Gianluigi Fogli 24 th Rencontres de Blois, Chateau Royal de Blois, May 28, th Rencontres de Blois Particle Physics and Cosmology May 27 – June 1, 2012 The Last SM Mixing Angle Gian Luigi Fogli Dipartimento di Fisica and INFN - Bari (A global analysis of oscillations in the standard 3 framework)

Gianluigi Fogli 24 th Rencontres de Blois, Chateau Royal de Blois, May 28, th Rencontres de Blois Particle Physics and Cosmology May 27 – June 1, 2012 The Last SM Mixing Angle Gian Luigi Fogli (A global analysis of oscillations in the standard 3 framework) Dipartimento di Fisica and INFN - Bari

Gianluigi Fogli 24 th Rencontres de Blois, Chateau Royal de Blois, May 28, 2012 Outline Mainly based on earlier and recent work done in collaboration with: E. Lisi, A. Marrone, D. Montanino, A. Palazzo, A.M. Rotunno 1.Why global analyses? 2. From first hints to evidence for  13  0 3.Status of 3  oscillation parameters, one year ago (2011) 4.3  analysis: metodological issues results 6.Conclusions: summary of our 2012 analysis 5.1 (  13,  23 ) correlations 5.2 (  13,  CP ) correlations 3

Gianluigi Fogli 24 th Rencontres de Blois, Chateau Royal de Blois, May 28, Why global analyses?

Gianluigi Fogli 24 th Rencontres de Blois, Chateau Royal de Blois, May 28, In general, global analyses of data from different experiments are necessary when some physical parameters are not (precisely) measured by any single experiment. In this case, the parameters may be at least constrained by joint, careful fits of various datasets. Even when measurements become available, global analyses often remain useful to perform consistency tests of theoretical scenarios, where possible “tensions” may eventually emerge from the comparison of different datasets. Of course, such analyses have obvious limitations: they cannot replace the experimental measurements!

Gianluigi Fogli 24 th Rencontres de Blois, Chateau Royal de Blois, May 28, From first hints to evidence for  13  0

Gianluigi Fogli 24 th Rencontres de Blois, Chateau Royal de Blois, May 28, e = cos  sin  12 2 A few years ago (2008), after the presentation of the KamLAND spectral data: impressive agreement of solar and KamLAND constraints in 2 analyses. But one can learn more going beyond the 2 approximation … with a small, but acceptable, disagreement between the two best-fit points … [figure taken from the official KamLAND site (2008)] Agreement obtained assuming

Gianluigi Fogli 24 th Rencontres de Blois, Chateau Royal de Blois, May 28, e  cos  13 (cos  sin  12 2 ) +e -i  sin  13 3 However, the CP phase is unobservable via e disappearance P ee (3 ) = cos 4  13 P ee (2 ) + sin 4  13 3  e  U e1 1 + U e2 2 + U e3 3 for three neutrinos: So, averaging  m  –driven oscillations (i.e. solar & KamLAND): mixing angle  13 possible CP phase  CP e survival probability

Gianluigi Fogli 24 th Rencontres de Blois, Chateau Royal de Blois, May 28, nonzero  13 improves the convergence of the two data sets sin 2  13 = 0sin 2  13 = 0.03 [GLF, Lisi, Marrone, Palazzo, Rotunno, Proc. of “NO-VE 2008”] [Balantekin & Yilmaz, J.Phys. G 35, (2008), arXiv: ,]

Gianluigi Fogli 24 th Rencontres de Blois, Chateau Royal de Blois, May 28, 2012 The solar+KamLAND hint for θ 13 > 0 can be plotted in the plane of the two mixing angles, where the different correlations of the two datasets are more evident: Best fit more than 1 sigma away from zero sin 2 θ 13 =  (Solar + KamLAND) : first hint of e as a superposition of three states. Note: even though statistically weak (~1.5  ), this hint is quite “clean”, as it involves very simple oscillation physics. [GLF, Lisi, Marrone, Palazzo, Rotunno, PRL 101, (2008), hep-ph/ ]

Gianluigi Fogli 24 th Rencontres de Blois, Chateau Royal de Blois, May 28, 2012 best fit ~ 1 sigma away from zero … mainly due to subleading “solar term” effects which help fitting atmospheric electron event data (especially sub-GeV). [GLF, Lisi, Marrone, Palazzo, Progr. Part. Nucl. Phys. 57, 742 (2006), hep-ph/ ] 11 In addition, the solar + KL hint was consistent with a previous preference for  13 > 0, found from our 3 analysis of atmospheric + LBL + Chooz  data … [However, atmospheric physics and data analysis are admittedly more involved; statistical significance of the atmospheric hint somewhat debated in the literature.]

