1: %%%%%%%%%% espcrc2.tex %%%%%%%%%%
2: %
3: % $Id: espcrc2.tex 1.2 2000/07/24 09:12:51 spepping Exp spepping $
4: %
5: \documentclass[fleqn,twoside]{article}
6: \usepackage{espcrc2}
7: \usepackage{amssymb}
8: \usepackage{amsmath}
9:
10: % change this to the following line for use with LaTeX2.09
11: % \documentstyle[twoside,fleqn,espcrc2]{article}
12:
13: % if you want to include PostScript figures
14: \usepackage{graphicx}
15: % if you have landscape tables
16: \usepackage[figuresright]{rotating}
17:
18: \newcommand{\stheta}{\ensuremath{\sin^22\theta_{13}}}
19: \newcommand{\BB}{$\beta$B}
20: \newcommand{\sigdm}{\ensuremath{{\rm sign}(\Delta m^2_{31})}}
21: \newcommand{\delCP}{\ensuremath{\delta_{\rm CP}}}
22:
23: \newcommand{\He}{\ensuremath{^6{\mathrm{He}}}}
24: \newcommand{\Ne}{\ensuremath{^{18}{\mathrm{Ne}}}}
25:
26: \title{\vspace*{-5mm}\flushright{\small CERN-PH-TH/2006-241}\\
27: \flushleft
28: Comparison of the CERN--MEMPHYS and T2HK neutrino oscillation
29: experiments\thanks{Talk given at NOW 2006, 9--16 Sep 2006,
30: Conca Specchiulla, Otranto, Italy}}
31:
32: \author{Thomas Schwetz\address{CERN, Physics Department,%
33: Theory Division, CH-1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland}}
34:
35: \begin{document}
36:
37: \begin{abstract}
38: \vspace*{-0.5pc}
39: In this talk I compare the physics potential of possible future
40: neutrino oscillation experiments from CERN to a Mt scale water
41: \v{C}erenkov detector at Fr\'ejus (MEMPHYS) and of the T2HK proposal in
42: Japan, where for the CERN experiments an SPL Superbeam and a
43: $\gamma=100$ Beta Beam are considered.
44: \vspace*{-0.5pc}
45: \end{abstract}
46:
47: % typeset front matter (including abstract)
48: \maketitle
49:
50: \section{INTRODUCTION}
51:
52: Neutrino oscillation physics is now entering the era of precision
53: experiments~\cite{LBL}. The main aim of the upcoming generation of
54: experiments will be to establish a non-zero value of the mixing angle
55: $\theta_{13}$ or to push further the bound. On a time scale of 5 to 10
56: years decisions on a subsequent generation of high precision neutrino
57: oscillation facilities will have to been taken, and currently active
58: investigations on comparing various options are
59: performed~\cite{ISS}. Along these lines, in this talk I consider three
60: particular setups which are comparable in size and time scale, namely
61: two CERN based neutrino oscillation experiments consisting of a Beta
62: Beam (\BB)~\cite{BB} with $\gamma=100$ and a Superbeam
63: (SPL)~\cite{SPL}, as well as the phase II of the T2K experiment in
64: Japan (T2HK)~\cite{T2K}. All three configurations use a Mt scale water
65: \v{C}erenkov detector~\cite{Katsanevas}: MEMPHYS~\cite{memphys} at
66: Fr\'ejus or the Hyper-Kamiokande~\cite{Nakamura:2003hk} detector in
67: Japan. The main characteristics of the setups are displayed in
68: Tab.~\ref{tab:setups}. The results presented here are based on the
69: work~\cite{Campagne:2006yx}, where details on the calculations,
70: references, and more physics results and discussions can be found.
71:
72: \begin{table}[tb]
73: %\centering
74: \begin{tabular}{lcc@{\quad}c}
75: \hline
76: & \BB & SPL & T2HK \\
77: \hline
78: Det.\ mass & 440~kt & 440~kt & 440~kt\\
79: Baseline & 130 km & 130 km & 295 km \\
80: $\langle E_\nu \rangle$ [MeV] & 400 & 300 & 760 \\
81: Time ($\nu/\bar\nu$)
82: & 5/5 yr & 2/8 yr & 2/8 yr \\
83: Beam & $5.8\,(2.2) \cdot 10^{18}$ & 4 MW & 4 MW\\
84: Systematics & 2--5\% & 2--5\% & 2--5\%\\
85: \hline
86: \end{tabular}
87: \caption{Summary of default parameters used for the simulation of
88: the \BB, SPL, and T2HK experiments. For the \BB\ the beam intensity
89: is given in \He (\Ne) decays/yr.\label{tab:setups}}
90: \end{table}
91:
92: \begin{figure*}[!tb]
93: \centering
94: \includegraphics[height=7cm]{./th13-syst.eps}\qquad
95: \includegraphics[height=7cm]{./CP-systematics.eps}
96: \vspace*{-.8cm}
97: \caption{Left: $3\sigma$ sensitivity to $\stheta$ for \BB, SPL, and
98: T2HK as a function of \delCP. Right: CPV discovery potential for
99: \BB, SPL, and T2HK: for parameter values inside the ellipse-shaped
100: curves CP conserving values of \delCP\ can be excluded at $3\sigma$
101: $(\Delta\chi^2>9)$. The width of the bands corresponds to values for
102: the systematical errors between 2\% and 5\%. The dashed curves show
103: the sensitivity of the \BB\ when the number of ion decays/yr are
104: reduced by a factor of two with respect to the values given in
105: Tab.~\ref{tab:setups}.\label{fig:sens}}
106: \end{figure*}
107:
108: \section{SENSITIVITY TO $\theta_{13}$ and CPV}
109:
110: As performance indicators for the considered experiments we use the
111: potential to establish a non-zero value of $\theta_{13}$ and the
112: sensitivity to CP violation (CPV). The $\theta_{13}$ sensitivity is
113: shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:sens} (left) as a function of the value of the
114: CP phase \delCP: above the curves $\theta_{13} = 0$ can be excluded at
115: more than 3$\sigma$ CL (i.e., with $\Delta\chi^2 \ge 9$), whereas
116: Fig.~\ref{fig:sens} (right) shows the region in the $\theta_{13} -
117: \delCP$ plane where CPV can be established at 3$\sigma$.
118:
119: One finds from these plots that SPL and T2HK perform rather
120: similar. In fact, the experimental setups of these two configurations
121: are similar (Superbeam technology, multi-MW beam power, detector,
122: $L/E_\nu$), the main differences being the shorter baseline of SPL
123: which implies lower neutrino energies (compare Tab.~\ref{tab:setups}),
124: as well as the use of an on-axis (off-axis) configuration for SPL
125: (T2HK). The lower energies for SPL imply that the cross section is
126: completely dominated by quasi-elastic (QE) scattering which allows a
127: good reconstruction of the neutrino energy, whereas at T2HK energies
128: non-QE events contribute significantly. On the other hand in the low
129: energy regime Fermi motion becomes important which limits energy
130: reconstruction. In our analysis we have taken these issues into
131: account by a migration matrix between true and reconstructed neutrino
132: energies based on detailed event simulations~\cite{Campagne:2006yx}.
133:
134: Within our standard setup the \BB\ performs clearly better than the
135: Superbeams. For the \BB\ a crucial parameter is the total number of
136: ion decays. The conservative numbers from the EURISOL \BB\
137: studies~\cite{Lindroos}, which are two times smaler than our standard
138: values, lead to the sensitivites shown as dashed curves in
139: Fig.~\ref{fig:sens}.
140:
141: The widths of the curves in the figures shows the effect of varying
142: the (uncorrelated) systematical uncertainties on signal and
143: backgrounds between 2\% and 5\%. One can see that the \BB\ is
144: practically unaffected, whereas the Superbeam performances, and in
145: particular the one of T2HK, depend to some extent on the systematics.
146: The relevant systematic in this respect is the uncertainty on the
147: background. In the \BB\ the most important background comes from pions
148: produced mainly in NC $\nu_e/\bar\nu_e$ interactions which are
149: misidentified as muons. This background is efficiently reduced by
150: requiring to see the Michel electron from the muon decay. After
151: applying all the cuts roughly 300 background events remain. The reason
152: why an uncertainty on this number has so little impact for the \BB\ is
153: that the background has a very different shape than the signal. As
154: visible in Fig.~\ref{fig:spectra} it is peaked at low energies and
155: therefore spectral information makes the \BB\ very insensitive to the
156: systematical uncertainty.
