text:
# Role of Δ exchange for 𝑝𝑝̄ annihilation into two-pion and three-pion channels

## I Introduction

Nucleon-antinucleon ($`N\overline{N}`$) annihilation has attracted a great deal of interest over the past two decades . Although recently the main emphasis has often been put on meson spectroscopy and specifically the identification of exotic mesonic states , one should not forget that this process also offers a rich field in which various aspects of quark-gluon dynamics and/or hadron dynamics can be tested. Indeed the development of a microscopic model which describes the $`N\overline{N}`$ interaction and, at the same time, can account also for all phenomena associated with the $`N\overline{N}`$ annihilation into two, three, …, mesons is a rather challenging task for any theorist and has so far not been achieved. With regard to $`N\overline{N}`$ annihilation, models based on quark degrees of freedom were the first ones to be utilized in attempts to obtain a quantitative description of annihilation into two and three mesons. Their use was prompted by the expectation that annihilation processes might be a good place for detecting explicit quark-gluon effects since relatively short interaction ranges are involved. The pioneering works stem from Maruyama and Ueda  and Green and Niskanen , followed by an impressive series of studies carried out by the Tübingen group . (Cf. also Ref.  for a comprehensive review of quark-model studies of $`N\overline{N}`$ annihilation.)

Investigations of $`N\overline{N}`$ annihilation relying on the more traditional meson-baryon picture, where the annihilation process is described by baryon-exchange diagrams, were initiated by Moussallam not long after the first works within the quark model had appeared . Subsequently, the Jülich group carried out several studies based on this approach  and more recently also Yan and Tegen . Those works indicate that the conventional hadronic concept for describing $`N\overline{N}`$ annhilation is capable of producing results that are at least of the same quality as obtained from quark-gluon models. However, all those studies concentrated on two-meson annihilation channels only. This is certainly an unsatisfying situation because it would be interesting to see whether the baryon-exchange picture of $`N\overline{N}`$ annihilation works similarly well for three-meson decay as it does for the two-meson channels. Furthermore, we wish to recall that the latest model by the Jülich group  constitutes already an essential step in achieving a unified description of $`N\overline{N}`$ scattering and annihilation. In this model the elastic and annihilation parts of the $`N\overline{N}`$ interaction are derived in a consistent framework and, in addition, the transitions to two-meson channels, $`N\overline{N}M_1M_2`$, and the contributions of these two-meson channels to the total $`N\overline{N}`$ annihilation are described consistently as well. Thus, it is important, but also challenging, to go a step further and include the three-meson decay channels explicitly as well in this model.

In a series of recent works , we have used the baryon-exchange model to investigate proton-antiproton annihilation into three uncorrelated pions. By “uncorrelated”, we mean that these pions are not the decay products of an intermediate heavy-meson resonance. Of course, annihilation into three pions is known to be dominated by the formation and decay of intermediate states made up of a pion and a heavy meson, and such processes have already been studied in the baryon-exchange model. The process at hand only constitutes a relatively small background. Yet such background contributions have been found significant in phenomenological analyses of $`p\overline{p}`$ annihilation into $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0`$ at rest  and it can be expected that they need to be also taken into account in precise analyses of annihilation into three neutral pions, which has recently been the object of considerable interest .

Our investigation of annihilation into three uncorrelated pions was done in a distorted-wave Born approximation (DWBA), employing the most recent $`N\overline{N}`$ model of the Jülich group  for the initial-state interaction, and guided by the same principles applied in that reference for the calculation of annihilation into two-meson channels. The work was initiated with a study of the $`p\overline{p}\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0`$ process , in a simplified model, in which only nucleon exchange was included explicitly in the annihilation amplitude. The effect of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ exchange – which is known to produce a significant enhancement of the cross-section for annihilation into two pions  – was taken into account in an approximate phenomenological fashion, namely through a readjustment of the cutoff at the $`NN\pi `$ vertex. In a subsequent paper , a first step in assessing the shortcomings of this simplification was made by comparing the pertinent results with those obtained through explicit inclusion of the amplitudes involving the exchange of one $`N`$ and one $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Very recently, a further step was taken with the inclusion of the annihilation amplitude generated by double $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ exchange .

Despite those achievements we have to concede, however, that there is still an inconsistency in our calculations so far. The nucleon-antinucleon interaction developed by the Jülich group is derived in a time-ordered formalism and specifically also the amplitude for annihilation into two pions is calculated in time-ordered perturbation theory. In contrast, in order to avoid the proliferation of diagrams, the three-pion annihilation amplitude is calculated in Feynman-type perturbation theory. This procedure implies that the treatment of the off-shell behaviour of the three-pion annihilation amplitude is different from that used in the Jülich model of annihilation into two pions . This shortcoming has been previously ignored. However, it is of relevance now that we are able to calculate the two-pion and three-pion annihilation channels involving $`N`$ as well as $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ exchange in a consistent way. Therefore, we decided to treat the two-pion annihilation amplitude in the same fashion as the three-pion one, i.e. in Feynman-type perturbation theory. Clearly, in such an approach $`NN\pi `$ and $`N\mathrm{\Delta }\pi `$ vertex parameters taken from the work of the Jülich group will no longer reproduce the phenomenology of two-pion annihilation and a refitting is therefore necessary. This means, in turn, that full consistency with the Jülich $`N\overline{N}`$ model, which we continue to use as the initial-state interaction, will be lost. But this is excusable to a certain extent because the annihilation channel in question, $`N\overline{N}2\pi `$, yields only a tiny contribution to the total $`N\overline{N}`$ annihilation cross section . On the other hand, the $`NN\pi `$ and $`N\mathrm{\Delta }\pi `$ vertex parameters play a crucial role for the $`N\overline{N}3\pi `$ cross section, as we will see and explore in the present paper, and therefore it is rather important to constrain them by the requirement of consistency between the two- and three-pion annihilation channels.

In this paper we present results of a combined study of proton-antiproton annihilation into two and three pions in a baryon-exchange model. We start out from the two-pion annihilation channel. We use available experimental data on $`p\overline{p}\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ to determine the free parameters of our model, i.e. the cutoff masses in the form factors at the $`NN\pi `$ and $`N\mathrm{\Delta }\pi `$ vertices. The effects of different choices for the analytical form of those vertex form factors are explored as well. We then turn to three-pion annihilation and discuss the relative importance of $`NN`$, $`N\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }`$ exchanges.

In Sec. II we provide some details of our model. In particular, we specify the ingredients used for evaluating the $`N`$\- and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-exchange diagrams for $`N\overline{N}`$ annihilation into two and three pions, i.e. the baryon-baryon-meson Lagrangians and the corresponding vertex form factors and coupling constants. Furthermore we give a short description of the $`N\overline{N}`$ model that is employed for the initial-state interaction and we outline how the amplitudes for $`N\overline{N}`$ annihilation into two and three pions are determined in distorted-wave Born approximation. Our results are presented and discussed in Sec. III. First we consider the reaction $`p\overline{p}\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ which is used for fixing the free parameters of our model. Subsequently, we examine the reaction $`p\overline{p}\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0`$ as well as annihilation channels involving only neutral pions ($`p\overline{p}\pi ^0\pi ^0`$, $`p\overline{p}\pi ^0\pi ^0\pi ^0`$). We show results for total and differential cross sections and also for branching ratios from specific initial $`N\overline{N}`$ states. The paper ends with some concluding remarks.

## II THE MODEL

### A Distorted-wave Born approximation

The basis of the present work is the Jülich model for $`N\overline{N}`$ scattering and annihilation . In this model heavier mesons are treated as stable particles in the (successful) description of $`N\overline{N}`$ annihilation into two mesons. In accordance with this approach, the uncorrelated three-pion channel is here considered separately from the channels in which a pion and a heavy meson, which can decay into two pions, are formed. When calculating the total cross section for annihilation into three pions, the contributions from these channels are added incoherently. Neglecting interferences between the various channels seems acceptable for the aim of this work, which is to perform an exploratory study about the relevance of the uncorrelated three-pion channel for the annihilation cross section.

The general procedure is to start from the Born transition amplitude $`V^{N\overline{N}n\pi }`$ for annihilation into $`n`$ (= 2 and 3) pions and include the initial-state interaction in distorted-wave Born approximation, so that the annihilation amplitude $`T^{N\overline{N}n\pi }`$ is given by

$$T^{N\overline{N}n\pi }=V^{N\overline{N}n\pi }+V^{N\overline{N}n\pi }G^{N\overline{N}N\overline{N}}T^{N\overline{N}N\overline{N}},$$
(1)
where $`G^{N\overline{N}N\overline{N}}`$ is the propagator for the $`N\overline{N}`$ pair. The $`N\overline{N}`$ scattering amplitude $`T^{N\overline{N}N\overline{N}}`$ is obtained from the solution of a Lippmann-Schwinger equation

$$T^{N\overline{N}N\overline{N}}=V^{N\overline{N}N\overline{N}}+V^{N\overline{N}N\overline{N}}G^{N\overline{N}N\overline{N}}T^{N\overline{N}N\overline{N}}.$$
(2)
In the work of the Jülich group the time-ordered formalism is invoked to cast Eqs. (1) and (2) in tractable (three-dimensional) form. The $`N\overline{N}`$ interaction $`V^{N\overline{N}N\overline{N}}`$ and, in particular, the Born transition amplitudes for annihilation into two mesons are likewise calculated within time-ordered perturbation theory (TOPT). Here however, in order to avoid the evaluation of the numerous graphs that occur within TOPT for the Born transition amplitude $`V^{N\overline{N}3\pi }`$ for annihilation into three pions, we prefer to employ Feynman diagrams. We stress that these two procedures imply different off-shell extrapolations of the annihilation amplitudes and are therefore not equivalent. Since we intend to use annihilation into two pions for the determination of the free parameters in our model, we need to maintain consistency between our treatments of annihilation into two and three pions. Therefore, we will use the Feynman prescription also to calculate the Born transition amplitude $`V^{N\overline{N}2\pi }`$ for annihilation into two pions. Only the initial-state scattering amplitude $`T^{N\overline{N}N\overline{N}}`$ will be still computed in time-ordered formalism.

In the case of annihilation into two pions, the amplitudes may be expanded in partial waves and the angular distribution and integrated cross section calculated in standard fashion. In the case of annihilation into three pions, the Monte Carlo method is used to perform the final phase-space integration.

### B Annihilation amplitudes

In accordance with the Jülich $`N\overline{N}`$ model we assume that the dynamics of annihilation into pions is mediated by nucleon and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ exchanges. Hence, the Born transition amplitudes $`V^{N\overline{N}n\pi }`$ ($`n=2,3`$) are given by the sums of the Feynman tree diagrams involving the $`NN\pi `$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }N\pi `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }\pi `$ vertices, shown in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2. The complete amplitudes are obtained by summing such diagrams over all permutations of the final-state pions.

The contributions of the various diagrams are evaluated using standard interaction Lagrangians, namely

$`_{NN\pi }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f_{NN\pi }}{m_\pi }}\overline{\psi }_N\gamma ^5\stackrel{}{\tau }\overline{)}\stackrel{}{\varphi }\psi _N,`$ (3)
$`_{\mathrm{\Delta }N\pi }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f_{\mathrm{\Delta }N\pi }}{m_\pi }}\overline{\psi }_\mathrm{\Delta }^\mu \stackrel{}{T}_\mu \stackrel{}{\varphi }\psi _N+h.c.,`$ (4)
$`_{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }\pi }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f_{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }\pi }}{m_\pi }}\overline{\psi }_{\mathrm{\Delta }\mu }\gamma ^5\stackrel{}{I}\overline{)}\stackrel{}{\varphi }\psi _\mathrm{\Delta }^\mu ,`$ (5)
where $`\stackrel{}{I}`$ is the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ isospin operator and $`\stackrel{}{T}`$ the $`N\mathrm{\Delta }`$ transition isospin operator (we use the normalization conventions of Ref.  for these operators).

The corresponding vertex factors in Feynman diagrams are:

$`𝒱_{NN\pi }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f_{NN\pi }}{m_\pi }}\gamma ^5\tau ^i\overline{)}q,`$ (6)
$`𝒱_{\mathrm{\Delta }N\pi }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f_{\mathrm{\Delta }N\pi }}{m_\pi }}q_\mu T^i+h.c.,`$ (7)
$`𝒱_{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }\pi }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f_{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }\pi }}{m_\pi }}g_{\mu \nu }\gamma ^5I^i\overline{)}q,`$ (8)
where $`q_\mu `$ is the pion four-momentum and the index $`i`$ specifies the pion isospin. The nucleon propagator takes the standard form

$$iG_N(p)=i\frac{\overline{)}p+m_N}{p^2m_N^2}.$$
(9)
For the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ propagator, we adopt

$$iG_\mathrm{\Delta }^{\mu \nu }(p)=i\frac{\overline{)}p+m_\mathrm{\Delta }}{p^2m_\mathrm{\Delta }^2}\mathrm{\Theta }^{\mu \nu }(p),$$
(10)
with

$$\mathrm{\Theta }^{\mu \nu }(p)g^{\mu \nu }\frac{\gamma ^\mu \gamma ^\nu }{3}\frac{2p^\mu p^\nu }{3m_\mathrm{\Delta }^2}+\frac{p^\mu \gamma ^\nu p^\nu \gamma ^\mu }{3m_\mathrm{\Delta }}.$$
(11)
Two of the coupling constants appearing in the above vertices are already used in the Bonn potential  and Jülich $`N\overline{N}`$ model , namely $`f_{NN\pi }^2/4\pi `$ = 0.0778 and $`f_{\mathrm{\Delta }N\pi }^2/4\pi `$ = 0.224. For the $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }\pi `$ coupling, we shall rely on the $`SU(2)\times SU(2)`$ quark–model relation , $`f_{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }\pi }=\frac{9}{5}f_{NN\pi }`$. This gives $`f_{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }\pi }^2/4\pi `$ = 0.252.

Form factors must be included in order to regularize the calculation and to take into account the extended hadron structure. We know from our experience with other hadronic reactions that the results might depend sensitively on those form factors, in particular when loop integrations like in Eq. (1) are involved. Therefore, in order to investigate the sensitivity of our model to the details of these form factors, we employ three different parametrizations in the present study. In two of these we follow the conventional assumption that the vertex form factor depends only on the momentum of the exchanged particle, i.e. the particle which is off-shell in the Born diagram. For annihilation into three pions, the inner vertex contains the product of two such form factors since there are two off-shell particles attached to this vertex. Explicitly, we employ the functions

$$_M(p)=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\alpha X\pi }^2M_X^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\alpha X\pi }^2p^2}$$
(12)
and

$$_G(p)=exp\left[\frac{(p^2M_X^2)^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\alpha X\pi }^4}\right].$$
(13)
In these expressions, $`X`$ stands for the type ($`N`$ or $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$) of the exchanged off-shell particle, $`M_X`$ for its mass and $`p`$ for its four-momentum; $`\alpha `$ denotes the type of the other baryon present at the vertex and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\alpha X\pi }`$ represents the cutoff mass corresponding to the $`\alpha X\pi `$ vertex. In principle, four independent cutoff masses have to be specified: one for the $`NN\pi `$ vertex, characterizing an off-shell nucleon, two for the $`\mathrm{\Delta }N\pi `$ vertex, characterizing an off-shell nucleon or an off-shell $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, respectively, and one for the $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }\pi `$ vertex, characterizing an off-shell $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. In order to reduce the number of free parameters, we assume $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{N\mathrm{\Delta }\pi }=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{\Delta }N\pi }=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }\pi }\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{\Delta }`$. The procedure for fixing the values of the remaining independent cutoff parameters ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{NN\pi }\mathrm{\Lambda }_N`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{\Delta }`$) will be discussed in Sec. III. In the following we will refer to those form factors as monopole \[Eq. (12)\] and Gaussian \[Eq. (13)\], respectively.

The third type of regularization we consider attributes a damping factor to each line in the Born diagrams, including the external legs. Specifically we use a parametrization introduced by B. Pearce  and later by C. Schütz  in their studies of the $`\pi N`$ system which is given by

$$_P(p)=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_X^4}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_X^4+(p^2M_X^2)^2},$$
(14)
with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_X`$ the cutoff mass associated with a baryon line of type $`X`$. Note that, in principle, a similar factor should be applied to the pion lines as well. But since in our DWBA calculation the pions are always on their mass shell this factor will be identical to 1 and, therefore, can be omitted. In the following we will refer to this choice as the Pearce form factor.

In order to combine the Feynman annihilation amplitudes with the initial-state distorted wave, it is necessary to specify a prescription for the energy components of the four-momenta of their external $`N`$ and $`\overline{N}`$ legs. We set both equal to their on-energy-shell value (i.e., half the total available energy in the center-of-mass frame).

### C Initial-state interaction

The $`N\overline{N}`$ interaction $`V^{N\overline{N}N\overline{N}}`$ used to obtain the initial-state distorted wave is that developed in Ref. , without modification. For completeness, we summarize here its main features.

The interaction is made up of an elastic and an annihilation part:

$$V^{N\overline{N}N\overline{N}}=V_{el}+V_{ann}.$$
(15)
The elastic interaction is obtained through a G-parity transformation of the full Bonn $`NN`$ potential , corresponding to the diagrams shown in Fig. 3.

The annihilation interaction consists of a microscopic and a phenomenological piece:

$$V_{ann}=\underset{ij}{}V^{M_iM_jN\overline{N}}G^{M_iM_j}V^{N\overline{N}M_iM_j}+V_{opt}.$$
(16)
The microscopic component is the sum of box diagrams with two-meson intermediate states resulting from all possible combinations of $`\pi `$, $`\eta `$, $`\rho `$, $`\omega `$, $`a_0`$, $`f_0`$, $`a_1`$, $`f_1`$, $`a_2`$, $`f_2`$, $`K`$ and $`K^{}`$ mesons (Fig. 4a). The transition potentials $`V^{N\overline{N}M_iM_j}`$ are given by the baryon-exchange diagrams presented in Fig. 5. The coupling constants and cutoff parameters at the vertices of these transition potentials are quoted in Table I of Ref. . Note that in Ref.  these transition potentials are employed also for the calculation of the amplitudes for annihilation into a pion and a heavy meson $`M`$. Those amplitudes are obtained from equations analogous to Eq. (1), with $`V^{N\overline{N}\pi M}`$ as the Born term. The corresponding contributions to the cross sections for annihilation into three pions will be used here without modification.

The phenomenological optical potential (Fig. 4b) simulates the effect of contributions from annihilation into more than two mesons, and is parametrized in coordinate space as

$$V_{opt}=iW\mathrm{exp}(\frac{r^2}{2r_0^2}),$$
(17)
with $`W=1\mathrm{GeV}`$ and $`r_0=0.4\mathrm{fm}`$. These values have been obtained  through an overall fit to $`N\overline{N}`$ integrated cross-section data.

## III RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

As mentioned in the Introduction, in a previous publication  aimed at acquiring a first idea of the relevance of the uncorrelated channel to the $`p\overline{p}\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0`$ cross section, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ exchange was not included in the transition amplitude. This, of course, is at variance with the dynamics included in the treatment of the $`N\overline{N}2\pi `$ amplitude, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ exchange is taken into account. The argument invoked was that if one considers only the (dominant) charged two-pion channel, one finds that the effect of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ exchange can be described phenomenologically by using an effective value for the cutoff at the $`NN\pi `$ vertex. It turned out that, in this rather crude treatment, the uncorrelated channel adds a 10% contribution to the total $`p\overline{p}`$ annihilation cross section into three pions, motivating a more systematic study. In subsequent studies, the exchange of one $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ , and of two $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$’s  has been explored. While this unified the dynamics of annihilation into two and three pions, complete consistency was not achieved yet, since the two-pion channel was treated with TOPT  while for the three-pion channel, the Feynman prescription was used . More recently , first results of a calculation in which both two-pion and three-pion channels are treated within the Feynman prescription were presented. Here we explore more fully the predictions of this model. Specifically we analyze the contributions of the uncorrelated three-pion channel not only to the charged but also to the neutral annihilation cross sections, and we show predictions for various branching ratios as well. We also investigate the effect of various choices of the vertex form factors on our results and we explore the importance of the contributions coming from the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-exchange diagrams.

### A $`p\overline{p}\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ cross section

To get insight into the influence of the vertex form factors on the results for $`p\overline{p}3\pi `$ we accomplished fits to the reaction $`p\overline{p}\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ using each of the three parametrizations introduced in Sec. II B. Since it turned out that the presently available data do not allow to determine the relative magnitudes of the $`N`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ exchange contributions unambiguously, we prepared two sets of models, one with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_N`$ larger than $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and the other with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_N`$ smaller than $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Thus, we have in total six parameter sets, all determined in such a way as to provide an adequate description of the total and differential $`p\overline{p}\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ cross sections. The resulting values for the cutoff masses are compiled in Table I. The parameter set A corresponds to form factors which suppress $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ exchange compared to nucleon exchange. The parameter set B corresponds to a quite strong $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ exchange, hopefully providing some sort of upper bound for the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ contribution when used to describe annihilation into three uncorrelated pions later on.

The results for the $`p\overline{p}\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ total cross sections are compared to the data  in Fig. 6. Considering the rather large experimental errors at low energy, all parameter sets can be said to provide an adequate description. The relative importance of $`N`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ exchanges is illustrated in Table II, which shows their separate contributions to the cross section at two sample energies. For the parameter set A the contribution from $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ exchange is indeed not very important. Turning it off reduces the cross sections by – at most, depending on the energy – 30% (Pearce form factor) to 10% (monopole form factor). For the Gaussian form factor, the reduction is by about 20%. For the parameter set B, the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-exchange contribution dominates over the $`N`$ contribution, although, because of the constructive interference between them, both contributions are important in building up the cross section. One should note that the relative importance of $`N`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ exchanges results in general from a balance between two competing effects. On the one hand, the larger coupling constant at the $`\mathrm{\Delta }N\pi `$ vertex favors $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ exchange over $`N`$ exchange, but on the other hand, since the relevant kinematical region for the exchanged particle is space-like, it is somewhat further away from the on-shell point for the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ than for the nucleon. This leads to a comparatively larger propagator denominator and a stronger damping due to form factors for the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$.

The angular distributions are shown in Fig. 7 for two incident momenta. The quality of the results for other measured incident momenta is similar to that of these two sample cases. For forward scattering, the differential cross section looks reasonable for all parameter sets. For larger incident momenta, a stronger $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ contribution tends to produce a bending down of the cross section at small angles (see the case $`p_{lab}=679`$ MeV/c with parameter set B). This imposes an upper limit on the amount of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ contribution which is acceptable. Let us note, however, that the data at somewhat higher energies do indeed show such a bending down in the forward direction . With respect to backward scattering our models fare rather poorly. But this is expected and therefore not a reason of concern. It is known that final-state interactions, not considered here, play an important role for backward angles and do improve the results significantly . Also, it has been argued  that a tensor coupling for the $`N\mathrm{\Delta }\pi `$ vertex would enhance the differential cross section around $`100^{}`$ for $`p_{lab}>680`$ MeV/c.

### B $`p\overline{p}\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0`$ annihilation

#### 1 Cross section

The $`p\overline{p}`$ annihilation into three pions has contributions from three uncorrelated pions in addition to some two-meson channels, involving a heavier meson ($`\rho `$, $`f_o`$ and $`f_2`$), which decays subsequently into two pions with some branching ratio (100%, 78% and 85%, respectively). The two-meson channels have already been studied with the Jülich model by Mull et al. . Here we concentrate on the uncorrelated three-pion contribution to the $`p\overline{p}\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0`$ cross section.

Our results are shown in Table III for the six parameter sets of Table I, at two sample energies. For parameter set A most of the cross section comes from $`N`$ exchange and the contributions from one- and two-$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ exchanges are negligible. For parameter set B, however, the one- and two-$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ exchanges are sizeable. Especially for the Pearce form factor, the cross section is enhanced by almost a factor of two when the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-exchange contributions are added. On the other hand, the overall magnitude of the cross sections is, in general, much smaller for set B than for set A, indicating that the increase due to the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-exchange contribution for set B is by far not sufficient to compensate the reduction of the $`N`$-exchange contribution. This means that the relative importance of annihilation via $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ exchange as compared to $`N`$ exchange is much smaller in the reaction $`p\overline{p}\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0`$ than it is for $`p\overline{p}\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$. One reason for this is that the number of possible charge combinations of the exchanged baryons is larger for amplitudes involving $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$’s and the interferences between their contributions tend to be destructive. The differences between the results obtained with different form factors are also easily understood qualitatively. For the Pearce type, since the factors are in effect associated with propagators, there is one more factor for the three-pion annihilation amplitude, compared to the two-pion one. For the other types, however, the factors are associated with internal vertex legs and therefore two more factors appear in the three-pion amplitude. This makes the Pearce form factor to yield less suppression for annihilation into three pions. When two baryons are exchanged, each one of them is not as far off shell as when only one is exchanged. Therefore, because of its stronger variation with $`p^2`$, the Gaussian form cuts off less strongly for three-pion annihilation than the monopole form factor.

The total experimental $`p\overline{p}\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0`$ cross section ranges from around 7 mb to 3 mb for energies from 65 MeV to 220 MeV . In comparison to these values, the calculated uncorrelated cross section varies from mere insignificance (for monopole and Gaussian form factors with parameter set B), to about 10% of the measured total cross section for the Gaussian form factor with parameter set A. The relevance of the contribution from annihilation into three uncorrelated pions might be best seen from Fig. 8, where our results for the three uncorrelated pions are added to Mull’s results  for annihilation into two-meson channels ($`\rho \pi `$, $`f_o\pi `$ and $`f_2\pi `$), weighted with the percentages of decay of the heavy mesons into two pions and the isospin factors, and compared with the total experimental annihilation cross section.

#### 2 Branching ratios

A more detailed comparison can be made by considering the experimental information from a specific antiprotonium initial state. Annihilation of antiprotonic hydrogen atoms into $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0`$ has been studied by stopping antiprotons from LEAR in hydrogen gas by the ASTERIX Collaboration . All $`N\overline{N}`$ initial states for $`S`$ and $`P`$ waves which may decay into $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0`$ have been considered<sup>*</sup><sup>*</sup>*The $`G`$-parity of the initial antiprotonium state is $`G=(1)^{L+S+I}`$, and for a three-pion final state $`G=1`$; this determines the isospin quantum number $`I`$ for each allowed initial state. The $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{}`$ initial state is forbidden by angular momentum and parity conservation., namely $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}(I=0)`$, $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}(I=1)`$, $`{}_{}{}^{1}P_{1}^{}(I=0)`$, $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{1}^{}(I=1)`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{2}^{}(I=1)`$. The phenomenological analysis has been made in terms of resonant amplitudes and a non-resonant (phase-space) background. The contributions from the $`\rho \pi `$ channel have already been compared with the results of the Jülich model . The phase-space component has also been compared with the uncorrelated three-pion contribution in the first, simplified version of our model, in which $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ exchange was not considered explicitly. Here we use the present model to compare our results with the experimental values.

As before , we assume that all the spin states of a given orbital angular momentum in protonium are populated with about the same probability and identify the relative branching ratios for decay from a given atomic state to the ratios between the contributions from the corresponding partial waves to the annihilation cross section at low energy. Although the cross sections themselves vary rapidly with energy, these ratios are almost constant for small laboratory energies (a few MeV). Thus, like in our previous work, we use cross-section ratios at 5 MeV.

Table IV shows our results for the ratios of branching ratios for $`N\overline{N}\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0`$ for various types of form factors and parameter sets, compared to the experimental values extracted from the phenomenological analysis of Ref. . An estimate based on ratios between numbers (2J+1) of available states is given as well.

Not surprisingly, for parameter set A, where $`N`$ exchange is dominant, the results are very similar to our previous ones , where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ exchange had not been considered at all. The theoretical $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}/^1S_0`$ ratios depend only weakly on the dynamics. The predictions are close to the value 3, which is expected on the basis of simple state counting, though they tend to be, in general, somewhat larger than this phenomenological value, especially for the Pearce form factor. The theoretical $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{1}^{}/^1P_1`$ ratios show some dependence on the spin and isospin dynamics and are smaller than the results of the phenomenological analysis by a factor of about 2. For the $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{2}^{}/^1P_1`$ ratio, the theoretical results again depend weakly on the dynamics; however, they also fall short of the experimental evidence by a factor of 2 to 3.

For parameter set B, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ exchange is also relevant, the $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}/^1S_0`$ ratios show the same general trends as for set A, although the result for the Pearce form factor is now considerably larger than the experimental value. The $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{1}^{}/^1P_1`$ and $`^3P_2/^1P_1`$ ratios, on the other hand, are spectacularly larger than for set A and now overshoot the experimental data by far. This effect originates from the fact that, with our choices of vertices and propagators, exchanges involving $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$’s make a very small contribution to the $`{}_{}{}^{1}P_{1}^{}`$ partial wave. Consequently, if form factors are chosen such as to suppress the $`NN`$-exchange contribution (as is the case for set B), the total contribution of that partial wave to the cross section is small and the $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{1}^{}/^1P_1`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{2}^{}/^1P_1`$ ratios are large. The fact that the experimental values for these ratios lie between our results for sets A and B is in accordance with our objective of these sets as extremes between which realistic values for the cutoffs are confined.

### C Annihilation into neutral pions

Some experimental results for $`p\overline{p}`$ annihilation into neutral pions have been published already a long time ago . But only very recently, for the first time, data at beam momenta below 1 GeV/c have been made available by the Crystal Barrel Collaboration for annihilation into $`2\pi ^0`$’s . Specifically, their measurement at a laboratory momentum of 600 MeV/c is still within the limit of validity of our model and, therefore, it is possible to compare our results with those data, as we shall do in this section. We emphasize that all our parameter sets were fixed by the annihilation into two charged pions, as discussed above. Thus, the results presented here for the reactions $`p\overline{p}2\pi ^0`$ as well as $`p\overline{p}3\pi ^0`$ are genuine predictions of our model.

#### 1 $`p\overline{p}2\pi ^0`$ annihilation

For the reaction $`p\overline{p}2\pi ^0`$ there are high-statistics data taken at LEAR in the momentum range 600-1940 MeV/c   These data show a systematic disagreement in normalization with the earlier data , i.e. the cross sections are a factor of more than 2 larger. . In Fig. 9, we compare the differential cross sections predicted by our model with the data of Ref  at the laboratory momentum $`p_{lab}=600`$ MeV/c. (The next higher energy measured, $`p_{lab}=900`$ MeV/c, is already beyond the valitidy range of our model and therefore we refrain from comparing our model with those data.) Note that the normalization is such that the area under the curve times $`2\pi `$ gives the corresponding total annihilation cross section.

It can be seen that the predictions for the differential cross section at small angles are reasonable for parameter set A, i.e. for the models where nucleon exchange is the dominant annihilation process. However, for parameter set B, which corresponds to models with a large contribution from $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ exchange, we observe a serious disagreement with the data. Obviously the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ exchange tends to bend down the differential cross section at small angles, something which we also noticed for the charged case. For angles near $`90^{}`$ the Pearce form factor yields a contribution too high for both parameter sets whereas all other models are in rough agreement with the data.

Predictions at a lower laboratory momentum, $`p_{lab}=360`$ MeV/c, are also shown in Fig. 9 though at this energy there are presently no data available.

The experimental total cross section for $`p\overline{p}\pi ^0\pi ^0`$ given in Ref.  was obtained by integrating only over the limited range $`\mathrm{cos}(\theta )`$ = 0 to 0.85. Thus, we do the same for obtaining the theoretical cross sections at $`p_{lab}=600`$ MeV/c, which are compiled in Table V. The model predictions range from values close to the experimental ones, to values that are too large by a factor of 2 to 3. The contributions from the individual annihilation mechanisms ($`N`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ exchange, respectively) are listed in Table VI for all considered parameter sets. Not unexpectedly, the general features are very similar to those found for the annihilation into two charged pions. $`N`$ exchange dominates in case of parameter set A, while $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ exchange provides the larger contribution for the parameter set B. The interference between $`N`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ exchanges is generally constructive.

#### 2 $`p\overline{p}3\pi ^0`$ annihilation

Our results for the cross section for $`p\overline{p}`$ annihilation into three uncorrelated neutral pions at $`p_{lab}=600`$ MeV/c are compiled in Table VII. The values range from 2.2 $`\mu b`$ (for parameter set B with monopole form factor) to 37.8 $`\mu b`$ (for parameter set A with Gaussian form factor). The corresponding experimental value for the total annihilation cross section (which includes contributions from three uncorrelated pions as well as from two-meson annihilation channels that finally decay into three pions) is $`356\pm 18`$ $`\mu b`$ . Thus, like already for the case of charged pions, it turns out that the annihilation into three uncorrelated $`\pi ^0`$’s could amount to up to $`10\%`$ of the total $`3\pi ^0`$ annihilation cross section. This suggests that such a “non-resonant background” contribution should perhaps be included in detailed phenomenological analyses aimed at identifying new hadronic states .

The contributions from the individual annihilation mechanisms can be seen in Table VIII. As for the charged case, it turns out that annihilation via $`N\mathrm{\Delta }`$ as well as via double-$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ exchange is negligible for parameter set A. For parameter set B, $`NN`$ and $`N\mathrm{\Delta }`$ exchanges yield similar contributions, while $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }`$ exchange remains practically negligible. However, the overall size of the cross-section is again much less than for set A. The comparison made in Sec. III B 1 between the various types of form factors applies to the present case also.

## IV SUMMARY

In this paper we have presented results of a study of proton-antiproton annihilation into two and three pions in a baryon-exchange model. Specifically, we have taken into account contributions from $`N`$ exchange as well as from $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ exchange consistently in the two- and three-pion annihilation channels. The free parameters of our model, the cutoff masses in the form factors at the $`NN\pi `$ and $`N\mathrm{\Delta }\pi `$ vertices, were determined by the available experimental data on $`p\overline{p}\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$. Thus, the results for the other annihilation channels considered, $`p\overline{p}\pi ^0\pi ^0`$ as well as $`p\overline{p}\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0`$ and $`p\overline{p}\pi ^0\pi ^0\pi ^0`$, can be regarded as genuine predictions of the model.

The main aim of our work was to study and discuss the relative importance of $`NN`$, $`N\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }`$ exchanges for annihilation into three pions. For that purpose we prepared two sets of models which describe the cross sections of the reaction $`p\overline{p}\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ with comparable quality but have dominant contributions from either $`N`$ or $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ exchange. In addition we employed three different analytical forms for the vertex form factors in order to explore the sensitivity of our results to these ingredients of our model.

It turned out that the contributions from annihilation diagrams involving the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ isobar are, in general, much less important for the three-pion channel than they are for annihilation into two pions. Specifically, for those models where the $`N`$ exchange dominates the two pion decay we found the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-exchange contributions to the three pion decay to be completely negligible. Even in those models where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ exchange plays a major role in the two-pion channel, there is only a moderate effect from the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ exchange in the three-pion channel. As a consequence, the total annihilation cross section into three uncorrelated pions is usually significantly larger if we assume that $`N`$ exchange dominates the two-pion decay.

Not unexpectedly, the actual magnitude of the total three-pion annihilation cross section depends to a certain extent on the choice for the vertex form factors. This dependence is strongly reduced by requiring consistency between the treatment of the two- and three-pion decay channels, but ultimately cannot be avoided because it is already inherent in the specific functions used for the analytic forms of the form factor. With due concession for these uncertainties, our calculations show that the contributions of annihilation into three uncorrelated pions to the total three-pion annihilation cross section are by no means negligible. Indeed they might provide up to 10% of the total cross section for $`p\overline{p}\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0`$ as well as for $`p\overline{p}3\pi ^0`$.

The results obtained in this work can also be invoked to assess the general viability of the baryon-exchange model of nucleon-antinucleon annihilation. Although the two-pion and uncorrelated three-pion final states make only rather tiny contributions to the total annihilation process, the relative sizes of the cross-sections for these two channels can be used as a hint to evaluate the possibility of describing most if not all of annihilation in the baryon-exchange framework. The cross sections for annihilation into two pions are of the order of a fraction of a millibarn in the energy region we have considered. The cross sections predicted by the baryon-exchange model for annihilation into three uncorrelated pions (taking a rough average of the extreme cases considered in this work, see Table III) are of the same order of magnitude. This is perhaps surprising since one might have thought that the need for more vertices and propagators – therefore more form factors – would suppress final states of more than two mesons in such models. Remembering that, according to the calculations of Ref. , annihilation into two mesons, summed over all meson types, amounts to about 30% of the total experimental annihilation cross section, it is tempting to generalize the results found here for pions to speculate that annihilation into three mesons, when summed over all meson types, could easily account for a similar percentage of the whole process. Since it seems that multi-meson final states are not strongly suppressed in baryon-exchange models, states with four or more mesons could then easily account for the remaining of the cross section. Of course, such qualitative speculations could only be confirmed by detailed calculations, which would constitute a formidable task, but it can at least be claimed that the possibility of explaining the bulk of the annihilation process in a baryon-exchange picture is not ruled out.

## Acknowledgments

We would like to thank V. Mull for valuable discussions and the “Centro Nacional de Supercomputação da Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS)”, where much of the computational work was done. Furthermore, we acknowledge communications with A.V. Anisovich concerning the $`p\overline{p}\pi ^0\pi ^0`$ annihilation data. Financial support for this work was provided by the international exchange program DLR (Germany; BRA W0B 2F) - CNPq (Brazil; 910133/94-8), and by FAPERGS (Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio Grande do Sul).

FIG. 6

FIG. 7

FIG. 8

FIG. 9


format: text

text:
# 1 Comparison between Fermi gas (FG) and Continuum Shell model (SM) results. We have indicated with ϵ_𝑖 the initial electron energy, and with 𝜔 the missing energy, corresponding in our model with the nuclear excitation energy. The lower lines have been obtained by including the Final State Interaction. Data from ref. [].

Nuclear re-interaction effects in quasi-elastic neutrino nucleus scattering

G. Co ’, C. Bleve, I. De Mitri, and D. Martello

Dipartimento di Fisica, Università di Lecce,

and

Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare sez. di Lecce,

I-73100 Lecce, Italy

## Abstract

The quasi-elastic $`\nu `$-nucleus cross section has been calculated by using a Fermi gas model corrected to consider the re-scattering between the emitted nucleon and the rest nucleus. As an example of the relevance of this effect we show results for the muon production cross section on 16O target.

The construction and the planning of new experiments with the objective of detecting neutrinos, have raised great attention on the $`\nu `$-nucleus interaction. From the nuclear physics point of view, new $`\nu `$-nucleus data offer the opportunity to further test the knowledge of the nuclear structure and, perhaps, to reveal new nuclear effects. From the astrophysics point of view, a better determination of the $`\nu `$-nucleus cross section would help to improve the understanding of many phenomena, like star burning, element production, supernova explosion and cooling.

Also from the point of view of an elementary particle physicist, interested in revealing the properties of the neutrinos, either coming from natural or artificial sources, the knowledge of the $`\nu `$-nucleus interaction is important. The reaction between neutrinos and nuclei is the basic physical process upon which many detectors are built. The understanding of their sensitivity to the neutrinos properties and the evaluation of the neutrino fluxes strongly depend on a precise knowledge of the $`\nu `$-nucleus cross section.

Many Monte Carlo codes simulating detector responses, describe the $`\nu `$-nucleus cross section by folding the free $`\nu `$-nucleon cross section with a Fermi gas distribution. In this model, due to Smith and Moniz , the effects of the Fermi motion and of the Pauli exclusion principle are taken into account. On the other hand, many other nuclear effects are neglected. The Fermi gas model considers the nucleus as an infinite system of non-interacting nucleons. Therefore all the phenomena related to the nuclear surface and to the interaction between nucleons are not considered. Because of its simplicity the Smith and Moniz model is rather popular, however its intrinsic approximations have never been thoroughly tested.

In the present contribution we analyze one of the approximations of the Fermi gas model, specifically the one neglecting the re-interaction between the emitted nucleon and rest nucleus. We have developed a model to consider this effect. Details can be found in ref. . We present here results for the muon production on the 16O nucleus. They have been calculated for the kinematic conditions suggested as benchmark by the conference organizers.

We have already remarked that the range of applicability of the Fermi gas model in treating nuclear excitations is restricted to situations where the surface effects can be neglected. For this reason the Fermi gas model can be reliably used only in the quasi-elastic region. Roughly speaking, this region can be identified with a range of nuclear excitation energies from 50 to 300 MeV.

The validity of the infinite system approximation in the description of the quasi-elastic excitation has been studied in ref.  by comparing electromagnetic responses calculated within the Fermi gas model and the Continuum Shell model. From the physics contents these two models differ only because the Continuum Shell model considers the finite nuclear dimensions. In ref.  it is shown that a good agreement between the Fermi gas and the Continuum Shell model results can be obtained when an appropriate value of the Fermi momentum is used. It is also shown that this is a much better prescription than the commonly used Local Density Approximation.

The thin lines of fig. 1 show the electron scattering cross sections on the 16O nucleus calculated with the two different models. We used the value of the Fermi momentum of 216 MeV/c obtained with the average momentum prescription presented in ref. . The agreement between the results of the two calculations improves with increasing the energy of the electron.

In the figure, the agreement of the thiner lines with the experimental data  is rather poor. This is a common feature of all the calculations done in the quasi-elastic region with nuclear models neglecting the re-interaction between the emitted nucleon and the rest nucleus . To include this effect, commonly called Final State Interaction (FSI), we used the model developed in ref. .

In this model the response containing the FSI can be expressed in terms of folding integral of the response without FSI:

$`S^{FSI}(|𝐪|,\omega )=`$ (1)
$`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑ES^0(|𝐪|,E)\left[\rho (E,\omega )+\rho (E,\omega )\right]`$
where the folding function is:

$$\rho (E,\omega )=\frac{1}{2\pi }\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\omega )}{[E\omega \mathrm{\Delta }(\omega )]^2+[\mathrm{\Gamma }(\omega )/2]^2}$$
(2)
The two functions $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ represent the real and imaginary part of the so-called spreading width, which takes into account nuclear excitations beyond those considered in mean-field models, like the Fermi gas and the Shell models. A microscopic evaluation of this spreading width  has shown that, in the quasi-elastic region, its effects can be rather well described in terms of an optical potential. For this reason, as it is commonly done , we fixed the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ functions as volume integrals of optical potentials reproducing elastic nucleon-nucleus cross sections data.

The thick curves of fig. 1 have been obtained from the thin lines by applying the procedure above outlined. The maxima of the mean field responses are lowered, and part of the strength is shifted towards higher excitation energies. The shift of the position of the maxima is due to the presence, in our model, of an effective nucleon mass smaller than the bare nucleon mass. This effective mass takes into account the non locality of the nuclear mean field.

It is evident from the figure, that the inclusion of the FSI largely improves the agreement with the data. The features we have discussed are not typical of the specific example considered. The quasi-elastic electron scattering data can be reproduced only when the FSI is considered .

From the above considerations it appears evident that a realistic description of the $`\nu `$-nucleus interaction in the quasi-elastic region requires the treatment of the FSI. Our calculations of the $`\nu `$-nucleus cross section have been done by using the FSI model above described . As eq. (1) indicates, we need a mean field response. We have used the Fermi gas response of the Smith and Moniz approach implemented as in ref. .

The double differential cross section for the 16O ($`\nu _\mu ,\mu `$) 16F reaction is shown in fig. 2 as a function of the emitted muon energy for three values of the neutrino energy. The emission angle of the muon has been fixed at 300. The full lines show the result obtained with a bare Fermi gas calculations, while the dashed lines contain the effects of the FSI.

A first observation is that for Eν=5.0 GeV the FSI effects are negligible. The only difference between the two curves is a small shift of the position of the peak due to the presence of the effective nucleon mass. For this reason henceforth we shall neglect the results of the 5.0 GeV calculations.

The FSI effects are instead rather important for the other two energy values. At 0.5 GeV the Fermi gas response still shows the linear behaviour at high muon energies (small nuclear excitation energies). This is a signature of the fact that, under these kinematic conditions, some of the particle-hole transitions are Pauli blocked. The linear behaviour is no longer in the 1 GeV neutrinos cross section.

In both cases the FSI strongly modifies the responses, decreasing their values in the peak region and shifting strength in the forbidden region. The FSI increases the cross section at small muon energies and decreases it at higher energies.

These modifications of the nuclear response have consequences on the integrated cross sections. In fig. 3 we show the cross sections integrated with respect to the muon emission angle, as a function of the muon energy. Together with the Fermi gas and FSI results we also show the free nucleon cross section.

The differences between the various calculations are more evident for 0.5 GeV case. The free nucleon cross section has a sharp energy threshold. When the nucleon is embedded in the nuclear medium this sharp behaviour of the cross section is smoothed, and the cross sections is different from zero also in sub-threshold region. At high values of the muon energy (low excitation energy) the effect of the Pauli blocking is clearly visible in the nuclear cross sections. As expected, the inclusion of the FSI lowers the Fermi gas cross section at high muon energies and increases it at lower energies values. These effects become relatively smaller with increasing neutrino energy.

In fig. 4 we show the neutrino cross section integrated over the muon energy as a function of the emission angle. For neutrinos of 1.0 and 0.5 GeV the curves with and without FSI are rather similar. They are instead remarkably different for 0.2 GeV.

This result indicates that the effect of the FSI in fig. 2 is predominantly a redistribution of the strength, without loss or increase of it. In that figure, the integrals of the cross sections with and without FSI are almost identical. Indeed if the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ functions are independent of $`\omega `$ these integrals would be identically the same. In the region for $`\omega >`$ 50 MeV the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ functions are almost constant. For neutrino energies above 0.5 GeV the major weight in the integral comes from the region of constant $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. This explain the result of the two lower panels of fig. 4. The situation is rather different for Eν=0.2 GeV as is seen in the upper panel of the figure.

We have shown that the FSI produces relevant modifications on the quasi-elastic double differential $`\nu _\mu `$-nucleus cross section. The main effect is a redistribution of the strength, shifted from the peak position towards lower muon energies. The FSI effects become smaller with increasing neutrino energy and they are negligible for 5.0 GeV neutrinos. The inclusion of the FSI is a necessary modification of the commonly used Fermi gas model, and more in general of any mean-field model, in order to have a more realistic description of the neutrino nucleus interaction. On the other hand, if the cross section is integrated on the energy of the emitted muon the FSI effects are appreciable only for rather low neutrino energies (we have shown one example of the 0.2 GeV data).

We have presented results for the muon neutrinos and the 16O nucleus. Our conclusions, however, are more general, because the FSI interactions effects are intrinsic to the nuclear excitation modes, and independent of the excitation probe. The FSI effects above described, are present also in electron neutrino and tau neutrino reactions and for any nuclear system.