Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Measurement of two-neutrino double electron capture half-life of $^{124}$Xe with PandaX-4T

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A 1.73 tonne-year liquid xenon exposure yields a 124Xe double electron capture half-life of (1.03 ± 0.15 ± 0.08) × 10^22 years.

desk verdict Independent PandaX-4T measurement of the 124Xe 2νDEC half-life that agrees with XENONnT and LZ; the analysis is careful, but the lynchpin 125I time model is under-validated and needs a dedicated check before acceptance. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.14355 v3 pith:VCIGA3EC submitted 2024-11-21 nucl-ex

PandaX Collaboration: Zihao Bo , Wei Chen , Xun Chen , Yunhua Chen , Zhaokan Cheng , Xiangyi Cui , Yingjie Fan , Deqing Fang
show 93 more authors
Zhixing Gao Lisheng Geng Karl Giboni Xunan Guo Xuyuan Guo Zichao Guo Chencheng Han Ke Han Changda He Jinrong He Di Huang Houqi Huang Junting Huang Ruquan Hou Yu Hou Xiangdong Ji Xiangpan Ji Yonglin Ju Chenxiang Li Jiafu Li Mingchuan Li Shuaijie Li Tao Li Zhiyuan Li Qing Lin Jianglai Liu Congcong Lu Xiaoying Lu Lingyin Luo Yunyang Luo Wenbo Ma Yugang Ma Yajun Mao Yue Meng Xuyang Ning Binyu Pang Ningchun Qi Zhicheng Qian Xiangxiang Ren Dong Shan Xiaofeng Shang Xiyuan Shao Guofang Shen Manbin Shen Wenliang Sun Yi Tao Anqing Wang Guanbo Wang Hao Wang Jiamin Wang Lei Wang Meng Wang Qiuhong Wang Shaobo Wang Siguang Wang Wei Wang Xiuli Wang Xu Wang Zhou Wang Yuehuan Wei Weihao Wu Yuan Wu Mengjiao Xiao Xiang Xiao Kaizhi Xiong Yifan Xu Shunyu Yao Binbin Yan Xiyu Yan Yong Yang Peihua Ye Chunxu Yu Ying Yuan Zhe Yuan Youhui Yun Xinning Zeng Minzhen Zhang Peng Zhang Shibo Zhang Shu Zhang Tao Zhang Wei Zhang Yang Zhang Yingxin Zhang Yuanyuan Zhang Li Zhao Jifang Zhou Jiaxu Zhou Jiayi Zhou Ning Zhou Xiaopeng Zhou Yubo Zhou Zhizhen Zhou
This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-ex PACS 23.40.-s
keywords two-neutrinodoubleelectroncapture124Xehalf-lifemeasurementliquidxenontimeprojectionchambertime-dependentbackgroundmodelunbinnedmaximumlikelihoodnuclearmatrixelementKKfraction
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper reports a measurement of the half-life of two-neutrino double electron capture ($2\nu$DEC) in $^{124}$Xe, using 1.73 tonne\,yr of data from the PandaX-4T liquid xenon detector. An unbinned maximum likelihood fit to energy and time distributions in the 25--75 keV window finds 549 signal events and yields a half-life of $(1.03 \pm 0.15_{\rm stat} \pm 0.08_{\rm sys}) \times 10^{22}$ yr. The paper also measures the fraction of decays capturing both electrons from the $K$ shell to be $(65 \pm 5)\%$, consistent with nuclear structure calculations. This matters because a reliable $2\nu$DEC half-life gives nuclear theorists a benchmark for nuclear matrix element calculations that also apply to neutrinoless double electron capture, the search for which probes whether neutrinos are Majorana particles.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the two-dimensional (energy, time) unbinned maximum likelihood fit, with separate probability densities for signal and each background. Signal peaks are fixed at the calculated energies and capture fractions of $2\nu$DEC in $^{124}$Xe; the critical background, $^{125}$I, is modeled by the time evolution $$N_{125I}(t) = -\kappa_1 $e^{{-(t-t_0)/\tau_{125Xe}}$} + \kappa_2 $e^{{-(t-t_0)/\tau_{\rm eff}}$} + \kappa_3 $e^{{-(t-t_0)/\tau_{125I}}$},$$ separating a rapidly purified component ($\tau_{\rm eff} = 2.9 \pm 2.7$ d) from a slow component diffusing out of circulation-inaccessible volumes. The fit also carries constrained nuisance parameters for energy resolution and linearity, the efficiency curve, and the slopes and rates of other backgrounds, and the half-life is converted from the fitted signal count using the exposure, isotopic abundance, and efficiency.

What would settle it

A future measurement with energy resolution better than about 2 keV at 65 keV, which resolves the 64.62 keV $KK$ peak from the 67.3 keV $^{125}$I peak without relying on the temporal model, would directly confirm or refute the half-life; alternatively, a dedicated $^{125}$Xe activation run that measures $\tau_{\rm eff}$ independently could test the temporal decomposition used here.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that the two-neutrino double electron capture half-life of $^{124}$Xe is $(1.03 \pm 0.15_{\rm stat} \pm 0.08_{\rm sys}) \times 10^{22}$ yr, obtained from 549 signal events in a combined analysis of the commissioning and first science runs of PandaX-4T. In the analysis, the signal is modeled as five mono-energetic peaks ($KK$, $KL$, $KM$, $KN$, $KO$) from atomic de-excitation following double electron capture, with energies and relative fractions taken from nuclear structure calculations. The dominant difficulty is the cosmogenic background $^{125}$I, whose electron-capture peaks at 67.3, 40.4, and 36.5 keV sit close to the 64.62 keV $KK$ and 37.05 keV $KL$ signal peaks; the paper builds a time-dependent model for $^{125}$I with a rapidly removed component and a slowly diffusing component, and folds this into a two-dimensional (energy, time) unbinned likelihood together with all other backgrounds. The fit returns a $KK$ capture fraction of $(65 \pm 5)\%$, aligned with nuclear model predictions within 1.8$\sigma$, and the half-life result is consistent with recent measurements in other liquid xenon detectors.

Load-bearing premise

The assumption that carries the result is that the time-dependent model of the $^{125}$I background, with its rapid removal and slow diffusion components, correctly separates it from the $2\nu$DEC signal; if the $^{125}$I spectral or temporal shape is wrong, the fitted signal count and half-life would be biased.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The measured half-life gives nuclear theorists a concrete benchmark for $2\nu$DEC and $0\nu$DEC nuclear matrix element calculations.
  • The $KK$ capture fraction of $(65 \pm 5)\%$ provides a direct test of shell-model predictions for electron capture from different atomic shells.
  • The successful time-dependent background model shows that large liquid xenon TPCs can handle O(10 keV) rare decay searches even with neutron-activation backgrounds.
  • Agreement with independent measurements in other detectors confirms the $2\nu$DEC signal and validates the PandaX-4T energy reconstruction and background handling.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A dedicated $^{125}$Xe injection run could measure the effective removal lifetime $\tau_{\rm eff}$ directly, turning the floated parameter that carries much of the background separation into a calibrated input.
  • The same energy-time likelihood structure should transfer to other rare decay searches in liquid xenon, such as low-energy solar neutrino or axion-like particle searches, where activation backgrounds are similar.
  • If future runs triple the exposure, the statistical uncertainty could drop below 10%, potentially revealing deviations from the current central value and tightening comparisons with nuclear structure models.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The PandaX-4T Collaboration reports a measurement of the two-neutrino double electron capture half-life of 124Xe using 1.73 tonne·yr of combined Run0 and Run1 data. An unbinned two-dimensional (energy, time) maximum likelihood fit with Gaussian-constrained nuisance parameters yields 549 signal events and T1/2 = (1.03 ± 0.15_stat ± 0.08_sys) × 10^22 yr, consistent with the XENONnT and LZ results. The KK capture fraction is measured as (65 ± 5)%. The paper presents the first time-dependent background model in the O(10 keV) region for PandaX-4T and tabulates eight contributions to the systematic uncertainty.

Significance. If robust, this result provides an important independent confirmation of 124Xe 2νDEC and a benchmark for nuclear matrix element calculations. The analysis is methodical: the likelihood function (Eq. 3.5) is well specified, nuisance parameters are tied to measured rates, the half-life formula (Eq. 3.9) is standard, and the fit quality (p = 0.19) is acceptable. The agreement with XENONnT and LZ is a strong cross-check. However, the separation between the 2νDEC signal and the 125I background rests almost entirely on the time model, and the paper does not yet demonstrate that this separation is robust to the plausible variations of that model. The central value is therefore defensible but not yet fully established.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. 3.4.2, Eq. (3.4); Table 4] The half-life extraction relies on separating 125I from 124Xe 2νDEC almost entirely on the time axis, because the energy separation is marginal at the quoted resolutions: 125I-K (67.3 keV) is about 0.8σ from 124Xe-KK (64.62 keV), 125I-L (40.4 keV) is about 1.3σ from KL (37.05 keV), and 125I-M (36.5 keV) nearly coincides with KL. However, τ_eff is floated freely and fitted as (2.9 ± 2.7) d, and the slow 125I normalizations are floated independently in each Run0 subset and Run1, with the Run1 slow component fitted as 28 ± 42 events. The "Background models" systematic in Table 4 is documented only for 214Pb time evolution and linear spectral slopes; no variation of the 125I K/L/M amplitude ratios, of the slow/rapid split, or of the functional form of Eq. (3.4) is reported. A slowly decaying rapid component or an unconstrained slow component can partially mimic a constant 2νDEC signal, so the claimed <0.01% background-model systematic may not cover the most dangerous model uncertainty. I request a dedicated robustness study that frees the 125I K/L/M ratios, adds a constant 125I-like component in Run1, replaces Eq. (3.4) with single- or double-exponential alternatives, and reports the resulting shifts in N2νDEC and in the final half-life.
  2. [Table 2; Sec. 3.5] The slow 125I component has five independent floated normalizations (Run0a–Run0d and Run1), with no coupling to the activation history or to the rapid component, even though Eq. (3.4) describes a single dead-zone reservoir with a common physical lifetime. This freedom, combined with the free rapid normalizations and τ_eff, gives the 125I model substantial ability to absorb events that are kinematically similar to the signal. The goodness-of-fit p = 0.19 cannot resolve this degeneracy, because it tests the overall model against the data rather than the identifiability of the signal/125I decomposition. The authors should demonstrate identifiability directly, for example with toy Monte Carlo fits in which the true 125I time structure and K/L/M ratios are varied, and report the bias and pull of the fitted signal count.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (1.3)] The final nucleus in Eq. (1.3) is typeset as "124Te" with an odd arrow; it should be 124Te with a standard arrow.
  2. [Sec. 4, Fig. 4 caption] The figure caption contains truncated labels such as "R es."; the full label "Residual" would improve readability.
  3. [Sec. 4] The text says "The 125I peaks around 40 keV and 70 keV"; the upper 125I peak is at 67.3 keV, so using the exact value would avoid inconsistency with Sec. 3.4.2.
  4. [Sec. 3.3] The sentence quoting energy resolutions of (5.3 ± 0.1)% and (6.9 ± 0.1)% should explicitly state that these values refer to the KK (64.62 keV) and KL (37.05 keV) peaks, respectively, to prevent ambiguity.
  5. [Eq. (3.9)] The product "m × t = 1.73 ton·yr" in Eq. (3.9) is notationally compressed; a sentence clarifying that the exposure appears as a single product and specifying the units of each factor would help readers reproduce the numerical value.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the half-life is derived from floated signal counts and independent calibration inputs, not from the fit definition or self-cited results.

full rationale

The central half-life is obtained from an unbinned maximum-likelihood fit in which the 124Xe 2νDEC event count N2νDEC is a floated parameter (Eqs. 3.5–3.8), and Eq. 3.9 converts that fitted count into T_1/2 using exposure, isotopic abundance, and efficiency that are anchored to data or external measurements. The target quantity is therefore not defined in terms of the fit result; it is a function of a data-derived count and independently calibrated factors. The time-dependent 125I background model (Eq. 3.4) is a modeling assumption, but its normalizations and effective lifetime are floated and estimated from the data rather than being derived from the measured half-life; any bias this introduces is a correctness or robustness concern, not a circular reduction. The paper's use of earlier PandaX results for 214Pb depletion, 136Xe 2νββ, and material radioactivity is experiment-specific calibration from independent spectral fits and does not reproduce the claimed 2νDEC half-life. The KK capture fraction is compared with the same theoretical table (Ref. [30]) used to build the signal model, but the KK fraction itself is left free in the fit, with only the total sum and the relative KL/KM/KN/KO fractions fixed; agreement with the Table 1 value is therefore not forced by construction. At most this is a model-dependence issue, not self- definitional circularity. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no load-bearing argument reduces to a self-citation chain.

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

The central claim rests on a likelihood fit with many constrained nuisance parameters, most of which carry Gaussian penalties from independent or prior measurements. The genuinely unconstrained inputs are the floated 125I background components, whose peaks overlap the signal, and the model-dependent signal template from Ref. [30]. No new physical entities are introduced; 'rapid' and 'slow' 125I are modeling components of the same isotope. The background priors come largely from previous PandaX publications, which is standard practice but ties part of the analysis to the same experimental apparatus and analysis chain.

free parameters (6)
  • τ_eff, rapid 125I removal lifetime = (2.9 ± 2.7) d
    Free parameter in the likelihood (Table 3) describing removal of 125I from the fiducial volume by xenon circulation; poorly constrained by the fit.
  • Rapid 125I normalization in Run0b/c/d = Run0b: 7±10, Run0c: 10±8, Run0d: 56±23 events
    Floated without external constraint in the fit (Table 2); these are the dominant background near the signal peaks.
  • Slow 125I normalization in all data sets = Run0a: 14±7, Run0b: 13±7, Run0c: 23±12, Run0d: 92±28, Run1: 28±42 events
    Floated in every data set (Table 2); the Run1 value is consistent with zero but absorbs 28±42 events.
  • KK capture fraction = (65 ± 5)%
    Floated in the fit with KL/KM/KN/KO fractions fixed to the model values of Ref. [30]; reported as a measured result (Sec. 4).
  • Energy reconstruction gains (g1, g2b) = Run0: (0.100±0.001, 4.0±0.1); Run1: (0.096±0.001, 4.5±0.1)
    Fitted per run with the Doke-plot method using 83mKr, 131mXe, and 129mXe+127Xe peaks (Sec. 3.2).
  • Background count nuisance parameters (214Pb, 212Pb, 85Kr, material, 136Xe, solar ν, 127Xe, 133Xe) = Best-fit counts in Table 2
    Constrained by Gaussian penalties from measured priors but re-adjusted in the fit (Sec. 3.5).
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption 2νDEC signal energies and capture fractions from Ref. [30] are correct to within the assigned 1.8% systematic
    Used as the signal template in Sec. 3.3; an alternative energy set from Ref. [12] is applied only for the systematic uncertainty, not in the baseline fit.
  • domain assumption 125I decays via electron capture with the tabulated K/L/M branching fractions and a 59.4 d half-life
    Adopted from Refs. [42,43] in Sec. 3.4.2 to build the 125I background spectrum, including the rapid and slow components.
  • domain assumption The 214Pb depletion factor of 63% measured in Run0 also applies to Run1
    Sec. 3.4.1 states 'The same factor is applied to Run1'; no independent depletion measurement for Run1 is shown.
  • domain assumption The 124Xe isotopic abundance is (10.0±0.1)×10^-4 as measured by a residual gas analyzer
    Used directly in Eq. 3.9 to convert the fitted event count into a half-life.
  • domain assumption The 85Kr abundance is 2×10^-11 (Ref. [34])
    Used in Sec. 3.4.1 to estimate the 85Kr background rate from measured krypton concentrations.
  • standard math The 2νDEC rate is constant over Run0 and Run1
    The 124Xe 2νDEC half-life (~10^22 yr) is far longer than the observation window, so the decay rate is effectively constant and separable from the decaying backgrounds.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Measurement of two-neutrino double electron capture half-life of $^{124}$Xe with PandaX-4T." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VCIGA3EC

@misc{pith2026241114355,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Measurement of two-neutrino double electron capture half-life of $^124$Xe with PandaX-4T},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VCIGA3EC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.14355}
}
abstract

Detailed studies of two-neutrino double electron capture (2$\nu$DEC) is a crucial step towards searching for the neutrino-less mode to explore the Majorana nature of neutrinos. We have measured precisely the half-life of the 2$\nu$DEC process in $^{124}$Xe, utilizing a total exposure of 1.73 tonne$\cdot$year from the commissioning run and the first science run of the PandaX-4T experiment. A time-dependent background model in the $\mathcal{O}$(10 keV) energy is constructed for the first time in PandaX-4T data. With an unbinned maximum likelihood fit, we determine the half-life of the 2$\nu$DEC process to be $(1.03\pm0.15_{\rm stat}\pm0.08_{\rm sys})\times 10^{22}$$\,$yr. Furthermore, we have evaluated the branching ratio for both electrons captured from the $K$ shell ($KK$) to be $(65\pm5)\%$, which aligns with the $^{124}$Xe nuclear model calculations within 1.8$\,$$\sigma$.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Search for Double Beta Decay of $^{136}$Xe to the $0^+_1$ Excited State of $^{136}$Ba with PandaX-4T

    nucl-ex 2025-02 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    PandaX-4T finds no double beta decay of 136Xe to the 0+1 excited state of 136Ba and sets a half-life limit of 7.5e22 years at 90% confidence.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Suhonen and O

    J. Suhonen and O. Civitarese, Phys. Rept. 300, 123 (1998)

    work page 1998

  2. [2]

    F. T. Avignone, III, S. R. Elliott, and J. Engel, Rev. Mod. Phys. 80, 481 (2008), arXiv:0708.1033 [nucl-ex]

    arXiv 2008

  3. [3]

    M. J. Dolinski, A. W. P. Poon, and W. Rodejohann, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 69, 219 (2019), arXiv:1902.04097 [nucl-ex]

    arXiv 2019

  4. [4]

    R. N. Mohapatra, Phys. Rev. D 34, 3457 (1986)

    work page 1986

  5. [5]

    F. F. Deppisch, M. Hirsch, and H. Pas, J. Phys. G 39, 124007 (2012), arXiv:1208.0727 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2012

  6. [6]

    Belli, R

    P. Belli, R. Bernabei, and V. Caracciolo, Particles 4, 241 (2021)

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    Wittweg, B

    C. Wittweg, B. Lenardo, A. Fieguth, and C. Weinheimer, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 1161 (2020), arXiv:2002.04239 [nucl-ex]

    arXiv 2020

  8. [8]

    Kotila and F

    J. Kotila and F. Iachello, Phys. Rev. C 87, 024313 (2013), arXiv:1303.4124 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2013

Show all 49 references
  1. [9]

    D. A. Nesterenko et al., Phys. Rev. C 86, 044313 (2012)

    2012

  2. [10]

    Zhang et al

    H. Zhang et al. (PandaX), Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 62, 31011 (2019), arXiv:1806.02229 [physics.ins-det]

    2019 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Aprile et al

    E. Aprile et al. (XENON), Nature 568, 532 (2019), arXiv:1904.11002 [nucl-ex]

    2019 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Aprile et al

    E. Aprile et al. (XENON), Phys. Rev. C 106, 024328 (2022), arXiv:2205.04158 [hep-ex]

    2022 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Aprile et al

    E. Aprile et al. ((XENON Collaboration)††, XENON), Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 161805 (2022), arXiv:2207.11330 [hep-ex]

    2022 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Aalbers et al

    J. Aalbers et al. (LZ), J. Phys. G 52, 015103 (2025), arXiv:2408.17391 [nucl-ex]

    2025 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Y. M. Gavrilyuk, A. M. Gangapshev, V. V. Kazalov, V. V. Kuzminov, S. I. Panasenko, and S. S. Ratkevich, Phys. Rev. C 87, 035501 (2013)

    2013

  8. [16]

    S. S. Ratkevich, A. M. Gangapshev, Y. M. Gavrilyuk, F. F. Karpeshin, V. V. Kazalov, V. V. Kuzminov, S. I. Panasenko, M. B. Trzhaskovskaya, and S. P. Yakimenko, Phys. Rev. C 96, 065502 (2017), arXiv:1707.07171 [nucl-ex]

    2017 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Pujol, B

    M. Pujol, B. Marty, P. Burnard, and P. Philippot, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 73, 6834 (2009)

    2009

  10. [18]

    A. P. Meshik, C. M. Hohenberg, O. V. Pravdivtseva, and Y. S. Kapusta, Phys. Rev. C 64, 035205 (2001)

    2001

  11. [19]

    J. Li, X. Ji, W. Haxton, and J. S. Y. Wang, Phys. Procedia 61, 576 (2015), arXiv:1404.2651 [physics.ins-det]

    2015 arXiv

  12. [20]

    L. Zhao, X. Cui, W. Ma, Y. Fan, K. Giboni, T. Zhang, J. Liu, and X. Ji, JINST 16, T06007 (2021), arXiv:2012.10583 [physics.ins-det] . – 15 –

    2021 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Meng et al

    Y. Meng et al. (PandaX-4T), Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 261802 (2021), arXiv:2107.13438 [hep-ex]

    2021 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Zhang et al

    D. Zhang et al. (PANDA-X), JINST 16, P11040 (2021), arXiv:2106.08380 [physics.ins-det]

    2021 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Luo et al

    Y. Luo et al. (PandaX), Phys. Rev. D 110, 023029 (2024), arXiv:2403.04239 [physics.ins-det]

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Bo et al

    Z. Bo et al. (PandaX), (2024), arXiv:2408.00664 [hep-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Cui et al., JINST 16, P07046 (2021), arXiv:2012.02436 [physics.ins-det]

    X. Cui et al., JINST 16, P07046 (2021), arXiv:2012.02436 [physics.ins-det]

    2021 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Cui et al., JINST 19, P07010 (2024), arXiv:2401.01638 [physics.ins-det]

    X. Cui et al., JINST 19, P07010 (2024), arXiv:2401.01638 [physics.ins-det]

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Li et al

    J. Li et al. (PandaX), Chin. Phys. C 48, 073001 (2024), arXiv:2312.11072 [hep-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Szydagis, N

    M. Szydagis, N. Barry, K. Kazkaz, J. Mock, D. Stolp, M. Sweany, M. Tripathi, S. Uvarov, N. Walsh, and M. Woods, JINST 6, P10002 (2011), arXiv:1106.1613 [physics.ins-det]

    2011 arXiv

  21. [29]

    T. Doke, A. Hitachi, J. Kikuchi, K. Masuda, H. Okada, and E. Shibamura, Jap. J. Appl. Phys. 41, 1538 (2002)

    2002

  22. [30]

    Nit ¸escu, S

    O. Nit ¸escu, S. Ghinescu, V.-A. Sevestrean, M. Horoi, F. ˇSimkovic, and S. Stoica, J. Phys. G 51, 125103 (2024), arXiv:2402.13784 [nucl-th]

    2024

  23. [31]

    Ma et al., JINST 15, P12038 (2020), arXiv:2006.09311 [physics.ins-det]

    W. Ma et al., JINST 15, P12038 (2020), arXiv:2006.09311 [physics.ins-det]

    2020 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Yan et al

    X. Yan et al. (PandaX), Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 152502 (2024), arXiv:2312.15632 [nucl-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    S. J. Haselschwardt, J. Kostensalo, X. Mougeot, and J. Suhonen, Phys. Rev. C 102, 065501 (2020), arXiv:2007.13686 [hep-ex]

    2020 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Collon, W

    P. Collon, W. Kutschera, and Z.-T. Lu, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 54, 39 (2004), arXiv:nucl-ex/0402013

    2004 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Qian et al

    Z. Qian et al. (PandaX-4T), JHEP 06, 147 (2022), arXiv:2112.02892 [physics.ins-det]

    2022 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Si et al

    L. Si et al. (PandaX-4T), Research 2022 (2022), 10.34133/2022/9798721, arXiv:2205.12809 [nucl-ex]

    2022 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Chen et al., JINST 16, T09004 (2021), arXiv:2107.05935 [physics.ins-det]

    X. Chen et al., JINST 16, T09004 (2021), arXiv:2107.05935 [physics.ins-det]

    2021 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Chen, H.-C

    J.-W. Chen, H.-C. Chi, C. P. Liu, and C.-P. Wu, Phys. Lett. B 774, 656 (2017), arXiv:1610.04177 [hep-ex]

    2017 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Agostini et al

    M. Agostini et al. (BOREXINO), Nature 562, 505 (2018)

    2018

  32. [40]

    Table de Radionucl´ eides Xe-127,

    X. Mougeot, “Table de Radionucl´ eides Xe-127,” (2014)

    2014

  33. [41]

    Table de Radionucl´ eides Xe-133,

    X. Mougeot, “Table de Radionucl´ eides Xe-133,” (2007)

    2007

  34. [42]

    Table de Radionucl´ eides I-125,

    X. Mougeot, “Table de Radionucl´ eides I-125,” (2010)

    2010

  35. [43]

    Table of Radionuclides (Vol. 6 - A = 22 to 242). I-125,

    M. B´ eet al., “Table of Radionuclides (Vol. 6 - A = 22 to 242). I-125,” (2011)

    2011

  36. [44]

    R. D. Deslattes, E. G. Kessler, P. Indelicato, L. de Billy, E. Lindroth, and J. Anton, Rev. Mod. Phys. 75, 35 (2003)

    2003

  37. [45]

    X-ray Data Booklet,

    A. Thompson et al., “X-ray Data Booklet,” (2009)

    2009

  38. [46]

    Cui et al

    X. Cui et al. (PandaX-II), Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 181302 (2017), arXiv:1708.06917 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  39. [47]

    E. A. Coello P´ erez, J. Men´ endez, and A. Schwenk, Phys. Lett. B797, 134885 (2019), arXiv:1809.04443 [nucl-th] . – 16 –

    2019 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Suhonen, J

    J. Suhonen, J. Phys. G 40, 075102 (2013)

    2013

  41. [49]

    Pirinen and J

    P. Pirinen and J. Suhonen, Phys. Rev. C 91, 054309 (2015). – 17 –

    2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.