Physics and Performance Evaluation Group: Status and plans IDS-NF Plenary meeting RAL, United Kingdom January 17, 2008 Walter Winter Universität Würzburg (somewhat biased view) on behalf of the executive committee: Andrea Donini, Patrick Huber, Silvia Pascoli, Walter Winter, Osamu Yasuda

January 17, - PPEG2 Contents PPEG mandate PPEG mandate Status and IDS baseline Status and IDS baseline Test of alternative setups: The PPEG‘s playground Test of alternative setups: The PPEG‘s playground Comparison to competitors Comparison to competitors Website, Euro us Website, Euro us Plans Plans

January 17, - PPEG3 IDS Physics and Performance Evaluation Group (PPEG) … will continue the activities of the ISS physics working group. … 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 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 Executive committee: Andrea Donini, Patrick Huber, Silvia Pascoli, Walter Winter, Osamu Yasuda Tasks: Tasks: –Coordinate physics performance study –Website –Interface with accelerator and detector WG –(possibly) Workshops –Report

January 17, - PPEG4 From ISS to IDS ISS physics Theory Phenomenology Experimental Muon physics IDS PPEG TIME Optimization/ parameters for standard physics Concise physics case REPORT Additions for NS physics/ requirements for muon experiments Here?

January 17, - PPEG5 Why need another physics WG? Baseline design has to be evaluated and further developed in discussion with other WGs Baseline design has to be evaluated and further developed in discussion with other WGs Evaluation of new ideas, especially for large  13, such as NF+SB, NF-SB, off-axis NF, etc. Evaluation of new ideas, especially for large  13, such as NF+SB, NF-SB, off-axis NF, etc. Comparison to alternatives: beta beams etc. Comparison to alternatives: beta beams etc. Define requirements for non-standard physics measurements, e.g., silver channel, 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 Include requirements for muon physics and how these interact with the oscillation program … Physics performance evaluation (initial phase)

January 17, - PPEG6 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. 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 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 Consistent: Assumptions should be on equal footing Documented: Relevant information will be archived and will be accessible. Use of a website. Documented: Relevant information will be archived and will be accessible. Use of a website.

January 17, - PPEG7 Definition of parameters Neutrino factory setup: all the parameters are defined in strict collaboration with the detector and accelerator WG of the IDS 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: There will be different types of setups:  Baseline setup: stable, agreed design  Conservative modification of 1. – e.g. different baseline etc.  ) 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! 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 Super-beam setups: use of existing literature and input of well-established and recognized experts

January 17, - PPEG8 Status First version of baseline setup evaluated First version of baseline setup evaluated First version of webpage online First version of webpage online Start of discussion of requirements for non- standard physics Start of discussion of requirements for non- standard physics Keep track of new developments, such as low-E neutrino factory Keep track of new developments, such as low-E neutrino factory Keep track of „competitors“, e.g., achievable beta beam luminosities Keep track of „competitors“, e.g., achievable beta beam luminosities

January 17, - PPEG9 IDS baseline setup IDS baseline 0.10 evaluated! IDS baseline 0.10 evaluated! ? P. Huber (plenary)

January 17, - PPEG10 IDS baseline: Luminosity Luminosity ~ Useful muon decays x detector mass x running time Luminosity ~ Useful muon decays x detector mass x running time Luminosity critical for Luminosity critical for –Physics potential –Optimization Accelerator Detector(s)

January 17, - PPEG11 IDS baseline: other critical parameters Detection efficiency versus backgrounds: Is it better to have smaller BGs (small  13 ?) or higher efficiencies (large  13 ?) Detection efficiency versus backgrounds: Is it better to have smaller BGs (small  13 ?) or higher efficiencies (large  13 ?) How small can the threshold be? How small can the threshold be? Impact of systematics? Impact of systematics?

January 17, - PPEG12 IDS baseline iteration procedure? … from the PPEG point of view Avoid quick changes; changes should be adiabatic Avoid quick changes; changes should be adiabatic Change request from working group as a whole Change request from working group as a whole Twice-a-year (?) review of baseline setup by steering group? Twice-a-year (?) review of baseline setup by steering group? Each change with significant impact on physics potential has to be justified Each change with significant impact on physics potential has to be justified Session in plenary meeting devoted to discussing changes of baseline? Session in plenary meeting devoted to discussing changes of baseline? Specific responsible persons from each WG? Specific responsible persons from each WG?

January 17, - PPEG13  /  -setups: The PPEG‘s playground? PPEG needs some mechanism to evaluate and compare to 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:  -setups for modifications (such as different baseline),  -setups for new developments Here:  -setups for modifications (such as different baseline),  -setups for new developments The mechanism how to choose competitor setups (superbeams, beta beams) needs some refinement, possibly in collaboration with Euro us The mechanism how to choose competitor setups (superbeams, beta beams) needs some refinement, possibly in collaboration with Euro us

January 17, - PPEG14 Example (  ): Choice of std. baselines? All regions: Sensitivity for sin 2 2  13 > (5  ) for the shown performance indicator All regions: Sensitivity for sin 2 2  13 > (5  ) for the shown performance indicator Compared to IDS baseline: ~ factor 2 higher luminosity, E  =50 GeV Compared to IDS baseline: ~ factor 2 higher luminosity, E  =50 GeV Robust optimum for ~ km (not <= 3000 km!) Robust optimum for ~ km (not <= 3000 km!) (Kopp, Ota, Winter, in prep.) How does that look like for IDS baseline?

January 17, - PPEG15 Example (  ): Minimum E  for NSI? Higher muon energy helps; low-E NF not an option Higher muon energy helps; low-E NF not an option Silver channel: Not relevant for IDS baseline; helps for E  ~ 50 GeV Silver channel: Not relevant for IDS baseline; helps for E  ~ 50 GeV IDS baseline?High-E NFIDS baseline?High-E NF (Kopp, Ota, Winter, in prep.)

January 17, - PPEG16 Example (  ): Low-energy NF BASIC: (5 years)  (3  1020 useful decays/yr)  (2 signs)  (20Kt fid. Mass) = 3  Kt-decays  (2 signs) BETTER: (10 years)  (5  1020 useful decays/yr)  (2 signs)  (20Kt fid. Mass) = 1  Kt-decays  (2 signs) Red (no backgrounds) Red (no backgrounds) –Dotted - 1 X KT-years –Solid – 3 X KT-years Black ) Black ) –Short dash - 1 X KT-years –Long dash – 3 X KT-years Talk by Alan Bross E  ~ 4 GeV Excellent threshold!

January 17, - PPEG17 Comparison to „competitors“: Superbeams Superbeam upgrades could compete with neutrino factory for large  13 Superbeam upgrades could compete with neutrino factory for large  13 For large  13, CP violation is the only relevant matter! For large  13, 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! 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

18 Beta beams: Luminosity? ISOL method at 1-2 GeV (200 kW) ISOL method at 1-2 GeV (200 kW) –> He per second –< Ne per second – 8 Li and 8 B not studied –Studied within EURISOL Direct production Direct production –> (?) 6 He per second – Ne per second – 8 Li and 8 B not studied –Studied at LLN, Soreq, WI and GANIL Production ring Production ring –10 14 (?) 8 Li –>10 13 (?) 8 B – 6 He and 18 Ne not studied –Will be studied in the future RAL January 2008 The beta-beam task, EURISOL Beta-beam requirements, 18 1 GeV p p n U F r + spallation 1 1 L i X + + fragmentation C s Y + + fission Talk by M. Lindroos Factor of 10 beyond current std. luminosities?

January 17, - PPEG19 Higher  beta beams  ~ 350 CERN implementation with two baselines  ~ 350 CERN implementation with two baselines    5º  0, 90, -90º 7000km Inverted Hierarchy 7000km Normal Hierarchy 2000km km “Nominal” 2·10 18 decays/year “Medium” 5·10 18 decays/year “Ultimate” 10·10 18 decays/year Peak of spectrum ~ matter resonance E E. Fernandez-Martinez

January 17, - PPEG20 Systematics task force? Knowledge on cross sections better for high than low neutrino energies Knowledge on cross sections better for high than low neutrino energies Important issue especially for superbeams Important issue especially for superbeams How does that look like for a neutrino factory? What SG/BG uncertainties do we expect? How does that look like for a neutrino factory? What SG/BG uncertainties do we expect? From P. Huber‘s talk Talk by M. Sorel

January 17, - PPEG21 PPEG Website The PPEG has already setup a website: The PPEG has already setup a website: Webpage to do: Webpage to do: –Incorporate and document IDS baseline; possibly: glb-files (GLoBES), curves as data? –Discuss and document  and  setups –Cross-links to useful documents? –Move together with main IDS site???

January 17, - PPEG22 Connection to Euro us A. Donini

January 17, - PPEG23 Questions to be addressed Robustness of conclusions wrt luminosity etc.? Robustness of conclusions wrt luminosity etc.? Does the far baseline detector have to be as good as MIND? What about the luminosity splitting? 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  13 ? How to fix that? Why did the performance become worse for large  13 ? How to fix that? Two baseline optimization? Two baseline optimization? Minimum muon energy for NSI, silver channel, near detector physics (such as pol. structure functions)? Minimum muon energy for NSI, silver channel, near detector physics (such as pol. structure functions)? Physics case for silver detector? Physics case for silver detector? Large  13 strategy: how to deal with Double Chooz etc.? Large  13 strategy: how to deal with Double Chooz etc.? Include more theory people to support physics case? Include more theory people to support physics case?

January 17, - PPEG24 Plans until NuFact Update website Update website Two-baseline optimization, NSI requirements Two-baseline optimization, NSI requirements Check baseline: performance for large  13, etc. Check baseline: performance for large  13, etc. Possibly add figures for other performance indicators (such as  23,  m 31 2 ) Possibly add figures for other performance indicators (such as  23,  m 31 2 ) Follow developments for beta beams, superbeams, etc. Follow developments for beta beams, superbeams, etc. Possibly provide figures for different detector systematics (BG versus threshold) Possibly provide figures for different detector systematics (BG versus threshold) Possibly provide figures with competitor comparison Possibly provide figures with competitor comparison

January 17, - PPEG25 Summary and conclusions Mandate: Continutation of ISS, focus on physics performance Mandate: Continutation of ISS, focus on physics performance First version of ISS baseline evaluated First version of ISS baseline evaluated Baseline optimization, muon energy requirement have to be checked Baseline optimization, muon energy requirement have to be checked Several procedure/strategies should be thought over: Several procedure/strategies should be thought over: –Baseline iteration (with other WGs) –Large  13 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 Euro u?