1: \subsection{$\nu_e$ appearance search}
2: \hspace*{\parindent}
3: The JHF neutrino beam has small $\nu_e$ contamination
4: (0.2\% at the peak energy of OAB and NBB)
5: and the $\nu_e$ appearance signal is enhanced
6: by tuning the neutrino energy at its expected
7: oscillation maximum.
8: Reconstruction of the neutrino energy
9: provides oscillation pattern and
10: makes a positive identification of the $\nu_e$
11: appearance signal.
12: Thus, JHF-Kamioka neutrino experiment has an excellent opportunity
13: to discover $\nu_e$ appearance and thus measure $\theta_{13}$.
14: In this section, the sensitivity on $\nu_e$ appearance
15: is described based on the full Monte Carlo simulations
16: and analysis of Super-Kamiokande and K2K experiments.
17:
18: \subsubsection{Background sources and event selection criteria}
19: \hspace*{\parindent}
20: The process of the $\nu_e$ appearance signal
21: is searched for in the QE interaction.
22: Since the proton momentum from the QE interaction is usually below
23: the \v{C}erenkov threshold, the signal has only
24: a single electro-magnetic shower (single ring e-like).
25: The possible background processes are
26: $\nu_\mu\rightarrow \mu$
27: with e/$\mu$ misidentification, $\nu_e$ contamination,
28: and $\pi^0$ background.
29: The background from $\mu$ misidentification is found to be
30: negligible due to excellent e/$\mu$ separation of Super-Kamiokande.
31: The $\nu_e$ contamination is as small as 0.2-0.3\%.
32: A $\pi^0$ produced by neutral current
33: and inelastic charged current processes is a possible background
34: when one of the photon is missed or 2 photons overlaps.
35:
36: The standard Super-Kamiokande atmospheric neutrino analysis
37: requirements are used to select a single ring e-like event:
38: single ring, electron like (showering), visible energy greater than 100~MeV,
39: and no decay electrons.
40: The electron identification eliminates all of the
41: $\mu$ background, and the decay electron cut further eliminates
42: inelastic charged current processes associated with $\pi^0$.
43: Reduction of number of events by the
44: ``standard'' 1ring e-like cut for charged and neutral current
45: events are listed in
46: \tablename~\ref{nueapp:cuteff_oa2} 2).
47: The remaining background events at this stage
48: are predominantly from single
49: $\pi^0$ production through neutral current interaction and
50: a $\nu_e$ contamination.
51: %
52: \begin{table}
53: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1}
54: \begin{center}
55: \caption{\protect\footnotesize Number of events and reduction efficiency
56: of ``standard'' 1ring e-like cut and $\pi^0$ cut for 5 year exposure
57: ($5 \times 10^{21}$ p.o.t.) OA$2^\circ$.
58: For the calculation of oscillated $\nu_e$,$\Delta m^2=3\times10^{-3}$~eV$^2$
59: and $\sin^22\theta_{\mu e}=0.05$ is assumed. \label{nueapp:cuteff_oa2}}
60: \begin{tabular}{lrrrr}
61: \hline
62: OAB $2^\circ$ & $\nu_\mu$ C.C. & $\nu_\mu$ N.C. & Beam $\nu_e$ & Oscillated $\nu_e$ \\
63: \hline
64: 1) Generated in F.V. & 10713.6 & 4080.3 & 292.1 & 301.6 \\
65: 2) 1R e-like & 14.3 & 247.1 & 68.4 & 203.7 \\
66: 3) e/$\pi^0$ separation & 3.5 & 23.0 & 21.9 & 152.2 \\
67: 4) 0.4~GeV$<E_{rec}<1.2$~GeV & 1.8 & 9.3 & 11.1 & 123.2 \\
68: \hline
69: \end{tabular}
70: \end{center}
71: \end{table}
72: %
73:
74: For neutrino energies below 1~GeV,
75: the energy of produced $\pi^0$ is low and
76: thus the probability of the two photons to merge to one
77: is small.
78: The limitation comes from asymmetric decay of $\pi^0$
79: with one high and one low photon energies,
80: where the lower energy photon tends to be hidden
81: under the scattered light\footnote{About 10-20\% of the
82: light are scattered in the water before reaching the
83: photomultiplier tubes causing broadly distributed
84: background light.}
85: of the higher energy photon.
86: In order to recover this hidden lower energy photon
87: and further suppress the $\pi^0$ background,
88: the photomultiplier hit pattern
89: including scattered light is fitted
90: under the hypotheses of single and that of double electro-magnetic rings.
91: %
92: \figurename~\ref{nueapp:qdist} shows
93: distributions of four characteristic quantities
94: that separates signal $\nu_e$ events from $\pi^0$
95: background events as follows:
96: \begin{figure}
97: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1}
98: \centerline{
99: \epsfig{file=fig/h-pizer.eps,width=16cm}
100: }
101: \vspace{-8mm}
102: \caption{\protect\footnotesize
103: Distributions of the four quantities,
104: used in the $e/\pi^0$ separation.
105: The beam is the wide band beam and events are
106: after the single-ring e-like selection.
107: Upper histograms corresponds to $\nu_\mu$ background events
108: and the lower histograms correspond to the $\nu_e$ signal events.
109: The arrows in the figure show the cut positions used in the analysis.}
110: \label{nueapp:qdist}
111: \end{figure}
112: %
113: \begin{itemize}
114: \item Angle between $\nu$ and e ($\cos\theta_{\nu e}$):\\
115: Some fraction of $\pi^0$ background has a steep forward peak,
116: which is likely due to coherent $\pi^0$ production.
117: Those events in the extreme forward direction are rejected.
118: \item Energy fraction of lower energy ring
119: ($\frac{E(\gamma_2)}{E(\gamma_1)+E(\gamma_2)}$)\\
120: The $\nu_e$ signal tends to have a low energy second ring
121: which is either a fake ring or a ring due to bremsstrahlung.
122: Those events with the large energy fraction are rejected.
123: \item Difference between double and single ring likelihood:\\
124: Single ring like events are selected.
125: \item Invariant mass of 2 photons:\\
126: The $\pi^0$ background shows a peak at 135~MeV whereas
127: the $\nu_e$ signal shows small invariant mass.
128: Those events with large invariant mass are rejected.
129: \end{itemize}
130: \tablename~\ref{nueapp:cuteff_oa2} 3) lists the
131: number of events after this $e/\pi^0$ separation.
132: An order of magnitude extra rejection (247.1/23) in the $\nu_\mu$ neutral
133: current background is achieved with 152.2/203.7=75\% in signal acceptance.
134:
135: \subsubsection{Oscillation sensitivity}
136: \hspace*{\parindent}
137: \figurename~\ref{nueapp:sens_oa2.0} (left)
138: shows the reconstructed neutrino energy distributions
139: for 5~years exposure of JHF OA2$^\circ$.
140: The oscillation parameters of
141: $\Delta m^2 = 3\times10^{-3}$~eV$^2$
142: and $\sin^22\theta_{\mu e}=0.05$ are assumed.
143: A clear appearance peak is seen at the oscillation maximum
144: of $E_\nu \sim$0.75~GeV.
145: By integrating the number of events in the energy range between
146: 0.4 and 1.2~GeV, 90\% and 3$\sigma$ limits are derived
147: as a function of the exposure time
148: (the right plot of \figurename~\ref{nueapp:sens_oa2.0}).
149: The reach of the first phase is as good as
150: $\sin^22\theta_{\mu e}=0.003$ at 90\% confidence level.
151: The systematic uncertainty in background subtraction
152: is chosen to be 2\%, 5\% and 10\%.
153: Though the systematic uncertainty is not important
154: in the first phase, it becomes significant in the second
155: phase.
156:
157: \begin{figure}
158: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1}
159: \centerline{
160: \epsfig{file=fig/sens_oa2.0_5yr_loose_righthalf.eps,width=16cm}
161: }
162: \vspace{-4mm}
163: \caption{\protect\footnotesize
164: Left:Expected reconstructed neutrino energy distributions of
165: expected signal+BG, total BG, and BG from $\nu_\mu$ interactions
166: for 5 years exposure of OA2$^\circ$.
167: Right: Expected (thick lines:) 90\%CL sensitivity and (thin lines:)
168: 3$\sigma$ discovery contours as the functions of exposure time of
169: OA2$^\circ$. In left figure, expected
170: oscillation signals are calculated with the oscillation parameters:
171: $\Delta m^2 = 3\times10^{-3}$~eV$^2$,$\sin^22\theta_{\mu e}=0.05$.
172: In right figures, Three different contours correspond to
173: 10\%, 5\%, and 2\% uncertainty in the background estimation.}
174: \label{nueapp:sens_oa2.0}
175: \end{figure}
176:
177: \figurename~\ref{nueapp:contours} shows 90\%C.L. contours for
178: 5 year exposure of each beam configuration assuming
179: 10\% systematic uncertainty in background subtraction.
180: \begin{figure}[!tb]
181: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1}
182: \centerline{
183: \epsfig{file=fig/conts_0102c.eps,width=12cm}
184: }
185: \vspace{-7mm}
186: \caption{\protect\footnotesize
187: The 90\% C.L. sensitivity contours for 5 years exposure of
188: WBB, OA2$^\circ$, and LE$2 \pi$ configurations.
189: The 90\% C.L. excluded region of CHOOZ is plotted as
190: a comparison. For CHOOZ contour, maximum mixing of $\sin^2\theta_{23}=0.5$
191: is assumed to convert from $\sin^22\theta_{13}$ to $\sin^22\theta_{\mu e}$.}
192: \label{nueapp:contours}
193: \end{figure}
194:
195: The best sensitivity at around $\Delta m^2=3\times10^{-3}$~eV$^2$
196: is given by OA2$^\circ$ and the sensitivity is
197: $\sin^22\theta_{\mu e}=0.003$ at 90\%C.L.
198: If the $\Delta m^2$ is significantly larger or smaller than
199: $3\times10^{-3}$~eV$^2$, the sensitivity can be optimized by
200: adjusting the neutrino energy as described in section~\ref{beam}.
201: In the predicted range of
202: $1.6\times10^{-3}$~eV$^2<\Delta m^2<4\times10^{-3}$~eV$^2$
203: by the Super-Kamiokande,
204: the sensitivity is
205: better than $\sin^22\theta_{\mu e}=0.005$
206: or $\sin^22\theta_{13}=0.01$ at 90\% confidence level.
207:
208:
209:
210: