PRE-READING ON NEUTRINO-

NUCLEUS INTERACTION
HEPH-UCHIDA-2

Balaji Harihar
CID – 01511175
Name of supervisor – Dr. Yoshi Uchida
Name of assessor – Dr. Yoshi Uchida
Word Count - 2489
 Balaji Harihar 1

use of this model [2].

Abstract
The interaction of neutrinos with nucleons are
of massive significance with one of many
reasons being that this reaction is one of the
most quintessential methods of detecting
neutrinos, considering that neutrinos are
charge neutral and can only be identified
through the detection of secondary particles Fig. 1 – A picturesque description of the QE neutrino
scattering where the nucleus is treated as a group of
that are created when these leptons interact
independent nucleons. The interaction between the neutrinos
with matter. In addition to this, the MSci and nuclei are taken to be spontaneous, while the spectator
project also intends to delve upon a plethora of nucleons do not change their state. Image courtesy – [2].
experiments across the globe that have been
dedicated to study a particular aspect of The next aspect that has been reviewed so far are
nuclear and particle physics within context of experiments that have been carried out to measure
neutrinos. and detect the QE interactions. This literature
review will aim to provide a reasonable review of
Introduction the experimental results, techniques and some
assumptions that have been followed.
A large portion of the project will focus on the
Interest towards the investigation of neutrino
theory of the interaction between neutrinos and
oscillations sprung up in the 1990s when they had
nuclei and various models that have been
just been discovered and gave rise to a variety of
developed in order to picture the necessary
famous experiments, some of which have been
physics. Accurate predictions of the nucleus-
tabulated below.
neutrino cross sections are vital to further propel
the studies on neutrino reactions and oscillations.
These models work best for particular regimes of
energy (i.e. high energy E ~ 100 GeV, medium
energy E of O(GeV) or low energy E of O(MeV))
[1].

Each regime of energy of neutrino-nucleus

interaction has its applications; the low energy
regime has scales of wavelengths that are much
larger than the diameter of nuclei and are of much
interest to solar neutrino oscillation experiments.
The regime of medium energy is inclusive of
wavelength scales which are hadronic (about 1
fm) and are of great interest in atmospheric
neutrino oscillations. The final regime, which is
high energy is of least significance because the
scales of interactions are partonic (about 0.1 fm)
and nuclear effects are negligible.
The most prominent model of the interaction that
is considered is quasi-elastic scattering (QE
scattering) which comes in the medium energy
regime and is perhaps also the most compact and
copious model and a lot of scientists tend to make
Table 1 – Aspects of various present (or future) experiments that
measured the QE scattering of neutrinos have been outlined here.
Following this, some research has also been done
upon experimental results obtained through a few
famous laboratories on neutrino QE scattering.
The methodology through which these
experiments obtain results is by choosing
particular QE events, examining how efficiently
this event was chosen by the device, followed by
removing background noise and then obtaining
the physical results.
The output provided by these experiments include
 Balaji Harihar 2

values for the axial mass M A that can be procured (2)

through the energy distribution (Q2 distribution) 1
F 1(q 2) = [ F 1 (q 2 ¿ + τ 3 F 1 (q 2 ¿ ] (3)
s v

of the events, the cross section of the interaction 2

as well as the differential cross section. A
comparison will also be put forth in this review Other important boundary conditions and related
about how experimental results put light on subtle equations of secondary importance can be found
discrepancies from theoretical frameworks [3]. at [3]. In the equations provided above, M
represents the mass of a proton, τ 3 is +1 for
Background Material protons and -1 for neutrons and the S and V
superscripts represent isoscalar and isovector
contributions respectively. Lastly, the original and
Theoretical and Mathematical Framework
new states of the nucleons are represented by u(p)
and u(p’) respectively, where we have only
This review will introduce the complete
considered the magnitude of the momentum of the
framework by going step by step to give the
nucleon.
readers a hands-on feel of the complete
development of the theory in a compact and facile
Noting that in any kind of interaction, the vector-
manner. To begin with, the special case of elastic
current and isospin is always conserved, we can
scattering of electrons (which are also leptons like
invoke the QE electron scattering to formulate the
the neutrinos) with free nucleons will be
current contributions of both types of neutrino
underlined.
scattering (i.e. with neutral current and charged
current) [4].
Before getting right into it, an important
approximation viz. “Impulse Approximation”
When we bring the scattering of neutrinos into the
which has been used to model this interaction will
picture, we have to additionally consider an axial
be explained. This approximation is a very
current into the vector-current. When writing an
common technique implemented to model lepton-
expression for the total nucleon current, we have
nucleus interactions and the scattering cross-
to thereby note that the coupling to the leptonic
section is found to be the sum of the scattering
current is an “isovector one body current” with
from the free nucleons with a known initial
components that include both vector and axial. In
distribution of energy and momentum.
other words,
The amplitude of the interaction is
1
j A (Q2 ¿ = u(p’) (G A (Q2) γ µ +
µ G (Q2 ¿ qµ ) γ 5
2 2M p
e u(p) (4)
M= u µ
j
2 e(k’) γ u e (k) µ (1)
q
Where G p(Q 2 ¿ = 4m N G A /(m π + Q 2) is calculated
2 2

In the equation above, e = √ 2 πα , where α is the through the partially conserved axial current
fine structure constant for the electromagnetic while the axial vector G A (Q2) is determined
force; ue (k’) and ue (k) denote the final and initial
through experiments [5].
states of the electron respectively; j µ is the
hadronic vector current which highlights the
On the other hand, the weak leptonic current is
structure of the nucleon. The vector current has a
given by
very complex form which is generally written in
terms of the Pauli and Dirac nucleon-vector factor
j µ = ψ l+¿ l−¿¿(1 ∓ γ 5) γ µ ψ ν∨ν (5)
forms, F 1(q) and F 2(q), both of which are
l

functions of a single variable q, which is the three-

momentum transfer. The coupling between the leptons and the
nucleons can be found through a simple scalar
1 product of the aforementioned currents (4) and
j µ(q 2 ¿ ~ u(p’)[ F 1(q 2 ¿ γ µ + F 2(q 2 ¿ σ µν ρν ]u( ρ ¿ (5). We have a change in sign in (5) to account for
2M
 Balaji Harihar
opposite helicities of neutrinos and antineutrinos,
and this in turn leads to constructive interference
of the transverse and axial vectors for neutrinos
and destructive interference of the transverse
and axial vectors for antineutrinos.
The scattering reactions that will be reviewed in
this piece of literature are ν µ n -> µ- p and ν µ ->
µ+ n. The reason of interest towards these chains
of reactions is because they produce the greatest
cross-section of scattering (at nearly 1GeV) [6].
Finally, the differential cross section for the
scattering of neutrinos quasi-elastically off of free
nucleons is given by
(6)
In this equation, the negative sign refers to the
consideration of an antineutrino while plus sign
indicated a neutrino. (s-u) = 4M E ν - Q2 - m2 where
m represents the lepton mass and the forms of A,
B and C are outlined in (3). It is only important to
note in this review that all 3 of A, B and C are
functions of the energy squared dependent
vector, the axial vector and the pseudoscalar
factor [7].
To put the above equations a bit more into
context, a historical insight into the
aforementioned neutrino scattering reactions will
be provided now. The details of these
experiments [8], [9], [10] are not of primary
concern but these early experiments carried out
one of the first neutrino QE scattering
interactions which enabled scientists to
determine the “nuclear form factors”.
These experiments mainly made use of Eq. 6 to
make analysis of data for experiments carried out
on deuterium [10] and also help determine the
axial vector factor form of the nucleons, given
that the transverse form factors could be
calculated through electron scattering
experiments.
3
The axial vector is taken to be of the form
gA
G A (Q2) = Q
2
(7)
(1+ )
mA
2
With [11] and [12] outlining very intricately how
the values for M A have been experimentally
deduced in the early days. By the year 1990, it
was agreed as a consensus that through the V-A
theory, neutrino QE cross sections could be
determined precisely as the form of a dipole axial
vector with M A = 1.026 ± 0.021 GeV [13].
Experimental Aspects
Now that an adequate theoretical insight has
been provided, the review will now focus on
highlighting key aspects about various
experiments that were carried out to study
neutrinos. By the 90s, the interest of the scientific
community slowly levied towards the recently
discovered neutrino oscillations, and a summary
of the experiments that studied the QE scattering
of neutrinos is shown below in a tabular format.
Table 2 – A succinct look at the analysing methods used in
all experimental studies of neutrino QE scattering.
Firstly, this review aims to explain the criteria
used by the experimental devices to select those
quasi elastic events and it revolves around mainly
two factors: the target material and the
technology that has been incorporated into the
detector. The various techniques used to select
the QE events can be broadly classified into 3
categories viz. Cherenkov detectors, bubble
 Balaji Harihar
chambers and tracking detectors [2], [3].
For the range of energies of our interest, and also
due to their low threshold energy for protons,
bubble chambers (experiments include ANL, BNL,
SKAT) had an impressive sample purity
percentage ranging between 97% and 99%. The
way in which events are selected in these
chambers is extremely robust and relies on
identifying 3 final state tracks; one each from
proton, muon and spectator proton which was
involved in the QE event.
However, for the case of antineutrinos, the
efficiency is way lower (75% to 85%) because the
selection procedure in this case is based on
identification of single tracks [3]. Nevertheless,
the way modern experiments make analysis is
very similar to the way bubble chambers do and
only those events identified as QE are measured.
The neutrino energy and Q2 can both be found
out through the outgoing lepton energy and the
angle at which the scattering takes place.
The remaining 2 aforementioned categories of
detectors (Cherenkov and tracking) were
developed in the 90s with a bias towards
measuring neutrino oscillations, and hence
employed heavy statistics and a plethora of
detector technologies.
The tracking experiments use a method where
each charged particle that passes through the
different detectors (scintillation detectors, drift
chambers) is attempted to be identified while
Cherenkov experiments contain a large container
of water or oil as targets with a lining of
photodetectors which trap the light emitted by
the relativistic charged particles. A famous
example of Cherenkov experiment is the
MiniBooNe experiment where a final state muon
is required along with a single electron that has a
delayed decay for the quasi elastic selection.
QE selection efficiencies in these detectors are
typically 60%-70%. To put Table 2 into some
further context, we can see that each experiment
has a unique event selection for defining the QE
4
sample. Also, in today’s time, sample purities
have become lower than before and the reasons
for this will be shortly discussed.
A small section will now be dedicated to the
causes and mitigation of background
contamination in these experiments. The
fundamental process that is desired to be
measured is already outlined in the previous page
for both neutrinos and antineutrinos. The main
contributor towards background contamination
are FSI events, which refer to the rescattering of
hadrons that are formed in the original neutrino
interactions before they are able to get out of the
nucleus. This leads to the QE selection being
misconstrued as we will have multi-nucleon
knockouts and lots of rescattering, which lowers
the energies of the nucleons.
Non-QE events can also harm the experiments
such as the charged-current pion production
channels [14]. Detector limitations are also a valid
reason for inefficiencies due to their inabilities to
detect low energy nucleons that come out of the
target nucleus and they can potentially
misidentify the subatomic particles too [15].
The experiments in Table 2 used Fermi Gas
Models to estimate the impact of nuclear physical
phenomena on the readings, and also employed
“intranuclear rescattering simulations” to
postulate the impact of the FSI events [16].
The final part of this section is dedicated to
building a comprehension of the neutrino flux
determination in these experiments. All
aforementioned experiments are built in order to
measure the rate of interactions, which is found
out through multiplying the interacting neutrinos’
cross section, flux of the incoming neutrinos and
the efficiency of the detectors. The flux part
always remains a challenge for the neutrino
experiments.
The details of the way in which neutrino beams
are produced can be found at [17]. The
predictions for the flux generally begin with
estimating the production of mesons for a given
 Balaji Harihar
target material and energy. The cross-sections in
such reactions, however, have historically
contributed to errors up to 30% and there are
large differences between observed neutrino
rates and the ones predicted at the
commencement of the experiment.
Experiments generally tend to cross-check the
normalization of their events with well-known
cross sections and then inculcate techniques like
Inverse Muon Decay to make the necessary
corrections. But this is more of a thing of past and
in the present, there are plenty of production
experiments solely dedicated to making hadrons
and thereby the precision for flux measurements
has increased. Yet, cross-checking always remains
the starting point for embarking into neutrino
cross-section measurements.
Summary and Conclusions
This literature review began by introducing some
key theoretical concepts that are used when
modelling the interaction of neutrinos with
nuclei, and chose to focus on the model of QE
scattering for reasons that are already mentioned
above. The review went on to look at ways in
which experiments across the globe have been
designed to study these nuclear events, and how
some of the scientific shortcomings are
attempted to be rectified by the scientists and
engineers.
It becomes very clear from this review that
neutrino-nucleus interactions are far more
complicated than what was originally envisioned,
and a plethora of nuclear events come into play
during these events which need to be selectively
filtered out, or else we get higher cross sections
and more complicated final states. While
designing experiments in the future that intend
to detect cross sections using muon samples, the
points mentioned in the “Experimental Aspects”
section should be carefully considered.
The T2K experiment in Japan and the MINERvA
experiment have already managed to become
5
one of the finest “fine-grained detectors” and the
results seem very promising as scattering over a
wide range of nuclei can be studied, both
neutrinos and antineutrinos can be measured
and a larger range of QE selection events can be
experimented with.
References
[1] – Ulrich Mosel, Neutrino Interactions with
Nucleons and Nuclei: Importance for Long-
Baseline Experiments
[2] - J. L. Herraiz, M. C. Martínez, J. A. Caballero,
et al., Overview of neutrino-nucleus quasielastic
scattering
[3] – H. Gallagher, G. Garvey and G.P. Zeller,
Neutrino-Nucleus Interactions
[4] - 1. Nieves, I.E. Amaro, and M. Valverde, Phys.
Rev. C 70, 055503 (2004).
[5] - Llewellyn-Smith CH. Phys. Rep. 3:261 (1972)
[6] - Holder M, et al. Nuovo Cim. A57:338 (1968)
[7] - Singh SK, Oset E. Nucl. Phys. A 542:587
(1992)
[8] - Kustom RL. Phys. Rev. Lett. 22:1014 (1969)
[9] - Block MM, et al. Phys. Lett. 12:281 (1964);
Orkin-Lecourtis A, et al. Nuovo Cim. A50:927
(1967);
[10] - Singh SK. Nucl. Phys. B 36:419 (1972)
[11] - Lyubushkin V, et al. Eur. Phys. J. C 63:355
(2009)
[12] - Singh SK, Oset E. Nucl. Phys. A 542:587
(1992)
[13] - Bernard V, et al. J. Phys. G 28:R1 (2002)
[14] - Kim H, Schramm S, Horowitz CJ. Phys. Rev.
C 53:2468 (1996)
[15] - Leitner T, Mosel U. Phys. Rev. C 81:064614
(2010)
 Balaji Harihar 6

[16] - Dytman S. AIP Conf. Proc. 1189:51 (2009)

[17] - Kopp S. Phys. Rep. 439:101 (2007)