1: \documentstyle[12pt,epsfig]{article}

2: %\usepackage{epsf,graphicx}

3: 

4: \textheight 8.6in

5: \textwidth 6.9in

6: \oddsidemargin -.8cm

7: \topmargin -0.4cm

8: 

9: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{eqnarray}}

10: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{eqnarray}}

11: \newcommand{\etal}{{\it et al.}}

12: \def\nue{{\nu_e}}

13: \def\anue{{\bar\nu_e}}

14: \def\numu{{\nu_{\mu}}}

15: \def\anumu{{\bar\nu_{\mu}}}

16: \def\nutau{{\nu_{\tau}}}

17: \def\anutau{{\bar\nu_{\tau}}}

18: \newcommand{\dm}{\mbox{$\Delta m_{21}^2$~}}

19: \newcommand{\st}{\mbox{$\sin^{2}2\theta$~}}

20: \newcommand{\br}{\mbox{$^{8}{B}~$}}

21: \newcommand{\ber}{\mbox{$^{7}{Be}$~}}

22: \newcommand{\cl}{\mbox{$^{37}{Cl}$~}}

23: \newcommand{\ga}{\mbox{$^{71}{Ga}$~}}

24: \newcommand{\chr}{\mbox{$\breve{\rm C}$erenkov~}}

25: \newcommand{\kl}{\mbox{KamLAND~}}

26: \newcommand{\bx}{\mbox{Borexino~}}

27: %\newcommand{\thsol}{\mbox{$\theta_{\odot}$~}}

28: \newcommand{\thsol}{\mbox{$\theta_{12}$~}}

29: \def\lsim{\:\raisebox{-0.5ex}{$\stackrel{\textstyle<}{\sim}$}\:}

30: \def\gsim{\:\raisebox{-0.5ex}{$\stackrel{\textstyle>}{\sim}$}\:}

31: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

32: \begin{document}

33: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

34: 

35: \begin{flushright}

36: SISSA 15/2003/EP     \\

37: SINP/TNP/03-04\\

38: hep-ph/0302243

39: \end{flushright}

40: 

41: \begin{center}

42: {\Large \bf Exploring the sensitivity of current and future 

43: experiments to $\theta_{\odot}$}

44: \vspace{.5in}

45: 

46: {\bf Abhijit Bandyopadhyay\footnote{e-mail: abhi@theory.saha.ernet.in},

47:  Sandhya Choubey\footnote{email: sandhya@he.sissa.it},

48:  Srubabati Goswami\footnote{e-mail: sruba@mri.ernet.in}}

49: \vskip .5cm

50: 

51: $^1${\it Theory Group, Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics},\\

52: {\it 1/AF, Bidhannagar,

53: Calcutta 700 064, INDIA}\\

54: $^2${\it INFN, Sezione di Trieste and

55: Scuola Internazionale Superiore di Studi Avanzati,\\

56: I-34014,

57: Trieste, Italy}\\

58: $^3${\it Harish-Chandra Research Institute},\\{\it Chhatnag Road, Jhusi,

59: Allahabad  211 019, INDIA}

60: 

61: 

62: \vskip 1in

63: 

64: 

65: \end{center}

66: 

67: \begin{abstract}

68: The first results from the KamLAND experiment 

69: in conjunction with the global solar neutrino data

70: %has confirmed the Large Mixing Angle solution 

71: %(LMA) to the 

72: %solar neutrino problem and 

73: has demonstrated striking ability to 

74: constrain the $\Delta m^2_\odot$ ($\Delta m^2_{21}$) very precisely.

75: %in conjunction with the solar neutrino data. 

76: However the allowed range of 

77: $\theta_{\odot}$ ($\theta_{12}$) did not change much with the inclusion of the 

78: KamLAND results. 

79: In this paper we probe if future data from KamLAND can increase the accuracy 

80: of the allowed range in $\theta_{\odot}$ and conclude that even after 

81: 3 kton-year of statistics 

82: and most optimistic error estimates, 

83: KamLAND {\it may} find it hard to 

84: significantly improve the 

85: bounds on the mixing angle obtained from the solar neutrino data. 

86: We discuss the $\theta_{12}$ sensitivity of the survival probabilities in 

87: matter (vacuum)  as is 

88: relevant for the 

89: solar (KamLAND)  experiments. 

90: We find that the presence of matter effects in the survival probabilities

91: for $^8B$ neutrinos give the solar neutrino experiments

92: SK and SNO an edge over KamLAND,

93: as far as $\theta_{12}$ 

94: sensitivity is concerned, particularly near maximal mixing.

95: Among solar neutrino experiments we identify SNO as the most 

96: promising candidate for constraining $\theta_{12}$ and make a 

97: projected sensitivity test for the mixing angle by reducing the 

98: error in the neutral current measurement at SNO. Finally we 

99: argue that the most accurate bounds on $\theta_{12}$ can be  

100: achieved in a reactor experiment, 

101: if the corresponding baseline and energy 

102: can be tuned to a minimum in the survival probability. 

103: %The observed KamLAND spectra on the other hand corresponds to an oscillation 

104: %maximum giving it a better handle over $\Delta m^2$. 

105: We propose a new reactor experiment which can give 

106: the value of $\tan^2\theta_{12}$ to 

107: within 14\%.

108: We also discuss the future Borexino and LowNu experiments. 

109:  

110: \end{abstract}

111: 

112: 

113: \newpage

114: 

115: \section{Introduction}

116: 

117: The year 2002 has witnessed two very important results in solar

118: neutrino research.

119: In April 2002 the accumulated evidence in

120: favor of  possible flavor conversion

121: of the solar electron neutrinos was confirmed with a statistical

122: significance of 5.3$\sigma$ from the 

123: Sudbury Neutrino Observatory (SNO) 

124: %neutral current data

125: \cite{Ahmad:2002jz}.

126: The inclusion of the SNO spectrum data combining the charged current,

127: electron scattering and neutral current events in the global solar neutrino

128: analysis picked out

129: the Large Mixing Angle (LMA) MSW \cite{msw} solution as the preferred

130: solution \cite{Bandyopadhyay:2002xj,Choubey:2002nc},

131: confirming the earlier  trend \cite{snoccgl}.

132: In December 2002 the Kamioka Liquid scintillator Anti-Neutrino 

133: Detector (KamLAND) experiment in Japan \cite{Eguchi:2002dm}

134: provided independent and conclusive 

135: evidence in favor of the LMA solution, using

136: reactor neutrinos.

137: Assuming CPT invariance this establishes oscillations of $\nu_e$

138: with a mass squared difference $\sim 7 \times 10^{-5}$ eV$^2$ 

139: and large mixing \cite{Bandyopadhyay:2002en,others}.

140: Comprehensive evidence in favor

141: of oscillation of the atmospheric $\nu_{\mu}$s came from the

142: Super-Kamiokande (SK) 

143: results \cite{skatm}. This was confirmed by the result from

144: the K2K long baseline experiment using terrestrial neutrino sources \cite{k2k}.

145: The best-fit value of $\Delta m^2_{atm}$ comes out as $\sim 2.5 \times 10^{-3}$

146: eV$^2$ with maximal mixing in the $\numu-\nutau$ sector \cite{kajita}.

147: 

148: Since the solar and atmospheric neutrino anomalies involve two hierarchically

149: different mass scales, simultaneous explanation of these involve three

150: neutrino mixing. There are nine unknown parameters involved in the 

151: three-generation light neutrino mass matrix -- masses of the three 

152: neutrinos, and six other parameters coming from the 

153: Pontecorvo-Maki-Nakagawa-Sakata (PMNS) mixing matrix \cite{pmns}.

154: Of the nine parameters, 

155: oscillation experiments are sensitive to six ($\Delta m^2_{21}$,

156: $\Delta m^2_{31}$, $\theta_{12}$, $\theta_{13}$, $\theta_{23}$, $\delta$),

157: the two independent 

158: mass squared differences ($\Delta m_{ij}^2=m_i^2 - m_j^2$), 

159: the three mixing angles and one CP 

160: phase. 

161: Flavor oscillations are independent of 

162: the absolute neutrino mass scale, and 

163: the remaining two CP phases appear only in lepton number violating 

164: processes. 

165: The solar neutrino data constrain the parameters $\Delta m^2_{\odot}

166: \sim  \Delta m^2_{21}$ and $\theta_{\odot} \sim \theta_{12}$ while

167: the atmospheric neutrino data constrain the parameters

168: $\Delta m^2_{atm} \sim \Delta m_{31}^2$ and $\theta_{atm} \sim \theta_{23}$.

169: The two sectors get connected by the mixing angle $\theta_{13}$ which

170: is at present constrained by the reactor data \cite{chooz,Boehm:2001ik}

171: as $\sin^2 \theta_{13} \leq 0.03$ at 90\% C.L. \cite{chooz}.

172: 

173: With neutrino flavor oscillations in 

174: both solar and atmospheric neutrino anomalies confirmed, the

175: research in neutrino physics is now all set to enter the

176: era of precision measurements.

177: %Infact the first results from KamLAND

178: %has already demonstrated an extraordinary capability in precisely determining

179: %$\Delta m^2_{\odot}$.

180: The conventional accelerator based

181: long baseline experiments as well as neutrino factories using muon storage

182: rings as sources have been

183: discussed widely for the purposes of precise determination of the 

184: neutrino oscillation parameters

185: (see \cite{nufact} for a comprehensive discussion and 

186: a complete list of references). 

187: The major goals in the upcoming long baseline and proposed neutrino factories

188: are -- precision determination of $|\Delta m^2_{31}|$ and

189: $\theta_{23}$ , ascertaining the sign of $\Delta m^2_{31}$ and

190: determining how small is $\theta_{13}$.

191: The atmospheric parameters 

192: $|\Delta m_{31}^2|$ and $\sin^22\theta_{23}$ are expected to be 

193: determined within 1\% accuracy in the next generation long baseline 

194: experiments using conventional 

195: (super)beams \cite{Itow:2001ee,Ayres:2002nm}. The 

196: mixing angle $\sin^22\theta_{13}$ is expected to be probed down 

197: to $1.5\times 10^{-3}$ in the long baseline experiments using 

198: superbeams \cite{Itow:2001ee,Ayres:2002nm}

199: while neutrino factories will be sensitive upto  

200: $\sin^22\theta_{13} \sim 10^{-5}$ \cite{nufact}.

201: Finally with KamLAND confirming the LMA solution,

202: it should be possible to

203: measure the CP phase $\delta$ in neutrino factories 

204: and possibly even in the proposed phase II JHF (in Japan) and NuMI (in USA) 

205: long baseline experiments,

206: provided $\sin^22\theta_{13}$ is not too small \cite{Itow:2001ee,Ayres:2002nm}.

207: However $\Delta m^2_{21}$ and $\theta_{12}$ drive the sub-leading oscillations

208: in these experiments and hence precision determination of these parameters

209: through long baseline experiments or neutrino factories will be very

210: challenging\footnote{With LMA confirmed by KamLAND 

211: there remains a possibility of determining $\theta_{12}$ and 

212: $\Delta m^2_{21}$ in a high-performance neutrino factory provided 

213: the background can be reduced sufficiently and

214: $\sin^2 2\theta_{13} < 10^{-5}$ \cite{nufact21}.}. Therefore in 

215: all these studies the sub-leading oscillation parameters $\Delta m^2_{21}$

216: and $\theta_{12}$ are introduced as external inputs, taking typically 

217: either the

218: best-fit value obtained from the global solar analysis or the projected 

219: sensitivity limits from future \kl data.

220: However, since the concern now has shifted to precision measurements,

221: the uncertainty in the parameters $\Delta m^2_{21}$

222: and $\theta_{12}$

223: can also affect the accuracy with which we can determine the rest of the

224: parameters of the PMNS matrix, 

225: especially the CP violation parameter $\delta$, as

226: it comes only with the sub-leading term in the oscillation probability.

227: The uncertainty in the measurement of other parameters, 

228: introduced through the uncertainty in the solar parameters, gets 

229: worse for smaller values of the mixing angle $\sin^22\theta_{13}$.

230: 

231: As far as the precision determination of $\Delta m^2_{21}$ is concerned,

232: KamLAND

233: has already demonstrated an extraordinary capability in precisely determining

234: the $\Delta m^2_{\odot}$.  The 

235: uncertainty (we call it ``spread'')\footnote{We give the precise

236: definition of ``spread'' in Section 3.} in the 99\% C.L.

237: allowed range of this parameter around the global best-fit solution 

238: (which we call the low-LMA),

239: has reduced to 30\% after including the KamLAND spectral data,

240: from 76\% as obtained from only solar global analysis.

241: The spread in the allowed range of $\tan^2\theta_{\odot}$ on the other hand

242: remains

243: unchanged, even after including the KamLAND results and the current 99\% C.L.

244: uncertainty is $\sim$ 47\%.

245: 

246: 

247: In this paper we probe the sensitivity of the various previous, 

248: present and future solar neutrino

249: experiments to the parameter $\theta_{\odot} \sim \theta_{12}$ and make a

250: comparative study of which experiment is most sensitive in constraining

251: $\theta_{12}$. We conclude that SNO has the best potential for constraining 

252: \thsol. We make an optimistic projected analysis including 

253: future SNO neutral current (NC) measurements and look for the improved 

254: bounds on \thsol. 

255: We discuss the precipitating factors

256: for which the sensitivity of KamLAND to $\theta_{12}$ is not

257: as good as its sensitivity to $\Delta m^2_{21}$ and discuss

258: the effect of increased statistics and reduced systematics through projected

259: analyses. We conclude that even with 3 kTy statistics \kl may

260: not significantly improve the current limits on \thsol coming from the 

261: solar neutrino experiments.

262: We differentiate between two types of terrestrial 

263: experimental set-ups sensitive to vacuum oscillations. One 

264: which has its energy and baseline tuned to a maximum in the 

265: survival probability and another where the baseline ($L$) and energy 

266: ($E$) would 

267: give a minimum in the survival probability.

268: We argue that sensitivity to $\theta_{12}$ increases 

269: substantially if the experiment is sensitive to a ``Survival Probability  

270: MINimum'' (SPMIN) instead of a ``Survival Probability MAXimum'' (SPMAX)

271: -- as is the case in KamLAND, and

272: propose a new reactor experiment which would give 

273: precise value of $\tan^2\thsol$ down to 14\%. 

274: 

275: We begin in Section 2 with a discussion of the potential of the 

276: experiments sensitive to different limits of the survival probability 

277: in constraining the mixing angle.

278: We then discuss the solar neutrino experiments

279: and delineate the impact of each one separately on the 

280: global allowed areas. We obtain bounds on \thsol from a future SNO NC data.

281: In the next section we introduce the KamLAND data and discuss how much the

282: uncertainty in $\theta_{12}$ is going to reduce with the

283: increased statistics in KamLAND.

284: We make a comparative study of various solar neutrino experiments along

285: with KamLAND data and determine the role of the individual experiments

286: in constraining $\theta_{12}$ and $\Delta m^2_{21}$.

287: %Our study shows that in the LMA 

288: %region the SNO data puts a stringent constraint

289: %on the allowed values of $\theta_{12}$ ruling out maximal mixing as well as

290: %the high $\Delta m^2_{12}$ regions which was allowed by the combination of

291: %KamLAND and all other solar neutrino experiments excluding SNO.

292: The reasons for the low sensitivity of \kl to \thsol is expounded.

293: In Section 4 we propose a new reactor experiment which could 

294: in principle bring down the uncertainty in $\tan^2\thsol$ to 14\%.

295: %Finally we also show how the uncertainty in the range of $\theta_{12}$ 

296: %is affected if we include a non zero $\theta_{13}$.

297: In the next section we

298: examine the role of the future solar neutrino experiments -- Borexino 

299: and the LowNu experiments. We finally present our conclusions in 

300: Section 6.

301: 

302: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

303: \section{Solar Neutrino Experiments}

304: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

305: %\subsection{Chlorine}

306: %\subsection{Gallium}

307: %\subsection{Super-Kamiokande}

308: %\subsection{SNO}

309: 

310: \begin{figure}[t]

311: \centerline{\epsfig{figure=fig1.eps,height=4.in,width=4.in}}

312: \caption{The survival probability $P_{ee}$ as a function $\sin^2\theta_{12}$ 

313: for $P_{ee}= \sin^2\theta_{12}$ (solid line), 

314: $P_{ee}= 1-0.5\sin^22\theta_{12}$ (dashed line) and 

315: $P_{ee}=1-\sin^22\theta_{12}$ (dotted line).}

316: \label{sens}

317: \end{figure}

318: 

319: The solar neutrinos come with a wide energy spectrum and 

320: have been observed on Earth in detectors with different 

321: energy thresholds. 

322: The survival probability for the low energy 

323: $pp$ (in Ga experiments -- SAGE, GALLEX and GNO) 

324: and the high energy \br fluxes (in SK and SNO)

325: in the now established 

326: LMA scenario can be very well approximated by

327: \be

328: P_{ee}({pp}) \approx 1-\frac{1}{2}\sin^22\thsol

329: \label{peepp}\\

330: P_{ee}({\br})\approx \sin^2\thsol+f_{reg}

331: \label{pee8b}

332: \ee 

333: where $f_{reg}$ is the $\nue$ regeneration inside the Earth. 

334: Thus the solar neutrinos in LMA are sensitive 

335: to \thsol, the degree of sensitivity depending on the energy of the 

336: relevant solar neutrinos observed. To expound this feature we 

337: present in Figure \ref{sens} the 

338: variation of $P_{ee}$ with $\sin^2\thsol$ for the different 

339: limits of the neutrino oscillation scenarios -- averaged oscillations 

340: (cf. Eq.(\ref{peepp})), 

341: fully adiabatic conversions in matter (cf. Eq(\ref{pee8b})) 

342: and ``full'' vacuum oscillations  

343: corresponding to 

344: ``Survival Probability  

345: MINimum'' (SPMIN), that is 

346: $P_{ee}=1-\sin^22\thsol$\footnote{This  

347: case corresponds to vacuum oscillations with 

348: $\sin^2(\dm L/4E)\approx 1$ and we call this SPMIN, 

349: since $P_{ee}$ is minimum for this 

350: choice of $L/E$. 

351: The case where  $\sin^2(\dm L/4E)\approx 0$ is referred 

352: to in this paper as an SPMAX.}.

353: For both averaged oscillations and SPMIN 

354: the dependence of the probability 

355: is quadratic in $\sin^2\thsol$, while for complete adiabatic conversions (AD) 

356: the dependence is linear. Thus for the latter the error in 

357: $\sin^2\thsol$ is roughly same as the error in the probability $P_{ee}$. 

358: \be

359: (\Delta \sin^2\thsol)_{\rm AD} \sim \Delta P_{ee}

360: \label{ad}

361: \ee

362: While the corresponding error for averaged oscillations (AV) and 

363: SPMIN cases are roughly given by

364: \be

365: (\Delta \sin^2\thsol)_{\rm AV} \sim \frac{\Delta P_{ee}}{-2\cos 2\thsol}

366: \label{av}\\

367: (\Delta \sin^2\thsol)_{\rm SPMIN} \sim \frac{\Delta P_{ee}}{-4\cos 2\thsol}

368: \label{om}

369: \ee

370: the 

371: sensitivity to 

372: $\sin^2\thsol$ for averaged oscillations 

373: being reduced to roughly 1/2 of that for SPMIN.

374: We note from Eqs.(\ref{ad}), (\ref{av}) and (\ref{om}) that

375: for mixing angle not very close to maximal mixing, that is for 

376: $\cos2\thsol \gsim 0.25$ ($\sin^2\thsol \lsim 0.375$), 

377: the error in \thsol is least when we have a SPMIN. 

378: For $\cos2\thsol \gsim 0.5$ ($\sin^2\thsol \lsim 0.25$) 

379: even averaged oscillations are better 

380: suited for \thsol measurements than adiabatic conversions inside matter.

381: However for large mixing angles close to maximal, 

382: the adiabatic case has the maximum sensitivity.

383: All these features are evident in the Figure \ref{sens} which shows 

384: that  

385: %%%For complete adiabatic conversions 

386: %%%inside the Sun (cf. Eq.(\ref{pee8b})) the \thsol sensitivity  

387: %%%is seen to be better 

388: %%%than for averaged oscillations (cf. Eq.(\ref{peepp})) 

389: %%%-- especially at large values of the mixing angle.

390: for 

391: the SPMIN case

392: %%%, where the distance 

393: %%%traveled by the neutrinos 

394: %%%is equal to the oscillation wavelength, 

395: and for mixing not too close to maximal, the $P_{ee}$ has the 

396: sharpest dependence on the mixing angle and the \thsol sensitivity 

397: is maximum. Since the 99\% C.L. allowed values  

398: of \thsol is within the range $0.14 < \cos2\thsol < 0.57$, 

399: SPMIN seems most promising for constraining $\theta_{12}$.

400: 

401: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

402: \subsection{Bounds from current solar data}

403: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

404: 

405: While the Gallium (Ga) experiments, SAGE, 

406: GALLEX and GNO \cite{ga} are sensitive mostly to the $pp$ 

407: neutrinos, the SK \cite{Fukuda:2002pe}

408: and SNO \cite{Ahmad:2002jz} predominantly observe the higher energy \br

409: neutrino flux.

410: The Chlorine experiment (Cl) \cite{Cleveland:nv}

411: observes the intermediate energy 

412: \ber neutrinos in addition to the \br. 

413: Since the best-fit value for the mixing angle is large (with 

414: $\sin^2\theta_{12} \approx 0.3$), 

415: from the discussion above we expect SK and SNO 

416: to have a better handle over $\theta_{12}$. However the 

417: observed rates in the detectors depend not only on the survival 

418: probability but also on the initial solar neutrino flux in the Sun. 

419: The errors in the predicted fluxes are carried over to the errors 

420: in the parameters determined, reducing the net sensitivity.

421: While the $pp$ neutrinos are very accurately 

422: predicted and have theory errors of less than $\sim 1\%$, the \br neutrinos 

423: have a huge Standard Solar Model (SSM) 

424: uncertainty of $\sim 20\%$ \cite{bp00}. Thus on this  

425: front the ``sub-MeV'' experiments score over the higher energy 

426: solar neutrino experiments.

427: 

428: \begin{figure}[t]

429: \centerline{\psfig{figure=fig2.ps,height=5.in,width=5.in}}

430: \caption{The 90\%, 95\%, 99\% and 99.73\% C.L. contours

431: from a $\chi^2$ analysis using all but one of the solar neutrino 

432: experiments. The experiment left out from analysis is indicated in the 

433: panels.

434: %The dashed line shows the presently allowed

435: %$3\sigma$ only solar contour.

436: }

437: \label{allsol-1}

438: \end{figure}

439: 

440: %%%The discussion above is based solely on the total observed flux in 

441: %%%the detector. However

442:  SK and SNO are real-time experiments and 

443: hence carry information regarding energy dependence of the suppression 

444: and potential matter effects as well.  

445: %In fig. 1 we depict the allowed regions from the individual solar neutrino 

446: %experiment. 

447: %On this figure we also superpose the 3$\sigma$ allowed contour from 

448: %global solar analysis. 

449: %Each experiment separtely allows a

450: %large region in parameter 

451: %space but the global data reduce the allowed region into two 

452: %small islands. Most favored is the LMA region. 

453: %A small area in the LOW region also survive at 99.73\% C.L. . 

454: %The sensitivity to $\theta_{\odot}$ 

455: %in the LMA region is seen to be maximum for SNO ruling out the 

456: %maximal mixing and the dark side ($\theta > \pi/4$). 

457: %The 3$\sigma$ global solar allowed region allows the range 

458: %xx $<$ $\tan^2\theta <$ xx. 

459: To project a realistic scenario of the potential of each of the 

460: solar neutrino experiments in constraining the parameters, we 

461: present in Figure \ref{allsol-1} the C.L. allowed 

462: contours \footnote{In our solar analysis we include the 

463: total rates from Cl and Ga, the full zenith angle spectral 

464: data from SK and the complete day-night spectral information from SNO

465: \cite{Bandyopadhyay:2002xj,Choubey:2002nc,Bandyopadhyay:2002qg}. 

466: Note that in the solar neutrino analysis the $^8B$ rates 

467: come as $f_B P_{ee}$ where $f_B$ is a normalization factor for the $^8B$ 

468: flux and is varied as a free parameter. }

469: from an analysis where all but 

470: one of the experiments is not considered\footnote{For the 

471: allowed regions from the individual solar neutrino 

472: experiment we refer to Figure 3 of 

473: \cite{Choubey:2002nc}.}. 

474: The figure shows that 

475: exclusion of Cl from the analysis raises the upper limit on both \dm and 

476: \thsol. 

477: Higher values of \dm and values of \thsol close to maximal mixing

478: give an energy independent suppression of the solar neutrino

479: flux within $\pm 10\%$ \cite{Choubey:2001bi}.

480: The Cl experiment with an observed rate that is $2\sigma$ away

481: from that predicted by maximal mixing disfavors these zones.

482: So omission of Cl makes these zones more allowed. 

483: SK is  consistent with

484: no energy dependence in the survival probability.

485: Thus SK

486: favors these quasi-energy independent

487: regions of the parameter space. 

488: %and exclusion of SK tightens the 

489: %upper bound on \thsol.  

490: The non-observation of any

491: significant day-night asymmetry in SK puts the lower bound on

492: $\Delta m^2_{21}$

493: and hence omission of SK loosens this bound.

494: %Ga experiment with an observed suppression close to 0.5 also prefers 

495: %the quasi energy independent zones though to a lesser extent than SK. 

496: %Thus without Ga also one gets an upper bound on \dm which is slightly 

497: %weaker than the no SK case. 

498: The Ga observed rate of 0.55 is comparatively

499: closer to the rate predicted at maximal mixing ($=0.5$),

500: however the error in the $pp$ flux is only $\sim 1\%$ and this helps Ga to

501: disfavor maximal mixing.

502: Therefore excluding Ga slightly increases the upper limit of \thsol.  

503: But the strongest impact on the allowed regions of the parameter space comes

504: from SNO, which comprehensively rules out most of these

505: quasi-energy independent zones that predict a suppression rate

506: $P_{ee} \gsim 0.5$.

507: Thus without SNO the bounds become much weaker 

508: in both \dm and \thsol. The upper limit on \dm vanishes and the 

509: upper limit on \thsol becomes extremely poor, with large areas in the 

510: ``dark zone'' (zones with $\thsol > \pi/4$) getting allowed.

511: Without SNO these areas were allowed since 

512: the 20\% uncertainty in the \br neutrino flux could be used to 

513: compensate for the higher survival probability and explain the 

514: global data. However with SNO the uncertainty in \br flux has come down to 

515: 12\%, putting a sharp upper bound to both \dm ($\dm < 2.2\times 10^{-4}$ 

516: eV$^2$) and \thsol ($\tan^2\thsol <0.77 $) at 99\% C.L..

517: 

518: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

519: \subsection{Sensitivity of expected NC data from SNO}

520: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

521: 

522: \begin{figure}[t]

523: \centerline{\psfig{figure=fig3.ps,height=4.in,width=4.in}}

524: \caption{

525: The impact of the future SNO NC data (with error of 7\%) 

526: on the parameter space. The upper panels are for the global 

527: solar neutrino data with current (12\%) and future (7\%) error in NC.

528: The lower 2 panels are the corresponding allowed regions obtained 

529: by combining the \kl and the solar neutrino data.

530: The lines of constant CC/NC ratio in SNO are shown by dashed 

531: lines. 

532: }

533: \label{nc1}

534: \end{figure}

535: 

536: This tremendous power of SNO to  

537: constrain mass and mixing parameters

538: stems from its ability to 

539: simultaneously measure the neutrino suppression rate 

540: through the charged current (CC) interaction and the total 

541: \br neutrino flux 

542: through the independent neutral current (NC) measurement.

543: Thus by reducing errors in both $P_{ee}$ (from CC reaction) 

544: and the \br flux normalization $f_B$ (from the NC reaction), SNO 

545: can put better limits on the mass and mixing parameters. In particular 

546: it bounds the LMA zone in \dm from the top, chopping off parts of the 

547: parameter space for which the \br neutrinos do not undergo resonant 

548: transitions inside the Sun and therefore have a form of $P_{ee} 

549: \approx 1-0.5\sin^22\thsol$. These regions would give a $P_{ee}>0.5$ 

550: and could be accommodated with the CC data only if the initial \br 

551: flux was assumed to be less, or in other words $f_B<1$. However 

552: values of $f_B$ different from 1 are disfavored from the NC measurements 

553: of SNO and these high \dm regions get ruled out. Similarly in the 

554: adiabatic zone since $P_{ee}\approx \sin^2\thsol$, the larger values of 

555: $\sin^2\thsol$ close to maximal mixing would be 

556: allowed only if $f_B$ were to be assumed to be less than 1, which is 

557: at variance with the data as discussed above and hence these zones get 

558: severely constrained.

559: 

560: The upper left-hand panel of Figure \ref{nc1} shows the current C.L. allowed 

561: zones from the global solar neutrino experiments. Superimposed on them are 

562: the lines of constant CC/NC rates in SNO\footnote{Lines of constant 

563: day-night asymmetry in SNO are seen to be practically independent \thsol 

564: \cite{Maris:2001tg} and so we do not present them here. 

565: However they have a sharp \dm 

566: dependence which can be used as a consistency check on the \dm measurement 

567: from KamLAND.}. We note that the $3\sigma$ range of predicted CC/NC rates 

568: from the current solar limits are $0.23-0.47$. If SNO can measure a CC/NC 

569: ratio with smaller errors 

570: then the range for the allowed values

571: of \thsol would reduce.

572: 

573: The next phase of NC rate from SNO would come from capture of the 

574: neutron -- 

575: released in the neutral current breakup of heavy 

576: water -- on $^{35}Cl$ (salt). 

577: This data is expected to have much better 

578: statistics than the earlier data released last year, which was with neutron 

579: capture on deuterons. Since the efficiency of neutron captures on 

580: salt is about 83\% while that on deuterons only about 30\% we expect the 

581: statistical errors in the neutral current measurements to come down

582: to about 5\%.

583: It would be interesting to gauge how much the 

584: uncertainty in \thsol would reduce with better measurements of the 

585: total \br flux from SNO. Just to project the impact of reduced errors 

586: from SNO we show in the upper right-hand panel of Figure \ref{nc1} the 

587: allowed areas in the parameter space when the total error in the NC 

588: measurement is reduced to 7\%\footnote{The current systematic error 

589: in the NC data is about 9\%. However we make an optimistic reduction 

590: in the total errors in the future SNO NC measurements.}. Since the 

591: purpose of this figure is not accuracy but an 

592: optimistic projection of the impact of a futuristic 

593: SNO NC measurement, we have replaced the 34-binned SNO spectrum data used 

594: everywhere else in this paper, with the total charged and neutral current 

595: rates in SNO. The total rates are disentangled from the SNO spectrum data 

596: by assuming no spectral distortion for the \br flux.

597: Since we confine ourselves to the LMA zone where there is hardly 

598: any spectral distortion expected, we consider this to be an 

599: excellent approximation. We note that the limit on \thsol improves 

600: with reduced 

601: errors in NC and the 99\% C.L. bounds at $\dm=7\times 10^{-5}$ eV$^2$ reads 

602: $0.3 < \tan^2\thsol < 0.63$.

603: 

604: 

605: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

606: \section{KamLAND}

607: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

608: 

609: \subsection{Current Bounds}

610: 

611: \begin{figure}[t]

612: \centerline{\psfig{figure=fig4.ps,height=4.in,width=6.in}}

613: \caption{The 90\%, 95\%, 99\% and 99.73\% C.L. contours

614: from a $\chi^2$ analysis using

615: the KamLAND spectrum data alone (left panel) and 

616: the combined \kl and global solar data (right panel).

617: %The dashed line shows the presently allowed

618: %$3\sigma$ only solar contour.

619: }

620: \label{klsol}

621: \end{figure}

622: 

623: \begin{figure}[t]

624: \centerline{\psfig{figure=fig5.ps,height=4.in,width=4.in}}

625: \caption{

626: Same as Figure \ref{allsol-1} but with the \kl data included.} 

627: 

628: \label{all-1}

629: \end{figure}

630: 

631: %\begin{figure}[t]

632: %\centerline{\psfig{figure=nc.ps,height=4.in,width=4.in}}

633: %\caption{

634: %}

635: %\label{nc2}

636: %\end{figure}

637: 

638: %\begin{figure}[t]

639: %\centerline{\psfig{figure=pro.ps,height=5in,width=6in}}

640: %\caption{The 90\%, 95\%, 99\% and 99.73\% C.L. contours for

641: %the combined analysis using the solar, CHOOZ and 1 kton-yr

642: %projected KamLAND spectrum.

643: %The different panels are for the simulated spectrum at

644: %values of $\Delta m^2$ and $\tan^2\theta$ indicated by the

645: %black dots.

646: %}

647: %\label{klspm1}

648: %\end{figure}

649: %

650: %\begin{figure}[t]

651: %\centerline{\psfig{figure=pro_3kty.ps,height=5in,width=6in}}

652: %\caption{Same as Figure \ref{klspm1} but with 3 kTy projected KamLAND spectrum.

653: %}

654: %\label{klspm3}

655: %\end{figure}

656: %

657: \begin{figure}[t]

658: \centerline{\psfig{figure=fig6.ps,height=5in,width=6in}}

659: \caption{$\Delta \chi^2$ versus $\tan^2\thsol$ for only \kl data 

660: (left panel) and combined \kl and Solar neutrino data (right panel).

661: For \kl we use the declared 0.162 kTy data as well as the 1 kTy 

662: and 3 kTy projected spectral data, with the spectrum simulated at 

663: the low-LMA best-fit point. The long-dashed line gives the 99\% C.L. 

664: bound for 2 parameter fit.

665: }

666: \label{delchi}

667: \end{figure}

668: 

669: After the announcement of the first KamLAND results 

670: \cite{Eguchi:2002dm} there was a plethora 

671: of papers discussing the impact of \kl on the mass and mixing parameters, 

672: $\Delta m_{\odot}^2$ and $\theta_\odot$ 

673: \cite{Bandyopadhyay:2002en,others}.

674: The \kl spectrum even though still short on statistics, is 

675: powerful enough to disintegrate the solar neutrino parameter space 

676: into two disjoint islands at the 99\% C.L. -- one around the global 

677: best-fit of $\dm=7.17\times 10^{-5}$ eV$^2$ and $\tan^2\theta_{12}=0.44$ 

678: and another 

679: at $\dm=1.49\times 10^{-4}$ eV$^2$ 

680: and $\tan^2\theta_{12}=0.43$. We call them low-LMA 

681: and high-LMA respectively. High-LMA appears at a reduced statistical 

682: significance of about $2\sigma$. The two islands however join at the 

683: $3\sigma$ level. We show the currently allowed zones in 

684: Figure \ref{klsol}\footnote{For the \kl analysis 

685: %\footnote{In our solar analysis we include the 

686: %total rates from Cl and Ga, the full zenith angle spectra 

687: %data from SK and the complete day-night spectral information from SNO. 

688: %For \kl 

689: we take the 13-binned spectrum data. We assume 

690: Poisson distribution for the \kl spectrum. For the solar neutrino   

691: data the error analysis assumes a Gaussian distribution.

692: For the details of our solar neutrino 

693: and \kl analysis techniques and codes we refer the reader to 

694: \cite{Bandyopadhyay:2002xj,Choubey:2002nc,Bandyopadhyay:2002en,

695: Bandyopadhyay:2002qg}.}. The right-hand panel of this figure gives the 

696: allowed areas from the \kl data alone, while the left-hand panel gives 

697: the combined allowed zones from solar and \kl data. 

698: %The dashed lines 

699: %display the $3\sigma$ contour allowed by the combined solar neutrino 

700: %experiments. 

701: From a global analysis involving the solar and \kl data 

702: the $3\sigma$ ranges are

703: \be

704: 0.27&<~\tan^2\theta_{12}~<&0.88\\

705: 4.96\times 10^{-5}&<~ \Delta m_{21}^2~ <& 2.0\times10^{-4}

706: \ee

707: The 99\% range for the parameters are \cite{Bandyopadhyay:2002en},

708: \be

709: 0.28&<~\tan^2\theta_{12}~<&0.79\\

710: 5.3\times 10^{-5}&< ~\Delta m_{21}^2 ~<& 9.9\times10^{-5},~~~({\rm low-LMA})

711: \ee

712: \be

713: 0.34&<~\tan^2\theta_{12}~<&0.55\\

714: 1.3\times 10^{-4}&<~ \Delta m_{21}^2 ~<& 1.8\times10^{-4},~~~({\rm high-LMA})

715: \ee

716: We note that low-LMA allows a much larger range of \thsol than high-LMA.

717: This has more to do with the fact that the global best-fit is in 

718: low-LMA than anything else. If the contour at high-LMA was to be plotted 

719: with respect to the local minima at high-LMA, then the allowed range 

720: of \thsol would be almost the same.

721: 

722: To study the impact of each of the solar neutrino experiments 

723: in determining the allowed range of the mixing parameters 

724: in conjunction with KamLAND, 

725: we show in 

726: Figure \ref{all-1} the allowed areas from a 

727: combined analysis involving the \kl data and the solar data, with

728: each panel showing the areas obtained when one of the solar neutrino 

729: experiments is {\it excluded}. 

730: %Superimposed on these plots is the 

731: %$3\sigma$ contour obtained from the global solar and \kl data. 

732: The Figure shows that 

733: neglecting Cl helps to make the high-LMA slightly more allowed

734: and the 3$\sigma$ contour extends to larger $\Delta m^2$ while omission of

735: Ga and SK does not change the contours much with respect to the 

736: global contours of figure. 4. However the exclusion 

737: of SNO completely removes the upper bound on \dm and allows \thsol 

738: to move into the ``dark zone'' even at 99\% C.L.. 

739: This again exemplifies the power of SNO in 

740: constraining the quasi-energy independent zones as discussed in the 

741: previous section. In fact we have checked that 

742: SNO alone combined with KamLAND, can almost restrict both \dm and \thsol 

743: within the current global allowed range.

744: 

745: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

746: \subsection{Reduced SNO NC errors and \kl}

747: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

748: 

749: It would be interesting to check if the \kl data with future 

750: solar neutrino data in general and SNO NC data in particular, could 

751: improve the limits on the parameters or not.

752: The lower 2 panels in Figure \ref{nc1} 

753: show the impact of the next phase 

754: SNO NC data in conjunction with the \kl data. 

755: The lower left panel of 

756: the figure shows the 

757: %constant lines for the CC/NC rates superimposed 

758: %on the 

759: current global allowed regions obtained from the combined solar 

760: and \kl data. Also shown superimposed are the 

761: constant lines for the CC/NC rates in SNO.

762: The predicted $3\sigma$ range for the CC/NC rates is 

763: seen to be $0.27 - 0.47$.

764: The lower right hand panel gives the allowed areas obtained when the error 

765: in NC measurement is reduced from 12\% to 7\% as discussed earlier.

766: We again reiterate that for this figure with future SNO NC measurement 

767: we have used the CC and NC rates instead of the full SNO day-night spectrum 

768: used in the rest of the paper.

769: The combination of the solar with reduced NC errors and \kl is seen 

770: to constrain \thsol to $0.3 < \tan^2\thsol < 0.63$ at 99\% C.L., 

771: which is the same as that obtained without \kl and with improved NC.

772: Thus we again 

773: note that inclusion of the current \kl data in the global analysis 

774: brings no improvement on the limits for \thsol. 

775: The results obtained from a combined future SNO NC and future \kl data are 

776: presented in the following sections.

777: 

778: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

779: \subsection{Sensitivity of projected \kl data}

780: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

781: 

782: In \cite {Bandyopadhyay:2002en} we made a projected 

783: analysis using the 1 kTy \kl spectrum simulated at some strategic 

784: points in and around the high-LMA and low-LMA allowed regions

785: and probed the potential of a 

786: statistics enriched \kl data sample to plump for the right solution

787: between the two. The 3 kTy \kl data is obviously expected 

788: to further tighten the bounds on the mixing parameters 

789: \cite{Bandyopadhyay:2002mc}. 

790: The sensitivity of \kl to \dm is found to be remarkable. 

791: %For the sake of completeness we show in Figure \ref{klspm1} and 

792: %Figure \ref{klspm3} the allowed zones expected from a combined analysis 

793: %of the solar and the 1 kTy and 3 kTy \kl spectrum data respectively. 

794: %We have also included the results from the CHOOZ reactor experiment, 

795: %though CHOOZ does not have much impact in this part of the parameter space.

796: %The sensitivity of \kl to \dm is remarkable as evident from the figures.

797: To study the limits that \kl would be expected to 

798: impose on the mixing angle \thsol 

799: with more statistics, we 

800: present in 

801: Figure \ref{delchi} the $\Delta \chi^2 (=\chi^2-\chi^2_{min})$ 

802: as a function of $\tan^2\thsol$, keeping \dm free. The left-hand panel gives 

803: the limits obtained from \kl data alone, with the declared 0.162 kTy data and 

804: the projected 1 kTy and 3 kTy data, 

805: simulated at the current low-LMA best-fit point.

806: The right-hand panel gives the corresponding bounds when \kl is combined with 

807: the solar data. 

808: The limits on the value of \thsol will 

809: depend somewhat on the point in the parameter space where the 

810: projected \kl spectra are simulated. We present here just the bounds 

811: obtained if the future \kl spectrum sticks to its current trend and 

812: roots for the low-LMA best-fit point.

813: Also shown in both the panels is the curve corresponding to the 

814: global solar neutrino data alone. 

815: 

816: Apart from the increased statistics we have also studied the

817: role of the reduced systematics on the allowed parameter ranges.

818: The current 0.162 kTy \kl data has a rather large 

819: and very conservative systematic error of 6.42\% \cite{Eguchi:2002dm}.

820: However the \kl collaboration hopes to improve their systematics in the future.

821: The bulk of the systematic error  comes from

822: the error in the knowledge of the fiducial volume which could

823: be improved by making calibration measurements.

824: For 1 kTy data the systematic error could reduce to the 5\% level

825: with better understanding of the detector and more statistics.

826: For the 3 kTy data sample the systematic uncertainties could be lowered to

827: even 3\% with three-dimensional calibrations and better understanding 

828: of reactor neutrino 

829: flux\footnote{We thank Professor Atsuto Suzuki, Professor 

830: Fumihiko Suekane and Professor Sandip Pakvasa for 

831: information regarding the most optimistic 

832: estimates on the possible future systematic errors in KamLAND.}. 

833: We have assumed an expected   

834: 5\% systematic uncertainty for our analysis with the

835: 1 kTy \kl data and a more optimistic 

836: 3\% systematic uncertainty for the 3 kTy data 

837: sample.

838: 

839: From the Figure \ref{delchi} we see that 

840: even with 3 kTy statistics (and with only 3\% systematic error), \kl 

841: would   

842: constrain \thsol only marginally better than the 

843: current solar neutrino 

844: experiments. 

845: Also, \kl being insensitive to matter effects 

846: has a $\thsol$ and $\pi/2 - \thsol$ ambiguity and therefore allows 

847: regions on both side of maximal mixing. 

848: Maximal mixing itself cannot be ruled out 

849: by the 3 kTy \kl data alone.

850: %Even with 3 kTy statistics it can rule out maximal mixing only at 

851: %the $2\sigma$ level.   

852: The right-hand panel shows that the combined \thsol limits from 

853: the global solar neutrino 

854: data and future \kl data, would be somewhat

855: more constricted than that obtained from the current 

856: solar data alone. Also shown in the right-hand panel of Figure 

857: \ref{delchi} is the \thsol sensitivity curve obtained by combining 

858: the 3 kTy \kl data (with 3\% systematic uncertainty) with the global 

859: solar neutrino data, where the total uncertainty in the SNO NC data 

860: has been reduced from 12\% as of now, to only 7\% expected from a future 

861: SNO measurement. Reduction of the SNO NC error reduces the 

862: combined allowed \thsol 

863: range as discussed in Section 3.2, particularly on the large mixing side.

864: 

865: 

866: \begin{table}

867: \begin{center}

868: \begin{tabular}{ccccccccc}

869: \hline\hline

870: Data & 99\% CL &99\% CL  &1 $\sigma$ & 2$\sigma$ & 99\% CL 

871: & 1 $\sigma$ & 2 $\sigma$ & 99\% CL \cr

872: set & range of & spread & range  &range  &range  & spread  

873: & spread & spread  \cr

874: used & $\dm\times$ & of & of &of & 

875: of & in  

876: & in & in \cr

877:  & 10$^{-5}$eV$^2$ & \dm & $\tan^2\theta_{12}$ 

878: & $\tan^2\theta_{12}$ & $\tan^2\theta_{12}$ & $\tan^2\theta_{12}$

879: & $\tan^2\theta_{12}$ & $\tan^2\theta_{12}$ \cr

880: \hline\hline

881: only sol & 3.2 - 24.0  

882: & 76\%& $.33-.53$ & $.29-.66$ & $.27-.75$ & 23\% & 39\% & 47\% \cr

883: %solar+162 Ty observed &  5.3 - 9.9 

884: sol+162 Ty &  5.3 - 9.9 

885: & 30\% & $.34-.55$ &$.30-.68$ & 

886:  $.28 -.78$ & 23\% & 39\%  & 47\%  \cr

887: %solar+1 kTy simulated & 6.7 - 8.0  

888: sol+1 kTy & 6.7 - 8.0  

889: & 9\% & $.36-.54$

890: & $.33-.65$ & $.30-.72$ & 20\% & 33\%  & 41\% \cr

891: %solar+3 kTy simulated & 6.8 - 7.7 

892: sol+3 kTy & 6.8 - 7.7 

893: & 6\% & $.37-.52$ & $.34-.59$ & $.33-.65$ & 17\% & 27\% & 33\% \cr

894: sol(7\%)+3 kTy & 6.8 - 7.7

895: & 6\% & $.38-.50$

896: & $.35-.56$ & $.33-.60$ & 14\% & 23\%  & 29\% \cr

897: 

898: \hline\hline

899: \end{tabular}

900: \label{klbounds}

901: \caption

902: {The range of parameter values allowed and the corresponding spread. 

903: For the current 

904: observed solar+\kl analysis we show the ranges and the spread only in the 

905: low-LMA region. For the 1 kTy and 3 kTy ranges we have simulated the 

906: spectrum at the current low-LMA best-fit. We assume 5\% systematic error

907: for 1 kTy \kl spectrum and 3\% systematic error for 3 kTy \kl spectrum. The 

908: last row of the Table corresponds to a combination of the 3 kTy \kl data 

909: and the global solar neutrino data where the SNO NC error has been reduced 

910: to only 7\%.

911: }

912: \end{center}

913: \end{table}

914: 

915: 

916: In Table 1 we explicitly present the 99\% C.L. allowed ranges 

917: for the solar neutrino parameters in low-LMA,

918: allowed from combined solar and KamLAND\footnote{For 

919: the various  C.L. limits in the Table 1 we take $\Delta\chi^2$ 

920: corresponding 

921: to a two parameter fit.}.

922: Shown are the current bounds on \dm and $\tan^2\thsol$ and those 

923: expected after 1 kTy and 

924: 3 kTy of \kl data taking. The sensitivity of \kl to \dm is tremendous.

925: Since the thrust of this paper is to study the limits on the solar 

926: mixing angle,

927: we also give the $1\sigma$ and $2\sigma$ limits for $\tan^2\thsol$.  

928: Also shown are the \% spread in the oscillation 

929: parameters. We define the ``spread'' as

930: \be

931: {\rm spread} = \frac{ prm_{max} - prm_{min}}

932: {prm_{max} + prm_{min}}\times 100

933: \label{error}

934: \ee

935: where ${prm}$ denotes the parameter \dm or $\tan^2\thsol$.

936: \kl is extremely good in pinning down the 

937: value of \dm. The ``spread'' in \dm comes down from 30\% as of now 

938: to 9\%(6\%) with 1 kTy(3 kTy) \kl spectrum data. However 

939: its sensitivity to \thsol is not of the same order. The spread in 

940: $\tan^2\thsol$ goes down only to 41\%(33\%) from 47\% with the 

941: 1 kTy(3 kTy) \kl spectrum data combined with the solar data. 

942: Thus as discussed before, even with the most optimistic estimates for the 

943: \kl error analysis, the sensitivity of \kl to \thsol 

944: is not much better than of the current solar data and the 

945: %The current \kl data does not constrain 

946: %\thsol much. The 

947: range of allowed value for \thsol does not reduce by a large amount 

948: even after incorporating KamLAND.

949: %The right hand panel of Figure \ref{klsol} shows that the 

950: %current \kl data allows all values of $\tan^2\theta_{\odot} \gsim 0.1$. 

951: %In fact \kl was not expected to be too sensitive to the value of the 

952: %mixing angle \thsol. 

953: 

954: The last row of Table 1 shows the allowed range of parameter 

955: values from a combined analysis of the 3 kTy \kl data (with 3\% 

956: systematic uncertainty) and the 

957: global solar data, where the total error in the SNO NC data has 

958: been reduced to 7\%.

959: We note that this combination of futuristic as well as optimistic 

960: expected data from SNO NC and \kl reduces the \thsol uncertainty 

961: to 29\% at the 99\% C.L.. However if we compare the range of allowed 

962: values for \thsol given in the last row of Table 1 with that 

963: obtained from an analysis of only the solar data with 

964: SNO NC error of 7\% given in the previous section 3.2, we note 

965: that solar data alone with improved SNO NC measurements can reduce the 

966: spread in \thsol to 35\% at 99\% C.L.. Thus even in this scenario

967: inclusion of the \kl data 

968: helps in reducing the $\tan^2\thsol$ spread only from 35\% to 29\%, and 

969: even 29\% is large when compared with the 6\% spread expected for 

970: \dm from \kl alone.

971: 

972: The reactor antineutrinos do not have any 

973: significant matter effects in \kl and hence the survival probability has 

974: the vacuum oscillation form 

975: \be

976: P_{ee}=1-\sum_i \sin^22\thsol \sin^2\left(\frac{\dm L_i}{4E}\right)

977: \label{probkl}

978: \ee

979: where $L_i$ stands for the different reactor distances. As discussed in 

980: Section 2, experiments sensitive to averaged vacuum oscillation 

981: probability are less sensitive to \thsol, particularly close to 

982: maximal mixing. However in \kl the probability, even though partially averaged 

983: due summing over the various reactor distances, is not completely averaged. 

984: The \kl spectrum shows a peak around 3.6 MeV which is well reproduced 

985: by $\dm \sim 7.2 \times 10^{-5}$ eV$^2$. This sensitivity to shape 

986: gives \kl the ability to accurately pin down \dm.

987: 

988: However the sensitivity of \kl to \thsol around the best-fit point

989: is actually worse than experiments which observe only 

990: averaged oscillations. The reason being that the \kl 

991: data is consistent with a ``survival probability maximum'' (SPMAX) 

992: of vacuum oscillations, 

993: with an oscillation peak in the part 

994: of the neutrino spectrum that is statistically most relevant. 

995: At SPMAX the \dm dependent 

996: $\sin^2(\dm L_i/4E)$ term is close to zero, 

997: smothering any \thsol dependence along with it. 

998: As discussed in Section 2,

999: the \thsol sensitivity 

1000: would have been more, had the \kl distances been 

1001: tuned to a SPMIN. 

1002: 

1003: 

1004: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1005: \section{A new reactor experiment for $\theta_\odot$?}

1006: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1007:  

1008: \begin{figure}[p]

1009: \centerline{\psfig{figure=fig7.ps,height=6in,width=5.5in}}

1010: \caption{The 90\%, 95\%, 99\% and 99.73\% C.L. contours for

1011: the combined analysis using the solar and 3 kTy

1012: projected KamLAND spectrum.

1013: The upper panels are for the simulated \kl 

1014: spectrum at low-LMA best-fit 

1015: parameters and the current solar data, the middle panels are for 

1016: the simulated \kl 

1017: spectrum at low-LMA best-fit parameters and the solar data with 

1018: future SNO NC data (7\% error),

1019: while the lower panels are for \kl data simulated at 

1020: $\Delta m_{21}^2=3.5\times 10^{-5}$ 

1021: eV$^2$ and $\tan^2\theta_{12}=0.44$ and the current global solar data. 

1022: The left-hand panels use the current  

1023: \kl systematic uncertainty of 6.42\% while the right-hand panels 

1024: correspond to a fictitious systematic uncertainty of just 2\%.

1025: }

1026: \label{fict}

1027: \end{figure}

1028: 

1029: From the Figure \ref{sens} presented in Section 2 and the 

1030: discussion on \kl sensitivity to \thsol in the previous section 

1031: we conclude that a reactor experiment can measure \thsol accurately 

1032: enough only if it is sensitive to the SPMIN.

1033: % and 

1034: %if the errors involved can be reduced.

1035: To further elaborate our point 

1036: in figure \ref{fict} we present the allowed areas  at 7.2$\times 10^{-5}$ 

1037: eV$^2$ (SPMAX) 

1038: and for a 

1039: fictitious spectrum data in \kl 

1040: simulated at $\dm = 3.5\times 10^{-5}$ eV$^2$ --  

1041: which corresponds to an effective SPMIN

1042: in \kl.  

1043: We show limits for the current \kl

1044: systematic uncertainty of 6.42\% and a systematic 

1045: uncertainty of just 2\% {\footnote { We want to emphasise that the 

1046: 2\% uncertainty consdiered in figure \ref{fict} is a fictitious value 

1047:  -- the 3\% systematic error in \kl after 

1048: 3 kTy of data which we assume in the previous section is already the

1049: most optimistic estimate. 

1050: However we present the contours for this fictitious case in order to 

1051: facilitate comparison with scenarios presented later in this section.}}. 

1052: We take 3  statistics for \kl in all the cases. 

1053: The \% spread in uncertainty for the SPMAX case with 6.42\% 

1054: systematic uncertainty is  37\% while for the SPMIN case with 

1055: the same systematics the spread is 25\%. 

1056: The effect of reducing

1057: the systematics to 2\%  results in the spread coming down to 

1058: 32\% and 19\% respectively. 

1059: We have also explored the effect of reducing the SNO NC 

1060: error to 7\%  for  the SPMAX case. 

1061: The resulting contours are presented in the middle panels 

1062: of figure \ref{fict}. 

1063: The $\tan^2\thsol$ spread for this case 

1064: with  2\% systematic error in \kl  

1065: is 27\%. This emboldens us to believe that the 

1066: most suitable experiment for \thsol measurement is an experiment 

1067: sensitive to the SPMIN as expected in Section 2. 

1068: 

1069: Thus unprecedented sensitivity to \thsol can be achieved in a 

1070: terrestrial experiment if the distance traveled by the neutrino 

1071: beam is tuned so that the detector observes a complete vacuum 

1072: oscillation. 

1073: The oscillation wavelength of the neutrinos can be calculated 

1074: with reasonable accuracy with information on \dm from \kl.

1075: For a reactor experiment which has a large flux around $3-4$ MeV, 

1076: the detector needs to be placed at about 70 km from a powerful 

1077: nuclear reactor in order to be sensitive to the oscillation 

1078: SPMIN\footnote{Here we assume that the current best-fit \dm in low-LMA 

1079: is the right value.}. Also important for accurate \thsol determination is 

1080: to reduce the systematics. The major part of the 6.42\% error in \kl 

1081: comes from sources which affect the overall normalization of the 

1082: observed anti-neutrino spectrum. These can be reduced if the 

1083: experiment uses the near-far detector technique in which there are 

1084: two identical detectors, one close to the reactor and 

1085: another further away \cite{Kozlov:2001jv,Minakata:2002jv}. 

1086: Comparison of the number of detected events in the 

1087: two detectors can be then used to reduce the systematics.

1088: 

1089: \begin{figure}[t]

1090: \centerline{\psfig{figure=fig8.ps,height=4.in,width=5.in}}

1091: \caption{The simulated 3 kTy spectrum data at the low-LMA 

1092: best-fit point and the allowed areas in the $\dm-\tan^2\thsol$ 

1093: parameter space

1094: for a 24.6 GWatt reactor experiment with 

1095: a baseline of 70 km. The top-left panel gives the 

1096: simulated spectrum data and the expected events, shown by the histograms.

1097: The top-right panel shows $R_{NEW}$, the corresponding ratio  

1098: of the ``data'' to expected 

1099: events as a function of the visible energy. The bottom-left panel 

1100: gives the allowed areas obtained using just the new reactor experiment.

1101: The bottom-right panel presents the allowed areas from the 

1102: combined solar and new reactor experiment data.

1103: }

1104: \label{fictnew}

1105: \end{figure}

1106: 

1107: We show in Figure \ref{fictnew} the constraints on the mass and 

1108: mixing parameters obtained using a ``new'' reactor experiment 

1109: whose baseline is tuned to an oscillation SPMIN.

1110: We use the antineutrino flux from a reactor a la 

1111: Kashiwazaki nuclear reactor in Japan with a maximum

1112: power generation of about 24.6 GWatt. We assume a 80\% 

1113: efficiency for the reactor output and simulate the 3 kTy data 

1114: at the low-LMA best-fit for a \kl like detector placed at 70 km from 

1115: the reactor source and which has systematic errors of only 2\%. 

1116: The top-left panel of the Figure \ref{fictnew}

1117: shows the simulated spectrum data. The histogram shows the expected 

1118: spectrum for no oscillations. 

1119: $E_{vis}$ is the ``visible'' energy of the scattered electrons.

1120: The top-right panel gives 

1121: the ratio of the simulated oscillations to the no oscillation numbers.

1122: The sharp minima around $3-4$ MeV is clearly visible.

1123: The bottom-left panel gives the C.L. allowed areas obtained from 

1124: this new reactor experiment data alone. With 3 kTy statistics we find a 

1125: marked improvement in the \thsol bound with the 99\% range 

1126: $0.39 < \tan^2\thsol < 0.52$ giving a spread of 14\%.\footnote{Note that the

1127: first panel on the bottom line of Figure \ref{fictnew} admits a  mirror 

1128: solution on the ``dark side'' because of the $\thsol-(\pi/2-\thsol)$ 

1129: ambiguity in all experiments sensitive to oscillations in vacuum. 

1130: This dark side solution can be ruled out by including the 

1131: solar neutrino data.}

1132: 

1133: 

1134: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1135: \section{Other future experiments}

1136: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1137: 

1138: We briefly discuss the sensitivity of the some of other 

1139: next generation solar neutrino experiments. The most 

1140: important among them are the Borexino which is sensitive 

1141: to the monochromatic \ber neutrinos coming from the Sun and 

1142: the sub-MeV solar neutrino experiments -- the so called 

1143: LowNu experiments.

1144: 

1145: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1146: \subsection{Borexino}

1147: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1148: 

1149: Borexino is a 300 ton organic liquid scintillator detector, 

1150: viewed by 2200 photomultiplier tubes \cite{borex}. 

1151: The Borexino detector due to start operations soon,  

1152: has achieved a background reduction at sub-MeV energies never 

1153: attempted before in a real time experiment.

1154: Borexino is tuned to detect mainly the \ber solar neutrinos by the 

1155: elastic $\nu-e$ scattering process. The detector will operate in the 

1156: electron recoil energy window of $0.25-0.8$ MeV to observe the 

1157: mono-energetic 0.862 MeV \ber line which 

1158: scatter electrons with a Compton edge at 0.66 MeV, the edge being somewhat 

1159: smeared by the energy resolution of the detector. 

1160: 

1161: \begin{table}

1162: \begin{center}

1163: \begin{tabular}{c|ccc|c}

1164: \hline\hline

1165: Solution & $R_{Be}^{BF}$&$R_{Be}^{max}$&$R_{Be}^{min}$ & $A_{DN}$\cr

1166: \hline

1167: low-LMA & 0.65 & 0.71 & 0.61 & 0.04\cr

1168: high-LMA & 0.66 & 0.71 & 0.63 & 0.01\cr

1169: \hline\hline

1170: \end{tabular}

1171: \label{be2}

1172: \caption

1173: {The best-fit and $3\sigma$ range of predicted values for \bx

1174: for the low-LMA and high-LMA solutions. Also shown is the value of 

1175: the day-night asymmetry expected.}

1176: \end{center}

1177: \end{table}

1178: %

1179: \begin{figure}[t]

1180: \centerline{\epsfig{figure=fig9.ps,height=4.in,width=3.5in}}

1181: \caption{The isorate lines for the \bx detector in the

1182: $\Delta m_{21}^2-\tan^2\theta_{12}$ plane.

1183: Also shown are the C.L. contours from the global analysis 

1184: of the solar and the \kl data. 

1185: Also shown by the purple dashed line 

1186: is the only solar $3\sigma$ contour.

1187: }

1188: \label{beiso}

1189: \end{figure}

1190: 

1191: We present in Figure \ref{beiso} the 

1192: lines of constant \bx rate in the $\Delta m_{21}^2-\tan^2\theta_{12}$ LMA zone.

1193: The \bx rate $R_{Be}$ is defined as the ratio of the value predicted 

1194: by oscillations to the no oscillation SSM value.  

1195: The global allowed 90\%, 95\%, 99\% and 

1196: 99.73\% C.L. contours are  

1197: shown. Superimposed is the $3\sigma$ contour from the analysis of the 

1198: only solar data. In Table 2 we show the 

1199: predicted rate in \bx for the low-LMA and high-LMA best-fit solutions and 

1200: the corresponding $3\sigma$ ranges. From Figure \ref{beiso} and Table 

1201: 2 we note that \bx in the LMA zone has almost no sensitivity 

1202: to $\Delta m_{21}^2$. The reason being that for very low values of neutrino 

1203: energies the solar matter effects are negligible while for \dm in the 

1204: LMA zone there are hardly any Earth matter effect. Hence 

1205: the survival probability can be approximated by averaged 

1206: oscillations (cf. Eq.(\ref{peepp})).

1207: Therefore \bx is not expected to sharpen our knowledge of \dm any further. 

1208: Even the \thsol dependence is rather weak. 

1209: This is due to the fact that the survival probability is 

1210: of the averaged vacuum oscillation form which as discussed in Section 2

1211: %Thus the dependence on \thsol is 

1212: %quadratic as discussed in the previous 

1213: %sections for \kl. 

1214: reduces the sensitivity of \bx to \thsol.

1215: 

1216: The $3\sigma$ error in the predicted value of \bx rate given in 

1217: Table 2 from the current 

1218: information on the parameter ranges is $\pm 0.06$. 

1219: The corresponding 

1220: $1\sigma$ range is $0.63< R_{Be} < 0.68$ implying an uncertainty of 

1221: about $\pm 0.02$. 

1222: Since there is 

1223: hardly any \dm dependence involved the entire range can be attributed 

1224: to the current uncertainty in \thsol. \bx could improve on the 

1225: \thsol uncertainty if it could measure $R_{Be}$ with a $1\sigma$ error 

1226: less than about 0.02. The low-LMA predicts about 13,000 events in 

1227: \bx after one year of data taking. This gives a statistical error of about 

1228: 0.9\% only. However \bx {\it may} still 

1229: have large errors coming from its background 

1230: selection. 

1231: 

1232: In Table 2 we have also shown the day-night asymmetry 

1233: expected in \bx for the currently allowed parameter values.

1234: \bx will see no difference between the event rates at day and 

1235: during night. Until the recent results from \kl the major role 

1236: which \bx was expected to play was to give ``smoking gun'' signal 

1237: for the low $\Delta m_{21}^2$ solution

1238: LOW by observing a large day-night asymmetry and for 

1239: the vacuum oscillation solution 

1240: by observing seasonal variation of the \ber flux. The large 

1241: day-night asymmetry expected due to the small energy sensitivity 

1242: of \bx and the immaculate control over seasonal effects coming from 

1243: the fact that \ber is a mono-energetic line -- not to mention 

1244: its ability to pin down the SMA solution which predicted almost 

1245: no $\nue$ events in \bx.

1246: However all three  

1247: are comprehensively disfavored now. 

1248: %-- SMA disfavored at $x.x\sigma$,

1249: %LOW disfavored at $4.7\sigma$ and VO at $x.x\sigma$.

1250: Unfortunately the only region of parameter space where \bx 

1251: lacks strength is the LMA, which is the correct solution to the 

1252: solar neutrino problem. 

1253: 

1254: 

1255: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1256: \subsection{Low-Nu experiments}

1257: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1258: 

1259: \begin{figure}[t]

1260: \centerline{\epsfig{figure=fig10.ps,height=4.in,width=3.5in}}

1261: \caption{The isorate lines for a generic $pp$ - e scattering 

1262: experiment in the

1263: $\Delta m_{21}^2-\tan^2\theta_{12}$ plane.

1264: Also shown are the C.L. contours from the global analysis 

1265: of the solar and the \kl data. 

1266: Also shown by the purple dashed line 

1267: is the only solar $3\sigma$ contour.

1268: }

1269: \label{lownuiso}

1270: \end{figure}

1271: 

1272: There are a number of planned sub-MeV solar neutrino experiments 

1273: which will look to observe the $pp$ flux using either charged 

1274: current reactions (LENS, MOON, SIREN \cite{lownu}) or 

1275: electron scattering process(XMASS, CLEAN, HERON, MUNU, GENIUS 

1276: \cite{lownu}) for detecting the $pp$ neutrinos. 

1277: While each of these electron scattering 

1278: experiments use different detection techniques, the basic 

1279: reaction involved is the scattering of the $pp$ neutrinos 

1280: off the electrons in the detector. Hence we present in 

1281: Figure \ref{lownuiso} the lines of constant rate predicted in a 

1282: {\it generic} LowNu electron scattering experiment. Again we 

1283: note that the $iso-pp$ rates have very little \dm dependence. 

1284: The $3\sigma$ 

1285: range predicted for $pp-e$ scattering is $0.66 - 0.76$. 

1286: The corresponding  $1\sigma$ predicted range is $0.68 -0.73$.

1287: %Thus the range predicted for the LowNu experiments is 

1288: %larger than that for Borexino. 

1289: The advantage

1290: that these experiments have is that the $pp$ flux is 

1291: predicted to within 1\% accuracy.

1292: Thus the LowNu experiments may 

1293: have a fair chance to pin down the value of the mixing 

1294: angle $\theta_{12}$, {\it if} they can keep down their experimental errors. 

1295: 

1296: 

1297: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1298: \section{Conclusions}

1299: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1300: 

1301: With both solar and atmospheric neutrino oscillations confirmed the 

1302: next turn in the research in neutrino physics is towards the precision

1303: determination of the oscillation parameters of the PMNS matrix. 

1304: In this paper we explore in detail how accurately the current and future 

1305: experiments will be able to predict $\theta_{\odot}$ ($\theta_{12}$) and 

1306: show that with the current set of experiments  

1307: the uncertainty level in the determination of $\theta_{12}$ 

1308: may stay well 

1309: above the desired 10\% level (at 99\% C.L.).  

1310: The spectrum data from the  

1311: KamLAND experiment with only 0.162 kTy exposure in conjunction with the 

1312: global solar data reveals an 

1313: unprecedented sensitivity in constraining $\Delta m^2_{21}$, reducing 

1314: the 99\% C.L. spread in  

1315: $\Delta m^2_{21}$ to 30\% as compared to 76\% 

1316: allowed by global solar data.   

1317: A projected 

1318: analysis with 3 kTy of simulated spectrum at the present best-fit 

1319: reveals that the uncertainty 

1320: in $\Delta m^2_{21}$ can be brought down to the $<$ 10\% level. 

1321: However even with 3 kTy of exposure the $\tan^2\theta_{12}$ can hover in a 

1322: $\sim 33\%$ uncertainty range.  

1323: %KamLAND being a reactor experiment, the $\theta_{12}$ 

1324: %sensitivity is limited by the 

1325: %$\sim 6.5\%$ systematic error and 

1326: %although with 3 kTy exposure the statistical 

1327: %error reduces to 2\% the spread in the allowed range in $\theta_{12}$

1328: %is dominated by the systematics.

1329:  

1330: We make a comparative study of the $\theta_{12}$ sensitivity of the various 

1331: solar neutrino experiments and KamLAND.

1332: The sensitivity of an experiment 

1333: to \thsol depends on the form of the survival probability relevant 

1334: for it.  Thus the 

1335: $\theta_{12}$ sensitivity of the solar neutrino experiments

1336: are linked with the 

1337: neutrino energy 

1338: threshold. In SK and SNO, the high energy neutrinos are observed and the 

1339: solar neutrinos undergo adiabatic transformation

1340: ($P_{ee} \sim f_B \sin^2\theta_{12}$)

1341: resulting in an increased 

1342: theta sensitivity as compared to the experiments which are sensitive to 

1343: low energy neutrinos for which the survival probability is of the form 

1344: $P_{ee} = 1 - 0.5 \sin^2 2\theta_{12}$. 

1345: SNO has a better control over $\theta_{12}$ than SK as it is sensitive to the 

1346: total $^8B$ flux through its neutral current channel and hence limits the 

1347: range of $f_B$, the $^8B$ flux normalization to 12\%.

1348: %The neutral current sensitivity of SK is down by a factor of $\sim$ 1/6.

1349: We make a projected sensitivity test for the future SNO NC measurement and 

1350: get the limits on $\theta_{12}$. 

1351: 

1352: For the low energy neutrinos detected by the KamLAND  

1353: detector the matter effects are absent. 

1354: Therefore the relevant probability is the vacuum oscillation probability 

1355: averaged over the various reactor distances. 

1356: But inspite of this averaging effect the KamLAND spectrum data 

1357: reveals an oscillation pattern which enables it to pin down the 

1358: $\Delta m^2_{21}$. However for the KamLAND baseline this pattern 

1359: corresponds to a peak in the survival probability

1360: where the $\theta_{12}$ sensitivity is 

1361: very low. If instead of the peak 

1362: one has a minimum in the survival probability, then the $\theta_{12}$ 

1363: sensitivity can improve dramatically. We show this by simulating

1364: the 3 kTy spectrum for \kl at a  $\Delta m_{21}^2 = 3.5 \times 10^{-5}$ eV$^2$

1365: for which one gets a survival probability 

1366: minimum in KamLAND. 

1367: For this value of $\Delta m_{21}^2$ the spread in $\theta_{\odot}$  

1368: decreases to 25\%, even with the most conservative 6.42\% systematic error. 

1369: We also explore the effect of reducing 

1370: the systematic error to a fictitious value of 2\%. 

1371: This further reduces the error in $\theta_{12}$ to 19\%. 

1372: For the current best-fit value of \dm 

1373: we propose a new \kl like reactor experiment 

1374: with a baseline of $\sim$ 70 km. We show that this 

1375: experiment can observe the minimum in the survival probability and 

1376: therefore the $\theta_{12}$ sensitivity is increased 

1377: by a large amount. For a systematic uncertainty of 2\%, the 

1378: total error in the allowed value of $\tan^2\theta_{12}$ can be 

1379: reduced to about 14\%.

1380: 

1381: \vskip 10pt

1382: {\bf  Acknowledgment }

1383: The authors would like to thank Raj Gandhi and D.P. Roy for discussions. 

1384: S.C. acknowledges discussions with S.T. Petcov and useful 

1385: correspondences with  Aldo Ianni,  Alessandro Strumia and Francesco Vissani.

1386: S.G. would like to acknowledge a question by 

1387: Yuval Grossman in PASCOS'03 which started this work and D. Indumathi for some 

1388: related comments. The authors express their sincere gratitude to 

1389: Atsuto Suzuki, Fumihiko Suekane and Sandip Pakvasa 

1390: for discussions 

1391: on future systematic errors in KamLAND. 

1392: 

1393: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1394: \begin{thebibliography}{}

1395: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1396: 

1397: %\cite{Ahmad:2002jz}

1398: \bibitem{Ahmad:2002jz}

1399: Q.~R.~Ahmad {\it et al.}  [SNO Collaboration],

1400: %``Direct evidence for neutrino flavor transformation from neutral-current interactions in the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory,''

1401: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 89}, 011301 (2002)

1402: [arXiv:nucl-ex/0204008];

1403: %%CITATION = NUCL-EX 0204008;%%

1404: %

1405: %\cite{Ahmad:2002ka}

1406: %\bibitem{Ahmad:2002ka}

1407: Q.~R.~Ahmad {\it et al.}  [SNO Collaboration],

1408: %``Measurement of day and night neutrino energy spectra at SNO and  constraints on neutrino mixing parameters,''

1409: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 89}, 011302 (2002)

1410: [arXiv:nucl-ex/0204009].

1411: %%CITATION = NUCL-EX 0204009;%%

1412: 

1413: \bibitem{msw}

1414: %\cite{Wolfenstein:1977ue}

1415: %\bibitem{Wolfenstein:1977ue}

1416: L.~Wolfenstein,

1417: %``Neutrino Oscillations In Matter,''

1418: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 17}, 2369 (1978)

1419: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D17,2369;%%

1420: ;

1421: %\cite{Mikheev:gs}

1422: %\bibitem{Mikheev:gs}

1423: S.~P.~Mikheev and A.~Y.~Smirnov,

1424: %``Resonance Enhancement Of Oscillations In Matter And Solar Neutrino  Spectroscopy,''

1425: Sov.\ J.\ Nucl.\ Phys.\  {\bf 42} (1985) 913

1426: [Yad.\ Fiz.\  {\bf 42}, 1441 (1985)]

1427: %%CITATION = SJNCA,42,913;%%

1428: ;

1429: %\cite{Mikheev:wj}

1430: %\bibitem{Mikheev:wj}

1431: S.~P.~Mikheev and A.~Y.~Smirnov,

1432: %``Resonant Amplification Of Neutrino Oscillations In Matter And Solar Neutrino Spectroscopy,''

1433: Sov.\ J.\ Nucl.\ Phys.\  {\bf 42} (1985) 913

1434: [Yad.\ Fiz.\  {\bf 42}, 1441 (1985)]

1435: %%CITATION = SJNCA,42,913;%%

1436: ;

1437: %\cite{Mikheev:wj}

1438: %\bibitem{Mikheev:wj}

1439: S.~P.~Mikheev and A.~Y.~Smirnov,

1440: %``Resonant Amplification Of Neutrino Oscillations In Matter And Solar Neutrino Spectroscopy,''

1441: Nuovo Cim.\ C {\bf 9}, 17 (1986).

1442: %%CITATION = NUCIA,C9,17;%%

1443: 

1444: %\cite{Bandyopadhyay:2002xj}

1445: \bibitem{Bandyopadhyay:2002xj}

1446: A.~Bandyopadhyay, S.~Choubey, S.~Goswami and D.~P.~Roy,

1447: %``Implications of the first neutral current data from SNO for solar  neutrino oscillation,''

1448: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 540}, 14 (2002)

1449: [arXiv:hep-ph/0204286].

1450: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0204286;%%

1451: 

1452: %\cite{Choubey:2002nc}

1453: \bibitem{Choubey:2002nc}

1454: S.~Choubey, A.~Bandyopadhyay, S.~Goswami and D.~P.~Roy,

1455: %``SNO and the solar neutrino problem,''

1456: arXiv:hep-ph/0209222.

1457: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0209222;%%

1458: 

1459: \bibitem{snoccgl}

1460: %\cite{Bandyopadhyay:2001aa}

1461: %\bibitem{Bandyopadhyay:2001aa}

1462: A.~Bandyopadhyay, S.~Choubey, S.~Goswami and K.~Kar,

1463: %``Impact of the first SNO results on neutrino mass and mixing,''

1464: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 519}, 83 (2001)

1465: [arXiv:hep-ph/0106264];

1466: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0106264;%%

1467: %

1468: %\cite{Bandyopadhyay:2001fb}

1469: %\bibitem{Bandyopadhyay:2001fb}

1470: A.~Bandyopadhyay, S.~Choubey, S.~Goswami and K.~Kar,

1471: %``Three generation neutrino oscillation parameters after SNO,''

1472: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65}, 073031 (2002)

1473: [arXiv:hep-ph/0110307].

1474: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0110307;%%

1475: 

1476: 

1477: %\cite{Eguchi:2002dm}

1478: \bibitem{Eguchi:2002dm}

1479: K.~Eguchi {\it et al.}  [KamLAND Collaboration],

1480: %``First results from KamLAND: Evidence for reactor anti-neutrino  disappearance,''

1481: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 90}, 021802 (2003)

1482: [arXiv:hep-ex/0212021].

1483: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0212021;%%

1484: 

1485: %\cite{Bandyopadhyay:2002en}

1486: \bibitem{Bandyopadhyay:2002en}

1487: A.~Bandyopadhyay, S.~Choubey, R.~Gandhi, S.~Goswami and D.~P.~Roy,

1488: %``The solar neutrino problem after the first results from KamLAND,''

1489: arXiv:hep-ph/0212146.

1490: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0212146;%%

1491: 

1492: \bibitem{others}

1493: %\cite{Barger:2002at}

1494: %\bibitem{Barger:2002at}

1495: V.~Barger and D.~Marfatia,

1496: %``KamLAND and solar neutrino data eliminate the LOW solution,''

1497: arXiv:hep-ph/0212126;

1498: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0212126;%%

1499: %

1500: %\cite{Fogli:2002au}

1501: %\bibitem{Fogli:2002au}

1502: G.~L.~Fogli, E.~Lisi, A.~Marrone, D.~Montanino, A.~Palazzo and A.~M.~Rotunno,

1503: %``Solar neutrino oscillation parameters after first KamLAND results,''

1504: arXiv:hep-ph/0212127;

1505: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0212127;%%

1506: %

1507: %\cite{Maltoni:2002aw}

1508: %\bibitem{Maltoni:2002aw}

1509: M.~Maltoni, T.~Schwetz and J.~W.~Valle,

1510: %``Combining first KamLAND results with solar neutrino data,''

1511: arXiv:hep-ph/0212129;

1512: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0212129;%%

1513: %

1514: %\cite{Bahcall:2002ij}

1515: %\bibitem{Bahcall:2002ij}

1516: J.~N.~Bahcall, M.~C.~Gonzalez-Garcia and C.~Pena-Garay,

1517: %``Solar neutrinos before and after KamLAND,''

1518: arXiv:hep-ph/0212147;

1519: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0212147;%%

1520: %

1521: %\cite{deHolanda:2002iv}

1522: %\bibitem{deHolanda:2002iv}

1523: P.~C.~de Holanda and A.~Y.~Smirnov,

1524: %``LMA MSW solution of the solar neutrino problem and first KamLAND  results,''

1525: arXiv:hep-ph/0212270.

1526: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0212270;%%

1527: %

1528: %\cite{Nunokawa:2002mq}

1529: %\bibitem{Nunokawa:2002mq}

1530: H.~Nunokawa, W.~J.~Teves and R.~Zukanovich Funchal,

1531: %``Determining the oscillation parameters by solar neutrinos and KamLAND,''

1532: arXiv:hep-ph/0212202;

1533: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0212202;%%

1534: %

1535: %\cite{Aliani:2002na}

1536: %\bibitem{Aliani:2002na}

1537: P.~Aliani, V.~Antonelli, M.~Picariello and E.~Torrente-Lujan,

1538: %``Neutrino mass parameters from Kamland, SNO and other solar evidence,''

1539: arXiv:hep-ph/0212212;

1540: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0212212;%%

1541: %

1542: %\cite{Balantekin:2003dc}

1543: %\bibitem{Balantekin:2003dc}

1544: A.~B.~Balantekin and H.~Yuksel,

1545: %``Global analysis of solar neutrino and KamLAND data,''

1546: arXiv:hep-ph/0301072;

1547: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0301072;%%

1548: %

1549: %\cite{Creminelli:2001ij}

1550: %\bibitem{Creminelli:2001ij}

1551: P.~Creminelli, G.~Signorelli and A.~Strumia,

1552: %``Frequentist analyses of solar neutrino data,''

1553: %JHEP {\bf 0105}, 052 (2001)

1554: [arXiv:hep-ph/0102234 (v4)].

1555: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0102234;%%

1556: 

1557: \bibitem{skatm}

1558: %\cite{Fukuda:1998mi}

1559: %\bibitem{Fukuda:1998mi}

1560: Y.~Fukuda {\it et al.}  [Super-Kamiokande Collaboration],

1561: %``Evidence for oscillation of atmospheric neutrinos,''

1562: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 81} (1998) 1562

1563: [arXiv:hep-ex/9807003].

1564: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 9807003;%%

1565: 

1566: \bibitem{k2k}

1567: %\cite{Ahn:2002up}

1568: %\bibitem{Ahn:2002up}

1569: M.~H.~Ahn {\it et al.}  [K2K Collaboration],

1570: %``Indications of neutrino oscillation in a 250-km long-baseline  experiment,''

1571: arXiv:hep-ex/0212007.

1572: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0212007;%%

1573: 

1574: \bibitem{kajita}

1575: T. Kajita (for Super-Kamiokande Collaboration) talk given at 

1576: Neutrino Factory meeting, London, July 2002

1577: ({\it http://www.hep.ph.ic.ac.uk/NuFact02/}). 

1578: 

1579: \bibitem{pmns}

1580: %\cite{Pontecorvo:cp}

1581: %\bibitem{Pontecorvo:cp}

1582: B.~Pontecorvo,

1583: %``Mesonium And Antimesonium,''

1584: Sov.\ Phys.\ JETP {\bf 6}, 429 (1957)

1585: [Zh.\ Eksp.\ Teor.\ Fiz.\  {\bf 33}, 549 (1957)];

1586: %%CITATION = SPHJA,6,429;%%

1587: %

1588: %\cite{Pontecorvo:1957qd}

1589: %\bibitem{Pontecorvo:1957qd}

1590: B.~Pontecorvo,

1591: %``Inverse Beta Processes And Nonconservation Of Lepton Charge,''

1592: Sov.\ Phys.\ JETP {\bf 7}, 172 (1958)

1593: [Zh.\ Eksp.\ Teor.\ Fiz.\  {\bf 34}, 247 (1957)];

1594: %%CITATION = SPHJA,7,172;%%

1595: %

1596: %\cite{Maki:mu}

1597: %\bibitem{Maki:mu}

1598: Z.~Maki, M.~Nakagawa and S.~Sakata,

1599: %``Remarks On The Unified Model Of Elementary Particles,''

1600: Prog.\ Theor.\ Phys.\  {\bf 28}, 870 (1962).

1601: %%CITATION = PTPKA,28,870;%

1602: 

1603: \bibitem{chooz}

1604: %\cite{Apollonio:1999ae}

1605: %\bibitem{Apollonio:1999ae}

1606: M.~Apollonio {\it et al.}  [CHOOZ Collaboration],

1607: %``Limits on neutrino oscillations from the CHOOZ experiment,''

1608: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 466}, 415 (1999)

1609: [arXiv:hep-ex/9907037]

1610: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 9907037;%%

1611: ;

1612: %\cite{Apollonio:1997xe}

1613: %\bibitem{Apollonio:1997xe}

1614: M.~Apollonio {\it et al.}  [CHOOZ Collaboration],

1615: %``Initial results from the CHOOZ long baseline reactor neutrino  oscillation experiment,''

1616: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 420}, 397 (1998)

1617: [arXiv:hep-ex/9711002];

1618: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 9711002;%%

1619: %

1620: %\cite{Apollonio:2003gd}

1621: %\bibitem{Apollonio:2003gd}

1622: M.~Apollonio {\it et al.},

1623: %``Search for neutrino oscillations on a long base-line at the CHOOZ  nuclear power station,''

1624: arXiv:hep-ex/0301017.

1625: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0301017;%%

1626: 

1627: %\cite{Boehm:2001ik}

1628: \bibitem{Boehm:2001ik}

1629: F.~Boehm {\it et al.},

1630: %``Final results from the Palo Verde neutrino oscillation experiment,''

1631: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 64}, 112001 (2001)

1632: [arXiv:hep-ex/0107009].

1633: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0107009;%%

1634: 

1635: \bibitem{nufact}

1636: %\cite{Apollonio:2002en}

1637: %\bibitem{Apollonio:2002en}

1638: M.~Apollonio {\it et al.},

1639: %``Oscillation physics with a neutrino factory,''

1640: arXiv:hep-ph/0210192.

1641: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0210192;%%

1642: 

1643: %\bibitem{lbl}

1644: %\cite{Itow:2001ee}

1645: \bibitem{Itow:2001ee}

1646: Y.~Itow {\it et al.},

1647: %``The JHF-Kamioka neutrino project,''

1648: arXiv:hep-ex/0106019.

1649: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0106019;%%

1650: 

1651: %\cite{Ayres:2002nm}

1652: \bibitem{Ayres:2002nm}

1653: D.~Ayres {\it et al.},

1654: %``Letter of intent to build an off-axis detector to study nu/mu $\to$ nu/e  oscillations with the NuMI neutrino beam,''

1655: arXiv:hep-ex/0210005.

1656: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0210005;%%

1657: 

1658: \bibitem{nufact21}S. Geer, hep-ph/0008155. 

1659: 

1660: %\bibitem{cp}

1661: 

1662: \bibitem{ga}

1663: %\cite{Abdurashitov:2002nt}

1664: %\bibitem{Abdurashitov:2002nt}

1665: J.~N.~Abdurashitov {\it et al.}  [SAGE Collaboration],

1666: %``Measurement of the solar neutrino capture rate by the Russian-American  galli um solar neutrino experiment during one half of the 22-year cycle of solar acti

1667: v ity,''

1668: arXiv:astro-ph/0204245

1669: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0204245;%%

1670: ;

1671: %\cite{Hampel:1998xg}

1672: %\bibitem{Hampel:1998xg}

1673: W.~Hampel {\it et al.}  [GALLEX Collaboration],

1674: %``GALLEX solar neutrino observations: Results for GALLEX IV,''

1675: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 447}, 127 (1999)

1676: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B447,127;%%

1677: ;

1678: E. Bellotti, Talk at Gran Sasso National Laboratories, Italy, May 17, 2002

1679: ;

1680: T. Kirsten, talk at {\it Neutrino 2002},  XXth International Conference on

1681: Neutrino Physics and Astrophysics,

1682: Munich, Germany, May 25-30, 2002.{ \it(http://neutrino2002.ph.tum.de/)}

1683: 

1684: %\cite{Fukuda:2002pe}

1685: \bibitem{Fukuda:2002pe}

1686: S.~Fukuda {\it et al.}  [Super-Kamiokande Collaboration],

1687: %``Determination of solar neutrino oscillation parameters using 1496 days  of Su per-Kamiokande-I data,''

1688: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 539}, 179 (2002)

1689: [arXiv:hep-ex/0205075].

1690: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0205075;%%

1691: 

1692: %\cite{Cleveland:nv}

1693: \bibitem{Cleveland:nv}

1694: B.~T.~Cleveland {\it et al.},

1695: %``Measurement Of The Solar Electron Neutrino Flux With The Homestake  Chlorine Detector,''

1696: Astrophys.\ J.\  {\bf 496}, 505 (1998).

1697: %%CITATION = ASJOA,496,505;%%

1698: 

1699: \bibitem{bp00}

1700: %\cite{Bahcall:2000nu}

1701: %\bibitem{Bahcall:2000nu}

1702: J.~N.~Bahcall, M.~H.~Pinsonneault and S.~Basu,

1703: %``Solar models: Current epoch and time dependences, neutrinos, and  helioseismological properties,''

1704: Astrophys.\ J.\  {\bf 555}, 990 (2001)

1705: [arXiv:astro-ph/0010346].

1706: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0010346;%%

1707: 

1708: %\cite{Bandyopadhyay:2002qg}

1709: \bibitem{Bandyopadhyay:2002qg}

1710: A.~Bandyopadhyay, S.~Choubey and S.~Goswami,

1711: %``Neutrino decay confronts the SNO data,''

1712: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 555}, 33 (2003)

1713: [arXiv:hep-ph/0204173].

1714: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0204173;%%

1715: 

1716: %\cite{Choubey:2001bi}

1717: \bibitem{Choubey:2001bi}

1718: S.~Choubey, S.~Goswami and D.~P.~Roy,

1719: %``Energy independent solution to the solar neutrino anomaly including the  SNO data,''

1720: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65}, 073001 (2002)

1721: [arXiv:hep-ph/0109017];

1722: S.~Choubey, S.~Goswami, N.~Gupta and D.~P.~Roy,

1723: %``Reviving the energy independent suppression of the solar neutrino flux,''

1724: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 64}, 053002 (2001)

1725: [arXiv:hep-ph/0103318].

1726: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0109017;%%

1727: 

1728: %\cite{Maris:2001tg}

1729: \bibitem{Maris:2001tg}

1730: M.~Maris and S.~T.~Petcov,

1731: %``On the day-night effect and CC to NC event rate ratio predictions for  the SNO detector,''

1732: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 534}, 17 (2002)

1733: [arXiv:hep-ph/0201087].

1734: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0201087;%%

1735: 

1736: %\cite{Bandyopadhyay:2002mc}

1737: \bibitem{Bandyopadhyay:2002mc}

1738: A.~Bandyopadhyay, S.~Choubey, R.~Gandhi, S.~Goswami and D.~P.~Roy,

1739: %``Testing the solar LMA region with KamLAND data,''

1740: arXiv:hep-ph/0211266;

1741: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0211266;%%

1742: %

1743: %\cite{Barger:2000hy}

1744: %\bibitem{Barger:2000hy}

1745: V.~D.~Barger, D.~Marfatia and B.~P.~Wood,

1746: %``Resolving the solar neutrino problem with KamLAND,''

1747: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 498}, 53 (2001)

1748: [arXiv:hep-ph/0011251];

1749: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0011251;%%

1750: %

1751: %\cite{Murayama:2000iq}

1752: %\bibitem{Murayama:2000iq}

1753: H.~Murayama and A.~Pierce,

1754: %``Energy spectra of reactor neutrinos at KamLAND,''

1755: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65}, 013012 (2002)

1756: [arXiv:hep-ph/0012075].

1757: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0012075;%%

1758: 

1759: %\bibitem{kras}

1760: %\cite{Kozlov:2001jv}

1761: \bibitem{Kozlov:2001jv}

1762: Y.~Kozlov, L.~Mikaelyan and V.~Sinev,

1763: %``Two detector reactor neutrino oscillation experiment Kr2Det at  Krasnoyarsk: Status report,''

1764: arXiv:hep-ph/0109277;

1765: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0109277;%%

1766: 

1767: %\cite{Minakata:2002jv}

1768: \bibitem{Minakata:2002jv}

1769: H.~Minakata, H.~Sugiyama, O.~Yasuda, K.~Inoue and F.~Suekane,

1770: %``Reactor measurement of Theta(13) and its complementarity to  long-baseline experiments,''

1771: arXiv:hep-ph/0211111.

1772: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0211111;%%

1773: 

1774: \bibitem{borex}

1775: %\cite{Alimonti:2000xc}

1776: %\bibitem{Alimonti:2000xc}

1777: G.~Alimonti {\it et al.}  [Borexino Collaboration],

1778: %``Science and technology of Borexino: A real time detector for low  energy solar neutrinos,''

1779: Astropart.\ Phys.\  {\bf 16}, 205 (2002)

1780: [arXiv:hep-ex/0012030].

1781: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0012030;%%

1782: 

1783: \bibitem{lownu}S. Sch\"{o}nert, talk at Neutrino 2002, Munich, Germany,

1784: ({\it http://neutrino2002.ph.tum.de}).

1785: 

1786: 

1787: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1788: \end{thebibliography}

1789: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1790: 

1791: 

1792: 

1793: 

1794: 

1795: \end{document}

1796: 

1797: 

1798: For the present best-fit value a reactor experiment

1799: with a baseline of 80 km will see an

1800: oscilaltion minimum and will be able to increase the accuracy with which

1801: $\theta_{12}$ can be determined.

1802: %$\sin^2 2\theta$. So it makes no discrimination between $\theta$ and

1803: %$\pi/2 - \theta$.

1804: %By itself KamLAND admits the dark zone solution.

1805: %However the solar neutrino experiments being sensitive to the matter effect

1806: %can discriminate between the

1807: % two zones.

1808: