Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 38 references

Testing the Gallium anomaly using Electron-Neutrino Scattering

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Using the same chromium-51 source but detecting neutrinos by elastic scattering off electrons in liquid scintillator, this paper proposes a gallium-free test of the Gallium anomaly that reaches 5-sigma sensitivity in ten days at a one-ton…

desk verdict Useful and internally consistent feasibility study for a detector-independent Gallium anomaly test, but the headline 5-sigma claim rests on an unvalidated 14C veto. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.16590 v2 pith:HVF7G7TF submitted 2025-04-23 hep-ph

Emilio Ciuffoli , Jarah Evslin , Ruixuan Gao , Haixing Lin , Jian Tang This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords Galliumanomalyelectron-neutrinoscattering51CrsourceliquidscintillatorCherenkovveto14Cbackgroundsterileneutrinosbranchingratio
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

The paper proposes a direct, gallium-free test of the Gallium anomaly: use the same 51Cr radioactive source that produced the original calibration deficit, but detect the neutrinos through elastic scattering off electrons in a liquid scintillator instead of through capture on 71Ga. The central claim is that if the roughly 20% deficit persists in this detection channel, every explanation tied to the gallium detector—absorption cross-section, extraction efficiency, or calibration—is excluded, leaving source-activity errors or new propagation physics. The authors show that even a one-ton prototype with a 200 keV threshold would record enough events in ten days to establish a 5-sigma deficit, and that the same data can independently constrain the 51Cr decay branching ratio and probe baseline-dependent disappearance. A sympathetic reader would care because this offers a practical route to break a three-way ambiguity that has persisted for thirty years, using detectors that already exist or are under construction.

What carries the argument

The central object is the elastic scattering cross-section of electron neutrinos on electrons, $d\sigma/dT = (2G_F^2 m_e/\pi)[C_L^2 + C_R^2(1-T/E_\nu)^2 - C_L C_R (m_e/E_\nu)(T/E_\nu)]$ with $C_L = \sin^2\theta_W + 1/2$ and $C_R = \sin^2\theta_W$, which converts the monoenergetic $^{51}$Cr neutrinos into a recoil-electron spectrum with endpoints near 270 keV and 560 keV. The enabling mechanism is a background veto: electrons from $^{14}$C $\beta$ decay have a 156 keV endpoint and cannot produce Cherenkov light in the scintillator, so tagging Cherenkov light from recoil electrons above about 200 keV rejects the dominant background and sets the effective threshold $T_L = 200$ keV. The same geometry, combined with a spatial resolution of about 16 cm, lets the detector be binned in distance from the source to expose any baseline-dependent disappearance.

What would settle it

Run the proposed setup—a chromium-51 source inside or beside a liquid-scintillator detector—for ten days and compare the observed recoil-electron rate above 200 keV with the Standard Model prediction. A direct subsidiary check is to expose the scintillator to a carbon-14-rich sample and count how often beta electrons above 156 keV are mistakenly tagged as producing Cherenkov light; if that mistake rate is far above the assumed value, the sensitivity claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that a gallium-free test of the Gallium anomaly is feasible now: electron-neutrino elastic scattering off liquid scintillator, driven by the monoenergetic 750 keV and 430 keV neutrinos from 51Cr electron capture, produces enough events that a deficit at the observed level of about 20% would show up at 5-sigma in ten days even at a one-ton prototype. With a 200 keV recoil threshold, the expected rates range from 71 events/day with the source outside the smallest detector to about 12,900 events/day with the source at the center of the largest one, and the ten-day totals exceed the 625 events required for a 5-sigma statement. A second result is that the spectral step at the maximum recoil energy of the 430 keV neutrinos, or the neutrino energy reconstructed from the Cherenkov-based scattering angle, can independently determine the 51Cr branching ratio, though reaching 1% precision needs around 100,000 events with 5% energy resolution. Finally, binning events by distance from the source can search for a baseline-dependent deficit of the kind sterile neutrinos would produce, and the authors compute that a 500-ton detector with ten days of data would exclude part of the parameter space allowed by the anomaly.

Load-bearing premise

The plan depends on being able to tell apart Cherenkov light from scintillation light well enough to reject the carbon-14 background while keeping recoil electrons above 200 keV; if that separation is worse than assumed, the predicted event rates and the 5-sigma claim are optimistic.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the deficit survives in electron-scattering data, all detector-side explanations of the Gallium anomaly are excluded, and the anomaly must come from source characterization or propagation.
  • If the deficit disappears, the origin lies in the gallium absorption cross-section or radiochemical extraction, not in the source.
  • A 10-day run at the 1-ton prototype with a 200 keV threshold suffices for a 5-sigma statement, so the test can be done before larger detectors are completed.
  • The same data can independently measure the 51Cr branching ratio with percent-level precision if enough events and angular resolution are available, testing the source-activity explanation.
  • Spatial binning of events can probe baseline-dependent disappearance and constrain the sterile-neutrino parameter space allowed by the anomaly.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the technique works, 51Cr becomes a portable low-energy neutrino flux calibrator: any detector whose neutrino-capture cross-section is uncertain could be normalized against the purely electroweak scattering rate, not just gallium.
  • The Cherenkov-versus-scintillation veto used here is independent of the main anomaly test and could be exported to other low-energy neutrino-scattering searches in liquid scintillators where 14C dominates the background.
  • If the veto does not perform as assumed, pulse-shape discrimination or additional radiochemical purification could lower the effective threshold; the paper does not quantify these alternatives, but they would directly change the rates in its tables.
  • The same spatial-binning data set that searches for sterile-neutrino disappearance could also constrain non-standard neutrino-electron interactions, since those alter the recoil spectrum and angular distribution; the paper does not evaluate that application.
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 manuscript proposes using a 51Cr radioactive source and elastic neutrino-electron scattering in liquid-scintillator detectors (the operational 1-ton JNE prototype, the planned 500-ton JNE detector, and JUNO) as a detection-channel-independent test of the Gallium anomaly. It computes expected event rates for different source positions and thresholds (Tables 2 and 3), estimates the dominant backgrounds (14C, 36Cl, solar neutrinos, cosmogenic 11C), and uses the rates to argue that a 200 keV threshold would allow a 5-sigma observation of the 20% deficit in as little as 10 days even at the 1-ton prototype. The paper also investigates two secondary goals: a model-independent measurement of the 51Cr branching ratio using either the recoil spectrum or the reconstructed scattering angle, and a search for a baseline dependence of the deficit as a sterile-neutrino signature.

Significance. If the proposed experiment performs as claimed, it would be the first test of the Gallium anomaly in a non-gallium detection channel, cleanly separating detector-related explanations from source- or propagation-related ones. The paper's strengths are the transparent, parameter-free event-rate calculations, the explicit tables that can be independently reproduced from the given formulas, and the honest assessment that the branching-ratio measurement via scattering angles requires angular resolutions far beyond current estimates. The main quantitative claims, however, depend on an unvalidated background-rejection mechanism for 14C, and the sterile-neutrino sensitivity calculation contains an internal inconsistency in the branching-fraction weights; both issues need to be addressed before the sensitivity projections can be taken at face value.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. 3.1; Table 3; Sec. 6] The central 5-sigma sensitivity claim for the 1-ton prototype is based on Table 3 with T_L = 200 keV, which assumes that the 14C background is 'rejected completely' by a Cherenkov veto (Sec. 3.1). No quantitative estimate is given for the Cherenkov-tag efficiency, the false-tag rate from fast scintillation, or the rejection power for electrons just above the 200 keV threshold, where a 200-300 keV electron emits only a few Cherenkov photons. With Borexino-grade LAB (f_C = 2×10^-18), the 14C rate is 1.7×10^7/day for the 500-ton detector, about 3.4×10^4/day for the 1-ton prototype, against a signal rate of 316/day (Table 3); even a 1% residual background or a signal-tag efficiency below unity materially reduces the significance and can remove the 5-sigma claim. The paper itself notes that detecting Cherenkov light is difficult near threshold, so this assumption is load-bearing; it should be replaced by a prototype measurement or by a sensitivity scan over tag efficiency and residual background fraction.
  2. [Sec. 5, Eq. (35)] Eq. (35) weights the two monoenergetic oscillation terms by 0.019 and 0.981. This is inconsistent with the rest of the paper, where the 430 keV line has branching fraction pBR ≈ 0.1 and the 750 keV line has 0.9 (Sec. 2 and Sec. 4). The coefficients enter N_{ν,i} in Eq. (30) and therefore shape the exclusion contours in Fig. 7, changing the L/E weighting of the two lines and the sensitivity at low Δm². The authors should correct the coefficients to 0.1/0.9 or justify the 0.019/0.981 values.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] There are several typographical errors: 'Chernekov' appears in Sec. 6, 'provisory filled' in Sec. 3, 'sufficient prove' in Sec. 1, and 'span form' in Sec. 6. These should be corrected.
  2. [Figures 1, 2, 4, 5, 7] The axis labels and legend text in several figures are garbled in the submitted PDF; please ensure all figure fonts and glyphs are embedded correctly.
  3. [Sec. 4] The sentence 'The main limitation will also come from the measurement of θ since at JNE, σT/T is expected to be 5% at 1 MeV' appears to describe the energy resolution rather than the angular resolution; please clarify how σθ enters this statement.
  4. [Table 3] In Table 3, the entry for JNE 1 ton, D=1, 30 days is given as 1,497.86 with a decimal; for consistency with the other entries, consider rounding to the nearest integer.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: event rates and sensitivities follow from standard-model cross sections and external detector parameters; no fitted input is relabeled as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central rates (Tables 2 and 3) are computed by folding the standard-model neutrino-electron scattering cross section (Eq. 4) with the source activity, geometry, and detector mass; none of these inputs is fitted to the Gallium-deficit number, so the 5 sigma sensitivity projection is not forced by construction. The branching-ratio extraction in Sec. 4 is likewise a first-principles inversion: the coefficients in Eqs. (10)-(12) are obtained from cross-section integrals with an assumed reference value pBR = 0.1, and the measured recoil spectrum then determines pBR rather than defining it; the source-activity normalization cancels in p2 = N2/Ntot, so the measurement is a genuine independent determination. The only self-citation, Ref. [22], supports the factual statement that JUNO is located in Jiangmen county and is not load-bearing for any physics claim. The Cherenkov-veto assumption for 14C rejection is an experimental feasibility risk, not a circular derivation: it does not define the signal in terms of the output. Overall the derivation chain is self-contained against external benchmarks, so no specific reduction of a predicted quantity to an input was found.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particles, forces, or conserved quantities. Its central claim rests on standard-model cross sections, measured nuclear decay parameters, and assumed detector or source properties. The main unverified inputs are the assumed source activity and the Cherenkov-based background veto.

free parameters (1)
  • Source activity A = 10^17 Bq (assumed)
    The paper assumes a source activity of 10^17 Bq, similar to BEST's 1.16e17 Bq, but treats it as a design choice. All event rates and sensitivity projections scale linearly with A. If the achieved activity is lower, the quoted event rates and significance decrease.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math The standard-model neutrino-electron scattering cross section (Eq. 4, from Ref. [17]) is correct at these energies.
    Used to compute all event rates and recoil spectra. The formula is standard, but radiative corrections at sub-MeV energies are not discussed.
  • domain assumption 51Cr emits monoenergetic neutrinos of 750 keV (90%) and 430 keV (10%) with the stated branching ratio.
    The paper uses these lines throughout. The 10% branching is measured with high precision (Refs. [6-9]), but Eq. (35) contradicts this value.
  • domain assumption Detector parameters (mass, radius, overburden, energy resolution) for JUNO and JNE are as quoted from Refs. [19-21, 27].
    Event rates and background levels depend on these parameters, which are taken from the detector collaborations.
  • domain assumption The 14C background in LAB can be rejected by requiring Cherenkov light, setting an effective threshold of 200 keV (Sec. 3.1, based on Ref. [36]).
    This is the key background suppression scheme; it is cited from prior work but not demonstrated at these energies in this paper.
  • domain assumption The spatial resolution of the liquid scintillator is described by a Gaussian with sigma_L = 16.4 cm (Eq. 34).
    Used for the sterile neutrino baseline analysis, approximated from a recoil-energy-dependent resolution.
  • standard math The Asimov data set procedure (Ref. [39]) gives the median sensitivity for sterile neutrino exclusion.
    Standard statistical tool for sensitivity projections.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Testing the Gallium anomaly using Electron-Neutrino Scattering." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HVF7G7TF

@misc{pith2026250416590,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Testing the Gallium anomaly using Electron-Neutrino Scattering},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HVF7G7TF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.16590}
}
abstract

The Gallium anomaly is an unexplained deficit in the neutrinos observed during the calibration of GALLEX and SAGE using a $^{51}$Cr radioactive source and recently confirmed by BEST. The possible explanations for this deficit include an overestimation of the neutrino absorption cross section in Ga, an incorrect measurement of the source activity or the existence of sterile neutrinos. However, as this deficit has only been observed in Ga detectors, it has not been possible to distinguish among various proposals. Therefore, we propose an experiment using the same radioactive source but with a different detection method, electron-neutrino scattering. We discuss potential locations for such an experiment, estimating the main backgrounds and expected event rates, considering various target masses and source positions. Even if the anomaly does not result from the detection method, such an experiment can provide an independent determination of the branching ratio of the $^{51}$Cr decay by using the spectral information or observing the scattering angle. It is also sensitive to an eventual baseline dependence of the anomaly, as is predicted in sterile neutrino models.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.16590 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Signal and background spectra. We used JNE 500 ton as the detector, with LAB as the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Signal and background spectra. The 500 ton JNE detector was used, assuming LAB as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Recoil spectrum, with perfect and 5% energy resolution. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Value of q1 and q2 assuming either σT or σθ=0, as a function of the other. σT is the value of σT /T, expressed in percentage and computed at 1 MeV (which means that 5 would correspond to σT /T = 5%/ p T /1 MeV, while σθ is expressed in degrees. problem, that is not eas…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Total number of events required to achieve [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: G(L − L ′ ) computed using the exact formula reported in Eq. (33) and a Gaussian approximation with σL = 16.4 cm, computed using Eq. (34). P(L ′ , ∆m2 , θ) is defined as P(L, ∆m2 , θ) = 1 − Sin2 (2θ) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Exclusion contours for sterile neutrino (2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages

  1. [2]

    J. N. Abdurashitov et al. [SAGE], Phys. Lett. B 328, 234-248 (1994) doi:10.1016/0370- 2693(94)90454-5

    doi:10.1016/0370- 1994

  2. [3]

    V. V. Barinov, B. T. Cleveland, S. N. Danshin, H. Ejiri, S. R. Elliott, D. Frekers, V. N. Gavrin, V. V. Gorbachev, D. S. Gorbunov and W. C. Haxton,et al. Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, no.23, 232501 (2022) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.128.232501 [arXiv:2109.11482 [nucl-ex]]

    arXiv 2022

  3. [4]

    S. R. Elliott, V. Gavrin and W. Haxton, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 134 (2024), 104082 doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2023.104082 [arXiv:2306.03299 [nucl-ex]]

    arXiv 2024

  4. [5]

    Brdar, J

    V. Brdar, J. Gehrlein and J. Kopp, JHEP 05, 143 (2023) doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2023)143 [arXiv:2303.05528 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2023

  5. [6]

    S. A. Fisher and R. L. Hershberger, Nucl. Phys. A 423, 121-129 (1984) doi:10.1016/0375- 9474(84)90300-2

    doi:10.1016/0375- 1984

  6. [7]

    A.A Konstantinov, T.E Sazonova, S.V Sepman, A.V Zanevsky, N.I Karmalitsyn, Nucl.Instrum.Meth.A 339, 200 (1994) doi:10.1016/0168-9002(94)91804-X

    work page doi:10.1016/0168-9002(94)91804-x 1994

  7. [8]

    Yalcin and Y

    P. Yalcin and Y. Kurucu, Appl.Radiat.Isot. 62, 63 (2005) doi:10.1016/j.apradiso.2004.05.078

    work page doi:10.1016/j.apradiso.2004.05.078 2005

  8. [9]

    D. S. Moreira, M. F. Koskinas, I. M. Yamazaki, and M. S. Dias, Appl.Radiat.Isot. 68, 596 (2010) doi:doi.org/10.1016/j.apradiso.2009.11.004

    work page doi:10.1016/j.apradiso.2009.11.004 2010

Show all 38 references
  1. [10]

    M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, M. Maltoni, J. P. Pinheiro and A. M. Serenelli, JHEP 02, 064 (2024) doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2024)064 [arXiv:2311.16226 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  2. [11]

    Giunti, M

    C. Giunti, M. Laveder, Y. F. Li and H. W. Long, Phys. Rev. D 88 (2013), 073008 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.88.073008 [arXiv:1308.5288 [hep-ph]]

    2013 arXiv

  3. [12]

    Giunti, Y

    C. Giunti, Y. F. Li, C. A. Ternes, O. Tyagi and Z. Xin, JHEP 10, 164 (2022) doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2022)164 [arXiv:2209.00916 [hep-ph]]

    2022 arXiv

  4. [13]

    Giunti and M

    C. Giunti and M. Laveder, Phys. Rev. D 82, 113009 (2010) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.82.113009 [arXiv:1008.4750 [hep-ph]]

    2010 arXiv

  5. [14]

    Maltoni, ”(eV) sterile neutrinos: global picture and local views”, talk given at Neu- trino2024, 16-22 June 2024, Mialn, Italy

    M. Maltoni, ”(eV) sterile neutrinos: global picture and local views”, talk given at Neu- trino2024, 16-22 June 2024, Mialn, Italy

    2024

  6. [15]

    Bellini et al

    G. Bellini et al. [Borexino], JHEP 08, 038 (2013) doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2013)038 [arXiv:1304.7721 [physics.ins-det]]

    2013 arXiv

  7. [16]

    Herrera and P

    G. Herrera and P. Huber, Phys. Rev. D 111, no.7, 073008 (2025) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.111.073008 [arXiv:2408.11904 [hep-ph]]

    2025 arXiv

  8. [17]

    Tomalak and R

    O. Tomalak and R. J. Hill, Phys. Rev. D 101 (2020) no.3, 033006 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.101.033006 [arXiv:1907.03379 [hep-ph]]. 19

    2020 arXiv

  9. [18]

    V. F. Sears, Neutron News, 3(3), 26–37 (1992). doi:10.1080/10448639208218770

    1992 doi

  10. [19]

    An et al

    F. An et al. [JUNO], J. Phys. G 43, no.3, 030401 (2016) doi:10.1088/0954-3899/43/3/030401 [arXiv:1507.05613 [physics.ins-det]]

    2016 arXiv

  11. [20]

    Abusleme et al

    A. Abusleme et al. [JUNO], Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 123 (2022), 103927 doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2021.103927 [arXiv:2104.02565 [hep-ex]]

    2022

  12. [21]

    J. F. Beacom et al. [Jinping], Chin. Phys. C 41, no.2, 023002 (2017) doi:10.1088/1674- 1137/41/2/023002 [arXiv:1602.01733 [physics.ins-det]]

    2017 arXiv

  13. [22]

    Ciuffoli, J

    E. Ciuffoli, J. Evslin and X. Zhang, JHEP 12 (2012), 004 doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2012)004 [arXiv:1209.2227 [hep-ph]]

    2012 arXiv

  14. [23]

    Marta Colomer Molla, ”Status and physics prospects of the JUNO experiment”, talk given at Lake Louise Winter Institute 2025, 2-8 March 2025, Lake Louise, Canada

    2025

  15. [24]

    Z. Wang, Y. Wang, Z. Wang, S. Chen, X. Du, T. Zhang, Z. Guo and H. Yuan, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 855 (2017), 81-87 doi:10.1016/j.nima.2017.03.007 [arXiv:1703.01478 [physics.ins-det]]

    2017 arXiv

  16. [25]

    Y. Wu, J. Li, S. Chen, W. Dou, L. Guo, Z. Guo, G. Hussain, Y. Liang, Q. Liu and G. Luo, et al. Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 1054, 168400 (2023) doi:10.1016/j.nima.2023.168400 [arXiv:2212.13158 [hep-ex]]

    2023

  17. [26]

    Z. Wang, Y. Liu, S. Chen, Y. Wang, Z. Wang and M. Huang, JINST 19, no.07, P07041 (2024) doi:10.1088/1748-0221/19/07/P07041 [arXiv:2406.12899 [physics.ins-det]]

    2024 arXiv

  18. [27]

    Wentai Luo, ”Status of the Jinping Neutrino Experiment”, talk given at Workshop on Double Beta Decay and Related Underground Experiments, 20-21 December 2024, Shanghai, China

    2024

  19. [28]

    Z. Guo, M. Yeh, R. Zhang, D. W. Cao, M. Qi, Z. Wang and S. Chen, Astropart. Phys. 109 (2019), 33-40 doi:10.1016/j.astropartphys.2019.02.001 [arXiv:1708.07781 [physics.ins-det]]

    2019 arXiv

  20. [29]

    W. Shao, W. Xu, Y. Liang, W. Luo, T. Xu, M. Qi, J. Zhang, B. Xu, Z. Wang and S. Chen, Eur. Phys. J. C 83, no.9, 799 (2023) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-11950-9 [arXiv:2203.01860 [hep-ex]]

    2023 arXiv

  21. [30]

    Hubbell, J.H., Seltzer, S.M.: X-Ray Mass Attenuation Coefficients (2004) doi:10.18434/T4D01F

    2004 doi

  22. [31]

    Guo et al

    Z. Guo et al. [JNE], Chin. Phys. C 45 (2021) no.2, 2 doi:10.1088/1674-1137/abccae [arXiv:2007.15925 [physics.ins-det]]

    2021 arXiv

  23. [32]

    Zhao et al

    L. Zhao et al. [JNE], Chin. Phys. C 46 (2022) no.8, 085001 doi:10.1088/1674-1137/ac66cc [arXiv:2108.04010 [hep-ex]]

    2022 arXiv

  24. [33]

    Chlorine-36 and Very Old Groundwaters

    Kazemi, G.A. Chlorine-36 and Very Old Groundwaters. In Water Encyclopedia (eds J.H. Lehr and J. Keeley, 2005). doi:10.1002/047147844X.pc111

    2005 doi

  25. [34]

    Liang, T

    Y. Liang, T. Xu, J. Zhang, S. Li, M. Qi and Z. Wang, JINST 18 (2023) no.07, P07039 doi:10.1088/1748-0221/18/07/P07039 [arXiv:2211.05023 [physics.ins-det]]. 20

    2023 arXiv

  26. [35]

    Alimonti et al

    G. Alimonti et al. [Borexino], Phys. Lett. B 422, 349-358 (1998) doi:10.1016/S0370- 2693(97)01565-7

    1998 doi

  27. [36]

    M. Li, Z. Guo, M. Yeh, Z. Wang and S. Chen, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 830 (2016), 303-308 doi:10.1016/j.nima.2016.05.132 [arXiv:1511.09339 [physics.ins-det]]

    2016 arXiv

  28. [37]

    W. Luo, Q. Liu, Y. Zheng, Z. Wang and S. Chen, JINST 18 (2023) no.02, P02004 doi:10.1088/1748-0221/18/02/P02004 [arXiv:2209.13772 [physics.ins-det]]

    2023 arXiv

  29. [38]

    M. V. Smirnov, Z. J. Hu, J. J. Ling, Y. N. Novikov, Z. Wang and G. Yang, Eur. Phys. J. C 80 (2020) no.7, 609 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-8175-4 [arXiv:2002.05246 [hep-ph]]

    2020 arXiv

  30. [39]

    Cowan, K

    G. Cowan, K. Cranmer, E. Gross and O. Vitells, Eur. Phys. J. C 71, 1554 (2011) [erra- tum: Eur. Phys. J. C 73, 2501 (2013)] doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-011-1554-0 [arXiv:1007.1727 [physics.data-an]]. 21

    2011 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.