1: \documentstyle[eqsecnum,epsfig,aps,prd]{revtex}
2: \let\jnfont =\rm
3: \def\NPB#1,{{\jnfont Nucl.\ Phys.\ B }{\bf #1},}
4: \def\PLB#1,{{\jnfont Phys.\ Lett.\ B }{\bf #1},}
5: \def\PRD#1,{{\jnfont Phys.\ Rev.\ D } {\bf #1},}
6: \def\PRL#1,{{\jnfont Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ }{\bf #1},}
7: \def\ZPC#1,{{\jnfont Z.~Phys.\ C }{\bf #1},}
8: \setlength{\topmargin}{0.5cm} \setlength{\textheight}{8.7in}
9: %\setlength{\textwidth}{6.2in}
10: \setlength{\textwidth}{5.8in} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{.3in}
11: \setlength{\baselineskip}{3.5ex}
12: \begin{document}
13: %\draft
14: %\preprint{ VLBL Study Group-H2B-6\\ AMES-HET-02-05 }
15:
16: \hfill\vtop{
17: \hbox{VLBL Study Group-H2B-6}
18: \hbox{AMES-HET-02-05}
19: \hbox{hep-ph/0208193}
20: \hbox{}}
21:
22: \vspace*{.25in}
23: \begin{center}
24: {\large\bf Measuring $CP$ violation and mass ordering in\\
25: joint long baseline experiments with superbeams}\\[10mm]
26: K. Whisnant$^a$, Jin Min Yang$^b$, Bing-Lin Young$^a$\\[5mm]\it
27: $^a$ Department of Physics and Astronomy, Iowa State
28: University, Ames, Iowa 50011, USA\\
29: $^b$ Institute of Theoretical Physics, Academia Sinica, Beijing 100080, China
30: \end{center}
31: \date{\today}
32: \thispagestyle{empty}
33:
34: \begin{abstract}
35:
36: We propose to measure the $CP$ phase $\delta_{\rm CP}$, the magnitude
37: of the neutrino mixing matrix element $|U_{e3}|$ and the sign of the
38: atmopheric scale mass--squared difference $\Delta{\rm m}^2_{31}$ with
39: a superbeam by the joint analysis of two different long baseline
40: neutrino oscillation experiments. One is a long baseline experiment
41: (LBL) at 300 km and the other is a very long baseline (VLBL)
42: experiment at 2100 km. We take the neutrino source to be the approved
43: high intensity proton synchrotron, HIPA. The neutrino beam for the
44: LBL is the 2-degree off-axis superbeam and for the VLBL, a narrow band
45: superbeam. Taking into account all possible errors, we evaluate the
46: event rates required and the sensitivities that can be attained for
47: the determination of $\delta_{\rm CP}$ and the sign of $\Delta
48: m^2_{31}$. We arrive at a representative scenario for a reasonably
49: precise probe of this part of the neutrino physics.
50:
51: \end{abstract}
52:
53: \section{Introduction}
54: \label{sec1}
55:
56: The Super-Kamiokande experiments~\cite{superK} in the past several
57: years, joined by SNO~\cite{other} more recently, have given strong
58: indications of neutrino oscillation that are corroborated and
59: constrained by a variety of other experiments. These experiments
60: started a new era in the study of neutrino physics and offered the
61: best indication to date of physics beyond the standard model. To
62: further probe neutrino physics, there are a number of ongoing and
63: planned neutrino oscillation experiments. These experiments promise
64: to give a full description of the phenomenology of neutrino mixing.
65: The most attractive experiments among the new generation of neutrino
66: oscillation experiments are the long baseline (LBL) experiments. They
67: are performed in the controlled environment of traditional
68: experimental high energy physics and expected to allow precision
69: measurements of the oscillation parameters, including the leptonic
70: $CP$ phase. Notably, the recently approved superbeam facility, the
71: High Intensity Proton Accelerator (HIPA)~\cite{HIPA}, which can
72: provide intensive high energy neutrino beams from its 50 GeV proton
73: synchrotron, offers the possibility of even more desirable LBL
74: experiments. So far, the possibility of two LBL experiments using the
75: HIPA superbeam have been discussed. One is HIPA to Kamiokande at a
76: baseline length of about 300~km ~\cite{J2K} known as J2K, and the
77: other is HIPA to a detector located 2100 km away near
78: Beijing~\cite{H2B,Japanesegroup} called H2B. It is well-known that
79: there are parameter ambiguities that are generally associated with
80: oscillation measurements at a single baseline\cite{ambiguities,huber}.
81: Measurements at more than one baseline can be
82: beneficial~\cite{Japanesegroup,bmw2001,mena}; our previous
83: studies~\cite{joint,optimum} showed that the joint analysis of the J2K
84: and H2B experiments can offer extra leverages to resolve some of these
85: ambiguities. Our results, however, also showed that $CP$ violation
86: effects cannot be determined at 3$\sigma$ level even with the joint
87: analysis considered in the study, in which no antineutrino beams were
88: used.
89:
90: Since the leptonic $CP$ phase and mass--squared difference sign are
91: pertinent information in the physics of neutrino mixings, which seems
92: to be very different from that of the quark sector, it is necessary to
93: find out how to pin down these neutrino mixing parameters accurately
94: in new experiments. It has been widely recognized that the neutrino
95: factory~\cite{geer} is an ideal facility for the study of neutrino mixings.
96: However, because of the technical and budgetary challenges faced with
97: building a workable neutrino factory in the near future, and because
98: of the availability of a conventional superbeam from HIPA in about
99: five years, it is obviously advisable that we explore the full
100: potential of the HIPA superbeams. In this work, we examine in further
101: detail the measurement of the $CP$ phase and the mass--squared
102: difference sign from the joint analysis at the two long baselines with
103: specific HIPA superbeams and more suitable detectors. The neutrino
104: beams are the 2-degree off-axis superbeams for the LBL at 300 km and a
105: narrow band superbeam for VLBL at 2100 km. We evaluate the event rates
106: and investigate their sensitivities to the $CP$ phase and the sign of
107: $\Delta m^2_{31}$. Taking into account all possible experimental
108: errors, we find that a fairly precise measurement of the $CP$ phase, the
109: sign of the mass--squared difference and the mixing angle
110: $\theta_{13}$ is possible but requires: (1) the joint analysis at the
111: two baselines; (2) that both a $\nu_{\mu}$ beam and a $\bar \nu_{\mu}$
112: beam are needed at 300 km; (3) that a $\bar \nu_{\mu}$ beam is needed
113: at 2100 km if $\Delta m^2_{31}$ is negative; and (4) a significant
114: increase in the statistics at both 300 km and 2100 km. We find that
115: $\sin^2(2\theta_{13})$ can be probed to very small values, depending
116: on the value of the $CP$ phase.
117:
118: In Sec.~II we describe how the simulations are performed. In Sec.~III
119: our results are presented. A brief discussion and conclusion can be
120: found in Sec.~IV.
121:
122: \section{Description of simulations }
123: \label{sec2}
124: \subsection{Parametrization and inputs}
125:
126: Our oscillation analyses will be restricted to 3 flavors of active
127: neutrinos.
128: %The oscillation of the 3-flavor neutrinos is a system with a limited number
129: %of degrees of freedom.
130: The parameters of the system consists of 2 mass--squared differences
131: (MSD), 3 mixing angles and 1 measurable $CP$ phase. The unitary
132: mixing matrix in the vacuum is parameterized as usual
133: \begin{eqnarray}
134: U & = & \left( \begin{array}{ccc} c_{12}c_{13} & c_{13}s_{12} &
135: \hat{s}^*_{13} \\ -c_{23}s_{12} - c_{12}\hat{s}_{13}s_{23} &
136: c_{12}c_{23} -s_{12}\hat{s}_{13}s_{23} & c_{13}s_{23} \\
137: s_{12}s_{23} - c_{12}c_{23}\hat{s}_{13} & -c_{12}s_{23}
138: -c_{23}s_{12}\hat{s}_{13} & c_{13}c_{23} \end{array} \right),
139: \end{eqnarray}
140: where $s_{jk}=\sin(\theta_{jk})$, $c_{jk}=\cos(\theta_{jk})$, and
141: $\hat{s}_{jk}=\sin(\theta_{jk})e^{i\delta_{\rm CP}}$, $\theta_{jk}$
142: defined for $j<k$ are the mixing angles of mass eigenstates $\nu_j$
143: and $\nu_k$, and $\delta_{\rm CP}$ is the $CP$ phase angle. The three
144: mass eigenvalues are denoted as $m_1$, $m_2$, and $m_3$. The two
145: independent MSD are $\Delta{\rm m}^2_{21}\equiv {\rm m}^2_2 - {\rm
146: m}^2_1$ and $\Delta{\rm m}^2_{31}\equiv {\rm m}^2_3 - {\rm m}^2_1$.
147:
148: The inputs of the mixing angles and MSD's are obtained from solar,
149: atmospheric and reactor experiments:
150: \begin{eqnarray}
151: & \sin^2(2\theta_{12})=0.8,& ~~~ \Delta{\rm m}^2_{21}=5 \times 10^{-5}
152: {\rm eV}^2,
153: \label{input12}
154: \\ & \sin^2(2\theta_{23})=1.0,& ~~~ |\Delta{\rm m}^2_{31}|=3 \times
155: 10^{-3} {\rm eV}^2,
156: \label{inpu23}
157: \\ & \sin^2(2\theta_{13}) \leq 0.1. &
158: \label{input13}
159: \end{eqnarray}
160: Note that the sign of $\Delta m^2_{31}$ is unknown. The currently
161: favored Large Mixing Angle solar solution requires $\delta m^2_{21} >
162: 0$.
163:
164: In LBL experiments the neutrino beam interacts with electrons
165: contained in Earth matter~\cite{matter}. In the present study we use the
166: Preliminary Reference Earth Model~\cite{earth}, generally known as
167: PREM, for Earth density profiles~\cite{profile} and numerically
168: integrate the Schr\"{o}dinger equation that descibes the propagation
169: of the neutrino in matter for the treatment of distance dependent
170: matter density. However, we note that there exist more sophisticated
171: approaches to Earth matter effect, including both an updated average
172: density profile known as the AK135~\cite{AK135} and treatments of
173: uncertainties of the density profile~\cite{huber,shan,matteruncertainty}
174: which can affected the determination of the $CP$ phase angle.
175:
176: \subsection{Beams and detectors}
177:
178: The HIPA 50 GeV proton synchrotron beam calls for a power of 0.77 MW
179: in phase I, to be upgraded to 4 MW in phase II. The superbeam provided
180: by HIPA can be a wide band beam (WBB), a pulsed narrow band beam
181: (NBB), or an off-axis beam (OAB). The WBB contains neutrinos with
182: widely distributed energy. In a NBB the neutrino flux is concentrated
183: in a narrow range of energies, with maximum energy $E_{\rm peak}$
184: where the intensity is peaked, and the intensity decreases rapidly
185: below $E_{\rm peak}$. An OAB also peaks at a certain energy, but has
186: a longer high-energy tail than that of a NBB. More details of the
187: various beam profiles can be found in Ref.~\cite{oab2}. For the 2100
188: km baseline we use a NBB~\cite{beam} with peak energy of 4 GeV. We
189: have also investigated the beams of peak energies of 5, 6 and 8 GeV,
190: but found that the 4 GeV beam gives the best results. For 300 km we
191: use the 2-degree OAB (2$^\circ$--OAB) which has a peak energy at 0.8
192: GeV~\cite{oab}.
193:
194: The detector at 2100 km is assumed to be a water Cerenkov calorimeter
195: with resistive plate chambers~\cite{wang,H2B} located in Beijing,
196: tentatively called the Beijing Astrophysics and Neutrino Detector
197: (BAND). The size of the detector will be 100 kt at the beginning and
198: can be upgraded to a much larger one depending on the physics
199: requirements. The detector at 300 km is initially the Kamiokande
200: detector of the present size of 22.5 kt and upgraded later to 450
201: kt.\footnote{For a more discussion of the 300 km detector we refer to
202: Ref.~\cite{J2K}.}
203:
204: \subsection{Experimental errors}
205:
206: For the experimental errors we use 3$\sigma$ throughout this work.
207: All independent errors, statistical and systematic, are added in
208: quadrature. For the statistical error we used $3\sigma$ Poisson
209: errors as described in the appendix of Ref.~\cite{bgrw}, including a
210: background at the 1\% level of the rate of the survival channel. For
211: the systematic error we assumed that the background is known at the
212: 2\% level as given in ~\cite{jhfsk}. To estimate the error due to the
213: uncertainty in the measurement of the mixing angle $\theta_{23}$, we
214: assumed that $\sin^2(2\theta_{23})$ is measured via the survival
215: channel at $L = 300$~km, with the event rate given by $N(\nu_\mu \to
216: \nu_\mu) \simeq N_0 ( 1 - \sin^2(2\theta_{23}) \sin^2(\Delta))$, where
217: $\Delta \simeq \pi/2$ and $N_0$ is the number of events in the absence
218: of oscillations. Then the statistical uncertainty on
219: $\sin^2(2\theta_{23})$ is
220: \begin{equation}
221: \delta(\sin^2(2\theta_{23})) = \sqrt{N}/N_0 \approx {1\over
222: \sqrt{N_0}}\sqrt{( 1 - \sin^2(2\theta_{23})
223: \sin^2(\Delta))}\,.
224: \label{eq:uncertainty}
225: \end{equation}
226: We then find the variation in the rate in question for a 3$\sigma$
227: deviation in $\theta_{23}$, and added this in quadrature to the other
228: 3$\sigma$ errors described above to obtain the total 3$\sigma$ error.
229:
230: \subsection{Scenarios}
231:
232:
233: We consider three scenarios in the present investigation. The
234: scenarios are summarized in Table~1.
235: %\ref{tab:scenariotable}
236: For Scenario I the first stage involves a 5-year experiment with a
237: water Cerenkov detector of 22.5 kt at 300 km with the 2$^\circ$--OAB
238: $\nu_{\mu}$ beam~\cite{oab} from HIPA at 0.77 MW. This stage is
239: contained in the plan of J2K~\cite{J2K}. The second stage of this
240: scenario has HIPA upgraded to 4 MW, as discussed in Ref.~\cite{H2B},
241: to deliver a NBB $\nu_{\mu}$ beam to the water Cerenkov detector of
242: 100 kt at L=2100 km to run for 5 years.
243:
244: Scenario II has an upgraded 4 MW HIPA and calls for both
245: $\nu_{\mu}$ and $\bar \nu_{\mu}$ beams. The experiment at 2100 km is
246: the same as in Scenario I. For 300 km, however, we assume a much
247: larger water Cerenkov detector of 450 kt. It will run for 2 years with
248: 2$^\circ$--OAB $\nu_{\mu}$ beam, and then 6 years with the 2$^\circ$--OAB $\bar
249: \nu_{\mu}$ beam.
250:
251: Scenario III is similar to Scenario II, but calls for a much larger
252: water Cerenkov detector at 2100 km, to run either the $\nu_\mu$ or
253: $\bar\nu_\mu$ beam, for example, for 5000 kt-yr. Whether a $\nu$ or
254: $\bar \nu_{\mu}$ beam is delivered to the 2100~km site depends on the
255: sign of $\Delta{\rm m}^2_{31}$, as will be explained below.
256: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
257: %\null\vspace{0.2cm}
258: %\noindent
259: %{\small Table 1: Scenarios in our investigation.}
260: \vspace{0.03in}
261:
262: %\begin{table}[hbtp!]
263: %\begin{center}
264: %\begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c|c|c|c|} %\hline
265: % & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{ } & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{ } \\
266: % & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{L=300 km} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{L=2100 km} \\
267: % & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{ } & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{ } \\ \cline{2-7}
268: % & & & & & & \\
269: % & beam & power & detector size $\times$ runing time & beam & power
270: % & detector size $\times$ runing time \\
271: % & (2$^\circ$--OAB)& (MW) & (kt$\cdot$ year) & (NBB)&(MW) & (kt$\cdot$year) %\\
272: % & & & & & & \\ \hline \hline
273: % & & & & & & \\
274: %Scenario I & $\nu_{\mu}$ & $0.77$ & $22.5\times 5$ & $\nu_{\mu}$ & $4$
275: % & $100\times 5$ \\
276: % & & & & & & \\ \hline \hline
277: % & & & & & & \\
278: %Scenario II & $\nu_{\mu}$& $4$ & $450\times 2$ & $\nu_{\mu}$& $4$
279: % & $100\times 5$ \\
280: % & & & & & & \\
281: % & $\bar \nu_{\mu}$& $4$ & $450\times 6$ & & & \\
282: % & & & & & & \\ \hline \hline
283: % & & & & & & \\
284: %Scenario III & $\nu_{\mu}$ & $4$ & $450\times 2$ & $\nu_{\mu}$ & $4$
285: % & $5000$ for $\Delta{\rm m}^2_{31}>0$ \\
286: % & & & & & & \\
287: % & $\bar \nu_{\mu}$& $4$ & $450\times 6$ & $\bar \nu_{\mu}$ & $4$
288: % & $5000$ for $\Delta{\rm m}^2_{31}<0$ \\
289: % & & & & & & \\ % \hline
290: %\end{tabular}
291: %\caption{Different possible scenarios in the joint analysis}
292: %\label{tab:scenariotable}
293: %\end{center}
294: %\end{table}
295:
296: \section{Results of the simulation}
297: \label{sec3}
298: \subsection{Strategy}
299:
300: Let us first describe briefly the strategy of our calculation. There
301: are 6 measurable oscillation parameters in the 3-flavor neutrino
302: scheme. There are two mass scales; one is the atmospheric scale and
303: the other the solar scale. Existing oscillation experiments have
304: determined that the two mass scales are widely separated and therefore
305: sensitive to different $L/E_\nu$ regions. The LBL and VLBL we are
306: considering are affected by the solar scale only at next--to--leading
307: order, but can be strongly affected by the unknown parameters
308: $\delta_{CP}$ and $\theta_{13}$. Hence we will take $\Delta{\rm
309: m}^2_{21}$ and $\theta_{12}$ to be the values determined in solar
310: experiments, as given in Eq. (\ref{input12}). This leaves 4 parameters
311: to be determined, but $|\Delta{\rm m}^2_{31}|$ and $\theta_{23}$ are
312: known already to a fair degree of accuracy from atmospheric neutrino
313: experiments. Therefore obtaining $\theta_{13}$, $\delta_{\rm CP}$,
314: and the sign of $\Delta{\rm m}^2_{31}$ is the main goal of our
315: calculation.
316:
317: The current and soon to be online LBL experiments will determine
318: $|\Delta{\rm m}^2_{31}|$ and $\sin^2(2\theta_{23})$ to a better
319: accuracy; $\delta m^2_{21}$ and $\sin^2(2\theta_{12})$ will be
320: measured more precisely by KamLAND~\cite{kamland,vbkam}. The first
321: task of the scenarios we propose is to determine $|\Delta{\rm
322: m}^2_{31}|$ and $\sin^2(2\theta_{23})$ more accurately, using the
323: $\nu_\mu$ survival probability. This will allow us to have as small an
324: uncertainty as possible in the determination of the parameters
325: $\theta_{13}$ and $\delta_{CP}$. Let us define $N_{\alpha}(L)$ as the
326: number of charge--current events involving the $\alpha$ charged lepton
327: at the baseline $L$. We assume that $N_\mu(300)$, which depends on the
328: $\nu_\mu$ survival probability, is used to determine
329: $|\Delta m^2_{31}|$ and $\theta_{23}$ with as small an error as
330: possible. Then in the various scenarios $N_\mu (300)$ cannot
331: be used to determine $\theta_{13}$ and $\delta_{CP}$.~\footnote{When
332: new runs at $L$=300 km with better statistics are made, the improved
333: $N_\mu (300)$ will be used to update the values of $|\Delta m^2_{31}|$
334: and $\theta_{23}$.}
335:
336: \subsection{Scenario I ($\nu_\mu$ beam only)}
337:
338: In this scenario we assume that only the $\nu_{\mu}$ beam is employed
339: to run at $L$=300 km and 2100 km.
340: Since $N_\mu (300)$ has already been used to determine $|\Delta m^2_{31}|$
341: and $\sin^2(2\theta_{23})$, we are left with
342: three types of independent measurements for the determination of
343: $\theta_{13}$, $\delta_{\rm CP}$ and the sign of $\Delta m^2_{31}$: $N_e(300)$,
344: $N_e(2100)$ and $N_{\mu}(2100)$. The measurements of these three types of
345: events form a surface in a three-dimensional space when $\theta_{13}$ and
346: $\delta_{CP}$ are varied in their allowed ranges. The angle $\theta_{13}$ is
347: constrained by the CHOOZ reactor experiment~\cite{CHOOZ} and the $CP$ phase
348: is completely unconstrained. Therefore, we take their ranges to be:
349: $\sin^2(2\theta_{13})=(0, 0.1)$ and $\delta_{\rm CP} = (0,2\pi$). Such
350: three--dimensional surfaces, which are tube--like, are displayed in
351: Fig.~\ref{fig1}. The upper and lower surfaces are for negative and
352: positive $\Delta{\rm m}^2_{31}$, respectively. The closed curves around the
353: axes of the tubes are traced out by varying $\delta_{\rm CP}$ from $0$ to
354: $2\pi$, while the lines running parallel to the axes of the tubes are
355: determined by varying $\sin^2(2\theta_{13})$ from $0.01$ to $0.1$. For fixed
356: $\sin^2(2\theta_{13})$ values, we then obtain the ellipses in
357: Fig.~\ref{fig2}.
358:
359: When $N_e(300)$, the number of the $\nu_e$ appearance events at 300 km, is
360: measured, it determines a closed curve which is obtained from the
361: three-dimensional surface by a cut at a given value on the $N_e(300)$ axis.
362: The value of $N_e(300)$ does not determine $\theta_{13}$ directly since
363: $\delta$ is unknown; for each of the closed curves we obtain a definite
364: relation between $\delta$ and $\sin^2(2\theta_{13})$ when the sign of
365: $\Delta m^2_{31}$ is given. We show in Fig.~\ref{fig3} two sets
366: of such relations for each $\Delta{\rm m}^2_{31}$ sign. As shown, we choose
367: two extreme values of $N_e(300)$, each of which leads to a range of values
368: for $\sin^2(2\theta_{13})$, depending on the sign of
369: $\Delta{\rm m}^2_{31}$. For positive $\Delta{\rm m}^2_{31}$, the larger
370: $N_e(300)$ curve limits $\sin^2(2\theta_{13})$ to the range
371: ($0.06,0.1$), while the smaller one corresponds to
372: $\sin^2(2\theta_{13})$ lying in the range ($0.006,0.01$). Similarly,
373: the ranges of the values of $\sin^2(2\theta_{13})$ for negative
374: $\Delta{\rm m}^2_{31}$ can be read off from Fig.~\ref{fig3}.
375:
376: We plot in Fig.~\ref{fig4} the two-dimensional curves with fixed $N_e(300)$.
377: Note that the scale of the horizontal axis is logarithmic. If the scale was
378: linear, the curves would be ellipses. An open square indicates the point on
379: a curve with $\delta_{\rm CP}$=0$^\circ$, solid square 90$^\circ$, open circle
380: 180$^\circ$, and solid circle 270$^\circ$. We also show a
381: representative 3$\sigma$ error bar for each curve. The assignment of
382: statistical and systematic errors has been discussed in the preceding section.
383: The total error is dominated mostly by the statistical error. One sees that
384: although the sign of $\Delta m^2_{31}$ can be determined at the 3$\sigma$
385: level, there is no sensitivity to the value of the $CP$ phase. In particular,
386: the error in the $N_\mu(2100)$ channel is very large in comparison
387: with the range of variation in the number of events when $\delta_{\rm CP}$
388: varies; we will encounter similar situation in the next scenario.
389:
390: \subsection{Scenario II ($\nu$ and $\bar\nu$ beams)}
391:
392: By including the $\bar \nu_{\mu}$ beam aimed at the detector at
393: 300~km, we have two more types of events, i.e., $N_{\bar e}(300)$
394: and $N_{\bar \mu}(300)$. So, in addition to the three-dimensional surface
395: in the $N_e(300)$-$N_e(2100)$-$N_{\mu}(2100)$ space shown earlier in
396: Fig.~\ref{fig1}, we also have surfaces in the spaces
397: $N_e(300)$-$N_{\bar e}(300)$-$N_{\bar \mu}(300)$ and
398: $N_e(300)$-$N_{\bar e}(300)$-$N_e(2100)$, as shown in
399: Figs.~\ref{fig5} and \ref{fig8}, respectively. With several
400: fixed values of $\sin^2(2\theta_{13})$ we obtain the curves shown in
401: Figs.~\ref{fig6} and \ref{fig9}. We plot the
402: two-dimensional projections of fixed $N_e(300)$=1000 and 10000 in
403: Figs.~\ref{fig7} and \ref{fig10}.
404:
405: We found in Scenario~I that the 2100 km data with just a $\nu_\mu$ source can
406: determine the sign of $\Delta m^2_{31}$ at 3$\sigma$, but cannot measure
407: the $CP$ phase (see Fig.~\ref{fig4}). In contrast, as shown in
408: Fig.~\ref{fig7}, the 300 km data using both a $\nu$ and $\bar\nu$ source
409: can determine the $CP$ phase in the ranges ($\pi/2,3\pi/2$) or
410: ($-\pi/2,\pi/2$), but cannot distinguish between the two ranges since the
411: measurement is only sensitive to $\sin\delta$.
412: Furthermore, unless $\delta_{CP}$ is close to $\pi/2$ or $3\pi/2$ the sign
413: of $\Delta m^2_{31}$ cannot be determined once all of the experimental
414: errors, including the error in the determination of $\theta_{23}$, are
415: taken into account, leaving a four-fold ambiguity. The problem lies in the
416: fact that $N_{\bar\mu}(300)$ is used; as already noted in Scenario I,
417: survival data provide poor resolution to the $CP$ phase, and the matter
418: effect is small at the relatively short distance of 300~km. Six more
419: three-dimensional plots which will contain either $N_{\bar \mu}(300)$, or
420: $N_\mu(2100)$, or both, can be made, but they are not very useful in the
421: present analysis because they involve the survival data.
422:
423: In order to obtain good resolution in the sign of the MSD and to
424: distinguish the two ranges of the $CP$ phase as discussed in the
425: preceding section, we have to use data of the electron flavor
426: only. Hence we need two experiments with different $L/E_\nu$ ratios
427: and one of them should be a VLBL for a good sensitivity to the matter
428: effect. This brings us to the combined analysis of $N_e(300)$,
429: $N_{\bar e}(300)$ and $N_e(2100)$, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig10}. The
430: sign of $\Delta m^2_{31}$ can be easily determined if
431: $\sin^2(2\theta_{13})$ is not too small and the $CP$ phase can be
432: measured with again the ambiguity between the two ranges
433: ($\pi/2,3\pi/2$) and ($-\pi/2,\pi/2$), as in the case of
434: Fig.~\ref{fig7}. The problem lies in the fact that the resolution in
435: $N_e(2100)$ is poor due to the low number of events, while the
436: resolution of the 300 km $\bar{\nu}_e$ is excellent. So we have to
437: increase the statistics at 2100 km. This takes us to Scenario III
438: below.
439:
440: \subsection{Scenario III ($\nu_\mu$ and $\bar\nu_\mu$ beams with increased
441: statistics)}
442:
443: The situation of Scenario II can be improved if the statistics in
444: $N_e(2100)$ are significantly increased. This can be achieved by
445: using a larger detector and/or running for a longer period of time for
446: the $N_e(2100)$ measurement. For Scenario~III we set the detector
447: size times the running time at $L$=2100 km to be 10 times larger than
448: that of Scenario II, assuming that the number of events can be
449: straightforwardly scaled up with the detector size. The running at 300
450: km is the same as in Scenario~II. The resultant two-dimensional plot
451: is shown Fig.~\ref{fig11}. In this scenario, the sign of $\Delta m^2_{31}$
452: can be clearly determined at the 3$\sigma$ level, even for
453: $N_e(300)$=1000 which corresponds to a very small
454: $\sin^2(2\theta_{13})$ lying in the range ($0.006,0.01$), as indicated
455: by the dotted curves in Fig.~\ref{fig11}.
456:
457: If $\Delta m^2_{31}$ is positive, a reasonably accurate determination
458: of $\delta_{CP}$ can be made with no sgn($\Delta m^2_{31}$) or
459: $\theta_{13}$ ambiguity, and the $\bar \nu_{\mu}$ beam is not needed
460: at 2100 km even for very small $\sin^2(2\theta_{13})$ in the range
461: ($0.006,0.01$). This is consistent with the results of
462: Ref.~\cite{bmw2001}, where it was found that a $\nu_\mu\to\nu_e$ and
463: $\bar\nu_\mu\to\bar\nu_e$ measurement at short distance and a
464: $\nu_\mu\to\nu_e$ measurement at a long distance could resolve
465: parameter ambiguities for $\sin^2(2\theta_{13}) > 0.005$. To see the
466: sensitivity more clearly for positive $\Delta m^2_{31}$, we replot the
467: results in Figs.~\ref{fig12} and \ref{fig13} respectively
468: for $N_e(300)$=10000 and 1000. We see that for $N_e(300)=10000$, which
469: corresponds to larger $\sin^2(2\theta_{13})$ ($0.06 - 0.1$) as shown
470: in Fig.~\ref{fig3}, the $CP$ phase can be determined better than
471: 10$^\circ$ at 3$\sigma$ for $\delta_{\rm CP}$ small or around
472: 180$^\circ$. The sensitivity deteriorates slowly when $\delta_{CP}$
473: moves away from $0^\circ$ or $180^\circ$, and the uncertainty becomes of
474: the order of 25$^\circ$ when $\delta_{\rm CP}$ is close to 90$^\circ$
475: or 270$^\circ$.
476:
477: Even for $N_e(300)$=1000, which corresponds to very small
478: $\sin^2(2\theta_{13})$ in the range of ($0.006,0.01$), the measurement
479: of the $CP$ phase is still reasonably good. It is interesting to note
480: that the sensitivity of the $CP$ measurement near $\delta_{\rm
481: CP}$=0$^\circ$ and 180$^\circ$ for $N_e(300) = 1000$ is comparable to
482: that of the much higher number of events of $N_e(300)$=10000. Hence,
483: in this scenario, either case can establish whether or not $CP$ in the
484: lepton sector is violated if $\delta_{\rm CP}$ deviates by than
485: 10$^\circ$ from the $CP$ conserving points of $\delta_{\rm
486: CP}$=0$^\circ$ or 180$^\circ$.
487:
488: If $\Delta m^2_{31}$ is negative, the $\bar\nu_\mu \rightarrow
489: \bar\nu_e$ oscillation is the favorable channel to investigate. Hence
490: once it is clear that $\Delta{\rm m}^2_{31}$ is negative (see the next
491: section for a detailed discussion), the $\bar \nu_{\mu}$ beam should
492: be delivered to 2100 km to run for 5000 kt-yr. The results, which are
493: the counterparts to Fig.~\ref{fig11}, are shown in
494: Fig.~\ref{fig14}. With positron events at 2100 km the $CP$ phase
495: can be well measured. To see the sensitivity more clearly, we replot
496: the results in Figs.~\ref{fig15} and \ref{fig16} for
497: $N_e(300)$=10000 and 1000 respectively. The accuracy of the
498: $\delta_{CP}$ measurement for $\Delta m^2_{31} < 0$ using the
499: $\bar\nu_\mu$ beam is about the same as that of the $\nu_\mu$ beam for
500: $\Delta{\rm m}^2_{31} > 0$, although the distinction between
501: $\delta_{CP}$ in the range ($-\pi/2,\pi/2$) and $\delta_{CP}$ in the
502: range ($\pi/2,3\pi/2$) is not as good for a $\bar\nu_\mu$ beam with
503: $\Delta m^2_{31} < 0$.
504:
505: We have also done the analysis assuming a $\nu$ or $\bar\nu$ NBB of
506: peak energy 5, 6, or 8~GeV is delivered to the detector at 2100~km. We
507: found that for these cases the ellipses in Figs.~\ref{fig11} to
508: \ref{fig15} are much flatter than for the 4~GeV NBB, so that
509: they do not do as well in resolving the degeneracy in $\delta_{CP}$.
510:
511: \section{Conclusion and discussion}
512:
513: We conclude that with a superbeam, such as that delivered by HIPA, the
514: joint analysis at two baselines, of which one is an LBL at 300 km and the
515: other a VLBL at 2100 km, can determine the $\Delta m^2_{31}$ sign and
516: give a reasonably precise measurement of the $CP$ phase and
517: $\theta_{13}$. To achieve this, both $\nu_\mu$ and $\bar\nu_\mu$
518: beams are needed for the LBL experiment. The survival events
519: $\nu_\mu\rightarrow\nu_\mu$ and
520: $\bar\nu_\mu\rightarrow\bar\nu_\mu$ are generally insensitive to
521: the matter and $CP$ effects.
522:
523: The initial HIPA $\nu_\mu$ beam with power 0.77 MW will run with
524: exposure 22.5$\times$5 kt-yr at a detector at $L$=300 km to obtain
525: both survival events $N_\mu(300)$ and appearance events
526: $N_e(300)$. The former is used to improve the determination of the
527: mixing angle $\theta_{23}$ and mass--squared difference $|\Delta
528: m^2_{31}|$, so as to reduce the uncertainty of these crucial input
529: parameters. The latter can show the existence of an appearance signal
530: for $\sin^2(2\theta_{13}) \ge 0.006$ and find a crude relation between
531: $\delta_{CP}$ and $\theta_{13}$ as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig3}.
532:
533: A detailed determination of the oscillation parameters will require an
534: upgrade of the HIPA beam power to 4~MW. Using our studies in this paper
535: as a guide, we suggest as one possibility the following experimental
536: steps using the upgraded HIPA beam:
537: \vskip 1ex
538:
539: %\begin{description}{\setlength\itemsep{-0.6ex}
540: %\item
541:
542: {\bf Stage 1}: Deliver a 4~MW $\nu$ 2$^\circ$--OAB to a 450~kt detector
543: at a distance of $L$=300~km for 2 years. The survival events
544: $N_\mu(300)$ are used to determine more precisely the
545: parameters $\theta_{23}$ and $|\Delta{m}^2_{31}|$. The
546: appearance events $N_e(300)$ are used to refine the relation
547: between $\delta_{CP}$ and $\theta_{13}$, as shown in
548: Fig.~\ref{fig3}.
549:
550: {\bf Stage 2}: A 4~MW $\nu$ NBB with peak energy around 4~GeV is
551: delivered to a detector at $L$=2100 km, to run for
552: 100$\times$5 kt-yr. The survival and appearance events
553: $N_\mu(2100)$ and $N_e(2100)$ are used to determine the sign
554: of $\Delta{m}^2_{31}$, with the most sensitivity coming from
555: $N_e(2100)$ (see Fig.~\ref{fig4}).
556:
557: {\bf Stage 3}: A 4~MW $\bar{\nu}_\mu$ 2$^\circ$--OAB is delivered to
558: the 300 km baseline detector for 450$\times$6 kt-yr and
559: $N_{\bar\mu}(300)$ and $N_{\bar e}(300)$ are obtained. The
560: data can only determine $\delta_{CP}$ and $\theta$ up to a
561: 2-fold degeneracy because of the poor separation between
562: $\delta$ and $\pi - \delta$ in the $N_{\bar\mu}(300)$
563: measurement, as demonstrated in Fig.~\ref{fig7}.
564:
565: {\bf Stage 4}: A 4 MW $\nu_\mu$ ($\bar\nu_\mu$) NBB with peak energy
566: around 4~GeV is delivered to the 2100 km baseline detector for
567: 1000$\times$5 kt-yr if $\Delta{m}^2_{31} > 0$
568: ($\Delta{m}^2_{31} < 0$). Then at 3$\sigma$, the value of
569: $\delta_{CP}$ can be determined to about $10^\circ$ for values
570: close to $0^\circ$ or $180^\circ$, or to about $25^\circ$ for
571: values close to $90^\circ$ or $270^\circ$. The distinction
572: between $\delta_{CP}$ in the ranges $(-\pi/2,\pi/2)$ and
573: $(\pi/2,3\pi/2)$ is better for $\Delta m^2_{31} > 0$ than for
574: $\Delta m^2_{31} < 0$. The $\Delta{m}^2_{31} >0$ case is shown
575: in Figs.~\ref{fig12} and \ref{fig13} and that of
576: $\Delta{m}^2_{31} <0$ in Figs.~\ref{fig15} and
577: \ref{fig16}.
578:
579: %}\end{description}
580: \vskip 1ex
581:
582: % Should $\Delta{\rm m}^2_{31}$ be negative, a
583: %$\bar \nu_{\mu}$ beam would also be necessary at the VLBL. The $\nu_\mu$
584: %survival events in the present discussion are only used initially for the
585: %determination of $\theta_{23}$ but are not useful for the $CP$ and
586: %$\theta_{13}$ measurements. It is obvious that the capability to distinguish
587: %$\mu$ from $e$ is critical in the future LBL experiments.
588:
589: It is apparent from our calculation that in order to obtain enough
590: statistics to provide a reasonably precise measurement of
591: $\theta_{13}$ and $\delta_{CP}$ the total detector size and running
592: time have to be sufficiently large. We have not attempted a detailed
593: optimization; rather, we offer our calculation as an example for
594: illustration. A search is still required to determine the optimal
595: conditions for the measurement. Eventually uncertainties in the
596: Earth matter density along a given baseline as well as uncertainties
597: in the solar neutrino oscillation parameters $\theta_{12}$ and $\Delta
598: m^2_{21}$ must also be taken into account.
599:
600: \section*{Acknowledgment}
601:
602: We thank T. Kobayashi for providing neutrino beam profiles and K. Hagiwara
603: for discussions. We also thank L.-Y. Shan and our colleagues of the H2B
604: collaboration \cite{H2B} for discussions. This work is supported in part by
605: DOE Grant No. DE-FG02-G4ER40817.
606:
607: \begin{references}
608:
609: \bibitem{superK}
610: Y. Fukuda {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf B 81} (1998) 1562.
611:
612: \bibitem{other}
613: SNO collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 87}, 071301 (2001);
614: arXiv:nucl-ex/0204008; nucl-ex/0204009.
615:
616: \bibitem{HIPA}
617: HIPA: A multipurpose high intensity proton synchrotron at
618: both 50 GeV and 3 GeV to be constructed at the Jaeri Tokai Campus,
619: Japan has been approved in December, 2000 by the Japanese funding
620: agency. The long baseline neutrino oscillation experiment is one
621: of projects of the particle physics program of the facility. More
622: about HIPA can be found at the website:
623: "http://jkj.tokai.jaeri.go.jp".
624:
625: \bibitem{J2K}
626: J2K: Y. Ito, et. al., {\it Letter of Intent: A Long Baseline Neutrino
627: Oscillation Experiment the JHF 50 GeV Proton-Synchrotron and the
628: Super-Kamiokande Detector}, JHF Neutrino Working Group, Feb. 3, 2000;
629: see also arXiv:hep-ex/0106019.
630:
631: \bibitem{H2B}
632: H. Chen, et al., {\it Study Report: H2B, Prospect of a very Long Baseline
633: Neutrino Oscillation Experiment, HIPA to Beijing}, arXiv:hep-ph/0104266.
634:
635: \bibitem{Japanesegroup}
636: M. Aoki, K. Hagiwara, U. Hayato, T. Kobayashi, T. Nakaya, K. Nishikawa
637: and N. Okamura, arXiv:hep-ph/0112338.
638:
639: \bibitem{ambiguities}
640: J.~Burguet-Castell, M.~B.~Gavela, J.~J.~Gomez-Cadenas, P.~Hernandez and
641: O.~Mena,
642: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 608}, 301 (2001) [arXiv:hep-ph/0103258];
643: M.~Freund, P.~Huber and M.~Lindner,
644: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 615}, 331 (2001) [arXiv:hep-ph/0105071];
645: J.~Pinney and O.~Yasuda,
646: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 64}, 093008 (2001) [arXiv:hep-ph/0105087];
647: H.~Minakata and H.~Nunokawa,
648: JHEP {\bf 0110}, 001 (2001) [arXiv:hep-ph/0108085];
649: V.~Barger, D.~Marfatia and K.~Whisnant,
650: in {\it Proc. of the APS/DPF/DPB Summer Study on the Future of Particle
651: Physics (Snowmass 2001) } ed. N.~Graf, arXiv:hep-ph/0108090;
652: Phys. Rev. {\bf D 65}, 073023 (2002) [arXiv:hep-ph/0112119;
653: T. Kajita, H.~Minakata, and H.~Nunokawa, arXiv:hep-ph/0112345;
654: G.~Barenboim, A.~de Gouvea, M.~Szleper, and M.~Velasco, arXiv:hep-ph/0204208;
655: A.~Donini, D.~Meloni and P.~Magliozzi, arXiv:hep-ph/0206034.
656:
657: \bibitem{huber}
658: P. Huber, M. Lindner, and W. Winter, arXiv:hep-ph/0204352.
659:
660: \bibitem{bmw2001}
661: V. Barger, D. Marfatia and K. Whisnant,
662: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 66}, 053007 (2002) [arXiv:hep-ph/0206038];
663:
664: \bibitem{mena}
665: J.~Burguet-Castell, M.~B.~Gavela, J.~J.~Gomez-Cadenas, P.~Hernandez and
666: O.~Mena, arXiv:hep-ph/0207080.
667:
668: \bibitem{joint}
669: Y. F. Wang, K. Whisnant, Z. Xiong, J. M. Yang and B.-L. Young,
670: Phys. Rev. {\bf D65}, 073021 (2002).
671:
672: \bibitem{optimum}
673: Y.F. Wang, K. Whisnant and Bing-Lin Young, Phys. Rev. {\bf D65}, 073006
674: (2002).
675:
676: \bibitem{geer}
677: S.~Geer, Phys. Rev. {\bf D57}, 6989 (1998).
678:
679: \bibitem{matter}
680: L. Wolfenstein, Phys. Rev. {\bf D17}, 2367 (1978); {\bf D20}, 2634 (1979);
681: V.~Barger, K.~Whisnant, S.~Pakvasa and R.J.N.~Phillips,
682: Phys. Rev. {\bf D22}, 2718 (1980);
683: P.~Langacker, J.P.~Leveille and J.~Sheiman, Phys. Rev. {\bf D27},
684: 1228 (1983).
685:
686: \bibitem{earth}
687: A. M. Dziewonski and D. L. Anderson,
688: Phys. Earth Planet. Inter. 25, 297 (1981).
689:
690: \bibitem{profile}
691: F. D. Stacey, {\it Physics of the Earth} (John Wiley \& Sons, 1977);
692: D. J. Anderson, {\it Theory of the Earth} (Blackwell Scientific Pub., 1989).
693:
694: \bibitem{AK135}
695: B.L.N. Kennet, et al., Georphys. J. Int., {\bf 122}, 108 (1995);
696: J.P. Montagner, et al., Geophys. J. Int., {\bf 125}, 229 (1995).
697:
698: \bibitem{shan}
699: Lian-You Shan, Bing-Lin Young and Xinmin Zhang, Phys. Rev. {\bf D66},
700: 053012 (2002) [arXiv:hep-ph/0110414]; Lian-You Shan and Xinmin Zhang,
701: Phys. Rev. {\bf D65}, 113011 (2002); Lian-You Shan, Futian Liu,
702: Yi-Fang Wang, Changgeng Yang, Bing-Lin Young and Xinmin Zhang, in
703: preparation.
704:
705: \bibitem{matteruncertainty}
706: B. Jacobsson, T. Ohlsson, H. Snellman and W. Winter, Phys. Lett.
707: {\bf 532}, 259 (2002) [arXiv:hep-ph/0112138]; for a summary of different
708: approaches to approximate the Earth's density, see B.~Jacobsson,
709: T.~Ohlsson, H.~Snellman and W.~Winter, talk given at NuFact '02, London,
710: 2002, arXiv:hep-ph/0209147.
711:
712: \bibitem{oab2}
713: T. Kobayashi, talk given at {\em Fifth KEK Topical Conference},
714: KEK,Japan, Nov. (2001).
715:
716: \bibitem{beam}
717: The narrow band superbeam profiles are available at
718: http://neutrino.kek.jp/JHF-VLBL.
719:
720: \bibitem{oab}
721: The off-axis superbeam profiles are available at
722: http://neutrino.kek.jp/~kobayasi/50gev/beam/.
723:
724: \bibitem{wang}
725: Y.-F. Wang, arXiv:hep-ex/0010081, talk given at ``{\it NEW Initiatives in
726: Lepton Flavor Violation and Neutrino Oscillations with Very Long Intense
727: Muon Neutrino Sources}'', Oct. 2-6, 2000, Hawaii, USA.
728:
729: \bibitem{bgrw}
730: V. Barger, S. Geer, R. Raja and K. Whisnant,
731: Phys. Rev. {\bf D 63}, 113011 (2001).
732:
733: \bibitem{jhfsk}
734: Y. Itow et al., arXiv:hep-ex/0106019.
735:
736: \bibitem{kamland}
737: J. Busenitz, KamLAND collaboration,
738: Intl. J. Mod. Phys. {\bf A 16} Suppl. B1, 742 (2001).
739:
740: \bibitem{vbkam}
741: V. Barger, D. Marfatia and B. Wood, Phys. Lett. {\bf B498}, 53 (2001).
742:
743: \bibitem{CHOOZ}
744: M. Apollonio {\it et al.,} Phys. Lett., {\bf B466}, 415 (1999).
745:
746: \end{references}
747: \newpage
748:
749:
750: %\begin{table}[hbtp!]
751: \begin{center}
752: Table 1 Different possible scenarios in joint analyses
753: \vskip 3ex
754: \begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline
755: & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{ } & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{ } \\
756: & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{L=300 km} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{L=2100 km} \\
757: & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{ } & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{ } \\ \cline{2-7}
758: & & & & & & \\
759: & beam & power & detector size $\times$ runing time & beam & power
760: & detector size $\times$ runing time \\
761: & (2$^\circ$--OAB)& (MW) & (kt$\cdot$ year) & (NBB)&(MW) & (kt$\cdot$year) \\
762: & & & & & & \\ \hline \hline
763: & & & & & & \\
764: Scenario I & $\nu_{\mu}$ & $0.77$ & $22.5\times 5$ & $\nu_{\mu}$ & $4$
765: & $100\times 5$ \\
766: & & & & & & \\ \hline \hline
767: & & & & & & \\
768: Scenario II & $\nu_{\mu}$& $4$ & $450\times 2$ & $\nu_{\mu}$& $4$
769: & $100\times 5$ \\
770: & & & & & & \\
771: & $\bar \nu_{\mu}$& $4$ & $450\times 6$ & & & \\
772: & & & & & & \\ \hline \hline
773: & & & & & & \\
774: Scenario III & $\nu_{\mu}$ & $4$ & $450\times 2$ & $\nu_{\mu}$ & $4$
775: & $5000$ for $\Delta{\rm m}^2_{31}>0$ \\
776: & & & & & & \\
777: & $\bar \nu_{\mu}$& $4$ & $450\times 6$ & $\bar \nu_{\mu}$ & $4$
778: & $5000$ for $\Delta{\rm m}^2_{31}<0$ \\
779: & & & & & & \\ \hline
780: \end{tabular}
781: %\caption{Different possible scenarios in the joint analysis}
782: %\label{tab:scenariotable}
783: \end{center}
784: %\end{table}
785: \newpage
786: %%% mu(2100)-e(2100)-e(300) %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
787: \begin{figure}[htb]
788: \vspace*{-1cm}
789: \hspace*{-2cm}
790: \includegraphics[height=20cm,width=17cm,angle =0]{fig1.eps}
791: \vspace*{-1cm}
792: \caption[]{ Three-dimensional surface in the events space
793: $N_e(300)-N_e(2100)-N_{\mu}(2100)$ in Scenario II with $CP$ phase $\delta_{CP}$
794: varying from $0$ to $2\pi$ and $\sin^2(2\theta_{13})$ from $0.01$ to $0.1$.
795: The lower (upper) one is for $\Delta m^2_{32}>0$ ($<0$). The surface in
796: Scenario I is obatined by scaling $N_e(300)$ axis by a factor $\frac{0.77
797: ({\rm MW})\times 5 ({\rm year}) \times 22.5 ({\rm kt})} {4 ({\rm MW})\times
798: 2 ({\rm year}) \times 450 ({\rm kt})}\simeq \frac{1}{42}$.}
799: \label{fig1}
800: \end{figure}
801: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
802: \begin{figure}[htb]
803: \vspace*{-1cm}
804: \hspace*{-2cm}
805: \includegraphics[height=20cm,width=17cm,angle =0]{fig2.eps}
806: \vspace*{-1cm}
807: \caption[]{ Same as Fig. \ref{fig1}, but for fixed
808: $\sin^2(2\theta_{13})=0.02$, $0.04$, $0.06$, $0.08$ and $0.1$ for the elipses
809: from left to right. }
810: \label{fig2}
811: \end{figure}
812: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
813: \begin{figure}[htb]
814: \vspace*{-1cm}
815: \hspace*{-2cm}
816: \includegraphics[height=20cm,width=17cm,angle =0]{fig3.ps}
817: \vspace*{1cm}
818: \caption[]{ $CP$ phase $\delta_{CP}$ (in degrees) versus $\sin^2(2\theta_{13})$
819: for fixed $N_e(300)$.}
820: \label{fig3}
821: \end{figure}
822: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
823: \begin{figure}[htb]
824: \vspace*{-1cm}
825: \hspace*{-2cm}
826: \includegraphics[height=20cm,width=17cm,angle =0]{fig4.ps}
827: \vspace*{-1cm}
828: \caption[]{ $N_{\mu}(2100)$ versus $N_e(2100)$ for fixed $N_e(300)$.
829: The open square, open circle, filled square and filled circle denote
830: $\delta_{CP} = 0$, $\pi$, $\pi/2$ and $3\pi/2$, respectively. 3$\sigma$ error bars at some points are also plotted.}
831: \label{fig4}
832: \end{figure}
833: %%%%% mub(300)-eb(300)-e(300) %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
834: \begin{figure}[htb]
835: \vspace*{-1cm}
836: \hspace*{-2cm}
837: \includegraphics[height=20cm,width=17cm,angle =0]{fig5.eps}
838: \vspace*{-1cm}
839: \caption[]{ Three-dimensional surface in the events space $N_e(300)-N_{\bar e}(300)-N_{\bar \mu}(300)$
840: in Scenario II with $CP$ phase $\delta_{CP}$ varying from $0$ to $2\pi$ and $\sin^2(2\theta_{13})$
841: from $0.01$ to $0.1$. The upper (lower) one is for $\Delta m^2_{32}>0$ ($<0$). }
842: \label{fig5}
843: \end{figure}
844: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
845: \begin{figure}[htb]
846: \vspace*{-1cm}
847: \hspace*{-2cm}
848: \includegraphics[height=20cm,width=17cm,angle =0]{fig6.eps}
849: \vspace*{-1cm}
850: \caption[]{ Same as Fig. \ref{fig5}, but for fixed
851: $\sin^2(2\theta_{13})=0.02$, $0.04$, $0.06$, $0.08$, $0.1$ for the elipses from right to left. }
852: \label{fig6}
853: \end{figure}
854: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
855: \begin{figure}[htb]
856: \vspace*{-1cm}
857: \hspace*{-2cm}
858: \includegraphics[height=20cm,width=17cm,angle =0]{fig7.ps}
859: \vspace*{-1cm}
860: \caption[]{ $N_{\bar \mu}(300)$ versus $N_{\bar e}(300)$ for fixed $N_e(300)$ in Scenario II.
861: The open square, open circle, filled square and filled circle denote
862: $\delta_{CP} = 0$, $\pi$, $\pi/2$ and $3\pi/2$, respectively.
863: 3$\sigma$ error bars at some points are also plotted.
864: The dashed lines denote errors caused by $\theta_{23}$ uncertainty.
865: Note that only the upper error bar in $N_{\bar \mu}$ changed since we
866: take $\theta_{23}= \pi/4$ and any deviation from this always moves the
867: $N_{\bar \mu}$ result in the same direction; this is an artifact of choosing
868: maximal mixing as our starting point.
869: }
870: \label{fig7}
871: \end{figure}
872: %%%%%% eb(300)-e(2100)-e(300) %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
873: \begin{figure}[htb]
874: \vspace*{-1cm}
875: \hspace*{-2cm}
876: \includegraphics[height=20cm,width=17cm,angle =0]{fig8.eps}
877: \vspace*{-1cm}
878: \caption[]{ Three-dimensional surface in the events space
879: $N_e(300)-N_e(2100)-N_{\bar e}(300)$
880: in Scenario II with $CP$ phase $\delta_{CP}$ varying from $0$ to $2\pi$ and $\sin^2(2\theta_{13})$ from $0.01$ to $0.1$.
881: The right (left) one is for $\Delta m^2_{32}>0$ ($<0$). }
882: \label{fig8}
883: \end{figure}
884: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
885: \begin{figure}[htb]
886: \vspace*{-1cm}
887: \hspace*{-2cm}
888: \includegraphics[height=20cm,width=17cm,angle =0]{fig9.eps}
889: \vspace*{-1cm}
890: \caption[]{ Same as Fig. \ref{fig8}, but for fixed $\sin^2(2\theta_{13})=0.01$, $0.02$,
891: $0.03$, $\cdot \cdot \cdot$, $0.1$ for the elipses from the lower-right corner
892: to the upper-left corner.
893: }
894: \label{fig9}
895: \end{figure}
896: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
897: \begin{figure}[htb]
898: \vspace*{-1cm}
899: \hspace*{-2cm}
900: \includegraphics[height=20cm,width=17cm,angle =0]{fig10.ps}
901: \vspace*{-1cm}
902: \caption[]{ $N_{\bar e}(300)$ versus $N_e(2100)$ for fixed $N_e(300)$ in Scenario II.
903: The open square, open circle, filled square and filled circle denote
904: $\delta_{CP} = 0$, $\pi$, $\pi/2$ and $3\pi/2$, respectively.
905: 3$\sigma$ error bars at some points are also plotted.
906: }
907: \label{fig10}
908: \end{figure}
909: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
910: \begin{figure}[htb]
911: \vspace*{-1cm}
912: \hspace*{-2cm}
913: \includegraphics[height=20cm,width=17cm,angle =0]{fig11.ps}
914: \vspace*{-1cm}
915: \caption[]{ Same as Fig. \ref{fig10}, but for Scenario III.}
916: \label{fig11}
917: \end{figure}
918: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
919: \begin{figure}[htb]
920: \vspace*{-1cm}
921: \hspace*{-2cm}
922: \includegraphics[height=20cm,width=17cm,angle =0]{fig12.ps}
923: \vspace*{-1cm}
924: \caption[]{ Same as Fig. \ref{fig11}, but for $N_e(300)=10000$ and $\delta m^2_{31}>0$.
925: The stars denote $10^{\circ}$ step of $CP$ phase from $0$ to $\pi/2$.
926: }
927: \label{fig12}
928: \end{figure}
929: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
930: \begin{figure}[htb]
931: \vspace*{-1cm}
932: \hspace*{-2cm}
933: \includegraphics[height=20cm,width=17cm,angle =0]{fig13.ps}
934: \vspace*{-1cm}
935: \caption[]{ Same as Fig. \ref{fig11}, but for $N_e(300)=1000$ and $\delta m^2_{31}>0$.
936: The stars denote $10^{\circ}$ step of $CP$ phase from $0$ to $\pi/2$.
937: }
938: \label{fig13}
939: \end{figure}
940: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
941: \begin{figure}[htb]
942: \vspace*{-1cm}
943: \hspace*{-2cm}
944: \includegraphics[height=20cm,width=17cm,angle =0]{fig14.ps}
945: \vspace*{-1cm}
946: \caption[]{ Same as Fig. \ref{fig11}, but for $N_{\bar e}(300)$ versus $N_{\bar e}(2100)$.
947: }
948: \label{fig14}
949: \end{figure}
950: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
951: \begin{figure}[htb]
952: \vspace*{-1cm}
953: \hspace*{-2cm}
954: \includegraphics[height=20cm,width=17cm,angle =0]{fig15.ps}
955: \vspace*{-1cm}
956: \caption[]{ Same as Fig. \ref{fig14}, but for $N_e(300)=10000$ and $\delta m^2_{31}<0$.
957: The stars denote $10^{\circ}$ step of $CP$ phase from $\pi/2$ to $\pi$.
958: }
959: \label{fig15}
960: \end{figure}
961: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
962: \begin{figure}[htb]
963: \vspace*{-1cm}
964: \hspace*{-2cm}
965: \includegraphics[height=20cm,width=17cm,angle =0]{fig16.ps}
966: \vspace*{-1cm}
967: \caption[]{ Same as Fig. \ref{fig14}, but for $N_e(300)=1000$ and $\delta m^2_{31}<0$.
968: The stars denote $10^{\circ}$ step of $CP$ phase from $\pi/2$ to $\pi$.
969: }
970: \label{fig16}
971: \end{figure}
972:
973: \end{document}
974: