1: %\documentclass[aps,prl,twocolumn,

2: %superscriptaddress,

3: %showpacs,

4: %showkeys,

5: %groupedaddress,

6: %nofootinbib,nobalancelastpage,nobibnotes]{revtex4}

7: 

8: \documentclass[twocolumn,prl,nofootinbib,superscriptaddress,showpacs]{revtex4}

9: %\usepackage{amsmath,amsfonts,amssymb,mathrsfs,graphicx}

10: \usepackage{graphicx}

11: %\usepackage{amssymb}

12: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

21: \newcommand{\Def}{Definition}

22: \newcommand{\fig}{Fig.}

23: \newcommand{\Fig}{Fig.}

24: \newcommand{\figs}{Figures}

25: \newcommand{\Figs}{Figures}

26: \newcommand{\Ref}{Ref.}

27: \newcommand{\Refs}{Refs.}

28: \newcommand{\Sec}{Section}

29: \newcommand{\Secs}{Sections}

30: \newcommand{\App}{Appendix}

31: \newcommand{\Apps}{Appendices}

32: \newcommand{\Tab}{Tab.}

33: \newcommand{\Tabs}{Tabs.}

34: 

35: % Scenarios:

36: \newcommand{\JHFSK}{\mbox{\sf T2K}}

37: \newcommand{\JHFHK}{\mbox{\sf T2HK}}

38: \newcommand{\NuFactII}{\mbox{\sf NuFact-II}}

39: \newcommand{\BetaBeam}{\mbox{\sf $\beta$-Beam}}

40: \newcommand{\NUMI}{\mbox{\sf NO$\nu$A}}

41: \newcommand{\MINOS}{\mbox{\sf MINOS}}

42: \newcommand{\ICARUS}{\mbox{\sf ICARUS}}

43: \newcommand{\OPERA}{\mbox{\sf OPERA}}

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

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

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

47: \newcommand{\TEN}{\JHFSK +\NUMI +\ReactorII}

48: 

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

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

51: 

52: % WW editing:

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

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

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

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

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

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

59: \newcommand{\tabl}[1]{\Tab~\ref{tab:#1}}

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

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

62: \newcommand{\ra}{\rightarrow}

63: 

64: 

65: \begin{document}

66: 

67: \title{Upgraded experiments with super neutrino beams: Reach versus Exposure}

68: \author{V. Barger}

69: \author{Patrick Huber}

70: \affiliation{Department of Physics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706, USA}

71: \author{Danny Marfatia}

72: \affiliation{Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Kansas,

73: Lawrence, KS 66045, USA}

74: \author{Walter Winter}

75: \affiliation{Institut f{\"u}r theoretische Physik und Astrophysik,

76: Universit{\"a}t W{\"u}rzburg, D-97074 W{\"u}rzburg, Germany}

77: 

78: %\date{\today}

79: 

80: \begin{abstract}

81: \vspace*{0.1cm}

82:   We introduce {\it exposure} as a means to making balanced 

83:   comparisons of the sensitivities of long-baseline neutrino experiments 

84:   to a nonzero $\theta_{13}$, to CP violation and to the

85:   neutrino mass hierarchy. 

86:   We illustrate its use by comparing the sensitivities of possible 

87:   upgrades of superbeam experiments, namely NO$\nu$A*, T2KK and 

88:   experiments with wide band beams. 

89:   For the proposed exposures, we find the

90:   best nominal CP violation performance for T2KK. For equal exposures,

91:   a wide band beam experiment has  the best mass hierarchy performance. 

92:   The physics concept on which NO$\nu$A* is based

93:   has the best potential for discovering CP violation only for

94:   exposures above a threshold value.

95: \end{abstract}

96: 

97: \pacs{14.60.Pq}

98: %\keywords{}

99: 

100: \maketitle

101: 

102: {\bf{Introduction.}}  Extensive recent experimental exploration has

103: revealed that neutrinos are massive~\cite{rev}. This finding

104: necessitates the existence of physics beyond the Standard Model of

105: particle physics. Massive neutrinos may also have far-reaching

106: consequences for cosmology. They may shed light on the origin of the

107: baryon asymmetry in our universe and on why the universe is in an

108: accelerating phase in its expansion. It is therefore imperative that

109: the origin of neutrino masses be determined.

110: 

111: A plethora of neutrino mass models have been proposed and precise

112: knowledge of neutrino parameters is required to test them.

113: Specifically, the value of the mixing angle $\theta_{13}$ and the type

114: of mass hierarchy (\ie, whether $m_1, m_2 < m_3$, called the normal

115: hierarchy or $m_1, m_2 > m_3$, called the inverted hierarchy) will

116: help distinguish between models based on lepton flavor symmetries,

117: models with sequential right-handed neutrino dominance and more

118: ambitious models based on GUT symmetries~\cite{modelrev}.  A 

119: survey of 63 models that are consistent with current oscillation data

120: and have concrete predictions for $\theta_{13}$ found that half of

121: them predict $\sin^2 2\theta_{13}> 0.015$~\cite{albright}. GUT models

122: and models with right-handed neutrino dominance naturally yield a

123: normal hierarchy and a relatively large $\theta_{13}$ (although in a

124: few GUT models, an inverted hierarchy can be obtained with

125: fine-tuning). Models based on leptonic symmetries can easily

126: accommodate an inverted hierarchy and small $\theta_{13}$. Thus,

127: experimental establishment of an inverted hierarchy and small

128: $\theta_{13}$ would lend support to models based on leptonic

129: symmetries and reduce the interest in GUT models and models with

130: right-handed neutrino dominance. On the other hand, if $\theta_{13}$

131: is found to be large, distinguishing between the three different

132: classes of models will be difficult.  However, if in addition to a

133: large $\theta_{13}$, the hierarchy is found to be inverted, it will be

134: possible to exclude the subclass of SO(10) GUT models that employ

135: so-called lopsided mass matrices because they predict a normal

136: hierarchy.

137: 

138: Clearly, experiments with good sensitivity to $\theta_{13}$ and the

139: mass hierarchy are indispensable for sifting out a restricted class of

140: neutrino mass models. Precision measurements of deviations of the

141: atmospheric oscillation angle $\theta_{23}$ from $\pi/4$ are also

142: useful in distinguishing between models. The deviation from maximal

143: atmospheric mixing provides an excellent probe of how symmetry

144: breaking occurs in models based on leptonic symmetries.  The Dirac CP

145: phase $\deltacp$ in the neutrino mixing matrix may be related to the

146: CP violation required for leptogenesis~\cite{blanchet} 

147: (which is a direct consequence

148: of the seesaw mechanism) and it may therefore be possible to test both

149: the seesaw and the origin of the baryon asymmetry in our universe by

150: measuring this CP phase.

151: 

152: If neutrinos do not have approximately degenerate masses, the

153: sensitivity of experiments seeking to detect neutrinoless double beta

154: decay (thereby confirming that neutrinos are Majorana particles), is

155: strongly impacted by whether the mass hierarchy is normal or inverted.

156: 

157: Long-baseline neutrino experiments offer the only way to establish a

158: nonzero $\theta_{13}$, to determine the mass hierarchy and to detect

159: neutrino CP violation. There are two strategies being considered for a

160: future experimental program, with combinations of different types of

161: neutrino beams and detector technologies. Off-axis beams have a narrow

162: beam energy, permitting a counting experiment at an oscillation

163: maximum with low background. Wide band beams have a higher flux and

164: allow an experiment that utilizes spectral energy information, but

165: requires sophisticated detectors with good energy

166: resolution and neutral-current rejection to reduce backgrounds.

167: 

168: The Tokai-to-Kamioka (T2K) experiment~\cite{jhfsk} will use an

169: off-axis beam. The proposed NuMI Off-axis $\nu_e$ Appearance

170: (NO$\nu$A) experiment~\cite{nova} (and its second phase) and the

171: Tokai-to-Kamioka-and-Korea (T2KK) extension~\cite{t2kk} of the T2K

172: experiment also plan to employ off-axis beams.  Recently, a wide band beam (WBB)

173: experiment has been advocated~\cite{wide-band}, the virtues of which have been

174: investigated in Ref.~\cite{wbb}. With the looming possibility of a

175: Deep Underground Science and Engineering Laboratory

176: (DUSEL)~\cite{dusel} in the U.S., and its capacity to house very large

177: detectors, it is timely to evaluate the relative merits of the two

178: experimental approaches with upgraded superbeams.

179: 

180: So far, the experimental options and assumptions made in analyses have

181: been so diverse that an objective comparison is not possible. For

182: example, one experiment may seem to have greater sensitivity simply

183: because the exposure assumed is much larger than that of another.

184: 

185: We carry out a technically comprehensive study with a realistic

186: treatment of systematic errors, correlations and

187: degeneracies~\cite{Barger:2001yr}.  Our goal is to clarify the physics

188: reach of the different proposals by analyzing them on an equal

189: footing. We present the sensitivities of the experiments to a nonzero

190: $\theta_{13}$, the mass hierarchy and to CP violation {\it as a

191:   function of exposure} so that merits of the different experimental

192: techniques are evident.

193: 

194: \begin{table*}

195: \begin{tabular}{lccccccccr}

196: \hline

197: Setup & POT $\nu$/yr & $t_{\nu}$ [yr] & POT $\bar{\nu}$/yr & $t_{\bar{\nu}}$

198: [yr] & $P_\mathrm{Target}$ [MW] & $L$ [km] & Detector technology &

199: $m_{\mathrm{Det}}$ [kt] & $\mathcal{L}$ [$\mathrm{Mt \, MW \, 10^7 \, s}$]\\

200: \hline

201: %NO$\nu$A-I & $10 \cdot 10^{20}$ & 3+3 & $10 \cdot 10^{20}$ & 3+3 & 1 & 810 &

202: %TASD & 25 & 0.51 \\

203: NO$\nu$A* & $10 \cdot 10^{20}$ & 3 & $10 \cdot 10^{20}$ & 3 & 1.13 & 810 &

204: LArTPC & 100 & 1.15 \\

205: %NO$\nu$A (I+II) & & & & & & & & & 1.53 \\

206: WBB+WC & $22.5 \cdot 10^{20}$ & 5 & $45 \cdot 10^{20}$ & 5 & 1 ($\nu$), 2

207: ($\bar{\nu})$& 1290 & Water Cherenkov & 300 & 7.65 \\

208: WBB+LAr & $22.5 \cdot 10^{20}$ & 5 & $45 \cdot 10^{20}$ & 5 & 1 ($\nu$), 2

209: ($\bar{\nu}$) & 1290 & LArTPC & 100 & 2.55 \\

210: T2KK & $52 \cdot 10^{20}$ & 4 & $52 \cdot 10^{20}$ & 4 & 4 &

211: 295+1050 & Water Cherenkov & 270+270 & 17.28

212: \\

213: \hline

214: \end{tabular}

215: \caption{\label{tab:setups} Setups considered, numbers of protons on target

216: per year (POT/yr) for the neutrino and antineutrino running modes,

217: running times in which these be achieved, corresponding target power

218: $P_\mathrm{Target}$, baselines $L$, detector technology, detector mass

219: $m_{\mathrm{Det}}$, and exposure $\mathcal{L}$.}

220: \end{table*}

221: 

222: 

223: {\bf{Experimental setups and analysis techniques.}}  We use the GLoBES

224: software~\cite{globes} for our simulations.  Table~\ref{tab:setups}

225: displays parameters of the experiments. 

226: 

227: Our simulation of NO$\nu$A phase~II, which we call NO$\nu$A*, is

228: based upon the proposal~\cite{nova} and recent studies on the

229: performance of a Liquid Argon Time Projection Chamber 

230: (LArTPC)~\cite{Flemming:2006}. We

231: assume NO$\nu$A* (3 years $\nu$ and 3 years $\bar\nu$) with a

232: 100~kt LArTPC, which has a 0.8 signal efficiency and only beam

233: intrinsic $\nu_e$ and $\bar\nu_e$ backgrounds. We split the event

234: sample into quasi-elastic (QE) events with $5\%$ energy resolution and

235: the non-QE charged current events with $20\%$ energy resolution. We

236: have carried out a dedicated optimization study in baseline versus

237: off-axis angle plane whose details can be found in Ref.~\cite{Barger:prep}.

238: We find that the best location for all measurements is the

239: Ash River site (12~km off-axis at $L=810$~km) where NO$\nu$A phase~I

240: is located. None of the alternative sites such as in \Ref~\cite{olga}

241: performs as well as Ash River.  This result holds even if NO$\nu$A

242: phase~I data is taken into account.

243: %

244: 

245: For the WBB experiments, we use the simulation from \Ref~\cite{wbb}

246: which uses neutrino spectra obtained from 28~GeV protons and a 200 m

247: long decay tunnel, 

248: and choose the Fermilab-Homestake baseline $L=1290 \, \mathrm{km}$ for

249: reference.  We consider two possible detector technologies: A $300 \,

250: \mathrm{kt}$ water Cherenkov detector and a $100 \, \mathrm{kt}$

251: liquid argon TPC. We assume that five years of neutrino running with a

252: 1~MW beam will be followed by five years of running with a 2~MW beam.

253: 

254: For the NO$\nu$A* and WBB setups,

255:  we use a systematic uncertainty of $5\%$ on both signal

256: and background, uncorrelated between neutrino and antineutrino channels.

257: 

258: 

259: For our T2KK simulation, we employ the values from \Ref~\cite{t2kk}

260: with a 2.5$^\circ$ off-axis beam. Our simulation is based upon the

261: analysis of the Tokai-to-HyperKamiokande experiment in

262: \Ref~\cite{Huber:2002mx}, \ie, we use the spectral information for

263: quasi-elastic (QE) events, and the total event rate for all charged

264: current (CC) events. 

265: We include 5\% signal and background errors, as

266: well as a 5\% background energy calibration error which are correlated

267: between the two detectors in Japan and Korea, but uncorrelated between

268: the neutrino and antineutrino channels. 

269:  

270: %

271: We adopt $\Delta m_{21}^2 = +8 \cdot

272: 10^{-5} \, \mathrm{eV}^2$, $\Delta m_{31}^2 = +2.5 \cdot 10^{-3} \,

273: \mathrm{eV}^2$, $\sin^2 \theta_{12} =0.3$, $\sin^2 \theta_{23} =0.5$ for the

274: oscillation parameters. We assume that the atmospheric oscillation parameters are

275: measured to 10\%, the solar parameters are

276: measured to 4\%, and the matter density along the baseline is known to

277: 5\%. We include all correlations and degeneracies in the analysis.

278: Details of our simulations are presented in \Ref~\cite{Barger:prep}. Since

279: we present sensitivities for each of the three 

280: performance indicators separately, we use $\chi^2$ distributions for

281: one degree of freedom. 

282: 

283: {\bf{Results.}}

284: \begin{figure*}

285: \begin{center}

286: \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{com}

287: \end{center}

288: \caption{\label{fig:comp} Comparison of superbeam upgrades in the

289: configurations

290: of Table~\ref{tab:setups} at the $3 \sigma$ C.L. The plots show the

291: discovery reaches

292: for a nonzero $\stheta$, CP violation,

293: and the normal hierarchy.

294: The ``fraction of $\deltacp$'', quantifies

295: the fraction of all

296: (true) values of $\deltacp$

297: for which the corresponding quantity can be measured.}

298: \end{figure*}

299: In~\figu{comp} we show the comparison of superbeam upgrades in the

300: configurations of Table~\ref{tab:setups} for the $\stheta$, CP

301: violation, and normal hierarchy discovery reaches.  This comparison

302: illustrates the absolute physics potentials of the planned experiments. 

303: Interestingly, the optimal physics performance

304: depends on the performance indicator. The $\stheta \neq 0$ discovery

305: reaches are very similar for all the experiments.  T2KK has the best

306: CP violation potential.  The WBB experiments can detect the mass

307: hierarchy down to $\stheta \simeq 10^{-2}$ for all values of

308: $\deltacp$, which makes them the best upgrade for the mass hierarchy

309: (as a result of their long baseline and high energy and consequently

310: strong matter effects~\cite{bpww}). However, this figure does not permit a

311: balanced assessment of which experiment is the best physics concept

312: because of the very different assumptions for the luminosities in each

313: proposed experiment.

314: 

315: 

316: In order to make an unbiased comparison of the physics potentials of

317: the experimental setups we consider their sensitivities as functions

318: of {\it {exposure}} which we define to be $\mathcal{L}=$ detector mass

319: [Mt] $\times$ target power [MW] $\times$ running time [$10^7$~s]. The

320: target power represents the bottleneck in technological difficulty.

321: Note that instead of the running time in years, the exposure uses the

322: actual available time of the accelerator for the neutrino experiment.

323: For NO$\nu$A* and the WBB, we use $1.7 \cdot 10^7$ seconds uptime per

324: year, and for T2KK, we use $10^7$ seconds uptime per year (as

325: anticipated in the corresponding documents). Note that this definition

326: does not account for the level of sophistication of different detector

327: technologies, but it will allow for an identification of the

328: break-even point of the detector cost. We show the exposure for the

329: discussed experiments in the last column of Table~\ref{tab:setups}.

330: It is evident that NO$\nu$A* has the lowest exposure, whereas T2KK has

331: the highest. While we will show a normalized comparison of the

332: experiments based on the exposure, there may be

333: other issues, such as robustness of systematics and a different

334: experiment optimization that may modify the conclusions. We will

335: discuss these issues elsewhere~\cite{Barger:prep}.

336: 

337: %\section{Results II}

338: % Results

339: 

340: \begin{figure}

341: \begin{center}

342: \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{lumi} 

343: %\\[0.2cm]

344: %\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{cpv-lumi} \\[0.2cm]

345: %\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{sgn-lumi}

346: \end{center}

347: \caption{\label{fig:lumi} The discovery reaches (at the $3 \sigma$ C.L.)

348:   for nonzero $\stheta$, CP violation, and the normal hierarchy as

349:   functions of exposure.  The line types are the same as in

350:   \figu{comp} except that the light curve in the CPV panel corresponds to 

351:   the sensitivity of NO$\nu$A* under the assumption that the mass hierarchy 

352:   is known to be normal. The vertical lines mark the proposed luminosities as

353:   listed in Table~\ref{tab:setups}.  The curves correspond to a

354:   fraction of $\deltacp$ of 0.5, \ie, the median of the distribution.

355:   This means that the performance will be better for 50\% of all cases

356:   of $\deltacp$ and worse for 50\% of all cases of $\deltacp$; it is

357:   sometimes referred to as the ``typical value of $\deltacp$''.}

358: \end{figure}

359: 

360: In \figu{lumi} we show the discovery reaches for $\stheta$, CP

361: violation, and normal mass hierarchy versus the exposure for a

362: fraction of $\deltacp$ of 0.5 (see figure caption).  

363: The NO$\nu$A*

364: curves for $\stheta$ and CP violation discoveries are

365: lower than the ones of the other experiments for exposures above 

366: 2~Mt~MW~10$^7$s, 

367: whereas the curves for the WBB experiments are lower (for any exposure) 

368: than any other

369: curve for the mass hierarchy discovery. If all experiments were

370: operated at the same exposure, these experiments would yield the best

371: results.

372: %However, for CP violation, the high exposure makes

373: %T2KK the best absolute experiment (as marked by the dot on the T2KK curve.

374: All the curves scale relatively smoothly as a function of exposure

375: except the CP violation curve for NO$\nu$A*. The bump-like feature

376: is solely due to the interplay of CP effects and the mass hierarchy 

377: and is called $\pi$-transit~\cite{Huber:2002mx}.{\footnote{$\pi$-transit

378: degrades the sensitivity to CP violation by a parametric conspiracy

379: which allows to fit data which was generated for a CP violating value

380: of $\delta$, with $\delta=\pi$ and the wrong hierarchy. 

381: The occurrence of this effect is tied to a certain, experiment specific

382: range of $\stheta$. When the median of the CP fraction moves into that

383: range of $\stheta$ a bump is observed. The bump occurs for any intermediate

384: value of the CP fraction chosen for a plot like \figu{lumi}.}} 

385: A further luminosity

386: increase could enhance the NO$\nu$A* potential for CP violation

387: considerably by enabling the resolution of degeneracies at this

388: confidence level; see the light curve in the CPV panel which is made

389: under the assumption that the hierarchy is known to be normal. 

390:  The other setups are relatively insensitive to

391: small variations in exposure. For CP violation, the WBB-WC and T2KK

392: concepts are more or less equivalent since the curves almost overlap.

393: The WBB-WC and the T2KK curves intersect at some points. These

394: intersections limit the exposure ranges in which one experiment

395: dominates the other.  For example, for $\stheta$, T2KK plans to

396: operate with an exposure for which the WBB-WC concept would perform

397: slightly better, whereas a significantly lower exposure would make

398: T2KK the more sensitive experiment.  Finally, one can read off the

399: break-even point between the water Cherenkov and liquid

400: argon-technologies in WBB experiments.  For example, for $\stheta$,

401: the water Cherenkov and liquid argon technologies are separated by

402: about a factor of 4 in exposure, which means that liquid argon is

403: the choice of technology if the cost per kt of liquid argon is smaller

404: than the cost for 4~kt water.  Note that the corresponding

405: sensitivities to CP violation and the mass hierarchy are quite

406: similar.

407: 

408: 

409: {\bf{Summary and conclusions.}} It is crucial that the mixing angle

410: $\theta_{13}$, the nature of the neutrino mass hierarchy and whether

411: CP is violated in the neutrino sector, be determined to complete the

412: parameter set that defines the neutrino mass matrix. This program is

413: of fundamental value for understanding the origin of neutrino masses

414: and for selecting between neutrino mass models.

415: 

416: In the not-too-distant future, the planning stage for long-baseline

417: neutrino experiments with super neutrino beams and large detectors

418: will end. We have provided the first analysis of various experimental

419: configurations on an equal-footing by expressing their sensitivities

420: as functions of exposure. 

421: By enabling a balanced comparison, our study

422: identifies which physics concept is optimal for which measurement.  If

423: a large liquid argon TPC can become a reality, our analysis indicates

424: that with an adequate increase in exposure, an upgraded NO$\nu$A

425: experiment like NO$\nu$A* has better sensitivity to a 

426: nonzero $\theta_{13}$ and

427: to CP violation than previous estimates suggested. The longer

428: baselines planned for experiments with wide band beams offer better

429: sensitivity to the mass hierarchy. 

430: 

431: The power of assessing sensitivities as functions of exposure 

432: is manifest in the CPV sensitivity of NO$\nu$A*. 

433: %it became evident that if the nominal

434: %sensitivity of NO$\nu$A* is doubled, the sensitivity to CPV improves

435: %by an order of magnitude. 

436: This method is applicable to all long-baseline

437: neutrino experiments where it may provide crucial insights into

438: optimal experimental configurations. Since exposure is

439: a measure of the integrated luminosity, it can also be used in comparative

440: evaluations of other kinds of experiments.

441: 

442: 

443: %\vspace*{0.05cm}

444: {\it Acknowledgments.} 

445: We thank M. Bishai, M. Dierckxsens and M. Diwan 

446: for useful discussions.

447: This research was supported by the U.S.

448: DoE under Grants No. DE-FG02-95ER40896 and

449: DE-FG02-04ER41308, by the NSF under CAREER Award No. PHY-0544278, by

450: the State of Kansas through KTEC, by the KU GRF Program, and by the 

451: Emmy Noether Program of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft.

452: %Computations were performed on facilities supported by the NSF under

453: %Grants No. EIA-032078 (GLOW), PHY-0516857 (CMS Research Program

454: %subcontract from UCLA), and PHY-0533280 (DISUN), and by the WARF.

455: 

456: 

457: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

458: 

459: \bibitem{rev}

460: For a review see,  V.~Barger, D.~Marfatia and K.~Whisnant,

461:   %``Progress in the physics of massive neutrinos,''

462:   Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ E {\bf 12}, 569 (2003)

463:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0308123].

464:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0308123;%%

465: 

466: \bibitem{modelrev}

467: For a review of neutrino mass models see, R.~N.~Mohapatra and A.~Y.~Smirnov,

468:   %``Neutrino mass and new physics,''

469:   arXiv:hep-ph/0603118.

470:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0603118;%%

471: 

472: \bibitem{albright}

473: C.~H.~Albright and M.~C.~Chen,

474: arXiv:hep-ph/0608137.

475: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0608137;%%

476: 

477: \bibitem{blanchet}

478:   S.~Blanchet and P.~Di Bari,

479:   arXiv:hep-ph/0607330;

480:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH/0607330;%%

481:   S.~Pascoli, S.~T.~Petcov and A.~Riotto,

482:   %``Leptogenesis and low energy CP violation in neutrino physics,''

483:   arXiv:hep-ph/0611338.

484:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH/0611338;%%

485: 

486: \bibitem{jhfsk}

487: Y.~Itow {\it et al.},

488: %``The JHF-Kamioka neutrino project,''

489: arXiv:hep-ex/0106019.

490: 

491: \bibitem{nova}

492:   D.~S.~Ayres {\it et al.}  [NOvA Collaboration],

493:   arXiv:hep-ex/0503053.

494:   %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0503053;%%

495: 

496: \bibitem{t2kk}

497:   M.~Ishitsuka, T.~Kajita, H.~Minakata and H.~Nunokawa,

498:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 72}, 033003 (2005)

499:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0504026];

500:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0504026;%%

501:  K.~Hagiwara, N.~Okamura and K.~i.~Senda,

502:    Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 637}, 266 (2006)

503:   [Erratum-ibid.\ B {\bf 641}, 486 (2006)]

504:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0504061];

505:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0504061;%%

506:     arXiv:hep-ph/0607255.

507:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0607255;%%

508: 

509: \bibitem{wide-band}

510: D.~Beavis {\it et al.},

511: arXiv:hep-ex/0205040;

512: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0205040;%%

513: M.~Diwan {\it et al.},

514: arXiv:hep-ex/0211001;

515: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0211001;%%

516: M.~Diwan {\it et al.},

517: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 68}, 012002 (2003)

518: [arXiv:hep-ph/0303081].

519: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0303081;%%

520: 

521: \bibitem{wbb}

522: V.~Barger, M.~Dierckxsens, M.~Diwan, P.~Huber, C.~Lewis, D.~Marfatia

523: and B.~Viren,

524: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 74}, 073004 (2006)

525: [arXiv:hep-ph/0601177].

526: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0607177;%%

527: 

528: \bibitem{dusel}

529: See http://www.dusel.org/ and

530: {\it Neutrinos and Beyond: New Windows on Nature},

531: Neutrino Facilities Assesment Committee, National Research Council,

532: (2003), ISBN-0-309-087 16-3, http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10583.html.

533: 

534: \bibitem{Barger:2001yr}

535:   V.~Barger, D.~Marfatia and K.~Whisnant,

536:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65}, 073023 (2002)

537:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0112119].

538:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0112119;%%

539: 

540: \bibitem{globes}

541:   P.~Huber, M.~Lindner and W.~Winter,

542:   Comput.\ Phys.\ Commun.\  {\bf 167}, 195 (2005)

543:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0407333].

544:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0407333;%%

545: 

546: \bibitem{Flemming:2006}

547: B.~Fleming, private communication.

548: 

549: \bibitem{Barger:prep}

550: V.~Barger, P.~Huber, D.~Marfatia and W.~Winter,

551: arXiv:hep-ph/0703029.

552: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0703029;%%

553: 

554: \bibitem{olga}

555:   O.~Mena Requejo, S.~Palomares-Ruiz and S.~Pascoli,

556:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 72}, 053002 (2005)

557:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0504015];

558:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0504015;%%

559:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 73}, 073007 (2006)

560:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0510182].

561: 

562: \bibitem{Huber:2002mx}

563: P.~Huber, M.~Lindner and W.~Winter,

564: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 645}, 3 (2002)

565: [arXiv:hep-ph/0204352].

566: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0204352;%%

567: 

568: \bibitem{bpww}

569:   V.~D.~Barger {\it et al.}, 

570: %K.~Whisnant, S.~Pakvasa and R.~J.~N.~Phillips,

571:   %``Matter effects on three-neutrino oscillations,''

572:   Phys.\ Rev.\  D {\bf 22}, 2718 (1980).

573:   %%CITATION = PHRVA,D22,2718;%%

574: 

575: %\bibliographystyle{apsrev}

576: %\bibliography{references}

577: 

578: \end{thebibliography}

579: \end{document}

580: