1: \documentstyle [bezier,epsfig,12pt,preprint,tighten,aps]{revtex}
2: \begin{document}
3:
4: \draft
5:
6: \begin{titlepage}
7: \rightline{July 2000}
8: \rightline{Revised September 2000}
9: %\rightline{UM-P-00/xx}
10: \vskip 2cm
11: \centerline{\large \bf
12: Is the $\nu_\mu \to \nu_{s}$ oscillation solution to the
13: atmospheric neutrino anomaly}
14: \centerline{\large \bf
15: excluded by the superKamiokande data?}
16: \vskip 1.1cm
17: \centerline{R. Foot\footnote{Email address:
18: Foot@physics.unimelb.edu.au}}
19: \vskip .7cm
20: \centerline{{\it School of Physics}}
21: \centerline{{\it Research Centre for High Energy Physics}}
22: \centerline{{\it The University of Melbourne}}
23: \centerline{{\it Victoria 3010 Australia}}
24: \vskip 2cm
25:
26: \centerline{Abstract}
27: Recently the SuperKamiokande collaboration have claimed
28: that their data exclude the $\nu_\mu \to \nu_s$ solution
29: to the atmospheric neutrino anomaly at more than 99\% C.L.
30: We critically examine this claim.
31:
32: \vskip 1cm
33: \noindent
34:
35: \end{titlepage}
36: Something mysterious with neutrinos is a foot.
37: It is clear that about
38: half of the upward going atmospheric $\nu_\mu 's$
39: are mising\cite{sk,atmos}. Furthermore, about half of the solar
40: $\nu_e 's$
41: have also disappeared\cite{solar}.
42: There is also strong evidence that
43: $\nu_e \leftrightarrow \nu_\mu$ oscillations take
44: place with small mixing angles from the LSND experiment\cite{lsnd}.
45: An elegant explanation of these facts is that
46: each neutrino oscillates maximally with an approximately
47: sterile partner, with small angles between generations\cite{fv}.
48: For the status of the maximal $\nu_e \to \nu_s$ solution
49: to the solar neutrino problem, see Ref.\cite{smok}.
50: The status of the maximal $\nu_\mu \to \nu_s$ solution to
51: the atmospheric neutrino problem is the subject of this paper.
52:
53: As was pointed out sometime ago\cite{2},
54: both $\nu_\mu \to \nu_s$ and $\nu_\mu \to \nu_\tau$
55: oscillations are able to explain the sub-GeV and multi-GeV
56: superKamiokande single ring events (while 2 flavour
57: $\nu_\mu \to \nu_e$ oscillations cannot because there
58: is no observed anomaly with the electron events\cite{fvy}).
59: Recently, however, the SuperKamiokande Collaboration have argued that
60: the $\nu_\mu \to \nu_s$ oscillation explanation of
61: the observed deficit of
62: atmospheric neutrinos is disfavoured at
63: more than 99\% C.L.\cite{3}, while the interpretation
64: interms of $\nu_\mu \to \nu_\tau$ oscillations fits
65: all of their data extremely well.
66: This conclusion relies on an analysis
67: of the upward through going muon data (UTM), the partially contained
68: events with $E_{visible} > 5\ GeV$(PC) and the neutral current
69: enriched multi-ring events (NC).
70: These data sets lead to slightly different expectations
71: for the $\nu_\mu \to \nu_\tau$ vs $\nu_\mu \to \nu_s$
72: oscillations because of earth matter effects for
73: $\nu_\mu \to \nu_s$ oscillations
74: which are important for UTM\cite{lip} and PC events\cite{lip98,2}
75: while neutral current interactions in the detector are utilized
76: for the NC events\cite{hall}.
77: These three data sets, obtained from Ref.\cite{3} (for
78: 1100 live days), are shown in Figures 1a,b,c.
79: Also shown is the theoretically expected result
80: for maximal $\nu_\mu \to \nu_s$ oscillations
81: with $\delta m^2 = 3\times 10^{-3}\ eV^2$ also obtained
82: from Ref.\cite{3}.
83: SuperKamiokande analyse the data by taking particular
84: ratios and have not as yet
85: provided detailed justification of the
86: systematic uncertainties in the theoretically expected rates.
87:
88: Let us discuss each of the three data sets in turn:
89: \vskip 0.2cm
90: \noindent
91: a) Upward through going muons:
92: The overall normalization of the through going muon
93: fluxes have an estimated 20 \% uncertainty, however
94: the uncertainty in the expected shape of the zenith
95: angle distribution is significantly lower
96: (for some discussion of these uncertainties, see Ref.\cite{5,6}).
97: A recent estimate\cite{5} of the uncertainty in the vertical/horizontal
98: ratio due to the uncertainties in the atmospheric
99: fluxes is of order 4\%. This systematic uncertainty
100: is dominated by the uncertainty in the ratio $K/\pi$
101: produced in the atmosphere from the interactions of cosmic
102: rays\cite{5}. In addition there will be
103: other uncertainties in the shape of the zenith
104: angle distribution due to the uncertainty in
105: the energy dependence of the neutrino - nucleon cross section
106: \footnote{
107: Uncertainties in the energy dependence of the cross section
108: leads to uncertainties
109: in the expected shape of the zenith angle distribution of UTM events,
110: because the zenith angle dependence of
111: the atmospheric neutrino flux is energy dependent.}
112: and from cosmic ray muons masquerading as neutrino induced
113: muons. The latter uncertainty, while mainly affecting the
114: most horizontal bin ($-0.1 < \cos\Theta < 0$) may be very important, as
115: we will show.
116: \vskip 0.2cm
117: \noindent
118: b) Partially contained events (with $E_{visible} > 5\ GeV$).
119: The systematic uncertainty in the expected normalization
120: of these events is quite large, again of order 20\%\cite{5,6}.
121: The systematic uncertainty on the expected shape of
122: the zenith angle distribution
123: of these events should be relatively small ($\stackrel{<}{\sim}
124: \ few \%$ in the up/down ratio).
125: \vskip 0.2cm
126: \noindent
127: c) Neutral current enriched multi-ring events.
128: The systematic uncertainty in the expected normalization
129: is again quite large, of order 20-40\% due
130: to the highly uncertain cross sections (as well as
131: the uncertain atmospheric fluxes).
132: The uncertainty in the expected shape of the
133: zenith angle distribution will of course be much smaller,
134: but may be significant (i.e. of order 5\% in the up/down ratio).
135: The uncertainty is due in part to the uncertainty in
136: the relative contributions
137: due to $\nu_e$ interactions (which are expected to be
138: approximately up/down
139: symmetric) and $\nu_\mu$ interactions (which are up/down asymmetric due
140: to the oscillations affecting the upward going $\nu_\mu$'s).
141: The relative contributions due to the neutral current weak interactions
142: and the charged current weak interactions will also be uncertain.
143: In addition to the cross section uncertainties there are also the
144: uncertainties in the scattering angle distribution between
145: the angles of the multi-ring events and the incident neutrino.
146:
147: Note that the normalization uncertainties between the three
148: data sets will be
149: largely uncorrelated because of the different energy
150: ranges for the atmospheric neutrino fluxes and also because of the
151: different cross sections involved.
152: Nevertheless, some weak correlation between UTM and
153: PC events may be expected.
154: While analysing the data using ratio's does eliminate
155: the normalization uncertainty, the remaining uncertainties
156: will be important for the data sets a) and c).
157: Furthermore, a
158: conclusion based on particular ratios could only be
159: robust if it agreed with a $\chi^2$ fit of the binned data points.
160: SuperKamiokande are in the best position to do this
161: for their data, and we hope that they will do this at some point.
162:
163: In the meantime we will do this using
164: the superKamiokande theoretical Monte-Carlo results for their
165: given test point of maximal mixing with
166: $\delta m^2 = 3 \times 10^{-3}\
167: eV^2$ (which is not expected to be the best fit for
168: $\nu_\mu \to \nu_s $ oscillations).
169: We define the $\chi^2$ by:
170: \begin{equation}
171: \chi^2_{total} = \chi^2_{UTM} + \chi^2_{PC} + \chi^2_{NC},
172: \end{equation}
173: with
174: \begin{equation}
175: \chi^2_{y} = \sum^{10}_{i=1} \left({data_y (i) - f_y \times theory_y (i) \over
176: \delta data_y (i)}\right)^2 +
177: \left({f_y - 1\over \delta f}\right)^2,
178: \label{5}
179: \end{equation}
180: where $y = UTM, PC, NC$ and the sum runs over the 10 zenith angle
181: bins,
182: and $\delta data_y$ is the statistical uncertainty in
183: the data, $data_y(i)$.
184: The normalization factor, $f_y$ parameterizes the
185: overall normalization uncertainty in the
186: theoretical expected value, $theory_y (i)$,
187: and $\delta f_y$ is
188: the expected normalization uncertainty, and we take
189: $\delta f_y = 0.2$ for $y=UTM,PC,NC$.
190: It is understood that $\chi^2_y$ is minimized with respect
191: to $f_y$.
192:
193: Doing this exercise (using the superKamiokande experimental data,
194: $data_y (i), \delta data_y (i)$ and also the superKamiokande
195: theoretically expected results $theory_y(i)$ for maximal mixing with
196: $\delta m^2 = 3\times 10^{-3}\ eV^2$),
197: we find that $\chi^2_y$ is minimized when
198: $f_{UTM} \simeq 0.90$, $f_{PC} \simeq 0.87$ and
199: $f_{NC} \simeq 1.07$.
200: In Figures 2a,b,c we compare the data with $f_y theory_y(i)$,
201: which is the theoretical prediction for $\delta m^2 = 3\times
202: 10^{-3} \ eV^2$ (neglecting systematic uncertainties in
203: the shape).
204: We obtain the following $\chi^2_y$ values:
205: \begin{eqnarray}
206: \chi^2_{UTM} = 17.0 \ \ for \ 10 \ degrees \ of \ freedom,\nonumber \\
207: \chi^2_{PC} = 13.4 \ \ for \ 10 \ degrees \ of \ freedom,\nonumber \\
208: \chi^2_{NC} = 16.0 \ \ for \ 10 \ degrees \ of \ freedom.
209: \end{eqnarray}
210: Thus we obtain $\chi^2_{total} \simeq 46 $ for $30$ degrees of freedom
211: which corresponds to an allowed C. L. of about 3\%.
212: While this allowed C.L. is low, it is only a {\it lower limit}
213: because we haven't varied $\delta m^2$ or incorporated the systematic
214: uncertainties in the shape of $theory_y (i)$,
215: which we now discuss.
216:
217: Varying $\delta m^2$ within the allowed region identified
218: from a fit to the contained events should
219: improve $\chi^2_{PC}$ somewhat as well as slightly improving
220: $\chi^2_{UTM,NC}$.
221: For example, for $\delta m^2 = 5\times 10^{-3}\ eV^2$ using our code
222: developed in Ref.\cite{2} we find that $\chi^2_{PC} \simeq 12$ (c.f.
223: $13.4$ for $\delta m^2 = 3\times 10^{-3}\ eV^2$).
224:
225: With regard to the UTM and NC events the effect of
226: systematic uncertainties on $\chi^2$ can be very dramatic.
227: We illustrate this by introducing a slope factor s(i) defined
228: by
229: \begin{equation}
230: s(i) = 0.95 + 0.01*i,
231: \label{xxu}
232: \end{equation}
233: where $i=1,...,10$ (with $i=1$ the vertical upward going bin).
234: In Eq.(\ref{5}) we replace $f_{UTM}(i) \to s(i)*f_{UTM}(i)$,
235: which is roughly within
236: the estimated 1-sigma systematic uncertainty for
237: the UTM events. In fact,
238: this would be roughly equivalent to reducing the atmospheric $K/\pi$
239: ratio by about $30-40\%$ to be compared with the estimated
240: $25\%$ uncertainty for the $K/\pi$ ratio\cite{5}. While the uncertainty
241: in the $K/\pi$ ratio may be the largest single contribution to the uncertainty
242: in the shape of the zenith angle distribution of UTM events,
243: the total systematic uncertainty in the shape of
244: the zenith angle distribution gets many contributions
245: \footnote{
246: Due to e.g uncertainty in the energy dependence of the neutrino
247: nucleon cross section, uncertainty in the interaction length
248: of the cosmic rays in the upper atmosphere, modelling of
249: the atmosphere, uncertainty in the primary cosmic ray energy spectrum
250: and composition of cosmic rays etc.}
251: which is why the slope factor in Eq.(\ref{xxu}) might be
252: expected to be roughly within the 1-sigma systematic uncertainty.
253: With the above slope factor, we find $\chi^2_{UTM} \simeq 13$, which
254: represents a significantly improved fit.
255: From our ealier discussion, the systematic
256: uncertainties in the shape of the zenith angle distribution of
257: the events for UTM and NC events are expected to be completely uncorrelated.
258: This means that the best fit for the NC events can have a slope factor with
259: a slope of a different sign, and this is needed to improve the fit.
260: To illustrate the effect then, for NC we replace
261: $f_{NC}(i) \to f_{NC}(i)/s(i)$ and find
262: $\chi^2_{NC} \simeq 12$.
263: This demonstrates that a $\chi^2$ fit to the
264: three data sets incorporating the systematic uncertainties and
265: varying $\delta m^2$ would be expected to reduce $\chi^2_{total}$ by
266: at least 9 leading to a $\chi^2_{total}$ of about 37 or less.
267: This corresponds to an allowed C.L. of 15\% or more. Of course a
268: global fit of all the superKamiokande data
269: gives a much larger allowed C.L. because of the excellent fit
270: of the $\nu_\mu \to \nu_s$ oscillations to the lower energy
271: contained events (both sub-GeV and multi-GeV)\cite{val}.
272: The results obtained for UTM and NC events using the
273: slope factor $s(i)$ are given by the dotted lines in Figure 2a,c.
274:
275: We would also like
276: to emphasise that the poor $\chi^2$ fit
277: for UTM events is due largely to the most
278: horizontal bin ($-0.1 < \cos\Theta < 0$).
279: Excluding this bin we find that
280: \begin{equation}
281: \chi^2_{UTM} = 12.5 \ for \ 9 \ bins
282: \end{equation}
283: {\it excluding} any systematic uncertainty in the shape
284: of the zenith angle distribution (i.e. with $s(i)=1$).
285: The reason for questioning the horizontal bin is clear:
286: It is expected that the systematic uncertainty for the most horizontal
287: bin should be relatively large. This is because atmospheric
288: muons can contribute. (In fact
289: the Kamiokande collaboration\cite{kam} made the cut $\cos\Theta < -0.04$
290: and incorporated large systematic errors for this bin).
291: SuperKamiokande, in their published analysis of 537 days
292: \cite{superk} included
293: the whole horizontal bin, and made an estimate of the contamination
294: of atmospheric muons in this bin (of order 4\%) and subtracted
295: it off. This is based on an extrapolation from $\cos\Theta > 0$
296: where the background falls off exponentially. This exponential
297: assumption is not discussed in any detail, and needs to
298: be justified if it can be. In fact, from their
299: Figure 1\cite{superk},
300: which compares the distribution of through-going muons
301: near the horizon observed by superKamiokande for regions with thick and
302: thin rock overburden, it seems possible that the atmospheric
303: muon background could be higher by a factor of two
304: or three or even more.
305: This is rather important. For example, if a background of $10\%$
306: is assumed (which means that we must
307: lower the superKamiokande data value by $6\%$ for this bin),
308: then we obtain a $\chi^2_{UTM} \simeq 14$
309: for 10 degrees of freedom (excluding the effects
310: of the systematic uncertainties in the shape of
311: the zenith angle distribution, i.e. $s(i) = 1$)
312: or $\chi^2_{UTM} \simeq 11$ including the modest slope factor in
313: Eq.(\ref{xxu}).
314: Unless the level of
315: contamination of atmospheric muons in the horizontal
316: bin can be rigorously justified,
317: it is probably safest to exclude the horizontal
318: bin altogether because the systematic uncertainties may
319: be so large as to make it too uncertain to be useful\footnote{
320: In terms of analysis with ratio's we suggest that the vertical
321: be defined as $-1 < \cos\Theta < -0.5$ and the
322: horizontal as $-0.5 < \cos\Theta < -0.9$.}.
323:
324: Thus, we have shown that a $\chi^2$
325: analysis of the recent upward through going muon binned data, partially
326: contained events with $E_{visible} > 5\ GeV$ and
327: neutral current enriched multi-ring events
328: does not exclude maximal $\nu_\mu \to \nu_s$
329: oscillation solution to the atmospheric neutrino
330: problem with any significant confidence level.
331: This is not inconflict with the superKamiokande
332: results since they fit three particular ratio's rather
333: than the binned data. However it does show that
334: the conclusion that the $\nu_\mu \to \nu_s$ osillations
335: are disfavoured does depend on how one analyses the data.
336: Furthermore, the overall fit (i.e. including also
337: the lower energy single ring events) of the $\nu_\mu \to
338: \nu_s$ oscillations to the superKamiokande data
339: is good. Fortunately
340: future data will eventually decide the issue.
341: In the meantime, important work needs to be
342: done on carefully estimating and checking the possible
343: systematic uncertainties.
344:
345: \vskip 0.4cm
346: \noindent
347: {\bf Acknowledgement}
348: \vskip 0.4cm
349: \noindent
350: The author would like to thank Paolo Lipari and Ray Volkas
351: for many related discussions/communications and for
352: comments on a preliminary version of the paper.
353: The author is an Australian Research Fellow.
354:
355: \vskip 0.6cm
356: \noindent
357: {\bf Figure Captions}
358: \vskip 0.4cm
359: \noindent
360: Figure 1: SuperKamiokande data for the upward through going muons
361: (Fig.1a), partially contained events with $E_{visible} > 5\ GeV$
362: (Fig.1b) and neutral current enriched multi-ring events
363: (Fig.1c), all obtained from Ref.\cite{3}. Also shown are the
364: superKamiokande expected results for
365: maximal $\nu_\mu \to \nu_s$ oscillations with
366: $\delta m^2 = 3 \times 10^{-3}\ eV^2$, also obtained from
367: Ref.\cite{3}.
368: \vskip 0.3cm
369: \noindent
370: Figure 2: Same as Figure 1 except that the theoretical
371: expectation for
372: maximal $\nu_\mu \to \nu_s$ oscillations with
373: $\delta m^2 = 3 \times 10^{-3}\ eV^2$, are renormalized by
374: an overall scale factor (as discussed in the text).
375: In Figures 2a and 2c,
376: the dotted line includes the effect of a modest correction
377: to the expected shape of the
378: zenith angle distribution given by Eq.(\ref{xxu}),
379: as discussed in the text.
380:
381: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
382:
383: \bibitem{sk}
384: Y. Fukuda et al,
385: Super-Kamiokande Collab., Phys. Lett. B433, 9 (1998);
386: Phys. Lett. B436, 33 (1998);
387: Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 1562 (1998).
388:
389: \bibitem{atmos}
390: T. Haines et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 57, 1986 (1986);
391: Kamiokande Collaboration, K.S. Hirata et al.,
392: Phys. Lett. B205, 416 (1988);
393: ibid. B280, 146 (1992);
394: ibid. B335, 237 (1994);
395: IMB Collaboration, D. Casper et al.,
396: Phys. Rev. Lett. 66, 2561 (1989);
397: R. Becker-Szendy et al., Phys. Rev. D46, 3720 (1989);
398: NUSEX Collaboration, M. Aglietta et al.,
399: Europhys. Lett. 8, 611 (1989);
400: Frejus Collaboration, Ch. Berger et al.,
401: Phys. Lett. B227, 489 (1989);
402: ibid. B245, 305 (1990);
403: K. Daum et al, Z. Phys. C66, 417 (1995);
404: Soudan 2 Collaboration,
405: W.W.M., Allison et. al., Phys. Lett. {\bf B391}, 491 (1997);
406: MACRO Collaboration, M. Ambrosio et al, Phys. Lett. B434, 451 (1998).
407:
408: \bibitem{solar}
409: Homestake Collaboration, B. T. Cleveland et al.,
410: Astrophys. J. 496, 505 (1998);
411: Kamiokande Collabortion, Y. Fukuda et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 77,
412: 1683 (1996); SuperKamiokande Collaboration, Y. Fukuda et al.,
413: Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 1158 (1998); ibid. 82, 1810 (1999);
414: SAGE Collaboration, J. N. Abdurashitov et al.,
415: Phys. Rev.Lett.83, 4686 (1999);
416: GALLEX Collaboration, W. Hampel et al.,
417: Phys. Lett. B447, 127 (1999).
418:
419: \bibitem{lsnd}
420: LSND Collaboration, C. athanassopoulos et al.,
421: Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 1774 (1998);
422: Phys. Rev. C58, 2489 (1998).
423:
424: \bibitem{fv}
425: R. Foot and R. R. Volkas, Phys. Rev. D52, 6595 (1995);
426: R. Foot, Mod. Phys. Lett. A9, 169 (1994);
427: R. Foot, H. Lew and R. R. Volkas,
428: Mod. Phys. Lett. A7, 2567 (1992).
429:
430: \bibitem{smok}
431: R. Foot, Phys. Lett. B483, 151 (2000) and references there-in.
432:
433: \bibitem{2}
434: R. Foot, R. R. Volkas and O. Yasuda, Phys. Rev. D58, 013006 (1998).
435:
436: \bibitem{fvy}
437: See e.g.
438: R. Foot, R. R. Volkas and O. Yasuda, Phys. Lett. B433,
439: 82 (1998).
440:
441: \bibitem{3}
442: S. Fukuda et al (superK collab), hep-ex/0009001.
443:
444: \bibitem{lip}
445: E. Akhmedov, P. Lipari and M. Lusignoli, Phys. Lett. B300, 128 (1993);
446: P. Lipari and M. Lusignoli, Phys. Rev. D57, 3842 (1998);
447: Q. Y. Liu, S. P. Mikheyev and A. Yu. Smirnov, Phys. Lett. B440, 319
448: (1998).
449:
450: \bibitem{lip98}
451: P. Lipari and M. Lusignoli, Phys. Rev. D58, 073005 (1998).
452:
453: \bibitem{hall}
454: L. J. Hall and H. Murayama, Phys. Lett. B436, 323 (1998).
455:
456: \bibitem{5}
457: P. Lipari, XIX International Conference on
458: Neutrino Physics and Astrophysics, Sudbury, Canada, June 16-21,
459: 2000.
460:
461: \bibitem{6}
462: D. H. Perkins, Nucl. Phys. B399, 3 (1993).
463:
464: \bibitem{val}
465: N. Fornengo, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia and J. W. F. Valle,
466: hep-ph/0002147.
467:
468: \bibitem{kam}
469: S. Hatakeyama et al.,
470: Kamiokande Collab, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 2016 (1998).
471:
472: \bibitem{superk}
473: Y. Fukuda et al.,
474: Super-Kamiokande Collab,
475: Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 2644 (1999).
476:
477: \end{thebibliography}
478: \newpage
479: \epsfig{file=f1a.eps,width=15cm}
480: \newpage
481: \epsfig{file=f1b.eps,width=15cm}
482: \newpage
483: \epsfig{file=f1c.eps,width=15cm}
484: \newpage
485: \epsfig{file=f2a.eps,width=15cm}
486: \newpage
487: \epsfig{file=f2b.eps,width=15cm}
488: \newpage
489: \epsfig{file=f2c.eps,width=15cm}
490: \end{document}
491:
492:
493: