Paper detail

Systematic uncertainties in long-baseline neutrino oscillations for large $θ_{13}$

We study the physics potential of future long-baseline neutrino oscillation experiments at large $θ_{13}$, focusing especially on systematic uncertainties. We discuss superbeams, \bbeams, and neutrino factories, and for the first time compare these experiments on an equal footing with respect to systematic errors. We explicitly simulate near detectors for all experiments, we use the same implementation of systematic uncertainties for all experiments, and we fully correlate the uncertainties among detectors, oscillation channels, and beam polarizations as appropriate. As our primary performance indicator, we use the achievable precision in the measurement of the CP violating phase $\deltacp$. We find that a neutrino factory is the only instrument that can measure $\deltacp$ with a precision similar to that of its quark sector counterpart. All neutrino beams operating at peak energies $\gtrsim 2$ GeV are quite robust with respect to systematic uncertainties, whereas especially \bbeams and \thk suffer from large cross section uncertainties in the quasi-elastic regime, combined with their inability to measure the appearance signal cross sections at the near detector. A noteworthy exception is the combination of a $γ=100$ \bbeam with an \spl-based superbeam, in which all relevant cross sections can be measured in a self-consistent way. This provides a performance, second only to the neutrino factory. For other superbeam experiments such as \lbno and the setups studied in the context of the \lbne reconfiguration effort, statistics turns out to be the bottleneck. In almost all cases, the near detector is not critical to control systematics since the combined fit of appearance and disappearance data already constrains the impact of systematics to be small provided that the three active flavor oscillation framework is valid.

preprint2012arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access4 authors2 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.