Recent Results from Super-K Kate Scholberg, Duke University June 7, 2005 Delphi, Greece
OUTLINE Super-K Status Atmospheric Neutrino Results -Two-flavor Analyses SK I 'Combined' Analysis L/E Analysis New Combined Finer-Binned Analysis Sterile, Tau Analyses -Three-flavor Analyses Dominant Mass Scale Analysis Analysis with Solar Terms The Future Summary
Super-Kamiokande ~140 collaborators 34 institutions 4 countries
Super-K II: 2003-present Super-K I: ,146 inner (ID)/ 1885 outer(OD) PMTs; 22.5 kt fiducial volume - Solar, atmospheric, proton decay results; K2K I target - Returned to action with 47% ID coverage (acrylic shields), full OD - Nearly same sensitivity as SK I; K2K II target - To turn off October 2005 for full reconstruction Super-K III: Will turn on in April 2006 with full ID PMT coverage - Ready for T2K off-axis beam from J-PARC in 2009
Solar neutrinos with Super-K See Y. Takeuchi's talk in astrophysics session for details of solar oscillation results
Atmospheric Neutrinos: parent energies for subsamples single ring multi ring Fully-contained e-like -like Partially-contained Upward-going muons stopping throughgoing
Zenith angle distributions SK I Combined 2-Flavor Analysis hep-ex/ downgoing upgoing 1489 live-days, 100 yr MC, 15,000 neutrino events
'Standard' Oscillation Analysis Total 180 bins in zenith angle, momentum Minimizing 2 is equivalent to solving 'Pull method', Fogli et al, hep-ph/ oscillated expectation observed events in bin systematic parameters (36 based on flux, x-scn, selection, reconstruction) fractional change in event rate due to systematic MC statistical and systematic uncertainties estimated uncertainty in j
Allowed Oscillation Parameters SK I standard combined analysis Best Fit Results: m 2 = 2.1 x eV 2 sin 2 (2 ) = 1.0 (constrained to physical region) 2 min = 174.8/177 DOF
Resolving the "wiggle" with SK atm 's Poor resolution in L/E (~10's of %) washes it out hard to distinguish oscillation from more exotic kinds of disappearance (decoherence, decay,..) FC/PC events hep-ex/
Select events for which resolution in L/E is good: (<70%): exclude horizontal, low E, poorly contained, very high E FC single ring -like FC multi ring -like PC OD stopping PC OD through-going
"the dip" decoherence Seems to be really wiggling! Similar plot with this selected subset: (~2700 events) Preliminary best-fit osc (favored by >3 ) decay
Best fit using the high-resolution L/E data sample Improves m 2 resolution a little Best Fit Results: m 2 = 2.4 x eV 2 sin 2 (2 ) = 1.0 (constrained to physical region) 2 min = 37.9/40 DOF
Single-ring -like events Results from K2K long-baseline expt Total 107 beam events observed; expect Best Fit Results: m 2 = 2.8 x eV 2 sin 2 (2 ) = 1.0 (constrained to physical region) Consistent with SK atmospheric 's No-oscillation excluded at >4
Finer-Binned 2-Flavor Analysis Preliminary - PC events divided into OD stop/OD through-going 2 incorporates Poissonian uncertainties Total of 370 bins in zenith angle, momentum - Finer -like momentum binning; coarser e-like momentum binning - New FC multi-ring e-like category Combine advantages of standard and L/E analyses
Zenith angle distributions Preliminary
New allowed region with finer-binned analysis Preliminary Best Fit Results: m 2 = 2.5 x eV 2 sin 2 (2 ) = 1.0 (constrained to physical region) 2 min = 375.2/367 DOF Comparison with 180 bin analysis
Preliminary Allowed regions for the various subsamples 370 bin analysis 180 bin analysis Finer binning for multi-GeV, PC, multi-ring improves the m 2 constraint
Super-K II results: 1.72 live-years FC/PC 1.67 live-years upmu 60 yr SK II MC Zenith angle distributions Preliminary
Super-K II Oscillation Analysis Preliminary Best Fit Results: m 2 = 3.1 x eV 2 sin 2 (2 ) = 0.98 (constrained to physical region) 2 min = 395.5/367 DOF L/E Analysis 370 bin combined analysis Best Fit Results: m 2 = 2.6 x eV 2 sin 2 (2 ) = 1.0 (constrained to physical region) 2 min = 54.8/40 DOF
● NOT pure e : no up-going e-like excess ● NOT pure sterile : would expect * up-going NC excess * angular distortion of high E events } not seen Can we see tau appearance explicitly? What flavors are involved in this 2-flavor x disappearance? (assumed to be ) Still thinking in 2D:
Tau Appearance in Super-K e or or hadrons Energy Threshold: 3.5 GeV According to MC, expect about 80 's in current sample... but they are hard to distinguish from other multi-ring interaction events Typical MC event
Select -like events: (energy, shape, rings, decay electrons) 2 analyses (likelihood and neural network) yield consistent answers Consistent with (expected) slight excess of upgoing 's MC expectation: 79 31 's Neural Network (36%efficiency) From fit to -like sample: (red hatched) osc param 's
Now, start thinking in 3D... -K MNS mixing matrix atmospheric solar ??? What can we say about the oscillation parameters in a 3-flavor context?
