1: %%%%%% 26 May 2001 %%%%%%%%%
2: \documentstyle[aps,manuscript,epsfig,psfig]{revtex}
3: %\documentstyle[aps,prl,twocolumn]{revtex}
4: \textwidth 16.5cm
5: \textheight 22cm
6: \oddsidemargin-0.1cm
7: \topmargin-1cm
8: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}
9: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}
10: \def\beqa{\begin{eqnarray}}
11: \def\eeqa{\end{eqnarray}}
12: \def\p{\partial}
13: \def\mp{m_{\rm pl}}
14: \def\lap{\lower.5ex\hbox{$\; \buildrel < \over \sim \;$}}
15: \def\gap{\lower.5ex\hbox{$\; \buildrel > \over \sim \;$}}
16: \def\lb{\langle}
17: \def\rb{\rangle}
18: \def\fv{{\bf f}}
19: \def\vp{\varphi}
20: \tightenlines
21: %\input psfig
22:
23: \begin{document}
24: \preprint{
25: \vbox{ \hbox{CERN-TH/2001-140}
26: \hbox{IFIC/01-29}
27: \hbox{hep-ph/0105294}}}
28: \title{Status of the Gribov--Pontecorvo Solution to the Solar Neutrino Problem}
29: \author{V. Berezinsky$^{1}$, M.C. Gonzalez-Garcia$^{2,3}$ and
30: C. Pe\~na-Garay $^{3}$}
31: \address{
32: $^{1}$ INFN, Laboratori Nazionali del Gran Sasso,
33: 67010 Assergi (AQ) Italy\\
34: $^{2}$ Theory Division, CERN CH-1211, Geneva 23, Switzerland\\
35: $^{3}$Instituto de F\'{\i}sica Corpuscular,
36: Universitat de Val\`encia -- C.S.I.C\\
37: Edificio Institutos de Paterna, Apt 22085, 46071 Val\`encia, Spain}
38: \maketitle
39: %%
40: \begin{abstract}
41: We discuss the status of the Gribov--Pontecorvo (GP) solution to the solar
42: neutrino problem. This solution naturally appears in bimaximal
43: neutrino mixing and reduces the solar and atmospheric neutrino
44: problems to vacuum oscillations of three active neutrinos.
45: The GP solution predicts an energy-independent
46: suppression of the solar neutrino flux. It is disfavoured by the rate of
47: the Homestake detector, but its statistical significance greatly
48: improves, when the chlorine rate and the boron neutrino flux are
49: slightly rescaled, and when
50: the Super-Kamiokande neutrino spectrum is included in
51: the analysis. Our results show that rescaling of the chlorine signal by only
52: $10\%$ is sufficient for the GP solution to exist, if the
53: boron--neutrino flux is
54: taken $10$ -- $20\%$ lower than the SSM prediction.
55: The regions allowed for the GP solution in the parameter space
56: are found and observational signatures of this solution are discussed.
57: \end{abstract}
58: %
59: \section{Introduction}
60: Vacuum oscillations of maximally mixed $\nu_{\mu}$ and $\nu_{\tau}$ neutrinos
61: with $(\Delta m^2)_{\rm atm} \sim 3\times 10^{-3}$~eV$^2$
62: are the favourite explanation of the atmospheric neutrino anomaly. A natural
63: generalization is bimaximal mixing \cite{BaPa}--\cite{Vis}
64: of three active neutrinos, when mixing is described by the following
65: matrix:
66: \be
67: \left(
68: \begin{array}{c}
69: \nu_e \\ \nu_{\mu}\\ \nu_{\tau}
70: \end{array}
71: \right)
72: =
73: \left(
74: \begin{array}{ccc}
75: \frac{1}{\sqrt 2} & -\frac{1}{\sqrt 2} & 0\\
76: \frac{1}{2} & \frac{1}{2} & \frac{1}{\sqrt 2}\\
77: \frac{1}{2} & \frac{1}{2} & -\frac{1}{\sqrt 2}
78: \end{array}
79: \right)
80: \left(
81: \begin{array}{c}
82: \nu_1\\ \nu_2 \\ \nu_3
83: \end{array}
84: \right)\; .
85: \label{bimax}
86: \ee
87: In the case of the mixing matrix given by Eq.~(\ref{bimax}), the solar
88: neutrino oscillation is also maximal. To see this, it should be noted
89: from Eq.~(\ref{bimax}) that
90: \be
91: \frac{1}{\sqrt 2}(\nu_{\mu}-\nu_{\tau}) = \nu_3,
92: \ee
93: while the other orthogonal combination of these states can be considered
94: as a new field
95: \be
96: \nu'=\frac{1}{\sqrt 2}( \nu_{\mu}+\nu_{\tau})\; .
97: \label{nu'}
98: \ee
99: Using the above equations, one obtains
100: \be
101: \left(
102: \begin{array}{c}
103: \nu_e \\ \nu'\\ \nu_{\tau}
104: \end{array}
105: \right)
106: =
107: \left(
108: \begin{array}{ccc}
109: \frac{1}{\sqrt 2} & -\frac{1}{\sqrt 2} & 0\\
110: \frac{1}{\sqrt 2} & \frac{1}{\sqrt 2} & 0\\
111: \frac{1}{2} & \frac{1}{2} & \frac{1}{\sqrt 2}
112: \end{array}
113: \right)
114: \left(
115: \begin{array}{c}
116: \nu_1\\ \nu_2 \\ \nu_3
117: \end{array}
118: \right)\; .
119: \label{emax}
120: \ee
121: From Eq.~(\ref{emax}) it follows that $\nu_e$ and
122: $\nu'=1/\sqrt{2}(\nu_{\mu}+\nu_{\tau})$ are a maximally mixed pair,
123: and the flavour eigenstate $\nu_e$ is oscillating on the way from the Sun
124: into $\nu'$, the coherent mixture of $\nu_{\mu}$ and $\nu_{\tau}$.
125:
126: The above exercise is relevant to the Gribov--Pontecorvo (GP) \cite{GP}
127: solution of the solar neutrino problem combined with atmospheric
128: $\nu_{\mu}$--$\nu_{\tau}$ oscillations. Following \cite{GP}, the
129: definition of the GP solution can be given by two conditions:
130: {\it (i)} smallness
131: of the oscillation length $l_{\nu}$ with respect to the mean distance
132: between the Sun and the Earth $\langle r\rangle= L$
133: \be
134: l_{\nu}= \frac{4\pi E}{\Delta m^2} \ll L=1.5\times 10^{13}~{\rm cm},
135: \label{oslength}
136: \ee
137: and {\it (ii)} smallness of the matter corrections (MSW \cite{msw}) in
138: the Sun and in the Earth \cite{earthmatter}
139: (in Ref.\cite{GP} only vacuum oscillation is considered).
140:
141: Indeed, in this case the averaged survival probability for $\nu_e$ is
142: \be
143: \langle P_{ee}\rangle=1-\sin^2 2\theta\langle
144: \sin^2\frac{\Delta m^2 r}{4E}\rangle=
145: 1-\frac{1}{2}\sin^2 2\theta \equiv P_{\rm GP} ,
146: \label{Pee}
147: \ee
148: and from comparison with experimental data, $P_{ee} \sim 0.5$, we come to
149: $\theta \sim \pi/4$, or to bimaximal mixing if
150: $\nu_{\mu}\leftrightarrow \nu_{\tau}$ explains atmospheric neutrino
151: oscillations.
152:
153: Three remarks are immediately in order.
154:
155: {\it(i)} There is no theoretical reason for bimaximal mixing to be
156: exact, and
157: more generally one should consider {\it near-bimaximal mixing}
158: \cite{BaPa,ourmaxmix}.
159:
160: {\it(ii)} The smallness of the matter correction effects, which we
161: included in the definition of the GP solution is actually not needed in the
162: case of near-bimaximal mixing if only matter effects in the Sun are
163: included. For the exact maximal mixing,
164: $\nu_e \to \nu'$ conversion in the Sun does not change the total
165: survival probability $\langle P_{ee}\rangle$ at the surface of the
166: Earth \cite{BaGo,Giu}.
167: In the arbitrary case where the mixing between $\nu_e$ and $\nu'$
168: is described by the mixing angle $\theta$, and the MSW effect in the Sun
169: converts $\nu_e$
170: into $\nu_S=\cos\theta_S \nu_1+\sin\theta_S\nu_2$ (subscript $S$ here
171: refers to the surface of the Sun), the total
172: survival probability $\langle P_{ee}\rangle =|\langle\nu_E|\nu_e\rangle|^2$
173: on the surface of the Earth can be readily calculated as
174: \be
175: \langle P_{ee}\rangle=\cos^2\theta_S\cos^2\theta+\sin^2\theta_S\sin^2\theta
176: \label{Pe}
177: \ee
178: For exact bimaximal mixing $\cos^2\theta=\sin^2\theta=1/2$, survival
179: probability $\langle P_{ee}\rangle=1/2$ and thus it does not depend on
180: $\theta_S$, i.e. on how $\nu_e$ is
181: converted in the Sun. For near-bimaximal mixing,
182: Eq.~(\ref{Pe}) determines a narrow range of $\theta$ near $\pi/4$,
183: where $\langle P_{ee}\rangle$ is practically energy independent,
184: i.e. it does not
185: depend on $\theta_S$. The matter effect in the Earth, however, changes
186: this conclusion as we shall see in the next section.
