Muon veto system for the CROSS double-beta decay search experiment

A. Candela; A. Corsi; A. Giuliani; A. Ianni; A. Ortiz de Sol\'orzano; A.S. Barabash; A. Zolotarova; B. Romualdi; C.A. Marrache-Kikuchi; C. Gotti

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 34 references

Muon veto system for the CROSS double-beta decay search experiment

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The CROSS experiment's new muon veto, run in single-sector trigger mode, rejects 99.7% of muon-induced events in the 100Mo neutrinoless double-beta decay region of interest, leaving about 2e-3 counts/keV/kg/yr of muon-induced background.

desk verdict Solid, useful instrumentation paper let down by a reporting gap: the headline background index is computed at a 1 MeV veto threshold, while the installed configuration runs at 1.6–1.7 MeV, and that interior number is never shown. read the letter →

arxiv 2510.27406 v1 pith:6TSSUSLL submitted 2025-10-31 physics.ins-det hep-exnucl-ex

A.S. Barabash , L. Bergé , M. Buchynska , J.M. Calvo-Mozota , A. Candela , P. Carniti , M. Chapellier , D. Cintas

show 31 more authors

A. Corsi I. Dafinei F.A. Danevich M. De Deo L. Dumoulin F. Ferri A. Giuliani C. Gotti P. Gras A. Ianni V.V. Kobychev S.I. Konovalov P. Loaiza P. de Marcillac S. Marnieros C.A. Marrache-Kikuchi M. Martinez C. Nones E. Olivieri A. Ortiz de Solórzano V. Perez G. Pessina D.V. Poda B. Romualdi Ph. Rosier R. Serino V.I. Tretyak V.I. Umatov G. Ursini M.M. Zarytskyy A. Zolotarova

This is my paper

classification physics.ins-dethep-exnucl-ex

keywords muonvetoneutrinolessdouble-betadecay100MoCROSSexperimentbackgroundrejectionMonteCarlosimulationcryogenicbolometersscintillationdetectors

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 design, construction, and validation of a dedicated muon veto for the CROSS cryogenic experiment, which searches for neutrinoless double-beta decay of 100Mo at the Canfranc underground laboratory. The authors aim to show that the residual cosmic-ray muon flux, the dominant background near the 3 MeV region of interest, can be suppressed to a level compatible with the experiment's target sensitivity. By combining Monte Carlo simulations with measurements of calibrated veto modules and a two-detector cryogenic test run, they establish that triggering on a single veto sector and rejecting all coincident thermal-detector events reduces the muon-induced background to about 2e-3 counts/keV/kg/yr, rejecting 99.7% of muon-induced events. The work matters because it turns a known dominant background into a manageable one, preserving CROSS's projected sensitivity.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the time-correlated veto: the muon veto consists of nine sectors (four lateral, one top, and four bottom) made of polystyrene scintillator bars read out by silicon photomultipliers or photomultipliers, and each thermal-detector event is rejected if any sector registers an energy deposit above a calibrated threshold within a ±1–2 ms coincidence window. The performance is quantified with Monte Carlo simulations of muons crossing the setup, calibrated module by module with a 60Co source, and validated against low-temperature bolometer measurements in the actual cryogenic facility.

What would settle it

Measure the muon flux and angular distribution at the CROSS location using the same muon-monitor technique applied to the neighboring hall; if the integrated flux is more than about 10–20% higher than assumed, or the dominant arrival direction shifts, the stated 99.7% rejection and 2e-3 counts/keV/kg/yr background index would have to be re-derived. In the longer term, the first background run of the full CROSS array should observe a rate of muon-veto-coincident events in the region of interest consistent with that prediction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the adopted muon-veto strategy—an OR of all nine plastic-scintillator sectors, with a 2 ms coincidence window against the thermal detectors and a single-hit multiplicity cut—reduces muon-induced background in the 2.7–3.4 MeV region of interest to about 2e-3 counts/keV/kg/yr, an acceptable level for a high-sensitivity neutrinoless double-beta decay search. This is demonstrated through dedicated Monte Carlo simulations using the measured muon angular distribution and rock-overburden parameterization, validated against stable veto trigger rates and against a 555 h run with two CUPID-Mo bolometers, where measured coincidence efficiencies agree with simulation after corr

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the muon flux and angular distribution measured in one hall of the Canfranc underground laboratory, where the rock overburden is slightly thicker, also describe the adjacent hall where CROSS is installed; no direct muon measurement exists at the CROSS location.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Muon-induced background in the CROSS region of interest is reduced to about 2e-3 counts/keV/kg/yr, compatible with the experiment's high-sensitivity goal.
The adopted single-sector trigger logic suppresses 99.7% of muon-induced events, compared with 99.2% for a two-sector coincidence trigger and 98.7% for the thermal-detector multiplicity cut alone.
The resulting dead time of about 18% is an accepted trade-off that preserves the experiment's live-time-weighted sensitivity.
Validation with two CUPID-Mo modules shows measured muon-veto rejection efficiencies of 85–90% for events above 3–10 MeV, matching simulation and supporting the projected performance for the full CROSS array.
The veto system operates stably with an average trigger rate varying by less than 2% over about 100 h, confirming the slow-control threshold-stabilization approach.

Reading between the lines

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

If a direct muon flux measurement at the CROSS location in Hall B shows a flux higher than the Hall A parameterization used here—the paper notes Hall B is about 20 m closer to the Rioseta valley—the projected 2e-3 counts/keV/kg/yr background could rise proportionally, so a Hall B measurement would be the most direct stress test of the margin.
The 18% dead time from vetoing on any of nine sectors suggests a testable refinement: module-level rather than sector-level veto patterns, or energy-dependent veto thresholds, could reduce dead time while preserving rejection efficiency.
Because the coincidence window is tied to the slow thermal signal, using the faster light-detector trigger position (as done in this analysis) may allow shorter windows and lower dead time in future operation.
The calibration and optimization protocol—per-module energy calibration, background-rate fitting, and sensitivity maximization—can be transferred directly to other underground cryogenic rare-event searches facing similar muon fluxes.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Here's my take. This is a competent, useful instrumentation paper for CROSS and the broader cryogenic rare-event community. The new content is the nine-sector veto geometry, the comparison of two-sector vs single-sector trigger logics, and the dead-time/background optimization. The calibration procedure with a 60Co source and the rate-vs-threshold fits are straightforward and adequate. The simulation is validated in two places: the LMO muon rate (2.5(4) vs 2.6(1) cnt/d/LMO) and the RUN13 coincidence efficiency after the trigger-bit correction (85% vs 88% at >3 MeV). That gives me reasonable confidence the MC is roughly right. The soft spots are real but not fatal. First, the headline 2e-3 cnts/keV/kg/yr and 99.7% rejection come from Table 1, which assumes a 1 MeV veto threshold. The installed configuration uses 0.7 Hz Lateral and 0.3 Hz Bottom rates, corresponding to 1.7(1) and 1.6(1) MeV thresholds. The paper never reports the background index at those thresholds. The optimization section says they simulated BI for each rate set, but they don't give the value for the chosen operating point. The abstract and conclusions repeat the 1 MeV number as if it were the design number. That matters because Fig. 14 shows the muon bump starts around 1.5 MeV, so the threshold choice sits right on the edge of the muon signal. If the true BI at 1.6–1.7 MeV is appreciably above 2e-3, the central claim weakens. I suspect the authors know the number—they just didn't write it down. Second, the 99.7% rejection is a combined MC result including the multiplicity cut and veto. The measured validation is only the coincidence tagging efficiency for two LMOs, at 85% corrected vs 88% simulated. That's consistent, and the multiplicity cut is a separate effect that has been measured in other CROSS runs, so I'm not alarmed. But a reader should not confuse the validated 85–88% with the projected 99.7%. Third, the Hall A muon flux and angular distribution applied to Hall B is an acknowledged assumption. Since the veto design and BI projection depend on it, that's a source of systematic uncertainty that is not quantified. Minor, because it's the best data available and the authors say so. Overall: solid instrumentation paper that deserves a serious referee. The main request should be to report the background index and rejection efficiency at the installed thresholds, and to add a systematic uncertainty on the MC projection. The engineering contribution is real and the validation, while partial, is honest. I'd send it to review.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper reports on the design, construction, operation, and optimization of a muon veto system for the CROSS 0νββ decay search at the Canfranc Underground Laboratory. The veto consists of four lateral, one top, and four bottom sectors based on polystyrene scintillator bars read out by SiPMs or PMTs. Geant4 simulations using the measured Hall A muon flux and angular distribution are used to predict muon-induced backgrounds in the CROSS detector. The simulations are validated against the rate of muon-like events in LMO bolometers (2.5(4) vs 2.6(1) cnt/d/LMO) and against a two-module cryogenic test (RUN13), where the coincidence tagging efficiency at E>3 MeV agrees after a 17% trigger-bit correction (85% vs 88%). The optimization of trigger rates is performed using a sensitivity metric that balances dead time and background index. The paper concludes that the adopted single-sector trigger logic rejects 99.7% of muon-induced events in the ROI, reducing the background to ~2×10^-3 cnts/keV/kg/yr, with a dead time of ~18%.

Significance. If the reported performance holds, the CROSS muon veto would reduce the dominant cosmic-muon background to a level compatible with a high-sensitivity 0νββ search. The strengths of the paper are the careful description of the veto hardware and DAQ, the direct comparisons of simulations to measured muon rates and to a dedicated two-module cryogenic run, and the transparent presentation of the optimization procedure. The MC framework is partially validated, and the paper is honest about the lack of a Hall B flux measurement. However, the central quantitative claim—the 99.7% rejection and the ~2×10^-3 cnts/keV/kg/yr background index—is not consistently tied to the actual installed threshold settings, which is a load-bearing issue that must be addressed before the result can be accepted as stated.

major comments (2)

[§3.6.2, Table 1; §4.3] The abstract and conclusions quote a rejection of 99.7% and a residual background of ~2×10^-3 cnts/keV/kg/yr. These numbers come from Table 1, which explicitly assumes a 1 MeV energy threshold in every veto module. The configuration actually adopted after the optimization of §4.3 sets Lateral modules at 0.7 Hz (~1.7 MeV) and Bottom modules at 0.3 Hz (~1.6 MeV), with Top near 1 MeV. The paper never reports the background index or rejection efficiency for these installed thresholds. Since the muon-induced energy-deposit spectrum in the veto modules begins to rise at ~1.5 MeV (Fig. 14), raising the threshold to 1.6–1.7 MeV is expected to reduce the tagging efficiency and increase the residual background. The sensitivity optimization of §4.3 uses the correct thresholds via Eq. 4.1, but the BI at the optimum is not quoted. Please provide the BI and rejection efficiency for the actual installe
[§5.3, Table 4] The validation of the veto efficiency is carried out with a two-module CUPID-Mo setup at E>3 MeV, yielding 85% (corrected) experimental efficiency versus 88% simulated. This is a useful check, but the 99.7% rejection claimed for CROSS is a Monte Carlo projection for the full 42-crystal array that combines the veto with the multiplicity cut and the light-detector cut; this combination is not directly validated. In addition, during RUN13 six SiPMs were unstable and turned off (§5.1), and the effect of these dead channels on the coincidence efficiency is not quantified. Please estimate the impact of the dead channels on the achieved rejection and discuss any available cross-check of the full-array simulation (e.g., the 10-crystal RUN9 data) against the measured coincidence rates.

minor comments (5)

[§4.2] Typo: 'while he other is identified' should read 'while the other is identified'.
[§3.6.2] Typo: 'one order of magnitude higher that' should read 'higher than'.
[Table 3] Duplicate definite article: 'An RMS of the the Light-to-Heat distribution'.
[§5.1] The 17% correction factor for the disabled trigger bit is applied uniformly to coincidence rates. Please justify that the missed triggers are uncorrelated with the LMO events, or provide an uncertainty on this correction.
[§3.2] The muon flux and angular distribution from Hall A are used for Hall B, which is ~20 m closer to the Rioseta valley. The paper notes the expected increase but does not quantify the effect on the background index. A short systematic study (e.g., scaling the flux by a few percent) would strengthen the conclusions.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular step: the 2e-3 background index is a forward Geant4 output from external muon-flux inputs; the fitted veto-rate parameters are not set by, and do not encode, the predicted ROI background.

full rationale

The claimed chain is: external LSC Hall A muon flux and angular distribution [14] plus standard slant-depth/energy parameterizations [20,21] are inputs to a Geant4 simulation; the simulation outputs rates, rejection efficiencies, and the Table 1 background indices. Measured veto-module background rates are fit by Eq. (4.1) only to convert chosen trigger rates into energy thresholds for the simulation and to compute dead time. The target background index (~2e-3 cnts/keV/kg/yr) never appears as a fit parameter or as an input to Eq. (4.1), and the 99.7% rejection is not obtained by adjusting a, b, or the ROI selection to force Table 1. Calibration constants are fit to 60Co data and to veto-module background rates, not to LMO ROI data; the dead-time ratio comes from the measured total rate (97.6 Hz) and the 2 ms coincidence window. The only close self-citation, Ref. [16], is an in-preparation companion paper used for CROSS detector geometry, but the veto-efficiency claim is derived and validated within this paper against RUN8/RUN9/RUN13 data; it is not a self-citation that supplies the central result. Manifest limitations—no Hall B flux measurement (Sec. 3.2), the 17% trigger-bit loss and corrected 85–88% coincidence tagging (Sec. 5.3, Table 4), and the fact that Table 1 assumes a 1 MeV veto threshold while Sec. 4.3 installs ~1.6–1.7 MeV thresholds—are validation/accuracy gaps, not circular reductions: they do not make the prediction equal to an input by definition. No load-bearing step reduces to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central background projection rests on external muon-flux data, an analytic slant-depth model, and several simulation-to-trigger equivalences. The only fits introduced here are calibration constants and background-rate-to-threshold mappings; they set the operating point but do not by themselves produce the 99.7% rejection number. No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (5)

Veto module background-rate fit parameters a, b = Lateral: a=13(2) Hz, b=1.7(1) MeV^-1; Bottom: a=19(5) Hz, b=2.6(1) MeV^-1
Fitted in Section 4.2 to R(E)=a*exp(-bE) over 1-2 MeV; used to convert measured module rates to energy thresholds in the sensitivity optimization.
Energy calibration scale c and resolution sigma per module = Not quoted numerically in text; free parameters in the 60Co calibration fit E=c*threshold plus Gaussian sigma (Section 4
Fitted to calibration spectra for each module; these constants map threshold levels to MeV and enter the background-rate-to-energy relation.
Trigger rate setpoints for Lateral modules = 0.7 Hz per module
Chosen from the sensitivity optimization grid in Section 4.3 to maximize k; a design choice, not a parameter fitted to the final background index.
Trigger rate setpoints for Bottom modules = 0.3 Hz per module
Chosen from the sensitivity optimization grid in Section 4.3; corresponds to ~1.6-1.7 MeV thresholds.
Top sector rate setpoint = 0.6 Hz
Fixed from prior calibrations as corresponding to ~1 MeV threshold and used as an input to the optimization.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption Muon flux and angular distribution measured at LSC Hall A are representative of Hall B, where CROSS is installed
Section 3.2 states Hall B is ~20 m closer to the Rioseta valley and expected to have slightly higher muon flux, but no Hall B measurement exists; all simulations use Hall A data from Ref. [14].
domain assumption The slant-depth parameterization I(x)=I1*e^{-x/lambda1}+I2*e^{-x/lambda2} with fit parameters from Ref. [14] describes the overburden in all directions
Section 3.3 uses this two-exponential fit to estimate rock depth versus angle and to propagate muons to the laboratory.
domain assumption The muon surface energy spectrum from Eq. (3.3) and the underground propagation formula Eq. (3.4) with epsilon=2.5 TeV and b^-1=2500 m.w.e. are valid for this site
Section 3.5 adopts the PDG parameterization for muons above 100 GeV and the standard rock-overburden relation; no site-specific check is performed.
domain assumption Geant4 with the Livermore physics list correctly models muon energy deposits in the polystyrene veto, lead, copper, and crystals
Section 3 uses Geant4 v11.1 with the Livermore list; the validation against two datasets provides partial support but not full system-level confirmation.
domain assumption A veto module triggers in the simulation whenever the total energy deposited in that module exceeds a threshold
Section 3.1/3.6.1: the trigger model is an energy threshold per module, not a full simulation of discriminator electronics; the RUN8/RUN9 comparison showed rate disagreements attributed to threshold non-uniformity.
domain assumption SiPM pulse amplitude is proportional to pulse area and pulse area is proportional to deposited energy
Section 4.1: this linearity assumption underpins the 60Co-based energy calibration of the veto modules.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Muon veto system for the CROSS double-beta decay search experiment." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6TSSUSLL

@misc{pith2026251027406,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Muon veto system for the CROSS double-beta decay search experiment},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6TSSUSLL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2510.27406}
}

abstract

In preparation to the CROSS experiment at the Canfranc underground laboratory (Spain) $-$ aiming to search for neutrinoless double-beta ($0\nu\beta\beta$) decay of $^{100}$Mo using low-temperature detectors with heat-scintillation readout $-$ we report on development of a dedicated muon veto system. The need for the muon veto in CROSS is caused by a comparatively high residual cosmic muon flux at the experimental site ($\sim$20 $\mu$/m$^2$/h), being a dominant background in the region of interest (ROI) at $\sim$3 MeV. Thus, we installed the muon veto system around the CROSS low-background setup, forming four lateral, one top, and four bottom sectors. In this paper we describe the design, construction and operation of the CROSS muon veto system, as well as its optimization and validation by comparing dedicated Monte Carlo (MC) simulations of muons with low-temperature measurements in the setup. We demonstrate a stable operation of the veto system with the average trigger rates compatible with MC simulations. Also, we investigated two muon trigger logics based on coincidences with either 2 sectors or a single sector of the veto. The MC study shows that, in combination with the multiplicity cut of thermal detectors, these trigger logics allow to reject 99.2\% and 99.7\% of muon-induced events in the ROI, respectively. Despite a comparatively high dead time ($\sim$18\%) introduced by coincidences with any of nine sectors of the veto $-$ the adopted strategy $-$ the muon-induced background in the ROI of the CROSS experiment can be reduced down to $\sim$2 $\times 10^{-3}$ cnts/keV/kg/yr, i.e., an acceptable level compatible with a high-sensitivity $0\nu\beta\beta$ decay search foreseen in CROSS.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 5 linked inside Pith

[1]

Bandac et al.,The 0𝜈2𝛽-decay CROSS experiment: preliminary results and prospects,JHEP01 (2020) 018

I.C. Bandac et al.,The 0𝜈2𝛽-decay CROSS experiment: preliminary results and prospects,JHEP01 (2020) 018

2020
[2]

Gómez-Cadenas, J

J.J. Gómez-Cadenas, J. Martín-Albo, J. Menéndez, M. Mezzetto, F. Monrabal and M. Sorel,The search for neutrinoless double-beta decay,La Rivista del Nuovo Cimento46(2023) 619

2023
[3]

Agostini, G

M. Agostini, G. Benato, J.A. Detwiler, J. Menéndez and F. Vissani,Toward the discovery of matter creation with neutrinoless double-beta decay,Rev. Mod. Phys.95(2023) 025002 [2202.01787]

arXiv 2023
[4]

Adams et al.,CUORE opens the door to tonne-scale cryogenics experiments,Prog

D.Q. Adams et al.,CUORE opens the door to tonne-scale cryogenics experiments,Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.122(2022) 103902

2022
[5]

Azzolini et al.,Final Result on the Neutrinoless Double Beta Decay of82Sewith CUPID-0,Phys

O. Azzolini et al.,Final Result on the Neutrinoless Double Beta Decay of82Sewith CUPID-0,Phys. Rev. Lett.129(2022) 111801

2022
[6]

Augier et al.,Final results on the0𝜈𝛽𝛽decay half-life limit of100Mo from the CUPID-Mo experiment,Eur

C. Augier et al.,Final results on the0𝜈𝛽𝛽decay half-life limit of100Mo from the CUPID-Mo experiment,Eur. Phys. J. C82(2022) 1033

2022
[7]

Alenkov et al.,First Results from the AMoRE-Pilot neutrinoless double beta decay experiment, Eur

V. Alenkov et al.,First Results from the AMoRE-Pilot neutrinoless double beta decay experiment, Eur. Phys. J. C79(2019) 791

2019
[8]

Agrawal et al.,Improved Limit on Neutrinoless Double Beta Decay of100Mofrom AMoRE-I,Phys

A. Agrawal et al.,Improved Limit on Neutrinoless Double Beta Decay of100Mofrom AMoRE-I,Phys. Rev. Lett.134(2025) 082501

2025

Show all 34 references

[9]

Auguste et al.,A novel mechanical design of a bolometric array for the CROSS double-beta decay experiment,JINST19(2024) P09014 [2405.18980]

D. Auguste et al.,A novel mechanical design of a bolometric array for the CROSS double-beta decay experiment,JINST19(2024) P09014 [2405.18980]

2024 arXiv
[10]

E. Olivieri et al.,The new CROSS Cryogenic Underground (C2U) facility: an overview, inXXIX International (online) Conference on Neutrino Physics and Astrophysics (Neutrino 2020), June 22 – July 02, 2020, 2020, https://indico.fnal.gov/event/19348/contributions/186315/

2020
[11]

Armatol et al.,A CUPID Li2100MoO4 scintillating bolometer tested in the CROSS underground facility,JINST16(2021) P02037

A. Armatol et al.,A CUPID Li2100MoO4 scintillating bolometer tested in the CROSS underground facility,JINST16(2021) P02037

2021
[12]

Alfonso et al.,Twelve-crystal prototype of Li2MoO4 scintillating bolometers for CUPID and CROSS experiments,JINST18(2023) P06018 [2304.04611]

K. Alfonso et al.,Twelve-crystal prototype of Li2MoO4 scintillating bolometers for CUPID and CROSS experiments,JINST18(2023) P06018 [2304.04611]

2023 arXiv
[13]

Ianni,Review of technical features in underground laboratories,Int

A. Ianni,Review of technical features in underground laboratories,Int. J. Mod. Phys. A32(2017) 1743001

2017
[14]

Trzaska et al.,Cosmic-ray muon flux at Canfranc Underground Laboratory,Eur

W.H. Trzaska et al.,Cosmic-ray muon flux at Canfranc Underground Laboratory,Eur. Phys. J. C79 (2019) 721

2019
[15]

Agostinelli et al.,GEANT4 - A Simulation Toolkit,Nucl

S. Agostinelli et al.,GEANT4 - A Simulation Toolkit,Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A506(2003) 250

2003
[16]

Auguste et al.,CROSS experiment: Detector structure, background projection, and sensitivity to 100Mo0𝜈𝛽𝛽decay,In preparation for submition to EPJC(2025)

D. Auguste et al.,CROSS experiment: Detector structure, background projection, and sensitivity to 100Mo0𝜈𝛽𝛽decay,In preparation for submition to EPJC(2025) . – 27 –

2025
[17]

Avignone III et al.,Development of large-volume130TeO2 bolometers for the CROSS2𝛽search experiment,JINST19(2024) P09013 [2406.01444]

F.T. Avignone III et al.,Development of large-volume130TeO2 bolometers for the CROSS2𝛽search experiment,JINST19(2024) P09013 [2406.01444]

2024 arXiv
[18]

Armatol et al.,Cryogenic light detectors with thermal signal amplification for0𝜈𝛽𝛽search experiments,Submitted to JINST(2025) [2507.15732]

A. Armatol et al.,Cryogenic light detectors with thermal signal amplification for0𝜈𝛽𝛽search experiments,Submitted to JINST(2025) [2507.15732]

2025 arXiv
[19]

Armengaud et al.,The CUPID-Mo experiment for neutrinoless double-beta decay: performance and prospects,Eur

E. Armengaud et al.,The CUPID-Mo experiment for neutrinoless double-beta decay: performance and prospects,Eur. Phys. J. C80(2020) 44

2020
[20]

Mei and A

D.-M. Mei and A. Hime,Muon-Induced Background Study for Underground Laboratories,Phys. Rev. D73(2006) 053004

2006
[21]

Workman et al.,The Review of Particle Physics,Prog

R.L. Workman et al.,The Review of Particle Physics,Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys.2022(2022) 083C01

2022
[22]

Armengaud et al.,Performance of the EDELWEISS-III experiment for direct dark matter searches, JINST12(2017) P08010

E. Armengaud et al.,Performance of the EDELWEISS-III experiment for direct dark matter searches, JINST12(2017) P08010

2017
[23]

Armengaud et al.,New Limit for Neutrinoless Double-Beta Decay of100Mo from the CUPID-Mo Experiment,Phys

E. Armengaud et al.,New Limit for Neutrinoless Double-Beta Decay of100Mo from the CUPID-Mo Experiment,Phys. Rev. Lett.126(2021) 181802

2021
[24]

Augier et al.,Measurement of the2𝜈𝛽𝛽Decay Rate and Spectral Shape of100Mo from the CUPID-Mo Experiment,Phys

C. Augier et al.,Measurement of the2𝜈𝛽𝛽Decay Rate and Spectral Shape of100Mo from the CUPID-Mo Experiment,Phys. Rev. Lett.131(2023) 162501

2023
[25]

Augier et al.,Searching for beyond the Standard Model physics using the improved description of 100Mo 2𝜈𝛽𝛽decay spectral shape with CUPID-Mo,Eur

C. Augier et al.,Searching for beyond the Standard Model physics using the improved description of 100Mo 2𝜈𝛽𝛽decay spectral shape with CUPID-Mo,Eur. Phys. J. C84(2024) 925

2024
[26]

Haller,Advanced far-infrared detectors,Infrared Phys

E.E. Haller,Advanced far-infrared detectors,Infrared Phys. Techn.35(1994) 127

1994
[27]

E.Andreottietal.,Production, characterizationand selectionoftheheating elementsfortheresponse stabilization of the CUORE bolometers,Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A664(2012) 161

2012
[28]

Ahmine et al.,Test of116CdWO4 and Li2MoO4 scintillating bolometers in the CROSS underground facility with upgraded detector suspension,JINST18(2023) P12004

A. Ahmine et al.,Test of116CdWO4 and Li2MoO4 scintillating bolometers in the CROSS underground facility with upgraded detector suspension,JINST18(2023) P12004

2023
[29]

Low Temp

P.Carniti, C.GottiandG.Pessina,High-ResolutionDigitizationSystemfortheCROSSExperiment,J. Low Temp. Phys.199(2020) 833

2020
[30]

Carniti, C

P. Carniti, C. Gotti and G. Pessina,High resolution filtering and digitization system for cryogenic bolometric detectors,Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A1045(2023) 167658

2023
[31]

Mancuso,Development and optimization of scintillating bolometers and innovative light detectors for the search for neutrinoless double beta decay, Ph.D

M. Mancuso,Development and optimization of scintillating bolometers and innovative light detectors for the search for neutrinoless double beta decay, Ph.D. thesis, Université Paris-Sud, Orsay, France, February, 2016

2016
[32]

Gatti and P

E. Gatti and P. Manfredi,Processing the signals from solid-state detectors in elementary-particle physics,Riv. Nuovo Cim.9(1986) 1

1986
[33]

I.Bandacetal.,Li 2100deplMoO4 scintillatingbolometersforrare-eventsearchexperiments,Sensors23 (2023) 5465

2023
[34]

Augier et al.,The background model of the CUPID-Mo0𝜈𝛽𝛽experiment,Eur

C. Augier et al.,The background model of the CUPID-Mo0𝜈𝛽𝛽experiment,Eur. Phys. J. C83 (2023) 675. – 28 –

2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Bandac et al.,The 0𝜈2𝛽-decay CROSS experiment: preliminary results and prospects,JHEP01 (2020) 018

I.C. Bandac et al.,The 0𝜈2𝛽-decay CROSS experiment: preliminary results and prospects,JHEP01 (2020) 018

2020

[2] [2]

Gómez-Cadenas, J

J.J. Gómez-Cadenas, J. Martín-Albo, J. Menéndez, M. Mezzetto, F. Monrabal and M. Sorel,The search for neutrinoless double-beta decay,La Rivista del Nuovo Cimento46(2023) 619

2023

[3] [3]

Agostini, G

M. Agostini, G. Benato, J.A. Detwiler, J. Menéndez and F. Vissani,Toward the discovery of matter creation with neutrinoless double-beta decay,Rev. Mod. Phys.95(2023) 025002 [2202.01787]

arXiv 2023

[4] [4]

Adams et al.,CUORE opens the door to tonne-scale cryogenics experiments,Prog

D.Q. Adams et al.,CUORE opens the door to tonne-scale cryogenics experiments,Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.122(2022) 103902

2022

[5] [5]

Azzolini et al.,Final Result on the Neutrinoless Double Beta Decay of82Sewith CUPID-0,Phys

O. Azzolini et al.,Final Result on the Neutrinoless Double Beta Decay of82Sewith CUPID-0,Phys. Rev. Lett.129(2022) 111801

2022

[6] [6]

Augier et al.,Final results on the0𝜈𝛽𝛽decay half-life limit of100Mo from the CUPID-Mo experiment,Eur

C. Augier et al.,Final results on the0𝜈𝛽𝛽decay half-life limit of100Mo from the CUPID-Mo experiment,Eur. Phys. J. C82(2022) 1033

2022

[7] [7]

Alenkov et al.,First Results from the AMoRE-Pilot neutrinoless double beta decay experiment, Eur

V. Alenkov et al.,First Results from the AMoRE-Pilot neutrinoless double beta decay experiment, Eur. Phys. J. C79(2019) 791

2019

[8] [8]

Agrawal et al.,Improved Limit on Neutrinoless Double Beta Decay of100Mofrom AMoRE-I,Phys

A. Agrawal et al.,Improved Limit on Neutrinoless Double Beta Decay of100Mofrom AMoRE-I,Phys. Rev. Lett.134(2025) 082501

2025