Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 91 references

Two-neutrino double-weak decays of $^{126}$Xe and $^{134}$Xe from different many-body methods

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-07-31 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read Four nuclear methods agree that 134Xe two-neutrino double-beta decay could be shorter than 2×10^24 years and within next-generation reach.

desk verdict Solid multi-method half-life bands for two unobserved Xe 2ν modes; the “within reach” abstract line is real but driven by the least-quenched corners of each band. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.24684 v1 pith:W556FKX3 submitted 2026-07-27 nucl-th hep-phnucl-ex

C. Brase , L. Jokiniemi , E. Kauppinen , B. Romeo , J. Kotila , J. Menéndez , A. Schwenk This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-thhep-phnucl-ex PACS 23.40.-s23.40.Hc21.60.-n27.60.+j
keywords two-neutrinodouble-betadecaydouble-electroncapturenuclearmatrixelementsxenonisotopespnQRPAshellmodelIBM-2effectivefieldtheory
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 predicts the nuclear matrix elements and half-lives for two unobserved two-neutrino double-weak decays in xenon: double-electron capture of 126Xe and double-beta decay of 134Xe. It applies four independent many-body approaches—pnQRPA, the nuclear shell model, IBM-2, and an effective field theory for heavy nuclei—and reports theoretical uncertainty bands for each. The half-life ranges overlap once those uncertainties are included. For 134Xe the lower edge of every band lies below about 2×10^24 years, a sensitivity that next-generation xenon experiments project they can reach. 126Xe is typically predicted an order of magnitude slower. A positive detection, or a tighter experimental limit, would therefore benchmark the same nuclear methods used for neutrinoless double-beta decay searches.

What carries the argument

The two-neutrino nuclear matrix element M^{2ν} (and its quenched effective form M_eff^{2ν}), evaluated with four distinct many-body frameworks whose uncertainty bands are generated from quenching factors, pairing parameters, closure assumptions, or EFT truncation and low-energy constants.

What would settle it

A measured half-life (or a firm lower limit tighter than ~10^24 y) for the two-neutrino double-beta decay of 134Xe that falls outside the overlapping theoretical window reported by the four methods.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

When theoretical uncertainties are assigned consistently inside each method, the four many-body calculations of the two-neutrino half-lives of 126Xe and 134Xe are mutually consistent; every calculation places the lower edge of the 134Xe half-life below ≈2×10^24 y, a window that projected next-generation xenon experiments can probe.

Load-bearing premise

The half-life bands rest on phenomenological quenching factors and pairing or low-energy constants that are fitted to neighboring measured decays or to hypothetical log ft values; if those effective couplings misrepresent the target nuclei the predicted ranges shift by more than an order of magnitude.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Next-generation xenon experiments that reach ~1.7×10^24 y sensitivity can test part of every theory band for 134Xe.
  • A positive 134Xe detection would supply a new calibration point for the same nuclear methods used to predict neutrinoless double-beta matrix elements.
  • 126Xe is predicted roughly ten times slower, so experimental priority naturally falls on 134Xe.
  • Consistency across pnQRPA, shell model, IBM-2 and EFT strengthens confidence that the shared nuclear structure input is not method-specific.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because 2ν and 0ν matrix elements are known to correlate inside these frameworks, a measured 134Xe 2ν rate would tighten the nuclear uncertainty that currently limits 136Xe neutrinoless searches.
  • Charge-exchange measurements of the Gamow-Teller strength connecting the intermediate 1+ states to the initial and final nuclei would collapse the dominant EFT low-energy-constant uncertainty and shrink that band dramatically.
  • If future data favor the short half-life edge, the single-state-dominance closure used by IBM-2 would be preferred over higher-state dominance for this mass region.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper predicts nuclear matrix elements and half-lives for the two-neutrino double-electron capture of 126Xe and the two-neutrino double-beta decay of 134Xe using four many-body approaches: pnQRPA (with isospin-restoration g_pp fitting to measured 124Xe/136Xe decays), the nuclear shell model (GCN5082 and QX interactions, with a jump=3 truncation for 126Xe), the microscopic IBM-2 (under both SSD and HSD closure assumptions), and an EFT for heavy nuclei (LECs fitted to hypothetical log ft values with an EFT truncation uncertainty). Each method carries an estimated theoretical uncertainty, dominated by quenching (phenomenological methods) or LEC/ratio uncertainties (EFT). The central findings are: (i) all predictions are mutually consistent within uncertainties except the IBM-2 SSD case; (ii) 126Xe half-lives are typically an order of magnitude longer than 134Xe ones; (iii) the lower edges of the 134Xe bands approach or fall below ~2×10^24 y, near the projected 1.7×10^24 y LZ sensitivity.

Significance. If the bands hold, this is a useful, timely benchmark: 134Xe is directly accessible to running and planned xenon experiments (PandaX, LZ, XLZD), and a measurement would discriminate among the four methods in the same way the 124Xe ECEC measurement did. The paper's main strengths are methodological transparency and uncertainty honesty: each method's fitting procedure is documented in dedicated appendices (pnQRPA g_pp fits in App. B/Fig. B.6, NSM truncation systematics in App. C/Table C.4, IBM-2 Hamiltonian parameters in App. D, and the EFT hypothetical-log ft construction in App. E including a LogFT-vs-BetaShape comparison and an independent cross-check against the 136Xe(3He,t) B(GT) datum). The running-sum comparison of pnQRPA and NSM (Figs. 3–4) is a genuinely informative diagnostic of how two methods arrive at similar NMEs through very different strength distributions. The work is explicitly not first-principles — g_pp, quenching factors, and LECs are all anchored to neighboring measured decays or constructed log ft systematics — but the authors state this clearly, and the resulting predictions are falsifiable on a realistic experimental timescale, which is the standard by which

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract vs. Table 1 / Table C.5] The abstract states that 'for all calculations the lower range of the predicted 134Xe half-life is shorter than T≈2×10^24 y.' This is contradicted by the paper's own Table 1 and Table C.5: the NSM lower edge is 2.04×10^24 y (GCN5082 with maximal quenching), i.e., marginally *longer* than 2×10^24 y. The body text (§4) handles this correctly, saying the LZ projected sensitivity of 1.7×10^24 y is 'within the range of the pnQRPA, IBM-2 (HSD) and EFT predictions, and very close to the NSM one' — but the abstract does not. Since this is the paper's headline phenomenological claim, the abstract should be brought into agreement with Table 1 (e.g., 'shorter than or comparable to ~2×10^24 y').
  2. [Abstract / §5, Tables B.3, D.7] Relatedly, the reachability statement in the abstract should be qualified by where the short half-lives come from. Inspecting Tables B.3 and D.7: the pnQRPA lower edge (1.22×10^24 y) corresponds to g_A^eff = 1.27, i.e., zero quenching, while with the quenched g_A^eff = 0.8 the half-life is 3.8×10^24 y; the short IBM-2 HSD edges come from q = 1 and q = 0.788, while the maximally quenched q = A^{-0.18} gives 2.74×10^24 y; and the EFT low edge (0.424×10^24 y) is the extreme of the LEC band, which the authors themselves identify (§3.4, Fig. 2) as dominated by the least-controlled ingredient, the empirical β−/EC log ft ratio r. Since the paper argues elsewhere that quenching is *required* to reproduce neighboring measured decays, the physically preferred points within each band sit systematically above the quoted lower edges. The claim is not false — the bands do extend below threshold and th
  3. [Appendix C / Table C.4] For 126Xe the NSM uses a jump=3 truncation and states explicitly that no truncation uncertainty is included. Table C.4 shows the NME is still dropping steeply with truncation: for GCN5082, M_eff goes 0.061–0.113 (jump=0) → 0.049–0.091 (jump=2) → 0.024–0.044 (jump=3), roughly a factor-of-two reduction in the last step, with no demonstration that jump=4 is converged or computationally inaccessible. Fig. C.7 shows the change is concentrated in the lowest 1+ state, so this is not a diffuse many-state effect that can be argued away. Given that the cross-method consistency claim for 126Xe (Table 1, Fig. 1 upper panel) relies on the NSM band sitting at 11.2–38.1×10^24 y, an unquantified factor-~2 systematic at the last truncation step is load-bearing. At minimum the authors should estimate the residual truncation error (e.g., from the jump=2→3 trend or the 124Xe experience in Ref. [93]) and eit
minor comments (6)
  1. [Table B.3] Table B.3 lists single values (not ranges) of M^2ν for 134Xe (0.053 and 0.037) while 126Xe carries ranges from the unknown 124I 1+_1 energy. A brief note on why the 136Xe-anchored g_pp fit for 134Xe yields no analogous range (the 134Cs 1+_1 energy is known, Table A.2) would help the reader.
  2. [Table 1 / Appendix A] pnQRPA and NSM compute non-closure NMEs with explicit energy denominators but are paired with the HSD (average-energy) PSF; the SSD/HSD PSFs differ by only ~2% (Table A.2), so this is numerically harmless, but one sentence explaining the choice would preempt confusion about double-counting the closure energy.
  3. [Fig. 1] Fig. 1 would be more informative if the edges of each band were annotated with the quenching factor or g_A^eff value that produces them, since the paper's own discussion shows the band positions are driven primarily by q. This would also make the point of major comment 2 visible at a glance.
  4. [§3.3, Eq. (5)] In §3.3, the HSD closure energy systematics '1.12 A^{1/2} MeV' appears without a reference; please add the source (or state it is from prior IBM-2 work). Also, Eq. (5) has a stray comma after '⟨E_k⟩, is simply replaced'.
  5. [§4] The semi-empirical-formula comparison (§4) is a useful sanity check; it would strengthen the paper to note explicitly that the SEF values (4.61×10^25 y and 4.03×10^24 y) lie inside all non-SSD bands, reinforcing the consistency claim.
  6. [§1, §5, affiliations] Typographical: 'we use four different widely-used many-body methods' (§1, 'different'/'used' repetition); 'half-live values' in §5 should be 'half-life values'; affiliation f lists 'Department of Physics and Astronomy at UNC' which reads oddly ('University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill'?).

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Disclosed phenomenological calibration on neighboring 2ν data, not circular prediction-by-construction for the target nuclei.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. 3.1 / App. B (pnQRPA); similarly Sec. 3.2–3.4 for NSM/IBM-2/EFT quenching and LECs]
    "the particle-particle parameter g_pp is fitted to the 2ν half-lives of the neighboring double-weak-decaying isotopes 124Xe and 136Xe, following the partial isospin-restoration scheme"

    g_pp (and analogously NSM/IBM-2 q and EFT LECs) is fixed so that neighboring measured 2ν half-lives are reproduced for a chosen g_A^eff range; the same parameters then set the NME and half-life bands for 126Xe/134Xe. The short edges of those bands are therefore driven by the unquenched or lightly quenched end of the calibration range rather than by an independent first-principles constraint on the targets. This is mild and disclosed transfer across nearby nuclei, not a by-construction identity for the target half-lives themselves.

full rationale

The paper’s half-life bands for 126Xe and 134Xe are obtained by computing NMEs in four many-body frameworks and folding in quenching/g_pp/LEC ranges taken from neighboring measured 2ν decays (124Xe, 136Xe, 130Te) or isotopic-chain log ft systematics. That is ordinary phenomenological transfer, not a self-definitional loop: the target isotopes are not used in the fits, the NMEs are evaluated from the many-body wave functions (or SSD LECs) of those nuclei, and the paper states the calibration sources explicitly (Sec. 3.1–3.4, Apps. B–E). No uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors to forbid alternatives; self-citations are methodological (prior EFT/IBM-2/NSM setups). The abstract’s ‘lower range shorter than 2e24 y’ claim is a statement about the reported uncertainty bands, not a quantity forced equal to an input by algebra. Mild fitted-input character exists—the width and short edge of each band are largely set by the adopted quenching/LEC ranges—but that does not make the 126/134 results tautological. Score 2 reflects that minor, fully disclosed dependence without elevating ordinary nuclear-physics calibration to circularity.

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

The half-life bands rest on standard many-body truncations plus several fitted effective couplings (quenching, g_pp, IBM-2 Hamiltonian parameters, EFT LECs from hypothetical log ft). No new particles or forces are introduced; the ledger is dominated by free parameters that absorb missing correlations and two-body currents, and by domain assumptions (SSD/HSD, spherical QRPA, valence-space truncations) inherited from the nuclear-structure toolkit.

free parameters (7)
  • pnQRPA g_pp (isoscalar) and g_A^eff range = g_A^eff = 0.8 and 1.27; g_pp set per fit
    g_pp fitted to measured 124Xe ECEC and 136Xe 2νββ half-lives under partial isospin restoration; g_A^eff scanned over 0.8–1.27 (q=0.63–1.0). Dominates pnQRPA NME band (Fig. B.6, Table B.3).
  • NSM quenching factor q = q=0.42–0.57 (GCN5082); q=0.67–0.82 (QX)
    Inferred from 136Xe/130Te 2νββ, 124Xe ECEC, and GT systematics in the Xe region; separate ranges for GCN5082 and QX.
  • IBM-2 quenching factor q = q=1, 0.788, or A^{-0.18}
    Three discrete values from prior IBM-2 2ν systematics fits in the mass region.
  • IBM-2 Hamiltonian parameters (esp. 126Te) = see Table D.6
    Fitted to low-lying spectroscopy; 126Te set determined in this work (Table D.6).
  • EFT LECs via hypothetical log ft^{EC/β} = log ft^{EC/β}=5.015(120)/5.64(58) (126I); 5.3565(5275)/4.967(134) (134Cs)
    LECs fixed to constructed comparative half-lives for 126I and 134Cs using isotopic-chain EC ranges, β/EC ratios from 128I and 130Cs, and LogFT vs BetaShape PSF codes (App. E).
  • SSD vs HSD average intermediate energy ⟨E_k⟩ = SSD: experimental E(1_1^+); HSD: ~1.12 A^{1/2} MeV
    Closure energy choice that splits IBM-2 (and PSF) results into two widely separated bands; HSD uses 1.12 A^{1/2} MeV systematics.
  • pnQRPA E_exc(124I,1_1^+) range for 126Xe g_pp fit = 50–300 keV
    Unknown experimental energy replaced by conservative 50–300 keV window from neighboring iodines.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption 2ν half-life factorizes as (T_{1/2}^{2ν})^{-1}=G^{2ν} g_A^4 (M^{2ν})^2 with subleading energy-denominator and higher-order corrections neglected at the few-to-ten-percent level.
    Stated in §2; authors argue these corrections are smaller than quoted theory uncertainties.
  • domain assumption Partial isospin restoration (Fermi NME set to zero by adjusting g_pp^{T=1}) is an adequate pnQRPA constraint.
    §3.1 and App. B following Šimkovic et al.
  • domain assumption Spherical pnQRPA and the chosen no-core 25-orbital Woods-Saxon+Bonn-A setup capture the relevant GT strength for these nearly spherical nuclei.
    §3.1; authors note deformation is treated in other pnQRPA works but omitted here.
  • domain assumption NSM valence space (g7/2,d5/2,d3/2,s1/2,h11/2) with GCN5082/QX and jump≤3 truncation for 126Xe is sufficient once quenching is applied.
    §3.2, App. C; truncation uncertainty not propagated.
  • domain assumption IBM-2 closure approximation with either single-state or higher-state dominance brackets the intermediate-state sum.
    §3.3 Eqs. (5); SSD and HSD reported separately.
  • domain assumption Heavy-nucleus EFT at leading SSD order with phonon breakdown scale gives a controlled truncation error via the Lerch-transcendent formula.
    §3.4 Eqs. (6)–(7); LEC uncertainty still dominates.
  • standard math Lowest intermediate 1^+ energy in the NME denominator can be fixed to experiment (or the stated range) for all methods.
    §2 and Table A.2; standard practice to reduce denominator error.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Two-neutrino double-weak decays of $^{126}$Xe and $^{134}$Xe from different many-body methods." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/W556FKX3

@misc{pith2026260724684,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Two-neutrino double-weak decays of $^126$Xe and $^134$Xe from different many-body methods},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/W556FKX3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.24684}
}
abstract

We calculate the nuclear matrix elements and corresponding half-lives for the two-neutrino double-electron capture of $^{126}$Xe and the two-neutrino double-beta decay of $^{134}$Xe. We use different many-body methods: the proton-neutron quasiparticle random-phase approximation, the nuclear shell model, the microscopic interacting boson model, and an effective field theory for heavy nuclei. For both nuclei, all our half-life predictions are generally consistent with each other when including theoretical uncertainties for each method. Interestingly, for all calculations the lower range of the predicted $^{134}$Xe half-life is shorter than $T^{2\nu}_{1/2} \approx 2\times10^{24}$\,y, which may be within the reach of next-generation experiments. For $^{126}$Xe, our results typically predict one order of magnitude longer half-lives than those for $^{134}$Xe.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.24684 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Ground-state-to-ground-state half-life predictions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. EFT prediction of M2ν eff and T 2ν 1/2 for 2νECEC of 126Xe (blue) and 2νββ decay of 134Xe (pink). Dotted and slashed bars indicate the LEC uncertainty and the EFT truncation (Trunc.) uncertainty, respectively. Solid bars cor￾respond to the full prediction with combined uncertainties. 1. Experimental uncertainty in log f t values: The hypothetical range of GT EC compara￾tive half-lives reproduces the range of log f t… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Running sum of the effective 2νECEC NME of 126Xe as a function of the excitation energy of the interme￾diate state, Eexc k . For the pnQRPA results (in light blue), the lower (upper) limit, shown as dash-dotted (dashed) line, is obtained with the largest (smallest) value of the parame￾ter g T =0 pp (see Appendix B) with the minimum (maximum) quenching factor. The NSM results (in dark blue) are cal￾culated with the G… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

91 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages

  1. [93]

    Niţescu, S

    O. Niţescu, S. Ghinescu, V. A. Sevestrean, M. Horoi, F. Šimkovic, S. Stoica, Theoretical analysis and predictions for the two-neutrino double electron capture of 124Xe, J. Phys. G. 51 (12) (2024) 125103.doi:10.1088/ 1361-6471/ad8767

    2024

  2. [1]

    Agostini, G

    M. Agostini, G. Benato, J. A. Detwiler, J. Menéndez, F. Vissani, Toward the discov- ery of matter creation with neutrinolessββ decay, Rev. Mod. Phys. 95 (2) (2023) 025002. doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.95.025002

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.95.025002 2023

  3. [2]

    M. J. Dolinski, A. W. P. Poon, W. Rodejo- hann, Neutrinoless double-beta decay: Sta- tus and prospects, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 69 (2019) 219–251.doi:10.1146/ annurev-nucl-101918-023407

    2019

  4. [3]

    J. J. Gómez-Cadenas, J. Martín-Albo, J. Menéndez, M. Mezzetto, F. Monra- bal, M. Sorel, The search for neu- trinoless double-beta decay, Riv. Nuovo Cim. 46 (10) (2023) 619–692. doi:10.1007/s40766-023-00049-2

    doi:10.1007/s40766-023-00049-2 2023

  5. [4]

    Saakyan, Two-neutrino double-beta decay, Annu

    R. Saakyan, Two-neutrino double-beta decay, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 63 (2013) 503–529.doi:10.1146/ annurev-nucl-102711-094904

    2013

  6. [5]

    Barabash, Precise half-life values for two-neutrino double-βdecay: 2020 review, Universe 6 (2020) 159.doi:10.3390/ universe6100159

    A. Barabash, Precise half-life values for two-neutrino double-βdecay: 2020 review, Universe 6 (2020) 159.doi:10.3390/ universe6100159

    2020

  7. [6]

    Engel, J

    J. Engel, J. Menéndez, Status and future of nuclear matrix elements for neutrinoless double-beta decay: a review, Rep. Prog. Phys. 80 (2017) 046301.doi:10.1088/1361-6633/ aa5bc5

    doi:10.1088/1361-6633/ 2017

  8. [7]

    Jokiniemi, B

    L. Jokiniemi, B. Romeo, P. Soriano, J. Menén- dez, Neutrinolessββ-decay nuclear matrix ele- ments from two-neutrinoββ-decay data, Phys. Rev. C 107 (4) (2023) 044305.doi:10.1103/ PhysRevC.107.044305

    2023

Show all 91 references
  1. [8]

    Horoi, A

    M. Horoi, A. Neacsu, S. Stoica, Statistical analysis for the neutrinoless double-β-decay matrix element of48Ca, Phys. Rev. C 106 (5) (2022) 054302.doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.106. 054302

    2022 doi

  2. [9]

    Horoi, A

    M. Horoi, A. Neacsu, S. Stoica, Predicting the neutrinoless double-β-decay matrix ele- ment of 136Xe using a statistical approach, Phys. Rev. C 107 (4) (2023) 045501.doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.107.045501

    2023 doi

  3. [10]

    Horoi, A

    M. Horoi, A. Neacsu, Uncertainty quantifica- tion of the 76Ge neutrinoless double-beta de- cay nuclear matrix element (2026).arXiv: 2605.21657

    2026 arXiv

  4. [11]

    X. Lian, C. R. Ding, C. L. Bai, J. M. Yao, Ab initio correlations between neutrinoless and two-neutrino double-beta decays in48Ca (2026).arXiv:2605.19479

    2026 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Aprile (XENON collaboration), et al., Observation of two-neutrino double electron capture in 124Xewith XENON1T, Nature 568 (7753) (2019) 532–535.doi:10.1038/ s41586-019-1124-4

    E. Aprile (XENON collaboration), et al., Observation of two-neutrino double electron capture in 124Xewith XENON1T, Nature 568 (7753) (2019) 532–535.doi:10.1038/ s41586-019-1124-4

    2019

  6. [13]

    Aprile (XENON collaboration), et al., Double-weak decays of 124Xeand 136Xein the XENON1T and XENONnT experiments, Phys

    E. Aprile (XENON collaboration), et al., Double-weak decays of 124Xeand 136Xein the XENON1T and XENONnT experiments, Phys. Rev. C 106 (2) (2022) 024328.doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.106.024328

    2022 doi

  7. [14]

    Aalbers (LUX-ZEPLIN collaboration), et al., Two-neutrino double electron capture of 124Xe in the first LUX-ZEPLIN exposure, J

    J. Aalbers (LUX-ZEPLIN collaboration), et al., Two-neutrino double electron capture of 124Xe in the first LUX-ZEPLIN exposure, J. Phys. G 52 (1) (2025) 015103.doi:10.1088/ 1361-6471/ad9039

    2025

  8. [15]

    Bo (PandaX collaboration), et al., Measure- ment of two-neutrino double electron capture half-life of 124Xe with pandax-4t, JHEP 05 (2025) 119.doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2025)119

    Z. Bo (PandaX collaboration), et al., Measure- ment of two-neutrino double electron capture half-life of 124Xe with pandax-4t, JHEP 05 (2025) 119.doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2025)119

    2025 doi

  9. [16]

    E. A. Coello Pérez, J. Menéndez, A. Schwenk, Two-neutrino double electron capture on124Xe based on an effective theory and the nuclear shell model, Phys. Lett. B 797 (2019) 134885. doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2019.134885

    2019

  10. [17]

    Pirinen, J

    P. Pirinen, J. Suhonen, Systematic approach toβand2νββdecays of massA= 100−136 nuclei, Phys. Rev. C 91 (2015) 054309.doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.91.054309

    2015 doi

  11. [18]

    Suhonen, Double beta decays of124Xe inves- tigated in the QRPA framework, J

    J. Suhonen, Double beta decays of124Xe inves- tigated in the QRPA framework, J. Phys. G 40 (2013) 075102.doi:10.1088/0954-3899/40/ 7/075102. 13

    2013 doi

  12. [19]

    Abe (KamLAND-Zen collaboration), et al., Search for majorana neutrinos with the com- plete KamLAND-Zen dataset, Phys

    S. Abe (KamLAND-Zen collaboration), et al., Search for majorana neutrinos with the com- plete KamLAND-Zen dataset, Phys. Rev. Lett. 135 (26) (2025) 262501.doi:10.1103/ jkf6-48j8

    2025

  13. [20]

    Luo (PandaX collaboration), et al., Search for double beta decay of 136Xe to the0 + 1 ex- cited state of136Ba with PandaX-4T, JHEP 05 (2025) 089.doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2025)089

    L. Luo (PandaX collaboration), et al., Search for double beta decay of 136Xe to the0 + 1 ex- cited state of136Ba with PandaX-4T, JHEP 05 (2025) 089.doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2025)089

    2025 doi

  14. [21]

    Adhikari (nEXO collaboration), et al., nEXO: neutrinoless double beta decay search beyond 1028 year half-life sensitivity, J

    G. Adhikari (nEXO collaboration), et al., nEXO: neutrinoless double beta decay search beyond 1028 year half-life sensitivity, J. Phys. G 49 (1) (2022) 015104.doi:10.1088/ 1361-6471/ac3631

    2022

  15. [22]

    Adams (NEXT collaboration), et al., Sensitivity of a tonne-scale next detector for neutrinoless double beta decay searches, JHEP 2021 (08) (2021) 164.doi:10.1007/ JHEP08(2021)164

    C. Adams (NEXT collaboration), et al., Sensitivity of a tonne-scale next detector for neutrinoless double beta decay searches, JHEP 2021 (08) (2021) 164.doi:10.1007/ JHEP08(2021)164

    2021

  16. [23]

    Aalbers (XLZD collaboration), et al., Neu- trinoless double beta decay sensitivity of the XLZDrareeventobservatory, J.Phys.G52(4) (2025) 045102.doi:10.1088/1361-6471/ adb900

    J. Aalbers (XLZD collaboration), et al., Neu- trinoless double beta decay sensitivity of the XLZDrareeventobservatory, J.Phys.G52(4) (2025) 045102.doi:10.1088/1361-6471/ adb900

    2025 doi

  17. [24]

    NuDat3.0, nndc.bnl.gov/nudat3/

  18. [25]

    D. S. Akerib (LUX collaboration), et al., Search for two neutrino double electron cap- ture of 124Xeand 126Xein the full exposure of the LUX detector, J. Phys. G 47 (10) (2020) 105105.doi:10.1088/1361-6471/ab9c2d

    2020 doi

  19. [26]

    Abe (XMASS collaboration), et al., Im- proved search for two-neutrino double electron captureon 124Xeand 126Xeusingparticleiden- tification in XMASS-I, Prog

    K. Abe (XMASS collaboration), et al., Im- proved search for two-neutrino double electron captureon 124Xeand 126Xeusingparticleiden- tification in XMASS-I, Prog. Theo. Exp. Phys. 2018 (5) (2018) 053D03.doi:10.1093/ptep/ pty053

    2018 doi

  20. [27]

    Al Kharusi (EXO-200 collaboration), et al., Search for double beta decays of 134Xewith EXO-200 Phase II, Phys

    S. Al Kharusi (EXO-200 collaboration), et al., Search for double beta decays of 134Xewith EXO-200 Phase II, Phys. Rev. Lett. 136 (23) (2026) 232502.doi:10.1103/vpny-23wq

    2026 doi

  21. [28]

    Yan (PandaX collaboration), et al., Search- ing for two-neutrino and neutrinoless double beta decay of 134Xewith the PandaX-4T ex- periment, Phys

    X. Yan (PandaX collaboration), et al., Search- ing for two-neutrino and neutrinoless double beta decay of 134Xewith the PandaX-4T ex- periment, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132 (2024) 152502. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.132.152502

    2024 doi

  22. [29]

    Jokiniemi, B

    L. Jokiniemi, B. Romeo, C. Brase, J. Kotila, P. Soriano, A. Schwenk, J. Menéndez, Two- neutrinoββdecay of 136Xe to the first ex- cited0 + state in 136Ba, Phys. Lett. B 838 (2023) 137689.doi:10.1016/j.physletb. 2023.137689

    2023

  23. [30]

    Vogel, M

    P. Vogel, M. R. Zirnbauer, Suppression of the two neutrino double beta decay by nuclear structure effects, Phys. Rev. Lett. 57 (1986) 3148–3151.doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.57. 3148

    1986 doi

  24. [31]

    Engel, P

    J. Engel, P. Vogel, M. R. Zirnbauer, Nuclear structure effects in double beta decay, Phys. Rev. C 37 (1988) 731–746.doi:10.1103/ PhysRevC.37.731

    1988

  25. [32]

    Ejiri, J

    H. Ejiri, J. Suhonen, K. Zuber, Neu- trino–nuclear responses for astro-neutrinos, single beta decays and double beta decays, Phys. Rept. 797 (2019) 1–102.doi:10.1016/ j.physrep.2018.12.001

    2019

  26. [33]

    Caurier, A

    E. Caurier, A. P. Zuker, A. Poves, A full 0ℏωdescription of the2νββdecay of 48Ca, Phys. Lett. B 252 (1990) 13–17.doi:10.1016/ 0370-2693(90)91071-I

    1990

  27. [34]

    Caurier, F

    E. Caurier, F. Nowacki, A. Poves, Shell model description of theββdecay of 136Xe, Phys. Lett. B 711 (2012) 62.doi:10.1016/j. physletb.2012.03.076

    2012 doi

  28. [35]

    Horoi, B

    M. Horoi, B. A. Brown, Shell-model analysis of the 136Xedouble beta decay nuclear matrix elements, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110 (2013) 222502. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.222502

    2013 doi

  29. [36]

    Coraggio, N

    L. Coraggio, N. Itaco, G. De Gregorio, A. Gargano, Z. H. Cheng, Y. Z. Ma, F. R. Xu, M. Viviani, The renormalization of the shell- modelGamow-Telleroperatorstartingfromef- fective field theory for nuclear systems, Phys. Rev. C 109 (1) (2024) 014301.doi:10.1103/ PhysRevC.109.014301

    2024

  30. [37]

    Barea, J

    J. Barea, J. Kotila, F. Iachello,0νββand 2νββnuclear matrix elements in the inter- acting boson model with isospin restoration, Phys. Rev. C 91 (3) (2015) 034304.doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.91.034304

    2015 doi

  31. [38]

    E. A. Coello Pérez, T. Papenbrock, Effec- tive field theories for collective excitations of 14 atomicnuclei, J.Phys.G.52(3)(2025)033001. doi:10.1088/1361-6471/adb50b

    2025 doi

  32. [40]

    D. S. Delion, J. Suhonen, Two-neutrinoββde- cays and low-lying Gamow-Tellerβ− strength functions in the mass range A=70–176, Phys. Rev. C 95 (3) (2017) 034330.doi:10.1103/ PhysRevC.95.034330

    2017

  33. [41]

    A. A. Raduta, C. M. Raduta, A. Escuderos, Descriptionofthetwoneutrinodoublebetade- cay in deformed nuclei with projected spherical single particle basis, Phys. Rev. C 71 (2005) 024307.doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.71.024307

    2005 doi

  34. [42]

    Singh, R

    S. Singh, R. Chandra, P. K. Rath, P. K. Raina, J. G. Hirsch, Nuclear deformation and the two neutrino double-beta decay in 124,126Xe, 128,130Te, 130,132Ba and 150Nd isotopes, Eur. Phys. J. A 33 (2007) 375–388.doi:10.1140/ epja/i2007-10481-7

    2007

  35. [43]

    Shukla, P

    A. Shukla, P. K. Raina, P. K. Rath, Study of two neutrinoβ+β+/β+ EC/ECECdecay of 124,126Xeand 130,132Bafor0 + →0 + transition in PHFB model, J. Phys. G. 34 (3) (2007) 549. doi:10.1088/0954-3899/34/3/013

    2007 doi

  36. [44]

    Gysbers, G

    P. Gysbers, G. Hagen, J. D. Holt, G. R. Jansen, T. D. Morris, P. Navrátil, T. Pa- penbrock, S. Quaglioni, A. Schwenk, S. R. Stroberg, K. A. Wendt, Discrepancy be- tween experimental and theoreticalβ-decay rates resolved from first principles, Nature Phys. 15 (5) (2019) 428–431...

    2019

  37. [45]

    S. R. Stroberg, Beta decay in medium-mass nuclei with the in-medium similarity renormal- ization group, Particles 4 (4) (2021) 521–535. doi:10.3390/particles4040038

    2021 doi

  38. [46]

    Z. Li, T. Miyagi, A. Schwenk, Ab initio calcu- lations ofβ-decay half-lives for N=50 neutron- rich nuclei, Phys. Rev. Lett. 136 (18) (2026) 182501.doi:10.1103/xjv9-t6sn

    2026 doi

  39. [47]

    Novario, P

    S. Novario, P. Gysbers, J. Engel, G. Hagen, G. R. Jansen, T. D. Morris, P. Navrátil, T. Pa- penbrock, S. Quaglioni, Coupled-cluster calcu- lations of neutrinoless double-βdecay in48Ca, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126 (2021) 182502.doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.182502

    2021 doi

  40. [48]

    Z. Li, L. Jokiniemi, A. Schwenk, Ab initio calculations of two-neutrino and neutrinoless double-βdecay of 48Ca and related Gamow- Teller strength distributions (2026).arXiv: 2607.11733

    2026 arXiv

  41. [49]

    D. S. Akerib (LUX-ZEPLIN collaboration), et al., Projected sensitivity of the LUX- ZEPLIN experiment to the two-neutrino and neutrinoless doubleβdecays of 134Xe, Phys. Rev. C 104 (2021) 065501.doi:10.1103/ PhysRevC.104.065501

    2021

  42. [50]

    Šimkovic, R

    F. Šimkovic, R. Dvornický, D. Stefánik, A. Faessler, Improved description of the2νββ- decay and a possibility to determine the ef- fective axial-vector coupling constant, Phys. Rev. C 97 (3) (2018) 034315.doi:10.1103/ PhysRevC.97.034315

    2018

  43. [51]

    S. e. Morabit, R. Bouabid, V. Cirigliano, J. de Vries, L. Gráf, E. Mereghetti, 2νββspec- trum in chiral effective field theory, JHEP 06 (2025) 082.doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2025)082

    2025 doi

  44. [52]

    Castillo, D

    D. Castillo, D. Frycz, B. Benavente, J. Menén- dez, Two-neutrinoββdecay to excited states at next-to-leading order, Phys. Lett. B 875 (2026) 140306.doi:10.1016/j.physletb. 2026.140306

    2026

  45. [53]

    Kotila, F

    J. Kotila, F. Iachello, Phase-space factors for double-βdecay, Phys. Rev. C 85 (2012) 034316.doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.85.034316

    2012 doi

  46. [54]

    Kotila, F

    J. Kotila, F. Iachello, Phase space factors for β+β+ decay and competing modes of double- βdecay, Phys. Rev. C 87 (2013) 024313.doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.87.024313

    2013 doi

  47. [55]

    Faessler, F

    A. Faessler, F. Šimkovic, Double beta decay, J. Phys. G 24 (12) (1998) 2139–2178.doi: 10.1088/0954-3899/24/12/001

    1998 doi

  48. [56]

    S. R. Elliott, P. Vogel, Double beta decay, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 52 (1) (2002) 115–151.doi:10.1146/annurev.nucl.52. 050102.090641. 15

    2002

  49. [57]

    Suhonen, From Nucleons to Nucleus: Con- cepts of Microscopic Nuclear Theory, Springer- Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, 2007

    J. Suhonen, From Nucleons to Nucleus: Con- cepts of Microscopic Nuclear Theory, Springer- Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, 2007

    2007

  50. [58]

    Šimkovic, V

    F. Šimkovic, V. Rodin, A. Faessler, P. Vo- gel,0νββand2νββnuclear matrix ele- ments, quasiparticle random-phase approxi- mation, and isospin symmetry restoration, Phys. Rev. C 87 (2013) 045501.doi:10.1103/ PhysRevC.87.045501

    2013

  51. [60]

    Jokiniemi, P

    L. Jokiniemi, P. Soriano, J. Menéndez, Impact of the leading-order short-range nuclear ma- trix element on the neutrinoless double-beta decay of medium-mass and heavy nuclei, Phys. Lett. B 823 (2021) 136720.doi:10.1016/j. physletb.2021.136720

    2021

  52. [61]

    Holinde, Two-nucleon forces and nuclear matter, Phys

    K. Holinde, Two-nucleon forces and nuclear matter, Phys. Rep. 68 (1981) 121.doi:10. 1016/0370-1573(81)90188-5

    1981

  53. [62]

    Caurier, G

    E. Caurier, G. Martinez-Pinedo, F. Nowacki, A. Poves, A. P. Zuker, The shell model as uni- fied view of nuclear structure, Rev. Mod. Phys. 77 (2005) 427.doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.77. 427

    2005 doi

  54. [63]

    B. A. Brown, The nuclear shell model to- wards the drip lines, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 47 (2001) 517.doi:10.1016/S0146-6410(01) 00159-4

    2001 doi

  55. [64]

    Otsuka, A

    T. Otsuka, A. Gade, O. Sorlin, T. Suzuki, Y. Utsuno, Evolution of shell structure in ex- otic nuclei, Rev. Mod. Phys. 92 (2020) 015002. doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.92.015002

    2020 doi

  56. [65]

    B. H. Wildenthal, W. Chung, B. A. Brown, Experimental and theoretical Gamow-Teller beta-decay observables for the sd-shell nuclei, At. Data Nucl. Data Tables 33 (1985) 347–404. doi:10.1016/0092-640X(85)90009-9

    1985 doi

  57. [66]

    W. T. Chou, E. K. Warburton, B. A. Brown, Gamow-Teller beta-decay rates for A≤18 nuclei, Phys. Rev. C 47 (1993) 163.doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.47.163

    1993 doi

  58. [68]

    Coraggio, A

    L. Coraggio, A. Gargano, N. Itaco, R. Man- cino, F. Nowacki, Calculation of the neutrino- less double-βdecay matrix element within the realistic shell model, Phys. Rev. C 101 (2020) 044315.doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.101.044315

    2020 doi

  59. [69]

    Niţescu, S

    O. Niţescu, S. Ghinescu, V.-A. Sevestrean, M. Horoi, F. Šimkovic, S. Stoica, Theoretical analysis and predictions for the two-neutrino double electron capture of 124Xe, J. Phys. G 51 (12) (2024) 125103.doi:10.1088/ 1361-6471/ad8767

    2024

  60. [70]

    Caurier, F

    E. Caurier, F. Nowacki, A. Poves, K. Sieja, Collectivity in the light xenon isotopes: A shell model study, Phys. Rev. C 82 (2010) 064304. doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.82.064304

    2010 doi

  61. [71]

    C. Qi, Z. X. Xu, Monopole-optimized effective interaction for tin isotopes, Phys. Rev. C 86 (2012) 044323.doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.86. 044323

    2012 doi

  62. [72]

    B. M. Rebeiro, S. Triambak, P. E. Gar- rett, G. C. Ball, B. A. Brown, J. Menéndez, B. Romeo, P. Adsley, B. G. Lenardo, R. Lind- say, V. Bildstein, C. Burbadge, R. Coleman, A. Diaz Varela, R. Dubey, T. Faestermann, R. Hertenberger, M. Kamil, K. G. Leach, C. Natzke, J. C. Nzobad...

    2023

  63. [73]

    Horoi, A

    M. Horoi, A. Neacsu, Shell model predictions for 124Sndouble-βdecay, Phys. Rev. C 93 (2016) 024308.doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.93. 024308

    2016 doi

  64. [74]

    A.Arima, T.Otsuka, F.Iachello, I.Talmi, Col- lectivenuclearstatesassymmetriccouplingsof proton and neutron excitations, Phys. Lett. B 66 (1977) 205.doi:10.1016/0370-2693(77) 90860-7. 16

    1977 doi

  65. [75]

    Iachello, A

    F. Iachello, A. Arima, The Interacting Boson Model, Cambridge University Press, 1987

    1987

  66. [76]

    Otsuka, A

    T. Otsuka, A. Arima, F. Iachello, Nuclear shell model and interacting bosons, Nucl. Phys. A 309 (1978) 1.doi:10.1016/0375-9474(78) 90532-8

    1978 doi

  67. [77]

    Barea, F

    J. Barea, F. Iachello, Neutrinoless double- beta decay in the microscopic interacting bo- son model, Phys. Rev. C 79 (2009) 044301. doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.79.044301

    2009 doi

  68. [78]

    A. Gade, I. Wiedenhöver, J. Gableske, A. Gel- berg, H. Meise, N. Pietralla, P. von Brentano, Proton–neutron structure of low lying collec- tive quadrupole excitations in 126Xe, Nucl. Phys. A 665 (3) (2000) 268–284.doi:10. 1016/S0375-9474(99)00387-5

    2000

  69. [79]

    Puddu, O

    G. Puddu, O. Scholten, T. Otsuka, Collec- tive quadrupole states ofXe,Ba and Cein the interacting boson model, Nucl. Phys. A 348 (1980) 109.doi:10.1016/0375-9474(80) 90548-5

    1980 doi

  70. [80]

    Kotila, J

    J. Kotila, J. Barea, Occupation probabilities of single particle levels using the microscopic interacting boson model: Application to some nuclei of interest in neutrinoless double-βde- cay, Phys. Rev. C 94 (2016) 034320.doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.94.034320

    2016 doi

  71. [81]

    J. Abad, A. Morales, R. Nuñez-Lagos, A. F. Pacheco, An estimation of the rates of (two- neutrino) double beta decay and related pro- cesses, Ann. Fis. Ser. A 80 (1984) 9

    1984

  72. [82]

    J. Abad, A. Morales, R. Nuñez-Lagos, A. F. Pacheco, An estimation of the rates of (two- neutrino) double beta decay and related pro- cesses, J Phys. Colloques 45 (1984) C3–147. doi:10.1051/jphyscol:1984328

    1984 doi

  73. [83]

    Domin, S

    P. Domin, S. Kovalenko, F. Šimkovic, S. V. Se- menov, Neutrino accompaniedβ ±β±,β +/EC andEC/ECprocesses within single state dom- inance hypothesis, Nucl. Phys. A 753 (2005) 337.doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2005.03. 003

    2005 doi

  74. [84]

    Barea, J

    J. Barea, J. Kotila, F. Iachello, Nuclear ma- trix elements for double-βdecay, Phys. Rev. C 87 (2013) 014315.doi:10.1103/PhysRevC. 87.014315

    2013 doi

  75. [85]

    LogFT, nndc.bnl.gov/logft/

  76. [86]

    BetaShape, lnhb.fr/home/rd- activities/spectrum-processing-software/

  77. [87]

    Mougeot, Towards high-precision calcula- tion of electron capture decays, Appl

    X. Mougeot, Towards high-precision calcula- tion of electron capture decays, Appl. Ra- diat. Isot. 154 (2019) 108884.doi:10.1016/ j.apradiso.2019.108884

    2019

  78. [88]

    Mougeot, Atomic exchange correction in forbidden unique beta transitions, Appl

    X. Mougeot, Atomic exchange correction in forbidden unique beta transitions, Appl. Ra- diat. Isot. 201 (2023) 111018.doi:10.1016/ j.apradiso.2023.111018

    2023

  79. [89]

    Niţescu, F

    O. Niţescu, F. Šimkovic, Semi-empirical for- mula for two-neutrino double-βdecay, Phys. Rev. C 111 (2025) 024307.doi:10.1103/ PhysRevC.111.024307

    2025

  80. [90]

    Gando (KamLAND-Zen collaboration), et al., Precision measurement of the 136Xe two-neutrinoββspectrum in KamLAND-Zen and its impact on the quenching of nuclear matrix elements, Phys

    A. Gando (KamLAND-Zen collaboration), et al., Precision measurement of the 136Xe two-neutrinoββspectrum in KamLAND-Zen and its impact on the quenching of nuclear matrix elements, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122 (19) (2019) 192501.doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett. 122.192501

    2019 doi

  81. [91]

    M. Wang, W. Huang, F. Kondev, G. Audi, S. Naimi, The AME 2020 atomic mass evalua- tion (ii). tables, graphs and references*, Chin. Phys. C 45 (3) (2021) 030003.doi:10.1088/ 1674-1137/abddaf

    2020

  82. [92]

    ENSDF, nndc.bnl.gov/ensdf/

  83. [94]

    Puppe, D

    P. Puppe, D. Frekers, T. Adachi, H. Akimune, N. Aoi, B. Bilgier, H. Ejiri, H. Fujita, Y. Fu- jita, M. Fujiwara, E. Ganioğlu, M. N. Harakeh, K. Hatanaka, M. Holl, H. C. Kozer, J. Lee, A. Lennarz, H. Matsubara, K. Miki, S. E. A. Orrigo, T. Suzuki, A. Tamii, J. H. Thies, High- re...

    2011 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed July 31, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.