1: \documentclass[a4paper]{JHEP3}

2: 

3: \usepackage[english]{babel}

4: \usepackage{amsmath,amssymb}

5: \usepackage[dvips]{graphicx}

6: \usepackage{ifthen,array}

7: \usepackage[comma,square,sort&compress]{natbib}

8: \usepackage{amsfonts}

9: \usepackage{bbm}

10: 

11: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.25}

12: 

13: \allowdisplaybreaks

14: 

15: % Command definitions

16: 

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

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

19: \newcommand{\pnu}[1] {\overset{\smash{\scriptscriptstyle (-)}}

20: {\nu}_{\hskip-3pt #1}}

21: \newcommand{\CL}   {C.L.}

22: \newcommand{\dof}  {d.o.f.}

23: \newcommand{\eVq}  {\text{eV}^2}

24: \newcommand{\Sol}  {\textsc{sol}}

25: \newcommand{\SlKm} {\textsc{sol+kam}}

26: \newcommand{\Atm}  {\textsc{atm}}

27: \newcommand{\Chooz}{\textsc{chooz}}

28: \newcommand{\Dms}  {\Delta m^2_\Sol}

29: \newcommand{\Dma}  {\Delta m^2_\Atm}

30: \newcommand{\Dcq}  {\Delta\chi^2}

31: \newcommand{\EtAl}  {{\it et al.\/}}

32: \newcommand{\flux}[2][]{\ensuremath{\ifthenelse{\equal{#1}{}}{}{^{#1}\!}

33: \mathit{#2}}}

34: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

35: 

36: \newcommand{\AddrAHEP}{

37:   AHEP Group, Instituto de F\'{\i}sica Corpuscular --

38:   C.S.I.C./Universitat de Val{\`e}ncia \\

39:   Edificio Institutos de Paterna, Apt 22085, E--46071 Val{\`e}ncia, Spain}

40: 

41:  \title{Geotomography with  solar and supernova neutrinos}

42: 

43: \author{ E. Kh. Akhmedov\thanks{On leave from the National Research

44:     Centre Kurchatov Institute, Moscow, Russia} \\

45: 

46: The Abdus Salam International Centre for Theoretical Physics \\ 

47: Strada Costiera 11, 34014 Trieste, Italy \\

48:   E-mail:  \email{akhmedov@ictp.trieste.it}}

49: 

50: \author{

51: M.~A.~T{\'o}rtola and

52:   J.~W.~F.~Valle \\

53:   \AddrAHEP \\

54:   E-mail:  \email{mariam@ific.uv.es},

55:   \email{valle@ific.uv.es}}

56: 

57: \abstract{ We show how by studying the Earth matter effect on

58:   oscillations of solar and supernova neutrinos inside the Earth one

59:   can in principle reconstruct the electron number density profile of

60:   the Earth.  A direct inversion of the oscillation problem is

61:   possible due to the existence of a very simple analytic formula for

62:   the Earth matter effect on oscillations of solar and supernova

63:   neutrinos. From the point of view of the Earth tomography, these

64:   oscillations have a number of advantages over the oscillations of

65:   the accelerator or atmospheric neutrinos, which stem from the fact

66:   that solar and supernova neutrinos are coming to the Earth as mass

67:   eigenstates rather than flavour eigenstates. In particular, this

68:   allows reconstruction of density profiles even over relatively short

69:   neutrino path lengths in the Earth, and also of asymmetric profiles.

70:   We study the requirements that future experiments must meet to

71:   achieve a given accuracy of the tomography of the Earth.  }

72: 

73: \keywords{Neutrino mass and mixing; solar and supernova neutrinos;  

74:   Earth structure}

75: 

76: \preprint{

77: IFIC/05-15 \\

78:   hep-ph/0502154}

79:   

80: \begin{document}

81: 

82: \section{Introduction}

83: The idea to use neutrinos in order to probe the interior of the Earth was 

84: originally put forward more than 30 years ago \cite{Volkova}, and since then 

85: has undergone a number of improvements and modifications  \cite{DeRujula:1983ya,

86: Wilson:1983an,Askarian:ca,Borisov:sm,Jain:1999kp,Ermilova:pw,Chechin,

87: Nicolaidis:fe,Nicolaidis:1990jm,Ohlsson:2001ck,Ohlsson:2001fy,

88: Ioannisian:2002yj,Lindner:2002wm,Winter:2005we}. In the present paper we offer 

89: a new insight into this problem, based on some recent theoretical and 

90: experimental developments in neutrino physics. 

91: 

92: There are in general two possible approaches to the problem of probing 

93: the Earth's structure with neutrinos: neutrino absorption tomography 

94: \cite{Volkova,DeRujula:1983ya,Wilson:1983an,Askarian:ca,Borisov:sm,Jain:1999kp} 

95: and neutrino oscillation tomography \cite{Ermilova:pw,Chechin,Nicolaidis:fe,

96: Nicolaidis:1990jm,Ohlsson:2001ck,Ohlsson:2001fy,Ioannisian:2002yj,

97: Lindner:2002wm}. The absorption tomography is based on the attenuation of the 

98: flux of neutrinos due to their scattering and absorption inside the Earth and 

99: so is only sensitive to the cumulative effect of neutrino absorption 

100: and deflection along its trajectory. Therefore the absorption tomography 

101: cannot give information about the matter density distribution along a given 

102: neutrino trajectory inside the Earth and requires many baselines to 

103: reconstruct the Earth's density profile.

104: 

105: The oscillation tomography of the Earth is possible due to the fact that 

106: neutrino oscillations in matter are different from those in vacuum 

107: \cite{Wolfenstein:1977ue,Mikheev:gs}. By studying matter effect on neutrino 

108: oscillations one can therefore probe the matter density distribution 

109: along the neutrino path. Being based on an interference phenomenon, the 

110: neutrino oscillation tomography has a much richer potential for studying the 

111: structure of the Earth. In particular, it is in principle possible to use 

112: just one baseline and probe the Earth's density at various points along 

113: the neutrino trajectory. 

114: 

115: In most studies on neutrino oscillation tomography, accelerators were 

116: considered  as the neutrino source. However, solar and supernova neutrinos 

117: have a number of advantages over the accelerator neutrinos in this respect 

118: as the probe of the Earth's interior \cite{Ioannisian:2002yj,Lindner:2002wm}. 

119: %

120: First and foremost, the Sun and a supernova provide us with a free source 

121: of neutrinos. 

122: %

123: In addition, it is very important that, due to the loss of coherence on 

124: their way to the Earth, solar and supernova neutrinos arrive at the Earth as 

125: mass eigenstates rather than flavour eigenstates. For oscillations of mass

126: eigenstate neutrinos in a medium, matter effects fully develop at much

127: shorter distances than they do for flavour eigenstates

128: \cite{Akhmedov:2000cs}, therefore by using solar or supernova

129: neutrinos one can probe the Earth's density distribution even over

130: relatively short neutrino path lengths inside the Earth.  Another

131: virtue of studying the oscillations of mass eigenstate neutrinos in

132: matter is that in that case asymmetric density profiles can be

133: reconstructed

134: \cite{Ioannisian:2002yj,deHolanda:2004fd,Ioannisian:2004jk}. 

135: 

136: Although to first approximation the Earth's density profile can be

137: considered as spherically symmetric, some deviations from perfect

138: symmetry are possible, especially over relatively short scales.

139: Exploring such short-scale inhomogeneities would be of particular

140: interest from the point of view of the possibility of oil or gas

141: prospecting \cite{Ohlsson:2001fy,Ioannisian:2002yj}.  As was shown in

142: \cite{Akhmedov:2001kd}, studying asymmetric density profiles through

143: the usual oscillations of flavour eigenstate neutrinos is practically

144: impossible (see also the discussion in section \ref{sec:symasym}).

145: 

146: Direct inversion of the neutrino oscillations problem in order to reconstruct 

147: the matter density profile is in general a difficult and subtle mathematical 

148: problem -- it reduces to the reconstruction of the potential of the 

149: Schr\"odinger equation from its solution. In the two-flavour case, this in 

150: general requires the knowledge of the energy dependence of the absolute 

151: value of one of the components of the neutrino wave function and also of 

152: the relative phase between the two components \cite{Ermilova:pw,Chechin}, 

153: which is not measured in neutrino flavour oscillation experiments. Therefore, 

154: one usually has to resort to indirect methods, for example, by generating 

155: random density distributions and comparing the corresponding predictions for 

156: oscillation probabilities with simulated data for the ``true'' profile 

157: \cite{Nicolaidis:1990jm,Ohlsson:2001ck,Ohlsson:2001fy}. This is a complicated 

158: and time consuming procedure of limited accuracy. Indeed, one normally 

159: represents the matter density profile along the neutrino path as a relatively 

160: small number of layers of constant and randomly chosen densities, which gives 

161: rather poor resolution due to the obvious limitation on the number of layers. 

162: 

163: 

164: In the present paper we develop a novel {\em direct} approach to the

165: neutrino oscillation tomography of the Earth. It is based on a

166: recently found simple expression for the Earth matter effect on the

167: oscillations of solar and supernova neutrinos in the Earth.  The

168: similarity of this expression to the Fourier transform of the Earth's

169: density profile allows one to employ a modified inverse Fourier

170: transformation and reconstruct the density profile in a simple and

171: straightforward way.

172: 

173: The paper is organized as follows. In section~\ref{sec:gener} we

174: discuss some general features of the Earth matter effect on

175: oscillations of solar and supernova neutrinos inside the Earth and

176: present the main formulas which will be used for the inversion of the

177: oscillation problem. In section~\ref{sec:symasym} we consider the

178: advantages of oscillations of solar and supernova neutrinos over the

179: other neutrino oscillations in reconstructing asymmetric matter

180: density profiles. In section~\ref{sec:lin} we consider the inversion

181: procedure based on the simplest formula for the Earth regeneration

182: factor, valid for neutrino path length inside the Earth $L\ll 1700$ km

183: (linear regime). We also develop simple iteration procedures which

184: allow one to overcome the difficulty related to the lack of knowledge

185: of the regeneration factor in the domain of high neutrino energies. In

186: section~\ref{sec:nonlin} we briefly discuss the Earth density

187: reconstruction based on the more accurate expression for the Earth

188: regeneration factor, which allows one to study longer neutrino path

189: lengths in the Earth (non-linear regime).  The requirements to the

190: experimental setups which have to be met in order to achieve a given

191: accuracy of the reconstructed Earth density profile are considered in

192: section~\ref{sec:exptl}. In particular, we discuss the effects of

193: finite energy resolution of the detector on the accuracy of the

194: oscillation tomography of the Earth. Our main results are summarized

195: and discussed in section~\ref{sec:disc}. Some technical details of our

196: calculations are given in the Appendix.

197: 

198: 

199: \section{Generalities}

200: \label{sec:gener}

201: 

202: In the 3-flavour framework, neutrino oscillations are in general described

203: by two mass squared differences, $\Delta m_{21}^2$ and $\Delta m_{31}^2$, 

204: three mixing angles, $\theta_{12}$, $\theta_{13}$ and $\theta_{23}$, and

205: the Dirac-type CP-violating phase $\delta_{\rm CP}$. For oscillations

206: of solar or supernova neutrinos inside the Earth, the third mass

207: eigenstate essentially decouples, and the relevant parameters are

208: $\Delta m_{21}^2$, $\theta_{12}$ and $\theta_{13}$

209: \cite{Blennow:2003xw,Akhmedov:2004rq}.  The first two of these are

210: determined from the solar neutrino data and long-baseline reactor

211: experiment KamLAND \cite{solardata,KamLAND}, while for the mixing

212: angle $\theta_{13}$ only an upper bound exists.

213: For example, the recent global fit of neutrino 

214: data of ref.~\cite{Maltoni:2004ei} gives for the solar neutrino oscillation 

215: parameters the $3\sigma$ allowed ranges $\theta_{12}=(28.7\div 38.1)

216: ^\circ$ and $\Delta m_{21}^2=(7.1\div 8.9)\times 10^{-5}$ eV$^2$, 

217: with the best-fit values $\theta_{12}=33.2^\circ$ and $\Delta m_{21}^2 =

218: 7.9\times 10^{-5} $eV$^2$, while for the mixing angle $\theta_{13}$ 

219: one finds $\theta_{13} \lesssim 9.1^\circ~(13.1)^\circ$, or $\sin \theta_{13} 

220: \lesssim 0.16~(0.23)$ at 90\% C.L. (3$\sigma$). 

221: 

222: Consider a flux of solar or supernova neutrinos arriving at the Earth 

223: and traveling a distance $L$ inside the Earth before reaching the 

224: detector. Due to the loss of coherence on their way to the Earth,

225: the incoming neutrinos represent an incoherent sum of fluxes of 

226: mass-eigenstate neutrinos (see, e.g., ref.~\cite{Dighe:1999id}).

227: The Earth matter effect on oscillations of such neutrinos inside the 

228: Earth is fully described by the so-called regeneration factor 

229: $P_{2e}^{\oplus}-P_{2e}^{(0)}$. Here $P_{2e}^{\oplus}$ is the probability 

230: that a neutrino arriving at the Earth as a mass eigenstate $\nu_2$ is 

231: found at the detector in the $\nu_e$ state after having traveled a 

232: distance $L$ inside the Earth, and $P_{2e}^{(0)}$ is the projection of the 

233: second mass eigenstate onto $\nu_e$: $P_{2e}^{(0)}=|U_{e2}|^2$, $U$ being 

234: the leptonic mixing matrix in vacuum. Note that $P_{2e}^{(0)}$ is in fact 

235: the value of $P_{2e}^\oplus$ in the limit of vanishing matter density  

236: or zero distance traveled inside the Earth. 

237: 

238: 

239: As has been shown in \cite{Akhmedov:2004rq}, in the 3-flavour 

240: framework the Earth 

241: regeneration factor for solar and supernova neutrinos can be written as 

242: \begin{equation}

243: P_{2e}^\oplus-P_{2e}^{(0)}=\frac{1}{2}\,\cos^2\theta_{13}\,\sin^2 

244: 2\theta_{12}\,f(\delta)\,,

245: \label{reg}

246: \end{equation}

247: where

248: \begin{equation}

249: %P_{2e}^{\oplus}-P_{2e}^{(0)}= c_{13}^4 \sin^2 2\theta_{12}\frac{1}{2}

250: f(\delta)=\int_0^L\! dx \,V(x) \sin\left[2\int\limits_x^{L}\!\omega(x')

251: \,dx'\right]\,, 

252: \label{f1}

253: \end{equation}

254: with

255: \begin{equation}

256: \omega(x)=\sqrt{[\cos 2\theta_{12}\,\delta-V(x)/2]^2+\delta^2

257: \sin^2 2\theta_{12}}\,,\qquad\qquad 

258: \delta=\frac{\Delta m_{21}^2}{4E}\,. 

259: \label{omega}

260: \end{equation}

261: The effective matter-induced potential of neutrinos $V(x)$ in eqs. 

262: (\ref{f1}) and (\ref{omega}) is related to the charged-current 

263: potential 

264: $V_{\rm CC}(x)$ through

265: \begin{equation}

266: V(x)=\cos^2\theta_{13} V_{\rm CC}(x)=\cos^2\theta_{13} \sqrt{2}\,G_F\,

267: N_e(x)\,,

268: \label{Vcc}

269: \end{equation}

270: where $G_F$ is the Fermi constant and $N_e(x)$ is the electron number density 

271: in matter, $x$ being the coordinate along the neutrino path in the Earth. 

272: The 2-flavour ($\theta_{13}=0$) version of eqs.~(\ref{reg})-(\ref{omega}) 

273: was derived in~\cite{Ioannisian:2004jk}, and similar formulas were also 

274: found in ref.~\cite{deHolanda:2004fd}.  

275: 

276: Equations (\ref{reg}) and (\ref{f1}) were obtained under the assumption 

277: $V(x)\ll 2\delta$, which is very well satisfied for oscillations of solar 

278: neutrinos in the Earth. It is also satisfied with a good accuracy for 

279: supernova neutrinos (except for very high energy ones, which are on the 

280: tail of the supernova neutrino spectrum).  If, in addition, one also 

281: requires $V L\ll 1$, eq.~(\ref{f1}) simplifies to \cite{Akhmedov:2004rq} 

282: \begin{equation}

283: f(\delta)=\int_0^L V(y)\sin 2\delta (L-y) dy\,.

284: \label{f2}

285: \end{equation}

286: 

287: Equation (\ref{f2}) is very suggestive: it has a Fourier integral 

288: form and actually means that in the small $V$ limit the function 

289: $f(\delta)$ is just the Fourier transform of matter-induced neutrino 

290: potential $V(x)$ 

291: \footnote{The finite range of integration in (\ref{f2}) is related to 

292: the fact that the function $V(x)$ is defined on the finite interval 

293: $0\le x \le L$.}.

294: Therefore, if $f(\delta)$ is determined experimentally through 

295: eq.~(\ref{reg}), one can employ the inverse Fourier transformation to 

296: reconstruct the effective matter-induced potential  $V(x)$: 

297: \begin{equation}

298: V(x)=\frac{4}{\pi}\int_0^\infty f(\delta)\sin 2\delta (L-x) d\delta\,.

299: \label{inv1}

300: \end{equation}

301: The electron number density profile of the Earth $N_e(x)$ can then be 

302: found from eq.~(\ref{Vcc}). 

303: 

304: The Earth density profile could in principle be exactly reconstructed 

305: from the solar and supernova neutrino data through eq. (\ref{inv1}) 

306: under the following conditions: 

307: 

308: \begin{enumerate}

309: \item

310: Eqs. (\ref{reg}) and (\ref{f2}) are exact;

311: 

312: \item

313: The function $f(\delta)$ is precisely measured in the whole interval 

314: $0\le\delta < \infty$ (i.e. in the infinite interval of neutrino energies 

315: $0\le E < \infty$);

316: 

317: \item The $\delta$-dependence of the function $f(\delta)$ is known

318:   precisely, i.e the detectors have perfect energy resolution, and can

319:   determine the energy of incoming neutrinos from those of the

320:   secondary particles. In addition, the neutrino parameters $\Delta

321:   m_{21}^2$, $\theta_{12}$ and $\theta_{13}$ are precisely known.

322: \end{enumerate}

323: 

324: In reality, none of these conditions is satisfied: eqs. (\ref{reg}) and 

325: (\ref{f2}) are only valid in the limit $V(x)\ll 2\delta$, $\,V L\ll 1$, 

326: the regeneration factor $P_{2e}^\oplus-P_{2e}^{(0)}$ (and so the function 

327: $f(\delta))$ can only be measured in a finite interval of energies and with 

328: some experimental errors, 

329: the detectors have finite energy resolution and can only 

330: give limited information on the energy of incoming neutrinos, and 

331: the neutrino parameters are only known with certain experimental 

332: uncertainties. In what follows we will study the constraints that these 

333: limitations put on the accuracy of the reconstructed potential $V(x)$, 

334: by relaxing conditions (1) -- (3) one by one. Conversely, we shall discuss 

335: the requirements that are put on the experimental installations by the 

336: condition of reconstructing the potential $V(x)$ with a given accuracy. 

337: We will also discuss the ways in which some of the above-mentioned 

338: limitations can be overcome. 

339: 

340: \section{Symmetric versus asymmetric density profiles}

341: \label{sec:symasym}

342: 

343: By symmetric density profiles we mean the profiles that are symmetric with 

344: respect to the midpoint of the neutrino trajectory inside the Earth. 

345: They give rise to the potentials that have the same property, i.e. 

346: \begin{equation}

347: V(L-x)=V(x)\,. 

348: \label{sym}

349: \end{equation}

350: If the electron number density of the Earth $N_e$ was 

351: exactly spherically symmetric, the corresponding neutrino potential $V(x)$ 

352: would have satisfied eq.~(\ref{sym}). However, this symmetry is only 

353: approximate; in particular, it is violated by inhomogeneities of the Earth's 

354: density distribution on short length scales. Studying these inhomogeneities  

355: may be especially interesting, e.g., from the point of view of possible oil or 

356: gas prospecting. 

357:         

358: Effects of asymmetric density profiles on oscillations of solar

359: neutrinos in the Earth have been previously discussed in

360: \cite{Ioannisian:2002yj,deHolanda:2004fd, Ioannisian:2004jk}. Here we

361: give a more detailed discussion of neutrino oscillations in asymmetric

362: matter and also compare in this context mass-to-flavour and pure

363: flavour neutrino oscillations.

364: 

365: It is easy to show that in the two-flavour (2f) framework the probabilities 

366: of oscillations between neutrinos of different flavour are the same for the

367: potentials $V(x)$ and \mbox{$V(L-x)$}. Indeed, the 2f neutrino oscillation 

368: probabilities are invariant under the time reversal transformation $P_{ab}\to 

369: P_{ba}$. This follows from the unitarity relations 

370: \begin{eqnarray}

371: P_{aa}+P_{ab} &=& 1\,, \nonumber \\

372: P_{aa}+P_{ba} &=& 1\,,

373: \label{unit1}

374: \end{eqnarray}

375: which enforce $P_{ab}=P_{ba}$ \cite{deGouvea:2000un,Akhmedov:2001kd}. On the 

376: other hand, for an arbitrary number of flavours, time reversal transformation 

377: of the probabilities of neutrino oscillations in matter is equivalent to 

378: flipping the sign of the Dirac-type CP-violating phases $\{\delta_{\rm CP}\}$ 

379: and replacing the potential $V(x)$ with the reverse potential $V(L-x)$ 

380: \cite{Akhmedov:2001kd}. Since Dirac-type CP-violation is absent in the 2f 

381: case, from $P_{ab}=P_{ba}$ one immediately finds that 2f oscillation 

382: probabilities are invariant under the transformation $V(x)\to V(L-x)$. 

383: 

384: This can also be expressed in the following way. The evolution matrix $S$ of 

385: a 2f neutrino system is a $2\times 2$ unitary matrix which 

386: can be written in the flavour eigenstate basis as 

387: %

388: \begin{equation} 

389: S=\left( \begin{array}{cc} ~\alpha & ~\beta

390: \\ -\beta^* & ~~\alpha^* \end{array} \right) 

391: \label{S} 

392: \end{equation}

393: %

394: with $|\alpha|^2+|\beta|^2=1$. In terms of the elements of $S$, the 

395: oscillation probabilities are given as $P_{ab}=|S_{ba}|^2$. Hence, time 

396: reversal of the evolution matrix (which in the 2f case is equivalent to the 

397: transformation $V(x)\to V(L-x)$) reduces to the transposition $S_{ab}\to 

398: S_{ba}$, i.e.  

399: \begin{equation} 

400: \alpha \to \alpha\,, \qquad\qquad \beta \to -\beta^*\,. 

401: \label{Trev} 

402: \end{equation}

403: Since the transition probabilities $P_{ab}=|\beta|^2$, as well as the survival 

404: probabilities $P_{aa}=|\alpha|^2$, are invariant under the transformation 

405: (\ref{Trev}), they cannot discriminate between the potentials $V(x)$ and 

406: $V(L-x)$. This means that flavour oscillations cannot be used for a unique   

407: reconstruction of asymmetric density profiles: there will always be a two-fold 

408: ambiguity.

409: 

410: The situation is drastically different when one considers the transitions 

411: between the mass and flavour eigenstates, as is the case for oscillations 

412: of solar and supernova neutrinos inside the Earth. In that case the 

413: unitarity conditions read

414: \begin{eqnarray}

415: P_{1e} \,&+& \, P_{2e} = 1\,, \nonumber \\

416: P_{1e}^{(0)} &+& P_{2e}^{(0)} = 1\,,

417: \label{unit2}

418: \end{eqnarray}

419: from which one only finds $P_{2e}-P_{2e}^{(0)}=-(P_{1e}^{(0)}-P_{1e}^{(0)})$, 

420: and no restrictions on the behaviour of the probabilities under the 

421: replacement $V(x)\to V(L-x)$ follow. In fact, it was shown in 

422: \cite{Akhmedov:2004rq} that in the 2f case the Earth regeneration factor 

423: $P_{2e}-P_{2e}^{(0)}$ can be expressed through the elements of the matrix 

424: $S$ as

425: \begin{equation}

426: P_{2e}-P_{2e}^{(0)}=\cos 2\theta_{12} |\beta|^2+2 \sin 2\theta_{12}{\rm Re}

427: (\alpha^* \beta)\,.

428: \label{TT}

429: \end{equation} While the first term on the right-hand side of eq.~(\ref{TT}) is

430: invariant with respect to the transformation (\ref{Trev}), the second

431: is in general not \footnote{It is only invariant when $\beta$ is pure

432:   imaginary, which is the case for symmetric density profiles

433:   \cite{Akhmedov:2001kd}. }.  Thus, unlike the flavour oscillations,

434: the oscillations of mass eigenstate neutrinos into flavour eigenstate

435: ones can be used to uniquely reconstruct asymmetric density profiles

436: even in the 2f framework. As was shown in

437: refs.~\cite{Blennow:2003xw,Akhmedov:2004rq}, in the case of

438: oscillations of solar or supernova neutrinos inside the Earth the

439: third neutrino flavour essentially decouples, and to a very high

440: accuracy the problem is reduced to an effective 2-flavour one.

441: Therefore, our conclusion about the impossibility of using the neutrino

442: flavour oscillations inside the Earth for an unambiguous

443: reconstruction of asymmetric density profiles holds also in the

444:   3-flavour case, hence the superiority of mass-to-flavour

445:   oscillations.  This is in accord with the previous findings that

446: matter-induced T violation in neutrino flavour oscillations inside the

447: Earth is too small to be measured~\cite{Akhmedov:2001kd}.

448: 

449: \section{Linear regime}

450: \label{sec:lin}

451: 

452: The linear regime of the inverse problem of neutrino oscillations in the Earth is 

453: based on the simple formula (\ref{f2}) for the function $f(\delta)$, which was 

454: derived under the assumptions

455: \begin{equation}

456: V/2\delta \ll 1\,,\qquad\quad V L\ll 1\,. 

457: \label{cond2}

458: \end{equation} 

459: For the matter density in the upper mantle of the Earth,

460: $\rho\simeq 3$ g/cm$^3$, the second of these conditions leads to the

461: upper limit on the allowed neutrino path lengths in the Earth \begin{equation} L\ll

462: 1700 ~\mbox{km}\,,

463: \label{upper}

464: \end{equation}

465: which we will now assume to be satisfied. This condition will be relaxed in 

466: the discussion of the non-linear regime in section~\ref{sec:nonlin}. 

467: %

468: \subsection{Integration over finite energy intervals}

469: \label{sec:finiteInt}

470: 

471: We shall first assume that eqs. (\ref{reg}) and (\ref{f2}) are exact, 

472: but the function $f(\delta)$ is only known in a finite interval 

473: $[\delta_{min}, \delta_{max}]$ (i.e. in a finite interval of neutrino 

474: energies $E_{min}\le E\le E_{max}$). To study the effects of finite 

475: $\delta_{min}$ and $\delta_{max}$, consider the integral of the type 

476: (\ref{inv1}) in the finite limits:

477: \begin{equation}

478: \frac{4}{\pi}\int_{\delta_{min}}^{\delta_{max}}\!f(\delta)\sin 2\delta 

479: (L-x) d\delta=\frac{1}{\pi}\int_0^L\!dy V(y)\left.\!\left\{\frac{\sin 

480: 2\delta (x-y)}{x-y}-\frac{\sin 2\delta(2L-x-y)}{2L-x-y}\right\}

481: \right|_{\delta_{min}}^{\delta_{max}}.

482: \label{aux1}

483: \end{equation}

484: Here we have used eq. (\ref{f2}), changed the order of integrations 

485: and performed the integral over $\delta$.

486: 

487: 

488: Ideally, one would like to have $\delta_{min} L\ll 1$ and $\delta_{max} L\gg 1$ 

489: in order that the integral in eq.~(\ref{aux1}) approach the integral over the 

490: infinite interval $0\le \delta < \infty$ in eq.~(\ref{inv1}) as closely as 

491: possible. As we shall see, having large enough $\delta_{max}$ in principle does 

492: not pose a problem.

493: In contrast to this, in most situations of practical interest $\delta_{min}

494: \gtrsim L^{-1}$, i.e. the condition $\delta_{min} L\ll 1$ is not satisfied, 

495: which could be a serious problem. 

496: We shall show, however, that this difficulty can be readily overcome.  

497: 

498: Let us first study the effect of finite $\delta_{max}$ in eq.~(\ref{aux1}). 

499: In the limit $k\to\infty$, the function $\sin kx/x$ goes to $\pi\delta(x)$ 

500: \footnote{Note that here $\delta(x)$ denotes Dirac's delta-function, not to 

501: be confused with the parameter $\delta$ defined in eq. (\ref{omega}).}, 

502: therefore for $\delta_{max}\to \infty$ the upper limit of the integral in 

503: (\ref{aux1}) would yield $V(x)-V(2L-x)$, i.e. essentially the potential $V(x)$ 

504: (note that $V(2L-x)=0$ for all $x\ne L$). The function $g(x)=\sin kx/x$ for 

505: finite $k>0$ is plotted in fig.~\ref{fig:g}. The width of its central peak is 

506: $\simeq \pi/k$. With increasing $k$, the peak becomes higher and narrower, and 

507: the amplitude of the side oscillations quickly decreases. It is therefore 

508: clear that finite $\delta_{max}$ leads to the finite coordinate resolution 

509: $\Delta x\simeq \pi/\delta_{max}$ of the reconstructed potential $V(x)$ as 

510: well as to small oscillations of the reconstructed potential around the 

511: true one. 

512: %

513: \begin{figure}[htbp]

514:   \centering

515: \includegraphics[height=7.5cm,width=.7\linewidth,clip]{fig1.eps}

516:   \caption{Function $g(x)=\sin(kx)/x$}

517:  \label{fig:g}

518: \end{figure}

519: %

520: 

521: Large values of $\delta$ correspond to small values of neutrino energy 

522: $E$ (see eq.~(\ref{omega})), therefore, the smaller the neutrino energy, 

523: the shorter the coordinate scale on which the Earth density profile can 

524: be probed. This may look somewhat counter-intuitive; however, one 

525: should remember that we are probing the Earth density distribution with 

526: neutrino oscillations rather than with direct neutrino-matter 

527: interactions. The smaller the neutrino energy, the shorter the 

528: oscillation length, and so the finer the density structures that can 

529: be probed. 

530: %

531: In future low-energy solar neutrino experiments, neutrinos of energies

532: as small as a hundred keV  to 1 MeV can probably be detected

533: \cite{Raghavan,Ejiri:1999rk,LOWE}; this would correspond to

534: $\delta_{max}\simeq (2\div 20)\times 10^{-11}$ eV, or $\Delta x\sim

535: \pi/\delta_{max}\simeq (3\div 30)$ km, which is a very good coordinate

536: resolution \footnote{This holds in the idealized case of perfect

537:   energy resolution of neutrino detectors. Finite energy resolution of

538:   the detectors is expected to reduce the coordinate resolution of the

539:   reconstruction procedure, see section~\ref{sec:finiteE}.}. For the

540: neutrino path lengths $L\gtrsim 100$ km one finds $\delta_{max} L

541: \gtrsim (10\div 100)$, i.e. the condition $\delta_{max} L \gg 1$ can

542: be easily met.

543: 

544: At the same time, as we have already mentioned, having a sufficiently

545: small $\delta_{min}$ may be a fundamental problem. There are two

546: reasons for that.  First, small $\delta_{min}$ implies large neutrino

547: energies, and there are upper limits to the available neutrino

548: energies. The spectrum of solar neutrinos extends up to 15 MeV ($hep$

549: neutrinos have slightly higher energies, but their flux is very

550: small); the average energy of supernova neutrinos is $\sim 20$

551: MeV~\cite{Keil:2002in}.  Yet, this problem can to some extent be

552: alleviated, at least in principle.  It might be possible to measure

553: the Earth matter effect for supernova neutrinos of energies up to

554: $\sim 100$ MeV, which are on the high-energy tail of the spectrum, but

555: still not too far from the mean energy. Thus, for a nearby supernova

556: and large enough detectors one can probably have sufficient

557: statistics.

558: 

559: The second obstacle is of more fundamental nature. Our expressions (\ref{f1}) 

560: and (\ref{f2}) are only valid in the approximation $V/2\delta \ll 1$, which 

561: may break down for too small $\delta_{min}$. This gives a lower limit on the 

562: values of $\delta_{min}$ one can use, depending on the accuracy of the 

563: reconstructed potential one wants to achieve. In principle, one could attempt 

564: at deriving a more general expression for $f(\delta)$, not relying on the 

565: approximation $V/2\delta \ll 1$; in particular, it is fairly easy to study the 

566: opposite case $V/2\delta \gg 1$. However, for $V\gtrsim 2\delta$ the 

567: expression for $f(\delta)$ does not have a simple dependence on the 

568: potential $V(x)$, and solving the inverse problem of neutrino oscillations 

569: becomes a difficult task. 

570: 

571: For an estimate of the constraint on $\delta_{min}$ imposed by the condition 

572: of small $V/2\delta$, let us require $V/2\delta_{min} < 1/5$. For the matter 

573: density in the upper mantle of the Earth, $\rho\simeq 3$ g/cm$^3$, this gives 

574: $\delta_{min}\gtrsim 2.8\times 10^{-13}$ eV, which for $\Delta m_{21}^2 

575: \simeq 7.9\times 10^{-5}$ eV$^2$ leads to $E_{max}\lesssim 70$ MeV. For 

576: neutrinos passing through the core of the Earth, the constraints on 

577: $\delta_{min}$ and $E_{max}$ will be a factor of 3 -- 4 more stringent.  

578: 

579: Let us now estimate the magnitude of $\delta_{min}L$ corresponding to $L\simeq 

580: 300$ km, which is a representative value of neutrino potholing inside the Earth, 

581: satisfying condition (\ref{upper}). For solar neutrinos ($E_{max}

582: \simeq 15$ MeV) we find $\delta_{min}L\simeq 2$, while for supernova neutrinos, 

583: taking $E_{max}\simeq 70$ MeV, we obtain $\delta_{min}L\simeq 0.43$. 

584: Thus, except for very small values of $L$, we have to deal with situations 

585: when $\delta_{min}L\gtrsim 1$. 

586:  

587: How large is the error introduced by non-vanishing $\delta_{min}$ in

588: the reconstruction of the density profile $V(x)$?  To study that, let

589: us consider the integral of the type (\ref{inv1}) with the finite

590: lower integration limit $\delta_{min}= L^{-1}$.  In

591: fig.~\ref{fig:step-dmin1} the lowest curve gives the result of such a

592: calculation for the step-function density profile (shown by the dashed

593: line) and $\delta_{max}=300 L^{-1}$. One can see several interesting

594: features of the result. First, the deviation from the exact profile is

595: relatively small near the detector ($x\simeq L$), but reaches about a

596: factor of three far from it ($x\simeq 0$). Second, despite a

597: significant deviation from the exact profile $V(x)$, the positions and

598: the magnitudes of the jumps in $V(x)$ are reproduced very accurately.

599: Both these features can be easily understood (see sections

600: \ref{sec:iterI} and \ref{sec:small} below).

601: 

602: Thus, we have seen that the error in the reconstructed profile due to the lack 

603: of the knowledge of the Earth matter effect in the domain of low $\delta$ (high 

604: energies) can be quite substantial. We shall show now how this problem can be 

605: cured by invoking simple iteration procedures. 

606:  

607: 

608: 

609: 

610: \subsection{Iteration procedure I}

611: \label{sec:iterI}

612: 

613: Let us study the effect of non-vanishing $\delta_{min}$ in more detail. In 

614: order to do so, we consider the limit $\delta_{max}\to \infty$, which is 

615: justified by the preceding discussion. From eq.~(\ref{aux1}) one then readily 

616: finds 

617: \begin{equation}

618: V(x)=\frac{4}{\pi}\int_{\delta_{min}}^\infty f(\delta)\sin 2\delta (L-x) 

619: d\delta +\frac{1}{\pi}\int_0^L V(y) F(x,y; 2\delta_{min}) dy\,,

620: \label{inv2}

621: \end{equation}

622: where the function $F(x,y;k)$ is defined as  

623: \begin{equation}

624: F(x,y;k)=\frac{\sin k(x-y)}{x-y}-\frac{\sin k(2L-x-y)}{2L-x-y}\,.

625: \label{F1}

626: \end{equation}

627: It is symmetric with respect to its first two arguments: $F(x,y; k)=F(y,x; k)$. 

628: 

629: Equation (\ref{inv2}) is exact provided that eq. (\ref{f2}) is exact. 

630: By comparing it with eq.~(\ref{inv1}), we find that the second integral in 

631: (\ref{inv2}) can be considered as compensating for an error introduced in 

632: eq. (\ref{inv1}) by having a non-zero lower limit in the integral over 

633: $\delta$. However, this compensating integral cannot be calculated directly 

634: because it contains the unknown potential $V(x)$. Thus, we have traded 

635: one unknown quantity -- the function $f(\delta)$ in the domain $\delta < 

636: \delta_{min}$ -- for another.

637: At first sight, this does not do us any good. This is, however, incorrect:

638: eq.~(\ref{inv2}) allows a simple iterative solution.  

639: 

640: 

641: We first note that in the limit $\delta_{min}\to 0$ the second integral in 

642: eq.~(\ref{inv2}) disappears, while the first one yields $V(x)$. Therefore, for 

643: not too large values of $\delta_{min}$ the first term in (\ref{inv2}) is 

644: expected to give a reasonable first approximation to $V(x)$. One can then use 

645: the result in the second integral to obtain the next approximation to $V(x)$, 

646: and so on. Thus, we define

647: \begin{eqnarray}

648: V_0(x) &=& \frac{4}{\pi}\int_{\delta_{min}}^\infty f(\delta)\sin 

649: 2\delta (L-x) d\delta\,, 

650: \label{V0m}\\ 

651: I_0(x) &=&\frac{1}{\pi}\int_0^L V_0(y) F(x,y; 2\delta_{min}) dy\,,

652: \qquad\quad V_1(x)=V_0(x)+I_0(x)\,, 

653: \label{I0}

654: \\

655: & & \nonumber \\

656: & & \dots\dots \nonumber \\

657: & & \nonumber \\

658: I_{n-1}(x) &=&\frac{1}{\pi}\int_0^L V_{n-1}(y) F(x,y; 2\delta_{min}) dy\,,

659: \qquad\quad \!\!V_n(x)=V_0(x)+I_{n-1}(x)\,.

660: \label{iter1}

661: \end{eqnarray}

662: This gives a sequence of potentials $V_0(x),\,V_1(x),\dots,\,V_n(x),

663: \dots$ which, for small enough $\delta_{min}$, converges to $V(x)$. It 

664: should be noted that, while the exact eq.~(\ref{inv2}) is independent 

665: of $\delta_{min}$,\footnote{Its left-hand side is $\delta_{min}$-independent, 

666: so must be the right-hand side. Actually, by {\em requiring} that the 

667: derivative of the right-hand side of (\ref{inv2}) with respect to 

668: $\delta_{min}$vanish, one can recover eq.~(\ref{f2}) for $f(\delta)$.} 

669: our iteration procedure involves 

670: the approximate potentials and so depends on it. The smaller 

671: the chosen value of $\delta_{min}$, the faster the convergence of $V_n(x)$ 

672: to $V(x)$; for $\delta_{min}$ exceeding some critical value (which in 

673: general depends on the profile $N_e(x)$) the iteration procedure fails.

674: 

675: This is illustrated in figs.~\ref{fig:step-dmin1} - \ref{fig:step-asym}. 

676: In fig.~\ref{fig:step-dmin1} we show the potential $V(x)$ 

677: for the step-function model of the Earth density profile, along with the 

678: zeroth-order reconstructed potential $V_0(x)$ and the results of the first, 

679: second and fourth iterations $V_1(x)$, $V_2(x)$ and $V_4(x)$ ($V_3(x)$ is 

680: not shown in order to avoid crowding the figure). The calculations were 

681: performed for $\delta_{min}=L^{-1}$, $\delta_{max}=300 L^{-1}$.  One can see 

682: that already the fourth iteration gives an excellent agreement with the exact 

683: potential. We have checked that for $\delta_{min}\ll L^{-1}$ already the 

684: zeroth-approximation potential $V_0(x)$ gives a very good accuracy (see 

685: also section~\ref{sec:small}). The wiggliness of the reconstructed potentials in 

686: fig.~\ref{fig:step-dmin1} is due to the finiteness of $\delta_{max}$; with 

687: increasing $\delta_{max}$ it decreases. 

688: 

689: 

690: \begin{figure}[htbp]

691:   \centering

692:   \includegraphics[width=.9\linewidth,clip]{step-dm1-dM300.eps}

693:   \caption{Step-function potential $V(x)$ (dashed line), zeroth order 

694:    reconstructed potential $V_0(x)$ and the results of the first, second and 

695:    fourth iterations $V_1(x)$, $V_2(x)$ and $V_4(x)$. The vertical scale is 

696:    that of the corresponding matter density in g/cm$^3$, assuming $Y_e=0.5$ and 

697:    $\theta_{13}=0$. The following values of the parameters were chosen: 

698:    $\delta_{min}=L^{-1}$, $\delta_{max}=300 L^{-1}$.

699:    } 

700:  \label{fig:step-dmin1}

701: \end{figure}

702: 

703: If $\delta_{min}$ exceeds the critical value (which for the chosen profile is 

704: approximately equal to $2.4 L^{-1}$ ), the successive iterations, instead of 

705: approaching the true potential, yield the potentials which more and more deviate 

706: from it. Thus, in this case the iteration procedure fails.  

707: 

708: \begin{figure}[htbp]

709:   \centering

710:   \includegraphics[width=.9\linewidth,clip]{prem-dmin1-4.eps}

711:   \caption{Same as in fig.\ref{fig:step-dmin1}, but for PREM-like profile 

712: (shown by dashed line), 

713: }  

714:  \label{fig:step-prem}

715: \end{figure}

716: 

717: 

718: 

719: The iteration procedure works very well not only for simple profiles like the 

720: step-function profile in fig.~\ref{fig:step-dmin1}, but also for more 

721: complicated ones. This is demonstrated in fig.~\ref{fig:step-prem}, which is 

722: similar to fig.~\ref{fig:step-dmin1}, but was plotted for the PREM-like density 

723: profile of the Earth \cite{Dziewonski:xy}. It should be stressed that this 

724: profile was used in fig.~\ref{fig:step-prem} for illustrative purposes only, 

725: since, in the form we used it, it is a realistic Earth density profile for 

726: $L=2R_\oplus \simeq 12742$ km and not for $L=300$ km (for which the Earth 

727: density is actually better approximated by the step-function profile of 

728: fig.~\ref{fig:step-dmin1}). 

729: %

730: Fig.~\ref{fig:step-asym} is similar to figs.~\ref{fig:step-dmin1} and 

731: \ref{fig:step-prem}, but was produced for an asymmetric Earth 

732: density profile (shown by the dashed line). It clearly demonstrates that 

733: asymmetric profiles can also be reconstructed very well, and so the 

734: inhomogeneities of matter distribution in the Earth can be studied by 

735: the method under consideration.   

736: 

737: \begin{figure}[htbp]

738:     \centering

739:     \includegraphics[width=.9\linewidth,clip]{step-asym.eps}

740:     \caption{Same as in fig.~\ref{fig:step-dmin1}, but for asymmetric

741:     step-function potential (dashed line). } \label{fig:step-asym}

742: \end{figure}

743: 

744: 

745: Finally, we note that if $\delta_{max} L\gg 1$ but still not very large, one 

746: can devise an iterative procedure correcting for the corresponding error in the 

747: reconstructed potential (see Appendix \ref{app:Improved}). 

748: 

749: \subsubsection{Convergence properties of iterations}

750: \label{sec:conv}

751: 

752: We shall now discuss some properties of the iteration procedure

753: (\ref{V0m}) -- (\ref{iter1}). First, we note that the function $F(x,y;

754: 2\delta_{min})$ is positive definite for all $0<x,y<L$ provided that

755: $\delta_{min}<2.246 L^{-1}$ (see Appendix B for the proof). One can

756: then show that for \begin{equation} \delta_{max} \to \infty~~~\mbox{and}~~~

757: \delta_{min}<{\rm min}\{2.246 L^{-1},\,\delta_1\}\,,

758: \label{cond1} 

759: \end{equation}

760: where $\delta_1$ will be defined shortly, the following string of

761: inequalities is satisfied:

762: \begin{equation}

763: V_0(x)<V_1(x)<V_2(x)<... <V(x)\,.

764: \label{ineq1}

765: \end{equation} 

766: This can be proven by induction. Consider first eq.~(\ref{inv2}).

767: {}From the positivity of $V(x)$ and $F(x,y; 2\delta_{min})$ it follows

768: that the second integral in (\ref{inv2}) (which we denote $I(x))$ is

769: positive, and so the first integral, which is the zeroth-approximation

770: potential $V_0(x)$, satisfies $V_0(x)<V(x)$. Generally, the larger

771: $\delta_{min}$, the smaller $V_0(x)$; for large enough $\delta_{min}$

772: the potential $V_0(x)$ may even become negative for some values of $x$

773: in the interval $[0,\,L]$. However, if $\delta_{min}$ does not exceed

774: certain limiting value $\delta_1$ (which we assume), the integral

775: $I_0(x)$ defined in eq.~(\ref{I0}) will still be positive. It is this

776: limiting value $\delta_1$ that appears in eq.~(\ref{cond1}). From the

777: definition of the integral $I_0(x)$ and the obtained condition

778: $V_0(x)<V(x)$ we then find $0<I_0(x)<I(x)$.  Therefore

779: $V_1(x)=V_0(x)+I_0(x)$ satisfies $V_0(x)<V_1(x)<V(x)$. Then, from the

780: definition of $I_1(x)$ we find $I_0(x)<I_1(x)<I(x)$, so that

781: $V_2(x)=V_0(x)+I_1(x)$ satisfies $V_1(x) <V_2(x)<V(x)$. Continuing

782: this procedure, we arrive at eq.~(\ref{ineq1}).

783: 

784: Thus, under the conditions of eq. (\ref{cond1}), each iteration produces the 

785: potential which is larger than that of the previous iteration. The potentials 

786: $V_n(x)$ approach the exact potential $V(x)$ from below and never exceed it. 

787: This is well illustrated by figs.~\ref{fig:step-dmin1} - \ref{fig:step-asym} 

788: (we recall that the wiggliness of the curves disappears in the limit 

789: $\delta_{max} \to\infty$). Conditions (\ref{cond1}) are thus sufficient for 

790: the convergence of the iteration procedure 

791: \footnote{It can be shown that the iteration potentials converge uniformly 

792: to $V(x)$ even for larger values of $\delta_{min}L$. Indeed, a sufficient 

793: condition for the uniform convergence is $\int_0^L F^2(x,y; 2\delta_{min})\,dx

794: \,dy < \pi^2$ (see, e.g., \cite{Goursat}), which is satisfied for 

795: $\delta_{min}L < 2.34$.}.

796: 

797: How can one estimate the critical value of $\delta_{min}$ 

798: above which the iteration procedure would diverge? From the preceding 

799: discussion it follows that the convergence of the iterations to the exact 

800: potential relies on the positivity of the ``correction terms'' $I_n(x)$. For 

801: values $\delta_{min}> \delta_1$ the integral $I_0(x)$ will become negative for 

802: some values of $x$ in the interval $[0,\,L]$, and so for those values of $x$ 

803: the potential $V_1(x)$ will deviate from $V(x)$ more than $V_0(x)$ does. 

804: If this propagates  into the further iterations, the iteration procedure 

805: would fail. However, it is possible that even if some $I_k(x)$ are not 

806: positive definite, higher-order correction integrals $I_n(x)$ with $n>k$ 

807: are. In this case the iteration procedure would still be convergent. 

808: 

809: In practice, it is difficult to determine the critical value of $\delta_{min}$ 

810: precisely. The closer (from below) $\delta_{min}$ to its critical value 

811: $\delta_{crit}$, the larger the number of iterations which is necessary to 

812: achieve a given accuracy of the reconstructed potential. Therefore, with 

813: $\delta_{min}$ approaching $\delta_{crit}$ it becomes more and more 

814: difficult to check if the procedure would converge. In addition, for 

815: $\delta_{min}$ close to $\delta_{crit}$ the behaviour of the iteration 

816: potentials $V_n(x)$ with increasing $n$ does not depend much on whether 

817: $\delta_{min}<\delta_{crit}$ or $\delta_{min}>\delta_{crit}$, so that it is 

818: difficult to decide if the critical value has already been exceeded. 

819: It is therefore reasonable to adopt some ``practical'' definition of 

820: $\delta_{crit}$, for example, as a value of $\delta_{min}$ for which the 

821: number of iterations necessary to reach a 10\% accuracy of the reconstructed 

822: potential reaches 100. For all the density profiles that we studied this 

823: value turned out to be $\delta_{crit}\simeq 2.4 L^{-1}$. We elaborate further 

824: on the convergence of the iterations in the next subsection.

825: 

826: Let us now return to the question of why the zeroth order potential

827: $V_0(x)$ correctly reproduces the positions and magnitudes of the

828: jumps in the exact potential $V(x)$. In eq.~(\ref{inv2}) (which is

829: exact in the linear regime), the second term on the right-hand side is

830: the integral over $y$ of the product of the continuous function

831: $F(x,y; 2\delta_{min})$ and the exact potential $V(y)$, which may have

832: discontinuities, but no $\delta$-function type singularities. Hence,

833: this integral is a continuous function of $x$. This immediately means

834: that all possible jumps in $V(x)$ are contained in the first integral

835: in eq.~(\ref{inv2}), i.e. $V_0(x)$.

836: 

837: 

838: \subsubsection{The limit of small $\delta_{min} L$}

839: \label{sec:small}

840: 

841: It is very instructive to consider the iteration procedure in the limit 

842: $\delta_{min} L\ll 1$. Since $x,y\le L$, the expression for $F(x,y; 

843: 2\delta_{min})$ in this case simplifies to 

844: \begin{equation}

845: F(x,y; 2\delta_{min})\simeq 

846: \frac{16}{3}\,\delta_{min}^3 \,(L-x)(L-y)\,.

847: \label{F2}

848: \end{equation}

849: Then from eq.~(\ref{iter1}) we find a very simple result:

850: \begin{equation}

851: I_n(x)\simeq \frac{16}{3\pi}\,\delta_{min}^3 \,(L-x)\int_0^L V_n(y) (L-y) dy\,.

852: \label{In1}

853: \end{equation}

854: It means that the ``correction terms'' $I_n(x)$, which compensate for 

855: $\delta_{min} \ne 0$ in the inverse Fourier transformation, have a very 

856: simple coordinate dependence $\propto (L-x)$ for all $n$ and scale with 

857: $\delta_{min} L$ as $(\delta_{min} L)^3$. The same is true for the ``exact''

858: correction term $I(x)$ (the second integral in eq.~(\ref{inv2})), which is 

859: obtained from eq.~(\ref{In1}) by replacing in the integrand $V_n(y)$ by the 

860: exact potential $V(y)$. The approximately linear coordinate dependence of the 

861: deviation of the iteration potentials from the exact one can be seen even for 

862: $\delta_{min} L\sim 1$ (see figs.~\ref{fig:step-dmin1} - \ref{fig:step-asym}). 

863: It explains, in particular, why the deviations of $V_n(x)$ from the exact 

864: potential are small at $x\simeq L$ and largest at $x=0$.    

865: 

866: 

867: Using eqs.~(\ref{iter1}) and (\ref{F2}), it is easy to show by 

868: induction that in the limit $\delta_{min} L\ll 1$ 

869: \begin{equation}

870: I_n(x)\simeq \frac{3}{2}\,v_0 \left(\frac{16}{9\pi}\,\delta_{min}^3 

871: L^3\right) 

872: \left[1-\left(\frac{16}{9\pi}\,\delta_{min}^3 L^3\right)^{n+1}\right] 

873: \,\frac{L-x}{L}\,,

874: \label{In2}

875: \end{equation}

876: \begin{equation}

877: V_n(x)\simeq V(x)-\frac{3}{2} v_0 \left(\frac{16}{9\pi}\,\delta_{min}^3 

878: L^3\right)^{n+1}\frac{L-x}{L}\,,~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

879: \label{Vn}

880: \end{equation}

881: where the constant $v_0$ is defined as

882: \begin{equation}

883: v_0=\frac{2}{L^2}\int_0^L V(y) (L-y) dy\,.

884: \label{V0}

885: \end{equation}

886: Note that these equations are in accord with eq.~(\ref{In1}). In the case 

887: of matter of constant density $V(x)=C_0=const$, one has $v_0=C_0$, and 

888: eq.~(\ref{Vn}) takes an especially simple form.   

889: 

890: {}From eq.~(\ref{Vn}) it follows that for $\delta_{min} L\ll 1$ the 

891: deviation of the $n$th-iteration potential $V_n(x)$ from the exact one 

892: scales as $[(16/9\pi)\,\delta_{min}^3 L^3]^{n+1}$, i.e. the convergence of 

893: $V_n(x)$ to the exact potential is very fast. 

894: 

895: Although eqs.~(\ref{In2}) and (\ref{Vn}) were obtained for $\delta_{min} L\ll 

896: 1$, one can expect that they give correct order of magnitude estimates even 

897: for $\delta_{min} L\sim 1$. This allows one to estimate the number 

898: of iterations which is necessary to achieve a given accuracy of the 

899: reconstructed potential in the whole range $\delta_{min}\le \delta_{crit}$. 

900: First, from eq.~(\ref{Vn}) we find that in the 

901: case under consideration the critical value of $\delta_{min}$, above which 

902: the iteration procedure diverges, is $\delta_{crit}=(9\pi/16)^{1/3} L^{-1}$, 

903: so that (\ref{Vn}) can be rewritten as 

904: \begin{equation}

905: V_n(x)=V(x)-(3v_0/2)(\delta_{min}/\delta_{crit})^{3(n+1)} (L-x)/L\,. 

906: \label{Vn2}

907: \end{equation}

908: Assume now that we want the relative error in the reconstructed potential 

909: (which we define here as $|V(x)-V_n(x)|/v_0$)  

910: to be below $\varepsilon$. Then from (\ref{Vn2}) we find that the 

911: necessary number of iterations is 

912: \begin{equation}

913: n\simeq \frac{\ln(2\varepsilon/3)}{3\ln(\delta_{min}/\delta_{crit})}-1\,.

914: \label{n}

915: \end{equation}

916: As an example, take $\varepsilon=0.01$. Then for 

917: $\delta_{min}/\delta_{crit}=0.3$ already the zeroth-approximation potential 

918: $V_0(x)$ has the desired accuracy; for $\delta_{min}/\delta_{crit}=0.9$ 

919: eq.~(\ref{n}) gives $n\simeq 15$, for $\delta_{min}/\delta_{crit}=0.99$ it 

920: gives $n\simeq 165$, and in the limit $\delta_{min}\to\delta_{crit}$ one 

921: finds $n\to \infty$, as expected. It should be remembered, however, that for 

922: $\delta_{min}/\delta_{crit} \sim 1$ eq.~(\ref{n}) gives only a rough 

923: estimate of the necessary number of iterations because eq.~(\ref{Vn2}) was 

924: obtained in the limit $\delta_{min} L \ll 1$, which essentially coincides 

925: with $\delta_{min}/\delta_{crit} \ll 1$.

926: 

927: We have considered in this subsection the reconstruction of the potential 

928: $V(x)$ in the limit of small $\delta_{min} L$ iteratively only in order to 

929: illustrate some general features of the iteration procedure. In fact, 

930: for $\delta_{min} L\ll 1$ it is easy to find the closed-form solution of 

931: eq.~(\ref{inv2}) \footnote{Eq.~(\ref{inv2}) is a linear Fredholm integral 

932: equation of the second kind with the symmetric kernel $F(x,y;2\delta_{min})$. 

933: In the limit $\delta_{min} L\ll 1$ the kernel becomes separable (see 

934: eq.~(\ref{F2})), and the equation is trivially solved.}. Indeed, since in 

935: this case $I(x)\propto (L-x)$, the potential $V(x)$ can be written as 

936: $V(x)=V_0(x)+C_1 (L-x)$ with $C_1$ a constant. Substituting this into 

937: eq.~(\ref{inv2}), one readily determines $C_1$, which gives 

938: \begin{equation}

939: V(x)\simeq V_0(x)+C_2 \frac{\frac{16}{3\pi}\delta_{min}^3 L^3}

940: {1-\frac{16}{9\pi}\delta_{min}^3 L^3}\,\frac{L-x}{L}\, 

941: \label{V}

942: \end{equation}

943: with  

944: \begin{equation}

945: C_2=\frac{1}{L^2}\int_0^L V_0(y)(L-y) dy \,.

946: \label{C2a}

947: \end{equation}

948: Since the function $V_0(x)$ is known, the problem is solved. 

949: 

950: 

951: \subsection{Iteration procedure II}

952: \label{sec:iterII}

953: 

954: In the iteration procedure considered in section \ref{sec:iterI} we

955: assumed that nothing is known \mbox{\em a priori} about the Earth

956: density profile, and the only experimental data available were the

957: neutrino data.  If some (even very rough) prior knowledge of the

958: matter density distribution inside the Earth exists, one can employ a

959: much better and faster iteration procedure to reconstruct the Earth

960: density profile. As an example, we consider here the case when the

961: average matter density along the neutrino path is known. The

962: corresponding average potential 

963: \begin{equation} \overline{V} = \frac{1}{L}

964: \int_0^L V(x)\,dx\,.

965: \label{Vbar}

966: \end{equation} 

967: is therefore known as well. 

968: The new iteration procedure is again described by eqs.~(\ref{I0}) 

969: - (\ref{iter1}), but the zeroth order approximation potential is now 

970: $V_0(x)=\overline{V}=const$. In fig.~\ref{fig:iterII} we plot this potential 

971: (horizontal line) and the first iteration potential $V_1(x)$ for the 

972: asymmetric step-function profile of fig.~\ref{fig:step-asym} (shown by the 

973: dashed line). One can see that, although $V_0$ is completely structureless, 

974: already the first iteration reproduces the exact profile extremely well. This 

975: should be compared with the results of iteration scheme I, for which only 

976: the fourth iteration gives similar accuracy (see fig.~\ref{fig:step-asym}).

977: 

978: %

979: \begin{figure}[htbp]

980:   \centering

981:   \includegraphics[width=.9\linewidth,clip]{step-asym-V0.eps}

982:   \caption{Asymmetric step-function profile (dashed line), zeroth 

983:   approximation potential $V_0(x)=\overline{V}$ and first order

984:   iteration potential $V_1(x)$. Vertical scale and values of 

985:   parameters are the same as in fig.~\ref{fig:step-dmin1}.} 

986:   \label{fig:iterII}

987: \end{figure}

988: %

989: To understand why this iteration scheme works so well, it is instructive to 

990: consider it in the limit $\delta_{min} L\ll 1$. First, we note that 

991: for an arbitrary $\delta_{min}$ and $n\ge 1$ eqs.~(\ref{inv2}) and 

992: (\ref{iter1}) yield 

993: \begin{equation}

994: V(x)-V_n(x) = \frac{1}{\pi}\int_0^L [V(y)-V_{n-1}(y)] 

995: F(x,y; 2\delta_{min}) 

996: dy\,.

997: \label{iter1a}

998: \end{equation}

999: In the limit $\delta_{min} L\ll 1$, the function $F(x,y; 2\delta_{min})$ is 

1000: given by (\ref{F2}); substituting this into (\ref{iter1a}), for $n=1$ 

1001: we find 

1002: \begin{equation}

1003: V(x)-V_1(x)\simeq \left(\frac{8}{3\pi}\,\delta_{min}^3 

1004: L^3\right)\frac{L-x}{L} (v_0-\overline{V})\,,~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1005: \label{V1}

1006: \end{equation}

1007: where $v_0$ was defined in (\ref{V0}). For $n$th iteration ($n\ge 1$)

1008: we find by induction

1009: \begin{equation}

1010: V(x)-V_n(x)\simeq \frac{3}{2} \left(\frac{16}{9\pi}\,\delta_{min}^3 

1011: ~L^3\right)^n\frac{L-x}{L} (v_0-\overline{V})\,.~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1012: \label{VnII}

1013: \end{equation}

1014: Comparing this with (\ref{Vn}), we find that in iteration scheme II the 

1015: difference $V(x)-V_n(x)$ contains one less power of $[(16/9\pi)\,

1016: \delta_{min}^3 L^3$], but is proportional to $v_0-\overline{V}$ rather 

1017: than to $v_0$. We shall show now that for symmetric density profiles

1018: ($V(x)=V(L-x)$) the difference $v_0-\overline{V}$ vanishes, and therefore 

1019: already the first iteration reproduces the 

1020: exact profile. Indeed, from eqs.~(\ref{V0}) and (\ref{Vbar}) we have 

1021: \begin{equation}

1022: v_0-\overline{V}=\frac{1}{L^2}\int_0^L V(y)[2 (L-y)-L]\,dy=

1023: \frac{2}{L^2}\int_{-L/2}^{L/2} V(z) z \,dy\,,

1024: \label{Vz}

1025: \end{equation}

1026: where in the last integral we changed the integration variable to $z=L/2-y$.

1027: For symmetric density profiles, $V(z)$ is an even function of $z$, and the 

1028: integral in (\ref{Vz}) vanishes. 

1029: 

1030: What if the density profile is not symmetric? In that case one 

1031: can write $V(z)=V_s(z)+V_a(z)$, where $V_s(z)$ and $V_a(z)$ are the symmetric 

1032: and antisymmetric parts of $V(z)$. The symmetric part $V_s(z)$ does not 

1033: contribute to the integral in (\ref{Vz}), whereas the contribution of $V_a(z)$ 

1034: is small because the inhomogeneities of the Earth density distribution, 

1035: responsible for $V_a$, occur on short coordinate scales \footnote{Generally, 

1036: the contribution of $V_a$ to $v_0-\overline{V}$ is of order $\Delta V x_1/L$, 

1037: where $\Delta V$ is the magnitude of the asymmetric inhomogeneity of the 

1038: potential, and $x_1$ is the coordinate scale of the inhomogeneity. While 

1039: $\Delta V$ may be of order of $V$, $x_1/L$ is always $\ll 1$.}. 

1040: Thus, in scheme II, even for asymmetric density profiles the first iteration 

1041: gives a very good approximation to the exact profile (see 

1042: fig.~\ref{fig:iterII}).

1043: 

1044: It should be noted that, while the above discussion referred to the case 

1045: $\delta_{min}L \ll 1$, fig.~\ref{fig:iterII} actually corresponds to 

1046: $\delta_{min} L=1$. However, our consideration approximately applies to that 

1047: case as well. For $\delta_{min} L\sim 1$, the integrand of the driving term for 

1048: the second iteration in scheme II will be proportional, instead of $V(y)

1049: (L/2-y)$, to the product of $V(y)$ and the function $[F(x,y; 2\delta_{min})-

1050: (1/L)\int_0^L F(x,x'; 2\delta_{min})dx']$. This function, though not exactly 

1051: antisymmetric with respect to $y\to L-y$, is almost antisymmetric (for all 

1052: $x\in [0, L]$). This explains why iteration scheme II works so well even in 

1053: the case $\delta_{min} L \sim 1$.   

1054: 

1055: 

1056: 

1057: \section{Non-linear regime} 

1058: \label{sec:nonlin}

1059: 

1060: 

1061: Our previous discussion of the reconstruction of the Earth density

1062: profile was based on the simple formula (\ref{f2}) for the function

1063: $f(\delta)$, which was derived under the assumptions (\ref{cond2}).

1064: The second of these conditions led to a rather stringent upper limit

1065: on the neutrino path lengths in the Earth (\ref{upper}), or $L\lesssim

1066: 300$ km.  In order to be able to reconstruct the potential $V(x)$ over

1067: larger distances, one has to employ an inversion procedure based on

1068: the more accurate expression (\ref{f1}), which only requires the first

1069: condition in (\ref{cond2}) for its validity. Let us now discuss this

1070: improved expression.

1071: 

1072: Since the function $\omega(x)$ in eq.~(\ref{f1}) depends on $V(x)$, we face a 

1073: non-linear problem now. The first condition in (\ref{cond2}) and the 

1074: non-linearity condition $V L\gtrsim 1$ imply $\delta_{min} L\gg 1$. This, in 

1075: turn, means that the matter density profile cannot be found by invoking an 

1076: iteration procedure

1077: %

1078: \footnote{In sec.~\ref{sec:lin} we showed that in the linear regime

1079:   the critical values of $\delta_{min}$, above which the iteration

1080:   approach fails, correspond to $\delta_{min} L={\cal O}(1)$. The

1081:   situation does not improve in the non-linear regime.}, and one

1082: should resort to different methods of solving eq.~(\ref{f1}).  The

1083: simplest possibility would be to discretize the problem and reduce the

1084: non-linear integral equation (\ref{f1}) to a set of non-linear

1085: algebraic equations, which can then be solved numerically.  However,

1086: eq.~(\ref{f1}) is a non-linear Fredholm integral equation of the first

1087: kind \footnote{We recall that integral equations of the first kind

1088:   involve an unknown function only under the integration sign, whereas

1089:   in equations of the second kind it is also present outside the

1090:   integral.}, and equations of this type are notoriously difficult to

1091: solve. Integral equations of the first kind belong to the so-called

1092: ill-posed problems: their solutions are very unstable, and to arrive

1093: at a reliable result one has to invoke special regularization

1094: procedures. For linear integral equations, such procedures are well

1095: developed (see section \ref{sec:finiteE} and Appendices C and D for

1096: more details); however, no universal regularization techniques exist

1097: for non-linear integral equations of the first kind. The situation is

1098: further complicated by the fact that for $\delta_{min} L\gg 1$ the

1099: potential $V(x)$ enters into the integrand of eq.~(2.2) being

1100: multiplied by a fast oscillating function of the coordinate.  All this

1101: makes the non-linear regime of the inverse problem of neutrino

1102: oscillations in matter very difficult to explore. This regime

1103: therefore requires a dedicated study, which goes beyond the scope of

1104: the present paper.

1105: 

1106: \section{Experimental considerations}

1107: \label{sec:exptl}

1108: 

1109: Up to now we ignored completely the experimental questions, such as the 

1110: effects of the errors in experimental data and of finite energy resolution of 

1111: neutrino detectors on the accuracy of the reconstructed matter density 

1112: distributions. We now turn to these issues. We shall discuss here only the 

1113: linear regime of the density profile reconstruction; the experimental 

1114: questions pertaining to the non-linear regime will be considered 

1115: elsewhere. 

1116: 

1117: 

1118: \subsection{Effects of experimental errors}

1119: \label{sec:errors}

1120: 

1121: For solar neutrinos, the night-day asymmetry of the signal can 

1122: be written as \cite{Akhmedov:2004rq}

1123: \begin{equation}

1124: A_{ND}=2\frac{N-D}{N+D}\simeq -c_{13}^2 \left[\frac{\sin^2 2\theta_{12}\,

1125: \overline{\cos 2\hat{\theta}_{12}}}{1+\cos 2\theta_{12}\,

1126: \overline{\cos 2\hat{\theta}_{12}}}\right] (f(\delta)/c_{13}^2)\,,

1127: \label{And}

1128: \end{equation}

1129: where $\overline{\cos 2\hat{\theta}_{12}}$ is cosine of twice the effective 

1130: 1-2 mixing angle in matter, averaged over the neutrino production coordinate 

1131: inside the Sun \cite{Blennow:2003xw}. The quantity $f(\delta)/c_{13}^2$ is 

1132: independent of $c_{13}^2$ in the linear regime (see eqs.~(\ref{f2}) and 

1133: (\ref{Vcc})). Thus, the relative error of the experimentally determined value 

1134: of $f(\delta)/c_{13}^2$ is the sum of the relative errors of $A_{ND}$, 

1135: $c_{13}^2$ and of the $\theta_{12}$ - dependent expression in the square 

1136: brackets in eq.~(\ref{And}). The dependence of the latter on the error of 

1137: $\theta_{12}$ is somewhat involved (mainly, because of the $\theta_{12}$ 

1138: dependence of the effective mixing angle in matter $\hat{\theta}_{12}$). 

1139: It can be approximated by 

1140: \begin{equation}

1141: \epsilon_{\theta_{12}}\simeq \left[1.74-\frac{1.83\,[1-(0.4-V_{av}/2\delta)^2]}

1142: {(0.4-V_{av}/2\delta)[1+0.4(0.4-V_{av}/2\delta)]}\right] \Delta \theta_{12}\,,

1143: \label{errtheta}

1144: \end{equation}

1145: where $V_{av}$ is the averaged over the neutrino production region value of 

1146: the matter-induced neutrino potential in the Sun. The values of $V_{av}$ for 

1147: various components of the solar neutrino spectrum can be found in table 1 

1148: of ref.~\cite{deHolanda:2004fd}. 

1149: 

1150: The next question is how the error in the experimentally determined quantity 

1151: $f(\delta)/c_{13}^2$ affects the accuracy of the reconstructed electron 

1152: number density profile $N_e(x)$. Since, in the linear regime, to obtain a 

1153: solution we invoke an iteration procedure, one might expect that the 

1154: corresponding errors in the reconstructed density profile would accumulate 

1155: with increasing iteration order. This is, however, not the case: at each 

1156: iteration,  the relative error of the solution is the same as the relative error 

1157: of $f(\delta)/c_{13}^2$, and the same applies to the exact profile $N_e(x)$. 

1158: This follows from the fact that each iteration profile and the exact solution 

1159: depend linearly on $f(\delta)/c_{13}^2$, which is a consequence of the linearity 

1160: of eq.~(\ref{inv2}). 

1161: 

1162: 

1163: The main contribution to the error of $f(\delta)/c_{13}^2$ (and thus, of the 

1164: reconstructed electron number density profile) is expected to come from the 

1165: error in $A_{ND}$, which is by far the largest one (at the moment, more than 

1166: 100\%). Therefore, an accurate reconstruction of the matter density 

1167: distribution inside the Earth would require very large detectors, capable of 

1168: measuring the solar neutrino day-night effect with an accuracy commensurate 

1169: with the desired accuracy of the matter density reconstruction. 

1170: 

1171: {}From eqs.~(\ref{f1}) and (\ref{omega}) it follows that the errors in the 

1172: parameter $\Delta m_{21}^2$ and in the energy scale of neutrino detectors go 

1173: linearly to the shifts in the reconstructed coordinate.

1174: 

1175: 

1176: \subsection{Finite energy resolution of detectors}

1177: \label{sec:finiteE}

1178: 

1179: Let us consider now the effects of finite energy resolution of neutrino 

1180: detectors. We shall be assuming that neutrinos are detected through a 

1181: charged-current capture reaction, so that the energy of the emitted electron 

1182: in the final state directly gives the energy of the incoming neutrino. The 

1183: electron energy, however, is not exactly measured because of the finite energy 

1184: resolution of the detector, characterized by the resolution function $R(T_e, 

1185: T_e')$. Here $T_e$ and $T_e'$ are the observed and true electron kinetic 

1186: energies, respectively. Because of the one-to-one correspondence between the 

1187: electron and neutrino energies, the resolution function can be written 

1188: directly in terms of the ``observed'' and true neutrino energies.  In our 

1189: discussion it proved more convenient to use $\delta=\Delta m_{21}^2/4E$ 

1190: instead of the neutrino energy $E$, therefore we will be considering the 

1191: detector resolution functions expressed in terms of $\delta$ and $\delta'$. 

1192: In many cases the resolution function can be approximated by a Gaussian 

1193: \begin{equation}

1194: R(\delta, \delta')=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}\,\sigma(\delta)}\,

1195: \exp\left\{-\frac{(\delta-\delta')^2}

1196: {2\sigma^2(\delta)}\right\}

1197: \label{Gauss1}

1198: \end{equation}

1199: with $\delta$-dependent width, e.g., $\sigma(\delta)=k_0\delta$ or

1200: $\sigma(\delta)=k_0\sqrt{\delta_{max}\delta}$. 

1201: 

1202: When finite energy resolution of detectors is taken into account, the function 

1203: $f(\delta)$ in the expression for the Earth regeneration factor in 

1204: eq.~(\ref{reg}) has to be replaced by 

1205: \begin{equation}

1206: {\cal F}(\delta)=\int_0^\infty R(\delta, \delta') f(\delta')\,d\delta'\,,

1207: \label{smooth}

1208: \end{equation}

1209: which describes the smoothing of $f(\delta)$ with the resolution function. In 

1210: order to proceed with the density profile reconstruction, we have first to extract 

1211: $f(\delta')$ from the experimentally measured quantity ${\cal F}(\delta)$. 

1212: Once this has been done, one can employ the procedures described in sections 

1213: \ref{sec:lin} or \ref{sec:nonlin}. Thus, instead of one-step inverse problem, 

1214: we now have a two-step one. 

1215: 

1216: \subsubsection{Finite energy resolution effects on the Earth regeneration 

1217: factor}

1218: 

1219: Let us first 

1220: discuss the physical effects of the finite energy resolution of detectors  

1221: on the observed Earth matter effect. 

1222: In ref. \cite{Ioannisian:2004jk} 

1223: it was shown that in the simplified case of the box-shaped resolution function 

1224: with the energy width $\Delta E$, eq.~(\ref{f1})  has to be replaced by

1225: \begin{equation}

1226: {\cal F}(\delta)\simeq \int_0^L V(x)\frac{\sin\Delta(\delta)(L-x)}{\Delta(\delta)

1227: (L-x)}\sin\left[2\int\limits_x^{L}\!\omega(x')\,dx'\right]dx \,, 

1228: \label{f1a}  

1229: \end{equation}

1230: where $\Delta(\delta)$ is the resolution width in terms of $\delta$: 

1231: $\Delta(\delta)=\delta \cdot(\Delta E/E)$. Eq.~(\ref{f1a}) differs from 

1232: (\ref{f1}) by the extra factor 

1233: $\sin \Delta(\delta)(L-x)/[\Delta(\delta)(L-x)]$ in the integrand. This factor 

1234: equals unity when $\Delta(\delta)(L-x)=0$ (which corresponds to perfect energy 

1235: resolution or $x=L$), and quickly decreases with increasing $\Delta(\delta)

1236: (L-x)$ (see fig.~\ref{fig:g}). Thus, finite energy resolution of detectors 

1237: leads to an attenuation of the contributions to the Earth matter effect coming 

1238: from the density structures which are far from the detector, the attenuation 

1239: length (distance from the detector) being

1240: \begin{equation}

1241: l_{att}~\simeq~ \frac{1}{\delta}\, \frac{E}{\Delta E}~=~\frac{1}{\pi}\, 

1242: l_{osc}(E)\, \frac{E}{\Delta E}\,.

1243: \label{atten}

1244: \end{equation}

1245: %

1246: {}From eq.~(\ref{atten}) it follows that for the attenuation to be negligible, 

1247: i.e. for $l_{att}$ to exceed considerably $L$ for all energies of interest, 

1248: one needs 

1249: \begin{equation}

1250: \delta_{max} L\,\ll \frac{E}{\Delta E}\,.

1251: \label{cond3}

1252: \end{equation}

1253: %

1254: This can be in conflict with the requirement of good coordinate resolution 

1255: $\delta_{max} L\gg 1$, unless the energy resolution is extremely good. 

1256: %

1257: Thus, finite energy resolution worsens the coordinate resolution of the 

1258: reconstruction procedure. 

1259: If one completely ignores the fact that finite energy resolution of neutrino 

1260: detectors modifies the observed matter effect and simply uses ${\cal F}(\delta)$ 

1261: instead of $f(\delta)$ for the density profile reconstruction, then in the 

1262: case when condition (\ref{cond3}) is not satisfied it is essentially the 

1263: finite energy resolution and not the value of $\delta_{max}$ that determines 

1264: the coordinate resolution of the inversion procedure. Increasing $\delta_{max}$ 

1265: beyond the limit (\ref{cond3}) would not lead to any significant improvement 

1266: of the coordinate resolution in that case. 

1267: 

1268: Eq.~(\ref{f1a}) exhibits a power-law attenuation of the matter density 

1269: structures far from the detector in the case of box-shaped energy 

1270: resolution function. However, in a more realistic case of the Gaussian  

1271: energy resolution, an even stronger (exponential) attenuation results. 

1272: To show that, we first recall that the function ${\cal F}(\delta)$ is measured 

1273: in a finite interval $\delta\in[\delta_{min},\delta_{max}]$. Although the 

1274: integral in eq.~(\ref{smooth}) extends over the whole interval $0\le \delta' 

1275: <\infty$, in fact the contributions to this integral coming from the domains 

1276: of $\delta'$ which are far outside the interval $[\delta_{min},\delta_{max}]$ 

1277: are strongly suppressed because of the presence of the resolution function 

1278: $R(\delta, \delta')$ in the integrand. In particular, if $\delta_{min}$ 

1279: exceeds a few widths of the Gaussian resolution function (\ref{Gauss1}), one 

1280: can formally extend the integration in eq.~(\ref{smooth}) to negative values 

1281: of $\delta'$ without affecting noticeably the value of the integral. 

1282: Extending the integration to the interval $-\infty < \delta' < \infty$, from 

1283: eqs.~(\ref{smooth}), (\ref{Gauss1}) and (\ref{f1}) one readily finds

1284: \begin{equation}

1285: {\cal F}(\delta)\simeq \int_0^L V(x)\,e^{-2(L-x)^2\sigma^2(\delta)}\,\sin

1286: \left[2\int\limits_x^{L}\!\omega(x')\,dx'\right] dx \,. 

1287: \label{f1b}  

1288: \end{equation}

1289: 

1290: 

1291: \subsubsection{Undoing the smoothing}

1292: 

1293: We now turn to the question of how to reconstruct the electron number

1294: density profile of the Earth from the Earth regeneration factor in the

1295: presence of a well-known but finite energy resolution.  As we already

1296: pointed out, if one ignores the fact the observed Earth regeneration

1297: factor is modified by the finite energy resolution of the detector and

1298: naively uses ${\cal F}(\delta)$ instead of $f(\delta)$ for the density

1299: profile reconstruction, the coordinate resolution of the

1300: reconstruction procedure will in general be very poor. We have checked

1301: numerically that for $\delta_{max} L\gtrsim 100$ and the energy

1302: resolution width $\Delta E/E=\Delta(\delta)/\delta$ exceeding 1\%, the

1303: reconstructed profile differs sizeably from the true one. However, if

1304: the resolution function is well known, one can do a much better job:

1305: first, recover the function $f(\delta')$ from the experimentally

1306: measured quantity ${\cal F}(\delta)$, and then reconstruct the Earth

1307: density profile from $f(\delta')$.  In other words, one could to some

1308: extent undo the smoothing of $f(\delta')$ caused by the finite energy

1309: resolution of the neutrino detectors and described by

1310: eq.~(\ref{smooth}). This is similar to the procedures one has to

1311: invoke in various remote sensing problems (e.g., in medical

1312: tomography).

1313: 

1314: In principle, if the resolution function $R(\delta, \delta')$  is exactly 

1315: known and the function ${\cal F}(\delta)$ is precisely determined from the 

1316: experiment, one could expect that the function $f(\delta')$ can be exactly 

1317: found from (\ref{smooth}). This is, however, not the case. The point is 

1318: that eq.~(\ref{smooth}) is a Fredholm integral equation of the first kind,

1319: which belongs to the class of ill-posed problems: small variations in 

1320: ${\cal F}(\delta)$ can lead to very large changes in the reconstructed function 

1321: $f(\delta')$. To illustrate this, let us note that for any integrable 

1322: $R(\delta,\delta')$ and an arbitrary constant $A$

1323: \[

1324: \lim_{k\to\infty}\, \int_0^\infty R(\delta, \delta')\,A \sin(k

1325: \delta')\,d\delta' ~=~0\qquad\quad

1326: \]

1327: by Riemann-Lebesgue lemma. Therefore, even for very large values of $A$,  

1328: changing $f(\delta')\to f(\delta')+ A\sin(k\delta')$ practically does not 

1329: modify the observable ${\cal F}(\delta)$ if $k$ is large enough. This means 

1330: that small variations in ${\cal F}(\delta)$ correspond to very large 

1331: high-frequency changes in the reconstructed function $f(\delta')$. The 

1332: solution does not depend continuously on the data, i.e. is highly unstable. 

1333: 

1334: The function ${\cal F}(\delta)$ is always determined experimentally with some 

1335: errors; the errors are drastically magnified in the process of solving   

1336: eq.~(\ref{smooth}) for $f(\delta')$. Even if one assumes ${\cal F}(\delta)$ to 

1337: be exactly known, the rounding errors, which are inherent to any numerical 

1338: calculation, would play the same role as the experimental errors and 

1339: destabilize the solution. Therefore, straightforward methods of solving 

1340: Fredholm integral equations of the first kind (such as discretization and 

1341: reduction to a system of linear algebraic equations) do not work. One has to 

1342: employ some regularization in order to suppress high-frequency noise in the 

1343: solution. 

1344: 

1345: There exist many regularization approaches for ill-posed problems and

1346: a vast literature on the subject. In our calculations we use two

1347: popular regularization schemes: the truncated singular value

1348: decomposition (TSVD) \cite{TSVD} and the Backus-Gilbert (BG) method

1349: \cite{BG,LE,num}, which are described in Appendices C and D,

1350: respectively.  The results of calculations for the step-function

1351: density profile and the Gaussian detector resolution function

1352: (\ref{Gauss1}) with 10\% resolution ($k_0=0.1$) are presented in

1353: figs.~\ref{fig:TSVD} and \ref{fig:BG}. In these figures shown are the

1354: exact profile (dashed line) and the reconstructed profiles in the case

1355: of Gaussian resolution: the naive calculation, which used ${\cal

1356:   F}(\delta)$ instead of $f(\delta')$, is shown by the dash-dotted

1357: curve, while the results of the corresponding regularization

1358: approaches are shown by the solid curves. In the case of the TSVD

1359: regularization, the contributions of the singular values $\lambda_i\le

1360: 10^{-10}$ were truncated (see Appendix C); in the BG approach,

1361: 1501-point calculation has been used. One can see from the figures

1362: that, while the naive calculation gives very poor reconstruction of

1363: the density profile far from the detector, undoing the smoothing

1364: caused by the finite energy resolution of the detectors improves the

1365: quality of the reconstruction drastically.

1366: 

1367: %

1368: \begin{samepage}

1369: \begin{figure}[tbp]

1370:   \centering 

1371:   \includegraphics[width=.9\linewidth,clip]{Fig-SVD.eps}

1372:   \caption{Density reconstruction for step-function density profile

1373:   using TSVD method. The dashed line is the exact profile, the

1374:   dash-dotted curve corresponds to a naive calculation using ${\cal

1375:   F}(\delta)$ instead of $f(\delta')$ for 10\% Gaussian resolution,

1376:   the solid curve is the result of TSVD regularization for Gaussian

1377:   resolution, truncation at $\lambda_i\le 10^{-10}$.} \label{fig:TSVD}

1378: \end{figure}

1379: %

1380: \begin{figure}[htbp]

1381:   \centering 

1382:   \includegraphics[width=.9\linewidth,clip]{Fig-BG.eps}

1383:   \caption{Same as in fig.~\ref{fig:TSVD}, but for Backus-Gilbert

1384:   method with $N=1501$ points. } \label{fig:BG}

1385: \end{figure}

1386: \end{samepage}

1387: %

1388: 

1389: Comparing figs.~\ref{fig:TSVD} and \ref{fig:BG} one can see that the BG 

1390: method gives in general more accurate reconstruction of the profile in the 

1391: regions that are far from the ends of the neutrino trajectory in the Earth, 

1392: whereas the TSVD method better reproduces the 

1393: exact profile near these endpoints, $x\simeq 0$ and $x\simeq L$, and the 

1394: jumps of the density (at the jumps, the TSVD curve is steeper than that of 

1395: the BG approach). One can employ both these methods of data treating for the 

1396: same set of experimental data and thus combine the advantages of each  

1397: approach. 

1398: 

1399: 

1400: \section{Discussion and outlook}

1401: \label{sec:disc}

1402: 

1403: \vspace*{2mm} We have developed a novel, {\em direct} approach to

1404: neutrino tomography of the Earth, based on a simple analytic formula

1405: for the Earth matter effect on oscillations of solar and supernova

1406: neutrinos inside the Earth.  These neutrinos have a number of

1407: advantages over the accelerator neutrinos from the viewpoint of the

1408: tomography of the Earth. Apart from coming from a free neutrino

1409: source, they are sensitive to the Earth matter effects even if the

1410: distances they travel in the Earth are as short as $\sim 50$ - 100 km.

1411: In addition, they can be used for reconstructing asymmetric density

1412: profiles and thus are sensitive to short scale inhomogeneities of

1413: matter distribution in the Earth, as possibly relevant in prospection

1414: applications.  Neutrino tomography allows the reconstruction of the

1415: electron number density of the Earth, i.e. is sensitive to its

1416: chemical composition. In this respect it can nicely complement

1417: geoseismological studies, which are based on the measurements of the

1418: spatial distributions of seismic wave velocities and can only probe

1419: the total density of the Earth's matter, but not its chemical

1420: composition.

1421: 

1422: 

1423: In the linear regime, which is valid for relatively short distances

1424: traveled by neutrinos in the Earth (up to several hundred km), the

1425: problem amounts to finding an inverse Fourier transform of the Earth

1426: regeneration factor.  However, to perform this transformation, one

1427: needs to know the Earth regeneration factor in the whole infinite

1428: interval of neutrino energies $0\le E < \infty$, whereas

1429: experimentally it can only be measured in a finite range $E_{min}\le

1430: E\le E_{max}$. Non-vanishing $E_{min}$ leads to a finite coordinate

1431: resolution $\Delta x\sim l_{osc}(E_{min})$ of the reconstruction

1432: procedure, while finite $E_{max}$ results in a systematic shift of the

1433: reconstructed profile compared to the true one.

1434: 

1435: Future experiments should be able to detect solar neutrinos with

1436: energies as small as $\sim 100$ keV, which means that a very good

1437: coordinate resolution can in principle be achieved; at the same time,

1438: finite $E_{max}$, i.e.  the lack of knowledge of the Earth

1439: regeneration factor in the high energy domain, could potentially be a

1440: serious drawback for the neutrino tomography of the Earth. We have

1441: shown, however, that this ignorance of the Earth matter effect at high

1442: neutrino energies can be compensated for by making use of simple

1443: iterative procedures. We have developed two such iteration schemes,

1444: one of them not using any prior information about the Earth density

1445: profile, and the other assuming the average matter density along the

1446: neutrino path to be known. Both schemes give very good results, the

1447: second one leading to a faster convergence.

1448: 

1449: In order to reconstruct the Earth matter density profiles over the

1450: distances of geophysical interest, i.e. exceeding a few hundred km,

1451: one needs to solve a complex non-linear problem. It should be noted,

1452: however, that even in the linear regime ($L\lesssim\,$ a few hundred

1453: km) one can obtain very interesting information about the structure of

1454: the Earth's crust and upper mantle. The maximal depth $d$ of the

1455: neutrino trajectory inside the Earth is \begin{equation}

1456: d=R_\oplus-\sqrt{R_\oplus^2-(L/2)^2}\,,

1457: \label{depth} 

1458: \end{equation}

1459: where $R_\oplus=6371$ km is the average radius of the Earth. For $L=300$ km 

1460: this gives $d\simeq 1.8$ km,  which could be quite sufficient, e.g., for 

1461: minerals, oil and gas prospecting. Learning more about the large-scale 

1462: structure of the Earth's interior would require calculations in the non-linear 

1463: regime. 

1464: 

1465: There is a number of very interesting physics and mathematics issues

1466: related to the problem of neutrino tomography of the Earth, which

1467: still are to be explored. We have studied in detail the linear regime

1468: of the Earth density profile reconstruction; attacking the non-linear

1469: regime remains a challenge for future investigations.

1470: %

1471: Another issue is recovering the true Earth regeneration factor,

1472: necessary for the inversion procedure, from the experimentally

1473: measured one, which is smoothed due to the finite energy resolution of

1474: the detector. Similar procedures are invoked in various remote sensing

1475: problems (e.g., in medical tomography, early vision, inverse problems

1476: of geo- and helioseismology, etc.).  We have used two relatively

1477: simple methods of undoing the smoothing effects, the truncated

1478: singular value decomposition and the Backus-Gilbert method, and only

1479: in the linear regime. At the same time, there is a variety of other

1480: methods developed for solving problems of this kind; it would be

1481: interesting to study some of them in application to the neutrino

1482: tomography of the Earth, and also to consider the de-smoothing

1483: procedure in the non-linear regime.

1484: 

1485:         

1486: Due to the rotation of the Earth, for a fixed position of the detector

1487: solar neutrinos will probe the Earth density distribution along a

1488: number of chords, ending at the detectors and spanning a segment

1489: inside the Earth. The size of the segment will depend on the

1490: geographic location of the detector. Because of the relatively low

1491: statistics, only density distributions averaged over certain angular

1492: bins of incoming neutrino directions will be probed. In order to

1493: reduce these averaging effects, i.e. to have small angular bins, one

1494: would need very large detectors and/or large overall detection time.

1495: %

1496: Supernova explosions being one-shot events, the Earth tomography with

1497: supernova neutrinos will allow the density profile reconstruction only

1498: along a single neutrino path for each detector and each supernova,

1499: depending on the detector and supernova positions at the time the

1500: supernova neutrinos arrive at the Earth.

1501: 

1502: 

1503: 

1504: The accuracy of the reconstruction of the Earth matter density

1505: distribution will depend crucially on the accuracy of the experimental

1506: data -- of the measured Earth regeneration factor and of the neutrino

1507: oscillation parameters. It will also depend on the accuracy of the

1508: reconstruction procedure itself. The largest error is expected to come

1509: from the errors in the measured Earth matter effect, mainly because

1510: this effect is rather small for solar and supernova neutrinos. To

1511: achieve a given accuracy of the density profile reconstruction, one

1512: should measure the Earth matter effect with similar or better

1513: accuracy. The present value of the night-day asymmetry of the solar

1514: neutrino signal, measured at Super-Kamiokande, is $2.1 \% \pm 2.0\%

1515: (\rm{stat}) \pm 1.3 \% (\rm{syst})$~\cite{Smy:2003jf}, i.e. the error

1516: constitutes more than 100\%. This is certainly a very important

1517: limiting factor for the reconstruction method described here.  Future

1518: megaton water Cherenkov detectors, such as UNO or Hyper-Kamiokande,

1519: are expected to reduce this error by a factor of 4 to 10; however,

1520: such detectors, unfortunately, are not very suitable for neutrino

1521: tomography of the Earth. The reason is that they are based on the $\nu

1522: e$ scattering process, in which the measured energy of the recoil

1523: electron gives only loose information on the energy of the incoming

1524: neutrino \footnote{In $\nu e$ scattering the neutrino

1525:   energy could be determined if, in addition to the energy of the

1526:   recoil electron, the direction of its momentum were measured.

1527:   Precise determinations of these directions are not possible with

1528:   water Cherenkov detectors, but can be realized in ICARUS-type liquid

1529:   argon detectors \cite{Amerio:2004ze}. }.  Detectors based on

1530: charged-current neutrino capture reactions, such as LENS or MOON

1531: \cite{Raghavan,Ejiri:1999rk,LOWE}, are probably more promising. It is

1532: not clear, however, whether sufficiently large (megaton or perhaps

1533: even tens of megaton scale) detectors of this kind can be constructed,

1534: and much work still has to be done to assess the feasibility of

1535: neutrino tomography of the Earth.  In any case, studying the Earth's

1536: interior with neutrinos is an exciting possibility, which can add yet

1537: another motivation for very large detectors of solar and supernova

1538: neutrinos.

1539: 

1540: 

1541: \vspace*{4mm}

1542: {\em Acknowledgements.} 

1543: The authors are grateful to G. Fiorentini and A. Yu. Smirnov for useful 

1544: discussions. This work was supported by Spanish grant BFM2002-00345 and by 

1545: the European Commission Human Potential Program RTN network 

1546: MRTN-CT-2004-503369. The work of E.A. was partially supported by the 

1547: sabbatical grant No. SAB2002-0069 of the Spanish MECD.   M.A.T.\ is

1548: supported by the M.E.C.D.\ fellowship AP2000-1953.

1549: 

1550: 

1551: 

1552: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1553: %%%%                      Appendix                              %%%%

1554: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1555: \begin{appendix}

1556: 

1557: \section{The case of not very large $\delta_{max} L$}

1558: \label{app:Improved}

1559: 

1560: If $\delta_{max} L\gg 1$ but still not very large, one can develop an

1561: iterative procedure correcting for the corresponding error in the

1562: reconstructed potential.

1563: 

1564: Let us add to and subtract from eq.~(\ref{aux1}) the corresponding integral 

1565: from $\delta_{min}$ to $\delta_0$, where $\delta_0\gg \delta_{max}$ is a 

1566: ``numerical emulation of infinity'', i.e. a large number for which one can 

1567: neglect the difference between $\sin (\delta_0 x)/x$ and $\pi\delta(x)$ (e.g., 

1568: $\delta_{0}=10^3 L^{-1}$). This gives 

1569: \begin{eqnarray}

1570: V(x)\simeq \frac{4}{\pi}\int_{\delta_{min}}^{\delta_{max}} 

1571: f(\delta)\sin 2\delta\,(L-x)\,d\delta\, +\frac{1}{\pi}\int_0^L V(y)

1572: \{F(x,y; 2\delta_{min})\qquad\quad \nonumber \\

1573: +\,F(x,y; 2\delta_{0})-F(x,y; 2\delta_{max})\}\,dy\,.

1574: \label{improved}

1575: \end{eqnarray}

1576: If eq.~(\ref{f2}) is exact, eq.~(\ref{improved}) becomes exact in the limit 

1577: $\delta_0\to\infty$. Note that the first term on the right hand side of 

1578: (\ref{improved}) contains integration over $\delta$ from $\delta_{min}$ to 

1579: $\delta_{max}$, 

1580: and not from $\delta_{min}$ to $\infty$. Thus, it properly takes into account 

1581: that the function $f(\delta)$ is only measured in the energy interval 

1582: $E_{min}\le E\le E_{max}$ with $E_{min}\ne 0$. 

1583: 

1584: Eq.~(\ref{improved}) can now be solved by iterations, the procedure 

1585: being quite analogous to the one used for solving eq.~(\ref{inv2}) in sections 

1586: \ref{sec:iterI} or \ref{sec:iterII}. If $\delta_{max} L$ is a very large 

1587: number, the difference between the solutions of eqs. (\ref{inv2}) and 

1588: (\ref{improved}) is numerically insignificant, but it can be noticeable when 

1589: $\delta_{max} L$ is not too large. In our calculation in the present paper we 

1590: always use $\delta_{max}L\ge 100$, so that there is no need to solve the 

1591: improved equation (\ref{improved}).

1592: 

1593: 

1594: \label{app:derivation}

1595: \renewcommand{\theequation}{\thesection\arabic{equation}}

1596: \setcounter{equation}{0}

1597: \section{Properties of $F(x,y; 2\delta_{min})$}

1598: \label{sec:properties}

1599: 

1600: 

1601: Let us prove that 

1602: \begin{equation}

1603: F(x,y; 2\delta_{min})>0 \quad \mbox{for all}\quad 0 < x,y <L\quad 

1604: \mbox{and}\quad \delta_{min}<2.246 L^{-1}\,. 

1605: \label{Fprop1}

1606: \end{equation}

1607: Indeed, the function $F(x,y; k)$ defined in eq.~(\ref{F1}) can be written as 

1608: $F(x,y; k)=g(x'-y')-g(x'+y')$, where $g(z)=\sin kz/z$, $x'=L-x$, $y'=L-y$. For 

1609: positive $k$, the function $g(z)$  reaches its first minimum at $kz\simeq 

1610: 4.493$ and is a decreasing function of $z$ for $0< kz < 4.493$ (see 

1611: fig.~\ref{fig:g}). Since $|x'-y'|\le x'+y'$, $F(x,y; k)$ is positive for all 

1612: $0<x,y<4.493/k$. Substituting $k=2\delta_{min}$ and requiring 

1613: $0<x,y<L<4.493/2\delta_{min}$, one arrives at (\ref{Fprop1}).

1614: 

1615: 

1616: \section{Truncated singular value decomposition (TSVD) }

1617: \label{sec:TSVD}

1618: 

1619: 

1620: Any square-integrable function $R(\delta, \delta')$ can be represented as 

1621: \cite{TSVD} 

1622: \begin{equation}

1623: R(\delta,\delta')~=~\sum_{i=1}^\infty \lambda_i\,u_i(\delta)\,v_i(\delta')\,.

1624: \qquad\quad

1625: \label{C1}

1626: \end{equation}

1627: where $\lambda_i$ are the so-called singular values, which converge to 0 

1628: as $i\to\infty$, and $u_i(\delta)$ and $v_i(\delta')$ are the singular 

1629: functions. They are orthogonal and can be normalized to satisfy 

1630: \begin{equation}

1631: (u_i\cdot u_j)~\equiv~\int u_i(\delta) u_j(\delta)\,d\delta~=~\delta_{ij}\,,

1632: \label{C2}

1633: \end{equation}

1634: and similarly for $v_i$. There exist standard programs for finding singular 

1635: values and singular functions of square-integrable kernels.

1636: 

1637: {}From eq.~(\ref{smooth}), which can be written in symbolic form as 

1638: ${\cal F}=R\cdot f$, and eqs.~(\ref{C1}) and (\ref{C2}) one finds 

1639: \begin{equation}

1640: f(\delta')~=~\sum_{i=1}^\infty \frac{(u_i\cdot{\cal F})}{\lambda_i}\,

1641: v_i(\delta')\,.\qquad\qquad

1642: \label{TSVDres}

1643: \end{equation}

1644: Since $\lambda_i\to 0$ as $i\to\infty$, the contributions of higher 

1645: harmonics to $f(\delta')$ are strongly enhanced, which leads to instabilities 

1646: due to small variations in ${\cal F}(\delta)$. To suppress these instabilities 

1647: (regularize the solution), one can truncate the series at certain value of 

1648: $i$, i.e. remove the contributions of very small singular values:

1649: \begin{equation}

1650: f(\delta')~\simeq~\sum_{i=1}^N \frac{(u_i\cdot{\cal F})}{\lambda_i}\,

1651: v_i(\delta')\,.\qquad\qquad

1652: \end{equation}

1653: In our calculations we truncate the series when $\lambda_i$ become smaller 

1654: than $10^{-10}$. 

1655: 

1656: A variant of the TSVD method employs a soft truncation, in which in the sum 

1657: in eq.~(\ref{TSVDres}) the following substitution is made: 

1658: \begin{equation}

1659: \frac{1}{\lambda_i}\to\frac{\lambda_i}{\lambda_i^2+\alpha^2}\,,\qquad\qquad

1660: \end{equation}

1661: where $\alpha$ is the regularization parameter. This procedure is equivalent 

1662: to using the Tikhonov regularization \cite{TSVD}. 

1663: 

1664: \section{Backus-Gilbert method }

1665: \label{sec:BG}

1666: 

1667: 

1668: This method \cite{BG,LE,num} is especially well suited for incorporating the 

1669: errors of experimental data into the inversion procedure.  

1670: 

1671: We want to solve eq.~(\ref{smooth}) for the function $f(\delta')$.

1672: First, we take into account that the actual experiments provide us with 

1673: the binned data, i.e. we will have not a function ${\cal F}(\delta)$, but 

1674: a finite set of discrete values ${\cal F}(\delta_i)\equiv{\cal F}_i$ 

1675: \mbox{($i=1,\dots,N$)}. 

1676: {}From eq.~(\ref{smooth}) we then have 

1677: \begin{equation}

1678: {\cal F}_i=\int_0^\infty R(\delta_i, \delta') f(\delta')\,d\delta'\,.

1679: \label{BG1}

1680: \end{equation}

1681: Then, we seek the solution of this equation in the form

1682: \begin{equation}

1683: f(\delta')~\simeq~ \sum_{i=1}^N a_i(\delta'){\cal F}_i\,,

1684: \label{BG2}

1685: \end{equation}

1686: where the coefficients $a_i(\delta')$ are to be determined. This is, actually, 

1687: the most general form for linear inversion. Substituting here ${\cal F}_i$ 

1688: from eq. (\ref{BG1}), we find

1689: \begin{equation}

1690: f(\delta')\simeq \int_0^\infty \hat{\delta}(\delta', \delta'') 

1691: f(\delta'') 

1692: \, d\delta''\,,

1693: \label{BG3}

1694: \end{equation}

1695: where the function $\hat{\delta}(\delta', \delta'')$ is given by

1696: \begin{equation}

1697: \hat{\delta}(\delta', \delta'')~=~\sum_{i=1}^N a_i(\delta') 

1698: R(\delta_i,\delta'')\,.

1699: \label{BG4}

1700: \end{equation}

1701: {}From eq. (\ref{BG3}) it is seen that in the ideal case the function 

1702: $\hat{\delta}(\delta', \delta'')$ should coincide with Dirac's 

1703: $\delta$-function. In reality it does not, but we can try to make it as close 

1704: to the $\delta$-function as possible. The simplest Backus-Gilbert prescription 

1705: for that is the following. Define the spread function $r(\delta')$ as

1706: \begin{equation}

1707: r(\delta')~=~ \int_0^\infty (\delta'-\delta'')^2 \,[\hat{\delta}(\delta', 

1708: \delta'')]^2 \, d\delta''\,. 

1709: \label{BG5}

1710: \end{equation}

1711: It is non-negative, and would vanish if the function $\hat{\delta}(\delta', 

1712: \delta'')$ were indeed Dirac's $\delta$-function. We now find the coefficients 

1713: $a_i(\delta')$ by minimizing $r(\delta')$, subject to the normalization 

1714: constraint 

1715: \begin{equation}

1716: \int_0^\infty \hat{\delta}(\delta', \delta'') \, d\delta'' ~=~ 1\,.

1717: \label{BG6}

1718: \end{equation}

1719: This would lead to $\hat{\delta}(\delta', \delta'')$ being closest to the 

1720: $\delta$-function for a given choice of the spread\footnote{Other choices of 

1721: the spread function are also possible.}. 

1722: The derivation is straightforward, and here we give the results.

1723: 

1724: Let us define the matrix $S(\delta')$ as 

1725: \begin{equation}

1726: S_{ik}(\delta') ~=~ \int_0^\infty (\delta'-\delta'')^2 \, R(\delta_i, 

1727: \delta'')\,R(\delta_k, \delta'') \, d\delta''\,. 

1728: \label{BG7}

1729: \end{equation}

1730: We also define $N$ numbers $u_i$:

1731: \begin{equation}

1732: u_i ~=~\int_0^\infty R(\delta_i, \delta_1)\,d\delta_1\,.

1733: \label{BG8}

1734: \end{equation}

1735: \noindent

1736: If the energy resolution function $R(\delta, \delta')$ is normalized 

1737: to unit integral, then all $u_i$ in eq.~(\ref{BG8}) are equal to 1, but 

1738: in general $u_i$ can be different from unity. Minimization of the function 

1739: $r(\delta')$, subject to the normalization constraint (\ref{BG6}), yields

1740: \begin{equation}

1741: a_i(\delta')~=~

1742: \frac{\sum\limits_{k=1}^N [S^{-1}(\delta')]_{ik}\,u_k}

1743: {\sum\limits_{j,k=1}^N u_j\,[S^{-1}(\delta')]_{jk}\, u_k}\,,

1744: \label{BG9}

1745: \end{equation}

1746: or, in matrix notation,

1747: \begin{equation}

1748: a(\delta')~=~\frac{S^{-1}(\delta')\, u}{u\, S^{-1}(\delta')\,u}\,.

1749: \label{BG10}

1750: \end{equation}

1751: Note that the matrix $S$ is symmetric and positive-definite, so it has an 

1752: inverse.

1753: 

1754: Using eq. (\ref{BG2}), one then finds the approximate solution of 

1755: eq.~(\ref{BG1}):

1756: \begin{equation}

1757: f(\delta')~\simeq~

1758: \frac{\sum\limits_{i,k=1}^N {\cal F}_i\,[S^{-1}(\delta')]_{ik}\,u_k}

1759: {\sum\limits_{j,k=1}^N u_j\,[S^{-1}(\delta')]_{jk}\, u_k}\,,

1760: \label{BG11}

1761: \end{equation}

1762: or, using the matrix notation,

1763: \begin{equation}

1764: f(\delta)'~\simeq~\frac{{\cal F}\, S^{-1}(\delta')\, 

1765: u}{u\, S^{-1}(\delta')\, u}\,.

1766: \label{BG12}

1767: \end{equation}

1768: 

1769: Some comments are in order. To have a good accuracy, one would like the 

1770: number of data bins $N$ to be large, but then $S(\delta')$ is a very large 

1771: matrix, and inverting it may be a time and memory consuming operation. It 

1772: is, however, not necessary to invert $S(\delta')$. It is enough to solve the 

1773: system of $N$ linear equations

1774: \begin{equation}

1775: \sum_{k=1}^N S_{ik}(\delta')y_k(\delta')=u_i

1776: \label{BG13}

1777: \end{equation}

1778: and find an $N$-component vector $y(\delta')$, which is a much simpler 

1779: problem. Then eqs.~(\ref{BG11}) and (\ref{BG12}) can be rewritten as

1780: \begin{equation}

1781: f(\delta')~\simeq~ \frac{\sum\limits_{i=1}^N {\cal F}_i\,y_i(\delta')}

1782: {\sum\limits_{k=1}^N u_k\, y_k(\delta')}~=~

1783: \frac{{\cal F} y(\delta')}{u\, y(\delta')}\,.

1784: \label{BG14}

1785: \end{equation}

1786: 

1787: 

1788: \end{appendix}

1789: 

1790: %\newpage

1791: 

1792: \begin{thebibliography}{999}

1793: 

1794: \bibitem{Volkova} L. V. Volkova, G. T. Zatsepin, Bull. Acad. Sci. 

1795: USSR, Phys. Ser. {\bf 38} (1974) 151. 

1796: 

1797: \bibitem{DeRujula:1983ya}

1798: A.~De Rujula, S.~L.~Glashow, R.~R.~Wilson and G.~Charpak,

1799: %``Neutrino Exploration Of The Earth,''

1800: Phys.\ Rept.\  {\bf 99} (1983) 341.

1801: %%CITATION = PRPLC,99,341;%%

1802: 

1803: \bibitem{Wilson:1983an}

1804: T.~L.~Wilson,

1805: %``Neutrino Tomography: Tevatron Mapping Versus The Neutrino Sky,''

1806: Nature {\bf 309} (1984) 38.

1807: %%CITATION = NATUA,309,38;%%

1808: 

1809: \bibitem{Askarian:ca}

1810: G.~A.~Askarian,

1811: %``Investigation Of The Earth By Means Of Neutrinos. Neutrino Geology,''

1812: Sov.\ Phys.\ Usp.\  {\bf 27} (1984) 896

1813: [Usp.\ Fiz.\ Nauk {\bf 144} (1984) 523].

1814: %%CITATION = SOPUA,27,896;%%

1815: 

1816: \bibitem{Borisov:sm}

1817: A.~B.~Borisov, B.~A.~Dolgoshein and A.~N.~Kalinovsky,

1818: %``Direct Method For Determination Of Differential Distribution Of The Earth

1819: %Density By Means Of High-Energy Neutrino Scattering. (In Russian),''

1820: Yad.\ Fiz.\  {\bf 44} (1986) 681.

1821: %%CITATION = YAFIA,44,681;%%

1822: 

1823: \bibitem{Jain:1999kp}

1824: P.~Jain, J.~P.~Ralston and G.~M.~Frichter,

1825: %``Neutrino absorption tomography of the Earth's interior using isotropic

1826: %ultra-high energy flux,''

1827: Astropart.\ Phys.\  {\bf 12} (1999) 193

1828: [hep-ph/9902206].

1829: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9902206;%%

1830: 

1831: \bibitem{Ermilova:pw}

1832: V.~K.~Ermilova, V.~A.~Tsarev and V.~A.~Chechin,

1833: %``Restoration Of The Density Distribution Of Material Based On Neutrino

1834: %Oscillations,''

1835: %\href{http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?irn=2007819}{SPIRES 

1836: %entry}

1837: Bull. Lebedev Phys. Inst. {\bf 3} (1988) 51.

1838: 

1839: \bibitem{Chechin} V.A. Chechin and  V.K. Ermilova, in: Proc. of LEWI'90 

1840: School, Dubna, 1991, p. 75. 

1841: 

1842: \bibitem{Nicolaidis:fe}

1843: A.~Nicolaidis,

1844: %``Neutrinos For Geophysics,''

1845: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 200} (1988) 553.

1846: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B200,553;%%

1847: 

1848: \bibitem{Nicolaidis:1990jm}

1849: A.~Nicolaidis, M.~Jannane and A.~Tarantola,

1850: %``Neutrino Tomography Of The Earth,''

1851: J.\ Geophys.\ Res.\  {\bf 96} (1991) 21811.

1852: %%CITATION = JGREA,96,21811;%%

1853: 

1854: \bibitem{Ohlsson:2001ck}

1855: T.~Ohlsson and W.~Winter,

1856: %``Reconstruction of the earth's matter density profile using a single neutrino

1857: %baseline,''

1858: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 512} (2001) 357

1859: [hep-ph/0105293].

1860: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0105293;%%

1861: 

1862: \bibitem{Ohlsson:2001fy}

1863: T.~Ohlsson and W.~Winter,

1864: %``Could one find petroleum using neutrino oscillations in matter?,''

1865: Europhys.\ Lett.\  {\bf 60} (2002) 34

1866: [hep-ph/0111247].

1867: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0111247;%%

1868: 

1869: \bibitem{Ioannisian:2002yj}

1870: A.~N.~Ioannisian and A.~Y.~Smirnov,

1871: %``Matter effects of thin layers: Detecting oil by oscillations of solar

1872: %neutrinos,''

1873: hep-ph/0201012.

1874: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0201012;%%

1875: 

1876: \bibitem{Lindner:2002wm}

1877: M.~Lindner, T.~Ohlsson, R.~Tomas and W.~Winter,

1878: %``Tomography of the earth's core using supernova neutrinos,''

1879: Astropart.\ Phys.\  {\bf 19} (2003) 755

1880: [hep-ph/0207238].

1881: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0207238;%%

1882: 

1883: \bibitem{Winter:2005we}

1884: W.~Winter,

1885: %``Probing the absolute density of the Earth's core using a neutrino beam,''

1886: hep-ph/0502097.

1887: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0502097;%%

1888: 

1889: \bibitem{Wolfenstein:1977ue}

1890: L.~Wolfenstein,

1891: %``Neutrino Oscillations In Matter,''

1892: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 17} (1978) 2369.

1893: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D17,2369;%%

1894: 

1895: \bibitem{Mikheev:gs}

1896: S.~P.~Mikheev and A.~Y.~Smirnov,

1897: %``Resonance Enhancement Of Oscillations In Matter And Solar Neutrino

1898: %Spectroscopy,''

1899: Sov.\ J.\ Nucl.\ Phys.\  {\bf 42} (1985) 913

1900: [Yad.\ Fiz.\  {\bf 42} (1985) 1441].

1901: %%CITATION = SJNCA,42,913;%%

1902: 

1903: \bibitem{Akhmedov:2000cs}

1904: E.~K.~Akhmedov,

1905: %``Matter effects in oscillations of neutrinos traveling short distances  

1906: %in matter,''

1907: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 503} (2001) 133

1908: [hep-ph/0011136].

1909: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0011136;%%

1910: 

1911: \bibitem{Ioannisian:2004jk}

1912: A.~N.~Ioannisian and A.~Y.~Smirnov,

1913: %``Neutrino oscillations in low density medium,''

1914: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 93} (2004) 241801 [hep-ph/0404060].

1915: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0404060;%%

1916: 

1917: \bibitem{deHolanda:2004fd}

1918: P.~C.~de Holanda, W.~Liao and A.~Y.~Smirnov,

1919: %``Toward precision measurements in solar neutrinos,''

1920: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 702} (2004) 307 [hep-ph/0404042].

1921: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0404042;%%

1922: 

1923: \bibitem{Akhmedov:2001kd}

1924: E.~K.~Akhmedov, P.~Huber, M.~Lindner and T.~Ohlsson,

1925: %``T violation in neutrino oscillations in matter,''

1926: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 608} (2001) 394

1927: [hep-ph/0105029].

1928: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0105029;%%

1929: %\bibitem{}

1930: 

1931: \bibitem{Blennow:2003xw}

1932: M.~Blennow, T.~Ohlsson and H.~Snellman,

1933: \newblock Phys. Rev. {\bf D69} (2004) 073006 [hep-ph/0311098].

1934: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0311098;%%

1935: 

1936: \bibitem{Akhmedov:2004rq}

1937: E.~K.~Akhmedov, M.~A.~T\'ortola and J.~W.~F.~Valle,

1938: %``A simple analytic three-flavour description of the day-night effect in the

1939: %solar neutrino flux,''

1940: JHEP {\bf 0405} (2004) 057 [hep-ph/0404083].

1941: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0404083;%%

1942: 

1943: \bibitem{solardata} See, e.g., talks by C. Cattadori, M. Nakahata and J. 

1944: Wilkerson at the 21st International Conference on Neutrino Physics and 

1945: Astrophysics (Neutrino 2004), Coll\`ege de France, Paris, June 14 - 19, 

1946: 2004 (transparencies at http://neutrino2004.in2p3.fr/). 

1947: 

1948: \bibitem{KamLAND} 

1949: %\cite{Eguchi:2002dm}

1950: %\bibitem{Eguchi:2002dm}

1951: KamLAND Collaboration, K.~Eguchi {\it et al.},   

1952: %``First results from KamLAND: Evidence for reactor anti-neutrino

1953: %disappearance,''

1954: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 90} (2003) 021802 [hep-ex/0212021]; 

1955: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0212021;%%

1956: %

1957: %\bibitem{Araki:2004mb}

1958: T.~Araki {\it et al.},  

1959: %[KamLAND Collaboration],

1960: %``Measurement of neutrino oscillation with KamLAND: Evidence of spectral

1961: %distortion,''

1962: hep-ex/0406035.

1963: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0406035;%%

1964: 

1965: 

1966: \bibitem{Maltoni:2004ei}

1967: M.~Maltoni, T.~Schwetz, M.~A.~T\'ortola and J.~W.~F.~Valle,

1968: %``Status of global fits to neutrino oscillations,''

1969: New J.\ Phys.\ {\bf 6} (2004) 122 [hep-ph/0405172, version 4, 

1970: which includes an appendix with updated results taking into

1971: account a new background source in KamLAND data].

1972: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0405172;%%

1973: 

1974: 

1975: \bibitem{Dighe:1999id}

1976: A.~S. Dighe, Q.~Y. Liu and A.~Y. Smirnov,

1977: \newblock hep-ph/9903329.

1978: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9903329;%%

1979: 

1980: \bibitem{deGouvea:2000un}

1981: A.~de Gouv\^ea,

1982: %``The oscillation probability of GeV solar neutrinos of all active species,''

1983: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 63} (2001) 093003 [hep-ph/0006157].

1984: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0006157;%%

1985: 

1986: \bibitem{Raghavan} R. Raghavan, {\em Discovery potential of low energy  

1987: solar neutrino experiments},\\

1988: http://www.hep.utexas.edu/sno/apsstudy/LONUDISC.pdf.

1989: 

1990: %\cite{Ejiri:1999rk}

1991: \bibitem{Ejiri:1999rk}

1992: H.~Ejiri {\it et al.,}

1993: %J.~Engel, R.~Hazama, P.~Krastev, N.~Kudomi and R.~G.~H.~Robertson,

1994: %``Spectroscopy of double-beta and inverse-beta decays from Mo-100 for

1995: %neutrinos,''

1996: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 85} (2000) 2917 [nucl-ex/9911008].

1997: %%CITATION = NUCL-EX 9911008;%%

1998: 

1999: \bibitem{LOWE} M. Nakahata, talk given at 5th Workshop on "Neutrino 

2000: Oscillations and their Origin" (NOON2004), Tokyo, Japan, Febr. 11-15, 

2001: 2004. Transparencies at http://www-sk.icrr.u-tokyo.ac.jp/noon2004/.

2002: 

2003: \bibitem{Keil:2002in}

2004: See, e.g., M.~T.~Keil, G.~G.~Raffelt and H.~T.~Janka,

2005: %``Monte Carlo study of supernova neutrino spectra formation,''

2006: Astrophys.\ J.\  {\bf 590} (2003) 971 [astro-ph/0208035].

2007: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0208035;%%

2008: 

2009: \bibitem{Dziewonski:xy}

2010: A.~M.~Dziewonski and D.~L.~Anderson,

2011: %``Preliminary Reference Earth Model,''

2012: Phys.\ Earth Planet \ Interiors {\bf 25} (1981) 297.

2013: %%CITATION = PEPIA,25,297;%%

2014: 

2015: 

2016: \bibitem{Goursat} E. Goursat, {\em A course in mathematical analysis}, 

2017: New York, Dover, 1959, v. III, \mbox{part 2}, $\S$103.  

2018: 

2019: \bibitem{TSVD} See, e.g., P.~C.~Hansen, Inverse Problems {\bf 8} (1992) 849. 

2020: 

2021: \bibitem{BG} G. Backus and F. Gilbert,

2022: %The resolving power of gross earth data,

2023: Geophys. J. R. Astron. Soc. {\bf 16} (1968) 169; 

2024: %Uniquenss in the inversion of inaccurate gross earth data,

2025: Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London {\bf 266} (1970) 123.

2026: 

2027: \bibitem{LE} T. J. Loredo and R. I. Epstein,

2028: %Analyzing gamma-ray bursts spectral data,

2029: Astrophys. J. {\bf 336} (1989) 896.

2030: 

2031: \bibitem{num}

2032: W.~H~. Press, S.~A.~Teukolsky, W.~T.~Vetterling and B.~P.~Flannery,  

2033: {\em Numerical recipes in C++: the art of scientific computing}, 2nd ed.,

2034: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2002.

2035: 

2036: \bibitem{Smy:2003jf}

2037: Super-Kamiokande Collaboration, M.~B. Smy {\em et~al.},

2038: \newblock Phys. Rev. {\bf D69} (2004) 011104.

2039: %[hep-ex/0309011].

2040: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0309011;%%

2041: 

2042: %\cite{Amerio:2004ze}

2043: \bibitem{Amerio:2004ze}

2044: ICARUS Collaboration, S.~Amerio {\it et al.},   

2045: %``Design, construction and tests of the ICARUS T600 detector,''

2046: Nucl.\ Instrum.\ Meth.\ A {\bf 527} (2004) 329.

2047: %%CITATION = NUIMA,A527,329;%%

2048: 

2049: \end{thebibliography}

2050: 

2051: \end{document}

2052: 

2053: