1: \documentclass[
2: aps,
3: prd,
4: twocolumn,
5: showpacs,
6: %showkeys,
7: %preprintnumbers,
8: amsmath,
9: amssymb,
10: superscriptaddress
11: ]{revtex4}
12:
13: \usepackage{graphicx} % Include figure files
14: \usepackage{dcolumn} % Align table columns on decimal point
15: \usepackage{url} % URL
16: %\usepackage{longtable} % Long tables
17: %\usepackage{bm} % bold math
18:
19: %\nofiles
20:
21: %%%%%%%%% MACROS %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
22: \def\u#1{${\mathbf{#1}}$}
23: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
24:
25: \begin{document}
26:
27: %\preprint{...}
28:
29: \title{How to Sum Contributions into the Total \\
30: Charged-Current Neutrino--Nucleon Cross Section}
31: \affiliation{Bogoliubov Laboratory of Theoretical Physics,
32: Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, RU-141980 Dubna, Russia}
33: \affiliation{Dzhelepov Laboratory of Nuclear Problems,
34: Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, RU-141980 Dubna, Russia}
35: \affiliation{Institute for Theoretical and Experimental Physics,
36: RU-117259 Moscow, Russia}
37: \affiliation{Physics Department of Irkutsk State University,
38: RU-664003 Irkutsk, Russia}
39: \affiliation{INFN, Sezione di Firenze, I-50019 Sesto Fiorentino (FI), Italy}
40: \author{Konstantin S. Kuzmin}%\altaffiliation[Also at ]{}
41: \email{kkuzmin@theor.jinr.ru}
42: \affiliation{Bogoliubov Laboratory of Theoretical Physics,
43: Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, RU-141980 Dubna, Russia}
44: \affiliation{Institute for Theoretical and Experimental Physics,
45: RU-117259 Moscow, Russia}
46: \author{Vladimir V. Lyubushkin}%\altaffiliation[Also at ]{}
47: \email{lvv@nusun.jinr.ru}
48: \affiliation{Dzhelepov Laboratory of Nuclear Problems,
49: Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, RU-141980 Dubna, Russia}
50: \affiliation{Physics Department of Irkutsk State University,
51: RU-664003 Irkutsk, Russia}
52: \author{Vadim A. Naumov}%\altaffiliation[Also at ]{}
53: \email{vnaumov@theor.jinr.ru}
54: %\homepage{http://http://hep.fi.infn.it/PAMELA/naumov/}
55: \homepage{http://theor.jinr.ru/~vnaumov/}
56: \affiliation{Bogoliubov Laboratory of Theoretical Physics,
57: Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, RU-141980 Dubna, Russia}
58: \affiliation{INFN, Sezione di Firenze, I-50019 Sesto Fiorentino (FI), Italy}
59:
60: \date{\today} % It is always \today, today,
61: % but any date may be explicitly specified
62:
63: \begin{abstract}
64: The total CC (anti)neutrino-nucleon cross section is usually estimated by
65: the sum of contributions from quasi-elastic scattering (QES), single-pion
66: production through baryon resonances (RES), and deep inelastic scattering (DIS)
67: with an appropriate scratching the phase space of the RES and DIS contributions.
68: However the resulting total cross section is very sensitive to the value of
69: the cut-off in invariant mass of the final hadron system produced in RES and DIS.
70: We examine available experimental data on the QES and total CC cross sections
71: in order to extract the best-fit value for this cut-off. By using the same data
72: set we attempt to adjust the poorly known values of the axial mass for QES and RES.
73: \end{abstract}
74:
75: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
76: % %
77: % PACS 2006, Physics and Astronomy Classification Scheme. %
78: % URL: <http://www.aip.org/pacs/pacs06/pacs06-toc.html> %
79: % %
80: \pacs{12.15.Ji, 13.15.+g, 14.20.Gk, 23.40.Bw, 25.30.Pt}
81: % %
82: % # CODE: 13.15.+g Neutrino interactions %
83: % # CODE: 14.60.Lm Ordinary neutrinos (nue, numu, nutau) %
84: % # CODE: 23.40.Bw Weak-interaction and lepton (including neutrino) %
85: % aspects (see also 14.60.Pq Neutrino mass and mixing) %
86: % # CODE: 25.30.Pt Neutrino scattering %
87: % # CODE: 13.40.Gp Electromagnetic form factors %
88: % # CODE: 12.15.Ji Applications of electroweak models to specific processes %
89: % # CODE: 14.20.Gk Baryon resonances with S=0 %
90: % %
91: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
92:
93: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
94: % %
95: % Use showkeys class option if keyword display desired %
96: % %
97: \keywords{Neutrino--nucleon interactions;
98: Charged currents;
99: Axial-vector form factors;
100: Baryon resonances;
101: Likelihood analysis
102: }
103: % %
104: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
105:
106: \maketitle
107:
108: \section{Introduction}
109: \label{Introduction}
110:
111: It is conventional to estimate the inclusive charged and neutral current
112: neutrino--nucleon cross sections by the sum of contributions from
113: exclusive channels and deep inelastic scattering (DIS):
114: \begin{equation}\label{SymbolicSum}
115: \sigma_{{\nu}N}^{\text{tot}}=
116: \sigma_{{\nu}N}^{\text{(Q)ES}} \oplus
117: \sigma_{{\nu}N}^{1\pi} \oplus
118: \sigma_{{\nu}N}^{2\pi} \oplus\ldots\oplus
119: \sigma_{{\nu}N}^{1K} \oplus\ldots\oplus
120: \sigma_{{\nu}N}^{\text{DIS}}.
121: \end{equation}
122: In the absence of a received model for multi-hadron exclusive neutrinoproduction,
123: the exclusive contributions in Eq.~\eqref{SymbolicSum} are usually assumed to be
124: saturated by elastic (NC case) or quasielastic (CC case) scattering (ES/QES) and
125: single-pion production through baryon resonances (RES).
126: The exclusive and inclusive (DIS) contributions are of the same order of magnitude
127: within the few-GeV energy region. Thus, to avoid double counting, the phase space
128: of the RES and DIS contributions have to be scratched by the conditions
129: $W<W_{\text{cut}}^{\text{RES}}$ and $W>W_{\text{cut}}^{\text{DIS}}$, respectively,
130: where $W$ is the invariant mass of the final hadron system in RES or DIS, and
131: $W_{\text{cut}}^{\text{RES}}$ and $W_{\text{cut}}^{\text{DIS}}$ are some parameters.
132:
133: The physical basis of this approximation is the concept of quark-hadron duality,
134: according to which the resulting total cross section should be essentially
135: independent of the specific values of the cutoff parameters if they are of the
136: order of the threshold value of $W$ for two-pion production,
137: $W_{2\pi}=M_N+2m_\pi\approx 1.2~\text{GeV}$. In practice, this value is too small
138: since the structure functions involved into the calculations of the DIS cross
139: section cannot be extrapolated to the two-pion production threshold due to the
140: obvious reasons.
141:
142: The problem is aggravated by the uncertainties in the knowledge of the simplest
143: exclusive contributions: the description of the RES reactions is vastly model-dependent
144: and, even within a fixed model for RES, both RES and (Q)ES cross sections are very
145: sensitive to the poorly known shape of the weak axial-vector form factors. By adopting
146: the standard dipole parametrization for these form factors, their shapes can be described
147: with the two phenomenological parameters (``axial masses'') $M_A^{\text{QES}}$ and
148: $M_A^{\text{RES}}$ which, strictly speaking, may be different and whose experimental
149: values spread within inadmissibly wide ranges~\cite{Bernard:01}.
150:
151: In this study we attempt to fine-tune both the axial masses $M_A^{\text{QES}}$,
152: $M_A^{\text{RES}}$ and the cutoffs $W_{\text{cut}}^{\text{RES}}$,
153: $W_{\text{cut}}^{\text{DIS}}$ by fitting available experimental
154: data on the QES with $\Delta Y=0$ and total CC cross sections for ${\nu}_\mu$ and
155: $\overline{\nu}_\mu$ scattering off different nuclear targets (converted to the proton,
156: neutron, and isoscalar nucleon) as well as the independently measured ratios of these
157: cross sections.
158: For the moment, our global likelihood analysis does not include the experimental data
159: for the (quasi)elastic reactions with $\Delta Y\ne0$, the reactions of single-meson
160: production and NC induced (exclusive and inclusive) reactions. However, the bulk of the
161: data involved into the analysis is already rather representative and (more important)
162: more self-consistent in comparison with the data for the single- and multi-hadron
163: neutrinoproduction and the NC reactions of any kind. Hence we guess it is sufficient
164: for preliminary practical conclusions.
165:
166: \section{Theoretical models}
167: \label{Theoretical models}
168:
169: \subsection{Quasielastic scattering}
170: \label{Quasielastic scattering}
171:
172: For the ${\nu}n\to\mu^-p$ and $\overline{\nu}p\to\mu^+n$ cross sections we use
173: the standard result (see, e.g., Ref.~\cite{LlewellynSmith:72}) neglecting the
174: second-class current contributions.
175: For the elastic electromagnetic form factors $G_E^{p,n}$ and $G_M^{p,n}$
176: we apply the QCD Vector Meson model by Gari and Kr\"uempelmann~\cite{Gari:92}
177: extended and fine-tuned by Lomon~\cite{Lomon:02} to match the current and consistent
178: earlier experimental data derived using Rosenbluth separation and polarization transfer
179: techniques. More explicitly, we explore the so-called ``GKex(02S)'' version of the
180: model advocated by Lomon.
181: At 4-momentum transfer $Q^2$ below $10-15~\text{GeV}^2$, the GKex(02S) model is
182: very close numerically to the PTD (polarization transfer data based) version of
183: the popular ``BBA-2003'' inverse-polynomial parametrization by Budd
184: \emph{et~al.}~\cite{BBA-2003} obtained through a global fit to the world data on
185: the Sachs form factors, including the results of several more recent measurements.
186: Although the up-to-date experiments (see, e.g., numerous reports in
187: Ref.~\cite{Structure_of_Baryons:05}) do not contradict to both models, we prefer
188: the GKex(02S) model since it meets the requirements of dispersion relations and QCD
189: asymptotics at low and high $Q^2$, while the BBA-2003 PTD fit has an unphysical behaviour
190: when extrapolated to high $Q^2$ (a typical drawback of polynomial approximations).
191:
192: For the axial and pseudoscalar form factors we use the conventional
193: representations~\cite{LlewellynSmith:72}
194: \[
195: F_A\left(Q^2\right)=F_A(0)\left(1+\frac{Q^2}{M^2_A}\right)^{-2}
196: \]
197: and
198: \[
199: F_P\left(Q^2\right)=\frac{2M_N^2}{m^2_\pi+Q^2}F_A\left(Q^2\right),
200: \]
201: with $F_A(0)=g_A=-1.2695$~\cite{Eidelman:04}.
202: The currently available experimental data on the axial mass, $M_A=M_A^{\text{QES}}$,
203: show very wide spread, from roughly $0.6$ to $1.2~\text{GeV}/c^2$~\cite{Bernard:01}.
204: Today, it is the main source of uncertainties in the QES cross sections.
205: Since the pseudoscalar contribution enters into the cross sections multiplied
206: by $(m_{e,\mu,\tau}/M_N)^2$, it is substantial for neutrinoproduction of $\tau$ leptons
207: but small for electron and muon production; hence the related uncertainty is not
208: important for the present study.
209:
210: Since the major part of the experimental data on QES obtained for heavy nuclear targets
211: was not corrected for nuclear effects, one have to take these into account in calculations.
212: We apply the simple Pauli factor since its effect for the total cross sections is not
213: essentially different from that evaluated with the more sophisticated approaches.
214:
215: \subsection{Resonance single-pion production}
216: \label{Resonance single-pion production}
217:
218: In order to describe the single-pion neutrinoproduction through baryon resonances we
219: use an extended version of the model by Rein and Sehgal (RS)~\cite{Rein:81,Rein:87}.
220: The RS model, being one of the most circumstantial and approved phenomenological
221: approaches to calculating the RES cross sections, is now incorporated into essentially
222: all Monte Carlo neutrino event generators developed for both accelerator and
223: astroparticle experiments.
224: Our extension~\cite{Kuzmin:04,Kuzmin:05} takes into account the final lepton
225: mass~\cite{Footnote_Lepton_Spin} and is based upon a covariant form of the charged
226: leptonic current with definite lepton helicity.
227: In the present calculations, we use the same set of 18th interfering nucleon
228: resonances with masses below $2~\text{GeV}/c^2$ as in Ref.~\cite{Rein:81} but
229: with all relevant input parameters updated according to the current
230: data~\cite{Eidelman:04}.
231: Significant factors (normalization coefficients etc.) estimated in Ref.~\cite{Rein:81}
232: numerically are recalculated by using the new data and a more accurate integration
233: algorithm.
234:
235: The relativistic quark model of Feynman, Kislinger, and Ravndal~\cite{Feynman:71}
236: adopted in the RS approach unambiguously determines the structure of the transition
237: amplitudes involved into the calculation and the only unknown structures are the
238: vector and axial-vector transition form factors $G^{V,A}\left(Q^2\right)$.
239: In Ref.~\cite{Rein:81} they are assumed to have the form
240: \begin{equation}\label{G_VA}
241: G^{V,A}\left(Q^2\right)\propto\left(1+\frac{Q^2}{4M_N^2}\right)^{1/2-n}
242: \left(1+\frac{Q^2}{M_{V,A}^2}\right)^{-2}
243: \end{equation}
244: with the ``standard'' value of the vector mass $M_V=0.84~\text{GeV}/c^2$
245: (that is the same as in the naive dipole parametrization of the elastic vector
246: form factor)~\cite{Footnote_M_V}.
247: The axial mass $M_A=M_A^{\text{RES}}$ (which was fixed to be $0.95~\text{GeV}/c^2$
248: in the basic model) will be a free parameter in the present study.
249: The integer $n$ in the first (``ad hoc'') factor of Eq.~\eqref{G_VA}
250: is the number of oscillator quanta present in the final resonance.
251:
252: To compensate for the difference between the $SU_6$ predicted value ($-5/3$)
253: and the experimental value for the nucleon axial-vector coupling $g_A$,
254: Rein and Sehgal introduced a renormalization factor $Z=0.75$.
255: In order to adjust the renormalization to the current world averaged value
256: $g_A=-1.2695\pm0.0029$~\cite{Eidelman:04} (assuming $g_V=1$) we have adopted
257: $Z=0.762$.
258:
259: Another essential ingredient of the RS approach is the nonresonance background
260: (NRB) for which we use the ansatz suggested in Ref.~\cite{Rein:81}. The NRB
261: contribution is important for description of the existing data on the reactions
262: $ {\nu}_{\mu}n\to\mu^-n\pi^+$,
263: $ {\nu}_{\mu}n\to\mu^-p\pi^0$,
264: $\overline{\nu}_{\mu}p\to\mu^+p\pi^-$, and
265: $\overline{\nu}_{\mu}p\to\mu^+n\pi^0$.
266: Therefore it must be taken into account also in the RES contribution to the
267: total cross section if $W_{\text{cut}}^{\text{RES}} \le W_{\text{cut}}^{\text{DIS}}$.
268: It is not so obvious for the opposite (and by no means unphysical) case,
269: $W_{\text{cut}}^{\text{RES}}>W_{\text{cut}}^{\text{DIS}}$, since the DIS contribution
270: partially accounts for the NRB. So, it would be natural in this case to consider the
271: NRB as an additional ``free parameter'' of the likelihood analysis.
272: However, in this paper we pass over this complication and include the NRB
273: contribution into all variants of the fit.
274:
275: Figure~\ref{Fig:SlopeRES} shows the RES contributions into the total CC
276: cross sections (divided by neutrino energy) evaluated by using the extended
277: RS model. In this example, we use $M_A^{\text{RES}}=1.08~\text{GeV}/c^2$,
278: the best fit value obtained from the recent analysis of the BNL 7-foot bubble
279: chamber deuterium experiment~\cite{Furuno:03} (hereafter referred to as ``BNL-2002'')
280: based on the total event sample of 1.8~M pictures (held two periods of runs in
281: 1976-77 and 1979-80). The curves in panels (b) and (c) are for
282: the sums of the cross sections for the processes indicated in the legends.
283: The solid and dashed curves in these panels correspond to the calculation with
284: and without the NRB contributions, respectively. The calculations are done for
285: the six values of the cutoff parameter
286: $W_{\text{cut}}^{\text{RES}}=1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.6, 1.8, 2.0$~GeV;
287: clearly the cross sections decrease with decreasing the cutoff.
288: \begin{figure}[htb]
289: \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Fig1.eps}
290: \caption{The total CC single-pion production cross sections divided by
291: neutrino energy evaluated with the extended RS model using
292: $M_A^{\text{RES}}=1.08~\text{GeV}/c^2$ for the six values of
293: the cutoff parameter
294: $W_{\text{cut}}^{\text{RES}}=1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.6, 1.8, 2.0$~GeV
295: (from bottom to top curves in each panel). The solid and dashed
296: curves correspond to the cross sections calculated with and without
297: the NRB contributions, respectively.
298: \label{Fig:SlopeRES}}
299: \end{figure}
300:
301: The next and more substantial drawback of the present study is in neglecting the
302: nuclear corrections for the RES (as well as for the DIS) contribution.
303: A justification is in the fact that these effects were subtracted in a certain part
304: of the total cross section data while the necessary information is unavailable for
305: another part of the data. We intend to remove this drawback in future study.
306:
307: \subsection{Deep inelastic scattering}
308: \label{Deep inelastic scattering}
309:
310: The DIS CC ${\nu}_{\mu}N$ and $\overline{\nu}_{\mu}N$ differential cross sections
311: are represented by the standard set of five structure functions $F_i=F_i(x,Q^2)$
312: (see, e.g., Refs.~\cite{Kretzer:02,Kretzer:04a}):
313: \begin{equation}\label{KR_sigma}
314: \frac{d^2\sigma^{\text{DIS}}_{\nu(\bar{\nu})}}{dxdy}
315: =\frac{G_F^2M_NE_\nu}{\pi(1+Q^2/M_W^2)^2}
316: \sum_{i=1}^5A_i\left(x,y,E_\nu\right)F_i\left(x,Q^2\right),
317: \end{equation}
318: where $x$ and $y$ are the usual DIS kinematic variables.
319: The coefficient functions $A_i$ are
320: \begin{equation}\label{A_i}
321: \begin{aligned}
322: A_1&=y\left(xy+\frac{m_{\mu}^2}{2M_NE_{\nu}}\right), \\
323: A_2&=1-\left(1+\frac{M_Nx}{2E_{\nu}}\right)y-\frac{m_{\mu}^2}{4E_{\nu}^2}, \\
324: A_3&=\pm y\left[x\left(1-\frac{y}{2}\right)-\frac{m_{\mu}^2}{4M_NE_{\nu}}\right], \\
325: A_4&=\frac{m_{\mu}^2}{2M_NE_{\nu}}\left(y+\frac{m_{\mu}^2}{2M_NE_{\nu}x}\right), \\
326: A_5&=-\frac{m_{\mu}^2}{M_NE_{\nu}}.
327: \end{aligned}
328: \end{equation}
329: The functions $F_1$ and $F_2$ are related through the measurable structure function
330: $R=F_L/(2xF_1)=\sigma_L/\sigma_T$, the ratio of longitudinal and transverse cross
331: sections in DIS:
332: \begin{equation}\label{ExactCallan-GrossRelation}
333: \mathfrak{D}F_2=2xF_1,
334: \quad
335: \mathfrak{D}=\frac{1}{1+R}\left(1+\frac{Q^2}{{\nu}^2}\right),
336: \end{equation}
337: where $\nu=yE_\nu$. In order to satisfy Eq.~\eqref{ExactCallan-GrossRelation} and,
338: simultaneously, the collinear parton model (PM) limit that is the Callan-Gross relation
339: ($F_2^{\text{PM}}\to2xF_1^{\text{PM}}$ as $Q^2\to\infty$ or $\mathfrak{D}\to1$),
340: the exact structure functions $F_{1,2}$ must be related to those in the PM limit,
341: $F_{1,2}^{\text{PM}}$, as
342: \begin{equation}
343: F_1=\left(1-a+a\mathfrak{D}\right)F_1^{\text{PM}},
344: \quad
345: F_2=\left[a+(1-a)/\mathfrak{D}\right]F_2^{\text{PM}}.
346: \end{equation}
347: Till the function $a=a(x,Q^2)$ is not specified, these relations are the most
348: general.
349: There are two simplest limiting possibilities for $a$:
350: $a=0$ ($F_1=F_1^{\text{PM}}$, $F_2=F_2^{\text{PM}}/\mathfrak{D}$) and
351: $a=1$ ($F_1=\mathfrak{D}F_1^{\text{PM}}$, $F_2=F_2^{\text{PM}}$).
352: Our analysis of the experimental data described in the next section and testing
353: many models for the parton density functions (PDF) suggests that the ``$a=1$ model''
354: works quite satisfactory. Hereafter we will discuss just this particular case.
355:
356: For the structure function $R$ we use a combination of two up-to-date
357: parametrizations: inside the nucleon resonance region $1.15<W^2<3.9~\text{GeV}^2$
358: and $0.3<Q^2<5.0~\text{GeV}^2$ we apply the recent precision result of the Jefferson
359: Lab Hall C E94-110 Collaboration~\cite{Liang:04,Liang:05}; outside this region we
360: apply the $R_a$ version of the accurate 6-parameter fit to the world data on $R$
361: proposed by the SLAC E-143 Collaboration~\cite{Abe:98}.
362: The two parametrizations are sewn by a 2D B-spline in the boundary of the kinematic
363: regions.
364:
365: In Fig.~\ref{Fig:RW2_Liang+R_a_spline} we show a comparison of the described model
366: with the data from JLab~\cite{Liang:04} and the results of the $\sigma_L$ and
367: $\sigma_T$ separation performed by Dress \emph{et~al.}~\cite{Dress:81} and based
368: on the data of many older measurements of the $ep$ cross sections in the resonance
369: region.
370: The filled bands in the figure are obtained by varying $Q^2$ within the ranges
371: $0.18-1~\text{GeV}^2$ (a), $1-2~\text{GeV}^2$ (b),
372: $2-3~\text{GeV}^2$ (c), and $3-5~\text{GeV}^2$ (d).
373: \begin{figure}[htb]
374: \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Fig2.eps}
375: \caption{The structure function $R=\sigma_L/\sigma_T$ vs.\ $W^2$ obtained by
376: the Rosenbluth analysis of the inclusive $ep$ cross sections measured
377: at the JLab Hall C experiment~\cite{Liang:04} for the $Q^2$ ranges
378: indicated in the panels.
379: Also shown are the results of several earlier experiments on
380: $ep$ scattering in the resonance region converted to $R$ in
381: Ref.~\cite{Dress:81} for $Q^2=0.8$ (a), $1.1$ and $1.4~\text{GeV}^2$ (b).
382: The bands are evaluated by using the model for $R$ described in the text
383: and by varying $Q^2$ within the corresponding ranges; the curves are
384: for the $R$ averaged over these ranges.
385: \label{Fig:RW2_Liang+R_a_spline}}
386: \end{figure}
387:
388: Since the JLab fit has been obtained from the data on $ep$ scattering,
389: we corrected it to the ${\nu}N$ scattering and tested by using the QCD based
390: Altarelli-Martinelli equation~\cite{Altarelli:78}. In fact, the difference between
391: $R^{(e,\mu)}$ and $R^{(\nu,\overline{\nu})}$ is practically negligible
392: within the relevant kinematic region below the charm production threshold and
393: small above the threshold.
394:
395: From Eqs.~\eqref{A_i} and the exact ${\nu}N$ kinematics it follows that
396: \[
397: A_4<\frac{m_{\mu}^2}{2M_NE_\nu}\left(1-\frac{m_{\mu}}{E_\nu}\right)
398: <\frac{m_{\mu}}{2M_N}
399: \quad\text{and}\quad
400: |A_5|<\frac{m_{\mu}}{M_N}.
401: \]
402: Due to this suppression and in view of the scale of the functions $F_4$ and $F_5$
403: followed from the NLO pQCD plus target mass calculations~\cite{Kretzer:02}, the
404: $A_4F_4$ and $A_5F_5$ terms in Eq.~\eqref{KR_sigma} can only be significant
405: near the reaction threshold~\cite{Footnote_Tau}.
406: Hence the structure functions $F_{4,5}$ can be estimated roughly, by using the
407: approximate relations valid in the PM limit with massless quarks:
408: \[
409: F_4\approx\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{F_2}{2x}-F_1\right)=
410: \frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{1}{\mathfrak{D}}-1\right)F_1
411: \]
412: and
413: \[
414: F_5\approx\frac{F_2}{2x}=\frac{F_1}{\mathfrak{D}}.
415: \]
416:
417: \begin{figure}[htb]
418: \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Fig3.eps}
419: \caption{The total DIS $\nu_{\mu}p$, $\nu_{\mu}n$, $\overline{\nu}_{\mu}p$,
420: and $\overline{\nu}_{\mu}n$ CC cross sections divided by neutrino energy
421: evaluated with the CTEQ~6D NLO PDFs for the five values of the
422: cutoff parameter $W_{\text{cut}}^{\text{DIS}}=1.2$ to 2.0~GeV
423: from top to bottom with steps of 0.2~GeV. The widths of the bands
424: correspond to variation of the freezing parameter $Q_f^2$ from $0.6$
425: to $1.0~\text{GeV}^2$.
426: \label{Fig:SlopeDIS-6.02}}
427: \end{figure}
428:
429: The PDF contributions into all structure functions are divided, in the standard
430: fashion, onto ``non charm production'' (ncp) and ``charm production'' (cp) parts:
431: \[
432: q^{\text{ncp}}=q^{\text{ncp}}(x_N,Q^2)
433: \quad\text{and}\quad
434: q^{\text{cp}}=q^{\text{cp}}(\xi,Q^2),
435: \]
436: where
437: $x_N=2x/\left(1+\sqrt{1+Q^2/\nu^2}\right)$ is the Nachtmann variable,
438: $\xi=x_N\left(1+{m_c^2}/{Q^2}\right)$ is the collinear limit of the light-cone
439: variable with massless $u$, $d$, and $s$ quarks, and $m_c=1.3~\text{GeV}/c^2$
440: is the mass of $c$ quark. The $b$ and $t$ quark contributions are neglected.
441:
442:
443: We have tested several popular PDF models but in this paper we only discuss the
444: results obtained with the latest version of CTEQ~6D NLO PDF set with four
445: flavors (standard DIS scheme, version~6.12, December 14, 2004)~\cite{CTEQ6}.
446:
447: Figure~\ref{Fig:SlopeDIS-6.02} shows the total DIS $\nu_{\mu}p$, $\nu_{\mu}n$,
448: $\overline{\nu}_{\mu}p$, and $\overline{\nu}_{\mu}n$ CC cross sections divided
449: by neutrino energy evaluated with the CTEQ~6D NLO PDFs for the five values of the
450: cutoff parameter $W_{\text{cut}}^{\text{DIS}}=1.2, 1.4, 1.6, 1.8$, and 2.0~GeV;
451: Clearly, the cross sections increase with decreasing of the cutoff.
452: Since the CTEQ~6D PDFs cannot be extrapolated to the exact kinematic boundaries,
453: we have to freeze $Q^2$ below some value $Q_f^2$. In Fig.~\ref{Fig:SlopeDIS-6.02},
454: this value varies within the range $0.6$ to $1.0~\text{GeV}^2$ and the widths
455: of the bands reflect the corresponding variations of the DIS cross sections.
456: The $Q_f$ dependence is in general nonmonotonic and diminishes with increasing
457: the cutoff value.
458: In the present likelihood analysis, the $Q^2$ variable is freezing below
459: $Q_f^2=0.8~\text{GeV}^2$.
460: The error introduced by this approximation is estimated to be less than 1-2\%
461: that is small in comparison with the uncertainties of the experimental data and
462: indetermination in other phenomenological parameters.
463:
464: \section{Data set}
465: \label{Data set}
466:
467: We have examined and classified all available experimental data on the QES and total
468: CC ${\nu}N$ and $\overline{\nu}N$ cross sections as well as independently measured
469: relative quantities like the ratios
470: $\sigma_{{\nu}n}/\sigma_{{\nu}p}$,
471: $\sigma_{\overline{\nu}n}/\sigma_{\overline{\nu}p}$,
472: $\sigma_{\overline{\nu}p}/\sigma_{\nu p}$, and so on.
473: Published results from the relevant experiments at
474: ANL~\cite{Kustom:69,Mann:73,Barish:77,Barish:79},
475: BNL~\cite{Fanourakis:80,Baltay:80,Baker:81,Jacques:81,Baker:82},
476: FNAL~\cite{Barish:68,Benvenuti:73,Benvenuti:74,Imlay:74,Barish:75PRL,Benvenuti:76,%
477: Sciulli:78,Barish:77PRL,Barish:78,Efremenko:79,Hanlon:80,Barish:81,%
478: Kitagaki:82,Kitagaki:83,Baker:83PRL,Taylor:83,Asratyan:84a,Asratyan:84b,%
479: MacFarlane:84,Auchincloss:90,Seligman:97,Suwonjandee:04,Tzanov:05}
480: LANL~\cite{Auerbach:02},
481: CERN~\cite{Young:67,Budagov:69LNC,Budagov:69PLB,Myatt:71,Eichten:73PLBa,%
482: Eichten:73PLBb,Bonetti:77,Holder:77,Blietschau:78,Lerche:78,Musset:78,%
483: Armenise:79,Pohl:79,Colley:79,Erriquez:79,Ciampolillo:79,Armenise:81,%
484: Jonker:81,Morfin:81,Bosetti:82,Abramowicz:83,Abramowicz:84,Parker:84,%
485: Allasia:84,Shotton:85,Aderholz:86,Allaby:86,Berge:87,Allaby:88,%
486: Allasia:90,Kayis-Topaksu:02},
487: and
488: IHEP~\cite{Asratyan:78,Baranov:79,Vovenko:79,Makeev:81,Belikov:82,Belikov:85,%
489: Grabosch:88,Brunner:89ZPCa,Brunner:89ZPCb,Ammosov:92,Anikeev:96}
490: are included dating from the end of sixties to the present day, covering $\nu_{\mu}$,
491: $\overline{\nu}_{\mu}$, $\nu_e$, and $\overline{\nu}_e$ beams on a variety of hydrogen
492: and nuclear targets, with energies from the thresholds to about 350~GeV. A detailed
493: description of our database will be published elsewhere.
494: Here we briefly depict the most important points.
495:
496: Not all the collected data are involved into the analysis.
497: We excluded from the fit:
498: \begin{itemize}
499: \item
500: the experimental results which are undoubtedly obsolete, superseded or reconsidered
501: (due to increased statistics, revised normalization, etc.) in the posterior reports
502: of the same Collaborations;
503: \item
504: the datasets which are a transformation of the others derived from the same experimental
505: samples (for instance, we used either the cross section $\sigma$ or the ``slope''
506: $\sigma/E_\nu$ measured in the same experiment);
507: \item
508: the cross sections, slopes, and ratios averaged over a wide energy range when
509: the energy-binned dataset is available.
510: \end{itemize}
511: We quenched a wish to reject the results seeming self-contradictory or being in
512: obvious disagreement with the major dataset. A few exceptions and particular
513: cases will be expounded in the next section.
514:
515: If only the bounds of the energy bin were available, we either averaged
516: the data (and the relevant calculated quantity) over the bin or estimated the
517: mean energy from the (anti)neutrino beam spectrum (when the necessary information
518: was accessible from the original paper or another description of the experiment).
519: The statistical and systematic errors of the data were always summed up quadratically.
520:
521: \section{Likelihood analysis}
522: \label{Likelihood analysis}
523:
524: The four above-mentioned parameters $M_A^{\text{QES}}$, $M_A^{\text{RES}}$,
525: $W_{\text{cut}}^{\text{RES}}$, and $W_{\text{cut}}^{\text{DIS}}$ involved into
526: the merging of the QES, RES, and DIS contributions (Sect.~\ref{Theoretical models})
527: were fitted to the described data by using the CERN function minimization and error
528: analysis package ``MINUIT'' (version 94.1)~\cite{James:94}.
529: In order to test validity of the dataset and the fitting procedure, we have examined
530: many variants of 1-, 2-, 3-, and 4-parameter fits taking care of getting the correct
531: correlation coefficients printed by MINUIT.
532: Illustrative results of this analysis are listed in Tables~%
533: \ref{Tab:FIT-16.02-f-6.02-2-0.80_1}, \ref{Tab:FIT-16.02-f-6.02-2-0.80_2} and
534: \ref{Tab:FIT-16.02-f-6.02-2-0.80_3} together with the obtained values of
535: $\chi^2$ per number of degrees of freedom (NDF). The number of significant
536: digits shown in the last columns of Tables~\ref{Tab:FIT-16.02-f-6.02-2-0.80_2}
537: and \ref{Tab:FIT-16.02-f-6.02-2-0.80_3} is more than needed; we only keep these
538: to clarify the $\chi^2$ minima.
539:
540: The first column in each table is for designation of different exercises of the fit.
541: The numbers in bold-face correspond to the fixed trial values of the parameters
542: used as inputs. The errors of the output parameters correspond to the usual
543: one-standard-deviation ($1\sigma$) errors (MINUIT default)~\cite{Footnote_Big_Errors}.
544: \begin{table}[htb]
545: \caption{One-parameter fits with the corresponding $\chi^2$
546: per $\text{NDF}=669$. Trial parameters are bold-faced.}
547: \bigskip
548: \begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c|c|c}
549: \toprule %---------------------------------------------------------------------------
550: Fit & $M^{\text{QES}}_A$ &$M^{\text{RES}}_A$ &
551: $W^{\text{RES}}_{\text{cut}}$ &$W^{\text{DIS}}_{\text{cut}}$ &
552: $\dfrac{\chi^2}{\text{NDF}}$ \\
553: & (GeV) & (GeV) & (GeV)
554: & (GeV) & \\
555: \colrule %---------------------------------------------------------------------------
556: &\u{0.8} & \u{1.08} &\multicolumn{2}{c|}{$1.47\pm0.02$} & $1.67$ \\
557: &\u{0.9} & \u{1.08} &\multicolumn{2}{c|}{$1.50\pm0.01$} & $1.52$ \\
558: A1&\u{1.0} & \u{1.08} &\multicolumn{2}{c|}{$1.53\pm0.02$} & $1.47$ \\
559: &\u{1.1} & \u{1.08} &\multicolumn{2}{c|}{$1.56\pm0.01$} & $1.56$ \\
560: &\u{1.2} & \u{1.08} &\multicolumn{2}{c|}{$1.58\pm0.02$} & $1.80$ \\
561: \colrule %---------------------------------------------------------------------------
562: &\multicolumn{2}{c|}{\u{0.8}} &\u{2.0} & $1.47\pm0.01$ & $1.68$ \\
563: &\multicolumn{2}{c|}{\u{0.9}} &\u{2.0} & $1.52\pm0.01$ & $1.52$ \\
564: B1&\multicolumn{2}{c|}{\u{1.0}} &\u{2.0} & $1.58\pm0.01$ & $1.47$ \\
565: &\multicolumn{2}{c|}{\u{1.1}} &\u{2.0} & $1.64\pm0.01$ & $1.56$ \\
566: &\multicolumn{2}{c|}{\u{1.2}} &\u{2.0} & $1.71\pm0.01$ & $1.82$ \\
567: \botrule %---------------------------------------------------------------------------
568: \end{tabular}
569: \label{Tab:FIT-16.02-f-6.02-2-0.80_1}
570: \end{table}
571:
572: \begin{table}[htb]
573: \caption{Two-parameter fits with the corresponding $\chi^2$
574: per $\text{NDF}=668$. Trial parameters are bold-faced.}
575: \bigskip
576: \begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c|c|c}
577: \toprule %---------------------------------------------------------------------------
578: Fit & $M^{\text{QES}}_A$ &$M^{\text{RES}}_A$ &
579: $W^{\text{RES}}_{\text{cut}}$ &$W^{\text{DIS}}_{\text{cut}}$ &
580: $\dfrac{\chi^2}{\text{NDF}}$ \\
581: & (GeV) & (GeV) & (GeV)
582: & (GeV) & \\
583: \colrule %---------------------------------------------------------------------------
584: A2&$0.99\pm0.02$& \u{1.08} &\multicolumn{2}{c|}{$1.53\pm0.02$} & $1.469$ \\
585: \colrule %---------------------------------------------------------------------------
586: B2&\multicolumn{2}{c|}{$0.96\pm0.01$}&$1.31\pm0.01$& \u{1.4} & $1.484$ \\
587: \colrule %---------------------------------------------------------------------------
588: &\u{0.8} &$1.11\pm0.08$ &$1.28\pm0.01$& \u{1.4} & $1.631$ \\
589: &\u{0.9} &$1.10\pm0.08$ &$1.28\pm0.01$& \u{1.4} & $1.499$ \\
590: C2&\u{1.0} &$1.09\pm0.07$ &$1.28\pm0.01$& \u{1.4} & $1.493$ \\
591: &\u{1.1} &$1.08\pm0.07$ &$1.28\pm0.01$& \u{1.4} & $1.635$ \\
592: &\u{1.2} &$1.07\pm0.06$ &$1.29\pm0.01$& \u{1.4} & $1.943$ \\
593: \colrule %---------------------------------------------------------------------------
594: &\u{0.8} &$0.91\pm0.04$ &\multicolumn{2}{c|}{$1.41\pm0.02$} & $1.649$ \\
595: &\u{0.9} &$0.97\pm0.04$ &\multicolumn{2}{c|}{$1.46\pm0.02$} & $1.507$ \\
596: D2&\u{1.0} &$1.03\pm0.04$ &\multicolumn{2}{c|}{$1.51\pm0.02$} & $1.468$ \\
597: &\u{1.1} &$1.07\pm0.04$ &\multicolumn{2}{c|}{$1.55\pm0.02$} & $1.558$ \\
598: &\u{1.2} &$1.10\pm0.04$ &\multicolumn{2}{c|}{$1.59\pm0.02$} & $1.801$ \\
599: \colrule %---------------------------------------------------------------------------
600: &\u{0.8} &$1.00\pm0.04$ &\u{2.0} &$1.53\pm0.02$ & $1.651$ \\
601: &\u{0.9} &$1.04\pm0.04$ &\u{2.0} &$1.57\pm0.02$ & $1.505$ \\
602: E2&\u{1.0} &$1.08\pm0.04$ &\u{2.0} &$1.61\pm0.02$ & $1.469$ \\
603: &\u{1.1} &$1.11\pm0.04$ &\u{2.0} &$1.65\pm0.02$ & $1.566$ \\
604: &\u{1.2} &$1.14\pm0.04$ &\u{2.0} &$1.68\pm0.02$ & $1.814$ \\
605: \colrule %---------------------------------------------------------------------------
606: &\u{0.8} & \u{1.08} &$1.28\pm0.01$&$1.38\pm0.01$ & $1.629$ \\
607: &\u{0.9} & \u{1.08} &$1.77\pm0.09$&$1.56\pm0.02$ & $1.500$ \\
608: F2&\u{1.0} & \u{1.08} &$1.70\pm0.14$&$1.57\pm0.03$ & $1.465$ \\
609: &\u{1.1} & \u{1.08} &$1.34\pm0.03$&$1.49\pm0.01$ & $1.551$ \\
610: &\u{1.2} & \u{1.08} &$1.37\pm0.04$&$1.53\pm0.02$ & $1.787$ \\
611: \botrule %---------------------------------------------------------------------------
612: \end{tabular}
613: \label{Tab:FIT-16.02-f-6.02-2-0.80_2}
614: \end{table}
615:
616: \begin{table}[htb]
617: \caption{Three- and four-parameter fits with the corresponding $\chi^2$
618: per NDF ($=667$ and $666$, respectively).
619: Trial parameters are bold-faced.}
620: \bigskip
621: \begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c|c|c}
622: \toprule %---------------------------------------------------------------------------
623: Fit & $M^{\text{QES}}_A$ &$M^{\text{RES}}_A$ &
624: $W^{\text{RES}}_{\text{cut}}$ &$W^{\text{DIS}}_{\text{cut}}$ &
625: $\dfrac{\chi^2}{\text{NDF}}$ \\
626: & (GeV) & (GeV) & (GeV)
627: & (GeV) & \\
628: \colrule %---------------------------------------------------------------------------
629: &$0.93\pm0.01$&$1.06\pm0.07$ &$1.27\pm0.01$& \u{1.35} & $1.542$ \\
630: &$0.95\pm0.01$&$1.09\pm0.08$ &$1.28\pm0.01$& \u{1.40} & $1.481$ \\
631: A3&$0.98\pm0.01$&$1.13\pm0.08$ &$1.30\pm0.02$& \u{1.45} & $1.461$ \\
632: &$0.98\pm0.02$&$1.00\pm0.03$ &$1.55\pm0.04$& \u{1.50} & $1.467$ \\
633: &$0.98\pm0.02$&$1.05\pm0.03$ &$1.69\pm0.07$& \u{1.55} & $1.463$ \\
634: \colrule %---------------------------------------------------------------------------
635: B3&$0.98\pm0.02$&$1.02\pm0.04$ &\multicolumn{2}{c|}{$1.50\pm0.02$} & $1.468$ \\
636: \colrule %---------------------------------------------------------------------------
637: &$0.98\pm0.01$&$1.01\pm0.03$ &\u{1.50} &$1.50\pm0.00$ & $1.468$ \\
638: &$0.98\pm0.02$&$1.02\pm0.04$ &\u{1.55} &$1.51\pm0.02$ & $1.466$ \\
639: &$0.98\pm0.02$&$1.03\pm0.04$ &\u{1.60} &$1.53\pm0.02$ & $1.464$ \\
640: &$0.98\pm0.02$&$1.04\pm0.04$ &\u{1.65} &$1.54\pm0.02$ & $1.463$ \\
641: &$0.98\pm0.02$&$1.05\pm0.04$ &\u{1.70} &$1.55\pm0.02$ & $1.463$ \\
642: C3&$0.98\pm0.02$&$1.06\pm0.04$ &\u{1.75} &$1.56\pm0.02$ & $1.464$ \\
643: &$0.98\pm0.02$&$1.06\pm0.04$ &\u{1.80} &$1.57\pm0.02$ & $1.464$ \\
644: &$0.98\pm0.02$&$1.06\pm0.04$ &\u{1.85} &$1.58\pm0.02$ & $1.465$ \\
645: &$0.98\pm0.02$&$1.07\pm0.04$ &\u{1.90} &$1.59\pm0.02$ & $1.467$ \\
646: &$0.98\pm0.02$&$1.07\pm0.04$ &\u{1.95} &$1.59\pm0.02$ & $1.468$ \\
647: &$0.98\pm0.02$&$1.07\pm0.04$ &\u{2.00} &$1.60\pm0.02$ & $1.469$ \\
648: \colrule %---------------------------------------------------------------------------
649: D3&$0.98\pm0.01$& \u{1.08} &$1.73\pm0.26$&$1.57\pm0.05$ & $1.464$ \\
650: \colrule %---------------------------------------------------------------------------
651: &\u{0.8} &$1.10\pm0.08$ &$1.28\pm0.01$&$1.38\pm0.01$ & $1.631$ \\
652: &\u{0.9} &$1.11\pm0.08$ &$1.29\pm0.02$&$1.42\pm0.01$ & $1.497$ \\
653: E3&\u{1.0} &$1.13\pm0.08$ &$1.30\pm0.02$&$1.46\pm0.01$ & $1.463$ \\
654: &\u{1.1} &$1.17\pm0.06$ &$1.31\pm0.02$&$1.50\pm0.01$ & $1.551$ \\
655: &\u{1.2} &$1.19\pm0.06$ &$1.32\pm0.02$&$1.53\pm0.01$ & $1.783$ \\
656: \colrule %---------------------------------------------------------------------------
657: A4&$0.98\pm0.02$&$1.13\pm0.08$ &$1.30\pm0.02$&$1.45\pm0.01$ & $1.463$ \\
658: \botrule %---------------------------------------------------------------------------
659: \end{tabular}
660: \label{Tab:FIT-16.02-f-6.02-2-0.80_3}
661: \end{table}
662:
663: Visualization of the results is shown in Figs.~%
664: \ref{Fig:SigmaQES-Fit-16.02-f-6.02-2-0.80}--%
665: \ref{Fig:SlopeRatioSUM-npI-fit-16.02-f-6.02-2-0.80}
666: for the B3 variant of the fit which is preferable in our opinion.
667:
668: \input{Fit-Figures.TeX}
669:
670:
671: Figure~\ref{Fig:SigmaQES-Fit-16.02-f-6.02-2-0.80} shows the QES data from
672: Refs.~\cite{Kustom:69,Mann:73,Barish:77,Baker:81,Kitagaki:83,Suwonjandee:04,%
673: Auerbach:02,Young:67,Budagov:69LNC,Bonetti:77,Armenise:79,Pohl:79,Allasia:90,%
674: Makeev:81,Belikov:82,Belikov:85,Grabosch:88,Brunner:89ZPCb,Ammosov:92}
675: together with the B3 best fit to the \emph{full} set of the data satisfying the
676: criteria described in Sect.~\ref{Data set} ($\text{NDF}=670-3=667$).
677: The FNAL~1984 data points from Ref.~\cite{Asratyan:84b} (neon-hydrogen target)
678: are shown here only for a comparison.
679: They are not included into the fit since were obtained by a recalculation from
680: the DIS data (included into the fit, see
681: Fig.~\ref{Fig:SigmaSUM-I-FIT-16.02-f-6.02-2-0.80}) by using a prescription given
682: in Ref.~\cite{Asratyan:84b} and the errors for these points were estimated approximately.
683: In order to facilitate comparison, the data points for the experiments performed
684: with the nuclear targets different from $\text{D}_2$ and $\text{Ne-H}_2$ are converted to
685: a free nucleon target~\cite{Footnote_Nuclear_Effect}.
686: The nuclear effects for the
687: deuterium~\cite{Mann:73,Barish:77,Baker:81,Kitagaki:83,Allasia:90},
688: neon-hydrogen~\cite{Asratyan:84b} and
689: averaged iron data~\cite{Suwonjandee:04}
690: (shown in Fig.~\ref{Fig:SigmaQES-Fit-16.02-f-6.02-2-0.80} by filled rectangles)
691: were subtracted by the authors of the experiments.
692: The curves are calculated with $M_A^{\text{QES}}=0.98~\text{GeV}/c^2$,
693: the value obtained from the global B3 fit. The grey bands show the
694: standard deviation from the best-fit cross sections due to the error
695: of $0.02~\text{GeV}/c^2$ in determination of $M_A^{\text{QES}}$.
696: Note that the best-fit value of $M_A^{\text{QES}}$ is in agreement with
697: that obtained by a single-parameter fit to the QES data only,
698: $M_A^{\text{QES}}=0.94\pm0.04~\text{GeV}/c^2$.
699:
700: The obtained value of $M_A^{\text{QES}}$, being lower, does not contradict
701: to the latest (still preliminary) result by the K2K experiment~\cite{Gran:05}
702: \[
703: M_A^{\text{QES}}(\text{K2K})=
704: 1.06\pm0.03\,(\text{stat.})\pm0.14\,(\text{syst.})~\text{GeV}/c^2.
705: \]
706: It is however essentially below the value of $1.1~\text{GeV}/c^2$ used
707: in the recent atmospheric neutrino oscillation analysis of the
708: Super-Kamiokande~I experiment~\cite{Ashie:05}.
709:
710: In Figs.~\ref{Fig:SigmaSUM-I-FIT-16.02-f-6.02-2-0.80} and
711: \ref{Fig:SlopeSUM-I-FIT-16.02-f-6.02-2-0.80}
712: we collect the main subset of the experimental data on the total CC cross
713: sections and their slopes for an isoscalar nucleon
714: (hereafter denoted by $N$) from
715: Refs.~\cite{Barish:79,Baker:82,Benvenuti:74,Barish:75PRL,Barish:77PRL,%
716: Asratyan:84b,Eichten:73PLBa,Eichten:73PLBa,Erriquez:79,%
717: Ciampolillo:79,Budagov:69PLB,Baranov:79,Blietschau:78}
718: and \cite{Barish:79,Baltay:80,Baker:82,Benvenuti:74,Barish:68,%
719: Barish:75PRL,Barish:77PRL,Barish:81,MacFarlane:84,%
720: Auchincloss:90,Kitagaki:82,Taylor:83,Baker:83PRL,Asratyan:84b,%
721: Tzanov:05,Budagov:69PLB,Colley:79,Allasia:84,Eichten:73PLBa,%
722: Erriquez:79,Ciampolillo:79,Morfin:81,Abramowicz:83,Berge:87,%
723: Jonker:81,Allaby:88,Asratyan:78,Baranov:79,Vovenko:79,Anikeev:96},
724: respectively.
725: The majority of these data is included into the fit.
726: The curves and bands show the QES, RES, and DIS contributions
727: (Fig.~\ref{Fig:SlopeSUM-I-FIT-16.02-f-6.02-2-0.80}) and their sums (both figures)
728: calculated with the best-fitted values of $M_A^{\text{QES}}$, $M_A^{\text{RES}}$,
729: and $W_{\text{cut}}^{\text{RES}}=W_{\text{cut}}^{\text{DIS}}$ (the latter
730: equality is the restriction used in the B3 fit).
731:
732: Figure~\ref{Fig:RatioSUM-I-FIT-16.02-f-6.02-2-0.80} accumulates the data on the
733: cross section ratios $\sigma_{\overline{\nu}_{\mu}N}/\sigma_{\nu_{\mu}N}$
734: and $\sigma_{\overline{\nu}_eN}/\sigma_{\nu_eN}$ (isoscalar target)
735: according to
736: Refs.~\cite{Benvenuti:73,Benvenuti:74,Benvenuti:76,Imlay:74,Barish:77PRL,%
737: Seligman:97,Tzanov:05,Eichten:73PLBa,Eichten:73PLBb,Musset:78,%
738: Blietschau:78,Colley:79,Bosetti:82,Allasia:84,Holder:77,%
739: Berge:87,Jonker:81,Allaby:86,Asratyan:78,Vovenko:79,Anikeev:96}.
740: The paper~\cite{Blietschau:78} supersedes the earlier publications
741: of the Gargamelle Collaboration~\cite{Eichten:73PLBb} (shown by filled rectangle)
742: and \cite{Musset:78}.
743: The major part of these data is obtained from the cross sections measured in
744: the same experiments. The other, like the recent NuTeV result~\cite{Tzanov:05},
745: correspond to a wide energy range with no indication of the mean energy.
746: Due to these and similar reasons all these data are excluded from the analysis
747: and only shown here for a comparison with the result of the global B3 fit.
748: The cross section ratios $\sigma_{{\nu}n}/\sigma_{{\nu}p}$ and
749: $\sigma_{\overline{\nu}n}/\sigma_{\overline{\nu}p}$ from
750: Refs.~\cite{Barish:79,Jacques:81,Baker:82,Sciulli:78,Efremenko:79,Hanlon:80,%
751: Asratyan:84a,Myatt:71,Armenise:81,Allasia:84,Abramowicz:84,Parker:84,%
752: Lerche:78,Erriquez:79,Kayis-Topaksu:02,Brunner:89ZPCa}
753: are shown in Fig.~\ref{Fig:RatioSUM-np-FIT-16.02-f-6.02-2-0.80}.
754: The results of Refs.~\cite{Baker:82,Myatt:71,Sciulli:78,Allasia:84,Abramowicz:84}
755: are excluded from the fit due to the reasons mentioned in Sect.~\ref{Data set}.
756: The near-threshold point from Ref.~\cite{Jacques:81} is removed since its deviation
757: from the theoretical prediction is unphysically high.
758: Six panels of Fig.~\ref{Fig:SlopeRatioSUM-npI-fit-16.02-f-6.02-2-0.80} show the
759: data of different kinds from
760: Refs.~\cite{Barish:79,Fanourakis:80,Baker:82,Barish:78,Abramowicz:84,Allasia:84,%
761: Parker:84,Aderholz:86}.
762: Almost all data points participate in the analysis.
763: The curves and bands in
764: Figs.~\ref{Fig:RatioSUM-I-FIT-16.02-f-6.02-2-0.80},
765: \ref{Fig:RatioSUM-np-FIT-16.02-f-6.02-2-0.80}, and
766: \ref{Fig:SlopeRatioSUM-npI-fit-16.02-f-6.02-2-0.80}
767: are calculated with the parameters obtained from the global B3 fit
768: (see legend in Fig.~\protect\ref{Fig:SlopeSUM-I-FIT-16.02-f-6.02-2-0.80}).
769:
770: \section{Summary}
771: \label{Summary}
772:
773: Our analysis of the world neutrino data on the QES and total CC cross sections
774: yields several thought-provoking conclusions.
775: As is seen from Tables \ref{Tab:FIT-16.02-f-6.02-2-0.80_1},
776: \ref{Tab:FIT-16.02-f-6.02-2-0.80_2}, and \ref{Tab:FIT-16.02-f-6.02-2-0.80_3},
777: in all variants of the fit there is a distinct minimum of $\chi^2$ for $M_A^{\text{QES}}$
778: around the ``canonical'' value of $1~\text{GeV}/c^2$ with deviations $\lesssim2\%$.
779: This is mainly an effect of the QES data subset whose exclusion from the analysis would
780: lead to an essential increase of $M_A^{\text{QES}}$ for all variants (for example, in the B3 and
781: A4 fits $M_A^{\text{QES}}$ becomes equal to $1.13\pm0.03$ and $1.17\pm0.03~\text{GeV}/c^2$,
782: respectively).
783:
784: The situation with the $M_A^{\text{RES}}$ best-fit value is less definite:
785: in different variants of the fit it fluctuates from about $1.00$ to about
786: $1.15~\text{GeV}/c^2$. This spread comprises the BNL-2002 results for
787: $M_A^{\text{RES}}$~\cite{Furuno:03} obtained with different approaches
788: and does not contradict to the exact equality $M_A^{\text{RES}}=M_A^{\text{QES}}$.
789: However, the 3- and 4-parameter fits favour the case $M_A^{\text{RES}}>M_A^{\text{QES}}$.
790: Our ``favorable'' B3 variant of the fit yields the following values of the axial masses:
791: \[
792: M_A^{\text{QES}}=0.98\pm0.02~\text{GeV}/c^2
793: \]
794: and
795: \[
796: M_A^{\text{RES}}=1.02\pm0.04~\text{GeV}/c^2.
797: \]
798:
799: The shape of the total and (all the more so) differential ${\nu}N$ and $\overline{\nu}N$
800: cross sections is very sensitive to the values of the cutoff parameters
801: $W_{\text{cut}}^{\text{RES}}$ and $W_{\text{cut}}^{\text{DIS}}$. From our analysis we have
802: to conclude that these parameters cannot be fine-tuned with the confidence level sufficient
803: for the current and future experiments for neutrino oscillations and related phenomena.
804: However, the most worth-while versions of the fit indicate that
805: $W_{\text{cut}}^{\text{RES}} \approx W_{\text{cut}}^{\text{DIS}}$
806: must be essentially above the value of $1.4~\text{GeV}$ approved in the
807: data processing of many accelerator and astrophysical neutrino experiments.
808: The outcome of the B3 fit is
809: \[
810: W_{\text{cut}}^{\text{RES}}=W_{\text{cut}}^{\text{DIS}}=1.50\pm0.02~\text{GeV}.
811: \]
812: Being considered deliberately, such a high value of the cutoff parameter for DIS
813: puts forward the difficult problem of a correct accounting for the reactions of
814: exclusive multi-hadron neutrinoproduction and coherent neutrino-nucleus scattering.
815:
816: Finally we have to note that the above conclusions are only valid for the
817: theoretical models of the RES reactions, DIS structure functions and PDF,
818: as well as the approximations and simplifications (sometimes risky) adopted
819: in the present analysis.
820: Investigation of alternative models, a more accurate treatment of the nuclear effects,
821: and incorporation of additional experimental data is the matter of a forthcoming
822: work.
823:
824: \acknowledgments
825:
826: We are grateful to the Physics Department of Florence University and Theoretical
827: Department of KEK for warm hospitality during important stages of this work.
828: We thank to Yongguang Liang and Martin Tzanov for providing us with the
829: latest experimental data and relevant computer codes from JLab and NuTeV.
830: We also thank to Kaoru Hagiwara, Sergey Kruchinin, Kentarou Mawatari, Dmitry Naumov,
831: Roberto Petti, Gregory Vereshkov, and Hiroshi Yokoya for stimulating discussions.
832:
833: \clearpage
834:
835: \input{Fit-References.TeX}
836:
837: \end{document}