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)