157:
158: In contrast, for the Superbeams the background comes mainly from the
159: intrinsic $\nu_e/\bar\nu_e$ component of the beam and has a spectral shape
160: rather similar to the signal, as illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:spectra}
161: for the SPL. Therefore spectral information is not as efficient to
162: distinguish the background from the signal, as in the case of the \BB.
163:
164:
165: \begin{figure}[!tb]
166: \centering
167: \includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{./spectra.eps}
168: \vspace*{-1.2cm}
169: %
170: \caption{Signal and background energy spectra for SPL (top) and
171: \BB\ (bottom).\label{fig:spectra}}
172: \end{figure}
173:
174: \section{COMMENTS ON DEGENERACIES}
175:
176: In analyses of long-baseline experiments parameter degeneracies play
177: an important role. There are three types of
178: degeneracies~\cite{Barger:2001yr}, traditionally referred to as
179: intrinsic-, octant-, and sign($\Delta m^2_{31}$)-degeneracy. For the
180: experiments discussed here the intrinsic degeneracy is resolved by
181: spectral information but the degeneracies related to the octant of
182: $\theta_{23}$ and the neutrino mass hierarchy are present and lead to
183: ambiguities in the determination of $\theta_{13}$ and \delCP. However,
184: thanks to the fact that the matter effect is rather small (due to the
185: relatively short baselines) the degeneracies have very little impact
186: on the sensitivity to CPV. In other words, if the true parameter
187: values are CP violating also the parameter values of the degenerate
188: solutions will be CP violating.
189:
190: Moreover, as shown in Ref.~\cite{Huber:2005ep} atmospheric neutrino
191: data in Mt scale water \v{C}erenkov detectors as considered here can
192: be used to resolve degeneracies (see also
193: Ref.~\cite{Campagne:2006yx}). By combining long-baseline and
194: atmospheric data the mass hierarchy can be identified at $2\sigma$~CL
195: provided $\sin^22\theta_{13} \gtrsim 0.02-0.03$, although none of the
196: considered experiments has sensitivity to the hierarchy from
197: long-baseline data alone. Furthermore, atmospheric data provides
198: sensitivity to the octant of $\theta_{23}$, and if combined with the
199: $\nu_\mu$ disappearance chanel available in the Superbeam
200: experiments there is sensitivity to the octant for $|\sin^2\theta_{23}
201: - 0.5| \gtrsim 0.05$.
202:
203: \section*{ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS}
204:
205: I thank J.-E.~Campagne, M.~Maltoni, and
206: M.~Mezzetto for collaboration on this topic. These results have been
207: obtained using the GLOBES~\cite{Globes} and NUANCE~\cite{Nuance}
208: software packages. The work of T.S.\ has been supported by the
209: $6^\mathrm{th}$~Framework Program of the European Community under a
210: Marie Curie Intra-European Fellowship at SISSA, Trieste, Italy.
211:
212: \begin{thebibliography}{9}
213:
214: \bibitem{LBL} Contributions of M.~Bonesini, A.~Cabrera, Y.~Declais,
215: P.~Huber, T.~Kajita, I.~Kato, S.~Kopp, M.~Lindner, B.~Rebel, these
216: proceedings.
217:
218: \bibitem{ISS}
219: See, e.g., International Scoping Study\\
220: \verb!http://www.hep.ph.ic.ac.uk/iss/!
221:
222: \bibitem{BB}
223: M.~Mezzetto,
224: %``Physics reach of the beta beam,''
225: J.\ Phys.\ G {\bf 29} (2003) 1771;
226: %[hep-ex/0302007];
227: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0302007;%%
228: %
229: J.~Bouchez, M.~Lindroos, M.~Mezzetto,
230: %``Beta Beams: Present design and expected performances,''
231: AIP Conf.\ Proc.\ {\bf 721} (2004) 37.
232: %[hep-ex/0310059].
