Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 61 references

New measurements show that TAGS-based feedings reproduce the beta spectra of 92Rb and 142Cs, and that ΔIπ=0− first-forbidden corrections are negligible.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 11:31 UTC pith:YZGDCSIH

load-bearing objection Solid, useful measurement of 92Rb and 142Cs beta shapes, with a couple of analysis soft spots worth fixing before the results become anchors. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2601.05804 v1 pith:YZGDCSIH submitted 2026-01-09 nucl-ex

Study of boldsymbol{β} Decay Shape Factors in First-Forbidden Transitions with boldsymbol{Delta I^π = 0^-} for Reactor Antineutrino Spectra Predictions

G. A. Alcal\'a , A. Algora , M. Estienne , M. Fallot , V. Guadilla , A. Beloeuvre , W. Gelletly , R. Kean
show 31 more authors
A. Porta S. Bouvier J.-S. Stutzmann E. Bonnet T. Eronen D. Etasse J. Agramunt J. L. Tain H. Garcia Cabrera L. Giot A. Laureau J. A. Victoria Y. Molla A. Jaries L. Al Ayoubi O. Beliuskina W. Gins M. Hukkanen A. Illana A. Kankainen S. Kujanp\"a\"a I. Moore I. Pohjalainen D. Pitman A. Raggio M. Reponen J. Romero J. Ruotsalainen M. Stryjczyk A. Tolosa V. Virtanen
This is my paper
classification nucl-ex
keywords beta decay shape factorsfirst-forbidden transitionsreactor antineutrino spectrumtotal absorption gamma spectroscopy92Rb142Csbeta spectrum measurementPandemonium effect
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper tries to settle whether the shape of the reactor antineutrino spectrum 'bump' around 6 MeV can be explained by first-forbidden beta-decay shape corrections that previous predictions neglected. It reports the first high-resolution electron spectra of the beta decays of 92Rb and 142Cs, two of the largest contributors to reactor antineutrino spectra, measured with a coincidence electron telescope. The authors show that the measured spectrum shapes are well reproduced by predictions built on beta feedings extracted from total absorption gamma spectroscopy (TAGS), while predictions based on older high-resolution feedings disagree. They also show that the ΔIπ=0− first-forbidden correction for the ground-state to ground-state branch of these decays has no observable effect on the spectrum shape, experimentally confirming that this branch is insensitive to such effects. If correct, the result validates TAGS feedings for these two nuclei and rules out this particular correction as the origin of the spectrum bump.

Core claim

The central claim is that the deconvolved beta spectra of 92Rb and 142Cs measured in the I233 campaign are faithfully reproduced by models using TAGS-determined beta feedings together with standard allowed shape corrections, and that adding the non-unique first-forbidden shape correction factor for the ΔIπ=0− ground-state to ground-state transition leaves the predicted spectrum essentially unchanged. The agreement with the TAGS-based predictions (reduced chi-square near unity) and the agreement of the optimized ground-state feedings with TAGS values are presented as experimental confirmation that the ΔIπ=0− branch does not carry first-forbidden shape sensitivity. The paper also provides new

What carries the argument

The experimental core is a pair of ΔE–E electron telescopes (thin silicon detector in coincidence with a thick plastic scintillator) operated with a tape station to suppress daughter activity. A Geant4-based Monte Carlo response matrix, validated on the 114Pd–114Ag decay chain, is used to deconvolve measured coincidence spectra via an expectation-maximization/maximum-entropy inversion. Comparisons use two published sets of allowed shape corrections plus a computed non-unique first-forbidden correction for the ΔIπ=0− ground-state to ground-state transition. The deconvolved spectra are compared with predictions built from ENSDF feedings and from TAGS feedings, with the spectrum shape as the se

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes the Geant4 detector response matrix is accurate enough for deconvolution, even though its validation on a different decay chain shows large low-energy discrepancies; a biased response matrix would distort all deconvolved spectra and the conclusions drawn from them.

What would settle it

A measurement of the 92Rb and 142Cs beta spectra by an independent technique with different systematic errors—for example, a magnetic spectrometer or a source embedded in a 4π detector—that disagreed with the deconvolved shapes below 1 MeV or in the 1.3 MeV region would falsify the conclusions. Alternatively, if replacing the predicted 142La contamination fraction with the experimentally observed 1.64% fraction changed the deconvolved 142Cs spectrum enough to resolve the 1.3 MeV discrepancy, the comparison to TAGS predictions would be called into question.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • TAGS feedings are validated for 92Rb and 142Cs, so summation-method reactor antineutrino predictions that use these feedings are on firmer ground.
  • The ΔIπ=0− first-forbidden correction cannot explain the reactor antineutrino spectrum bump for these two dominant contributors, directing attention to other effects such as ΔI>0 transitions or normalization issues.
  • The measured average beta energies (3.52±0.03 MeV for 92Rb, 2.41±0.01 MeV for 142Cs) provide new decay-heat inputs consistent with TAGS and inconsistent with older ENSDF-based values.
  • The optimized ground-state feedings from the beta-shape analysis agree with the TAGS values, demonstrating that beta spectra can be used as an independent check on gamma-based feeding determinations.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the ΔIπ=0− branch is generically shape-insensitive, then other large-branch, same-spin-change decays in the reactor spectrum (e.g., 96Y, 90Rb) should show similarly negligible first-forbidden distortions; measuring one of those would extend this result.
  • The 1.3 MeV discrepancy in 142Cs suggests a small feeding error in the TAGS model or a missing ΔI>0 first-forbidden correction; a dedicated re-measurement of the feeding strengths could sharpen the test.
  • This technique—comparing deconvolved beta spectra with TAGS-based predictions—could be applied to other fission products to map which decays truly require first-forbidden corrections.
  • The paper's reliance on a single response-matrix validation means an independent beta-spectrum measurement (e.g., with a magnetic spectrometer) for 92Rb and 142Cs would robustly confirm the deconvolved shapes.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports new measurements of the beta-decay electron spectra of 92Rb and 142Cs, two major contributors to reactor antineutrino spectra, using the e-Shape Delta-E/E telescopes at the IGISOL facility. The measured spectra are deconvolved with a Geant4 response matrix and compared with predictions built from ENSDF and TAGS feeding sets and from several beta-shape models, including allowed corrections by Huber and Hayen et al. and the first-forbidden Delta-I-pi = 0^- ground-state-to-ground-state correction by Hayen et al. The main claims are that the measured shapes are well reproduced by TAGS-based predictions, that the Delta-I-pi = 0^- first-forbidden correction has negligible effect on the 142Cs ground-state branch, and that optimized ground-state feedings agree with TAGS values. The paper also presents comparisons with the older Rudstam/Tengblad spectra and derives average beta energies.

Significance. If the claims hold, the paper provides a valuable experimental benchmark for two key fission products, supporting the use of TAGS feeding sets in summation-method reactor antineutrino predictions and constraining the role of first-forbidden shape corrections in the reactor spectral bump. The strengths include the use of high-purity radioactive beams, a detailed detector characterization, an explicit deconvolution procedure, and tabulated deconvolved spectra (Table III) that can be reused by the community. However, the central claims rest on two premises that are not fully nailed down: the adequacy of the Monte Carlo response-matrix validation and the treatment of 142La contamination. These are load-bearing because deconvolution, feeding optimization, and average-energy extraction all inherit any response-matrix bias, and the 142Cs conclusions depend on a cleaned spectrum whose cleaning step is not robustly demonstrated.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. V B, Fig. 5] The Monte Carlo validation criterion is not quantitatively established as stated. The text says relative differences remain within ~3% 'in most of the range' and that this fulfills the quality threshold, yet the reported chi2/df values are 5.5 (Hayen), 7.8 (Fermi), and 13.5 (Huber), and Fig. 5 shows relative differences reaching about ±25% below ~1 MeV. Since the response matrix enters all deconvolutions via Eq. (3) and thus underlies the spectral comparisons, the optimized feedings of Sec. VI B, and the average energies of Sec. VI C, this loose validation is a central concern. Please define the energy range over which the 3% criterion actually holds, and quantify the impact of the low-energy validation residuals on the deconvolved spectra, e.g., by redoing the deconvolution with a response matrix perturbed within the validation uncertainties.
  2. [Sec. V C, Fig. 10 and Fig. 13] The 142La contamination is subtracted using the Bateman-predicted proportion of 0.0001%, while HPGe spectra indicate an observed proportion of 1.64% — four orders of magnitude larger. The authors argue that the excess 142La gamma activity comes from 142Cs implanted at the chamber entrance and that the associated betas are blocked by the collimator. This is plausible but not demonstrated. The cleaned 142Cs spectrum is the basis for the claimed agreement with TAGS predictions (Fig. 10, Wolinska II chi2/df = 0.76) and for the conclusion that the Delta-I-pi = 0^- first-forbidden correction has no visible effect (Fig. 13). A direct fit with the 142La normalization free, or a re-analysis with the 1.64% level treated as an upper limit, is needed to bound the possible beta contribution. The current contamination uncertainty estimate in Sec. V E (average 0.79% for 142Cs) does not appear to includ
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. VI B] The optimized ground-state feedings are adjusted to the same deconvolved spectra used in the shape comparisons, so the agreement reported in Table I is not an independent validation. The text should more clearly present these values as consistency checks rather than as independent confirmations of the TAGS feedings.
  2. [Sec. V C] The treatment of contaminants is asymmetric: for 92Sr and 142Ba the experimental HPGe proportions are used as upper limits for cleaning, while for 142La the predicted proportion is used. The rationale for this difference is given only briefly; a more explicit justification, including why the 1.64% 142La gamma observation cannot be associated with any beta flux reaching the telescope, would help.
  3. [Sec. VI C, Eq. (4)] The quoted 'experimental' average beta energies are obtained after filling the missing low-energy bins below ~0.5 MeV with the best model prediction. This makes the result model-dependent. Please quantify the systematic spread obtained when using the alternative model predictions (e.g., Zakari I vs Zakari II, Wolinska I vs Wolinska II) instead of only the best chi2 model, and state this dependence if average energies are to be presented as experimental quantities.
  4. [Table I caption] Typo: 'ground-sate' should be 'ground-state'.
  5. [General] The abstract's phrase 'well reproduced employing feedings extracted from total absorption gamma spectroscopy measurements' is supported by the quoted chi2 values, but it would be useful to also state in the abstract that the comparisons are made after deconvolution with a response matrix validated at the few-percent level, so that readers understand the provenance of the spectra.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Central shape comparisons are independent; the average-beta-energy agreement is partly circular because the 'experimental' spectrum is filled at low energies with the same model used for comparison.

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. VI C (Average Energies), Table II; Appendix Table III low-energy bins]
    "Because of this limitation, the modelβspectra corresponding to the smallestχ2/df values (see figures Fig. 9 and Fig. 10) were normalized to the deconvolved experimental data. Model data points for the corresponding low-energy bins were then computed from the predictions and incorporated in the experimental data sets. ... The 92Rb and 142Cs averageβenergy values determined from predictions usingβfeedings from TAGS measurements [22, 56] are in excellent agreement with the corresponding experimental values reported in this work, which were directly computed from the deconvolvedβspectra."

    For 142Cs, the 'experimental' average energy is computed after inserting the Wolinska II model into the missing low-energy bins, and the comparison value ('Wolinska II (Fig. 10) 2.422±0.020 MeV') is that same model. The low-energy bins in Table III are set equal to the model values by construction. Thus the quoted agreement (2.41±0.01 MeV vs 2.422±0.020 MeV) is partly built into the procedure, not an independent confirmation. The 92Rb case is less severe because the comparison value comes from a TAGS review, but the same filling-with-best-model procedure is used.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are not circular. The deconvolved 92Rb and 142Cs spectra are obtained from measured telescope data via maximum-entropy/expectation-maximization deconvolution using a Geant4 response matrix; the TAGS feedings (Zakari-Issoufou, Rasco, Wolinska-Cichocka) and the Hayen/Huber shape corrections are independent external inputs. The comparisons in Figs. 9, 10, and 13 therefore test external models against data, not inputs against themselves. The ground-state feeding optimization is also a legitimate fit-and-compare exercise, not a disguised prediction. The 142La contamination treatment is an assumption and a robustness concern, but it is not a circular step because the TAGS predictions do not depend on the subtracted contamination fraction. The only by-construction element is the average-beta-energy comparison in Sec. VI C: the low-energy bins missing from the deconvolved spectrum are filled with the best-fitting model, and the same model's average is then quoted as being in 'excellent agreement' with the resulting hybrid average. This affects a secondary result, not the main shape-validation claim, so the overall circularity score is moderate rather than high.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities or forces. Its load-bearing assumptions are the accuracy of the Geant4 response model, the external TAGS feedings, and the calibration data. The only fitted quantities with a direct role in the derived results are the two optimized ground-state feedings and the ad hoc Monte Carlo validation threshold.

free parameters (3)
  • 92Rb g.s.-to-g.s. feeding (optimized) = 90.0 ± 1.1%
    Fitted via χ² scan over the deconvolved 92Rb beta spectrum, renormalizing the remaining feedings; reported in Sec. VI B and Table I.
  • 142Cs g.s.-to-g.s. feeding (optimized) = 39.6 ± 2.0%
    Same χ² optimization procedure applied to the deconvolved 142Cs spectrum; Sec. VI B and Table I.
  • Monte Carlo validation acceptance threshold = ~3% relative difference (ad hoc)
    The Geant4 model is accepted when simulated spectra stay within a few percent of the 114Pd-114Ag data in 'most of the range', despite χ²/df values above 5. This threshold is chosen by the collaboration and controls whether the response matrix is used for deconvolution (Sec. V B).
axioms (6)
  • standard math Fermi theory beta spectrum formula, Eq. (2), with statistical factor and Fermi function as the base shape
    Invoked in Sec. II as the foundation of all beta shape calculations.
  • domain assumption Behrens–Bühring formalism and the Hayen et al. first-forbidden correction factors accurately describe non-unique first-forbidden transitions
    Hayen et al. corrections [30] are used for the ΔIπ=0⁻ ground-state transitions of 92Rb and 142Cs; Secs. II and VI A.
  • domain assumption The Geant4 Livermore physics list and CAD geometry accurately reproduce the e-Shape detector response
    The response matrix used for deconvolution is built from these simulations after a validation that shows residual discrepancies (Sec. V B, Fig. 5).
  • domain assumption TAGS feeding sets from Zakari-Issoufou et al., Rasco et al., and Wolinska-Cichocka et al. are accurate
    These external feeding sets are the independent inputs against which the measured spectra are compared; Secs. VI and VII.
  • domain assumption ENSDF Q-values and BrIcc conversion-electron data used for energy calibration are correct
    Calibration endpoints and conversion electron peaks rely on ENSDF and BrIcc; Sec. V A.
  • standard math Maximum-entropy deconvolution converges to the original beta spectrum under Poisson statistics
    The iterative deconvolution of Eq. (3) is used to recover the true spectra; Sec. V D.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 29990 in / 11822 out tokens · 112218 ms · 2026-08-03T11:31:01.067857+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The electron spectra of the $\beta$ decays of $^{92}$Rb and $^{142}$Cs, key contributors to the reactor antineutrino spectrum, were measured at the IGISOL facility using radioactive beams of high isotopic purity. The shapes of the measured $\beta$ spectra were compared with various $\beta$ shape models, including first-forbidden correction factors for $\Delta I^\pi = 0^-$ ground-state to ground-state transitions. Comparisons with previous experimental results are also provided. The shapes of the newly measured $\beta$ spectra are well reproduced employing feedings extracted from total absorption gamma spectroscopy measurements.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.05804 by A. Algora, A. Beloeuvre, A. Illana, A. Jaries, A. Kankainen, A. Laureau, A. Porta, A. Raggio, A. Tolosa, D. Etasse, D. Pitman, E. Bonnet, G. A. Alcal\'a, H. Garcia Cabrera, I. Moore, I. Pohjalainen, J. Agramunt, J. A. Victoria, J. L. Tain, J. Romero, J. Ruotsalainen, J.-S. Stutzmann, L. Al Ayoubi, L. Giot, M. Estienne, M. Fallot, M. Hukkanen, M. Reponen, M. Stryjczyk, O. Beliuskina, R. Kean, S. Bouvier, S. Kujanp\"a\"a, T. Eronen, V. Guadilla, V. Virtanen, W. Gelletly, W. Gins, Y. Molla.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Mounted [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Scheme of the I233 experimental setup (side [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Fit to the E0 conversion electron peak in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Fit to the end-point channel of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Upper panel: Comparison of the measured spectrum [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Three-dimensional representation of the response ma [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Comparison of the measured [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Same as Fig. 7 but for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: shows the deconvolved 142Cs spectrum (142Cs Decv.), obtained with the Maximum-Entropy deconvolu￾tion method, compared with several predictions. These include a reference spectrum generated with ENSDF β feedings [54] using only the statistical factor and the Fermi function (Fermi). And two spectra generated with TAGS β feedings from Woli´nska-Cichocka et al. [56], incorporating the shape corrections of Hay… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: compares the 142Cs β spectrum obtained in this work (I233 Exp.) with the same spectrum reported by Rudstam et al. [37]. There are significant differences at energies below 2 MeV. Most likely, as a consequence of the low-energy deformation, the deconvolved spectrum also differs from that of Rudstam et al. [37] in the 2 to 6 MeV energy region. As in the 92Rb case, the differences at high energies are genera… view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. Comparison of the deconvolved [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_13.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Mention, M

    G. Mention, M. Fechner, Th. Lasserre, Th. A. Mueller, D. Lhuillier, M. Cribier, and A. Letourneau, Phys. Rev. 18 D83, 073006 (2011)

    2011

  2. [2]

    Bernstein, N

    A. Bernstein, N. Bowden, B. L. Goldblum, P. Huber, I. Jovanovic, and J. Mattingly, Rev. Mod. Phys.92, 011003 (2020)

    2020

  3. [3]

    Rozpedzik, L

    D. Rozpedzik, L. De Keukeleere, K. Bodek, L. Hayen, K. Lojek, M. Perkowski, and N. Severijns, Journal of Physics: Conference Series2586, 012141 (2023)

    2023

  4. [4]

    L. D. Keukeleere, D. Rozpedzik, N. Severijns, K. Bodek, L. Hayen, K. Lojek, M. Perkowski, and S. Vanlangen- donck, A first extraction of the weak magnetism form factor and fierz interference term from the 114in→ 114sn gamow-teller transition (2024), arXiv:2404.03140 [nucl- ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    Schreckenbach, H

    K. Schreckenbach, H. Faust, F. von Feilitzsch, A. Hahn, K. Hawerkamp, and J. Vuilleumier, Phys. Lett. B99, 251 (1981)

    1981

  6. [6]

    R. W. King and J. F. Perkins, Phys. Rev.112, 963 (1958)

    1958

  7. [7]

    G. A. Alcal´ a, A. Algora, M. Estienne, M. Fallot, V. Guadilla, A. Beloeuvre, W. Gelletly, R. Kean, A. Porta, S. Bouvier, J.-S. Stutzmann, E. Bonnet, T. Eronen, D. Etasse, J. Agramunt, J. L. Tain, H. Gar- cia Cabrera, L. Giot, A. Laureau, J. A. Victoria, Y. Molla, A. Jaries, L. A. Ayoubi, O. Beliuskina, W. Gins, M. Hukkanen, A. Illana, A. Kankainen, S. Ku...

    2025

  8. [8]

    Schreckenbach, G

    K. Schreckenbach, G. Colvin, W. Gelletly, and F. Von Feilitzsch, Phys. Lett. B160, 325 (1985)

    1985

  9. [9]

    Huber, Phys

    P. Huber, Phys. Rev. C84, 024617 (2011)

    2011

  10. [10]

    T. A. Mueller, D. Lhuillier, M. Fallot, A. Letourneau, S. Cormon, M. Fechner, L. Giot, T. Lasserre, J. Martino, G. Mention, A. Porta, and F. Yermia, Phys. Rev. C83, 054615 (2011)

    2011

  11. [11]

    F. T. Avignone, S. M. Blakenship, and C. W. Darden, Phys. Rev.170, 931 (1968)

    1968

  12. [12]

    J. H. Choi, W. Q. Choi, Y. Choi, H. I. Jang, J. S. Jang, E. J. Jeon, K. K. Joo, B. R. Kim, H. S. Kim, J. Y. Kim, S. B. Kim, S. Y. Kim, W. Kim, Y. D. Kim, Y. Ko, D. H. Lee, I. T. Lim, M. Y. Pac, I. G. Park, J. S. Park, R. G. Park, H. Seo, S. H. Seo, Y. G. Seon, C. D. Shin, K. Siyeon, J. H. Yang, I. S. Yeo, and I. Yu (RENO Col- laboration), Phys. Rev. Lett....

    2016

  13. [13]

    F. P. An, A. B. Balantekin, H. R. Band, M. Bishai, S. Blyth, I. Butorov, D. Cao, G. F. Cao, J. Cao, W. R. Cen, Y. L. Chan, J. F. Chang, L. C. Chang, Y. Chang, H. S. Chen, Q. Y. Chen, S. M. Chen, Y. X. Chen, Y. Chen, J. H. Cheng, J. Cheng, Y. P. Cheng, J. J. Cher- winka, M. C. Chu, J. P. Cummings, J. de Arcos, Z. Y. Deng, X. F. Ding, Y. Y. Ding, M. V. Diwa...

    2016

  14. [14]

    von Feilitzsch, A

    F. von Feilitzsch, A. Hahn, and K. Schreckenbach, Physics Letters B118, 162 (1982)

    1982

  15. [15]

    A. Hahn, K. Schreckenbach, W. Gelletly, F. von Feil- itzsch, G. Colvin, and B. Krusche, Phys. Lett. B218, 365 (1989)

    1989

  16. [16]

    N. Haag, A. G¨ utlein, M. Hofmann, L. Oberauer, W. Potzel, K. Schreckenbach, and F. M. Wagner, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 122501 (2014)

    2014

  17. [17]

    Apollonio, A

    M. Apollonio, A. Baldini, C. Bemporad, E. Caffau, F. Cei, Y. D´ eclais, H. de Kerret, B. Dieterle, A. Etenko, L. Foresti, J. George, G. Giannini, M. Grassi, Y. Ko- zlov, W. Kropp, D. Kryn, M. Laiman, C. E. Lane, B. Lefi` evre, I. Machulin, A. Martemyanov, V. Marte- myanov, L. Mikaelyan, D. Nicol` o, M. Obolensky, R. Pazzi, G. Pieri, L. Price, S. Riley, R....

    2003

  18. [18]

    National Nuclear Data Center (NNDC), Evaluated nu- clear structure data file (ENSDF), Brookhaven National Laboratory (2022)

    2022

  19. [19]

    Fallot, A

    M. Fallot, A. Porta, L. L. Meur, J. A. Briz, A.-A. Zakari- Issoufou, V. Guadilla, A. Algora, J.-L. Ta ` ın, E. Valen- cia, S. Rice, V. Bui, S. Cormon, M. Estienne, J. Agra- munt, J. ¨Ayst¨ o, L. Batist, M. Bowry, R. Caballero- Folch, D. Cano-Ott, A. Cucoanes, V.-V. Elomaa, T. Ero- nen, E. Est´ evez, G. Farrelly, L. Fraile, M. Flem- ing, E. Ganogliu, A. Ga...

    2017

  20. [20]

    Estienne, M

    M. Estienne, M. Fallot, A. Algora, J. Briz-Monago, V. M. Bui, S. Cormon, W. Gelletly, L. Giot, V. Guadilla, D. Jordan, L. Le Meur, A. Porta, S. Rice, B. Rubio, J. L. Ta ´ ın, E. Valencia, and A.-A. Zakari-Issoufou, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 022502 (2019)

    2019

  21. [21]

    Hardy, L

    J. Hardy, L. Carraz, B. Jonson, and P. Hansen, Phys. Lett. B71, 307 (1977)

    1977

  22. [22]

    L., Rubio, B., Fallot, M., and Gel- letly, W., Eur

    Algora, A., Tain, J. L., Rubio, B., Fallot, M., and Gel- letly, W., Eur. Phys. J. A57, 85 (2021)

    2021

  23. [23]

    Algora, B

    A. Algora, B. Rubio, J. L. Tain, and W. Gelletly,Total Absorption Technique for Nuclear Structure and Applica- tions, 1st ed., SpringerBriefs in Physics (Springer Cham,

  24. [24]

    Zakari-Issoufou, M

    A.-A. Zakari-Issoufou, M. Fallot, A. Porta, A. Algora, J. L. Tain, E. Valencia, S. Rice, V. M. Bui, S. Cormon, M. Estienne, J. Agramunt, J. ¨Ayst¨ o, M. Bowry, J. A. Briz, R. Caballero-Folch, D. Cano-Ott, A. Cucoanes, V.- V. Elomaa, T. Eronen, E. Est´ evez, G. F. Farrelly, A. R. Garcia, W. Gelletly, M. B. Gomez-Hornillos, V. Gorly- chev, J. Hakala, A. Jok...

    2015

  25. [25]

    A. C. Hayes, J. L. Friar, G. T. Garvey, G. Jungman, and G. Jonkmans, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 202501 (2014)

    2014

  26. [26]

    V. I. Kopeikin, Y. N. Panin, and A. A. Sabelnikov, Physics of Atomic Nuclei84, 1 (2021)

    2021

  27. [27]

    Kopeikin, M

    V. Kopeikin, M. Skorokhvatov, and O. Titov, Phys. Rev. D104, L071301 (2021)

    2021

  28. [28]

    Fallot, S

    M. Fallot, S. Cormon, M. Estienne, A. Algora, V. M. Bui, A. Cucoanes, M. Elnimr, L. Giot, D. Jordan, J. Martino, A. Onillon, A. Porta, G. Pronost, A. Remoto, J. L. Ta ´ ın, F. Yermia, and A.-A. Zakari-Issoufou, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 202504 (2012)

    2012

  29. [29]

    A. C. Hayes, J. L. Friar, G. T. Garvey, D. Ibeling, G. Jungman, T. Kawano, and R. W. Mills, Phys. Rev. D 92, 033015 (2015)

    2015

  30. [30]

    The relative differences between the predicted and deconvolved spectra are presented in the lower panel

    was only applied to Wolinska I. The relative differences between the predicted and deconvolved spectra are presented in the lower panel. A one-sigma error band is shown in gray. Fig. 10 shows significant differences between the de- convolved and reference (Fermi) spectra, suggesting that the 142Csβfeedings reported in ENSDF [54] are likely to be affected ...

  31. [31]

    Behrens and W

    H. Behrens and W. B¨ uhring, Nuclear Physics A162, 111 (1971)

    1971

  32. [32]

    Behrens and W

    H. Behrens and W. B¨ uhring,Electron radial wave func- tions and nuclear betadecay, The international series of monographs on physics (Clarendon Press and Oxford University Press, 1982)

    1982

  33. [33]

    Guadilla, A

    V. Guadilla, A. Algora, M. Estienne, M. Fallot, W. Gel- letly, A. Porta, L.-M. Rigalleau, and J.-S. Stutzmann, JINST19, P02027

  34. [34]

    The weak magnetism term of Huber [9] is included in the comparison with the corrections of Hayenet al.[34]

    and Huber [9], respectively. The weak magnetism term of Huber [9] is included in the comparison with the corrections of Hayenet al.[34]. Lower panel: Relative differences be- tween the experimental and simulated spectra. A one-sigma error band is shown in grey in the lower panel. the percentage level may allow us to start discerning gen- eral differences ...

    2000

  35. [35]

    Hayen, J

    L. Hayen, J. Kostensalo, N. Severijns, and J. Suhonen, Phys. Rev. C100, 054323 (2019)

    2019

  36. [36]

    0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 Spectrum (Arbitrary Units) βRudstam I233 Exp

    conducted at OSIRIS and ISOLDE in the 1980s. 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 Spectrum (Arbitrary Units) βRudstam I233 Exp. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Kinetic Energy (MeV) 5 −104 −103 −102 −101 −10 Spectrum (Arbitrary Units) β FIG. 11. Comparison of the 92Rb deconvolvedβspectrum (I233 Exp.) with the corresponding spectrum of Rudstamet al.[37] (Rudstam). Linear a...

  37. [37]

    Linear and logarithmic plots are shown in the upper and lower panels, respectively

    (Rudstam). Linear and logarithmic plots are shown in the upper and lower panels, respectively. Fig. 12 compares the 142Csβspectrum obtained in this work (I233 Exp.) with the same spectrum reported by Rudstamet al.[37]. There are significant differences at energies below 2 MeV. Most likely, as a consequence of the low-energy deformation, the deconvolved sp...

    2022

  38. [38]

    R. D. Evans,The Atomic Nucleus(McGraw-Hill Pub- lishing Company LTD, 1955)

    1955

  39. [39]

    Hayen, N

    L. Hayen, N. Severijns, K. Bodek, D. Rozpedzik, and X. Mougeot, Rev. Mod. Phys.90, 015008 (2018)

    2018

  40. [40]

    A. A. Sonzogni, E. A. McCutchan, and A. C. Hayes, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 112501 (2017)

    2017

  41. [41]

    Tengblad, K

    O. Tengblad, K. Aleklett, R. Von Dincklage, E. Lund, G. Nyman, and G. Rudstam, Nucl. Phys. A503, 136 (1989)

    1989

  42. [42]

    Rudstam, P

    G. Rudstam, P. Johansson, O. Tengblad, P. Aagaard, and J. Eriksen, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables 45, 239 (1990)

    1990

  43. [43]

    Eronen, V

    T. Eronen, V. S. Kolhinen, V. V. Elomaa, D. Gorelov, U. Hager, J. Hakala, A. Jokinen, A. Kankainen, P. Kar- vonen, S. Kopecky, I. D. Moore, H. Penttil¨ a, S. Rahaman, S. Rinta-Antila, J. Rissanen, A. Saastamoinen, J. Sz- erypo, C. Weber, and J. ¨Ayst¨ o, Eur. Phys. J. A48, 46 (2012)

    2012

  44. [44]

    Gell-Mann, Phys

    M. Gell-Mann, Phys. Rev.111, 362 (1958)

    1958

  45. [45]

    Horowitz, C

    Y. Horowitz, C. Hirning, P. Yuen, and M. Aikens, Nu- clear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Sec- tion A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and As- sociated Equipment338, 522 (1994)

    1994

  46. [46]

    Landau, edited by D

    inCollected Papers of L.D. Landau, edited by D. TER HAAR (Pergamon, 1965) pp. 417–424

    1965

  47. [47]

    ¨Ayst¨ o, Nucl

    J. ¨Ayst¨ o, Nucl. Phys. A693, 477 (2001)

    2001

  48. [48]

    Venkataramaiah, K

    P. Venkataramaiah, K. Gopala, A. Basavaraju, S. S. Suryanarayana, and H. Sanjeeviah, Journal of Physics 20 G: Nuclear Physics11, 359 (1985)

    1985

  49. [49]

    Etasse et al., Fast Acquisition SysTem for nuclEar Re- search (F ASTER),https://faster.in2p3.fr/, last ac- cessed: January 2025

    D. Etasse et al., Fast Acquisition SysTem for nuclEar Re- search (F ASTER),https://faster.in2p3.fr/, last ac- cessed: January 2025

    2025

  50. [50]

    Kib´ edi, T

    T. Kib´ edi, T. Burrows, M. Trzhaskovskaya, P. David- son, and C. Nestor, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment589, 202 (2008)

    2008

  51. [51]

    Agostinelli, J

    S. Agostinelli, J. Allison, K. Amako, J. Apostolakis, H. Araujo, P. Arce, M. Asai, D. Axen, S. Banerjee, G. Barrand, F. Behner, L. Bellagamba, J. Boudreau, L. Broglia, A. Brunengo, H. Burkhardt, S. Chauvie, J. Chuma, R. Chytracek, G. Cooperman, G. Cosmo, P. Degtyarenko, A. Dell’Acqua, G. Depaola, D. Diet- rich, R. Enami, A. Feliciello, C. Ferguson, H. Fes...

    2003

  52. [52]

    Tain and D

    J. Tain and D. Cano-Ott, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A571, 728 (2007)

    2007

  53. [53]

    Two spectra generated with TAGSβfeed- ings from Zakari-Issoufouet al.[24], employing the al- lowed shape corrections of Hayenet al.[34] (Zakari I) and Huber [9] (Zakari II)

    using only the statistical factor and the Fermi func- tion (Fermi). Two spectra generated with TAGSβfeed- ings from Zakari-Issoufouet al.[24], employing the al- lowed shape corrections of Hayenet al.[34] (Zakari I) and Huber [9] (Zakari II). Two spectra generated with TAGSβfeedings from Rascoet al.[55], employing the allowed shape corrections of Hayenet a...

  54. [54]

    Herzog, N

    W. Herzog, N. Trautmann, R. Denig, and G. Herrmann, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik A Atoms and Nuclei276, 393 (1976)

    1976

  55. [55]

    Blachot, Nuclear Data Sheets113, 515 (2012)

    J. Blachot, Nuclear Data Sheets113, 515 (2012)

    2012

  56. [56]

    C. M. Poole, I. Cornelius, J. V. Trapp, and C. M. Lang- ton, Australasian Phys. Eng. Sci. Med.35, 329 (2012)

    2012

  57. [57]

    C. M. Poole, I. Cornelius, J. V. Trapp, and C. M. Lang- ton, IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci.59, 1695 (2012)

    2012

  58. [58]

    C. M. Baglin, Nucl. Data Sheets113, 2187 (2012)

    2012

  59. [59]

    Johnson, D

    T. Johnson, D. Symochko, M. Fadil, and J. Tuli, Nucl. Data Sheets112, 1949 (2011)

    1949

  60. [60]

    B. C. Rasco, M. Woli´ nska-Cichocka, A. Fija lkowska, K. P. Rykaczewski, M. Karny, R. K. Grzywacz, K. C. Goetz, C. J. Gross, D. W. Stracener, E. F. Zganjar, J. C. Batchelder, J. C. Blackmon, N. T. Brewer, S. Go, B. Hef- fron, T. King, J. T. Matta, K. Miernik, C. D. Nesaraja, S. V. Paulauskas, M. M. Rajabali, E. H. Wang, J. A. Winger, Y. Xiao, and C. J. Za...

    2016

  61. [61]

    Woli´ nska-Cichocka, B

    M. Woli´ nska-Cichocka, B. C. Rasco, K. P. Rykaczewski, N. T. Brewer, A. Fija lkowska, M. Karny, R. K. Grzywacz, K. C. Goetz, C. J. Gross, D. W. Stracener, E. F. Zgan- jar, J. C. Batchelder, J. C. Blackmon, S. Go, B. Hef- fron, J. Johnson, T. T. King, J. T. Matta, K. Miernik, M. Madurga, E. A. McCutchan, D. Miller, C. D. Ne- saraja, S. V. Paulauskas, M. M...

    2023