1: \documentclass[a4paper,12pt]{article}
2: \usepackage{epsfig}\parskip 5pt plus 1pt
3: \usepackage{amsmath}
4: \usepackage{amssymb}
5: \usepackage{amsfonts}
6: \usepackage{fleqn}
7: \usepackage{mathrsfs}
8: \usepackage{cite}
9:
10: \topmargin=-0.8cm
11: \textheight=23cm
12:
13: \newcommand{\capdef}{}
14: \newcommand{\mycaption}[2][\capdef]{\renewcommand{\capdef}{#2}%
15: \caption[#1]{{\footnotesize #2}}}
16:
17: \newcommand{\CenterObject}[1]{\vcenter{\hbox{#1}}}
18: \newcommand{\CenterEps}[2][1]{\ensuremath{\vcenter{\hbox{\includegraphics[scale=#1]{#2.eps}}}}}
19: \newcommand{\SuperField}[1]{\hat{#1}}
20:
21: \def\Ng{j}
22: \def\Nf{i}
23:
24: \def\D{\mathrm{d}}
25: \def\I{\mathrm{i}}
26: \def\SU{\text{SU}}
27: \def\SO{\text{SO}}
28: \def\U{\text{U}}
29: \def\O{\text{O}}
30: \def\SL{\text{SL}}
31: \def\RhdN{N}
32:
33: \def\beq{\begin{equation}}
34: \def\eeq{\end{equation}}
35: \def\bea{\begin{eqnarray}}
36: \def\eea{\end{eqnarray}}
37:
38: \def\nuL{\nu}
39: \def\EL{\mathrm{e}}
40:
41:
42: \def\SingletH{\SuperField{\theta}}
43: \def\SingletHB{{\theta}}
44:
45: \def\eps{\epsilon}
46: \def\epsb{\bar{\epsilon}}
47:
48: \def\epstensor{\varepsilon}
49:
50:
51: \def\Fla{\theta}
52: \def\Flb{\bar{\theta}}
53:
54:
55: \def\Pauli{\tau}
56: \def\<{\left\langle}
57: \def\>{\right\rangle}
58: \def\ChargeC{\mathrm{C}}
59: \def\chargec{\mathrm{C}}
60:
61: \newcommand{\ChargeConjugate}[1]{{#1}^\ChargeC}
62: \DeclareMathOperator{\re}{Re}
63: \DeclareMathOperator{\im}{Im}
64: \DeclareMathOperator{\tr}{tr}
65: \DeclareMathOperator{\Tr}{Tr}
66: \DeclareMathOperator{\diag}{diag}
67:
68: \addtolength\textwidth{2cm}
69: \evensidemargin 0cm
70: \oddsidemargin 0cm
71:
72:
73: \begin{document}
74:
75: \bibliographystyle{OurBibTeX}
76:
77: \begin{titlepage}
78:
79: \vspace*{-15mm}
80: \begin{flushright}
81: CERN-PH-TH/2007-036\\
82: FTUAM 07-03\\
83: IFT-UAM/CSIC 07-08\\
84: SHEP/07-05\\
85: hep-ph/0702286
86: \end{flushright}
87: \vspace*{1mm}
88:
89: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\it\alph{footnote}}
90:
91: \begin{center}
92: {\bf\Large Neutrino Mixing Sum Rules \\[2mm] and Oscillation Experiments} \\[10mm]
93: {\bf
94: S.~Antusch\footnote{E-mail: \texttt{antusch@delta.ft.uam.es}},
95: P.~Huber\footnote{E-mail: \texttt{phuber@physics.wisc.edu}},
96: S.~F.~King\footnote{E-mail: \texttt{sfk@hep.phys.soton.ac.uk}}
97: and T.~Schwetz\footnote{E-mail: \texttt{schwetz@cern.ch}}}
98: \\[5mm]
99: {\small\it
100: $^a$ Departamento de Fisica Te\'orica C-XI and Instituto
101: del Fisica Te\'orica C-XVI,\\
102: Universidad Aut\'onoma de Madrid, Cantoblanco, E-28049 Madrid, Spain\\
103: %
104: $^b$ Department of Physics, University of Wisconsin,\\
105: 1150 University Avenue, Madison, WI 53706, USA\\
106: %
107: $^c$ School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Southampton,\\
108: Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK\\
109: %
110: $^d$ CERN, Theory Division, Physics Department, CH-1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland}
111: \end{center}
112: \vspace*{0.40cm}
113:
114: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
115: \begin{abstract}
116:
117: \noindent
118: The neutrino mixing sum rule $\theta_{12} - \theta_{13}\cos(\delta)
119: \approx \theta^\nu_{12}$ provides a possibility to explore the
120: structure of the neutrino mass matrix in the presence of charged
121: lepton corrections, since it relates the 1-2 mixing angle from the
122: neutrino mass matrix, $\theta_{12}^\nu$, to observable parameters of
123: the PMNS mixing matrix. The neutrino mixing sum rule holds if the
124: charged lepton mixing angles are CKM-like, i.e., small and dominated
125: by a 1-2 mixing, and for small 1-3 mixing in the neutrino mass
126: matrix. These conditions hold in a wide class of well motivated
127: flavour models. We apply this sum rule to present oscillation data,
128: and we investigate the prospects of future neutrino facilities for
129: exploring the sum rule by simulating various setups for long-baseline
130: reactor and accelerator experiments. As explicit examples, we use the
131: sum rule to test the hypotheses of tri-bimaximal and bimaximal
132: neutrino mixing, where $\theta^\nu_{12}$ is predicted by
133: $\sin^2(\theta^\nu_{12}) = 1/3$ or $1/2$, respectively, although the
134: neutrino mixing sum rule can be used to test any prediction for
135: $\theta^\nu_{12}$.
136: \end{abstract}
137:
138: \end{titlepage}
139: \newpage
140: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\arabic{footnote}}
141: \setcounter{footnote}{0}
142:
143: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
144: \section{Introduction}
145: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
146:
147: Many attractive classes of models of fermion
148: masses and mixing lead to interesting predictions for the neutrino
149: mass matrix $m_\nu$, such as for instance tri-bimaximal or bimaximal
150: mixing. However, the experimentally accessible quantity is the product
151: $U_{\mathrm{PMNS}} = V_{e_\mathrm{L}} V^\dagger_{\nu_\mathrm{L}}$. It
152: includes the neutrino mixing matrix $V_{\nu_\mathrm{L}}$, which
153: diagonalizes $m_\nu$, and the charged lepton mixing matrix
154: $V_{e_\mathrm{L}}$, which diagonalizes the charged lepton mass matrix
155: $M_e$. Often, the essential predictions of flavour models are hidden
156: due to the presence of the charged lepton corrections.
157:
158: Remarkably, in many cases it can be shown that a combination of the
159: measurable PMNS parameters $\theta_{12}$, $\theta_{13}$ and $\delta$
160: sums up to the theoretically predicted value for the 1-2 mixing of the
161: neutrino mass matrix. For example, in an SO(3) family symmetry model
162: based on the see-saw mechanism with sequential dominance, predicting
163: tri-bimaximal neutrino mixing via vacuum alignment, the neutrino
164: mixing sum rule which is the subject of this paper was first
165: observed in the first paper of Ref.~\cite{sumrule}. In the second
166: and third papers of Ref.~\cite{sumrule}, it was shown that this neutrino mixing
167: sum rule is not limited to one particular model, but applies
168: under very general assumptions, to be specified
169: below. For general 1-2 mixing $\theta^\nu_{12}$ of the neutrino mass
170: matrix, the neutrino mixing sum rule of interest here was given as
171: \cite{sumrule}:
172: %
173: \begin{eqnarray}
174: \label{eq:sumrule}
175: \theta_{12} - \theta_{13}\cos (\delta) &\approx& \theta^\nu_{12} \; ,
176: \end{eqnarray}
177: %
178: in the standard PDG parameterization of the PMNS matrix
179: \cite{PDG}. The specific neutrino mixing sum rules for
180: tri-bimaximal~\cite{tribi} and bimaximal~\cite{bimax} neutrino mixing
181: are obtained by replacing $\theta^\nu_{12}$ by its predictions
182: $\arcsin (\tfrac{1}{\sqrt{3}})\approx 35.3^\circ$ and
183: $\tfrac{\pi}{4}=45^\circ$, respectively.
184:
185:
186: Let us note at this point that corrections to neutrino mixing angles
187: from the charged lepton sector have been addressed in various previous
188: studies. Since some of them are sometimes also referred to as ``sum
189: rules'', we would like to comment on the differences to the neutrino
190: mixing sum rule of Eq.~(\ref{eq:sumrule}) \cite{sumrule}. For
191: instance, in many works, it has been noticed that charged lepton
192: corrections can make bimaximal neutrino mixing compatible with
193: experimental data \cite{refs1,refs2,refs7,refs3}. However, in most studies
194: in the literature (e.g.\ in Ref.~\cite{refs1}), CP phases have been
195: ignored. In other works, where complex mixing matrices were
196: considered, the connection to the experimentally measurable Dirac CP
197: phase $\delta$ has not been identified~\cite{refs2}.
198: For instance, in Ref.~\cite{refs7} in Eq.~(25), the
199: correction is related to a phase $\phi$, which is not identical to
200: $\delta$. The introduction of the measurable quantity $J_{CP}$ in this
201: equation leads to a sign ambiguity in their ``sum rule''.
202: We would like to remark that various parameterizations of the PMNS matrix are customary,
203: and that it is important to specify unequivocally which convention is used.
204: Assuming standard PDG parameterization of the PMNS matrix \cite{PDG}
205: where not stated otherwise, the relations of Ref.~\cite{refs3}
206: for bimaximal neutrino mixing are physically inequivalent to the sumrule in Eq.~(\ref{eq:sumrule}) \cite{sumrule}.
207: Equations for corrections to tri-bimaximal neutrino mixing as well as for
208: general $\theta^\nu_{12}$ have been considered \cite{refs5,refs6},
209: however the connection to the measurable CP phases has not been
210: established. Finally, CKM-like corrections to neutrino mixing angles
211: have been considered, and called ``sum rules'', in Ref.~\cite{refs4},
212: however CP phases have been ignored.
213: In the following, we will simply refer to the formula of Eq.~(\ref{eq:sumrule}) \cite{sumrule} as the sum rule.
214:
215: In this paper, after deriving
216: the sum rule \cite{sumrule}, we investigate how well the
217: combination of parameters on the left-hand of Eq.~(\ref{eq:sumrule}) can be determined
218: in present and future neutrino oscillation facilities, and then
219: compare to the predictions for the right-hand side
220: coming from bi-maximal and tri-bimaximal neutrino mixing.
221: %
222: Such a study is interesting since the sum rule of Eq.~(\ref{eq:sumrule})
223: \cite{sumrule} provides a means of exploring the structure of the
224: neutrino mass matrix in the presence of charged lepton corrections,
225: and enables whole classes of models of neutrino masses and mixings
226: to be tested. However,
227: exploring the sum rule requires to measure the currently undetermined
228: mixing angle $\theta_{13}$ as well as the CP violating phase $\delta$,
229: which is experimentally challenging, as we shall discuss.
230:
231: %
232: The outline of the remainder of the
233: paper is as follows. In Sec.~\ref{sec:sumrule}
234: we present for the first time
235: a parameterization-independent derivation of a family
236: of neutrino mixing sum rules, and subsequently
237: show that one of them leads to the
238: sum rule in Eq.~(\ref{eq:sumrule}), using
239: the standard PDG parameterization \cite{PDG} of the PMNS mixing
240: matrix. After this derivation of the sum rule,
241: and detailed discussion of the conditions of its
242: validity, we then apply it to present oscillation
243: data in Sec.~\ref{sec:fit}. Sec.~\ref{sec:future} is devoted to the
244: simulation of future experiments including long-baseline reactor
245: experiments, various second generation superbeam setups, a
246: $\beta$-beam, and neutrino factories. We summarize in
247: Sec.~\ref{sec:conclusions}.
248:
249:
250: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
251: \section{Derivation of the Sum Rule}
252: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
253: \label{sec:sumrule}
254:
255: The mixing matrix in the lepton sector, the PMNS matrix
256: $U_{\mathrm{PMNS}}$, is defined as the matrix which appears in the
257: electroweak coupling to the $W$ bosons expressed in terms of lepton
258: mass eigenstates. With the mass matrices of charged leptons
259: $M_\mathrm{e}$ and neutrinos $m_{\nu}$ written as\footnote{Although we
260: have chosen to write a Majorana mass matrix, all relations in the
261: following are independent of the Dirac or Majorana nature of neutrino
262: masses.}
263: %
264: \begin{eqnarray}
265: {\cal L}=- \bar{e}_L M_\mathrm{e} e_R
266: - \tfrac{1}{2}\bar{\nu}_L m_{\nu} \nu_\mathrm{L}^c
267: + \text{H.c.}\; ,
268: \end{eqnarray}
269: and performing the transformation from flavour to mass basis by
270: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:DiagMe}
271: V_{\mathrm{e}_\mathrm{L}} \, M_{\mathrm{e}} \,
272: V^\dagger_{\mathrm{e}_\mathrm{R}} =
273: \mbox{diag}(m_e,m_\mu,m_\tau)
274: , \quad
275: V_{\nu_\mathrm{L}} \,m_\nu\,V^T_{\nu_\mathrm{L}} =
276: \mbox{diag}(m_1,m_2,m_3),
277: \end{eqnarray}
278: %
279: the PMNS matrix is given by
280: %
281: \begin{eqnarray}\label{Eq:PMNS_Definition}
282: U_{\mathrm{PMNS}}
283: = V_{e_\mathrm{L}} V^\dagger_{\nu_\mathrm{L}} \,.
284: \end{eqnarray}
285: %
286: Here it is assumed implicitly that unphysical phases are removed by
287: field redefinitions, and $U_\mathrm{PMNS}$ contains one Dirac phase
288: and two Majorana phases. The latter are physical only in the case of
289: Majorana neutrinos, for Dirac neutrinos the two Majorana phases can be
290: absorbed as well.
291:
292: Many attractive classes of models lead to interesting predictions for
293: the neutrino mass matrix $m_\nu$, such as for instance tri-bimaximal
294: \cite{tribi} or bimaximal \cite{bimax} mixing where
295: $V^\dagger_{\nu_\mathrm{L}}$ takes the forms
296: %
297: \begin{eqnarray}
298: V^\dagger_{\nu_\mathrm{L},\mathrm{tri}} =
299: \left(\begin{array}{ccc}
300: \!\sqrt{2/3}&1/\sqrt{3} &0\!\\
301: \!-1/\sqrt{6}&1/\sqrt{3}&1/\sqrt{2}\!\\
302: \!1/\sqrt{6}&-1/\sqrt{3}&1/\sqrt{2}\!
303: \end{array}
304: \right)\;\mbox{or}\;\;
305: V^\dagger_{\nu_\mathrm{L},\mathrm{bi}} =
306: \left(\begin{array}{ccc}
307: \!1/\sqrt{2}& 1/\sqrt{2}&0\!\\
308: \!-1/2&1/2&1/\sqrt{2}\!\\
309: \!1/2&-1/2&1/\sqrt{2}\!
310: \end{array}
311: \right),
312: \end{eqnarray}
313: %
314: respectively, although the sum rule is not necessarily restricted
315: to either of these two forms.
316: As mentioned in the introduction such predictions are
317: not directly experimentally accessible because of the presence of the
318: charged lepton corrections. However, this challenge can be overcome
319: when we make the additional assumption that the charged lepton mixing
320: matrix has a CKM-like structure, in the sense that $V_{e_\mathrm{L}}$
321: is dominated by a 1-2 mixing, i.e.\ that its elements
322: $(V_{e_\mathrm{L}})_{13}$, $(V_{e_\mathrm{L}})_{23}$,
323: $(V_{e_\mathrm{L}})_{31}$ and $(V_{e_\mathrm{L}})_{32}$ are
324: very small compared to $(V_{e_\mathrm{L}})_{ij}$ ($i,j = 1,2$).
325: %
326: In the following simplified derivation, we shall take these elements to be
327: approximately zero, i.e.\
328: %
329: \begin{eqnarray}\label{Eq:AssumptionForUe}
330: V_{e_\mathrm{L}} \approx
331: \left(\begin{array}{ccc}
332: \!(V_{e_\mathrm{L}})_{11}& (V_{e_\mathrm{L}})_{12}&0\!\\
333: \!(V_{e_\mathrm{L}})_{21}& (V_{e_\mathrm{L}})_{22}&0\!\\
334: \!0&0&1\!
335: \end{array}
336: \right) ,
337: \end{eqnarray}
338: %
339: and later on comment on the effect of them being non-zero (see footnote \ref{theta12e}). For a derivation including these elements, see \cite{Antusch:2005kw}.
340: %
341: This situation arises in many generic classes of flavour models in
342: the context of unified theories of fundamental interactions, where
343: quarks and leptons are joined in representations of the unified gauge
344: symmetries~\cite{sumrule,reviews}.
345:
346: Under this assumption, it follows directly from
347: Eq.~(\ref{Eq:PMNS_Definition}) that $(U_{\mathrm{PMNS}})_{31}$,
348: $(U_{\mathrm{PMNS}})_{32}$ and $(U_{\mathrm{PMNS}})_{33}$ are
349: independent of $V_{e_\mathrm{L}}$, and depend only on the
350: diagonalization matrix $V^\dagger_{\nu_\mathrm{L}}$ of the neutrino
351: mass matrix. This leads to the parameterization-independent sum rules
352: which we give in this form for the first time:
353: %
354: \begin{subequations}\label{Eq:InvSumrules}\begin{eqnarray}
355: \label{Eq:InvSumrule1} |(V^\dagger_{\nu_\mathrm{L}})_{31}| &\approx&
356: |(U_{\mathrm{PMNS}})_{31}|\;,\\
357: \label{Eq:InvSumrule2} |(V^\dagger_{\nu_\mathrm{L}})_{32}| &\approx&
358: |(U_{\mathrm{PMNS}})_{32}|\;,\\
359: \label{Eq:InvSumrule3} |(V^\dagger_{\nu_\mathrm{L}})_{33}| &\approx&
360: |(U_{\mathrm{PMNS}})_{33}|\;.
361: \end{eqnarray}\end{subequations}
362: %
363: These innocuous looking
364: relations enable powerful tests of the structure of the neutrino mass
365: matrix in the presence of charged lepton
366: corrections.
367: %
368: Note that the left-hand sides of these relations
369: involve neutrino mixing matrix elements in a particular basis,
370: whereas the right-hand sides are basis invariant quantities.
371: This makes sense in the framework of a flavour theory which
372: has a preferred basis, the so-called ``theory basis''.\footnote{Also
373: note that models of neutrino masses have a basis-invariant
374: classification. For example, models of tri-bimaximal neutrino mixing via Constrained Sequential Dominance (CSD) \cite{King:2005bj}
375: fall in an invariant class of seesaw models, even in the presence
376: of charged lepton corrections, as discussed in \cite{King:2006hn}.}
377:
378: Let us now study the sum rules in the standard PDG parameterization of the
379: PMNS matrix (see e.g.\ \cite{PDG}),
380: %
381: \begin{eqnarray}\label{Eq:StandardParametrization}
382: %\hspace{-0.5cm}
383: U_{\mathrm{PMNS}} = \left(
384: \begin{array}{ccc}
385: c_{12}c_{13} &
386: s_{12}c_{13} & s_{13}e^{-\I\delta}\\
387: -c_{23}s_{12}-s_{13}s_{23}c_{12}e^{\I\delta} &
388: c_{23}c_{12}-s_{13}s_{23}s_{12}e^{\I\delta} &
389: s_{23}c_{13}\\
390: s_{23}s_{12}-s_{13}c_{23}c_{12}e^{\I\delta} &
391: -s_{23}c_{12}-s_{13}c_{23}s_{12}e^{\I\delta} &
392: c_{23}c_{13}
393: \end{array}
394: \right) \, P_\mathrm{Maj} \, ,
395: \end{eqnarray}
396: %
397: which is used in most analyses of neutrino oscillation experiments.
398: Here $\delta$ is the so-called Dirac CP violating phase which is in
399: principle measurable in neutrino oscillation experiments, and
400: $P_\mathrm{Maj} = \mathrm{diag}(e^{\I \tfrac{\alpha_1}{2}},
401: e^{\I\tfrac{\alpha_2}{2}}, 0)$ contains the Majorana phases $\alpha_1,
402: \alpha_2$. In the following we will use this standard
403: parameterization (including additional phases) also for
404: $V^\dagger_{\nu_\mathrm{L}}$ and denote the
405: corresponding mixing angles by $\theta_{ij}^\nu$, while the mixing
406: angles $\theta_{ij}$ without superscript refer to the PMNS matrix.
407:
408: In addition to the assumption that $V_{e_\mathrm{L}}$ is of the form
409: of Eq.~(\ref{Eq:AssumptionForUe}) we will now assume that the 1-3
410: mixing in the neutrino mass matrix is negligible,
411: %
412: \begin{equation}\label{eq:th13nu}
413: (V^\dagger_{\nu_\mathrm{L}})_{13} \approx 0 \,.
414: \end{equation}
415: %
416: Many textures for the neutrino mass matrix fulfill this relation
417: exactly, for example the cases of bimaximal and tri-bimaximal mixing,
418: although the assumption in Eq.~(\ref{eq:th13nu}) is more general.
419: Using the assumption (\ref{eq:th13nu}) in the sum rule of
420: Eq.~(\ref{Eq:InvSumrule1}) one obtains
421: %
422: \begin{equation}\label{eq:sumrule_abs}
423: s_{23}^\nu s_{12}^\nu \approx
424: \left| s_{23}s_{12} - s_{13}c_{23}c_{12}e^{\I\delta} \right|
425: \approx
426: s_{23}s_{12} - s_{13}c_{23}c_{12} \cos(\delta) \,,
427: \end{equation}
428: %
429: where the last step holds to leading order in
430: $s_{13}$. Furthermore, Eq.~(\ref{Eq:InvSumrule3}) together with
431: Eq.~(\ref{eq:th13nu}) implies
432: %
433: \begin{equation}\label{eq:th23rule}
434: \theta_{23}^\nu \approx
435: \theta_{23} + \mathcal{O}(\theta_{13}^2) \,.
436: \end{equation}
437: %
438: Using this relation in Eq.~(\ref{eq:sumrule_abs}) leads to the sum
439: rule
440: %
441: \begin{equation}\label{eq:sumrule-gen}
442: \theta_{12} - \theta_{13} \cot(\theta_{23}) \cos (\delta)
443: \approx \theta_{12}^\nu\;,
444: \end{equation}
445: %
446: which holds up to first order in $\theta_{13}$. Hence, we have
447: obtained an approximate expression for the (in general unobservable)
448: mixing angle $\theta_{12}^\nu$ in terms of directly measurable
449: parameters of the PMNS matrix. This sum rule can be used to test a
450: bimaximal ($\theta^{\nu}_{12} = \tfrac{\pi}{4}$) or tri-bimaximal
451: ($\theta^{\nu}_{12} = \arcsin (\tfrac{1}{\sqrt{3}})$) structure of the
452: neutrino mass matrix, but may as well be applied for a different
453: pattern beyond these two examples.\footnote{
454: We would like to remark at this point that the sum rule holds
455: at low energy, where the neutrino oscillation experiments are performed.
456: Therefore, if theory predictions arise at high energies like the
457: GUT scale, their renormalization group evolution has to be taken
458: into account. In seesaw models, the running can be calculated
459: conveniently using the software package REAP \cite{REAP}.}
460: %
461: In the following we will specialise our discussion to models
462: predicting maximal 2-3 mixing in the neutrino mass matrix,
463: $\theta_{23}^\nu = \tfrac{\pi}{4}$. This includes of course the cases
464: of bimaximal and tri-bimaximal mixing. With Eq.~(\ref{eq:th23rule})
465: this leads to the sum rule of Eq.~(\ref{eq:sumrule})~\cite{sumrule}.
466:
467: As a side remark we mention that under the above conditions also a
468: simple relation for $|(U_{\mathrm{PMNS}})_{13}|$ can be obtained,
469: $|(U_{\mathrm{PMNS}})_{13}| \approx |(V_{e_\mathrm{L}})_{12}|\,
470: |(V^\dagger_{\nu_\mathrm{L}})_{23}|$. In the standard
471: parameterization it yields
472: %
473: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:th13rule}
474: \theta_{13}
475: \approx s_{23} \, \theta^e_{12}
476: \approx \tfrac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \theta^e_{12} \;,
477: \end{eqnarray}
478: %
479: where $|(V_{e_\mathrm{L}})_{12}| = \sin(\theta^e_{12}) \approx
480: \theta^e_{12}$, and in the last step we have approximated
481: $\theta_{23}\approx \tfrac{\pi}{4}$. Hence, $\theta_{13}$ is related
482: to the 1-2 mixing in the charged lepton mass matrix.\footnote{Note
483: that in the derivation of the sum rule Eq.~(\ref{eq:sumrule-gen}) it
484: was not necessary to assume that $\theta^e_{12}$ is small. This
485: requirement follows only {\it a posteriori} from
486: Eq.~(\ref{eq:th13rule}) and the fact that $\theta_{13}$ has to be
487: small from data.} This relation has been noticed by many authors,
488: e.g.\ Refs.~\cite{sumrule,refs1,refs2,refs7,refs3,refs5,refs6,refs4,reviews},
489: and it can provide
490: additional hints on the underlying theory of flavour (see for example
491: Ref.~\cite{sumrule}). Here we will not explore this relation further
492: but focus on the sum rule (\ref{eq:sumrule}). Note, however, that
493: under the assumptions (\ref{Eq:AssumptionForUe}) and (\ref{eq:th13nu})
494: the only mixing parameters of the model are $\theta^e_{12},
495: \theta_{12}^\nu, \theta_{23}^\nu$, and through the relations
496: (\ref{eq:th13rule}), (\ref{eq:sumrule-gen}), (\ref{eq:th23rule}) all
497: of them can be expressed in terms of measurable PMNS parameters.
498:
499: Finally, we mention that under the above assumptions
500: Eq.~(\ref{eq:th23rule}) can be used to test predictions for
501: $\theta_{23}^\nu$. This is complementary to the application of the
502: sum rule for $\theta_{12}^\nu$, and a precise determination of
503: $\theta_{23}$ will allow for an additional test of predictions for the
504: neutrino mass matrix.\footnote{\label{theta12e} If the assumption of Eq.~(\ref{Eq:AssumptionForUe}) is
505: relaxed and one allows for a small (but non-zero) 2-3 mixing in the
506: charged lepton mixing matrix, $\theta_{23}^e \ll 1$, there will be a
507: correction of order $\theta_{23}^e$ to Eq.~(\ref{eq:th23rule}), which has
508: to be taken into account when drawing conclusions on $\theta_{23}^\nu$
509: from a measurement of $\theta_{23}$. It can be shown~\cite{sumrule},
510: however, that this correction does not affect the $\theta_{12}$ sum rule
511: (\ref{eq:sumrule-gen}) to leading order.
512: }
513: For the examples of tri-bimaximal and bimaximal
514: neutrino mixing, one can test experimentally the prediction
515: $\theta_{23} \approx \tfrac{\pi}{4}$, in addition to the verification
516: of the corresponding sum rule for $\theta_{12}$. Prospects for the
517: measurement of deviations from maximal 2-3 mixing have been discussed
518: e.g.\ in Ref.~\cite{Antusch:2004yx}.
519:
520:
521: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
522: \section{The Sum Rule and Present Oscillation Data}
523: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
524: \label{sec:fit}
525:
526: In this section we show that already with present global data from
527: neutrino oscillation experiments the sum rule can be used to test the
528: hypotheses of bimaximal or tri-bimaximal mixing in the neutrino mass
529: matrix. Using the results from the global analysis of
530: Ref.~\cite{Maltoni:2004ei} a fit is performed under the assumption of
531: the sum rule Eq.~(\ref{eq:sumrule}) with the constraints
532: $\theta^\nu_{12} = 45^\circ$ for bimaximal mixing or
533: $\theta^{\nu}_{12} = \arcsin (\tfrac{1}{\sqrt{3}}) \approx 35.3^\circ$
534: for tri-bimaximal mixing. (See also Ref.~\cite{Masina:2005hf} for similar
535: considerations.)
536:
537: \begin{figure}[t]
538: \begin{center}
539: \ensuremath{\vcenter{\hbox{\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{fit-contour2}}}}
540: \vspace{0.2cm}
541: %
542: \mycaption{Fit to the present global data on neutrino oscillations
543: under the assumption of the sum rule and bimaximal (left) and
544: tri-bimaximal (right) mixing in the neutrino mass matrix. Allowed
545: regions are shown at 90\%, 95\%, 99\%, 99.73\%~CL (2 dof) with
546: respect to the unconstrained best fit point. The dashed lines
547: correspond to the upper bound on $\theta_{13}$ at $3\,\sigma$.}
548: \label{fig:fit}
549: \end{center}
550: \end{figure}
551:
552: Present data implies that $\theta_{12}$ is significantly smaller than
553: $45^\circ$, with the upper limit of $39.2^\circ$ at $3\,\sigma$
554: dominated by the SNO solar neutrino
555: experiment~\cite{Ahmed:2003kj}. Hence, to reconcile the value
556: $\theta^\nu_{12} = 45^\circ$ for bimaximal mixing one needs a
557: relatively large value of $\theta_{13}$ and $\cos(\delta) \simeq
558: -1$. These expectations are confirmed by the fit, as visible in the
559: left panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:fit}. We obtain $\Delta\chi^2_\mathrm{min}
560: \approx 6.14$ with respect to the unconstrained best fit point, and
561: hence, allowed regions appear only at 99\% and 99.73\%~CL. Fitting the
562: sum rule for bimaximal mixing requires that both, $\theta_{12}$ and
563: $\theta_{13}$, are pushed towards their upper limits which leads to
564: the increase of $\chi^2$ mentioned above. We conclude that already
565: present data disfavours bimaximal neutrino mixing under the assumption of the
566: sum rule at more than $2\sigma$. Hence, either the hypothesis of
567: $\theta_{12}^\nu = 45^\circ$ has to be discarded, or some of the
568: approximations needed for the sum rule are not justified, for instance
569: the charged lepton corrections cannot be of CKM type as assumed in
570: Eq.~(\ref{Eq:AssumptionForUe}). On the other hand, if the fit is
571: accepted, the sum rule for bimaximal mixing predicts
572: that $\theta_{13}$ is close to its present bound and $\delta \simeq
573: \pi$.
574:
575: The right panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:fit} shows the result for
576: the sum rule with
577: tri-bimaximal neutrino mixing. In this case the fit is fully consistent with
578: the data and a best fit point at the same $\chi^2$ as the
579: unconstrained fit is found.
580: This follows since the best fit point $\theta_{12} =
581: 33.2^\circ$ is close to the tri-bimaximal mixing value.
582: Indeed, for small values of $\theta_{13}$, say less than
583: $2^\circ$, the
584: sum rule is satisfied within current experimental errors, for
585: all values $\cos(\delta)$. On the other hand, the sum rule
586: leads to a strengthening of the bound on $\theta_{13}$
587: in the regions where $\cos(\delta) \neq 0$.
588:
589:
590: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
591: \section{The Sum Rule and Sensitivities of Future Experiments}
592: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
593: \label{sec:future}
594:
595: In this section we explore the ability of future experiments to
596: constrain the parameter combination
597: $\theta_{12} - \theta_{13}\cos (\delta)$,
598: appearing on the left-hand
599: side of the sum rule in Eq.~(\ref{eq:sumrule}),
600: in order to obtain
601: information on $\theta_{12}^\nu$, and so enable a comparison with the predicted
602: values of $\theta_{12}^\nu$ coming from particular flavour models.
603: Obviously, in order to do this, the errors on
604: $\theta_{12}$ as well as on $\theta_{13}\cos(\delta)$ should be as
605: small as possible.
606:
607: Let us first discuss the prospects to improve the accuracy on
608: $\theta_{12}$, which is $4.9^\circ$ at $3\,\sigma$ from present
609: data~\cite{Maltoni:2004ei}, dominated by the SNO solar neutrino
610: experiment~\cite{Ahmed:2003kj}. Significant improvement on
611: $\theta_{12}$ can be obtained by long-baseline (LBL) reactor neutrino
612: experiments, similar to the KamLAND experiment~\cite{Araki:2004mb}.
613: %
614: A realistic possibility is that the Super-K experiment will be doped
615: with Gadolinium (SK-Gd)~\cite{Beacom:2003nk}. This will allow for a
616: very efficient detection of reactor $\bar\nu_e$, and by observing the
617: neutrino flux from the surrounding reactors in Japan a precise
618: determination of the ``solar'' oscillation parameters will be
619: obtained~\cite{Choubey:2004bf}. Following the analysis of
620: Ref.~\cite{Petcov:2006gy}, after 5 years of data taking an accuracy of
621: $4.0^\circ$ can be obtained for $\theta_{12}$ at $3\,\sigma$.
622: %
623: Another interesting option would be a big scintillator detector such as
624: LENA. In Ref.~\cite{Petcov:2006gy} the possibility of a 44~kt detector
625: installed in the Frejus underground laboratory has been considered. By
626: the observation of the reactor neutrino flux from nearby reactors in
627: France an accuracy of $2.0^\circ$ can be obtained for $\theta_{12}$ at
628: $3\,\sigma$ after 5 years of data taking.
629:
630: Probably the best way to measure $\theta_{12}$ would be a dedicated
631: reactor experiment with only one reactor site at a distance around
632: $60\,\mathrm{km}$~\cite{Minakata:2004jt,Bandyopadhyay:2004cp}, where
633: the first survival probability minimum would be right in the middle of
634: the reactor event rate spectrum. This has been named ``SPMIN
635: experiment'' in Ref.~\cite{Bandyopadhyay:2004cp}. The obtainable
636: accuracy in this type of experiment, as in all reactor experiments, is
637: a balance between statistical and systematical errors. The former call
638: for large detectors and powerful reactors, whereas the latter require
639: great experimental skill and a careful design. For illustration we
640: consider here a rather ``big'' setup corresponding to an exposure of a
641: liquid scintillator detector of 200~GW~kt~y.\footnote{For comparison,
642: typical nuclear power plants have a thermal power output of order
643: 10~GW, and the KamLAND experiment has a total mass of about 1~kt.}
644: The estimated accuracy at $3\,\sigma$ of such an experiment to
645: $\theta_{12}$ is $0.7^\circ$ from statistical errors only, and
646: $1.1^\circ$ if various systematical effects are taken into account.
647: These numbers have been obtained by applying a similar analysis for
648: the SPMIN experiment as in Ref.~\cite{Petcov:2006gy}, where also a
649: detailed description of the various systematics can be found. At such
650: large exposures systematics have a big impact on the accuracy, but it
651: seems difficult to improve the systematics in a very large kiloton
652: sized detector.
653:
654: \begin{table}[t]
655: \centering
656: \begin{tabular}{lc}
657: \hline\hline
658: & accuracy on $\theta_{12}$ at $3\,\sigma$ \\
659: \hline
660: present data & $4.9^\circ$ \\
661: SK-Gd, 5 years & $4.0^\circ$ \\
662: LENA @ Frejus, 44 kt, 5 y & $2.0^\circ$ \\
663: SPMIN @ 60 km, 200 GW kt y & $1.1^\circ$ \\
664: \hline\hline
665: \end{tabular}
666: \mycaption{Accuracy on $\theta_{12}$ from present data and three
667: options for future LBL reactor experiments.}
668: \label{tab:th12}
669: \end{table}
670:
671: The reason why neither SK-Gd nor LENA at Frejus can compete with a
672: dedicated SPMIN experiment is that many nuclear reactors at various
673: distances contribute which washes out the oscillation signature to
674: some extent. Let us note that also future solar experiments, even with a
675: 1\% measurement of the pp-flux, cannot compete with an SPMIN reactor
676: experiment~\cite{Bandyopadhyay:2004cp}.
677: %
678: The prospects of the $\theta_{12}$ measurement are summarized in
679: Tab.~\ref{tab:th12}. In the following combined analysis with LBL
680: accelerator experiments we will consider as reference values the
681: $3\,\sigma$ accuracies of $4.0^\circ, 2.0^\circ$ and $1.1^\circ$ obtainable
682: at SK-Gd, LENA at Frejus, and a
683: $200\,\mathrm{GW}\,\mathrm{kt}\,\mathrm{y}$ SPMIN experiment, respectively.
684:
685: Next we turn to the sensitivity of LBL accelerator experiments to
686: the combination of physical parameters appearing on the left-hand
687: side of the sum rule in Eq.~(\ref{eq:sumrule}).
688: These experiments are sensitive to
689: $\delta$ and $\theta_{13}$ but have nearly no sensitivity to
690: $\theta_{12}$. Therefore, we will use the input on $\theta_{12}$ from
691: LBL reactor experiments as described above and perform a combined
692: reactor plus accelerator analysis. We follow the general analysis
693: procedure as described in Ref.~\cite{Huber:2002mx} with the difference
694: that we now project onto the direction $\theta_{12} -
695: \theta_{13}\cos(\delta)$ in the parameter space. Thus, the obtained
696: results do include the errors and the correlations on $\theta_{13}$
697: and $\delta$ as well as the errors on $\theta_{12}$, $\Delta
698: m^2_{21}$, $\theta_{23}$, $\Delta m^2_{31}$ and the matter
699: density. Especially the correlation between $\theta_{13}$ and $\delta$
700: is crucial, since the relevant oscillation probability contains terms
701: which go as
702: %
703: \begin{equation}
704: \theta_{13} \sin(\delta)\quad\mathrm{and}\quad\theta_{13} \cos(\delta)\,.
705: \end{equation}
706: %
707: However, the $L/E$-dependence of these two terms is different and
708: hence experiments covering different $L/E$-ranges may have very
709: different sensitivities to $\theta_{13}\cos(\delta)$. For these
710: reasons the accuracy on the combination $\theta_{13}\cos(\delta)$
711: may be very different from the accuracy individually obtained on
712: $\theta_{13}$ and $\delta$. Therefore, a proper treatment and
713: inclusion of the correlation between $\theta_{13}$ and $\delta$ is
714: mandatory to obtain meaningful results.
715:
716: For the experiments discussed in the following the sensitivity to
717: either $\theta_{13} \sin(\delta)$ or $\theta_{13} \cos(\delta)$ is
718: dominated by the data from the appearance channels. There are two main
719: reasons for this: The $\sin(\delta)$ term can only appear in
720: off-diagonal transitions, {\it i.e.} appearance channels, because it
721: is manifestly CP violating. Secondly, a possible $\cos(\delta)$
722: contribution in the disappearance channels is always suppressed with
723: respect to the leading $\theta_{23}$ effect and hence plays no
724: statistically significant role. Only for the very largest values of
725: $\theta_{13}$ there is contribution of the disappearance channels, but
726: it is still very small. We will not discuss the possible impact of
727: short baseline reactor experiments which are designed to determine
728: $\theta_{13}$. The reason is, that all the experiments discussed in
729: the following have a superior sensitivity to $\theta_{13}$ on their
730: own.
731:
732: \begin{table}[t]
733: \centering\small
734: \begin{tabular}{lccll}
735: \hline\hline
736: Setup & Ref. & Baseline & Detector & Beam \\
737: \hline
738: SPL& \cite{Campagne:2006yx} & 130 km & 440 kt WC &
739: 4 MW superbeam, 2 y ($\nu$) + 8 y ($\bar\nu$) \\
740: T2HK& \cite{Campagne:2006yx} & 295 km & 440 kt WC &
741: 4 MW superbeam, 2 y ($\nu$) + 8 y ($\bar\nu$) \\
742: WBB& \cite{Barger:2006vy} & 1300 km & 300 kt WC & 1.5 MW
743: superbeam, 5 y ($\nu$) + 5 y ($\bar\nu$) \\
744: BB350& \cite{Burguet-Castell:2005pa} & 730 km & 440 kt WC &
745: $5\times1.1\cdot 10^{18}~^{18}$Ne + $5\times 2.9\cdot
746: 10^{18}~^{6}$He \\
747: NFC &\cite{Huber:2006wb} & 4000 km & 50 kt MID &50 GeV, $4\times10^{21}~\mu^-$ + $4\times10^{21}~\mu^+$\\
748: NFO &\cite{Huber:2006wb} & 4000+7500 km & 2$\times$50 kt MID* &20 GeV, $4\times10^{21}~\mu^-$ + $4\times10^{21}~\mu^+$ \\
749: \hline\hline
750: \end{tabular}
751: \mycaption{Summary of the six future LBL accelerator experiments
752: considered in this study. WC stands for water \v{C}erenkov detector
753: and all masses for this technology are fiducial masses. MID denotes
754: a magnetized iron calorimeter, whereas MID* denotes an improved
755: version thereof. In the column ``Beam'' we give for BB350 the total
756: number of useful ion decays, and for NFC, NFO the energy of the
757: stored muons and the total number of useful muon decays. For more
758: details see the text.}
759: \label{tab:setups}
760: \end{table}
761:
762: The calculations are performed with the GLoBES software
763: package~\cite{Huber:2004ka}. For the input values of the oscillation
764: parameters we use $\Delta m^2_{31} = 2.5\times 10^{-3}$~eV$^2$,
765: $\Delta m^2_{21} = 8\times 10^{-8}$~eV$^2$, $\theta_{23} = 45^\circ$,
766: and $\theta_{12} = 33.2^\circ$. We consider six examples for future
767: experiments. Their main characteristics are summarized in
768: Tab.~\ref{tab:setups}. They include three second generation superbeam
769: experiments, SPL -- a CERN based experiment with a Mt size water
770: \v{C}erenkov detector at Frejus~\cite{Campagne:2006yx}, T2HK, the
771: second stage of the Japanese T2K project~\cite{Campagne:2006yx} (see
772: also Ref.~\cite{Huber:2002mx}), and WBB -- a wide-band beam with a
773: very long baseline as discussed in the
774: US~\cite{Barger:2006vy,Diwan:2003bp}. Furthermore, we consider an
775: advanced $\beta$-beam setup BB350 as described in
776: Ref.~\cite{Burguet-Castell:2005pa}, with a relativistic
777: $\gamma$-factor of the decaying $^{18}$Ne and $^{6}$He ions of
778: 350. All these experiment are planed to employ a large water
779: \v{C}erenkov detector with a fiducial mass in the range $300 - 440$
780: kt. Note, that the setup labeled WBB assumes an operational time per
781: solar year of $1.7\cdot10^{7}$ s instead of the usual $10^7$ s. The
782: two neutrino factory setups considered here, NFC and NFO are taken
783: from~\cite{Huber:2006wb}. NFC is what we call conservative, in the
784: sense that it employs only one magnetized iron detector (MID) with the
785: canonical properties regarding muon detection threshold and background
786: rejection~\cite{Cervera:2000vy,Huber:2002mx}. NFO is an optimized
787: version, which uses two identical detectors at two baselines of 4000
788: km and 7500 km, the latter being the so-called magic
789: baseline~\cite{Huber:2003ak}. The second difference is that the
790: detector is now an improved MID*, which has a lower muon detection
791: threshold but somewhat larger backgrounds, for details
792: see~\cite{Huber:2006wb}. The lower threshold allows to reduce the muon
793: energy from 50 GeV to 20 GeV.
794:
795: \begin{figure}[t]
796: \begin{center}
797: \ensuremath{\vcenter{\hbox{\includegraphics[width=0.95\textwidth]{large_th13_1}}}}
798: \ensuremath{\vcenter{\hbox{\includegraphics[width=0.95\textwidth]{large_th13_2}}}}
799: \vspace{0.2cm}
800: %
801: \mycaption{The $3\,\sigma$ allowed interval for the parameter
802: combination $\theta_{12} - \theta_{13}\cos(\delta)$
803: appearing on the left-hand
804: side of the sum rule in Eq.~(\ref{eq:sumrule}),
805: as a function of the true value of $\delta$ for
806: $\sin^22\theta_{13}=10^{-1}$ from various LBL experiments. The
807: dashed lines correspond to the $\mathrm{sgn}(\Delta m^2_{31})$
808: degenerate solution. The colors indicate different errors on
809: $\theta_{12}$: blue -- $4.0^\circ$, red -- $2.0^\circ$ and green --
810: $1.1^\circ$ (at $3\,\sigma$). A true value
811: $\sin^2 \theta_{12}=0.3$ ($\theta_{12}=33.2^\circ$) has been
812: assumed. The horizontal lines show the sum rule
813: predictions corresponding to bimaximal and
814: tri-bimaximal neutrino mixing.}
815: \label{fig:lth13}
816: \end{center}
817: \end{figure}
818:
819: Figs.~\ref{fig:lth13} and \ref{fig:mth13} show the results for the
820: $3\,\sigma$ allowed interval in $\theta_{12} -
821: \theta_{13}\cos(\delta)$ as a function of the true value of $\delta$
822: assuming $\sin^22\theta_{13}=10^{-1}$ and $10^{-2}$, respectively,
823: from the considered experimental setups. This allowed interval can be
824: compared with theoretical predictions for $\theta_{12}^\nu$. We
825: illustrate in the figures the cases of bimaximal and tri-bimaximal
826: mixing by the horizontal lines, but of course any prediction for
827: $\theta_{12}^\nu$ can be confronted with the outcome of the
828: experiments.
829: %
830: Since we have used as true value for $\theta_{12}$ the present best
831: fit point of $33.2^\circ$, bimaximal mixing ($\theta_{12}^\nu =
832: 45^\circ$) can be obtained only for large values of $\theta_{13}$ and
833: $\delta \simeq 180^\circ$, in agreement with the discussion in
834: Sec.~\ref{sec:fit}. For larger (smaller) true values of
835: $\theta_{12}$, the bands and islands in Figs.~\ref{fig:lth13} and
836: \ref{fig:mth13} are shifted up (down) correspondingly.
837:
838:
839: \begin{figure}[t]
840: \begin{center}
841: \ensuremath{\vcenter{\hbox{\includegraphics[width=0.95\textwidth]{medium_th13_1}}}}
842: \ensuremath{\vcenter{\hbox{\includegraphics[width=0.95\textwidth]{medium_th13_2}}}}
843: \vspace{0.2cm}
844: %
845: \mycaption{Same as Fig.~\ref{fig:lth13} but for $\sin^22\theta_{13}=10^{-2}$.}
846: \label{fig:mth13}
847: \end{center}
848: \end{figure}
849:
850: All experiments shown in Figs.~\ref{fig:lth13} and \ref{fig:mth13}
851: have good sensitivity to $\theta_{12} - \theta_{13}\cos(\delta)$. In
852: many cases only some specific values of the CP phase $\delta$ are
853: consistent with a given prediction for $\theta_{12}^\nu$, which
854: illustrates the power of the sum rule. An interesting observation is
855: that the presence of the mass hierarchy degenerate solutions (dashed
856: lines) limits the usefulness of SPL and T2HK severely. In these
857: experiments the matter effect is small because of the relatively short
858: baseline. This implies that the mass hierarchy degenerate solution
859: cannot be resolved. Furthermore, the degenerate solution appears at a
860: similar value of $\theta_{13}$ but at a fake CP phase close to $\pi -
861: \delta$~\cite{Minakata:2001qm}. This changes the sign of the term
862: $\theta_{13}\cos(\delta)$, which explains the shape of the dashed
863: curves in the figures. Because of this degeneracy an ambiguity appears
864: when the sum rule is applied for SPL and T2HK, which significantly
865: limits the possibility to distinguish between various predictions for
866: $\theta_{12}^\nu$, especially for large values of $\theta_{13}$ as
867: visible in Fig.~\ref{fig:lth13}. A solution to this problem could be
868: the information provided by atmospheric neutrinos in the Mt size
869: detectors used in these experiments~\cite{Huber:2005ep} (which is not
870: included here). For the other experiments the problem of the
871: degeneracy is absent, since the mass hierarchy degeneracy can be
872: resolved (at sufficiently large $\theta_{13}$) thanks to the longer
873: baselines.
