On near detectors at a neutrino factory.

On near detectors at a neutrino factory.

Jian Tang, Walter Winter Speaker email: jtang@physik.uni-wuerzburg.deemail: winter@physik.uni-wuerzburg.de
Abstract

The geometric effects of the beam in near detectors at a neutrino factory are discussed. The refined systematics treatment, including cross section errors, flux errors and background uncertainties, is compared with the IDS-NF one. Different near detector setups are included. We also probe their effects both at the measurements of standard neutrino oscillation parameters and constraints of the non-standard neutrino interaction.

address=Institut für Theoretische Physik und Astrophysik, Universität Würzburg,
D-97074 Würzburg, Germany

On near detectors at a neutrino factory.

,

missing

Keywords:  Neutrino oscillations, neutrino factory, non-standard interactions

PACS:  14.60.Pq, 13.15.+g, 14.60.St


Introduction

The design of a neutrino factory has been put forward and discussed in international studies, such as in Refs. Albright et al. (2000); Apollonio et al. (2002); Albright et al. (2004); Bandyopadhyay et al. (2007). Especially the most recent study, the International scoping study of a future Neutrino Factory and super-beam facility Bandyopadhyay et al. (2007); Abe et al. (2007); Berg et al. (2008), has laid the foundations for the currently ongoing Design Study for the Neutrino Factory (IDS-NF) ids (2007). This initiative from about 2007 to 2012 is aiming to present a design report, schedule, cost estimate, and risk assessment for a neutrino factory. It defines a baseline setup of a high energy neutrino factory with two baselines and (the “magic” baseline) operated by two racetrack-shaped storage rings, where the muon energy is 25 GeV (for optimization questions, see Refs. Huber et al. (2006); Gandhi and Winter (2007)). There are no Near Detector (ND) specifications yet, and the systematics treatment is done in an effective way by signal and background normalization errors uncorrelated among all channels and detectors. Therefore, there are a number of questions currently raised within the IDS-NF:

  • Study of the potential of near detectors to cancel systematical errors.

  • Study of the characteristics of the near detectors, such as technology, number, etc..

  • Study of the use of the near detectors for searches of new physics.

For the near detectors at a neutrino factory, a summary of options can be found in LABEL:~Abe et al. (2007). In the work Tang and Winter (2009), a more refined systematics treatment including cross section errors, flux errors, and background uncertainties is simulated to address several of these questions by GLoBES LABEL:~Huber et al. (2005, 2007). Both the physics results of the high energy neutrino factory for standard oscillations and also sensitivities of nonstandard interactions are presented.

Definition of near detectors

1: Geometry of the muon storage ring and possible near detector (ND) locations (not to scale). The baseline is the distance between production point and near detector, i.e., . This figure is taken from LABEL:~Tang and Winter (2009)

At first, we consider the geometry of the storage ring and possbile near detector locations as depicted in Fig. 1 where is the length of the decay straight, is the distance from the nearest point in the decay straight to the detector and the baseline is the distance between the production point and the near detector. Then we could define limiting cases in terms of geometry.
Near detector limit. In this case, the neutrino beam divergence is smaller than the detector diameter for the farthest decay point of the decay straight , i.e., the full flux (integrated over the angle) is seen by the detector from any decay point in the straight.
Far detector limit. In this case, the beam diameter given by the opening angle applied to the size of detector is of the order of the detector diameter at the nearest decay point , where the near detector takes effects as a far detector for any decay point in the straight.

Parameter ND1 ND2 ND3 ND4 ND5
Diameter 17 m 4 m 4 m 0.32 m 6.8 m
Distance 80 m 1000 m 80 m 80 m 1000 m
Mass 450 t 25 t 25 t 0.2 t 2000 t
1: Definition of near detectors.

Our near detector parameters are shown in Table 1. The fiducial volumes in terms of diameter, distance to the end of the decay straight, and mass. The fiducial volumes are assumed to be cylindrical. If the density is about (such as for a liquid scintillator), the active detectors will be about 2 m long for ND1 to ND4. There we define a hypothetical ND1 as a detector operating in the near detector limit, and a ND2 as a detector operating close to the far detector limit. ND3 is an intermediate case between the near and far limits, as we will demonstrate later. The size of ND2 and ND3 is similar to conventional near detectors, such as SciBOONE, MINERA, NOMAD or the MINOS near detector. ND4 is a smaller version of ND2 with the same ratio between detector diameter and distance . If the source was a point source (i.e., the straight would be a point), the event rate would be exactly the same as in ND2. Finally, ND5 is an OPERA-like near detector, which we will only use for non-standard physics tests. It has to be mentioned that the impact of near detectors are limited by the statistics in the far detector. Further investigations also prove it by the fact that there is no significant difference for measurements of standard neutrino oscillation parameters from ND1 to ND4 so that we only refer to the “near detector” in the following to simplify the descriptions.

Systematics treatment

2: The - allowed region for a high energy neutrino factory at the baseline only; , , CL (2 d.o.f.), best-fit points marked by diamonds. The filled contours correspond to our near detector-far detector simulation, whereas the unfilled contours represent the far detector only. Normal hierarchy only, i.e., no sign-degenerate solution shown. The figures are similar to those in LABEL:~Tang and Winter (2009).

In the following, we give the refined systematics treatment and compare it with the systematics treatment in the IDS-NF baseline setup.
IDS-NF baseline setup:
The currently discussed setup for a high energy neutrino factory is the IDS-NF baseline setup ids (2007). It consists of two baselines and , operated by two racetrack-shaped storage rings simultaneously with both polarities ( and stored, circulating in different directions). The geometry of a storage ring is shown in Fig. 1. There are no near detector specifications yet. We define the polarities of the muons stored in the rings as:

(1)
(2)

The following oscillation channels are used (with the corresponding muon polarities):

(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)

For the backgrounds, neutral currents are included for all channels, and mis-identified charged current events are included for the appearance channels. Since there are two racetrack-shaped storage rings and targeted towards two far detectors, there are altogether eight oscillation channels. In the IDS-NF baseline setup 1.0, the systematics treatment is rather straightforward. For each channel and baseline, an overall normalization error is included, which is for the signal rates, and for the background rates. The normalization errors are uncorrelated between signal and background, among different channels, detectors, and polarities, but fully correlated among all bins. The energy resolution is assumed to be .
Refined systematics treatment:
Compared to the IDS-NF systematics, the different signal errors are correlated in a particular way. For instance, the cross section errors at the two far detectors are fully correlated, which will turn out to have interesting effects.
Flux normalization errors are fully uncorrelated among the different polarities , and storage rings , , but fully correlated among all bins and all channels operated with the same beam.
Cross section errors for the inclusive charged current cross sections are fully correlated among all signal and background channels measuring or , but fully uncorrelated among all bins.
Background normalization errors are fully correlated among all bins, but fully uncorrelated among all channels, polarities, and detectors.

Simulation results

3: CP violation discovery reach as a function of true and the fraction of (true) for one far detector (left) and two far detectors (right) at CL. The figures are taken from LABEL:~Tang and Winter (2009).

For the experiment simulation, we use the GLoBES software Huber et al. (2005, 2007) with user-defined systematics. For the oscillation parameters, we use (see, e.g., Refs. Gonzalez-Garcia and Maltoni (2008); Schwetz et al. (2008)) , , , , and a normal mass hierarchy, unless specified otherwise. We impose external errors on and of 4% each, and we include a 2% matter density uncertainty Geller and Hara (2001); Ohlsson and Winter (2003).
Standard oscillation measurements:
In Fig. 2, we show - allowed region for a neutrino factory at the baseline only. The impact of near detectors is illustrated with filled contours. In the right panel, the effect of the near detectors is very large for maximal mixing. Meanwhile, the effect in the left panel is less dramatic than in the right one but still substantial, since the filled contours are limited by the statistics in the far detector. Especially, the octant degeneracy can be excluded with the near detectors at a high confidence level (if is large enough).

In Fig. 3, we show the CP violation discovery reach as a function of the true and the fraction of (true) for one far detector in the left panel and two detectors in the right panel. For the and CP violation discovery reaches, we have not found any significant impact, because these measurements are background limited. For the CP violation discovery reach as depicted in Fig. 3, the near detectors are important in the left panel, because the unknown atmospheric parameters lead to intrinsic unknown backgrounds from the CP-even terms, which can be controlled by the near detectors. For a two baseline high energy neutrino factory, such as the IDS-NF baseline setup with combined with , we have demonstrated that the considered systematical errors cancel even without near detectors and good flux monitoring. In such a setup, the same product of fluxes and cross sections is measured in both far detectors. Therefore, a two baseline neutrino factory should be very robust with respect to systematics, no matter how many near detectors are used.
Non-Standard interaction sensitivites:
Non-standard interactions (NSI) Wolfenstein (1978); Valle (1987); Guzzo et al. (1991); Grossman (1995); Roulet (1991) are effects of physics beyond the Standard Model. Near detectors may be very relevant for the extraction of the source NSI, since these lead to an unambiguous “zero-distance” () effect proportional to  Gonzalez-Garcia et al. (2001); Huber et al. (2002).

Without ND5 With ND5
0.004 0.0007
0.4 0.0006
0.004 0.004
0.02 0.02
2: Sensitivity to the non-diagonal NSI parameters where the phases have been marginalized over.

Because there are no tau neutrinos in the beam, the most interesting option may be to use near detectors to measure appearance, see, e.g., Refs. Antusch:2006vwa (); FernandezMartinez:2007ms (); Malinsky et al. (2009a, b). Therefore, we use the high energy neutrino factory with ND3 and two (symmetrically operated) additional 2 kt OPERA-like emulsion cloud chambers (ECC) as simulated in LABEL:~Huber et al. (2006) and described in LABEL:~Autiero et al. (2004) for the channel at the neutrino factory, and operate them at corresponding to ND5 (see also Fig. 1). The NOMAD limits for the zero-distance effect could be improved by about two orders of magnitude. In addition, if it is possibe that source and matter NSI are connected at a generic level assuming dimension six effective operators generated at the tree level by messagers from a high energy scale Gavela:2008ra (), even the matter NSI parameter becomes quite strongly limited, exceeding the bound from lepton universality. Furthermore, CP violation from matter NSI may become measurable down to 0.0005 in .

Conclusions

We have included the geometry of the source and the detectors in the event rate calculations in the definitions of qualitatively different near detectors. In addition, we have refined the systematics treatment including cross section errors, flux normalization errors and background uncertainties. For the characteristics of the near detectors for standard oscillation measurements, we have found that two near detectors should be operated on-axis (with respect to the decay straights) if the muons and anti-muons circulate in different directions in a racetrack-shaped ring. If the neutrino factory has only one baseline, such as a high energy () neutrino factory with , the near detectors are mandatory for the leading atmospheric parameter measurements. For the and mass hierarchy discovery reaches, we have not found any significant impact, because these measurements are background limited. For the CP violation discovery reach, the near detectors are important, because the unknown atmospheric parameters lead to intrinsic unknown backgrounds from the CP-even terms, which can be controlled by the near detectors. For a two baseline high energy neutrino factory, such as the IDS-NF baseline setup with combined with , we have demonstrated that the considered systematical errors cancel even without near detectors and good flux monitoring. Finally, we have considered OPERA-like near detectors for appearance to measure non-standard interactions (NSI). We have demonstrated the NOMAD limits for the zero-distance effect could be improved by about two orders of magnitude. In a word, two near detectors are mandatory for a successful neutrino factory operation with one baseline, and a good enough flux monitoring will be useful for some physics measurements. However, a two baseline high energy neutrino factory may prove to be very robust with respect to systematical errors, even if the systematics goals in the initial one baseline operation phase cannot be achieved.

Acknowledgments

JT appreciates the scholarship and good organizations in NuFact09. JT is supported to attend the conference by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft through the Research Training Group GRK 1147 Theoretical Astrophysics and Particle Physics.

References

  • Albright et al. (2000) C. Albright, et al., Nucl. Phys. B547, 21–38 (2000), hep-ex/0008064.
  • Apollonio et al. (2002) M. Apollonio, et al. (2002), hep-ph/0210192.
  • Albright et al. (2004) C. Albright, et al. (2004), physics/0411123.
  • Bandyopadhyay et al. (2007) A. Bandyopadhyay, et al. (2007), 0710.4947.
  • Abe et al. (2007) T. Abe, et al. (2007), 0712.4129.
  • Berg et al. (2008) J. S. Berg, et al. (2008), 0802.4023.
  • ids (2007) International design study of the neutrino factory, http://www.ids-nf.org.
  • Huber et al. (2006) P. Huber, M. Lindner, M. Rolinec, and W. Winter, Phys. Rev. D74, 073003 (2006), hep-ph/0606119.
  • Gandhi and Winter (2007) R. Gandhi, and W. Winter, Phys. Rev. D75, 053002 (2007), hep-ph/0612158.
  • Tang and Winter (2009) J. Tang, and W. Winter (2009), Phys. Rev. D80, 053001 (2009), 0903.3039.
  • Huber et al. (2005) P. Huber, M. Lindner, and W. Winter, Comput. Phys. Commun. 167, 195 (2005), http://www.mpi-hd.mpg.de/lin/globes/, hep-ph/0407333.
  • Huber et al. (2007) P. Huber, J. Kopp, M. Lindner, M. Rolinec, and W. Winter, Comput. Phys. Commun. 177, 432–438 (2007), hep-ph/0701187.
  • Gonzalez-Garcia and Maltoni (2008) M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, and M. Maltoni, Phys. Rept. 460, 1–129 (2008), 0704.1800.
  • Schwetz et al. (2008) T. Schwetz, M. Tortola, and J. W. F. Valle, New J. Phys. 10, 113011 (2008), 0808.2016.
  • Geller and Hara (2001) R. J. Geller, and T. Hara, Phys. Rev. Lett. 49, 98–101 (2001), hep-ph/0111342.
  • Ohlsson and Winter (2003) T. Ohlsson, and W. Winter, Phys. Rev. D68, 073007 (2003), hep-ph/0307178.
  • Wolfenstein (1978) L. Wolfenstein, Phys. Rev. D17, 2369 (1978).
  • Valle (1987) J. W. F. Valle, Phys. Lett. B199, 432 (1987).
  • Guzzo et al. (1991) M. M. Guzzo, A. Masiero, and S. T. Petcov, Phys. Lett. B260, 154–160 (1991).
  • Grossman (1995) Y. Grossman, Phys. Lett. B359, 141–147 (1995), hep-ph/9507344.
  • Roulet (1991) E. Roulet, Phys. Rev. D44, 935–938 (1991).
  • Gonzalez-Garcia et al. (2001) M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, Y. Grossman, A. Gusso, and Y. Nir, Phys. Rev. D64, 096006 (2001), hep-ph/0105159.
  • Huber et al. (2002) P. Huber, T. Schwetz, and J. W. F. Valle, Phys. Rev. D66, 013006 (2002), hep-ph/0202048.
  • (24) S. Antusch, C. Biggio, E. Fernandez-Martinez, M. B. Gavela and J. Lopez-Pavon, JHEP 0610, 084 (2006) hep-ph/0607020.
  • (25) E. Fernandez-Martinez, M. B. Gavela, J. Lopez-Pavon and O. Yasuda, Phys. Lett. B649 (2007) 427 hep-ph/0703098.
  • Malinsky et al. (2009a) M. Malinsky, T. Ohlsson, and H. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D79, 011301 (2009a), 0811.3346.
  • Malinsky et al. (2009b) M. Malinsky, T. Ohlsson, and H. Zhang (2009b), 0903.1961.
  • Autiero et al. (2004) D. Autiero, et al., Eur. Phys. J. C33, 243–260 (2004), hep-ph/0305185.
  • (29) M. B. Gavela, D. Hernandez, T. Ota and W. Winter, Phys. Rev. D79, 013007 (2009), 0809.3451.
Comments 0
Request Comment
You are adding the first comment!
How to quickly get a good reply:
  • Give credit where it’s due by listing out the positive aspects of a paper before getting into which changes should be made.
  • Be specific in your critique, and provide supporting evidence with appropriate references to substantiate general statements.
  • Your comment should inspire ideas to flow and help the author improves the paper.

The better we are at sharing our knowledge with each other, the faster we move forward.
""
The feedback must be of minimum 40 characters and the title a minimum of 5 characters
   
Add comment
Cancel
Loading ...
102829
This is a comment super asjknd jkasnjk adsnkj
Upvote
Downvote
""
The feedback must be of minumum 40 characters
The feedback must be of minumum 40 characters
Submit
Cancel

You are asking your first question!
How to quickly get a good answer:
  • Keep your question short and to the point
  • Check for grammar or spelling errors.
  • Phrase it like a question
Test
Test description