First, consider dominant mass difference scale, (and =0) In this approximation, oscillation probabilities described by 3 parameters: m2m2 m3m3 m1m1 m2m2 m1m1 m3m3 solar atmospheric } { Normal Inverted
P( e ) Normal hierarchy: resonance for neutrinos matter enhancement P( e ) P( ) P( ) P( ) GeV Look for signature of non-zero 13 in (e.g.) enhancement of e for certain angles and energies
For example: enhancement of upgoing multi-GeV single ring electrons Positive m 2 Negative m 2 Null oscillation m 2 = eV 2 sin 2 23 = 0.5 sin 2 13 = 0.05 SK 20 years Single-ring electrons (2.5<P<5.0GeV) cos
We can also, in principle, learn about the mass hierarchy by exploiting differences between nus and antinus: For inverted hierarchy, the resonance happens for antineutrinos, not neutrinos Inverted hierarchy: resonance for antineutrinos P( e )
Multi-ring e-like In water Cherenkov, it's very hard to differentiate between nus & antinus event-by-event... BUT: there are nu vs antinu differences in and d /dy, and relative fraction of nus and antinus is different for different subsamples NC + others CC e higher e / e ratio CC e NC + others Single-ring e-like
For example: more enhancement of upgoing multi-GeV e-like multi vs single rings for normal hierarchy Positive m 2 Negative m 2 Null oscillation m 2 = eV 2 sin 2 23 = 0.5 sin 2 13 = 0.05 SK 20 years Single-ring e-like (2.5<P<5.0GeV) Multi-ring e- like(2.5<P<5.0GeV) cos higher e / e ratio
What do the data show? - use the fine-binned analysis, Poisson-style likelihood - treat inverted and normal hierarchy cases separately Basically, no suspicious looking excesses seen... Multi-GeV e-like events single-ringmulti-ring cos
Limits Normal hierarchy Inverted hierarchy Best Fit: 2 min = /368 DOF m 2 =2.5 x eV 2,sin 2 = 0.5, sin 2 = 0.0 Best Fit: 2 min = /368 DOF m 2 =2.5 x eV 2,sin 2 = 0.525, sin 2 =
Previous analysis ignored 1-2 oscillation parameters... now look at effect of solar oscillation parameters on atm 's at lower energy: (Note: poor pointing) solar : on sin 2 13 = 0 P( e )
sin 2 23 = 0.5 sin 2 13 = 0.03 solar : on e.g. Peres & Smirnov, hep-ph/ solar interference 13 Consider solar and 13 effects:
sin 2 23 = 0.4 sin 2 23 = 0.5 sin 2 23 = 0.6 m 2 12 = 8.3 x eV 2 m 2 23 = 2.5 x eV 2 sin 2 2 12 = 0.83 sub-GeV e-like Considering just the solar term: 13 =0 Since r~2, get info about octant of 23 in the sub-GeV e flux cos Example: e.g. Gonzalez-Garcia et al., hep-ph/
Adding solar terms to the 3-flavor analysis 2 – 2 min distribution as a function of sin 2 23 where the other oscillation parameters are chosen to minimize 2 Best-fit : m 2 12 = 8.3 x eV 2 sin 2 12 = 0.29 m 2 23 = 2.5 x eV 2 sin 2 23 = 0.51 (sin 2 2 23 = ) No evidence for deviation from maximal 2-3 mixing Preliminary
T2K: "Tokai to Kamioka" 295 km, <1 GeV 0.75 MW beam, 2.5 degrees off-axis Start 2009 The Future p 140m0m280m2 km295 km on-axis off-axis Near (280m) + Intermediate (2km) detectors + SK
Future: upgraded T2K beam (4MW) and Hyper-K detector
Summary - Atmospheric neutrinos are still oscillating; confirmed by K2K beam; consistent with appearance - High-resolution L/E analysis gives tighter m 2 region, confirms sinusoidal oscillation - New combined 2-flavor fine-binned analysis gives best of both worlds: tighter m 2 and sin 2 2 - SK II results are consistent with SK I - 3-flavor limits: consistent with 13 =0, less stringent than CHOOZ - With solar terms in 3-flavor fit, consistent with maximal 2-3 mixing - Full reconstruction winter 05/06; T2K beam starts 2009 Preliminary
Limit on admixture of sterile