874:
875: \begin{figure}[t]
876: \begin{center}
877: \ensuremath{\vcenter{\hbox{\includegraphics[width=0.95\textwidth]{relative}}}}
878: \vspace{0.5cm}
879: %
880: \mycaption{The $3\,\sigma$ error in degrees for the combination of
881: parameters $\theta_{12} - \theta_{13}\cos(\delta)$, appearing on the
882: left-hand side of the sum rule in Eq.~(\ref{eq:sumrule}), as a
883: function of the true value of $\delta$ for
884: $\sin^22\theta_{13}=10^{-2}$ (left) and $\sin^22\theta_{13}=10^{-1}$
885: (right). The different colored lines are for different experiments
886: as given in the legend. The $\mathrm{sgn}(\Delta m^2_{31})$
887: degenerate solution has been omitted. Although $\sin^2 \theta_{12}=0.3$
888: ($\theta_{12}=33.2^\circ$) has been used as true value, the results are practically
889: independent of this assumption. The error on $\theta_{12}$ is
890: $1.1^\circ$ at $3\,\sigma$.}
891: \label{fig:error}
892: \end{center}
893: \end{figure}
894:
895: The performance of all experiments is summarized also in
896: Fig.~\ref{fig:error}, which shows the obtainable $3\,\sigma$ accuracy
897: for the combination of parameters
898: $\theta_{12} - \theta_{13}\cos(\delta)$,
899: appearing on the left-hand
900: side of the sum rule in Eq.~(\ref{eq:sumrule}), as
901: a function of the true value of $\delta$ for the two cases
902: $\sin^22\theta_{13}=10^{-2}$ and $10^{-1}$.
903: This figure shows that it
904: will be possible to discriminate between models whose predictions for
905: $\theta_{12}^\nu$ differ by a few degrees.
906: %
907: For the large value of $\theta_{13}$ assumed in Figs.~\ref{fig:lth13}
908: and \ref{fig:error} (right), $\sin^22\theta_{13}=10^{-1}$, the total
909: uncertainty is dominated by the term $\theta_{13}\cos(\delta)$ in the
910: sum rule, and a modest improvement of the current error on
911: $\theta_{12}$ will be enough for exploring the sum rule. The accuracy
912: depends significantly on the true value of $\delta$. Obviously the
913: impact of the term $\theta_{13}\cos(\delta)$ is larger for
914: $|\cos(\delta)| \simeq 1$. For smaller values of $\theta_{13}$ the
915: accuracy on $\theta_{12}$ becomes more important, the overall
916: sensitivity is dominated by the LBL reactor measurement, and the
917: dependence on $\delta$ is weaker.\footnote{As visible in
918: Fig.~\ref{fig:mth13}, for a few
919: values of $\delta$ for T2HK the allowed region of $\theta_{12} -
920: \theta_{13}\cos(\delta)$ consists of two disconnected intervals even for
921: fixed neutrino mass hierarchy, because of the so-called intrinsic
922: degeneracy. This explains the ``turn over'' of the T2HK lines at some
923: values of $\delta$ in Fig.~\ref{fig:error} (left).}
924:
925: It follows from Figs.~\ref{fig:lth13}, \ref{fig:mth13}, and
926: \ref{fig:error} that NFO has the best performance for all values of
927: $\theta_{13}$, making this the machine of choice for testing the sum
928: rule.
929: %
930: NFC compares well to BB350 for this measurement, whereas the
931: performance on $\delta$ and $\theta_{13}$ individually is much worse
932: for NFC than for BB350. The reason for this
933: behaviour is that an experiment whose events are centered around the
934: first oscillation maximum like a $\beta$-beam or superbeam is mainly
935: sensitive to the $\theta_{13}\sin(\delta)$ term. A neutrino factory,
936: however, gets most of its events above the first oscillation maximum
937: and thus is much more sensitive to the $\theta_{13}\cos(\delta)$ term.
938: %
939: This explains also the relatively good performance of the WBB visible
940: from the right panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:error}, where WBB performs
941: second only to NFO. For such large values of $\theta_{13}$
942: ($\sin^22\theta_{13}=10^{-1}$) spectral information far beyond the
943: first oscillation maximum can be explored efficiently, which is
944: important for constraining $\theta_{13}\cos(\delta)$.
945:
946: For the somewhat smaller value of $\theta_{13}$,
947: $\sin^22\theta_{13}=10^{-2}$, the performances of NFO, NFC, and BB350
948: become rather similar, whereas the accuracies obtainable at superbeams
949: depend still to some extent on the true value of $\delta$, see
950: Fig.~\ref{fig:error} (left). Note that in this figure the most
951: optimistic accuracy on $\theta_{12}$ from an SPMIN reactor experiment
952: has been assumed, and that the mass hierarchy degeneracy has not been
953: taken into account. Indeed, decreasing the true value of $\theta_{13}$
954: for all setups besides the neutrino factory one, at some point the mass
955: hierarchy degenerate solution kicks in and introduces an ambiguity in
956: the allowed interval for $\theta_{12} - \theta_{13}\cos(\delta)$,
957: compare also Fig.~\ref{fig:mth13}.
958:
959: \begin{figure}[t]
960: \begin{center}
961: \includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{th12prediction}
962: %
963: \mycaption{The prediction for $\theta_{12}$ from the sum rule
964: with tri-bimaximal neutrino mixing, as given in
965: Eq.(\ref{eq:th12pred}). The different curves show the predicted
966: $3\,\sigma$ interval for $\theta_{12}$ following from a NFO
967: measurement of $\theta_{13}\cos(\delta)$ as a function of the true
968: values of $\delta$ and $\theta_{13}$.} \label{fig:th12pred}
969: \end{center}
970: \end{figure}
971:
972: For a given model prediction of the neutrino mixing angle
973: $\theta^{\nu}_{12}$, the sum rule
974: in Eq.~(\ref{eq:sumrule}) may be expressed as
975: a prediction for the physical solar mixing angle as a function of
976: the CP violating Dirac oscillation phase $\delta$.
977: Fig.~\ref{fig:th12pred} shows the sum rule prediction for the PMNS
978: parameter $\theta_{12}$ corresponding to
979: tri-bimaximal mixing in the neutrino mass matrix,
980: $\theta^{\nu}_{12} = \arcsin (\tfrac{1}{\sqrt{3}}) \approx
981: 35.3^\circ$, i.e.,
982: %
983: \begin{equation}\label{eq:th12pred}
984: \theta_{12} \approx 35.3^\circ + \theta_{13}\cos(\delta) \,.
985: \end{equation}
986: %
987: In the figure we have simulated data for the NFO setup for
988: different true values of $\theta_{13}$ and $\delta$ and used
989: Eq.~(\ref{eq:th12pred}) to calculate the resulting $3\,\sigma$ range
990: for the predicted $\theta_{12}$. This result can be compared with the
991: outcome of a separate measurement of $\theta_{12}$ (for example in a
992: reactor experiment) to test whether the hypothesis of tri-bimaximal
993: neutrino mixing is compatible with the assumptions leading to the sum
994: rule.
995:
996: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
997: \section{Summary and Conclusions}
998: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
999: \label{sec:conclusions}
1000:
1001: In this work we have considered the sum rule in Eq.~(\ref{eq:sumrule}),
1002: and in particular how well the combination of parameters
1003: $\theta_{12}- \theta_{13}\cos(\delta)$, which appears on the
1004: left-hand side, can be measured in oscillation experiments.
1005: This is important, since the sum rule follows from
1006: quite general assumptions which are satisfied in a wide
1007: class of flavour models. Moreover, particular such flavour models
1008: make definite predictions for $\theta_{12}^\nu$, and the sum
1009: rule then enables these models to be tested.
1010:
1011: We have derived the sum rule, starting from a parameterization
1012: independent set of sum rules, which follow from certain well defined
1013: assumptions about the nature of charged lepton and neutrino mixings.
1014: We then expressed the sum rule in terms of the standard PMNS mixing
1015: parameters (see e.g.\ \cite{PDG}) commonly used in presenting the
1016: results of neutrino oscillation experiments.
1017: %
1018: One way to view the sum rule is to
1019: consider the charged lepton corrections to the neutrino mixing angle
1020: $\theta_{12}^\nu$ predicted from theory, leading to the physical solar neutrino
1021: mixing angle $\theta_{12}$. Then, under certain
1022: assumptions, the charged lepton correction turns out to only depend on
1023: the physical combination $\theta_{13}\cos(\delta)$. To be precise,
1024: the sum rule in Eq.~(\ref{eq:sumrule}) holds up to first order in
1025: $\theta_{13}$ under the following assumptions:
1026: %
1027: \begin{itemize}
1028: \item[({\it a})]
1029: The charged lepton mixing matrix is CKM-like, i.e., dominated by the
1030: 1-2 mixing angle, see Eq.~(\ref{Eq:AssumptionForUe}).
1031: %
1032: \item[({\it b})]
1033: The 1-3 element of the neutrino mixing matrix is negligible,
1034: $\theta_{13}^\nu \approx 0$.
1035: %
1036: \item[({\it c})] The 2-3 mixing in the neutrino mass matrix is
1037: maximal, $\theta_{23}^\nu \approx 45^\circ$, which under the previous
1038: two assumptions is equivalent to $\theta_{23} \approx 45^\circ +
1039: \mathcal{O}(\theta_{13}^2)$.
1040: \end{itemize}
1041: %
1042: If condition ({\it c}) is not satisfied and $\theta_{23}$ turns out to
1043: be non-maximal the generalized sum rule Eq.~(\ref{eq:sumrule-gen}) has
1044: to be used. This would not change the reasoning of this paper, since
1045: $\theta_{12}^\nu$ still can be expressed only in terms of measurable
1046: quantities, involving now also $\theta_{23}$. Hence, condition
1047: ({\it c}) has been adopted here just for simplicity.