187:
188: {\it (iii)} The observational data (see Fig.~\ref{fig_exp}) do not support
189: $\langle P_{ee}\rangle$ being
190: exactly energy-independent. While the recent Super-Kamiokande (SK) data
191: agree well with $\langle P_{ee}\rangle$ being an energy-independent
192: constant in the
193: energy interval 5 -- 14~MeV, the values $\langle P_{ee}\rangle$
194: from three different
195: experiments, GALLEX--GNO/SAGE, Homestake and Kamiokande/SK,
196: are not exactly the same.
197:
198: The aim of this paper is to discuss quantitatively the status of the GP
199: solution. An interesting region in the parameter space is given by
200: $\Delta m^2 \lesssim 10^{-3}~{\rm eV}^2$ and $\theta \sim \pi/4$, where
201: bimaximal mixing is characterized by $(\Delta m^2)_{\rm atm}$ and
202: $(\Delta m^2)_{\rm sol}$ not very different from each other, and where
203: the MSW effect is allowed as a small correction.
204:
205: Oscillations with energy-independent suppression were suggested
206: and studied in many works before \cite{AcLe,HaPe,Co,BaGo,Foot} and most
207: notably in the recent work of Ref.~\cite{choubey}. In all
208: these works the authors have realized that the observed rate in the
209: chlorine experiment (Homestake \cite{Hom}) contradicts
210: the energy-independent suppression, and it has to be taken larger than the
211: observed one for it to work. In this paper we argue that $10\%$
212: excess could be sufficient.
213: Note, that the solution with energy-independent
214: suppression is more general than the GP solution, because in the latter
215: $l_{\nu}\ll L$ is assumed, while the energy-(quasi)independent solution
216: might appear in some other regions of the parameter space.
217:
218:
219: \section{Parameter space regions for the GP solution}
220:
221: In this section we shall calculate the regions allowed for the GP solution
222: in the parameter space $\Delta m^2$, $\tan^2 \theta$.
223: We first define the oscillation parameter space where the solar
224: neutrino survival probability behaves effectively as the GP one.
225: In order to do so we impose the condition that for any of the
226: $i$ solar neutrino fluxes (integrated over the different production
227: point distributions) the survival probability in the relevant range
228: of energies does not differ by
229: more than 10\% (1\%) from $P_{\rm GP}$ given by Eq.~(\ref{Pee}):
230:
231: \begin{equation}
232: \frac{|P_{ee}^i(E/\Delta m^2,\theta)-P_{\rm GP}(\theta)|}{P_{\rm GP}(\theta)}
233: <0.1 \; (0.01) \;\;\;\; \mbox{\rm for} \;\; E_{i,max}>E>E_{i,min},
234: \label{gpcond}
235: \end{equation}
236: where $E_{i,max}$ and $E_{i,min}$ determine the range of energies in which
237: the flux $i$ is detected in present experiments. For instance, for
238: $i=pp$, $E_{pp,min}=0.233$ MeV and $E_{pp,max}=0.42$ MeV.
239: In the evaluation of the corresponding survival probabilities,
240: we have included the matter effects when propagating in the Sun and in the
241: Earth as well as the distance interference term:
242: \begin{equation}
243: P_{ee}^i=P^S_{e,1}P^E_{1,e}+P^S_{e,2}P^E_{2,e}+
244: 2\sqrt{P^S_{e,1}P^S_{e,2}P^E_{1,e}P^E_{2,e}}
245: \cos\frac{\Delta m^2_{21} (L)}{2E} \;,
246: \label{P}
247: \end{equation}
248: where $P^S_{e,i}$ is the probability for the $\nu_e$ to exit the
249: Sun in the mass eigenstate $i$, while $P^E_{i,e}$ is the probability
250: for the mass eigenstate $i$ arriving at the Earth
251: to reach the detector as a $\nu_e$.
252: $L$ is the average distance between the Sun and the Earth.
253:
254: In Fig.~\ref{regp} we show the parameter space $\Delta m^2$,
255: $\tan^2\theta$ where the condition given by Eq.~(\ref{gpcond}) is verified
256: at 10\% (lighter shadow) and 1\% (darker shadow).
257: The only interesting sector of the effective--GP region in this
258: parameter space is located at large $\Delta m^2$ around the maximal
259: mixing line $\tan^2\theta=1$, where matter effects in the Sun are suppressed.
260: This region is limited from above
261: by the CHOOZ reactor data \cite{chooz}. Only in this sector
262: there is an overlap with the rate- and spectra-allowed regions (see below).
263:
264: As was discussed above, for maximal mixing the matter effects in
265: the Sun do not alter the energy-independent survival probability
266: $P_{ee}$ on the way from the production point inside the Sun to the
267: surface of the Earth. However Earth matter effects make $P_{ee}$
268: energy-dependent in the regions of maximal mixing at
269: $10^{-5}\lesssim\Delta m^2\lesssim 10^{-8}$. In contrast with
270: our calculations,
271: the region $\Delta m^2\lesssim 10^{-7}$ is found in
272: ref.\cite{choubey} as energy-independent one. We explain this
273: discrepancy by two effects:
274: \begin{itemize}
275: \item For $10^{-8}\lesssim\Delta m^2\lesssim 10^{-7}$
276: Earth matter effects for $pp$-neutrinos result into an energy
277: dependence of the survival probability beyond 10\%.
278: \item At $\Delta m^2\lesssim 10^{-8}$
279: the $L$ dependent interference term in
280: Eq.~(\ref{P}) gives strong energy dependence of the $^8$B flux. This
281: term was not included in the calculations of Ref.\cite{choubey}.
282: \end{itemize}
283:
284: As we mentioned above, the GP solution is incompatible with the central
285: value of the rate measured by the Homestake detector $R_{\rm Cl}= 2.56$~SNU
286: \cite{Hom}.
287: Following the prescription of many works, we shall use the rescaled rate
288: $R_{\rm Cl}^{\rm res}=2.56f_{\rm Cl}$~SNU, assuming $f_{\rm Cl} \gtrsim 1$
289: to be a free parameter. In Fig.~\ref{chi2} we plot the $\chi^2$ function
290: from the analysis of the three observed rates as a function of the
291: $f_{\rm Cl}$ factor for different constant values of the survival
292: probability $P_{\rm GP}=0.5,0.59$ and 0.71.
293: The upper left panel corresponds to oscillations
294: into active neutrinos while the lower one into sterile neutrinos.
295: The differences between these two scenarios arise from the
296: absence of NC contribution to the SK rate in case of oscillations
297: into sterile neutrinos.
298: From this figure we see that the best GP-like solution corresponds to
299: survival probability slightly larger than that for maximal--mixing case
300: (close to 0.59) both for active and sterile neutrinos. The quality
301: of these solutions are considerably improved when allowing a 30--50 \%
302: increase in $f_{\rm Cl}$. This improvement is more significant
303: for the case of sterile neutrinos since the corresponding
304: survival probability at SK
305: agrees better with the data from gallium detectors (see Fig.\ref{fig_exp}).
306:
307: This behaviour is also illustrated in
308: Fig.~\ref{rates}
309: where we show the $\Delta m^2$, $\tan^2\theta$ regions allowed
310: by the statistical analysis of the rates of GALLEX--GNO/SAGE
311: \cite{gallex,gno,sage}, SK \cite{sksol00} and
312: Chlorine\cite{Hom} experiments
313: for different values of $f_{\rm Cl}$ in case of active and sterile
314: neutrinos, and for Bahcall-Pinsonneault (BP00) \cite{BP00}
315: fluxes.
316: The solutions, following the standard statistical analysis (for details see
317: Ref.~\cite{oursolar}), are shown at 99\% CL. The
318: effective GP solutions are marked as dark areas. Notice that
319: they appear at $f_{\rm Cl} \gtrsim 1.1$ (1.2) for active
320: (sterile) oscillations and that all regions displayed
321: have a cut at $\Delta m^2\approx 8 \times 10^{-4}$ as a
322: consequence of the CHOOZ \cite{chooz} bound.
323:
324: Inclusion of SK data on the energy spectra of boron neutrinos improves
325: the quality of the GP solution.
326: In Fig.~\ref{global} we display, for different values
327: of $f_{\rm Cl}$,
328: the regions allowed by the analysis of the rates and day--night spectrum of
329: boron neutrinos measured by SK \cite{sksol00}. Again the solutions
330: are shown at 99\% CL and the
331: effective GP solutions are marked as dark areas. From these figures
332: one can see that the inclusion of the spectra data results in the appearance
333: of allowed regions for the GP solutions at smaller values of $f_{\rm Cl}$.
334: This is a natural result, because the rates
335: of GALLEX--GNO/SAGE and Homestake can be also considered as information
336: about the solar neutrino spectrum, in its low energy part, however in
337: contrast to the low energy part
338: of the spectrum, the GP solution describes well the spectrum observed in
339: SK.
340:
341: In Figs.~\ref{rates}--\ref{global}
342: we have used the boron neutrino flux as
343: calculated in the Standard Solar Model \cite{BP00}. This flux
344: has a large theoretical uncertainty mostly due to uncertainties
345: in the pBe cross-section. In order to study the effect of a possible
346: deviation of the $^8$B flux from the SSM prediction \cite{BP00},
347: we shall introduce the rescaled boron neutrino flux defined as
348: $\Phi_{\rm B}=f_{\rm B} \Phi_{\rm B}^{\rm SSM}$ with
349: $\Phi_{\rm B}^{\rm SSM}$ given by \cite{BP00}.
350: In the central panels in Fig.~\ref{chi2}, we plot the $\chi^2$ function
351: from the analysis of the three observed rates as a function of
352: $f_{\rm Cl}$ for different constant values of the survival
353: probability $P_{\rm GP}$ when the factor $f_{\rm B}$ is left free.
354: The upper central panel corresponds to oscillations
355: into active neutrinos, the lower one into sterile neutrinos.
356: In the right panels we show the corresponding values of $f_{\rm B}$,
357: which give the best agreement with the data for each value of
358: $f_{\rm Cl}$ and $P_{\rm GP}$. From this figure we find that
359: although using a free $f_{\rm B}<1$ leads to a
360: further increase of the statistical significance of the GP solution, it
361: has a smaller
362: impact than the corresponding variation of $f_{\rm Cl}$. It, however,
363: allows for the presence of GP solutions with smaller $f_{\rm Cl}$.
364: This is particularly the case for oscillations into active neutrinos.
365:
366: In Fig.~\ref{global_fb} we plot the allowed
367: regions from the analysis of the rates and day--night spectrum of
368: $^8$B neutrinos measured by SK for different values
369: of $f_{\rm Cl}$ and $f_{\rm B}$. For the sake of concreteness we have
370: chosen the $f_{\rm B}$ factor that gives a better fit to the three
371: rates for each value of $f_{\rm Cl}$ for maximal mixing.
372: Namely, $f_{\rm B}$ is chosen as
373: %along the lines corresponding to $P_{\rm GP}=0.5$
374: %on the left panels in Fig.~\ref{chi2},
375: $f_{\rm B}\sim 0.8$ (0.9) for oscillations into active (sterile) neutrinos.
376: In Fig.~\ref{global_fb} the
377: left panels correspond to oscillations into active neutrinos and
378: the right ones into sterile neutrinos. Comparing this figure with
379: the corresponding panels in Figs.~\ref{global}
380: we see that lowering the $^8$B normalization leads to a larger overlap
381: between the allowed LMA region and the GP solution already for
382: $f_{\rm Cl}\leq 1.1$, in the case of oscillations into active neutrinos.
383:
384: \section{Conclusions}
385: It could be that nature has chosen the most unsophisticated scheme
386: of neutrino oscillations: three active neutrinos with
387: (nearly) bimaximal mixing. Mixing of $\nu_{\mu}$ and
388: $\nu_{\tau}$ explains the atmospheric neutrino anomaly, and of $\nu_e$ and
389: $\nu'=(1/\sqrt{2})(\nu_{\mu}+\nu_{\tau})$ the solar neutrino deficit.
390: In this case, the GP solution, provided by condition (\ref{oslength}),
391: naturally appears, and it is characterized by an energy-independent survival
392: probability $\langle P_{ee}\rangle= P_{\rm GP}$.
393:
394: The GP solution is disfavoured by the Homestake rate, but describes well
395: the other rates as well as the energy spectrum observed in SK.
396: The statistical significance of the GP solution strongly improves if one
397: assumes rescaling of the
398: chlorine rate by a factor $f_{\rm Cl}= 1.1$--$1.5$, while some
399: further improvement arises if the $^8$B neutrino flux is also
400: rescaled by a factor $f_{\rm B}=0.7$--$0.9$.
401: In particular if the $^8$B flux happens
402: to be 10--20\% lower than the BP00-predicted central value,
403: the GP solution for maximal mixing in active oscillations would be a\
404: llowed with a chlorine rescaling factor $f_{\rm Cl}\lesssim 1.1$.
405:
406: The GP solution will be directly searched for in the KamLand experiment
407: \cite{Kam}.
408: Detection of reactor neutrinos can result in the measurement
409: of $\Delta m^2$ in the interval $10^{-3}$--$3\times 10^{-6}~{\rm eV}^2$
410: for large mixing angles. If $\Delta m^2$ is found outside the LMA MSW
411: region or inside it at $\theta \approx \pi/4$, would mean the discovery of
412: the GP solution.
413:
414: In low energy solar neutrino experiments the signatures of the GP solution
415: are the ordinary suppression of $^7$Be neutrinos
416: given by a factor $P_{\rm GP}=\frac{1}{2}\sin^2 2\theta$
417: and the absence of anomalous
418: seasonal variations (beyond the geometrical ones). These features can be
419: clearly seen in Borexino \cite{Bor} and KamLand \cite{Kam}
420: experiments. \\*[1mm]
421: \noindent{\bf Note}\\*[1mm]
422: This work was presented by M.C.Gonzalez-Garcia at the Gran Sasso Laboratory
423: at the 5th Topical Workshop on
424: ``Solar Neutrinos: Where are the
425: Oscillations?'' (March 2001). On March 29 the preprint
426: by S.~Choubey, S.~Coswami, N.~Gupta and D.P.~Roy \cite{choubey}
427: appeared in the net.
428: The basic assumptions they used, rescaling of the chlorine and boron
429: fluxes, are the same as in our paper, but we are considering a GP
430: solution that is not, in principle, identical to the energy-independent
431: solution, studied in the aforementioned paper. The most noticeable
432: difference in our results relates to the low $\Delta m^2$ solutions
433: found in Ref.\cite{choubey} and shown in their figures 1 -4.
434: They are not present in our solutions partly due to interference term given
435: in our Eq.(\ref{P}) and disregarded in Ref.\cite{choubey}.
436:
437: \section*{Acknowledgement}
438: We are grateful to Francesco Vissani for useful discussions.
439: MCG-G is supported by the European Union Marie-Curie fellowship
440: HPMF-CT-2000-00516.
441: This work was also supported by the Spanish DGICYT under grants PB98-0693
442: and PB97-1261, by the Generalitat Valenciana under grant
443: GV99-3-1-01, and by the TMR network grant ERBFMRXCT960090 of the
444: European Union and ESF network 86.
445:
446: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
447:
448: \bibitem{BaPa}
449: V.~Barger, S.~Pakvasa, T.J.~Weiler and K.~Whisnant, Phys.Lett.{\bf B437}
450: (1998) 107.
451: %
452: \bibitem{NoYa}
453: Y.~Nomura and T.~Yanagida, Phys.Rev. {\bf D59} (1999)
454: 017303.
455: %
456: \bibitem{AlFe}
457: G.~Altarelli and F.~Feruglio, Phys.Lett. {\bf B439} (1998) 112.
458: %
459: \bibitem{Ma}
460: E.~Ma,Phys.Lett. {\bf B442} (1998) 238.
461: %
462: \bibitem{FrZi}
463: H.~Fritzsch and Z.~Xing, Phys. Lett. {\bf B372} (1998) 265.
464: %
465: \bibitem{GeGl}
466: H.~Georgi and S.L.~Glashow, Phys.Rev. {\bf D61} (2000) 097301.
467: %
468: \bibitem{MoNu}
469: R.N.~Mohapatra and S.~
470: Nussinov, Phys.Lett. {\bf B441} (1998) 299.
471: %
472: \bibitem{BaHa}
473: R.~Barbieri, L.J.~Hall and A.~Strumia, Phys.Lett. {\bf B445} (1999) 407.
474: %
475: \bibitem{Giu}
476: C.~Giunti, Phys.Rev. {\bf D59} (1999) 077301.
477: %
478: \bibitem{Vis}
479: F.~Vissani, hep-ph/9708483.
480: %
481: \bibitem{GP}
482: V.N.~Gribov and B.~Pontecorvo, Phys. Lett. {\bf B28} (1969) 493.
483: %
484: \bibitem{AcLe}
485: A.~Acker, J.G.~Learned, S.~Pakvasa and T.J.~Weiler, Phys. Lett {\bf B
486: 298} (1993) 149.
487: %
488: \bibitem{HaPe}
489: P.F.~Harrison, D.H.~Perkins and W.G.~Scott, Phys. Lett. {\bf B349}
490: (1995) 137.
491: %
492: \bibitem{Co}
493: G.~Conforto et al, Astropart. Phys. {\bf 5} (1996) 147.
494: %
495: \bibitem{BaGo}
496: A.J.~Baltz, A.S.~Goldhaber and M.~Goldhaber, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 81},
497: (1998) 5730.
498: %
499: \bibitem{Foot}
500: R.~Crocker, R.~Foot and R.R.~Volkas, Phys. Lett. {\bf B465} (1999) 203;
501: R. Foot, Phys. Lett. {\bf B483} (2000) 151.
502: %
503: \bibitem{choubey}
504: S.~Choubey, S.~Goswami, N.~Gupta and D.P.~Roy
505: (hep-ph/0103318).
506: %
507: \bibitem{ourmaxmix}
508: M.C.~Gonzalez-Garcia, C.~Pe\~na-Garay, Y.~Nir, A.Yu.~Smirnov,
509: Phys.~Rev.`{\bf D63} (2001) 013007.
510: %
511: \bibitem{msw}
512: S.P.~Mikheyev and A.Yu.~Smirnov, Sov. Jour. Nucl. Phys.
513: 42 (1985) 913; L.~Wolfenstein, Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D17} (1978) 2369.
514: %
515: \bibitem{earthmatter}
516: J.~Bouchez {\it et. al.}, Z. Phys. {\bf C32} (1986) 499.
517: S.P.~Mikheyev and A.Yu.~Smirnov, {\it '86 Massive Neutrinos in
518: Astrophysics and in Particle Physics}, proceedings of the Sixth
519: Moriond Workshop, edited by O. Fackler and J. Tr$\hat{a}$n Thanh
520: V$\hat{a}$n (Editions Fronti\`eres, Gif-sur-Yvette, 1986), pp. 355;
521: S.P.~Mikheyev and A.Yu.~Smirnov, Sov. Phys. Usp. 30 (1987) 759;
522: A.~Dar {\it et. al.} Phys. Rev. {\bf D 35} (1987) 3607;
523: E.D.~Carlson,Phys. Rev. {\bf D34} (1986) 1454;
524: A.J.~Baltz and J.~Weneser, Phys. Rev. {\bf D35} (1987) 528 ;
525: A.J.~Baltz and J.~Weneser, Phys. Rev. {\bf D37} (1988) 3364.
526: %
527: \bibitem{sage} SAGE Collaboration, J.N.~Abdurashitov {\it et al.},
528: Phys. Rev. {\bf C60} (1999) 055801; V.~Gavrin, talk at
529: XIX International Conference on Neutrino Physics and Astrophysics,
530: Sudbury, Canada, June 2000
531: ({\it http://{\-}nu2000.{\-}sno.{\-}laurentian.{\-}ca}).
532: %
533: \bibitem{gallex} GALLEX Collaboration, W.~Hampel {\it et al.},
534: Phys. Lett. {\bf B447} (1999) 127.
535: %
536: \bibitem{gno} E.~Belloti, talk at
537: XIX International Conference on Neutrino Physics and Astrophysics,
538: Sudbury, Canada, June 2000
539: ({\it http://{\-}nu2000.{\-}sno.{\-}laurentian.{\-}ca}).
540: %
541: \bibitem{sksol00}
542: S.~Fukuda {\it et al.} [SuperKamiokande Collaboration],
543: hep-ex/0103032.
544: %
545: \bibitem{Hom}
546: B.T.~Cleveland et al, Ap.J. {\bf 496} (1998) 505.
547: %
548: \bibitem{BP00}
549: J.N.~Bahcall and M.~Pinsonneault, astro-ph/0010346.
550: %
551: \bibitem{chooz}
552: M.~Appolonio et al, Phys. Lett. {\bf B 466} (1999) 415.
553: %
554: \bibitem{oursolar} M.C.~Gonzalez-Garcia, P.C.~de~Holanda,
555: C.~Pe\~na-Garay and J.W.F.~Valle, Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B573} (2000) 3;
556: M.C.~Gonzalez-Garcia, C.~Pe\~na-Garay,
557: Nucl.\ Phys.\ Proc.\ Suppl.\ {\bf 91} (2000) 80 .
558:
559: %
560: \bibitem{Kam}
561: For a recent status report see A.~Suzuki, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B}
562: (Proc. Suppl.) {\bf 77} (1999) 171.
563: %
564: \bibitem{Bor} L.~Oberauer,
565: Nucl. Phys. (Proc. Suppl.) {\bf 77} (1999) 48.
566: \end{thebibliography}
567: %
568: \begin{figure}
569: \begin{center}
570: \mbox{\epsfig{file=exp_1258.ps,height=0.3\textheight}}
571: \end{center}
572: \caption{Ratios of observed rates to the BP00 prediction for
573: the existing experiments. In the case of oscillations the ratios for
574: all experiments, except Super-Kamiokande, are equal to the $\nu_e$ survival
575: probability $P_{ee}$. For Super-Kamiokande the ratio SK gives $P_{ee}$
576: in the case of oscillation to sterile neutrinos, while for the
577: case of oscillation to active neutrino we plot
578: the corresponding $P_{ee,ac}$.}
579: \label{fig_exp}
580: \end{figure}
581: %
582: \begin{figure}
583: \begin{center}
584: \mbox{\epsfig{file=gp_prob_fin_bit.ps,height=0.4\textheight}}
585: \end{center}
586: \caption{Regions in $\Delta m^2$, $\tan^2\theta$ parameter space,
587: where the $\nu_e$ survival probability $P_{ee}(E)$ differs from the
588: energy-independent GP survival probability $P_{\rm GP}$ by less than 10\%
589: (lighter shadow) and less than 1\% (dark shadow). See the text for details.
590: }
591: \label{regp}
592: \end{figure}
593: %
594: \begin{figure}
595: \begin{center}
596: \mbox{\epsfig{file=chi2_gp.ps,width=0.9\textwidth}}
597: \end{center}
598: \caption{ $\chi^2$ analysis of the three observed rates as a function of the
599: $f_{\rm Cl}$ factor for different constant values of the survival
600: probability $P_{\rm GP}=0.5,0.59$ and $0.71$ (solid, dashed and dotted
601: lines respectively). The upper (lower) panels correspond to oscillations
602: into active (sterile) neutrinos.
603: In the left panels we have used BP00 boron fluxes ($f_{\rm B}=1$), while in the
604: central panels $f_{\rm B}$ is left free to optimize $\chi^2$. The resulting
605: $f_{\rm B}$ values which optimize $\chi^2$ for given $f_{\rm Cl}$ and
606: $P_{\rm GP}$ are plotted in the right panels.}
607: \label{chi2}
608: \end{figure}
609: %
610: \begin{figure}
611: \begin{center}
612: \mbox{\epsfig{file=rates_acst_bp00_bit.ps,height=0.8\textheight}}
613: \end{center}
614: \caption{99\% CL regions allowed
615: by the analysis of the experimental rates in GALLEX--GNO/SAGE,
616: SK and Chlorine experiments, for
617: BP00 fluxes, for different
618: values of $f_{\rm Cl}$ and for oscillations into active (left panels) and
619: sterile (right panels) neutrinos.
620: The dots mark the position of the best-fit points
621: in each panel. The effective GP solutions are marked as dark areas. }
622: \label{rates}
623: \end{figure}
624: %
625: \begin{figure}
626: \begin{center}
627: \mbox{\epsfig{file=global_acst_bp00_bit.ps,height=0.8\textheight}}
628: \end{center}
629: \caption{99\% CL regions allowed by the analysis of the three
630: experimental rates and the SK day--night spectrum,
631: for BP00 fluxes, for different
632: values of $f_{\rm Cl}$ and for oscillations into
633: active (left panels)
634: and sterile (right panels) neutrinos.
635: The dots mark the position of the best-fit points
636: in each panel.
637: The effective GP solutions are marked as dark areas. }
638: \label{global}
639: \end{figure}
640: %
641: \begin{figure}
642: \begin{center}
643: \mbox{\epsfig{file=global_acst_fb_bp00_bit.ps,height=0.8\textheight}}
644: \end{center}
645: \caption{
646: 99\% CL regions allowed
647: by the analysis of the three experimental rates and the SK
648: day--night spectra for different
649: values of $f_{\rm Cl}$ and $f_{\rm B}$, for oscillations into active
650: neutrinos (left panels) and sterile neutrinos (right panels).
651: The effective GP solutions are marked as dark areas.
652: The dots mark the position of the best-fit points
653: in each panel.}
654: \label{global_fb}
655: \end{figure}
656: \vskip 2cm
657: \vskip 2cm
658:
659: \end{document}
660:
661:
662:
663:
664:
665:
666:
667:
668:
669:
670:
671:
672:
673:
674:
675:
676:
677:
678:
679:
680:
681: