1: \section{Oscillation analysis}
2: \label{sec:oscillation}
3:
4: The observed deficits of muon neutrino interactions are in strong
5: disagreement with the expectation in the absence of neutrino
6: oscillations. Oscillation between electron neutrinos and muon
7: neutrinos cannot explain the data, as no surplus of upward-going
8: electron neutrinos is observed in the multi-GeV data sample; an
9: attempt at a two-flavor $\nu_{\mu} \leftrightarrow \nu_e$ fit results
10: in a generally poor fit, with $\chi^2$ difference of more than 100
11: with respect to the $\nu_\mu \leftrightarrow \nu_\tau$ analysis
12: described below. A variety of exotic alternatives such as neutrino
13: decay were considered, however, none fit the data as well as the
14: $\nu_\mu \leftrightarrow \nu_\tau$ scenario analyzed below.
15: Atmospheric $\nu_\mu$ oscillation
16: into $\nu_\tau$ is mostly characterized by $\nu_\mu$ disappearance, as
17: the majority of the flux is below the 3.5~GeV neutrino energy
18: threshold for charged current $\tau$ production. We carefully studied
19: the alternative that $\nu_\mu$ could oscillate to a sterile neutrino
20: state\cite{Fukuda:2000np}, which would also result in $\nu_\mu$
21: disappearance. However, the lack of matter-induced suppression of
22: oscillation and the
23: relative up-down symmetry of the multi-ring sample with considerable
24: neutral current fraction eliminated this hypothesis from serious
25: considerations. The final Super-Kamiokande statistical analysis of
26: these alternative scenarios, as well as the standard three flavor
27: oscillation analysis, will appear in other publications.
28: In this paper, we therefore establish the best-fit parameters of $\nu_\mu
29: \leftrightarrow \nu_\tau$ oscillation.
30:
31: The analysis is based on a comparison between data and Monte Carlo, suitably
32: binned to convey information about neutrino type, neutrino energy, and flight
33: distance. The neutrino type, $\nu_e$ or $\nu_\mu$ is classified by the
34: identification of the main Cherenkov pattern as showering or non-showering
35: respectively. Penetrating particles such as upward-going muons and
36: partially-contained events are assumed to arise from $\nu_\mu$ interactions.
37: The neutrino energy is correlated with the outgoing lepton momentum using the
38: interaction models described in Section IV. The flight distance is correlated
39: with the zenith angle as described by Figs.~\ref{fig:flight-length} and
40: \ref{fig:angle_cor}. To study neutrino oscillation using
41: Eq.~\ref{eqn:oscillation}, we reweight each simulated event using the Monte
42: Carlo ``truth'' information of $E_\nu$ and $L$ and bin the reweighted events
43: for comparison with the detected data. Unlike our analysis using the ratio
44: $L/E$~\cite{Ashie:2004mr}, we make no attempt to estimate $L$ or $E_\nu$ on
45: an event-by-event basis.''
46:
47: We used all of the data samples with a well-identified CC $\nu_\mu$
48: component, namely: FC single-ring $\mu$-like, PC, multi-ring $\mu$-like,
49: upward stopping muons, and upward through-going muons. Because the flux of
50: electron neutrinos provides a powerful constraint through the accurately
51: predicted $\nu_\mu/\nu_e$ ratio, the single-ring $e$-like events were
52: included in the fit. The FC single ring $\mu$-like and $e$-like samples were
53: divided in logarithmically-spaced momentum bins. All samples were divided in
54: 10 zenith angle bins. In total 180 bins were used in the analysis: 150 for
55: the FC sample, 10 for the PC sample, 10 for the upward stopping muon sample,
56: and 10 for the upward through-going muon sample. The number of observed and
57: expected events for each bin are summarized in the Appendix.
58:
59:
60: A $\chi^2$ statistic is defined by the following sum:
61: %-----------------------------------------------------------------------
62: %
63: \begin{equation}
64: \chi^2 = \sum_{i=1}^{180}
65: \frac{\left(N_{i}^{\rm obs} - N_{i}^{\rm exp} (1+\sum_{j=1}^{39}f_{j}^{i}\cdot\epsilon_{j}) \right)^2
66: }
67: { \sigma^2_{i} } + \sum_{j=2}^{39} \left(\frac{\epsilon_j}{\sigma_j}\right)^2
68: \vspace{-5mm}
69: \label{equation:chi2def}
70: \end{equation}
71: \begin{equation}
72: N_{i}^{\rm exp} = N_{i}^{\rm 0} \cdot
73: P(\nu_\alpha \rightarrow \nu_\beta)~~.
74: \label{equation:chi2def2}
75: \end{equation} \noindent
76: %
77: %-----------------------------------------------------------------------
78: In the first sum, $N^{\rm obs}_i$ is the number of observed events in the
79: $i^{\rm th}$ bin and $N^{\rm exp}_i$ is the expected number of events based
80: on a Monte Carlo simulation and $\sigma_i$ combines the statistical
81: uncertainties in the data and Monte Carlo simulation. During the fit, the
82: values of $N^{\rm exp}_i$ are recalculated to account for neutrino
83: oscillations and systematic variations in the predicted rates due to
84: uncertainties in the neutrino flux model, neutrino cross-section model, and
85: detector response. $N^{\rm 0}_i$ is the number of events predicted from the
86: MC without neutrino oscillation for the $i^{\rm th}$ bin. The appearance of
87: $\nu_\tau$ as a result of oscillations is taken into account by adding into
88: the Monte Carlo distributions simulated $\nu_\tau$ interactions which pass
89: all cuts. These events show up mainly in the multi-GeV $e$-like sample, but
90: are not easily distinguished on an event-by-event basis. We are undertaking a
91: separate analysis, to be published later, which will study $\nu_\tau$
92: appearance in the atmospheric neutrino flux.
93:
94: The systematic uncertainties are represented by 39 parameters $\epsilon_j$.
95: During the fit, these 39 $\epsilon_j$ are varied to minimize $\chi^2$ for
96: each choice of oscillation parameters $\sin^2 2\theta$ and $\Delta m^2$.
97: Among these, only 38 contribute to the $\chi^2$, since the absolute
98: normalization is allowed to be free. The factor $f^i_j$ represents the
99: fractional change in the predicted event rate in the $i^{\rm th}$ bin due to
100: a variation of the parameter $\epsilon_j$. The second sum in the $\chi^2$
101: definition collects the contributions from the systematic uncertainties in
102: the expected neutrino rates. The $\epsilon_j$ are listed in
103: Tables~\ref{table:fitsummary_flux}, \ref{table:fitsummary_nuint},
104: \ref{table:fitsummary_event}, and \ref{table:fitsummary_fit} with their
105: estimated uncertainties and the resulting best-fit values. Entries of the
106: same number are treated as fully correlated although the effect of the
107: uncertainty varies in size depending on its relative importance to the energy
108: bin of certain sub-samples. For example, the source of the up/down
109: uncertainty (No. 8) is due to the uncertainty in the geomagnetic field
110: effect, especially above the Super-Kamiokande detector. The uncertainty is
111: large for low energy neutrinos coming from primary cosmic rays below the
112: geomagnetic cutoff, but the effect of the uncertainty is decreased due to the
113: large scattering angle in the neutrino interactions. As a result, events in
114: the middle energy range are the most influenced by this particular systematic
115: uncertainty. Refer to the footnotes in the tables for more detail.
116:
117: \begin{table}
118: \begin{center}
119: \begin{center}
120: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\alph{footnote}}
121: \begin{tabular}{lllccc}
122: \hline \hline
123: & & & $\sigma$\,(\%) & best-fit & {\it No.}\\
124: \hline
125: \multicolumn{6}{l}{\bf (A) Systematic uncertainties in neutrino flux} \\
126: \multicolumn{2}{l}{Absolute normalization}& & free & 11.9 & {\it 1}\\
127: $(\nu_\mu + \overline{\nu}_\mu )/ (\nu_e + \overline{\nu}_e )$ \footnote[1]{A positive number means the number of MC $\nu_\mu + \overline{\nu}_\mu$ events is increased.} & \multicolumn{2}{l}{$E_{\nu}<5$\,GeV} & 3.0 & -2.4 & {\it 2} \\
128: & \multicolumn{2}{l}{$E_{\nu}>5 $\,GeV} &
129: 3.0\footnote[2]{Error linearly increases with $\log E_{\nu}$ from 3\,\%
130: (5\,GeV) to 10\,\%(100\,GeV).} & 0.1 & {\it 3} \\
131: $\nu_{e}/\overline{\nu}_e$\footnote[3]{A positive number means the number of MC $\nu_e$ ($\nu_{\mu}$) events is increased.} & \multicolumn{2}{l}{$E_{\nu}<10$\,GeV} & 5.0 & 1.5 & {\it 4} \\
132: & \multicolumn{2}{l}{$E_{\nu}>10$\,GeV} &
133: 5.0\footnote[4]{Error linearly increases with $\log E_{\nu}$ from
134: 5\,\%(10\,GeV) to 10\,\%(100\,GeV).} & 0.0 & {\it 5} \\
135: $\nu_{\mu}/\overline{\nu}_{\mu}$\footnotemark[3] & \multicolumn{2}{l}{$E_{\nu}<10$\,GeV} & 5.0 & -1.3 & {\it 6} \\
136: & \multicolumn{2}{l}{$E_{\nu}>10$\,GeV} &
137: 5.0\footnote[5]{Error linearly increases with $\log E_{\nu}$ from
138: 5\,\%(10\,GeV) to 25\,\%(100\,GeV).} & 0.9 & {\it 7} \\
139: Up/down\footnote[6]{Up/down (horizontal/vertical) uncertainty in neutrino flux is assumed to be
140: fully correlated. All of the samples listed are simultaneously varied
141: according to the systematic uncertainty factors. A positive number means the number of MC upward (horizontally-going) events is increased.}
142: & $< 400$\,MeV &$e$-like & 0.5 & 0.2 & {\it 8} \\
143: & &$\mu$-like & 0.8 & 0.3 & {\it 8} \\
144: & $> 400$\,MeV &$e$-like & 2.1 & 0.9 & {\it 8} \\
145: & &$\mu$-like & 1.8 & 0.8 & {\it 8} \\
146: & Multi-GeV &$e$-like & 1.5 & 0.7 & {\it 8} \\
147: & &$\mu$-like & 0.8 & 0.3 & {\it 8} \\
148: & PC & & 0.4 & 0.2 & {\it 8} \\
149: & \multicolumn{2}{l}{Sub-GeV multi-ring $\mu$} & 0.8 & 0.3 & {\it 8} \\
150: & \multicolumn{2}{l}{Multi-GeV multi-ring $\mu$} & 0.7 & 0.3 & {\it 8} \\
151: Horizontal/vertical\footnotemark[6] & $< 400$\,MeV &$e$-like & 0.3 & 0.0 & {\it 9} \\
152: & &$\mu$-like & 0.3 & 0.0 & {\it 9} \\
153: & $> 400$\,MeV &$e$-like & 1.2 & 0.1 & {\it 9} \\
154: & &$\mu$-like & 1.2 & 0.1 & {\it 9} \\
155: & Multi-GeV &$e$-like & 2.8 & 0.2 & {\it 9} \\
156: & &$\mu$-like & 1.9 & 0.1 & {\it 9} \\
157: & PC & & 1.4 & 0.1 & {\it 9} \\
158: & \multicolumn{2}{l}{Sub-GeV multi-ring $\mu$} & 1.5 & 0.1 & {\it 9} \\
159: & \multicolumn{2}{l}{Multi-GeV multi-ring $\mu$} & 1.3 & 0.1 & {\it 9} \\
160: $K/\pi$ ratio~\footnote[7]{20\,\% uncertainty in $K/\pi$
161: production ratio in cosmic ray interactions in the atmosphere.
162: A positive number means that the fraction of $K$ is increased.} & & & 20.0 & -6.3 & {\it 10} \\
163: \multicolumn{2}{l}{L$_{\nu}$ (production height)} & & 10.0\footnote[8]{10\,\% uncertainty in the atmospheric density structure. A positive number means a more compressed atmospheric density structure.} & -0.6 & {\it 11} \\
164: Energy spectrum\footnote[9]{0.03 and 0.05 uncertainties in the spectral index of the primary cosmic rays below and above 100~GeV. Spectral index uncertainties below and above 100\,GeV are assumed to be correlated. A positive number means that the spectrum is harder. The predicted flux
165: was changed around an arbitrary reference energy of 10 GeV. } & \multicolumn{2}{l}{$E_{k}<100 $\,GeV} & 0.03 & 0.031 & {\it 12} \\
166: & \multicolumn{2}{l}{$E_{k}>100 $\,GeV} & 0.05 & 0.052 & {\it 12} \\
167: Sample-by-sample\footnote[10]{Different flux calculations predict different energy dependences that cannot be explained by a simple spectral index uncertainty. See the lower panel of
168: Fig.~\ref{fig:enu_spectra}. From a comparison of the predicted number of events based on different flux models, 5\,\% is assigned as the relative normalization uncertainty for these samples.} & FC Multi-GeV & & 5.0 & -5.2 & {\it 13} \\
169: & \multicolumn{2}{l}{PC\,$+$\,upward stopping $\mu$} & 5.0 & -3.9 & {\it 14} \\
170: \hline \hline
171: \end{tabular}
172: \caption{Summary of systematic uncertainties in the prediction of the atmospheric neutrino flux.
173: Estimated uncertainty and the best-fit value are listed for each error.
174: The last column shows the error parameter numbers ($j$), which appeared in
175: Eqs.\ref{equation:chi2def} and \ref{equation:chi2min}. }
176: \label{table:fitsummary_flux}
177: \end{center}
178: \end{center}
179: \end{table}
180:
181: \begin{table}
182: \begin{center}
183: \begin{center}
184: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\alph{footnote}}
185: \begin{tabular}{lllccc}
186: \hline \hline
187: & & & $\sigma$\,(\%) & best-fit & {\it No.}\\
188: \hline
189: \multicolumn{6}{l}{\bf (B) Systematic uncertainties in neutrino interaction} \\
190: \multicolumn{3}{l}{$M_{A}$ in quasi-elastic and single-$\pi$}& 10.0\footnote{10\,\% uncertainty in the axial vector mass, $M_{A}$ (See Sec.~\ref{sec:atmnumc}), value.} & 0.5 & {\it 15} \\
191: \multicolumn{3}{l}{ Quasi-elastic scattering (model dependence)}& 1.0\footnote{Difference from the model in Ref.~\cite{Singh:1993rg} is set to 1.0\,.} & -0.95 & {\it 16} \\
192: \multicolumn{3}{l}{ Quasi-elastic scattering (cross-section)}& 10.0 & 5.6 & {\it 17} \\
193: \multicolumn{3}{l}{ Single-meson production (cross-section)}& 10.0 & -4.7 & {\it 18} \\
194: \multicolumn{3}{l}{Multi-pion production (model dependence)} & 1.0\footnote{Difference from the model in Ref.~\cite{Bodek:2002vp} is set to 1.0\,.} & 1.47 & {\it 19} \\
195: \multicolumn{3}{l}{ Multi-pion production (total cross-section)}& 5.0 & -0.2 & {\it 20} \\
196: \multicolumn{3}{l}{ Coherent pion production (total cross-section)}& 30.0 & 0.4 & {\it 21} \\
197: \multicolumn{3}{l}{ NC/CC ratio~\footnote{A positive number means more NC events in the Monte Carlo.}} & 20.0 & 2.9 & {\it 22} \\
198: \multicolumn{3}{l}{ Nuclear effect in $^{16}$O~\footnote{30\,\% uncertainty in the mean free path of hadrons in the $^{16}$O nucleus. A positive number means stronger nuclear effect in $^{16}$O.}} & 30.0 & -7.2 & {\it 23} \\
199: \multicolumn{3}{l}{ Energy spectrum of pions} & 1.0\footnote{The difference in the predicted pion energy spectrum by {\tt NEUT} and {\tt NUANCE} interaction models is taken as 1 standard deviation, and is set to 1.0.} & 0.50 & {\it 24} \\
200: \multicolumn{3}{l}{ CC $\nu_\tau$ interaction cross section}& 30.0 & 0.2 & {\it 25} \\
201: \hline \hline
202: \end{tabular}
203: \caption{Summary of systematic uncertainties in neutrino interactions.
204: Estimated uncertainty and the best-fit value are listed for each error.
205: The last column shows the error parameter numbers ($j$), which appeared in
206: Eqs.\ref{equation:chi2def} and \ref{equation:chi2min}.}
207: \label{table:fitsummary_nuint}
208: \end{center}
209: \end{center}
210: \end{table}
211:
212: \begin{table}
213: \begin{center}
214: \begin{center}
215: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\alph{footnote}}
216: \begin{tabular}{lllccc}
217: \hline \hline
218: & & & $\sigma$\,(\%) & best-fit & {\it No.}\\
219: \hline
220: \multicolumn{6}{l}{\bf (C) Systematic uncertainties in event selection} \\
221: \multicolumn{3}{l}{ Reduction for fully-contained event} & 0.2 & 0.0 & {\it 26} \\
222: \multicolumn{3}{l}{Reduction for partially-contained event} & 2.6 & 0.3 & {\it 27} \\
223: Detection efficiency\footnote{Goodness of upward-going $\mu$ fit is used to select the upward-going $\mu$ sample. The difference of the goodness between the data and MC is considered as the source of the uncertainty in the detection efficiency. Uncertainties for upward stopping $\mu$ and upward through-going $\mu$ are assumed to be correlated.}& \multicolumn{2}{l}{upward stopping $\mu$}& 1.3 & -0.2 & {\it 28} \\
224: & \multicolumn{2}{l}{upward through-going $\mu$}& 0.5 & -0.1 & {\it 28} \\
225: \multicolumn{3}{l}{FC/PC separation\footnote{The number of hits in the
226: OD cluster is used to separate the FC and PC events.
227: See Fig.~\ref{fig:od-nhit}. The systematic uncertainty in the number of
228: hits in the OD cluster causes 0.9\,\% uncertainty in the
229: number of the PC events. The number of FC events changes anti-correlated with
230: the change in the number of PC events. A positive number means that the number of MC FC events is increased.}} & 0.9 & -0.3 & {\it 29} \\
231: \multicolumn{3}{l}{Hadron simulation} & 1.0\footnote{Difference from the FLUKA model. A positive number means more hadrons, mostly pions, in neutral current interactions are identified as $\mu$-like.} & -0.24 & {\it 30} \\
232: Non-$\nu$ BG\footnote{The background sources are flasher PMTs and neutron interactions for $e$-like events and cosmic ray muons for $\mu$-like events. It is assumed that the background sources are un-correlated between $e$-like and $\mu$-like events. The background for sub- and multi-GeV samples in the $e$-like and $\mu$-like events are assumed to be correlated. The background for the PC sample is also assumed to be correlated with the FC $\mu$-like samples. Only positive numbers are allowed for the background.}& Sub-GeV &$e$-like & 0.4 & 0.1 & {\it 31} \\
233: & &$\mu$-like & 0.1 & 0.0 & {\it 32} \\
234: & Multi-GeV &$e$-like & 0.2 & 0.0 & {\it 31} \\
235: & &$\mu$-like & 0.1 & 0.0 & {\it 32} \\
236: & PC & & 0.2 & 0.0 & {\it 32} \\
237: \multicolumn{3}{l}{Upward stopping/through-going $\mu$ separation \footnote{The number of hits in the OD cluster
238: at the exit point of a muon is used to separate the upward stopping and
239: through-going muon events.
240: The uncertainty in the number of hits in the OD cluster causes
241: 0.4\,\% uncertainty in the stopping/through-going ratio.
242: A positive number means that the number of MC stopping muons is increased.}}& 0.4 & 0.0 & {\it 33} \\
243: \hline \hline
244: \end{tabular}
245: \caption{Summary of systematic uncertainties in event selection.
246: Estimated uncertainty and the best-fit value are listed for each error.
247: The last column shows the error parameter numbers ($j$), which appeared in
248: Eqs.\ref{equation:chi2def} and \ref{equation:chi2min}.}
249: \label{table:fitsummary_event}
250: \end{center}
251: \end{center}
252: \end{table}
253:
254: \begin{table}
255: \begin{center}
256: \begin{center}
257: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\alph{footnote}}
258: \begin{tabular}{lllccc}
259: \hline \hline
260: & & & $\sigma$\,(\%) & best-fit & {\it No.} \\
261: \hline
262: \multicolumn{6}{l}{\bf (D) Systematic uncertainties in event reconstruction} \\
263: Ring separation\footnote{Ring separation uncertainty is assumed to be
264: fully correlated. Namely, if the number of single-ring sub-GeV $e$-like
265: events have to be increased, the number of single-ring multi-GeV $e$-like
266: events and single-ring sub- and multi-GeV $\mu$-like events have to be
267: increased according to the systematic uncertainty factors. On the other
268: hand, in this case, the number of multi-ring $\mu$-like events have to
269: be decreased. A positive number means the number of MC events for
270: the corresponding sample is increased.} & $< 400$\,MeV &$e$-like & 6.3 & 2.6 & {\it 34} \\
271: & &$\mu$-like & 2.4 & 1.0 & {\it 34} \\
272: & $> 400$\,MeV &$e$-like & 3.4 & 1.4 & {\it 34} \\
273: & &$\mu$-like & 1.3 & 0.5 & {\it 34} \\
274: & Multi-GeV &$e$-like & 15.9& 6.5 & {\it 34} \\
275: & &$\mu$-like & 6.2 & 2.5 & {\it 34} \\
276: & \multicolumn{2}{l}{Sub-GeV multi-ring $\mu$} & 3.7 & -1.5 & {\it 34} \\
277: & \multicolumn{2}{l}{Multi-GeV multi-ring $\mu$} & 7.2 & -2.9 & {\it 34} \\
278: Particle identification\footnote{The particle
279: identification uncertainty is anti-correlated between $e$-like and $\mu$-like
280: events. It is assumed that the particle identification uncertainty
281: is correlated between sub- and multi-GeV energy regions.
282: However, it is assumed that it
283: is not correlated between single- and multi-ring events.
284: A positive number means the number of MC events for the corresponding sample
285: is increased.} & Sub-GeV &$e$-like & 0.6 & 0.2 & {\it 35} \\
286: & &$\mu$-like & 0.6 & -0.2 & {\it 35} \\
287: & Multi-GeV &$e$-like & 0.4 & 0.1 & {\it 35} \\
288: & &$\mu$-like & 0.4 & -0.1 & {\it 35} \\
289: & \multicolumn{2}{l}{Sub-GeV multi-ring $\mu$} & 3.4 & -0.9 & {\it 36} \\
290: & \multicolumn{2}{l}{Multi-GeV multi-ring $\mu$} & 4.7 & -1.2 & {\it 36} \\
291: \multicolumn{2}{l}{Energy calibration for FC event~\footnote{2\,\% uncertainty in the absolute energy scale of the detector. A positive number corresponds to increasing the visible energy of MC events.} } & & 2.0 & 0.4 & {\it 37} \\
292: \multicolumn{2}{l}{Energy cut for upward stopping muon}& & 1.1 & -0.2 & {\it 38} \\
293: \multicolumn{2}{l}{Up/down symmetry of energy calibration~\footnote{A positive number means that the energy of MC events is increased for upward-going direction. }}& & 0.6 & 0.0 & {\it 39} \\
294: \hline \hline
295: \end{tabular}
296: \caption{Summary of systematic uncertainties in event reconstruction.
297: Estimated uncertainty and the best-fit value are listed for each error.
298: The last column shows the error parameter numbers ($j$), which appeared in
299: Eqs.\ref{equation:chi2def} and \ref{equation:chi2min}.}
300: \label{table:fitsummary_fit}
301: \end{center}
302: \end{center}
303: \end{table}
304:
305: A global scan was made on a $(\sin^22\theta, \log \Delta m^2)$ grid
306: minimizing $\chi^2$ at each point with respect to 39 parameters listed in
307: Tables~\ref{table:fitsummary_flux},~\ref{table:fitsummary_nuint},~\ref{table:fitsummary_event} and \ref{table:fitsummary_fit}.
308: At each grid point, the
309: local minimum of $\chi^2$ are derived by assuming a
310: linear dependence of $N^{\rm exp}_i$ on each of the parameters. At
311: the minimum $\chi^2$ location,
312: %%%$\frac{\partial \chi^2}{\partial \epsilon_j}=0$
313: $\partial \chi^2/\partial \epsilon_j=0$
314: for each of the parameters $\epsilon_j$. As a result,
315: the minimization of $\chi^2$ in Eqn.~\ref{equation:chi2def} is
316: equivalent to solving the following system of $k=1,39$ linear
317: equations~\cite{Fogli:2002pt}:
318: %-----------------------------------------------------------------------
319: %
320: \begin{eqnarray}
321: &&
322: \sum_{j=1}^{39}
323: \left[
324: \frac{1}{\sigma_j^2}
325: \delta_{jk}+\sum_{i=1}^{180}
326: \left(
327: \frac{N^{\rm exp}_{i} \cdot N^{\rm exp}_{i} \cdot f^i_j \cdot f^i_k}
328: {\sigma_i^2}
329: \right)
330: \right]
331: \cdot \epsilon_j \nonumber \\
332: &&{\hspace{1.2cm}}
333: =
334: \sum_{i=1}^{180}
335: \frac{(N^{\rm obs}_i-N^{\rm exp}_i) \cdot N^{\rm exp}_i \cdot f^i_k}
336: {\sigma_i^2}
337: \label{equation:chi2min}
338: \end{eqnarray}
339: where $\sigma_j$ is the estimated uncertainty in the parameter
340: $\epsilon_j$. One of $\sigma_j$ corresponds to the absolute
341: normalization uncertainty. In this case, $ 1 / \sigma_j^2 $
342: is set to 0, since the absolute normalization is a free parameter
343: in our analysis.
344: %
345: %-----------------------------------------------------------------------
346:
347: The minimum $\chi^2$ value, $\chi^2_{min} = 174.8 / 177 {\rm ~DOF}$, is
348: located at $(\sin^22\theta = 1.00,$ $\Delta m^2 = 2.1\times10^{-3} $~eV$^2$).
349: The number of DOF is found by 180 terms in the $\chi^2$ sum plus
350: 38 systamtic constraints in the $\chi^2$ sum minus
351: 39 minimized parameters minus the two physics parameters of
352: $\sin^2 2\theta$ and $\Delta m^2$. The overall normalization
353: is not used as a constraint to $\chi^2$.
354: The best-fit values of the parameters $\epsilon_j$ obtained
355: at the global minimum are summarized in
356: Tables~\ref{table:fitsummary_flux},~\ref{table:fitsummary_nuint}
357: ,~\ref{table:fitsummary_event} and \ref{table:fitsummary_fit}. For
358: the most part, the parameters $\epsilon_j$ are fit within their
359: estimated $1~\sigma$ errors.
360: Including the unphysical region ($\sin^22\theta > 1$)
361: in the scan, the minimum $\chi^2$ value is obtained at
362: $(\sin^22\theta = 1.02, \Delta m^2 = 2.1\times10^{-3} $~eV$^2$).
363: The minimum $\chi^2$ value, $\chi^2_{min} = 174.5 / 177 {\rm ~DOF}$, in the
364: unphysical region is lower than that in the physical region by 0.29\,.
365: Contours corresponding to the 68\%, 90\%
366: and 99\% confidence intervals are located at $\chi^2_{min} +$ 2.60, 4.98,
367: and 9.60 respectively, where $\chi^2_{min}$ is
368: the minimum $\chi^2$ value in the physical region
369: and are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:allowed}.
370: These intervals are derived based on a two dimensional extension of
371: the method described in Ref.~\cite{Barnett:1996hr}.
372: Figure~\ref{fig:chi2dist} shows the $\chi^2 - \chi^2_{min}$ distributions projected to
373: $\sin^{2}2\theta$ and $\Delta m^2$ axes, in which the minimum $\chi^2 - \chi^2_{min}$
374: values for each $\sin^{2}2\theta$ and $\Delta m^2$ are plotted.
375: The $\chi^2 - \chi^2_{min}$ distribution is rather flat between
376: $\Delta m^2$~=~2.0$\times 10^{-3}$eV$^2$ and 2.5$\times 10^{-3}$eV$^2$.
377: Any $\Delta m^2$ in this range fits the data nearly as well as the best-fit
378: point.
379:
380: Assuming no oscillation, ($\sin^22\theta = 0$, $\Delta m^2 = 0$), we found a
381: $\chi^2$ value of 478.7 for 179~DOF, where only the overall normalization is
382: a free parameter. We allowed all systematic uncertainty terms to be
383: minimized, yet the fit was greatly inferior to the best-fit including
384: neutrino oscillations.
385:
386: \renewcommand{\topfraction}{1.}
387: \renewcommand{\bottomfraction}{1.}
388: \renewcommand{\textfraction}{0.}
389: \renewcommand{\floatpagefraction}{1.}
390:
391: \begin{figure}
392: \includegraphics[width=3.3in]{allow_comb.eps}
393: \caption{Allowed oscillation parameters for
394: $\nu_\mu \leftrightarrow \nu_\tau$ oscillations.
395: Three contours correspond to the 68\% (dotted line), 90\% (solid
396: line) and 99\% (dashed line) C.L. allowed regions.}
397: \label{fig:allowed}
398: \end{figure}
399:
400: \begin{figure}
401: \includegraphics[width=3.7in]{chi2dist.eps}
402: \caption{$\chi^2 - \chi^2_{min}$ projected
403: onto the $\sin^{2}2\theta$ and $\Delta m^2$ axes. The minimum
404: value at each $\sin^{2}2\theta$ and $\Delta m^2$ is
405: plotted.}
406: \label{fig:chi2dist}
407: \end{figure}
408:
409: We have also estimated the allowed neutrino oscillation parameters by
410: performing the same fitting procedure using independent subsamples of the
411: data: FC single-ring sub-GeV events below 400~MeV/$c$, FC single-ring sub-GeV
412: events above 400~MeV/$c$, FC single-ring multi-GeV events, PC events, FC
413: multi-ring events, and upward-going muon events. In each independent fit,
414: only the relevant parameters out of the set of 39 were minimized. The results
415: are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:allowed_sub}. The allowed region contours found by
416: fitting these six subsamples are consistent with each other and with the
417: combined fit to all events.
418:
419: \begin{figure}
420: \includegraphics[width=3.3in]{contour_subsamples.eps}
421: \caption{90\,\% confidence level allowed oscillation parameter regions for $\nu_\mu \leftrightarrow \nu_\tau$
422: oscillations from six sub-samples. In this plot, 90\,\% confidence interval is defined to be $\chi^2 = \chi^2_{min}
423: + 4.61$, where $\chi^2_{min}$ is the minimum $\chi^2$ value including the unphysical parameter region.}
424: \label{fig:allowed_sub}
425: \end{figure}
426:
427:
428: In addition, the same oscillation analyses were repeated using different flux
429: models (but with the same neutrino interaction Monte Carlo program) and
430: different neutrino interaction Monte Carlo program (but with the same flux
431: model). The 90\,\%~C.L. allowed parameter regions are compared in
432: Fig.~\ref{fig:allowed-regions-different-flux}. The allowed regions from these
433: analyses overlap well, demonstrating that the measured parameters do not
434: strongly depend on the choice of flux or interaction model from which we
435: start the fitting procedure. However, the allowed region obtained based on
436: the flux model of Ref.~\cite{Barr:2004br} allows for slightly higher $\Delta
437: m^2$. We studied the reason for this difference in detail, and found that the
438: main reason was the slightly harder energy spectrum in the upward-going muon
439: energy range (Fig.~\ref{fig:enu_spectra}).
440:
441: \begin{figure}
442: \includegraphics[width=3.3in]{contours_comp.eps}
443: \caption{Left: 90\,\% confidence level allowed oscillation parameter regions
444: for $\nu_\mu \leftrightarrow \nu_\tau$ oscillations, based on the
445: {\tt NEUT} neutrino interaction model, from different flux models (solid
446: line; \cite{Honda:2004yz}, dashed line; \cite{Battistoni:2003ju}, dotted line;
447: \cite{Barr:2004br}). Right: The 90\,\% C.L. allowed regions based
448: on a different neutrino interaction model ({\tt NUANCE}~\cite{Casper:2002sd})
449: for FC+PC events with the flux model of Ref.~\cite{Honda:2004yz}
450: (dashed line) is compared with that based on {\tt NEUT} with the
451: same flux. In this plot, Monte Carlo events from {\tt NEUT} were used
452: for upward-going muons.}
453: \label{fig:allowed-regions-different-flux}
454: \end{figure}
455:
456: Finally, we point out that a separate $L/E$ analysis of the same
457: running period~\cite{Ashie:2004mr}, using only selected high
458: resolution FC and PC events, gave an allowed oscillation parameter
459: region consistent with this result. This is shown in
460: Fig.~\ref{fig:allowed-regions-different-int}, with a magnified view of
461: the region and a linear scale in $\Delta m^2$. The $L/E$ analysis
462: provided a slightly better constraint in $\Delta m^2$ due to locating
463: the oscillatory dip; the present analysis constrains $\sin^2 2\theta$
464: better due to high statistics in the up-down asymmetry.
465:
466: \begin{figure}
467: \includegraphics[width=3.7in]{contours_comp2.eps}
468: \caption{ The 68, 90 and 99\,\% confidence level allowed
469: oscillation parameter
470: regions obtained by an $L/E$ analysis~\cite{Ashie:2004mr} and by the
471: present analysis are compared.}
472: \label{fig:allowed-regions-different-int}
473: \end{figure}
474:
475: %%% Local Variables:
476: %%% mode: latex
477: %%% TeX-master: "combined"
478: %%% End:
479: