1: \documentstyle{article}
2:
3: \input{psfig}
4:
5: \begin{document}
6:
7: \title{Measurements of Charged Current Reactions of $\nu_e$ on $^{12}C$}
8:
9: \author{
10: L.B. Auerbach,$^8$ R.L. Burman,$^5$ D.O. Caldwell,$^3$ E.D. Church,$^1$ \\
11: J.B. Donahue,$^5$ A. Fazely,$^7$ G.T. Garvey,$^5$ R.M. Gunasingha,$^7$
12: R. Imlay,$^6$ \\
13: W.C. Louis,$^5$ R. Majkic,$^{8}$ A. Malik,$^6$ W. Metcalf,$^6$
14: G.B. Mills,$^5$ \\
15: V. Sandberg,$^5$ D. Smith,$^4$
16: I. Stancu,$^1$\footnote{now at University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487}
17: M. Sung,$^6$
18: R. Tayloe,$^5$\footnote{now at Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405} \\
19: G.J. VanDalen,$^1$
20: W. Vernon,$^2$ N. Wadia,$^6$ D.H. White,$^5$ S. Yellin$^3$\\
21: (LSND Collaboration) \\
22: $^1$ University of California, Riverside, CA 92521 \\
23: $^2$ University of California, San Diego, CA 92093 \\
24: $^3$ University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106 \\
25: $^4$ Embry Riddle Aeronautical University, Prescott, AZ 86301 \\
26: $^5$ Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM 87545 \\
27: $^6$ Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA 70803 \\
28: $^7$ Southern University, Baton Rouge, LA 70813 \\
29: $^8$ Temple University, Philadelphia, PA 19122 }
30:
31: \date{\today}
32: \maketitle
33:
34: \begin{abstract}
35: Charged Current reactions of $\nu_e$ on $^{12}C$ have been studied
36: using a $\mu^+$ decay-at-rest $\nu_e$ beam
37: at the Los Alamos Neutron Science Center.
38: The cross section for the exclusive
39: reaction $^{12}C(\nu_e,e^-)^{12}N_{g.s.}$
40: was measured to be $(8.9\pm0.3\pm0.9)\times10^{-42}$ cm$^2$.
41: The observed energy dependence of the cross section and
42: angular distribution of the outgoing electron agree well
43: with theoretical expectations.
44: Measurements are also presented for inclusive transitions
45: to $^{12}N$ excited states, $^{12}C(\nu_e,e^-)^{12}N^*$ and compared
46: with theoretical expectations.
47: The measured cross section, $(4.3\pm0.4\pm0.6)\times10^{-42}$ cm$^2$,
48: is somewhat lower than previous measurements and
49: than a continuum random phase approximation calculation.
50: It is in better agreement with a recent shell model calculation.
51: \end{abstract}
52:
53: \section{Introduction}
54: \label{sec:intro}
55:
56: In recent years neutrino interactions with nuclear targets have been used
57: to detect low energy neutrinos ($<500$ MeV) from many sources:
58: solar, atmospheric, supernova explosions, reactors and accelerators.
59: An understanding of the nuclear cross sections is necessary
60: for interpretation of the measurements.
61: Especially important nuclei are $^{12}C$ and $^{16}O$
62: because of the widespread use of oil and water detectors.
63:
64: Many calculation techniques have been used to determine neutrino-nuclear
65: cross sections.
66: Shell model techniques work best at lower energies
67: where transitions to continuum states are not large.
68: At intermediate energies the Continuum Random Phase Approximation (CRPA)
69: is frequently used, while at still higher energies
70: the Fermi gas model is thought to work well.
71: Comparison of different calculations of the cross section for
72: a particular process can provide an indication
73: of the uncertainty involved.
74: Experimental measurements of some cross sections are, however, necessary
75: to establish the range of validity of
76: the different calculation techniques.
77:
78: Relatively few measurements of neutrino-nucleus cross sections exist in
79: the energy region of the present experiment, $E_\nu<52$.8 MeV.
80: The best measured nucleus is carbon for which three experiments,
81: including the Liquid Scintillator Neutrino Detector (LSND) experiment,
82: have previously reported results.
83: E225\cite{E225} at LAMPF, the KARMEN Collaboration\cite{KARMEN}
84: at the ISIS facility of the Rutherford Laboratory and
85: LSND\cite{LSND97a} have measured the cross section for the exclusive
86: reaction $^{12}C(\nu_e,e^-)^{12}N_{g.s.}$ and for the inclusive
87: reaction $^{12}C(\nu_e,e^-)^{12}N^*$ to all other accessible $^{12}N$
88: final states.
89: The $^{12}N$ ground state reaction dominates the total yield
90: as it is the only allowed $(l=0)$ transition that occurs in this process.
91: The cross section for producing the $^{12}N$ ground state can be
92: calculated to an accuracy of approximately $5\%$
93: as it can be represented in terms of form factors\cite{Fukugita88}
94: that can be reliably extracted from other measurements.
95: Calculation of the inclusive cross section for transitions to
96: excited states of $^{12}N$ is much less straightforward.
97: Various theoretical techniques, each with their own strengths
98: and limitations, have been used to calculate the cross
99: section\cite{Donnelly,Kolbe94,Kolbe99,Volpe00,Hayes00,Auerbach97,Singh98}.
100: Comparison with measurements may help clarify the theoretical picture.
101: In this paper we report our final results for these processes,
102: including measurements of the angular distribution
103: of the electron with respect to the $\nu_e$ direction
104: and the energy dependence of the ground state transition.
105:
106: Measurements also exist for two processes closely related
107: to $\nu_e$ carbon scattering: $\mu^-$ capture on $^{12}C$\cite{Suzuki87}
108: and $\nu_\mu$ scattering on carbon using a beam of $\nu_\mu$
109: from $\pi^+$ decay-in-flight (DIF)\cite{LSND97b}.
110: Because these three processes occur at different energies, $E_\nu$, and
111: momentum transfers, $Q$,
112: they constrain different aspects of theoretical calculations.
113: A good test of a theoretical procedure is its ability
114: to predict all three processes.
115: For the $\nu_e$ carbon measurement $E_\nu\approx32$ MeV,
116: $Q\approx50$ MeV/$c$ and the inclusive cross section is dominated
117: by transitions to low multipoles ($1^+,1^-,2^-$).
118: In contrast, for the $\nu_\mu$ carbon measurement $E_\nu\approx180$ MeV,
119: $Q\approx200$ MeV/$c$ and excitations occur up to 100 MeV.
120: The $\mu^-$ capture process, which occurs from the $S$ state,
121: is intermediate between these two processes with $Q\approx90$ MeV/$c$.
122:
123: The measurement\cite{LSND97b} of the inclusive cross section
124: for $^{12}C(\nu_\mu,\mu^-)^{12}N^*$ several years ago by LSND attracted
125: substantial interest because a CRPA calculation\cite{Kolbe94} predicted
126: a cross section almost twice as large as that observed.
127: An improved calculation by the same group\cite{Kolbe99}
128: together with an improved calculation of the neutrino energy spectrum
129: and flux has reduced but not eliminated the discrepancy
130: with the measured cross section.
131: Recent calculations using the shell model\cite{Volpe00,Hayes00} are
132: in better agreement with the measured cross section.
133:
134: Hayes and Towner\cite{Hayes00} calculated a cross section
135: of $4.1\times10^{-42}$ cm$^2$ for the process $^{12}C(\nu_e,e^-)^{12}N^*$
136: using the same shell model procedure that provided the best agreement
137: with data for the reaction $^{12}C(\nu_\mu,\mu^-)^{12}N^*$.
138: This is lower than both the earlier\cite{Kolbe94} and
139: the more recent\cite{Kolbe99} CRPA calculations by Kolbe {\it et al.}
140: of $6.3\times10^{-42}$ cm$^2$ and $5.5\times10^{-42}$ cm$^2$ respectively.
141: Thus measurements of this cross section can provide a useful test
142: of the relative merits of the different theoretical techniques
143: that have been used.
144:
145: \section{The Neutrino Source}
146: \label{sec:source}
147:
148: The data reported here were obtained between 1994 and 1997
149: at the Los Alamos Neutron Science Center (LANSCE)
150: using neutrinos produced at the A6 proton beam stop.
151: We chose to exclude data obtained in 1998 from this analysis
152: because only electrons with reconstructed energies above 20.4 MeV
153: were fully processed for that year's data.
154: Since this analysis is dominated by systematics
155: we decided to limit our analysis to the 1994-1997 data
156: which has a uniform efficiency above 18 MeV.
157: The neutrino source is described in detail elsewhere\cite{LSND_NIM}.
158: In 1994 and 1995 the beam stop consisted of a 30 cm water target
159: surrounded by steel shielding and followed by a copper beam dump.
160: The high-intensity 798 MeV proton beam from the linear accelerator
161: generated a large pion flux from the water target.
162: The flux of $\nu_e$ used for the measurements reported here arise
163: from the decay at rest (DAR) of stopped $\pi^+$ and $\mu^+$.
164: This decay chain yields almost equal intensities
165: of $\nu_e,~\bar{\nu}_\mu$ and $\nu_\mu$ with the well-determined energy
166: spectra shown in Fig. \ref{fig:flux}.
167: \begin{figure}
168: \centerline{\psfig{figure=fig1.eps,height=3.3in}}
169: \caption{Flux shape of neutrinos from pion and muon decay at rest.}
170: \label{fig:flux}
171: \end{figure}
172:
173: After the 1995 run the beam stop was substantially modified
174: for accelerator production of tritium (APT) tests.
175: The most significant change for the analysis presented in this paper
176: was the replacement of the water target by tungsten and
177: other materials with high atomic number.
178: This resulted in reduced $\pi^+$ production and a lower DAR neutrino
179: flux, largely due to the change in the neutron to proton ratio
180: in the target.
181:
182: The corresponding decay chain for $\pi^-$ and $\mu^-$ is
183: highly suppressed due to three factors.
184: First, production of $\pi^-$ is smaller than for $\pi^+$.
185: Second, $\pi^-$ which stop are absorbed by nuclear interactions.
186: Finally, most $\mu^-$ which stop are absorbed before they can decay.
187: These stopped $\mu^-$ arise from $\pi^-$ which decay in flight.
188:
189: A few percent of the $\pi^+~(\pi^-)$ produced at the beam dump
190: decay in flight to $\nu_\mu~(\bar{\nu}_\mu)$ with energies up to 300 MeV.
191: Those $\nu_\mu$ above muon production threshold provide the source used
192: for our measurement of $^{12}C(\nu_\mu,\mu^-)^{12}N^*$\cite{LSND97b}.
193: In the analysis of the reaction $^{12}C(\nu_e,e^-)^{12}N^*$ presented in
194: section \ref{sec:exstate} below we correct for a small background arising
195: from $\mu^\pm$ produced by high energy $\nu_\mu$ and $\bar{\nu}_\mu$.
196:
197: The LANSCE beam dump has been used as the neutrino source for previous
198: experiments\cite{Willis80,Krak92,Free93}.
199: A calibration experiment\cite{All89} measured the rate of stopped $\mu^+$
200: from a low-intensity proton beam incident on an instrumented beam stop.
201: The rate of stopped $\mu^+$ per incident proton was measured
202: as a function of several variables and
203: used to fine-tune a beam dump simulation program\cite{Bur90}.
204: The simulation program can then be used to calculate the flux
205: for any particular beam dump configuration.
206: The calibration experiment determined the DAR flux to $\pm7\%$
207: for the proton energies and beam stop configurations used at LANSCE.
208: This uncertainty provides the largest source of systematic error for
209: the cross sections presented here.
210: The LANSCE proton beam typically had a current of 800 $\mu$A
211: at the beam stop during the 1994-1995 running period and 1000 $\mu$A
212: for 1996-1997.
213: For 1994 and 1995 the energy was approximately 770 MeV at the beam stop
214: due to energy loss in upstream targets,
215: while it was approximately 800 MeV in 1996 and 1997.
216: The water target was out for $32\%$ of the 1995 data.
217: Upstream targets contributed 1.4$\%$ to the DAR flux in 1994 and 1995.
218: The DAR $\nu_e$ flux averaged over the LSND detector was
219: $3.08\times10^{13}$ cm$^{-2}$ for 1994 and $3.45\times10^{13}$ cm$^{-2}$
220: for 1995.
221:
222: The 1996-1998 data were obtained with the APT beam stop.
223: There were no upstream targets for almost all of the data taking
224: for this period.
225: The DAR $\nu_e$ flux averaged over the LSND detector was
226: $1.32\times10^{13}$ cm$^{-2}$ for 1996 and $2.73\times10^{13}$ cm$^{-2}$
227: for 1997.
228: For the full data sample used in this paper the $\nu_e$ flux
229: is $10.58\times10^{13}$ cm$^{-2}$.
230:
231: \section{The LSND Detector}
232: \label{sec:lsnd}
233:
234: The detector is located 29.8 m downstream of the proton beam stop
235: at an angle of $12^\circ$ to the proton beam.
236: Figure \ref{fig:detector} shows a side-view of the setup.
237: Approximately 2000 g/cm$^2$ of shielding above the detector attenuates
238: the hadronic component of cosmic rays to a negligible level.
239: The detector is also well shielded from the beam stop
240: so that beam associated neutrons are attenuated to a negligible level.
241: Enclosing the detector, except on the bottom,
242: is a highly efficient liquid scintillator veto shield
243: which is essential to reduce contributions
244: from the cosmic ray muon background to a low level.
245: Reference \cite{LSND_NIM} provides a detailed description of the detector,
246: veto, and data acquisition system which we briefly review here.
247: \begin{figure}
248: \centerline{\psfig{figure=fig2.eps,height=1.7in}}
249: \caption{Detector enclosure and target area configuration, elevation view.}
250: \label{fig:detector}
251: \end{figure}
252:
253: The detector is an approximately cylindrical tank containing 167 metric
254: tons of liquid scintillator and viewed by 1220 uniformly spaced $8''$
255: Hamamatsu photomultiplier tubes (PMT) covering $25\%$ of the surface
256: inside the tank wall.
257: When the deposited energy in the tank exceeds a threshold of
258: approximately 4 MeV electron-equivalent energy and
259: there are fewer than 4 PMT hits in the veto shield,
260: the digitized time and pulse height of each of these PMTs
261: (and of each of the 292 veto shield PMTs) are recorded.
262: A veto, imposed for 15.2 $\mu$s following the firing of $>5$ veto PMTs,
263: substantially reduces ($10^{-3}$)
264: the large number of background events arising from the decay
265: of cosmic ray muons that stop in the detector.
266: Activity in the detector or veto shield during the 51.2 $\mu$s
267: preceding a primary trigger is also recorded,
268: provided there are $>17$ detector PMT hits or $>5$ veto PMT hits.
269: This activity information is used in the analysis to reject events
270: arising from muon decay.
271: Data after the primary event are recorded for 1 ms with a threshold
272: of 21 PMTs (approximately 0.7 MeV electron-equivalent energy).
273: This low threshold is used for the detection of 2.2 MeV $\gamma$'s
274: from neutron capture on free protons.
275: The processes measured in this paper, $^{12}C(\nu_e,e^-)^{12}N_{g.s.}$
276: and $^{12}C(\nu_e,e^-)^{12}N^*$, do not produce neutrons.
277: Thus, in the present analysis, detection of 2.2 MeV $\gamma$'s
278: is used to help determine beam-related backgrounds
279: with associated neutrons.
280: The detector operates without reference to the beam spill,
281: but the state of the beam is recorded with the event.
282: Approximately $94\%$ of the data is taken between beam spills.
283: This allows an accurate measurement and subtraction
284: of cosmic ray background surviving the event selection criteria.
285:
286: Most triggers due to electrons from
287: stopped muon decays (Michel electrons) are identified
288: by a preceding activity produced by the decay muon.
289: Occasionally, however the muon will not satisfy
290: the activity threshold of $>17$ detector PMT hits or $>5$ veto PMT hits.
291: For several LSND analyses, including the present one,
292: it is desirable to further reduce the number
293: of unidentified Michel electrons.
294: Therefore, for data recorded after 1994 all PMT information was recorded
295: for a period of 6 $\mu$s (2.7 muon lifetimes)
296: preceding certain primary events.
297: For the present analysis this ``lookback" information is used
298: to further reduce the cosmic ray muon background
299: as described in Section \ref{sec:electron}.
300:
301: The detector scintillator consists of mineral oil ($CH_2$) in which is
302: dissolved a small concentration (0.031 g/l) of b-PBD\cite{Ree93}.
303: This mixture allows the separation of \v{C}erenkov light and
304: scintillation light and produces about 33 photoelectrons per MeV of
305: electron energy deposited in the oil.
306: The combination of the two sources of light provides direction
307: information for relativistic particles and makes
308: particle identification (PID) possible.
309: Note that the oil consists almost entirely of carbon and hydrogen.
310: Isotopically the carbon is $1.1\%~^{13}C$ and $98.9\%~^{12}C$.
311:
312: The veto shield encloses the detector on all sides except the bottom.
313: Additional counters were placed below the veto shield
314: after the 1993 run to reduce cosmic ray background entering
315: through the bottom support structure.
316: More counters were added after the 1995 run.
317: The main veto shield\cite{Nap89} consists of a 15-cm layer of liquid
318: scintillator in an external tank and 15 cm of lead shot
319: in an internal tank.
320: This combination of active and passive shielding tags cosmic ray muons
321: that stop in the lead shot.
322: A veto inefficiency $<10^{-5}$ is achieved with this detector
323: for incident charged particles.
324:
325: \section{Analysis Techniques}
326: \label{sec:analysis}
327:
328: Each event is reconstructed using the hit time and pulse height
329: of all hit PMTs in the detector\cite{LSND_NIM}.
330: The present analysis relies on the reconstructed energy, position,
331: direction, and two PID parameters, $\chi^\prime_{tot}$ and $\alpha$,
332: as described later in this section.
333: The particle direction is determined from the \v{C}erenkov cone.
334: The parameters $\chi^\prime_{tot}$ and $\alpha$ are used to distinguish
335: electron events from events arising from interactions of
336: cosmic ray neutrons in the detector.
337: We directly measure the response of the detector to electrons and
338: neutrons in the energy range of interest for this analysis
339: by using copious control data samples.
340: We also use a GEANT Monte Carlo simulation, LSNDMC\cite{McI95} to
341: simulate events in the detector.
342:
343: The response of the detector to electrons was determined from a large,
344: essentially pure sample of electrons (and positrons) from the decay of
345: stopped cosmic ray $\mu^\pm$ in the detector.
346: The known energy spectra for electrons from muon decay was used
347: to determine the absolute energy calibration,
348: including its small variation over the volume of the detector.
349: The energy resolution was determined from the shape of the electron
350: energy spectrum and was found to be $6.6\%$ at the 52.8 MeV end-point.
351:
352: There are no tracking devices in the LSND detector.
353: Thus, event positions must be determined solely from the PMT information.
354: The reconstruction process determines an event position by minimizing
355: a function $\chi_r$ which is based on the time of each PMT hit corrected
356: for the travel time of light from the assumed event position
357: to the PMT\cite{LSND_NIM}.
358: The procedure used in several previous analyses systematically shifted
359: event positions away from the center of the detector and thus
360: effectively reduced the fiducial volume\cite{At96}.
361: The reconstruction procedure has been analyzed in detail and
362: an improved reconstruction procedure was developed which reduces this
363: systematic shift and provides substantially better position resolution.
364: This procedure also provides results which agree well with positions
365: obtained from the event likelihood procedure described
366: in Ref. \cite{At98}.
367: In the analysis presented in this paper, a fiducial cut is imposed
368: by requiring $D>35$ cm, where $D$ is the distance between
369: the reconstructed event position and the surface tangent
370: to the faces of the PMTs.
371: Events near the bottom of the detector ($y<-120$ cm) are also removed,
372: as discussed in Section \ref{sec:electron}.
373:
374: The particle identification procedure is designed to separate particles
375: with velocities well above \v{C}erenkov threshold from particles
376: below \v{C}erenkov threshold.
377: The procedure makes use of the four parameters defined
378: in Ref. \cite{LSND_NIM}.
379: Briefly, $\chi_r$ and $\chi_a$ are the quantities minimized for
380: the determination of the event position and direction, $\chi_t$ is
381: the fraction of PMT hits that occur more than 12 ns after the fitted
382: event time and $\chi_{tot}$ is proportional to the product of $\chi_r$,
383: $\chi_a$ and $\chi_t$.
384:
385: Several previous LSND analyses \cite{LSND97a,LSND97b,At96} have
386: used $\chi_{tot}$ for particle identification.
387: The distribution of $\chi_{tot}$ for electrons, however, has
388: a small variation with electron energy and with the position of the event.
389: Therefore, in this paper, we used a modified
390: variable, $\chi^\prime_{tot}$, with a mean of zero and sigma of one,
391: independent of the electron energy and positions.
392: We also used the variable, $\alpha$, which is based on the event
393: likelihood procedures discussed in Ref. \cite{At98}.
394: As in \cite{At98}, $\alpha$ comes from a separate event reconstruction
395: than that which produced $\chi^\prime_{tot}$.
396: It is similar to the parameter $\rho$ discussed there,
397: which is based on the ratio of \v{C}erenkov to scintillator light.
398: The $\alpha$ parameter varies from 0 to 1 and
399: peaks at one for electrons and at 0.3 for neutrons.
400: The combination $\chi_\alpha=\chi^\prime_{tot}+10(1-\alpha)$ provides
401: better separation of electrons and neutrons than $\chi^\prime_{tot}$
402: by itself.
403:
404: \begin{figure}
405: \centerline{\psfig{figure=fig3.eps,height=3.3in}}
406: \caption{Particle identification parameters (a) $\chi^\prime_{tot}$ and
407: (b) $\chi_\alpha$ for electrons and neutrons.
408: In the present analysis we require $\chi_\alpha<4.0$ as indicated by the
409: arrow in (b).}
410: \label{fig:eid}
411: \end{figure}
412: Figure \ref{fig:eid}(a) shows the $\chi^\prime_{tot}$ distribution
413: for electrons from stopping $\mu$ decay and for cosmic ray neutrons
414: with electron equivalent energies in the $18<E_e<50$ MeV range.
415: Neutrons, after thermalizing, undergo a capture reaction,
416: $n+p\rightarrow d+\gamma$.
417: The 2.2 MeV $\gamma$'s are used to select a clean sample
418: of neutron events.
419: For a neutron $E_e$ is the equivalent electron energy corresponding to
420: the observed total charge.
421: Figure \ref{fig:eid}(b) shows the $\chi_\alpha$ distribution for
422: the same events.
423: In the present analysis we eliminate most cosmic ray neutron background
424: by requiring $\chi_\alpha<4.0$.
425: We note that a modest particle identification requirement was imposed
426: in the initial data processing that created the samples analyzed here.
427: The effect of this requirement is also included in the analysis.
428:
429: Beam-off data taken between beam spills play a crucial role
430: in the analysis of this experiment.
431: Most event selection criteria are designed to reduce
432: the cosmic ray background while retaining high acceptance
433: for the neutrino process of interest.
434: Cosmic ray background which remains after all selection criteria
435: have been applied is well measured with the beam-off data and
436: subtracted using the duty ratio, the ratio of beam-on time
437: to beam-off time.
438: The subtraction was performed separately for each year's data
439: using the measured duty ratio for that year.
440: The ratio averaged over the full data sample was 0.0632.
441: Beam-on and beam-off data have been compared to determine if there are
442: any differences other than those arising from neutrino interactions.
443: Any differences are small and the $1.1\%$ uncertainty in the duty ratio
444: introduces a negligible effect in the present analysis.
445:
446: \section{Electron Selection Criteria}
447: \label{sec:electron}
448:
449: In this section we describe the selection criteria used
450: to obtain a clean sample of inclusive electrons arising
451: from neutrino interactions in the detector.
452: In the next section we present the analysis of the relatively pure sample
453: of events from the process $^{12}C(\nu_e,e^-)^{12}N_{g.s.}$
454: which we obtain by requiring the detection of the positron
455: from the $\beta$-decay of the $^{12}N_{g.s.}$.
456: Section \ref{sec:exstate} then presents the analysis
457: of the reaction $^{12}C(\nu_e,e^-)^{12}N^*$
458: using the sample of inclusive events
459: without an identified positron from the $\beta$-decay of $^{12}N_{g.s.}$
460:
461: A lower limit of 18.0 MeV is imposed on the electron energy
462: to eliminate the large cosmic ray background from $^{12}B~\beta$-decay
463: as well as most 15.1 MeV gamma rays from the neutral current excitation
464: of carbon.
465: The $^{12}B$ nuclei arise from the absorption of stopped $\mu^-$
466: on $^{12}C$ nuclei in the detector.
467: The scattered electron from the reaction $^{12}C(\nu_e,e^-)^{12}N_{g.s.}$
468: has a maximum kinetic energy of 35.5 MeV due to the $Q$ value of 17.3 MeV.
469: Allowing for energy resolution we impose an upper limit of 40 MeV
470: on the electron energy.
471: \begin{table}
472: \centering
473: \caption{The electron selection criteria and corresponding efficiencies
474: for events with 18 MeV$<E_e<40$ MeV.}
475: \begin{tabular}{ccc}
476: \hline
477: Quantity & Criteria & Efficiency \\
478: \hline
479: Fiducial volume & $D>35$ cm, & 0.880$\pm$0.055 \\
480: & $y>-120$ cm & \\
481: Particle ID & $\chi_\alpha<4$ & 0.940$\pm$0.018 \\
482: In-time veto & $<4$ PMTs & 0.988$\pm$0.010 \\
483: Past activity & See text & 0.635$\pm$0.012 \\
484: Future activity & $\Delta t_f>8.8~\mu$s & 0.991$\pm$0.003 \\
485: Lookback & likelihood & 0.994$\pm$0.004 \\
486: DAQ and tape dead time & -- & 0.962$\pm$0.010 \\
487: \hline
488: Total & & 0.492$\pm$0.035 \\
489: \hline
490: \end{tabular}
491: \label{ta:electron}
492: \end{table}
493:
494: The selection criteria and corresponding efficiencies for electrons
495: with 18 MeV$<E_e<$ 40 MeV are shown in Table \ref{ta:electron}.
496: The reconstructed electron position is required to be a
497: distance $D>35$ cm from the surface tangent to the faces of the PMTs.
498: The requirement $y>-120$ cm removes a small region at the bottom
499: of the detector for which the cosmic ray background is relatively high
500: due to the absence of a veto below the detector.
501: There are $3.34\times10^{30}~^{12}C$ nuclei within this fiducial volume.
502: The fiducial volume efficiency, defined to be the ratio of the number
503: of events reconstructed within the fiducial volume to the actual number
504: within this volume, was determined to be $0.880\pm0.055$.
505: This efficiency is less than one because there is a systematic shift
506: of reconstructed event positions away from the center of the detector
507: as discussed in Section \ref{sec:analysis}.
508:
509: Several selection criteria are designed to further reject
510: cosmic ray induced events.
511: Events with more than three veto PMT hits or any bottom counter coincidence
512: during the 500 ns event window are eliminated.
513: The past activity cut is designed to reject most electron events arising
514: from cosmic ray muons which stop in the detector and decay.
515: This background has a time dependence given by the 2.2 $\mu$s muon lifetime.
516: The past activity selection criteria reject all events with activity
517: within the past 20 $\mu$s with $>5$ veto PMT hits or $>17$ detector PMT hits.
518: We also reject any event with a past activity within 51 $\mu s$
519: with $>5$ veto PMT hits and $>500$ detector PMT hits.
520: A small ($0.5\%$) loss of efficiency arises from a cut (made during initial
521: data processing) on past activities that are spatially correlated
522: with the primary event, within 30 $\mu$s of the primary event and
523: have $\ge4$ veto PMT hits.
524:
525: Muons which are misidentified as electrons are removed by requiring
526: that there be no future activity consistent with a Michel electron.
527: Any event with a future activity with fewer than 4 veto PMT hits and
528: more than 50 detector PMT hits within 8.8 $\mu$s is rejected.
529:
530: Cosmic ray muons which fire $<6$ veto PMTs ($10^{-3}$ probability) and
531: stop in the iron walls of the detector will not register
532: as past activities.
533: Some of the decay electrons will radiate photons which will enter
534: the detector and be reconstructed as electrons within the fiducial volume.
535: In previous analyses we simply relied
536: on the beam-off subtraction procedure to remove this background.
537: Here we use the ``lookback'' information described
538: in Section \ref{sec:lsnd} to reject events from this source.
539: This results in slightly smaller statistical errors
540: in the final beam excess sample.
541:
542: For primary events with $>300$ PMT hits and no activity
543: within the past $35\mu$s ($20\mu$s) for 1995 data (1996-1998 data),
544: we recorded all PMT information for the 6 $\mu$s interval
545: proceeding the event.
546: Muons with $<6$ veto PMT hits will appear in this ``lookback'' interval
547: as a cluster of veto PMT hits spatially correlated with the primary event.
548: The distribution of time between the veto signals and the primary event
549: should be consistent with the muon lifetime,
550: and the distributions of veto PMT hits and veto pulse height
551: should be consistent with that measured for muons
552: producing $<6$ veto PMT hits.
553: We developed a likelihood procedure based on these distributions
554: which allowed us to reduce the beam off background by $9\%$
555: with only a $0.6\%$ loss of efficiency for neutrino events\cite{Wad98}.
556: Figure \ref{fig:beta5} shows the time between the veto signal and
557: the primary for rejected events.
558: \begin{figure}
559: \centerline{\psfig{figure=fig4.eps,height=3.3in}}
560: \caption{The distribution of time between the primary and the veto signal for
561: beam-off events rejected using the ``lookback'' information compared
562: with a curve corresponding to the muon lifetime.}
563: \label{fig:beta5}
564: \end{figure}
565: The fitted lifetime of 2.08$\pm$0.07 $\mu$s agrees well with
566: the expected average lifetime of 2.12 $\mu$s for stopping $\mu^+$
567: and $\mu^-$ in oil.
568:
569: The acceptances for the past activity, the future activity,
570: the ``lookback'' and the in-time veto cuts are obtained by applying these cuts
571: to a large sample of random events triggered with the laser used
572: for detector calibration.
573: These laser events are spread uniformly through the run and
574: thus average over the small variation in run conditions.
575: The acceptance for the 15.1 $\mu$s trigger veto is included
576: in the past activity efficiency.
577:
578: A sample of Michel electrons
579: was analyzed to obtain the acceptance of electrons for the PID cut.
580: Figure \ref{fig:chialpha} compares the $\chi_\alpha$ distribution of
581: the inclusive electron sample with a Michel electron sample.
582: The agreement is excellent.
583: To eliminate any energy dependence,
584: the Michel electrons are given weights
585: as a function of energy so that the weighted spectrum agrees with
586: the energy spectrum of electrons
587: from the reaction $^{12}C(\nu_e,e^-)^{12}N_{g.s.}$.
588: The acceptance, however, is very insensitive
589: to the assumed energy spectrum.
590: The beam excess distribution shown in Figure \ref{fig:chialpha}
591: is obtained by subtracting the beam off distribution
592: from the beam on distribution as discussed in Section \ref{sec:lsnd}.
593: \begin{figure}
594: \centerline{\psfig{figure=fig5.eps,height=3.3in}}
595: \caption{The $\chi_\alpha$ distribution of the beam excess inclusive
596: electron sample.
597: The histogram shows the $\chi_\alpha$ distribution of Michel electrons.}
598: \label{fig:chialpha}
599: \end{figure}
600:
601: \section{The Transition to the $^{12}N$ Ground State}
602: \label{sec:gstate}
603:
604: The reaction $\nu_e+~^{12}C\rightarrow e^-+~^{12}N_{g.s.}$ is identified
605: by the detection of the $e^-$, followed within 60 ms by the positron
606: from the $\beta$-decay of the $^{12}N_{g.s.}$.
607: Transitions to excited states of $^{12}N$ decay by prompt proton emission
608: and thus do not feed down to the $^{12}N$ ground state or contribute
609: to the delayed coincidence rate.
610: The scattered electron has a maximum kinetic energy of 35.5 MeV
611: due to the $Q$ value of 17.33 MeV.
612: The $\beta$-decay has a mean lifetime of 15.9 ms and
613: maximum positron kinetic energy of 16.33 MeV.
614: The cross section to the $^{12}N$ ground state has been calculated
615: by several groups.
616: The form factors required to calculate the cross section are well known
617: from a variety of previous measurements.
618: This cross section and the known $\nu_e$ flux are used
619: to obtain the expected electron kinetic energy spectrum.
620: Figure \ref{fig:eelec} shows the observed and expected electron energy
621: distributions for events with an identified $\beta$-decay.
622: \begin{figure}
623: \centerline{\psfig{figure=fig6.eps,height=3.3in}}
624: \caption{The observed and expected (solid line) energy distributions
625: for electrons from $^{12}C(\nu_e,e^-)^{12}N_{g.s.}$.}
626: \label{fig:eelec}
627: \end{figure}
628: Figure \ref{fig:xyz} shows the observed and expected spatial
629: distributions of the same events.
630: Both figures show good agreement with expectations.
631: \begin{figure}
632: \centerline{\psfig{figure=fig7.eps,height=4in}}
633: \caption{The spatial distribution of the electron for beam-excess events
634: compared with expectation (solid line)
635: from $^{12}C(\nu_e,e^-)^{12}N_{g.s.}$.}
636: \label{fig:xyz}
637: \end{figure}
638:
639: \begin{table}
640: \centering
641: \caption{Criteria to select $e^+$ from $N_{g.s.}$ beta decay and
642: corresponding
643: efficiencies for the reaction $^{12}C(\nu_e,e^-)^{12}N_{g.s.}$.}
644: \begin{tabular}{ccc}
645: \hline
646: Quantity & Criteria & Efficiency \\
647: \hline
648: $\beta$ decay time & 52 $\mu$s$<t<60$ ms & 0.974$\pm$0.002 \\
649: Spatial correlation & $\Delta r<0.7$ m & 0.992$\pm$0.008 \\
650: PMT threshold & $>100$ for 1994, & 0.856$\pm$0.011 \\
651: & $>75$ after 1994 & \\
652: Fiducial volume & $D>0$ cm & 0.986$\pm$0.010 \\
653: Trigger veto & $>15.1~\mu$s & 0.760$\pm$0.010 \\
654: In-time veto & $<4$ PMTs & 0.988$\pm$0.010 \\
655: DAQ dead time & & 0.977$\pm$0.010 \\
656: \hline
657: Total & & 0.598$\pm$0.015 \\
658: \hline
659: \end{tabular}
660: \label{ta:betaeff}
661: \end{table}
662: \begin{figure}
663: \centerline{\psfig{figure=fig8.eps,height=3.3in}}
664: \caption{Distribution of time between the $e^-$ and $e^+$
665: for beam excess events in the $^{12}C(\nu_e,e^-)^{12}N_{g.s.}$ sample.
666: The best fit curve (solid line) corresponds to
667: a lifetime of $16.3\pm0.8$ ms.}
668: \label{fig:beta_dt}
669: \end{figure}
670: \begin{figure}
671: \centerline{\psfig{figure=fig9.eps,height=3.3in}}
672: \caption{Distribution of the distance between the reconstructed positions
673: of the $e^-$ and $e^+$ for beam excess events
674: in the $^{12}C(\nu_e,e^-)^{12}N_{g.s.}$ sample
675: compared with Monte Carlo expectation (solid line).
676: The calculated accidental contribution is shown by the dashed line.}
677: \label{fig:beta_dr}
678: \end{figure}
679: Table \ref{ta:betaeff} gives the selection criteria and efficiencies
680: for the $^{12}N~\beta$-decay positron.
681: Figure \ref{fig:beta_dt} shows the observed $\beta$-decay time
682: distribution.
683: The best fit curve yields a lifetime of $16.3\pm0.8$ ms in good agreement
684: with the expected value of 15.9 ms.
685: Figure \ref{fig:beta_dr} shows the distance between the reconstructed
686: electron and positron positions for the beam-excess sample.
687: A cut was applied at 0.7 m, resulting in an acceptance
688: of $(99.2\pm0.8)\%$.
689: Following an electron produced by a neutrino interaction,
690: an uncorrelated particle, such as the positron from $^{12}B~\beta$-decay,
691: will occasionally satisfy all the positron criteria including
692: the requirements
693: of time (60 ms) and spatial (0.7 m) correlation with the electron.
694: The probability of such an accidental coincidence was measured
695: by using the sample of Michel electrons.
696: The inefficiency caused by the 15.1 $\mu$s veto and the DAQ dead time
697: are the same as for the electron.
698: Positrons with 4 or more in-time veto hits or any bottom veto coincidence
699: are rejected.
700: The energy distribution of the positron is calculated
701: from the $^{12}N~\beta$-decay using
702: \begin{equation}
703: \frac{dN}{dE_e}=P_eE_e(E_{max}-E_e)^2\times\frac{2\pi\eta}{(e^{2\pi\eta}-1)}
704: \end{equation}
705: \noindent
706: where $\eta=Z\alpha/\beta_e$ and $E_e$ is the total positron energy
707: (including rest energy).
708: The slight modification of the spectrum due to the shape
709: correction factor\cite{Kaina77} was found to have a negligible effect
710: on the results.
711: The $^{12}N$ decays to the ground state ($E_{max}=16.83$ MeV) $94.6\%$
712: of the time.
713: Beta decay transitions to the excited states of carbon are $1.9\%$
714: ($E_{max}=12.39$ MeV, followed by a 4.44 MeV $\gamma$),
715: $2.7\%~(E_{max}$ = 9.17 MeV) and $0.8\% (E_{max}$ = 6.5 MeV)\cite{FAS90}.
716: The positron annihilates with an electron after stopping.
717: The Monte Carlo was used to generated expected distributions
718: for the positron energy and for number of hit PMTs.
719: There was a trigger requirement of 100 PMT hits for 1994 data and
720: 75 PMT hits after 1994.
721: The beta is required to be less than 18 MeV in this analysis.
722: Figure \ref{fig:epos} compares the observed and expected positron
723: energy distributions.
724: The good agreement shows that the energy calibration
725: is valid for these low energy electrons.
726: \begin{figure}
727: \centerline{\psfig{figure=fig10.eps,height=3.3in}}
728: \caption{Observed and expected (solid line) $e^+$ energy distribution
729: for the $^{12}C(\nu_e,e^-)^{12}N_{g.s.}$ sample.}
730: \label{fig:epos}
731: \end{figure}
732:
733: The electron and $\beta$ selection efficiencies,
734: the efficiency for satisfying the electron energy requirement
735: and the total efficiency for the
736: reaction $^{12}C(\nu_e,e^-)^{12}N_{g.s.}$
737: are shown in Table \ref{ta:gseff}.
738: \begin{table}
739: \centering
740: \caption{The electron and $\beta$ selection efficiencies, the efficiency
741: for satisfying the electron energy requirement and the total efficiency
742: for the process $^{12}C(\nu_e,e^-)^{12}N_{g.s.}$}
743: \begin{tabular}{cc}
744: \hline
745: Quantity & Efficiency \\
746: \hline
747: Electron Selection & $0.492\pm0.035$ \\
748: Future $\beta$ & $0.598\pm0.015$ \\
749: 18 MeV $<E_e<40$MeV & $0.789\pm0.020$ \\
750: \hline
751: Total Efficiency & $0.232\pm0.019$ \\
752: \hline
753: \end{tabular}
754: \label{ta:gseff}
755: \end{table}
756:
757: \begin{table}
758: \centering
759: \caption{Events, efficiency, neutrino flux and flux averaged cross
760: section with statistical error only for $^{12}C(\nu_e,e^-)^{12}N_{g.s.}$}
761: \begin{tabular}{cc}
762: \hline
763: Beam-on events & 743 \\
764: Beam-off events & 6 \\
765: Accidental background & 4 \\
766: \hline
767: Events from $^{12}C(\nu_e,e^-)^{12}N_{g.s.}$ & 733 \\
768: Efficiency & $0.232\pm0.019$ \\
769: $\nu_e$ flux & $10.58\times10^{13}$ cm$^{-2}$ \\
770: $\langle\sigma\rangle$ & $(8.9\pm0.3)\times10^{-42}$ cm$^2$ \\
771: \hline
772: \end{tabular}
773: \label{ta:gssample}
774: \end{table}
775: Table \ref{ta:gssample} provides a breakdown of the number of events
776: satisfying the selection criteria as well as the total acceptance,
777: the neutrino flux and the resulting flux averaged cross section.
778: For the complete data sample the flux averaged cross section is
779: $\langle\sigma\rangle=(8.9\pm0.3\pm0.9)\times10^{-42}$ cm$^2$
780: where the first error is statistical and the second is systematic.
781: The two dominant sources of systematic error are the neutrino
782: flux ($7\%$) discussed in Section \ref{sec:source} and the effective
783: fiducial volume ($6\%$) discussed in Section \ref{sec:analysis}.
784: The measured cross section decreases by $1.4\%$
785: when the fiducial volume is reduced by requiring that the electron be
786: at least 50 cm (instead 35 cm) from the surface of the PMT faces.
787: As discussed in section \ref{sec:source} the beam stop was substantially
788: modified after the 1995 run.
789: The cross section measured for data taken with the modified beam dump
790: is $(5\pm6(stat.)~)\%$ higher than for the initial beam dump and
791: thus fully consistent within the statistical uncertainty.
792: For comparison the previous measurements, the final LSND result
793: and several theoretical predictions for the flux averaged cross section
794: are presented in Table \ref{ta:xsec}.
795: They are all in agreement with each other.
796: \begin{table}
797: \caption { Measurements and theoretical predictions of
798: the flux averaged cross section for the process
799: $^{12}\rm{C}(\nu_e,e^-)^{12}\rm{N}_{g.s.}$.}
800: \label{ta:xsec}
801: \begin{tabular}{ll}
802: \hline
803: Experiment & \\
804: \hline
805: LSND & $(8.9\pm0.3\pm0.9)\times10^{-42}$ cm$^2$ \\
806: LSND(previous)\cite{LSND97a} & $(9.1\pm0.4\pm0.9)\times10^{-42}$ cm$^2$ \\
807: E225\cite{E225} & $(10.5\pm1.0\pm1.0)\times10^{-42}$ cm$^2$\\
808: KARMEN\cite{KARMEN} & $(9.1\pm0.5\pm0.8)\times10^{-42}$ cm$^2$ \\
809: \hline
810: \hline
811: Theory & \\
812: \hline
813: Donnelly\cite{Donnelly} & $9.4\times10^{-42}$ cm$^2$ \\
814: Fukugita {\it et al.}\cite{Fukugita88} & $9.2\times10^{-42}$ cm$^2$ \\
815: Kolbe {\it et al.}\cite{Kolbe99} & $8.9\times10^{-42}$ cm$^2$ \\
816: Mintz {\it et al.}\cite{Mintz} & $8.0\times10^{-42}$ cm$^2$ \\
817: \hline
818: \end{tabular}
819: \end{table}
820: We note that all these measurements rely on the neutrino flux calibration
821: that is discussed in Section \ref{sec:source} and
822: thus they have correlated systematic errors.
823:
824: For this reaction to the $^{12}N$ ground state it is also
825: straightforward to measure the energy dependence of the cross section.
826: The recoil energy of the $^{12}N$ nucleus is negligible
827: and thus $E_\nu=E_e+17.3$ MeV where $E_e$ is the electron kinetic energy.
828: Figure \ref{fig:xsec} shows that the energy dependence of the measured
829: cross section agrees well with expectations\cite{Fukugita88}.
830: \begin{figure}
831: \centerline{\psfig{figure=fig11.eps,height=3.5in}}
832: \caption{The measured and expected (solid line) cross section
833: for the process $^{12}C(\nu_e,e^-)^{12}N_{g.s.}$.}
834: \label{fig:xsec}
835: \end{figure}
836: Figure \ref{fig:angle} shows the observed and
837: expected\cite{Fukugita88,Kolbe96}
838: angular distribution between the electron and the incident neutrino.
839: \begin{figure}
840: \centerline{\psfig{figure=fig12.eps,height=3.3in}}
841: \caption{Observed and expected (solid line) distribution in $\cos\theta$
842: for the $^{12}C(\nu_e,e^-)^{12}N_{g.s.}$ sample,
843: where $\theta$ is the angle between the $e^-$ and the incident neutrino.}
844: \label{fig:angle}
845: \end{figure}
846: The data agree well with expectations with the $\chi^2/DF=0.79$.
847: The mean observed value of $\cos\theta$
848: is $-0.046\pm0.021(stat.)\pm0.030(syst.)$
849: compared with an expected value of $-0.068$.
850: The systematic uncertainty in $\cos\theta$ is estimated to be 0.030
851: based on Monte Carlo studies of the detector response.
852: The expected $\cos\theta$ distribution shown in Figure \ref{fig:angle}
853: includes the effects of experimental resolution and as a result, is
854: less backward peaked than the theoretical distribution used
855: to generate it.
856:
857: \section{Transitions to excited states of $^{12}N$}
858: \label{sec:exstate}
859:
860: Electrons below 52 MeV are expected to arise from four major neutrino
861: processes: $^{12}\rm{C}(\nu_e, e^-)^{12}\rm{N}_{g.s.}$,
862: $^{12}\rm{C}(\nu_e, e^-)^{12}\rm{N}^*$,
863: $^{13}\rm{C}(\nu_e, e^-)^{13}\rm{X}$ and
864: neutrino electron elastic scattering.
865: The expected energy and angular distributions of these processes are
866: shown in Figures \ref{fig:pleemc} and \ref{fig:plcos_mc}, respectively.
867: \begin{figure}
868: \centerline{\psfig{figure=fig13.eps,height=3.8in}}
869: \caption{The expected distributions of electron energy for
870: (a) $\nu e^-$ elastic scattering, (b) $^{12}C(\nu_e,e^-)^{12}N_{g.s.}$,
871: (c) $^{12}C(\nu_e,e^-)^{12}N^*$, and (d) $^{13}C(\nu_e,e^-)^{13}X$.}
872: \label{fig:pleemc}
873: \end{figure}
874: \begin{figure}
875: \centerline{\psfig{figure=fig14.eps,height=3.8in}}
876: \caption{The expected distributions of $\cos\theta$ for
877: (a) $\nu e^-$ elastic scattering, (b) $^{12}C(\nu_e,e^-)^{12}N_{g.s.}$,
878: (c) $^{12}C(\nu_e,e^-)^{12}N^*$, and (d) $^{13}C(\nu_e,e^-)^{13}X$.
879: Straight line fits are shown in (b), (c) and (d).}
880: \label{fig:plcos_mc}
881: \end{figure}
882: The different event characteristics of these reactions are used to select
883: a sample due primarily to the reaction $^{12}C(\nu_e,e^-)^{12}N^*$.
884: This sample is then used to determine the flux averaged cross section
885: and the electron energy and angular distributions for this reaction.
886: The measured distributions are compared with expected distributions
887: for $^{12}C(\nu_e,e^-)^{12}N^*$ obtained from LSNDMC
888: using the theoretical cross section of Ref. \cite{Kolbe96}.
889:
890: The reaction $^{12}C(\nu_e,e^-)^{12}N_{g.s.}$ is a source of background
891: since the $e^+$ from the $\beta$-decay of $^{12}N_{g.s.}$ is not always
892: identified.
893: Any event with an identified $e^+$ in delayed coincidence is of course
894: excluded.
895: The background of events with an unidentified $e^+$ is calculated using
896: the positron acceptance given in Table \ref{ta:betaeff} and subtracted.
897:
898: All three types of DAR neutrinos ($\nu_e,\nu_\mu$ and $\bar{\nu}_\mu$)
899: elastically scatter off electrons in the detector
900: but the rate is dominated by $\nu_ee^-$ scattering.
901: The contribution due to DIF $\nu_\mu$ and $\bar{\nu}_\mu$ scattering
902: on electrons is almost negligible.
903: The scattered electron for this process is strongly forward peaked as
904: shown in Figure \ref{fig:plcos_mc}, and thus such events can largely be
905: eliminated with the requirement $\cos\theta<0.9$.
906: A measurement of electron-neutrino electron elastic scattering by LSND
907: is reported in a separate paper\cite{LSND_nuee}.
908:
909: A third background arises from the interaction of $\nu_e$ on $^{13}C$
910: nuclei ($1.1\%$ of the carbon).
911: The expected number of events obtained from the calculated
912: cross section\cite{Donnelly,Fukugita90} for this process is fairly small.
913: The $Q$ value is 2.1 MeV and thus about half of the background
914: can be eliminated by requiring an electron energy below 34 MeV.
915: We use the cross section calculated by Kubodera\cite{Fukugita90},
916: $0.525\times10^{-40}\rm{cm}^2$, and
917: conservatively assign a $50\%$ uncertainty to this number.
918: The KARMEN experiment has measured a cross section of
919: ($0.5\pm0.37\pm0.1)\times10^{-40}$ cm$^2$
920: for this reaction\cite{KARMEN_xsec}.
921: %For this analysis the electron energy is required to be
922: %between 18 and 34 MeV.
923: %This region contains $68.7\%$ of the excited state events simulated
924: %with LSNDMC using the cross section of Ref. \cite{Kolbe96}.
925:
926: Most of the excited states of $^{12}N$ decay by prompt proton emission
927: to $^{11}C$ states and the decays of some of these $^{11}C$ states
928: produce gammas between 2 and 7 MeV.
929: Both these protons and gammas contribute to the visible energy detected
930: by LSND and thus increase the apparent electron energy.
931: LSND is relatively insensitive to low energy protons, partly due to
932: the absence of \v{C}erenkov light.
933: For example a 10 MeV proton produces only between 1 and 2 MeV electron
934: equivalent energy.
935: The sensitivity to low energy gammas is also somewhat lower
936: than for electrons of the same energy.
937: The response to protons, gammas and electrons is obtained using events
938: simulated with LSNDMC.
939: For the analysis we require that the measured electron energy be
940: between 18 and 34 MeV.
941: Including the estimated contributions of protons and gammas
942: based on Ref. \cite{Kolbe96} this region contains $72\pm4$\%
943: of the excited state events.
944: The relatively large error assigned is due to uncertainties
945: in the response of LSND, for example to low energy protons, as well as
946: estimated uncertainties in the modeling of particle production.
947: The upper limit of 34 MeV not only eliminates much of
948: the $^{13}C(\nu_e,e^-)^{13}X$ background, it further decreases
949: the small background from the possible oscillation signal
950: seen by LSND\cite{At96,At98}.
951:
952: Table \ref{ta:exeff} shows the efficiency for each of the selection
953: criteria and the total efficiency
954: for the process $^{12}C(\nu_e,e^-)^{12}N^*$.
955: \begin{table}
956: \centering
957: \caption{The electron selection efficiency, the efficiency for satisfying
958: the $\beta$ rejection criteria, the efficiencies for satisfying
959: the angular and the energy requirements and the total efficiency
960: for the process $^{12}C(\nu_e,e^-)^{12}N^*$}
961: \begin{tabular}{cc}
962: \hline
963: Quantity & Efficiency \\
964: \hline
965: Electron Selection & 0.497$\pm$0.035 \\
966: No Future $\beta$ & 0.997$\pm$0.001 \\
967: $\cos\theta<0.9$ & 0.980$\pm$0.005 \\
968: 18 MeV $<E_e<$ 34 MeV & 0.720$\pm$0.040 \\
969: \hline
970: Total Efficiency & 0.349$\pm$0.031 \\
971: \hline
972: \end{tabular}
973: \label{ta:exeff}
974: \end{table}
975: Table \ref{ta:background} shows the calculated number of background
976: events from various sources satisfying these selection criteria.
977: \begin{table}
978: \centering
979: \caption{Calculated number of background events
980: satisfying the selection criteria for $^{12}C(\nu_e,e^-)^{12}N^*$.
981: Systematic uncertainties in the numbers of background events
982: are also shown.}
983: \begin{tabular}{cc}
984: \hline
985: Source & Events \\
986: \hline
987: $^{12}C(\nu_e,e^-)^{12}N_{g.s.}$ & $434.1\pm28.1$ \\
988: $\nu e\rightarrow\nu e$ & $35.2\pm4.1$ \\
989: $^{13}C(\nu_e,e^-)^{13}N$ & $46.6\pm23.3$ \\
990: $^{12}C(\nu,\nu)^{12}C^*$[15.1 MeV] & $17.5\pm2.0$ \\
991: $^{12}C(\nu_\mu,\mu^-)^{12}N^*$ & $9.3\pm2.0$ \\
992: Events with a neutron & $21.5\pm15.1$ \\
993: \hline
994: Total Background & $564\pm40$ \\
995: \hline
996: \end{tabular}
997: \label{ta:background}
998: \end{table}
999: In addition to the background sources already discussed,
1000: there are several smaller sources of background.
1001:
1002: The neutral current
1003: excitation $^{12}C(\nu,\nu)^{12}C^*~(1^+$,1; 15.1 MeV)
1004: leads to prompt decay to photons with a $90\%$ branching ratio.
1005: Most of the photons are eliminated by the 18 MeV energy requirement
1006: but approximately $0.8\%$ will have reconstructed energies above 18 MeV
1007: due to the finite energy resolution.
1008: The measured cross section for this process\cite{Bodmann91,Armbruster98}
1009: is in good agreement with theoretical
1010: calculations\cite{Fukugita88,Donnelly,Kolbe94}.
1011:
1012: As discussed earlier, LSND has also measured
1013: the process $^{12}C(\nu_\mu,\mu^-)^{12}N^*$ using a beam
1014: of $\nu_\mu$ from $\pi^+$ DIF\cite{LSND97b}.
1015: Normally we detect both the $\mu^-$ and the Michel $e^-$
1016: from the $\mu^-$ decay.
1017: Occasionally, however, we will miss a low energy $\mu^-$
1018: because it does not satisfy the activity threshold of $>17$ PMT hits.
1019: In that case the Michel electron will be a background event
1020: if it satisfies the selection criteria given in Table \ref{ta:exeff}.
1021: We have calculated this background
1022: using the event simulation program LSNDMC.
1023: We have also estimated this background
1024: using the observed distribution of PMT
1025: hits for $\mu^-$ satisfying the activity threshold.
1026:
1027: Finally, we determine the background from processes
1028: with associated neutrons.
1029: Events from the reactions $\bar{\nu}_e+p\rightarrow e^++n$
1030: and $\bar{\nu}_\mu+p\rightarrow\mu^++n$ are identified in LSND
1031: by detecting the 2.2 MeV $\gamma$'s from the capture
1032: reaction $n+p\rightarrow d+\gamma$\cite{LSND97a,LSND97b,At96}.
1033: The mean capture time in the LSND detector is 186 $\mu$s,
1034: essentially independent of the initial neutron energy.
1035: Three variables are used to identify a capture $\gamma$ correlated
1036: with a neutron in the primary event:
1037: the number of PMT hits for the $\gamma$,
1038: the distance of the $\gamma$ from the primary event and
1039: the time of $\gamma$ from the primary event.
1040: A likelihood technique, discussed in Ref. \cite{At96}, has been developed
1041: to separate the correlated component due to neutrons
1042: from the uncorrelated or accidental component.
1043: An approximate likelihood ratio $R={\cal L}_{cor}/{\cal L}_{uncor}$ is
1044: calculated for each event from the three measured variables.
1045: We use here an analysis with improved photon spatial reconstruction as
1046: is presented in Ref. \cite{LSND_osc}, which reports final LSND results
1047: on neutrino oscillations.
1048:
1049: Figure \ref{fig:r_ex} shows the observed $R$ distribution for events
1050: satisfying the selection criteria
1051: for the process $^{12}C(\nu_e,e^-)^{12}N^*$.
1052: \begin{figure}
1053: \centerline{\psfig{figure=fig15.eps,height=3.3in}}
1054: \caption{The observed distribution of the $\gamma$ likelihood ratio R
1055: for the process $^{12}C(\nu_e,e^-)^{12}N^*$.
1056: Shown for comparison is the best fit (solid line) combination
1057: of the correlated distribution and the uncorrelated distribution to data.
1058: The best fit has a $2.0\pm1.4\%$ correlated component.}
1059: \label{fig:r_ex}
1060: \end{figure}
1061: Shown for comparison is
1062: the best fit (solid line) combination of the correlated distribution
1063: and the uncorrelated distribution to the data.
1064: The best fit has a $2.0\pm1.4\%$ correlated component.
1065: The number of background events with neutrons shown
1066: in Table \ref{ta:background} is obtained from the best fit to the data.
1067:
1068: Table \ref{ta:ex_xsec} shows the number of beam-on and beam-excess events
1069: satisfying the selection criteria, the number of background events and
1070: the resulting number of events and cross section
1071: for the process $^{12}C(\nu_e,e^-)^{12}N^*$.
1072: \begin{table}
1073: \centering
1074: \caption{Events, efficiency, neutrino flux and flux averaged cross
1075: section with statistical errors only for $^{12}C(\nu_e,e^-)^{12}N^*$}
1076: \begin{tabular}{cc}
1077: \hline
1078: Beam-on events & 2126 \\
1079: Beam-excess events & 1088 \\
1080: Background & 564 \\
1081: \hline
1082: $^{12}C(\nu_e,e^-)^{12}N^*$ & 524 \\
1083: Efficiency & $0.349\pm0.031$ \\
1084: Flux & $10.58\times10^{13}$ cm$^{-2}$ \\
1085: $\langle\sigma\rangle$ & $(4.3\pm0.4)\times10^{-42}$ cm$^2$ \\
1086: \hline
1087: \end{tabular}
1088: \label{ta:ex_xsec}
1089: \end{table}
1090: It is worth noting that the beam-off subtraction is much larger
1091: in this case than it was for the exclusive reaction
1092: where we require a coincidence with a $\beta$.
1093: The flux average cross section
1094: is $\langle\sigma\rangle=(4.3\pm0.4\pm0.6)\times10^{-42}$ cm$^2$.
1095: There are several contributions to the systematic error.
1096: The $7\%$ flux uncertainty and the $6\%$ uncertainty in the effective
1097: fiducial volume have been described previously.
1098: There is a $4\%$ uncertainty due to the $50\%$ error
1099: in the $^{13}C$ cross section.
1100: The uncertainty in the $e^+$ acceptance
1101: for the $^{12}N_{g.s.}$ background
1102: subtraction leads to a $5\%$ uncertainty in the $^{12}N^*$ cross section.
1103: The uncertainty in the duty ratio results in a $3\%$ error
1104: in the cross section.
1105: We estimate a $5.5\%$ uncertainty in the fraction of events
1106: with electrons in the region 18 MeV$<E_e<34$ MeV.
1107:
1108: The cross section reported here is lower than that previously measured
1109: by LSND\cite{LSND97a} primarily because of an increase in the calculated
1110: number of background events. (see Table \ref{ta:background}).
1111: An increase in the calculated deadtime due to the veto lowered
1112: the $\beta$ selection efficiency and increased the calculated number
1113: of events from the process $^{12}C(\nu_e,e^-)^{12}N_{g.s.}$
1114: without an identified $\beta$.
1115: There was also an increase in the calculated number of events
1116: with $\cos\theta<0.9$ from the process $\nu e\rightarrow\nu e$.
1117: The small DIF background from $^{12}C(\nu_\mu,\mu^-)^{12}N^*$ was
1118: not previously included.
1119: Finally, as was stated in Ref \cite{LSND97a},
1120: we previously did not subtract the background from events with neutrons.
1121:
1122: The flux averaged cross section measured by LSND is compared
1123: in Table \ref{ta:exxsec} with other measurements and with several
1124: theoretical calculations.
1125: \begin{table}
1126: \caption { Measurements and theoretical predictions of the flux averaged
1127: cross section for the process $^{12}C(\nu_e,e^-)^{12}N^*$.}
1128: \label{ta:exxsec}
1129: \begin{tabular}{ll}
1130: \hline
1131: Experiment & \\
1132: \hline
1133: LSND & $(4.3\pm0.4\pm0.6)\times10^{-42}$ cm$^2$ \\
1134: LSND(previous)\cite{LSND97a} & $(5.7\pm0.6\pm0.6)\times10^{-42}$ cm$^2$ \\
1135: E225\cite{E225,E225_note} & $(3.6\pm2.0)\times10^{-42}$ cm$^2$ \\
1136: KARMEN\cite{KARMEN_xsec} & $(5.1\pm0.6\pm0.5)\times10^{-42}$ cm$^2$ \\
1137: \hline
1138: \hline
1139: Theory & \\
1140: \hline
1141: Kolbe {\it et al.}\cite{Kolbe94} & $6.3\times10^{-42}$ cm$^2$ \\
1142: Kolbe {\it et al.}\cite{Kolbe99} & $5.5\times10^{-42}$ cm$^2$ \\
1143: Hayes {\it et al.}\cite{Hayes00} & $4.1\times10^{-42}$ cm$^2$ \\
1144: \hline
1145: \end{tabular}
1146: \end{table}
1147: The most recent measurements of both LSND and KARMEN\cite{KARMEN_xsec}
1148: are somewhat lower than their previous measurements\cite{KARMEN,LSND97a}.
1149: The recent CRPA result of Kolbe {\it et al.}\cite{Kolbe99}, similarly,
1150: is lower than the previous result\cite{Kolbe94} but
1151: it remains above the cross section measurements of both LSND and KARMEN.
1152: In contrast the recent shell model calculation of Hayes and
1153: Towner\cite{Hayes00} is in good agreement with but lower
1154: than the cross section measured by LSND.
1155:
1156: Figure \ref{fig:ee1} shows that the measured electron energy distribution
1157: for the sample of events satisfying the electron criteria given
1158: in Table \ref{ta:exeff} agrees well with that expected
1159: from $^{12}C(\nu_e,e^-)^{12}N^*$ plus the background sources listed
1160: in Table \ref{ta:background}.
1161: \begin{figure}
1162: \centerline{\psfig{figure=fig16.eps,height=3.3in}}
1163: \caption{The observed distribution of electron energy for events
1164: satisfying the selection criteria given in Table \ref{ta:exeff}.
1165: The dotted (solid) histogram shows the expected distribution
1166: from all sources (background sources only).}
1167: \label{fig:ee1}
1168: \end{figure}
1169: Also shown is the energy distribution expected from just the background
1170: processes.
1171: For the largest background source, $^{12}C(\nu_e,e^-)^{12}N_{g.s.}$,
1172: we used the shape of the energy distribution measured
1173: for the sample of events with identified $\beta$'s.
1174: For all other processes the expected energy distributions are obtained
1175: using simulated samples of events.
1176: Figure \ref{fig:ee2} compares the measured energy distribution
1177: after subtraction of the calculated backgrounds with the distribution
1178: expected for the process $^{12}C(\nu_e,e^-)^{12}N^*$.
1179: \begin{figure}
1180: \centerline{\psfig{figure=fig17.eps,height=3.3in}}
1181: \caption{The observed and expected (solid line) electron energy
1182: distribution for the process $^{12}C(\nu_e,e^-)^{12}N^*$}
1183: \label{fig:ee2}
1184: \end{figure}
1185: The agreement is excellent.
1186:
1187: Figure \ref{fig:cos2} compares the measured distribution of $\cos\theta$
1188: after subtraction of the calculated backgrounds with the distribution
1189: expected for the process $^{12}C(\nu_e,e^-)^{12}N^*$.
1190: \begin{figure}
1191: \centerline{\psfig{figure=fig18.eps,height=3.3in}}
1192: \caption{The observed and expected (solid line) $\cos\theta$ distribution
1193: for the process $^{12}C(\nu_e,e^-)^{12}N^*$}
1194: \label{fig:cos2}
1195: \end{figure}
1196: The $\cos\theta$ distribution is enhanced in the backward direction
1197: as expected.
1198: The data are in fair agreement with expectations\cite{Kolbe96}
1199: with the $\chi^2/DF=1.79$.
1200: The mean observed value of $\cos\theta$
1201: is $-0.15\pm0.05(stat.)\pm0.030(syst.)$ compared with the expected value
1202: of $-0.25$ for Ref. \cite{Kolbe96} and $-0.30$ for Ref. \cite{Hayes00}.
1203: The backward peaking of the angular distribution is largely a result
1204: of the negative parity of the $N^*$ states expected to contribute,
1205: $2^-$ levels at 1.20 and 4.14 MeV and $1^-$ levels at 6.40 and 7.68 MeV.
1206: The $l=1$ angular momentum transfer to the $A=12$ system favors
1207: momentum transfer of approximately 100 MeV/c, and
1208: hence the backward peaking.
1209:
1210: The total charged current cross section for $\nu_e$ interactions
1211: on $^{12}C$ is obtained by adding the cross sections measured
1212: for $^{12}C(\nu_e,e^-)^{12}N_{g.s.}$ and $^{12}C(\nu_e,e^-)^{12}N^*$.
1213: The resulting flux averaged cross section for $^{12}C(\nu_e,e^-)^{12}N$
1214: is $\langle\sigma\rangle=(13.2\pm0.5\pm1.3)\times10^{-42}$ cm$^2$.
1215:
1216: \section{Conclusions}
1217:
1218: The process $^{12}C(\nu_e,e^-)^{12}N_{g.s.}$ has been measured with
1219: a clean sample of 733 events.
1220: For this process the cross section calculations
1221: using empirical form factors are expected to be very reliable.
1222: The flux averaged cross section is measured to
1223: be $(8.9\pm0.3\pm0.9)\times10^{-42}$ cm$^2$ in reasonable agreement
1224: with other experiments and theoretical expectations.
1225: The energy and angular distributions also agree well
1226: with theoretical expectations.
1227:
1228: The measurement of the process $^{12}C(\nu_e,e^-)^{12}N^*$ is
1229: more difficult,
1230: primarily due to the significant background subtraction required.
1231: The measured cross section of $(4.3\pm0.4\pm0.6)\times10^{-42}$ cm$^2$ is
1232: in agreement with other measurements.
1233: It is in better agreement with the shell model calculation of Hayes and
1234: Towner \cite{Hayes00} than with the CRPA calculation
1235: of Kolbe {\it et. al.}\cite{Kolbe99}, but is compatible with both models.
1236:
1237: ~~~~~
1238:
1239: {\it Acknowledgments}
1240: This work was conducted under the auspices of the US Department
1241: of Energy, supported in part by funds provided by the University
1242: of California for the conduct of discretionary research
1243: by Los Alamos National Laboratory.
1244: This work was also supported by the National Science Foundation.
1245: We are particularly grateful for the extra effort that was made
1246: by these organizations to provide funds for running the accelerator
1247: at the end of the data taking period in 1995.
1248: It is pleasing that a number of undergraduate students from participating
1249: institutions were able to contribute significantly to the experiment.
1250:
1251:
1252: \clearpage
1253:
1254: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
1255:
1256: \bibitem{E225} D.A. Krakauer {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 45}, 2450 (1992).
1257:
1258: \bibitem{KARMEN} J. Kleinfeller {\it et al.}, in {\it Neutrino '96}, edited
1259: by K. Enquist, H. Huitu, and J. Maalampi (World Scientific, Singapore, 1997);
1260: B.E. Bodmann {\it et al.}, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 332}, 251 (1994);
1261: B. Zeitnitz, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. {\bf 32}, 351 (1994).
1262:
1263: \bibitem{LSND97a} C. Athanassopoulos {\it et al.}, LSND Collaboration, Phys.
1264: Rev. C {\bf 55}, 2078 (1997).
1265:
1266: \bibitem{Fukugita88} M. Fukugita {\it et al.}, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 212}, 139 (1988).
1267:
1268: \bibitem{Donnelly} T.W. Donnelly and R.D. Peccei, Phys Rep. {\bf 50}, 1 (1979); T.W. Donnelly, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 43}, 93 (1973).
1269:
1270: \bibitem{Kolbe94} E. Kolbe, K. Langanke, and S. Krewald, Phys. Rev. C{\bf 49}, 1122 (1994).
1271:
1272: \bibitem{Kolbe99} E. Kolbe, K. Langanke, and P. Vogel, Nucl. Phys. A{\bf 652},
1273: 91 (1999).
1274:
1275: \bibitem{Volpe00} C. Volpe {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 62}, 015501 (2000).
1276:
1277: \bibitem{Hayes00} A.C. Hayes and I.S. Towner, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 61}, 044603 (2000).
1278:
1279: \bibitem{Auerbach97} N. Auerbach, N.Van Giai, and O.K. Vorov, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 56}, R2368 (1997).
1280:
1281: \bibitem{Singh98} S.K. Singh, N.C. Mukhopadhyay, and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 57}, 2687 (1998).
1282:
1283: \bibitem{Suzuki87} T. Suzuki, D.F. Measday and J.P. Roalsvig, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 35}, 2212 (1987).
1284:
1285: \bibitem{LSND97b} C. Athanassopoulos {\it et al.}, LSND Collaboration, Phys.
1286: Rev. C {\bf 56}, 2806 (1997).
1287:
1288: \bibitem{LSND_NIM} C. Athanassopoulos {\it et al.}, LSND Collaboration,
1289: Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A {\bf 388}, 149 (1997).
1290:
1291: \bibitem{Willis80} S. Willis {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 44}, 522
1292: (1980).
1293:
1294: \bibitem{Krak92} D.A. Krakauer {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 45}, 2450
1295: (1992).
1296:
1297: \bibitem{Free93} S.J. Freedman {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 47}, 811 (1993).
1298:
1299: \bibitem{All89} R.C. Allen {\it et al.}, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A
1300: {\bf 284}, 347 (1989).
1301:
1302: \bibitem{Bur90} R.L. Burman, M.E. Potter, and E.S. Smith, Nucl. Instrum.
1303: Methods Phys. Res. A {\bf 291}, 621 (1990).
1304:
1305: \bibitem{Ree93} R.A. Reeder {\it et al.}, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A
1306: {\bf 334}, 353 (1993).
1307:
1308: \bibitem{Nap89} J. Napolitano {\it et al.}, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res.
1309: A {\bf 274}, 152 (1989).
1310:
1311: \bibitem{McI95} K. McIlhany {\it et al., Proceedings of the Conference on Computing in High Energy Physics}, 1994 (LBL Report 35822, 357, 1995).
1312:
1313: \bibitem{At96} C. Athanassopoulos {\it et al.}, LSND Collaboration, Phys.
1314: Rev. C {\bf 54}, 2685 (1996); C. Athanassopoulos {\it et al.}, LSND
1315: Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 77}, 3082 (1996).
1316:
1317: \bibitem{At98} C. Athanassopoulos {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 58}, 2489 (1998), C. Athanassopoulos {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 81}, 1774 (1998).
1318:
1319: \bibitem{Wad98} N. Wadia, Ph.D. thesis, Louisiana State University, 1998.
1320:
1321: \bibitem{Kaina77} W. Kaina, V. Soergel, H. Thies and W. Trost, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 70}, 411 (1977).
1322:
1323: \bibitem{FAS90} F. Ajzenberg-Selove, Nucl. Phys. A {\bf 506}, 1 (1990).
1324:
1325: \bibitem{Mintz} S.L. Mintz and M. Pourkaviani, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 40}, 2458 (1989).
1326:
1327: \bibitem{Kolbe96} E. Kolbe, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 54}, 1741 (1996) and E. Kolbe, private communication.
1328:
1329: \bibitem{LSND_nuee} L.B. Auerbach {\it et al.}, LSND Collaboration, Phys. Rev. D. 63, 112001 (2001).
1330:
1331: \bibitem{Fukugita90} M. Fukugita {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. C {\bf 41}, 1359 (1990).
1332:
1333: \bibitem{KARMEN_xsec} R. Maschuw, Prog. Part. Nucl.Phys. {\bf 40}, 183 (1998).
1334:
1335: \bibitem{Bodmann91} B. Bodmann {\it et al.}, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 267}, 321 (1991).
1336:
1337: \bibitem{Armbruster98} B. Armbruster {\it et al.}, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 423}, 15 (1998).
1338:
1339: \bibitem{LSND_osc} A. Aguilar {\it et al.}, LSND Collaboration, submitted to Phys. Rev. D. (Also submitted in hep-ex/0104040)
1340:
1341: \bibitem{E225_note} The quoted value of $3.6\times10^{-42}$ cm$^2$, resulting from the subtraction of the ground state cross section from the inclusive cross section, is the preferred number of two values given in ref \cite{E225}.
1342:
1343: \end{thebibliography}
1344:
1345: \clearpage
1346:
1347: \end{document}
1348:
1349: