text:
# Untitled Document

hep-th/0302194

Chiral Ring Of $`Sp(N)`$ And $`SO(N)`$
Supersymmetric Gauge Theory In Four Dimensions

Edward Witten

Institute For Advanced Study, Princeton NJ 08540 USA

The chiral ring of classical supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory with gauge group $`Sp(N)`$ or $`SO(N)`$ is computed, extending previous work (of Cachazo, Douglas, Seiberg, and the author) for $`SU(N)`$. The result is that, as has been conjectured, the ring is generated by the usual glueball superfield $`S\mathrm{Tr}W_\alpha W^\alpha `$, with the relation $`S^h=0`$, $`h`$ being the dual Coxeter number. Though this proposition has important implications for the behavior of the quantum theory, the statement and (for the most part) the proofs amount to assertions about Lie groups with no direct reference to gauge theory.

February, 2003

1. Introduction

In four-dimensional supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory, the basic gauge invariant operator is the superspace field strength $`W_\alpha `$, $`\alpha =1,2`$ (and its hermitian conjugate $`\overline{W}_{\dot{\alpha }}`$). $`W_\alpha `$ transforms in the adjoint representation of the gauge group, which we will take to be a simple Lie group $`G`$; we denote its Lie algebra as $`𝐠`$ and let $`\mathrm{Tr}`$ denote an invariant quadratic form on $`𝐠`$. (For classical Lie groups, we will take $`\mathrm{Tr}`$ to be the trace in the fundamental representation.) $`W_\alpha `$ is a fermionic operator of dimension $`3/2`$, and is chiral, that is, it is annihilated by the supersymmetries of one chirality: $`\{\overline{Q}_{\dot{\alpha }},W_\beta \}=0`$.

Gauge-invariant polynomials in the $`W_\alpha `$, such as $`\mathrm{Tr}W_{\alpha _1}W_{\alpha _2}\mathrm{}W_{\alpha _s}`$, are likewise chiral. In this paper, we consider the “pure” supersymmetric gauge theory without matter multiplets. In this theory, the gauge-invariant polynomials in $`W_\alpha `$ are the only chiral superfields of importance. However, such a polynomial is considered trivial if it is proportional to a linear combination of expressions $`\{W_\alpha ,W_\beta \}`$ for any $`\alpha ,\beta `$. The reason for this is the identity1 This identity follows directly from the superspace definition $`W_\alpha =\{\overline{Q}^{\dot{\alpha }},D_{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}\}`$.

$$\{W_\alpha ,W_\beta \}=\{\overline{Q}^{\dot{\alpha }},D_{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}W_\beta \},$$

which implies that any gauge-invariant expression $`_{\alpha \beta }X^{\alpha \beta }\{W_\alpha ,W_\beta \}`$ is a descendant, that is, it can be written as $`_{\dot{\alpha }}\{\overline{Q}_{\dot{\alpha }},Y^{\dot{\alpha }}\}`$ for some $`Y^{\dot{\alpha }}`$, and hence decouples from the expectation value of a product of chiral operators.

Mathematical Description Of The Problem

The problem of classifying modulo descendants the chiral operators in supersymmetric gauge theory is of mathematical as well as physical interest. Before proceeding, let us reformulate the problem mathematically. We introduce a $`𝐙_2`$-graded ring $`R`$ that is generated by the components of the $`W_\alpha `$. Explicitly, picking a basis $`T_a`$, $`a=1,\mathrm{},dimG`$ of $`𝐠`$, we write $`W_\alpha =_aw_\alpha ^aT_a`$, and then $`R`$ is generated by the (odd) variables $`w_\alpha ^a`$. In the ring $`R`$ we define an ideal $`I`$ that is generated by the components of $`\{W_\alpha ,W_\beta \}`$. In more detail, we write $`\{W_\alpha ,W_\beta \}=\frac{1}{2}_{a,b}w_\alpha ^aw_\beta ^b[T_a,T_b]=\frac{1}{2}_{a,b,c}w_\alpha ^aw_\beta ^bf_{ab}^cT_c`$ (where $`[T_a,T_b]=_cf_{ab}^cT_c`$). Thus, $`I`$ is generated by the even, nilpotent elements $`_{a,b}w_\alpha ^aw_\beta ^bf_{ab}^c`$, for all $`\alpha ,\beta `$, and $`c`$. Elements of $`I`$ are descendants; the quotient ring $`R/I`$ is the ring of chiral operators mod descendants. The ideal $`I`$ is clearly $`G`$-invariant, so $`G`$ acts on $`R/I`$. The $`G`$-invariant chiral operators mod descendants form the classical approximation to the physical “chiral ring” of the theory. So in the classical supersymmetric gauge theory, the chiral ring is $`_{cl}=(R/I)^G`$, where $`(R/I)^G`$ denotes the $`G`$-invariant part of $`R/I`$, and the subscript “$`cl`$” means “classical” (we recall shortly how quantum corrections deform the picture). An element of $`_{cl}`$ can be represented by a $`G`$-invariant element of $`R`$ that is not in $`I`$.

If we consider the $`W_\alpha `$ to be of degree one, then the ideal $`I`$ is graded – its generators being homogeneous of degree two – and hence the classical chiral ring $`_{cl}`$ is a graded ring. There is no non-trivial element of $`_{cl}`$ in degree one (since there is no gauge-invariant linear function of the $`W_\alpha `$). In degree two, since $`W_1^2=\frac{1}{2}\{W_1,W_1\}`$ and $`W_2^2=\frac{1}{2}\{W_2,W_2\}`$ are contained in $`I`$, any element of $`_{cl}`$ is a multiple of $`\mathrm{Tr}W_1W_2=\mathrm{Tr}W_2W_1`$. The degree two part of $`_{cl}`$ is thus a one-dimensional vector space, generated by

$$S=\mathrm{Tr}W_1W_2=\frac{1}{2}\underset{\alpha }{}ϵ^{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{Tr}W_\alpha W_\beta .$$

(Here $`ϵ^{\alpha \beta }`$, $`\alpha ,\beta =1,2`$ is the antisymmetric tensor with $`ϵ^{12}=1`$. It is conventional to include a factor of $`1/16\pi ^2`$ in the definition of $`S`$; this factor, which is motivated by instanton considerations, will play no role in the present paper and we will omit it.)

The conjecture  that we will be exploring in the present paper is that for any simple Lie group $`G`$ with dual Coxeter number $`h`$, the ring $`_{cl}`$ is generated by $`S`$ with the relation $`S^h=0`$. In , this conjecture was proved for $`SU(N)`$, and certain partial results were obtained for other groups. For the classical Lie groups ($`SO(N)`$ and $`Sp(N)`$ as well as $`SU(N)`$) it was proved that $`_{cl}`$ is generated by $`S`$. (This was also proved in .) For any Lie group $`G`$ of rank $`r`$, it was proved that $`S^r0`$ in $`_{cl}`$. The purpose of the present paper is to prove the conjecture for $`Sp(N)`$ and $`SO(N)`$. Most of the arguments are similar to those in , but for $`SO(N)`$ one important step in the proof uses arguments of a quite different nature, based on instanton calculations  that were reviewed and extended in \[4--6\]. For exceptional groups, a proof of the conjecture, or even of the fact that $`_{cl}`$ is generated by $`S`$, has not yet emerged.

The rings and ideals $`R,I,`$ and $`_{cl}`$ all admit an action of $`SL(2,𝐂)`$, under which the $`W_\alpha `$, $`\alpha =1,2`$ transform in the two-dimensional representation. Physically, this $`SL(2,𝐂)`$ originates from an $`SU(2)`$ rotation symmetry of the four-dimensional gauge theory. It will not play an important role in the present paper. The conjecture about the structure of $`_{cl}`$ implies in any case that $`SL(2,𝐂)`$ acts trivially on $`_{cl}`$.

Significance For Physics

To conclude this introduction, let us recall  the main reason for the physical interest of the conjecture. First we must discuss the quantum deformation of the ring $`_{cl}`$. Our definition of $`_{cl}`$ was a classical approximation to the analogous chiral ring $``$ of the quantum theory. For any $`G`$, the operator $`S^h`$, which has dimension $`3h`$ and carries charge $`2h`$ with respect to the $`U(1)_R`$ symmetry of the classical theory, has just the quantum numbers of a one-instanton contribution to correlation functions. Hence it is possible that the classical relation $`S^h=0`$ in the ring $`_{cl}`$ could be deformed in the quantum ring $``$ to a relation of the form

$$S^h=c\mathrm{\Lambda }^{3h},$$

with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ the scale factor of the theory and some constant $`c`$. ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{3h}`$ is essentially the exponential of minus the one-instanton action and is the standard factor that appears in all one-instanton amplitudes.) This is the only such deformation that is possible if the conjectured structure of $`_{cl}`$ is correct. (A $`k`$-instanton amplitude has the quantum numbers of $`S^{kh}`$ and so for $`k>1`$ cannot modify the classical relation $`S^h=0`$.) In fact, explicit instanton calculations \[3--6\] can be interpreted, as we will recall in section 5, as showing that this deformation does arise.

The quantum deformation of the classical ring $`_{cl}`$ to a quantum ring $``$ has a perhaps more familiar analog in two dimensions. In the context of two-dimensional supersymmetric sigma models, the classical cohomology ring of (for example) $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^{N1}`$, which is generated by a degree two element $`x`$ obeying $`x^N=0`$, is naturally deformed to a quantum cohomology ring in which the relation is $`x^N=e^I`$. In this case, $`I`$ is the area of a holomorphic curve of degree one (computed using a Kahler metric on $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^{N1}`$ that is introduced to define the sigma model). One difference between the four-dimensional gauge theories and the two-dimensional sigma models is that in four dimensions the starting point, which is the ring $`_{cl}`$ associated with a Lie group, is less familiar mathematically than the classical cohomology of $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^{N1}`$.

The quantum relation (1.1) has a striking consequence. It implies that in any supersymmetric vacuum, $`S`$ must have a nonzero expectation value, equal to $`c^{1/h}\mathrm{\Lambda }^3`$ (for one of the $`h`$ possible values of $`c^{1/h}`$). In fact, since $`_{\dot{\alpha }}\{\overline{Q}_{\dot{\alpha }},Y^{\dot{\alpha }}\}=0`$ for any $`Y^{\dot{\alpha }}`$ in any supersymmetric vacuum, (1.1) implies that in a supersymmetric vacuum $`S^h=c\mathrm{\Lambda }^{3h}=c\mathrm{\Lambda }^{3h}`$. But expectation values of products of chiral operators factorize , so in particular $`S^h=S^h`$. So we get $`S^h=c\mathrm{\Lambda }^{3h}`$, whence $`S=c^{1/h}\mathrm{\Lambda }^3`$, as claimed.

From this, we can deduce more. The supersymmetric gauge theory in four dimensions has an anomaly-free discrete chiral symmetry under which $`S`$ is rotated by an $`h^{th}`$ root of 1. A nonzero expectation value of $`S`$ breaks this symmetry, so it follows that in any supersymmetric vacuum, the discrete chiral symmetry is spontaneously broken. If a supersymmetric vacuum exists in which $`S=c^{1/h}\mathrm{\Lambda }^3`$ for one choice of $`c^{1/h}`$, then applying the broken symmetry gives additional vacua with the other possible choices of $`c^{1/h}`$. Hence supersymmetric vacua must come in groups of $`h`$, permuted by the spontaneously broken discrete chiral symmetry.

Of course, it is believed that for any $`G`$, the theory has precisely $`h`$ supersymmetric vacua, all with a mass gap, permuted by the broken symmetry. Unfortunately, no satisfactory approximation is known for describing these vacua.

Results In The Present Paper

In section 2 of this paper, we review the arguments given in . In section 3, we extend the argument for $`Sp(N)`$, and in section 4, we do so for $`SO(N)`$. In section 5, we briefly review some pertinent aspects of the one-instanton calculations \[3--6\].

2. Review

In this section, we briefly review the known arguments.

For the classical groups $`SU(N)`$, $`Sp(N)`$,2 Our notation for symplectic groups is such that $`Sp(1)SU(2)`$. For classical groups, we take the symbol $`\mathrm{Tr}`$ to refer to a trace in the fundamental representation of $`SU(N)`$, $`Sp(N)`$, or $`SO(N)`$ (of dimension $`N`$, $`2N`$, and $`N`$, respectively). and $`SO(N)`$, one can prove directly \[2,,1\] that the ring $`_{cl}`$ is generated by $`S=\mathrm{Tr}W_1W_2`$. In fact, for the classical groups, any invariant polynomial in the $`W_\alpha `$’s is a polynomial in the traces of words in $`W_1`$ and $`W_2`$.3 For $`SO(2k)`$, there is an antisymmetric tensor of order $`2k`$, but because of anticommutativity of $`W_1`$ and $`W_2`$, it cannot be used to make an invariant polynomial in these variables if $`k>2`$. The groups $`SO(2k)`$ with $`k2`$ are of course not simple, so we need not consider them. A typical trace of such a word is

$$\mathrm{Tr}W_1^{n_1}W_2^{n_2}W_1^{n_3}\mathrm{}W_2^{n_s}.$$

The ideal $`I`$ contains $`\{W_1,W_2\}`$, so modulo $`I`$, we can take $`W_1`$ and $`W_2`$ to anticommute. Hence the only traces to consider are $`\mathrm{Tr}W_1^{n_1}W_2^{n_2}`$. But $`I`$ also contains $`W_1^2=\frac{1}{2}\{W_1,W_1\}`$, and likewise $`W_2^2=\frac{1}{2}\{W_2,W_2\}`$. So we are reduced to generators $`\mathrm{Tr}W_1^{n_1}W_2^{n_2}`$, $`n_1,n_21`$. As $`\mathrm{Tr}W_1=\mathrm{Tr}W_2=0`$ for simple $`G`$, it follows that $`_{cl}`$ is generated for $`G`$ a classical Lie group by $`S=\mathrm{Tr}W_1W_2=\mathrm{Tr}W_2W_1`$.

The conjecture under discussion asserts more precisely that $`_{cl}`$ is generated by $`S`$ with the relation $`S^h=0`$. So among other things one would like to prove that $`S^{h1}0`$ in $`_{cl}`$, or equivalently, that as an element of $`R`$, $`S^{h1}I`$. In , denoting the rank of $`G`$ as $`r`$, the weaker statement that $`S^rI`$ was proved. In fact, let $`𝐠=𝐭𝐤`$, where $`𝐭`$ is the Lie algebra of a maximal torus in $`G`$, and $`𝐤`$ is its orthocomplement. Let $`I^{}`$ be the ideal generated by the matrix elements of the projection of $`W_\alpha `$ to $`𝐤`$. Then $`II^{}`$, since if $`W_\alpha `$ take values in $`𝐭`$, we have $`\{W_\alpha ,W_\beta \}=0`$. To prove that $`S^rI`$, it suffices to show that $`S^rI^{}`$. The projection of $`W_\alpha `$ to $`𝐭`$ can be written $`W_\alpha =_{a=1}^rw_\alpha ^aT_a^{}`$, where the sum runs over an orthonormal basis $`T_a^{}`$, $`a=1,\mathrm{},r`$, of $`𝐭`$. The $`𝐙_2`$ graded ring $`R/I^{}`$ is freely generated by the odd elements $`w_\alpha ^a`$, $`a=1,\mathrm{},r`$ (with no relations, that is, except anticommutativity). Moreover, $`S=_{a=1}^rw_1^aw_2^a`$ as an element of $`R/I^{}`$. This formula and the absence of relations among the $`w_i^a`$ make clear that $`S^r0`$ in $`R/I^{}`$; indeed, $`S^r=r!_{a=1}^rw_1^aw_2^a`$.

For the Lie groups $`SU(N)`$ and $`Sp(N)`$, one has $`h1=r`$. So for these groups, the result $`S^r0`$ in $`_{cl}`$ is equivalent to the desired $`S^{h1}0`$. For other groups, $`h1>r`$, and a direct algebraic proof that $`S^{h1}0`$ is not yet known. It is possible to use four-dimensional instantons to prove this result; an indication of how to do so is given in section 5.

The remaining step in  was to complete the proof of the conjecture for $`SU(N)`$ by showing that $`S^N=0`$ for this group. (For $`SU(N)`$, $`h=N`$.) In sketching the proof, and making similar arguments for other groups, we will make the formulas less clumsy by writing $`A`$ and $`B`$ for $`W_1`$ and $`W_2`$.4 In effect, we are here picking a basis for the space of $`W_\alpha `$, $`\alpha =1,2`$. This will obscure the $`SL(2,𝐂)`$ symmetry that was mentioned in the introduction. We regard $`A`$ and $`B`$ as $`N\times N`$ traceless matrices, and construct the following $`N^{th}`$ order polynomial in $`A`$:

$$F^{i_1i_2\mathrm{}i_N}(A)=ϵ^{j_1j_2\mathrm{}j_N}A^{i_1}{}_{j_1}{}^{}A_{}^{i_2}{}_{j_2}{}^{}\mathrm{}A^{i_N}{}_{j_N}{}^{}.$$

Here $`ϵ^{j_1j_2\mathrm{}j_N}`$ is the completely antisymmetric tensor, so the right hand side of (2.1) is antisymmetric in the “lower” indices of the $`A`$’s and hence (as the matrix elements of $`A`$ anticommute) $`F`$ is completely symmetric in its indices $`i_1,i_2,\mathrm{},i_N`$. As we explain in a moment, $`F^{i_1i_2\mathrm{}i_N}`$ is contained in the ideal generated by matrix elements of $`A^2`$. Suppose that this is known. Define the dual function of $`B`$,

$$G_{i_1i_2\mathrm{}i_N}(B)=ϵ_{k_1k_2\mathrm{}k_N}B^{k_1}{}_{i_1}{}^{}B_{}^{k_2}{}_{i_2}{}^{}\mathrm{}B^{k_N}{}_{i_N}{}^{}.$$

It is likewise contained in the ideal generated by $`B^2`$. Since $`F`$ and $`G`$ are both contained in the ideal $`I`$, so is

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill F(A)G(B)=& F^{i_1i_2\mathrm{}i_N}(A)G_{i_1i_2\mathrm{}i_N}(B)\hfill \\ \hfill =& ϵ^{j_1j_2\mathrm{}j_N}A^{i_1}{}_{j_1}{}^{}A_{}^{i_2}{}_{j_2}{}^{}\mathrm{}A^{i_N}{}_{j_N}{}^{}ϵ_{k_1k_2\mathrm{}k_N}^{}B^{k_1}{}_{i_1}{}^{}B_{}^{k_2}{}_{i_2}{}^{}\mathrm{}B^{k_N}{}_{i_N}{}^{}.\hfill \end{array}$$

But a direct evaluation of the right hand side of (2.1) can be made using the identity

$$ϵ^{j_1j_2\mathrm{}j_N}ϵ_{k_1k_2\mathrm{}k_N}=\delta _{k_1}^{j_1}\delta _{k_2}^{j_2}\mathrm{}\delta _{k_N}^{j_N}\pm \mathrm{permutations}\mathrm{of}k_1,k_2,\mathrm{}k_N.$$

When this is done, all indices of $`A`$’s become contracted with indices of $`B`$’s, implying that $`F(A)G(B)`$ is a sum of terms $`\mathrm{Tr}(AB)^{r_1}\mathrm{Tr}(AB)^{r_2}\mathrm{}\mathrm{Tr}(AB)^{r_m}`$, with various $`r_i`$. The coefficient of $`S^N=(\mathrm{Tr}AB)^N`$ is nonzero – it is 1, coming from the trivial permutation in (2.1). The other terms with some $`r_i>1`$ are contained in $`I`$, as we have seen in proving that $`_{cl}`$ is generated by $`S`$. Hence $`S^NI`$.

So it remains only to show that $`F(A)^{i_1i_2\mathrm{}i_N}`$ is in the ideal generated by $`A^2`$. Without loss of generality, since this tensor is symmetric in the indices $`i_k`$, we can set these to a common value, say $`N`$. We will show that

$$ϵ^{j_1j_2\mathrm{}j_N}A^N{}_{j_1}{}^{}A_{}^{N}{}_{j_2}{}^{}\mathrm{}A^N_{j_N}$$

is a nonzero multiple of

$$ϵ^{Nj_1j_2\mathrm{}j_{N1}}(A^2)^N{}_{j_1}{}^{}A_{}^{N}{}_{j_2}{}^{}A_{}^{N}{}_{j_3}{}^{}\mathrm{}A^N{}_{j_{N1}}{}^{},$$

which is certainly proportional to $`A^2`$. We can write (2.1) more explicitly as

$$\underset{x=1}{\overset{N}{}}ϵ^{Nj_1j_2\mathrm{}j_{N1}}A^N{}_{x}{}^{}A_{}^{x}{}_{j_1}{}^{}A_{}^{N}{}_{j_2}{}^{}A_{}^{N}{}_{j_3}{}^{}\mathrm{}A^N{}_{j_{N1}}{}^{}.$$

The expression

$$A^N{}_{x}{}^{}A_{}^{N}{}_{j_2}{}^{}A_{}^{N}{}_{j_3}{}^{}\mathrm{}A^N{}_{j_{N_1}}{}^{},$$

being antisymmetric in $`x,j_2,\mathrm{},j_{N1}`$, is a nonzero multiple of

$$ϵ_{xj_2j_3\mathrm{}j_{N1}r}ϵ^{rs_1s_2\mathrm{}s_{N1}}A^N{}_{s_1}{}^{}A_{}^{N}{}_{s_2}{}^{}\mathrm{}A^N{}_{s_{N1}}{}^{}.$$

Now substitute this expression in (2.1), and then use (2.1) to write the product $`ϵ^{Nj_1j_2\mathrm{}j_{N1}}ϵ_{xj_2j_3\mathrm{}j_{N1}r}`$ as a multiple of $`\delta _x^N\delta _r^{j_1}\delta _r^N\delta _x^{j_1}`$. We learn that (2.1) is a nonzero multiple of

$$(\delta _x^N\delta _r^{j_1}\delta _r^N\delta _x^{j_1})A^x{}_{j_1}{}^{}ϵ_{}^{rs_1s_2\mathrm{}s_{N1}}A^N{}_{s_1}{}^{}A_{}^{N}{}_{s_2}{}^{}\mathrm{}A^N{}_{s_{N1}}{}^{}.$$

The $`\delta _x^{j_1}`$ terms give a multiple of $`\mathrm{Tr}A`$, which vanishes for $`A`$ in the Lie algebra of $`SU(N)`$, and the $`\delta _x^N\delta _{j_1}^r`$ term gives (2.1), as promised.

3. Proof For $`Sp(N)`$

In this section, we prove the conjecture for $`G=Sp(n)`$. For this group, $`h=N+1`$ and $`r=h1=N`$. Since we have in section 2 explained why $`_{cl}`$ is generated by $`S`$ for $`Sp(N)`$, and why $`S^N=S^r0`$, we need only prove that $`S^{N+1}=0`$.

We recall that a generator $`A`$ of $`Sp(N)`$ can be represented as a $`2N\times 2N`$ symmetric tensor $`A_{ij}`$. Indices are raised and lowered using the invariant antisymmetric tensor $`\gamma _{jk}`$ of $`Sp(N)`$, and its inverse $`\gamma ^{kr}`$: $`A^i{}_{j}{}^{}=\gamma ^{ik}A_{kj}`$, $`A_{ij}=\gamma _{ik}A^k_j`$, with $`\gamma _{ik}\gamma ^{kj}=\delta _i^j`$. The definition of $`S`$ is $`S=\mathrm{Tr}AB=A_{ij}B_{kl}\gamma ^{jk}\gamma ^{li}`$. To think of $`A`$ as a matrix that can be multiplied, one should raise an index and use $`A^i{}_{j}{}^{}=\gamma ^{ik}A_{kj}`$. The ideal $`I`$ is generated by the matrix elements of $`A^2`$, or explicitly by the quantities

$$\underset{kl}{}A_{ik}A_{jl}\gamma ^{kl},$$

as well as similar expressions with one or both $`A`$’s replaced by $`B`$.

The antisymmetric tensor $`\gamma ^{ij}`$ is nondegenerate and has a nonzero Pfaffian. This implies that the antisymmetric tensor $`ϵ^{i_1i_2\mathrm{}i_{2N}}`$ can be written in terms of $`\gamma `$:

$$ϵ^{i_1i_2\mathrm{}i_{2N}}=\gamma ^{i_1i_2}\gamma ^{i_3i_4}\mathrm{}\gamma ^{i_{2N1}i_{2N}}\pm \mathrm{permutations}.$$

The strategy of the proof will be the same as for $`SU(N)`$. We will construct a polynomial $`F(A)`$ which is contained in the ideal generated by $`A^2`$, and which when contracted with the analogous polynomial in $`B`$ is equal to $`S^{N+1}`$ modulo $`I`$. We simply set

$$F_{i_1i_2\mathrm{}i_{N+1}}^{k_1k_2\mathrm{}k_{N1}}(A)=ϵ^{k_1k_2\mathrm{}k_{N1}j_1j_2\mathrm{}j_{N+1}}A_{i_1j_1}A_{i_2j_2}\mathrm{}A_{i_{N+1}j_{N+1}}.$$

$`F`$ is antisymmetric in the $`k`$’s and symmetric in the $`i`$’s. To show that $`F(A)`$ is contained in the ideal $`I`$, we use the identity (3.1) to express the tensor $`ϵ`$ as a sum of products of $`N`$ $`\gamma `$’s. The $`\gamma `$’s have a total of $`2N`$ indices, $`N+1`$ of which are $`j_1,j_2,\mathrm{},j_{N+1}`$ and are contracted with $`A`$’s. $`N+1`$ exceeds the number of $`\gamma `$’s, so in each term of the sum, at least one $`\gamma `$ has two indices $`j_m,j_n`$ that are contracted with $`A`$’s. Since a $`\gamma `$ cannot be contracted twice with the same $`A`$ ($`\gamma ^{ij}A_{ij}=0`$ as $`A`$ is symmetric), the $`\gamma `$ in question is contracted once each with two different $`A`$’s, giving $`A_{i_mj_m}A_{i_nj_n}\gamma ^{j_mj_n}`$, for some values of the indices; this is a generator of $`I`$. So $`F(A)I`$.

After defining $`F_{i_1i_2\mathrm{}i_{N+1}}^{k_1k_2\mathrm{}k_{N1}}(B)`$ by the same formula, we now want to evaluate

$$F(A)F(B)=F_{k_1k_2\mathrm{}k_{N1}}^{i_1i_2\mathrm{}i_{N+1}}(A)F_{i_1i_2\mathrm{}i_{N+1}}^{k_1k_2\mathrm{}k_{N1}}(B).$$

(The indices of $`F(A)`$ have been raised and lowered with $`\gamma `$’s to make this contraction.) Clearly, $`F(A)F(B)`$ is contained in $`I`$, since $`F(A)`$ and $`F(B)`$ are. However, we can also evaluate $`F(A)F(B)`$ by working directly from the definition:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill F(A)F(B)=& ϵ_{k_1k_2\mathrm{}k_{N1}j_1j_2\mathrm{}j_{N+1}}A^{i_1j_1}A^{i_2j_2}\mathrm{}A^{i_{N+1}j_{N+1}}\hfill \\ & ϵ^{k_1k_2\mathrm{}k_{N1}m_1m_2\mathrm{}m_{N+1}}B_{i_1m_1}B_{i_2m_2}\mathrm{}B_{i_{N+1}m_{N+1}}.\hfill \end{array}$$

Now upon using the identity (2.1) to evaluate $`ϵ^{k_1k_2\mathrm{}k_{N1}m_1m_2\mathrm{}m_{N+1}}ϵ_{k_1k_2\mathrm{}k_{N1}j_1j_2\mathrm{}j_{N+1}}`$, all indices of $`A`$’s are contracted with indices of $`B`$’s, and we get as in section 2 a sum of terms each of which is of the form $`\mathrm{Tr}(AB)^{r_1}\mathrm{Tr}(AB)^{r_2}\mathrm{}\mathrm{Tr}(AB)^{r_m}`$ for some $`r_i`$. The coefficient of $`S^{N+1}=(\mathrm{Tr}AB)^{N+1}`$ is nonzero, and the other terms with some $`r_i>1`$ are again all contained in the ideal $`I`$. So we have shown that $`S^{N+1}`$ is contained in $`I`$, completing the proof of the conjecture for the symplectic group.

4. Proof For $`SO(N)`$

For $`SO(N)`$, the dual Coxeter number is $`h=N2`$. The proof that $`S^{N2}I`$ will be similar to what we have already seen, though slightly more elaborate. A novelty for $`SO(N)`$ is that $`h>r+1`$ in this case, so the argument using reduction to a maximal torus (which only shows that $`S^rI`$) does not suffice to show that $`S^{h1}I`$. The only proof of this that I know of uses facts about four-dimensional instantons and is deferred to section 5.

An element of the Lie algebra of $`SO(N)`$ is an antisymmetric $`N\times N`$ matrix $`A_{ij}`$; indices are raised and lowered and contracted using the invariant metric $`\delta _{ij}`$ and its inverse $`\delta ^{ij}`$. Since indices can be raised and lowered in a unique way without introducing any minus signs, we make no distinction between upper and lower indices. The ideal $`I`$ is generated by

$$(A^2)_{ij}=\underset{k}{}A_{ik}A_{kj}=\underset{k}{}A_{ik}A_{jk},$$

and analogous expressions with one or both $`A`$’s replaced by $`B`$. Apart from $`\delta _{ij}`$, the only independent invariant tensor is the antisymmetric tensor $`ϵ_{i_1i_2\mathrm{}i_N}`$.

Since the proof that $`S^{N2}I`$ will be slightly elaborate, we first consider the case of $`SO(5)`$ (which is isomorphic to $`Sp(2)`$ so that we could borrow the result of the last section, though the argument will not be expressed in such terms). To prove that $`S^3=0`$ for $`SO(5)`$, we will construct a cubic polynomial $`F(A)`$, which is contained in $`I`$ and when contracted with the analogous cubic polynomial in $`B`$ is equal to $`S^3`$ mod $`I`$. This will show that $`S^3I`$ for $`SO(5)`$. Then we will generalize the construction to $`SO(N)`$ with $`N>5`$. (Since $`SO(3)`$ is equivalent to $`SU(2)`$ and $`SO(4)`$ to $`SU(2)\times SU(2)`$, we need not consider those cases.)

To construct $`F(A)`$, we will begin with a product of three $`A`$’s, say $`A_{rr^{}}A_{ss^{}}A_{tt^{}}`$, and a product of two antisymmetric tensors, $`ϵ_{i_1i_2\mathrm{}i_5}ϵ_{j_1j_2\mathrm{}j_5}`$. Then we will contract all six indices of the $`A`$’s with some of the ten indices carried by the antisymmetric tensors. There is essentially only one way to do this. We cannot take two $`A`$’s and contract all four of their indices with the same antisymmetric tensor, since

$$A_{i_1i_2}A_{i_3i_4}ϵ_{i_1i_2i_3i_4i_5}=0$$

by anticommutativity. Likewise, we cannot have two $`A`$’s each with one index contracted with each of the antisymmetric tensors, since again

$$A_{i_1j_1}A_{i_2j_2}ϵ_{i_1i_2i_3i_4i_5}ϵ_{j_1j_2j_3j_4j_5}=0$$

by anticommutativity. So the only nonzero expression that we can make by contracting all six indices of the three $`A`$’s with six of the ten indices of the antisymmetric tensors is

$$F_{i_1i_2j_1j_2}(A)=A_{i_3i_4}A_{j_3j_4}A_{i_5j_5}ϵ_{i_1i_2i_3i_4i_5}ϵ_{j_1j_2j_3j_4j_5},$$

in which one $`A`$ is contracted twice with the first antisymmetric tensor, one is contracted twice with the second, and one is contracted once with each.

If we insert in the definition of $`F`$ the identity $`ϵ_{i_1i_2i_3i_4i_5}ϵ_{j_1j_2j_3j_4j_5}=\delta _{i_1j_1}\delta _{i_2j_2}\mathrm{}\delta _{i_5j_5}\pm \mathrm{permutations}`$, we get a sum of many terms each proportional to a product of five metric tensors $`\delta _{i_mj_n}`$. The five metrics have a total of ten indices, six of which are contracted with indices of the three $`A`$’s. The crucial fact is that six exceeds five, so one metric has both indices contracted with $`A`$’s. One cannot contract a metric tensor twice with the same $`A`$ ($`\delta _{ij}A_{ij}=0`$, as $`A`$ is antisymmetric). So inevitably, in each term, one of the $`\delta `$’s is contracted with two different $`A`$’s, giving an expression $`A_{mn}\delta _{np}A_{pr}=(A^2)_{mr}`$ that is a generator of the ideal $`I`$. So $`F(A)`$ is contained in $`I`$.

On the other hand, consider

$$F(A)F(B)=A_{i_3i_4}A_{j_3j_4}A_{i_5j_5}ϵ_{i_1i_2i_3i_4i_5}ϵ_{j_1j_2j_3j_4j_5}B_{k_3k_4}B_{t_3t_4}B_{k_5t_5}ϵ_{i_1i_2k_3k_4k_5}ϵ_{j_1j_2t_3t_4t_5}.$$

We can evaluate this by using (2.1) to express the products $`ϵ_{i_1i_2i_3i_4i_5}ϵ_{i_1i_2k_3k_4k_5}`$ and $`ϵ_{j_1j_2j_3j_4j_5}ϵ_{j_1j_2t_3t_4t_5}`$ in terms of products of $`\delta `$’s. When we do this, the indices of $`A`$’s and $`B`$’s are contracted, and we get a sum of terms, each of which is a product of traces of words in $`A`$ and $`B`$. The sum includes a positive multiple of $`S^3`$, and additional terms that are contained in $`I`$ because the trace of any word with more than two letters is in $`I`$. This proves that $`S^3I`$ for $`SO(5)`$.

To prove in a similar fashion that $`S^{N2}I`$ for $`SO(N)`$, we should start with $`N2`$ factors of $`A`$ and contract some of their indices with a product of two $`ϵ`$’s to define a polynomial $`F(A)`$. To prove along the above lines that $`F(A)I`$, we need to have at least $`N+1`$ indices of the product of $`ϵ`$’s contracted with $`A`$’s. Let us verify that this is just possible. As we have seen above, three $`A`$’s can be contracted twice each with the product of $`ϵ`$’s, giving a total of 6 contractions. The remaining $`N5`$ $`A`$’s can each have only one index contracted with the product of $`ϵ`$’s, since two contractions will give a vanishing result by virtue of (4.1) or (4.1) (which have obvious analogs for $`N>5`$). The total number of contractions will hence be $`6+(N5)=N+1`$, exactly what we need. It does not matter with which antisymmetric tensor the last $`N5`$ $`A`$’s are contracted. So we define

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill F(A)& _{i_1i_2j_1j_2\mathrm{}j_{N3}s_1s_2\mathrm{}s_{N5}}\hfill \\ & =ϵ_{i_1i_2t_1t_2\mathrm{}t_{N2}}ϵ_{j_1j_2\mathrm{}j_{N3}k_1k_2k_3}A_{t_1t_2}A_{k_1k_2}A_{t_3k_3}A_{t_4s_1}A_{t_5s_2}\mathrm{}A_{t_{N2}s_{N5}}.\hfill \end{array}$$

$`F(A)`$ is contained in $`I`$ for the familiar reason: upon using (2.1) to replace the product of antisymmetric tensors with a sum of products of $`\delta `$’s, we get a sum of terms in each of which some $`\delta `$ is contracted with two $`A`$’s, giving a generator of $`I`$.

Hence the quantity

$$F(A)F(B)=F(A)_{i_1i_2j_1j_2\mathrm{}j_{N3}s_1s_2\mathrm{}s_{N5}}F(B)_{i_1i_2j_1j_2\mathrm{}j_{N3}s_1s_2\mathrm{}s_{N5}}$$

is contained in $`I`$. On the other hand, explicitly

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill F(A)F(B)=& ϵ_{i_1i_2t_1t_2\mathrm{}t_{N2}}ϵ_{j_1j_2\mathrm{}j_{N3}k_1k_2k_3}A_{t_1t_2}A_{k_1k_2}A_{t_3k_3}A_{t_4s_1}A_{t_5s_2}\mathrm{}A_{t_{N2}s_{N5}}\hfill \\ & ϵ_{i_1i_2u_1u_2\mathrm{}u_{N2}}ϵ_{j_1j_2\mathrm{}j_{N3}n_1n_2n_3}B_{u_1u_2}B_{n_1n_2}B_{u_3n_3}B_{u_4s_1}B_{u_5s_2}\mathrm{}B_{u_{N2}s_{N5}}.\hfill \end{array}$$

Using (2.1) to replace $`ϵ_{i_1i_2t_1t_2\mathrm{}t_{N2}}ϵ_{i_1i_2u_1u_2\mathrm{}u_{N2}}`$ and likewise $`ϵ_{j_1j_2\mathrm{}j_{N3}k_1k_2k_3}ϵ_{j_1j_2\mathrm{}j_{N3}n_1n_2n_3}`$ with sums of products of $`\delta `$’s, we learn in the familiar fashion that $`F(A)F(B)`$ is equal to $`S^{N2}`$ plus a sum of terms (proportional to traces of longer words in $`A`$ and $`B`$) that are contained in $`I`$. Combining these results, we deduce that $`S^{N2}I`$.

5. Implications Of Instanton Calculations

For any simple Lie group $`G`$, a one-instanton solution on $`𝐑^4`$ is obtained by picking a minimal $`SU(2)`$ subgroup of $`G`$, and embedding in $`G`$ the one-instanton solution of $`SU(2)`$. Under such a minimal $`SU(2)`$, the Lie algebra $`𝐠`$ of $`G`$ decomposes as the adjoint representation of $`SU(2)`$ plus a certain number of pairs of copies of the spin one-half representation, as well as $`SU(2)`$ singlets. Because the same $`SU(2)`$ representations arise for any $`G`$, the relevant properties of the one-instanton computation are largely independent of $`G`$. A computation for all simple Lie groups was performed in .

For instanton number one, the instanton moduli are the position and size and “$`SU(2)`$ orientation” of the instanton and the choice of minimal embedding of $`SU(2)`$ in $`G`$.

In the field of the instanton, the gluino field (which is a fermi field with values in the adjoint representation of $`G`$) has $`2h`$ zero modes, all of one chirality. This is the right number to give an expectation value to an operator with the quantum numbers of a product of $`h`$ copies of $`S`$. In , general properties of chiral operators were used to show that in a supersymmetric vacuum the expectation value of a product of chiral operators such as $`S(x_1)S(x_2)\mathrm{}S(x_h)`$ is independent of the choice of points $`x_i𝐑^4`$ as long as the $`x_i`$ are distinct, ensuring there are no ambiguities in defining the operator products. Moreover, a one-instanton computation was performed on $`𝐑^4`$, with the result

$$S(x_1)S(x_2)\mathrm{}S(x_h)_{1\mathrm{inst}}=c_0\mathrm{\Lambda }^{3h}$$

for some constant $`c_0`$. The computation is made by evaluating $`S(x_i)`$ as bilinear expressions in the fermion zero modes (corrections to this vanish by holomorphy) and then integrating over instanton moduli space. The subscript “$`1\mathrm{inst}`$” in (5.1) refers to the fact that we are recording here the result of a one-instanton computation, which may or may not give the exact quantum answer.

Our main goal in the present section is to argue from properties of the one-instanton moduli space that $`S^{h1}I`$. For this, we do not need to know whether the one-instanton computation gives the exact quantum answer or not; in fact, we do not even need to know if the quantum theory really exists. The argument we will give could be formulated as a conventional mathematical proof that $`S^{h1}I`$, using properties of instanton moduli space.

We will also sketch how instantons are used to deduce the quantum anomaly that makes $`S^h`$ a non-zero multiple of the identity in the quantum chiral ring (rather than vanishing, as it does classically). For this, one does need to know something about the quantum theory, so after arguing that $`S^{h1}I`$, we will recall some issues concerning the relation of the instanton computation to the quantum theory.

It is possible to take $`h1`$ of the $`x_i`$ to coincide without running into any difficulty or ambiguity and in particular without running into a singular contribution from small instantons. (See eqn. (7.17) of , where this choice is made.) So

$$S(x)S^{h1}(y)_{1\mathrm{inst}}=c_0\mathrm{\Lambda }^{3h}.$$

From this we can deduce the desired result that $`S^{h1}I`$. Indeed, because of the $`\overline{Q}`$-invariance of the one-instanton computation, a formula $`S^{h1}=\{\overline{Q}_{\dot{\alpha }},Y^{\dot{\alpha }}\}`$ would imply the vanishing of (5.1) (it would lead to a representation of (5.1) as the integral of a total derivative over instanton moduli space). Since it does not vanish, $`S^{h1}I`$.

This completes what we have to say about nonvanishing of $`S^{h1}`$ in the classical theory. Now let us discuss how the quantum anomaly in $`S^h`$ comes about. If we simply set $`x=y`$ in (5.1), we find that the function that must be integrated over instanton moduli space is identically zero. The reason for this is that at each point $`y𝐑^4`$ and for any given one-instanton solution, two of the fermion zero modes vanish. (They are a suitable linear combination, depending on $`y`$ and on the position of the instanton, of the zero modes generated by global supersymmetries and superconformal transformations.) Hence, when $`S^h(y)`$ is evaluated using the fermion zero modes, one gets identically zero before doing any integral over instanton moduli space. This is compatible with (but stronger than) the kind of behavior of $`S^h`$ that one would expect from the classical result $`S^hI`$ (this result would make us expect a perhaps not identically zero total derivative on moduli space).

In the quantum theory, however, we should be careful in defining an operator product such as $`S^h`$. This is conveniently done by point-splitting, taking a product such $`S(x_1)S(x_2)\mathrm{}S(x_h)`$ and, after performing the computation, taking the limit as the $`x_i`$ coincide. In the present case, there is no problem in setting $`h1`$ of the $`x_i`$ equal (since no singular small-instanton contributions appear in (5.1) as long as $`xy`$). But we should be careful to define $`S^h(y)`$ as $`lim_{xy}S(x)S^{h1}(y)`$. When we do this, clearly we get

$$S^h(y)_{1\mathrm{inst}}=c_0\mathrm{\Lambda }^{3h}.$$

If we assume that the one-instanton amplitude coincides with the exact quantum answer, we would deduce from this that the classical ring relation $`S^h=0`$ is deformed quantum mechanically to $`S^h=c_0\mathrm{\Lambda }^{3h}`$. However, it is believed that the exact quantum answer is actually

$$S^h(y)=c\mathrm{\Lambda }^{3h},$$

with a different constant $`c`$, so that the quantum ring relation is really $`S^h=c\mathrm{\Lambda }^{3h}`$. The discrepancy between the one-instanton computation of the anomaly coefficient and the exact result is still somewhat surprising; for a detailed analysis and references, see section 7 of . One simple statement  is that if the one-instanton computation is done on $`𝐑^3\times 𝐒^1`$ instead of $`𝐑^4`$, with an arbitrary radius for the $`𝐒^1`$, one gets the result (5.1), with what is believed to be the correct coefficient $`c`$, independent of the radius (as long as the radius is finite). Since the statement $`S^h=c\mathrm{\Lambda }^{3h}+\{\overline{Q}_{\dot{\alpha }},Y^{\dot{\alpha }}\}`$ is an operator statement, independent of any particular choice of state, the coefficient $`c`$ can be computed, in principle, on any chosen four-manifold and with any chosen boundary conditions. Compactification on $`𝐒^1`$ with small radius and a non-trivial Wilson loop expectation value at infinity gives a suitable framework for a reliable computation of the anomaly coefficient in a weakly coupled context. (The proof that $`S^{h1}I`$ could also have been carried out in just the same way after compactification on $`𝐒^1`$.) The direct computation on $`𝐑^4`$ is presumably affected by some infrared divergences in the relation between the perturbative vacuum in which the computation is done and the true quantum vacuum.

Note Added In hep-th version 3

In a paper  that appeared some months after the original hep-th version of the present one, Etinghof and Kac have verified the conjectured structure of the classical chiral ring for the exceptional Lie group $`G_2`$.

This work was supported in part by NSF Grant PHY-0070928. I would like to acknowledge the hospitality of the particle theory group at Caltech, where much of this work was done, and to thank T. Hollowood, V. Kac, V. Khoze, and N. Seiberg for discussions.

References

relax F. Cachazo, M. Douglas, N. Seiberg, and E. Witten, “Chiral Rings And Anomalies In Supersymmetric Gauge Theory,” hep-th/0211170, JHEP 0212:071,2002. relax A. Ceresole, G. Dall’Agata, R. D’Auria, and S. Ferrara, “Spectrum Of Type IIB Supergravity on $`AdS_5\times 𝐓^{1,1}`$: Predictions On $`𝒩=1`$ SCFT’s,” hep-th/9905226, Phys. Rev. D61 (2000) 066001. relax V. A. Novikov, M. A. Shifman, A. I. Vainshtein, M. B. Voloshin, and V. I. Zakharov, “Supersymmetry Transformations Of Instantons,” Nucl. Phys. B229 (1983) 394; V. A. Novikov, M. A. Shifman, A. I. Vainshtein, and V. I. Zakharov, “Exact Gell-Mann-Low Functions of Supersymmetric Yang-Mills Theories From Instanton Calculus,” “Instanton Effects In Supersymmetric Theories,” Nucl. Phys. B229 (1983) 381, 407. relax D. Amati, G. C. Rossi, and G. Veneziano, “Instanton Effects In Supersymmetric Gauge Theories,” Nucl. Phys. B249 (1985) 1. relax M. A. Shifman and A. I. Vainshtein, “Instantons Versus Supersymmetry: Fifteen Years Later,” in ITEP Lectures In Particle Physics and Field Theory, ed M. Shifman (World Scientific, Singapore, 1999), hep-th/9902018. relax N. Dorey, T. J. Hollowood, V. Khoze, and M. P. Mattis, “The Calculus Of Many Instantons,” hep-th/0206063, Phys. Rept. 371 (2002) 231. relax N. M. Davies, T. J. Hollowood, and V. V. Khoze, “Monopoles, Affine Algebras, and The Gluino Condensate,” hep-th/0006011. relax N. M. Davies, T. J. Hollowood, V. V. Khoze, and M. P. Mattis, “Gluino Condensate And Magnetic Monopoles In Supersymmetric Gluodynamics,” Nucl. Phys. B559 (1999) 123, hep-th/9905015. relax P. Etinghof and V. Kac, “On The Cachazo-Douglas-Seiberg-Witten Conjecture For Simple Lie Algebras,” math.QA/0305175.


format: text

text:
# A theory of new type of heavy-electron superconductivity in PrOs4Sb12: quadrupolar-fluctuation mediated odd-parity pairings

## References


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The year 2002 has witnessed two very important results in solar neutrino research. In April 2002 the accumulated evidence in favor of possible flavor conversion of the solar electron neutrinos was confirmed with a statistical significance of 5.3$`\sigma `$ from the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory (SNO) . The inclusion of the SNO spectrum data combining the charged current, electron scattering and neutral current events in the global solar neutrino analysis picked out the Large Mixing Angle (LMA) MSW  solution as the preferred solution , confirming the earlier trend . In December 2002 the Kamioka Liquid scintillator Anti-Neutrino Detector (KamLAND) experiment in Japan  provided independent and conclusive evidence in favor of the LMA solution, using reactor neutrinos. Assuming CPT invariance this establishes oscillations of $`\nu _e`$ with a mass squared difference $`7\times 10^5`$ eV2 and large mixing . Comprehensive evidence in favor of oscillation of the atmospheric $`\nu _\mu `$s came from the Super-Kamiokande (SK) results . This was confirmed by the result from the K2K long baseline experiment using terrestrial neutrino sources . The best-fit value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2`$ comes out as $`2.5\times 10^3`$ eV2 with maximal mixing in the $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ sector .

Since the solar and atmospheric neutrino anomalies involve two hierarchically different mass scales, simultaneous explanation of these involve three neutrino mixing. There are nine unknown parameters involved in the three-generation light neutrino mass matrix – masses of the three neutrinos, and six other parameters coming from the Pontecorvo-Maki-Nakagawa-Sakata (PMNS) mixing matrix . Of the nine parameters, oscillation experiments are sensitive to six ($`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2`$, $`\theta _{12}`$, $`\theta _{13}`$, $`\theta _{23}`$, $`\delta `$), the two independent mass squared differences ($`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{ij}^2=m_i^2m_j^2`$), the three mixing angles and one CP phase. Flavor oscillations are independent of the absolute neutrino mass scale, and the remaining two CP phases appear only in lepton number violating processes. The solar neutrino data constrain the parameters $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$ and $`\theta _{}\theta _{12}`$ while the atmospheric neutrino data constrain the parameters $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2`$ and $`\theta _{atm}\theta _{23}`$. The two sectors get connected by the mixing angle $`\theta _{13}`$ which is at present constrained by the reactor data  as $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{13}0.03`$ at 90% C.L. .

With neutrino flavor oscillations in both solar and atmospheric neutrino anomalies confirmed, the research in neutrino physics is now all set to enter the era of precision measurements. The conventional accelerator based long baseline experiments as well as neutrino factories using muon storage rings as sources have been discussed widely for the purposes of precise determination of the neutrino oscillation parameters (see  for a comprehensive discussion and a complete list of references). The major goals in the upcoming long baseline and proposed neutrino factories are – precision determination of $`|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2|`$ and $`\theta _{23}`$ , ascertaining the sign of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2`$ and determining how small is $`\theta _{13}`$. The atmospheric parameters $`|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2|`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{23}`$ are expected to be determined within 1% accuracy in the next generation long baseline experiments using conventional (super)beams . The mixing angle $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}`$ is expected to be probed down to $`1.5\times 10^3`$ in the long baseline experiments using superbeams  while neutrino factories will be sensitive upto $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}10^5`$ . Finally with KamLAND confirming the LMA solution, it should be possible to measure the CP phase $`\delta `$ in neutrino factories and possibly even in the proposed phase II JHF (in Japan) and NuMI (in USA) long baseline experiments, provided $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}`$ is not too small . However $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$ and $`\theta _{12}`$ drive the sub-leading oscillations in these experiments and hence precision determination of these parameters through long baseline experiments or neutrino factories will be very challenging444With LMA confirmed by KamLAND there remains a possibility of determining $`\theta _{12}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$ in a high-performance neutrino factory provided the background can be reduced sufficiently and $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}<10^5`$ .. Therefore in all these studies the sub-leading oscillation parameters $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$ and $`\theta _{12}`$ are introduced as external inputs, taking typically either the best-fit value obtained from the global solar analysis or the projected sensitivity limits from future KamLAND data. However, since the concern now has shifted to precision measurements, the uncertainty in the parameters $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$ and $`\theta _{12}`$ can also affect the accuracy with which we can determine the rest of the parameters of the PMNS matrix, especially the CP violation parameter $`\delta `$, as it comes only with the sub-leading term in the oscillation probability. The uncertainty in the measurement of other parameters, introduced through the uncertainty in the solar parameters, gets worse for smaller values of the mixing angle $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}`$.

As far as the precision determination of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$ is concerned, KamLAND has already demonstrated an extraordinary capability in precisely determining the $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2`$. The uncertainty (we call it “spread”)555We give the precise definition of “spread” in Section 3. in the 99% C.L. allowed range of this parameter around the global best-fit solution (which we call the low-LMA), has reduced to 30% after including the KamLAND spectral data, from 76% as obtained from only solar global analysis. The spread in the allowed range of $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{}`$ on the other hand remains unchanged, even after including the KamLAND results and the current 99% C.L. uncertainty is $``$ 47%.

In this paper we probe the sensitivity of the various previous, present and future solar neutrino experiments to the parameter $`\theta _{}\theta _{12}`$ and make a comparative study of which experiment is most sensitive in constraining $`\theta _{12}`$. We conclude that SNO has the best potential for constraining $`\theta _{12}`$ . We make an optimistic projected analysis including future SNO neutral current (NC) measurements and look for the improved bounds on $`\theta _{12}`$ . We discuss the precipitating factors for which the sensitivity of KamLAND to $`\theta _{12}`$ is not as good as its sensitivity to $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$ and discuss the effect of increased statistics and reduced systematics through projected analyses. We conclude that even with 3 kTy statistics KamLAND may not significantly improve the current limits on $`\theta _{12}`$ coming from the solar neutrino experiments. We differentiate between two types of terrestrial experimental set-ups sensitive to vacuum oscillations. One which has its energy and baseline tuned to a maximum in the survival probability and another where the baseline ($`L`$) and energy ($`E`$) would give a minimum in the survival probability. We argue that sensitivity to $`\theta _{12}`$ increases substantially if the experiment is sensitive to a “Survival Probability MINimum” (SPMIN) instead of a “Survival Probability MAXimum” (SPMAX) – as is the case in KamLAND, and propose a new reactor experiment which would give precise value of $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{12}\text{ }`$ down to 14%.

We begin in Section 2 with a discussion of the potential of the experiments sensitive to different limits of the survival probability in constraining the mixing angle. We then discuss the solar neutrino experiments and delineate the impact of each one separately on the global allowed areas. We obtain bounds on $`\theta _{12}`$ from a future SNO NC data. In the next section we introduce the KamLAND data and discuss how much the uncertainty in $`\theta _{12}`$ is going to reduce with the increased statistics in KamLAND. We make a comparative study of various solar neutrino experiments along with KamLAND data and determine the role of the individual experiments in constraining $`\theta _{12}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$. The reasons for the low sensitivity of KamLAND to $`\theta _{12}`$ is expounded. In Section 4 we propose a new reactor experiment which could in principle bring down the uncertainty in $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{12}\text{ }`$ to 14%. In the next section we examine the role of the future solar neutrino experiments – Borexino and the LowNu experiments. We finally present our conclusions in Section 6.

## 2 Solar Neutrino Experiments

The solar neutrinos come with a wide energy spectrum and have been observed on Earth in detectors with different energy thresholds. The survival probability for the low energy $`pp`$ (in Ga experiments – SAGE, GALLEX and GNO) and the high energy $`{}_{}{}^{8}B`$fluxes (in SK and SNO) in the now established LMA scenario can be very well approximated by

$`P_{ee}(pp)1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{12}`$ (1)
$`P_{ee}({}_{}{}^{8}B)\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{12}\text{ }+f_{reg}`$ (2)
where $`f_{reg}`$ is the $`\nu _e`$ regeneration inside the Earth. Thus the solar neutrinos in LMA are sensitive to $`\theta _{12}`$ , the degree of sensitivity depending on the energy of the relevant solar neutrinos observed. To expound this feature we present in Figure 1 the variation of $`P_{ee}`$ with $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{12}\text{ }`$ for the different limits of the neutrino oscillation scenarios – averaged oscillations (cf. Eq.(1)), fully adiabatic conversions in matter (cf. Eq(2)) and “full” vacuum oscillations corresponding to “Survival Probability MINimum” (SPMIN), that is $`P_{ee}=1\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{12}\text{ }`$666This case corresponds to vacuum oscillations with $`\mathrm{sin}^2(\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2\text{ }L/4E)1`$ and we call this SPMIN, since $`P_{ee}`$ is minimum for this choice of $`L/E`$. The case where $`\mathrm{sin}^2(\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2\text{ }L/4E)0`$ is referred to in this paper as an SPMAX.. For both averaged oscillations and SPMIN the dependence of the probability is quadratic in $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{12}\text{ }`$, while for complete adiabatic conversions (AD) the dependence is linear. Thus for the latter the error in $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{12}\text{ }`$ is roughly same as the error in the probability $`P_{ee}`$.

$`(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{12}\text{ })_{\mathrm{AD}}\mathrm{\Delta }P_{ee}`$ (3)
While the corresponding error for averaged oscillations (AV) and SPMIN cases are roughly given by

$`(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{12}\text{ })_{\mathrm{AV}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }P_{ee}}{2\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{12}}}`$ (4)
$`(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{12}\text{ })_{\mathrm{SPMIN}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }P_{ee}}{4\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{12}}}`$ (5)
the sensitivity to $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{12}\text{ }`$ for averaged oscillations being reduced to roughly 1/2 of that for SPMIN. We note from Eqs.(3), (4) and (5) that for mixing angle not very close to maximal mixing, that is for $`\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{12}\text{ }\stackrel{>}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}0.25}`$ ($`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{12}\text{ }\stackrel{<}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}0.375}`$), the error in $`\theta _{12}`$ is least when we have a SPMIN. For $`\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{12}\text{ }\stackrel{>}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}0.5}`$ ($`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{12}\text{ }\stackrel{<}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}0.25}`$) even averaged oscillations are better suited for $`\theta _{12}`$ measurements than adiabatic conversions inside matter. However for large mixing angles close to maximal, the adiabatic case has the maximum sensitivity. All these features are evident in the Figure 1 which shows that for the SPMIN case and for mixing not too close to maximal, the $`P_{ee}`$ has the sharpest dependence on the mixing angle and the $`\theta _{12}`$ sensitivity is maximum. Since the 99% C.L. allowed values of $`\theta _{12}`$ is within the range $`0.14<\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{12}\text{ }<0.57`$, SPMIN seems most promising for constraining $`\theta _{12}`$.

### 2.1 Bounds from current solar data

While the Gallium (Ga) experiments, SAGE, GALLEX and GNO  are sensitive mostly to the $`pp`$ neutrinos, the SK  and SNO  predominantly observe the higher energy $`{}_{}{}^{8}B`$neutrino flux. The Chlorine experiment (Cl)  observes the intermediate energy $`{}_{}{}^{7}Be`$ neutrinos in addition to the $`{}_{}{}^{8}B`$. Since the best-fit value for the mixing angle is large (with $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{12}0.3`$), from the discussion above we expect SK and SNO to have a better handle over $`\theta _{12}`$. However the observed rates in the detectors depend not only on the survival probability but also on the initial solar neutrino flux in the Sun. The errors in the predicted fluxes are carried over to the errors in the parameters determined, reducing the net sensitivity. While the $`pp`$ neutrinos are very accurately predicted and have theory errors of less than $`1\%`$, the $`{}_{}{}^{8}B`$neutrinos have a huge Standard Solar Model (SSM) uncertainty of $`20\%`$ . Thus on this front the “sub-MeV” experiments score over the higher energy solar neutrino experiments.

SK and SNO are real-time experiments and hence carry information regarding energy dependence of the suppression and potential matter effects as well. To project a realistic scenario of the potential of each of the solar neutrino experiments in constraining the parameters, we present in Figure 2 the C.L. allowed contours 777In our solar analysis we include the total rates from Cl and Ga, the full zenith angle spectral data from SK and the complete day-night spectral information from SNO . Note that in the solar neutrino analysis the $`{}_{}{}^{8}B`$ rates come as $`f_BP_{ee}`$ where $`f_B`$ is a normalization factor for the $`{}_{}{}^{8}B`$ flux and is varied as a free parameter.  from an analysis where all but one of the experiments is not considered888For the allowed regions from the individual solar neutrino experiment we refer to Figure 3 of .. The figure shows that exclusion of Cl from the analysis raises the upper limit on both $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$ and $`\theta _{12}`$ . Higher values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$ and values of $`\theta _{12}`$ close to maximal mixing give an energy independent suppression of the solar neutrino flux within $`\pm 10\%`$ . The Cl experiment with an observed rate that is $`2\sigma `$ away from that predicted by maximal mixing disfavors these zones. So omission of Cl makes these zones more allowed. SK is consistent with no energy dependence in the survival probability. Thus SK favors these quasi-energy independent regions of the parameter space. The non-observation of any significant day-night asymmetry in SK puts the lower bound on $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$ and hence omission of SK loosens this bound. The Ga observed rate of 0.55 is comparatively closer to the rate predicted at maximal mixing ($`=0.5`$), however the error in the $`pp`$ flux is only $`1\%`$ and this helps Ga to disfavor maximal mixing. Therefore excluding Ga slightly increases the upper limit of $`\theta _{12}`$ . But the strongest impact on the allowed regions of the parameter space comes from SNO, which comprehensively rules out most of these quasi-energy independent zones that predict a suppression rate $`P_{ee}\stackrel{>}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}0.5}`$. Thus without SNO the bounds become much weaker in both $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$ and $`\theta _{12}`$ . The upper limit on $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$ vanishes and the upper limit on $`\theta _{12}`$ becomes extremely poor, with large areas in the “dark zone” (zones with $`\theta _{12}\text{ }>\pi /4`$) getting allowed. Without SNO these areas were allowed since the 20% uncertainty in the $`{}_{}{}^{8}B`$neutrino flux could be used to compensate for the higher survival probability and explain the global data. However with SNO the uncertainty in $`{}_{}{}^{8}B`$flux has come down to 12%, putting a sharp upper bound to both $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$ ($`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2\text{ }<2.2\times 10^4`$ eV2) and $`\theta _{12}`$ ($`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{12}\text{ }<0.77`$) at 99% C.L..

### 2.2 Sensitivity of expected NC data from SNO

This tremendous power of SNO to constrain mass and mixing parameters stems from its ability to simultaneously measure the neutrino suppression rate through the charged current (CC) interaction and the total $`{}_{}{}^{8}B`$neutrino flux through the independent neutral current (NC) measurement. Thus by reducing errors in both $`P_{ee}`$ (from CC reaction) and the $`{}_{}{}^{8}B`$flux normalization $`f_B`$ (from the NC reaction), SNO can put better limits on the mass and mixing parameters. In particular it bounds the LMA zone in $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$ from the top, chopping off parts of the parameter space for which the $`{}_{}{}^{8}B`$neutrinos do not undergo resonant transitions inside the Sun and therefore have a form of $`P_{ee}10.5\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{12}\text{ }`$. These regions would give a $`P_{ee}>0.5`$ and could be accommodated with the CC data only if the initial $`{}_{}{}^{8}B`$flux was assumed to be less, or in other words $`f_B<1`$. However values of $`f_B`$ different from 1 are disfavored from the NC measurements of SNO and these high $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$ regions get ruled out. Similarly in the adiabatic zone since $`P_{ee}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{12}\text{ }`$, the larger values of $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{12}\text{ }`$ close to maximal mixing would be allowed only if $`f_B`$ were to be assumed to be less than 1, which is at variance with the data as discussed above and hence these zones get severely constrained.

The upper left-hand panel of Figure 3 shows the current C.L. allowed zones from the global solar neutrino experiments. Superimposed on them are the lines of constant CC/NC rates in SNO999Lines of constant day-night asymmetry in SNO are seen to be practically independent $`\theta _{12}`$  and so we do not present them here. However they have a sharp $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$ dependence which can be used as a consistency check on the $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$ measurement from KamLAND.. We note that the $`3\sigma `$ range of predicted CC/NC rates from the current solar limits are $`0.230.47`$. If SNO can measure a CC/NC ratio with smaller errors then the range for the allowed values of $`\theta _{12}`$ would reduce.

The next phase of NC rate from SNO would come from capture of the neutron – released in the neutral current breakup of heavy water – on $`{}_{}{}^{35}Cl`$ (salt). This data is expected to have much better statistics than the earlier data released last year, which was with neutron capture on deuterons. Since the efficiency of neutron captures on salt is about 83% while that on deuterons only about 30% we expect the statistical errors in the neutral current measurements to come down to about 5%. It would be interesting to gauge how much the uncertainty in $`\theta _{12}`$ would reduce with better measurements of the total $`{}_{}{}^{8}B`$flux from SNO. Just to project the impact of reduced errors from SNO we show in the upper right-hand panel of Figure 3 the allowed areas in the parameter space when the total error in the NC measurement is reduced to 7%101010The current systematic error in the NC data is about 9%. However we make an optimistic reduction in the total errors in the future SNO NC measurements.. Since the purpose of this figure is not accuracy but an optimistic projection of the impact of a futuristic SNO NC measurement, we have replaced the 34-binned SNO spectrum data used everywhere else in this paper, with the total charged and neutral current rates in SNO. The total rates are disentangled from the SNO spectrum data by assuming no spectral distortion for the $`{}_{}{}^{8}B`$flux. Since we confine ourselves to the LMA zone where there is hardly any spectral distortion expected, we consider this to be an excellent approximation. We note that the limit on $`\theta _{12}`$ improves with reduced errors in NC and the 99% C.L. bounds at $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2\text{ }=7\times 10^5`$ eV2 reads $`0.3<\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{12}\text{ }<0.63`$.

## 3 KamLAND

### 3.1 Current Bounds

After the announcement of the first KamLAND results  there was a plethora of papers discussing the impact of KamLAND on the mass and mixing parameters, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2`$ and $`\theta _{}`$ . The KamLAND spectrum even though still short on statistics, is powerful enough to disintegrate the solar neutrino parameter space into two disjoint islands at the 99% C.L. – one around the global best-fit of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2\text{ }=7.17\times 10^5`$ eV2 and $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{12}=0.44`$ and another at $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2\text{ }=1.49\times 10^4`$ eV2 and $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{12}=0.43`$. We call them low-LMA and high-LMA respectively. High-LMA appears at a reduced statistical significance of about $`2\sigma `$. The two islands however join at the $`3\sigma `$ level. We show the currently allowed zones in Figure 4111111For the KamLAND analysis we take the 13-binned spectrum data. We assume Poisson distribution for the KamLAND spectrum. For the solar neutrino data the error analysis assumes a Gaussian distribution. For the details of our solar neutrino and KamLAND analysis techniques and codes we refer the reader to .. The right-hand panel of this figure gives the allowed areas from the KamLAND data alone, while the left-hand panel gives the combined allowed zones from solar and KamLAND data. From a global analysis involving the solar and KamLAND data the $`3\sigma `$ ranges are

$`0.27`$ $`<\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{12}<`$ $`0.88`$ (6)
$`4.96\times 10^5`$ $`<\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2<`$ $`2.0\times 10^4`$ (7)
The 99% range for the parameters are ,

$`0.28`$ $`<\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{12}<`$ $`0.79`$ (8)
$`5.3\times 10^5`$ $`<\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2<`$ $`9.9\times 10^5,(\mathrm{low}\mathrm{LMA})`$ (9)
$`0.34`$ $`<\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{12}<`$ $`0.55`$ (10)
$`1.3\times 10^4`$ $`<\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2<`$ $`1.8\times 10^4,(\mathrm{high}\mathrm{LMA})`$ (11)
We note that low-LMA allows a much larger range of $`\theta _{12}`$ than high-LMA. This has more to do with the fact that the global best-fit is in low-LMA than anything else. If the contour at high-LMA was to be plotted with respect to the local minima at high-LMA, then the allowed range of $`\theta _{12}`$ would be almost the same.

To study the impact of each of the solar neutrino experiments in determining the allowed range of the mixing parameters in conjunction with KamLAND, we show in Figure 5 the allowed areas from a combined analysis involving the KamLAND data and the solar data, with each panel showing the areas obtained when one of the solar neutrino experiments is excluded. The Figure shows that neglecting Cl helps to make the high-LMA slightly more allowed and the 3$`\sigma `$ contour extends to larger $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ while omission of Ga and SK does not change the contours much with respect to the global contours of figure. 4. However the exclusion of SNO completely removes the upper bound on $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$ and allows $`\theta _{12}`$ to move into the “dark zone” even at 99% C.L.. This again exemplifies the power of SNO in constraining the quasi-energy independent zones as discussed in the previous section. In fact we have checked that SNO alone combined with KamLAND, can almost restrict both $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$ and $`\theta _{12}`$ within the current global allowed range.

### 3.2 Reduced SNO NC errors and KamLAND

It would be interesting to check if the KamLAND data with future solar neutrino data in general and SNO NC data in particular, could improve the limits on the parameters or not. The lower 2 panels in Figure 3 show the impact of the next phase SNO NC data in conjunction with the KamLAND data. The lower left panel of the figure shows the current global allowed regions obtained from the combined solar and KamLAND data. Also shown superimposed are the constant lines for the CC/NC rates in SNO. The predicted $`3\sigma `$ range for the CC/NC rates is seen to be $`0.270.47`$. The lower right hand panel gives the allowed areas obtained when the error in NC measurement is reduced from 12% to 7% as discussed earlier. We again reiterate that for this figure with future SNO NC measurement we have used the CC and NC rates instead of the full SNO day-night spectrum used in the rest of the paper. The combination of the solar with reduced NC errors and KamLAND is seen to constrain $`\theta _{12}`$ to $`0.3<\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{12}\text{ }<0.63`$ at 99% C.L., which is the same as that obtained without KamLAND and with improved NC. Thus we again note that inclusion of the current KamLAND data in the global analysis brings no improvement on the limits for $`\theta _{12}`$ . The results obtained from a combined future SNO NC and future KamLAND data are presented in the following sections.

### 3.3 Sensitivity of projected KamLAND data

In  we made a projected analysis using the 1 kTy KamLAND spectrum simulated at some strategic points in and around the high-LMA and low-LMA allowed regions and probed the potential of a statistics enriched KamLAND data sample to plump for the right solution between the two. The 3 kTy KamLAND data is obviously expected to further tighten the bounds on the mixing parameters . The sensitivity of KamLAND to $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$ is found to be remarkable. To study the limits that KamLAND would be expected to impose on the mixing angle $`\theta _{12}`$ with more statistics, we present in Figure 6 the $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^2(=\chi ^2\chi _{min}^2)`$ as a function of $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{12}\text{ }`$, keeping $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$ free. The left-hand panel gives the limits obtained from KamLAND data alone, with the declared 0.162 kTy data and the projected 1 kTy and 3 kTy data, simulated at the current low-LMA best-fit point. The right-hand panel gives the corresponding bounds when KamLAND is combined with the solar data. The limits on the value of $`\theta _{12}`$ will depend somewhat on the point in the parameter space where the projected KamLAND spectra are simulated. We present here just the bounds obtained if the future KamLAND spectrum sticks to its current trend and roots for the low-LMA best-fit point. Also shown in both the panels is the curve corresponding to the global solar neutrino data alone.

Apart from the increased statistics we have also studied the role of the reduced systematics on the allowed parameter ranges. The current 0.162 kTy KamLAND data has a rather large and very conservative systematic error of 6.42% . However the KamLAND collaboration hopes to improve their systematics in the future. The bulk of the systematic error comes from the error in the knowledge of the fiducial volume which could be improved by making calibration measurements. For 1 kTy data the systematic error could reduce to the 5% level with better understanding of the detector and more statistics. For the 3 kTy data sample the systematic uncertainties could be lowered to even 3% with three-dimensional calibrations and better understanding of reactor neutrino flux121212We thank Professor Atsuto Suzuki, Professor Fumihiko Suekane and Professor Sandip Pakvasa for information regarding the most optimistic estimates on the possible future systematic errors in KamLAND.. We have assumed an expected 5% systematic uncertainty for our analysis with the 1 kTy KamLAND data and a more optimistic 3% systematic uncertainty for the 3 kTy data sample.

From the Figure 6 we see that even with 3 kTy statistics (and with only 3% systematic error), KamLAND would constrain $`\theta _{12}`$ only marginally better than the current solar neutrino experiments. Also, KamLAND being insensitive to matter effects has a $`\theta _{12}`$  and $`\pi /2\theta _{12}\text{ }`$ ambiguity and therefore allows regions on both side of maximal mixing. Maximal mixing itself cannot be ruled out by the 3 kTy KamLAND data alone. The right-hand panel shows that the combined $`\theta _{12}`$ limits from the global solar neutrino data and future KamLAND data, would be somewhat more constricted than that obtained from the current solar data alone. Also shown in the right-hand panel of Figure 6 is the $`\theta _{12}`$ sensitivity curve obtained by combining the 3 kTy KamLAND data (with 3% systematic uncertainty) with the global solar neutrino data, where the total uncertainty in the SNO NC data has been reduced from 12% as of now, to only 7% expected from a future SNO measurement. Reduction of the SNO NC error reduces the combined allowed $`\theta _{12}`$ range as discussed in Section 3.2, particularly on the large mixing side.

In Table 1 we explicitly present the 99% C.L. allowed ranges for the solar neutrino parameters in low-LMA, allowed from combined solar and KamLAND131313For the various C.L. limits in the Table 1 we take $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^2`$ corresponding to a two parameter fit.. Shown are the current bounds on $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{12}\text{ }`$ and those expected after 1 kTy and 3 kTy of KamLAND data taking. The sensitivity of KamLAND to $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$ is tremendous. Since the thrust of this paper is to study the limits on the solar mixing angle, we also give the $`1\sigma `$ and $`2\sigma `$ limits for $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{12}\text{ }`$. Also shown are the % spread in the oscillation parameters. We define the “spread” as

$`\mathrm{spread}={\displaystyle \frac{prm_{max}prm_{min}}{prm_{max}+prm_{min}}}\times 100`$ (12)
where $`prm`$ denotes the parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$ or $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{12}\text{ }`$. KamLAND is extremely good in pinning down the value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$ . The “spread” in $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$ comes down from 30% as of now to 9%(6%) with 1 kTy(3 kTy) KamLAND spectrum data. However its sensitivity to $`\theta _{12}`$ is not of the same order. The spread in $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{12}\text{ }`$ goes down only to 41%(33%) from 47% with the 1 kTy(3 kTy) KamLAND spectrum data combined with the solar data. Thus as discussed before, even with the most optimistic estimates for the KamLAND error analysis, the sensitivity of KamLAND to $`\theta _{12}`$ is not much better than of the current solar data and the range of allowed value for $`\theta _{12}`$ does not reduce by a large amount even after incorporating KamLAND.

The last row of Table 1 shows the allowed range of parameter values from a combined analysis of the 3 kTy KamLAND data (with 3% systematic uncertainty) and the global solar data, where the total error in the SNO NC data has been reduced to 7%. We note that this combination of futuristic as well as optimistic expected data from SNO NC and KamLAND reduces the $`\theta _{12}`$ uncertainty to 29% at the 99% C.L.. However if we compare the range of allowed values for $`\theta _{12}`$ given in the last row of Table 1 with that obtained from an analysis of only the solar data with SNO NC error of 7% given in the previous section 3.2, we note that solar data alone with improved SNO NC measurements can reduce the spread in $`\theta _{12}`$ to 35% at 99% C.L.. Thus even in this scenario inclusion of the KamLAND data helps in reducing the $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{12}\text{ }`$ spread only from 35% to 29%, and even 29% is large when compared with the 6% spread expected for $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$ from KamLAND alone.

The reactor antineutrinos do not have any significant matter effects in KamLAND and hence the survival probability has the vacuum oscillation form

$`P_{ee}=1{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{12}\text{ }\mathrm{sin}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2\text{ }L_i}{4E}}\right)`$ (13)
where $`L_i`$ stands for the different reactor distances. As discussed in Section 2, experiments sensitive to averaged vacuum oscillation probability are less sensitive to $`\theta _{12}`$ , particularly close to maximal mixing. However in KamLAND the probability, even though partially averaged due summing over the various reactor distances, is not completely averaged. The KamLAND spectrum shows a peak around 3.6 MeV which is well reproduced by $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2\text{ }7.2\times 10^5`$ eV2. This sensitivity to shape gives KamLAND the ability to accurately pin down $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$ .

However the sensitivity of KamLAND to $`\theta _{12}`$ around the best-fit point is actually worse than experiments which observe only averaged oscillations. The reason being that the KamLAND data is consistent with a “survival probability maximum” (SPMAX) of vacuum oscillations, with an oscillation peak in the part of the neutrino spectrum that is statistically most relevant. At SPMAX the $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$ dependent $`\mathrm{sin}^2(\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2\text{ }L_i/4E)`$ term is close to zero, smothering any $`\theta _{12}`$ dependence along with it. As discussed in Section 2, the $`\theta _{12}`$ sensitivity would have been more, had the KamLAND distances been tuned to a SPMIN.

## 4 A new reactor experiment for $`\theta _{}`$?

From the Figure 1 presented in Section 2 and the discussion on KamLAND sensitivity to $`\theta _{12}`$ in the previous section we conclude that a reactor experiment can measure $`\theta _{12}`$ accurately enough only if it is sensitive to the SPMIN. To further elaborate our point in figure 7 we present the allowed areas at 7.2$`\times 10^5`$ eV2 (SPMAX) and for a fictitious spectrum data in KamLAND simulated at $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2\text{ }=3.5\times 10^5`$ eV2 – which corresponds to an effective SPMIN in KamLAND . We show limits for the current KamLAND systematic uncertainty of 6.42% and a systematic uncertainty of just 2% 141414 We want to emphasise that the 2% uncertainty consdiered in figure 7 is a fictitious value – the 3% systematic error in KamLAND after 3 kTy of data which we assume in the previous section is already the most optimistic estimate. However we present the contours for this fictitious case in order to facilitate comparison with scenarios presented later in this section.. We take 3 statistics for KamLAND in all the cases. The % spread in uncertainty for the SPMAX case with 6.42% systematic uncertainty is 37% while for the SPMIN case with the same systematics the spread is 25%. The effect of reducing the systematics to 2% results in the spread coming down to 32% and 19% respectively. We have also explored the effect of reducing the SNO NC error to 7% for the SPMAX case. The resulting contours are presented in the middle panels of figure 7. The $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{12}\text{ }`$ spread for this case with 2% systematic error in KamLAND is 27%. This emboldens us to believe that the most suitable experiment for $`\theta _{12}`$ measurement is an experiment sensitive to the SPMIN as expected in Section 2.

Thus unprecedented sensitivity to $`\theta _{12}`$ can be achieved in a terrestrial experiment if the distance traveled by the neutrino beam is tuned so that the detector observes a complete vacuum oscillation. The oscillation wavelength of the neutrinos can be calculated with reasonable accuracy with information on $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$ from KamLAND . For a reactor experiment which has a large flux around $`34`$ MeV, the detector needs to be placed at about 70 km from a powerful nuclear reactor in order to be sensitive to the oscillation SPMIN151515Here we assume that the current best-fit $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$ in low-LMA is the right value.. Also important for accurate $`\theta _{12}`$ determination is to reduce the systematics. The major part of the 6.42% error in KamLAND comes from sources which affect the overall normalization of the observed anti-neutrino spectrum. These can be reduced if the experiment uses the near-far detector technique in which there are two identical detectors, one close to the reactor and another further away . Comparison of the number of detected events in the two detectors can be then used to reduce the systematics.

We show in Figure 8 the constraints on the mass and mixing parameters obtained using a “new” reactor experiment whose baseline is tuned to an oscillation SPMIN. We use the antineutrino flux from a reactor a la Kashiwazaki nuclear reactor in Japan with a maximum power generation of about 24.6 GWatt. We assume a 80% efficiency for the reactor output and simulate the 3 kTy data at the low-LMA best-fit for a KamLAND like detector placed at 70 km from the reactor source and which has systematic errors of only 2%. The top-left panel of the Figure 8 shows the simulated spectrum data. The histogram shows the expected spectrum for no oscillations. $`E_{vis}`$ is the “visible” energy of the scattered electrons. The top-right panel gives the ratio of the simulated oscillations to the no oscillation numbers. The sharp minima around $`34`$ MeV is clearly visible. The bottom-left panel gives the C.L. allowed areas obtained from this new reactor experiment data alone. With 3 kTy statistics we find a marked improvement in the $`\theta _{12}`$ bound with the 99% range $`0.39<\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{12}\text{ }<0.52`$ giving a spread of 14%.161616Note that the first panel on the bottom line of Figure 8 admits a mirror solution on the “dark side” because of the $`\theta _{12}\text{ }(\pi /2\theta _{12}\text{ })`$ ambiguity in all experiments sensitive to oscillations in vacuum. This dark side solution can be ruled out by including the solar neutrino data.

## 5 Other future experiments

We briefly discuss the sensitivity of the some of other next generation solar neutrino experiments. The most important among them are the Borexino which is sensitive to the monochromatic $`{}_{}{}^{7}Be`$ neutrinos coming from the Sun and the sub-MeV solar neutrino experiments – the so called LowNu experiments.

### 5.1 Borexino

Borexino is a 300 ton organic liquid scintillator detector, viewed by 2200 photomultiplier tubes . The Borexino detector due to start operations soon, has achieved a background reduction at sub-MeV energies never attempted before in a real time experiment. Borexino is tuned to detect mainly the $`{}_{}{}^{7}Be`$ solar neutrinos by the elastic $`\nu e`$ scattering process. The detector will operate in the electron recoil energy window of $`0.250.8`$ MeV to observe the mono-energetic 0.862 MeV $`{}_{}{}^{7}Be`$ line which scatter electrons with a Compton edge at 0.66 MeV, the edge being somewhat smeared by the energy resolution of the detector.

We present in Figure 9 the lines of constant Borexino rate in the $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{12}`$ LMA zone. The Borexino rate $`R_{Be}`$ is defined as the ratio of the value predicted by oscillations to the no oscillation SSM value. The global allowed 90%, 95%, 99% and 99.73% C.L. contours are shown. Superimposed is the $`3\sigma `$ contour from the analysis of the only solar data. In Table 2 we show the predicted rate in Borexino for the low-LMA and high-LMA best-fit solutions and the corresponding $`3\sigma `$ ranges. From Figure 9 and Table 2 we note that Borexino in the LMA zone has almost no sensitivity to $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$. The reason being that for very low values of neutrino energies the solar matter effects are negligible while for $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$ in the LMA zone there are hardly any Earth matter effect. Hence the survival probability can be approximated by averaged oscillations (cf. Eq.(1)). Therefore Borexino is not expected to sharpen our knowledge of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$ any further. Even the $`\theta _{12}`$ dependence is rather weak. This is due to the fact that the survival probability is of the averaged vacuum oscillation form which as discussed in Section 2 reduces the sensitivity of Borexino to $`\theta _{12}`$ .

The $`3\sigma `$ error in the predicted value of Borexino rate given in Table 2 from the current information on the parameter ranges is $`\pm 0.06`$. The corresponding $`1\sigma `$ range is $`0.63<R_{Be}<0.68`$ implying an uncertainty of about $`\pm 0.02`$. Since there is hardly any $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$ dependence involved the entire range can be attributed to the current uncertainty in $`\theta _{12}`$ . Borexino could improve on the $`\theta _{12}`$ uncertainty if it could measure $`R_{Be}`$ with a $`1\sigma `$ error less than about 0.02. The low-LMA predicts about 13,000 events in Borexino after one year of data taking. This gives a statistical error of about 0.9% only. However Borexino may still have large errors coming from its background selection.

In Table 2 we have also shown the day-night asymmetry expected in Borexino for the currently allowed parameter values. Borexino will see no difference between the event rates at day and during night. Until the recent results from KamLAND the major role which Borexino was expected to play was to give “smoking gun” signal for the low $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$ solution LOW by observing a large day-night asymmetry and for the vacuum oscillation solution by observing seasonal variation of the $`{}_{}{}^{7}Be`$ flux. The large day-night asymmetry expected due to the small energy sensitivity of Borexino and the immaculate control over seasonal effects coming from the fact that $`{}_{}{}^{7}Be`$ is a mono-energetic line – not to mention its ability to pin down the SMA solution which predicted almost no $`\nu _e`$ events in Borexino . However all three are comprehensively disfavored now. Unfortunately the only region of parameter space where Borexino lacks strength is the LMA, which is the correct solution to the solar neutrino problem.

### 5.2 Low-Nu experiments

There are a number of planned sub-MeV solar neutrino experiments which will look to observe the $`pp`$ flux using either charged current reactions (LENS, MOON, SIREN ) or electron scattering process(XMASS, CLEAN, HERON, MUNU, GENIUS ) for detecting the $`pp`$ neutrinos. While each of these electron scattering experiments use different detection techniques, the basic reaction involved is the scattering of the $`pp`$ neutrinos off the electrons in the detector. Hence we present in Figure 10 the lines of constant rate predicted in a generic LowNu electron scattering experiment. Again we note that the $`isopp`$ rates have very little $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$ dependence. The $`3\sigma `$ range predicted for $`ppe`$ scattering is $`0.660.76`$. The corresponding $`1\sigma `$ predicted range is $`0.680.73`$. The advantage that these experiments have is that the $`pp`$ flux is predicted to within 1% accuracy. Thus the LowNu experiments may have a fair chance to pin down the value of the mixing angle $`\theta _{12}`$, if they can keep down their experimental errors.

## 6 Conclusions

With both solar and atmospheric neutrino oscillations confirmed the next turn in the research in neutrino physics is towards the precision determination of the oscillation parameters of the PMNS matrix. In this paper we explore in detail how accurately the current and future experiments will be able to predict $`\theta _{}`$ ($`\theta _{12}`$) and show that with the current set of experiments the uncertainty level in the determination of $`\theta _{12}`$ may stay well above the desired 10% level (at 99% C.L.). The spectrum data from the KamLAND experiment with only 0.162 kTy exposure in conjunction with the global solar data reveals an unprecedented sensitivity in constraining $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$, reducing the 99% C.L. spread in $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$ to 30% as compared to 76% allowed by global solar data. A projected analysis with 3 kTy of simulated spectrum at the present best-fit reveals that the uncertainty in $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$ can be brought down to the $`<`$ 10% level. However even with 3 kTy of exposure the $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{12}`$ can hover in a $`33\%`$ uncertainty range.

We make a comparative study of the $`\theta _{12}`$ sensitivity of the various solar neutrino experiments and KamLAND. The sensitivity of an experiment to $`\theta _{12}`$ depends on the form of the survival probability relevant for it. Thus the $`\theta _{12}`$ sensitivity of the solar neutrino experiments are linked with the neutrino energy threshold. In SK and SNO, the high energy neutrinos are observed and the solar neutrinos undergo adiabatic transformation ($`P_{ee}f_B\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{12}`$) resulting in an increased theta sensitivity as compared to the experiments which are sensitive to low energy neutrinos for which the survival probability is of the form $`P_{ee}=10.5\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{12}`$. SNO has a better control over $`\theta _{12}`$ than SK as it is sensitive to the total $`{}_{}{}^{8}B`$ flux through its neutral current channel and hence limits the range of $`f_B`$, the $`{}_{}{}^{8}B`$ flux normalization to 12%. We make a projected sensitivity test for the future SNO NC measurement and get the limits on $`\theta _{12}`$.

For the low energy neutrinos detected by the KamLAND detector the matter effects are absent. Therefore the relevant probability is the vacuum oscillation probability averaged over the various reactor distances. But inspite of this averaging effect the KamLAND spectrum data reveals an oscillation pattern which enables it to pin down the $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$. However for the KamLAND baseline this pattern corresponds to a peak in the survival probability where the $`\theta _{12}`$ sensitivity is very low. If instead of the peak one has a minimum in the survival probability, then the $`\theta _{12}`$ sensitivity can improve dramatically. We show this by simulating the 3 kTy spectrum for KamLAND at a $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2=3.5\times 10^5`$ eV2 for which one gets a survival probability minimum in KamLAND. For this value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$ the spread in $`\theta _{}`$ decreases to 25%, even with the most conservative 6.42% systematic error. We also explore the effect of reducing the systematic error to a fictitious value of 2%. This further reduces the error in $`\theta _{12}`$ to 19%. For the current best-fit value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$ we propose a new KamLAND like reactor experiment with a baseline of $``$ 70 km. We show that this experiment can observe the minimum in the survival probability and therefore the $`\theta _{12}`$ sensitivity is increased by a large amount. For a systematic uncertainty of 2%, the total error in the allowed value of $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{12}`$ can be reduced to about 14%.

Acknowledgment  The authors would like to thank Raj Gandhi and D.P. Roy for discussions. S.C. acknowledges discussions with S.T. Petcov and useful correspondences with Aldo Ianni, Alessandro Strumia and Francesco Vissani. S.G. would like to acknowledge a question by Yuval Grossman in PASCOS’03 which started this work and D. Indumathi for some related comments. The authors express their sincere gratitude to Atsuto Suzuki, Fumihiko Suekane and Sandip Pakvasa for discussions on future systematic errors in KamLAND.