1: \documentclass[a4paper,oneside,11pt]{article}
2: \usepackage{amssymb}
3: \usepackage{graphicx}
4: \usepackage{multicol}
5: \usepackage{floatflt}
6: \usepackage{color}
7: \definecolor{rosso}{cmyk}{0,1,1,0.4}
8: \definecolor{rossos}{cmyk}{0,1,1,0.55}
9: \definecolor{rossoc}{cmyk}{0,1,1,0.2}
10: \definecolor{blu}{cmyk}{1,1,0,0.3}
11: \definecolor{blus}{cmyk}{1,1,0,0.6}
12: \definecolor{bluc}{cmyk}{1,1,0,0.1}
13: \definecolor{verde}{cmyk}{0.92,0,0.59,0.25}
14: \definecolor{verdec}{cmyk}{0.92,0,0.59,0.15}
15: \definecolor{verdes}{cmyk}{0.92,0,0.59,0.4}
16:
17: \topmargin 0pt
18: \textheight 50\baselineskip
19: \advance\textheight by \topskip
20: \textwidth 17.0cm
21: \marginparwidth 0cm
22: \oddsidemargin -0.5cm
23:
24:
25: \font\tenrsfs=rsfs10 at 11pt
26: \font\sevenrsfs=rsfs7
27: \font\fiversfs=rsfs5
28: \newfam\rsfsfam
29: \textfont\rsfsfam=\tenrsfs
30: \scriptfont\rsfsfam=\sevenrsfs
31: \scriptscriptfont\rsfsfam=\fiversfs
32: \def\mathscr#1{{\fam\rsfsfam\relax#1}}
33: \def\Lag{\mathscr{L}}
34: \def\Ham{\mathscr{H}}
35:
36: \lineskip 2pt
37: \normallineskip 2pt
38: \parskip 4pt
39: \pagestyle{plain}
40: \def\baselinestretch{1.03}\large\normalsize
41: \setlength{\unitlength}{1cm}
42: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}
43: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}
44: \newcommand{\ba}{\begin{array}}
45: \newcommand{\ea}{\end{array}}
46: \newcommand{\dm}{\Delta m^2}
47: \newcommand{\tg}{\tan^2 \theta}
48: \newcommand{\eV}{{\rm eV}}
49: \newcommand{\cm}{{\rm cm}}
50: \newcommand{\km}{{\rm km}}
51: \newcommand{\meV}{\,{\rm meV}}
52: \newcommand{\s}{{\rm s}}
53: \newcommand{\etal}{{\em et al.}}
54: \newcommand{\dchi}{$\Delta\chi^2$}
55: \def\Red {\special{color cmyk 0 1. 1. 0.5}}
56: \def\BrightRed {\special{color cmyk 0 1. 1. 0.2}}
57: \def\Black{\special{color cmyk 0 0 0 1.}}
58: \def\Orange{\special{color cmyk 0 0.46 0.50 0.3}} % PANTONE 177
59: \def\Green{\special{color cmyk 0.92 0 0.59 0.5}} % PANTONE 323
60: \def\Salmon{\special{color cmyk 0 0.53 0.38 0}} % PANTONE 183
61: \def\Purple{\special{color cmyk 0 0.63 0 0.3}} % PANTONE 218
62: \def\Peach{\special{color cmyk 0 0.50 0.70 0.25}} % PANTONE 164
63: \def\Blue {\special{color cmyk 1. 1. 0.3 0}}
64: \def\Cyan{\special{color cmyk 1. 0 0 0.5}} % PANTONE PROCESS-CYAN
65: \newcommand{\eq}[1]{~(\ref{eq:#1})}
66: \newcommand{\MeV}{\,{\rm MeV}}
67: \newcommand{\NP}{Nucl. Phys.}
68: \newcommand{\PRL}{Phys. Rev. Lett.}
69: \newcommand{\PL}{Phys. Lett.}
70: \newcommand{\PR}{Phys. Rev.}
71: \newcommand{\mb}[1]{\mbox{\normalsize\boldmath $#1$}}
72: \newcommand{\fig}[1]{~\ref{fig:#1}}
73:
74: \def\circa#1{\,\raise.3ex\hbox{$#1$\kern-.75em\lower1ex\hbox{$\sim$}}\,}
75: \makeatletter
76: %
77: % formato bibliografico standard
78: %
79: %\art[hep-ph/0102234]{autori}{rivista}{numero}{pagina}{anno}
80: \def\art{\@ifnextchar[{\eart}{\oart}}
81: \def\eart[#1]#2#3#4#5#6{{\rm #2}, {#3 #4} {\rm (#6) #5} [#1]}
82: \def\hepart[#1]#2{{\rm #2, #1}}
83: \newcommand{\oart}[5]{{\rm #1}, {#2 #3} {\rm (#5) #4}}
84: \newcommand{\y}{{\rm and} }
85: %
86: % definizione della macro EQNSYSTEM
87: %
88: \newcounter{alphaequation}[equation]
89: %\def\thealphaequation{\theequation\alph{alphaequation}}
90: \def\thealphaequation{\theequation\hbox to
91: 0.6em{\hfil\alph{alphaequation}\hfil}}
92: % MODIFICATA PER DARE UNA DIMENSIONE UGUALE AD UN 1em AD OGNI LETTERA
93: \def\eqnsystem#1{
94: \def\@eqnnum{{\rm (\thealphaequation)}}
95: %
96: \def\@@eqncr{\let\@tempa\relax \ifcase\@eqcnt \def\@tempa{& & &} \or
97: \def\@tempa{& &}\or \def\@tempa{&}\fi\@tempa
98: \if@eqnsw\@eqnnum\refstepcounter{alphaequation}\fi
99: \global\@eqnswtrue\global\@eqcnt=0\cr}
100: %
101: \refstepcounter{equation} \let\@currentlabel\theequation \def\@tempb{#1}
102: \ifx\@tempb\empty\else\label{#1}\fi
103: %
104: \refstepcounter{alphaequation}
105: \let\@currentlabel\thealphaequation
106: %
107: \global\@eqnswtrue\global\@eqcnt=0 \tabskip\@centering\let\\=\@eqncr
108: $$\halign to \displaywidth\bgroup \@eqnsel\hskip\@centering
109: $\displaystyle\tabskip\z@{##}$&\global\@eqcnt\@ne
110: \hskip2\arraycolsep\hfil${##}$\hfil& \global\@eqcnt\tw@\hskip2\arraycolsep
111: $\displaystyle\tabskip\z@{##}$\hfil
112: \tabskip\@centering&\llap{##}\tabskip\z@\cr}
113: %
114: \def\endeqnsystem{\@@eqncr\egroup$$\global\@ignoretrue} \makeatother
115:
116:
117:
118:
119:
120: \begin{document}%\twocolumn[
121: \centerline{hep-ph/0503246 \hfill \hfill IFUP--TH/2005--06}
122: \vspace{0.5cm}
123: \centerline{\LARGE\bf\Red Implications of neutrino data circa 2005}
124: \medskip\bigskip\Black
125: \centerline{\large\bf Alessandro Strumia}\vspace{0.2cm}
126: \centerline{\em Dipartimento di Fisica dell'Universit\`a di Pisa and INFN}\vspace{0.4cm}
127: \centerline{\large\bf Francesco Vissani}\vspace{0.2cm}
128: \centerline{\em INFN, Laboratori Nazionali del Gran Sasso,
129: Theory Group, I-67010 Assergi (AQ), Italy}
130:
131: \bigskip%\bigskip
132:
133: \Blue\centerline{\large\bf Abstract}
134:
135: \begin{quote}\large\indent
136: Adopting the 3 neutrino framework,
137: we present an updated determination of the oscillation parameters.
138: We perform a global analysis and develop
139: simple arguments that give essentially the same result.
140: We also discuss
141: determinations of solar neutrino fluxes, capabilities of
142: future experiments, tests of CPT, implications for neutrino-less
143: double-$\beta$ decay,
144: $\beta$ decay, cosmology.
145: \Black
146: \end{quote}
147:
148: %\bigskip\bigskip
149:
150: %\vspace{5cm}
151:
152: \begin{table}[h]
153: $$\begin{array}{|lrlc|}\hline
154: \hbox{Oscillation parameter}&\multicolumn{2}{c}{\hbox{central value}} &\hbox{$99\%$ CL range}\\ \hline
155: \color{rossos}
156: \hbox{solar mass splitting} & \color{rossos}\Delta m^2_{12} ~=
157: & \color{rossos}(8.0\pm 0.3)\,10^{-5}\eV^2 & \color{rossos}(7.2\div 8.9)\,10^{-5}\eV^2 \\
158: \color{blus}\hbox{atmospheric mass splitting~} &\color{blus}|\Delta m^2_{23}| ~=
159: &\color{blus}~(2.5\pm 0.3) \,10^{-3}\eV^2~ &\color{blus}(1.7\div 3.3) \,10^{-3}\eV^2\\
160: \color{rossos}
161: \hbox{solar mixing angle} &\color{rossos} \tan^2 \theta_{12} ~=& \color{rossos}0.45\pm0.05
162: &\color{rossos}30^\circ < \theta_{12}<38^\circ \\
163: \color{blus}\hbox{atmospheric mixing angle} &\color{blus}\sin^2 2\theta_{23} ~=
164: &\color{blus} 1.02\pm 0.04 &36^\circ <\theta_{23}< 54^\circ\\
165: \color{verdes}\hbox{`CHOOZ' mixing angle} &\color{verdes} \sin^2 2\theta_{13} ~=&
166: \color{verdes}0\pm0.05 &\color{verdes} \theta_{13}<10^\circ\\ \hline
167: \end{array}$$\vspace{-4mm}
168: $$\begin{array}{|ccc|cc|}\hline
169: \hbox{non-oscillation} &\hbox{probed} &\hbox{experimental} & \hbox{$99\%$ CL range} & \hbox{$99\%$ CL range}\\
170: \hbox{parameter}&\hbox{by}&\hbox{limit at $99\%$ CL}& \hbox{normal hierarchy} & \hbox{inverted hierarchy}\\ \hline
171: \hbox{$ee$-entry of $m$}&\hbox{$0\nu2\beta$} &m_{ee}< 0.38\,h\,\eV&(1.1\div 4.5)\meV & (12\div 57)\meV\\
172: \hbox{$(m^\dagger m)^{1/2}_{ee}$}&\hbox{$\beta$-decay} & m_{\nu_e}<2.0\,\eV& (4.6\div10)\meV &(42\div 57)\meV \\
173: \hbox{$m_1+m_2+m_3$} &\hbox{cosmology}& m_{\rm cosmo}<0.94\,\eV &(51\div 66)\meV& (83\div 114)\meV\\ \hline
174: \end{array}$$
175: \caption{\em Summary of present
176: information on neutrino masses
177: and mixings from oscillation data (upper rows) and inferences and limits
178: on non-oscillation probes (lower rows)
179: A $99\%$ C.L.\ range is a $2.58\sigma$ range.
180: Some $0\nu2\beta$ data are controversial, and $h\sim 1$ parameterizes uncertain nuclear matrix elements.
181: \label{tab1}}
182: \end{table}
183:
184:
185: \begin{figure}[h]\vspace{-9mm}
186: $$\hspace{-8mm}\includegraphics[width=168mm]{OscParams.eps} $$
187: %$$\includegraphics[width=160mm]{pantaprob.eps} $$
188: \vspace{-11mm}
189: \caption[]{\em Summary of present
190: information on neutrino masses
191: and mixings from oscillations.
192: \label{fig:panta}}
193: \end{figure}
194:
195:
196:
197:
198: \newpage
199:
200:
201: %\section{The 3 neutrino framework}
202: %\section{What we know on neutrino masses}
203: \noindent
204: The most plausible extension of the Standard Model that allows to interpret a wealth of neutrino data~\cite{Chlorinelast,Galliumlast,Gallex,SAGE, SKlast, SNOlast, SNOsaltfinal, KL2004,SKI,Macro,K2K}
205: consists in adding a Majorana mass term for neutrinos,
206: \begin{equation} \Lag = \Lag_{\rm SM} + \frac{1}{2} ({\nu} \cdot m \cdot \nu + \hbox{h.c.})\,\qquad
207: m=V^*\cdot \mbox{diag}( m_1,\ m_2\ e^{2i\alpha},\ m_3\ e^{2i\beta}) \cdot V^\dagger.
208: \end{equation}
209: For normal mass hierarchy we order the neutrino masses $m_{1,2,3}\ge 0$ as
210: $m_1<m_2<m_3$, whereas for inverted mass hierarchy we choose $m_3<m_1<m_2$.
211: The neutrino mixing matrix is
212: \begin{equation}
213: V=R_{23}(\theta_{23})\
214: \mbox{diag}(1,e^{i\phi},1)\ R_{13}(\theta_{13})
215: \ R_{12}(\theta_{12}).\end{equation}
216: A similar result holds in the case of Dirac masses,
217: with the difference that the number of physical parameters decreases from 9 to 7:
218: the Majorana phases $\alpha$ and $\beta$ can be reabsorbed by field redefinitions.
219: %(2)~For normal (direct) mass hierarchy
220: %$m_1<m_2<m_3$, whereas for inverted mass hierarchy,
221: %$m_3<m_1<m_2$.
222: %(3)~With our convention for the CP violating phase $\phi$,
223: %the 3 elements $V_{ei}$ ($i=1,2,3$) are real, which is convenient
224: %to study the impact of phases on neutrinoless double beta decay
225: %(Majorana masses only).
226:
227:
228:
229:
230: Data on neutrino oscillations fix $\theta_{12},\theta_{23},\Delta m^2_{12}$
231: and $|\Delta m^2_{23}|$ where $\Delta m^2_{ij}\equiv m_j^2-m_i^2$.
232: As discussed later (sections \ref{sec:sol} and \ref{sec:atm})
233: our present knowledge of oscillation parameters
234: is approximatively summarized in the upper rows of table~\ref{tab1}.
235: The uncertainties are almost Gaussian in the chosen variables;
236: fig.\fig{panta} shows the full $\chi^2$ functions.
237: Correlations among parameters are ignored because negligible,
238: with the exception that the upper
239: bound on $\theta_{13}$ depends on $|\Delta m^2_{23}|$.
240: While $\theta_{12}$ is rather precisely measured,
241: the other 2 mixing angles have large uncertainties.
242: Planned long-baseline oscillation experiments can strongly
243: improve on $\Delta m^2_{23}$
244: and (if $\theta_{13}\circa{>}1^\circ$) measure $\theta_{13}$,
245: the phase $\phi$, and determine which type of mass hierarchy
246: is realized in nature.
247:
248:
249:
250:
251:
252: Oscillation experiments, however, are insensitive to
253: the absolute neutrino mass scale (say, the mass of the
254: lightest neutrino) and to the 2 Majorana phases $\alpha$ and $\beta$.
255: Other types of experiments can study some of
256: these quantities and the nature of neutrino masses. They are:
257: $\beta$-decay experiments, that in good approximation probe
258: $m_{\nu_e}^2\equiv (m\cdot m^\dagger)_{ee}=\sum_i |V_{ei}^2| m_i^2$;
259: neutrino-less double-beta decay ($0\nu2\beta$) experiments, that probe
260: the absolute value of the Majorana mass
261: $m_{ee} \equiv \sum_i V_{ei}^2 m_i$;
262: cosmological observations (Large Scale Structures and anisotropies in the Cosmic Microwave Background),
263: that in good approximation probe
264: $ m_{\rm cosmo}\equiv \Omega_\nu h^2\cdot 93.5\eV= \sum_i m_i$.
265: %If it will be possible to see and precisely study a signal,
266: %$\beta$-decay and cosmology become sensitive to an extended set of neutrino parameters.
267: Only neutrinoless double beta decay
268: ($0\nu 2\beta$) probes the Majorana nature of the mass.
269: %so that one Majorana phase cannot be determined experimentally. [Neanche l'altra se m1 e'ignoto]
270: The values $|m_{ee}|, m_{\nu_e}, m_{\rm cosmo}$
271: are unknown, but can be partially inferred from oscillation data.
272: Table~\ref{tab1} shows our results, discussed in section~\ref{sec:bb},
273: in the limit where the mass of the lightest neutrino is negligible.
274: In the opposite limit neutrinos are quasi-degenerate and $|m_{ee}|, m_{\nu_e}, m_{\rm cosmo}$ can be arbitrarily large.
275:
276: {}From the point of view of 3 massive neutrinos,
277: it is natural to divide in three parts
278: a discussion of
279: the present situation and of the
280: perspectives of improvements, namely:
281: \begin{itemize}
282: \item[1.] Oscillations with `solar' frequency,
283: that tell $\Delta m^2_{12}$ and $\theta_{12}$ and give a sub-dominant constraint on $\theta_{13}$.
284: In section~\ref{sec:sol} we discuss solar and reactor neutrino
285: experiments, showing that the program of measurement of parameters
286: is well under way (if not accomplished), and discussing other interesting related goals.
287:
288: \item[2.] Oscillations with `atmospheric' frequency, that
289: tell $\Delta m^2_{23}$, $\theta_{23}$ and $\theta_{13}$, are discussed in
290: section~\ref{sec:atm}.
291: %we show that future measurements are of essential importance to progress further.
292: % e'una tautologia
293:
294: \item[3.] Non-oscillation experiments, that can tell the absolute neutrino mass.
295: In section~\ref{sec:bb} we discuss the present status
296: and assess the implications of the existing
297: information on neutrino oscillations for these experiments,
298: particularly for $0\nu2\beta$.
299: We conclude by commenting on the recent claim of evidence for
300: this transition~\cite{Klapdor, KlapdorLast}.
301:
302:
303: \end{itemize}
304: We assume the 3 neutrino framework because it is
305: plausible, well defined, restrictive and compatible with data.
306: However it is just an assumption, and
307: before proceeding we recall some alternatives.
308: %One can conceive several other possibilities in particle physics.
309: The most plausible one is the presence of extra light fermions
310: (`sterile neutrinos') or bosons, which can manifest in many ways.
311: Going to rather exotic scenarios, Lorentz or CPT invariance (here studied in fig.\fig{CPT2005}) might be violated in neutrinos,
312: that might have anomalous interactions (gauge couplings, or magnetic moments, or else),
313: might not obey the Pauli principle, etc, etc, etc.
314: Present solar and atmospheric data cannot be explained by these alternatives,
315: which however might be present as sub-leading effects on top of
316: oscillations among active neutrinos, such that
317: our determinations of active oscillation parameters
318: would need model-dependent modifications.
319: The present data do not give
320: any clear indication for extra effects, but contain some anomalous hints.
321: Most notably, the LSND anomaly~\cite{LSND} is not compatible with the 3 neutrino context we assume.
322: % cannot be accounted for. It is known that
323: %to account it, non-trivial modifications
324: %of the 3 neutrino picture are required: e.g., the mere
325: %addition of 1 sterile neutrino does not work well.
326: %Even though we assume in this paper
327: %the correctness of the 3 neutrino framework, we do not feel
328: %to exclude the possibility of future
329: %surprising results in neutrino physics
330: %but certainly, the test of LSND result by MiniBOONE will
331: %have an important impact on the consistency of the
332: %3 neutrino picture.
333:
334:
335:
336:
337:
338:
339:
340:
341:
342: \section{Oscillations with solar frequency\label{sec:sol}}
343: A few years ago the solar anomaly rested on
344: global fits that combined solar model predictions with
345: a few measurements of solar neutrino rates.
346: %New sub-MeV neutrino experiments were strongly motivated
347: %as the way for discriminating the various solutions:
348: %SMA, LMA, LOW, VO, QVO.
349: In recent times, the situation changed.
350: As prospected in \cite{which}
351: (written a few years ago, while
352: sub-MeV solar experiments were discussed as a tool for discriminating LMA from
353: LOW, SMA, QVO,\ldots),
354: SNO, KamLAND, {\sc Borexino}
355: had in any case the capability to identify the true solution of the solar anomaly
356: and make precision measurements of the oscillation parameters.
357: This is where we are now. From the point of
358: view of the determination of the oscillation parameters,
359: solar neutrino experiments are in a more advanced
360: stage than atmospheric experiments, as clear from fig.~\ref{fig:panta}.
361: KamLAND and SNO play the key r\^ole in the determination
362: for $\Delta m^2_{12}$ and $\theta_{12}$ respectively,
363: and almost achieved the $2.5\%$ and $10\%$ accuracy
364: prospected in~\cite{which}.
365: In section~\ref{sec:fit} we present a global solar fit,
366: and in section~\ref{sec:gl} we show that it is dominated by very simple and robust inputs.
367: In section~\ref{sec:PeeLow} we extract from data the survival probability of
368: low-energy neutrinos, and use it to study how solar data mildly restrict $\theta_{13}$.
369: %We emphasize that results of global fits are now robust, because dominated by a few simple inputs.
370: In section~\ref{sec:bx} we reassess the interest in proceeding
371: with low-energy solar neutrino experiments.
372: In section~\ref{sec:Phi} we discuss how well present solar data
373: determine solar neutrino fluxes and discuss the impact of {\sc Borexino}.
374: In all cases we extract from simple arguments the main general results,
375: that we compare with `exact' results of global fits performed in specific cases.
376:
377:
378:
379:
380:
381:
382: \subsection{Updated fit of solar and reactor neutrino data\label{sec:fit}}
383: We begin by presenting a
384: global fit of solar and reactor neutrino data assuming oscillations
385: among active neutrinos with negligible $\theta_{13}$. We include
386: \begin{itemize}
387:
388: \item The final SNO CC, NC, ES rates measured during day and during night
389: without~\cite{SNOlast} and with~\cite{SNOsaltfinal} salt, that gives enhanced NC sensitivity.
390:
391: \item The Super-Kamiokande ES spectra~\cite{SKlast}.
392:
393: \item The Gallium rate, $R_{\rm Ga} = (68.1\pm3.7)\,{\rm SNU}$, obtained averaging
394: the most recent SAGE data with the final {\sc Gallex} and GNO data~\cite{Galliumlast,Gallex,SAGE}.
395:
396: \item The Chlorine rate~\cite{Chlorinelast},
397: $R_{\rm Cl} = (2.56 \pm 0.23)\,{\rm SNU}$.
398:
399: \item The KamLAND reactor anti-neutrino
400: data with prompt energy higher than $2.6\MeV$~\cite{KL2004}.
401:
402: % \item The CHOOZ reactor anti-neutrino data, divided in 14 bins and fitted as in analysis ``A'' of~\cite{CHOOZlast}.
403: \end{itemize}
404: Solar model predictions and uncertainties~\cite{BP} are revised
405: including the recent measurement of the
406: $^{14}$N$(p,\gamma)^{15}$O nuclear cross section~\cite{LUNA},
407: which reduces the predicted CNO fluxes by roughly $50\%$.
408:
409:
410: The result of our oscillation fit is shown in fig.~\ref{fig:2005}a, where
411: the best fit point is marked with a dot.
412: The $1\sigma$ (i.e.\ $68\%$ C.L.) and the $99\%$ C.L. (i.e.\ $2.58\sigma$) ranges for the single parameters (1 dof) are
413: summarized in table~\ref{tab1}.
414: The total evidence for an effect
415: is now about 12$\sigma$ in solar $\nu$ data and about 6$\sigma$ in KamLAND $\bar\nu$ data.
416: Fig.~\ref{fig:2005}a also shows separately the fit of solar data (dashed red contours)
417: and the fit of KamLAND data (dotted blue contours).
418:
419:
420:
421: We note in passing that, according
422: to the Pearson $\chi^2$ goodness-of-fit (gof) employed by many old
423: global analyses, today the LOW solution (with $\Delta m^2_{12}\approx 10^{-7}\eV^2$)
424: still has a good gof.
425: This does not mean that LOW is compatible with data, but
426: happens because the Pearson test is not a statistically powerful
427: gof test when $\hbox{dof}\gg 1$~\cite{sunfitsalt}: global fits of solar data input
428: roughly $100$ experimental inputs.
429: As we now discuss, the output depend almost only on a few pieces of data.
430:
431:
432:
433:
434:
435: \begin{figure}
436: $$
437: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{Global2005}\qquad
438: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{PeeLowHi}$$
439: \vspace{-5mm}
440: \caption[x]{\label{fig:2005}\em
441: Best-fit regions at $90,~99$ and $99.73\%$ {\rm CL}.
442: Fig.~\ref{fig:2005}a assumes CPT invariance and combines
443: solar $\nu$ data (dashed red contours) with reactor $\bar{\nu}$ data (dotted blue contours).
444: In fig.~\ref{fig:2005}a we show how data determine the high- and low-energy limits
445: of $P(\nu_e\to\nu_e)$, as precisely described in the text,
446: %The precise result holds in the specific context described in the text,
447: }
448: \end{figure}
449:
450:
451: \begin{figure}[t]
452: $$\includegraphics[width=8cm]{CPTatm2005}\qquad
453: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{CPTsun2005}$$
454: \caption[x]{\label{fig:CPT2005}\em
455: Test of CPT-violating neutrino masses.
456: We show the separate fit for $\Delta m^2$ in neutrinos and $\Delta\bar{m}^2$ in
457: anti-neutrinos, marginalized with respect to the mixing angles
458: $\theta_{12}$ and $\theta_{23}$.
459: The atmospheric fit includes data from SK, K2K, Macro.
460: The solar fit includes data from SNO, SK, {\sc Gallex}, {\sc Sage}, {\sc Homestake}, KamLAND.
461: These plots update the original results in fig.s 5 and 6 of~\cite{CPT}}\end{figure}
462:
463: \subsection{The meaning of `global fits'\label{sec:gl}}
464: Our results are based on a careful global fit.
465: %However this is no longer necessary:
466: We now point out how a simple approximate
467: analysis is sufficient to get results practically
468: equivalent to those of global fits.
469: %We focus on a subset of data, that are at the same
470: %time the simplest ones and the most restrictive
471:
472:
473:
474:
475: {\em The solar mass splitting} $\Delta m^2_{12}$ is directly determined by the position of the oscillation dips at
476: KamLAND, with negligible
477: contribution from solar experiments.
478: (More precisely, this will be rigorously true in the future.
479: For the moment solar data are needed to eliminate spurious solutions
480: mildly disfavored by KamLAND data, as illustrated in fig.~\ref{fig:2005}a.
481: Solar data have practically no impact around the global minimum of
482: the $\chi^2$, and consequently on the determination of $\Delta m^2_{12}$ as reported in table~\ref{tab1}).
483:
484: \bigskip
485:
486: {\em The solar mixing angle} is directly determined by SNO measurements of NC and CC solar Boron rates.
487: Assuming flavour conversions among active neutrinos, SNO implies\footnote{SNO measured
488: $ \Phi(\nu_{e,\mu,\tau}) = (4.9\pm0.3)~10^6/\cm^2\sec$ and
489: $\Phi(\nu_{e}) =(1.74\pm0.08)~10^6/\cm^2\sec$.
490: Each measurement was first performed using
491: heavy water (CC and NC events mainly distinguished by their energy spectrum)
492: and later with salt heavy water
493: (distinction relies on event isotropy).
494: The measurements performed with these
495: different experimental techniques agree.
496: Taking into account the SK measurement of the ES rate,
497: $\Phi(\nu_{e}) + 0.155 \Phi(\nu_{\mu,\tau}) = (2.35\pm0.06)~10^6/\cm^2\sec $,
498: the SNO measurement of the ES rate,
499: $\Phi(\nu_{e}) + 0.155 \Phi(\nu_{\mu,\tau}) = (2.36\pm0.19)~10^6/\cm^2\sec $
500: and the solar model prediction
501: $\Phi(\nu_{e,\mu,\tau}) = (5.05\pm 0.86)~10^6/\cm^2\sec $
502: would only marginally improve the measurement of $\langle P(\nu_e\to\nu_e)\rangle$ to
503: $\langle P(\nu_e\to\nu_e)\rangle=0.360\pm0.028$.}
504: $$\langle P(\nu_e\to\nu_e) \rangle \equiv {\Phi(\nu_{e}) }/{\Phi(\nu_{e,\mu,\tau}) }=0.357\pm0.030.$$
505: This should be compared with the theoretical prediction for $\langle P(\nu_e\to\nu_e)\rangle$,
506: given by a simple expressions that does not depend on the solar density profile
507: because LMA oscillations are almost completely
508: adiabatic.
509: At $E_\nu\gg \MeV$ matter effects
510: dominate such that $\nu_e$ produced around the center of the sun
511: coincide with the $\nu_2$ eigenstate in matter and exit as the
512: $\nu_2$ eigenstate in vacuum, so that $P(\nu_e\to\nu_e)\simeq \sin^2\theta_{12}$.
513: In the energy range explored by SNO, matter effects at the production region
514: are not fully dominant,
515: such that the above approximation gets slightly corrected to\footnote{The
516: factor giving the correction to $P(\nu_e\to\nu_e) = \sin^2\theta_{12}$
517: ranges between $1.1$ and $1.2$ within the
518: present best-fit region at $90\%$ CL.}
519: \begin{equation}\label{eq:1.15}
520: \langle P(\nu_e\to\nu_e) \rangle \approx 1.15\sin^2\theta_{12}
521: \qquad\hbox{so that}\qquad
522: \tan^2\theta_{12}=0.45\pm0.05
523: \end{equation}
524: which agrees with the results of the global analysis in table~\ref{tab1},
525: both in the central value and in its uncertainty.
526:
527:
528:
529: Notice that the only solar model input that enters
530: our approximate determination of solar oscillation parameters
531: is the solar density around the center of the sun,
532: that controls the $15\%$ correction to $\langle P(\nu_e\to\nu_e)\rangle$ in eq.\eq{1.15}.
533: This correction factor is comparable
534: to the $1\sigma$ uncertainty in $\langle P(\nu_e\to\nu_e)\rangle$:
535: indeed the associated increase of $P(\nu_e\to\nu_e)$ at smaller $E_\nu$ has not been observed
536: in SNO and SK spectra.
537: For the reasons explained above the `solar model independent fit' of~\cite{BS}
538: gives now a result almost identical to the standard fit, so that we do not show the update of this result.
539:
540:
541:
542: Global fits
543: remain still useful for testing if the pieces of data not included
544: in our simplified analysis (that have a minor impact in the standard fit)
545: contain statistically significant indications for
546: new physics beyond LMA oscillations.
547: At the moment the answer is no.
548: E.g., fig.~\ref{fig:CPT2005}b updates the CPT-violating solar fit of~\cite{CPT}:
549: the best-fit region includes the CPT-conserving limit (diagonal dotted line).
550:
551: \subsection{Effects of $\theta_{13}$ and low-energy neutrinos}\label{sec:PeeLow}
552: At low $E_\nu$ matter effects are negligible and
553: the survival probability is given by averaged vacuum oscillations.
554: LMA oscillations with $\theta_{13}=0$ predict the low-energy limit of
555: $P(\nu_e\to \nu_e)$ in terms of its high-energy limit as\footnote{The transition between the two regimes
556: proceeds at $E_\nu\sim \hbox{few}\,\MeV$, and the high-energy regime is approached
557: for $E_\nu \circa{>} 20\MeV$.
558: At higher energies solar matter effects become comparable to the
559: atmospheric mass splitting, giving corrections to solar neutrino rates
560: proportional to $\theta_{13}^2$.}
561: %Another change of regime due to
562: %non-adiabaticity and absorption
563: %starts at even higher energies around $E_\nu \sim 10\,{\rm GeV}$ : but this has nothing to do with the present discussion.}
564: \begin{equation}\label{eq:pred}
565: P(\nu_e\to\nu_e,\hbox{small $E_\nu$}) = 1- 2P(\nu_e\to\nu_e,\hbox{large $E_\nu$}) +
566: 2P(\nu_e\to\nu_e,\hbox{large $E_\nu$})^2.
567: \end{equation}
568: A non zero $\theta_{13}$ as well as new physics beyond neutrino masses
569: allow to avoid this prediction.
570: It is therefore interesting to extract these two ideal observables from data.
571: As discussed in the previous section
572: $P(\nu_e\to\nu_e,\hbox{large $E_\nu$})$ is presently dominantly determined by SNO.
573: The low energy limit of $P(\nu_e\to\nu_e)$ is presently dominantly determined by
574: Gallium data and can be extracted by a simple approximate argument~\cite{which,SAGE}.
575: Subtracting from the total Gallium rate
576: \begin{equation}\label{eq:Ga}
577: (68.1\pm 3.7) \,\hbox{SNU}=R_{\rm Ga} =
578: R_{pp,pep}^{\rm Ga} + R_{\rm CNO}^{\rm Ga} + R_{^7{\rm Be}}^{\rm Ga} + R_{^8{\rm B}}^{\rm Ga}
579: \end{equation}
580: its $^8$B contribution
581: (as directly measured by SNO via CC, $R_{^8{\rm B}}^{\rm Ga} = 4.3\pm 1\,\hbox{SNU}$)
582: and regarding all remaining fluxes as low energy ones, suppressed by
583: $P(\nu_e\to\nu_e,\hbox{small $E_\nu$})$, determines it to be $0.57\pm 0.03$.
584: Alternatively,
585: by subtracting also the intermediate-energy CNO and Beryllium fluxes, one gets
586: $P(\nu_e\to\nu_e,\hbox{small $E_\nu$})=0.58\pm0.05$.
587: We here included only the error on the Gallium rate, which is the dominant error.
588: This rough analysis shows that the result only mildly depends on how one deals with intermediate energy neutrinos, and on
589: model-dependent details of the intermediate region,
590: thereby suggesting the following general result:
591: \begin{equation}\label{eq:PeeVO}
592: P(\nu_e\to\nu_e,\hbox{large $E_\nu$}) =
593: 0.31\pm0.03,\qquad
594: P(\nu_e\to\nu_e,\hbox{small $E_\nu$}) = 0.58\pm0.04.
595: \end{equation}
596: As illustrated in fig.\fig{OscLMA} at $E_\nu =1\MeV$ ($10\MeV$) the difference
597: between the exact LMA profile of $P(\nu_e\to\nu_e)$
598: and its low energy (high energy) limit is smaller than the
599: $1\sigma$ uncertainties in eq.\eq{PeeVO}.
600: High energy neutrinos have been dominantly measured by SNO at energies around $10\MeV$.
601:
602:
603:
604: In order to establish the validity of eq.\eq{PeeVO} we compare it
605: with the `exact' result of a global analysis of solar data: to perform it we must
606: abandon generality and focus on a specific mechanism
607: that allows to avoid the LMA prediction of eq.\eq{pred}.
608: We consider the case of a non vanishing $\theta_{13}$ (see also~\cite{theta13sun}),
609: which gives
610: \begin{eqnsystem}{sys:PeeLowHi}\label{eq:PeeHi}
611: P(\nu_e\to\nu_e,\hbox{large $E_\nu$}) &=&
612: \sin^4\theta_{13}+\cos^4\theta_{13}\sin^2\theta_{12},\\
613: P(\nu_e\to\nu_e,\hbox{small $E_\nu$}) &=& \sum_i |V_{ei}|^4=
614: \sin^4\theta_{13}+\cos^4\theta_{13}\bigg[1-\frac{1}{2}\sin^2 2\theta_{12}\bigg].
615: \label{eq:PeeLow}
616: \end{eqnsystem}
617: In this way the equality in eq.\eq{pred} gets replaced by a $\le$ inequality.
618: In order to access also the other region we analytically continue
619: to imaginary $\theta_{13}$, where $\cos^2\theta_{13}>1$.
620: (This is analogous but less usual than allowing $\sin^2 2\theta_{23}>1$ in the atmospheric fit).
621: The global fit is performed by keeping fixed $\Delta m^2_{12}$ at the central value suggested by KamLAND,
622: because a variation of $\Delta m^2_{12}$
623: within the range in table~\ref{tab1} negligibly affects solar data.
624: This is the key extra input provided by KamLAND; a more complicated
625: solar plus KamLAND global fit would give the same result.
626:
627:
628: The result of the global solar fit performed in this specific context is shown
629: in fig.\fig{2005}b, and agrees with the semi-quantitative general result of eq.\eq{PeeVO}.
630: We see that the LMA prediction in eq.\eq{pred} is well compatible with data.
631: The constraint on $\theta_{13}$ provided by solar data (subdominant with respect to the constraint from CHOOZ and atmospheric data)
632: is included in the global analysis summarized in table~\ref{tab1} and fig.\fig{panta}.
633:
634: We performed more global fits considering a few other ways of avoiding the LMA prediction of
635: eq.\eq{pred}: in each case the allowed region looks like a potato
636: similar to the one in fig.\fig{2005}b.
637: Different fits give allowed regions with
638: sizes and shapes that vary roughly as much as potatoes vary.
639: For example we tried to linearly distort
640: the $P(\nu_e\to \nu_e,E_\nu)$ profile predicted by LMA for $\theta_{13}=0$ as
641: $P(\nu_e\to \nu_e,E_\nu)=
642: \sin^2\theta_{12}+\lambda[P_{\rm LMA}(\nu_e\to \nu_e,E_\nu)-\sin^2\theta_{12}]$.
643: This is somewhat different than considering a $\theta_{13}\neq 0$, because
644: matter effects depend on $\theta_{13}$, that therefore does not act as a linear distortion.
645:
646:
647: %To be more specific, the upper region of fig.\fig{2005}b
648: %where $P(\nu_e\to\nu_e,\hbox{small $E_\nu$})$ is above the value of eq.\eq{pred}
649: %cannot be accessed by turning on $\theta_{13}\ge 0$,
650: %and has been accessed by linearly
651: %distorting the $P(\nu_e\to \nu_e,E_\nu)$ profile predicted by LMA for $\theta_{13}=0$ as
652: %$P(\nu_e\to \nu_e,E_\nu)=\sin^2\theta_{12}+\lambda[P_{\rm LMA}(\nu_e\to \nu_e,E_\nu)-\sin^2\theta_{12}]$.
653: %Therefore the two sides of fig.\fig{2005}b correspond to two different global fits
654: %(matter effects depend on $\theta_{13}$, so that it does not act as a linear distortion).
655:
656: The main point is that the approximate general result of eq.\eq{PeeVO} fairly summarizes
657: the variety of exact results obtained by performing global fits in presence of
658: different mechanism that distort the prediction of eq.\eq{pred}
659: without introducing new notable features at intermediate energies.
660: Therefore eq.\eq{pred} is a useful semi-quantitative way
661: of summarizing our present knowledge of $P(\nu_e\to \nu_e)$.
662: Its behavior at intermediate energies $1\MeV\circa{<}E_\nu\circa{<}10\MeV$
663: is basically unknown.
664:
665:
666:
667:
668:
669: \begin{figure}
670: $$\includegraphics[width=7.5cm]{OscLMA}\qquad\qquad
671: \includegraphics[width=7.5cm]{BeB05}$$
672: \parbox{0.47\textwidth}{\caption[x]{\em \label{fig:OscLMA}
673: The energy-dependent survival probability
674: predicted by LMA,
675: and how experimental data restrict the low-energy and
676: high-energy limits of $P(\nu_e\to \nu_e,E_\nu)$.}}\hspace{0.06\textwidth}
677: \parbox{0.47\textwidth}{\caption{\label{fig:BeB2005}\em
678: Best-fit regions at $90,~99\%$ {\rm CL} (2 dof)
679: for Boron and Beryllium fluxes
680: from a global solar-model-independent fit of solar data.
681: The horizontal ellipse shows solar model predictions.
682: }}
683: \end{figure}
684:
685:
686: \subsection{Low energy neutrinos and B{\small}{OREXINO} \label{sec:bx}}
687: Can future sub-MeV solar neutrino experiments improve on oscillation parameters?
688: %A measurement of the $pp$ rate at $(1\div 2)\%$,
689: %which is a very difficult experimental task,
690: %would somewhat impact the determination of $\theta_{12}$.
691: This question was answered in~\cite{which},
692: and we do not have much to add; for recent
693: works on the subject see~\cite{roadmaps}.
694: We recall here the main points. Low energy solar neutrinos
695: do not experience the MSW resonance in the sun:
696: their survival probability is therefore
697: given by the averaged vacuum oscillations
698: expression of eq.\eq{PeeLow}.
699: This means that, in first approximation, sub-MeV experiments have nothing
700: to tell about $\Delta m^2_{12}$, but could give information on $\theta_{12}$
701: by measuring $P(\nu_e\to\nu_e,\hbox{small $E_\nu$})$.
702: Within the 3 neutrino context this same survival probability of eq.\eq{PeeLow} is also directly measured by
703: reactor $\bar\nu_e$ experiments, such as KamLAND.
704: KamLAND can achieve a determination of $P(\nu_e\to\nu_e,\hbox{small $E_\nu$})$
705: competitive with the solar result in eq.\eq{PeeVO}.
706: A future reactor experiment with baseline $\sim 50\km$ appropriate for observing the first
707: oscillation dip could achieve an error $(2\div 3)$ times lower than
708: the present error in eq.\eq{PeeVO}.
709: Such reduced uncertainty is already achieved today, if one trusts the LMA prediction of eq.\eq{pred}
710: and employs it to infer the low-energy limit of $P(\nu_e\to \nu_e)$ from SNO data:
711: \begin{equation}\label{eq:PeeLMA}
712: P(\nu_e\to\nu_e,\hbox{small $E_\nu$}) = 1-\frac{1}{2}\sin^22\theta_{12}=
713: 0.57\pm 0.02\qquad\hbox{(LMA prediction)}.
714: \end{equation}
715: For simplicity we here assumed $\theta_{13}=0$, because its value is not a relevant issue:
716: if $\theta_{13}$ is large enough to have a sizable effect, long-baseline experiments will see and measure it
717: so well that only the central value of eq.\eq{PeeLMA} (but not its uncertainty) has to be changed.
718:
719: The precision of sub-MeV experiments is
720: ultimately limited by the $1\%$ solar model uncertainty on the $pp$ flux.
721: Although it presently seems unrealistic to aim at measuring the $pp$ rate with this level of accuracy,
722: the above discussion shows that such ultimate precision should be achieved,
723: if sub-MeV experiments want to contribute significantly to the determination of $\theta_{12}$.
724: Going beyond the $3\nu$ framework, sub-MeV experiments can make important
725: searches for new physics beyond neutrino masses.
726: The reason is that high energy solar neutrinos, detected by SNO,
727: are almost pure $\nu_2$ (the neutrino mass eigenstate with mass $m_2$),
728: so that low energy experiments are needed to probe new physics that dominantly affects $\nu_1$.
729: This argument applies e.g.\ in presence of an extra sterile neutrino in wide ranges
730: of its oscillation parameters~\cite{sterile}.
731:
732:
733: \bigskip
734:
735:
736:
737: If LMA is the end of the story the near-future experiment {\sc Borexino}
738: will not improve the determination of oscillation parameters
739: and should observe no anomalous day/night nor seasonal variation.
740: (KamLAND can also be converted into a solar neutrino experiment).
741: We comment on the impact of
742: {\sc Borexino} (and eventually KamLAND)
743: from the point of view of new physics.
744: As discussed below, in presence of generic
745: new physics, existing data poorly constrain the Beryllium rate,
746: so that large deviations from the LMA prediction are possible.
747: The rate measured by {\sc Borexino} can be modified by new
748: physics that mostly affects intermediate energy neutrino.
749: Rather than performing a detailed analysis of one
750: specific source of new physics,
751: out purpose will be to study this possibility in an
752: approximate but sufficiently general way.
753: To this end, we notice that in {\sc Borexino}
754: the effects of unspecified new physics
755: dominantly manifest as an anomalous flux of Beryllium neutrinos
756: ({\sc Borexino} also has a minor sensitivity
757: to $pep$ neutrinos~\cite{Borexinopep}).
758: Therefore, in the next section we study
759: how well present data restrict the Beryllium rate.
760:
761:
762:
763: %
764:
765: %
766: %\begin{figure}
767: %$$
768: %\includegraphics[width=7cm]{BeB05}$$
769: %\caption{\label{fig:BeB}\em
770: %}
771: %\end{figure}
772:
773:
774:
775: \subsection{Solar neutrino fluxes}\label{sec:Phi}
776: An eventual deviation of solar neutrino fluxes from solar model LMA predictions
777: could be due to new physics in neutrinos beyond LMA,
778: or to (new) physics not included in solar models.
779: For concreteness we focus on the second case, and study how well
780: present solar neutrino data determine solar neutrino fluxes,
781: updating the results of~\cite{BS}. Apparently a detailed global
782: fit seems needed to address this issue, but --- once again ---
783: one can answer to this question in a simple way.
784: Following~\cite{BS} the main points to consider are the following ones:
785: \begin{itemize}
786: \item[1.] The luminosity constraint allows to precisely predict the $pp$ fluxes.
787: Since no experiment so far is sensitive to deviations compatible with the luminosity constraint,
788: we can essentially set $pp$ fluxes to their solar model value.
789:
790: \item[2.] SNO measured the Boron flux.
791:
792: \item[3.] Only two kind of experiments,
793: Gallium and Chlorine, have measured low-energy neutrino fluxes.
794: Therefore, data only constrain two linear combinations of low-energy fluxes.
795:
796: \item[4.]
797: The Chlorine experiment has a poor sensitivity to low energy neutrinos:
798: after subtracting the $\sim80\%$ Boron contribution to the Chlorine rate,
799: as directly measured by SNO via CC,
800: the residual low-energy contributions to the
801: Chlorine rate is just about $2\sigma$ above zero.
802:
803: \end{itemize}
804: Therefore the Chlorine rate carries so little information on low energy fluxes,
805: that our present knowledge on low-energy fluxes is well summarized by a single number:
806: their contribution to the Gallium rate.
807: %We now show how, proceeding as above described, the non trivial result can be approximatively obtained,
808: % The Gallium rate provides the most significant information
809: % on low energy fluxes.
810: Restarting from eq.\eq{Ga}, we now subtract from the total Gallium rate $R_{\rm Ga}$ its $^8$B contribution
811: % (as directly measured by SNO via CC, $R_{^8{\rm B}}^{\rm Ga} = 4.3\pm 1\,\hbox{SNU}$)
812: and its $pp,pep$ contributions
813: (as predicted by solar models and LMA oscillations, see eq.\eq{PeeVO}: $R_{pp,pep}^{\rm Ga} =41.3\pm1.5$), obtaining
814: %% \begin{equation}\label{eq:CNOBe}
815: %% (22.5 \pm 4)\, \hbox{SNU} =R_{\rm CNO}^{\rm Ga} + R_{^7{\rm Be}}^{\rm Ga} =
816: %% \frac{3.9 \Phi_{^7{\rm Be}} + 4.6 \Phi_{\rm CNO}}{10^{9}/\cm^2{\rm s}} \,\hbox{SNU}.
817: %% \end{equation}
818: %% % %% totale = 70.8 \pm 4.4
819: %% % %% 8Boro = 4.2 \pm 1.3 come misurato da SNO CC
820: %% %In absence of oscillations the $pp$ contribution would be 72 SNU.
821: \begin{equation}\label{eq:CNOBe}
822: (22.5 \pm 4)\, \hbox{SNU} =R_{\rm CNO}^{\rm Ga} + R_{^7{\rm Be}}^{\rm Ga} =
823: \frac{4.0 \Phi_{^7{\rm Be}} + 4.6 \Phi_{\rm CNO}}{10^{9}/\cm^2{\rm s}} \,\hbox{SNU}.
824: \end{equation}
825: We have taken into account that
826: LMA oscillations suppress both rates by about
827: $0.55\pm0.02$ --- a value negligibly different from the
828: low-energy limit of $P(\nu_e\to\nu_e)$ of eq.~(\ref{eq:PeeLMA}).
829:
830:
831: In order to show the accuracy of our simplified analysis, we now compare its results
832: with the `exact' results of a solar-model-independent global analyses of solar and KamLAND data,
833: performed as described in~\cite{BS}.
834: %Solar model predictions for the neutrino fluxes are not employed,
835: %and solar neutrino fluxes are only subject to the total solar
836: %luminosity constraint and to minor reasonable assumptions~\cite{BS}.
837: To perform such comparison we need to consider a well defined, simple and relevant sub-case:
838: we assume a non standard Beryllium flux but a standard CNO flux,
839: $\Phi_{\rm CNO}\approx 0.6\cdot 10^{9}/\cm^2{\rm s}$.
840: As previously discussed, this
841: choice is motivated by the fact that
842: Beryllium neutrinos are more important,
843: that {\sc Borexino} should study them, and that
844: according to solar models
845: the CNO contribution to any measured solar neutrino rates
846: is smaller than its experimental error.
847: In this way eq.\eq{CNOBe} reduces to
848: $\Phi_{^7{\rm Be}}=(4.9\pm 1.1)\cdot 10^{9}/\cm^2{\rm s}$.
849: This can be directly compared with the result of the global analysis, shown in fig.\fig{BeB2005},
850: that can be approximatively summarized as
851: \begin{eqnsystem}{sys:exp}
852: \Phi_{^8\rm B} &=& (5.0\pm0.2)\cdot
853: %5.03~ (1\pm 0.04)\cdot
854: 10^{6}/\cm^2{\rm s},\\
855: \Phi_{^7\rm Be}&=& (4.1\pm1.1)\cdot
856: %4.07~ (1\pm 0.26)\cdot
857: 10^{9}/\cm^2{\rm s}.\label{eq:Be}
858: \end{eqnsystem}
859: The global fit also includes the Chlorine rate, which
860: has a central value
861: about $2\sigma$ lower than the LMA prediction,
862: and consequently
863: somewhat reduces $\Phi_{^7\rm Be}$.
864: {}From these numbers, we see that the
865: determinations of the Boron and Beryllium fluxes
866: that follow from our simplified
867: analysis are quite adequate.
868: {\sc Borexino} will significantly improve over the present determination of $\Phi_{^7{\rm Be}}$.
869:
870:
871: \medskip
872:
873: %Since oscillations are more precisely known than the relevant solar fluxes,
874: %The oscillation parameters of eq.\eq{2005} imply that {\sc Borexino} should
875: %not see either day/night or seasonal variations.
876:
877: \medskip
878:
879: The simplified analysis also determines our present knowledge of the CNO flux.
880: As previously discussed solar neutrino experiments basically measured the linear combination
881: of CNO and Beryllium fluxes of eq.\eq{CNOBe}, that directly implies
882: an upper bound on the CNO flux:
883: \begin{equation}\label{eq:CNO}
884: \Phi_{\rm CNO} < 6\cdot 10^9/\cm^2{\rm s}\qquad\hbox{ at $3\sigma$ (1 dof),}\end{equation}
885: which is one order of magnitude above solar model predictions.
886: Eq.\eq{CNO} updates the value first obtained in~\cite{BS} (section 4).
887: This constraint was also re-derived in~\cite{CNO}, emphasizing
888: that the result of eq.\eq{CNOBe} or of eq.\eq{CNO}
889: proves that the CNO cycle does not give the dominant contribution
890: to the total solar luminosity $L_\odot$.
891: Indeed by converting the neutrino flux $\Phi_{\rm CNO}$ into
892: the corresponding energy flux $L_{\rm CNO}$, eq.\eq{CNO} reads
893: $L_{\rm CNO} \circa{<} 0.1~L_\odot$.
894:
895:
896:
897:
898:
899:
900: \section{Oscillations with atmospheric frequency\label{sec:atm}}
901: Present data do not precisely determine $|\Delta m^2_{23}|$ nor $\theta_{23}$
902: (see table~\ref{tab1} or fig.~\ref{fig:panta}), give an upper bound on
903: $\theta_{13}$ and do not determine the sign of $\Delta m^2_{23}$ (i.e.\ if neutrinos have `normal' or `inverted' mass hierarchy).
904: Several experimental programs
905: using long-baseline
906: and reactor neutrinos
907: plan to to confirm the SK evidence
908: and to improve on $\Delta m^2_{23}$, $\theta_{23}$ and $\theta_{13}$,
909: possibly measuring a non-zero value of the latter angle. From
910: the point of view of the 3 neutrino framework these
911: experimental programs seem adequately complete~\cite{LBL},
912: thanks in particular to JHF~\cite{jhf}, possibly complemented with
913: a new reactor neutrino experiment \cite{hub}.
914: Here, we discuss the present determination of atmospheric parameters
915: and other implications of the existing data.
916:
917:
918:
919: \paragraph{The global fit.}
920: The atmospheric
921: fit includes the final SKI data~\cite{SKI}, the final {\sc Macro} data~\cite{Macro} and
922: the latest K2K~\cite{K2K} data.
923: As in other similar analyses, the SK and K2K fits are
924: extracted from the latest SK and K2K papers by
925: `graphical reduction' (i.e.\ using a scale and a pencil) because
926: this procedure guarantees a more accurate result
927: than an independent reanalysis.
928: We employ the `standard' analysis of final SKI data.
929: The SK collaboration also performs an alternative analysis,
930: by selecting the data which have the best resolution in $L/E_\nu$,
931: obtaining similar central values and somewhat different uncertainties.
932: (The CPT-violating fit of fig.\fig{CPT2005}a
933: is instead based on an independent reanalysis of atmospheric data,
934: so its CPT-conserving limit can slightly differ from the CPT-conserving fit
935: of fig.\fig{panta}).
936:
937:
938:
939:
940: \paragraph{The parameter $\theta_{23}$.}
941: The value of this parameter
942: can be obtained from a simple physics argument.
943: It is dominantly determined by SK multi-GeV $\mu$-like events
944: as $\sin^2 2\theta_{23}\simeq 2(1-
945: N_\uparrow/N_\downarrow )= 1.02\pm0.08$, where
946: $N_\downarrow\approx 400$ ($N_\uparrow\approx 200$) are the number of
947: down-ward (up-ward) going $\mu$ events, that experience
948: roughly no oscillation (averaged oscillations).
949: A detailed analysis is needed to include the rest of the SK, K2K, {\sc Macro}
950: data, which however only mildly improve on
951: the determination of $\sin^2 2\theta_{23}$.
952: An improved measurement of $\sin^22\theta_{23}$ from the up/down ratio of
953: atmospheric neutrinos could be performed
954: at a future Mton-scale atmospheric detector.\footnote{
955: One should take into account the few $\%$
956: effects of solar oscillations and of
957: $\theta_{13}$ (see~\cite{peres} for a recent discussion)
958: which will be respectively better measured
959: by solar and reactor/long-baseline experiments.}
960: Future long-baseline experiments with very intense conventional neutrino beams \cite{jhf}
961: will also lead to progress.
962:
963:
964: \paragraph{The parameter $|\Delta m^2_{23}|$.}
965: The present situation concerning $|\Delta m^2_{23}|$ is quite different:
966: SK cannot precisely measure it and cannot see a clear oscillation dip,
967: and a detailed analysis
968: is necessary to extract its central value and error.
969: Long-baseline experiments should significantly reduce
970: the uncertainty on $|\Delta m^2_{23}|$
971: by identifying the energy at which neutrinos experience the first
972: oscillation dip.
973: This measurement has been already performed by K2K,
974: but with poor statistics: K2K achieves~\cite{K2K}
975: a determination of $|\Delta m^2_{23}|$ with
976: central value and error
977: close to the one of SK~\cite{SKI}.
978:
979:
980:
981:
982:
983:
984: \paragraph{The parameter $\theta_{13}$.}
985: The CHOOZ constraint on $\theta_{13}$
986: is strongly correlated with the determination of $|\Delta m^2_{23}|$. As discussed in section~\ref{sec:PeeLow}
987: solar data have a subdominant impact
988: on the determination of $\theta_{13}$,
989: comparable to the effect of changing the kind of analysis of SK
990: atmospheric data (we used the `standard' SK analysis).
991: The statistically insignificant hint for a $\theta_{13}>0$ in fig.\fig{panta}
992: is mainly due to a small deficit of events in CHOOZ data
993: at lowest energies.
994:
995:
996:
997:
998: \paragraph{Other effects?}
999: Data show no significant hint for
1000: new effects beyond three massive neutrinos.
1001: For example fig.\fig{CPT2005}a shows a global
1002: fit performed without assuming
1003: that neutrinos and anti-neutrinos have the same
1004: atmospheric mass splitting and mixing angle.
1005: We see that the best-fit lies close to the CPT-conserving limit,
1006: and that the atmospheric mass splitting in anti-neutrinos
1007: is poorly determined.
1008: Nevertheless, this is enough to strongly disfavor a CPT-violating interpretation
1009: of the LSND anomaly~\cite{CPT}.
1010: Near-future long-baseline experiments will probably
1011: study only $\nu$ rather than $\bar\nu$.
1012:
1013:
1014:
1015: \section{Non-oscillation experiments\label{sec:bb}}
1016:
1017: In this section we discuss non-oscillation experiments and consider
1018: the 3 non-oscillation parameters mentioned in the introduction.
1019: Making reference to experimental sensitivities,
1020: the 3 probes should be ordered as follows:
1021: cosmology, $0\nu2\beta$ and finally $\beta$ decay.
1022: Ordering them according to reliability would presumably result into
1023: the reverse list: cosmological results are based on untested assumptions,
1024: and $0\nu2\beta$ suffers from severe
1025: uncertainties in the nuclear matrix elements.
1026: Even more, there is an interesting claim that the $0\nu2\beta$
1027: transition has been detected~\cite{Klapdor}
1028: (see section~\ref{sec:0nu2beta} for some remarks), there is a persisting
1029: anomaly in TROITSK $\beta$ decay, and even in cosmology, there is
1030: one (weak) claim for a positive effect.
1031: None of these hints can be considered as a discovery of neutrino masses.
1032: Several existing or planned experiments will lead to progress in a few years.
1033: %Thus, we should be ready to welcome discoveries but also
1034: %to discuss measurements of parameters.
1035:
1036: In this section, we assume three massive Majorana
1037: neutrinos and study the ranges of neutrino mass signals
1038: expected on the basis of oscillation data,
1039: updating and extending the results of~\cite{Feru}.
1040: Our inferences are summarized in table~\ref{tab1} and obtained by marginalizing
1041: the full joint probability distribution for the oscillation parameters,
1042: using the latest results discussed in the previous sections.
1043:
1044:
1045:
1046:
1047: \begin{figure}
1048: $$\includegraphics[width=7cm]{cosmo}\qquad\qquad
1049: \includegraphics[width=7cm]{beta}$$
1050: \caption[x]{\label{fig:cosmobeta}\em $99\%$ CL expected ranges for the parameters $m_{\rm cosmo}=m_1+m_2+m_3$
1051: probed by cosmology (fig.\fig{cosmobeta}a)
1052: and
1053: $m_{\nu_e}\equiv (m\cdot m^\dagger)^{1/2}_{ee}$
1054: probed by $\beta$-decay (fig.\fig{cosmobeta}b)
1055: as function of the lightest neutrino mass.
1056: The darker lines show how the ranges would shrink if
1057: the present best-fit values of oscillation parameters were
1058: confirmed with negligible error.}
1059: \end{figure}
1060:
1061:
1062:
1063: \subsection{Cosmology}
1064: Cosmological observations are mostly sensitive to the
1065: sum of neutrino masses:
1066: $ m_{\rm cosmo}=m_1+m_2+m_3$,
1067: that according to standard cosmology
1068: controls the energy fraction $\Omega_\nu$ in non relativistic neutrinos
1069: as $\Omega_\nu h^2 = m_{\rm cosmo}/ 93.5\eV$ where as usual
1070: $h$ parameterizes the present value of the Hubble constant as
1071: $h\equiv H_{\rm today}/(100 \hbox{km/s\,Mpc})$.
1072: Cosmology does not distinguish Majorana from Dirac neutrino masses.
1073:
1074: In order to convert CMB and LSS data into a constraint on neutrino masses
1075: one needs to assume a cosmological model.
1076: The ``WMAP constraint''~\cite{WMAP} assumes
1077: that the observed structures are generated by Gaussian adiabatic primordial scalar fluctuations
1078: with flat spectral index $n$
1079: evolved in presence of the known SM particles, of cold dark matter and of a cosmological constant.
1080: This standard model of cosmology seems consistent with all observations.
1081: Furthermore, it is assumed that observed luminous matter tracks the dark matter density
1082: up to a scale-independent bias factor.
1083: The data-set includes Lyman-$\alpha$ data about structures
1084: on scales so small that perturbations are no longer a minor correction
1085: to a uniform background.
1086: These data are sensitive to neutrino masses (and thereby somewhat affect the global
1087: cosmological fit) but
1088: might be affected by non linear evolution effects, which are not fully understood.
1089: In summary, cosmology presently gives the dominant constraint,
1090: which however rests on untested assumptions and on risky systematics.
1091:
1092:
1093: In the future the sensitivity to neutrino oscillations will improve thanks to better CMB data
1094: and to new LSS measurements less plagued by potential systematic effects.
1095: If cosmology were simple
1096: (e.g.\ a spectral index $n=1$, no tensor fluctuations,\ldots)
1097: then it seems possible to detect even neutrino masses
1098: as small as allowed by oscillation data~\cite{CosmoFuture}.
1099: The expected ranges of $m_{\rm cosmo}$ are reported in the lowest row of table~\ref{tab1}
1100: in the limiting case where the lightest neutrino is massless,
1101: and in fig.\fig{cosmobeta}a in the general case.
1102:
1103:
1104:
1105:
1106:
1107:
1108: \subsection{Direct search via $\beta$ decay}
1109: $\beta$-decay experiments dominantly
1110: probe the quantity $m_{\nu_e}\equiv (m\cdot m^\dagger)_{ee}^{1/2}$.
1111: If neutrinos are quasi-degenerate, $m_{\nu_e}$ is their common mass.
1112: The MAINZ and TROITSK experiments obtained
1113: comparable limits:
1114: $m_{\nu_e}^2=-1.2\pm 2.2 \pm 2.1$~eV$^2$~\cite{MAINZ} and
1115: $m_{\nu_e}^2=-2.3\pm 2.5 \pm 2.0$~eV$^2$~\cite{TROITSK} respectively.
1116: The 95\% bounds quoted by the experimental collaborations
1117: agree with the values obtained in Gaussian approximation. Thus,
1118: we combine the two measurements by summing errors in quadrature and get
1119: \begin{equation} m_{\nu_e}^2=-1.7\pm 2.2 \mbox{ eV}^2\qquad\hbox{i.e.}\qquad
1120: m_{\nu_e}<2.0\,\eV\hbox{ at 99 \% C.L.}\end{equation}
1121: %having imposed the {\em a priori} constraint $m_{\nu_e}^2\ge 0$.
1122: %Relaxing this constraint, the $99 \%$ C.L.\ bound mildly weakens
1123: %to $m_{\nu_e}<2.0$~eV.
1124: In order to study what oscillation data imply on the value of $m_{\nu_e}$ we
1125: write it in terms
1126: of the neutrino masses $m_i$ and of the mixing angles $\theta_{ij}$ as
1127: \begin{equation}\label{eq:mnue}
1128: m_{\nu_e} =
1129: \bigg[ \cos^2 \theta_{13}(m_1^2 \cos^2\theta_{12} +
1130: m_2^2 \sin^2\theta_{12}) + m_3^2 \sin^2\theta_{13}\bigg]^{1/2}.
1131: \end{equation}
1132: In the case of normal mass hierarchy, $m_1\ll m_2\ll m_3$
1133: oscillation data imply the 99\% CL range
1134: $m_{\nu_e} = (4.6\div 10)\meV$.
1135: In the case of inverted hierarchy, $m_3\ll m_1<m_2$ one gets
1136: $m_{\nu_e} = (42\div 57)\meV$.
1137: The last number if a factor 5 below the planned sensitivity of {\sc Katrin}~\cite{Katrin}.
1138:
1139: It is immediate to obtain the ranges corresponding to the generic case of
1140: a non vanishing lightest neutrino mass $m_{\rm lightest}$
1141: (where $m_{\rm lightest}=m_1$ in the case of normal hierarchy
1142: and $m_{\rm lightest}=m_3$ in the case of inverted hierarchy).
1143: As clear from the definition $m_{\nu_e}^2\equiv (m\cdot m^\dagger)_{ee}$ or from
1144: the more explicit expression in eq.\eq{mnue} one just needs to add $m_{\rm lightest}^2$
1145: to $m_{\nu_e}^2$. The resulting bands at $99\%$ C.L.\ are plotted in fig.\fig{cosmobeta}b.
1146:
1147:
1148:
1149:
1150:
1151:
1152:
1153: \subsection{Neutrino-less double-beta decay}\label{sec:0nu2beta}
1154: Updating the results of~\cite{Feru},
1155: in the 3 neutrino framework we discuss the connection
1156: with oscillations, the bound from $0\nu2\beta$ on neutrino masses
1157: and the possible hint of a signal.
1158:
1159:
1160: \paragraph{IGEX, C{\small UORICINO} and nuclear uncertainties.}
1161: First, we recall that recently two experiments produced new relevant data.
1162: The first is IGEX~\cite{ig1}, now terminated, which used 86\%
1163: enriched ${}^{76}$Ge (with exposure $7\cdot 10^{25}$ nuclei$\cdot$yr).
1164: The second is {\sc Cuoricino}~\cite{cuo2},
1165: now running, which uses 34\% natural ${}^{130}$Te
1166: (with exposure $1.4\cdot 10^{24}$ nuclei$\cdot$yr, and
1167: the plan to collect 10 times more data in about 6 years).
1168: Both experiments reached a good level of background
1169: (about $0.18/\rm keV\cdot kg\cdot yr$),
1170: %$(0.18\pm 0.01)/\rm (keV\cdot kg\cdot yr)$ respectively,
1171: good detection efficiencies of
1172: 70\% and 84\%, and respectable energy resolutions,
1173: the full width at half maximum being
1174: 4~keV and 7~keV respectively.
1175: For comparison, the Heidelberg--Moscow (HM) data-set
1176: with pulse-shape-discrimination \cite{HM}
1177: has exposure
1178: $2.5\cdot 10^{26}$ nuclei$\cdot$yr and background
1179: $0.06/\rm ( keV\cdot kg\cdot yr)$.
1180:
1181:
1182: As in~\cite{Feru} we quote the limits on $|m_{ee}|$ adopting the $0\nu2\beta$ nuclear
1183: matrix elements ${\cal M}_0$ computed in \cite{staudt90}.
1184: To use a different calculation with matrix element ${\cal M}$,
1185: just rescale by the factor $h={\cal M}_0/{\cal M}$,
1186: which depends on the nucleus studied.\footnote{The
1187: symbol $h$ has different meaning for cosmology and for $0\nu 2\beta$,
1188: as should be clear from the context.}
1189: We always explicit the factors $h$ when quoting an experimental result on $0\nu 2\beta$.
1190: We prefer to show such uncertainty explicitly
1191: rather than attempting to evaluate the
1192: theoretical error on matrix elements.\footnote{It would be useful if future calculations of matrix elements
1193: could provide error estimates.}
1194: Different published computations find $h$ in the following ranges
1195: \begin{equation}0.3~\cite{staudt92}< h({}^{76}{\rm Ge}) < 2.4~\cite{caurier96},\qquad
1196: 0.4~\cite{staudt92} <h({}^{130}{\rm Te})< 2.7~\cite{rodin03}.\end{equation}
1197: %For ${}^{76}$Ge $h$ ranges from 0.3~\cite{staudt92} to 2.4~\cite{caurier96}.
1198: %For ${}^{130}$Te $h$ ranges from 0.4~\cite{staudt92} to 2.7~\cite{rodin03}.
1199: When comparing two results on
1200: $|m_{ee}|$ obtained with different nuclei one needs to
1201: consider the ratios of $h$, e.g., $h(^{130}\mbox{Te})/h(^{76}\mbox{Ge})$.
1202: This quantity is also uncertain, spanning the following range:
1203: \begin{equation}\label{eq:h/h}
1204: 0.3~\cite{engel88} < h(^{130}\mbox{Te})/h(^{76}\mbox{Ge})< 1.7~\cite{rodin03}.
1205: \end{equation}
1206:
1207:
1208:
1209: \begin{table}
1210: \begin{center}
1211: \begin{tabular}{| rl||c|c|c|c|c |}
1212: \hline
1213: %Experiment & observed & background & signal $s$ & lifetime & $|m_{ee}|/h$, \\
1214: % & events, $n$ & events, $b$ & 99 \% bound &$\tau$, 99 \%
1215: %& 99 \% \\ \hline\hline
1216: %HM~\cite{HM} & 21& $20.4\pm 1.6$ & 15.1 & $1.2\cdot 10^{25}$ y & 0.45 eV \\
1217: %IGEX~\cite{ig1,ig2} & 9.6& $17.2\pm 2$ & 8.0 & $6.5\cdot 10^{24}$ y & 0.61 eV\\
1218: %{\sc Cuoricino}~\cite{cuo1,cuo2} &24& $35.2\pm 4$ & 10.6 & $1.1\cdot 10^{24}$ y & 0.67 eV\\ \hline
1219: \multicolumn{2}{|c||}{Nucleus and} & observed & background & expected & 99\% C.L.\ bound \\
1220: \multicolumn{2}{|c||}{experiment} & events, $n$ & events, $b$ & signal & on $|m_{ee}|/h$ \\ \hline\hline
1221: ${}^{76}$Ge& HM~\cite{HM} & 21& $20.4\pm 1.6$ & ~76 $\,|m_{ee}/\eV|^2/h^2$ & 0.44 eV \\
1222: ${}^{76}$Ge&IGEX~\cite{ig1,ig2} & 9.6& $17.2\pm 2\phantom{.0}$ & 23.5$|m_{ee}/\eV|^2/h^2$ & 0.55 eV\\
1223: ${}^{130}$Te &{\sc Cuoricino}~\cite{cuo1,cuo2} &24& $35.2\pm 4\phantom{.0}$ & 21.5$|m_{ee}/\eV|^2/h^2$& 0.62 eV\\ \hline
1224: \end{tabular}
1225: \end{center}
1226: \caption{\em
1227: Numbers of observed events, expected background
1228: and predicted signal in the most sensitive $0\nu2\beta$ experiments.
1229: The last column shows the $99\%$ C.L.\ constraint on $|m_{ee}|/h$,
1230: where $h\sim 1$ parameterizes the uncertain $0\nu2\beta$ nuclear matrix element and
1231: depends on the nucleus studied.
1232: \label{bbb}}
1233: \end{table}
1234:
1235: Now we convert $0\nu 2\beta$ data into a constraint on $|m_{ee}|$
1236: following the same simple procedure employed by the HM collaboration~\cite{HM}:
1237: the Poisson likelihood of having $s$ signal events is
1238: ${\cal L}(s)\propto e^{-s} (b+s)^n$, where $n$ and $b$ are the
1239: numbers of observed and expected background events
1240: in the 3$\sigma_E$ window around the $Q$ value of the $0\nu 2\beta$,
1241: and $\sigma_E$ is the energy resolution of the apparatus.
1242: We therefore evaluate $n$ and $b$
1243: in the 10 keV region around $Q=2039$~keV for IGEX~\cite{ig1,ig2} and
1244: in the 18 keV region around $Q=2529$~keV for {\sc Cuoricino}~\cite{cuo1,cuo2}.
1245: Results are collected in table~\ref{bbb}.
1246: For both experiments the observed
1247: number of events is slightly below the expected background.
1248: In this paper we systematically employ the Gaussian approximation:
1249: the $99\%$ constraint (2.58$\sigma$) on $|m_{ee}|$ is computed by defining
1250: $\chi^2\equiv -2\ln{\cal L}$, marginalizing it with respect to the uncertainty in the background,
1251: and finally quoting the value of $|m_{ee}|$ such that
1252: $\chi^2(m_{ee})-\chi^2(m_{ee}=0) = 2.58^2$.
1253: Different approaches to statistical inference give slightly different constraints.
1254: %We get the bound on $s$ integrating the likelihoods
1255: %till the 99 \% CL, convert the
1256: %bound on the signal $s$ into one on the lifetime $\tau$, and
1257: %get the limit for $|m_{ee}|/h$ using \cite{staudt90} (for $m_{ee}/h=1$~eV,
1258: %HM, IGEX and {\sc Cuoricino} should see 76, 23.5 and 21.5 events).
1259: %The results are given in table~\ref{bbb}.
1260:
1261: Since HM and IGEX are both based on
1262: ${}^{76}$Ge, it is possible to obtain a more stringent combined bound,
1263: %on the lifetime of the transition, $\tau>1.5\cdot 10^{25}$~y at 99 \% CL, that can be converted into
1264: $|m_{ee}|<0.38\ h$ eV.\footnote{We cannot combine HM/IGEX with
1265: {\sc Cuoricino} in a reliable manner,
1266: due to the uncertainty on the relative nuclear matrix element discussed above.
1267: Using the matrix elements of \cite{staudt90} for ${}^{76}$Ge {\em and} ${}^{130}$Te,
1268: would give $|m_{ee}|<0.34\ h$ eV at $99\%$ C.L.\ with $h=1$.}
1269:
1270:
1271:
1272: \begin{figure}
1273: $$\hspace{-8mm}
1274: \includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{0n2bger}\hspace{1cm}\includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{0n2binv}$$
1275: $$\hspace{-8mm}
1276: \includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{0n2bdeg}\hspace{1cm}\includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{0n2ball99}$$
1277: \caption{\label{fig:postsalt}\em Predictions for $|m_{ee}|$ assuming a
1278: hierarchical
1279: (fig.\fig{postsalt}a) and
1280: inverted (fig.\fig{postsalt}b) neutrino spectrum.
1281: In fig.\fig{postsalt}c we update
1282: the upper bound on the mass of quasi-degenerate
1283: neutrinos implied by $0\nu2\beta$ searches.
1284: The factor $h\approx 1$ parameterizes the uncertainty in the
1285: nuclear matrix element (see sect.\ 2.1).
1286: In fig.\fig{postsalt}d we plot the $99\%$ CL range for $m_{ee}$
1287: as function of the lightest neutrino mass,
1288: thereby covering all spectra.
1289: The darker regions show how the $m_{ee}$ range would shrink if
1290: the present best-fit values of oscillation parameters were
1291: confirmed with negligible error.
1292: }\end{figure}
1293:
1294:
1295: \paragraph{Inference on $|\mb{m}_{ee}|$ from oscillations.}
1296: Using the latest oscillation data, we study the expected range of $|m_{ee}|$.
1297: We follow the procedure described in~\cite{Feru}.
1298: Assuming three CPT-invariant massive Majorana neutrinos we get:
1299: \begin{itemize}
1300:
1301: \item[a)] In the case of {\bf normal hierarchy} (i.e.\ $m_1\ll m_2\ll m_3$, or $\Delta m^2_{23}>0$)
1302: the $ee$ element of the neutrino mass matrix probed by
1303: $0\nu2\beta$ decay experiments
1304: can be written as $|m_{ee}| = |e^{2i \alpha} m_{ee}^{\rm sun} + e^{2i\beta} m_{ee}^{\rm atm}|$
1305: where $\alpha,\beta$ are unknown Majorana phases and
1306: the `solar' and `atmospheric' contributions can be predicted from oscillation data.
1307: The solar contribution to $m_{ee}$
1308: is $m_{ee}^{\rm sun} = (\Delta m^2_{12})^{1/2}\sin^2\theta_{12}\cos^2\theta_{13}=
1309: ( 2.78\pm 0.22)~\,\hbox{meV}$.
1310: The bound on $\theta_{13}$ implies $m_{ee}^{\rm atm} =(\Delta m^2_{23})^{1/2}\sin^2\theta_{13}
1311: < 1.7\,\hbox{meV}$ at 99\% CL.
1312: By combining these two contributions we get
1313: the range reported in table~\ref{tab1}.
1314: %\begin{equation}
1315: %\label{eq:neqh}
1316: %|m_{ee}|=(1.7\div 3.9) \meV\hbox{ at $90\%$ CL}\qquad\hbox{ and }\qquad
1317: %|m_{ee}|=(1.1\div 4.5 ) \meV \hbox{ at $99\%$ CL.}
1318: %\end{equation}
1319: The precise prediction is shown in fig.\fig{postsalt}a.
1320: Unlike in our previous results~\cite{Feru},
1321: a non zero contribution is now guaranteed
1322: at high confidence level, because data now tell that the `solar' contribution is larger
1323: than the `atmospheric' contribution, so that a cancellation is not possible.
1324:
1325:
1326:
1327: \item[b)] In the case of {\bf inverted hierarchy}
1328: (i.e.\ $m_3\ll m_1\approx m_2$, or $\Delta m^2_{23}<0$), from
1329: the prediction
1330: $|m_{ee}| \approx |\Delta m^2_{23}|^{1/2}\times
1331: |\cos^2\theta_{12} + e^{2i\alpha} \sin^2 \theta_{12}|\cos^2 \theta_{13}$
1332: we get the range reported in table~\ref{tab1}
1333: %\begin{equation}
1334: %\label{eq:newi}
1335: %|m_{ee}|=(14\div 54) \meV\hbox{ at $90\%$ CL}\qquad\hbox{ and }\qquad
1336: %|m_{ee}|=(12 \div 58) \meV \hbox{ at $99\%$ CL.}
1337: %\end{equation}
1338: (see also~\cite{MuraPenya}).
1339: The precise prediction is shown in fig.\fig{postsalt}b.
1340: The main uncertainty on $|m_{ee}|$ is due to the Majorana phase $\alpha$,
1341: rather than to the oscillation parameters.
1342: If the present central values were confirmed with infinite precision we would still have the loose range
1343: $|m_{ee}|=(19\div 50) \meV$ at any C.L.
1344:
1345:
1346:
1347: \end{itemize}
1348: The $|m_{ee}|$ ranges for normal and inverted hierarchy do not overlap.
1349: Values of $|m_{ee}|$ outside these ranges are possible if the
1350: lightest neutrino mass
1351: is not negligible, as shown in fig.\fig{postsalt}d.
1352: In the inverted hierarchy case ($\Delta m^2_{23}<0$) a non zero lightest neutrino mass
1353: can only make $|m_{ee}|$ larger than in case b).
1354: %: eq.\eq{newi} is a true lower bound.
1355: The darker regions in fig.\fig{postsalt}d
1356: show how the predicted range of $|m_{ee}|$ would shrink
1357: if the present best-fit values of
1358: oscillation parameters were confirmed with infinite precision.
1359: The two funnels present for $\Delta m^2_{23}>0$
1360: have an infinitesimal width because we assume $\theta_{13} = 0$
1361: and would have a finite width if $\theta_{13}\neq 0$.
1362: \begin{itemize}
1363:
1364: \item[c)]
1365: The case of quasi-{\bf{}degenerate neutrinos} with mass $m_{\nu_e}$
1366: corresponds to the upper region
1367: of fig.\fig{postsalt}d. $|m_{ee}|$ and $m_{\rm cosmo}$ are related to $m_{\nu_e}$ as
1368: \begin{equation}
1369: \label{eq:neqh}m_{\rm cosmo}=3 m_{\nu_e}\qquad\hbox{and}\qquad
1370: 0.24\,m_{\nu_e}<|m_{ee}|<m_{\nu_e} \hbox{ at $99\%$ C.L.}
1371: \end{equation}
1372: The lower bound on $|m_{ee}|$ holds
1373: thanks to the fact that solar data exclude a maximal solar mixing
1374: and that CHOOZ requires a small $\theta_{13}$.
1375: %is based on the fact that
1376: %a large $m_{\nu_e}$ is compatible with the upper bound on $|m_{ee}|$
1377: %only if $\theta_{12}\approx \pi/4$.
1378: %Maximal solar mixing was already disfavoured
1379: %at almost $4\sigma$ before salt SNO data
1380: %and is now disfavoured at $5.4\sigma$ (fig.\fig{postsalt}c).
1381: \end{itemize}
1382:
1383:
1384:
1385: \paragraph{Upper bound on neutrino masses from $0\nu 2\beta$.}
1386: The above result means that by combining oscillation data with
1387: the $0\nu2\beta$ upper bound on $|m_{ee}|$
1388: implies an upper bound on the parameter $m_{\nu_e}$ probed by $\beta$ decay experiments~\cite{Feru}.
1389: In view of present values, such $m_{\nu_e}$ corresponds
1390: to the common mass of quasi-degenerate neutrinos.
1391: This bound is shown in fig.\fig{postsalt}c, and
1392: depends on the $0\nu2\beta$ nuclear matrix elements,
1393: parameterized by the uncertain factors $h\sim 1$.
1394: Therefore the results of {\sc Cuoricino}, obtained
1395: with a nucleus different than HM and IGEX, add confidence
1396: in the result.
1397: For $h=1$ the combined constraint is $m_{\nu_e}/h<1.0\,\eV$ at $99\%$ C.L.
1398: This constraint is stronger than the $\beta$-decay constraint
1399: (but holds under the additional assumption that neutrinos are Majorana particles)
1400: and is weaker than the cosmological constraint
1401: (but needs no assumptions about cosmology).
1402:
1403: In all above discussions we employed the bound on $|m_{ee}|$ from
1404: HM data, as published by the HM collaboration~\cite{HM}.
1405:
1406:
1407: %
1408: %The $0\nu 2\beta$ data imply
1409: %a bound on the mass $m_{\nu_e}$ probed by $\beta$ decay experiments.
1410: %\begin{equation}
1411: %\label{eq:newd}
1412: %m_{\nu_e}< 1.0 ~(1.35)\, h \eV\qquad\hbox{ at 90 ($99\%$) CL.}
1413: %\end{equation}
1414:
1415:
1416: %The bound on neutrino masses in eq.\eq{newd}, obtained combining
1417: %oscillation and $0\nu2\beta$ data under the assumption
1418: %that neutrinos are Majorana particles,
1419: %can be directly compared with the bound from direct searches
1420: %of neutrino mass in tritium decays,
1421: %$m_{\nu_e} <2.4\ \mbox{eV}$ at $99\%$ CL, or with
1422: %the tight limits obtained in cosmology \cite{l},
1423: %$m_{\nu_e} <0.23\ \mbox{eV}$ at $95\%$ CL [[????]].
1424:
1425:
1426: %Fig.\fig{postsalt}b also shows bounds from cosmology~\cite{WMAP}
1427: %and from the Heidelberg-Moscow~\cite{HM}
1428: %$0\nu2\beta$ experiment (assuming $h=1$).
1429: %Both bounds are somewhat controversial,
1430: %and in both cases hints that some effect has been detected
1431: %have been suggested by some alternative analyses~\cite{hints}, not reported here.
1432: %Neutrino masses two times larger than these bounds
1433: %can be accomodated by more conservative analyses.
1434: % Larger values would require a surprisingly low value of the $0\nu2\beta$ matrix element,
1435: % or a surprisingly non-minimal cosmology,
1436: % or large-scale structure data are plagued by
1437: % some unknown systematic effect.
1438:
1439:
1440:
1441:
1442:
1443:
1444:
1445: \begin{figure}
1446: $$\hspace{-4mm}\includegraphics[height=5cm]{Klapdor2004}\includegraphics[height=5cm]{KlapdorSigma}$$
1447: \caption{\label{fig:Klapdor2004}\em Fig.\fig{Klapdor2004}a: the latest HM data~\cite{KlapdorLast}
1448: ($71.7{\rm kg}\cdot{\rm yr}$)
1449: used to claim a $4.2\sigma$ evidence for $0\nu2\beta$.
1450: Fig.\fig{Klapdor2004}b: the statistical significance of the $0\nu2\beta$ signal, as
1451: function of the assumed flat component of the background.}
1452: \end{figure}
1453:
1454:
1455: \paragraph{Remarks on the hint for $0\nu 2\beta$.}
1456: While the HM collaboration used their data to set a bound on $|m_{ee}|$,
1457: some members of the HM collaboration reinterpreted the data
1458: as an evidence for $0\nu2\beta$~\cite{Klapdor}.
1459: According to this claim, the latest HM data~\cite{KlapdorLast} plotted in
1460: fig.\fig{Klapdor2004}a
1461: contain a $4.2\sigma$ evidence for
1462: a $0\nu2\beta$ peak (indicated by the arrow).
1463: In these latest results the peak is more visible than in
1464: latest published HM data~\cite{HM},
1465: partly thanks to higher statistics (increased from 53.9 to 71.7 kg yr)
1466: and partly thanks to an `improved analysis'~\cite{KlapdorLast}).
1467:
1468: This claim is controversial, mainly because
1469: one needs to fully understand the background before being
1470: confident that a signal has been seen.
1471: In order to allow a better focus on this key issue,
1472: we present fig.\fig{Klapdor2004}b, which should be uncontroversial.
1473: It shows the statistical significance\footnote{Defined in Gaussian approximation
1474: as $(\chi^2_{\rm no~signal}-\chi^2_{\rm best~fit})^{1/2}$ where
1475: $\chi^2 = -2\ln{\cal L}$ and ${\cal L}$ is the likelihood
1476: computed combining statistical Poissonian uncertainties with other
1477: systematic uncertainties.} of the $0\nu2\beta$ signal
1478: as a function of the {\em true} background level $b$,
1479: assumed to be quasi-flat close to the $Q$-value of $0\nu2\beta$,
1480: $Q\approx 2039\,{\rm keV}$.
1481: The crucial issue is: how large is $b$?
1482: The HM collaboration earlier claimed \cite{HM}
1483: $b=(13.6\pm0.7){\rm events}/(71.7\,{\rm kg}\,{\rm yr}\cdot{\rm keV})$.
1484: In such a case the statistical significance of
1485: the signal would be less than $1\sigma$, see fig.\fig{Klapdor2004}b.
1486: This can be considered as the upper bound on $b$ computed assuming that all
1487: events in a wider range around $Q$ come from a quasi-flat background.
1488:
1489: A statistically significant hint for $0\nu2\beta$ is obtained if one can show that $b$ is lower.
1490: %so that there is less background around the energy at which the
1491: %$0\nu2\beta$ should manifest itself.
1492: The continuous line in fig.\fig{Klapdor2004}a shows a fit of HM data
1493: using a tentative model of the background~\cite{Klapdor},
1494: assumed to have a quasi-flat component $b$
1495: (mainly due to `natural' and `cosmogenic' radioactivity)
1496: plus some peaks due to faint $\gamma$ lines of $^{214}$Bi, which is
1497: a radioactive impurity present in the apparatus
1498: (from the $^{238}$U decay chain).
1499: Their positions and intensities can be estimated from tables of nuclear decays;
1500: however they are modified by ${\cal O}(1)$ factors
1501: by detector-related effects which
1502: depend on the unknown localization of $^{214}$Bi
1503: (see~\cite{KlapdorLast} and ref.s therein).
1504: The fit in fig.\fig{Klapdor2004}a is performed by
1505: allowing the intensity of each line to freely vary.
1506: %and including some detector-dependent lines
1507: %at the positions suggested by the detector simulation of~\cite{evid}.
1508: In this way part of the background is interpreted as $^{214}$Bi peaks,
1509: thereby reducing the quasi-flat component $b$.
1510: Proceeding in this way, we find that the statistical
1511: significance of the $0\nu2\beta$ signal is about $2.7\sigma$.
1512: This is the best we can do with the data at our disposal.
1513: %which is a very significant hint.
1514: This kind of analysis was proposed in~\cite{Feru} and
1515: has been adopted in~\cite{KlapdorLast}.
1516:
1517:
1518: However, some details in its implementation prevent this analysis from fully
1519: reaching its goal, which is determining $b$ from regions with no peaks.
1520: 1) The latest data have been published only below 2060 keV.
1521: (Above 2060 keV in fig.\fig{Klapdor2004}a we plotted HM data
1522: artificially rescaled to account for the larger statistics).
1523: Below 2060 keV there are little energy ranges with no peaks.
1524: Including the old data above 2060 keV in
1525: the fit would reduce the significance of
1526: the signal down to about $2.2\sigma$.
1527: 2) HM data contain hints of extra unidentified
1528: spurious peaks at specific energies
1529: (at 2030 keV and above 2060 keV).
1530: Fitting data assuming that these extra peaks can
1531: be present at arbitrary energies with arbitrary intensities
1532: reduces $b$ and enhances the statistical significance of the signal.
1533:
1534:
1535:
1536: Various future experiments plan to test the claim of~\cite{Klapdor}.
1537: The most direct test requires using the same technique
1538: (germanium detectors) but in the worst case, when the observed hint of
1539: a signal is due to some irreducible (hypothetical) background,
1540: a safe test requires a different type of detector.
1541: As previously discussed {\sc Cuoricino} employs a different nucleus:
1542: its capabilities relative to HM and IGEX depend on the uncertain relative
1543: nuclear matrix element.
1544: For instance, with the lowest value in eq.\eq{h/h}
1545: {\sc Cuoricino} is already testing the claim
1546: of \cite{Klapdor};
1547: for intermediate values new data of {\sc Cuoricino}
1548: will significantly test the claim;
1549: for the highest value {\sc Cuoricino} will be not sufficient.
1550:
1551:
1552:
1553: In our view, a discussion of what should be considered as a convincing evidence for $0\nu2\beta$,
1554: is anyway useful or necessary,
1555: because any experiment (past and future) needs to confront with this issue.
1556:
1557:
1558:
1559: \section{Conclusions}
1560: Assuming oscillations of three active massive neutrinos we updated the
1561: determination of the oscillations parameters, at the light of latest experimental data.
1562: Results are shown in table~\ref{tab1} and in fig.\fig{panta}.
1563: We notice that the parameters $\Delta m^2_{12},\theta_{12},\theta_{23}$
1564: are now dominantly determined by simple and robust sub-sets of data,
1565: such that simple arguments give the same final result as global analyses.
1566: Pieces of data that play a sub-dominant r\^ole in parameter determination
1567: allow to test our assumptions: e.g.\ allowing neutrinos and anti-neutrinos
1568: to have different masses and mixings gives the CPT-violating fit of fig.\fig{CPT2005}.
1569: Present data do not contain evidence for extra effects.
1570:
1571:
1572: We also tried to study in a simple and general way related topics,
1573: such as the determination of the limiting survival probability of solar neutrinos
1574: at small and large energies,
1575: the present knowledge of solar neutrino fluxes, etc.
1576: Approximated general results have been compared with `exact' results of
1577: global fits performed in specific cases.
1578:
1579: Finally, updating the results of~\cite{Feru},
1580: we studied how oscillation data allow to infer the combination of neutrino masses
1581: probed by cosmology, $\beta$-decay and $0\nu2\beta$-decay experiments,
1582: and discussed the present experimental situation.
1583:
1584:
1585:
1586:
1587: \footnotesize
1588: \begin{multicols}{2}
1589: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
1590:
1591:
1592: \bibitem{Chlorinelast}
1593: The results of the Homestake experiment are reported in
1594: \art{B.T. Cleveland et al.}{Astrophys. J.}{496}{505}{1998}.
1595:
1596:
1597: \bibitem{Galliumlast}
1598: Latest {\sc Gallex} and SAGE data have been presented in a talk by C. Cattadori
1599: at the `Neutrino 2004' conference (Paris, 14-19 June),
1600: web site neutrino2004.in2p3.fr.
1601:
1602: \bibitem{Gallex} \art{{\sc Gallex} collaboration}{\PL}{B447}{127}{1999}.
1603:
1604:
1605: \bibitem{SAGE}
1606: SAGE Collaboration, J.\ Exp.\ Theor.\ Phys.\ {95} (2002) 181 [astro-ph/0204245].
1607:
1608:
1609:
1610: \bibitem{SKlast}
1611: \hepart[hep-ex/0205075]{Super-Kamiokande collaboration}.
1612:
1613: \bibitem{SNOlast} {SNO collaboration}, nucl-ex/0204008 and
1614: nucl-ex/0204009.
1615:
1616: \bibitem{SNOsaltfinal} \hepart[nucl-ex/0502021]{SNO collaboration}.
1617:
1618:
1619: \bibitem{KL2004} \hepart[hep-ex/0406035]{KamLAND collaboration}.
1620:
1621: \bibitem{SKI}
1622: \hepart[hep-ex/0501064]{SuperKamiokande collaboration}.
1623:
1624: \bibitem{Macro}
1625: \art[hep-ex/0304037]{MACRO collaboration}{\PL}{B566}{35}{2003}.
1626:
1627: \bibitem{K2K}
1628: \hepart[hep-ex/0411038]{K2K collaboration}.
1629:
1630:
1631: \bibitem{Klapdor}
1632: H.~V.~Klapdor-Kleingrothaus, A.~Dietz, H.~L.~Harney and I.~V.~Krivosheina,
1633: %``Evidence for neutrinoless double beta decay,''
1634: Mod.\ Phys.\ Lett.\ A {16} (2001) 2409
1635: [hep-ph/0201231].
1636:
1637:
1638:
1639: \bibitem{KlapdorLast}
1640: H.~V.~Klapdor-Kleingrothaus, A.~Dietz, I.~V.~Krivosheina and O.~Chkvorets,
1641: %``Data acquisition and analysis of the Ge-76 double beta experiment in Gran
1642: %Sasso 1990-2003,''
1643: Nucl.\ Instrum.\ Meth.\ A {522} (2004) 371
1644: [hep-ph/0403018].
1645:
1646:
1647: \bibitem{LSND}
1648: \art[hep-ex/0104049]{LSND collaboration}{\PR}{D64}{112007}{2001}.
1649:
1650:
1651: \bibitem{which} A.~Strumia and F.~Vissani,
1652: %``Which solar neutrino experiment after KamLAND and {\sc Borexino}?,''
1653: JHEP {0111} (2001) 048 [hep-ph/0109172].
1654:
1655:
1656: \bibitem{BP}
1657: \art[astro-ph/0010346]{J.N. Bahcall, S. Basu, M.H. Pinsonneault}{Astrophys. J.}{555}{990}{2001}.
1658:
1659:
1660: \bibitem{LUNA} \hepart[nucl-ex/0312015]{LUNA collaboration}.
1661:
1662:
1663:
1664: \bibitem{sunfitsalt}
1665: \art[hep-ph/0102234]{P. Creminelli et al.}{J. HEP}{05}{2001}{052}.
1666: Its e-print version, has been updated
1667: including the recent data from SNO.
1668:
1669:
1670:
1671: \bibitem{CPT} \hepart[hep-ph/0201134]{A. Strumia}.
1672: The solar CPT-violating fit has been re-emphasized in
1673: H.~Murayama, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {597} (2004) 73 [hep-ph/0307127] and in
1674: \hepart[hep-ph/0406301]{A. de Gouvea, C. Pe\~na-Garay}.
1675: The atmospheric CPT-violating fit has been also studied by the SK collaboration,
1676: see the talk by E. Kearns at the Neutrino 2004 conference (Paris, 14-19 June),
1677: web site neutrino2004.in2p3.fr.
1678: See also M.~C.~Gonzalez-Garcia, M.~Maltoni and T.~Schwetz,
1679: %``Status of the CPT violating interpretations of the LSND signal,''
1680: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {68} (2003) 053007.
1681:
1682:
1683:
1684: \bibitem{BS}
1685: A. Strumia and R. Barbieri, JHEP 12 (2000) 016.
1686: Its e-print version, hep-ph/0011307, contains updates and additional discussions
1687: not present in the published version.
1688:
1689:
1690: \bibitem{theta13sun}
1691: S.~Goswami, A.~Bandyopadhyay and S.~Choubey,
1692: %``Global analysis of neutrino oscillation,''
1693: Nucl.\ Phys.\ Proc.\ Suppl.\ {143} (2005) 121 [hep-ph/0409224].
1694: B.~S.~Koranga, M.~Narayan and S.~Uma Sankar, hep-ph/0503092.
1695:
1696:
1697: \bibitem{roadmaps} \art{J.N. Bahcall, C. Pe\~na-Garay}{JHEP}{004}{0311}{2003}.
1698: \hepart[hep-ph/0410283]{A. Bandyopadhyay, S. Choubey, S. Goswami, S.T. Petcov}.
1699:
1700:
1701:
1702: \bibitem{sterile}
1703: For a recent extensive study see
1704: M. Cirelli et al, Nucl. Phys. B708 (2005) 215 [hep-ph/0403158].
1705: For short summaries see
1706: A.~Strumia, Nucl.\ Phys.\ Proc.\ Suppl.\ {143} (2005) 144
1707: [hep-ph/0407132] and M.~Cirelli, astro-ph/0410122.
1708:
1709:
1710: \bibitem{Borexinopep}
1711: C. Galbiati, A. Pocar, D. Franco, A. Ianni, L. Cadonati, S. Schonert, hep-ph/0411002.
1712:
1713: \bibitem{CNO}
1714: J.~N.~Bahcall, M.~C.~Gonzalez-Garcia and C.~Pena-Garay,
1715: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {90} (2003) 131301.
1716:
1717:
1718:
1719: \bibitem{LBL} For a recent summary of capabilities of
1720: neutrino beam experiments see M. Lindner, hep-ph/0503101.
1721: If $\theta_{13}=0$ it seems practically impossible to discriminate
1722: the kind of neutrino mass hierarchy with oscillation experiments,
1723: as recently discussed in
1724: A.~de Gouvea, J.~Jenkins and B.~Kayser, hep-ph/0503079.
1725:
1726:
1727:
1728: \bibitem{jhf}
1729: \hepart[{\rm ``The JHF-Kamioka neutrino project''},
1730: hep-ex/0106019]{Y.~Itow {\it et al.}}
1731: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0106019;%%
1732:
1733:
1734: \bibitem{hub}
1735: P.~Huber, M.~Lindner, T.~Schwetz and W.~Winter,
1736: %``Reactor neutrino experiments compared to superbeams,''
1737: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {665} (2003) 487
1738: [hep-ph/0303232].
1739: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0303232;%%
1740:
1741:
1742:
1743: \bibitem{peres}
1744: \art[hep-ph/0309312]{O.L.G. Peres, A.Yu. Smirnov}{Nucl. Phys.}{B680}{479}{2004}.
1745:
1746:
1747:
1748: \bibitem{Feru}
1749: F.~Feruglio, A.~Strumia and F.~Vissani,
1750: %``Neutrino oscillations and signals in beta and 0nu 2beta experiments,''
1751: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {637} (2002) 345
1752: [addendum-ibid.\ B {659} (2003) 359]
1753: [hep-ph/0201291].
1754:
1755:
1756:
1757: \bibitem{WMAP}
1758: \hepart[astro-ph/0302207]{C.L. Bennett et al.}
1759: and
1760: \hepart[astro-ph/0302209]{D.N. Spergel et al.}.
1761: The WMAP constraint is similar to previous analyses, e.g.
1762: \art{A. Lewis, S. Bridle}{\PR}{D66}{103511}{2002}.
1763: Other (sometimes more conservative) analysis find similar (sometimes weaker) bounds:
1764: \art[astro-ph/0303076]{S. Hannestad}{JCAP} {0305}{004}{2003},
1765: \art[astro-ph/0306386]{S.W. Allen, R.W. Schmidt, S.L. Bridle}{Mon.\ Not.\ Roy.\ Astron.\ Soc.}{346}{593}{2003},
1766: \art[astro-ph/0310723]{M.~Tegmark et al. [SDSS Collaboration]}{\PR}{D69}{103501}{2004}
1767: \art[hep-ph/0312065]{V.Barger et al.}{\PL}{B595}{55}{2004},
1768: \art[hep-ph/0402049]{P. Crotty, J. Lesgourgues, S. Pastor}{\PR}{D69}{123007}{2004},
1769: \hepart[astro-ph/0407372]{U.~Seljak et al.}.
1770:
1771: \bibitem{CosmoFuture}
1772: For recent discussions see
1773: S.~Hannestad, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {67} (2003) 085017 [astro-ph/0211106];
1774: J.~Lesgourgues, S.~Pastor and L.~Perotto,
1775: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {70} (2004) 045016 [hep-ph/0403296].
1776:
1777:
1778: \bibitem{MAINZ} MAINZ collaboration, hep-ex/0412056.
1779:
1780: \bibitem{TROITSK} TROITSK collaboration,
1781: %``Direct search for mass of neutrino and anomaly in the tritium
1782: %beta-spectrum,''
1783: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {460} (1999) 227.
1784: The latest results have been presented in a talk by V. Lobashev at the XI International Workshop on ``Neutrino Telescopes'' (Venezia, Feb. 22-25 2005).
1785:
1786: \bibitem{Katrin} KATRIN web site: www-ik1.fzk.de/tritium.
1787:
1788:
1789:
1790: \bibitem{ig1} IGEX collaboration,
1791: %``Neutrinoless double-beta decay of Ge-76: First results from the
1792: %International Germanium Experiment (IGEX) with six isotopically enriched
1793: %detectors,''
1794: Phys.\ Rev.\ C {59} (1999) 2108.
1795:
1796:
1797: \bibitem{cuo2} {\sc Cuoricino} collaboration, hep-ex/0501034.
1798:
1799:
1800: \bibitem{HM} Heidelberg-Moscow collaboration,
1801: %``Latest results from the Heidelberg-Moscow double-beta-decay experiment,''
1802: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ A {12} (2001) 147
1803: [hep-ph/0103062].
1804:
1805:
1806: \bibitem{staudt90} A. Staudt {\em et al.}, Europh. Lett 13 (1990) 31.
1807: \bibitem{staudt92} A. Staudt {\em et al.}, Phys. Rev. C46 (1992) 871.
1808: %QRPA, Paris potential, maximum value.
1809: \bibitem{caurier96} E.~Caurier, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77 (1996) 1954.
1810: \bibitem{rodin03} V.A.~Rodin {\em et al.}, Phys. Rev. C68 (2003) 044302.
1811:
1812: \bibitem{engel88} J.~Engel {\em et al.}, Phys. Rev. C37 (1988) 871.
1813: %QRPA, ph+pp, maximum value.
1814:
1815:
1816: \bibitem{ig2} C.~E.~Aalseth {\it et al.},
1817: %``Comment on 'Evidence for neutrinoless double beta decay',''
1818: Mod.\ Phys.\ Lett.\ A {17} (2002) 1475
1819: [hep-ex/0202018].
1820:
1821: \bibitem{cuo1} {\sc Cuoricino} collaboration,
1822: %``First results on neutrinoless double beta decay of Te-130 with the
1823: %calorimetric CUORICINO experiment,''
1824: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {584} (2004) 260.
1825:
1826:
1827: \bibitem{MuraPenya}
1828: H.~Murayama and C.~Pena-Garay,
1829: %``Neutrinoless double beta decay in light of SNO salt data,''
1830: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {69} (2004) 031301
1831: emphasized that the lower bound on $|m_{ee}|$ in the case of inverted hierarchy
1832: is `robust' and found a value in agreement with results in~\cite{Feru}.
1833:
1834:
1835:
1836:
1837:
1838:
1839: \end{thebibliography}
1840: \end{multicols}
1841:
1842: \end{document}
1843:
1844: ?