Sensitivity of T2HKK to non-standard interaction Monojit Ghosh - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Sensitivity of T2HKK to non-standard interaction Monojit Ghosh Tokyo Metropolitan University Tokyo, Japan 1st Workshop on 2nd HK Detector in Korea Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea November 21-22, 2016 Based on: Fukasawa, Ghosh, Yasuda, 1611.06141 (Today arXiv)

Acknowledgement Thanks to HK collaboration for providing the fluxes and Mark Hartz for many useful discussions

The T2HKK experiment T2HK experiment 190+190=380 kt detector at Kamioka, L=295 km, 2 . 5 ◦ off-axis beam T2HKK experiment 190 kt detector in Korea, 190 kt detector in Kamioka with L (km) off-axis (degree) 1088 1.3 1100 1.5 1100 2.0 1100 2.5

Probability and flux Neutrino Anti-neutrino 0.2 0.06 L=295 km L=295 km L=1100 km L=1100 km OA 1.3 OA 1.3 0.16 OA 1.5 OA 1.5 OA 2.0 OA 2.0 OA 2.5 OA 2.5 0.04 0.12 P µ e /Flux P µ e /Flux 0.08 0.02 0.04 0 0 1 2 3 1 2 3 E (GeV) E (GeV) • Flux peaks at highest energy for 1 . 3 ◦ and lowest energy for 2 . 5 ◦ • Flux height is maximum for 2 . 5 ◦ and minimum for 1 . 3 ◦ • 2 . 0 ◦ and 2 . 5 ◦ cover only 2nd maxima while 1 . 3 ◦ and 1 . 5 ◦ cover part of the 1st maxima

What is non-standard interaction ? Neutrino propagating in matter • Standard NC interaction: ν α + f → ν α + f • Non-standard NC interaction ν α + f → ν β + f can arise from the following four-fermion interaction ν α γ µ ν β ¯ L = − G F ǫ f αβ ¯ f γ µ f N f N e ǫ f with ǫ αβ = � f = e , u , d αβ

NSI in neutrino oscillation • Evolution equation with standard oscillation � � � ��� � ν e 0 0 ν e A � i d Udiag ( E 1 , E 2 , E 3 ) U − 1 + µ µ = 0 0 0 µ µ dt ν τ 0 0 0 ν τ • evolution equation with non-standard oscillation � � � ��� � ν e 1 + ǫ ee ǫ e µ ǫ e τ ν e i d � Udiag ( E 1 , E 2 , E 3 ) U − 1 + A µ µ = ǫ ∗ ǫ µµ ǫ µτ µ µ e µ dt ν τ ǫ ∗ ǫ ∗ ǫ ττ ν τ e τ µτ √ with A = 2 G F N e

Analysis Bounds | ǫ e τ | < 3 × 10 0 , | ǫ ee | < 4 × 10 0 , | ǫ e µ | < 3 × 10 − 1 , | ǫ µµ | < 7 × 10 − 2 | ǫ ττ | < 2 × 10 1 , ǫ ττ = | ǫ e τ | 2 | ǫ µτ | < 3 × 10 − 1 , . 1 + ǫ ee Ansatz � � 1 + ǫ ee 0 ǫ e τ √ A = 2 G F N e 0 0 0 | ǫ e τ | 2 / (1 + ǫ ee ) ǫ ∗ 0 e τ Free Parameters: ǫ ee , | ǫ e τ | , φ 31 = arg ( ǫ e τ ) 45 ◦ θ 23 = − 90 ◦ δ CP = Objective Study the sensitivity of T2HKK and comparison with DUNE and HK (atmospheric)

Specification T2HKK • 280 kt in Kamioka and 280 kt in Korea • 1.3 MW beam, 15 . 6 × 10 21 pot: 15.6 years of running • Events calculated as per latest available T2HK configuration and then scaled for the Korean detector • ν : ¯ ν = 1 : 1, systematics: 3 . 3% for ν and 4 . 2% for ¯ ν DUNE • 1.2 MW beam, 10 × 10 21 pot: 10 years of running • 35 kt Liquid Argon detector • ν : ¯ ν = 1 : 1, systematics: 5% for both ν and ¯ ν HK(atm) • 15 years of running • 560 kt WC

Bounds on ǫ ee and | ǫ e τ | 3 σ 3 σ T2HK, 3 σ 0.8 0.8 1.5 1.3 OA 1.3 OA NH IH NH ( ε ee , ε e τ )=(0,0) 1.5 OA ( ε ee , ε e τ )=(0,0) 1.5 OA IH 2.0 OA 2.0 OA 2.5 OA 2.5 OA 0.6 0.6 DUNE DUNE HK HK 1 | ε e τ | | ε e τ | | ε e τ | 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.2 0.2 0 0 0 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 ε ee ε ee ε ee • T2HKK is far more powerful than T2HK • For T2HKK, sensitivity is best for 1 . 3 ◦ • Sensitivity of 1 . 3 ◦ and DUNE is similar in NH but DUNE is better in IH • HK(atm) is the best

Excluding ( ǫ ee , | ǫ e τ | )=(0.8,0.2) Exclusion Exclusion Exclusion 10 10 0.5 OA 1.3 OA 1.3 NH True NH True IH OA 1.5 OA 1.5 T2HK IH ( ε ee , ε e τ )=(0.8,0.2) ( ε ee , ε e τ )=(0.8,0.2) ( ε ee , ε e τ )=(0.8,0.2) OA 2.0 OA 2.0 8 OA 2.5 8 OA 2.5 0.4 DUNE DUNE HK HK 6 6 0.3 χ 2 χ 2 χ 2 4 4 0.2 2 2 0.1 0 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Run time Run time Run time • T2HKK is far more powerful than T2HK • For T2HKK, sensitivity is best for 1 . 3 ◦ • Sensitivity of DUNE and HK(atm) is better than T2HKK

Events Why 1 . 3 ◦ is better than others ? off-axis (degree) 1 . 3 ◦ 1 . 5 ◦ 2 . 0 ◦ 2 . 5 ◦ 515 438 368 309 ν ¯ 39 34 25 17 ν Conclusion 1 . 3 ◦ is better due to the maximum number of events as compared to the other off-axis setups

Sensitivity to the CP phases 90% C.L. 90% C.L. 180 180 1.3 OA 1.3 OA NH IH 1.5 OA 1.5 OA ( ε ee , ε e τ )=(0.8,0.2) ( ε ee , ε e τ )=(0.8,0.2) 2.0 OA 2.0 OA 120 120 2.5 OA 2.5 OA DUNE DUNE 60 HK 60 HK φ 31 (Test) φ 31 (Test) 0 0 -60 -60 -120 -120 -180 -180 -180 -120 -60 0 60 120 180 -180 -120 -60 0 60 120 180 δ CP (Test) δ CP (Test) • True value of NSI: ( ǫ ee , | ǫ e τ | )=(0.8,0.2) • CP sensitivity of T2HKK is better than DUNE

But why ? Because of two-detector setup 1.3 OA, 90% C.L. 1.3 OA, 90% C.L. 180 180 Kamioka Kamioka NH IH Korea Korea ( ε ee , ε e τ )=(0.8,0.2) ( ε ee , ε e τ )=(0.8,0.2) 120 Combined 120 Combined Kamioka( ε αβ known) Kamioka( ε αβ known) 60 60 φ 31 (Test) φ 31 (Test) 0 0 -60 -60 -120 -120 -180 -180 -180 -120 -60 0 60 120 180 -180 -120 -60 0 60 120 180 δ CP (Test) δ CP (Test) • Detector at Korea (matter effect) measures ǫ αβ while the detector at Kamioka (high statistics) measures the CP phases Comment The two detector setup of T2HKK is advantageous for determining CP phases

Summary • In comparison to T2HK, T2HKK is far superior in constraining the NSI parameters • Among the possible configurations of T2HKK, 1 . 3 ◦ is best • The two detector setup of T2HKK is advantageous over DUNE for determining the CP phases • The sensitivity of HK(atm) is best among all the setups under consideration (except measuring CP phases in IH)

Summary • In comparison to T2HK, T2HKK is far superior in constraining the NSI parameters • Among the possible configurations of T2HKK, 1 . 3 ◦ is best • The two detector setup of T2HKK is advantageous over DUNE for determining the CP phases • The sensitivity of HK(atm) is best among all the setups under consideration (except measuring CP phases in IH) Thank You