\input epsf
\input rotate
\documentstyle[12pt,epsf,colordvi,rotate]{article}
%\setlength{\topmargin}{-1.1in}
%\setlength{\topmargin}{-0.5in}
\setlength{\textheight}{9.0in}
%\setlength{\textheight}{9.5in}
\setlength{\textwidth}{6.5in}
\setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-0.0in}
\setlength{\evensidemargin}{-0.0in}
\setlength{\parindent}{0.50in}
\setlength{\textfloatsep}{0.1in}
\setlength{\intextsep}{0.1in}
\newlength{\reducedwidth}
\setlength{\reducedwidth}{0.9\textwidth}
\newcommand{\beq}{\begin{equation}}
\newcommand{\eeq}{\end{equation}}
\newcommand{\beqs}{\begin{eqnarray}}
\newcommand{\eeqs}{\end{eqnarray}}
\newcommand{\lsim}{\mathrel{\raisebox{-.6ex}{$\stackrel{\textstyle<}{\sim}$}}}
\newcommand{\gsim}{\mathrel{\raisebox{-.6ex}{$\stackrel{\textstyle>}{\sim}$}}}
\title{Oscillation Measurements with Upgraded Conventional Neutrino Beams}
%\author{
\font\eightit=cmti10
\def\r#1{\ignorespaces $^{#1}$}
\begin{document}
\maketitle
%\huge
\begin{center}
%{\bf Oscillation Measurements with Upgraded Conventional Neutrino Beams}
%\hfilneg
\begin{sloppypar}
\noindent
\large
V. Barger, \r{1}
R. Bernstein, \r{4}
A. Bueno, \r{2}
M. Campanelli, \r{2}
D. Casper, \r{3}\\
F. DeJongh, \r{4}
S.Geer, \r{4}
M. Goodman, \r{5}
D.A. Harris, \r{4}
K.S. McFarland, \r{6}\\
N. Mokhov, \r{4}
J. Morfin,\r{4}
J. Nelson,\r{7}
F. Pietropaolo, \r{8}
R. Raja,\r{4}
J. Rico, \r{2}\\
A. Rubbia, \r{2}
H. Schellman, \r{9}
R. Shrock, \r{10}
P. Spentzouris,\r{4}
R. Stefanski, \r{4}\\
L. Wai, \r{11}
K. Whisnant \r{12}
\end{sloppypar}
\normalsize
\vskip .4in
\r{1} {\eightit University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706} \\
\r{2} {\eightit Institut f\"ur Teilchenphysik, ETHZ, CH-8093, Z\"urich, Switzerland} \\
\r{3} {\eightit University of California Irvine, Irvine, CA 92697} \\
\r{4} {\eightit Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, IL 60510} \\
\r{5} {\eightit Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, IL 60439} \\
\r{6} {\eightit University of Rochester, Rochester, NY 14627} \\
\r{7} {\eightit University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455} \\
\r{8} {\eightit University of Padova, Padova, Italy} \\
\r{9} {\eightit Northwestern University, Evanston, IL 60208} \\
\r{10} {\eightit State University of New York Stony Brook, Stony Brook, NY 11794}\\
\r{11} {\eightit Stanford University, Stanford, CA} \\
\r{12} {\eightit Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011} \\
\end{center}
\newpage
\abstract{
We consider the $\nu_\mu \to \nu_e$ oscillation measurements
that would be possible at upgraded 1~GeV and multi--GeV
conventional neutrino sources driven
by future megawatt--scale proton drivers. If these
neutrino superbeams are used
together with detectors that are an order of magnitude larger
than those presently foreseen, we find that the
sensitivity to $\nu_\mu \to \nu_e$
oscillations can be improved by an order of magnitude beyond the next
generation of accelerator based experiments. In addition, over a limited
region of parameter space, the neutrino mass hierarchy can be determined
with a multi--GeV long baseline beam. If the Large Mixing Angle
MSW solution correctly
describes the solar neutrino deficit, there is a small corner of allowed
parameter space in which maximal CP--violation in the lepton sector might
be observable at a 1~GeV medium baseline experiment.
Superbeams with massive detectors would therefore provide a useful tool
en route to a neutrino factory, which would permit a further order of
magnitude improvement in sensitivity, together with a more comprehensive
check of CP--violation and the oscillation framework.
}
\newpage
\section{Prologue}
We have recently completed a six--month study of
the prospective physics program at a neutrino factory,
evaluated as a function of the stored muon energy (up to
50~GeV) and the number of useful muon decays per year
(in the range from $10^{19}$ to $10^{21}$).
The basic conclusions presented in
our report~\cite{report} were that: (1) There is a compelling
physics case for a neutrino factory~\cite{nufact} with a muon beam energy
of about 20~GeV or greater, and (2) The neutrino factory should
provide at least O($10^{19}$)
useful decays per year initially, and ultimately at least
O($10^{20}$) decays per year. The
oscillation physics that can be pursued using initial
electron--neutrino ($\nu_e$) and electron--antineutrino
($\overline{\nu}_e$) beams provides the primary motivation
for a neutrino factory. In particular we found that
with $2 \times 10^{20}$ decays per year, after a few years
of running:
\begin{description}
\item{(i)}
A $\nu_e \rightarrow \nu_\mu$ oscillation signal could
be observed, and the associated amplitude parameter
$\sin^2 2\theta_{13}$ measured, for oscillation amplitudes
approaching $10^{-4}$, three orders of magnitude below the
currently excluded region and two orders of magnitude below
the region expected to be probed by the next generation of
long--baseline accelerator based experiments.
\item{(ii)}
Once a $\nu_e \rightarrow \nu_\mu$ signal has been established
in a
long baseline experiment, matter effects can be exploited to
determine the sign of the difference between the squares
of the neutrino mass eigenstates $\delta m^2_{32}$, and
hence determine the neutrino mass hierarchy.
\item{(iii)}
If the large mixing angle MSW solution describes the solar neutrino
deficit, and if $\sin^2 2\theta_{13}$ is not less than one to two
orders of magnitude below the currently excluded region,
a comparison of $\nu_e \rightarrow \nu_\mu$ and
$\overline{\nu}_e \rightarrow \overline{\nu}_\mu$ oscillation
probabilities would enable the measurement of (or stringent limits
on) CP--violation in the lepton sector.
\item{(iv)}
Measurements of, or stringent limits on, all of the observable
$\nu_e \rightarrow \nu_X$ oscillation modes together with
the observable $\nu_\mu \rightarrow \nu_X$ modes, would enable a
comprehensive test of the assumed oscillation framework.
\end{description}
In parallel with our neutrino factory physics study, a companion
design study~\cite{norbert} was conducted to determine the feasibility
of constructing
a neutrino factory, and to identify the associated R\&D issues. The
design study concluded that a neutrino factory with the
desired parameters was indeed feasible, although it would require
a vigorous and well supported R\&D program. Recognizing that the R\&D
would take some time, and that a neutrino factory would require a
very intense (megawatt--scale) proton driver, it is reasonable to consider
the neutrino oscillation physics program that could be conducted
using a MW--scale proton driver en route to a neutrino factory.
In our neutrino factory physics study report we recommended that
an additional study of the oscillation physics
potential at these ``neutrino superbeams'' be undertaken.
The present document, which can be considered as an addendum to our
initial report, presents results from a study of oscillation physics
at 1~GeV and multi--GeV neutrino superbeams.
\section{Introduction}
In this report we consider the oscillation physics capabilities
of neutrino ``superbeams'', which we define as conventional
neutrino beams produced using megawatt--scale high--energy proton drivers.
Examples of appropriate proton drivers are
(i) the proposed 0.77~MW 50~GeV proton synchrotron
at the Japan Hadron Facility (JHF)~\cite{jhfloi},
(ii) a 4~MW upgraded version of the JHF,
(iii) a new 1.6~MW 16~GeV proton driver that would replace the existing
8~GeV Booster at Fermilab, or
(iv) a fourfold intensity upgrade of the 120~GeV Fermilab Main Injector (MI)
beam (to 1.6~MW) that would become possible once the upgraded (16~GeV)
Booster was operational.
The 4~MW 50~GeV JHF and the 16~GeV upgraded Fermilab Booster, are
both suitable proton drivers for a neutrino factory. Hence a neutrino
superbeam might provide a neutrino physics program en route to a neutrino
factory.
The next generation of accelerator based long--baseline
neutrino oscillation experiments
are expected to confirm the $\nu_\mu \rightarrow \nu_\tau$
oscillation interpretation of the atmospheric
muon--neutrino deficit, and begin to measure the associated oscillation
parameters with modest statistical precision. To make a significant
improvement in oscillation measurements beyond the next generation of
experiments will require a significant increase in signal statistics.
A factor of a few increased neutrino beam flux will not be sufficient
unless there is also a substantial increase in detector mass. We will
therefore assume that superbeam experiments will use detectors an order of
magnitude larger than those currently under construction. Hence, a superbeam
experiment would yield data samples with a statistical sensitivity
a factor of at least $\sqrt{40}$ better than expected for
K2K~\cite{k2k}, MINOS~\cite{minostdr}, OPERA~\cite{opera},
and ICARUS~\cite{icarus}. Clearly, this would enable significant progress in
pinning down $\nu_\mu \rightarrow \nu_\tau$ oscillations, for example.
However, the neutrino oscillation physics program at a superbeam would
have to justify the substantial investment associated with the detector.
For example, a detector costing ten times the MINOS detector would be
of order \$300M.
Hence, more precise measurements of the quantities already
measured by the next generation experiments may be insufficient motivation
for a superbeam.
The primary motivation for a neutrino superbeam is likely to be the
search for, and measurement of, $\nu_\mu \rightarrow \nu_e$ oscillations.
The observation of this mode would enable the associated amplitude parameter
$\sin^2 2\theta_{13}$ to be determined, and open the way for the determination
of the sign of the differences between the squares of the neutrino mass
eigenstates $\delta m^2_{32}$, and hence the determination of the
neutrino mass hierarchy. A
comparison between the oscillation probabilities for
$\nu_\mu \rightarrow \nu_e$ and
$\overline{\nu}_\mu \rightarrow \overline{\nu}_e$ oscillations might
also be sensitive to CP--violation in the lepton sector. Hence, in
principle the $\nu_\mu \rightarrow \nu_e$ mode at a superbeam can
offer a handle on much of the physics that the $\nu_e \rightarrow \nu_\mu$
mode offers at a neutrino factory. Indeed, for low energy neutrino beams
($E_\nu < 10$~GeV) the neutrino fluxes at a superbeam are comparable
or larger than the corresponding neutrino factory fluxes
(see Table~1). However, there
is a substantial qualitative difference between searching for $\nu_e$
appearance at a superbeam and $\nu_\mu$ appearance at a neutrino factory.
The signal signature at a superbeam is the appearance of an isolated
electron (or positron) in a charged current (CC) event. As we will see,
this signature is plagued with backgrounds at the level of O(1\%)
of the
total CC rate. For comparison, the signal signature at a neutrino factory is
the appearance in a CC event of a wrong--sign muon (a muon of the
opposite charge--sign to that of the muons stored in the muon ring).
This signature enables backgrounds to be suppressed to the level of
O(0.01\%)
of the total CC rate~\cite{report}.
Hence, to understand the oscillation
physics potential at a superbeam we must have a good understanding
of the backgrounds and the systematic uncertainties associated with
the background subtraction.
In Section~3 of this report we begin by
discussing the properties of conventional neutrino beams.
The motivation for large mass detectors with excellent
background rejection is discussed in Section~4.
The most important backgrounds
to $\nu_\mu \to \nu_e$ and $\bar\nu_\mu \to \bar\nu_e$
oscillations are discussed in Section~5.
The physics capabilities of multi--GeV long baseline experiments
and 1~GeV medium baseline experiments are discussed
respectively in Sections~6 and 7.
A summary is given in Section~8. Throughout we will use
the three--flavor oscillation framework which is reviewed in Appendix~1,
with the ``leading'' oscillation parameters $\sin^2 2\theta_{23}$ and
$\delta m^2_{32}$ determined by the atmospheric neutrino deficit,
and the sub--leading parameters $\sin^2 2\theta_{12}$ and $\delta m^2_{21}$
determined by the solar neutrino deficit.
This choice is appropriate if the LSND effect~\cite{lsnd} is not confirmed (by
MiniBooNE~\cite{miniboone}, for example).
Should the LSND effect be confirmed, there is
likely to be a strong physics case for a low intensity neutrino factory,
which might be constructed on a relatively fast timescale with only
a short R\&D phase. The case for a separate superbeam program is less
obvious (or at least different) in this case.
%
\begin{table}
\caption{Neutrino event rates assuming no oscillations,
compared with intrinsic beam
backgrounds for conventional and muon-derived beams of
comparable energies.
The calculations assume a 1.6~MW proton source is used for the
MINOS-type beam, the neutrino factories provide
$2\times 10^{20}$ muon decays per year in the beam--forming straight section,
and the detector is 732~km downstream of the neutrino source.}
\vspace{.2in}
\centerline{
\begin{tabular}{llll}
\hline
Beam
& $$ & $\nu_\mu$ CC Events & $\nu_e/\nu_\mu$ \\
(Signal: $\nu_\mu \to \nu_e$)
& (GeV) & (per kton-year) & Fraction \\
\hline
MINOS-LE & 3.5 & 1800 & 0.012 \\
MINOS-ME & 7 & 5760 & 0.009 \\
MINOS-HE & 15 & 12800 & 0.006 \\
\hline
&&\\
\hline
Beam & $$ & $\nu_e$ CC Events & $\nu_\mu/\nu_e$ \\
(Signal: $\nu_e \to \nu_\mu$) & (GeV) & (per kton-year) & Fraction \\
\hline
4.5 GeV $\mu$ Ring & 3.5 & 400 & 0 \\
9.1 GeV $\mu$ Ring & 7 & 3700 & 0 \\
18.2 GeV $\mu$ Ring & 15 & 31400 & 0 \\
30 GeV $\mu$ Ring & 20 & 72600 & 0 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
}
\vskip 0.5in
\label{tab:realfoc}
\end{table}
\section{Beam characteristics and event rates}
A conventional neutrino beam is produced using a primary proton
beam to create a secondary beam of charged pions and kaons, which
are then allowed to decay to produce a tertiary neutrino beam.
The secondary beam can be charge--sign selected to produce
either a neutrino beam from positive meson decays or an antineutrino
beam from negative meson decays. The
secondary particles, which are confined radially using either a
quadrupole channel or horn focusing, are allowed to decay in
a long decay channel. The resulting neutrino beam consists mostly of
muon neutrinos (or antineutrinos)
from $\pi^\pm \rightarrow \mu\nu_\mu$ decays,
with a small ``contamination'' of electron neutrinos,
electron antineutrinos, and muon antineutrinos from muon, kaon, and charmed
meson decays.
The fractions of $\nu_e$, $\overline{\nu}_e$ and $\overline{\nu}_\mu$
in the beam depend critically on the beamline design.
Figure \ref{fig:pikspect}
shows the momentum spectrum of charged pions and kaons
produced when a 120~GeV beam of protons
strikes a 2~interaction length graphite target~\cite{fpp}.
Note that at low momenta, positive and negative secondaries are created
at comparable rates, but at higher momentum there is a marked asymmetry.
For example, at 20~GeV
the ratio of positive to negative secondaries is 3/2.
Hence, for high energy beams there is a flux penalty in producing
an antineutrino beam rather than a neutrino beam. This flux penalty
increases with increasing beam energy.
\begin{figure}
\epsfxsize=\textwidth
\epsfbox{pikspect.eps}
\caption{Differential spectra for pions (left) and kaons (right)
produced when 120~GeV protons are incident on the MINOS target.
The distributions are normalized to correspond to the number of
particles per incident proton.}
\label{fig:pikspect}
\end{figure}
For the two-body decays $\pi\to\mu\nu_\mu$ and $K\to\mu\nu_\mu$
there is a one to one correspondence between the energy of the parent
meson and the energy of the neutrino at the far detector.
For a parent particle of mass $m_h$ and energy
$E_h$, traveling in a direction $\theta_{\nu h}$ with respect
to the far detector, the neutrino energy is given by:
\begin{equation}
E_\nu \; = \;
\frac{m_h^2-m_\mu^2}{2m_h}\times \frac{m_h}{E_h-p_h \cos\theta_{\nu h}} \;
\approx \; E_h \frac{m_h^2-m_\mu^2}{m_h^2}\frac{1}{1+\gamma^2\theta_{\nu h}^2}
\; .
\end{equation}
For a perfectly focused beam $\theta_{\nu h}=0$, and
$E_\nu = 0.42 E_h$ for pion decays and $0.95 E_h$ for kaon decays.
In practice the beamline is designed to focus pions within a
given momentum window. A broader pion momentum acceptance will
result in a higher flux of neutrinos
in the forward direction, but will also result in a
broader energy spread within the neutrino beam.
The flux of neutrinos per meson at the far detector is given by:
\begin{equation}
\phi \; = \;
BR \frac{1}{4\pi L^2}\left( \frac{m_h}{E_h-p_h \cos\theta_{\nu h}}
\right)^2 \; \approx \; BR \frac{1}{4\pi L^2}\left( \frac{2\gamma}
{1+\gamma^2\theta_{\nu h}^2} \right)^2 \; ,
\end{equation}
where $BR$ is the branching fraction for the appropriate meson decay,
$\gamma$ is the Lorentz boost of the decaying particle,
and $L$ is the distance to the detector. Note that the
flux at the far detector has the familiar $\gamma^2$ dependence,
%that is seen for the case of neutrino beams from a muon storage ring,
and since the cross--section increases linearly with $\gamma$,
the event rate has a $\gamma^3$ dependence.
%be it the pion, kaon, or muon.
%The big difference between the muon storage
%ring and conventional beams in terms of raw flux is that where for a
%muon storage ring one collects as many pions as possible and then focuses
%the resulting
%muons to create a monochromatic muon beam, in a conventional beam
%one designs a beamline to focus the secondary particles in some
%momentum window, and then lets them decay. The width of the resulting
%neutrino beam is then just a function of the width of the accepted
%secondary particles, whereas the width of a neutrino factory beam
%has only to do with the nature of the three-body muon decay.
%
Figure~\ref{fig:numu} shows, for a perfectly focussed beam, the
calculated
$\nu_\mu$ and $\bar\nu_\mu$ event rates per kton-year for the MINOS
detector at $L = 732$~km,
assuming a total decay region of 725~m.
Note that for a realistic focusing system the neutrino flux would
be reduced, typically by a factor of 2 or 3.
The calculation shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:numu} is for
$15\times 10^{20}$ 120~GeV protons striking a graphite target
(4 x NuMI~\cite{numitdr} for 1~year)
similar to the one being constructed for the MINOS
beam~\cite{fpp}, with the beamline set to focus either positive or
negative pions.
Also shown are the corresponding event rates at a neutrino
factory in which there are $2 \times 10^{20}$ useful muon decays,
with $E_\mu = 10$ and 20~GeV.
\begin{figure}
\epsfxsize=.7\textwidth
%\epsfbox{numu_perf.eps}
\centerline{\epsfbox{comp_2.eps} }
\caption{ Differential
$\nu_\mu$(top) and $\bar\nu_\mu$ (bottom) event rates in the MINOS detector
732~km downstream of a perfectly focused beam of pions and kaons
produced when $15 \times 10^{20}$ 120~GeV protons are incident on a graphite
target ($4 \times$~NuMI for 1~year).
The top panel also shows the predicted spectrum for a realistic focussing
system, namely the MINOS HE beam (as indicated). Note that the
rates are expected to be a factor of 2 or 3 less for a realistic system
than for a perfectly focussed beam.
The distributions are compared
to the corresponding $\nu_e$ event rates 732~km downstream of
10~GeV and 20~GeV muon storage
rings driven by a 1.6~MW 16~GeV proton source.}
\label{fig:numu}
\end{figure}
The total CC event rates for 1.6~MW NuMI low, medium, and high energy
superbeams are compared in
Table~\ref{tab:realfoc} with the corresponding (same $$)
rates at a neutrino factory.
Note that the rates at a neutrino factory rapidly exceed the
corresponding conventional beam rates for neutrino beam energies
exceeding about 10~GeV. For lower energies, conventional beams
provide higher rates although the
beam is not background free, and the electron appearance signal
is experimentally challenging.
%
%\begin{table}
%\label{tab:realfoc}
%\caption{Expected neutrino CC event rates (per kt-year),
% in the absence of oscillations, at $L = 732$~km.
%Rates at 1.6~MW NuMI superbeams (PERFECT FOCUSING ?)
%are compared with the corresponding
%rates at a neutrino factory delivering $2\times 10^{20}$ useful muon
%decays. THIS IS THE NORMALIZATION WE WANT.
%}
%\begin{tabular}{lllll}
% & $$ & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Events/kt-yr} & $E_\mu$ \\
%Beam & (GeV) & $\pi$ & $\mu$ & (GeV) \\
%\hline\hline
%MINOS-LE & 3.5 & 1800 & 120 & 4.5 \\
%MINOS-ME & 7 & 5760 & 1120 & 9.1 \\
%MINOS-HE & 15 & 12800 & 9430 & 18.2 \\
% & 20 & & 21770 & 30 \\
%\end{tabular}
%\end{table}
Finally, the decay channel for a very long--baseline superbeam
must fit within the viable rock layer below the proton driver.
At Fermilab this rock layer is $\sim 200$~m deep, below which
there is a deep aquifer. This limits the
length of the decay pipe to less than 200m$\times \sin \theta$,
where the dip angle $\theta$ depends on the baseline:
$L = 12756 \times \sin\theta$~km.
In fact the length of the decay region is further restricted by
the depth of rock used to bury the proton driver, bend the proton
beam to the required direction, accommodate the target and
focusing systems, and if there is a near detector, accommodate the
associated shielding and near detector hall.
Figure~\ref{fig:flxvbsln} shows the relative flux
loss for different energy beamlines as a function of baseline
length~\cite{geersb}.
The calculation allows 30~m for the near detector shielding plus hall.
For a baseline of 732~km,
$\theta = 3.3^\circ$ and the NuMI beam pipe length of
675~m is not restricted by the depth of the good rock.
However for a far site at
300~km (Fermilab $\rightarrow$ Gran Sasso), $\theta = 35^\circ$,
and the length of the decay channel is severely restricted,
so that for the LE (ME) [HE] NuMI beams only 50\% (25\%) [13\%]
of the pions would decay in the channel.
Clearly, decay channel length
restrictions must be taken into account in calculating the fluxes
for very long baselines ($> 3000$~km).
For trans--Atlantic or trans--Pacific baselines
there is a premium on minimizing the shielding and detector hall
length for the near detector, minimizing the length of the targeting
hall, using high--field dipoles to rapidly bend the 120~GeV proton beam
to the required direction, and perhaps considering a ``roller-coaster''
geometry for the proton beam.
\begin{figure}
\hspace{-.5in}
\epsfxsize=.5\textwidth
\centerline{\epsffile[10 30 510 540]{eff_vs_l.ps} }
\caption{Fraction of $\pi^\pm$ that decay in a channel of maximum
length within a 200~m deep rock layer, shown as a function of
baseline for three different average NuMI beam energies:
3.5~GeV (LE), 7~GeV (ME), and 15~GeV (HE).
For convenience, distances from Fermilab to SLAC/LBNL, Gran~Sasso, and Kamioka
are indicated by vertical broken lines, and the decay fractions
for the foreseen NuMI beams ($L = 730$~km) are indicated by dotted
horizontal lines.}
\label{fig:flxvbsln}
\end{figure}
%\subsection{Beamline Cost Considerations}
%
% One of the practical considerations for an upgraded neutrino
%beam at Fermilab is related to the construction of a new beam line.
%The NuMI beam is located in a large layer of dolomite, which is
%20m - 200m below the surface.
%The cost of shielding to protect water flowing in
%the dolomite is a substantial fraction of the \$80M cost of the
%beam. In addition, the NuMI beam may be near the Fermilab annual limit
%for radiation in the ground-water, so a more intense beam would
%require additional shielding, particularly near the beam pipe and
%around the target pile.
% Below 200m, there is a large aquifer,\cite{lach} and the cost of
%shielding the beam in this alternate layer would be different by a
%large unknown factor. There are other engineering challenges for
%building a beam at a large slant. One estimate for the relative
%cost of a steep beam can be found in Reference \cite{1991cdr}
%where the incremental cost of a beam at 6239 km is 1.8 times
%larger than a similar beam aimed at 732 km.
% Once the NUMI beamline turns on the shielding costs of an
%upgraded conventional beam will be better known. The NUMI
%beamline shielding needs have themselves been unprecedented,
%and as such the amount of shielding NUMI uses has additional
%margins of error beyond the standard safety factors.
\section{Large detectors and low backgrounds}
Our first physics goal is the observation of $\nu_\mu \rightarrow \nu_e$
oscillations. Since, to a good approximation the oscillation probability is
proportional to the amplitude parameter $\sin^2 2\theta_{13}$, it is useful
to define the $\sin^2 2\theta_{13}$-reach for a given experiment, which we
define as that value of $\sin^2 2\theta_{13}$ which would result in a signal
that is 3 standard deviations above the background.
Taking the atmospheric neutrino deficit oscillation scale $\delta m^2_{32}$
to be in the center of the region indicated by the SuperKamiokande data,
for a given proton driver, superbeam design, and baseline,
we can calculate the $\sin^2 2\theta_{13}$ reach once we specify
(a) the data sample size $D$ (kt--years), defined as the product of
the detector fiducial mass, the efficiency of the signal selection
requirements, and the number of years of data taking,
(b) the background fraction $f_B$, defined as the background rate divided
by the total CC rate for events that pass the
signal selection requirements, and
(c) the fractional uncertainty $\sigma_{f_B}/f_B$.
Note that $D$ determines the statistical uncertainty on
the signal. For a fixed $D$, $f_B$ determines the statistical uncertainty
on the background, and $f_B \times \sigma_{f_B}/f_B$ determines
the systematic uncertainty on the background subtraction.
\begin{figure}
%\hspace{.5in}
%\vspace{1.0cm}
\epsfxsize=.85\textwidth
\epsffile[0 0 540 685]{jhf_contours.ps}
\vspace{-4.0cm}
\caption{
Contours of constant $\sin^22\theta_{13}$ reach that
correspond to a $\nu_e\to \nu_\mu$ signal that is 3 standard deviations
above the background~\cite{geersb}.
The contours are shown in the $(D, f_B)$--plane,
where $D$ is the data-sample size and $f_B$ the background rate divided
by the total CC rate.
The contours are shown for
the 0.77~MW (left-hand plots) and 4.0~MW (right-hand plots)
JHF scenarios with
$L = 295$~km. The top panels show curves for $\sigma_{f_B}/f_{B} =
0.1$, while the bottom panels show curves for $\sigma_{f_B}/f_{B} =
0.1$, $0.05$, and $0.02$.
}
\label{fig:jhfcontours}
\end{figure}
%
\begin{figure}
\hspace{-.5in}
\epsfxsize=.75\textwidth
\centerline{\epsffile[10 30 510 540]{snumi_contours.ps} }
\vspace{1.0cm}
\caption{Contours of constant $\sin^22\theta_{13}$ reach~\cite{geersb} that
correspond to a $\nu_e\to \nu_\mu$ signal that is 3 standard deviations
above the background, at the upgraded NuMI ME (left) and HE
(right) beams.
The contours are shown in the $(D, f_B)$--plane,
where $D$ is the data-sample size and $f_B$ the background rate divided
by the total CC rate.
The contours are shown for
$L = 2900$ (top), $4000$ (center), and $7300$~km (bottom).
Curves are shown for
systematic uncertainties on the background subtraction
$\sigma_{f_B}/f_{B} = 0.1$, $0.05$, and
$0.02$.
}
\label{fig:contours}
\end{figure}
Contours of constant $\sin^2 2\theta_{13}$ reach
that correspond to various values of $\sigma_{f_B}/f_B$
are shown in the
$(f_B,D)$--plane in Fig.~\ref{fig:jhfcontours}
for $E_\nu = 1$~GeV superbeams produced using 0.77~MW and 4~MW
JHF proton drivers.
The corresponding contours are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:contours}
for long--baseline
1.6~MW medium energy and high energy NuMI superbeams.
The contours have a characteristic shape.
At sufficiently large $D$ the $\sin^2 2\theta_{13}$ sensitivity
is limited by the systematic uncertainty on the background subtraction,
and the reach does not significantly improve with increasing dataset size.
The contours are therefore vertical in this region of the figures.
At sufficiently small $D$ the sensitivity of the $\nu_\mu \rightarrow \nu_e$
appearance search is limited by signal statistics, and further reductions in
$f_B$ do not improve the $\sin^2 2\theta_{13}$ reach. The contours are
therefore horizontal in this region of the $(f_B, D)$--plane.
Note that the next
generation of neutrino experiments are expected to achieve
$\sin^2 2\theta_{13}$
reaches of $\sim 0.03$. Now consider as examples the 4~MW JHF beam,
and the 1.6~MW NuMI beam with $L = 2900$~km.
Taking $\sigma_{f_B}/f_B = 0.05$,
an inspection of the figures leads us to conclude
that if we wish to improve the $\sin^2 2\theta_{13}$ sensitivity an order
of magnitude beyond the next generation of experiments,
in the limit of very massive detectors at the JHF (NuMI) superbeams, we
can only tolerate background fractions $f_B < 0.007$ (0.004).
Achieving the required background rejection in a water cerenkov detector
seems impractical. Achieving the required detector masses with
detector technologies that can meet the $f_B$ requirements
seems challenging. Hence an understanding of the physics capabilities at
a superbeam necessarily begins with an understanding of the
parameters $D$, $f_B$, and $\sigma_{f_B}/f_B$ that can be achieved
with realistic (but futuristic) detectors.
In the following section we consider the backgrounds, and for realistic
futuristic detectors, $D$ and $f_B$. This will enable us to use the
$(f_B,D)$ figures to determine the $\sin^2 2\theta_{13}$ sensitivity
at various superbeams.
\section{Backgrounds to $\nu_\mu \rightarrow \nu_e$ oscillations}
Backgrounds
play a critical role in determining the sensitivity of a superbeam experiment
to $\nu_\mu \rightarrow \nu_e$ oscillations.
In our neutrino factory studies~\cite{report}
it was straightforward to obtain backgrounds to the $\nu_e\to\nu_\mu$
search at the $f_B \sim 10^{-4}$ level by cutting on the final state
muon momentum.
However, for conventional neutrino beams
reducing the background rates below $10^{-2}$ of the total CC rate is not
trivial and
would require significant reductions in the beam flux and signal selection
efficiency.
There are four important sources of background in a
$\nu_e$ appearance search at a superbeam:
(i) electron--neutrinos produced in the initial beam,
(ii) neutral current--like neutrino interactions in which a $\pi^0$ is
mis--identified as an electron,
(iii) CC $\nu_\mu$ interactions in which a $\pi^0$ is
mis--identified as an electron, and the muon is not identified, and
(iv) events from $\nu_\mu \to \nu_\tau$ oscillations followed by $\nu_\tau$
CC interactions and either $\tau \to e+X$ decays, or
$\tau \to \pi^0 + X$ decays in which the $\pi^0$ fakes an electron.
In the following we discuss these backgrounds and how, for
different detector technologies, the backgrounds might be suppressed.
\subsection{Electron--neutrino contamination}
In a conventional neutrino beamline, muon neutrinos are produced in
two-body pion-- and kaon--decays. However, the charged and neutral kaons can
also undergo 3--body decays to produce an electron neutrino (or antineutrino).
Furthermore, secondary muons in the beamline
can also decay to produce electron neutrinos. Generally speaking, higher
primary proton beam energies yield higher kaon/pion ratios,
and longer decay channels permit more muon decays.
The expected electron neutrino background fractions are listed in
Table~\ref{tab:nuefrac} for
the next generation of conventional neutrino beams. Note that for
most of the beamlines listed the $\nu_e$ background fraction
is around the $1\%$ level. The exceptions are the MiniBooNE beam (which
benefits from a relatively low primary proton energy), and
ORLaND~\cite{orland} (which
uses stopped muons).
Since the electron neutrinos within the beam are created in three--body
decays, the $\nu_e$ energy spectrum is typically much
broader than the $\nu_\mu$ spectrum.
This effectively means that there is always
some fraction of the electron neutrino flux which overlaps in energy with the
muon neutrino flux.
%
\begin{table}
\caption{Electron neutrino fractions and the fractional energy
spreads for a selection of
current (or next) generation conventional neutrino beams.
Note that most beamlines produce a beam with a fractional
energy spread between 30\% and 50\%, and a $\nu_e$
contamination that ranges from 0.2\% to 1.2\%, for beams at or
above 1~GeV. }
\centerline{
\begin{tabular}{lcccc}
&&&&\\
\hline
Beamline & Proton & Peak $\nu_\mu$ & $\nu_e/\nu_\mu$ &
$\sigma_{E_\nu}/E_\nu$ \\
& Energy (GeV) & Energy (GeV) & ratio & \\
\hline
K2K & 12 & 1.4 & 0.7\% & 1.0 \\
MINOS LE & 120 & 3.5 & 1.2\% & 0.28 \\
MINOS ME & 120 & 7 & 0.9\% & 0.43 \\
MINOS HE & 120 & 15 & 0.6\% & 0.47 \\
CNGS & 400 & 18 & 0.8\% & 0.33 \\
JHF wide & 50 & 1 & 0.7\% & 1.0 \\
JHF HE & 50 & 5 & 0.9\% & 0.40 \\
MiniBooNE & 8 & 0.5& 0.2\% & 0.50 \\
ORLaND & 1.3 & 0.0528 & 0.05\% & 0.38 \\
\hline
\end{tabular} }
\vskip 0.5in
\label{tab:nuefrac}
\end{table}
%\begin{table}
%\label{tab:nuefrac}
%\caption{Electron neutrino fractions for a selection of
%the current (or next) generation of conventional neutrino beamlines.}
%\begin{tabular}{lllllll}
%Beamline & Peak $\nu_\mu$ & $\nu_e/\nu_\mu$ & p Energy \\
% & Energy (GeV) & event ratio & GeV \\
%\hline
%K2K & 1.4 & 0.7\% & 12 \\
%MINOS LE & 3.5 & 1.2\% & 120 \\
%MINOS ME & 7 & 0.9\% & 120 \\
%MINOS HE & 15 & 0.6\% & 120 \\
%CNGS & 17 & 0.8\% & 400 \\
%JHF wide & 1 & 0.7\% & 50 \\
%JHF HE & 5 & 0.9\% & 50 \\
%MiniBooNe & 0.5 & 0.2\% & 8 \\
%ORLaND & 0.0528 & 0.05?\% & 1.3 \\
%\end{tabular}
%\end{table}
The $\nu_e$ flux contributions from $K^\pm$ and $\mu^\pm$ decays
can be reduced by decreasing the secondary particle momentum acceptance.
The contributions from $K_L$ decays can be reduced by
putting large bends in the beamline immediately after the proton target.
The neutral meson backgrounds
are particularly dangerous for $\bar\nu$ running because they give
electron neutrinos in a $\bar\nu_e$ appearance search,
and the cross section for the $\nu_e$ background is therefore twice
as large as for the $\bar\nu_e$ signal.
It has been suggested~\cite{richter} that a neutrino beam could be made
with an extremely small $\nu_e$ contamination by only
accepting pions and kaons within a narrow momentum interval,
and then rejecting
neutrino events that have a total energy inconsistent with the
expected neutrino beam energy. To understand how this might work we
consider the correspondence between the
the neutrino beam energy spread and the contribution to $f_B$
from the initial $\nu_e$ flux, which comes from $K^\pm$, $\mu^\pm$,
and $K_L$ decays.
The ratio of the initial $\nu_e$ flux to $\nu_\mu$ flux is shown
as a function of the fractional beam energy spread in
Fig.~\ref{fig:nuebkgd} for a perfectly focussed secondary beam
produced with 120~GeV primary protons
on a 2~interaction length graphite target, followed by
a 725~m long decay channel~\cite{fpp}.
To achieve a background fraction that is no larger than 0.1\%
in either $\nu$ or $\bar\nu$ running would require a beamline
with a momentum acceptance no larger than 10\%. In addition,
we must suppress the remaining $\nu_e$ contribution from $K_L$
decays (using one or more dipoles after the proton target)
by factors in excess of 2.5 and 5 for $\nu$ and $\bar\nu$
running respectively.
Noting that the effective $\nu_\mu$ flux also decreases roughly
linearly with the momentum acceptance, we conclude that,
even for an idealized perfectly focussed beam, reducing
the initial $\nu_e$ contamination in the beam to 0.1\% will result
in an order of magnitude reduction in $D$.
An alternative way of decreasing the $\nu_e$ contamination from kaon decays
is to decrease the primary proton energy (from 120~GeV to something less).
However, the MiniBooNE beam, which uses 8~GeV primary protons,
is expected to achieve a $\nu_e$ contamination of no better than 0.2\%.
Even if kaon contributions are completely eliminated, muon decays
still provide electron neutrinos!
%
%However, the number of high energy pions in the secondary beam that are
%selected within a fixed momentum
%interval also decreases with decreasing proton beam energy.
%Overall the number of kaons per pion falls
%like the proton energy to the XXX power, for a perfectly focused
%beam (***possible plot here comparing k/pi ratio vs proton energy***).
%NOT SURE THIS IS TRUE - DONT FORGET LOWER ENERGY MEANS FASTER MACHINE CYCLE.
\begin{figure}
\centerline{
\epsfxsize=.45\textwidth
\epsfbox[0 0 369 369]{nuebk.eps}
\epsfxsize=.45\textwidth
\epsfbox[0 0 369 369]{nubarebk.eps}
}
\caption{Fraction of $\nu_e+\bar\nu_e$ events in a $\nu_\mu$ (left)
or $\bar\nu_\mu$ (right) beam shown
as a function of the fractional beam momentum spread. The various symbols
correspond to different mean beam energies, from 5~GeV (filled circles)
to 17~GeV (open squares).
The distributions that increase (decrease) from left to right are the
contributions from $K^\pm, \mu^\pm$ ($K_L$) decays.
}
\label{fig:nuebkgd}
\end{figure}
%The tradeoff between event rate and electron neutrino contamination
%depends on many variables.
%A lower primary proton momentum would
%reduce the contamination from kaon decays, but the lower one goes in
%proton momentum the lower the fraction of pions produced to give one that
%neutrino energy. The numbers shown in the plots above are for
%a beam made with 120GeV protons, going to lower initial proton momentum
%would reduce the kaon contribution significantly. However, to focus the
%same energy pions for a lower momentum proton beam gives a much reduced pion
%flux, since there is approximate scaling between the pion energy and
%the proton energy.
%Overall the number of kaons per pion falls
%like the proton energy to the XXX power, for a perfectly focused
%beam (***possible plot here comparing k/pi ratio vs proton energy***).
In summary, for a multi--GeV neutrino beam,
we would not expect a reduction in the momentum acceptance
of the decay channel to significantly reduce the
$\nu_e$ contamination in the beam unless
we are willing to accept a large reduction in $D$.
%The $\nu_e$ contamination in the NuMI beamline could be
%reduced without reducing $D$ significantly by using one or more
%dipoles after the proton target to
%remove most of the $K_L$ contribution. This would
%reduce the $\nu_e$ fraction by roughly a factor of three to four.
Optimistically, the contribution to $f_B$ from the $\nu_e$ contamination
in the beam might be reduced to
$\sim0.2 - 0.5\%$ for the multi--GeV neutrino beams considered
later in this report.
\subsection{Neutral Current Backgrounds}
For high energy neutrinos the neutral current (NC) cross section is
roughly 40\%
of the CC cross section, and is independent
of the initial flavor of the interacting neutrino. A NC interaction
can result in a total visible energy anywhere from zero to
the initial neutrino energy $E_\nu$. Some of the visible energy may be
in the form of neutral pions, which can fake a single electron signature.
The probability for a NC event to produce an energetic $\pi^0$ that
fakes an electron depends both on the $\pi^0$ production rate and on
the details of the detector and signal selection requirements.
In the following we will begin by considering $\pi^0$ production in
NC events, and then consider various detector strategies for reducing
the background.
\subsubsection{Energetic $\pi^0$ production}
Consider the probability that a NC interaction will
produce an event with an energetic $\pi^0$ that could fake a
$\nu_e$ CC interaction.
Our calculations have been performed using the GEANT Monte Carlo
program together with a LEPTO
simulation to generate neutrino interactions~\cite{fmcgeant}.
A rough approximation has been used for quasi-elastic and resonance
production in CC events, but no resonance production has been
included for the NC events.
Note that the lower the neutrino energy, the higher the fraction of
quasi-elastic and resonance interactions.
As a benchmark, for a 5~GeV neutrino beam the
quasi-elastic and resonance contributions are about 33\% of the
total event rate.
%Since the neutral
%pions tend to be produced promptly, the rates are not expected to
%depend much on the neutrino target material.
The simulated energy distribution for electrons produced in 25~GeV
$\nu_e$ CC events
is compared in Fig.~\ref{em_dist} with the corresponding
distribution for $\pi^0$'s produced in 25~GeV NC events.
The $\pi^0$ rates are small at high energy. A cut on the
energy of the electron candidate can therefore reduce the
NC background in a $\nu_\mu \to \nu_e$ search.
The most dangerous background events
are those in which the $\pi^0$ takes most of the energy of
the hadronic fragments, and hence $x \equiv E_{\pi^0}/E_{\rm had}$ is large.
These neutral pions can fake an isolated electron from a
$\nu_e$ CC interaction. The fraction of NC events having a $\pi^0$
with energy greater than a given fraction of $E_{\rm had}$
is shown in Fig.~\ref{pi0frag} for different ranges of hadronic energy.
The $\pi^0$ fragmentation functions are roughly independent of $E_{\rm had}$.
To a good approximation, at large $x$ ($\gsim 0.3$)
a single function describes all the curves shown in the figure:
\begin{equation}
p(x) = (0.49)-(0.96)x+(0.47)x^2
\label{pi0prob}
\end{equation}
Note that in a NC event $E_{\rm had}$ is just the visible energy.
Within the framework of the parton model,
for a given neutrino energy, the
visible energy spectrum is described by~\cite{bargergeer}:
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{N}\frac{dN}{dy} = \frac{15}{16}\left(1+\frac{(1-y)^2}{5}\right) \; .
\label{dsdy}
\end{equation}
where $y = E_{\rm had} / E_\nu$.
\begin{figure}
\epsfxsize=.5\textwidth
\centerline{\epsffile[0 0 515 515]{new_em_dist.eps}}
%\centerline{\epsffile[75 70 515 515]{em_dist.eps}}
\caption{Energy distributions for electrons and neutral pions produced in
25 GeV neutrino interactions. Solid line:
Electrons produced in CC interactions (scaled by 0.04).
Dotted line: Neutral pions
generated in NC interactions. Dashed line: Electrons from charm
semileptonic decay.}
\label{em_dist}
\end{figure}
%
\begin{figure}
\epsfxsize=.5\textwidth
\centerline{\epsffile[43 43 457 457]{new_pi0frag.eps}}
%\centerline{\epsffile[60 60 515 515]{pi0frag.eps}}
\caption{Fraction of NC events with a $\pi^0$
with energy greater than a given fraction of the hadronic energy.
The different histograms are for different ranges of hadronic energy:
Solid: $203$ GeV & 0.6 \\
NuMI-HE & 7300 & 0.031 & 0.013 & $>5$ GeV & 0.6 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
}
\label{tab:tausum}
\end{table}
%
\begin{figure}
\centerline{
\epsfxsize=.45\textwidth\epsfbox{ptmiss.eps}
\epsfxsize=.45\textwidth\epsfbox{pttau.eps}
}
\caption{Missing transverse momentum (left) and electron transverse
momentum (right) distributions for $\nu_e$ charged current
events and for $\nu_\tau, \tau\to e$ events in the ICARUS detector,
assuming oscillation parameters as indicated.}
\label{fig:icanoetau}
\end{figure}
There are other kinematic handles that can in principle be used to
suppress $\nu_\tau$ backgrounds, but the performance of a set of
given kinematic cuts depends upon the detector details.
Obvious kinematic quantities that can be exploited are
the missing transverse momentum (penalizing the missing energy
associated with the neutrinos produced in the $\tau$--lepton decay),
and the electron transverse momentum distribution.
The simulated distributions for these variables
are shown~\cite{icanoe2} in Fig.~\ref{fig:icanoetau}
for several event types in the ICARUS detector at the CNGS beam.
Note that the CNGS beamline has a $\nu_e$ background
fraction of 0.8\% and a mean neutrino energy of 17~GeV, and
$\sin^2 2\theta_{13}$ has been assumed to be 0.1, just at the current limit.
The distributions shown in the figure are for all electron-like
events with no electron energy requirement.
It should be noted that events that pass an electron energy
cut will tend to have electrons moving
close to the $\nu_\tau$ direction, and hence are more likely to survive
other kinematic cuts.
For an experiment in which the $\tau$ appearance rate is
likely to be significant, the ICARUS collaboration finds the best sensitivity
is obtained with a combined fit, rather than by eliminating the $\nu_\tau$
events.
We conclude that $\nu_\tau$ backgrounds are only significant for the
medium-- and high--energy beams, in which case an electron energy cut
and/or good $\tau \to e$
rejection is needed to reduce the contribution to $f_B$ to $\lsim 0.01$.
This might be accomplished in a liquid argon detector, which provides
good discrimination against $\tau\to n\pi^0 X \nu_\tau$ decays.
The $\tau$ related backgrounds might be larger in other detectors.
For example, a recent study~\cite{wai}
concluded that, with $\delta m^2_{32} = 0.003$~eV$^2$ and $L = 2900$~km,
after cuts which reduced $D$ by a factor of 0.33,
the contribution to $f_B$ from $\nu_\mu \to \nu_\tau$ associated
interactions was 0.02 for a MINOS--like iron--scintillator detector at
a NuMI--like medium energy beam.
\subsection{ The systematic uncertainty on the background }
Since a $\nu_\mu \to \nu_e$ search will not be background free,
the background must be subtracted from any potential signal.
The background subtraction introduces a systematic uncertainty
associated with the imperfect knowledge of the expected background rate.
Assigning a systematic error on the background
rate requires understanding the uncertainty on the
$\nu_e$ contamination in the beamline, and the uncertainty on
the detector's ability to reject background events.
To understand the $\nu_e$ fraction in the initial neutrino beam, we
must know the charged and neutral kaon components in the
secondary beam. This requires knowledge of their production
at the proton target, and knowledge of the beamline acceptance.
In addition, the
backgrounds from muons decaying in the decay tunnel must be understood,
although generally
speaking the uncertainty from this background component is relatively small.
Measuring the fraction of charged and neutral kaons produced in
the target is the subject of much current study. The experiment
P907~\cite{p907} is being
proposed at Fermilab to measure the kaon production cross sections
for 120~GeV protons on the MINOS target. A
similar experiment, HARP~\cite{harp},
is planned at CERN to study meson production
for the CNGS beam. P907 and HARP are expected to significantly
reduce the kaon production uncertainties for neutrino beams using
120~GeV and multi--GeV (up to 15~GeV) proton beams, together with targets
similar to NuMI and CNGS. However, the combined effects of both
production and acceptance must be understood.
For this purpose, a very fine-grained near
detector could be used. As an example, the NOMAD detector~\cite{nomad} can
determine
the neutral kaon contribution to the $\nu_e$ flux by comparing the
rates of $\nu_e$ and $\bar\nu_e$ events that are seen.
With an electron charge analysis to discriminate between
$\nu_e$ and $\bar\nu_e$ events, the NOMAD experiment is able to limit the
systematic uncertainty on the overall near detector
$\nu_e$ flux to 2\%, and the
energy spectrum shape to 2.5\%~\cite{cousins}. With
a fine-grained near detector of this type one might imagine
achieving a systematic uncertainty on the far detector flux of 3 to 4\%.
Background rejection in the far detector can be understood using a
second near detector of the same type as the far detector,
Assuming that appropriate near detectors are used,
the remaining systematic
uncertainties on the backgrounds in the far detector come from
the slightly different beam spectrum that any near detector sees,
and the uncertainties on the differences in fiducial volumes and event
acceptances.
While there is probably no hard limit on the systematic uncertainty
that could be achieved, it is unreasonable to expect that the total systematic
uncertainty on the background fraction could be reduced below a few per cent of
the background itself.
In the following we will assume that the uncertainty on the background rates
is 5\%. Note that the participants of a recent study of 1~GeV neutrino beams
at the JHF~\cite{jhfloi} assumed the more conservative value of 10\% for the
systematic uncertainty on the backgrounds.
\subsection{Summary: Dataset size $D$ \& background fraction $f_B$}
In the previous discussion we concluded that,
for a $\nu_\mu \to \nu_e$ measurement,
the contribution to the expected background
fraction $f_B$ from the initial $\nu_e$ beam contamination might be reduced
to $\sim 0.002$. However,
for most of the detector types we have considered, $f_B$ is dominated by the
contributions from
(a) neutral pions faking an electron signature, and/or
(b) $\nu_\mu \to \nu_\tau$ related backgrounds. We would
like to know, as a function of detector choice, the values of $f_B$ and
$D$ that should be used in assessing the $\nu_\mu \to \nu_e$ physics potential.
The dominant contributions to $f_B$, together with $f_B$ and the
associated signal efficiencies,
and detector cost estimates, are summarized in
Table \ref{tab:bksum}, along with the implied value of $D$ for 5~years of
data taking. The values of $D$ are estimated assuming the detectors cost
\$500M, which determines the detector masses.
Estimating the unit costs for each detector
type is not straightforward. Details of the cost estimates are given
in Appendix~2.
\begin{table}
\caption{Detector background rates ($f_B$), signal efficiencies,
and unit costs. Water cerenkov backgrounds and
efficiencies are neutrino energy dependent: numbers left
of the arrows for a 1~GeV beam, numbers right of the arrows for
a multi--GeV beam requiring $y < 0.5$.}
\begin{tabular}{lccccc}
&&&&&\\
\hline
& Water Cerenkov & Liquid Argon & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Steel+readout}&
Liquid$^{f}$ \\
& (UNO) & (ICARUS) & (MINOS) & (THESEUS) &Scintillator \\
\hline
Signal Efficiency & 0.7$\to$ 0.5 & 0.90 & 0.33 & 0.6$^b,g$ & 0.76 \\
$f_B$(NC) &$0.02\to 0.04$& 0.001 & 0.01 & 0.01 & $<0.006$ \\
$f_B$(beam) & 0.002 & 0.002 & 0.002& 0.002 & 0.002 \\
$f_B(\tau)$&$0 \to 0.01$ & $\sim 0.005^c$ & $0.02^c$&
$0^b$ & $\sim 0.005^c$ \\
$f_B$ &$0.02\to 0.05$& $\sim 0.008$ & $0.03$ & 0.01 & $\sim 0.01$ \\
Electron cut & $>0.5\times E_\nu$ & none$^d$
& 1-6 GeV & $> 0.5 E_{vis}$ & $E_{vis} > 2$ GeV \\
Unit cost (M\$/kt)$^a$ & 2.4 & 23 & 10.4 & 78 & 59 \\
Mass (kt) / 500~M\$ & 745 & 37 & 85 & 6.4 & 260 \\
$D$ (kt-yrs)$^e$ & 2600 $\to$ 1860 & 170 & 140 & 19 & 990 \\
\hline \\
\end{tabular}
\\\\
$^a$ FY00 dollars. Costs account for salaries, overheads, and contingencies.
Details are given in Appendix~2.
The cost does not include excavating a cavern, which is
estimated~\cite{uno} to be 0.5M\$/kton/$\rho$, ($\rho =$ target density).\\
$^b$ For the MINOS low energy beam.\\
$^c$ For the MINOS medium energy beam.\\
$^d$ Although a total energy cut might be applied to reduce the intrinsic
$\nu_e$ background. \\
$^e$ For 5~years running. \\
$^{f}$ $\nu_e n \to e^- p$ search, Ahrens et al, Phys. Rev. D volume 36,
(702) 1987. \\
$^g$ Soudan efficiency for electron neutrinos: NuMI-L-562.
\label{tab:bksum}
\end{table}
Note that no detector achieves the goal
$f_B < 0.004$ that we derived in Section~4 for a multi--GeV beam. Once
above the $\nu_\tau$ CC threshold the contribution to $f_B$ from $f_B(\tau)$
already exceeds 0.004. As an example, consider the
liquid Argon detector. The parameters to be used for
this detector type with a medium energy MINOS--type beam are:
$D = 170$~kt-yrs, $f_B = 0.008$,
and $\sigma_{f_B}/f_B = 0.05$ (as discussed in Section~5.6).
If the $\nu_\tau$ background contribution could be eliminated
$f_B$ would be reduced to $\sim 0.003$, but this improvement in
background rate would be accompanied by a significant decrease in $D$, and
would not be expected to significantly improve the
sensitivity to $\nu_\mu \to \nu_e$ oscillations.
\section{ Physics with multi--GeV long--baseline beams }
Using the values of $D$ and $f_B$ in Table~\ref{tab:bksum}, and assuming
$\sigma_{f_B}/f_B = 0.05$, we can now assess the physics potential for the
various detector scenarios we have considered. We will begin with the
multi--GeV long baseline beams, and consider the
minimum value of $\sin^2 2\theta_{13}$ that will yield a $\nu_\mu \to \nu_e$
signal $3\sigma$ above the background, the sensitivity
to the neutrino mass hierarchy, and the sensitivity to CP violation in the
lepton sector.
\subsection{$\sin^2 2\theta_{13}$ Reach }
To obtain the $\sin^2 2\theta_{13}$ reach for the detector scenarios listed
in Table~\ref{tab:bksum} we return to Fig.~\ref{fig:contours} which shows
contours of constant reach in the $(f_B, D)$--plane for upgraded (1.6~MW)
NuMI medium-- and high--energy beams. Of the scenarios we
have considered, the greatest sensitivity is obtained using a liquid argon
detector with either the medium-- or high--energy beams at
$L = 2900$~km, 4000~km, or 7300~km.
In these cases a $\nu_\mu \to \nu_e$ signal
at least $3\sigma$ above the background would be expected provided
$\sin^2 2\theta_{13} > 0.002$ to $0.003$.
If the $\nu_\tau$ backgrounds could be
elliminated, reducing $f_B$ to 0.003, the limiting sensitivity improves to
$\sin^2 2\theta_{13} > 0.001$. If the initial $\nu_e$ contamination in
the beam is 0.5\% (rather than the assumed 0.2\%), so that $f_B = 0.01$, the
$\sin^2 2\theta_{13}$ reach is still $\sim 0.002$ to $0.003$.
Hence, the estimated
reach is not very sensitive to the uncertainties on our
background estimations. However, the $\nu_\mu \to \nu_e$ sensitivity
would be degraded if the $\nu_\tau$ backgrounds were significantly larger,
which disfavors higher beam energies.
We conclude that, with a 30-40~kt liquid argon detector and a medium
energy superbeam, we could improve the sensitivity to $\nu_\mu \to \nu_e$
oscillations, and obtain about an order of magnitude improvement in
the $\sin^2 2\theta_{13}$ reach beyond that expected for
the currently approved
next generation experiments. The other detector choices in
Table~\ref{tab:bksum} do not seem to be competitive with liquid argon,
with the possible exception of the
water cerenkov detector which obtains a reach of about 0.003 with the
high energy beam at the longest baseline ($L = 7300$~km).
%
\begin{figure}
\centering\leavevmode
\epsfxsize=3.7in\epsffile{update_fig15.ps}
%\epsfxsize=3.1in\epsffile{new_kerry.ps}
%\medskip
\caption[]{Three--sigma error ellipses in the
$\left(N(e^+), N(e^-)\right)$--plane, shown for
$\nu_\mu \to \nu_e$ and $\bar\nu_\mu \to \bar\nu_e$ oscillations
in a NuMI--like
high energy neutrino beam driven by a 1.6~MW proton driver.
The calculation assumes a liquid argon detector with the parameters
listed in Table~\ref{tab:bksum}, a baseline of 2900~km,
and 3~years of running with neutrinos, 6~years running
with antineutrinos.
Curves are shown for different CP--phases $\delta$ (as labelled), and
for both signs of $\delta m^2_{32}$ with
$|\delta m^2_{32}| = 0.0035$~eV$^2$, and
the sub--leading scale $\delta m^2_{21} = 10^{-4}$~eV$^2$.
Note that $\sin^22\theta_{13}$ varies along the curves from
0.0001 to 0.01, as indicated~\cite{geersb}.
}
\label{fig:signdm2}
\end{figure}
%
\begin{figure}
\centering\leavevmode
\epsfxsize=3.1in\epsffile{bgrwfig12.eps}
%\medskip
\caption[]{Three--sigma error ellipses in the
$\left(N(\mu+), N(\mu-)\right)$--plane, shown for a 20~GeV neutrino
factory delivering $3.6\times10^{21}$ useful muon decays and
$1.8\times10^{21}$ antimuon decays, with a 50~kt
detector at $L = 7300$~km, $\delta m^2_{21} = 10^{-4}$~eV$^2$,
and $\delta = 0$. Curves are shown for both signs of
$\delta m^2_{32}$; $\sin^22\theta_{13}$ varies along the curves from
0.0001 to 0.01, as indicated~\cite{geersb}.
}
\label{fig:nufact}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Matter Effects and CP Violation}
Having either established or excluded a $\nu_\mu \to \nu_e$ signal,
a search for $\bar\nu_\mu \to \bar\nu_e$ over a long baseline can
determine the sign of $\delta m^2_{32}$, and hence the neutrino mass
hierarchy. Suppose that $N_+$ and $N_-$ signal events are measured
in neutrino and antineutrino running respectively. In the absence
of intrinsic CP--violation, and in the absence of matter effects,
after correcting for different beam fluxes, experimental livetimes,
and the neutrino/antineutrino cross section ratio, we would
expect $N_+ = N_-$. However, if $\delta m^2_{32} > 0$, matter effects
can reduce $N_+$ and enhance $N_-$. Alternatively, if
$\delta m^2_{32} < 0$, matter effects can reduce $N_-$ and enhance $N_+$.
For detector scenarios and multi--GeV beams similar to those considered in
this report, it has been shown~\cite{geersb} that:
\begin{description}
\item{(i)} At $L = 732$~km the expected changes of $N_+$ and $N_-$ due
to matter effects are modest, and are comparable to changes that might arise
with maximal CP--violation in the lepton sector. It is therefore difficult to
observe and disentangle matter from CP effects unless the baseline is longer.
\item{(ii)} At baselines of $\sim 3000$~km or greater matter effects are
much larger
than CP effects, and the determination of the sign of $\delta m^2_{32}$ is
straightforward provided both $N_+$ and $N_-$ have been measured with
comparable sensitivities, and at least one of them is non--zero.
The sign of $\delta m^2_{32}$ can be determined with a significance of at
least $3\sigma$ provided $\sin^2 2\theta_{13} \gsim 0.01$.
\item{(iii)} CP violation cannot be unambiguously established in any
of the long baseline scenarios considered.
\end{description}
%
To illustrate these points we choose one of the most favorable scenarios
studied: a 1.6~MW NuMI--like high energy beam with $L = 2900$~km, detector
parameters $f_B$ and $D$ corresponding to the liquid argon scenario in
Table~\ref{tab:bksum}, and oscillation parameters
$|\delta m^2_{32}| = 3.5 \times 10^{-3}$~eV$^2$ and
$\delta m^2_{21} = 1 \times 10^{-4}$~eV$^2$.
The calculated three--sigma error ellipses in the
$\left(N(e^+), N(e^-)\right)$--plane are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:signdm2}
for both signs of $\delta m^2_{32}$, with the curves corresponding to
various CP--phases $\delta$ (as labelled). The magnitude of
the $\nu_\mu \to \nu_e$ oscillation amplitude parameter
$\sin^2 2\theta_{13}$ varies along each curve, as indicated. The
two groups of curves, which correspond to the two signs of $\delta m^2_{32}$,
are separated by more than $3\sigma$ provided
$\sin^2 2\theta_{13} \gsim 0.01$. Hence the mass heirarchy can be determined
provided the $\nu_\mu \to \nu_e$ oscillation amplitude is not less than an
order of magnitude below the currently excluded region. Unfortunately, within
each group of curves, the CP--conserving predictions are separated from the
maximal CP--violating predictions by at most $3\sigma$. Hence, it will
be difficult to conclusively establish CP violation in this scenario.
Note for comparison that a very long baseline experiment at a neutrino
factory would be able to observe $\nu_e \to \nu_\mu$ oscillations and
determine the sign of $\delta m^2_{32}$ for values of $\sin^2 2\theta_{13}$
as small as O(0.0001)~! This is illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:nufact}.
\section{Physics with 1~GeV medium baseline beams}
We next turn our attention to neutrino beams with energy $E_\nu \sim 1$~GeV.
The atmospheric neutrino deficit scale $\delta m^2_{32}$ then sets a
baseline requirement $L \sim 300$~km.
A recent study~\cite{jhfloi} has generated a letter of interest
for a 1~GeV neutrino
beam at the Japan Hadron Facility (0.77~MW 50~GeV proton driver), with
a baseline of 295~km, using the SuperKamiokande (SuperK)
detector~\cite{superk}.
The JHF study group has considered a variety of beamline designs, including
both narrow band and wide band beams, quadrupole and horn based focusing.
The energy distributions for these beams are shown in
Fig.~\ref{fig:jhfloi} (left panel).
With a water cerenkov detector the JHF group finds that
for a $\nu_\mu \to \nu_e$ search it is important to
use a narrow band beam to avoid the high energy neutrino tail which provides
a significant source of high energy NC events with detected neutral pions
that fake lower energy electrons.
With a narrow band beam, after detailed studies of signal efficiency and
background rejection they obtain $f_B = 0.03$, dominated by the surviving
NC backgrounds. This background level was obtained at the cost of reducing $D$
by a factor of 0.68. The initial $\nu_e$ component in the beam contributes
only 0.004 to $f_B$.
An uncertainty on the background rates of 10\% was assumed.
In the following we discuss the sensitivity of a 1~GeV medium baseline
neutrino beam to $\nu_\mu \to \nu_e$ oscillations, and the prospects
for observing CP--violation. Note that baselines of a few hundred kilometers
are too short for matter effects to be appreciable, and hence the
pattern of neutrino masses cannot be determined with these medium baseline
beams.
\begin{figure}
\centerline{
\epsfxsize=.45\textwidth\epsfbox[0 0 520 520]{allnintlo.ps}
\epsfxsize=.45\textwidth\epsfbox[0 0 520 520]{jhfcont.ps} }
\caption{Differential event rates (left) and two--flavor $\nu_\mu \to \nu_e$
oscillation sensitivity (right) for a 1~GeV neutrino beam at the JHF
with $L = 295$~km, and a water cerenkov detector. In the left panel the
thick solid histogram is for a wide band beam, and the thin solid,
dashed, dotted, and dot-dash histograms are for four narrow band beam
designs. The 90\% C.L. contours in the right panel are for,
as indicated, 1~year with
a wide band beam, 5~years with a narrow band beam and the SuperK detector,
and 5~years with a narrow band beam and $20 \times$ the SuperK
detector~\cite{jhfloi}.}
\label{fig:jhfloi}
\end{figure}
%
\begin{figure}
\centerline{
\hspace{-1.cm}\epsfxsize=.55\textwidth\epsfbox[0 0 520 520]{nikolai_e.ps}
\epsfxsize=.55\textwidth\epsfbox[0 0 520 520]{nikolai_pt.ps} }
\vspace{-0.9cm}
\caption{Charged pion production for 16~GeV and 50~GeV protons
incident on a 30~cm copper target. The $\pi^+$ and $\pi^-$ kinetic--energy
(left) and transverse momentum (right) spectra are shown
for forward going
particles within a cone of angle 1~radian.
To facilitate a comparison at equal beam power the rates have been
divided by the incident proton energy. For
clarity, the $\pi^-$ spectra have been scaled down by an additional
factor of 10.
}
\label{fig:16vs50}
\end{figure}
\subsection{$\sin^2 2\theta_{13}$ reach}
The JHF study group concluded that,
if no $\nu_e$ appearance signal was observed after 5~years of running,
taking the central SuperK value for $\delta m^2_{32}$,
they would be able to exclude $\nu_\mu \to \nu_e$
oscillation amplitudes greater than 0.01 at 90\% C.L., which is about an order
of magnitude better than the present limit
(Fig.~\ref{fig:jhfloi} right panel). This level of sensitivity corresponds
to a $\sin^2 2\theta_{13}$ reach of $\sim 0.03$. With a larger dataset
(20 times SuperK) the reach is improved by about a factor of 4.
It is interesting to see where the JHF scenario lies in the
$(f_B, D)$--plane shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:jhfcontours}.
If we take $f_B = 0.03$ and $D = 77$~kt--years (5~years of
data taking in the superK detector with a signal efficiency of 0.68),
we see that the JHF $\to$ SuperK scenario lies close to the
$\sin^2 2\theta_{13} = 0.03$ contour. Thus the calculations of
Ref.~\cite{geersb} are in agreement with the JHF study group results.
Note that
the JHF scenario already lies in the background systematics
dominated (vertical contour) region of the plane.
Upgrading the detector mass by a large factor only
results in a modest improvement in the $\sin^2 2\theta_{13}$ reach.
With $D = 2600$~kt--years and $f_B = 0.02$,
the reach has improved to $\sin^2 2\theta_{13} \sim 0.01$ at
the 0.77~MW JHF. It is unclear whether an upgraded 4~MW JHF would
further improve the reach, which is very sensitive to $\sigma_{f_B}/f_B$
in the systematics dominated region of the ($f_B, D$)--plane.
A liquid argon detector, with $f_B = 0.003$, $\sigma_{f_B}/f_B = 0.05$,
and $D = 170$~kt--years, would
obtain a reach of $\sim 0.01$ at the 0.77~MW JHF, and
$\sim 0.003$ at an upgraded 4~MW JHF.
To a good approximation we would expect the JHF~study results to
apply also to a 1~GeV neutrino beam generated at Fermilab using a 16~GeV
1.6~MW proton driver. Charged pion production spectra for 16~GeV and
50~GeV protons are compared in Fig.~\ref{fig:16vs50}, with the spectra
normalized by dividing by the proton beam energies. Hence the pion event
rates are shown at equal beam powers. The shapes of the 16~GeV and
50~GeV kinetic energy-- and transverse--momentum--distributions are
similar. At equal beam power, the 16~GeV rates are approaching a factor of
two higher than the 50~GeV rates. Hence we would expect the 1~GeV neutrino
beam fluxes at the upgraded 4~MW JHF to be similar to the fluxes at
a 1.6~MW 16~GeV machine.
\subsection{Searching for CP-violation}
If $\sin^2 2\theta_{13}$ lies within an order of magnitude of
the present experimental limits, we would expect a $\nu_\mu \to \nu_e$
signal to be established in either the next generation of accelerator
based neutrino experiments, or at a future superbeam experiment.
In this case, if the solar neutrino deficit is correctly described by
the LMA MSW solution there is the tantalizing possibility of observing
CP--violation in the lepton sector, and measuring the CP--violating
amplitude. In a medium baseline experiment
the CP--violating signature (an asymmetry between the
$\nu_\mu\to\nu_e$ and $\bar\nu_\mu \to\bar\nu_e$ oscillation probabilities)
is not complicated by matter effects, which are very small.
Consider the sensitivity to CP--violation at the JHF with $L = 295$~km.
Both the background levels
and the associated systematic uncertainty are expected to be worse
for antineutrino beams than for neutrino beams.
In the following, for simplicity
we will consider backgrounds and systematics to be the same for $\nu$
and $\bar\nu$ beams, and take $f_B = 0.02$ and $\sigma_{f_B}/f_B = 0.1$.
Figure~\ref{fig:jhfcp} shows the expected sensitivity to maximal
CP--violation ($\delta = 90^\circ$) after 3 years of neutrino running
to measure the number of $\nu_\mu \to \nu_e$ events, followed by
6 years of antineutrino running to measure the number of
$\bar\nu_\mu \to \bar\nu_e$ events. In the absence of CP--violation
we would expect the two signal samples to have the same number of
events on average since the factor of two difference in neutrino and
antineutrino cross--sections is compensated by the difference in the
running times. Hence the broken curves at $45^\circ$ in the figure correspond
to the CP--conserving case.
The figure shows $3\sigma$ error ellipses for a water cerenkov detector
with a fiducial mass of 220~kt at the 0.77~MW JHF (left panel),
and a liquid argon TPC with a fiducial mass of 30~kt at a 4~MW upgraded JHF
(right panel). The error ellipses are shown for three different sub--leading
scales $\delta m^2_{21} = 2 \times 10^{-4}$, $1 \times 10^{-4}$, and
$5 \times 10^{-5}$~eV$^2$. In each panel the three families of ellipses
correspond to three values of $\sin^2 2\theta_{13}$. Note that parameter
values with ellipses
that lie entirely above the $\delta = 0$ line would result in a $3\sigma$
observation of maximal CP--violation.
We see that for the water cerenkov scenario, if $\sin^2 2\theta_{13} = 0.1$,
marginally below the currently excluded region, then maximal CP--violation
would be observed provided $\delta m^2_{21}$ is not significantly below
$1 \times 10^{-4}$~eV$^2$, which is at the upper end of the preferred
solar neutrino deficit LMA region. The sensitivity is only marginally better
in the liquid argon scenario. With decreasing $\sin^2 2\theta_{13}$ the
sensitivity slowly decreases, with $1 \times 10^{-4}$~eV$^2$ being the
limiting $\delta m^2_{21}$ for $\sin^2 2\theta_{13} \sim 0.02$.
Hence, for a small region of presently favored MSW LMA parameter space,
maximal CP Violation could be seen at
$3\sigma$ at a 1~GeV medium baseline superbeam.
This small exciting piece of parameter space can be described approximately
by:
\begin{equation}
\sin^2 2\theta_{13} > 0.02 \; , \; \; \; \; \; \;
\sin\delta \times \delta m^2_{21} > 7 \times 10^{-5} \; {\rm eV}^2
\end{equation}
\begin{figure}
%\hspace{-.5in}
\centerline{
\epsfxsize=0.9\textwidth
\epsffile[0 0 510 320]{new_fig8ab.eps} }
%\vspace{-10.0cm}
\caption{
Three--sigma error ellipses in the
$\left(N_+, N_-\right)$--plane,
where $N_-$ is the number of $\nu_\mu \to \nu_e$ signal events
and $N_+$ is the number of $\bar\nu_\mu \to \bar\nu_e$ signal events,
shown for 1~GeV neutrino beams with $L = 295$~km at the 0.77~MW JHF
using a 220~kt water cerenkov detector (left panel) with
$f_B = 0.02$, and at the
4~MW upgraded JHF with a 30~kt liquid argon detector (right panel)
with $f_B = 0.004$.
The 3 families of ellipses correspond to $\sin^22\theta_{13} =
0.02$, $0.05$, and $0.1$, as labelled.
The solid (dashed) [dotted] curves correspond
to $\delta = 0^\circ$ ($90^\circ$) [$-90^\circ$] with $\delta m^2_{21}$
varying from $2\times10^{-5}$~eV$^2$ to $2\times10^{-4}$~eV$^2$.
The error ellipses are shown on each curve for
$\delta m^2 = 5\times10^{-5}$, $10^{-4}$ and
$2\times10^{-4}$~eV$^2$. The curves assume 3 years of neutrino running
followed by 6~years of antineutrino running~\cite{geersb}.
}
\label{fig:jhfcp}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusions}
Neutrino superbeams that exploit MW--scale proton drivers,
together with detectors that are an order of magnitude larger
than those presently foreseen, offer the
prospect of improving the sensitivity to $\nu_\mu \to \nu_e$
oscillations by an order of magnitude beyond the next generation of
experiments. Superbeams would therefore provide a useful tool en route
to a neutrino factory. Our main conclusions are:
\begin{description}
\item{(i)} We believe that the initial $\nu_e$ contamination in the beam
might be reduced to $\sim 0.2$\%, although we note that the contributions
from $K_L$ decay will make this goal difficult to acheive for
multi--GeV beams.
\item{(ii)} The dominant
$\nu_\mu \to \nu_e$ backgrounds will arise from (a) $\pi^0$ production in
NC events, where the $\pi^0$ subsequently fakes an electron signature,
and (b) $\nu_\tau$ CC interactions (if the beam energy is above $\sim 5$~GeV).
\item{iii)}
Of the detector technologies we have considered, only the liquid argon
detector offers the possibility of reducing the background fraction
$f_B$ significantly below 0.01. A multi--GeV long baseline superbeam
experiment with a liquid argon (water cerenkov)
detector would be able to observe a
$\nu_\mu \to \nu_e$ signal with a significance of at least $3\sigma$
above the background provided $\sin^2 2\theta_{13} \gsim 0.002-0.003$ (0.003).
If the
baseline $L \gsim 3000$~km, the same experiment would also be able to
determine the sign of $\delta m^2_{32}$ provided
$\sin^2 2\theta_{13} \gsim 0.01$. However, it seems unlikely that an
unambiguous signal for CP--violation could be established with a
multi--GeV superbeam.
\item{(iv)} A 1~GeV medium baseline superbeam
experiment with a liquid argon detector would be able to observe a
$\nu_\mu \to \nu_e$ signal with a significance of at least $3\sigma$
above the background provided $\sin^2 2\theta_{13} \gsim 0.003$.
The experiment would not be able to determine the sign of $\delta m^2_{32}$,
but if the LMA MSW solution correctly describes the solar neutrino deficit,
there is a small region of allowed parameter space for which CP--violation
in the lepton sector might be established.
\end{description}
We compare the superbeam $\nu_\mu \to \nu_e$ reach with the
corresponding neutrino factory $\nu_e \to \nu_\mu$ reach in
Fig.~\ref{fig:reach}, which shows the $3\sigma$ sensitivity contours in
the $(\delta m^2_{21}, \sin^2 2\theta_{13})$--plane. The superbeam
$\sin^2 2\theta_{13}$ reach of a few $\times 10^{-3}$ is almost independent
of the sub--leading scale $\delta m^2_{21}$. However, since the neutrino
factory probes oscillation amplitudes $O(10^{-4})$ the sub--leading effects
cannot be ignored, and a signal would be observed at a neutrino factory
over a significant range
of $\delta m^2_{21}$ even if $\sin^2 2\theta_{13} = 0$.
%
\begin{figure}
\centerline{
\epsfxsize=0.9\textwidth\epsfbox{update_fig20.ps} }
%\epsfxsize=0.9\textwidth\epsfbox{kerry_fig.ps} }
\caption{Summary of the $3\sigma$ level sensitivities for the
observation of $\nu_\mu \to \nu_e$ at various MW--scale superbeams
(as indicated) with liquid argon ``A'' and water cerenkov ``W'' detector
parameters, and the observation of $\nu_e \to \nu_\mu$ in a 50~kt detector
at 20, 30, 40, and 50~GeV neutrino factories delivering $2 \times 10^{20}$
muon decays in
the beam forming straight section. The limiting $3\sigma$ contours are
shown in the $\delta m^2_{21}, \sin^2 2\theta_{13}$--plane. All curves
correspond to 3~years of running. The grey shaded
area is already excluded by current experiments.
}
\label{fig:reach}
\end{figure}
Finally, both the possibility of exploiting sub--GeV superbeams
(not considered in our present study), and the optimum detector
designs for GeV and multi--GeV experiments, deserve
further consideration.
\bigskip
\bigskip
{\bf Acknowledegments}
\bigskip
We would like to acknowledge support for this study from the
U.S. Department of Energy, the Illinois Dept. of
Commerce and Community Affairs, the Illinois State Board of Higher Education,
and the National Science Foundation.
\clearpage
\begin{thebibliography}{99}
%[1]
\bibitem{report}
C.~Albright et al., ``Physics at a Neutrino Factory'',
report to the Fermilab Directorate, FERMILAB-FN-692,
April 2000.
%[2]
\bibitem{nufact}
S.~Geer, Phys. Rev. {\bf D57}, 6989 (1998).
%[3]
\bibitem{norbert}N. Holtkamp, D.A. Finley, {\em et al},
FERMILAB-PUB-00-108-E, June 2000, submitted to
Phys.Rev.ST Accel.Beams.
%[4]
\bibitem{jhfloi} Y.~Itow {\em et al}, Japanese Hadron Facility Letter
of Intent, February 2000.
%[5]
\bibitem{k2k}
K.~Nishikawa et al. (KEK-PS E362 Collab.),
``Proposal for a Long Baseline Neutrino Oscillation Experiment,
using KEK-PS and Super-Kamiokande", 1995, unpublished;
talk presented by M.~Sakuda (K2K collaboration) at the {\it XXXth
International Conference on High Energy Physics (ICHEP~2000)}, Osaka,
Japan, July 2000.
%[6]
\bibitem{minostdr} MINOS Technical Design Report
NuMI-L-337 October 1998.
%[7]
\bibitem{opera}
See the OPERA web page at http://www.cern.ch/opera/
%[8]
\bibitem{icarus}
See the ICARUS/ICANOE web page at http://pcnometh4.cern.ch/
%[9]
\bibitem{lsnd}
C.~Athanassopoulos et al. (LSND Collab.),
Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 77}, 3082 (1996); {\bf 81}, 1774 (1998);
%\bibitem{LSND2}
G.~Mills, talk at {\it Neutrino-2000}, XIXth International Conference
on Neutrino Physics and Astrophysics, Sudbury, Canada, June 2000.
%[10]
\bibitem{miniboone}
A.~Bazarko, MiniBooNE Collaboration, talk at {\it Neutrino-2000}.,
S.~Koutsoliotas et al., The MiniBooNE Technical Design Report.
%[11]
\bibitem{fpp} These plots have been produced using
the fast Monte Carlo simulation
which is currently being used for the CNGS neutrino fluxes.
The hadron production model is
the BMPT parameterization which is thought to be the most complete
parameterization of the existing data:
M. Bonesini, A. Marchionni, F. Pietropaolo, T. Tabarelli de Fatis,
hep-ph/0101163
%[12]
\bibitem{numitdr} NumI Facility Technical Design Report NuMI-346 March 1998.
%[13]
\bibitem{geersb} V. Barger, S. Geer, R. Raja, K. Whisnant, hep-ph/0012017.
%[14]
\bibitem{orland}
See the ORLaND web page http://www.phys.subr.edu/orland/
%[15]
\bibitem{richter}{B. Richter, hep-ph/0008222.}
%[16]
\bibitem{fmcgeant} Reference for GEANT and LEPTO here...
%[17]
\bibitem{cngs}
CNGS conceptual design report, CERN 98--02.
%[18]
\bibitem{icanoetdr} The ICARUS and NOE collaborations,
ICANOE Proposal, chapters 4 and 5, CERN/SPSC 99-25 (1999).
%[19]
\bibitem{dcasper} D. Casper, private communication.
%[20]
\bibitem{wai} L. Wai, S. Wojcicki, B. Patterson,
NuMI-L-713, hep-ph/0101090, and L. Wai, private communication.
%[21]
\bibitem{maury} H.M. Gallagher and M.C.Goodman,
``Neutrino Cross Sections'', NuMI-112, 1995.
%[22]
\bibitem{icanoe2} Second addendum to ICANOE proposal,
CERN/SPSC 99-40 (Nov. 1999)
%[23]
\bibitem{p907} P907~Proposal,~FERMILAB.~See
http://ppd.fnal.gov/experiments/e907/p907/p907.ps
%[24]
\bibitem{harp} Proposal CERN/PS~214; see the HARP web page
http://harp.web.cern.ch/harp/
%[25]
\bibitem{nomad} See the NOMAD web page
http://nomadinfo.cern.ch/
%[26]
\bibitem{cousins} S. Mishra, private communication and NOMAD NIM paper in
preparation.
%[27]
\bibitem{uno} C.K.Jung,
%FEASIBILITY OF A NEXT GENERATION UNDERGROUND WATER CERENKOV DETECTOR:
(UNO Collab.) \verb+hep-ex/0005046+., and talk at the NNN00 workshop,
August~2000.
%[28]
\bibitem{icacost} F.Arneodo {\em et al.} (ICARUS and NOE Collab.),
``ICANOE: Imaging and calorimetric neutrino oscillation experiment''
CERN/SPSC 99-25, Addendum 1: Preliminary Technical Design \& Cost
Estimates, CERN/SPSC 99-39, both of which
can be found at \verb+http://pcnometh4.cern.ch+
%[29]
\bibitem{soudancost} Rough cost estimate, M.Goodman, private communication.
%[30]
\bibitem{e734cost} Rough cost estimate, Milind Diwan, private communication.
%[31]
\bibitem{superk}
Super-Kamiokande Collaboration,
Y.~Fukuda et al., Phys. Lett. {\bf B433}, 9 (1998);
Phys. Lett. {\bf B436}, 33 (1998);
Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 81}, 1562 (1998);
Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 82}, 2644 (1999).
%[32]
\bibitem{seesaw}{M. Gell-Mann, R. Slansky, and P. Ramond, in {\it Supergravity}
(North-Holland, 1979), p. 315; T. Yanagida, in {\it Proceedings of the Workshop
on Unified Theory and Baryon Number in the Universe} (KEK, Japan, 1979).}
%[33]
\bibitem{bimax}{V. Barger et al., Phys. Lett. {\bf B437}, 107 (1998);
A. Baltz, A. S. Goldhaber, and M. Goldhaber, Phys. Rev. Lett.
{\bf 81}, 5730 (1998); R. Mohapatra and S. Nussinov,
Phys. Rev. {\bf D60}, 013002 (1999); G. Altarelli and F. Feruglio, Phys.
Lett. {\bf B439}, 112 (1998); C. Albright, K. Babu, and S. Barr,
Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 81}, 1167 (1998); C. Albright and S. Barr,
Phys. Lett. {\bf B461}, 218 (1999).}
%[34]
\bibitem{kamland}
KamLAND proposal, Stanford--HEP--98--03; A. Piepke, talk at {\it
Neutrino--2000}, XIXth International Conference on Neutrino Physics and
Astrophysics, Sudbury, Canada, June 2000.
%[35]
\bibitem{chooz}{M. Apollonio et al., Phys. Lett. {\bf B420}, 397 (1998);
Phys. Lett. {\bf B466}, 415 (1999).}
%[36]
\bibitem{bernpark}{R. Bernstein and S. Parke, Phys. Rev. {\bf D44}, 2069
(1991).}
%[37]
\bibitem{petcov}{ S. Petcov, Phys. Lett. {\bf B434}, 321 (1998). M. Chiznov,
M. Maris, S. Petcov, hep-ph/9810501; M. Chiznov, S. Petcov, hep-ph/9903424;
M.Chiznov, S.Petcov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83,1096 (1999).}
%[38]
\bibitem{akh}{E. Akhmedov, A. Dighe, P. Lipari, A. Smirnov, Nucl. Phys. {\bf
B542}, 3 (1999); E. Akhmedov, Nucl.Phys. {\bf B538}, 25 (1999);
hep-ph/0001264.}
%[39]
\bibitem{bargergeer}{V. Barger, S. Geer, K. Whisnant, Phys.Rev. {\bf D61},
053004 (2000).}
%[40]
\bibitem{bgrw2}{V. Barger, S. Geer, R. Raja, K. Whisnant, Phys.Rev. {\bf D62},
013004 (2000); Phys.Rev. {\bf D62}, 073002 (2000) }
%[41]
\bibitem{lb}{ I. Mocioiu, R. Shrock, A.I.P. Conf. Proc. Conf. Proc. 533 (2000);
I. Mocioiu, R. Shrock, Phys. Rev. {\bf D62}, 053017 (2000).}
%[42]
\bibitem{jeff} {J. Nelson, Private communication.}
%[43]
\bibitem{ray} {R. Stefanski, R. Bernstein, Private communication.}
%% additions from Debbies table email
%[29]
%\bibitem{e734result} L.A.Ahrens, {\em et al}, BNL-E734 Collaboration,
%Phys. Rev. {\bf D31} 2732 (1985).
%[31]
%\bibitem{bnle734} Bob Shrock will know whom to quote on this
\end{thebibliography}
\clearpage
\section{Appendix 1: Neutrino Masses and Mixing}
In this appendix we briefly review the theoretical framework used
to describe neutrino oscillations.
\subsection{Neutrino mass}
In the standard SU(3) $\times$ SU(2)$_L \times$ U(1)$_Y$ model
(SM) neutrinos occur in SU(2)$_L$ doublets with $Y=-1$:
\beq
{\cal L}_{L \ell} = \left ( \begin{array}{c}
\nu_\ell \\
\ell \end{array} \right )
\ , \quad \ell=e, \ \mu, \ \tau
\eeq
There are no electroweak-singlet neutrinos (often called right-handed
neutrinos) $\chi_{R,j}$, $j=1,...,n_s$. Equivalently, these could be
written as $\overline{\chi^c}_{L,j}$. There are three types of
possible Lorentz-invariant bilinear operator products that can be formed from
two Weyl fermions $\psi_L$ and $\chi_R$:
\begin{itemize}
\item
Dirac: \ $m_D \bar \psi_L \chi_R + h.c.$ \ This connects opposite-chirality
fields and conserves fermion number.
\item
Left-handed Majorana: \ $m_L \psi_L^T C \psi_L + h.c.$ where
$C=i\gamma_2\gamma_0$ is the charge conjugation matrix.
\item
Right-handed Majorana: \ $M_R \chi_R^T C \chi_R + h.c.$
\end{itemize}
The Majorana mass terms connect fermion fields of the same chirality and
violate fermion number (by two units).
Using the anticommutativity of fermion fields and the property $C^T = -C$, it
follows that a Majorana mass matrix appearing as
\beq
\psi_i^T C (M_{maj})_{ij} \psi_j
\eeq
is symmetric in flavor indices:
\beq
M_{maj}^T = M_{maj}
\eeq
Thus, in the SM, there is
no Dirac neutrino mass term because (i) it is forbidden as a bare
mass term by the gauge invariance, (ii) it cannot occur, as do the quark and
charged lepton mass terms, via spontaneous symmetry breaking (SSB) of the
electroweak (EW) symmetry starting from a Yukawa term because there are no
EW-singlet neutrinos $\chi_{R,j}$. There is also
no left-handed Majorana mass term because (i) it is forbidden as a bare mass
term and (ii) it would
require a $I=1$, $Y=2$ Higgs field, but the SM has no such Higgs field.
Finally, there is
no right-handed Majorana mass term because there is no
$\chi_{R,j}$. The same holds for the minimal supersymmetric standard model
(MSSM) and the minimal SU(5) grand unified theory (GUT), both for the original
and supersymmetric versions.
However, it is easy to add electroweak-singlet neutrinos $\chi_R$ to the SM,
MSSM, or SU(5) GUT; these are gauge-singlets under the SM gauge group and
SU(5), respectively. Denote these theories as the extended SM, etc. This gives
rise to both Dirac and Majorana mass terms, the former via Yukawa terms and the
latter as bare mass terms.
In the extended SM, MSSM, or SU(5) GUT, one could consider the addition of the
$\chi_R$ fields as {\it ad hoc}. However, a more complete grand unification is
achieved with the (SUSY) SO(10) GUT, since all of the fermions of a
given generation fit into a single representation
of SO(10), namely, the 16-dimensional spinor
representation $\psi_L$. In this theory the states $\chi_R$ are not {\it
ad hoc} additions, but are guaranteed to exist.
In terms of SU(5) representations
(recall, SO(10) $\supset$ SU(5) $\times$ U(1))
\beq
16_L = 10_L + \bar 5_L + 1_L
\eeq
so for each generation, in addition to the usual 15 Weyl fermions comprising
the 10$_L$ and $5_R$, (equivalently $\bar 5_L$) of SU(5), there is also an
SU(5)-singlet, $\chi^c_L$ (equivalently, $\chi_R$).
So in SO(10) GUT,
electroweak-singlet neutrinos are guaranteed to occur, with number equal to the
number of SM generations, inferred to be $n_s=3$. Furthermore,
the generic scale for the coefficients in $M_R$ is expected to be the GUT
scale, $M_{GUT} \sim 10^{16}$ GeV.
There is an important mechanism, which originally arose in the context of
GUT's, but is more general, that naturally predicts light neutrinos. This is
the seesaw mechanism~\cite{seesaw}.
The basic point is that because the Majorana mass term
is an electroweak singlet, the associated Majorana
mass matrix $M_R$ should not be related to the electroweak mass scale $v$, and
from a top-down point of view, it should be much larger than this scale. Denote
this generically as $m_R$.
This has the very important consequence that when we diagonalize the joint
Dirac-Majorana mass matrix, the eigenvalues (masses) will be comprised of
two different sets: $n_s$ heavy masses, of order $m_R$, and 3 light
masses.
The largeness of $m_R$ then naturally explains the smallness of the masses (or,
most conservatively, upper bounds on masses) of the known neutrinos.
This appealing mechanism also applies in the
physical case of three generations and for $n_s \ge 2$.
At a phenomenological level, without further theoretical assumptions,
there is a large range of values for the light $m_\nu$, since (1) the
actual scale of $m_R$ is theory-dependent, and (2) it is, {\it a priori}, not
clear what to take for $m_D$ since the known (Dirac) masses range over 5 orders
of magnitude, from $m_e, m_u \sim $ MeV to $m_t = 174$ GeV, and this
uncertainty gets squared. However, in the SO(10) GUT scheme, where one can
plausibly use $m_D \sim m_t$ for the third-generation neutrino, and
$m_R \sim M_{GUT} \sim 10^{16}$ GeV for the scale of masses in the right-handed
Majorana mass matrix, one has
\beq
m(\nu_3) \sim \frac{m_t^2}{m_R} \sim 10^{-3} \ {\rm eV}
\eeq
which is close to the value $m(\nu_3) = 0.06$ eV obtained from
$\delta m^2_{atm}$ if one assumes a hierarchical neutrino mass spectrum with
$m(\nu_3) >> m(\nu_2)$. Thus, the seesaw mechanism not only provides an
appealing qualitative explanation of why neutrino masses are much smaller than
the masses of the other known fermions, but also, with plausible assumptions,
predicts a value for $m(\nu_3)$ comparable to suggestions from current
atmospheric neutrino data.
\subsection{Neutrino mixing and oscillations}
The unitary transformation
relating the mass eigenstates to the weak eigenstates is as follows,
\beq
\nu_{\ell_a} = \sum_{i=1}^3 U_{a i} \nu_i \ , \quad \ell_1=e, \ \ell_2=\mu, \
\ell_3=\tau
\eeq
i.e.,
\beq
\left ( \begin{array}{c} \nu_e \\ \nu_\mu \\ \nu_\tau \end{array} \right )
= \left( \begin{array}{ccc}
U_{e1} & U_{e2} & U_{e3} \\
U_{\mu 1} & U_{\mu 2} & U_{\mu 3} \\
U_{\tau 1} & U_{\tau 2} & U_{\tau 3} \end{array} \right )
\left( \begin{array}{c} \nu_1 \\
\nu_2 \\
\nu_3 \end{array} \right )
\eeq
One possible representation of this $3 \times 3$ unitary matrix is
\beq
U=
\pmatrix{c_{12} c_{13} & s_{12}c_{13} & s_{13} e^{-i\delta} \cr
-s_{12}c_{23}-c_{12}s_{23}s_{13}e^{i\delta}
& c_{12}c_{23}-s_{12}s_{23}s_{13}e^{i\delta} & s_{23}c_{13} \cr
s_{12}s_{23}-c_{12}c_{23}s_{13}e^{i\delta}
&-c_{12}s_{23}-s_{12}c_{23}s_{13}e^{i\delta} & c_{23}c_{13}}
\eeq
where
%$R_{ij}$ is the rotation matrix in the $ij$ subspace,
$c_{ij}=\cos\theta_{ij}$, $s_{ij}=\sin\theta_{ij}$.
Thus, in this framework, the neutrino mixing depends on the four angles
$\theta_{12}$, $\theta_{13}$, $\theta_{23}$, and $\delta$,
and on two independent
differences of squared masses, $\delta m^2_{atm.}$, which is
$\delta m^2_{32} = m(\nu_3)^2-m(\nu_2)^2$ in the favored fit, and
$\delta m^2_{sol}$, which may be taken to be $\delta m^2_{21}=m(\nu_2)^2-
m(\nu_1)^2$. Note that these quantities involve both magnitude and sign;
although in a two-species neutrino oscillation in vacuum the sign does not
enter, in the three species oscillations relevant here, and including both
matter effects and CP violation, the signs of the $\delta m^2$ quantities do
enter and can, in principle, be measured.
In the 1980's, most theorists thought that lepton mixing would be hierarchical,
i.e. the lepton mixing matrix $U$ would differ from the identity by small
entries, and these would be smaller as one moved further from the diagonal, as
is established to be the case with quark mixing. This was, indeed, a large
part of the appeal of the MSW mechanism: it could produce large mixing with
small vacuum mixing angles. However, the results from the SuperK measurements
of atmospheric neutrinos have forced a revision in this conventional picture,
providing strong evidence for essentially maximal mixing,
$\sin^2 2\theta_{23}=1$. A challenge to model-builders has thus been to get
maximal $\sin^2 2\theta_{23}$. More recently, the SuperK solar neutrino data
favors large $\sin^2 2\theta_{12}$. Bimaximal mixing schemes take
$\theta_{23}=\theta_{12}=\pi/4$ and $\theta_{13} << 1$ \cite{bimax}. There are
no compelling theoretical suggestions concerning the magnitude of
$\theta_{13}$, and one of the important physics goals for neutrino oscillation
experiments with conventional beams is to try to measure this angle.
For our later discussion it will be useful to record the formulas for the
various relevant neutrino oscillation transitions. In the absence of any
matter effect, the probability that a (relativistic) weak neutrino eigenstate
$\nu_a$ becomes $\nu_b$ after propagating a distance $L$ is
\beqs
P(\nu_a \to \nu_b) &=& \delta_{ab} - 4 \sum_{i>j=1}^3
Re(K_{ab,ij}) \sin^2 \Bigl ( \frac{\delta m_{ij}^2 L}{4E} \Bigr ) +
\nonumber\\&+& 4 \sum_{i>j=1}^3 Im(K_{ab,ij})
\sin \Bigl ( \frac{\delta m_{ij}^2 L}{4E} \Bigr )
\cos \Bigl ( \frac{\delta m_{ij}^2 L}{4E} \Bigr )
\label{pab}
\eeqs
where
\beq
K_{ab,ij} = U_{ai}U^*_{bi}U^*_{aj} U_{bj}
\label{k}
\eeq
and
\beq
\delta m_{ij}^2 = m(\nu_i)^2-m(\nu_j)^2
\label{delta}
\eeq
Recall that in vacuum, CPT invariance implies
$P(\bar\nu_b \to \bar\nu_a)=P(\nu_a \to \nu_b)$ and hence, for $b=a$,
$P(\bar\nu_a \to \bar\nu_a) = P(\nu_a \to \nu_a)$. For the
CP-transformed reaction $\bar\nu_a \to \bar\nu_b$ and the T-reversed
reaction $\nu_b \to \nu_a$, the transition probabilities are given by the
right-hand side of (\ref{pab}) with the sign of the imaginary term reversed.
In the following we will assume CPT invariance,
so that CP violation is equivalent to T violation.
The solar and atmospheric neutrino data indicate that
\beq
\delta m^2_{21}
= \delta m^2_{sol} \ll \delta m^2_{31} \approx \delta m^2_{32}=\delta m^2_{atm}
\label{hierarchy}
\eeq
In this case, CP (T) violation effects are very small, so that in
vacuum
\beq
P(\bar\nu_a \to \bar\nu_b) \simeq P(\nu_a \to \nu_b)
\label{pcp}
\eeq
\beq
P(\nu_b \to \nu_a) \simeq P(\nu_a \to \nu_b)
\label{pt}
\eeq
In the absence of T violation, the second equality (\ref{pt}) would still hold
in matter, but even in the absence of CP violation, the first equality
(\ref{pcp}) would not hold. With the hierarchy (\ref{hierarchy}), the
expressions for the specific oscillation transitions are
\beqs
P(\nu_\mu \to \nu_\tau) & = & 4|U_{33}|^2|U_{23}|^2
\sin^2 \Bigl ( \frac{\delta m^2_{atm}L}{4E} \Bigr ) \cr\cr
& = & \sin^2 2\theta_{23} \cos^4 \theta_{13}
\sin^2 \Bigl (\frac{\delta m^2_{atm}L}{4E} \Bigr )
\label{pnumunutau}
\eeqs
\beqs
P(\nu_\mu \to \nu_e) & = & 4|U_{13}|^2 |U_{23}|^2
\sin^2 \Bigl ( \frac{\delta m^2_{atm}L}{4E} \Bigr ) \cr\cr
& = & \sin^2 2\theta_{13}\sin^2 \theta_{23}
\sin^2 \Bigl (\frac{\delta m^2_{atm}L}{4E} \Bigr )
\label{pnuenumu}
\eeqs
%
With units inserted, one has the general relation
\beq
\sin^2 \Bigl (\frac{\delta m^2L}{4E} \Bigr ) =
\sin^2 \Bigl (\frac{1.27 (\delta m^2/{\rm eV}^2)(L/{\rm km})}
{(E/{\rm GeV})} \Bigr )
\label{oscrel}
\eeq
This makes it clear what the approximate sensitivity of an experiment with a
given pathlength is to a neutrino oscillation channel involving a given $\delta
m^2$, for a beam with an energy $E$.
There can be significant corrections to the one-$\delta m^2$ oscillation
formulas if $\delta m^2_{sol}$ is at the upper end of the LMA range,
$\delta m^2_{sol} \sim 10^{-4}$ eV$^2$,
if $\sin^2 2\theta_{13}$ is sufficiently
small. In this case, keeping dominant terms and neglecting possible small CP
violating terms, eq. (\ref{pnuenumu}) becomes
\beqs
P(\nu_\mu \to \nu_e) & = & \sin^2 2\theta_{13} \sin^2 \theta_{23}
\sin^2 \Bigl (\frac{\delta m^2_{atm}L}{4E} \Bigr ) \cr\cr
& + & \sin^2 2\theta_{12} \cos^2 \theta_{13} \cos^2 \theta_{23}
\sin^2 \Bigl (\frac{\delta m^2_{sol}L}{4E} \Bigr )
\label{pnuenumuc}
\eeqs
Let us denote the two terms as $T_1$ and $T_2$. As an illustrative example,
let us consider a pathlength $L$ sufficiently short that matter effects are not
too important. Assume $\sin^2 2\theta_{13} =0.01$ and the upper end
of the LMA solution, with $\sin^2 2\theta_{12} =0.8$ and $\delta m^2_{sol}
= 10^{-4}$ eV$^2$. Then for $L=730$ km, $T_2 = 0.1 T_1$. For these values,
$\sin^2(\delta m^2_{atm}L/(4E))=0.78$ while
$\sin^2(\delta m^2_{sol}L/(4E))=0.95 \times 10^{-3}$, so that the pathlength is
causing a strong suppression of the subdominant oscillation due to $\delta
m^2_{sol}$.
%For a calculation with $L=2900$ km, taking into account matter
%effects, see, e.g., Fig. 5 of \cite{lb}.
For sufficiently large $L$ and small
$\sin^2 2\theta_{13}$, the $\delta m^2_{sol}$ oscillation can be a significant
contribution to $\nu_\mu \to \nu_e$. However, we note that making $L$ greater
would mean that one would also have to make $E$ greater to keep an acceptable
event rate with a given detector, and this would tend to increase backgrounds
to the $\nu_\mu \to \nu_e$ signal. We also note that if
KamLAND~\cite{kamland} achieves its
projected sensitivity, it will have tested the LMA solution by $\sim$ 2005.
In neutrino oscillation searches using reactor antineutrinos,
i.e. tests of $\bar\nu_e \to \bar\nu_e$, the two-species mixing hypothesis used
to fit the data is
\beq
P(\nu_e \to \nu_e) = 1 - \sin^2 2\theta_{reactor}
\sin^2 \Bigl (\frac{\delta m^2_{reactor}L}{4E} \Bigr )
\label{preactor}
\eeq
where $\delta m^2_{reactor}$ is the squared mass difference relevant for
$\bar\nu_e \to \bar\nu_x$. In particular, in the upper range of values of
$\delta m^2_{atm}$, since the transitions $\bar\nu_e \to \bar\nu_\mu$ and
$\bar\nu_e \to \bar\nu_\tau$ contribute to $\bar\nu_e$ disappearance, one has
\beq
P(\nu_e \to \nu_e) = 1 - \sin^2 2\theta_{13} \sin^2 \Bigl
(\frac{\delta m^2_{atm}L}{4E} \Bigr )
\label{preactoratm}
\eeq
i.e., $\theta_{reactor}=\theta_{13}$, and the Chooz reactor experiment yields
the bound~\cite{chooz}
\beq
\sin^2 2\theta_{13} < 0.10
\label{chooz}
\eeq
which is also consistent with conclusions from the SuperK data analysis
\cite{superk}.
Further, the quantity ``$\sin^2 2\theta_{atm}$'' often used to fit
the data on atmospheric neutrinos with a simplified two-species mixing
hypothesis, is, in the three-generation case,
\beq
\sin^2 2\theta_{atm} \equiv \sin^2 2\theta_{23} \cos^4 \theta_{13}
\label{thetaatm}
\eeq
The SuperK data implies that (up to redefinitions of quadrants, etc.)
\beq
\theta_{23} \simeq \frac{\pi}{4}
\label{theta23}
\eeq
and $\sin^2 2\theta_{13} << 1$. Thus, to
good accuracy, $\theta_{atm} = \theta_{23}$.
The types of neutrino oscillations that can be searched for with a conventional
neutrino beam include:
\begin{itemize}
\item
$\nu_\mu \to \nu_\mu$ (disappearance)
\item
$\nu_\mu \to \nu_e$, $\nu_e \to e^-$ (appearance)
\item
$\nu_\mu \to \nu_\tau$, $\nu_\tau \to \tau^-$; $\tau^- \to (e^-, \mu^-)...$
(appearance)
\end{itemize}
Searches for the conjugate oscillation channels require $\bar\nu_\mu$ beams.
Since these
have lower fluxes than $\nu_\mu$ beams (and this difference can be large
with sign-selected $\pi$ beams that are decaying), one can concentrate on
oscillation channels with $\nu_\mu$ beams.
For neutrino oscillation experiments with pathlengths of order $10^3$ km,
matter effects are significant. These have been studied in a number of papers,
e.g., \cite{bernpark,petcov,akh,bargergeer,bgrw2,lb}. The constant density
assumption provides a first approximation; realistic density profiles were
included in the calculations of \cite{bargergeer,bgrw2,lb}.
In the constant density
approximation, for a simple two-species mixing, one has
\beq
P(\nu_a \to \nu_b) = \sin^2(2\theta_m)\sin^2(\omega L)
\label{pmatter}
\eeq
where
\beq
\sin^2(2\theta_m) = \frac{\sin^2(2\theta)}{\sin^2(2\theta) + \biggl [
\cos(2\theta) - \frac{2\sqrt{2}G_FN_e E}{\delta m^2} \biggr ]^2}
\label{sin2m}
\eeq
\beq
\omega^2 = \biggl [ \frac{\delta m^2}{4E}\cos(2\theta)
- \frac{G_f}{\sqrt{2}}N_e \biggr ]^2 +
\biggl [ \frac{\delta m^2}{4E}\sin(2\theta) \biggr ]^2
\label{omega}
\eeq
where $N_e$ is the electron number density of the matter.
\bigskip
\section{Appendix 2: Detector unit costs}
Estimating the unit costs for each detector type is not
straightforward. We can base our cost estimates on detectors that are
currently under construction, or have recently been proposed. However,
these example detectors have been proposed/costed at different times
using different accounting systems in different currencies with
different levels of external scrutiny. To attempt to compare
like--with--like we have started from the bare materials and services
(M\&S) costs of the detector itself, which we have corrected to
include salaries (SWF), engineering and R\&D (EDIA) costs. The scaling
factors were determined for a current US-based neutrino detector
(MINOS). An estimate of overheads and contingencies (35\%) has been
included to reflect the ``fully-loaded'' costs associated with a
US-based detector. Finally, the resulting unit costs have been
corrected for inflation to correspond to FY01 dollars. Based on the
fully loaded FY01 unit costs, for each detector type the mass of the
detectors that could be built with a budget of \$500M can be
estimated. The costs for a cavern for each detector technology is
based on the recent UNO estimates for a hard rock cavern
(\$200/m$^3$) using the computed detector masses and the densities of
the various detector media~\cite{uno}. The results are summarized in
Table~\ref{taba2}.
The bare detector costs are based on the following:
%
\begin{description}
\item{(i)} The water cherenkov detector estimates are based on those
documented in the UNO cost estimate~\cite{uno}, and correspond to 237M\$/450~kt
(FY00 dollars), assuming 10\% photomultiplier coverage in the entire
detector. We assume a hard rock site rather than the proposed
WIPP site. The actual UNO proposal is based on 40\% photomultiplier
coverage in the central third of the detector's volume, which is
optimized for certain proton decay and astrophysical neutrino channels.
These physics topics are the driving force behind the UNO proposal.
\item{(ii)} The liquid argon unit cost is based on the Icanoe costs of
14.4~MEuro per 1.9~kt module, with \$0.9425 per/Euro (FY99 dollars).
Note the costing presented in this document assumes only cryogenic
modules~\cite{icacost}.
\item{(iii)} The steel-scintillator unit cost is based on the
MINOS M\&S unit cost, which is based on the most recent
(2/01) far-detector cost data giving a total of 16.3M\$ (FY98
dollars)~\cite{minostdr,jeff}. The total far detector (5.4~kt) cost
including R\&D, labor, and institutional overhead costs in then-year
dollars is 25.4M\$.
\item{(iv)} The mineral oil cerenkov unis cost is based on the
MiniBooNE M\&S unit cost, which is based on TDR detector
costs (FY00 dollars)~\cite{miniboone,ray}.
\end{description}
\begin{table}[h]
\caption{Detector cost estimates.}
\begin{tabular}{lcccc}
&&&&\\
\hline
& Water &Mineral Oil& Liquid & Steel/\\
&Cerenkov&Cerenkov& Argon &Scintillator \\
% & (UNO) & (BooNE) &(ICARUS)& (MINOS) \\
\hline
%Mass (kt) & 650 & 650 & 1.9 & 5.4 \\
%Bare Cost (M\$) & 237 & 843 & 13.6 & 16.3 \\
Bare Unloaded Unit Cost (M\$/kt) & 0.36 & 1.3 & 7.1 & 3.0 \\
Unloaded Unit Cost (M\$/kt)~$^{a)}$ & 0.57 & 1.75& 11.2 & 4.7 \\
FY for estimates & 2000 & 2000& 1999 & 1998 \\
\hline
Loaded Unit Cost (M\$/kt)~$^{b)}$ & 0.67 & 1.92 & 13.5 & 5.9 \\
Mass (kt) per \$500M & 745 & 261 & 37 & 85 \\
\hline
Medium density (g/cm$^3$) &1.0 & 0.9 & 1.8 & 3.5 \\
Cavern cost (M\$)~$^c)$ & 106 & 41 & 2.9 & 3.4 \\
\hline \\
\end{tabular}
\\\\
a) M\&S + SWF + EDIA \\
b) FY01 costs including overhead and 35\% contingency \\
c) Note that deep caverns are not necessarily needed.
\label{taba2}
\end{table}
\end{document}