1048: %
1049: Condition ({\it a}) holds for a large class of models. For example, in
1050: many GUT models the charged lepton mixing matrix is related to the
1051: quark mixing matrix since quarks and leptons are joined in
1052: representations of the unified gauge symmetries. On the other hand,
1053: conditions ({\it b}) and ({\it c}) are rather typical for flavour
1054: models in the neutrino sector. In particular, the popular examples of
1055: bimaximal and tri-bimaximal mixing fulfill conditions ({\it b}) and
1056: ({\it c}) exactly.
1057:
1058: We have demonstrated the usefulness of the sum rule by imposing it as
1059: a constraint in a fit to present global data from neutrino oscillation
1060: experiments under the assumptions of bimaximal and tri-bimaximal
1061: neutrino mixing. This analysis shows that under the condition ({\it
1062: a}) bimaximal neutrino mixing is disfavoured at about $2\,\sigma$ by
1063: present data with respect to tri-bimaximal mixing, which is perfectly
1064: compatible with the data. If the fit for bimaximal mixing is accepted
1065: the sum rule predicts that $\theta_{13}$ is close to its present bound
1066: and $\delta \simeq \pi$.
1067:
1068: In the main part of the paper we have concentrated on
1069: the sum rule in the context of future high
1070: precision neutrino oscillation experiments. We have considered
1071: long-baseline reactor experiments for a precise measurement of
1072: $\theta_{12}$, as well as six examples for advanced long-baseline
1073: accelerator experiments to constrain the parameter combination
1074: $\theta_{13}\cos(\delta)$ appearing in the sum rule. These setups
1075: include three options for second generation superbeam experiments, a
1076: $\beta$-beam, and two examples for a neutrino factory. It is shown
1077: that most of these experiments will allow for a rather precise testing
1078: of the sum rule, and $\theta_{12}^\nu$ can be inferred within an
1079: accuracy of few degrees, where the precise value shows some dependence
1080: on the true values of $\theta_{13}$ and $\delta$. For
1081: $\sin^22\theta_{13} \lesssim 10^{-2}$ the accuracy is dominated by the
1082: error on $\theta_{12}$, whereas for large values of $\theta_{13}$ the
1083: precision on the term $\theta_{13}\cos(\delta)$ dominates. Obviously
1084: its impact is larger for $|\cos(\delta)| \simeq 1$. Because of the
1085: appearance of $\cos(\delta)$ experiments operating not only at the
1086: first oscillation maximum (where there is good sensitivity to
1087: $\sin(\delta)$) are well suited for this kind of measurement, for
1088: example a neutrino factory or a wide-band superbeam.
1089: %
1090: Another interesting observation is that the mass hierarchy degeneracy
1091: plays an important role. Since this degeneracy introduces an ambiguity
1092: in the CP phase $\delta$ its appearance significantly reduces the
1093: information on $\theta_{12}^\nu$ which can be extracted from the sum
1094: rule.
1095:
1096: To conclude, the neutrino mixing sum rule considered in this work is a
1097: convenient tool to explore the structure of the neutrino mass matrix
1098: in the presence of charged lepton corrections, and to test whole
1099: classes of models of neutrino masses and mixings. Already applied to
1100: present data it is possible to obtain non-trivial statements, whereas
1101: with future high precision oscillation experiments a rather accurate
1102: testing of models will become possible in the framework of the sum
1103: rule.
1104:
1105: \subsection*{Acknowledgments}
1106:
1107: We would like to thank Michal Malinsky for reading the manuscript.
1108: The work of S.~Antusch was supported by the EU 6th Framework Program
1109: MRTN-CT-2004-503369 ``The Quest for Unification: Theory Confronts
1110: Experiment''. S.~F.~King and T.~Schwetz acknowledge the EU ILIAS project under contract
1111: RII3-CT-2004-506222 for support.
1112: Computations were performed on facilities supported by the NSF
1113: under Grants No.\ EIA-032078 (GLOW), PHY-0516857 (CMS Reserach
1114: Program subcontract from UCLA), and PHY-0533280 (DISUN), and by
1115: the WARF.
1116:
1117:
1118: \providecommand{\bysame}{\leavevmode\hbox to3em{\hrulefill}\thinspace}
1119:
1120: \begin{thebibliography}{10}
1121:
1122: \bibitem{sumrule}
1123: %\bibitem{King:2005bj}
1124: S.~F.~King,
1125: % ``Predicting neutrino parameters from SO(3) family symmetry and quark-lepton
1126: %unification,''
1127: JHEP {\bf 0508} (2005) 105
1128: [arXiv:hep-ph/0506297];
1129: %
1130: %\bibitem{Masina:2005hf}
1131: I.~Masina,
1132: %``A maximal atmospheric mixing from a maximal CP violating phase,''
1133: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 633} (2006) 134
1134: [arXiv:hep-ph/0508031];
1135: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B633,134;%%
1136: %
1137: %\bibitem{Antusch:2005kw}
1138: S.~Antusch and S.~F.~King,
1139: % ``Charged lepton corrections to neutrino mixing angles and CP phases
1140: % revisited,''
1141: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 631} (2005) 42
1142: [arXiv:hep-ph/0508044].
1143:
1144: \bibitem{PDG}
1145: W.-M.~Yao {\it et al.}\ [Particle Data Group Collaboration],
1146: J.\ Phys.\ G {\bf 33} (2006) 1.
1147:
1148: \bibitem{tribi}
1149: P.~F.~Harrison, D.~H.~Perkins and W.~G.~Scott,
1150: %``Tri-bimaximal mixing and the neutrino oscillation data,''
1151: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 530} (2002) 167
1152: [arXiv:hep-ph/0202074].
1153: %
1154: A similar but physically different
1155: form was proposed earlier in: L.~Wolfenstein,
1156: %``Oscillations Among Three Neutrino Types And CP Violation,''
1157: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 18} (1978) 958.
1158:
1159: \bibitem{bimax}
1160: V.~D.~Barger, S.~Pakvasa, T.~J.~Weiler and K.~Whisnant,
1161: %``Bi-maximal mixing of three neutrinos,''
1162: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 437} (1998) 107
1163: [arXiv:hep-ph/9806387].
1164:
1165: \bibitem{refs1}
1166: See e.g.:
1167: %\bibitem{Ohlsson:2002rb}
1168: T.~Ohlsson and G.~Seidl,
1169: %``A flavor symmetry model for bilarge leptonic mixing and the lepton
1170: %masses,''
1171: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 643} (2002) 247
1172: [arXiv:hep-ph/0206087];
1173: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0206087;%%
1174: C.~Giunti and M.~Tanimoto,
1175: %``Deviation of neutrino mixing from bi-maximal,''
1176: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 66}, 053013 (2002)
1177: [arXiv:hep-ph/0207096].
1178:
1179: \bibitem{refs2}
1180: S.~F.~King,
1181: %``Constructing the large mixing angle MNS matrix in see-saw models with
1182: %right-handed neutrino dominance,''
1183: JHEP {\bf 0209} (2002) 011
1184: [arXiv:hep-ph/0204360];
1185: C.~Giunti and M.~Tanimoto,
1186: %``CP violation in bilarge lepton mixing,''
1187: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 66}, 113006 (2002)
1188: [arXiv:hep-ph/0209169];
1189: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0209169;%%
1190: P.~H.~Frampton, S.~T.~Petcov and W.~Rodejohann,
1191: %``On deviations from bimaximal neutrino mixing,''
1192: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 687} (2004) 31
1193: [arXiv:hep-ph/0401206];
1194: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0401206;%%
1195: G.~Altarelli, F.~Feruglio and I.~Masina,
1196: %``Can neutrino mixings arise from the charged lepton sector?,''
1197: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 689} (2004) 157
1198: [arXiv:hep-ph/0402155];
1199: A.~Romanino,
1200: %``Charged lepton contributions to the solar neutrino mixing and
1201: %theta(13),''
1202: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 70}, 013003 (2004)
1203: [arXiv:hep-ph/0402258].
1204: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0402258;%%
1205:
1206: \bibitem{refs7}
1207: K.~A.~Hochmuth and W.~Rodejohann,
1208: %``Low and high energy phenomenology of quark-lepton complementarity
1209: %scenarios,''
1210: arXiv:hep-ph/0607103.
1211: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0607103;%%
1212:
1213: \bibitem{refs3}
1214: F.~Feruglio,
1215: %``Models of neutrino masses and mixings,''
1216: Nucl.\ Phys.\ Proc.\ Suppl.\ {\bf 143}, 184 (2005)
1217: [Nucl.\ Phys.\ Proc.\ Suppl.\ {\bf 145}, 225 (2005)]
1218: [arXiv:hep-ph/0410131];
1219: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0410131;%%
1220: Z.~Z.~Xing,
1221: %``Nontrivial correlation between the CKM and MNS matrices,''
1222: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 618} (2005) 141
1223: [arXiv:hep-ph/0503200].
1224: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0503200;%%
1225:
1226: \bibitem{refs5}
1227: F.~Plentinger and W.~Rodejohann,
1228: %``Deviations from tribimaximal neutrino mixing,''
1229: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 625} (2005) 264
1230: [arXiv:hep-ph/0507143].
1231: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0507143;%%
1232:
1233: \bibitem{refs6}
1234: R.~N.~Mohapatra and W.~Rodejohann,
1235: %``Broken mu-tau symmetry and leptonic CP violation,''
1236: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 72} (2005) 053001
1237: [arXiv:hep-ph/0507312].
1238: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0507312;%%
1239:
1240: \bibitem{refs4}
1241: T.~Ohlsson,
1242: %``Bimaximal fermion mixing from the quark and leptonic mixing matrices,''
1243: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 622} (2005) 159
1244: [arXiv:hep-ph/0506094].
1245: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0506094;%%
1246:
1247: \bibitem{Antusch:2005kw}
1248: S.~Antusch and S.~F.~King, in \cite{sumrule}.
1249:
1250: \bibitem{reviews}
1251: Further examples of models can, for example, be found in:
1252: %\bibitem{King:2003rf}
1253: S.~F.~King and G.~G.~Ross,
1254: %``Fermion masses and mixing angles from SU(3) family symmetry and
1255: %unification,''
1256: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 574} (2003) 239
1257: [arXiv:hep-ph/0307190];
1258: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0307190;%%
1259: %\bibitem{deMedeirosVarzielas:2005ax}
1260: I.~de Medeiros Varzielas and G.~G.~Ross,
1261: %``SU(3) family symmetry and neutrino bi-tri-maximal mixing,''
1262: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 733} (2006) 31
1263: [arXiv:hep-ph/0507176];
1264: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0507176;%%
1265: %\bibitem{deMedeirosVarzielas:2006fc}
1266: I.~de Medeiros Varzielas, S.~F.~King and G.~G.~Ross,
1267: %``Neutrino tri-bi-maximal mixing from a non-Abelian discrete family
1268: %symmetry,''
1269: arXiv:hep-ph/0607045;
1270: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0607045;%%
1271: S.~F.~King and M.~Malinsky,
1272: %``Towards a complete theory of fermion masses and mixings with SO(3) family
1273: %symmetry and 5d SO(10) unification,''
1274: JHEP {\bf 0611} (2006) 071
1275: [arXiv:hep-ph/0608021];
1276: S.~F.~King and M.~Malinsky,
1277: %``A(4) family symmetry and quark-lepton unification,''
1278: arXiv:hep-ph/0610250.
1279:
1280: \bibitem{King:2005bj}
1281: S.~F.~King, in \cite{sumrule}.
1282:
1283: \bibitem{King:2006hn}
1284: S.~F.~King,
1285: %``Invariant see-saw models and sequential dominance,''
1286: arXiv:hep-ph/0610239.
1287: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0610239;%%
1288:
1289: \bibitem{REAP}
1290: S.~Antusch, J.~Kersten, M.~Lindner, M.~Ratz and M.~A.~Schmidt,
1291: %``Running neutrino mass parameters in see-saw scenarios,''
1292: JHEP {\bf 0503} (2005) 024
1293: [arXiv:hep-ph/0501272].
1294: %%CITATION = JHEPA,0503,024;%%
1295:
1296: \bibitem{Antusch:2004yx}
1297: S.~Antusch, P.~Huber, J.~Kersten, T.~Schwetz and W.~Winter,
1298: %``Is there maximal mixing in the lepton sector?,''
1299: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 70} (2004) 097302
1300: [arXiv:hep-ph/0404268].
1301: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0404268;%%
1302:
1303: \bibitem{Maltoni:2004ei}
1304: M.~Maltoni, T.~Schwetz, M.~A.~Tortola and J.~W.~F.~Valle,
1305: %``Status of global fits to neutrino oscillations,''
1306: New J.\ Phys.\ {\bf 6} (2004) 122,
1307: for an update see arXiv:hep-ph/0405172 v5;
1308: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0405172;%%
1309: %
1310: %\bibitem{Schwetz:2006dh}
1311: T.~Schwetz,
1312: %``Global fits to neutrino oscillation data,''
1313: Phys.\ Scripta {\bf T127}, 1 (2006)
1314: [arXiv:hep-ph/0606060].
1315: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0606060;%%
1316:
1317: \bibitem{Masina:2005hf}
1318: I.~Masina, in \cite{sumrule}.
1319:
1320: \bibitem{Ahmed:2003kj}
1321: S.~N.~Ahmed {\it et al.} [SNO Collaboration],
1322: %``Measurement of the total active B-8 solar neutrino flux at the Sudbury
1323: %Neutrino Observatory with enhanced neutral current sensitivity,''
1324: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 92} (2004) 181301
1325: [arXiv:nucl-ex/0309004].
1326: %%CITATION = NUCL-EX 0309004;%%
1327:
1328: \bibitem{Araki:2004mb}
1329: T.~Araki {\it et al.} [KamLAND Collaboration],
1330: %``Measurement of neutrino oscillation with KamLAND: Evidence of spectral
1331: %distortion,''
1332: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 94}, 081801 (2005)
1333: [arXiv:hep-ex/0406035].
1334: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0406035;%%
1335:
1336: \bibitem{Beacom:2003nk}
1337: J.~F.~Beacom and M.~R.~Vagins,
1338: %``GADZOOKS! Antineutrino spectroscopy with large water Cherenkov
1339: %detectors,''
1340: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 93}, 171101 (2004)
1341: [arXiv:hep-ph/0309300].
1342: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0309300;%%
1343:
1344: \bibitem{Choubey:2004bf}
1345: S.~Choubey and S.~T.~Petcov,
1346: % ``Reactor anti-neutrino oscillations and gadolinium loaded Super-Kamiokande
1347: %detector,''
1348: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 594} (2004) 333
1349: [arXiv:hep-ph/0404103].
1350: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0404103;%%
1351:
1352: \bibitem{Petcov:2006gy}
1353: S.~T.~Petcov and T.~Schwetz,
1354: %``Precision measurement of solar neutrino oscillation parameters by a
1355: %long-baseline reactor neutrino experiment in Europe,''
1356: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 642} (2006) 487
1357: [arXiv:hep-ph/0607155].
1358: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0607155;%%
1359:
1360: \bibitem{Minakata:2004jt}
1361: H.~Minakata, H.~Nunokawa, W.~J.~C.~Teves and R.~Zukanovich Funchal,
1362: %``Reactor measurement of theta(12): Principles, accuracies and physics
1363: %potentials,''
1364: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 71}, 013005 (2005)
1365: [arXiv:hep-ph/0407326].
1366: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0407326;%%
1367:
1368: \bibitem{Bandyopadhyay:2004cp}
1369: A.~Bandyopadhyay, S.~Choubey, S.~Goswami and S.~T.~Petcov,
1370: % ``High precision measurements of Theta(solar) in solar and reactor neutrino
1371: %experiments,''
1372: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 72} (2005) 033013
1373: [arXiv:hep-ph/0410283].
1374: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0410283;%%
1375:
1376: \bibitem{Huber:2002mx}
1377: P.~Huber, M.~Lindner and W.~Winter,
1378: %``Superbeams versus neutrino factories,''
1379: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 645} (2002) 3
1380: [arXiv:hep-ph/0204352].
1381: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0204352;%%
1382:
1383: %\cite{Huber:2004ka}
1384: \bibitem{Huber:2004ka}
1385: P.~Huber, M.~Lindner and W.~Winter,
1386: % ``Simulation of long-baseline neutrino oscillation experiments with
1387: %GLoBES,''
1388: Comput.\ Phys.\ Commun.\ {\bf 167}, 195 (2005)
1389: [arXiv:hep-ph/0407333].
1390: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0407333;%%
1391:
1392: \bibitem{Campagne:2006yx}
1393: J.~E.~Campagne, M.~Maltoni, M.~Mezzetto and T.~Schwetz,
1394: %``Physics potential of the CERN-MEMPHYS neutrino oscillation project,''
1395: arXiv:hep-ph/0603172.
1396: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0603172;%%
1397:
1398: \bibitem{Barger:2006vy}
1399: V.~Barger {\it et al.},
1400: % M.~Dierckxsens, M.~Diwan, P.~Huber, C.~Lewis, D.~Marfatia and B.~Viren,
1401: %``Precision physics with a wide band super neutrino beam,''
1402: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 74}, 073004 (2006)
1403: [arXiv:hep-ph/0607177].
1404: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0607177;%%
1405:
1406: \bibitem{Diwan:2003bp}
1407: M.~V.~Diwan {\it et al.},
1408: %``Very long baseline neutrino oscillation experiments for precise
1409: %measurements of mixing parameters and CP violating effects,''
1410: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 68} (2003) 012002
1411: [arXiv:hep-ph/0303081].
1412: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0303081;%%
1413:
1414: \bibitem{Burguet-Castell:2005pa}
1415: J.~Burguet-Castell, D.~Casper, E.~Couce, J.~J.~Gomez-Cadenas and P.~Hernandez,
1416: %``Optimal beta-beam at the CERN-SPS,''
1417: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 725}, 306 (2005)
1418: [arXiv:hep-ph/0503021].
1419: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0503021;%%
1420:
1421: \bibitem{Huber:2006wb}
1422: P.~Huber, M.~Lindner, M.~Rolinec and W.~Winter,
1423: %``Optimization of a neutrino factory oscillation experiment,''
1424: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 74} (2006) 073003
1425: [arXiv:hep-ph/0606119].
1426: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0606119;%%
1427:
1428: \bibitem{Cervera:2000vy}
1429: A.~Cervera, F.~Dydak and J.~Gomez Cadenas,
1430: %``A large magnetic detector for the neutrino factory,''
1431: Nucl.\ Instrum.\ Meth.\ A {\bf 451} (2000) 123.
1432: %%CITATION = NUIMA,A451,123;%%
1433:
1434: \bibitem{Huber:2003ak}
1435: P.~Huber and W.~Winter,
1436: %``Neutrino factories and the 'magic' baseline,''
1437: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 68}, 037301 (2003)
1438: [arXiv:hep-ph/0301257].
1439: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0301257;%%
1440:
1441: \bibitem{Minakata:2001qm}
1442: H.~Minakata and H.~Nunokawa,
1443: %``Exploring neutrino mixing with low energy superbeams,''
1444: JHEP {\bf 0110} (2001) 001
1445: [arXiv:hep-ph/0108085].
1446: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0108085;%%
1447:
1448: \bibitem{Huber:2005ep}
1449: P.~Huber, M.~Maltoni and T.~Schwetz,
1450: %``Resolving parameter degeneracies in long-baseline experiments by
1451: %atmospheric neutrino data,''
1452: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 71}, 053006 (2005)
1453: [arXiv:hep-ph/0501037].
1454: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0501037;%%
1455:
1456: \end{thebibliography}
1457:
1458: \end{document}
1459:
1460: