Cosmic Neutrino Background (CvB): properties and detection perspectives
GianpieroGianpiero ManganoMangano INFN,INFN, SezioneSezione didi Napoli,Napoli,
ItalyItaly Relic neutrino production and decoupling
ν ν ↔ν ν 1 MeV ≤ T ≤ mµ α β α β
νανβ ↔νανβ T = T = T - - ν e γ ναe ↔ναe + - νανα ↔e e Neutrino decoupling
As the Universe expands, particle densities are diluted and temperatures fall. Weak interactions become ineffective to keep neutrinos in good thermal contact with the e.m. plasma
Rough, but quite accurate estimate of the decoupling temperature
Rate of weak processes ~ Hubble expansion rate
2 8πρ R 2 5 8πρ R ν Γ w ≈ σ w v n , H = 2 → G F T ≈ 2 → Tdec ≈ 1 MeV 3M p 3M p
± Since νe have both CC and NC interactions with e Tdec(νe) ~ 2 MeV Tdec(νµ,τ) ~ 3 MeV Neutrino and Photon (CMB) temperatures
At T~me, electron- positron pairs annihilate e+e- → γγ heating photons but not the decoupled neutrinos 1/3 Tγ ⎛11 ⎞ = ⎜ ⎟ T ⎝ 4 ⎠ 1 ν fν (p,T) = ep/Tν +1 Neutrino and Photon (CMB) temperatures
At T~m , Photon temp falls e slower than 1/a(t) electron- positron pairs annihilate e+e- → γγ heating photons but not the decoupled neutrinos 1/3 Tγ ⎛11 ⎞ = ⎜ ⎟ T ⎝ 4 ⎠ 1 ν fν (p,T) = ep/Tν +1 Neutrinos decoupled at T~MeV, keeping a 1 fν (p,T) = spectrum as that of a relativistic species ep/Tν +1
• Number density
d 3 p 3 6ζ (3) n = f (p,T ) = n = T 3 ν ∫ ( 2π)3 ν ν 11 γ 11π 2 CMB ν • Energyρ density ν ⎧ 2 4/3 7π ⎛ 4 ⎞ 4 Massless ⎪ ⎜ ⎟ TCMB 3 120 11 d p ⎪ ⎝ ⎠ = p2 + m2 f (p,T ) → i ∫ i 3 ν ν ⎨ ( 2π) ⎪ mν n Massive m >>T ⎪ i ν ν ⎩⎪ Neutrinos decoupled at T~MeV, keeping a 1 fν (p,T) = spectrum as that of a relativistic species ep/Tν +1
• Number density
3 d p ν 3 -36ζ (3) 3 nAtν = presentf ν112(p,T (ν ) = + ν ) ncm γ = per TflavourCMB ∫ ( 2π)3 11 11π 2 ν • Energyρ density ν ⎧ 2 4/3 7π 2 ⎛ 4 ⎞ −54 Massless Ω⎪ ν h ⎜=1.7⎟×10TCMB 3 ⎪120 ⎝11⎠ Contribution2 to 2thed energyp ⎪ = p + m fν(p,Tν ) → ⎨ m i ∫ i 3 ∑ i Massive density of the Universe( 2π) 2 i Ω⎪ h =mν n ν i ν ⎪ 94.1 eV mν>>T ⎩⎪ Relativisticρ particles in the Universe ργ ρν π γ π
At T At T Effective number of relativistic neutrino species Traditional parametrization of the energy density stored in relativistic particles # of flavour neutrinos:Nν = 2.984 ± 0.008 (LEP data) Extra relativistic particles • Extra radiation can be: scalars, pseudoscalars, sterile neutrinos (totally or partially thermalized, bulk), neutrinos in very low-energy reheating scenarios, relativistic decay products of heavy particles… • Particular case: relic neutrino asymmetries Constraints from BBN and from CMB+LSS CvB details + - At T~me, e e pairs annihilate heating photons e+e- → γγ … and neutrinos. Non thermal features in v distributioni (small effect). Oscillations slightly modify Hp the result ρ M t 8 fν=fFD(p,Tν)[1+2G δf(p)] 2p p m E , ρ ⎡ ⎤ C F ( ()∂ − ∂ = ⎢ − 2 ⎥ + ρ ) ⎣⎢ W ⎦⎥ -2 νe 10 effect νµ,τ δfx102 p2 e p/T + 1 Results γ γ (%) (%) (%) N Tfin /T0 δρνe δρνµ δρντ eff Instantaneous 1.40102 0 0 0 3 decoupling SM 1.3978 0.94 0.43 0.43 3.046 +3ν mixing 1.3978 0.73 0.52 0.52 3.046 (θ13=0) +3ν mixing 2 1.3978 0.70 0.56 0.52 3.046 (sin θ13=0.047) Dolgov, Hansen & Semikoz, NPB 503 (1997) 426 G.M. et al, PLB 534 (2002) 8 G.M. et al, NPB 729 (2005) 221 Effect of neutrinos on BBN 1. Neff fixes the expansion rate during BBN 8ππ ρ H = 80 3 60 ρ D ρ γ ρ 4 40 ρ(Neff)>ρ0 →↑He ρ 3 7 He 20 Li ⎛ 4/3 ⎞ 7 ⎛ 4 ⎞ eff = + + = ⎜1+ N v ⎟ρ 0 R v x ⎜ ⎜ ⎟ ⎟ γ ⎝ 8 ⎝11⎠ ⎠ -20 4He -40 0 2 4 6 8 2. Direct effect of electron neutrinos and antineutrinos on the n-p reactions BBN: allowed ranges for Neff n /n η = B γ ≅ 274Ω h2 10 10−10 B Using 4He + D data (95% CL) +1.4 Neff = 3.1 −1.2 Raffelt 3 ν ξ + ν ξ More radiation 2 π [] 3 ⎞ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ ν γ T T ⎤ ⎥ ⎦ ⎛ ⎜ ⎜ ⎝ 4 v ) ⎞ ⎟ ⎠ T v ν ξ 3 ξ π = ( ⎛ ⎜ ⎝ ν 1 CvB details ζ µ + ν 2 12 ⎞ ⎟ ⎠ n ν = ξ π ≠ ⎛ ⎜ ⎝ ν ν n 2 n ⎡ ⎢ ⎣ γ − n 7 ν 15 n = = ν ρ ν L ∆ Fermi-Dirac spectrum with temperature T and chemical potential Combined bounds BBN & CMB-LSS Degeneracy direction (arbitrary ξe) 8 Hansen et al 2001 Hannestad 2003 6 ξ 4 eff 2 N − 0.01≤ ≤ 0.22 ξµ ≤ 2.4 ∆ + e ,τ 0 -2 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 In the presence of flavor oscillations ? ξe Evolution of neutrino asymmetries BBN Effective flavor equilibrium Dolgov et al 2002 ξ ≤ 0.07 Wong 2002 (almost) established → ν Abazajian et al 2002 − 0.05 ≤ ξ ≤ 0.07 Serpico & Raffelt 2005 µν/Tv very small (bad for detection!) BBN, CMB (LSS) + oscillations 0.4 Cuoco et al 04 0.2 PLANCK e µ ξ ν/Tv + 0 -0.2 0.018 0.02 0.022 0.024 0.026 0.028 0.03 ωb µν/Tv Hamann, Lesgourgues and GM 08 Departure from equilibrium? Pastor, Pinto Raffelt 2008 CvB for optimists V produced by decays at some cosmological epoch Φ → νν Early on: Thermal FD spectrum (TBBN> T>TCMB) Distortion from Φ decay Cuoco, Lesgourgues, GM and Pastor ‘05 Late (T<< TCMB): Unstable DM (e.g. Majoron) v Γ HΓ 0 Ω < dm < .1 0Ω H 0 Lattanzi and Valle ’07 Lattanzi, Lesgourgues, GM and Valle (in progress) Present constraints from CMB (WMAP+ACBAR+VSA+CBI) and LSS (2dFGRS+SDSS) + SNIa data (Riess et al.) Model: standard ΛCDM + nonthermal v’s Cl and P(k) computed using CAMB code (Lewis and Challinor 2002) Likelihoods (using COSMOMC Lewis and Bridle 2002)) ΛCDM ΛCDM+R ΛCDM+NT 2 χmin 1688.2 1688.0 1688.0 10 ln[10 Rrad]3.2±0.13.2±0.13.2±0.1 ns 0.97±0.02 0.99±0.03 1.00±0.03 ωb 0.0235±0.0010 0.0231±0.0010 0.0233±0.0011 3 3.2 3.4 3.6 0.95 1 1.05 1.1 0.02 0.0220.0240.026 0.15 0.2 0.25 10 ω ω ωdm 0.121±0.005 0.17±0.03 0.17±0.03 ln [10 R ] n rad b dm θ 1.043±0.005 1.033±0.006 1.033±0.006 τ 0.13±0.05 0.13±0.06 0.15±0.07 β 0.46±0.04 0.48±0.04 0.48±0.04 m0 (eV) 0.3±0.20.8±0.50.7±0.4 Neff 3.04 6±26±2 q 111.25±0.13 h 0.67±0.02 0.76±0.06 0.76±0.05 Age (Gyr) 13.8±0.212.1±0.912.1±0.8 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.5 1 1.5 2 . ± . . ± . . ± . θ τ β m ΩΛ 0 68 0 03 0 67 0 03 0 67 0 03 0 zre 14±416±518±6 σ8 0.76±0.06 0.77±0.07 0.77±0.07 TABLE I: Minimum value of the effective χ2 (defined as −2lnL,whereL is the likelihood function) and 1σ confi- dence limits for the parameters of the three models under consideration. The first ten lines correspond to our basis of 4 6 8 10 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 0.05 0.1 0.15 10 20 30 independent parameters, while the last five refer to related N q = ω (93.2 eV / m ) y parameters. eff ν 0 A * CvB for pessimists A neutrinoless Universe? Beacom, Bell and Dodelson 2004 Models where v’s interact with light (pseudo)scalar particles L = hijviv jφ + gijviv jφ + h.c. vv ↔ φφ couplings < 10-5 from several data (meson decay, 0ββ, SN) For the tightly coupled regime v density strongly reduced, v’s play no role in LSS Delay in matter domination epoch, different content in relativistic species after v decays (Neff=6.6 after decays) Beacom, Bell and Dodelson 2004 Bell, Pierpaoli and Sigurdson 2005 Hannestad 2005 Including CMB in the analysis: •No free streaming (no anisotropic stress) leads to smaller effects on LSS (for massive v’s) change of sub-horizon perturbations at CMB epoch •Change of sound speed and equation of state of the the titghly coupled v - φ fluid •v decays larger Neff i.e. larger ISW effect for CMB smaller effects on LSS (no v left at LSS formation epoch Massless interacting Massive decaying Massive decaying Interacting v-DM Usual picture of Dark Matter: cold collisionless massive particles which decoupled around the weak scale for freeze-out of annihilation processes Ex: neutralino in MSSM with mass of O(100 GeV) Difficulties: Excess of small scale structures Far more satellite galaxies in the Milky Way than observed (from numerical simulation) DM in the MeV range: SPI spectrometer on the INTEGRAL satellite observed a bright 511 KeV gamma line from the galactic bulge Boehm, Fayet and Silk 2003 ψψ → e+e− Framework: light (MeV) DM interacting with neutrinos Several options for lagrangian density G.M., Melchiorri, Serra, Cooray and Kamionkowski 2006 Effects on cosmological scales: if DM - v’s scatterings at work during LSS formation we expect an oscillating behavior in the power spectrum (analogous to baryon – photon fluid during CMB epoch) Equation for velocity perturbations Effect depends upon the parameter Q mF ∫ mDM mF =mDM Bounds on differential opacity Q from SDSS data mDM ∫ mF scenario almost ruled out. Requires coupling of order one mDM =mF still viable CvB indirect evidences Primordial Cosmic Microwave Formation of Large Nucleosynthesis Background Scale Structures BBN CMB LSS T ~ MeV T < eV flavor dependent Flavor blind Effect of neutrinos on BBN 1. Neff fixes the expansion rate during BBN H 8 ρ ππ 80 R ρ ρ γ ρ = v ρ 3 60 x 4 D 1 7 / 3 4 40 ⎛ 8⎛ ⎞ eff ⎞ = + + = ⎜ + ⎜ 11⎟ N v ⎟ρ 3 ⎜ ⎟ γ 7 He ⎝ ⎝ ⎠ ⎠ 20 Li 0 -20 4He -40 0 2 4 6 8 2. Direct effect of electron neutrinos and antineutrinos on the n-p reactions Effect of CvB on CMB and LSS Mean effect (Sachs-Wolfe, M-R equality)+ perturbations Melchiorri and Trotta ‘04 Integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect CMB anisotropies induced by passing through a time varying gravitational potential: δT τ = − 2 d Φ& ()τ T ∫ π 2 2 ∇ Φ =4 Ga ρ δ Poisson’s equation • changes during radiation domination • decays after curvature or dark energy come to dominate (z~1) CMB+LSS: allowed ranges for Neff 2 2 • Set of parameters: ( Ωbh , Ωcdmh , h , ns , A , b , Neff ) • DATA: WMAP + other CMB + LSS + HST (+ SN-Ia) • Flat Models +3.3 95% CL +3.0 Neff = 3.5−2.1 Neff = 4.0−2.1 Crotty, Lesgourgues & Pastor, PRD 67 (2003) Hannestad, JCAP 0305 (2003) Non-flat Models +2.0 Neff = 4.1−1.9 Pierpaoli, MNRAS 342 (2003) 95% CL • Recent result 2.7 < Neff < 4.6 Hannestad & Raffelt, astro-ph/0607101 95% CL Allowed ranges for Neff n /n η = B γ ≅ 274Ω h2 10 10−10 B Using cosmological data (95% CL) G.M et al, JCAP 2006 3.0 < Neff < 7.9 (CMB + LSS data) 3.1 < Neff < 6.2 (+BAO and Ly -α) …but maybe in the near future ? Forecast analysis: ∆Neff ~ 3 (WMAP) CMB data ∆Neff ~ 0.2 (Planck) Bowen et al MNRAS 2002 Example of future Bashinsky & Seljak PRD 69 (2004) 083002 CMB satellite Bounds on non standard neutrino interactions New effective interactions between electron and neutrinos Electron-Neutrino NSI Breaking of Lepton universality (α=β) Flavour-changing (α≠ β) L,R Limits onεαβ from scattering experiments, LEP data, solar vs Kamland data… Berezhiani & Rossi, PLB 535 (2002) 207 Davidson et al, JHEP 03 (2003) 011 Barranco et al, PRD 73 (2006) 113001 Analytical calculation of Tdec in presence of NSI SM SM Contours of equal Tdec in MeV with diagonal NSI parameters Neff varying the neutrino decoupling temperature Effects of NSI on the neutrino spectral distortions Here larger variation for νµ,τ Neutrinos keep thermal contact with e-γ until smaller temperatures Results γ γ Tfin /T0 δρνe(%) δρνµ (%) δρντ(%) Neff Instantaneous 1.40102 0 0 0 3 decoupling +3ν mixing 1.3978 0.73 0.52 0.52 3.046 (θ13=0) L ε ee= 4.0 R 1.3812 9.47 3.83 3.83 3.357 ε ee= 4.0 Very large NSI parameters, FAR from allowed regions G.M. et al, NPB 756 (2006) 100 γ Results γ Tfin /T0 δρνe(%) δρνµ (%) δρντ(%) Neff Instantaneous 1.40102 0 0 0 3 decoupling +3ν mixing 1.3978 0.73 0.52 0.52 3.046 (θ13=0) L ε ee= 0.12 R ε ee= -1.58 L ε ττ= -0.5 R 1.3937 2.21 1.66 0.52 3.120 ε ττ= 0.5 L ε eτ= -0.85 R ε eτ= 0.38 Large NSI parameters, still allowed by present lab data G.M. et al, NPB 756 (2006) 100 Mixing Parameters... From present evidences of oscillations from experiments measuring atmospheric, solar, reactor and accelerator neutrinos A.Marrone, IFAE 2007 ... and neutrino masses Data on flavour oscillations do not fix the absolute scale of neutrino masses eV eV 2 ∆matm ≈ 0.05 eV 2 ∆msun ≈ 0.009 eV solar NORMAL INVERTED m0 atm atm solar What is the value of m0 ? Direct laboratory bounds on mν Searching for non-zero neutrino mass in laboratory experiments • Tritium beta decay: measurements of endpoint energy 3 3 - H → He + e +ν e m(νe) < 2.2 eV (95% CL) Mainz Future experiments (KATRIN) m(νe) ~ 0.2-0.3 eV • Neutrinoless double beta decay: if Majorana neutrinos (A,Z) → (A,Z +2)+2e- 76 experiments with Ge and other isotopes: ImeeI < 0.4hN eV Absolute mass scale searches 1/ 2 Tritium β ⎛ 2 2 ⎞ m = ⎜ U m ⎟ < 2.2 eV decay ν e ∑ ei i ⎝ i ⎠ Neutrinoless m = U 2 m double beta ee ∑ ei i < 0.4-1.6 eV i decay ~ m Cosmology ∑ i < 0.3-2.0 eV i Cosmological bounds on neutrino masses using WMAP3 Dependence on the data set used. An example: Fogli et al., hep-ph/0608060 Neutrino masses in 3-neutrino schemes CMB + galaxy clustering + HST, SNI-a… + BAO and/or bias + including Ly-α J.Lesgourgues & S.Pastor, Phys. Rep. 429 (2006) 307 Tritium β decay, 0ν2β and Cosmology Fogli et al., hep-ph/0608060 0ν2β and Cosmology Fogli et al., hep-ph/0608060 CvB locally: a closer look Neutrinos cluster if massive (eV) on large cluster scale c T Escapev velocity:/ m Milky Way 600 Km/s v 6 10 v Km 3 clusters3 / 10 Km/s s( m / eV v ≈ ≈ ⋅ v ) How to deal with: Boltzmann eq. + Poisson fv x ∆&φ+ & ∂xfv − ∇ = Sing and Ma ’02 π am v φ 4 2 Ringwald and Wong ‘04 = Ga δρ 0 . Milky Way Ringwald and Wong ‘04 12 (10 MO.) @ Earth Direct detection? Detection I: Stodolsky effect Energy split of electron spin states in the v background requires v chemical potential (Dirac) or net helicity (Majorana) Requires breaking of isotropy (Earth velocity) Results dependE on Dirac or Majorana, G ∆ F g relativistic/non relativiAstic,s clustered/unclustered ( n r r v n Duda et al ‘01 ≈ ⋅ β⊕ − v ) 27 Torque on frozen magnetized macroscopic piece of material of dimension3 R v c 100 v 10 3 a − ⎛ 0 ⎞⎛ m ⎞⎛ β⊕ ⎞⎛ n − cmn ⎞cm −2 ≈ 10 ⎜ ⎟⎜ R ⎟⎜ ⎟⎜ ⎟ s ⎝ A ⎠⎝ ⎠⎝10 − ⎠⎝ − ⎠ Presently Cavendish torsion balances a ≈ 10 −12 cm s −2 The only well established linear effect in GF F Coherent interactionG of large De Broglie d F 3 x wavelength (x) n = ρ ∇ ( x Cabibbo and Maiani ’82 ∫ v ) Langacker et al ‘83 2 Energy transfer at order GF 2 Detection II: GF V-Nucleus collision: net momentum transfer due to Earth peculiar motion vN a v AN σ = G 2E 2 = nvv F v σvN p A ∆p ∆ 46 a = β⊕Ev 54 ( 10 ∆ = β p ⊕mv − 10 A cm −2 ∆p ≈ − ) 10 s 0 = β⊕Tv v c Coherence enhances NA Zeldovich and Khlopov ’81 v N = 3 λ ≈ 1 /T - 1/m ≈ mm A v Smith and Lewin ‘83 v ρλ Backgrounds: solar v + WIMPS Detection III Accelerator: vN scattering hopeless R ≈ 10 −8 yr −1 LHC E m2 Cosmic Rays (indirect):Z resonant v annihilation 2 4 m 1021 v eV at mZ ⎛ ⎞ = ≈ ⎜ m ⎟eV ⎝ v ⎠ Absorption dip (sensitive to Emission: Z burst above GZK high z) (sensitive to GZK volume, (50 Mpc)3) Ringwald ‘05 Question: “Is it possible to detect/measure the CvB ?” Answer: NO ! All the methods proposed so far require either strong theoretical assumptions or experimental apparatus having unrealistic performances Reviews on this subject: A.Ringwald hep-ph/0505024 G.Gelmini hep-ph/0412305 A ’62 paper by S. Weinberg and v chemical potential In the original idea a large neutrino chemical potential distorts the electron (positron) spectrum near the endpoint energy Massive neutrinos and neutrino capture on beta decaying nuclei A.G.Cocco, G.Mangano and M.Messina JCAP 06(2007) 015 e± Beta decay (−) ν (A, Z) (A, Z ± 1) e Neutrino Capture on a e± Beta Decaying Nucleus (−) νe (A, Z) (A, Z ± 1) This process has no energy threshold ! Today we know that v are NOT degenerate but are massive !! dn/dEe Beta decay Qβ mν Ee-me 2mν dn/dE Neutrino Capture on a e Beta Decaying Nucleus Qβ mν Ee-me A 2 mv gap in the electron spectrum centered around Qβ NCB Cross Section a new parametrization Beta decay rate NCB The nuclear shape factors Cβ and Cν both depend on the same nuclear matrix elements It is convenient to define In a large number of cases A can be evaluated in an exact way and NCB cross section depends only on Qβ and t1/2 (measurable) NCB Cross Section on different types of decay transitions • Superallowed transitions • This is a very good approximation also for allowed transitions since • i-th unique forbidden NCB Cross Section Evaluation The case of Tritium Using the expression we obtain = lim β→0 where the error is due to Fermi and Gamow-Teller matrix element uncertainties Using shape factors ratio = lim β→0 where the error is due only to uncertainties on Qβ and t1/2 NCB Cross Section Evaluation allowed 1st unique forbidden 2nd unique forbidden 3rd unique forbidden − β (top) Qβ = 1 keV Qβ = 100 keV + β (bottom) Qβ = 10 MeV 2nd unique forbidden 3rd unique forbidden allowed 1st unique forbidden NCB Cross Section Evaluation using measured values of Qβ and t1/2 3H 1272 β− decays 799 β+ decays Beta decaying nuclei having BR(β±) > 5 % selected from 14543 decays listed in the ENSDF database NCB Cross Section Evaluation specific cases Superallowed 0+ 0+ decays used for CVC hypotesis testing (very precise measure of Qβ and t1/2) Nuclei having the highest product σNCB t1/2 Relic Neutrino Detection The cosmological relic neutrino capture rate is given by -4 Tν = 1.7 ⋅ 10 eV after the integration over neutrino momentum and inserting numerical values we obtain In the case of Tritium we estimate that 7.5 neutrino capture events per year are obtained using a total mass of 100 g Relic Neutrino Detection signal to background ratio The ratio between capture (λν) and beta decay rate (λβ) is obtained using the previous expressions In the case of Tritium (and using nν=50) we found that Taking into account the beta decays occurring in the last bin of width ∆ at the spectum end-point we have that ∼ 10-10 Relic Neutrino Detection signal to background ratio dn/dT e β ∆ ∆ ∆ Observing the last energy bins of width ∆ mν Te 2mν where the last term is the probability for a beta decay electron at the endpoint to be measured beyond the 2mν gap It works for ∆ In the case of 100 g mass target of Tritium it would take one and a half year to observe a 5σ effect In case of neutrino gravitational clustering we expect a significant signal enhancement FD = Fermi-Dirac NFW= Navarro,Frenk and White MW=Milky Way (Ringwald, Wong) KATRIN Karlsruhe Tritium Neutrino Experiment Aim at direct neutrino mass measurement through the 3 study of the H endpoint(Qβ =18.59 keV, t1/2=12.32 years) Phase I: Energy resolution: 0.93 eV Tritium mass: ∼ 0.1 mg Noise level 10 mHz Sensitivity to νe mass: 0.2 eV Magnetic Adiabatic Collimator + Electrostatic filter KATRIN Karlsruhe Tritium Neutrino Experiment MonteCarlo simulation of phase I data First results in 2011 End of Phase I data taking: 2015 Phase II: Energy resolution: 0.2 eV Noise level 1 mHz MARE Aim at direct neutrino mass measurement through the 187 10 study of the Re endpoint (Qβ =2.66 keV, t1/2=4.3 x 10 years) Using TEs+micro-bolometers @ 10 mK temperature TES 187Re crystal MARE Energy resolution: 2÷3eV Total 187Re mass: ∼ 100 g Phase II: Energy resolution: < 1 eV vAP Collaboration CvB map 20??