arxiv: v4 [hep-ph] 17 May 2018

Transcription

1 Non-standard interactions and the CP phase measurements in neutrino oscillations at low energies Shao-Feng Ge and Alexei Yu. Smirnov arxiv: v4 [hep-ph] 17 May 18 Max-Planck-Institut für Kernphysik, Saupfercheckweg 1, Heidelberg 69117, Germany May 18, 18 Abstract We study the effects of non-standard interactions (NSI) and the genuine CP phase δ in neutrino oscillations at low, E ν 1GeV, and very low, E ν.1gev, energies. For experimental setup with baseline and neutrino energy tuned to the first 1-3 oscillation maximum, we develop a simple analytic formalism to show the effects of NSI. The vacuum mimicking and its violation as well as the use of the separation basis play a central role in our formalism. The NSI corrections that affect the CP phase measurement mainly come from the violation of vacuum mimicking as well as from the corrections to the 1-3 mixing angle and mass-squared difference. We find that the total NSI correction to the ν µ ν e probability P µe can reach % 3% (1σ) at T(H)K. Correspondingly, the correction to the CP phase can be as large as 5 and hence significantly deteriorates the CP sensitivity at T(H)K. The proposed TNTK experiment, a combination of T(H)K and the short baseline experiment µkam that uses the Super-K/Hyper-K detector at Kamioka to measure the oscillation of the antineutrinos from muon decay at rest (µar), can substantially reduce the degeneracy between NSI and the genuine CP phase δ to provide high CP sensitivity. The NSI correction to P µe is only % (1σ) for µar neutrinos. 1. Introduction The determination of the irac CP phase, δ, and searches for new (non-standard) neutrino interactions [1], [, 3] are among the main objectives of present-day neutrino physics (see [4, 5] for reviews). There are certain connections between the two unknowns: - NSI can be additional source of CP violation on top of the PMNS matrix [6, 7]. gesf@gmail.com smirnov@mpi-hd.mpg.de 1

2 - The effects of NSI and CP violation are entangled in oscillation experiments, thus creating the δ -NSI degeneracy problem [7, 8]. Within the standard 3ν paradigm (no NSI, no sterile neutrinos, etc.), the global fit of oscillation data gives more than σ indication of CP violation with the best-fit value δ 3π/. This indication follows mainly from the results of TK [9] and NOνA [1] in combination with the results of reactor and some other experiments. The confirmation of this hint and measurement of the CP phase are associated to future experiments with neutrinos of different origins. The current TK experiment can be extended to TK-II [11, 1] by upgrading the flux and eventually to THK with a much larger Hyper-K detector [13], or even TKK/TKO [14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19,, 1] with longer baseline. The UNE[,3, 4] experiment shouldprovide precision measurement ofδ. Inadditionto accelerator experiments, the CP phase δ can also have large observable effect in the oscillation of atmospheric neutrinos below 1 GeV. This can be explored using the future possible upgrades of PINGU and ORCA detectors with 3 4 times denser instrumentation [5]. At even lower energy, E ν.1 GeV, one can also employ neutrinos from the muon decay at rest (µar) in proposed experiments like AEδALUS [6] and CI-AS [7], or in-flight in experiments like MOMENT [8, 9] to measure δ. Measuring the antineutrino oscillation ν µ ν e from the µar source with the detector of JUNO/RENO-5, which is originally designed to establish the neutrino mass hierarchy, can also determine the CP phase [3]. Interpretation of the present results on CP violation can be affected by the possible presence of non-standard interactions [31] or sterile neutrinos [3, 33, 34]. The effects of NSI substantially reduce the sensitivity to δ at the ongoing TK and NOνA experiments [35, 31, 36], and the future longbaseline experiments, in particular, UNE[37, 38, 39, 35, 31, 4, 36, 41, 4, 43]. So, the problem is to disentangle the genuine CP violation and the NSI effects in a way that can guarantee high sensitivity to the CP phase. To achieve this, one can use the fact that the effects of NSI, in particular the effects on CP violation, are proportional to the neutrino energy E ν. To disentangle the genuine CP phase from NSI, one can use two or more experiments with different neutrino energies. The effects of NSI can be as large as O(1) at accelerator neutrino experiments with E ν > 5MeV like UNE. The neutrino spectrum from the MOMENT source peaks around ( 3)MeV [8], being 1 times smaller than the peak energy at UNE. Hence, a combination of the future MOMENT and UNE results could reduce the degeneracy between δ and the NSI parameters [4]. Still, the NSI effects at the MOMENT energy are large. Rescaled from the estimation for TK, the relative correction of NSI to the oscillation probability P µe is roughly 1% at MOMENT. For neutrinos from µar with energies (3 5) MeV the NSI corrections are only %.

3 Various possible experiments with µar sources have been explored. In particular, it was proposed [44] to use the Super-K detector (and later Hyper-K) to detect the antineutrino oscillation ν µ ν e from µar source to Kamioka (dubbed by µkam, which can be either µsk with the Super-K detector or µhk with the Hyper-K detector). The combination of TK running solely in the neutrino (νtk) and µsk in the antineutrino mode, referred as TNTK, provides even higher sensitivity to the CP phase δ [44]. In most papers, the NSI effects have been computed numerically although several analytical studies can be found in [6, 45, 46, 35]. These earlier studies provide analytical expressions of the oscillation probabilities in the ν e ν e [45, 46], ν e ν µ [6, 46], ν µ ν e [45, 46, 35], and ν µ ν µ [45, 46] channels. In particular, [46] provides the probability formula for all oscillation channels. In this paper, we present an analytical formalism which allows us to analyze the effects of NSI in a simple way. The vacuum mimicking 1 in the 1- sector and its violation plays a central role in our formalism. We show that NSI can induce large correction via the violation of vacuum mimicking and apply our results to the CP measurement at TNTK. The paper is organized as follows. In Sec. we present a general formalism of matter effects and discuss the role of vacuum mimicking in the sector of 1- mass splitting and mixing. We then apply this formalism to the case of standard interactions in Sec. 3 and non-standard interactions in Sec. 4. The vacuum mimicking can be significantly violated by NSI and the irac CP phase δ can receive O(1) correction. In Sec. 5 we explore the sensitivity of TK and µsk experiments to the genuine CP phase in the presence of NSI. Especially, the improvement on the sensitivity due to the µsk component of TNTK is shown. Our conclusions are given in Sec. 6.. Neutrino Oscillation in Matter at Low Energies.1. Generalities and physics setup Intheflavor basis, thehamiltonianhthatdescribes theneutrino propagationisasumofthevacuum term and the matrix of matter potential V: H 1 U PMNS E ν m 1 m 31 U PMNS +V, (.1) 1 The effect of vacuum mimicking was noticed in [1, 47, 48], explained in [49], further studied in [5, 51, 5] and dubbed as such in [53]. 3

4 where m 1 m m 1, m 31 m 3 m 1, and E ν is the neutrino energy. The matrix of matter potential V in general has contributions from both standard and non-standard interactions. For the mixing matrix in vacuum U PMNS we use the standard parametrization U PMNS U 3 (θ 3 )Γ δ U 13 (θ 13 )Γ δ U 1 (θ 1 ), Γ δ = diag(1,1,e iδ ). Here θ ij are the vacuum mixing angles and δ is the irac CP phase. In the case of standard interaction only, the matrix of matter potential takes the form as V = diag{v,,} and V = G F n e, (.) where G F is the Fermi coupling and n e is the electron number density. For the standard interaction with a constant density 3g/cm 3 of isotopically neutral matter and sin θ 1.31, the resonance neutrino energy due to the 1- mass splitting equals E R = cosθ 1 m 1 V = 1MeV. (.3) At low energy, E ν 1GeV, the three mass-energy scales ( m 1, m 31, E νv) inthe Hamiltonian (.1) satisfy the following conditions: This allows us to introduce two small parameters r m 1 m 31 m 1 E ν V m 31 E ν. (.4).3, x 31 EV m 31 ( ) Eν =.1 1MeV which will be used for perturbative diagonalization of the Hamiltonian. For typical energies E ν = 5 MeV at µar and E ν = 6 MeV at TK, we obtain x 31 = and x 31 =.6, respectively. At low energies the matter corrections to the 1-3 mixing angle and mass splitting are small. It is more convenient to consider the neutrino oscillation in a different basis ν that is related to the flavor basis ν f as, [54, 55], (.5) ν f = Rν, (.6) where R U 3 (θ 3 )Γ δ U 13 (θ 13 ). (.7) The matrix R depends only on the vacuum mixing angles (θ 3, θ 13 ) and the phase δ. Using (.1) and (.7), we obtain the Hamiltonian in the ν basis H R HR = m 31 E ν 1 + m 1 E ν s 1 c 1 s 1 c 1 s 1 c 1 +V sep, (.8) 4

5 where V sep U T 13 Γ δ UT 3 VU 3Γ δ U 13, (.9) and we use the notation (c ij,s ij ) (cosθ ij,sinθ ij ). In this basis, the first term with the largest mass scale m 31 is diagonal and separated from the 1- sector in vacuum. The second term in (.8) depends on the vacuum parameters of the 1- sector only while the last term is the matter term that provides all other (in particular 1-3) mixings. For convenience, we call this basis the separation basis. It is related to the usual propagation basis [56, 57, 58] by an additional rotation Γ δ U 13 (θ 13 ) [54, 55]. Let us introduce a unitary mixing matrix U to diagonalize the Hamiltonian H (.8): U H U = diag(h 1,H,H 3 ), (.1) where H i are the eigenvalues of H. Then the total mixing matrix in matter, U m, which connects the flavor states and the eigenstates of the Hamiltonian H, ν f = U m ν m, is given by the product U m = RU. (.11) In (.11), the vacuum and matter parts are factorized. Without matter effect, we obtain U = U 1 (θ 1 ). In matter with constant density, solving the evolution equation is straightforward. For the eigenstates of the Hamiltonian, ν m, we obtain according to (.1) the evolution matrix 1 S d = e i H 1L e i H 31L, (.1) where H ij H i H j and L is the distance (baseline). Then the matrix of amplitude in the flavor basis is S f = U m S d U m, (.13) and the ν α ν β (α, β = e, µ, τ) oscillation probability is given by P αβ S f βα. In what follows we will elaborate on the analytical description of the neutrino oscillation effects for the following physics setup: (i) Neutrino energies are from a few tenths to a few hundreds of MeV. (ii) The baselines are about half of the oscillation length for the 1-3 mass splitting. L 1 l 31 = πe ν. (.14) m 31 5

6 Correspondingly, the (half) oscillation phase equals φ 31 π/. (iii) The phase associated with the -1 splitting is small: Also the matter phase φ 1 = r φ 31 πr 5 1 ( 3 ). (.15) φ V = VL φ 31 r cosθ 1 E ν E R (.16) is small. The setup is realized in accelerator experiments such as T(H)K, NOνA, MOMENT, and experiments based on the K-meson, pion and muon decays at rest: KAR, µar, etc. [59]... Oscillation probability We consider the ν µ ν e transition in matter. Using (.1) and (.13), the probability P µe can be generally presented as P µe = U m e U m µ sinφ m 1 +U m e3u m µ3 sinφ m 31e iφm 3, (.17) where U m αj is the αj-element of the mixing matrix Um in matter, and the half-oscillation phases equal φ m 1 = 1 H 1L, φ m 31 = 1 H 31L, φ m 3 = φm 31 φm 1. (.18) We can rewrite the probability P µe using the explicit expressions of U m αj in the standard parametrization. In particular, the first term in (.17) becomes c m 13 sm 1( c m 1 c m 3 sm 13 sm 1 sm 3 e iδm ) sinφ m 1, (.19) where (c m ij,s m ij) (cosθ m ij,sinθ m ij). It is convenient to combine the second term in (.19) with the second term in (.17) to get Here, we have introduced the solar amplitude P µe A S eµ +AA eµ. (.) A S eµ = cm 13 cm 3 Am 1 (.1) with A m 1 sinθ m 1sinφ m 1, (.) and the atmospheric amplitude A A eµ sm 3 sinθm 13 e iδm [ sinφ m 31 e iφm 3 s m 1 sinφm 1]. (.3) 6

7 The atmospheric amplitude contains the term with oscillation phase related to the small -1 mass splitting and it can be rewritten as [ ] A A eµ = s m 3A m 13e i( δm φm 3 ) 1 (s m 1) e iφm sinφm 3 1, (.4) sinφ m 31 where A m 13 sinθm 13 sinφm 31. (.5) The amplitudes A m 13 and Am 1 coincide with the standard ν oscillation amplitudes. The -1 splitting correction to the atmospheric amplitude (expression in the brackets of (.4)) can be parametrized as [ ] 1 ye iφ m 3 κe iφ κ, (.6) where ( ) sinφ y (s m m 1 1 ). (.7) sinφ m 31 For the experimental setup under consideration y (s m 1 ) r. Below the 1- resonance (E ν < E R ) we have (s m 1) s 1 =.31, in the resonance (s m 1) =.5, and (s m 1) approaches 1 with E ν above the resonance. So, typically y = (1 3) 1 is a small quantity. The quantities in (.6) equal κ = 1 ycosφ m 3 +y 1 ycosφ m 3, ysinφ m 3 tanφ κ = ysinφ m 1 ycosφ m 3. 3 Since y 1, the phase φ κ is much smaller than φ m 3. (.8a) (.8b) Thus, the total probability (.17) can be written as P µe = c m 13 c m 3 Am 1 +sm 3 Am 13 κei( δm φm 3 φκ). (.9) Here φ κ = φ κ (φ m 3) is small correction to the oscillation phase φ m 3. If κ = 1, Eq. (.3) reproduces the standard expression for P µe. In the case of standard interactions, the vacuum mimicking for the 1- amplitude is realized due to smallness of the -1 phase φ m 1 1, [1, 47, 48, 49, 5, 51, 5, 53] A m 1 sinθm 1 sinφm 1 sinθ 1sinφ 1 = A 1, (.3) For φ m 1 1, (.3) gives Am 1 sinθ 1 m 1 L E ν. The condition φ m 1 fulfilled in the majority of existing and proposed experiments. 1 for vacuum mimicking is In general, vacuum mimicking is broken in the presence of NSI [49]. Introducing parameter r V Am 1 A 1 (.31) 7

8 to quantify the deviation from vacuum mimicking, we can rewrite the ptobability P µe as P µe c m 13 c m 3 r VA 1 +s m 3 Am 13 κei( δm φm 3 φκ). (.3) This parametrization of the probability P µe is convenient for understanding the matter effects, including both standard and non-standard interactions. TheprobabilityP µe in(.3)canalsoberewrittenassumoftheatmospheric, solarandinterference terms: Here P µe P A µe +PS µe +PI µe cos(δm +φm 3 +φ κ). (.33) P A µe = A A µe κ s m 3 sin θ m 13 sin φ m 31, (.34) P S µe = A S µe r V cm 3 cm 13 sin θ 1 sin φ 1, (.35) P I µe κr V sinθ m 3c m 13sinθ m 13sinφ m 31sinθ 1 sinφ 1. (.36) For constant density, the problem then reduces to finding the mixing angles and mass splittings in matter. The exact vacuum mimicking corresponds to r V = 1. If in addition κ = 1 and φ κ =, Eqs.( ) reproduce the usual approximate expression for P µe [6]. It is easy to see that the 1- correction to the atmospheric amplitude κ 1 sin θ m 1 sinφm 1 = A m 1L 4E ν (.37) does not show vacuum mimicking and has strong dependence on the matter potential V. For V : A sin θ 1, in the resonance A sinθ 1 and with further increase of V the coefficient A increases as V..3. On vacuum mimicking Let us present vacuum mimicking in a general form for both standard and non-standard interactions. Consider forsimplicitytheν Hamiltonianwithmodulioftheoff-diagonalelements H anddifference of the eigenvalues H. The mixing angle is given by and the (half) oscillation phase equals sinθ m 1 = H H, (.38) φ m 1 = 1 HL. (.39) 8

9 Then So, the oscillation amplitude A m 1 A m 1 sinθm 1 φm 1 H 1 = H HL = H L. (.4) in the first order is given by the off-diagonal element of the ν Hamiltonian multiplied by distance. Since for standard interaction the matter potential appears only in the diagonal elements of the Hamiltonian in the flavor basis, H = HV, we obtain A m 1 = A 1. The deviation from vacuum mimicking appears when the off-diagonal element H depends on matter potential. Even for the standard interactions, matter effect appears ina m 1 when sinφm 1 isexpanded to higher order, A m 1 sinθ 1 m 1 L E ν [ 1 1 ( ) ] H1 L. (.41) 6 For the vacuum amplitude A 1 we have the same expression with substitution H 1 m 1 /E ν. Then the ratio of the matter to vacuum amplitudes equals r V = 1+ 1 ( 3 (φ 1) cos θ 1 c 13 1 c 13 E E R ). (.4) Using (.15) we can estimate the matter corrections as r V 1 1 ( πr ) ( cos θ 1 1 E ) 1 4. (.43) 3 E R According to (.43), tn addition to the small oscillation phase squared, the correction r V 1 is suppressed by cos θ 1 /3.3. Note that r V 1 is positive for neutrinos because H 1 < m 1 /E ν and increases with energy. For antineutrinos it is negative. One comment is in order. Recently there was a discussion on why the formulas for the 3νoscillation probabilities in matter derived for E E R 1 (i.e., far above the 1- resonance) work well at E E R 1 [61]. Rather complicated explanation has been proposed in [6]. In fact, the reason is simple. For small values of the -1 phase, which is true at all proposed long-baseline experiments, the vacuum mimicking is realized. In spite of large matter corrections to the oscillation phase and mixing angle, the corrections cancel with each other in the oscillation probabilities. The same expression for the oscillation probability applies at all energies as long as the matter phase is small and the presence of the 1- resonance or not is irrelevant. Corrections due to κ (.8a) and (.37) depend on the 1- sector parameters, κ = κ(θ 1, 1,V), and break vacuum breaking. In the 3ν case the vacuum mimicking does not work exactly even for the standard interaction. As can be seen from (.33) the matter effect associated with the 1- splitting, φ m 1, appears in the phase of the interference term. To realize the vacuum mimicking, one needs to 9

10 reduce 3ν evolution to ν evolution associated with small mass splitting. In the 3ν case, the violation of vacuum mimicking can be induced even by the diagonal elements of the matter potential matrix (see below). 3. Standard Interaction and Vacuum Mimicking 3.1. Oscillation parameters Using the expression (.) of V for the standard interactions in the flavor basis, we obtain the matrix of matter potential in the separation basis, c 13 c 13 s 13 V sep = U13VU T 13 = V. (3.1) c 13 s 13 s 13 Consequently, the total Hamiltonian (.8) can be written explicitly as s 1 c 1 s 1 H = m 31 E ν 1 + m 1 E ν c 1 s 1 c 1 c 13 c 13 s 13 +V c 13 s 13 s 13. (3.) Here the 1-3 mixing (being proportional to θ 13 ) is generated by matter potential. An additional 1-3 rotation δθ 13 tanδθ 13 s 13 c 13 E ν V m 31 = s 13 c 13 x 31 (3.3) eliminates the 1-3 and 3-1 elements of the Hamiltonian (3.). This rotation, in turn, generates nonzero -3 and 3- elements which have next order of smallness and can be neglected. Consequently, θ m 3 θ 3 (see [55] for details). After the rotation (3.3) the third state decouples and for the rest of the system we obtain the effective ν Hamiltonian H ν m 1 E ν s 1 +c 13x 1 c 1 s 1 c 1 s 1 c, (3.4) 1 where x 1 E ( ) νv Eν =.8. (3.5) m 1 1 MeV For typical energies of µar and TK, we have x 1 =.14 and x 1 = 1.5. The correction to the 1-1 element generated by decoupling is of the order r s 13, and therefore has been neglected in (3.4). 1

11 Notice that the Hamiltonian (3.4) can be obtained by block-diagonalization (3.) and decoupling of the third state. The diagonalization of (3.4) gives the effective mass splitting H 1 = m 1 E and the 1- mixing angle in matter The 1-3 splitting (upper sign) and the -3 spitting (lower sign) are H 31 ( H 3 ) m 31 E 1 sin θ 1 +(cosθ 1 c 13 x 1), (3.6) sinθ m 1 = m 1 E H 1 sinθ 1. (3.7) [ m 1 E H 1 +(c 13 s 13)V Thus, the diagonalization matrix in the separation basis is given by and the total mixing matrix in matter becomes ]. (3.8) U = U 13 (δθ 13 )U 1 (θ1 m ), (3.9) U m = RU = U 3 (θ 3 )Γ δ U 13 (θ m 13)U 1 (θ m 1), (3.1) where θ m 13 = θ 13 +δθ 13. (3.11) The matter correction to the CP phase is absent: δ m = δ. 3.. The oscillation probability The probability of ν µ ν e transition is given in ( ). Taking r V 1, c m 3 c 3, s m 3 s 3 and δ m = δ, it becomes P µe = κ s 3 sin θ m 13 sin φ m 31 +c 3 cm 13 sin θ 1 sin φ 1 + κsinθ 3 c m 13sinθ m 13sinφ m 31sinθ 1 sinφ 1 cos(δ +φ m 3 +φ κ ). (3.1) The correction to the atmospheric amplitude given by (κ 1) r can also be neglected. Then for κ = 1 and φ κ =, (3.1) reproduces the commonly used formula of P µe [6]. The oscillation parameters in matter θ m 13, φ m 31, and φ m 3 that enter this formula have been obtained in Eqs. (3.6), (3.7), (3.8), (3.11). In Fig. 1 (left panel) we show the dependence of the probability P µe on E ν /L for the TK setup and different values of δ. At the first oscillation maximum, E ν /L 1.8, we have P µe () = P µe (π) 11

12 andp µe (±π/) = (1 1/3)P µe ()where theplus signcorresponds tothepresently favored δ = 3π/. The spread of the values of P µe (δ ) with varying δ is more than 6%. According to (.36) Pµe A s 13, PS µe is suppressed by sin φ 1 r, and PI µe s 13r. So, the following hierarchy P S µe P A µe sin θ 1 φ 1 4s 13 9 ( ) πr %, (3.13a) s 13 P I µe P A µe sinθ 1 φ 1 πr 3%, s 13 s 13 (3.13b) is realized between the three components at the first oscillation maximum. Roughly, P A µe : P I µe : P S µe = 5 : 15 : 1 which holds also above the resonance (see Fig. 1) but changes significantly with decrease of energy: at E ν /L 1. we have Pµe A = PI µe and PS µe = PA µe /4. Similar relations between the different components of P µe are also realized at µsk. P µe δ = o 9 o 18 o 7 o Components of P µe P A µe P S µe P I µe E ν /L [MeV/km] E ν /L [MeV/km] Fig. 1: The oscillation probability P µe as a function of E ν /L for different values of the CP phase δ (left). ifferent components of P µe (P A µe, P I µe, P S µe) as functions of E ν /L for δ CP = 3π/. We use the T(H)K baseline L = 95km. The matter correction to the whole oscillation probability P µe mainly comes from the angle θ m 13 and the phase φ m 31. Using PA µe only we find V PA µe V 1 s 3 sin θ 13 sinφ 31 [ 4sinφ 31 E ν V m 31 [ 1 c 13 cotφ 31 ] c 13 cosφ 31VL ] s 3 sin θ 13 sin 4E ν V φ 31 m 31 sin θ 13 x 31 (1.5c 13 φ 31cotφ 31 ). (3.14) The first term in (3.14) comes from θ13 m while the second from φm 31. At the first oscillation maximum, the second term is suppressed by cotφ 31. However, if the neutrino energy spectrum is wide enough, cosφ 31 can become sizable out of the peak, as shown in Fig.. According to Fig., P µe and P I µe at TK and µsk are very similar when expressed as functions of E ν/l. At the first oscillation φ 31 1

13 maximum P I µe/p µe.3 and the matter effect increases with energy as P µe P vac µe E ν according to (3.14). Therefore the matter effect at µsk is typically 1 times smaller than at TK. With respect to the interference (CP) term, the matter effect is about (5 3)% at TK and (..)% at µsk..35 Matter and CP Effects at µar [L = 3km, ρ = 3g/cm 3 ].3 Matter and CP Effects at TK [L = 95km, ρ = 3g/cm 3 ] P µe P vac µe - P µe P I µe. P µe P vac µe - P µe P I µe.15 (1/1) x (P vac µe - P µe )/PI µe.15 (1/1) x (P vac µe - P µe )/PI µe E ν [MeV] E ν [GeV] Fig. : The matter effect on probabilities (Pµe vac P µe ) and the CP term coefficient Pµe I at µar (left) and T(H)K (right) for δ = 3π/. For standard interactions, the matter corrections mainly come from the 1-3 mixing s m 13, being 13% at TK and 1% at µar, at the first oscillation peak and for δ = 3π/. The matter effect from the 1- sector is strongly suppressed by the vacuum mimicking, producing O(r ) correction to the atmospheric amplitude A A µe. The interference term is about 1/3 of the total probability. 4. Effects of Non-Standard Interactions 4.1. Oscillation parameters in the presence of NSI In the presence of NSI, the matter potential matrix V in the flavor basis can be parametrized as V ǫ ee ǫ eµ ǫ eτ V = +V ǫ eµ ǫ µµ ǫ µτ. (4.1) ǫ eτ ǫ µτ ǫ ττ (We do not separate here scattering on different components of matter: electrons, u- and d- quarks, summing up the effect.) The 1σ constraints on the NSI parameters ǫ αβ from the global fit [63] are ǫ eµ <.16, ǫ eτ <.6, ǫ µτ <., (4.a) 13

14 .18 < ǫ ττ ǫ µµ <.54, < ǫ ee ǫ µµ <.93. (4.b) The hierarchy among these constraints can be described by powers of small parameter λ =.15 (notice that s 13 λ): ǫ ee ǫ µµ < O(1), ǫ eµ, ǫ eτ < O(λ), ǫ µτ, ǫ ττ ǫ µµ < O(λ ). (4.3) Consequently, the matrix of matter potential in the flavor basis can have the maximal allowed 1σ values, V V 1 λ λ λ λ λ. (4.4) λ λ λ In the separation basis, the matrix of matter potentials is given by transformation of (4.1): ǫ 11 +c 13 ǫ 1 ǫ 13 +s 13c 13 where ǫ 11 = c 13 (ǫ ee ǫ µµ )+s 13 V sep = U T 13 Γ δ UT 3 VU 3Γ δ U 13 = V ǫ ǫ 1 ǫ ǫ s 13 c 13 ǫ 3 ǫ 33 +s 13, (4.5) [ c 3 (ǫ ττ ǫ µµ )+c 3 s 3 R(ǫ µτ ) ] c 13 s 13 R [ ] (s 3 ǫ eµ +c 3 ǫ eτ )e iδ, ǫ 1 = c 13 (c 3 ǫ eµ s 3 ǫ eτ )+s 13 e iδ [c 3 s 3 (ǫ ττ ǫ µµ ) (cosθ 3 R ii)(ǫ µτ )], ǫ 13 = c 13 s 13 [ (ǫee ǫ µµ ) c 3(ǫ ττ ǫ µµ ) c 3 s 3 R(ǫ µτ ) ] +(cosθ 13 R+iI) [ (s 3 ǫ eµ +c 3 ǫ eτ )e iδ ], ǫ = c 3 s 3 R(ǫ µτ )+s 3 (ǫ ττ ǫ µµ ), ǫ 3 = s 13 (c 3 ǫ eµ s 3ǫ eτ ) c 13e iδ [c 3 s 3 (ǫ ττ ǫ µµ ) (cosθ 3 R+iI)(ǫ µτ )], [ ǫ 33 = s 13(ǫ ee ǫ µµ )+c 13 c 3 (ǫ ττ ǫ µµ )+c 3 s 3 R(ǫ µτ ) ] +c 13 s 13 R [ ] (s 3 ǫ eµ +c 3 ǫ eτ )e iδ. (4.6) The operators R and I extract the real and imaginary parts from the attached quantities, e.g. R(ǫ µτ ) Re(ǫ µτ ). For convenience, we have subtracted from V a diagonal term ǫ µµ proportional to the unit matrix I 3 3 which does not affect oscillation probabilities. Notice that the elements of V sep in the separation basis have the same hierarchy of values as (4.4) in the flavor basis due to hierarchical values of the mixing angles s 13 = O(λ) and s 3 = O(1) in (4.5). We can diagonalize the total Hamiltonian in the same way as in the case of standard interaction. First, block-diagonalization gives the effective ν Hamiltonian H ν m s 1 1 +x 1 (c 13 +ǫ 11) s 1 c 1 +x 1 ǫ 1 E ν s 1 c 1 +x 1 ǫ 1 c 1 +x 1ǫ for the first two states. The decoupled state has the eigenvalue (4.7) H 3 m 31 E +V(s 13 +ǫ 33 ). (4.8) 14

15 In the first approximation, this block-diagonalization is equivalent to an additional 1-3 rotation Γ δ3 U 13 (δθ 13 ) which removes the 1-3 and 3-1 elements of the total Hamiltonian. Here Γ δ3 diag(1,1,e iδ 3 ), δ 3 = Arg[s 13 c 13 +ǫ 13], (4.9) and the rotation angle in U 13 (δθ 13 ) is determined approximately by s 13 c 13 +ǫ 13 δθ 13 tanδθ 13 x 31 1+x 31 (s 13 +ǫ 33) x 31 s 13 c 13 +ǫ 13. (4.1) Numerically, δθ 13 O(λ 3 ), but the phase δ 3 can be large, δ 3 = O(1), since ǫ 13 s 13 λ. In this approximation, we have neglected the -3 and 3- elements of the Hamiltonian. They can be eliminated by an additional -3 rotation on the angle which has the next order of smallness: δθ 3 = O(λ 4 ). δθ 3 x 31 ǫ 3 (4.11) iagonalization of the matrix (4.7) gives the effective mass splitting H 1 = m 1 E and mixing Γ δ U 1 (θ m 1) where [cosθ 1 x 1 (c 13 +ǫ 11 ǫ )] +(sinθ 1 +x 1 ǫ 1 ), (4.1) sinθ1 m = m 1 sinθ 1 +x 1 ǫ 1, (4.13) E H 1 Γ δ = diag(1,e iδ ), δ = Arg[sinθ 1 +x 1 ǫ 1 ]. (4.14) Notice that with NSI the off-diagonal element of the Hamiltonian H ν are complex and so additional rephasing Γ δ is needed. In fact, the phase δ also originates from the violation of vacuum mimicking, being the phase of the off-diagonal element H 1 (or equivalently H in (.38) for the ν Hamiltonian). Using the trace of the Hamiltonian (4.7) as well as the equalities (4.8) and (4.1), we find the 1-3 mass splitting H 31 m 31 E +V(s 13 +ǫ 33 ) 1 [ ] m 1 E H 1 +(c 13 +ǫ 11 +ǫ )V. (4.15) Combining all the rotations we obtain the total mixing matrix in matter U m = RU = U 3 (θ 3 )Γ δ U 13 (θ 13 )Γ δ3 U 13 (δθ 13 )Γ δ U 1 (θ m 1). (4.16) Notice that if δ 3 =, the correction δθ 13 can be combined with θ 13 as in the standard interaction case (3.11). 15

16 To find the effective mixing angles in matter, the matrix (4.16) should be reduced to the standard parametrization. Since Γ δ commutes with the 1-3 rotations on the left-hand side, it can be combined with Γ δ : Γ δ Γ δ = diag [ 1,e iδ,e iδ ] diag [ 1,1,e i(δ δ ) ]. (4.17) The first matrix in (4.17) can be omitted since it commutes with the -3 rotations in (4.16), and therefore can be absorbed in the rephasing of the charged lepton states. It is straightforward to show that the product of the 1-3 transformations U 13 (θ 13 )Γ δ3 U 13 (δθ 13 ) can be written as Here and the phase φ S is determined from U 13 (θ 13 )Γ δ3 U 13 (δθ 13 ) = Γ 3 Γ C Γ α U 13 (θ m 13)Γ β. (4.18) Γ 3 = diag ( e iδ 3/, 1, e iδ 3/ ), (4.19) Γ C = diag ( e iφ C, 1, e iφ C), (4.) Γ α = diag ( 1, 1, e i(φ S+φ C ) ), (4.1) Γ β = diag ( 1, 1, e i(φ S φ C ) ), (4.) tanφ S = tan ( ) δ3 sin(θ13 δθ 13 ) sin(θ 13 +δθ 13 ), (4.3) and the phase φ C has similar expression with substitution sin cos and overall minus sign. Then, the 1-3 mixing angle in matter is given by cosθ13 m = cos (δ 3 /)cos (θ 13 +δθ 13 )+sin (δ 3 /)cos (θ 13 δθ 13 ). (4.4) After inserting (4.18) into (4.16), we find a number of simplifications. The matrix Γ β commutes with the 1- rotation and therefore can be absorbed into the rephasing of the eigenstates of the Hamiltonian. The product Γ 3 Γ C Γ α can be written as Γ 3 Γ C Γ α = diag [ e i(δ 3/+φ C ), 1, 1 ] diag [ 1, 1, e ] i(δ 3/ φ S ). (4.5) The first matrix commutes with the -3 rotation of (4.16) and therefore can be absorbed into the rephasing of the flavor states. The second matrix can be combined with the matrix in (4.17). As a result, we obtain the standard expression for the mixing matrix U m = RU = U 3 (θ 3 )Γ δ m U 13 (θ13 m )U 1(θ1 m ) (4.6) with Γ δ m = (1,1,e iδm ), δ m δ δ + δ 3 φ S. (4.7) 16

17 Here δ m is the effective CP phase in matter which includes corrections from NSI. The obtained expressions for the effective mixing parameters in matter can be simplified using the smallness of δθ 13 (4.1). From (4.3) we find δ 3 φ S x 31 c ǫ 13 c 13 s 13 sinδ 3, (4.8) so that the effective CP phase in matter becomes δ m δ δ +x 31 c ǫ 13 c 13 s 13 sinδ 3. (4.9) For the effective 1-3 mixing angle in matter we have θ13 m θ 13 +cosδ 3 δθ 13. (4.3) Recall that δ = δ (ǫ 1) is a function of ǫ 1, whereas δ 3 = δ 3 (ǫ 13) is a function of ǫ 13. According to our consideration here, the matter potential (including NSI) influences the mixing angles, the CP phase, and the splittings of the eigenvalues of the Hamiltonian in rather specific ways which we will discuss in the next two subsections. 4.. Matter corrections and the violation of vacuum mimicking The matter potential influences the 1- mixing and splitting in a particular form that can be described with high accuracy as the violation of vacuum mimicking. The non-diagonal element of the Hamiltonian (4.7), depends on the NSI parameter ǫ 1 H 1 = s 1 c 1 +x 1 ǫ 1, (4.31) and therefore vacuum mimicking is broken [49] already at the lowest order, according to the discussions related to (.4). The violation of vacuum mimicking is characterized by where we have denoted r V = H 1 H 1 = For TK peak energy, E ν 6 MeV, the deviation r V 1.3ǫ 1 1+ x 1ǫ 1 sinθ 1 = 1+ξ 1ǫ 1, (4.3) ξ 1 x 1 sinθ 1. (4.33) can be as large as O(1). For µar (E ν = 5 MeV) we have (r V 1).15 ǫ 1. Here the deviation also scales linearly with energy. Consequently, the deviation at TK is about 1 times larger than the one at µar. The violation parameter r V (.31) of vacuum mimicking equals r V = 1+ξ 1 ǫ 1 cosφ ǫ +ξ1 ǫ 1 (4.34) 17

18 with φ ǫ Arg[ǫ 1]. There are two effects of the violation of vacuum mimicking: 1. Being attached to the solar amplitude (.31), the phase factor e iδ contributes to the phase of the interference term (.33) directly: δ δ +φ m 3. (4.35) Consequently, the CP phase in matter equals δ m δ δ in agreement with (4.9) which differs by the small correction due to the matter effect on the 1-3 mixing. Thus, the violation of vacuum mimicking gives the main correction to the CP phase in matter.. The interference term is modified by a factor r V and the solar term by a factor r V. The deviation from the standard case equals Consequently, the correction vanishes when For φ ǫ = and π, the factor r V itself can be zero if rv 1 = ξ 1 ǫ 1 (cosφ ǫ +ξ 1 ǫ 1 ). (4.36) ǫ 1 = cosφ ǫ ξ 1. (4.37) ǫ 1 = 1 ξ 1 = sinθ 1 x 1 = sinθ 1 m 1 4EV. (4.38) Let us consider the effects of the NSI parameters ǫ ee ǫ µµ, ǫ ττ ǫ µµ, ǫ eµ, ǫ eτ and ǫ µτ separately. They modify the ν µ ν e oscillation probability P µ via ǫ 1, see the second equation of (4.6). Notice that the largest possible NSI parameter ǫ ee ǫ µµ does not contribute to ǫ 1. From (4.6) we find the parameter of the violation of vacuum mimicking in terms of the NSI parameters: O(λ 5 ) c 3 s 3 s 13 e iδ (ǫ ττ ǫ µµ ) O(λ 3 ) r V = 1+ x 1F sinθ 1, F = c 3 c 13 ǫ eµ O(λ) (4.39) s 3 c 13 ǫ eτ O(λ) s 13 e iδ (cosθ 3 R+iI)(ǫ µτ ) O(λ 3 ). 18

19 The presence of several non-zero ǫ can be easily taken into account by summing up the contributions to F. Let us comment on the effect of individual NSI parameter (4.39) when all others are zero. ǫ ee ǫ µµ. Being the biggest allowed parameter, it generates ǫ 11, ǫ 13 and ǫ 33 while other ǫ ij parameters vanish. According to (4.6), the parameter ǫ 11 is the diagonal element of the Hamiltonian H ν while ǫ 13 and ǫ 33 cannot contribute to H ν. Therefore, vacuum mimicking is realized: F = and r V = 1 in the leading order. ǫ ττ ǫ µµ. This parameter contributes to all ǫ ij. In ǫ 1 it appears with suppression factor s 13, so that ǫ 1 = O(λ3 ). Although ǫ ττ and ǫ µµ are the diagonal elements of the matter potential matrix in the flavor basis, they violate vacuum mimicking via ǫ 1. This happens due to the 3ν mixing and large oscillation phase associated with the third state (otherwise mimicking would exist for all mass splittings [49]). We can call such a violation the induced violation of vacuum mimicking due to the 3ν mixing. The corresponding contribution to the oscillation probability is proportional to s 3 s 13. ǫ eµ produces all ǫ ij but ǫ. It appears in ǫ 1 without suppression, and therefore provides the largest violation of vacuum mimicking. Similar statement applies for ǫ eτ. ǫ µτ generates all ǫ ij. Being small it appears with s 13 in ǫ 1. In Fig. 3 we show the dependence of r V 1 on the NSI parameters. According to Fig. 3, in the 1σ allowed interval of ǫ eµ, the correction is between ±45% at TK, with maxima at Arg[ǫ eµ ] = and minimum at Arg(ǫ eµ ) = π. At µar, the correction is 1 times smaller: ±4%. For ǫ eτ the correction at TK is slightly larger: ±65% with maximum at Arg[ǫ eτ ] = π. The correction from ǫ µτ depends on the phase δ. For δ = 3π/ we have from (4.39) ξ 1 ǫ 1 = ξ 1s 13 ǫ µτ ( icosθ 3 cosφ µτ +sinφ µτ ) ξ 1 s 13 ǫ µτ sinφ µτ which gives a correction between ±1.%. The parameter (ǫ ττ ǫ µµ ) is real but its correction depends on δ. For δ = 3π/, we have r V = 1 is 13 s 3 c 3 (ǫ ττ ǫ µµ ) and consequently r V 1 [s 13 s 3 c 3 (ǫ ττ ǫ µµ )] which is negligible being quadratic in s 13. The Fig. 4 shows the dependence of the correction to the CP phase δ δ m δ on the NSI parameters. The largest correction comes from ǫ eµ and ǫ eτ. With the 1σ interval of ǫ eµ we obtain δ ±3 at TK and δ = ±. at µar. Similar numbers are obtained for ǫ eτ : δ ±4 and 19

20 r V - 1 [%] TK ε ee - ε µµ ε ττ - ε µµ ε r V - 1 [%] µsk ε ee - ε µµ ε ττ - ε µµ ε.6 r V - 1 [%] at TK.6 r V - 1 [%] at µsk -4 ε eµ σ ε eµ σ σ.1 1σ o 45 o 9 o 135 o 18 o 5 o 7 o 315 o 36 o Arg[ε eµ ] o 45 o 9 o 135 o 18 o 5 o 7 o 315 o 36 o Arg[ε eµ ].6 r V - 1 [%] at TK.6 r V - 1 [%] at µsk σ σ ε eτ σ ε eτ σ o 45 o 9 o 135 o 18 o 5 o 7 o 315 o 36 o Arg[ε eτ ] o 45 o 9 o 135 o 18 o 5 o 7 o 315 o 36 o Arg[ε eτ ]. r V - 1 [%] at TK. -.8 r V - 1 [%] at µsk ε µτ ε µτ σ 1σ σ 1σ o 45 o 9 o 135 o 18 o 5 o 7 o 315 o 36 o Arg[ε µτ ] o 45 o 9 o 135 o 18 o 5 o 7 o 315 o 36 o Arg[ε µτ ] Fig. 3: ependence of the deviation from vacuum mimicking, r V 1, on the absolute values and phases of the NSI parameters: (a) ǫ ee ǫ µµ and ǫ ττ ǫ µµ ; (b) ǫ eµ ; (c) ǫ eτ ; (d) ǫ µτ. We use δ = 3π/. The left panels are for E ν = 6MeV (T(H)K ) and the right panels are for E ν = 5MeV (µsk). The horizontal lines show 1σ and σ upper bounds on the NSI parameters. δ = ±3, respectively. Contrary to the situation for r V, the parameter ǫ ττ ǫ µµ has larger effect on δ m δ than ǫ µτ does.

21 Corrections to δ o 15 o 1 o 5 o o -5 o -1 o -15 o TK ε ee - ε µµ ε ττ - ε µµ - o ε Corrections to δ 1.5 o 1 o.5 o o -.5 o -1 o µsk ε ee - ε µµ ε ττ - ε µµ -1.5 o ε.6 Corrections to δ [egree] at TK Corrections to δ [egree] at µsk ε eµ σ 1σ ε eµ σ 1σ o 45 o 9 o 135 o 18 o 5 o 7 o 315 o 36 o Arg[ε eµ ] o 45 o 9 o 135 o 18 o 5 o 7 o 315 o 36 o Arg[ε eµ ].6 Corrections to δ [egree] at TK.6 Corrections to δ [egree] at µsk σ σ ε eτ σ ε eτ σ.1.1 o 45 o 9 o 135 o 18 o 5 o 7 o 315 o 36 o Arg[ε eτ ] o 45 o 9 o 135 o 18 o 5 o 7 o 315 o 36 o Arg[ε eτ ]. Corrections to δ [egree] at TK. Corrections to δ [egree] at µsk ε µτ.1.3 ε µτ σ σ 1σ σ o 45 o 9 o 135 o 18 o 5 o 7 o 315 o 36 o Arg[ε µτ ] o 45 o 9 o 135 o 18 o 5 o 7 o 315 o 36 o Arg[ε µτ ] Fig. 4: The same as in Fig. 3 for the matter correction to the leptonic irac CP phase δ m δ = δ. The attraction points in the ǫ eµ and ǫ eτ planes at ǫ eµ.35, φ eµ = π and ǫ eτ.4, φ eτ =,π correspond to r V = for E ν = 6MeV, according to (4.38). (For µar that would appear at much larger, already excluded, values of NSI parameters.) Around the attraction points the correction δ to the CP phase δ can take any value. 1

22 From the observational point of view the deviation r V 1 produces an additional degeneracy with δ. The factor r V in the interference term can be absorbed in redefinition of δ. Indeed, the interference term is proportional to r V cos(δ +φ m 3 ) and its variation vanishes when (r V 1)cos(δ +φ m 3 ) δ r V sin(δ +φ m 3 ) (4.4) At the first oscillation maximum, φ m 3 π/, we obtain δ = cot(δ +φ m 3) r V 1 r V. (4.41) δ = tanδ r V 1 r V. (4.4) Near the maximal CP violation δ = 3π/ the correction can be strongly enhanced Corrections to the total oscillation probability The complete form of the oscillation probability P µe is given by the expression (.33) with oscillation parameters in matter determined in Sec According to(.33) the following quantities are modified in matter: r V, δ m δ δ which are the parameters of the 1- sector, and θ m 13, φ m 31, φ m 3 - the parameters of the 1-3 sector. We will neglect the corrections due to κ as well as due to the matter effect on the -3 mixing which is of the order λ 4. In what follows we will consider the NSI corrections due to the modification of these oscillation parameters in order, comparing the oscillation probabilities with (P NSI µe ) and without (P µe ) the NSI effects: δp µe PNSI µe P µe. (4.43) P µe P µe 1. Theviolationofvacuummimicking givestwocontributions: fromr V 1andδ,bothdetermined by ǫ 1 λ. They affect the interference term Pµe. I The violation parameter r V also modifies the solar probability Pµe S. However, since PS µe itself is very small, the correction to the total probability via Pµe S can be neglected. The correction due to r V 1 is given by δpµe I Pµe I = r V 1. (4.44) Since Pµe I (.5.3)P µe, the correction can be estimated as (.5.3)(r V 1). According to the computations in Sec. 4., this can lead up to (1 15)% correction for ǫ eµ and (15 )% for ǫ eτ at TK in the 1σ allowed intervals. In comparison, the corrections are about 1 times smaller at µsk. They strongly depend on the phases of ǫ αβ and the phase δ.

23 The correction due to δ is given by δpµe I Pµe I = δ tan(δ δ +φ m 3 ) (4.45) with δ defined in (4.14) being roughly proportional I(ǫ 1 ). Then the correction to the total probability is suppressed by a factor of tan(δ δ +φ m 3 ) 1/4 1/3. As a result, the contribution from δ is somewhat smaller than that from (r V 1), reaching (5 1)% at TK.. The correction due to the NSI matter effect on the 1-3 mixing. Using Eqs. (4.3) and (4.1), we can write the correction to the mixing angle in matter θ m,si 13 with standard interaction as δθ m 13 = θ m 13 θ m,si 13 = x 31 [cosδ 3 s 13 c 13 +ǫ 13 s 13 c 13 ]. (4.46) Thus, δθ m 13 depends on (ǫ 1,ǫ 13) λ (i.e., on different combination of the NSI parameters). According to (4.46), δθ m 13 Bs 13 r with B 4 6 at TK and B 1 at µsk. The corrections to the 1-3 mixing can contribute to the atmospheric probability as δpµe A Pµe A 4cotθ 13 δθ m 13 Br. (4.47) For the interference term the relative correction is times smaller and the contribution to the total probability is further suppressed by a factor 1/4 1/3. The total correction to P µe due to δθ m 13 can be as large as (1 15)%. 3. The correction via the 1-3 oscillation phase. The modification of the 3-1 phase due to NSI is Using (4.15) we obtain δφ m 13 = φm,nsi 13 φ m 13 = ( HNSI 31 H 31 ) L. (4.48) H 31 H 31 = 1 V(ǫ 33 ǫ 11 ǫ )+ 1 [ H 1 H 1], (4.49) where H 1 is defined in (4.14), H 31, H 1 are splittings between the eigenvalues without NSI (ǫ = ). In turn, being in general of the order Vǫ, see (4.14), H 1 H 1 V cosθ 1ǫ 11 below the 1- resonance and H 1 H 1 Vǫ 11 above the resonance. In the second case there is a cancellation between the last term in (4.49) with Vǫ 11 difference becomes in the first term there. Thus, the phase δφ m 13 h VL 4 r, (4.5) where the coefficient h is smaller than 1 and can be suppressed at high energies. Notice that δφ m 13 depends not only on ǫ 11 = O(1) but also on other diagonal elements ǫ, ǫ 11 λ. So, δφ m 13 r. 3

24 Full Correction δp µe /P µe [%] TK ε ee - ε µµ ε ττ - ε µµ Full Correction δp µe /P µe [%] µsk ε ee - ε µµ ε ττ - ε µµ ε ε.6 Full Correction δp µe /P µe [%] at TK 8.6 Full Correction δp µe /P µe [%] at µsk ε eµ σ ε eµ σ.. 1σ 1σ.1.1 o 45 o 9 o 135 o 18 o 5 o 7 o 315 o 36 o Arg[ε eµ ] o 45 o 9 o 135 o 18 o 5 o 7 o 315 o 36 o Arg[ε eµ ].6 Full Correction δp µe /P µe [%] at TK.6 Full Correction δp µe /P µe [%] at µsk σ σ -1 ε eτ σ ε eτ σ o 45 o 9 o 135 o 18 o 5 o 7 o 315 o 36 o Arg[ε eτ ] o 45 o 9 o 135 o 18 o 5 o 7 o 315 o 36 o Arg[ε eτ ]. Full Correction δp µe /P µe [%] at TK. Full Correction δp µe /P µe [%] at µsk ε µτ.1 - ε µτ σ σ 1σ 1σ o 45 o 9 o 135 o 18 o 5 o 7 o 315 o 36 o Arg[ε µτ ] o 45 o 9 o 135 o 18 o 5 o 7 o 315 o 36 o Arg[ε µτ ] Fig. 5: The dependence of the correctionsto total oscillation probability P µe on values of NSI parameters: (a) ǫ ee ǫ µµ and ǫ ττ ǫ µµ ; (b) ǫ eµ ; (c) ǫ eτ ; (d) ǫ µτ with δ = 9 and ρ m = 3g/cm 3. The left panels are for E ν = 6MeV and L = 95km at T(H)K while the right panels are for E ν = 5MeV and L = 3km at µsk. The correction to the atmospheric probability equals δpµe A Pµe A cotφ 13 δφ m 13. (4.51) At the first oscillation maximum an additional suppression comes from cotφ 13. 4

25 The analytic consideration presented here allows us to reproduce the results of numerical computations and analyse their dependence on the NSI parameters. In general, the violation of vacuum mimicking gives substantial or even dominant contribution to the probability change. The largest corrections come from r V 1, δ, and δθ13. m Their relative contributions depend on the phases of ǫ s. For Arg[ǫ eµ ] or π the violation of vacuum mimicking gives the main contribution, which is however suppressed at Arg[ǫ eµ ] π/, 3π/. If the NSI parameters are such that ǫ 1 =, the main contribution to P µe comes from the 1-3 mixing determined by ǫ 13. And vice versa if ǫ 13 =, the effect of 1-3 mixing is suppressed and contributions from r V 1 and δ dominate, etc. These features are in agreement with our numerical computations. With all the contributions combined, the total effect of NSI parameters is shown in Fig. 5. Although the NSI parameter ǫ ee ǫ µµ does not contribute to the deviation from vacuum mimicking (see Fig. 3) or to the leptonic irac CP phase (see Fig. 4), it affects the total oscillation probability P µe, mainly due to the correction δθ13 m in (4.47), which is suppressed by s 13. The main contribution to the corrections comes from ǫ eµ and ǫ eτ, reaching % and 3%, respectively, for the 1σ upper bounds. The contribution from (ǫ ee ǫ µµ, ǫ ττ ǫ µµ, ǫ µτ ) can be as large as (5 1)%. 5. CP Measurement in the Presence of Non-Standard Interactions In this section we use TK and µsk as examples to illustrate the NSI effect on the measurement of the genuine irac CP phase δ. To estimate the CP sensitivity we have simulated the pseudo-data at TK and µar for presently favored true value δ = 3π/. We take the following values of the neutrino oscillation parameters sin θ 13 =.89±.5, sin θ 1 =.857±.4, sin θ 3 =.5±.55, m 1 = (7.5±.) 1 5 ev, m 31 = (.4±.1) 1 3 ev, (5.1a) (5.1b) to be consistent with the setup in [44]. The pseudo-data is simulated in the absence of NSI. We use the following χ function χ χ stat +χ sys +χ prior (5.) to fit the pseudo-data, with or without NSI. Here χ stat corresponds to statistical errors: χ stat i (Ndata i N fit i ) /Ni data while χ sys = i [(f i 1)/δf] accounts for the systematical uncertainty in the neutrino fluxes from the J-PARC and µar neutrino sources. The J-PARC flux has 5% 5

26 uncertainty for both neutrino and anti-neutrino modes, also for the µar flux we take about 5% uncertainty, see[44] fordetails. Finally, theprior partχ prior takes intoaccount ourcurrent knowledge of the neutrino oscillation parameters in vacuum (5.1) and the prior constraints (4.) on the NSI parameters. The later is included only when we fit the pseudo-data with the NSI parameters. In simulations we used both the neutrino and antineutrino channels. Recall that the standard oscillation probability (.33) at the first oscillation maximum corresponding to φ m 31 = π/ and φm 1 r π/ can be approximated as P µe s 3 sin θ m 13 cm 13 sinθm 13 sinθ 3sinθ 1 π r sinδ, (5.3) where ± stand for neutrinos and anti-neutrinos, respectively. The first term in (5.3) is larger than the second term by a factor of s 13 /r 5. This magnifies the effect of the uncertainties in the first term. The largest one appears in the -3 mixing, s 3. Around the maximal mixing, sinθ 3 1, the variations of s 3 are enhanced with respect to the variations of sinθ 3 : (s 3) (sinθ 3 ) (sinθ 3 /cosθ 3 ) (sinθ 3 ). Consequently, a small uncertainty in sinθ 3 propagates to a large uncertainty in s 3. It effectively reduces the sensitivity to δ which originates from the second term in (5.3). Running TK in both neutrino and anti-neutrino modes can avoid this problem. With both P µe and P µē measured, the difference between them is purely the CP violating term that is proportional to sinδ. The results in this section are simulated by the NuPro package [65]. 5.1.The CP sensitivity at TK in the presence of NSI In simulations for TK we use proton on target (POT) for the J-PARC flux, corresponding to 34 events in the neutrino mode or 83 events in the anti-neutrino mode for δ = 3π/ [66]. As discussed above, to reduce uncertainties in the determination of δ at TK, it is necessary to run the experiment in both neutrino and anti-neutrino modes. However, in both production and detection, the cross sections for anti-neutrinos are smaller than those for neutrinos. To collect comparable number of events, and hence balance the statistical uncertainty in both modes, the antineutrino mode should run longer. Therefore, in simulations we use years of running in the neutrino mode and 4 years in the antineutrino mode. Correspondingly, 114 neutrino events and 56 antineutrino events are expected. We compute the minimal χ value as a function of the fit value of the phase δ fit, with and without If the near detector µnear [64] is also implemented, the µar flux uncertainty can be significantly reduced. 6

27 16 The effect of NSI on the CP sensitivity at TK [ δ true = -9o ] ε ee ε eµ ε eτ ε µτ ε µµ ε ττ SI NSI χ (δ ) o 135 o 18 o 5 o 7 o 315 o 36 o 45 o 45 o δ fit Fig. 6: The effect of NSI on the CP sensitivity at TK with years of running for the neutrino mode and 4 years for the antineutrino mode, with the prior constraints (4.). The pseudo-data with standard interaction and δ true = 3π/ is fit with standard interaction (SI) as well as with individual NSI parameters (ǫ ee, ǫ eµ, ǫ eτ, ǫ µτ, ǫ µµ, ǫ ττ ) and full set of NSI parameters (dashed line). the NSI parameters. The results are shown in Fig. 6. The solid black line in Fig. 6 presents the CP sensitivity at TK without NSI. We can see that this line is nearly symmetric with respect to δ fit = δtrue = 3π/ which is related to the degeneracy between δ and π δ due to the sinδ dependence in the oscillation probability (5.3). According to Fig. 6, the true value δ true = 3π/ can be distinguished from δ fit = (π) by χ = 3 (1.7σ) and from δ fit = π/ by χ = 15 (3.8σ). The results can be easily scaled for higher statistics at THK or TK-II. The sensitivity to δ can be significantly undermined by NSI. In Fig. 6 we show the dependence of χ on the fit value δ fit for different NSI parameters separately, although only two combinations of the three diagonal elements (ǫ ee, ǫ µµ, and ǫ ττ ) affect oscillations, as we used in Sec.. The color curves in Fig. 6 show that the CP sensitivity at TK is significantly reduced by ǫ ee, ǫ eµ, and ǫ eτ, but almost not affected by ǫ µµ, ǫ µτ, ǫ ττ. This is because ǫ ττ ǫ µµ and ǫ µτ are constrained much stronger according to (4.) and also their contributions to ǫ 1 are suppressed by s 13, see (4.6). Consequently, they have small contribution to the violation of vacuum mimicking via r V (4.3) and to the irac CP phase via δ (4.14). Although ǫ ee ǫ µµ cannot contribute to the leading order corrections via the irac CP phase δ m and r V, see (4.39), its effect on the oscillation probability via δθ m 13 (4.46) as a function of ǫ 13 (4.6) can still be significant due to weak prior constraint (4.). For ǫ eµ and ǫ eτ, the prior constraints are stronger but their contributions are not suppressed in ǫ 1, see (4.6). 7