1: \documentclass{elsart}
2: \newcommand{\lesssim}{\raisebox{0.3mm}{\em $\, <$}
3: \hspace{-3.3mm} \raisebox{-1.8mm}{\em $\sim \,$}}
4: \newcommand{\gtrsim}{\raisebox{0.3mm}{\em $\, >$}
5: \hspace{-3.3mm} \raisebox{-1.8mm}{\em $\sim \,$}}
6: \begin{document}
7:
8: \begin{frontmatter}
9:
10:
11: \title{Summary of Working Group 1: Theory Part}
12:
13: \author{Osamu Yasuda}
14: \ead{yasuda@phys.metro-u.ac.jp}
15:
16: \address{Department of Physics, Tokyo Metropolitan University \\
17: 1-1 Minami-Osawa Hachioji, Tokyo 192-0397, \cny Japan}
18:
19:
20: \begin{abstract}
21: I will summarize theoretical issues in Working Group 1 at Nufact'01.
22: Although there may not be complete agreement yet on the exact optimum
23: baseline $L$ and the muon energy $E_\mu$ for measurements of the CP
24: phase at a neutrino factory, all the works done so far indicate that
25: the optimum set ($L$, $E_\mu$) tends to be smaller than (3000km,
26: 50GeV) if the uncertainty of the matter effect is assumed to be
27: larger than $\pm$5\% or the background fraction is much larger than
28: $10^{-5}$.
29: \end{abstract}
30:
31: \end{frontmatter}
32:
33: \section{Model Building}
34: In the three flavor framework of neutrino oscillations,
35: the only two parameters whose lower bound is not known
36: in the mixing matrix $U_{\rm MNSP}$ \footnote{
37: Petcov \cite{petcov} proposed that the neutrino
38: mixing matrix be referred to as the Pontecorvo-Maki-Nakagawa-Sakata
39: \cite{Maki:1962mu,Pontecorvo:1968fh}
40: matrix. Here I refer to the matrix as $U_{\rm MNSP}$.}
41: are $\theta_{13}$ and $\delta$, and the magnitude of
42: $|U_{e3}|=s_{13}$ is expected to give us a clue
43: to model buildings.
44: Tanimoto \cite{Tanimoto:2001aq} gave various examples of
45: models which predict the magnitude of $U_{e3}$.
46: Some (e.g., anarchy models) predict large
47: $U_{e3}\sim O(\lambda)$ where $\lambda\simeq 0.2$,
48: other models (those with some flavor symmetry or with the conformal
49: field fixed point) predict $U_{e3}\sim O(\lambda^2-\lambda)$
50: or $O(\lambda^3-\lambda)$, while Zee type models typically
51: give tiny $U_{e3}\ll\lambda^3$. Some GUT models predict testable
52: sum rules among $V_{\rm CKM}$ and $U_{\rm MNSP}$.
53: Koide \cite{Koide:2001dr} emphasized that the deviation of
54: the solar mixing angle
55: from the maximal mixing is small in the Zee model:
56: $1-\sin^22\theta_\odot\le(1/16)
57: (\Delta m_\odot^2/\Delta m_{\mbox{\rm\scriptsize atm}}^2)^2.$
58: This relation can be checked experimentally
59: in the near future.
60: Kitabayashi \cite{Kitabayashi:2001nw} presented
61: a model with a minimal $SU(3)_L\times U(1)_N$ gauge symmetry,
62: an approximate $L_e-L_\mu-L_\tau$ symmetry and a discrete
63: $Z_4$ symmetry. This model yields the LMA MSW solution
64: and explains the hierarchy
65: $|\Delta m_\odot^2|\ll|\Delta m_{\mbox{\rm\scriptsize atm}}^2|$
66: by loop corrections.
67: Leung \cite{Leung:2001zc} considered effective operators relevant for
68: generating small Majorana neutrino masses. All the effective higher
69: dimensional ($5\le d \le 11$) operators are compiled which conserve
70: baryon number and the SM gauge invariance but violate lepton number by
71: two units. If neutrinoless double $\beta$ decays are observed, then a
72: number of operators will be reduced.
73: Geer \cite{geer} discussed how precise measurements of the oscillation
74: parameters would give us useful information at high energy scale, by
75: taking a specific SUSY SO(10) GUT model with the LMA MSW solution. In
76: this particular example, superbeam experiments and/or neutrino
77: factories will constrain the possible values of the GUT-scale
78: parameters.
79:
80: \section{Analysis of solar and atmospheric neutrinos and $(\beta\beta)_{0\nu}$}
81:
82: Lisi \cite{lisi} reported on analysis of the atmospheric neutrino
83: data in two, three and four flavor frameworks.
84: In the two flavor framework it was shown that
85: $\nu_\mu\leftrightarrow\nu_\tau$ oscillation with maximal mixing
86: is robust. Also in the three flavor scenario,
87: by combining with the CHOOZ data the dominant oscillation
88: in the atmospheric neutrino was shown to be
89: $\nu_\mu\leftrightarrow\nu_\tau$, possibly with small
90: contribution of $\nu_\mu\leftrightarrow\nu_e$.
91: It was pointed out that non-hierarchical scenario where
92: $\Delta m^2_\odot\sim\Delta m^2_{\mbox{\rm\scriptsize atm}}$ holds are
93: not totally excluded yet.
94: In the four flavor case the data were analyzed with
95: the so-called (2+2)-scheme, and some contribution of
96: $\nu_\mu\leftrightarrow\nu_s$ is still allowed at present.
97:
98: Pe\~na-Garay \cite{penya} presented analysis of the solar
99: neutrino data in two, three and four flavor mixings.
100: In the case of two flavor active oscillations,
101: the LMA MSW solution is the best fit, and it is followed by
102: the LOW solution. The SMA MSW and vacuum solutions seem to
103: be disfavored now. In the two flavor sterile oscillations,
104: the SMA MSW solution is the best fit.
105: In the three flavor scenario, with the CHOOZ constraint,
106: the dominant channel is
107: $\nu_e\leftrightarrow (\nu_\mu-\nu_\tau)/\sqrt{2}$,
108: i.e., $\nu_e\leftrightarrow \nu_\mu$ and
109: $\nu_e\leftrightarrow \nu_\tau$ oscillations occur
110: with equal weight.
111: In the four neutrino mixing with the (2+2)-scheme,
112: the oscillation probability is characterized by
113: one additional parameter $|U_{s1}|^2+|U_{s2}|^2$
114: which becomes 0 (1) for pure active (sterile) oscillation,
115: respectively. By combining the analyses of the solar and atmospheric
116: neutrino data, it was found before the SNO data
117: that the case with pure $\nu_e\leftrightarrow \nu_s$
118: in the solar neutrinos and pure $\nu_\mu\leftrightarrow \nu_\tau$
119: in the atmospheric neutrinos is close to the best fit.
120: Even after the SNO data this solution is not excluded
121: yet \cite{Barger:2001zs,Gonzalez-Garcia:2001zi}.
122:
123: Petcov \cite{petcov} gave a talk on the neutrino mass spectrum
124: and CP violation
125: in the lepton sector in the three flavor framework.
126: Neutrinoless double $\beta$ decay experiments in
127: the future can provide information on the lightest neutrino mass and
128: the CP violation in the lepton sector. In particular, if a positive
129: result ($m_{\nu_e}\ge 0.35$eV) is reported from
130: neutrinoless double $\beta$ decay experiments, then
131: combining the data of ${}^3$H $\beta$ decay experiments
132: of the KATRIN project, it would allow us to determine
133: $m_1, m_2, m_3$ and to know the existence of the CP violation
134: in the lepton sector.
135:
136: \section{Various issues in neutrino factory and superbeams}
137: %\section{Three flavor scenario}
138:
139: In the past there have been a lot of discussions on the physics
140: potential of neutrino factories and conventional superbeams, and
141: people investigated the optimum baseline and the muon
142: (or neutrino) energy to
143: determine $\theta_{13}$, the sign of $\Delta m^2_{32}$ and the CP
144: phase $\delta$ of the MNSP matrix in the three flavor framework.
145: Recent progress includes the effects of correlations of errors of the
146: oscillation parameters, the background effects, etc. The ultimate
147: purpose of neutrino factories and conventional superbeams is to
148: determine $\delta$. So far all the discussions are based on indirect
149: measurements of CP violation, i.e., assuming
150: the three flavor mixing,
151: a quantity
152: \begin{eqnarray}
153: \Delta \chi^2_{\mbox{\rm{\scriptsize indirect}}}= \sum_j {\left[
154: N_j(\delta)-N_j(\delta=0)\right]^2 \over \sigma^2_j},
155: \label{eqn:indirect}
156: \end{eqnarray}
157: which compares
158: the difference of the cases of $\delta\ne0$ and $\delta=0$
159: with the errors, is optimized.
160: In (\ref{eqn:indirect}) $N_j(\delta)$ stands for a binned number of events with
161: $\delta$ and it is understood that
162: $\Delta \chi^2_{\mbox{\rm{\scriptsize indirect}}}$ is optimized
163: with respect to other parameters in $N_j(\delta=0)$.
164: As has been criticized by some people \cite{Sato:2000wv,konaka}, this
165: approach does not directly deal with CP violating processes, since
166: $\nu$ and $\bar{\nu}$ are not directly compared and what we wish to
167: have is an analogue of $N(K_L\rightarrow 2\pi)/N(K_L\rightarrow 3\pi)$
168: in the $K^0-\bar{K}^0$ system \cite{Minakata:2001rj}. However, such quantity
169: has not been discovered yet in the case of neutrino factories or any
170: very long baseline experiments, since the dependence of
171: the probabilities for $\nu$ and
172: $\bar{\nu}$ on $\delta$ and $A$ is such that
173: $P(\nu_\mu\rightarrow\nu_e)=f(E,L;\theta_{ij},\Delta
174: m^2_{ij},\delta;A)$ and $P(\bar{\nu}_\mu\rightarrow\bar{\nu}_e)
175: =f(E,L;\theta_{ij},\Delta m^2_{ij},-\delta;-A)$, where $f$ is a
176: certain function and $A\equiv \sqrt{2}G_F N_e$ stands for the matter
177: effect, and the quantity obtained from experiments on $\bar{\nu}$ is
178: $f(\cdots,-\delta;-A)$, so that comparison between $f(\cdots,\delta;A)$ and
179: $f(\cdots,-\delta;A)$ is impossible in a strict sense.
180: Therefore all the discussions
181: below basically use indirect measurements of CP violation.
182:
183: One of the important issues in the discussions on
184: uncertainties of the parameters is that of the density of
185: the Earth.
186: Geller, a geophysicist working on the three dimensional structure
187: of the Earth, explained the density distribution in the
188: Earth's Interior to physicists \cite{geller}.
189: To determine the density, there are complications. The neutrino path goes
190: through the upper mantle as well as the crust, so one
191: needs both crust models and regional upper mantle models
192: which are not well established with great accuracy
193: at present.
194: The distribution of the density is much less well
195: constrained than seismic velocities which are known
196: relatively well. Despite all these problems, from
197: ballpark guesses rather than rigorous error estimation procedures,
198: he concluded that the accuracy of estimates
199: of the average density along the neutrino beam is
200: at worst $\pm$10\% and is probably within $\pm$5\%.
201: There were two talks in which a method was presented to
202: treat the density profile which is in general not
203: constant.
204: Takasugi \cite{takasugi} discussed T violation
205: and derived a formula up to third order
206: in $\Delta m^2_{21}L/2E$ and $\delta a(x)L/2E$ where $\delta a(x)$
207: stands for deviation from the PREM. He concluded that
208: the asymmetric matter contribution to T violation
209: is negligible.
210: Ota \cite{ota} presented a method of
211: Fourier expansion of the density profile to discuss the matter effect
212: and its ambiguity, and showed that only the first few
213: coefficients are important.
214:
215: Lindner \cite{lindner} discussed the optimization of sensitivity
216: to $(\Delta m^2_{32}, \sin^22\theta_{23})$,
217: $\sin^22\theta_{13}$, $(\Delta m^2_{21}, \sin^22\theta_{12})$,
218: and $\delta$, taking into account
219: the correlations of errors of
220: the oscillations parameters and assuming that background
221: effects are negligible.
222: In the case of $(\Delta m^2_{32}, \sin^22\theta_{23})$,
223: the optimum baseline lies between
224: 1000km and 5000km.
225: In the case of $\sin^22\theta_{13}$,
226: 1000km$\lesssim L\lesssim$5000km gives similar results
227: for $\sin^22\theta_{13}\gtrsim 10^{-2}$ and
228: the optimum baseline is between 7000km and 8000km
229: for $\sin^22\theta_{13}\lesssim 10^{-3}$.
230: Sensitivity to $(\Delta m^2_{21}, \sin^22\theta_{12})$
231: turns out to be much worse than that of the KamLAND
232: experiment \cite{ishihara}.
233: As for $\delta$, the optimum baseline is around
234: 3000km and high energy ($E_\mu\gtrsim$40GeV) is preferred.
235: This result almost agrees with \cite{Cervera:2000kp} and
236: \cite{Pinney:2001bj}.\footnote{Strictly speaking,
237: there may not be exact agreement among these works
238: since the reference values for the oscillations parameters
239: ($\Delta m^2_{jk}$, $\theta_{jk}$), the conditions on
240: the backgrounds or on the uncertainty of the matter effect
241: and the statistical treatments are different among these
242: works. It should be clarified in the future work which
243: condition is important to obtain the different optimum
244: set ($L$, $E_\mu$). I would like to thank P. Huber for
245: communications on this point.}
246:
247: Burguet-Castell and Mena \cite{Burguet-Castell:2001uw}
248: refined their analysis in \cite{Cervera:2000kp}
249: of the sensitivity to $\delta$ and
250: $\theta_{13}$ by considering the full range of these
251: parameters. They found that there is twofold degeneracy
252: in ($\theta_{13}$, $\delta$). This is because
253: the expansion of the oscillation probabilities
254: to second order in $|\theta_{13}|\ll 1$ gives
255: a quadratic equation in $\theta_{13}$:
256: \begin{eqnarray}
257: P_{\nu_e\nu_\mu(\bar{\mu}_e\bar{\nu}_\mu)}
258: =X_\pm\theta_{13}^2+Y_\pm\theta_{13}\cos(\delta-{\Delta_{13}L \over 2})
259: +P^{sol},\nonumber
260: \end{eqnarray}
261: where notations are given in \cite{Burguet-Castell:2001ez}.
262: To resolve this degeneracy, a combination of
263: two baselines seems necessary.
264:
265: Pinney \cite{Pinney:2001bj} also discussed the optimum baseline and the
266: muon energy of a neutrino factory for $\delta$,
267: by taking into account the systematic errors and
268: the correlations of errors of the oscillation
269: parameters as well as the density of the Earth.
270: If the background fraction $f_B$ is $10^{-5}$ and
271: the uncertainty of the matter effect is $\pm$5\%, then
272: $E_\mu\sim$50GeV and $L\sim$3000km is the optimum
273: parameter set (this result almost agrees with those in
274: \cite{Cervera:2000kp} and \cite{lindner}), but if $f_B=10^{-3}$ or
275: if the uncertainty of the matter effect is $\pm$10\%, then
276: the lower muon energy ($E_\mu\lesssim$20GeV) and
277: the shorter baseline ($L\sim$1000km--3000km) gives the optimum.
278: In \cite{Pinney:2001xw} it was shown that
279: $\Delta \chi^2_{\mbox{\rm{\scriptsize indirect}}}$
280: used in the analysis in \cite{Pinney:2001xw} has behavior
281: \begin{eqnarray}
282: \Delta \chi^2_{\mbox{\rm{\scriptsize indirect}}}
283: \sim \left({J \over \sin\delta}\right)^2
284: {1 \over E_\mu}\left(
285: \sin\delta+\mbox{\rm const}{\Delta m^2_{32}L \over E_\mu}
286: \cos\delta\right)^2
287: \label{eqn:largeemu}
288: \end{eqnarray}
289: for large $E_\mu$ ($J$ stands for the Jarlskog parameter),
290: so that sensitivity to CP violation is lost
291: in the large $E_\mu$ limit.
292: (\ref{eqn:largeemu}) also suggests that neutrino factories
293: with $E_\mu\sim$50GeV and $L\sim$3000km are mainly
294: sensitive to $\sin\delta$ instead of $\cos\delta$.\footnote{
295: \cite{Koike:2000jf} criticized the analysis with
296: $\Delta \chi^2_{\mbox{\rm{\scriptsize indirect}}}$
297: ($=\chi^2_1(\delta_0)$ in the notation of \cite{Koike:2000jf})
298: by saying that $\chi^2_1(\delta_0)$ has the behavior
299: $\chi^2_1(\delta_0)\sim E_\mu(J/\sin\delta)^2(\cos\delta\pm1)^2$
300: in the large $E_\mu$ limit
301: and has sensitivity mainly to $\cos\delta$.
302: However, this argument does not include the effects due to
303: the correlations of errors, and once optimization with respect
304: to other parameters is done,
305: the correct behavior (\ref{eqn:largeemu}) is obtained.}
306:
307: Koike \cite{koike} presented their discussions in \cite{Koike:2000jf}
308: on the optimum baseline and the muon energy at neutrino factories.
309: His main strategy is to use
310: \begin{eqnarray}
311: \Delta {\widetilde\chi}^2_{\mbox{\rm{\scriptsize indirect}}}= \sum_j {\left[
312: N_j(\delta)-\bar{N}_j(\delta)-N_j(\delta=0)+\bar{N}_j(\delta=0)
313: \right]^2 \over \sigma^2_j},
314: \label{eqn:chi2}
315: \end{eqnarray}
316: where $\bar{N}_j(\delta)$ stands for a suitably normalized
317: binned number of events
318: for $\bar{\nu}_e\rightarrow\bar{\nu}_\mu$ oscillations
319: and again optimization with respect to other parameters
320: in $N_j(\delta=0)$ and $\bar{N}_j(\delta=0)$ is understood.
321: He claimed that
322: $\Delta {\widetilde\chi}^2_{\mbox{\rm{\scriptsize indirect}}}$
323: ($=\chi^2_2(\delta_0)$ in the notation of \cite{Koike:2000jf})
324: is sensitive to $\sin\delta$ whereas
325: $\Delta \chi^2_{\mbox{\rm{\scriptsize indirect}}}$
326: in (\ref{eqn:indirect}) is mainly to $\cos\delta$.
327: In my opinion, however,
328: $\Delta \chi^2_{\mbox{\rm{\scriptsize indirect}}}$
329: in (\ref{eqn:indirect}) and
330: $\Delta {\widetilde\chi}^2_{\mbox{\rm{\scriptsize indirect}}}$
331: in (\ref{eqn:chi2}) are basically the same, as
332: their large $E_\mu$ behaviors are the same after
333: the correlations of errors are taken into account
334: and both use indirect measurements of CP violation.
335: In fact, the conclusion by Koike that
336: $E_\mu\sim$10GeV and $L\sim$1000km optimizes the sensitivity
337: to $\delta$ almost agrees with that in \cite{Pinney:2001xw}
338: where the case of $\Delta C\equiv$ the uncertainty of the matter
339: effect=$\pm$10\%
340: and $f_B=10^{-5}$ was also considered (See Fig. 8 in \cite{Pinney:2001xw}).
341: Notice that Koike assumed that all the uncertainty
342: of the oscillation parameters as well as the matter effect
343: is $\pm$10\%.
344:
345: Wang \cite{wang} also discussed the optimum baseline for
346: experiments with conventional superbeams and for neutrino
347: factories by introducing a figure of merit which is defined as
348: \begin{eqnarray}
349: F_M={P \over \sqrt{(P+f_B)/N+(gP)^2+(rP)^2}},\nonumber
350: \end{eqnarray}
351: where $P$ is the oscillation probability, $N$ is the number of events,
352: $f_B$ is the background fraction, $r$ is the systematic uncertainty,
353: and $g$ is the uncertainty of the flux and the cross sections.
354: He concluded that $L\simeq$2000km--3000km is preferred for
355: measurements of
356: $\sin^22\theta_{13}$, $\delta$ and the sign of $\Delta m^2_{32}$.
357:
358: Minakata \cite{Minakata:2001rj} discussed the physics potential of
359: the phase II JHF experiment which is expected to have
360: 4MW power and 1Mt water Cherenkov detectors.
361: He examined
362: if it is possible to determine the $\sin^22\theta_{13}$,
363: the sign of $\Delta m^2_{32}$ and $\delta$
364: by introducing a CP trajectory diagram,
365: in which a point sweeps out an
366: ellipse in the $P(\nu_\mu\rightarrow\nu_e)$ --
367: $P(\bar{\nu}_\mu\rightarrow\bar{\nu}_e)$ plane
368: as $\delta$ ranges from 0 to $2\pi$.
369: The behavior of the ellipse varies depending on
370: the sign of $\Delta m^2_{32}$, and in certain cases
371: it is possible to determine $\delta$ and $\Delta m^2_{32}$
372: in the phase II JHF experiment. On the other hand,
373: if the oscillation parameters lie in unlucky regions,
374: then there is a twofold ambiguity in ($\delta$, $\Delta m^2_{32}$).
375: This ambiguity is resolved by putting another detector
376: at $L$=700km.
377:
378: Okamura \cite{okamura} discussed the physics potential of a very long
379: baseline experiment ($L$=2100km) with conventional superbeams
380: (3GeV$\lesssim E_{\mbox{\rm\scriptsize proton}}\lesssim$6GeV).
381: Taking into account the
382: correlations of errors and the background effects, he examined
383: sensitivity to the sign of $\Delta m^2_{32}$, $\sin^22\theta_{13}$,
384: ($\Delta m^2_{21}$, $\sin^22\theta_{12}$), and $\delta$. With such a
385: long baseline, sensitivity to the sign of $\Delta m^2_{32}$ is very
386: good, but sensitivity to ($\Delta m^2_{21}$, $\sin^22\theta_{12}$) is
387: poor as is naively expected. Sensitivity to $\delta$ is good for
388: $\sin^22\theta_{13}\gtrsim 0.05$, assuming the detector size
389: 100kt$\cdot$yr.
390:
391:
392: \section{Four neutrino scenarios}
393:
394: To account for the solar and atmospheric neutrino data
395: as well as the LSND result in terms of neutrino oscillations,
396: one has to have at least four neutrino mass eigenstates
397: since one would need at least three independent
398: mass squared differences. Four neutrino scenarios
399: are classified into two categories, the (2+2)-scheme and
400: the (3+1)-scheme, depending on the number of degenerate
401: mass eigenstates separated by
402: $\Delta m^2_{\mbox{\rm{\scriptsize LSND}}}$.
403:
404: Peres \cite{peres} reviewed the phenomenology of the (3+1)-scheme,
405: which is excluded by the LSND data
406: at 95\%CL but allowed at 99\%CL.
407: The upper left $3\times 3$ components
408: of the MNSP matrix for the (3+1)-scheme are supposed to
409: be close to those for the three flavor case, so it gives a good fit
410: to the data of the solar and atmospheric neutrino data.
411: The (3+1)-scheme is allowed only for
412: $\Delta m^2_{\mbox{\rm{\scriptsize LSND}}}\simeq$0.9, 1.7, 6.0 eV$^2$,
413: so the upper limit on the absolute neutrino masses would
414: constrain the allowed region of this scheme.
415: $\beta$ decay experiments, neutrinoless double $\beta$ decay experiments
416: and supernova neutrinos give some bounds.
417:
418: Bell \cite{Bell:2001yv} discussed how relic neutrino asymmetries may
419: be generated in the early universe via active-sterile oscillations.
420: In the two flavor framework it is known that asymmetry between $\nu$
421: and $\bar{\nu}$ is generated through active-sterile oscillations under
422: a certain condition for neutrino masses and the mixing parameters.
423: The implications of this mechanism to Big Bang Nucleosynthesis
424: was given in the case of a particular (2+2)-scheme model
425: where a $\nu_\mu - \nu_\tau$ pair is separated by a
426: $\nu_e - \nu_s$ pair, and the conclusion was that
427: $\delta N_\nu^{\rm eff}\simeq -0.3~(+0.1)$ for positive
428: (negative) asymmetry, respectively.
429:
430: Donini \cite{Donini:2001qv} compared the physics reach of
431: a neutrino factory in the (3+1)- and (2+2)-schemes.
432: In both schemes huge CP violating effects can be observed with
433: a 1Kt detector, $2\times 10^{-20}\mu$'s and $L=10-100$km in the
434: $\nu_\mu \rightarrow \nu_\tau$ channel.
435: In case a conclusive confirmation of the LSND
436: result is absent, it is difficult to
437: discriminate the (3+1)-scheme from the three flavor case
438: unless the mixing angle is large and it is easy to
439: discriminate the (2+2)-scheme from the three flavor case.
440:
441: \begin{thebibliography}{00}
442:
443: \bibitem{petcov}
444: \fussy
445: S.~Petcov, in these proceedings
446: \vglue 0.01cm
447: [http://www-prism.kek.jp/nufact01/May28/WG1/28wg1\_petcov.pdf].
448:
449: %\cite{Tanimoto:2001aq}
450: \bibitem{Tanimoto:2001aq}
451: M.~Tanimoto, in these proceedings
452: %``Implications of the measurements of U(e3) to theory,''
453: [arXiv:hep-ph/0106064].
454: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0106064;%%
455:
456: %\cite{Maki:1962mu}
457: \bibitem{Maki:1962mu}
458: Z.~Maki, M.~Nakagawa and S.~Sakata,
459: %``Remarks On The Unified Model Of Elementary Particles,''
460: Prog.\ Theor.\ Phys.\ {\bf 28} (1962) 870.
461: %%CITATION = PTPKA,28,870;%%
462:
463: %\cite{Pontecorvo:1968fh}
464: \bibitem{Pontecorvo:1968fh}
465: B.~Pontecorvo,
466: %``Neutrino Experiments And The Question Of Leptonic-Charge Conservation,''
467: Sov.\ Phys.\ JETP {\bf 26} (1968) 984
468: [Zh.\ Eksp.\ Teor.\ Fiz.\ {\bf 53} (1968) 1717].
469: %%CITATION = SPHJA,26,984;%%
470:
471: %\cite{Koide:2001dr}
472: \bibitem{Koide:2001dr}
473: Y.~Koide, in these proceedings
474: %``New trends in the Zee model,''
475: [arXiv:hep-ph/0109157].
476: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0109157;%%
477:
478: %\cite{Kitabayashi:2001nw}
479: \bibitem{Kitabayashi:2001nw}
480: T.~Kitabayashi and M.~Yasue, in these proceedings
481: %``LMA MSW solution in the minimal SU(3)L x U(1)N gauge model,''
482: [arXiv:hep-ph/0106144].
483: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0106144;%%
484:
485: %\cite{Leung:2001zc}
486: \bibitem{Leung:2001zc}
487: C.~N.~Leung, in these proceedings
488: %``Effective neutrino mass operators: A guide to model building,''
489: [arXiv:hep-ph/0108130].
490: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0108130;%%
491:
492: \bibitem{geer}
493: \fussy
494: S.~Geer, in these proceedings
495: \vglue 0.01cm
496: [http://www-prism.kek.jp/nufact01/May26/WG1/26wg1\_geer.pdf].
497:
498: \bibitem{lisi}
499: \fussy
500: E.~Lisi, in these proceedings
501: \vglue 0.01cm
502: [http://www-prism.kek.jp/nufact01/May28/WG1/28wg1\_lisi.pdf].
503:
504: \bibitem{penya}
505: \fussy
506: C.~Pena-Garay, in these proceedings
507: \vglue 0.01cm
508: [http://www-prism.kek.jp/nufact01/May28/WG1/28wg1\_garay.pdf].
509:
510: %\cite{Barger:2001zs}
511: \bibitem{Barger:2001zs}
512: V.~D.~Barger, D.~Marfatia and K.~Whisnant,
513: %``Unknowns after the SNO charged-current measurement,''
514: arXiv:hep-ph/0106207.
515: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0106207;%%
516:
517: %\cite{Gonzalez-Garcia:2001zi}
518: \bibitem{Gonzalez-Garcia:2001zi}
519: M.~C.~Gonzalez-Garcia, M.~Maltoni and C.~Pena-Garay,
520: %``Update on solar and atmospheric four-neutrino oscillations,''
521: hep-ph/0108073.
522: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0108073;%%
523:
524: %\cite{Sato:2000wv}
525: \bibitem{Sato:2000wv}
526: J.~Sato,
527: %``Neutrino oscillation and CP violation,''
528: Nucl.\ Instrum.\ Meth.\ A {\bf 472} (2000) 434
529: [arXiv:hep-ph/0008056].
530: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0008056;%%
531:
532: \bibitem{konaka}
533: A. Konaka, private communication.
534:
535: %\cite{Minakata:2001rj}
536: \bibitem{Minakata:2001rj}
537: H.~Minakata and H.~Nunokawa,
538: %``CP Trajectory Diagram: A tool for pictorial representation of CP and matter effects in neutrino oscillations,''
539: arXiv:hep-ph/0111130.
540: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0111130;%%
541:
542: \bibitem{geller}
543: \fussy
544: R.~Geller, in these proceedings
545: \vglue 0.01cm
546: [http://www-prism.kek.jp/nufact01/May28/WG1/28wg1\_geller.pdf].
547:
548: \bibitem{takasugi}
549: \fussy
550: E.~Takasugi, in these proceedings
551: \vglue 0.01cm
552: [http://www-prism.kek.jp/nufact01/May29/WG1/29wg1\_takasugi.pdf].
553:
554: \bibitem{ota}
555: \fussy
556: T.~Ota, in these proceedings
557: \vglue 0.01cm
558: [http://www-prism.kek.jp/nufact01/May29/WG1/29wg1\_ota.pdf].
559:
560: \bibitem{lindner}
561: \fussy
562: M.~Lindner, in these proceedings
563: \vglue 0.01cm
564: [http://www-prism.kek.jp/nufact01/May28/WG1/28wg1\_lindner.pdf].
565:
566: \bibitem{ishihara}
567: \fussy
568: K.~Ishihara, in these proceedings
569: \vglue 0.01cm
570: [http://www-prism.kek.jp/nufact01/May26/WG1/26wg1\_ishihara.pdf].
571:
572: %\cite{Cervera:2000kp}
573: \bibitem{Cervera:2000kp}
574: A.~Cervera, A.~Donini, M.~B.~Gavela, J.~J.~Gomez Cadenas, P.~Hernandez, O.~Mena and S.~Rigolin,
575: %``Golden measurements at a neutrino factory,''
576: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 579} (2000) 17
577: [Erratum-ibid.\ B {\bf 593} (2000) 731]
578: [arXiv:hep-ph/0002108].
579: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0002108;%%
580:
581: %\cite{Pinney:2001bj}
582: \bibitem{Pinney:2001bj}
583: J.~Pinney, in these proceedings
584: %``Correlations of errors in a CP-violation neutrino factory experiment,''
585: [arXiv:hep-ph/0106210].
586: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0106210;%%
587:
588: %\cite{Burguet-Castell:2001uw}
589: \bibitem{Burguet-Castell:2001uw}
590: J.~Burguet-Castell and O.~Mena, in these proceedings
591: %``Leptonic CP violation at the neutrino factory,''
592: [arXiv:hep-ph/0108109].
593: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0108109;%%
594:
595: %\cite{Burguet-Castell:2001ez}
596: \bibitem{Burguet-Castell:2001ez}
597: J.~Burguet-Castell, M.~B.~Gavela, J.~J.~Gomez-Cadenas, P.~Hernandez and O.~Mena,
598: %``On the measurement of leptonic CP violation,''
599: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 608} (2001) 301
600: [arXiv:hep-ph/0103258].
601: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0103258;%%
602:
603: %\cite{Pinney:2001xw}
604: \bibitem{Pinney:2001xw}
605: J.~Pinney and O.~Yasuda,
606: %``Correlations of errors in measurements of CP violation at neutrino factories,''
607: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 64} (2001) 093008
608: [arXiv:hep-ph/0105087].
609: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0105087;%%
610:
611: %\cite{Koike:2000jf}
612: \bibitem{Koike:2000jf}
613: M.~Koike, T.~Ota and J.~Sato,
614: %``Ambiguities of theoretical parameters and CP/T violation in neutrino factories,''
615: arXiv:hep-ph/0011387.
616: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0011387;%%
617:
618: \bibitem{koike}
619: \fussy
620: M.~Koike, in these proceedings
621: \vglue 0.01cm
622: [http://www-prism.kek.jp/nufact01/May29/WG1/29wg1\_koike.pdf].
623:
624: \bibitem{wang}
625: \fussy
626: Y.~F.~Wang, in these proceedings
627: \vglue 0.01cm
628: [http://www-prism.kek.jp/nufact01/May28/WG1/28wg1\_wang.pdf].
629:
630: \bibitem{okamura}
631: \fussy
632: N.~Okamura, in these proceedings
633: \vglue 0.01cm
634: [http://www-prism.kek.jp/nufact01/May29/WG1/29wg1\_okamura.pdf].
635:
636: \bibitem{peres}
637: \fussy
638: O.~L.~Peres, in these proceedings
639: \vglue 0.01cm
640: [http://www-prism.kek.jp/nufact01/May29/WG1/29wg1\_peres.pdf].
641:
642: %\cite{Bell:2001yv}
643: \bibitem{Bell:2001yv}
644: N.~F.~Bell, in these proceedings
645: %``Neutrino oscillations and big bang nucleosynthesis,''
646: [arXiv:hep-ph/0108123].
647: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0108123;%%
648:
649: %\cite{Donini:2001qv}
650: \bibitem{Donini:2001qv}
651: A.~Donini and D.~Meloni, in these proceedings
652: %``Physical reach of a neutrino factory in the 2+2 and 3+1 four-family scenario,''
653: [arXiv:hep-ph/0107274].
654: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0107274;%%
655:
656: \end{thebibliography}
657: \end{document}
658: