1: \documentclass[12pt,a4paper]{article}
2: %\renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{2} % double spacing
3: %\usepackage{showkeys}
4: \usepackage{fullpage}
5: \usepackage[centertags]{amsmath}
6: \allowdisplaybreaks[4]
7: %\usepackage{amsfonts}
8: \usepackage{amssymb}
9: \usepackage{bm}
10: \usepackage[dvips]{graphicx}
11: \usepackage{url}
12: \usepackage[dvips,hyperindex]{hyperref}
13: \newcommand{\bos}[1]{\overset{\scriptscriptstyle(-)}{#1}}
14: \newcommand{\boss}[2]{\ensuremath{\rlap{\kern-2.5pt\ensuremath{\overset{\scriptscriptstyle(-)}{\phantom{#1}}}}{\ensuremath{{#1}_{#2}}}}}
15: \begin{document}
16:
17: \begin{flushright}
18: \begin{tabular}{l}
19: \texttt{arXiv:0711.4222v3}
20: \\
21: %\textsf{\today}
22: \textsf{17 September 2008}
23: \end{tabular}
24: \end{flushright}
25: \vspace{1cm}
26: \begin{center}
27: \Large\bfseries
28: Limits on $\bm{\nu_{e}}$ and $\bm{\bar\nu_{e}}$ disappearance from Gallium and reactor experiments
29: \\[0.5cm]
30: \large\normalfont
31: Mario A. Acero\ensuremath{^{(a,b,c)}}, Carlo Giunti\ensuremath{^{(b)}}, Marco Laveder\ensuremath{^{(d)}}
32: \\[0.5cm]
33: \normalsize\itshape
34: \setlength{\tabcolsep}{1pt}
35: \begin{tabular}{cl}
36: \ensuremath{(a)}
37: &
38: Dipartimento di Fisica Teorica,
39: Universit\`a di Torino,
40: \\
41: &
42: Via P. Giuria 1, I--10125 Torino, Italy
43: \\[0.3cm]
44: \ensuremath{(b)}
45: &
46: INFN, Sezione di Torino,
47: Via P. Giuria 1, I--10125 Torino, Italy
48: \\[0.3cm]
49: \ensuremath{(c)}
50: &
51: Laboratoire d'Annecy-le-Vieux de Physique Th\'orique LAPTH,
52: \\
53: &
54: Universit\'e de Savoie, CNRS/IN2P3, 74941 Annecy-le-vieux, France
55: \\[0.3cm]
56: \ensuremath{(d)}
57: &
58: Dipartimento di Fisica ``G. Galilei'', Universit\`a di Padova,
59: and
60: \\
61: &
62: INFN, Sezione di Padova,
63: Via F. Marzolo 8, I--35131 Padova, Italy
64: \end{tabular}
65: \end{center}
66: \begin{abstract}
67: The deficit
68: observed in the Gallium radioactive source experiments
69: is interpreted as a possible indication of
70: the disappearance of electron neutrinos.
71: In the effective framework of two-neutrino mixing we obtain
72: $\sin^{2}2\vartheta \gtrsim 0.03$
73: and
74: $\Delta{m}^{2} \gtrsim 0.1 \, \text{eV}^{2}$.
75: The compatibility of this result
76: with the data of the Bugey and Chooz reactor short-baseline antineutrino disappearance experiments is studied.
77: It is found that the Bugey data present a hint of neutrino oscillations
78: with
79: $0.02 \lesssim \sin^{2}2\vartheta \lesssim 0.08$
80: and
81: $\Delta{m}^{2} \approx 1.8 \, \text{eV}^{2}$,
82: which is compatible with the Gallium allowed region of the mixing parameters.
83: This hint persists in the combined analyses
84: of Bugey and Chooz data,
85: of Gallium and Bugey data,
86: and
87: of Gallium, Bugey, and Chooz data.
88: \end{abstract}
89:
90: \newpage
91:
92: \section{Introduction}
93: \label{001}
94: \nopagebreak
95:
96: The observation of solar and very-long-baseline reactor neutrino oscillations due to the squared-mass difference
97: $ \Delta{m}^{2}_{\text{SOL}} = ( 7.59 \pm 0.21 ) \times 10^{-5} \, \text{eV}^{2} $
98: \protect\cite{0801.4589}
99: and the observation of atmospheric and long-baseline accelerator neutrino oscillations due to the squared-mass difference
100: $ \Delta{m}^{2}_{\text{ATM}} = 2.74 {}^{+0.44}_{-0.26} \times 10^{-3} \, \text{eV}^{2} $
101: \protect\cite{Adamson:2007gu}
102: give very robust evidence of three-neutrino mixing
103: (for reviews of the theory and phenomenology of neutrino mixing, see
104: Refs.~\protect\cite{Bilenky:1978nj,Bilenky:1987ty,hep-ph/9812360,hep-ph/0202058,hep-ph/0310238,hep-ph/0405172,hep-ph/0506083,hep-ph/0606054,Giunti-Kim-2007}).
105: There are, however,
106: some anomalies in the data of neutrino experiments which could
107: be interpreted as indications of exotic neutrino physics beyond three-neutrino mixing:
108: the LSND anomaly \protect\cite{hep-ex/0104049},
109: the Gallium radioactive source experiments anomaly \protect\cite{nucl-ex/0512041},
110: and the MiniBooNE low-energy anomaly
111: \protect\cite{0704.1500}.
112: In this paper we consider the anomaly observed
113: in the Gallium radioactive source experiments
114: \protect\cite{Anselmann:1995ar,Hampel:1998fc-Cr-51,Abdurashitov:1996dp,hep-ph/9803418,nucl-ex/0512041},
115: in which the Gallium solar neutrino detectors
116: GALLEX \protect\cite{Hampel:1998xg} and SAGE \protect\cite{nucl-ex/0509031}
117: were tested by measuring the electron neutrino flux
118: produced by intense artificial radioactive sources
119: placed inside the detectors.
120: The Gallium radioactive source experiments
121: measured a number of events smaller than expected.
122: This deficit
123: can be interpreted\footnote{
124: Another possible explanation is that
125: the theoretical
126: cross section of the Gallium detection process
127: has been overestimated \protect\cite{nucl-ex/0512041,hep-ph/0605186}.
128: }
129: as an indication of the disappearance of electron neutrinos
130: due to neutrino oscillations
131: \protect\cite{Laveder:2007zz,hep-ph/0610352,0707.4593}.
132: Under this hypothesis,
133: we analyze the data of the Gallium radioactive source experiments in the
134: effective framework of two-neutrino mixing,
135: which describes neutrino oscillations due to a $ \Delta{m}^{2} $
136: that is much larger than the solar and atmospheric ones
137: (see Refs.~\protect\cite{hep-ph/9812360,hep-ph/0202058,Giunti-Kim-2007}).
138: We also study the compatibility of this interpretation of
139: the Gallium radioactive source experiments anomaly
140: with the data of the Bugey \protect\cite{Declais:1995su} and Chooz \protect\cite{hep-ex/0301017}
141: reactor short-baseline antineutrino disappearance experiments.
142:
143: \section{Gallium}
144: \label{002}
145: \nopagebreak
146:
147: The GALLEX \protect\cite{Hampel:1998xg} and SAGE \protect\cite{nucl-ex/0509031}
148: solar neutrino detectors
149: (see
150: Refs.~\protect\cite{Bilenky:1978nj,Bilenky:1987ty,hep-ph/9812360,hep-ph/0202058,hep-ph/0310238,hep-ph/0405172,hep-ph/0506083,hep-ph/0606054,Giunti-Kim-2007})
151: have been tested
152: in so-called
153: "Gallium radioactive source experiments"
154: which consist in the detection of electron neutrinos
155: produced by intense artificial ${}^{51}\text{Cr}$ and ${}^{37}\text{Ar}$ radioactive sources
156: placed inside the detectors.
157:
158: The radioactive nuclei
159: ${}^{51}\text{Cr}$ and ${}^{37}\text{Ar}$
160: decay through electron capture
161: ($ e^{-} + {}^{51}\text{Cr} \to {}^{51}\text{V} + \nu_{e} $
162: and
163: $ e^{-} + {}^{37}\text{Ar} \to {}^{37}\text{Cl} + \nu_{e} $)
164: emitting $\nu_{e}$ lines with the energies and branching ratios listed in Tab.~\ref{004}.
165: These neutrinos
166: were detected through the same reaction used for the detection of solar neutrinos
167: \protect\cite{Kuzmin-Ga-65}:
168: \begin{equation}
169: \nu_{e} + {}^{71}\text{Ga} \to {}^{71}\text{Ge} + e^{-}
170: \,,
171: \label{003}
172: \end{equation}
173: which has the low neutrino energy threshold
174: $ E_{\nu}^{\text{th}}({}^{71}\text{Ga}) = 0.233 \, \text{MeV} $.
175: The cross sections of the $\nu_{e}$ lines emitted in
176: ${}^{51}\text{Cr}$ and ${}^{37}\text{Ar}$
177: decay interpolated from Tab.~II of Ref.~\protect\cite{Bahcall-Ga-97}
178: are listed in Tab.~\ref{004}.
179:
180: \begin{table}[t!]
181: \begin{center}
182: \begin{tabular}{l|cccc|cc}
183: &
184: \multicolumn{4}{c|}{${}^{51}\text{Cr}$}
185: &
186: \multicolumn{2}{c}{${}^{37}\text{Ar}$}
187: \\
188: \hline
189: $E_{\nu}\,[\text{keV}]$ & $ 747 $ & $ 752 $ & $ 427 $ & $ 432 $ & $ 811$ & $ 813$ \\
190: B.R. & $0.8163$ & $0.0849$ & $0.0895$ & $0.0093$ & $0.902$ & $0.098$ \\
191: $\sigma\,[10^{-46}\,\text{cm}^{2}]$ & $ 60.8 $ & $ 61.5 $ & $ 26.7 $ & $ 27.1 $ & $ 70.1$ & $70.3 $ \\
192: \hline
193: \end{tabular}
194: \caption{ \label{004}
195: Energies ($E_{\nu}$), branching ratios (B.R.) and Gallium cross sections ($\sigma$)
196: of the $\nu_{e}$ lines emitted in
197: ${}^{51}\text{Cr}$ and ${}^{37}\text{Ar}$
198: decay through electron capture.
199: The cross sections are interpolated from Tab.~II of Ref.~\protect\cite{Bahcall-Ga-97}.
200: }
201: \end{center}
202: \end{table}
203:
204: The ratios $R$ of measured and predicted ${}^{71}\text{Ge}$
205: production rates in the two GALLEX ${}^{51}\text{Cr}$ radioactive source experiments\footnote{
206: As explained in Ref.~\protect\cite{nucl-ex/0512041},
207: the values of $R$ in Tab.~\ref{006} for the two GALLEX ${}^{51}\text{Cr}$ radioactive source experiments
208: are different from those published in Refs.~\protect\cite{Anselmann:1995ar,Hampel:1998fc-Cr-51},
209: because of an improved reanalysis of the data.
210: Similar results have been published recently in a PhD thesis \cite{Kaether:2007zz}
211: and discussed at the Neutrino 2008 Conference \cite{Hahn-Nu2008}:
212: $ R(\text{Cr1}) = 0.997 \pm 0.11 $
213: and
214: $ R(\text{Cr2}) = 0.807 {}^{+0.11}_{-0.10} $
215: in a standard rise-time analysis;
216: $ R(\text{Cr1}) = 0.953 \pm 0.11 $
217: and
218: $ R(\text{Cr2}) = 0.812 {}^{+0.10}_{-0.11} $
219: in a pulse-shape analysis.
220: We have verified that our results are stable against such small changes of the data.
221: },
222: Cr1 \protect\cite{Anselmann:1995ar} and Cr2 \protect\cite{Hampel:1998fc-Cr-51},
223: and
224: the SAGE
225: ${}^{51}\text{Cr}$ \protect\cite{Abdurashitov:1996dp,hep-ph/9803418} and ${}^{37}\text{Ar}$ \protect\cite{nucl-ex/0512041} radioactive source experiments,
226: as reported in Ref.~\protect\cite{nucl-ex/0512041},
227: are listed in Tab.~\ref{006}.
228: Since the weighted average,
229: \protect\cite{nucl-ex/0512041}
230: \begin{equation}
231: R_{\text{Ga}}
232: =
233: 0.88 \pm 0.05
234: \,,
235: \label{005}
236: \end{equation}
237: is smaller than unity by more than $2\sigma$,
238: it can be interpreted as an indication of the disappearance of electron neutrinos
239: due to neutrino oscillations
240: \protect\cite{Laveder:2007zz,hep-ph/0610352,0707.4593}.
241: The $\chi^2$ in the absence of oscillation is $8.19$ for 4 degrees of freedom,
242: corresponding to a 8.5\% goodness-of-fit\footnote{
243: The goodness-of-fit is the probability to obtain a worse fit under the assumption
244: that the model under consideration is correct (see Ref.~\cite{PDG-2006}).
245: It is the standard statistic used for the estimation of the quality of a fit
246: obtained with the least-squares method,
247: assuming the validity of the approximation in which
248: $\chi^{2}_{\text{min}}$ has a $\chi^2$ distribution with
249: $ \text{NDF} = N_{\text{D}} - N_{\text{P}} $ degrees of freedom,
250: where
251: $N_{\text{D}}$ is the number of data points and $N_{\text{P}}$ is the number of fitted parameters.
252: The fit is usually considered to be acceptable if the goodness-of-fit is larger than about 1\%.
253: }, as shown in Tab.~\ref{010}.
254: Therefore,
255: a fluctuation of the data in the case of no oscillations cannot be excluded.
256: However,
257: since from a physical point of view it is interesting to explore possible indications
258: of non-standard physics,
259: in the following we consider the case of neutrino oscillations.
260:
261: \begin{table}[t!]
262: \begin{center}
263: \begin{tabular}{l|cc|cc}
264: &
265: \multicolumn{2}{c|}{GALLEX}
266: &
267: \multicolumn{2}{c}{SAGE}
268: \\
269: \hline
270: &
271: Cr1
272: &
273: Cr2
274: &
275: ${}^{51}\text{Cr}$
276: &
277: ${}^{37}\text{Ar}$
278: \\
279: \hline
280: $R$ & $ 1.00 \pm 0.10 $ & $ 0.81 \pm 0.10 $ & $ 0.95 \pm 0.12 $ & $ 0.79 \pm 0.10 $ \\
281: radius [m] & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{$1.9$} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$0.7$} \\
282: height [m] & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{$5.0$} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$1.47$} \\
283: source height [m] & $2.7$ & $2.38$ & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$0.72$} \\
284: \hline
285: \end{tabular}
286: \caption{ \label{006}
287: Ratios $R$ of measured and predicted ${}^{71}\text{Ge}$
288: production rates in the two GALLEX ${}^{51}\text{Cr}$ radioactive source experiments,
289: Cr1 \protect\cite{Anselmann:1995ar} and Cr2 \protect\cite{Hampel:1998fc-Cr-51},
290: and
291: the SAGE
292: ${}^{51}\text{Cr}$ \protect\cite{Abdurashitov:1996dp,hep-ph/9803418} and ${}^{37}\text{Ar}$ \protect\cite{nucl-ex/0512041} radioactive source experiments,
293: as reported in Ref.~\protect\cite{nucl-ex/0512041}.
294: We give also the radii and heights of the GALLEX and SAGE cylindrical detectors
295: and the heights from the base of the detectors at which the radioactive sources were placed along the axes of the detectors.
296: }
297: \end{center}
298: \end{table}
299:
300: In the effective framework of two-neutrino oscillations,
301: which is appropriate in the case of short-baseline oscillations generated by a squared-mass difference
302: much larger than
303: $ \Delta{m}^{2}_{\text{SOL}} $
304: and
305: $ \Delta{m}^{2}_{\text{ATM}} $
306: (see
307: Refs.~\protect\cite{hep-ph/9812360,Giunti-Kim-2007}),
308: the survival probability of electron neutrinos and antineutrinos
309: with energy $E_{\nu}$ at a distance $L$ from the source
310: is given by\footnote{
311: The symmetry under CPT transformations,
312: which is a characteristic of all relativistic local quantum field theories,
313: implies that the survival probabilities of neutrinos and antineutrinos are equal
314: (see Ref.~\protect\cite{Giunti-Kim-2007}).
315: }
316: \begin{equation}
317: P_{\boss{\nu}{e}\to\boss{\nu}{e}}(L,E_{\nu})
318: =
319: 1 - \sin^{2}2\vartheta \, \sin^{2}\left( \frac{ \Delta{m}^{2} L }{ 4 E_{\nu} } \right)
320: \,,
321: \label{007}
322: \end{equation}
323: where $\vartheta$ is the mixing angle and $\Delta{m}^{2}$ is the squared-mass difference.
324: The fit of the data gives information on the values of the mixing parameters $\sin^{2}2\vartheta$ and $\Delta{m}^{2}$.
325:
326: In our calculation, the theoretical value of
327: the ratio $R$ of the predicted ${}^{71}\text{Ge}$
328: production rates in each of the Gallium radioactive source experiments
329: in the cases of presence and absence of neutrino oscillations
330: is given by
331: \begin{equation}
332: R
333: =
334: \frac
335: { \int \text{d}V \, L^{-2} \sum_{i} (\text{B.R.})_{i} \, \sigma_{i} \, P_{\nu_{e}\to\nu_{e}}(L,E_{\nu,i}) }
336: { \sum_{i} (\text{B.R.})_{i} \, \sigma_{i} \int \text{d}V \, L^{-2} }
337: %\left[ \sum_{i} (\text{B.R.})_{i} \, \sigma_{i} \int \text{d}V \, L^{-2} \right]^{-1}
338: %\int \text{d}V \, L^{-2} \sum_{i} (\text{B.R.})_{i} \, \sigma_{i} \, P_{\nu_{e}\to\nu_{e}}(L,E_{\nu,i})
339: \,,
340: \label{008}
341: \end{equation}
342: where $i$ is the index of the $\nu_{e}$ lines emitted in
343: ${}^{51}\text{Cr}$ or ${}^{37}\text{Ar}$,
344: which are listed in Tab.~\ref{004}.
345: %The survival probability $P_{\nu_{e}\to\nu_{e}}(L,E_{\nu,i})$
346: %of electron neutrinos depends on the mixing parameters
347: %$\vartheta$ and $\Delta{m}^{2}$ according to Eq.~(\ref{007}).
348: The measured ratios are listed in Tab.~\ref{006},
349: together with the dimensions of the detectors,
350: which we approximate as cylindrical,
351: and the height from the base of each detector at which the radioactive sources were placed along the axis of the respective detector.
352: We averaged the neutrino path length $L$ with a Monte Carlo integration over the volume $V$ of each cylindrical detector.
353:
354: \begin{figure}[t!]
355: \begin{center}
356: \setlength{\tabcolsep}{1pt}
357: \begin{tabular}{cc}
358: \includegraphics*[bb=25 147 572 702, width=0.49\textwidth]{fig/gus-g1-upl.eps}
359: &
360: \includegraphics*[bb=25 147 572 702, width=0.49\textwidth]{fig/gus-g2-cnt.eps}
361: \\
362: \includegraphics*[bb=25 147 572 702, width=0.49\textwidth]{fig/gus-s1-upl.eps}
363: &
364: \includegraphics*[bb=25 147 572 702, width=0.49\textwidth]{fig/gus-s2-cnt.eps}
365: \end{tabular}
366: \caption{ \label{023}
367: Allowed regions in the
368: $\sin^{2}2\vartheta$--$\Delta{m}^{2}$ plane obtained
369: from the fits of the results of
370: the two GALLEX ${}^{51}\text{Cr}$ radioactive source experiments,
371: Cr1 and Cr2,
372: and
373: the SAGE
374: ${}^{51}\text{Cr}$ and ${}^{37}\text{Ar}$ radioactive source experiments.
375: The curves in the GALLEX Cr1 and SAGE ${}^{51}\text{Cr}$ plots exclude the region on the right.
376: In the GALLEX Cr2 and SAGE ${}^{37}\text{Ar}$ plots,
377: the pairs of $1\sigma$ and $2\sigma$ curves delimit allowed regions,
378: whereas the $3\sigma$ curves exclude the region on the right.
379: }
380: \end{center}
381: \end{figure}
382:
383: \begin{table}[t!]
384: \begin{center}
385: \begin{tabular}{cccccccc}
386: &
387: &
388: Ga
389: &
390: Bu
391: &
392: Ga+Bu
393: &
394: Bu+Ch
395: &
396: Ga+Ch
397: &
398: Ga+Bu+Ch
399: \\
400: \hline
401: %\input{tab/bef.tex}
402: & $\chi^{2}_{\text{min}}$ & $ 8.19 $ & $ 50.94 $ & $ 59.13 $ & $ 51.00 $ & $ 8.26 $ & $ 59.19 $ \\
403: No Osc. & NDF & $ 4 $ & $ 55 $ & $ 59 $ & $ 56 $ & $ 5 $ & $ 60 $ \\
404: & GoF & $ 0.085 $ & $ 0.63 $ & $ 0.47 $ & $ 0.66 $ & $ 0.14 $ & $ 0.51 $ \\
405: \hline & $\chi^{2}_{\text{min}}$ & $ 2.91 $ & $ 47.97 $ & $ 53.87 $ & $ 48.63 $ & $ 6.60 $ & $ 54.80 $ \\
406: & NDF & $ 2 $ & $ 53 $ & $ 57 $ & $ 54 $ & $ 3 $ & $ 58 $ \\
407: Osc. & GoF & $ 0.23 $ & $ 0.67 $ & $ 0.59 $ & $ 0.68 $ & $ 0.086 $ & $ 0.60 $ \\
408: & $\sin^{2}2\vartheta_{\text{bf}} $ & $ 0.22 $ & $ 0.048 $ & $ 0.062 $ & $ 0.041 $ & $ 0.08 $ & $ 0.054 $ \\
409: & $\Delta{m}^{2}_{\text{bf}}\,[\text{eV}^{2}]$ & $ 1.98 $ & $ 1.85 $ & $ 1.85 $ & $ 1.85 $ & $ 1.72 $ & $ 1.85 $ \\
410: \hline & $\Delta\chi^{2}_{\text{min}}$ &&& $ 2.98 $ & $ 0.59 $ & $ 3.63 $ & $ 3.85 $ \\
411: PG & NDF &&& $ 2 $ & $ 1 $ & $ 1 $ & $ 3 $ \\
412: & GoF &&& $ 0.23 $ & $ 0.44 $ & $ 0.057 $ & $ 0.28 $ \\
413: \hline
414: \end{tabular}
415: \caption{ \label{010}
416: Values of
417: $\chi^{2}_{\text{min}}$,
418: number of degrees of freedom (NDF) and
419: goodness-of-fit (GoF)
420: for the fit of different combinations of
421: the results of the Gallium radioactive source experiments and the
422: Bugey and Chooz reactor experiments.
423: The first three lines correspond to the case of no oscillations (No Osc.).
424: The following five lines,
425: including the best-fit values of
426: $\sin^{2}2\vartheta$ and $\Delta{m}^{2}$,
427: correspond to the case of oscillations (Osc.).
428: The last three lines describe the parameter goodness-of-fit (PG) \protect\cite{hep-ph/0304176}.
429: }
430: \end{center}
431: \end{table}
432:
433: In the separate analysis of the result of each Gallium radioactive source experiment
434: in terms of neutrino oscillations,
435: the two mixing parameters cannot be determined
436: through a least-squares analysis from one data point.
437: Therefore,
438: we adopt a Bayesian approach,
439: as done in Ref.~\protect\cite{hep-ph/9411414},
440: considering $R$ as a random variable with a uniform prior probability distribution
441: between zero and one.
442: Then,
443: if $R_{\text{obs}}$ is the observed value of $R$,
444: the normalized posterior probability distribution of $R$ is given by
445: \begin{equation}
446: p(R|R_{\text{obs}})
447: =
448: \frac
449: { p(R_{\text{obs}}|R) }
450: { \int_{0}^{1} \text{d}R \, p(R_{\text{obs}}|R) }
451: \,.
452: \label{009}
453: \end{equation}
454: Here, $p(R_{\text{obs}}|R)$ is the sampling distribution of $R_{\text{obs}}$ given $R$,
455: which we assume to be Gaussian
456: with standard deviation equal to the experimental uncertainty.
457: The allowed interval of $R$ with a given Bayesian Confidence Level
458: is given by the Highest Posterior Density interval with integrated probability equal
459: to the Confidence Level.
460: Figure~\ref{023} shows
461: the resulting allowed regions in the
462: $\sin^{2}2\vartheta$--$\Delta{m}^{2}$ plane.
463: One can see that the first GALLEX source experiment (Cr1)
464: and the ${}^{51}\text{Cr}$ SAGE source experiment,
465: in which the measured rate is within $1\sigma$ from unity,
466: imply only upper limits for the mixing parameters.
467: On the other hand,
468: the analyses of the second GALLEX source experiment (Cr2)
469: and the ${}^{37}\text{Ar}$ SAGE source experiment
470: give $2\sigma$ allowed bands,
471: which have a large overlap for $ \Delta{m}^{2} \gtrsim 1 \, \text{eV}^{2} $.
472:
473: Let us now discuss the combined fit of the four Gallium source experiments.
474: Since there are enough data points to determine the two mixing parameters
475: $\sin^{2}2\vartheta$ and $\Delta{m}^{2}$,
476: we abandon the Bayesian approach in favor of a standard
477: frequentist least-squares fit.
478: This method is
479: based on a global minimization of the $\chi^{2}$ in the
480: $\sin^{2}2\vartheta$--$\Delta{m}^{2}$ plane and the calculation
481: of the Confidence Level contours corresponding to a
482: $\Delta\chi^{2}$ with two degrees of freedom:
483: $\Delta\chi^{2}=2.30,6.18,11.83$ for
484: 68.27\% ($1\sigma$), 95.45\% ($2\sigma$) and 99.73\% ($3\sigma$) C.L., respectively
485: (see Ref.~\cite{PDG-2006}).
486:
487: The result of the combined least-squares analysis of the four Gallium source experiments
488: is shown in Fig.~\ref{024}.
489: One can see that there is an allowed region in the
490: $\sin^{2}2\vartheta$--$\Delta{m}^{2}$ plane at $1\sigma$
491: for
492: $ \Delta{m}^{2} \gtrsim 0.6 \, \text{eV}^{2} $
493: and
494: $ 0.08 \lesssim \sin^{2}2\vartheta \lesssim 0.4 $.
495: The values of
496: $\chi^{2}_{\text{min}}$,
497: the number of degrees of freedom (NDF),
498: the goodness-of-fit
499: (GoF)
500: and
501: the best-fit values of the mixing parameters are given in Tab.~\ref{010}.
502: The value of the the goodness-of-fit (23\%) shows that the fit is acceptable.
503:
504: Table~\ref{011} shows the allowed ranges of
505: $\sin^{2}2\vartheta$ and $\Delta{m}^{2}$
506: obtained from the corresponding marginal $\Delta\chi^{2}\equiv\chi^{2}-\chi^{2}_{\text{min}}$ in Fig.~\ref{024}.
507: The presence of $2\sigma$ lower limits for $\sin^{2}2\vartheta$ and $\Delta{m}^{2}$
508: in spite of the absence of a $2\sigma$ lower limit in
509: the $\sin^{2}2\vartheta$--$\Delta{m}^{2}$ plane in Fig.~\ref{024}
510: is an effect due to the statistical analysis:
511: for one parameter $2\sigma$ corresponds to $\Delta\chi^{2}=4$,
512: whereas for two parameters it corresponds to $\Delta\chi^{2}=6.18$.
513: Hence,
514: it is fair to conclude that there is an indication of a possible neutrino disappearance
515: due to neutrino oscillations with
516: $\sin^{2}2\vartheta \gtrsim 0.03$
517: and
518: $\Delta{m}^{2} \gtrsim 0.1 \, \text{eV}^{2}$
519: at a confidence level between one and two sigmas
520: ($ \sim 70 - 90 \% \, \text{C.L.} $).
521:
522: \begin{table}[t!]
523: \begin{center}
524: \begin{tabular}{clccc}
525: Parameter
526: &
527: \null \hfill C.L. \hfill \null
528: &
529: Ga
530: &
531: Bu
532: &
533: Ga+Bu
534: \\
535: \hline
536: %\input{tab/st2-1.tex}
537: & 68.27\% ($1\sigma$) & $ 0.12 - 0.33 $ & $ 0.021 - 0.075 $ & $ 0.035 - 0.087 $ \\
538: $\sin^{2}2\vartheta$ & 95.45\% ($2\sigma$) & $ > 0.028 $ & $ - $ & $ 0.007 - 0.19 $ \\
539: & 99.73\% ($3\sigma$) & $ - $ & $ - $ & $ - $ \\
540: \hline
541: %\input{tab/dm2-1.tex}
542: & 68.27\% ($1\sigma$) & $ > 0.85 $ & $ 1.77 - 1.91 $ & $ 1.79 - 1.91 $ \\
543: $\Delta{m}^{2}\,[\text{eV}^{2}]$ & 95.45\% ($2\sigma$) & $ > 0.079 $ & $ - $ & $ > 0.77 $ \\
544: & 99.73\% ($3\sigma$) & $ - $ & $ - $ & $ - $ \\
545: \hline
546: \end{tabular}
547: \caption{ \label{011}
548: Allowed ranges of
549: $\sin^{2}2\vartheta$ and $\Delta{m}^{2}$
550: from the combined fit of the results of Gallium radioactive source experiments,
551: from the fit of the results of the Bugey reactor experiment,
552: and
553: from the combined fit.
554: The dash indicates the absence of limits.
555: }
556: \end{center}
557: \end{table}
558:
559: \begin{figure}[t!]
560: \begin{center}
561: \includegraphics*[bb=23 144 572 704, width=\textwidth]{fig/chi-ga-cnt.eps}
562: \caption{ \label{024}
563: Allowed regions in the
564: $\sin^{2}2\vartheta$--$\Delta{m}^{2}$ plane
565: and
566: marginal $\Delta\chi^{2}$'s
567: for
568: $\sin^{2}2\vartheta$ and $\Delta{m}^{2}$
569: obtained from the
570: combined fit of the results of
571: the two GALLEX ${}^{51}\text{Cr}$ radioactive source experiments
572: and
573: the SAGE
574: ${}^{51}\text{Cr}$ and ${}^{37}\text{Ar}$ radioactive source experiments.
575: The best-fit point corresponding to $\chi^2_{\text{min}}$ is indicated by a cross.
576: }
577: \end{center}
578: \end{figure}
579:
580: \section{Bugey}
581: \label{012}
582: \nopagebreak
583:
584: The disappearance of electron antineutrinos have been investigated
585: by several reactor neutrino experiments at different baselines
586: (see Refs.~\protect\cite{hep-ph/0107277,Giunti-Kim-2007}).
587: Since,
588: according to Eq.~(\ref{007}),
589: the survival probabilities of neutrinos and antineutrinos are equal,
590: the interpretation of the results of Gallium radioactive source experiments
591: in terms of electron neutrino disappearance can be compared directly with the
592: results of reactor neutrino experiments.
593:
594: In this section we consider the results of the reactor short-baseline Bugey experiment \protect\cite{Declais:1995su},
595: which put the most stringent constraints on the
596: disappearance of electron antineutrinos due to
597: $ \Delta{m}^{2} \gtrsim 0.1 \, \text{eV}^{2} $.
598:
599: Reactor neutrino experiments detect electron antineutrinos
600: through the inverse neutron decay process
601: \begin{equation}
602: \bar\nu_{e} + p \to n + e^{+}
603: \,.
604: \label{013}
605: \end{equation}
606: The neutrino energy $E_{\nu}$ and the positron kinetic energy $T_{e}$ are related by
607: \begin{equation}
608: E_{\nu} = T_{e} + T_{n} + m_{e} + m_{n} - m_{p} \simeq T_{e} + 1.8 \, \text{MeV}
609: \,,
610: \label{014}
611: \end{equation}
612: where $T_{n}$ is the negligibly small recoil kinetic energy of the neutron.
613: In the Bugey experiment the survival probability of electron antineutrinos
614: was measured at three source-detector distances:
615: $ L_{j} = 15, 40, 95 \, \text{m} $, for $j=1,2,3$, respectively.
616: We use the ratio of observed and expected
617: (in the case of no oscillation)
618: positron spectra given in Fig.~17 of Ref.~\protect\cite{Declais:1995su},
619: in which there are
620: $ N_{j} = 25, 25, 10$
621: energy bins.
622: We analyze the data with the following $\chi^{2}$,
623: taken from Ref.~\protect\cite{Declais:1995su}:
624: \begin{equation}
625: \chi^{2}
626: =
627: \sum_{j=1}^{3}
628: \left\{
629: \sum_{i=1}^{N_{j}}
630: \dfrac{ \left[ \left( A a_{j} + b \left( E_{ji} - E_{0} \right) \right) R_{ji}^{\text{the}} - R_{ji}^{\text{exp}} \right]^{2} }{ \sigma_{ji}^{2} }
631: +
632: \dfrac{ \left( a_{j} - 1 \right)^{2} }{ \sigma_{a_{j}}^{2} }
633: \right\}
634: +
635: \dfrac{ \left( A - 1 \right)^{2} }{ \sigma_{A}^{2} }
636: +
637: \dfrac{ b^{2} }{ \sigma_{b}^{2} }
638: \,,
639: \label{015}
640: \end{equation}
641: where
642: $E_{ji}$ is the central energy of
643: the $i\text{th}$ bin in the positron kinetic energy spectrum measured at the $L_{j}$ source-detector distance,
644: $R_{ji}^{\text{exp}}$ and $R_{ji}^{\text{the}}$
645: are, respectively, the corresponding measured and calculated ratios.
646: The uncertainties $\sigma_{ji}$ include the statistical uncertainty of each bin
647: and a 1\% systematic uncertainty added in quadrature,
648: which takes into account the uncertainty of the spectrum calculation
649: (with a total of about 5\% uncorrelated systematic uncertainty over 25 bins).
650: The coefficients
651: $ \left( A a_{j} + b \left( E_{ji} - E_{0} \right) \right) $,
652: with $E_{0} = 1 \, \text{MeV}$,
653: were introduced in Ref.~\protect\cite{Declais:1995su}
654: in order to take into account the systematic uncertainty of the positron energy calibration.
655: The value of $\chi^{2}$ as a function of
656: $\sin^{2}2\vartheta$ and $\Delta{m}^{2}$
657: is calculated by minimizing Eq.~(\ref{015}) with respect to the five parameters
658: $A$, $a_{j}$ ($j=1,2,3$), $b$, which have, respectively,
659: uncertainties
660: $\sigma_{A} = 0.048$,
661: $\sigma_{a_{j}} = 0.014$
662: $\sigma_{b} = 0.02 \, \text{MeV}^{-1}$ \protect\cite{Declais:1995su}.
663: Following Ref.~\protect\cite{hep-ph/0102252},
664: we approximate
665: the neutrino flux, the detection cross section and the detection efficiency
666: as constants in each energy bin.
667: Then,
668: $R_{ji}^{\text{the}}$ is given by
669: \begin{equation}
670: R_{ji}^{\text{the}}
671: =
672: \frac
673: {
674: \int \text{d}L
675: \,
676: L^{-2}
677: \int_{E_{ji}-\Delta{E_{j}}/2}^{E_{ji}+\Delta{E_{j}}/2} \text{d}E
678: \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} \text{d}T_{e}
679: \,
680: F(E,T_{e})
681: \,
682: P_{\bar\nu_{e}\to\bar\nu_{e}}(L,E_{\nu}) }
683: {
684: \Delta{E_{j}}
685: \int \text{d}L \, L^{-2}
686: }
687: \,.
688: \label{016}
689: \end{equation}
690: Here
691: $T_{e}$ and $E_{\nu}$ are, respectively, the positron kinetic energy and the neutrino energy,
692: related by Eq.~(\ref{014}),
693: whereas $E$ is the measured positron kinetic energy,
694: which is connected to $T_{e}$ by the energy resolution function of the detector $F(E,T_{e})$.
695: We considered a Gaussian energy resolution function with standard deviation
696: $0.252\sqrt{E/4.2\text{MeV}}\,\text{MeV}$
697: \protect\cite{Declais:1995su}.
698: The quantities $ \Delta{E_{j}} $ are the widths of the energy bins in each detector.
699: The integration over the neutrino path length $L$ is performed by a Monte Carlo
700: which takes into account the geometries of
701: the reactor and of the detectors and their relative positions \protect\cite{Declais-2008}.
702:
703: \begin{figure}[t!]
704: \begin{center}
705: \includegraphics*[bb=25 147 564 702, width=\textwidth]{fig/chi-bu-ras.eps}
706: \caption{ \label{025}
707: 90\% C.L. exclusion curves in the
708: $\sin^{2}2\vartheta$--$\Delta{m}^{2}$ plane
709: obtained from a raster-scan analysis of Bugey data (solid line)
710: and from a standard global least-squares fit (dashed line).
711: }
712: \end{center}
713: \end{figure}
714:
715: With this method we obtained the 90\% C.L. raster-scan\footnote{
716: In the raster-scan method,
717: $\chi^{2}_{\text{min}}$ is found for each fixed value of $\Delta{m}^{2}$.
718: The corresponding upper limit for $\sin^{2}2\vartheta$ is calculated
719: as the value of $\sin^{2}2\vartheta$ for which
720: the cumulative distribution function of
721: $\Delta\chi^{2}\equiv\chi^{2}-\chi^{2}_{\text{min}}$, which has one degree of freedom,
722: is equal to the Confidence Level
723: ($\Delta\chi^{2}=2.71$ for 90\% C.L.).
724: }
725: exclusion curve
726: shown in Fig.~\ref{025},
727: which is similar to the original 90\% C.L. raster-scan Bugey exclusion curve in Ref.~\protect\cite{Declais:1995su}.
728:
729: \begin{figure}[t!]
730: \begin{center}
731: \includegraphics*[bb=23 144 572 704, width=\textwidth]{fig/chi-bu-cnt.eps}
732: \caption{ \label{026}
733: Allowed regions in the
734: $\sin^{2}2\vartheta$--$\Delta{m}^{2}$ plane
735: and
736: marginal $\Delta\chi^{2}$'s
737: for
738: $\sin^{2}2\vartheta$ and $\Delta{m}^{2}$
739: obtained from the
740: least-squares analysis of Bugey data.
741: The best-fit point corresponding to $\chi^2_{\text{min}}$ is indicated by a cross.
742: }
743: \end{center}
744: \end{figure}
745:
746: Let us emphasize that the raster-scan method is statistically weak,
747: because it does not have proper coverage \protect\cite{physics/9711021}.
748: We presented in Fig.~\ref{025} the raster-scan exclusion curve only to show by comparison
749: with the analogous figure in Ref.~\protect\cite{Declais:1995su} that
750: our analysis of the Bugey data is acceptable.
751: The dashed line in Fig.~\ref{025} shows the 90\% C.L. Bugey exclusion curve
752: obtained with the standard least-squares method,
753: which we adopted also in the previous Fig.~\ref{024} and the following Figs.~\ref{026}--\ref{031}.
754: From Fig.~\ref{025} one can see that the 90\% C.L. raster-scan exclusion curve
755: overcovers for all values of $\Delta{m}^2$,
756: except for small intervals around
757: $ \Delta{m}^2 \simeq 0.9 \, \text{eV}^2 $
758: and
759: $ \Delta{m}^2 \simeq 1.9 \, \text{eV}^2 $.
760:
761: \begin{figure}[t!]
762: \begin{center}
763: \includegraphics*[bb=28 142 571 700, width=0.8\textwidth]{fig/chi-bu-hst.eps}
764: \caption{ \label{027}
765: Best fit of Bugey data (points with error bars \protect\cite{Declais:1995su}).
766: The three panels show the ratio $R$ of observed and expected
767: (in the case of no oscillation) event rates
768: at the
769: three source-detector distances in the Bugey experiment
770: as functions of the measured positron kinetic energy $E$ (see Eq.~(\ref{016})).
771: In each panel,
772: the solid and dashed histograms correspond, respectively, to the best-fit values of
773: $ \left( A a_{j} + b \left( E_{ji} - E_{0} \right) \right) R_{ji}^{\text{the}} $
774: and
775: $ R_{ji}^{\text{the}} $
776: (see Eq.~(\ref{015})).
777: }
778: \end{center}
779: \end{figure}
780:
781: Figure~\ref{026}
782: shows the allowed regions in the
783: $\sin^{2}2\vartheta$--$\Delta{m}^{2}$ plane
784: and
785: the marginal $\Delta\chi^{2}$'s
786: for
787: $\sin^{2}2\vartheta$ and $\Delta{m}^{2}$
788: obtained from the
789: least-squares analysis of Bugey data.
790: The value and location in the $\sin^{2}2\vartheta$--$\Delta{m}^{2}$ plane
791: of the minimum of the $\chi^{2}$,
792: the number of degrees of freedom (NDF) and the goodness-of-fit (GoF) are given in Tab.~\ref{010}.
793: The fit is satisfactory,
794: since the goodness-of-fit is 67\%.
795: The best-fit value of the oscillation parameters
796: and the small $1\sigma$ allowed regions in Fig.~\ref{026}
797: are in favor of neutrino oscillations.
798: However,
799: the $2\sigma$ and $3\sigma$ contours in Fig.~\ref{026}
800: provide only upper limits to neutrino oscillations.
801: Also,
802: the value of the $\chi^{2}$ in the case of absence of oscillations
803: and the corresponding goodness-of-fit
804: (63\%)
805: do not allow us to exclude the absence of oscillations.
806:
807: The reason of the hint in favor
808: of neutrino oscillations given by the Bugey data
809: is illustrated in Fig.~\ref{027},
810: where
811: the histogram relative to the best fit is shown against
812: the Bugey $R_{ji}^{\text{exp}}$'s.
813: With the help of the histogram,
814: one can see that there is a weak hint of oscillations.
815: The $1\sigma$ allowed regions in Fig.~\ref{026} have very narrow
816: $\Delta{m}^{2}$ ranges around
817: $0.9\,\text{eV}^{2}$,
818: $1.85\,\text{eV}^{2}$, and
819: $3\,\text{eV}^{2}$,
820: because slight shifts of $\Delta{m}^{2}$ from these optimal values
821: spoil the agreement with the data of the histogram in Fig.~\ref{027}.
822:
823: Table~\ref{011} shows the marginal allowed ranges of
824: $\sin^{2}2\vartheta$ and $\Delta{m}^{2}$
825: obtained from the corresponding $\Delta\chi^{2}$'s in Fig.~\ref{026}.
826: One can see that there is a hint of neutrino oscillations
827: with
828: $0.02 \lesssim \sin^{2}2\vartheta \lesssim 0.08$
829: and
830: $\Delta{m}^{2} \approx 1.8 \, \text{eV}^{2}$.
831:
832: \begin{figure}[t!]
833: \begin{center}
834: \includegraphics*[bb=23 144 572 704, width=\textwidth]{fig/chi-gabu-cnt.eps}
835: \caption{ \label{028}
836: Allowed regions in the
837: $\sin^{2}2\vartheta$--$\Delta{m}^{2}$ plane
838: and
839: marginal $\Delta\chi^{2}$'s
840: for
841: $\sin^{2}2\vartheta$ and $\Delta{m}^{2}$
842: obtained from the
843: combined fit of the results of
844: the two GALLEX ${}^{51}\text{Cr}$ radioactive source experiments,
845: the SAGE
846: ${}^{51}\text{Cr}$ and ${}^{37}\text{Ar}$ radioactive source experiments
847: and the Bugey reactor experiment.
848: The best-fit point corresponding to $\chi^2_{\text{min}}$ is indicated by a cross.
849: }
850: \end{center}
851: \end{figure}
852:
853: From a comparison of Figs.~\ref{024} and \ref{026}
854: one can see that the allowed regions
855: of the Gallium radioactive source experiments and the Bugey experiment
856: are marginally compatible
857: for
858: $ \sin^{2} 2\vartheta \sim 0.1 $
859: and
860: $ \Delta{m}^{2} \gtrsim 1 \, \text{eV}^{2} $.
861: Figure~\ref{028} shows the allowed regions obtained from the combined fit.
862: Since the Bugey data are statistically dominant,
863: the curves in Fig.~\ref{028} are not very different from those in Fig.~\ref{026},
864: which have been obtained from the fit of the Bugey data alone.
865: The inclusion of the Gallium data has the effect
866: of eliminating the $1\sigma$ allowed region at
867: $ \Delta{m}^{2} \approx 0.9 \, \text{eV}^{2} $
868: and
869: of disfavoring at $1\sigma$ values of $ \sin^{2} 2\vartheta $
870: smaller than about $2\times10^{-2}$.
871: The value and location of $\chi^{2}_{\text{min}}$,
872: the number of degrees of freedom and the goodness-of-fit are listed in Tab.~\ref{010}.
873: One can see that the Gallium data do not spoil the good fit of the Bugey data.
874: Indeed,
875: the value of the parameter goodness-of-fit\footnote{
876: The value of $(\Delta\chi^{2}_{\text{min}})_{\text{A+B}}$
877: corresponding to the parameter goodness-of-fit of two experiments A and B
878: is given by
879: $ (\chi^{2}_{\text{min}})_{\text{A+B}} - [ (\chi^{2}_{\text{min}})_{\text{A}} + (\chi^{2}_{\text{min}})_{\text{B}} ] $.
880: It has a $\chi^2$ distribution with number of degrees of freedom
881: $ \text{NDF} = P_{\text{A}} + P_{\text{B}} - P_{\text{A}+\text{B}} $,
882: where $P_{\text{A}}$, $P_{\text{B}}$ and $P_{\text{A}+\text{B}}$ are, respectively,
883: the number of parameters in the fits of A, B and A+B data
884: \protect\cite{hep-ph/0304176}.
885: }
886: \protect\cite{hep-ph/0304176}
887: reported in Tab.~\ref{010} shows that the Bugey and Gallium data are compatible
888: under the hypothesis of neutrino oscillations.
889: The marginal allowed ranges of
890: $\sin^{2}2\vartheta$ and $\Delta{m}^{2}$
891: obtained from the corresponding $\Delta\chi^{2}$'s in Fig.~\ref{028}
892: are given in Tab.~\ref{011}.
893:
894: \section{Chooz}
895: \label{017}
896: \nopagebreak
897:
898: In this section we consider the result of the long-baseline reactor neutrino experiment
899: Chooz \protect\cite{hep-ex/0301017},
900: which gives limits on neutrino oscillations which are comparable with those of the Bugey experiment for
901: $ \Delta{m}^{2} \gtrsim 2 \, \text{eV}^{2} $.
902:
903: In the Chooz experiment
904: the ratio of the number of observed events and that expected in the absence of neutrino oscillations
905: is
906: \begin{equation}
907: R_{\text{Chooz}}
908: =
909: 1.01 \pm 0.04
910: \,.
911: \label{018}
912: \end{equation}
913: The value of this ratio puts a constraint on the disappearance of
914: electron (anti)neutrinos with energies in the MeV range
915: at distances smaller than about 1 km.
916: This corresponds to a constraint on $ \sin^{2} 2\vartheta $
917: for $ \Delta{m}^{2} \gtrsim 10^{-3} \, \text{eV}^{2} $.
918: In the range of sensitivity of the Gallium radioactive source experiments,
919: $ \Delta{m}^{2} \gtrsim 10^{-1} \, \text{eV}^{2} $
920: (see Figs.~\ref{024}),
921: the oscillation length of reactor antineutrinos
922: is much shorter than the Chooz source-detector distance.
923: In this case, the Chooz experiment is only sensitive to the averaged survival probability
924: \begin{equation}
925: \langle P_{\boss{\nu}{e}\to\boss{\nu}{e}} \rangle
926: =
927: 1 - \frac{1}{2} \, \sin^{2}2\vartheta
928: \,.
929: \label{019}
930: \end{equation}
931: Therefore, the Chooz result in Eq.~(\ref{018})
932: can be combined\footnote{
933: In our figures we considered $\Delta{m}^{2}$
934: in the range $10^{-2}-10^{2}\,\text{eV}^2$.
935: For simplicity, we neglected the small
936: $\Delta{m}^{2}$ dependence of the CHOOZ exclusion curve
937: for $\Delta{m}^{2}\lesssim4\times10^{-2}\,\text{eV}^2$
938: (see Fig.~55 of Ref.~\protect\cite{hep-ex/0301017}).
939: }
940: with the results of the Gallium radioactive source experiments
941: simply by considering it as a measurement of $\sin^{2}2\vartheta$:
942: in the Bayesian approach of Eq.~(\ref{009})
943: \begin{equation}
944: \sin^{2}2\vartheta
945: <
946: 0.071 ,\,
947: %0.12 ,\,
948: 0.15 ,\,
949: %0.19 ,\,
950: 0.23
951: \,,
952: \label{020}
953: \end{equation}
954: at
955: 68.27\% ($1\sigma$),
956: %90.00\%,
957: 95.45\% ($2\sigma$),
958: %99.00\%,
959: 99.73\% ($3\sigma$) Bayesian Confidence Level, respectively.
960:
961: \begin{table}[t!]
962: \begin{center}
963: \setlength{\tabcolsep}{5pt}
964: \begin{tabular}{clccc}
965: Parameter
966: &
967: \null \hfill C.L. \hfill \null
968: &
969: Bu+Ch
970: &
971: Ga+Ch
972: &
973: Ga+Bu+Ch
974: \\
975: \hline
976: %\input{tab/st2-2.tex}
977: & 68.27\% ($1\sigma$) & $ 0.012 - 0.067 $ & $ 0.017 - 0.14 $ & $ 0.028 - 0.078 $ \\
978: $\sin^{2}2\vartheta$ & 95.45\% ($2\sigma$) & $ < 0.096 $ & $ < 0.20 $ & $ 0.002 - 0.12 $ \\
979: & 99.73\% ($3\sigma$) & $ < 0.18 $ & $ < 0.26 $ & $ < 0.18 $ \\
980: \hline
981: %\input{tab/dm2-2.tex}
982: & 68.27\% ($1\sigma$) & $ 0.83 - 1.92 $ & $ > 0.62 $ & $ 1.78 - 1.91 $ \\
983: $\Delta{m}^{2}\,[\text{eV}^{2}]$ & 95.45\% ($2\sigma$) & $ - $ & $ - $ & $ > 0.74 $ \\
984: & 99.73\% ($3\sigma$) & $ - $ & $ - $ & $ - $ \\
985: \hline
986: \end{tabular}
987: \caption{ \label{021}
988: Allowed ranges of
989: $\sin^{2}2\vartheta$ and $\Delta{m}^{2}$
990: from the combined fit of the results of
991: the Bugey and Chooz reactor experiments,
992: the Gallium radioactive source and Chooz reactor experiments,
993: and
994: the Gallium radioactive source and the Bugey and Chooz reactor experiments.
995: The dash indicates the absence of limits.
996: }
997: \end{center}
998: \end{table}
999:
1000: \begin{figure}[t!]
1001: \begin{center}
1002: \includegraphics*[bb=23 144 572 704, width=\textwidth]{fig/chi-buch-cnt.eps}
1003: \caption{ \label{029}
1004: Allowed regions in the
1005: $\sin^{2}2\vartheta$--$\Delta{m}^{2}$ plane
1006: and
1007: marginal $\Delta\chi^{2}$'s
1008: for
1009: $\sin^{2}2\vartheta$ and $\Delta{m}^{2}$
1010: obtained from the
1011: combined fit of the results of
1012: the Bugey and Chooz reactor experiments.
1013: The best-fit point corresponding to $\chi^2_{\text{min}}$ is indicated by a cross.
1014: }
1015: \end{center}
1016: \end{figure}
1017:
1018: First,
1019: we performed a combined frequentist least-squares analysis of the Bugey and Chooz data,
1020: which yielded the allowed regions in the
1021: $\sin^{2}2\vartheta$--$\Delta{m}^{2}$ plane
1022: shown in Fig.~\ref{029},
1023: the best fit values of the mixing parameters reported in Tab.~\ref{010},
1024: and the marginal allowed ranges listed in Tab.~\ref{021}.
1025: One can see that the addition of the Chooz result to the
1026: Bugey data analysis has the effect of improving slightly
1027: the upper limit on $\sin^{2}2\vartheta$ for $\Delta{m}^{2} \gtrsim 3 \, \text{eV}^{2}$
1028: and that of excluding values of $\sin^{2}2\vartheta$ larger than about 0.1
1029: for $\Delta{m}^{2} \lesssim 3 \times 10^{-2} \, \text{eV}^{2}$,
1030: where Bugey is not sensitive.
1031: In the intermediate range of $\Delta{m}^{2}$,
1032: where Bugey is sensitive to the oscillations,
1033: the addition of the Chooz result weakens the hint in favor of oscillations
1034: given by the Bugey data: the $1\sigma$ allowed regions in Fig.~\ref{026}
1035: are stretched towards small values of $\sin^{2}2\vartheta$ in Fig.~\ref{029}.
1036: However,
1037: the best-fit value of the mixing parameters remain unchanged,
1038: because of the dominance of the Bugey data.
1039: From Tab.~\ref{010},
1040: one can see that
1041: the parameter goodness-of-fit implies that Bugey and Chooz results are compatible under the hypothesis of
1042: neutrino oscillations,
1043: but the goodness-of-fit obtained in the case of no oscillations do not allow us to exclude this possibility.
1044:
1045: \begin{figure}[t!]
1046: \begin{center}
1047: \includegraphics*[bb=23 144 572 704, width=\textwidth]{fig/chi-gach-cnt.eps}
1048: \caption{ \label{030}
1049: Allowed regions in the
1050: $\sin^{2}2\vartheta$--$\Delta{m}^{2}$ plane
1051: and
1052: marginal $\Delta\chi^{2}$'s
1053: for
1054: $\sin^{2}2\vartheta$ and $\Delta{m}^{2}$
1055: obtained from the
1056: combined fit of the results of
1057: the two GALLEX ${}^{51}\text{Cr}$ radioactive source experiments,
1058: the SAGE
1059: ${}^{51}\text{Cr}$ and ${}^{37}\text{Ar}$ radioactive source experiments
1060: and the Chooz reactor experiment.
1061: The best-fit point corresponding to $\chi^2_{\text{min}}$ is indicated by a cross.
1062: }
1063: \end{center}
1064: \end{figure}
1065:
1066: From the comparison of Eq.~(\ref{020}) and Fig.~\ref{024},
1067: one can see that the results of the Chooz and the Gallium radioactive source experiments
1068: are compatible only at the $2\sigma$ level.
1069: In fact the parameter goodness-of-fit reported in Tab.~\ref{010} shows a tension between
1070: Gallium and Chooz data under the hypothesis of
1071: neutrino oscillations.
1072:
1073: Figure~\ref{030} shows
1074: the allowed regions in the
1075: $\sin^{2}2\vartheta$--$\Delta{m}^{2}$ plane obtained with the combined least-squares fit of Gallium and Chooz data.
1076: The values of
1077: $\chi^{2}_{\text{min}}$ and Goodness of Fit
1078: and
1079: the best-fit values of the mixing parameters are given in Tab.~\ref{010}.
1080: It is clear that the combined fit is not good,
1081: since the results of Chooz and the Gallium radioactive source experiments
1082: are in contradiction regarding neutrino disappearance.
1083: The marginal allowed ranges of
1084: $\sin^{2}2\vartheta$ and $\Delta{m}^{2}$ in Tab.~\ref{021}
1085: are of little interest,
1086: since the minima of the corresponding $\Delta\chi^{2}$'s in Fig.~\ref{030}
1087: are very shallow,
1088: except for the upper bound on $\sin^{2}2\vartheta$
1089: driven by Chooz data.
1090: As one can see from the allowed regions in the
1091: $\sin^{2}2\vartheta$--$\Delta{m}^{2}$ plane in Fig.~\ref{030},
1092: the Chooz bound on $\sin^{2}2\vartheta$ in Eq.~(\ref{020})
1093: is weakened by the results of the Gallium radioactive source experiments
1094: in a significant way only for
1095: $\Delta{m}^{2} \gtrsim 10^{-1} \, \text{eV}^{2}$
1096: at the $1\sigma$ level.
1097:
1098: \begin{figure}[t!]
1099: \begin{center}
1100: \includegraphics*[bb=23 144 572 704, width=\textwidth]{fig/chi-gabuch-cnt.eps}
1101: \caption{ \label{031}
1102: Allowed regions in the
1103: $\sin^{2}2\vartheta$--$\Delta{m}^{2}$ plane
1104: and
1105: marginal $\Delta\chi^{2}$'s
1106: for
1107: $\sin^{2}2\vartheta$ and $\Delta{m}^{2}$
1108: obtained from the
1109: combined fit of the results of
1110: the two GALLEX ${}^{51}\text{Cr}$ radioactive source experiments,
1111: the SAGE
1112: ${}^{51}\text{Cr}$ and ${}^{37}\text{Ar}$ radioactive source experiments
1113: and the Bugey and Chooz reactor experiments.
1114: The best-fit point corresponding to $\chi^2_{\text{min}}$ is indicated by a cross.
1115: }
1116: \end{center}
1117: \end{figure}
1118:
1119: Finally,
1120: we performed a combined fit of the results of Bugey, Chooz, and Gallium data.
1121: The resulting allowed regions in the
1122: $\sin^{2}2\vartheta$--$\Delta{m}^{2}$ plane
1123: are shown in Fig.~\ref{031}.
1124: The best fit values and the marginal allowed ranges of the mixing parameters
1125: are listed, respectively, in Tabs.~\ref{010} and \ref{021}.
1126: One can see that the Gallium and Chooz data tend to compensate each other,
1127: leading to results which are similar to those obtained in the analysis of Bugey data alone.
1128: The value of the parameter goodness-of-fit reported in Tab.~\ref{010} does not allow us
1129: to exclude the compatibility of the Bugey, Chooz and Gallium data under the hypothesis of neutrino oscillations.
1130: Also the goodness-of-fit obtained in the case of no oscillations,
1131: given in Tab.~\ref{010}, is acceptable.
1132: Therefore,
1133: we can only conclude that
1134: the combined analysis of all the experimental data that we have considered
1135: is compatible both with the case of no oscillations
1136: and with the hint in favor of neutrino oscillations
1137: with
1138: $0.02 \lesssim \sin^{2}2\vartheta \lesssim 0.08$
1139: and
1140: $\Delta{m}^{2} \approx 1.8 \, \text{eV}^{2}$
1141: found in the analysis of Bugey data.
1142:
1143: \section{Conclusions}
1144: \label{022}
1145: \nopagebreak
1146:
1147: We interpreted the deficit
1148: observed in the Gallium radioactive source experiments
1149: as a possible indication of
1150: the disappearance of electron neutrinos.
1151: We have analyzed the data
1152: in the effective framework of two-neutrino mixing,
1153: which describes neutrino oscillations due to a $ \Delta{m}^{2} $
1154: that is much larger than the solar and atmospheric ones.
1155: We found that
1156: there is an indication of electron neutrino disappearance
1157: due to neutrino oscillations with
1158: $\sin^{2}2\vartheta \gtrsim 0.03$
1159: and
1160: $\Delta{m}^{2} \gtrsim 0.1 \, \text{eV}^{2}$.
1161: We have also studied the compatibility of the data of the Gallium radioactive source experiments
1162: with the data of the Bugey and Chooz reactor short-baseline antineutrino disappearance experiments
1163: in the same effective framework of two-neutrino mixing,
1164: in which the disappearance of neutrinos and antineutrinos are equal.
1165: We found that the Bugey data present a hint of neutrino oscillations
1166: with
1167: $0.02 \lesssim \sin^{2}2\vartheta \lesssim 0.08$
1168: and
1169: $\Delta{m}^{2} \approx 1.8 \, \text{eV}^{2}$,
1170: which is compatible with the region of the mixing parameters
1171: allowed by the analysis of the data of the Gallium radioactive source experiments.
1172: We have also performed combined analyses
1173: of the Bugey and Chooz data,
1174: of the Gallium and Bugey data,
1175: of the Gallium and Chooz data,
1176: which show that
1177: the Bugey and Chooz data are compatible,
1178: the Gallium and Bugey data are compatible, and
1179: the Gallium and Chooz data are marginally compatible.
1180: The weak indication in favor of neutrino oscillations
1181: found in the analysis of the Bugey data persists in the combined analyses
1182: of the Bugey data with the Gallium and Chooz data.
1183: However,
1184: we cannot exclude the absence of oscillations.
1185:
1186: From a physical point of view,
1187: a hint in favor of short-baseline neutrino oscillations
1188: generated by $\Delta{m}^{2} \gtrsim 0.1 \, \text{eV}^{2}$
1189: is extremely interesting.
1190: This squared-mass difference
1191: is too large to be compatible with the three-neutrino mixing scheme
1192: inferred from the observation of neutrino oscillations in
1193: solar, very-long-baseline reactor, atmospheric and long-baseline accelerator experiments,
1194: in which there are only two independent squared-mass differences,
1195: $ \Delta{m}^{2}_{\text{SOL}} \approx 8 \times 10^{-5} \, \text{eV}^{2} $
1196: and
1197: $ \Delta{m}^{2}_{\text{ATM}} \approx 3 \times 10^{-3} \, \text{eV}^{2} $.
1198: Therefore,
1199: the results of our analysis indicate the possible existence of at least one
1200: light sterile neutrino $\nu_{s}$
1201: (see Refs.~\protect\cite{hep-ph/9812360,hep-ph/0202058,Giunti-Kim-2007}).
1202: We think that it is very important to explore
1203: this intriguing hint of
1204: new physics beyond the Standard Model.
1205:
1206: As already discussed in Ref.~\cite{0707.4593},
1207: short-baseline $\boss{\nu}{e}\to\boss{\nu}{s}$ transitions
1208: have an influence on the interpretation of all experiments
1209: with an initial $\boss{\nu}{e}$ beam.
1210: In the existing
1211: solar and atmospheric neutrino experiments the survival probability of $\boss{\nu}{e}$ is
1212: the averaged one in Eq.~(\ref{019}).
1213: However, the uncertainties of the experimental data and our knowledge of the initial flux
1214: do not allow us to exclude $\boss{\nu}{e}\to\boss{\nu}{s}$ transitions at the level of about 20\%
1215: in the case of solar neutrinos
1216: \cite{hep-ph/0406294}
1217: and about 30\%
1218: (see Ref.~\cite{Giunti-Kim-2007})
1219: in the case of atmospheric neutrinos.
1220:
1221: Future experiments which are well suited for finding small
1222: $\boss{\nu}{e}\to\boss{\nu}{s}$ transitions
1223: are those with a source producing a $\boss{\nu}{e}$ flux
1224: which is known with high accuracy.
1225: Since sterile neutrinos are invisible,
1226: $\boss{\nu}{e}\to\boss{\nu}{s}$ transitions
1227: can be revealed either by measuring a disappearance of
1228: $\boss{\nu}{e}$'s without $\bos{\mu}$ or $\bos{\tau}$ production in the detection process
1229: or by measuring a disappearance of
1230: $\boss{\nu}{e}$'s due to oscillations with a squared-mass difference
1231: much larger than
1232: $ \Delta{m}^{2}_{\text{SOL}} $
1233: and
1234: $ \Delta{m}^{2}_{\text{ATM}} $.
1235: We are aware of the following possibilities:
1236: Beta-Beam experiments \protect\cite{Zucchelli:2002sa}
1237: which have a pure $\nu_{e}$ or $\bar\nu_{e}$ beam from nuclear decay
1238: (see the reviews in Refs.~\protect\cite{physics/0411123,hep-ph/0605033});
1239: Neutrino Factory experiments
1240: in which the beam is composed of
1241: $\nu_{e}$ and $\bar\nu_{\mu}$,
1242: from $\mu^{+}$ decay,
1243: or
1244: $\bar\nu_{e}$ and $\nu_{\mu}$,
1245: from $\mu^{-}$ decay
1246: (see the review in Ref.~\protect\cite{hep-ph/0210192,physics/0411123});
1247: Mossbauer neutrino experiments,
1248: with a $\bar\nu_{e}$ beam
1249: produced in recoiless nuclear decay
1250: and detected in recoiless nuclear antineutrino capture
1251: \protect\cite{hep-ph/0601079};
1252: the LENS detector
1253: \protect\cite{Raghavan:1997ad,LENS-2002}
1254: with an artificial Megacurie $\nu_{e}$ source
1255: \protect\cite{Grieb:2006mp}.
1256: Let us also notice the very interesting possibility to reveal
1257: the existence of sterile neutrinos in the flux of
1258: high-energy astrophysical neutrinos after their passage through the Earth
1259: by measuring the peculiar matter effects \cite{hep-ph/0302039,0709.1937}.
1260:
1261: \section*{Acknowledgments}
1262: \nopagebreak
1263:
1264: We would like to express our gratitude to Y. Declais for giving us detailed information
1265: on the Bugey experiment.
1266: M.A. Acero would like to thank the International Doctorate on AstroParticle Physics
1267: (IDAPP) for financial support.
1268: C. Giunti would like to thank the Department of Theoretical Physics of the University of Torino
1269: for hospitality and support.
1270:
1271: \raggedright
1272:
1273: %\bibliographystyle{h-elsevier3}%{physrev3}%{myplainnat} %\addcontentsline{toc}{section}{\refname}
1274: %\input{bibtex/bib.tex}
1275:
1276: \begin{thebibliography}{10}
1277:
1278: \bibitem{0801.4589}
1279: KamLAND, S. Abe et~al.,
1280: \newblock Phys. Rev. Lett. 100 (2008) 221803,
1281: \href{http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.4589}{\url{arXiv:0801.4589}}.
1282:
1283: \bibitem{Adamson:2007gu}
1284: MINOS, P. Adamson et~al.,
1285: \newblock Phys. Rev. D77 (2008) 072002,
1286: \href{http://arxiv.org/abs/0711.0769}{\url{arXiv:0711.0769}}.
1287:
1288: \bibitem{Bilenky:1978nj}
1289: S.M. Bilenky and B. Pontecorvo,
1290: \newblock Phys. Rep. 41 (1978) 225.
1291:
1292: \bibitem{Bilenky:1987ty}
1293: S.M. Bilenky and S.T. Petcov,
1294: \newblock Rev. Mod. Phys. 59 (1987) 671.
1295:
1296: \bibitem{hep-ph/9812360}
1297: S.M. Bilenky, C. Giunti and W. Grimus,
1298: \newblock Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 43 (1999) 1,
1299: \href{http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9812360}{\url{arXiv:hep-ph/9812360}}.
1300:
1301: \bibitem{hep-ph/0202058}
1302: M. Gonzalez-Garcia and Y. Nir,
1303: \newblock Rev. Mod. Phys. 75 (2003) 345,
1304: \href{http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0202058}{\url{arXiv:hep-ph/0202058}}.
1305:
1306: \bibitem{hep-ph/0310238}
1307: C. Giunti and M. Laveder,
1308: \newblock (2003),
1309: \href{http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0310238}{\url{arXiv:hep-ph/0310238}},
1310: \newblock In ``Developments in Quantum Physics -- 2004'', p. 197-254, edited by
1311: F. Columbus and V. Krasnoholovets, Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
1312:
1313: \bibitem{hep-ph/0405172}
1314: M. Maltoni et~al.,
1315: \newblock New J. Phys. 6 (2004) 122,
1316: \href{http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0405172}{\url{arXiv:hep-ph/0405172}}.
1317:
1318: \bibitem{hep-ph/0506083}
1319: G.L. Fogli et~al.,
1320: \newblock Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 57 (2006) 742,
1321: \href{http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0506083}{\url{arXiv:hep-ph/0506083}}.
1322:
1323: \bibitem{hep-ph/0606054}
1324: A. Strumia and F. Vissani,
1325: \newblock (2006),
1326: \href{http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0606054}{\url{arXiv:hep-ph/0606054}}.
1327:
1328: \bibitem{Giunti-Kim-2007}
1329: C. Giunti and C.W. Kim,
1330: \newblock {{Fundamentals of Neutrino Physics and Astrophysics}} (Oxford
1331: University Press, 2007).
1332:
1333: \bibitem{hep-ex/0104049}
1334: LSND, A. Aguilar et~al.,
1335: \newblock Phys. Rev. D64 (2001) 112007,
1336: \href{http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ex/0104049}{\url{arXiv:hep-ex/0104049}}.
1337:
1338: \bibitem{nucl-ex/0512041}
1339: J.N. Abdurashitov et~al.,
1340: \newblock Phys. Rev. C73 (2006) 045805,
1341: \href{http://arxiv.org/abs/nucl-ex/0512041}{\url{arXiv:nucl-ex/0512041}}.
1342:
1343: \bibitem{0704.1500}
1344: MiniBooNE, A. Aguilar-Arevalo et~al.,
1345: \newblock Phys. Rev. Lett. 98 (2007) 231801,
1346: \href{http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.1500}{\url{arXiv:0704.1500}}.
1347:
1348: \bibitem{Anselmann:1995ar}
1349: GALLEX, P. Anselmann et~al.,
1350: \newblock Phys. Lett. B342 (1995) 440.
1351:
1352: \bibitem{Hampel:1998fc-Cr-51}
1353: GALLEX, W. Hampel et~al.,
1354: \newblock Phys. Lett. B420 (1998) 114.
1355:
1356: \bibitem{Abdurashitov:1996dp}
1357: SAGE, J.N. Abdurashitov et~al.,
1358: \newblock Phys. Rev. Lett. 77 (1996) 4708.
1359:
1360: \bibitem{hep-ph/9803418}
1361: SAGE, J.N. Abdurashitov et~al.,
1362: \newblock Phys. Rev. C59 (1999) 2246,
1363: \href{http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9803418}{\url{arXiv:hep-ph/9803418}}.
1364:
1365: \bibitem{Hampel:1998xg}
1366: GALLEX, W. Hampel et~al.,
1367: \newblock Phys. Lett. B447 (1999) 127.
1368:
1369: \bibitem{nucl-ex/0509031}
1370: J.N. Abdurashitov et~al.,
1371: \newblock Astropart. Phys. 25 (2006) 349,
1372: \href{http://arxiv.org/abs/nucl-ex/0509031}{\url{arXiv:nucl-ex/0509031}}.
1373:
1374: \bibitem{hep-ph/0605186}
1375: G. Fogli et~al.,
1376: \newblock (2006),
1377: \href{http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0605186}{\url{arXiv:hep-ph/0605186}},
1378: \newblock 3rd International Workshop on NO-VE: Neutrino Oscillations in Venice:
1379: 50 Years after the Neutrino Experimental Discovery, Venice, Italy, 7--10 Feb
1380: 2006.
1381:
1382: \bibitem{Laveder:2007zz}
1383: M. Laveder,
1384: \newblock Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 168 (2007) 344,
1385: \newblock NOW 2006.
1386:
1387: \bibitem{hep-ph/0610352}
1388: C. Giunti and M. Laveder,
1389: \newblock Mod. Phys. Lett. A22 (2007) 2499,
1390: \href{http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0610352}{\url{arXiv:hep-ph/0610352}}.
1391:
1392: \bibitem{0707.4593}
1393: C. Giunti and M. Laveder,
1394: \newblock Phys. Rev. D77 (2008) 093002,
1395: \href{http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.4593}{\url{arXiv:0707.4593}}.
1396:
1397: \bibitem{Declais:1995su}
1398: Bugey, B. Achkar et~al.,
1399: \newblock Nucl. Phys. B434 (1995) 503.
1400:
1401: \bibitem{hep-ex/0301017}
1402: CHOOZ, M. Apollonio et~al.,
1403: \newblock Eur. Phys. J. C27 (2003) 331,
1404: \href{http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ex/0301017}{\url{arXiv:hep-ex/0301017}}.
1405:
1406: \bibitem{Kuzmin-Ga-65}
1407: V.A. Kuzmin,
1408: \newblock Sov. Phys. JETP 22 (1966) 1051 [Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 49 (1965) 1532].
1409:
1410: \bibitem{Bahcall-Ga-97}
1411: J.N. Bahcall,
1412: \newblock Phys. Rev. C56 (1997) 3391,
1413: \href{http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9710491}{\url{arXiv:hep-ph/9710491}}.
1414:
1415: \bibitem{Kaether:2007zz}
1416: F. Kaether,
1417: \newblock (2007),
1418: \newblock PhD Thesis (in German). URL:
1419: \href{{http://www.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/archiv/7501/}}{\url{{http://www.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/archiv/7501/}}}.
1420:
1421: \bibitem{Hahn-Nu2008}
1422: R.L. Hahn,
1423: \newblock (2008),
1424: \newblock Neutrino 2008, 26-31 May 2008, Christchurch, New Zealand. URL:
1425: \href{{http://www2.phys.canterbury.ac.nz/~jaa53/presentations/Hahn.pdf}}{\url{{http://www2.phys.canterbury.ac.nz/~jaa53/presentations/Hahn.pdf}}}.
1426:
1427: \bibitem{PDG-2006}
1428: W.M. Yao et~al.,
1429: \newblock J. Phys. G 33 (2006) 1+,
1430: \newblock URL: \href{{http://pdg.lbl.gov}}{\url{{http://pdg.lbl.gov}}}.
1431:
1432: \bibitem{hep-ph/0304176}
1433: M. Maltoni and T. Schwetz,
1434: \newblock Phys. Rev. D68 (2003) 033020,
1435: \href{http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0304176}{\url{arXiv:hep-ph/0304176}}.
1436:
1437: \bibitem{hep-ph/9411414}
1438: J.N. Bahcall, P.I. Krastev and E. Lisi,
1439: \newblock Phys. Lett. B348 (1995) 121,
1440: \href{http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9411414}{\url{arXiv:hep-ph/9411414}}.
1441:
1442: \bibitem{hep-ph/0107277}
1443: C. Bemporad, G. Gratta and P. Vogel,
1444: \newblock Rev. Mod. Phys. 74 (2002) 297,
1445: \href{http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0107277}{\url{arXiv:hep-ph/0107277}}.
1446:
1447: \bibitem{hep-ph/0102252}
1448: W. Grimus and T. Schwetz,
1449: \newblock Eur. Phys. J. C20 (2001) 1,
1450: \href{http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0102252}{\url{arXiv:hep-ph/0102252}}.
1451:
1452: \bibitem{Declais-2008}
1453: Y. Declais,
1454: \newblock (2008),
1455: \newblock Private Communication.
1456:
1457: \bibitem{physics/9711021}
1458: G.J. Feldman and R.D. Cousins,
1459: \newblock Phys. Rev. D57 (1998) 3873,
1460: \href{http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9711021}{\url{arXiv:physics/9711021}}.
1461:
1462: \bibitem{hep-ph/0406294}
1463: J.N. Bahcall, M.C. Gonzalez-Garcia and C. Pena-Garay,
1464: \newblock JHEP 08 (2004) 016,
1465: \href{http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0406294}{\url{arXiv:hep-ph/0406294}}.
1466:
1467: \bibitem{Zucchelli:2002sa}
1468: P. Zucchelli,
1469: \newblock Phys. Lett. B532 (2002) 166.
1470:
1471: \bibitem{physics/0411123}
1472: Neutrino Factory/Muon Collider, C. Albright et~al.,
1473: \newblock (2004),
1474: \href{http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0411123}{\url{arXiv:physics/0411123}}.
1475:
1476: \bibitem{hep-ph/0605033}
1477: C. Volpe,
1478: \newblock J. Phys. G34 (2007) R1,
1479: \href{http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0605033}{\url{arXiv:hep-ph/0605033}}.
1480:
1481: \bibitem{hep-ph/0210192}
1482: M. Apollonio et~al.,
1483: \newblock (2002),
1484: \href{http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0210192}{\url{arXiv:hep-ph/0210192}}.
1485:
1486: \bibitem{hep-ph/0601079}
1487: R.S. Raghavan,
1488: \newblock (2006),
1489: \href{http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0601079}{\url{arXiv:hep-ph/0601079}}.
1490:
1491: \bibitem{Raghavan:1997ad}
1492: R.S. Raghavan,
1493: \newblock Phys. Rev. Lett. 78 (1997) 3618.
1494:
1495: \bibitem{LENS-2002}
1496: R.S. Raghavan et~al.,
1497: \newblock (2002),
1498: \newblock URL:
1499: \href{{http://lens.in2p3.fr/lens-rep-02.pdf}}{\url{{http://lens.in2p3.fr/lens-rep-02.pdf}}}.
1500:
1501: \bibitem{Grieb:2006mp}
1502: C. Grieb, J. Link and R.S. Raghavan,
1503: \newblock Phys. Rev. D75 (2007) 093006,
1504: \href{http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0611178}{\url{arXiv:hep-ph/0611178}}.
1505:
1506: \bibitem{hep-ph/0302039}
1507: H. Nunokawa, O.L.G. Peres and R.Z. Funchal,
1508: \newblock Phys. Lett. B562 (2003) 279,
1509: \href{http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0302039}{\url{arXiv:hep-ph/0302039}}.
1510:
1511: \bibitem{0709.1937}
1512: S. Choubey,
1513: \newblock JHEP 12 (2007) 014,
1514: \href{http://arxiv.org/abs/0709.1937}{\url{arXiv:0709.1937}}.
1515:
1516: \end{thebibliography}
1517:
1518: \end{document}
1519: