1. Physics and Performance Evaluation Group: Status and plans
IDS-NF Plenary meeting
RAL, United Kingdom
January 17, Walter Winter Universität Würzburg
(somewhat biased view) on behalf of the executive committee: Andrea Donini, Patrick Huber, Silvia Pascoli, Walter Winter, Osamu Yasuda

2. Contents PPEG mandate Status and IDS baseline
Test of alternative setups: The PPEG‘s playground
Comparison to competitors
Website, Euronus
Plans
January 17, 2008
- PPEG

3. IDS Physics and Performance Evaluation Group (PPEG)
… will continue the activities of the ISS physics working group.
First phase: focus on the performance of the various neutrino facilities. At a later stage: focus shifted towards the physics case for a neutrino factory
Executive committee: Andrea Donini, Patrick Huber, Silvia Pascoli, Walter Winter, Osamu Yasuda
Tasks:
Coordinate physics performance study
Website
Interface with accelerator and detector WG
(possibly) Workshops
Report
January 17, 2008
- PPEG

4. From ISS to IDS ISS physics IDS PPEG Theory Phenomenology Experimental
Optimization/ parameters for standard physics
Here?
Phenomenology
TIME
Experimental
Additions for NS physics/ requirements for muon experiments
Muon physics
REPORT
Concise physics case
January 17, 2008
- PPEG

5. Why need another physics WG?
Baseline design has to be evaluated and further developed in discussion with other WGs
Evaluation of new ideas, especially for large q13, such as NF+SB, NF-SB, off-axis NF, etc.
Comparison to alternatives: beta beams etc.
Define requirements for non-standard physics measurements, e.g., silver channel, etc.
Include requirements for muon physics and how these interact with the oscillation program …
Physics performance evaluation (initial phase)
January 17, 2008
- PPEG

6. Physics performance evaluation
Main purpose of the PPEG: Evaluate the physics performance of a given experimental setup (neutrino factory or other, existing or planned) in a transparent, consistent and documented fashion.
Transparent: Clearly state
Definition of performance indicator
Approximations used
Chosen input parameters, luminosity etc.
Confidence level
Treatment of systematics
Consistent: Assumptions should be on equal footing
Documented: Relevant information will be archived and will be accessible. Use of a website.
January 17, 2008
- PPEG

7. Definition of parameters
Neutrino factory setup: all the parameters are defined in strict collaboration with the detector and accelerator WG of the IDS
Need of a defined and efficient communication between the various WGs (steering group?)
There will be different types of setups:
a) Baseline setup: stable, agreed design
b) Conservative modification of 1. – e.g. different baseline etc.
g) Speculative ideas, e.g. new ideas
Beta beam setups: possibly follow a similar procedure as for neutrino factory, working in collaboration with beta-beam groups; yet undefined!
Super-beam setups: use of existing literature and input of well-established and recognized experts
January 17, 2008
- PPEG

8. Status First version of baseline setup evaluated
First version of webpage online
Start of discussion of requirements for non-standard physics
Keep track of new developments, such as low-E neutrino factory
Keep track of „competitors“, e.g., achievable beta beam luminosities
January 17, 2008
- PPEG

9. IDS baseline setup ? IDS baseline 0.10 evaluated! P. Huber (plenary)
January 17, 2008
- PPEG

10. IDS baseline: Luminosity
Luminosity ~ Useful muon decays x detector mass x running time
Luminosity critical for
Physics potential
Optimization
Accelerator
Detector(s)
January 17, 2008
- PPEG

11. IDS baseline: other critical parameters
Detection efficiency versus backgrounds: Is it better to have smaller BGs (small q13?) or higher efficiencies (large q13?)
How small can the threshold be?
Impact of systematics?
January 17, 2008
- PPEG

12. IDS baseline iteration procedure? … from the PPEG point of view
Avoid quick changes; changes should be adiabatic
Change request from working group as a whole
Twice-a-year (?) review of baseline setup by steering group?
Each change with significant impact on physics potential has to be justified
Session in plenary meeting devoted to discussing changes of baseline?
Specific responsible persons from each WG?
January 17, 2008
- PPEG

13. b/g-setups: The PPEG‘s playground?
PPEG needs some mechanism to evaluate and compare to
Modifications/the optimization of the IDS baseline from the physics point of view
New developments (such as low-E neutrino factory)
Competitors
Here: b-setups for modifications (such as different baseline), g-setups for new developments
The mechanism how to choose competitor setups (superbeams, beta beams) needs some refinement, possibly in collaboration with Euronus
January 17, 2008
- PPEG

14. Example (b): Choice of std. baselines?
All regions: Sensitivity for sin22q13> (5s) for the shown performance indicator
Compared to IDS baseline: ~ factor 2 higher luminosity, Em =50 GeV
Robust optimum for ~ km (not <= 3000 km!)
Preliminary
How does that look like for IDS baseline?
January 17, 2008
- PPEG
(Kopp, Ota, Winter, in prep.)

15. Example (b): Minimum Em for NSI?
IDS baseline?
High-E NF
IDS baseline?
High-E NF
Preliminary
Higher muon energy helps; low-E NF not an option
Silver channel: Not relevant for IDS baseline; helps for Em ~ 50 GeV
(Kopp, Ota, Winter, in prep.)
January 17, 2008
- PPEG

16. Example (g): Low-energy NF
BASIC: (5 years)  (3  1020 useful decays/yr)  (2 signs)  (20Kt fid. Mass) = 31022 Kt-decays (2 signs) BETTER: (10 years)  (5  1020 useful decays/yr)  (2 signs)  (20Kt fid. Mass) = 11023 Kt-decays (2 signs)
Excellent threshold!
Em ~ 4 GeV
Red (no backgrounds)
Dotted - 1 X 1023 KT-years
Solid – 3 X 1022 KT-years
Black 10-3)
Short dash - 1 X 1023 KT-years
Long dash – 3 X 1022 KT-years
Talk by Alan Bross
January 17, 2008
- PPEG

17. Comparison to „competitors“: Superbeams
Superbeam upgrades could compete with neutrino factory for large q13
For large q13, CP violation is the only relevant matter!
But, Huber: Super-beams are „super“ not only because of the target power, detector mass etc., but also because of the price!
Talk by P. Huber
January 17, 2008
- PPEG

18. Beta beams: Luminosity?
ISOL method at 1-2 GeV (200 kW)
> He per second
< Ne per second
8Li and 8B not studied
Studied within EURISOL
Direct production
> (?) 6He per second
Ne per second
Studied at LLN, Soreq, WI and GANIL
Production ring
1014 (?) 8Li
>1013 (?) 8B
6He and 18Ne not studied
Will be studied in the future
1 GeV p p n 2 3 8 U 1 F r +
spallation L i X
fragmentation 4 C s Y
fission
Talk by M. Lindroos
Factor of 10 beyond current std. luminosities?
RAL January 2008
The beta-beam task, EURISOL
Beta-beam requirements, 18

19. Peak of spectrum ~ matter resonance E
Higher g beta beams
q13 = 5º d = 0, 90, -90º
g ~ 350 CERN implementation with two baselines
2000km km
7000km
Normal Hierarchy
Peak of spectrum ~ matter resonance E
7000km
Inverted Hierarchy
“Nominal” 2·1018 decays/year
“Medium” 5·1018 decays/year
“Ultimate” 10·1018 decays/year
January 17, 2008
- PPEG
E. Fernandez-Martinez

20. Systematics task force?
Knowledge on cross sections better for high than low neutrino energies
Important issue especially for superbeams
How does that look like for a neutrino factory? What SG/BG uncertainties do we expect?
Talk by M. Sorel
From P. Huber‘s talk
January 17, 2008
- PPEG

21. PPEG Website
The PPEG has already setup a website:
Webpage to do:
Incorporate and document IDS baseline; possibly: glb-files (GLoBES), curves as data?
Discuss and document b and g setups
Cross-links to useful documents?
Move together with main IDS site???
January 17, 2008
- PPEG

22. Connection to Euronus
A. Donini
January 17, 2008
- PPEG

23. Questions to be addressed
Robustness of conclusions wrt luminosity etc.?
Does the far baseline detector have to be as good as MIND? What about the luminosity splitting?
Why did the performance become worse for large q13? How to fix that?
Two baseline optimization?
Minimum muon energy for NSI, silver channel, near detector physics (such as pol. structure functions)?
Physics case for silver detector?
Large q13 strategy: how to deal with Double Chooz etc.?
Include more theory people to support physics case?
January 17, 2008
- PPEG

24. Plans until NuFact Update website
Two-baseline optimization, NSI requirements
Check baseline: performance for large q13, etc.
Possibly add figures for other performance indicators (such as q23, Dm312)
Follow developments for beta beams, superbeams, etc.
Possibly provide figures for different detector systematics (BG versus threshold)
Possibly provide figures with competitor comparison
January 17, 2008
- PPEG

25. Summary and conclusions
Mandate: Continutation of ISS, focus on physics performance
First version of ISS baseline evaluated
Baseline optimization, muon energy requirement have to be checked
Several procedure/strategies should be thought over:
Baseline iteration (with other WGs)
Large q13 strategy
Physics case for the ECC
Selection of competitor setups
Inclusion of theory at earlier stage?
Create a „systematics task force“?
How does that relate to Euronu?
January 17, 2008
- PPEG