1: %\documentclass[aps,prl,preprint,groupedaddress]{revtex4}
2: %\documentclass[aps,prl,preprint,superscriptaddress]{revtex4}
3: \documentclass[aps,prd,twocolumn,superscriptaddress,showpacs]{revtex4}
4: %\documentclass[aps,prd,superscriptaddress,showpacs,floatfix]{revtex4}
5: %\documentclass[12pt]{article}
6:
7: \usepackage[dvips]{graphicx}
8: \usepackage{xspace}
9: \usepackage{latexsym}
10: \usepackage{amssymb}
11: % use postscript fonts
12: \usepackage{times}
13: \usepackage{mathptm}
14: %\graphicspath{{./figs/}}
15:
16: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.2}
17: \def\etal {{\em et al.,\ }}
18:
19: %\input{def.tex}
20: \begin{document}
21:
22: \title
23: {A GEANT-based study of atmospheric neutrino oscillation
24: parameters at INO}
25:
26: \date{\today}
27:
28: \newcommand{\sinp}{\affiliation{Saha Institute of Nuclear
29: Physics, 1/AF, Bidhannagar, Kolkata 700 064, India}}
30: \newcommand{\hri}{\affiliation{Harish-Chandra Research Institute,
31: Chhatnag Road, Jhusi, Allahabad 211 019, India}}
32: \newcommand{\cu}{\affiliation{Department of Physics, University of
33: Calcutta,
34: 92 Acharya Prafulla Chandra Road, Kolkata 700 009, India }}
35:
36: \author {Abhijit Samanta}\sinp
37: \author {Sudeb Bhattacharya}\sinp
38: \author {Ambar Ghosal}\sinp
39: \author {Kamales Kar}\sinp
40: \author {Debasish Majumdar}\sinp
41: \author {Amitava Raychaudhuri}\hri\cu
42:
43: \begin{abstract}
44: We have studied the dependence of the allowed space of the atmospheric neutrino
45: oscillation parameters on the time of exposure for a magnetized Iron
46: CALorimeter (ICAL) detector at the India-based Neutrino Observatory (INO).
47: We have performed a Monte Carlo simulation for a 50 kTon ICAL detector generating
48: events by the neutrino generator NUANCE and simulating the detector response
49: by GEANT. A chi-square analysis for the ratio of the up-going and down-going
50: neutrinos as a function of $L/E$ is performed and the allowed regions at
51: 90\% and 99\% CL are displayed. { These results are found to be better
52: than the current experimental results of MINOS and Super-K.} The possibilities
53: of further improvement
54: have also been discussed.
55: \end{abstract}
56:
57: \pacs{14.60.Pq, 96.40.Tv}
58: \keywords{neutrino oscillations, INO, atmospheric neutrinos}
59: \maketitle
60:
61: \section{Introduction}
62: The evidence of neutrino masses and their mixing \cite{Fukuda:1998mi,Eidelman:2004wy} has brought
63: neutrino physics into centre stage of particle physics. The
64: neutrino mass eigenvalues and the Pontecorvo, Maki, Nakagawa, Sakata
65: (PMNS) mixing matrix \cite{Pontecorvo:1957cp, Maki:1962mu} connecting the mass to the flavor basis
66: provides a natural framework for handling three active neutrinos.
67:
68: The present information on the neutrino mass-squared
69: differences and mixing angles are the following:
70: From atmospheric neutrino detection one gets the best-fit values with
71: $3\sigma$ error
72: $|\Delta m^{2}_{32}|\simeq 2.5^{+0.7}_{-0.6}\times 10^{-3}$
73: eV$^2$, $\sin^2\theta_{23}\simeq$ ${0.5}^{+0.18}_{-0.11}$
74: while solar neutrinos
75: tell us $\Delta m^{2}_{21} \simeq 7.9\times 10^{-5}$ eV$^2$,
76: $\sin^2\theta_{12}\simeq$ $0.30$ \cite{Schwetz:2006dh}.
77: {Here we define $\Delta m^{2}_{ij}$= $m^{2}_{i} - m^{2}_{j}$.}
78:
79: At the moment, the sign of $\Delta m^{2}_{32}$ is not known.
80: The positive/negative value of this quantity denotes the
81: direct/inverted mass ordering. The two large mixing angles and the
82: mass squared differences may permit measurement of CP-violation
83: in the lepton sector, if the third mixing angle, $\theta_{13}$, and the CP
84: phase, $\delta$, are not too small. The current bound on
85: the former is $\sin^{2}\theta_{13}$ $<$ 0.05 (3$\sigma$)
86: \cite{Apollonio:1999ae,Bandyopadhyay:2004da} while $\delta$ is unconstrained.
87:
88: Thus the determination of mass hierarchy and the measurement of oscillation
89: parameters with high precision are of utmost importance. { Also of importance
90: is observing a full oscillation cycle to convincingly establish that it is
91: truly neutrino oscillation which is at play.
92: Most experiments observe the depletion part but not
93: the regeneration part of the cycle. A reanalysis of old Super-Kamiokande (Super-K) data claimed
94: to observe this \cite{Ashie:2004mr}. However, a reconfirmation of this
95: with better statistics is much awaited. The mixing angle and the mass squared
96: difference for the atmospheric sector should also be measured more
97: accurately.
98: }The sensitivity of
99: the measurement of a particular parameter depends crucially on the ranges
100: of neutrino energy and path length traversed from the
101: source to the detector. These ranges can be set in case of neutrino beams from
102: artificial sources like nuclear reactors (energy $\sim$ MeV) and accelerators
103: (energy $\sim$ GeV). Neutrinos with energy $\sim$ MeV (GeV) can also be
104: obtained from natural sources like the sun (the atmosphere).
105: Unlike typical accelerator or reactor neutrinos, the spectrum of atmospheric
106: neutrinos covers many decades of energy ($E \sim$ 100 MeV --
107: few hundred GeV) with comparable interaction rate and baseline
108: ($L \sim$ 10 km - 12800 km). Since the oscillation probability depends
109: mainly on $L/E$ which varies in a wide range for atmospheric neutrinos,
110: the measurement of the appearance/disappearance probability as a function of
111: $L/E$ can explore its variation over this entire range. This advantage is partly
112: offset, however, by the difficulty that the flux is less known compared
113: to that from man-made sources.
114:
115: Currently around the world, there are many ongoing and planned experiments:
116: MINOS \cite{Zois:2004ns,Michael:2006rx}, T2K \cite{Yamada:2006hi}, ICARUS \cite{Kisiel:2005ti, Rubbia:1998rc},
117: NOvA \cite{Ray:2006ke, Harris:2005yb}, Double Chooz \cite{Horton-Smith:2006yh,
118: Motta:2006jd},
119: UNO \cite{Jung:1999jq}, Super-K III \cite{Back:2004qi},
120: Hyper-K \cite{Itow:2001ee, Nakamura:2003hk}, OPERA \cite{Cocco:2000yp, Gustavino:2006rc, Di Capua:2005bd} etc. Out of these
121: only MINOS employs a magnetic field and has a good charge identification
122: capability. It is to be noted that all these experiments are planned in the
123: northern hemisphere of the earth.
124:
125: The proposed India-based Neutrino Observatory (INO)
126: \cite{Athar:2006yb} at a site close to the equator plans to use
127: a large magnetized Iron CALorimeter (ICAL) detector. The proposal is
128: for an underground facility with more than 1 km overburden.
129: Since the detector has a high charge identification capability
130: ($>90\%$
131: after selection of events as described in section V
132: and ~$70\%$ before doing the selection) \cite{Athar:2006yb},
133: it has a good chance of determining the
134: neutrino mass ordering \cite{Indumathi:2004kd, Gandhi:2004bj,Petcov:2005rv, Samanta:2006sj}
135: and also of studying the deviation
136: from maximality for $\theta_{23}$ \cite{Choubey:2005zy, Indumathi:2006gr}.
137: %It is also to be noted that the CERN-INO baseline happens to be
138: %close to the `magic' baseline \cite{magic,Agarwalla:2005we}
139: %for which the oscillation probabilities are relatively insensitive to the yet
140: %unconstrained CP phase. This permits such an experiment to make precise
141: %measurements of the mixing angles avoiding the degeneracy issues
142: %\cite{degeneracy} which plague other baselines.
143:
144: In this work { we first demonstrate through a GEANT-based simulation
145: of atmospheric neutrinos that ICAL indeed is capable of observing
146: the full oscillation cycle. We have used a two flavor oscillation formalism
147: and studied the precision that can be achieved for $|\Delta m^2|$ and
148: $\sin^22\theta$ at INO with atmospheric neutrinos. Though a more
149: realistic approach would be the use of three flavor analysis,
150: the smallness of the mixing angle
151: $\theta_{13}$ ensures that the two flavor approximation mimics
152: the real situation reasonably well.}
153: % have studied the precision that can be achieved for
154: %$|\Delta m_{23}^2|$ and
155: %$\sin^2\theta_{23}$ at INO with atmospheric neutrinos.
156: The precision depends on the
157: exposure in terms of kTon-yr, reconstruction method, and the selection
158: of the events in the analysis. The paper is organized as follows:
159: A brief summary of the neutrino oscillation formalism is given in Section II.
160: The ICAL detector at INO is
161: described in Section III. In Section IV a brief account of the
162: atmospheric neutrino flux that has been used in the present analysis
163: has been furnished. The generation of simulated data at ICAL and the
164: analysis of such data are described in Section V. In Section VI
165: we present the results and precision study of the oscillation parameters.
166: Finally, Section VII includes discussions and conclusions.
167:
168:
169: \section{Neutrino oscillation}
170:
171: A neutrino flavor eigenstate $|\nu_\alpha \rangle$
172: ($\alpha \equiv e, \mu, \tau$ etc.) can be written
173: as a linear superposition of neutrino eigenstates $|\nu_i\rangle $
174: (with definite non-degenerate masses $m_i$)
175: in the mass basis as
176: $|\nu_\alpha \rangle = \sum_i U_{\alpha i} |\nu_i\rangle $ ($i = 1,2,3 $ etc.).
177: Here $U_{\alpha i}$ are the matrix elements of the neutrino mixing matrix $U$.
178: This gives rise to the phenomenon of neutrino flavor oscillation.
179: % in which a neutrino
180: %$\nu_f$ with flavor $f$ oscillates into another
181: %neutrino $\nu_g$ of flavor $g$.
182: The probability that a neutrino $\nu_g$
183: with energy $E$ gets converted into another neutrino $\nu_f$
184: after traversing a distance $L$ in vacuum is given by
185: \begin{eqnarray}
186: P(\nu_{g} \rightarrow \nu_{f}) = \delta_{fg}
187: -4\sum_{j>i}\textrm{Re}(U^{\ast}_{fi}U_{gi}U_{fj}U^{\ast}_{gj})
188: \sin^{2}(1.27\Delta m^{2}_{ij}\frac{L}{E})\nonumber\\
189: \pm2\sum_{j>i}\textrm{Im}(U^{\ast}_{fi}U_{gi}U_{fj}U^{\ast}_{gj})
190: \sin(2.54\Delta m^{2}_{ij}\frac{L}{E})
191: \end{eqnarray}
192: In the above, $L$ is expressed in km, $E$ in GeV and $\Delta
193: m^{2}$ in eV$^{2}$. The ~ -- (+)~ refers to neutrinos (anti-neutrinos).
194:
195:
196: For a two flavor scenario the above equation takes a simplified form
197: given by
198: \begin{eqnarray}
199: P_{\rm survival}=1- \sin^22\theta\sin^2(1.27\Delta m^2 \frac{L}{E})
200: \end{eqnarray}
201: where $\theta$ is the mixing angle of neutrinos. % having two different flavors.
202: Herein and in the rest of the paper the symbol $\theta$ and
203: $\Delta m^2$ refer to $\theta_{23}$ and $\Delta m_{32}^2$.
204:
205: \section{The INO detector}
206:
207: The simulation has been carried out for a detector with 50 kTon mass
208: with dimension
209: 48 m $\times$ 16 m $\times$ 12 m for
210: ICAL \cite{Athar:2006yb}. The detector consists of a
211: stack of 140 horizontal layers of 6 cm thick iron slabs interleaved with
212: 2.5 cm gap for the active detector elements. For the sake of illustration,
213: we define a rectangular coordinate frame with origin at the center of the
214: detector, $x(y)$-axis along the longest (shortest) lateral direction, and
215: $z$-axis along the vertical direction. A magnetic field of strength 1 Tesla
216: is considered along the $+y$-direction. Resistive plate chambers (RPC)
217: have been chosen as the active part of the detector.
218: %These are gaseous detectors each consisting of two parallel electrodes made
219: %of 2 m $\times$ 2 m glass plates of thickness 2 mm. They have graphite
220: %paint on the outside and separated by a gap of 2 mm.
221: %When a charge particle passes through this active part, it gives a
222: %transient and a very localized electric discharge in the gases.
223: The readout of the RPCs is through the Cu strips having 2 cm width and placed
224: orthogonally on the two external sides of the detectors. This type of
225: detector has good time ($\sim$ 1 ns) and spatial resolutions.
226:
227: \section{Atmospheric neutrino flux}
228:
229: The atmospheric neutrinos are produced from the interactions of the
230: cosmic rays with earth's atmosphere. The knowledge of the primary spectrum
231: of cosmic rays has been improved from the observations by
232: BESS \cite{Sanuki:2000wh,Maeno:2000qx} and AMS \cite{Alcaraz:2000vp}. However, a large region
233: of parameter space has been unexplored and they are interpolated
234: or extrapolated from the measured flux. The difficulties and uncertainties
235: in the calculation of the neutrino flux depend on the neutrino
236: energy \cite{Honda:2004yz}.
237: The low energy flux is known quite well. The
238: cosmic ray fluxes ($<$ 10 GeV) are modulated by solar activity
239: and the geomagnetic field through a rigidity (momentum/charge) cutoff.
240: At higher neutrino energy ($>$ 100 GeV), solar activity and rigidity
241: cutoff are irrelevant.
242: %The uncertainty in cosmic ray flux measurement
243: %is 5\% for cosmic ray energy below 100 GeV.
244: There is an agreement within 5\% among the calculations for neutrino
245: energy below 10 GeV though different groups used different hadronic
246: interaction models in their calculations.%\cite{Honda:2004yz}.
247: % In our simulation we have used a typical Honda flux calculated in
248: %a 3-dimensional scheme \cite{Honda:2004yz}.
249:
250: %\section{Neutrino cross section with matter}
251: We use the neutrino interaction cross section model of NUANCE
252: \cite{Casper:2002sd} incorporating a typical Honda flux calculated in
253: a 3-dimensional scheme \cite{Honda:2004yz}.
254: %
255: %Here we briefly describe the model. The charged and
256: %neutral current interactions are considered for (quasi-) elastic reactions,
257: %resonant processes,
258: %coherent and diffractive reactions,
259: %and deep inelastic scattering processes.
260:
261: %{\bf Elastic and quasi-elastic scattering:}
262: %The quasi-elastic scattering off free nucleons has been described
263: %by Llewellyn-Smith\cite{llewellyn}. When the nucleons are bound in
264: %a nucleus, the Fermi motion of the nucleons are considered using
265: %the relativistic Fermi gas model of Smith and Moniz \cite{Smith:xh}.
266: %The usual dipole parameterization of vector and axial-vector form factors
267: %is used with values $m_V=0.840$ GeV and $m_A=1.00$GeV respectively.
268: %
269: %{\bf Resonant processes:}
270: %If the neutrino energy is around 1 GeV or above, baryon resonances
271: %may be excited and subsequently decay into a nucleon and a meson.
272: %\begin{eqnarray}
273: %\nu + N \ra l + N^\ast,\nonumber\\
274: %N^\ast \ra N^{'}+ {\rm meson},\nonumber
275: %\end{eqnarray}
276: %where $N^\ast$ is a baryon resonance, $N$ and $N^{'}$ are nucleons.
277: %Here the baryon resonance mass is considered up to 2 GeV. NUANCE
278: %adopts {\it ad hoc} 20$\%$ suppression pion production for $I_3 = \pm 1/2$
279: %and 10$\%$ suprresion for $I_3 = \pm 3/2$ due to Pauli blocking effect.
280: %
281: %{\bf Deep inelastic scattering:}
282: %NUANCE uses PDFLIB package \cite{Plothow-Besch:1992qj} for choosing one
283: %from the many nucleon structure function parameterizations. It uses
284: %BEBC\cite{BEBC} as a default option since it was measured with neutrinos and
285: %has a relatively low $q^2$ cut-off. To avoid double counting of quasi-elastic,
286: %resonant processes (which have been included via exclusive channels) the
287: %cross section is integrated over the kinematic limits $\left | q^2\right | >$
288: %1 GeV or $W$ (the invariant mass) $>$ 2 GeV.
289: %
290: %%\subsection{Nuclear effects}
291: %%
292: \section{Data generation and method of analysis}
293:
294: The interactions of neutrinos with the detector material are simulated
295: by the Monte Carlo method in NUANCE \cite{Casper:2002sd}.
296: In order to study the ICAL detector response for each event we use another Monte Carlo
297: code GEANT \cite{geant}. The GEANT code uses the information of vertex position
298: and momentum of the product particles obtained from the output of NUANCE
299: simulation.
300:
301: {\bf Event reconstruction:}
302: Our present analysis is based on the tracks generated by the muons that
303: are produced by the charged current (CC) interactions of the neutrinos in the detector volume.
304: The muons lose energy mainly due to ionization and radiative processes.
305: This energy loss is proportional to the effective path-length which is
306: the product of geometric path-length and the density of the medium.
307: This can be applied only for fully contained (FC) events.
308:
309: In this simulation study we do not consider any atmospheric muon background
310: and the noise hits produced by the detector. However, we conservatively
311: assumed hits $>$ 6 will be required for the reconstruction and filtering of the
312: muon events from the latter background.
313:
314: For a given triggered energy of a muon, the number of hits
315: decreases when one goes from vertical to horizontal direction since
316: it traverses less number of active detector elements.
317: This dependence on the direction is less for the effective path-length.
318:
319: %In a magnetic field, the radius of curvature of the track will gradually
320: %decrease due to this energy loss. So the energy of the muon which produces
321: %a track in the detector can be measured from the radius of curvature
322: %at the vertex\cite{Athar:2006yb}.
323:
324: In case of partially contained (PC) events the momentum
325: has been determined from the curvature of the track at the vertex
326: due to the magnetic field applied across the detector.
327: Due to limitation of our PC event reconstruction algorithm
328: we considered PC events with hits $<$ 20.
329:
330:
331: On the other hand, the hadrons produced create a shower of hits around
332: the vertex of the event. {\it This implies that for any particular CC event
333: the longest track normally comes from muons and this can be utilized for the
334: analysis.} % It is a very clean signal at ICAL.
335:
336: %The direction is obtained from the first few hits of this track.
337: %From the experimental test of RPC, it is found that its efficiency
338: %is $>$93\%. Here we assume that the we will reconstruct all the events.
339: %The muon background can be eliminated by using the veto around the
340: %ICAL.
341:
342:
343: %\section{Oscillation analysis}
344: The up-going muon type neutrinos traverse larger path-length undergoing
345: oscillation whereas the down-going ones with much shorter path-length have
346: little chance to oscillate.
347: %But if the neutrino with equal
348: %energy and similar flavor comes from the exact opposite direction (the
349: %down going direction), this chance is very low.
350: So one can visualize our detector set up as far (near) detector
351: for the up-going (down-going) neutrinos.
352: Then the ratio of up-going and down-going neutrinos (up/down) will roughly
353: mimic the survival probability. This up/down ratio as a function of $L/E$
354: minimizes the systematic uncertainties in flux as well as in cross sections.
355: %For each down going event $L$ is calculated with zenith angle
356: %$(\pi-\theta_{\rm zenith})$.
357: The length $L$ for the up-going neutrinos is the actual path-length
358: traversed by them whereas for down-going neutrinos the reference
359: path-length $L$ is considered to be that of associated up-going neutrinos
360: with zenith angle ($180^\circ - \theta_{\rm zenith}$) so that the range
361: of $L/E$ remains the same for up-going and down-going neutrinos
362: \cite{mirrorL}.
363:
364: \vspace*{.5cm}
365: {\bf Selection of events and Resolutions:}
366: \begin{figure}[thb]
367: \includegraphics[width=6.0cm,angle=270]{cut.ps}
368: \caption{\sf The selection of events in $E-L/E$ plane, which gives good optimization
369: between statistics and $L/E$ resolution.}
370: \label{f:cut}
371: \end{figure}
372:
373: %For a particular value of $L$, the $L/E$ resolution improves with
374: %increase of $E$ since the scattering angle of the muon produced
375: %%($\theta_\nu^{\rm zenith} - \theta_\mu^{\rm zenith}$)
376: %decreases with increase of energy.
377: %%Here $\theta_\nu^{\rm zenith} (\theta_\mu^{\rm zenith})$ denotes the zenith
378: %%angle determined from neutrino (muon) direction.
379:
380: %Again for a particular value of $E$, the resolution improves with increase
381: %of $L$, because the $L$-resolution is better as we go far from the horizon.
382: %A small change in zenith angle at near horizon causes a relatively large
383: %change in $L$.
384:
385: %The neutrino flux falls rapidly with increase of energy. So one
386: %needs to compromize between statistics and resolution. We use a
387: %$E$ dependent $L/E$ cut of the form :
388: %\be L/E \ge a E^{b}.\ee
389: %A single functional cut for the whole range of $E$ cannot give
390: %good statistics. So we divide whole $E$ range into segments
391: %as shown in fig. \ref{f:cut}.
392: %The constants $a, b$ are found from the given values of $E$ and $L/E$
393: %at the boundaries of the segments. These values has been chosen so that
394: %we find a good resolution as well as a good statistics.
395:
396:
397: %We have studied $L/E$-resolutions in $E_\nu$ and $(L/E)_\nu$-bins with small
398: %bin size of E and $log_{10}(L/E)$. For this study we have simulated by GEANT for the
399: %detector a large number of charge current events, %(say 83,000)
400: %with muon neutrinos in the energy range 0.8 - 200 GeV
401: %with almost equal numbers up to 30 GeV but with random direction. From
402: %this study, we then judicially determine the cut so that we can obtain
403: %a good $L/E$ resolutions.
404: %A few sample resolution plots for particular
405: %bins of $E$ and $L/E$ bins are shown in fig. \ref{resolutions}.
406: %
407: %
408: \begin{figure*}
409: \includegraphics[width=6.0cm,angle=270]{eresfc.ps}
410: \includegraphics[width=6.0cm,angle=270]{lresfc.ps}
411: \includegraphics[width=6.0cm,angle=270]{lberesfc.ps}
412: \caption{\sf The ICAL resolutions for $E$, $L$ and $L/E$ with atmospheric
413: neutrinos for the whole range of $E_\nu$ and $L_\nu$. The subscript `ex'
414: and $\nu$ refer to the reconstructed and true $\nu$ values.}
415: \label{f:atmreso}
416: \end{figure*}
417:
418: %%\begin{figure*}
419: %\includegraphics[width=6.0cm,angle=270]{e1lbe6309.ps}
420: %\includegraphics[width=6.0cm,angle=270]{e2lbe3162.ps}
421: %\includegraphics[width=6.0cm,angle=270]{e5lbe1584.ps}
422: %\includegraphics[width=6.0cm,angle=270]{e7lbe1584.ps}
423: %\caption{\sf \small }
424: %\label{resolutions}
425: %\end{figure*}
426: %{\bf Resolution:}
427:
428: The $L/E$ resolution has a complicated dependence on $L$ and $E$.
429: However, a few general remarks can be made here.
430: Qualitatively for a fixed energy, the $L$ resolution worsens gradually
431: as we go from vertical to horizontal region and worsens rapidly close to the
432: horizon. Also for a fixed direction, the $L/E$ resolution improves with increase
433: in $E$. If one neglects totally the near horizon events (say, between zenith
434: angle $70^\circ$ and $110^\circ$) all the events below 200 km/GeV are lost.
435: In our analysis we consider only the high energy events at near horizon
436: and relax it gradually as we move away from the horizon. Quantitatively,
437: this is taken care of by an $E$ dependent cut of the form :
438: $$ L/E \ge a E^b$$
439: broken into three segments as shown in fig. \ref{f:cut}.
440:
441: Using the above cut
442: the resolutions for $E$, $L$ and $L/E$ obtained with the atmospheric neutrino flux
443: for the whole range of $E_\nu$ and $L_\nu$ are shown in fig. \ref{f:atmreso}.
444:
445: A representative statistics for 5 year data is shown in table \ref{t:statistics}.
446: Here the number of events with hits $>6$ is considered for the analysis.
447: The selected number of events is further reduced by imposing the above $E$ dependent $L/E$
448: cut for a better resolution.
449: %The efficiency is the ratio of these two numbers of events.
450:
451:
452: %However, for an illustration we have shown in fig. \ref{f:nureso} how the
453: %energy and the zenith angle resolutions improve with increase of neutrino
454: %energy. It is also shown that the resolutions differ significantly for
455: %neutrino and anti-neutrino. So the results, the best-fits will be closer
456: %to the input values and the allowed parameter space
457: %will shrink if we use the multiple resolution functions depending
458: %on energy and separately for neutrino and anti-neutrino.
459:
460:
461: %\begin{figure*}
462: %\includegraphics[width=6.0cm,angle=270]{tresn.ps}
463: %\includegraphics[width=6.0cm,angle=270]{eresna.ps}
464: %\caption{\sf \small The energy and the zenith
465: %angle resolutions at different neutrino energies considering muon
466: %energy and momentum from NUANCE simulation as a reconstructed
467: %energy and momentum of the event.}
468: %\label{f:nureso}
469: %\end{figure*}
470:
471: \begin{table}[htb]
472: \begin{center}
473: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
474: \hline
475: {\rm cut} & \multicolumn{4}{|c|}{No. of surviving events/efficiency} \\
476: \cline{2-5}& FC & efficiency & FC+PC& efficiency\\
477: \hline
478: {\rm hit$>$ 6}&4160& -&5351 &-\\
479: {\rm (for reconstruction)}& & & & \\
480: \hline
481: {\rm $E$ dependent $L/E$ cut} & {2089}& 50.2\% & 2808& {52.4\%}\\
482: {\rm (improves $L/E$ resolution)}& &&& \\
483: \hline
484: \end{tabular}
485: \caption{\sf Sample number of events after cuts in 5-year data for
486: $\Delta m^2=2.3\times 10^{-3}$eV$^2$.}
487: \label{t:statistics}
488: \end{center}
489: \end{table}
490: \begin{figure*}[htb]
491: \includegraphics[width=6.0cm,angle=270]{uy05fc.ps}
492: \caption{\sf The simulated up/down distribution at ICAL as a function of $L/E$
493: for 5 years FC events with $\Delta m^2=2.3\times 10^{-3}$eV$^2$. }
494: \label{f:ubd}
495: \end{figure*}
496:
497: Using the above cuts we find the up/down distribution for
498: different time exposures of the ICAL detector. Here our main goal
499: is to find how precisely one can measure
500: $\Delta m^2_{}$. %So to make our analysis simple we put
501: %the input: %$\Delta m^2_{32}=2\times 10^{-3}$eV$^2$ ,
502: %$\Delta m^2_{21}=0,$ %7.9\times 10^{-5}$eV$^2$
503: %$\theta_{23}=45^\circ, \theta_{12}=0^\circ$, and $\theta_{13}=0^\circ.$
504: %Effectively we use two flavor vacuum oscillation.
505: A representative `up/down' distribution with respect to $L/E$ for 5 year FC events
506: is shown in fig. \ref{f:ubd}. Such simulated plots are referred to as the
507: `experimental up/down' distributions.
508:
509: {\bf $\chi^2$-analysis:}
510:
511:
512: In the $\chi^2$-analysis the `theoretical up/down' distribution is obtained by
513: taking 40 years of atmospheric un-oscillated charged
514: current muon neutrino data. The oscillation probability is then calculated
515: from
516: the $L$ and $E$ of the neutrinos for each event and the event is kept or rejected by throwing
517: a random number.
518: %Then we find a random number. If the oscillation probability is
519: %greater than the random number, we select it or otherwise we reject it.
520: %Instead of adding unity to the corresponding $L/E$-bin,
521: We smear this over the whole range of $L/E$ following the $L/E$-resolution function.
522: %Here the efficiency is the ratio of
523: %the selected reconstructed events and the NUANCE generated events
524: %for this $E_\nu$ and $(L/E)_\nu$ bins.
525: Finally the up/down ratio is calculated for different
526: $L/E$ bins.
527: %
528: In this process we are also minimizing the effects due to geomagnetism
529: and the shape of the earth.
530: %However, at the high energy the geomagnetic effect is small.
531:
532:
533: %For the `experimental up/down' distribution we use the results
534: %obtained through GEANT simulation as shown in fig. \ref{f:ubd}.
535: Then a $\chi^2$-fit is made with the `experimental up/down' distribution
536: varying the atmospheric mass square difference $\Delta m^2$ and the
537: mixing angle $\theta$ in the `theoretical up/down' data.
