1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2: \NeedsTeXFormat{LaTeX2e}

3: \documentclass[12pt,a4paper]{article}

4: 

5: %-- used packages ------------------------------------------------------

6: 

7: \usepackage{amsmath}

8: \usepackage{amssymb}

9: \usepackage{epsfig}

10: \usepackage{graphicx}

11: \usepackage{cite}

12: 

13: %-- page parameters -------------------------------------------------

14: 

15: \jot = 1.5ex

16: \parskip 5pt plus 1pt

17: \parindent 0pt

18: \evensidemargin -0.1in   \oddsidemargin  -0.1in

19: \textwidth  6.45in       \textheight 9.1in

20: \topmargin -1.0cm        \headsep    1.0cm

21: 

22: %-- command (re)definitions -----------------------------------------

23: 

24: 

25: \newcommand{\capdef}{}

26: %\newcommand{\mycaption}[2][\capdef]{\renewcommand{\capdef}{#2}%

27: %       \caption[#1]{{\itshape #2}}}

28: \newcommand{\mycaption}[2][\capdef]{\renewcommand{\capdef}{#2}%

29:        \caption[#1]{{\footnotesize #2}}}

30: \makeatletter

31: \renewcommand{\fnum@table}{\textbf{\tablename~\thetable}}

32: \renewcommand{\fnum@figure}{\textbf{\figurename~\thefigure}}

33: \makeatother

34: \def\ltap{\ \raisebox{-.4ex}{\rlap{$\sim$}} \raisebox{.4ex}{$<$}\ }

35: \def\gtap{\ \raisebox{-.4ex}{\rlap{$\sim$}} \raisebox{.4ex}{$>$}\ }

36: 

37: \newcounter{myenumi}

38: \newcommand{\myitem}{\refstepcounter{myenumi}\item}

39: \renewcommand{\themyenumi}{\roman{myenumi}}

40: \newenvironment{mylist}{%

41:         \setcounter{myenumi}{0}

42:         \begin{list}{\textit{\themyenumi)}}{%

43:         \setlength{\topsep}{0.2\baselineskip}%

44:         \setlength{\partopsep}{-\topsep}%

45:         \setlength{\itemsep}{\topsep}%

46:         \setlength{\parsep}{0\baselineskip}%

47:         \setlength{\leftmargin}{0em}%

48:         \setlength{\listparindent}{\parindent}%

49:         \setlength{\itemindent}{2.5em}%

50:         \setlength{\labelwidth}{1.5em}%

51:         \setlength{\labelsep}{0.75em}}}%

52: {\end{list}}

53: 

54: \newlength{\myem}

55: \settowidth{\myem}{m}

56: \newcommand{\sep}[1]{#1}

57: \newcounter{mysubequation}[equation]

58: \renewcommand{\themysubequation}{\alph{mysubequation}}

59: \newcommand{\mytag}{\stepcounter{mysubequation}%

60: \tag{\theequation\protect\sep{\themysubequation}}}

61: \newcommand{\globallabel}[1]{\refstepcounter{equation}\label{#1}}

62: 

63: \makeatletter

64: \renewcommand{\section}{\@startsection{section}{1}{0em}{-\baselineskip}%

65: {\baselineskip}{\normalfont\large\bfseries}}

66: \renewcommand{\subsection}%

67: {\@startsection{subsection}{2}{0em}{-0.7\baselineskip}%

68: {0.7\baselineskip}{\normalfont\bfseries}}

69: \makeatother

70: 

71: %-- symbol shorthands and redefinitions -----------------------------

72: 

73: \newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray*}}

74: \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray*}}

75: 

76: \newcommand{\deltacp}{\delta_\mathrm{CP}}

77: 

78: \newcommand{\pdagger}{{\phantom{\dagger}}}

79: \newcommand{\TeV}{\,\mathrm{TeV}}

80: \newcommand{\GeV}{\,\mathrm{GeV}}

81: \newcommand{\MeV}{\,\mathrm{MeV}}

82: \newcommand{\KeV}{\,\mathrm{keV}}

83: \newcommand{\eV}{\,\mathrm{eV}}

84: \newcommand{\ecm}{e\,\mathrm{cm}}

85: \newcommand{\SM}{SU(3)$\times$\protect 

86:         \linebreak[0]SU(2)$\times$\protect\linebreak[0]U(1)}

87: \newcommand{\sm}{{\mathrm{SM}}}

88: \newcommand{\ord}[1]{\mathcal{O}\left( #1 \right)}

89: \newcommand{\ordfrac}[2]{\mathcal{O}\fracwithdelims(){#1}{#2}}

90: \newcommand{\fracwithdelims}[4]{\left#1 \frac{#3}{#4} \right#2}

91: \newcommand{\vev}[1]{\left\langle #1\right\rangle}

92: \newcommand{\VeV}[2][]{#1\langle #2 #1\rangle} %% \big\Big\bigg\Bigg

93: \newcommand{\interskip}{\medskip}

94: \newcommand{\Ahalf}[0]{\frac{1}{2}}

95: \newcommand{\Nup}{{N_{\mu^+}}}

96: \newcommand{\Num}{{N_{\mu^-}}}

97: \newcommand{\Nupm}{{N_{\mu^\pm}}}

98: \newcommand{\nuu}{n_{\mu^-}(\mu^-)}

99: \newcommand{\nuub}{n_{\mu^+}(\mu^+)}

100: \newcommand{\neu}{n_{\mu^+}(\mu^-)}

101: \newcommand{\neub}{n_{\mu^-}(\mu^+)}

102: \newcommand{\neuvac}{n^{\mathrm{vac}}_{\mu^+}(\mu^-)}

103: \newcommand{\neubvac}{n^{\mathrm{vac}}_{\mu^-}(\mu^+)}

104: \newcommand{\eres}{{E_{\mathrm{res}}}}

105: \newcommand{\nupm}{n^{\mathrm{msw}}_{\nu_\mu}}

106: \newcommand{\numm}{n^{\mathrm{msw}}_{\bar{\nu}_\mu}}

107: \newcommand{\reu}{{\nu_e\rightarrow\nu_\mu}}

108: \newcommand{\ree}{{\nu_e\rightarrow\nu_e}}

109: \newcommand{\rue}{{\nu_\mu\rightarrow\nu_e}}

110: \newcommand{\reub}{{\bar{\nu}_e\rightarrow\bar{\nu}_\mu}}

111: \newcommand{\ruu}{{\nu_\mu\rightarrow\nu_\mu}}

112: \newcommand{\rux}{{\nu_\mu\rightarrow\nu_x}}

113: \newcommand{\ruxb}{{\bar{\nu}_\mu\rightarrow\bar{\nu}_x}}

114: \newcommand{\ruub}{{\bar{\nu}_\mu\rightarrow\bar{\nu}_\mu}}

115: \newcommand{\reeb}{{\bar{\nu}_e\rightarrow\bar{\nu}_e}}

116: \newcommand{\rut}{{\nu_\mu\rightarrow\nu_\tau}}

117: \newcommand{\rutb}{{\bar{\nu}_\mu\rightarrow\bar{\nu}_\tau}}

118: \newcommand{\ret}{{\nu_e\rightarrow\nu_\tau}}

119: \newcommand{\retb}{{\bar{\nu}_e\rightarrow\bar{\nu}_\tau}}

120: \newcommand{\emax}{{E_{\mathrm{max}}}}

121: \newcommand{\emin}{{E_{\mathrm{min}}}}

122: \newcommand{\NKT}{{N_{\mathrm{kT}}}}

123: \newcommand{\dm}[1]{{\Delta m^2_{#1}}}

124: \newcommand{\comment}[1]{(\emph{#1})}

125: \newcommand{\szt}[1]{\sin^22\theta_{#1}}

126: 

127: \newcommand{\Psl}{sub-leading}

128: \newcommand{\Pssl}{sub-sub-leading}

129: \newcommand{\PSl}{Sub-leading}

130: \newcommand{\PSsl}{Sub-sub-leading}

131: 

132: \DeclareMathOperator{\im}{Im}

133: \DeclareMathOperator{\re}{Re}

134: \DeclareMathOperator{\tr}{Tr}

135: \DeclareMathOperator{\ph}{Ph}

136: \DeclareMathOperator{\diag}{Diag}

137: \def\ltap{\ \raisebox{-.4ex}{\rlap{$\sim$}} \raisebox{.4ex}{$<$}\ }

138: \def\gtap{\ \raisebox{-.4ex}{\rlap{$\sim$}} \raisebox{.4ex}{$>$}\ }

139: 

140: \newcommand{\ie}{{\it i.e.}}

141: \newcommand{\Ie}{{\it I.e.}}

142: \newcommand{\eg}{{\it e.g.}}

143: \newcommand{\Eg}{{\it E.g.}}

144: \newcommand{\cf}{{\it cf.}}

145: \newcommand{\etc}{{\it etc.}}

146: \newcommand{\eq}{Eq.}

147: \newcommand{\eqs}{Eqs.}

148: \newcommand{\Def}{Definition}

149: \newcommand{\fig}{Figure}

150: \newcommand{\Fig}{Figure}

151: \newcommand{\figs}{Figures}

152: \newcommand{\Figs}{Figures}

153: \newcommand{\Ref}{Ref.}

154: \newcommand{\Refs}{Refs.}

155: \newcommand{\Sec}{Section}

156: \newcommand{\Secs}{Sections}

157: \newcommand{\App}{Appendix}

158: \newcommand{\Apps}{Appendices}

159: \newcommand{\Tab}{Table}

160: \newcommand{\Tabs}{Tables}

161: 

162: \newtheorem{definition}{Definition}

163: \newtheorem{Prop}{Property}

164: 

165: % Scenarios:

166: \newcommand{\JHFSK}{\mbox{\sf JPARC-SK}}

167: \newcommand{\NuMI}{\mbox{\sf NuMI}}

168: \newcommand{\minos}{\mbox{\sf MINOS}}

169: \newcommand{\icarus}{\mbox{\sf ICARUS}}

170: \newcommand{\opera}{\mbox{\sf OPERA}}

171: \newcommand{\CHOOZII}{\mbox{\sf D-Chooz}}

172: \newcommand{\DChooz}{\mbox{\sf Double-Chooz}}

173: \newcommand{\ReactorII}{\mbox{\sf Reactor-II}}

174: \newcommand{\abr}[1]{{\sc\lowercase{#1}}}

175: 

176: \newcommand{\thEff}{(\sin^22\theta_{13})_\mathrm{eff}}

177: 

178: % WW editing:

179: \newcommand{\stheta}{\sin^22\theta_{13}}

180: \newcommand{\ldm}{\Delta m_{31}^2}

181: \newcommand{\sdm}{\Delta m_{21}^2}

182: \newcommand{\equ}[1]{\eq~(\ref{equ:#1})}

183: \newcommand{\figu}[1]{\fig~\ref{fig:#1}}

184: \newcommand{\bi}{\begin{itemize}}

185: \newcommand{\ei}{\end{itemize}}

186: \newcommand{\ra}{\rightarrow}

187: 

188: %-- fix at least a few hyphenation problems ----------------------------

189: \hyphenation{pa-ra-meter pa-ra-meters}

190: \hyphenation{axial-vector}

191: 

192: \begin{document}

193: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

194: %%%%                     Title-page                              %%%%

195: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

196: 

197: \begin{titlepage}

198: 

199: % the footnote symbols are only redefined for the title page !

200: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\alph{footnote}}

201: 

202: \vspace*{-3.cm}

203: \begin{flushright}

204: TUM-HEP-545/04\\

205: MPP-2004-28\\

206: %hep-ph/

207: \end{flushright}

208: 

209: \vspace*{0.5cm}

210: 

211: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\fnsymbol{footnote}}

212: \setcounter{footnote}{-1}

213: 

214: {\begin{center}

215: {\Large\bf Prospects of accelerator and reactor neutrino\\[2mm] 

216: oscillation experiments for the coming ten years}

217: \end{center}}

218: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\alph{footnote}}

219: 

220: \vspace*{.8cm}

221: %\vspace*{.3cm}

222: {\begin{center} {\large{\sc

223:                 P.~Huber\footnote[1]{\makebox[1.cm]{Email:}

224:                 phuber@ph.tum.de},~

225:                 M.~Lindner\footnote[2]{\makebox[1.cm]{Email:}

226:                 lindner@ph.tum.de},~

227:                 M.~Rolinec\footnote[3]{\makebox[1.cm]{Email:}

228:                 rolinec@ph.tum.de},\\

229:                 T.~Schwetz\footnote[4]{\makebox[1.cm]{Email:}

230:                 schwetz@ph.tum.de},~and~

231:                 W.~Winter\footnote[5]{\makebox[1.cm]{Email:}

232:                 wwinter@ph.tum.de}

233:                 }}

234: \end{center}}

235: \vspace*{0cm}

236: {\it

237: \begin{center}

238: 

239: \footnotemark[1]${}^,$\footnotemark[2]${}^,$\footnotemark[3]${}^,$\footnotemark[4]${}^,$\footnotemark[5]%

240:        Physik--Department, Technische Universit\"at M\"unchen,\\

241:        James--Franck--Strasse, D--85748 Garching, Germany

242: 

243: \footnotemark[1]%

244:        Max-Planck-Institut f\"ur Physik, Postfach 401212,

245:        D--80805 M\"unchen, Germany

246: 

247: \end{center}}

248: 

249: \vspace*{1cm}

250: 

251: 

252: \begin{abstract}

253:    We analyze the physics potential of long baseline neutrino

254:    oscillation experiments planned for the coming ten years, where the

255:    main focus is the sensitivity limit to the small mixing angle

256:    $\theta_{13}$. The discussed experiments include the conventional

257:    beam experiments MINOS, ICARUS, and OPERA, which are under

258:    construction, the planned superbeam experiments J-PARC to

259:    Super-Kamiokande and NuMI off-axis, as well as new reactor

260:    experiments with near and far detectors, represented by the

261:    Double-Chooz project. We perform a complete numerical simulation

262:    including systematics, correlations, and degeneracies on an equal

263:    footing for all experiments using the GLoBES software. After

264:    discussing the improvement of our knowledge on the atmospheric

265:    parameters $\theta_{23}$ and $\Delta m^2_{31}$ by these experiments,

266:    we investigate the potential to determine $\theta_{13}$ within the 

267:    next ten years in detail. Furthermore, we show that under optimistic

268:    assumptions and for $\theta_{13}$ close to the current bound, even

269:    the next generation of experiments might provide some information

270:    on the Dirac CP phase and the type of the neutrino mass hierarchy.

271: \end{abstract}

272: 

273: 

274: \vspace*{.5cm}

275: 

276: 

277: \end{titlepage}

278: 

279: 

280: 

281: 

282: \newpage

283: 

284: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\arabic{footnote}}

285: \setcounter{footnote}{0}

286: 

287: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

288: %                     Introduction                                  %

289: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

290: 

291: 

292: \section{Introduction}

293: 

294: Within the last ten years a huge progress has been achieved in

295: neutrino oscillation physics.  In particular, the results of the

296: atmospheric neutrino

297: experiments~\cite{Fukuda:1998mi,SKupdate,Ambrosio:2003yz}

298: and the K2K accelerator neutrino experiment~\cite{Ahn:2002up} have

299: demonstrated that atmospheric muon neutrinos oscillate predominately

300: into tau neutrinos with a mixing angle close to maximal

301: mixing. Furthermore, solar neutrino

302: experiments~\cite{Cleveland:1998nv,Ahmed:2003kj}

303: and the KamLAND reactor neutrino experiment~\cite{Eguchi:2002dm} have

304: established that the reduced flux of solar electron neutrinos

305: is consistently understood by the so-called LMA-MSW

306: solution~\cite{Wolfenstein:1978ue}.

307: %

308: Looking back at these exciting developments, it is tempting to

309: extrapolate where we could stand in ten years from now with the

310: experiments being under construction or planned. Certainly, neutrino

311: physics will turn from the discovery era to the precision age, which

312: however, will make this field by no means less exciting. The next

313: major challenge will be the determination of the third, unknown mixing

314: angle $\theta_{13}$, which at present is only known to be

315: small~\cite{Apollonio:1999ae,Apollonio:2002gd}. Further important

316: issues will be the determination of the neutrino mass hierarchy and,

317: if $\theta_{13}$ turns out to be large enough, the Dirac CP phase.

318: %

319: Three different classes of experiments are under discussion for the

320: next generation of long-baseline oscillation experiments, which are

321: able to address at least some of these topics: Conventional beam

322: experiments, first-generation superbeams, and new reactor experiments

323: with near and far detectors. In this study, we consider specific

324: proposals for such experiments, which are under construction or in

325: active preparation, and could deliver physics results within the next

326: ten years.

327:  

328: An already existing conventional beam experiment is the K2K

329: experiment~\cite{Ahn:2002up}, which is sending a neutrino beam from

330: the KEK accelerator to the Super-Kamiokande detector. This experiment

331: has already confirmed the disappearance of $\nu_\mu$ as predicted by

332: atmospheric neutrino data, and with more statistics it will slightly

333: reduce the allowed range of the atmospheric mass splitting $\ldm$. In

334: this study, we consider in detail the next generation of such

335: conventional beam experiments, which are the \minos\

336: experiment~\cite{Ables:1995wq} in US, and the CERN to Gran Sasso

337: (CNGS) experiments \icarus~\cite{Aprili:2002wx} and

338: \opera~\cite{Duchesneau:2002yq}. These experiments are currently under

339: construction and should easily obtain physics results within the next

340: ten years, including five years of data taking.

341: 

342: Moreover, we consider the subsequent generation of beam experiments, the

343: so-called superbeam experiments. They use the same technology as

344: conventional beams with several improvements. 

345: The most advanced superbeam proposals are the J-PARC to

346: Super-Kamiokande experiment (\JHFSK)~\cite{Itow:2001ee} in Japan, and

347: the \NuMI\ off-axis experiment~\cite{Ayres:2002nm}, using a neutrino

348: beam produced at Fermilab in US.  For these two experiments 

349: specific Letters of Intent exist and we use the setups discussed in

350: there. \JHFSK\ and \NuMI\ could deliver important new results towards

351: the end of the timescale considered in this work.

352: 

353: Recently, there has been a lot of activity to investigate the potential of

354: new reactor neutrino experiments~\cite{whitepaper}. It has been

355: realized that the performance of previous experiments, such as

356: CHOOZ~\cite{Apollonio:1999ae,Apollonio:2002gd} or Palo

357: Verde~\cite{Boehm:2001ik}, can be significantly improved if a near

358: detector is used to control systematics and if the statistics is

359: increased~\cite{Mikaelyan:1999pm,Minakata:2002jv,Huber:2003pm}.

360: A number of possible sites are discussed, including reactors in

361: Brasil, China, France, Japan, Russia, Taiwan, and the US (see

362: \Ref~\cite{whitepaper} for an extensive review). Among the discussed

363: options are the KASKA project in Japan~\cite{Minakata:2002jv} at the

364: Kashiwazaki-Kariwa power plant, several power plants in

365: USA~\cite{Shaevitz:2003ws,Heeger} (\eg, Diablo Canyon in California or

366: Braidwood in Illinois), and the \DChooz\ project~\cite{doubleChooz}

367: (\CHOOZII), which is planned at the original CHOOZ

368: site~\cite{Apollonio:2002gd} in France.

369: 

370: The particular selection of experiments considered in this study is

371: determined by the requirement that results should be available within

372: about ten years from now. This either requires that the experiments

373: are already under construction (such as \minos, \icarus, and \opera), or

374: that specific proposals (Letters of Intent) including feasibility

375: studies exist. From the current perspective, the only superbeam

376: experiments fulfilling this requirement are the \JHFSK\ and \NuMI\

377: projects. Concerning reactors, we consider in this study the \DChooz\

378: project~\cite{doubleChooz}, since this proposal has the advantage that

379: a lot of infrastructure from the first CHOOZ experiment can be

380: re-used. In particular, the existence of the detector hall drastically

381: reduces the required amount of civil engineering, which is

382: considered to be time-critical for a future reactor

383: experiment. Therefore, it seems rather likely that a medium size

384: experiment can be built at the CHOOZ site within a few years and

385: deliver physics results during the timescale considered here. We would

386: like to stress that other reactor experiments of similar size, such as

387: the KASKA project in Japan~\cite{Minakata:2002jv}, would lead to

388: results similar to \DChooz. To fully explore the potential of neutrino

389: oscillation experiments at nuclear reactors, we furthermore consider

390: an even larger reactor neutrino experiment (\ReactorII). This could be

391: especially interesting if a large value of $\theta_{13}$ was

392: found. \ReactorII\ is the only exception for which we use an abstract

393: setup, which could, in principle, be built at one of the sites

394: mentioned above. For example, some projects discussed in the US, such

395: as Diablo Canyon or Braidwood~\cite{Heeger,shaevitztalk}, are similar

396: to our \ReactorII\ setup. Such an experiment could be feasible within

397: a timescale similar to the superbeam experiments, and could provide

398: results at the end of the period considered in this work. Note that 

399: in this study, we do not consider oscillation experiments using a 

400: natural neutrino source, such as solar, atmospheric, or supernova neutrinos.

401: 

402: The outline of the paper is as follows: After a brief description of

403: the considered experiments in \Sec~\ref{sec:expclasses}, we discuss

404: the analysis methods and some analytical qualitative features of our

405: results in \Sec~\ref{sec:ana}. The main results of this study are

406: given in \Secs~\ref{sec:th23ldm}, \ref{sec:stheta_conv},

407: \ref{sec:theta13_all}, and \ref{sec:th13delta}. First, in

408: \Sec~\ref{sec:th23ldm}, we investigate the improvement of the

409: atmospheric parameters $\theta_{23}$ and $\ldm$ from long-baseline

410: experiments within ten years. Then we move to the discussion of the

411: $\stheta$ sensitivity limit if no finite value of $\stheta$ can be

412: established. We consider in \Sec~\ref{sec:stheta_conv} the

413: conventional beam experiments \minos, \icarus, and \opera. In

414: \Sec~\ref{sec:theta13_all}, we discuss the potential of reactor

415: neutrino experiments to constrain $\stheta$, and we compare the final

416: $\stheta$ bounds from the conventional beams, \DChooz, \JHFSK, and

417: \NuMI . In \Sec~\ref{sec:th13delta}, we investigate the assumption

418: that $\stheta$ is large, and discuss what we could learn from the next

419: generation of experiments on the Dirac CP phase and the type of the

420: neutrino mass hierarchy. In this section, the \ReactorII\ setup will

421: become important. A summary of our results is given in

422: \Sec~\ref{sec:conclusions}. In \App~\ref{sec:simbeams}, we describe in

423: detail our simulation of \minos, \icarus, and \opera . Furthermore, in

424: \App~\ref{app:reactor}, technical details of the reactor experiment

425: analysis are given. Eventually, we present a thorough discussion of

426: our definition of the $\stheta$ limit in \App~\ref{app:stheta}.

427:  

428: 

429: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

430: %%%%%%%                     The Experiments                          %%%%%%

431: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

432: 

433: \section{Description of the considered experiments}

434: \label{sec:expclasses}

435: 

436: In this section, we discuss in detail the individual experiments

437: considered in this work. The main characteristics of the used setups

438: are summarized in \Tab~\ref{tab:reps}.

439: 

440: 

441: \subsection{Conventional beam experiments}

442: 

443: Conventional beam experiments use an accelerator for neutrino

444: production: A proton beam hits a target and produces a pion beam (with

445: a contribution of kaons). The resulting pions mainly decay into muon

446: neutrinos with some electron neutrino contamination. The far detector

447: is usually located in the center of the beam. The primary goal of

448: these beams is the improvement of the precision of the atmospheric

449: oscillation parameters. In addition, an improvement of the CHOOZ limit

450: for $\stheta$ is expected. For more details, see

451: \Ref~\cite{Ables:1995wq} for the \minos\ experiment and

452: \Refs~\cite{Aprili:2002wx,Duchesneau:2002yq} for the CNGS

453: experiments. In addition, we describe our simulation in more detail in

454: \App~\ref{sec:simbeams}.

455: 

456: The neutrino beam for the \minos\ experiment is produced at Fermilab.

457: Protons with an energy of about $120\,\mathrm{GeV}$ hit a graphite

458: target with an intended exposure of $3.7 \cdot 10^{20}$ protons on

459: target (pot) per year. A two-horn focusing system allows to direct the

460: pions towards the Soudan mine where the magnetized iron far detector

461: is located, which results in a baseline of $735\,\mathrm{km}$. The

462: flavor content of the beam is, because of the decay characteristics of

463: the pions, almost only $\nu_\mu$ with a contamination of approximately

464: 1\% $\nu_e$. The mean neutrino energy is at $\langle

465: E_\nu \rangle \sim 3\,\mathrm{GeV}$, which is small compared to the

466: $\tau$-production threshold.  The main purpose is to observe $\nu_\mu

467: \rightarrow \nu_\mu$ disappearance with high statistics, and thus to

468: determine the ``atmospheric'' oscillation parameters. In addition, the 

469: $\nu_\mu \rightarrow \nu_e$ appearance channel will provide some

470: information on $\stheta$.

471: 

472: The CNGS beam is produced at CERN and directed towards the Gran Sasso

473: Laboratory, where the \icarus\ and \opera\ detectors are located at a

474: baseline of $732\,\mathrm{km}$. The primary protons are accelerated in

475: the SPS to $400\,\mathrm{GeV}$, and the luminosity is planned to be

476: $4.5 \cdot 10^{19}\,\mathrm{pot}\,\mathrm{y}^{-1}$.  Again the beam

477: mainly contains $\nu_\mu$ with a small contamination of $\nu_e$ at the

478: level of 1\%. The main difference to the \NuMI\ beam is the higher neutrino

479: energy. The mean energy is $17\,\mathrm{GeV}$, well above the

480: $\tau$-production threshold. Therefore, the CNGS experiments will be

481: able to study the $\nu_\tau$-appearance in the

482: $\nu_\mu\rightarrow\nu_\tau$ channel.  Two far detectors with very

483: different technologies designed for $\nu_\tau$ detection will be used

484: for the CNGS experiment. The \opera\ detector is an emulsion cloud

485: chamber, whereas \icarus\ is based on a liquid Argon TPC.

486: %

487: In addition to the $\nu_\tau$ detection, it is possible to identify

488: electrons and muons in the \opera\ and \icarus\ detectors. This in addition

489: allows to study the $\nu_\mu\to\nu_e$ appearance channel providing the

490: main information on $\stheta$, and the $\nu_\mu$ disappearance

491: channel, which contributes significantly to the determination of the

492: atmospheric oscillation parameters.

493: 

494:      

495: \subsection{The first-generation superbeams \JHFSK\ and \NuMI\ }

496: 

497: Superbeams are based upon the technology of conventional beam

498: experiments with some technical improvements. All superbeams use a

499: near detector for a better control of the systematics and are aiming

500: for higher target powers than the conventional beam experiments. In

501: addition, the detectors are better optimized for the considered

502: purpose. Since the primary goal of superbeams is the $\stheta$

503: sensitivity, the $\nu_\mu \rightarrow \nu_e$ appearance channel is

504: expected to provide the most interesting results. In order to reduce

505: the irreducible fraction of $\nu_e$ from the meson decays (which is

506: also called ``background'') and the unwanted high-energy tail in the

507: neutrino energy spectrum, one uses the {\em

508: off-axis}-technology~\cite{offaxis} to produce a narrow-band beam,

509: \ie, a neutrino beam with a sharply peaking energy spectrum. For this

510: technology, the far detector is situated slightly off the beam

511: axis. The simulation of the superbeams is performed as described in

512: \Ref~\cite{Huber:2002rs}; here we give only a short summary.

513: 

514: The J-PARC to Super-Kamiokande superbeam, which we further on call

515: \JHFSK,\footnote{The \JHFSK\ setup considered in this work is

516: the same as the setup labeled {\sf JHF-SK} in previous

517: publications~\cite{Huber:2002mx,Huber:2002rs,Huber:2003pm}.} is

518: supposed to have a target power of $0.77 \, \mathrm{MW}$ with $10^{21}

519: \, \mathrm{pot}$ per year~\cite{Itow:2001ee}. It uses the

520: Super-Kamiokande detector, a water Cherenkov detector with a fiducial

521: mass of $22.5 \, \mathrm{kt}$ at a baseline of $L=295 \, \mathrm{km}$

522: and an off-axis angle of $2^\circ$. The Super-Kamiokande detector has

523: excellent electron-muon separation and neutral current rejection

524: capabilities. Since the mean neutrino energy is $0.76 \,

525: \mathrm{GeV}$, quasi-elastic scattering is the dominant detection

526: process.

527: 

528: \begin{table}[t]

529: \begin{center}

530: \begin{tabular}{|lrrrlrr|}

531: \hline

532: Label & $L$ & $\langle E_\nu \rangle$ & $P_{\mathrm{Source}}$ & 

533: Detector technology & $m_{\mathrm{Det}}$ & $t_{\mathrm{run}}$ \\

534: \hline

535: \multicolumn{7}{|l|}{\bf{Conventional beam experiments:}} \\

536: \minos\ & $735 \, \mathrm{km}$ & $3 \,\mathrm{GeV}$ & 

537: $3.7 \cdot 10^{20} \,\mathrm{pot/y}$ & 

538: Magn. iron calorim. &  $5.4\,\mathrm{kt}$ & $5 \, \mathrm{yr}$ \\

539: \icarus\ & $732\,\mathrm{km}$ &  $17\,\mathrm{GeV}$  & 

540: $4.5 \cdot 10^{19}\,\mathrm{pot/y}$ & 

541: Liquid Argon TPC & $2.35\,\mathrm{kt}$ & $5 \, \mathrm{yr}$\\

542: \opera\ & $732\,\mathrm{km}$ &  $17\,\mathrm{GeV}$ & 

543: $4.5 \cdot 10^{19}\,\mathrm{pot/y}$ &  

544: Emul. cloud chamb. &  $1.65\,\mathrm{kt}$ & $5 \, \mathrm{yr}$\\[0.1cm]

545: \multicolumn{7}{|l|}{\bf{Superbeams:}} \\

546: \JHFSK\ & $295  \, \mathrm{km}$ & $0.76 \, \mathrm{GeV}$ & 

547: $1.0 \cdot 10^{21} \, \mathrm{pot/y}$  & 

548: Water Cherenkov & $22.5 \, \mathrm{kt}$ & $5 \, \mathrm{yr}$ \\

549: \NuMI\ & $812 \, \mathrm{km}$ & $2.22 \, \mathrm{GeV}$ & 

550: $4.0 \cdot 10^{20} \,\mathrm{pot/y}$ & 

551: Low-Z-calorimeter & $50 \, \mathrm{kt}$ & $5 \, \mathrm{yr}$ \\[0.1cm]

552: \multicolumn{7}{|l|}{\bf{Reactor experiments:}} \\

553: \CHOOZII\ & $1.05 \, \mathrm{km}$ & $\sim 4 \, \mathrm{MeV}$ & $2

554: \times 4.25 \, \mathrm{GW}$ & 

555: Liquid Scintillator & $11.3 \, \mathrm{t}$ & $3 \, \mathrm{yr}$ \\

556: \ReactorII\ & $1.70 \, \mathrm{km}$ & $\sim 4 \, \mathrm{MeV}$ & 

557: $ 8\,\mathrm{GW}$ & 

558: Liquid Scintillator & $200\,\mathrm{t}$ & $5\,\mathrm{yr}$ \\ 

559: \hline

560: \end{tabular}

561: \end{center}

562: \mycaption{\label{tab:reps} The different classes of experiments and

563:    the considered setups. The table shows the label of the experiment,

564:    the baseline $L$, the mean neutrino energy $\langle E_\nu \rangle$,

565:    the source power $P_{\mathrm{Source}}$ (for beams: in protons on

566:    target per year, for reactors: in gigawatts of thermal reactor

567:    power), the detector technology, the fiducial detector mass

568:    $m_{\mathrm{Det}}$, and the running time $t_{\mathrm{run}}$. Note

569:    that most results are, to a first approximation, a function of the

570:    product of running time, detector mass, and source power.}

571: \end{table}

572: 

573: 

574: For the NuMI off-axis experiment~\cite{Ayres:2002nm}, which we further

575: on call \NuMI , a low-Z-calorimeter with a fiducial mass of $50 \,

576: \mathrm{kt}$ is planned~\cite{NuMI}. Because of the higher average

577: neutrino energy of about $2.2 \, \mathrm{GeV}$, deep inelastic

578: scattering is the dominant detection process. Thus, the hadronic

579: fraction of the energy deposition is larger at these energies, which

580: makes the low-Z-calorimeter the more efficient detector technology.

581: For the baseline and off-axis angle, many configurations are under

582: discussion. As it has been demonstrated in

583: \Refs~\cite{Barger:2002xk,Huber:2002rs,Minakata:2003ca}, a \NuMI\

584: baseline significantly longer than $712 \, \mathrm{km}$ increases the

585: overall physics potential because of the larger contribution of matter

586: effects. In this study, we use a baseline of $812 \, \mathrm{km}$ and

587: an off-axis angle of $0.72^\circ$, which corresponds to a location

588: close to the proposed Ash River site, and to the longest possible

589: baseline within the United States.

590: %For a longer baseline, one had to go to Canada (Ontario). 

591: The beam is supposed to have a target power of about $0.43 \,

592: \mathrm{MW}$ with $4.0 \cdot 10^{20} \, \mathrm{pot}$ per year.

593: 

594: \subsection{The reactor experiments \DChooz\ and \ReactorII\ }

595: 

596: The key idea of the new proposed reactor experiments is the use of a

597: near detector at a distance of few hundred meters away from the

598: reactor core. If near and far detectors are built as identical as

599: possible, systematic uncertainties related to the neutrino flux will

600: cancel. In addition, detectors considerably larger than the CHOOZ

601: detector are anticipated, which has, for example, been demonstrated to

602: be feasible by KamLAND~\cite{Eguchi:2002dm}. Except from these

603: improvements, such a reactor experiment would be very similar to

604: previous experiments, such as CHOOZ~\cite{Apollonio:2002gd} or Palo

605: Verde~\cite{Boehm:2001ik}. The basic principle is the detection of

606: antineutrinos by the inverse $\beta$-decay process, which are produced by $\beta$-decay in a nuclear fission reactor. For details of our

607: simulation of reactor neutrino experiments, see

608: \Ref~\cite{Huber:2003pm} and \App~\ref{app:reactor}.

609: 

610: For the \DChooz\ experiment, we assume a total number of $60 \, 000$

611: un-oscillated events in the far detector~\cite{doubleChooz}, which

612: corresponds (for 100\% detection efficiency) to the integrated

613: luminosity of $288 \, \mathrm{t \cdot GW \cdot yr}$, compared to the original

614: CHOOZ experiment with $12.25 \, \mathrm{t \cdot GW \cdot yr}$ leading to

615: about $2\, 500$ un-oscillated events~\cite{Apollonio:1999ae}. The

616: integrated luminosity is given as the product of thermal reactor

617: power, running time, and detector mass. Note that, at least for a

618: background-free measurement, one can scale the individual factors

619: such that their product remains constant. The possibility to re-use

620: the cavity of the original CHOOZ experiment is a striking feature of

621: the \DChooz\ proposal, although it confines the far detector to a

622: baseline of $1.05\,\mathrm{km}$, which is slightly too short for the

623: current best-fit value $\ldm \simeq 2\cdot 10^{-3}\,\mathrm{eV}^2$.

624: 

625: If a positive signal for $\stheta$ is found soon, \ie, $\stheta$ turns

626: out to be large, it will be the primary objective to push the

627: knowledge on $\stheta$ and $\deltacp$ with the next generations of

628: experiments. From the initial measurements of superbeams, $\stheta$ and

629: $\deltacp$ will be highly correlated (see \Sec~\ref{sec:th13delta}).

630: In order to disentangle these parameters, some complementary

631: information is needed. For this purpose, one can either use extensive

632: antineutrino running at a beam experiment, or use an additional large

633: reactor experiment to measure $\stheta$

634: precisely~\cite{Huber:2003pm,Minakata:2003wq}. Because the

635: antineutrino cross sections are much smaller than the neutrino cross

636: sections, a superbeam experiment would have to run about three times

637: longer in the antineutrino mode than in the neutrino mode in order to

638: obtain comparable statistical information. Thus, a superbeam could not

639: supply the necessary information within the anticipated timescale. We

640: therefore suggest the large reactor experiment \ReactorII\ from

641: \Ref~\cite{Huber:2003pm} at the optimal baseline of $L=1.7 \,

642: \mathrm{km}$ in order to demonstrate the combined potential of all

643: experiments. It has $636 \, 200$ un-oscillated events, which

644: corresponds to an integrated luminosity of $8 \, 000 \, \mathrm{t \cdot GW

645: \cdot yr}$. Such a reactor experiment could, for example, be built at the

646: Diablo Canyon or Braidwood power plants~\cite{Heeger,shaevitztalk}.

647: 

648: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

649: %%%%%%%%%%                     Description of Calculations                   % 

650: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

651: 

652: \section{Qualitative discussion and analysis methods}

653: \label{sec:ana}

654: 

655: In general, our calculations are done in the three flavor framework,

656: where we use the standard parameterization $U$ of the leptonic mixing

657: matrix described by three mixing angles and one CP

658: phase~\cite{PDG}. Our results are based on a full numerical simulation

659: of the exact transition probabilities, and we also include Earth

660: matter effects~\cite{Wolfenstein:1978ue} because of the

661: long baselines used for the \NuMI\ beam. We take into account matter

662: density uncertainties by imposing an error of $5\%$ on the average

663: matter density~\cite{Geller:2001ix}.

664: %

665: The probabilities are convoluted with the neutrino fluxes, detection

666: cross sections, energy resolutions, and experimental efficiencies to

667: calculate the event rates, which are the basis of the full statistical

668: $\chi^2$-analysis.  We use all the information available, \ie, the

669: appearance and disappearance channels, as well as the energy

670: information. 

671: %

672: The simulation methods are described in the Appendices of

673: \Ref~\cite{Huber:2002mx}; for details of the conventional beam

674: experiments, see also \App~\ref{sec:simbeams}, for the superbeam

675: experiments \Ref~\cite{Huber:2002rs}, and for the the reactor

676: experiments \Ref~\cite{Huber:2003pm} and \App~\ref{app:reactor}.  All

677: of the calculations are performed with the GLoBES

678: software~\cite{Globes}.

679: 

680: In order to obtain a qualitative analytical understanding of the

681: effects, it is sufficient to use simplified expressions for the

682: transition probabilities, which are obtained by expanding the

683: probabilities in vacuum simultaneously in the mass hierarchy parameter

684: $\alpha \equiv \Delta m_{21}^2 / \Delta m_{31}^2$ and the small mixing

685: angle $\sin2\theta_{13}$.  The expression for the $\nu_\mu \rightarrow

686: \nu_e$ appearance probability up to second order in $\alpha$ and

687: $\sin2\theta_{13}$ is given

688: by~\cite{Freund:2001ui,Akhmedov:2004ny}

689: %

690: \begin{eqnarray}

691: P(\nu_\mu \rightarrow \nu_e) & \simeq & \sin^2 2\theta_{13} \, \sin^2 \theta_{23}

692: \sin^2 {\Delta} \nonumber \\

693: & \mp &  \alpha\; \sin 2\theta_{13} \, \sin\deltacp  \, 

694: \sin 2\theta_{12} \sin 2\theta_{23}

695: \, \Delta \sin^2{\Delta} \nonumber \\

696: &+&  \alpha\; \sin 2\theta_{13}  \, \cos\deltacp \, 

697: \sin 2\theta_{12} \sin 2\theta_{23}

698: \, \Delta \cos {\Delta} \sin {\Delta} \nonumber  \\

699: &+& \alpha^2 \, \cos^2 \theta_{23} \sin^2 2\theta_{12} \, \Delta^2

700: \label{equ:beam}

701: \end{eqnarray} 

702: %

703: with $\Delta \equiv \Delta m^2_{31}L / (4E_\nu)$. The sign of the

704: second term is negative for neutrinos and positive for antineutrinos.

705: The relative weight of each of the individual terms in \equ{beam} is

706: determined by the values of $\alpha$ and $\sin2\theta_{13}$,

707: which means that the superbeam performance is highly affected by the

708: true values $\sdm$ and $\ldm$ given by nature. 

709: %

710: Reactor experiments can be described by the corresponding expansion of

711: the disappearance probability up to second order in $\sin 2

712: \theta_{13}$ and $\alpha$~\cite{Minakata:2002jv,Huber:2003pm,Akhmedov:2004ny}

713: %

714: \begin{equation}

715: 1 - P_{\bar{e} \bar{e}} \quad \simeq \quad \sin^2 2 \theta_{13} \,

716: \sin^2 \Delta + \alpha^2 \, \Delta^2 \, \cos^4 \theta_{13}

717: \, \sin^2 2 \theta_{12} . \label{equ:reactor}

718: \end{equation}

719: %

720: The second term on the right-hand side of this equation is for

721: $\stheta \gtrsim 10^{-3}$ and close to the first atmospheric

722: oscillation maximum relatively small compared to the first one, and

723: can therefore be neglected in the relevant parameter space region. In

724: principle, there are also terms of the order $\alpha \, \sin^2 2

725: \theta_{13}$ and higher orders in \equ{reactor}. Though some of these

726: terms could be of the order of the $\alpha^2$-term for large values of

727: $\stheta$, they are, close to the atmospheric oscillation maximum,

728: always suppressed compared to the $\stheta$-term by at least one order

729: of $\alpha$. Thus, the $\stheta$-term carries the main information.

730: 

731: From \equ{reactor}, it is obvious that a reactor experiment cannot

732: access $\theta_{23}$, the mass hierarchy, or $\deltacp$.  In

733: addition, the measurements of $\ldm$ would only be possible for large

734: values of $\stheta$~\cite{Huber:2003pm}. These parameters can be only 

735: measured by the $\nu_\mu \to \nu_\mu$, $\nu_\mu \to \nu_e$, and $\nu_\mu \to

736: \nu_\tau$ channels in beam experiments. However, comparing

737: \eqs~(\ref{equ:beam}) and~(\ref{equ:reactor}), one can easily see that reactor

738: experiments should allow a ``clean'' and degenerate-free measurement

739: of $\stheta$~\cite{Minakata:2002jv}. In contrast, the determination of

740: $\stheta$ using the appearance channel in \equ{beam} is strongly

741: affected by the more complicated parameter dependence of the

742: oscillation probability, which leads to multi-parameter

743: correlations~\cite{Huber:2002mx} and to the $(\delta,

744: \theta_{13})$~\cite{Burguet-Castell:2001ez}, $\mathrm{sgn}(\Delta

745: m_{31}^2)$~\cite{Minakata:2001qm}, and

746: $(\theta_{23},\pi/2-\theta_{23})$~\cite{Fogli:1996pv} degeneracies,

747: \ie, an overall ``eight-fold'' degeneracy~\cite{Barger:2001yr}. In the

748: analysis, we take into account all of these degeneracies. Note

749: however, that the $(\theta_{23},\pi/2-\theta_{23})$ degeneracy is not

750: present, since we always adopt for the true value of $\theta_{23}$ the

751: current atmospheric best-fit value $\theta_{23}=\pi/4$. The proper

752: treatment of correlations and degeneracies is of particular importance

753: for the calculation of a sensitivity limit on $\stheta$. This issue is

754: discussed in detail in \App~\ref{app:stheta}, where we give also a

755: precise definition of the $\stheta$ sensitivity limit. In some cases

756: we compare the actual $\stheta$ sensitivity limit to the so-called

757: $(\sin^2 2 \theta_{13})_{\mathrm{eff}}$ sensitivity limit, which

758: includes only statistical and systematical errors (but no correlations

759: and degeneracies). This limit corresponds roughly to the potential of

760: a given experiment to observe a positive signal, which is

761: ``parameterized'' by some (unphysical) mixing parameter $(\sin^2 2

762: \theta_{13})_{\mathrm{eff}}$ (see also \App~\ref{app:stheta} for a

763: precise definition).

764: 

765: If not otherwise stated, we use in the following for the ``solar'' and

766: ``atmospheric'' parameters the current best-fit values with their

767: $3\,\sigma$-allowed ranges:

768: %

769: \begin{eqnarray}

770: \label{eq:bfp}

771: |\Delta m_{31}^2| = 2.0_{-0.9}^{+1.2} \cdot 10^{-3}\,\mathrm{eV}^2,  &\quad&

772: \sin^22\theta_{23} = 1_{-0.15}^{+0}, \nonumber\\

773: \Delta m_{21}^2 = 7.0_{-1.6}^{+2.5} \cdot 10^{-5}\,\mathrm{eV}^2, &\quad&

774: \sin^22\theta_{12} = 0.8_{-0.1}^{+0.15}.

775: \end{eqnarray} 

776: %

777: The numbers are taken from

778: \Refs~\cite{Fogli:2003th,Maltoni:2003da}, which include

779: the latest SNO salt solar neutrino data~\cite{Ahmed:2003kj} and the

780: results of the re-analysis of the Super-Kamiokande atmospheric

781: neutrino data~\cite{SKupdate}.  The interesting dependencies on the

782: true parameter values are usually shown within the $3 \sigma$-allowed

783: ranges. For the upper bound on $\stheta$ at 90\% CL ($3\sigma$) we use

784: %

785: \begin{equation}

786: \label{equ:th13_bound}

787: \sin^22\theta_{13} \le 0.14\, (0.25) \,,

788: \end{equation}

789: %

790: obtained from the CHOOZ data~\cite{Apollonio:1999ae} combined with

791: global solar neutrino and KamLAND data at the best fit value $\ldm =

792: 2\cdot 10^{-3}\,\mathrm{eV}^2$~\cite{Maltoni:2003da}. In order to take

793: into account relevant information from experiments not considered

794: explicitly, we impose external input given by the $1\sigma$ error on

795: the respective parameters. This is mainly relevant for the

796: ``solar parameters'', where we assume that the ongoing KamLAND

797: experiment will improve the errors down to a level of about $10\%$ on

798: each $\dm{21}$ and

799: $\sin2\theta_{12}$~\cite{Gonzalez-Garcia:2001zy}.  For

800: the ``atmospheric parameters'' we assume as external input roughly the

801: current error of $20\%$ for $|\dm{31}|$ and $5\%$ for

802: $\sin^22\theta_{23}$, which however, becomes irrelevant after about

803: one year of data taking of the conventional beams, since then these

804: parameters (especially $|\ldm|$) will be determined to a better

805: precision from the experiments themselves. Furthermore, we assume a

806: precision of $5\%$ for $|\dm{31}|$ for the separate analysis of the

807: reactor experiments, since the conventional beams should supply results

808: until then.  However, it can be shown that the results would only

809: marginally change for an error of $20\%$ for $|\dm{31}|$.

810: 

811: In general our results presented in the following depend on the assumed

812: true values of the oscillation parameters. In particular they show a

813: strong dependence on the true value of $\dm{31}$, and therefore this

814: dependence will be depicted in figures where appropriate. The

815: $\theta_{13}$ sensitivity limit obtained from $P_{e\mu}$ moreover also

816: depends strongly on the true value of $\dm{21}$ (see

817: \Fig~\ref{fig:solardep} below). In principle also the variation of

818: $\theta_{12}$ plays a role. However, $P_{e\mu}$ depends only on the

819: product of $\alpha\cdot \sin2\theta_{12}$ up to second order in

820: $\alpha$ as shown in \eq~(\ref{equ:beam}). Therefore a variation of

821: the true value of $\theta_{12}$ is equivalent to a rescaling of the

822: true value of $\dm{21}$. The variation of the true value of

823: $\theta_{23}$ within the range given in \eq~(\ref{eq:bfp}) produces

824: only slight changes in the results. In particular, those changes are

825: much smaller than the ones caused by the variation of $\dm{31}$. Thus,

826: in order to keep the presentation of our results concise, we do not

827: explicitly discuss the dependence of the results on $\theta_{23}$, and

828: we always adopt the current best fit value $\theta_{23}= \pi/4$ for

829: the true value.

830: 

831: 

832: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

833: %%%%%%%%%         RESULTS   ATMOS                             %%%%%%% 

834: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

835: 

836: 

837: \section{The measurements of $\boldsymbol{\ldm}$ and 

838: $\boldsymbol{\theta_{23}}$}

839: \label{sec:th23ldm}

840: 

841: In this section, we investigate the ability of the conventional beam

842: experiments and superbeams to measure the leading atmospheric parameters

843: $\ldm$ and $\theta_{23}$. We do not include the reactor experiments in

844: this discussion, since they are rather insensitive to $\ldm$, and

845: cannot access $\theta_{23}$ at all. The measurement of these

846: parameters is dominated by the $\nu_\mu\to\nu_\mu$ disappearance

847: channel in the beam experiments.

848: 

849: In \figu{dm31th23}, we compare the predicted allowed regions for

850: $\ldm$ and $\sin^2\theta_{23}$ from the combined conventional beams

851: (\minos, \icarus, \opera), \JHFSK, \NuMI, and all beam

852: experiments combined to the current allowed region from

853: Super-Kamiokande atmospheric neutrino data. We show the fit-manifold

854: section in the $\sin^2 \theta_{23}$-$\ldm$-plane (upper row), as well

855: as the projection onto this plane (lower row). For a section, all

856: oscillation parameters which are not shown are fixed at their true

857: values, whereas for a projection the $\chi^2$-function is minimized

858: over these parameters. Therefore, the projection corresponds to the

859: final result, since it includes the fact that the other fit parameters

860: are not exactly known. In general, the $\chi^2$-value becomes smaller

861: by the minimization over the not shown fit parameters, which means

862: that the allowed regions become larger.

863: %

864: In \figu{dm31th23} the $\mathrm{sgn}(\ldm)$-degeneracy is not

865: included, since it usually does not produce large effects in the

866: disappearance channels. In addition, we use the true values

867: $\stheta=0.1$ and $\deltacp=0^\circ$ in \figu{dm31th23}. Although the

868: fit-manifold sections shown in the upper row of \figu{dm31th23}

869: depend to some extent on this choice, the effect for the final

870: results of the disappearance channels is very small, \ie, the lower

871: row of \figu{dm31th23} is hardly changed for $\stheta=0$.

872: 

873: \begin{figure}[t!]

874:    \centering \includegraphics[width=16cm]{fig1.eps}

875:    \mycaption{\label{fig:dm31th23} The $90 \%$ CL (solid curves) and

876:    $3 \sigma$ (dashed curves) allowed regions (2 d.o.f.) in the

877:    $\sin^2 \theta_{23}$-$\ldm$-plane for the combined conventional

878:    beams (\minos, \icarus, \opera), \JHFSK, \NuMI, and all beam

879:    experiments combined. For the true values of the oscillation

880:    parameters, we choose the current best-fit values from

881:    \eq~(\ref{eq:bfp}), a normal mass hierarchy, $\stheta=0.1$ and

882:    $\deltacp=0$. The upper row shows a section of the fit manifold (with

883:    the un-displayed oscillation parameters fixed at their true values),

884:    and the lower row shows the projection onto the $\sin^2

885:    \theta_{23}$-$\ldm$-plane as the final result. The shaded

886:    regions correspond to the 90\% CL allowed region from current

887:    atmospheric neutrino data~\protect\cite{SKupdate}.} 

888: \end{figure}

889: 

890: The first thing to learn from \figu{dm31th23} is that the precision on

891: $\ldm$ will drastically improve during the next ten years, whereas our

892: knowledge on $\theta_{23}$ will be increased rather modestly. The

893: combination of all the beam experiments will improve the current precision

894: from the Super-Kamiokande atmospheric neutrino data~\cite{SKupdate} on

895: $\sin^2\theta_{23}$ roughly by a factor of two, while the precision on

896: $\ldm$ will be improved by an order of magnitude. Neither the three

897: conventional beams combined nor \NuMI\ will obtain a precision on

898: $\theta_{23}$ better than current Super-Kamiokande data, only \JHFSK\

899: might improve the precision slightly. We note however, that the

900: $\theta_{23}$ accuracy of the long-baseline experiments strongly

901: depends on the true value of $\ldm$, and it will be improved if $\ldm$

902: turns out to be larger than the current best-fit point.

903: 

904: In most cases, the correlations with the un-displayed

905: oscillation parameters do not cause significant differences between

906: the sections and projections in the upper and lower rows of

907: \figu{dm31th23}. Only for \NuMI , the projection is affected by

908: the multi-parameter correlation with $\stheta$ and $\deltacp$. Since

909: we do not assume additional knowledge about $\stheta$ for the

910: individual experiments other than from their own appearance channels,

911: the appearance channels can indirectly affect the $\ldm$ or

912: $\theta_{23}$ measurement results. This can be understood in terms of

913: the disappearance probability, which to leading order is given

914: by~\cite{Freund:2001ui,Akhmedov:2004ny}

915: %

916: \begin{equation} \label{equ:pmumu}

917: P_{\mu \mu} = 1 - 

918: \sin^2 2 \theta_{23} \sin^2 \frac{\Delta m_{31}^2 L}{4 E} 

919: + \hdots

920: \end{equation}

921: %

922: where the dots refer to higher order terms in $\alpha=\sdm/\ldm$ and

923: $\theta_{13}$, as well as products of these. Thus, the

924: $\stheta$-precision, which comes from the appearance channels, is

925: necessary to constrain the amplitude of the higher order terms in this

926: equation which are proportional to $\theta_{13}$. Since, however,

927: $\theta_{13}$ is strongly correlated with $\deltacp$ in the appearance

928: channels, this two-parameter correlation can lead to multi-parameter

929: correlations with $\theta_{23}$ or $\ldm$ in the disappearance channel

930: through the higher order terms in \equ{pmumu}. This explains the small

931: differences between the section and projection plots in

932: \figu{dm31th23}.

933: %

934: In addition, the measurement of $\stheta$ at \NuMI\ is affected by

935: matter effects, and hence, is somewhat different for the opposite sign

936: of $\ldm$. Therefore, one can also expect a slightly different shape

937: of the fit manifold for the $\mathrm{sgn}(\ldm)$-degeneracy. Note that

938: the initial asymmetry between $\sin^2 \theta_{23} < 0.5$ and $\sin^2

939: \theta_{23}>0.5$ for \NuMI\ is caused by its large matter effects.

940: 

941: Eventually, one obtains the precision of the individual parameter

942: $\ldm$ or $\theta_{23}$ as projection of the lower row plots in

943: \figu{dm31th23} (for one degree of freedom) onto the respective axis.

944: In \Tab~\ref{tab:resdmth23} we show our prediction for the $3

945: \sigma$-allowed ranges of the atmospheric oscillation parameters from

946: the conventional beam experiments and first generation superbeam

947: experiments for one degree of freedom.

948: 

949: 

950: \begin{table}[t!]

951: \begin{center}

952: \begin{tabular}{|l|ccc|}

953: \hline

954: Experiment/Combination & $|\ldm|$ & $\theta_{23}$ & $\sin^2 \theta_{23}$ \\

955: \hline

956: &&&\\[-0.3cm]

957: \minos\ + \opera\ + \icarus\ & $2^{+0.34}_{-0.18} \cdot 10^{-3} \, \mathrm{eV}^2$ & $(\pi/4)^{+0.22}_{-0.19}$ & $0.5^{+0.21}_{-0.18}$ \\

958: &&&\\[-0.3cm]

959: \JHFSK & $2^{+0.15}_{-0.09} \cdot 10^{-3} \, \mathrm{eV}^2$ & $(\pi/4)^{+0.13}_{-0.10}$ & $0.5^{+0.13}_{-0.10}$ \\

960: &&&\\[-0.3cm]

961: \NuMI & $2^{+0.43}_{-0.07} \cdot 10^{-3} \, \mathrm{eV}^2$ & $(\pi/4)^{+0.24}_{-0.21}$ & $0.5^{+0.23}_{-0.20}$ \\

962: &&&\\[-0.3cm]

963: All beam experiments combined & $2^{+0.12}_{-0.06} \cdot 10^{-3} \, \mathrm{eV}^2$ & $(\pi/4)^{+0.13}_{-0.10}$ & $0.5^{+0.12}_{-0.09}$ \\

964: \hline

965: \end{tabular}

966: \end{center}

967: \mycaption{\label{tab:resdmth23} The expected allowed ranges ($3

968: \sigma$, 1 d.o.f.) for the atmospheric oscillation parameters.  For

969: the true values of the oscillation parameters, we choose the current

970: best-fit values, a normal mass hierarchy, $\stheta=0.1$, and

971: $\deltacp=0^\circ$. The impact of an inverted mass hierarchy, and

972: different values for $\stheta$ or $\deltacp$ on these final results is

973: rather small.}

974: \end{table}

975:  

976: 

977: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

978: %%%%%%%%         RESULTS theta13 conventional beams             %%%%%%%%%%%%%%

979: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

980: 

981: 

982: \section{Improved $\boldsymbol{\stheta}$ bounds from

983:   conventional beams}

984: \label{sec:stheta_conv}

985: 

986: Let us now come to the crucial next step in neutrino oscillation

987: physics: the determination of the small mixing angle $\theta_{13}$.

988: We start this discussion by investigating the potential of the 

989: conventional beam experiments \minos , \icarus , and \opera\ to

990: improve the current bound on $\sin^22\theta_{13}$.

991: 

992: In \Tab~\ref{tab:chooz}, we show the signal and background event

993: rates after one year of nominal operation for each experiment

994: (computed for $\sin^22\theta_{13}=0.1$ and $\delta=0$). Based on these

995: numbers, one would expect that \minos\ performs significantly better

996: than \icarus.  However, \Tab~\ref{tab:chooz} only shows integrated

997: event rates and does not include the energy dependence of signal

998: versus background event numbers. In the CNGS beam, the energy

999: distribution of the intrinsic $\nu_e$-contamination is rather

1000: different from the energy distribution of the signal events. Thus, in

1001: a full analysis including energy information, the impact of the

1002: background is reduced. On the other hand, for the NuMI neutrino beam,

1003: the intrinsic $\nu_e$-contamination has an energy distribution which

1004: is much closer to the one of the signal events. Therefore, the impact

1005: of the background is relatively high. 

1006: 

1007: \begin{table}[t!]

1008: \begin{center}

1009: \begin{tabular}{|l|rrr|}

1010: \hline

1011: &\minos&\icarus&\opera\\

1012: \hline

1013: Signal&7.1&4.4&1.6\\

1014: Background&21.6&12.2&5.4\\

1015: \hline

1016: S/B&0.33&0.36&0.30\\

1017: \hline

1018: \end{tabular}

1019: \end{center}

1020:   \mycaption{\label{tab:chooz}The number of signal and background

1021:   events after one year of nominal operation of \minos, \icarus , and

1022:   \opera . For the oscillation parameters, we use the current best-fit

1023:   values with $\sin^22\theta_{13}=0.1$, $\deltacp = 0$, and a normal mass

1024:   hierarchy.}

1025: \end{table}

1026: 

1027: An important issue for the $\stheta$ sensitivity limit from the

1028: conventional beams is the finally achieved integrated luminosity,

1029: which might differ significantly from the nominal value due to some

1030: unforeseen experimental circumstances. Therefore, we discuss the

1031: $\stheta$ sensitivity as a function of the integrated number of

1032: protons on target. In \figu{lumiscaling}, the sensitivity limits for

1033: \minos , \icarus , and \opera\ are shown as a function of the

1034: luminosity. Note that since the CNGS experiments will be running

1035: simultaneously, we also show the combined \icarus\ and \opera\

1036: sensitivity limit. In order to compare the achievable limits as a

1037: function of the running time, the dashed lines refer to the results

1038: after one, two, and five years of data taking with the nominal beam

1039: fluxes given in \Refs~\cite{NUMI714,Aprili:2002wx,Komatsu:2002sz}.

1040: The lowest curves are obtained for the statistics limits only, whereas

1041: the highest curves are obtained after successively switching on

1042: systematics, correlations, and degeneracies. Thus, the actual

1043: $\sin^22\theta_{13}$ sensitivity limit in \figu{lumiscaling} is given

1044: by the highest curves. The figure indicates that the CNGS experiments

1045: together can improve the CHOOZ bound after about one and a half years

1046: of running time, and \minos\ after about two years. We note that the

1047: impact of systematics increases for \minos\ with increasing

1048: luminosity, illustrating the typical background problem mentioned

1049: above. In \figu{interncomp}, we eventually summarize the $\stheta$

1050: sensitivity after a total running time of five years for each

1051: experiment, assuming the true value of $\ldm = 2\cdot

1052: 10^{-3}\,\mathrm{eV}^2$. One can directly read off this figure that

1053:  the $\stheta$ sensitivity limits of \icarus\ and \minos\ are very similar,

1054: and \icarus\ and \opera\ combined are slightly better than \minos .

1055: 

1056: \begin{figure}[t!]

1057: \centering \includegraphics[angle=-90,width=\textwidth]{fig2.eps}

1058: %

1059:    \mycaption{\label{fig:lumiscaling}The $\stheta$ sensitivity limit

1060:    as function of the total number of protons on target at the 90\%

1061:    confidence level for \minos , \icarus , \opera , and \icarus\ and

1062:    \opera\ combined (5\% flux uncertainty assumed).  The dashed curves

1063:    refer to the sensitivity limits after one, two, and five years of

1064:    running. The lowest curves are obtained for the statistics limits

1065:    only, whereas the highest curves are obtained after successively

1066:    switching on systematics, correlations, and degeneracies, \ie, they

1067:    correspond to the final sensitivity limits. The gray-shaded area

1068:    shows the current $\sin^22\theta_{13}$ excluded region $\stheta

1069:    \gtrsim 0.14$ at the 90\% CL~\protect\cite{Maltoni:2003da}. For the true

1070:    values of the oscillation parameters we use the current best-fit

1071:    values \eq~(\ref{eq:bfp}) and a normal mass hierarchy.}

1072: \end{figure}

1073: 

1074: 

1075: \begin{figure}[t!]

1076: \centering

1077:    \includegraphics[width=10cm]{fig3.eps} %

1078:    \mycaption{\label{fig:interncomp} The $\stheta$ sensitivity limit

1079:    at the 90\% confidence level after a running time of five years for

1080:    the different experiments. The left edges of the bars are obtained

1081:    for the statistics limits only, whereas the right edges are obtained

1082:    after successively switching on systematics, correlations, and

1083:    degeneracies, \ie, they correspond to the final $\stheta$

1084:    sensitivity limits.  The gray-shaded area shows the current

1085:    $\sin^22\theta_{13}$ excluded region $\stheta \gtrsim 0.14$ at the

1086:    90\% CL~\protect\cite{Maltoni:2003da}. For the true values of the

1087:    oscillation parameters, we use the current best-fit values

1088:    \eq~(\ref{eq:bfp}) and a normal mass hierarchy.}

1089: \end{figure}

1090: 

1091: 

1092: Let us briefly compare our results to $\stheta$ sensitivity limit

1093: calculations for \minos, \icarus, and \opera\ existing in the

1094: literature. In the analysis of \Ref~\cite{Migliozzi:2003pw}, the

1095: correlation with $\deltacp$ and the sign($\Delta m_{31}^2$)-degeneracy

1096: are included, and hence these results should be compared with our

1097: final sensitivity limits, although we also include correlations

1098: with respect to all the other oscillation parameters. However, for the

1099: comparison, one has to take into account the different considered running

1100: times for \minos\ (2 years vs. 5 years), as well as the difference in the chosen

1101: true value of $|\Delta m_{31}^2|$ ($3.0\cdot 10^{-3} \,\mathrm{eV}^2$

1102: vs. $2.0\cdot 10^{-3}\,\mathrm{eV}^2$). In the analysis performed in

1103: \Ref~\cite{Barger:2001yx}, the correlation with $\deltacp$ and the

1104: sign($\Delta m_{31}^2$)-degeneracy were not considered, while

1105: correlations with $|\Delta m^2_{31}|$ were taken into

1106: account. Therefore, the results from that study should roughly be 

1107: compared to our $(\sin^22\theta_{13})_\mathrm{eff}$ limits. 

1108: Again one has to take into account different assumptions about the 

1109: running times and the true

1110: value for $\Delta m^2_{21}$ ($5.0\cdot 10^{-5} \,\mathrm{eV}^2$

1111: vs. $7.0\cdot 10^{-5}\,\mathrm{eV}^2$). Finally, in

1112: \App~\ref{app:reproduction} we demonstrate explicitly that our results

1113: are in excellent agreement with the ones obtained by the \minos,

1114: \icarus, and \opera\

1115: collaborations~\cite{NUMI714,Aprili:2002wx,Komatsu:2002sz} if we use

1116: the same assumptions.

1117: 

1118: A very interesting issue for the conventional beam experiments is the

1119: impact of the true value of $\sdm$ on the $\stheta$ sensitivity. (The

1120: impact of the true value of $\ldm$ is discussed in

1121: \Sec~\ref{sec:theta13_all}.) One can easily see from \equ{beam} that

1122: the effect of $\deltacp$ increases with increasing $\alpha\equiv

1123: \sdm/\ldm$, which determines the amplitude of the second and third

1124: terms in this equation.  Since the main contribution to the

1125: correlation part of the discussed figures comes from the correlation

1126: with $\deltacp$ (with some contribution of the uncertainty of the

1127: solar parameters), a larger $\sdm$ causes a larger correlation

1128: bar. This can clearly by seen from \figu{solardep}, which shows the

1129: combined potential of the conventional beams after five years of

1130: running time (for each experiment) as a function of $\sdm$. In this

1131: figure the right edge of the blue band corresponds to the limit based

1132: only on statistical and systematical errors, \ie, the $(\sin^2 2

1133: \theta_{13})_{\mathrm{eff}}$ sensitivity limit. We find that the

1134: larger $\sdm$ is, the better becomes the systematics-based $(\sin^2 2

1135: \theta_{13})_{\mathrm{eff}}$ sensitivity limit, and the worse becomes the

1136: final sensitivity limit on $\stheta$.  Since the LMA-II region is now

1137: disfavored by the latest solar neutrino and KamLAND data,

1138: \figu{solardep} demonstrates that the conventional beam experiments

1139: can definitively improve the current $\stheta$-bound.  One may expect

1140: an improvement down to $\stheta \lesssim 0.05-0.07$ within the LMA-I allowed

1141: region, where the $\stheta$ sensitivity limit at the current best-fit

1142: value is about $\stheta \le 0.06$.

1143: 

1144: 

1145: \begin{figure}[t!]

1146: \centering \includegraphics[width=10cm]{fig4.eps}

1147:   \mycaption{\label{fig:solardep} The $\stheta$ sensitivity limit at

1148:   90\% CL for \minos , \icarus , and \opera\ combined as function of

1149:   the true value of $\sdm$ (five years running time). The left curve

1150:   is obtained for the statistics limit only, whereas the right curve is

1151:   obtained after successively switching on systematics, correlations,

1152:   and degeneracies, \ie, it corresponds to the final $\stheta$ sensitivity

1153:   limit.  The dark gray-shaded area shows the current

1154:   $\sin^22\theta_{13}$ excluded region $\stheta \gtrsim 0.14$ at the

1155:   90\% CL, and the light gray-shaded area refers to the LMA-excluded

1156:   region at $3 \sigma$, where the best-fit value is marked by the

1157:   horizontal line~\protect\cite{Maltoni:2003da}. For the true values of the

1158:   un-displayed oscillation parameters we use the current best-fit

1159:   values in \eq~(\ref{eq:bfp}) and a normal mass hierarchy. } 

1160: \end{figure}

1161: 

1162: 

1163: Since the $\stheta$ sensitivity limit is expected to be $\stheta \le 0.06$ for

1164: \minos , \icarus , and \opera\ combined (with five years running time

1165: for each experiment), a further improvement from the conventional beams

1166: seems to be unlikely. In addition, the systematics limitation, which

1167: can be clearly seen in \figu{lumiscaling}, demonstrates that a further

1168: increase of the luminosity would not lead to significantly better

1169: bounds on $\stheta$. Therefore, one has to proceed to the next generation of

1170: experiments to increase the $\stheta$ sensitivity.  Especially,

1171: the off-axis technology to suppress backgrounds and more optimized

1172: detectors could help to improve the performance.  Amongst other

1173: experiments, we discuss the corresponding superbeams, which are using

1174: these improvements, in the next section.

1175:  

1176: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1177: %%%%%%%                  RESULTS theta13 ALL                          %%%%%%

1178: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1179: 

1180: \section{Further improvement of the $\boldsymbol{\stheta}$ bound}

1181: \label{sec:theta13_all}

1182: 

1183: After the discussion of the conventional beams in the last section, we

1184: here discuss the final bound on $\stheta$ in ten years from now, if no

1185: finite value will be found (we will in the next section

1186: consider the case of a large $\theta_{13}$). We first discuss in

1187: \Sec~\ref{sec:reactor} the potential of a new reactor neutrino

1188: experiment, whereas we compare in \Sec~\ref{sec:th13_compare} the

1189: $\stheta$ limits from conventional beams, reactor experiments, and

1190: superbeams.

1191: 

1192: \subsection{Characteristics of reactor neutrino experiments}

1193: \label{sec:reactor}

1194:   

1195: In \Fig~\ref{fig:lumireact}, we show the $\stheta$ sensitivity from

1196: reactor neutrino experiments as a function of the integrated

1197: luminosity measured in t (fiducial far detector mass) $\times$ GW

1198: (thermal reactor power) $\times$ yr (time of data

1199: taking).\footnote{Note that we assume 100\% detection efficiency in the

1200: far detector. For smaller efficiencies, one needs to re-scale the

1201: luminosity.} We consider two options of the far detector baseline:

1202: $L_\mathrm{FD} = 1.05\,\mathrm{km}$, corresponding to the baseline of

1203: the CHOOZ site, and $L_\mathrm{FD} = 1.7\,\mathrm{km}$, which is

1204: optimized for values of $\Delta m^2_{31} \sim (2-4)\cdot

1205: 10^{-3}\,\mathrm{eV}^2$~\cite{Huber:2003pm}. A crucial parameter for

1206: the $\stheta$ sensitivity is the uncertainty of the relative

1207: normalization between the near and far detectors. We show the

1208: sensitivity for two representative values for this relative

1209: normalization uncertainty: First, $\sigma_\mathrm{rel} = 0.6\%$ is a

1210: realistic value for two identical

1211: detectors~\cite{doubleChooz}. Second, in order to illustrate the

1212: improvement of the performance of an reactor experiment with a reduced

1213: normalization error, we consider the very optimistic assumption of

1214: $\sigma_\mathrm{rel} = 0.2\%$. Such a small value might be achievable

1215: with movable detectors, as discussed for some proposals in the

1216: US~\cite{shaevitztalk}. The shaded regions in \Fig~\ref{fig:lumireact}

1217: correspond to the range of possible sensitivity limits for different

1218: assumptions of systematical errors and backgrounds. For the optimal

1219: case (lower curves), we only include the absolute flux and relative

1220: detector uncertainties $\sigma_\mathrm{abs}$ and

1221: $\sigma_\mathrm{rel}$. For the worst limits (upper curves) we include

1222: in addition an error on the spectral shape $\sigma_\mathrm{shape} =

1223: 2\%$, the energy scale uncertainty $\sigma_\mathrm{cal} = 0.5\%$, and

1224: various backgrounds as discussed in \App~\ref{app:reactor}.

1225: 

1226: \begin{figure}[t!]

1227: \centering

1228:    \includegraphics[angle=-90,width=\textwidth]{fig5.eps}

1229:    \mycaption{\label{fig:lumireact} Luminosity scaling of the

1230:    $\stheta$ sensitivity at the 90\% CL. Here $\ldm = 2 \cdot

1231:    10^{-3}$~eV$^2$ is assumed to be known within 5\%, $L_\mathrm{ND} = 0.15

1232:    \,\mathrm{km}$, and $L_\mathrm{FD} = 1.05 \, (1.7)\, \mathrm{km}$

1233:    in the left (right) panel. The number of events in the near

1234:    detector is fixed to $2.94\cdot 10^6$. We use

1235:    $\sigma_\mathrm{abs} = 2.5\%$ and $\sigma_\mathrm{rel} = 0.2\%

1236:    \,(0.6\%)$ for the light (dark) shaded regions. The upper edge of

1237:    each region is calculated for $\sigma_\mathrm{shape} = 2\%$,

1238:    $\sigma_\mathrm{cal} = 0.5\%$, and backgrounds as given in

1239:    \Tab~\ref{tab:backgrounds} in \App~\ref{app:reactor}. For

1240:    the lower edges, we set $\sigma_\mathrm{shape} = \sigma_\mathrm{cal}

1241:    = 0$ and do not include backgrounds. The dots mark the

1242:    \DChooz\ and \ReactorII\ setups.}

1243: \end{figure}

1244: 

1245: The first observation from \Fig~\ref{fig:lumireact} is that the shaded

1246: regions in the left-hand panel are significantly wider than in the

1247: right-hand panel, which demonstrates that a reactor experiment at $1.05

1248: \,\mathrm{km}$ is more sensitive to systematical errors. This reflects

1249: the fact that the baseline of $1.7\,\mathrm{km}$ is better optimized for

1250: the used value of $|\ldm| = 2\cdot 10^{-3} \, \mathrm{eV}^2$, such that the

1251: oscillation minimum is well contained in the center of the observed

1252: energy range. In contrast, for the baseline of $1.05 \,\mathrm{km}$,

1253: the signal is shifted to the low energy edge of the spectrum.

1254: This implies that the interplay of background uncertainties, energy

1255: calibration, and shape error has a larger impact on the

1256: final sensitivity limit. 

1257: 

1258: However, from the left-hand panel, one finds that for experiments of

1259: the size of \DChooz , the impact of systematics is rather modest; the

1260: $\stheta$ sensitivity of 0.024 for normalization errors only

1261: deteriorates to 0.032 if all systematics errors and backgrounds are included.

1262: We conclude that the proposed \DChooz\ project is rather insensitive to

1263:  systematical effects and will be able to provide a robust

1264: limit $\stheta \lesssim 0.032$, although the far detector baseline is

1265: not optimized.

1266: %

1267: In contrast, if one aims at higher luminosities, the systematics will

1268: have to be well under control at a non-optimal baseline such as at the

1269: CHOOZ site. In that case, it is saver to use a longer baseline. We

1270: note that the main limiting factor for large luminosities in the

1271: right-hand panel of \Fig~\ref{fig:lumireact} is the error on a

1272: bin-to-bin uncorrelated background. Furthermore, comparing the light

1273: and dark shaded regions in that plot, it is obvious that a smaller

1274: relative normalization error will significantly improve the

1275: performance of a large experiment at $1.7 \,\mathrm{km}$, and will

1276: further reduce the impact of systematics and backgrounds. With the

1277: ambitious value of $\sigma_\mathrm{rel} = 0.2\%$, sensitivity limits

1278: of $\stheta \lesssim 7\cdot 10^{-3}$ could be obtained with a

1279: \ReactorII -type experiment.

1280: 

1281: Eventually, we have demonstrated that the \DChooz\ experiment could

1282: give a robust $\stheta$ sensitivity limit. In fact, one can read off

1283: \figu{lumireact} (\CHOOZII -dot) that our assumptions about \DChooz\

1284: are rather conservative. Since a Letter of Intent for this experiment

1285: is in preparation, we use it in the next subsection for a direct

1286: quantitative comparison to the superbeams. However, as one can also

1287: learn from \figu{lumireact}, luminosity and different systematics

1288: sources are important issues for a reactor experiment. Therefore, one

1289: should keep in mind that much better $\stheta$ sensitivity limits

1290: could be obtained from reactor experiments, such as the \ReactorII\

1291: setup. However, the exact final sensitivity limits will in these cases

1292: depend on many sources, which means that they are hardly predictable

1293: right now.

1294: 

1295: 

1296: \subsection{The $\boldsymbol{\stheta}$ bound from different 

1297: experiments in ten years from now}

1298: \label{sec:th13_compare}

1299: 

1300: Let us now assume that the conventional beam experiments \minos,

1301: \icarus, and \opera\ have been running five years each, and that the

1302: \DChooz\ experiment has accumulated three years of data. In addition,

1303: we assume that the superbeam experiments \JHFSK\ and \NuMI\ have

1304: reached the integrated luminosities as given in \Tab~\ref{tab:reps}.

1305: (For earlier, more extensive discussions of the potential of superbeam

1306: experiments, we refer to \Ref~\cite{Huber:2002rs}.)

1307: 

1308: In \figu{externcomp}, we show the $\stheta$ sensitivity for the considered

1309: experiments.  The final sensitivity limit is obtained after

1310: successively switching on systematics, correlations, and degeneracies

1311: as the rightmost edge of the bars.\footnote{Note that earlier similar

1312: figures, such as in \Refs~\cite{Huber:2002rs,Huber:2003pm}, are

1313: computed with different parameter values, which leads to changes of

1314: the final sensitivity limits. The largest of these changes come from the

1315: adjusted atmospheric best-fit values and \NuMI\ parameters.}

1316: \figu{externcomp} demonstrates that the beam experiments are dominated

1317: by correlations and degeneracies, whereas the reactor experiments are

1318: dominated by systematics. It can be clearly seen that the

1319: $(\stheta)_\mathrm{eff}$ sensitivity limit (between systematics and

1320: correlation bar), or the precision of a combination of parameters

1321: leading to a positive signal, is much better for the superbeams than

1322: for the reactor experiments. Therefore, though the reactor experiments

1323: have a good potential to extract $\stheta$ directly, the superbeams

1324: results will in addition contain a lot of indirect information about

1325: $\deltacp$ and the mass hierarchy, which might be resolved by the

1326: combination with complementary information. We call this gain in the

1327: physics potential which goes beyond the simple addition of statistics

1328: for the combination of experiments ``synergy''. In

1329: \Sec~\ref{sec:th13delta}, we will discuss this further for the case if

1330: $\stheta$ turns out to be large.

1331: 

1332: \begin{figure}[t!]

1333: \centering \includegraphics[width=10cm]{fig6.eps}

1334:    \mycaption{\label{fig:externcomp} The $\stheta$ sensitivity limit

1335:    at the 90\% CL for \minos, \icarus, and \opera\ combined, \DChooz,

1336:    \JHFSK, and \NuMI. The left edges of the bars are obtained for the

1337:    statistics limits only, whereas the right edges are obtained after

1338:    successively switching on systematics, correlations, and

1339:    degeneracies, \ie, they correspond to the final $\stheta$ sensitivity

1340:    limits. The gray-shaded region corresponds to the current

1341:    $\sin^22\theta_{13}$ bound at 90\% CL. For the true values of the

1342:    oscillation parameters, we use the current best-fit values in

1343:    \eq~(\ref{eq:bfp}) and a normal mass hierarchy.}

1344: \end{figure}

1345: 

1346: Another conclusion from \figu{externcomp} is that it is very important

1347: to compare the $\stheta$ sensitivities of different experiments which

1348: are obtained with equal methods. In particular one clearly has to

1349: distinguish between the $(\stheta)_\mathrm{eff}$ sensitivity limit

1350: (between systematics and correlation bar) and the final $\stheta$

1351: sensitivity limit, including correlations and degeneracies. For

1352: example, by accident the $(\stheta)_\mathrm{eff}$ sensitivity limit

1353: from the combined \minos , \icarus , and \opera\ experiments is very

1354: close to the final sensitivity limit of \JHFSK\ or \NuMI. Thus, one

1355: may end up with two similar numbers, which however, refer to different

1356: quantities and are not comparable. 

1357: 

1358: A very important parameter for future $\stheta$ measurements is the

1359: true value of $\ldm$, which currently is constrained to the interval

1360: $0.0011 \,\mathrm{eV}^2 \lesssim | \ldm | \lesssim 0.0032

1361: \,\mathrm{eV}^2$ at $3 \sigma$~\cite{SKupdate}. From \figu{th13dmdep},

1362: one can can easily see that the true value of $\ldm$ strongly affects

1363: the $\stheta$ sensitivity limit. The left-hand plot in this figure

1364: demonstrates that for all experiments the $\stheta$ sensitivity

1365: becomes worse for small values of $|\ldm|$ within the currently

1366: allowed range. However, since also the current $\stheta$ bound

1367: (dark-gray shaded region) is worse for small values of $|\ldm|$ than

1368: for large values, the relative improvement of the current $\stheta$

1369: bound might be a more appropriate description of the experiment

1370: performance. This relative improvement as function of the true value

1371: of $|\ldm|$ is shown in the right-hand plot of \figu{th13dmdep}, where

1372: a factor of unity corresponds to no improvement. From this plot, one

1373: can read off an improvement by a factor of two for the conventional

1374: beams, a factor of four for \DChooz , and a factor of six for the

1375: superbeams at the atmospheric best-fit value (vertical line).

1376: Nevertheless, the conventional beams might not improve the current

1377: bound at all for small values of $| \ldm |$ within the atmospheric

1378: allowed range, whereas any of the other experiments would improve the

1379: current bound at least by a factor of two. Thus, though the $\stheta$

1380: sensitivity limit could be as be as large as $\stheta \lesssim 0.1$ for

1381: small values of $| \ldm |$ for the superbeams or \DChooz, those

1382: experiments would still improve the current bound by a factor of two. 

1383: 

1384: \begin{figure}[t!]

1385:    \centering \includegraphics[width=15.5cm]{fig7.eps}

1386:    \mycaption{\label{fig:th13dmdep} Left panel: The $\stheta$

1387:    sensitivity limits at 90\% CL from the experiments \NuMI, \JHFSK,

1388:    \DChooz, and the combined conventional beams (\minos, \icarus,

1389:    \opera) as function of the true value of $| \ldm |$.  The dark-gray

1390:    shaded region refers to the current $\stheta$ bound from CHOOZ and

1391:    the solar experiments (90\% CL)~\protect\cite{Maltoni:2003da}. Right panel:

1392:    The relative improvement of the $\stheta$ sensitivity limit with

1393:    respect to the current bound from CHOOZ and solar experiments,

1394:    where the dark-gray region corresponds to no improvement. The

1395:    light-gray shaded regions in both panels refer to the atmospheric

1396:    excluded regions ($3 \sigma$), and the lines in the middle mark

1397:    the current atmospheric best-fit value.} 

1398: \end{figure}

1399: 

1400: 

1401: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1402: %%%%%%%                  RESULTS IV                             %%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1403: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1404: 

1405: \section{Opportunities if $\boldsymbol{\stheta}$ is just around the corner}

1406: \label{sec:th13delta}

1407: 

1408: In \Sec~\ref{sec:theta13_all}, we have discussed how much the

1409: $\stheta$ bound could be improved if the true value of $\stheta$ were

1410: zero. There are, however, very good theoretical reasons to expect

1411: $\stheta$ to be finite, such that the experiments under consideration

1412: could establish $\stheta>0$. In this case, one could aim for the

1413: $\stheta$ precision, CP violation, CP precision measurements, and the

1414: mass hierarchy determination. Though it has been shown that CP and

1415: mass hierarchy measurements are very difficult for the

1416: first-generation superbeams and new reactor

1417: experiments~\cite{Minakata:2002jv,Huber:2002mx,Huber:2002rs,Huber:2003pm,Winter:2003ye},

1418: we will demonstrate in this section that we could still learn

1419: something about these parameters if $\stheta$ turns out to be

1420: large. In particular, we discuss the combination of the discussed

1421: experiments for the case $\stheta=0.1$. This would imply that a

1422: positive $\stheta$ signal could already be seen with the next

1423: generation of experiments.

1424: %

1425: As discussed in \Sec~\ref{sec:expclasses}, we assume here that a

1426: large reactor experiment \ReactorII\ will be available at the end of the

1427: period under consideration to resolve the

1428: correlation between $\stheta$ and $\deltacp$. We note again that

1429: similar results can be obtained by the superbeams in the antineutrino

1430: mode using higher target powers or detector upgrades.\footnote{In

1431: fact, one could already obtain some CP-conjugate information by

1432: running \NuMI\ at $L=712 \, \mathrm{km}$ with antineutrinos

1433: only~\cite{Winter:2003ye}. However, we do not consider an option with

1434: a very extensive {\em a priori} \NuMI\ antineutrino running in this

1435: study, since the risk of this configuration is too high as long as

1436: $\stheta>0$ is not established.}

1437: 

1438: The superbeam appearance channels will lead to allowed regions in the $\stheta$-$\deltacp$-plane,

1439: similar to the allowed regions for solar and atmospheric oscillation

1440: parameters from current data. We show the results of \JHFSK, \NuMI,

1441: and \ReactorII\ for the true values $\stheta=0.1$ and

1442: $\deltacp=90^\circ$ in \fig~\ref{fig:deltatheta1}, and

1443: $\deltacp=-90^\circ$ in \fig~\ref{fig:deltatheta2}. For the right-most

1444: plots in these figures, we combine all experiments including the

1445: conventional beams \minos, \icarus, and \opera, although they do not

1446: contribute significantly to the final result. Since we assume a normal

1447: mass hierarchy to generate the data, the best-fit is obtained by

1448: fitting with the normal hierarchy; the corresponding regions are shown

1449: by the black curves. The $\mathrm{sgn}(\ldm)$-degenerate regions are

1450: obtained by fitting the data assuming an inverted hierarchy (gray curves). 

1451: Thus, the best-fit and degenerate manifolds,

1452: which are disconnected in the six-dimensional parameter space, are

1453: shown in the same plots. Similar to \Fig~\ref{fig:dm31th23} we

1454: demonstrate the difference between a section of the fit manifold

1455: (upper rows) and a projection (lower rows) in these figures.

1456: 

1457: 

1458: \begin{figure}[t!]

1459: \centering \includegraphics[width=16cm]{fig8.eps}

1460:    \mycaption{\label{fig:deltatheta1} The $90 \%$ CL (solid curves)

1461:    and $3 \sigma$ (dashed curves) allowed regions (2 d.o.f.) in the

1462:    $\stheta$-$\deltacp$-plane for the true values $\stheta=0.1$ and

1463:    $\deltacp=90^\circ$ for \JHFSK, \NuMI, \ReactorII. The right-most

1464:    plots are calculated for the shown experiments in combination with the

1465:    conventional beams. For the true values of the un-displayed

1466:    oscillation parameters, we choose the current best-fit values and a

1467:    normal mass hierarchy. The black curves refer to the allowed

1468:    regions for the normal mass hierarchy, whereas the gray curves

1469:    refer to the $\mathrm{sgn}(\ldm)$-degenerate solution (inverted

1470:    hierarchy), where the projections of the minima onto the

1471:    $\stheta$-$\deltacp$-plane are shown as diamonds (normal hierarchy)

1472:    and triangles (inverted hierarchy). For the latter, the

1473:    $\Delta\chi^2$-value with respect to the best-fit point is also

1474:    given. The upper row shows the fit manifold section (with the

1475:    un-displayed oscillation parameters fixed at their true values), and

1476:    the lower row shows the projection onto the

1477:    $\stheta$-$\deltacp$-plane as the final result.}

1478: \end{figure}

1479: 

1480: \begin{figure}[t!]

1481: \centering

1482: \includegraphics[width=16cm]{fig9.eps}

1483: \mycaption{\label{fig:deltatheta2} The same as \figu{deltatheta1} but

1484:   for the true value $\deltacp=-90^\circ$.} 

1485: \end{figure}

1486: 

1487: 

1488: As far as the measurement of $\stheta$ is concerned, any of the

1489: experiments in \figs~\ref{fig:deltatheta1} and~\ref{fig:deltatheta2}

1490: can establish $\stheta>0$ for $\stheta=0.1$ at $3\sigma$.  The

1491: $\stheta$-precision can be read off from the figures as projection of the

1492: bands onto the $\stheta$-axis.\footnote{Note that these figures are

1493: computed for two degrees of freedom, which means that the projections

1494: with one degree of freedom are slightly smaller. In fact, the $90 \%$

1495: CL contour for two degrees of freedom ($\Delta \chi^2=4.61$) is close

1496: to the $2 \sigma$ contour for one degree of freedom ($\Delta

1497: \chi^2=4.00$). In particular, for the sake of comparison, we also use

1498: 2~d.o.f.\ for \ReactorII, although it does not depend on $\deltacp$.}

1499: The band structures of \JHFSK\ and \NuMI\ come from the CP phase

1500: dependency in \equ{beam}.  Because of the larger matter effects, the

1501: degenerate solution for \NuMI\ is rather different from the best-fit

1502: solution, whereas it is very similar to the best-fit solution for

1503: \JHFSK. For \ReactorII, the $\stheta$-precision can be read off

1504: directly, since a reactor experiment is not affected by $\deltacp$

1505: (see \equ{reactor}), and the mass hierarchy has essentially no

1506: effect. Note that the treatment of the $\mathrm{sgn}(\ldm)$-degeneracy

1507: in such a situation as shown in \figs~\ref{fig:deltatheta1}

1508:  and~\ref{fig:deltatheta2} is a matter of definition: One could either 

1509: return two different

1510: intervals for normal and inverted mass hierarchies, or one could

1511: return the union of the two fit intervals as more condensed

1512: information.

1513: 

1514: The figures show that for $\deltacp$, none of the individual

1515: experiments can give any information, since no substantial fraction of

1516: antineutrino running is involved. However, there is some information

1517: on $\deltacp$ for the combination of all experiments, since the

1518: complementary information from the reactor experiment helps to resolve

1519: the superbeam bands. Note that the overall performance for the

1520: considered experiments (including the $\mathrm{sgn}(\ldm)$-degeneracy)

1521: is usually better close to the true value $\deltacp=-90^\circ$ than

1522: close to the true value $\deltacp=90^\circ$, since the degeneracy

1523: includes for $\deltacp=90^\circ$ very different values of $\deltacp$

1524: far away from the best-fit manifold. This can, for example, be

1525: understood in terms of bi-rate graphs (\cf , \Refs~\cite{Minakata:2001qm,Winter:2003ye}). From a separate analysis of the CP

1526: precision, we find that one could exclude as much as up to 40\%

1527: of all values of $\deltacp$ at the $90\%$ confidence level (1 d.o.f., close to

1528: $\deltacp=-90^\circ$). However, if $\deltacp$ turns out to be close to

1529: $0$ or $\pi$, we find that one could not obtain any information on

1530: $\deltacp$. Furthermore, one can directly read off from

1531: \figs~\ref{fig:deltatheta1} and~\ref{fig:deltatheta2} that CP

1532: violation measurements will not be possible with the considered

1533: experiments at the $90\%$ confidence level (2~d.o.f. in these

1534: figures), since for the true values $\deltacp=\pm 90^\circ$

1535: corresponding to maximal CP violation, the projected allowed regions

1536: (even the best-fit solutions) include at least one of the CP

1537: conserving cases $\deltacp \in \{0, 180^\circ\}$. One can show that

1538: even for one degree of freedom, there is no CP violation sensitivity

1539: with the discussed experiments at the $90\%$ confidence level.

1540: 

1541: Another important issue for the next generation long-baseline

1542: experiments is the mass hierarchy determination. In

1543: \figs~\ref{fig:deltatheta1} and~\ref{fig:deltatheta2} we give the

1544: $\Delta\chi^2$-values for the minimum in the fit manifold

1545: corresponding to the $\mathrm{sgn}(\ldm)$-degenerate solution (\ie,

1546: for the inverted mass hierarchy) with respect to the best-fit minimum

1547: for the normal hierarchy ($\Delta \chi^2=0$), which is the relevant

1548: number for the sensitivity to a normal mass hierarchy. Obviously, none

1549: of the individual experiments has a mass hierarchy sensitivity, but

1550: their combination has some. The mass hierarchy sensitivity becomes only

1551: possible because of the long \NuMI\ baseline $L=812 \,

1552: \mathrm{km}$~\cite{Barger:2002xk,Huber:2002rs,Minakata:2003ca}, since

1553: matter effects differ for the normal and inverted mass hierarchies.

1554: Eventually, a \NuMI\ baseline even longer than $L=812 \, \mathrm{km}$

1555: could further improve the mass hierarchy

1556: sensitivity~\cite{Huber:2002rs,Winter:2003ye}.

1557: %

1558: We note that the ability to identify the mass hierarchy strongly

1559: depends on the (unknown) true value of $\deltacp$. The mass hierarchy

1560: determination at the combined superbeams is close to the optimum for

1561: $\deltacp=-90^\circ$, and close to the minimum for

1562: $\deltacp=90^\circ$~\cite{Minakata:2001qm,Winter:2003ye}.  In fact, one could have

1563: a better sensitivity to the normal mass hierarchy for $\deltacp=-90^\circ$

1564: ($\Delta \chi^2 = 4.9$, see \figu{deltatheta2}) than for $\deltacp=90^\circ$ ($\Delta \chi^2 = 3.1$, see \figu{deltatheta1}) at the $90\%$ confidence level ($\Delta \chi^2 = 2.71$ for 1~d.o.f.).

1565: 

1566: 

1567: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1568: %%%%%                  CONCLUSIONS                              %%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1569: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1570: 

1571: 

1572: \section{Summary and conclusions}

1573: \label{sec:conclusions}

1574: 

1575: This study has focused on the future neutrino oscillation

1576: long-baseline experiments on a timescale of about ten years.  The

1577: primary objective has been the search for $\stheta$, but we have also

1578: analyzed the ``atmospheric'' parameters $\theta_{23}$ and $\ldm$.  The

1579: main selection criterion for the different experiments has been the

1580: availability of specific studies, such as LOIs or proposals, or that they

1581: are even being under construction. We

1582: assume that an experiment (including data taking and analysis) will only be

1583: feasible within the coming ten years, if it is already now actively

1584: being planned. The next long-baseline experiments will be the

1585: conventional beam experiments \minos , \icarus , and \opera\, which

1586: are currently under construction. In addition, the \JHFSK\ and \NuMI\

1587: superbeam experiments are under active consideration with existing

1588: proposals and will most likely provide results within the next ten

1589: years. Furthermore, new reactor neutrino experiments are

1590: actively being discussed. In this study, we have considered the \DChooz\

1591: project, which will probably deliver results in

1592: the anticipated timescale, since infrastructure (such as the detector

1593: cavity) of the original CHOOZ experiment can be re-used.

1594: 

1595: First, we have investigated the possible improvement of our knowledge

1596: on the leading atmospheric oscillation parameters. We have found that

1597: the conventional beams and superbeams will reduce the error on $\ldm$ 

1598: by roughly an order of magnitude within the next ten years. The precision of $\theta_{23}$ is dominated by \JHFSK\ and will improve only by a factor of two (\cf, \Tab~\ref{tab:summary}).

1599: 

1600: \begin{table}[t!]

1601: \begin{center}

1602: {\small

1603: \begin{tabular}{|lrrrrrrr|}

1604: \hline

1605: & Current & Beams & \CHOOZII\ & \JHFSK\ & \NuMI\ & \ReactorII\ & Comb. \\  

1606: \hline

1607: \multicolumn{8}{|l|}{$\stheta$ sensitivity limit (90\% CL)}

1608:  \\

1609: \hline

1610: \\[-0.4cm]

1611: $\stheta$ &  0.14 & 0.061 & 0.032 & {\bf 0.023} & 0.024 & (0.009) & (0.009) \\[0.1cm]

1612: $(\stheta)_{\mathrm{eff}}$ & 0.14 & 0.026 & 0.032 & 0.006 & {\bf 0.004} & (0.009) & (0.003) \\[0.05cm]

1613: \hline

1614: \multicolumn{8}{|l|}{Allowed ranges for leading atmospheric parameters ($3 \sigma$)} \\

1615: \hline

1616: \\[-0.4cm]

1617: $\frac{|\ldm|}{10^{-3} \, \mathrm{eV}^2}$ 

1618: & 2$^{+1.2}_{-0.9}$ & 2$^{+0.34}_{-0.18}$ & $-$ &  2$^{\boldsymbol{+0.15}}_{-0.09}$ & 2$^{+0.43}_{\boldsymbol{-0.07}}$ & $-$ & 2$^{+0.12}_{-0.06}$ \\[0.1cm]

1619: $\theta_{23}$ & $(\frac{\pi}{4})^{+0.20}_{-0.20}$  & $(\frac{\pi}{4})^{+0.22}_{-0.19}$ & $-$ & $(\frac{\pi}{4})\boldsymbol{^{+0.13}_{-0.10}}$ & $(\frac{\pi}{4})^{+0.24}_{-0.21}$ & $-$ & $(\frac{\pi}{4})^{+0.13}_{-0.10}$\\[0.1cm]

1620: \hline

1621: \multicolumn{8}{|l|}{Measurements for large $\stheta=0.1$ (90\% CL)} \\

1622: \hline

1623: \\[-0.4cm]

1624: $\stheta$ & $-$ & 0.1$^{+0.104}_{-0.052}$ & 0.1$^{+0.034}_{-0.033}$ & 0.1$^{+0.067}_{-0.034}$ & 0.1$^{+0.083}_{-0.043}$ & 0.1$^{\boldsymbol{+0.010}}_{\boldsymbol{-0.008}}$ & 0.1$^{+0.010}_{-0.008}$ \\[0.1cm] 

1625: $\deltacp$ & 

1626: \multicolumn{7}{l|}{Combination can exclude up to 40\% of all values} \\[0.05cm]

1627: CP violation & \multicolumn{7}{l|}{No sensitivity to CP violation of any tested experiment or combination} \\[0.05cm]

1628: $\mathrm{sgn}(\ldm)$ & \multicolumn{7}{l|}{Combination has sensitivity to normal mass hierarchy} \\[0.05cm]

1629: \hline

1630: \end{tabular}

1631: } % small

1632: \end{center}

1633: %

1634: \mycaption{\label{tab:summary} Summary table of this study.  The

1635:    numbers which are printed boldface represent the best individual

1636:    results within each row. For the true values of the oscillation

1637:    parameters, we use the current best-fit values from

1638:    \eq~(\ref{eq:bfp}) and a normal mass hierarchy. The precisions for

1639:    $\stheta$ do not include the $\mathrm{sgn}(\ldm)$-degeneracy and are

1640:    computed for the true value $\deltacp=0$. If one

1641:    does not use \ReactorII\ for the combination of all experiments,

1642:    but \DChooz\ instead, one obtains the following values: 0.016 for

1643:    the $\stheta$ limit, 0.003 for the $(\stheta)_{\mathrm{eff}}$

1644:    limit, and 0.1$^{+0.025}_{-0.021}$ for the $\stheta$ precision.}

1645: \end{table}

1646: 

1647: As the next important issue, we have investigated the potential of the

1648: conventional beams, \ie , \minos , \icarus , and \opera , to improve

1649: the current $\stheta$ bound from CHOOZ and the solar experiments in a

1650: complete analysis taking into account correlations and degeneracies.

1651: Since the final luminosities of these experiments are not yet

1652: determined, we have discussed the results as function of the total

1653: number of protons on target.

1654: We have found that \minos\ could improve the current bound after a

1655: running time of about two years, and \icarus\ and \opera\ combined

1656: after about one and a half years. In addition, we have discussed the

1657: maximal potential of all three conventional beams combined with a running

1658: time of five years each, leading to a final sensitivity

1659: limit of $\stheta \le 0.061$ (all sensitivity limits at 90\% CL). This final

1660: sensitivity limit includes correlations and degeneracies, which means

1661: that it reflects the experiment's ability to extract the parameter

1662: $\stheta$ from the appearance information. Since correlations and

1663: degeneracies could be reduced by later experiments, another

1664: interesting measure is the systematics-only $\stheta$ limit for fixed

1665: oscillation parameters, \ie, the sensitivity limit to a specific

1666: combination of parameters, which we have called

1667: $(\stheta)_{\mathrm{eff}}$.

1668: We have found a $(\stheta)_{\mathrm{eff}}$ sensitivity limit for the

1669: conventional beams of 0.026, illustrating that correlations and

1670: degeneracies have a rather large impact on the $\stheta$ limit from

1671: conventional beams.

1672: %

1673: Note that it is important to compare different experiments with equal

1674: methods, which means that only $\stheta$ or $(\stheta)_{\mathrm{eff}}$

1675: limits should be compared with each other. In addition, it is

1676: interesting to observe that the final $\stheta$ sensitivity limit

1677: increases with increasing $\sdm$ within the solar allowed region,

1678: whereas the $(\stheta)_{\mathrm{eff}}$ sensitivity limit

1679: decreases. This can be understood by the amplitude of the

1680: $\deltacp$-terms which is proportional to $\sdm$.  

1681: 

1682: Furthermore, we have investigated the $\stheta$-limit obtainable by

1683: nuclear reactor experiments. A thorough analysis of the \DChooz\ configuration

1684: including systematics and backgrounds, demonstrates that a robust

1685: limit of $\stheta \le 0.032$ can be obtained in spite of the non-optimal

1686: baseline of $1.05\,\mathrm{km}$. If one aims, however, to 

1687: significantly higher luminosities than the $60\,000$ events anticipated by \DChooz, the systematics has to be well under control. In this case,

1688: a more optimized baseline of $1.7\,\mathrm{km}$ helps to reduce the

1689: impact of systematics and backgrounds, and limits of the order of $\stheta \le 0.014$ could be achievable.

1690: 

1691: If in ten years from now no finite value is established, $\stheta$

1692: bounds from the conventional beams (\minos, \icarus, \opera), from

1693: reactor experiments, such as \DChooz, and from the superbeams \JHFSK\ and

1694: \NuMI\ will be available. We have demonstrated that the conventional

1695: beams could improve the current $\stheta$ bound by about a factor of

1696: two, the \DChooz\ experiment by about a factor of four, and the

1697: superbeams by about a factor of six. We have also shown that these

1698: results apply to a large range within the allowed interval for $\ldm$,

1699: since not only the experiment's potential decreases for small values

1700: of $\ldm$, but also the current $\stheta$ bound. For $\ldm = 2\cdot

1701: 10^{-3} \,\mathrm{eV}^2$ we have found a final $\stheta$ sensitivity

1702: limit of $\stheta \le 0.02$ for the superbeams.  Note that, though the \DChooz\

1703: setup is not as good as the superbeams, its results are not affected

1704: by the true value of $\sdm$ within the solar-allowed

1705: range~\cite{Huber:2003pm}, which means that a reactor experiment is

1706: more robust with respect to the true parameter values.  Moreover,

1707: because correlations and degeneracies do not effect the $\stheta$ limit

1708: from reactor experiments, the $\stheta$ and $(\stheta)_{\mathrm{eff}}$

1709: limits are almost identical for \DChooz. In contrast, for the superbeams the

1710: $(\stheta)_{\mathrm{eff}}$ limit is nearly one order of magnitude

1711: smaller than the $\stheta$ limit (\cf, \Tab~\ref{tab:summary}),

1712: demonstrating that correlations and degeneracies are crucial for them.

1713: 

1714: In order to illustrate where we could stand in ten years from now if

1715: $\stheta$ were close to the current bound, we have also performed an analysis by assuming $\stheta = 0.1$. In this case,

1716:  all the considered experiments will establish the

1717: finite value of $\stheta$ and measure it with a certain precision (\cf,

1718: \Tab~\ref{tab:summary}). In this situation, which is theoretically well

1719: motivated (\cf, \Tab~1 of \Ref~\cite{whitepaper}), one could even aim

1720: to learn something about $\deltacp$ and the neutrino mass hierarchy

1721: with the next generation of experiments.

1722: %

1723: Since the results of superbeam experiments will lead to strong

1724: correlations between $\deltacp$ and $\stheta$, it is well known that

1725: complementary information is needed to disentangle these two

1726: parameters. One can either use extensive antineutrino running at the

1727: superbeams (which, however might not be possible at the time scale of

1728: ten years, because of the lower antineutrino cross sections), or a

1729: large reactor experiment to measure $\stheta$. In this study, we have

1730: demonstrated the potential for $\deltacp$ by assuming such a large

1731: reactor experiment at an ideal baseline of $L=1.7 \, \mathrm{km}$,

1732: which we call \ReactorII. Though such an experiment might not 

1733: exactly fit into the discussed timescale, it might be realized soon

1734: thereafter. Possible sites for such an experiment are under

1735: investigation~\cite{whitepaper} (some proposals, which are, for

1736: example, discussed in the US, are similar to our \ReactorII\ setup).

1737: %

1738: Indeed, we find that in this optimal situation ($\stheta=0.1$), up to

1739: 40\% of all possible values for $\deltacp$ could be

1740: excluded (90 \% CL). This result, however, depends strongly on the

1741: true value of $\deltacp$, and applies to maximal CP violation. For the case

1742: of CP conservation (true parameter value), however, nothing at all could be learned about $\deltacp$. In either case, a sensitivity to CP violation would not be

1743: achievable with the discussed experiments because of too low

1744: statistics. For the mass hierarchy determination, we have found that

1745: one would be sensitive to a normal mass hierarchy at the 90\% confidence

1746: level, where the sensitivity to the

1747: inverted mass hierarchy would be somewhat

1748: worse~\cite{Winter:2003ye}. Note that the sensitivity to the mass

1749: hierarchy is mainly determined by matter effects in \NuMI, and could

1750: even be better for \NuMI-baselines larger than $812\,\mathrm{km}$.

1751: 

1752: To summarize, from the current perspective neutrino oscillations will

1753: remain a very exciting field of research, and the experiments

1754: considered within the next ten years will significantly improve our

1755: knowledge. Eventually, these experiments could indeed restrict

1756: $\deltacp$ and determine the neutrino mass hierarchy within the coming ten to

1757: fifteen years if $\stheta$ turns out to be sizeable. The remaining

1758:  ambiguities could be resolved by the subsequent generation of experiments, 

1759: such as superbeam upgrades, beta beams, or neutrino

1760: factories~\cite{Barger:2002xk,Wang:2001ys}. 

1761:  

1762: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1763: %               ACKNOWLEDGMENTS                             %%%%%%%%%%%%

1764: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1765: 

1766: \subsubsection*{Acknowledgments}

1767: 

1768: We want to thank M.~Goodman and K.~Lang for providing input data and

1769: useful information about the MINOS experiment, especially the PH2low

1770: beam flux data.  Furthermore, we thank T.~Lasserre, H.~deKerret and

1771: L.~Oberauer for very useful discussions on the Double-Chooz project.

1772: This study has been supported by the ``Sonderforschungsbereich 375

1773: f{\"u}r Astro-Teilchenphysik der Deutschen

1774: For\-schungs\-ge\-mein\-schaft''.

1775: 

1776: \newpage

1777: 

1778: \begin{appendix}

1779: 

1780: \section{Simulation details of the conventional beam experiments}

1781: \label{sec:simbeams}

1782: 

1783: In this appendix, we describe our simulations of the conventional beam

1784: experiments \minos, \icarus, and \opera\ in greater detail. In

1785: \App~\ref{app:parameters} we give the numbers and references for the

1786: experimental parameters used, and in \App~\ref{app:reproduction} we

1787: demonstrate that our calculations reproduce the results of the

1788: simulations of the experimental collaborations to good accuracy.

1789: 

1790: 

1791: \subsection{Description of the experiments and experimental parameters}

1792: \label{app:parameters}

1793: 

1794: 

1795: The \minos\ experiment will use both a near and far detector.  The

1796: near detector allows to measure the neutrino flux and energy spectrum.

1797: In addition, other important characteristics, such as the initial

1798: $\nu_e$ contamination of the un-oscillated neutrino beam can be

1799: extracted with good precision. Besides the smaller detector mass of

1800: $1\,\mathrm{kt}$, it is constructed as identical as possible to the

1801: far detector in order to suppress systematical uncertainties.  The far

1802: detector is placed $713\,\mathrm{m}$ deep in a newly built cavern in

1803: the Soudan mine in order to suppress cosmic ray backgrounds. It is an

1804: octagonal, magnetized iron calorimeter with a diameter of

1805: $8\,\mathrm{m}$, assembled of steel layers alternating with

1806: scintillator strips with an overall mass of $5.4\,\mathrm{kt}$. The

1807: construction of the far detector was finished in spring of 2003

1808: and it is now taking data on atmospheric neutrinos and

1809: muons. 

1810: 

1811: The mean energy of the neutrino beam produced at Fermilab can be

1812: varied between $3$ and $18\,\mathrm{GeV}$. The beam is planned to

1813: start with the low energy configuration (PH2low), with the peak

1814: neutrino energy at $\langle E_\nu \rangle \sim 3\,\mathrm{GeV}$.  In

1815: our simulation we use the official PH2low beam

1816: configuration~\cite{NUMI714}, which means that we do not include a

1817: hadronic hose or different beam-plugs in the beam line setup.  These

1818: modifications would lead to a better signal to background

1819: ratio. However, as discussed in \Ref~\cite{NUMI714}, they affect the

1820: sensitivity limits to $\sin^22\theta_{13}$ only marginally. The NuMI

1821: PH2low beam flux data, as well as the detection cross sections have

1822: been provided by \Ref~\cite{MG}. We use $30$ energy bins in the energy

1823: range between $2\,\mathrm{GeV}$ and $6\,\mathrm{GeV}$. In addition,

1824: the energy resolution is assumed to be $\sigma_E=0.15\cdot

1825: E_\nu$~\cite{Ables:1995wq}. The NuMI beam will have a luminosity of

1826: $3.7\cdot10^{20}\,\mathrm{pot}\,\mathrm{y}^{-1}$. In addition to the

1827: $\nu_\mu\to\nu_e$ appearance channel most relevant for the $\stheta$

1828: measurement, we include also the $\nu_\mu\rightarrow\nu_\mu$

1829: disappearance channel with an efficiency of $0.9$, and we take into

1830: account that a fraction of $0.05$ of the neutral current background

1831: events will be misidentified as signal events.

1832: 

1833: For the CNGS experiments, we use the flux and cross sections from

1834: \Ref~\cite{CNGSflux}. For both \icarus\ and \opera , we use an energy

1835: range between $1$ and $30\,\mathrm{GeV}$, which is divided into $80$

1836: bins. For \icarus , we assume an energy resolution of

1837: $\sigma_E=0.1\cdot E_\nu$~\cite{Komatsu:2002sz}, and for \opera\

1838: $\sigma_E=0.25 \cdot E_\nu$. The latter might be somewhat

1839: overestimated~\cite{Duchesneau:2002yq}. However, our $\theta_{13}$

1840: limit at \opera\ changes less than $5\%$ for values of the energy

1841: resolution up to $\sigma_E=0.4 \cdot E_\nu$.  For the CNGS beam, we

1842: assume a nominal luminosity of

1843: $4.5\cdot10^{19}\,\mathrm{pot}\,\mathrm{y}^{-1}$.

1844: 

1845: The original purpose of the CNGS experiments is the observation of

1846: $\nu_\mu\to \nu_\tau$ appearance.  The \opera\ detector is an emulsion

1847: cloud chamber, and the extremely high granularity of the emulsion

1848: allows to detect the $\nu_\tau$ events directly by the so-called

1849: ``kink'', which comes from the semi-leptonic decay of the tauons.  In

1850: order to reach a significant detector mass, the emulsion layers are

1851: separated by lead plates of $1\,\mathrm{mm}$ thickness. The total

1852: fiducial mass of the detector will be $1.8\,\mathrm{kt}$. However,

1853: during the extraction of the data, the detector mass will change as a

1854: function of time. Therefore, we use the time averaged fiducial mass of

1855: $1.65\,\mathrm{kt}$ for our analysis.  A main challenge in the \opera\

1856: experiment is the automated scanning of the emulsions. The \icarus\

1857: detector uses a different approach: it is a liquid Argon TPC, which

1858: allows to reconstruct the three dimensional topology of an event with

1859: a spacial resolution of roughly $1\,\mathrm{mm}$ on an event by event

1860: basis. The $\nu_\tau$ detection is performed by a full kinematical

1861: analysis.  The fiducial mass will be $2.35 \,\mathrm{kt}$.

1862: 

1863: For the \opera\ experiment, we include the information from the

1864: $\nu_\mu\to\nu_\tau$ channel by assuming an efficiency of $0.11$, and

1865: a fraction of $3\cdot10^{-5}$ of misidentified neutral current events.

1866: For the \icarus\ experiment, we use an efficiency of $0.075$ for this

1867: channel with a background fraction of $8.5\cdot10^{-5}$ of the neutral

1868: current events~\cite{Aprili:2002wx}.

1869: %

1870: Although the \icarus\ and \opera\ detectors are

1871: optimized to observe the decay properties of $\tau$-leptons, they also

1872: have very good abilities for muon identification, which allows to 

1873: measure also $\nu_\mu$ disappearance. We therefore include

1874: the $\nu_\mu\rightarrow\nu_\mu$ CC channel in both CNGS experiments,

1875: assuming a detection efficiency of 0.9 and taking into account a

1876: fraction of 0.05 of all neutral current events as background. 

1877: As a matter of fact, the measurement of the atmospheric

1878: parameters also contributes to the $\sin^22\theta_{13}$

1879: sensitivity limit, since correlation effects decrease with a higher

1880: precisions on the atmospheric parameters. Therefore, the

1881: $\sin^22\theta_{13}$ sensitivity at \icarus\ and \opera\ is considerably

1882: improved by including (besides the $\nu_\mu\to\nu_e$

1883: channel) the $\nu_\mu\rightarrow\nu_\tau$ appearance and the

1884: $\nu_\mu$ disappearance channels in the fit.

1885: 

1886: We have checked for all setups that the results do not depend 

1887: significantly on the energy range, energy resolution, and bin size as 

1888: long as the energy information is sufficient to distinguish the shape of 

1889: the signal from the shape of the background.

1890: 

1891: The $\sin^22\theta_{13}$ sensitivity of the different experiments is

1892: provided mainly by the information from the $\nu_\mu \rightarrow

1893: \nu_e$ appearance channel. Because of the small value of

1894: $\sin^22\theta_{13}$, the number of $\nu_\mu \rightarrow \nu_e$ CC

1895: events will be very small compared to the $\nu_\mu \rightarrow

1896: \nu_\mu$ CC and NC events.  Furthermore, the events from the intrinsic

1897: $\nu_e$ component of the beam create a background to the oscillation

1898: signal. Thus, in our simulation, we consider as possible backgrounds:

1899: Beam $\nu_e$ CC events, misidentified $\nu_\mu$ CC events,

1900: misidentified $\nu_\tau$ CC events (mainly for CNGS), and

1901: misidentified NC events.  We have calibrated the various background

1902: sources in our simulation carefully with respect to the information

1903: given in the literature. The corresponding references are for \minos\

1904: \Tab~3 of \Ref~\cite{NUMI714}, for \icarus\ \Ref~\cite{Aprili:2002wx},

1905: and for \opera\ \Tab~4 of \Ref~\cite{Komatsu:2002sz}. Using this

1906: information, we can reproduce with high accuracy the numbers of signal

1907: and background events provided by the experimental collaborations,

1908: which can be found in \Tab~\ref{tab:calibration}.

1909: 

1910: \begin{table}[t!]

1911: \centering

1912: \begin{tabular}{|ll|r|rrrrr|}\hline 

1913:  & & Signal & \multicolumn{5}{c|}{Background}  \\ 

1914:  Experiment & Reference & $\nu_\mu \rightarrow \nu_e$ & $\nu_e \rightarrow \nu_e$ & 

1915:  $\nu_\mu \rightarrow \nu_\mu$ & $\nu_\mu \rightarrow  \nu_\tau$ &

1916:  NC & Total \\  

1917: \hline

1918: \minos & NuMI-L-714~\cite{NUMI714}&8.5&5.6&3.9&3.0&27.2&39.7\\

1919:  \icarus &  T600 proposal~\cite{Aprili:2002wx} & 

1920: 51.0 & 79.0 & - & 76.0 & - & 155.0 \\ 

1921: \opera & Komatsu et al.~\cite{Komatsu:2002sz} & 5.8 & 18.0 & 1.0 & 4.6 & 5.2 & 28.8 \\

1922: \hline

1923: \end{tabular}

1924: \mycaption{\label{tab:calibration} The signal and background events

1925:    for the three conventional beam experiments. The reference points

1926:    are $\Delta m^2_{31}=3.0 \cdot 10^{-3} \,\mathrm{eV}^2$,

1927:    $\sin^2\theta_{13}=0.01$ for \minos, $\Delta m^2_{31}=3.5 \cdot

1928:    10^{-3} \,\mathrm{eV}^2$, $\sin^22\theta_{13}=0.058$ for \icarus,

1929:    $\Delta m^2_{31}=2.5 \cdot 10^{-3} \,\mathrm{eV}^2$,

1930:    $\sin^22\theta_{13}=0.058$ for \opera, and $\sin^22\theta_{23}=1$,

1931:    $\Delta m^2_{21}=\sin^22\theta_{12}=\deltacp=0$ in all three

1932:    cases. The nominal exposures are $10\,\mathrm{kt}\,\mathrm{y}$

1933:    (\minos), $20\,\mathrm{kt}\,\mathrm{y}$ (\icarus), and

1934:    $8.25\,\mathrm{kt}\,\mathrm{y}$ (\opera). Note that these numbers are

1935:    different from the ones in \Tab~\ref{tab:chooz}, since different

1936:    reference points and luminosities are used.}

1937: \end{table}

1938: 

1939: 

1940: \subsection{Reproduction of the analyses performed by the experimental 

1941:             collaborations}

1942: \label{app:reproduction}

1943: 

1944: 

1945: In order to demonstrate the reliability and accuracy of our

1946: calculations, we use in this appendix the analysis techniques from

1947: \Refs~\cite{NUMI714,Aprili:2002wx,Komatsu:2002sz}, and compare our

1948: results with the ones in these references. For this purpose, we 

1949: neglect all correlations and degeneracies, \ie , we set the solar mass

1950: splitting to zero, which also eliminates the solar mixing angle and CP

1951: effects. In addition, we fix the atmospheric mixing angle to $\pi/4$.

1952: Thus, the only remaining parameters are $\theta_{13}$ and $\dm{31}$, 

1953: where $\dm{31}$ is assumed to be exactly known. For both

1954: \minos\ and the CNGS experiments, we use the background uncertainties

1955: given in \Refs~\cite{NUMI714,Aprili:2002wx,Komatsu:2002sz}, \ie , 10\%

1956: for \minos\ and 5\% for \icarus\ and \opera . Then we simulate data

1957: for each value of $\dm{31}$ with $\theta_{13}=0$, and fit these data

1958: with $\theta_{13}$ as the only free parameter. This simplified

1959: procedure leads to a limit similar to $(\sin^22\theta_{13})_\mathrm{eff}$,

1960: which represents the ability to identify a signal (but not to extract

1961: $\stheta$), and is similar to a simple estimate of $S/\sqrt{S+B}$.  

1962: 

1963: In \figu{effective}, we compare the discussed effective $\stheta$ limit to the ones of the experimental collaborations. The solid black curves represent our

1964: results, whereas the dashed gray curves are taken from

1965: \Refs~\cite{NUMI714,Aprili:2002wx,Komatsu:2002sz}. Within the

1966: Super-Kamiokande allowed atmospheric region, our simulation is in very

1967: good agreement with the results of the different collaborations.  The

1968: slight deviation in the \opera\ curve at large values of $\dm{31}$ 

1969: comes from the efficiencies in \Ref~\cite{Komatsu:2002sz}, since they

1970: are only given as energy-integrated quantities. Thus, it is not

1971: possible to fully reproduce the energy dependence of the events.  This

1972: effect becomes stronger if the oscillation maximum is shifted to

1973: higher energies compared to the reference point used in

1974: \Ref~\cite{Komatsu:2002sz}. However, the influence on our results is

1975: marginal, since \opera\ does not contribute significantly to the

1976: $\theta_{13}$ sensitivity. 

1977: 

1978: \begin{figure}[t!]

1979: \centering 

1980:    \includegraphics[angle=-90,width=\textwidth]{fig10.eps} 

1981:    %

1982:    \mycaption{\label{fig:effective} The effective

1983:    $\stheta$ sensitivity limit (as discussed in the main text) at 90\% CL as

1984:    a function of the true value of $\ldm$ for the conventional beam

1985:    experiments. The exposure is $10\,\mathrm{kt}\,\mathrm{y}$ for

1986:    \minos , $20\,\mathrm{kt}\,\mathrm{y}$ for \icarus\ and a nominal

1987:    running time of five years for \opera , corresponding to an

1988:    exposure of $8.25\,\mathrm{kt}\,\mathrm{y}$. The dashed gray curves

1989:    come from the collaborations of the individual experiments and are

1990:    taken from \Ref~\protect\cite{NUMI714} for \minos ,

1991:    \Ref~\protect\cite{Aprili:2002wx} for \icarus , and

1992:    \Ref~\protect\cite{Komatsu:2002sz} for \opera .  The black curves are

1993:    obtained for $\sin^22\theta_{23}=1$ and $\Delta

1994:    m^2_{21}=\sin^22\theta_{12}=\deltacp=0$ for systematics only, \ie,

1995:    correlations and degeneracies are not included, as for the dashed

1996:    curves.} 

1997: \end{figure}

1998: 

1999: 

2000: Note that the numbers given in \Tab~\ref{tab:calibration} and the

2001: results shown in \figu{effective} do not allow a comparison of the

2002: different experiment performances, because the reference points used

2003: for the calculation of \Tab~\ref{tab:calibration} are rather

2004: different, and so are the integrated luminosities. For a comparison on

2005: equal footing we refer to \Tab~\ref{tab:chooz} and the discussion in

2006: \Sec~\ref{sec:stheta_conv}.

2007: 

2008: 

2009: 

2010: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2011: %%           Reactor appendix      %%

2012: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2013: 

2014: \section{Simulation of the reactor experiments}

2015: \label{app:reactor}

2016: 

2017: For our simulation of the reactor neutrino experiments, we closely

2018: follow our previous work in \Ref~\cite{Huber:2003pm}. For the analyses

2019: presented here, we assume a near detector baseline of $L_\mathrm{ND} =

2020: 0.15 \, \mathrm{km}$ and we consider two options for the far detector

2021: baseline: $L_\mathrm{FD} = 1.05 \, \mathrm{km}$ corresponds to the

2022: baseline at the CHOOZ site, whereas a baseline $L_\mathrm{FD} = 1.7 \,

2023: \mathrm{km}$ is close to the options considered for several other

2024: sites. We always fix the number of reactor neutrino events in the

2025: near detector to $2.94\cdot 10^6$, which implies that it has the same

2026: size as the far detector at $L_\mathrm{FD} = 1.05 \, \mathrm{km}$ with

2027: $60\,000$ events (assuming the same efficiencies in

2028: both detectors\footnote{Due to a higher background rate in the near

2029: detector, there will more dead time than in the far detector. This

2030: reduces the number of events in the near detector roughly by a factor

2031: of two. We have checked that this has a very small impact on the final

2032: sensitivity.}). We allow an uncertainty of the overall reactor neutrino

2033: flux normalization of $\sigma_\mathrm{abs} = 2.5\%$. For the

2034: normalization error between the two detectors, we use a typical value

2035: of $\sigma_\mathrm{rel} = 0.6\%$. As shown in

2036: \Ref~\cite{Huber:2003pm}, this roughly corresponds to an effective

2037: normalization error of $\sigma_\mathrm{norm} \simeq 0.8\%$.

2038: %

2039: The total range for the visible energy $E_\mathrm{vis} = E_{\bar\nu} -

2040: \Delta + m_e$ (where $\Delta$ is the neutron-proton mass difference,

2041: and $m_e$ is the electron mass) from 0.5~MeV to 9.2~MeV is divided

2042: into 31 bins.  Furthermore, we assume a Gaussian energy resolution

2043: with $\sigma_\mathrm{res} = 5\% / \sqrt{E_\mathrm{vis}

2044: [\mathrm{MeV}]}$. We remark that our results do not change if a

2045: smaller bin width is chosen, as it would be allowed by the good energy

2046: resolution and the large number of events.

2047: %

2048: Furthermore, we take into account an uncertainty on the energy scale

2049: calibration $\sigma_\mathrm{cal} = 0.5\%$, and an uncertainty on the

2050: expected energy spectrum shape $\sigma_\mathrm{shape} = 2\%$, which we

2051: assume to be uncorrelated between the energy bins, but fully correlated

2052: between the corresponding bins in near and far detectors (see

2053: \Ref~\cite{Huber:2003pm} for details).  

2054: 

2055: In addition to the analysis as performed in \Ref~\cite{Huber:2003pm},

2056: we have investigated in greater detail the impact of a background for a

2057: reactor experiment of the \DChooz\ type. We take into account four different

2058: background sources with known shape: 

2059: \begin{itemize}

2060: \item

2061: A background from spallation neutrons coming from muons in the rock

2062: close to the detector. This background can be assumed to be flat as a

2063: function of energy to a first approximation (see, \eg, \Fig~48 of

2064: \Ref~\cite{Apollonio:2002gd}).

2065: \item

2066: A background from accidental events. A $\gamma$ from

2067: radioactivity is followed by a second random $\gamma$ with more than

2068: 6~MeV faking a neutron signal. Those events are important for low energies.

2069: \item

2070:  Two correlated backgrounds from cosmogenic $^9$Li and $^8$He nuclei.

2071: Both are created by through-going muons and give $\beta$-spectra with

2072: end points of 13.6 and 10.6~MeV, respectively.

2073: \end{itemize}

2074: %

2075: In \Tab~\ref{tab:backgrounds}, we give for each background a realistic

2076: estimate~\cite{herve} for the expected number of events in near and

2077: far detectors relative to the number of reactor neutrino events.

2078: Since the near detector will have less rock overburden than the far

2079: detector, more background events are expected. They are, however,

2080: compensated by the much larger number of reactor neutrino events in

2081: the near detector. Therefore, we assume to a first approximation the

2082: same {\it relative} sizes for the backgrounds in near and far

2083: detector. In \Fig~\ref{fig:BG-spectrum}, the spectral shape of these

2084: backgrounds is shown. We assume that these shapes are exactly

2085: known, however, the overall normalization of each of the four

2086: background components in the two detectors is allowed to fluctuate

2087: independently with an error of $\sigma_\mathrm{BG} = 50\%$.

2088: %

2089: In addition to these backgrounds with known shape, we include a

2090: background from an unidentified source with a bin-to-bin

2091: uncorrelated error of 50\%. We assume a

2092: total number of background events of 0.5\%  of the reactor signal in both

2093: detectors, and a flat energy shape for this background.

2094: 

2095: 

2096: \begin{table}[b!]

2097: \begin{center}

2098: \begin{tabular}{|llrr|}

2099: \hline

2100: Background type & Spectral shape & BG/Reactor events & $\sigma_\mathrm{BG}$\\

2101: \hline

2102: \multicolumn{4}{|l|}{\bf{Backgrounds with known shape}} \\

2103: \hline

2104: Spallation neutrons  & Flat         & 0.4\%  & 50\% \\

2105: Accidentals          & Low energies & 0.2\%  & 50\% \\

2106: Cosmogenic $^9$Li    & $\beta$-spectrum (end point 13.6~MeV) & 0.2\% & 50\%\\

2107: Cosmogenic $^8$He    & $\beta$-spectrum (end point 10.6~MeV) & 0.2\% & 50\%\\

2108: \hline

2109: \multicolumn{2}{|l}{Bin-to-bin correlated BG total:} & 1.0\%  & \\

2110: \hline

2111: \hline

2112: \multicolumn{4}{|l|}{\bf{Bin-to-bin uncorrelated background}} \\

2113: \hline

2114: Unknown source & Flat &  0.5\% & 50\% \\   

2115: \hline

2116: \end{tabular}

2117: \end{center}

2118: \mycaption{\label{tab:backgrounds} Backgrounds included in our reactor

2119:   experiment analysis. For each background source, the column

2120:   ``BG/Reactor events'' refers to the total number of background

2121:   events in the energy range between 0.5 and 9.2~$\mathrm{MeV}$

2122:   relative to the total number of reactor neutrino events for no

2123:   oscillations~\protect\cite{herve}. We assume the same magnitudes of the

2124:   backgrounds relative to the total events in the near and far

2125:   detectors. For the backgrounds with known shape,

2126:   $\sigma_\mathrm{BG}$ is the uncertainty of the overall

2127:   normalization. For the uncorrelated background, $\sigma_\mathrm{BG}$

2128:   is the error on the number of events in each bin, which is

2129:   uncorrelated between different bins (31~bins). All backgrounds are

2130:   uncorrelated between the two detectors.}

2131: \end{table}

2132: 

2133: 

2134: \begin{figure}[t!]

2135: \centering \includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{fig11.eps}

2136:    \mycaption{\label{fig:BG-spectrum} Energy spectrum of the

2137:    backgrounds from spallation neutrons, accidentals, and cosmogenic

2138:    $^9$Li and $^8$He. The percentage given for each curve corresponds

2139:    to the total number of background events relative to the total

2140:    number of reactor neutrino events for no oscillations.  Also shown

2141:    is the total background spectrum. The curve labeled ``signal''

2142:    corresponds to $N(E_\mathrm{vis}; \stheta=0) - N(E_\mathrm{vis};

2143:    \stheta=0.05)$, where $N(E_\mathrm{vis}; \stheta)$ is the energy

2144:    spectrum for given $\stheta$. The shaded region is the statistical

2145:    error band at 1$\sigma$, \ie, $\pm\sqrt{N(E_\mathrm{vis};

2146:    \stheta=0)}$. Note that the absolute normalizations of the

2147:    backgrounds are exaggerated in this figure.}

2148: \end{figure}

2149: 

2150: As a general trend, we find that backgrounds with known shape do not

2151: significantly affect the sensitivity. This holds independently of the

2152: integrated luminosity. Even increasing the numbers given in

2153: \Tab~\ref{tab:backgrounds} by a factor five does not change the

2154: picture. This behavior can be understood in terms of

2155: \Fig~\ref{fig:BG-spectrum}, where we show the signal (the spectrum

2156: without oscillation minus the spectrum for $\stheta = 0.05$) and its

2157: statistical error compared to the various background spectra. For

2158: illustration, background levels significantly larger than in

2159: \Tab~\ref{tab:backgrounds} are assumed. From this figure, it is

2160: obvious that the spectral shape of the signal is very different from

2161: that of all of the background components. Already at modest

2162: luminosities, such as for \DChooz , enough spectral information is

2163: available to determine the backgrounds with sufficient accuracy, which

2164: means that it is not possible to fake the signal within the

2165: statistical error by fluctuations of the background components. In

2166: contrast, we find that the bin-to-bin uncorrelated background only

2167: plays a minor role for experiments of the size of \DChooz , whereas it

2168: becomes important for large experiments, such as \ReactorII. In the

2169: latter case, a background level of 0.5\% with a bin-to-bin

2170: uncorrelated error larger than about 20\% would significantly affect

2171: the sensitivity. We conclude that for large reactor experiments, the

2172: shape of the expected background has to be well under

2173: control.\footnote{Note that the above statements quantitatively depend

2174: to some extent on the chosen number of bins. For example, a bin-to-bin

2175: uncorrelated error of 20\% for 10 bins has, in general, a different

2176: impact than such an error for 60 bins.  This can be understood by the

2177: fact that for a large number of bins, the simultaneous fluctuation of

2178: neighboring bins becomes unlikely. The same argument holds for the

2179: flux shape uncertainty $\sigma_\mathrm{shape}$.}

2180: 

2181: In \Tab~\ref{tab:reactor-setups}, we summarize the experimental

2182: parameters which we use for the two setups \DChooz\ and \ReactorII\ in

2183: the main text of this study. For the \DChooz\ setup, we stick closely

2184: to the configuration discussed in \Ref~\cite{doubleChooz}. We have

2185: checked that the effect of the slightly different distances ($1.0 \,

2186: \mathrm{km}$ and $1.1 \, \mathrm{km}$) of the far detector location

2187: from the two different reactor cores at the CHOOZ site is very

2188: small. Hence it is a good approximation to consider the average

2189: baseline of $1.05 \, \mathrm{km}$ for both cores. In order to obtain

2190: robust results, we include all systematical errors as well as

2191: backgrounds.

2192: 

2193: \begin{table}[t!]

2194: \begin{center}

2195: \begin{tabular}{|l|r@{\qquad}r|}

2196: \hline

2197: & \DChooz & \ReactorII \\

2198: \hline

2199: Luminosity ${\cal L}$ 

2200: & $288 \,\mathrm{t\, GW \,y}$ & $8000 \,\mathrm{t\, GW \,y}$ \\

2201: Number of events in ND & $2.94 \cdot 10^6$ & $2.94 \cdot 10^6$ \\

2202: Number of events in FD & $6 \cdot 10^4$ & $6.36 \cdot 10^5$ \\

2203: Near detector baseline & $0.15 \,\mathrm{km}$  & $0.15 \,\mathrm{km}$ \\

2204: Far detector baseline & $1.05 \,\mathrm{km}$  & $1.70 \,\mathrm{km}$\\

2205: Energy resolution & \multicolumn{2}{r|}{

2206: $ \sigma_\mathrm{res} = 5\%/\sqrt{E [\mathrm{MeV}]}$}\\

2207: Visible energy range &

2208: \multicolumn{2}{r|}{$0.5 - 9.2 \,\mathrm{MeV}$ (31 bins)}\\  

2209: Individual detector normalization & 

2210: $\sigma_\mathrm{rel} = 0.6\%$ & $\sigma_\mathrm{rel} = 0.6\%$ \\

2211: Flux normalization & 

2212: $\sigma_\mathrm{abs} = 2.5\%$ & $\sigma_\mathrm{abs} = 2.5\%$ \\

2213: Flux shape uncertainty & 

2214: $\sigma_\mathrm{shape} = 2\%$ & $\sigma_\mathrm{shape} = 0$ \\

2215: Energy scale error & 

2216: $\sigma_\mathrm{cal} = 0.5\%$ & $\sigma_\mathrm{cal} = 0$ \\

2217: Backgrounds included & Yes & No\\

2218: \hline

2219: \end{tabular}

2220: \end{center}

2221: \mycaption{\label{tab:reactor-setups} Characteristics of the two

2222:   reactor experiments \DChooz\ and \ReactorII.}

2223: \end{table}

2224: 

2225: 

2226: The large reactor experiment \ReactorII\ corresponds to the same setup

2227: as already used in \Ref~\cite{Huber:2003pm}. It represents an ideal

2228: configuration without backgrounds and any systematical errors beyond

2229: overall normalization errors. This setup has been chosen to

2230: illustrate how an optimal reactor experiment would fit into the

2231: general picture of the next ten years of oscillation physics and,

2232: to obtain CP-complementary information. Several

2233: proposals which are close to our \ReactorII\ setup are currently

2234: discussed~\cite{whitepaper}. 

2235: 

2236: \section{The definition of the $\boldsymbol{\stheta}$ sensitivity limit}

2237: \label{app:stheta}

2238: 

2239: In this appendix, we discuss the definition of the

2240: $\stheta$ sensitivity limit. Although this definition is very general,

2241: we mainly focus on the $\nu_\mu\to\nu_e$ appearance

2242: channel, since one has to deal extensively with parameter

2243: correlations and degenerate solutions in this case.  Let us first define our

2244: $\stheta$ sensitivity and then discuss its properties.

2245: 

2246: \begin{definition}

2247: \label{def:sl}

2248:    We define the {\bf $\boldsymbol{\stheta}$ sensitivity limit} as the

2249:    largest value of $\stheta$, which fits the true value $\stheta=0$

2250:    at the chosen confidence level. The largest value of $\stheta$ is

2251:    obtained from the projections of all (disconnected) fit manifolds (best-fit manifold and degeneracies) onto the $\stheta$-axis.

2252: \end{definition}

2253: 

2254: Since for future experiments no data are available, one has to simulate

2255: data by calculating a ``reference rate vector'' for a fixed set of

2256: ``true'' parameter values. In general, the experiment performance

2257: depends on the chosen set of true parameter values, and it is interesting to

2258: discuss this dependency in many cases. It is especially relevant for

2259: the true values of $\sdm$ and $\ldm$, which we usually choose within

2260: their currently allowed ranges. According to Definition~\ref{def:sl}, 

2261: we choose the true value $\stheta = 0$ to

2262: calculate the $\stheta$ limit, since we are interested in the bound 

2263: on $\stheta$ if no positive signal is observed. 

2264: %

2265: Moreover, this choice has the following

2266: advantages:

2267: %

2268: \begin{itemize}

2269: \item

2270: Since for $\stheta = 0$ the phase $\deltacp$ becomes unphysical, the

2271: sensitivity limit will be {\it independent of the true value of $\deltacp$}.

2272: \item

2273: For $\stheta = 0$, the reference rate vectors for the normal and the

2274: inverted mass hierarchies are approximately equal, which implies that the

2275: sensitivity limit {\it hardly depends on the true sign

2276: of $\ldm$} (see also the discussion related to \Fig~\ref{fig:did1} later).

2277: \end{itemize}

2278: 

2279: Once the reference rate vector has been obtained, the fit manifold in

2280: the six-dimensional space of the oscillation parameters is given by

2281: the requirement $\Delta \chi^2 \le \mathrm{CL}$ (\eg, at the

2282: 90\% confidence level, we have $\mathrm{CL} = 2.71$ for 1 d.o.f.). In addition

2283: to the allowed region which contains the best-fit point (``best-fit

2284: manifold''), one or more disconnected regions (``degenerate

2285: solutions'') will exist, and each of them may have a rather

2286: complicated shape in the six-dimensional space (``correlations''). The

2287: final sensitivity is given by the largest value of $\stheta$ which fits

2288: $\stheta=0$. It is obtained by projecting {\it all} these disconnected fit regions onto the $\stheta$-axis, where the projection takes into account the correlations. Hence, this procedure provides a straightforward

2289: method to take into account correlations and degeneracies.

2290: %

2291: Thus, for the case of the $\nu_\mu\to\nu_e$ appearance channel, our

2292: definition of the $\stheta$ sensitivity limit includes the intrinsic

2293: structure of \equ{beam}. This equation reflects that an appearance experiment

2294: is only sensitive to a particular combination of parameters.  The projection onto the $\stheta$-axis takes into account that all the other parameters can be only

2295: measured with a certain accuracy by the experiment itself. Moreover, in complicated

2296: cases (\eg, for neutrino factories) local minima may appear in the

2297: projection of the $\chi^2$-function onto the $\stheta$-axis, and the

2298: $\chi^2$-function can intersect the chosen confidence level multiple

2299: times. In this case, we choose by definition the rightmost of these

2300: intersections. Hence, the sensitivity limit, as defined above, refers to the

2301: potential of an experiment (or combination of experiments) to extract

2302: the value of the parameter $\stheta$ from \equ{beam} convolved

2303: with all the simulation information. 

2304: 

2305: In this study, we compare the $\stheta$ sensitivity limit of a given

2306: experiment to a so-called $(\sin^2 2 \theta_{13})_{\mathrm{eff}}$

2307: sensitivity limit in some cases. The $(\sin^2 2 \theta_{13})_{\mathrm{eff}}$

2308: sensitivity limit roughly corresponds to the

2309: potential of a given experiment to observe a positive signal, which is

2310: parameterized by some (unphysical) mixing parameter $(\sin^2 2

2311: \theta_{13})_{\mathrm{eff}}$:

2312: %

2313: \begin{definition}

2314:    The {\bf $\boldsymbol{(\stheta)_{\mathrm{eff}}}$ sensitivity limit}

2315:    is defined as the sensitivity limit from statistics and systematics

2316:    only which is computed for $\deltacp=0$ by fixing all other

2317:    oscillation parameters to their true values.

2318: \end{definition}

2319: 

2320: In order to illustrate the impact of systematics, correlations, and

2321: degeneracies, we often use ``bar charts'' (see, for example,

2322: \Figs~\ref{fig:interncomp} and \ref{fig:externcomp}), where the final

2323: $\stheta$ sensitivity is obtained by successively switching on

2324: systematics, correlations, and degeneracies.  In these bar charts, the

2325: statistics-only $\stheta$ sensitivity (left edge of the bar) is

2326: computed for all oscillation parameters fixed and $\deltacp=0$, the

2327: statistics+systematics sensitivity limit corresponds to the

2328: $(\stheta)_{\mathrm{eff}}$ sensitivity limit, the

2329: statistics+systematics+cor\-re\-lations limit corresponds to the

2330: sensitivity limit for the best-fit manifold only (no degenerate

2331: solutions included), and the final sensitivity limit (right edge of

2332: the bar) corresponds to Definition~\ref{def:sl}.

2333:  

2334: In the following, we illustrate in greater detail how the

2335: $\stheta$ limit is obtained, how the bar charts are constructed, and 

2336: how the $\stheta$ and $(\stheta)_{\mathrm{eff}}$

2337: limits are related to each other at the example of the \JHFSK\ experiment. 

2338: We focus mainly on the $\mathrm{sgn}(\ldm)$-degeneracy and the correlation

2339: between $\theta_{13}$ and $\deltacp$, which is of particular relevance for the $\nu_\mu\to\nu_e$ appearance channel at superbeams.

2340: 

2341: \begin{figure}[t!]

2342: \begin{center}

2343: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{fig12.eps}

2344: \end{center}

2345: \mycaption{\label{fig:did1} The $\chi^2$ as function of $\stheta$ for

2346:    \JHFSK. For the true values of the oscillation parameters, we

2347:    choose the current best-fit values from \eq~(\ref{eq:bfp}),

2348:    $\stheta=0$, $\deltacp=0$ (for curves without correlations only),

2349:    and normal (upper plot) or inverted (lower plot) mass

2350:    hierarchies. The solid curves in each plot are obtained by fitting

2351:    with the same mass hierarchy as has been used to calculate the

2352:    reference rate vector (``right-sign''), whereas for the dashed

2353:    curves the wrong mass hierarchy has been used

2354:    (``wrong-sign''). Within each group of solid or dashed curves, the

2355:    left curve determines the statistics-only limit, the middle curve

2356:    the statistics+systematics limit, and the right curve the

2357:    statistics+systematics+correlations limit. Note that the wrong-sign

2358:    minimum has not exactly the same position in parameter space as the

2359:    original minimum.}

2360: \end{figure}

2361: 

2362: In \figu{did1}, the $\chi^2$ is shown as a function of $\stheta$ for

2363: the ``right-sign'' and ``wrong-sign'' solutions, where in the upper

2364: (lower) plot the normal (inverted) hierarchy has been chosen to

2365: calculate the reference rate vector.  The right-sign solution is

2366: obtained by fitting with the same sign of $\ldm$ as the reference rate

2367: vector has been calculated with, \ie, the ``right'' neutrino mass

2368: hierarchy is used, whereas the wrong-sign solution is obtained by

2369: fitting with the opposite sign of $\ldm$, \ie, the ``wrong'' mass

2370: hierarchy is used.  The different curves in each group with the same

2371: curve style correspond, from the left to the right, to the

2372: statistics-only, statistics+systematics, and

2373: statistics+systematics+correlations sensitivity limits, where these

2374: limits are obtained from the intersection of the $\chi^2$ with the

2375: $\Delta\chi^2=2.71$ line. The bar charts are constructed from the

2376: corresponding curves, as one can easily read off the figure.

2377: 

2378: Comparing the normal and inverted mass hierarchy plots in \figu{did1},

2379: one can observe a symmetry between the right- and wrong-sign

2380: solutions: The curves for the normal mass hierarchy and $\ldm>0$

2381: (right sign) are very similar to the ones of the inverted mass

2382: hierarchy and $\ldm>0$ (wrong sign). This can be understood in terms

2383: of the identical appearance rate vectors for the normal and inverted

2384: mass hierarchies for the true value of $\stheta=0$. However, since the

2385: role of the $\ldm>0$ curves is different for the normal and inverted

2386: mass hierarchies, \ie, they either correspond to the best-fit manifold

2387: (right sign) or the $\mathrm{sgn}(\ldm)$-degeneracy (wrong sign), the

2388: bar charts are, by definition, very different, since they are

2389: originally determined by the best-fit solution. However, one can

2390: easily see that the final sensitivity limit does not depend on the

2391: mass hierarchy~\cite{Huber:2002rs}. This property comes from the fact

2392: that the degeneracy part does not contribute to the final sensitivity

2393: if the best-fit $\stheta$ sensitivity is already worse than the

2394: degenerate solution sensitivity. Since there is hardly a difference

2395: between final sensitivity limits for the different mass hierarchies,

2396: we usually show the normal mass hierarchy sensitivity limit. In fact,

2397: there is a small difference between the final sensitivity limits for

2398: the different mass hierarchies, which mainly comes from the

2399: disappearance channels.

2400: 

2401: \begin{figure}[t!]

2402: \begin{center}

2403: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{fig13.eps}

2404: \end{center}

2405: \mycaption{\label{fig:did2} The 90\% CL fit manifold (1 d.o.f.) in the

2406:    $\stheta$-$\deltacp$-plane for \JHFSK.  For the true values of the

2407:    oscillation parameters, we choose the current best-fit values from

2408:    \eq~(\ref{eq:bfp}) and $\stheta=0$. The different curves correspond

2409:    to various sections (un-displayed oscillation parameters fixed) and

2410:    projections (minimized over un-displayed oscillation parameters) as

2411:    described in the plot legend. The bars demonstrate the individual

2412:    contributions to the final $\stheta$ sensitivity limit. Note that

2413:    for the sgn($\ldm$)-degenerate solution, we only show the final

2414:    projection.  }

2415: \end{figure}

2416: 

2417: Let us now illustrate the impact of the correlation between $\stheta$

2418: and $\deltacp$. Therefore, we show in \figu{did2} the fit manifold

2419: in the $\stheta$-$\deltacp$-plane.  The $\stheta$ sensitivity limit

2420: is again obtained from the projection onto the $\stheta$-axis.  In

2421: \figu{did2}, the individual contributions to the bar chart are

2422: illustrated by showing different sections (un-displayed oscillation

2423: parameters fixed, \ie, no correlations) and projections (minimized

2424: over un-displayed oscillation parameters, \ie, they include correlations) of

2425: the fit manifold. One can see that both edges of the leftmost (blue)

2426: bar are computed for $\deltacp=0$. This illustrates that if $\deltacp$

2427: and all the other oscillation parameters except $\stheta$ are fixed at

2428: the true values, much stronger bounds on $\stheta$ can be obtained,

2429: corresponding to the $(\stheta)_\mathrm{eff}$ limit. The limit gets

2430: considerably weaker if the $\chi^2$-function is minimized over

2431: $\deltacp$, as well as all oscillation parameters which are not shown,

2432: which leads to the ``correlation bar''. In fact, from \figu{did2}, one

2433: can see that the largest part of the correlation bar comes from the

2434: correlation with $\deltacp$~\cite{Kajita:2001sb}, and only the small difference between the dark dashed and the light solid curves comes from the correlation with

2435: the other oscillation parameters. The final sensitivity limit is then

2436: obtained as the maximum value of $\stheta$ which fits $\stheta=0$ 

2437: including all degenerate solutions.

2438: 

2439: \end{appendix}

2440: 

2441: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2442: %%%%%%%%%%             References                         %%%%%%%%%%%%

2443: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

2444: 

2445: \newpage

2446: 

2447: 

2448: \begin{thebibliography}{10}

2449: \expandafter\ifx\csname bibnamefont\endcsname\relax

2450:   \def\bibnamefont#1{#1}\fi

2451: \expandafter\ifx\csname bibfnamefont\endcsname\relax

2452:   \def\bibfnamefont#1{#1}\fi

2453: \expandafter\ifx\csname url\endcsname\relax

2454:   \def\url#1{\texttt{#1}}\fi

2455: \expandafter\ifx\csname urlprefix\endcsname\relax\def\urlprefix{URL }\fi

2456: \providecommand{\bibinfo}[2]{#2}

2457: \providecommand{\eprint}[2][]{\url{#2}}

2458: 

2459: \bibitem{Fukuda:1998mi}

2460: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Y.}~\bibnamefont{Fukuda}} \emph{et~al.}

2461:   (\bibinfo{collaboration}{Super-Kamiokande}), \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev.

2462:   Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{81}}, \bibinfo{pages}{1562}

2463:   (\bibinfo{year}{1998}), \eprint{hep-ex/9807003};

2464: %

2465: %\bibitem{Fukuda:1998ah}

2466: %\bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Y.}~\bibnamefont{Fukuda}} \emph{et~al.}

2467: %  (\bibinfo{collaboration}{Super-Kamiokande}), 

2468:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.} 

2469:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{82}}, \bibinfo{pages}{2644}

2470:   (\bibinfo{year}{1999}), \eprint{hep-ex/9812014}.

2471: 

2472: \bibitem{SKupdate}

2473: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Y.}~\bibnamefont{Hayato}}

2474:   (\bibinfo{collaboration}{Super-Kamiokande}) \bibinfo{note}{Talk at the

2475:   HEP2003 conference (Aachen, Germany, 2003), {\tt

2476:   http://eps2003.physik.rwth-aachen.de}}.

2477: 

2478: \bibitem{Ambrosio:2003yz}

2479: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Ambrosio}} \emph{et~al.}

2480:   (\bibinfo{collaboration}{MACRO}), \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Lett.}

2481:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{B566}}, \bibinfo{pages}{35} (\bibinfo{year}{2003}),

2482:   \eprint{hep-ex/0304037}.

2483: 

2484: \bibitem{Ahn:2002up}

2485: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.~H.} \bibnamefont{Ahn}} \emph{et~al.}

2486:   (\bibinfo{collaboration}{K2K}), \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.}

2487:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{90}}, \bibinfo{pages}{041801}

2488:   (\bibinfo{year}{2003}), \eprint{hep-ex/0212007}.

2489: 

2490: \bibitem{Cleveland:1998nv}

2491: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{B.~T.} \bibnamefont{Cleveland}} \emph{et~al.},

2492:   \bibinfo{journal}{Astrophys. J.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{496}},

2493:   \bibinfo{pages}{505} (\bibinfo{year}{1998});

2494: %

2495: %\bibitem{Abdurashitov:2002xa}

2496: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~N.} \bibnamefont{Abdurashitov}} \emph{et~al.}

2497:   (\bibinfo{collaboration}{SAGE}), \bibinfo{journal}{J. Exp. Theor. Phys.}

2498:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{95}}, \bibinfo{pages}{181} (\bibinfo{year}{2002});

2499: %

2500: %\bibitem{Hampel:1998xg}

2501: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{W.}~\bibnamefont{Hampel}} \emph{et~al.}

2502:   (\bibinfo{collaboration}{GALLEX}), \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Lett.}

2503:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{B447}}, \bibinfo{pages}{127} (\bibinfo{year}{1999});

2504: %

2505: %\bibitem{Altmann:2000ft}

2506: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Altmann}} \emph{et~al.}

2507:   (\bibinfo{collaboration}{GNO}), \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Lett.}

2508:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{B490}}, \bibinfo{pages}{16} (\bibinfo{year}{2000}),

2509:   \eprint{hep-ex/0006034};

2510: %

2511: %\bibitem{Fukuda:2002pe}

2512: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Fukuda}} \emph{et~al.}

2513:   (\bibinfo{collaboration}{Super-Kamiokande}), \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Lett.}

2514:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{B539}}, \bibinfo{pages}{179} (\bibinfo{year}{2002}),

2515:   \eprint{hep-ex/0205075};

2516: %

2517: %\bibitem{Ahmad:2002jz}

2518: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Q.~R.} \bibnamefont{Ahmad}} \emph{et~al.}

2519:   (\bibinfo{collaboration}{SNO}), \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.}

2520:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{89}}, \bibinfo{pages}{011301}

2521:   (\bibinfo{year}{2002}), \eprint[http://arXiv.org/abs]{nucl-ex/0204008}.

2522: 

2523: \bibitem{Ahmed:2003kj}

2524: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.~N.} \bibnamefont{Ahmed}} \emph{et~al.}

2525:   (\bibinfo{collaboration}{SNO})  (\bibinfo{year}{2003}),

2526:   \eprint{nucl-ex/0309004}.

2527: 

2528: \bibitem{Eguchi:2002dm}

2529: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.}~\bibnamefont{Eguchi}} \emph{et~al.}

2530:   (\bibinfo{collaboration}{KamLAND}), \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.}

2531:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{90}}, \bibinfo{pages}{021802}

2532:   (\bibinfo{year}{2003}), \eprint{hep-ex/0212021}.

2533: 

2534: \bibitem{Wolfenstein:1978ue}

2535: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{L.}~\bibnamefont{Wolfenstein}},

2536:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{D17}},

2537:   \bibinfo{pages}{2369} (\bibinfo{year}{1978});

2538: %

2539: %\bibitem{Mikheev:1985gs}

2540: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.~P.} \bibnamefont{Mikheev}} \bibnamefont{and}

2541:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.~Y.} \bibnamefont{Smirnov}},

2542:   \bibinfo{journal}{Sov. J. Nucl. Phys.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{42}},

2543:   \bibinfo{pages}{913} (\bibinfo{year}{1985}).

2544: 

2545: \bibitem{Apollonio:1999ae}

2546: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Apollonio}} \emph{et~al.}

2547:   (\bibinfo{collaboration}{CHOOZ}), \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Lett.}

2548:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{B466}}, \bibinfo{pages}{415} (\bibinfo{year}{1999}),

2549:   \eprint{hep-ex/9907037}.

2550: 

2551: \bibitem{Apollonio:2002gd}

2552: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Apollonio}} \emph{et~al.}

2553:   (\bibinfo{collaboration}{CHOOZ}), \bibinfo{journal}{Eur. Phys. J.}

2554:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{C27}}, \bibinfo{pages}{331} (\bibinfo{year}{2003}),

2555:   \eprint{hep-ex/0301017}.

2556: 

2557: \bibitem{Ables:1995wq}

2558: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{E.}~\bibnamefont{Ables}} \emph{et~al.}

2559:   (\bibinfo{collaboration}{MINOS}) \bibinfo{note}{FERMILAB-PROPOSAL-P-875}.

2560: 

2561: \bibitem{Aprili:2002wx}

2562: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.}~\bibnamefont{Aprili}} \emph{et~al.}

2563:   (\bibinfo{collaboration}{ICARUS}) \bibinfo{note}{CERN-SPSC-2002-027}.

2564: 

2565: \bibitem{Duchesneau:2002yq}

2566: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.}~\bibnamefont{Duchesneau}}

2567:   (\bibinfo{collaboration}{{OPERA}}), \bibinfo{journal}{eConf}

2568:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{C0209101}}, \bibinfo{pages}{TH09}

2569:   (\bibinfo{year}{2002}), \eprint{hep-ex/0209082}.

2570: 

2571: \bibitem{Itow:2001ee}

2572: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Y.}~\bibnamefont{Itow}} \emph{et~al.},

2573:   \bibinfo{journal}{Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{111}},

2574:   \bibinfo{pages}{146} (\bibinfo{year}{2001}),

2575:   \eprint[http://arXiv.org/abs]{hep-ex/0106019}.

2576: 

2577: \bibitem{Ayres:2002nm}

2578: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.}~\bibnamefont{Ayres}} \emph{et~al.}

2579:   (\bibinfo{year}{2002}), \eprint[http://arXiv.org/abs]{hep-ex/0210005}.

2580: 

2581: \bibitem{whitepaper}

2582: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.}~\bibnamefont{Anderson}} \emph{et~al.}

2583:   (\bibinfo{year}{2004}), \eprint{hep-ex/0402041}.

2584: 

2585: \bibitem{Boehm:2001ik}

2586: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{F.}~\bibnamefont{Boehm}} \emph{et~al.},

2587:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{D64}},

2588:   \bibinfo{pages}{112001} (\bibinfo{year}{2001}), \eprint{hep-ex/0107009}.

2589: 

2590: \bibitem{Mikaelyan:1999pm}

2591: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{L.~A.} \bibnamefont{Mikaelyan}}

2592:   \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{V.~V.} \bibnamefont{Sinev}},

2593:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Atom. Nucl.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{63}},

2594:   \bibinfo{pages}{1002} (\bibinfo{year}{2000}), \eprint{hep-ex/9908047};

2595: %

2596: %\bibitem{Martemyanov:2002td}

2597: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{V.}~\bibnamefont{Martemyanov}},

2598:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{L.}~\bibnamefont{Mikaelyan}},

2599:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{V.}~\bibnamefont{Sinev}},

2600:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{V.}~\bibnamefont{Kopeikin}}, \bibnamefont{and}

2601:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Y.}~\bibnamefont{Kozlov}},

2602:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Atom. Nucl.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{66}},

2603:   \bibinfo{pages}{1934} (\bibinfo{year}{2003}), \eprint{hep-ex/0211070}.

2604: 

2605: \bibitem{Minakata:2002jv}

2606: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.}~\bibnamefont{Minakata}},

2607:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.}~\bibnamefont{Sugiyama}},

2608:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{O.}~\bibnamefont{Yasuda}},

2609:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.}~\bibnamefont{Inoue}}, \bibnamefont{and}

2610:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{F.}~\bibnamefont{Suekane}},

2611:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{D68}},

2612:   \bibinfo{pages}{033017} (\bibinfo{year}{2003}), \eprint{hep-ph/0211111}.

2613: 

2614: \bibitem{Huber:2003pm}

2615: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.}~\bibnamefont{Huber}},

2616:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Lindner}},

2617:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Schwetz}}, \bibnamefont{and}

2618:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{W.}~\bibnamefont{Winter}},

2619:   \bibinfo{journal}{Nucl. Phys.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{B665}},

2620:   \bibinfo{pages}{487} (\bibinfo{year}{2003}), \eprint{hep-ph/0303232}.

2621: 

2622: \bibitem{Shaevitz:2003ws}

2623: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.~H.} \bibnamefont{Shaevitz}} \bibnamefont{and}

2624:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~M.} \bibnamefont{Link}}

2625:   (\bibinfo{year}{2003}), \eprint{hep-ex/0306031}.

2626: 

2627: \bibitem{Heeger}

2628: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.}~\bibnamefont{Heeger}},

2629:   \emph{\bibinfo{title}{Measuring theta13 with reactor neutrinos: {Initiatives}

2630:   in the {US}}}, \bibinfo{note}{{Talk} given at {NOON 2004}, available at

2631:   \eprint{http://www-sk.icrr.u-tokyo.ac.jp/noon2004/}}.

2632: 

2633: \bibitem{doubleChooz}

2634: \bibinfo{note}{Double-Chooz Letter of Intent, in preparation}.

2635: 

2636: \bibitem{shaevitztalk}

2637: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Shaevitz}},

2638:   \bibinfo{note}{{Talk} given at the APS Neutrino Study, working group meeting,

2639:   Feb. (2004),

2640:   \eprint{http://apsreactor.uchicago.edu/meetings/chicago/shaevitz.pdf}}.

2641: 

2642: \bibitem{offaxis}

2643: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.}~\bibnamefont{Beavis}} \emph{et~al.},

2644:   \emph{\bibinfo{title}{Proposal of BNL AGS E-889}}, \bibinfo{type}{Tech.

2645:   Rep.}, \bibinfo{institution}{BNL} (\bibinfo{year}{1995}).

2646: 

2647: \bibitem{Huber:2002rs}

2648: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.}~\bibnamefont{Huber}},

2649:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Lindner}}, \bibnamefont{and}

2650:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{W.}~\bibnamefont{Winter}},

2651:   \bibinfo{journal}{Nucl. Phys.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{B654}},

2652:   \bibinfo{pages}{3} (\bibinfo{year}{2003}), \eprint{hep-ph/0211300}.

2653: 

2654: \bibitem{Huber:2002mx}

2655: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.}~\bibnamefont{Huber}},

2656:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Lindner}}, \bibnamefont{and}

2657:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{W.}~\bibnamefont{Winter}},

2658:   \bibinfo{journal}{Nucl. Phys.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{B645}},

2659:   \bibinfo{pages}{3} (\bibinfo{year}{2002}), \eprint{hep-ph/0204352}.

2660: 

2661: \bibitem{NuMI}

2662: \emph{\bibinfo{title}{Nu{MI} off-axis proposal}}, \bibinfo{note}{in

2663:   preparation; see {\tt http://www-off-axis.fnal.gov/}}.

2664: 

2665: \bibitem{Barger:2002xk}

2666: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{V.}~\bibnamefont{Barger}},

2667:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.}~\bibnamefont{Marfatia}}, \bibnamefont{and}

2668:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.}~\bibnamefont{Whisnant}},

2669:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{B560}},

2670:   \bibinfo{pages}{75} (\bibinfo{year}{2003}), \eprint{hep-ph/0210428}.

2671: 

2672: \bibitem{Minakata:2003ca}

2673: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.}~\bibnamefont{Minakata}},

2674:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.}~\bibnamefont{Nunokawa}}, \bibnamefont{and}

2675:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.~J.} \bibnamefont{Parke}},

2676:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{D68}},

2677:   \bibinfo{pages}{013010} (\bibinfo{year}{2003}), \eprint{hep-ph/0301210}.

2678: 

2679: \bibitem{Minakata:2003wq}

2680: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.}~\bibnamefont{Minakata}} \bibnamefont{and}

2681:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.}~\bibnamefont{Sugiyama}},

2682:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{B580}},

2683:   \bibinfo{pages}{216} (\bibinfo{year}{2004}), \eprint{hep-ph/0309323}.

2684: 

2685: \bibitem{PDG}

2686: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.}~\bibnamefont{Hagiwara}} \emph{et~al.}

2687:   (\bibinfo{collaboration}{{Particle} {Data} {Group}}), \bibinfo{journal}{Phys.

2688:   Rev.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{D66}}, \bibinfo{pages}{010001}

2689:   (\bibinfo{year}{2002}).

2690: 

2691: \bibitem{Geller:2001ix}

2692: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.~J.} \bibnamefont{Geller}} \bibnamefont{and}

2693:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Hara}},

2694:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{49}},

2695:   \bibinfo{pages}{98} (\bibinfo{year}{2001}),

2696:   \eprint[http://arXiv.org/abs]{hep-ph/0111342};

2697: %

2698: %\bibitem{Ohlsson:2003ip}

2699: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Ohlsson}} \bibnamefont{and}

2700:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{W.}~\bibnamefont{Winter}},

2701:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{D68}},

2702:   \bibinfo{pages}{073007} (\bibinfo{year}{2003}), \eprint{hep-ph/0307178};

2703: %

2704: %\bibitem{Pana}

2705: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.~V.} \bibnamefont{Panasyuk}},

2706:   \emph{\bibinfo{title}{Rem (reference earth model) web page}}

2707:   (\bibinfo{year}{2000}), \bibinfo{note}{{\tt

2708:   http://cfauvcs5.harvard.edu/lana/rem/index.htm}}.

2709: 

2710: \bibitem{Globes}

2711: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.}~\bibnamefont{Huber}},

2712:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Lindner}}, \bibnamefont{and}

2713:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{W.}~\bibnamefont{Winter}},

2714:   \emph{\bibinfo{title}{{GLoBES (Global Long Baseline Experiment Simulator)}}},

2715:   \bibinfo{note}{{\tt http://www.ph.tum.de/$^\sim$globes}}.

2716: 

2717: \bibitem{Freund:2001ui}

2718: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Freund}},

2719:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.}~\bibnamefont{Huber}}, \bibnamefont{and}

2720:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Lindner}},

2721:   \bibinfo{journal}{Nucl. Phys.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{B615}},

2722:   \bibinfo{pages}{331} (\bibinfo{year}{2001}),

2723:   \eprint[http://arXiv.org/abs]{hep-ph/0105071};

2724: %

2725: %\bibitem{Freund:2001pn}

2726: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Freund}},

2727:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{D64}},

2728:   \bibinfo{pages}{053003} (\bibinfo{year}{2001}), \eprint{hep-ph/0103300};

2729: %

2730: %\bibitem{Cervera:2000kp}

2731: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Cervera}} \emph{et~al.},

2732:   \bibinfo{journal}{Nucl. Phys.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{B579}},

2733:   \bibinfo{pages}{17} (\bibinfo{year}{2000}), \eprint{hep-ph/0002108}.

2734: 

2735: \bibitem{Akhmedov:2004ny}

2736: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{E.~K.} \bibnamefont{Akhmedov}},

2737:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.}~\bibnamefont{Johansson}},

2738:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Lindner}},

2739:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Ohlsson}}, \bibnamefont{and}

2740:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Schwetz}}

2741:   (\bibinfo{year}{2004}), \eprint{hep-ph/0402175}.

2742: 

2743: \bibitem{Burguet-Castell:2001ez}

2744: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Burguet-Castell}},

2745:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.~B.} \bibnamefont{Gavela}},

2746:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~J.} \bibnamefont{Gomez-Cadenas}},

2747:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.}~\bibnamefont{Hernandez}},

2748:   \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{O.}~\bibnamefont{Mena}},

2749:   \bibinfo{journal}{Nucl. Phys.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{B608}},

2750:   \bibinfo{pages}{301} (\bibinfo{year}{2001}),

2751:   \eprint[http://arXiv.org/abs]{hep-ph/0103258}.

2752: 

2753: \bibitem{Minakata:2001qm}

2754: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.}~\bibnamefont{Minakata}} \bibnamefont{and}

2755:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.}~\bibnamefont{Nunokawa}},

2756:   \bibinfo{journal}{JHEP} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{10}}, \bibinfo{pages}{001}

2757:   (\bibinfo{year}{2001}), \eprint[http://arXiv.org/abs]{hep-ph/0108085}.

2758: 

2759: \bibitem{Fogli:1996pv}

2760: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.~L.} \bibnamefont{Fogli}} \bibnamefont{and}

2761:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{E.}~\bibnamefont{Lisi}},

2762:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{D54}},

2763:   \bibinfo{pages}{3667} (\bibinfo{year}{1996}), \eprint{hep-ph/9604415}.

2764: 

2765: \bibitem{Barger:2001yr}

2766: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{V.}~\bibnamefont{Barger}},

2767:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.}~\bibnamefont{Marfatia}}, \bibnamefont{and}

2768:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.}~\bibnamefont{Whisnant}},

2769:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{D65}},

2770:   \bibinfo{pages}{073023} (\bibinfo{year}{2002}),

2771:   \eprint[http://arXiv.org/abs]{hep-ph/0112119}.

2772: 

2773: \bibitem{Fogli:2003th}

2774: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.~L.} \bibnamefont{Fogli}},

2775:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{E.}~\bibnamefont{Lisi}},

2776:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Marrone}}, \bibnamefont{and}

2777:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.}~\bibnamefont{Montanino}},

2778:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{D67}},

2779:   \bibinfo{pages}{093006} (\bibinfo{year}{2003}), \eprint{hep-ph/0303064};

2780: %

2781: %\bibitem{Fogli:2003am}

2782: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.~L.} \bibnamefont{Fogli}} \emph{et~al.},

2783:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{D69}},

2784:   \bibinfo{pages}{017301} (\bibinfo{year}{2004}), \eprint{hep-ph/0308055}.

2785: 

2786: \bibitem{Maltoni:2003da}

2787: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Maltoni}},

2788:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Schwetz}},

2789:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.~A.} \bibnamefont{Tortola}},

2790:   \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~W.~F.}

2791:   \bibnamefont{Valle}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev.}

2792:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{D68}}, \bibinfo{pages}{113010}

2793:   (\bibinfo{year}{2003}), \eprint{hep-ph/0309130}.

2794: 

2795: \bibitem{Gonzalez-Garcia:2001zy}

2796: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.~C.} \bibnamefont{Gonzalez-Garcia}}

2797:   \bibnamefont{and}

2798:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.}~\bibnamefont{Pe$\tilde{\mathrm{n}}$a-Gara%

2799: y}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{B527}},

2800:   \bibinfo{pages}{199} (\bibinfo{year}{2002}),

2801:   \eprint[http://arXiv.org/abs]{hep-ph/0111432};

2802: %

2803: %\bibitem{Barger:2000hy}

2804: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{V.~D.} \bibnamefont{Barger}},

2805:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.}~\bibnamefont{Marfatia}}, \bibnamefont{and}

2806:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{B.~P.} \bibnamefont{Wood}},

2807:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{B498}},

2808:   \bibinfo{pages}{53} (\bibinfo{year}{2001}), \eprint{hep-ph/0011251}.

2809: 

2810: \bibitem{NUMI714}

2811: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Diwan}} \emph{et~al.}

2812:   (\bibinfo{collaboration}{MINOS}), \emph{\bibinfo{title}{A study of

2813:   $\nu_\mu\rightarrow\nu_e$ sensitivity in MINOS}}, \bibinfo{type}{Tech. Rep.}

2814:   \bibinfo{number}{NuMI-L-714} (\bibinfo{year}{2001}).

2815: 

2816: \bibitem{Komatsu:2002sz}

2817: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Komatsu}},

2818:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.}~\bibnamefont{Migliozzi}},

2819:   \bibnamefont{and}

2820:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{F.}~\bibnamefont{Terranova}},

2821:   \bibinfo{journal}{J. Phys.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{G29}},

2822:   \bibinfo{pages}{443} (\bibinfo{year}{2003}), \eprint{hep-ph/0210043}.

2823: 

2824: \bibitem{Migliozzi:2003pw}

2825: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.}~\bibnamefont{Migliozzi}} \bibnamefont{and}

2826:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{F.}~\bibnamefont{Terranova}},

2827:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{B563}},

2828:   \bibinfo{pages}{73} (\bibinfo{year}{2003}), \eprint{hep-ph/0302274}.

2829: 

2830: \bibitem{Barger:2001yx}

2831: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{V.~D.} \bibnamefont{Barger}} \emph{et~al.},

2832:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{D65}},

2833:   \bibinfo{pages}{053016} (\bibinfo{year}{2002}),

2834:   \eprint[http://arXiv.org/abs]{hep-ph/0110393}.

2835: 

2836: \bibitem{Winter:2003ye}

2837: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{W.}~\bibnamefont{Winter}}

2838:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{D70}},

2839:   \bibinfo{pages}{033006} (\bibinfo{year}{2003}), \eprint{hep-ph/0310307}.

2840: 

2841: \bibitem{Wang:2001ys}

2842: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Y.~F.} \bibnamefont{Wang}},

2843:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.}~\bibnamefont{Whisnant}},

2844:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Z.-h.} \bibnamefont{Xiong}},

2845:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~M.} \bibnamefont{Yang}}, \bibnamefont{and}

2846:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{B.-L.} \bibnamefont{Young}}

2847:   (\bibinfo{collaboration}{VLBL Study Group H2B-4}), \bibinfo{journal}{Phys.

2848:   Rev.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{D65}}, \bibinfo{pages}{073021}

2849:   (\bibinfo{year}{2002}), \eprint{hep-ph/0111317};

2850: %

2851: %\bibitem{Apollonio:2002en}

2852: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Apollonio}} \emph{et~al.}

2853:   (\bibinfo{year}{2002}), \eprint[http://arXiv.org/abs]{hep-ph/0210192};

2854: %

2855: %\bibitem{Whisnant:2002fx}

2856: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.}~\bibnamefont{Whisnant}},

2857:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~M.} \bibnamefont{Yang}}, \bibnamefont{and}

2858:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{B.-L.} \bibnamefont{Young}},

2859:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{D67}},

2860:   \bibinfo{pages}{013004} (\bibinfo{year}{2003}), \eprint{hep-ph/0208193};

2861: %

2862: %\bibitem{Barger:2002rr}

2863: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{V.}~\bibnamefont{Barger}},

2864:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.}~\bibnamefont{Marfatia}}, \bibnamefont{and}

2865:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.}~\bibnamefont{Whisnant}},

2866:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{D66}},

2867:   \bibinfo{pages}{053007} (\bibinfo{year}{2002}),

2868:   \eprint[http://arXiv.org/abs]{hep-ph/0206038};

2869: %

2870: %\bibitem{Bouchez:2003fy}

2871: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Bouchez}},

2872:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Lindroos}}, \bibnamefont{and}

2873:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Mezzetto}}

2874:   (\bibinfo{year}{2003}), \eprint{hep-ex/0310059};

2875: %

2876: %\bibitem{Burguet-Castell:2002qx}

2877: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Burguet-Castell}},

2878:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.~B.} \bibnamefont{Gavela}},

2879:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~J.} \bibnamefont{Gomez-Cadenas}},

2880:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.}~\bibnamefont{Hernandez}},

2881:   \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{O.}~\bibnamefont{Mena}},

2882:   \bibinfo{journal}{Nucl. Phys.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{B646}},

2883:   \bibinfo{pages}{301} (\bibinfo{year}{2002}),

2884:   \eprint[http://arXiv.org/abs]{hep-ph/0207080};

2885: %

2886: %\bibitem{Donini:2002rm}

2887: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Donini}},

2888:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.}~\bibnamefont{Meloni}}, \bibnamefont{and}

2889:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.}~\bibnamefont{Migliozzi}},

2890:   \bibinfo{journal}{Nucl. Phys.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{B646}},

2891:   \bibinfo{pages}{321} (\bibinfo{year}{2002}),

2892:   \eprint[http://arXiv.org/abs]{hep-ph/0206034};

2893: %

2894: %\bibitem{Zucchelli:2002sa}

2895: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.}~\bibnamefont{Zucchelli}},

2896:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{B532}},

2897:   \bibinfo{pages}{166} (\bibinfo{year}{2002});

2898: %

2899: %\bibitem{Burguet-Castell:2003vv}

2900: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Burguet-Castell}},

2901:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.}~\bibnamefont{Casper}},

2902:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~J.} \bibnamefont{Gomez-Cadenas}},

2903:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.}~\bibnamefont{Hernandez}},

2904:   \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{F.}~\bibnamefont{Sanchez}}

2905:   (\bibinfo{year}{2003}), \eprint{hep-ph/0312068};

2906: %

2907: %\bibitem{Huber:2003ak}

2908: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.}~\bibnamefont{Huber}} \bibnamefont{and}

2909:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{W.}~\bibnamefont{Winter}},

2910:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{D68}},

2911:   \bibinfo{pages}{037301} (\bibinfo{year}{2003}), \eprint{hep-ph/0301257};

2912: %

2913: %\bibitem{Autiero:2003fu}

2914: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.}~\bibnamefont{Autiero}} \emph{et~al.}

2915:   (\bibinfo{year}{2003}), \eprint{hep-ph/0305185};

2916: %

2917: %\bibitem{Asratyan:2003dp}

2918: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Asratyan}} \emph{et~al.},

2919:   \bibinfo{journal}{Science} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{124}},

2920:   \bibinfo{pages}{103} (\bibinfo{year}{2003}), \eprint{hep-ex/0303023};

2921: %

2922: %\bibitem{Winter:2003st}

2923: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{W.}~\bibnamefont{Winter}}

2924:   (\bibinfo{year}{2003}), \eprint{hep-ph/0308227}.

2925: 

2926: \bibitem{MG}

2927: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Goodman}},

2928:   \bibinfo{note}{private communication};

2929: %

2930: %\bibitem{MESSIER}

2931: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.~D.} \bibnamefont{Messier}},

2932:   \bibinfo{note}{private communication}.

2933: 

2934: \bibitem{CNGSflux}

2935: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{CNGS}},

2936:   \bibinfo{note}{\eprint{http://proj-cngs.web.cern.ch/proj-cngs/Menu/CNGS.htm}%

2937: }.

2938: 

2939: \bibitem{herve}

2940: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.}~\bibnamefont{de~Kerret}},

2941:   \bibinfo{note}{private communication}.

2942: 

2943: \bibitem{Kajita:2001sb}

2944: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Kajita}},

2945:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.}~\bibnamefont{Minakata}},

2946:   \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.}~\bibnamefont{Nunokawa}},

2947:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{B528}},

2948:   \bibinfo{pages}{245} (\bibinfo{year}{2002}), \eprint{hep-ph/0112345}.

2949: 

2950: \end{thebibliography}

2951: 

2952: 

2953: \end{document}

2954: 

2955: