1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2: \documentstyle[aps,prd,preprint,epsfig,tighten]{revtex}
3: \begin{document}
4: \draft
5: %
6: \title{Indications on neutrino oscillations parameters \\
7: from initial K2K and current SK data}
8: %
9: \author{ G.L.\ Fogli,
10: E.\ Lisi,
11: and A.\ Marrone\\[4mm]
12: }
13: \address{Dipartimento di Fisica and Sezione INFN di Bari\\
14: Via Amendola 173, 70126 Bari, Italy \\ }
15:
16:
17: \maketitle
18: %
19: \begin{abstract}%............................................................
20: We briefly discuss the impact of initial data from the KEK-to-Kamioka (K2K)
21: neutrino experiment on the $\nu_\mu\to\nu_\tau$ oscillation parameters
22: ($m^2,\tan^2\psi$) currently indicated by the Super-Kamiokande (SK) atmospheric
23: neutrino experiment. After showing the very good agreement between K2K and SK,
24: we combine the two separate pieces of information. We find that the 99\% C.L.\
25: range for $m^2$ allowed by SK only, $m^2\in[1.3,\,5.6]\times10^{-3}$ eV$^2$,
26: is reduced to $[1.5,\,4.8]\times 10^{-3}$ eV$^2$ by including K2K data. By
27: halving the uncertainties of the K2K total rate (with central value
28: unchanged), the $m^2$ range would be ulteriorly reduced to
29: $[1.8,\,4.0]\times10^{-3}$ eV$^2$. Such information appears to be already
30: useful in planning (very) long baseline neutrino oscillation experiments.
31: \end{abstract}%.............................................................
32: \medskip
33: \pacs{\\ PACS number(s): 14.60.Pq, 13.15.+g, 95.55.Vj}
34:
35: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
36: \section{Introduction}
37: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
38:
39:
40:
41: The KEK-to-Kamioka (K2K) long baseline neutrino experiment \cite{K2K0} is
42: designed to explore, with laboratory neutrinos, the mechanism of $\nu_\mu$
43: disappearance indicated by the Super-Kamiokande (SK) \cite{Evid}, MACRO
44: \cite{MACR}, and Soudan~2 \cite{SOUD} atmospheric neutrino experiments. Such
45: mechanism appears to be dominated by $\nu_\mu\to\nu_\tau$ oscillations
46: \cite{3atm,Subd,Revi,Stau} with mass-mixing parameters $(m^2,\tan^2\psi)$ close
47: to $(3\times 10^{-3}{\rm\ eV}^2,\,1)$. The pathlength $(L=250{\rm\ km})$ and
48: typical energies ($E\sim{\rm few\ GeV}$) of K2K $\nu_\mu$'s are well suited to
49: study $\nu_\mu$ disappearance effects for such parameter values \cite{K2K0}.
50:
51:
52: The recent data released by the K2K experiment \cite{Ni01,Ju01,Ha01} (44
53: observed neutrino events {\em vs\/} 63.9 expected) are already inconsistent
54: with the no-oscillation hypothesis at about 97\% C.L.\
55: \cite{Ni01,Ju01,Ha01,Kwww}, and suggest disappearance of the muon neutrino
56: flavor in the path from KEK to Kamioka. The K2K collaboration is being
57: understandably rather conservative on the oscillation explanation of the data,
58: pending more accurate estimates of the K2K neutrino spectrum and interaction
59: uncertainties by means of the near detector \cite{KMRD}. However, it is
60: tempting to use just the minimum amount of spectrum-integrated data (i.e., the
61: total event rate, for which the error estimate appears to be relatively
62: stable), in order to study the compatibility of K2K and SK data \cite{Li01}.
63:
64:
65: In this paper we attempt to investigate such a compatibility issue, by
66: comparing predictions and data in both K2K and SK, within the simplest
67: (two-family) $\nu_\mu\to\nu_\tau$ oscillation framework. We show that the K2K
68: and the SK data are consistent, and that their combination starts to be useful
69: in constraining further the oscillation parameters. In particular, the 99\%
70: C.L.\ range for $m^2$ allowed by SK only, $m^2\in[1.3,\,5.6]\times10^{-3}$
71: eV$^2$, is reduced to $[1.5,\,4.8]\times 10^{-3}$ eV$^2$ by including K2K
72: data. Finally we show that, by halving the K2K total rate error, the $m^2$
73: range would be ulteriorly reduced to $[1.8,\,4.0]\times10^{-3}$ eV$^2$.
74:
75:
76:
77: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
78: \section{Analysis of K2K}
79: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
80:
81: Analyses of K2K data have to consider the energy spectrum of parent neutrinos
82: at the far detector $S(E)$, i.e., the spectrum of neutrino that have produced a
83: detected interaction at the Kamioka site. Such spectrum is, in general, given
84: by the product of the unoscillated neutrino energy spectrum $\Phi$ at the far
85: (SK) detector, times the interaction cross section $\sigma$, times the
86: detection efficiency $\varepsilon$ (all in differential form), integrated over
87: all the final state parameters (simbolically, $S=\int
88: \Phi\cdot\sigma\cdot\varepsilon$). The spectrum $S(E)$ is important since, in
89: the presence of neutrino mass and mixing, the oscillated event rate can be
90: expressed as $r=\int dE\;S(E)\cdot P_{\mu\mu}(E)$ [to be compared with the
91: unoscillated rate, $r_0=\int dE\;S(E)$], where $P_{\mu\mu}$ is the $\nu_\mu$
92: survival probability.
93:
94:
95: At present, there is enough public information on $\Phi$ \cite{Ni01,Ju01,Ha01},
96: but not yet on the product $\sigma \cdot\varepsilon$ relevant for the far
97: detector specifications. Therefore, a direct and accurate reconstruction of the
98: spectrum $S(E)$ and of its uncertainties is not possible outside the K2K
99: collaboration, at least at present. However, an indirect, approximate
100: reconstruction can be made, by considering that: (a) the neutrino spectrum is
101: practically zero above 5 GeV \cite{Ni01}; and (b) according to the K2K
102: MonteCarlo (MC) simulation, for the current exposure ($3.85\times 10^{19}$
103: p.o.t.) one has $r_0=63.9$ events, while $r=41.5$, 27.4, and 23.1 events for
104: $m^2=3$, 5, and $7\times 10^{-3}$ eV$^2$, respectively, assuming maximal mixing
105: \cite{Ni01,Ju01,Ha01}. We have then introduced an empirical functional form
106: for the spectrum, $S(E)\propto x^\alpha(1-x)^\beta$ with $x=E/(5 {\rm\
107: GeV})$, which is found to reproduce well the above MC results for
108: $(\alpha,\,\beta)=(1.50,\,3.34)$. In the following analysis we use such
109: interacted neutrino spectrum, since it gives---by construction---results close
110: to the K2K MC simulation, after integration over $P_{\mu\mu}(E)$. A more
111: accurate (and less tentative) parametrization of $S(E)$ shall be possible
112: after the experimental specifications and selection cuts (relevant to determine
113: $\sigma \cdot \varepsilon$ and its uncertainties) will be measured and
114: described in detail.
115:
116:
117: Concerning the uncertainties, the current systematic error on the total rate is
118: estimated to be 10\% by the K2K Collaboration \cite{Ni01,Ju01,Ha01}. Spectral
119: bins may be affected by larger (and correlated) errors \cite{Ni01,Ju01,Ha01},
120: which, however, do not affect our spectrum-averaged analysis. Therefore, we
121: attach a $10\%$ fractional error to the oscillated number of events
122: $r=r(m^2,\tan^2\psi)$, while the statistical (Poisson) error $\sigma_{\rm
123: stat}=\sqrt{44}$ is attached to the number of observed events, $r_{\rm
124: exp}=44$. The $\chi^2$ statistics for K2K is then simply given by $(r-r_{\rm
125: exp})^2/\sigma^2_{\rm tot}$, where $\sigma^2_{\rm tot}=\sigma^2_{\rm
126: stat}+(0.1\,r)^2$. With such definition, the no oscillation hypothesis
127: ($r=r_0$) is disfavored at 97\% C.L.\ ($\chi^2=4.7$ for $N_{\rm DF}=1$),
128: consistently with the current claim of the K2K Collaboration
129: \cite{Ni01,Ju01,Ha01,Kwww}.
130:
131:
132: Figure~1 shows the number $r$ of K2K events for the current exposure ($3.85
133: \times 10^{19}$ p.o.t.), as a function of $m^2$, for maximal mixing
134: $(\tan^2\psi=1)$. The solid curve, corresponding to our calculation of
135: $r(m^2)$, starts from $63.9$ events in the no-oscillation limit ($m^2\to 0$),
136: and tends to the asymptotic value of 63.9/2 in the fast oscillation limit
137: ($m^2\to\infty$), after a few ``wiggles'' associated to the first oscillation
138: cycles. The curve is very close to the four K2K MC points used to benchmark our
139: calculation. The horizontal gray band represents the $\pm 1\sigma_{\rm tot}$
140: interval for the total number of observed events in K2K. The allowed band
141: disfavors no oscillations at $2.2\sigma$, and the first deep oscillation
142: minimum at $2.7\sigma$. It is instead in very good agreement with the
143: oscillated predictions for $m^2\sim{\rm few}\times 10^{-3}$ eV$^2$, the best
144: fit being reached at $m^2=2.7\times 10^{-3}$ eV$^2$. Such a value is very close
145: to the one independently quoted by the SK Collaboration as the current best fit
146: to their atmospheric neutrino data ($m^2=2.5\times 10^{-3}$ eV$^2$)
147: \cite{Tots}, under the same $\nu_\mu\to\nu_\tau$ oscillation hypothesis.%
148: %-------------
149: \footnote{It is also very close to the best fit of upgoing muon data in MACRO,
150: $m^2=2.4\times 10^{-3}$ eV$^2$ \protect\cite{MACR}.}
151: %------------
152: Therefore, it makes sense to combine K2K and SK data, as we do in the following
153: section.
154:
155:
156: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
157: \section{K2K and SK: combination and and implications}
158: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
159:
160:
161: Given the very good agreement between the K2K and SK allowed ranges for $m^2$
162: at maximal mixing, it is interesting to study their compatibility for
163: unconstrained $2\nu$ mixing. Concerning the SK atmospheric $2\nu$ analysis, we
164: make use of the results recently reported by us in \cite{Subd} (for 79.5 kTy SK
165: data), specialized to the simplest scenario of pure $\nu_\mu\to\nu_\tau$
166: oscillations.%
167: %---------------------------------------------
168: \footnote{Therefore, in this work we use $N_{\rm DF}=2$ to draw iso-$\Delta
169: \chi^2$ contours, while we used $N_{\rm DF}=3$ for the more general $3\nu$ and
170: $4\nu$ cases considered in \protect\cite{Subd}.}
171: %------------------------------------
172:
173:
174: Figure~2 shows the regions allowed at 90\% and 99\% C.L.\ by SK, K2K, and
175: their combination, in the $2\nu$ mass-mixing plane $(m^2,\tan^2\psi)$. The
176: upper left panel corresponds to SK atmospheric data only, for which we find
177: two degenerate best-fit points (stars) at $m^2=3\times 10^{-3}$ eV$^2$ and at
178: octant-symmetric mixing values, $(\tan^2\psi)^{\pm 1}=0.76$, corresponding
179: to slightly nonmaximal oscillation amplitude, $\sin^22\psi=0.98$.%
180: %-------
181: \footnote{However, such small deviations from maximal mixing at best fit (also
182: found in \protect\cite{Pena}) are not statistically significant at present.}
183: %------
184:
185:
186: The upper right panel in Fig.~2 shows the fit to K2K only. The locus of
187: best-fit points is a continuous, octant-symmetric curve (not shown) passing
188: through $(m^2/{\rm eV}^2,\,\tan^2\psi)=(2.7\times 10^{-3},\,1)$. The K2K
189: constraints in the mass-mixing plane are weaker than those placed by SK,
190: especially on $\tan^2\psi$. Therefore, one cannot expect a significant
191: improvement on $\tan^2\psi$ limits from the SK+K2K combination. Concerning
192: $m^2$, the no-oscillation limit $m^2\to0$ is still allowed at 99\% C.L., while
193: values around $m^2\simeq 8.5\times 10^{-3}$ eV$^2$ are excluded (for large
194: mixing). Such values correspond to the first (deep) oscillation minimum in
195: Fig.~1, which is disfavored by the data at $2.7\sigma$, as previously noted.
196: Therefore, in the SK+K2K combination, we expect ``high'' values of $m^2$ to be
197: more disfavored than ``low'' values.
198:
199:
200: The lower left panel in Fig.~2 shows the combination of SK and K2K data. The
201: best-fit points are located at the same values of $\tan^2\psi$ as for SK alone
202: and, in general, the bounds on $\tan^2\psi$ are not significantly modified, as
203: expected. The best-fit value of $m^2$ is only slightly lowered ($m^2=2.9\times
204: 10^{-3}$ eV$^2$) but, most importantly, the 90\% and 99\% C.L.\ ranges of $m^2$
205: are appreciably reduced both from below and (more strongly) from above. Such
206: results show that the K2K experiment is already having a nonnegligible impact
207: in the determination of the neutrino squared mass difference $m^2$ relevant
208: for the $\nu_\mu\to\nu_\tau$ channel and for the leading oscillations in (very)
209: long baseline experiments.
210:
211:
212: The lower right panel in Fig.~2 shows a prospective SK+K2K combination, with
213: the same SK data and K2K data but with K2K total uncertainty hypothetically
214: reduced by a factor of two. The $m^2$ range is significantly narrowed, while
215: the $\tan^2\psi$ range is still basically unchanged. In summary, the various
216: panels of Fig.~2 demonstrate that K2K data are relevant for the determination
217: of $m^2$, rather than of $\tan^2\psi$. Therefore, it makes sense to discuss in
218: more detail the results of Fig.~2 in terms of $m^2$ only, with $\tan^2\psi$
219: unconstrained.
220:
221:
222: Figure~3 shows the results of such an exercise, in terms of the function
223: $\chi^2(m^2)$. The 90\% and 99\% C.L.\ ranges for $m^2$ ($N_{\rm DF}=2$) are
224: explicitly shown for the SK and SK+K2K fits. Numerically, we find that the 99\%
225: C.L.\ range for $m^2$ allowed by SK only, $m^2\in[1.3,\,5.6]\times10^{-3}$
226: eV$^2$, is reduced to $[1.5,\,4.8]\times 10^{-3}$ eV$^2$ by including K2K
227: data. By halving the uncertainties of the K2K total rate, the $m^2$ range
228: would be ulteriorly reduced to $[1.8,\,4.0]\times10^{-3}$ eV$^2$
229: (99\% C.L.).
230:
231:
232: The reduction of the minimum values of $m^2$ in Fig.~3 (at a given C.L.) is
233: relevant for future (very) long baseline experiments. For instance, in the
234: OPERA experiment \cite{OPER} downstream the CERN-to-Gran Sasso neutrino beam,
235: the $\tau$ appearance rate is approximately proportional to $(m^2)^2$
236: \cite{OPER}; therefore, the increase of $m^2_{\min}$ from $1.3\times10^{-3}$
237: eV$^2$ (SK) to $1.5\times10^{-3}$ eV$^2$ (SK+K2K) at 99\% C.L.\ implies an
238: increase of the minimum expected $\tau$ event rate by a factor $\sim 1.3$ (at
239: the same C.L.); the increase would be as high as a factor $\sim 2$ for the case
240: with halved K2K errors ($m^2_{\min}=1.8\times 10^{-3}$ eV$^2$). The reduction
241: of the $m^2$ allowed range is also important to refine the energy or baseline
242: optimization in future neutrino factory experiments, where the current $m^2$
243: uncertainty plays an important role (see, e.g., \cite{Opti} and references
244: therein). Finally, the increase of $m^2_{\min}$ strengthens the accuracy of
245: approximations based on the hierarchy of squared mass differences, which have
246: long been used in global solar+terrestrial neutrino analyses (see, e.g.,
247: \cite{Subd,Pena,Hier}).
248:
249:
250: A final remark is in order. Our current analysis is based on initial K2K data
251: and on an approximate description of the K2K detector specification. Therefore,
252: it cannot be a substitute of the (joint) official oscillation analysis that
253: will be performed by the K2K (SK+K2K) collaboration(s). However, we think that
254: our results, although necessarily approximate, are sufficiently indicative of
255: the K2K potential in improving our current knowledge of $\nu_\mu\to\nu_\tau$
256: oscillations.
257:
258: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
259: \section{Summary}
260: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
261:
262:
263: We have shown that, within the simplest (two-family) $\nu_\mu\to\nu_\tau$
264: oscillation scenario, the initial evidence for a $\nu_\mu$ flux suppression in
265: K2K is perfectly consistent with the atmospheric $\nu_\mu$ flux anomaly. The
266: range of the neutrino squared mass difference indicated by the SK atmospheric
267: $\nu$ experiment is reduced by including the K2K data. As a consequence, K2K
268: starts to be important in narrowing the range of predictions for future (very)
269: long baseline experiment.
270:
271:
272: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
273: \acknowledgments
274:
275:
276: We thank T.\ Hasegawa and T.\ Maruyama for very useful information about the
277: K2K experiment. E.L.\ thanks the organizers of the TAUP Conference, where
278: preliminary results of this work were presented, for kind hospitality. This
279: work was supported by the Italian Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare (INFN)
280: and Ministero dell'Istruzione, Universit\`a e Ricerca (MIUR) within the
281: ``Astroparticle Physics'' project.
282:
283:
284: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
285: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
286:
287:
288: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
289:
290: \bibitem{K2K0} K2K Collaboration, S.H.\ Ahn {\em et al.},
291: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 511}, 178 (2001).
292:
293: \bibitem{Evid} Super-Kamiokande Collaboration, Y.\ Fukuda {\em et al.},
294: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 81}, 1561 (1998).
295:
296: \bibitem{MACR} MACRO Collaboration, M.\ Ambrosio {\em et al.},
297: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 517}, 59 (2001).
298:
299: \bibitem{SOUD} Soudan-2 Collaboration, W.W.M.\ Allsion {\em et al.},
300: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 449}, 137 (1999).
301:
302: \bibitem{3atm} G.L.\ Fogli, E.\ Lisi, A.\ Marrone, and G.\ Scioscia,
303: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 59}, 033001 (1999).
304:
305: \bibitem{Subd} G.L.\ Fogli, E.\ Lisi, and A.\ Marrone,
306: hep-ph/0105139 (to appear in Phys.\ Rev.\ D).
307:
308: \bibitem{Revi} T.\ Kajita and Y.\ Totsuka,
309: Rev.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ {\bf 73}, 85 (2001).
310:
311: \bibitem{Stau} Super-Kamiokande Collaboration, S.\ Fukuda {\em et al.},
312: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 85}, 3999 (2000).
313:
314: \bibitem{Ni01} K.\ Nishikawa,
315: in the Proceedings of the International Europhysics Conference
316: on High Energy Physics (Budapest, Hungary, July 2001), to
317: appear. Transparencies available at www.hep2001.elte.hu~.
318:
319: \bibitem{Ju01} C.K.\ Jung,
320: in the Proceedings of the XX International Symposium on Lepton
321: and Photon Interactions at High Energies (Rome, Italy, July
322: 2001), to appear. Transparencies available at
323: www.lp01.infn.it~.
324:
325: \bibitem{Ha01} T.\ Hasegawa,
326: in the Proceedings of {\em TAUP 2001}, 7th International
327: Workshop on Topics in Astroparticle and Underground Physics
328: (Laboratori Nazionali del Gran Sasso, Italy, Sept.\ 2001), to
329: appear. Transparencies available at taup2001.lngs.infn.it~.
330:
331: \bibitem{Kwww} K2K experiment website, http://neutrino.kek.jp~.
332:
333: \bibitem{KMRD} K2K Muon Range Detector Group, T.\ Ishii {\em et al.},
334: hep-ex/0107041.
335:
336: \bibitem{Li01} E.\ Lisi
337: in {\em TAUP 2001\/} \protect\cite{Ha01}.
338:
339: \bibitem{Tots} Y.\ Totsuka
340: in {\em TAUP 2001\/} \protect\cite{Ha01}.
341:
342: \bibitem{Pena} M.C.\ Gonzalez-Garcia, M.\ Maltoni, and C.\ Pe{\~n}a-Garay,
343: hep-ph/0108073.
344:
345: \bibitem{OPER} OPERA Collaboration, M.\ Guler {\em et al.},
346: CERN Report SPSC-2001-025, available at
347: operaweb.web.cern.ch~.
348:
349: \bibitem{Opti} M.\ Freund, P.\ Huber, and M.\ Lindner,
350: hep-ph/0105071;
351: Y.\ Wang, K.\ Whisnant, and B.\ Young,
352: hep-ph/0109053.
353:
354: \bibitem{Hier} G.L.\ Fogli, E.\ Lisi, and D.\ Montanino,
355: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 49}, 3626 (1994);
356: Astropart.\ Phys.\ {\bf 4}, 177 (1995).
357:
358: \end{thebibliography}
359:
360:
361: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
362: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
363: %%%%%%% P O S T S C R I P T F I G U R E S
364: %%%%%%% memo: to include them add epsfig in the \documentstyle
365: %%%%%%% and move this part before \end{document}.
366: %%%%%%% Include the following \newcommand:
367: %%----------------------------------------------------------------------------
368: \newcommand{\InsertFigure}[2]{\newpage\begin{center}\mbox{%
369: \epsfig{bbllx=1.4truecm,bblly=1.3truecm,bburx=19.5truecm,bbury=26.5truecm,%
370: height=22truecm,figure=#1}}\end{center}\vspace*{-2.8truecm}%
371: \parbox[t]{\hsize}{\small\baselineskip=0.5truecm\hspace*{0.5truecm} #2}}
372: %----------------------------------------------------------------------------
373: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
374: %..............................................................................
375: \InsertFigure{fig01.ps}%
376: {FIG.~1. Number of events in K2K for the current exposure ($3.85\times
377: 10^{19}$ p.o.t.), as a function of $m^2$ (at $\tan^2\psi=1$). Our calculation
378: (solid curve) is benchmarked by the K2K MC simulation (square markers). The
379: horizontal gray band represents the current K2K data within one standard
380: deviation. }
381: %..............................................................................
382: \InsertFigure{fig02.ps}%
383: {FIG.~2. Separate two-flavor oscillation analyses of SK and K2K, together with
384: their combination (with eventual halving of K2K errors). See the text for
385: details.}
386: %..............................................................................
387: \InsertFigure{fig03.ps}%
388: {FIG.~3. Bounds on $m^2$ at 90\% and 99\% C.L.\ ($N_{\rm DF}=2$) from the
389: two-flavor $\chi^2$ analysis of the SK and K2K data.}
390:
391: \eject
392: \end{document}
393: %=================================================
394: