arXiv:1702.04932v3 [nucl-th] 18 Jul 2017 CH rbto htpasa bu . e.A bu the about At GeV. 0.6 dis- about at a peaks with that of tribution experiments beam these a T2K both in the work experiment; and (ND) MiniBooNE detector are other near ex- reactions (and to former the pion experiments plore Dedicated to (DIS). deep lead scattering and mainly resonances inelastic nucleon latter through on production excitations The ) inelastic and other. hand the one on processes many-body 2p2h and (QE) scattering quasielastic into grouped have interactions understood. neutrino-nucleus well the be state to properties final from the energy of neutrino incoming the construct xeiet s ula agt uha H as such these This all targets that known. nuclear fact well use the not by is experiments complicated beam experiment is neutrino physics a reconstruction particle un- of or since energy nuclear state, the other final any the in of Experiment the like properties from neu- and Neutrino incoming energy the trino NOvA of reconstruction Underground the T2K, requires (DUNE) Ddeep as such planned experiments, baseline ∗ otc -al [email protected] e-mail: Contact h nta neatosi uharato a be can reaction a such in interactions initial The h xrcino etiopoete rmlong- from neutrino-properties of extraction The 2 C Nv)or (NOvA) +Cl ntttfu hoeicePyi,Jhn ofagGoethe Wolfgang Johann Physik, f¨ur Theoretische Institut Background: rmteeprmnsMnBoE h erdtco experime detector near Methods: the MiniBooNE, charge all experiments of the treatment from consistent theoretically a neutr for of aims understanding good a complete Purpose: requires the this of used are descriptions targets theoretical require periment ewrs etioitrcin,po rdcin neutri production, pion interactions, neutrino Keywords: MINE 12.15.-y,25.30.Pt,24.10.Lx the numbers: and PACS ND T2K the from data tunes. production obs parameter pion lepton charged and CC pion of all for good Conclusions: NOvA. is and data MicroBooNE MINERvA for the shown and T2K the hoeia eut o iioN ie rmtedt ohi both data the from differ MiniBooNE for results theoretical Results: interactions quantum- state of final implementation The Boltzmann-Uehling-Uhlenbeck scattering. inelastic deep and unnurn-nue hre-urn inpouto o production pion charged-current Muon-neutrino-induced .INTRODUCTION I. 40 eut r ie o iioN,tena eetrexperime detector near the MiniBooNE, for given are Results n ftedmnn ecincanl nnurn-ulu i neutrino-nucleus in channels reaction dominant the of One r(UE.Tu nodrt re- to order in Thus (DUNE). Ar inpouto stetdtruhecttoso ulo r nucleon of excitations through treated is production Pion ntttfu hoeicePyi,Universit¨at Giessen, Physik, f¨ur Theoretische Institut ae nteGBUmdlo etnncesitrcin co a interactions lepton-nucleus of model GiBUU the on Based ogbsln xeiet uha 2,Nv rtepandD planned the or NOvA T2K, as such experiments Long-baseline 2 (T2K), O .Gallmeister K. .Mosel U. 2.Tertclcluain iigt eciethese describe to MiniBooNE aiming by calculations provided Theoretical were targets [2]. nuclear on data (and production necessarily pion of thus description events good absorption). 0-pion a on of also analysis relies reab- then Any may but resonances) initially sorbed. nucleon outgo- produced asymptotic, (or been the have pions nevertheless in However, processes; pion many-body state. any and contain ing QE not of do studies are they latter for The used samples. experiments, event production often production 0-pion so-called pion pion for actual also the the but essen- have for is only to This not strength control. tial important quantitative total thus good, the under is of channels It 2/3 up and, picks [1]. at it MINERvA while DUNE section NOvA, ultimately, cross experiments total higher-energy the the of there 1/3 production Pion about constitutes resonance. the ∆ pro- the pion of through two and duction 2p2h) to (including only QE sensitive mechanisms, are T2K 2 reaction all about MiniBooNE, MicroBooNE at and experiments ND peaks lower-energy that with The distribution works GeV. flux while ND, narrow GeV NOvA rather 3.5 the a at about experiment, at such peaks another in- distribution higher its flux interactions; the neutrino-nucleus coming At of significantly knowledge contributed our data. has to MINERvA take that experiment to works, the started MicroBooNE now experiment has the energy same oeetgnrtr,tasottheory transport generators, event no Uiesta rnfr,Fakuta . Germany M., a. Frankfurt -Universit¨at Frankfurt, ∗ uy2,2017 20, July h rtetnienurn-nue inproduction pion neutrino-induced extensive first The urn hre inpouto aata r available are that data production pion charged current d ftepoue in r ecie ihnteGiessen- the within described are pions produced the of vn nanurn-ulu ecin ic nuclear Since reaction. neutrino-nucleus a in event iei rnpr theory. transport kinetic n-ulu interactions. ino-nucleus hp n antd,terareetbt with both agreement their magnitude, and shape n ta 2 n MINERvA. and T2K at nt ise,Germany Giessen, trcin spo rdcin hspaper This production. pion is nteractions rals rdcin o insetaare spectra pion for Predictions ervables. v xeiet spsil,wtotany without possible, is experiments RvA ta 2 n o IEv.Wiethe While MINERvA. for and T2K at nt snne,icuigbcgon terms, background including esonances, sset odtertcldescription theoretical good nsistent, e negon etioEx- Neutrino Underground eep nuclei n 2 data in a state-of-the-art model with a solid foundation sorption of pions. The complexity of final state interac- in pion-nucleon-∆ dynamics [3] all came out to be too tions necessitates the use of transport theory; it can not low in comparison to the measured cross sections [4–8]. be handled within an optical model description such as The calculations also predicted a typical shape for the that used in [17, 18]. Further details on pion production pion kinetic energy distributions, due to pion absorption in GiBUU can be found in Ref. [19]. through the ∆, that was not seen in experiment. More recently, pion production data have also been obtained While the vector parts of both the resonance and the by the MINERvA experiment [9, 10]. These data are background amplitudes for pion production on the nu- reasonably well described by the same model that failed cleon are well constrained by electro-pion production for MiniBooNE [11], but there were also marked devi- data [20, 21] the axial parts are much less known. The ations, in particular at forward angles and low kinetic calculation of the resonance contribution is well estab- energies. These remaining discrepancies were tentatively lished [3, 22], with some knowledge on the axial N∆ attributed to coherent production in Ref. [11]. transition form factors [23–25]. However, there is some In a careful comparison of MiniBooNE and MINERvA uncertainty about possible in-medium changes of the nu- data the authors of Ref. [12] concluded that the two cleon resonances. Most calculations use a parametriza- datasets were not compatible; the authors found notice- tion of the in-medium broadening of the ∆ resonance able overall normalization problems and a significant dis- proposed in Ref. [26]. The effects of this broadening crepancy in the shape of pion kinetic energy spectra. on neutrino-induced pion production were investigated That these two datasets were not compatible was also in Ref. [27]. There a lowering of the maximal cross sec- concluded by the authors of Ref. [13]. A recent review of tion in the MiniBooNE was found when the collisional the experimental situation can be found in [14]. broadening was turned on. However, it must be noted that the parametrization of the in-medium width of Ref. Most recently, new data on neutrino-induced pion pro- [26] was derived only for rather low momenta of the res- duction on water have become available from the T2K onance (p∆ < 0.5 GeV) and disappears again for higher ND experiment. This experiment works in a similar en- momenta. Its applicability to the higher-energy experi- ergy regime as MiniBooNE. It is, therefore, the aim of ments is thus doubtful. Therefore, in the present study this paper to have a theoretical look at these new data all calculations were performed without the in-medium and compare them with the MiniBooNE results, with the broadening of the ∆ resonance. hope of clarifying the data discrepancies and of estab- lishing a reliable model for pion production on nuclear For the axial background terms there is only little targets. Using the same theory we will then also cal- knowledge except from attempts using effective field the- culate pion production spectra for two different sets of ory [19, 23]. A phenomenological prescription then is data obtained by MINERvA. Finally, we will make pre- to calculate the resonance contribution and fit the back- dictions for pion spectra in the MicroBooNE and NOvA ground term to data for pion production on a nucleon. ND experiments that will soon produce data. Such attempts to fit the background amplitude were often hampered by uncertainties about the elementary cross section for neutrino-induced pion production on the nu- II. MODEL cleon since two available data sets from Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) [28] and Brookhaven National Labo- The model used for these studies is an implementation ratory (BNL) [29] differed by up to 30 %. In Ref. [19] of transport theory in the form of a generator, dubbed an internal inconsistency within the BNL data set was Giessen-Boltzmann-Uehling-Uhlenbeck (GiBUU), that observed. Indeed, later on Ref. [30, 31] in a reanalysis delivers not only inclusive cross sections, but also the full of these data, which used the fairly model-independent final state event. Its physics content as well as many de- QE cross section as a benchmark, gave strong indications tails of the practical implementation are contained in Ref. that the ANL data set was the correct one. In the present [15]. The model approximately factorizes the neutrino- calculations we, therefore, use this ANL set to determine induced pion production on a nucleus into two steps. the nonresonant contributions to pion production. nucleon First, pion production on a is described by a su- The model passes the necessary test of describing the t perposition of a resonance term [3] and a -channel back- inclusive scattering data on nuclear targets such ground term while maintaining the quantum mechanical as 12C. This can be seen by inspecting the resonance interference between both amplitudes. The initial inter- nucleus region in the comparisons of inclusive cross sections in actions with a are then obtained by summing Ref. [32]. The actual meson production cross sections in over all interactions with bound and Fermi-moving nu- the relevant energy regimes can also reasonably well be cleons. described [33–35]. At higher energies electron-induced In a second step then, the final state interactions (fsi) hadronization in nuclei has succesfully been studied in of the produced pions are treated by quantum-kinetic [36]. transport theory [16]. This step contains elastic scatter- ing, inelastic resonance excitations, charge transfer from The calculations for the various different experiments and to the charge channel under consideration and ab- discussed in this paper are all being done with the very 3 same version of the code (GiBUU 2016)1, without any pa- FIG. 1. Kinetic energy spectrum per nucleon of positively rameter readjustment, except for target mass and charge. charged pions in the MiniBooNE flux for a CH2 target. Data The experiments discussed here contain molecules as tar- are from [39]. gets, such as H2O or CHn. For these we calculate the cross sections for each partner in the molecule and then noted that this shape of the pion-kinetic energy distribu- sum them according to the molecular composition. In tion has been experimentally observed in -induced order to obtain the cross sections per nucleon we then pion production on nuclei [33]. Further results on pion divide the sum by the total mass number, e.g. for a CH production in MiniBooNE, among them also energy dis- target we divide by 13. All cross sections are given per tributions of the muons as well as angular distributions nucleon. of the pions and muons, can be found in [27]. GiBUU results for MiniBooNE and MINERvA had been shown earlier in Refs. [27, 38]. The results shown here in this paper are all obtained with an updated ver- B. T2K sion of the theory. As described in [32] the new calcu- lations, as far as pion production is concerned, differ in The T2K near detector (ND) experiment works in an an improved treatment of the nuclear ground state, the energy region very close to that of MiniBooNE. In Ref. use of the free ∆ width, and a different description of the [32] we have shown that GiBUU describes the T2K in- onset of DIS. clusive double-differential cross sections for a µ-neutrino beam very well and thus passes a first, necessary test. Its results on pion production on a water target in T2K [40] III. RESULTS can thus shed some light on the observed discrepancy of theory and experiment for the MiniBooNE pion data [41] even though they may suffer from larger experimental un- A. MiniBooNE certainties [14]. The T2K pion data were obtained under the kinematical constraints: pµ > 0.2 GeV, pπ > 0.2 For completeness we start with only a very short re- GeV, cos(θµ) > 0.3, and cos(θπ) > 0.3. These same cuts minder of the results for the MiniBooNE since these have were also applied in all the calculations. already been extensively discussed [5–7, 13, 19, 27]. Fig. 1 shows the kinetic energy spectrum of positively charged pions in comparison to the MiniBooNE results. It is obvi- 0.2 ous that the theory reproduces neither the absolute mag-

nitude of the cross section nor its special shape. The lat- /GeV) 2 0.15 ter is a direct consequence of pion absorption through the ∆ resonance which leads to a decrease of the cross section cm -38 around a kinetic energy of about 0.18 GeV. At the same 0.1 (10 time final state interactions acting on the pions lead to π /dp an increase below the resonance region thus raising the σ peak at around 0.08 GeV kinetic energy. It should be 0.05 (1/A) d

1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 pπ (GeV) 0.8 /GeV) 2

cm 0.6 FIG. 2. Momentum spectrum per nucleon of positively -38 charged pions in the T2K ND280 flux for a H2O target. Data

(10 are from [40]. For the kinematical cuts used both in the ex- π 0.4 periment and the calculations see text. /dT σ 0.2 It is seen in Fig. 2 that the momentum spectrum of

(1/A) d the produced pions is described very well, except for the 0 lowest pion momentum. This result is quite sensitive to 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 the kinematical cuts on both the pion and the muon. A Tπ (GeV) calculation that employs only the cuts on the outgoing µ gives a perfect description of the spectrum also at the lowest pion momentum. Thus, the pion angular distri- bution cut cos(θπ) > 0.3 makes the calculated pion mo- mentum distribution to fall below the data at the lowest 1 The code can be downloaded from [37]. pion momentum. 4

The pion angular distribution shown in Fig. 3, on the other hand, is described very well over the full range of 0.08 angles; however, at the smallest angles the experimental /GeV)

uncertainties become large. 2 0.06 cm -38

0.3 (10

µ 0.04 ) 2 /dp σ

cm 0.25

-38 0.02 0.2 (10 (1/A) d π θ 0.15 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 /dcos σ 0.1 pµ (GeV)

(1/A) d 0.05 FIG. 4. Momentum distribution of muons associated with 0 positively charged pions in the T2K ND280 flux for a H2O 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 target. Data are from [40] cos(θπ)

1 FIG. 3. Angular distribution of positively charged pions in )

the T2K ND280 flux for a H2O target. Data are from [40]. 2 0.8 cm

The discrepancy seen in the spectrum at the lowest -38 0.6 pion momentum could be due to three possible effects: (10 µ θ

1. The treatment of pion final state interactions in 0.4 /dcos

GiBUU might be responsible for a too strong sup- σ pression of slow pions. 0.2 2. GiBUU is a semiclassical transport theory that can (1/A) d be applied only to incoherent scattering processes. 0 Coherent neutrino-induced pion production is thus 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 θ not contained in the theory, but is contained in the cos( µ) data. 3. The observed discrepancy could also be due to de- FIG. 5. Angular distribution of muons connected with posi- tively charged pions in the T2K ND280 flux for a H2O target. tails in the N∆ axial form factor. A slightly dif- Data are from [40] ferent shape with somewhat larger (around 10%) values around Q2 ≈ 0.1 − 0.2 GeV2 could explain the observed cross section. about 3 ± 1 × 10−40 cm2. The discrepancy observed in − In order to further clarify the reasons for the observed the present calculations is about 0.2 × 10 40 cm2 per nu- discrepancy at small momenta and angles we now study cleon, as can be read off Figs. 2, 4, and 5. This num- the outgoing lepton’s properties. The distributions of ber is compatible with the experimentally determined the outgoing µ lepton (Figs. 4, 5) show a very similar coherent cross section and thus gives some credence to behavior as for the pion: The agreement of theory with the assumption that explanation 2. above (coherent pion experiment is generally very good, except for the lowest production) is the correct one. However, in [41] we have muon momentum and the most forward angle, where the pointed out that the pion production cross section in the cross sections are slightly underestimated. This indicates is dominated by production through the that the discrepancy is connected with the smallest Q2. ∆ resonance; up to a neutrino energy of about 0.8 GeV This leaves explanations 2. and 3. of the list above. it proceeds nearly exclusively through this channel. Ex- In order to distinguish between these cases a look at perimentally distinguishing between the low-Q2 behavior experimental data on coherent pion production in the of the ∆N transition form factor and coherent pion pro- T2K flux is helpful. T2K has indeed measured the co- duction is thus possible only if it could be verified that herent π+ production, though not on water, but instead the target nucleus remains in its groundstate. on a 12C target with kinematical cuts that are similar As mentioned earlier, T2K has an incoming energy dis- to the ones used above [42]. The cross section is found tribution that is located in a similar energy region as that to be sizable only for Q2 < 0.1 GeV2 and amounts to of MiniBooNE. The fact that the same theory describes 5 the T2K data, but fails to do so for the MiniBooNE data 40 points to an incompatibility of the MiniBooNE to the T2K pion production data. 30 /degree) 2

C. MINERvA cm 20 -42 The MINERvA experiment has obtained the first pion /A (10 π data on a nuclear target (CH) at a higher energy (hEν i θ 10 /d

= 4 GeV) [9]. The data were obtained for charged pions, σ i.e. for the sum of π+ and π−, and they contain a cut on d the invariant mass of the initially excited nucleon. The 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 invariant mass can be defined such that it depends only 2 2 2 θπ (deg) on the incoming gauge boson Wrec = M +2Mω − Q . Here M is the nucleon mass, ω the energy transfer and 2 Q the squared four-momentum transfer; the nucleon is FIG. 7. Angular distribution of single charged pions in the free and at rest. As pointed out in [38] this cut intro- MINERvA flux for a CH target with W < 1.4 GeV. Data are duces some model-dependence into the data since both from [9]. ω and Q2 can not be directly measured, but have to be reconstructed. The authors of [9] complicated this further by first FIG. 6. Kinetic energy spectrum per nucleon of single charged selecting their events by the cut on Wrec < 1.4 GeV pions in the MINERvA flux for a CH target with W < 1.4 and then correcting this for a cut on a W < 1.4 GeV GeV. Data are from [9]. that corresponds to the true invariant mass of a boson- nucleon pair2. Since the actual nucleon is bound and sponding angular distribution. Here one observes a clear ◦ Fermi-moving this W is different from Wrec (see Fig. 5 discrepancy at the angles below about 40 . in [38]). In addition to the W -cut the data also contain More recently the MINERvA collaboration has pub- a flux cut where the flux is used only between 1.5 and 10 lished a new data set for pion production. In this case GeV. In the results discussed here both the flux-cut and the flux was again cut between 1.5 GeV and 10 GeV a Wrec cut was taken into account. and a Wrec < 1.8 GeV cut was imposed. The mea- Neglecting the difference between the Wrec- and the sured kinetic energy spectrum is compared in Fig. 8 with W -cut we show in Fig. 6 a comparison between the cal- the GiBUU result. Generally, the agreement is again culated kinetic energy spectrum with the experimental very good, with a discrepancy showing up at the low- data. The agreement is seen to be quite good, except est energy of Tπ = 0.0475 GeV. Fig. 8 also shows by for the point at lowest energy. Fig. 7 shows the corre- 3

1.4 /GeV) 1.2 2 /GeV) 2 2 cm 1 -38 cm -38 0.8 (10 π (10 π 0.6 /dT 1 σ /dT σ 0.4 (1/A) d 0.2 (1/A) d 0 0 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 Tπ (GeV) Tπ (GeV)

FIG. 8. Kinetic energy spectrum per nucleon of multiple charged pions in the MINERvA flux for a CH target with Wrec < 1.8 GeV (solid line). The dashed line gives the 1-pion contribution. Data are from [10] 2 The latter step is not trivial since the nucleon is bound and Fermi 2 2 2 moving so that W is given by W = (EN + ω) − ( ~pN + ~q) . It is not clear to the authors how this could be done within the the dashed line the contribution of events with one pion generator GENIE that does not contain any binding of nucleons. only in the outgoing channel. It is seen that multiple 6 pion events increase that cross section by about 50%. A 4 closer inspection of the results shows that these multi- pion events are mostly of the type π+π0 and originate to about equal parts from decay of higher-lying nucleon 3 /degree) resonances above the ∆ and from DIS. 2

The calculated pion angular distribution is compared cm

-40 2 with experiment in Fig. 9. As for the earlier case of the date with the W < 1.4 GeV cut there is a noticeable ◦ /A (10 discrepancy at forward angles below about 45 . Again µ

θ 1 /d σ d 1.5 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 θµ (deg) /degree) 2 1

cm FIG. 11. Angular distribution of outgoing muons for multiple

-40 charged pion production in the MINERvA flux for a CH target

(10 with Wrec < 1.8 GeV. Data are from [10]. π θ 0.5 /d σ

(1/A) d 3 0 work well also for this semi-inclusive cross section . Here 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 even at small muon momenta and angles (connected with θ 2 π (deg) small Q ) the agreement is very good.

In [38] it has been argued that the discrepancies seen FIG. 9. Angular distribution of multiple charged pions in the in the kinetic energy and angular distributions can be MINERvA flux for a CH target with Wrec < 1.8 GeV. The dashed curve gives the angular distribution of 1-pion events. due to coherent production which is not contained in the Data are from [10]. calculated results presented here. Indeed, in [43] the co- herent cross section in the MINERvA experiment was shown to peak at a pion energy of about 0.4 GeV, i.e. at the dashed line gives the contribution of 1-pion events the same energy where the discrepancy appears in Figs. 6 alone. and 8. The experimental pion angular distribution for co- Finally, we show in Figs. 10 and 11 the distributions of herent production was found there to peak at about 10◦, the outgoing muons. The agreement is perfect over the with a slow fall-off towards larger angles which is also whole range of energies. This shows that the calculations compatible with the difference between the experimen- tal and theoretical angular distributions obtained here. The hypothesis that the discrepancies are due to coher- 0.3 ent production seems to receive some support from the comparison of the Q2 distributions (Fig. 12). It is seen that the agreement with theory is nearly perfect, except /GeV) 2 2 2 for the two lowest points for Q < 0.2 GeV . Coherent 0.2 2 cm production is known to take place in this Q region [43].

-38 However, it must be remembered that Q2 is not directly (10

µ measurable so there is some generator dependence in the

/dp 0.1 experimental result. σ (1/A) d 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 pµ (GeV)

3 When integrating all the differential cross sections shown here FIG. 10. Momentum distribution of outgoing muons for mul- for MINERvA one should obtain one and the same total cross tiple charged pion production in the MINERvA flux for a CH section; this can serve as a check for the consistency of the dif- target with Wrec < 1.8 GeV. Data are from [10]. ferential ones. We have checked that the calculated integrated differential cross sections indeed all give the same total cross sec- tion for pion production. 7

2. NOvA )

2 0.8 The experiment NOvA works in an energy regime in /GeV

2 between MicroBooNE and T2K on one side and MIN- 0.6

cm ERvA on the other with a relatively narrow beam that

-38 peaks at about 2 GeV neutrino energy. Pion production

(10 0.4 in this experiment could thus supplement our knowledge 2 about the transition from ∆ dominated pion production /dQ

σ to production through DIS. The calculations were per- 0.2 formed for a target with the composition H (10.8%), C

(1/A) d (69.1%) and Cl (20.1%) which is close to the actual tar- 0 get composition of H (10.8%), C (67.0%), O (2.1%), Cl 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 (16.9%), Ti (3.2%)4. Q2 (GeV2)

2.5 FIG. 12. Q2 distribution of multiple charged pions in the MINERvA flux for a CH target with Wrec < 1.8 GeV. Data 2 /GeV) are from [10] 2

cm 1.5 -38

D. Predictions (10 π 1 /dT σ 1. MicroBooNE 0.5 (1/A) d The experiment MicroBooNE works in a flux that is 0 very similar to that of MiniBooNE, but uses a 40Ar target 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 instead of CH2. In view of the problems discussed above Tπ (GeV) to reproduce the MiniBooNE pion data we show here in Fig. 13 a prediction for the kinetic energy distribution FIG. 14. Kinetic energy spectrum per nucleon of positively π+ of CC production of in that experiment. Because of charged pions in the NOvA flux at the ND. The dashed line the relatively low neutrino energy the pion production is gives the spectrum for single π+ production, the solid line dominated by 1π events as can be seen by comparing the that for events with at least 1 π+. The lowest, dashed-dotted solid with the dashed line in Fig. 13. The shape of the curve shows the contribution to single pi production through distribution is very similar to that shown in Fig. 1 for the ∆ resonance. MiniBooNE. The shape of the kinetic energy distribution is domi- 0.6 nated again by a peak at about 0.08 GeV, as in all other experiments shown earlier. This is a feature that is inde- pendent of the beam energy. It reflects the pion absorp- tion through the ∆ resonance that is strongest around /GeV) 2 0.4 Tπ = 0.18 GeV. Pions below that energy cannot easily

cm be absorbed and thus tend to accumulate there. Indeed, -38 pions produced only through the ∆ resonance exhibit ex- actly the same spectrum as shown by the lowest, dashed-

/A (10 0.2 π dotted curve in Fig. 14. The difference between the

/dT dashed and the dashed-dotted curve, both for 1π events, σ

d is due to the contribution to this channel from higher- lying resonances as well as to pion absorption events in 0 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 which one of initially two pions makes it out of the nu- Tπ (GeV) cleus.

FIG. 13. Kinetic energy spectrum of positively charged pions 40 in the BNB flux for a Ar target (MicroBooNE). The dashed 4 + The 2% contribution of O has been added to C, the 3% contri- line gives the spectrum for single π production, the solid line + bution of Ti to Cl. Choosing instead to put all the O and Ti that for events with at least 1 π . strength into Cl does not change the cross sections per nucleon to any significant degree 8

The cross section for multiple π+ production is now calculations [7, 27] and the seeming incompatibility of much larger than that for single pion production, con- the former data with the MINERvA data [12, 13, 38]. trary to the situation for MicroBooNE. This just reflects We have shown that the T2K ND data on a water the opening of 2π decay channels from higher nucleon target agree quite well with the GiBUU calculations, resonances and the onset of DIS with the higher beam both in absolute magnitude and in shape. The T2K energy, as discussed above for the MINERvA results. In experiment works with a neutrino flux that is centered order to illustrate this point further we show in Fig. 15 around the same energy as in the MiniBooNE. We, there- the pion spectra for the two dominant target components fore, conclude that the latter data are too high and that H and C. Here the results for H give the pion production the shape of the pion kinetic energy distribution deter- mined by MiniBooNE is not correct. This conclusion receives additional support from the observation that all H multi π 2.5 the MINERvA pion data, both the single pion data with H single π a W < 1.4 GeV cut and the more recent multiple pion π /GeV) C multi 2 2 data with a W < 1.8 GeV cut, are described very well C single π

cm by the present GiBUU calculations. The remaining dis-

-38 1.5 crepancies, mainly at the lowest pion energies and the lowest angles, are compatible with a coherent contribu- (10 π 1 tion in the data, which is not contained in the present /dT

σ calculations. 0.5 Finally, we stress that all these results were obtained

(1/A) d without any tuning of model parameters or changes of 0 model ingredients between experiments. One and the 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 same program version with the same parameter set was Tπ (GeV) used for all the calculations shown in this paper. The good agreement reached with data over different exper- FIG. 15. Kinetic energy spectrum per nucleon of positively iments and different neutrino energy regions shows that charged pions in the NOvA flux at the ND. The solid lines GiBUU is a reliable tool for the calculation of neutrino- give the spectrum for events with at least 1 π+ plus possibly induced pion production. other , the dashed lines that for events with exactly 1 π+.The two upper curves (solid and dashed) describe a H target, the two lower curves a C target. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS cross section before final state interactions, those for C that after fsi. We gratefully acknowledge the help and support of the whole GiBUU team in developing both the physics and the code used here. IV. CONCLUSIONS We are also grateful to S. Dytman for helpful comments on the MINERvA pion data and to M. Wascko for pro- In this paper we have compared all the available CC viding many details about the T2K pion data. J. Paley charged-pion data from neutrino-A collisions. The start- gave valuable information on the NOvA experiment. ing point for these investigations was the nagging dis- This work has partially been supported by HIC for crepancy between the MiniBooNE data and theoretical FAIR.

[1] U. Mosel and O. Lalakulich, Proceedings, 14th Inter- AIP Conf.Proc. 1405, 127 (2011). national Workshop on Neutrino Factories, Super Beams [7] E. Hernandez, J. Nieves, and M. J. V. Vacas, and Beta Beams (NuFact 2012): Williamsburg, USA, Phys.Rev. D87, 113009 (2013),. July 23-28, 2012 (2012) pp. 17–24,. [8] O. Lalakulich and U. Mosel, Proc. NUINT 12, [2] A. Aguilar-Arevalo et al. (MiniBooNE Collaboration), AIP Conf. Proc. 1663, 070007 (2015). Phys.Rev.D 83, 052009 (2011),. [9] B. Eberly et al. (MINERvA), [3] H.-C. Kim, S. Schramm, and C. Horowitz, Phys. Rev. D92, 092008 (2015),. Phys.Rev. C53, 2468 (1996),. [10] C. L. McGivern et al. (MINERvA), [4] T. Leitner, L. Alvarez-Ruso, and U. Mosel, Phys. Rev. D94, 052005 (2016). Phys. Rev. C73, 065502 (2006). [11] U. Mosel, O. Lalakulich, and K. Gallmeister, [5] T. Leitner, O. Buss, U. Mosel, and L. Alvarez-Ruso, Phys.Rev. D89, 093003 (2014). Phys. Rev. C79, 038501 (2009). [12] J. T. Sobczyk and J. Zmuda, [6] O. Lalakulich, K. Gallmeister, T. Leitner, and U. Mosel, Phys.Rev. C91, 045501 (2015). 9

[13] L. Alvarez-Ruso, E. Hernandez, J. Nieves, and M. J. Vi- cente Vacas, Phys. Rev. D81, 085046 (2010). cente Vacas, Proceedings, 10th International Workshop [25] O. Lalakulich and E. A. Paschos, Phys. Rev. D71, 074003 on Neutrino-Nucleus Interactions in the Few GeV Re- (2005). gion (NuInt15): Osaka, Japan, November 16-21, 2015, [26] E. Oset and L. L. Salcedo, JPS Conf. Proc. 12, 010003 (2016). Nucl. Phys. A468, 631 (1987). [14] T. Katori and M. Martini, (2016) arXiv:1611.07770 [hep- [27] O. Lalakulich and U. Mosel, ph],. Phys.Rev. C87, 014602 (2013). [15] O. Buss, T. Gaitanos, K. Gallmeister, H. van Hees, [28] G. M. Radecky et al., Phys. Rev. D25, 1161 (1982). M. Kaskulov, et al., Phys.Rept. 512, 1 (2012). [29] T. Kitagaki et al., Phys. Rev. D34, 2554 (1986). [16] L. Kadanoff and G. Baym, Quantum statistical mechanics [30] C. Wilkinson, P. Rodrigues, S. Cartwright, L. Thompson, (Benjamin, New York, 1962). and K. McFarland, Phys.Rev. D90, 112017 (2014). [17] M. Martini, M. Ericson, G. Chanfray, and J. Marteau, [31] P. Rodrigues, C. Wilkinson, and K. McFarland, Phys.Rev.C 80, 065501 (2009). Eur. Phys. J. C76, 474 (2016),. [18] R. Gonzalez Jimenez, T. Van Cuyck, N. Van Dessel, [32] K. Gallmeister, U. Mosel, and J. Weil, V. Pandey, and N. Jachowicz, Proceedings, 10th Inter- Phys. Rev. C94, 035502 (2016),. national Workshop on Neutrino-Nucleus Interactions in [33] B. Krusche, J. Lehr, J. Ahrens, J. Annand, R. Beck, the Few GeV Region (NuInt15): Osaka, Japan, Novem- et al., Eur.Phys.J. A22, 277 (2004). ber 16-21, 2015, JPS Conf. Proc. 12, 010047 (2016). [34] M. M. Kaskulov, K. Gallmeister, and U. Mosel, [19] O. Lalakulich, T. Leitner, O. Buss, and U. Mosel, Phys. Rev. C79, 015207 (2009). Phys.Rev. D82, 093001 (2010),. [35] L. El Fassi et al. (CLAS), Phys. Lett. B712, 326 (2012),. [20] D. Drechsel, S. S. Kamalov, and L. Tiator, [36] K. Gallmeister and U. Mosel, Eur. Phys. J. A34, 69 (2007). Nucl. Phys. A801, 68 (2008). [21] L. Tiator, D. Drechsel, S. S. Kamalov, and M. Van- [37] GiBUU, (2016), http://gibuu.hepforge.org. derhaeghen, Proceedings, 7th International Workshop [38] U. Mosel, Phys. Rev. C91, 065501 (2015). on the Physics of Excited nucleon (NSTAR 2009), [39] A. Aguilar-Arevalo et al. (MiniBooNE Collaboration), Chin. Phys. C33, 1069 (2009). Phys.Rev.D 83, 052007 (2011),. [22] T. J. Leitner, Neutrino-nucleus interactions in a [40] K. Abe et al. (T2K), Phys. Rev. D95, 012010 (2017),. coupled-channel hadronic transport model, dis- [41] O. Lalakulich and U. Mosel, sertation, Giessen University, Germany (2009), Phys.Rev. C88, 017601 (2013),. http://www.uni-giessen.de/diss/leitner/2009. [42] K. Abe et al. (T2K), [23] E. Hernandez, J. Nieves, and M. Valverde, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 192501 (2016). Phys. Rev. D76, 033005 (2007). [43] A. Higuera et al. (MINERvA Collaboration), [24] E. Hernandez, J. Nieves, M. Valverde, and M. J. Vi- Phys.Rev.Lett. 113, 261802 (2014).