Experimental Status of Neutrino Physics

Fanny Dufour

Section de Physique, Universite de Geneve, 1205 Geneve, Switzerland

E-mail: fanny.dufour@unige.ch

David Wark

Imperial College London, Department of Physics, London, United Kingdom

E-mail: david.wark@stfc.ac.uk

Abstract. After a fascinating phase of discoveries, neutrino physics still has a few mysteriessuch as the absolute mass scale, the mass hierarchy, the existence of CP violation in the leptonsector and the existence of right-handed neutrinos. It is also entering a phase of precisionmeasurements. This is what motivates the NUFACT 11 conference which prepares the future oflong baseline neutrino experiments. In this paper, we report the status of experimental neutrinophysics. We focus mainly on absolute mass measurements, oscillation parameters and futureplans for oscillation experiments [1].

1. IntroductionOver the last 15 years experiments have demonstrated that neutrinos oscillate and thereforemix and have masses, however few oscillation parameters are well measured. In addition, theirabsolute mass scale is still only described by upper limits. Finally, we do not know the natureof neutrino masses. Therefore despite the tremendous results of the last decade, there is stilla vast open field with many discoveries in the making. In this paper we present the status ofthe absolute mass scale measurements and oscillation parameters measurements, and describeseveral possible new experiments for improving these measurements. This paper has beenupdated to take into account the results presented at the Neutrino 2012 conference in June2012 in Kyoto [2].

2. Measurements of the absolute neutrino massAbsolute neutrino masses can be measured in several ways. Astrophysical neutrinos, kinematiclimits and neutrinoless double beta decay are all used to measure the absolute neutrino massscale or set a limit on it.

2.1. Supernovae and cosmological constraintsSupernovae are copious sources of neutrinos: by measuring time shifts, it is in principle possibleto measure neutrino masses down to 30 eV as in the case of SN1987a [3]. Since neutrinos are sonumerous in the universe, even a tiny neutrino mass can have cosmological implications. Currentcosmological bounds are down around Mν < 0.17− 0.33 eV [4, 5] and new data from the Planckobservatory should be available soon [6]. These results are quite model dependent and mostly

arX

iv:1

207.

3983

v1 [

hep-

ex]

17

Jul 2

012

illustrate the sensitivity of structure formation to neutrinos masses. They cannot replace directlaboratory experiments.

2.2. Tritium beta decay and KATRINDouble beta decay experiments study the end of the beta decay spectrum in order to measurem2νe =

∑3i=1 |Uei|2m2

i . The current upper electron-neutrino mass limit from beta decayexperiments is mνe < 2.3 eV [7]. The next generation experiment is KATRIN at Karlsruhe.It is sensitive down to 0.2 eV [8, 9].

KIT - The cooperation of ForschungszentrumKarlsruhe GmbH and Universität Karlsruhe (TH)3

Florian FränkleEPS HEP 2009Krakow

Tritium -decay

tritium as

emitter:

• high specific activity (half-life: 12.3 years)

• low endpoint energy E0(18.57 keV)

• super-allowed

observable:

Fermi theory of -decay:

KIT - The cooperation of Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe GmbH and Universität Karlsruhe (TH)!

Florian Fränkle EPS HEP 2009 Krakow

6

KATRIN experiment

70 m

tritium decay electron transport energy analysis tritium retention

(KArlsruhe TRItium Neutrino experiment, location: Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe)

-decay rate: 1011 Hz T2 pressure: 10-6 mbar

background rate: 10-2 Hz T2 pressure: 10-20 mbar

adiabatic guiding of electrons on meV level

about 14 orders of magnitude

CMS at same scale

Figure 1. Left: Beta decay spectrum. Right: KATRIN detector. [8]

2.3. Neutrinoless double beta decayNeutrinoless double beta decay (0νββ) experiments are the main method to investigate whetherneutrinos have a Majorana mass term which couples left-handed neutrinos to right-handed anti-neutrinos. It is also an excellent tool to probe the absolute mass scale and, in combination withoscillation experiments, gives a hint on the mass hierarchy (Fig. 2).

!"#$%&'()*+(($,$-./0)1'2$)3'%4))

567'89):;<<)

K K DC Claim

(best fit 0.32 eV)

F inal Cuor icino limit

arXiv:1012.3266v1 [nucl-ex]

Need new ideas to reach < 10 meV, but kiloton scale low background experiments are not impossible!

C U O R E Target

G E RD A Target

With SuperNE M O , SNO + , M AJO RANA , many others

should reach here in ~ 7-10

yrs.

Figure 2. Left: CUORE-0 detector [10]. Right: Neutrinoless double beta decay. Targetsensitivity of several experiments [1].

A whole set of 0νββ-decay experiments are currently running or are about to start takingdata: GERDA, CUORE-0, EXO and KamLAND-Zen began in 2011. SNO+, Majorana

and NEXT should start in 2013, and SuperNEMO, Lucifer, EXO-gas, XMASS and CUOREare scheduled to start later. While we cannot report every result here, we report thatKamLAND-Zen found that 〈mββ〉 < 0.26− 0.54 eV at 90% C.L. [11] and that EXO-200 found〈mββ〉 < 0.14− 0.38 eV at the same significance [12].

3. Oscillation parameters measurementsSince solar neutrino experiments revealed the famous solar neutrino problem, we have knownthat neutrinos behave atypically. Since then the fact neutrinos transmute and thus have masshas been established by the Super-Kamiokande measurement of atmospheric neutrinos [13] andby solar data from SNO [14]. Neutrino oscillations is governed by a 3× 3 unitary mixing matrixand by mass differences. The mixing angles (Fig. 3, left) have all been measured but eventhough the two mass splittings have also been measured (Fig. 3, right), the mass hierarchy andthe CP violating phase are still unknown. In this section, we will present the current status ofthe measurement of each oscillation parameter.

Figure 3. Left: Neutrino mixing angles. Right: Neutrino mass hierarchy (normal, inverted).

3.1. Measurement of θ13

Until last year, θ13 was the sole remaining unknown mixing angle, the only knowledge of thisparameter came from the Chooz experiment and was an upper limit of 0.15 at 90% C.L. [15]. Ahint that θ13 was non-zero did however come from global fit of available oscillation data [16]. InJune of 2011, T2K presented their first electron neutrino appearance measurement, six eventson a predicted background of 1.5±0.3(syst.) indicating a non-zero value of θ13 at 2.5σ [17]. Theanalysis was not strictly speaking blind but all the cuts for the electron neutrino event selectionin the Super-Kamiokande detector were decided well before T2K even started taking data. AtNeutrino 2012, all the data up to May 15th 2012 were analyzed and presented [18]. Ten eventsare observed in the far detector and θ13 is excluded at 3.2σ. At 90% C.L., the T2K resultsis sin2 2θ13 = 0.104+0.60

−0.45 for δCP = 0 and normal hierarchy. The T2K selected νe candidatesare shown in Fig. 4. Two weeks after T2K released their results, the MINOS collaborationpresented results which disfavour θ13 = 0 at 89% C.L. with 62 events on a background of49.6± 7.0(stat)± 2.7(syst.) [19]. At Neutrino 2012, MINOS disfavors θ13 = 0 at 96% C.L. [20].

Finally in March 2012, outstanding results came from the reactor experiments DayaBay [21, 22] and Reno [23]. The Daya Bay collaboration excluded θ13 = 0 at 5.2σ [21, 22],while RENO excluded it at 4.9σ [23]. Their best fit values are respectively sin2 2θ13 =0.089± 0.010(stat.)± 0.005(syst.) and sin2 2θ13 = 0.113± 0.013(stat.)± 0.019(syst.) and theirdata is also shown in Fig. 6. Double Chooz excluded θ13 = 0 at 3.1σ and their best fitis sin2 2θ13 = 0.109 ± 0.030(stat.) ± 0.025(syst.) [24]. All experiments are still statisticallydominated and the clearly demonstrate that θ13 is greater than zero.

energy (MeV)νReconstructed

0 1000 2000 3000

Num

ber

of e

vent

s

0

2

4

6

RUN1-3 data)POT2010×(2.556

CCeνOsc. CCµν+µν CCeν+eν

NC=0.1)13θ22(MC w/ sin

Figure 4. Left: An electron neutrino event in SK. Right: Reconstructed neutrino energydistribution for fully-contained, fiducial volume, single-ring e-like events with Evis > 100 MeV,no decay-e and POLfit mass less than 105 MeV/c2 in RUN1+2+3 [18].

!"##$%&$'((#$)*##+,$

-./.%0$ -$1234(5+,$6+"784+2+9:$(;$<#+=:4(9>"9?9+8:4*9($@*7"33+"4"9=+$

Figure 5. Left: Picture of Daya Bay detectors [22]. Right: Survival probability of electronneutrino as a function of the distance.

Reactor experiments measure the disappearance of electron anti-neutrinos to measure θ13 asshown in Fig. 5 and Eq. 1. Current accelerator experiments measure the appearance of electronneutrinos in a muon-neutrino beam (Eq. 2). In addition the accelerator measurement depends onthe value of the CP phase δ while the reactor measurement does not. Because these experimentsare fundamentally different it is very interesting to continue both in parallel.

Pνe→νe ≈ 1− sin2 2θ13 sin2(1.267∆m213L/E) (1)

!"#$%&'$()"#$*+,-"#.&+/$$

012134$ 35$

*6)"#$+7&)#%"8+/$+9$9"#$&.:)$;)<=.:'$

Entri

es /

0.25

MeV

0

500

1000

1500

2000Far hall

Near halls (weighted)

Prompt energy (MeV)0 5 10

Far /

Nea

r (w

eigh

ted)

0.8

1

1.2No oscillationBest Fit

*+,-"#)$:>)$9"#1/)"#$,)"&?#);$#":)&$"/;$&-)=:#"$

@/$"#)$:>)$,)"&?#);$#":)&$./$)"=>$;):)=:+#'$A).B>:&$C.DE.$"#)$;):)#,./);$9#+,$7"&)6./)&$"/;$#)"=:+#$F?G)&'$

!"#"$%&''"("$%$$)"*+,-,."("$%$$/"*+0+,."

H-)=:#"6$;.&:+#8+/$=+/&.&:)/:$I.:>$+&=.66"8+/'J$$J$*"%)":K$H-)=:#"6$&L&:),"8=&$/+:$9?66L$&:?;.);M$$N3O$%"6?)$9#+,$&>"-)$"/"6L&.&$.&$/+:$#)=+,,)/;);'$

P,-#+%);$@)"&?#),)/:$+9$Q6)=:#+/R"/8/)?:#./+$S.&"--)"#"/=)$

5

13! 22sin0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20

2 "

0

5

10

15

20

25

#1

#4

Weighted Baseline [m]0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

R

0.90

0.92

0.94

0.96

0.98

1.00

FIG. 3. The !2 distribution as a function of sin2 2"13. Bot-tom: Ratio of the measured reactor neutrino events relativeto the expected with no oscillation. The curve represents theoscillation survival probability at the best fit, as a function ofthe flux-weighted baselines.

Gd-loaded liquid scintillator, and a 229 day exposure tosix reactors with total thermal energy 16.5 GWth. In thefar detector, a clear deficit of 8.0% is found by compar-ing a total of 17102 observed events with an expectationbased on the near detector measurement assuming no os-cillation. From this deficit, a rate-only analysis obtainssin2 2!13 = 0.113 ± 0.013(stat.) ± 0.019(syst.). The neu-trino mixing angle !13 is measured with a significance of4.9 standard deviation.

The RENO experiment is supported by the Ministryof Education, Science and Technology of Korea and theKorea Neutrino Research Center selected as a ScienceResearch Center by the National Research Foundationof Korea (NRF). Some of us have been supported bya fund from the BK21 of NRF. We gratefully acknowl-edge the cooperation of the Yonggwang Nuclear PowerSite and the Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power Co., Ltd.(KHNP). We thank KISTI’s providing computing andnetwork resources through GSDC, and all the technicaland administrative people who greatly helped in makingthis experiment possible.

[1] B. Pontecorvo, Zh. Eksp. Theo. Fiz. 34, 247 (1957) [Sov.Phys. JETP 7, 172 (1958)].

[2] Z. Maki, M. Nakagawa, and S. Sakata, Prog. Theor. Phys.28, 870 (1962).

[3] M. Apollonio et al. (Chooz Collaboration), Phys. Lett.B466, 415 (1999); Eur. Phys. J. C 27, 331 (2003).

0 5 10

Entri

es /

0.25

MeV

0

500

1000

Far DetectorNear Detector

Prompt energy [MeV]0 5 10

Entri

es /

0.25

MeV

0

10

20

30

40

Prompt energy [MeV]0 5 10

Entri

es /

0.25

MeV

0

10

20

30

40 Fast neutronAccidental

He8Li/9

Prompt energy [MeV]0 5 10

Far /

Nea

r0.8

1

1.2

FIG. 4. Observed spectrum of the prompt signals in the fardetector compared with the non-oscillation predictions fromthe measurements in the near detector. The backgroundsshown in the inset are subtracted for the far spectrum. Thebackground fraction is 5.5% (2.7%) for far (near) detector.Errors are statistical uncertainties only. Bottom: The ratioof the measured spectrum of far detector to the non-oscillationprediction.

[4] F. Boehm et al. (Palo Verde Collaboration), Phys. Rev.Lett. 84, 3764 (2000).

[5] P. Adamson et al. (MINOS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D82, 051102 (2010).

[6] S. Yamamoto et al. (K2K Collaboration), Phys. Rev.Lett. 96, 181801 (2006).

[7] R. Wendell et al. (Super-Kamiokande Collaboration),Phys. Rev. D 81, 092004 (2010).

[8] B. Aharmim et al. (SNO Collaboraiton), Phys. Rev. C81, 055504 (2010).

[9] A. Gando et al. (KamLAND Collaboration), Phys. Rev.D 83, 052002 (2011).

[10] K. Abe et al. (T2K Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 107,041801 (2011).

[11] P. Adamson et al. (MINOS Collaboration), Phys. Rev.Lett. 107, 181802 (2011).

[12] Y. Abe et al. (Double Chooz Collaboration), Phys. Rev.Lett. 108, 131801 (2012).

[13] G. L. Fogli et al., Phys. Rev. D 84, 053007 (2011).[14] T. Schwetz et al., New J. Phys. 13, 109401 (2011).[15] F. P. An et al. (Daya Bay Collaboration) (2012),

arXiv:hep-ex/1203.1669.[16] P. Adamson et al. (MINOS Collaboration), Phys. Rev.

Lett. 106, 181801 (2011).[17] J.K. Ahn, et al. (RENO Collaboration) (2010),

arXiv:hep-ex/1003.1391.[18] K. S. Park, et al., Construction and Properties of Acrylic

Vessels in the RENO Detector, in preparation.[19] J. S. Park, et al., Production and Optical Properties of

Figure 6. Left, Daya Bay data: Top: Measured prompt energy spectrum of the farhall (sum of three ADs) compared with the no-oscillation prediction from the measurementsof the two near halls. Spectra were background subtracted. Uncertainties are statistical only.Bottom: The ratio of measured and predicted no-oscillation spectra. The red curve is thebest- fit solution with sin2 2θ13 = 0.089 obtained from the rate-only analysis. The dashedline is the no-oscillation prediction [21, 22]. Right, RENO data: Observed spectrum ofthe prompt signals in the far detector compared with the non-oscillation predictions from themeasurements in the near detector. The backgrounds shown in the inset are subtracted forthe far spectrum. The background fraction is 5.5% (2.7%) for far (near) detector. Errors arestatistical uncertainties only. Bottom: The ratio of the measured spectrum of far detector tothe non-oscillation prediction [23].

P [νµ → νe]

= sin22θ13s223 sin2

(∆m2

31L

4E

)− 1

2s2

12 sin2 2θ13s223

(∆m2

21L

2E

)sin

(∆m2

31L

2E

)

+ 2Jr cos δ

(∆m2

21L

2E

)sin

(∆m2

31L

2E

)− 4Jr sin δ

(∆m2

21L

2E

)sin2

(∆m2

31L

4E

)

+ cos 2θ13sin22θ13s

223

(4Ea(x)

∆m231

)sin2

(∆m2

31L

4E

)

− a(x)L

2sin2 2θ13 cos 2θ13s

223 sin

(∆m2

31L

2E

)+ c2

23 sin2 2θ12

(∆m2

21L

4E

)2

,

(2)

where a(x) =√

2GFNe(x), GF is the Fermi constant, Ne(x) is the electron number densityat x in the earth, Jr = c12s12c

212s13c23s23 is the Jarlslog determinant.

3.2. Measurement of the solar parameters: ∆m221 and θ12

The solar parameters are now well constrained by both solar and reactor data, and the newlymeasured value of θ13 further reduces the uncertainty of this measurement. A very good

summary of current data is presented by T. Schwetz [25] and the current values of theseparameters are given below.

∆m221 = 7.59+0.20

−0.18 × 10−5 eV2 and sin2 θ12 = 0.312+0.017−0.015

The values of ∆m221 and sin2 θ12 have been obtained using the KamLAND neutrino data and

the Super-Kamiokande and SNO solar data.

3.3. Measurement of atmospheric parameters: |∆m231| and θ23

The atmospheric parameters have also been well measured by the Super-Kamiokandeatmospheric data and by the MINOS experiment. Their results have also been summarizedby T.Schwetz [25] and are given below.

|∆m231| =

{2.45± 0.09 ×10−3 eV2 (NH)2.34+0.10

−0.09 ×10−3 eV2 (IH)and sin2 θ23 = 0.51± 0.06

Global neutrino data and recent reactor fluxes:status of three-flavour oscillation parameters5

!

0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1

sin2!23

1

2

3

4

"m

2 31 [

10-3

eV2 ]

MINOS

atmospheric

global

!

0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

sin2!23

2

2.5

3

"m

2 31 [

10-3

eV2 ]

Figure 3. Determination of the atmospheric oscillation parameters. Left: interplay

of atmospheric (black) and MINOS disappearance (blue) data and the combination

(red/shaded region) for normal hierarchy at 90% CL (dashed) and 3! (solid). Right:

combined allowed regions for normal (black curves) and inverted hierarchy (colored

regions) at 90%, 95%, 99%, 99.73% CL.

data consists of 54 electron neutrino events, while, according to the measurements in the

MINOS Near Detector, 49.1 ± 7.0(stat) ± 2.7(syst) background events were expected.

Hence the observed number of events is in agreement with background expectations

within 0.7! and the hint for a non-zero value of "13 present in previous data [17] has

largely disappeared. In fact, we see that once we include the new MINOS data in our

analysis, a smaller best fit point of "13 is obtained and, as a result, the hint for "13 is

less significant than before: for both hierarchies we find only a 0.8! hint when using

new MINOS data versus 1.3! obtained with the previous MINOS appearance data, see

e.g. [18] for a discussion.

Atmospheric neutrino data from Super-Kamiokande I+II+III described in the

previous section implies a best fit point very close to "13 = 0 [12], with !# = 0.0(0.3)

for "13 = 0 for NH (IH). However, in the combination with MINOS disappearance and

appearance data we even find a slight preference for "13 > 0, with !#2 = 1.6(1.9) at

"13 = 0 for NH (IH). As shown in Fig. 4 this happens due to a small mismatch of the

best fit values for |!m331| at "13 = 0, which can be resolved by allowing for non-zero

values of "13 [3]. This is similar to the hint for "13 > 0 coming from a slight tension

between solar and KamLAND data, see Ref. [1]. Therefore, the hint for "13 > 0 from

atmospheric + LBL data becomes slightly stronger compared to the previous data.

3. New reactor fluxes and implications for oscillation parameters

Up to very recently the interpretation of neutrino oscillation searches at nuclear power

plants was based on the calculations of the reactor $e flux from Ref. [19]. Indeed, the

observed rates at all reactor experiments performed so-far at distances L ! 1 km are

consistent with these fluxes, therefore setting limits on $e disappearance. Recently the

Figure 7. Determination of the atmospheric oscillation parameters. Left: interplay ofatmospheric (black) and MINOS disappearance (blue) data and the combination (red/shadedregion) for normal hierarchy at 90% C.L. (dashed) and 3σ (solid). Right: combined allowedregions for normal (black curves) and inverted hierarchy (colored regions) at 90%, 95%, 99%,99.73% C.L. [25]

The |∆m231| value is obtained from doing a combined fit of MINOS and Super-Kamiokande

atmospheric results. In addition the first measurements of sin2 2θ23 using an off-axis neutrinobeam has been presented by the T2K collaboration [26]. The value of the mass splittings arewell known but the ordering of the masses, (the mass hierarchy), is still unknown. Discoveringthe mass hierarchy is one of the goals of future experiments not only because it obscures theCP violation measurement, but if neutrino masses were inverted it would be the first time thatfermions do not have increasing masses with increasing generation number.

4. Future plansWith the discovery that θ13 is large, the gateway for studying CP violation in the lepton sectorand the mass hierarchy has been opened. Future experiments plan to do just that. Three typesof proposals have emerged: high power conventional super beams, beta-beams and neutrinofactories. In addition given the large value of θ13 Daya Bay could be able to study the masshierarchy by placing a 20 kton detector at 60 km [27, 28].

4.1. Super beamsA super beam is a conventional beam, based on pion decays but reaching powers of the orderof the mega-watt. Three such beams have been proposed. In Japan, the current T2K beam

will be a super beam once it reaches its design luminosity of 750kW. This beam in combinationwith the proposed Hyper-Kamiokande detector [29] would be a very powerful tool to measureδCP assuming that the mass hierarchy is known. In the US the LBNE project plans to direct aneutrino beam from FermiLab to the Homestake mine where a large LAr detector would be built.And in Europe the LAGUNA-LBNO project presents three possible setups where the preferredoption is a super-beam from CERN-SPS to Pyhasalmi in Finland (baseline = 2300 km).

Today’s large value of θ13 implies that any future experiment will quickly be systematic-limited. Therefore an effort needs to be made to reduce systematic errors. Experimentslike NA61 [30], SciBoone [31], MINERνA [32] and nuSTORM [33] are extremely importantto constrain hadron production cross-sections and neutrino cross-sections.

4.2. Beta-beams and neutrino factoriesThe super beams can probably give us the value of δCP and the mass hierarchy. But precisionsimilar to the precision of the CKM matrix will only be achieved with more powerful facilities.These facilities will also be needed to test the unitarity of the PMNS matrix and test whetherneutrinos oscillate to become sterile neutrinos. Beta-beams [34, 35], where a radioactive ion isaccelerated and then beta decays creating νe beam, could be an option.

Another option is the neutrino factory. Here, µ− and µ+ trains simultaneously circulate inopposite direction in the storage ring and are separated in time. They are subsequently allowedto decay in flight to create pure (νµ, νe) and (νµ, νe) beams respectively. The golden channelof the neutrino factory is νe → νµ, but since νµ are also present in the beam, measurementssimilar to today’s (electron neutrino appearance and muon neutrino disappearance) are alsopossible. The presence of νµ, νe, and νµ, νe in different trains is perfect to study CP violationsince we can directly compare the oscillation of a neutrino to the oscillation of the anti-neutrino.Furthermore, because νµ, νe, νµ and νe are present in the beam, the near detector of a neutrinofactory would be able to measure all four types of neutrinos cross-sections and reduce systematicsconsiderably. In order to see oscillations, the far detector needs to be magnetized to differentiateνe → νµ from an interacting νµ. A magnetized iron detector is envisaged as far detector. It wasfound that an optimal neutrino factory given the current value of θ13 uses 10 GeV muons and abaseline of 2200 km [36, 37].

5. ConclusionsThe years 2011 and 2012 have without any doubt seen tremendous progress in neutrino physics.Only a year ago, nobody knew if θ13 was even large enough to be measured, yet today theprecision on θ13 is already better than the precision on θ23. With this measurement the prospectof measuring the mass hierarchy and especially the CP phase δ is better than ever and the years tocome will be fascinating. With the announcement on July 4th 2012 that the Higgs was probablyfound, the remaining questions in the Standard Model (Fig. 8) are in neutrinos physics.

We thank Alain Blondel and Mark Rayner for the careful reading of the manuscript.

6. References[1] Wark D ”Experimental Status of Neutrino Physics”, nUFACT 2011[2] Neutrino 2012, in Kyoto URL http://neu2012.kek.jp/neu2012/programme.html

[3] Arnett W D and Rosner J L 1987 Phys.Rev.Lett. 58 1906[4] C Giunti C K ”Fundamentals of Neutrino Physics and Astrophysics”, p.616, Oxford University Press, 2007[5] Spergel D et al. (WMAP Collaboration) 2003 Astrophys.J.Suppl. 148 175–194 (Preprint astro-ph/0302209)[6] ”Planck Space Obseravtory”, www.rssd.esa.int/planck/[7] Kraus C et al. 2005 Eur.Phys.J. C40 447–468 (Preprint hep-ex/0412056)[8] Fraenkle F 2009 EPS URL http://www.ifj.edu.pl/hep2009/

[9] Bornschein L (KATRIN) ”Probing the absolute neutrino mass with KATRIN”, rencontres de Blois 2012[10] Pedretti M (CUORE) ”Status of the CUORE Experiment”, neutrino 2012

< eV< eV< eV

100 GeV

10 GeV

1 GeV

100 MeV

10 MeV

1 MeV

100 keV e

µ

τ

W ZH

γ

ν1;Lν2;L

ν3;L

Q.1

Q.6u d

cs

b

t

Fermions Bosons

ν1,2,3;R

Q.2

Figure 8. The remaining questions of the Standard model are: Q.1 Determination of theabsolute mass scale of neutrinos. Q.2 Determination of the mass hierarchy of the activeneutrinos. Q.3 CP violation in neutrino oscillations. Q.4 Violation of unitarity of theneutrino mixing matrix. Q.5 Neutrinoless double beta decay. Q.6 Discovery of effects implyingunambiguously the existence of sterile neutrino(s).

[11] Inoue K (KamLAND-Zen) ”Results from KamLAND-Zen”, neutrino 2012[12] Auger M et al. (EXO Collaboration) 2012 (Preprint 1205.5608)[13] Ashie Y et al. (Super-Kamiokande) 2005 Phys. Rev. D71 112005 (Preprint hep-ex/0501064)[14] Ahmad Q et al. (SNO Collaboration) 2002 Phys.Rev.Lett. 89 011301 (Preprint nucl-ex/0204008)[15] Apollonio M et al. (CHOOZ Collaboration) 2003 Eur.Phys.J. C27 331–374 (Preprint hep-ex/0301017)[16] Fogli G L ”Global Analysis of Neutrino Oscillations”, neutrino 2012[17] Abe K et al. (T2K Collaboration) 2011 Phys.Rev.Lett. 107 041801 (Preprint 1106.2822)[18] Nakaya T (T2K) ”New Results from T2K”, neutrino 2012[19] Adamson P et al. (MINOS Collaboration) 2011 Phys.Rev.Lett. 107 181802 (Preprint 1108.0015)[20] Nichol R (MINOS) ”Final MINOS Results”, neutrino 2012[21] An F et al. (DAYA-BAY Collaboration) 2012 Phys.Rev.Lett. 108 171803 (Preprint 1203.1669)[22] Dwyer D (DAYA-BAY) ”Improved Measurement of Electron-Disappearance at Daya Bay”, neutrino 2012[23] Ahn J et al. (RENO collaboration) 2012 Phys.Rev.Lett. 108 191802 (Preprint 1204.0626)[24] Ishitsuka M (Double Chooz) ”Double Chooz results”, neutrino 2012[25] Schwetz T, Tortola M and Valle J 2011 New J.Phys. 13 063004 (Preprint 1103.0734)[26] Abe K et al. (T2K Collaboration) 2012 (Preprint 1201.1386)[27] NuTURN 2012, at Gran Sasso URL http://nuturn2012.lngs.infn.it/

[28] Cao J (DAYA-BAY) ”Observation of Electron Anti-neutrino Disappearance at Daya Bay”, nuTURN 2012[29] Abe K, Abe T, Aihara H, Fukuda Y, Hayato Y et al. 2011 (Preprint 1109.3262)[30] Abgrall N et al. (NA61/SHINE Collaboration) 2011 Phys.Rev. C84 034604 (Preprint 1102.0983)[31] Mariani C (SciBooNE Collaboration) 2011 (Preprint 1110.1506)[32] 2006 MINERvA Technical Design Report[33] Kyberd P et al. (nuSTORM Collaboration) 2012 (Preprint 1206.0294)[34] Zucchelli P 2001 Phys.Lett.B 259–270 (Preprint hep-ex/0107006)[35] Wildner E 2011 Nucl.Phys.Proc.Suppl. 217 199–201[36] International Design Study for Neutrino Factory URL https://www.ids-nf.org/wiki/FrontPage

[37] Huber P ”Neutrino facilities comparison of performance”, european Strategy for Neutrino Oscillation Physics,May 2012