1: \documentstyle[preprint,aps,floats,psfig]{revtex}
2: \catcode`@=11
3: \def\references{%
4: \ifpreprintsty
5: %\newpage
6: \bigskip\bigskip
7: \hbox to\hsize{\hss\large \refname\hss}%
8: \else
9: \vskip24pt
10: \hrule width\hsize\relax
11: \vskip 1.6cm
12: \fi
13: \list{\@biblabel{\arabic{enumiv}}}%
14: {\labelwidth\WidestRefLabelThusFar \labelsep4pt %
15: \leftmargin\labelwidth %
16: \advance\leftmargin\labelsep %
17: \ifdim\baselinestretch pt>1 pt %
18: \parsep 4pt\relax %
19: \else %
20: \parsep 0pt\relax %
21: \fi
22: \itemsep\parsep %
23: \usecounter{enumiv}%
24: \let\p@enumiv\@empty
25: \def\theenumiv{\arabic{enumiv}}%
26: }%
27: \let\newblock\relax %
28: \sloppy\clubpenalty4000\widowpenalty4000
29: \sfcode`\.=1000\relax
30: \ifpreprintsty\else\small\fi
31: }
32: \catcode`@=12
33: \begin{document}
34: %my defs:
35: \def\mh{m_h^{}}
36: \def\vev#1{{\langle#1\rangle}}
37: \def\gev{{\rm GeV}}
38: \def\tev{{\rm TeV}}
39: \def\fbi{\rm fb^{-1}}
40: \def\lsim{\mathrel{\raise.3ex\hbox{$<$\kern-.75em\lower1ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}}
41: \def\gsim{\mathrel{\raise.3ex\hbox{$>$\kern-.75em\lower1ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}}
42: \newcommand{\hmu}{{\hat\mu}}
43: \newcommand{\hnu}{{\hat\nu}}
44: \newcommand{\hrho}{{\hat\rho}}
45: \newcommand{\hh}{{\hat{h}}}
46: \newcommand{\hg}{{\hat{g}}}
47: \newcommand{\hk}{{\hat\kappa}}
48: \newcommand{\tA}{{\widetilde{A}}}
49: \newcommand{\tP}{{\widetilde{P}}}
50: \newcommand{\tF}{{\widetilde{F}}}
51: \newcommand{\th}{{\widetilde{h}}}
52: \newcommand{\tp}{{\widetilde\phi}}
53: \newcommand{\tchi}{{\widetilde\chi}}
54: \newcommand{\te}{{\widetilde\eta}}
55: \newcommand{\vn}{{\vec{n}}}
56: \newcommand{\vm}{{\vec{m}}}
57: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
58: %%%%%%%% Slash character...
59:
60: \newcommand{ \slashchar }[1]{\setbox0=\hbox{$#1$} % set a box for #1
61: \dimen0=\wd0 % and get its size
62: \setbox1=\hbox{/} \dimen1=\wd1 % get size of /
63: \ifdim\dimen0>\dimen1 % #1 is bigger
64: \rlap{\hbox to \dimen0{\hfil/\hfil}} % so center / in box
65: #1 % and print #1
66: \else % / is bigger
67: \rlap{\hbox to \dimen1{\hfil$#1$\hfil}} % so center #1
68: / % and print /
69: \fi} %
70:
71: \tighten
72: \preprint{ \vbox{
73: \hbox{MADPH--00-1202}
74: \hbox{hep-ph/0011251}}}
75: %
76: \draft
77: \title{Resolving the Solar Neutrino Problem with KamLAND}
78: \author{V. Barger, Danny Marfatia and Benjamin P. Wood}
79: \vskip 0.3in
80: \address{Department of Physics, University of Wisconsin--Madison, WI 53706}
81: \vskip 0.1in
82: \maketitle
83:
84: \begin{abstract}
85: {\rm We study how well KamLAND, the first terrestrial neutrino experiment capable of addressing the
86: solar neutrino problem, will perform in ascertaining whether or not the large mixing angle
87: MSW solution (with \mbox{$10^{-5} \lsim \Delta m_{21}^2 \lsim 10^{-4}\, \rm{eV}^2$} and oscillation
88: amplitude $\rm{sin}^2 2\,\theta_{12}>0.3$)
89: is correct. We find that in a year of operation KamLAND will provide unequivocal evidence for or against
90: this solution.
91: Furthermore, its sensitivity to the three-neutrino oscillation parameters in this region
92: is sufficiently acute as to determine $\Delta m_{21}^2$ to approximately $\pm 10$\%
93: (for $\rm{sin}^2 2\,\theta_{12}>0.7$) and to fix
94: $\rm{sin}^2 2\,\theta_{12}$ to within $\pm 0.1$ (at the $2\sigma$ level) with three years
95: of accumulated data, independent of the value of $\theta_{13}$.
96: }
97: \end{abstract}
98: \pacs{}
99:
100: \section{Introduction}
101:
102: Several neutrino oscillation experiments now indicate that neutrinos are massive and that
103: neutrino flavor mixing occurs.
104: Atmospheric neutrino experiments (Kamiokande~\cite{k1},
105: SuperKamiokande~\cite{sk1},
106: IMB~\cite{imb}, Soudan~\cite{soudan} and MACRO~\cite{macro})
107: report a $\nu_{\mu}/\nu_{e}$ event ratio that is about
108: 0.6 times the expected ratio; the $\nu_{\mu}$ flux shows
109: a zenith angle dependence that is explained by oscillations.
110: All experiments that measure the solar neutrino
111: flux (Homestake~\cite{homestake}, SAGE~\cite{sage}, GALLEX~\cite{gallex}, Kamiokande~\cite{k} and
112: SuperKamiokande~\cite{sk}) find a
113: deficit of $1/2$ to $1/3$ of the Standard Solar Model prediction \cite{SSM}. LSND~\cite{lsnd},
114: an accelerator experiment, finds evidence for $\bar{\nu}_{\mu}\rightarrow \bar{\nu}_e$
115: and ${\nu}_{\mu}\rightarrow {\nu}_e$ oscillations, a result that is not excluded by KARMEN~\cite{karmen}
116: and awaits confirmation by MiniBooNE~\cite{miniboone}.
117: The current generation of nuclear reactor experiments
118: (Palo Verde~\cite{paloverde} and CHOOZ~\cite{chooz})
119: find null oscillation results
120: and rule out $\bar{\nu}_{e}\rightarrow \bar{\nu}_x$ oscillations for
121: $\Delta m_{21}^2 \gsim 10^{-3}$ $\rm{eV}^2$ at maximal mixing and \mbox{$\rm{sin}^2 2\,\theta_{13} > 0.1$}
122: for larger $\Delta m_{21}^2$ (at the 95\% confidence level).
123:
124: The focus of the present work is the solar neutrino puzzle \cite{bahcall} and KamLAND's~\cite{kamland} role in
125: resolving whether or not the large mixing angle (LMA) solution (see {\it e.g.} Ref.~\cite{lma})
126: is the correct one. The LMA solution has $\Delta m_{21}^2$ in the range $10^{-5}$ to
127: $10^{-4}$ $\rm{eV}^2$
128: and mixing amplitude $\rm{sin}^2 2\,\theta_{12} > 0.3$. Data
129: from SuperKamiokande \cite{osaka} now favors the LMA solution over the small mixing angle, low and
130: vacuum oscillation solutions (see Ref.~\cite{kras} for a discussion of the various oscillation solutions).
131: Solar neutrino measurements at SNO \cite{sno} should discriminate between different oscillation solutions,
132: but perhaps not in its first year of operation \cite{bahcall2}.
133: If the LMA solution is the correct one, KamLAND will
134: provide a precise determination of the oscillation parameters.
135:
136: KamLAND is unique in its potential as the first terrestrial experiment to explore
137: the solar neutrino anomaly. It will provide a definitive test of the LMA solution
138: by either ruling it out or by pinning down the values of $\Delta m_{21}^2$ and $\rm{sin}^2 2\,\theta_{12}$.
139: KamLAND should be able to provide this answer in a year from the start of running in
140: spring 2001 and then provide an accurate determination of the solar neutrino oscillation parameters by the
141: end of the three years over which it is expected to take data for. Particularly significant
142: will be its ability to precisely determine $\Delta m_{21}^2$ in the LMA region
143: because unlike the case of solar
144: neutrinos, the $\Delta m_{21}^2$-dependent contribution to oscillations of the reactor neutrinos
145: will not suffer from averaging of the oscillation $L/E$ dependence.
146:
147: If the LMA solution is correct, $\Delta m_{21}^2$-dependent
148: $CP$-violating effects \cite{CP0}
149: can be large enough to be tested at very long baseline accelerator-based experiments~\cite{CP}.
150: With KamLAND promising a precisely known value of $\Delta m_{21}^2$, it will provide essential information
151: for future experiments studying $CP$-violation in the neutrino sector.
152:
153: In Section II we provide a brief overview of the KamLAND experiment and the oscillation hypothesis
154: in which we will work. Section III will be devoted to details of our simulation of the experiment
155: and the subsequent data analysis. We conclude in Section IV.
156:
157: \section{The KamLAND Experiment}
158:
159: KamLAND is a reactor neutrino experiment with its
160: detector located at the Kamiokande site.
161: With low energy neutrinos ($\vev{E_{\nu}} \sim 3$ MeV), it can only measure $\bar{\nu}_e$
162: disappearance and therefore will be unable to access small mixing
163: angles $\rm{sin}^2 2\,\theta_{12} < 0.1$. About 95\% of the
164: $\bar{\nu}_e$ flux incident at KamLAND will be from reactors situated between
165: $80-350$ km from the detector, making the baseline long enough to provide a sensitive probe of
166: the LMA solution of the solar neutrino problem. Specifically, the
167: sensitivity to the mass-squared differences
168: will lie between $\Delta m_{21}^2 \sim (L\, ({\rm{m}})/ E\, (\rm{MeV}))^{-1}
169: \gsim 10^{-5}$ ${\rm{eV}}^2$ and $\lsim 10^{-4}$ ${\rm{eV}}^2$. Despite the absence of a single baseline,
170: the measured positron energy spectrum allows a sensitive probe of oscillation effects.
171:
172: We consider a framework of three-flavor oscillations among the massive neutrinos $(\nu_1,\nu_2, \nu_3)$.
173: In the phenomenologically interesting limit, $\Delta m^2\equiv m_2^2-m_1^2 \ll m_3^2-m_2^2$, the survival
174: probability at the detector is given by
175: \begin{equation}
176: P(\bar{\nu}_e\rightarrow \bar{\nu}_e)=1-2\,s_{13}^2\,c_{13}^2
177: - 4\,s_{12}^2\,c_{12}^2\,c_{13}^4\,{\rm{sin}^2}
178: \bigg({1.27\, \Delta m^2 ({\rm{eV}^2})\, L ({\rm{m}}) \over E_{\nu} ({\rm{MeV}})}\bigg)\,,
179: \label{prob}
180: \end{equation}
181: where $s_{ij}^2=1-c_{ij}^2=\rm{sin}^2 \theta_{ij}$ are the neutrino mixing parameters, $L$ is the distance
182: of the detector from the source and $E_{\nu}$ is the energy of the anti-neutrino.
183: Here we have averaged over the leading oscillations
184: $\vev{{\rm{sin}^2} (1.27\, |m_3^2-m_2^2| \, L/ E_{\nu})}=1/2$.
185: Matter effects on oscillations are negligible at the KamLAND baseline.
186:
187: Although we restrict our analysis to three neutrino oscillations,
188: it is possible that the transition $\bar{\nu}_e \rightarrow \bar{\nu}_{s}$, where $\nu_{s}$ is a sterile
189: neutrino, is responsible
190: for the depletion of the $\bar{\nu}_e$ flux.
191: (See Refs.~ \cite{barger,sterile} for models and analyses
192: of four-neutrino oscillations for the solar and atmospheric anomalies).
193: For example, in a $2+2$ neutrino mixing scheme, in which one pair
194: of nearly degenerate mass eigenstates has maximal ${\nu}_e \rightarrow \nu_{s}$ mixing for
195: solar neutrinos and the other pair has nearly maximal mixing ${\nu}_{\mu} \rightarrow \nu_{\tau}$
196: for atmospheric neutrinos, the survival probability is \cite{barger}
197: \begin{equation}
198: P(\bar{\nu}_e\rightarrow \bar{\nu}_e)=1-4\,\epsilon^2
199: -{\rm{sin}^2}
200: \bigg({1.27\, \Delta m^2 ({\rm{eV}^2})\, L ({\rm{m}}) \over E_{\nu} ({\rm{MeV}})}\bigg)\,,
201: \label{prob2}
202: \end{equation}
203: where $\epsilon \simeq (0.016\,{\rm{eV}^2}/\Delta m_{LSND}^2)^{0.91}$ is restricted by
204: KARMEN~\cite{karmen} and BUGEY~\cite{bugey} to be in the interval $(0.01,0.1)$
205: corresponding to a $\Delta m_{LSND}^2$ range
206: 0.2 to 1.7 ${\rm{eV}^2}$ \cite{barger}. In Eq.~(\ref{prob2}) we have averaged over the
207: leading oscillations associated with the LSND mass scale.
208: On comparing Eq.~(\ref{prob}) (fixing $\theta_{12}=\pi/4$
209: and $\rm{sin}^2 2\,\theta_{13}=0.1$) with Eq.~(\ref{prob2}), one sees that KamLAND will be unable
210: to distinguish whether the oscillations are to flavor or to sterile neutrinos, but neutral current
211: measurements at SNO will accomplish this.
212: KamLAND is more
213: sensitive to $\theta_{13}$ than to $\epsilon$, and we find that it will not
214: provide useful information about $\theta_{13}$ and consequently even less about $\epsilon$.
215: In the following, we base our analysis on Eq.~(\ref{prob}).
216:
217: The target for the $\bar{\nu}_e$ flux consists of a spherical transparent balloon filled with 1000
218: tons of non-doped liquid scintillator. The anti-neutrinos are detected via the inverse neutron $\beta$-decay
219: \begin{equation}
220: \bar{\nu}_e+p\rightarrow e^{+}+n\,.
221: \label{decay}
222: \end{equation}
223: The cross section for this process is \cite{vogel}
224: \begin{eqnarray}
225: \sigma(E_{\nu})&=&{2\,\pi^2 \over m_e^5\,f\,\tau_n}(E_{\nu}-\Delta M)\,[(E_{\nu}-\Delta M)^2-m_e^2]
226: \nonumber\\&=&
227: 0.952\,{(E_{\nu}-\Delta M)\,[(E_{\nu}-\Delta M)^2-m_e^2] \over 1\,\rm{MeV}^2}\times 10^{-43}\, \rm{cm}^2\,,
228: \label{cross}
229: \end{eqnarray}
230: where $m_e$ is the mass of the electron, $\Delta M=m_n-m_p$ is the neutron-proton mass difference,
231: $\tau_n=(886.7 \pm 1.9)$ s is the neutron lifetime and
232: $f=1.7152$ is the phase space factor which includes Coulomb, weak magnetism, recoil and outer
233: radiative corrections. The theoretical error in the above cross section is less than a percent. The neutrino
234: capture process has a threshold of \mbox{$\Delta M+ m_e = 1.804$ MeV}
235: and the $\bar{\nu}_e$ flux above this threshold
236: is $1.3 \times 10^6$ $\rm{cm}^{-2}\,\rm{s}^{-1}$ which is known to a precision of about 1.4\%
237: \cite{french}.
238: In the case of no oscillations, KamLAND expects to see
239: $\sim$ 800 events per year with a background $\sim$ 40 events per year. The distribution of the background
240: events versus positron energy is expected to be known, thus facilitating a clean extraction
241: of the signal. We will assume that a background subtraction can be made
242: for our data simulation and analysis.
243:
244: \section{Data Simulation and Analysis}
245:
246: To calculate the $\bar{\nu}_e$ flux we include contributions from all nuclear reactors within a
247: radius of 350 km from the
248: detector. Table \ref{locations} gives the relative fluxes (without oscillations)
249: and thus shows the relative importance of each reactor to the experiment (total fluxes
250: from each reactor are tabulated in Ref.~\cite{kamland}).
251: The $\bar{\nu}_e$ spectrum above the 1.8 MeV threshold for the process (\ref{decay})
252: is the result of the decay of fission fragments of the isotopes $^{235}\rm{U}$, $^{239}\rm{Pu}$,
253: $^{238}\rm{U}$ and $^{241}\rm{Pu}$. The spectrum from the fission products of
254: each of these isotopes can be found in \cite{nuc}. As the reactor operates,
255: the concentration of $^{235}\rm{U}$
256: decreases and that of $^{239}\rm{Pu}$ and $^{241}\rm{Pu}$ increases. We do not account for the
257: fissile isotope evolution and instead assume a typical fraction of fissions (as in Ref.~\cite{french})
258: from the four fissile materials (see Table \ref{fission}).
259: We have confirmed that the effect of the evolution is small by reproducing the $\bar{\nu}_e$
260: spectrum from the Palo Verde experiment \cite{paloverde}.
261: %
262: \begin{table}[t]
263: \begin{eqnarray}
264: \begin{array}{lcccr}
265: \rm{Reactor} & & \rm{Distance}\, (\rm{km}) & & \rm{Percent\, of\, total\,flux} \\
266: \hline
267: \rm{Kashiwazaki} & & 160.0 & & 33.36 \\
268: \rm{Ohi} & & 179.5 & & 14.76 \\
269: \rm{Takahama} & & 190.6 & & 9.76 \\
270: \rm{Shiga} & & 80.6 & & 8.51 \\
271: \rm{Tsuruga} & & 138.6 & & 8.12 \\
272: \rm{Mihama} & & 145.4 & & 8.10 \\
273: \rm{Hamaoka} & & 214.0 & & 8.06 \\
274: \rm{Fukushima-1} & & 344.0 & & 4.17 \\
275: \rm{Fukushima-2} & & 344.0 & & 3.86 \\
276: \rm{Tokai-II} & & 294.6 & & 1.30 \nonumber
277: \end{array}
278: \end{eqnarray}
279: %
280: \caption[]{The expected relative contribution of each reactor to the $\bar{\nu}_e$ flux detected at
281: KamLAND in the case of no oscillations. Only reactors in a 350 km radius of the detector
282: are considered. }
283: \label{locations}
284: \end{table}
285: %
286: \begin{table}[t]
287: \begin{eqnarray}
288: \begin{array}{lcccccc}
289: & & \rm{Start\, of\, Cycle}\,(\%)
290: & & \rm{End\, of\, Cycle}\,(\%)
291: & & \rm{Typical\, value}\,(\%)
292: \\
293: \hline
294: ^{235}\rm{U} & & 60.5 & & 45.0 & & 53.8 \\
295: ^{239}\rm{Pu} & & 27.2 & & 38.8 & & 32.8 \\
296: ^{238}\rm{U} & & 7.7 & & 8.3 & & 7.8 \\
297: ^{241}\rm{Pu} & & 4.6 & & 7.9 & & 5.6 \nonumber
298: \end{array}
299: \end{eqnarray}
300: %
301: \caption[]{The fraction of fissions from the four fissile elements in a nuclear reactor at the
302: beginning of the cycle, the end of the cycle and a typical value during a cycle taken from Ref.~\cite{french}. }
303: \label{fission}
304: \end{table}
305:
306: With the relative flux from each reactor known, and the knowledge of the $\bar{\nu}_e$
307: spectrum (assumed to be the same for all reactors), we calculated the
308: $e^+$ spectrum at KamLAND resulting from inverse $\beta$-decay and normalized it to yield a total of
309: 800 events per year in the absence of oscillations. This procedure effectively accounts for
310: the effective number of free protons in the target, the $e^+$ and $n$ efficiencies, the
311: efficiency of the $e^+ - n$ distance cut and fluctuations in the power output of the reactors arising
312: from dead time for maintenance and seasonal variations of power requirements.
313:
314: Figure~\ref{kamexp} shows the $e^+$ energy spectrum expected at KamLAND with three years of data,
315: illustrated for
316: the cases of no oscillations (dotted histogram) and
317: \mbox{$(\Delta m^2, \rm{sin}^2 2\,\theta_{12})$=($7 \times 10^{-5}\, \rm{eV}^2, 0.75$)}
318: (solid histogram). Each simulated data point is generated by randomly choosing a point from a Gaussian
319: distribution centered at the theoretical
320: value and of width equal to the square root of the theoretical value. The lower plot shows the
321: ratio of the simulated data to the expectation for no oscillations.
322: The errors shown are statistical. The plots are versus the total $e^+$ energy.
323: A plot of the total measurable energy would be shifted to the right by $m_e=0.511$ MeV
324: because the $\bar{\nu}_e$ signature involves a measurement of the kinetic
325: energy of the $e^+$ and the annihilation energy in the form of two 0.511 MeV gamma rays.
326: Figure~\ref{kamosc} illustrates the significant changes in the $e^+$ spectrum for
327: different values of $\Delta m^2$
328: at a given value of $\rm{sin}^2 2\,\theta_{12}$. The spectra overlap to a large extent
329: for values of $\Delta m^2 \gsim 2 \times 10^{-4}\, \rm{eV}^2$.
330: \begin{figure}[t]
331: \mbox{\psfig{file=kam1.ps,width=15cm,height=15cm}}
332: \caption{The expected $e^+$ energy spectrum (versus total $e^+$ energy) with three years of accumulated
333: data for the case of no oscillations (dotted histogram) and for
334: \mbox{$(\Delta m^2, \rm{sin}^2 2\,\theta_{12})$=($7 \times 10^{-5}\, \rm{eV}^2, 0.75$)}
335: (solid histogram). The data points represent the simulated
336: spectrum. The lower plot shows the
337: ratio of the simulated data to the expectation for no oscillations.
338: The errors shown are statistical.}
339: \label{kamexp}
340: \end{figure}
341: \begin{figure}[tb]
342: \mbox{\psfig{file=kam2.ps,width=15cm,height=15cm}}
343: \caption{KamLAND's sensitivity to $\Delta m^2$ is unprecedented. In three years
344: it will easily be able to discriminate between only slightly different
345: values of $\Delta m^2$ in the LMA region. For $\Delta m^2 \gsim 2 \times 10^{-4}\, \rm{eV}^2$ the spectra
346: overlap significantly.}
347: \label{kamosc}
348: \end{figure}
349:
350: For the statistical analysis we define $\chi^2$ as
351: \begin{equation}
352: \chi^2(\Delta m^2,{\rm{sin}^2} 2\,\theta_{12}) = \sum_{i=1}^{17}
353: {(N_{{\rm{simulated}}}(E_i)-N(E_i,\Delta m^2,{\rm{sin}^2} 2\,\theta_{12}))^2 \over N_{{\rm{simulated}}}(E_i)} \,,
354: \end{equation}
355: where $i$ labels the 17 $e^+$ energy bins each of width $0.4$ MeV and midpoint $E_i$,
356: $N_{\rm{simulated}}(E_i)$ is the number of simulated events in the $i^{\rm{th}}$ bin
357: and $N(E_i,\Delta m^2,\rm{sin}^2 2\,\theta_{12})$ is the corresponding
358: theoretical value for oscillation parameters $(\Delta m^2, \rm{sin}^2 2\,\theta_{12})$.
359: The only fitted parameters are $\Delta m^2$ and $\rm{sin}^2 2\,\theta_{12}$. We keep
360: $\rm{sin}^2 2\,\theta_{13}$ fixed when performing the $\chi^2$ analysis (using the
361: Levenberg-Marquadt method). From CHOOZ we know that $\rm{sin}^2 2\,\theta_{13}<0.1$ and
362: we consider the two extreme cases $\rm{sin}^2 2\,\theta_{13}=0$ and
363: $\rm{sin}^2 2\,\theta_{13}=0.1$.
364:
365: It is important to note that the main source of uncertainty
366: in the experiment comes from conversion of the fission rates in the reactors to $\bar{\nu}_e$
367: fluxes and the normalization uncertainty is expected to be less than 3\%
368: \cite{shirai}. (The CHOOZ experiment~\cite{chooz} had a normalization uncertainty of 2.7\%).
369: Even if the combined systematic uncertainty could be as large as 5\%,
370: the shapes and sizes of the
371: confidence contours in our analysis would be unaffected by its inclusion.
372: We can thus safely ignore systematic uncertainties in what follows.
373:
374: We concentrate on the region defined by $\rm{sin}^2 2\,\theta_{12}>0.2$ and
375: \mbox{$10^{-5}<\Delta m^2<2 \times 10^{-4}$ $\rm{eV}^2$.}
376: For values of $\Delta m^2$ outside this region, sensitivity to the neutrino energy-dependence
377: is lost.
378: For \mbox{$\Delta m^2 \lsim 10^{-5}$ $\rm{eV}^2$}, the value of the
379: oscillation-dependent sinusoidal factor gets small.
380: For $\Delta m^2 \gsim 2 \times 10^{-4}$ $\rm{eV}^2$,
381: the argument of the $\Delta m^2$-dependent sine function in Eq.~(\ref{prob}) becomes large because of the
382: long baseline and the
383: oscillations get averaged. By studying the behavior of $\chi^2-\chi^2_{min}$ as a function $\Delta m^2$
384: for several simulated datasets, we find that for theoretical
385: inputs with $\Delta m^2_{theor} \lsim 2 \times 10^{-4}\, \rm{eV}^2$,
386: $\chi^2-\chi^2_{min}$ has unique, well-defined minima at the theoretical values.
387: For inputs with $\Delta m^2_{theor} \gsim 2 \times 10^{-4}\, \rm{eV}^2$
388: we find the presence of more than one acceptable minimum in the region
389: $2 \times 10^{-4} \lsim \Delta m^2 \lsim 10^{-3}\, \rm{eV}^2$ \cite{barb} and a continuum of solutions
390: \mbox{$\Delta m^2 \gsim 10^{-3}\, \rm{eV}^2$}
391: that are acceptable at the $2\sigma$ level. Thus, for values larger than
392: $2 \times 10^{-4}\, \rm{eV}^2$, KamLAND can place a lower bound on $\Delta m^2$, but
393: cannot uniquely determine the value.
394: However, the region of good sensitivity covers the entire LMA solution.
395:
396: Figure~\ref{chi0} shows fits to $e^+$ spectra (expected after three years of running)
397: for values of $\Delta m^2$ and $\rm{sin}^2 2\,\theta_{12}$
398: covering the entire region of the LMA solution with $\theta_{13}=0$.
399: The plot shows $1\sigma$ (68.3\%) and $2\sigma$ (95.4\%) confidence contours. The diamond is the
400: theoretical value for which data was simulated and the cross marks the best fit point.
401: Each point is labelled by the expected number of signal events.
402: The $\chi^2$ value for the best fit corresponds to a $\chi^2$ probability of at least 80\%.
403: For a given value of $\Delta m^2$, the confidence regions get flatter
404: along the $\Delta m^2$-direction as $\rm{sin}^2 2\,\theta_{12}$ is increased from 0.2 to $1$, resulting
405: in a finer determination of $\Delta m^2$ for larger $\rm{sin}^2 2\,\theta_{12}$.
406: The value of $\rm{sin}^2 2\,\theta_{12}$
407: will be determined to an accuracy of $\pm 0.1$ ($2\sigma$) throughout almost all of the parameter space
408: under consideration.
409: The $\Delta m^2$ value will be determined within $\pm 10$\% ($2\sigma$) of its actual value for
410: $10^{-5} \lsim \Delta m^2 \lsim 2 \times 10^{-4}\, \rm{eV}^2$ and \mbox{$\rm{sin}^2 2\,\theta_{12}>0.7$.}
411: \begin{figure}[tb]
412: \mbox{\psfig{file=kam3.ps,width=15cm,height=15cm}}
413: \caption{Fits to $e^+$ spectra for values of $\Delta m^2$ and $\rm{sin}^2 2\,\theta_{12}$ covering
414: the entire region of the LMA solution with $\theta_{13}=0$. The
415: $1\sigma$ (68.3\%) and $2\sigma$ (95.4\%) confidence contours are shown. The diamond is the
416: theoretical value for which data was simulated and the cross marks the best fit point. Each point
417: is labelled by the expected number of signal events in three years. If no oscillations occur, the
418: expectation is 2400 events.
419: }
420: \label{chi0}
421: \end{figure}
422: %\begin{figure}[tb]
423: %\mbox{\psfig{file=kam4.ps,width=16cm,height=18cm}}
424: %\caption{$\chi^2-\chi^2_{min}$ as a function of $\Delta m^2$ for datasets generated from six theoretical
425: %inputs all of which have $\rm{sin}^2 2\,\theta_{12}=0.75$. The $\chi^2$--analysis is performed
426: %with $\rm{sin}^2 2\,\theta_{12}$ unconstrained and $\theta_{13}=0$. For theoretical
427: %inputs with $\Delta m^2<2 \times 10^{-4}\, \rm{eV}^2$,
428: %$\chi^2-\chi^2_{min}$ has unique, well-defined minima at the theoretical values.
429: %For inputs with $\Delta m^2>2 \times 10^{-4}\, \rm{eV}^2$
430: %we find the presence of more than one acceptable minimum. Thus, a discrete ambiguity exists that makes
431: %it difficult to pin down the value of $\Delta m^2$ in this region.
432: %}
433: %\label{chisquared}
434: %\end{figure}
435:
436: We found that for $\rm{sin}^2 2\,\theta_{13}=0.1$ the contours are almost identical to that
437: of Fig.~\ref{chi0}; thus, KamLAND will not be sensitive to $\theta_{13}$ in any region
438: of the parameter space. In Fig.~\ref{chi2}
439: we show the expectation with one year of accumulated data (taking $\theta_{13}=0$) and find that
440: in this time period KamLAND should already give us the LMA parameters to reasonably good accuracy.
441: %\begin{figure}[tb]
442: %\mbox{\psfig{file=/u/bwood/fortran/chi_th13.ps,width=16cm,height=18cm}}
443: %\caption{The same as Fig.~\ref{chi0} except that $\rm{sin}^2 2\,\theta_{13}=0.1$. On comparing
444: %the two figures, it is clear that KamLAND will not be sensitive to $\theta_{13}$ in any region
445: %of parameter space. }
446: %\label{chi1}
447: %\end{figure}
448: \begin{figure}[tb]
449: \mbox{\psfig{file=kam4.ps,width=15cm,height=15cm}}
450: \caption{The same as Fig.~\ref{chi0} except that only one year of accumulated data is assumed.
451: Correspondingly, each point
452: is labelled by the expected number of signal events in one year. If no oscillations occur, the
453: expectation is 800 events.}
454: \label{chi2}
455: \end{figure}
456: \section{Conclusion}
457: The results of our work are succinctly summarized in Figs.~\ref{chi0}--\ref{chi2}. Within
458: one year of operation, KamLAND measurements of the reactor $\bar{\nu}_e$ flux will establish whether
459: or not the LMA solution (\mbox{$10^{-5} \lsim \Delta m_{21}^2 \lsim 10^{-4}\, \rm{eV}^2$} and
460: $\rm{sin}^2 2\,\theta_{12}>0.3$) is correct.
461: If it is, in a span of three years
462: the accuracy with which $\rm{sin}^2 2\,\theta_{12}$, and especially
463: $\Delta m_{21}^2$, will be determined is striking. KamLAND will give us
464: $\rm{sin}^2 2\,\theta_{12}$ to an accuracy of $\pm 0.1$ and $\Delta m_{21}^2$ to within a factor of
465: 2 for $\rm{sin}^2 2\,\theta_{12}>0.2$; $\Delta m_{21}^2$ will be known to an accuracy of
466: $\pm 10$\% for $\rm{sin}^2 2\,\theta_{12}>0.7$ (at the $2\sigma$ level).
467: However, no knowledge
468: will be gleaned about $\theta_{13}$. Our conclusions
469: assume that the experiment employs a 1000 ton fiducial volume.
470: If the fiducial volume is instead 600 tons,
471: Fig.~\ref{chi2} applies for data collected over 20 months instead of 12 and
472: the contours of Fig.~\ref{chi0} will be roughly twice as large
473: at the end of three years.
474: Details of systematic
475: uncertainties and the accuracy with which the background shape is known will cause
476: minor changes in our results, but the overall conclusions will remain intact.
477:
478: If the LMA solution is found to be correct, the
479: precision with which $\Delta m_{21}^2$ will be pinned down at KamLAND will prove to be very beneficial
480: to studies of $CP$-violation in the lepton sector in long baseline experiments~\cite{morecp,lfv}.
481:
482:
483: \vspace{0.25in}
484: \acknowledgements
485: We thank A. Baldini, J. Learned and K. Whisnant for discussions.
486: This work was supported in part by a DOE grant No. DE-FG02-95ER40896
487: and in part by the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation.
488: \vspace{0.25in}
489:
490: %\newpage
491: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
492:
493: \bibitem{k1}
494: K. Hirata {\it et al.}, Phys. Lett. {\bf B205}, 416 (1988);
495: Phys. Lett. {\bf B280}, 146 (1992).
496:
497: \bibitem{sk1}
498: Y. Fukuda {\it et al.}, Phys. Lett. {\bf B433}, 9 (1998);
499: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 81}, 1562 (1998);
500: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 82}, 2644 (1999);
501: Phys. Lett. {\bf B467}, 185 (1999).
502:
503: \bibitem{imb}
504: D. Casper {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 66}, 2561 (1991);
505: R. Becker-Szendy {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. {\bf D46}, 3720 (1992);
506: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 69}, 1010 (1992).
507:
508: \bibitem{soudan}
509: W. Allison {\it et al.}, Phys. Lett. {\bf B391}, 491 (1997);
510: Phys. Lett. {\bf B449}, 137 (1999).
511:
512: \bibitem{macro}
513: M. Ambrosio {\it et al.}, Phys. Lett. {\bf B434}, 451 (1998);
514: {\tt hep-ex/0001044}.
515:
516: \bibitem{homestake}
517: B. Cleveland, T. Daily, R. Davis, Jr., J. Distel, K. Lande, C. Lee, P. Wildenhain and
518: J. Ullman, Astropart. Phys. {\bf 496}, 505 (1998).
519:
520: \bibitem{sage}
521: J. Abdurashitov {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. {\bf C60}, 055801 (1999).
522:
523: \bibitem{gallex}
524: W. Hampel {\it et al.}, Phys. Lett. {\bf B447}, 127 (1999).
525:
526: \bibitem{k}
527: Y. Fukuda {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 77}, 1683 (1996).
528:
529: \bibitem{sk}
530: Y. Fukuda {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 82}, 1810 (1999);
531: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 82}, 2430 (1999).
532:
533: \bibitem{SSM}
534: J. Bahcall, S. Basu and M. Pinsonneault, Phys. Lett. {\bf B433}, 1 (1998).
535:
536: \bibitem{lsnd}
537: C. Athanassopoulous {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 77}, 3082 (1996);
538: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 81}, 1774 (1998).
539:
540: \bibitem{karmen}
541: K. Eitel and B. Zeitnitz, Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl) {\bf 77}, 212 (1999).
542:
543: \bibitem{miniboone}
544: A. Bazarko, {\tt hep-ex/0009056}.
545:
546: \bibitem{paloverde}
547: F. Boehm {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. {\bf D62}, 072002 (2000);
548: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 84}, 3764 (2000).
549:
550: \bibitem{chooz}
551: M. Apollonio {\it et al.}, Phys. Lett. {\bf B466}, 415 (1999);
552: Phys. Lett. {\bf B420}, 397 (1998);
553: D. Nicol\'{o}, PhD thesis, INFN, Pisa, Scuola Normale Superiore, (1999).
554:
555: \bibitem{bahcall}
556: J. Bahcall, {\it Neutrino Astrophysics} (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1989).
557:
558: \bibitem{kamland}
559: The KamLAND proposal, Stanford-HEP-98-03; A. Piepke, talk at {\it Neutrino-2000}, XIXth
560: International Conference on Neutrino Physics and Astrophysics, Sudbury, Canada, June 2000.
561:
562: \bibitem{lma}
563: G. Fogli, E. Lisi, D. Montanino and A. Palazzo, Phys. Rev. {\bf D62}, 013002 (2000);
564: M. Gonzalez-Garcia, M. Maltoni, C. Pena-Garay and J. Valle, {\tt hep-ph/0009350};
565: J. Bahcall, P. Krastev and A. Yu. Smirnov, Phys. Rev. {\bf D60}, 093001 (1999);
566: N. Hata and P. Langacker, Phys. Rev. {\bf D56}, 6107 (1997).
567:
568: \bibitem{osaka}
569: Y. Takeuchi, talk at {\it ICHEP2000}, XXXth International Conference on High Energy Physics,
570: Osaka, Japan, July 2000.
571:
572: \bibitem{kras}
573: J. Bahcall, P. Krastev and A. Yu. Smirnov, Phys. Rev. {\bf D58}, 096016 (1998).
574:
575: \bibitem{sno}
576: A. McDonald, Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl) {\bf 77}, 43 (1999); J. Boger {\it et al.}
577: Nucl. Instrum. Meth. {\bf A449}, 172 (2000).
578:
579: \bibitem{bahcall2}
580: J. Bahcall, P. Krastev and A. Yu. Smirnov, Phys. Lett. {\bf B477}, 401 (2000).
581:
582: \bibitem{CP0}
583: V. Barger, K. Whisnant and R. Phillips, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 45}, 2084 (1980);
584: S. Pakvasa in {\it High Energy Physics--1980}, edited by L. Durand
585: and L. Pondrom, AIP Conf. Proc. No. 68 (AIP, New York, 1981), p. 1164.
586:
587: \bibitem{CP}
588: V. Barger, S. Geer, R. Raja and K. Whisnant, Phys. Rev. {\bf D62}, 073002 (2000);
589: A. Cervera, A. Donini, M. Gavela, J. Gomez Cadenas, P. Hernandez, O. Mena and S. Rigolin,
590: Nucl. Phys. {\bf B579} 17, (2000);
591: A. De Rujula, M. Gavela and P. Hernandez, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B547} 21, (1999);
592: S. Bilenkii, C. Giunti and W. Grimus, Phys. Rev. {\bf D58}, 033001 (1998);
593: J. Arafune, M. Koike and J. Sato, Phys. Rev. {\bf D56}, 3093 (1997);
594: A. Bueno, M. Campanelli, A. Rubbia, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B589} 577, (2000);
595: I. Mocioiu and R. Shrock, Phys. Rev. {\bf D62}, 053017 (2000).
596:
597: \bibitem{barger}
598: V. Barger, B. Kayser, J. Learned, T. Weiler, K. Whisnant, Phys. Lett. {\bf B489}, 345 (2000).
599:
600: %\bibitem{sk2}
601: %S. Fukuda {\it et al.}, {\tt hep-ex/0009001}.
602:
603: \bibitem{sterile}
604: O. Peres, A. Yu. Smirnov, {\tt hep-ph/0011054};
605: O. Yasuda, {\tt hep-ph/0006319}; G. Fogli, E. Lisi and A. Marrone, {\tt hep-ph/0009299};
606: C. Giunti, M. Gonzalez-Garcia, C. Pena-Garay, Phys. Rev. {\bf D62}, 013005 (2000);
607: D. Dooling, C. Giunti, K. Kang and C. Kim, Phys. Rev. {\bf D61}, 073011 (2000).
608: S. Bilenkii, C. Giunti, W. Grimus and T. Schwetz, Phys. Rev. {\bf D60}, 073007 (1999).
609:
610: \bibitem{bugey}
611: Y. Declais {\it et al.}, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B434} 503, (1995).
612:
613: \bibitem{vogel}
614: P. Vogel and J. Beacom, Phys. Rev. {\bf D60}, 053003 (1999).
615:
616: \bibitem{french}
617: Y. Declais {\it et al.}, Phys. Lett. {\bf B338}, 383 (1994).
618:
619: \bibitem{nuc}
620: K. Schreckenbach, G. Colvin, W. Gelletly and F. Von Feilitzsch, Phys. Lett. {\bf B160}, 325 (1985);
621: A.A. Hahn, K. Schreckenbach, G. Colvin, B. Krusche,
622: W. Gelletly and F. Von Feilitzsch, Phys. Lett. {\bf B218}, 365 (1989);
623: P. Vogel, G. Schenter, F. Mann and R. Schenter, Phys. Rev. {\bf C24}, 1543 (1981).
624:
625: \bibitem{shirai}
626: J. Shirai, talk at {\it ICHEP2000}, XXXth International Conference on High Energy Physics,
627: Osaka, Japan, July 2000.
628:
629: \bibitem{barb}
630: R. Barbieri and A. Strumia, {\tt hep-ph/0011307}.
631:
632: \bibitem{morecp}
633: V. Barger, S. Geer, R. Raja and K. Whisnant, MADPH-00-1199.
634:
635: \bibitem{lfv}
636: Proceedings of {\it Joint
637: U.S. / Japan Workshop On New Initiatives in Muon Lepton Flavor Violation
638: and Neutrino Oscillation with High Intense Muon and Neutrino Sources}, Honolulu, Hawaii, October 2000.
639: http://meco.ps.uci.edu/lepton\_workshop/index.html
640:
641: \end{thebibliography}
642:
643: \end{document}
644: