Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 25 references

Contribution of Subthreshold States to the Residual Energy Distribution of $^{159}$Dy

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read By adding energetically forbidden atomic hole states to the spectral function, this paper predicts that the electron-capture rate of 159Dy near the neutrino endpoint is more than an order of magnitude larger than previously estimated.

desk verdict A transparent, well-caveated estimate that subthreshold bound states can boost the 159Dy endpoint EC rate by an order of magnitude, but the quantitative factors rest on an unvalidated Lorentzian tail. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.18562 v1 pith:JTD2YNK7 submitted 2025-08-25 nucl-th hep-phnucl-ex

Tadafumi Kishimoto , Toru Sato This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-thhep-phnucl-ex
keywords electroncapturesubthresholdatomicstatesspectralfunction159Dyneutrinomassultra-lowQvalueLorentzianlineshapeendpointspectrum
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 argues that the electron-capture (EC) spectrum of 159Dy has been underestimated near the neutrino endpoint because conventional analyses include only atomic hole states whose excitation energy is kinematically allowed. The authors add 'subthreshold' M-shell hole states, whose binding energy exceeds the available endpoint energy, and show that the tails of their Lorentzian line shapes reach into the allowed region. Including them enhances the partial EC rate near zero-momentum neutrino emission by more than an order of magnitude (r rises from $2.9\times10^{-12}$ to $3.3\times10^{-11}$ for a 1 eV window at $m_\nu=1$ eV). Because the endpoint region is where a neutrino mass would show up, this makes 159Dy a more promising ultra-low-Q EC candidate and suggests that experimentally determining $P(E_{ex})$ can resolve endpoint ambiguities.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the atomic spectral function $P_x(E_{ex})$ of Eq. (8), written for each hole state $x=(n,l,j)$ as a Breit-Wigner/Lorentzian line $$P_x(E_{ex}) \propto \frac{2 n_x B_x \$beta_x^{2}$}{4\pi}\,\frac{\Gamma_x/(2\pi)}{(E_{ex}-\epsilon_x)^2+\$Gamma_x^{2}$/4},$$ with $\epsilon_x$ the binding energy of the hole, $\Gamma_x$ its atomic width, $\beta_x^2/(4\pi)$ the electron density at the nucleus, and $n_x$, $B_x$ occupation and exchange-overlap factors. The argument works because this shape does not vanish when $E_{ex}<\epsilon_x$: the M-shell peaks at 1.97 and 1.77 keV extend tails into the allowed region around 1.18 keV, with the M2 center only 68 eV (about 23 widths) from the 1.7 keV endpoint. The rate formula, $d\lambda_{EC}/dE_\nu = (G_\beta^2/2\pi)\,p_\nu E_\nu\, C\, P(E_{ex})$, then multiplies the phase space by this tail-enhanced spectral function, producing the order-of-magnitude endpoint enhancement.

What would settle it

Measure the 159Dy EC spectrum with a TES microcalorimeter and count events in the neutrino-energy window $m_\nu<E_\nu<m_\nu+1$ eV at the endpoint; if the rate per decay matches the continuum-only prediction ($r\sim2.9\times10^{-12}$) rather than the subthreshold-enhanced prediction ($r\sim3.3\times10^{-11}$) for $m_\nu=1$ eV, the Lorentzian-tail contribution is ruled out. Alternatively, a high-statistics fit of the 163Ho spectrum that shows the spectral function falling faster than a Lorentzian at 60-800 eV offsets would falsify the assumed tail shape.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the residual-energy spectral function $P(E_{ex})$ of electron capture in $^{159}$Dy is dominated near the neutrino endpoint by contributions from energetically forbidden subthreshold atomic hole states, specifically the M-shell holes at 1.768 keV (M2) and 1.968 keV (M1). Because each hole state contributes a Lorentzian tail of width $\Gamma_x$ centered at its binding energy, these states still populate excitation energies below the endpoint $Q-\Delta_{\rm nucl}\simeq1.18$ keV, even though their centers lie above it. The authors demonstrate that including these states raises the fraction $r$ of decays in the endpoint window $m_\nu<E_\nu<m_\nu+\delta$ ($\delta=1$ eV) to $3.3\times10^{-11}$ at $m_\nu=1$ eV and $8.4\times10^{-12}$ at $m_\nu=0.1$ eV, roughly an order of magnitude above the continuum-only values. They further find that a larger $Q$ value, such as the older 1.7(12) keV estimate, moves the endpoint closer to the M2 resonance and increases the enhancement to factors of $1.13\times10^{1}$ and $3.02\times10^{2}$, opposite to the usual expectation that larger $Q$ dilutes the endpoint fraction. The paper concludes that $P(E_{ex})$ can be extracted experimentally, making the endpoint region of $^{159}$Dy accessible for neutrino-mass studies.

Load-bearing premise

The whole enhancement rests on the assumption that the atomic line shape remains a Lorentzian tail many widths away from resonance, for example with the M2 hole center about 23 widths from the 1.7 keV endpoint, and that no steeper cutoff or unresolved background changes the tail at those offsets.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The ultra-low-Q electron-capture candidate $^{159}$Dy becomes competitive for neutrino-mass searches: its endpoint-window fraction $r$ reaches $3\times10^{-11}$, larger than tritium's $1.5\times10^{-12}$ for the same 1 eV window at $m_\nu=1$ eV.
  • Experiments do not need to pin down the $Q$ value precisely: the endpoint fraction depends only weakly on $Q$, and a larger $Q$ value (up to 1.7 keV) actually increases the count rate near the endpoint.
  • The spectral function $P(E_{ex})$ can be treated as an experimentally determinable parameter, so the same measurement that searches for the neutrino mass can also calibrate the atomic response.
  • The same subthreshold-tail enhancement applies to other EC candidates: for $^{111}$In, whose effective $Q$ value lies within 0.04 keV of the L2 hole energy, including the subthreshold state enhances the endpoint rate by roughly $10^4$.
  • The measured $^{163}$Ho EC spectrum can serve as a test of the Lorentzian-tail parametrization, supporting the use of this parametrization for $^{159}$Dy after correcting for phase space.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension of the paper's logic is that any EC or beta-decay candidate whose endpoint lies within a few hundred eV of a deep atomic hole state should be screened for a similar subthreshold boost; proximity to atomic resonances may matter as much as the bare $Q$ value.
  • If later atomic-structure calculations or $^{163}$Ho data show the line shape falls faster than a Lorentzian, the enhancement factor for $^{159}$Dy could change by orders of magnitude; a data-driven $P(E_{ex})$ extracted from the measured spectrum would make the neutrino-mass analysis more robust than relying on parameterized tails.
  • The same 'virtual capture' reasoning might apply to other decay modes and to daughter charge states that shift binding energies, so the size of the boost could be tuned by choosing the initial atomic configuration, a possibility the paper does not explore.
  • A dedicated $^{159}$Dy source measured with a transition-edge sensor array in the gap between hole states could map $P(E_{ex})$ directly and test whether the tail is the smooth Lorentzian assumed here.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript studies the electron-capture (EC) spectrum of 159Dy and argues that atomic hole states whose resonance energies lie above the decay endpoint (subthreshold states) contribute through the tails of their line shapes to the partial rate in the neutrino-mass-sensitive endpoint region. Using a Lorentzian parameterization of the spectral function with parameters taken from atomic compilations, the authors compute the fraction r of the total EC rate in a 1 eV window above the minimum neutrino energy for the proposed Q value of 1.18 keV and for an older value of 1.7 keV. They report an enhancement of r by more than an order of magnitude when subthreshold M states are included, and they argue that the spectral function can be determined experimentally. They also mention a similar enhancement for 111In.

Significance. The idea that subthreshold atomic states should not be discarded in EC endpoint analyses is physically interesting and, if quantitatively correct, would improve the prospects of 159Dy as a neutrino-mass candidate by increasing the endpoint-event rate. The authors are to be credited for using external atomic parameters rather than fitting the 159Dy data, which avoids circularity, and for transparently flagging the approximations in Eq. (8). The central numerical claim, however, rests entirely on the unvalidated Lorentzian tail of the M1/M2 lines at energy offsets of tens to hundreds of line widths, and the paper does not yet provide the sensitivity analysis needed to establish the claimed enhancement. The manuscript is clearly written and the formalism is standard, but the quantitative results require substantial strengthening before publication.

major comments (3)
  1. [Eq. (8), Table II] The headline enhancement of r by factors of about 11 and 300 (Table II) is obtained by evaluating Eq. (8) at E_ex = 1.18 keV (or 1.7 keV), which lies 0.79 keV below the M1 line at 1.968 keV and 0.59 keV below the M2 line at 1.768 keV (for the 1.7 keV Q, the M2 offset is only 68 eV). These offsets correspond to about 60 and 120 times the stated widths, where the Lorentzian shape has no empirical or ab-initio support. The authors explicitly write that 'the estimation of the spectral function using Eq. (8) requires improvements, particularly regarding the resonance energies ... and the energy-independent parameterization of the width.' Since the enhancement factor is directly proportional to the tail value, a modest change in the line shape (e.g., exponential falloff or an additional non-resonant background) could reduce or erase the claimed effect. I request a quantitative sensitivity study that varies the tail parameterization and shows the resulting range of r in Table II.
  2. [Sec. IV (validation with 163Ho)] The only empirical validation offered is the statement that the measured 163Ho spectrum shows that P(E_ex) is 'flat' near the endpoint. No comparison plot or fit is shown, and the Ho endpoint lies essentially at the M-line complex, whereas the 159Dy endpoint is 0.6–0.8 keV below the M lines. The Ho data, as presented, cannot test the far tail that drives the 159Dy enhancement. Please quantify the agreement of the Lorentzian model with the Ho data over an energy range comparable to the offsets relevant for 159Dy, or otherwise qualify the validation claim.
  3. [Table I and Fig. 2] The numerical results in Table II and Fig. 2 require the full spectral function including continuum N, O, and P states (the dashed curves), but the parameters for the O and P shells (and for the K and L shells shown in Fig. 1) are not provided. Only M1, M2, N1, N2 are listed in Table I, and the text refers to L states in the 111In discussion without giving their parameters. Without a complete parameter table, the computation is not reproducible and the central values of r cannot be verified. Please include all parameters used, or make the calculation script available.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table I caption] The caption states 'The parameters of ϵx and Γx correspond to Tb, while βx pertains to Dy.' Since the spectral function is for the daughter atom (Tb) but the captured electron is initially in Dy, one sentence explaining why the parent and daughter parameters are mixed would help readers.
  2. [Eq. (8)] The factor 2 multiplying n_x is not defined. If n_x is the occupation number of the subshell, the factor 2 is redundant; if it is the number of electrons, it should be stated. This also affects the normalization of P(E_ex).
  3. [References [19, 20]] Refs. [19, 20] are the AME 2020 mass evaluation, not a direct measurement; the phrase 'a previous measurement of the Q value' is misleading and should be rephrased.
  4. [111In discussion] The claim that 'r is substantially enhanced by approximately 10^4' for 111In is not quantified in Table II or any other table, and the parameters for the L2 state are not given. Please provide the calculation details or move this to future work.
  5. [Conclusions] The statement 'no adjustments are required for previous findings concerning 163Ho' is too strong; the model makes a prediction for 163Ho that could be tested against the high-resolution data of ref. [10], and a comparison would strengthen the paper.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the enhancement is computed from external hole-state parameters and an explicitly stated Lorentzian model, not fitted to the 159Dy endpoint data.

full rationale

The central claim is that including subthreshold M-hole states via the Lorentzian spectral function of Eq. (8) enhances the endpoint-region EC rate of 159Dy. The parameters entering Eq. (8) (epsilon_x, Gamma_x, beta_x, B_x) are taken from external compilations and the Q-value from precision mass measurements; none are fitted to the 159Dy endpoint spectrum. The ratio r in Table II is obtained by direct integration of Eq. (3) with this P(E_ex), so the enhancement is a computed consequence of the stated model, not a renamed input. The 163Ho comparison is an external consistency check, and the paper explicitly flags the Lorentzian-tail approximation as requiring improvements, which is a robustness caveat, not circularity. The only self-citation, ref. [14], is used for the standard approximation of evaluating lepton wave functions at the origin; that approximation is not the source of the subthreshold enhancement and is parameter-free with assumptions independent of the target result. No equation in the paper is equivalent to its own output by construction.

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

The central claim rests on a phenomenological particle-hole spectral function whose parameters are all drawn from prior atomic compilations. No new free parameters are fitted in this paper, but the enhancement factors depend sensitively on the adopted hole binding energies, widths, and the Lorentzian tail shape. The assumptions listed above are the load-bearing inputs that a reader must accept to trust the quantitative prediction.

free parameters (6)
  • M1 hole binding energy ϵ_M1 = 1.968 keV
    Taken from X-ray data booklet (ref. [16]). The endpoint enhancement is controlled by the difference between ϵ_M1 and Q−Δnucl.
  • M1 hole width Γ_M1 = 13 eV
    From Campbell-Papp (ref. [17]). Sets the height of the Lorentzian tail at the endpoint.
  • N1 hole binding energy ϵ_N1 = 0.396 keV
    Taken from ref. [16]. Baseline continuum contribution depends on it.
  • N1 hole width Γ_N1 = 5.1 eV
    From ref. [17].
  • Q−Δnucl = 1.18(19) keV or 1.7(12) keV
    Input from refs. [13] and [19,20]. The paper scans both values; the predicted enhancement is sensitive to this input.
  • M2 binding energy and width = 1.768 keV, 5.8 eV
    The M2 resonance is only 68 eV above the 1.7 keV endpoint, dominating the enhancement at the higher Q value.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The atomic spectral function P(E) is a sum over independent hole states, each contributing a Lorentzian line shape (Eqs. 7-8).
    Particle-hole approximation from Bambynek et al. [15]; neglects interference between shells and correlations.
  • domain assumption The hole state energies and widths of the daughter atom Tb are valid inputs for the capture process.
    Parameters from neutral atom compilations are applied without adjustment for the decaying atom's configuration.
  • domain assumption The electron density at the origin β_x for Dy and the occupation/exchange factors n_x, B_x are as given in Table I and references.
    These factors scale the contributions; B_x values are not tabulated in the paper.
  • standard math Allowed Gamow-Teller approximation with lepton wavefunctions evaluated at the origin.
    Standard leading-order treatment of allowed EC; cited to ref. [14].
  • domain assumption The nuclear excited state width is neglected.
    The paper states this in the text before Eq. (3); the width is likely small but unquantified.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Contribution of Subthreshold States to the Residual Energy Distribution of $^{159}$Dy." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JTD2YNK7

@misc{pith2026250818562,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Contribution of Subthreshold States to the Residual Energy Distribution of $^159$Dy},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JTD2YNK7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.18562}
}
abstract

We investigate the residual energy distribution in the electron capture (EC) process of $^{159}$Dy, emphasizing the role of subthreshold atomic states, which have typically been omitted in conventional spectral analyses. By incorporating these energetically forbidden hole states into the spectral function $P(E)$, we demonstrate a significant enhancement - over an order of magnitude - in the EC rate near the zero-momentum neutrino emission region. This enhancement increases further with larger $Q$ values, contrary to standard expectations. Our analysis shows that $P(E)$ can be experimentally determined, resolving ambiguities near the endpoint and enabling new approaches to 'ultra-low $Q$ value' EC reactions for neutrino mass studies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.18562 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. illustrates the spectral function of EC for 159Dy. The solid black curve represents contributions from all hole states. The short-dashed blue curve shows the spectral function of the continuum states, while the dashed red curve and dotted green curve depict the contributions of the M and L states, respectively, which are subthreshold states. The symbol ’a’ marks the excitation energy Eex of 1.18(19) keV [13], which … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Normalized energy spectrum of neutrino. The solid curve in the left panel includes contributions from all orbits, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

25 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Measurement of the solar electron neutrino flux with the Homestake chlorine detector,

    B. T. Cleveland et al., “Measurement of the solar electron neutrino flux with the Homestake chlorine detector,” Astrophys. J. 496, 505 (1998)

    work page 1998

  2. [2]

    Evidence for oscillation of atmospheric neutrinos,

    Y. Fukuda et al. (Super-Kamiokande Collaboration), “Evidence for oscillation of atmospheric neutrinos,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 1562–1567 (1998)

    work page 1998

  3. [3]

    Direct evidence for neutrino flavor transformation from neutral-current inter- actions in the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory,

    Q. R. Ahmad et al. (SNO Collaboration), “Direct evidence for neutrino flavor transformation from neutral-current inter- actions in the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 011301 (2002)

    work page 2002

  4. [4]

    Nine-year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) observations: Final maps and results,

    C. L. Bennett et al., “Nine-year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) observations: Final maps and results,” Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. 208, 20 (2013)

    work page 2013

  5. [5]

    Planck 2015 results-XIII. Cosmological parameters,

    P. A. R. Ade et al. (Planck Collaboration), “Planck 2015 results-XIII. Cosmological parameters,” Astron. Astrophys. 594, A13 (2016)

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    Search for the Majorana nature of neutrinos in the inverted mass ordering region with KamLAND-Zen,

    S. Abe et al. (KamLAND-Zen Collaboration), “Search for the Majorana nature of neutrinos in the inverted mass ordering region with KamLAND-Zen,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 051801 (2023)

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Final results of GERDA on the two-neutrino double-β decay half-life of 76Ge,

    M. Agostini et al. (GERDA Collaboration), “Final results of GERDA on the two-neutrino double-β decay half-life of 76Ge,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 142501 (2023)

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Direct neutrino-mass measurement with sub-electronvolt sensitivity,

    M. Aker et al. (The KATRIN Collaboration), “Direct neutrino-mass measurement with sub-electronvolt sensitivity,” Nature Phys. 18, 160–166 (2022)

    work page 2022

Show all 25 references
  1. [9]

    Direct determination of the atomic mass difference of 187Re and 187Os for neutrino physics and cosmochronology,

    D. A. Nesterenko et al., “Direct determination of the atomic mass difference of 187Re and 187Os for neutrino physics and cosmochronology,” Phys. Rev. C 90, 042501 (2014)

    2014

  2. [10]

    High-resolution and low-background 163Ho spectrum: interpretation of the resonance tails,

    C. Velte et al., “High-resolution and low-background 163Ho spectrum: interpretation of the resonance tails,” Eur. Phys. J. C 79, 1026 (2019)

    2019

  3. [11]

    Precise Q value determinations for forbidden and low energy β-decays using penning trap mass spectrome- try,

    M. Redshaw, “Precise Q value determinations for forbidden and low energy β-decays using penning trap mass spectrome- try,” Euro. Phys. J. A 59, 18 (2023)

    2023

  4. [12]

    Updated evaluation of potential ultralow Q-value β-decay candidates,

    D. K. Keblbeck et al., “Updated evaluation of potential ultralow Q-value β-decay candidates,” Phys. Rev. C 107, 015504 (2023)

    2023

  5. [13]

    159Dy electron-capture: a new candidate for neutrino mass determination,

    Z. Ge et al., “ 159Dy electron-capture: a new candidate for neutrino mass determination,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 272301 (2021), arXiv:2106.06626 [nucl-ex]

    2021 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Electron wave functions in beta-decay formulas revisited (i): Gamow– teller and spin-dipole contributions to allowed and first-forbidden transitions,

    W. Horiuchi, T. Sato, Y. Uesaka, and K. Yoshida, “Electron wave functions in beta-decay formulas revisited (i): Gamow– teller and spin-dipole contributions to allowed and first-forbidden transitions,” Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys. 2021, 103D03 (2021)

    2021

  7. [15]

    Orbital electron capture by the nucleus,

    W. Bambynek, H. Behrens, M. H. Chen, B. Crasemann, M. L. Fitzpatrick, K. W. D. Ledingham, H. Genz, M. Mutterer, and R. L. Intemann, “Orbital electron capture by the nucleus,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 49, 77–221 (1977), [Erratum: Rev.Mod.Phys. 49, 961–962 (1977)]

    1977

  8. [16]

    X-ray data booklet (2009),

    A. Thompson, D. Attwood, E. Gullikson, M. Howells, J. Kortright, A. Robinson, et al., “X-ray data booklet (2009),” URL http://xdb. lbl. gov (2009)

    2009

  9. [17]

    Widths of the Atomic K – N 7 LEVELS,

    J. L. Campbell and Tibor Papp, “Widths of the Atomic K – N 7 LEVELS,” Atom. Data Nucl. Data Tabl. 77, 1–56 (2001)

    2001

  10. [18]

    Electron-wave-function expansion amplitudes near the origin calculated in the dirac-fock-slater and dirac-fock potentials,

    I. M. Band and M. B. Trzhaskovskaya, “Electron-wave-function expansion amplitudes near the origin calculated in the dirac-fock-slater and dirac-fock potentials,” Atomic data and nuclear data tables 35, 1–13 (1986)

    1986

  11. [19]

    The ame 2020 atomic mass evaluation (i). evaluation of input data, and adjustment procedures,

    W. J. Huang, M. Wang, F. G. Kondev, G. Audi, and S. Naimi, “The ame 2020 atomic mass evaluation (i). evaluation of input data, and adjustment procedures,” Chin. Phys. C 45, 030002 (2021). 7

    2021

  12. [20]

    The ame 2020 atomic mass evaluation (ii). tables, graphs and references,

    M. Wang, W. J. Huang, F. G. Kondev, G. Audi, and S. Naimi, “The ame 2020 atomic mass evaluation (ii). tables, graphs and references,” Chin. Phys. C 45, 030003 (2021)

    2021

  13. [21]

    Ab initio calculation of the electron capture spectrum of 163ho: Auger–meitner decay into continuum states,

    M. Braß and M. W. Haverkort, “Ab initio calculation of the electron capture spectrum of 163ho: Auger–meitner decay into continuum states,” New J. Phys. 22, 093018 (2020)

    2020

  14. [22]

    Characterization of the 163Ho electron capture spectrum: A step towards the electron neutrino mass determination,

    P. C.-O. Ranitzsch, C. Hassel, M. Wegner, D. Hengstler, S. Kempf, A. Fleischmann, C. Enss, L. Gastaldo, A. Herlert, and K. Johnston, “Characterization of the 163Ho electron capture spectrum: A step towards the electron neutrino mass determination,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 122501 (2017)

    2017

  15. [23]

    Penning-trap measurement of the Q value of electron capture in 163Ho for the determination of the electron neutrino mass,

    C. Schweiger et al. (PENTATRAP), “Penning-trap measurement of the Q value of electron capture in 163Ho for the determination of the electron neutrino mass,” Nature Phys. 20, 921–927 (2024), arXiv:2402.06464 [nucl-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Demonstration of fine-pitch high-resolution x-ray transition-edge sensor microcalorimeters optimized for energies below 1 kev,

    K. Sakai, J. S. Adams, S. R. Bandler, S. Beaumont, J. A. Chervenak, A. M. Datesman, F. M. Finkbeiner, R. L. Kel- ley, C. A. Kilbourne, A. R. Miniussi, et al., “Demonstration of fine-pitch high-resolution x-ray transition-edge sensor microcalorimeters optimized for energies bel...

    2020

  17. [25]

    High-precision electron-capture Q value measurement of 111In for electron-neutrino mass determination,

    Z. Ge, T. Eronen, A. de Roubin, K. S. Tyrin, L. Canete, S. Geldhof, A. Jokinen, A. Kankainen, J. Kostensalo, J. Kotila, et al., “High-precision electron-capture Q value measurement of 111In for electron-neutrino mass determination,” Phys. Lett. B 832, 137226 (2022)

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.