233: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0310059;%%
234:
235: \bibitem{SPL}
236: %\bibitem{Campagne:2004wt}
237: J.~E.~Campagne and A.~Cazes,
238: %``The theta(13) and delta(CP) sensitivities of the SPL-Frejus project
239: %revisited,''
240: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 45} (2006) 643;
241: %[hep-ex/0411062];
242: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0411062;%%
243: %
244: M.~Baylac {\it et al.},
245: Conceptual design of the SPL II,
246: %: A high-power superconducting H- linac at CERN,
247: CERN-2006-006.
248:
249: \bibitem{T2K}
250: Y.~Itow {\it et al.},
251: %The JHF-Kamioka neutrino project,
252: hep-ex/0106019;
253: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0106019;%%
254: %
255: %\bibitem{Kobayashi:2005hu}
256: T.~Kobayashi,
257: %``Super beams,''
258: Nucl.\ Phys.\ Proc.\ Suppl.\ {\bf 143} (2005) 303.
259: %%CITATION = NUPHZ,143,303;%%
260:
261: \bibitem{Katsanevas}
262: S. Katsanevas, these proceedings.
263:
264: \bibitem{memphys}
265: A.~de Bellefon {\it et al.},
266: %MEMPHYS: A large scale water \v{C}erenkov detector
267: %at Fr\'ejus, Contribution to the CERN strategic committee,
268: hep-ex/0607026.
269: %\verb!http://apc-p7.org/APC_CS/Experiences/MEMPHYS/!
270:
271: \bibitem{Nakamura:2003hk}
272: K.~Nakamura,
273: %``Hyper-Kamiokande: A next generation water Cherenkov detector,''
274: Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 18} (2003) 4053.
275: %%CITATION = IMPAE,A18,4053;%%
276:
277: \bibitem{Campagne:2006yx}
278: J.~E.~Campagne, M.~Maltoni, M.~Mezzetto and T.~Schwetz,
279: %``Physics potential of the CERN-MEMPHYS neutrino oscillation project,''
280: hep-ph/0603172.
281: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0603172;%%
282:
283: \bibitem{Lindroos}
284: %\bibitem{Autin:2002ms}
285: B.~Autin {\it et al.},
286: %``The acceleration and storage of radioactive ions for a neutrino factory,''
287: J.\ Phys.\ G {\bf 29}, 1785 (2003);
288: %[physics/0306106];
289: %%CITATION = PHYS-ICS 0306106;%%
290: %
291: M.~Benedikt, A.~Fabich, S.~Hancock and M.~Lindroos,
292: %``Optimization Of The Beta-Beam Baseline,''
293: Nucl.\ Phys.\ Proc.\ Suppl.\ {\bf 155} (2006) 211.
294:
295: \bibitem{Barger:2001yr}
296: V.~Barger, D.~Marfatia and K.~Whisnant,
297: %``Breaking eight-fold degeneracies in neutrino CP violation, mixing, and
298: %mass hierarchy,''
299: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65}, 073023 (2002).
300: %[hep-ph/0112119].
301: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0112119;%%
302:
303: \bibitem{Huber:2005ep}
304: P.~Huber, M.~Maltoni and T.~Schwetz,
305: %``Resolving parameter degeneracies in long-baseline experiments by
306: %atmospheric neutrino data,''
307: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 71} (2005) 053006
308: [hep-ph/0501037].
309: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0501037;%%
310:
311: \bibitem{Globes}
312: P.~Huber, M.~Lindner and W.~Winter,
313: %``Simulation of long-baseline neutrino oscillation experiments with
314: %GLoBES,''
315: Comput.\ Phys.\ Commun.\ {\bf 167} (2005) 195,
316: %[hep-ph/0407333],
317: \verb!http://www.ph.tum.de/~globes!
318:
319: \bibitem{Nuance}
320: NUANCE event generator (v3),
321: \verb!http://nuint.ps.uci.edu/nuance/!,
322: D.~Casper,
323: %``The nuance neutrino physics simulation, and the future,''
324: Nucl.\ Phys.\ Proc.\ Suppl.\ {\bf 112} (2002) 161.
325: %[hep-ph/0208030].
326:
327:
328: \end{thebibliography}
329:
330: \end{document}
331: