chan-nel, has been extensively used in
the past not onlyto explain electron scattering, but also
neutrinoreactions. The basic idea of SuSA is the existenceof a
universal scaling function, the one ascribed tolongitudinal (e, e′)
data, to be applied to any otherprocess. Hence, SuSA makes use of
the same scal-ing function for the two channels, longitudinal
andtransverse, involved in QE electron scattering re-actions, as
well as for the whole set of responsesthat enter in charged-current
neutrino scatteringprocesses.
On the other hand, the RMF model provides adescription of the
scattering reaction mechanismincluding the role played by FSI. The
RMFmodel leads to a longitudinal scaling function inaccordance with
data, and hence, also in agreementwith the SuSA result. However,
contrary to themain assumption considered by SuSA, namely, the
existence of only one universal scaling function,the RMF model
provides a transverse scalingfunction that is higher by ∼20%
compared withthe longitudinal one. In other words, scaling ofzeroth
kind is not fulfilled by RMF. This resultalso seems to be in
accordance with the preliminaryanalysis of data that shows the pure
QE transversechannel to lead to a scaling function exceeding
thelongitudinal one by an amount, ∼20-25%, similarto the one shown
by the RMF results.
The analysis of neutrino reactions also intro-duces basic
differences with the electron case.Whereas in the latter, responses
contain isoscalarand isovector contributions, in the former, the
re-sponses are purely isovector. Moreover, not onlypure
vector-vector responses contribute to neu-trino processes, but also
axial-axial and the inter-ference axial-vector one. All of these
results, inaddition to the preliminary analysis of the sep-arate QE
longitudinal and transverse responses,may introduce some doubts
about the existenceof a unique scaling function valid for all
processes.
In this work we have pursued this problemand have extended the
SuSA model by takinginto account the results provided by the
RMFapproach. Hence we study in detail RMF scalingfunctions
corresponding to all channels, and fromthis we select the minimum
set of scaling functions,named reference scaling functions, that
allow usto construct the cross section for electron andneutrino
scattering reactions. The new model,called SuSAv2, takes care of
the enhancement ofthe (e, e′) transverse response compared with
thelongitudinal one, as well as the general behaviorshown by the
functions ascribed to neutrinoreactions.
SuSAv2 is based on a “blend” between the prop-erties of the RMF
and RPWIA responses. Theformer appears to do well at low to
intermedi-ate values of the momentum transfer, for
instance,yielding both an asymmetric scaling function andthe T/L
differences observed in electron scatter-ing data. However, because
of the strong energyindependent scalar and vector potentials
involved,the RMF model does less well at high values ofq, where the
energy shift is seen to be too strongand the high-energy tail in
the RMF scaling func-tion is likely too large. The RPWIA, on the
otherhand, does not work well at low to intermediatemomentum
transfers and, in fact, yields resultsthat are not very different
from those of the rel-ativistic Fermi gas, which are known to be
toosymmetrical and not to contain the T/L differ-ences seen in both
the RMF results and in elec-tron scattering data. What SuSAv2
attempts todo is to provide a cross-over from the low to
in-termediate momentum transfer regime (where the
-
15
RMF results are employed) to the high-q regime(where the results
revert to those of the RPWIA).A particular, reasonable “blending”
function hasbeen used, although the specific parametrizationassumed
is not critical. Indeed, when updated 2p-2h MEC responses and
updated representations ofinelastic contributions are incorporated
(see below)it will be appropriate to make detailed fits to
ex-isting electron scattering data and at that pointone can refine
the determination of the parame-ters used in this initial study.We
have applied the new SuSAv2 model to the
description of electron and neutrino scattering,and have proved
that SuSAv2 predictions arehigher than the SuSA ones and are closer
to data.This is so for electron scattering as well as forneutrino
reactions. However, in the latter, theorystill underestimates data
in most of the cases, inparticular, for the kinematics
corresponding to theMiniBooNE experiment. This outcome is similarto
the one already observed for the RMF results.SuSAv2 model
incorporates some basic ingredi-
ents not taken into account within SuSA, hence itclearly
improves its reliability to the descriptionof scattering processes,
being at the same time amodel that is easy to implement in the
“generatorcodes” used to analyze the experiments. More-over, its
application to very high energies does notinvolve particularly
demanding calculations in con-trast to the RMF model that may can
complex andlong, time-consuming calculations.Finally, a comment is
in order concerning the
ingredients incorporated by SuSAv2 (likewise forSuSA and RMF).
This is a model based exclusivelyon the IA. Hence ingredients
beyond the IA,i.e., two-body meson-exchange currents,
inelasticcontributions, etc., should be added to the model.Work
along these lines is presently under way,as well as the application
of SuSAv2 to differentexperimental kinematics: Argoneut, T2K,
etc.These studies will be presented in a
forthcomingpublication.
This work was partially supported DGI
(Spain):FIS2011-28738-C02-01, by the Junta de Andalućıa(FQM-170,
225), by the INFN National ProjectMANYBODY, and the Spanish
Consolider-Ingenio2000 programmed CPAN, in part (T. W. D.) bythe
U.S. Department of Energy under coopera-tive agreement
DE-FC02-94ER40818 and in part(M. B. B.) by the INFN under project
MANY-BODY. G. D. M. acknowledges support from a fel-lowship from
the Fundación Cámara (Universidadde Sevilla). R. G. J.
acknowledges financial helpfrom VPPI-US (Universidad de Sevilla).
We thankJ. M. Ud́ıas and M. V. Ivanov for fruitful discus-sions on
the RMF calculations.
Appendix A: Definition of the scaling functions
Within the context of the Relativistic Fermi Gas(RFG) model, the
scaling variable is defined as (see[4–6])
ψ′ ≡ 1√ξF
λ′ − τ ′√
(1 + λ′)τ ′ + κ√
τ ′(τ ′ + 1), (A1)
where ξF =√
1 + (kF /M)2 − 1, κ = q/(2M),λ′ = ω′/(2M) and τ = κ2 − λ′2. M is
thenucleon mass and kF is the Fermi momentum [7].Additionally, we
have introduced the variable ω′ =ω−Eshift. The quantity Eshift,
which is differentfor each target nucleus [7], is introduced to
accountphenomenologically for the shift observed in theQE peak when
the cross section is plotted as afunction of ω. Trivially, if
Eshift = 0 one recoversthe unshifted scaling variable ψ.
1. Electromagnetic scaling functions
For N = Z nuclei the isovector (T = 1)and isoscalar (T = 0) EM
longitudinal, L, andtransverse, T , scaling functions are:
fT=1,0L,T ≡ kFRT=1,0L,T (κ, λ)
GT=1,0L,T (κ, λ). (A2)
We have introduced the elementary cross sec-tions
GT=1,0L,T (κ, λ) =1
2κDUT=1,0L,T (κ, λ) , (A3)
where
UT=1,0L (κ, λ) =κ2
τ
[
HT=1,0E +WT=1,02 ∆
]
(A4)
UT=1,0T (κ, λ) = 2τHT=1,0M +W
T=1,02 ∆ , (A5)
with
HT=1,0E,M =Z +N
4(GT=1,0E,M )
2 (A6)
WT=1,02 =1
1 + τ
[
HT=1,0E + τHT=1,0M
]
.(A7)
Z and N are the number of protons and neutronsin the target
nucleus, repectivaly. Finally,
∆ ≡ ξF (1− ψ2)[
√
τ(τ + 1)
κ+ξF3
τ
κ2(1− ψ2)
]
(A8)
D ≡ 1 + 12ξF (1 + ψ
2) . (A9)
-
16
Note that Pauli-blocking effects have been ne-glected
here.Notice that we have introduced the isoscalar and
isovector EM form factors, GT=1,0E,M , which in termsof the more
familiar proton and neutron ones are
GT=0E,M = GpE,M +G
nE,M (A10)
GT=1E,M = GpE,M −GnE,M . (A11)
In this work, the GKex VMD-based model [38–40]has been used for
the proton and neutron EM formfactors.The total longitudinal, L,
and transverse, T ,
scaling functions are defined as usual:
fL,T ≡ kFRL,T (κ, λ)
GL,T (κ, λ), (A12)
where GL,T (and UL,T ) are built as above but withthe following
definition of HE,M and W2:
HE,M = Z(GpE,M )
2 +N(GnE,M )2 (A13)
W2 =1
1 + τ[HE + τHM ] . (A14)
2. Charge-changing neutrino and
antineutrino scaling functions
In this case the current is purely isovector (T =1). As usual
one defines
fν(ν̄)K ≡ kF
Rν(ν̄)K (κ, λ)
GK(κ, λ), (A15)
where K = L, T, CC,CL,LL, T ′ for V V , AA andV A cases. The
elementary cross sections are
GK(κ, λ) =1
2κDUK(κ, λ) , (A16)(A17)
which are defined in terms of
UV VL =κ2
τ
[
HT=1E +WT=12 ∆
]
(A18)
UV VT = 2τHT=1M +W
T=12 ∆ (A19)
UAACC =κ2
τ
[
(
λ
κ
)2
H ′A +HA∆
]
(A20)
UAALL =κ2
τ
[
H ′A +
(
λ
κ
)2
HA∆
]
(A21)
UAACL = −κ2
τ
(
λ
κ
)
[H ′A +HA∆] (A22)
UAAT = HA [2(1 + τ) + ∆] (A23)
UV AT ′ = 2√
τ(1 + τ)HV A [1 + ∆′] . (A24)
The functions HT=1E,M are given in Eq. (A6) but in
this case the factor (Z + N) should be replacedby N which is N
or Z for neutrino or antineu-trino charge-changing reactions. We
have also in-troduced the functions:
HA = N[
GT=1A]2
(A25)
H ′A = N [G′A]2
(A26)
HV A = NGT=1M GT=1A (A27)with
G′A ≡ GT=1A − τGT=1P =1
1 + |Q2|/m2πGT=1A .
(A28)
and GT=1A = gA(
1 + |Q2|/M2A)
−2, being gA =
1.2695, mπ the pion mass and MA = 1.03 GeV.Finally, the quantity
∆′ which appears in
Eq. (A24) is defined as
∆′ =1
κ√
1 + 1/τ
1
2ξF (1− ψ2) . (A29)
Note that Pauli-blocking effects have also beenneglected
here.
Appendix B: Parameterization of the reference
scaling functions
In this Appendix we summarize the parame-terization of the
reference scaling functions. Theskewed-Gumbel (sG) function is
fsG = S(ν0;ψ)fG(ψ0, σ, β;ψ) , (B1)
where
S(ν0;ψ) =2
1 + eν/ν0(B2)
fG(ψ0, σ, β;ψ) =β
σeν exp[−eν] (B3)
ν = −(
ψ − ψ0σ
)
. (B4)
In Table I are shown the values of the freeparameters that fit
the reference scaling functionsf̃L,T=1, f̃L,T=0 and f̃T . In Fig.
16 these referencescaling functions are presented as functions of
thescaling variable ψ.The reference RPWIA scaling functions are
f̃RPWIAL,T =2(a3)L,T
1 + exp(
ψ−a1a2
) exp
(
− (ψ − a4)2
a5
)
,
(B5)
-
17
f̃L,T=1 f̃L,T=0 f̃Tβ 0.8923 1.0361 0.9425σ 0.6572 0.5817
0.7573ψ0 0.1708 0.02217 −0.46751/ν0 −0.7501 −0.1163 2.9381
TABLE I: Values of the parameters that characterizethe sG
reference scaling functions.
with a1 = −0.892196, a2 = 0.1792, (a3)L =6070.85, (a3)T =
6475.57, a4 = 1.74049, a5 =0.64559.
-2 -1 0 1 2 3ψ
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8fT
T=1
fL
T=1
fL
T=0
fT
fL
RPWIA
RPWIA
~
~
~
~
~
FIG. 16: Reference scaling functions in SuSAv2 model.
Appendix C: Pauli Blocking in SuSA and
SuSAv2
In this Appendix we show the effects of PauliBlocking (PB) in
the SuSA and SuSAv2 models.The procedure employed to introduce PB
in theSuSA model was already presented in [25]. Themethod, proposed
in [24], consists in buildinga new scaling function by subtracting
from theoriginal one, f [ψ(ω, q)], its “mirror” function,f [ψ(−ω,
q)] (see [25] for details). In the RFGthis procedure yields exactly
the same result asthe usual way of introducing Pauli blocking
viatheta-functions. However the method can also beapplied to
models, like SuSA, which are not builtstarting from a momentum
distribution. The sameprocedure is used in this work to introduce
PB inSuSAv2 model.We comment on Fig. 17 where SuSA results with
and without PB are compared with a few sets ofdata at the
kinematics in which PB effects aresignificant, i.e., very low q. In
order to fit theposition of the peak better, in this case we
haveused a shift energy of 10 MeV in the SuSA model(compared with
the 20 MeV used in Figs. 9-11.This makes the comparison with data
easier and
allows us to focus on PB effects, namely, the widthand peak
height of the cross sections. In generalwe conclude that the
agreement between SuSAand data improves when PB is introduced.
SuSAwithout PB (green-dashed) produces cross sectionstoo wide,
while SuSA with PB (brown) providesnarrower cross sections in
better agreement withdata. This is particularly true for instance
inpanels (1) and (2) in Fig. 17. The same commentsapply to Fig. 18
where SuSAv2 with and withoutPB is compared with the same set of
low-q data.The lowest energy transfer data, corresponding tothe
excitation of resonant and collective states,cannot be described by
any of the present models.
0 0.05 0.1 0.150
50000
100000
150000
200000
SuSA w PBSuSA w/o PB
εi=400, θ
e=36º, q~238
0 0.05 0.10
20000
40000
60000
εi=280, θ
e=60º, q~260
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.40
500000
1000000
1500000
dσ/d
Ω/d
ω (
nb/s
r/G
eV)
εi=1300, θ
e=11.9º, q~270
0 0.1 0.20
50000
100000
εi=480, θ
e=36º, q~285
0 0.05 0.1 0.15ω (GeV/c)
0
10000
20000
30000
εi=320, θ
e=60º, q~296
0.1 0.2ω (GeV/c)
0
200000
400000
600000
800000
εi=1300, θ
e=13.5º, q~305
(1) (2)
(3) (4)
(5) (6)
FIG. 17: SuSA with and without Pauli Blocking iscompared with
data. Eshift = 10 MeV has beenemployed.
A clear difference between SuSA and SuSAv2(Figs. 17 and 18) is
that the latter clearlyoverestimates the data in the region below
andclose to the peak. However, in all cases themaximum is placed at
the region ω . 50 − 60MeV where, as discussed in Sect. IV, the
validityof the models based on IA is questionable andno definitive
conclusions can be drawn based oncomparison of model and data in
this ω-region.
-
18
0 0.05 0.1 0.150
50000
100000
150000
200000
SuSAv2 w PBSuSAv2 w/o PB
εi=400, θ
e=36º, q~238
0 0.05 0.10
20000
40000
60000
εi=280, θ
e=60º, q~260
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.40
500000
1000000
1500000
dσ/d
Ω/d
ω (
nb/s
r/G
eV)
εi=1300, θ
e=11.9º, q~270
0 0.1 0.20
50000
100000
εi=480, θ
e=36º, q~285
0 0.05 0.1 0.15ω (GeV/c)
0
10000
20000
30000
εi=320, θ
e=60º, q~296
0.1 0.2ω (GeV/c)
0
200000
400000
600000
800000
εi=1300, θ
e=13.5º, q~305
(1) (2)
(3) (4)
(5) (6)
FIG. 18: SuSAv2 with and without Pauli Blocking iscompared with
data.
[1] G. B. West, Phys. Rep. 263, 18 (1975)[2] J. A. Caballero, M.
B. Barbaro, A. N. Antonov,
M. V. Ivanov, and T. W. Donnelly, Phys. Rev. C81, 055502
(2010)
[3] A. N. Antonov, M. V. Ivanov, J. A. Caballero,M. B. Barbaro,
J. M. Udias, E. Moya de Guerra,and T. W. Donnelly, Phys. Rev. C 83,
045504(2011)
[4] T. W. Donnelly and I. Sick, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82,3212
(1999)
[5] T. W. Donnelly and I. Sick, Phys. Rev. C 60,065502
(1999)
[6] W. M. Alberico, A. Molinari, T. W. Donnelly,E. L.
Kronenberg, and J. W. Van Orden, Phys.Rev. C 38, 1801 (1988)
[7] C. Maieron, T. W. Donnelly, and I. Sick, Phys.Rev. C 65,
025502 (2002)
[8] D. B. Day, J. S. McCarthy, T. W. Donnelly, andI. Sick, Annu.
Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 40, 357 (1990)
[9] J. Jourdan, Nucl. Phys. A 603, 117 (1996)[10] C. Maieron, J.
E. Amaro, M. B. Barbaro, J. A.
Caballero, T. W. Donnelly, and C. F. Williamson,Phys. Rev. C 80,
035504 (2009)
[11] J. E. Amaro, M. B. Barbaro, J. A. Caballero,T. W. Donnelly,
A. Molinari, and I. Sick, Phys.
Rev. C 71, 015501 (2005)[12] J. E. Amaro, M. B. Barbaro, J. A.
Caballero,
T. W. Donnelly, and C. Maieron, Phys. Rev. C71, 065501
(2005)
[13] J. A. Caballero, Phys. Rev. C 74, 015502 (2006)[14] J. A.
Caballero, J. E. Amaro, M. B. Barbaro,
T. W. Donnelly, C. Maieron, and J. M. Ud́ıas,Phys. Rev. Lett.
95, 252502 (2005)
[15] J. A. Caballero, J. E. Amaro, M. B. Barbaro,T. W. Donnelly,
and J. M. Ud́ıas, Phys. Lett. B653, 366 (2007)
[16] A. Meucci, J. A. Caballero, C. Giusti, F. D.Pacati, and J.
M. Ud́ıas, Phys. Rev. C 80, 024605(2009)
[17] J. A. Caballero, M. C. Mart́ınez, J. L. Herráız,and J. M.
Ud́ıas, Phys. Lett. B 688, 250 (2010)
[18] J. E. Amaro, M. B. Barbaro, J. A. Caballero,T. W. Donnelly,
and J. M. Udias, Phys. Rev. C75, 034613 (2007)
[19] C. Maieron, M. C. Martinez, J. A. Caballero, andJ. M.
Udias, Phys. Rev. C 68, 048501 (2003)
[20] A. Meucci, F. Capuzzi, C. Giusti, and F. D.Pacati, Phys.
Rev. C 67, 054601 (2003)
[21] M. B. Barbaro, J. A. Caballero, T. W. Donnelly,and C.
Maieron, Phys. Rev. C 69, 035502 (2004)
-
19
[22] O. Benhar, D. Day, and I. Sick, arXiv:nucl-ex/0603032(Mar.
2006)
[23] O. Benhar, D. Day, and I. Sick, Rev.Mod.Phys.80, 189
(2008)
[24] R. Rosenfelder, Annals Phys. 128, 188 (1980)[25] G. D.
Megias, M. V. Ivanov, R. González-Jiménez,
M. B. Barbaro, J. A. Caballero, T. W. Donnelly,and J. M. Ud́ıas,
Phys. Rev. D 89, 093002 (2014)
[26] A. A. Aguilar-Arevalo et al., Phys. Rev. D 81,092005
(2010), [MiniBooNE Collaboration]
[27] A. A. Aguilar-Arevalo et al., Phys. Rev. D 88,032001
(2013), [MiniBooNE Collaboration]
[28] G. A. Fiorentini et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 111,022502
(2013), [MINERνA Collaboration]
[29] L. Fields et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 022501(2013),
[MINERνA Collaboration]
[30] V. Lyubushkin et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 63, 355(2009), [NOMAD
Collaboration]
[31] I. Ruiz-Simo, C. Albertus, J. E. Amaro, M. B.Barbaro, J. A.
Caballero, and T. W. Donnelly,
arXiv:1405.4280 [nucl-th](2014)[32] M. Martini, M. Ericson, G.
Chanfray, and
J. Marteau, Phys. Rev. C 81, 045502 (2010)[33] J. Nieves, I.
Ruiz-Simo, and M. J. Vicente-Vacas,
Phys. Lett. B 707, 72 (2012)[34] M. V. Ivanov, R.
González-Jiménez, J. A. Ca-
ballero, M. B. Barbaro, T. W. Donnelly, and J. M.Ud́ıas, Phys.
Lett. B 727, 265 (2013)
[35] G. D. Megias, J. E. Amaro, M. B. Barbaro, J. A.Caballero,
and T. W. Donnelly, Phys. Lett. B 725,170 (2013)
[36] M. V. Ivanov, A. N. Antonov, J. A. Caballero,G. D. Megias,
et al., Phys. Rev. C 89, 014607(2014)
[37] J. M. Udias and M. V. Ivanov, Private communi-cation
(2013)
[38] E. L. Lomon, Phys. Rev. C 64, 035204 (2001)[39] E. L.
Lomon, Phys. Rev. C 66, 045501 (2002)[40] C. Crawford et al., Phys.
Rev. C 82, 045211 (2010)