538:
539: \section{Results}
540:
541: { The $L/E$ plot in fig. \ref{f:ubd} shows clearly a full oscillation cycle
542: and is typical for the ICAL detector. Thus ICAL is in a position to observe
543: the
544: oscillation pattern better than previous attempts, like the one by Super-K
545: \cite{Ashie:2004mr}. }
546:
547: We show in fig. \ref{f:contour} the contours in the $\Delta m_{}^2$ ---
548: $\sin^22\theta_{}$ plane for 90\% and 99\% CL with 5 year FC
549: (upper left) and 5 year FC+PC (upper right) events for the input value of
550: $\Delta m^2=2.5 \times 10^{-3}$eV$^2$
551: and with 10 years FC events (lower) for $\Delta m^2=2.7 \times 10^{-3}$eV$^2$.
552:
553: It is noted that the extracted best-fit values gradually become close
554: to the input value of $\Delta m^2$ with increase of
555: exposure time. For example, the
556: best-fit value is found to be 2.50, 2.40 (2.50, 2.34) $\times 10^{-3}$eV$^2$
557: for 5, 10 years
558: FC (FC+PC) events with the input 2.3 $\times 10^{-3}$eV$^2$.
559: For all these cases the best-fit values of $\sin^22\theta$ turns out
560: to be 1 with the input value 1.
561: Since the FC+PC sample contains more high energy events than the FC sample
562: and the $E$ and $L$ resolution are better for PC events, the
563: best-fit values obtained from the FC+PC analysis are closer to the input value.
564: With a change of the input $\Delta m^2$ from 2.5 to 2.7 $\times$ 10$^{-3}$eV$^2$
565: for 10 year FC samples, the best-fit changes to 2.46 to 2.68 $\times$ 10$^{-3}$eV$^2$.
566:
567:
568: %The atmospheric neutrino flux falls very rapidly with energy
569: %%($\sim E^{-2.7}$) (TO BE CHECKED)
570: %and $E$ and $L$ resolutions improve with increase
571: %of $E$. So the resolution and statistics are not same for the whole range of
572: %$L/E$ for the above selection of events (see fig. \ref{f:cut}).
573: %The best-fit value and allowed parameter space will not be
574: %equally good for the whole range of $\Delta m^2$ since the $L/E$ dip
575: %shifts with the change of $\Delta m^2$ value. However, we find 2.40, 2.46,2.68
576: %$\times 10^{-3}$eV$^2$ for the input 2.3, 2.5,2.7
577: %$\times 10^{-3}$eV$^2$ with 10 years of FC samples.
578:
579: %\be \chi^2= \frac{\left[ (u/d)^{\rm th} - (u/d)^{\rm ex} \right]^2 }
580: %{\sigma^2_{\rm e\include\include\includegraphic}
581:
582: \begin{figure*}[htb]
583: \includegraphics[width=5.cm,angle=270]{m2.3s1ry05s.ps}
584: \includegraphics[width=5.cm,angle=270]{m2.3y05pcs.ps}
585: \includegraphics[width=5.cm,angle=270]{m2.7s1ry10s.ps}
586: \caption{\sf The contour plots in $\Delta m_{}^2$ --
587: $\sin^22\theta_{}$ plane with input $\Delta m^2 = 2.3\times 10^{-3}$eV$^2$ for
588: 5 years FC events (upper left), FC+PC event (upper right); the lower plot is with
589: input $\Delta m^2=2.7\times 10^{-3}$eV$^2$
590: for 10 years FC events.}
591: \label{f:contour}
592: \end{figure*}
593:
594:
595: The position of the dip in this up/down distribution is indicative of the best-fit value
596: of $\Delta m^2$ while the overall statistics determines
597: the size of the allowed parameter space.
598: Particularly, the statistics in the larger (smaller) $L/E$ region
599: from the dip determines the lower (upper) bound of $\Delta m^2$.
600: For atmospheric neutrinos the statistics increases with increase of $L/E$
601: thus resulting in a better lower bound in the contour of $\Delta m^2$.
602:
603: { We have made a comparison of the present results and those
604: obtained by the Super-K \cite{Ashie:2004mr,Ashie:2005ik} and the MINOS \cite{Michael:2006rx} experiments. They are shown in fig.
605: \ref{f:comp}. Here we plot contours at 90\% and 99\% CL
606: in $\Delta m^2 - \sin^22\theta$ plane as obtained from our study
607: of 5 years FC data and those obtained from previous Super-K (1489 days data)
608: and the recent MINOS data. For the case of Super-K, two different analyses,
609: one with respect to zenith angle \cite{Ashie:2005ik} and the other with
610: respect to $L/E$ \cite{Ashie:2004mr}
611: are given. One can see clearly that ICAL results are far more
612: precise than those of MINOS and substantially better than those from Super-K.}
613:
614: \begin{figure*}[htb]
615: \includegraphics[width=6.0cm,angle=270]{cm.ps}
616: \caption{\sf The contours at 90\% and 99\% CL
617: for 5 years FC events with $\Delta m^2=2.3\times 10^{-3}$eV$^2$
618: at ICAL and the contours from the current experiments.}
619: \label{f:comp}
620: \end{figure*}
621:
622:
623: \subsection{Precision}
624:
625: We define precision (${\rm P}$) for a certain
626: confidence level of a particular set of oscillation parameters as
627: $${\rm P} = 2 \,\left ( \frac{\rm UL - LL}{\rm UL + LL}\right )~$$
628: where `UL' and `LL' are the upper and lower limit of the contour
629: respectively at the specified confidence level.
630:
631: {\bf FC analysis:}
632: The variation of precision of $\sin^2\theta$ and $\Delta m^2$
633: with different years of exposure is shown separately in fig.~\ref{f:precision}
634: at 90\% and 99\% CL.
635: %The plots indicate that the precision
636: %scales statistically ($\sqrt{N}$) with the exposure time.
637: It is seen that the precision falls very slowly beyond ten years
638: and that can be a useful observation for the future experiment.
639:
640: It is further observed that the precision gradually becomes worse when we increase
641: the value of $\Delta m^2$ from 2.3$\times 10^{-3}$eV$^2$. This is
642: demonstrated in fig. \ref{f:precision_delm}.
643:
644: The reason behind this is the following. The position of the dip
645: in the up/down distribution shifts
646: towards larger values of $L/E$ with the decrease of the value of $\Delta m^2$.
647: The flux increases rapidly with decrease of energy
648: %following the power
649: %law $\sim E^{-2.6}$, (TO BE CHECKED)
650: and the statistics becomes gradually high at larger
651: $L/E$.
652:
653: However, we comment that there is a competition between statistics and $L/E$
654: resolution. We see that at low value of $\Delta m^2$, say
655: 2.1 $\times 10^{-3}$eV$^2$, the precision worsens compared to that at
656: 2.3 $\times 10^{-3}$eV$^2$. This can be improved if we choose
657: more stringent cuts with good $L/E$ resolution for larger values of
658: $L/E$.
659: %On the other hand the $L/E$ resolution improves with increase of energy
660: %mainly due to large improvement in $L$-resolution.
661: So one has to optimize
662: between the requirement of statistics and $L/E$-resolution, which depends
663: mainly on the range of interest of $\Delta m^2_{}$.
664:
665: {\bf FC+PC analysis:}
666: %Since we have incorporated a small fraction of PC
667: %events due to the limitation of our reconstruction algorithm, which
668: %is under way of improvement,
669: After the inclusion of the PC events
670: the results are very similar to that obtained from FC events and
671: hence are not shown separately.
672:
673:
674: \begin{figure*}[htb]
675: \includegraphics[width=6.cm,angle=270]{fcm2.3ms.ps}
676: \includegraphics[width=6.cm,angle=270]{fcm2.3ss.ps}
677: \caption{\sf The variation of the precision
678: of $\Delta m_{}^2$ (left)
679: and $\sin^2\theta_{}$ (right)
680: with time of exposure
681: for 50kTon ICAL with FC
682: events for the input of $\Delta m^2=2.3\times 10^{-3}$eV$^2$.
683: }
684: \label{f:precision}
685: \end{figure*}
686:
687: \begin{figure*}[htb]
688: \includegraphics[width=6.cm,angle=270]{fcy10bms.ps}
689: \includegraphics[width=6.cm,angle=270]{fcy10bss.ps}
690: \caption{\sf
691: The variation of the precision of $\Delta m_{}^2$ (left)
692: and $\sin^2\theta_{}$ (right)
693: with the input value of $\Delta m^2$
694: for 50kTon ICAL with 10 years FC
695: events.
696: }
697: \label{f:precision_delm}
698: \end{figure*}
699:
700:
701: \section{Discussions}
702:
703: Simulation studies for atmospheric neutrinos at the proposed
704: Iron Calorimeter (ICAL) detector at INO have been made with
705: a goal to determine the level of precision which may be achieved.
706: The oscillated atmospheric neutrino events for a known set of values of
707: oscillation parameters are generated with the event generator
708: code (NUANCE) and the simulated signals in the detector are obtained
709: through the detector simulation code (GEANT) that uses the NUANCE output
710: as its inputs. A $\chi^2$ analysis of the results obtained
711: from this simulated GEANT output
712: data, %(designated as ``Experimental Data")
713: properly chosen using appropriate constraints (``cuts"),
714: is performed for the precision studies.
715: %-- designated as ``Experimental Data" -- is then carried out by
716: %varying the oscillation parameters within certain ranges and thereby
717: %producing sets of oscillated NUANCE outputs for these parameters. These outputs
718: %-- designated as ``Theoretical Data" -- are in fact used for the chi-square
719: %analysis and subsequently for the precision studies.
720:
721: There is, however, scope for improvement of these studies.
722:
723: \begin{itemize}
724:
725: \item The present analysis is performed only with the simulated muon
726: signals neglecting the hadrons. The
727: estimation of neutrino energy $E$ and $L/E$ is expected to improve
728: by the inclusion of hadrons.
729: As hadrons mainly produce showers instead of
730: well defined tracks, the method of using tracklength
731: is not effective
732: to extract energy information (or directional information)
733: from such hadron showers. A new
734: methodology is to be developed for this purpose and
735: this work of incorporating hadrons in the analysis is in progress.% and
736: %will be reported in future.
737:
738: \item
739: { A full three flavor analysis can address issues like matter effect,
740: mass hierarchy and the deviation from maximality of the atmospheric
741: mixing.}
742:
743: %Here we have made a two flavor analysis whereas a more realistic
744: %approach would be the analysis of simulated data following a full
745: %three-flavor
746: %oscillation formalism. However, the smallness of the mixing angle
747: %$\theta_{13}$ ensures that the two flavor approximation mimics
748: %the real situation reasonably well.
749:
750:
751: \item For the analysis of PC events the curvature of the track is
752: used for calculation of energy. In the high energy regime the tracks
753: have no or negligible curvature inside the detector volume and hence
754: such PC events could not be considered in the present analysis.
755: \end{itemize}
756:
757: Moreover, we find the resolutions are energy dependent and significantly
758: different for neutrinos and anti-neutrinos. One therefore expects to
759: obtain more precise best fit values with CL contours in parameter
760: space further shrunk, if one uses multiple resolution functions,
761: instead of one as used here.
762: In doing so, the whole $L-E$ plane is divided into multiple
763: small segments (mesh) and separate resolution functions
764: are obtained for each such segment of the mesh which is then used
765: for the purpose of analysis.
766: %{\bf We have also made an extensive
767: %study using such resolution functions but the final contours came out
768: %to be irregular shaped. This is now being probed.}
769:
770: %We would also like to mention that the uncertainties due to flux,
771: %neutrino-nucleon cross-sections etc. are also being pursued.
772:
773:
774:
775: {\large{\bf {Acknowledgements}}}
776:
777: The authors thank Gobinda Majumder, Subhendu Rakshit,
778: Sunanda Banerjee, Subhashis Chattopadhyay and Naba K Mondal for their
779: help and valuable suggestions at different phases of the work.
780:
781: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
782:
783: \bibitem{Fukuda:1998mi}
784: Y.~Fukuda {\it et al.} [Super-Kamiokande Collaboration],
785: %``Evidence for oscillation of atmospheric neutrinos,''
786: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 81}, 1562 (1998)
787: [arXiv:hep-ex/9807003].
788:
789: %Review of Particle Physics,
790: %S. Eidelman \etal
791: %Phys. Lett. {\bf B 592} (2004) 1.
792:
793: \bibitem{Eidelman:2004wy}
794: S.~Eidelman {\it et al.} [Particle Data Group],
795: %``Review of particle physics,''
796: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 592}, 1 (2004).
797:
798: %\bibitem{pmns}
799: %B. Pontecorvo, JETP {\bf 6} 429 (1958);
800: %{\bf 7} 172 (1958);
801: \bibitem{Pontecorvo:1957cp}
802: B.~Pontecorvo,
803: %``Mesonium and antimesonium,''
804: Sov.\ Phys.\ JETP {\bf 6}, 429 (1957).
805:
806:
807:
808: \bibitem{Maki:1962mu}
809: Z.~Maki, M.~Nakagawa and S.~Sakata,
810: %``Remarks On The Unified Model Of Elementary Particles,''
811: Prog.\ Theor.\ Phys.\ {\bf 28}, 870 (1962).
812: %%CITATION = PTPKA,28,870;%%
813:
814: %\bibitem{Maltoni:2004ei}
815: % M.~Maltoni, T.~Schwetz, M.~A.~Tortola and J.~W.~F.~Valle,
816: % %``Status of global fits to neutrino oscillations,''
817: % New J.\ Phys.\ {\bf 6}, 122 (2004)
818: % [arXiv:hep-ph/0405172].
819: % %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0405172;%%
820:
821: \bibitem{Schwetz:2006dh}
822: T.~Schwetz,
823: %``Global fits to neutrino oscillation data,''
824: Phys.\ Scripta {\bf T127}, 1 (2006)
825: [arXiv:hep-ph/0606060].
826: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0606060;%%
827:
828: \bibitem{Apollonio:1999ae}
829: M.~Apollonio {\it et al.} [CHOOZ Collaboration],
830: %``Limits on neutrino oscillations from the CHOOZ experiment,''
831: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 466}, 415 (1999)
832: [arXiv:hep-ex/9907037].
833: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 9907037;%%
834:
835: \bibitem{Bandyopadhyay:2004da}
836: A.~Bandyopadhyay, S.~Choubey, S.~Goswami, S.~T.~Petcov and D.~P.~Roy,
837: %``Update of the solar neutrino oscillation analysis with the 766-Ty KamLAND
838: %spectrum,''
839: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 608}, 115 (2005)
840: [arXiv:hep-ph/0406328].
841: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0406328;%%
842:
843: \bibitem{Ashie:2004mr}
844: Y.~Ashie {\it et al.} [Super-Kamiokande Collaboration],
845: %``Evidence for an oscillatory signature in atmospheric neutrino
846: %oscillation,''
847: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 93}, 101801 (2004)
848: [arXiv:hep-ex/0404034].
849:
850: \bibitem{Zois:2004ns}
851: M.~G.~Zois,
852: %``Neutrino oscillations: analysis of the response of the detector of the
853: %MINOS experiment to neutrino interactions,''
854: FERMILAB-MASTERS-2004-06.
855: %\href{http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?r=fermilab-masters-2004-06}{SPIRES entry}
856: \bibitem{Michael:2006rx}
857: D.~G.~Michael {\it et al.} [MINOS Collaboration],
858: %``Observation of muon neutrino disappearance with the MINOS detectors and
859: %the NuMI neutrino beam,''
860: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 97}, 191801 (2006)
861: [arXiv:hep-ex/0607088].
862: %%CITATION = PRLTA,97,191801;%%
863:
864: \bibitem{Yamada:2006hi}
865: Y.~Yamada [T2K Collaboration],
866: %``T2K phase-I and II,''
867: Nucl.\ Phys.\ Proc.\ Suppl.\ {\bf 155}, 207 (2006).
868: %%CITATION = NUPHZ,155,207;%%
869:
870: \bibitem{Kisiel:2005ti}
871: J.~Kisiel [ICARUS Collaboration],
872: %``Present status of the ICARUS experiment,''
873: Acta Phys.\ Polon.\ B {\bf 36}, 3227 (2005).
874:
875: \bibitem{Rubbia:1998rc}
876: A.~Rubbia [ICARUS-CERN-Milano Collaboration],
877: %``Status report on the ICARUS experiment,''
878: Nucl.\ Phys.\ Proc.\ Suppl.\ {\bf 66}, 436 (1998).
879: %%CITATION = NUPHZ,66,436;%%.
880:
881: \bibitem{Ray:2006ke}
882: R.~Ray,
883: %``The NOvA experiment,''
884: Nucl.\ Phys.\ Proc.\ Suppl.\ {\bf 154}, 179 (2006).
885:
886: \bibitem{Harris:2005yb}
887: D.~A.~Harris [MINOS and NOvA Collaborations],
888: %``The Minos And Nova Experiments,''
889: Nucl.\ Phys.\ Proc.\ Suppl.\ {\bf 149}, 150 (2005).
890: %%CITATION = NUPHZ,149,150;%%
891:
892: \bibitem{Horton-Smith:2006yh}
893: G.~Horton-Smith [Double Chooz Collaboration],
894: %``Double Chooz,''
895: AIP Conf.\ Proc.\ {\bf 805}, 142 (2006).
896:
897: \bibitem{Motta:2006jd}
898: D.~Motta [Double Chooz Collaboration],
899: %``The Double Chooz Experiment,''
900: Acta Phys.\ Polon.\ B {\bf 37}, 2027 (2006).
901: %%CITATION = APPOA,B37,2027;%%
902:
903: \bibitem{Jung:1999jq}
904: C.~K.~Jung,
905: %``Feasibility of a next generation underground water Cherenkov detector:
906: %UNO,''
907: arXiv:hep-ex/0005046.
908: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0005046;%%
909:
910:
911:
912: \bibitem{Back:2004qi}
913: H.~Back {\it et al.},
914: %``Report of the solar and atmospheric neutrino experiments working group of
915: %the APS multidivisional neutrino study,''
916: arXiv:hep-ex/0412016.
917: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0412016;%%
918:
919: \bibitem{Itow:2001ee}
920: Y.~Itow {\it et al.},
921: %``The JHF-Kamioka neutrino project,''
922: arXiv:hep-ex/0106019.
923: %%CITATION = HEP-EX/0106019;%%
924: %
925: \bibitem{Nakamura:2003hk}
926: K.~Nakamura,
927: %``Hyper-Kamiokande: A next generation water Cherenkov detector,''
928: Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 18}, 4053 (2003).
929: %%CITATION = IMPAE,A18,4053;%%
930:
931: %\cite{DiCapua:2005bd}
932: \bibitem{Cocco:2000yp}
933: A.~G.~Cocco [OPERA Collaboration],
934: %``The OPERA experiment at Gran Sasso,''
935: Nucl.\ Phys.\ Proc.\ Suppl.\ {\bf 85}, 125 (2000).
936: %%CITATION = NUPHZ,85,125;%%
937: %
938: \bibitem{Gustavino:2006rc}
939: C.~Gustavino [OPERA Collaboration],
940: %``The OPERA experiment,''
941: J.\ Phys.\ Conf.\ Ser.\ {\bf 39}, 326 (2006).
942: %
943: \bibitem{Di Capua:2005bd}
944: F.~Di Capua [OPERA Collaboration],
945: %``Status of the OPERA experiment,''
946: PoS {\bf HEP2005}, 177 (2006).
947: %%CITATION = POSCI,HEP2005,177;%%
948:
949: %\bibitem{ino}
950: % See http://www.imsc.res.in/$\sim$ino.
951: \bibitem{Athar:2006yb}
952: M.~S.~Athar {\it et al.} [INO Collaboration],
953: %``India-based Neutrino Observatory: Project Report. Volume I,''
954: INO-2006-01.
955:
956: \bibitem{Indumathi:2004kd}
957: D.~Indumathi and M.~V.~N.~Murthy,
958: % ``A question of hierarchy: Matter effects with atmospheric neutrinos and
959: %anti-neutrinos,''
960: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 71}, 013001 (2005)
961: [arXiv:hep-ph/0407336].
962: %
963: \bibitem{Gandhi:2004bj}
964: R.~Gandhi, P.~Ghoshal, S.~Goswami, P.~Mehta and S.~Uma Sankar,
965: %``Earth matter effects at very long baselines and the neutrino mass
966: %hierarchy,''
967: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 73} 053001 (2006)
968: [arXiv:hep-ph/0411252].
969:
970: \bibitem{Petcov:2005rv}
971: S.~T.~Petcov and T.~Schwetz,
972: %``Determining the neutrino mass hierarchy with atmospheric neutrinos,''
973: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 740}, 1 (2006)
974: [arXiv:hep-ph/0511277].
975: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0511277;%%
976: %
977: \bibitem{Samanta:2006sj}
978: A.~Samanta,
979: %``The mass hierarchy with atmospheric neutrinos at INO,''
980: arXiv:hep-ph/0610196.
981: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0610196;%%
982:
983: \bibitem{Choubey:2005zy}
984: S.~Choubey and P.~Roy,
985: %``Probing the deviation from maximal mixing of atmospheric neutrinos,''
986: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 73}, 013006 (2006)
987: [arXiv:hep-ph/0509197].
988: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D73,013006;%%
989:
990: \bibitem{Indumathi:2006gr}
991: D.~Indumathi, M.~V.~N.~Murthy, G.~Rajasekaran and N.~Sinha,
992: %``Neutrino oscillation probabilities: Sensitivity to parameters,''
993: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 74}, 053004 (2006)
994: [arXiv:hep-ph/0603264].
995: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D74,053004;%%
996:
997:
998:
999: %\bibitem{magic}
1000: %%P. Huber, W. Winter, \PRD(68,037301,2003).
1001: %
1002: %%\cite{Barger:2001yr}
1003: %%\bibitem{Barger:2001yr}
1004: % V.~Barger, D.~Marfatia and K.~Whisnant,
1005: % %``Breaking eight-fold degeneracies in neutrino CP violation, mixing, and
1006: % %mass hierarchy,''
1007: % Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65}, 073023 (2002)
1008: % [arXiv:hep-ph/0112119];
1009: % %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0112119;%%
1010: %%
1011: %%
1012: %%\cite{Lipari:1999wy}
1013: %%\bibitem{Lipari:1999wy}
1014: % P.~Lipari,
1015: % %``Matter effects in long-baseline experiments, the flavor content of the
1016: % %heaviest (or lightest) neutrino and the sign of Delta(m**2),''
1017: % Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 61}, 113004 (2000)
1018: % [arXiv:hep-ph/9903481].
1019: % %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9903481;%%
1020: %%%\cite{Huber:2003ak}
1021: %%\bibitem{Huber:2003ak}
1022: % P.~Huber and W.~Winter,
1023: % %``Neutrino factories and the 'magic' baseline,''
1024: % Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 68}, 037301 (2003)
1025: % [arXiv:hep-ph/0301257].
1026: % %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0301257;%%
1027: %
1028: %
1029: %\bibitem{Agarwalla:2005we}
1030: % S.~K.~Agarwalla, A.~Raychaudhuri and A.~Samanta,
1031: %% ``Exploration prospects of a long baseline beta beam neutrino experiment
1032: % %with an iron calorimeter detector,''
1033: % Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 629}, 33 (2005)
1034: % [arXiv:hep-ph/0505015].
1035: % %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0505015;%%
1036: %\bibitem{degeneracy}
1037: %J. Burguet-Castell, \etal
1038: %%Nucl. Phys. {\bf B 608}
1039: % 301 (2001); P. Huber, M. Lindner, W. Winter, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B 645}
1040: % 3 (2002); V. Barger, D. Marfatia, K. Whisnant, Phys. Rev. {\bf D 65}
1041: % 073023 (2002).
1042: %
1043: %%\cite{Dziewonski:1981xy}
1044: %\bibitem{Dziewonski:1981xy}
1045: % A.~M.~Dziewonski and D.~L.~Anderson,
1046: % %``Preliminary Reference Earth Model,''
1047: % Phys.\ Earth Planet.\ Interiors {\bf 25}, 297 (1981).
1048: % %%CITATION = PEPIA,25,297;%%
1049: %
1050: % S.~Orito {\it et al.} [BESS Collaboration],
1051: % %``Precision measurement of cosmic-ray antiproton spectrum,''
1052: % Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 84}, 1078 (2000)
1053: % [arXiv:astro-ph/9906426];
1054: %%CITATION = PRLTA,84,1078;%%
1055: %
1056: \bibitem{Sanuki:2000wh}
1057: T.~Sanuki {\it et al.},
1058: %``Precise measurement of cosmic-ray proton and helium spectra with the BESS
1059: %spectrometer,''
1060: Astrophys.\ J.\ {\bf 545}, 1135 (2000)
1061: [arXiv:astro-ph/0002481].
1062: %%CITATION = ASJOA,545,1135;%%
1063: %
1064: \bibitem{Maeno:2000qx}
1065: T.~Maeno {\it et al.} [BESS Collaboration],
1066: %``Successive measurements of cosmic-ray antiproton spectrum in a positive
1067: %phase of the solar cycle,''
1068: Astropart.\ Phys.\ {\bf 16}, 121 (2001)
1069: [arXiv:astro-ph/0010381].
1070: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0010381;%%
1071:
1072: %\bibitem{Alcaraz:2000ss}
1073: % J.~Alcaraz {\it et al.} [AMS Collaboration],
1074: % %``Search for antihelium in cosmic rays,''
1075: % Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 461}, 387 (1999)
1076: % [arXiv:hep-ex/0002048].
1077: % %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0002048;%%
1078:
1079: \bibitem{Alcaraz:2000vp}
1080: J.~Alcaraz {\it et al.} [AMS Collaboration],
1081: %``Cosmic protons,''
1082: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 490}, 27 (2000).
1083: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B490,27;%%
1084:
1085:
1086:
1087: \bibitem{Honda:2004yz}
1088: M.~Honda, T.~Kajita, K.~Kasahara and S.~Midorikawa,
1089: %``A new calculation of the atmospheric neutrino flux in a 3-dimensional
1090: %scheme,''
1091: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 70}, 043008 (2004)
1092: [arXiv:astro-ph/0404457].
1093: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0404457;%%
1094:
1095: %\cite{Casper:2002sd}
1096: \bibitem{Casper:2002sd}
1097: D.~Casper,
1098: %``The nuance neutrino physics simulation, and the future,''
1099: Nucl.\ Phys.\ Proc.\ Suppl.\ {\bf 112}, 161 (2002)
1100: [arXiv:hep-ph/0208030].
1101: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0208030;%%
1102:
1103:
1104: %\bibitem{llewellyn}
1105: %C.H. Llewellyn Smith, Phys. Rep. {\bf 3} 261 (1972).
1106:
1107:
1108:
1109: %\cite{Smith:xh}
1110: %\bibitem{Smith:xh}
1111: %R.~A.~Smith and E.~J.~Moniz,
1112: %%``Neutrino Reactions On Nuclear Targets,''
1113: %Nucl.\ Phys.\ B 43 605 (1972).
1114: %%Erratum-ibid
1115: %{[Erratum-ibid.\ B 101 547 (1975)]}.
1116: %%%CITATION = NUPHA,B43,605;%%
1117:
1118: %%\cite{Plothow-Besch:1995ci}
1119: %\bibitem{Plothow-Besch:1992qj}
1120: % H.~Plothow-Besch,
1121: % %``The Parton distribution function library,''
1122: % Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 10}, 2901 (1995).
1123: % %%CITATION = IMPAE,A10,2901;%%
1124: % H.~Plothow-Besch,
1125: % %``PDFLIB: A Library of all available parton density functions of the nucleon,
1126: % %the pion and the photon and the corresponding alpha-s calculations,''
1127: % Comput.\ Phys.\ Commun.\ {\bf 75}, 396 (1993).
1128: % %%CITATION = CPHCB,75,396;%%
1129: %
1130: %\bibitem{BEBC}
1131: %A.~J.~Buras and K.~J.~F.~Gaemers, Nucl. Phys. B132 249 (1978); \\
1132: %K.~Varnell et al., %[BEBC WA59 Collaboration]
1133: %Z. Phys. C36 1 (1987).
1134: %
1135: \bibitem{geant}
1136: GEANT – Detector Simulation and Simulation Tool, CERN Program Library Long Write-up W5013, March 1994,
1137: http://wwwasd.web.cern.ch/wwwasd/cernlib/version.html
1138:
1139: \bibitem{mirrorL}
1140: P. Picchi and F. Pietropaolo, ICGF RAP. INT.
1141: 344/1997, Torino 1997 (CERN preprint SCAN-9710037).
1142:
1143:
1144: \bibitem{Ashie:2005ik}
1145: Y.~Ashie {\it et al.} [Super-Kamiokande Collaboration],
1146: %``A measurement of atmospheric neutrino oscillation parameters by
1147: %Super-Kamiokande I,''
1148: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 71}, 112005 (2005)
1149: [arXiv:hep-ex/0501064].
1150:
1151: %\bibitem{Michael:2006rx}
1152: % D.~G.~Michael {\it et al.} [MINOS Collaboration],
1153: % %``Observation of muon neutrino disappearance with the MINOS detectors and the
1154: % %NuMI neutrino beam,''
1155: % Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 97}, 191801 (2006)
1156: % [arXiv:hep-ex/0607088].
1157: \end{thebibliography}
1158: \end{document}
1159: