Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 50 references

Improved limit on the effective electron neutrino mass with the ECHo-1k experiment

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The ECHo-1k analysis of about 200 million holmium-163 electron-capture events yields an upper limit of 15 eV/c² (90% credible interval) on the effective electron neutrino mass, with endpoint energy 2862(4) eV consistent with the Penning-tra

desk verdict New 163Ho calorimetric result improves neutrino mass limit to <15 eV, but the ad hoc spectral model leaves a real, unquantified systematic. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.03423 v1 pith:22Q7MP44 submitted 2025-09-03 hep-ex nucl-ex

Fabienne Adam , Felix Ahrens , Luis E. Ardila Perez , Matthias Balzer , Arnulf Barth , Daniel Behrend-Uriarte , Sebastian Berndt , Klaus Blaum
show 51 more authors
Frederic W. H. Böhm Martin Bra{ss} Lorenzo Calza Katerina Chrysalidis Menno Door Holger Dorrer Christoph E. Düllmann Klaus Eberhardt Sergey Eliseev Christian Enss Pavel Filianin Andreas Fleischmann Robert Gartmann Loredana Gastaldo Markus Griedel Alexander Göggelmann Robert Hammann Raphael Hasse Maurits W. Haverkort Simon Heinze Daniel Hengstler Rasmus Jeske Josef Jochum Karl Johnston Nick Karcher Sebastian Kempf Tom Kieck Ulli Köster Neven Kovac Nina Kneip Kathrin Kromer Federica Mantegazzini Bruce A. Marsh Marc Merstof Timo Muscheid Martin Neidig Yuri N. Novikov Raghav Pandey Andreas Reifenberger Daniel Richter Alexander Rischka Sebastian Rothe Oliver Sander Rima X. Schüssler Stephan Scholl Christoph Schweiger Clemens Velte Marc Weber Matthias Wegner Klaus Wendt Tom Wickenhäuser
This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-exnucl-ex
keywords effectiveelectronneutrinomass163HocapturecalorimetricmetallicmagneticcalorimeterendpointspectrumBayesianposteriorECHo-1k
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper reports the ECHo-1k experiment's measurement of the electron-capture decay spectrum of holmium-163, recorded with metallic magnetic calorimeters that absorb the full decay energy. From about 200 million events at a background rate below 10^-5 per eV per pixel per day, the collaboration analyzes the high-energy endpoint of the spectrum and sets an upper limit of 15 eV/c² (90% credible interval) on the effective electron neutrino mass—the combination of neutrino mass eigenstates that governs electron-neutrino kinematics. The endpoint energy extracted in the same fit, Q = 2862(4) eV, agrees with the value 2863.2(6) eV obtained independently by Penning-trap mass spectrometry, an important cross-check of the spectral model. This matters because it is the tightest direct bound from a 163Ho experiment to date and because the method depends only on energy and momentum conservation, offering a path to compare neutrino and antineutrino masses without cosmological assumptions.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the endpoint spectral model of Eq. (1): the decay rate is the product of an atomic-physics factor A(E) and the phase-space factor F_PS(E,Q), convolved with a Gaussian detector response and added to two backgrounds. Neutrino mass enters only through F_PS: near the endpoint, the spectrum is proportional to (Q - E) sqrt((Q - E)² - m_nu²), so a finite mass rounds and shifts the endpoint downward. Because the full ab initio atomic calculation does not yet describe the measured tails, the analysis uses the analytic approximation A2(E)—a Lorentzian for the dominant M1 capture line plus a two-exponential high-energy tail—and samples the posterior via Hamiltonian Monte Carl

What would settle it

Re-fit the same 200-million-event endpoint spectrum using the full ab initio atomic-physics calculation (or a third independent parametrization) in place of A2(E), and check whether the 90% interval for m_nu stays below about 20 eV and Q remains within 4 eV of 2863 eV; if the result moves materially, the limit is set by the tail model rather than by the neutrino mass.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central result is a nearly factor-of-two improvement over the previous most stringent 163Ho limit: m_nu_e < 15 eV/c² at 90% credible interval (18 eV at 95%), based on about 200 million electron-capture events. The analysis uses the mass-sensitive phase-space factor F_PS(E,Q) = (Q - E) sqrt((Q - E)² - m_nu²); the upper limit comes from the posterior of m_nu_e under a flat prior over 0–100 eV, with the atomic-physics tail represented by an analytic Lorentzian-plus-two-exponentials function A2(E). In the same fit the decay energy is Q = 2862(4) eV, compatible with the Penning-trap value, and the background rate is 9.1(1.3) × 10^-6 /eV/pixel/day. The authors state that a simpler single-expon

Load-bearing premise

The analytical approximation A2(E) in Eq. (2) adequately represents the atomic-physics factor A(E) in the energy window used to constrain the neutrino mass, and the data themselves are used to set its parameters, so a mismatch in the tail shape near the endpoint could shift the mass limit.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The 15 eV/c² bound is the strongest direct limit on the electron neutrino mass from a calorimetric 163Ho measurement, roughly half the previous HOLMES limit and almost an order of magnitude better than the earlier ECHo result.
  • The Q-value agreement (2862(4) eV vs 2863.2(6) eV) confirms that the endpoint energy can be controlled at the few-eV level by combining calorimetry with Penning-trap mass spectrometry.
  • At current statistics the limiting factors are statistics and background, not detector energy resolution, since the simple-exponential A1 fit fails while the richer A2 model succeeds.
  • Together with the HOLMES result, this establishes 163Ho calorimetry as a viable route toward sub-eV sensitivity, and combined with tritium limits it opens the possibility of comparing neutrino and antineutrino masses as a CPT test.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Inference: because the posterior peaks at zero mass, the data do not demand a nonzero m_nu; the 15 eV figure is an experimental cap, and scaling the exposure by an order of magnitude should push the reach toward a few eV if systematics stay subdominant.
  • Inference: the next systematic frontier is the atomic-physics tail—once a full ab initio calculation reproduces the measured A(E) tails, the need for the ad-hoc A2 function disappears and the fit becomes less sensitive to model choice.
  • Inference: the same fitted endpoint model could be used to constrain non-standard endpoint distortions, such as additional neutrino mass eigenstates or spectral anomalies, because the analysis already marginalizes over background and atomic parameters.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The ECHo collaboration analyzes the endpoint region of a calorimetric 163Ho electron-capture spectrum containing about 200 million events acquired with the ECHo-1k detector array. Using a Bayesian fit with two analytical approximations for the atomic physics factor, A1(E) and A2(E), they extract the endpoint energy Q and the effective electron neutrino mass. With the A2 model they obtain Q = 2862(4) eV, in good agreement with the independent Penning-trap value Q = 2863.2(6) eV, and an upper limit m_nu_e < 15 eV/c^2 at 90% credible interval (18 eV at 95%). The A1 model gives compatible but less reliable results, requiring narrow priors. The paper reports a very low background rate of B = 9.1(1.3) x 10^-6 /eV/pixel/day and claims an improvement by almost a factor of two over the previous best limit from the HOLMES collaboration.

Significance. If the result is correct, this is the lowest direct limit on the effective electron neutrino mass from a calorimetric 163Ho experiment, and it strengthens the case for 163Ho-based neutrino mass searches. The strengths of the paper include a high-statistics spectrum, a carefully characterized detector and data-reduction chain, a low and well-measured background, and a fitted Q value that is consistent with an independent Penning-trap determination. The A1/A2 cross-check and the Monte Carlo study of per-pixel energy-resolution differences are useful consistency checks. The main limitation is that the central limit depends on the phenomenological A2(E) tail model, and the paper does not quantify the associated systematic uncertainty.

major comments (2)
  1. [Main text, Eq. (2) and following paragraph] The claimed limit m_nu_e < 15 eV (90% C.I.) is obtained from a Bayesian fit using A2(E), whose high-energy tail is a Lorentzian plus a two-exponential term with parameters kA, EA, E1, E2 fitted from the same 2250-2750 eV spectrum that is later used to constrain m_nu_e and Q. The neutrino-mass sensitivity is concentrated in the last tens of eV below Q, i.e., in the extrapolated tail of this phenomenological term. The paper does not provide a systematic uncertainty associated with the choice of A(E). The A1 vs A2 comparison is not an adequate model-mismatch test: A1 is explicitly judged inappropriate at this statistics, and any common-mode tail error would affect both parametrizations. Please quantify the model systematic, for example by repeating the fit with alternative tail functions (power law, modified Lorentzian, or template based on the ab initio model [37]) and reporting the spread
  2. [Main text, paragraph on A1 and A2 results and Fig. 4] The statement that the A1 and A2 results are compatible is weakened by the very different treatment of priors: A1 requires narrow priors constrained to grid uncertainties, and the authors state that A1 is not appropriate at the present statistics. Moreover, the A1 Q value is 2866.3(2.0) eV, which is less consistent with the Penning-trap value than the A2 result. Thus the A1 comparison does not bound the systematic error from the tail parametrization. In addition, the A2 grid fit used to initialize the A2 parameters assumes m_nu_e = 0 and fixes Q to the Penning-trap value; if the tail model is misspecified, this procedure can absorb part of the mass signal into the shape parameters. Please address this explicitly and show that the final posterior for m_nu_e is robust to the model choice, not merely that two models give overlapping intervals.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and throughout] The neutrino mass unit is sometimes written as 'eV' without '/c^2' (e.g., 'm_nu_e < 15 eV' in the abstract and main text); please use consistent notation. Also, Fig. 4 axis labels use 'm_e' instead of 'm_nu_e'.
  2. [Fig. 3] The 'relative residual' panels would benefit from including error bars or a shaded uncertainty band so that the reader can judge the fit quality in the endpoint region, which is the critical region for the mass limit.
  3. [Main text, background discussion] The relationship between the quoted background rate B = 9.1(1.3) x 10^-6 /eV/pixel/day and the fitted constant background b_const = 0.073(8) /2eV is not explicitly derived; please state the effective exposure and conversion clearly.
  4. [Appendix A] The sentence 'The theoretical calculations, which best describe the observed spectral features are based on an ab-initio approach' should have a comma after 'features'. There are several other minor grammar and punctuation issues throughout.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the neutrino-mass limit is extracted from the endpoint phase-space shape; the A2 atomic-physics model is data-fitted but not defined in terms of the mass, and the Penning-trap Q is an independent external benchmark.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an upper limit on m_nu_e from the 163Ho EC spectrum. The derivation chain is: (1) the measured spectrum is modeled by Eq. (1), dN/dE = C [A(E) FPS(E,Q)] ⊗ g + b, where FPS contains the neutrino-mass dependence; (2) A(E) is approximated by A2(E) in Eq. (2), a Lorentzian plus two exponentials. The A2 parameters (kMI, kA, EA, E1, E2) are obtained from a grid fit to the spectrum over 2250-2750 eV assuming a massless neutrino and Q fixed to the Penning-trap value. Then a Bayesian fit simultaneously estimates the spectral-shape parameters, Q, and m_nu using non-informative priors for A2. There is no self-definitional reduction: m_nu does not enter the definition of A2, and A2 is not defined in terms of the endpoint region where the mass sensitivity resides. The grid fit fixing Q=2863.2 eV is a preliminary step; the Bayesian fit re-derives Q=2862(4) eV from the data and checks it against the independent Penning-trap value. The use of the same spectrum to constrain both the atomic-physics shape and the neutrino mass is standard in spectral endpoint analyses and does not force the mass limit by construction; the posterior for m_nu is data-driven and the limit would change under different data. The A1 versus A2 comparison is a robustness check, and the paper explicitly notes that A1 is inadequate at this statistics. The skeptical concern about the phenomenological tail model is a model-uncertainty (systematic) issue, not circularity, because the model is not derived from the claimed result. Self-citations to refs. [1], [20], and [37] involve overlapping authors, but [1] is an independent Penning-trap mass measurement (different experimental technique, externally falsifiable), and [20,37] are ab initio calculations that are not used to fit the endpoint; neither constitutes load-bearing circular support. The limit m_nu < 15 eV (90% C.I.) is a genuine extraction from the spectral shape and is not equivalent to any input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim (mass limit) rests on a phenomenological spectral-shape model with several fitted parameters, a constant plus pile-up background model, and fixed calibration inputs. No new physical entities are introduced. The Q-value from Penning-trap mass spectrometry is used only as an external comparison, not as a constraint.

free parameters (7)
  • C (overall normalization)
    Normalization constant in Eq. (1), fitted in the endpoint-region Bayesian analysis.
  • Q (endpoint energy) = 2862(4) eV
    Free parameter in the Bayesian fit; result for the A2 model.
  • m_nu_e (effective electron neutrino mass) = < 15 eV/c^2 (90% CI)
    Parameter of interest, extracted from the phase-space factor with a flat prior from 0 to 100 eV.
  • A2 shape parameters k_MI, k_A, E_A, E_1, E_2 = not reported
    Five parameters of the phenomenological spectral-shape function in Eq. (2), determined by a grid fit over 2250-2750 eV and then used in the Bayesian inference.
  • b_const (constant background) = 0.073(8) per 2 eV
    Fitted in the sideband region 2900-5000 eV; included in the Bayesian fit with a normal prior.
  • f_pu (unresolved pile-up fraction) = 0.8(5) x 10^-6
    Determined from activity and rise time, checked by fitting the sideband; used to build the pile-up background.
  • A1 parameters A, lambda = not reported
    Parameters of the exponential approximation for the A1 model, found by grid fit; A1 is shown to be inadequate at current statistics.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math The phase-space factor for electron capture is F_PS(E,Q) = (Q-E) * sqrt((Q-E)^2 - m^2_nu_e).
    Standard kinematics of EC decay, used in Eq. (1).
  • domain assumption The detector response is Gaussian with a single standard deviation sigma = 2.8 eV (from MII line FWHM 6.59 eV).
    Assumed for all pixels; the appendix checks via Monte Carlo that pixel-to-pixel resolution differences give a negligible effect.
  • ad hoc to paper The atomic physics factor A(E) is well approximated by A2(E) in the endpoint region.
    A2 is a phenomenological function (Lorentzian plus two exponentials) introduced for this analysis, following the HOLMES approach [2]; no first-principles derivation is provided for this form.
  • domain assumption The background in the endpoint region consists of a constant term plus an unresolved pile-up term given by the normalized auto-convolution of the spectrum weighted by f_pu.
    Assumed in the fit; background parameters are determined from the sideband [2900,5000] eV.
  • domain assumption The unresolved pile-up fraction f_pu is constant across the spectrum and given by activity times rise time.
    Used to construct b_pu; f_pu = 0.8(5) x 10^-6.
  • domain assumption The MI line position and width (E_MI = 2039.7(5) eV, Gamma_MI = 14.0(2) eV) and the Gaussian resolution are known and fixed in the fit.
    Taken from calibration measurements; their uncertainties are not propagated into the neutrino mass limit.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Improved limit on the effective electron neutrino mass with the ECHo-1k experiment." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/22Q7MP44

@misc{pith2026250903423,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Improved limit on the effective electron neutrino mass with the ECHo-1k experiment},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/22Q7MP44}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.03423}
}
abstract

The effective electron neutrino mass can be determined by analyzing the endpoint region of the $^{163}$Ho electron capture spectrum, provided a measurement with high energy resolution and high statistics using calorimetric techniques. Here, the Electron Capture in $^{163}$Ho collaboration, ECHo, presents an analysis of the most precise $^{163}$Ho spectrum currently available, obtained with the ECHo-1k experiment and comprising about 200 million events. A very low background rate of $B=9.1(1.3)\times 10^{-6}$ /eV/pixel/day was achieved allowing for a reliable analysis of the endpoint region. The derived endpoint energy $Q = 2862(4)$ eV is in excellent agreement with the one independently determined via Penning-trap mass spectrometry of $Q=2863.2(6)$ eV [1]. The upper limit of the effective electron neutrino mass is improved by almost a factor 2 compared to the lowest current value [2], reaching $m_{\nu_\mathrm{e}} < 15 $ eV/c${^2}$ (90\% credible interval).

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.03423 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Schematic drawing of an MMC pixel for the ECHo [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. shows the measured 163Ho spectrum along with the convolution between the theoretical model de￾rived in [37] and the Gaussian detector response (solid line). The model, based on an ab-initio approach, repre￾sents the most precise description of the electron capture process in 163Ho, but still fails in describing the tails and therefore cannot be used for fitting. The spectrum fea￾tures about 200 million events betwee… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Histogram of the endpoint region with superimposed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Posterior distribution for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages

  1. [37]

    Hammann, A

    R. Hammann, A. Barth, A. Fleischmann, D. Schulz, and L. Gastaldo, Data reduction for a calorimetrically mea- sured 163Ho-spectrum of the ECHo-1k experiment, The European Physical Journal C 19, 963 (2021)

    work page 2021

  2. [1]

    Schweiger, M

    Ch. Schweiger, M. Braß, V. Debierre, M. Door, H. Dor- rer, Ch. E. D¨ ullmann, C. Enss, P. Filianin, L. Gastaldo, Z. Harman, M. W. Haverkort, J. Herkenhoff, P. Indeli- cato, C. H. Keitel, K. Kromer, D. Lange, Y. N. Novikov, D. Renisch, A. Rischka, R. X. Sch¨ ussler, S. Eliseev, and K. Blaum, Penning-trap measurement of the Q value of electron capture in 16...

    work page 2024

  3. [2]

    B. K. Alpert et al. (HOLMES Collaboration), Most stringent bound on electron neutrino mass obtained with a scalable low temperature microcalorimeter array, arXiv:2503.19920v2 [hep-ex] (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  4. [3]

    de Gouvˆ ea, Neutrino mass models, Ann

    A. de Gouvˆ ea, Neutrino mass models, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 66, 197 (2016)

    work page 2016

  5. [4]

    H. G. Escudero and K. N. Abazajian, Status of neutrino cosmology: Standard ΛCDM, extensions, and tensions, Phys. Rev. D 111, 043520 (2025)

    work page 2025

  6. [5]

    Lesgourgues and S

    J. Lesgourgues and S. Pastor, Neutrino mass from cos- mology, Adv. High Energy Phys. 2012, 608515 (2012)

    work page 2012

  7. [6]

    Jiang, W

    J.-Q. Jiang, W. Giar` e, S. Gariazzo, M. G. Dainotti, E. Di Valentino, O. Mena, D. Pedrotti, S. Santos da Costa, and S. Vagnozzi, Neutrino cosmology after desi: tightest mass upper limits, preference for the normal or- dering, and tension with terrestrial observations, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2025 (01), 153

    work page 2025

  8. [7]

    F. T. Avignone, III, S. R. Elliott, and J. Engel, Double beta decay, majorana neutrinos, and neutrino mass, Rev. Mod. Phys. 80, 481 (2008)

    work page 2008

Show all 50 references
  1. [8]

    Agostini, G

    M. Agostini, G. Benato, J. A. Detwiler, J. Men´ endez, and F. Vissani, Toward the discovery of matter creation with neutrinoless ββ decay, Rev. Mod. Phys. 95, 025002 (2023)

    2023

  2. [9]

    J. A. Formaggio, A. L. C. de Gouvˆ ea and R. G. H. Robertson, Direct measurements of neutrino mass, Physics Reports 914, 1 (2021)

    2021

  3. [10]

    The effective electron neutrino mass is defined as m2 νe = Σ|Uei|2m2 i , where Uei are elements of the Pontecorvo- Maki-Nakagawa-Sakata matrix and mi the eigenvalues of 7 the neutrino mass eigenstates

  4. [11]

    Aker et al

    M. Aker et al. (KATRIN Collaboration), Katrin: Status and prospects for the neutrino mass and beyond, Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics 49, 100501 (2022)

    2022

  5. [12]

    A. A. Esfahani et al. (Project8 Collaboration), Determin- ing the neutrino mass with cyclotron radiation emission spectroscopy—Project 8, Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics 44, 054004 (2017)

    2017

  6. [13]

    M. G. Betti et al. (PTOLEMY Collaboration), Neutrino physics with the ptolemy project: active neutrino proper- ties and the light sterile case, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2019 (07), 047

    2019

  7. [14]

    A. A. Amad, F. Deppisch, M. Fleck, J. C. Gallop, T. Gof- frey, L. Hao, N. Higginbotham, S. D. Hogan, S. B. Jones, L. Li, N. McConkey, V. Monachello, R. Nichol, J. A. Potter, Y. A. Ramachers, R. Saakyan, E. Sedzielewski, D. Swinnock, D. Waters, S. Withington, S. Zhao, and J. Zo...

    2025

  8. [15]

    Gastaldo et al

    L. Gastaldo et al. (ECHo Collaboration), The electron capture in 163Ho experiment – ECHo, J. Low Temp. Phys. 176, 876 (2014)

    2014

  9. [16]

    Alpert et al

    B. Alpert et al. (HOLMES Collaboration), HOLMES - The electron capture decay of 163Ho to measure the elec- tron neutrino mass with sub-eV sensitivity, The Euro- pean Physical Journal C 75, 112 (2015)

    2015

  10. [17]

    Aker et al

    M. Aker et al. (KATRIN Collaboration), Direct neutrino- mass measurement based on 259 days of KATRIN data, Science 388, 180 (2025)

    2025

  11. [18]

    Gastaldo et al

    L. Gastaldo et al. (ECHo Collaboration), The electron capture in 163Ho experiment – ECHo, The European Physical Journal Special Topics 226, 1623 (2017)

    2017

  12. [19]

    De R´ ujula and M

    A. De R´ ujula and M. Lusignoli, Calorimetric measure- ments of 163holmium decay as tools to determine the elec- tron neutrino mass, Physics Letters B 118, 429 (1982)

    1982

  13. [20]

    M. Braß, C. Enss, L. Gastaldo, R. J. Green, and M. W. Haverkort, Ab initio calculation of the calorimetric electron-capture spectrum of 163Ho: Intra-atomic decay into bound states, Phys. Rev. C 97, 054620 (2018)

    2018

  14. [21]

    Fleischmann, C

    A. Fleischmann, C. Enss, and G. M. Seidel, Metallic magnetic calorimeters, Topics in Applied Physics 99, In: Enss, C. (eds) Cryogenic Particle Detection, 151 (2005)

    2005

  15. [22]

    Fleischmann, L

    A. Fleischmann, L. Gastaldo, S. Kempf, A. Kirsch, A. Pabinger, C. Pies, J. Porst, P. Ranitzsch, S. Sch¨ afer, F. v. Seggern, T. Wolf, C. Enss, and G. M. Seidel, Metal- lic magnetic calorimeters, AIP Conference Proceedings 1185, 571 (2009)

    2009

  16. [23]

    Kempf, A

    S. Kempf, A. Fleischmann, L. Gastaldo, and C. Enss, Physics and applications of metallic magnetic calorime- ters, Journal of Low Temperature Physics 193, 365 (2018)

    2018

  17. [24]

    Krantz, F

    M. Krantz, F. Toschi, B. Maier, G. Heine, C. Enss, and S. Kempf, Physics and applications of metallic magnetic calorimeters, Appl. Phys. Lett. 124, 032601 (2024)

    2024

  18. [25]

    Gastaldo, P.-O

    L. Gastaldo, P.-O. Ranitzsch, F. von Seggern, J.-P. Porst, S. Sch¨ afer, C. Pies, S. Kempf, T. Wolf, A. Fleischmann, C. Enss, A. Herlert, and K. Johnston, Characterization of low temperature metallic magnetic calorimeters hav- ing gold absorbers with implanted 163Ho ions, Nucl...

    2013

  19. [26]

    Mantegazzini, A

    F. Mantegazzini, A. Barth, H. Dorrer, Ch. E. D¨ ullmann, C. Enss, A. Fleischmann, R. Hammann, S. Kempf, T. Kieck, N. Kovac, C. Velte, M. Wegner, K. Wendt, T. Wickenh¨ auser, and L. Gastaldo, Metallic magnetic calorimeter arrays for the first phase of the ECHo ex- periment, Nuc...

    2022

  20. [27]

    was demonstrated. Although only 4 MMC pixels with approximately 0.2 Bq 163Ho activity each were used, the ECHo collaboration set a new limit for the effective electron-neutrino mass mνe < 150 eV/c2 (95% C.L.) [27] improving the previous best upper limit of 225 eV/c 2 (95% C.L....

    2000

  21. [28]

    Velte et al

    C. Velte et al. (ECHo Collaboration), High-resolution and low-background 163Ho spectrum: interpretation of the resonance tails, The European Physical Journal C 79, 1026 (2019)

    2019

  22. [29]

    P. T. Springer, C. L. Bennett, and P. A. Baisden, Measurement of the neutrino mass using the inner bremsstrahlung emitted in the electron-capture decay of 163Ho, Phys. Rev. A 35, 679 (1987)

    1987

  23. [30]

    Mantegazzini, S

    F. Mantegazzini, S. Allgeier, A. Barth, C. Enss, A. Ferring-Siebert, A. Fleischmann, L. Gastaldo, R. Hammann, D. Hengstler, S. Kempf, D. Richter, D. Schulz, D. Unger, C. Velte, and M. Wegner, Multi- channel read-out for arrays of metallic magnetic calorime- ters, Journal of In...

  24. [31]

    Dorrer, K

    H. Dorrer, K. Chrysalidis, T. D. Goodacre, Ch. E. D¨ ullmann, K. Eberhardt, C. Enss, L. Gastaldo, R. Haas, J. Harding, C. Hassel, K. Johnston, T. Kieck, U. K¨ oster, B. Marsh, C. Mokry, S. Rothe, J. Runke, F. Schneider, T. Stora, A. T¨ urler, and K. Wendt, Production, isolatio...

    2018

  25. [32]

    Kieck, S

    T. Kieck, S. Biebricher, Ch. E. D¨ ullmann, and K. Wendt, Optimization of a laser ion source for 163Ho isotope separation, Review of Scientific Instruments 90, 053304 (2019)

    2019

  26. [33]

    Kieck, H

    T. Kieck, H. Dorrer, Ch. E. D¨ ullmann, V. Gadelshin, F. Schneider, and K. Wendt, Highly efficient isotope separation and ion implantation of 163ho for the ECHo project, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Re- search Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and...

    2019

  27. [34]

    Gamer, Ch

    L. Gamer, Ch. E. D¨ ullmann, C. Enss, L. G. An- dreas Fleischmann, C. Hassel, S. Kempf, T. Kieck, and K. Wendt, Simulation and optimization of the implan- tation of holmium atoms into metallic magnetic mi- crocalorimeters for neutrino mass determination experi- ments, Nuclear ...

    2017

  28. [35]

    Drung and M

    D. Drung and M. M¨ uck, SQUID Electronics, The SQUID Handbook: Fundamentals and Technology of SQUIDs and SQUID Systems, I, Eds Clarke, J. and Braginski A. I (2004)

    2004

  29. [36]

    Drung, C

    D. Drung, C. Hinnrichs, and H.-J. Barthelmess, Low- noise ultra-high-speed dc squid readout electronics, Su- perconductor Science and Technology 19, S235 (2006)

    2006

  30. [38]

    Braß and M

    M. Braß and M. W. Haverkort, Ab initio calculation of the electron capture spectrum of 163Ho: Auger–Meitner decay into continuum states, New Journal of Physics 22, 093018 (2020)

    2020

  31. [39]

    G¨ oggelmann, A., Jochum, J., Gastaldo, L., Velte, C., and Mantegazzini, F., Study of muon-induced background in 8 MMC detector arrays for the ECHo experiment, Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 363 (2021)

    2021

  32. [40]

    G¨ oggelmann, A., Jochum, J., Gastaldo, L., Mantegazz- ini, F., Barth, A., and Hammann, R., Study of naturally occurring radionuclides in the ECHo set-up, The Euro- pean Physical Journal C 82, 139 (2022)

    2022

  33. [41]

    S. D. Team, Stan reference manual, version 2.34.1, https://mc-stan.org (2024)

    2024

  34. [42]

    Richter, L

    D. Richter, L. Hoibl, T. Wolber, N. Karcher, A. Fleis- chmann, C. Enss, M. Weber, O. Sander, and S. Kempf, Flux ramp modulation based MHz frequency-division dc- SQUID multiplexer, Applied physics letters 118, 122601 (2021)

    2021

  35. [43]

    Griedel, F

    M. Griedel, F. Mantegazzini, A. Barth, E. Bruer, W. Holzmann, R. Hammann, D. Hengstler, N. Kovac, C. Velte, T. Wickenh¨ auser, A. Fleischmann, C. Enss, L. Gastaldo, H. Dorrer, T. Kieck, N. Kneip, Ch. E. D¨ ullmann, and K. Wendt, From ECHo-1k to ECHo- 100k: Optimization of High...

    2022

  36. [44]

    P. C.-O. Ranitzsch, C. Hassel, M. Wegner, D. Hengstler, S. Kempf, A. Fleischmann, C. Enss, L. Gastaldo, A. Her- lert, and K. Johnston, Characterization of the 163Ho elec- tron capture spectrum: A step towards the electron neu- trino mass determination, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 12...

    2017

  37. [45]

    Faessler, L

    A. Faessler, L. Gastaldo, and F. ˇSimkovic, Electron cap- ture in 163Ho, overlap plus exchange corrections and neu- trino mass, Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics 42, 015108 (2014)

    2014

  38. [46]

    R. G. H. Robertson, Examination of the calorimetric spectrum to determine the neutrino mass in low-energy electron capture decay, Phys. Rev. C 91, 035504 (2015)

    2015

  39. [47]

    Faessler and F

    A. Faessler and F. ˇSimkovic, Improved description of one- and two-hole excitations after electron capture in 163Ho and the determination of the neutrino mass, Phys. Rev. C 91, 045505 (2015)

    2015

  40. [48]

    Faessler, C

    A. Faessler, C. Enss, L. Gastaldo, and F. ˇSimkovic, De- termination of the neutrino mass by electron capture in 163Ho and the role of the three-hole states in163Dy, Phys. Rev. C 91, 064302 (2015)

    2015

  41. [49]

    Faessler, L

    A. Faessler, L. Gastaldo, and F. ˇSimkovic, Neutrino mass, electron capture, and the shake-off contributions, Phys. Rev. C 95, 045502 (2017)

    2017

  42. [50]

    De Rujula and M

    A. De Rujula and M. Lusignoli, The calorimetric spec- trum of the electron-capture decay of 163Ho. The spectral endpoint region, Journal of High Energy Physics 2016, 15 (2016)

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.