Gianluigi Fogli 24 th Rencontres de Blois, Chateau Royal de Blois, May 28, Our summary in 2008 … “Hints of  13 > 0 from global neutrino data analysis” Hint significance: 90% C.L. sin 2  13 = ± Large literature and debate ! [GLF, Lisi, Marrone, Palazzo, Rotunno, PRL 101, (2008), hep-ph/ ]

Gianluigi Fogli 24 th Rencontres de Blois, Chateau Royal de Blois, May 28, P μ e = sin 2  23 sin 2 (2  13 )sin 2 (  m 2 L/4E ) + subleading solar & CP terms (wiggles in the plots) Both experiments favor sin 2  13 ~ few % ! So, it makes sense to combine these with all the other oscillation data … T2KMINOS June 2011 breakthrough: new T2K and MINOS appearance results

Gianluigi Fogli 24 th Rencontres de Blois, Chateau Royal de Blois, May 28, In conclusion, evidence for sin 2  13 > 0 at > 3  (with small changes for new/old reactor fluxes assumed in the fit) Note: ATM + LBL + CHOOZ now more significant that Solar + KamLAND Very good agreement of two totally independent sets of data on sin 2  13 sin 2  13 = ± (“old” reactor fluxes) sin 2  13 = ± (“new” reactor fluxes) “Evidence of  13 > 0 from global neutrino data analysis” [GLF, Lisi, Marrone, Palazzo, Rotunno, arXiv: ] 2011 data:

Gianluigi Fogli 24 th Rencontres de Blois, Chateau Royal de Blois, May 28, Double Chooz (far detector): Daya Bay (near + far detectors): RENO (near + far detectors): Comparing 2011 evidence for sin 2  13  0 … … with new (2012) SBL reactor data: we find a spectacular agreement! sin 2  13 = ± sin 2  13 = ± sin 2  13 = ± sin 2  13 = ± (old reactor fluxes) sin 2  13 = ± (new reactor fluxes)

Gianluigi Fogli 24 th Rencontres de Blois, Chateau Royal de Blois, May 28, Status of 3  oscillation parameters, one year ago (2011) G.L.F., E. Lisi, A. Marrone, A. Rotunno, A. Palazzo, “Evidence of  13 > 0 from global neutrino data analysis”, Phys. Rev. D84 (2011) , arXiv: v2

Gianluigi Fogli 24 th Rencontres de Blois, Chateau Royal de Blois, May 28, mixing angles  12,  13,  23 “small”  m 2 (“solar” ) “large”  m 2 (“atmospheric” ) [G.L.F., E. Lisi, A. Marrone, A. Rotunno, A. Palazzo, “Evidence of  13 > 0 from global neutrino data analysis”, Phys. Rev. D84 (2011) , arXiv: v2] Global data analysis in terms of N  = √  2 (the more linear and symmetric, the more gaussian errors)

Gianluigi Fogli 24 th Rencontres de Blois, Chateau Royal de Blois, May 28, Nearly maximal… Gonzalez-Garcia et al Slightly nonmaximal… Our analysis, 2011 Slightly more nonmaximal… It includes now SK I+II+III data with both  13  0 and  m 2  0 Still open problems (2011), apart from  CP … sin 2  23 :  -  mixing, maximal or not ? 2 3 ν mass-mixing hierarchy 1 no hints so far a few hints …

Gianluigi Fogli 24 th Rencontres de Blois, Chateau Royal de Blois, May 28, analysis: methodological issues

Gianluigi Fogli 24 th Rencontres de Blois, Chateau Royal de Blois, May 28, There is an interesting interplay between LBL appearance + disappearance data, SBL reactor data, and octant degeneracy, as pointed out long ago. [GLF & Lisi, Phys. Rev. D54 (1996) 3667, hep-ph/ ] appear. disappear. For (slightly) non-maximal mixing, LBL app. + disapp. data give rise to two quasi-degenerate solutions with a (slight) anticorrelation between  13 and  [In our 1996 notation:  =  13,  =  23 ]

Gianluigi Fogli 24 th Rencontres de Blois, Chateau Royal de Blois, May 28, On the other hand, SBL reactor data, or any other constraint on  13 (eg, solar + KamLAND), may “select” or at least “prefer” one of the two solutions, lifting (part of) the degeneracy. As we shall see in a moment, this hypothetical 1996 scenario seems to emerge from 2012 data … … even though at present only at the level of hints! 2

Gianluigi Fogli 24 th Rencontres de Blois, Chateau Royal de Blois, May 28, This interplay is simply an effect of 3  oscillation physics: in first approximation,  m 2 -driven vacuum oscillation probabilities are generalized as (2 ν  3 ν ): LBL appearance: P μ e = sin 2  23 sin 2 (2  13 )sin 2 (  m 2 L/4E ) + corrections NOT octant symmetric, anticorrelates  23 and  13 : the lower  23, the higher  13 SBL reactors: P ee = 1–sin 2 (2  13 )sin 2 (  m 2 L/4E ) + corrections So, they may distinguish “high” from “low”  13 3  combination of LBL accelerator and SBL reactor data may already provide some slight preference for one  23 octant versus the other.

Gianluigi Fogli 24 th Rencontres de Blois, Chateau Royal de Blois, May 28, In order to reveal a similar effect, one needs a full 3 analysis of LBL accelerator data (appearance + disappearance). In particular it is important that T2K & MINOS abandon their (no longer defensible) 2 approximation in disappearance mode: On the x-axis, put sin 2  23, NOT sin 2 2  23 On the y-axis, put some 3 (NOT 2 ) definition of  m  We suggest: OBSOLETE! in both normal and inverted hierarchy (the sign just flips) We use:  m 2 = (  m 2 +  m 2 )

Gianluigi Fogli 24 th Rencontres de Blois, Chateau Royal de Blois, May 28, … it is also important that T2K and MINOS combine their own disappearance + appearance data in a “full-fledged” 3 analysis without approximation or assumption a priori. These LBL contours may be shifted to the left (right) for higher (lower)  23, due to the anti-correlation effect seen before … Suggestion: never assume maximal mixing a priori, let the data decide! … this introduces obvious consequences for the comparison with  23 –independent SBL reactor data T2K

Gianluigi Fogli 24 th Rencontres de Blois, Chateau Royal de Blois, May 28, A final “methodological note” before presenting our updated 2012 analysis: We prefer to group LBL accelerator data with solar + KamLAND data, since the latter provide the “solar parameters” needed to calculate the full 3 LBL probabilities in matter So, the sequence of contraints will be shown as: (LBL + Solar + KamLAND)(LBL + Solar + KamLAND) + (SBL reactor)(LBL + Solar + KamLAND) + (SBL reactor) + (SK atm)

Gianluigi Fogli 24 th Rencontres de Blois, Chateau Royal de Blois, May 28, results * G.L.F., E. Lisi, A. Marrone, D. Montanino, A. Rotunno, A. Palazzo, “Global analysis of neutrino masses, mixings and phases: entering the era of leptonic CP violation searches”, arXiv: (May 2012) *

Gianluigi Fogli 24 th Rencontres de Blois, Chateau Royal de Blois, May 28, (  13,  23 ) correlations Let us remind the 1996 hypothetical example [hep-ph/ ], in which … … two quasi-degenerate solutions from LBL app + disapp. data… … are solved in favor of higher   and 1 st   octant by SBL reactor data …

Gianluigi Fogli 24 th Rencontres de Blois, Chateau Royal de Blois, May 28, normal hierarchy inverted hierarchy From 2012 LBL appearance + disappearance data plus solar + KamLAND data: two quasi-degenerate and anticorrelated solutions (merging above 1  ) we obtain for both hierarchies, NH & IH: with a marginal preference for the first octant (< 1  ) weaker constraint on  13 for inverted hierarchy (as already known from T2K, MINOS) Moreover:

Gianluigi Fogli 24 th Rencontres de Blois, Chateau Royal de Blois, May 28, 2012 normal hierarchy inverted hierarchy 29 Adding SBL reactor data (Chooz, Double Chooz, Daya Bay, RENO): further preference for the solution with higher  13 lower  23 (1 st octant) NH marginal preference for 1 st octant IH large  13 preferred ! for both NH & IH

Gianluigi Fogli 24 th Rencontres de Blois, Chateau Royal de Blois, May 28, Adding SK atm data: Note: overall goodness of fit very similar in NH and IH. No hint about hierarchy yet… the preference for  23  in the 1 st octant is corroborated normal hierarchy inverted hierarchy

Gianluigi Fogli 24 th Rencontres de Blois, Chateau Royal de Blois, May 28, A final message is in order: We find a significant role of SK atm data in favoring  23  in the 1 st octant. To this regards let us note that: So far, the SK collaboration has found no significant “hint” of non-maximal mixing in their official 3 data analysis. M. EPS-HEP 2011 However, another recent, full 3 data analysis does find some preference for the 1 st octant in atm. data: These are still “fragile” features, but worth of further studies in both LBL and ATM data analyses!

Gianluigi Fogli 24 th Rencontres de Blois, Chateau Royal de Blois, May 28, (  13,  CP ) correlations We reproduce well the T2K and MINOS contours under their same assumptions: T2KMINOS Our analysis, however, includes all data and treats all parameters as free (no prior assumptions). Let us note that an analysis of (  13,  CP ) has been performed by Minakata et al. using the recent LBL + SBL reactor data (Machado, Minakata, Nunokawa, Zukanovich Funchal, arxiv and next talk). [We agree under the same inputs and priors.]

Gianluigi Fogli 24 th Rencontres de Blois, Chateau Royal de Blois, May 28, With only LBL + solar + KamLAND data: no significant sensitivity to  CP yet, all values allowed at < 1  normal hierarchy inverted hierarchy

Gianluigi Fogli 24 th Rencontres de Blois, Chateau Royal de Blois, May 28, Adding SBL reactor data: normal hierarchy inverted hierarchy at most ~ 1  sensitivity NH IH not yet sensitivity at ~1 

Gianluigi Fogli 24 th Rencontres de Blois, Chateau Royal de Blois, May 28, Adding SK atmospheric data: We find a ~ 1  preference for  as in the early analysis of hep-ph/ normal hierarchy inverted hierarchy

Gianluigi Fogli 24 th Rencontres de Blois, Chateau Royal de Blois, May 28, Let us remind you our interpretation, proposed in hep-ph/ : Once more: this is a “fragile” feature, but worth further studies with current data. We note that  is compatible with SK atm. official results presented at “Neutrino 2010” by Y. Takeuchi, which favor  in both hierarchies  enhances the interference oscillation term and gives extra electron appearance for O(GeV) atmosph. events, “explaining” part of the persisting SK electron excess.

Gianluigi Fogli 24 th Rencontres de Blois, Chateau Royal de Blois, May 28, Conclusions: summary of our 2012 analysis

Gianluigi Fogli 24 th Rencontres de Blois, Chateau Royal de Blois, May 28, Previous hints of  13  0 are now measurements! (and basically independent of old/new reactor fluxes) Some hints of  23   are emerging at ~ 2 , worth exploring by means of atm. and LBL+reac. data A possible hint of  CP  emerging from atm. data [Is the PMNS matrix real?] So far, no hints for NH IH

Gianluigi Fogli 24 th Rencontres de Blois, Chateau Royal de Blois, May 28, Numerical  ranges:  m  sin    sin    sin     m  2.6%5.4% 13% 3.5% Typical  accuracy [defined as 1/6 of ±3  range] We were already in the precision era for physics!

Gianluigi Fogli 24 th Rencontres de Blois, Chateau Royal de Blois, May 28, You are cordially invited to discuss the current oscillation picture, from “hints” to “measurements” and beyond, at NOW 2012 (9-16 Sept) in Conca Specchiulla, Otranto, Lecce, Italy - Thank you for your attention!